Skip to main content

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

See other formats 


} } 
id 
¥ ( Hh Oh 
a 
of i 1 
j 
ODI wa 


a) abe dh) 
is hiaras' = 
wien 


a 











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


http://www.archive.org/details/illinoisappellat299illi 








FEB 61 


BOUND... eee 








40125 oypOr.1gn i Cn 4 
wzwIJIliA. OVUM 
FRANKLIN MacV@AGH & COMPANY, 

a corporations 


Appelllee ) APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL 
Ve \ COURT OF CHICAGO. 
WASYL KORPAN, \ ; 
Ap e@llant. , 


MR. PRESIDING JUSTICH BURKS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF TH COURT. 


On June 24, 1937, plaintiff filed twe actions ageinst defend- 
ant in the Municipal court of Chicago and on that day two judgments 
by confession were rendered, one in the sum of $169.50 and the other 
in the sum of $368.76. Defendant filed amended petitions to vacate 
the judgments and on July 29, 1937, an order was entered giving 
defendant the right to appear and defend, the judgments to sted as 
securitye The causes came on for trial on December 20) 1937, when 
orders were entered confirming the original judgments, from which 
orders the instant appeal (Gen. Noe 40125) and the appeal in the 
case of Franklin MacVeagh & Company, a corporation, vs Wasyl Korpan, 
Gen. Woe 40126, are prosecuted. The instant appeal was consolideted 


for hearing with the appeal in Gene Nos 40126. 

The judgments were entered on two separate chattel mortgage 
notes dated November 23, 1934. On April 1, 1935, plaintiff, the 
mortgagee, foreclosed the chattel mortgages and sales of the chattels 
secured thereby took places The proceeds of the sales were not 
sufficient to satisfy the indebtedness secured by either of the 
notese After the sales under the chattel mortgages» and on April 
26, 1935, the parties entered into the following written agreements 

"A GREUMENT. 
"TT IS HEREBY AGRESD between Franklin MacVeagh & CO-s a 

















~~ Oy fi\ - re f:) {2- Pe Oh (s { 

cy efie Vp SP tes f | Mon 
eS! Le ay: 8 waite i 

| CACTOTWU MOST TaeetA -) ¢9effeqgA p 


y@udm Tw rawOD / i 


strolleggs 


LON 


. @BNVOD GET WO WOO aT canuV EE MC SVE HOTTA 


ce | 
ap 
‘La 


\Tentogs enolios ovt beLkt tittgisly Ae was oat 20 
eters 62 owt yeb deft mo Bas oF soidd to dxo9 teqto how ath at tas 
) ead bas ea wel to owe sali ai eno shorsbaot etow otaestnoo vd 
prs od anote iteg. hebaenms befit insbreted saT8Iee te al ont al : 
S tc | betedhae. asw en ms (VOL . eh Sist ct. bas adasesbut, ont 


a brite oo sinemg but ents ebasteb bus tssqqs o¢ tigi De  cuabneteb 


paeboynlle 


pare eVSOL .OS tedwesed mo Laine 40% so emiso aoanso oat eeriavees 


rt ra 
a { 


a \ Se A. 
el mort Rin RUE Eeiits Eto ot 3 meine poresae oe arpirt0 
edd ees fnegaa edd bus (8Sf0s so 160) ‘Pas q¢s tnatenk et aranro 






" rox { fyaad av gmoiterogroo s eymsqmod 2 
’ 2 






i vones eaw L[eeqgs tastuni ott sboducouoxe ets a yos099 som ae 






iiss cig eeeL ¢£ Fite . epcla ES ‘rodme 


PP 










9 (ext Io aelea brs 203089 Toit feidario ont ‘bead 
- fon Oy eolsa ont. To abocoomg edt | senat o 


mn ak to teddtte wd bezw988 auonboddopnt sey x 






a ata bas \Aepegt Om Totanto. eit nba : 





~Qe0 


corporation, by its duly authorized agent and Secretary, Arthur 
L. Iudolphy, party of the first part and Wasyl Korpan, party of 
the second part as follows: WITNSSSETHs 


“WHEREAS, the said Franklin MacVeagh & COey a corporation 
had a chattel mortgage on the stock and fixtures of the said party 
of the second part at Number 7214 Greenwood Avenue, Chicago, 
Illinois, and 


"“VHERGAS, it took possession of said property under and by 
virtue of said chattel mortgage on, to-wit: the twenty-fifth day 
of March, As De 19355 and held a sale under said chattel mortgage 
foreclosure on, to-wit April Pirst, 1935, and has remained in 
possession of said store up to the present time; and 


"WHSRUAS, the said Wasyl Korpan is the landlord and owner 
of the property at said address and might be entitled to compensation 
for the use and occupation of said premises during the time of said 


foreclosure up to the present time: 


"NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of one dollar, the receipt 
of which is hereby acknowledged, and also other valuable consideratior 
each to the other, 


"IT IS HiARSBY AGRE=ID by and between the parties herevos 


"FIRST: That the said Franklin MacVeagh & Coe, a 3% oration 
are to convey to the said Wasyl Korpan One Dayton seals # 71-- 
Serial #1039107--30# Capacity and one National Cash Register 
#387416BB-1728E in consideration of the release of the payment of 
rent for the premises during the occupancy by the said Franklin 
MacVeagh & Coey a corporation, or its agent, and until the party of 
the first part secures a tenant who may be selected and decided upon 
for said store, said tenant to be secured within the next three 
months; and 


"IT IS FURTHER DISTINCTLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that the 
party of the second part, Wasyl Korpan, will not charge, or hold the 
party of the first part liable for any rent for the use of said store 
during the period and process of securing a new tenant; and 


"VURTHGR, the said party of the second part, Wasyl Korpan 
shall not molest, enter or in any way take, or cause to be removed 
any of the merchandise or equipment from said storee 


"SECOND: That in consideration of the above, a mutual reé- 
lease is given between the parties hereto. The said Wasyl Korpan 
releases the said Franklin MacVeagh & Coe, a corporation or its agent 
from the payment of any rent or any damages or any claim of any kind 
or character against said property; or any moneys due said Wasyl 
Korpan in consideration of any act, and the said Franklin MacVeagh 
& COs, a corporation, releases the said Wasyl Korpan of any moneys 
due said Franklin MacVeagh & Coes a corporation, by reason of the 
fact that the property foreclosed did not bring the full amount of 
the claim due and owing by the said Wasyl Korpan. 


“IT IS FURTHER AGREED by and between the parties hereto 
that the transfer and sale of the Dayton Scale and National Cash 
Register is contingent under the sale of the store to a third party 
as a going business and tenant for said Korpan but if it becomes 
necessary to remove said property fram said premises, said scale and 
cash register is the property of Franklin MacVeagh & CO.» a cor- 
poration, and does not enter into this agreement as a consideration 


qmiguA ,yYisistoeea bas tnegs besitosdiins yiub ati yd .noiverogtos 
to yiusg emeqrod fyasi’ bres disq texvit. anit Io wd teq efigfobut «a 
sHTaeewyt IV sewollot es J teg bre ooe sfc 


soitstogtoo S e000 & dgseVoaw, nifinstt bisa ond «GARE a" 


was bisa ¢d? to semi att bag woods sdt mo syeqiiom fetisdo ¢ batt 
qogaoidd ~eumevA boowgeet) AES) usdanl js disg boooge one he 2 


' 


hrs. aiomerit 


| 
- wd bea seboay ytregotq 5 isa. to no taasacog dood igi oe BARAT" 


yso AeTil-giaowd ond stiw-ot —n0 egegdtom Ledtado bie t0- eutmiy | 


GBSLI LOM teasfeio Disa tebas else s bist Se -dECL .C 2A . forts to 
gi bootemet ee bas ,.GéeL .sari® LintgA diw-os 10 oxy20 Lo8tto t 
bas temis suosotq edt ot gw stove bis® To mot raaegaog 


tenwo Ons bud tbset eit ei msqiodw fvasi bisa ads .cAunany? 


aotesansqm0o of bolitine ed ddgim bus cacthbe Bisse ts ytteqozg ent to i. 


bise to emit edt anitsb aecimerg bise to moivsgueoo bas Saw ent Yo? 


semis dasaoug: ety ot gis eiecleaxot 


- ge¢isoot edd .tsifob sno to motietsbienoo mt SHOUT WO" 
wisstebianos eldsulev todio osle fas .besgbelweasos yderted al doidw to 


,ustisvo sont oF doeo | 


“sovered aottzed ent coewied bas yd CGEGRDA VERN Gr TL" - 





noise ee 9a 8 ys 00 SeeeVoan niidoest bias ods teal 2TOnle 2:4, 
sda i BLeoe eotysd enO mequod iveaW bise adt of wovnoo oF ota 
ope Sth of viasd LEsmelvet ono Sua vidoaged » fos-- ToLece LS faite 


te teomgcq eft to seselet elt To moitsrebtencs mi REST L-TeaLarsek 


itdgatt biee att wd yYonrsqueso add srrtips gen mete ent rot dort 


“to yviar edt Livny brs <inegs asi to ehOisetOgrToo @ ~400 & da seVoa 


moqe behiosh ins bedeoles od yom one Jnanet © aeauass Tog tatkt ods . 


veal éxen odd cindiw betwosa ed of tmenetd bisa ~erota Sisa ot 


a . 3 wikis iy ay bas: Shera tdto : 


edd geld Chem s Gis COMCHECHY yarouer. ‘SIG ARHTRE er Tr 
. gee HIST ro .ogzaie Jom Iliw enaqtod Lyeay tise broose sis to Yttsg 
ertese 5 Be to oe Ont Tot Jno ee rot oldsil stag atid edd to yiteq 
‘bes pihenot wen s oanitgose to esestag bes boktoq oft satisd 


Regron Iyas¥ .titsq hae ose ons to yitsq Disa eft. AAL EUS" 
beyoures ed oF Sanso to . Susy Sad wie ci to tofme .teélom ton [fara 


»stode Hise sott inemyispe to eaiinstotem edd to Yas, 


~5% fantom s .ovods sit 9 poivstebiaaoo mi teadT. +di0duca": S 
waged Lyeny bise enlT .odored settceg eft noowied nevis at seset 
dirsgg CPF to noidstogtos s ..05 & ggpeVookh ait imate bise orld eeasp les 
Salt Pos to mists yas te esgocntsh yas to inet yee to dnsayeq eff moti 
W biee sub avenomiyos te tysteqotq bise denmisgs rotosteda to 





deacvaat riGinert 5 ise atid be «dos yaa to notgotebisnos ni Bsqtea 


aYSnoR wits To negrod ivan bisa ent seassiet .aodtstogioe s 4,00 2 


eds to noaset yd ches! avOgTOO 8 ..00 8 dassVosM milunett bige eb 


to tavoms [ivt oft gmizd ton bib besoLosrot yiteqotg ‘end tedé ¢ost 


aren iyasW bise edd yd amiwo bne sub mishs ont 


eteH eeidteg old scowted bae yo CUEADA HUNTHUH aT a awe 

ioe Lénoitet Snes sleot nodyed oft to ofse done xetanatd ott 
yited bruins © Od oteda ens to ofse sit dobar tregrid no 9 ‘er tei 
_ Bempsed Ji 2k ted megrod diag sol guened bos casmiaud yuioa- 
q ns eiaen bene hip ype! bisa ap 2% Retoqorg Bisa’ keer ae 


be hobs stebiamo s as Seromoeres & abit oack ‘come Sor asob ‘bate 70. 



















~3a 
for the release of the payment of rent during the occupancy of 

Said store by Franklin MacVeagh & Co., a corporation, during 

the time said Franklin MacVeagh & Coe, a corporation, is not 

only securing a purchaser for the said store but a tenant for 

said store." 

The agreement constituted a conditional release. Defendant 
owned the real estate where the chattels were located. Both parties 
would benefit if the chattels remained on the pranises while an 
effort was made to rent the premises to a new tenante Thereby 
defendant would have a tenant and plaintiff a purchaser for the 
chattels. efendant agreed not to charge any rent until a tenant 
Was procured. The parties contemplated that a tenant would be pro- 
cured within three months, Plaintiff agreed to convey to defendant 
@ scale and cash register. Defendant promised not to molest pisin- 
tiff or enter the store or take or cause to be removed any of the 
merchandise or equipment fram the store. In consideration of the 
mutuel promises defendant released plaintiff from paying rent and 
from any liability for damages, and plaintiff released defendant 
fram any claim on account of uw deficiency in the sale of the mortgaged 
chattels. Wo transcript of the testimony was preserved. However, 


the court certifies that the testimony established that subsequent 


to the quoted agreement, 


"(a) Defendant, Wasyl Korpan, did enter the said store and 
removed merchandise and equipment from said store and converted same 
to his own use. 


"(p) Defendant, Wasyl Korpan, refused to allow the pur- 
chaser secured by plaintiitf within two months after the execution 
of said agreement, to take possession of said merchandise and 
fixtures, and said defendant, Wasyl Korpan, actuelly boarded up and 
padlocked the said store premises so that plaintiff was unable to 


obtain its property. 


"“(¢) Defendant, Wasyl Korpan, demanded and received from 
plaintiff, subsequent to the execution of said agreement, the sum 
of two hundred dollars ($200.00), as rental and charges for the 
use of said store, contrary to the express terms of said release 


agreement." 


Thereupon the court found that the defendant had breached and failed 


to carry out the terms of the agreement, and that the agreement was 


abrogated by the subsequent actions of the parties. 








ie) eragueae oxid oniteh dest Yo taemyer este to. eneolet edd i a 
wd at Exisb HOLE stogzwsd & e990 & Heaoal niftoert yd eta Ba 
Seis ai ,notéstog ios 2.00 & igeeVoam: wittissT Shee emis ent 
tet insmet 2 tud tote b.iss okt Faz. speomy & aritvose 
vee paete isa 


snebustet benwier Lanotsibnoo s- hseuexeuses ome ogs om 


















aeitdieg adem .betsool erow alottaco edt esontr states feet oat 
Ke ol ite age Late ais MO: nentener aledvedo enid i dLiensd 


Wetest sitansd won 6 Ou - esa ineng ext tne ‘eas beat aw oe 





ony 20% reasdotag 8 tittatela Sus insmod Sg evatl bivow saan ad 





: doened . 8 Lins iget yee Do aac ot tor aeorga inednstet saLed eto. 
~exg ad Sfuew inenos a tads aevelanetnos soktnag out | homoge 





i: -dusbasteb od meee 2 ot Heergs tiiatsls : secld ont souls eanaehiciet Hote 
7 nabs dt Atom od gon beaimox 49 ‘tqahaeted tadaiger ees: np: elaca 


pd Oo yaa Devewer ad ot geueb vo siled- Ho oteda and sedne co DUET ap 





emt t iO darebienco: ai .820d2 of a mst dremg pe <0 aa tbeind com 


bee: tne Bobted SOL et fins i boneetes HS sbrateb eee imo: oe 'tag a 








geateert ah boeselex tintatade aie eegened 208 eiitiaaty x “mo tt 
epenion oni to eiae aad. ri yortoteszeb: 6 Se “anit 208 60 tats 3. 


cite  bevieasta scw wromivaed ait to sqizocneee: on 


exode biee offs reine Did .meqzod. tyasv. pdhenel a 
ettevioo Dis exoda bise MOTE ees. bas 






=tHa oft wolls of boantet .meqrod 
ueaccenge Sit 4S3%s and roar ews. 
ek ee ne Ne bis8 to oe 













i Ger toe ‘tb wane \ edlidesk beac as 

ema old etaemeotys bisa Io moléuooxe exly ot 
gat Yot sea sto bes tetact a8 , (00. cay a 
sacoLor St 28 to emrre ¥ ii skin vate og esha 


ine 


jai cae of ea bie Pham ent to. em at ents 


-4- 


A consideration of the record convinces us that ne error 
was committed and that the judgment of the Municipal court of 
Chicago in the instant appeal, Gen. No. 40125, should be and 
it is affirmed. 

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.» 


Sullivan and Priend, JJ., concur. 


~b- 
Souse os Sees ae asonivaoo Suonsx edd To mofvatebianos 4 


te jtvoo Iaactsinwd sai to Frome bit add sattt Bees hess trio '9 as 
bee of bLucda ,@8l0S oi .nod .tseqqs Imedsmt eat nt ogaoito 
abamzitte ak di 

sCEMITTEA TIOMOCTT 


smronoo 2s TL eberoiet bra merilien 






APPRAL FROM MUNICIPAL 
COURT OF CHICA GG. 


au, (29914. 609° 


MRe PRESIDING JUSTICE BURKE DSLIVENSD THR OPINION OF THs COURT. 


This appeal was consolidated for hearing with the appeal 


in the case of Yranklin WacVeagh & Company, a corporstionys Ve_ 
Wasyl Korpan, Gene Noe 40125, in which case we have this day filed 
an opinion. The facts and reasoning in that case are applicable 
to this case; therefore, the judgment of the Municipal court of 
Chicago in the instant appeal, Gene N@e 40126, should be and it 
is affirmede 

JUDGIGNT ASPIRMSDs 


Sullivan and Friend, JJe, concure 


.almihe |aSsLes 





SAEILOTRM BOSE LATA 
2OH20THO To THUD 


“@00 AL eSs 


eTHUOO SET GO WOUWTSO CRT GCESTVELEG GRRUE HOTRETL SRRTaweE oA 


Ky oF 





a TE. ee, 


o Hired Leegepe. 


Leeqqan add otiw gniteed sot betebifoenmo aew Sesgge ala? 
OY 266i otogt0o 8 eynaguon 6 dgceVoal niiaeare ta sano end mt 
Beli? yob alld eva sw sano dokiy ch .O8L04 vow one gmagsol 





eigepifqgs ena aso Jal) ui antnoscer hoe ogee? ef .motntqn na 
fe gusoo Laqtelinw eff Ip dacerjhel, att .ome toved? preewo elds oF 
o& Pas o¢ Rivers .OSLlOd JeR ensd ylasqqs tantemt edt mt ogeotdd 


ehometlYte ef 
MAA TET 


OCHOIMS 92 FG pbreict baa meviline 


MIT ay 


Fa 






40282 a 
MORRIS Be ROMZ and RTRUDE 
ROME, . 


Appelijants, PPHAL FROM MUNICIPAL 


/ 


) 
Ve } RT OF CHICAGO 
D. WARSHAFEKY, INC., a ) 
corporation, ) . 4 
A ellee ° “y } iY ' 4 . rf 
” waID Lee O OQ 9 


MR. PR&SIDING JUSTICE BURKS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE court. 


December 14, 1937, plaintiffs filed,in the Municipal 
court of Chicago, their statement of claim consisting of two 
counts. The first count sought rent claimed to be due fram 
defendant for ‘lovember, 1937, and two days of December, 1937; 
and the second count sought {£100 for an alleged wrongful conversion 
of an iron door. The summons was returnable on December 27, 1937, 
at which time defendant filed its appearance and demand for a jury 
trial, and an order was entered granting the defendant an extension 
of ten days within which to file its affidavit of merits, and the 
cause was continued to January 10, 1938. When the case was called 
on that day it appeared that no affidavit of merits had been filed 
and accordingly defendant was defaulted and judgment entered against 
it for $740. On February 21, 1938, being forty-one days after the 
entry of the judgment, the attorney for defendant filed a petition 
in which he recited that after the entry of the order allowing de- 
fendant an extension of ten days in which to file its affidavit of 
merits he became very ill and was unable to attend to his duties 
end by reason thereof was unable to file an affidavit. The petition 
also statedgby way of conclusion, that the defendant had a full and 


complete defense to the whole of plaintiffs' case, without, however, 


elleging the ultimate facts. On February 25, 1938, defendant obtained 


leave to file an amendment to its petition, an affidavit or defense 
9 


























She 


kee 


NG = 7 
TUURTARB hue GOA a BE 





gat ~ feqqs 


ey, 


us ORE Seoumenaw 
etto Li atog : 
seoiisagqs — 


Biss = 


Pes’: neon CET YO WOIKIGO tHT castey neat onesie HOLPaUS DHTGLRTAL » ae 


awd 20 gnisetano® misie to treme dads “bentz cogsotitd 20 tn Mie 7 


: "eg tobmnt ests mi gbosit aYttinintg «Veer . Al rodusoot o 
: : sort euh ed o¢ bemielo ¢not satguoe sn00. derit odt snare 7 
oT 


i” ‘ a treed ¢ CScines om x» ay sh ow! Doras eT GeL «sadaovor, 302 deb 
me 


- 20 LBTOTAO O Ss a no08 hepette. ne tot Goi’ idguoe J RIOD. brogea aga eee edd 
| , Pr = eM e RL «8 ‘tedmeoat oO. ne Nail sew sgounna off ere0b mean na 


etd bas <ativem to divebitte efi eLl? od Noldw sists bw mab neo 1 oe 


peflso sew ease ssid morl® .880L .OL yteunst of bountenoe | enw maa > 





Oo 





tanieas. heeds tneagbyt bas bot Lueted Rew sashuvveb via i bra 


eft 18d ts aysh eno-ysrot gated .86CL .Lk yresedod #0 — 


noltideq 8 beLlt inebasted rot yeomrtotis oxft <2iromg) re 





~9b aniwolLa tebio od to vxine one red Te. add pedtoor ea F 
to divabitts ett aoe ov dodtw me eyab net 0. notenedxe na 


noli voy ent ot ivsbl 21s 98. cea is olds saw woxedd ‘ovniiie 
brea Lfst s bert imabeeteb eld seats ‘eno iasLoneo to Yaw Wiebe tas 


gTovewon géuodd iw (8059, a id eLodw odd od oans’ 






| agisub a tet 08 bared ov oldaens Baw ona aoe erey sayene 
- 
- 
_ 


pete inabre teh re0et 88 Lenn 





De 
and a "doctor's certificate," all of which were filed. Plaintiffs 


were ruled to plead, answer or demure They filed a pleading which 
amounted to a demurrer. The “sertificate" of the physician, dated 
February 24, 1938, was addressed, "To Whomever It May Concern," and 
recited that the attorney for defendant had been under his care since 
December 15, 1937, and that during that time he was confined to his 
home “a great deal of the time. He is still under my professional 
care at this time, although his physical condition is considerably 
improvede" The court sustained defendant's motion, vacated the judg- 
ment, and reinstated the cause, and from that order plaintiffs prose- 
cute this appeal. Defendant did not file any brief in this court. 
Since the motion to vacate the judgment was made more than 
thirty days after the entry thereof, it was necessary for defendant 
to present a petition that would definitely show errors of fact which 
might have been corrected at common law by a writ of error coram nobis 
or that would entitle him to relief by complaint in equity. Under the 
practice in the Municipal court of Chicago the same relief that could 
have been given by a bill in equity or at common law by a writ of 
error coram nobis may be afforded by @ petition or a motione In the 
case of Clark ve awing, 935 Ill. 572, plaintiff filed a bill to enjoin 
the enforcement of judgments. The Supreme court held that the bill 
showed that in fact the judgment creditors were indebted to the judg- 


ment debtors, and stated (pe 575):3 


"It follows, therefore, that it would be inequitable and 
against conscience to enforce their payment. But this alone, as 
we have just seen, does not warrant a court of equity in interposing 
to prevent the consummation of such a wrong. By the rule above laid 
down, appellant must go a step further before he is entitled to such 
relief, and show that he was prevented from making his defence at law 
by some fraud, accident or mistake, without any laches or neglect on 


his part." 
In that case it was contended that the attorney who hal been retained 


by the defendant was in ill health, which prevented him from filing a 


plea. The court said (p. 577)3 


“If the general health of an attorney breaks down, he 
should notify his clients of the fact, so that they can take such 








BIIierel .beLllt orew doldw to Lie ",stacktittes a’zosaob" & bas 
sig ldw anthse La s boli youT  .tugdh to stevens ,baeig of bolut exew 

beteb «ueloieydg exis ‘to "ad aptaaenee" vase + Tet camted & og bodmyons 
. id 





bas # mrsonod yan $I eaeamene one ghonsotbh's Baw {SSCL yae yeas pies 


‘f eee hi 


sonia ovsy ahi tebmy reed bal dmsbnoteh «xo? yortor ss: odd duals ‘bed too 


- 
eid od bomttmoo aaw on amid sect gattush dads des . OCR etl nastewostt ; 


fanoicaoteiq ya tebnu [fisie ak oH «saris sad To. faot Sec an extos} 





YAderabiengo si mokiisnes Isoleyig ali tyyodits ,omté ates ta oxso - 
-gbui, ed bsdeoet emoidom elinebmotoh bealstaya davoo est. " . bevoxamt 
en0%g atiignialg tebto Sadd optt bas 29aueo oft botatentet bus _dnom : 

situoo Bid at teied yre offi dom bib dmabnoisd »feoqaa ae? one 7 

nedd oton oben aaw dreembut odd etsosv od nolion od eonke ae ; o 

insbroteb x02  Visaesoen aay $i plooueds yxdmo ond tetts ayeb iat 
‘soisw dost to axorzre wodle yet ink’ teh binoew Jatt noid tveq s anovery ot 


rt don mano sotto to diuw s yd wel momuoe ts bad ostxce need ‘evad alg hn 





eng ‘reba »Utinese of Jatelqme as] $0 tLet as mist as kine biuow 2 aita 0 


‘htews gad? teifonr anse orld onsokslo to 3 ~LNOO Laqko teow exis mh sotvoarg “ey 
‘3 dive s yo wal somvon ta to wW iyp® ni ILtd s wet movi noed overt ; 
: 


edd mL eroivos s te seilsite, so yd bebroiia od yan sides uexop sorte 


nighme oo Sfic s bolit ttivmielg ,&V@ fli se agin. AraL9 0 ease . 
Inte sits tet? Bled saves ometqant ext! esdneaghat Te nemeos0 tue ond 


-sbut oft of boddebat exew arog theca dorset bert oxid dos? ak ‘tants bewods 











.. " = va 


2(8¥2 «q) babane bans eatotded eet 


Sen oldat lupeni sd binew 2b tadé ,oroletady eawol tot reU) 
a2 ,onoleg ain’ Ish .tnemyeg thedd sore ihe o¢ esmetoanos: Seeleue 
ent ai Wipe to tusoo 8 inetuew fon eo0b «neee dart ever ew 
fai svode eluz eit YO .gnesv is dose to moitsamyenoo ext sever ~ 
fese of beliktes ak of oxo led centtyt gets s ea dave snelltonas a 
wel ¢@ goneieb eid goidan am tt betosvexg anew an dasit wore dma 9h 
mo goelmer xo Sedond wes tuads iw husisaiidaad led Siesessssalsoie ebuatt Suhel 


“ 


boniesex need bed odw yent ais ants tests bebmedaop aaw $f ne: { 


00% eg) bhow pam ' ye ne 


sa .ow0d alaoud yorotis fe to weLeed. Asteney, oft AI"... 
. soe Wes geo veds p2d4 on pe a nies BATES orn: 


& BALL meri wit hetrarsng outw eddioot LLf gt naw Ris? 








ote 


steps as may be necessary for their protection. Appellant seems 
to be proceeding on the theory that he is not at all responsible 
for the negligence of his counsel. The very reverse of this is 


the law." 
It will be observed that the "certificate" of the physician does not 


state for wheat ailment he was treating the attorney. It states that 
the attorney was confined to his home “a great deal of the time." as 
was pointed out in the Clark ve jWing case, supra, the attiornsy could 
have communicated with his client. It is apparent that defendent 
does not show that it exercised any diligence. The neglect of the 
attorney was thes neglect of the client. 

In view of our ruling that the defendant did net show dilie 
gence, it is unnecessary to discuss the contents of the affidavit of 
meritse Hence, we are of the opinion that the court was in error in 
vacating the default and judgaent and in reinstating the cause. 

The order of the Municipal court of Chicago, entered March 30, 
1938, vacating the default and judgment of January 10, 1933, is 


reversed. 


ORDER RUVENS 26 


Bullivan and Friend, JJe, concure 


_Saean det logg. Mold oatete.. tied iol viawseoen ef yam we med 
tenogasy Ela is tor ak ent tade yreed! odd of’ gntbedseuy ed 6d 
wk aids to sarovex YTe¥ ont _Ebainen> ett Io aaneg tigen fay pie 





d@n ooh Halolawiq ony te “stow litdses” edd sand Nowtoeda od ELK +2 
ditty soboda Ji syeritds odd gaitapt) sow ef tHomlie date tet @iade 
“SA “.auks dd Yo Loud Sect 2? owed Git of DORMaoo aaw yore hts “eds 
biwew Yoneda ene yetgua (ease aniwt sv deal afd eh ue badnkog daw 
‘Gwebreteb tals eornage et st ssuette adel cilw bedie Lemamae ‘evael 
ati ko PoeNyeor emt .eereg tits yes boetotexe tt Yast wore som wed 
steele of ‘to dbelgen edt aaw yereite 
MAE Woke ton SLD Inabaoled ett dat? geites cay Ye weaw ee cee 
to Pkvabitie od? to tinetnes edt aeyootd os Yioncosmmmy at $2, eonmy 
gi-terro wi saw daitoo ad? Saxe wolmtgo edd Te ote ow yeehel sad trom 
“yeaues eit gabvarunts: mi ne ddemmbat axe ¢duatten aft aniieoey 

(OE Moxeit born pouodItd te sid Laglotmme ote tw tobe ett | 
“ae OBO LOL yretnwt Yo Timmpdul bo tMistob ody dakssony \eeed 








Se 5.) ‘ Lesa ¢ : road et aa Bele INO Ue eid Any Hy re kh Bj 
’ LR BR MO | ES RE EA CN 


warodos eoth ehneis? brs Ravi ied 


be Wy 


* 








Sa ee ee 









40425 
WILIZAM He WSS TNSY 


—— 






APP RAL FROM MUNICI PAL 
Ve K 
URT Cl CHICAGO. 


999 1.4.609" 


RKE& DULIVERSD THS OPINION OF THE COURT. 


KENTUCKY MANUPAC TURING CORPORATION, 
INCORPORATED, a corporation, 


) 

) 

) 

Appellee. ) 


MRe PRSSIDING JUSTICS 


On April 14, 1934, plaintiff filed his statement of claim in 
the Municipal court of Chicago and alleged that he purchased from 
defendant a motor truck trailer for °1,4753 that he paid thereon 
*125 on September 11, 1933, and $390 on October 11, 1933, and agreed 
to pay the balance in instalments of 987.50 per month beginning 
November 11, 1933; that under the terms of the purchase plaintiff 
delivered to defendant a motor truck tractor owed by plaintiff, 
Which defendant equipped with a device known as a "fifth wheel," 
which said "fifth wheel" was a device for the purpose of coupling 
the trailer to and uncoupling it from the tractor; that the "fifth 
wheel” was furnished and installed by defendant upon the trailer 
built by defendant and also upon the tractor of plaintiff; that 
plaintiff informed defendant that he intended to use the trailer to 
haul heavy freight; that it was defendant's duty to build and construct 
it so that it would be fit for the purpose for which it was purchased; 
that on November 29, 1933, plaintiff was driving his tractor, coupled 
to which was said trailer, on Route 52, in the State of Indiana, with 
due care for his own sefety and the safety of said equipment, when by 
reason of the negligent and unskilled construction, tests and inspec- 
tion the trailer and "fifth wheel" broke, collapsed and came aparts 


that by reason of the careless and negligent mamer in which the 


"fifth wheel" and the coupling of the trailer were built and installed 

















x90 daxeanet, & ee ae a 
4 -eolleqgs We 


orreye DHTCIOR A ‘aft 


3 See De a 





“lestod ear to WorwTuo aT quamvired conte Y 


mi aislo to tmemetsga alk heLit Ttisntalg .deeL «dt Lise 0 
» moet bsaadowwg ed fads hogetts brs ensoido Yo tiveo Ley io lassi ame, a 
mootedd bisq ect tart gava, le ‘0% xeLkeut sowed xosom 2 pasbee np, 


a 





doors bas + G6CL as sedess0 so id bers EERE ff sedmes gee nO. 


8G uk PRs 


a 


— _ arinmiged dro Teq 08.18% to atents tank eonatad ests ag ot 
wissmtate eaadorug eatt te mee euid te Deer taste cEEOL afl sedamyoy. 


cat ee 


~ 





. eMtitaiale ue beso todoats found totom a insbaeted PY berovite a 
wD toh Me . 


: 
) ie 
*, fsontw AsTLi" s ae sworn! ootvel @ diiw begqinpe tnabrotob tobe } 


ariigues to ssogqiugq exis 10% sotyeh a aaw "Leary dvTtt" bisa Mots 7 


FCs etl? Jat? grevost? edd mott +4 patique ors bas os rellans os o | 
A hav dictewthc 

twelisrt edd sogu tinabnoteb yd beliatant bna besleintst asw “honde.. 

gadd 7 Yiitmnials ‘to 1odoe td edd sogu oals bne dashnateh yd ‘#£3 


«of toLiart est sau od bobustnt ef dsdt inabmoteb bemzotnt SE _ 








~oogant bas atagt enoliouxsdenoo Seliblans baa dnegifgen ond 
sbi 

qexeqe exso brs beegalloo .odoud “Leedy Adtkt" tre teliers 

7 i" 

; 


a 


eid sSeiw ni tonmem dregifger brs avelotas oid to 0288 \ 





bellstant baa JLind otew xeLierts ait to partlewoo std bers nts 


-2e 
the coupling came apart; that by reason of the careless and unskilled 
manner in which the couplins pin was built on said trailer it broke 

and came apart; that because the couplins pin was carelessly and neg- 
ligently made of light, poor and improper metal it broke and came 
apart; that by reason of the careless construction of said "fifth 
wheel" and coupling device they broke and came apart; that by reason 

of defective material and manufacture the flange or collar of the 
coupling pin broke and came apart; that defendant neglected to make 
proper inspection and tests before delivering the trailer and thereby 
overlooked defects in the "fifth wheel" and coupling device, which 
defects caused the coupling device to break and pull apart; that de- 
fendant made an express and an implied Warranty that the trailer would 
be reasonably fit for the use and purpose for which it was intended; 
that the trailer failed to comply with the warranties; that on December 
1, 1935, defendant took possession of the trailer and promised to ree 
pair and return the sam $0 plaintiff on or before December 15, 19333 
that on December 29, 1933, defendant fraudulently advised plaintiff to 


|e until later for clearance from the insuranee COipany; that defend- 


| ant converted the trailer to its own use by selling it on or about 
{ 


| December 30, 19333 that on January ll, 1934, plaintiff discovered that 


the trailer had been sold; that defendant then promised to build 





another trailer for plaintiff; that plaintiff was damaged in the sum 
of $227.06 for the repairs of the tractor; ~3,600 for the reasonable 
value of the loss of use of his trailer for 120 days at $30 per days 
$425 "down payment" and $87.50 first instalment paid, totaling $512.50 
payments made by plaintiff on the trailer; and exemplary and punitive 
damages in the sum of $2,000. In its affidavit of merits de fendant 
admitted that it was its duty to build and construct the motor trailer 
so that it would be reasonably fit for the purposes for which it was 
intended, thet is, to haul and carry heavy freight for long distances 


while it was «attached to the motor truck tractors; that the purposes for 


belive: bea aaelts° eds to nogaer qt tants poteqes omso grriiquoe extt 
stord si telieat Sise ne sited agwaig suifeveo ett doieiw. at weorrssssat 


“gon brea yisaelotad Baw miq geriigques att eamsood dels psIsge emo biel 


guao fea otond of fejem teerqal Sas 160g edly Lt Yo obeia dineatt 
Metey" kies To neivout gands Ree lstso ai ‘to nossot yd Jarts {dregs 
geaset wi tails iW tage emes baa sterd yods eoiveb aniiqsoo Bae " Loos 
ef? to telies £9 egnett . ests autos tucan bes Igines eat ovis ooteh » 
etiam of bed ostgen inabroteb tadd gitegs oMmss Dts eaoud pry sui fqueo 
ceaertesté — taLiexd est ani tevited sxoted efaes Snes roitoogart ‘Tegord 
seitw (eoived qaifquoo brs " feouw aid FT" odd ort age ted podooLsove 
-of dad? aires fing bao aeosd 00 oc lvob. gatiquoo oxi beawso atooleb 
pinow wetkats edé“tads yinstiaw beilgini ae pre qaereRe, Me ebsnt jusbost 
“"Veebneiink waw 4 foidw met etoging OAS. 928 gett 9% ¢42 (idangaaer, of 
cedapoel no tant Yeottnsxrew odd din ~Aameg ot bodies? salient ont dextd 
~9¢ of beaimotd bas relied os So nphaaameod Hood Jaabastod | eek, a 


pecds . aL tedmaece. steted to no Tkidnielg of amar ante HTS brs aig 


od tigtaisic heaivhs sclit He Ssstusarstt aesbuekor ¢5G0L «8s ,radeeoet no fat 


~bnstsb Sand egnseio eonmuuant ett moc eonet aot toe Betas Lito tiaw . 


goods to co ti gniffea yd Sew wo wii ot sekiass eit. hed sowmoo 1s 


seals Porevose tb risatet eSSeL , Lt yest no tanh goeet 08 rodmeoet 


bLind of bea imo tg edt nsbostob toile ~ofoa mesd bat tefterd ext 


mire atid mi Sogamsh asv Sttinielg Yadd pViientely to? yeLliond) momtene 
‘gidanonset ont 101 000.8% iretontt ‘9Md Te avtacet off tot ao rsse to 
qyab Taq O26 25 aysh Ook tet telterd eid to sae to soot edt to outer 


sicetil anifLatod aieg txemiatank text 0a. 83d bra eroned owed”. asat : 


hd ing bers craligren Ofte :uelikasd edd oo Tibtatelg ye, beet webaite 
drahpereb eaten to: ¢LWADPYa edt mT —<000eS) to cms .ostd. aka 


““gethard voted ede toate roo: bra: bLtud ed yinb.wti eow 3 std ante 
aa 22 doitw tt eeaeqeug odd coRGlt yidsmasos eg, biuow, oid it 


















a 


oie 
which plaintiff required the trailer were known to defendants thas 


the trailer was built end constructed for the uses and purposes ree 
quired; that there was an implied werrenty that the trailer would be 
rengonebly fit for the uses and purposes for which it was manufacturedy 
denied that there was « breach of the warranty, and asserted that the 
trailer was properly built and constructed for the uses and purposes 
for vhich it was merufactured; alleged that plaintiff made. default 
in the payment of the second and third instalments and in the payment 
ef $100 to defendant on account of “deductible insurance" by reason 
of the loss due to the accident; that plaintiff promised to pay the 
$100 deductible insurance; that because of the defaults defendant 
repossessed the trailer after having declared the entire indebtedness 
éuej; that thereafter defendant offered to construct another trailer 
for plaintiff, waish plaintiff declined; and defendant also denied 
that plaintvicf was entitled to the damages claimed. 

A recitation of the pleadings indicates that the defendant 
admits that it was its duty to manufacture and deliver to plaintiff 
& trailer that would cerry heavy loads of freight along highways over 
long Gistances. claintiff maintains that the coupling pin wes defece 


tively constructede The issue joined was as to whether the coupling pin 


wae ¢efectively constructed. The cass was tried befere a jury of six 
men, resulting in a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of %1,200¢ The 
court sustained 2 motion by defendant for a judgment notwithstanding 
the verdict, and this appeal brings the record before us for review. 
The first point urged by plaintiff is that in passing on the 
motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict it was the duty of 
the trial court to consider the evidence in its aspect most favor- 
able to the plaintiff and that all reasonable inferences must be 
resolved most strongly in favor of the plaintiff. There is no sub- 


stantial Aispute as to the correctness of this statement of the lawe 


fhe corollary of it, stated by defendant, is that where the evidence, 











pometers.* ant ti donb xe? eedoquuq bes seen end 0X ah ela aR" 
i eae dace bedveans bine eyduecage-edg ho dosotd « aawoeteid shes bet 


Sates he 
i 






aoveguig bre sans etl 18% bedorancs baa FL ie yetoqoty aay ze A 
hile abe TES ater Feds degelto . {eto on tee ase ok totter ‘0% 
‘ oe 3 “nahi ah bre atewsbetant irind due bogey ‘eis “to ‘Taorgag Sal ‘nh 
. scesnagi Ud “oonemont efdiverbeb” to 7 nv9595 mo ‘Ynatne' tod ot iff to 

ave 


- etkt Yeg OF hocmmny Wiitntaty ganly piaodtoos ody od aud esol ‘ud? Yo 
dnnbooteb ehiveteb oni Yo ouseosd dady foomiivas) efditombed ‘boxe | 


son na? 





















| RMORbotd eet omboHe et Dexetoob antral vedts seLlaws ety bowasasoner | ie 
sakbore rettonn sedenes of boretie drabeistten ted teonenté gtd 
- coseelanateent caiea igebreteh beo phanriived 1% iene ply. Pe ita (gNlin pas 
























er a oe 
a * biyp shambele nessa and vod bots bene aa ies re 
, Pe etefg of wevtLed bra eurfostsnan o¢ tie war ani ae test 


eve ayes iterate digtetY to ehaol cvaed yrtee btyow ie sais 
. ~eetob Sor aiq gakigns si tats antat inten iidntal! <abonsd ad! 
priiques ext cedtaiw of ac anv Sent ot ewoat ent © “sbetowre anon ae 
xis to yewh @ eteled deisd exw sano oft sbodounvaneo yLovhts stow 
GH O08, LE Xo me od) et “Dtonts fk co Pohbrev es mt drid ive 
> ghibbrayatsaweon Imemgbu, 2 <o% terabneted yt etsom a ponted ame | 
| sweden xeT-aM eteted brooet ond agmizd Leedie abu bile \abLOdey 

add no arteseg et date eb eetinkesg’ ‘et begee onto favkt oat 

‘to ‘edie ott ow 62 tg9thtev-ec) gabbendeddiveon thamponh 6 4 

| Kove Yaom Pooqua Bet AE edootve wit en rats 











Ge Get Ad oxox sstenbant eld LQ rovat nt ytpaodt 
Wel ec Yo snoneteta alhy 


o4u 
taken in its most favorable aspect from the viewpoint of plaintiff's 
case, together with ell reasonable inferences, does not establish his 
case, it is the duty of the court to direct a verdict for the defend- 
ante Therefore we examined the record with care, in order to deter- 
mine whether there is any competent evidence to support the verdict. 
Plaintiff, who had been employed as a pressmany decided to 
enter the trucking businesse He testified that in August, 1933, he 
negotiated with P. H. Bartlett, a Chicaco egent of the defendant cor- 
poration, for the purchase of a trailer. On September 11, 1933, he 
made a first payment of $125 and signed an order for a trailer, which 
defendant was to manufacture according to the specifications of plain- 
tiffe The purchase price was $1,314.46. Added to that were items of 
“66060 for fire and theft and $100 deductible collision insuranee, 
and a finanee fee of $9456, bringing the aggregate bill to the sum 
of $15475e62. Defendont!'s factory is located at Levisville, Kentucky, 
and on October ll, 1933, plaintiff went to Louisville te secure 
delivery of the trailer. There he then made an additional payment of 
$300, which brought his total “down payment" to $425, leaving a bal- 
anee of $1,050.62, and he signed a conditional sales contract and an 
instalment note providing for the payment of the balance of the debt 
in instalments of £87.50 each month after October 11, 1933. The con- 
tract contained the usual provisions permitting the vendor to repossess 
and sell the trailer without notice in the event of default. Plaintiff 
testified that on “‘ovember 1, 1933, he paid the instalment due Novem- 
per 11, 1933, making such payment to Mr. Bartlett in Chicagoe He 
further testified that on ‘Yovember 29, 1933, at about 4 aomey he was 
driving his truck, consisting of @ tractor and the trailer purchased 
from defendant, in a northwesterly direction in the State of Indiana 
between Monroe and LaFayette, on his way to Chicago with « load of 


six or seven tons of printing papers that he observed a truck coming 


in the opposite direction, ‘straddling the center line;" that he 


abn 
a'tetinialg te taloqvetv ent mont #oeges sidsucvet daom eh at neded- 
ald Matidaies tox avob «seanexsint eidanoanet Lis atin sediegod _easd 
! «beretao oft sok doibzevy a doonkd oF rumen ond Yo yrub end at ok 298a0- 
mupied oF 26020 ni ,otas Moiw bitooax aft Seminars ow eretenedl. «tes 
sdohboevy ads ¢roqqve of socobive dmsiegine yue at evenly castrate conker 
oh Debtoes «nemaasitq a as Soyolome nosd bet ent .TMiteielt 
ed pSOOL .Stigu mi dat oeititeed oH wasankand geiaeyts. aft totes 
““po tratreteb add Yo teregs ogjaoid « ytieliaek .H .1 ditiv bets open 
ef 28808 . fh vedmetqee mw) .seiiett s to eesdotug ad? tot .notierog: 
Hobiw ~reliatt @ vel tobte ca bermgie bie @eie Yo treme: dark? 2 ebam 
«nialg to @notisottzocge edd ot ankbvecos sustom tuna of waw tasbrstob 
Ro-comed i exer Palit of behbs Ode bbte th acw e@ohte eantormg ol? + TILe 
 ysnaxvank ne petifeo aidivesbeh OGL) bee diets tris ot2t tot 03 238% 
ae eid of DLE etegetaye aly grrtgnixd basse) to ost coment? ‘e@ Bie) 
eYlousaet ,olliveived as bodengl eb Yuetoct eVnehs teh .asdlay Ll? to 
_ Ous9se of siLivelugl of drow Yitdetoly,<t6@L «Lf meogotoO mo bas 
to dremgaq tamitibbe na. aban medt ef exed? «teltend oft to yrewileb 
ried 8 satvaol Bk OF "Spomyeg ovoh"' Leted eid iduwotd do biw 10088. 
ne bas tootinoo eefLaa Lanoltibaoo a bemia em bre _Sd.000,8 to cone 
> #f9b elt to eonaiad edd to. inemysq off tok ambbivorq ston tremistent 





-noo Off .200L. .ff tedese0 setts Avanos dose 08078) to atromied eet ‘nh ae 


Bgeatogen of tebuev ond gatidimctey aneinivorg Loam end hemietnon toesd, 
Tiiveiell .tinaied to dneve edd mt eotion twodtiw wellet?d edi Lior bre 
~movor oud dromisteani edt bisq ef »SSOL «Lf todmovet wo told beltivced. 

OM segocid® mi tteLszed \ x0 0t. feromyng ove aetstom (SOO LE ted 
Gar ott \emee 8 VuOde Jae pSECL —OS rodmavEN we doit Hod Weed tem ee’ 
beatsiotug seltott of? bre toddeet oto gnktebenod wlousrd wht galtyieh 


ansibel to etete ond mt neitoerts vineteertiten « mt + taabaotet sity 


“to bool 8 ftw oncokdd od yaw htt ye ‘settoysted bie come Hebwi ee ie 


x iat j 





ginal Howst a bevesedo en dat grandy axt Hye te any nevea 0 





ef Paki “Vortl rognes’ ond either emo Poot Es | ed teoeyo vat a 






A ee 
\ 


-5= 
Slowed down to about ten miles an hour and pulled to the richt so 

as to pass Without a collision; that at the moment he pulled to the 
right he passed over a culverts that when he went over the “soft 

spot" at the culvert he felt a jar; that he "pulled off to the right 
with my left wheels on the pavement and the right wheels on the gravel. 
All at once I felt an impact fram behind that carried the tractor for- 
ward. I stoppede «hen I got out, the trailer was laying in the 
ditch. The tracter was on the highway. I did not have a collision 
with the vehicle coming in the opposite direction." He stated that 

the trailer was about two hundred yards away from the tractor at the 
time he stopped the tractor, and that "the road was evene Route 52 

is a Ue Ge cement highway, double lane with a black line down the 
center and a gravel shoulder. The trailer was about 75 feet from the 
road on its right side, the whole right side of the trailer was 
crushed ine There was a very shallow ditch on the side of the road.e 
The trailer was across the ditch and laying on the farm. The tractor 
was coupled with the trailer by a fifth wheel. This fifth wheel is 
put into the tractor for hooking the trailer into ite It looks like 

® horseshoe, and it works on a swivel, rocks backward and forward. 

It is constructed of steel. This fifth wheel was part of the trailers 
There is also a pin that is a part of the coupling devieee The pin 

is built into the nose of the trailer. fhere is a slot in the fifth 
wheel that this pin slides into and the coupling locks with a double 
lock on ite The trailer, in leaving the tractor, nosed over the 
right-hand side of the tractor and took the right rummine board and 
Carried it» * * * The bottom of the pin was broken off from the nose 
of the trailer. it would still fit into the fifth wheel. The wrecking 
truck held it up while I backed under it and let it down into the 
safety catch of the fifth wheel. I wired it there so it couldn't lift 
out again. I used 10 or 15 feet of barbed wire which I cot from the 


farmere In that condition I drove to Chicago." He testified further 





: € 
| 
ga ttoi¢ oft of baling bres. tread mo ostin asd taods ot mwob fewola 
| eid of belivg of ¢ronom est te dadd inoieifico s tuord iw easg 0s ae 
7 toe" offs nevo inow on nodlw dats, génevine «. sove heavag sl adgtt 


ae add et he beLing* sxt dal :teb 2 fet ad sreviva ond ca “toge 

| Mevety ald oo aleotw ddgix ald base isomeveg oft mo afvota died wa aid bw 
-t0% tojoett odd belauso tat. baided.onii Josqmi ne ¢fet 1, gonh és LL4 
| eit sivpeatyel eow golists oft <duo gop 1 mene shogqooR = WRT 
poieiiioe» svat jon Oib I wYansigit one ge aaw sotoets off »fotkbd 
add Betete of ".moidooxid stiseqqe edi mi guile eloidey edd ad tr 
ede $8, totoats edd moult yawe abtey bothers owt tuode saw. coliaed, oad 
aa edyoh neve eew baor oft" dat boa »tetoess. ale. beggeds of amis 

es mwoh ontl Hdosid « déiw ensl.eidiuod .yawigid.dmemes 1 .Y a at 


edd tt deet av iuods caw seliaxd ed® «x rebluyeda Lovety s bus wodmos 


sew toLisys ed? to obie dopir sfodw oft , odie day ix att no beget ~ 
~beot edd to obie ond no detth wollede ytev. 6 caw etedt - ant bedeszo is 


tavoaxs ocF sorrst off mo antysl bre dotib ond anonos saw tol bart ex? 
ato Leodv Actit ald? .Leescdw ditit-s yd toLtext end ddiw beigaos sev 


7 

“@MEL afoot £% Fi OFmt velisers ode guidood 207 nov ont? out otni dug " 
 ~Seewcet bas Stewload edoor .fleviwa «a no attew $2 bee ,sereeaved « | 
stofiewt edt to drsq saw Loedw Se 1kt ali? .Leeta to Setountemeg ai ct 7 
opts etT .988iveh gaileuoo edd to dxueq « af tadt nig a wale ek or—edt : 
AF tL? ots mi dela s at overt .xelberd ed Yo eaon odd otnidLied.al _ 
eiduob 2 diiw stool gmilquos ext one odmi eobile ig eidd Jatt teedw 7 
edd seve beten .tatoets odd gaiveel at. yeoliest.edl...«ti mo Avot ; 2 


brs byeod syoedtreearet digi odd dood bre codoatd oft to. obka begd-tdgta a 
even odd ‘mott Yio medoud ecw aig ond to modded edt * * * add Doletan =~ 
gublooxw ont .Leedw AstiT od) odmi 112 Lhise biwow JE. .toLlexy Mt wo 
ead otni mob 2 Jol buw.2i toby peakeed I eLiuy qu 2k blest bal - 

PERL J inbinoe $409 ener 3k hexiw 2 «feonw M4 Uke ode io Hotes wets | 
sid most Joe I deity eviv bedued to dee% Sf to OL beay 2. ina ed 









‘sente heftivesd oH “.ogendtO og eyo td a pestthaee: tate nq ‘ 


o Se 


-6< 
thet he arrived in Chicago the day before Thanksgiving day and left 
the truck at the plant of the International Harvester Company. On 

the day after Thanksgiving day he visited Mr. Bartlett at his office 
and related what had taken place. He showed Bartlett the bottom part 
of the pin of the coupling devicee He stated that the entire pin 
weighed from twenty to twenty-five pounds and that the part that he 
showed to Bartlett weished about one and one-half pounds; that he gave 
the part to Mr. Bartletty who kept its that witness did not see the 
part thereafter; that Bartlett told him that he wished to send the 
part, together with the trailer, to the plant of defendant in Kentucky 
in order to have the part analyzed. Witness testified that "I showed 
him a dark spot on one side of the pine This part is a piece of 
steel. Steel is graye The dark spot covered about one-third of the 
surface. I acquired some experience with steel while employed with 
the Sellers Manufacturing Company in Mayfair. The larger portion of 
the pin was fastened to the nose of the trailer. It is in the posses~ 
sion of the Kentucky Manufacturing Companys" that on December 1, 1933, 
at Bartlett's request, plaintiff ordered the trailer from the Inter- 
national Harvester Company and it was sent to the factory in Leuis- 
ville; that it did not again come into possession of plaintiff; that 
after December 1, 1933, he called on Mr. Bartlett "a few times;" that h 
the latter informed witness that the repeirs would be completed in | 
approximately fifteen days; that during the second, week in Decembery 
before the second payment became due, he asked Bartlett what to do 

about the payment that was to come due on the llth; that Bartlett 

told him, “don't worry about that until your trailer is back here from 
Kentucky and we will settle ell that at once;" that Bartlett told him 
that the trailer would not be back until the 20th, as there had been 

a delay in sending it out of Chicagos that the trailer was repaired in 


on 
Louisville and returned to Chica go/December 29, 19353 that on January 


5 or 6) 1934, witness saw his trailer in the stockyards hooked up te a 


































| 40 rs vesacvieH Lane haareial edt to dmelq end Ke aad 
: eoltio ain ta sioliusd oth heviety ed yob oeivigataadll’ verte Yad ent 
tay gotted oft Sdoleueh boworla oH  .o0slg meled Set dante botefet bas 
pt otivns oft tate badata of seotveh omilquos etd to rebg “ed to 
if Gets Yeog ost tadt bos abewog evll-yasws of yicews mot? bedty tow 
yan ot dedd gabmog thed+syo deez sno duoda berg tow jheLsred oF bewerte 
ent ope) vor bib saad iy sat ysi Iqod enw edtelsistl «tM oF dreq edt 
ext bree oy boduly of died mid biot seottene Soa ieee ivoratie frog 
“plowterod, ab. .tuebreteb te inelq eft ot ¢ueltet? ons stew rTeniepoy aie 
t ‘bewerta I’ dadd beltiiaes seegt BY sbemgiens treg ots ‘evad ed tebzo" ak 
7 fo eeeig ¢ et greq aint .mtaq ext to sbis ono no seqe wteh okt 
ent. %o Stisdt-eno tuods Astaven dage dush ent. “yet. ek Leesva festa 
tiv beyolque eliiw feete ds ivy sonoktegxe emoa beotbepes I. seoetaue 
7 te soiitog tegtal eff .«tlehgall ak enwgmod mak gr? os Basmati arelte® edt : 
~asanog etm ai vi .tefiawd edd Yo soon sal? ov berdtest eam ike wed 
cSb2L .f xediroooetl no ads, “pymeqmeO pris oo tunel wou teee att to aie 
—te3nI ecfd moct sellatt edd bevebte titt¢mhalg «aeupet aigdotenat te 
ginal mf Yrodomt ede ot dnsa saw vf bee yregmed sotaeriel amo tar 
het t pitiinisly To nebedereoq oni enoe mbeye tor OER KR wae 





Sad # *pasals wets” sieLiced wth mo Hellso ox. teen af werieoed + 
3 betel o ed biuvew antsqes ef tad? aaerd bv pmeets ath eisai ote 





7 


cilia ob feew shay 


at bios dtektiat gadis "gBaro Je. ‘} net {ke efidee ILtw om bee 


- iil hort ote? aa ltos owe 1: sala ‘oud ed lia binow melhor 


oar ‘go Fats yecer 188 <4 . ] 


= 
Dodge trucks that he hal been going to see Bartlett every other day 


or 50, asking wher the trailer would be returned; that the latter 
kept telling him that the insurance company was withholding the re- 
lease of the trailers that on December 1, 1935, when he delivered the 
trailer to Bartlett the letter said, "don't worry about it, the insur 
ance Wili cover ali damages. I said well it is a $100.00 deductible, 
He said well, you know those bills have always been adjueted.s You 
won't have any worry about « $100.00 deductible." Plaintifl testified 
that on January Gy 1934, he sent a telegram, drafted with the aid of 
his lawyer, to defendant »t louisville, Kentucky. ‘he telegram read: 
"Your order thirteen two six four September eleventh stop You recently 
repaired trailer serial number thirty five naught one and sent to your 
representative ? H Bartlett here stop Have tendered one hundred eighty 
seven dollars and fifty cents to Bartlett but delivery of trailer re~ 
fused stop Kindly wire if refusel made on your insiructions and if not 
wire myself and Bartlett so I can secure trailer at once stop Answer 
collect." Defendant replied with a telegram sent on January 10, 1934, 
reading: “See Mre Bartlett reference your trailer He will handle,® 
Plaintiff also received 2 letter from defendant dated Louisville, 
Kentucky, January 11, 1954, reading: “Confirming ‘phone conversation 
with you of today, we have contacted our Mre Ber tlett and he has ree 
quested that we advise you to see him and he will handle the matter 


in 2 satisfactory mannere"® Plaintiff testified that he did not receive 


any money from the insurance company; that on January 10, 1954, he had 
a talk with Bartlett in regard to the delivery to him of another trail~ 


er; that at that time he knew his trailer hac been solde He also ree 


ceived a letter from defendant dated Louisville, Kentucky, January 195 


1934, informing him that becouse of © large number of losses the insure 


any had canceled the policy of insurance and that for reasons 


ance comp 
account of the cancellations 


set up therein there would be no refund on 


As en item of damage pleintiff cleimed thet he did not resume his former 


_ pel al 
(nb xeido yxeve deidaef sen of anton good fect of dudt stent’ sghed 


xettak sl¢ sadd phoumuies od oLyaw seliets add mesiw gutless OR. 0 

wor eld gribiodisiw as yaagaeo sexeusani edt tacd aot gmitled digo 
ants pureviieb of modw ¢tceL of tadmeosT no tends guetiesy suk | to onses 
—_—" eid psh deeds wetow. J) n05" ,biue godial edd doista€ ae refietd 
,oldspoupeh OOvOOL) @ ei st flaw bica I. .aegamad ifs %oyveo iLiw eoms 
wo¥  sdetasjoa soed ayouts, gad ablig esoks sor Bo yi Lew bing Rss 

3 Beitisaed vRetatals, "“waldidoubeb 00.00L3 2 tuoda YItow Yee eyo # tnow 
‘ “he bia ens Ho iw eee tend ~uangelot «2 tu2a, ox eGRL Pad yomtal 0 pads 
opbeon mangeLod. ett eplostnedt goliiva ino. to daabare Bob os rowed and 
yeteses Lor. sie dinovele sodmes gas euo'z zis ne nootehsd sobre 10" 
TyOY, OF Tnea Hms of Salganesre evil ute tls ‘eseanhirs fabzee zoLiard bexisget 
ytdg ie barb aul gro bonsbaed ore qova eros ser ont Ht € ovitataseomget 
=oe qokbext to wrnikeih gud sieLinss of. adnes gett bas aseLLob mayen 
Yon 2 bere moby onxd eat yyy oo eban tsemier Sf ot Lu ybbant gods beast 
“ngwend qoda sore Jo tofiexd eiseea nag ft 08 tielite& Sxa Tlooys oxi 

; bee yor Yoenmst no dae astgated & diby beliges anahnetel, "stoettos 
instil [Liw of ceLiexd iw)ey sonexotes soltuot oth ae". Agmbieot 
eoiiive ine bots) tnebaoted sort toiset «a bevisaoy, oaks TbaieLt 
motsaasevnos. smog! ge dore i ine 0 * sgatbaon ,dc0f ,Lf vrammat etoudned 


“0% ast et bree stolt, mi «tM ayo bedostaoo oneal OW ewabos 1 HOY, al bir 7 


sodiem ed¢ oLboadt Like sa frees bh 298 oF HOY on tvoe, ow 2a. bodaeup 
evicoo % ten 6th od dont herhivavs RiLiniats "store Ytodostatica a; ik 
ben ot gASSL 4 OL yxauaal a 3 he EERE HIO.D eanctuant ied Biot, Yoront a 


wELkwrt ‘sesktors To mis ov ‘erev dl op ais oc buwget mt, staniyek aa ier Ahad & 
“ex ooLe ol 


eel Yeahs’ erglou 0% gol five kuok boteb inobreteb wey TT wottoL a novtes 


vwen ant @eenoL ‘Lo co ome PORE sto samscod tend mid padexotek ahced 


shige 090 Swed tolled a Set wenn eat onal fans 8 dade ise : 


anOkoet wor sdraed bees Sansiuont 0 Notion me, belecase best Team & eons 


sig 80 oS ooma9 odd 0 dimmooos to an os od Siew ator, smtoxods, we, tea F 
— 


como? Gft ortget tor bLb ex. tals venta zo » subdataty oun to. ved ss] aa 
| a Y ON ane 


_ 








~Bu 
occupation as a pressman until the middle of Februery, 1934. On 
cross-examination he admitted Signing the cmditional gales contract. 
He said that at the time of the accident the highway was ary; that 
the incline to the right of the road over which the trailer moved after 
it left the tractor was about a foot below the level of the road “at 
the deepeste" He said that two left wheels of the tractor were on the 
highway at all times and the two right wheels were on the ere.vel 
Shoulder on the road; that "this fifth wheel is connected on the rear 
end of the tractore The pin merely slides right inte it and locks in. 
This part was broken off. I could still Slide the other part of the 
pin into the tractor on the highway. * * * The purpose of the fifth 
wheel is to keep the trailer from lifting upj" that when he saw Mrs 
Bartlett on December 1, 1933, the latter told him that he was insured 
and that he would take care of Settling the matter with defendant and 
the insurance companys. He also admitted that on December 4, 1933, he 
made a written statement which he Signed and delivered to a represen- 
tative of the insurance Company. The statement was introduced for the 
Purpose of impeachment. He further testified that he offered to pay 
the December instalment on December 10 or 11 but Bartlett told him not 
to worry about the payment until the trailer cam back to Chicagoe He 
denied that Joseph Pe. Desmond, sales manager of defendant, demandéd of 
him the payment of $187.50§ stated that he had had no previous experience 
with tractors or trailerse He testified that Bartlett offered him a 
replacement of a like trailer, which offer he refused; that two pay= 
ments were due at the time the offer was made; that he was offered a 
“like trailer" on the payment of $300. He alco stated that on January 
4, 1954, Bartlett told him that his trailer hal been repossessed and 
801d under the terms of the conditional sales contract, 

Je He Rech, on behalf of defendant, testified that he was an 


adjusters; that on December 4, 1933, he interviewed plaintiff in refere 


enee to a claim for demages against the Hartford Pire Insurance Companys; 





| “8 
wo DEOL eUToNUd ST Yo eLlibter odd Lliny nemacerq s a8 no 3. sqro00 
| etoetdnds celica LIenoiiibsoo oft gaimate betiimbs of olicn tmsxe~ seer 
Sadt ryth saw ysis id ont tnobives ent to emis eat ts tat? biaw olf 
gedta boven celiow aft Holiw tevo. beset edt to seg it orl? ov omifont ails 
~ $a" aot este To Level edd woled goo 2 snode tow rodsecd onft diel oi 
eae mo stew toteer? ext ‘to elesdw diel owt Jad bien GH "Voasgoeh esis 
fevets oft no ovtew afesnv iduti ewt oft bua somtt tite ta ‘awit ba 
| *agx afff no betosmpoo ak Isedw Agtit aids” tadtd pbs0n add mo " sobdwodte 
| sack @aieel bea ti atni ddgix sebife ylerem nig ent stotoatds ait ool bus 
gt to oteq texto ody e5ifa [five bLsoo I «to metoud aaw 2 tEq elit 
HItit odd ‘to ‘saseung sit * * * syewts id oid no totoetd wilt ecink ad 
aT wea eri nedw iedd "gqu ariviil mort rseliarts edd goat ot ut Leoxdw 
besiewnt aaw of daft mid bfod toddet ostt esbOl yf tedmsood £10 ssolason 
bas énebnoteb Miiw tedden edt aeiLitoa Yo stao esd bLavow out tants baw 
ef ,860i .4 redmeosd no sams betd tobe oats 3H «erage 9 sonstyant oxtt 
-nesetget s od beteviteh bre beng be ent do isle drromedad@ word bw 8 bau 
and - beoubetint eav tnemeteda oat? sYTsgaoo seremrant etd 10 ovidas 
wer ‘ad bevetie ef tad bobitieet rendurt off »$romlosouei to evoquig 
jon min Obfos tteLsirem ted Lf te OL tedmeost no dromlad ark rodmessd oxi 
aM aogecidd of dosed omco teliart ants Cbd Sc ext awods qitow ot 
‘te bobraseh ginabnetoh to tegsnem aefss brome is Hgosot take poineb 
oneizegx® awotves¢ on bad Dad of dale bedate oa. vate ‘to 4 wocrga acta mist 
4 mint boretio sielicad J xcis bettivaed ok setetiony to axodvoety tite 
“Vag owl ded? ,heanwtert em tettc cio tet teListd edif s. to N Ponteoatqon | Ll 
& bexretto saw of desks iobsm sew toTlo ext emis oti ta onh oxew Neem 


“Youre wo dads bsdete gala of 1008 to Ineayeq oaly £0 Meolignd out” 









oe 


bas SDexesaaoyot med ted <oliasd abt ed mist blot told ust ghee Aes 


stoatiago, soles Eanod? then 9, esti. ‘to sored ute, Ascot niet 
“th caw et ted? hel tideed. edaehgotob: ‘to taeded 0 lost cs Ah, 


ee 7 ra 
| ~asttor fl ately hewalvieymt ost. osnet. - x9datcood 0 dete “estentne 
renaydeo sonsiwent erat Stotsieh edd debieagee heen - ini aw. 


9a 
that he asked him questions and thet he wrote down the answers, and 
that plaintiff told him on December 4, 1933, that it was raining at 

the time of the accident and that at the time of the accident plain- 
tiff was driving at a speed of twenty-five miles per hours thot he 
reduced the statement to writing, and that plaintiff read it, said 

it was correct, and signed it. Park M, len, for defendent, testi~ 
fied that he was employed in the pey rell office of the Chicago 
tribune; that witness brovght to court the pay roll records and can= 
celed checks of plaintiffs that pleintiff worked for the Tribwme from 
Pebruery 5, 1925, until the year 1935, with the exception of a period 
of not quite three months in 1933, and produced a check to plaintiff, 
dated December 31, 1953, for two dayst work performed by plaintiff 

for the Tribune; and he produced other checks for periods subsequent 

to December 31, 19336 Joseph PP. Desmond, on behalf of defendant, 
testified that he was sales manager for defendant corporation; that 

in November, 1933, P. He Bartlett was employed by defendant as sales 
agent; that witness saw plaintiff at defendant's Chicaco office, at 
3839 South Michigan boulevard, on December 21 or 22, 1935, and re- 
quested plaintiff to make a payment that was past due on the trailer 

in the sum of $87.50, and also the sum of $100 that was due for 
“deductible insuranee;" that plaintiff said he would bring in the money 
the next days that witness told plaintiff that he had made similar 
promises and had not fulfilled them, and that witness was civing plain- 
tiff three days further in which to make the payments or defendant 
would have to repossess the trailers; that witness told plaintiff that 
if he would make the payments the repaired trailer would be brought from 


Louisville and delivered to him; that plaintiff did not offer any money 
to witness; that witness told plaintiff that the trailer had been re- 


paired and was ready for delivery. Ps. He Bartlett, a witness for dew 


fendant, testified that in September or October, 1935, he was the sales 


representative of defendants; that he took the order for the trailer, 





| -* 
boa yatewans aft nwo etow af Sate See anoiteese mid Seolen oof desl? 
| + ie awindes cow OF defd _SeOL pb codimsoed no wis bled Vhitetalq dacit 
ewigio twebioe: eft to emis edv ta tact re deehioon sift to emki ostd 
ed fond prwot voq seLie evit<yinewd ‘Io bsege « te gaivind saw tiie 
bree eit bast yittebere tanté bee eautiivw of toenfetatea efit beoubox 
witaey ptrebeetes vot wrofls JW wrod dE bemgte bak .foorseo aw oR 
Wenbtdo oft to eo Sito Ifor vweq ens mi boyolyae usw et vat fof 
“pee Bis abroser Liev yeq ed Jrpoo ot Joguord acomd iy dads pereet 


got erediet oft vot bedrew Tiitaielic dat. gtnitnialy to migedo bates 


hoizeq 8 3a coitqooxs odd iw ,BoCh weey edd Lbiow <880L .o yrawiet 


eitivntely od doads = beowbo ty bee ySCCL mk metdnom sould sdiup don to 
Pbverlefe yd Seernetreq teow toyed awd cat -S8CL _f8 stodtoonl hota 
Smespeadse choiteq toi adtceds rete heawborg of bas pendix? edt-oot 
— einabmeteh To Based no ebaomee .T digexo, «G8@E ylS cedasoed of 
teds yuoiiatogtes tashyotsh. 19%. teganar aelse wow od. tadé beliidasy 
eetza as Sag busted vd boya lowe pai steLited «i ,SéCL .redmoved of 

ws <Saftto op sLOiNtS. a'insbhaet ob te Yiiialelq was easegt iw stadt gFiega 

wet fms SSL «88 10 £8 tedeced no .btavetued aaydelo lt diue2. C€8E 
seliats orld no exh teasgq aow das inemes « olan of Liitadedg betaeup 

| tet anh sew tadt OOL% te ma oft oefs dara «08s 968 Yo mera ents ot 
“yemem ef mt gnicd bivow of bike Widetele stadd "+ emeexwasid eiuivaubeb” 
i, _ teLiete sham bad atiead? Titnislg bfed scontin add qwed oxen nits 
Beem anivig aaw agen iw dott Bae gmeuté oo IL ia tet on Sad bmn ‘eee bap 
. Mnahooteb 10 a¢uemeg of} eam of dolew st tesdext exch oem. Bike 
tats tittatelg bod sacnd iv tad gtekiewd edd easaeoger 0% ovad bivow 
MOtTt soeword ed Sivew ze8tkers setisqet edd etmomyog ent ofam bivow ont we 
Venom yas tetio dom bib Uiinielg sett. qmbt of boxevited bao tgsyetees 
-es sood fed reftesd edt decd Nibtatetg bled ageontin daly faaeen iw od 
~Sh wot anomhin « ,dekivel) Ez. apr ties. sot yonon cow ba berieg 
Holet odd asw od _SECL 4 cedesao xo redmodge® ak dacdt ee ‘ sebust 


gvoliext off col s6oe6 Ga¥ dood ea Jt eine: ot. @7 





-10= 
which was to be manufactured according to specifications; that 


witness did not receive the “87.50 which plaintiff claimed he had 
given to him on November 1, 19333 that witness received a letter, 
signed by plaintiff, dated November 22, 1933, and sent to him from 
Denver, which letter was admitted in evidence; that the letter states 
that plaintiff was "stranded in Denver waitines for a load back3" that 
the next time he heard from plaintiff was when he received a lene dis- 
tance telephone call the day before Thankssiving, 1933, in which 
pleintiff “told me he wrecked the equipments"that witness told plain- 
tiff to come to Chicagcos3 that the day after Thanksrivince the witness 
spoke to plaintiff, who gave him an order to pick up the trailer from 
& garage of the International Harvester Company; that witness had an 
eutside man with a tractor bring the trailer to defendent's garage 
pending instructions fram the insurance company; that at plaintiff's 
request he called up the insurance company; thet pursuant to the call 
Mre Rech, an adjustery came3 that plaintiff, in the presence of wit- 
ness, talked to the adjuster; that witness was a metallurgical engie 
neer; that he attended Armour Institute and Lewis Institute, both in 
Chicago$ that after the accident plaintiff did not mention to witness 
ASGIK a defective "fifth wheels" that plaintiff did not say anything 
about the ping that plaintiff “told me the fifth wheel and the trailer 
broke away from each other. This collar was broken from the pin. I% 
was @ complete mechanical fracture as we term ite That means a teare 
It was wrenched. Wo fracture whatevere It was cleane I cxuamined the 
pin carefully. The coler was graye \estney did not mention any dark 
defective parts in that fifth wheel. I did not see any dark defective 
parts;" that the trailer went to Louisville the day after the insur- 
anee adjuster released its that when it went to Louisville it was in 
the same condition as when it ceme ing that witness attached it to 


a tractor and sent it “on its way;" that he did not have to wire it 


up; that on December 21 or 22, 1955, witness was present at the 


es Wie 

fed? yanoticoktioege ot yulbrocos bexuttosturem of of, aa matey 

hawt ent bomielo tittnielq detdw 00.78) eft syteoot dom OL eaemkkw 
yuedtet & beviscvos ascend iv dents g8SOL .f tedkrevel no mie of) porta 
mort mid od tween doe , SOL .BS rodmoyol betab «tibintelg x bongke 
aedadte ieeat edd Jatt iteonohbive ni beta limbs asw vettel doidw , termed 
euits * gloss heol 2 wot onitiow toveed ot bebmetia"” agw tihiatela dad 
wat onel ¢ bevtsoet ed sortw sow Vibintely mo<t bucet od said dxer ead 
dotew nt < BERE ennkvigained? sxoiod yah edt Liss enpigeles, sonst 

wel Lo bio: aaord Ey duals" yd rena isp) oats boilos tw ent ent blog". titentely. 
uot br odd gnivigatnat’? sede wah ett ted? popaokid of emos od Thit 
mort ‘ek tes eid qu Hoiq od tobtoe me mit eveg ofw .tittakelg oF expga. 
% pa bast. acids tow Jats gysge: tedeoyiell Lano td oensdel old To. SQstAg 8), 
ego atinsbistet od soliond ent aniud tedastt « Ad by. sem ob bedare 


a iinsalg bs 3 gets a wneud besissisteieds ai ott soul anotiowmiant patbreg 


: 
ffeo oft o¢ reas tanta eerste 9 somecyert act qu Dellso sil jmeupet 


~tiw To eorea0tg any oi ,Tiitnistg ted temo gtodeuthe oa .leet,<al. 
ekgre Lsoigtutisien s -aaw aeendiv ¢and tuotentos edd of bewtiet seem _ 
mk déod yetiiihent aiwed bne siudidanl teomts bebretvis ed tedd goean. 
easntiv of nbivnem gon 525 thitntelq tmebioos add 168ts tarde gopenith., 
griddyne yea don bib Tilimbalg dads "yloonw tit" evidse tod. .« FES, 
tohiert edd bus Lfeody Atitt est om, Lod" Tikinielg teed ynkg ead dmodtay > 
az ere eis mosl weitot? asw telioo aid? .tetto dose mort Yews, edomd 
ageee 4 acon dadt «tt mies ow as ousont? Leoinedoom eselqmos.@ Ray. 
aid beniticxe = «nséfo acw JI .tevedaty ovmsoext of «belemetw sew @E,. ~~ 
dzah qe molinem for SI yerteel «yer aw toloo of svi brteres mtg. 
eyivosted Axed yma eee Jon DLS I «Logs M222 dard at ateag eviiecteb 
~mrant ond teste yb end elliveivod of daew colinud ond dade yabcog. 


et gow $k ofitve not of oe ee -/ tanld itt heacehen sivcmigucsiied 






ee etiv of ayer Jom bib od darld em, adt mo” 8 tees bm. sevens a ae 


odd ds gmevetqg asw ateativ ,Se@L 48S to £8 tedasoog, 0, Saat eg 


akin 
time of the conversation testified about by Desmond. itness 
corroborates the statement and testimony of Desmond in regard to 

the demand for payment of the $87.50 and the $100. \itness heard 
plaintiff tell Mre Desmond that he would bring in the $187250 in 

two or three days, and heard Desmond tell plaintiff that the limit 
would be three days. Witness stated that the trailer was repossessed 
at the factory in Louisville and that they gave witness an order to 
sell it and witness sold it for $1,0003 that witness saw plaintiff on 
January 3 or 4, 1934, and at that time plaintiff knew that the trailer 
had been repossesseds that plaintiff at that time did not mention any- 
thing about making payments. Witness stated that “we offered him a 
new trailer that happened to come in that day or the day before without 
any change in the original cotract to replace the original trailer 
that he had used two months, whatever it was, we would cive him a brand 
new unit without any further obligation, except to pay the $100.00 
deductible plus $87.50. He said he would let me know. I didntt see 
him after thate About ,pril a man served a notice on me. The first 
time I ever heard about a claim for 2 defective pin was at the 
attorney's officee® On cross-examination witness stated that he 

made an examination of the coupline pin in Chicacos that he had a 
laboratory test made cf the pin and the collar. That the part that 
was broken off was sent to Louisville with the trailer. He further 
testified, "I can tell whether there is a defect in the pin by the 
frecturee This pin was not fractured, it wos torn." Witness stated 
that the coler of the steel in the pin was gray, "like all steele" 

At another point he said, "We have twenty-seven colors in steel." 

He stated that plaintiff did not mention any dark defective parts 

ené that he did not see any black defective parts; that the trailer 
was not returred to Chicago until December 50 or 31; that it was 


delivered to the new purchaser on January 1, 19343 that the broken 


pert of the pin was in the possession of witness for two or three 


eeentiy .bnomeae yd tgod@ Soltitees mo tes rer" ry 

gt Staget ai bromuel to yremiteod bua trematets edd aedetode treo 
ensaud enent kh! §«64CO0LG odd boe O84TS2 oft to. deemysq set bramebh eld 

“#2 OU.TALG enld ot andi bigow om dasit frome » th Lled, Tikdatedg 
 Pimk£ ocd dart Tebeiq Lled bromaed teood bre eayed. seetty se omt 
beveoseoget gow veliers edt Jats Seteta seendiy .ayedh eoud?.od binow 
so) Oh SOS50 Me Baer Ly evag vers jedd bee offivatgol mi ysodoat, edd de 
fo Tks miele wae engatiw tald 7000—L} te8 vi bfoe eaontiw tne tf fea 
 gedders ants Sacks wesral tihiniely emis Fake da Drs, 2 SSCL oh) to F © yeaunet 
’ _— poidndm Som Skb emis sostd $e 2 Dat bate toed gheassazege: geod baw 
ae i mid Bove Tro ew" dats bodeds szonth .etnsamscq gaidem tueda gnids 
Sarould tw exoted yob elf. co yeh fadd ot omeo o¢ boneqger dads soliant. wer 
upLiete farigico eit esakyst ot Poste © Lanigine aid ok epmeto ene 
a @ min ovyin biwow ow . ow th seved ore cartrom ow! bees beak ead disaals 


GOLOORS ont: Yag oF dqoeoxe «roivegifdoe vertunt yaw dwodiiw dine side 


eee d'eb2D © .worl em gal blwow ef Hiss of «O08sVR) aula elidivouieb 
' Fock est! som et soiien 8 herrea mem @ Liugs duodA stetid vette) atd 
ont Jo sew ote evissoteb a vot misiv « twods bisa reve - waid 

ef dati bobete evendiv nolterimexe-cuore nO 48. ook Tio a 'yonwiis 


s bad of tedld gopeeidd mh wig grfigq<ueo ent to nottentgeme: me ebem 


gad Freq on} det? .velfos ed Bed nig sid Yo oben deed yrodaredel 


teduvt of «tellers of) dtiv eilive tuol of ¢met sew Tie soxetd wey 
odd yd mig sd? ot doeted 6 ef ated) tedden fled too iY ybottivaed 
hegade anonsiy “sexed aow £E ,Bevetoset ton aev why ofa? Oi) ont 
tgfeetn Ifs efit” yysrn asw oty and at feeta eft to t¢fo 6 oat wedded 
“*,Loote mb arefoo wevee-yenows evad ew” <hkes oof ditoo retitome dA 


atsog evidooted Axed yma aokinem Jom Of) Vitimtade dedy Detada eh 
sellew eid Jats judtaq eviocteh aoskd yas eon ton bho orf tame bao 


aew D2 tat ale te Of. techies, fiteu ogeo tld. ad Dterunters. aaiien aaw 








k Megs 


s = 






P Sots? =e owt ut magad be to codagoesoy ont oe ed 


-12= 
days before he sent it to Louisville; that witness saw it on the 
desk in Louisville for six months afterwards that it was notthere 
at the time of the trial and that it was "thrown in Scrape" Witness 
Stated that he informed plaintiff several times that the trailer had 
been repossessed. Margaret Robinson, for defendant, testified, among 
other things, that on November 22, 1933, Reeferts Transit Company » 
which she owned, made out a check payable to the Kentucky Manufacturing 
Company in the sum of $87.50. It was Stipulated that in 193% plaintiff 
asked for an order requiring defendant to produce "a certain portion of 
the coupling pin and the balanee of the pin at the trials" that defend- 
ant admitted that it received from Plaintiff the broken portion of the 
pin and that at the time of the trial it hed no knowledge as to where 
the part or parts of the coupling device were, By stipuletion, a 
coupling pin "identical with the coupling pin which was on the trailer 
was exhibited to the jury. 

ve have given an extensive Summary of the evidence because the 
question involved is one of fact. Plaintiff argues that pure, sood 
Steel is gray, and that the broken pin disclosed a black spot covering 
about 1/3 of the surfnee. Henee, he maintains, there was a latent 
dsfeet. Plaintirr himself attempted to qualify as an expert on steel, 
Gven a cursory examination of his testimony reveals that he did not 
qualify as an expert on steel. Defendant insists that there is no 
evidence that would warrant a finding that the coupling pin was de- 
fectively constructed or constructed from a poor grade of steel, or 
from steel with a flaw. Plaintiff coneedes that if there was nothing 
in the record but his own testimony regarding the color of pure steel, 
@efendant's argument would be conclusive of the issue in the CABGs 
Plaintiff asserts, however, that P. H. Bartlett, a witness for defend- 
ant, who was qualified as a stecl expert, “confirmed the fact that 


pure steel is gray in color." An examination of the testimony of Mr. 


Bartlett, an experienced metallurgical engineery disclosed that he 


win 

@it mo cE wee eaend iv sats poktivaiyod et of tree en ateted aysh 
erengiton sew 7f dado porowredta endmon uke Tot aiiivatued uf adeeb. 
avent Py “.qeses at nwoudd® esw ot dent fre Lobes eet? to amt? ‘edt to 
Peet toLberd ents J esis soaks Loveyos Trivnistly homvoth? of sads betade. 
Quzomt ydoltisaed eénebrsteb 10% ~noreidort so tad tet abocaganoqes mood 
exmeqao # Lanett inci eeeOL ak ee “sdmovel! mo paetd ep belt nota 
pikes o.o Demet wilted roc ett ot ofdayag Moots s duo ahem , ose ofa to bdw 
Fhivnialg VoeL rik rae? hadsisetia aaw IT 2 08» 8B4, +o mud eat? ok erage 
t pprtxed niet res a" eouho sy ot terabereteb pari tappot obey ne to? ‘pedas: 
«preteb sant? Wy Le bend out os ceker ett to sonalad ‘etd Bra pt ‘gmetquos ext? 
ost ao motttoq nelotd scl? aria nbe Ley ero E paykeost $i dadt hoteiahs Imes 
exesty of se agbeiwort on bead Fs tarrd ocs So omkd one We tate brs mie 
is s grotsetang toe wel sore eotveb “ope higato's ‘ode TH BFtaq “ey Seq oft 
Naelt asd erft 0 maw doditer ot stg ambien o ott ddby Lisheooth” ale gittiques 
| , ist at of bodiatixe eer 

ait sayvaosd esnebive até 20 erat ayienedxe sé avin sved eo es 
boos oti ‘sats vomgta Trvnta dont Yo ono BE beviovel molsaegp 
gnirevos toqs toald s heaetoalrh nite mostend exte Sarl” bers eunte at Leese 
tretal s acw oven? eeniesinian of (sonst easter’ ead Yo E\L. sarodes 
sLoote ro droyxe ie as YitLewp of hedcriedts Woantkl VehinteLs «toeetedb 
“gon bih ot decid aisevet vriodttagd eit two po tecntenne yiowmo 9 evi. 

on af gion? J ants agntent seabrotat .feesa ro treqm fe ee ytifaup 

6b daw nt patiquoe oat fasfe gathar? o Saterter biaow talt eonob ive 

70 “sheds Go ebetg toog 6 sot pet coordinate 6 "to fhotound aie o ylovkroat 
aitels on enw “ie ost oh eats eohbeonoo etetets welt @ Ad be Leeda, pere t 
efeote oun no tofes off Srébtages yhom eet mo abt gud “broags ent pnt 
senso eft mi oveat ody "to evinulones ad SLvow Eremsyrs” att psebsre te) 
Hotel so? eeont bw 8 eitolicntt Ph ae dete vitesse qatrecas trtdetelt 
tents Jost exié bears x0 0” Ve veuxe fede e Be bottifasp wav odw Per) 


wx te vsromtdaetd orld ‘to ‘ok dom bee | mA” rexotoo net ‘ots ‘ak sesbebairisiall 


ect tad beeoloath oman ‘Tas byrwifat om sulesnbtieuahan one atnelanat | 


“1 9= 
was of the opinion that the coupling pin showed that the break 
constituted a tear and not a fracturee At one point in his testi- 
mony he stated that steel is gray in colors; however, when asked a 
specific question he said that there are twenty-seven colors in steele 
He stated, positively, that he did not sec any dark, or black, or 
defective part, and that plaintiff did not state to him at any time 
thet there was any black, or dark, or defective part. ‘The engineer 
stated, positively, that the color of the coupling was graye There 
is nothing in Bartlett's testimony to support plaintiff's assertion 
that the coupling was in any way defective. It is worthy of note that 
when Mre Bartlett was on the stand he was cross~examined by plaintiff, 
and answered that a laboratory test was made of the pin and collar, 
yet, plaintiff did not ask him what the laboratory test showed. Taking 
the testimony in its aspect most favorable to the contention of plain- 
tiff, together with all ressonable inferences, we are impelled to the 
view that it does not establish the cmtention of plaintiff. 

Plaintiff testified that he was traveling ten miles an hour, 
The statement that he gave to the insurance edjuster in the presence 
of another witness was to the effect that he was traveling 2t the rate 
of twenty-five miles an hour during = rain. While traveling at a speed 
of twenty-five miles an hour he swung over too far to the right and 
struck a soft spot in the shoulder of the road and the trailer broke 
loose and went into a ditch and turned over. The treiler was eighteen 
feet in lencth and was carrying, at the time of the accident, a load 
of seven tons. At the time of the accident plaintiff had been operating 
the truck (consisting of o tractor and the trailer) for about six weeks, 
and the truck had been in continuous operation, having proceeded on 


several long distance hauls. The fact that the accident happened does 
net authorize a presumption that the defendant was negligent. The 


burden was on plaintiff to prove by competent evidence, direct or 


circumstantial, that defendant was guilty ef negligence in the 
























ar 


wigeed aid mt tatog ono YA semusoue? a tom boa teed B Beatie itehoo 


cae bovlan. nostw .tevewod yrofoo mi yety ab Lepee wart’ boteta eof yon 7 
! — ehoeta ot evofoo seveanytnond cxm otond todd biea st nomeaonp abtzesqa 
Me elosld 20 <tzsb yea cea Jon bbb ed dele _ylevtt baog Paetede an 
emis yoo te mid of edeta dom O£b Iiivekslq edd fees eitag ev ivostsn 
es _ Teonigne of? stag -svitosteh to yilush to <toatd yors” uae etedd dats 
, _ ones «Yoty saw yailguos edt to toloe edd datld «uterks ee 
i maids THseR altiivatel¢ txoqqva ov. yeoul dae t atisoleawd ab gietton “at 
ast eden Yo wituow at Jf .evitosteh yew yore nck naw amklesos edt “taut 
eeatels: vt honimens-ciaets agi esl brava oft mo new ttelirem oie stort 


ancien bne ake orf? to chem caw decd yroderoiied a dentd bemoans: 2 Sn 


ke ‘to kad etd ot eltorovst teom Sosqaa wth mt ‘aiden Pte 





a od holLeqmi ots ew , agonoto'irck éhitenwenis AL Eat tostieged a VRE 
“ettivmialy to nolinelgeo off daildatae dom acok@ b tadd iid i 











Zi sia m3 aoli« cot snifevem sew ‘ost dents Holktivaos Weesudaege oc 
7 Somene edt, gi cedeuthe eomriwar katt obvevey ed dauxld: tremetada: eit 
etet ost fe omifeverd aaw ed dads Joatte oft of maw meet Br reridons 20 
bepye: sis anifevest efit nha a nonkgyd cerosh ms: aolin erika ytnowd to 
| bas jeigit. os? 62 Yet cod tevo aranre acl two me: wetdor erent 
| -eatoer cofisst edy.ome heox oft to. sebineda end ot toga tos 2) aos" 
_ moti? aw toliett of .. teva bares. ‘brea. baal bal 8 otek. tnow ania 


a 


Mee 


Rice RIN 


atu 
manufacture or assemblage of the trailer. This he has failed to do. 

In view of plaintiff's contention that defendant should 
respond for all damages incurred, it is difficult to understand why 
plaintiff, in his telegram of Jenuery 9, 1934, tendered to defendant 
the sum of °187.250 and demanded delivery of the trailer. That amount 
aggregated the instalment that fell due on December 11, 1933, plus 
the $100 deductible insurance. If plaintiff was right in his conten- 
tion that the accident was caused by a latent defect in the coupling 
piny then there is no reason why plaintiff should suffer a loss of 
$100. While plaintiff testified that he did not go back to work with 
the Tribune until the middle of February, 1934, the undisputed fact 
now is thet he did go back to work on December 29, 1933. That is 
about the time the trailer was repossessed. He then refused the offer 
of defendant to deliver to him another trailer, giving him credit for 
the payments he had madeée A ressonable inference is that plaintiff, 
realizing the difficulties encountered in achieving success in the 
trucking business, decided to abandon that business, and he accordingly 
returned to his former employment. ie are of the opinion that there is 
no basis in the record for the damages found by the jury. The damages 
claimed are remote, and not supported by the evidence. 

Plaintiff complains that the telegram and the letter from the 
defendant and the conversations with Mr, Bartlett after the trailer was 
repossessed, show a design to mislead plaintiif to his injurye The 
telegram of January 10, 1954, told plaintilfr to see Mr. Bartlett in 
reference to “your trailer. He will handle," and the letter of January 
ll, 1954, advised plaintiff to “see him (Mr. Bartlett] and he will 
handie the matter in a satisfactory mamer.e" At the time that the 
telegrem and letter were sent, both parties knew that the trailer had 
been repossessed and sold to a stranger. The only reasonable con- 
struction to place on the telegram and letter is that Mr. Bartlett, 


defendant's agent at Chicago, was to discuss the matter with plaintiff, 


“it~ 

woh of Holter val ed ated? anotletd odd 29 epeliduesas te euittoeivnsm . 
“pivarte duabnetob tankd Gollestone a titiaial; ta weiv of Fieha 

Yiw beoturebeat.ot divoitieb afb vs ebesmweni esgemch Lis sot bmegaot 

| tpobreteb o¢ bovebaet ¢hSOL .2 yreunel to memmelot aid ad sPtitnbetg 

dnvomns gad?! 4 tekkews edt to yreviled bobacmeh bus Cae Vale ‘to ame eds 

avg «SCRE .Li sedmesed uo ovh [Let tanld tnomiatant oft Setepetages. 

-notmoo aid mi dripic saw Dtivmictg TL esomstwant eldivoybed OO.Lt edt 

ss aiekiquoo ost mi tected dnotal s yd beauso sow Jasbioos ott sods pol 

% avol a s9eTine Sluode Tiitnisld yw sossox on al overt nesly, erie 

Htiw duow oc fond og dom bib oof jusd beiltiacd Itiinkela oti ’ OoLG 

goat botugaihny off .5b0L «yteutde” to eLobim ont Lhinu ecg tat oat 

Bk dad} Goel .kS tedsieoet no Azow o¢ Hosd on B15 off jadt at wos 

woiio eff beuw'iot mend olf ,heaaeareges acw rsliexd eplt embs ote Iuods 

Zot sthote mis anivig «tellers tedvons mis ot tovitab of tnobreteb to 

Mudntely @ teds al goneteini eidanmeset A + %b.sn Daal oet ‘Roneayeq ould 

ond mi aneooue gnivelsos ai boted nue one: aed Do222.28 ods pabsitaer 

whaish ire. 26 oi bose ,seeniansd tests nobreds od hebios ehaen test poisonstd 

at ered dae d sol ncae eat to oma a ic pecs ahah. seh remot shel oF bat eign 

aegansb on? ewust als ud bento aogamah ali z9% byosex axl sit Bhaad on 

soanabive al vd betsogqua Jon bre dome " dem io£e 

ens out tgddel od bua morgeled outs dads anielgmos shot aseee iM 
aan weLisnd end cotta ttoLirad tit afd tw anoisaatevnoo ons Sas dnubpeted 

ont wyingat ois ow Ti ivebelg baoLs Ln ag maiaeb & wors : benaveaogot 

gt tvolixveh eM aga 03 titatele b£od (ehcee eOL AS otal bind motgoLod 
Ysavnel Fo sodded out ors " OLB onsets Lik oti, stelierd ENOY" OF Pepe ze ten 
iLiw ed boa [ttelenon tM) mite een" ot Tiliniely basivyea apeed eit 

ost dats omits exis Go, Wa SC Beant sae tod nets isos 6 mi tel tant bev pibaee, 

bed tellext edi daxld went aoks Wag, shod. adnee erow teddet bun matyeted 


“00 efdanocees Ying eft «tenmerts 6 oa Aine: bow beayensoget sed 
etdelirsd » au feds ak sodden ‘brs ‘pargeled | oe £0. eoele. ed potiousia 
stti¢mtale déiw reddea edd @avos i od ‘gow edgeo tad ta drege a'tnabmeteb 


-15< 
As a matter of fact lr. Bartlett did offer to deliver a new trailer, 
which was ready, and to give plaintiff credit on the payments that he 


had theretofore made. As we have seen, the offer wos declined by 


plaintiff. 

Plaintiff also points out that defendant threw away the piece 
of steel involved in the dispute, after defendant knew that the produce 
tion of that piece of steel would be an important factor in the decision 
of the cose. We do not believe that the evidence Shows that the piece 
of steel was deliberately thrown away for the purpose of preventing its 
use in evidence. In any event, there is no evidence which estezblishes 
that the accident was eceused by a latent ecfecte 

Plaintiff contends that defendant could not teposcess and sell 
the trailer without first recurning the payments thet he had made there- 
On, and cites Enicht light Coe v. Morrison, 205 Ille Appe 503, 510. The 
doctrine announeed in that case Cannot be applied to the factual situa- 
tion before us. We have held that the record does nos contain any evi-~ 
dence that the accident was caused by a latent defect, thereforo, at 
the time the trailer was Sold plaintiff wos in default in his payments 
under the conditional Sales contract. Being in defeult ana not having 
shown any valid reason why the instslment Should not be paicy defendant 
was justified in repossessing and selling the trailery 

The trial court was right in sustainine the motion of defendant 
for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Therefore, the Judgment of 
the Municipal court of Chicaco is offirmed. 

JUDGIENT APF INWED. 


Sulliran and Friend, JJ., concurs 


| eee 
, atalions woe @ yavifeb o¢ “otto. bib deedéiual «I ¢oat, to, cad tom, & BA 
en Sanit admashyo7 atkt 0 tEhone Tibdnteta evig oF Brow aoe san aaw dotdw 
yd. benifoed aow yot%o ofs <m9eRe evar! ow aA  .@DSa eto tol exeny hast 
ye Bat atela 
sogig ese Yous, etda sosbreteb gedks JLo ad mow oala Tibd niels, 

mouposd esd dail’ wopal inubcoteb cette cetuqadh oes i, bawLowrt foots ‘to 
moiaiged ais mi todoat dnatmogml a6 ag b Sow toode *0 bontg. gests “te sole 
aged. ils tists. ai.08 ona 9 ors SbETS ony das ave itod tos ob oN (49859 ant ‘to 
adh. gake mer Oxy to saogiug oti rot yeirs avotad fetered’ten, aa, poast. te 
epslalidedso so ihy gonebive on ar onedt «tires Ene fu fe -sonohtve ah ean 
shoots. tnetal s 5 WA beavao Bay inebiens. oe se 

Lion bre wesaegst Ors BLge.9. drebroteh ted abnedaoio Bk ibiake lt a : 
roves , obam pat of dads, esrosneg, ait aniousiot tacit duodd tw reliant? | oxta 


eslt a ORS, 4808 eggs ell GOS: aBDBATEON. 2 av ae 





4 ees to bas. a 80 
ned ie Lupton aft od beilgae ed soruia?. seco dad seh bsonworne enitieeb 
~ bye Ys mies pao son segb, DiO82% ood, dade oLen. eye ov » 8 ogp 30d. ero id 
$e a ORD ROTOR. shoe ted dretel «&. 04 “peemne agit. ¢ meh LOSR sald tadd pone® 
sbuberag aid ob dialed ob esw ttisaiedg pfoe aw moliasd odd oats, wuld 
gasvad Por Dees jiya'tod mt auted. -tontimos relad Larold tones, edd cebmk 
gnobroteds «diag ed Jpn &Lueeia, saomiad ant ass ‘glw NOBHOT, Sifev ea ewoste 
stoalient sats gertiiee brs gatuneasoue %, ak portnicar | aay 

Paabsoted xo xoldom ad? grimterans wi tele aa Tue Lei est, 
to dnemgbul, ely <stoterall sothssy oalt axthnagodt tor 2 





St e rot 


 pomektts ak ggcsidy to tim Lag to dest ony 
MITE THRE 


 prtronoe, «<2 broke bee, sorb tae 
N , My Be Abs, 
x sae 
Mi 


40430 


UMMA Le MORRISSSY, 
Appellee, 





MUNICIPAL 
Ve 


Pad a 


COURT OF CHIC’ We 


2999 1.4. 609° 


MRe PRES DDING JUSTICN BURKs DILIVineD TH OPINIOW OF THS COURT. 


RAYMOND Le MORHISSSY, 
Appellante 


ee ee 


= 4 


be 


On May 28, 1938, plaintiff filed her statement of claim 
in the Municipal court of Chicago, in which she sought to recover 
from defendent the sum of $975, based on an agreement attached te 
the complainte ‘The statement of claim, the agreement attached 
thereto, and all other proceedings had, are the same as in case 
Gene Noe 40546, except that the recovery here sought is for a 
later period. . 

Defendant prosecuted this appeal from the judgment entered 
and in this court the appeals were consolidated for hearing. The 
opinion filed concurrently herewith in case Gen. Noe 40546 embraces 
the points raised herein. Therefore, the judgment of the Municipal 
court of Chiceco is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions 
to overrule plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's affidavit of 
defense, and for further proceedings not inconsistent with the 


opinion filed in the case of Amma L. Morrissey ve Naymond Le 


Morrissey, Gene Noe 40546. 
REVERSED AND HEMANDED, 
WITH DIRECTIONS. 


Sullivan and Priend, JJe, cmcure 


ObDOB 





oe 
( “ _ YESRTSAON et Ama 
i eookbeggn 
oo, ‘ 
i i * 
OO AOS Ta TAI S ( 

( ome SOLFO el. ROY At 

| Sug it oh 


“e038 A.Tees 


eTHVOD ENT CO WOXWTIO KEY CHR VERLAG SRRVa ROTTaNL pune yee 


Misio to inometede vert bekit Ttieatela .Sl@L .88 yall x 
wwyoset oF diguoa ode MoGiw mi youachds te dines Leg ihoimil ote eh 
et Retonsss IME ST Be mt AG heaad geet te me ade fmabaotsd most 
bedgedta Inomonmys ots gukale 6 oxomndatn ect .tutelqmeo ex? 
eso xi as emo eat ons ehed egittboeseng tendo fie fame x08 exorts 
# 82 ek tppoe ered yxew vex aly ¢ads droome ason +08 ona : 
abo ireg nega 
pexoane dasambet afd mont Iseque witt bespoeadts Sntabwe ted : 
sdf .gaixcad sot setabifoanso oxew ateecqe and eso aid? mt ee 
ascerdins BDSG) 20h «MOP and mi dt twensal iLénewyonoe bagi ‘nodndgo | 
Kagtn teat oft Teo teromieh aid 2st teovedT setotodt bor her Wider ets 
areltoonth Soiw ,oedrnastet seyae eft tee yheate@ver sk onwolno te ame - 
Yo vivebitie u'dashoeted ofbeye of nokiom aitiintels olunnere oF ts 


en? dilw dmesatacoont Jen wantboosixg tettivt ot See ‘<aeneteb 


25, beoeyget «yy yeas lero od wisi sg Seno eds - “it baste alate vei) 


. «SO dBOA on on Poe 





2TatnsMun GWA USERIT TH 
saUGITODsiIg BT LwW 


stone o goSG ebrokte Ans sewhliwe 


40249 





GEORGE A. BOSO0k 






aPPEAL FROM 
MUNICIPAL COURT 


BIRK BROS, ARuythe Yo., 


a corporsti 


O# CHICAGO. 


S99 L.A. OL Q' 


Appellee, i 


BR, PRESIDING JUSTICH McSURELY DSLIVERED THe OPINIOGR OF THE CUURT. 


Plaintiff, an attorney, sppeale from a judgment in his 
favor for $50, entered upon the verdict of a jury in a contract 
action wherein he alleged tit he had been employed by and performed 
legal services for the defendant worth $305. Derendant alleged 
that it had paid him all moneys due for his services. 

Defendant corporation was a stockholder in the Rockford 
Brewing Company of Rockford, Illinois; Frank J. Birk, defendsnt's 
vice president and secretary, sl#o was vice president and a 
director of the Rockford company; in September or Gctober, 1936, 
believing the Reckford company would go into bankruptey, he, acting 
for defendant, had several conferences with plaintiff, who was 
asked by Birk to acquire for deiendant, by purchase from The Licuid 
Carbonic Corporation, the chattel mortgage on a bottling machine 
which had been sold by that corporation on a conditional sales 
contract (or chattel mortgage) te the Rockford company; alter 
acquiring the mortgage plaintiff was to replevin the wachine from 
the Rockford company in the nave of Huge Goetz, the agent of @efen- 
dant for that purpose. 

Pursuant to this, plaintiff purchased at a discount, for 
about $7300, the mortgage owned by The Liquid Carbonic Corporation 
and prepared to replevin the machine, 


OSEGR 


; — oA OLGA 


Me liogga \ 








werk amity | Le 
TAG HALA. - 
«TRATES KO 


0 19 AL ee v4 


TAMOO AE Xo HOLT o MY CURVES YuRom BP TTY QEICTONAT me 


eid ad fasagdut, » aas'l @lascge ,yerretia oe eben ae 
 fomtdaes a af veut o Ye Fo heey oh aedu Beredan , COO 402 reve't 
boato'tten bas yd beyotone need Sad at d 0d ego tin ba weibrere Hodes 
bagelia tusbasie® § .20f¢ Mot Pashas teh add set eeebriew Gages 
ese tvese Ghd wet ak eyeaom Le mkt Mee bi eR odd 
kaetdecK edf a& tohleidoete « ser soli oreqios tanbew tet, 
“B  pmobav teh [Wxee 0 awe Pekond LT (deoliwe To ynqued gatwert 
Ree Fash isete ee dy esw ente ~ytadetoos baw dmeblaote soir 
| Wena shacalpiagie te tedwarqes ab Teimesen Brook odd. "te segoetth 
eae ode SWEEGUERTG Hebw agoneee tags Lavoren has <taabegian xe 
hivedd ott wert aaucorng ys ,sahooe toh TO? aries of arid yd. owns 
siding galiveed o ag agagttioa Jaldeds at ,woliensqsed shaadaad 
aties Saneks lines ut HO Hod Co DOGs Ow dane ys bles need bast ia btw 
notte 2; yawgieo brotkeol ei oF legagdion sectedy te), Foardn¢0 
moti exkvicast mg atvaigon oo ewe Tritalaliq oagirox om ‘guin hues 
-aw tes to taege od? .atoo8 ogee le pn Be wilt ab Yoke gato Hratalogh eit 


eeoweny tase eb deb 


“ot ,tavonelh & ta beeaoved inane eet of tasvexe’ 
sektorqqno® olmedtn® bhuphd oct yo bemvro oymattos O87 COTE tuoda 
 wildoas o mivetaey of beteagetq Sas 





b. 


o2e- 
ir. Birk testified that when plaintiff was orixinally 
hired, in September or October, 1936, Birk asked him what his fee 
would be, and when told (300 Birk eaid that was high for an ordinary 
replevin, to which plaintiff replied taat this wae more or less 
complicated; Birk then said, "I wiil give you 350 en account and 
$250 more just as soon as you get titie for ue for this eyuipment,” 
and that plaintiff agreed. A letter dated Ociober 10, 1936, 
coniirming this was received ty plaintiff, in which Sirk anid, 
“I am enclosing a check in the amount of 350 ** pertaining to the 
Liquid Carbonic matter, It ie understood that this paywent is in 
full, unless we obtain possession of the bottling unit lecated at 
the Rockford Brewing Company, at which time we will pay you an 
additional $250.00." Birk testified that plaintiff was to "give 
us title to that machinery and we were to pay hin §3500,* 

After plaintiff arrived in Kockford to rveplevin the 
machine he found that bankruptey procesiings had been commenced 
against the Rockford Brewing Company; he filed a reclamation 
petition in that preceeding and then learned that the trustee in 
bankruptcy contended the chattel mortgage to The Liquid Carbonic 
Corporation, purchased by pluintiff for the defendant, was void 
because it was executed without suthority of the board of directors 
of the Rockford Brewing Company, Facing this obetacle, plaintiir 
requested of Birk an additional $200 as compensation for the extra 
work which he claimed was not contemplated in the original agreement. 
In the discussion Birk expressed disappointment in Plaintiff, tried 
to bargain with him for only $100 additional, and teld pinintifr 
that he (Birk) had en agreement with him te "get title te that 
equipment for $300," but finally, as defendant was anxious to get 
the equipment, Birk decided to pay plaintiff the additional $200, 
totaling $500. Plaintiff testified that his arrangement for fees 


at “that” time was “that for §500 I was to see that the mortgage 


TS saa 
























Vsitetde bere emer TE ah 


Sat a gyi Tesi vad ry BO re aw p 
| Meatsne ME TOS shy a 


£¢ Mose tans nei yee 


& .bber 1TH Pae5g to 








mm Hs - 
A aw deste Adega Hale oogs biog west ee iad hue 
RRL To wero o Oa & hie dessa Se itges This be he 19 ky 9g wt, 
Sas Saws oig he bad uo Wels df ie a” Bhew Wess tebe vi 
- * Pte bso aitt 26% ay lt Abt ks Som is 
6 OB GL Pes Td yey Pere Tetser 4 


| Slee deez He 2° 


sak TE Ad, 
weit Li aay 


hey esa 
OG % te FSB ne, Me 
taets 


EMLi dmg aw 
uae ab asin @ kag 
dae Asteves tans 


hea bea Lens Ri 
i L00K9 ME Wey gy otee 
nly Mere Ley 


RRS En kg ax & beeey oat | 






ate Sensing ey Ta © Bathe ona dha. 
ry Shee bacadt 


ose 
that Birk Bros, Brewing Co. had bought from The Liquid Carbonic 
Cerporation was recognized as valid.” 

Plaintiff wae suceessful in upholding the validity of 
the chattel mortgage as against the contrary claim of the trustee 
in bankruptcy. ‘This was on February 5, 1957. Filaintirf then sent 
defendant a bill for $500, for services rendered “in oandling 
Reclamation Petition as well as negotiations with The Liquid 
Carbonic Corporation, vith ir. Goetz, with the Trustee in Bankruptcy," 
In defendant's statement of defense it amits the agreement to pay 
plaintiff §500, and says it tas paid him this in full settlement 
ef all claims. 

If the proceedings had terminated st this stage the present 
suit never would have been brought. Hovever, plaintiff teetified 
that sbout February 10, 1937, several days alter the validity of 
the mortgage had been upheld by the referee in the bankruptoy case, 
both Birk and Goetz telephoned nim and said, “the owner of the 
building won't let ue take the machine..." 

The Rockford Brewing Company did business in a building 
leased from Rockford Storage Warehouse Company, hereafter called 
landlord, then in receivership; the machine te be replevied irom 
that building was sbout 3 feet wide, 25 feet long, 14 te 15 feet 
high and was located on the first floor, prejecting through « hele 
inte the secend floor. 

Plaintiff testified that within a day or two after the 
phone call above referred to, Birk came to his office, and st Birk's 
request and in hie presence plaintiff phoned Thomas Gill of Re cklord, 
the attorney for the trustee in the landlord proceedings, who 
gaid they did not care for the equipment but wanted a bend te 
gusrantee that all damage done to the building on account of the 
removal would be repaired. ‘e alse wanted the opening in the floor 


of the second floor replaced. Shortly afterwards Gill prepared a 


wn 
eisod tay hive ia wat aon’ ttaver Gad . eG gaidwerl werd ae te danald 
* Slise aa Awahagooes dil no ktenoused 

we eiibise v ose gakbLodesr at dateeoemne aa Sehtatast 
eevawsd oti to mba te Teach we wes tecions va euagiton fezsaco ent 
saae wee Vikd ates EOL; & sgesuredo% He. any ebay yodqwestaed ak 
gk Lira ah” bwiebass savivaes wok Aire aot fond a smobwo'teh 
Rane se amt atic enttvelfeqen an Liew aa sole tta% noid amaloed 
* tat sear shen ef at ootuwet ad? adlw jetee® wei dodo 9k twtoqeed otnodesd 
yay od tan a62 740 ant atiatw 92 ee owed be tmenetate | a! ' teabsetop nt 
Se sot ‘ents fo he te 

timassy ue “agaie whit $m bedwsibrtas. gael sanabonserg ‘sas his 
bebiti nna ‘ibs ake fe {covbwed -feigsiond asad aved b kwon sevee hun 
to veins fev ond Tet ta aged feiero8 a Oh Yresredo rooste bad? 
96a5 yeteunined ade at ‘Seiatee ait, yS Bhs ssigar aes ism ‘ognpaiton pelt 
eis to tsnes esi” Bise hae mis hemedgeted aren hae 22i€ dited 
: ih 4s athenkstomin, 93 Bes ati el o aa paki Lind 

garth iu ao al pasate ud bl qaaqaes galveud ore higol, at 
beliag xea'toer9 1 wane IoD sauiostoxal eperose brotsoed ign hows d 
eiarrd bodve toon “a ot aainben ass satderp ys oven ak ees brotha £ 
teat Ox a) BE aol toot of .obkiw feet @ awods. “gow yak du daats 
hes yo sgarorsis anivosterg meer’ sands alt ae pvseaos now frat Spiel 
: stool t haoves es otat 

ant nad te. get "8 we w date bw doste boLtivast vhvabast 











a'aaid ge bie yandito s wit 8 sits wate Lot beriete avede ‘btes anergy 
bretag of to ith neiont “hennuley trevaterg ao sOROTE an at. be taowpot 
odw punks nop On nratinee ‘ead ad optansy ald ao ot ‘parodia ads 

ot bod « Bed aee tad ‘doe buna: ani, rot ete fen hb yous Siow 

ant Toa dauigoon Ao ans ‘thai! wate id ‘eneh panand. fad ass entasteny 


nagdn gail ait gatesce od borane ‘eats on hechagon vid bLivaw kavomes 
a baraqeag i120 noaaorade badinas “boone teoet bo 








o4e 
petition to force defendant to r place the tleor and subsequently 
served plaintifY vith a copy of the petition wiich he wae going 
to file in @ Rockford court on February 20th, claiming ‘ne machinery 
had become a part of the building because it was built in and could 
not be removed witheut serious dawage to the tuliding. Pisintiff 
said he told Birk they must be prepared for vebvruary 20th and that 
Goetz must be in Rockford for the hearing; that birk eaid, “by all 
means speed up matters”; that plaintiff told him a reclamation 
petition would speed up mattere but that plaintiff could not do all 
this work without additional compensation. Plaintiff teatified tinat 
nething was said about the particular amount of fees to be charged 
in the landlord case, but as he recalled, Birk asked “How much are 
you going to charge me?" and plaintiff replied, “Depending on the 
amount of time expended,“ te which Birk replied that he would pay 
"what was right." 

Plaintiff tiled an answer and a reclamation petition 
in the Rockford landlord's preceeding and the matter was referred 
to a referee; three or four Jearings were held in Kockford, two 
before the referee and one or two before the judge; plaintiff 
prepared a brief for the referee in this iandlord matter and, being 
successful, Gill filed objections; plaintiff prepared another 
brief to meet these objections, and the rejeree's report sustaining 
Plaintiff's position wae later approved by the court. Judgment was 
entered recognizing that Goetz's mortgage wae superior to the land- 
lord's lien. On the same day Birk wae in plaintiff's office and was 
told whet tranepired. afterwards the machine wae deliverea to 
defendant, 

As to plaintiff's claim that on February 15, 1937, he was 
employed by defendant in the landlord case, where the landicrd cone 
tended the maciine had become part of the realty, Birk denied this 


employment, saying plaintiff was retained in 1936 to get title to the 


she 
qidmeupeadse bus teed ed? seaiqoa of tuabaateb cote’? of add Lt 94 
gaie, sav aa dolow aAeisisag aS? ta yute a2 it ke Tittatela bevase 
yrenisesas #0! nukeleaio ,wiog qtausdet No ¢2aet Stoldea # ak shai of 
pives Bas mi $ihed eaw $4 eawaved gabbibws ade ‘to dueg & smaond fiveat 
tthkealer@® seahhbcaws @cit 08 Spanad ‘godtes: suo ie bavomes od ton 
tase bow AF08 yewirdel «ot beta gexq of deum yous auld pled od base 
ite ye" ,bloe auld tadd sgabicod ons tot bretdeed ad od tame atecd 
| dobveneives, a abs bios thivatese sasalet ;*atedtom aa Seog aise 
fic @h fom hiwey VYiliaiaig @adt imi erasten gu beage binow mols iteq 
dais Kedikeeed Witatert .asltenasquer Lanodsihin suedthe-aeew ate? 
fegiats od of aoel te tagoms te lvok yang att tueda bles eam gatston 
wim dom Wek” bedas old ,boideoot oA an oud oneo trotinst one ak 
ails me gadbaeqed” , be heqo Tiedake ty baw * tem oy testo ot aston BOY 
tae ‘binew oh tous betigos sig 8G iia hate ot * Robins omits te drome 
* daly be anew tad" 

noid ieeg iMmitemetoes « boa te eE Re ac beLkt Thidalert 
Setteist sav sotiaa est bon ecthsoseng a! sredbaat bretteall out ad 
ony , Brotsood ai Siow anew: agaktded 106 on eeuld joorsten & of 
‘Yitgalel regbul oud exgied ewt 16 ane ban tw ast oxeted 
gated ,ba asttan brofbas | aide nl gexs'tex oad te? tenes a batag tq 
rend ona honageng Yiitshalg jancssoetdo ‘bo ttt £620 , twhesovowe 
gidaiedane Preqex atoovetet edt bas \anolsoatdo oxeds soon oF dated 
Baw ea la eFteon ait got bevorgga teteal Baw nats teoe a’ Viinkele 
wf ene £ ost of te bus que aw agape tom ‘ ‘asso tasis gattedagooon boreine 
ane be aot? te wr Tse: Niadg ak aaw airs Rik we SREB acid a witb 6 ot brok 
of peteriieh sav salsaam ee edreawaet tA sboxkganext “taste Dtot 
. : stabao teh 
eaw od ,TEOL SL yeaurde ao sustd adele a! Ythtabetg ors 2A z 
ongo bteibust ent etedy , oan brosbans aid rs snobaetes w doyetaae 
aids holooh AedG ,¥tioos ashi ko 10g sugoed had ‘eubseon ‘ont ‘ebass 


PERCE hoe acd ay Se 


adv of of4hd toy of GEOL at pentetet aa” Vbeate Le ‘qaiqen , fannye tase 


in 


--= 


equipment and there was no additional deal; he didn't recall having 
a talk with plaintiff about fighting the landlord's claim but said 

he had defendant's agent, Goetz, either phone or call on plaintiif; 
Birk also eaid he didn't knew about the specific suit entitled 
"Reckford Storage Warehouse"; however, he paid the bills to put the 
building back in shape. Wis testimony was to the effect that plain- 
tiff was hired te get “title” to or "“poesession” of the machine, He 
used these two words interchangeably throughout hie testimony, He 
said he was at no time interested in the legal procedure necessary te 
obtain the machine, 

Plaintiff testified that he devoted 71} hours to what he 
referred to as the Rockford Sterage Warehouse or “landlord"® suit; 
that the reasonable, customary charge fer such work in the United 
States Court is $5 an hour, but that he made a flat charge of 3300, 
plus a $5 expense, becnuse ir, Birk premised him other business from 
the defendant. This $305 charge is the subject of this suit, 

Defendant's trief asserte that plaintiff, while he rendered 
legal services in the landlord case, was not employed in any epecifie 
litication, but was retained for the sole purpose of recovering for 
defendant the bettling equipment on the premises of the Reexford 
Brewing Company. 

As stated above, the jury found in favor of plaintirr, but in 
aeseesing fees for his services, allowed him only $50, 

Defendant argues that because of the conflicting testimony 
the jury had the right and duty to judge the credibility of the 
witnesses and determine the ‘acts and must have concluded that bizk 
was interested only in the recovery of the equipment and that he 
had no particular interest in the legal proceedings necessary te 
accomplish that end; also that the jury obviously gave more weight 
to Birk's testimony with reference to his denbal of phaintiff's em- 
Ployment in the landlord case than it gave te plaintiif's testimony 


to the effect that Birk agreed to pay him “what wae right” fer his 


owl oe 
atives ikeood ft abi oe 3 dooh docedekhhe on aow voted? bos goomglape 
hiwe Sud aheio ot bredhnes ant gah dgki enote Ttltekete dtiwoafab.e 
;Vibtilelg Be ilew to wang welts be ,ktoed dicing u'eaehee tam Rima gal 
Rais diaa thie of eonge ent geodie wor 2! abib at Bie emla knee 
aad sey at eifid sav bing on dovewnd ;“sewndera® ogecede Bro tioedl® 
etis ig tents soot te off of saw ysowlivasd FR aque nd dowd gabe (hed 
of editses ead Yo “nohoasanse” wo of *a fete” gag ef bok eaw Bhbe 
| *8  ,¢temdiund ald Pwpiigewr ie Gideenacieeene anioe wwe eect heex 
ut ytraen@oaen exebeaety frye at ok betowrer ed woke ox fa naw oct boas 
ark doen alt mbeddo 
o8 tame ot atuedt 409 betovebh of goed fa ttisae¢ Tehrntart i | 
He “bracbaat® xp sewwdew® egerede beotdved elt ae of bertetes 
“hed ioe oat al avow gone «wt agnadty’ DD tant 
008% te egeede Jait @ shan oh dintte fod jee we 8b we wsreo atau’ 
aovt evontind ‘neiity wht Boulaietg 2014 .xX sawesed pweaeqe ee @ make 
thin eis ko fookdae wid aL oyu #669 wis? dvnnnw iow we 
herehuet of OLidw ,tTbhdakelg Jats sdtpace Yolo’ wo! daataw tot 
okiféagn Yaa ai Seyetqas fon wWaw jowew Miothaad vite ak evohvabe Eaget 
tet gukveveset te se ogvug ofec any vo' henteder wae ted” Meh sae kIEL 
byetioed ons “to Dace oe ona acacia anne eae tasbins "tab 
ak gud ,PRivateatg Yo tove't ak Sinner wea oy vv eit’ heoaie aA 
684 _lne wid Sewolla ,aovivree @ bit tet woot satvnoona 
guwniveed grttet ies o4% to setae dad? aeugta’ Suma beet | 
adt Lo yhtddsbens ond agheh oe Qh hee digit ert boat went, oat 
See todd babulones avast fea ht whys! och witcha to haw connont tw 
ot tas? fhe deonglups ge ty yeevooet wale wh ye hovnorntnd ane 
ot wWiasasoen agaihsoveng tagel ox’ ak daoued as ws Lio bain oat Bat 
tyler oven svag eleuolyda get ont: tute eele phe fads iio Lignesos 
one a Pigteladg ‘t¢ Ledowd eld or agitery'to% ‘ee ke rome et at seen ot 
ysiouattaey aM trivulele wf eveg he neni ake brotaiet oalt nt sree 
ated eet ®etata waew Dax tet ee oY bowrye dese oar joer ext wo 


abe 


services in that case. 


In Gonrad Seipp Srewing Co, v. Peck, 35 Ili. App. 637, the 


plaintiff appealed from a judgment in his faver for $100. His euit 
was Daeed on a note for (300 with interest, less an admitted eredit 
of $50 with interest. In reversing the judgment the court esid: 


"The verdict of $100,00 finds no basis whatever in 
the evidence. *** the evidence in support of the defense 
went to the whole note and not to a part of it. There was 
no middle groundupon which the jury might compromise. 
Under the evidence appellant was either entitled te a 
verdict for the amount due upen the nete, or was not entitled 
te recover at all. 

80, when the jury found the issues in favor ef appellant 
they ‘ound that appellant was entitled to a recevery, and 
they should have assessed its damages at the saucunt due upon 


the note. he could not rightfully e« éliant entitle 
to recover, tut it should have only s fraction of what wag due. 
nder the eviden 1 or noth ag due.” 


In Smedley v. Chicago & N,W, Ry, Gé., 45 111. App. 426, 425, the court 


said: “The jury found the injury was caused through the negligence 
of appellee in operating the train. How they fixed the damages at 
$100, when the undisputed evidence shows they exceeded $400, is in- 


solvable. *** If entitled to recover at sil, appellant was entitled 


te a verdict for the full amount of his damages proven,” In Galomo- 
Boulos v. Fetropoulos, 147 Ill. App. 1, the plaintiff brought an action 


fer $500, having paid $200 te the defendant to bind the bargain and 
$300 which he claimed he paid en the following day; the verdict and 
judgment were for $300; in commenting upon this the court said: 
"The evidence justifies a verdict and judgaent for §500 in fever of the 
Plaintiff, of a verdict for the defendant. It is an action ex 
Sontractu, and if the jury were justified in finding against the de- 
Tendant it should have been for $500." 

in the inetant case the evidence in support of the del'ense 
went to the whole and not to a part of plaintirf's Claim, based on the 
alleged contract for his services in the landlord case, entered into 
February 15, 1937. Plaintiff, if entitled te recover at all, should 


have recovered $305, as his testimony as to the value of nis services 


ad» 
wae gaat ms weoivree 

ody SRO sg@k LE 88 (Mee wv 10D gotwost goted Sueno al 
tive oi = ,OUL9 tet were? ale at $ 00m wages is & sterx't be toeega Vitdatete 
sibous bereinte me weet ,teotesd? addin DCA) «ei ation 4 ee hosed eaw 
ibies g44es oaF Vaeaghat off yalsseres al senesutak oo bw oad to 


at sevevecne wkend on Shalt 06.6010 Te tothaer oat® 
ganmeteh sit to dtocyme al agnetive ett 8% ,secehive ont. 
eae ose? fh Yo freq a of Feo bie Ofer atetle act of taew 
spaimexquea tiygim yret oi maior sequbsagty, eLbhie om .. 
gg ge Rta ee ae tomhie ame Few tisgua agaebivs a2¢ soba 
be if tim Joe fer to ,oheu BT AOgH out’ Joes: oft opt. ¢odoaey. 
tie fa tevener ef 
tuaifegge Ye xuvet si weaeeal eas Sawot etet eng poe .e8-.. x) 
bis ,Ytevenet a ao heliisow eae Seeliveqs seit anwet yeas 
Prof gen greapy re te aeanaeh ag A beenvoge weparl biwedie wesls 
ow tee ifenge wea yls poh b iiss Mea etsbem oul? 
d : eke Te seed ah rake 







irueh esl Oe Rd Va@k LT ad, Be ai tT 
Obie sb fgon aad Mgterd?s heaves aaw yrvta2 walt batge’t gust oat® ‘bbe 
de weyamih ofd bwekT yates Well .mieid elf anh s wieeo ak oe Ltoags ‘to 
sak ak ,OUSe Babheoze YART erode gonohive betuge thaw ox? node 0046 
bei iine Baw Shallogye Lis $2 neveoot of hoLikiag TI eee -eldavioa 
~gmoteo al” * every aehades a8 Lo tewyome Lint was tet folbany a of 
Koltoe ms thyw@ors “KTReMbely OM, £ cagA LIE VOL ,peduoms t Rasuoe 
bus akewted exo fat of duskneteb eatf 0f B09¢ blag aukvad 10088 ue 
bas gothtev edo reyes pabvoliot ef? ao Slag on bombale ‘gt Bodew o0re 





;kaw Hien oat aids aque gakessames ‘ak | 0088 sot Oto" taro ongh at 

od? to tove? at GOGk Hot sodmydSét Bae foldtev a eortivest ‘eommbive ont” 

se metver ga ak of » fash ae"bab ei? set golbaey te «Ftheatale 

eh ext teakege gibi mE nePierest atew grat wat th hea + wizextaoe 

| | *O0G8 tot mead avast bivouis a Foosba0" 
anaéteh ait to Moggi ‘ni vonshive on? eaao fandexk out ai ies 

gat mo bewad ,aials arribvataig te diag a af don bas eLoste ott or toow 

ant oii ok epodvron wks rot Senxtage bone kis 

iiveda fis # veveoes of Belsatme Us Magatest NEL at wiawredo 





ofne herein ,seno bv a 


sosivess @hil te oudew eld ot on waondsaed ake | ae 2086 horovoowt ved 


Te 
ie not contradicted. As was stated in_Melefr v. White Bagle Brewing 
So,, 204 111. App. 37,40, “Having found defendant liable ior breache- 
ing its contract the jury should have, by simple computation, eati- 
mated the damages ....” 

Defendant enys that even if the verdict was the reault 
ef compromise, sueh a verdict for plaintiif will not be disturbed 
en this account, citing cases. in the cited cases ine detendant 
appealed, whereas here the plaintiff complains. The courte Lave 
said thet it isbetter policy to end litigation by susteining a 
judgment for «© staller amount than waa claimed ond proved by the plaine 
tiff, whenever the plaintiff is satisfied with it, tnan to prolong 
the strife by remanding the cuse for a new trial. Central rust Co. 
¥. Suglin, 194 111, app. 294, (mot reported in full). Kernan vy, ad- 
vanee Terra Cotta Go., Zil iil. App. 416, siso involved an appeal by 
defendant. ogers ¥, Weller, 137 1il. App. 314, an action for a penalty, 
merely held that s compromise verdict was not involved where the smount 
“is within the range of the temtimony of the witnesees us to value and 
is supported by some such testimony.’ In the instant ease it ie ade 
mitted that no contradictory evidence on the question ef the value of 
plaintiif's services in the landlord case wae presented by the de- 
fendant. 

If plaintiff was entitled to recover under the facts as 
presented upon the trial he was entitled te recover the full amount 
claimed. "A jury has no right to render a capricious and arbitrary 
verdict in total disregard of the facts. A verdict sould be consistent 
with st least some legitimate theory of the evidence, cr what the evi- 
dence tends to prove, and must rest upon some sound principle; and where 


it is not werranted by any legitimate interpretation of the evidence, 
or of what may be fairly inferred from the evidence, it ought toe be 


set asife." Conrad Seipp Brewing Uo, v, Peck, 85 111. App. 637, 


The jucgment is reversed and the cause remanded. 
REVERSED AND Kis ANDED, 
Matchett and O'Connor, JJ., coneur, 


af a 


oe i, wb beseds aav Gar wean then eo tes at 





-taaesd tot ehiaki ttehoe tek Rawy't qaivan” Ob, 88 HA 42k OER , 09 
«lian ,dehiseuqace eiqmia yo ,o ved b Lucu yak wait Seartane ate gad 
* eee REQRRHH oHd botox 

Simot oct saw dolbuer ens I anve Jud ayo tnabae bee an 
becrpbieth ad son £L4r trirdiatg cer sokbtav ® Seas spataouqeas te 
fasta teh aad agene bos kD eat al .aedee gakase~ heated aiad ae 

ovat aviwen a6f tata tuwes TMitaia tg one even sania vn Sava 

# aie iia et aghsagivid yom of gosdog ‘sad tevel te tase ‘baa 

what gasp ye havate bree bende io, eid peaks Pro ‘70 chasm & 0% saaagict 
gnolerg of melt 92 Ab kw hand "bakitwe ee Whadabete one xavousale atte 


Agkrs wen o 102 Sean eas aabhnonet otitis oat 





4d Jeon se baviovmi eB.de eae BRA hhh SiS 5 190 02g. SOT OG 28 
Wianey.o set agven oe PAE qgh .dil Ves 324s _.¥ auegoll  edaihat’ 
favo ocd wsvty bavdersi Jen caw te tons eeleoiqmos « tat? plod fouem 


dae aude oc av agaagativ salt ‘ke yankee’ ast te oynat omy abet a b* 
he of th oxae Convant odd a * aoubtaet dous san ye batrogque es 
‘te aulay e4f to so Repup e485 ae apd hive Wratethariace ens “gait pede iee 

nb ml qe Getorsery war gaeo brokband ads ak seokvise orvutatote 


De AU <e goa 


ae 


oe atone? od? teban te youss ot beta kee ae viteadese a 
tavons Siwt el arene t oF bold Lene ew we fotxs oat aoaw hog anaorg 
yeondidre ata ateba kien # Rabe. af aeyea ant aa mt ae beatae 
inssatenos od Diners Muthvev A .atewh, sit te Seagorath tates ae ‘talbaer 
-iya gait fase io .houeive ede ie Mkonst vireo esses gases ta ‘aw 
cer ieee. H perce pee iyeetrenae t t 
728 quad .ik2 86° dogg .¥ so mee qgis2 bat 
. bola? ewmee edt Sia auabhtes ‘ed Soemgrst,, ost, eupentin t 
a a ee eT are 


oe Pe aie en aa re 2 Pay ee 






39692 







{wT 
8 trustee, 
ST COMPANY, 


CITY NATIONAL BANK AND 
COMPANY, a corporation, 
and CENTRAL RuPUBLIC TR 
@ corporation, as trust 





» PPLAL FROM SUPLRIOR 
pellants, 
COMRT, COOK COUNTY. 


, who + - ge 
4 299 J.A. 610 


._ppellee. } 


Ve 


WILLIAM H. iMGRY , 


a 


MRe JUSTICE FRISND DOLIVERED THS OPINION OF THs COUNT. 


Plaintiffs brought suit against William H. Bmery upon an 
instrument of guaranty made by Mre dmery together with certain other 
individuals, three of whom were appellees in cases numbered 39691, 
39693 and 59694. The four cases were consolidated on appeal and 
opinions were filed in the three foregoing cases on November 17, 1938, 
reversing the judgments rendered in those cases and remanding them to 
the Superior court with directions. 

On December 6, 1938, plaintiffs, through their counsel, 
suggested the death on October 28, 1938, of William He ‘mery, and 
represented to this court that on November 28, 1938, letters of ad- 
ministration had issued by the Probate court of DuPage county to 
Marjorie We imery, as executrix under the last will and testment of 
her husband, and they moved that in accordance with Pare 216, sec. 

92 (1) (bv), of the Civil Practice Act (chap. 110, Illinois Rewised 
Statutes 1937) an order of substitution of Marjorie W. ‘mery, as 


executrix, be entered in lieu of the defendant. That motion was 


allowed. 
December 27, 1938, plaintiffs, through their counsel further 


moved the court to revive and continue the cause against Marjorie ‘ve 


Gmery, as executrix, without a change in the title of the case, and 


AOTIEMS, MONT Lest 
_ «¥InVOS w09 «Tw 


nz ATees” 


[es As 


mc - ee sil wee 4H mpeicin ‘tenbage hank ‘wenes. seat tas 


gk ok 


PN 


to dngmsned bea Lfov deel edd ‘Soul yiveeients’ ea vi 


rou LT saat Md tW eonadtoods nt =i) evened b ely r 


~ @avr diel et steabmoteh wre Sie ta ‘ 





Why the order and judement of this court Should not be enterag 
against her as @xecutrix. That motion was likewise allowed, and 
Summons issued returnable to the 1939 February term of court, 

February 2, 1959, Marjorie w, Omeryy, as executrix, by coun= 
Bel, filed her appearance in response to the Seire facias, denying 
that error had intervened in the record, Proceedings or rendition of 
the judgment of the Superior court, and prayins that it be offirmed, 

The reasons set forth and conelusions reached in cause No, 
39691 are Controlling in this and the other Cons Olidated proceedings, 
William H. smery was the sole defendant in this Cause, and since unde 
the Abatement statute (Illinois Revised “vatutes 1937, chap. 1) and 
authorities construing it (Smithy ACHIX Vs iilmington Coel Mining & 
lifge Coe, 83 Ili, 4983 state of Weil, dectd, 291 Ill. Appe 208; Ols: 
Ve Scully, 296 Ill. 4183 Keith y, Ray, 251 I11,. 2133; Ue Sa ox rel, 
‘ilhelm v. Chainy 300 Us Se $13 Williston on Contracts, 1938, vol. 6 
sece 1945, Ppe 5449, 5450) contract actions Survive, judgment should 
be entered herein the sam as would have been rendered against Villi: 
He Umery. “eccordingly, the Judgment of the Superior court rendered : 
this cause is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to 
enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Marjorie \/. mer yy 
&S executrix under the last will and testament of William He “mery, 
@eceased, for the amount sued for, plus attorneyst fees, os previded 
in the instrument of guaranty, proof of which was expressly postpone 
until final determination of the Cause, 


JUD GELINT SVERSRD, AND CAUSE RSMANDED 
vI TH DIRUC TIONS» 


Burke, Pe Jey and Sullivan, Jos concurs 


=e 


¢xuoo als te waslo oid us exommue IS gonanaak eli axizendiue of 
eagan works dia yeas oF reel eth bersuato o seLiswaexrs 3S roa jantags 
perine ed sor afpede s2aoo mtii tO + evan arly bne teats ons “aw 


bas «sewolls eparweaili saw Hokvon tari eMLTINOSES 46 teh ganiage® 


~iusoo To mies er arid o% GEOL alt oF elds rent ot poreek antmane” 


cision Yd sxieoraexe es votes +V plrotzel @beL af ycostdol 


get dy rsd geeinst aiken ont oF eneoqeaer ml gare TSS7ES oc beLit foe 


%q mols rhae t TO agnibesoo tg ~buoses edt al aaqevreink bel tost? tec 
,bomrkite of 2 sacfd pabyetg oe aStvee ce rsoque ot to srempout als 
40% BESO gt bedoaot ano tapLanes baa Stet #96 groanet eat 
sagptboodotd patabifoame sesito cfd one ait? ot anitio soe oxa EBBes 
sous somtke sao -oause ant? ni taubapted eloa et) 4% noel oH ment Li 
Bee \t seats teed cedufada beelve® atonkiit) stutads sromoeded’ veri 
_ 8 patos Eset sosan att: Ck ede geht tera) HE grb tsa ne & aon beodtus 
wake © 1808 ore’ ohht ges ebiseb atte te stated, 7604 efit 6s 4200. at 
elor xe 08 20 12 oll seis .LiT £68 yeh oe ites aGLs «fit aes. pi Le 
@ wfov doer ~adoetd ned po moose REL EY 126: 4B oe GOR, 4 






i 


bLsere $reg hart .evivsns ano oa Powud 108 (GBDE _ Add «CF net 508 
ae ganiegs perebrar mood vat Pinow oe Gee edt nievad nexodne od 
. poxshnet JtHeo wokvoque ‘eae to deoomhyi. aad evhgaibians. erent ait 
od anoktoetl’ ae iw Kebremet at geyay ead one hearovet ak ents 28 alsa 


eset .W ekeo titel Fankess bre erttimtelg te xovet at snemebut a9dne 


eyrom «5 matiity Te tréemataod bas Liev gaod oad nobaws ehtquoexe as 


5%, SsaN 


moh teerg as <asoT rayon rosa: ewig »tol ooMe hata eis x01 «heanened 
onogtaee veastqee © cow staph 36 WOTd..« RUSTING, $e sowed anc ant st 


yohtipo, add poss ontarteted fant thera 


GaccMaMe® Bao CHA pear! TCG 
<MOTTOMTRE BE Te 


sy 


get rk nina bas ‘hak sot 


™ 


40339 SY 4 


HAROLD Re JONUS, C { 
Appellant, ~ 









OM SUP RIOR COURT, 
Ve 


K COUNTYe 
PAUL Je LSI TANLL, 


Appellee.) Y fi AO 9 TA. 6 1 0° 


MRe JUSTICS FRI GND DELL VaRSD THs OPINION OF THs COUNT. 


Harold Re Jones appeals from a decree of the Superior court 
awarding Paul J. Leitzell, defendant, an attorney at lawy $1,923.49 
for legal services rendered partially under a written agreement 
between Jones and Leitzell and also under an alleged oral contract 
for the partition of two parcels of real estate in which Jones had 
an interest as tenant in common with other heirs of his father's 
estatee 

The essential facts disclose thet plaintiff was the son and 
heir at law of Maxwell M. Jones, who died intestate January 29, 1928. 
AS such heir plaintiff was entitled to 2/9ths of his father's estates 
His mother was appointed administratrix shortly after the intestate's 
death, and proceeded to administer the estate from the date of her 
appointment until October 20, 1937, when she filed a final account. 
Mer inventory as administratrix lists various stocks, bonds and 
securities of considerable value, but did not comtain a parcel of 
real estate located at 3945 Hllis avenue, Chicago, nor 2 cash item 
of $1,951.10. During the nine year period of administration, the 
administratrix failed and apparently refused to file sny current 
accounts, and plaintiff was unable to obtain any information from 


her regarding the assets, receipts on bonds or stocks or other income, 
although he made numerous reauestce 


On November 10, 1936, plaintiff retained Leitzell as his 


FESOS 


5 


CN 2 eamen oat GLOWAH 
( ey dmatfegas 
Cg 
a ‘ e¥ 
a CX \ 
ae % <LISRT TST 6% quae 
. ae | Medien 





«PT PUGS oar TO BHOTHISO GH? CEeyv rea pa TAS = a 


7 dtu90 Tolsequa edd to seed @ mout ulseqas sano a biota ne 
OA ELC LO wal ve Yau in ne strnhineteb «ifestiat ot Lua ontbraws 
 Snemeotge netdiaw a tebmer vifeidve bersbast ssoivzen tenet to 
$ oattd oy lave begetia wa tebras obLe bre {fest ited Sri aeno% fess ed 
batt aenol Solnw mf ewteadas icot Yo alLesteq ows to aires, ond ish 

a trond ot eid jo aahed torto aiiw namie. nt tncres as feoredrs ms : 
_sotadae 
has foe eft esw Tibtetelg @ ait saoloadh atest slices oat 
sases (98h YtauRE) ‘etatasdént bok ofw Beno it Ifewxest +0 Wel ta tled . 
seterae e "Zend nt eid Yo add@\S ot boLtitne saw Viitnrale vied caue, Ae 
atodetsodmi and 1¢3it5 yYlinods zbitendtinintbs | bedniocas aew xoriton eet 
tod to otab sat cout cteteo off toddinimbs of bebeoooxg bre uiteob 


+ auoo98 fanit @ belt? onde ment ¢ Veer 108 redo s00 Lieu teen nioga.s 


bee Bbnod ,gatooda nue tary ateEr. Xitterdain tebe ae vroomovett wen 


to teotag s mateo dem bib oud goto oldstobsemos hol aot? uses act 
meri does © tom eogooldd eourrovs WELLE BSCE da bsdneos etatee inex be 

oft encitaretnimbe te bolxog “eey omin ond pik sutt (OL. La@ete to 
traTNO. Yas M£Lt of hewyter, Ylineisyqe bus boliat xbutetsainiabs 
mort roi¢aavetat we miatde oF ekdaca zaw Pkttatada ‘dirs. atsive son . 
eomoont muito to adoote to abgod mo atygiesoes pateaes edt aniite,et tori 
| “sodeeupos avotemun obant on dyworlt fs 


ain ea Lfestted bertesvex Titimtale .@ee@L .OL redmevol nO 


~2u 
attorney te represent him in obtaining an accounting and his share 
in the proceeds of his father's estate, under the following written 
agreement: 
"To: Paul J. Leitzell, 

111 W. Washington St. 

Chicago, Illinois 

This instrument does confirm my having engaged, commissionetty 
hired and appointed you as my attorney to represent me, personally, 
in all matters pertaining to my rights as the son and heir at law 
of liaxweil M. Jones, Deceased, whose istate is now pending in the 
Probate Court of Cook County, under the number appearing at the 
top thereore 

You ave to receive for your services previously rendered and 
to be rendered in my behalf, an amount equal to 25% of any amount 
of cash or thing of value that [ may receive os such heir from the 
&state of Maxwell M. Jones, Lbeceased, over and above any real or 
personal property heretofore inventoried in said Estate. 

Harold Re. Jones 
Approved Paul Je leitzelly 
attorney." 

Subsequently, in January, 1937, plaintiff requested defendant 
to file partition of a parcel of real estate at 4721-25 Langley avenue 
in Chicago, improved with an eight apartment puilding, and some time 
later plaintiff requested defendant to file another partition on the 
property at 3945 Gllis avenue, in both of which plaintiff had an 
interest as a tenant in commone Both partition suits were referred 
to masters and extensive hearings were hade The cases were prosecuted 
to the point where decrees of partition had been prepared, and were 
ready to be presented to the court for entry, when plaintiff and the 
othey owners of the property decided to settle their differences so as 
to save expenses, and accordingly both proceedings were dismissed on 
Plaintiff's motionse However, before dismissal, the court rereferred 
the causes to the respective masters for the purpose of fixing 
attorney's fees and costs, and they fixed the attorneyts fees and 
expenses at $1,323440 in one case and $15,209.40 in the other casey 
ageregating $25532e800 

It clearly appears that in the probate proceeding the admin- 


istratrix and her daughter, Florence, plaintiff's sister, assumed a 


defiant attitude toward plaintiff, and failed and refused to render 





——————— CCl 


asus ale bis gnidmmocos ne qrintsz side ni min Ineaeuges of youtosdde 
aottinw gniwolLot edt “Bin ,oletes stvesdst ele to abessetq edt at 
' " me | | 3 trremesng.s 
| eifeadiol .% Iyet rot" 

23S novamidaa’ »W £££ 

atom lil «tgaatdo 

«Boroiaulamos .begegre sntvad i arthinos asoh tneamrtient e bell 
eYilamoeieg «om IneResGOT Ov yenrotie wi as voy beyrntegqa bus betisd 
,, Wel ¢s thot’ bre nee ‘ose’ ‘ee edged wt ot umintedyeq avottan Lin ak 
. ett ot snibas won al atatal ocodw ,bouscosi ,a0noh »M Llewsel to 
‘edd te siykesodas tédettr edt tobe eytanod toed to tuned of sdort 
stooreds god 

bee bhetebmet ulswolverg gooivies tyoy sol evlsoot-ot ste NOY 
totioms yan to VES of Laype-Javons me .iletsd ya mi Senate od es 
ests Mott Xted Nova as syiebex Yam I geds Suiey to guilds to dsagq to 
<9 Esor Yor evods bs Tev6 .boesoosd , aemel ». Kh Llewxsk to. edetal 
atem Rise si belres reves sear lohmia' b li oli otaecialepeit 

Pes HLorsil 

rAfend fat ol Sat bevorae:, 
Ryorerto ¢ bs igh ges id 


Snehns toh Seteoupet Viivnialg ¢VECL eyraumst wt «wheneupesdwe .....,, 
eurrove ‘Yetenel Bk-L6Nb te esata Leos to Leomeg « To midiiaag efit of. 
‘emis MOR fais agai bi ine tromtisge dap bo me Mitw bevotamat sonen tte nt. 
at m0 molisézeg redtome eftt od Immbmoted boteeupes Tihtatele tetas, 

ne bad Tiidsiaty doit Se tod ak qaureve Blige ghee de yo xeqote 
“porretes evew ative rohihiweq dtot smoumo at mmenet @ an i secodms, 
bedurosuortg ovew Benco off bad otew apni teen ev fanetxe so ed 
erow Bere 28 Loqoty sped Sei no ividneg to acetoeh ereita dgieg ad om: 
add hes Yiiniele madw getide tet Pune ee ot S ebsip aes ed ot xheor 
eB O8 aeandioltib tied ofdiea oF bobkoed Ysreqetg eds Ww arenwo ost 


gto heeehaaks orew epitt fhe eoo "ne iiod etoukhitoons Bows eHoaegNe Oren at 





hevrrstoeres Saves odd yieaataekt al exevawols saroddom altiiniate 







WUEXIT to sueqtg ond rot ein coiaan evisooqest eit od BOEMED eet # 
Sné dest glyortzodic off boxit yaks time , deco baw eoed) re. 
e08H0 Torito odd Mi ObsCOReLe bus Sang ono HE Obetht, L) te aan 












* “mip inbas ott gaibossoig shade ny ote ak saute BEBOGE B 2 yieaete the; cm 
& hommees ,tesabe oo tieatanalig cSproeOEE, <Todegmal: seas fa. 
vobmet od besw tet bra bot dst bos ¢thivntate eumvitiiaheeblit ib ims. 


=3= 
the annual eccounts required by statute during the nine years 


administration in the Probate court, and although plaintiff often 
sought and requested information regarding income on assets belong= 
ing to the estate, he ms never able to obtain the same. In fact, 

the administratrix and his sister would not even discuss the matter 
with hime Consequently, after interminable delay, plaintiff sought 

and obtained the services of one or two attorneys and finally 

entered inte the written contract hereinbefore set forth with Leitzell, 
who ascording to the deeree appeared in court approximately on twenty 
different occasions to force the administratrix to close the estate, 
had many conferences with his client, the acministratrix and her 
attorney regarding an accounting, examined many papers and reports 
from time to time, wrote approximately fifty lctters to various com- 
penies pertaining to the stock held by the estate to determine the 
amount of dividends, if any, paid thereon during the period of adminis-= 
tration, and in all devoted approximately 200 hours under his contract 
of employmente As a result of these services the administratrix, 
efter a rule to show cause had been entered against her, and an attach= 
ment issued, filed her final accounte This was procured entirely 
through the efforts of defendant, and as a result thereof plaintiff 
received a check for $5,782e50, being his distributive share of the 
proceeds, after the deduction of certain expenses. This check was 
peyoble to plaintiff and defendant, the latter having theretofore 
served notice of an attorney's lien for the amount due him for sere 
vices rendered in the Probate court proceeding. Plainti’f thereupon 
filed the complsint in this case to release the attorney's lien and 
cancel the check so that another might be issued to him. Ileitzell 
answered and also filed a counterclaim, alleging there Was due him 
43,806018, tor services rendered in all these matters, including the 


partition suits. The chancellor allowed defendmt $1,000 as attorney's 


fees in each pertition proceeding, and also found that there was due 


7 _ « Seay entn ate onbish otutada yd botimpet adoumcoe Lesmna per 
ned So *tiiniaig Mauetitic bre «J 192 stedots add me nottortainiogs 
“groted aioaas mo samont gnibts9et no tdeurro tek poteongst bre. telgues 

i etoat nl .sase oft misddo od elds tever ear ex ,stadae ond oF gat 
te cobian edt sasoelh ners tos bisow voteta eka bas xivtetdainimds ond 
h tae thitatela spelen: ofdantmreint totis rvliseupeased . tee at bo 
ites tt bers evens sis owt ‘to emo Yo aooivies edt. bontedda “hans 
eLlestied aa kw i) x02 doa oxaiednberted fosuinos nedd kaw ett odnt peredne 
Waar? s0 viet auixozage JNO 9 mi siabbetthchath sereob sed ot gakbrooes ‘oitw 
etadae odd oaate Bo xixtosdeininbs eats sete Oe anotannso ‘gnorexah 

| tod bers sivgens a tine “ant etmek eke athe nopacts tn0's ad daxt 

_ atsoget” “hae wre pgt wet beriomxe vanidnydoes mA pnttizag.et ‘wentotia 

“no 9 ‘ewoliay of anottel XS Tht Lodsmixorogs avour yomit ot omit mont 

; sa “a ontierced ob od dtu ene ed plat foota edt oF gatr ietroq astoeg 
‘einen to boizog aris ymkcd nostens b bey ag $r “ Shneb iv Eb te drorome 


#onndno aig’ rebar avarar 008 “wLed aett Mord gs Badoves LLs a bere 5 rotates 


| “gkitgerts tnhuhs ety asoivrea eaed? to divaet & “BA sdnomgotgne 20 


stootts a bre e cool venteps jodie ned fad eased ‘werdte 33 eket 8 “gotta 





ce riigubely wooed? fuses & 88 hne <dnab note %0 azote ott “deboruts 


ee a 


ont to oxuile evidudissath ate antod (0.88009 70% dees £ > bevioser 


aw topda’ went s a9amogxs mies alk 79 Hos ombeb ‘odd red te “Vabossoty 


o%0 103 orcad? antral weddal atid da tink 36 pms ‘vitvntata ‘ot " gideyeg . 


TOR <0 mixi evb imivome “aatt ‘aot nour atyentodis. neo te selon “bevies 


mere Pitas sanlhotoerd #10 ets efor ett od berobnes vlyion 


“yfer iene boxso0=g aa a nat a? mio coe fant? rok bert? e bomeat dnem 








sho 
him $108.48 for services under the written cmtract pertaining to 


the Probate court proceedings, representing 25% of the 2/9ths share 
of plaintiff in a cash item of $1,951.10 which had not been inven- 
teried by the administratrixe The decree found that after allowing 
credits for payments mace by plaintiff and expenses incurred by defende- 
ent there was due the latter 51,923e29, and that defendant had a lien 
on the $5,782e50 check for this amount, and ordered payment thereof. 
Defendant servec notice of a cross appeal, contending thot the 
Ghanceller erred in the amount of attorney's fees allowed in each 
partition suit, claiming the full amount of the respective sums of 
$15523040 and 51,209.40, recommended by the masters, and that the 
court also erred in not allowing defendant the sum of 31,445.62, 
being 25% of the amount recovered by plaintiff in the Probate court 
proceedings through the efforts of defendant under his written con= 
tract with Jones. 

The principal controversy arises over the construction of the 
written contract. Plaintiff contends that the contract of employment 
applies to the partition suits as well as the services to be performed 
in the Probate court. Defendant, on the other hanc, ergues that the 
contract covered only the Pr@bate court proceedings, and that the en- 
gagement to file the two partition sults was orel, separate and apart 
fran the written agreement. The decree specifically found that 
“subsequent to the execution of the written contract ***, Jones ree 
quested and employed Leitzell to institute two partition suits *x**, 
and that Leitzell did institute two partition suits (describirg them 
by number) and rendered considerthle valunble services in and *** 
prosecuting both of said cases to the point of the entry of the deeree 
in each casee* We think the cmtract is unambiguous, and that since 
the employment with reference to the partition suit was made long 
after the contract was entered into, there can be no question but 


that it was an independent and oral agreement and was not included 





at nik: wisq Faetdr 2 weds bay et tobe aoniexon ‘0%, | abe80 ny 
. oranda aslte\s off} to 8S yubdmoacuget qagnihessomg duioe ededent af. 
meyer need gon basi el OLs £60, £9 to medi race @ ot. Titandedy. te 
aniwolls tote darts bret souges eff 8 .xittesialniobe oft yd Retred 








f. moteb yd heumionk seumegxe dae Tihiniel; yl sham adgouyag 107, adibens 
ret # bert deemioree ob eal Bra. ¢@Se682. LO weddal edd oud oan onods tes 
_ Repeat ProaTny ag berabxo bors _fanteme alts +82 aoeesde BGs REV SS oaks 10 


esi tans gmionedreog »leoges seeto 2 ty. ods ont bevies, taakerod 






_ Hoas at hawalts woot a NEgeriOd Sm ta dowoma oly ah betes 


ve 





OF Aes 


eae. Y ane ovat coger ext te amid sinh ess palmlote st iva olands 





- 

Ltt Lond dost fens yetotacm asl? wi bebsriemmoaos 4 Qbe POG g Le bas Obs de LS 
ei Bo bdg LY te gare oid ingbusteb aniwot Le gan mk berr9. cals 3 7 
“e ‘ee atadox’? edd ni Tidekedg. Me, boteveos: Umqme en? tO Res. 3 - 
ie aveats note bow aid sobray dmabro teh te abro2io eft dyyotds | secnonnens | - 
i atenoh di tomes 
i aan ‘te ecbueenine eit evo aoalza Yarove wi ms feqioning . ext ene . 7 
: dncoaren Los to aoendnon oft dat abrednes Vis atals «foatinoo mete ter 7 
| “homme hreg ed of apgsiviss ats aa Ifo ae a@iva MOLLE sem odd oF ‘esifages 
eit Serly aougze heme sete etd a0 pinabmetet .deneo ovedont a 
ett sold galt hee ,agnibessong tuo 93 seat eit vino bexeveo doors 7 | 
‘@xeqs bua steseyos Lato anw ad tr to Ee be nq ows ons ent od eee 09.83 









dactd ewe t vikooktooga coxoeh ost? senor nodator ad et 


“ot senot g Ree sonttnos ered titi oats BU) solinooxe oid oF ewexpondue” 7 


oe at is HOSE roe ows ott sem ao thon? ted boyotame bas het ey 





oral aakéironab) ‘ed iva mot sidesg out edurd bond bk Tioad tel dant Saal 
ae Qe xh ago teres OES aus oe of comoh Anno 9 borobave bus nem: ™ 
esro9h eft Qo Yxdme edt tentog ext ot nosso bhoa to siod * 


ah ats.. Tas “hat pide 


‘wonte tact! bre + 24rou beinara at oomtens aed daha om "sense 





~5= 

in the written undertakinge It is undisputed that in the course of 
the hearing the parties stipulated, among other things, that defend- 
ant rendered all the necessary services in connection with the partie 
tion suits, that they were completed to the point where decree was 
about to be entered ia each casey and that they were dismissed os 
plaintiff's motion in order to save further expense, and that the 
reasoneble and iair amounts due to Leitzell for services rendered in 
these proceedings were respectively %1,323.40 and $1,209.40, =s found 
by the masterse Under the circumstances, and in view of the stipu- 
lation of the parties, we think the court erred in reducing the respec= 
tive fees to $1,000 each, and that defendant is entitled to the aggre- 
gate sum of $2,532.80. A stipulation of the parties im a procesding 
is generally held to be conclusive (City of Chicago ve Drexel, 141 Dll. 
89; Brooks ve Ostrander, 153 Ille Appe 783 and Culver ve Cougle, 165 


Tll. 417.) 

‘ith refersnes to the amount sought to be recovered by Leitzell 
in the Probate court proceeding, we are of opinion that defendant is 
entitled to recover only 25° of 2/9ihs of the item of $1,951.10, which 
Was not inventoried by the administratrix, because it ws through 
Leitzell's efforts that plaintiff's distributive share cf this item was 
made available to hime ‘The larger distributive share, of which Leit- 
ze¢l1l also claims 25%, was inventoried by the administratrix and ulti- 
mately would have been paid to Jones in any event. Therefore, the 
decree of the Superior court is reversed and the cause is remanded 
with directions that it be modified so tht Leitzell be allowed the 


aggregate sum of $2,532.80 for services rendered in the two partition 
suits; that he be paid 25% on 2/9ths of the item of {§1,951.103 and 
that after crediting Jones with the fees paid on accecunt, and adding 
the e2:penses incurred by defendant, the decree fix the aggregate amount 
due Leitzell as indicated herein, and enter judgment thereon, and that 
the agcregate amount found to be due may be fixed as a lien on the 
65,782.50 check in Jones's possessions 

DECREE REVERSED AND CAUSE RIMANDED 


WITH DIREC TIONS a 
Burke, Pe Jey and Sullivan, Je, Comcure 












«oe BerwEs ont al dts Sedugetoay af tT smetilad rete err et 
wbhaeteh Sadd . ean idy onto. yards nebedeningnte aokiteg say aekesont us 
wiivag ais tiv eeivoenrooe mi eostvase yineeeosn orld ima Sotebnet goo: 
or ‘Se7508 enostw imiey ef? ot beteiquod stew geld Tals: (gabon ‘wen 
























“We Bectimarh eew yed? galt brs youa0 Mond mi fara od of date 
“te Pants Bee Qeemégxe sertitet ovad oF robtO at’ noidom atvibiatate : 
ae betepest dectyioa cot Messiat of sub adnmoms thst Sua @Ldatodads 
- bmyet ad ,Oh.C0act fwd OS, 288,14 qLoviFooqes ‘Sree apnibsessrg sacd? 
mujida of) 10 Woiv wt ded <AednetemvottD edd tobe) areseam- et? Ya — 
nine sts gutoubet nt betre saddo eff Mellt ow yeokited ond Yo noliat 

 omae ‘eft of boli bine at traineteh Pail Hne tose: GO EF ‘od aegt -ovid ; 
oe ani 4080tag off to nOtalug iva A yogseeny st 38 sue 9883 
LIE ESE .Lexent .v osapidh Jo y¥k) evlasloave od oy ted ylLetened at 
; wr xoGamo0 ov +¥ tovloy Sms ¢6 sqqA stLT S2L gxobuagsod »¥ astoosd 92S 

. be OD CED eh “ 

Slestiat Oe horevoee ed -od dripwea: strwepte os a2 ——,, eens . 

aiivdnabse tab Jatt rotmige te ems. oF rel bneoo se VEUOO odadors out a - . 

‘dots eOh. L805 Bo moth edd Yo ataeNe- te Sas. wine ‘Teveees ot be, @ 

gewertt esr 35 eagnoed: aRLTI e206 Loramie BAe. eed boieswowmi: tou 20m 





name alty ta: etnde ovidedbut ato mae SERN: ders ed xo tie ot Bhecdbed gee 
~¢lel dodiw Yo «ous evitwiiwanb togtel oxtr wank od: eldalters: haa 
citiy Sue xitieniaiciaos edt yf Sokandebyns exw @ ROR ambalo ake ffes 
ond ,2toterett .¢aeve yu mb enh of bheg resd evan bluow eletan aa | 


dobranet Bi exams odd doce Dowrengx ME Pues rolxoge® ext 20 1 as " : 
- eale bewolLe. ed ILestist tat oR beattoom @ dot £ apha: ninaahen hc: 


pets bine oid, ord ok. bexrehnat. aed bye 80%, Os 
“bas 40, 18k, fe ‘20 sedi add to adge\s mo Res yey eye 
pathos bas yioueos mo beg aes t edt Mitw eenob gobs tbo et 
E eb ta etane and xit setesh edt etnichaoteb “ds bouwrant ae. fe 
Pads Ore .roesedt ineaadel, ted oie (bedookbnt aw J 
eid mo neil s as Sent ae — O2 bawot sesoma ods 
é rt 4 


cuctaat @ Weatan UWA: cuaenyir & 
AY ony ‘ sSGL? Hing TG. TTY phi + lisp sil 
ie | | . dame: ” 














40364 ) 
ae 


JACOB STANGLE, y 
Appellee, * ae 


Ss 


Ve 
APAQAL FRCM SUPERIOR 





THOMAS MUSCATO, Be Me PATIO 
et ales a COURT, COOK COUNTY. 


Defendants. 
re oe 
9991.4.610 


d} 


cc 





i 


ON APPEAL OF Be Me PATTON, 
Appellante 


MRe JUSTICE FRIGND D&LIVERSD THS OPINION OF THS COURT. 


Mrse Be Me Patton appeals from an order of the Superior 
court denyins her petition and motion to expunge from the court 
records certain orders entered, respectively, January 12, 1934, 
April 12, 1934, and November 20, 1934. The original suit arose 
out of the foreclosure of a trust deed securing payment of a note 
for $4,000 on property at 6822 South Wood street, Chicago. 
decree of foreclosure of the trust deed was entered December 19, 
1932, sale of the premises was had January 13, 1933, and the report 
of sale and distribution by the master was approved January 23, 19336 
No receiver was appointed to collect the deficiency reported by the 
master, but during the period of redemption Jacob Stangle, plaintiff 
in the foreclosure suit, collected the rents from the premisese The 
period of redemption expired April 14, 1934. Prior thereto Stangle 
filed a petition in the Superior court md had an order that his final 
account of the receipts and disbursements of the premises be approved 
and that the balance on hand be applied to payment of real estate 
taxes on the property. Another order entered in the Superior court 


November 20) 1934, provided that the receipts ad disbursements of 


the premises foreclosed, as shown by Stangle's account fram October, 


oe 7 Bee S207 


4 
\ Ke 
5 a TD mara uu GODAT 
\ ~ 2» gosllsqqa 





7 _ — 2a a 
A i | Fan 

| 

| 





ROTACIS WRT stig s ] res | 
. ® seins oli .& ev \E ASG SAROHT 
| “ sYeReD Boos el HUCS ( peers oe gels id 
| ty a . -adnebret sd ' 
. - ave 
i ee | ¥ HOS 
| . ‘ eHOTTAS off .H TO SABUEA 0. 
* : * f : init 


eTAUOO EHT GW POIWIGO BHT CAALVELEC QMETAL Solray. . fi 


 Sodmeqd als to tobr0 ne moxt afsogge nottel »M of . ard 
tryeo ont mott ogmexe of qoliost dae molt deq.vad aniyneh du00 
' gh6OQl .Sl yreunsl .yLlevistoaqasz ,besedme an a mistress Behioset 
enots dine Isaigive off .f3@L ,08 redrevoll baw .dEGE ySi Litga 
ston 4 to tneasysq aaituasa hosb saute s to sivaoloered, ont Yo duo 
| A sogsoidd ,.doorte bpeW. Adwod 2298 Ja ytixegetg 10 000,55 20? © 
.Oh tedacooT herein sey boob jaw? ed¢ to exsaoLootet Io .etoad 
 bseqet efi bas , 600i »éf yreunst Sad aay seaimetg eft to efan «Séel 
*8ECL, 88 yrsmtat hevougs sew xetsam edt WW molvudiztetd baa efsa to 
_ end yd beduoges yomelotteb oft goeLioo of betuieqas asw revisos, oT 
Viitaiely «ealgnet< dons noliquebex to hoiteq edd aniiyh sud _teJsanm 
off yaeaimong od sox atper edi Sodcslleo .iive eryeoloei0% ond nt 
eignada edsredd toicl «MeL yal Lhaga betiqxe no Ligne to boizeg: 
isanit aid dedi v6ebto ms band bee jemoo toixequG odd mi motiiveg & beLit 
boveture ‘ed acninetq ens to atmowenrudakh bape atqteces ext ‘to deogooss 
eisteo tacx to Juenmgeq o¢ boilqys. od Snect MO sonsisd els tat ns, 
Dieters soitegna eld mi beteine tebe ronisons. <u teqo ta | ould c axa? 
to adnemsarudath bos atgiooes eatd gas Deb iveng. ahha. 408 toduevow 


‘eet wa 


etadete? mit sawoccs a tetgnats wd nines aS e benakeexo® een morg end 








Dae 


1932, up to and including January, 1934, be approved and the 
balance on hand, of $228678, as shown by Stangle's report and 
account, be credited to the deficiency entered in his favor. 
May 24, 1938, same four years later Mrse Patton filed a 
petition in the Superior court reciting all the facts relating to 
the foreclosure proceeding, the sale of the premises, the report 
of sale and distribution by the master, the approval of same by 
the court, and praying that the court expunge from its records 
the several orders heretofore mentioned, on the ground that the 
court had lost jurisdiction of the cause and that the orders were 
null and vold.e Upon hearing, the court denied Mrs. Patton's motion, 
and she has prosecuted this appeal toreverse the order thus enterede 
The question presented is whether the court had jurisdiction 
during the period of redemption to enter the several orders complain- 
ed of by petitionere Although the original decree of foreclosure 
did not reserve jurisdiction for any purpose, the order approving 
the master's report of sale and distribution found a deficiency due 
Stangle, amounting to {964.10, and it awarded him “a lien upon the 
rents, issues and profits arising from the sad real estate described 
in said decree during the full fifteen months' statutory period of 
redemption as provided for by law for the full amount of said defi- 
ciency," and he was authorized by said decree “to collect the rents, 
issues and profits arising from said real estate described in said 
decree, during the full fifteen months' statutory period of redemption, 
as provided for by law and for the full amount of said deficiency 
*¥**," The decree of sale and distribution also found that the rents, 
issues and profits of the premises conveyed by the trust deed were 
pledged as security for the payment of the indebtedness secured 
thereby, and the court retained jurisdiction in said order or deoree 


“of this cause and the rents, issues and profits of said premises, 


| exdiiqgmebst 6 bobreq yeotusats ‘ademom Hood TET Lies ‘edd galt ysexdeh — 


aon 


ate Ans bevouggs od qheeL pyramrat satbuLont Sue ot qe .Séet 
Bee fuoqet ololynee-wd mwote ee ~O7.888) to «baad no sonsled 
 \wovet ain ot bexeins yvorobotteb eff o¢ betibers ad .dawedes 
e SeLet nottad ae titel axsey ty0% oma .BEOL AD yell 
od nattelex adoct edt Eke euiiioet divoo soiteque off mi mo itive 
Progen edt eaeeimete ef? to else of .aniseosong sivadLootet et 
vd suse to Levorqus ont .tetasm oft yd moldudinteth Bea fee to 
abrosex oti mort egmuqne dxuoo edd dante gnivety brs .¢uwos ent 
of tadé Bewsvoxn oft mo »bonolinem ctotctersd atebte Leteves elt 
eiew atebio edd Jad bus seseo sat to nelvotpelgeg, vaol past Pant00 
—ehotien almeided sem baineS tuyoo ole apatr apd wows .biov dns Liseee 
shorodne aut tobte els eatevet o¢ “Eienwe wate pedubonetg aad ere brs 
noideibeluuy bed ynoo edd costo ai beimesotq nottepap ont 
-riaiquos-avtabio Lareyee om! wedne of potiquobez to bolteq est yrtmyd 
expaeiovtet t9 setoeh Lanty bro-sni Havodifa «veneittieg yd to be 


peivety gs nebeo od? . stequuy Ys tot no ivetbaiuel,, svesest tom bib: 
oth Youre bl teb « banot woktudiziels bas «faa Yo tueget a estuam ont i 


ead noqe neil es" mit terrae ¢£ bre ~OL. hee% o¢ umivavome (yolsnede” 


bedhisasd otatao fsot 5 a end mott andatze aditotg bra wsvesl yabnet 


So boiseq troluteta eddmom woesTET LlwP odd pabtyh corded bisa’ mi 


we btea bisa Yo Yowrams Ltuy eed toY wal ew vet bebiverg aa Holiqmobes 
palmer off? SoeLfon 08” otods b me YC bextvedive aew od bad "bHoLO 


biea at bedbisesd ofates fsot biee mot? anidite adftorq bus Gonoet 


‘wonsisited biee to tamoms Lfe% eff aot bas wel yd tot bebiveng as 


“yadrod et add Seo oafe noitudhesats bm efea to eetosh ont "sxe 


‘etew Beeb sauté ent yd beyevnos doe lmorg ettd ‘to at Hog ‘Bne “Bouse 


bexusea abenbotdsin: ond to Sremgeq etd 102 ee bnueee as beubelg 
asteeh to Sho ifaw ot no tvodbe bet ‘pentader dumps etd bow eydereds 


Coveiwerg dice ‘to Behwoty bye wewaat ,adrot sift ‘Bae senso ie 


Seiten , ye: Pi cha ee. eee ee 
ne SRN , ar ee Ry eae oY Bi 





as 

ai 

Es 
an 










oSun 


for the purpose of satisfying such deficiency out of said rents, 
issues and profits thereof by the appointment of a receiver or 
othsrwisee" 

he law is well settled that during the period of redemption 
the rents from the premises belong to the owner of the equity, uniess 
they are ssquestered through the appointment of a receiver or some 
other disposition thereof is made in the decree. (Lighteap ve 
Bradley, 186 Ill. 510.) ‘The trust deed foreclosed contained the 
usual provision pledging the rents, issues and prefits as additional 
security for the payment of the debt, and when the master's sale left 
a deficiency, rlaintiff would have bem entitled to the appointment 
of a receiver to collect the rents and apply them toward the defi- 
ciency. Wo receiver was appointed, however, dut in lieu thereof the 
decree of sale anc distribution found a lien in Stangle on the rents, 
issues and profits to the extent of $964.10, curing the full fifteen 
months! statutory period of redemption, anc it was obviously intended 
that he should go into possession and collect the rents to make up 
the deficiency. Having done soy he would be accountable to the court 
for receipts and disbursements, just the same as a receiver would 
have beene ‘the language of the deeree of sale and distribution evi- 
dently contemplated such an arrangement, and Ctangle, having collected 
the rents, made his report to the court and hed the court's approval 
of his accounting during the redemption period. \e think the decree 
of sxle and distribution sufficiently reserved jurisdiction in the 
court to pass von Stangle's accounts, but even without specific resere 
vatien for that purpose, courts always retain jurisdiction to give 


effect to their decrees (First National Bank of Chicaco ve Bryn Mawr 


Building Corp.» 283 Ille Appe 267; affirmed in 365 Ille 409), and 


since Stangle was given a lien on the rents, issues and profits and 


was thereby suthorized to collect the same, it would naturally follow 






7 - 
eadngt bien to dgo Yomeloties More ambviaitea to eseqzuq etd oT 
te. xovieoer = to drearnioggs ond ye Yooueds attiotg due seman t 





S154 A s < “ a 29 Oe. es is 



















sotsqpabos te belxeg add gebumh godt befties Liew sf wal at 
“geoims <yitspe el? 0 enw! ent, of groled asaiserg eld mott atnen edd 


etn To Teviooss 4 Te teontetougs oft Nguowld hosetaeypen ema yeds 





- 
7 


2 kph, - ‘ ae ety ey (STs : fy ae 2.¥ BX 4 Reo St a. eee a, ak : oO 
a gsptdy kt) «seroob edd mi ohbam ai Tooredé sotiteod oF a 





ed Berclatono bedolyesot boob sauzd set (eld «LLT 66L .ya ibs om 

” fanmigiaie ae agttertag See aeucai ,atnot add gaiybeig notatwerg Lausass 

 §tef faa aiteteam aft wadw bas <ddeh add to Jnemgay add 80% yd itwoae 
( Sesitntoges es of HoLstene med ever bluow Tiidmiely <yoreleltes 
‘2g %eb of Sawer medd lars bee gtees att doefdios ed. teyheoet #10 — 

eid Teetais well wi dud .sevewod ,boduteqgs asw ey ieoet, 0% syonete _ 


7 
a ~gadmor edd no olgnedS ol weil o deyol aoitudinieth bas ofea to sete 





«meee TLT Lhe sss garish yOL beep To Imedue edd oF at tong bas aevaet — 
: 
. hebredat ylavoiwio saw ¢2¢ bas qnmekiquebo: to bolveg yrotutada Vodicom 


qe edhe ov adno: edt toslioo bre aoieeoaned otnt op bisore. ef dacs — 
debe oft of eftedugdoce od Biow set aes espb geivali sYousioites at 
te “bEwow TWisoSst 6 ca emes ety dup) .edeunoowdety hee aigiaees, cot a 
~fve moitwcisteld tne efaa to eeuseb edd Yo egetgnal ony .coed eved 
beteoslleo gnivad .aignets bue cinemegints aa Sova. betalgaed aos KS, 
. favotggs etiiuggo sid bed Spa tupeo ed? of txoyst aid eben ,atue« odd 
sessed edd Audis a sbolceg moitqmebet ait gakwwh gutinuoces aid to 
(Se ms noivekoeiuu, oeviesex yltusioltiwa nelindizviaty ans -efse' ° 







wED BSE ofiloaga tuodiiw oeve dud gadawoces & Tefgnats mages aaeq ot fusoo 


nit 29 Ansd Lamotte dur ik) eeorseh «leds o 
bra _{202 .fLT 286 gi homxk tte aR HOGA’ vELD SOL 


_ ae at borg bas abyaek. stiliadh iaildie aida iia acl t 


; wallo? Yitstoien ofson 4 «one oft to0Lfoo of featwod 


whe 


that the court would have jurisdiction within the redemption 
period to pass upon his receipts and expenditures and enter 
orders either approving, disappreving or modifying them. 

For the reasons given we are of the opinion that the 
order of the Superior court of June 23, 1958, denying petitioner's 
motion to expunge the several orders from the record, should be 


affirmed and it is so ordereds 
APT RMD» 


Burke, Pe Jey and Sullivan; Je, Concure 


ahs 
reiiqmehst oft nidvlw neivoiseita, evad biuew Ixuou edd salt 


Taino bye estat tbasgxe bre sdgisost sit noqy sasg of botieg 
smot? gnigtibes to aukvemmceib .zuivougges radidis erebtoa 

end dais noinige sie to 9t6 oF wevin Seoaset siz tot \ 
a’senolticdeg palyxed ~85¢L ,o8 suwl to dtwoo «celxeque sat to tebte 


\ 


ed bivole «ftooset. ond mo xt arebto Iseveves odd ogrargxs of mo tdon 


eboxebts o& ck tk Ore bearckt ts 
CARE TEVA’ 


Ls a 
een 
eel 


aeRHONOS pot graviline bas .<b ot eottnet 


40259 


Mi 4 


ALEXANDER H, SPITZ 


VS. 


A, i, XARRHTIICK 





Mm, JUSTICH MATCHSTY DALIVERED THe OPINION Or Tab COURT, 


in an action on a contract (fourth class) upon trial by the 
court there was a finding for plaintiff for $252 with judgment, from 
which detendant anveals, ihe suit was jor services as an architect 
and in dratting plens ror the erection of a gas tilling station in 
Chicago. The plaintiff testitied in substance that defendant em- 
Ployed bir to draft the plans and take charge? of the construction 
of the building for the usvel compensation of 6% of the cost otf con- 
struction, which wae $5450, Defendant did not vermit plaintir?’ to 
superintend the coretruction; his claim was therefore reduced ac- 
cording to the usual custom under such circumstances, Detlendant 
testified plaintiff agreed to dratt several plans or sketches to be 
submitted to him for his approval or rejection, and that if the 
plens were satisfactory he was to pay; it not satisfactory there 
would be no charge. Detendant argues lor reversal because he re- 
jected the plans, being the sole judge of whether the plans were 
satisfactory. He cites autiorities from Goodrich v. Van Nortwick, 
45 Ill., 445, to Union League Club v. Blymeyer Ice machine Co,, 204 
I1ll., 117, to the effect that wnere one agrees to render services 
satisfactory to another party, he may not recover tnerefor on the 
theory that someone other than the person contracted witn is satis- 
Tied. It will not be necessary to discuss this doctrine with its 
refinements anc distinctions, The parties disagree as to what the 


contract in fact was. The evidence is conflicting on all issues, 


In the trial court the burden of proot was on the piaintitfr. the 

























satse oH ANC WARB LA | 





HUGO BHP UO WOLKISO SR CESHVIUKG LTREROTAMN FOTTAUL ae | 
eds yd ieitd aces (aeslo déinot) Jostines a mo neises ae al : 


Mort ,tueaghwt datiw S@S$ tok Wiidaiele tet gnibnit s asw sreiit daneo 


+ 

: 

7 a a ee “it 
tostiviots as es esoiviee tot aew tise edt salsscas dasbite toh doidw: 
mi noitste gatifit asy a toe aotivets edt rol ecela ghistesta ab bis 


~me tnehasteb tails soustadue sit Sottitest Tiitmisiq oT .ageotdd 


. “motto untasos edt to syteso etet bas saele ant tteth of ate bevole 


a 


-7e9 to ta00 ent to 88 to soltsaneques Isveu edt tot gabb Lid sit To 
ot ‘ftitaialg tismeq ton hih dushmeted O88 sew dokiw solseiade 
“96 beouhst siotetedt esw atafo aid ;moitowrteaaeo sot boetalisgque 
tasbaste€ ,aeonsiemuorto Sone tebsw modayo fishes sit of gatbios 7 


ed of gasdoteia to entalg Setevsa ttexb of beetge Thitstalq beltitset 





ed¢ ti tent bos ,Moitester to Levotqqa eid tot maki ot hott tndua 
@tedd ytodostaites ton ti :ysq od aaw el Yrosestaiiae stew ansiq 
-9% 941 9aueood isaievet tot eougte tusbaete@ .syrscio on od biuow 

sow aneia ant aocid osiw ‘to egbut eLoa ed aaied pans la ould heteet | 


eXoiwtrod asV .vy dotsbood wort seisizontus astio si .ytotostsitaa 


Oy 





SOS eninosM sel seyemyid .v dul P88 Set soin oF , gab red ah pei 










waives et “dgiw Sesaaee ree mo219q exis cupcid taxi smoomee sects 
att ditw eairdood eka eevosth ot yEsaesoee od ton LLiw aa 
sal gedw ot es oargeath seiinag edt senotgonttath bas at | 


Tignes aS 


stouaet fis wo gattoi{tace at omere eat Bee feet ak 
» oS : ay a 





ae ty be Fac pak dem a a aie (ae ‘ent game 


~~ 


trial was by toe court. The tinaing of the trial court upon appeal 
to this eourt is entitileda to tae same velgnt as the verdict of § 
jJurv. the controlling question is raised by defendant's contention 
that the finding and judgment are clearly and manifestly against the 
weisnt of the evidence, 

The evidenca shows plaintiff’ is e licansed arcoivect; derend- 
ant, operating several gas silling stations, contesoiated the erec- 
* another to be located just across the sireet from another 
station owned and operated by him, Tae wetter of plans wep taken 
up between plaintiff and defendant about the lire. week oi July, 
1957, Defendant says he told pleintiif, “lL want a duplicate of 
this ctertion I am operating now, That ail I want is the plans sce 
to tuis old station so I can get a permit,” Veltendant says 
plaintifY suggested sometaing “vrigut ana ditlerent," but deiecdant 
said he wanted the “*identical"® toing for tue new station Wita the 


cGaaepy lett off, Defencent says he said, "I nave to nave it se l 


built of percéisin steel enawel ans sald he would prepare a vlan; 
"If you don't iixe it, ail rizht. You don't have to give me a 
nickel," to which geiendant sald, "All right, if you waut to do 
that,, go anead,*® 

Delendant also testivied ne alterward went witu slaintif?r 
to the plant ef tue Vorceisin Steci Bnamel company where an estimate 
wae <iven of the cast of such a buiiding as plaintiff recommended, 
Defeudant says he reiused to go aueéad on tuat plan and said he 
wanted a plan according to the old building. Deiendant says tnat 
at this time only extension sketches aud been wade; he says plaintiff 
persisted, saying the tuiiding could be constructed of porcelain steel 
enamel cheaper than of biicx, terra cotta or anytning else, 

Plaintiif says that avout July 8 or 9 det endant came to his 


office end asked how scom he coulda get the plens. Plaintiff tola 


fseges toys givoo Laiqsg et to gninntt ont .tunop sot yd saw Lekat 
&@ to sgoibuevy ont ee deigisr empq ond of beliitte el daneo eld of 
Heliaesieea a'taehuaieh Wl baatex el reisaenp gaoitficitaco asi wat 


Litas tiaem bain ylieefo ers Jnomgbs,, bad, gmiinkh any, vagy 


© 


4 
& 
eh 
@ 
is 
& 
4 
a 


,ouebive sit ‘te duyiew 

-HMe 105 rtoovine te kenanoee 8 Bi Liitdutesig ewotle eonesbive alt 
~9et9 ois bodelguetueo: ,enodiésss. gniifi: asy. leisyea gaivete qe. dns 
soigone wort toerta eid peotes Jeant batsool ed of tantems to nokt 
sewed eae ene lg ‘to gedsen sat oat yd badaxeqo bus he awe mapsbihedee 
«Yiss to asew satit ons tuede Tusbieleh bus Tiitoisig asewded qu 
‘to adsodtgud s tusw i". .tiisiistg Sfotd an ayes Iashiie tel EOE 
“98 elise uid af. Siow 4 fis Fest wan juiinsege ma tL noiteda esis 
eyse PMBHiY T3@ « ddurrag 8 t93 meo Loe aciteje bio abkait oF gabiron 
dnsbusies tud 0 dusretrib dus gugixca™ gatusvemoe bad ac ‘eave ‘ehit abs te 
gid asiw foltave Wan a's iot gused "isoigusbé” esd bod aaw ad bien 
I oa St aven ot sve I* ,biga ait ayss teeiaeted ,Yto tel Tero une 
Od DLVOME Wolves & wa said begss Viidadsca saad -"simreg & i923 age 
santa s etsqsiq Jivow ot fiss bas femons faa te ALelsoer1o9g to $fiud 
8 om Stig ot evan g} Mok OX satgst gig ,tf suid ¢' mob BOX gn 


ob of suew voy Ti ,Sigtt se  bise dé tiie toh Ao kate ae " .foolata 


ehh ve 


5 heeus Og ti 


trisaiele ho fw Slew brewte dis 94h beiitia V8 LB daabao' ied 


9 > 


stem das 18 stonw yYosqace Comsat Leet ake tad % 3 fle to asi 
be hasmi09e tiignisig es gath ited & Hove to T8090 acs ‘to nevis aew 

9a bios & ths te J6b3 tO ‘baat ay ‘od beanies eid sae Susbuetod 

yest axes duabae'ted -gaib Lind bio esis ae ag mala 8 botasw 


he state eye Sik pebaat Sahel Risen aasiod x Le molansdxe yLno vomits abte ‘te 
o> 


pans aasealage ‘ke boedosteehoo Sd pLuoo ealbited 2 out aniyes “ bovainisg 


the is $? t 


Poor gitbaad ya “0 sivoo ated exobxd 0 Heat reqesiia fomars 
aE LAS 
aif od Guise Fit big to b gic 8 me swoda gaat sige ‘Vitals ss 
: = th ; me isi oy neh ORE ee 
.- Stoo Trtsaisld@ .ansle ais ‘$ey ‘BLuOS. aa wo08 worl "Foiten bia ‘9oitto 
- te 24 F ‘ 7. * $ 4 mye rit weit 





him he would submit several sketches so defendant could select a 
design; he prepared sketches which a day or two later defendant 
approved, saying, "Vine," and that plaintiff? should go ahead, 
Plaintiff says tuat about July 15 he stalked with defendant and told 
him the plans would be ready next day; defendant told hin to deliver 
the plans at the Narragansett hotel where he lived, aid next day 
(plaintitf says) he left four blue prints with specitications at 

the hotel tor defendant. Plaintiff says that on July 17 defendant 
came to his office for more blue prints, which were given; he asked 
plaintilf to “hurry up and get the figures in," Defendant testiiied 
that no blue prints were delivered to him at the iotel and that he 
never saw the blue prints until August 9, when plaintiif brought 
them to his filling station witn a bill for$252, which he refused to 
pay. Plaintiltf says defendant offered to pay nim 50 for the 

plans, which he refused to accept, 

Construction was begun August 3; the buiiding was finished 
about the middle of November. Defendant says that on August 10 he 
employed ean architect named Wagline to drew plans, Pilaintili testi- 
fies that on August 3 he saw Jiis plan being used on the job. ilir, 
Goldetein, the plumber, testified he used the Spitz plans und speci- 
fications, ir, Kashbare was the general contractor. Goldstein says 
the Spitz pian was the only pian used and otner plans were drawn 
afterward to get a permit. Mr. Kaeppel, manager of the Northwestern 
Terra Cotta company irom which the terra cotta was purciiased, identi- 
fied shop drawinge in two sheets showing the exterior and interior 
of the building as having been made under his supervision. Kaeppel 
saia these plans were prepared with tue help ot the Spitz dvawings; 
their draftsman, Mr, Anderson, went out and weasured tue old gas 
station and the figures came from these sources, Kaeppel says the 
Spitz plans were sufficient basis for an estimate. Delendant re- 


quested Anderson to take measurements of the old ga3 station because 


oS) a doSite Hiido tmabas'teb oa eetlotexe Lex voe siodve bcbew ha oP 
sd ts Hi 


FneSae Tob “otal ows to yesh s “8 et aenodoue betacerg au inglaeb 
Seeds og Higeda Yittatsia tect bie 9%, enkt™ . galyee * pavukiee 


8 ‘thtod bas tasbasteb aviv bowiad so EL yint tuods deus aysa tittle ta 


a wevileh ot mtn bloat Jugbmoteb ;yeb xan ybeet od ‘piwow entete edt ‘mba 


Yeh teen bre , bevel od sidnw Letond ttocnsgetrsif end ds enelq sas 
tse anotteotifosce utiw evaing evid suot tier sa (ayse “yessutdta) 
dowbasteb SL ylut no tend evee Tritsie le ‘Saeed 8 web Gs 
betes od pnevig atew dofuw ,atatig auld stom tot eoltte gin of dims 
beitttees tasbaoteg ",ni eerie it exit doy ‘Boles ga wrt ot ‘tigate la 
“et Fede: daw hoten war” so" mil 02 nateviseh exvew MERE WE an Yad 
 digwotd Tritatetg aeiw ,e tevguA Lito ataite evid edd wae woven 
ot boevtet sa ao Liiw g88¢- 10% ifid ® ddiw. motiste gmicett aid of io sit 
ecg tot O&8G min yaq ot bew'tro tagbne'teb ayee ‘wrEtatess eae 
i ytqeote of beau'tet of Ho hase «esi 

‘beseimi?t exw gainiind ens :8 punguih akiged saw aottsunteae) ee 
of OL devguA wo decd eyse coshasted = .xsdmevoll to. elbbia oad Suode . 

: eitase Tttinteld .emelg web at oat LuaW bomen toed tabga as eyo tans 


Oy 
7 
irae 


.tH .dek sd¢ ao Been gated meq ali Wes | 6 tanapa nto dant ‘nef 
-toege bie aneig atige edt boas ed bebtitess ,rsdimulq eait \abstap tod - 
ayee aisiablod .toedeaténoe ietsnsg oft asw eteddead i i cagondaatt A 

ttesth. stow aielq tente bas Sean adiq ylte ot asw ‘sal Stiga ‘apa 


estado ord ‘to wegenen , foqqesd .1M saniagiole & tea od browsette rf 
Soagost tolvivreque eid xebds pan need gatas as ‘potbetad 2 


. ayes. Leqqssi -,asotw0s easny igoe't ‘nse 2 “th 





he wanted it duvlicated. Kaenpel ssys, “We made blue printes from 
an architect's drawings; the terra cotta was made from Anderson's 
measureuents and architect's drawings." derson testified he tock 
measurenents sat the request of defendant; he says he rorrowed ylans 
from and returned them te Spitz; he says defendant did not tell him 
to do this, Silver (the electrical contractor) says he did not have 
any plans or spvecifications; wrote his own from the buiiding across 
the street; his contract was with Keshbure. Keashbure testiiied he 
never saw Snftz's plans on the job; the planus used were drawn by 

Mr, Wagline about the middle of August, Kasibare, however, saw the 
Spitz drawings at tne otfice of ur, Spitz adout the middle of August 
and he says he had possession oi them for three or four days; the 
Wagline plans, he says, were completed about August 25, These plans, 
approved by the Department oi Public Works on October 13, 1937, are 
in evidence. ‘he plaintiff points out (detendant not contending 
otherwise) that the Wagline plans are an exact duplicate of the 
Spitz plans. 

Defendant produced a picture of the building erected, and 
the following colloquy vetween court and counsel occurred: 

"lr. Gocdnow: Here is a picture of the building. ‘The Court: It 
looks like he has copied these plans absolutely. ur, Goodnow: All 
he wanted was a copy of the old one. He didn't wang anytcing new. 
He didn't want any tile. He didn't want anything. The Jourt: de 
used the man's plans, didn't he? iir, Goodnow: io, he did not," 

The defendant, Marrettick, testified that the new sei of 
plans did not have a canopy or sign and that at the time he proceeded 
with the construction of the building he didn't have a permit, 

In the testimony of Anderson appears the following: 

“The Court: The whole lay out, the design of it, the portrait 
alongside of the plans, they are the same plans, aren't they? 


A. No, *#*eeKHeH The Court: ***** I want to know it this is about 


‘ 


moxt aetaixq ould ebsm of" .ayea fagqgasa -hetsoifquh tk betagw ad 
a'soevesek mort sham eew etteo sated anit -anciwerh a) oat isons: ne 
Mood onl Hellivesd noayehoaA “.egaiwenh etdoetinots bas a} novenrensm 
asgle. beworrod. orf BYyRB 4 jdosicetebh to taeuper ect te etnomeruassm 
mid ifeat tom bib tnosbmeteb syse of ;stiq@ ot modd beordtet hie non't 
eved toa. bib ners (xcdosttuoo Isoivtenis of3) teviis eid “ee 
aeotesn guibiiud add sort wvo ein stotw ;anoitsoithoegs to .anelg yas 
as bettidaet stadsasi .ateddasd ctiw asw toatd¢aoo ein jteonte oxi 
Xa aweth stew boev aensi¢q sid. ;dol sad mo anato a) sditee Wee TOVven 
galt woe <tevewon .,eteddasd ,sauguA to olbbin ont tuads sititgaW cM 
teugusé to slbhin old tuods so i@e via to soitio eas ge agaiwarb stige 
eld (ayes tHot to serdy sol wend to mefeasaaog bad of ayme on hae 
ae tg oaekt aS Cag Jvod s hoistonies Stew ,.ayse of .easte eaitgsW 
91s ,féel ,of tadase0 ao extoW oifgud to sisasiaged eat vd Peresage 
gaibwednoo toa dusbasteb) suo etutoq Thitaielg ef -eouoblve mt 
eat, to. ateoifoub teams ms 916 one oni tasW edt Jane lealwimsthe 
sacs lg xdige 

Has ,Beloers gainhtiad add To erutoig & heavbons Tie bite Tod, 
ibertrwoo00 featvoo bon siv09 neswiec ywopelloo antuoifox axis 
gh idtu90 ect, .galpiiud, sat to, stpdoig sel etek iwomboo? <r" 
AtA swonbood .t4  .ydetufoeda eustg aeodd be. 22 28s xt eal t stool 


Woe golodyos duaw J'6hib @  .9fo0 fifo aiid ‘to Xa@oo & aaw bed new od 





ot pdrw0d eit. .gaidtyae tasw cd’ abto oF ,eftd yas ae o) abtb of 


am, 
“Son bib ex ,o iwonbood ta Tec d'nbib .agslg 2) age edt boas 
tq Jee wan sis osale Deitideos rAvitvertea , fash rte ted eat 
poheovoxg axl ois pale ta test the gia fo Ngotweo & anne, hon bus enwte 
at dicts g. & overt $ abi pel gatstind est ‘to aoidountenos eat ng tw 
. rgMtivollo’t ane 6 iaaqqs Toe ts fh | ‘to YAomtsaos ong. at x 
tiertitog aalt te to agiaeb eats yiuo wel efordw ost 4x00 ext" 


ay Bi ay $2 


wr A 


Tyen) J tets ,anelg ease get ete yeut aaHLg Pi cont bend levee AO be 
4 5) RS ’ y 7 5 an aM TUE Wer ae By Wey eh 


¢vode ef aftis ‘tt worl o¢ tasw I ##ee+ dy wo ent ee Ae 


Ur 
= 





dW ae Na 


the same as that. You don't say so, but it is obvious it is, and 
any blind man can see that, too. ***** ir, Goodnow: In view of 
the fact that Marrettick always said and testified that he wanted 
a duplicate of the building across the street. That's all there 
was to it, ~ a building - a duplicate of tne building across the 
street. A. that is what he told me wren I went out there, «itx** 
The Court: You mean to say those two buildings look alike? 
A. The only diiierence is these windows are shorter. Q. Will you 
answer wy question. Do the two buildings look alike? A. No. 
Qe One looks like the drawing? A. All right. 4. The building 
he built looks like the drawing, doesn't it? A. Yes. @ Doesn't 
look like the building across the street at all. A. It is the same 
sized building, the same length, Q. I didn't ask you that. 
A. The only tiing different are the windows. Qe I don't -- if 
you don't want to answer what I ask you -- A, I answered you. 
ir, Spitz: Are you through with him, Judge? ir. Goodnow: Yes." 
Lr. Kashbare testifies he was in Mr, Spitz's office in the 
middle of July tor the purpose of picking up a plan and specitica- 
tions and that ne was there alone, He first saw the Spitz drawings 
around the latter part of July betore he started the foundation. He 
says, "I had them four or five days. I'm not sure, I suppose 
Wagline got his ideas out of somebody's plans," Wagline was not 
called as a witness, 
It is apparent the trial Judge was of opinion defendant used 
Spitz's plans in constructing the building to an extent which amounted 
to acceptance, The trial Judge saw and heard the witnesses. ‘The 
question is whether his finding is clearly and manifestly wrong. We 


cannot hold it is. 
The judgment is affir med, 
AFFIRIVED, 


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






























men osif 


Mis 


vite yet. ti ewoivde af o£ tad 208 Yee J) 708 oy tee, oa one , 


to welv ol iwonboou,.ca *#4%* 903. .tsdd 968 aso Ae batts yas 






a7 
id tari tos to eat out 


‘ sak ie BAS 





bstncw on ters heltigeas hos bias ayowls dolivente 





atedd ffs a'tedt .deexie on ago1es gaiblind od to stsollqub | r 
lied 





} ead saoxoe gaiblind esc ‘to Sy ao Rie & gukbiivd 3 om th oF aaw 

' Se eae oh ak 9 

| kkeRe otoDS Tue tiew I Asiw ey blot ait senw ad tect A beets 

pe cay OS Oe 

‘ as _Setif{e Mool agaiblind ow: sa ost wae A age oo Hoy ee eat 
: ; ee Side ac & 





a 


t oy [LEW 4p . .tedaede ete. ewqhaiw enssid at epagae ih ib wine ‘edt 


uate a soca, 


OM. .A. Totits Hool sagnibliud owt ont of mig wat 


wile ros 
ry 


ane * 
oilammoed .f...#0Y 4. Gt! + neeob es ong oats xool octet oat 








a Bebb Lted ST 49 teight LA A 


ema ead, ef 32 .A «fis ta doerte edt agoton. (goibiine | and “ous 
« wtett wor des t'abio I .p.. Atgnel emea add cant Ltud be 


oe BE me ST atOb De. 68 ,ewobaiw. est exe gnetettin gaint yfao, 








; “Hoy bexowese 1 A =~ yoy dae F faiw toweas of tuew 3! " 
is * 2s6Y i:wonbood .« feobut. .wid dtiw, caso. uOX ota r 
an eit mi goitto a'sdige wt wt exw of eettitasd ersdieed ti 
_saottiooge bas asi s gy gnixoig to sacgzig edd tot ut sy 
(egniwsth atiqe eos wee tarit oh 2onols eres, seer o8 said ‘bas 8101 ; 
—-s“s«oHL _p Odtebanot edt botsate oui exo'tad vin ’ i 
| 5 oH: | -geocque. 1 .9tue dom mT. oar evit > a 
ie ton esw enitgeW "“.anclg ety : 


be “ageusiy m4 be 


we 





- gate 





-agesend iw oni biked bag wae es eke re 


spaciw. yitea tings. bas yhtse£o ek. about eet 


ANAT A 





40285 








STANLEY SLQ@MSKI, doing businegs 
as Archer Grocery, 
Appelle 


vs. 
E, SWIHRENGA and ROBERT SW 


doing business as Swiereng 
Appel 


SRENGA, 
Bros., 
ants. 





r 


UR, JUSTICE MATCHETT DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 


Defendants appeal from a judgment in the sum of $183.14 
entered on the finding of the court in an action on contract of 
the fourth class. The statement of claim averred that June 7, 
1937, defendants received from plaintiff $228.74 in payment for 
merchandise to be thereafter delivered unon request; that plaine 
tiff requested delivery or return of the money paid, which de- 
fendants refused. ‘The statement was verified. The affidavit of 
merits (also verified) denied receiving the money for any purpose; 
denied any agreement to deliver the merchandise or to refund any 
money to the plaintiff because, 2s the affidavit stated, defendsnts 
"have not received anything from the plaintiff nor have they ever 
entered into a contract for the sale of goods with future delivery." 

Defendants contend the judsment should be reversed because 
they were denied their rights in tuat they were not allowed to 
introduce any evidence and in that their attorney was not permitted 
to cross-examine plaintiff. aA careful examination of the record 
discloses these charges are not sustained, Attorneys for defendants 
as a matter of fact cross-examined plaintiff,who was the only wit- 
ness in the case, Defendants offered no evidence and produced no 
witness, No request by them for leave to introduce evidence was 
denied, Attcrney for defendants suggested a continuance until 
evidence might be obtained but made no motion therefor nor any 


showing whieh would Justify a continuance, moreover, attorney 










: Bei ' 
7 4 “ 

i 
iu i 
= aBSQoa 
K . oo 

1. 

ie 

i} 


edonieud satob ,THOMQM YEIMATE 
.UteDety tedotA aa” 
ipo lle gga . Maen Ty 


ADE i Wa THEO bus ADNERETWe ce 





“ 
‘ 


HY XO HOIMIGO Sat CeAaVIdaG TT HOTA. Mi GOLTeUL , AM 


1 SL.66L¢ to ose eft mi Soembvt & tert Ieeqes ednebrieteag ) > “owen: 
te doatinceo no noitos ue af tapos ens ‘ko gaithaLt ent no: beret 
.% enul tedd bertevs atelo to sopmetate off eee lo Adeve't enh 
‘ot gneayaq mi av .88ee tTrigaiale mors bovioper atashiateh ,vEeL. 
-aislg dent ,;taeupot noqn beteviloh tetteererdd ed od eetbnaio rem ° 


-eb doidw ,bisq wenom oft to axsger to yreviveh hedasupot Prt. 


Sige eee 


‘to divebitts act Jpoitiney asw gasnedsate ofl pbetoted atnebrst 


:ge@OcT LG YGB tot yosom ond patvieeest bekneh (het ta€evooe le) atttont’ 


‘ yas hbauter of to salbasio ten ant xavidsh o¢ Foswsersm yous he bash 

| | atnsjne teh. ,betets SivebiYie edt es sawaoed Tiitetela edt of venom 
i xove yout eved tom ttiteieles ont moet gatntvss pevteost tom ovat’ 
* veevifoh erutul dtiw eboog te oLea ads tot tosttaos BOdmi herd dita ** 
eevcoed Dbaetaver od bibode tos bet edt boetios atnebse ted ‘a 

| . 


ot bewolls tom otew yedd tadd wk mdrtats wheat boise swew vedi 

heddiniteg ton asw yactotie afedt Jed? at Sos sonshive yas eomtotéar 
. Ptecet. oid to folticeninaxne JwTetesd. & jViitniele emisuxe-seoro of 

ainghneteh tol eyentetté .benistase ton exe esate exedt seaolod th!” 


a ~tiw vino eft esw ow, Tittaista benimaxe-deots toast to testa ae: BE 





ea beasyboxg bas socebive on bore tho adstehaete@ semana eed: nba“: 
asw gotebive sha ia ot Svasl tot medi yd taouper off ieeieniinil 


£3 aw sonoumidnoo 8 “bedenagee atisbeetsb xo't yenrstta -botaoh 





fl “ytus Tom totetedd Moises on ebest oat penistdo od tiake sonobive 
ay. Ly waieenblhe i 
hh 6 youtosia ~THVOSTOm en be eet’, 8 crideut hive. Ao acter tol aaah 


i A : f iF : » 
tf chee? Mi Me) heal aA PR ‘ean 





for defendants stated facts claimed to constitute a defense wiich the 
court in deciding the case assumed to be true, Nothing occurred in 
the trial which infringed on defendants' constitutional rights or 
amounted to a denial of due process, 

Defendants next argue tor reversal on the ground the case 
proved by the evidence was not the case alleged in the pleadings. 
Plaintiff's demand was for $228.74; the judgment was for $183,14. 
The statement oi claim averred a transaction on June 7, 1937. The 
proot showed transactions on tnat day and about but not actually on 
that day. No question of variance was raised either by objection 
to the eviderice when offered or by motion at the close ol the evi- 
dence, There was no material variance, but if there had been the 
question is not preserved tor review, Moreover, in an action on a 
contract oil the lourti class a case is whatever the prools make it, 
Morse Hubbard Co, v. micno, Central KR. Co., 286 Ill. App., 163; 3 
N.EB, 2nd 93; Wanless v. Peabody Coal Co., 294 Ill, App. 401, 421, 
cited is easily distinguishable, 

Defendants furtier contend plaintiff failed to wake out a 
prima facie case. The evidence snowed defendants were wholesale 
dealers in fruits, vegetables and similar merchandise and plain- 
tiff was a rétailer of the same, Defendants employed as a driver 
of one of their trucks a wan named French, with whom plaintiff 
for some time had been accustomed to deal and who, it is agreed 
absconded June 9, 1937, Althoug' it was not set up in the affi- 
davit of merits, defendants undertook to interpose the defense 
that transactions to which plaintiif testified, whereby he bought 
and paid for goods to be delivered in the future, were so far as 
French was concerned without authority. Although not set up in the 
answer, defendants were permitted to interpose this defense witnout 


objection, They now cite Merchants' National Bank vy. Niciols 
& Co., 223 I11., 41; uurray v, Standard Pecan Co., 309 Sil. , 


226; and Kusek v, Allied Packers, Inc., 246 Ill. App. 209 , 


‘ 





i 
iE 
hs 


edt dotdw seage'leob s eturitenoo of hesiisto atost botstea aiehno teh tot 


i : 
| gi bettu0Do gnkdyou ,outd ad of pemuees BBD old ysthioeb wt times 
i 


to etdigiz Lanebiud ttanes ‘atosbas teh mo bsunittat sotsw Laind end 


. .2Reootg exh to fatash suet bedavoms 
seso ont hawsots eit ce [satovat tet ouyts tment adtuhneted . 
: »sguibesiq sit ai bagelis seso ext tom eaw soocshive sat yd bevota 
Af,€81@ tot saw dnemabyt ert :AV 8898 tot eaw bauwieh a! Ybdnie Ld 


io 
4) 





ect .VéeL .° emul no nottosansxd = botteve misfo te taomedéta 9d 
i mo ylievtos tom dug: duods bas yeb tect sto anoitosansxt beworle toorq 
i noiteeido yi tedjie besist esw eansiasv to aeldeeup -oll....ysh dedt 
; ~tya sad to seolo sat ds sottom yd to betetto cere eoaebhive sid ot 


out ceed bed eredd ti dud ,sonsinay Isitedem ox aew etedT. .oomeb 


i & to dekgos ne oi. ,.x9voavol ,weivet tol heviesstg hehatd) APRTRRRE: 
i 

if 2 

a Jf oxsut gioorg ec tevatedw el saso s sealo Atugol edt to teantag 
i 


B& :80£ ,.G@A..£11 088 ,.00 .8 fering) okt ov oO. bradd igh getow 
-48h , £08. .god Lid SO8. , «90 Seo0 yhodss? .¥. sao tne¥ Bee bos hk. 
oldeneiueaitet.yssans ak-betto 
8 tuo, sige ot delist Titinislg baet age .tectcut etasdno ted — 
 etseolotw otew atashae tes bevore sonsbhive adt. e280 Shoat emitg 
-fisiq bas ealbmaestietem <tsLivte.bas. eefdstezay ,atvistt me eee ieee . 
_ weovinh s ae beyoigue a¢acbooteG  ,emee edd to tolietet.« saw Tritt 
Tibdaisig modw ctiw ,donexl bomen nem « axowtd..xitesd to-9m0. to 
heetas.ei ¢i ,chw bas fgeb of boesoteyooa need baci emis emoe xo 


»i¥he ond of qu tee toa saw tL, GamwodsiA  .ThOCL .R enuh hbebaooads 





geusteb ent sseqtotai ot doodtebau.atusbos ted ;atizem to diveb 

tdaved es ydeorsdw ,~beltizveo) TWikéiaielq doisaw of enoitosensrt. tad 

ag Ist oe otow, pintul edt. ab bexevited sd.ot abeog tot bisg base 
ed ot. qu dee tem aguodt iA, ayiitedive duoddiv bentsoneo saw, donoet 
suotigiw eure teh elds. ezogredai pe emacs aN <8 7 
Be re - 






i etio wor satin 





GLouos A ~¥ sed. fen i, 
4 eLhl, 008. ,, 0D as00%, Azad onde ; 





to the effeet that persons dealing with an assumed agent must at 
their peril ascertain the fact of nis agency and the extent of his 
authority, Here the fact of his agency was admitted, The only 
question is tie extent of the autuority of the agent, The record 
shows he was authorized to sell, collect, receipt and deliver and 
to accept checks to the order of defendants. Defendants were bound 
not only by his actual but apparent authority. Under the evidence 
the issue presented was of tact on whici the iinding of the trial 
court was for plaintiff, this tinding in that court is entitled to 
the same weight as the verdict of a jury. loreover, the proofs 
and the pleadings here show defendant received plaintiff's money 
and refused either to deliver the goods or return it, Defendants 
cannot be heard to deny authority of their agent while they retain 
the money which the agent received for them in transactions with 
the plaintiff, Defendants say that as to an item of $24.64 cash, 
included in the court's finding, there was no evidence sustaining 
it, Defendants sare mistaken, The evidence shows that June 7, 1937, 
plaintiif bought from the driver of defendants' truck seven tubs 
of butter at $136.64, giving in payment therefor his cheek for 
$112 and the balance in cash, This balance of $24.64 was therefore 
@mere matter of computation. 

There is no reversible error in the record and the judgment 
is affirmed, 

AFFIRMED, 


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


tz gape pean pomwaas te csv kw eotlash enoeteg vend Foote odd ot 
eld le tretxe est bac yoness ain ‘to tos't ont aistre0Rs Lizeg todd 
yino el .bottiubs eaesw yoiisgs eid te test ails eteli ved Protit we 
Broset eal ,tnmege eld ‘io yditoLus ue ent to justxe oe ei } aoktesup 
bue tevileb bas sqissat ,tosiloo ,»lise ot boxiueddun saw on swede 
bauod stew eiuabiste] .ernshas'toh to tebhrte euly ot arto Fggo0s oa 
aonebiys sit aeboU .ysitoitos tieyeqge gud Lantos ale vd eLie ton 
fisiazs ant ‘to aRibalt 208 tiokily to gost Le gow botmeera onset eat 
ox beisicas ar Prune sane Mf. gatoolt eiat Vibdats ta ov new stu09 
atoorg ait ,tevostok .yrut « te tolotev sat as tilg tow 9 omer oxi 
Yenem at tiitinaiel¢ bevieost Jnsbneteh wore eros eat bos te ind bue 
adusbas ted «ti tudet to eboog ois sev i leb ot would is beavtor bas 
ister yee olinw dae ge aisdt to ehieatide YReh os rasa od ones 
isiw anoitesensid ai mexid tol bevieost sasges exit sto Eciw venom uit 


~flaso £3,589 to meri as oc as sade we atnebuo ted Tibdaketa oat 


yh iy 
* e 


giinisdaue soushive of asw stedd amibatt a! dasi00 ont at bebutont 
TECL ,T eat geid svete sonebive exit fisted a Lar Sits 24 uabas'ted te 
_adut MeVv9e Hovtd 'atashasteb Lo tevirh aus mora teigued ic deters 
tot aossio ads totsieds goemysq ai gaivig ,30, vere ts aottus to 
exotorsdd esw £8.288€ to soastled ekal .daso at sone Led ead baa suse 
| olives uqnos te stom etem 8 

seem but ead bas htoeet sat ai torre sidisxsver of at otedT 


bouts a 
CAMAL ETA 


stuomos ,.b ,tTennov'O bas oh a “elomeel 


Leg, 


40302 





JOHB O&O, GAUBLEWEURA, 





Ap APPRAL| 
ve. 


CHRISTINE H, ROKER 
et al, 


~~ Saini geen igi 
f 
oO 
tol 
= 


MR, JUSTICE KMATCHATT DELIVERED THK OFTEIOR UF THR COURT, 

This ie an appeal from a deficiency decree for the sum 
of $1,924,092 entered om April 15, 1958, in favor of Gruenewegen 
and against the Roners, pursuant to a decree of Soreclosure 
entered karch 4, 1°33, in an action began December 10, 1957, 
wherein Gruenewegen wae plaintiff and the Aoners and others 
defendants. 

It is contended first inat the allegations of the come 
plaint jo not justify the decree; that it does not set forth the 
terme of the trust deed andnotes on wiich the wuit was baeed; that 
the complaint does not siow any right te foreclose in that the 
trust deed conveyed to a trustee snd met the plaintiff, and that 
the right of foreciosure wae for ought alleged in the complaint 
vested exclusively in the trustee. 

The complaint alleges the execution ty the Ronere, husband 
and wife, on July 9, 1924, of their note for $1600, an anount fer 
which they were indebted; the execution of the trust deed to 
the Chicago Title and Trust Company "te secure the suid note’; 
that the note natured July 9, 1931, when it was extended until 
July 9, 1934; “that the plaintiff is the owner of the said note 
and said trust deed"; that default tas been made in the termes of 
the trust deed and note in that the Roners save tailed to pay the 
amount due as principal and interest; that plaintiff has been 


compelled to employ am atterney in and avout the riling of the 


¢ 


+ Re 





PM dA EEA, 





errs} me to aol A090 Ba GanaW La86. TeEND BAM am grawt OB ows 
me Bil Tet serbeh ‘Wen do liab at mare? fae he ah alst ee 
a a ietia ‘ko towst ak 884s ,f bbswa ae hero die ror te. 
e188 9 Loe%02 te aoxeeb @ ae IMeRKY .UTeGe SAY Teakegs bag. 
,THOL ,OL tedmneek aaged aeons Me Bh SOCL ,2 doted betetae | 
wtnlte bag eweded ial fate “eo aaY Aoyows RTO atevadty,. 
tt eebare teh | 
ames oct ta aad gage Lis wit tauo setht Sobasdago eh #3 
aig ages foo 208 apoh 7h jad? ;eorped vce Yael tea ob ob Aathte, 
Suda sbeaatel aae tivn os? Haleaw ao aedonhae boeh dase aid. Re ewtet t 
ee dno? Gi vagivetel o¢ fdgds qa woe fos asoh satelquen odd. 
dacid ban a Ckhiaia Ly exit Toe bite eedans ts « a Heyer aes Aeoh aaeerd 
rake tesco, alt md bays iia ddywe tot wae Stxe OLO ate? te taghs weld & 
wesvamse aaf ai Ylev dew inne boteey. 
Reve A estOE il? yi aodtwosae edt atgetie dade Lqooe att 
x0% oavemsa ae ,O00L8 129i efom sims To WORSE af elat Be OTE ha 
es hee tewxd edi To aohiwvexn ade ;hetdehot etaw ypelt mo batw 
“exon hen est etheca ot eae qunnd faust Bee felt eyed ont 
i fivax babsaetee aaw 7% oat | ABOE et yaa, hwrwden atea outs basa. 
sion bier oid to xeawe acti ot Tiktalady add dade™ ;bS0L ,@ yal 
ko acuad ad mk Gham mood aad thentob dase ;*eod temtt bise bas 
aig ¥eq a belie! svad axemes edt ded? of ten bow book sensed edt 
aod nal TUtakede tod? peeereda hae taghoning ea exh taweme 
ade te gabilt ede tuwode bas a2 Youtetea an yotoum oe? bs iieqmes 


o2< 
complaint and is obligated to pay attorney's fees “nerein“, which 
ie an additional ihdebtedness under the said trust deed; that 
plaintiff will be obligated to incur other costes “which are additian - 
al liens under said trust deed". 

The complaint prays for foreclosure of the trust decd, 
fer judgment for deficiency for any balance that may be due after 
eale of the premises and for general relief. 

Defendants were served but did not appear or anewer. The 
eause waa referred to a aster, It is apparent delendants (Koners) 
were informed as io the preceeding for they Tiled objections to the 
report of tie Kaster,which were overruled. fhey ¢id not in their 
objections make the specific pointe on which they now insiet. A 
copy of the trust deed and unpaid notes are attached to the com- 
Piaint. Defendants easy that there are no facts pleaded on wileh 
allowances for attorneys’ fees, stenograpier's char,es, title 
charges or interest could be based. The trust deed provided for 
the payment of all these. [it is urged that tee compiaint does net 
aver by whom the extension agreement vas made. While there night 
well have been set up, the alle, ations wich appear in the absence 
of any objeetion by defendants was, we held, sufficient under the 
Civil Practice Aet, which was applicable. B8ection 42 of that Act 
(subsections (2) and (3)) provides: 

"No pleading shall be deemed bad in eubstance which 

shall contain such information as s all reasonavly 


iniorm the opposite party of the nature ef the claim 
or défense which he is culled upon te meet, 


"All defects in pleadings, cither in form or substance, 

not objected to in the trial court, shisall be deemed 

to be waived.” 

It is true the complaint did not (as under the iormer 
practice act was usual) specifically wake the copy of the trust deed 
attached therete a part of the bill, but thie is, we held, un- 
necessary under Section 36 of the Practice Act which providés: 


“Whenever on action, defense or counterclaim is 
founded upon a written instrument, a copy thereef, 


aa 
daive ,"sierteg”® went a yontetive yay a Bebegifde al bim s¢akadLemes 
gect vhweb faustd bige at es baw atoniesdimbas dauniiibhe me af 
-iiinhe ou toide svauo tetio teat ot botoghidw of SL2e Wleaiale 
gs . "hook teuge fine qobnw moekt Le 

bree bikivnd nee ‘to etseeisegel ast agente gakatemes wae 
ta? ie analy ae qan gar’ aonadod yar vol adele Zieh ted sesemhat, ‘wot 
; steiiet JarecsE £02 Bae gen Leavaqg eals te otas 

ent kewnan to teogqqe Pau bit fwd Hevice etew atanbae'ted > 
(tose) aFanhaeteb Iaeneqds gi $i Jteika # of DOTS ReR Sow OaNas 
add ef S1gésoe.ds ReLIT YaR! tat gathesoery env of ga ‘eeenelal erew 
tind? ad ton BAS qeat be touiewe seew to teiws totes wat ‘ka dxeqes 
& betel won yaad? Sodse ag atadeor okiiwoqu wad otee anehsoetdo 
«se ead o¢ Sotvades dae wetun Blayas bux hood seand add Re yqoe 
doivw an hobaaly aient on aka erody Sanh que edtEhae tel iadagg 
eLe’s ,wovts oe aedgergetetda ,seet ‘ayeriatés wet aeemewedia 
tet dabhvety bos Sawrt at vhenad of Bieee fowaedak to eeytads 
Fok WSO) Mivkgewo Axo gxad Regaw af ¢ 2 ieeeae £ie ‘to danegag (eels 
dsgtw chore ehia® ok gow faeetbotge wetene See oc? mote yh tere 
enwemia oe of Saewge dodiw weir atts ed jee toa med ered lew 
edt whos Jepkottive ,bi00 ow ,eew etaohunteh yo metteehde yaa) To 
Soa Hast 29 Gh modes wtiewdtyqe waw Beno ,¢eA Gobtonet Lbvkd 
: boil sobivory ((6) ban (8) wmbsdoondae) 

aoivie osnate dis ab bad Semeah ed Leva gnk ap Pred 
Yor ntos {face eo amktews: a tas i Shed see Laxve 


mike lo pod Ip eraden vod “to yrse ObLewgus ose metab 
__ sib eo ae genes atee tt ou ho beter pune'teb se 





,oaatedes te fg ai testis jayabeaniquat apegte® LO8) ©) 
baanwh od Lhasa .dtues detat wd ab ot  getoatdo doa . 
o. © boviaw | } ‘Oe POR 
teXot oA¢ tokaw wa} Fou 620 thine odd @uxd #2 af 0 o> 
Aued Gowey eet To Yoo ath aeten Ghoul tieege (iewew awe don wo leonte 
~ay feet en ,e ott tad 5b edd ty Deeg & efeneith Redeettn 
twbb dverg diate dod aolgouet ont ‘De 28 webewed tevin re 
ae aietoretacos to aveeleh  @elioe oe verea 


a) ae ee hn , reyaee Kens Pa eae -. impasse "ca einai 





~ke 
or of so much of the sane as is relevant, must be 
attached to the pleading ac an exhibit or recited 
therein, unless the plesader suall attach to his 
plescing an affidavit etating fucte showing that 
such inatrument is not accessible to him, in 
pleading any written instrument a copy thereof may 
be attached to the pleading as an exhibit. in 
either case the exhibit ehall conetitute «a part of 
the pleading for all purposes. Ko profert shall be 
necessary, “ 

The former practice is compared with the present under 
thie section in Illineis Civil Srnectice Act Annotated, NeCaekill, 
pp. 77-73, and in the 1936 edition, pp. 8284, 

The defendante also complain (quoting the exact language 
of their brief under Point IV) “The record sahews the complete failure 
of plaintiffs to produce in evidence the trust deed or notes upen 
which hia slaim for a deficiency Judguent depends. The pleintiff 
Was chown a typevritten copy of a truest deed with typerritten nanes 
and he swore that these typewri:ten names were the true and genuine 
signatures of Christine i. Roner and arme T. Roner (Abst. 7,8). 

The same kind of testimony was given in the attempt te prove the 
principal mote (Abst. &); the exteneion agreement (abet. 9); and 
the extension interest coupons (abst, 9). Obviously tuis censorious 
methed of preving «a case is conducive te freud and injustice. Ko 
testimony wae offered to show an excuse for the non-production of 
the ori inele." Thie etatement is holly unjustified. ‘The record 
showe that the crigfnal documents were chown to the witness, who 
testified they bore the genuine signatures of the makers, an¢ Later 
the solicitor for plaintiff asked and obtained lenve of the Haster 
te withdraw the original exhibits and substitute cepies therefor, 
which sre in the record. The plaintiff upon the ground that the 
sole purpese of the appeal wae for delay and vexation moves the 
court to assess 10% of the amount of the deficieney decree fer 
damagesas provided by the statute (see Ili. State Bar, Btats., 
39357, chap.35, see, 23, par. 23). We hold with some hesitation 
the motion ought not to be allowed. The decree willbe alTirmed, 
AVP LRMED, 


keSurely, Po. J,, and O'Connor, J., concur. 


od isa ,isevedex ai 6a @eeen aay ‘lo dou ga to te 
bation, 16 ¢ Rite ae te galbeote att @ decestae- | 
eia ef Moatin Lieto thao lg ode seed , alowed 
eaux geivods wfeet galtate Fhrsbi TR on Qitihban tg’ 
al wha @2 siddaasooe fox ai treateal dose | 
yeu Teen? Yaeo # Fnemarvent aedlive gos gathae lg 
ai 6.«gidiges no tw guthenig sae af betpatin od 
‘te fe¢ « ofeti¢nsos Iieds NAF OAs weno eedhia ” 
md iieda ¢ialerq of .esnaqguwy Lhe tet nakies te as? 
© eeueRonen 
aeiey gakeety of? df Pv hewegwed al os kieavy aeoret ea 
Atbdostiak .baedadvenss oA aaitoer™ Lavd® atont ity at welteew eller 
bGeS8 am ,aeitihe WERE of) ab baie (8e-9T 1a 
ayeuzaed toane oA? gakioup) shetasiad vets atachue' ted ont 
axeiket ofefexes ac) ewots Bxaset af” [FE batet setae tobe abet Yo 
ageu eaten v4 626d saute «add soabhave ab seubeta oo eTitenlele te 
tihesiate ac .abiewek gaeegeet eauntob tet 2 vot mhefe wit votde 
asenn merpitweinet Ketw heed foort « te yooe aeietonsey? « awete Gaw 
aibsiiey hak aeTt #82 wee camel meer bevegyh eect dane eegee elt Wa 
,(@,% Seda} «eaee .f gard bee tsuneo 1. eebie dee Toe eevee 
ede avers @f fomegrs ali wi novdy waw yonehPaet to bets eae ont 
fas 210 .tecta) teomeexvgs woleaedxw ane 7 (6 .teda) stew Sagdealeg 
aveiveaeoes @ivd vieeotvd® .(¢ .oedA) aheeweo decteeat satenedtce enh 
ei .oeftreta) Bes BuertY of oVigehaay of saag a gmivesy Te Bodran 
Ys wot voxbexw-wor 44% col sasoke ee wate of Dere'tis new Yooutieey 
braver sh  .Bottidautee yllete ef teseseste watt © a tentiae eth 
one ,seentie mit of aveds etee ge areeh fentarco ane Jade swore 
Ke gatucrg one ete gods be ltttasd 
taseuk edt te eveet Ronkatds boa boston whiatete “et tottohton oa 
.toelewet aaicon etucivedwa bas atididxe fanigize edz washsitioe of 


adt tad? bawety eat aoyu Trtalota ot bh eoe't ott fa ors sie Sie 


fade lt fire TOR ah salt ty awnnd i ; 





‘ext sevem soliagey has yaieh toh see ieoage eae te seetrey oLes 
aot sexed yoNwtertes out Yo tawome wt Tw ROL euseee oe ttze0 
_.tfot® .wed ela¢d .L£7 vod) esutade eas Qh Deo IroTy eano_aatEd 

aoptuttaet owge tdiw bled o@ (ER Veeq OR seme So gale Teer 

home itn ot Lik¢ do%eh edt \heeelie o¢ af Soe Gayun nodroM ene 
seem NRA ‘ 


wip 





my: 


= 
© 


40326 






PEROPLE OF THR STAT 
@x rel HEALING &, 5 


A pellant, i 





v8. a hIGE VOU ST 






JOuWR FJ. HALL THAR, 
Department of Key 
Bdueation of the - 


COUK COUNTY, 


299 1.A.611 


BR, JUSTICE KRATOSETT “RLIVER#D THE OFT NIOR CF THR COURT. 


a i eee et ee i ee ee ee 


This ie an appeal by pleintiff trem an order eich 
sustained certain pleas to hie petition for « mandamun aid diemirzed 
the action with covte. 

On February 25, 1938, Guland filed is petition in tne 
name of the People against Hulliban, Director of the Department of 
Registration and Bdueation, averring that at an examination con- 
ducted by the Department on January 10, 11 amd 12, i9%®, ne took 
the examination for a license to practice the treatment of human 
ailments as “ether practitioner” sand passed it; that in February, 
1922, he received information from the Department that ne Aad 
passed and that Lis license would be iesued to hin upon receiot of 
$5.00; that saceordingly he forwarded te the Director of the Departe 
ment on Bareh 6, 1922, « easiier's check for thxt asount, wnich 
the Director received and casned and availe of which are hela 
among the funds of the Department. Hie petition further averred 
that he woe graduated trom the National Sehool of Chiropractic, 
which was and ie duly recognized by the Department ef Kecistration 
and Edueation and the graduates of which are permitted te particle 
pate in examinations conducted by tae Department; that the our- 
Ficulum of petitioner in the college consisted of anatomy, labora- 
tory, histrology, dingnosis, ohysliology, ohemietry, spinel analysis 
pathology, practice, chirepractic technique, physiotheraphy, 


4 






wav 









te AohuwBTe , Sanh Agee ob RuCl 


avec was 
Tet wn > bie Paci sneer te goeatraqed 


f 3 aes I @ ge gi 


PROS BEY HO MOG wey avaweT de: CteeetAG sot¢eot fax 


EO ARE LI GO ue Ae ON Bt pn rete ten 


oe of ie Ay mas 


Hades tobe as werk TMdnteale ys Seogys te a2 abet 
Lentiueeh koe smebaet a st meledeed edd oF adaty aiedaes pendaddus 
 oheee hie mabiod ents 
ott mi sobtizeg abd bOLEY Ame det Wee (ee quences eG 
We snomsraqed add 16 cedueetG jnadiiic® senkega alges’ dae Ye eaan 
aes Sebvesiiwess ca da ted? Bahivers, , nddtas une ‘fealty tty £eoraet gon 
oad a BOSS kL Lime Lh Ob yaw we doers ‘edt YF batoms 
pWtourdet ab fend 501 bewaeg Rae "eenets hooey weno an Benet he 
hast om tnd? tose get eae aott aeltoetint berkeooes orf (OO OS 
to aqhece: aeew old or Semied of Divew eotautt eke det Bae heveag 
«tyaged, act ‘by Tetases ad? of bebrowre’t oe Ylyaths cope teas (00,88 
dolvo. .Pmwows Soe? to? veetg wl eebieso 2 [ROE , 0 wetae ay Pnem 
bied exe dokdw io pitate Aan boseue Dae hevloomt cofbetht bas 
fexueve wedeewt apdéiseg afi \doemdraged @AY ts ahawt oA¥° giro 
2h owTRORsKD Xo Leoried Lenwhtee alt mere Dodeubory dow on game 
PT ae ce ee owt ytub of han aw Rolie 
«inggieg «3 bedthanenq ete dolée te sefaubety ott bad mil desunR filta 
tan ott dace pagwieogs eae yd heteubues saghtediaiend ‘ah ‘Stee 
-stedak ,Whotane Wo Selukwunes agelLew oir a2 tem is biog ‘to makes be 
alo(dame Jaakqe (viteiuene .ypokoka wig jade ome ld jygototte td \qtes 
 Yigetedioinuee eepladeed ebtoancertite ,wettvany yegofodtag y 


Hemi Te iaiareas af? og Rieowy ef wecsel lo +e aektackaa 








Re 

clinics] diagnosis, clinic and dissection, The studies are contained 
in the curriculum and are required and demanded by the Department 

as a condition precedent of eligibility for the examination which 

he took. 

The petition further avere that the Department failed to 
iesue the licenee; that en various eceasions ne consulted with the 
efficials relative thereto and demanded of them that the license 
issue; he was informed that the license would eventually be 
iseued; that in the meantime he wae at liberty to carry on the 
practice of hie profession, namely, “the treatment of human sallmentes 
without the use of drugs and without operative surgery as ‘other 
practitioner' te the same effect and purpose as if he, your petitieon- 
er, had received said license”*, The petition further avers that 
en April 16, 1937, the Department and defendant Hallinan, Directer 
thereol, admitting the facte in the premises, refused to issue the 
license; that during February, 1922, a iilcense was erroneously 
mailed; thst the Department and its Directer have no record of the 
petitioner hsving taken the exumination; that the Departwent nae 
record of other cums paid by petitioner for the privilege of taking 
the examination and of the sums received from him for the issuance 
of hie license ae “other practitioner’; that by means of the foregoing 
he is prevented from carrying on His practice accoriing to law 
whieh he ie justly and lawfully entitled te de. The prayer of the 
petition is that a writ of mandamus issue directed te Hallihan as 

\ Director, ete., to forthwith iesue and deliver the license and such 
further orders as justice may require, The petition is verified. 

The defendant filed ite anwwer admitting an exauination was 
conducted as averred on January 10, 11 and 12, 1922; that Sealand 
took the examination but denying that he passed it, on the contrary 
stating that ne failed to make the general average ae required by 


the Department and the rules and regulations thereof, The anawer 


oh« 
hontadanan sce Galbete 968 .nobioeushh hee atvuiio ,aboaongehd Leolad fe 


Japaeeaqed ee xy banoeed hap ber tietowr Ba sate Sabet amt mk 


deice apitedkwane wi? 26% eriiidisife ty @ashegene aebtiaacs e aa 
or pee? est 


at foils? damabcoqet o@ tats agave: nig x38 nhs Looe sat 
gid Stiv Betinedoo et aneteeooe anohiey aa fend oeiipe te Tc) oumat 
eeseo il ec? 2a43 wet to bebammeb ban ofeta At evije ten éfaio lite 
od yliantasts biee« oeaeo ti art? tani beweetal aaw et peuee eh 
ety ad worsen o8 yduewait te see of edtkyaeom sa? WE dealt? ; housed 
agesalke suviiel to gieataert ate* ,etemen ,medyse'ttete «an Ye soisoatq 
<#idG' O84 GUON TED S¥E¥eteN® fuetdls Kee eget ko owe eet feeds ier 
augithveg tuoe .64 tk am anoetee bac faeTie asec ac oF ' teaebtiebary 
tod? wows toMeryt mele bey ont ,"eameckt Mew Reviwoet Mead to 
xetestit , 108hS20% SoobavTee hae Meowrreqed ese PORE (Or Langa ne 
eit exowk of BeaWiet ,avaimetg say at wton't ott ‘gates tothe: tees 
‘yhoo notte ate eermokl « ,880L ,yreurdet gatent reat teoneudt 


; aust _-\ 
eit to Susset en aval teboswht ev? Ras faeatecqadl est feds ptet ina 


gad trseusaeee ext Fadd paehtebtadkes eff Godted qd rent tenet? tose 
guide “fo spelavieg av tet teuslelawe ye Bley amu Xnette Yo brooer 
ediuieet v7 TST ahd amet Sevieder ative of To bas aoRekmexy eat 

BM speKet wat to ayn ye sate ; MAEMO LRtOwEE sonto” aw eunedkE att Yo 
id Oe Qtr oom eoRVowNE OE He gabyrrHy Meet SednevenG et olf 

ods t¢ theory eat cob of beiVetme YOiwPeat bas yivewt wk of dp lite 


ae natkeiel of Godeeedh aueol ammebvina ‘to @t4e o fede ol metetoeg / 


—_—— 


dows bre eeMeued ade sewReob Bee ebee ld ea2eROt oF [Jere toto Ne / 


vbaltixey et meihiseq eae Jos Biewt yao aol¢aut oa etehie want 
sew nolteattimen ow gabdttichy cei of Seti dapbayten war" 
Srekee test OReL CE Hoe LEO LOd eee mh Beerern ae sersbdnuy 
ytettnee elt te (ok Sontag of calf Qodyaek rad multaintnnke edt Hoor 
qd ber iweey Be eyereve Laweaeyg Orff Wikam OF Bette? ox tout gaktere 


qesers SA ,Yowteds weet +e tuyor hex wetur ot Bow dnemsrdqed On 


™ 


o3- 
alee denied the Department had at any ‘ime notified plaintiff that 
he succesefully paseed the exumination or that oie license would 
be issued to nim upon payment of $5.00; that on the contrary sub- 
sequent te the examination a fee of 35,00 was received in the 
Springfield office of the Departwent but wasn not accepted because 
the petitioner had failed in the examination and that thereaster, 
en December 11, 1924, this fee wae returned to petitioner. The 
anewer further ssserts thet in January, 1922, when petitioner was 
admitted te the examination, the Department was operating under 
the Medical Practice Act of 1499; that under the provisions of that 
Act, applicants for such licenses were iet reguired te furnish proof 
of graduation from an agcredited profeescienal scheol; that as a 
matter of fact, no druglesa schools, such as the sohool frem whieh 
plaintiff was graduated (ational Gehool of Chiropractic) were 
acore‘ited by the Department; tiat the requirement for registration 
at the tice end place of examination was that the applicant pass 
& suceesefal examination in certain subjects prescribed, but as» te 
this requirement plaintiff fudled to meet the same in that he redled 
te pase the examination on these subjects. The answer says delendant 
444 not iseue the license to plaintiff in 1922 and 444 net infora 
Plaintiff his license rould eventually be iesued or that in the 
meantime he wae at liberty to practice fis prefession. On the von- 
trary, plaintiff failed te pase the examination preacribed and is, 
therefore, not entitled te receive the license, 

4s « further delense the anewer siater tiut on April 22, 
1937, plaintiff filed « mandamus proceeding in the Cireult Court of 
Sangamon County against defendant, invelving the same subject matter 
and raising identical iceues ae here. A copy of the petition riled 
in that case ie attached to the snewer and incérpogated in it ae 
Bxhibit “a*. The anewer avers that thereafter defendant on April 39 


1937, in the Sangamen County Ci rewit Court riled a motion to strike 


fh tanedeth 

fae Prieataly hoa ha oh GMs Yee te had Seat eged wat balaok oaie 
ise Sion! Bh GH Xo ede nkeRe as Meee Ye teeep ee ot 
Gee YUssenee Gil a2 Sane (00.76 ‘te diaayee aega aha as bownnd ed 
ge Gh how kee aoe See Te O81 a Red teliem Os oF Soaupes 
siuawed Retqeger ton now sul damatyned Bl to enh ite Meltpaiagll 
miieetnds tact han soldosdasee galt wh gehts’ taal sasphs hing watt 
est. .wesiabeléog of Bersgior wow aot aidé , 886! ., 4é todmeved ao 

Ree ceaeds keg moe , RBS Th eeibdaahs af dese sdrgune goaset yawens 
Taber gQistateqe asx tremriagad aay iG ki ake em on e? ete Liab 
tent ie eedelveke eas tala fads 7,084 Je fon goltienn’ Sup doens Red 
Yooutg daiaualt e¢ beviucer tea wtew seameod Howe eee thas Ligga toa 
& ea tems plesces tewebanaltetq bodivaroon ae wort ae htawhety te 
retiie w67% Leeton of oe Sao ,oieedos eeaiguab an , goat, to resem 
erew (ndivetuoninG te Leadek dacoljei) botaubaeg. naw igahote 
aotiontnagen eh Seman haes Ole Bane pIROMI HER OS YC petdhesoes 
grag Paawdiage eddy Sake. ane andenalnnks le evedg, bam ahs oct ta 

as ao tet ~hedivonorg stoskdun adatseo at anitaniawne Lataenpone # | 
AGilet ou Fed Mo omee oat feaw a badink Thigaistg teemetlepet elds 
tahoe ioh sgn we Oct Ctpeldee cund? ne Rodtemtmwe golf rae or 
wag ist 200 DDS ham BAL ak Vitendatg et saaeelt ent enead Jom BES 

| $e ah gant to housek od yikeutaove binew opane ts ald ‘Vitgate Le 


ages RI BR) aodene korg. whe aa sdnosy we ane 28 ae oe mds ao om , 


veh mut adh eoeeee, miivclasce ae neem oF belies vheetete, \yres { 
se0sell adit sykooet of Aodelone aoa anne . 
Bo Cty to fawd, aetode eg i a 

te F2HGD Renovss, offs a2 Qobemnegeg eamanbipea am behets. Midgatase Pee 





gdbees of meadtom « BOL? Famed Pheor to : ele iii or pe veer 





“4- 
and diemise thie petition for mandamus, a copy of said motion 

being attached and sade s part of the anawer; that the court, after 
full hearing, struck the petition trem the iiles and entered a final 
order ‘iamissing the cuit and assessing costa aguinst plaintiff. aA 
copy of tiie order is likewise attacned and inecrporated in the 
anewer as Sxhibit *c*. The stiewer saya that on May 21, 1937, 
Plaintiff served on the Attorney General and upon defendant an 
appeal notice whereby he appealed to tie Appellate Court of the 
State of Illinois frew thé tinal order and judgment entered ty the 
Cireuit Court of Sangamen County on kay 5, 1937, « copy of rhich 
notice of appeal ifs also attached and made a part ef the answer as 
Rxhibit "5". The sanewer further averse tse appeal wan never verfected 
te the Appellate Court of Ililineis but was abandoned, and avers 

that this eae « final sdjudication of the issues wnich are the 
subject matter of this suit and tuat ‘efendant pleads res adjudicate 
to the matters and tiinge set ferth in the cause, and avers plaintiff 
is estopped to raise these isevee in inia preceeding by reason of 
the final judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Gangemon County, 
Illinois, May 5, 1937. By further onswer the defendnt sets up the 

6 year Statute of Limitations of the State of lilinwis; says that on 
ite face the petition shows plaimtiff is ~uilty ef laches and for 
that reason is sot entitled to a mandamus, The anewer also denies 
that plaintiff ie entitled te relief of any kind. 

The cause came on for hearing upon the plea of laches and 
also the plea of ree adjudicata, and upem the hearing thereof the 
petition was dismiesed at plaintirfr's cost and tuere wae judgment 
that the pleintiff take nothing ond defendant recover coate. From 
that judgment plaintiff prosecutes this appeal. 

The plaintiff contends (citing cases such as Van Dorn vy. 
Andereon, 219 111. 32, end People v, Dunne, 255 Lll. 441) that a writ 
of mandamus will issue to command the performance of m official act 


which is cerely ministerial and net judictal, und cites State y, 


a 
meteie hioo te YAK 4 « Masts ena “tet meds soe heh nu Lou 2h bass 
noe te sue act Fad ;rewne ant te dla $i ahaa Bn beconsta ‘Saied 
Leal? s botetas kaa akkL ont wie? aoltadeg walt sown eyattaod aiwt 
&  Vrbaba tg fasiegs sips grleaseee hime ah wx Isc gator kaakh ‘Tehae 
wait ah baiazoqsoead fst, Basa siabaden ve sRened ak cata etna a. egos 
Weed ee Yaa oe fads ayer SARE te ane "3" shdbent aa towers 
| ae Sombie toh sxapagas bie beeory i wearer tA ot ae oowrea Veh abate 

ont te tuned gballangh ene oF ba leduey ass qdateste eo ttpm ah 





eae a ieietae faomaghy, bum mebKe Laait sis bande shed £2E %e store 
deade Ye Yque o VERE f wd we ‘go mann sontejga ? 3a ateen t 


Perc Sale ORE 


*e2ton Be 
h \ 





Pat sewn ma ae to eta & a Saws Some detrei ie’ onde be fanene me 





sesootred 19880 nine Sais ee 


eners bea . besa asd 








| a ee -abaote Hwshap"ta feud ota finn dace te xorten sae 
esi ais oe ‘wrers bie ,ganeo oid ai arse toe eyarde Bate otetjan ond oe 
| te roaee ve gatdoooerg wiss ad coven waesia eater ae deqgetes as 
x Sued aro gn’ to euwed Jwako ois ed. bereg se tevaseg ht, Saat). eat 
was ae adee taba ‘toh exit ‘ewe waste tl Pees ms ee sions tes 
aif 
“te7 ‘pam andeod ‘te ea Lary or Pusadese awacte mas keg. walt (208k aft 
eal aed onto ee wae gl sata bt a ad bots tans Feu ei Me889s feds 
ne  Bemtaye yue to we tiow * bott atae at Tite ae 
bus ‘apieet te aeiq “ay Boga pause 4 10% Me emma eaneg OF vera! 
alt tiara — hee weg hista eft t RLM M8 ee aa lg ost ona 
Sovmeagb st sae wads faa swon arrilsatate & ts bowadsn 28 aan woihieg 
ent 86800 zoveven duane te bao waka an oat ‘Watadete | oe dat 
| hea nse eeduoneaty vidpataty, dae Se ut 


Tae 


ate feat ayes pabostsst te asad® wuld ‘te euoLiad twat ¥e sdaihalakell tie 













tine & sand (abe tik eas atus_oe_aages © bas co Ars em, r ee hae 
ten lateltto we te sonar: otteq ene bawssnae at ound fiw 


waa J 
a-ak ves ha Pyrite , Oe ee Se ee a re er een ee" plan Bete 


abe 

Aleogk, 296 No. 550, 106 5,¥, 270, to the proposition that Koards 
of Health are not Judicial bodies in that their duties are admiuise 
trative not ministerial, and that tor their refugal to perform a 
given duty sandamus wiil lie. All thie is clementary. Fiaintiff 
alee contends that the duty here set jorth was a continuing one 
aqninst which the bar of the Statute of Limitations or lugieg cannot 
aveil to defeat plaintiff's action. All thie ter purperesa of this 
decision may slee be conceded without in ony way determining the 
merite of this appeal, slthough on its face the petition showe 


laches which would bar resovery. Carroll v., Souston, 341 ili, 531; 





Hepkine v. Am@a, 344 111. 527, Tue anewer of the defendant set up 
new matter which, if true, was determinative of tue appeal upen the 
merits and to thie new matter plaintisl® tailed to reply either admite 
ting or denying it. Under Seetion 4 of the Handanue aot, (1112. 
State bar State, 1937, chap. 37) petitioner bad the ripnt to reply 
as inother civil cases, He did not avail himself of inis privilege, 
and thie new matter (mamely, thot the lesue here lad been adjudieated 
in the Cireuit Ceurt of Sangamon County: stands admitted on the 
record, The writ of mandamus ie sot a writ of right. One preying 
fer such a writ must Bhow « clear right tacreto. Byvans y, darper, 
204 111. App. 164, Plaintiff hae no risht te the writ because he 
is barred by laches, 
SRRXEX AXLBRY and because the watter has been adjue 
dicated between these parties by the Cireuit Court of Ganganon 
County. For these reasons the judgment will be affirmed. 


AFFI NY D. 


MoSure@ly, '. J,, amd O'Connor, J., coneur. 





aback gust aektiesqery ods of (O88 69k der O08 68 eG ¥ 
whetwbe uy ewktes thed? sant sh aethod fadotbwt #ae ota it Look Yo 





a mroTteg of Leewtws test Tar tact Ree , Lobuete tesa fon evitexd | 
VikewielS yentaemede et etite £0 Sit Like adontene 4th aoeky 
ome gukiabtigs a sew afcat fea ome Yeah eos Pedy wbastios enka’ 7 





fours gouges te toetiatioLs ‘te otitet® an¥ ho wad any dodse Yeotaga | 
aiai tH epauqing “eF efeie Lfh  nobtne al tibgade te taete® of ‘fheve 
oat Guiodotersh Yew yao At tuodtiv nebeonel ed oats yon moby took 
ewes sori tag sit aao't att aa shania Le . See eee eae te ooh Kein 

;$82 ET 06 pyotawod wv cloves) etereeet sae Siaor to hetw seibat | 
qx tox fibubtes 403 to towene eat TAO LOGE NOS gem oy * 





wet aoee faenge o82 te ovivsniodedah oaw sary EE Helle xedtan wea 
d¢iuhs wel etyor of bo that TDteAlete “X83 tan wen oFNt OF bon “gehien 
oil} ,20A aseehaek an3 ‘to h aokivon qekhel wk gatyned xo qnkd | 

qidwn of duds dad bas tosetshzeg (CE .qady TOOL .etad® tell oder 
waetivicg ehad to oascid Linve gon Bik oR .ReRRe Livie verde nd ¢e 
keto ibatio mead hed ore oleat alt foctd -ytemnm) wettas wea O28! Baw” 
‘we wo BETS tade abasen Cekaved aemeyuat to Mved Fhiokao ed? ak” 
gutyixe gad .tayts Yo ¢itw » too ad weeibaem ty die at” beeoot 
” “Baays votevet Foy ds awed a woes tome ater a down Set” 
od exueedd Jee wes of Pedy on Wad ‘Vehoatads Ribas eqk it red”? 
autho Hed Yad Yedduu odd seaweed Bae | KABEKMMANKREAEE ‘i 
anaagens ‘to gawed tlaseto ane “¥ iaiieit oaaele paren 
dese Pte ae £fa0 am ot ett @aedest aawd? Bscsd! : jms 


ie uae 
‘ Oe eh 





oka 





fo ps he 


* ites Srita” 
Y pepe eo ae 


MODES 4 sonnets i wey ch eetatiel 


vovyheh Seale 
Cae be i 
é he ep ete 40 9p) 
¥ Sas fe 


40365 


JOSEPH GLASS, 






Appellee, 
vs. COURT 


STANLEY MARES, CHICAGO. 


OTA @e \ 
Appell Y Lee OG 1. 


BR, JUSTICE MATCHBTT DELIVERED THE OPIRIOR OF THE COURT. 


Cohen, the ovner of permises known as 3059 South hedzie 
Avenue in Chicago, on Jsnuary 24, 1927, leased the same to Lahucik. 
Stanley Maresh, the defendant, purchased from Lahucik the business 
conducted by him and went inte possession of the premises in 
October, 1927. He continued to occupy the sane until June 14, 1935, 
when he wae dispossessed by a judgment in forcible entry and de- 
tainer in favor of Glass, who in the meantime by deed ad taken title 
to the premises, 

This suit in the trial court was by Glass againet Maresh 
for rent due and unpaid under the terme of the lease during the 
time he occupied the premises. The amount claimed was $2,844.50, 
The cause was tried by the court. There was a finding tor plain- 


tiff in the sim of $1,195, with judgment thereon and deiendont 


‘appeals, 


The defencant argues in the first place that the statement 
of claim does not set forth a cause of action in that plaintirr 
Glaimed as assignee under the lease while the statement did net 
aver that he was the bona fide owner and set forth hew and when 
he acquired title as recuired by Section 22 of the Civil Practice 
Act, (Ill. State Bar State, 1957, chap 110, p. 2386.) ‘he con- 


tention cannot prevail for several reasons, In the first place 





,RHGO2 He VO SOZAISG WHE GHRRViuaG PtaROdad wodreut a cal 


oinhed :Waot G808 ae awemd epeioneg to tomes awe .aedeG 
-Bhouva.l gd Siam ohF BOBeOL TROL (58 wees th as eunaitial. anc nine 
eeeiland eas Aiomiel aout bessterke ,wnchae tah at, doen yore’ 
a sseiuerq eff te aokesetag etal fisw ban mht yd Betowbage 
28@L ,ek ont L}fay eure ea) Yowose wt howndties of TROL ,cedered 
“ob bie yttue ¢idésvet At dassgewk « yd bonkeeneqn dd aae OH ama 
oiti) ngsled Bas best qe eadvnkom oud ad ose peweke te tove'd ad semket 
teow fesiejs eaall yt exe Sawen Medat end a2 Chow ea? » 
walt Gecsived woced aif TO gkned ond Gobi Ahoqeu bax owh srem wet 
20% AOS 8% eae dbomdelo sowern OdT ase ewty ont bekqwoee we ott 
abel; tot gakbart « eat sxog® “ewes eae YX heii seit eanse ont 
faebae'toh Bro aeveedd tavaybwt mete RUE Le "eo ake end aah Te 
rebinien! 
iasostute off Salt woelq satkt ea? ak eeuae oad avieb Gat oo wo” 
Ythoaiale tant at toltne To savas # dtxe% toe on weed mtele Yo 
tom BLS tepumdade eds afisiv paaat ott sebny evagionn a pomee 
nade ane wed dteot foo bow seme. obt't cre le eats anw oat ‘tasty rove 
agitoae’ Livia ev Yo BR apitaes yd howlever ae oLrte becinpos wi 
ecoo ed% (8888 .¢ {CLL qusly ,VEOL 108000 sell esete eAdT) toa 
gookg terkt edt al .amowsot Leteves tot Lkevetg toanse aold aot 


defendant in the trial court made no ebjection to the statemmt of 
claim. The issue as to the assignment was in fact tried out. Evi- 
dence thereon was intreduced by the parties. The court made a 
finding. Under such circumstances we will not reverse the judgment 
in order that a better pleading way be supplied. (iyoas v. Kanter, 
288 Ill. 336.) Section 42 of the Civil Practice act, (111. State 
Bar State., 1937, See, 42 (2), (3)) provides: 

“(2) Bo pleading shail be deemed bad in substance 

which shall centain euch information as shall reasone 

ably inform the opposite party of the nature of the 

Claim or defense vnich he is eslied upon to meet. 

"(3) All defects in pleadings, sither in fora or 

substance, not objected te in the trisl court, shall 

be deemed to be waived.” 
In the second place plaintiff took title to the premises by deed, 
He had the right to sue on the lease irrespective of Section 22 of 


the Civil Practice Act by virtue of Seotion 14 of the Landlord and 


Tenant Act (Ill. S'ate Bar Stats., 1957, chap. 80, p. 1937; Schroe- 
der ve Blesctric Apparatus Co. 270 111. App. 235.) 


Again the defendant contends that the judgment should be 
reversed because there was a variance between the pleadings and the 
proofs in that while the statement of claim olleged a cause of 
action based on an assignment of the written lease, deiendant en the 
trial was allowed to show what amounted to an oral leasing of the 
premises for a period of years, which brought the lease within the 
previsions of the Statute of Frauds, Plaintiff claimed only for 
the time defendant was actually in possession of the premises and his 
possession is admitted. The defence of the Statute of Frauds could 
not have been successfully interposed under such circumstances. 
Moreover, the Statute was not pleaded as a defense. Further ne 
Claim of variance was made in the trial court as was necesvary te 
preserve the question in a court of review. (111. Terminal v. 
Thompson, 210 Ill. 226; Pickett v. Kuchan, 323 111, 138.) 


’ 


to teeapsade ad? of aghdootdo am sham dewey feiss emt mt asbasten 


~ivK due beiad fost af aAaw Gopmaygdcaw ett 9¢ oe ouaed OAT “yatta Lo 
2 shew duyeo af veekived ae? qd hegebertal wae meexedt eeaed 
faseghul edi eeraves dea [ify ow aeumetenuetio doewe tebal .gaksak?t 
Pe -bodiggua ed you gatkeolq tedted @ tad? tehero ma 
ededS £12) ,40A eo ttoatd Liviv edd ‘to 9 modtege 1.088 £20 008 
‘eohtvomy ((8) , (8) RA ek , TERE ,.etat8 tail 

eonesedtid ot had keweeh od Kiade guibasie oe (ee 

eageney ffade ea Nokdamigtiat dome aletaee Liste doldaw 

eit to gamtes oat te yixna ableggaa oat smetad — 

ham ef Boge bellse ef ad malin oeae'le® to 


49 ate * ah Reals ke oes haat g RE etoe Toh ‘tia (ae opi 





fiade ,dewos Ladse aah ot ais Rp ich oh ome besiege 


od oF bawoo’ 





pool yo Beakserg oad of wit) stand tieitete eoale Bimeood ‘aaa ar 

te 28 bodsoo® te evidesquamd wieni ody Re ole oF digit eat ‘Bait 9h 
gto bredbtind ort te of aobtows Yo anduty yw baa ‘setgonrt Livi odd 
genes eer .q 0d .quide TROL , etate 0M whe 8 + eee Poa Liemesell 





(868 .gqe .f£2 FR . of is, 83 
pe biweits Foommbo one Sled “whiter nou’ gnabnates ona “ido 





eit bie egetboaiq od? aoowred goo beay 6 naw eaeds ssuened bee 
6 weiwo e bege tt: male to soomidate gat oLidw tame wh ateerg 

odd Hb PuadueYeS senot NaN bee eg to toodngioen da ao beset aotsen 

aay “Ye gakenot Iwts mm of Kedavoms tack ‘wails ‘ot bawelta ‘aw ian 
sides 


add niidiw gasei ot tiguord Solan .wtsoy Te hoki ‘@ tot eee. 
| ‘ee ¢iae boutele Titinke st abuert * onutait ot te iineta wena 









tues abuant Yo wdndas® ot Ya cuaittes wit “Begvlahea ot ier wa co - 


escattsamoths dase sefhinws oshaatal ionepmeet ae hiked 
) nan Mime a we Bo i ee 





tiaiy 


ALL) welder wi fait » ot eed ae 
1 ont tet Bez inet se Lae wisd ont 













o3- 

It is nest contended the court erred in admitting in 
evidence over défendant's ebjections plaintiff's exhibit bo. 5, 
which was a ledger sheet which Cohen testified was in the hand- 
writing of Snidér and Kiss Tosoy, his employees. He also testified 
that the record was kept under his supervision and control and that 
it showed correctly the defendant's account, Gnider alse testified 
that the paper was an original wemorandum of defendant's account. 
The abstract shows that this ledger sicet wae admitted in evidence 
ever a general objection, and tuat defendant sade a motion te etrike 
it which was denied. We think the evidence was admissible. 
(Chieholm v. Beaman Machine Co,, 160 111, 101.) The trial was by 
the court. There was other evidence sufficient to sustain the rindings, 
therefore, the admission of this evidence, though erroneous, would 
not ve reversible, 

Lastly, the @efendant contends that the finding of the 
court was contrary to the evidence. The claim of the plaintirr, 
verified, wae for $2,844.50. Defendant admits he owed $180. The 
Plaintiff argues plausibly that the judgment was for an amount leas 
than was actually due. The uncontradicted evidence showed defene- 
dant was in possession of the premises for avout six years; thot he 
rarely paid his rent in full for any month; that he remained in 
possession of the premises until he was put out under a judgment in 
fercibhe detsiner; that the S-day notice on which the forcible entry 
and detainer suit was based and wiich was servedon him stated that 
the sum of $1,497 wae due and in arrears for rent and demanded paye 
ment thereof. The lease, as well as the 5-day notice, were pro- 
duced by defendant who was called as a witness under Section 33 
ef the Municipal Court Act and who alao teetitied in hie own behalf. 
He related his occupation of the premises as sabeve described and 
stated that receipts were given to him when he paid rent. These 


receipts, he said, had been lost. For a time he paid §100 per month. 





age 

ak galtdisie si 69.19 dteae ect behoesacoe gwem ak $f 
2 .@ ¢ididee et Tidiaiela engliostwe a! gaxbneteh zove soaeb ive 
~hitd e€9 Bk abv bad tidaed aeried do kde fasne teghet a saw sie Lite 
Sollissed sels oH .weeyetqaw ald ,coue? outa Sew cabins to gabe daw 
sede foc fowdsee Bae wadotveedie ela tebae food Bwew Baeoes oct tade 
befiicae? ewle awhlad stooeee aitocboe lob odd YLicotzes bewede #2 
.¢ano0ee b'FHobae tab ‘ke agbontomesi fsabjphee % gov ‘tegaq ‘edd Seds 
gonebive ai badiiahe as desis taghed ake Jat ewedan soatdeds OxT 
exitte ef aekson a wha taahite ies sad Ja Hodteet da fereseg ae sOVe 
OLdieniuse saw enmebiye oat antes ov bettie bat ‘He hse ak 

yd saR sadaictd ont |. sOL .cit hides ane. 





aenkonk’ eff aindeme od foxke lt ine ppeunnes nite caw enett” _  httion aul? 
| bigow ,avesigiie dyseds ,eamphive a habs ‘te stabar Luba ane eta tena ct 
eisicreven ed fom 

gd to gnkbakt oft gal? ennnsnep Tabane teh ats ,Bltsad 

pubs abece a3 to mints scf .somntve sas ot Utes HOR AST aise 
eat 084 bsvo of sthahe Inaba ted 0% .be6, ‘Ae F972 ie badlitey 
ese) tauoms Gh Tol aew taemyhet etd dads qidiinwate ROLgtR ‘tatele 
eagteb heweis sooiiive betethessagome ect = .hah qileusoe saw eal 

@ gay careers. Rha Fxehin aot ese imosg ale ‘te NatRRaSS OF st ee deeb 
gt bmnknwsx ae dant ;Atmem yet sok fist as ones @ te bing ‘aotas 

a txsmpiu, « awhaw tue tug eae asl kiteu aosinerg ade te nelsenns oq 
‘néne aidioret eid shes sche ue oo ts ox Web=G salt sigsit jteaketen ead tore? 
gadis dajete mil aokevies aaw i Aci bas beand aa thay sonkaseh bos 
“Yee Bed i a. utp taes rel halal ak baa oub wee Fea, de te mre oat 
“ang stew Bo td ons Yanks os ais = klaw at Somes. eat Roexedtt Seon 

£8 etc beratel Dh tangs auontia 3 a. bedinn oem. wee tnehce twp « boos 
Late d sei ada at pokiidass aa La one bcm di srs0t daqiosesit edt ‘te 
hae hedinoaes ereda BH nes laweq esta te mokiaqunae fetoat duty x ou 
erat tas bhag asf ame osih sf ar aur ta eter stgieoes auld. betots 
Aine 29g 8O.L$ bieg ed oaks & zo #006 mead bar vbien, asi iptateges 





ote 
The depression came, then he paid $75 per month; later $50 per month 
and afterwarde $40. He says he teld Cohen, with whom he talked, 
that he could net gay any more. He moved from the premises June 
14, 1933. The lease and deed in evidence with testimony by the 
plaintiff to the effect that the rent was not paid cast upon defene 
dant the burden of shewing payment. 

Upen review the finding of the trial court is entitied 
te the came weight as a veriici of a jury. The court heard e11 
the evidence which was coriewhat conflicting and very much confused, 
Twe courts have now held rent to be due. (Schwarz v. Cooke, 207 
Ill. App. 310.) We cannot say the judgment is clearly and manifestly 
against the weight of the evidence, It will be aflimsed, 


AFPFIRRED, 


¥YeSurely, *. J., and O'Connor, J,, concur, 


opi” 
Mtnon ney O66 sotal ;stacw aee STE Bay of ged? (Gane ao bresteed otf 
hekier of agile sithe nodes boat sa ogee Oh (Oad whew tet te Ban” 
erat eouloete 089 woe? berse oH .oveer ee Yew dea Biebo od fank’ 

an) Of Wiendtbed Ato seo tive st based to oeme fh we leeer (pk 
aiteteh segy fae bite ton exw tenn ond Tae dye'Tte ent ef “Sthtatale 
Lioyer gikwete to mobeed off Faoh 

ideiivos ak duces Litsd eit ‘te gakialy edt webven Weg O° O° 

fie Wael Mwoe wt? oeret » te volower e aw Se) lOw ones anh oF” 
eee ines dows yiov bos gaktelfiiteo decdeenms ase doldw wenebive ond» 
ToS ,efocS .t gtewring) .608 sd ot tast bind wen eved ahamee gw? 


yitestimin fan yYluwolo af taemgbut eay yas gonmen oF OEE. Gk LET 


hen erte ad Like Oi secutive wat To gig how elt dertage” 


rewonge ,b ,rommeo'O baw , 66.4  qhotwted 


¢ Dine 


me ecm rt ae Mn 
PPR ee ee earls Ua LN e RiGee sie iia He iy ie dha 


be ah 24 B Mood aks | eee Poy 


40382 


RICHARD C, MAZER, Individually and as ) AN 
Executor of Estate of Kathie Mazer, _’ 


é 


{ 
é | 
i 


) 
) 
) 
FROM MUNICIPAL 
} fae , 


‘e 


a COURT OF CHICAGO, 


‘) . 
) “4 Z 
4 Cy J ® 
/ 2 YJ G ioe VI «£ 


vs. 





CHARLES J, SCHAEFER 
A, SCHAEFER, 


wy 


MR, JUSTICE MATCHETT DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 


Plaintiff sued to recover compensation for occupation and 
use of certain premises, also demanding interest from the date on 
which the amount claimed was due, Defendants tiled an answer de- 
nying liability. They also demanded trial by jury. January 26, 
1938, this suit was dismissed tor want of prosecution; May 24, 

1938, plaintiff tiled a petition under section 21 of the Municipal 
Court act praying the order of January 26 might be set aside and 
the cause stand for trial; defendants answered; the court set aside 
the order of dismissal and reinstated the case; hay 26 defendants 
moved to vacate this order olf May 24, which was denied; defendants 
appeal from the order of liay 24, 1938, and the order of liay 26. 

Defendants say the court had inherent power to dismiss the 
cause for want of prosecution, that the order of dismissal was a 
final order, and that upon expiration of 30 days thereat'ter the 
court was without jurisdiction to set the order aside. Such is the 
general rule, to which there are exceptions. Section 21 of the 
Municipal Court act (111, State Bar Stats., 1937, par. 376) provides 
in substance that every judgment order or decree of the court, tinal 
in its nature, shall be subject to be vacated, set aside or modi- 
fied in the same manner and to the same extent as judgments of the 
Circuit court might be during the term at which the same were entered: 


that after that time judgments shall not be vacated, set aside or 


— 


SBEOR 


es bas (ileubivibol ,AUSAM .9 GAAHOTA 
ne BORO eintsA to stetal ‘to. totugexd 
ok .tesalt snitodtseA as cwerak oats 

é 


f 2 
a 


j 


* 






( 
( 
( 
i ef oss 
JAGIOLUUM MOAT TABATA %, . 
H conch gto si ‘i ay 

; -ODADIHO €O GAUOD | \ be; 

Pi ge Be RES. es \ MALLOLW bau AUEMAHOS GHA 
Cfo ALeCCS: N ,REWHAHOS 4A 
ry  ‘. Po ees = .edus Lleqga i 

~ 


-tHUOD HET TO WOIMISO ENT CaAAVIGeE TTAKOPAM BOITAUL ee 


bas sottsquooo rot noftsenedq deo2 nevooet ot ene rihtnieald 
no stsh sit mest Fasts¢i AL mnie cemab oats “soe Tabue hiatess "Se 9an 
-9h wewans os hefit ad ashi tod 2OUD aw SPR EAES J cio Me exit do tow 
88 viseast .ytut yd teins hebusnes, “oes essai eaiiidalt gatyn 
dS ys ;Moiduossorg to joew tot beeeisietb sew tive eid SbeL 
fsqioiauif ed to I& erat tt Tob ay noitited & p helit Tiitotele , Beer 
Sas ebies tsa sd sils tot a& yusunst to tebtoe sit auiysta tos ‘dau0d 
ebies tee Sivoo ond ;betswens itrapae ea ,isind tol baste gauso ort 
atneboue'teh 88 yell :seso ect betsteniet bus Iseatmaib to tebto edt 
adcshrieteb :beineh aaw cdolsiw .8S ysl to tebte aids etsosv oF bevom 
.o& ysii to r9h40 odd bas ,BSeCL , BS Yeti to tebto edd mort feeqqs 
eid aaisieib ot TLawog tnatesnk bac dauoo ent yor etnshoas tel ; 
s asw fsaeiveib to tebi0o ed tedt ,gotiveeaotg to tasw tol eeuse 
ort tsdtsoteid aysh 0& to moitetiqxe moqu dedt bos ,tebte Lentt 
eit ak don@ .ebias trebto ext toe oft nottoibelrst tuontiv esw duyoo 
eds to £8 aottose ,encligqoaoxs ete ered cotdw og eles [HTS 09S 
sobivotq (QVE .teq ,TECL ,.adeta tsi sista sLf1) tow t100 Laqto tes 
ieni't ,¢rvo9 edd ‘Io gextoeh to tebt0 J aomgbat Yisve tect eoustedye mb 
~ipom to obies toe ,betsoev od of tostdve od Llede ,stusen atk al 


eat ko Gtmomgb ut, as tasixe omer ett ot bns Tentem susa ons mk mee 


rheted ne aitew omse ood dolcw tse ated ad galtub ed tAgto g2u09 stwoxto “ 


to obiea dea ,bodsoav od som Lledea ‘adaomgbut outs denis wit 








2 


modified except by appeal or suit in equity or by a petition set- 
ting up grounds for vacating which would be sufficient in equity 
"provided" all errors of tact which by common law could have been 


corrected by the writ oi error coram nobis,may be corrected after 








the exniration of 30 days by a motion in the nature oi tuat writ. 
It appears from this statute that a final judgment of the Munici- 
pal court may be modified or set aside after 30 days in four ways: 
First, by appeal; second, by bill in equity; third, by petition; 
fourth, by motion, The controlling question here then is whether 
sufficient facts were disclosed to the court to justily the entry 
of the order of reinstatement after the expiration of 30 days, 

The uncontradicted facts, as we gatuer from the petition, 
the answer and other pleadings, are: This suit was filed October 
23, 1935; prior to November 50, 1937, it was on the past trial 
calendar and on that date wn order was entered putting it on the 
regular calendar; the trial Judge advised the attorneys to see the 
Assistant Chief Justice to the end that the case mignt be placed 
on the proper calendar, by rules of tne Municipal court tue judges 
established jury calendars lor tie convenience olf tne judges and 
litigants, This cause was place on tue trial Calendar 1, List Number 
816. December 1, 1937, the attorneys for the parties appeared be- 
Tore the assistant to tne Judge as suggested by the Uhief Justice 
and were advised by him that, as requested, the case would be 
placed on Calendar \o. 1 and set for trial in Room 1112 aiter the 
first of the year, 

January 5, 1938, plaintiff's attorney again consulted the 
assistant to the Chief Justice, who advised hin to watch the call 
of the calendar of Judge Schiller in room 1112, and expressed the 
opinion that the case would not be called jor trial before Febru- 
ary. The cause appeared on the calendar of Judge Schiller in room 


1112 on February 11, and at that time attorneys lor the parties 


~3ss moititeg s yd to yttupe ai dine to feoqqs yd tasoxe be ltibom 
utinpe at ¢aotoititve ed Sivow doise gaiscosv int Ghaxetecas. onee 
meed syvsd biwyeo wel sommes yd dotaw tost te atorres Ile "bobivorg™ 
aetts besostroo sd yaw,siden matoo zorte to diaw sit yd besooztos 
 titw dsdt ‘to sustsn odd at nottom a vd ayah O& to aoittertqxe est 
»-toiooi sid to tauommbyt Ieatt s tent stujete aint mort atesqgs #I 
raysw tot ai aysh 0&6 todts shies fea to bafiftbom ed yem daiuoo Lag 
:aoititsg yd , biting iytisps mi flid ya ,bno9ee8. ;leeqgs yd ,garli 
tontsdw ai cedd otend aoisesyp aniifortnoo est .aoltiom yd ,ddaisot 
vidas st vtitaut ot tivoo sad od beaologib sxsw atos't dneio lt twa 
,avsh O€ to nottatiqnre sat rests tnomeistanie: to z9b%0 ods ‘to 
loitivee sd} mort asites ew es ,atost bovorhexd moa Ay ‘oot ; 
t6doto0 bolit asw dive elidl ‘iets ,agnibssiq genau ‘Sica “‘rewans od 
feist ¢asq ant mo saw $E ,VECL ,08 tedmsvol! o¢ tottq ; acer es 
ert no ¢i gatdiue botedne easy isbro mw steb tect oo bas tsbiie Lao 
ect see of ayomtoddes ond beatvbs eybul Leitd estt taebtie iso "Za ivaee 
beosigq ed tilgim oeeo ‘edd tedd bus edd of sottent teisod tasseieeA 


asabut ocd gxvoo Lagrotnull odd ‘to asivt yd ,tebno lao zeqotg eat mo 


bos eeghut suit To soneins vids aid tot atabietso yaet bedelldates 


todasil detd ,£ tabieisd Lsitl elt ao soaic 8sw seuso aldt ‘yet aagis ir 


~9d herssecds asivtsg od tot avoutotts edt veer .f tadusos@ .af8 
esisent Teta edt yd boteogane ae egbut eat of sostalens end stot 

od blvow see ott ,bed@oupst es dent min yd bealvbs stew Bie 
ei¢ tsetse SLLf wool ai Leite tol Jee bos Lf 04 weboetsd mo bossig 


380% ‘end hall dark? 


Cheese, 


ent betiveanod tisys Yemtrodis a 'ttt¢ntelg ,86eL ,é eve teat” 
[lso odd sotaw of min beatvbs ofw ,eoitent ‘tend anit od dustelees 
act Beagetgxe bas ,SLLL moor at to libdoe agbul, * tabne ico edd 20 


‘wurde etotsd feixd tot be liso od tos BLwow 58.89 odd daut notatgo 


FRETS tt 


eds it aaiLicos asbub ‘to nabiie les. out 110 ‘ceceouen ‘eauso ent UTS 


rg ' 


asi¢xag ent rot eyeotosia omtd jedf da Bae ey qieutdet | ‘10° Ste 





< 





agreed that it be continued until April 12, 1938, Plaintiff's 
attorney on April 12 appeared in the room named, at which time he 
was informed the cause could not be tried because it had been dis- 
missed by a prior order, Without the knowledge of either plaintiff 
or defendants or their attorneys the case had been called in room 
1114 January 26 belore Judge Hartigan and dismissed also without 
their knowledge, On April 12, 1938, and at all times, plaintiff 
was ready, willing and able to prosecute his suit, 

It is a rule of practice in the Municipal court that when 
a case is disuissed for want of prosecution notice shall be sent to 
the attorneys of record. The appearance of plaintiff's attorney was 
on file in the court at all times but no such notice was sent to or 
received by him. Because of this prior order of Judge Hartigan 
no order was entered on April 12 by Judge Schiller, Attorney for 
plaintiff first obtained knowledge of the order of dismissal on 
April 12, 1938, The petition of plaintiff! avers that by mistake of 
the clerk of the Municipal court the cause was inadvertently placed 
on Judge Hartigan's calendar in room 1114, 2nd thereby plaintiff was 
prevented from presenting his motion to reinstate within the 30 day 
period, The petition also averred that if the court had known of 
this mistake the order of dismissal would not have been entered, 
The petition says the case of Maxer v, Schaefer did not appear on 
the Municipal court record as assigned to room 1114 for hearing, 
However, search has now disclosed that a case entitled Mayer v. 
Schaffer appeared there, The petition is verified by plaintiff, 
and in support of the motion an affidavit of the attorney of record 
for plaintiff corroborating the stateuents above set torth was 
submitted, 

Defendants answered, ‘the answer does not deny the facts 
stated in the petition but says that it appears from the records of 


the Municipal court in the cause that it Was duly assigned to room 


atttitaislt ,8éeL ,Sfi Litga Litns bewaitaoo od ti Jedd heergs 
ef eutt doldw is ,bemsa goot oa} ai beteeggs S&L LhigA no ysntotis 
-aib aged hea Ji sausoed beiad od yon bingo sauso edt bomreltal asw 


tifdcietg. texts to sgboiwonk ect iuedsdW ,1sbhto teirqg « yd boaeim 





Boot ai beliso ased bed seso at ayomtodis tiedd to atasbueteb 10 
| tuontiw oale boseiweth Sas iggivash ezbul ereted 38S yissast aLil 
! Tiktaielq ,aemis Lie te. bos ,8ECL ,SL Lirqgé. 20 .sapelwomdl tiedé 
etiue. aid sjuosaotg ot oLds bas gailtiw .vbseT asw 
' tiedw tags dtuoo. tegioinu erit. af aoitesiq io slut. se ai tI 

ot tase od Lfede. soiven. moltivosactg ‘to daew tot boeaiuelh ef opso s 
asw Yenrodds ef Tiitntalg ko eonateeqas eat .htooer te ayortotts esd 
: tc e¢ tope esw asitoa dove om tud aemis fle ts daiuoo eas nt e6h?. ne 
tegitash eghn) to sebte toitg aids to sauesosi mid yd Sevisoot 
i! sot yaarossA oko Lika oo eghat yd SL LitqA mo botetas sew Tebto of 
no Jeavinats to tabts eld to syhbefwonwt bontstdo tazit Misatelq 
! to ofetaim yd gant ateva Tlidaltetg to saoitiseg sift ,8eL eSi Litas 

bhaselcg YLdnsdtevbsal asw genes Sc tives Leqiotnw edt to axel asta 
} ea¥ tiidaialqg ydeteds bas , ALLL moot ai ashaeleo e' nagiiast sghut so 


yeh 08 od obddiw eisienies of sohtow eid guitaseetq aott bsineverg 


‘to wom bes drueo aad Ti dedt herteve oats meitditeg ext eboizeg 
»betesiae oesd eved ton bivow Isealueib to tebte ect sxetaim abds 
no sseqee don bLD teteaded .v toxsM to seso ons ayse aoisiteg edt 
-gaitised tot ALLL moog od benyiaee as brooet Fx089 Jeqiof avid ealg = 
.V T9yel boltijas eeso s tent beeoloalbh wom eau dovsse ,tevewoH 

prtitaislq yd beititev al soistisveq act s9t9Lt Ooiseqos set Isdoe 


brooet to ysarodia sede to ¢ivebitis os solijom srt to dtogque at bas 


. seew détot dee evede atasustate ent guivatedotres Pret ahedy sot 
| 3 et alii Saline -bedd tadwe 


atost edd yaeb ton as0h tewene ent _ sbetewe as stasbue tet 


. 
0 


to abtopst eat mort Sts9 G8 ts joss ase tud Kolsiseg oud ak notes 





j meet o¢ bengiees yiub asw ot dad GeLEo ait ak feuo> teqtoial ost 


1114 for trial; that it appeared for the first time on the published 
calendar as pending in room 1114 on January 17, 1933, and was con- 
tinued trom day to day until January 26, 1938, when the order of 
dismissal was entered, The answer also sets up that on April 13, 
1938, tee attorney for vlaintiif appeared belore Judge Hartigan and 
presented an oral motion to vacate the disuwissal, woich the court 
denied, whereupon the motion was withdrawn and no formal order 
entered. The answer also avers tuat after January 26 the cause ap- 
peared on the call of cases assi.ned to room 1112 for February l, 
and from time to time until ¥ebruary 11, when it was conviiued to 
April 12, 1958, The answer avers by way oi conclusion tliat all 
orders subsequent to tiat of dismissal were void, 

In so far as tne merits of the appeal. are concerned, it 
might be disposed of speedily in favor of piaintiil on the ground 
that defendants, by appearing in the court after the order of dis- 
missal was entered and by agrecing to an order continuing the cause 
and setting it ior trial on April 12, waived the prior order of 
dismissal and are now estopped. 


Freise v. liid-City Trust & Savin; 





Bank, 298 Ill. app. i7. 

However, on the uncontradicted facts as they appear from the 
Pleadings, the court had jurisdiction wider section 21 of the 
Municipal Court act to set aside the order of disxissal., Whether 
the petition of plaintify is regarded as a complaint in equity to 
set aside a judguent entered as a result of mutual mistake and grant 
& new trial or motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis 
as provided Yor in section 21 oi the liunicipal Court act and section 
72 of the Civil Practice act, the order of reinstatement was justitied, 
The errors which may be corrected by the motion are "errors of fact" 
whien, if known to tne court, would have prevented tne entry of the 
judgment, woich are not the result of neglisence and which do not 


contradict the records ot the court, We cannot suppose that if the 





bedatidug ocd mo ovis daxi‘l edt tot bovesdee ti dens staged te¥ RLEL 
-N00 asw base ,260CL Sf vsisuist mo BLil sieet mi auth nag as tebes Led 
to tebto sid codw .680L ,d& yreuset Litnw yeh of Yoh mort beunit 
of ittgA mo feds os atse coals tewens oT ,heaedas sew isee loath 
bas negtidusl eobul sto'ted betsecys titdatelq 26t yvaorotda edd (eser 
gasoo oft Wolow ,faeelieib exd atsosv of cottom Law us Bod nedetg 
sobto lseutot on bas oawstbiviw eaw soliem ent agauatede (bsitesh 
“qe sesso eds OS yishiteS tTet'te dsud etevs calea tewene sd? Betedus 
f ~visurdel tot SIif moor of bsaylees estes to Ifiss eile ao hotasg 
of bauaissos Baw di nedw . Lf pvrapidet (isan omit of awis mott Sas 
its gaut meteufonos to yew ¢d etevs rowads ent e8@k (BL Litqd 
sbtov atew Isseibeib to dacd of dao bpeadue erebt6 

gi .Domresios sta fasqas odd To atinem snd es tet 08 al +s 
Aaiwotg git Go Tittsisig to teve't mi yilbsege ‘to Beedoceth ed dtgina 
weib To rebio sad tedte dunoo end Bi gnivestqe yd ,ednebns teh tend 
seuno od gaiwatines tehte me of Satoorge yd bar herétas saw Leaado 
‘te tebio tolte sat beviaw ,Si Lived mo Leits vot df aottise bas 
‘agotved & ceux ys i0-bi Vv s@iew cbeqqodes won ote bac ieee tme ls 
Or: oad Lf BOS ed 





i ang mexrt tseqce vert eb atost Betoibers nosey sis ne nis vtwoH of : 
ésid “to i noktose reba woi¢sthetryt bad Fibos ede , aanthes ty 

norgedW  ,Inaetmelh to tebxo eit obies tee of toa tryed Ieqhs biwil 

ot vtiups mt tatelenes eg ha beSteyer Oi Writaiere to meivideg eat 

domte: bas’ oie de bm leutem te $Lowexr 4 ee Beredne treme At B obias’ Fbe 
gides meroo tetTrs to dixw s ‘to sistem snd wt toitom Te Lela? wens 
noitsee boa dea suxn0d Legictw eit ‘te 18 sottese mf rol hebiverq @8 
pottitest saw teuwedasentex Yo tebto be 46a eottose@ Livld ext to’ St 
‘toat to eters” sts aotvem edt yd bstootxoo ad yam soidw avoTrs 9AT 

7 esd ‘to yttos edd betmeveta sve bivow ,tiu0o exit ot Hwofat’ "tt - fe tew 
toa ob dokilw bane eonsuitgent xo Finaet eit sen sts ‘Hodiw tapmghet 


rar ne 


a 
ead ‘tk tect sacqqua teraso 3W al eis To abroset oxtd sotniexrno9 








facts as set forth in the petition had been called to the attention 
of the court, or if the court had knowledge thereof, the order ot 
dismissal would have been entered, The errors of tact alleged do 
not contradict the record, ft appears neitaer plaintiff nor his 
attorney was negligent, In any view of tne case tne order entered 
by uk Geld Genet reinstating tue cause and setting it tor trial 
Was proper, 
The orders are affirmed, 


ORDERS AFFIRMED, 


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


Nobsasdse eft of bsfiso used ber xeititeq sit wk isto't tee as &ooRt 
to tebio end ,Yeotend eyielwom! bal fideo ous Bi to dxudo Set to 
ob begelflea dost ‘Io arovre eAT ,borotne sesd evad bivow see teeip 

ain ton Biisnislg teitien eresqgys gl ,ftoost et Joibariaes goa 
betaine wehto sis Sago ocd “fo wsiv yas oI  tiestiges eeW yortedses 
isiats tot vi aridvites hes sa@uso ear gnktietentst vied Lalkay Ware 
,teqotg saw 
sbomritts evs etebro ent ~~ 
.CEMAIVUA BHEGHO 


<thenoo ,,0 ,romted’d bas ..0 1G ,yleTioM 


Hw 
Fee 
mete @ 
f a0 ae 
yr 
be wire ONT 
eit 


2 cate BR ist 


7" » § Tu oven: dy 
ee, ? =I tity Y= rae ly i425 Pe the Steg Pa 7 ta ve 5% ie VGH 


40391 
PEOPLE OF THE STATE ¢ 





ERROR TO 
vs COUKSY COURT 


FRANK ¢C, PADEHEWGKI COOK COUNTY. 


Plaintiff in &rror. 
239 L.A. 612 fed) 


MR, JUSTICE KMATCHETT DSLIVERSD THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 





Paderewski, on 4 plee of not wuilty, vas tried on an 
infermation of five counts, filed ty Ciarlotte Hermes, each of which 
charged him with the violation on April 1, 1957, of Seetion 74 of 
the Hedical Practice Act (I11. State Rar Stata., 1937, chap. 91, 

p. 2002). There was « trial by jury with verdict of guilty. 
Kotions for a new trial and in arrest were overruled and judgment 
on the verdict was entered with sentence that defendant should 
pay a fine of $100 and coats and be comuitted to the County Jail 
for 30 days. By this writ of error defendant seeks to reverse 
the judgment. 

Prior to his plea defendant made a motion to quash the 
information and each count of it. The niotion was ienied. This is 
the first of the alleged errors argued. The information in the 
several counts in substance charges that defendant, without a 
license, unlawfully attached the tithes Doctor, Physician, Surgeon, 
&. D. or similar words or abbreviations to his name, indicating 
that he was engaged in the treatment of human ailments as a 
business; had his name printed in the directory of the building at 
202 South State Street as “"Paderewski an¢@ Paderewski, Chiropractora"; 
esused his name te be printed on a professional business card as 
"Frank C, Padereweki, D.C, «- Chiropractor"; had his name listed in 
the Chicago Classified Telephone Directory as a chiropracter, and 
caused letterheads bearing sihhilar words to be printed; that he 


maintained an office for examination and treatment of persons 


L303 






i. RE xeupe\od, ‘FNM ite tog 
taupe. VEAHN) 


sVEAUIe BOWS 





KS T a AT Qe bo ROCCE od Kinng 


PRESS BMY 80 AOL STtO SAY CRYAVIG TPRROTAN BOTA LR cory sae 


ae te bedet «aw , “tite, fom lo aaig 2 oe ,ddewerrenad, 
piso to does (eeweadh efioitesD ys hott ,etostes ovit to neksemrotad 
to Df meifese to ,fhOL ,f Litga ao agivatoty ode athe mi tergtesio 


,f2 .gerin ,TECL , atate tall e¢ete .cf2) ed eoddoar Leothetl ott. 


-tilisg to telieray dtiw qent yd Iaiad « saw etodt (8008 .¢ 
deamghut bre haluttave exey Faewze ot bac Labrd wan @ volt anglto® 
piveda gmabustes tadt senetaes Adiv petsdas saw telorer odd ao 
tet yaved andy of bottieaus of bac afean ban OOLF Ye oat a yaq 
eeteras af alosu taahoo led tovn ‘to diew etsy ya .eyeb Of tet 
-dammghut ett 

ett denne of notion « hax sashoeteh eetg edd os raked 


ai sink?  Batees aavw aoltom eo8 .tL te gavon soae ban aotdamretad 


ea) ai nobinverotal ont bovgta etowre begitiia adt te dart? edd. 


a tuoreiy ,geebaw'tes fade eettods soantedac of etawen Levever 
~teegtes ,aetsie yi? ,tetoot wedsis elt bedoatta vils'iwa ivy , sane I 
gaéieolink ,emen ald of suoivatvertds to cbvew teliabe to 0 4M 

a2 ee stoeatie neu Yo faanteott edt at hegagno aew ond sadt 


$e goidilud eld to yvredootlb oof ai bhetntig samo eid Sead pesonkend 


S“atotostqortdD ,dxawerebet hae blewerebed as Foorde efars tu0@ £08 
ae Stee anentand taxoleestetq 2 a0 betakcq ef of cama ald Beauao 

at DOtekt amen aid bac j"totowrqertad wo ,0.¢ ,ddewotehet .0 anert* 
bon ,tetvatqetioe # an yrodventt “enodiqa te? boltinaaso ogeotdd edt 

od tad? jbotatig ed of nbnew twibtla gakieed apasitvettel heasao 
asouteg Yo Saeniactd bas nobianteake te? woltte as bontasakan 


jeaeaLa . State eer Xe mete > 


\ Mag aah ede 


-2- 
afflicted or supposed to be aiflicted at Kooms 1100-02, No. 202 
South State Street, ecubped with a chiropractic table, ete., for 
treatment of afilicted persons; that defendant diagnosticated or 
attempted to diagnosticate the supposed ailment of Charlotte liermes 
(alse known as Mra, EB, Schultz) as a rotated cervical bene at the 
top of the spinal column, and did unlawfully operate upon, profess 
te heal, prescribe for and otherwise treat an ailment or supposed 
ailment of ancther, namely, Charlotte Hermes; that defendant recom- 
mended or prescribed a form of treatment for the wedieation, relief 
er cure of a physical or mental ailment with the intention of ree 
ceiving a fee, gift or compensation, etc., contrary to Section 24 
of the statute, etc. The information is practically in the 
language of the statute and does not negative tie exceptional cases 
to which this section of the statute (by other sections) is declared 
to be not applicable. 

The objections to this intormation are eimillar to those 
urged on behalf of the defendant in People v. Shaver, 289 Ill. App. 
612 (affirmed by the Supreme Court in 367 111, 339), and in People 
vy. Spencer, 16 \.#, (2d) 925, There, ae here, the defendant relied 
on People v. Brown, 336 111, 257; People v. Barnes, 314 111. 140; 
People vy. Berman, 316 Ill. 547, and People v, Bllis, %16 lil. 376. 


We held in those cases that the objections to the information were 
not well taken and the Supreme Court approved the judgment of this 
court. It would serve no useful purpose to further discuss these 
objections. 

The evidence offered was given by Charlotte iermes, whio 
is an investégator for the State Department of Registration and 
Bducation. She was the complaining witness in People v. Spencer. 
Her testimony here is to the effect that sie went to delendant's 
office at 202 South State Street avout March 29, 1937, met the 


aéfendant there, and that he asked her io return at 3 o'clock, 


Se 
£08 .ak ,RO-OGL1 anooll ta betoditte od ov Seeoqgee F9 bogatcrte 
tot ,.o%9 ,wivas oftsatgeticn » seie beqggips ,seends efeth Agvet 
to Sete0ifecangeth Juabaoteh gedd ,;paseted Betoiliia to sopmdeete 
2ANtel etioltade to # eum ont Be besgou¢ue af? elonigeomath of hoedemetie 
aay de ened Lavivies bolstex « ee (ablated .2 .ett% ex awemt es fa) 
aaeiert ,noqs @etatece yideTwelon S2h hae , ameton Lenten ant to qot 
besegess 19 gagalie og Joetd agivisdie hue tot editesanq , lesa of 
«nooo: Simbaaigh gads jaeesel oF jelxueds ,ylommm ,.wedtems te taemite 
teilsx ,aeiteoltbem eds tet gnemie0and I¢ aunt « bedisorete ao behnen 
“jt to aoftmetat ody dtiv tasaiic Jadanm to daoiegig 4 Yo wtp. te 
PS agivees of yrevtae ,.0¢9 ,mehiseasqupo to oT gy ,ee) o gatriee 
andy at yileoivosig ai aahiicovetns eff ade yosutate edd Te 
FIRBS inagdtgqaaxe aid evidegen tex aeeh fae atutate ods te, egewgnal 
ieteinad af (etoitesa tadtie yd) edutets eat te aphjoes adey sade. of 
aida kiqgs tou ad. ot 

snot ot tailgate ore soidsanetal 28%. of eaoktootde ent - 
ooh ALE OBS .xeueRe ov eigood a) tashie teh ait ‘ko Uhaded ae begue 
Siggst ab pae ,(@ht .f12 Tab af Srue0 emetqu’ ott qd howeitta) £9 
pation tmahae'ieh aff ,sted ue ,ovodt .a8@ (8) il Oh. aepmege ov 
:OAi .f£5 BSS geoese® .v sigost ;S8S ff] S86 . gerd vw esgost ao 
OTE .122 Of able sy whgosd ban Veo .ffk O88 Bere? sy efeees 
azew aoivanetnd edd o¢ ungiteatde ed? tail) wacoo anodd, ah bhed of 
eas te ¢nemebut etd boveIggs teee> euetenwG ad? fae nates iiow Son 
- papait auspats zeccaNt 9? eaeqisg tateem om ovine blwow oh .aaueo 
: ne: 

quw ,pemtoh tfoLiasa “a vig aay dere tte seushive och. 
fave sodtatiatgor ‘to ¢nemfasgel stare say tot tedegdssoral ne Py 
mopang .v eigesS ak enoudiv aakaka Louoo odd sow eet .totdaouba 
a'tmbas teh of draw aca gasit faethe ond amt. at awe YRoms raed ‘+o 
ait tom ,TEOL , OR dota duede teosee oF atR situol SO& sa aodtte 
wives! & go mutex of tex hodse oa dane baw ~etode daebas tos 


o 7s 


whioh she 4id. She described the sign on the directory of the 
building, woich wae “Paderewski & Paderewski, Chiropractors”. She 
teoid defendant she had been suifering with ieadacnes, heard avout 
chiropractic treatments and wondered if these would help. Defendant 
told her to come into the inner office. Sue did so. She told 

him her name was Are, Schultz and that she lived in Cicere. He 
asked her what illnesses she had had a@e@ child, her name and 
address, then said that chiropractic treatments were especially 
good for the headache of which she complained end pains which she 
teld him she sad in her shoulder and arm. iie had a number of 
charts on the wall and used these in making explanations. Delendant 
asked her if she was interested im having an examination. She 

said she was, He gave her a white gown and told ser te go inte the 
dressing room and put the gewn on and thathe would examine her back, 
whieh he did. Ghe came out of the office and sat on a small steoi 
with her back to him. He used « neurochrometer, an instrument 
which (as he explained te her) showed the temperature of any nerve 
that was pinched. He applied this instrument with >»ressure to her 
back and said if there was any pinched nerve or any congestion that 
it would cause a temperature wiich would show, and in that way he 
could tell whether she had treuble in the upper part of her neck. 

He said he would not give a treatment until A-rays had been taken, 
He told her to go to an A-ray laboratory and .ave taken an A-ray 

of the upper part of her neck, He said that hertrouble was in the 
upper part of her neck -- the cervical. She obtained the A@Tay, 
went back to defendant's office about April 1, about 10:30 in the 
morning and saw defendant whe told her he had received the Apray. 

Ke told her that the upper part of the neck was rotated to the right 
and this caused all her headaches sand the pains in her shoulders. 
She again put on the white gown and he examined her back, pressed on 
the vertebrae with hie hands, applied pressure to the bones in the 


region of the shoulder blades. She could hear the bones snap, He 





‘ae con 
i o ge Io yxotoonib odd oo mgia ont, padteonsh os EB sila Hotaie 
: ede atedounqen ti3 , Riawore het ® binworabat" saw do tow van iad 
suoia euwad pavisaban: atiw gairetioe asad haut ade “faaboo'te biot 


Stab ee bet ules bivew seed? Th betohnow fans ataomtesad aktoarqot ido 
ated at 02 BL aa .e04T%D sort ede ost ‘een et tod bLot 

ali . tae bo wt bovis ‘eda tasid ‘howe od Yustina ‘end eow ‘oie xed mbt 

nae anes soa. biise me favs Bait wate aeoasniit ‘geite ‘wed ‘bodes 

| vhtateaqee ator ataanseata oad pegontita ‘tat bios ‘wont asorbbe 

ho ‘atts doidw aukeqg baw boakelgaoo ate wodcw te erioabens oat et ‘beds 
. te wiv oneet # bad of arta bm sob Lasadts sea ad bac! oo watt ‘phot 

: pibabiog ano hiune Rqee gies xk awarti fou bos Eee oe a0 atuadio 
asia ods mobmnxe Fee gat vex wed baseouesat tone por ‘a ‘ted ‘boston 


i ‘keots siaee @ oe dae hews sokite agit te swe ‘euimen aie bab oat ‘e.tale 
i i] fepawWIsen oo ,TedemoTHOeTAEN « bons whi sah ‘of fond vod ‘thw 
: % evita Bite to orata re gums oid bewere (xox ot hoake Lge ‘oa oa) sip btw 
‘ “on of eiuaaet: dghw fiveitandenk ads ho tLane oi sbedonta eam ‘aauth 
. testd neitsegnoe vate “ao ertaa bento ule yet aay avout th phew hae toad 
7 out year gail m Bate » Wonks blwew dodeiw ‘s1siteteques a awa ‘biwow $2 
if 7 Seon ted to stag seaqh sit al ofduort bat arta waite ate “ther ‘Biwes 





it simi nod bast ayat~d iio au faontasts « evha ton on = ot shee 8H | 
A ‘wrest ne weed sve bite wrotatadal wernk ie of os 0 ‘aed bio on 
- : : ; ner BR 

; ast ai saw | elders mi tens hue o8 wows es to puay soges ‘eitt “te 


wt ee RE a 





sYstos gold ‘bended de ond ine dete ‘ents “= , denn aed te tee 
a eh urgide 


_ eats ak bet of nets it sale bina — btAricmta el ot oad 





ee eee aude pyre, a : 


i eats otnt a4 OF Ta Biss bas smiwey ottawa sweat ores ‘ol cd ‘esha ‘bisa 


il oud aati eadaoxe oivew edgads bus oo ave ons ae bees Boot andanoah 





o4e 
teld her to lie on her back, held her hand with nis hands and 

turned it sideways with rather cuick movements. He applied the 
neurochrometer, with its two prongs titting inte the spinal column, 
The examination lasted about an hour. Defendant told her that 

in three months he could have her feeling all right; tnat if it 

took lenger than three months he would net charge anything extra, 

The charge was $50 for three months. He said that the bone was 

being rotated iin the neck, and tris was causing headeches, Ghe told 
him she could not afford te pay $50. She paid nim #5 and he gave her 
@ receipt, a card and « little booklet. These were oiiered in evi- 
dence but are not abstracted and cannot be found in the record. 

The witness testified that defendant's olfiice consisted 
of a reception reom and an inner office, wich were nicely furnished; 
that the inner office had a desk and echirepractic table which was 
upholstered and extended in the air and would lower with the weight 
of the patient on it. There was a dressing table and a mirror and 
day bed. She gave him the nase of ire, &, Schultsz and her address 
as 1836 South 58th Court, Cicero, Iliinois. Neither name nor 
addrees was correct. She had cade arrangements to hava/e wadten 
from him received at that number and such letter was received, The 
letter and envelope in which it was contained were offered in evi- 
dence but are not indexed in the abstract, and an examination of 
the record discloses the same are not in it. 

The complaining witness was sent te defendant's office by 
her superiors. Defendant did not testify. ho evidence in hie 
behalf was submitted. As already stated, important exhibits are 
not found im the record. Usarlette Hermes testified that she wae 
not 111 when ehe visited the office of defendant and that sane went 
there to gather evidence of the unlawful practice in which it was 
believed defendant was engaged. Vor the game reason she gave him 


a fictitious name and address, Defendant claims on the authority 


of People v. Beach, 266 111. app. 272, andPeople v. Guagliata, 








fue Rice ate srw bead 295 Shed jdowd ted me of oF ted Biot 
em hetiqge a .stepite vee tofup cee tie eyeweble az ‘Seurtet 
imate fautge only ofei pokey it edaore ov ark Bete etetemotio oven 


nid eed tiov Sushas ted .tuet ae funds etee! aoltantmae edt 


sé TE Sede pthityix Gia gakfest 19: eves! biveo oc weltwom Goad WE 
220Ro BALM Yom Syrisio Pon Hivow oc etitnen esis? RAAF Yopact dood 


gow @ted ea? ferig Shen OH vaditnom estat tet O46 aaw wyrede sift 
hies 288 ,seibehaed yuiause eer abd foe ,doow eft ahi Bedatet gated 
164 Q¥ny Od bos BH wn Steg os 1089 yo ot beetle fom hives’ ee’ Maa 


-ive ab Seeetio 1a" seed? iteddood S021 & bab Bree 2 Hates | a 


a htacet off ak Sewet od Footing dom poveorviede Fon ote teu eoaeb 
badetanes aodiite etomebaeteh fad bektteeed eaenddw of ~ 
jhedtaiacet yhood a stew doicw ,sek tle teach we hae moot aektqooss » te 

sawroiiwetdad otteangertiio bua ead » had ooh tte seank ent _— 
diyheaw ee sithv aeeel Dino bac tke a8 ot bHbNste baw hevede Leng 





hue torede o2 Sma ein? gakseoth « sow wteadt .82 ao raetiag est’ Ye 
gasxbie Sad hap a¢leased .4 acl le oaks oAS Biel evey och © sbod yah 
Kon wma <oudLoe  okeNKe CLT ,erowk® (dewey debe Atwoe OtOL en 
Gussie aewad: of afrboppintie shew bed eno Joorrs: ev dorhbs 
od .hovdsowt gaw ungieL dowt bac getewn tens +6 bovieoss bat mort 
oivea ak betes tis etew beuletnes saw al aoiew mh oqoiovaa bee ‘gbiter 
te soitesinexe az bue ,¢eaxrtede edt al baxebat tex ots ‘ted ooanb 
.ét a Jon xu Smad on? eseodneth troset ont 


ge ev i¥te e'tushavteh of FHen wae ogwenttw gainke Lge ‘wat’ a t te 
ahi ah goaobive oh .etitead fom bee tnabne tet % 


ste atidisee gastrodmd ,helede yhootle wh bate badue aoe ated 


aaew ode duis bebtizaad soavell rer ‘eteoet om ak beet F088 


gee 22 sofde a2 golivete Sfivedaw oc) To saab hve redtng 
nid evey eke corset omae act cet. Bogagde waw a 






N@itedtae et? ao amialo tnapawide aeethhe ba 


ee ae ee ee ew eS 





; 
$aee ede Joke ban tmewor teh be: eohlle wus parkely axle “abit ate ton : 


=» So 
362 Ill, 427, 200 N, B&, 169, that thie amounted te entrapment and 
that a request fer an instruction in defendant's Savor esould have 
been given for this reason. YVurther, that there waa error in 
requested 
refusing to give the jury an instruction/te the effect that “If 
the officere of the law inspire, incite or otherwise pereusde or 
lure a defendant to commit a exime which he nad no intention of 
committing, and would not have otherwise comuitted, then, under the 
law, in the absence of other incriminating evidence, the defendant 
should be acquitted.” There was no error in this respect. In 
People v. Spencer, 16 hi. (2nd) 925, we held in a case where there 
was a similar conviction on the testimony of Charlotte iermes under 
eimilar circumstances that the judgment was not reversible for that 
reason, This is not s cave where an ofiicer of the law inapired, 
incited or lured the defendant to commit a crime which he otherwise 
had no intention te commit. There is no evidence tehdning te se 
shew, The officer merely afforded the defendant an oppertunity to 


commit one of a series of crimes which he had already planned, 


The distinction is vital. People v. Guagliats, 362 111. 427; in 
re Horwitz, 360 Ill. 313; Serrells v. United § es, 237 U.S, 436, 


77 L. Ba. 413. 

The defendant finally contends that error was comuitted 
upon the trial of the cause in that the State's atiurney was per- 
mitted to comment on defendant's failure to testify in nie own 


behalf. In support of trie contention he cites such eases as 


Austin v. People, 102 Ill. 261; Quinn vy. People, 123 111. 353; and 
People v. Denakdsen, 255 Lil. 31, with many others. The rule is, 

of course, ell known and should be vigilantly enforced. The remark 
of the State's Attorney to which defendant objects was "If the 
defendant here, ir, Paderewski, bad a license oi any kind, to 
practice medicine in any form, shape or wenner in the State of 


Tilinois, it was his duty te produce it.” While the remark of the 


State's attorney might have been more happily phrased, we do not 





* oe - : 


hag ¢oemgettoe of betayous ebay sit i ae eos! tee ter tee : 
Svat Sivene covet af Penmaes teh wl sy be part ates aa eet fanupen we das 
ah Keues snyoetet tags petra Laeeeo wtar” to¥ hovti mood 
RS" acid sootre pov na bourtourh te grat ale avtg oF ‘gate vtes 

“9 shawesmy eatwrodte 19 selon? ,orkqnak wet wait “to etooitts exe 

to wehiwerad oe bad od apive ovine « Piowen” ee a Ts 
oid. “ghee , aed ,bedodeses sodvaedho oven @ou Sinee fra guts? Danes 
faeeasteh 98) jsoombbve gabteskaivant redhe ‘te osneeds ont at wat 
ar .0ee@Bee w1A? ai -worue oo Sew seOMe” S RbeELupew ed” Pile 









a 
“ The oe 5% a Ss 
Siow he ANB, sn Rican 


eeedd oxadY e059 @ AE Beer ow GeKO (ba) 6H OL pape 
wha wanted Sréaleaks “ioe yaowdeaund eos ay ao ttedvndo weliate 2 baw 
goede sot eidietevex fou eee Geemghet ead dad? eecaniekwerts a1nLiade 
~hodhqatt wel sa3 to tesii’ts mm etedy aad a fia af abit” noanet 
sobvssdee oc dole anita ® @Romes of taanastteh odd poeut a0 ted font 
on oF gaiabrie’d goustave on ok atest .timecd of agttadtat on fart 
ed Qhiiw doqge as Giebietek eee SehteTIa yieted eo frts sak swede 4 : 
j~headela ‘Geetin bal od deiae semis to eaitee a “te este thane | 
| i Haelv ef eaneamined deve 
me y6Re Skit ONE “ 
"ee it oe oe 
hettimess aww torts Gal) Gitesnes YLawstt ¢oubeetep eT ° wd 
“see une YouweteA etededh wit tomt wk saves wrt to wekhe eid megs 


SE jPSe GALT RON cote hee 
280 8.0 OO spas wows 











ave wid al ¢htdeos @¢ sawlin’? w' Smobnalted oo Fnemmoo oF B 
ap aeaid dow Seedy aw aplomurmes’ wand ‘to Peedaum AE -Uaded 
pas 780e £07 SOC ,etgqod .v mata p48 . OFT SOL , otgeet ov 2 
ak owe oi vetedte yao Mote [fe VET OOo womb tenet y 8 
dzomo% ett <beote'tes YLIaeLigiy we Diwde pub awont ttew Yel 
cit TX" wow wivetis Fume Teh Molde oF hancona “atotabe ent 1 
baka gas “ts earteorl 8 fax iaacecinesie te “etet sits uate ; 








ose Ye tivemet oid ale * en sonore a eh 


eis, ene 04 


obo 
think he tranagressed the rule. The State alwaye has the right to 
discuss the evivence as it actually ie, We think thie statexent, 
while clese to the line, amounted to no more. P lev 

299 Ill. 5876. We find ne reversible error in the record. Tf he 


guilt of the defendant ia established without any (oubt wuatsoever, 


neal 


and the judgment will be allirmed, 


, hn Ca IRL NIN NAP 


AF VUIRMED, 


MeSurely, ?. J.,and O'Conner, J,, concur, 





ae 


aS * 





oe 

of ¢fgit ed? eas syewie e3afh oY .adare ont boagetgadate ae sank od 
fabmetade gins dobdt oF ca yidandos tk de Senet ive “ont peunels 
atnladed ot sven to om os fot mae yonkt out of eels ellaw 
ad t bn aoers oi es ‘bitlexacss on fart ow | lard” rer eee 
Taveoesane sues wee. tuond bw hedtetidnine od tnehaetes als i to ‘ditay 


Samara Td 


banth tie of Lite trommiut, ‘oat bas 


oF PN aeigtph a meal fia nce ase mee sacra rete - 
my 





CRA TRA 


ewoioo 4 .% ,tommeo'O ham, .& 4 ,yLorwiem 


tA aie et 
F cm mantaerdine 
* Bo 


AK oN IN eg Py! 
AN Nae 





Py 
-f K 
; * 

“a: n fr; 

“as bay 

, soi 

be 

i 

"4s 
GO SS gd 
Ba vt oi 

Tear AL ul 

Shas: 9p 

‘ Sat tha 

by fo 

COREE een. | 
Yak Seca", 

ater ea ae 

mv * » anor Un age - 8, 
‘5 Dig pheer Wh cs 
4 ¢ ; ah Re CR 
si ; SA EA Re 
Fob Wes We BRE Pe eet 
re? ate ae eee Re ae eR 


zt » * oy 


JENNIZ REID, | 


Appellant, 






APPEAL WROk SUPERIOR COURT 

vs. 

OK COUNTY. 

JOU F, DOLAN and ALICE B®, DOLAN 
Appellees, 


—— 


MR, JUSYTICE LATCHETT DELIVERED VHE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


This is an appeal by plaintiff from an order entered iiay 
19, 1938, vacating a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury 
upon an ex parte trial on March 16 of the same year, ‘he proceed- 
ing was by motion supported by a petition pursuant to section 72 of 
the Civil Practice act. Defendants' petition was tiled April 26, 
1938, and was amended sfter filing and the motion was further supe 
ported by atfidavits tiled sy 17, 1938. May 19 defendants made a 
motion to disuiss the petition wnich was denied, ‘The question to 
be decided is whether the Gmeontradicted facts as stated in the 
petition and affidavits justified the order entered, Plaintiif 
contends that the facts were insufficient, The law applicable to a 
proceediny of this kind is well seitled, fhe filing of the petitian 
amounts to the beginning of a new suit, Only errors of fact may be 
corrected, These are limited to such as do not contradict the 
record which were unknown to the court at the time judement was 
rendered and which, if known, would have precluded the entry of 
the judewent, (Mitchell v, King, 187 I11., 452; Domitski v. American 
Linseed Co., 221 T11., 161; Smyth v. Fargo, 307 I11., 300; Harris 
v, Chicago House Wrecking Co., 314 I11., 500; Jacobson v. Ashkinaze, 
337 T11l., 141; MeCord v. Briggs, 333 Ill., 158; Merabia v. Mary 
Thompson Hospital, 309 Ill., 147. 





The facts made to appear are that the original suit of 
plaintiff was begun September 11, 1935, and was for injuries said 


to have been sustained October 8, 1933, Defendant appeared, 


BREOS 
<CIEA STMT 
toad food 
«8 


a GOLA bus WALOG..© AHOLD 
2299 laqga 





OO ge ON Oo, 





~LHUGO GSHT WO WOLMTGO HAT GEARVIIsd TREROTAN GOIYeUL ,Aal 


¥SM bateatae tebto ms mort Meitaiele yi taeegs as at atdaTt 
Yrut & to tolbtev sat soguy hetetae tosmgbot e gaitsoavy ,BeeL ,e£ 
-bsao0rq scl ,isey smean ot to Of toms mo Letts stxsg xe as ogy 
ko SY dofiosa o¢ tHeueaxrug moldises « yd hetzrogque aoltom yd asw gat 
208 finvwA boltt eaw mokttieg '‘atoabasts@ .tos sotsosyd LivtD odd 
“qua ‘Toitrut eew coftom oft bus anilit tette heboasae saw bae ,8EeL 
& shew agashostsh CL ysd’ .860L VL yal bolit etivebitis yd bettog 
ot aottesve edt ,bsinobh asw doisdw nottiteg add eetmalh et aottom 
eit oi fetete ac atost betotbartaoolm edt usd¢edw ail bebiosb od 
Tiitaisid ,bereins rebro oft heititest ativahtitis Bas moltsiteg 
& ot efdsotfega wel ol  ,diaetotttsesk orow etoet ent ted? eb aet aos 


Moititeq eit to gailit eiT .beltise Ifew ai Said eidt to suaibsesotg 


ed yen gost to aro1re yinO® ,Jsivea wea s to goinniged sat oF etnavsoma 


edd: tolbsisncoo fon ob as dove ot botimil ets sasdt ,betoesttos 

asy toeoybut eait ont te tuyoo act o¢ owontas stow doltnw broost 

to yxine oft bebuloetq sve bilyow , ower "bE deicw bos betebaet 
neoitscs .y bled tmod ;S8b ,.LfT VOL , gai .v Lfodotkit) .taomabwt salt 
aistsH ;008 ,.f£1T VO .ogtel .v dives :f8L ,. £11 {88 ,.99 bosenkd 
,essnivdesA .v sosdooat 5008 . f£I ME ,.00. gatvoetW seo ogsoind .v 
yrs .v eidereM ;8@L ,.{11 88& ,epphed .v HrodoM ; LAL ,.L1T TEE 
7 TAL ,.S£1 Q08 ,Leticeo noegmonT 


‘to give Lenisixzo sat tect ors teeqgqs of ebsm atost edt 





Bbiee eolistai rot eaw Boe ,G8@L , ff sedmetge2 nuged sew titdalelq. 


, DeTS® TGs daebie ted ECL ,8 tedosoO heniateue need eved of 


answered and averred a eritorious defense, atter suit was iiled 
no proper notice to put the cause on a trial calendar was jiled 

by plaintiff and the suit did not appear on any printed trial 
calendar in September, 1936, A special trial calendar was prepared 
by the clerk of the court on which the cause was placed and it was 
called Februsry 2, 1933, when it was dismissed for want oi prosect 
tion, February 8, 1938, plaintiff caused notice to be served on 
defendants that on February 10, 1933, he would appear before Judge 
McKinley and ask to have the cause reinstated. Attorney for de- 
fendants appeared in response to the notice snd was informed by 
the minute clerk that no order had been entered as the liles could 
not be iound, No further notices were served, but February 16, 
1938, plaintiif's attorney procured an order reinstating the cause 
and placing it on the trial calendar, February 17, defendants’ 
attorney was informed by letter that the order ot dismissal had 
been vacated and the cause placed on a call to be made later when 
it would be set ior trial. ‘this letter enclosed a trial notice such 
as was used in the Superior court to notice a case to be placed on 
a printed calendar, Therevy defendants were led to believe the 
gase would be on the printed calendar to be called in 1938, March 
14, 1956, defendant in the County court was adjudged insane and 
committed; he was released July 20, 1936, as having improved. De- 
fendants did not know of the judgment until execution was served 
April 25, 19338, 

Iwo errors of fact are disclosed which, if known to the 
court, would have precluded the entry of this ex parte judgment. 
The iirst is the reinstatement of the cause without turtner notice 
on February 16, 1938. The other is the uncontradicted fact that at 
the time judgment was rendered Jolin F. Dolan, one of the defendants, 
had been adjudged in the County court to be insane, It wes to 


correct error oi fact such as that of rendering judgment against 


SOS 
Pine 


BIE! paw tise wad La  Semere Tals Rrarree re & perrste bits He tows cs 
Pelli aaw tebietes Lagat s mo issue. ast ue oF abidort Tsqorg o6f 
ieind betaity yuo mo xeoqqée ton bib diva end bas Tlititely xd 
hereqsrg eaw xebaeiee Leits Leaiosqs a LdeeL “tednotas® at tabae tes 
daw $i Sas bsoslq ese gauze aad lo diw no truoo edd ‘to t1elo. ont vd 
osaotg to jausw tel heweimeib.esw th. tedw BCL .S yrenudsT heliss 
go bevrese ed oF soiton besuso Tritoiely ,88eL 8 eiaurdel otter? 

abut etcted teeqqs blisow anf ,SeeLr OL erage det fie Heft ‘s¢mebre tod 

“9h tot yeutosA .bodstuater saxeo ont sven at zee has’ Ye fatdom 

vd bowroint asw bac sotton alt oF sanogest nk Asrssq¢s ddnchaet 

| Bilseo apflil sug es poredas need bed tebte on dant d4sfo egunim ott 
,of yrsuidell dud ,bevies siev seoison soddtut of ,bawok ed fon 
Sseneo any jolsetedien Tabxo me Beruootg yanroite a'ttitatelq ,SeeL. 
latughae tob er wrauada’ .tabteiso [sits edd vo $4 galocia ftis 

bei fs ee dns ih to 9610 esd dent rstiel yd bearotal easy yontod te 

enw taiel ebsm ad of Ifse Pa NO bebe en enue oft bae ‘podeaay’ nged 
Nova soijon Ieint @ beaofous todcel els? .feias tot toe ed bluow $k 
do beosic od of saso s soiten of dunce tokteqee oni at beay eaw ae 
ei svailed o¢ bol stew edasbas'ttoh yeted?  .tebaeleo bedatig @ 
Howat .GE@L ai boLiao ed of tebteleo hotnktg odd mo od Bkvow 9860 
os ensent bogh HLdhbs saw tivoo ytaued ede at sushi tab Ober “hE 

eo havo qd galvesd | ee ,e@ceL ,O8 yint benae let aa esi jhodd Linnea - 


Hevisea aew noksvoexe Fire sre mgbut ant ‘to won toa bib ‘edoebast 


| eee | Ce) ae t Y Shing 
| gilt ot rn tk _ cto batw beeoloeth ote tos't ‘bo wk owsb” ‘owr 

] - 19 rg bar “ebisa Ee xs gidtd to wad ne ehe gebNiosxy evan wibiw® doo 
esivon Teddi Juoadiw GaUBO gid te fosmeladenior est @L' yeret oat 
/ ts wsat teat betoibstiaeconmy eiy ax ower ont * eer of etadidet 0 


Eines ie ted a3 ‘to ito aa Lo a tiok hetsbuet saw sasagbet emid sat 
ot aew tI spnaasd ed a4 Fastoo ye aed ‘uit ak ‘posbukbes asod bast 


taaisga dasa bul ynitebaet oe feut as ie “gost bi Vee ‘Jos t'tos 


an insane person, a minor or feme covert, etc., that the original 

writ of error coram nobis was designed, Ali the cases are to that 
/etfect. The affidavits filed in support ol the motion iurther dis- 
pies that plaintiff, as a matter of fact, prior to the rendition 
of the judgment had settled the claim upon which her suit was based 


for a consideration received by her, The renjition.of judement— _ 


under such circumstances was in the nature of a Yraud, of which 


(we assume) the attorney who took the judgment was without 
knowledge, 

The court rightly cranted the relief demanded by the 
writ and the judgment is afltirmed, 


AFFIRMED, 


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


.) 


fenisinvo sis gent ,.039 .dieveo smelt to tonim s ,moateq snsent ne 


deey of ots eoaso ont ITA Jbongiash eaw eldenx wagon tetrs to tixw 
- in rae ‘ 


-8i5 tecidityit ooltem ent to ttoaqua ot beitt ativeahbitia esT atostte\ 
mr \ 


Hoisgisne: sit of toitg ,toet to tediam gs se ,ttitnield tad? beeelo 


boeed aew dius tod Ao tele Neely Mislo eft belivtes bed tuemabyt edt to 


_-diemybwh te. soitinast eal ced yd beviesst moldatepienos s tot 


Soidw ‘to ,buett s to otusen ot at eew eeonsdsmpostio dove robs 
pedi iw acw dnsomhnt eft doot es yoorotds ent (euwaae ow) 
.aghe Lworal 

ais yd bebuemeh Telfer ont betusra yltdaiz ganeo ost am 
bem tie od daduahet oud bas tinw 


~CEMAL TWA - 


styofo9 .4% ,tonmed'O bas ..% .2 ,¢LlervaoM 


\ 


7 


40409 


CHARLES NADENIK, 
Appellee, 
APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT 


\ 


GEORGE E, NADENIK, Indifridu fr and 28 


) 
) 
VS, 4 
; CO 
| 
Administrator de bonis Mon wif the Wilpe”- 
it 















RT OF COOK COUNTY. 


PRANK NADENIK, MARY 

THE FIRST NATIONAL BA 

a Corporation, Execut o 
Ap» liants, 


annexed of the Estate gf fund tes a qt \ 


°~ ) 
2) QO 
ms We av So: 


U 

A F 7 & 
© ‘ e) 

MR, JUSTICE MATCHETT DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 


July 27, 1935, Anna Cejka departed this life in Cook Vounty, 
Illinois, About December 5, 1935, a writing purporting to be her 
last will and testament was admitted to probate and letters issued 
to the First National Bank of Cicero named as executor, ‘the bank 
declined to act and February 11, 1936, George E, Nadenix was ap- 
pointed administrator de bonis non witn the will annexed. liay 28 
plaintiff filed his complaint averring tne purported signature of 
Anna Cejka to tne writing was not genuine; that at the time oi the 
execution thereof Anna Cejka was not of sound mind and memory, and 
toat the purvorted will was not her will; that its execution was 
brought about "by undue acts" and fraudulent practices, The complain 
prayed the supposed will be declared null and void, The heirs at 
law and next of kin intervened and became defendants, ine cause was 
put at issue and tried by jury. At the close of all the evidence 
the proponents made a motion for a directed verdict in their favor, 
whic. was denied, The jury returned a verdict that the instrument 
was not the will ot tte deceased, A motion for a new trial was 
overruled, and kay 26, 1935, a decree was entered in conloruity with 
She verdict of the jury. Defendants appeal, 

Detendants submit 14 proposition of law and argue aga 
matter of law that the testator was at the time olf the execution of 


the writing of sound mind and memory; that their request for an 





4 | | — eon08 


& 


\ se eg 2p Lacga 


_ATBIOAE BsIAHO 
) 
nrvDdlo MOAG LAT) 


»YTRUGO HOGO TO THU00 







j a ,ay 

A yf 

hon, ar bas > Tecbiwipol MIMCAm /a' sea0ap 

i Aury eis dhiw nom ainod ed tosvette titmbAa 
oveced edt to exons | 
VHA ,ATMEGAM AMAHH = «< 





.ponaong a Th o3 


( 
ei 
4 
} 
{ : 
‘ bis RUA AMUA , AHAEO 
i eas Se GO MAS wASOTTAM- LEHEPU SET 
te , tod sooRd «tok datogiToo a 


| oy 3 etna Lieaga oer 
| Kg © ey oO hc k ® Q ¢ i 
+THU09 SNT 4O MOTMIGO GHT CEMEVIIdd PIBNOTAM ZOILTSUL AM 


Viavod Hood ai sill aint hetrsqesbh sxted sank .eber 18 visit 
| fod sd ot gnivteoqieg guitiaw s ,@€@L ,.2 xedmeoed tuodA ken DEY 
| beweas avetie L bos stedota ot botéiinbs eaw toometasd bas Lllw tasl 
| dasd el .todvooxs es bemam otal to Ane Lenottell tarit add od 
-qe eaw xalnsbell .o syxtosd ,eceL . If yrssidel bas fos af beak tees 
8& yet ehexenne [fiw edd otiv sen aluod sh totettelatmbs botatog 
in to stutengie bettoctsa exit goivieve taistamoo ais be Ltt Tritatele 
a ong ‘to emis oft ts tect ;entunes, ton asw ankitaw ext of eited Bod 
i boas ,Vtotenm bas bain bavoe to ton asw eited sank Toetecs soisvoexe 
4 aew doitwooxe eti wsit ;ifiw ted ton sew ILiw be dtoczsg edt tent 
tiislqmoo eit ,ssoitostq tastvubuett bas "ates enbay yo" deode teguotd 
ts aried sat .Jbtov bas Lfum betsloeb ed {fiw beeoqave sat beysta 


asw sguso adi ,etusbas'teb easoed bas bensvietat mia ‘te teem bar wel. 










sousbive eat Lis to seolo est JA .yteh vd betas bas oveet te tuq 
etovet tiedi ak tolbrev botoetib s tol sotton s sbam adnenogotq sit 


dnomusd ans oud saad totbiey 8 oonutes vist suit »beinsh aaw oo kde 


ak kates wena @ tot aoisom A +bsesso9b exit ‘to iLiw ould hak ‘aie: 
PORES ES SRP ARG Preah rd she PMR AAU RE Rac DAMIER, 


sided (Ye tuto tao | Ae heseios aew seTo9b 8 (abed a8 iat. bas be Lurteve 


-fleocgs atmasbne ‘ted sUEeL PY to tothiev edd 
ter re 
8 as OeRTS bus wel to sobtteorexq Sf gkudus. saaeientisiaielatel 





2 


instructed verdict should have been granted, The plaintiff con- 
tends the evidence offered presented an issue oi Lact which is 
settied in hie favor by the verdict oi the jury appreaved by the 
court, 

Anna Cejka at the time oft her death was about 8 years of 
age; she was a widow without child or children or descendants of 
aoy child or children; she owned a Home at 13515 South 6lst avenue 
in Cicero; the house had two floors; sae lived om the second; tne 
first floor was occupied vy Hiizabeth Schroeder who testiitied tor 
detendants; irs. Cejka was a Jonemian and used that language; she 
understood Biglisn; for about 22 montis prior to her death she was 
attendec by a maid, Miss Irene Durina; the home on the second floor 
was shared by Mrs, Cejka with two cousins, iirst with cer cousin 
Edward Vavrinek, who died in 1934, and afterward with his brother 
Theodore, who died in 1936. Tne plaintilf, Charlies Nadenik, is a 
nephew of deceased; nis wite is a sister of Cyril Katey ("boy 
triend" of Irene Durina); Irene says Cyril first asked her if she 
would take the job of caring tor hrs, Cejka; she took it and remained 
in the nome five weeks alter the death of her employer; she is, she 
says, engaged te be married to Cyril "ii I want to." George Nadenik 
and Frank Nadenik are nephews of Lirs, Cejka; Dr, Joun Kropacek was 
her physician from March, 1934, up to the time of her death, The 
writing purporting to be her will was executed June 42, 1935. It 
directs the First National Bank of Cicero as executor to seli the 
home and pay to iiary Doubek $300, to Anna Klaus $100; 211 the residue 
to be divided auwong her neprews, Charles Nadenik, George Nadenik and 
Frank Nadenik. The purported will has only a cross in the place 
where the name of the testator would appear, the name of the testa- 
trix is not written in her owm or in the nNandwriting of any person, 
The instrument is witnessed by Bessie Hajek, Dr, Harry R. Hoffman and 


Irene Durina. An attorney, Hr, McCaffrey, was present and asked the 


j -aoo Titintelig eat .bstusta ased oved Siwote toibter batouereat 
| et dotdw tont te esuad ag bstasastq Setstts sosobive est eabasé 
. om yd bevouggs Ys, efs to doibisy e:t yd tovst aid AL hoidiog 
| : ; 'Srs09 
| 


to areey 08 tuods esw dtasb won ‘te amid asd ge £4050 sank 
to edashacsossh to setblins to bLido duofhity wobiw e aew ene vega 
eutieve Jald ddyed SLéL is sao s benwo sie ,ustblins t0 bLido yos 


eit :bmeage oft co bevii stie ;aroofl ows bed seved ost jotesold ak 





tol beitifess ofw rebsersded diedssiiX yo bstquooe aaw tool? gatit 
otle jeguugiel dels beev baa Gsimodel @ aaw siied wank jadneboeteb 
| asw sie diseh tad of toitg ardaom Sk tuods tot ;Sellgne boovars bls 
tooft baopes ott mo morons j;enited enexl asi ,biss .s yd oebustie 
Rigues ren tbe texrit ,aaieuso ows dtiw exts0. ata yd Betacde saw 

| testoud aid Sify huswiedts bi ,d60L cf boib odw ,adentiveY htswht 
| sek ,Hisebsel esitedd ,tiivaieig od? .d8@L. ak beth ost ex ohosa 
you") yotel Linyd to tateie « at etaw adil ;beeseoeh to wacigon 

ade th sod bedes terit LinyS aysa snotl. ; (enired engrl to “baeitt 
poniemes bas ¢i xcod ode ;e8(90 .at tol gaitso Te doj, sat euss bisow 
ede ,ai eta seit sxoif to diseb eit tetts exeew svit eaigs| ony at 

| Htaehsii saroouv  “,ed gasw I tk" Livyo of hotzism od ot beogegne ,ayse 
aeaw usosaotd adel «xd ;sated .eie to ewedqen ote ainebs% dastl bas 
edt  titeob ted ‘to emit edt ot qu .S6CL ,dotsh. mont asiotaydg ted 
tl ,@8eL ,Sl.oapl botwooxs aaw Lite tol od. o¢ gaidrogreg gaisliw chee) 
oct Liee od todveexe ee .oteo bo to ane€ Lenoigall doxtt edt eadoorib 


gubieet ot [fs ;00LG ausiX sand ot ,COE¢ AsdupG yrad od ysq bos emo 





bac Aiushall egroed ,a&inobsi ee izadd ~aworigon ted grome bebivib ed ot 
eoslg eat af eaoto « yino ead Lflw bedroqtyg eat wabnebeld Acett 


~ataet oat to omen ofl . ytssqqs binow totedasd oat to smsn ct etesiw 


hue maimttoH .i yrteH..1d .letell efazed yd beseontiw at Anossrident ost | 


axe poses bus ¢nseetg asv ,yottteeM ai ,yeotodte nA. sania, onezt Dis 





|  Soeveg ys to gaitiuwhasd ead ab to awe ted ni sipédinw von af xint 
¥ 


witnesses to sizn the writing, It revokes other testamentary 
papers, Tee testatrix had prior to this time, on lay 11, 1934, 
executes enother wili; it bears her signature and Is under scal; 
it ic witnessed by George J. Tourek, Jemes J, Wolte and Theodore 
Vavrinek, and was filed with the clerk of the Probste court of Cook 
county August 6, 1935, This former wilt names Charles Naedenik es 
executor, gives to the nepnew Frank Nadenik g100, to George $100, 
to Anna Klaus $100, te Mary Doubek 1/8 of the residve, and all the 
rest and residue to Charles Nadenik. Tourek, who was for some years 
attorney vor the testatrix and wuo represented her in uany mattere, 
drew this former will, Ee testitled that about a monin betore she 
died he went to her home with Charles Nedenik, woo said he ‘iad been 
dnjiortiea by his brotier that Mirs, Cejka wante. to draw another will; 
he says Mrs. Cejka wnen ne entered the nouse did not imow who he was; 
she looked at sim but did not talk; Charles Nadenik asked testatrix 
if she knew who he (fourek) was; sue said sie did not kmow; Charles 
then told ner this was George tourek, to wiich sie replied, "Oh, 
that's the doctor,” and Charles said, "No, that is the lawyer," 
Tourek testified that he nad seen her ten or twelve times wituin the 
previous year; that he observed a great shange in wirs, Cejka in 
that at this time sue @id not know anyone and did not speak intelli- 
gently. 

Dr, Kropacek testitied thay ne observed the wental condition 
of the testatrix in 1934 and 1935; that she railed gradualiy; that 
he observed tois tirst aveut June; tuoat when ne came in she would not 
know nim unless he was introduced by the maid or by Thecdore Vavrinek. 
She had a hesrt condition for which he was treating ner and complained 
of pain in legs and arme; ne was there daily from lst of June, 1935, 
until the 25rd; sie had urinesis and was not able io control élinina- 
tion; he was there in June when Charies Nedenix and ur, ucCafirey, the 


lawyer, were there; tuey wanted to drew a new will; we was asked by 





UrTednomsseast sedio esiover ¢i ,yriitew est. agke od esesondiv 


Poel tf yeh oe .soli edt Ȣ) toLee bec xitdedeed. act  ,etegsq 
piges. tebaou el bie etutengis sec aveed $i ; iitw aedt ens; heduoexe 


eiobooct bas etLoW .% eset ,deruoT .% sgrosd yt bessontiw af tf 


aoet te gaves etedord ond to Atelo sit iw beli'l sew Sos atontzveV 


as tines galtsco eomscn JLiw temrot eit ,880L .o tangud ytasoo 
,90f¢ egrosd o¢ , 0019 Linohell Asecd wegen oct of apvig ,tetyoexe 
edd Lis Kim. aacbtens giv ‘to @\L xeduod yre of, ,001¢, aweLi.aamA of 
aisey etos tol saw ontw ,detuol .dingbe aelieeo eg soubleaes dns. gaet 
,Saetism yous’ ai ied betosretge: ow bus Kinveieed opt tot yearotts 
ofa atoted aimem s duods dads beitigest of -iliw resto? stad, werd 


seed be of Slee ofw ,Ainehsil aefusoy iviw emod re oF togw ed beib 


;ifiw geiitous waih es hedmew SALSO ,erM tend tectord aid yd. bomtotat 


7aew od ofw woml dea bth osauon sid detedne of aedw siatey ,azk eyse od 
xittsteet bexes Ainebsi eeizado ;alet Jom bib dud ale te bezool sda 
asltee® ;workt don bip ove bisa ose ;eew (Aotwel) sx ow word ate tL 
.f0" ,boifcest sities coisw od ,xstvol eg%060 ae eid tei blot uodt 

¥  teywal ong gi tend oh" bise asliano bug ",toteob aude! 3esid 

“eat aladiw asnis eviews to met tod. nese bes ot Jed beitivess axorvel 
nd sXto0 .eall af egacds Jeotg 2 bevtsadc od ders j;meey, avo tveng 
-iites ai isegs goa bib bos emoysea wort con bib eile emis pana biti 
ogdt eet 


| goigibaos Iedx0. and. bevisade 96 card boliidasd deosgors a uty Ew 


dans ;yileubets befist ede gous ;ceel bas, £EOL ni, Sistet net, 988 to 


ton pivow ese al amiss i figaiw tails 7 oaind THOUS saxit ead peviando. ed 


ihn 


eee 


sdeaitveV stoboedt yd to bisa edd yd beowbotsul esw si eaotas. bat, wom 


Ma, sfgace Ooms wos guissoxt asw oil Agkaw tot Aoldibaoo tized & ben ede 


deer eine to veL moxt vitae etodd aew on jams bas agel ALE... 5. scanall 





meatbied Lo fotsnoo of eds gon esw bas, elesatay bask ona ¥ xt 


Cy De 





Mir, McCaffrey whether \rea. Gejka was in e condition to answer 
questions at that time end he replied she was not, 

Toe evidence of Tourek, Dr. Krepacek, Mise Durina, Virginia 
Nadenik, W. J, Smith and Alvert Vichals indicates a condition of 
testatrix precluding poseibility of mental capacity to execute a 
will on June 12, 1935, while Eessie Hajek, Dr. Harry R. Hoffman and 
Elizabeth Schroeder gave testicony tending to show testamentery 
capacity. 


Dr. Hoffman testilied at length to an examination given by 


0) 


him to Mrs, Cejka just prior to the execution of the will, in which 
he says that Mrs, Cejka responded intcliigently to questions he 
asked her as to now many dimes it tock ts make a doiisr and Bimiiar 
questions; he spoke to her in English and she answered in “nglish; 
she toic him that her husband was dead; that she had two children 
dead an? that one of the cnildren's name wes “tary,” Irene Durina 
was calied in, interpreted in Bohemian, «nd Dr. Hoffman inquired 
as to how teetatrix wes tecling, and ireie tcid him ske had diffi- 
culty in seeing out of the rignt eys; Dr. Hofiman zays testatrix 
was seated comiortably in a cuisair and at times would get up and walk 
initio the kitchen; woen lie beyan his examination he asked Mr. We- 
Cafirey to close the door and everybody left the room except thle 
interpreter; she knew dates, the sessons, the time of day, whether 
she had any relativee, past illnesses, whetier her people were 
sgaitst her, whether she knew who was President, waether she knew 
the sen that were there; he made no physical exauination; he saw 
Mre. Sajek and Miss Durina aid the other women sign the paper; he 
thinks they saw him sign it; he was not intereated in the matter; 
Was there to make a mental examination; he says ske told him she was 
born in 1660 cr thereabouts; ke says she indicated an impaired 
memory in that she @id not know exactly the ysar of her birth, 


Dr, Hofiaan visited testatrix at the request of lawyer MeCaffrey, 





& 


towaas of aoisibace s ab saw site .eth tedtodw ver tise, ru 
.toc saw ode betivet on bits geet dadd $a enoktsoup 
Bisinwi¥ ,anieod eafM ,deosqord .1@ ,deauoT to ssashive eat 

te aoitinaco « aetsotbat elaiotl gxodfA bas Mdima ,v-.W pitneball 
@ otugeno ot yiioegss Lasagu. to ytitidisaeg gnihulostq xitisiao?d 
bos ceaatto .d. yas .s2.,aetel ofeesed ofidw ,66ef Sf enwt no LfLiw 
yrsidanetasd wote ot gulbaes yooultesd eveg tabeondoag diedsalif 
sNitoaces 

yd nevig soficniwaxs as ot dignel ta. bo liigeaed meat lon, 4% » i: 
Hotdw ag ,itiwvy eus to soiteoexs od of tokeg. gent, eadted seth ot aid 
sd engisvasup os yiiaasiilotai bebaogsst sadteo...gth tad? veyse red 
gatinia bac teiieh os aXem-os “oot Ji aemib yoam vor of gated: bodes 
rdeilacd oi bevewads ola bos teligat oi cod ot. edoqe ‘en, janetteoug 
setilino ows Ssh ste jasd jhseb asw pasdeuel tei dent mid. dDfod cena 
eniznad easel. ".yxe” aay suen s'uscbiivdo oft te ete tadt Dan ibeob 
hexrtupat mewtied .1 ba: .tteinedod ai hotergqtetni ,sivbeiieo aw 
WfttiS bed ese mid bled scetl base ,guiles: ssw xitteiass wod;ot..aB 
xizdadesd eyes Memtio€ «xt (eye tseix oat to tue gates¢e.of yoise 
wisew dus qu deg ,bivevasmis ja bas tians s al yidetieimags bejeoe.~a¥ 
~9 ,th dodge sa aoijeuinexe eis neyed ei cedw.;sedetiad edt ot mk 
edd dygoxe ago Salt Sted ybodysere hug soodh edt seofo of yout had 
teddery ,ysh to omis sid ,esoeesr ent ,astsh weal eda ,teseqqued at 
exe aigoog tod usiierde ,eeeagulli desg ,aevitalet Yas Ssaq 9sia 
weadt ede tedtecy,  dushiaet? saw ecw wend ade <Tedteuw, ¢Fo0 festege 
wee of itoitsninege isoleydq om shem ou petedit opew Jedd neal .eud 
_ oi gteqeq edt ayia nemow socte oad bos eaitet Bake bas tobe wand 
wtediem eit ck betestatat Jen eey ed (ak gia utd wes ‘woud aeaniat 
aew oe intcl blot ota ayse ad ;aokiendaexe Jadueg ew stam ot otedd 6s” 
petiagnt ae botseibal eda eyes ol petwodsatodd ton Geel mf ated 
siitid tad to tssy ont yltomue Wout Jon bit ele tect ob yromes 


Yorrtsdell reywel to deoupes.qut te mbattstaes hadtety asaltion .xt 


no drove im to the home in an automobile. Dr. Kropacek wae not 
notified and was not present, 

Ars. Schroeder says that she saw Urs, Cejka in 15333, 1934 
and 1935, tut did not notice any difference in her condition; she 
paid her rent to her in 1935 and received receipts freu ner down 
to the month of June; a number of the receipts she says were 
signed by # cross only; she did not produce any of these receipts. 

Mre, Hajek says she saw urs, Cejka sign and that iirs. Cejka 
saw her cion her name; the joctor and lawyer were present when sne 
Bigned; Irene Durina was not there at that time but case later; she 


says the testatrix seemed to te ali rigit and of sound and disposing 


ct 
4 
E 
@ 
oS 
co 
> 


mind and memory at the time she placed her mark on the ins 
On any possible tueory of law the issue here was of fact 
for the jury. An exaiination of tne avidence discloses to some 
extent the desire cf witnesses on boti sides to exaggerate. the 
jury saw the witnesses and the trial Judge saw ani neard them 
testify. 
The decree is affirmed, 


AFFILLED, 


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


ton eee Msosqotd .vi ..elidvouetue: ageal. emed adit ct midiaverb osiw 
ieeetg dan enw bots, hos tidon 
BSCL ,SECL af stted .evk wee orle.cdeds atea tobeotdot: yack 

eHe imeidipson ver mb sonexs Trib ye seiton tom bib. dad ,geeL bas 
wed ton souk adqisest Sevisoet bas €80h ei wot od) emt: te) Bley 
su5w aiuce gila adgisoer siti te taeda s. woul, So nidmenedd) ov 
~at@isooy seas. ‘lo yaw soubotg tom bib eka YylaovnReto « YO henge 
sated .erii dsdt bes agia sifed .ati wee sie eyss Seek sack! % s 
$e conw Joe@norg exew veyrel bas redood eft cemen toed ogts tod woe 
@0e .xedcl saco dud emtd tent és stent ton esw snbritd onotl:; boon te 
anbeogrib bas Sioa ‘to Sae digin ide od os haasse. xnindetees exit 2 yea 
gbtieswrtent end uo amen tod beosly ana emit ent we yeowem bits) beta 
tonite eaw evel extai sid wel de proses: eddise oq Yas BO /i) jouw 
o@ee oF “egcoloats eorebive ers to sottentuexme mA. .xxwh est mot 
ed’ ,oteveysexs oF asble asad mo asenentiw to etiaed: edt .taedxe 
ment brash bas wee. eghul Geiss ond bone: aeoment iy ory wee, waat 
atbhiteeat 


~emritis ak eanoab emf = 


, CIS ETS m 
runs rd 


stsanoo. gt tented’ O bas ,.4>.9 4 yhemieel 


Leet 

+ hy by e 
OA aaa 
oy yoa Late 


eas 


ese 


40278 






IDA SLAVIK et al., 
SUPERIOR COURT 
Vs. 
COUNTY, 
CENTRAL TRUST COMPANY eY al. 


a i. 
& wy cy i i¢ aan \ 
On Appeal of ExWaA DICUS yd JD ithe O 1 3 


MR. JUSTICE O'CONNOR DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


The suit in the instant case was originally brought to 
construe an alleged will of Henry Scherer, deceased, in which 
the Central Trust company was named as executor, ‘The will was 
set aside by a decree of the Sayevion court of Cook county and 
the administration of the estate was transferred from the Probate 
to the Superior court, This appeal is by Emma Dicus, one of the 
heirs of Jlenry Scherer, deceased, from an order entered July 12, 
1938, denying her motion to expunge p2ragraphs 8 and 9 of an order 
entered March 31, 1937, 

The record discloses that on July 19, 1934, an order or 
decree was entered on the report of a master in chancery that the 
administrator within tvo dzys pay to Emma Dicus $9000 as a part of 
the distributive share of the estate. The aduinistrator prayed 
an appeal to this court (No. 38044) which was on motion dismiesed, 
Afterward, on August 31, 1934, another order was entered that the 
administrator pay to Emma Dicus $4000; there is some uncertainty 
whether this was in addition to the $9000 or in lieu of it, From 
that order the administrator prayed an apneal to this court 
(No. 37923) but the appeal was dismissed, Sometime later Ema 
Dicus and others, as conservatrices of an incompetent distributee, 
brought suit in the Municipal court against the aduwinistrator and 
his surety in which there was a verdict and judgment in defendant's 


favor, and Ewnia Dicus and others appealed to this court (No. 33597) 


where the judgment was afiixmmed and leave to appeal to the Supreme 





BYSOS 


jah Ls, vo ALVaAds AGL, 
aay 


Yaw TRUAT dAsT AED, 


— 


ZUOILG Ali ‘te IseqgA a0 





“TaGN05 BET HO WOIUIGO RET ae REVI RONRODTO SOTTSUL . AM 


at guyjuotd yifsaigixo esw eeso. daesani sald ob tise ef. 
dota si ,Boesoosh ,wtaseded ysask ‘to Ifin begeife. me suxtaeiogs 
eaw. [ftw ecf ,Torueexs BS, been aaw Yaegane seul fextasd) edt» 
bit yienes 206 ‘Lo d%voo tolveguG sid te setoedh a yd. .ebiee tes, 
stsdortd ons moet horse tenet aaw steteo oct to soliauf@ataiobs ont 
ads ko eno ,aso ld emat yi ei issqqs efut tisoo wotreas® oat of) 7 
SL YLuG beteias Tebto as mort ,boreeoed  texedod vyinel, bo ntnae: | 
teahro of to @ bas 8 adgetysisg egaugxa od ARolion.+.9d aniyned BSCE ! 
EOL ,L8 Mota terséne, | 
TO aebes ng AOL CL ¢iul nc daddgoeoteaib brover eat } 
eds dadd yrevneo at tetecm & to ttogst elt ao dbetetne asw setosh 
te ¢caq os es O00C$ avoli€ ama of yeq aysh ows aidsiw totsitetaimbs 
boyatq toterteiniobs edt .staces aut te etede ovitudiriekb old. 
penaimerh mottom no. esw Soidw (8088 .of) tevoo aeidt of Lasgaqs ms 
ent tet betetas asw tobte tedtons ,dbé@CL ,f6 tavguA mo ,btewted tA 
yiniedieom: emon al exedt ,OOOh4 avoid sual ot veg totettalaimbs 
mort .$t to vell at te O00@§ ent of aotiibbs si asw aids restodw 
duyoo etdt of tseqas as boyeta todetieininbs end tebto tad? 
acai motel smizenos -bezelaath asw leeqge add tud (ggeve. olf) 
satudizagads ustequo ut ais to asolitaviseteo as _asedito bits eauoid 
bite todertaininbs eat tanisgs tue0 dagha tanh ed¢ af tise sdguortd — 


atiosboe‘teh al gnemgbut bas go lbrev & aew etedd io Lam at ytetwa ais 


(veaee.ol) dusoo ekdd of belssags eteddo bas avold eam Sas .tovet 


ee - - ey - ». gall!) aie eee 


a 


fa 


court was denied by that court. Afterward ‘he aduinistrator,heving 
failed to comply with tne order of August 61, 1934, was removed from 
office and committed for contempt end 2 successor administrator was 
appointed, ‘The matter of settling the administrator'eé account was 
referred to a special cownissioner, end alter a hearing the court 

on Mareh 31, 1937, entered a decree which recited in considerable 
detail what had been done in the matter; that on July 19, 1934, the 
administrator was ordered to pay Hmua Dicus $9000; that enother 
order was entered August 51, 1934, directing the aduinistrator to 
pay Euma Dicus 94000 by way of distribution; that the administrator 
having failed to make the payments was comsitted to jail for contempt. 
The order or decree of March 31, 1937, then continues and linds: 

"as now appears from the subseguent proceedings *** Dicus (the 
administrator) did not on July 19, 1934, have in his possession 

es a part of the assets of * * * the estate" $9000 with which to 
make the payment and that ne did not have the $4000 with which to 
make the cther payment to Enma Dicus; that the administrator who 
succeeded Joon 5, Dicus, the originel administrator, presented 

hie report from whics it appears that Dicus, a8 administrator, 

had $2369.17 woich with certain other securities he turned over 

to his successor; thai the surety company on the bond of Dicus 
offered to psy to the successor administrator $2523.57, that the 
order was entered accordin.ly and that amount paid, the contempt 
proceeding wes set aside and vacated as to Dicus, the administrator, 
The court found he had paid over to his successor all tae money in 
his hands, end the attempt of Bums Dicus and otuers to litigate in 
other courte was enjoined, for ine reason thai the Superior court 
had full jurisdicticn. From this order or decree Emma Dicus and 
others prosecuted anpvealse, but they were not pertected and all 


were dismissed, 


January 7, 1938, Emma Dicus fil«d wnat she desi,mates a 


paiven togvetsea iuiubs edc, btswred ta oTIND9 des va beinebh eaw tatoo 
mort hevomez asw , PCL , 15 tepguA To aebte sft dtiw ylginds oF beT rst 
ask toieideiaindbs tegsso0ue « bas towetmoo tot betdiomos bos seltto 
aew Toureges a cotaseekaiiba sit yniligese te wetise sdt .betmioggqe 
Stoo. galt gubises ge tactie bois .tacdoleaimunes latoeas R) oy bevtetes 
el{dstebienos mi bodioexr doitw sstosb s boretae ,VOeL ie decent Fede) 
ait .heeL . CL Vint ao tend puatien sit af 9nob need bac teow Lisveb 
goridons tend ;O00CG anoid samt yeq ot betsbie sew céchene okinawa 

ot toterdaiaiubs ont gnivosrib ,BeCLI , Le deugwA bet)ed ne asw tebTo 


tesardeininbs otit gett j;moisudiatelih to yew vd OOOSS ausi sant yey 


.tquasmon 160i Liet o¢ bodtinaco ear etusmyeg edt oxsm ‘ot belfiat yaived 


v@bolt Acs eeucitnos cet SSCL 16 dota to sereeb ra “Tebto ext 
att) auait *s* egaibsssotq tnespoedue od mort etascos won as" 
nogeesagog ein ni sved ,SECL (CL ¥iet wo tod Bip  (xetertetntatbs 
at sotsw odiw O0OCE "etstaa ont * 4 * to wheeas sit ‘to P2se¢ | 'S Bs 
of dgitdw ctiw O00AY eac over ton Bib on tedt bas taeaved oct stam | 
oriw todetéeiaimbe oft sects :anoid som of tremysq tetso SHt oilem | 
betneasig ,todetdaivinbs fentgiito ond ,ewelt .& miot bebeeoowe 
~totetéeinimbe as ,su0id dedt atseqqs of Sotsw sort gxoqet eid 
tavoe bois OX aeiviuveda tedto Atstze0 udtw dotcdw VL. e88S§G Sad 
avoid ‘to baod af ne yosqwes ytetie odd tent -gosesooue ain of 
edt tant .7a.88686 todetieiaiube tosaodoua silt of yeq oF Lets Tto 
Sqgusdaeo sat .bisg sivome deat bos yiguibrevos houstae eer tobto 
lotarisicaimbe St ,auolt of es betvosy bas ehise $a ecw gaibsdo0rg 
at yenom ait (fe tosadoone etx of tevo Sisg bet od basot jtuod SAT 
ni egagisiL o¢ etedsg tae aiok amad ‘to Fapiedds oaf tas ,abned etd 
$vueo tolrsqee sid Feds doassx ods Tot ,deniotis aew estos teiito 
dns Bvold sit edrosd to Teste eldt mort scobfotse fret rit bed 
fis bre _betbetteg tou evew yandt sud ne ps twoeaorg atedto 
,boovimai®t stew 


6 #etemjtesb one Seow bo ft? exokt gamit S8er . f Yrecat «8°"" : 


ee ee 


3 


"Motion" in whic. she seeks to have exnunged frou the order or cecree 
of March 21, 19237, paragraphs 8 and 9, which vacated the orders 
directing Dicus, the aduwinistrator, to pay the §9000 and the $4000, 
as above stated, and snjoined Emma Dicus and the other heirs from 
prosecuting in any other court any suit against the former cdminis- 
trator or his surety because the Superior court hed full jurisdic- 
tion. The only reason given by Euma Dicus in her motion of January 
7, 1938, is her allegation that the court was wholly without juris- 


diction in March, 1937, to set aside the orders entered in 1934 
potest 





— 

for the payments of $9000 and %40C0, and was without jurisdiction to 

enjoin the litication as above stated, We think there is no merit 

in either of these contentions, The Superior court in administering 
pdb Bide ee ee 


the estate tound that there was error in ordering Dicus, the ad- 
——__. _ ee — = een ~—— oo . . 





ministrator, to pay the $9000 end the “4000 as ordered in 1934, 


because he did not have the money. Obviously the Superior court 


had jurisdiction of the estate and could adjust the accounts to 


speak the truth. Long, Adm'x, v. Thompsor, 60 Ill., 27; Kinne v. 








Schumacher, 65 [11]. App., 342; Conant v. Elgin City Banking 





‘al 
YO. ; 
a 





252 Ill. App., 156, There was no error in ordering the injunction 
ee a —_ prensa a 


because it is not disputed that Dicus, the administrator, and his 
surety, had properly accounted for all the money coming to Dicus's 
hands as administra‘or. 

Emma Dicus filed her notice of appeal from the order of 
Merch 31, 1937, which she permitted to be disuissed, She cannot 
afterward, in the absence of any fraud, accident or mistake, have 
the order or decree of March 3lst reversed in these circumstances, 
and especially since there is no attexpt to show that what wee done 
Was in any way irregular, It is essential that litigation be 


terminated, 


the order of the Superior court of Cook county appealed from 
is offirmed, 


ORDER AFFIRMED, 


KicSurely, P. J., and Matchett, J., coneur, 





> : ; sat Ar ¥ 


«gaa to rebte eat mort begauqxe even ot eee ete coidw at "sols oll” : 

me. 7, © : , ) + RM eee a bt a hed 4 

Hy artehbiro ols botsosv doity .@ bas 8 engetgeteq ,TEOL ,L6 dots to q 

. “ f j re rie 4 : Gh ahs oe SNe adit Se % 

phi - 4 , | 

—  QOORY ait bas OOORE sity Yeq ot ,totettakatabs af} ,eyold gnitooxts - 
§ iF 


ert ation tanto puts Fete) asi 20 aiid healo tas Brie bedeta svods. es 
ji ; ~eEA ibe Tair kot est eabays Sine qs. FLNOD OA9.0, nee, mh antivosseng 

~giheltut fib “Baul Piu@o nobtequa at saysood yderse atd, to, tosert 
saci ‘to uoktom tos at evodl soumil yd aevig teasat yLao, ont rntees 


i webts uf engi pela yt Loue aew dxssoo cre) fags soddege Lis | tek al. 8S RE. af 





“bbOL ai betetue atohzo aals ebles tes ot Teer Sota fs moitetb Jf 


| ; * inna 

ot noitotbe brut tions iw asw bas ,Q008¢ bas o00eR Ye. whnembeu,achwed 
titeot om ef stent Adiant eW ,betads evode as meltegitit ont ai ota 
- go eee crabs tre gto Loins que oat seHoLd aed too eaend to todite sik 
' eye a eae HO mest, ~ ete g be ee Pa INE acme a ens WT rier eta , &}. Gate c 5%) hee oy Bete 
i 


~ be ent ayo iC gakiebto mt _eame Powis eae tact. basot atetes — 


> eth irenh alates pl sicntlemche ie chicas 





AS OL ace borehro § as 09 ong eid bus ogee ont yag of _totertstadm 
; metic nt Pi 
$<n00 Tortsque any ylasokvdd .yecom sat sved tan bith on sassoed . 
ot adntonos ont gaupbhs Siveo bas sistas edt to nottothe frat hed , 
ZT gaatl iTS ,.11T 08 ,aonqmodt wv x! mbA ,acod | oats ond atesae, 
aa 21S 199 2Sas iaithed ack 88. 


aoldosust, at add gubtebso 2b OUTS Of Baw sre? -06£ atts, tet, eas, ‘ 
on eee es 


See ec de aeetaideibaden iapapienneneie 4 


ain bre stoterteluimbs acid e800 4 dasit betuqaib # ont Bk. ak sRusoed 





(2.00 pacialoue Re iD slay Le 





. 





i staeuokl of sutiooo een sit Lis tot betauooos vetegotg des. siniegliniag 
if | | (—««sRoretitaiainbs ss, ebasd, 





to Tabte ssid ‘mov hieean: to sotdon ~e bolit suo fd sa oo hee 
i $ossu0 9 ike sbowaimeth ed od bes tterreg. esta sotdw ,VeeL thi doteM, .) 
Naa ' eved., ealase bm ea) fae booe . beeet Ue ‘to sonsads ecld at, btewredtey 7 


noonat amor to secu? at heersvet tat date ‘to eetoeb To tTebto pes | is 








eneb gew tecdw tacit westn ot tquedts on ef stedt somie ¥llets 
vedtomiibtagisifitedt *ieléneeee af si pislegetit yew ile 


tox? “be iee que ysass “Aeod ‘Tc Pros TOF Toque ox To 
TERA IVLA RECO” vt ‘i aii ois, dake 





nce LI 


40209 







RY Ae MiGs ; on Ls j n LUV 
UG uk anil MA ORW wen, 
TSUBN EH and & 





é 
nite ae f | 
TON, LUT ; TE ‘CHL, in- SUCUIT COMRT 
divi dually oné as members of the Generel \ 
Bondholders Protective Committees fer Ponds 1O0K COUNTY. 


gold by American Bond & Mortgage Company 

and as Yoting Yrustees under the various 
Trusts established by the Committee; HOLL 
BOCs, ASNNETH Ve HOORE ard OFAuLSS 3. HOCK TLR 
Individually ané as officers and directors of 
the American Bond & Mortgage G Sompany » and 
AM MI LAN TeUST a: S LP 8 DEPOSIT oe Cut IPARY SIRE 


WATICHAL RANK OF CHICA SO, (designated Bt D 9 QO} 
*Prinei pal Defendants”), CONTINENTAL HANAG 
MENT CONPORATION, DAWNES-HORY & COMPANY: a 
eer poration) HOTEL ALBAZAR » ESC «5 LINC OLY 

‘OBEY COMPORATICN, JAGKEON PARK HOS PITAL 
COMPANY, a corporation; 20 BAST Cibar Sikast Inc. 
LOG] HOGSHONT BULLOITHS COM PORAT IONS 5040 
HASHINGTON CO PORATION: 323° BLYS Se AKMG BUT Loe 
ING CORSOAA TION; DOMPEALYL, APARTHUNTS, ING. and 
WUMKNOWN OWT nS", (designated ¢ ‘as "“Yominad 
defendants"), 


A.618 


em 


we 





ee eee 


Appellees. 


BR, JUSTICE O*COBKOR DiLIVERED THE OPINION OF THE GOURT, 
Plaintiffs, ae owners of 916,506 in face amount of bends 

ef eleven separate bond issues underwritten by defendsnt, the 
American Bond & Mortgage company (the aggregate Tacs siuount of 
nine of such issues being in excess of $5,174,000) filed their 
complaint in chancery claiming there was fraud on the part ef 
some of the defendants in the execution and sale of the bonds; 
that there was a "conspiracy or scheme” on the part of all of the 
defendants in and about the handling of the properties conveyed 
to secure the payment ef some of the bonds; seme of it in Tore- 
closure, and the reorganization of other of the prepertier; that 
plaintiffs bring the suit “in their own behalf and for the use and 


benefit of all other bondholders who are similarly situated”, The 


@fo A.) 


wGSOs 


agedy ii gid Ate DUM aA HILAR 


Ls MEH 4 te og! 
ye abe Paik BF he ee 







ie oe HES a whbe a ag eens RE SkAcm: bee’ BBP WAR. 
& hy ce SUID Bx fares exvenig tty 


( enti 





ek 
Wah Laas * asic ehten Jy thee 
‘ ; rf av inate Lie MA ‘ye as 
ee anes VRC aE eR ( mith 4 AA +7 ie aN ie Be 
( Laroxsti weld To mueeterem aus Were 
o SERRE ove f aber % a8 Licssisd poe eyicoede tt avebLodhnos 





a & Wome mee inans YF bige 
aire ayy @itt pa i geegar rt gritoyY aa bae 
LEDER eri eersube ots gat pedeticadae et eat 

eet EA +8. Rtaniss Seve a ea) acs ef erie PET OLeS | 

to oe soetsh i granite tn bent ‘¢liswbtetnt 

ben get wagered & beet meelseus, exis 

PIL PEA. PES ea a ‘SBURr DAD EARN A, 

ay QC So. _- heel jo (carn % yi is eerie 

Sear ore Pan 






“; < 
ee ONE Ton net Fe 
ae 


einen A gt Pc i nag at 


pail Logg 


THOU BAT BS ROTATSO RET GAMA RORMOOT OD aOttEUD a 
eband Yo Pavan Sect Wk Ob e2) “To evento ee aw Pkieadett 0%: 


Re 


$a? ,tirbae teh yd held eirvebaw seneel bad etraeqes aovels Ye 


te fonens epet otepgetpge ef) yaoomed eazget—es 6 bored map items 
wiacd ROLDE (OOO, STL, 39 "Io seoons of yalod seven’ dome to onta 
te freq edt a0 bant'l aaw oneds geilaieio gsienedy ab dnteit¢nten 
rehaed esf Le efes bate aolvupeee ot al wtachaeteb eft ‘Yo estos 
ot? te ile “toe tneq ne de “enmity eo yoerigease”® & aa iene ine 
beyerton aniviegerg say te gad Lbansi edt tooda 
“org? ad af te AGE pabeed oe to PORE ka doe9e { COT 
tana pnoka regen ay 20 rede to nedtantaaprens. nite Nelli veritas 
bos nau ot? <ot Boe thao sme tiond at thew oat gna » 

















oases 


ost »*hetamtie einatints ein ele axehieubued eases dhe te eitemd 


i 


one 


prayer was that defendants, (a) be restrained from encumbering, 
transferring or assigning any of the properties; that s receiver 
be appointed to manage and operate the preperties; that defen- 
fants attorn te the receivers then in control; that the books 

and records be turned over to the receiver; (b) that the court 
decree the principal defendants disqualified, and thot they be 
removed and competent persons appointed; (¢) that the court deeree 
the principal defendants guilty of malfeasanee and misfeasance 
and liable te the bondhelders for the damages caused, and that a 
joint and several judgment be entered upon a proper accounting; 
(4) that the principal defendsnts be required to account; that the 
erestion of the committee “resulting in the reorganization eshenes 
was part of a fraudulent conspiracy"; (e) that the receiver be 
appointed and directed to notify all ceneficiurier te tile their 
Glaims “if they desire to avail themselves of the benevits thereof 
and to contribute to the expense”, snd (f) for such further relief 
as to equity may seem proper, 

Defendants iiled separate motions to dicminas the complaint 
for a number of specified reasons, ‘The motions were sustained, 
the complaint dismiezsed “fer want of equity at plaintiffs! costs” 
and they appeal. 

The substance of the complaint which we deem necessary 
to state ‘or the purpose of thie decision is that defen iant, 
American Bond © Kortgage Company was engaged in Yinaneing construc- 
tion loans for the purpose of making large commissions, placing 
insurance on the preperties and charging interest on undisbursed 
funds during the period of construction; that te seeure the funde 
"it devised a scheme to float first mortgage bond issues” and te sell 
them to the general public; that (efendants, Harold, Kenneth and 


Charles Moore were the principal officers and directors and in 





























gattedemoae west bextausuen od (a) tab eh tasis ine ee ewe 





teavipoes 2 Sesi3 jaasanoQeny ag? ia yo yatoy toes to sndeisiaies 
-aateb Seubd.j;aedotogers aed otaxeqe eer Symcta OF botatoqua od 
siiged wat fers j;Letdngo of seul eveviscet ono ar wtosia stab 
dayne ect tart (¢) ;teviooed of oF aeve beatet ed Slilahashhel bas 

ed yous duss fae , hed DhEewpe ks we malaee th fegionkes one ewr09b 
anwoek Seuvs ads tads ts} shee atoagn enazteg Pete gees Lead bovenen 
stamsee taka fess eomamee Theme bo ge ky eins) oe tek fegtontre ont 

4 tai hae ,beauoe Seanad ote sat eaek Ledhatod os et okdeks om 

_ tgshdavenes tegerg @ segs honegis of i lal tenses baw aatot, 
“est tastt jeaneooe oF hewinsan ad ad nich aakeh ingheoire end tae AD) 





snamsia ceotsagiacywoor gas me gad t Laer” fest hoave oat ae " ‘ ' iil 
ed tevkooet ont Yade (0) :"qnartqwiion $s Lobe a i ten 
asedd aift o@ setunioltemad iia Gildew 9 tesooute sae basa: , 


Ove ke OF RL A. 


‘teozeds etiteasd ase To wor Somessdts Shevu of orteos nate 1a" sate to 


ge Hee 






‘tekfoyn taddewt dows tot {it} Same , St Re Qee Sas OF sbedixt nes ot bao 
SMHeig, Mose Wai ydiupe oe aa 







taleieues edd selwekh of woclion osonmyys M6221 etme haste 
Seatatenus éxew beotice o8% cannes bet? ieee “ts sedan » xt 
“ateee ‘ebtigaiatg ga yt bape “te tae sot” boon hae th dade Lqameo oa 


Pissse99d woes ow de hiw gate fgaes aie Ye Oo tended ine om : Salata | 
gielae'tet dads of sotetoeh ata? Ye onogtng wet wer ‘ebataies 
~swatanes gatonaatt al boyaaa eee Yoaqued egaygeres Shoe aastte@h 
Nenidate. eels tacos — — ‘te —, out 10% | anwsit tt 






ahowl ee Sewien of Hac snadsstersenee te s bonteg oat otal 





ote 


active charce of the business; that for the purpose of having 
complete control of each bond issue so that in the event of default 
no individual bondholder could take action, the Bond Company or- 
ganized defendant, American Trust & Safe Deposit Coupany for the 
purpose of acting as trustee in the various bond issues in which 
exclusive right of action was vested; that ‘the Moores controlled 
this company and were its principal officers and directors; that to 
induce the public te buy the bonds, false information wae given 
as te the several properties to be conetructed, their income, etc.;5 
that plaintiffs purehased bonds issued and seld by the Mortgage & 
Trust Company on eleven buildings, (naming them) which were con- 
structed by the Hortgage and Trust Companies; that a prospectus 
issued on the Churchill Hotel stated the tond issue of 9930,000 
was secured ty a first mortcage on tne property which was valued 
st $1,967,500, with a gress annual income of $395,000; that the 
issue was guaranteed by the presiient oi the borrowing company, «nd 
that orovision vas made fer payments om the lean, but that the 
mortgage was not a first lien, «a large amount of taxes being unpaid; 
that a prespectus on the Albion Shore lictel stated the bond Lasue 
of $365,000 was secured by a first mortgage on property valued eat 
$615,000, with a net annual income of $57,694; the Aleazar Hotel 
prospectus stated that the tond issued was $400,000; that a similar 
prospectus was issued ae to the other eight buildings; that plaine 
tiffs, relying upon such information, bought bonds in ten iceues; 
that without knowledge to plaintifis, some of the buildings were not 
completed through lack of funds; the makers ef the bond issues 
deserted the property in the midst ef construction and mechanics’ 
liens were filed, foreclosure proceedings were instituted by the 
trustee, and the income of the compheted buildidge was used for the 
purpose of paying joreclosure expenses; that “in many instances the 


bends were sold te the plaintiffs and to the other investers during 








ate 


ith 
Mes ay 


guived te skeyiwe eat uot tet jpreenkend ey te agtado avitos 
fkue'teh to tneve odt ah dads on euwek heed Hoes te Lorine ete Lqmos 
<t6 yaugsed bal ale ,doldon ealetd bivew dwh todbaod fawh bvibad ‘ont 
acid 192 yoaquwl theoqed elae 4 tawx't amoldewh ,dmehow eb boat ang 
deine at seweak Aaed svebuay eA} at eotawns aa gakgon ‘te oncgung 
satiovtiine eeteoe ast? tans . sheteov see mottos ‘Ye ‘pag tx aviauloxe 
ot tadd paxadootih boa avaalYte daghockaq eF2 atew bie Yitweee alse 
Hevig aor aoisawee but oa fet qh baod axe ued oe “ok fdug ‘wht eoubes 
3-08 ,emawnl thas  butoweteaes od oe sndscaquee Gexaved 0 0 cn 
4 sgagttol a? qo bLee bas besawi abaod howartonuny aTitiatete tant 
«te: axew dy kaw ( emai poten )} <ewathtbud ‘move te no Yanqwod daure? 
agteegeone # teats paetaoaod sawn bie agagetek outs wi tedownsa 
G0 aie to aunet baod auld hebsde Levon Abas wuss eslt ‘ao housed 
hewlay sew Moldw etreqera Hi) ac oyaydtes tert? » ‘ betkese new 
ade Sout 7000,8085 Yo euadal tascam: eeera « délw 008,88, 8 te 
has ,taeqaoo gatwersed edi ‘to gaotiawrg eds yd Soosne team waw osaad 
eat toss ous ,amed es ac es ao ayed set ehem vow sols tvere ‘teas 
phloqaw ankend aemnt Le fanoum oases & ery gush & “teal aaw “pyagd tem . 
aueak bad ont batadn kato arosis neki ba cid tte euseoqucta a dade 
te beuley YIeqer« Ho Ogegtzom donk a xd botwoee naw 000, 2ace te 
{otoK tesola ont ine, ee to ones sk feunsa gon * tie - 900, 8.08 
noliote « tasis 7200,006% saw bowaed Rags odd eats batate ausosqnota 
witha Lay ast seguhh Sted ride tasieo welt at v1 bawan i ene audooga ota . 
;eewenk mod wk Bbhaod sdgued tots ameoind fie wa oan ankytor ams 
fon oun agate Lhws ial 0 vmoe saTidindosg oe ube Swoon sods tw dass 
| “gawanh baod one *o awextes sis jeu te oat fguor aia ‘botstan 
'getaatoon fou neksewsta noo % sabia wats vat prtegorg, oat ‘botrons 


ay 


‘ame 














anal ve boauv deat ox agabbasoors ruusoloore! fh he kat mon 





ete 

the pendency of the ferecjosure proceedings without ever informing 
the investors that the bond issues were in default"; that the 
Mortgage Company and the Trust Company concesled the defaults from 
plaintiffs and other investore and advanced their own funds to pay 
principal and intereet without the kmowledge of the inves ora; took 
up the bends uncancelled and held them on a parity with other bonds; 
that “in many inetances” the Mortgage Company and Trust Company, in 
anticipation of defaults, would eall in bonds prior to maturity and 
exchange them for other »onds; that the bends se acquired were 
pledged as security “with various banks including defendant, First 
hational Bank of Chicage” and the liability to the banks in this 
connection was approximately $3,000,000 ior which the bonds were 
pledged and that this was done to conceal defaults from the invea- 
ters; that after the crash of September, 1929, the bords pledged to 
the banks were greatly depreciated and it appesred that the korte 
gage Company and the Trust Company couid not rewain in business; 
that to save them “delendants conepired te deprive plaintifie”® 

from their rights and remedies agsinet theMortgage and Trust Com- 
panies, and thereupon “defendants created an slieged vondholders' 
protective comsittee under o deposit agreement” dated October 24, 
1929, for the ostensible purpose of pretecting the investors but 
Yer the real purpose of protecting themselves; that the First 
ational Bank agreed to ‘inance the “project” and advanced $60,000 
te the committee to solicit the bondholders te deposit their Lends 
and lent the servicesof come of its ofjicials who were placed on the 
committee; that representatives of the Chieage Trust Company, 
another bank, and of the Central Kepublie Bank were alse Placed on 
the committee; that having accomplished their “scheme" they caused 
letters to be mailed by the kortgage Company to the investors 
stating the bonds could not be paid and submitting a plan of reorgam 
ization, etc.; that the committee placed advertisements in the 


newspapers suggesting the deposit ef bends with the committee; that 








guietetal teve ¢sodiiv agaiboosetG axtunefoste? oof Yo yousbaeg eait 
ait gett ;*¢iswheé at eco aecesd bad wit ted? etoteeval old 

ment afiue tah aff Polscouge yaeqmeS tenet eit Sam ymgmed egeghnen 
we oF ahawt ave shade ieomerhe kas oxoceeval tetite bus a Tittabaig 
deat jesacevat ani Yo eghodvacal ost taedidy Sawtedak bow Ingtoateg 
pebiced geiio adie yivey « oo med? biog bag Selene ebried line 
al ,Qiegaa) tan? bos ytaqmeo ayegdtek aie “apoae dead gem ae tants 
haw ybtantam of tabig ahsed at tise Sisew ,e2iveteb To nedtaqds bine 
@ise betinpes ox abuesd pig tele jahwagd Gaal tet. aes oy netions 
gardt ,fovbas ted ysihvdaci @inad onettey atte" -etizasen ef heghelg 
ais? oh wigad oy of Yoididadd oat fae “ogeodse lo tnek Lemp diat 
ease abaed ef soliw «ot O00, 000,64 Yirtaminenggs say aodzpennos 
oaeval oat sett adinetah daveden wf engh rev ahd deat bee beyhedg 
ot hegieig ehagd ody ,O8CL ,tedamtqed to ceer9 sey tedhe teat yates: 
Sta edt cade Detwayge Pa Soe belukivetaes. Elieste emer aalemd. oult 
radeniuud as nbs. tos hswOO YREGAOD FeaTr aah. bate, yee cna) $325 
"etiigatale evicgsh.et tetigesas adashss tos" ema’ oven of Seat 
~n90 ouyT Soe ogagdtalisd? Geaiege askbeams Aas atdy ts shod moth: 
lowshLedhaed boys lin an bataets adaonre teh" meguetead bax etme 
.&h tedeso0 hotah “Sasuertge sieges « t9baw wate inaes. aviiootorg 
tut atodeoval of) gakdgadeng to seaqray @idissetaa nd? ot BOL: 
goxtl adi tad? jawvivenesi? gabdasdore Ye seeqteg, Seer, 7 x0t 
006,03) beedaves bas *tao,eta" eft soanett 99 kpotge deel deaokteh. 
shaes ghadd @isouad of wsebianened oft tiation oF aodtiumeo add et. 
add ae bonadg stew ody alalettio ats ty ene tenecivaee ot duet bm. 
eYaqaied daartT egeadl edi ts aavisiqdmmnoiget fade ones baumee 

ao beosig outa otew Masi, adddegnt hostage eit Yo Baw, had wat oan 
boeken Youd “ouedoa" tient bodwsiqueres gab wait tad gene nme. ost 
pieteeval auld @) Yanqaed egagtzod eis. sl cane as a enodind 





eucds santé tames it déin ohned tat pring eS 


-5- 
the First National Bank continued te advance funds to the committee 
in furtherance of the “seheme", 

The ¥ill then sets up the various plans for the reergani- 
zation of the preperties, ete,, and then particularizes (a) Albion 
Shore Hotel Plan was adopted March 30, 1936, bond isewe of $365,900 
all in default eince Haroh 2, 1929, » new corporation to be organized 
etc., the stock to be distributed to the bondholders aid others; 

(vb) The Aleazar Hotel Plan adopted July, 19355 but not accomplished 
until Octeber, 1956; that in connection with th.s building, the 
mortgage foreclosure fees were $14,500, The reorganization plan 
then follews: (ec) Churehill Hotel Flan adopted March, 1936. The 
complaint describes the plan ané states that the committee was to 
receive $32,250, besides foreclosure expenses and fees in excess of 
$15,000; (4) Harboe View Apartments, $687,500 outstanding bends. 
Then follows what was ione. (¢) Jackson Park Hospital, that a new 
corporation was created to acquire the property, ete.; (1) Linceln 
Rebey Building, the reorgenization of which was completed October, 
1937, that there were $827,400 outstanding bonds, with more than 
$499,000 unpaid interest, ete.; (g) 20 Kast Cedar Apartment plan 
adopted in 1933, new corporation fermed, outstanding bends 
$1,455,900, etc.; (nh) Rosemont Building Corporation reorganized in 
1931; (i) Washington Corporation reorganization plan in 1933, 
giving details; (j) Diversey Armabuilding Corporation plan completed 
in 1931; (k) Dommell Apartments, Ine,, reorganization plan in 1933. 

The complaint then alleges tnuat the total bend issue floated 
by the American bond & Kortgage Company consisted of 169 issues 
tetalling an investment of 100,000,000, and that the bendholdere 
committee is the general committee tor all these properties; that 
in most of the cases the reorganization was carried on witheut the 
appreval of court; that in a few cases the committee submitted these 
reorganization plans, some to the State and some to the Federal courts 


The complaint then continues and sets up in detail and at great Leng th 





eesetomen ot. 02 whet ‘db navhe of hewaly 09 ‘Mew kanoitai tout ony 


*eamdon” oat ‘Ye sonmaesigest at 

«Rigatdet od? 20% want avoltay eid aa aon ‘meats ‘iw ect . 
“gett, (eo) sexivafeolesaq merit bee , .od0 aa liceqara ot te noltas 
00,8OE6 Yo vwwat anode (8E0r (08 Moda bedqebe ane melt fod ok exes 
tordteysg SY of weddetegioo wea a W802 i yt dota soake # fae cob at ‘the 
yatedto bah atahtorthaod asty of hotudhat ath od oo aoodn one | -ote 
hese Rigsigooe dam tad BOL wast bes wuhe ‘te £4 ‘iatolt wasnaia ont (a) 
wat ,briih ited adds Rive’ ‘nétbpontioe “al sade ;eeer st0d9i00 shew 
| Rede Melicdbnaytowse att 008, Ate ovew aso% erusoisete? eangttom 
ee ee baa qioni ‘a 28 Lat on Te Mto el @y ‘eweliot sone 

' Be dow boddiumon ald diay arate Shaw cordg add agdinsaeh “tind Lquaan 

‘te weboxe HE. Reo’? hus soetqcn stimefooret ued iood 088806 dviect: 
whdet Gubdaatetve 000, 0800 [ataeaduags well “duehcall ay 700086 
wens fade ,£etiqnell axed mendoat te) oooh ear Sasi awotior sont 





afeeaia tt) 4 s.0¢8 ,ydweaetq ode Selupes ‘oe besaors nae "no texearee 

metered bare Lqneo saw dedctw Yo solteakacgrest eae pad Lhe woden 

aot oven Mae pwhaed yathasdeice oa, ene exer oroule ‘gastd reer: 

ae te Padsueed rebed took OF fe) :.080 Saoteral ‘btowny 00,0088 
rs abned gathustntwo howto? omktetogres went eter ak hotel 

a? Regtaoyteet aoltataqre®? gaks lind sions of (a) toe -000, tebe 
(BeOF x ales Hodson? nogcon iadiaroqred aed gadila. ‘ 

seasaiien aa mhinones ‘adios oneal ww retbeaeh gatyiy 














walt dF argetd iv wo Bettas aaw ‘ieliaabig bil 
 gwagas beds badwa eead dango anit eoe20 “walk « at dastd 
{ 7 wi ate iv cae 
i we sxse0 texedet ene hed ones oe osare ° 


earth 





-6< 
what are alleged to be the facts disclosed on the hearing on the 
foreclosure and reorganization plans of the Churchill Hotel in a 
proceeding in the Circuit Court ef Cook County. Similar allegations 
fellew in reference to the Albion Shore iiotel as to what teok place 
in a proceeding invelving that hotel, in the Circuit Court of Cook 
County. Then follow somewhat similar sllegations cencerning the 
reorganization plan of the Barbor View apartments where a bond issue 
of $900,900 was floated by the American Bond & kortgage Company 
July, 1922, and a second vond issue of $200,000; that defaults were 
made in 1924, 1925 andi?26 in the payment of these bends; that 
there was a bond issue of $1,475,000 against the 20 Hast Cedar Street 
apartments in 1926. Further on, the complaint sets up the finding 
er opinion of the Judge of tne Circuit Court of Cook County in con- 
nection with the Courchill Hotel preceeding. Thies cevera several 
pages of the abstract. There are several paragraphs in the cone 
plaint where the allegations sare general, charging defendants with 
wrong-doing in that the banks protected their own interest te the 
detriment of plaintiffs and other bondholders, and a number of other 
charges of a similar character are made, 

We do not state further allegations ef the complaint but 
we think it sufficient to say that plaintiffs' suit is an atteupt 
te recover damages for fraud and deceit by way of a class suit in 
eleven separate bend issues. here were decrees entered in three 
proceedings involving the Churchill Hotel, Albion Hotel and Lin- 
coln Robey building. In another building, the Harbor View Apartments, 
@ proceeding was pending under 77) in the Federal Courts. It seeme 
clear that whatever claim plaintiffs had arising out of these four 
bend issues were adjudicated or could have been adjudicated in those 
four proceedings, and they are not in a pesition here te complain ae 
to those tour properties, 


Defendants make a number of contentions why tae decree 


should be affirmed, one of wiich ia that the complaint is multi- 





a 
vi ‘ git ae yebtand Saf ao hewedeets eer'> wat ed of mega die | ‘eH tate ; 
ry & o£ Sede (Livers ens to eaaiq- Hebtiad tegtons baa eto otoere? 
q net tege tin weLieke .giimseO Moot te sawed PhwotsO ade de yekbenootg | 
, oan te dgot sade 6} ta Seow dited® weit sab oF tompye toe oo wollet 


toed ‘te gues Piwer£S ante wk , Poems tate gante Lown! pebbieneng 2 ak 
git} gatmreoves enetvege tte rethade dactiemes weltek ama .gtowed 
gueek bued « srade weaendieda wk tedtek 89 To antag molsantnagnaos 
| ea. ayegdiod & bHed seotwens act Yo hedeett eae 000 oues ‘to 
over et tikes “dane /006, C086 Ye eitvet fued Baenew @ haw” SOL rete 
told ;ahdied wands “he Javeumg ont mk OROLbae ENOL (AROS ph ees 
soattE ‘“ahe0 dest Of off teatage ‘oe (ete, £8 Yeo ound Buse ‘6 ean eres 
pak bak? ett ay edoa trike iqinod Sus (ho vested § Oter at adaondzaga 
 eitgo fd ydntod ded “ro fxped Phaeeko eis to wghat edt te aokates x0 
fareves etovee ald? .gubbseoeng fodali (tide red ene A | dae 
 enmag ate nt adqgetgewse Leeevee ote ened? entiede wdé ‘te eogna 
i iw wdeenne ed ‘gabywis , Lateong ote emg tee fhe ett orede gates | 
‘git of festadal avo tise? hedestoty stant ene teed m2 gabobeynenw 
rosie ‘tq qodeen @ few Laue tedbned Soleo. haw oYthratadg te saomhttes - 
heat ois setoetess tedhake a te aeyeado 
tud Sileiqugs off to eaekiagelle <exrcar esate dom oh ow ee 
Pqubdde mo ak thee wrtavaiedy tect que of tooled tue oF eins ow 
at ¢ive s#aé » Yo yee Yo CRoowe hay Suet cot etpnunh evens 
agrat al “bere d a0 woevoed exew wredy ena ‘howd on ) i 
‘ sata ‘bas Lefoi malota , corel cobdoxuds ate ‘waivterat © ; . 












 anteee #% sastH0d favebet odd at wwe ‘wba cunedeath “ 





-7- 
farious. We think tris contention must be sustained. First Nat, 
Bank of Lincgln vy. Starkey, 268 111, 22; Lyons v. $33 jo, Nigh. 
Bldge Corp, 277 Ili. App. 93; mbi v Washin t 3 
290 Ill. App. 53. 

In the Starkey case, the court said, (pp. 25-27); “To 
lay 4own any rule universally applicable as to multifariousness, 
er to say what constitutes multifariousnese as sn abstract preoposi- 
tion, is, under the authorities, utterly impossible. ({Gtorey's 
Bq. p. + 10th ed. - see. 530.) There is no settled and inflexible 
rule as te deciding whether « pleading is multifarious. The ques- 
tion is one which must be deteruwined largely by the circumstances 
ef each particular case. (14 Ency. of #1. & Pr. 196.) Under re- 
eent decisions it is frequently held that the objection of multi- 
ferioueness usually raises serely 2 question of convenience in cone 
ducting the suit, and colls for the decision of the court simpy 
upon the question whether, in ite discretion, the various causes 
set forth in the bill should be tried in a single suit or should 
be divided and tried in two or more suits, or whether a defendant 
whe is a necessary party im respect te come matters covered by the 
bill is so comnected with the other satters involved as to make 
him a proper party in respect te them, *** In spite, however, of 
the abeence of any general rule ag to what constitutes multifarious- 
ness, it is generally held that there are certain principles and 
tests by which that defect may be discovered in any particular 
case. by multifariousness, says a noted author, is meant impreperly 
Joining in one bill distinct and independent matters and thereby 
confounding them. *** But what is sore familiarly undereteod by 
the term 'multifariousness,' as applied to a bill, is where a 
party is able to say that he is brought as a @efendant upon a 
record with a large portion of which he has no cennection whatever, 


(1 Daniell's Ch. Pr, - 6th Am. ed. « *336.)" 


re 

aieh son k% shondetews od teem wodfestoee wks eakdtd af lanedrat 
HOES 98 BOE ot paged (8S fk DOR yypree et oe ke dou 
pebcioue 2 sody ¢ fdeecd 780 .guA .ffE FOe wrod htt 
88 .qga cit oes 
wexuate ott at” | 
,eesuevolss talem of on widewkiaas ylisereehew ofex Qa moh yal 









ve Pp 2 “Ean y t ps ox i " 
Pie haw ee ets TR ERS eT hay WSS 


we 4{08-58 1g) ,Adow Fimee ede eeu 





-iaegeic toertate a se Benenwedes tat inn eptutivekes Paste ves of Ye 
eigesess} .oltiecoqd yinectw ,eshtivedten ent weber at , welt 
eiizeelial Aue bellies ou ei oret® (008 eee = cho HPOL « ‘ep 
“soup ei .kagdxe thaw oi qoiseote « welléetie gntiisab of os oter’ 
aeoteiamgoaie edt qd Ylewsel Senluweteh od tem aohow oto ah eld 
es weha (.804 .2% A ,cX To veoak AL} seem setae tiasy dae To 
-iiiee to apliies}ife ed¢ ¢ade Aine etenenped?t wi oF aneta took dies” 
«noe ck sanolitavawe ty agdgensp a (lates eoohir Ulioven dveewpettet” 
viene geese add Yo mabedows ead tet eties ote jetou amt gaereed” 
sesuan suakiay sat paedtotehs ett at pxovitede mobieowe edt aequ 
bigots te dive sigain o wh bodes os a iyede uid ody wh adeet You” 
ftabagies « seater te , etiam Oco0 to oF ni Baines Bae Bebivib ed 
asd yd boreves e1stien emee of Heowaet at ytaw yrestonsn o aE ete 
eden of se boviavat sasdded wetie oct wtiw bedownmes of ef Iftd 
te ,tovered ,eFiqn wi «oe jamal 2d goeqnet af Yteor Yeuetd & Mid 
~cuoigutidins sotstiiene dadv of ee ahty Keraney ene Re eoaeade’ ene” 
baa gefgtoaiug aheties exe ewe ges iba Lievens oY 2 week!” 
iodsidueg yn AL hexevesedh of qa deotes gant Aoki gf adeer” 


citeqoiged gaseu ok ,toliue beaten & eyee jeneoavete tid ive yh “lonao”” 


_detedd ban axattaw davbaaqebat bas somkteso Pte eae wt gabakot 
‘ee hogtarshaw ysrekiinnt wrest ai cate Fak saw aees qa ihenet aes 
8 ovedw ah ,iL oof BOLiqge an * anenewedeeti rion axed eat” 
2 ous teehoe tek 2 ee dkguerd wh et tase yee of elle wt yiraq” . 
.teresese noléoenmes oa aad ed dotde ‘to aelixeq #gtai oe aie btevet 
%( 0009 — tub seek sO ~ ga at at dtetaat £) 


ote 

In the Lyons case, (277 Lli, App. 93) suit was brought 
by a minority of btendholders against the trustee under s mortgage 
and also as depositary under a depovit agreement and againet the 
mortgagor and others for personal decreea for an injunction ag»inst 
the further prosecution of a pending foreclosure suit, ete. The 
bill was hela to be multifarious in that it sought to Liquidate 
several claims which were separate and distinet and joined distinet 
subject watter,ag inst several delendants, seme ef wieom had ne 
interest in one or more of the mattera involved. 

In the Gombi ease, WO 1]li, App. 83, suit *az brought 
by a number ef purchasers of washing aacidines Trem tie jelendant 
cempany olleging the maciines were seld by fraudulent sisrepresen- 
tation and that the sales contracts were obtained by fraud. One of 
the prayers of the complaint wua that Jefendant be enjoined from 
proeecuting actions at law on the contracts. The Appullate Court hel 
the complaint was multifarisus. The court there ssid, (p. 6%): 
"Counsel for appellees, however, (@ call our attention to section 
23 ef the Civil Practice Act, *** and insist that the only qmestion 
for determination is wicther, if theme appellees had brought separate 
actions, a common gueetion of law or ef fact veuld have erisene 
This section provides: ‘Subject to rulee, a1 persolie may Join in one 
action as plaintiffs, in whem any right te relief in respect ef or 
arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is alle 
ged to exiat, whether jointly, severslly or in the alternative, where 
if such persons had brought separate actions any cosmen question of 
law or fect would arise.' In our opinion this provision simply 
extends equity practice as to joinder of parties and causes of action, 
te actione at law.” The court then points out that section 23 was 
taken from a section of the New York Practice Act and was construed 


by the Court of Appeale of New York. (233 N.Y. 466.) 


In the instant case, there are probably many hundreds of 





tL. : 


| te. 
ZZ aiguord gee tee (Oe seqk 5410 INR) yoeaw geod est al... .. 7 
i 7 Sgoyltee 2 taba aeteuss of} fankegs axphdodbaed to. ateen, th 
if ait Sontag Mie canerys Aiesenh = eho yeRttaaeh es ante hata. 





- tesdege nolsgmiiek ae «cel aveteg) Lamertec tet eISATO bas Touen 





iio ont 280 \ Fie OFanaiverel guibaeg « ke cadtogeawny rougautt ont | 
i sevinets Oe atawer th des wh suodie tied od a? bhed sew, Aik . 
tandinis beskel due doatiedh bom eleneqea age dete amhels fereves 
[ . | ot avi moet to ome ,aiumbweleh Jareree. Paolo ge ated om apete a 
ia | herignah asediem ont Do exam ce. ene mk daeroesaa 
étjvors wee tha 968 ox@a of hl OC...peen0 Agegh 800 ME oy 4 sala 7 
ftashovler oud aaat esdigean geidaww te aaegedpaeg te nines « w 
tivo BTS UE Lei das Lebwex® yd bikes ovsw sendtonm of gaigeila gare 
| _ te e0G beet? qe heckatds ewew atomrtaco aptan. ott. eet bie aottat 
mutt baakelid of thutastes tact ane dabedyee ods Se axeyete 











Mod PHB0 StRELOGGA act sedoaxdaos ont NO wed te nnndtos pak tungan 


a 
' 
} 7 “Q4hO .@) (bana a¢ed? Sayed ac? seueise bli ioe ea: tnke Lemon. = 
dekenoe of oti omdsu wo fine ob ~wovewed: need tegge toh. am 





i aGiteawp Ylao ene tan’ tutent bop +04 dod opidoan’ Livid, ent, ) ca ‘. 
gtexeqee Gwent Sent eeetlecgn epone. td. ,aerdesiw ad. ecient Ce 








7  ¥0 Fe Vosyeut af twader ef Pagit quay vdeo... igs ie BR pany 
eile ae tnehtoswnart ‘tq aeiieg to meddowenetd anne 84) to Fu0 | asd at 4 
arsos ,evivadietia ert af we ydieterme ,yltuhel tHe % 
Xo mettdedy memad yor smohton denngne sanues «on oe 


elg@ete aekaivory wld? aoiatge sue af. “: 1 te shi 











]I 
1 


= 
bendholders who purchased thelr bonds in the same manner as 
Plaintiffs purohased their bonds irom the Mortgage Company and 
under the same facts. Millions of dollars worth of such bends 

are involved in the suit, at leaet nine large properties are invel- 
ved, humerous issues would necessarily arise as to each bond iseue 
and the fact there was but one bendhelders’ agreement would net 
change the situation. Av ssid in the Starkey case, (263 i11. 

22) multifariousness raises » question of coriveritence in conducting 
a suit. One of the tests is the “impreperly joining in one vill 
distinct and independent matters and thereby centeunding tiem", 
Whether a complaint is multifarious, we think, aieuld in mest 

cases be left to the discretion of the chanceliior and only becomes 
4% question of iaw when ail reasonable winds would reach the cone 
Glusien that the maiters were co involved that they should not be 
tried in one suit. 


In the instant 2886 We taink k the compisint was BuLtifarious 


Pore sernmt 


and the court preperiy struck it. 


= fa rena PATTI OA eI MOOTED 


The eraer or decree of the Circuit Court of Cook County 





appealed from ia affirsed. 


APVIRMED, 


MeSurely, *?. J., and Matenett, J,, eoncur, 


=G 

Rie toHMMat ska Sir oh ebaed thote bewedewdg cow etehLodbaed 

fats ‘eens eget agnutvod ott wort absot 42ed) Beaasecky attitatele 
shued dios to MPEbY atetfoh te enokfiet wreet eave wilt tobe 
-Lovui es saltiegerg sytel entn deaet te .ttuw od at bevioral ote 
eimel BGed dane of wa G2 fen yLlamnesnea Sivot shuaet auoreuda , bev 
toa bivgw tosmecune ‘eeehiodbuod sae dud aaw Sted? YeaT wr baw 
.ff2 S82) ,seeo yealbede od? mt Bide GA .dattautin sity byuade 
gakioutseo mi eoogtacvies te aaktesup 2 evaker smenavelve tht ium (28 
{fis 400 ak gatatot efeaqorat* au ak ateok onft “te od Voive a 
aut gaihaueiies Yereils fim anette fibbwegehat haa toatiets 
feo af Dives ,dadiy ow \auetuathe ter #2 Pabeiqned « todtod¥ 
Bexesed <ine bis sWtfeonuny oat Yo noltexsuth Gas oF Urel oF eeead 
les Wi Hoes Witsaw ehiie alvenowwes fhe wedw wal Yo malsooup 2 
ad ten Sfiede youd fait Several ov rae wtelice ed? furl? webeto 
ee ee es pens 

anetyatht et aaw ‘eoidb tome “atte wake @W Oiee Paetemd ony Loa a 


A areal 


et somite eleeqory tiliinw oat? “bose 

- eho 

alia Heed ‘te feud ere ex? to serves te cohve eat 7 
peed he ot ee smart 


i aa lly q ay wat ee 
ee Suk ~ 
es 2 *. ‘ = sey, tas ; Fe bs z 








rMe abe a  aaeei ba Se die Le 


ee 


40333 


HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION, 
@ Corporation oi re United 
States of America, Creat by 
Act ot Congress, 

Defendant in ¥rror, 
vs. f 


ahs 
RE 


SIGNE NIEL 





Lainte?l? in Error, 
Msn 


WR, JUSTICE O'CONNOR DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


The Home Owners! Loan Corporetion brought an action of 
forcible detainer against detendant to recover possession of an 
apartment in a building in Chicago, There was a hearing before 


the court without a jury and a finding that defendant was *cuilty 


of unlawfully withholding from plaintiff possession of the premises," 


—eeee ae Saiesd 


ding but ordered the writ of 


The court entered judement on the fin 


restitution stayed for sixty days. Defendant has sued out a writ 
of error to this court to reverse the judgment. 
We think it apvears that plaintiff obtained title to the 
epremises through a foreclosure proceeding and afterward brought 
this forcible detainer suit in the Municipal court. The contention 
of defendant seems to be that the real party in interest was the 
Government of the United States, not the {ome Owners' Loan Corpora- 
tion; thet the money lent and to secure the payment of which the 
morteage on the property was given, beloneéd to the United States 
Government, and therefore the right of action was not in plaintiff, 
Plaintiff has assismed cross-eerrors, contending the court 


was not warranted in ordering the writ of restitution stayed for 
sixty days, end further argues that a writ of error will not lie 


in a forcible detainer case, We know oi no authority that would 
Warrant the court in staying the writ of restitution for sixty days, 
but since we have reached the conclusion that a writ of error will 


not lie and the proceedings must therefore be disuissed, we do not 








See0h 


,MOITTAHOGHOO BAOU '@REMWO MOH 
begenU sak. to aoltetogtrod s 
vd betsesO ,aoltomA To aststé 
,22e%gnoS To JOA 

STOTT oi -tashoe ted 


LN 


_paneaitieties 





UCR aHT TO MOLMISO ARYL GERAVIAER. HOWMOO'O EoLTeut. , A 


to xettos ns Sniguotd s6bteroqT 09 aeo.i hears aw emol oat 

ae to aokeesagogq xevoost ot tashas teb jentese babar {dtoxot 

arotsd aniised s asw teat .oReordd at amth Lend. & nt J nasi nage 
we ihve" aw tasbns'teb tere. gitar g bas Yuh e tuo tw #7u99 ond 


ae! 


“ QOGLEGEG ont “to Holaseasog titatele isQt'S gai Losiig tw yltu'twe La to 
Ho me wigne sx? ie hn ie NR HE OR Dies ke Sc ae pebnorse noi na 
‘to tive end Kexsbie gud gnibatt said 0 Bailes: pbut bets diie Pro oat 


Raeneuunerer ss See Le 7 


titw se tuo boue agar tushooted .eysh vixtie rot boyste woltutiseos 
,tremubet, els sarees ot tuuoo airs of torre to 

ant o¢ sfiits bentetdo Ttitsaisle fsiult avescqe gt daidt. 8 
icgsotd brewistts bas anibesaote atueoloste? & Hig noneld Atk LORE GP 
Moidnednoo si? ,d4rvoo LasqioinuM ont at tive teatisiohb atekere? ales 
edt aaw gastedai ci ytteq teoxr ont tadt od of emese tashae tab to 
-stocreS aso ‘erenwO emol. sid tom ,asiasé betinU edt to tremerevo® 
ed¢ doisiw ‘to guomyeg sit stuosa of how timo L yetom art tert ;aobd 
setcte betiaU edt of HSoroled ,asvig asw ytuecotg ot ao sgegdtom 
~ttitaielq af tou eew mottos to tigi est stotereds bas , fwsaateved 

giyoo edt gaibasdnos ,axotre-seots boaglees as tritaisld 


wot boyete otsutiieet to tirw edi gaintebto ait bedastasw Fox asw 
eif ton LIfkw tetre to dirw 2 sadt aengts tedttyt bite ayeb yixte 


bisow dadd yWiroddus on ‘to wor eW .saso tonmteteb sidtetot s mi 
<ayeb ysxie rot soiduiisieset to dinw exit goiyste at tives. sit tast1ew 
ifiw totrs ‘to tiuw s tadt sotautonos sii bedoset sves sw sonia sud 


Jou ob ow ,bseaimetbh od stotetens seu agaibesootg ent Sas etl tou 


> 


discuss further the contentions of the respective parties, 
In Wentworth v,. Sankstone, 233 Ill. App., 48, it was held 


a writ of error would not lie to review a juduuent entered in a 
ie amma eniemmonecrmcntnidi —— rie 7 cae — : 


forcible detainer case, That holding was approved in 
oO ne Re 


Chicazo v. Chicago Steamship Lines, Inc., 328 I11., 309. 


The writ of error is diswissed, 


City of 


one ee 





WRIT DISuISSED, 


MeSurely, ~. J., and Matchett, J., concur, 








AG 


eeltisq evitosqeot odd To enolinetnoo sos terittut aavoelthb 


Bbilod sew gk ,6h ,egqd .fil 88 so tedoee iv s mowduoW al 


& Of betedus tposmhet & Weivex ot elf fon Hivew porwe: te. tiww) ay 


a 


Te ME Bl eect any, a 
Cael a Oe . s e 


to vtto ai. bevroxggqe eaw.gaiblond tedl 


008 , ALE. S88 Quon .fpnid gins 


-boseiivalh alo vortay to ditw edt 


a) 


keaLela IRV 





8880 teoristiah ofdtoto 


ea av emen commeraepeees Aone 








Pes 1K 


swwonoo ..G ,ttetlotedl bas ,.0 .f , ylenuaom 


rr 





rg 
£8: % 
ms AS % 4 
? 3 ee 
ae < 
£ ; Kem ae 
2 Hy SPSS “Se oh 
or eee 
4 eS mh 
Re PANTS” 
wy the . 
Tara We sap as St W $ Wh ra, ft 
m hase frie i 
i gp SESE Ne eee he 


ACR ee Me ae aa yh tee 


Adem oi: Dae ae 


ate “Kos okt don 





2 
40359 


WILLIAM BURKE HARMON, RUSSELL 


) rr 
TYSON, ARTHUR LYMAN and BENNETT  ) i 
MILNOR, Trustees, . \ 
App ellees, ) 5 
f ) BAL FROM C oug? COURT 

vs. f ) Fete gad 

7 single despise QF COOK UNTY. 

MICHELE VINCI, ee 0, ien..  ff ( 

pp eliant, a é 3 


i. i a 
- ps G Q H A 6 1 4" 


WR, JUSTICE O'CONNOR DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 


October 9, 1936, plaintiffs filed their compiaint in 
chancery to restrain defendant from resodeling a building and 
praying that he be required to remove it from the premises, 
After the issues were made up the cause was referred to a master 
in chancery who took the evidence, made his report, recommended 


that a decree = entered in eeconese’ witi the prayer of the bill 


and that sétecasat be required to renove the building from the 





premises withic six months unless within tiat period he remodeled 
the building in accordance with plans approved by plaintiffs. A 
decree was accordingly entered and defendant appeals, 

Plaintiffs have filed no brief in this court, 

The record discloses that plaintiffs, the owners of about 
100 acres of farm land located in the southerly part of Chicago 
between 127th street and approximately 129th street and east of 
Halsted street, subdivided the property and in November, 1927, 
sold 12 of the lots to defendant for $11,250 - a down payment of 
$1125 and the balance in monthly installments of $150 each, In 
January, 1928, defendant on paying $9000 cash was given a discount 
from the purchase price so that the lots cost him a total of 
$10,125, and February 3, 1928, he was given deeds to the 12 lots 


which contained building restrictions that prior to January l, 


1940, defendant would not erect or permit to be erected on the 














Qgeos 
( DIRBAUE  , WOURAL ork BAT LILW 
( TERME Bae WANE HUETHA .woay? 
ees ™s oadautt HOMIIM 
; (ase ltegas 
gavoo THUVALD MORE JATG 4 
RU ins iy a jig 
iby . +20 
ee ‘ 


TOMTV MIMO Tu 


: jee ee 
% i ae 
( 


4 

S 
DTd.A1 ees 
~ 4 renee Sy 
is al, Gs © At Soe 


.t1U00 SHE TO MOTATGO BRT GRAAVISE AOWWOD'O HOTTAUt . RU 


ni taielqmoo tiesit bolit atti¢naiela¢ ,@6eL .@ xedotod 
bis guibifnd s giitebouet moxt tashne teb sieiteex ot yteonesno 
seoeiuerg ely merit Fi svoser ot bexinpsst od otf tsdd aniysrtq 
totes s ot bextoter easw oeuso end qu oben stew aouaal ors tet TA 


hace ~ttoges alin obam ,oconebive ed¢v doot enw vroeonmsno al , 


fii ealt to Soe ely otiw sotsabrtooos ak Sones on eerees & tsd3 


AN li a cahsviaa anal Jelitelpnadennty 


| 

{ 

} 

ult seit anibliud eit evouer ot iartneee eer ieee Yen tat = 

belsbowst Of boiteq tad aistiw easton addénom xte aldtiv eesinerg i 
A .ettitntelg yd bevotcgs enelg Aviw somebrooos ak gnibiind edd 


,afseqqs tisboae'teh bas betetae yigniftoses aaw setoeh 
> tO NON epee i oO eee eee ae iad 


es 


stigoo aldt of teitd om bolit oven etlitaislt 

Suode ‘te stenwo odd ,atlitotelg test souoloe ib boost eAT 
egsoido ‘to daaq “¥lttentuos silt ai ‘hetauox bos t. ome? ‘to astos OL 
‘te tess bus geeuta AveSl ylotenixorqqs bis gostte AGTS£ noswted 
SOL ,tedmevoll ai Snes yStegotg ond bobivibdwe ,tootte hotelall 
to tnemgsq awob s - O@8,{[f¢ tot susbasteb of atol exit ‘to Sf ‘bLoe 
ai toss O81 to adnemliedani yLitaom ai gonaled et} bus @Si£e 
dasooeibh s sevig esW daso 0000¢ gniyeg mo basbae'tob ESL vrausot 
to fstod « min taoo atoLl soft sant oa evita easdotug oils mort 
atol Sf act of eboob sovig aaw of ,88@L .6 yseutdel bae 188Ly 0s 


af yisunst of tofiq deat anoivointasx gud lind bentet aoa ‘oh 


edt mo betoots sd ot timtog £0 teers ton binee tnabus tod oe 





lots any building except a dwelling. Ii the house was for one 
family it was to cost not less than $7500 and must not have a flat 
roof; if the dwelling house was constructed for two familicse it 
was to cost not less than $12,000 and be not less than two stories 
in height, to be built of brick or stone and might have a flat 
roof; that all buildings were to have foundations of brick, stone, 
conerete or cement blocks; that the premises should not be used 
for carrying on any trade or ousiness, and the plaintiff trustees 
reserved the richt to modify the restrictive covenants, 

Some time thereafter the parties entered into an undated 
agreement which puroorts to be a bili of sale oi an old house 
located on the subdivided property about three or four blocks west 
@f the lots purchased by defendant. The old house was given to de- 
ferdant and by the terms ol the agreement he was authorized to 
remove it to one of his lots at his own expense, ‘fhe agreement 
further provided that no alterations or changes should be made in 
the old building before plans and specifications were submitted to 
and approved by plsintifis; and further, detendant agreed to start 
work on such alterations or changes within 30 days after the sewer 
and water mains had been installed by plaintiifs in Eggleston 
avenue, the street on which defendant's 12 lots faced, There was 
a further provision that il the remodeling of the building had 
not been started within the 30 day period after the sewer and water 
mains were installed, it was agreed “that the old building will be 
considered an unsightly structure and a detriment to the surround- 
ing property," and Vinci agreed to remove it at his own cost; tuat 
if it were not removed within 60 days trom the time required by the 
Realty Trust,the owner of the property, the Realty Trust might de- 
molish it at defendant's expense. The cost of all permits were to 


be borne by defendant. 


The contract, wiich appears to be typewritten, contains a 








ane lot ssw eeuord ont “tT -gaiiiswi a tqeoxe sJaaaaaorechel ‘yas esos 
telt 6 eve fom deum bas OOONG medt geal dom deco of Baw oh eine't 
$i aciiineat owt tot batourtenoo caw eaven yutitowh ‘eiit tk “toot 
ao is ota ows tne seal ton od bus 000,Sf@ msct eeeL ton taoo of esw 
galt « over tigim bas snote to Hoind to tilted ed of ,delgiga ok 
etogs ,woltd to enoitehbauet event of stew agnibiind {fs tadt ; Toot 
beex od som Bivotia soeimetg ont tend sexoold Iuemeg to eteteitos 
‘esetantt thttoiele ond bos , seetiiaud no obstt yoe- co gabyr1e9: tot 
.2tosneveo evitolitaet ont ytibom of ages ens bovsones 

hotsbay as ofui betetas aelinsq ost tes tdetedit ‘emit ame 
sauiod alo age to ofse ‘Lo iLiad & ed of soz 0oTNE, ‘so beiw ‘pheno skes 
sed adootd snok to sant tuods qexecota bob ivibdue ‘pith £10 betdool 
ssh ad gevits asw eawod £6 edt ,inahue tes: yd povasomng ‘etal od ap 
a2 pest sost tis asw orl troasanges ors ‘to eared oat xd Bae Faciaot 
fromsersa aatt 92119 GX awo ait ¢s etoL aia ‘to 9110 od. ‘ai S¢ome 
at what 4d pivede seynedo to enoldsretla on tad bebivotg sositas 
et bedtiadve ar3w ano tteottioece re ene le eroted guibitud blo ont 
gtete of beetge sashas teh teddes't f tes rattisais tq ed foveties bats 
tewoe odd wedts aysb 0&8 aiddiw aegaeds ro andi vexed ia vee me-skew 
nedaotant ou atti¢nielg yd beiisatent need bed pala’ wetaw bas 
aew etoct bene? etol Sf et dus b19 Leh ‘dobew so teorte add henna 
basi anit Lud oct ‘to dana ent Ee Jace note ivorg soda & é 
ed ILiw aaibbS d blo exit tocit® beotas Bar tt be fietent oxew ‘eaten 
-bauot twa ond ob toemttaeb £ mae exovourds vivap bene Past bexeb eine 
taut :teoo nwo ais te di svomer ot heswne toal¥: bate * qetegoT "i 
sag ee betinpst emia osit mort aveb 08 nidtiw Veroiee Vou: orew dE ti 
ob" tig a geur vi Lael git yds qong aug ‘to zo nwo. anit bet “ye lwok 
ot oTew ad inzeg ffs te tace eal ease a!  thabas'teb te 7) x ‘Wet Lom 
| ; -tabas tes xe ‘onrod 3 


5 +25 525 Bais j 
s entedoaos , aedtsixwoqud od of atsequs ‘Motiw \tosndaoo si? 






paragraph which was stricken by drawing lines through each of tie 
typewritten lines; that paragraph is as follows: "SECOND: Inasmuch 
as the purpose of moving said building to lots 1 to 5 in bliock 9 is 
to use it as the skeleton or frame work only Yor a brick building 
to be used Tor residential purposes, the said purcnaser agrees to 
submit nlans and specifications of the remodeled building lor 
written avoroval as required by the restrictions on his property 
before July 1, 1928," There is a dispute as to whether this para- 
graph was stricken before or after it was signed by defendant, but 
we think tiis question is not of controlling importance, The undis- 
puted evidence is that Vinci moved the old house or barn and placed 
it on one of his lots in the winter of 1927-25, The expense of 
moving was $1500 which he paid. In Mareh, 1928, Vinci installed 
windows in five rooms of the building, caused partitions and 
floors to be installed at an expense of $915, In August, 1950, 

he connected the premises with sewers and water, constructed a 
bathroom and a caten basin at an expense of $350; in April, 1932, 
"Roof boarding repaired and entirely reroofed, doors fixed. Cost 
$375." In May, 1933, foundations were built, excavations, con- 
crete basement floor, concrete in garage portion, chimney basement 
to roof, at a cost of $2009; iin August, 1935, ne installed an elec- 
tric light plant in the building at a cost of $650; in April, 1936, 
he divided the rooms, making a dining room, a bedroom and a bath, 
for which he paid $225 - a total cost to him of $6024, 

The undisputed evidence also tends to show that throughout 
the period of time defendant was moving and repairing the building 
plaintiffs had a representative who was on the ground practically 
every day. As stated, the property was vacant farm property and 
there were very few buildings constructed on the lots and no build- 


ing of any consequence wags taxing place during the depression, so 


that the building program was practically at a standstill In 








aig to Hose cguotds aenif guiwath yd opetoitie saw sotdw sgetseteg 
totmmecnt :Cu0vUa" rewollot es ei dgeigetaq ted? ;aentL nedt buweangs 
at @ doofi oi c of £ avol ef gathtiud bise gaivem to saoqtaq exit) es 
gniblind Zoind s toi yiae Atow smart to sodofede ant ee oi eau ot 
od goetgs tesesotug biae edt ,asaoging faiinebiest tot beaw ad of 
tot gaifiiud belohomes, os to anoideottinegs bie: enofy tindye 

Ut tegotg aif ao adtoitoitiast sit yd bottupet ea Levotqge oleae 
~ptag aidd wedtanw ot ea etugnth se si siomf,.", B8OL 4 Lo xyintrereted 
gud .dmehneteb yd bongis. aew. ot sods ro pxoted geflottite aaw descy 


-eibay sil ,90anttoqmt anilloriaes te tom ei modiesnpatdd Anidd ew 


basta. bas mred to gaved Blo. ost bhevom LoalY gent al odaebhive bstug 


_ te ssnoqxe eal .8S-"Sel te tedaiw oft of adet ata ‘to eno mo ds 
_betistent foalV ,O8@L ,dotall al .bieg et dokdw 008 £8 aaw gatv on 
bas enoititrieg boasso. ,.palhlind edt Lo emoer ov ih: mt awobniw 


.OCEL ,davguA al. L@% to sensqxe as te bolietant ed ot atoeLlt 


& betomteenos ,todew ban aiswoe déiw ssaimetq edt botoe anos ett 


eel ,fitgaé at ;G8E64 to eauggxe me ta alesd dotso « bas cootsdted 
daod .hexil etooh ,hetootes ylotisae bas hotisqes yoihteod took" 


~Hoo ,anciievaoks -iiind exew anolishavet coer yethal "eared 


tie meacd Yemulio .dolsreg Saeteg at PFOTY M99 LooLlt daeseesd sseta 


~osio de hotiedani of ,@b@L ,davguh ub £ C0084 te taao @ de, Loox ot . 


dECL ,Lhigd ab j;O83G To taoo s te gabhtind ont mt dasig tigil obit 
sthtsd 2, bag, mooxhed, s soon galaib, a guide emoot-arkh bebivih ext 

ae 1. 8S03%. Lo bist iohisienie, ulaaet aie acae biaq ext Hobiiw cok 
tyosgsorss ters, wode ot. abast opts potabive batugqethas edt. b aeAOo 
gniptind, 916 gotlaiiscet bas gnivem aaw, Poigb corte: amis ‘Lo: auiines opi 


yilseliteosig bavotg est ne Raw osiw ovitednoneteos & beat. avid nike La’ 





base, Yoregota avtet dsgoev aaw ylreqorg oft vhateta, aA, stab wore, 
abuiud on bas adot eit ao besoutiaaoo, sgalb lind: wor ro, oTeF erent. 
ae olaserged grit gotivh eoelq golusd aaw 298t9s)pe8H09 9 Bo. 


wt oo. dit¢ebandas de yiseotsoend aaw mUeT BOLE, whit 










eadaditton to the moneys paid by Vinci 2s above stated he also paid 
plaintiff trustees $35 a lot, or $420, as his proportionate share 
for the care of parkways, vlanting trees, etc. 

The sewer and water mains mentioned in the agreezient or 
bill of sale were installed by plsaintii?s by September, 1930, and 
on the 26th of that month they wrote defendant advising him of 
this and stating they thought he should proceed with the remodeling 
of his buil‘ting in accordance with she agreenient without further 
delay. From that time on the matter was taken up between the 
parties and their respective counsel; letters passed between them 
and conversations were had with a view cf reaching an egreement; 
apparently nothing came of them and the work olf remodeling was 
from time to time carried on py defendant, 

A number of points sre made by def mdant as to the exclusion 
of evidence, - that plaintiffs refused to approve proper plans for 
remodeling the building, that olaintifis are guilty of laches and 
that it would be highly inequitable to require defendant to remove 
the builing or to remodel it as plaintiiis suggest at large addi- 
tional cost when the building restrictions, by tieir own terns, 
will expire witiin less than a year - January 1, 1940, We think 
this contention must be sustained, Defendant started to move the 
building in the winter of 1927-28 and for a number of yeare there- 
after was remodeling it at great expense, While objections were 
from time to time made, vlaintiffs did not tile their complaint 
until October, 1936, nearly eight years after the property was 
sold, builjiing moved and extensive remodeling done. This delay, 
we tuink, constitutes leches, Brandenburg v,Country Club Bldg. 
Corp., 352 I1l1., 136; DeGama v. D'Aquila, 101 Atl. (N.J.Ch.)1028, 

In the brandenburg case a bill was filed for a mandatory 

injumetion to compel the rewoval of a building or Yor the reiodeling 


of it. The court there in considering the reuedy which was sought 





bisg cells at beteda-eveds-e¢ bomt¥e yd Shag eyanom edd od, mead tbhe 
gine atdenoidiogetq ais as ,O8SS so , tol so 264 esataund. Thitaislg 
ote jpeete hak drag pavewirag to etso edt tat 

to igenmeatgs ont al honolsaem sotem tegaw bas teres. eAT «.,, 
bate ,OUOL ,tedestgee yw aktitntatg ql beliedant exr9ew ofea, nN 


to mid guleivhea Jnsbas'ted store yess stoom. tedt Bend20&) add, x0 


gritdshener2 cis déiw bosoong Sivote on wWiguods yeas: anitedea ibe mals 


merit uot w dismeenge ons cbiw sombre pga, at gibpLiud, Bkeh, XO 

edd ooewied qu decist paw tediam esd mo ombt, tant: mor. seeeb 

i}! ¢: a nsawtied bevasg axodtel ¢ieenuoo avitosques tieds- Das notiteg 

hi -foombetya) cs guiisesss to woiv 2 cdtiw Bedo.etse enol taexevaos: boss 

RS git Lob one te dvew szid: ime mot "bo amas gahaton ; nas Rem ae 

- Rabun Bone daiabaeteb. yd ‘0 be kirss emit ests ouks <imgent 
sole uLone sit od a6 Jcehac teh yd obam ets adabeq ‘to tedunum A. . ee 

‘tot aa le SELON of arougEs ox boar ist etibiatatg dads - , 9ostebive: ‘to 

bose asdost ‘to yi ling ots attitnieia dad . gathliad eat gatlebouet 
ovrniies ot Jasbneteb otiupet ot eaidatinupemh yvingia od pfuow shb\ desl 

ve ogisl te sasggue ebtl tiiete as $4 febouer of x0 -gabLind sult 


@aurted awo views yd ,packtolitesat gnibitud sat astiw geoo Leaott 


Satay SW ,OReL pb ymssaet + 185% 6 meds eral widtiw.eptqne 4fiw 
edt sven oc hettete tusheo ted, borniaters sd Sane ao kt asd aos abel 


-estods aisay to sodmuit gi tot fas BSSeL to redaiwent mt gathiied — 


$tow oneivostdo eLlidW  ,sessqxe teeta da vt gablohomes aaw tests 
saisiqnoo <iedt efit tom bib attisaia ig SR OATS ot gatt sagt? 
Bat ‘Yste gota ‘edo todtite ateay tdgis yiseen. gbBek. stadot00 Liew 


yeteb ats: 2.9m anilohomer eviensixe has pevou anth Lind vbfos 


sabia du ee sandost aetuighvanoo: oe: . 


-80L(. HO,U,W) .idAé> LOL 





said: "The remedy is subject to the defense of laches - the neglect 
of the person who knows his right to have been wrongfully invaded 

to take action with reasonable promptness to protect nis right anda 
stop the invasion, Any considerable delay not satisfactorily ex- 
cused will bar his right to relief, particularly where he seeks by 
a mandatory injunction to cowpel the reioval oi a valuable struce- 
ture, ‘The right to snioree 4 restrictive agreement way be lost 


by laches or acquiescence, especially when this results i: the 





making of expenditures by deiendant. *** ‘hat tne agreeuent has 

but a limited time to run has, in connection with other circum- 
stances, been regarded as « consideration adverse to its enlorce- 
ment.'" The court tien quoted wita approval trom tne DeGama case 
decided by the New Jersey court, In that case a person knowing 

that a building restriction was being violated by the construction 
of a garege by a neighbor, made no objection until the construction 
Was near completion, and aiterward waited for over a year before 
Tiling a biil for a mandatory injunction, Our Supreme court quoted 
with seueovel. The Brandenourg case the following from the New Jersey 
court: "It was the compleinant's duty, if she intended to insist 
upon an enforcement of the restrictions, to have acted promptly 
after sue learned of their actual violation by defendant in April 
and before he had expended any considerable sum of money on the 
building, * * * It is one of the rules oi a court of equity quite 
strictly enforced on a bill for a mandatory injunction to protect 
restrictive building covenants, that the application must be 
promptly made, Compiainant's delay, under the circumstances, in 
taking leval proceedings to protect her rights constitutes such 
laches that I deem it inequitable to grant fee frekind she now seeks," 
And out Supreme court continuing quotes from the New Jersey case 

the following: "snd generaily, whenever plaintitli stands idly by 
and permits the erection complained of to be made and expenseg 


to be incurred therein without objecting, his applicathon tor 








Hee Suet esit - aedosl to sa tie teh ould og wea hdan ek rages peng bias 
pehavni yifsignorw need eved ot tig ie ain ewvora anv soa<9q vould to 
fie sax aid sostorg of ansatquorg eideaoasst sid bw soktos owas ot 
xe yvlinotos ts Lise ton yeleah sidatedienoo Payee -dolesvat eng ‘cae 

ya aisea of exrody vineltvolitagq ,tsifer of jo suigit ett henetel ‘Lokw DEANS 
wourde olden Lav & to fevoney suit Legos rs “aodsonsha yrotabasm s 
teol ag you dagmeergs evitoLivast & 0X0 lite of dsigit out! venus 

eds ui ativeat efad scacw Tilakoanne: Gh RRGERLEEOR ‘to novel vw 

eet doomestys eid deft eax .J aphow teh “d astus Lbasqxe ‘to guiien 
-muotin geste dtiw neigoenmoo ai , aad aun od suis booths s oud 
~99to tae edi o¢ eatavbs aoltetebtesmes s as bebtayox mood (aooude 
SAAD amaped sat mott “Aavorage agiw begoup mens FiNoO9 oat we -d010m1 
goivemt noetsg 8 oas0 isdd al ,duseo yeerst we i acid xd Bobiooh 
teitountecdos and yd beycloly agied esw molsoixieos aithibud 8 tacit 
moitoutéancs ead Lita notes tdo on 9bhem & ,toddale ea 8 wd ege%ea 8 t9 
atoted T29y, & ZEVo Tot ba thew Srevre te 5 tte toide Lamoo Is9% &8w 
betoso stimo emerges tO -tebtsantas (rodshasm & to't : tid « 2 sulci 
vente’ wou, ‘ong woet satwolto? ond pecs gimdnap next ould\ Zevorque cit La 
gatant od bebaed nd ade Tih ,ytuh a! snenie Lemos eid aew #0" iaxwoo 
xis quote be tos aven ot aco itolziaet ssid bs $nonsozo'tns as nogy 
tixgd | ak tomboo'teb’ yd motisietv Lesdos sted ‘to vonnas l ous “peste | 
edt mo YO MoM to mue oidstebienos yo bebitoaxe baat oui stoted bas 
etiup wsiupe to sxwos a ‘to as Lut eit Ee | amo as st ‘e+ saath Chad 
toetorg ot notdonutat vroteb ssn s ce ifid s wo ‘boot ota viiobsde 


ed seus sokieoiiqqa exis bait (8508 ‘e¥09 salbLiwd evitoitéeot 


at asada tamuntts est tobaus eXeLob 8! Sasate quod “ahes visqnota 







w vibe ‘ebaste Fitgaele xeve nosy wiexsaeg ‘pak :gatroLfot 91 


said 


geansaxe ban ebsm ad ot to poatalquo> noktosts “end adinxog 


6 


the aid of a court of equity comes too late and will mot be enter- 
tained, " 

We are further of opinion that under the rule which is 
referred to as "Balance of Convenience” the mandatory injusction 
issued in the instant case ought not to stand. ill v. Kimbsli, 
269 ITii., 398. The court in that case said: "In cases where 
mandatory injunctions are asked for, ‘it is tne duty of the court 
to consider the inconvenience and danase that will result to the 
defendant as well as tne venefit to accrue to the complainant by 
granting ef the writ, and where the defendant's danazes and ine 
juries will be greater by grauting the writ than will be the come 
Pleinant's benefit by granting the writ, or greater than wili be 
complainant's damages by the refusal of it, the court will, in tae 
exercise of 2 sound diseretion, refuse the writ.'* * * lt is not 
every case of a permanent obstruction to the use of an easement that 
entitles the agzrieved party to a restoration of the former situa 
tion, Each case depends on its own circumsiances, The courts, in 
the exercise of a sound discretion, must determine in such instances 
whether a vandatory injunction shall issue," 

The let in question on which tae building was placed by 
defendant is located cwcar railroad tracks and seems not to be as 
desirable as the property furtier west wiere in 1937 there appears 
to have been under construction 35 residences by virtue of tne 
Federal Housing law, 

For the reasons stated the decree of the Circuit court of 


Cook county is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to 
dismiss the suit. a oe ee 


ees 
REVERSED AMD REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS, 


MeSurely, P. J., and Matchett, J.,, concur, 


—Se 


ra ‘ 


2 
” todas ed som Iftw bas etel ood edmiog YFtsve “to dands até bhe out 
" pected 

@i dofaw a tue edt tebas Jedd wolnigo to teniqut sts eW*:- 
. seitoaviai yrotehboasn edd "sonsluevaad To some lef" ga’ ot boris tse 
ifadmid wy Li5H baste of fon ttguo eeso Fnatenk edd at beseat 
otedy aseso al® :biss sass feds mt tisoo ent “~8Qe° Slt Teas 
itgoo and to vsub ond ef FEt | eot boxed ote anoltsautat yvrotebasm 
edt of tineox iLiw tedd susmeb bose sone inevaoonl sad rebienoo es 
ud dasatetgmon edt of sutooa of Fitened off} as Frew ee’ Fomine top 
wk bas esyeueb. e'Sisbastsh eid Stedw bue thew oxi ty gatioers 
pa eds ed I Lew asad tisw oat getisvary YS tetaots ed Iltw ebitret 
| ed “fLiw aes Geteets To ,titw oft anidhers vd Ff toned ae Fnente Le 
end at _LLiw guvoo ef3 ok ‘to ieewtes 507 Yd eegemeh e' tienis femes 


gon al $i * & *' Sixw ont eebtow .melvenoets bavoa e te sbiorexe 





teat TAOIDeES die to eas sca ot fo toe naarre'g & to 9ek0 yIsve 
mais gomtot edd ‘to motdavetaay 8 oi yvidtad bevelrgge | osit NUE PATHS 


oi jativen si ,asonsiamiotio awd sei do aboeged paw ioe ‘.moid 


eeorédent deva al snintessh dena ,toivervests bawoa @ To saiotexe ‘edt 


" oseei tladé acrteavtn? crodabien « eiltedw 
yd bevsig aaw guibiind odd dokiw ao noivesup ak dol eat 
ag od os ton B08 96 bas gtosts Beovliet teen pstesol af Fashne'teb 
eis9 age sted veer ok etadw daew redday't qsreqota oft as eldertaed 
eit to auduty As esous ine7 && aoivoutéenos tebay aged overt” ‘ot 
bella swel gtkeuoH Lstobel 
to gues diuorld os ‘to soreeb ont botesa enoanen ent Tot” 


ot anoivgotth & sigkw Aabsenor eaves oct bie heetevet al ytnues ‘food 
ee ea eee | iiss ost le a 


BdoL20 Out aeIW camuatn CA cuagtevex 
| _ vtonID <r .Ftsdotalt os Pa ee ‘fone 


se 








40468 





TARBORN-LAKE GARAGS , dt Oy 
Apvoeliant, 


v8. 


OF ourdaoc 
9OGan Ate 
ae vy o Eelhe VD i 4. 


LR. JUSTICE O'CONNOR DELIVSRED YHEH OPINION OF THE COURT, 


} 
| APPEAL PRO KUNICIPAL GOURT 
\, a > 
SOL D, GOLBY, ) 
) 





Plaintiff brought an action against defendant to reccver 
$56.13 claimed to be balance due on a chattel mortgage made by 
defendant. Defendant denied liability and filed a counterclaim 
tor $1000 for the uniewful detention by plaintiif of defendent's 
autowobile. ihere was a trial before the court without a jury, 

a finding against plaintiff on its claim, Yinding for defendant on 
his counterclaim for $250; judguent was entered on the iindings and 
plaintil!l appeals, Defendant has filed no brief in tnis court. 

The record discloses that plaintiil was the owner: of e 
chattel mortgage given on delendant's automobile to secure his in- 
debtednesse,. Piaintiff foreclosed the chattel wortgage and a balanse 
of $56.13 over the proceeds of the sale was claimed to be due, 
Defendant teetified that the automobile belonged to him; that the 
license for it was issued to his wife under rer maiden name; that 
he was a private detective; that his place of business wae at 119 
North Clark street and was known as the "Illinois State Detective 
Agency." The evidence further shows that defendant kept his car in 
plaintitf's garage, the account charged to the Detective agency, 
and that at the time in question there was due plaintiff for garage 
service and repairs a balance of $265, 

The evidence is furtier to the effect that payments under 
the chattel mortgage were due monthly and that a payment of $23,31 
fell due March 28, 1938, Golby testified that he saw a representa- 


tive of plaintiff on that date and, "I told him that there was 4 


of 





.Xadog_.@ 408 


Saa0k 
i anes 7 = ‘emi. ADATAD TAAI-MAOaRADC 
\ SNe ( err aga me fe tg 
TUL % WU ore ETIA ( . 
{ .a¥ 
Apna ay a to ( 
{ », 
(core 


“RIO; Nees a 


<THUGO EH? WO WUOTAIGO Way CHANVI ae Aounonto Worreuy mr’ 





feyvoost od sashbaoteb tanisye soLtos as Siiguotd Ttidaielt 


yd ebeo sgsgitom Ledieate s no sub somelsd ed ot bamialo &1,08—¢ 


sislotetovos s belit bas Yiilidsii beiceh insbusted .tashaeteb 
a'gsasbso'tebh to Tittnielg yd sofinetek futwalow edt 10% Q00L6 aot 
eWENL G Twocsiw dtucg sud stoted teins = asw eteddi sLidouotus 
No toebioteb wot gaibal't watelo eti ao Thidaieale jediogs goibatt » 
pas egiibuit os) no beretas ssw treamhut ;O8S% tet misiorsdavoo aid 
+dtue9 eind si Yteind on be dts ast oABh Me tee alas qgs tridaiele 

a Dibusnke eid aswz tiitnte te sade eseoloeib buooet edt 
-ak aid etyoes of alidomotus a'insbaaleb No HerTls Sgays Ton fsti sido 


sotteaicd & bas egegttom iediedo edt boaotostot Viliaisi®§  .asenhetdeh 


ob of of bewislo asw ofaa ord ‘to Bhasoouq ord revo EL.98¢ to. 


ant teiy mi et boeanoled aLlidouo tus ese Salt hollitesd trish ie Tet 


tans j,emsa nobiem toi tabs estiw ald ot bewseil aaw ot ‘cot eanaail 


eft ts sew aasatend To eoalg aid test jevitosteb sdeviag &. ssw, od 


evitosted edss@ eiout{Li" sit es awond exw bow seetse Arsl0 dire 


at eo abd doot tashos'teb ¢sdd ewore tedetut somebive odl ".yonsaA 


~Youegs evidossed eis o¢ heytasio tapooce end ,egetsg a! Tiisnista 


eyatsg Tot Thisatel eub asw etosiy noitasup mi omts ost te sect hoe 


,2oag to sotslad s eer ptig oolvies 


sehr etnaaysg sacit foots exit oF secddny't at socehive eit 


té S8¢ ‘to ¢nemyseq s tacit bas Yiiitaon aub stow  euage tem ‘tashacis yuh 


sstisastyet s wee ed Jesly hettistest ydlod .8beL ,Bs Sowell sub LLot 


s usw estedd ¢add mid blot I" , bas eteb seit Ho tTritsiaisiq to svit 


due date on the note, that I wanted to pay it. I also wanted to 
pay $25 on account provided he released the car, on account of the 
Illinois State Detective Agency. He said he would take the money 
provided I would give nim the chattel mortgage on the car and pere 
sonally absolving the indebtedness oi the corporation. ‘That would 
be about four hundred and some odd doilars"; that he refused to do 
as plaintiff's representative requested and that plaintiif refused 
to let defendant have the car unless he paid up. 

Toe court found deiendans had tendered toe proper amount 
due under the cnuattel mortgage on arch 28 but that the tender was 
refused, 

Plaintlif's representative testified there was no tender 
made and consequently no refusal, We think the lVinding is contrary 
to the manitest weight oi the evidence, and moreover, we think the 
tender was not such as the law requires. There was no actual tender 
of money or check, Under the circumstances this was insuiiicient, 
Moreover, according to delendsant's own testimony the tender was 
conditionally made; he testified he agreed to pay provided plaintiif 
would release the car, whici: it refused to do. We see no reason why 
the car should have been released at that time since there was due 
Plaintiff $265 for garage service, including some repairs. 

Plaintiff furtuer contends taat in any view ot the case 
there was no evidence to warrant the court in tixing the value of 
the automobile, whic. the court apparently did at $450, allowing 
defendant credit tor $200 which it received at the toreclosure sale. 
We think the contention must be sustained, The only evidence as to 
ge RT OCR EC Rrtergee eae oa 
the value of the car was that given by defendant, who testified on 
the trial, held June 28, 1935, that he bought the car in ovember, 
1935, and paid $347 for it; tnat he had driven it about 48,000 
miles; that it was a 1936 model, On this evidence tie court tixed 


the value of the car at $450. This was not warranted by the evidence, 


The judgement of the Municipal court of Chi 
eg I iicago is reversed and 
Judgment is entered in thig court in favor of plaintiff for the amount 


— 0 ——_ . nT, 
RT TON nar ce mae 
PN TT TT 





ooner 





ie 


og bovnaw oafs I ts veg et betnaaw I gest ,ston add mo stsh suk 
eit to dasesss no ,is0 sat beassier ed Hebivorq tisooos ao @S¢ vse 
yenom edt sagi pivdw sil bise off “Yomega svistosted atate etonifil 
“faq his tao silt cto Syegtiom isdisco ent min evlg blvew 1 hebivorg 
Sinew Iel .anolvexeqies sot te sesnhetdebal off gaivioeds lignes 
of o3 besutes od tedt ;"aasliob bbe ssi0oe bas berbauc tuol tuods od 
beewter TPrtitnielg ist bts begaesypex ovis sianesetge:t e'Tilfinieli es 
6Qu bise af sealsy tao ont axe josbos‘teb tel ot 

tayoms Tsqotg ald beasesouet bac sushboeieb Bayc't Inyo ect 
esw rehner oft tansy gud 62 dots aoe egsgo ros Lett aio edt tebau ob 
-heastex 

tohmaed om eaw siecd Dbeititass eyitadaeeetgqes: a! Tidiais lt 
yrextoon ef gaibolt eat aakid aW ,feavutex oa Ydtusupeatoo Sas 6hem 
eit Anicdt ew ,Tsvoetom fis ,egonebive sit to Jdgiow tastings ont .ot 
wehoed Louise of esw sited? ,aetinget Wai ed es gue son easw tTehned 
figioitivent asw aids geoustamvotia eit tebal .,foeno te yanom To 
saw Teboet edd Yoomitveas wo a'iashueleb of ygaibrooog ,tevoe tel 
tifiaiel¢ Sebiverg yeq ef bheetys oo ha iticess ef ;obsm yllegolt tages 
YAW Aoeser of Bes eW 0b of Seauter wi satdw .1so9 ost! gesefet bivow 
eubh agw otedd egtie emis ted Se beaesier aged evad fluerte 1890 oot 
-atisget etoe gntbulonk .goivies sgsisa 1ot dd8% Thitalsla 

saeo oft to wely yos af deod shasdaoo aaigiwi Thitaiel¢ 
to eulsy ot anizit ni disoo ont Jaagxrisy et soiehive eq easy anadd —” 
aniwolls ,OUSG gs bL5 yliusteqge saves |as Sokdw , elidosotus, adt 
else eiueolostot sag ts bavisoot ti doinw OOS} tol tihoto Jushss'ted 


os aa 9onebive yiao eit ,benistava od teum Kolinatuga ext ankds of 


ae eons 


JOR 8 oie) BO 


no beltisaes odw ,duabaotob yd asvig dacdd esw uso add to sulev amt 
tadmevok oi iso oat tiguod of tadt .68@L ,B8 anal bled  tabut ont 
000,88 twods ai covirh bad ef tend ;¢4 1ot Ta6G blag hae deat 


bexit gsuoo ort sonmebive sine oo .febom seeL s gaw of jad jastio 


 ,ponebive ert yd betasrisw toa aew aial 086 te t#0 edd to suisy oxi 


bas Beerevet e£ ogsoidd ‘to daueo Laqiotaull eft to tasmabyt eal ~ 


oe ane UEPatele to tovek ai Ixw098o aids ok betedae ef t+ as org but, 


Lh. on wom mee 


of its claim, $56.13, 
ON = -_ * 
JUDGMENT REVERSED AND JUDGLENT 
ENTERED IN THIS COURT, 


MeSurely, P. J., and Matchett, J., coneur. 


© 


ay wey SYS 


anes eet oy 





be .0e 





| I! aubaUL ait qansavan TaD 


TA ys As defend y tans Rss, Bar ene Ps 


Git 2i0) s2) Gtk Bead Aes fae od. OME LG 


Rais 2608 lie bs oR Qi ttmibieg dae aly afk sae 


i 
5 || 4 yt os - a " ™ ~ = 
; H i { i RS RE Sete Mesa adeno, AR a Br op Boon @ # 








ay, a4 hai m2 - Ars “ - hats Mer dt Br ive . Mig eee Tose Ha Te 
Daw aise CV aget + Ong pr sesd ray. PE RW Sma <n Orecicear ath 4 Y Dig? le Ws N48 


oe MR ET, 





Kot ® Oa ae toy im Fity EN Gath 
Ser visit ‘ zie wp tate Ret Rh Oh a ot ai 2) 





Rite | Hy Raa Le 
oye! Hite pe eee gE Rae So 35h gfe ee SIP “bee A Goer ae re aK: oe a ahtt Tid 
rs! 


ENE T Naw Suen Lee, aR he ce Oe) ee nS me Ree nS SES See 


STU. R Wes ie, RPh Apa ob Abst ae SORE EMS aE A Th yet PEK me Na a ae BA te 





ew ee es 








Re eR te Ae t Paes Sy 
wy Re ces ED Sia og ane Og wBarshd  wiRh 








dite Pree ae ah, xe Vin’. Favr ft 7 Aes Nu 
aS SO ieee ke og On TSS yon on 
r rn “the Witp Po sag ye eh gy F * vBcwbe | Ps Deel ay be NTP 
. 2 es a a SSP I BRE ma Ra Rel MAL oh oy 








BN 4 AEM OO rT, ED 








Tabet te, 2 wa Sei Bs 
»eniedans, +8 2apew ae hee ae ae ‘agar: oF 
er rs asa SO aL LED eat. eee Len) eel POP 


ny ah, 5m outa, ant 





Son BG ¢ gs dae Oke sh pie ® fast bath i, Le ae echt awe 
CH8d Blog, ang OB 


aged la shee Q abe ait e aan, as beioltt jie has 


OK, Ait PROBE AX OOS Bath Be, a 
i i ann Oy a ' 





= 










pet oamnaw dos sae ake ola dae ate ome, 
te Panes tédis nh ott Ie Feat spn 
Toye t GE ays ahsid Oe bweedeb ek taemyewt 








Ac Sa 
ony Pee AR TDI y 






hr yrog EY VRGOed 


, i - A Soe hie he 
ik ba Lyte toe ta Pe Bs 






: w ged? ’ 2THUOO BIRT! Rr CEALTAE SVL Sele valet wear T x ‘ 





* 





A 
eutier Bf arindh wh isaea aad | hike Se whose ey es. =| 


mS 


— ace ere 


5S 


ee a 









40687 





HIBBARD, SPENCER, BARTLET 
COVPANY, a Corporation, 


CIRCUIT COURT 


LR. JUSTICE O'CONNOR DELIVERED (HE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


In a condemnation proceeding brought by the City of Chicago 
for the purpose of widening end improving certain streets in Chicag 
there was a verdict sand juccment in plaintiif's favor, tixing the 
amount of just compensation to be paid ior its property taken at 
$3,900,000. Judgment was entered for this smount on August 7, 1924, 
Septexber 30, 1925, tne City paid the judement but no interest 
althougn interest was demanded, 

In the instant case plaintiff claims $207,454.13, being 5% 
on the judgment from August 7, 1924, to September 3U, 1925, and 
also claims interest on the $207,458.16 from the latter date until 
judgment is entered in the instant case, these facta were alieged 
in plaintiff's amended compiaint, Defendant, the City of Cnicago, 
moved to disuiss the suit tor the reason that the amended complaint 
en tts Yace showed that plaintiif's dred was barred by the 5 year 
Statute ot Linitations. The motion was sustained, the suit dis- 


ee 


missed and plaintiif prosecuted an appeal to the Supreme court of 
this State. The Supreme peux’ found that the case "was wrongfully 
appealed to this court as this court is without jurisdiction,* 
and transferred the case to this court, 

A number of points are made by counsel for plaintiff, the 
purpose of wnich is to have the Supreme court reconsider its holding 


in the case of Blakeslee's Warehouses v. City of Chicago, 369 Ill. 


480, In that case, where the claim made was similar to the claim 



















»THUOD SUT TO WOTMISO GMO GaAaVIGE HOWMOO' O anne aM 


ogeoksd. to veid ont ud teavord gtthesootg aeitenmebmoo = aT 
 mpeotnd ai efsertea cisitso gutvotgm: bas aniaebiw to saogthg edt <o't 
edd gabe it cet at Viltntdsa ut Eobmgink bas totbeey wow exes 
i te netet yireasig asi tot bisd od o3 aoltisacegnos seul. to $nurome 
ser Ph Fasiga no t¢avons eidt rot beretus esw doemghyt ,000, 008, ee 
teeternt en ted tuemgbyt edt bisg yrto edt ceheOL 08 toduedged 
behonees wow Fearealat sguodd La 
RE guttsd ,S£.88h,VO8d amteto ttitaiete eso tasteal ant at ee ; 5 
a bre ,€8e@L ,0& todwetqee @¢ ,ASeL VY daugud mott tsa byt ant m0 
Lisny stab tetésl end wowt 81L,885, %ORG ot ao daorodat auteLo oats 
- hege Le exew avost gaoat ,9as0 doesent sdt ak hewedae af tan but . 
,0gso b80 to eat odd .tdabas ted atuleiames bo bmeate e'ttivatele ak 


ahaa iste 


date Lquoo hobasas ead desis nogeer anit tot téue edt an dime th of bs vom ( 
‘ RN » 


, te0Y 6 eat yo botied aaw nis.f0 a Titaieta send bewocds goat atl x0 









re aenete Teas 





Hy ekb_ tive ont sdoniedaue Bow mot om act wanoltetiabd ‘to stwtage |. 
t oe nd Wee ae i 


‘to srH08 emerque silt o¢ fesqas a Mate ‘etabesa bus se bene | 







adg ,Tiisaistg tet tseavooe yd ebsm ots etalog te xe dau “~ 





Le camt adi tehianoser div0o smetqy sat ° vasa ot af detde 


of plaintiff in the instant case, it was held that the action was 
barred under the provisions of Sec, 15 of our Limitation Act, within 
tive years, 

In the Blakeslee case after a judgment entered in a condemna- 
tion proceeding was paid by the City, the owner oi property con- 
demned, more than 5 years after the payment oi the jud:ment brought 
guduxex suit against the City for interest on the full amount of 
the judgment from the date it was entered to the date when payment 
was made, and for interest on such unpaid interest after the date of 
the payment ot judgment, The court held this claim was barred 5 
years after the judgment was paid, and said (p. 432): “The record 
conclusively shows the claim is for interest, end being for interest, 
only, she couid in no event recover interest on interest. The 
trial court and the Aonpellate court correctly so held, If she is 
entitled to recover interest at ali, it is only upon $54,554 from 
the date the judgment was entered to the date it was paid, Blaine 
v, City of Chicago, 366 I1l., 341." The court there further said 
(p. 485): "Section 15 of the Statute of Limitations provides that 
actions on unwritten contracts, awardsot arbitratore, or to recover 
damages for injury to property, or to recover possession of or 
damages for the detention or conversion of personal property ‘and 
all civil acticns not otherwise provided for, shall be commenced 
within five years next after the cause of setion acerued,'" And it 
was held that the action was barred by the 5 years and the judgment 
of the Appellete court (292 111, App., 288) was affirmed, Cbvi- 
ously the holding of the Supreme court is birding on this court. 
Feldman v. City of Chicago, 276 Ill. App., 142. 

The jucgment of the Circuit court of Cook county is 


alttirmed, 
JUDGAENT AFFIRMED, 


MeSurely, P. J., and Katchett, J., concur, 





TS Ob 


i 


aaw noidsos elt Jedd bled eaw ti ,eeso tustant edt ak Tridaislg to 
aidiiw ,soA mottadinid geo to @f .9e% to egolelvorg axis nobus betred 
’ | wie pay 

ncaa b 109 a af botadoe dusagbuh 2 testis oaso gelesdale ott al 
-so9 ystsqotg to toswo add yyttO edt wo bied asw githovoora mott 
tdagord saemy but edt Lo fFasageg ect ast ts etssy & xaesy axek boned 
to dgaveme [fut sat ao tastetni rot yskO ene teniesss sius maxygkut 
inemysd Nécw stoh sds ot Petsdne aaw $2 etsS ecf mort tnemybut ont 
to stsh sit todts dastatai blegow Ha ue no ¢eeustai tot hos ,ohbeam ssw 
3 fewned ase mislo efit Hied dxg0o set ,tmoamiut te die anys gq eat 
Siooet eat" ;(S8h .q) blac bas -bisg aaw Joon but og rode exe9y 
Jeetetel toi gaiad has .Jasisial tot efi misie sit swede A ak acer 
est .desteiai mo gaotesai tevoost tneve om at bites pate «tite 


ei ede tl fed o@ yisourrzes saso00 ataefisaga exit Ana fu00 Letee 


Wout d86, 889 soqu yino al si , fis ds deanstalk tevoost ot bois ti ae 












Stele .bieq aewiti sish at of beredoe asw tneakut ext ets oid 
bhee taddtul ated tnuoo eft 9,188 Pe edt .ogsoido tout 10 ¥ 


tedt eablyotq emolteiinit to o¢uests eit to éf moitose” : (88a 4) 4 
tovooot of to. ,etetsttidze loehrawe ,etoexttacs cedtigway aoe enoitos 
xo to colsssreog revooet of 10 eEtteqotq of veubat tot segames 
bas' ytxegotq Lemoateq to soleternoo to noitagteh ef% to% segamab | 
heoasmmoo,ed Lisda ,tot hebiverq seiwrasito fou anottes Livto fle 

vi bad *! beut00s aottos te sauso eft yotls txen OTesy evit midsiw | 
énearghst eft bas ateoy @ edt yd Setted saw notios. sad tend Pfoa Sty 
-rtydo boat th sw (888 ,.qqA .ffI es) Sru09 ote flscck ont to 


etruoo aids so gnibuid.el disco suexgue exit ‘te Babbfor ‘oat eave 





ai viawoo wooed to 13100, beuored odd te > taps out ont 
: ¢ eee: nit yy beast t 
»sCSMAL TES THEIUT sit 





PEE nS SS aim UR iad lata We RP 


Minin Ee. S By PROOr . eee aie 


— 


389 82 








JANES W. BREEN, 
Appellant, 


vs. 


CITY OF CHICAGO 


Sew Sw ES 





LR, PRESIDING JUSTICE MeSURELY 
DELIVERED TYS OPINION OF THE COURT, 


Plaintitf filed a petition againet the City of Chicago, the 
chief Justice and 15 of the associate Justices of the Municipal 
court of Chicago asking for an attorney's lien; he claims that 
something over $9000 is due him from these Judges for his services 
in obtaining from the Supreme court a writ of mnandanus ordering 
the City of Chicago to pay the Judges pcrtions of their statutory 
galaries which had been withheld on account of the City's financial 
condition during the depression years of 193°, 1933 and 1934, Notice 
of claim of lien was given the City, wsieh filed an answer alleging, 
amone other things, that plaintiff cannot meintain an action azainst 
the City of Chicago to enforse an attorney's lien, claiming the City 
was not subject to the provisions 9 


\ 


Til. Rey, Stats., 1937, chap. 13, par. 14, sec. 1, 


the Attorney's Lien statute, 


The amensed petition asserted that at a meeting of the Luni- 
cipal court Judges held June 30, 1933, they unsnimously agreed to 
Join with Judge Lyle in court proceedings to collect back salaries; 
that plaintiif should be their attorney an? that they would contribute 
to his fees and expenses, Defendants filed arswers deiying any cone 
trect, express or implied, or any knowledge that he represented them, 
and also denying that the sum claimed was reasonable, 

Trial was had before the court without a jury, which held 
Plaintiff had not proved the alleged employment, and a decree was 
entered finding the issues with the defendants, thet vlaintiir did 


not have any lien against any moneys due to defendants in the hands 


BBS2 





ata .W ee 


wt): 


TUBE ROIPAUe owlalesia as 
aThYOO. ERY. TO MOTKIGO BHT CERRVEGRG : : mrarunaiar es 


l}i\- 
i sig ,paeoiio te ysid. edt teategs agitigeq e bedlt. Trttaielt..: 
| faqiolays ett.to esgitayl sieiaossa add. to.8L. hms: 90 ltaws, tesdo 
i tact awielo ad ;aeif elysotedés aa tot gainers onaolsy,.te-dsueo 
i | escivise els tol.eepbsl essds mort mig auh ak QOOe teve gaiddemoe 
i gcitebte anochoun ig ditw eo stue9 amet gut pult wot? gabaistde.at 
i ytotutats tod to si@ldqog BBE OOS Way ae macods®, to. x20 edd 
HH fetoaealt a'ytid sit to tasopas, ao bledivin meod bas, so buy, ao inedee 
| poigod .MeL brea ECL .Se@k Ie aTaeX nelevsteek eat git wb aoté times 
 ohige iia te wee me be fit Sgdow. ,.ye ho emt gerte eer pelt to.«teale.;to 
tesiaye smoidox ae aiefatem tensso Thiiniglg teas ,agnice tecde gums 


| Qsiid ont gaiwiolo ,gell a'ysatetts. ae eetotne of ogagise te yeid et 
iA oughtiutads.seld.a'yemrggsd edt. te niolaivong.oxt ad sostdue tonaaw 
phe O@GogPh ,TEQ,, SL. « word ~VBeL. , .etede vel. .4 fT 

~towil:edé te galtsam ».te dané hettesas maoliitiag ee ee 
et bestys ylavemhacaoy yont-,f6eL ,0F aaws bLos asaheh .dtwetaleqte 

| peetusise doad teetfov.ot agathesootg Saweo abo fyd.egial dtin mdet ; 
studiztaes biwow yedi tads ong Yeurotia. tledt od hinede Yiliaisia tedt 
~too yas gadyued orowas fallt etaebua te .coeaace, bas .eset mbdret 


,uedd Bedasegerge os taold .egbeiwoot yas to ,boilqal to eeetgxe yieatt 


| SlisKQaset Baw hese a eNy, ent pems galyags peep soue 
| bled coidw. ,ytut ¢.dweds iw gxu09 . at: bret bad.aow, lela? i 

i new sot0eb a bag. ,dueuyotqna hogetls rit hevorg tom Bact ‘titatela 
i bib *thtnieLla dacld oe HERES TOR om agiw aeunat aiid pathnt botesns 
H aboad edd al ctcabintas oF anh eyenon yon ‘ponies nob "gad Oved don 
fa 


of the City, and nis petition and amended petitions were (isvissad 


pect OOOO reps oe 


at plaintiif's costs. Fron eke sonar he anneals. 

in its decision the trial court held, in substance, that 
plaintii!t relies upon an implied contract of employrient; that the 
evidence to support this is vagrant conversations ol plaintiff with 


the 
various oi/deiendants in which there was no direct reference to the 


extent of plaintiff's auploymwent or the deltendants' lisbility for 
fees; that the evidence consists of atYirsuance by plaintiff ana 
denials by tne defendant Judges, and theretore the court could not 
say that vlaintil? had proved uis case by th. preponderance of the 
evidence, Moreover, that whore tuere are two or wore parties, 
Plaintii? or detendan., to a law suit but not ail of the parties 
have euployed an aitormey, the remaining purvies canrot be hela 
liable ‘or any pert of such atticuney's services merely beczuse they 
knew such services were being. rendered, atid that they would benerit 
by the success o1 the proceedings 

In the years 16932, 1935 and 1934, during the depression, the 
City of Chicago was having difficulty in collecting taxes and found 
it impossible to pay ali city eupioyees their regular salaries; it 
made reductions in its appyropriatious for tuese, including the 
salaries of the hunicipal Couii Judges; there was a deliciency in 
the aopropriation for these salaries of 443 days pay tor 1932, 78 
days pay jor 1935, and 52 days pay for 1934, 

Lost of the Judges acquiesced in the tirsi celiciency, 
understanding that 1t was teuporary, bul wie in June, 1953, the 
appropriation ordinunce provided .or a 73 day deduction some of the 

of 
Judges deuurred to this, Lt was tne consenses of opinion/the Judges 
that the City nad no rignut to comvei any deduction in their Statutory 
Salaries and that the acceptaice oi reduction was upon the under- 


standing that when the City was in good iinancial condition they 


could collect the amounts temporarily withheld, In The People v. 























hese seis etew engi? beg bebeine hit meiviseg s a bei aa mi 


Jd Nie. VERN Aether caneichaah eseicanr nen cab eMC 








Las othe odd xeh0 whe: “ROE” eh eoo erreandade te 7 


sarit winidrnilics mi ,bLet truoy Leaind eute Nolaiosb ati “Al 
edt test i sanvetane ‘to jaand mos bot tout mm sogs apifon rbbatalte 
abe ‘tid ake Le “to ano id sex vicon doatgevy eb ‘gaieis srogque ed sonebive 
“eat of Ponetetet tootlh om aaw eros Nod sise fas aonabusiei\to avoltev 
tot yilidetl 'etarhua'teh eat to Paden, Egan a ‘Vtbtate tq ‘to snetxe 
pie Tikdaia le vd SOiiedth ite “to avelesos SoneSive edd vedt aed? 
5 fea Sidon Peds ocd Seote tent Hae eee bet dadhas teh on ye ‘eisiaeb 
ait ‘to vonstebtogerq ad yd Gedo eb Hevoee bed Tibvatatg sand Yaa , 
aefiteg stew te owt Sia etent axent) Jott prevoetal” wsonebivs | 
getited “ead “ho tte dow edd dhde war a “or fy mebaw tes FO" ‘vivatate 4 
pea ad: Pout go DWog wo UdY keuaset ous .yeototie ae heyoLquio © * tad . iq 
pate ‘®ensood qlorh asp ivens a cain Gti duga “to eae qs aot ettaet F 
PPtehed Phwv Youd Jeut due /betetier gated: onow asoltios agua ‘woltit : 
Vette Ss ary ve sagntbooowty ‘wae ‘+6 “edesoud “oud! ee i - 
7 ety Saeleastqe’ Ord gniveh ,SoOL bas week REEL emmy ons wr 
“bagel bos sexed galfoolfoe ab ydiusitlin gaived sue geo ia dial 
$2 jaciveise telegét tied? eseyoique ytio hla yaq of eiddweodits ‘aE 
eit yithbwLlo: ak ,oeodt tot dadkialhtqotuge of ab: -enottouher bet 
‘at yortoioiioh e aew axsdd paogist Peuod Leqiotawe ene" ‘Oo setzetse 
ev SE OL tot Ysq eyeb GA Yo solteles weeds tot dosedadeveded“ele 
SOL cet Yor ayer Be Bae — Tok eae va i 








- are 
aeybul est\sotakda to eeddpanio was” aw ‘es 


XY toditste eos ‘et aoktoubeb ‘youd ‘Loumos ‘of ‘yades 


sabi at ‘tog dite ‘moi touben Me ‘to sulin qooee ‘octt é 


ie eras 


2. pigoot edt al * ee dids eek t: Linas 


City of Chicagg, 351 I1l., 396, opinion filed in February, 1933, 
it was held in effect that statutory salaries could not be reduced 
durine the term of office, 

While the Judges, generally, were willing to cooperate with 
the City, Judze Lyle refused to authorize the City to make any de- 
ductions from his salury. A meeting of the Judg°s was eld about 
June 30, 1933, at which the matter of the deductions from the 
Salaries was ciscussed, 

Plaintiff testified that in June, 1933, he had been retained 
by Judge Lyle to institute suit tor him; that afterward Lyle 
brought plaintiff into a conference with Chie? Justice Sonsteby 

regarding the situation; that on June 30, 1933, plaintiff attended 
at gonsteby's office, who went into an adjoining room and upon his 
return said to plaintiff that a meeting had just been held, ate 
tended vy 24 of the Judges, and tuey were all willing to join in 
Lyle's action; that as plaintilf was leaving Sonsteby's office 
Judges Padden, Schiller and Rooney said to plaintiff! they were 
glad he had been pnieked to handle the case. 

Plaintiff ‘irs! tiled a suit in the Superior court seeking 
to enjoin the City from withholding payment of salaries; the suit 
was filed in the nane of Judge Lyle alone; subsecuently it was 
amended, making the otuer Judges co-plaintisfs, with the names of 
tae Judges attached, sisued by Lyle, purporting to be tneir agent. 
This bill also purported to be filed on beliali of other oivicials 
of the Cit , including the mayor, the city comptroller, the city 
treasurer, the city clerk, the heads of all the city departwents 
and all members oi the city council, and the prayer for relief was 
the same for all of them. iio evidence was introduced upon the 
trial of the instant case that plaintiff had any arrangement for 
fees with these other city offic’als, slthough te claimed to have 


Sought relief in their behalf’, 




























SRE | comme eS i? ROSES eRe eh 54 EES SOE 





- pesubet od Joe binco esite tas Yrotustate teid igo tte ot bfed anw th 
: oitio bo meet os galrub 
aw ateseqoto of aniifiw etew ,yilevenss ,senhel edt -2Liey £89 | 
_ Yie ete of (FLO ent sxitodiue oF heavier siyd open. pr ode : 
tuods bles tem av gbal est to gniteem A ._ytekew eit mort eaottonud 7 
edie nortt ansijeubeh ont te sedtem oat votve te SEL , 06 ennt 
sboeaugets ssw eoivaiee ; 
fe) “betisset ased has on ,66eL paul ai jats heltisesd vtientett, 5 ce Kia hy : 
eigd huewred'te ged jmld tot tive otutivent ef eiyd egtat yd 
Ydstenoh epttast sido vie sgwets'tavs 6. oat Witaks le sigue’ 
= pebasdae Ytigatete .,€8@L ,O8 aut ao teas ;noldentie seit gatbteaget 
7 aint gequ ban GO OS griniotba me ognk tage ole ood Tite at ydetenog es : 
~te «biog Bead vant bed giiteem-s ted? Tikyataiq of. pias ointet : 
ai miot od gnaiiiiw Lie eis" veut bie ,sogbet. edt To &8 we bobred — . 
- geitio etydedvaned yaivaot eeu Fidtntede a0 fend gaoisos e'eiyd 7 
“erer Yous “idnialy of Bisn yoaood bus YoLihens ,rebbat asyhst 7 
.eneo os > Lbnax od bovloty need had ex bala : 


LS ee Ee Cr al 





phiaeee tyeeu0 aelkteqne eit at bina & bedi? Soukt. Tees 
giue oct e9lveiss to Jasiyse galhLlodddiw mott yo 1O-end- thet ae of ‘Le 
asw $i yisneupeudie ;ono0le edyd © gbul te ema ont ol peLrt eaw 
%o asman oft dikw ,wtilsoteigeos' aexybut text o 60d gation /bebmome 7 
tmege ties od of gaisroqiie ,eiyd yd bomate ybatoandse°eeghity ent : 
sisivttte tevite to Iiaiied ao beTi) ef of hovroqrag cafe’ Lid eldt 
Yio edt ,wslfortqmon ytio edd ypoyse ott ghthatonk geiko! aaicluad 
renee usin odd ifs ‘to eheed ent ydteto qeio: si - TeTURSST: ; 
‘gar teller rot soyerg ects fre yitonson ytio edt lid wtecfonae: Lil 


a] 


Defeudcuts persuasively suggest that this proceeding indie 
cates t at plaintifl was retained by Judge Lyle alone, 

The record is full of ewidence concerning alleged state- 
ments by various Judges indicating that they had an understanding 
with plainti:f that he should represeni them. Judge Lyle testified 
that he talked with Judges Schiller and iecUarthy and schelfler and 
that each of them said, in substance, that plaintiif would be taken 
care of. ach olf these Judges denied these conversations, 

Plaintiif argues that the testisony of Judges Graber, tielander 
and Lrickxson supports his cmployment, Judge Graver was coniused in 
his testimony that plaintiif was in tue Judges' meeting on June 30, 
1935; this is not in accord wits that of any other witness, including 
plauintiif, Judge Helanier testiiied tat Judge Lyle said at this 
meeting he was going to employ plaintiii to represent iim to get his 
pay and said, "If you fellows don't wo along with me I am going te 
start my proceedings mysell," Judge Erickson also testified that 
at the meeting in June Lyle siiowed determination to file a suit. 

It would wake this opinion much too long to itemize the testimony of 
the defending Judges contradicting all stateme:ts purporting to have 
been made ty plaintiil or Judge Lyle, authorizing plaintiff to rep- 
recent them in any legal proceedings. Ciel Justice sonsteby at 
cons-derable length testified and deuied categorically the testinony 
of plaintiil and of Judge Lyle touching any euploynent of plaintiff 
in the matter, 

The trial court was evidently impressed by the fact that the 
evidence was confiicting and was reluctant to find specifically as 
to which witness was testifying trutofuily and wiich testified other- 
wise. The court took refuge in tne rule tuat the plaintiff igs bound 
to prove ais case by the preponderance of the evidence, and held 


plaintiff had failed in this respect. 


In this court we frequently invoke the well known rule that 


ad bal gulbseooty aids tacy fasgdue vleviaawerog etusbos ted 

etoile oly sghbut Yd Seetetet esw ttlintelg ded eaten 
«gteta beselis guinteonoo gonahive to fiut ef Broéex ont 
gaiinetsveian us bes yet Fadt gaitsobont acghut ayoitiav yt adnea 
beottivass six legoes aed? taegorgss Hivoda ea tede Tibtatelg Ad iw 
bode wel’iedsl bax yYuPtaled bas Ts likigh anghst Asie Sotles oA dadst 
aeuisd ed ofouw Tivaisle Jesd ,eoaetedua al ,Sise aedt to core tadd 
~noitsavesvaes eeent Aslash gagbut eased io dew << Tovsteo 
twebieiel .tedard @eghbel to yaouwisesd end Jake sosgte Tiftabald 

ai hoavtave sav Tecst) egiat prone tens: aia ettegaua moetoigad bie 
06 ermal He gnigwen 'regbut pits ‘Be aby Viitvetealiq Tass ynoshieed eid 
guibtiout ,saongiw vedse yis fo dant abiw froose wk fom ad abad: {Beer 
eitly de Biee eivd ogbut said betidvasdy tetaeten agbwl Viktaletg 
gia ges of aid teeegtgs: of Tiktrialg yolgre ef gitiog ecw oa gutioom 
9} gation ka IT es Htiw gnois oy t'aob ewollet soy bi , bie hee ¥aq 
gadd Bakiigess baie aoetotal egput * Tiveta wyNibsovoty vn tier] 
wjtiua « Sift of noiesaioreted bewore bivd out ak gutteon odd te 
to ysomisess add @aisedi of geet ood Kom nokikeo ef} eden bivow ot 
eveack b+ yhidcoqreq etiemetase ite joliothettace wephul gaibneteb ext 
-yat od tiiiniale gaieivedtus ,elyd sghst to Titsalela yt Shaw ased 
ja ydeda cod eoitaut todo ewabSoenotq Leyak yaw mi mend Inseet 
yaoutsaed eff ylizolvoegeras bs lugs bas hottivess Signet wicarebianos 
rritaleiq to toeuyolgms yaw gadisoned Ofyd sgheb vo bas ‘ee kthonks Ley ‘to 
pediem ead mt 

edt dest toat oft yd beesotqmt ylsooh ive eaw Sanoo fwlat ext | 
an yiisoltiosgs bull of tnstoufet sew ous gatiotutses’ aaw eonet tyre 
wtatito beitigees dakiw site ulin tidsine gaiyrivess aeaw eee niiw ootiw et 
huwod ei Ytttatale ord tant ofwr et af egutet deed tewoo oT ,#atw 
Ries bue ,sofebive ead ‘to onsets baoqer6 See Ya e@n0 oto avoug ot 


Seo q¢eor witt ai be List ‘hadi Pivnts Le 


Jats efux swomdl Lfow end sxiovak yitnoupest ew Pemoo atid nl shinachiall 


the trial court, who sees and hears the witnesses, is much better 
able to determine the credibility oi the witnesses tnan is a court 
of review. It is axiomatic that the opportunity of the triai court 
to pass upon the questions of credibility is much greater than that 
of a court of review. The People v, Overbey, 362 111., 488, 491-92, 
where it was said that where the evidence is contlicting, the court 
of review will not substitute its judzment for that of the trial 
court. See also Page v, Keeves, 362 111., 64, 72, end Schrader v. 
Schrader, 293 I11., 469, 475. In Hall v. Pittenger, 365 Ill., 135, 
136, it was said that the findings of the trial court would not be 
disturbed “unlese manifestly and palpably wrong," 

The mandatory injunction pretesiing prought in the Superior 
court was taken to the Supreme court (Lyle v. City of Chicago, 357 
I1l1l., 41) where it was pointed out that the proper practice in euch 
& case Was by mandasus, anc that the complainants had misapprehended 
their remedy; subsequently an original petition for mandamus was 
Tiled in the Supreme court seeking to compel the autuorities oi the 
City of Chicago to appropriate and pay the amounts withheld from the 
Municipal court Judges; the proceedings ran in the name of The People 
ex rel. John hi. Lyle, and a number oi other relatore. (360 Tll., 25). 
It was there held that it was the duty of the City authorities to 
make the necessary appropriations tor the full amount of the salaries 
of the relators, Shortly thereaiter the instant petition to enforce 
an attorney's lien was filed aod served upon the City. 

Exarination of the record leads to no clear conclusion that 
we cannot hold the findings of the trial court adversely to plaintiff 
with respect to any express contract of employment of pleintiffr by 
the Judges were manifestly and palpably wrong, 

Plaintilf argues that the defending Judges had knowledge of 
the pendency of the litigation, made no objection to it, and accepted 
the benefits derived, We think there can be no doubt that the Judges 


knew of the mandamus suit brought in the Supreme court and accuiesced 



















t9died dowm at eeaeen! iv end etme i bate s9 9% Lael tt09 feitt odd a 


| “ gaw0s s ef weld eaesondiw ost ‘to <siitdtbers bait oaintod ob of olde 


étuos isitd sit ‘to ¢tinudtoaco ans dads oidemotze at at wwe hver ‘te : 


fast 1 83 Tas soxXHR stow ad Uillidthere ‘te ecolsoeup ‘oad ‘noqu 888g os 7 





Sees 868, £11 888 .y dug v0_.v. aigoed off wel vet t0 $200 — to — 
Fata. PY oe bad 


#190 as aattok ftsoe ei epasbive euit ‘etenw tent bine aew ah prety 
fgiss sit ‘to taad tot tasap bat aga adutisedua ton Lite wetver te - 


-¥ gebetses bas ,Sv bo , LLL SBE eevoed a east onke esa -#uw09 


$2 Stee - 


OEE , LEI 808 .gepaedted oy Ligh a ate 1228 yo AAS, ses sEebstio® 7 
- od Jos biuow gtwon Lelts ant ‘te agaibalt oud fact bias sew ve dbs oa 


oe oe Di 


® .yitoiw videateg Bowe viteetineg agotau" beguutety 






solroe2 ‘ead at diguond snibessorg ae tssawt ad qrotsbasa oat 


it) txs09 oie osit ot taped any ox 


* acs dexqaes im bod wd naitt sdyalan ald tarts 1 _ len we asw Pte & 









id ew @uusdhmem tot aoititog Leni gixo as vid aospondve iybenen shee ‘ 
oid * ‘to eott Frosus ent Leguos oF guttiees stw09 sazqul ‘gat ak potty 
eg mort bienditiw ad wos aus ved hae otsixgoxage ot ogao tao to ‘yato io 

9 igos sd? ‘to emea edd al wer “agakbesoorg art jasgoub r1u0o fegl taut : 

+. (a8 wees 098) ‘Gusteiss todste ‘te xadiun a bus ofgd i “iol shor, coy 
et aeltixodtua ean ei} to wer eid ene “ot teas bed ‘ovoid saw #1 a 
asinelse ‘edd te Sasson ifs't ead ‘got ‘enoits ixgoreas ‘visesoosa ext isn a 
sototas aed aotiiteq ‘gaazant eid tod ceoresit irons raise ; 

ears) ‘ests mors bevasa bas ‘oti asw agit a peated ta, ” 


¥ 
‘ saline 
aoe rie 
ce fay 


taste sotauLoace tsefo om ot ahat, rong lee, Rid eottestes 


\ : 


ie 


in this, but it does not follow that they are bound by any implied 
contract to pay tor the services of plaintiff, They knsw the result 
would have been the same if the proceedings were continued in the 
name of Judge Lyle alone, In many cases in tiis State the claim of 
an implied lisbility has been denied, In Chicago, St. ©, & i,n,Co, 
vy, Larned, 26 T1l., 913, an attorney had been expressly evployed by 
one of several parties interested in certain land to represent him 
in litication; he brought suit ror attorney's fees against one of 
the other parties who had known of the Litigation, was a party to 
it ome hed received the benefit of the services; tue court held he 
could not recover, saying that while tue defendant's conduct "may 
have been unsenerous” there was no Lenni liability on his part. 
The court also said, “it would be a most dangerous precedent to 
hold that because the defendant had sat silently by and let counsel 
employed by another argue a cause which ii won wouid secure his in- 
terest, toerefore he agreed to pay tae counsel in proportion to the 
benefit thus received." In Walker v, Brown, 28 I11., 378, 386, 
under somewhat similar circiumstances, where plaintilf sougut to re- 
cover on a quantum meruit, it was heid that there was no inmplieé 
contract on the part of the defendant to pay for the services, "not- 
withstanding the work was beneficial to him, and he stood by without 
objecting to its being done on his premises.“ Jones v, Spencer, 79 
Il], Aov., 349, 353; Grossberg v, Knight, 266 Ill. App., 133; Rorth- 
western M. & ), Academy v. Wadleigh, 267 Ill. App., 1, 3. Cases 
from other jurisdictions are to the same effect. 

Plaintiff quotes st some length from ifbornton on Attorneys 


at Law, sec, 513, but this author cites, under section 519, the 





Larned case, supra, saying that “It ie eousily well settled, however, 
thet one person cannot make another his debtor without bis consent, 


either exprese or implied; and, therefore, the mere jact that prores- 


Sional services inure to the benefit of one whe did not contract tor 














boitqat you yd bavod exe yosdd tad? wortot tou evob ti dud jebdt nb 
dlusor sid wood ved? ,'tthdaielg to eestvane aad tet yeq od soatd seo 

gif al Bownidace stow egaihoesoty oat th omen and wood svat biyow 
ee 


‘te mialo ad? etat& ekit at peeeo yasm oi oto Le a fyd ophut te ‘mas a 


(G2 Kell BO te .ogsoist af \etvep need ear witidert be Lae na 








yd boyodquse yleeetaxs aned best yernotts ne ,@£o Att Be, G 
1 : a 

aid juseetyet of basi aietxes af betestetak acitreq leveves: ‘to. oa = 
to end denieas deet e'ysavodts tet dive tagwotd od thobtegi¢ht ak = 


of (tag 6 eae ,mdkteghtiL ocd ‘to awenl bad exh? asleteg ts: to 3. 


qea" tousbuco Ainabis ted sit Slicw tad gates reves ton nines: 
witeq Bid we UFELIdaEL feast on wan etons Nauoreas sci nood eved 


- ot FaOReeOry abotegsed- geen a ed Biwew'92" py kee oats too ‘edt 7 
tb 


fll ‘ : 
ed bied denon ont re6eivtes oct te ditened oar hevtsoss be: bas tt > 





feaaues fel baa yd wise tte fee bad sowhes'tab saz ssuaned dae 














(ase ,606 | itr Be aword sv xedseW al W povie + ails ins 


“~ot oF Segoe tiitzoiesc ouster teonstamotto “qe Chale tacirassos pheyaes 





be itani: om agw execs decd bios sam ‘$L ,dtitem imu on” 
peat ,eosivree sit tot yaq of siebae'leh ocd ‘to ‘Seq. aait coe sites 
tuadbiw yd Boote of bas ahd of igtsl ‘toned sew drow one Sessa sda be 
at ett M2 .¥ aasou 
nddzo :884 ,.agA iff aac, ate tes 
weand .8 ,f \.dGA WELT Tee “Gide the’ pie rho baok “ ¥ SPEED 
alae einai ens of oth Shion puree cece | 






them, or consent to their rendition in his behalf, or lead counsel 
to believe by any word or act that he would pay ior thoua, will not 
create a liability on his part for the attorney's compensation," 
Other quotations from the same autor are to tne same eilect,. 
Cases cited by plaintil? merely uold tnat a contract to @aploy an 
attorney need not be express, but sometimes may be lnolied, which 
doubtless is true, 

Deferdants make a turtner point, which we old is conelue 
sive against plaintiff, It should be rewenbered that plaintiff's 
petition is based upon services in procuring the issuance of the 
writ of meandanus by the Supreme court (360 [ll, 25.) Defendanis 
say the record shows that plaintiif has already received for tuese 
services trom Judges not defendsits here an amount largely in ex- 
ecessot the iair and reasonable value of tne services periormed, 

The record shows that the writ of mandamus colmanded tne 
City to aporopriate the sum of §180,617,.92 for the purpose of 
paying the Chief Justice and tue Associate Judges of the kunicipal 
court the moneys due them; that many of the Judges paid the lv per 
cent demanded by plaintillr for nis services, azgresgating $10,515.94, 
He is asking Trom the defending Judges here additional auounts 
aggregating $9,324.53, which, if allowed, would make a total of 
$19,840.47 for his services in recovering, hy mandauus, $180,617.92. 

Atto meys testified for plaintiff as .o what would be a 
reasonable fee in this case, Their figures ran from 10 per cent 
of the amount recovered to 25 per cent, The attormeys for defend- 
ants guve their opinion on a per diem basis of $100 a day. An exe 
perienced and well informed attorney said that there was no customary 
charge ior such services based on 2 percentage basis. The testimony 
of the attorneys does not «ive a satisfactory basis on whicns to 
estimate the reasonabhe amount of the fee, 

It is well settled thst the court is not bound by the 


testimony of attorneys upon the question of fees but should and will 





= > F 
Fa Ss 
: 





Lt ithe used sot yeg bisew ed ted ges to brow yur yd ovoiied: at 
* ao ivsaaequee s' yomtotta sit tot Jasq als ap Uti lLedehL,«. otzena. 
Teatis saen oy oF 9TH TONITE anee add aiogt stoisas oup xede@., 

As yolqus of Spetdoe « teas hien ylevem. Widaieigq vd: betta avand, 
doidw ,boilgak od. yam aomitemon, dud ,seetgxe sé jou beom yemiotta, 
Ones si sasitduoh 

-sisaeo af bios ow doisw ,taiog tet i6) « adem etashoo tec eg) i a 
elittitciaiq tedy beradasoet od bivese af stikenivig: tentese svia: 
eaé ‘te eoauauaet oil-gninsugots si seoivtes neqv Seaed et sotthted: 
gvaebueteG (.88 .df2 OE) dree9 smprgwe, ott yd, auuahosn to ginw, 
eesit vol beviover yheotls end Tiidabetg. teas swede. Btooe% ou eae” 
«ke af qdegtal oovomy a6 Sten edinhue tob som eegbat mont esolvaea. 
howe tisg. asoivese etd to exisv eldancaaet: ne: eho t arid. ‘Yoeasa 3 


paid pobtamues: Siiupboan to siggy sof recs eweda seeows, oat” 





to 83 ese eit wok KEY L0, C6LG to- mye. oad edeiraorees: of. vere 
Sag? ohewsi eng To aomhat eisiocaae, end. bas eotiawt teidd. ong antvag, oe 
nog Of edt bie eambat eat to ynem cat jeeps ewb - Syonen one trw08 vs ay 





a $8,442,048 gaktagetgge ,eecivise afd sei: tiismtele yw bebanuab ts09) 
i  aiexoms Dgmolsgibbs eter soshul gaibas'teb ect mort gaives, ab nh 
1 te fatot.s ease bisow showolte th: , Motrin (Bae, OF pattagetaa. 
| 8051 £8, 0846 ,erisiaas yd. welreveset at sscivtes eid mot, vA. 098, 08, . 
i - 4 # oF bisow dady of ae tTritalet, 10% beltsspet ayer atta Ak” i. 
: gneo tog Of mot sat astugit thet? .#eo. atid ad setsdiaininlbedl 7 i 








-bueteh tot eyserotia et? .taeovteq @S ot here yvooot davon oat tes 
i‘ axo aA 45 5 O0L8. Te elesd apth reg « to aotaigo: ahedt. eves aise 
a — on gew atect tedd iiea meevere pameapad, oer thon mentions 
I Ibo ay 





ee aat areas. 
Hy ne : 
ef sanenaal uo aisead vesaeatenins a evig toa oui p onmesianest 20 





take into consideration its own knowledge of tie value of the services, 


ZI 
(& 


Morrison v, ¥urmers Mievator Co,, 319 lll., 372, 378; Gentlemen y, 
Sanitary District, 260 I1l., 317. ‘The Judges of the Cirenit and 
Superior courts had occasion at aveut the sauc time as is involved 
here to euploy attomeys to recover reductions in salarive made by 
the County; they exployed to represen. them attorncys of high 
standing at this bar; the aggregate recovered was approximately 
$100,000, and jor this service the attorneys received $3000, or 
approximately 3 per ceut, Whish was considered by all as a reascne- 
able iee tor sucn services. 

there is no contention that plaintiif had a separate agreexent 
witi @aca oi the Judges as to tne amount of his compeneation, Waat 
services were rendered were rendered for the Judges collectively, and 


he is tuereiore not entitled to receive more than what such collece 
re ax eer ven 


ee pak NDA PS ETD LEE: perenne STN AOA EL RB 
er etna nea nl Raa mE GT ACTA = RAI a a ey se Ka Rh A CAMEO we ~ 


tive services were worta, — 

_ Weaee i3 force in the argument tuat it is extremely doubtful 
that if an express contract aad been itade tue amount of the flees 
would hae been leic open sand undeteruined, She exact amount to be 
recovered was certain, anc also the sivpie metiod to secure tunis had 
been judicially deteruined by the Supreme court, Ags counsel jor 
Gelendants say, taat with ali those factors belore them it is doubtful 


that any fee agreed upon would have exceeded §$50U0, 


The City asks that we hold that the Attorney's Lien statute 
of iliinois is not applicable ic it, and persuasive seasons are pre- 
sented in supoort of this position. in view ef our conclusion thst 

AOE LOLA LT 


arte 
the order of the lower court in dismissing the petition wust be af 


firmed, it is unnecessary to pass upen tiis question at ihis time, 





For the reasoms indicated the order os the trial court is 
affirmed, 
AFFIRMED, 


Matchett, ard O'Connor, JJ,, coneur, 








wootrres oft Yo solsy ot Yo egbelvomd awo att motiarebisaes otal edad 


7 wot, sain Lit ces tra ;BN2 ,SVO ,. LLL ese 





bas fhe ect to eenhwt oxT ae a eke Oa8 ,toirgeid xed inat 
bevfoynt at as sett come ert Suede da colesooe bed adauoo toltsqut 
ue shan ecitetes mi stoftjouber twevooen of eyeciotia eolqie of ered 
gis To ayoatotte stesay 3 ae acyet od bevetqus ‘esi ehnnee one 
yvisitsminotgg¢s saw herevooet stagergge Sey 2468 shu) do Snibaska 
6 ,OO0EY bevieser eyotttutts di soivaes aidt xo't bus ,000, 0026 
~ngeeet a xe tis ¢d bersbianes eaw daidw ,tueo teq € cisdauinochun 
| snookvise lowe “ol eet 0 ide 

tiemeetga eisxaqed eo bad Ttigntety sadt soitnednes am ak ore 
gac®  wettevnsgeoo akc “to diioms ont of oa eoybale arid to aeaie aid hw 
hte ,Ylevitoetios aggiul add tot bowebces euew borsbaes ‘etew ‘sootvase 
“ool ico camel daciw sea 8% aH OVS 908% bill fo.sd dae bom exoleredd_e "al i os 


nena Naetsl dies Aaeaewnuilie na ais mien = reer aperet 


btn ore9 acpivies evid 








wishes HRN thet 





“r teetethenn a Bh lay eh 


Ito socnrtead ak $2 tacit dita ne aud ch soxot Bd ero ait 


eook ond ‘to ¢avome eid shew seed Buel Jeaxd neo aseT¢xe us th facts 


Pee tay 


ad og dowoms doexe esl »beniarate busi bus nage viel need ‘ean biwow 


baal eas exvees os be: be “eLqma sit oads bas ied 409 ‘aan berevonss 
tot teanues: “aA err omer gus asta uo howhoreteb ‘eldeto tbat pe 
futdduch ai $f meas ‘etolted atodoet saond ile dgiw tas3 cae “atashue tes 
,g00ag bebeooxs ever bLuow aoa ste ag't ye ‘fant 

studats aaid atysnrodtA ead decid tied ow fait eda ei eat 


wemg Sie Baosest eviasuetog pas ,ob o@ edieotioge joa at eionkttt to 
tadd sotestoage tuo, to weiv al .meitivog asdy ‘be dtoggse of Sotage 


ate od geui sol? ieq_ esd asiselouip tk dio tewos to tahto. add 
Teakd ated ‘ts Worgasug “ghat: Nog aaay oF vise aoe mau ee Sh") 








ws 


‘gi taisoo Istas eds to aonze ant” ciel anoasst oat xo?” 


HR os BLN ites, alee (oy bern dt hes 
CLT ATA, 


eee ba sll, , Pa HG Bao Rae Rite 


40554 


MILLUR ICE COMPANY, 
@ corporation, 


Ve 
ee a 
GlORGS &. CRIM,” 
Appellee. 






PRESIDING 
MR. /JUSTICL SCANLAN DELIVERTD THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant, 2 former 
employee of plaintiff. The action was based upon a written con- 
tract dated January 18, 1936, in and by which defendant, employed 
by pleintiff to peddle ice from house to house in a desimated 
territory or route, agrecd that for a period of two years after 
he left plaintiff's employ he would not compete with plaintiff in 
the ice business, solicit or serve any of the customers of plain- 
tiff, nor divulge the names of: swh customers to any other persone 
The restriction applied to the territory served by plaintiff in its 
ordinary business. Defendant left plaintiff's employ, and at once 
engaged in the ice business for himself or others, peddling ice to 
customers of plaintiff in the territory served by him while in 
plaintiff's employ, and slso soliciting customers of plaintiff. 

A temporary injunction issued. After a trial of the cause before 

the court there was a finding that the contract between the parties 
—— consideration and a judgment order was entered dissolving 
the temporary injunetion and dismissing the cause for want of equity. 
Plaintiff siaialas Defendant has not seen fit to file a brief in 


errr 
this courte 


The written contract provides, inter alia, that defendmt 
would not, while in the employ of plsintiff nor during the two 
years immediately after the termination of such employment, divulge 


or make known, either directly or indirectly, to any person, firm or 








| i 





MU As (Ra cae. - Be08 
im, if \ ome _ pune 

(  qexoktatogioo 8 

mt he = en sv 


ts { a ono ve ee eae = poy 


soelloggs — 





oy sai} 


sTHUGD SAT TO WOIRITO Bar Cay abecous HALWAOS ssnah eth 

seme? 5 & eiachbanetsh tanksas snisLqus & boeltt Veisaislt 
-moo netiiuw #8 Mog heaae aaw no bton ely  Tikintelg to eoxoheud 
hao fare etneiaeteh dobiw yd bas me weer 28L yraunat Betsh ‘doard 


‘bedanmieeh & ai seyed oF seyed sort vot albbsq os Ti NatsLa we 


vette stesy owl to hotzee # tot Jeds postae <ovwot <9 wrod tered \ 


ek BWitnlele dtiw ateqm@oo Jerr pLsow ex yoLque ‘alvtbintets ster od 
antefg Yo axvemedenvo oft to yuc ovzes to dokLow eweonteud oot eds 


; eroareg “edo yrs of sreemdayo toyva to aenene enls epiareih x08 Pees) 


\ 


ade i Vibra ady ud bertea “yxedixced edd of beilaqus mo ivoixiae x et 


goo te nan evoLame e'titdetede tieL ‘@nsbrerec + pnentoud eanlbz0 
od ook anifbbeg ,atants to tfloamin “<0% sdentend aed ‘esd ok dear 


mk renee sind yd beyres wrod ixted edd nb Vikialelg te ‘exomodano | 


1 ws: | 
.Vivitelg to arene dew ari? tottoe ouls bas evoLame evmtdsiads 


q 


etoted arse edt to Lait? s restA .berat no Evonubnt yexoqmed A 


aeidtag ont neil $ cers ois dastt getielt a new wrens twoo ‘eae | 


gatylo ae ib boxedae aaw rebz0 rsh 6 one no exebtages tyodd iw aa 
OT een 2 EE Ty 


“ee lupe, to teaw 10% SBS 8 = ‘pet att ba th fei “no Forarbet Yistogeed edt 


ee 





"wk Yoivd @ eit of 42 gooe ton wad ‘tmebuatet -alescse tptands 


“sits09 ai 
$ nmbrro%eb Sait Stile rednt eaobive ny tostdnoo voici ott isl ta 





t 
‘| . 
l 
f 
} 





-2e 
corporation, the names and addresses of the customers, patrons or 
agents of plaintiff; that for two years immediately following the 
termination of his employment with plaintiff defendant would not, 
either directly or indirectly, for himself or any other person, firm 
or corporation, call upon, solicit, divert or take aweye or attempt te 
solicit, divert or take away, any of the custaners or patrons of plain= 
tiff whom defendant had called upon, solicited or served during his 
employment with plaintiff; thot for a Space o: two years after the 
termination of his employment defendant would not, either directly or 
indirectly, for himself or for any other person, firm or corporation, 
engage or enter into the ice business in the territory doscribed in 
the contract, being the city of Shicago Heights and the village of 
Steger, in Cook county, the villages of Crete and Beecher in Will 
county, and the village of Grant Park in Kankakee county, Tllinois. 

It appears that just before the Sirning of the contract one 
of plaintiff's drivers, Palph Miller, left its employ and immediately 
started an ice business of his own, and solicited and took away from 
plaintiff customers that Miller had served while in the employ of 
plaintiff. On January 18, 1936, an official of plaintiff corporation 
called in its employees, including defendant, who were engaged in 
peddling ice, and informed them as to what Miller had done and teld 
them that in order to protect the interests of plaintiff company and 
to prevent a repetition of such conduct by any of its other drivers, 
each of the remainin< drivers must sign a written contract if he 
desired to keep his jobs that any driver refusing to sign such con- 
tract would be discharged. ach of the drivers wag presented with a 
written contract similar to the one that defendant signed, and ef ter 
the drivers had read the same each signed the contract that applied 
to hime Defendant worked under the written contract he signed until 


April 25, 1933. 
That the contract was reasoable in point of time and territory 





to seotdeq axemedavo off te eeasethhs bre eomer es emoitevogroo 
wit eniwolie? ylodeiberuwt axsoy ows xet tans pYiivmlele to utmege | 








gion bivow thaubasted tiivaielq ditw dmearo Lanse aid te no bt nex tareed 
wxit qaouteg wedde yrs to Teemil 19% «yltostibat xe eit oorth todd ts 
es quotes te «yous ered co duowib pilolfoa gmoge ifeo. vite ListegToo <0 
ian to aeieead Yo oregano sd Bo yn pyar ‘Mat’ te trovls etlollos 
io eit fore Eta newtes wo Hediolios «ueqy bolino bel Insbae tot metiw Libis 
oat tetie ataey owl Io eoags @ tO? é: wt ¢Yitbdeatet¢ aid bw, dnoimyoLome 
to visoortih ueddia yien diuew Snabreteb 3 erence Letras 3 tek to no Lanttarsed 
. wo Mi oregses wo mri sngercoq temso yres so% 20 Meas 202 weifeortint 
nt badizeash yredinaed onfd mt ea eriasze sok ord otnt cide. 20 epepme 
te agalliy eid bee adtipt at ogew bl eo “a te aul aning dooténeo aid 
LLiW gk teisest dme ofeto to nogektiv esis eisai Hood nb steeds 
sAtomiilt —yenuon setmins’ ak axe dma 2 egali.ty eats bea sXom09 
Ono doertmme sit te goto ts edd sroted tum), sale atesgge ar Sede 
Yio alooumt dea. woLame ads S202 psellia dofar gmrevinh & erattentesa) 0 
i ; ; mp8 yawp dood bra bed iotios an enwo alt Yo emankam! ook ne bodraga : 
ke yoigus oft oi efice bevres baci woLl ia daely asn@aam 3 mare Viki take 


he & eh 


Laxogsos. thitntale Br) faioiito as Otel «SL wrasna’ bi sMbadaty 













al Sogenne exew ost winabdae tab. gaibutont aaeoye igus net fk beLins . 
oie? Ons onob. dost sell. tadw of as meds pamnne Se Benax i: anttpbog 
bos Yoaueo Vihiekelg to advocated. eft soatonq ot xebso nd, aut coats 
eaxeviwth noite adi to wate ud Joubooo sone Te mals kinaes a tnoverg of 

ei Li towninws sodituc a ogie das avevich atecbemmet eds we. os9 
“ime devia mye of gatew tex xovinh yma Jal yok att good of bortaob 
a sitiw begneeesg caw enevixh end to deed | aheg anton te oe bir 3 90n2 
uod ‘te bos ,homie éusbooteds galt emo adit of rsfiete rey 


boifegs Jasdt toattno.0 ote bong ta Hose tine edd bao, has Srevish edd 
Tidy bergia ext toaxtoeo medi xe ott sober nemo, Probate» od his on 
4% oh 








a ales Mill 





-3= 
was not disputed, and it was conceded that defencant viclated the 
terms of the contract, and the sole guestion for us to determine 
is, Was there a sufficient consideration for the contract, 

The theory of defendant in the trial court was that since 
there was no change in the Wage, hours or working conditions of 
defendant after he Signed the contract, there was no consideration 
for the contract and it was, therefore, unenforceable. Plaintirr 
admits that there was no change in defendant's wages, hours or work- 
ing conditions after the Simming of the contract, but claims that 
the contract was valid and enforceable because (1) "The mutual 
promises made by and between the parties in the contract constitute 
s sufficient consideration therefor; and (2) The plaintiff told the 
defendant that it would discharge him immediately if he did not sign 
this contract, ané such forebearance from discharge, under such 
circumstanees, is consideration for the Gontract, and in effect 
amounts to a re-employment of the defendant," 

In Ryan ve Hamilton, 205 11. 191, there was involved the 
question as to whether or not a contract not te engege in a particular 
business was founded upon legal consideration, and (ai ppe 197-8) the 
court said: "In all suchcases it is not the business of a court to 
inquire whether the consideration is adequate or of equal value to 
that which the party loses by the restrictione Incases of this 
character it is impossible for courts te tell how valuable to the 
complainant or how injurious to the defendant may be the restraint 
soucht to be imposed. it is sufficient to uphold such contracts 
if the court arrives at the conclusion that there is, as a matter of 
fact, some legal consideration; but the adequacy of the consideration 
is within the exclusive dominion of the parties where they contract 
freely and without fraud." (Italics ours.) «4 number of other Illinoi 
cases to the same effect might be cited, if it were necessarye 


That a promise by one party is sufficient consideration for 


& promise by the other is an established rule of Contract law, Py 





ie 
ad? Sodsloiv smebneteb ted? bebsomoo asw Ji Ome ,doduqaib Jom.asw, 
eniuzes eh of su a0% moitsoup efow aid.bm8 <toetdnoo oat To amred. 
»tostinog of? tet moijeseblanco.dasiotiive . eteds esi .ai, 
eoria.dedé sew. dumo Laiid edi mi.dnebmeteb to yxoed? edt ., 
to angisibnoo guizuvew to aryod ,ogew ony nt sonsto on. ae sreny 
pois sishiagos on esw oted’ «lostdnoo edd dengis of tests i nabuoteb. 
Uiitsieig .sldsaote leony eototereds .tew Jf bros soaténod edd tQt. 
-itow to ation »aegey. a'inshusiob eee egrets on saw exedt dade (at inks 
teats amtelo Jud ytoatines oft To goiimaia etd Totta eaoleibmeo ant 
Lautsm ox” (i) sauaced oldesoveins bre bitsy anw Soaring one 
“edut tinge foetwnoo oft mi avloieg edd soowd od bas yd hen aoe taee 
anid dLod bidvale tg off (s) bus ite lovedd nolijateblanos ‘aeeterre *, 
nmgte vom bik of ti yLots Eb avis Paws hog anmit| bivow tt tart tobreteb 
ova tebmu eogtatvath mort ooustsedoto? aocre Sere Sonrdn00 outs 


sosite ni bre .fostinos afd tot ottercon ines al et ar 5 gala 






 “Sdmabeotob salt Je ‘Leveaico feat 9" 8 os St awems 
yr bowie! ase exodd ehOL sf fT G08 ssid Limall «¥ mays oe 
raluotiuse re me epagee at on soetine & ton £0 teat ent oe as no Heeup ‘ 


re SS 


ext (e-re +g ts) bas tneidarod Lasoo Lagat gr bebmre’ aaw (Seenteud | 


Te Sr es 


RE sly 


o2 sxm08 B 20 saentand ack don ai ¢i eeas e dows lis aq thine HO a 


od ONLY Aaupe ‘ko =O aiaupebs at noitexsh lene out ale ox iupat 





: 


a lds to ag28 9 mt snotdotrdes x od? yd aonot Yetag orld Ho Lew tats r. 
‘et of old sulay wot Ihes “2 adtyo9 sot sidisaoqmt ae atk sed ccrasto. 
dnterteer otld ed Vata deabretad esis ot eu txerbat wosl xo tnondeLqun 0 e, 
‘etostéa00 Howe ‘b£osdqur og seobe kth ah 42 |  besoquti od ov baat 
to 939 ant & 8s eet eters $a no Lash ono ots 3s aevinia bad td a 
noid orebianeo extd to yosupebs ony dard {ito kéateb Lane 9 Legos ouoe fost : 
tostsnoo cont? stew sake tag ari ‘te potniaph ov kewLoxe bce std at 


fon kilLlI sexdo to rodmtmn A (see eoitatt) | 9 acme dust? bw bas toon 


eUrssecoem stew ti tt sbstio ‘od ‘its bi soolts ante oe ot ease 








oy 
forbearance to do somethins which the party had a legal right to 


do may constitute a valid consideration. (See 13 C. J. 324.) Prior 
te the execution of the contract Plaintiff had the legal right to 
discharge defendant at any time without notice of any sort, and 
defendant had the right to quit plaintiffts employ at any time without 
any notice whatsoever. In clause seven of the contract plaintirr 
agreed that it must give defendant three days' notice of its intention 
to discharge, or, in the alternative, three days! extra Wages, before 
it could discharge him; and defendant agreed that he must give plain- 
tiff one week's notice before quitting his employment. Plaintiff econ- 
tends that when defendant was presented with the option of immediate 
discharge or the execution of the Contract, the forbearance from dige 
charging defendant upon his signing the contract Was a sufficient 
consideration for the Contract, and, in effect, it amounted toa 
reemployment of defendant by plaintiff. We think this contention is 

& meritorious one. A valuable consideration Consists either of some 
right, interest, profit or bencfit accruing to one party, or some for- 
bearance, detriment, loss or responsibility civen, suffered or under-~ 
taken by the other. (1 Page on Contracts, (2d ed.) sec, 514; People 
Ve Commercial Life InSe Coes 247 Ill. 92; Buchanan v. International 


Bank, 78 id. 500,)" (Anderson v. Bills, 335 Ill. 5245 529-5306) "It 





is not essential that the consideration should import a certain gain 
or loss to either party. It is sufficient if the party in whose favor 
the contract is made * * * parts with a right which he micht otherwise 
exert." (6 Re Ce Le pe 658, Italics ours.) A valuable consideration, 
however small it may be, is sufficient, (See Orr y, Orr, 181 Ill. App. 
148, 152, and cases cited therein.) Many other cases to the same effect 
might be cited if it were necessary. 

we hold that the trial court erred in ‘finding and Gecreeing 


that the contract was without e¢onsideration and therefore unenforce - 


able, and in dismissing the bill for want of ne 





ee re er 








¢ 


i ee 
@e titade Leget e bad etteq orld foidw soidioawe: of oF sonAtsodeo t 
ia geet (LBRE wT 6D EL 988) sm ideveh tens bifey a “etud btenoo ‘quer ob 


iM 9d titgiv Legst oft bert statntete’ Peatanod ote Ro nolFHOexd’ edd OF 
| bins ft08 ene to eotten vxedtiw om! yas ts {ineSreteb eg tenon sh 
fh duos br ‘eqs cra Fo votqee aritiirttele tlsp ot tig it orfd “bad trabsse'teb 
\ eiidntale ¢oexdnoo odd to neve eauato HY. <éveoatanlw sotton yne 


i moitwotet aft to eotfor fayab eerniy tnab prvteb ewty teu $f fadtt dootge 
Hh 
ih “breted ,aegew e7sxKe taysh sand ov itvanres te | edd mt <0 pogtasion th of 


 mmietg ewig dem od Foss bootys seebnstob bet gar egisdtos ib ‘bias t2 
-qoo Yiivmiels sareurgotame eld anids inp cuptied eoisen etitéew emo Tit? 









‘efaibommt to moivqo edd dokw botmesotg caw Mnebinie Sb nest taad absod 
makb mo TGs Bedzo t ond eFosud oe sad ‘bo nokinvoaxe end tg ‘egtatios Lb 
. | eaele Pte 5 naw taetdineo ond gnkeote aid moet trabreteb yrite tanto 

nod bodeusome sk atoetto at shine aitaminso ony sé" po tieteb benos 
ak moktinatseo ells tenis BW ~ttigeiata wd Fee brrs Bow" to feromyo Lomeet 
ann ‘ke sadtte adelaros no bt ot0b ano aidavkey AY . ene avo tsovitom « 
7 “0% ems Te eYtteg One o¢ griwteon oft sod 1D yEtOve 4 gaoredmk editg ft 

: wneba 16 beteTive «novia ui tdidtencaset xo aaot (dnomindeds , conetaed 
< algost 7als +908 {sho 5S) padontd nod ko Syed £) woute aff ie Riles 
| Lan tientetnt_ ov, Siansel og 280 ,fLT VAS aed cant tid Le fakoremmod ȴ 

$2 (.O8T-e88 «dSE <fEE B88 allie .¥ soaxebrd) (008 abd ey pings zy 

risa miss tes S ¢ noqgit bivosle no L8.steb bare 0 ost sacks felineaee ‘yon at 
nova exodw ni Yisd edd tL jaotod Tiss ak aL ened waidte a aeot ‘to 


a pac ee 


gatirnesito Sih ios sk ed soit dtigkz & siaim aitag * * % aban of sounéas ‘edt — ~ 


giottaneb tens oidaulay A (.ange ‘aoliatl + 88d ef ae ae oe ») we, Pa 





awa afk fer 210 Y 20 90a) sdmorol Tie “ek aod gnu ‘pt! ‘thine ‘sevowod 
ip - geore enise eit of eoaso corito woall (entered? ange aeaas bre wg ae 


i 


i. 









gaieorse? one autbalt nt bono “ttwoo woe al 


ererer Saad 


- - oxo mens sieteraey, ‘nit ao tdateb band duro 
jae O° ei ioe te Faw wot Coke ett s 





The judgment order of the City Court of Chicaco Heichts 


is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with directions to enter 


& decree in accordance with the prayer of the complaint. 


JUDGMENT ORDIR RiVERSED, AND CAUSE 
RUMANDED WITH DIRECT IONS » 


Sullivan and Friend, JJe, concure 





] 
iA 
| 








adiig tol ogas £80 ta pane ett 7 nebso romp bit oat Nae 
Midis ov . agotdoertb Athy, » bohus er 
sisbelqmos ot ‘to soyetg oakt as iw aonb tO990 at poroeh 3 


j f UA SecHO Tce, 
con se re Teas 


ws of ery Sm, 
4 faim J, ale 


Vnel 


al sanse att bee sdeaxoven ot 








A whey 
nin tert 
‘ vi , 
e 
eg al 
sf a] 
A 2 
poh 
fas) 
it * Nees 
et 
WK bs be 
4 4 dy wiloin. Brey 
x eh 
jie, Sf an 
i SPL e 
nM 
ve Ly oP ae) 
oat 
aye wy B 
Bra 4 
i 
i any 
¥ rae Ye 
ae TG 
CAA ee ie a 
¢ mS ~ 


a i, \ iv “ wh ea ait 

ie ieee a eo ey 

ean ae WR)iy WM nets 

Si an Se cmc oi 
Bie” Aaa. al Er Ma SN 
; aN i ba ts 

SeNeete ” RAR e ie ny ew | 


Song ha” hak” 2 ae 


q 4 Ma ON tke 
digtaalin'’ Raa OO RE at NCAR ain Mer 
ie s rt ee te RK ea ia , ‘ 


A kad GE i RR a ts th eee. engl thie eh 


? TAOS cee" Om eee yee 
es he Qingys qth ti 


ye 


39867 


MARY KLENWSE » 
Appellant, 


Ve 






ASTNWA LIFE INSURANCS 
COMPANY, a cor 
Appe 





_— ee ew 


MRe JUSTIC®S SULLIVAN DSLIVERsD THS OPINION OF THZ COURT. 
This is an action by plaintiff, Mary Klenner, to recover 
upon an insurance policy for $2,000 on the life of her husband, 
wherein she was named peneficiarye The case was tried before the 


court and a jury and at the close of all the evidence defendant's 





motion that the jury be directed to bring in a verdict for $7424, 


—_— 


en 


representing the amount of the premium paid on the poliqg , Was 
allowed. Judgement for plaintiff for )'74e24 was entered on ik 
ivaxkiat aut this appeal by plaintiff is brought to review said 
judgment. 

Plaintiff's complaint stated a good causa of action. 

Defendant's answer interposed the defense that plaintiff 
was not entitled to recover because the policy contained the 
provision that, "thie policy shall not become effective until the 
first premium upon it is paid during the good health of the 
insured," and the insured was not in good health when the first 
premium on his policy was paid in fulle This affirmative defense 
raised the issue as to whether the insured was in good health when 
the first premium on the policy was paid the morning of December 
12, 1934. This was the sole issue presented by the pleadings and 
tried in the lower courte 


As to the material facts bearing upon this issue it was 


uncontroverted that the payment of the first premium on the policy 





Rae 
eeivWala YHAM 
einaiLlogga 
Pie 3 sue 8 es SP OMT : 
av 


\, 
ROAR UONT CELL AWTEA 


__nsneirencerean 09 & «YHAGTHOO 
ie SPER bbe 


eTAUOD BHT FO WOTRITO BHT GEV ELAC WAVEIVE BOLTOUL <a 





oYTHE 


Sapo AD 


ON NT 


wevooet Of .XenneLd Yall eDiiieletg yw mottos me ai aid? 
ebuasdaud tol to elif ely mo 000,8G tol yolfLog sonstuent ns ogy 


ent eteled beits acw onas ott setsioklensd bomen eaw oe nistedw 


eténabretoh eamebive sid ifs bi meats en dea bee wat 6 bee si1w09 


scan nah aos Sn Ahh — 


«Bade rot toibrey a wt grckad od potooit ed yx, odd ‘fad fo Lom 


<p nit Age NN ag EOE ADE 


Bee  ieeSer ois mo disg amine sty ails io ‘dnwous eit saitneaorget 


Leva no boxedno aaw ASeDTS TOL Tildnielg vot Jmemgbst »bowolla 


ae 


biss weivet od dtigwoud ek Likinielg yd Laeqgs aid? ie tolbuev 


 eveemgbyt | 


smoitscs to sagas boos; s betais Jnisiqnno aliiivaiels 


Rtiinieig dads sareteh edt beaogredmi rewans &tinebre tod | a 


ost benisdmoe yoilog edt saysoad teveoer oF beftidne ton asw | 


eld Litny ovisoo Tis eumgoed Jon Liana yollog sits" «dandy no ia ivoug 


edt to Hifeod boog edd gnitwh biag al of moqu eats bmo-0q dexit — 





duclt ed? mow déLeod boog at ton aaw bexpant adi brs “qborvent rhe 


saneted svitamritts aid? slivt mi bisq aew woilog ain no eaieneaties 
nodw diieed boon nt sew bevtankt eft redltedw o¢ as astaai oft besiex 

wedasool to ankertom ead biaq acw yoilog anit no re ¢ardt ott 
bas sgnkbeslg ot yd botmeactq eueak ofoa att Bar aistt “beer a 






vn  atto9 towel ext a botst " 


aew dk euani aldis moqu gntteed sis Lotsodem exit of 


YoLlog etd 0 musimorg $ax2% seid Yo Imemyaq end 





-20 
was completed sround 8 @eme December 12, 1954; that such payment 


was made by plaintiff, the wife of insured and the beneficiary 
under the policy; that either during the evening of December ll, 
1934, or on the morning of December 12, 1954, plaintiff telephoned 
an agent of defendant to come to her home for the premiums that 
plaintiff telephoned a physician on the morning of December 12, 19M, 
to attend her husband and that when the physician arrived at her home 
between 8 aeme and 9 aeme that morning he examined the insured, 
diagnozed his case, found that he was suffering from pneumonia and 
thereupon took him to the hospitals that the attending physician 
testified that the insured was suffering from pneumonia at 8 ofclock 
on the mornin: of December 12, 1934; and that he died at 6:15 aeme 
December 13, 1934. Plaintiff offered no evidence and none appeared 
in the record to rebut the evidence submitted by defendant in support 
of its affirmative defense that the insured was not in good health 
when the first premium was paid on the policy December 12, 1934. 

Plaintiff contends (1) “that there was sufficient evidence 
clearly tending to prove the essential elements of a cause of actions" 
(2) "that the question of the health of John Klenner, the insured, 
now deceased, was one of fact for the jury;" and (3) "that the trial 
court was in error in directing a ewrdict in favor of defendant." 

The rule of law expressed in plaintiff's first contention 
is sound, but it has no application to the instant case because the 
only issue herein is based upon the affirmative defense pleaded by 
deferdant that the insured was not in good health when the first 


premium was paide An affirmative defense may constitute a complete 


bar to recovery, although the allegations of a complaint are ad- 


mittedly true. In passing upon this question in Waliner ve Chicago 


Traction Coe, 245 Ili. 148, the court held at pe 152: 
“The party making the motion [for direction of verdict] 


may rely upon the failure of proof in any respect necessary to sus- 
tain a verdict. The question presented by such a motion is not 





G, 


tremgaq dove vatd ~aoeLl .al rediteo aC aRie8 8 Srvors Sosotqaoo esy 


virtotiened add fre bertuarek to etiw ents elitintela xd ob cm asw 

eit vedmsool to gnineve afd aniuuh teddies tedt ryoifog ant robes 
benotgesles Liidmisic. ,béer aSi redmooed 20 gnintom hae rm te @neer 

dot yearimexg off tet eomd tari od camo of Jineb w0'teb te aaalives 

ahSOQL gSL sedmeosd te eaietem sit sco meiotayiq a besodgeled Viidntalg 
emon vod te bovirtw nS iolayic exis inate vad? Boxe boon tod pases: og 
7 ebetwuni ets Sbembtsxe of aisrrom tedd «mee @ dis gia 8 soswied 
bse sinosieng mext galtetive ew si tot bore? .easo ain bewongsio 
-gaeiotewte aribrodts exfs Yerks. bet iy on ard oF mint dood noquetody 
foofote 8 ts sinomveng mest antretwe aw Sevwert ens tady bsitisass 

‘shes G15 fo WSED of tats bre BEOL ySL vedmeost Yo omtrerosr ont io 
beteeggs son bas’ einobive an bets? Io Piitatelt  .SeeL of cedmsoec 


Stogaive oi ¢rabusteh yd betdindue sonsbive efs ixttet of Sreses orfd “rt. 


déLaen boon wi don cow homrant ont fads eaneteb syitomelits att to 
s8SOL .SL todmeoed yoifog exis ao Aieg aay strimety Part eft rielitw 
eorebive ine lol Ye osw svent deds® (£) eabneducy Wiinielt 
“sroties te savso s to adnemetle tettnecne ait every oF gotbriet yfraels 
-oousant eft .tem8lA miot to Wifsed eft to nokvesep ent toads" (8) — 
fsi«d off tate" (8) tes “yet edd tot tox't to eno naw .beeneoed worr 
",jnsbueteb to tovet al gotbt or s gutvoetid ai torte mi aow drupe 
moitwestros derkt e'titiniol£y mt beseetqxe wel to efits ont - 
edt seimood sass tmatank std o¢ moiveotiqqe on sent JF dnd: bostoe ‘ak | 
vd bobselg senetob ovit amtetits afd sory bewsd ef’ viewed ouest ete. > 
dazit civ osiw nt feed boog. ai tom aaw bemtamt ot tadd saaherotob 
etoiqmoo sc etuditances yom eaneted vowbtaarek? a ai ebleg acer mehyetq 
~be ets jnlelquos 2 to amotdepelia eslt Mguode Le evravooes of asd 









Spee BIG «V tor conttaw ai nolteeup aint mogs yataaaq nl seid vebods Me 
[doibtoy to moltoetib to9%) mo tton ott ‘ssl sate 


" mang od Kiseascon Joeqsex yns mi loom Yo omslisi add rogu yLe 
fh ‘gon ai noivom os dove yd betreastg ‘rditeeup ‘ent ds 





o ju 
necessarily, as insisted upon by defendmt ia error, whether the 
evidence tends to support the allegations of the declaration, but 
is whether there is evidence legally tending to sustain a verdict 
against the party making the motion. (Wolf ve Chicago Sign Printin 
Coes 235 Ille 501.) ‘he question therefore depends upon the 
Character of the issue. Where evidence of an affirmative defense 
is offered, as in this case, it is proper to direct = verdict for 
the defendant, even though all the averments of the declaration are 
proved, if the evidence of the affirmative defense is not contra- 
dicted or explained, 

(To the same effect are Gohen ve New York Life Lass Coc, 256 Ill. 
Appe 545; Hranicka v. Prudential insurance Coe, 235 Ill. Appe 2573 
anright ve knights of ~SCurity, 253 Ille 460; Blahofeki v. Metro- 
politan Life InB. Coe, 237 Ille Appe 220 «) 

AS to plaintiffts Second contention that the question of the 
health of the insured wes one of fact for the jury, it is sufficient 
to Say that while it is true the evidence presented cocerning the 
State of health of insured involved the determination of the ultimate 
fact as to whether said insured was in good or bad health when the 
first premium wes paid on his policy, this does not mean that the 
question mst be submitted to the jury if there is no conflict in 
the evidence to prove the fact to be one way or the other. That the 
insured in this cause was Suffering from pneumonia at the time the 
first premium was paid was positively proved and was not disputed at 
the trial, nor is it questioned here. This being true there was no 
question of fact concerning the health of the insured for the jury to 
determine nor was there any evidence in the record which would fairly 
tend to support a verdict for plaintiff. "Because there was no 
conflict in the evidence on that subject it was not necessary that 
the trial court should submit that question to the jury." Buchanan 
Ve Scottish Union, 210 Ille Appe 523. To the same effect is Woods 
Ve Bowman, 209 Illes Appe 612. The apparent good health of insured 
prior to the date of the issuance of the policy, when the first pre~- 
mium thereon was paid, was entirely immaterial. 


As8 to plaintiff's final contention that the trial court erred 


in directing the verdict for defendant, it is only necessary to point 




















ato 
gis versed . resto st Srebrsteb Yo nec peistenk as «yliseacooen 
tud ,coitaraiged esl) to anoisagoits and tuoqque of absot eonsbive 


foloxey 4 niataya of potbret” wilepel sonobive at ore? “verltontw et 
gotinist mis ogeoidd ov stot) smoitonm ore ee aq odd tanisgs 
o2 


alt moqu abmeqed stoteren? solieoup ea? oe LLT SES es: 
eags208 evidaititie ss to sonebive ero goles eft to teto rf) 
sot toiviev @ fasxtb oF <eno'tg af di «saad ante nt ae ybotetto af 
OLS goitarsLooh at? to ajnemieve ans Ife Seuocs nevo einabreteb erlt 
-granen ton et onpeteb evitemrttis of@ to connbive pas Zr shovotg 
1, bostslgxre zo betoib 


ail DUS oO suk tht At0¥ wel »¥_ radog ots doetto ease a of } 


,ar o Ope A eLLi 8 2900. soma ent 46 isisdmebn as, av exo tnethi hee “aaa 





aot) ol 9 ¥ ida rosin Se 1003 eifi Baa evs iurooc 
| | {, O88 og okt YES ne Ov sank etn ned £ tba 
git Zo noisaenp ead sentt roi dro? 109 bao ose 2*tnbonbala od “al 
dnoioliive at $4 at et} 20% font ‘lo ono eaw Semetiert “ad 4 ad toed 


_ exit geri eon © hed moe o%d eonabive eg? svtd ai 3: oti Sane ws oe 


. os.anitt La oat Yo ‘ottaninredob aig beyiovnt Borwant 16 Ks Leet xb tints 


etd este nd Leow bad to booy ai abw bsive eget bist xoitedw of am toot 
ost’ sats meom tom ao0b abt? eyotiog mid to ire’ Sew Mmrimetq setkt 
sk goiftnos om at etods tr Yiwh ods oF pessienire ed tones Hoideewp — 
wate tad? . tonto ats TO Yaw eno od o¢ Hest att evorg od sonobive ould 
—ssextf ggrie off da efromvend mot T amhtertua asw Seuso abtd ri ‘pea 
i bodua th tor sow bens hovorq ylevidiaaq aew bieq saw mas Eats ta sath 
on asi exerts eutd amied ent .ocort penotsaenp gi et von «fates ‘oe 
o3 east “osfd x04 pom ant! ost to tifecond sid yoinreones goat ‘to Ho £F0GeD 
yitist ‘bLuow ‘Ho lelw bxeost edt ‘tk sorobive wa sredtt asi OR ‘prtmroteb 
Om Bew ottedtd earmoeti” (s Tiisnicla ‘cot sokbtev s jreqasa ‘ot ‘beige 
texld yranaeoen son eaw ## toetdwe sarts mo oonebive od ak fortines 
sansil ous "emt onl 08 rokdaesp sade dimmer biyowa due tant ‘ais 
ab cow at gootie amsa ‘eid of 688 oe efit Oe amo tau Aa 

_ borat to Hiieent boos smeteqqs ete “SER LGGA s LET O08 "4 t 








«org $atit ond front “ecentog edd Yo eonssaat eat to oe ab ‘est ‘et tone 


Eekee doumt yleriine amr Shor acm: semen am 
herrea tuoo Laisd arid dastd moked 10.9, Lon atrien slg ot 






tntoq of YILAROO SH eno at Py vdnahaoreh. 20%, prse eit * te “* 


4 


out that "the more reasonable rule, which has now come to be es- 
tablished by the better authority, is, that when the evidence given 
at the trial, with all inferences that the jury could justifiably 
draw from it, is so insufficient to support a verdict for the 
plaintiff, that such a verdict, if returned, must be set aside, 

the court is not bound to submit the case to the jury, but may dire t 
a@ verdict for the defendants” (Simmons v. Chicago & Tomah Re Re Coe, 
110 Ill. 340.) 

Defining and clarifying the rule as to the circumstances 
under which a trial court is warranted in directing a verdict in 
Offcutt ve Columbian Sxposition, 175 Ille 472, the court held 
at ppe 475, 476: 


"(It is apparent that "evidence tending to prove" means more 
than a mere scintilla of evidence, but evidence upon which the jury 
could, without acting unreasonably in the eye of the lawy decide in 
favor of the plaintiff or the party producing it. It is not intend- 
ed by this practice that the function of the jury to pass upon ques- 
tions of fact is to be invaded, any more than it is intended that 
such function is to be invaded by a motion to set aside a verdict 
and for a new trial upon the ground of the want of evidence to BUus- 
tain the verdict. In neither case is the court authorized to weigh 
the evidence and decide where the preponderance is.’ See, also, 
Siddall ve Jansen, 168 Ill. 43, and Rack ve Chicago City Railway Coe, 
173 ide 289, *** 


"Much confusion has doubtless arisen from the different meane- 
ings attached to the phrase ‘tending to prove,' but siving it the 
meaning as held by this court in the Bartelott Case, above cited, - 
that it is ‘evidence upon which the gury could, without acting un- 
reasonably in the eye of the law, decide in favor of the plaintiff 
or the party producing ity,' - most of the apparent conflict between 
the different cases disappears. Thus, it was said by Mr. Justice 
Maule in Jewell v. Parr, 13 Com. Bench, 9093 ‘Applying the maxim de 
minimis non curat lex, when we say that there is no evidence to go to 
the jury we do not mean that there is literally none, but that there 
is none which ought reasonably to satisfy the jury that the fact 
sought to be proved is established.' It is, of course, true that 
there are cases where there is literally no evidence in support of 
some material and necessary @llegation, but there are many others where 
there may be some evidence tending in some remote degree to support 
every allegation, yet of too inconclusive and unsubstantial a charscter 
to be the foundation of a verdict. In either of such cases the court 
may, when the question is properly raised, so determine, and direct a 
verdict as in cases where there is no evidence. *** As well said in 
Connor ve Giles, 36 Me. 138, ‘there is no practical or logical difference 
between no evidence and evidence without legal weight.' It is true that 
such motions are not to be regarded with favor. ‘The province of the 
jury must not be invaded, (Frazier v. Howe, 106 Ill. 563,) and where 
reasonable minds, acting within the limitations prescribed by the 
rules of law, micht reach different eomclusions the evidence must 


be submitted to the jury.” 









ine : 
“a9 ef of omos won aad doldw eoLet eldenoaset etomm oda” saeds tio : 


mivin edmebtye ets medw jade yet ee brotens wodiod ants td. Seitattdas 
 “idefiiven|, bisoo vist edz seats abonets tot ifs ig bw ahold edt ts 
aig sot Solozey # troqque 6¢ dastotYwant og ef 9: «tt mot woxb 
aebiaa geo ed Jamm (biuageakd © x tL qokbrev s stata fads eTilinielg 
SF wecth won dae \eaeh ett o2 once ett tiedun of Sued del Ex Vee bes 
4699 off ofl demo? 4 op eo tslO av amouge ki) ".treSeoted sf tot sotbxéy ‘ns 
: {s oss »fLE ors 

qscnatnesrorio ef! of as éfr off gpriytitefio tre grtnttet 
ca goibiey a gutvoorih ni betmarsaw et two fait? e dotdw tebe 
bed dtyesd oft .oTS oTLt aE qo id i cogx na teansLo® Ww ALLL 
Mls, co eeta ace ‘ta 


etem ansba “svyoug of goibsed eoned ive" sats teonaene ai gr 
yuu ais dade HOGH eonebive Jud a aneeod to sliivaion,erem © ners 
mi sbiceb gwet off to eye odd nit yidanossotay gaivoa tuoditw .binos 
-brodal gon af #2 ati aaiowbotg yiaeg es to thidntede sds to tevet 
— noqy sasg of Yuet eat to mosdontrt ods sant soiicstg allt yd be 
Sok Sebrotnt ob di gene exom vA .hebevnd ado’ ei doe to snot? 
folhwey 2 ohbias toa Of moisom s ud bebavet ef od si moltommt dova 
-eys oO) moneblye to inaw ens to Satoxy odt. sogue Seted wor 8. 9%, bas 
ig few of bea Prodius twuds edd al ease seddion ni .tokbuev odd mist 
Gis .99% '.al sonntehmegetg ots oxedw ebiges bms esmebive old 


sO Yowliak TAR. Oasotdd sv Weed baw .th . {fT Gol , a Vv ese: or 
Sebi t 


-nasm Snrerelzib ads 203% esatia veslidvod aad eens fou” 
ef? gk gniviy diwd tyovexq oF gerbdnsd! oustde’ eds of betdadis @gni- 
=~ ghstlo evoda , S280 eiotod tad ale mi duos aleld yd Bisw ag ninae 
en grides tueddin ,Bivues Yok ons dob nays eonssivat at f jas 
Vitsimiela ed? to soviet ci obioob «wal os Ye sys edd mi uAdaubaaat 
peswied tolfinse tnetaqgs ofS to Yuom ~ test pniowhory eireq ant to 
ooivau) «xl yw bisa esw ji pauti saxsoq¢sath gouso imeteltto edd? 
8b mizen eds gatviqgA' ¢#0@ wlomem ssod $f . test iy pene ni horsey ol 
oJ 0g OF Sonsbive om ei eteds tad yor ow \maelw 93 fara 
erent todd dud. gomon vilevetif ai swedi tadé sooar no 05 ew yvre | 
oat ot sands yout, sed Kiel2ae Oo? Yidanoscet Saigue doldw ono nsf 5 
tad! euts ,satuoe Io .8i ti. ‘sbedeiidates at beverq of oF: Sefguo8 
to tuogque mi eonebive om yilstedif at evedd ovedw senso ers eter? 
 Stoty axenso Yasu sis otedt jad, motiegeiie yrssascsn hee Laixotan ems — 
Steqqua of sstgeb evomer omoa oi antbned sonobive estes ed ° ro Ba nad 
‘tsicetsilo 6 Islinstadyany bas sviaulonoonk ood to sey qrotiags 
tmeo etd eegcso dova to redtie mI .teibrey # to nokiebruot eid hg My 
+8 sooth brs .onimesteh o8 ,besigt Ylroqetq ef Nolddeup ect eede 
i: mi bisa {Low aA *** ,gonebive on ait sted? exestir Boueo mi bool tokb 9 
ii aonetez2ib Leofsel to Laoltosty en el exede? »98£ om ae (2 aah 
| tad outs ai $1 ',degiew Lagsl duondtiw onmpbiye bors soneb ive on noswie 


| —-s«#ES tO Sonivetc ody stoval Weiw bebtegst ef ot Jon ore totem doe 


Rh execw Dre (63% .ffI 30L .ewoH .¥ tetzert) ebebavet ed gon dams ~laee . 4 
ig pad yd baditezerq aoe. ta3 GREY aad rin ciee grives yebale a 
taum sonobivye add | eno henkone 9 snoLeTIE Moser sly im 21 me ; 


OS Omygaeiet lent “oa? 





















a. 


-§= 
Where, as here, the evidence presented in support of 


defendant's affidavit of defense jg clear and convincing and 


there is no evidence fairly tending to prove that the insured 
a an er a nt - 
was in good } health when the first premiwa on the policy was paid, 


the trial court had no alternative but to direct the verdict for 


defendant. 
For the reasons given herein the judgment of the Circuit 


court is affirmed. 
JUDGISNT AFFIRMED o 


Seanlan, Pe Jey and Friend, Jey Concure 

















<b 
Yo Proqqwa ni bodneaoxq ognebive att ,etedt ue yoredt 

gne sntonivees bas anole ‘gf eeneteb %o j bvand the a Mnabsete 

“powrant. edd dade evote as patbnad yitie® ‘eognabtve ‘ ‘on cab ores 


ene aoe 


a Seer see 


ebiey saw yoltoq alt no mrtmong ‘faxkt ext? neat diteed boon mi esw 
20% Sakbusy ef} toexth of gud ovisentetis on bod dawoe ‘fated out 
_staaiine tes 
ttuetld of to dnemp but edd nteved movin eno tenn ont <08 
sbomefits ab satis 
Cem ve TREAD aTt 


CaN wee i ray oes eevee, Sh SUBS BO Oye 


‘gBrones 4st abate Bod ge oO ene inaer 



















oy i A 
Ye we c4 
tin hoe 
ue od 
: ’ finn d 1 
pelonic 4 Pie a ae) CER 
ea Fhe 
5 te ; ay 
3 ea gr 
i) ies 
fay a 
w ehteaa 
: a) PAT AA | 
f jy Fea 
» 
4" 7 
Piet 
L aha 
A, 
rm 
i f 
os fe 
Ae 
By 
= 
m sea 5 fi 
et” TERS 
ee é tail! cha ds le wall ae 
{ a He is ! ROE Ly 
ee ¢ 3 " ie ¥ 
Bic ‘ Gm = Lay 
oe * PS Pea ag 
* Pak 4, F 
i {ai 
$2 5 
Bt 
sf is 
A i is } 
ts Beis sp 





Cx Seek ba. ¥€ Suu 
Pi anes pian 
ee De a (eb eit set: 
TOES RAEN Vc ORS Sw a eat WY Ke a oe ae a 
Cte eto “we ROre teeta Oe 





40403 





a 
itt 





He Fe BOSTRY, F 
Appelles’y”” 


Ve 
WESTERN UNITED GAS AND #LUCTRIC 


COMPANY, a corporation, 
Appellant. 





MRe JUSTIC!’ SULLIVAN DELIViReD THES OPINION OF THi COURT. 


This appeal secks to reverse a judgment for $500 entered 
in favor of plaintiff, H. Fe Bosten, in an action tried by the 
court without a jury, which was brought by Bosten for dsmages for 
injuries to his person and automobile, alleged to have been sus- 
tained by him by reason of defendant's negligence in the operation 
of its motor truck. The judgment appealed from also contained a 
finding that plaintiff was not liable for the damage to defendant's 
truck, set forth in the latter's counterclaim, which damage it was 
stipulated upon the trial amounted to $140. Wo question is raised 
on the pleadings. 

This action arose out of a collision between an automobile 
owned and driven by plaintiff and a motor truck owned by defendant 
at the intersection of Ogden avenue and Main street in Downers Grove, 
DuPage county, Illinois. Ogden avenue is a four-lane highway running 
in an easterly and westerly direction and is forty feet wide. Main 
street is a paved highway, thirty feet wide, extending in a northerly 
and southerly direction. The two highways intersect at right angles 
and there were “stop and go" traffie signals on all four corners of 
the intersection, which showed red and green signal lights alter- 
nately. Plaintiff's automobile ws traveling in an easterly direc- 
tion on Ogden avenue and defendant's Ford truck was traveling in 4 


northerly direction on Main street. They both continued to so proceed 





OE 





ae ; -wereon oe: “a 


wets “qeellonga. 
“ CALTON BORD LAMTTA 


: th, MAT REE Pe - 
eODAOIND TO TaAVOD hia 


fe AT 


OLRLOLS GHA GAD CHTIWU WasTosW 
¢ ae tinwogedo & balan 


‘ara AT eee Sinaloa" 


“Pav0D Ht WO ROINTGO BAT CeAeVEIEd maviaVe norramt a . 





hoxedne O08) ToT dromghul & eaxevet of adooe Lreqgs eit? teeta 
ets yd bodes ne itos a mi quntned o% wH « Tikiniele to. venue al nb 
zo aegemeab rol aetaod ye tegueud asw dolidw «yinh s tuost iw dunoo 
-~aua need eyed of hogeile eolidoaminus Bere mouteg eid od. sekuarbact 

e benietsoo coals mott hefeoggs Jnemmbut sit ae nditinn cack ee 
alinabnetes of epemsb odd tot efdais Jom aaw vinintaly, oats nerkbott 

 gew 4 opemsb Hoisw eatielptedmos atiodtel edt nt dizet toa Aout 
beatst ai noiteeup of sObL} oF besnwoms Lalit orld nomst bedatugive 

agntbsele ois m0 
eitdomoinus na soewied eo indtios 8 ‘to 10 ao ke noktos edt ie , : : 


ee : 


tnabreteb yd berero Somxd todos a bane ttitnielq vd xovith bas ‘bemro. 











VOW atomwod oi teettia miall Srna ouerews nabdgO ‘to oid ceuzotet outs ts yi 
geckos wawaly el enel-a0%t « al evnevs mebgO .akomifir auinuoe, pete 
_ielk .ebby Jeot yrot ef bas mottperth ylxedeow bria vizegase a ah a 
elvors torr & ai gnibmedxe yobly gat ydtiod yanuety tat bevaq 8 al doonta 
seinns tgit ts dosatederi ayewts id ow? - ont? m0 tdventb visedituoe bre 


‘ko axertes tuo t Ife no afleng ta o Iie Nop brow pagel stew secre a 


8 mi geilevsts aaw fours p10 atinabaoted bao | mo se 


bevaexg ©8 of bouniiroo dtod yout stoorsa talk P 





-20 
until they collided within the intersection of said streets. This 
occurrence took place at about 4 Peme July 1, 1937, which was a 

clear day. 

The only question presented for our determination is whether 
the findings of the trial court upon which the Judgment wos based were 
against the manifest weight of the evidence, 

The controlling issue of fact presented to the jury was the 
Signal exhibited by the traffic light just prior to and at the time 
the respective motor vehicles entered the intersection. Both Plain- 
tiff and defendant assert that the traffic control signals in operation 
displayed a green or "go" signal in his favor as his vehicle &pproached 
and entered said intersection. 

Riding in plaintirfrts car with him were his Wife, Della 
Bostens who sat to his right on the front Seat, and her Sister, 
Blanche Thompson, who sat in the center of the rear Seate Plaintirfts 
wife and Sister-in-law were interested witnesses, not only because of 
their relationship to Plaintiff put because they both had a suit pend- 
ing against defendant for injuries received in the collision involved 
here. Plaintiff, his wife and sister-in-law were the only witnesses 
who testified that he had the green light, giving him the right of 
Way as he approached Main street and entered the intersection from 
the west on Ogden avenue, 

AB Opposed to their testimony, Charles p, Johnston, the driver 
of defendant's truck, Kenneth Olson, an employee of defendant not on 
duty at the time, who was Tiding on the seat of the truck alon side 
ef Johnston, Frank Long, a pedestrian Walkire south on Main street 
on the south side of Ogden avenue, and Frank Stech and Alfred Bolte, 
who testified that as they approached Ogden aveme from the north on 
Main street they had the red light against them and they stopped their 
automobile and motor truck, respectively, north of the north sidewalk 


line of Ogden avenue. These five Witnesses testified in defendant's 


behalf that as his truck approached Ogden avenue and entered the inter- 


Ge 










pis sadoetta bise to moisooatednt od nittiw beobifioe yeds Liins 
@ sow doltdw eVERL af Ya ume d tyods ts sosig Aoot eometzeo0 
«wah. 30058 


i j amnaial ak roid on dnes ob to aS hot naaenngg ao Ltseup em eat 


Ht oz0w heasd saw 4 rves at ait doiste oogs Jteeo Laitt ‘oto: 20 scatigiby ext 


e gored I7e oad to digiew snot laa art daniags 


| 

Woe 

ie 

Me ett sar yout ont oF hesrsastg gont te epeet uniter nos ect 

| emti edd ta bas ot coizg tad}. tuigil oftiatd auty yet bev tetetxe teens 
i -utaig dieR «notgowarcdad eit bexstne aolobloy xaiom ayitoeqaet edd 


qa foxtneo of Tietd ome: Settd Tresas drsbe Ted bre ytbe 


nt abt wi Lame a te eg Setg | Bp meeateety\ 
‘ fordoodietiat bisa soxodne bas 


_ nods orege si alarms 












| bedonorags eioisisv als Bo TeV 


anes rages 


uso eMtitateta ‘et grip ia 


athe ote e ket ont ov mde doiw % 
gots, Ft ats ad dae “stv “aad { 


date cel bere ef sae so ols ro 
~q ostd 10 OoHNe erty trt de ‘ctw enoaquont exon lt L 
w bepecxedah Sisw ‘wolomi~roddte bens ett | 
ad Lcneneeailh acd 


it neh: 


eke 
arexisa kel dace {Be 
‘tO. earned xine for voaperianleel 


j|  wherog 9 te 
boviovirs moretiites oad at bevier 
fenbexetieie ‘bh, etiw ao iet sasbinit erred 


eoaaornd hy vino ait stew we 
al jad “berthsaed ‘ory 


te Addy be sald mat giv is dag it nee Te eid Sack 
ent poredne bra soosda shel besteaoraas est Be: er 


, eT gokdogateiat 
| + oun" obo rro tao ‘ont 


A 


ae eeLassld ecnomises? tents: ov peaeque “* - 


iit : | 
r i seake. acti ynod eniiol 
eoyoigne ris eroald sivermoz etoursd ene, to ~ 


fo FOR inebnote b ‘to 

ef to dsom odd x0 patbix aw ony venus “etd ds ‘tins 

ih | teetss niah 0 rigsro x mistles nakeveebog 3 “ypn0 inset “‘qaotasttot Yo 

. i qetkod, howits. Ans. Hoes ata bres vouners robg0 Yo ebis ‘dius ey fo ‘ 
peeate bres 


no non ats so 2% SMITOVsS roby pedtosoraga yond aa ads “poktiiaed baal : 
Beet bean aes ea ae wel 
ato “fl _ 


| 
{ 
it | 
iH ) _. ehkagnele fours 






tkodd “begqade gard bos marl s Jantege ight ber outs ast yout 


ALaweh te dixon etd : Avzon eutorisoomeet ehoure xov0m 7: 


gg tie Bin taki ae” aig 
fi Sy BRD: Oe Ra 


o3e 
section, it had the green or "go" light in its favor, giving it 
the right of way. Johnston was an interested witness sinc@, in 
addition to being the driver of defendant's truck, he was made a 
joint defendant in the pending action heretofore referred to brought 
by plaintiff's wife ané sistereinlawe Olson's only interest was as 
an employee of defendant. There is nothing in the record to show that 
Long, Stech or Bolte were other than disinterested wi tnessese 

It is true that an effort was made to discredit and impeach 
the testimony of the three witnesses last mentioned. No witness 
testified directly that Long was not where he said he was at and just 
prior to the collision. The only effect of the testimony of any wit- 
ness concerning Long's presence at the scene of the collision was that 
he yas not notice@ there. Long's presence is corroborated in that he 
told the police officer who arrived at the scene shortly after the 
collision that he sww what occurred and gave the officer his name 
as a Witnesse 

As heretofore stated Stech and Bolte both testified that as 
they were driving south on Main street and approached Ogden avenue 
from the north the red light was against them and they stopped north 
of the north sidewalk line of Ogden avenue. They further testified 
that while they were so stopped, waiting for the light to change to 
green to permit them to proceed south across Ogden avenue, they saw 
plaintiff's car approach Mein street fram the west on Ogden avenue 
and defendant's truck approach Ogden avenue on Main street from the 
south; that while plaintiff's car was some distance west of Main 
street and defendant's truck was some distanee south of Ogden avenue 
the traffic light changed to green or "go" for the north and south 
traffic; and that after the collision Stech parked his automobile 
on the west side of Mein street, north of Ogden avenuc, and Bolte's 
truck was parked behind the car belonging to Steche 


Plaintiff sought to show that neither Stech nor Bolte had 


stopped their vehicles on Main street north of Ogden avenue, prior to 





iy ’ . iv 
i , at gatvis etovet wei ai fdigil Nop", 0. peete oft dock. db «noldoes 


I! = | ni ,90Mia saentiv hedastesnt, Ma ae motamiot ©» yaw to date ts welt 
(i Wy #8 obam aow of ,towsd atinebroted to tsvich edt gated o¢ mbit tbds 
i 


[? 


je! teguond ot bette tex 9x0 tod otad mokdon gartbeeg ait mi ¢oebadteb tntot 


aa aaw taeredat ye a'goelO . ewelnietsteia. due stivw a titentale yd 
i; tes worta od Htoost and mt ‘Biritiven . al ered? «dasbaeted te ssyoteme ms 
eagaaent ly betestcinieib mad! costo stew eilof xo dosse egret 


 gaentiv of .bepeiinom tant aogaons iw souls off lo yoomivaed erly 


{ 
\ | 
i Hosequi bre tiboxpelh ot eban sew dxuoTio me veld owtd ab FL os: 
\ { a Yo ) 
ii 
i taut bus is eeaw ef biea of steady Jon aaw gnod vale VWioorth. belktisaes 





hh. “adie Ye Io yaemidasd alt to toolkte vine an? smotailtos ond ail sain 
Wn 
tea Baw motakilfoe ef? te snées eft ta eoneaotg Aaa atiatoono9, Tabet =) 





| ef dade mi betatodorso ei sonouerg 2 tant, ne eee 
ssn aid ceoltko odd eves bre bovtucco sedw wwe on ted) oo laiiion: 





ate tedie yliroda orede et? Jn hovicta odw sopettg Sotto. 


_ egpend iw saa 
“Qa dads befthieed diod stLom Sue doeds pedada PW TREN | GA cog Spats 


 syneve rrebyo busto 20 qaqe Sue yootte wish no 3808 patvixd | eton yous. 


| i” Stor begqoda yond Soe. oronld jenious age iat iL bet oats ‘Aiiton ents gos By 
a Beitivess tenvxst yay + eureva nobad to omit uLevebia aidtos outs be 
ed sci od Sigil eis rot arbiter sboagede oF ater, yeas stlate dads | 7 
Wea Ysds ,eireve raby0 anowne ie goa Seso0xg of scents 7 Sates, os, ROT]: ; 


eunevs neig0 mo taew ont ao rt 3 oetds mish tecorsgs 28 (B'Titinielg 


“edd moxt teense whakt nO SarroTE: mobo HoeorgGn aowte A ae: vale i : 


4 


a 


7 
euneve mebyO to Atnoa eonade to smoke aaw xownd lke saimgicto brs pind on 


Miwoe bos Hétan off cot ‘oa! to 199% 08 begnaito tig i olttant oat | 


Gua: MO 
BAe < % 


Bey ; 
ated Lott bre outers nebah to 920m cdoerse aia 2 obia teen ones 


iat to foew eoneda ts ana aw neo at tkenietg shite Bead qidsoe 





elidomoiue ain bexttag Peres: no labitos eila sede toxti boa ype 








xem: 0: a 





bat et Loa <n itoose world tow dats wou rh ‘oe | 


oer a a meal 


t xottg seuneve neba0 to “davon ¢ doors ake 8 ae 








~jea 
the collision as they testified they did, and that they were not 


at the scene of the accident at all. ‘The only witness for plain- 
tiff who testified directly that Stech and Bolte were not where they 
said they were immediately prior and at the time of the collision 
was plaintiff's wife, who said that shortly before her husband drove 
into the intersection she looked toward the west side of Main street 
north of Ogden avenue and saw no automobiles or trucks thers. The 
testimony of the other witnesses who testified in this regard was 
merely to the effect that they did not notice whether “tech and 
Bolte were driving south on Main street and had their vehicles at 
the positions stated by them 

Plaintiff also sought to show by the testimony of one Glenn 
wolf that Stech and Bolte were not at cr near the intersection to 
Witness the accidente According to Wolf he did not reach the scene 
until after the collision had occurrede He testified that upon his 
arrival he parked his automobile on the north side of Ogden avenue 
west of Main street and that at that time there were no automobiles 
or trucks parked on the west side of Main street north of Ogden 
avenue, either north or south of the traftic light at the northwest 
corner of the intersectione \/olf's testimony is silent as to whether 
or not the persons injured in the collision had been removed before 
his arrival, and since both Stech and Bolte testified that they re- 
mained on the scene only a few minutes until the injured persons had 
been removed and that they then had driven away, Wolf's testimony 
that there were no automobiles or trucks in the vicinity of the 
northwest corner of the intersection is entirely valueless and in- 
effective in so far as it was intended to discredit or impeach the 
testimony of Stech and Boltee 

Thus on the controlling issue of fact in the case three 
interested witnesses testified in plaintiff's behalf, including 
himself, while on the other hand in addition to defendant's driver 


and his other employee, Olson, who rode with the driver, three 





gor lade yout dads bre ehbih yads boitivesd yost aa motatifios edt 
ratela WX h ldeentiy vine si? lis is tmebkooe edt To someon ort te 





ct: coats ereiw ten oxew atfod bes doete tas yideorls beltivsed ow KRid 
Hi he | oka Lito o ots to omiv sit tc bus xoitg yletatboumt exew yedt brea 
| ovetd bradand ved ete lcd vletoda gadd bies odv.-,otiw a' ¥iliniolg asw 
i 4 deoute mie te shia dcew oti Brewo? bedootL eda mo iscontesal odd-esat 
iy est «ered? exouvrt to sefidemdme on Wer boa omasva mabgO le dtred 
sw Seaget aide mt bekiidess ow eeaasntiw tedto eds: Ie. yromitaest 
| “bite Koore 5 seeteeity éeitvom tom bid vols gst goette enit.0d- yLorem 
“oe tebe tee tLeosds haat ira doors misk mo diiuoe gtiviztb otew ei f08 
i sieeets yt bedats® anoisbeog ade 
eet exo ‘to eaomis aed odd ‘yd wore of ttanea pala Ttivnislt 
oF ok Pobe ee tpt eit meen fo os you gtew etIeod bra teesS tady Tov 
| divine ons dese: ton BED ef Blow ef ymkbtoces «toobiogs ‘eit amend kw 
ait noquy tots betiivans sf sberiyosd bad mbivifios eft xette Livny 
eurmevs raig0 To “ ga divon eds no ofidomeins ald bedzag of Levirts 
aolidomm ius on sxsw ered omit dads te teds bits seesda mish to geow 
siebgO to diten deetis nia to eb fa Jaow gale IG boxasy etouts xo 
$seudsron ed? fe tig if oiiie¢s ete To divoa to diver toitio 1 oumSTS 
"contd oxtw od as fetta at ytomttess 2 Wifey «nots doezeddt ait Yo “eno | 
-« gtoted bevemer néed bad wo tt ftoe edd ni botwtet exoaxeg act som to 
-ot yord fads boliijeed efloe Bde doete Hiod sonie baw Laviete eid 
. bad Enger eq betutat edd Lidne sedunia wet s via ertooe “odd ‘mo Serta 


“wroat dass aratay” eYews meovith hat ments yort duds brew bovoare™ mood bs 4 
ef to Ydintoly afd ni efewzs x9 aelidomoida bw Brew etodd sad 









& may bas assleuley wLoziéee ek moisovarodat ox ent Bo temte. seowlizon — 
. efd dosogmi xe tibexseath bs bebuodnt waw st a8 at os xt ovis cstte | 

| +03 Loe bre dood ‘to wont 
eetds eas exit ek dost to ‘teal paklio noo ‘etd co act : 





. gutbuLont e tLacded a'Yaientatg mi betiizaes preety es betaoretnt 7 
revith atinebneted of no Mtibbs. mi brad oitd0 ead i no ote 





goad yrevinb eds stiw ebox eutw: 


Witnesses who were disinterested in so far as the record discloses 


testified in defendant's behalf. 
Inasmuch as this Case Will in all likelihood ‘be retried, 
we refrain from further discussion of the evidence, 
We are familiar with the rule that the finding of the court 
is entitled to the same weight as a verdict of a jury and the further 


rule that it is the peculiar province of the court or jury trying the 


the finding of a Court or the verdict of a jury shoulda not be dis- 
turbed unless Same is manifestly agezinst the Weight of the evidence, 
However, after a careful examination of all the evidenee in 


the record, having in mina @li the elements that the court should 


or verdict will be reversed by this court. 


Vor the reasons given the judgment of the Municipal court is 


reversed and the Cause is remanded, 
JUDGIENT REVERSED AND CAUSB RUMANDED» 


Scanlan, Pe Jes and Priend, Jo» concur. 








Jeorednietd saw osw, agessnt in 


r soaotoatd pavers auld as tat 68 aad ho 
Lpraded stanabustob: mi bortidasd., 


| qboniter ag poottfedi£ Lie mi Litw sone atts aa mommanrh 5 8) 1 


| 7 -... eonad ive ‘ent te no tease tb wegetd iY ast feiss kot, 26. 
il $avoo edd Yo guibnit est fan? ctor ott ahi te kinins ome 
aia 
| Yo solbtey 2 aa defgtew omse atit of bolt tine ek 


‘ati soos od bes yeu © 
eg taued Sat Ye sorivorc td ea 


w ont 30 ei kitdthots gad Mout amit 
cron tact xfedd nevis. 6d 08 
ody oxestwo tests oar 
i to 


seq eds wl ak dans ies 




















mts Tush 


fs 
ee 


aufy bow ests foensa aeusenit ot atost 


Lasenes gia adiw opts way EE Betees ota oF 


some «sarah ivs ane of “g SE LTHOO a ai we 
inevbs oid aay avout end gathyad wow 


voaeend ty ent antiaol bea gnigoe 


 #anoo edd 
‘ko ys kad TOTO ais bo 896 


od o2 tiger oot LO grighut yo bine 
a cieud “vo utintdeed ‘theitt mevts 


yf vumaunn’ Ryrus enoido 
‘gnibartt ont 


i 2 Ve doibtev ans 20 ftues & te 


ive ois to say sew ent saniags wid oot trcam “Bt ence ‘gaeios bodtot 





‘ agar tives et of ied 
_ eib od von bisa s ou 


1 goned, 
Je, sonehive sale iis to 
pLyorts fue ould tacts aiwomele ‘grivei! ¢bxooet od 

so tt LEidkbore aiid oun ‘gpk Bent nt bereblencd oved 

ef ovat “piyosta sade eto Hew ents 

3 asaha pLosl as poLLeustt ots ‘ew ,ouwae ‘gins nh sinikbelt eo ge . 
gonebive sly o trig Low este *{imswt eave gusnee Leis pate ‘to 
ox 8 ‘ad powres seed od Li bw eateaut, ‘to aibine ‘oetd dtd Bins 
mol dnodes wwe don ab #E > oauso 
k gorbrer 0 2 ani batt @ Sates piety” to" thet reddone 
vikastioen %o ‘omaa eis pegs nog Vettmbere’ ‘to 
fangs @its mo ‘prose eld ry ‘entat 


rt Ede rrdnene listotao. 2 ibe eeoemntatsy gy Sais 


ent (La Beter 1k 


Bete aga Ron ph ols 


gaivizts stk yoromt dacs shesld reambgiabity xe 


girrtbakt ede 
3 Perla visas 





eis to Lake 
greene ante etemtenk “0 hfort of 
gover ni bedtesst 8 
“1 0 ak us gored Ive ease ents 


gutthect t done 70, bores srroagbut & 
i109 ants 


ene asi n9¥ i 





we bowrever of th torbe i . . 
—-* or ihived, 






ak s2He9 inka wit ‘te 


HANA daitno CMA ‘CASTE SC TOT . 
af asi ee ry bese babs 210m, ant, a bao «tas 





40216 


CHICAGO TITLS & TRUST COMPANY, 
as trustee by succession, ete, 
Appellee, 





Ve 


aa AX Je BISENBURG et aley 
\ Appellees. 





(Interveners)y 
Appellees. 


CIRCULT COURT, 


On appeal of MAY"SR KARASIK, 


(Intervener ) » COOK COUNTY. 


299 1.A.616 


Appellant. 


MAYER KARASIK, 
.ppellant, 


Ve 


PHILIP Ae PAULSON et aley 


| 
/ 
\ 
{ 
) 
} 
) 
PHILIP As PAULSON et ales APPEAL FROM 
| 
) 
) 
Appelleese 


MRe JUSTICHE FRISND DESLIVERGD THR OPINION OF THS COURT. 


Mayer Karasik appeals from two decrees entered in the 
Circuit court involving the foreclosure and reorganization of a 
bond issue underwritten by the Madison & Kedzie State Banke In 
cause Noe 40216 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘isenberg case) 
Chicago Title & Trust Company, as successor trustee, filed a 
complaint of foreclosure, wherein the bondholders' protective 
committee and Karasik became parties by intervention. In case 
Noe 40217 (hereinafter referred to as the Kearasik case) Karasik 


filed a complaint, seeking to restrain the committee and its nominee 


from using his bonds in payment of any part of the bid at the fore- 


closure sale held in the “isenbere case; also praying that the egree- 








g id 
Sex 


sapeeree? 


 BLROD 


' rey, pour @ RLPIT OPAOIHD 
eoove prolagoooua yet olan aa 
eeollogqa Ay a a Raat: 28 





ow 


ke to HiGMeELe 9G MARR pe 
Bot ary | tiled Y 







anor 


‘gets $e HORTUAG ak ‘quia 
a al) | 





MONE LABLA 
ia seee lL Lou A i 
ead ey ontze : 


at win 


s "setae 


AGA APY AM to Ineq¢e nO | 


aE TIMOD. 400) oe , ‘ (3 ronevseer : 


319 HL ORS 


re roe 


"i , versa va 
_atealiedga 


‘ OO te nal ON OO gg OE OG AGEN LE GPA LEN GOON ON any, 


eele t@ WOGMUAG «A MELTED 
: cma ioges 
svavoo unt xo wOrmTO ant cunaiv 2K omray some, es eh ot 


“ents as boredne viomnst. ond mt? eleegqs dlestaa salt ate i> 

£ 2 no ison bn 109% bes otHAoLgoxo%® aig antyiovnd duo fiveTtd 
"wt alee etata efnbod db noalbal odd yd sats tewrebew éudet SHOT 
(2880 prednen tk enty as of boxzotex nod tentexed) aigok sow eave” 
8 bolt? veotauae toBaesoua as etegeie dae? ob olst? opsondo a 
ovis osdorg tarcob Losbnod old mk oxeciw cotugeLlooso ‘to: Sretazamos “4 
ease al wwoltnevrodmi YE setitog osoed Alara bee ood te ket 9 


haere (easo rye od 88 od bexteten . aeimateseny vaso wi q 


















~exot odd te bid etd Yo drag’ oe to swam md 1 obeog abt fe 


Hone ste 


; -setne odd tants gaivetaq osls {caso o pxedaoais, ould at bisa fea 





-2e 
ment, under which Karasik had deposited his bonds, be declared 

void and not binding on him, and that he be permitted to rescind 

the same because of certain breaches of trust set forth in his 
complaint; that his bonds be returned to him and that the depositary 
be required to accept his written dissent from the plan of reorgani-~ 
zation; that no fees be allowed to the reorganizers; that 3 receiver 
be appointed; that the court remove the Committee, and also prying 
for general relief, 

The bond issue involved originally aggregated $210,000, but 
by prepayments was reduced to $192,000. Madison & Kedzie State Bank 
was designated as the original trustee, but in february, 1930, that 
bank transferred itsassets to a newly organized bank, known as the 
Madison - Kedzie Trust & Savings Banke In November, 1931, the latter 
Was placed in the hands of &@ receiver by the Auditor of Public 
Accounts. In April, 1930, a bondholderst committee Was Organized for 
the protection of the holders of bonds sola by the Madisom & Kedzie 
State Bank, which originally cosisted of Abel Davis, Chairman of 
the board of directors of Chicagl Title & Trust Company, Chester Cook, 
an independent real estate operator, Stuart Otis, an officer of the 
City “ational Bank & Trust Company, Hiram Codys formerly connected 
with the Cody Trust Company, and Be Ge OWansone Shortly after the 
Committee was formed Swanson and Cody resigned, and Abel Davis, who 
had assumed the Chairmanship of the committes, died. Mr. Davists 
place was taken by Philip A. Paulson, an assistant trust officer of 
the Chicago Title & Trust Vompany, and at the time of the proposed 
reorganization the committee consisted of Paulson, Cook and Otis. 
Under a deposit agreement prepared when the committee Was organized, 
Chicago Title & Trust Company, was named as depositary, It provided, 
among other things, that any bondholder who deposited his bond pur- 


suant to the agreement should be considered as a party thereto, with 


the seme effect as if he had signed it, and that each depositing 








C v 
=~ 


bereloob ed .abmod aid betiaeoqed Sad dieatai doidw sobrus ed cdi 


batoast od bodd Leteg ed ef tedé bas .sticl oo gnibsid gon bas biov 
nist mi dtuot dea sawsd to netonotd niatitos to eaycood suse sid 
quad faoqeb edit gett bua mid ov bantusoxr od ehaod aid teadd pints Lqmo9, 
-tnegtoet to mal ait mott taseekb meddicw aid dasoda of berinpet sd 
reavieoot o tani patesinagioes arly ad bowoksus ef goot Of tard pmo ides 
 gsrkyeug cols bre ,oodtionmo elt svomet sruo9 of add pbotatogqs od 
, Yetfet Lereneg eon 
dud -. 000,083 bet east sas yisnis ito peviovnt eveat brood ect 
grad efstc eishead & 08 oak .000,8eLG o¢ beoubet acw edmemyerora. vd 
sani eer exreurded of ¢ud ,.setvauss Lanigizo, ad? 28 bedenstash Baw 
» et 2s gword eumead Des imsegto yiwen ge od steaca atl boxretenstt seed 
xetiel edd .fé6eL exeduevol ni +ans& aguived & tant? oiabea | - noatbsl 
oifdud to totibwa ons ud teyivoot @ to ehreel ond at peoaly ‘eaw 
tot hes itnse to aew ootdinmoo 'at cabforbsod e «OéeRl eLieed at. © eiehaomaie 
eigbel & maibsi eit yd Siow abnod So avebled ed? Io ‘no itostoxq ‘ond 
Yo saurtied® .aived Leda to botataws ylienig iio foinw °. Asset eters 
stood retaedo eynsquod tart? & efit Igeoiid “to e107 907 1b to braod sid 
eid to zegitto ne «aldo sisede ¢ tod BtEgo atstas Laer inebneqedat xs 
betoennos ylremriot 2 URO”V mstiH eyosqmod saatT & sow Leno tact ysio 
eis tette ylirede’ sTOasawa: ed eS bre. usequod dash goo eit sit iw 
odw eatvad Leda bre’ ~borptaes yb0o bas sotcew bemtot, Ber, seid imseo 
cigival .aif »betb .oesdiomoo eld to qidanomniacio edt besmsas, bas 
% reottte dauvd Jnetefeas ne ymmatnet eit. eel yd foled, eaw eosta N 
pesogotg etd ‘to omit edd Je bas gato Paned 8 okbat: ogao itd. edd 
,eid0 bas wood .moeluet to bodatamoo sovgimaod end notsounigsg toot 
~esinagto asw o6sdimmoo orl ‘pew betaqetq tremeetges tiaoged & tebnv 
ebabiverg I .yratizogeb as bemsr aew ¢ YrsqmeD dagnt B eld iT ogso itd 
= INE bnod aid betLeogeb ofw sébLorhnod ys taslt wtegpetits: tento ‘gaome 


Hdiw (odereitd yivtaq s 3s becebbanoo ed bivoda — ont oF siasanabell 


se 





_gritieogeh dese tani) bine ett Song ta, ds 








-3- 
bondholder should be given e certificate of deposit, which recited 
that the bondholder had deposited his bonds pursuant to the terms 
of the protective agreement and that he would be bound by all of its 
terms and oamditions. The agreement provided thet the committee 
should have pewer to adopt a plan of reorganization, to be binding 
upon the depositing bondholders, and that it micht submit a plan to 
them for their approval or rejection; thet when a plan was submitted, 
the bondholder should have twenty days within which te register his 
dissent and withdraw hie bonds, upon paying to the committee his pro- 
portionate shere of the fees and expenses incurred. The agreement 
also provided that the depositor should furnish in writing to the 
depositary his address to which ell cammunications should be sent; it 
gave to the committee power to employ counsel, and to fix their 
compensations 

The bill to foreclese the trust deed in the jisenberg cause 
was filed .pril 10, 1931. The bonds had previously been called for 
deposit, and fram the outstanding issue of $192,000 there were deposited 
With the depositary under the agreement bonds in the principal amount 
of £1855700e 

There appears to be some doubt as to whether Karesik was an 
original depositor. lowever, a certificate of deposit was issued to 
him September 22, 1931, showing the deposit of $34,000 in bonds, and 
stating that it was a transfer fran a prior certificate issued to 
the Pharmacy Paper Box Company. That certificate also emtains a 
statemont that the depositor is bound by the terms of amendments to 
the agreement adopted in Jamuaryy, 1951, and it was apparently deliv- 


ered to Karasik personally, because the certificate itself was offered 


in evidence by his counsel upon hearings in that certificate Karasikts 


address ie given “In care of Madison & Kedzie Savings Bank," and evie 


dence was adduced showing that Karasik furnished this address to the 


party in charge of the depositary records, ané that no instructions for 


a re 





hedivew Modiw qtineged to ofoottiives & mov ky “ad ‘biwexta eben 
meres ere of Preterm abaod bt beg icoysb ‘bart “‘xebLodBno ¢ ‘ast todd 

: adh te £La yd teed ed biwew at add brie dremenrg. svijeotorq eats ‘Yo 
6 the tomes ent? tod¥ hobivety drewenspe ef ewheibsos Baa “ames 
antheld of od ,nebtatinaptoet Yo matty a tyobs of Yoneq evad b 


RNS | Hige 






oF mag a thedue: treke ah $ nett ona , wreblonbrod ants thogeb” etd ine 
edottimdus ake nefq © necte tadd nekesoter to Lovexqgs skedy ‘tot ‘madd 
aid tedgaimer of tobty niifiw eyveb yinewd eve atvarta “tobEodtbaod ads 

“Arg abt sedi based add O23 amiyaq moqu « shred mbit warty he tan duane | 
. tremettgs aT .deewert aeartegxe Dna sos ett 20 ereda ‘fond tixdq 

| pete of Qaktive wk dake? biveta todkeoqged ott sede ‘babivoxq oafs 
#2 nwa of bfvatie anbiisoinmos Lhe dokiw ét akexbhs wht ‘ud teogst 
aiodd RETO Bee Dor aims aed od “towog sess imaioe eat oe ‘ovas 


“sa cenoqu09 
fis Scshate Sp aA 
Wertas qradneete oft ot beob tarxd aff enofcete't of teed act” 


py oh 


: - Ce witt 
TH? belie mes? yiawo lveny bad wbned ady steer 10L ting best saw si 


i |bet Luoqeb etew BEbid OOORELE to suved sat Bawredvo otf aoxt baal’ sdteogsb 
touone Laqghoniag eit xx abwod sremperge ed} vebsir Eee od? asiw - 









| “s00ReB8r te 
ay we sca 
na ew Sicevel vedkiedw od ee tdyob ome od Of etheggs exer” 


og jeuand ase iiseqeh te atositivres a yrevrewer «Tet ta0¢eb’ ‘chirks Feo ‘a 

brs ,abaod ni GOO.So8 Yo teoqob ad} gabwods Leer yee xeaiotge i 
of bovunl efaoltadwe solcy o mott totam S caw oh ait? ‘uattadt eo 
8 txiaimo osle odeokligseo dadt soymeqmod mot toget yoamzndt ‘sdlt 

od Séreumbeome lo sme? off yd besod BL tot Ldogad end dad ! i : 

~Vilob YLinwtaggs Raw dt Gan yLeOL yeremmatnd badges Semlooy rar 

ie heneti0 dew Weadd otsoliteneo ond namaoed qyitawarey: Moar oP wens” 

" B stitearax Stacltiizeo Saks xt ! 


OE 
















prkreed noqe Lodnes vht w' ore 
wiye hos "“,ised egnived gindod @ poatba Yo eran ail sil’ x 





oi of aaothhe aid) bere teint Xiderex Vade 


q 0% enol voysinm? on tend biel eebrevo. sie ale: > 


-4= 
a change of address haé been received or recorded. 

After the decree of foreclosure had been entered in the 
sisenberg case, a plan of reorganization was formated by the 
Committee. The decree provided in considerable detail that if a bid 
at the sale was made pursuant to any plan, the master should be 50 
advised; that a Copy of the plan should thereupon be furnished to the 
master and returned by him together with his report of sale; that 
the names and addresses of the nondepositing bondholders be left with 
the master, who wae to serve them with notice of the contents of the 
plan, as well as the date of the Baley and invite them to join in the 
plan, and it was provided that in conection with the motion to 
approve any sale, the plan should be Submitted to the court. ‘The 
decree also provided that due notice be given to all bondholders, 
and the court reserved jurisdiction therein to pass on the felrmess 
and equity of any plan submitted, together with the fees and expenses 
incurred, in connection with the motion toe approve the sale, 

vhen the plan for reorganization was initiated, the equity 
of redemption was vested in the - ‘est Side Trust & “&vVings Bank, as 
trustee, for the benefit of .braham J, Zisenbergs, Abe Smith and Ida 
“imon» In order to protect the redemption rights, the committee 
acquired the equity of redemption, without the payment of caen, by 
providing that the owmers of the @quity of redemption be civen a 7-1/2% 
participation in the Corporation to be organized and a lease of the 
property, expiring Jamary 31, 1940, at a rental of 4550 per month for 
& part of the term and $600 per month for the balance, with a pere 
centage clause. The trial court had previously, in December, 1933, 
determined that a fair rental value of the property was °375 per month, 
and had directed the receiver to make a lease to Jisenberg and omith 
for that amowmt. Two years later the matter azain came before the 


court, and the net rental was raised to $450 per month. hen the agree= 


ment with the owners was negotiated in 1936, real estate values had 


i 


Vi 
{i 
Ft 











sbobioces to bewkeoet rood hot aaonbhe to panto . 

edt nt beredne reed bal erueotpetol ia oestoeh od, s083h : -, 
guts vd Sodadiae > ase micacinan soe To evade, a 108RD aredaene 
hid @ th doce Liated afderehiams at bebivety sexooh ett «oad ¢ ina 9 
oo ed bivoda Totaan, add. .mely ye of Sere tum ebay saw ofan ont ae 
arid of beste kote) ed). soquetod! Sfaecs mady ote to ygre 4 dias Absatybs 
feds ,oLee 2G stogest eit dela cocktogad ali vd fyonctug ae. bets xedagnt 


om 


vithw teak od erebindheod gate tanqedemn acid to neasetbbs. bee aenmtsn ota 
| 7 edi Yo, aioodeme sds ‘to ao bos alt tw beat synee OF Baw ow yxegeamt contd 
eels ok whe, of soca etivas hes a siae ests ko soit sls eats ag Itew ad snake 
og nobiew oct sltbe aotioenms at gals bobiyortg 2H | vt bas «male 
pet? a teepe: od 84, fad ot eadlar ef Sfuede out ont, «oleae ™. evongge 
pexedtedbsod Lhe. 09 navin, od ooh? as ay turlt bobivetq enla, eotosb 
 gasamtst oct mo sang od mioxedd notdorhaixut, hevreasx dpe ot use 
nyeege bos eset ait avie vadtagod gb odd tonlay sade YES 20. et ispe yo 
«akan ote evosqae 02 wo bhent opie ste dor ae ha pease? mt qpepentet 
ytipe act gbotaidivd’ sew noddastnag 202, 409" neal add ec _ . 
ome yee apebrell & hewel obke. aoe) edd wl beduev Paw matiguobox 10 
sbi bee Moka ods eprodmoctt .% maietd te titened odd bie anata 
god teanm 9 ould etidgex co liqueben, add Footetg o¢ T9b6o. at onasaka 
vd qingo to deeerged. odd snottiw..moltgnebe t To yoke e wate hoxkupos 
REY eo mervky od mebtquahs * 3@ G hugo, ola, XO aeHte old deel aatbtvoxg. 
edd to taael a dre bes drago od af motianngeoe ects as L no ttaghels cag 
or donom t9q 0829 te Latren @ sa-.O00L, off spent gabatane, «Px0g0ts 
egog ao adiy -soreied™ cad sO% denon tag 900%, bra med ests te txaq 6 
eke «temmece tat «tommtvong had tues Late? oat, renwate egadmeo | 
eb erom oq BES saw yrnoqu te ele te eulov Latnos shat 6 ted bpntn xoteh 
‘goin? bre grodteatii oF ennet 2 elem ot -rovieset oad betooxsb. past bua 
wit ovored emo ntoge zedtan ant total axaoy owl, srw, sant x0 | 











Ig) hal 





ei pou 


cdotge odd Hedi \ainoM tog 08M) ot beaker eaw Latnon dan ott dae, 
Me ah at age. lh toon’ Beet mt podettogen exw arena: ald tobe 





~4e 
a change of address had been received or recordeds 

After the decree of foreclosure had been éntered in the 
Sisenberg case, a plan of reorganization was formulated by the 
committee. The decree provided in considerable detail that if a bid 
at the sale was made pursuant to any plan, the master should be so 
advised; that a copy of the plan should thereupon be furnished to the 
master and returned by him together with his report of sale; that 
the names and addresses of the nondepositing bondholders be left with 
the master, who was to serve them with notice of the contents of the 
plan, as well as the date of the sales and invite them to join in the 
plan, and it was provided that in connection with the motion to 
approve any sale, the plan should be submit te d to the court. The 
decree also provided that due notice be given to all bondholders, 
and the court reserved jurisdiction therein to pass on the fairness 
and equity of any plan submitted, together with the fees and expenses 
incurred, in connection with the motion to approve the sale. 

When the plan for reorganization was initiated, the equity 
of redemption was vested in the West Side Trust & Savings Bank, as 
trustee, for the benefit of Abraham J. Gisenberg, Abe Smith and Ida 
Simone In order to protect the redemption rights, the committee 
acquired the equity of redemption, without the payment of cash, by 
providing that the omers of the equity of redemption be civen a 7-1/24 
participation in the corporation to be organized and a lease of the 
property, expiring Jamuary 31, 1940, at a rental of $550 per month for 
@ part of the term and $600 per month for the balance, with a per- 
centage clause. The trial court had previously, in December, 1933 5 
determined that a fair rental value of the property was 8395 per month, 
and had directed the receiver to make a lease to Hisenberg and Smith 


for that amount. Two years later the matter again came before the 


sOurt, and the net rental was raised to $450 per month. shen the agree- 


ment with the owners was negotiated in 1936, real estate values hag 


t 

uho 
shebtoset to hevisoor coed Best aBembhe to egnerto s 

a3 mi boreind assed bad styeeLoexe't 20 sexovb oat wet ta 
ei yd Detelumzot acw noitiezinegyeet to mslq # .easo giredmesit 
hid @ ti teis Liejeb sidatsabhenoo mi babiverg eeteed salT _s SOc Inmao 9 
o8 of bivode tetaam estd ynalg yrs of} inenausg ebem asw efsa oft te 
end ot bosatouyt ed moquetendt Sfvyosa melg esd to ygeo s tent theatvie 
tant yoeisa to Juoges eid diiw «ortogos mis yo bontetet bas vetesat 
stviw Stel ed avebLocinned anmidieogebnen edt to coasethbha bos eoman oft 
eid ‘to ataednes oft to. coitom aiiw mold oviea oF aaw ostw etaveaw edd 


eit mi oiot of meds etivnt bre »efse edd to obsh eft as Ilow ea enalg 





ot mobiem odd diiw noiioennoo mi Jedd bebiveta asw tf bas nal 


el? .zatuoeo eft ot beddimdwa od Bivode nelg ead .elsa Ys evetqgs 


easeblosiinod fia ot mevig od eetten suf tsaid bebivetq coals genesb 


% oft 9Q aneg o¢ nletedt seitokbaizu, bevresst ined ent bus 





—S— 


Beansgee bos eeet oft ddiw tedtagod ,bettindue nelq yee to yilupe bas 





er 


~aisa oft svorqas od mo item edi siviw no bdeoremoo: mt borasont 

f if! winge edd .bedaliini asw He Loe Lrg L082 wit nally ext reali 

i ag «tne agaivad B touxl ohig taeW oft mi betaew acw noisqmebet To 

i shi bua diima edA ,arednecil .% madtsud. to titened elt zo% estanid 
eettinawo edd ,aingia aeiiqneber edt soetoxg o+ tebto at .«momke 


“ad .faso to trompeg ers Suoddiw .neidqmobet to ytingoe oft beottypos: 


i 
i 


Pe ioe 
| | Re\i-'' & nevig. od noitqusese a io. ysinp® alt to atanwo: od tats entbivorg: 





oft to easel « bus beninegro od o¢ noiderogzes esd oi noitagietereg, 
tot ctnom teq 0884 to Latimer 2 tg .ObOL .L8 yreumel. gekttoxe eYiteqotg 
“i9q 2 itiw .eoneled edd rot Atmom req O0OG brs mrad) ent Yo) tuaq) s 

| 2 Oss . Tedae ood ret eViavotverg bad tre 9 igiud edt | »eaualo egeimeo 
eitnom tog OVS asw yduoqoty et Yo, exlev Latinos viet © dads bemiarreted’: 
dime bus gredreaif ov sagelia oxi ciar o? teoviscooest: edt betooxzh) bas: bive) . 
eit ovolod omeo micas tetdam od¢ tedsl aresy, ow?’ «tavoms teat) 20%) 


~oatgs etd neni) .finom 19q 08M} of) boatat aaw Lesnon tom elt bn « tio 4 





hed aeulav stetee Lsot 2060L nk boisitogern sow axenwo edd dtiw dmem’ 


-5= 
become enhanced, and the net rental was fixed, as heretofore 
Stated, at $550 per month for a part of the serm and $600 per month 
for the balanee, with a percentage on the gross Peitalseves a certain 
amount e 

After the equity of redemption was acquired and a lease made 
with <isenberg and Smith, the committee adopted a plan of reorganization 
which provided in substance that an Illinois corporation should be or-= 
ganized to take title to the property for the benefit of the bond= 
holders; that the capital stock of the Corporation should be divided 
among the depositing bondholders, with the sxception of 7-1/2%3 of the 
stock which was te g° to the owners of the equity in payment of their 
redemption rights, transferred to the coumittee's nominee. The plan 
contained detailed information as to the bond issue and the property 
covered by the trust deed, the receipts and disbursements of the re- 
ceiver since the inception of the receivership, the anounts and de- 
faults in the payment of taxes, the terms of the agreament with the 
owners of the equity, the proposal for reorganization of the corper- 
ation, and the fees requested by the committee, its counsel, the costs 
of foreclosure, the cash advanced to the committee for the benefit of 
the bondholders, the estimated cost of reorganization, and for carrying 
the proposed plan into effect. This plan wos mailed to all bondholderg 
January 29, 1937, and no dissents were received by the committee during 
the period of twenty days allowed for that purpose. it was therefore 
concluded by the committee that the plan wes acceptable to the holders 
of principal bonds agcre gw ting °185,700 then on Geposit, and arrange- 
ments were accordingly made for holding the masterts gale March 11, 
1937. The only bid made, as Shown by the master's Teporty, was that 
of the nominee of the committee, for $30,000. This did not take into 
account the unpaid taxes on the property, which, up to 1935 and exclusive 


of interest and penalties, amounted to $14,694.84. Vo this item there 


would have to be added the 1936 general taxes, amountine to $3200, and 





ote tod sia: as gbextt ear Loins: ton add Bas ~beonmiite onoosd 
| dagem 26g O08 Bes eres oid tO deaq 8 tot dirom tg 0884S Ya .bedata 
wisixes a TovdaLlstnet aaory ats ah Saatneoreg a At iw ,s0nelad edd tot 
| 8 deilmte 
eham 6agel & bas ‘portrpoa dar moliquiehs: to es taps etd test 
we bigs Sessg 209% ‘te oadq @ botqohs esdeinaios edo yhd ims Ges wtednoa de hd dw 
ay of Binote wold etogites atonii£y va dele sonedaded ot bebiverq doiiv 
ebaod eae to Fo ned eas tot yereqoty ody i ertis ofat of bos ineg 
bopivib ad bisode mots stogne o eit “te ttosta Lat iges ent tats” ‘yaxobLost 
‘oslt ‘to Ba \f~ « Yo worden esis di tw -azebLodthnod gntdieoged oetd ‘grrome 
abecd %o Teronyed a ytinpe out %o aver oct oF 09 od gaw ‘fo tekw ‘dooFe 
nel ott ,serimon a teed Emuoo ent of hows tenet? dagdate trokdqmoabe 
yiteqotg os bre avaal baod add of ds wo thawte tert beltateh bented noo 
é¢ wd? 26 edeemoatodetd Sas wiatooes add Sesh fautd odd yd ‘borEyOo 
~36 bins admire oe Ort cybinuevt sees’ s sits to ‘podtqoont “pitt ‘ponte “‘cevtdo 
ad ddiw tromerge oft 0) wanes Oo acd ,asxet Yo droarzaq “gata ' 7 i eypiet 
@toqres et $0 notgvasinay tose 202 Laveqe tq ot cad tripe ead to etenwo 
adaeo ote “Loe mao 0 adk ,eoddinumo ots ve hedapupes “gest eas hes eto hia 
‘to jbiened odt ‘sot sods Emo o eit of boonevba ‘dase ont ~etmaolootol ‘to 
“gabyrzso 20% bare pnoides ing t90% ‘to $oo0 badomi) ee act vanebLosb aod ott 
if arehLosbned fie of botkam ew nel ekere Foote otek ‘pele pesoqore re 
| qrituh sets Lame ait yi bevieoot otew eineaath om bre veer: “gee “greuns’ 
oto tatess aw oi * pRog™rt facts wot bowolls ‘ayed eoaows 40 ‘bokvea” ‘enti 
atob Lost att 0} efifstqsoos anw naiqg oft Jadt eos temo eet ye BobwE Soo ~ 
wag nett bive gitvoqob mo “nods oO" AaLS dorks og Or 98 abaod Laghontse to 
ek wotal oLae d'xddamm add ‘Qutb tos 4ot ebsut pintbtdoos ‘oxen sd nem 
Jatt aiw «etoqot atrodaam ond yo mwoda “BR oben ‘big “qgiero ‘edt opneen . 
otrk oxhus ton ‘phe a iit 400,088 t0% goods tmabo only yo eenkaor ‘ert to 


a! 


osest mot? aist of BB ACO EDL OF bed tuvomts sao te teneg bes a Yaonotitt 10 









eytaul oxe Rares aeer ot et et oladw cedteqoty oie” ea” nema bhai ott r wo 





free <Q0hebF 03» yk ensroms egoxad Lavaneg. geet ould bebia oe 08 eved bf 


-6- 
about one-fourth of the 1937 general taxes. Thus, exclusive of 
penalties, the unpaid taxes st the date of sale were approximately 
$19,000, , which together with penalties would bring the agcregate 
amount to $25,000. This sum, added to the bid of the committects 
nominee, would be equivalent to $55,000. hen the bid was made the 
net income from the property, without deduction of taxes; was $6,600 
&® year, and after making allowance for taxes of $3,200, the net ine 
come would be approximately #3,400 a year. -.pplying the test of 
value approved by the Supreme court in Bryn Mawr Beach Bldg. Corpe 
ve First National Bank, 365 Ille 409, and capitalizing the income 
at 8%, the fair valuation of the property would amount to $42,500, 
and this was substantially less than the selling price after taking 
into consideration the unpaid taxese . 

The evidence discloses that w#long With the notification to 
other bondholders, a copy of the plan was sent to Karasik, C/o 
Madison & Kedzie Savings Bank, on January 29, 1937. The envelope 
bore the return address of the committee, and was never returned. 
It is therefore fair to assume that Karasik received this notification, 
sent to the address which he had left with the depositary. Karsik 
did not testify at the hearing, and the presumption that he received 
notice and a copy of the plan is not in anywise rebutted. .fter the 
expiration of twenty days, however, Karasik's attorney appeared at 
the office of Chicago Title & Trust Company and demanded the return 
of Karasik's bonds, and he delivered a written demand which referred 
to a tender of $1,700, under protest. This demand was refused, on 
the ground that the committee had already determined that the period 


within which dissents were allowed had expired, and had caused its 


nominee to bid at the master's sale, After the sale, the committee's 


plan of reorganization was presented to the courts together with 


the master's report of sale, and a date was fixed and provisions 


made for due notice to all parties who wished to present their 


objections to the confirmation of the sale and plan. Karasik 








C e 


to evieuloxe . aus! .Avxed Larsmey TEOL ey to fire tone tvods 
Yledamixoxggs erow fea to etabcedttida soxhe Siege edd 4 vetttsireq 
etepotays old gaitid bivow seitieneq déiv rons ood Hohdwy 000, 0L% 
aloodtinmos eff to bid edt of bebba «mre sin .000,8286 oF triton 
add sham aaw bid odd ned! +0002,68) of tnolavinps od Sloow «seniaon 
005,3¢ sav ,aoxad to meitowbed dweds.iw «ysteqeta edd mot ome smi dec 
“ah gen sats e30S.8¢ to aoxad vot. sonawolls yablem tedis fixe atR6y a 
| fo taod odd gatylqg. + teey 2 Wd th ylesamixzotaqe od binow smoe 
4309 .gb18 dosed wie myx€ at t1u09 emexque off? yl bevetqas euler 
emo! od? yristledigns bxe e@Od «LT 206 lash fanotiat fact oy 
(9008. S90 od i mpoma bLavow Yitegotg edd to nottaulay tis? eft <RS te 
Waided votte cotzq 3 pnifies ei nai see vilatinetadwe saw ated du 
. all eaexad biogas ost nolistebtanoo odmt 
of moliaobiil on ane atiw arole tadd aseotontb sonobive eal? 

“OND pilisersd od dmea caw mokq ssid ‘to Wg00, © .erehLostbaad) torso 
sqolevne off sPSOL ~WS yxsunel no yaned agalyaa oinbor & noathsl 
sbortwiet Teven sew bas «9893 Leuwio © ens to agezbhs wruusd on ont etod 

Hil gnottsdhititon elds bevisoor dLastall dacts smunes of tint oxo tetenté at hy 
i! Miata .ytedicoged ef? diiw siel bel od Hodely anotbbe ‘odds od ‘tn98 
fevkeoet et tal) mottqusastg ext brs «gnitecst ead ts viltasd toss bib ; 
say <odtA  .botdivdoer on rene gi ton ai node ons te vere, 2 ono cokvon 
da Deteeqys Yoriotia alitbegest exevowod caged qinows to mobserigne . 
sussex ott Debusmob hus yusquod dastl d efi iT ogc0 LD to eoktto eth. 
beste ier Mo hifw biadoh aotiiuw 2 betevifed en bas <abned e'itesrak to . 
ho .~dbosniet aa¥ bnamoh aint steetozg sehen 100% Le to ebned 8 ot. 
botteg ods oxi) dé qiwred ob ¢bsorts bat v.92 lamp 0 ond dard bemorg oft 
r <ilieahieall 


nk hedrsc ‘Sat bas . bor igxs best ‘bowoLLa exer aiaeuais Moi 
atootiimuoo elt vaio outs “wedtA +oLee a "508 cam oni de maha sidhaatin 





ee ex a 


anoleive-ty bas bextt asw ebab 2 hee 1900 0 poe Eten pon, +e 





ties Sneastg of bddka ti ostw Beitrag Sta 02 reece aye ‘tet bisa 





ae as. eae Y seal he = 
\ Mifests® smedq bers‘ efea’ etd to TR ls ne ag paneer pre LES Oe a OF 


-Jo 
ehjected to the confirmation, and the &appreval of the sale and plan 


of organization over his objection constitutes the Subject matter of 


the appeal in consolidated Case NOe 40216, known as the lisenberg 


CaBbe. 
Karasik's brief sets forth thirty Separate errors and several 


@ifferent points and legel propovitions &S ground for reyergal, mong 
these, the principal contention is that the power of a court of equity 
in foreclosure Cases tO pass upon the feirness of the plen of reore 
g=nization in Connection with the confirmation of the bid at the sale 
is subject to the dimitations that (1) the chancellor must require the 
presentation by the Proponents of the plan or adeuuate and authentic 
informa tion Snabling the exeroise of an informed judicial discretion; 
end (2) that the subordinate rights of the holders of junior interests 
may not be preserved by the Operation of the plan at the expense of 
the holders of Senior equities, Under the first proposition, it is 
argued that information was withheld from the court which woule have 
Gnabled it to P@aS8 upon the fairness of the plan, This eamtention 

is untenable, because the plan presented contained a full description 
of the land, improvements, the bond issue, defaults by the mortgagor, 
aelinquent taxes, a complete history of the foreclosure proceeding, 

& Feport of the Operations of the receiver, together with a camplete 
atatement of the Plan of reorganization and the activities of the 
Committee, as well as & Statement of fees and expenses requested and 

& detailed statement of the services rendered. In addition to this, 
the ceurt hac before it all necessary inform: tion Comcernins the value 
of the property for the purpose of determinine the adequacy and fair- 
néss er the bid at the master's sale. In objecting to the confirmation 
of the sale and plan, Karasik Specifically objected to giving %isenberg 
and his a8seclates, as owners of the e quity of recemption, shares of 
Steck representing an undivided 7-1/2% interest in the reorganized 
Companye <A similar provision was appreved in Bryn Mawr Beach Bldg, 


a 


a 
sain te oiee at to Levetas watt ane arotimmsd taro ends ot hotoohde — 
qo rodtaer Pootdirc an? aesud tans cobios ido aie teve se kdas Lesy sO te 





gedriee SS oid ts sword ,alSo8 20M anes petabtiowses mi Lasqge. oats. | 


; — eRaRO 
} Loveyse bee arotTe efaraqea yride utieok shea: posed . aie ar | “ 
4) pate). «learevot «ae bRue ey Ba Nats Teogety Leyet baa adectaq tore Tih. 
| ua te dxitoe wo We tevby SMF dallt at mOtInet ARS Lagqtonkes oft onodd 
oxgot to nate edd Ye eaonrtak ens megs aaag od aeano otumoloore’ mh, 


a fag ert da bSd ott ad pokset Dies sed sldde wed SHBmEMP ak motte see ; 





gale ot Lett june telkednadts ott {£) sacle sroigedimit eds od sootaua « be 
obimediue bes ofaspeba to nate ese Re wtronegatg, ede Ye no biatr929% 
pnaisoreato Lotetbuy oowtetank is Id Oa botoxk. saad gr tidame | go td anwco Beth 
ataerotat coiewt, to esebles edd ‘to Beaigit ofan bnedue’ ate dada (SB), d208— 
so eunogns odd to act ect? 4y poideseqe et we pewroveng €d torn Yast 
at 7% poi teode td, tas Lt oat nob oso hedge ‘cq heen ‘a6 attebiod eit 
avon Siaaw sods gupeo otlv ont pladtdd by Baw oti curto'tet Jens pongte 
= soidated om 9 a tf osngee, ede 0 aeertiat oti agen waa os OE. bo Ldane 
soitg tran Lis? & portedmm eo pogneacte aatq afd dencood otdaneday at 
exogog? tom ould od et Latste® ewan anod ef «ediesevorqat giimedt exig, to 
_ saakbosootd emia0£0o%02 att ‘to eros bt ajeiquooe 8 .eoKet tosuynties 
etetgans © diiw tod! es 308 “crorkenot odd W deoitarayo eld Bo Ieee: * 
asit “ko aoks tyiisa add bate ‘po bdos Lua sd ot Yo moby ond to dorembd a3 & 
bas hotasnpst aoasregae bas “gaet to tnomatete & 9a" LL BS eens snaRo © 
eatdd o2 poktibes nl »dbexebsrot ‘godivros ald to dmemesete | botiadeb ae 
pulov ond ambsico noo mokt earaa ik Yreseacen fle #2 eroied past 219 . ite 
thet bas youpene axis gubiarred eb 49 ekeqituy arth tot qos0qo tg, oft, 20 
no bd apne dbsrod elt of gmigostdo nt .efeu o’tadaadt Of" go bit edd Zo Best 
grodnea te anky, ta od bed oo {do ulidoritosya giaatal ~ratq dra. eLaa, only » 
to 4e ntasehs io ksgneds t te 0 bsp @ ost “to etonwo- ial saotnloosaa at bee 
box bxaaroot ody nk doorodnh TANT bob iy tious ms patinonesger 3 oda 






ob iel Boy Hoaed {avait yal nt | hevoxaite nas Seabees sabiata mis * - ” ‘ 





~Be 
Corpe ve First National Bank, 365 Ill. 409- It is common practice, 
approved by the courts, to acquire the equity of redemptions in 


reorganizations of this kind. Without these redemption rights, the 
committee could not have proceeded with the planj the property could 
not be turned over to the bondholders, and the court proceedings 
must necessarily extend for fifteen months more, with a possibility 
that there micht heve been some redemption, by the owner or some 
subordinate interest, to the detriment of the bondholders. There- 
fore, agreements by committees to acquire redemption richts, and 
thereby facilitate the immediate operation of a plan for re organi ~ 
gation, have been generally upheld. 

Karasik further objeoted to the plan because ‘isenberg and 
his associates were given a net Lease upon the premises upen terms 
hereinbefore set forth. The court had before it appraisals made on 
the property and its fair income value. In 1935 the fair rental 
was fixed at $350 per monthe This was later raised to $450, and 
by the decree of which Karasik complains the rental was fixed at 
$550 for part of the term and S600 for the belance. There is 
abundant evidence to support the rental values thus determined by 
the court, and since Karasik produced ne evidence whatever bearing 
on the value of the lease, we are not disposed to disturb the decree 


en that grounde 
The contention that the plan proposed by the committee 


preserved the rights of the holders of junior interests at the 
expense of senior interests, is likewise untenable. It has been 
censistently held that the court hes power to approve a plan which 
provides for participation by junior interests on a parity with 
senior interests. In the Bryn Mawr Beach Building -orpe ve Jirst 
National Bank, supra, the committee purchased the equity from the 
mortgagor fox $10,000 in cash, although the amount of unpaid mortgage 


bonds was many times that of the sale prices; nevertheless, the 


court appreved it, and in Himmel v. »traus, 283 lll. ippe 566, 


a4 pe ee 








«si moswas af JT #802 oftt ABE seed Levers ai Sag ke ov 
/ ak mantdemebe Yo ye bros sk erivpos oe “eatzues ott wt. hevesags 
ett ey tk tequebex saortd isso Liv »Dasda aldd to anplisnigag tees 
Reniboooorg stwoo oils baie sicahbidboed oid o¢ seve benust ed Jom 
Lee “we bk aed & ad kw 1 2t0H eanh d rem Heer LL Th booths Ytiatewoaeown mate 
pupa 20 rena ede ys enolignbos omen cad ava teyte qeectd dads 
sored  ereb Ladino d esti ‘ta Inemiqdeb add of «taegedat edonistadae 
7 Bree eedifa ls no kt qmebex ot tugme od sett ioms yt ataenootga gato? 
i ae ~ nag t0 2 x01 ratg # 20 aos ereqo absiboaal ols stetiiinas yenedt 
head |  shdgdqu yiietensy need evatl anottes 
“he prednoa ts geemned naka oat of Setoebde sedtuxt Aieeted 
_ emod Oger aon lnoty out magn qasol Jon a nevip exvew sotaioossa alt: 
| ie obsm afeatenuqe J orored beet Some ent +Kir0%, dea exo kedmsecad: 
“Badede thet ons veel at wont. ay omg ond shat adh bra yt teqe tg. cut | 
‘beta yORSE 92 boalax metal aa att eee pont TOG OBER 10. boxed nar 
da BexlEX cow Loteet add antaLgno dLastet Agid’ Io eerpab ont ag 
ak exod?  seonshad etd 02 00% bmw aed ent Ro grag cot OBBG ® 
gd be mized ob ani aoustsv Leino eds Jnocqua od eonmbdivs saiiiahialll 
‘gittzuod wsvedade conebive et worse ayy, ALsstod oanka, bre yPcv9o ‘ene’ 
woxbes eeie dass 2 th oe peaogath tom ste oF eeeeel edt 20) aeler et vo 





‘pbdd Loe walt “a bovogexy ale, cult taste : saehhaiones ont. 
edd ja ad ewtodnt wo Leva to arebLoat ed? Io addgiz, edt orssnone 


‘fee ‘wad 9 .eldaneem su eoxh at capnexetas soliaee to imei . 





~Gea 
the committee allotted the Junior interests 10% of the reorganized 
entity in exchange fer the redemption rights, and that arrangement 

Was approved by the courte 

The plan is further objected to because of fees and expenses 
requested by the Committee and other parties. Wo evidence wha tever 
Was introduced by Karasik bearing upon the question of fees, and 
therefore it would Seem unnecessary to &0 into an extended discussion 
of this question. 

After carefully examining the plan, and taking into conside 
eration the objections urged by Karasik, we find no convincing reason 
why the court should not have approved the Plan as fair and equi tables 
The plan had been approved by all of the depositing bondholders with 
the exception of Karasik, and no better plan has peen Supe steeds 
Karasik still has the privilege of Joining with the other bondholders 
in consummation of the plan, or in the event that he does not wish to 
avail himself of this privilege, his rights to withdraw his bonds 
are fully preserved in the decree, upon payment of his proportionate 
Share of the committects charges and expenses. The court still retaing 
jurisdiction of this phase of the matter, and if the withdrawal char ge 
is unfair the court is at liberty to revise it, 

In addition to the points we have discussed, Karasik makes 
numerous extravagant Charges of fraudulent and unconscionable conduct 
on the part of the committee and the trustee, all of which were over- 
ruled by the court after a full hearinge These charges were not 
Supported by any evidenee whatsoever. It is urged by Karasik that 
the promulgation of the plan itself was a breach of trust, that the 
Chicago Title & Trust company permitted itself to be embarrassed in 
the performence of its duty as trustee by attempting to enter inte 
contracts with iteelf for profit, in providing for the depositary and 
for agents to perform the necessary duties in emnection with the 


deposit of bonds, and in not objecting to periodic requests for re- 


ceiver's fees; that the failure to give due notice to Karasik or his 





\ 
i ; ’ @ 
| hm. 


RaL sdacxed th cco kort eott poftelia ‘eedt tums add 





1 posinagtoex elt To 


Hl 
Seem ynerss god bra « adiigit jo Raquabex sae ty Y Sgmstions nk yw hone 


trun oft YO hovotgga saw 


| esansgxe bers Beet to eauspod od hedoetde secddcui at nag ocft 


| 
- | wagiftag sonia brews eee ino eet od podasuped 


i <syot aw sonebivs oF 
f if bre 2asat 0 neitaomp eat soqe natrood Abaatal yi boowboutal aaw 


Sone sist bimow 9 £ eng iesond 
emals aaup aids to 


outs 9026 habmetse ma oval 09 od YTHsRe 


—ptame@ ognt gabled Bus .mehq ety qntstimane iiutotao rod h4, 


go aso ngton bynes on batt ow etkastedt wh begtw aroisostde elt, soljete 


i seidattaps one <ist as maiq ont beweaqae ovat don bigode ivuco, oft. yiw 


sitiw ereb Lot bned ontd iaageh aly to fia we, bevetaae NSE dvssl natg off 
Heed vail mel vetted orp Aas ~theetss io nolJjqeoxe oft 


nese eye 
ne ogetivixg edt gad Lita, aseateh 


dteptedanod “revo ony detw gicintol 
of datw sont sagt er dace trove end ab to ent ecit to. mois gummrano, mt 


abedd ait woxbildiw oF abiighe oie” cogotiving ait to Meamid Lieve 











etanotirogotq ait To dreamy shou ,aeto9b meld: rh. hovteaesg viet xe 





I anteater (Lite dump o es + aounegxe bro septate asgtd tomoo ede to etade 

| |  eguatlo Lowetbdd br aio 22 tore cradden edt to eeadg elds to molsoige lust 

i dh parrot of yitedil, 26 ak @u99. odd xtetay at 
“pontent fine tat ~ebeamroa th evad sr adehog odd OF roks Loos ot aa 

PF or HWos oldero Loaroorss bre tne terasoe® to ae Teel dQ OT REI SS, cao senure 

-ysvo otew Montw to tis sootay et: ots brea godine edt 70 Ptaq oxit sro 

Jon orow Begrato — ‘wy eebvoort Lint s rdte tumoo oft yt betas 





gaty dinaced yo beg ty ei ot steveoet chr eonndive Yas xe potrogge 
“anld Jatt? waved to doastd os aaw ‘hosdi walg of3 te. no itegtumotg | and 
at beseorisdms od oF toatl hots ime yuaqiae’ dat & Lt IT mnesno 
etait tose ot gatiquetis yd estauzd. ae yooh adi to. eosmo 2x0q edd 
brie ytatleaqeh ede xo. ese, mk edt tora, mh Meath a. stoantn0> : 








-10~ 
counsel of the promulgation of the plan, and the holding of the 
Sale was a violation of the trust, as was the management of the 
property and the refusal of the committee to return the bonds to 
Karasik when he indicated his dissent to the plane In the maing 
these charges have no foundation in fact. Moreover, charges of 
Similar nature have frequently been dealt with and disposed of in 
recent decisions, and their legal aspects have been definitely 
determineds (Chicago Title & Trust Company ve Kobin, 361 Ill. 2615 
Straus ve sndersony 366 Ille 4263 Bryn Mawr Bexch Bldge Corpe Ve 
First National Bank, 365 ill. 409; Himmel v. Straus, 288 Ill. 

Appe 566.e) 

Lastly, it is urged that the master's sale is void, because 
it was held on room 337 County building, as directed in the decree, 
instead of room 412, as provided by rule of courte. ..s to this ob- 
jection, Karasik makes no showing that he suffered any special 
damages He does not allege nor did he prove that he proceeded to 
room 412 expecting to attend the master's sale, and missed the same 
pecsuse of its being held elsewhere. He evidently knew that the 
decree provided that the sale be held in room 337, It was subsequent 
to the entry of this decree that a general rule was adopted by the 
judges of the Circuit court, providing that all sales be helc in 
room 412. Both places were fully accessible to the public, and in 
the absence of a showing of any injury to himself, Karasik cannot 
attack the validity of the sale on that grounde 

There are no new legal questions involved in this proceed- 
ing, the gereral principles applicable to cases of this kind having 
peen cleorly iaid down in Bryn Mawr Beach Bldge Corpe Ve virst Nate- 
ional Bank, supra; Straus ve Anderson, supra; and Himmel v. “trauss 
supra. Therefore, the decree of the Superior court, in cause Noe 


nein tbene Et 
40216, approving the plan of reorganization in connection with the 


eel 





confirmation of the master's sale, is affirmed, 
ee DECRS2 AYFINUID e 
Scanlan, P. Jey and Sullivan, Je, concure 








a as — —— - BS 





‘ent So prkbilon ‘pe bs srk edd te oa La %5 oat xe , Leaauee 
“gye Yo trdéaegcnan sf taw as ‘qdawct ort ‘to soitatoty a aes oles 
od absod odd ntadet oF esti immo odds 20 Lente ont hee reget 
ge ther Ses et lo nely aiid ot diconnth ait bet aoibat ed went ttastak 


eR eey ee 


gh natal hie Sader ak woliobaao® on ove septate, coord 

- eieting ter need ovad ‘gaeeqan Senet ied? bas ‘vam tatoet nprovel 
qlos LLL Las stow av Yes D gaunt 2 old it oqaois) _sborinroteb 
ae Fg 883 “able doaot swat meat asd Wisi 298 480 axeh a | us ci 
¢LET B88 .ebextt ov Loomtt 220) pres: ‘we sleet £ see saxia 

oie bie" ihc MO NE inn vel BRE, A 


“@ersnod phiov ak alsa idee ost saat hogza ai oi eeitnal e 


Bee a fit 






yeotesh ads pk podoorl bb aus comibLins wowed ree HOOT 0, bles, ABH, as ee 
ad Bit of Bs. steed Yo odes ue bebiveny ae foe 09% 20. beodant 
 fBktowga ys aoteYiwe ai ‘tact andwoste om eostant inated enoLdoel 


ms, 


oe Lebeaoo tg eet $cntd evexe auf bb son spotia ton a00b oo oo) ; 





éusd off ‘boast: bne yefee Btrotanm eld bredde os ants ooqxe are moor ni 
nner etd dad woent visnob ive. ou vexodiveste: bien anted Bee te pausoed a 
| ‘Seistipoudine saw #1 TSE m0" at ‘biod od eles oats dade bobivers, 9e7D9p, : 
em Yd ieldacegine aaw eLart Lszones s dati eeroeh abd, Je Xrtas ‘extt ot 

is bled od ‘aében iis j asts gntbtvere «tos dort eat. te. Aaa, 7 


“nd bre okt ext o# efdiaceoos vile ster eesele tom ot BE toon, 











” Younes AiastaX elon od curt hee 10 aatwode, ®& 20 gensads, out: q 
“sbaaosy toate 0 efsa att to ‘Wibifey, Cuce toate 4 
“hebooxq aide mk beviownt anoi duu Legos, Wer on.9t@, Brinnon tte 


ries 


griivad bist aiid to aeaco ot eléeottgas Beg toning Lox area pomp nee i j 
»! it 


=Jsu derlT .v 2¥ 29290 sade dpaem wall ee nt cd 4 Ai High ap 
eaara “Vv ¥ Leama ba P rout) cmmexobm . 4 i 4 


me : 


tea ‘Olt easo ria Perc zobreqna es to _vereeh ett | secre 
erty div (ott cena e ka SM rnpiaidalen tts 


bom ¢ ar ‘lea ‘visabean 





40217 : 


CHICACO TITLS & TRUST COMPANY, 
as trustee by succession, eCtGey, 


a a 


Appellee, 
Ve 
ABRAHAM J. “ISHNBERG et Bley 
defendants, 
Appellees. 


PO ee a ee et 


PHILIP Ae PAULSON et ales 
interveners, . APPL FROM 
Appell ees. 


CIRCWT COURT, 


PP 


On appeal of MAYSR KARASIK, 
intervener,y } COOK COUNTY. 


Appellante 
2 = Z. 
OPOOQTA «4 
ys JY J jivihe VU 1 6 


—— 


MAYSR KARASIK, 
plaintiff, © 
appellant, 
Ve 


PHILIP Ae PAULSON et aley 
defendants, 


r 
a ee ee 


appellees. 
MRe JUSTICH FROUGND DELIVERUD THE OPINION OF THS CoOUrT. 


In the Karasik case, Wo. 40217, which was comsolidated with 
Noe 40216, in which opinion has this day been filed, Karasik's come 
plaint filed \pril 26, 1937,againstPaulson and the other members of 
the committee, Chicago Title & Trust Company, as depositary, and 
others, it is elieged that Karasik deposited his bonds september 22, 
1931, but was not informed of the contents of the deposit agreements 
that he never signed the document; that it is unconscionable, in- 
ecuitable and lacks mutuality; that he first learned in December, 
1934, of the contents thereof, and thereupon demanded the return of 
his bonds, which was refusedj that the committee, through its counsel, 


promised Karasik's attorney that it would give him notice and o cepy 


of the plan of reorganization when promulgated and would return the 


bonds on demand if he dissented from the plan within twenty days after 





N ( wo, nr, hie ; _FLs0n 
go. near 


eXHATHO ree & eater ‘opanio 
‘ve ORM ero lausgoue . sl wht wiest: ao 
«S0ltogya 


—e— 





Q | 

y gvke vial omemuert a ‘MARLASIEA 
stab ten, 
Ba « aptioand 

ae Spe nys 


aries go WOeUAl a qiims, 
iy nea ianidlicabeaced 
-ase Liga et Porsenna eg 








eas TREE 


YTMVOS Wooo 


‘| ~ 1d O fie re e = 


- cediiaes sia to Bias nO 
Re suicire 2 
staelLlogg a : ; 





<ATGAGAL taxa 


| eae sil “ay Tittatelg 
einai tege. pry re ae, 
RES 4«¥ Ls 2 Sa ot +e 


' gite Yo omni: ba sheen, 
eee tak ae ec b 





ed EE RES ea aS riparia Ss en ee oa 


sdbe tiegya 

TOO BAY: WO YOINIGO Bir CSARVILERC CMTE reign oe 4 
‘gdiw befabifoan o caw dette .VIROD vo ,euse Piemsat meee oe 7 
“too atdinatall , bof? meed yeb aitt wat nodeige stotaw: nt apison: on 
Yo atedmom waldo ond bee moeluattembeges SSQh .o8 Ligh hot hh trike 
bua ayredicogeh es .ystiued dave? & eLeie ageoidd aeeed ? Soma ots 





eSS “edmediges ehnod ein bod Logged akeated taste bagetia: et ath ireidang 
{iremestas jisoqgeb ods te adastiwy weld to baw ober ton. Bet aud ohBOL 
~mpit _ OLdare hoenconm ef ¢t stestd Qiremsoh odd bons.te even eal toad 
gtadmeced ai bomteeL terkt ed dade gyd iientom ealoel bes olded oe 

to mmdex eff boditameh soqurewede Dra dated atnotaes ent Wee seneet 





=Qu 
notice; that he relied on such promise and withheld action for the 
recovery of his bonds; that in 1935 a decree of foreclosure was 
entered, and that knowledge of the reorganization plan came to him 
throuch information obtained from his counsel in March, 1937; that 
he thereupon intervened in the foreclosure proceeding, and filed his 
objections; that when he originally deposited his bonds he gave the 
committee his address for notification purposes as "Mayer Karasik, 
C/o Madison & Kedzie State Bankj" that in Mey, 1932, the bank was 
closed, and Chicago Title & Trust Company thereupon became successor 
trustee, and that the committee and its counsel knew ever since 1934 
that Clarence 2delson was acting as attorney for Karasik, and that 
Karasik's address was 3401 ‘ve Livisbon street, c/o The Pharmacy Paper 
Box Company; that despite these facts, the committee dcliberately 
mailed a copy of the plan to Karaasik in care of the bank, kmowing that 
he would not receive the letter so as to afford him the privilece of 
filing a dissent within twenty days from the date of mailing of the 
olan; that nevertheless, he attempted to file his dissent within 
twenty deys, and tendered to the depositery and the chairman of the 
committee his dissent, acccmpanied by tender of 51,700, under protest, 
but that his demand was refused. It is also alleged thet Jisenberg 
and his sssociates were insolvent and that depsite an order entered 
in June, 1935, in the foreclosure proceedings, requiring the receiver 
and its counsel to act without compensation after July 1, 1955, and 
es long as the receivership net lease remained in effect, and that 
the receiver accepted $645 and its counsel °445 in violation of the 
order, and he soucht the relief hereinbefore set forth. 

iithout going into an extended discussion as to the evie 
dence, it appears yuite clearly that the notice and plan were sent 
to the address left with the depositary by Karasik, and that ro other 
forwarding address was ever designated. by his own petition it 


appears that he knew of the plan within twenty cays, but failed to 


make his dissent until after the twenty days had expired. The re- 





- 
: 








ed? tot aoisves bLesdioiw bne calmotq soua, no beilet ed desld eed 
saw etpaotoetot to seToeb 8 Geel mk salt pabnod aie to yreveoss 


mtd of omso malq noivas sins; test edd ke egbolwont Jait bas ebotedne 


gate qVS@L eiotsk mi Esanuoo waist 0 tS borthaddo mo Loe Tens Haworualt 
ait bolit bue «guiheeootd eupaoLo eto t ‘ent mi benovsednt soquetods ext 
sit even of abnod ain bed Laogsbd yllanigite ari went dant tan Liebe 
~Miastsk oye” as asecqiug noisenitisos ‘10% agetbbs abs goss kmmeo 
aew unmed ed .Sdel eYol wi eds tpuned gate - eished a moathalt oo 
xspeBsescoue oMs Load poqu orcad thegen soursT &. 0L3 iT ogasoidt bras. ‘{penole 
| ‘a peed sora reve word foamues atk Oem goddinmoo edt tard brs veodaurty 


cald tant 


tedd bus athaotat wok yerioics as amidos Baw wowkebe sorerad 





reget, yosmreae od @\9 i ootss hedetvid 3 FORE asw aeotbbs a tiieared 
yfotoredifoh eatsinuos ats ,atost eeadt ediqned $ asia Lamas att 
bats eniwondt ,aned arte to stgo at dient ov wmelg eit To woo 8 ‘boltam 
to sgefiving sis oid bro Tie od 8B O8 wadges add evieost fog bLuow ot 
edt to patfiam to deb eid wo tt ays ener? “gubetd tw treme ARON 
mite iw drpaats eis OLit o@ ) petgaetia ont cosoLods revert gard inate 


3 bo reanre bel ais bea Wadlaoged sxc ge hetebrred- bre payee xiao 





wa etacterg wobru, ,00%. Lo to tgheed, EF he ieaqan 598 a tepaese. at gett immo 
|) gmednestk dont bepetlie cals at, at sbenuToz sey beaut att sasts tad 
‘i 

= - hered.ne seb10 G8 “et keqab dosed ons, fyrprfe nace Sroy sets tose alba 


a tevieges sald anizinps< ,apuibovoong, ene Loose” on? nt $380L goal, at 





bre o S60L, ef Yin geste, fo idssnagm 9 duads tw doe od Leanne et? bas 





1 ., deed Dos foots, gi He xiaaes onaol Pom quisrevissot alt ae pmol as 
. AP 


Pe eds ‘to notisLoty oe Bei Lew rao, age brs, aa? petgooor: nortooet coe 









A ze ~ive oft of Be wo teawost® be bros x a 0: tk “tos uot 


p ‘ x 
Be RAN et: MRT 


Na _o, free otew galq bra eekion os sada useeto od tay exnoeae i 







| 
I : » 
{r epee eta xot $93. oretodntezed teil 
} 
1 


ny waldo on dats, baa ytiested WL MSeREOO Ree ond, Pil Atego 


WE ou 3% oF better pe aged cnowd anise mola ‘edd ig om 


uch ze a ‘is , 
, a Pes is AMS he Bie eae Ne 
aie em fs ee i a ae Nada ie ae anaes nite Pres ee s 


-3e 
yuscements imposed upon the dissenting bondholders for withdrawing 
their bonds were not unreasonable, and since, as said in Hinmel y, 
Straus, 288 Ill. Appe 566, Karasik had assented to md was bound by 
the provisions of the deposit agreement by accepting his certifie 
Gate, he could not withdraw his bonds without Canplying with the 
requirements thus imposed. We Jo not feel called upen to discuss at 
length the charges that the fees for services were exorbitant. The 
record indicates that the committee and its counsel had not received 
eny fees for their 8ervices, and their request for compensation and 
reimbursement of cash advanced, as set forth in the reorganization 


plan, was not objected to by any other bondholder. Karasik adduced 


no evidence to show that the fees were unter sonable, and from a con- 


sideration of the amounts’ set forth in the schedule we think the 


court was @ntirely justified in allowing the fees requested, 
Sox these reasons and the reasoe set forth in opinion 
in case Noe 40216, we have reached the conclusion that the decree 


of the Circuit court in this cause should be affirmed. It is 60 


ordered. 


SPIRMIDe 


Scanlan, P. Je, and Sullivan, Je, Concure 


eee 
C 

gnivarbdsiw tot areblodbaod gritmeceth ait megs bseoqmi sdmemetasp 
‘oy Lemelh wt bisa ag ,ooris baa ,cidenocnotay don otew abnodotheds 
ud Based acy bee oc Bednouse bad Wiaated .008 wagA Lil 688 ,enavt2 
«itiiuwe aht anitqooos yo treamvetgs i laogsh of} te anc faivetq ef? 
ett Moin paivicns odwodtiw ahaod ai wouhdelr tom binos ed odeo 

Je senoaih of meqe Belinc Lost gon ob of .bea0gak aadt etwometingot 
ad? .. ,dvatidiaxe stew avotyoen ul segt ed? tad? eseatade ais dtgwet 
bavieoox toa bert Leanwoo adi ban seddinmes ofv dads: aeteotbnt brooer 
ioe aokisensqes0o 162 dasupet aiedt See , eeasiviwe “leds 201 aoak yRe 
poiiesinesnost edd. cb.fitoh gee aa 4 deanevds daso Bo tnomeexudukes 
Soouhbs Aigatal  sxebleddnod toéo yaw yeod betoetdo ton agw analy 
“MOO Ss MOTT bae eeal¢seoansine ovew sedt ods Joe wore 09° Caxsbive on 
oid arid ow. ofubedow oft mi aouek poe. cadnwoms ens te no binrebts 
 ghetsgupex, see% edd onivefis nt bettitesrt yhexrismesamy® deo 
neinigo mi Astot tee ae esetomtt bre saeseet eueddo co% 62 fis 
OSRHSh edd Gass omolaslen®s sit Aotossr evel ov. nSLSOh sok easooml 

ee wi-dt« .houtiiin of Siveta stray. ebis ah Miwew tieerkd ‘eit: ‘to 
oS  peraito 


o GER TEE 


etVonoo ash ahaviting: oa 7... a releeee 


¢ 
ye 
v - 
ry 
“~ eo J 
D Pt ae rg 
a a a 4 
5 te ay 
Perit Y 


40378 


GORGE CHRISTIAN, 
Appellant, 
APPLAL FROm COUNTY COURT 


QP COCK COUNTY? 


91.A.616 


MR, JUSTICE FRIEND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 





PETER SKIRINOTIS, 


) 

) 

) 

vs, ) 
) 

) 

Appellce. ) 


This cause comes up on appeal from the County court for the 
gpecond time. In the first instance (case io. 39093) an appeal was 
prosecuted from an order entered March 27, 1936, overruling a 
motion of defendant in tie nature of @ writ of error corau nobis 
to vacate an order of the County court entered January 3, 1935, 
dismissing defendant's appeal from a judgment entered in favor of 
plaintifi by a justice of the peace on June 11, 193. ‘the question 
presenteé on tuat appeal is sufficiently eet ierta in tne opinion 
then filed, We reversed the order of arch 27, 1936, and remanded 
the cause to the County court with directions to permit plaintiff 
to answer defendant's petition of wareh 17, 1936, to vacate the 
order of January 3, 1935, and “for such furtuer proceedings as are 
not inconsistent with this opinion," 

When the cause was redocketed in the County court piaintiif 
filed an anewer Mareh 4, 1938, alleging various matters in reply 
to defendant's petition in the nature of a writ of error coram 
nobis, and averring that the order of January 3, 1935, was not 
entered by mistake aid that no error was committed by the clerk or 
the court, and that no error of tact appeared in the proceeding 
which would justify the order of dismissal of January 5, 1935; ana 
Plaintiff specially averred “that in the issue of the Chicago Daily 
Law Bulietin of January 4, 1935, it was plainly announced that said 
appeal had been dismiesed by the court; and that delendant knew or 


should have known that the appeal was dismissed on January 3, 1935, 





HAT TOLD suo, 





; me Tae ¢ etcinoill 
THUGS ¥RMUOO WOK JAMIA | 7 
4 hy epeegs : { Sg dik oS 
SYTRUCO ACCS qo 
rf STTOMIATES ANTTE 
; 3 ( 9 LLOGGA - 
Cr 5 oy ) ae Sa i deyera tL : 
QO [ re JA. [ 0 : os 
PEA OE 





end tot dty09 qiaved sit mort fasqca ao qu pnbnest eauso ett 
asw iseqgs wz (8008 .ek esas) eones ant gaxit edt al vouky boos 
8 gniivxxrevo dbeL ,"S dotel betetas z3ebte as wot ‘beduaoworg 
sees 3 mgio9 terxe ‘to tiaw s to exudea out iad tuebasten to solvom 
std . 
‘to covet Hi Abgusine Sasmmbut so aout Leoagqe 2 ' §sehas ‘tob ‘gates tua th .\ 
soifesmp sai .O8eL IL saut oo wdeeq 643 ‘to soident 2 a titatelg 
soinigo eit af Adtot tea yitastotTise al Lesqqx sadsd o0° ‘Betnosetg 
bobaamet bas ,€9L ,VS dows to ushte ot boatevet oW both? edgy” 


tTiisguialg dimxeq oF anolisesib dilw gives ytanod ont ot eauso ont 











ead siwowvy ot ,d60L ,VL cota To meidlieg a' gnebaoteb rewans of 
8th a6 agdibssserg tedsivt dove tol" baw ,SoeL ,€ Ytsunat ‘te teBKe 
" aoloiqe sidd dilw gaatelenoont fou 
Vitdniesa éxuoo ytauod od ai betodoobex aaw seuso eft medW i 

Yiaet ak etatsem evolrev gaigelia ,2é@L ,d dorell tewane aa boat 
meioo 1t6rrs ‘to Jizw # to sintan odd at motive a! gasbagtes of | ~ 

gon asw ,82¢9L ,& Yraunel to reabt03] oid Jedd gcizteve bas aiden 
to uxslo ed yd dest Lomoo asw 1onTs Of Sadt bes sdedoin yd betosso © 
gulbssoorg edt ai beteeqge gost te torte om dads Sas tidied oat 
bas j;86es ,& Yteuosl to Laeaisale to rwsbt0e edd titan’, bisow gee 7 
ytted ‘ogeoidd es to suaai ont ai tect" betrevs (Lialeege Tris abe 


4 






vat 


bise tend beoavonne Yinielq asw tt (~8bGL ,& yxevont vie 


and that he was in duty bound, if he had any cause for moving the 
court to reinstate the appeal, to make such motion within sixty days 
atter the dismissal of said appeal, in accordance with the statute 
in such case made and provided; and that said delendant tnrough 
negligence made no such motion until more than one year after the 
entry of said order dismissing said appeal." 

Mareh 25, 1938, defendant filed a replication to tne answer, 
which the court evidently regarded as a motion to strike the answer, 
and this motion was overruled by the court. Thereupon, witinout 


ee ee oy nee: 


| hearing any evidence, the court entered an order reinstating the 
SS ee 


SEAS met LE AINE I SIT SC 


cause and setting it for trial, and plaintirf appeals from that order, 
In the report of the proceedings tne triai court certiried 
that it considered the document in the nature oi a replication 
Tiled by defendant to be in effect a motion to strixe the answer, 
and it overruled the motion, put that since tne plaintilfr did not 
aver that his cause of action was meritorious, the court considered 
that defendant's allegation tiat he nad a meritorious defense must 
prevail, and that he was entitled to have the case reinstated without 
introducing any evidence. We think the effect oi the order of the 
trial court was proper, but in reaching his conclusion the Judge 
inaptly overruled the motion to strike the answer, wiereas he should 
have sustained it, because tue answer was, in our opinion, insuiii- 
cient, for the foliowing reason: Mie Cuicago Daily Law Bulletin of 
January 2, 1935, anneunced a call of the iirst 100 cases on the 
calendar, stating that the first ten cases on the call would be neld 
for trial. Defendant's appeal appeared as case lic. 47 on the list 
of cases published. Defendant was therefore justilfied in assuming 
that not more than ten cases would be called on that date and on 
successive days, and therefore there was no reason why he should 


have examined the Bulletin on the Yollowing day to look Yor an 


order of dismissal. Consequently, defendant's motion to strike 


|| - uch, ae f 
| avenue 
Hit - ? “eG 1 





ae 


- ast give tet eauso yrs bad on tt ebonod ctu ah paw ant isa bate 
awh ytale aldéiw notiem done exam of ,Laoces odd otacantor of tru09 
etusste esd diiw soasbrosos ak iss qos Siaee ‘to faaa.teeib ent natts 
dguertsd tousbas'toh bee tat bas ;hbobiveta bas shew ease slow nt : 

end 1etts asey so nat etom Lidow moitom dowa on sham soreaiigon 

" Lee age biee gmk ee Low tb tehtoe blae _to Vxé ne 

,tevens ent ad auitaed tae &® bollt gaabhasteb ,6beL as dete 

,teweke Of sattta of soltom a ae hobtaget “Linebive dxvoo ‘ent Ho Law 
Hwoudiw ,moquated? .teuoo Sit yd beLert9vo vew nett ou tay! bas % 
anf guts etenter: te Tebto tes _petetae T1sHo pas sonestivs yas ‘Saliba 


ey Dh AN a) ea 
en eee 


Eicdlnel $sas Mavi oLaegaz ‘Yi tniste bie” ete ite xo} at “gaittee ‘bas ‘eaten 
Ca gear a 


: 


gia’ 


bekiisdeoo saboo Leied wnt agathasawng ont te Frogex ott a 
Meisaoiiqat a ‘to etwien ont wh dopairoeb std betebionoo ak thts 

\tewe ns oat * shkere od nohtom & doo'tte aid od od tnabas tes we ‘potr 
Pon BEL” veitntatg eit gone sens tod Ao toi iit beiurxevo ib ‘bia 
beden Taito Ftupo ods awottod hea asw moigos to sexe aki dads 008 
saw eee tod buestenereen @ har of tect KoLsays tie a! tiobasteb tacit 
duontiw Betatanie:r seco sat sved of belSisne asw oa dads bas, flavera 
pdt “Yo teBte OAs “to sovtts eAF aAntds oW .eonebive ‘Yite ‘gatbubord at 
agbut eat molevtonoo als! yaidoset al sud xeqorg saw Fauoo Lalet 
Biwode of esetanw (tewens oad odinta of noifom ond be futre v0 visqent 
-ittwsai ,adliiqo tHe al ,eev rewede edd eansoed , ot ‘dia od al ‘dvan- 
to aigeiinvd wed yLisd ogdoino ent iiteaaet guiworfot ‘edt rot (sasfo ~ 
eld do esas OOL tarit eit “ie LLeo 4 pésabeans ,eeer |S ytedaat 

| “ped $d bivew Lied ede ae eesso aed savkt one sent gatiata “tabs lso 


gait eag od 0S Jol eees ex hotaeqqs Lasqas e* tuabne ted isk? ‘net 
‘giimusda al heititenst, eretereils usw dusbee tod bode bedg” ‘dens ‘to 7 
‘go Ban efas Pade do betfas od bivow asseo nist nat stow edt 





 pigede vif Yow doaset on gow etecdd sicchaalaiead ryt } ae 


ghee 


oe Soe die da he Foot tare Tee Sainte pullabe 


-5= 


that psrt of the answer which averred that defendant knew or should 


have known that the appeal was dismissed January 3, 1935, should 
have been ailowed, 
In reversing the order of Mareh 27, 1936, remandins the 


cause to the County court with directions to permit plaintiff to 


answer defendant's petition of March 17, 1936, to vacate the order 


of January 3, 1935, "and for such further proceedings as ore not 


inconsistent with this opinion,” it was clearly intended that the 


ee 





shrerenimeae = sete seal PORE ELSA 


cause should proceed to hearing on _the merits of the petition for 


- a a 
— Mag neat nee ravens 58s ose ~ — 
— we 


a writ of error coram nobis and any answer thecwte that might be 


_-_—_~ooor 


Narr ars 





a ee co ae pI FS Re oars 


filed by olaintiff, and in ebenins the order trom which this appeal 


is prosecuted the court evidently intended to 


mandate of this court, issued pursuant to our 


Therefore the order from Wheon, this appeal is 
oS 


_ <—— nt cate 
= ne cu 


give eflect to the 
former opinion, 


prosecuted is af- 


firmed, in consequence of which plaintifr should be allowed to 
eT Nice an 


ree a etek bP fier sD 


Sr er ae ana cmeaen 
— OR et ice Se Le 
_ ~ 


eI St Sane D ORE IOLA ILE AL ANE CTL IO ECR ty 5 
ea koe 


Tile an answer to the petition for a writ in the eres of a writ 


sata ee ee 


of error coram nobis, not incaweietant with the views herein 





expressed, and the parties should then proceed to a hearing before 


the court on the merits oj the petition and answer, 


AFFIRMS 


Seanlan, P. J,, and Sullivan, J., coneur, 





akin 


3 
= )e 


bivotla to wert saabos'teh tect bewreve 6 bee s9Wans oat to end ind 


5 tworls anes eb waswliet boseiaeth ase faeces ont sash. mword ovad 


$59 Lig 


‘Kowe tin nod ovad 


ix a BS 
aoak 


ent yalbnemet BE@L ws dots ‘to tebto edt ‘gakerevet ‘at 


ot PELs abs La $herco4 ot anoitearth saie dtu60 etawed add ot eauso 
Sy Be eat ; 

webto elf Avanay gt .BECL .Vi dotel Ye noisiveg a! Inshae te Veckos 
oe ES <7 


fon ere: ee agnibseootgq tenta't some xo't bra" (aber 2 “viainaie ‘to 


eit tedt heboes at yines to aew th " soimiae e hilt Hd bw ‘tem sekanosat 
SME Dag ncn cereonclice eae ar Say pe Re ERY 


tot meitloee eit ‘to ad tcom ent mo anitasd ‘ot besnorg fsoste 98NSd 


Neda einbligd teed ere ae occeeneneonvie nope th ae Fo a Ta aa: ae seiner Reacher a in 





ere 








od smgia sasit ofetenit tewene yas bas a aides matoo ToTts ‘te shiw a 





Iaeuge alas to deive mor't repre ould giltoas ath tit brs. ;Thhdatale vd ‘petit 


ry ot tee'tts ovis ot bebagd ak vid aebive dre ott bervoseora at 


-nodatqo: Teurrgt EHO ot tnavense hewast P1H09 2 Litt ro es shriem 
ae aa Beh 
a, aE beduseeorg ei iasaas ‘ebstt dodadw mex? tabig axis oxotersd? 


is ay <oiial meni petite pole sn Re adn ene tt pls RA napa mat ey 


ot hewolls ed hivesls Thksaiele fin baie ‘to eoneupeance “ok “bet 
ater 











a AR TO IIE, CS ORROLi ormee nn ves Te Bis 
shaw @ to atuten exit at tine 8 02 motsiteq sat of tawans oe eLlt 
yraareenenarieanenstinnay tapes ee syeneeingee Sr ee en ae nearer” APO T 6 Dame ate SEP ities « seme 


ateted eweitv eit dtiw ¢assetesoant jon aiden gazoo to778 ° 
etoted pabtead 8 ed beoporg modt binede “eolited oui bao sbosastaxs 


; 4 a ee Bai tz 
stows bas aol diioq ond ‘Lo aitrom oat a0 P ceed edt 
; + aie Seed Re Reo @ red a, rHuraee ar: 
eae s. 
fetios ‘y¢ me Rae ee ae Ber. 
genet ads is SSP sade as vs vitae 
«tHON0e ,.b sna LL tue hea we “4 , maimed 
5 * ee i % te Vester 67 ae 
i ¥ ( bh yal a Cree eo 
tigen. BESS OS Vee. 
Jey) py sets, SR Ole ee pikes a DP one) ee he Lee 
Sie ater a Pe Ee ott et Kot 
aah aie e St py GR Ww opt FAS oli aie es BY sleek eed “9 
wey LN ee: Bia ae Ag pane? 6 (an toa tad 
itt howadts kt eae. atncls Peete ees Oo ortisnsoire 
ai Riel oF resort wert 88 alge stot vi bana ‘sve, 





~ 


oe ee 
40546 aa ZL 7 y: 
enone Ene f 


SOPHIE ANGST, 
Appellant, 


pater 


APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT 


Ve 
COURT, COOK COUNTY. 


299 1.A.616 


MR. JUSTICE FRIEND D&LIVERED TH# OPINION OF THi COURT. 


CHICAGO CLIY RAILWAY COMPANY 
et ales 


et ee 


Appellees. 


In the trial of an action on the case for negligence, re- 
sulting from a collision between a street cary owned and operated 
by defendants, and an automobile in which plaintiff was a passenger, 
the wd on defendants' motion, directed | a Yerdict in encase slain 

RA I ES ena ania | 
mi the reve of plaintiff's evidence and entered judgment on tee. 
verdict. Plaintiff appeals and the sole issue involved is whether 
the court erred in thus directing a verdict in favor of the defend- 
antSe 

The accident occurred ‘ovember 23, 1928. The facts con- 
stituting plaintiff's case, as gathered from the testimony of two 
witnesses who testified ten years after the occurrence and who were 
respectively ten and seventeen years of age at the time of the 
occurrence, may be summarized as follows: About eight otclock on 
the evening in question, eleven persons were riding in a six 
passenger Studebaker automobile in a southerly direction along 
Kedzie avenue in Chicago. Plaintiff's father, Walter Ryjewski, was 
at the wheele Three passengers, including the driver, all meny 
occupied the front seat. The rear seat was occupied by three 
women, each with a child sitting on her lape ‘Two persons occupied 
The wit- 


the collapsible seats between the rear and front seats. 


ress, 2dmund Ryjewski, plaintiff's brother, who was then ten years 





| TeDw wmmaoe 


{ 

: , ( sinatcogad 

PMCID MONT LamagA =f 7 
§ Pee 

“A¥vmyoo x000 .tauoo | a he 
| , WieAmD D> ¥ Cais YPDD: epnont0 
4yrn ATeee } es ae "4 
_ QO { U iy ee 8 Xo . ae re 


ih 
“TAUOO SET YO MOLNTEO at au ev ER creme corre ce , 


uit 
< 





"betezeg0 bas benwo eiae dvente @ seoweed on 2th e sont v site 
<  ¢Tonnoensg & say Ttiveiela foidlw th eft deck dtia m8 bee | atnabneted xe 


. ‘tevat tiose nt dokbtoy @ “bed owtth erobdon tadnednb tb no sited ontd 
a nF eee ae TE in se PRN aaa oNAE A Sea a aaa ts TA 1 Voge OO 


a er pc) feeemtes beredne bee Sonoh tre aPetnd nds, iq ke eave ents da 


SE LTTE 





wodtede ei hevlovnt ewaat ofoe of} Sne A keonge ‘Titate le) “stotbrey 


ra oy 
La Kw 


ebpeteb ett to vevet re joibrey. re ist door kb annie wed: bexte rae “ald 


iw | 
5. SMARTS. «eta tes pi be a 


“nQo atoet aff .@8Or — tedhievo?! porsa90 tnobioae ot 


erew one bine earerivooe alt sed eTIey nod boltisact ote aeanend.h 


eit to emts efd ta eps To ataey ition bas ot Lev iden 


Sage bahcege 


0 XooLoto sigte iuodA sawollot ax Len dcomnnen ed Ue soonest 


eu 





xie a ai gaibit orew aro # tog novel eMoitaoup ae ‘gntrrove oe 
anole moitoetih yitedines o mk: elidomo dire xeilndebuae ropmence: 
aew eidawatyi setial » tesitst ahEhedrchoct sogeoksto ok ouneve otnbel 


exam Lis etevigd ext ani bulont semeen tent eo 








setntt yd beliqueoo aew dasa tee edt » dace Snot ot 
heigueso armaxog ow! «qek ted no antid ke bLEio ® he Ose 
wtb off sa9008 growt bra tet ante neous od adas 


aa, not meds eaw oxtw crodldont att “— ais 


-Qa 
of age, sat on his mother's lap on the left side of the rear seat, 


and plaintiff, then seventeen years of age, Was sitting on the left 
side of one of the collapsible seats. It was a rainy nicht and the 
accident occurred on Kedzie avenue near 50th street, which is a 
"dead street," and does not intersect Kedzie avenue on the west, 

Sdmund Ryjewski, plaintiffts younger brothery described the 
general seating arrangement of the passengers in the car, and said 
that he was sitting on his motherts lap at the left of the rear Beate 
He testified that the accident took place on Kedzie avenue between 
43th and 50th streets; that just before the accident his father "was 
driving on the side of the strect and 2 street car was comings north, 
and our car was g0ing south. There was traffic passing to my father's 
Tight, about fifteen cars. As this traffic passed my father's right, 
his car went on the rails. Before the accident, with reference to 
the two sides of the street car rails, my father's car was on the 
right hand side. hen my father was on the wrong side of the sirect, 
I saw a street car coming north on Kedzie. ‘The Street car was about 
half a block away. I heard the street car bell, and the street car 
hit the left side of my father's car. The left front of the street 
car hit our car. I dontié remember anything after that," The only 
material evidence given by the witness on cross-examinotion was that, 
"I do not remember anything except that my father turned out on the 
wrong Side of the street and I saw the headlight of the street car 
coming toward use I remember the callision, but nothine after it," 

Plaintiff, testifying in her ow behalf, said that prior to 
the accident her father was traveling south on Kedzie averue to the 
right of the street car tracks; that there were cars in front and in 
back of him, and that one of these cars crowded her father over to 
the left sides She continued: 

"I saw this machine crowd my father, and he was travelling 


the north bound track. My father was then on the wrong side of the 
street ai about 50th and Kedzie, it was about 75 to 100 feet from 


SOth. It is e dead street. At that time the street car had just 








ns 
a 


————— 








SS 





¢3599 fact eft to oble Jtel aft mo gel a 'nasitom aid no ea 49836 To 
Stel at mo gnistiia sew .aye ‘to aneor nsetnovea mond «ttitnialq bas 
et boa toain yriat s asw JI .Bteea effiagslioo ef? to ono to wicko 
& Bi doldw ,deotte Ala t290~n ewrovis oisbell mo bexteoDe tush bie 
evaew edt mo ounmevs ofshbed toostoini ton esob bus "<toorte baeb" 
edd bedixoged eusdtord seantoy a!tiivateta « ifawet ye Sraratbe ; 

Hise bus °*<tso eft nmi steyreuasg adi to dmomegnetia gridaes Lerenag 
.#eeR ta0k Ont to Stef oid te aqel etrenitom aint no guittis aaw ot tat 
‘peeved onmeve eisbeX mo soslq dood Imehtons ond tent heltivaed off 
aaw" toldcl sid Yrobtoos ont vteted Jawt tate yatoersta, dao Sna agen 
eidton animes aaw i909 tsetta 2 Ose toerts enfd to ebia en ro anivich 
a'toddial wos gniersg eet age grodT coated antos aow Tes “so hua 
aitigtx e'tedisi wa hecang ob tiene aint aA ».@%s9 reed tht tuods Jaa he 
o¢ eonetoter Wsiw etusbioe: afd ototed altst ot? mo gnew 180 ata 
eae m0 ASW too etuetite? wae elie 18D teorts ede ‘to- asbie ows ‘oat 
weette of to ebia aeow ont go asw tedttet Ya sroel «obke beast dota ta 
gods esg tee dostta etl «eishal mo dezon sm beteo X80 seerva & waa a 
teo dveetsa eft bua .lisd tea teetia any btsed I owas soold . @ : ted 
teouta edgy to doext diet edt .1te0 a!redtst yo te ebia $i0s odd sit 
vine sit "stad? tedIs anidiyme tedmemor 2 Ob I mae xno ois =e 

et ald ase HOLS an imisKe-BB0TS 10 gaond tw ett yd mevia Peers 7 Ltrosen 
eft so digo bens toddst Yat tent tqooxe gabid ye sednewer ton ob 
eo Jooute eds Fo dag ifpsesd ony, wae T bre teetts onl to bie ‘sore 
ti tedba qnidton jud eno kaha © att tedmeuon I 8m brawoe anism 0 , 

os toting toads bies ,ifeded swe ted ni priviitaes Yuden iele 

ond, of eunevs gishbed no fitvon anifovexd aaw tect e? his taobtoos veut 
mt Soa dm@ut ai ateo erow srodt teats etoate t29 ssunts afd 0 ‘ight 
od save xenveat sed bebworo ated saczti te eee teed ined: pe 0 toad 
| : boxmisaoe oie .obte et torts | 
iitsvex? agw ont bre ere ee wets ontdoan abd? was me ie 

to ebié gnotw edt mo race lik redtet yw .teets Sqved ye a 


” eet Jeet COL od 2¥ suods aaw tk yotsbel bua M108 twods je tootte 
he batl eo toerda edd omty tackd 3A od conta aah te em RT, s 





je 


crossed 5lst Street tracks, and it was coming toward us. Prom 
this east side of Kedzie, my father turned his wheels towards 

the west, to the right. Then the street car was coming et such 

a rate of speed and the motorman was sounding his bell from a 
distance, when all of a sudden the street car hit in the left rear 
of our car, the front side of it hit, the street car, and my mother 
was killed outright. At the time the street car and my father's 
Gar came together, my father's car was at an angle, facing south- 
weste From the time when the street car and my father's car cane 
together, L£ was unconscious after that. *** There were several 
automobiles at that polnt travelling south and near my father. I 
cannot recall how many there were, Before the accident, the street 
car was on 5lst and the motorman did sound his bell. Just before 
the accident the street car bell sounded several times. idy father 
blew his horn and blew his horn. He got his front wheels and front 
right at an angle facing southwest, and the next thing I knew we 
were hit in the left rear, and after that I don't remember, several 
of these cars travelling to the right of my father passed him up.# 


On crosseexamination she testified that her father wos crowded to the 


left by the car st his side, and in response to several questions 


she made the following answers: 


"Q. Did the car hit him? 

Ae It pushed us over. 

Ge Did it hit you? 

Ae it forced us over, yes. 

Ge It knocked you over? 

Ae It didn't knock us over, it just forced us over, 
Qe What part of that cutomobile hit your automobile? 
Ae It crowded use" 


She further testified on cross-examination as followss 


"The side front crowded us. It Was coming towards father, 
and it was touching our care It was touching the front side. ‘/ith 
the left side of that car he wos gradually taking more space, by 
that I mean, scraping alongside of our care The length of the dis- 
tance that it scraped alongside of our car was not a block, but 
about 75 to 100 feet. I didn't see the car after thate ie didn't 
pass that automobile. It was travelling south on Kedzie. It was on 
the south bound track. It was at our right. It was not in the street 
Car rails, it was on the side of our car. ie were travelling on the 
rails.e We were travelling on the south bound rails, .t that time 
when it was crowding us, we were gradually getting overe There was 
acar ahead of use we did not try to pass any care" 


Although the evidence is rather uncertain as to some important 
phases of the case, plaintiff's witnesses testified that the accident 
occurred in close proximity to 50th street and that plaintiff's auto- 
mobile turned on the tracks near 50th street just as the street car 
had crossed to the north of 5lst street; also that the motorman rang 
his bell and plaintiff's father sounded the horn of his care From the 


evidence adduced, the jury might fairly and reasonably have inferred 


that the motorman saw the automobile in which plaintiff was a passenger 


Dad hi 








week Oe Stewot peleoo saw th fae eslogud doonta. dala See - 
abtawod aloonw oid bearcisd xostet in Tp Orabenl %o able teao sky 
 doum te eqimoo aw ung deste edd nen? edely iz ots, oF) yteew att 
se gol ifed ain gnikavee aew mamtntom ald das beege to etat 
aeet thet ond m) tid tno deetta. sie nohiwa.o to Lie nedw.qoonatakh: 
wedtom yor fae . tHe dooms oft efiel 3 to abta donot odd 41am tuo to 
aiteitet? yo bee tao toombe ot omig ond 9A «tg ingwo. delist aaw. 
“Hds0s anicst .Slans na ta aew feo aliedisl wm .teeldegos omen ta9 
ated, two eiodiel yo baa seo Jeetda odd gory emit od ape. «taew 
ae otow eked? “2 det? tefis sxolsenopme anw I ,tattegos 
 E.«terniat wa teen bas adsios paitievart vulieg dans sa.aeLidomoiua 
fesssa Sid Cdaebisok Sod exvotei .etew everit Wrtaut Work ifssot sonnes 
erated Jeni .ifed wit bros bLb meoprotos ons bee tale no aaw,; 
Sergei vii «eeul? Coievba bebmttos LLed tae dootsa ex’ Li GOS ont 
tepet Ores aloadw 707i git gop oH smtod abl weld bre ated sid w c 
our Gert L grttt exer ett Ore sdeislives antosat slate as ta digi 
Lateye sredareats Mo i sats todtes Der etuet tiel edd of tid, ezew 
Wyqu SiN Desese tedtyat wa Yo tight edt ot aniffeystd ateo seeds to 


ee es habwsis aow Vetdat cel gaM bokiisvess era ‘eu ery 


qunotvasuy Lorevet oY wenoqast mi bes ~ebie ald fs tse edd yo ster 
 Venetine guteottot edt Sea ete 


Cait tif XA8 oft bit ow ioe 
etove ay bedaug ¢L «fh |, 

OS Rey the ek bee age Oe 

Oey suevro ey Beoweot dL eA |, 

Vteve voy Pets eHT OE eee oi 

atOVO ay boot? sant $i gteyo en doom t*rbiG 7I «hk = sa 

Le LROME CUS uuoy did glidomedps il te saage tadw ago 

ieee be ehwe te vt ion 





‘sawolfet as 0 12 ogdmsxe~ 220% 2 10 bok thsaed ‘xesdéaw't os 


.teide? ‘porewod gris 0 aaw 32 oan hobo to drott sbte edt” 
S3L), eehie dpoxt. ott geisfouod gaw 3+ «veo ceo goidoumt eew $F: ‘bee 
Wd .edaqa etom snide? yilcuhetg aov of coo dali to obkte tteL ext 
~alb ef? to digged off. .in0 two to. obhennole grigqe toa «xmem I tadhs 
“Wet ,toold a oe aeW tao 300 To odteynois begatea ff dare eonad 
Si pblo ew edad Sie tso edt cea diahib 1 «test O8L oF 2 dnodaw 
«fe Raw GT eiadol ne dépoa wunitisvads sew 21 .elidomodys dad? aa 
deoezies, on mi ton asw df otigatz qo te aew i] «toast 2 Saved atuea odd 
ete on age pte scow ef .4G0 tio fo e6ie afd ne sew Sk cation ag 
sant decd ¢a ,eLisx beped dines odd, no gatitowers stew .oW salle. 
aaw Sradt seve ait By vilessty Siow OW .RN palbwote saw dt red 


".KoO Yas Geog O8. Mud don 220 oy »an co paeda tag, Bo 

aE tredmgs. emea ef Ba Biciteons tedt at ef, eonohive ev cauodd LA. 

tnebines axis tatd bediiv aod aoaaond Lv a'Etivniela. .«sfzs. edd, to. mange: » 

~“oidne at rilimielg. dacs, Brow 2 oases AIO Of. Ye imino xg sacle Pa dewsiro9o 
tao footye eds ee sant tasuce Ase son exoett ons mo. borwi. eLtdom mi 


Qiiat mesrotom edi dads oaks gtectsa ¢ald te deuom end of. beagoto. bel 






add aOTE «to it Yo mrad ods gobeuroR, sertva’ a ehibalae: baer iked eld 
- berroting: ovca Wilpon en Peer uy at dd 


|) ogee acq | & BSW “‘etddatela dobiw ot -aehdes 





whe 
on the north bound track and that the motorman had at least half 
@ block in which to determine whether he ought to slacken his 
speed and allow the automobile to completely clear the track before 
proceeding past the point where the automobile was then stationed, 
While there is no direct evidence to indicate whether the motozvman 
did or did not see plaintiff's car, the fact that the motorman rang 
the bell and that plaintiff's father sounded his horn constitutes 
some evidence from which the jury might have determined whether or 
not the motorman was aware of the danger and in the exercise of 
ordinary care employed the degree of caution commensurate with the 
circumstances to avoid a collisione 

The law applicable tocases of this kind is well settled, 
and inasmuch as the case will have to pe retried, it will serve no 
useful purpose to discuss the legal principles involved. e are of 


opinion that the court was in err or in holding a8 | a ma mat t& ro of law 


should have 


ee 











that there was no evidence of the essential facts which 


Sale ne bene BANS 





pacietinddit™ 
ee ent NO iN PIN IN LA AOR REE pete OTD 


peen submitted to the jury, and therefers the tie sapcionll of the eixeutt 


ina wetlitA AED isa Sd taaR SS sATAOa Sven, 





SCR LO OP ed A 
a RI aT HE RT Aaa mag 








TT LL 
court is eeycanee and the cause is remanded ‘for. a new trial. 


atom 
LE recone. eo PE Sr annalec rare ae ae eed 
KENT = an 


a JUDGHSNT F HVoRSuD AND CAUSE REMANDEDe 


Seanlan, Pe Jes and Sullivan, Je, Concure 


whe 

tLak josel is bed aeepotom edd dadt bne Moers benod atte as dt 
adst notocte Oe dessre- os conte rte Snietetab e¢ sho hele mt vootd F) 
exoteg Anat? out tesio yleteiqaoond eLideseime: eft wells ban Seeqa 
- sbenotasde rats egw efidone iss est. stacy vatog “at PRac ambboseo'g 
naececom sit yenttedy eaolfni oF eonebive gootkh ob et sted oLiny 
mnie pemradom, ae dedd Foat ics attiseatat¢ bea ton beh “to BED 
Redod tango nts ala hebowos ten st et ttitaiela dats bre fied ‘edd 
te] pail ete bonmintestab ered dehy bm Yas, odd to tel moet, opted tye omg 8 
to eaterexe ody mi ims tegaah end Yo stave sow memsotom ald Jon 
anit oféiw o de nsseromuto 0 roatvinaes.. to Seay Sh offg Hoyo dgme wie ¥Ytanihro 
eminilins «2 biove ed 29 ore? aemtot bo 

«belies ifsw sk fatd abit to asaeo oF sideoilega wal ent 

on sytee Ifiw gi ghaizior ed at ova iftw ensa ect as Somesent bas 
te ats ov .beviovnt selgiont ag Legal ott eastoe ib oF Seegiug du tous 


wal to Mie s as geibtor ae so xto ae aew dusa9 aris dastd moinigs 


eae cmc ab rolahl anes 
ss ons ae CN senna 


BSH BEBGR Ao iste atoKt tas sneaae. eels % senehtve om aaw Stedd sactt 


viaccess x) Bead to i ai ‘erie ee 


” SA 


an le mans, 


septs agents hiws en ott ot Setiionve need 


Se at es ie no Bi RRR E EOLA TELE ETE RCA nda somethin Sais ES 
stakrd wer, &. 16% bebneme+ at SaaS orld rd Senxever ei gayos 


aleaeh mh ae 





ainda sty 45 


a at ae is oo thcton : 
v. HERR 4 LOUAD QUE Cusrsve eur rman cine TERE 
OENONOD aD ensvillue hes «ot ot Yaalayed | 


he. 


40218 





CHICAGO TITLE ARD THUST COMPANY, ) APPEAL FROM 
as Successor in rust, 
Appellee, BUPERICR couRT 
Ve 
JOSEPH CHAET, et al., JOOK COUNTY. 
) = 
On Appeal of LIONEL J. LIVINGSTON, 
Intervening Petitioner, ; ¢ 
‘ © fd 
Appellant. A. 6 1 6 


WR PRESIDING JUSTICE OHNIS E, SULLIVAN DELIVESSD THE 
OFIHIGN OF THE GOUHT, 

This eppeal comes to this court from on order entered in 
the Superior Court on Februsry 25, 1938, approving 2 master's 
report of ssle in « réesl estate mortgace foreclosure proceeding. 
The intervener wss not #n original party to the suit end did not 
appear until seversl years after the entry of the foreclosure decree, 
For some reson not plain to us he wis permitted to snpear in court 
on report of sale of the master and filed vhst is referred to as 
objections which we do not find in the ebstraect. intervening 
Petitioner claims to have recovered 2 judgment in the Municipal — 
against the owners of the fee and that et a bsiliff's sale on seid 
judgment they purchssed the fee, all of which wxa, of course, sube 
sequent to the mortg=ge lien end does not affect it in any wry. He 
wes then permitted to appear in court as an intervening petitioner 
and objeoted to the master's report of sale although he did not 
appear before the master and present his objeotions there. His 
objections were not made exceptions in the trial courte. Im addition 
to thie he had a witness sworn who testified vefore the court es 
to some facts in connection with the mester's reporte 

The complaint of the intervening petitioner, es we understand 


it is that the master took 2 deposit of 1,000 in cash and some bonds, 


| or eee es Ssh Peis ema: RN UeESES pay 
nth a4 (XM AAMOD Tes. Gea. oe Ai 

ii faut ai vousedang en 
ir . “geet leaca Ls ae Ca re mo aay 
Hits ue : a 4 SE es BiG Saab Py ay Rae aye Page 





- ROPORATIES Ah aswont te Iseq¢a nO 
etenolsige’ patarynotat 


ofa lioges 





WUE GSAGVIISS HAVIGLUS 8 BINMG BOTTOTL OULOLREA GR ve carst irs 
T8208. SUT. 9O, NOUS: 

ai bsreine rehto a moxt tryoe aidd of eenge. Leeqqn, whdP, 
“ebtadesm & guiverada sPERL 2h yragedel. Re Sued tabrequ® ode 
aaeb hate eninmoeloorel apeg om State deo. *. be shen 29, sneass, 
ton ab. bee thee ond ot ican ianty tee oe Pom Baw Soneyeetat oat 











oy Psy ny 


scored em smotoonet ade ke rae, Say tovts exeoy Lotavee Lktay teeqae 
Sy oe ome eT ow MS ld 


Pawan: na anamen oF ‘Devthnreg, ane oA aa bt atete ton noswet suor tot 


ie Wa Riri Pees 7 
as ot boreyber. at dete: beet bree seihecw edt to okee te ttocen 10. 


gitnevraial atoanieda. edt ak bai tot of ox dossier  enoleestda 

ga heer oft of thesgiat 2 beveveorn oved of emielo cethanst:) 
bise ao efee olttilied » te tet Bae est act te enone adit ‘tenkege 

“dire <onxisoo to .aew sotde to Lhe .ost edt beesdoron oils ienghak 

oH s¥ew ese ai ti toetis tem esabd bre welt agugdros adt ot teoupea 


teaeltiteg suiserretr: ae an duet af tonega oF bot t£arany node are 











i tan Bib oc dygvosdtic fee to trecer oteoteam ode ot betostde das 
i i ei .eredt esaitostie ald theses ial aotecum edt axered tesqqa 
I) Golgishbs al situveo Isitt add mé etehtqnoxe sham ton row anottoetso 
i as dros od? eroted belthtesd edw axewe esendin & had od aide of 
i etuaget a'retece od? dthw aeisoenneo ai atost amon of 


a bustersbay ew ae ,reaoltit¢eq galnevretal ed? to tnisiomec edf 
| aebuod egaa bas deso ni OO0,L% to theoqeh # doot toraam edt tsdt ei #2 







2 
and the belance was to have been paid when the sele wes confirmed. 
The total bid was £50,009 sand the bidder made 2 deposit of 71,900 
in cash and $13,500 in bonds and the balance, ss heretofore stated, 
wag to have been paid when the eale wes soprovede 

When a master selis property, the sale thereof is not in 
any sensé % Completed transsetion, but is merely an acceptance by 
the mester of an offer which he reports to the court and the so- 
called sale is not Sompleted until the court cives its sonsent to 


Srosdway-Ceormen Buildi 





the Completion of the asie. Levy ve 
Jorpor=tion, 266 Ill. ?79, 
- A@ wos said in Strovs ve Andergon, 366 I1l, 426, at page 432; 

“The officer conducting the sacle sects as the agent of the court 

in offering the property for sale. His declarstion striking 

off the property to the highest bidder esrries with it no 

interest or title to the property. the bid is only an offer to 

buy. Until, and unless, the court confirma the revort of ssle 

made by the officer conducting the acsle, there ig no gle." 

Even if the interveners were properly before the court, we 
cannot see just how they were injured in any way by the court pro- 
ceedings and no such injury hes been pointed out to use While 
the master is bound by the terms of the deeree snd eannet vory 
therefrom, yet the entire gum wes paid in sompliance with the terms 
of the decree of foreclosure, The trisl court did right in opproving 

eS ESTUARIES? NINETEEN eee 
the master's sale in the form thet it did. 
A REED 

For the reasons herein given, the order Approving the 

moster's report of ssle is hereby affirmed. 


GROEN Al FIRMED. 


HEBEL, J. OONCURKS; 
BURKE, Je TAKES NO PART. 





" | | | | sooo 


oy Hoaritaoe aoe ates alt Avdw Biog HOoG BVei OF emer ongahed ed? bas 
RO, £3 to Fimogeh © sham rabhte oat? has 000,688 eae DAN EEVGO bale 
ahetete exotatered a+ ,oomeLed sit’ fer shaod at SOS,SL9 baa dase al 
ehavorags eaw olae O49 noty Sing Heed. ovad ade enw 
af jor af Yoevedt? siac oft ,ysrouo are eil®e t9dnemoe m9de 

pt Sots SPRGOE- oe yet on al duel Miottoranens bebelnwee is. bende. yr 
we sat fatn ad eat ot RPLOS HE ad Caide retto as te t9tnem ont 
oF tabeatoe eet sowie For and iste hetelaaos ton @i alee bellae 
(9 Ywad «adse 8a? te ratinsnce wae 
e@VE VLEL O60 Vaoke: 
REA sgeg te “ase 6407 208 uisenoteh w? Runite wt hloe eaw wh 
tase adie to sildeeten me ies bag ott oncieoageo Reon sir lg H : 
Tog THe t doeigit oe od vecater eae ae 

onete a lao 3 feel Pig ied ee hy i ae 
‘oboe om et atest .hice edt gutdoniaod toaltie oft wi ehem, 
ow gttwor ade amoted qineqera ota enemevenent ado Bh MOWEy oy 
-ore ftuoe ad? Yd yew Ye wi berajal oxow smith: wad: toed og, bolt 
efit’ sav ot #vo betatog need ot@ yeutat dove.on Dag sgakbead 
Viev doen bee eoneeh odd Yo amted of? yl feed of geteam wae 
_ aoe arte atew wonediqnes ad bheg aun was CULine O87, 19% qpotkemads 
gaimenucs at tise bbb mee at 28 ad s8tseafopto? to sexo oft to 


RCP ott geQeyorbs: 























ade univeregn tebta sdt ynavig niered ahaa eth ailk | 
shomestie yiersd af gdea to Progen, ataedaem ~ 
_ CIBALGG A FSGS ; i ysi, TMek” ea ah | eae 


4 








40307 

IGNAZIO DANILE, et al, 

APPEAL FROM 
Ve 

SOCIETY SAN BIAGIO OF 8ST. BIAGIO 


PLATANI, (also known ss SOULETA 
SAN BIAGIO PLATANI), a corpor>tion, : 


Appeliant,. ; Az 614 


MRe PRESIDING JUSTIGE DENIS £, SULLIVAR ORLIVERZD THE 


) 
Appellees, } 
) 
| 


OPINION OF THE COURT, 

This is an appeal from = decree entered in the OCirenit 
Court wherein a member of 5 society which it is slleged «ss incor=- 
porated under the statute, not for erofit, hed formed s company 
consisting of approximately 129 members for the purpose of paying 
death penslties and other benefits. A digpute srose among themselves 
about the carrying on of the business and some of the wembers had 
been expelled from the society, particularly the plaintiffa. 

Pisintiffs sllege that the officers and dissenting members of 
the society are stiil conducting the business thereof, collecting dues 
and assessments for sick and desth benefits, although they hsve been 
advised by Counsel snd the insurance department of the State of 
Illinois of the illegality of the society's continued operations 

Plaintiffs further allege that they sre willing to secount 
for any moneys which may be due to the society and sre willing to 
abide with 211 court orders entered for the préservation of the 
society's assets and the equitable distribution of same; that 
pinintiffs and sll other members similarly situsted ore being sub- 
jected to certain penalties and lisbilities beceuse of said illegal 
operation of the society; thet the society's funds, assets and property 
are in danger of being diverted or diminished from its purpose by those 
in control, unless restrained by the court, and plaintiffs ask that 


the court determine the rights of 211 the parties and thet a 


$0808 
ais oe spine: jomgand 





Ws yt) Ty ok &h Kite’ os 
wat T 


s880L(00qh 


at 
+ Me 


i 
“‘Preges FPoOcLo | : 
| OLMALa Pe %O oreatg tice 
{ 





YTKUOO Aoae / APEIOOR os ATALG 
2% holteraqtar 2 ner? Hatha vb basen 
Sanaa al - 7 - 


any aunaviaa BAVTGIGG oS 21080 ME ToDG puraxeamt m ss 


ti | __., stav00 BHR TO Hor oti ag _ 

WP cacti 

“toned ase dopelis at t2 dotde elses 2 te tedRem # shotede ‘truod ; 7 

Yasin s beerot had 1Hiorg tot Sons stated e ade xebaw boanmee | 

gather te emectog ede” so exedmen eG. ylotnetnonige to gadtelanos 
novloomedt ‘Hom: esoxe eves A seat Dede! sRdeo hme wobt tener ae 
| 


; 
a 
if bed etecken of¢ 2G dmoe bas eetelesd ot To oo galyreee ody tuodis - 
7 





.  theettO edd mt hevadae onanh ® peat’ Larges as ek 








7 settitaioly edt yusiveiiued ,yeelton eit mort helloqxe need i 
‘te predues gaktaseath bus exsortte ede tent egelie atiitatert 
seu galtesifon ,tosredt easmtend edt yattoubaeo LLkve ots yoteon ont 
end oven yadd dyoodtis jee thendd msek bas dodo’ ‘ot wiusneeseen bane ml 
7 te stant ede to taometeqeh eonerwaal odo Bite isenwoo “é boatvbs: 
eiviteteqo bownbiies etysaicoe ant to yothegetit ade to Mont ae pac ar 
TameRon od getifie ome woat teat ayoLLe- emt ‘ettituielt | 


ot gabiiiw ote tac hives ett of Sub of we ‘itetite erence esd en 


ie yun \ 
























7 ~tue gaied win ootavele Validea sisdgue: ste Sia es : 
Leogelli Bias to saneced weiselidedl has aadeLaneg aistse 0 
etregord hee etecan aboot etytetowe edt tadt pyteioos sat to x 
snot yd eeeqry efi wort bodteknialh to ‘hertersh quied to 1 geenh 
ss tedt aan ettitetelg bee ears ot * ben patient er 


_ @otadd bas aedttag “ant Re; TY lad 


GAs 








2 

receiver be appointed to conserve ond distribute the society's 
assets; that the court preserve the society's funds and assets by 
necessary restricting orders and decree the distribution of the same 
among all the society's members snd dissolve the ssid society, 

The defendents"answer denies thst they relinouished any 
right to strike the complaint filed herein and alleges thet seid 
Complaint frils to state 2 csuse of xction. Further answering 
defendants say thst jurisdiction, with regsrd to reineorpvorstion or 
conferming to any inw, is the exelusive privilege «nd suthority of 
the Secretsry of State or the Director of Insurance. 

Defendants* answer neither sdmite nor denies that the 
society's assets are about $4,900.90; neither sdmits nor denies 
that the defendant society hes received » certificate or permit 
as alleged in the complaint. 

A motion was made to strike the complaint, which was overe 
ruled. No motion vasa mede to strike the answer, plaintiff. 
apparently being satisfied with suohanswer, 

In some way the conse got before 2 master in chenecery, 
although the abstract doés not show how, The abstreect shows that 
a decree was entered April 28, 1938. The master's revort was filed 
ay 19, 1938, although an order wes entered April 7, 1938, making 
objections to the master's report stand 96 exceptions and setting 
exceptions for hesring on April 25, 1938, On November 12, 1937, 
an order was entered appointing Michael A. “omano as receiver for 
defendant Society San Bingio Plateni. Wo appeel was taken from 
this order, 

4s heretofore stated, on April 7, 1938, an order was entered 
making objections to the master's report stand as exceptions, and 
setting the exceptions for hesring on April 25, 1938. Wo exceptions 


appear in the abstract. This is important for the reason that 





8 : 
e'ygeivoon ede irniindels bea orraanes om bomntonge | ag sorisiie 





| yd utacan bas abaut e'¥teivos ent eviscarc tr00 add teat tetones 
Hl once edt to noituiiedeth add eatea® bas evebre gnitoiuéaes. Yraaaseen 
JZ sYteiooe hies sit eviogedh bar wredasn e'yteloon ont tis gaome 
| i betehuanksen yess judd metaeb cowans' aitnebaeteb od't 

nn Blan sould eg wis hae aheced bossy taisigned off milxte of triglt 





i gaktiwere taltil cotter te seme o Stade of alist tateLqmoo 
i ~e naiterestoonkey e&¢ besyot dthw .mebtotbadcyg teat “yon eM bit ob : 
| to Wetadtue bus sgetivita owhuwions at wd prot ye oF gutetekaoo 
<soaetyenl to tetdeThT edt co atese to’ bandana oma 
ie esd tox? @utned tem etlebe rodéton eewned adie a 
iy pekneh ton gttoke redtien 7OOL00G 4 teede ote atones ‘ahittidae 
| Pieseq co ofeolts ree bow beet aed ybetoor duahroreb ‘aid | is 
ih if eivisiques adv mi Leniaaates 


Ss. 





“rave ane dbide ,ealelemod edt eaicee oF Shaw atw aoltem : adie 
+ seieiieeioats (Towels Off edlere of abet mer ‘ol tom on -beLut 
stevens dome atin beiteltas gated ‘Utaseodce 


cy sk di aK ore y" 
— gyroaned® mE rateam © Steted fog eae ent ‘Cow omen an 


ce a 


tam? aware toorteds an sod wode tox need Soortads ont dguo tin 
boli saw droqet eieocnew #1T os - cial en ane ‘oooh a 








aVOEL gi tadwevelt no | 68e1 + an sbi’ ite anid: wa ibis an | 
vot vavieoet ae omanel 44 feadotN yattntoage boretad ‘iw sad ! 
mot atiet eae Letdge Oh  ,heneely mene mee weir treba seb ; 














| Perstne gor tebso ae ,880L,T Lived no hetade Wie ite ie . ame 
hue. ganottceexs es baete ¢reqe a retead One of ides Sal asd 

enottqooxe oH ,886L .3e Ekeqa ng ante ial ‘phatt¢e 
edd noeset odd tot tuettormt ‘gt wT Cte 





3 
paragraph 2 of the decree which waa entered April 28, 1938, reads 


as follows: 


“2. That the Waster*s report and the findings therein 
contained sre true and correct, except ss to the exceptions 
taken to the conclusions of ls» contsined therein, which said 
exceptions have deen sustained and filed with the Court and 
the Master's conclusions in respect to the law appliesble 
thereto have been heretofore overruled.” 


se have not been privileged to know what the exceptions 
were to which the court refers, 
In its deoree the court issued the following as an order; 


"It is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the Uaster's 
report and findings therein contained sare true and correct 
save insofar as this Court hrs sustained the exceptions filed 
by the plaintiffs in connection with certnin conclusions of 
law and recommendations in regard thereto made by anid Uaster, 
Wherefore it is Ordered, Adjudged and Deoreed that the said 
report of said Masterein-Chancery, John A. Sbarbare, in rll 
respects, otherwise than those conclusions to which plaintiffs? 
exceptions have been sustained, be and the same is hereby 
ratified, confirmed and approved by this Court." 


The deeree then continues: 


"It is further Ordered, ont rage and Deereed that said 
cage be swain referred to the said “aster-in-Vhancery, John 4, 
Sbarbsaro, for the purpose of taking testimony and reporting on 
the persons who are members in good standing of said defendant 
society as of the date of the filing of the Oompiaint herein, 
to-wit, liovember 8, 1937, and for the reporting by said Master 
of the manner, method and ratio of distribution of said funds 
amongst the members, * * * and thot said Mester is to report 

to this Court, with all convenient speed, his findings, con- 
Clusions and recommendstions reached by him in this matter, 

It is further Ordered, adjudged and Decreed that the 
jurisdiction to prs: upon the amount to be allowed the plsin= 
tiffs for their costs and the amount to be allowed as and for 
their attorneys’ fees in regsrd to this proceeding and the amount 
of fees to be allowed the ‘eceiver herein for his services be 
and the same is hereby reserved by this Jourt; and the Court 
further retains end reserves complete jurisdiction to enter any 
and all necesanry orders to carry out and effect the terms and 
provisions of this decree and to give any further directions and 
orders which may be necessary to distribute the assets amonget 
the parties entitied to same." 


Thereupon there ens prepared » stipuletion as to the materiel 
evidentiary facts, snd alao >» certificstion of purported questions 
of ilsw involved in this proceeding, which procedure was doubtless 


intended to comply with ule 23 of this court. The certifiesation 





& 
ehoor ,8tGL ,8o Lingd hexotae ase doidw senoab ad? to 8 mAqetgeraq 
jawoliot aa 


ako tedt emashast ait iis steget a'retesu edt tad? .#* ; 
atgitceoxs ad? ot ac dyeone ,doarrgs Bao tos? wee Berkatnee”’: 

hive Gite yakevedt beoiotane wel Lo emolenionos edt of meds? 
bia teveS edt giv UOLIT bad basistave mead ‘even amaldqeene” 
aldnetionn wel edt of teaqees mi anotegionee atretask edt 
t‘,balercero otetedarad aeed aved ofereds ; 


Tay Be 


etokdcanne edt tere wood of baselivigva avet fon awed ee oo © 
seroter tooo ed? dobde oF over 


stabto fe oa gaiwoiiet ed? bewael trope off aoraab ett — 


e'aetca’ odt tat beqteat bas beghuths .féeaodd af gTWl eo ooo 
toevtoo het quxt ote. beaiotacs ale reds 4 piel, bas ps 
pellt enoitqesms ed¢ Batkadaws seed Piayed oe: ae tetoent sv-9 
te. stodanivees aies yao. déie seitosnaas, at otha det oat ih 
etetesk Hies yd them oFoteds Sreset al aro ger yp-2 ip Boo wat 
Bene off tad Saocoeh ons beghuh bs gborah xm a Pe erode 
fie ai goredesds oi ado ,¢Teonkddeal-Tetaak tes Yo dxoqor ” 
‘etiitaiede dolde at saoioutoder Gnod? aadd. ealetadia rh be pedo 
wiersd ef oma dt ime od .bonkataus aead eves nites oo 
*, treo eid yi bevonege base bowtitaos eboltkiat 


sasual tego aed seroeh ont 








bise tad? Seovoesti dua besbetba shoreteQ sodteut 2f an" 
A aot ,yreancdi-nig-votecv blen ede of Dorreter nihape ed egap ’ 
ao auiftoces has yrontteod pie te. seegteg edt rot ee 
dasbasteb bier To noibasts al etsdoos ote offe eaoseey ods 
atioxed tainiquel ed? ta galiz) edt To adeb edt to we Yeleoe 
vegeal biee yt asidvecdr sat Yot bre a Sel 8 eedeeved | tiw-ot 
abawt biea te seitudiitieshS to efdes Bae bed tou atonknm odd to 
tracer of af veteo bind ted? haa * * * ,etedmem ont 
“Hop ,egcibedt ald ,beege tieiseraos ile “dtiw righty aid ot 
erstien oint ai ald yi Sefoxes Greltahaomrooer bai anetente © 
Paps 26 tadt beogael hae begbyiha . aneseene red tisk ok 31 
o wit bewelle od of tavdue” — eeey of molded f 
/aer Aan.ee hewolig ad of tavene adt baa eteoo tleds pe rai ~ | 
faugus odt bac gatbsenotg eld? of Bteget ai eest teyortotta: dpeae> Pog 
_ a eseivaes aii tot alowed toviens! ed? beyolie od of aeet to 
fxyod odd ban ;iveb sidd Yo hevrsoer ydeted ai sume od? Bas” 
yas gagae of soitedbaitet eteiques sertegey Sas agiaést tedérwt 
bee amvet odd dootte bee tv Yous of orabuo Yteeeeeen Iie bua” 
has eneddoatlbh sedtedt yas ovig of bas ooteeb eld? te exolezvers. 
teotomes eteeas odd otedintalb of , Creeeeoee ad yaa Moise erehto 
*,omen ot Daldi tice eagtren es? 





iatrotem 6? of as aoltaivgive « doxszeny acn_ ovens Hog yeted? 
atoltesup hetroqeva to aodtaodtitaso o onla bar aetont wratemebiye 
aesitdued saw erubeeong doide . sgalbeooorg ate bi Perko, heen to 7 
Aodtesititres oAT «atiwes aida to BS, ashi sti, wom 





4 

of questions of law involved in this proceeding were certified to 
by the trinl judge, The cuestions, three in number, are lengthy 
and involved, and contsin so much thet is not necesasry, and leave 
out so much that is needed in order for a court to be able to give 
such concrete answers %*3 would be helpful in this situstion, 

Rule 83 (section 2) of this court provides in part as 
follows: 

“(3) The judge of any court of reoord, may, if the 

parties litigent essent thereto, certify any question or 
questions of law srising in any case or preceeding whatever 
which may be tried and finslly determined before him te this 
Court, if the osse is reviewnble by this Price together with 
his deoision thereon, * * ** 

The difficulty with this esse aubiae to this court at this 
time is this, the jurisdiction of the css3e¢ has been specifically 
reserved by the trial court, by ita deoree, for «ll purposes in 
connection therewith until its finel decision is reseched, fhere 
has been no finel disposition of the subjeetemeatter., This is 
neither an interlocutory appesl nor is it en sppeal from a final 
decree, and «8s the rule applies only to eases which have been 
finally disposed of, we sre unsble to see in what manner this appeel 
would lie in this court. The rule, eccording to its terms, applies 
only to any case or proceeding which may have been tried and finally 
determined, we do not believe thst in the present condition of the 
record this case is properly before us, and for that reason the 
appeal from the Oircuit Court is hereby dismissed, 


APPEAL DISMISSED, 


HEBEL, J. CONCOURS, 
BURKE, J. TAKES NO PART. 





t 

of bellidnes even gashesgoong ald al \erloval wal te saoldagup to 
Uitgoos ste yredman al serd? ,oneitesup off soghel leis? ode wa 
eves bas 4 YIAeRnaeR tom et cedt docm om aletiee bra aboviownl bets 
avin of olde ad at tracy » tet tebip at ‘Deboon ef aeate Aoi oe tue 
sioddnittc alte af ivtg led of bivww we azoweas ichpaial a 

ax toy ok asbivens dies a keit te (8 mereey eH ‘efet 
pera dtot 
ad? ti ,qWwe ,breoer to faves Yae to oghat ax? “(ayn as 
<q maltoaur yas Yhesxeo odes. ade teense tegitil eolicag 
tavetete sxihertot: to seer’ ‘Me st gy ive @al ta silage 


aiat at wan aneted ben ferrodeb 
At he ‘redress arene “er ee ia | 








ae sbeaieien Ea vet nei a “we sated Lae GAP gh SUM 
ered? ,bedpeor sf cofteiseb Lana atk Lh¥ow diiwerods ‘nokinennoo 
ak elt? .redtematootcue ott Yo nokdteodad® Lealt of nodd ded 
Jeakt 2 moet Lneqgs as 4 ad wet savage: Woduteltotas ) tedden 
ead teed dokty anes et: hans abil as ade me ms. ation 


ee 






| vm 3 nur bem : 


nee 
on siphon ae t 
, ail? Lai ie te 
mie i Pay v ay pee 4 i % 
¢: 1K J ah. RETOUR 


40317 
He MOFARLANE & GGMPANY, 
APPEAL WROW 
Appellee, 
Ve MUNICIPAL OCURT 
BELOIT DAIRY COMPANY, : : eZ 
Appelisant. 2 y G i 6 1 ri 
MR, PRESIDING JUSTICE DENIS £. SULLIVAN DELIVERED THE 
OPINIGN OF THE GOURT. 
Defendant brings this sppeal from 2 judgment entered in 
the Municipal Court for the sum of ©2,515625 in in favor of _Plaintif? 


ee 


and against defendant a¢ the balgnee due under a written cont rect 
for the construction and mounting of two automobile truck bodies on 
two automobile truck chassis which chassis vere furnished by 
defendant to pAaintiff for that purpose, 
cudgnent in this case was entered on & | motion of the plaintiff 


“ PORONMURENE YA p pe 


who moved the court to strike defendant's onswer for the resson ‘that 
Neteceieerenenesementann 


ee amr eee we ncervner # ee en Sa aaes 
ae 


4t did not set up cy valid defense te the elaim of plsintiff. 

The amended statement of claim consiate of » detailed recie 
tation of other evidence accompanied by letters and exhibits 
attached thereto in connection with the trensaction between plain= 
tiff and defendant. 

It appears from the pleading and evidenoe that plaintiff end 
defendant entered into s written contract, whereby plaintiff agreed 
to construct and mount two automobile truck bedies on two sutomobile 
truck chassis, the chassis having been furnished by defendant, in 
accordance with certsin specifications; thet plaintiff «as to 
reoeive payment for said work upon its completion. 

It further appears from the pleadings end evidence that when 
the work was finished there was not, soparently, a complete or 


substantial fulfillment of the contract, in that the automobile truck 


a a4 aed) 








Hh 
| oo | vaeo8 
ao a “2 + gYHAGNOO 6 GHARINTON Ve 
( . MORY LAnTaA oy 
Pont? antl ‘ ; : ePol Laggan. i ah) ( 
T8U00 Gatioleuy : ver Amn. Rane 
nang YNTAM Thome 





“s i oT 6 e Gg eee a ee oteeed Leger di eS COA ) 
SBT UGG MeVELIG8 eC SORTGUY DMICLORRT em : 
| <THGOD SAT WO: HOXKIN 
ak houaine gnowsiu) 9 woxt Leeqys add ayaded taxbrekee 
_Mittetale te ‘separ: find BE eREE AR tO sais oat tok tus Koatotaant ong 
font 00 gee thaw a. edo weak sompisc ed na + tnahinenob aenteze bas | 
ww bedm karst mary aigendo onda atonanta dourt “olddomotue ont : | ; 
suqeny todd tot ‘Mbnadadg of ‘dasbasteD , 
Ysda Lely ade * molttom # Bik bexatne eae once abe at tecomrgbar, 


ee enn Haas oa stb ate scat SRS Sali at BP ie ites oy cae ath 


tet MOBAET ane x02 pene weet & ‘at smebaeted ‘aaen at Feo en? bovox ost 4 


IO YY ans ae «oR are innegelemey eter ste ‘medieettioaian Sr ieieseishitnitie dilate ee pees 


tittnicle to mieio ade ot soot oi bitey ¢ qu a8: ton ‘bab tt a 








~howe Bolistabr « ta atecemor tdado to duenotede pabreae oot 





etidisxe bos erotiat i betaaquooes wonebive ‘xedto te nied 
wake hey Noowtod aottoqutets oat ths Goizoonage ak otoreat hedootie 
stasbasteb bag vat 
baie Pi ititele tedt aggebive hes ‘goibestg. aude oor aneeqgs a sian ae 
hasrgs ttitaielq ydterese stoorgnoo nottinw R ott perotae ‘tanbaerep: 
alidomediue ex? mo apthed stout aitdomotin ow? srLr0m bas , Seapteges, at ie 
ad stuabasten 1 bode tant agad gatwed atannddo odd witevado xoust 
of new TEtintelg toad jenoktactttosqa mistreo tee ‘epaabrooos 
soltetqmos ett moqe atow blew tot tne eG, gvioes 
‘gedw tods sonebive bas agathsely sit Cs eraeqge conitcut cs ces a. 
io steignon « ,Yitwoxeqqe ,tot eew eradd bededadt a5e Aton eat 


| 1 Meret aLidano tue ect ¢edt ms stone nent oat to tvoml 22 Let Sabtnateaun . 





3 

bodies did not comply with the specificstions; thot plaintiff 
demanded payment for its work, but defendont refused to make payment; 
thet on or sbout way 8, 1937, defendent paid plaintiff %2,210.35 

on account on the contrect, withholding the balance until slaintiff 
should complete the work by conforming the bodies to the specifica= 
tions as set forth in the contract. The pisintiff apparently 
admitted non-complinnce with the contrset and specifications as 
plaintiff again received the automobiles to make changes in the 
bedies and again returned them to defendant, 

In its answer defendant recites what transpired between 
the parties, stating thet an agreement was entered into between 
plaintiff and defendent to have certain bodies made for certain 
automobile chassis; thet a diapute sreose between the parties, 
defendant claiming thet the bedies were not in accordance with the 
specifications; th=t defendant paid plaintiff $2,210.35 on account 
on said contract, withholding the belance of the contract price 
until piaintiff would finish its work to comply with the specifiestion 
as Gonteined in the contrect,. 

Defendant's anewer further states that thereafter plaintiff 
undertook to complete its performance under said contract to conform 
said bodies to said specifications and made the ehanges and alter- 
ations referred to in paragraph 5 of plaintiff's amended statexzent 
of claim, but defendant st»tes that the changes aforesnid did not 
Complete the performance of plaintiff under anid contract in that 
they did not wholly conform said bodies to sid specifications but 
said changes and alterations constituted enly a minor portion of the 
alterations required of plaintiff to comply with the specifiestions 
ef said contract. 

Defendant's answer further states thet plaintiff olsima 


that in order to complete its performance under 3214 agreement 





ehtatele tedt janodteottioeqe oat ditty Yigmeo don BLD wbEBed 
qidemyes eticm of beewter fachaeted tud girow eet tot teom yey Sehtemeb 
@f,018, 84 thindale bteq tachastad VEL .8 You fuads te a0 Lina 
 VWiddolelg Litee aonnded silt aalbiouds iw stowrtnes edt ao. tauonos ae 
edb biosa ad? ot aathod oat sunisvrotane Ww arow edt eselqnos bivedg 
yltnereqcs ttitnlels ad? stoansaoo ‘ond at ator dee ae anoks 

em aod taottiosqe ius teentnee odd atie sonnd iqnoo-non bettinbs 

edt al eoumadte eae at eetidomedue one hevisess aiess Uibtakela 

. stnabastee ot made damtton akege bas ‘soibod 
mgented hatigaene rt tedy getiver tasbasted zowsas ott ‘at. : 





> 


THEE 


‘neewded tat herotee naw moans ens ae dad pattere swakéseg vend 





_ gtietven xot aban aeibod abode oved ot tasbagteb ‘baw Yelvatesa 
seadtuag edd segedad agers otucath & tedd joduasdo eLidonotus 
eda ditty aeaabreses at ten etew nelbed ads fade gabmtalo ‘uobasred 
““gnuoos io 85.0188) Yidankela Sieg tunbaod eb. ted iaaokssotsteoge: 
aoktq toartnoe ait te sonated wd path Ledddiw daoudnoo bisa. ‘fo 
moltaottsosqa ate dite ylumoo of *8on are perrys) bivow itatnie Shiau 
| " —pteattaon wat ah dontasaon ee 
ttatabesa testectods Ford eotote todtest vesnne ‘eNtashastel BAL 
maatned ot tosneaos biae tebe apaaete® ti asi. sieiqmoo ot yen 
| weed Ln bas eeanndo eis shan ns enolisottiooge Diss ot asides bisa 
| tneandots hobaeme a'thidadalg to & gare ak ot bosranen | onotds 
fon bib bineatote engasato edt tost setnte Sanbiia? ab tut vedsto to 7 
todd ak toevtaoo baw reba Teitabade te aoumeeot Tee oat svelquae 


sayy a Hh vai 
ted enolssodt Looqa bhes ‘ot eeibed bhoa mtotaoo ‘lode ton ‘bi th yeds 


depae’s 


P 
add to aelbtrog sonim s vine botutltenoo snokdmeng ts: ban ‘eegaado, bhee 


"y anottcottiowge edt atin Ulan | of ) Piatndeds te > bor duper bore 
ie dey 24 Pein of 











taht. 





3 
according to its terms, to be entitled to the balance of the agreed 


contract price for the work called for by ssid agreement, it is 
recuired by pisaintiff, by seid specifications, to do the following; 
to change the shape of aaid bodies and the shape of the roofs and the 
manner of attaching the roofe to the bediea snd the mouldings »round 
the windshield windows: to make, sccording to the specificstions, 

the proper silowsnces for expansion of the wood framework due to 
temperature changes and changes from dry to ret, =nd to correct the 
swelling of the bodies and spreading et the floor line by removal 

of aluminum floor corner angles snd floor aletes, and raising floor 
pintes, and the removal of the entire top wood floor snd insulation, 
and sir drying same, and drawing bodies together 28 much xa possible, 
and replacing insulation and outting down and replacing floor, and 
leaving spacings between all boards to allow for expansion, ond 
painting floor and all of wood frame-work with asphaltum paint, and 
replacing aluminum floor plates and angles with non-rusting scrers 
and bolts, and to cut the top flange of stainless steel side kick 
pistes and placing new angle on top to meet floor plate; replacing 
ali aluminum moujdings on the side door openings, rub rails and rear 
chrome plated bus reiiings with brass nickel-plated screws instead 
of iron nickel-plated screws. 

Defendent's answer further st«tes thet the work mentioned in 
parnagreph 4 of its answer is required by the terms of said contract 
to be done and performed by the plaintiff in order to complete 
plaintiff's performance under said contract and entitle it to the 
balance of the contract price; that defendant has at all times been 
ready, able and willing, and hes offered to plaintiff to mike ssid 
chassis and bodies thereon sveilsble to the plaintiff, ond to do all 
other things required of the defendant under said contrect in order 


to enable the plaintiff to complete ssid work but thet the plaintiff 





_heerge ent te esesled ene of Belt iene ac ot ,awtee ott of patbrosbs 
ak th ,MneaeOrge hie yd tot belieo Aree ede cot sobte Pontiieo 


re eae 






: :gciwatiet eff of of ,anoivesiviene bive yo ,.Yeitalelg yd dew: 
i 980 Bee atoot act To syede ody bee emtbed Btoe By sqaife ede egaadd Gr 
\ peyets enh fine s6% Bae eethod ade ot stoot eit gu kdeette To verti 
~eaokteertivess eff of grdtrooas (atte of ‘vemelw bletdebntw ont 
of ah Srow—tuaTt bogw et Ye seine not eeonrvelt« sedore _ 
ont Peorebe oF BAS [eer oF wee owt Sonic hie ehqante oruteroqne: 
| Savosiey y call veedt et th BasBeorgw tae aetbed ed? te ‘guttitiire 
toolt Biiviat bre Vestaly cook? bie a6 lgan terres toott mitsie bie ta to. 
7 etotteLtael bee roolt heaw Gor etives ont te Bevomet eae baw’ awodaly 
 gbidiewed ae Sim da vedtenot waibod ga lwexd bot thee gate the ‘be 
bas ,feest gmideloet ban awe yeittuo has wottelvent gikoslooe bas 
r Ri Vaetanetts tot wolle of ebreod™ fle peewted ahetobgn yithyrot 
pate Rate met tadee ditty Seesomett Noow Ye Lor bre roolt pabeniteg 
aretoe gubtevt-ior Mlv eoiyar tan eotely sooRt memkarts ‘gatostget | 
Few obte Leeds coblntate to suttalt cot eat ye or ial abtlod bia 
_ gatoslast jstaiq tool teom of got ae ‘okgue: ‘wen gatosio har astony 
qher Dae elles Gut ,agelittes toer sbte eft ao egadh from enema Ate - 
en eee awaves bepelq-fadota swerd dhby wath Lae: aod noted ¢ 
stworee betece~ if naa oe | 
ai BonOktiran Atos ect sadd- wade ea. Tether nenrerne at ba ae 





























ike ob of bac ,ttitalslq eM? ot eidaliovs senent 
cobra at tonrsites biter tebau eatiad ‘edt ‘to enki 


4 

delayed and refused to complete sid work and to do the things 
required of the plaintiff to be done under 62id contract before 
plsintiff is entitled, under the terms thereof, to the balance of 
the contract price, 

Defendant's enswer further ststes thet the fair and renson- 
able value of plsintiff's work and verformance in the present form 
of partial completion and conformation to said specifications and 
said agreesent is not in excess of the sum of ©2,210.25 heretofore 
paid by defendant to plaintiff, and the plaintiff has no further 
Claim ageinst defendant for the balance of the contract price 
unless snd until the plaintiff shall ee the things recuired of 
it to be done by ssid contract and said apecificstions. 

The purpose of plesding is to make en issue upen whieh 
evidence may be heard. then the motion was made by the plaintiff 
to strike defendent's snswer thereto such motion was ecuivalent to 
e demurrer, In the Municip=l Yourt orsectice 2 motion to strike a 
plesding has the effect of a» demrrer thereto. 

In State Street Furniture Co. v. Armour 2 C9., 259 Ill. 
Appe 589, the court snid: 

"The main question on this record, therefore, is whether, 
admitting sll the weli plesded fsetes 2s allesed in the -ffi-e 
davit to be true, ssid sffidavit stotes « legal defense te 
plaintiff's claim * * ** 

In reeding these pleadings in the instant case we believe 
the answer sets up sufficient to take issue with the claim of 
pisintiff and evidence should have been heard upon the eome. ive 
are further of the opinion that the court erred in atriking the : 
answer and should have permitted the same to stand and should have 
rere oes ONIONS Uae avemceesentbEntansseapen sssesasuefiommmaaes 


heard any competent evidence offered thereon. 


For the reasons herein given the judgment of the Municipal 


“toenet bie thet ed¢ toot sagede pedtee’ tepans, a saedaeton, 


andes thaxtsoo ads to Soneled eft tot tnahae hes taatoge assis 


senoitrettiesge bine Ine toentaee, blow ye aero 





ioitw soy. eueei ws etiam of eh gatbeodq Jo. seeqreg oat had 
Tiktsisig est yd ehem eew sotto ods east! shared ad oe sonabive 
od tmaleyiune asx goiter dium ciouedt sewers ei duabaoteb. oditia.ot 
s wists a¢ anitem & epiteary tive> Leqiodaus ert mh  «Rorgamed «, 

| | -otoreds texted a to deotie edd ead yatheolg, 

oiLk, OBS a RE A cuoes) +¥ gh stud ienyy ieeash eier8 mt 
iectutiae A ws tas ane. te900, one 888, 984, 
axeuitecs 2 SEORAKOME qooee atid me cokteens ales oft" 















=i o8o ai beneile er betmeia tier en Ile guttt 
of vaceteh Legal « eetate ttvebky ta Skee. a. ad of dived ._ 
| «Histo et Etat " 
i ’ gyartod @» se20 fardtents oft at eawbtivetes ‘seott qutbeer xf 
| “te minke eft ditty ovand @xst of teetolttve qv utes tewand ony 
i” oY sens ‘ott goqe bretd amad ovat bivoda Sonebive bre Mitdinsy’ 
i eae Babitaee mt at forks fveo ode tant dotnies eit to ian eT 
Y sivenet aoe ee baste ot ot emine ate hese toy owed J 
1 TS eaeradt becwtte setenave vaeteanoe ‘a bead 
i | Inchoinwit odo to Hieemghe, ed? movty mioted andenc't Se, al 
vo rs 8 : PA Remar “eet” iD Tae BARS aeaet AND 


i 

egtide edt of oF ban Atew Sieve opeiguer of deewtet bas Soysled 
steted tooxtugo bien tohau snob ed of Thitaialg odd to beztupor ; 
te aeraie! ef#3 of ,toeteds emeot ant Tebow holt h tee ef ititaislg. 
eenitg teeztaeo odd 


wKot tenon; edt al Gotestercos bets Ate e'tiisataty 2 ousev aida 
hae enoiteodtioages Oise oF Aoitamnetaee Dae mod te Lepage dntdtag te 
eielotated 22.0i8.8) te sue adit te aaoeee ak 2 ane at (Fans tgs bise 

reddus? o% aed Thidussks odd bee attifatela a? tanbastan we Shag 


te bortuper synidd ede exatieg iimie iiidalalg eat figau Bite seein 
a of #2 


/ 


5 
Court is reversed sand the c»use is remanded with directions te 
permit the defendant « renaonable time to file on answer to pleine 
tiff's claim and to try the issues made thereon. 

JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CAUSE 

REBRANDED WITK DIRECTIONS, 


BURKE, J. TAKES WO PART, 


GUA GHA OREKTVER TURBIIGL 
sSHOUTCIALC HTTH CRGKAUaS 





Pe 











Pe AAS Wd 


2M: 


yk ee 


12 + ee 


ah 


seer 


os SORE es 


Peps ee x 


ao totteertd Mite behdeset ef seus ‘Sat ban “bentevex ‘et ‘ened 
nialy ot «were ea @Lkt of weie Sidhudaeee 4 Hnsbasted edt ‘thured 
etosrsdd ehew eouved odd yxt ot bar keto evens 


ag 


w ada 





Yee BAF 


AA Rie Si in 
DSR eee 


Aha oh 
eer 


per fe: Bh 


Ce tare He 


"eee eae 


AD 


: 
¢ 


\ 


4 
3 


40329 
FORD ROOFING PROOQUCTS CO., a 
Sorporetion, 
APPEAL FROM 
Appellee, 


Ve 2 g' ot TA "es ~ 
Ae O 


On Appeel of RICHARD J. FITZPATKICL, 
et ale, 


Apne llantse 





WRe PRESIDING JUSTION OFHIS £. SULLIVAN SELIVER*®D THE 
OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A judgment by confession ¥-8 ehtered in favor of plaintiff 
Ford Roofing Products Co. and sgainst defendants, Sichard J, 
Fitzpatrick, et sl. for the sum of $5,228.05 and costs, for principal 
and interest on » judgment note, 

Thereafter the defendants, appellants here, cnme before the 
court ind filed » petition and motion, stating there was no consider- 
ation for the ssid note from plsintiff to defendonts and that the 
same wos invelid, end preyed thet said judgment be ovened and thet 
they be permitted to appesr and defend and thet seid petition stand 
ag their affidevit of defense, 

This motion the court ordered entered and sostponed to 
March 28, 1938, and plaintiff w2s ordered to file 2 counteresffid=vit 
within 10 deys as to diligence and thxt defendants reply to the 
counteresffidsvit within 10 dsys thereafter, 

To the countereaffidevit filed by plaintiff there wes 
atteched a contract of gusrantee thich was entered into betreen 
Plaintiff and defendants eusranteeing the purchssing of supplies by 
one cervatius to the extent of ©10,000,05, 

The answer of Richard J. Fitzpatrick and Irene A, Fitzpatrick 


to the countereaffidevit contains the following: 





: ip ceedegen 1 
PONG GANA 2d oR Ra v5 uh — P Banting \ 


PT 


eee is ie Be ie 4 6 Np re ek 
e Ye eae > ce) % ih ame eo 
af 


me 
_— sy ¥ 7 wi 2 ge Reage | 
| YL a 6 e S | bes ‘nde te oun TAvEEe: “a aang ay 





_ 








HE -_ CR: 1 a 
ii eAVEATAUETIG 2% onanois to sanqa 20 

a 

ye ae Kaa Lame HAW LLd0e «a eres HOITAUL one Teen, mu a 


<THTOO at cy somse 
ttitniela tv» rove} ak beredae ec tolsestace wW taomgbut A i shit 
ob beedeiG yotneheeteh teakege bas «od etoubors anitoot bret 7 
doultg tot ,pteoo bre 20,888,829 to ave edt tot «fe te sodttegeayy a 
soton tnomgbst # me teoreant, bas 


; et otoled caso ,ered etaatlegge ,edanbartob oat restsetadt 7 dé. 
ered? gaiteate gtotten bas wostkieg a boLit. ine for 

















amt ded? be etaoobastod ot ttitabele moet eton bine odd tot woite _ 

todd fae bemsqo of taemmbet Bisse tadt beyete bats sbi dewat Ben ones _ 

baste moltiveq biee tadt bax beste bas teeqcer at bettamrog od i 
soensTob To. tevabttis ziedt os 

of besouteog bas horstue berebre tuseo ont to kom ela get — 
tivabitts-vetaves 2 elit of berebte sew tiimmbaty baw aber 88 fore 

att of yider atachaotel tet ban opntey hla ot oe ayeh OL fran 


at | 


stottesveads sic er aidtiw YARDS | 











weowted otal bovevtae exw dogde estiotasy * ‘titan a 
yw setiqgue te ee, od? yrkondasters etaabasteb bas iH k ibe 
eae to chain ose bal eubiay . 


"deny that Richard J. Fitzpetrick, to facilitate sales, found 
it neceasary to establish his own distributor, as slileged; 
that on and ofter April 17, 1938, pleintiff gave credit to 
Servetivs for more than “10,000, and that continuously from 
April 17, 1936 until Servetius discontinued business, the 
eredit given him by plaintiff, slwsays, and at any one time, 
was in excess of %10,000, and was in excess of defendante* 
limited gusrantee, end the mrchandise for which this suit is 
brought to recover, was sold by plaintiff during said period 
of time and was in its entirety included in the credit given 
in excess of the limited guarantee contained in said controot 
of guarentee, and thst these defendants are not lisxble under 
said contreet of guarantee or e2id note siven to secure seid 
guarantee; that these defendants have been relexsed of any 
liability under the contract of quarantce because plaintiff 
did not exercice due diligence to collect from the principal 
debtor; deny that plaintiff demanded of “ervstius the money 
sued for herein, »nd thot they therefore hove been released 
of liability; that the indebtedness eued for herein wes included 
neither in the contract of guarantee nor in said note, and 
piaintiff was not entitled to eonfess judgment on «sid note 
ageinst the fitzpatricks for seid indebtedness." 


we are not determining at this time whether the pisintiff 
should or should not recover, but re think the foots aet forth in 
-snid enswer sare sufficient on the f°ce of the record to have 
warranted and required the trial court to re-open the seid judgment 

ical ae ieee art aati hci Meelis hese sacsiaien 

and to have permitted defendants to meke their defense. In refusing 
to do thet, re believe the trial court coumitied error, 

For the ressons herein given, the judgment of the s#unicival 
Court is reversed and thé cause is remanded vith directions to 
permit the defendants to make their defense by the introduction of 
evidence and proof in support thereof, 


JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CAUSE 
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. 


HEBEL, J. CONCURS; 
BURKE, J. TAKES NO PART, 








Sevet ,n0ina efadifiost et ,tolsteqaddt .t btadeta tadt yaob" 
gheauoliie 2 ,%efodivgel>S meo sid dabidaves of yteenenan! st 
et sibsro oveg tiidadelg ,BF8L Wi LiitcA watts bas aa dade 

ext Yinwewaktaes dade dae pOOO, O09 aadd otem tot aattewred 
iy ,satuicod heuntsnevel: eulterreg@ Jétes STRL ,TL Lixaa 
eoni? tuo Yae ge ome geverts .Pitdwiele yi wid asety thbete 
‘etcebaeteh te ggacxs at saw Sao ,000,058 to esses al eaw 
ai tin gids deéde vet armed edt bac ,ee¢aetoug botimit 
heicsy ine wattst Itigatels ¥d OW gZOVGOST Ge - 
arte tihero adt al beberloni eet ee ef%2 ai @e0 hae omkt Yo 
tesatacs bice ak bottcteoe setaoteuy Dedletf ott te- ResOKe rie ae 
sept ofdeli ton ety etaobne't ab aced? tad? fae ,catae te 
hioa arusos of asrty ston bine te estaateny to teetéaao bise 
Wie to Sexier nesd svaed etaateeted saest todd poedaots 
Yiliriaic seamed estneresg te foordmoo ed? reba vthitdste 
iagiscitg st sovt treiieo ot semegilibh oub sagexexe ton bLb 
qyaron Sdf auitevres te Debaameb Whinieig fadt yaad qrotded 
Keevsieon need oved sroteieds qoute tade Bate giored of Pree 
bebwlond ree adered tet Beye seanbatdebai add 4%, dodt oybtt 
bas ,eten bise al tom 9e@asteug To tosttaeo oats vor ove Pos 
- efor bigs: 9 tromehut Yaeteed ef Safviiae ton wae Thivateic 
“.ensabetdmiol Blea sot edgiréngedé i add Bebouiaad yet 


Yhitaisie ote sedéody omit adc te gitainratst Poss ore im... 





pe" 


ai direct dee es toed odd mokdt av tw seerenns toa biweds sa . biweda 


& i ba 


avert od iugost aad to Goat att ao tmetogtton one x9eema hides 


ae Sise eee nal olde ot Tryo0 Latur ext bertuest aw Sotnertas 


ene apt totale 
Mea OR ei Se a er aaa 


amiaat ov Bis ,oeastot “chads sain or dtaohaet oh vogezeeg aves of bas 


ics Siatiows 


(2653. hatesnnoe diye. iste sae everied ow staat ob os 


Re con omega came et 


daqiotaws oie te sesmgbert ast orks meeronl BOERS edt tot : : 
oe enol fostib dtiw bobaamet at eause er bas huersvas at fau0d 

to mak soubor tal eed vd senotet: chedt sales ot atnatcoteb eat phaecie 
stooradt trovewe ae eons, t baw h apineichd 


SUA AHA GUAKIVER THEROTED. 
sBAOL TONIC HTD CETRAMER 





we gid eioae cee heii Bae OF 


40338 


JOSEPH FISHER and LAFAYETTE FISHER, 
deing business as FISHER AND FISHEA, APPEAL FROM 
Plaintiffs - Appellees, 
MUNICIPAL COURT 
Ve 
MAX ROSENBERG, OF QHUIGAGO 


Defendant, 


RAVENSWOCD APARTHENT GORPORATION, a 
corporstion, 






Defendent - Appellant. 





I.A. 613" 


Re PRESIDING JUSTICE OFHIG FE. SULLIVAN DELIVENED THE 
OPINION OF THE COURT, | 

This is an appesl from a judgment entered against defendants 
in the Municipal Court in the sum of ©300.00, for attorneys’ fees, 
Defendant's second snended affidavit of merits was strioken and 
judgment was entered age xforesside 

Plaintiffs’ filed » statement of claim alleging thet they 
were retained by defendant to represent said defendant in all matters 
arising out of a certain petition theretofore filed in esse Ke. 
551603, then pending in the Superior Court of Cook Sounty; that 
defendant .greed to pay plaintiffs 2 reasonable compensstion therefor; 
that plaintiffs rendered certain services; thet plaintiffs" services 
resulted in the entry of an order in ssid couse No. 551602, then 
pending in the Superior Court of Cook County, in favor of defendant, 
and that the plaintiffs are entitled to the sum of $300.00 as 
reasoneble compensation for the services rendered. 

Defendant filed » jury dem=nd and subsequent thereto filed 
a second amended affidavit of merits, setting uv that the defendant 
Genies that it retsined plaintiffs to represent it in all matters 
arising out of the petition theretofore filed in ense No. S51EN2, 


then pending in the Superior Court of Cook County, but thet on the 


contrary, defendant retsined plaintiffs for the sole purpose of 








BESO 


PBHEIY ATPRYAIAL bas HaneTy HARehL 
RHETT OWA FOOLY we ceenteud yatob 


eeeiiages + ettktniels -” 


‘aggyee a ghd 


MORY AASIS 


Tree LATHE 


| sPrormneTeO an 
| sbecnbaeret 
in HOTTARORIOD Teast Coon eKEVAR 


stand Logg = tasbasten hon 4 





ait as Ides AVEO eas ansreUt oat LEmRd mi 
«8 198 ane Xo worKato 
tas tnoteh Jegiegs bovedae tnowghut # mort iaaaye an ied alae 

eeoot rsyentotsn ret «090084 to mart wit we dese? nq somes one. at 
hie wolettte wow sotran to tvebs tte Detar Biss bonose. gtenebnoted 
ebinewnets ae hevedne gay noe 

yout godt gaty ali« nteto te Heowetete « belly vor tiemtent ti 
areptam {£6 mi tashietab bine ‘tasestqen ae feehwotah yt hen letoe stow 
Jot geno at DSLEt stotototeds ao britey wteaxwo «Te tie gate tee 
tat ;ytewoO ee® Yo Fxited woireque ost aL ga teieq aedd |, cOBLEa 
pToLeredte Mokiwnones Sidaugexet # wtitdeisly yer of beexge gaabaetek — 
asoivroe "ettiveteic feat yeoasivise alapren bevehasr ettitutelg teat | 
nett BORLGS off onges biee at eebre ne Yo yrane en nt “pod tyeor 
stasbnetsd to tovet ai ,yiaved deed to Proed tolteqa® eat at pea kbareg: 
ae 06.0083 to mye edt of baisitas. ote etti¢atelg ede saad bas 
“yberebuet ssedvtee ede to aottsensqnes eidenossen ; 

Aelht oferedd tagupsedue bas basmeb gra, #2 bolt caaheetes | cent 
tashastseh ode? tedt ow gnittea wetires te divabatte pohaons bngooe 8 * 
erotion Ife al ¢L tmeeetqet of ettdtedady bandever th “tact selaed 
SCRE so ence af helit exroteteredt dolti ted sat te tuo yoteits 
cit ag tod? tud ,ytmo® dood Yo Sau0d tetreq® ont at geathweg mods 





\ 


responding to seid petition in behsif of defendant; that defendant 
denies thet it agreed to pay plaintiffs what is commonly referred to 
as 2 reasonable fee, but thst all parties had agreed that only 
nominal fee would be charged for such services as might be recuired; 
that the defendant denies thet the petition theretefore filed in 
ease Noe 551602, then pending in the Sunerior Jourt of Cook Jounty, 
was denied by reason of the services nilegedly rendered by pleine 
tiffs and defendant therefore denies thot plnintiffs are entitled 


to the sum of £300.00. 
As before st»ted the affidavit of defendant wos stricken and 


judgment wes entered by default. 
we do not see how judgment could —_ been entered on plaine 


tiffa’ statement of claim es it only slleéges thet plaintiffs were to 
receive “reasonable compensstion" and no slleg=tion or proof sustaine 
ing same w=s made as to what should be considered 2s “ressonable 


Compensztion", except the m€re Conclusion, which atated; 


* * * * that Plisintiffs are entitled to the sum of Three Hundred 
($300.00) Dollars as reasonable compensation for the services 
rendered," 


The affidavit of merits denied that the services had been 
rendered or thot defendant agreed to pay the compensntion. Further, 
that the agreement «as for only a nominel fee and further thet the 
agreement was thet the attorney Rawson was to do the work and plain- 


tiffs were merely to supervise the plesdings and use their name, 
The statement of claim and the affidavit of merits made pn 
), ze 


AON ete meme 6 penn tet NOOO EE TOO DEBE I 5 SE ZS ANE TALE MAND spt Tia Nt ts dee ORD WED AR OE ETT OAR 


issue which the court Should heave tried and At coamitted error in 
et A aD 


RELATING AE - 


striking the defendant's affidavit and entering ud ent. 


For the reasons herein given the judgwent of the Municipsl 


Court is reversed and the ceuse is remanded with directions to permit 
the defendant to file its affidavit of merits uoon #hich evidence 


should be heard and judgement entered in accordance therewith. 
JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS, 


HEBEL, J. CONCURS, 
BURKE, J. TAKES NO PART. 


I | Sandgeeteh dads jinehacteo te Liaded al meitiseq bier ot yaibrogees 


ov havreloy Yiromueo eh sodw ettibetedy yey of beotee He tede setaed 


2 ying todd beetye Sed esitusg Lhe seme god geek aicugoseot « ee 





jberivzey af tdygie am seoivrse ddwe tot baggedo ed bdion est Lankmen 
Hi | ak ROLLY otetoderedd Mosthsed od? todd aolneh Inabneteh Bit tade 
i avitvumt? ave To ttvoh rosreaut et mh gasbase godt so LES 208 Sano 
~ately yd Sorobaee ethagaites aeoivese od? Te angaexr yo Beitneb ew 
| SoLsites ave atlitdieiq tedt seiveh exetereds taahawteb fue attit 
i NOOSE ko mun odt of 
| bur aviohate eax denbeeteh to tivehbhtta edt betode stetod @A 


etiotkeh yi hevedao enw saenghurt 
~iiele: ae herodee need aend Binoo frmmSut wed oe toa ob on 


ot ores attitutetle dene tom eLte “leo ti BR wbeLe te tuscotate bettas 





egivvare toot ry soiteyatia an bits “Kodde eireqmoe oidanonser” oviover 
sidadormet" ox bevebiaseo ed bivoda fay of an ebaw nee maz pag 
g ;farste do ten olaviones srem wid FqPORUS .*a6iteenaqwos 
| ferba! seve? Yo ewe oy of beletvaw ote el tivaiais fade # © * |W 
| amninzen adt 303 doltigenageoe oidaneasos se erelion. ( Berrie th ci 
| oe bed eaniyiesg oct tot boloob etitsa te divebithe wah 00 00: 
| qesiiewt .avdtweneqegn add yee of Dooege duehastob teae ae herohnes, 
ete ted? sedtent fee se Lenimon » Wie ned eon tooo edd tadd 
| ~aialy fox Srey oof Gb oF caw aoewed yearcite od? vodh sem Poomaergs 
sant Tieds seg bas agetbasiqg dt eaieteces o¢ yore axsw nines: 
ccm oben athrom To _fivabddte Fissele Eau Min lo Les, tagnetede ost | 


PW Rip apmamier SS 


aL tocee “bod gdmmpe. th bas ont “grad isos, 5700 MG satan sonal 
etacaghul gaixe tas hey ft tivabsvte e'santinot ob sat gatdivite 


ads earn 


ioyioiaul’ sft to saamghut edt a9, werk aloxed enoans aaa oF 


| tkisesac of anoitmerth Adie Sebremet at pe ode er Peamevex, ae #100 
encgahiee docte mony svites To Shvebitts ef2 Off oF trebaoteh ec 


f  ittveredt @onshigets ai baxedie, tomephul bas. brtcod ed Sigode 
eQHQEPOLHLG MTIY GIUMANER FAQAQO OHA CRRRUTEE: SERRE 














40404 
DR. Fe He WILLS, APPEAL PRO 
Appellee, 
MUNICIPAL COURT 
Ve 
JOSEPH A. RUSHTON, OF EVANSTON. 


Appélisnt,. C 


fy; TO é | 
gId L.A. 6 J ® 


MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE DERIS EF. SVLLITVAN OBLIVE VED THE 





OPINION GF THE ov eT. 

This is an appeal from 2 judgment for $1,324,090 entered in 
the Municipal Court of tvanston in favor of Ore Fe. He Willis, plain- 
tiff, and against Joseph H. fushton, defendant, for s@ervices rendered 
by the former at the request of the defendants 

The record discloses that there is no dispute ss te the 


services having been rendered or ss to the nmount ssked therefor, or 


the offer of the plaintiff to take a lesser sum in order to get the 


moneye 
Defendant claimed that he offered to pay the bill without 


any deduction, but thet he wanted to psy it »t the rete of 850.00 
per month snd insisted on paying the entire emount, but in amounts 
to suit himself and =t timee convenient to him. %e eannot find 
anything in the record which would justify such action and we think 
the trisl court vse justified in entering judgment for the amount 
Claimed and admitted to be due and owing. 


For the ressons herein given the judgment of the Municipal 


— 
anno tee 
ak ncenlraeettesos! 


Court of Evanston is hereby affirmed, 
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, 


HEBEL, J. CONCURS, 
BURKE, J. TAKES NO PART, 





dOBOS 


WOAN JAZYGA sOLddte 4H Tyne 





gee Loaga 
: vs 
HOTHEU 4 HISROL 


oe te 


seh — 


SRP Qa2viee SAV ale 64 Saad GOR TSRL AARC LOEt GAM 
| sTRUOD BVP GO HOIMEIO. 

mk hevadae 60,088, 1) rot tranghvt « went iosqqe we eb atdl. 
“Ginig ,@hilis® of ot otf To terval af sevacare te feed fawloiank edt 
Herehaek seoivres: te¥ ,tachbseted ,ceddeuw vi diesel denkege bre (rte 
SnON One Yo seouper ent G4 cont edt Yo 

ate ot we atuyelh on ei sved? font esegieeip breoet Sd’? | 
 ,volavett Hexer tiveme ey OF oc ce bexehaer moet Gaival eeetrTres 
ent ¢e— o¢ vebto wi up ter2el # eed of TIPadaty sat Yo YP ons 


oyere One | 
twottia Litd edt yaq 08 pbexetie we aedd hemsece tandaoren | 


60.088 Yo Sben BSF “Fo FE Yay oF Beddow od ‘feels sud | 





efnvosie ai Tot {gavome erldire eff aniyeq no betatact sai dinon 189q 
batt dents of hd oF Sevtaeviios askit te bay Visemdd Cie et 
txtat or Des mottos deve Yliveut biuew doidw Drover ‘edt af yoddiyas 
 gavome sft va teaaybet gateoime AP DetYideut cow dogo Tele e wate 
‘gpiiwo bar out af oe beetinte hae BewkeLo 

Lac date eat ‘Yo savargtat ods Aovig aloved anownet dit Tet 


- sbomed tt 9 wWered as noseanvi te #000 1 
rea f raampaut 





40435 


NORMAN B. PITGAIHN and FRANK ©. NICODEMUS, APPEAL FROM 
JRe, Heceivers of WABASH RALL*AY COMPANY, 

) 

) 

) 


(Plaintiffs) Appellants, GIRGUIT COURT 


Ve 
COOK COURTY.e 





GUS DREYFUSS, 
(Defendant) Appellee. 


PATA. 619 


WR. PRESIDING JUSTICE DENIS &, SULLIVAN OELIVE ED THE 
GPIWION OF THE OGURT, 

A eompiaint in Chancery «as filed agsinst defendsnt-spnellee 
and on a motion to strike, the weid complaint was dismissed for 
want of equity end plaintiff brings thie &oneal. The compiaint, 
the allég tions of which we mast consider ss true, on such uction, 
defendant heving filed no appe:rsnee or briefs in this court, is 


set forth as follors: 


“That the defendant began negotistion with the Southwestern 
Hide Vo. of Gen “ntonio, Texas, by wire and mail, for the purchase 
by him of « lot of hides of which ssid Hide Co. was the owner, 
and on which the Laredo Netionsl Henk had a lien by mortguge, or 
otherwise, and, after seversl dsys consuamed in comminic«tions, the 
defendant srranged for 2 credit in fevor of the Leredo Sank vith 
the Yontinental Sank of Chicago in the sum of sbout 8,900, and 
urged the Laredo fiank to hesten the shipment of the hides with 
drafts attached to the bills of lisding. 

That the hides were shipped in two cars under order bills 
of iading to the Hides Co. st Chicago, whieh bills of lnsding vere 
taken up by defendant st the Ohicago Bank and mailed to the 
wabash 4ailroad sith the endorsements of the Hide Go, snd defendant 
thereones 

That the hides arrived over sid railroad = few days after 
loading in Texas, and seid railroad mailed to the defendant freight 
bills on the tro cars stating the kind and weight of the property 
and the rate per crt. of the charges accruing thereon under the 
applicsble and duly filed tariff, the charges on car StLBéu-3044, 
from @rror in extension, being stated in the sum of °291.36, 
instead of €891.16, which bills defendsent promptly psid, and 
which shipments were delivered as per his directions, 

That the mistake in the rendition of this bill was discovered 
by the railroad very shortly, snd corrected bill sent to defendant, 
who objected to paying the balance because he had purchased the 
hides on condition that the Hide Us, pay the freight, 

Theat the reilroad's attorney then sddressed defendant by 
phone and by letter respecting the payment of this belence, and 
received the response of refusal to pay because he had purchased 
the hides under agreement thet shioper would pay the freight. 





cene 4 era 
ME AAR ESA 


,UOWAiOG1N .f AMART bas BAPAOTIN .& KakHoW 
o FHATMOS FAR C LAR HEAGAG to erevisoss eo 


( 

. TREC Teper f oor eLL eee: & (att tondezs) 
( 
{ 


; ev 
oS TRON Shee 


‘ore Atle le \ 


wu? GUSsviige WAvELaice fF wreae BOT TeUL au Lares et 





| " eaverane evo 
| see Lleoa (tashastet) 








eTHUOD aur co ‘ gOruree 
eellegy seduaba stot Tea isgs beet Bat recede ed ‘tnisigneo a . 


sf 


to? “boeeimedh aaw tats Lyaeoe bine one oaeage ot aotton s a0 bas 





etiteiquos ‘oaT .faeage etdt agate Tituielg ‘bas vlupe to # 
tekion Houe no ,ouTt o¢ Tabismeo taum Oy she kate to ‘etobt: oye tia oat 
oe attus? atdd oi eteitd to sonexsoe¢e ot boli? gabved ‘tmsbasteb 


rewolso? ee atrot tor 


axeteswiltues adé sitive nottaktuata neyod taoheo't ad ‘ode § | on 

sendotygq edt tot ,fianm bea otinw yd ,aexeT ,oisotd4 nek ObLH.- 
ateawo ond ecw 09 el Shee doidw te eebid tp. vol - aimed ye 

6 .SGegetem yd well = bed dae Lenoited o a Aoife ne bas 
etd  aaobitsotamnes mi beaceprgn ayeh Latersn’ : " o 
dtie dno eheral sdt to sovat al tibavo « tot Dodorss omauge ves 

bes .000,8% tuods to ave ed? oi onsntdy to smet . ter 

atin asbid edt te Foren bile sad madeed at gist 






























giild tebte Toba Pere ond at beqe tae ar 
oxen poibel te uliid dodge, td0 te, Oh 
edt of balies bas MS aed adt pi Maer 
tishasteh bat .of hd edt to. pteonse tohn9 


Tatts ayab wet a Ssotilar Biep. sore bowhres onus of saat 
tigior? ong ron et cle ; oy oud bine fer aot 
TOGA TH tiyice rahe o' 
i oat hic noered? galutoes seysads. od 
eee eE Ieee he fo — beth gt y 
* i TES %a bts RS . . 
Bae bis ylderote taxzbretob sas d dolde ils 
eanoltesrih eid toq es herevifeh etey yor i 
hetevooeib new Iftd atdt to made reer’ pe nd aste Saat. 





ay 
SOU od em 
- 


us usenet etek, "nedd ‘yortotts oh 
igs ,o0neled aid? to tnemyaq edt gabtoeg 


Page bed of ceseosd yer of Santor | 
etdatert ed? Yea biver teqg ise end 


Meanwhile, defeniant rendered to the Hide Co, = statement 
of his payments on the shipments which were deducted from its 
invoice, viz: drafts paid, 8,871.88; freight cherges paid, 
$1,519.48, including this Dolanoe, due to mistake as sdditional 
freight. 

Pieoet thereafter plaintiff brought evit sgsinst defendant 
in the Municipal Court of Chiesgo for resovery of thia belance, 
alleging the transportation and delivery to defendant of the two 
cars of hides, the charges accruing on Car StLb4¥-2944 under the 
applicable tariffs the sum of $@91.16, the rendition by mistake 
of bill for such cherges in the sum of $291.36, and defendant's 
refusal to pay the balance because he had purchased said hides 
on condition of the shipper prying the freight, 

That defendant filed three affidevits of defense in said 
suit denying any mistske in the rendition of freight bilis, 
Claiming the clsintiff's seceptance of psyment of the bills 
rendered as e release of his liability for further ch-rzges, but 
not denying his purehsse of ssid hides in either, 

That triel of this suit »as begun on #ereh 10th before 
court snd jury, concluded on the next disy, when verdict was 
returned in favor of defendant, snd judgment entered accordingly, 
and motions for new triel and in srrest of judgment overruled, 
and sppesl granted on condition of bond in 39 days and bill of 
exceptions in 6O days. 

That on H#srch 18th plaintiff made motion to set aside the 
judgment of Msreh llth beceuse of agurprise from defendant's testig 
mony, when celled as 5 witnees in his own behalf, to effect that 
be hod not purchesed said hides or dirested their shipment, and 
took up the bills of lsding covering them st the bank solely os 
an secommodetion to ssid Hide Yo. or its represent-tive then in 
Chieago, at his request, 2314 motion being supported by the offi- 
davit of plaintiff's attorney of defendant's claim over phone 
and in letter of Chese of asid hides on condition thst the 
shipper pay the freight, snd of defendant's failure to deny such 
purchase in either of the «ffidevits of defense fiied herein, 
which motion ess denied, 

That within % days from the entry of judgment the plaintiff 
presented to the court =n apeesl bond in the sum fixed, conditioned 
ag required by law, and signed by 2 surety owning unencumbered 
real estate in Chicago of the valve of 410,099, whieh bond the 
court refused to approve because not azde on 2 form used in that 
courte 

That within 60 days from the entry of judgment a stipulstion 
extending the time for filing bill of exceptions 20 days was 
filed with the court clerk for entry on the record, byt wes over- 
looked and not entered on the halfesheet. 

That within the time fixed =» bill of exceptions ves left 
with defendant's attorney, who remarked that an appesl would be 
a waste of money, from defendant's insolvenoy, 

That, ister, an order further extending time for bill of 
exceptions 10 days wos made, 

That on June Sth pleintiff's motion for a further extension 
of time for such bill wes denied, because the record did not 
show stipulation for the 20 day extension, whereupon such stipu- 
lation wae produced from the clerk's office, and the court ststed 
thet order would be entered on next day extending such time 
2ro tune ss of June Sth, and on next dey the court stated that, 











tnonetete s .o0 ebiv oct of bereheer tuekaeteh jolidemeews 0. 
eti mort betouwbeb erew daide eteeeehite ect “ne eo Geryad ahd. 46: 
ieag eogzeds taptett (82.180,9% ,biew edtexb ieniv .eotovnl 
Tencisibhs ee stetelw of Sub goneled efit gebbalow. 10 6.2 1h 


rag fe 

tishnateh jagkease thee $iguong etitmisiq tetteereds teat 
qetuaice’ aide Te Fagor gga tl oyeeisy to @uued Leglelawl edd ak 

ows adt to tachaera> of yrowilab bax nolktodvogeaet? sfe aaky 
oat tebne MOS-NAdIES ts0 ao yaiuvrooe neytade odd yRobid to arac 
stetain yf voléShaes oz tome to gue edo ethite? eldeetiqgs 
gltssboe¥eh fas 18 sf8E% fo wud edd al gegtade dowe tot Litd to 
eahio bier Doasious bed od aguned opteled odd yoq o¢ Leautex 





: Slesl suid gaiven reqinin edt to feléibaeo no 
bias ak agnet sh. te ativebitts send? H8L2t tasbavteh sat 
eeilis dimiert to aeltihaw: edt ai Giaieda yas sxbyeed dive © 
eilid edt to tueuyeag to sone grees ett igelelg edd grimtelo 
fod ,etrtado torttpt rok yhiliceil aid % seeatou « wa berebaor 
eteigie pi eebid bles Yo gander: efd gatyaeh ton 
eroted deOL decew ao aeyed eee dice eld Ye Eniee Pane oO Ooo - 
az? toibyvey moge ,yah xen ods go behyiekes , beg Barmy Scots 
a béretce Mom het bak eshantes te wher we 
genera 29% aad te #eevsx ai bas Leia? wen net aneltom bas 
Lid hax oye Cf wi baod te aebtidwes ay besarte Insege baw 
yok 08 ma Re Sear TP eRe, 
we sites ter at nekvow ebex Ti itaisie wire sore to ted? sa 
~kteet etashaets® sort sy to saveced atil dove to Joong 
toad fostte of eg ae is at hg Pe 8 athe peti — ate Or ve 
bac attemgina shedt kogoet bd ne 
_ wae ‘gist ant te weet gs ie abe eibed tere to tte yg ce io 
aod a a1 % ; oe bey H bkeoe of dodtubomnp 
mitts 4% et Bie) Be 478s Le 
_ Bieta veve winto ree a if alte phtti keh 
Pa! ¥od) godtinaes se sebid bine “te see ceetet 
age at @telint ettasbneteh to baa ae 9M ‘> 
oxeN belit seneted to etivehitts ye to % att Or eet to totes 
tivaiele oct teemghut te yriwe ent moet Pt of nie 
fenettinaes ,bentt mye off af brood gen ae trego ade of betevony ; 
horedeumrenn grinws yreure # ie bie yeel Yd be 
edt Smad dette O00, 028 tom th ei elope <éet 
gadt at beet mist « mo ebex dow oomaee svosate of ‘pewmter: 


sobteLugtiy s troegbet to yrtee edd wort yeh OF mearie tour” 4 
age eyeh Of snotiqeoxe to ite 4a Ot Omke One 
-“e¥o Bar dud bagoet edt Paice hy pa Tseng th cetay Jen /* 


#tal way anol tyeoxe + iLid so Sextt awk ode at 
ad biuter fseugs si nneltount etl ete , yen te" 
to LLid ret emit “Joitnerx> babii cebro me 


wolaaeexe vecdtut » tot notion ettivetely ai@ sacl we 
ton B£2 Brooet ons eeucoed ybetmeb new Lite 
OR fous’ nocwerady ,aeleneixe gah Of an? 
bateds Prue oct bas ,soltte e'deolo ode mort beoubeay 
ont? dove gatttiesxs Yob tran mo bererse bY Bivow 
“bed? betete Pryoo edt yeb grow me Ban adil ot pi stag! 

















: 





















counting said stipulation and previous order, the time for 
filing such bill was 9 days from entry of judgment, Mareh 10th, 
which time expired on June 8th, overlooking the fact thet such 
time runs from the isy of the overruling ef the motion to vacate 
judgment, also because sn appesl bond had not been filed, 

That shortly thereofter pleintiff moved the court to 
correct the record to show entry of judgment on arch Lith instead 
of Harch 10th and further extend time for filing bill of exceptions 
r fees as of June 8th, supporting such motion with the 
a devit of plaintiff's attorney that the trial of case ~as 
begun on March 10th and continued to following dey, and offer 
of the Municipal Court record of usreh 10th to same effeet (such 
motion was denied, and again renered within % ‘isys thereafter, 
and sgain denied with lerve to file bill of exceptions respecting 
such motions within % dsys, which wes duly oresented, and so 
marked, but not signed), 

That following feilure to obtsin return of the bill of 
exceptions from defeniant's attorney, and secure further time 
for filing such bill, oiaintiff's sttorney wrote the seid Hide 
Coe informing it of defendant's testimony, th=t he had not 
purchased ssid hides or directed their shioment, snd hed taken 
up seid bills of lsding solely 2s an accomnodstion to it or ita 
represent tive then in Chieago st his request; and requesting 
information aa to the some, and its response, thet the hides were 
sold to defeniant and shipped by his direction, full particulars 
of which were in the hands of » certain iaw firm in Chicsgo 
representing it, 

That in August plisintiff's attorney was afforded, 
by said law firm, inspection of the telegrama end letters which 
had passed between defendant and said Hide “o., and of the declar= 
ation filed in a suit which had been inatituted by defendent in 
the Cirevit Court of Cook County against said Hide Co, for 
damages from induding him to purchase said hides by false repre- 
sentstions of their grade and condition, said declaration being 
sworn to by defendant before his attorney. 

That in september, plaintiff vresented to the ssid trisl 
judge a petition to vacate the judgrent rendered ss aforesaid, 
reciting the proceedings had in 3sid suit, particularly the testi- 
mony given by defendant that he had not purehesed said two cores 
of hides or directed their shipmuent, and took up the bilis of 
lading covering them solely 2s #n accommodetion to said Hide Oo, 
or its representstive, and calling attention to 2 suit which 
defendent head instituted in the Cirevit Jourt of Cook County, 
Illino&s, against ssid Hide Co. for damages in indueing him to 
purchase ssid hides by false representations as to their gerade 
and condition, and of defendant's swearing to the declaration 
filed therein before his attorney in this suit, 

That said judge refused to hear said petition and directed 
thet it be impounded and refused to nllow an sppenl therefrom, 

That within 3 days thereafter plaintiff presented to said 
judge e bill of exceptions upon his sction respecting said petition, 
which was so marked by him, but not signed. 

That defendsnt’s said suit against ssid Hide Co. esa 
dismissed for went of prosecutions 

That, ilater, plsintiff renewed the motion for the signing 
of said bill of exceptions, which was denied, 

That thereafter plaintiff sued out of Appellate Court of 
Illinois, First District, in Couse Ko. 37289, 2 writ of error for 





xek Omid ec ,t8hte qmivemy bas aattedugite bina gattnuon 
OL dove ,tiewghvl to yeas mort ayeh OF ary Ikkd dewe gatisd 
stye todd so0e% oct saddeoiteve ,d38 #auk oo bexigxe aold ese 
stsety of malton off to gutlwivers edt te yeh edt or pays gmk 
ehOll? gaad fon bad baod Leaves Ne Geadeeed oelsa Scher 
‘ 4 it a edd bevoa ee EDsiglese sevhce eaed? yltzede ote 
ee ten. tat 2p. tee wee et bigeat.edt teers 4 
ator iooexs te i oy ae Sere! ik ome xed Hi @ seed 
ad? dtie goliath dove weep alte aaah. 2 e ¥ dt i 
on PASO ae Pg i oe Sodd 2 Pr otea gover ry wy sft 








‘fon ery ad 
ra & tot & a 





eae 

pery eo - oF nod cebaeeooud ae £3 ei tieg pefhory to atihe vr on 
quitesupes hen pleespet eld os eqcekiy ak nedt Eager pnb 
ered eabid sii fadt ,eaaoqess adi hae gmiae and et a aolian 
areivoseray fist .modieerlb ald. ic boggide Sas seadser ol wry 


opeold? ad mart wal Aistsa0 a Yo sbited edt at stew. 


gbrhrotte “ dye etrttintts @eagud at t abs . 8 
doiae orate 2 QiS2 22 to Soke ae one ge & 
weetoebr ad? te bos ao abt bine here. dorety fs xen ret 

nxt — vs eee Hg bel : 

















o} vr? io cbad as imate =e cal 
oheye Tied? OF BA ae pec pmb 2 bid Shao. 
soltereloes oft of gattaeee 4 OS Xa bia yHotts 
etice eidt ai wong eid exoted | 
begoetit Bue ‘gotthtee hies ae ad Reevtgt aghs at 
smorterod? Ieeqgs ae wolia of beavtet base bebaveqel 
bise at beemeeete TtiIilelc xostaeral aya dn tas 
woltiter bise geltosqest nolies ald « Ks axcliqesxe to Lfid - 
abeaata ton dud ald yd bedtem oe aaa 
“gey «00 e62f b ise tenioge give Bise 3%% cay. 
_ galegie oft vot aolios aad b reg taisie ,xet 
¥ shoiash vox dotdy genoltaes 
‘Se Pred etallergs to tuo howe This brady. 
_, 10 torr to titw @ ,EBRTE ool oeare : 


the review of the aforesaid proceedings, orders and judyuent, 
in which ssid Appellate Jourt refused to grant 2 petition for 
mandamus requiring said judge to sign asid bills of exceptions 
so presented to and so morked by him, end held: thet the affi- 
devit in support of the motion to vaeate the judgement covld not 
be considered as to evidence given »t the trisl beosuse a 
substitute for a bill of exceptions; thst « court reeord could 
not be corrected upon frets shown by affidevit and the officiel 
orgen of the court showing orders entered on the dsy of issue 
and the ceases to be crniled on the suaceeding day for trisl, and 
that the motion to veeste the judgment of dereh llth, made on 
Warch 18th, constituted 2 bar to a subsequent petition to vacate 
such judgment and sffirmed said judgment, 

Thet the Municipel Yourt Act prevides that its judgments 
may be vaeanted upon bill in eouity. 

That said judgment wes based upon end obtained through 
false, perjurovs and fraudulent testimony, wilfully and designedly 
given for the purpose of procuring its rendition, sand thereby 
plaintiff «ss denied recevery upon » just and lewful demsnd.” 


As heretofore st-ted, defendant filed no briefa in this 
courte 

A reeding of this bill shows th-t the mistake, which was 
the cause of plaintiffs* lose, wes the wailrosd Vompany's mistcke 
and was not in any sense = outusl oné, Further considering the bill, 
it is quite apparent that they selected the tribunal for the hearing 
of their grievances, namely, the Manicipsl Court, and there received 
an adverse decision. From thet decision the @sse was appealed te 


this court, being Csuse Ho. 37289, entitled, wabagh Snilwsy ¢ 





v» Gus Dreyfuse, in which the substence of the charge made in that 
bill vss passed upon at thet time by another division of this court, 
In its opinion this Court ssaids 


"It is also urged in one of its counsel's affidevitea thet 
Way 24, 1932, plaintiff turned over its bill of exceptions to 
defendant's attorneys for examination «nd approval or correction 
with the understanding and «greement th>t it wes to be returned 
for settling and approval by the court June 8, 1932, and that they 
willfully refused to return same, ‘e find no substsntistion for 
this contention in the record end it is sufficient to stste that 
if defendant's attorneys were guilty of any euch conduct the 
court was exvaileble for redress, 

September 9, 1932, plaintiff filed » petition in the noture 
of a bill in eouity to vacate the judgment. We are of the opinion 
thet the court was justified in refusing to consider thie petition, 
Section 21 of the Municipal court «ot cives to the Municipal court 
power to vacate = judgment on such = petition only in cages where 








etnenghst bas sTabte aendbessene ‘bigoosate. att to eis’ oat 
aot seitifed « parry of heawtos faued ata, bise aolde Bd 





aneitgeose to eilid bisre agée of tgbet bias onl sigpst . ; 
~it%s o6¢ tad? shied bas eid yd hexane oa bas oF batagesre OF 
fon Simos tadwybut alt sttaey of neddowm od¢ to trocgua at ft. a 
“" ‘eegnoag eis? od? gr asyis eouabive of an bereblanoo od 
Fp ses rOReT Tee @ ted) penotigegre To sdid ¢ tot etutidedue 
fakok: Ay ati bar SPeeblits Ye seeds weet soy bateeston ed Bebo 
sunel to. yer eat ao bet Stas “xnhee a stxes ad? To as 
bas gistsd tot yah gespeoovwe sit oo balies ef ot poano. edd, 
Bo Qhem ,ddli merck Bo taonghul ont o¢s09v 2. molten oct parts 
evegay ef aeitztas dango nee. & tod a. betntiteres Atel. ‘Axed 
cereephert Bien bemtstie Dae. 
edaeunbut efi fone sahiverq toi trvoe Legtoiaw# edd ted? 
ethers of Lite os betsoav od. ‘ant 
Kquetit beginede bas noqubaeed ase pall hon a} hiss ted? 
yibadgiosh Sae yxllotit«e ,gienides? awelgbyest naweat nee: qsetst 
dares bap. waetehenes adi yutewoote Le enogtug edt tot. = 
* paseek Lafterd bes shad Be BOT VLORCOTT “padeae all ian 


alae * steied of bas i2 pionsiieiiins shored srotesered eh 
* awe debe .ailesébe edt tad? ewore Llbd-anad Yo pabbeot A 
Gistain efyisome? heotiie® ott sew anaes ‘ettatateta to see oat 
hdd. edt golvab bedos xeditik .amo Lasrtn 2 sense “Ys ok toa one ‘bus 
gitireed ed¢ tot Lemudhtt ade basosten vedi goed tasceqas sthop ak tt 
heviaes: ered? Bae ,i¢u0% fee hodaw oat uismest aaconayedtg, wiedt. to 
et sabooqes any sane. ode Robeinek fads age. suotedoah oetovha. as 
sgmo0 voulie! deaden belt btas A888%E pall Saud. pated. tye: oka 
deme ai Ofem oguted® ef? te aonnd edge ade dolite ah ; ey 
tyoe gldt to aokeivis weddous “¢ oxi? ‘Gadd te weg bosneg eon , Kite 
| _solen fate side: ketal ath a 
sed ativebitts e'iveawoo ati to ete ah deg | | 
of asoteceoxe te Lilkd ef! s2¥0. ‘ 
aeseauses? © so Jovesare baa neidaninexe tot eysarorin. 
hegriadex od od ot saw ti tad? daemsenge baa gatda. 
es ‘tedt bas .S8eL 48 souk gruce ode yo pecan bas wells tee 
mot aoiteaiiastadue ag bast 9% someon aster et heagtot | 


fedd fate of tasioltine ef ti bas Sragee sat ak soit 
att teubace dove ye Te. now ee “er sige ue 
















nolistao ped So ets a, athneas eet 3 ache aa ‘“tiwoe at iLid a» % 

sohthteq- elke yehienos ot nays aa sent oa vi "ea twoo edd i 
trues Lagiolas’ adt o¢ asvig doo draoo Seqielaulé act Yo 18 me: 
ered, senso al vine nobtiter 2 dowe ao taemyghul « 


no motion to vadate it is meade within thirty deys after the 
entry of the judgment, and in thie case auch motion was made 
and denied within thirty doyea from the entry of the judgment, 
(Ehora v- Fields, 156 Ille App. 341). An ord@r denying » 
motion made within thirty deys sfter its entry to vacate a 
judgment of the sunicipsl Court is finsl snd no subsequent 
motion to veerte it will lie, Gut the only aethod of reviewing 
it is by sppesl or writ of error." 


From 2 reading of this bill and the cases cited by plaintifta, 
we ure satisfied that the trisl court wse right in sustaining 


defendant's motion to strike the complsint. In order to sustsin a 
PROP a tO Li PILE OER R § SiO ROI ROE OPER A 


bill of ocomplsint in equity, it is necessary thet the frult shall 





mot be thet of the plaintiff. Such does not appesr in this case, 
Plaintiffs have availed themselves of all the remedies which the 
law provides, including sn appeal to this court, and we do not 
think that s review of the entire proceedings, including the 
decision of this court from which we have ocuoted, is a proper 
subject-matter for « Complaint in ecuity. 

tor the reasons herein given the judgment of the Cirevit 
Court is affirmed, 

JUQGMENT AFFIRMED. 


HEBEL, J. CONGURS, 





| add xedie aysh youiat alddée Sham af #2 he wih or motion on 
| eben ges modem. SHED ord othe. ther ait ae sate 
| staongbet. ed? to yr. ye Ad  dintte -p 

Op gakyneh RADE BA ae oft) 
| a edeoay et ertme a th 4% Bi) i Fou 













tneensedwe os Bae Lew, 0 Leginins od 
shield te mig ba sat te te sae o : 
| woitidubsla. ee “paaak Gane ees bate | us id alat & 

A | aldo tose cat ats cex daw 
| fr abeten oF ‘teite al yh AG bk Ge De 
, ae “Beha aii Sd <n tern tM ll 

fiave lust eat teat voesten ad $i at#hupe ai tuteiquos to Lite 

i 99080. width nt tesegs tom 2ebb. dove, Rentals edt ho teag, od gen 

| add doide votbewor of9 Lis te eovieamed? badheve act ‘edtabeca 

tog ob ov Sse ,tyw> aidt of eeu oe gethylowd ,gsabiverg wel 
| att anibulont yagcifesowtg ation eit to waiver a ted? aaidd 
veqeng « ak ,dotedo svat ow deidw motk. foupo aids to. moleloeh 
| oo os ets tebigge « tOl rettametee, due 

_ tHhuets® ont to ¢avaghet ode aavdg atoted enoesen eat toh 

| . ee ce ae gained ae dbiaiiaaias tue 








40451 
OSCAR SCHCROW, APPEAL FROM 
Appellee, 
SUPERIOR OOURT 
Ve 


SOOKE OOUNTY. 


2991.A.61& 


WR. PRESIOING JUSTICE DENIS E. SULLIVAN DELIVERED THE 


BESSIE SCHOROY, 
Appellant. ) 





OPIRION OF THE COURT. 


Defendant Geasie Sehorow brings this spoesl from decree _ 
of divorce entered sgrinst her and in favor of her husband Oscar 
rrr egress 
Sechoreyw on Februsry 1, 1934 in the Superior Court, ond also from 





. PR REST LAE EES LIE LIE, OSs ign cc insect 


an order entered May 205 1938, denying ‘the petition of Mary Trager, 


Teen 


Conservatrix, 

Plaintiff's bill charged extreme ond repeated cruelty, 
alleging that physicsl violence had been perpetrated ayninst him 
by his wife. There was also on file et that time =» croas-bill by 
defendnnt asking for separate maintenance, cherging desertion for 
more than one year and that defendant wos living separate and spert 
from plsintiff through no fault of her orn. 

At the time of the hesring beasie “choror ~as an inmete of 
the Illinois Hospital for the Insene =t Junning, Illinois, here 
she had been Committed on the petition of her husband, 

The parties were married May 28, 1918, at Chiengo, Illinois, 
and ag the result of ssid merriage one child was born and at the 
time of the filing of the Complaint the child ws 14 yeors of age. 
The parties lived together in Chicago as husband and wife, plsintif? 
says, until December 32, 1927, »nd defendant contends until February 
1, 1928, 

Plaintiff filed his bill for divorcee on October 24, 1933, 
eherging extreme and repented cruelty. On November 23, 1933, there 


was appointed s guardian ad litem for defendant, and the folloring 









| f 

| Lanor 
: Mow gaatts | _,  g@OROHEE sADEO 
| | TrvOe ROTATOR Ce caempten 

| VETRUGd oot ; 7 _ loroiwe wigexa 
tera ATOOO stunihon 
& i . fis t = es 4 tanionas % 

aT ORE EG HAVEAMOE .R BLAIG ROLTEUL WMT hee 


| 
asinine’ stg isegye Biee ar worastoe ieee didi 


SB as 4 





sessing: ah 3 I ata seoergiae Ma PES HDL IR Son i uss nant Inept ene : 


“eoxt wee bis pened watendae ott ai S@L ,f yYtesidet ae woxoree 


| 
| steyett Pro te wobtives ont gaigiet . SaeL ———— tt _— oe 





iid ereieaare® 

win tenioge betartegrses @se¢ hed cowedalv Laofkeyda Sade yalgetin 
¢d Eiid-asore o emtt gods fo OLft do dele ew ved? Jette etd yd 
‘Ht solvveesS sabgtado ,sonsnetninw etareqen tet yoddedt tanbioted 





attlewrs hetescet bas emetyne hoguse 


Heaqge bas ateveqes guivll eve dnshastsd dade baa Teey Gtoe feds eto 
eften tor to tient on Mauerdd Tigakalq moet 

te stati as ey woreda siesst gakteed adt te anes aiid ta 
avede ,eion hilt ,aminaw t: eeeeal ede tot Letiquoll- sionbist ‘ott 
ebusdecd ted to soktite, ef? ae hettimneo fo od bed ofe 

stloniill ,agnoidd te ~elei ,82 you beitres orew esitreq eff 


edt ve bac sted sow PLido ane sgetvtem biee te tivest edt as bas 


2ane to steoy AL wow bilde odd takelques edt to gailit ent Re emlt 
tiitalteaia ,@tiw bas bardasdt ax egoeldd wt todtonot boved eettreaq ent 
yreutdet Litas absetioo tarhueteh bao ,TSEL gas Tedwesot fitne ,eyae 
| : 868i f 
lel ,o tadoetoo ao antevih get Likd efd bel & Peidabels 
ered? ,f2Ci ,Sh todmevel #0 aytieute Seteeyat bax snerdxe eakyiade 
quiwoifot edt hae ,tashbasteb tot metil be asibavuy a Setaiogqe sew 


strtoo aur Yo Hoar) — 





2 
day seid guardien obtained leave to employ counsel. On November 28, 


1933 an answer was filed and also * cross-bill for separate maintenance, 
based on ® charge of desertion. The evidence »ng heard Jmuary li, 


1934 
* plaintiff testified that on June 5, 1923, the defendant becake 


angry and hit him with » mop stick; tht Lovis Golinkin wes present 
et the time; thet on July 19, 1925, the defendsnt hit him on the leg 
with 9 chair and thet he never geve her any cause te strike him on 
@ither oceasion. Pisintiff further testified thet on December 22, 
1927, the defendant struck him in. the face with her fiet, lesving 
morks on him; thet he left on tht date and never lived with 
defendant sfter that times ; 

Louis Golinkin testified thst he ss present June 5, 1923 
and sar the defendsnt atrike the nlaintiff with 2 atick and thet 
about December 322, 1937, he asv marks on clinintiff whieh plaintiff ssid 
he got from his wife. 

No evidence was offered sa to the seriousness of any injury 
that wes sustained st the time of these alleged assavlts, or whether 
they were intentions] or sccidenteal, or that plaintiff attempted to 
prevent his wife from striking him, 

On February 1, 1934, » decree of divorce wos entered gronting 
plaintiff custody of their minor child, sllowing $25.90 fees each to 
the guardian a3 litem and his attorney, end st=ting that the olaintiff 
had offered to deposit '50.00 in the Harris Trust and Sevings Sank 
for burial expenses of the defendant, subject to the order of court. 

On July 16, 1931 piaintiff filed » petition in the Prebste 
Court of Cook County snd wes appointed conservetor of the estste of 
the defendant. On October 14, 1937, the plaintiff, by order of the 
Probate Court, wos removed ss conserv tor and Mary Trager, defendsnt's 


sister wxs appointed as conserv-trix, 


ali  rséwevoh oO Aieeniee yoiqme ef ersal baaterdy 2 4 SPE uy hbise yob 
wustetaion ateavecwe «tet Lidd-seere « onde hon Retih new vowene ae 88eL 


etl ytaveet, braed exw conebive oft .xebgxoneh te egsodo 8 ao boned 


| shwond taahaotal at .28Rk 4h sat fc) pele poititest Witatalt 

titeere tow Getto’ what toad (hatte gem « ‘déiw mid thd bao YBa 
wei adt go wat in seebroteb att {880i ,@f yooh oo sett poukd odd te 
ao mid srteee ot Gty00 yRe Tet eYeg terex o¢ sort fee thee # debw 
he tedmeasl mo tuty beltidgwad coded: Yiituseds  saadgeooo redtie 
| gadeoel «talk rd éthe eget sit at mtd aeante tasbaeted: aid 4 HEL 
| dhitiw howd ‘seve bate ated $aitt seb Peel om demt qold me ane 
| : tify gp tthe edd aeths taabaeteb | 
| ESOL a erot deseote aew ot tote bert iveed miitetfod whee eos 
fad ben dette o dtie itetee odd atinre tachaeteh edt woe bar 
| Stee Vikteieds dotdw tektatats wo eaten wae wd TREE ge tadmeoed tugde 
| Gate i Obi eid mont deg axl 
| ytwiers Yan te eeoteuedien odd ot da botthe aaw Bomebiee GH cot) 
coriede to geotlusesa hogolla saat to omsd eff de bontetaue sae tads 
od bodymeste tthtalale tad? xe ,tetaebioon to Loaotenoind ceter  yaat 
mis grakinte moxk ohig ett treverq 

geitacsy bawtee naw somovkh to qoree® x yhBOL ft euetrndot a0) fae 
od done sot O88) yabealle phlido tonke xtedt Yo ghotme thatatede 
Vistntel od aadd goitste one vertotte sid bas weths be makbreug ont 
Nes! agnive? hae teow? ebtral edt mi O0s08? theogsh ot hereto had 

sieved to vere edd of tooldus ,tadkdated sat to eeatonne Lebmd tot 
atddort aff at modhtter » boleh Weitaedg WOOL Ab YEE MA: 90 
“Te states oft to totevtescen Detabaqye aon kine gtawed odd: Xo ftwed 
si? te tebto yd ,Ytitatete edt ,TOEL gil cedeted a0 stachaeheb odt 
| Seaohasteh regent Yuall ban retownoadss ae hovers ate, qhtie® stedott 
i saan a wenaenes4 aeons 





On October 39, 1337, the conservstrix filed a petition in 
the Superior Court osse charging thet the divoree decree entered 
February 1, 1934 was fraudulently obtsined by false and nerjured 
testimony, denied the alleged acts of cruelty ond stated that at 
the time of the alleged act of cruelty on December 22, 1927, the 
defendant wes confined in the Lutheran Deseoneas Hospitel and 
said petition prayed thnt the deeree be set aside and deelared null 
and void, it also prayed for support, attorneys’ fees and genere] 


relief, ; 
An answer denying the charges of freud was filed February 1i, 


1938, £ . 
At the hesring plaintiff ras called as 2 witness by the 


Conservatrix, under Seetéon 6O of the Civil Practice Act, and testi- 
fied that on Februsry 1, 1928 he filed 2 petition to have the 
defendant committed to the Hospitel for the Insane at Dunning and 
that on July 16, 1931 he filed « petition in the Probate Court to 
have himself sppointed eonserv-tor of his wife's estate, 

On May 25, 1938, by order entered in the County Court, the 
defendant was restored to resson and on July 16, 1928, an order was 
entered suggesting her restoration and providing that the cause 
proceed with Bessie Schorow as defendant in her own proper person. 

Plaintiff filed ner notice of anverl on July 14, 1928, and 
prosecutes this appeal under Poragraph 209 of the Civil Preotioe Act, 
whieh provides thet as to appellants who sre infants or Bon Compos 
mentis, the period of disability shall be excluded when computing 
the time in which the sppeal shall be perfeoted, iinder the facts 
here, this gave defendant 9 Gays in which to perfect an spperl, 

when this matter of disability was oalled te the attention of 
the trial court it appointed « guardian ad litem, as was its duty, 
to protect the interests of the insene person. After he wags appointed, 


® GFose-bill was filed by the guardian ac litem on behalf of the 


we mottidern ¢ belet vivteveeateo add TEOL PR cedateo 20 
hevetne sexoeh sor ovis Sn¢ ted? gaietode cero Fouad tolrequa odd 
boretroc bee aalier yd banteddo yliaelubuatt gan SeOL at YRSetdoy 
te fedd Petete fae yYtisate To ates Sayatlie edt bedmab ewoniteed 
oid TOL ,82 tedeedad ao ytiewrt to toc beyeile edt to emit odd 
tus latieaeH atexgooest aeatadinl ent of bealtaee eae tashasateh 
ifex fersfoeh bae obhinn ten ec verped ond. teds boayotq soaltiteq biss 
iexorey Bae avet ‘eyentette .froeqcum cet Soyeng cele 22. ,blov Sma 


sieiler 
wi yvreurdst belit ase Suatt Yo aogtade tut ware iad ak 


eit yd azvontin 2 ag Sealine asyw Tiltaleig gadtood. out a4 : — 
“kinad ban ,Jo\ eoddoey? itvid sft lo 63 gogdbe? tobee gzitéavreenos 
avd aver of adeitigvey « ballt of CR6L gl yrowtdei ae dadt Dek? 
hae ytioeunt gu eaeenl ed? sok Iaticeot odt of hedtiongs, tashasieb 
a? asroS atedari edt at goigitse = beflst ad {201 ,84 elebh ae god? 
eetatere sietiv sid ba totorreeaes botalouge tigamid eved 
edt <tawot ytaueO ent ai Boxsdae vebto wh gS8EL 448 YR 0... 
ese tebte as , 8501 ,3i yivk ao bie moneet of betedeet.amw daabagteb 
stusn ait ted? acthiver: bea woitaretess tel gadteeggus borstas 
soeteq tscet¢ awe tel ai decheetab es eozados sheset Athy beedotq 
foe 4S8@L AL, ylnt so Levogn to sebsgen, ted dels? BtitelelM. ....... 
-gto4 epifoart Lived edt to 008 dqevgcio% tahae Leeqqs aid? pedwooneng 
Regho> Sea to etiatal sim ode afneliegas of ea tedt aehiverg, doidy ~ 
gaitucmes aedw beboloxe ed fade yiiidasdh to dedueg od? .eitgom 
atocd ad¢ reba ,beteeire¢ ad Lada iwegge add solide ak aml? ort 
elasgge as toekxes of dotdn, af egah 8 taehasteh ovey aid? ,ored 
to, soigeetin. odt of Delieo asw wilisawty ko tettem elat node. 
Xiob eft acw es .w9tdl be satbrany « betalegue ah 2% satst, ons 





sae 


~batnicgds aew od TedtA .moeteq onsaat sit To adeeretad ona teeter. ot 
edd to tisded ao matil be nekbrewg ast yi belit eew Liid~asote 2 





4 

defendant insane wogan, asking for separate maintenance on the grounds 
of desertion and ststing thet she was living seperate and apart 

from her husbend without fault on her part. This wsa never put at 
issve, by requiring an anewer, and no attempt was unde to offer 
evidence in support of the claim of the insane women, 

when the plaintiff testified no objection was made «3 to his 
competency. He wee Beuriigy incospetent and should not heve been 
permitted to testify. As the court asid in Morrison v. Morrison, 
241 Lil. App. 359: . 

"It being conceded thst 2ppellee was mentally incompetent 

and had been committed to an asylum for the insane, apsellant 
was not 9 competent witness in 4 suit: agsinst her," 

In Holton v. Yunker, 198 Ill. 407, it wos held that under 
Seetion 2, Chapter 51 of the Sevised St=tutes, entitled "Svidence 
and Depositions” the parties in interest were disqualified ss 
witnesses sa against an insane defendant. 

in this court the point is raised in the instant case that 
no objection was made by defendant. As the Snoreme Court stated in 
the case of Cartwright v. jjise, et si, i4 fli. 417, »t 4158: 

"It is true, the guerdian ed litem raised no objection to 
the competency of the witness. tut this cannot prejudice the 
righte of the defendant, whom he represented, The gusrdian 
could waive none of his rights. They sre committed to the 
protection of the court, whose duty it isa to notice legitimete 
and substantial objections in such 2 case, whether raised by 
the guardian or not." 

It was error to permit plaintiff to testify. When the sttention 
of a court has been called to the fect that = minor, insane person 
or any other disqualified defendant is present without pepresentation, 
it is the duty of the court to appoint a representative for such 
person. This, however, does not relieve the court of the necessity 
of looking ofter the interests @f its werd, The appointment of the 
representative is merely an sid to the court and does not in any wey 
relieve the court of the responsibllity of seeing thet the rights of 


auch a defendant are protected. It ig the duty of the trisl court 






shavers edt mo eonsnbtnion stateqe, tol goides pow acount tasbaored 
frage bee steveqes gaivil eqw ade pede gasiete bas agdsroaeh, to 
te tug reves eew adfT ety sg td ao tlost tyoitiy bagdeut tad moxt 
T2tTo of oho ust tquecia og Bae ,tevens 1a. acdtiupes w gtungt 
esem sanent st To miolo ott to troqgee ot eonobive 
sid o¢ as shen esr agiteegds om Sedtites? tTikteiale edt cody 

A900 Seed ton Sigeds bue teeteqaooat gkeanw& gow. of ewes 
Wigeizzo% .v gogixzey ai dice tiwoe edt oA . Yilteed of Detdioreq 

2@a% .qqd £40. 40S 


seeseqngont yiletaee ase seiieyga toa? heboonas onhed a" =a 
tas tlsaxe e Saeeat sit tot aulyse ae of be¢tinune seed bad 9 | 
“,ted teaiege tive s al gadatie saeseqmeo.a-ton | 


7 _ Seba todd bled aew th VOR oi BEL pega ov gadlo ah oy oon 
eowebivi" helditus ,eotutetG heelval edt te £¢ redqed? ,& aolgoee 















— ac betttieupelh avon teoredal ai aeddung edt. "aneddianqed. bas 
iz «tanhootod emeert ds teniogs e3 eogaentiv 


tedt ance daedeal edd ai eniwt ab tateg ade Prog B£AF ME oye 
Gh Satate suey smote ect oA stoshaietek YS shaw acy moltootde ot 
MD te QU ALE OL de to pede ov ddgteedzad to gaan ont 
et soisestde em bheeist be aebbtayg ocd eit ab 22" oo ons 
sco anlogietg sonano @ fue .eséatinw eit te yous 2 edt C 
ae rrirry peddinkoe sis yout yererts fin to. shinttstes” 08 
lt w visting seine ‘ i Nove at enbitostée Z toto tedium hms 
Pact _., “stea to, salbtang. wt. 
notsaet te ed? modh vubenes at stitatala tinzeq of towEs on, Rew g Ld \. 
foetsq oieand ,tondm o ded? tock od? oF bekico moed, oud. i 7 | 
Aolistaenenges tuotithiy taegerg. ef. taghasteb Sok dioupa ds. xe90. yas te 

foue tot ovhistssastass « tnkgqga et tryed o0t Bo. tub. ode wa 

 Ytteasoon edt to trues eda evekler tea esob a tevenod, ai f) .tte 
att te saomtatogge od? titer ef. te evestedal eid untts 
New Yas al ton se@b bas tives ont ot bie aa viene ak , 
to eddgit.edt tadt geiees to UtL Lid dacogerr eat, t 
gru0o katt? oft to yWub edt at 31 bodostora ore t 








5 

to see thst the guardian 2d litem or such pereon's represent>tive 
protects in every way the legel rights of the court's ward, It is 
not only the duty of the trinl court to see thet no incompetent 
evidence is :dmitted, but the court should also see, upon an 
inspection of the plesdings, that the cress-bili wos either defsoulted 
as to the plaintiff, or olsced st issue and that evidence «as 
produced in regard thereto. 

The contention of the pleintiff in this court is that the 
law is well settled thot where no answer is filed to » cross- bill 
and the parties go to 2 hesring “a the bill of complaint and answer 
thereto, the cross-bill may be oonsidered ss abandoned, Such eould 
not be true in the case of an insane ward of the ccurt, where 
materisl rights if proven would necegssrily defest the csuse of 
action of the plsintiff. 

Plaintiff further argues in this court that the filing ef a 
petition was not the proper wey to vecate 2 decree in a divorce o-se, 
The same wes not challenged in the trial court by a motion to strike, 
but issue wos taken by filing an answer sand hecring evidence, In 
this court no motion was made to dismiss the anpesl, but issue was 
joined in thie court by filing briefs and esueh question cannot be 
raised now for the first time, 

The decree of divorce provided that 850.9% be deposited with 
the Herris Trust and Savings Sank to psy for the defendent's funeral, 
The plaintiff in this cause heaving hsd himself appointed conservator 
of his wife's estate, then having had her committed to en insane 
seylum ond then heaving succeeded in having = decree of divoree entered 
against her, we presume the offer to deposit the sum of 59.00 might 
be considered as unusual, 

From = revier of the record we do not think there is any 


Competent evidence offered in this case, even approaching the reouired 


8 
evitatasmegges a'xesveq dove to goths Oe acdhueny old todd oon et 
si #i sbtae ettiuge off to apdigin Isged oct yoo ytere alvatoetete 
teateqaesal en gedt ¢ee ot Javon Laine edt. to. vleb edt yiao..peon 
, 5 ne aote.oele bivgde tey@e oat. tel. zbotdiabe ef oonebive 
hefiueteb aedgin eey $iadenaere ode tad? ,@aphoeatg edd lo aokteagenk 
oer Sogehivs jodd ban aeend te Seentg te ,Tiideledg edt of es 
otesed? Baeget af baoyborg 

edt Suds ef teyee eidt al titindalg odt to soddnsinee.edf 
£iid ~eeere © of helit ei tewsae om Stede tect bodddon Lhoy #2 weak 
tavede fae deinignes to Lfid edt ae gattoed «2 a on ealtren oat bas 
bine dov8 ,éc0hneds ee bexebdamog og. Yaw ELideesoxe. edt otezedt 
orese .itveo ec? to Seer ensedt ac be geeo sd? ad end od ton 
be tegeo oft toeton yliteaescos Alvaw aoveta T4 etdgit Leizotem 
etitéianiol; ad? te soites 

6 %o patiilt edt dont tevoo ehdt mi seamuy. cedeteh Thtinkels 
sou eovevib « ah eexpah 2 etgeav of Yow eegorr edt doq-eew aoisiteq 
sists of cattos « yi doug ialat adt al beqnelieke ten ese ener. ont 
ai .sagebive gaitced baz sevens og peal sy yo aedet ecr oueek tad 
il guegi oud shonece add eeineih of eam any gahtnn: aie ‘tavo9 aids 
ad tonase ads deoun nee hee wteled gailit “et tugo aad vie “beadot 
- | etait tert? ad? ob wen bonkes 
dtin bidtecqsh od 60,080 tads kabiviwy edtevib Jo ciel on 


,ievenut attaabastoh add xo? yoo eo? aimea egaival hae deur? eftzal edd _ 


sotevrsssoe hedatoggs tiseuid bad gaived seuee eld? of T2heaisiq od? 
qsant as of bettiqwen coi Sed gadved ned? qetates atetdy eid te 
Poredwa sevevih to ee70e) 2 gaivas ai bebsvoous gaived aodt tye mylyas 
tiigtin 00.083 Yo ave oct teogeh of. 1etho odd qmynetg oy axed teadage 
siegeusy es Derebleaoe od 

yas ah ouodt Agtdd toa ob ay bigoet ods Fo wedvet & OTF na) 
boxkupet odd gaidosetggs seve ,S880 aids ad peesniy canine dann 


SEER D a Neg 


8 
proof, to sustain the decree entered in the trisl court. The 


manifest weight of the evidence is spninst the plaintiff and either 
el - eae) 





at the time of the original henring or at the he»ring on the 
petition in the nature of » bill of review, the bill for divorce 


Nn rete, Se aieieal 
CLL 


should have been dismissed for want of equity. 


For the reasons herein given the decree of the Superior 
Court is reversed, 


DECRER HEVERBED, 


HEBEL, J, CONCURS, 
BURKE, J. TAKES NO PART, 








a 

od efxuoo Letts oid ai hesaine seneeh edt aiatava of loot, 

cette doe Tiitwiels eA? demise pi sanabive ed? to tigen teattoas 

ei? ao guiaead 4d¢ tn vo palseed dantzite odd to melt ad? ta 

soxevls 2% fide oct aid .ueives te and, i bi orien adt ah avdtstog 
nenrmeee™ gttieps, to daeg 


he hacedane 








xoiroqu@l add 20 eenoah aris sites aieene Howes OFF BSL. 5 


eAZnsAn ASAGAE 





# x wit 
. 
fe x Soke Rr Ea 
Sih ‘ 
: i 2 witene ‘whie atu $e 
Heres dick, eee tee age Baas gern SD ytag e 
Sky SF ReaD 2 rh Re 3 B GG ERR Mae ‘gees # ANE & TG 


ee ee ee ae! 
& Mees: KY Tay QO & Re 
ee ee ee 


ieee 





49461 


IDA ROSCHE, APPEAL FROM 


CLHOLIT COURT 
Ve 


JOHN ROSCHE, UGOK GOUNTY. 


2991.4. 618+ 


MRe PRESIDING JUSTICE DENIS &. SULLIVAN DELIVERED THE 


Appellee ) 
oni 
| 


Appellant, 


OPINION OF THE COURT. 







A deoxes of divorce wes entered in the Cirovit Court = 
favor of clsintiff Ida iiosehe and esainst the defendent John Sosche 
on the ch=rge of cruelty, from which decree defendsnt brings this 
‘appeal. 

The decree entered by the trisl court granted the plaintiff 
a divoree and awarded her the complete tikle to » two «partment 
building locsted in Forest Pork, Illinois, together with 211 the 
furniture and furnishings therein and ordered the defendent to vaonte 
@ room which he head occupied in his apartment for years, rithin 
twenty-four hours of the entry of ssid decree and restroined and 
enjoined the husband from entering his said home, 

The desree further provided that there should be paid to 
plaintiff the sum of (118.50 for sttorney's fees and court costa. 

Plaintiff is 69 yeare old and her husbond, defendant herein, 
ke 71 yeors of sge, The three children, ell born of thie marricge, 
are adults and married, The parties to this suit were mrried in 
1894, and lived together ss husbend and wife until separeted by 
the entry of the decree herein dated July, 15938. 

In her compiaint plaintiff slleges three speoifiec acts of 
cruelty ss follows: On October 1, 1935, she alleged defemiant 
seized her by the throat with both honds, choking her and threatening 
to kill her; on Mnroh 21, 1936, defendant struok plaintiff; ond on 


April 20, 1937, defendant struck pleintiff with his fist and pushed 


i ——_- — 





[? 
| SEBO 
NOM LATE GA re etHUON Aa 
| f spaibeaga 
RHUOE TLIQALY He] 
os 
Yreg0 xga0’ } “ | «HOON | uot 
ae ‘dno ctaqan : 





B19 AT OOS 


PIMUK .§ GLBSE AOLTEGL Oh GEMS oF 


2 © cs eas ¥ ip Oe me vf he 


2 th JOO aut qo ROSE RTS 


eal 


edoeo ates tiebaoteb oft teminge has adveot eb] Pitalele to coveb 


wk tran’ diworte edt wi Bevednve ese agravin ta earooh A 
pling OO ye 


Pe air ore oo ares searancesue neqeiacean 


Se OSS i MC 
wid? eqaind taobseteb eerpeh doidw mott ,¢tiewre to egtadte ade aol 





LOG 
et ktnke Lo ait Seéasrs teoon faite? ede yt beradse aeroe) od? | 
det awda sere ort 2 of 9ifis oteiguoo oft tai bebroen haw eouevsb s 
oft LIfe Atiw nodtouet ,etonilly .dted teeuel al beteoet gaibiiud 
ainoev et tsebasteb edt Sexebto hee alexadt agaidetatet Sas ard iar 
abddviw ,ateoy 26% gromdveqe ald at heicwumao Sed 64 dolidw Goeot & 
bae heaierdest Bae earoeh bise to yeome odd bo exwod tuot~ytaort 
eonod bise eld gakistas moet fasdayi edt beniotae 
et Bisg ed Sivede ovedt tadt bebivera toddaeut eermed edt 
et?age trvoe Bas sest «"yomtedds tot O8.8LL5 to mu odd TRG OREAER 
,nieved tasimeted ,hacdewd ted Sar bio siney @O ef ttidaseld 
senate ee eidt te aved fie ,nxerbLide oe dt eff »o99 to atooy LY ot 
wi belies etew tive eidt of setdrag adT .heirrsm Bas atinbs ots 
yi betersqee Liday etie baerhasdeud an gedtegot bevil bas sP@BL 
«BEGL ,viul beceb alerted aarneb ot to rise ade 
to afoe agthosqe sovidt segeile ttitaiaeia talalqmes aod a. 
tantesteb bogeile ote ,d6@L yi redeteg a0 sewollot Ba yiewro 
gainetevidt bas tod antzodo seband sted dtin snoudt aad yc rest boatea 
fo bas ;ttitatela dowrte dashaeled e286 At dete ao {tod ELta ed 
bedeug bas tatt eid dthy Ttivaltely xouede tunbat ob tees va Sea 


2 
her violently sgainst an icebox in her home, causing pain and injury 
to her shovlider, etc. 

Plainsiff further alleged thet she was the owner in fee 
simple of real estate in Forest Pork, Illinois, together with all 
the furniture ond fumbishings therein, ond thet defendant oceunies 
® Toom in plaintiff's apartment, but thet the oarties hereto have 
not cohabited 18 husband and wife for over five years iast past 
because of his cruel treatment; tht defendent mrinteins his own 
room and does his own Cooking, while plaintiff does his laundry work 
and thet defendant has not contributed te the support of plaintiff 
and their children for the p»st seven years, although well able to 
do so, and thst defendant has refused to move from ssid premises and 
live elsewhere, 

Plaintiff further alleged thet defendant hae s considerable 
amount of cash, bonds and notes, which plaintiff believes =mount to 
several thousends of dollars, which sre the joint proverty of the 
patties hereto, but defen ant refuses to zive plaintiff her share 
thereof, and further slleges thet the defendant is the owner of two 
and one-half acres in Gurnee, Illinois, snd that plaintiff is entitled 
to 2 half interest therein. 

Qefendant's answer denies esch of the -ots of crvelty elleged 
in the complaint and avers thit sime November BO, 1922, plaintiff 
willfully and intentionally deserted the defendant, and in his countere 
claim defendant preys for * divorce on the ground of desertion, 

Defendant further denied thot plaintiff is the sole owner 
of the Forest Park real estote, tut evers he has an undivided half 
interest therein, and »llezes thet the same »os purchased out of his 
funds snd esrnings; denies that he hes failed ve Support plaintiff 
and their children, or thet he has any Considerable amount of oash, 
bonds or notes, but admits that he is the title owner of two and 


onewhalf acres in Gurnee, and »vers thet he is 79 years of age and 



















 YWoebat bes ning gilvase ,emed ted at santees an tealages vtwelody ia 
.ote gushivedea tor ot : 

we? of teawo et ope ora tadt bay ated tedtuet PTeiddts i¢ 
iis stile vaddege? getoat iii etd | yeone® al @¢ntee Laét te otgmke . 
- pederenoo sanbastet tae? bas ee eye dele haben? baa ‘erut torent one 
aved etetead eeidrsq ede fectt ted gtr amen age eittitetels ae cook i, 
taec tesl ermoy avit revo ret atie beim bardaued an betidades ton 
ao eid anietaten tuebnoteh taddt jtooudnend faure and ‘to “oeunoed 
txow yrbnust eld esob Titaiele alte gynktoon nwo-ats 6668 bine moot 
Yitaicig to troqgwa ed? ot hotustrines ton ent dasbastsh duit ve 
cd wilds ilies dyvedtie ,etrsy sever tawe add “ot morbiide ‘xheds baa 





ban agetmete Shee mort arom ot beaston ast taataeten Satt baw on ob 
| . “sonadnoe 9 ovEl 
aldnzabtesos ® aed tasbastab toed bogotts odd witsabalt he 
oF deome weve dt sed ‘VWitabele o£ shy geotoe has ehaod ees to “avon 
sd? to Wuserotg tatet ed? ere doide sexs Lkob to shnaswodt Lorevoe _ 








 atade ted Tritsielg avig of gaan? ox tae’ ate tect sotered sotezeg 
owt te tenwo sid ad janbast eb oat tese segelia, xodtat & nee _stoorads 
bottitee ef Ttitnielg ted? Sas abionisiT aeantyD at soups Liad~on0 bas 
| | wntosedt tousent ‘Mad 6 « oF 
boged.te tse to ator edt to dors goaneh romans eltnebaots Ae 
” Yetaiale 880k fd Tadmavok sete teat erowe - tnteLomeo ode me 





-?ry 
Ly fa 
* 





3 
is not sble-bodied, ond thet he is unable to secure employment 
because of his 26@. 

Defendant*s counter-claim fellows the allegations of his 
answer and -vers thet the varties sceumilated sufficient funds out 
of his esrnings to purchase the apartment building in forest Perk 
and thet defendant made certain improvements thereon which vere cnid 
for out of hia earnings, ond thet titie to the ssme is held by plaine 
tiff, although defendant is entitled to an equal interest therein, 
and although plaintiff hes often promised to place the property in 
joint ten-ney, she hes failed to do so. 

Defendant savers thet he purchaséd the tro and one-half seres 
in Gurnee out of his own earnings and thit title is in his own name, 
but admits that piaintiff is entithed to an equal interest therein. 
Defendant prays for an accounting ss to the rents collected from 
the apartment building by plaintiff and prays th=t the title may 
be equally divided, as well «s the household furniture, 

The decree of the trial court swarded plaintiff s divoree and 
awarded the apartment building to her, together with the furniture, 
and ordered defendant to veente the same within °4 hours and enjoined 
him from entering ssid premises, ete. 

Jefeniant's theory of the case is thst the preponderance of 
the evidence wos not vith plaintiff, and did not justify the entry of 
e decree for divorce, Also, thet the evidence sdmittedly shows that 
inasmch 2s both husband snd wife contributed to the purohsse and 
upkeep of the family apartwent dwelling, that, therefore, it esa 
entirely inequitable to divest the husband of 211 interest in eid 
apartment building and strip him of everything he hed in the world, 

The testimony in this conse is not sufficient to sustain the 
decree, The plaintiff did not testify »s to the charges mede ogninst 
her husband, except when the anerers were suggested by leading 


questions. In several instances plaintiff “guessed" that that was 





g 
THeeyoigns ervoos pF Oldemw et on todd Bae ,beided-alde ton wl 
oORt ahi to seucond 
atx to atedesgetis odd ewodiet mielo~rosneo® » “ieebast od 
tie abit treleltiop batolemuems etieved ad? dade axeye bas wewens 
ret geomet af geiiiivd teomtteqe edt csedonen of epatatse, aid. to 
hieg araw doicw spetekt atraserengms mintane ohem tiebasteb todd bas 
~aialey yt Sher ef ome ot of eLe¢it tent bee yagaierae etd be. dam wat 
,thered? teoxotee Loupe of of baidi¢ne el taehooheb Agu Le attad 
ai ytyvevrotc aff sore of Seelwote sette aed Widakede dguodela doe 
sor ob ob folie? eat ods... yousmed talot 
soron Tisd-eng bag get od? bepetiomy ad tott etevn taaheeta 
guerre ols ai af eidid dace San egiinnes meg odd Yo twa, esatud os 
eriavsd? teovedad iesupe aa ot beddidge ei Tiidatela pod? atinbe, dud 
newt hetortloo afaest et af ac gaivnuooes aa tad. eyeng tashnet st 
eeu gitie od? ted? eyere ban tilialy yo gadbiiod dasadreqa edt 
seeutionst bledeewed edt as flow ee, bebivib, yLeupe, od 
has @esorlh.« Witelalc bebrawe duwot Lnhad ed 20, 9OTROR MAP oo. yo no 
«Mating? sd dthiy vedtoget wed of gabbilinl, thosttiags oft babuewe 
hegieias des etued &o aidtin omen oft etaony of Snabaeteh begabto dae 
sods ,eoctnong diva yoteodae most mid 
te @enersheedexc adi tedt ef ease add. to yxoads attachneted 
te eras ete YLatent fom bid. baa ,iiliniedle div ton aoe aomebive, 98d 
¢adt oretg ylhettimbse soqgebive of}. dadt gordi «eoterlh aot aenoah ¢ 
bap apesoumy od? of Astudiutnoe eile pa har solaars atog. en Mosenend 
pee 4h gorolmredtt hodt yaotlilewh dreetiage yi dna, ont. 0 goods 


/ 


bise od Georvopad Sia te hardewd on? Geawkd ot, eidetiunaad xLont tas 


abivew edt gd Ben. od gukdayrsve to mid qiste Soe gotbliod trantnen 
od¢ miatava ot tnelot Them fon ei seq alist md pmgmhteed, 849. 99.) 
tantnge eham ragtedo oft of ae XRstea? tom Hk> uttéetalg oa, Q0809b 


gakbeot yd beteagque onsq exowane odd aadw sqooxe ,bandewd ost 


gay godt tart? “boewaug" Tiidately esoaatant, iexeves a1. sanoidaaup 


é 
true in answer to questions put to her in » suggestive form, The 


happening of October 1, 1935, where the chsrge is ande that defendant 
choked and threatened the plaintiff, she seid thet he kicked her, 

As to the incident in the kitchen, when the disoute «98 had with 

the decorator, where it wss claimed thot defendant pushed plaintiff 
against the ice box, no one testified whether such act wag accidente 
ally done or if he purposely injured her, 

It further sppecrs from plaintiff's testimony that defendant 
is living in the same spartment with her, although she says he 
occupies 2 separate room. The decree finds that they have not 
cbhabited ag husband and wife, although there is no evidence of this 
fact and, if it is true, whether this resulted from nstursl csuses 
or intention, 

Plaintiff? steted thet she does defendant's washing, and 
apparently willingly. ‘The evidence shors thst the sarties heve not 
separated, except as they must separate in response to 2 decree of 
the court. we do not trhink it is the function of = court to separate 
married people if they do not voluntarily separete themselvea, The 
public policy of the State is that couples be encouraged to live 
together and to sustain the marriage relstion, rather than to separate 
them. Oertainly, it is not one of the provinces of = court to 
order s separation which has not already taken place, 


we are of the onini at the fourt « erred in enteri ing this 


decree as . the manifest weight of the evidence is against plaintiff, 


Sr se CAA ANTE NLU a a I te Te ee DO bt TA at WEBI ED sh Wet Sa 


a 
Therefore, for the reasons herein given the deeree of the Girevit 


Court is reversed, 


HEBEL, J. CONCURS 
BURKE, J. TAKES WO PART, 





a 
eit  ,etot svitacygue 2 af tod of toy eteddeeyo af someme al, ore 
sashasteh tadt ahem al egietio eft oteiie EG, i E9AQE0G. he gaiasqued 
ofed faxolt ad tod? Glee Of ,tilvataia ot? Benetaerds bas beidode 
idin ben ase otuceth eft mode ,sedndda ott af teeblent edt of. 94 
ttitnlsig bedauy taehneteh dead dewtelo aew 2d. eradw grotetoned ed@, 
| wtnabiocs: sav 290 doce tadtede Sattiguet ato of qxad eoL of? saniaga 
wed bored yleeogtug Od ti se and, vile 

tnabarleh gadd yomitesd eMPigelale most snongqa sedduwt #. 
simmer ode dgucdtia tad stir teomtacqe Gmen, of% ad geivil ed, 
too eved yodd tedd ebait eared eff  »teot eieteqee 2 eelquere 
atdt. fo sorebive on wi onedt dywctidde gotta bin haodeud om hotidaddo 
goasae iayeted mort betienen olde codtede goutd ai 2 TL phim goa? 
 elineind te 
hae .whddteer oWasierebab avoh ode, tad? botede: TRiemdel® « 4 
ten ove vettiag edd todd evo, conehive. ag? wyigatiiie ylineneqge 
to goreeh « gt spneqeen af atateqen dem yedd es, tqeomm, ghotaneqes 
etetager: at dxusd.¢. te aodfouut edt @4 t4 dmkat tom ob of. ytazvoe ant 
od?  .nevingustt peateqes Yidtgdanloy dom ob. yaad: hi Siqorq Detoned, 
_. evil o¢ bogexsanae ed esiquoe tadd ef oted8 oft to yelling, olidug, 
atereyoe e¢ godt tedter ,aoltetet epsiracem edt aletewe of bam, tedtopod: 
et trues 6 to eeonivety sd¢ te ane toa ad fh qylakatsod mode 
ond seaet yooorle tos aod dotdw go bdeceqee, 5 mebre 
sidt gotwosae at borte drsop ocd ott Te Oke OF - 
Tidatelg: tandngs ak aonebtye pt oe _Stghow seat haem: ost Be, weneene 
 Tfnoald od¢ Toveevoeh: ad¢ awrky mdecediaaoacet odd oh qerotenedl: 
sbaereren, at trgo0- 
eGEQhIVaa GAROSH ay ate ute 


* Ee te 


apt Pee is passive 





coin 
4 


40258 


MICHAEL GIDWITZ, 
Appellant, APPEAL FROM 


Ve 

ARMOUR AND OCMPANY, an Iliinois corporstion, ) SUPERIOR COURT 
Re He CABELL, Ae YATSON ARMOUR, LAURENCE ) 
ARMOUR, LESTER ARMOUR, PHILIP 0. ARMOUR, 
SEVELL lee AVERY, HENRY We BOYD, De he 
CRAWFORD, CHARLES F. CURTISS, CHARLES J. 
FAULKNER, JRo, WEYMOUTH KIRKLAND, JAMES R. 
LEAVELL, JAMES A, MODONOUGH, D. R. MCLENNAN, 
ARTHUR REEKER, HARRY G. MILLS, PHILIP Le 

REED, CHASE ULMAN, ELISHA WALKER, 3, KAYNER 


WALLACE and FREDERICK H. PAINCE, 2 9 T A 6 J 8° 
c 6 


Appellees, 


COOK COURTY,. 


MR, JUSTICE BURKE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

On April 2%, 1937, plaintiff filed his amended complaint in 
Chancery in the Superior Sourt of Cook County, and alleged that on 
May 86, 1934, he was the holder of 10 shares of 7 preferred cumu- 
lative stock of Armour @ Company, an Illinois coerporstion, one of 
the defendants, which, with other stock, he had pwrehased 15 years 
before; that on Msy 28, 1934, the outstanding shares of the corpora- 
tion were (a) 573,313 shares of 7% #190.00 par cumlativve preferred — 
and (b) four million shares of $25.00 per common, two million of 
Class A and two million of Cless 2; thet under the corporste contract, 
the preferred shares were entitled to receive dividends of 7% out of 
net profits when declared by the board of directors, »nd nothing in 
“excess of 7%, no matter how large the net profits were; that (1) 
preferred dividends were cumulntive; (3) a reserve of one year's 
preferred dividends was to be maintained; (3) thet no sh»res prior to 
preferred could be issued, nor on a parity with them unless net 
earnings were twice the amount required for dividends for the total 
number of existing snd proposed shares; (4) no merger could effect 


preferred; and on liquid tion, voluntesry or involuntery, preferred 


—- 


gason 
.strweto qaandiw 


MORAY JAXTA etal lags 


a? 


RUC AGTABVe Walterortad eloatiit os ,YHATOO CHA sttOMmA 


( (Qe Ad Net et HOSTAC oh ghAGBAD oH ofl. 

( ACOH A ‘a arate OUR: ceTeSd AUOKRA 

( vA afl 48 ¥O8 AHAM, WYASVA. ok dtauae 

s¥PRTGO Wood { ww ttitant VBardnue ay edie <CACHW AAO 
| 8 GSMA ,2UAGRKLS NPOOMTaN anh aM aLUAT 
uation 2 .¢ .woaoMOdoN oA Aauay” ravage’ 

oA SGLTBA ,OAUIM mt) ¥AAAR 9 iakane AUNTAA 

AAUYAW .@ gPORGAW ABBIGR .HANUU MOARO ,d@aR 


te eSUHLOG oH AOANSGIAY baw TOALLAE 

68ro0 AT aS Ee ee 

» TREO GRY To Solero BNP HRaTVTIed waeS BOT TetL yam 

gt tetdlaneo bebiieme eft bell? Trivakela (vaee (oe ited ae 
ao tart beysile dan ,ytaued Yood Yo drycO roirsqu® edd At YredHals 
-umiro bereotése SY to edtede OF to tebLed add eaw of MOL ,68 yan 
to sho .weltecocese elostIll we ,gesawed 4 suesred te toote avbtet 
etasy Lf Heeedorue bad ed ,foote tanto dtiw ,deisdw (athebaoteb ef? 
weregyoo edt te wounnde uctietetuo ait? ,d80L ,8f yev no tend jateted 
” Beeretocd sviteiemie req CO.00L9 AY te werede 8L8 eva (2) oxee nott 
te nollitm ot ,tomtins tay Of.8S% Yo abteda doll lie teot (a) Bat 
afoertnoo atereyreD edd tehay tadd (a eealo to moll itm ort bre A ‘ gante 
te tuo 89 to ebmobivth svfseer of beleitat ove" serade herretors odd 
ai gaidd¢ed bes’ yetotoerib to bragd sit yd hernfoed avdy esttorg ton 


(£) ¢ad? jorew editors wea set Septal eed tettem en’ aT to geeons 
elanoy ene Te eveseet « (€) perdtetuvve ardy shnebivld borreiéeg | 


et soltd sorere om tadt (8) jbentatntam o¢ OF aaw abasbivib berraterd 


ten eenlay mod¢ Gtiw yiiteq s no west .boueal ad Biveo berzetetg — 


istot ect tot ebwoblivib tot betiupet tavewe edt SOiwt erer sgntates 
gootte hives tegtas om (#) jaetade benoqotg bas gettaixe to redawe 


berzratozy avtstayioval to parame ene phuptt ne bas jbersstong . 


— — 
a ts neta 





2 

received all accumulstions plus its ©190.00 par value before any 
distribution to common; on redemption the eame plus °15.00; (5) 

mo change in the chsracter, clase or amount of shsres could be made 
contrary to the charter, end no amendment to thet charter could 
effect the rights of the preferred; thet common shares rere subor- 
dinate to preferred, and were entitled to receive sil remsining net 
profits; thot dividends on preferred were paid continuously from 
1923 to Jenusry 2, 1934; that thereafter arresrages accumilsted 
until by May 28, 1934, they totrled $29.50 per share or some 16 
millions of dollars; that no dividends were ever paid on Glass B 
Common and none on Class A after 1925; that on May 28, 1934, the 
officers and directors purported to adopt a plan of vile 
providing for: (1) the issuance of » class of new 6% no-par preferred 
shares prior to plaintiff's old preferred, and for the issuance of 

a new class of common sharee; (2) for the exchange of each old 
preferred share for one new prior preferred share, plus two new 
Common shores, end (3) the cancellation of old preferred accumlated 
dividends and priorities; that in connection with the plan, com- 
plicsted financial data and masses of figures were involved relating 
to the defendant company and over five hundred separate units in 

all parts of the United States and foreign countries ranging from 
packing and sawmonia plants to ourled hair factories; th»t this 
required consideration of consolidation of esrnings and income of 
the foregoing units, determination of reserves, capital and earned 
surpluses, income and expenses, provisions of mortgezes and other 
corporate documents relating to the retention of the fotegoing, and 
limiting the declaration of dividends, deprecistion policies, 
inventory, fluctuations and other manifold detsils in the huge 
Corporate structure and system which affected its finsneial pesition; 


that Complicated legal questions srose relating to the effect on the 


SOO 


SS 
1 


& 

We stoted eyiov gag OO00L) gti suiq pretent amas ids bavtooss 
(2) ;00.8@1) sulg omse oft aoltqaeher me jrommeo ‘ot noktinthutess 
oham ad Diuee seteda to tawome toe soaie etetent she edt al @gasdo on 
Sivoo aeduedo gett oF @aembrans og Aas gMnrnnde edd ot “Presinge 
~todwe stor aeverin memnoe feit pbextoterg sa? te etcgle i tostte 
fon gniakenor Lic evieoer of baltkine oxox hae qhorteteng of edunth 
MOTT YLevounitaoe bhag Tae howtsterg Ce ebaodty25 tons jadktorg 
hetelumupon eegercotte tedteerads tat (eee ‘@ yraaret, ot Beet 
ar Ses to Freie we 08.68% batetod yedt aes 8S yee Ww ‘Stan 
& eaeld aq bing TeVS oTew ebashivih em fede yeraiied te enoillin 
ihe ee La yek we tady ,eRel sorta A eant® So enon bas nosed 
noite iutiqnoat te weig & teobs of haseaasig erotowrth baa steoltto 
perroters tegren 36 wes to eaalo e te sonareei exit (£) ‘0 gatbivorg 


os 


ho Snumumet #d¢ sot hae sborretene bio attadatess os sotts eoneda 

Ske does to sgendoxe ade tot (2) jeoteds RomGo to esto wen 8 

_— ow? aule seteds borret stg tolzq wea SAH ‘Sok oracle bornstorq 

bodeLunusos bexsstetg ble te noitelivenso as (8) bas aerate, Aommoo 

; “fi00 iaic oS dtiv aol soannoe mi sad? eodditolng bas whaebavéh 

gad taren baviowal orew voruga to aepagm bas stab Lskonanst betsokig 

Md etiny etateges berbaud evft reve ktig vinqnes tnabneteb add oF 

mor’ gatgass esirtacas agtotot bas aotadh botial oy to etreq igey 

| pidd fade jaelnotoat thart Ssirwo at etaelg kta bas ga ddoed 

‘te amoont bas agains? to fo idabdiionsoo ie PRARSEM MEAD eri oT 

beats bas fatione atavreeet To foltenimred oh eeilay pats 

radto bas eogegttom to anoketvors aboatogxe bia enone staat 
bas ,gitogetet od? to soltastet edt of gattelor etasmsook as em 

— hadtollog noddasosrqab cbmobivid te sottereloe edd gnttamtt 

Bra edt mi altateb bletinan tedto bas enoksnn shbetniate® Linh non 

inostse04 Eetonantt ott betostts foiaw astexe bas 8 aetyiyp Serle hea got 

‘oan mo tostte odd of gattelor S80TS anotteoup haat botso2 sono tads 











3 
then recent Business Corporation act of 1933 upon rights created 


under prior cts; the pover of the company or its shareholders to 
disregard the terms of contract of plaintiff and other preferred 
shareholders by issuing purportedly prior shores; the power of 

the Legislature under the federal and State Constitutions to suthore 
ize changes in Gorporste charters in such cases; the rights of 
minority shareholders; and the application to the complex dividend 
relationships of parent snd subsidiaries of lows of many stetes and 
foreign countries; that plaintiff snd a grert majority of the 
preferred shareholders had no technical, legel or accounting skill, 
that the foregoing financial and legal meterial ras utterly beyond 
their ability to grasp, anslyze snd interpret, snd could not heve 
been known or deemed to have been Known or reasonably svsilable to 
them; that at the solicitation of defendents, plaintiff purportedly 
exchanged his old 7% Gumilative preferred asheares under the plan for 
10 new preferred and 20 common sheres; thet the new preferred was 
stated to be prior in dividend and liquidstion rights to old pree 
ferred and wes 2 6% convertible cumulative share without par value, 
and thet plaintiff did not vote for the plan; thst plaintiff and a 
great majority of old preferred sh-reholders believed, at the time 
of making the exchange, that (1) the company and x majority of its 
shsrehoiders could by voting in favor of the plan, compel the minority 
to canoel accumulations and other priorities; (2) thet the reouired 
majority had approved the plan and therefore the cancellation of 
priorities was binding; (3) thet if they did not exehsnge their 
shares they would receive no future dividends, and thet the non= 
assenting old preferred would not receive scoumulated dividends; (4) 
that there were no funds available for dividends, nor any feasible 
way of obtaining them without seerificing priorities; (5) that a 


number of defendants held only old preferred shares go that their 





g 
beteeto etoigix goguy S8CL ta oA noiteroated aeenteuti tuesox aedd 
ot eteilodetede efi to yaaqmoo od lo tee bof {altos toh tebay 
horretate tafto bas Thitaielo to deettnee to neared odd Beeyoredd 

to tee9y sdf pasesde toled yibettoctur gatweat yo erebioderede 
~todtue of anoitutitene. stxtt bar Levebel edt reba ourtelaiged ont 
ts etdgix oft saseee deve wi Steeredto atergqreo ak eegnsdo et 
baehivih xelomoe eft of mokdootiqnge axt hue jeveblodermia vWiroata 
bas aséads yew to wwel to eeirelhindye bae taereG Yo aqidenoitaler 
afd to ytizelam teeta « bas ttidmtela tear yeebriaves: ag ietet 
-iiide anitaueoos to least ,fsoiadest on Baal stsblodereds Servet ota 
bagyed Ylestta evkw Leivetem [enol ue Latonantt gulegeret edt ded? 
nvisel tow bivoe bee ,toreredai bra es yfane aGeets ot yelilee xtedt 
ot sidelieve elidanoaset to neoat 199d evad of boweeh to awondt gesd 
yibettorruy Titniele ,stashrsteh te noftetioifes ad? te dedt yarodt 
et gelo ed? vcebew setade hervet oth ‘aviteluegn & bie aid Bopmedoxs 
sow hoveetong wan odt fedd yoerede sonmon OF bow berrelenq wen O£ 
mote bio of etdyty moldobhaekl Be Baeblvin a2 tency ed er BSdede 
,eulev ter tuodtiv orade switetumue oidlsrevies 00 » aew Bae bordet 
a fae Ytitntela tedt yale sat xot etev ton bLb Yiitutalq Fods ‘dais 
sit odd te ,hovelisd ereBiodéiede berrstere Bie to ybleotam teety 
ett to YWhrotam « bas yreumos and (1) Peds ,osmadoxe ait ‘gotten to 


yiitronin ed? leqmdo ,welq edt Yo tovst si ygatdov et Bivoe erebloderade 


botinuper edd tode (8) peolehtodeq vodéo bas anoktalumepos Looneo Ot - 
“to modtslieedan dd¢ svoteredt bis anke odd Bevorqye bat YLxob am 
tied? ogaadone tom bib yadd tt todd (2) yandbadd bow “ests trot 
“son ond godt bua ,abaebivib ocudut om e¥icods Bisor yedd ‘worade 

(4) pefmehivih hetelumvoce evleoor ton blvew borietexg bio guttdbden 
eidiesst yee ton eenmobivth rot sidelieve ebast on otew ered? taat 
a tadt (8) jactsixolay gnivitinose susiltiy medd gatatetde to Yaw 
gqied? ged? oe eoxade borzets ny ‘plo ¢ino biod ainahaeted to xedmum 





a 
personal interests were identical with plaintiff's, and did not have 


personal interests inconsistent with those of preferred; that 

the foregoing beliefs were material to the interests of the plaintiff, 
the subject mtter of the Gontract of exchange, and in inducing 
plaintiff 2nd 85% of old preferred shareholders to exchange their 
shares; thet without the foregoing beliefs 2s to the finzneisl 
situation, their rights, the necessity of exchenging their shares, 
and the personal interests of defendants, plaintiff and 2 great 
majority of old preferred shareholders would not have exchanged their 
sheres and sacrificed accumulsted dividends, as the amount of accume 
lated dividends alone which they sacrificed on one share ($39.50) 
would have purchased at least 38 shares of old M mmon; in fact, the 
foregoing beliefs were misteken and fslse beosuse, in truth, accume= 
lated dividends and priorities covld not be enancelled by » majority 
of shareholders ani the plan did not legally bind plaintiff and other 
minority old preferred shereholders; that in truth in December, 1936, 
all remaining old preferred shoreholders whe had not exchanged their 
shares did receive accumilsted dividends, after suit had been filed 
on their behslf, and thet if plaintiff had not exehanged his shares, 
he too would have received such socumulstions; thet in truth there 
were numerous fessible methods of making funds evailnble for dividends 
without sacrificing old preferred shareholders’ acoumlated dividends 
and priorities; thot in truth the personel interests of defendants as 
shown hereinafter were directly contrary to those of old preferred 
shareholders; that the plaintiff and a majority of old preferred 
shareholders were ignorant of the rights ond of the forevoim dsta 
and would not have exchanged their shares if they had known the true 
situation; that for their knowledge on these exceedingly complex 
questions, plaintiff and other preferred shareholders necesserily 
relied upon the commnicetions and representstions made by defendants 


directly and indirectly through purportedly independent Gemmittees; 




















‘(Mttimiata att to atevretai ait of Lelvedes evew stabied gnicgeto? edt 


sueet2 To tivowe edd oR yeboobhivih betseiimyoos heeliiwoarm base eerterte 


 minoos giitexs ak .savensd oolet bas asdeteln stew sretled gategetot 


ebnebivid tot efdelieva sdavt aobdee te ebedtem. sidiese? avotaya sTew 
phaebivih betelummmos MetabLoevade bortotetqe big gabettitose ‘tuotttts 




























eved fom bib bus ,e'ltitatiala dtiw Lanivnebh oceg etnateind Lacowxeg 
ted? ,bewrstata to enedd dtiw tasteienwont etveretai Lsnowreq 


gatenrbal ai bag ,egaedoze to toemtcon ode to test an Poetdue elt 
tisdt ogiacdoxe of evehiosevade horreteto Bio Ye 248 hae Wegen tale 
inkenanit edd of an atalied pateperet ord tuodtiw dads peetere 
,noreds sted? pebgandexe to ythegooon edt ,etdyit thedt ,roktantte 
teeny s bus Titudelq ,etusbneteh ta ageouedal Laneateq: ed? bate 
ged? beyaedexe evad ton bisow ovebiodenede bextetong bio ho yisotan 


(Ogs84) oxece vee ao hevetirasy yoRd dotdw onole abmobivab bored 
sid. , tort ab prom bin to weovede 88 teoel fe beeadoteg syed bivew 


Ytivolan « wd bedisedso ad ¢om biuoe exitiveln? bas ebmebivts potel 
xodte bie Thitwinky badd yileped toa 646 meg oft has erebfotierede te 
Sek ,redemeed al déuet tk ted? yeseblodetede berrvsterg sloyttredta — 

viedt begaadexe tea bed ode evobLodeteds hotretets blo gatmtamet fis 

belit aged bed thee tevts ,ebaobivib botsigwaeoe svieser BIS eownre 

,eervade sin bogasdoxe fom bad Tiivaieiy tf meds bas ,tieded etemvme d 

oted? ddurt ai tedd jomolteLumuode dove bevtosen ered biwow ob? On 


ae ataebseleb to e¢aotetat Lanceteg edt déwxt af tect: yeortieonn ila 
bertsteta ble te ewedd? o¢ yrenteon yitootah etew ratiantered awode 
berretera bievto wWitotes # Sue Pidnkelo ad? tadt jerebloderada 
atah giiagotet sad to bas editgit edt to tastongl Siew: exebfodorade f 
owt? odt avond bad yodt ti soreie sheds bogaatioxs avad ton Buon han 
xeiquos yigaibepexs egsd? ae epbelnond “tied? to? ail ym 
YLiteresoon arebloderada porrehona’ ‘todte bao ttbte 
atnebaeteb yd eben, etoktataeaorqed bes anpatactauasios 
sanctiinned goebneqebal yihedrogwg dguetdt ytooribat 


5 

thet the old preferred shareholders consisted of over 15,999 indive 
iduale with the majority of holdings being less then 10 shares, and 
that they were scattered widely over the United Ststea and foreign 
Countries; that the defendants had full knowledge of the legal and 
financial data involved ss officers and directors of defendant 
company snd its subsidiaries, and that 2 majority of them or their 
relatives had been directors continuously from the tine of issuance 
of plaintiff's shares; that they hed available a written legal 
opinion concerning the rights of plaintiff and old preferred share- 
holders, and advance and detailed information through reports of 
auditors and other experts sa to the finanoisl situstion; that 
defendants were in s fiduciary 2nd confidentisl relation requiring 
the highest degree of fidelity snd good fsith because defendents 

were directors and officers of the company and agents and proxies 

for preferred shareholders; that they had control over lerge blecks 
of shares and were in a position of extraordinary domination and 
control (1) because sh»reholders were widely acattered and numbered 
ever 40,909 individuals; (2) thet there #s¢ available to defendants 
withovt personel cost = force of 60° company men for solicitstion of 
proxies and exchanges, while the cost of independent solicitstion 

wae prohibitive; (3) thst they had control of 3800 offices and dircetore 
ships ey | eee lucrativé contrects including yeerly legal fees 
of $94,090.00, appraissl fees of $86,909,99, accounting fees of 
$130,000.00, and fees of 2-1/2 millions of dollars for refunding 
operations; (4) that they had control of the dividend policies of 

the company end its mumerous subsidiaries, trenefers of funds between 
them and their utilization for mrcehsses of property, retention of 
securities in company trensuries, redemptions and other matters; 


policies and practices which affeeted the apparent condition of the 


Company's affairs and ability to pay dividends; (5) that they had 


Oe 


2 
erihel 000,81 sevo te batedenoo erehiodeoneada bexrsetery ble ad? tad? 
bar ,eereie OL sedt eaok aaded aunthied to. ytitetem odd mtin aisubs 

agietet bac gates betial ent rove Ylebim boratieoe onew, yods tadd 
bre degoi ad% to. sgbelwoas ligt tad adasiasteh od saat yeodetaven 
TmoSnetekh te etorvestilb Bae avegditte ex beviovns stab LaLeganit 

<iod¢ to west To (eitelaw © Sedtd baw yoodtaddledue afi bas yaagaoo 
gotnuna ko aid edt mex? qlanauaktuce axotoetséh good bad eovdstaler 
deysi osdview ¢ afdaileve bad yea? dadd geereds e'ttidiasele te 
~orstie borxstone le bas tidtwdady Yo efdghy edt yatarecnoo metatge 
te etteqoet cuvotd? sodtemtotat beiiated Sas seaevhe ban gesobiod 

_ fed? positectis dedegeaty ont at sa efaeqee redto, baa anotibas 
waivionex softeiox Lolasebltaos bas yradeshtt « a2 oren adashasteb 
etasbesteb savaned dtiet Seeg Ste yttiodét toe soTgeb. deedgid,odt 
@eitety bes siasgs bee Yaoqmed add te eveedtio Sas Bvatestéh: oneg 
extecid ental teve Lerines best qadd fed? peteilecerads Sottszerq. tok 
tae sodtaningd yientatesigxs to meifines s at ero" bae. sereda, 16 
bevaimut bas hovedteos Ylebie ovew exebLodeieda comnoed (1) Lortaee 
ainshaete? of eldaliavn esq oved? tad? (8). qelauhivbhal OO, tere 
to softstiolios <at.acm yoacaso OB tg sete? a dhes Laseeney: dorqutt doe 
sabtatintiog fasbasqebal be teee edt alide yaogsadome Sas eedzong 
erote ih ane eoertte GO8S te fotiage bad yout dade (8) povdsididerd eee 
ost Legel yfacoy gatielond steettacs Srivetoui aitateunenp aes aqide 
bo Rd9t yaldauoooe .O7Te0OD—SRE Le ogeh Lomisceys  40Os000,eF Bo 
yakbagtet tot eteligh te enokida S\s*S Bo seat hats ~6O.000,08L2 

to eelolleg knebivib edt te Lortaee hed -yodt tomtt. AD) qemakserege 
neewted ebayt ho oretatexs ar oiteaibisdue nore emterte etd bes: Waanes add 
te wotinetont oytegets to eeesdotuy tot apbtacslity riedt bas madd 
qotetien todte has eaqdtquaket aedituecet? yranmon ad eoitinuoss 

edt to nolthinies taereqqs edt peteatia doite aoxstonta beg wetedleg 


bad eorie godt (8) pabsobsv td wet at ytblids | bone aubette: alyaequae 


6 
control of the company records through which they couid impede an 


examination of the financial situstion or sttempts to contact stocke 
holders, ss wos done when one MK, “ubinson attempted to exomine the 
books, ond when plaintiff tried to do so; thst preferred shsreholders, 
including plaintiff, reposed special trust and confidence in certain 
of the defendants, including ¥. Hi. Prince and J. 4. MeDonough who 
organized = shareholders protective committee snd represented to 
plaintiff and old preferred shareholders in soliciting and obteining 
widespread support, thet acéumuloted dividends and priorities would 
be protected; that defendants had 2 definite personel finsneial 
interest, adveree to preferred shareholders, in that they owned 
750,009 common sheres, acquired in somé enses for »8 little as 16¢ 
per share, and at least 112,009 shores of which was secuired after 
the plan was announced; that the common shares had no value, having 
received no dividends since 1925, and that defendants ateod te gain 

$ million dollars in capites1 value sand 31/2 millions per yeer in 
dividends by wiping out accumulations on preferred; that other facts 
showing bias will be disclosed by an examination of the books which 
defendants have refused to permit; that defendants seriously contra=- 
vened their fiduciary duties by misrepresentstions, coneealuent, non= 
disclosure and other inequit ble or freudulent conduet, which caused, 
induced and aided in creating the mistaken beliefs of old preferred 
shareholders, including plaintiff, in obtsining proxies from, and 

the support of, old preferred sh»nreholders, end induced them to sccept 
the plen, exbBhange their sh-res and gaerifice their socumulated 
dividends and priorities; that to induce old preferred shareholders 
to accept the plan, defendants represented in writing that they would 
fully explain the rights of sh»reholders under the pian; that this 
representation wes grossly false in that defendents actually and 
intentionally gave incorrect inform=tion as to old preferred Tights 


as follows: Defendants folsely represented that aporoval by 2 majority 





= > | E 
a. 
Me Bbw Hiioe ysadt 80 i hey guorgs sbtenes Waqnge oat te Soxtaas 


siogta sogtaao of efgmelta so sobteuste kegonsnat ade to ‘noktangnaxp 


ice 





(odt olan of baggmetts. aonatdui i 0 aero pak. con a _setebled 
eT ehiod ox ane box tot oq ted? joe ob of hogss Yatnastg oxy bas, stood 
Hkesrsy fd MOnAkLT Hoo hee deseed tadoega foaagor sTitntsla aatbbuto 


eg 
TARCNL ADS 


















eths sgsoned om wf <b ites soudn? al oh yadbulont s8tmpbast ob one ‘to 


be Aaa 


ed heinevsxqer bap aeie Laon ov itontons tgiabiodstpde bd bos tng te 


ey as 





grkalesda bas gtivtetion at stebdonorade berroteng bilo hae ‘Mus 








bLuow aattico deg ave abnah ivi bedalmeubon tests trosquse baosgeotiy 
ree Y) 
dado tt danse tag eo kad deh a bag ataanasteb sadt ihosooto od - 


: ee re 
Senwe youta dust ah seteblodereda berreterg of eerove staonodat 


hie eae Me, 


bie! at eLttt! ae tot aeese amos st horéupon seorade noma 000,089 
notte hetdapoe aie de dat te aorene OPO, teased ts bao _cozade req 
id 


yaivad aPiLey om fad aorede FERED ot tae pbenawoans nae Anda | ant . 
Abag ot hoate atacia ab tact ben a8 vonis abnobivad on bovdvoss 


aA Ge : 

Gk r9ey coy anolilim § ine, bite outey Lntigao ah araLleb mobiite 8 

aiont redo tad? yborveteng ae anoltoLummnoe tue gatgin Ww. ebwebty ayte 

Aodshe wood dt te Holtssienare ne bosoionse od Abtw asad "weds 
Te Re 


~sttno qlaweltes etisbaeieh sade jitter oq ot beaut on evad ssupbaoteb 
~aom tututesvags ,eaalininenerqeteis yd eottuo redouble xiadé b Den 


is 
ean 


h. _gbseuen dolde ,toubsoo daelubuatt dcinhh ttupont ate ® 






etdt teat yani od “rohau ‘exeblodonsde to poe 


ee yewiiitay an: 


_ bas Wlaytoe etasbiex oe edt at cele ee ecw 


7 


of shareholders bound the nonassenting sinority, snd thet the plan 
had been so accepted and wos binding on plaintiff, in fact, a major- 
ity approval could not bind the minority or deprive them of »ccume 
lated dividends and vriorities; thet defendants falsely represented 
thet if preferred shareholders did not exchange their sheres, they 
would not receive future dividends nor past due scoumulations, in 
fact, old preferred shereholders who did not exchange their shsres 
later reoeived all unpaid accumiistions in full after suit hed been 
filed sgainst defendants; thet defendents fsisely represented thet 
the company's financisl situstion wes such thet it hed the right to 
issue shares prior to old preferred, shen in faot, the contrery was 
true; that defendsants made other false represent»tions which their 
refusal to permit examination of the books wnkes it impossible to 
allege; that to induce the preferred shareholders to recent the 

plan, defendents falsely represented thet the net assets of the 
Company were less by 25 millions of dollers thsn the sts@dd capital, 
and that therefore no dividends could be paid unless » plan ene 
adopted cancelling sccumulations, in feet, net assets were 30 millions 
in excess of ststed oapital; onsh on hand toteled 11 millions; earned 
surplus, 9 millions; end income aveilablie for dividends for 1933 was 
$7.45 per share, and for 1934, $11.78 per share, so thet dividends 
could have been paid without wiping out sccumiletions, and thet surrent 
assets were in the ratio of 6 to 1 to current linbilities, «s compared 
with 2 to 1 for the previous 10 yeors; thot the representation ras 
further false in thet there existed numerous feosible methods of 
permitting payment of dividends, namely (1) by direct reduction of 
Stated capital under the Illinois Bus. Jorp. «ct; (2) reduction of 

the par value of the shares effecting = reduction in stated capital; 
(3) redemption of old preferred by - refinancing lozn 2nd (4) other 
methods including cancellation of treasury shares, sand accounting 


practices used by defendants; that the defendants faisely represented 

















seq ea¢ godt bae ,¢dlronl« gaisaneoseen ont baad exobLodorade . | 
“sof sm & atest af .ttitiaielia ae palpate eat tats beaqsoos os aad bad 
e-yeuets to aadt evitcek te ‘hixents ade bate ton Bivoo Levorags vat 
hatmesstest yloaict utanheoted faut jestsiredtg bas ebaebivib beter : 
yout qnereds titel? aunatoxrs tom beh atébloderede barrstoxg ue todd 
ek ,soolfel gnomes aud tea TOM sbrehiveD arustart ovtener toa piwow 
sersds thoit eynadoxe fon £8 ete arab fodonese borrsterq bie steed 





seed had tiwe tadts Liat we anoltalemunoe bisgau fis boviener xeted 
tert bbtuenovwet vleeset staebnot ab tet intuabaet eh tantage peut 

ov tight sdt hee gh tadt dowe sow aokiant te ietenent? et ytsqnoe: ont 
eae ytertno edt ,tast pik sorts berret omg bie ot solr aerate oueet 
tied? doldw asoliedasesrdet onle? tadte ebam atacbastes tad jeune | 





f 
Rey 


hed efdiewenm2 ti etclem atood ade te tobtontmexs # hoon ot Kastor 
git deeons of evebLodersda hersetenq anit sonbas of sede ingots = 
edt to atease fea edt $oetd hetasaerget teelet etanbuoteb — 
etathqne deaate ods aedt otallob te sito LL ki as w evel areW “yt : 


asw aeiq » seeimy bhaq od hives ebaebivis ot orotorods ena ban 


bah a 


jEediqne bedate as no tioub a -yabsooms « ovate eas te eulsv te 


7% y wer 


8 
the financial situation of the company by manipulstion of the complex 


Corporate structure through interesubsidisry trenssactions and book=- 
keeping entries pureuant to 4 genersl scheme to concesl funds avail- 
sble for preferred dividends and otherwise minister to defendant's 
conflicting personal interests, snd xs aamples of the manipulations 
and further misrepresentations, the following may be cited; (a) 
Nerely by voting the shares of s wholly owned subsidisry, without 

the knowledge or consent of preferred shsrehalders, defenianta 
increased the surplus of the consolidsted parent compeny by 50 millions 
of dollars; (b) Seven millions of dollars of c»sh held in escrow 
pending 2 court decision wos set up as sh expen and carried es a 
lisbility on the books, thus conoesling 2 potential fund for divie 
dends; (c) Thirty millions face velue ef securities of the sorporate 
syatem were purehased by defendants with funds thst could have been 
used to pay dividends; that instead of cancelling these securities 
and thus relessing further funds for dividende, defendents ordered 
the securities to be held in subsidirry tressuriea so they were 
required to be treated ss an outstanding lisbility in determining 
whether there were net assets availsble for dividends, and thst this 
was done after 1931 while sccoumulstions were piling up; (d) e=rnings 
were retained in the treosuries of subsidimggies so as to misrepresent 
ability of the parent to pay dividends. On the other hand, where it 
served their purposes, as in 1925, defendents through stock control 
did the contrary and squeezed sll subsidiary funds inte the parent, 
showing earnings of 1891/2 millions of dollars, and refunding oper- 
ations of 180 millions of subsidisry eceurities carrying as high as 
7% interest were delayed to prevent making the savings aveilable for 
preferred dividends; (e) Properties were oarried on the books at 
appraisals which were not uniform and falsely represented the situation 


that in 1932 thé velue of the properties was stated to be 216 millions, 






zalqawo oft to bokiclwytaem ve yaoonon odd te soktseete Endonanl? eat 
“hood hae ato ftessaes? yratbhiledyeereial dyvetdt etyteutte: atereqred 
~Livvs sbast insoae® ef ewsdes Eerenee * oY dneyeted eeistne gatqeed 
elinakevtoh of retetals geivvedto bre staokivib besretetg tot side 
anoivclueiaew edt Yo eolomee we ban ,ateovedai Lemenreq satted Cheon 
{a} sbeeio of yor wittweliot ont garode ntineweqwetin: todtuet bas 
fuaitiw ,eieiiiegwe beuwe yLiodw © to eerede od gattey ye yloveN 
gitehxstob ,etohichstade berreteng to teperod to eghelwoad gad 
predfliw C8 vi yraveeo trata, Kegyebiloenow ode: ta wolernire ot? Seeawront 
womese ni bier tard to ereileb Do ameliile aeve2 (dd) {ate tiob te 






| 
| 


& g2 Setvise bre Sateges He a0 eH ten ern Motmhoed Mune w gathaog 
SF eteqted off te eeitizueee te sulavy seek etodlile eietat (o) | iebaeb 


eolticunes eeedt agkifeonrs to baetent ted? pebaobivly qq. om beow 


yriatereven mi ytiitdali gulbastetue as oe betastd of ot ber tupen 
‘phat ted? Sas ,ahaebieih tot eldelieve stoves ten ouew orodt sedgeda 
eaeinese (8) pow galllc stew anotteluemoos. olldw EL ‘gaat attob: ene 
tnsaoToetein of Ys of wOkReLbieden te eskruecett emt at pontetor erow 
| $b evade ,baed.codte edt wh Yabmebivid yeq ob deteq edt a — 
 forteos doote tgeetds atarhaeted ystOl ai on yrerortiny ‘xkodt povroe 
| Wnecey sd? of@t ehawt yteldiedur [f6 beyseupe bare” yrertaoe oat ‘bib 
—raqe yatbedtet bie yereliob to enotiiae’ @\i-8r to sgnintee patton 


=f£vlh not hat Leiteerer « ghideooras emit? aatood oft mo! wriieeent 
geod @ved bines ten? shat Atie etaetursteb yd boandowig oton’ soteye ; 


tecghte ebastesteh ,eboehivid sot weinet rede pitacofer out tae 
avew yatt of sebtuacerd yerthindwe ak bierd ec of eetetamos ent 


ae agit ae — abit irio oe’ a. te  aeinneeil ov cendenall 





a 








9 
and in 1934 the defendants represented it to be 55 millions less; 


that entire properties were transferred to and fro among subsidisries 
in over 1800 separate transactions, with importent influences on 

the ability to make funds aveilable for dividends; thet as an example 
of the tactics, fsise records and effects on dividends in such oases, 
we may cite the transsctions with Wosser Soe, 2 subsidisry; thet 
defendants bought up through other subsidiaries and retained in 

the treasury over 90% of the Mosser shares. After soliciting the 
remaining holders including plaintiff, to sell at book veluve, which 
was legs than 1/3 of the price paid for the shsree, defendants foreed 
olaintiff to accept that price by ordering » sale of »1ll assets 
through their stock control, Flsintiff had received no dividends 

for 10 years on Mosser, yet the president who is one of the defendants, 
received » salary of $43,000.00 per yenr, plus » benus of 930,000,090; 
(f) Defendants falsely represented thet the net book sssets of the 
company were §184,084,050,00 as of the time of the plen, when in 

fact they were §242,462,000,00; (¢) Numerous similer msnipulations 
will be disclosed by an examination of the books to which defendants 
have denied plaintiff sccesa; thst to induce preferred shoreholders, 
including plsintiff, to give proxies, support the plan and exchange 
their shsres, defendants represented that they had no personal interests 
contrary te preferred, that, in fact, their personal interests sere 
directly adverse becouse of their preponderant holdings of common 
shares, as alleged, and beceuse of contracts with the company, through 
whieh they mode illegal profits controry to their fiducisry status, 
including sales of eix stockyards proverties to one director who 
gsined a profit thereon of 5150,090.00 per unit; thst opposition was 
stifled by giving opponents directorships and paying them for sheres 
in full; thet defendants, for their cwn benefit, used a force of 600 


Company employees headed by one Arthur Jones to solicit proxies end 





eednethtudae geers gst baa ot Aocrsteanne stew. malgnneens, pny eats 
ao eeoneattal taatrogud date seuektonnnen’ steneges (OORL xEvO, at 
slemene te sa tadd pahaebiveh sot aldultews ehast etam of Uitiida oni 


saeend, coyn ah sbaebivib.ae stostts, has. abrooes oelar, anoltont, heed 3e 


sed? pyrstatedve « yao? teRsol dtiw eagitoneanss edt atte, en, tl 
tk: Demiates Bx enivedhiedus. vente Mywonds qe tAgued. atasbasted 
edt gattiviios neti, aexady uopeak od? To 006 xeve, wrunens one 
“eddie qgtuier dood te Lee ot. Hitadeda gatbudend axeblod pata boner 
peoret adashaoteb .norade ed} set blag soktg edt to, Lacs edt a8 





new 


_ wieges, Lis te ofa - guerebte ye satin fant tqsoos ot mitadase 


Deseo os bavigooy bad thidadess, lexan seer, nist F 





fh ontite te avted o mil qmey TOq 0040004808 2 to Yeaton 4 P 5 bev eateae 


ee ee 


“eat te Riteree sood dom at tule SRIRRAP TERT, toatat, atnsbaetac a) 
i fede yisig edt te amid ode to ae OF AO gbO0 «dAL) a. was : 
anoss sLnndnes teiimte evoxeme% (3) 4006000,88,9088 oxae yoia tot 
aenabeat an, sind de ot ahood Odi to nottantmaxe aa yd hoseloath od hte 





qmeshigan tage hexsotexg sowbad oi teat joueoon, Witakesa aan Amat 


Aen iat thodtes ot, aenoy, uses, 09. ne ar de 


oe Ge ii 





190 

exchanges at Gompany expense and time, paying them with company funds 
thet Gould be used for dividends; thst in some ceces they were 

absent from work for 7 weeks; that the foregoing misle=ding and fraude 
ulent devices were part of . general scheme designed to misrepresent, 
falsify and conceal, snd to keep preferred shareholders ignorant of 
their rights and the material facts; thet defendants did not inform 
preferred shereholdera of their right to dissent or provide = feasible 
method for so doing; that the fslse represent»tions and other ineouite 
able activities sforesrid were esrried out by defendsnts with full 
knowledge of their falsity end with intent to induge the false 
beliefs, ignorance and mistakes of old preferred shareholders; thst 
plaintiff and old preferred shareholders relied thereon and in 
reliance thereon emered into the centrset of exchange; that under 

the terms of plaintiff's corporate contrecet, the company had no power 
to sdopt the plan and that it was illegal under the laws of the state 
and the federsl and state constitutions, end that because of the 
activities aforesaid, it was unlawfully adopted; that no assete were 
added to the sompany by the plan, that it was merely = rearrangement 
of book entries accomplishing the seme effect as a proceeding under 
778, without the insolveney, publicity, or court supervision therein 
provided; that the details of the verioua transactions sre poeoulierly 
within the knowledge of defendents and mamerous other unlesful 
activities will be disclosed by sn examination of the books and records; 
that plaintiff has tendered his new preferred and common to defendants 
and has demanded the return of his old preferred shares but hes been 
refused; that these facts have only recently come to his knowledge, 
namely after December, 1936, when it was announced in the press that 
suit hed been started by old preferred sh-reholders to collect accume= 
lations; thet the original complaint wes filed April 59, 1937. Plaine 
tiff prays that the contract of exchange made by him in ignoranee of 
his rights, be rescinded and cancelled, and that defendants be ordered 





ae: Secunda YrsRos Kttw meade “gan yag salt Bane seneqxs wosnen ta ‘evanoxs 
axes yadt asec swore ai ted? johrabivee tot beau od Biuoo Soult 


Bs 


; 
i ebuett has setb-elein gulegetet ott Saat inioow i zat stow nomt tnveds : 


_ yabrooes bas adoadd oils te Hott anknaxs ae w besolondd od Lite eelsivitos 


“i 


sinpoerqsrets ot heaglesh awerion Serena a to 209 ores seotveb ‘teks 
md va hel i} 

to dnstongl ateblodetade borxetoy qoox ot ban »ixsoaeo bee Wheto | 
eh AE? oe 
mretal tom bit eiaahastob tude jetost istroten edt bas eddy it abet 


eldtenet & abbtets 40 taventh ot tifgix risa? to ‘erebLodoxede borroterg . 
—thapees reito bas anoite tues saya eee? odd tedt iantob oe «ot boston : 
Ekitt tie atnehasteb ya tuo bebtrae prey bhenoxots ‘eoltivites site 

ela? eft eouhed of ta peices dtin bute ttete? shosit to “ogboinons ii 
test jeveniodos ais herretete bLo ‘te eoleduie bow comnromgs auto: fed | . 

a bane agored: betlow wren fosetede: barrotong bho bute ‘Witatelg 
tebag dadt segnesioxs te tortie ante otat bors oe soared ‘sonstion 


aa 
rewoe on bed ytaqmoe oid stoettage otetoqres ‘oNititatetg ‘to eurt ods _ 





i>) 


etete odt te ewal osfd Toba Segelil asw at ‘doatd ‘bats rele oat ‘tqobs of 
add to seuevad teat bar wenoktwd tienen ‘ntate bas Lexedet ot ae | 















- ote8 aioser Gm tasdt iboteobs tListwalas aaw $f eisvotots sobtivttos 
$ xi abit 


tnemegaotr sot # vist9n ‘saw tH tadé ane edt a eyes ‘ol of 
coro 
“ohau mtthosoory 6 an dosthe anne ond auidetiqnooee eokvvas ‘ood te 


aLovodt aotaiveequ: “Pewee ve avitot due .woasvfoant ‘edt ‘tuosittw ‘an 


elen! Luw09 ets aroiseaetert euoktsy adit te aibeteb od oat ibebivors 7 
" HN eR ey 
Liftwsine redde e108 om bax estaneo? op to apdelwond eat akdtie 


w. a bale #2 Wage owe eo oe 


. 

ednabsot ab ot aomnee bas borrstong wen ade berenaed “eal pear ; 
ne aS ike {ey Ae lae 

need eed tot sores berrstong Bho eld Ro atuter ont ad bee 





sige jaue 


mates tte 08 tial beat eew * tadsingnne ‘Satgieo oe | 





11 


to iesue to plaintiff the original 7% preferred sherea ond pay 


accrued dividends thereon; thst judyment be entered against defendants 
for $312.50; thet defendants be ordered to return to the company any 
profits they have aade directly or indirectly through the plan; thet 
the defendants be ordered to make full and complete discovery of 
matters within their personal knowledge «nd under their control and 
of their associates and confederates, snd for general relief. 
Vefendants filed a motion to dismiss, wherein they asked 
the court to enter « judgment on behalf of the defendants for the 
reason thet there has been a misjoinder of counts 2nd of plaintiffs, 
and allege that counts 1 and 2, respectively, are inconsistent and 
afford no basis for = csuse of cetion, and that no judgment can be 
given in favor of both plaintiffs in thet one plsintiff is the holder 
of 7% preferred stock and the other is s holder of 6% prior preferred 
stock; thet seid complaint shows on its face thet the issuence of 
the new preferred «nd new common stock therein desoribed wes lawful 
and in accordance with the orovisions of the statute in such cesses 
made and provided; that seid amended complaint frila to state frots 
showing wherein seid issusnee eos unkawful; thet seid complaint fails 
to state facts showing wherein the plan of recapitalization therein 
described was illegal or void or without the powers of the company 
or its stockholders, or in violntion of any stetute or of the 
constitution of the State of Illinois or of the United States; * * * 
that said complaint shows on its fece that the plaintiff, Gidwitz, 
as 8 holder of said new preferred and new common voluntarily mde 
the exchange and is bound thereby; thet no fects are stated disclosing 
any misrepresentetion, intentional or otherwise, by ony of said 
defendants or any reliance by either plaintiff upon ony representation, 
intentional or otherwise, by any of these defendents; that the facts 


alleged show on the face of the plesding that ench pleintiff has been 













wes Wsqnoe as? of ansdon ot poxeace ee etirebast ob tet “(O3e8aR, tot 
tad paslg eng figvowl? ylteetibat to “Uldnorsh bow eves vot setter 
Ye YRevesRlE otelqmos Sax ist sian of botobte adi evanhast eb sae 


“ wt Pe Ta} 


bas Lorines tied? xobau bac sgbolwond Esmoora shout abdtin Sey fy vet 











| or end x08, etanbasted ass te YLedied | mo suc bat, a r0sH0 ot a | 
wetbltetede te bas atauee xo tebatot ote & need east oxods dott a7 
ban pentatenennt #%r 1 Wovddonqeor se baw 4 edavas todd ‘mpeLts bas 


¥ roid 






ae i189 taseg bot on dati baw Holter, te soanabieatl . rot stend on sib a 


seb fox ont wt ttutndate oo add ad ethitatalg tod te tovet at 4 7 


borxoteng noire a8 bd webied « ef tedto oat oe aeere berretong ay te a 


mete 
Be sottnuand ods dent eat aes SG awoda tataiquor btow ted iat ote 





Liftwad ane bedtroeeb aborods loots AGROO wR bas borxotorg won ons a 
neese dove wt stutade ont Yo anciaivera eee dike soaebrooos ab fas 


Poa 


etoat state of altar tats iamos pehaowe bes fect jbebivery bas on 
; uy ka BOE 
ebte? ee bine tad jkeftwndaus any someunes hte ators 


ray 
mberedt Rottsaiis? iqcoot te nade’ ade atexode andworie stort ” ote of 
Wagaoe Sit te areceq add tuodtiw <0 bhov te keg OLih aew bedtroosb 


~ 
ah 2 eS ireny 
. ett te ze etudote ys to noitsde.y ae to. s8tabLoddoet Ya eet ao | 
Sie ee He 
*e ieosote bed ta0 eri¢ to 70 alent til Yo mines eas to aga tery 
fhe pan: ae a ay 




















cE ek lad Gduend wathate quay Reoa ite: 0 Mikesaie teeta Bete deed 


| 
| 


| 


er 


12 

guilty of laches and is estopped to meintsin his slleged oction; 
thet the feets alleged show thet envoh plaintiff rotified the plen 

of re@apitalization by reoeipt of dividends, continuanee as a stocke 
holder, and exercise of the rights of » stockholder ae@erding to 

the status of esxch under seid plan of recapitalization. * * * theree 


fore, the ssid defenisnta and each of them moved thet sid amended 


' Gompleint and counts 1, 2 and 2 thereof be dismissed and judement 


entered on behalf of defendants, On Jecember 79, 19237, the court 
sustained the aotion of defeniants to dismiss the amended complaint. 
Plaintiff elected ie atand uy count 1 of his complaint, which count 
has been quoted above, end the same wes Aimitteea, from which deoree 
this appeal has bean prosecuted, 
—— plaintife filed a motion, supported by suggestions, asking 
thet certein parts of appellees’ brief be strieken. Appellees filed 
countergugrséestions and desision on the motion was reserved to hesring,. 
At the same time pisintiff also asked for additional time in which to 
file a reply brief, which motion ws allowed. However, no reply brief 
was filed. we have thoroughly exsmined the briefs, abstract and 
record, and in determining the cnuse, have disregarded whatever is not 
in the record. At the outset plaintiff complains thst the motion 
filed by defeniants is not adequate to cover the points thet ere r-ised 
on this appeal. A perussl of the motion and defendante'’ vrief satise 
fies us thet the motion wse bweoad enough to fully acouaint plaintiff 
with the points now urged, which we assume sre the same points thet 
were urged before the chancellor on the argument of the motion. 

The ‘plas of recapitalization, « copy of whieh was attached to 
the amended complaint, wos sent to eseh stockholder, At that time, 
there were outstanding 573,313 sheres of 7% preferred stock of = par 


value of $100.00 per share, 2,000,000 shares Class A comon stock of 


®& par value of #86,00 per share, and 2,090,900 shores Class 8 common 








jtottor begelfs etd aladnten oF bequete® ef hea asdoal to YéLlug 
ale ety hedtiter Ptidehely Move todd woe Begokte etact od? Fans 
sieote © es sonsuntinds yetaebivib to tiledor ed mottestla¢iqened Yo | 
ot guebugped YobLod¥oota to wtdyly Sd? Yo datotoxs bas lesion | 
-arede * ** \noftevtiotiquesr to anid Bie tohau dood to audede Sas | 
' Gobwene Biee tadt bevom wott to Mose hea etaehastod bine eff lorer | 
daetstot bar Benelmeth of Tostadt t baa st dive Bak ddaiqads 
ities edt TOL {oc -redmans HO ‘setaabastad to tisied ao bexotas | 
stats ronoe habrave. ant redwetb ot atashnetes to wo kton edt ‘benisteue 
‘tauos ‘doidy .Jatetgnan ata Yo f tmuos qe Sacre of botoese Fitéadak 
setoeal fogdy mort .beeatmats aew eos ofF Dae “> Bitew seed ean 


‘god Inouqe etd 


see | 
ee 7 


‘goktes  etoltaeygen vo berroogds ,noltem seth hittiant: 
| POLAT Weertaqg’ dadotete ad toitd ‘asei ladys Yo ettad nintted tade 
| : .gekeved of bevase st acw doldou 4% a teletoah ban agodteoggue totic 
«gf deide nt oedy Ketendtibe tot bevas ‘Gets Wdemdely ott Gane Oat ta 
Yadte Ylqor Oa xerero sbowollé wow neften doltde ,Yéind yide: ‘s efit 
bie toantads yetetsd edt beatmnxt ‘Uldguetentt evad oF DOLET ww 
fom nt tevedede Bebregetaib sved yonveo od gakeimteteh af tne (Beode: 
it aotton ott ted? uaislques ttitenteld ¥outvo edt th ‘ btoet acd me 
| beaded ete teat etitey stlt reves OF Staupede tou at edaeiastod ‘ww bet | 
caitee teitd ‘etashooted be mottos edt to Leeneey A ‘eIsoage eid? me 
iidately tubewoos yLLvt ef dywond Baond ax mokdow odt Yede ex Rott 
ded? etritey emake es ote sugecn oe dotdy deste won stated edz ttn 
stottom sft Yo fitemugts od? no tolLesneds oft erored beste 
at budectts saw doide to yqoo © “(notteslintiqnde: to tale hinge? ont 
sult todd gh ,wonteroote dene of tee aew ote dem 9 ‘babrone a 
i me 2 To Mdote bectotery OY To edeedd SIE,ET2 yakbaktatve orow 
to foots monmoo A barlO eornite sanabiiell er a 0.004 
oat ‘f -peel® eerste CO0,000,8 bie ors € ot 











a S28 ope 
































i3 
stock of » par value of °25,.9O per shure, Jividends of oreferred 


stock were pessed on Jamuary 2, 1931, and by May 28, 1934, the sccve 
mulations amounted to °39,59 per share, or en sepregate of sbout 16 
million dollars. fhe plan offered plaintiff ten shares of 6% 
convertibie prior preferred and twenty shares of new comnon stock 
in exchange for hie ten shares of 7% preferred and beek dividends, 
which amounted to 4295.90. the wlan also provided that Class A stock= 
holders who head «a preference over Class 5, were offered new common 
on a share for share basis, «nd the Class # stockholders vere offered 
ene half share of new cowmon for ench share of Ulass 5, atocks A 
section of the plan contsined 2 verbatim copy of the »vroposed omend- 
ments of the articles of incorporstion. An examination of the plan 
discloses thet it informed the preferred stockholders thot their 
approvel thereof and deposit of their preferred stock, was optional 
with them. It is not Gentended thet the rights of plaintiff, or of 
any preferred stockholder, to accrued dividends, could be =ffected 
by a vote of a majority of the stockholders, It is clesr thet the 
right to the accrued dividends was « vested right, and thet any attemot 
to deprive a shereholder of such right is frowned on by the courts. 
In the plan, no attempt was made to deprive plaintiff of his accrued 
dividends,or to force him to surrender his ten shares of preferred 
stock for ten shares of prior preferred stock ond twenty shores of 
new common stock, Under the plan, the exchange was voluntsry. In 
support of their argument that the plan was legal under the law, 
defendants cite the cxse of Sprague v. Illinois ‘iver Nailroad Co,, 
19 Ill. 174. A resding of the authorities convinces us that the 
proposed plan did not contravene any provision of the statutes or 
deprive plaintiff of any vested right, 

we turn to the contention of plaintiff thet his amended complein: 


showed that there was fraud and overresching by defendsnts,. The 


&L. 
herestese to ebmeblysG evade meq 00688) toe swhav. seq # to soota 





~uooe edd PECL ,O8 YOR qobae QLECL ,o yramash ao beneey axon sogte. 
Sf guwde to etegernye ae to ,tuade “eq CBW? oF Dofavoms enotte tum, 


{ 
‘ 
i miiiditees 
wahashlvéh send bua bexsteterc QT Ye eens. ase etd got egasdoxe af 
ii : . 
dommao wes horetio exer ,4 enelS tevo. soaersteng a bed ode exablod. 
| fh -elpede of enefS te erede dors tet aoempo wes to stade Ried ene. 
~haegs Seeocore ad? to yoo madactovy « hentatnoe asic edt to aokgoee. 
tele odf to molteniwoxe si ,moitoregrenm) te, ealodins edd to etaes. 





faantiqe sew .foofe hexretewg tied? to daseuek bas toored? Leverage, 
Re wo ,thitetaie to addin edt tedg hebaedaed tom ai tL meds. ddtw. 
hotestts ad hiven ,shmehivkh bawspen of «robfeddoots hereto, ye 
aut ted? wenle of #2 pptebloddgets edt to yfitofam a te stov a ww 





sattveo edt.yd ao beawett ef segit doug to. sebfodoreda # avivtesh of 
bevtses aid to Yettabsfe evixesS of shew exw tomette om «ted linen 
_hersetetg To sovede ast gid sobaoxtae o¢ mid sotot of 





«rel edt? tobew eget eew anig ect Jedd teomegte tiedd to 

soxiiel cowill miomtlil .¥ Bugerge te eeeo, al? offo, etasi 

edt ted? aw eeontvaco seltitedten ent te yatboot A ATL) coe er 

te setutete od? te sedekvor, yas saeverinas Som ER eR: ' 

“yy ! etaght bataov ys to Thitadsle ove: 

alomoo beknoms sid todd Titakele to nedtasines eds. of wut Ca 
ad? secucbnsted yi wadionerteve huis buoxt asw, oxo? tadt 

















#4 to comes aot Tiigeisiq beretie asig eft .etstiob modilin — 
Joes? sommes wee to eotede ytaort bas bervetetg tetra. sicitrevago 1 


~Soote A seal? stadt bebivetq gele astg oa? 9 OGe8GRG ot begavome deidw. ; 


beretts exgs exrebiodinote. ¢ cask od? ban. getesd oxeds xet oxeds. & ae | 


xfed? felt exshiedttocte barxetetg of? bourotat si todd. ooseiaale : 


temedia yor tedt Boe ,@ipin boteov & Rew shashivih beunops oct of dfgta 


te eerede yhaswt hae doote berretote todtg to. eetsds nod 20 porn 
i" r 
al .¢ustmeoy sow egradoxe od? ,.neiq. ond? reba . .dAdeta tH RNOO it J 




















14 

Complaint, after setting up the preliminary fects, stetes that he 

and "n great majority of old preferred shareholders" believed 
various things. It does not appear how plaintiff knew that a 
majority of the preferred shareholders believed as he believed, This 
is not a class action. Pisintiff also ststes that he and a majority 
of the preferred shereholders would not heve exchanged their shares 
had they known the true situstione It does not eppesr «8s to how 
plaintiff knew that s majority of the shsreholders would not have 
exchanged their shares, The complaint then continues with the 
allegations showing the power of the defendants who were directors 
and officers, The corporation is 2 large one, with subsidisries 

and affiliates, Undoubtedly, in eny large corporstion, there is 
opportunity for wrongdoing. The fast that the officers and directors 
have the power to do wrong does not give the plaintiff the right to 
maintsin his complaint. Freud is never presumed; it must be pleaded 
and proved, Fraud cannot ce allesed by general etatements or by 
allegations by wsy of conclusions. the exhibits which are attached 
to the Complaint certainly do not show any wisrepresentation. If 
defendants made misrepresent*»tions in writing, the specific allegse 
tions should be made, setting up the written statements with the 
epproximate date when such statements were made, If the misrepresentae 
tions were oral, then there should be proper alleg#tions as to such 
oral misrepresent*tions. e agree with defendants thet the complaint 
does not set up facts showing fraud. 

Another criticism leveled =t the complaint is that it was 
barred by laches, Plaintiff exchanged his stock in 1934 and received 
ten shares of prior preferred stock and trenty shares of common 
stock, ile alleges thst in December, 1936, he resd in the press a 
statement that suit had been started by old preferred shareholders 


to collect accumilated dividends, and that he then acquired the 





ad todd esteta .etost yronimilesg edt uu yastton sorte aititelomar 
bevelled "ereblotoresis, Semrsiowg blo to yshrtoj an, tnomy, aM baa 
& tad? wood itataLe word teeggs ton pooh th op maeeet supizey 
eidt .bevatiod ed es bevelled evohledeneds berxetoxq edt to Yttxot am 
| ie Wizele « bes ef tadt eevede gels Tiltadels soliton Reale « tom ak . 
{| — annade thet beguodone, syed ton bison, greblodersda horrsterg.edt Yo 
i ot oon Mee ot 88 Taeage tom beh FT. stalisutlea sytt adit amos Nodg, bad 7 
yl - aved tom bivow avoblode eds odt Yo yttrolam # tedd woud, 1%, ta. iq 
Sco) tt shthw, eoumttiee madd fakehomes of? .noxede thed?, begnedons 7 
|. erodes shased act Le toreq oat gadwade nolecpelic — 
aaendiaeiin. Bit tw . Mito apted & Bh. me Molt axoqros ae serenlite bas q 
ed Cred? .sedtetogtos osrat yee eh Ubersite Sarginbaniel ; 





OS Aint — 





















sgeeinen eenln te a 


ja 





wt. ‘on milt “hbtadesea ait pane aon aeob gaoxw oh ot ras0q mit vad 
bebsslq od. gem: $2 joomveote teven of buntt .taisiques eld atetades 
4G to atatmetete dexreneg ¥o beyelia od aanane, Auert,, _wbewotg bas | 
badastte exe Anidw etididxs edt. . senogeudonae to Yaw wt anottnyoite 
2E, snolietasestqetetia, ys, wots tea o& Ylaietree tmtelgmoo edd pt : f 
siaaatie ottioeos, odt .yattizw af esodtedasastgetetn eden agnehasteb 
| * oo» ot dete etasmeteda satgicw et? ga. anksgsse adhe OC Sivode ange 
| eatneaetgeseis edt Th ohn avon stasagtate dove wade oth, otamixotag 
| fee pt ec angiiagealic reyotg ed blagde. anode aeid giato ez aa 
| trtelomee off, tect adashaeted dtd sexge oF _ soit otascexqereta kaze _ ; 
i stuert gatnode ageet qu tee ton, weg ie a 


M Must ee LAK a 










ee i 











een oh tedd ab tuieigmes odd ta tedevel mededitgo xadton ; 
bovieoer Qa $501 01 doote afd hoymadone KEitatetd ney Xd Borne 


fommeo To eereda Yenews Sag toate peel tohta to. nena “ a 
. a serene oft af bot of BRL, sii Oth hens, | peyolla | 
) :-etebkedorads btareresg bbe xd -botsata aed bad tive 
| pdt bortsoon aod? ad dade bie@,.Bhaor a 





a 








15 
knowledge of the facts set up in the smended complaint, he amended 
Complaint was filed on August 37, 1937. He knew that the plan had 
been put into effect in 1934, and that the rights of sll stockholders 
were materially »ffeeted by the adoption of the plan, yet, sccording 
to his own allegstion, he waited from December, 1936, until August, 
1937, before filing his amended complaint. The original complsint 
was not inoluded in the record, hence, we are unxble to say what 
it conteined. ie cannot, however, hold that on the face of the 
amended complaint, plaintiff was guilty of lsches, 

Yor the reasons stated, we are impelled to the view that the 
action of ‘the shaneéilas & in “sustaining the’ motion to chemin lead 
proper. Therefore, the decree ‘of the Superior Court of Cook deus 


is «ffirmed, 








DECREE AFFIRMED, 


DENIS E, SULLIVAN, P.Je AND HEBEL, J. CONCUR. 





er 

| beduoes off ~iiicagmee behoome of¢ ai qu feu ainat ont to, sgbelwond 
bed makg oot ted wnat Oh SYECL . 7S tengck me BOLLE wow tatelqmoo 
exeblodseode Lie te attigdt oft teat baa eOL ad tootia otak duq need 
gatbrooss atey .~eadq edt? to noftcsha ade ed boteetts ylieicotan oarew 


| ateugut Litny ,O50L ,tecdmaosi matt bedicw of ~wroitegelia avo eid eF 
1 taiejameo denigive eff sztatedompe bebaome add gaiitt exeted, qTees 


dade Yu ot aldane ora Sy ,oonpd, ,hrecex of? at hebulond tom gar 
edt to ean oid do todd Died yxoverod ytonnae o8 .abemistnoo tt 
' seedeci to Wilwa saw thitalsle, gtatelquoo, bebaoms 
| add dept. vatv odF oF beileget..238 ow S eatuinaichal biadieconti oat RO 
| ese seimele ot seiton oat gututed oun Ri seiiernsde pd¢ to nolfos 
etna? taes te ta09 tebteus? sft Yo eorseb ee yototersdt Mdotad sali, 
| OMRADVIA REBORG. a grgay al of remme Bet OF 


| “ss rar ek, ee 539890: oh, HBG GRA obeed eHAVLddy8 oS SLheG 


eae ahi ROD 


te . 
Cee | N 
« , 4 
3 ‘ etwas sae Be io CAG 
Te ae 


mw, yh it eee ee ae a 


ane ee 2 Eee cee: See i Laem oe 


40314 


WASSON@POCAHONTAS COAL COMPANY, INC., 
® corporation, 


Pre AL FROM 


WUNICTRAL COURT 


299 1A. 619 


OF CHIOCAG 


WR. JUSTICE BURKK DELVIZAED THE OPINION OF THE coURT, 


Appellant, 
Ve 


INDEMNITY INSURANCE GOMPANY OF NORTH 
AMERICA, a corporation, 


a ee et Me re Mie ee te 


Appellee. 


Plaintiff, a corporations. is engazei inthe retail coal 
business in Chiesgo,. Jefeniant, an insurance company, insured 
plaintiff's trucks for » period of one yent beginning July 12, 19321, 
under what was known ss a public lisbility policy. On November 2, 
1931, defendant, through its .xgent, gave written notice to pleintiff 
of cancellation of the policy, such cancellation to become effective 
on Wovember 8, 1931, at 12:01 As Me. The reason asserted by the 
insurance company for the canceliation of the volicy waa that the 
premium had not been paid. finaintiff insisted thet it onrid the 
premium to the Pluamer “esltors Vorporation, a corporstion, on 
August li, 1931, and that the latter corporstion was the »azent of 
the insurance company. Therefore, plaintiff srgues that the premium 
was actually paid to defendant. The controversy srose because the 
Plummer “enltors Corporstion failed to tranamit the oremium to the 
insurance company. In the cancellation notice, the insurance 
company took the position that inasmoh es the premium hod never 
been paid to it, there ws no obligstion to return any so-called 
unearned premium, Plaintiff st all times maintained that the premium 
was paid to defendant and thet the insurance policy «2s in effect 
despite the notice of cancellation, Plrsintiff also insists that the 
attempted cancellation was ineffective beesuse defendant did not 
tender the uneorned premium, ‘fter the attempted cancellation, and 


on Movember ©5, 1931, one of plaintiff's trucks collided with a 







wow’ sanasa ¢ +7 04E _,Yiawdo Jao’ es THOR, od-noroAN 
gg He. APNG “smaktaroqeiges 
Tey Maa TOI wee na : ataal Laced &. Say Nien: Pare a oy 


“ero AT GOS 


nGGAD SEEO 4G 












Uiewtien wee 


BHR ED FRATNOS ROWANUSAT” CELA 
ene htaxerr ye. a ero a 









| 98i.L090 


: TEGO GAY Gh AOLRIIO BRT GHRELVEO BRAWE ROLTAVE vam: si 
Exe Ltadon eet mt hegogme at Groktexeqnes e gttagmsetd Seu" 
7 betuent ,Yaqweo ooretueit ae ,iiaiaetel « seqeoddo at ign) 
| fhGL aL Yul gakaniged reese eae to Sekraq # tot esaert: amnieatntg | 
os xodmevel 20 «Yeiley yrilidedl oligos » edt teond wee tector: taba \ 
VWksndnds of colson morstew ovey yinoge ett dyuoxdt .tanbueteby \lEee | 
|| — @yitoetts smoned of meitecdvomen Howe ,yoklog edt Yo notteiieonss to 
odt yt betteens monsot oT 6M .A LO:8L ta .f8GL .8 redmevek 0 
git edt sow YOllog aA? To aphtakdenmD end. s0%, ymAQMOD coarsuand 
Bat biog #1 test botetent Ttttateli Shey mead ton. bad nares 



















4 


aviwerg; od? tnd? seugrte Widnisle stot oradt .yieqmoo oe 
eat ongened seote yeterertaos edt afichastob od bieq theutos: ‘ a 
edt eS askmetq edt timaneart of betist Aoktetoqtod exotLoos rom 
eonstuent sft ,eolton moltalioonss edt al + Yscmen 0a: 

‘oven bed wyimord add es ete tadd aeianian: of seh 


markewen ot ted? benistatem eomat Ike te vheneent PM 
: foetie af ecw yollog sonetunnt oft tod? fame naauieal 
odd tact etetent ono Mitniali .nottalieonss te eekton 
tem Dib tashaated eeuscsd evitoetiens new aos 
bas ynobtaileones botquette edt rotten 
(g dtiw bebiifoo adourt Pusviy 





street car and the driver was srrested. A report of the collision 
was given to Hertholomay - Darling Vompany. It is conceded that 
the latter company was the duly suthorized agent of the insurance 
Companye. On November 27, 1331, the general agent wrote plaintiff 
stating thet its records indicated that the policy had been cancelled 
as of November &, 1931. On November 30, 1931, plaintiff wrote the 
general agent that it would investig-te snd defend any suits agsinst 
it, and would expect the insurance company to indemnify it against 
any loss, judgments, claims, ittorney's fees or Goesats sand expenses, 
Plaintiff's driver involved in the »ccident, was diseh=rged in the 
criminal or quasi criminal case in the Wunicipal Court of Chiengo. 
Thereafter, two minor accidents occurred, one on December 4, 1931, 
in which the damage was {11,20, and om where the demaze amounted to 
612,00, Both claime were settled. oth secidents were duly reported 
to defendant, who replied in the same tone as it did to the notice of 
the first accident. On January 18, 1933, plaintiff wrote to defendant, 
discussed the accidents thet had occurred, and stated; "we do hereby 
caneel ssid contract as of the date of this letter". The letter slso 
again informed defendant that plaintiff would expect defendant to 
make good all losses sustained, whether the claims had been paid, or 
should be paid in the future, It concluded by stating that the 
unesrned premium was §368.56, and that the expenses incurred up to 
that time by resson of defendant's refusal to carry out the vrovisions 
of the policy, smounted to $94.20, and accordingly demanded a remittance 
for the total sum of $455.76, 

In chronological order, the next step was a claim asserted by 
Willard “iohardson, ® minor, for personal injuries grewing out of 
the collision of November 25, 1931. Awnin plaintiff notified defendant, 
An action wes commenced by the minor in the Superior Court of Vook 
Sounty against the Chicago Surfsce Lines and plaintiff, In that action, 


the minor, Willard Sichardson, claimed damages of $25,009.00. The 


& 
| Hodgiilse eit to txocet A .betactre sew tevich edt bac teo #oerTte 
tsa bobeorde ef 32 .yaequoO gailced - gemofedirst! of novin gow 
eogetwens ads bo taage besitedsus yYieh edt eon waned rotted ede 
| Lifiateic eters auger Lereney edt (f88L tS rednerol AO .Yleqmes 
poifeongr maod bem yoiLec oud tends bersolhal abreo9s ata tedt gukicte 
ed? ator tiétaiel« adbes 408 ‘coduevel nO eXBOL yo redasvot to ‘en 
feaiene oie yas breted ban etegitevont Bkvow 2 tadd tnoga arenes 
taniege $i Yilamebal oF Yasqmos oneie caracth ole toaqxe bLuor han ati 
saeutagxe Ana ete@e to aset a! onto? 30 semdato aetmemgbat aneol Ws 
edt ai Oegverionth asw ,faabioor wiki gi beviovas sevheb airtitatels 

| sogeoide to treo degioinus sdt at saeo denimire deayp so Lanimkxo 
elthl _% THGMEGE Ao Se ,beTrNDse xtashiooe ‘cont one rofacted? 
od botavoms sgcme adt eusde so bas ,0ied tT), acw syaeeh ead doide at 
| hegamage: Yuh exrew etaehione Ade .deditee stew eminio Azpl 400.819 
| te soiges add ot DL 21 ae Ssod oma OAT BA baliqes, osw _atnabagt eh ot 
| eitebaotsh of ofetw Titaieiqc 8501 ,8i yaewnterl, BO stxobtoos Seoxst eas 
| ydetod of on” ;betete bas ,herrsoee bat sade aiaehione edt Peneuoash 
oeie rattel aT e“aattel eidé to Stab off Io ae foarte, htee Leonse 
| of trebasteab ToNGxs fivow Ptitaiele #ea? snsheet os pepretas kage 
i 2G, ,bL89 999 bet amie fo ons redtodn sbeniazers | aeeeed iis boog, saen 
| ag? tedt gaiiste yé bebul ooo at et atet ads ak keg ed binoste 


Fi 
iH 


et. qu bexiupal etenegre edt stadt bas 008 aBES ean sudnorg benzsonu 
sieleiverg ead tuo yrtse of Leauter a'¢asbasteb to aonset Ne omit teat 
sonsttinet ep bebmameh ylgnibuesos bas 205 b&h at betwone setsog oat to 
areas <2¥43809 to mua Lodet adv x0? 

ys botrares ntate & ane qete txos od? ,rabie Inotpolesoxdo al ie 
if toe suo yiiwerg esitutat Sanoszag vor ,Tonin ¢ ,toabts. lo. A pus iitn 
| etashasteh beititon tritniaig aleg 9 fORL Pras reduev ol 30. notekites ade 
H Joo to two? xotteque emt at contm edt yd beomeameo say motion mA 
| woltes geld al .thitatelg bas aeatd aostiul eget? ot tenkegs ysaued 
i edt 400,000,888 to eogemah bomtalo .gorbtsiol! pmaltsy qxqaia ed? 








: 


net 
a 
A Linnea ce ey 


3 
summons served on plaintiff wos forw:rded to defendant's peneral 


agent. Defendant again reviied that the policy hed been cancelled 
and declined to defend the cxse. Plisintiff thereupon employed an 
attorney who investigsted the accident, csused photographs to be 
taken and filed a plea, This -ttorney performed all other necessary 
servioes in connection with the prepsrstion of the cnse, “hen the 
case was reached for trisl, and sfter 2 jury hed been impaneled and 
the opening statements made, « settlement eas effected for the sum 
of $1,900.00, of which plaintiff paid °950.00. Plaintiff also paid 
to his attorney the sum of '250.00, which was # rénsonable fee for 
the services rendered, On June 3, 1922, pisintiff filed its state- 
ment of cleim in the Municinsl Court of Chieage and sought to 
recover from defendant shat it asserted was an unearned premium 
amounting to $526.23, and in addition, the sum of 86,290 for settling 
the minor dam-ge cases, $50.00 paid to plaintiff's attorney for 
appesring in the police court at the time the driver eae on trial, 
$10.00 for cost of photographs, -nd “3,00 paid to a reporter for 
taking testimony, <A motion to strike the claim wns sustained. On 
lesve granted, plaintiff filed an xmended statement of clein. 
Defendent filed an affidevit of merita and «a set-off. fhe set-off 
sought to recover from plaintiff what it termed the earned premium 
covering the period from July 12, 1931, to November &, 1931. Vlnrin- 
tiff filed on affidavit of merits to the set-off, On June 15, 1934, 
plaintiff commenced snother action in the Municipsl Court of Chicspe. 
The second action, designated in that court as of the first cless, 
was grounded on the same insurance policy, It asserted thet on 
November 25, 1931, (which «as after the attempted caneeliation by 
defendant and before the sttempted cancellation by plaintiff) one 

of the trucks insured under the policy collided with a street car 

of the Surface Lines, and thet plaintiff reported the accident to 
defendant, who declined to defend the onse, and thet Willard Richard- 


& 

Leomaney e'tachnetebd of batrewret sew ttituiel@ no fovrae enone 
belfldionss mead bed yor Loy odt ted? betio iad siagea Pnabasted «tage 
as $eyelqme necuetodt Ttitadeld ena ‘eatd best sh or bent Loeb bre 

sé of atin tye toads benueo ,ieshicos edt badegiteeval orfe xoarorss 
Yieesseen  redto Elm beaxretrsq yantotts gist aati a beitt has sede? 
sit medi .eveo odd th adkteteqdza att dtie nolfoekaes ai eeolvrse 
bas balensaem? oad bat yrut 2 redte bee tales vot bedonse ch 
sue ait cot bereetts ees foeesteden « .ohaw etwemeded]e gataego elt 
bioy oble Madntsl? 00,0809 hing Ttttatele seatw to 2004008 «tt to 
Tot o8% sidsiearer « eaw sohitw ot. Dent to nue bot yairrod da eld ot . 
onde wht betty Yradetelé (seer Sf ane a0 vberobmet esotvies oft 
at digues hae eyoSrdl’%s Hved Lagkolaw! sdf At @ieto to teem 
nuieey hawteeny te acw betescen Pf fade trebasteb nett <oveoes 
yatitded tat 08.88% to moe Of yaoltipde al bas 8 8885 ot aattavome 
fet vortotes etitivateiqg of bisa 00,584 .e5e80 enema ‘tomte “oad 
lkatd Mb ear tevith Sct ots amt te Heim soled odd “ak gabeeoeqe 
et rotrocet © of bkay O68? Sax yedoorgetedg To teoo tot 00.058 

90 ,beckevecdm dow mialo oft oxicte of tobtom a sytontteot abies 
weinlo to tatwetets bobwems ae hellt YWitaiele sbedunry eveot 
Hio-tee wat VYte-tee & ban efizen Yd tiesbétte mo beLlt tnshaoted 
muinotg howtes sit bemred $2 tidy ttitdiale mort revoosr ot gue 
-afei% ,£#8L ,8 redmevol of ,(8CL ahi ytet mont bedteq ‘ont gadroves 
(beer af otivt a0 Gtte-tee oft of eohtom Yo tivebitte ae boLlt What 
Logeoin® to too Leqtotamt odt al ndizée teddons betaemion ‘itamnbesa 
seeaio tert? edd to ae t1v09 todd at bétefigiasd .nolioe bnooee sit 
ao fadd bePteses Ba yottog sedetoaal emes ed? mo bebavety aw 

wd noléniieodes petomotte of? Yetta ‘wet doldw) {180L 28 ‘xodmevel 
and (TWtitdtely yw dolteticenco Bedymerss off Stoted baw siabaeteb— 
tao soerdé & Atte BObLLido ~oLlod Sid Tokay Botvads edourd edt Yo 

ot febtoos edt hetuoqer Ytitetnde dude tke jeomdd eoatrad odd Yo 
~peadOt® beallt® ede baw joao edf Baoret SF Bentiond ite yfrabaeteb 


st i el COD 


a 
son, s minor, wos 2 passenger on the street cr, being injured in 
the secident; tht the minor by his next friend sued the receivers 
of the Chicsgo Surface Lines and plaintiff, claiming damages in 

the sum of $25,099.00; thet plaintiff wes served with » suumons 

and requested defendant to defend the case, which defendant declined 
to do; thet plaintiff employed an attorney, ani thst the case eas 
settled for £1,909.99, of which plaintiff paid £950.00; thst in 
addition to its portion of the settlement, plsintiff slso paid 
expenses, attorney's fees and costs, which ageregsted the total sum 
of $1,342.15. Plaintiff asked judgment agvinst defendant for that 
amount. Jefendant filed an affidavit of defense, > jury trial was 
waived, and the two cases were consolidated and tried together. In 
the trial of the consolidated cases before the court without a jury, 
the court found the issues against the plaintiff and in favor of 

the defendant, and assessed the damiges of the defendent in its 


————— Lape enaetemien et 
set-off st the sum of £411.38. The court overruled s motion for a 


—_—_— 








new trial and entered judgment on the finding, to reverse which 
plaintiff prosecutes this appeal. 

A great deal of the evidence is in the form of records, letters, 
notices, policies ond other doouments, For many years plaintiff hed 
been engaged in the retsil coal business =t 6876 South Chicago Avenue 
in Chicago. Among its customers rere certain aunagers of real estate 
offices who handled insurance *s5 4. part of their business, fo retain 
their coal business, prior to 1930, plaintiff omrehased its insurance 
from these real estate managerse One of the real estate managers 
who was a Customer of plaintiff, was iv Te Plummer, Bartholomay- 
Oarling Company was = general insurance broker, A coal wining company, 
which apparently was an affilinte of plaintiff, was on friendly 
terms with the insurance broker snd thereby the parties became 


acquainted, On February 15, 1930, plaintiff made inouiry of the 


& 
af hewsind galed ,%0 seetie ed2 oe cogRoeReg & Bew.gtonin 3. 4noR 


| . eyoviooe: ef2 bore basinl taem eld ed tomim ade Sod? poaobioos edz 
ai pegemes gadwiosa gtiijaieds; hes eenid ovelred. ogeodds, odt. to 

aftoneur « Siw kewree aor tridatele tend 700.000,68). to. ase, sat 
" beniloeh tnuehesieh deidw ,onre ady basieh o¢ tachaeteb boteewper bas 
sow Pese off tedd bas yyenretts aa beyoique Mitatale. stadt. job, o@ 

et tort 700.0888 bieg Pbtatelq delde te 400,008.18 tol belseve 


' hte ole Mitcielg. .twemeltfen seb te soddtoy ath of moltibbs 
| sve inves odd Soteyorvace doitw ,aveon bee geet of yerredss geonnegne 
| Sets tot taahmoted tentage, taceghet betes Yitaiadt,. «L.0S, £3 20 
ace feist erat «6 ,osesteh te hesbitte ae belit gnehueiel, »taswems 
1| 


al ted¢snet Selvy hae DeoteS2itosnen erew esenm ort sat bar _bavier , 
| avrek « feoddiw tesoo 6dt weoted geeno betabiloamon edt 20 Latut edt 
te torsk at bar ttitaiale of? fecioge eeuned eds baget times ect 
| eek ae davbastan sdt To to sogomeb add Senagese Sas ,tashaetsb edt | 
! a tot aoidgm 2 baiuurave treo adit _ AE EES Se age sd? te Thondoe 
dekde eevovar oF .gedbadl edt. ne sagembat betegae bas Ledet, eon 
i : einaige aidd astuossetg tittalelg 
| exotted. qRhwost to mvet edd al ef. oanebivs adt to Lead deOmM Ano cokes 
| hed Stheaiaig ersey yaom tol .etavemuooh readdo.ee nelollog .,2ectien 
 opnovi onaptdd Mtuet S188 te epemteod teen Liager add at hepagas need 
atates deer te aroysaes ateitee ste atemetave eff goomA . soyaotdd ma ; 
sintex of  onamtavd tied? te taso « eo eometweat belhasd odw eeodito. 
sonetwntt ath honadowws ttitatele 4OSRL of Todne qenomtend Leon, rherdy 
preyare states Leet odt to 900 eereganam atatee Leet eead? mont 
~veuolowive! toned’ of Mh eew gthidntede to semetayo ¢ ean onw 
| awteqmoo gatntm fn00 A «retard soartunmt Lnteaeg © enw yasqmod amdinad 
qibusiet no vaw qtiisiela to eta itte as wan Yiaoraqaa, olde 
_ egped astizsg edt ydoratt. bas todord sonsmwant edt dale easet 
' _. gett Ye Yetuont hem Uistately ,O8OL .eL yreuadet a0 heats 
} 











5 

insurance broker concerning ineurance rates, fhe broker offered to 
make a complete survey of its insurance. On Vebruary 26, 1930, 
plaintiff wrote the insurance broker as follows: 


“Replying to your letter of tebruarv 17th, which ess in 
reply to ours of the 15th; we would be glad to have you advise 
us before taking your time to make 2 trip out here, the basis 
on which you work. 

"You understand, our insurance is given out on a reciprocal 
plan. In other words, we are compelled to turn our insurance 
over to those who give us their conl business. With this in 
mind, we would be glad to have you advise us on just what orsis 
you would be in position to handle it for us. 

"A prompt reply will be apprecisted, after the receipt of 
which we will be glad to give you further details," 


On waroeh 7, 1930, the insurance broker replied as follows: 


"Replying to your communicstion of February “6th, relative 
to your inaurance, we wish to advise thet the only basis on 
which we do buginese is one of service to our clients, We are 
not in 2 position to obtain new customers for you and we have 
not worked on that basis in the past, 

"Our deslinges with the asson loal Company are strictly 
that of service to them in cutting down insurance costs, and we 
believe in the long run that this will be of benefit to them 
It may be possible that we could work out some way of serving 
you in such a manner that you would not lose any of the business 
which comes to you on account of reciptocity. 

“As you no doubt know, we obtained « reduction in rate on 
your yard after making an anslysis at the suggestion of Mre Le 
Ae “esson and will be very plessed to go into the matter again 
if you will so advise." 


Plaintiff wrote another letter to this broker on Mareh 12, 1950, 
stating thet plaintiff would be «lad to go into the matter of its 
insurance with a view to securing » further reduction. On June 17, 
1930, the insurance broker wrote pleintiff as follows: 

“we are enclosing herewith « report covering your insurance 
in detail, also insurance policies which we have had in this 
office for examination. 

“When you have had an opportunity te go over this report, 
we would like very amch to call on you regording waye and means 
of saving the asson-Pocahontas Conl Company money in their 
insurance Gost, and at the same time favoréng the »gents who are 
now placing the business," 

On July 1, 1950, the insurance broker wrote Phummer, in part, as 
follows: 


“Kir, fasson has instructed that we write this insurance, 
however, because of the pleasant relstions that have existed 


a 

ot betstto Teaietd edt eeStsr 20netvaal gaigteotes tedetd eoretopad 
,O80L of yrsuTdel a0 .eometwent aff te yeriwe adveiqnoo st "wakes 

. rewoile? a2 vetexd sonatusal edt atoty Vuasadslg 


ak eew dotdw ,a991L yrewrdol to retdel «voy ot yaiyiqoan® 
caivbe voy sve of balg ad biuow o witGl ad? to etue ef ylqex 

eiesad ed? ,oxsd tum ict © stam of seit tuoy gakdet eroted ay 

sikOw OY aie A 
fseetatest « ao tue aevly ot sometueni two ,bangershay uo 

sagsiueal tue Aine of beiieqeonm oa en ,abtor sodte wid eftelg 

ai eidd ote pe, poe fneo aieds ex Svin onw ovens of ‘Tove 
elead fede fest to ey evivhs goy ova ot daly od bivew ow _hnkn . 

es Tot SE slbwed of moitiae mi ed bluow HOY, 
te galeset add setts ,badeteenqae od Gite ydqat. dametg, A 
*,aliedeb tsdicut voy evig of pass ad Ilinw ow dotide 


rewellel ee helicor «sdexd oonetueat oud 0ser .¥ dorsi no 


evitelor ,df3= surdet to nolteviauemes Tuey oF ‘peayigee” 
mo viewd % it todd seivhe of deiw ex ,a0natuead tupy 
eta oF ery fs tuo et acivxee to fo ei aesaleud of aw dot 
Svad er baa wey tet eremetavoe wan aietde ot aoitived «2 ab der 
teeq oft af eked ted? ao bearow ton 
qiiteivie ets Yreqmel knw: teers’. ott Adin epriiesd ted" : } 
ge bas ,efe2eo sofatwent awet saidtwo at medf of sotvror To dads 
 -teit oF *Pbered te af Lids 524 ac todd sux yook edd at avetiod 
gaivres to ysw Hee duc stow bivond aw tadt sidiaseq ed Yes ar 
eewiioud ad¢ te ys geet dom hivow wey Jad? sondes « dove wal way. 
eYsioetaiesr te smuosos = Ags ot semoo dod ite 
a etet 2 goleeubst s beniatde se of roy BAN | 
el eth to Goltimeguwe oA Th siictaie oe sr ie <t99ta btey 180% 
niega tetiam edd girl oy of bvacolg WES: od iin Dus torer® oh. 
*,oeiviie oe fitw OX tz 


«OSGI ,ti dorsM ao rederd eld? of tottel wedtous store tiitalels 
ati to ‘rettem edt otal 03 of Bele od Bivow viktatala tant gaiiage 
ati ent aO = .noltoubor sederdt s guitoes of weiv Py dtiw soanxueas 
sawailgt es tt itatete atetw Tedexd sonanuadt ode 088s 


eoastvesi tuoy gaitsveo troqes « dAtiwerad gateoLone _ own 
eid! ai bed evod ow doldw soiolleg eomexuent. cela gitateh at ., 
weatpanieace iat sotto 
a et aid? wave ° ap tag ngs 5 page Poa 6 evet HOY ; 
ce bas syew saab ta Se ag fous yrov odll bluow ew 
ated? ai youos yragmet? Ise? sataesiaooi-aesne ocd gaiver he 
eta ore aoe edt ¥ geeneray ent? ones ae te bats fh sa Segal 


es gtiec mf aremenit etore cederd seaement sie gOU@L gi chdune 
: i fs TOR Gait f $i Aili 85 soos epiewouiie? 


semeruens pidt adiow aw dadt botowndenh and Aoaeat ie’ PRE 2 aw 
batetze svad tad? enoitele? rv F aud Ye onuanes, arerns 


a 4 arin 


between your office and the ‘esson-Pocshontas Yorl Company, 

we suggested, and Wr. ‘ngson spproved, thet you continue to 

act as broker on this business. In doing this your office will 
obtain the reguler brokerage commigsion ond we will have served 
the Wasson-Pocahontas Coal Vompany, which we have endeavored 

to accomplish. ‘¢ will call on you very soon regarding this 
matter," 


Shortly after the sbove letter ess written to Plummer, Mr. Butler, 

an employee of the insurnnee broker, oalled on (lummer at his place 
of business and discussed the pvelicy of insurance to be written on 
plaintiff's trucks as of Juhy 12, 1931, On July 10, 1930, ir. lutler, 
en behalf of Sartholmay - Unrling Sompsny, rrote Plummer, *s follows: 


"with reference to ovr conversation relative to the *asson- 
Poecshontss Coal Vomoany lisbility and property damage insurance 
on seven trucks and three pleesure cars for §25/50,009 limita on 
liability, and 210,000 limit on property domage, we wish to 
advise thet om a commercial pay rell basis the cost will be 
®991.61. This will also cover sutomatically any hired automobikes, 
their hired cere to be charged at a rate of 91.275 ner hundred 
dolisrs cost of hire. Will you plesse submit this to the “ssaone 
Pecshontas Coal Compeny, along with any other figures which you 
may have obtained. If we can serve you in any other manner, 
please feel free to csll on use® 


Other letters were written, and on April 33, 1931, plisintiff wrote 
the insurance broker, ss follows: 


“Under date of April 14th, we murchesed a new Chevrolet 
coupe at « cost of §614,00 - Serial No. IA# #34920 = ¥ngine 
#248622. 

"W4ll you kindly have this osr covered for Fire 4 Theft 
under our fleet policy #P5/ #33615, Philadelphia Yire 4 Marine 
Ins. Coe, written thru Sutton § Peterson. Also have it covered 
for Public Liability and Property Onmage, our fleet policy {IAL 
17138, Public Indemnity Co., written thru Plummer ‘e-ltora. 

“Kindly have insurance effeotive immedinstely. 

“Thanking you for your prompt attention to this matter, 
we ATC, 


On May 5, 1931, plaintiff sgnin wrote the insurance broker, stating 
that he had not heard from him thet the insursnce was placed as 
requested in his letter of April 23, 1931. On May 7, 1931, the 
insurance broker replied as follows: 
"with referenoe to your inouiry of Msy Sth, we wish to 
advise thet the endorsements taking care of coverage on the new 
Chevrolet Coupe were forwarded to Plummer Nesltors and Sutton 


& Peterson on May Sth, snd are no doubt in your hands by this 
time. If not, kindly advise and we will isaue duplicates," 


—_—_—-— 


a ee 





| 


swirime: Leo astnetsrot~aoeea® oft hes solite twoy asewted 

6} senitnes voy tet? ,beverqys monet? wa bas ,beteoggee ow 

Site antYhe tuoy eid? gaio® al .seoatsedl aid oo toxerd en tos 

havres ered iLiv ew bas agtveiqvor ogerederd tefuysx edt aletdo 

hevereshas oved ew doide ,yasomel eee’ astiaseogi~noeta® any 
eidt goibtegzer Boot yrev rey ae Ifen Ifiy ey . desiqnooes | of 

Kzoo d om 


ateited ck een, ae destiuw gee thttds eveds edt redts ftrode 
sosiq add te tammeli ae belino ,redond sometuend” edd to eeyolame ‘ne 
ao mettivy ad of sametummi Yo ‘Yotlod ond bopeyoels tae epentewt te 


| {xOLtal oe JO8EL OL Ele AO SABRE SE YW Yo wn etoune e*Ttiendint 
sawoliat we areal y, eto a Wiacae! gelived Yeuloderas ne xeegog ao 


ona’ at ot, etitolex soliaareyes two oF oonertel te" 
aeterueni Gysteeh Weatreri hex Uehindels winyues bled yi i 
io etkiogi ¢ 08 \aey aor atae eiueselg ootds hes por Heree oo 
gd ede atieumel yteswerq ne Piel OOO, 052 baw yytitidali 

ad’ Site taen ad? eiged Let veq Latoranmes # ao» wetv ie 


esokhdomoesun bert ysisoltameten serves owie (Liw etd? “te iee> 


beotkbawd ree 7 it to o¢e¢ @ ts veio 8d oft e¢em Boxid viedt 


~mouent ost o¢ sidt ¢hmdve secaly woy LER corn td = Feo wreliob 


wey foise oorrait verte ye dtiw greie .ytaqee® LoS sitaodedot 
go teairone sonte Ye mt yey evter meso oy TL ebaniside evad Yak 
 Syaar na Line of werk Leet, oonele 


odete Mitr te Ley: feel adh Linge ao tyre ,wetticw ovow. aredtes redo 
iavodlot e¢ ,*esord omtiriven odd 


yatarvede wen ¢ Seeedorug oe (atoL Linch to etah rebdd* a? 
@nign® - OOM; Al wok Ledtee - 00.8269 to sae « 7 


Sted? & orf! rol hevevoo tee slate ees yfha bt pb ssi 
ontink 4 exit eidytobelind ,2isee) S29) yollog te 
bsrover fi evad coef’ .averestet & aotiee ovat Se oe iis 
° 


dade yotleq teadt tue 4 ane etrocett bax Negiidehs ait itn” LRH: 
estoties vrommel? ord? cottior ,.e0 yoinaebat -* 
eYlotaibemms evitestts gometwani nes eye ee 
atstien efit of moltnette tyson toy Tot wt rw (Oe 
ne ess ov ; 


gnitete: ,1etotd sonetuen! edt story intial viktadase (fBOL aa ‘ent 0 
ee Hooald ary Romsumal od dort ott mort pred ‘tom bat od deat 
odd ,f0eL aT Ys a0 need. es ibtga Ye mageer ett ak botesuper 


EAS 


sewol lot oe bediqn's aesond ‘eonatwent 


ot detw sw _A98 You To vridper 1w8y OF eenorstet dghet Go) 8° 

wou odt no ogetoves to oreo gabled i 6 Fane Poon eat tadd vetvbe ; 

aotiu® bra erotioel tommuli of pig gp aqua) os 
aid? yt shaad tyoy ak tduobh on ore « fe o otet 

. *.woteo thea sanet fits ow faa ‘setvbs Ubald avo tos " oT tame 









7 

The court received in evidence the automobile lisbility colicy rritten 
by defendants covering the period from July 1%, 19%1, to July 13, 
1932. On July 6, 1931, the insurance broker wrote plaintiff as 
follows: 

“we acknowledge receipt of your letter of July second, 
enclosing expirstion notices received from your brokers in 
connection with your sutomcebile insurance. ‘s you know, re 
are arranging for the renéwal of this insurance; it, of course, 
will be credited to the account of the same Agencies, ss you 
requested." 

The court received in evidence as an exhibit, an invoice on the letter= 
head of Sartholomay - UVarling Vompany. the invoice gives the date 
of the policy, the number, the name of the insurance company, the 
property insured, the amount ond the premium charged, On the left 
hand side appears the word “Assured", followed by the name “asson- 
Pocshontes Voal Company, and to the right hand side appears “Aectt 
of Michsel fT. Plummer, Address 7747 South Halsted Street", elow 
the name of thé asaured appesrs the date of expirstion, July 1°, 
1932. The invoice slso contains 2 printed legend in red ink, which 
reads as follows; “Make ll checks payable to Yarbholomay=srling 
Company.” The court admitted another exhibit similar to the one 

last mentioned, for an sdditionsl premium of '29,64. The invoices 
were mailed to 4. T. Plummer, There is testimony thet he in turn 
made out invoices on his own letterhesd and delivered them to plein- 
tiff. One of plaintiff's witnesses testified that Plummer brought 
over to plaintiff's office the original invoice issued by Bertholomay=- 
Darling Company. Later, the witness st=ted that he misunderstood the 
question, and that what he intended to say ee that Plummer brought 
to the office of plaintiff the invoices aade out by Plummer on the 
latter's letterhends, Plsintiff delivered its check dated September 
17, 1930, payable to the order of Plummer Realtors Corporstion in 


the sum of /991,61, The check, received in evidence, bears the 


i 
eetticr ywolio: eétildagl eLicemates adt osmabive af bevgover fro ‘ost 
sek elu ot ,fURL .Sf yiut matt boben oad an brevod atanbaet eb Ww 
at Thitesale atone radars soneauant odd {(80L ,8 ent i oS8OL 
. savollor 

graooee yiot te tettel troy to tqteoen ogbelwanion e¥ " — 

ai evaden! tvey ays? bevtsoey eaekton | toniqxs yatsefons 

fe yroat coy ek ,eameteant olidemetue twoy dilw aeltoeaaes 
ey ce aC irae oft To: Susobon aa ef bodena od 
* betsouper 
| ~wetded edt ag selovel asa ,tididke ne gn eonebive at hovivosr tryoo ad’ 
ated edt navig aokevsi eat syasuiiod guzicet ~ yamefedite to dood 
edd wieqties Snmetvaa! eff Iq ene sat «9c ont .yoilen adit te 
Fok eft 0 sbogenido sinikeong ond hare teuome ait sboxuen’, tireqota 
 -ageee® aaa one uf bewolLet ,"dsrwmek* Brow ony exesaae ols bared 
so98" axemage obte barnsi fi ix adé ov haw »TusqRot Spot ustredsood 
role "teaxte hegaLel ld TANT aperthe .riemylt oT Logdety te 
«Sd “Qiel .aadteticne Te eink sat etmeqge betoeme Ody Yo omen ont 
doltdwy qint Bet at heegel betwive » seketnon onda odtovnk gat Seer 
piiiiniongenotoditied of eideysy adeeto ifn oipi" jserollot an sheet 
ante est ot taliele tididze s9dtome bassimoe treo adT,* “symbamed 
ncotownt edt 0.08) bo auknong inottions ne tot pbonottaon teed 
ated adi ea Puig yaontteot el stedt = stseeamene ts + Ps of better ‘oTew 
eabelg ot weds bavetkles bas hawdeod tel ae Bhs a aooiownt tuo shaw 
tiger xommuld godt Sottitest esseentin ott teatesa to ea6° 4thit 
~yanolod@ned qt biweet solevat Latity sto ede sete a'itatatate of “Yeave 
ad? bootevehaweie ef tatt befate wasadly one yrodad  .yanqmod anetxed 
Higueud sonst, tedd wey yor ot hobas tek of fede teat bas pmoldeeo 
edé ao xowmull yd tuo Shan eeokerrmd Off ee 9 ts Bassai edd of 
radmesqet betsh taede agk bexevaleb thitdlelt “yehoodred fet batgeated 
ai xekisreqte® etotiee® wenmut® ‘to tabte oat ot skanyod over: avd 
ody orned yronsbive uk bevieose ,aoode est 10,109 Yo mye sult 








8 
endorsement of the payee and the bank stamp showing it was paid on 
September 20, 1930. ~-uring the month of ‘eptember, 1931, Mr. Sutler 
talked with Mr. Nance of the plaintiff company ond was informed that 
plaintiff had paid Piummer the smount of the insurence premium, 
Nance testified that Sutler ssid; “Well, OK. ‘e will vet busy and 
try to get our money from Plummer,” theresfter, » conference wes 
arranged at the office of the insursnce broker, which ws attended 
by Nance, Plummer, *« lire Vlarkson of the insurance beoker's office 
and s Miss Sigsle, Clarkson told Plummer he had committed s serious 
offense in thit he had collected the money for the insurance premium 
and had not paid the company, end th=t he had better go home and 
see what he could do. Subsequent to the conference and on October 7, 
1931, Plummer brought to the insurance broker 10 shsres of benk 
atock and took « receipt resding ss follows: “Received from & T. 
Plummer, for Plummer's Realtors Corporation, 10 shares of Standard 
National bank stock, certifioxte No. 845; and it is understood by and 
between Mw. Tf. Plummer and Uartholomsy-Osrling Vompany thet seid stock 
is being deposited by him with us cs colletersl security only for his 
imiebtedness, and not «s payment thereof.” Undoubtedly, the arrange- 
ment mde was of mutuel advantage to the parties. 
The triesl court found thet: 
"The plaintiff entered into its course of business dealings 
with sertholomey-Darling Yo., defendant's arent, by reason of 
the inducement held out by ‘ortholomnay-srling Yo. (1) thet it 
would give plaintiff? = more efficient and economical handling of 
its insurance; and (2) thet plaintiff's real estste manager 
customers would continue to be credited with and to receive the 
seme coamissions they had received before on the insurance premiums, 
and would continue to have the same inducement to give plaintiff 
their respective coal orders," 
Defendant argues thet the triel court hed the right to believe the 
testimony thot the invoices from S=rtholomay-J=rling Company were 
delivered by Plummer to pisintiff, ond also urges thot the plaintiff 
was bound to take notice of the legend on the invoice thet cheeks 


should be made payable to Sertholomsay=Srling Company, Plaintiff 





8 
Ae Siac sew ti uniwede quete Aged ed? base oaysq ane to txeneataiad 
reltwi ,18 LOL gredmetqe® te dtnom edt gehen’ -O88L° , 08 cadmas” ee 
ged? bemaetal esw bias yaeqnes Tiitaleiqg od? te wore tH td tw bexiat 
esuiments eoretyeai edt To fnwome add temmnalt bieg bad YtttntaLe 
baa Yaud s¢g Liiw Bf «he .fie®" shine toddu® gad? heititesd const 
new socetotaed « ,Tevtreted? "“ reauets ‘ort yantos Tio Foy ad yt 
beastie sew Meidw retord genetegat Sat to eoltte odd ts ogasrte 
soltts e'cetond ootetgaat ant to aosdrelO .tM e _tommis £4 “gBOrteh yd 
avolyos 2 bettiowen bad ed vomenutt blod seedreid ,eleaz® cele 2 bas 
mrkmers Sogktwent S83 Ot yanow ant besoeLion Sad ed teat mi oeretto 
tas’ smod ep tetted bed eal ted? ban ,ywreqmed edd bisq don bad bie 
4% TadetoO co baz SenetStrgd od? of tabupesdet .oh bivos ex tate ode 
Minnd te eoxade OL tedevd ensewwent edt of Hiyvord cemmnlT {18er 
+T .M moxt bovionon” tawoliet an gilheat tyiseor a dood ban doote 
birbast’’ to gerade OL ,welfetoeqto? etvotiow® 9 remenl? tot {tenet 
bas yd booterebay af tl bar ;8a8 ot stenkttinse ,goote Anhl Leno lieu 
doofe béea tedt yoeque? gaiteed~yoledives hao reeawl? yt 2 neewted 
sift tot yine ytituee, Lersteliee av ex ddtv eid yo bexioeqsb gnied wt 
-sgaatts ext ,yibstdvehat ",toetedt tasmysy es fom Bue ypeonbesdohal 
“~eolirveq sat of Ogatriavia Lewtum bo he 8D on frre 

itedd trvek dtseo felts ent - 
syatised eeaniend te setuee etl otat beretas Trivak ‘eaT* Sealine: 


to measet wd ,tmeuse atdanbasteb ..0 étati~ a0. rise 
#t dent (1) woe ani fved=yamoLodeanl fh fl wo ei 1303 


te aatibaed Leoimonoet fas ary tisadele ) 

arr ne efedee Leer e'ttitaisig ¢ font ay is ord. Aluoe aol 
edt avieoer of bas atin hotibers ed o¢ sual 7 boy stone t aud 

aeuuimory sonetuent edd fe evetsd bhavleoox bet yad? es woo sme 


ttitaiels evia ef treomeousbut omee ad oved of thes yo bhiuow bra 
sia . S serebte ieee oritos¢eat sled? 


edt evelled of tdyit edt bed deuon Latrd add seus soigis dacbasted 
erew yeqie ankirel~yemolodtzell mort deoiovdi ad? fade yuomddase 
Liiintsia odt dont sogry cele hae {Yeddadete é¢ Lommutt yw betevalen 
edoedd tadd ‘eoloval off ao basyel’et? to Bolten Sant of bitied Baw 
Vtisatel! syarcmed yalired-yomolodizel of eldaysq sbam sd bluode 


3 
repels these contentions by asserting that the stetement of his 
witness was caused by a misunderstanding of the cuestion, which he 
correoted before he left the stand, end thet the ie end warning 
debtors that premiums be paid to sartholomsy-U=srling Company waa, 
in fact, directed to Plummer, the psrties also draw different 
conclusions from the invoices, plaintiff insisting thet the invoices 
show that the insurance broker considered thet the debtor was Me Te 
Plumer, snd the defendant asserting that the invoices show that 
the debtor was the assured. Sartholomsy-/orling Company wes undoubte 
edly anxious to procure the insurance business of plaintiff. Pisin- 
tiff was anxious to remain in the wood graces of the various real 
estate agents in order to have their good will in the snle of soal. 
If it were not for the desire of pleintiff to deal through the 
verious renl estate brokers, the insursnoe covld have been plisaced 
directly with Sargfholomay-0=rling Yompeny. It is significent that 
on July 2, 1921, plaintiff wrote Jartholomay-larling Yompany as 
follows; "The sttached notices of the expirstion of several policies 
have been received by us. ‘i11 you kindiy see the renewnls sre msde 
and sent through the same agencies," On July G, 1931, “srtholomsy- 
Qerling Company wrote plaintiff acknowledging the letter of July 2, 
1931, and the expiration of the notices, stating "As you knor, we 
are arranging for the renewal of this insurance; it, of course, wil. 
be credited to the sccount of the same agencies, ss you requested". 
In 2 second conference in the office of 4artholomay--arling 
Company, Mr. Darling told the participants ‘there will be no helfway 
Toute in this cnse, the only thing is we want our money", and “there 
is no way to straighten it out other than to see that we get pnid", 
Plaintiff maintains thet the testimony «s to the conferences in the 
office of Sartholomay-Unrling Vompany and the receipt by that 


corporstion of the shares of bonk stock, is strong evidence thet 


ee 


g 
eid to tusmpdate att tel? geitcsess w aselitestncs eecsdt afeqex 
ad doige ,woifeonun sit te gaisisiavesebuusin a yd boayeo eaw eeantiy 
aiietew bag. et eds todd has yhaste oft Piel an aveted betoer res 
ee Ware? getineti-yerelodétes of bing sd emuiaste vadt ereddeb 
deeretilh weth oals etitusa of? .xeemerhi of hetoerih (tock at 
seciowni edt feda gakteheai txituiedsy ygoesctovei sv sott eadkealonoo 
oT si mew vetde® ane gods. berebianeo wedesd sonesvent sit tent wordlk 
tet? vede aeniowat odt tod? aritroser teeboeteb off hae 4 témmnl? 
-tdyebay set taegeot aniive’~yameledicat .betvren off ew tordoeR off 
—#i2i% ,ititeiaiv to eeeninud sonstyent oe ereoete of ecékxal Y{be 
leae eueitey aid to senery boos ot af hemor of aevotxaa eae Trt 
_~iage ba aiee adt mi LLiw Soon rhedt owed ot cabro wt etatge eteated 
ent davorts feat of Thttntedy Yo sriee> edt ‘cet tok orew et 37 
beceic used svect Oloon eonenteet edt yetedosd otetes Leer auoeltev 
todd dawertiagin ei ¢1 .eracme” ea ttrat~youctodtre® dtie yitostth 
ar yRouue® gas ir ei-yamo Leddy sd ater itolede .f80L .k ytut ae 
sokeidog Latevse ta aotterieks ei to eseiten bedasdde ed¥" ~ sevoLiet 
giant ote eleven es edt een qibnad woy £122 ww yf berleoe: geed saved 
~ysneleder st .fEGL .6 Yul a “seatenwge oaea Sa@ Kguoedd dae bas 
© Ylvb to tedtel aut gadghedwonsen tiisagedy svete wiosmed ‘gakiene 
ae ,womt voy ei” pattate ,ssoltea edt to molteniqns sdt bas ,i8el 
[ike ,Setwoe to yt ieomatuani aid? to saane ats tet ‘gadgasrts ora” 
o*hedeqwst soy aa saelonoga sien sft te Pan0008 ots of hettber0 sd 
gailselayasedodeiad to soitie edt ot eoderetnes bmon se ‘* ar — . 
Nowtied on od Lite eveds* esnaqtoitrag ont Biot sanceae atu pa 
aTeds*® bar ,“yenos tuo thew ow al aeitite ¢fite edt ,eeko wide mt ‘etuet 
."bine tog on farft coe of aad? tTedto gow Ft motdgterte ot Yew om BF 
edt at esonetsinas oft of we Ynonitest ede todd entetuton Tresnkeld 
fed? yo tateesy edt Bae yauqued gab frel-yoneLodtrnd ‘te eoltto 
forte senebive grxorte af ioote ated Yo worse oat he soltnrogres 


Apa Bi Len Dhak: 


we & ‘ BE 


10 

the insurance company recognized Plummer ac ita agent. At thet time, 
the general insurance broker was endeovoring to collect the premium, 
and at the same time, endeavoring to maintain good relstions with 

all parties. The fact that Sertholomay-Jarling Vomoany made an effort 
to collect from Plummer does not necessarily esteblish the foot that 
they were recognizing him 2s their sent. At thet time, their 
position was well understood by plaintiff. If, by the conferences, 
the parties could prevail upon Plummer to raise the amount necessary 
to pay the premium, the matter would be disposed of to the satis= 
faction of all parties, 

As suggested by plaintiff, we ave thoroughly examined the 
exhibits and the testimony in order to determine whether the finding 
of the trial court wa ageinst the monifest eight of the evidence, 
The record discloses thst there is abundant evidence to sustain the 
finding of the sourt that Plummer was the agent of plsintiff and not 
of defendant. As the premium ws not psid, defendent hed sn undoubted 
right to onnce]l the policy, wWotice was given on November 3, 1931, 
thet the policy would terminate at 12:01 A. M. on November 8, 1971. 
Plaintiff was afforded ample ooportunity to procure other policies in 
order to protect itself =gainst claims, Having determined that the 
premius was not paid to defendant, the court was right in finding 


that defendant ras } within its rights in conoelling the poliey, and 


thot plaimtif? ws wae | indebted to defendant for that portion of the 

premium covering the period from duly 12, ‘jos, to Movember 8, “192. 
“We have ‘oonsidered the other points raised and argued by the 

parties, but in view of the finding made on the preposition of agency, 

there is no need of extending this opinion by 2 discussion of such 

other points. Because of the views expressed, the judgment of the 

pacineatadestimndl Sourt of Chicago should be and it is Bifirmed, 

_ "eset Cietaie. 

DENIS E, SULLIVAN, P.J. AND HEBEL, J. CONCUR, 








OL 
~onkd tad 2A teen ath a tomml? homgagooer eeeqmos commtwank ext 
euinery edt toelies of yxiveveshes caw radon! sheexwend Loremeg ond 
ative aenedteiss heey aletaiom of gadtovaebne ,eni? emee edd te dan 
dxetto me shor yaoyno gedbicoi-yomelodtan tadd toet of saetinveq the 
fedt teat st? detidztes ylirensopen ton.esed tomeyl sett toslion et 
aisdt ,suit fede tA inoue Thedt we wkd geieiagover eren yods 
qnoumorsinos add yd ,ti .Pridmdels yo heoteroehas Llow een moitieog 
Yraseeen tavers elt soies of Vemnels ooge Lievertq Sivoo solinag edt 
~gitce edt of to beegen dd ad Bivow xotiam off ,evimerg ade yeq of 
 gimitreq tLe te aoltost 
edd hentaexs Yivigvoved? overt ow ,tki¢aiede yd) beteeggua. BA . 
gebaukt edd ver¢ene oetereteh of mebze as Yomdtesd edt han stididze 
vonehive ett to tdaiow teetines edt temtage eew Sovem dated ad? to 
ett atetnwe of sonehivs tantawds ef evad?d todd sorefoath Sroose) edt 
tom Due Bvieadals to fteus ett aeo teamed geet tepee offs to, gretbakt 
hetdvolbmy an bed tomkrsted ,bing tom aw madmen: emt ag staphasted ke 
, 08k .f redmerek mo cevig sav eoitok .yeiog ect Loona0 ot digia 
~E8CL .8 Tedmevell a oN .A MSL de Stentiered biaew yokleq edt stadt 
ai goiekiog toddy oxseetg of Yinedrorqe Biawe hebrotia esw tildaleld 
eit test bentaxeted gaivei sankete tenisye Mieett tovton of aebro 
“pabbad ak tdghe Baw too edit stunoaeteh of Diag tom eaw t masrhereree, 
bas, eWL Log ode eadLioonne id abdul ast adsitiw ane - tmehaer eh tes teat 
ent to aeittoy teit x0? snebaetob of nedsanat nsw / eiktadase, sad toast 
005 0 tedeevol.of .ARGL AL Yin’ ow? Bebeny edd. padrovoe auineng 
edt YS Deugss bas beater ataiog sedto od? homebianes oad PF on wepigd 
.Wuoge to toltiesqetg odt ao abam gaibalt edt to woty mi dud sealers 
doue to molesumate o \d apiniqo sist gathaetxe to boom om at gzedt 
ont to taqwgbut, dé ,bossenqee awaty ait ke eauapad wate ‘xasdto 
_sbomniiie af $2 bas, 9d Advode.oyaekd® to gawod teqtosau 
SGIMAIGTA THEMOTUL wenden Gi ge! ainhibeeaiteds 
sAUCHOD o& ~anana CA abet Faget a - exuge 











40481 
THOMAS BROWN, MILTON TURNER and } 
WILLZAM MASON, APPEAL FROM 


Appellants, 
Ve 


| 1 
nn ag ine CO it 
GUY A. RICH/RDSON and WALTER J. CUMMINGS, PJ Gg O L.A 6 1‘ 


as Receivers of the Chiosgo ‘inilways Coe, . 
a Corpe, et al., doing business as [OOK COUNTY. 
GHICAGO SURFACE LINES, 


Appellees, 


MR. JUSTICE BURKE DELIVENED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

This is an appeal prosecuted by pinintiffs from 2 judgment 
entered in the Circuit Court of Cook County, following the trial 
of » personal injury action, wherein the court directed = verdict 
in favor of defendants. There is no substantisl dispute as to the 
proposition of law thet in considering the motion for + directed 
verdict, it was the duty of the court to consider 2ll of the 
evidence in its aspect most favorable to the plaintiffs, together 
with all ressonable inferences arising therefrom. Therefore, we 
have carefully examined the record in order to determine whether 
the court wns justified in teking the c»se from the jury. 

At about 8 Aw M. on August 19, 1937, plaintiff Thomes Brown, 
accompanied by plaintiff Milton Turner who occupied the front seat 
slongside of him, wss driving the 1929 model Nash fovuredoor sedan of 
plaintiff William Mason, who wes not then in the car, in an easterly 
direction on Lake Street in Chicago. Lake Street is an erst and 
west highway. Above that street is an elevated rsilroad, supported 
by steel posts. Sangamon Street runs in 2 northerly and southerly 
direction and intersects Lake Street. Uefendants operate trolley 
Oars running on steel rails on both streets. flaintiffs Brown 2nd 
Turner sought damages because of personal injuries, 2nd plaintiff 
Meson asked for dam ges to his sutomobile. Brown had permission 


from Mason to drive the intter's sutomobile, 





| 





bp 


) 


2 


a 
LeS0a 
eR! dtr BATS SOTA sem @AHORT 
BOWE FARIA ‘ wORAM MARIITW 
gntaadlonqa. 


o¥ 


~OOHIVGD 6G MBTAAW Bue KOBTMANOIZ .A YOO 


I O ht 68 S a10D oyceliaw ogesidd oft lo srevéseed aa: 


eFTRUOD ZOOO @ as sesataud gaiob ,.ie te ygeqrot s 
: . PO a EOAHRUS ‘QRACING - 
ae, ey en a cae 


+ YOO tee Yo Bararas ‘SET Pecci eee st ‘gasue aor rute a 






trensSul e« moti sttidaislg ya: hotuoseoty ineaaa te al aid? 

ieivt edt yoiwollet ,ytaue? dood ta tod ‘thyord one ai beretas 
Yoibier « betosrtih deyoeo edt oseredy ioltea yrup ad Lenonteg ‘8 to 
att e? as oenenee Lettantadsa ot et or eat sadaebaet a %® tovet atk 
bevoorth a tot molten ont guiveblenes at teat ‘oak to ‘ott tsorora 
edt to [Le tebPeace of sHri09 ont te tub edt aon tt .folbxsv 
redeages “gattitaiaic ‘ent of elidatevst team tooqas ate aut sonsbive 
aw ,oteteredt .mottored? urletre aaonvronak ofdasosne7 tis ‘dai 
redtosn exiereteb of tTabro ai drones odt Sorilmexe vilutoreo vad 
| oe edt mort e200 eit gatiat ae boitesent anw trues oad 

~avots samodT titnte te SSCL {GL fouges mo al oA 8 tueds tA as = 
teen jnott ott beiguose ode temte? moti Wiabatg WW botnaqnonoe 
te asbeg rood=tu0t deel ishon “es@L ote waived ese add to abtegmole 

Urotens fis ak «tee od at wont tor osw ode sons moh iLa vitsntete 
has tese an ot toorte xed _sogaodeio au teomti edad 0 nebbeeedh 
betroqase poeotiier neveveds coy ea tosnte ent erode svoniait 200% 
: viredd vor bas vinedtron e ak ant tsomre monrensi set80q ‘foete xt | 
yallert oteteqe atinbasted — stonrde vaio avoooxorat bats oktoork | 
bas aod ettivases’ sedoorts dad no elter foote so patna atso 


EOE 


riisatele bas seoktutad Lonoere9 ‘to oousoed aeganist ‘gee raat 


sarisen. 


agteeinres | beri sor’ sakidonotire ons ot seen’ ball bodes noes 


kanty At Dagny 


-2Lidomotue etterhal ont pean) ot noeed mort 


“SS 





re et cc “v : 1 a Se sie o go pee ty 
7 aoe KY » ° > eT SHE | Om ul ae 


Thomas Brown testified thet he left his home, located »bout 
12 blocks from the place where the rccident ocourred, st about & A.M. 
on August 19, 1937, and drove enst on Lake Street, travelirg in the 
eastbound street cer treeks at an aversge speed of 15 miles per hour, - 
He stated thet on approaching Sangamon Street, he was driving from 
6 to 8 miles an hour; thst directly in front of him rns an sutomobile 
and a truck; that the truck crossed the intersection of Lake and 
Sangamon Streets, and that the sutomobile shend of him wes going 
across the intersection st the time the witness's sautemobile reached 
the rest curb of Sangamon Street; thet he brought his automobile to 
8 Complete stop at the west curb of Jangamon Street; thet he leoked 
south on Sangamon Street and observed no treffie moving north thereon, 
and thot he looked north and saw a street c=r focing south and 
standing at the northwest corner of Sangamon snd inke Streets, and 
that some passengers were getting on and off the street car; that 
he did not see the street car when it sterted up, and thet he aa 
watehing the treffic in front of him; that he shifted his gears into 
first speed and then into second speed and proceeded to cross the 
intersection, going east on the exst bouni tracks of Lake Street; 
that when the front wheela of his sutomobile were in the northbound 
tracks of Sangamon Street, he he=rd 2 crash; that his sutomobile landed 


against an elevated post loceted st the southesst corner of the 
teres ervey says agyrsnceenrontamseestasewnumenannersssrnseassnnTt sein oAONOPAPOAITSAe 
intersection; that he was bleeding from his hesd and had a pain in his 
shoulder and back and thet Turner helped him get out of the automobile; 
that they went to the northwest corner and hailed » passing motorist, 
who took them to the office of = physician at 1389 West Lake “treet, 
Witness then testified as to treatment by the physicien and atsted 
that he was confined to » hospital until September 6, 1937, and to 

his home for two months theresfter, and thet he was unable to work 

on account of having fainting spells. On cross—examinstion, witness 


testified that he had driven automobiles for 25 ye>rs, and was 


a 








taods beteoel ,omed ald MeL ad tedt betiitead awotd eemod? | 


HA @ tyede te .bermnooe dasbloos ad avert vosig edt mort slbeld 8 
edt ni wiifevat? ,tsend! aisd fo teat svewh Boe , FECL .OL teugws mo 
sted «aq welig Bf DO deere sgeveve ao te ekoetsd xm poartte, bayoddese 
met? gaivice enn ax ehoonre Asn gtidosorqye RO todd betata oH 
sLidosotars fe ecw mid to Inert al yitoeriS tadt jrued aa aclin 8 of 8 
| bre asl to mottoogratat edd beeeers sound ot todd ptourd bas 
golog anw mda To baarie alidonotne ody tedd bar gateonss aomegnat 
herpes oiidegotye e'aventtiv edd weld ede te aedtaoerotal edt esetoe 
ot sligountuse eis sdigcotd of tedt preorss momagase Yo dtwo teow edt 
batoal od feat pteonth momagand te dave Juem odd do gote ereiquad.,« 
woavredd dtrom grivou eftiert on beresedo bar soetts Somagash. ne dtyee 
bas atuee gadect seo teetts « wee has ditten bedsel, od. todt bao 

bas ,xéeo ws sdel ban nomagaal To tenteo trexdtten gt te pothaste 
fade greo ¢setge ed? tho bac ao goltteg oxo exegmenesg mos. tant 

sev od tact Bus gqe beviste Fi aos 240. toente ans boa, ton Sab od 
ohid axaen ait Seetide of tedt. paid Yo. Snot? ad obtiess odd. gutdetew 
ed} anor of habaongte bac beeqa bgeose otal sedt bas beogn. tet 
ptasxté otet te edeast Giopy tases odt.oc dene galog .iottoostotal 
haweddition ed# af tote siidometye aid Yo adoode: taortk Ot: node dest 
haha t elidemetws: eit golf ydasto # breed od gfoertS somegee’. to, edoart 


a parent AA cma et 





“ght Yo Tames desedduen sit.¢> betndel tseq betevele ag tealoge 
eng eT Te nen anann tena 


ot Ce Ae A Bi Ae ene a 


std at ming 2 bad bas based ald wove yalbeold Ger si i darts imoktoveregas 
;elidometye eft to tue dey mid bey lel rents! ted? bas. tosd bas rebswore 
sseirotom yaleseq s beligd Sar reetep dewwdieton. odt of dee yodt, tadt 
.foonte oad tees O8EL te aesodesier 2 te Saktho ode of mond, Aone. one 
betede bos onioseyde out yd taemteest of as podtitess mode anontsy 

of bow ,YS0L ,o sedaetaok Lhtom Int iqeos * of benstaae ecw on. tadt 
itor of sideny aan o8 tee bre _tePreoteme edtaom aes zt. euod etd 
anondte woltenimexs~gepte £0 salloge wadgats? ataved, to dauones ne 
anew bre ,eteoy 8s xot solidomotus goviebd Red od teds boltiteet 


i 


3 
thoroughly familiar with the intersection where the accident occurred; 


that he knew that 2 street car lire was operated on Sangamon Street; 
thet he estimeted that the distance from the west curb of Jangemon 
Street to the west rail of the southbound trecks thereon was 15 feet; 
that his automobile wss going 5 to 6 miles an hour when struck; that 
he did not see the street Gar start sovth on “-ngamon Street after 
he hed started to oross the intersection; thet he did not know how 


fast the street car was goings that ‘the Lett : rear end id his mand 


foaentre Seem 
Pet 


mobile wes struck by the left front of ‘ne ey ears that the 





ee ni Pearce ee renee 


pavement was ary that morning and the at his four wheel erakes were in 
good Condition. He further stated thst on a dry pevement he could 
stop the sutomobile in 10 or 15 feet, end msybe in » shorter distance, 
Milton Turner testified thst he ess sitting alongside of 
Brown; thst they were both on their way to work st the time; that 
when the sut6mobile was 100 feet west of Sangamon Street, it wos 
traveling about 8 miles an hour, 2nd thst they were following 4 ear 
and a truck which had been in front of them from Ogden Avenue to 
Sangamon Street; thst when the sutomobile in which the witness w-s 
riding came to the west curb of Sangamon Street, it slowed down to 4 
or 5 miles an hour; thet he looked south and saw no traffic coming 
north on Sangamon Street, and thet he looked north on Sangamon Street 
and saw a street car standing on the northwest corner and thet he saw 
passengers getting on and off the street car; thot "we then continued 
from the west curb of Sangemon Street to cross the intersection and 
I didn’t pay any more attention to the street car until I heard it. 
hit the automobile. shen the front wheels of the autemobile were in 
the northbound tracks of Sangamon Street, it was struck by the street 
car, The left front side of the street car struek the left rear wheel 
and fender of the automobile, After thei&mpact, the sutomobile was 


thrown sgsinst an elevated pole on the southeast corner of Sangamon 


a 


& 

jberxu9;0 taebtoos edt exede aotteeeredad odd ddtw teiliast ydeuerodt 
jfeotee somegaet no beteveqe eew wil tae toorda 2 tad? wend ad fed} 

; fonsgiss to dao tao ad¢ mott sonedelbh edi fedr botnuttes od todd 
geest Gf aew xéeredt ainots baueddtuoe edt Yo Lint teow edt of seors8 
gad? plolrete neds roo nd aelim 9 ot a gutoy exw sLidomotus eid tent 
li softs teors® aomeyee’ oe dives state tae worden odd 990 fou Sib od 
wou word tom Bb of fade jrokdeoervedal sat seoto of betista bed od 

oe etd ie oe TOE trot ait sialand qariog ecw tad tooxta od? tent 


Poi C DAI ae Yon Sei virgo * nel saaaesiiton= 


ei? tant i789 ‘teotia ont te teu? Stet add we dowrte ecw oiidom 


i ae 





(a pmo a p eh a pecans 


| ai otee gikons bnedy xu ‘ein test ae “ wetdarzon tedd yb aan r dnonevag 
dives af taowavod exh & no tose bet ate soddus? oh smobtibaos boog 
| ,enaeteks wettoda s ai adyewm hae ,teet Gf te Of ae eLidenotue edt qote 
to ehlegnole winttee sew out fant hettbtesd ram isl wot Lt | 
tea? poutt edt te Mtow ef yen tied? se tétod oT Sy vortt todd jawora 
eaw ot wtoonte Homage e To teow feet OOF asw aLidowede edt wore 
tao 6 gettwod Lor bt oe yor dedd bee qived ots oeLim 8 tuods gitLovert 
of ayaors aebeG wort wad? to taott as teed bad dotse tourt 8 one 
i een enontin odd doidy si eLidomotws odd mode dade jteorse mouegase 
! > ot avob bowole ¢t “ toors® aonagatet! to dxwo teew ont ‘oF ome gakbiz 
! gitlaee oitters ost wat bas dtuoe badeos od tastt pxwod as soitn & 20 
i teaxta Romegne? O- ht LEAK bedoos on teat bus atoorte owe ganz no ‘tttom 
wie oa tadd bie reate0 tasmdtson edt ao gadbacte x00 dastte. 2 ase bas 





Haut £ tioo nod? sw" tant prse toorte anid re bare iG saltiog ereyenaeg 
has aoltoverotnt anid snore. ot torte nomeganne to eyo teaa ous aon? 
$k breed I iitas TSO toorte od? of aokiaetts rom was wea ‘t'absp 1 

at ‘erow sitdonotiss out to aLosdey tnont ont mosis +2Ltdonotus edt thd 
feexte edd wW dourte: anew tk atoorss. somagan’ ze axoert bavoddazoa ode 
| foedw 289% ftel ed¢ Xourte 1H sorte ade to: adie taonk get oat yi00 


| 


i} ecw eLidonoaue nae stocqm lens meth secidouoeus ods to rebast bre 


PEERERPO USO, Aas 


romeynee %q tomteo tessdtuoe ads m0 fog. bosavete ae -tentmye sword 





6 

and Lake Streets. fhe automobile landed on its right side. After 

the impact, the street car stopped 3) feet south of the center of 

the intersection, My face and left hand were cut up and I helped 
Brown get out from the wrecked cnr." He then testified »s to visiting 
the doctor. ‘hile at the doctor's office, two policemen who had 
heard of the accident, arrived and took him to the scene of the 
accident. The street car had deperted, ani the witness and the police] 
men waited for » few minutes until the street car came north on its 
return trip, The policemen examined the street car and the automobile 
and made out an sceident report. On Cross-examination, this witness 
testified thst when the sutomobile res 100 feet west of Sangamon 
Street, it eas going 6 miles an hour; thst the distance from the west 
curb of Sangamon Street to the west rail of the southbound trecks is 
*“sbout 10 or 15 feet"; that the distance from the north building 

line of Lake Street to the north rail of the westbound track “would 

be practically the same distance ss from the sidewalk line to the 
track on Sangamon Street." He further testified on cross-exeminstion 
thet after starting across the intersection from the west curb of 
Sangemon Street, he did not see the street car atart south on 
Sangamon Street; thst prior to the morning of the accident, he had 
been driving an automobile for about 8 yenrs, and had frecuently driven 
the automobile in which they were riding. He st»ted that on « dry 
street trav@éRing 6 to 8 miles an hour, he could stop « 1929 Nash 

with four wheel brakes, in 8 feet; that he was familiar with the 
intersection, and thet he was not paying very much attention to what 
Brown was doing in the way of driving; thet when he saw the street 

ear for the first time, the automobile was at the sidewalk on the west 
side of Sangsmon Street, and that he had not seen the street oor until 


that time, and thet he did not notice whether the street oar was 


standing there "when we were back ouite « distsnce," 


& 
weeks e8ble tipit e¢f no Bebnel elivometur aft .ateertS eed bes 


—E a 


te “otneo oft To décor fest Of bayaete wee dood, wad tongm? ont 

| : hegkerd I ban ga duo etree hired Stel bee Soe? YR nektoonts#nt odz 
1 gaiviety @2 ee beltivee? med? oN “ceo Bevoetw ent mett tue fog AWore 
hed age Wneoliog oot ,soitto atsodees edy te eLidk .sotoeb ent 

li aie te sndop ocf of mit Moot bar bowkrin ~taebioon edd bo Desed 
~aoilog odo tox eesntiw edt fac ghotraqebd bail tao teoente edt dashiode 
efi wo ities saa tan Ponda ade Ltew eogucia wet 2 tot betiew wom 

| ae@lidometus oft bax aso ferrites ed? bontmaxe memeotiog O8T eqitt mxitox 
| erentinv £20? .cotteninero-esere aC .iteces tusbioon ms tuo shew —_ 
Howegiek te taser fost OOL saw SLidemetaw ort mode dead Best iteot 
teow edo mext anavdeth ot cant pried as geile 8 yalbou ean ti ,tonute 
sad sulnes? Bauncsttuae sa to Lint ¢eeu sat od teorte nomapaed to due 
 gathiied dian sd? monk eonetadb edt tade ;"tost af to OF suede" 
biuow* Aoett dawodsacy et Lo Lint dtrom adt of seoxse aded to ended 
add of amii xfewehis ond mort ac oometedh oxen oft Yleoddoeny ed 
| so ttantaexeevoTe no Betiiveed reddcut 6H ",toorte momegaee me Woke 
| %o dese tee odd movt noitosnvetal st weoeres gaiitede teste seit 
#o Styoe deate cep gteeeta eA? oa fon DLE of .deor7E momegesd 

bed od ,or9Dionn edt to sriaves off of Tole todd pteorte momeguiae 
} asvixd yléneupett bed bas ,serey 8 eyed tot olidometua ae gaivich seed 
| yth « ao tedd betete of .galbic eter yod? doidw at olidomotye ent 
Agel GOEL # qote dived edt gruod ne e8ite 6 of 6 jadkaves? teeorte 

ott dtiw tatlinet ese od seit 72e0t 8 ak yeoderd Loodw xvot Htlw 

toile of soktnette down Yrow golbysq ton wow oe font bah .wohsooarotat 
seords edd wae ed aodw dod? pyakvdeh Le yaw eds mt galeb’ gew nword 

tacw ogt ao tlewebla edt te saw eitdometun oft omit terk? ont tot tee 

| Xiteur tae seerte ed? meen tom bed of teat bas .teorte nomeyanl to ohLe 
est two teorte od? wedvonw epiton dot SLb od dealt Hee ated tat 
“,ecnstelh © stun Soad exew ew abde” otodt gaxthnete 


William Mason testified thet he owned the sutemobile that 
was involved in the accident; that the three pleintiffe worked in 
the same vicinity, and th=t on the morning of the accident, he did 
not need to be at work until 9 A.M.e, and for that reason took a 
street car to his place of employment; thit on the way to work, he 
saw his automobile turned over against an elevated post at the south- 
east corner of Banzamon and Lake Streeta, He testified that the 
brakes were in good condition, and thet prior to August 19, 1937, 
his oar was “in perfect condition", On cross-examinztion, he stated 
that he did not have a safety aticker on the Car. 

C. Wousle testified thst he wae a police officer for the 
City of Chicago, assigned to the Desplaines Street Stetion; thet at 
about 8:15 on the morning in queation, he received » enll to inveati- 
gate an accident, snd that he end his partner, Officer Smith, rent 
to the scene and observed the automobile as it lay slongside of an 
elevated post on the southesst corner of Sangamon and Lake Streets; 
that they then proceedéd to the doctor's office and returned with the 
plaintiff Turner to the scene of the »ccident, where he interviered 
the motorman of the street car on his return trip; that the motorman 
stated thet the sutomobile “was going 50 miles an hour or more and 
Sut him off"; thet the witness then stated thot he did not think the 
automobile @puld go thet fest; thot he examined the street car and 
saw a dent on the front left hand side of the street car, which was 
in the rear at the time; thst it wes not 2 very large dent snd one 
Could tell that there had been an impact; that there wos some black 
paint on the dent snd that there were no other m=rks on the street 
car, and that he examined the sutomobile and "saw the left rear wheel 
and fender wes dented", 

Re Smith, a police officer assigned to the Desplaines Street 
Station corroborated the testimony of his partner. 








teat ofidemotva add benvo sit tadé Heft ites? woeel meliliy 
«kt betcow ettitaieic eetdd odt todd jimetitess ory at bevlovar dew 
BES ed ,tnshince of? to git betrom eat Mo fod? fete ,etinioiv emce odd 
® dood sopesy tedt wt bao ..MeA © Litas ston te ed ot Beod ton 
ed .ktew ot Yaw en? oo tadt ptoenyoigme to Seeig eid of “iso ‘tontte 
efituoe ed¢ ts teoe beteve is no faciages cévo Searut slidemoetus aid wae 
oat test Bektites? of ,atverte eed hac womegnee to vetoed sede 
eS2EL (Of teugua of volte tedd bas yottibnee boog al etow weatext 
bottte of ,mokteaiaeré-cooto ad staotdibago festteq mi" wen san efd 
tay adt mo Skokie YOSten o svad ton Bh od tad 

oat tet tevlttd af Loc & paw od Yolf beliicver eLevow a 
te dade prottet? soors? osntetqanet ot of Sonylete legseia? Yo yO 
~tteeent o¢ Ifen 2 Bevisear ed ,setteeup af galetem ad? me 82:8 tuoda 
suse ,kthe® ressttO yrondreq bid bme ox dere dae ,tasbioon ne Gtey 
#e Yo Shlegnets yet #2 es olkdometun adt bewrsedo bane eadon Ott Of 
pefeurd? ovat bie momegac! Yo torres facedtuer edt mo tiog betevels 
adt dd iw beatutet Mae woltto e'tefoeh ef? of BOhsso0Te wont ‘yads ‘todt 
beweivretal ed stéde ,tnediecs off to execs sit ot: xoatet ‘*titnielg 
aomroten edt tedt yqakxt axyter etd no tee feorte dt to mamnetom edt 
Be strom to twod an selim Of gntoy eax slidowotne ‘od? teat botave 
edt untdé tod bib ed tedé batere wert dvintte odd tostt 7 Po wid oo 
feie too goorte edt boolmexe ed Godt {tect tedt oy dived eLidomostus 
aoe fokde tee deette oft To obke band Wel tnert odé no SHeb # wae ~ 
ato bus web egtal yrew « ton gow #1 todd yamit edt to Yoon edt at 
iced ewoa eow erat tede ytoaqad ae nesd bed evens feat Lked Glues 
testte oft no sdtam vo9ddo ‘On orow Srodé deft bas tmeb add ao titeq 
feade tee fel ed? was" Sae SLenne: ott bedimete on tad? bar y tee 
‘,"betaeb Bex rebaot ‘has 
toorde eonteiqast odt of bomglana ‘qoontte eolloq # ,deted sf qaas 
“xontragq eid to womtseot od? Bodsredortoo: wdteade 





Henry Martin testified th t he wags employed at an establish- 
ment about 25 or 30 feet exst of the southeast corner of Sangamon 
and Leke Streets; that sbout 8:05 4. Me. on the day of the accident, 
the witness wos waiting for a truck to come in with a shipment, and 
that he wes standing on the sidewnlk in front of the plece, looking 
northwest; that "there wos a bunch of traffie going by", snd that he 
paid no attention to the traffic; that sll of = sudden he hesrd a 
crash and noticed a street car; that “I noticed » bunch of traffic, 
a truck snd car and then I noticed snother car behind this first 
Gar get hit by the street cer and I went over there. The street 
csr was going south. It was a one-man street eore I didn’t see the 
operator of the street cor until the orsah", Upon being ssked whether 
he noticed the automobile before the impect, he ststed: “Why, I 
noticed part of it. I didn't pay mch attention to anything at the 
moment, but I noticed thst the front of the sutomobile ros going 
across the north and southbound trecks." He further st»ted that the 
automobile was struck when its front wheels were in the northbound 
tracks of Sangemon Street snd thst the rear of it wes in the southbound 
tracks; that he saw the street cnr hit the automobile, snd thet the 
sutomobile wos thrown off the track ond hit 2 post and tipped over; 
that it was thrown in » kind of angle sideways and landed up ageinst 
® pillar over on the southesst corner of Sangamon and Lake Streets; 
that the automobile turned over twice and landed on the right side 
with its front fscing east and its rear west. He stated that there 
was & lot of traffic going east on Lake Street thet hour of the 
morning; thet when he first saw the sutomobike, it was just «bout 
coming into Sangamon Street, »nmi thot the front wheels were just about 
entering the southbound tracks, and thet st thet time, the street 
car was standing still; thet when the front wheels of the sutomobile 


were in the southbound rails on Sangomen Street, the street ear was 


-~felldetes ae t« beyeigqnue ann ei ted bedtigest sabdieare: wash 
Honeyae? To LSAT dacsdtyon edt te Fee feet oz “0 3&8 tuode Faom 
stwebloos edt to yeb add mo ww .A 8028 toss ted jatsorte exed bas 
| bes ,tnemgide a dtie ai emoo of dosts a tot gait iow aew exoatin edt 
i gnitool ,eealg ef? to tnort at Alowehte ott mo gathasze as od god 
ei f¢edt bas , “ye gintow orth axvdt Teo donud a saw sted” tedd ;tnewd3ves 
2 bieed sa meboaer # to Lis omit okt ord ond of moktastts on blag 
eoitterd te deoaud « besitan I* sent TAS deerte s bookton bas dento 


‘PFeacks eid? anided “ee tec¢¢one beeiton I “‘aode hia und bets dour? a 


deotts eft Sree rove doow fT ban cum seotte og? Yo Pid tog cad 

edt ese fabit 1 .tk0 s084tS aeuHbno wesw aX sidtuoe gutey aw 40 
rodtade hese wiisd awed "gets off Ifday tao teorse odd tO tera tego 
| 1 ,wr" sbetets of ,vosaml Sat svoted sfidamet yas eit besttoa ed 
and te guisvyes ot aoltastis deus wo F*abtb I wet te taeq beotter 
gilheg aev oLidemetes e#¢ To taovt st tad? heotten I dud .enemom 
| ett fail? betets teddewt of “sedoets Buwedddves has déton odt seoros 
| haueditduon sdt ai oroe aleodw snort efi adds Moutts ‘eow ofidomotua 
| batoddtios eft ai gow Ho to teer at? Yodd hak foorde Romayutnt to adontt 
| ad? fadd bas ,elidowetin oft Pkt 19S fearte eit wae ‘od. dads vedooad 
prewe heqel? baie taaq x dia bar foots edt Te oeotds Rew oLidomodiss 
| tentens ay bebast bas ayewebie ainne to ba kt » ak avords new eh "peat? 
| setede#® ovat Bre memeyne® to tamtoo teatitwee At ao avo weklic 8 
abie gilt ont mo behaal fue bolted tove hemw) sLidowetus on Faith 
orsitt tad? betade oH sdeow Test eff bab de00 gatoat troxt edt atin 
oft to tuod dort toerse Bxed me teas Qakoy OLttert to Fol 2 aay 

tueds feut saw th ,Shidomotin 6a wee tet? od weds tidd pgutetom 
tuede see Stew eloode taott sdf ded? tre yteerdo domauited tag patos 
toorge 8 comit sad? ae todd Baa (edldexd bawadatdoe ond gadredae 
alidemotus sdt to eleede taor? edd node test iiiite gatbiste eae 180 

i aew tO eotte eit .deoret sear no elier menue oft mi oxew 


1 r Lol a uy 
| : ' ea Fa, ; Py ity Pee yt Die ey wr 85) Po ae 


7 

parked, and thot he did not notice any passengers getting on or off. 
He further testified that "just before the impact or crash, I did 
not hesr any sounds of gongs or warning given by the overstor of the 
atreet cnr, and thet the street cor stopped when he crossed the east 
and westbound tracks, He crossed them and stopped. He pulled the 
car away. After the street car hit the csr, the street car stopped 
about one length south of the esstbound treeks. About the east pert 
the front end of the street ec»r struck the sutomobile", On cross- 
easminetion he testified that he had been driving an automobile since 
he was 15 years of age; that the automobile involved in the »ccident 
was traveling “s Couple of miles an hour ‘hen it woe struck", and 
that cars were parked along the south curb of Lake Street at the time 
ef the accident. ie acknowledged his signature to 2 statement made 
by him to an investigator for defendants on September 11, 1927. He 
stated that he did not remember whether he told the investigator 
that he couldn't give any information as to the speed of the street 
car, that perhaps he did make the statement, but he did not remember 
it; thst he did not remember whether he esid the street car fan about 
10 feet after the sccident; thet he did not remember that he said 
the sutomobile moved to the right to avoid » collision; th t he did 
not remember whether he stated that the automobile se going between 
15 emd 20 miles an hour, snd stated, *msybe I did snd maybe I didn't 
make thet statement", He testified th«t he has had oce»sion to stop 
automobiles with four wheel brakes treveling st speeds of from 25 to 
40 miles an hour, and thet he could stop = 1929 four door Nesh, 
equipped with four wheel brakes, on a dry street traveling at from 

4 to 6 miles an hour, in “s couple of feet”, 

Stanley Spejeher testified that he was « commercial photogra- 

pher, By means of his testimony, two photographs of the sutomobile 
lying on its side against the elevated post on the southesst corner 


of Sangemon and Lake Streets, were introduced in evidence, 


j 





bi 

otto vo ao ghiittey steghsereq Yaa Betton ton BLO ot fedd bre .bedtred 
Bib X ,daeto to toacak ents eroted faust” rant Dertiduotd xedieut oh 
af? to teters¢0 add yd werhs geintew Ye egtton to abawee Yas teed Por 
fone off beeserd od mety Sagcote tee feerte e€h fect base . ceo teorte 
ed? boli sh .beqrote bos moet Researt ef ,adlenr? bavotéaew hee 
beqqate too teers ode yreo edt Sif tao teordés eft restA Lyews sHd 


- trey fees adt food .edoete baoedtens edt to déwpe Mtynel bao syods 


-wegte of .“efidasetue 44% xoutts cao teerte ext to bao daort ont 
anata olidesetye ne gaivixd neod boil et ted? boititaet od neki snimane 
tnebloos ad? ai bovLownl slivometus 84d fodt peg Yo etmey Of aew sd 

hae , "outta ace $f asi ty0d as eells to alquoo 5 * gatlevaxd saw 

omit at ts paense exed th deue supe out gues bette orew sted taitt 
ahem dieuetete o of stwtemgke eld boabelecavos OM .thebiooe eft to 
el TSE Lf xedmstqee ne etusinetad tot totegateoval ak of min Ya 
cetngiteovai add bled od resdttody rodwamey toa bIb on todd botete 
fsetts ef? te bebqs add of eb NOLtowtetal yrs ovis FibLuved of teat 
ratiuseee ton bEb so tint .tuewetede eat oxem bio od sqantrog tet x80 
fvoda wet tee teorte edd bkee of rodtedw codmenes tom bLh od tet ytt 
bts oe tosit veduemet ton bib af tet? pluebinor Sct retts toet OF 
bib of ded pnedetifeo » biovs of iylt edt oF BevoR OLidonodwe wit 
itsewted etkow ecw elidometwe odd tedt betetde od vod¥erw vedmemer Yon 
tinbib I odyem tee BE X odyan” hotere hae xvod ae Bolte Of has at 


qots of notesno had end ed tent Dektigeos of ."tuemetare ged sien 


of 88 mott to ebsoge ta *yatlever? eeietd Loedy thet Athy eelivonotus 

deck rood tw0ot SSL © qote bios od tad? dae .nwod ms Belk Ob 

nor? ts aeacaviey torte . & m8 dank Seadih wale athe : 
-staotody Lelorsmmoo 2 sew Od tent Aestbans “aedoteq® dasha 23 

e{idometus edt To eriqatgo toda ont vUombteet eld ‘Yo masts YI sraig 

asnr16d teasiditvon eat no deod bevaweLs of? Pentigh obka ett ao gatyl 

seonebive at beoubotial ereq ,gateetss eded ban Romagnet Io 


Henry Posnecki, a boy, who, st the time of the trial, was 
13 yerrs old, testified that st 8 o'clock of the morning in question, 
he was helping his mother in » tavern at Peoria and Loke Streets; 
that he eas on his way to cash a large bill st - tavern loonated nat 
the northwest corner of Jangamon and Lake Streets; thet he walked 
rest on the north side of Lake Street, snd thet when he resched the 
northesst corner of Leke and Sangamon Streets he saw = street car 
parked on the northwest corner fscin south; thst he 1s waiting 
for the street car to go in order to Cross snd thet he wos watching 
the conductor, thet the conductor was toking fares and giving trans- 
fers out. He stated that “then after < while I »as just going to 
cross, then I herrd = orash and I looked and the street car hit the 
left rear wheel and restr fender and knocked the car over twice 
against a post and rolled boek, The street car moved up to the corner, 
then he stopped end waited for the policemen and the policemen 
checked up." On Ccross-@€xamination, he stated thet he was at the 
corner all together before the secident and =fter the seccident sbout 
15 minutes; thxt when he came to the corner he ser the atreet oor 
standing there and facing south, and thet sbout 19 minutes sfter 
the accident, he saw three policemen srrive, This witness recognized 
his signature to a statement that he gave on September 14, 1937. 
On the trial, counsel interrogsted him .2 to whether the investigetor 
asked him if the street cor was standing or moving, and if it vas 
moving, how fast. The witness snswered; "I do not know how fast it 
was going", He testified thet he did not tell the investigator that 
the motorman sounded his gong; thet he did not tell the investigstor 
that the eastbound svtomobile moved to the right to svoid hitting 
the street onr; thet he couldn't see; thet he did not tell the 
investigator that the front left of the car struck the right rear of 
the suto, end thet he did not tell the investigstor thot the street 
ear hit the left side of the sutomobile, 





eee ,lehet ed? to emlt sd? fe .otr ~yod # ,iwearegt cine 
wioifesvo at gxiaten oft to doofo’e B te dade botittes? .blo eteey of 
qetoorde® edad bee witee’ to mvived @ at eeddom eid gniqiod esw od 
te beteogl reve? « te {Lid ourel o dent of Yew aid fo ote od todt 
vedios sf fent yatesree oat bee womagee? to temroo feseditren oft 
ait Borloser of wetly tere har ytoord? oved Yo Obée MProt etd wo teew 
29 geoTks a wee Od eteertS eomegnst bas sated te rertos seneddien 
guktiow ore at tetd pttuoe ontect xentoe teowdtron ed? ao beottag 
gaitieten wer ef ted? Dom seote of Tebre of oy oF tno teexrte ent tol 
~aaert paivin bas stust goidet see totoubaos eff tadd .totveubnos eft 
os gitom taut sew 1 efide « tottae neds” godt Batete of due axst 
awaits tif tee feorte od? bare betook I ben deere « fread T ned?  peerd 
+ Opiet rete tee ade bexngn’ bos oOhest weet Se Leedw greed ster 


gtenteo ad? of qu heves uso teerts od? ston boifer bie feoy s taidingn 


texeoting ot} Ive nomeotiog edt tot hetiow ba» beqnote od wodt 

edt te wow of dort hedete ed \wobtantnexe-ss0"0 ad “.qy Nexoode 
tiveds feebioos S19 todt< Baw Mpbfose od? oroted redteyed IL ‘vemres’ 
tao teorts onf wee ad Temreo of? gf eneo ed godw Tadd peoduntm OF 
west aetcuxta OF suede tere bar ,W¢voe gakost bas eredt yatdiade 
hegtayeost srectiw aldT .eviven sewevlion vordt exe On ytHebloos sat 
TEL SL tedestqot ac aves Of ted tremegere a oF Satagte ati 
cotenitecvnt eds vertade of se mid betegertstad Loenvod eisite ote 20° 
gee $i HE fon ypalven to vatbuste exw too toorte one Ti mid batee 

Sk teat wor wesv tom ob I". :bereweno emachiw ef? feet wor yyolvom 
tedd soteniteovnt edt [fet tan bib od Sod bet iveed, oH ."gatog ear 
rotegkdaovad adt {6s tom Sih od todd. yyooy ait hebmece Hemrotom Bd 
gakttid blove of tigi. sift of Sevem elidomotus havedtess odd sett 

ott Lins ton bib of sade pede Vabives od taney fase Soetée dt 

to tne tinty oc? Aourte seo oft Yo Pek Prout eit todd roteghieevnl 
foarte ant ted? coteyiteownt ste £feh tom bib et torte baw’ lotsa) ent 

. oe  eomete en Te Chto MeL otF SET too 


9 
George Skala testified that st sbout 8 o'clock of the morning 


in cuestion, he wns standing on the sidewalk outside of the plant 

of the Refrigerstor Applicsance Company, on the east side of Sangamon 
Street snd about 25 to 30 feet south of the southesst corner of Lake 
and Sangamon ,8treets; that he wes looking north on ‘Sanzsmon Street 
and west on Lake Street; thet he saw & on@ée-man street car ston at 

the northwest corner of Sangamon and Lake Streets, end thet some 
passengers were getting on and off; that there was a Nash Sedan going 
esst on Lake Street; th t when he first se" the sutomobile, it «ss 
just south of the west street csr line on 3angemon Street, ond that 
the automobile was going about 4 to 6 miles an hour. He stoted that 
"the auto was just about commencing te cet into the southbound rails. 
when the front wheels of the sutomebile were in the southbound tracks, 
the street car storted. I heard no signal or gong sounded by the 
operator of the street car st the time it storted to go south on 
Samgamon Street, or before the impact, At the time of the impact, 

the street csr wes moving bout 8 to 12 miles sn hour. The left side 
of the street car struck the left reser fender xni wheel of the suto- 
mobile, turning it over twice, end it ianded against an elevated pole 
locsted at the southeast corner of Sangemon and Lake Streeta. The 
front wheels of the avtomobile were on the northbound tracks of 
Sangamon Street, and the rear wheels were on the southbound tracks of 
Sangamon Street at the time of the collision. The sutomobile is shout 
10 to 12 feet long. At the time the street cnr started, I saw the 
operstor of the street car hand out transfers snd collect fares, The 
operator was not watching traffic going east on iake Street at the time 
the street cer started." On cross-—examinsation, he teatified thet the 
front of the street car was sbout 2 or 3 feet south of the building 
line at the crosswalk of Lake Street when it was stending; that he 

saw some people gettkng on the street car and some getting off, end 


that in his opinion the automobile was going from 4 to 6 miles an hour 








€ 
atiezon edt to weolo'o § tueda te tad? Hoktisest. alate sgroed 


taalq ed? to ebletue Alawabie oct me gaibuntea eew od stoiteoun al 
Kowsgies to Shie tese od? my ,Yanqapo goneoilaga rot eneg inten edt te 
aded te s90t¢0 teeodtyon act To dtioa Seat O8 ot 5 Suede bre soerte 
TAOTte Komsyess ag dtaaa saisood asw Gf tod? jateots®, somegas® bas 
os gaze 189 teerte aem-ene 2 wee ad toads ‘heonse sale MQ Feo" ‘bas 
noe tad? Sas ,eteayes exed bas somegand te rento9, teowsltton add 
giieog ashes fant « ges o10dd fadd jMo bes ao yaitdoy etee exegaesesq 
fer th .slidometuc sdf wee gethl of goede sods jdeort2 saad 19 tes 
ted? bas ,foorte momagnet ag sail tao teerte aoe ods te dtwoe teu 
tei? etode oh .tvat ae alin G6 of & tyeds galog ace sLidonotun ode 
-2liet Saueddi2uen ect otti tem of galocenaeo tueds text aew. Maing oder 
eeaoetd Aaveddtvee od? of eee widowotue at to afoedy sao? oat ete 
sd YW bebunoe goog to fanghe oa braed i sbotxate rae foorte ons 
ho dtuoe og of hetiste gi amt odd ge tao sestta edt to sotar9g0 
atoeget odd Le oald add FA ptoagad one sreted 10 _gtogzaé Somsyet 
ebta thet oat «avec at eoidm 81 a? @ tyeie yiivon een ts9. forte oad 
~otue edt to feede bas tehmet teem stad add Fourie T29, foorte sd? to 
eloq bateveis as teniegs bobord @2 bao .9eint seve #2 gotarut ,eiidom 
ad? .atesnes edad bas somegaah to trenton teaod@uoe ad? ta betaoel 
. te afore bayoddtton edt ap oven siidquetys oat to eleede saoxt 
te exost? bauodddwoe add ao stv elesdw, teem eid bas .teorts momeyass 
tuods ef Siidomotas aff saoletiloa edt to amit odt ta soaxts mons pane | 
edt wae I ,botuste tue teette edt watt eff G4 .gaok test SL of OL 
ait .#onck doelies dan exetensrd tuo Awad tap soette edt to sevaxego 
eit eft de tosTt? etal ao dase galog Oiler? galdetsn toa aby tosateqgo 
edt tad? Hobtiteed o¢ soitenkgexe-seore a0." .bedrate 199 teenta edt 
‘gatbLiud alt Yo dtwae Fook F xo 8 dueds. gx noo texte edd to tort 
of dndt yanthaste eax ¢2 agde foorts wad to Alawegots odt ta oatt 
bne ,tto yaltteg omog bas tao tosxte sdf mo gaddteg elgosq.emos wee 
sted ae e9lim 8 of > mott gadog saw elidemotue ent molaigo etd at tadt 








10 
across the intersection. He stated thet he had driven sutomobiles 


for 2% years, and that he had experience in stopping cutomobiles 

at speeds up to 45 and 50 miles an hour, and thet in his opinion a 
1339 Nash with four wheel brekes in good condition, being operated 
on a dry pavewent at 4 to 6 miles an hour, could be stopped in 

from 1 to 3 feet, and thet if it was equipred with two wheel brakes, 
it could be stopped in 6 to 10 feet, 

A physician testified ss to hie services and the rensonable=- 
ness of his charges and the charges of the hospital. At this juncture, 
the plsaintif? rested. 

| The defendants pleced on the stand the motorman and seven 
persons who were passengera on the street eczr at the time of the 
accident, The substance of their testimony ws thot they observed 
the sutomobile traveling esst on Lake Street st a speed of around 590 
miles sn hour; that the sutoemobile e=s from 50 to 199 feet vest of 
Sangamon Street at the time the motorman of the street car started to 
eross the intersection, and that the motorman stopped the car quickly; 
that the driver of the sutomobile tried to swing out of the way of 
the street car, and that the automobile "flew across to the eleveted 
post"; that te operator of the street car then drove the street ear 
ecross the intersection in order to get it out of the way of traffic, 
and that the operstor of the street onr wes not Collecting fares sat 
the time of the ernsh. 

George Gerseh, the operator of the street car, testified that 
he was 47 yesrs of sze, ond that he had been employed as 9 motorman 
for 25 years; thet when he stopped the oar at the northwest corner 
of Sangamon and Lake Streets, a women got off and another person got 
on; thet he closed the doors of the c=r, looked east and west but he 
Could not see far because of the building on the northvest corner; 


that he started the car and moved nbout 5 feet when he saw an sutomobile 


| Wekticnotue aevitb bad of tedd botete OM .mottecsnotmt wit saa - 
etlidoxetue yuieqete mi semairaqns bad od ted? Bae ,etpey 8 sat 
e weielgo eld ul tad? bar evo om achiw O8 Das BR oF au abesas #0 
 hetetege nated el titase boop mi eects Loody «woX ‘div dank Oger 
ak begqote sc dive ytwvod ae eelia @ of » te demoted th a ao 


—— feede ors Hite earnest sow ¢2 TL todd Ste ,doet F oF £ more 
. steat? Of oF 8 al Hocwete hyphen 
 wptfenesean at tee mentverse oid of an bosthees? aaloieydy AO 


ee 


acaba eidt v4 letkened eft to heaames ont bee Begrado “ee to i deat 

‘" “beraet veneers ete 

gover bas nomtaten oft Baste add ue bepale gtunbaoteb eat . sal 
edt to snl? edt te tom teovte ant mo eropaonanq eter ode ‘atootsa 
“perréedo yodt teat sev Wowk teed “ist? to sonstedve od? stmoptoor 
- 0&8 bedore te poeqe « t+ tearse ated mo tere gtilovett eiidomesus re 
“to teow feat OOf of @8 mort exw oiidonotus odt dast itued a9 “eet tn 
ot Hedvate reo reorte add 19 nesitotom ott ontd ott de ¥oords domagant 
-YDloiwe tee wnt Bexqots averotem edt ted? bas ywoltosexedat add seote 
“to yew edt to tue gakwe Of beled sLidowotue adt to Yevlad dad tadt 
hetevele add of seoved welt” eitdomotwa Sdt tadt han .teo teente o: : 

‘geo teerts oft eveth asd tao foorde off to Toteteqe edt tend {% 80: 
solttart Yo Yeu oft to fue Fi ted of tebts at neiseseretal edt | asore 
$e eete® sieateameal ton en tao teers ont te ‘wotaxegs ade fine tb 


ted? Boktites? reo teerts eft Fo Weditdde edt .doweed vito. 
S scuaiad Be ee aber need bed on teat hos sae ¥e oreey ner 


‘a. foe a 
ji ; 





il 
coming east about 200 feet away at about 25 miles an hour; thet he 
sounded the gong, 2nd thst when it spperred that the rutomobile was 
not going to stop, he applied his brakes and brought the street ear 
to a stop on the eastbound tr-cks of iloke Street; that the avtomobile 
continued to travel east and struck the street car and then struck 
s pillar, and that the sutomobile did not slacken its speed when 
approaching the intersection, and thet there were no vehicles dn 
front of the street car to obstruct his view, 

It is manifest from the above statements thet there was a 
Slear conflict 2s to the essential issues. We have not summarized 
the testimony introduced in behalf of the Jefeniants because we have 
been searching the record in an endeavor to ascertain whether there 
was sufficient competent evidence, viewed in its most favornble light, 
from the stsndpoint of plaintiffs, to recuire submission of the oese 
to the jury. We have, however, read and considered all the evidence, 
The burden rested on plaintiffs to show affirmatively that they were 
in the exercise of due osre, or to reise » reasonable inference of 
such onre, It was also the duty of plaintiffs to show offirmatively 
that defendants, by their servant, were cuilty of negligence which was 
the proximate cause of the injuries, A careful perusal of the testie 
mony convinces us that in directing the werdict, the court invaded 
the province of the jury. ‘e have read the orsl opinion of the trial 
judge wherein he correctly states the principles of law involved, we 
also note that he announced that in deciding the motion to instruct 
the jury for defendants, he hed no right to weigh the evidence, _Despite 
eee renee 2S is manifest that he did weigh the evidence, ve Fe 


of the opinion thet the court rss not warranted in holding as . matter 
ate Came ey rg ot. A ENO Sate ee ae 


of law that iffe were guilty of contributory hegligence, Because 
prantostr PO  uiaaaaebeiniadiiaienad olde chie te a ee aie) i lie eed 
of the views expressed, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook 











County is reversed and the cause remended for « new trial, 
REVERSED AND REMANDED, 


DENIS E, SULLIVAN, P.J. AND HEBEL, J. CONCUR, 


ii 
ea tentt ptwod we asile Of tuete te yawr test ONE Freda steve grkmoo 
sew 6ifGometur edt jad? borsadie ti now tod? fre yonom ef! bebaves 
wee geerte ec? tigverd bas aetevd ald bellqqs of yqete of gato ton 
allivometun ad} tadd yeeerse sdal to stnert Brupdtese odf no vote & oF 
Mouvte wed? base woo deorite edt Soutte bas tevo' Lovetd oF bounkiaoe 
aeiw heeoe efi aetoale tay Sih eiidemoetue edt tet bak yealitg es 
m& eeloic¢ev on orev stedd tad? toe ,nolteveretat off ga liloeosads 
erahy gid tourtedo of tay deonte ocd to taert 

\@ gay ered? ted¢ efeemetete sveds edt aptt teethaem al et © 
heticawesws tom ored 0) .pevedt isitwenes edt.ot ee totibaoe seele 
aved ey Sapecsd sthahasied ed? te tTleded ak beeubortnd yaomkiast edt 
etadd tadtete aiatreors of vereebne ac of freoer ed guidorese aesd 
wiatgtl eidatovst faam ati at Beawiv ,eomehive santeunes tasieitiue wer 
sect ond To cukeeiodor ottemor of yobi itaicle to tnlocbaate ef? wott 
~eomehive ate {ie Borebgenso bus bose ,tewenod sored OF: setet ont oF 
strove yon? feat ylovideawtitts wode of ettivainie no beteed asbred eff 
‘te gonreretal eidenoeost * galer ef to ,otRo seb to eelocax® off Hn? 
qievitearhtts' wode of etticniels to yeeb eat oxke baw #1 “Lersd mene 


gow Goisw sonegiigen to ytliuy stow ,oaevroe chet yo  stnshneted teat 


=fteot ef? to Leemreq Loteores A seehreptal edd te samen otamkxoty ont 
bobeval tases ef ,teibrew edt gaiteetif ai ¢edt ep evonivnoo yom 
fete? edt te soinieg Love edt boot ovat ov 6 .ytet edt to eoniverg Sat 
oy .beviovat wal Yo ssiqtonizg edt setete Ultootren ef aieredw eghst _ 
fourtant et notten edt sakblosb ai seat Beanvensa ed todt eton ovle 


etiqesd .senebive edt dyter 0% tigdt-on bad ees ode 


ee cen ere 


ee 


resien & Be err aL botaetten tom wee reuse eat. tastes Bolaige edt To 


ae Dagens ES CCT CO cs EE NE LO IS TA NE LE LE TOI 


SS Ee 
sence -omeytigen yrotwdintage to wituy esew ettitataly godt wal to 


food to tevo8 sivott® edt to taemgaut edd ybsoaotqx® avoiy edt To 
sit ,isixd wen « tet Sebasmet sesso ad? bus feerever al ytnwed 
sUSCHAKEA QUA GROREVIA 


a one ve —_- am —_isew + Oca > ooo 





40226 


GUARDIAN BANCORPORATION, a invetaiiie 2 2 9 i A. 6 1 9° 









Ve 
) APPEAL FROM 
MUNICIPAL COURT 
In Reg Intervening Petition JOHN %. 
BENNETT and EDWARD M. COLBACH, Attorneys, 
) OF CHICAGO, 
Appellees, pone 
Ve 
JAMES A. LOW, GORHAM BROOKS, et al., ) 
Trustees, ) 
Appellanta. ) 


MRe JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVESED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 

On Maroh 15, 1932, 2 judgment a obtained in the Municipal 
Court of Chicago by the Guardian Sancorporstion sgainst James Ac 
Low for the sum of °34,098,75, An appeal was trken to this court. 
Pending the appeel, Low died, his death as suggested here, and 
the cause proceeded in the name of his executor. On April 11, 1932, 
an order was entered in this court »ffirming the judgment. On 
Februsry 14, 1925, the Guardian Bencornorstion sagsigned the judgment 
end all the right, title and interest therein to Gorham 5rooks, 
Robert W. Emmons, II, James Jackson, Graham Aldis and W%ussel Tyson, 
es trustees, and the assignment contained a recital to the effect 
thet the judgment had been allowed sas a claim agsinst the estate 
of James 4, Low, decessed, in the Probste Court of Cook County on 
April 8, 1933. On Maroh 31, 1937, John ¥. Sennett and Edward i. 
Solbach, the attorneys who represented the Guardian Bancorporstion 
in obtaining the judgment sgainst James 4, Low, filed a claim in 
the Probate Court of Cook Oounty in which they set forth ell the 
facts alleged in the wunicipal Court upon which judgment was entered 
and alleged that the Probate Court had complete and exelusive juris- 
diction to adjudioste their claim; preyed thet the court impress a 


lien for attorneys’ fees on the claim allowed in the Probste Court 








s - aceon 
e I 0 A. i 4 ¢ Savitiieitim 8 HOrninoANOONe sammeaaratied 


eV 
MONG JATGIA 
: a Vk EMAL 


of anor Parveen os, sranarzaga 
: eeversorre med ae CRAKE rita! 
eODAGINS EO 


eels do (BROGFS MARROW (wOd .A° ei 
aBostauTT 


PRUGQ JATIOT VM 





} eal entanileqqa 
SPAUGO GUT oO NOIKIGO ANT GANAVIUE CaBaR gorreut, a eres 

isa totnai odd ni bentatdo naw tnomgbut a 00 2d doreii a0 a pee 
eA somes tanioye notte teqroaes aaibroud es xa ogsetg to, tro 
sérw00 sist of asict ees lasqas na 237 5200 282 te mere ong rot nod, 
bee .oted hetasugue vaw dteeb ala wbaib wo atsagae ent gadbaot 
ee! i Lites 50 stosuoexe ets be eases ent ni bebesvomy senso at 


20 staoay bul ed gndwxitte tuvo0 aide Ak boxetae ace ebro an, 






taomgbut ‘ods bomgtees Aol soreqtoomed aa kbragt aad 0865 et maueday 
<adoott medzed of ates cot? seoratad ‘bite asthe «tity one tir hae 
soeyt ‘Isseut bas mibta sedeto sttoaaoet eomet Ii eartosutd e Fr9do8 
| sostte ed} ot Letioot a benieines Saemag teas ode tne seeoteuts Pe 
estates oft tentays nialo B an penolia aesd bad anouybut ode Be 


to etd 4009 to #109 stedort adt ak .beoenosb awed oe nome, 20, | 
olf biswhd bas ttenase af dol T50L ane sore no 22881, 48 08, Shag. ; 


aoide sroqrooast nedbrest odd bovnenesget atin syeatosty eae adondton i 


mk misto r beitt wou * some tondags taonrgbut ods gatntatde at. 


ca os he 


ad ifs arto} $32 yen? dolde ai xtas0® i000 te 109 _otadest. a 


bewstas ase smomabut dotde nocu #7002 feqtodmutt ont ak bepstis. © ba a 


~ahtul evtevtoxe bas odelgnos edt 1009 etedort sat todd begs fio bam 


WEA Ee 
8 ceuveni trues odd tat boyor. jatelo sipds steothutbs 0 o t ae noes 
#190 stedort adit oh bewells mate edt no asst 'eyontotse ‘rot aoit 


>= 


\ 


2 

against the estate of Low and upon the funds derived therefrom. 

After a hearing in the Probate Court that court dismissed the petition 
of Messrs. Bennett and Colbach, From the order of dismissal entered 
on November 30, 1937, Hennett and Colbach appesled to the Cirevit 

Court of Vook County. The record indicates thet this appeal is 

still pending, Thereafter, on December 9, 1937, Yennett and Colbach 
filed » petition in the Municipal Sourt of Yhiesgo in the originel suit 
of the Guardian Ssncorporstion against James A. Low, in which they 


allege that they have a lien fer attorneys! fees against the trustees, 


ODE 


assignees, of the judgment ageinst Low for-:services rendered the 


| Guardian dancerpertion in procuring the original judgment, and in 


representing plaintiff, the Guardian bancorpor=tion, in the Apvellate 





' Court. 

The petition in the Municipsl Vourt seeks the same relief as 
thet sought in the Frobate Sourt. A motion by defendants r-s made to 
diemiss the petition for the renson, among others, tht the court was 
without jurisdiction to entertain the petition and claim; thet the 
Probate Court had complete jurisdiction of the subject matter, and 

[snes the mtter was lis pendens and undisvosed of in the Cireuit Court 
= Cook County, where the appesi is still pending. After a hearing 

/on the petition and motion to dismiss and the =nswer of the defendant 

“trustees, the court entered judgment -cninst the trustees for the sum 

of $1,440,192 This is on appesl from thst judgment, 

In In re Estete of Stahl, 227 Ill. 523, 2 petition was filed 
in the Probate Court of Cook County by the sdministrator of the 
estnte, seeking an order for the s-le of real estate to pay debta, 

In that proceeding the question «rose 9s to the ownership of the 
real estate by the person whose estote was being administered, It 
seems that the seme question has been reised in another proceeding 


and the question of the ownership had been determined in thet pro=- 








> 3 & 
chiozioxods Seriredb ebm act aeqy Bas wed a Sietes ont dhakead 
wokeites edt beetimalbh fxyeo ted? truoD oéadexi add a ahead & fasta 
bevetae Isealmeih to tabta edt? moti .doxdio’ bas $ tonne -oxanen te 
thuorid edt of beLemge dosdic? hne shone. .TREL 08 tedmeveH ao 

el Iseqaa elfdd tedt eetsoibat broges oft eYtnued doo? te txyod 
dosdioo bas tteanst ,TSEL ,.& tedmeosl no stottaoredt egaitned LLite | 
tive Lentgive edd at ogevddd to tuo Legteiaus edt mi mokthieq « beLit 
yea? aside ai ,wod .4 somal te@iega agiseroqzooned aalbybie’ ont to 
aReetautt ad? Jeniagea aset ‘ayentatte tak aoil e ewad yeds sad? egella 
eds her@hne: seelvise tot wot teategs tasegdsf, edi Ip .oenglens 
gt has .suemgbol Laddgite edé gthxvsctg nf notte: toyreodill astbraud 
stailegaa edt ai gneltsreqreemed ustitay® edd {Trktebele giiitnedonger 

en taller ease edt exsee truo? Lag ieinws odd nt moltiteq edt. 
ot @bax ere stosbuetsh yd woldon A .fteod efedort edt wk signee Teds 
asw dxv0o sds ted? .eredto ytoms ,meeset oft Tot folfited eff eakmeth 
@it godt qalato bas meisiveg edt alatzetms of molsonbettut tiodtin 

bes ,x6ttam ftostdue odd to moltolieitet eteiqnoo bad txu0t ‘dts 

¢rsoO sivoxld ed¢ ai to beeogethty hae gashee: atl esw cotton oft tari 
gaitecd « redth syaéhneq Iftte at Lesdye ode oxade ,yditve? Wood to 
trebaot eb oft to towene oft bus etlmeld of modtem ban dokssteq spied 


ave sdt tot sestautt adt tenises tasmgbyt ‘Seradne teuoo edt ahooteirss 
} 


,Suemghsl telf mort Lediqe oe et etdt @L:0a8,10 to | 1 
beLlt vaw nolstieg « €8@ LL{T VSS adfsg? to Ste¢st os ay al 

eft to tofstiainimbs edt qo yao dood to txee® otedoxt sat at 
eatded 480 ot etatas Ieez to eine edt wot tobre aa gatdsse .etetse 
os to cideranwo Odi of ae spore Mottedyo ott gatbesoomy taf al 

$2 .beredeintmbe gated exw btetes cao noeteq add yf etetee Leex 
gaibsesory teddone at beaker ashe ead noktesup mes odd tedt emese 
woxg tad? mi Donkmregot meed Set qhieteawo odd Yo motteoup ond das 





3 
ceeding. The court held thst the Probste Vourt was without juris- 


diction, and seid; 


The controlling fact or question in this case is as to 
the ownership of the reol estate in question at the time of the 
death of snid Frederioka L. Stshl. That wes the ¢ontrolling 
fact in the former cases. esson and public polioy alike demand 
that when a matter, whether consisting of one or more questions, 
hes been solemnly adjudicsted, it shall be deemed finally and 
conclusively settled in sll subsequent litig:tion between the 
same parties when the s=me question arises, (Hanns v. ead, 

102 Ill. 596)." 


In Bacon v. Heichelt, 273 Ill. 30, it was held thot: 


"A prior sdjudicstion between the seme parties is con- 
Glusive upon thes, not only 23 to the matters setually deter=- 
mined, but as to every other thing within the knowledge of the 
parties which might hove been set up ag a ground for relief or 
defense, Ruegger Ve lis and & is isilrond Co. 


103 Ill. 449; fogers v. diggins, 57 id. 244; Hamilton v. uimby, 
— Desk 0 oe, 165 


46 id. 90; Soby ve Uslumet and Chieavo Osan 
The petitioners, heving submitted their claim to the Prob-te 












id. 277." 


Court, and in the absence of any showing that thst court hed not 
Complete jurisdiction of the entire subject matter, wé conclude 
that the Municipel Court, upon the fsot being presented to it, as 


it was, that the claim w2s vending end undisposed of in the Probate 
io RRS Ea Rd = 


a a 





ERE L SE MON DE 





Court, should have dismissed the petitions _Therefore, the ® judgment 
itn 


of the Municipal Court of Chicago is reversed and the eause is 





em aA aX oh ED LET LOLLY BS PT MEE A OTT STILT ER RN eS: 


remanded with the direction that the petition of Sennett and Volbach 
be dismissed, 
REVERSED AND AENANDED WITH DIRECTIONS, 


DENIS EZ, SULLIVAN, P.J. CONCURS, 
BURKE, J. TAKES HO PART, 








é 
~oitut, tuoddiw acw txuo0 etadett edd tedt bled sagoo OdT «gaihedsa 


ot e¢ OL Geno aidt nk sostooue wo soe galiiorqads oar" 
ed? te omit off te nol?eauo ot sietes Lay od? to eltarenwo sft 
geiiLextaoe oft amen tad? sitiet?. «4 edeivebert bine te Mteeeb © 
beeeeh edila yoliog olidiuc one apereh emeann xemtot of? ak foe? 
aatolteau Grom we sn to habitetomee toitedy cotton » done tons 
hae yieait beweeb of fede o) ,betcolbupbe yiamelea mood nny 
add sows oef mek bag he kt: hot pe tis ak beltdoe’ tiedattts 
,heus «¥ save) seenito mos ohio mane eae Hodes esliteq ene 
oo, (88a VLLY BOL” 

stadt bien waw #2 ,06 Lil OTR aeiedosen .v ggent: at 

=ao ek aeitesd seca oct seeeded aeltrolbitbe tobeq AY 
~esrah yllevten azotiem ad? of aa ying fon ,nedt fogu ev mute: 


gH? te tebedeous ent wistiw awtds xedto yrev? of a9 tud , 
0 cation =< Prvwrybs | 8 Pe sel deed Rb tok oved tay. _ Setar eats 





etodert eit oe aiete <isds betitiodve ileal cies sais ast en 
tom bed taued todd test palwode yin to oomeeds edt at bas true 
sbutenoe oy ,tetten Fosidve exttas edt te Moitethelin, stelqmeg 

ar att od betaee org. gaked toxt ef? gsoqe ativg? Aaqioiaw edt sede. 
atadort eat ak to poweun thas bua gathaag Raw malo edt add a Bey ab. 


SEI enti efi Paap OMS AEB zo . : 


taomybal 96 oat gator erent. mont htog oat Doeatmptd ov ovad nt pluode, ah tH99 _ | 
af eeuro oats bar borxevet @. eurotao i 19 #xu0d 00 Leqdotauk, odd 3e. 7 
Aved fod bas tteanss re aoktdtog edt tant oktnenth one Aihe. bebmames 


sdovstmeth od 











it Pesan ed 


sKOI TORIC amie emewAL ts as, auonavan ; ‘fas 


pALsOMDO lve MAVLLIOR 2 pitony, 
, Juw Ou eae 4% aoe © 





40263 
JAMES A. BUNGESS, APPEAL FROM 


(Plaintiff) Appellee, 







SUPERIOR COURT Yl 


I.A. 619 


IQOK COUNTY « 


Ve 


JOHW RAKLIOS & COMPARY, IKS,, a 
Corporsticn, 


(Defendant) Appellant. 





MR. JUSTICK HEHEL O£LIVESED THE OPINION OF TAR COURT. 

This is an action at law to recover demages for personal 
injuries which the plaintiff claims were caused by unvholesome food 
served to him in a restaurant owned and operated by the defendant. 
There was s verdict by the jury «and judguent was entered by the 
court for the pleintiff in the sum of °-750, The defendsnt moved 
for s directed verdict st the close of the pleintiff's esse, for 
‘a directed verdiot 2t the close of sll the evidence, and for 2 judg- 
ment notwithstanding the verdict. The three motions were denied 
by the trial court, The plaintiff moved to set aside the judgment. 


ee 





and for a new trial, which motion was allowed, 
9 EDL 





The cause ia in this court upon the defendant's two appsals, 
one an applicetion for lenve to appeal from the order gramténg the 
plaintiff 2 new trial, and the other an appeal from the orders deny=- 
ing the defendant's motion for » direoted verdict and a judgment 
notwithstanding the verdict, 

Ag we have indicated, the petition for lesve to nppesl by 
the defendant in this court from the order of the triel court 
granting plaintiff's motion for 2 new trisl was denied, and this 
ruling of the court is in effect thst the triel court soted vroperly 
in allowing the plaintiff's motion for « new trisl notwithst=nding 
the verdict of the jury. So th«t when we come to consider defendent's 
motion for s directed verdict, it would seem rather inconsistent 
for this court to pass upon the question thet has been called to ite 


attention by the nppenls here pending, for the reason thet this court 


Basoe 







MOHY JAZETA f eSGROTUR 0A CaMAL 
aeilegcd (tthdade Ll 
| i ROCRAaGe aves. ASH fe 
Glo .A A 
wmtieen agen gol .YeAUoo r ‘dated BOL 
2 sot teroqred 


stneliowga (tuanaet se) 


eTRUGS Zit #0 AOLBI 59 anY QCRAQVIARG Me ey avr Teut 7 

lemoutoy rot eey suck conabes ‘at wed te acktox a et eidt 
hook smows Lodwa Yd Hagges etsy eake to Titaisig odd dod ste “Settaias 
ataahavted ade ya besoreqo bie Howe tretantoat ead mis ot Sevtes 
te ya betetae aow taompbut, ous ewt, ot ee toabrev #: aon oredt 
} beven tushasteh eft .68T) to mus sd ad Yutaka Le ould. tot P1w00 
| to% ene altbitntede att Yo seolo ext te FORBLov Beseedsd « rot 
-~ghut 2 tok bar ,eeeshive edt iis te eagle off te toLbrav hetootih 2 
betueh ovew eaottem cate? aff .tokbtev ait galbaatedtinten tres 
taaeybul, ond Shien ton oF doves Trtttaalg edt .eeyao Lndrt odd ed 


ee aia ee 


| shenokio. — Hotton Solin ylaint wots tod bas 


,sakseqes ox? ea ltaebhaeted ed¢ asqe Sreee eldd ah ws Seyee o8T: 
I edt gubdaete tobto ott wert Lasaqe of O¥nGh TOP modtealiqgs na ane 
Hi wah exrebto sdf mot? iesqqs ae tedte €dt bas gfaist wan a teisnbere 
| saexnbat « bas teibrey beteeribh « set soften a \tuahasbeb ont gat 


etoibrer ede guthbaetedtiwten 


yd Lasqqe of evsel tet aeltiteq edt gbthacsnas one hited WA 
tivep Iaisd eft to ebro adv mort taupe esidd ae tuebasab ont 
aidt bas yholtmed vow Init? ven # tot moltom a'thivatedy gaitasty 
yieeyety beter grsom Ieitt edd tadd toette at ad teves edt to gativa 
gatboatedtivgen Leitd wom » tot soktom atttitelale salt goiwoila at 
| attachaeteb Tebiemco ‘of omoo gw médw tom? @8 eVtul edt to tolbiev odd 
i trotetencont todtex s9o8 bluew ts atoibrey heteesih # tot aoltom 
i ati of beliso aved esd tad? goitercs edt scocy nesy of Peon aid? tot 
‘i Seram phelt teod¢ corneeat aff tet eentbrea etad eLascca ad? wd agtdnotis 


2 

has considered and passed upon the vetition for lesve to »ppneal 
filed by the defendant in this ocxse, and resehed the conelusion 
that the trioel court was justified in allowing plaintiff's 
motion for a new trial. 

The matter is still pending in the tricl court and the 
questions raised here may be properly considered oy thot court 
upon a further trial in disposing of the litigation, Therefore, 
in our opinion it would be inconsistent for us tohold thst the 
trial court wes justified in granting the plaintiff's motion for 
a new trial end in denying de fendent lesve to appeal, and then 
consider the question s6 to whether the coirt ess in error in 
denying the defendant's motion for 4 directed verdict, ss we heve 
indiested,. 


For the ressongs stated, the svopeai is dismissed, 
APPEAL DISMISSED, 


DENIS £. SULLIVAN, Ped, CONCURS, 
BURKE, J, TAKE® NO PART, 





& 
feeags of gvaei tet noddited ed? waqy beseaq Sra bovebieseo ead 
soteclones ett bereset har ,eeeo aid? ai tanbnwten od? YS Selt? 

anata eaten ng beiiddut Bex Payee Letat eat stadt 
elakt? won *s ot seltom 

oat in e090 Laivé oat ad gaibaod: ‘Libee et ‘ethan ‘eat Rely 
tive tant yd harediance qiusgete 4d. yen ared, bowder ‘asoltennp 
eStetered? stoltags tts wat te gateoguib ai iaitd reddit e¢ aoc 
#03 tadt bhod o% av seal justeieneoal ed bivew th meitice wo at 
wot neltos a Ltntede od? yainets af belthtaut wee frv00o Letet 
nod? tae tears ot evel trabveteb gabyaob wt bas ‘teks? weae 
md terre ah sow Pru08 is tedtada ‘et Be Hottesus edt xobianen 
wad ow ae ,toinrev botoeate s tot aoitom ateaehasteb Syrchepevrand| 
sboreinaib ei Lesque oat sbotate anoncet aad eat a ROR 


sOupemera wageeh ENO 





bie 
ae Rs J eh 
ade Sk 
¥ & De eee 

me ce i a $ 55. Ay Oi ag 

i 2 @ ve z 

z TAS 

Ul 
ee Hy th ee 


a * ye Bra Fmt sng hh ae Tits 33 


he Ree SO per we 
isa Pee ae cea Woy Bo kes lam se 
tis 


py Mes gos © re aes is cae # ak 
SOLMSSS CORFU REY & , od doss 
ikoneve Gt? ey wee a Pee whee vat 


Cr mRye BE ewes meee Aa pee core Bi 





40275 





SOPHIE CIMAROLI, } APPEAL FROM 
(Pleintiff) Appeliant, ) 
) CIRCUIT SOURT 
Ve 
GITY OF CHIOAGO, a Municipal _ (COOK COUNTY. 
Sorporation, r 
- r COR Cy 7 
(Defendant) Appellee.) 9 L.A. 6 ys 0 


MR. JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVEVED TSE OPINION OF THE COURT, 

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from » judgment entered 
by the court for the devendent notwithstanding the verdict of the 
jery wes for the plaintiff. | 

| It is ch=rged in the statement. filed by the plaintiff that 
on November 23, 1936 she wns riding 8s a passenger in 2n nvteomobile 
which was being opernted in a westerly direction on 116th Street 
at or nesr its intersection with Indiana Avenue, in the Oity of 
Chicego, and thet she »=s in the exercise of due care and caution 
for her own safety; that the defeniant had charge and control of, 
and was operating 2 dump truck in =» northerly direetion on Indians 
Avenue, and eas executing » right turn into lléth Otreet; that 
the defendant did one or more of the following acts: (s) Onreleasly 
and negligently operated the truck; (b) c«relessly executed « 
right turn which wes not as close as practiaal to the right-hand 
curb, in violntion of the Stetute of Illinois; (¢) exrelessly and 
négligently drove the motor truck to the left side of 1iSth Street 
when traversing an intersection, contrary to the stotute; (d) care- 
lessly and negligently drove the motor truck unon the left half of 
116th Street, contrary to the statute; (e) csrelessly and negligently 
failed to give an sudible warning with » horn, contrary to the 
ststute; (f) cerelessly and negligently, 2nd rithout werning drove 
the motor truck from Indiana Aveme into 116th Street and to the 


left side of 116th Street when the left side waa not Clesrly visible 





aveoa 
ORE TAITA: ! 4 ( eects oO alae wing 
| etal iogod UVtine2eLa) © 
| YHUOG TLUOAIO | pe 
| r pi 7 
| eYruseo 2000 fy | Leqkegim e lonAOras WO TTTD 
| | re opnacorxed 


901, Logg (taahaszed) 





089 ..A.1 


sPANOS ANF WO MOLHELn MET CUNT Te eee MOTTet la 

 baxedee twawghw, « next Ttdatelq odd yt Levqqe me of aiap °° 
olf to tosbeov a6 gaidostedtioted tusbasted odd rot ttooo oft yd 

| 3 “etidtaiele off rot sew o 
| dade eitetely ode yo DeLet seowpente odf at begredo ef fr 
| | alivemotus nn a2 veyeieneey @ oe yethit wow ede WEL (ee todmer ol ng 
foort! Att no mottosxth ylrstemy « at beteteqe gated vaw Holi 
to YTS set at ,Sumerd secthel Adie mottesetednt edt then to ts | 
i toltues hax evac ogh te selorexs ad ai wow onto todtt bas ,ogsoidd 
«to foxtage dae ogrede bad taabasteh add texte {y@elee awo sed tot 


teat seooveR MOLL otni wxst tagix & gatubene ony Bas sounevA 
ylewetere® (a) :efoe gaiwoliet ait to exem xo Ono bib tanbaoteh edt 
a bosgoone yLeastarcso (d) jalorrt edt betexveqo Utes téged baa 
| basd-tigie edt otf fanitortq ee ssele ee tom aan doldw ated teight 
Wn bae yLeseleren (9) jatomill] to otuteda oft to aotinloty al ,dxwo_ 
teers? AtSlLl to obie tel edt of dowxt wotom alt everh eltawy Agen 
“oreo (8) jotutade edt of yrerdaos woltooatortl ax gatesovat? sere 
to tlad Mel edt soqy Aourt totom edt evenh ylenegiiges bas yles el 
| Ytasgtigon fas YLesetores (0) jotudeda sit of yrevtnon ,teette AtOLt 
| adt of ytettaeo yirrod s dthe gnimtew eidliyn an evig ot potter 
y avoth gaintew tiodtie bas oVitemahtaee bap eUooeLores (2). ‘{otutoete 
| edd of has tors? AIOLL ofat oumevA eaakhal mort Aowtt sotom adt 
| eiddetv yixsoto dom pon Obie Ytel edd aodw doexte APBLE to obse steL 











ovetint co coltwerkb yivedinod a ok vourt quod * anitaxeqe sew base .. 





and the view thereof was obstructed by motor vehicles parked 
parallel with the south curb of 116th Jtreet, without exercising 
care to discover the presence of the sutomobile in which plaintiff 
was Tiding; by reason of which the automobile in which the plaintiff 
was riding came into contact with the defendant's motor truck, and 
the plaintiff was injured. 

The answer filed by the defendant denied that the plaintiff 
was in the exercise of due cnre and caution for her own safety, 
and denied that the defendant did any of the acts of negligence 
alleged in the complaint. 

At the close of the viaintiff's ose the court denied the 
defendant's motion for » directed verdict. At the close of sil the 
evidence the court reserved ruling on the defendent's sotion for 
2 directed verdict, and submitted the case to the jury. The jury 
returned » verdiet against the defeniant for “1599. Thereafter 
the defendant filed a written motion for a new trisl. fhe court 
heard arguments on the motion and entered = judenent for the 
defendant notwithstanding the verdict for the pinintiff. The appeal 
here is prosecuted by the pinintiff from this judgment. 

¥rom the evidence it eppesrs thet the plaintiff, on November 
23, 1936, was = single woman, 23 yenrs of agée At that time her 
name was Sophie Krolek and she lived at 5027 South Maplewood Avenue, 
Chicago, Illinois. She expected to be married shortly, and had 
spent the morning of November ~3, 1936, apartment hunting with her 
prospective husband in the neighborhood of his home at 11727 South 
Galumet Avenue, Chicago. About two o'clock she decided to go home, 
and it was arranged that her future husband's brother, Guerino 
Gimeroli, would drive her home in his brother's 1931 Chevrolet 


two-door sedan automobile, It was » cold day, and she obtained « 


blanket which she wrapped sround her feet efter removing her shoes, 





ar an 

bavteg esfotdey ratom yd betouttedo sew tooreddt wety odd bate 
giiaioxexe duodtiw svooudh aaedl te dive déwee ott déty Loilarag 
be Tlitaiale dolde at aLidompsag att Yo sewogony dt taveoRtb of ets0 
: Fttnlg la add tmidy oi eliGametys od? doiste te agasoy ee ygatbee | all 
_ - man. atouts Te rom. eh eiahe st ab ody sidaid tontnee otras cry gakber Pr 
ee . ehotwitl eae Piteketa edt 

tti¢eietle ent tedd beleeh tanbaetab ede yt bOLit  cewens oat 































=i) 


 sonezhigan te eaton edt to yus bbb sashewtob ed? tad? beineh bas 
+ sdatnianos ad¢ al beyslia — 

| od? being ¢eyoo odd anne ethesnialy ed? to eselo odd fA | 

| 1 adt Lie to aaods ene th stpdierey Setootkh # rot to kde ry a 
| OR atoiten ateabawteh edt ag geile boveseex deve edt sonsbiee 

| : eat ast oytul etd et Seen ane besdiodsre Se ,tolborer betoeesd \ 
7 gedtaotat?t  .OCILR tot saedeoted ont sandage toihrev @ bom 
divoo ed? -teitt wan s wot nodes aotdiey & Holt Imaheotob odd 
| edd tet seaaphet © beredas hues wobtosr edt ao atramng7et bused 
. a axl sttétatel¢ ont tot fokorey odd yuibaeveddivtom Mnehnoted \ 
ci. efionghut etd ment Wittalatqede yo beknenree as ret 
tainevoK do ykthtnieiqg ett dedt exreagge of sannhive es ee a : 
Nod Mest dade FA oaye Te aresy OF ,fenow olgate # wow OSL = 

eu Aoowelge Stue® TROE to Howls ode how Weiler sidge? any ae 
bed tow .ylvcode beirxen ed of baderqae edt  .atomhlly ane 
_ ced Stiv puitaud drantueys ,880L kh vedeevoll te gainron penthec 
—' twOR VEVLL te ened oid do hoosinedigten eft at hacdeud 4 di ce 
yen oR OF DebLoeh ote -doolo'e ork tuods wogwodsdd: sean 
onktew® yxedtotd e*imedend orth wot dial natin pa 

| felonved® I8CL a xedtosd etd mt owed wed: avoate louie Low 
# benketdo ede ban .Yah. bLor o. ese ahs : 


: 
| ayteten wee ged tet settoee baw sce enh Yo eetotex6 eds ak sew i 
1 
j 





ywbode rod Qabvoset notte gest «eit baivot » boRetr 





3 
to keep her feet worme 

Guerino Cimsroli drove the cor, He wa 91 years of age, 
had driven cars since 1929. He had been 2 truek driver in the 
Oivilian Conservation Corps where he bad driven for » yerr and » half 
and wns ean experienced automobile driver, The brokes on his 
brother's car were in good condition, and the cer had « clty sticker 
on ite It was ” dreary day; had been snowing = little, and the 
weather was Cold, 

The plaintiff sat in the front seat, next te the driver, 
Cimaroli drove the oar to the place where the sccident occurred, 
This accident ccourred at il6th Street on the east orosswelk of 
Indiana Avenue. 1l16th Street was a peved street 20 feet 8 inches 
wide. Indisna Avenve also «os & paved street, 30 feet 3 inches wide, 
Indiana Avenue ended st 116th Street, interseeting the latter etreet 
only from the south. On the southeast Gerner of the intersection 
there wes a tavern. From the south curb of 116th Street to the 
tavern was a distaneé of 17° feet 5 inches. ¥rom the est curb of 
Indians Avenue to the tavern was = distance of 223 feet = inches, There 
was a sidewalk on ench side of the tavern, esoh sidewalk being 6 feet 
9 inchee wide, As Cimaroli overated the car west on 116th “treet 
towards Indians Avenue he was traveling on the north side of the 
street on the inner lane, ond the left wheels of the ear were north 
of the center line of 116th Street sll of the way from Prairie Avenue 
to the point of the collision with the defendant's truck. The car was 
going at e speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour, the driver never having 
his foot on the accelerator at any time, There wes s single sutomatic 
windshield wiper, snd this wiper wes working, but there wes no snow on 
the windshield. 


It further appears from the evidence that st or near the time 


of the accident the driver and the plaintiff were not talking, and 





| .ou8 to ateey If ecw OF axe exe SOL Botensd enbteng 6 
tone ott mi tevieh dowrd # weed Bef Of LOROL gona exam aevisd ban | 
Ff tied ¢ Bae teey & tet mevith bad et erodw sere aottevrsena® mokLivid 
} eid ao gouexd af? stevich eLidonigtoe bevweireqce mas eon base 


il aedoite ytie a bed 109 eff bas gtoitihaes teeg mi ere tap a xesiterd 
a= ant bas ,OLF¢iL * aciwome mocd fed yuh Yoeede & wew FL att mo 
! 


 ~hie® sew tadéaew — 


etoviv® fo ot Feon yteor tnett Od? af tae tifdaliesy O#B 9 oo 

i ~bertapoo tasbiess eft erady voalg edt ol 400 edt ovork Bletemkd 
| Re diewesors tens oat mo toorde MOLE te bownes00 Pawbloos atdT 
| } ‘goront 0 F59° OF doatta Dever « eew Hesere weOLLd - ouRneva mek hat 
| shiv garbak © dest Ch teeta beveq « got ola sutera etelbal  .e@biw 
feouts vedtel ade gatteeetetal ,feort® MOLL ge bebae ounevA wasthal 
mottosetotnl Sd¢ to Téntoe fexndivon wht a0 .Atuow Ont work yao 
gift od teded2 BeOEL to Seve Atune Sat moTl  .ateved eoenw onede 
to duro tese edt mov? patent @ #OWOTE Le Gonetalh «© eee atovsd 
| ees? .eoifont © Fee? ES to sonateth © naw weaved OMt OF eunOVA nmathnl 
| ' feet © pated Yfevebie deve ,vtevar wi? te able Hoce go Whewette & een 


Wy 






| 
i 


He esid Yo obke cfton edd to Qnb lovers wow od GuUNeWA anethal ebiswot 


| oumavk eitier® sot? yew ode Yo Lie tovare AVAL to emt sotaeo, ode to 


ial 
ss gaikved tered tovbth oc? yturod ae eOLkY Goro OL te besge 3 te antes 
. ebtstotus afgnic a uw arom? .omid ye da to¢ewefecng ade ne Took ald 

we wome on eee “ored? fod .oridtow sew sogia efdy bao qteqte bietdabate 





orew foot ed qeetes 


pened @YRET no teow cep odd beteweqe eee ae sebiw eodont e a” 
eon ern tee ode to eleodw FPOL edt baw ,onel eeank edt mo tootte | 


eew ted od? wttwte elvacdasten of? deiw wedel tion edt to dateg iether : 
























4 
after leoving Prairie Avenue, the plaintiff took her cigsrettes 
out of her purse, took a cigarette and put it in her mouth, took a 
matoh, lighted it and wxs in the act of lighting the cigarette when 
the collision ccocurred, fhere *«*s no warning or honk of a hern 
prior to the collision. She simply st»rted to light her cigsrette 
and the next thing she remembered was s jerk backward, then forward. 
She looked up and saw the defendant's truck up against the front of 
their car, and she became nervous. The left front of their esr #8 
up against the left side of the trucke 

The driver, Cimaroli, testified that as he appreached Indiana 
Avenue there wos ancther car, movin ahead of him slao in 3 westerly 
direction, traveiing 25 or 39 feet shead of him. There was = car 
parked at the left curb of 116th Street on the esst crosewslk of 
Indiana Avenue, about 9 feet from the corner, There vere also tvo 
or three other cars parked st the south curb. there wa also another 
ear parked at the north curb of 116th Street. As Yimeroli sopreached 
Indians Avenue the car that hed been ahead of him turned toward the 
right and continued west. Suddenly the defendant's truck appeared 
right in front of him, when he wee only 10 feet away. He tried te 
turn to the right, but there ws a oar oarked there, so he applied 
the brakes at once, and the cor skidded and the car and the truck 
Collided, The truck was a big Mack truck, losded with dirt end 
weighed 5 or 6 tons. It waa 10 or 12 feet wide and 18 feet long, 
When Vimaroli first saw the truck it »»s peinted north = northeast - 
and had not completely straightened out facing eost, sfter making 
a right turn from Indiana Avenue. fhe front of the truek eos even 
with the east cross-wilk on Indiana Avenue, and «8 3 or 4 feet 
north of the center of 116th Street. The truck sounded no horne or 
Signals prior to the scoicdent. From the moment he first saw the truck 


until the mowent of the impset only a second or lesa time elapsed, 


S 

susterendo ved Hood Thiteakely ait ,oumevd abtkes) gaiveod sorts 

a toot gdtucn sod nk 22. toy daw adtompghe ¢ Aoot ,eereq rad te duo 
Sods atteteuto off gedidteil te tao edo ah weg Baw dE dodo tt tio dens 


ard & Ye ited to qaiete om sex exemt shormeoe doleiifes ‘ete 
etteregie tol taghs of Sotuste viqeite mM .aeRehL Loo end ot toby 
ehtawge? sod ,heewdoad as) = gow botadeemet ede gibdd tton ‘one baw 
to ¢euewt add ¢entens oo downs sitasheetebh wit woe bee eo Beto’ ont 
pew tah ghedd to foovt del edt severed sunsed ore bain ted thedd 
sidut? ad? to ebiy sel odd Wantage ow 

axoihol beseastyga ed ae ted? badt bread ghotmak® . vevitboodr 6 ooo" 
! yiteteer « at cele eid to baads gutvom yvee reddene aor erods wutewA 
| ton 0 gow oned? .whd to heata foek Of wo oS waklionond yrottootkh 
to Sheweaors dove od? co cyorts ATOLL he dawe abel emt da hewdawey 
| ens gele acov ered? «tatrss oft mort goat & feuds ,ommeva ansiiet 
rodtone gala cow ered? suo dives edt fo heated stan neiite wettt ee 
heiowetage sMotenl® ch eteect® ATOLA ko dewe Aicon etd ta Detiyaq tee 
| aid, Dunvat Seoruy ald To eae most mel Fosid nae ede Suameva ntHeOKT 
| Bevesgse Sound otinshaeteb ods Umobbua xtaow beumt tao bee tiyee 
| ot Habe 2h okewe toe? OL ylno eaw ont amie gat to daert in’ tity ke 
Hetings ef om ,eWedt bases “no a aew OThae tad ,tdyde edt OF MeRT 
| fourt aff One too off Dae hobbide t60 ont bee ,ooho ta’ pOdaed OAT 
| has dish diiw beheod ,dowxt Mook gid « pew dount edt sbebtifeo= 
| egited gook OL Rae ehiw Jost BLowe Of eee at vomet’d *6 @ bedylow ~ 
~ teoeddeon ~ dtren betoleq exe t2 douet ode wee test? LMorento ned 
| githian <ofhe qtaso yatoat tuo hewetdglonte yetekqaeo dom Sadihas 
I. 870 acu KooTe OF To MaOTt adh yUAOTA aetnkbeL medians ddgdesa” 
toot § co 3 een Bae .oemevs anethal ao dhewsenoye tase edd atte” 
i so wited er behaves fourt adt teens? avGLl te tedasa ads De dtced” 
i Nouet ott @oa dettt of daomgn ane mort stavhione odd of totiy elnagte 
| | sdoaqele ents aval xo haegem # Yiao tosqek eit To trove ede Lidad\ 








The impsct threw the plaintiff into the windshield and she 
received serious injuries, including = fraetured nose, permanent 
internal nesal injuries, lecersations on her face, chioped and broken 
teeth, and many bruises and contusions on her heed and body, all of 
which caused her severe and leeting pain, 

It is suggested and admitted thet the truek msde the right turn 
from Indiana Avenue into 116th Street without stopping. 

The plaintiff suggests thet there is but » single question 
presented for review, «nd thst is whether the evidence of the piain= 
tiff is legally sufficient to sustein the cause of action, and further 
suggests thet where the evidence is conflicting it is for the plsin- 
tiff to establish her ease by a erependerance of the evidence, and 
prove that she wxe in the exercise of due osre ond ¢sution for her 
own asfety st the time the accident occurred, 

Counsel for the defendant in reply to the =argusent of the 
plaintiff that the sole question presented here is whether the evidence 
introduced by her, tnken ss true, makea sut » prime feoie case, states 
that the record discloses error in the onse that would have entitled 
the defendant to a new trial if fs judgment notwithstanding the verdict 
had not been entered by the trisl fourt, and that the record clearly 
discloses that the verdict was contrary te the manifest weight of the 
evidence, and then onllis the attention of this court to the fsets ag 
disclosed by witneszes for the defendant, 

Evidence is offered that one Eugene Sowles waa the motor truck 
driver and that he eas an employee of the defendant, the City of 
Ghicego, and had been so employed for twenty-three yearss thet he wae 
hauling » load of dirt with = three ton Mack truck; that it was a bad 
day, snowing, not very hard, but there was énough snow on the street 
to cnuse » skid if the brakes were applied, At the time and just prior 
to the secident he wes treveling north on Indians Avenue, when he 


came to the south sidewalk line of 116th Street, he stopned to vermit 


aie bose bieidabainw Sd¢ ote +2 Evateda aie werd? tosqmé off 
fnetsetoq (enon botutenst a galbutont aokunrtds guoltee bev iooer 
movers bor beqcidn oo sed mo enoktereoad .eettutal Inent iewsegns 
. to fle ,yhod base hesd tod tic anotsctnes Ene eaalend ener tun (dteor 
wtisw prtdert bag srovoe sed Boemed dobstw 
ared tages and abeu Yours st $442 Bedethde ber boteowgee of IT © 
sgeioyetes tvontiw teeree aeeil etet suawok ate thal mort 
nortsoup ofgate # tad et ovadtt fod? alteoguve Tittutalg edt’ 

wuinic off te enuebive edt tadtedw ef dadd baw wolves ‘rot Botnederg 
eecddrirt bisie pioitoa to seuac aay giotews o2 taokeltios Yllagel el Fist 
onkate od# tot af 2 gabtolltaes ei addebive ade ortodw fedt eteaggue 
bas worebive edt to sonrvehaogety 4 yd sast ted detidetee oF YtL7 
‘god tet aoituso bas oreo tub ty aesovere add ai new ode todd everg 
 gheraytne taobitos edt owl? oat olin ‘Hee 

ot? to teewugts oft ot Uset al te: shyatet aff tot Leantcot 
| sonshive adt radterte ef ared hadeonete pobdasey efee odd dade Peitatalg 
aodate 18080 agost gag # tuo seven aaert ao waved nod YW beowbortat 
(| beltit¢as sved bis ioe treodd geoo odd af sorvs seateald brever edd edt 





toLbrey ad? gn tbnndeds tadon frompghut « Tr Ones wth o of Sasbaeteb edt 
uit seta hreoax odd vads bas sitact Late? ade ¢d bovetae metd tom bad 
| ed} To tify bow fastinen sdf ot Ytaxdace eaw tolbrov odd fadt- ‘penefoe th 
as edent mt of tiwoo sidt To Hofdnedte odd ei keo modt briw eoaebive 
| siaabasted oft tot eeaeontin Wt beaeleeth 

dowet tefoe add enw naive aiogrt one some Hevetto Wi eodebsve > ~~ 
to wird oid qth ateteb odd to peyolans ‘ge ety od Gadd ban Tewdsb 
are ed destd peraoy oetdt-ytaewt rot beyotane oe need bed bax’ ,ognoi dl 
bad # asw tt ted? ploutt foal mot ‘soritt 2 Hite @tlh to beol 8 gations 
featta ot go wont ‘fyvone ane exerts Jind abril yer ‘fon: Laie “ | 
xogta gout bas amks ext ta sebique aren esdard ede tt Bite & dene 





| ad ede «tuovd atntbal 10 dteom eoklovert? ‘now od trobiond ent of 
| ttmrey of becgote of yteords HdOLE to Onkt Veweb se’ foe oHe oF ence 





some children to pass from the west to the @esst on the crosswalk. 
After the children had passed, he put the truck in firet speed, and 
turned the corner of 116th Street, going e»st. He anw Gimeroli's 
oar Coming west, the windshi@ld full of snow; and thie witness further 
testified that figuring the driver of the car could not see him, he 
came to 2 dead stopy that the front end of the truck wea about 19 feet 
east of the crosswalk. "I stonped in order to give the man a chance 
to go around this mschine, he would have © clear road to the left of 
mé, but instead of that he ren head@m into my truck," He further 
testified that at the time of the collision the truek wes stationary, 
There were other witnesses, three of whom were police officers, 
and one a laborer whe wis employed by the Vity and riding with the 
truck driver. From the evidence offered by the police officers they 
saw skid marks extending at lesst 19 feet from the boek of the car 
in which the plaintiff was riding; that the front end of the truck 
Fas about 5 foot or two south of the center line of the rosd. Sa 
that when we come to examine the facts, it wes clearly a question 
for the jury, not alone to pass upon the weight of the evidence, but 
to determine the credibility cof the witnesses. There wos sufficient 
evidence to justify the court in permitting the jury to pass upon 
these questions, and the jury having passed wpon them returned « 
verdict for the amount hereinnbeve stated. In compliance with the 
familiar rule thet a verdict cannot be directed for the defendant 
where the evidence, tsken as true, together with the most favorable 
inferences that can be drawn from such evidence, tends to suppert 
the alleg tions of the plaintiff's complaint «nd sufficient to make 
out 2 prima fzcie conse for the piaintiff, the court should hsve denied 
the motion of the defendant, 
Several cases in which the Supreme and Appellate Sourts of 


Iliinois have passed upon this question, heve been eslled to our 


attention, one of which is Kelly v. Ghioago City Ry. Go. 283 Ill, 640, 





io 


2 
edfienenorto att ao fene od? of teew odd sort ageq of KerhLiso ems 
hae ,besge eet? ni tourt act tug en .bensay Sad aoxhtido edt zgntA 
etitovemt) wan 88 stare gaion ,feent® MOLL ta tremteo edt beomuys | 
xodtent speativ aidd Sas yrome to £ict bialdebaie od¢ stage giinoo tee 
aa amid den ton Bigeo reo nit be Tavinh ad? geigupi? tadt hestiteos 
$a? CL Suede caw dour? sit to bow dmott edd todd diets baeb # ef sao. 
eonade 2 sas odd evin et teakte al beqgete {"° .dfewenero odd to tese 
te #tel odt ot beow saalo » avad Sivew of ,onidorm aldt bauertea og of 
Tteviiyi sh *.doeent wn oited mobo od mat ad tae Xo bawtand dai eat 
svrsnottete aw dogrd sft sokelises edt te omdt ofd to fadt Solidsaee . 
eteortts sotiog erew mode to sendt 2 8ORSI0T Lw tito OTe" axed | 
& Bitte ink : 
yee wrooitto stilog od? yd hetstte eonebive eft mort .tevith dovtt . 





edt ably goth in ore yl ade yd beyoiqns ew od tegedn 
neo edt to dood edt mort tent OL tecsd te gatbastxe edtem bide was 
soins edd te bee dwovt odd tedt jgotbic eew tivakelg edt. dokdw xh 
et .baow emt te endl togeeo eit to dives e#t to teat a tpode gam, | 
teideeys « Yixcelo naw os steak edt aninaxe ot moo. om mode gest. 
dsgel _engehive anit to tiéuiew edt tog eeag of smade tot ert ed? xot 
4 saetokttus anw evedT ,geeneatiw aif te wilkdibsto edt sileressh of, 
| Soqu aang od Yrul ede golaetioneg al teugo oat ylitewt of soaebivg 
e beaxuter asds moqy berseq geived yxe, edy hae ssagitaasp, paodd. 
edd Méiw sonatiqnoo ni bataca evedeniegad fisewa off tol #odhrey. 
teebastsh edt tot betoorib od seanns tokzer e ted? olue tadiban’ 
eidszovat taom edt dttiw sontegat atuit GA aeades a2omeheve ade oxeds 
troqquea ot shaw somsdive dows wort aeernh ag aao teat. seoneretad — 
otan of imesoRt ise bits suds lqneo e'ttigatata sit to anoitegetioa asia 
beinsh evad biveds tues ad? ,Mitadelg ott mq son ginah aulne a Bue 
stuabastat on Xo Ao krom OAF ..: 
to sttsod etal leqcs base ouszeue an? doniy me Sones Apupyee, 
<n0 ot petiee nood oved efolteoup aide nou beeen vest aomltin 


“Oba .ffK £8S .o0_.¥i ytiO oneesdD ov yited ct dotdy to ono gtokimerts 


7 

It appeors from this osse that the olaintiff recovered a verdict 
and judgement in « personal injury suit, whioh wes affirmed by the 
Appellate Court for the First District of Illinois, A oertificnrte 
of importsnce and sppenl was grented by the Anpeliate Court, and 
upon review the Supreme Vourt said; 


"It is first insisted thet the court wos in error in 
refusing to exclude the evidence «nd ingtruct the jury to find 
defendant not guilty. A motion of this cherzeter, accompanied 
by the proper instruction, was made at the close of the plain-e 
tiff's esse ond renewed syain at the close of »11i the evidence. 
The court refused to give the instruction, snd ites refusal is 
assigned ss error. The only cvestion rsised and preserved for 
review in this court on such motion ia, does the evidence on 
the part of the plaintiff, if tsken 23 true and most favornbly 
considered for him, with ali just inferences to be drawn there= 
from, make out 2 prima facie esse onthe oart of the plaintiff? 
The question of the weight of the evidence or the credibility 
of the witnesses cannot be considered. If there was any 
evidence in the record from which, standing »lone, the jury might, 
without soting unressonably in the eyes of the low, have found 
the materiel avermentsa of the deolnretion to have been sustained, 
the motion was gg oe denied cc the instruction refuseds 
a ve § Oge 178 tena. 464; Libby MoNe 
Ve 222 id. 306; Devine v. Belang, 272 id. ap) we Con, 
taentene, only eevee the evidence «t thia time for the purpose 
of ascertaining whether or not the evidence on the part of 
appellee established a primes f=cie conse." 


In the case we have before us the evidence »3 to what occurred 
at the time of the collision ig conflicting, and it wos for the jury 
to consider the questions of fect 2s well as the eredibility of the 
witnesses and determine from this evidence whether the plaintiff 
made out « prime facie osse. In determining thie qvestion a0 far as 
we are permitted to do so, we believe the plaintiff did establish 
& prima facie case, and therefore the court erred in sustaining the 
defendant's motion. 

In the ease of iyers v. Northwestern El. Re Ne Co, 218 Ill. 
24, the Supreme Court held thet the Appellate dourt is not authorized 
to reverse, without remanding the cause, » judgment for the plaintiff 
on 2 finding of fnct that the olaintiff was guilty of contributory 


negligence, where the evidence is contested and thot for the viain- 

































fokbray 2 Sexveveoed tt stale ode tad? sete eid? mort wiceggqe tL 
od? qs bowrdétle aon Mokde tine Yrulet Jonoerey 9 al deomghyt bas 
; teak idaes 4 .etomktit te doiriak dood odd not Pawed ssoLiegen 
| hts gttwed etalioned eat Wi hopieny eam iaeras hae eongteeqat te 


, “ ibiew fruo0 qnoxqua of? webkes mous 


#2 ¢o1ts Bi gee Vimeo end ded? bogntent deakt wf 91% © 9 2 > 
batt o¢ Yrs off tousteni hee seaebive edt shyloxs tag yatevtes 
balnsumpoen ,retectads eidé to mobi A «Ue ton toshaaten © 
~inie edt te Seolo ef? fe ahem gew gitoltonntean racety odd yd 
seouphive a? fie le feel adv ta aleye bowanet bax egem a thes) © 

v ai isegtss efi bar .roltowttent ed? erig of Doavtet fev00 sit 
so herresets. bar Beehet gotdeeuy yYinc eit stevz® av bengheea® 
| olan oir gh hy noob ef rao ery es me — ai waiver 
oe ones. atom, ouad 2g al kien to titad edt 
| ~erodd ona od oF seoneretat — fifa dtis = = neh pon use 
Whitetails sd? to.dueq ot fo qeae Sa Se ef to 
qwitea sto eff te eemebive ef? te pip vel ? to gto + 
qe gow Oxed? 230 «het ebimnee ad nenenatin edt. Sbse a 
les rut geal weles yutbuete 4doide wort "Sait: som med i le 
bovot eved .wol edt to eayo fe af yidesoesetay gr tea tyodtie 
“bontetene geod evad ef sofgvartaflowh ed? to etaentevs 2 Eedaetan tf 
eee oy ae a 2 eanens tizaye ™ Soll ( 


| MEA er CodeL sb. ote galas. Gaivet ieee cel ost Mead 

il snbnug’ at ip ge eisd obv TE ae ' Yao ,etoter 

‘a 2% Mt Ke SPRRhENe O46 fon te xodteds paintetuseas to.) 

| a2 *,¢e00 gist Smdag. s hedetidatas seltogas . 
hae ie at ¢ 








TEA OD Jadw of en oomeblve off ay sroted ovat ww eoeo edt at 

1 eaatl edd tot aew tf hate gattotltnes as woletifes eat ‘te. ont out a : 
Z ett to Uttisdthexo odt on Liew es tost te anol tam outa xobanos 6 7 
\ tthtatale edt tedtedw oomebive eld? mov? enter oteb bas eecoentin 
i- ae «et of aokteam sidt yaks twrosab at stEa9 boat oulsg 8 tue pa 
i, detidetee bib ttitalele odd eveiied ow 408 ab ot betters ors on - 
| ons gaintedeue af bore sxw0e odd oxotonadt bas 19200 alos ante a 
i atoitou cteashasteh - 
nin axe of ok3 axe ay eo once nae i. - 
i besttodéise ton ei suved etelleqad eit test bled trs00 omonque oe rq | 
‘et btateLe adt rot soromgbart a qbeweo odd ait tbnsmen tuodithe 7 

Totudirtnee to ytlivg sew rtdndela edt todd toot to ) athe tt 


7 wttiiela edt tot toast baa hotestao9 a onshses oat nine 





- 








8 
tiff is sufficient to preclude the trisl court from directing » 
verdict for the defendant, 

This rule has been approved by the Supreme Court in 
Shannon ve. fightingale, 3231 Ill. 168; also in Molloy ve Shiecago 
Rapid Transit Cg., 335 iil, 164, 

It is suggested in the briefs that the evidence of witnesses 
is contradictory, but ss we have previously stated, thet subject 
wes properly one for the jury. No doubt the jury considered the 
@vidence in the light of this accident and concluded that it was 
sufficient to sustain the plaintiff's esse, Ye are inclined to 
agree with the jury, and heving reached’ this conclision we are of 


the opinion that the court wos in error in entering dudguent for 


ce NRTA BN Nyt AI) BRERA YT APTN TERESI ektemma tra mito 


the defendant notwithstanding the verdiot for the R sohsensnede — 


being an é¢rroneous order, the order of thia eourt ‘As that the 


IISA BASRA a in Ay D8 lt Bind IO IL SC RATE SLIEAR ENLIST E OCU 








MIRAE ONAL WA 





judgment order entered by the trini court be reversed and judgaent 
ee ieee 


entered here, in acoordance with the verdict of the iwee for 


TOOLS AOR RT NATE Ne 








RPA RIEL VET, RN A RTGS A 


(ee het i) RL EE eNO INL PLB TS POLIO TED BT es OAS EMT LOPLI 


$1, 590, 


ALDER LOOT I 


REVERSED AND JUDGMENT HERE, 


DBNIS EB, SULLIVAN, Peds CONOURS, 
BURKE, de TAKES NO FART, 


“ 





8 
F eeerer® woxt twos Ieaiet od? shuosed of Peofelttow ef Treks 
fisteeteh oct cok Herbier 

al tivod sexy of? oo Bewerorm weed eat sivt widt 
gagblae »v Yori wi onle ;9GL £02 FO8 \alepa tile ww — . 
obSL LIT GSS, .g8 Tignes 

eonegatiy to senwbhave add fede seded ene af Bofwtggue af 61. 
tes(eum ted? ,betete yLexoivety owent oe a tue | scrototbertio9 wl 
“Aa? Bevelitenss qwrt 64% doyob of overt ‘ett “tot one ynisderd aan 
ety ti tea bebeloxee baw aabhooe atdf to eight bat at enmebave 
‘g? Seatvonl emp oY .nexe wlititasaty edt aistece et tmolol true 
%9 Oth gy dotarogon wldd dadsest gadvad bmn attat edt athe sere 
ty — at Tors Ae ‘wer, fot haa _ ‘wahttetS ‘edt 














a chaotic. wierd uiilchpdivesioletnine ace pcbniniter a 


‘add inde ot | si ‘Sto08 rrr ta TabEo ede suited euoenete ae uated 


Scanner SNR atrercavhosrtqwan si cide rmasviere oad 


a. and | beerevot od Huo idied edt ys bexetne reo: te 


wot veut te # to tekken edt cttw gem mk .ocod eretae 


atmaretie pean. hale donner REE arctnieniatemlkiee rine oot ps lad acti alton neces: 


«c-LOR 





oan meauog ua cugaavan 


PN Bok QTE eee 


J 


e Peas et ab 


49301 


PULLMAN TRUST & SAVINGS GAWK, oa 
Corporstion, 


(Platntiff) Appellant, 


APPRAL FROM 


Rel Ae 


Ve 


LUCIAN J/8EOKI and VIOTORIA JANEOKI, 
his wife, et ~l., 


(Defendants) Appellees. 





MR. JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


This is an appesl by the plaintiff from an order entered by 


AT RS wel ISITE NIRS 





nN An a EEL INT ORI TRIO 


the court on Februs 8, 1938, overruling 2nd denyi plaintiff's 
—— TY Ys ’ & y ing 





motion, which was filed on January 21, :1938, to vneste and expunge 
—_ errr eee atan eer CURRED Reem 


the order entered on January 17, 1936, vacating 2 siheiaiiaa decree 


ee 


cael in ‘the mere CAUSE. 


ERI RA ees 





5 Seana rss yaad 


This is a foreclosure proceeding filed by the plaintiff on 





May 23, 1935 to foreclose the lien of two trust deeds, both executed 
by Lucian Jareeki and Victoria Jarecki. Summons wes issued on both 
of the defendants, who fsiled to appear, enter an appearance or 
file an answer, On September 25, 1935, an order of defoult on 
personal service and taking the complszint 25 confessed sagninst the 
defendants Lueian Jsrecki and Victoria Jarecki wos entered. 
Thereafter, on October 33, 1935 2 foreclosure decree was 
entered upon the report of the master, 2 sale wes had and upon 
approvel of the sale s deficiency deoree ens entered in fervor of the 
plaintiff and against the defendants, Lucian Joreoki, Vietoria 
Jarecki, Joseph Macewioz and Frances Macewics, for $1,457.06. 
Therenfter on December 38, 1935, the defendants Lucian 
Jarecki and Victoria Jarecki, upon written notice to the plaintiff, 
made = motion in open court for leave to intervene and file a 
petition for the veestion of the deficiency decree entered agsinst 


them, and on this day an order wes entered that the motion filed 















a ee 
a 


“£0808 


Lo = ® oA ‘bonvae 4 revat wiwaaoa 
MONS TaaTtA loitereg Tod 


atealiegas . (thatnseta) — 

























TAOD KOWRTIVE 





S 1ao gategu heim ol ahaa aie 
TROaRnAL agaomees La : 
: oe te 2 i “uy 


_ seensioned (adustasten) 








oT HUT TG HOLEEAO oe QIGNVIAGe saa 4 a0rTeUe. ice ann 
“oy 
Wh erssae TebTe ae moct iieniada edt yd Laeqgs aa ef eld? . se 
; eiitatslg gulyieh pas gotiecreve .GERL 8 Yrounde' ac swoo edt \ 
ae ES ee ee 
agruqne dae ateoey od ot ,8662 .f8 yeeusiel ao feLt3 wan doidy “wotion : 





7 eae ee 


* “sonoes coke ad 9 a a A sieisanecie wes ath weantah al mere’, Tabs “ 
i le Ay a Abge eames a 


AST om sR me 


sie paitendicimuciveicis ssa 





ae redtabatg utd w HOLit gn tbesoorg eusrosoenat s ab aldt ag chee : 
botweone died yaboeh deust amt to wait sad veodonre of BBGL 428 YK 

dtod nq devant new esemmyt sixooue’ abvorort nae digecal, snkowud 4d “4 

te MNstHSqEs ae T8tae gisscqe of belint ow setaabastob pat a 

mo tiusted te tebre as .B8@L 085 sedmetess 00 -Toweas as Ltt 

od? texiege Beeastsoo es taleiques sdt gatie? bas onkynee ) Eemoereg 

sberetas aoe tdoersh aitosost bee dtqonal, gehen etaabasts 

nev seTpeh oryeolostet © GOL ,E8 rodosod | no eae ™ = 

teoay bae Bad err lee = ,totesm odt to Proved at sour boxed 








- 


aitegoi’ ,tdoorct asioul ,atashmetab ant tentess baa 318 
80.0), f¢ rot ,zofweoed eseaett bas soduaonl dqovob atiee 
he howd alata edd 8882 488 seca no fae - 





Dae 


3 
this day be continued to December 31, 1935. It is contended by the 
plaintiff that the defeniants Lucian Jnreoki and Vietorin Jarecki 
did not, nor did sny one on their behalf, on December 28, 1931, or 
any other day, within 20 days from the date of the entry of the 
deficiency deorec, file any written, typewritten or orinted motion, 
petition, sffidevit or other docunent, except a notice of aotion 
filed on December 28, 1935, for leave to intervene ond file » petition 
for the vecstion of the deficiency decree, 
Thereafter on December 21, 1935, the court entered an order 
giving Lucian Jerecki and Victoria Jerecki leave to file instanter 
a petition to voeeste the deficiency decree and get the hearing on the 
petition ami any snswerg snd motions which might be filed thereto 
for January 20, 1936, on the conteated motion cslendar, and on 
January 13, 1936, the plaintiff filed © typewritten motion to strike 
the lsst mentioned petition on several zrounds, including went of 
jurisdiction. This petition end motion to strike came on for heering 
on January 27, 1936, and the court entered an order susteining plain- 
tiff's motion to strike the petition. On the seme day the court 
entered » further order giving the defendent Lucian Jsreeki and 
Victoria Jareoki lesve to file an =mended petition within 10 days 
from that date, direoting the plaintiff to answer within 5 days 
thereafter and setting the couse for hearing on februsry 14, 1936, 
The nomed defendants filed = typewritten amended petition 
for the vscation of the deficiency decree, «nd on lebrusry 8, 1976, 
the plaintiff filed a typewritten motion to strike the amended petition, 
or affidnvit, upon several grounds, including want of jurisdiction. 
Plaintiff's motion to strike came on for hearing on February 17, 
1936, ond on thet day the court entered an order veeating the 
deficiency deoree against the defendants Lucian J»reeki and Victoria 


Jarecki, 





adit yd Sekretmoe ai tI ebBEL Pets sacdmnget ot houatsuep ad yeh ena 


bet rey 


. 
| bteotm), aitoter’ bas bieovet esloud atnahwet oh odd toae wiieutata ; 
1a so ,f80L .8% redmeosd so .fiaded xfede we ene yoo bRb wan , toa bib ; 
4 ad¢ to yriae adt to otal adt mor? ayah OF aldtiw .yee rato ws 7 
(ie 802 t0m hewadtg to astdlrvaqys yhetiice ys efit Nhat ‘eaoteiteb 

ne ddou to aoiten « toons tiramubob tadze pa") tivebsite ssoltteeg 


















noaedine fe OL) bus Sueexovad at ovned at Obl Bt sadmeoat 0 beiit - 
. | sesrouh youetedteh ot Yo moltessy ot rot 
cobra fis hovatan feuds edt ares ft vedmeest ao ‘rodtasrodt 

: redundant elit of evoas Biouyet réxotelt bets tivote’ aekoud gravel 
dt me gaksood ont gen bas SOyouD Yor eb aft oteenw oF honttveq 6 i 
| otsved? Dali? od tigi Molde teoktom bat erekes wae ie mokt seq | 

: no haa ,cakaeles geltos betestags owe my eer soe TS sii vor 

it : sabes od motvon mettieweeyds « belie tt tdabeiy wae (eer (gi ‘yramet 
i Re tow aadba fond ,whawo'rs Loretee ae makshesiy beroi¢aoe teak ons : 
I . gndtand’ tet wo ome etiese od weltom dow aoleiray elit ‘saoktotbersan, 4 
|  etttade akaleteve wsits as herstae ftrod “waht tis , 8801 ate YIourtaT do 
tived odd Yoh smec Odt ao smortived sa? suttte of tettont eeTttis 
4 "Bate floors astout tnabworeb Sat gatviy tobto tedddt s boregae 
| = OL utddie wottited Sebaswe ae OLt of era0l siperet stosonv 
tf “ pyeb @ aldgie teweds ov Tt tiated eat gaivoot ts <oteD tedt wot 
i 886K atl Yrewtdet ao yattaod tet scenes Odd ‘gat ke toe Sl sornawends 
i | “-nakt tteg bebasee nedtinesqyt » Salit etaebaetes bomen ‘edt re : an 
: ores 8 vrewtde mo bars eorseb yometesteh adt to aoktacer edd tet 
ie aeeeeeete: bebioas say sastte at ‘anatlt — asec car 








H abtodonv | bre idowrst aatond “amabastsh b kay’ nalaaigt 8 


$ onda pen 
a Sa: 7 : bevades aoe cette Be ek 





The plaintiff took the position thst the order entered on 
February 17, 1936, purporting to veaonte the deficiency decree was 
void for vant of jurisdiction snd therefore was « nullity sand should 
be ignored and disregsrded, and the plaintiff ceused an alias 
execution to be iasued and had the sheriff make «= Levy, 

fheresfter the plaintiff oresented and filed « written motion 
on January 21, 1938, to vacate and expunge the sforessid purported 
order entered on february 17, 1956, which wea almost *% yeure after 
that date, on the ground that the court hed no jurisdiction to enter 
the purported order because it eas based on an amended petition to 
vacate filed on February 6, 1936,. which ¥»s more than SO days after 
the entry of the deficiency decree, and further moved the court to 
dismiss the emended petition on which the purported order ens based 
for want of jurisdiction. 

On Februcry 8, 1938, the court entered sn order overruling 
and denying the last mentioned motion of the plaintiff, #hich w-s 
filed on Jenuary 21, 1938, 

The plsintiff centends thet the motion is not eccording to 
the provision of the section of the ststute which requires that 
the matter shall be presented by » written motion and affidevit, and 
rélies upon Oh. 110, Par, 174 of See, 50, subepare 7, of the Civil 
Practice 4et, Ill. St. Bar Stats. 1937; and further eontends thet 
Pare 198, Seo, 74 (2) of the Civil Practice ‘et in sbolishing dis- 
tinetions between the common law record, the bill of excertions end 
the certificate of evidence cleorly intends thet motions shall be 
in writing, and points to Paragraph 1 of Sule 6 of the Rules of 
Practice and Procedure adopted by the Supreme Court of Illinois and 
gontends thet it provides th=t sll papers shall be fairly and lewibly 
written, typewritten or printed, and the clerk shall not file such 


as de not conform to the rules 

















fis) baudas rehte ott teas AOATKON ens ¥oot YlbeLess att 
ase aereah yousteltoh one Stace oF gubtroqreg 088L 23 wreundot 







bisode bite bape & See aroterads bare noksotbaltut to ease rot bio _ a 
" antis a2 beeveo ttLvoiele asst aa edobneqoratd bits botonst ca 













hay be BO 
‘ sh (Eg, BH S, hi 


= syval x oaaw Yt dnede edt bes bas event od ad aoktuexe 
7 
- nottom nettion a belt Sax hedrosene vresasote ods reg tosredt 


Reece N 


| 7 hotter tu bie astota sat eyenueree bas stacey ot BBE ois vrsumt m0 7, 
 t8tte srusy 8 teenie sew olde BOL att etartdet so bexotas rebte . 
ratae of aeidoibeltu, oa bad tre@e odd teeth bnuety odd a0 sete i a 

at mobtited babasme ‘Be ho beard gen tt osuaned sobre betwoqtang edt 
wens eysb OF asd¢ ozawm ane de bite Geel 2 ‘yrsurtdot ao betit tae ony 
[ eo? su08 sat bevew rsdeu bas aaeToab vouszosten add to wine ot 





beard gow rebro ) Preroorg asd dose ao matthteg debasme ‘oni ond ne 
“ik wie 


smoktotbe tent te tne 3 
pak kirere¥o xebxe as beretas #xv09 est ‘<8EL 8 reurdet «0 “0 utoal, i le 


7 aw Meise 9 tiiandate eat te sotten banottnen tent ‘oult ‘gat yaad bas 

Saye i * Oki Svee 
eet 8 eeu’, ao boLit 

ak, cas 


| of yathroovs fon @i aoltor edt fed shined no9 vhigatste oat : 


: “ La rey 


» tate Pccloers dain mene | stutete ost Yo woktose ont te ofetvors oat 
ay ja Hi # Megha 





EWR CS ae fete 


web uatdat ods ak tos eotgonrt ‘Liven out te © ” 008 a 


Nrewed 









a to aclus edit to 8 iui te t ‘aonout ot ein iog bas 


ae £g Hat 


fe atonziit te dxued | euoncu ode w boscobs stubevort b 


We Re 


: tour abst Sout Adade tzeio ss bas sbonmiae ee cout 
‘ ji be oh cn ii te A i a 


i ‘ — gekut | ott ot Tetaee 


tie 





The question here is not whether these defendants complied 
with the rules «s required, but whether the court on December 28, 
1935 had jurisdiction to entertain the order complained of. The 
court had jurisdiction, but the only complaint made st the time the 
matter wns presented to the court ess not that the motion was not 
in writing but that it was presented in an informal manner to the 
court and, upon motion made in open court the court entered the 
order complained of, and that it was the defendsnte# motion "for lesve 
to intervene and file a petition for the vaéation of the deficiency 
decree" against them, The plaintiff contends thet it was a motion 
for lesve to file 2 petition for the vecation of the deficiency 
deoree, and not 2 motion to vacate this decree; did not constitute a 
motion to vacate, anfl wea not sufficient to give the court juris- 
diction. 

We agree thot the rule provides thot petitions ond affidavits 
must be prepared in writing and presented to the court and filed, but 
this is not a petition nor en affidavit; it is » motion for lersve 
to intervene and file » petition for the vemtion of the deficiency 
decree, end while it was not presenBed in the manner reouired by the 
rule, still the court entertsined the motion «nd entered it, The 
court did have control of the litigation at the time the motion vas 
made, and the cuestion of jurisdiction coes to the extent thet the 
court is without suthority to entertain the proposed sotion. The 
motion was entered within 30 days after the deficiency decree 
Complained of was entered agsinst these defeninnts. Subsequently 
the court extended the time, and finally a petition in writing woe 
filed, as required, and it is upon this petition and subsequent 
proceeding that action of the covrt ws had, 


The court sllewed the plaintiff's motion to strike the petition, 





| aftottiteg sit sande of aoktom ethan tesy add & 


* 
Holiqmes etnesbasteh seeds redfede toa ef 819d saiteaup edt 


a3S Termgoet no tro sd? xedtede tut ,horlypest ge sede sat dtdw 
aif .to benlelgnoo tebze edd ahetresae ot moltetbetau, bad ages 
ait salt ad? de shen dafeigaeo Yino oft dud qnoitodbatrul, bad tayoo 
tet gow doltem sd? ted? ton anv itugo et of begreaotg. saw sodtem 
aid of tsancm Dagrolal as, at betaeporg saw FL tadd Sod potilaw al 
outs heretat txyoe Add sued Aeqe Ri Shan Hohtem sogy _has. stu 
evasl tot" aottom fatacbasteb ons saw os felt baa ,to boalaiques «abso 
wasiolted suf Yo soltsdey Sid tot molsiteg # OL. ban aneveetad oF 
mekton # aor tt tect abastrgo Tiktaiel¢ ad? sed? duaiogs "sex99b 
youdelolieh sdf to nolsneey adt tot aoltizeag » allt of veel tok 
& Ofuiisanoo tom B2b jeoroeb eldt otonsy of MoLtow », fom bus yvetomd 
“situ imsoo edt oviy of iaakoktive ton sow Bae .odeorv, of nelion 
_ sfiod tate 
ativablrts bes eeodtiveg tast atbhivetg. ein « acs teat somes on 

dud elit bea PF aoe edt ot heteteetg baa gaktiew. SS borsqoty sd tous 
ayeei rot cotter nh at +t idivnbltte Se Sait soltlteg a ton af eidt 
Yonsielteb adv te sol teogy ott tet goidiveg » eLtt, bere eneyretal of 
ont ye honiupen rengnm ed? ah hodmeeerg toa coy 2 oLide bas.qaotgeb 
ett oti hersdae bus woltom od? Deatatxstag Fuge ad? iLkte ehus 
aw aektas odd emis ut te sottegitit oat to Lowtaoo ovnd 2h, tiw0a 
ois feds duets add ot eeey modtolbaltul te aolteeun edd bas ,obom 
ont oOktew Hoegqaty edt aioteaiae of yinodiys duadtiw et tteo 
| watosh yoreketieh edt satta ayo 98 aidtin Dovedag ang Aatinn “4 

Utnemeadus ,ginstaetes enact teniegs boveine eoy To banta 
sew gaitiew af sodthiteg « yilemk? bon gamit ant behgetxe dryao pam 
imouneadsa bas sottites etdt mogy ot of bas, hortypet ea .holit 
abad gow tage edt Te wohtoe tadt gatbsesorg 














be Pa OF 





5 

and at the same time entered an order sllowing the defendants Lucian 
Jerecki and Victoria dsrecki, to file an amended petition within 10 
Gays from thet date, and the plaintiff to answer within 5 dsys there- 
after. 

The question seems to be whether this order is a final one 
in the sense thst it finally disposed of the matter thet waa being 
considered by the court. When we examine the order that was entered, 
we find the court only ordered that the motion of the plaintiff to 
strike the petition be susteined, but no dismissel has been entered, 
and the court st thet time entered « further order granting the 
defendents le-ve to file an smended petition within 19 days. Jo 
when we come to consider the record, ve believe the court had jurise 


diction, and when the order wos entered on February 89 (1938, Aeny ing 
cht inate 


—_ 








CARED Spat cscsisoh\ 


plaintiff's motion to dismias the defendants! amended petition filed 


(ORR OO OR ET ti oe Na 





OEMS A ET ANAT PE AEE NO AS ROE ROE AA TIE ities 


on February 6, 1936, the Sourt hed _jurisdietion to enter the order 


AAT in ey 


ee oe aaa ab ae ta 
from which the defendants Row appeal, 
ee Dati 
For the ressons stoted, the order appesled from is «ffirmed, 





ORDER AFFIRMED. 


DENIS Be SULLIVAK, Pede JORCURE, 
BURKE, J. TAKES No PART. 





3 
sotetd sinetasted sdt uatwerle tebto we berets ehl2 wae ene os Bam 
CL aidtiw’ noititac bebooms we 82% of ,hkperet eivotet¥ Seve oer 
~sredt oyeb @ nintiy fovnne of PPatekaly ead baw seteb pedo work eyeb 
| ; tothe 

agg Iemit « ef webtoe eit r9edtede ed oF meen nckPweup ed? 
gales saw ted? sedtes oct te Seeugeth ylinait vi fedt samen edF 2k 
.oevesae ase feet teh<e o4t onlanee ow ned¥ .theoee edd Yo borebsenod 
of ran dase ad? to welfoam @4% tent borebte yoo trovoo Bae Balk eo 
,bovetne aaed end Lawetmath ox ted ,benteteue ed noterted ent oxrsid 
ait wiht vateo reeirat « Secodns omit tedt te ttveo edh Baw 
eé eayeh OL aigtiw sokfideg Sehveme ae ofl of evcel atneinets’ 
jeitut bed ftceo edt evalied se ,ugaer ed? tebLenoo of emod ow nedw 
gaiyash ,886L ,5 yrauxde! ao beseine cox sehao edt aeste ban toksokh 
beri? BObTLIBG Sabeoms todacbavtad ant ‘waEma th ot noftom a'ttistatsiq 
‘abso. odd tegn9 at pod torbe tut bed ‘tu09 “edt ited se oo tawrdet we te 
__ akan wort atnckastes | odd dota aot 

sbearclt2s ch wort baltecs’ webto ety ,beeate endceor oft saa 


i La} 





EMAL IYA MING | it daw gotus 


verivoHed otal MATIN va ae 
a Ou BaxAT ,L au 





40332 


IN RE ESTATE OF SAMUEL H. WEISS, 
Deceased, 

ABE BERKOVIT2, APPEAL FROM 

(Claimant) Appellee, 


Ve 


) 


THE WEST SIDE TRUST AHO SAVINGS GANK, 
a Corporation, and ROSE WEISS, 
Executors of The istzte of Jamel 
He weiss, ecensed, 


(Defendants) Apveilants. 





¥R. JUSTICE HEGEL DELIVERED THE GPINION OF THE COURT, 

This is sn apperl by the executors of the fstste of Samuel 
H. Weiss, Deceased, from an order entered in the Cireuit Court of 
Sook County allowing the claim of the elaiment against the istsate 
of Samel H. yeiss, deceased, for {2,069,.85, together with interest 
in the sum of $728.23, waking » total of 2,797.88, to be paid in 
due course of sdministretion, which claim was disallowed in the 
Probate Court of Cook County, Illinois. 

Complying with an order entered in the Cireuit Court of 
Sook County, the claimsent filed » bill of p»rticulars in which he 
alleged that on January 8, 1916, he entered into 4 contract with 
Samuel H. Yeiss, decessed, whereby he was to receive the sum of 
$35,00 per week, plus 325% of the net vrofits from one of the 
departments of the business of said Samuel li. Weiss, designoted as 
"Wen's and Boys? ReadyelNade Ylothing", and the avreement continued 
from year to year until the death of Samel i. ‘eiss on Vecember 10, 
1929; thst during said period settlements were ande from time to 
time, and that there are two accounts - the New York Tailoring Company 
and the Chicago Sample Clothiers - upon which the cleimant did not 
receive his one-fourth share of the mt profits, which comoanies 
were indebted to weiss in the respective sums of $5,995.75 and 


$3,272.90. These creditors being indebted to Weias they conveyed 


a: woe 
i vi vay 


: - a 
aaige HM AUGMAS FO BTATER GH As 
: wboeseon . 


wont wr fe _ STIvowvize aa 
| "at {05 L00c4 (#menksso) ae 

v | 
slid SOWIVAC OA ReUNT SOLE nats 7 


4 OLR GOOR. bam goehteroyxes @ 
_foues te araden ed? te aretyoexrR 


adseaconed salon. ae 
setansiogas fetaenrer aX). 


ey aiyet 


,tOoD BEY ao MOtMTdO ant dxeavraad diet aun teu ‘am 
- ‘Leumee ho See ted ant to etedwesms edt ud iseqas ne ab onet 


to trust tiumet@ edt ut borotne tebte sa wort shoenooad sotor oa ft 
otared edt fotkene trambato oat te malo aiid aatwoits yin0d “Koat [ 
“tasvoaal Avie ‘resitogos 188.880, Sb <ot boast saekor He “oumad' te | \. 


rahe ke 
itt bing od ot ee. tered te issos s gatsian 88.0879 to ave odd at 


alt nd hoveiteatd way bole dontcter okdontatatubs ‘to Poel, © tub 
edemitor ‘seiaued 00 to" tu08 "Voneent 4 

te frye tigori say me beratne ‘robo He dtte attend ie aM 
od sade at etaLuoitred to Skid « beLlit tnsmsole edd a ¥au0d 000 - 


atiw tostines « otat boretae ed cae 8 yenasl ao teats begeste 


ee botsaglesb gaetov oN Leomet bhee te ewnabun eae oe aie 
begnisnoo tneneetys edt bae ,"gaidtol® shalieybesh revo bas 
,0L tacdmeos mo aeiet .N tous! to dtwab edt Iidde Usdy a) ts 

ot omi? mort ebem etew stnomaditen bobveg blew gated i 


bits pean ee te amye avitoeqeer ast a 
beyovaco yes satel ot hotdebat gaisd ators hexo ovedt 





2 

to him in payment of their accounts, two parcels of renl estote in 
Chicsgo, whichare referred to as the "Clark Street” and “Grand 
Avenue" properties. 

In the latter p«rt of July, 1929, Serkovitz end Abrsham 
éuckerman, the Ilsetter being »n employee of Mr. ‘eiss for 21 yenrs, 
visited \eiss who wes ill at home. Mr, Herkovitz told ‘eias thet 
he head eight hundred some odd dollars due him on the Chicogo Sample 
Clothiers account and twelve hundred some odd dollers due him on the 
New York Tailoring Company accounts Mr. ‘eiss then sid thet the 
secount showed in the books; thet he would be down in » week or 
ten days and give Berkovitez credit for tt in full. He never returned 
to the business after thet converestion. Upon the death of Weiss, 
Berkovitz filed his cisim in the Probate Court in the aum of 
$2,069.65, being 25% of the sum due and owing on the tro accounts - 
the Ohicago Sample Clothiers and the New York Tailoring Companys 

Upon the trisl of the cause in the Circuit Jourt, which is 
here on appesl, the estate offered no evidence, After » hearing snd 
after the present=tion of srguments, the court entered a judgment in 
favor of the claimant in the sum of #2,065.65, together with interest 
for £728.23, making a total of ®2,797,88 to be paid in due course of 
administretion. 

The errors relied upon for reverssl by the executors of the 
Estate of Samel H. ‘eiss, Deceased, are: (L) The court erred in 
holding that the olaimant was 2 competent witness to prove the books 
of account msinteined in the business of Samel H. “elias, Deceased; 
(2) the court erred in admitting the books in evidence without proof 
thet such books were true and correot; and (3) the court erred in 
allowing the claim of Abe Berkovitz in the face of the evidence which 
conclusively established th=t Serkevitz's interest, involved in the 


Claim liquidated by the acceptance of the real estate, was joint 






















ni @tetee Inet to elooreq owt .etnuovor vieds to daomyen, stb alse f 
baerd” bes "teerth acalo" et ax ot heristes ons slotity eogrotdd 
— seeideagorg Noutteva 
andes’ bee sibyested aGGRs atiot te deeq tettaL odd al | 
eereey Lf tet setov «1k to. She de®: fr wad a wattak ode sttarrexomt 
sadt webs? Bkod stivodeet otk samen te LL ase ode soto bettety 
osqunl egcolt® sdt no mid eub einileh bho emoe borxhautl “tlhe | bod ‘ot 
pid 6 wis web welled bho smoe bother svlew? baw tavonos ereidtelo 
andy Jatt Bios modt ealev .t¢  .tmvesen yeoduod yaltolley wreY won 
to teay « mt mwob sd Bdwow of tet? padeed ode at boworle tavodes 
bsatwtox xeven off .Ligt mi 2 tot tibero stivedte® evig dug eyab get 
qeaiee to dteab edt ace. .anoisoevevaeo tad? rethe pecnteud odd o@ 
te sue wid af deel etetorts edt af mini | akg ROLL? xtdvodeee 1 
- etauoocs ont ad¢ 0 gaive bas vb wae eid To 68 gated, saDA0048 
swinowoO gatrolia? axo% wok ost hus ateddtes eLgmad ousonad eit + 
ek doisw ,orvo0 tivextS sdf mi waves ade be Laded add og Sed f 
has gaitéet s sett, seonebive oa fetethe ateing ode: tnoqan fo ered 





ad Qrexgbdel a berets feu0d od? yetosegyte Re maftotasegaq.edt tedts 
feeretel dtiy tedtegot ,@86880.8> to awe sdf at dmemialo add to: ‘ave? 


} te gatveo eub af Bie¢ ed of hah a te Latot & ere seS.0800 nat 


pheenoosd wsaton «¥ Isic? to sseitend ent nk: ‘beaanta: | 
 footq tuedd le eonebive al @avod: wrpulenmees bers sill 


3 
ownership of said resl estate with the dece»sed, Snmel H. elsse 


As to the point made by the executors of the estate that 
the claimant ess not 2 Competent witness to preve the books of 
account in question, Sec. 3, Che Sl, Ill. St. Yar Stats. 1937, 


provides thats 


“where in any Givil action, suit or proceeding the ciaim or 
defense is founded on = book account, any party or interested 
pergon may testify to his sccount beok and the items therein 
contained; * * * that the entries therein were made by himself 
and are true and just, or thet the same were made by a deceased 
person in the usual course of trade, snd of his duty or employ=- 
ment to the party so testifying; and thereupon the said sccount 
book snd entries shall be admitted as evidence in the cnusee* 


This court in passing upon the competency of *» witness in 


the onse of Miller & Graves v. Pratg, 179 Ill. Appe 204, seid: 


"Section 3 (of this sect) we regard 29 an independent provision, 
heving no reference to either sections 1 or °, ‘%e are of 
opinion thst it was méant thereby to provide thet in ali esses 
a party may testify as therein strted te the extent necessary 
to admit his books in evidence. If it had been intended thst 
such evidence could not be given to the books by an interested 
party where the adverse oz»rty acted in « represent-tive capacity, 
then there «ss no need to adept section 3 at all, or where 
section 2 ssid thet the party could not testify "by virtue of 
the foregoing seotion’ it should have resd "by virtue of the 
foregoing or the succeeding sections’,.* 


Then agein this court in the esse of MeGlassen ve. Housel, 
127 Ill. Appe 360, upon 2 like question, s=id: 


"The first section (of the act) treats of the genersl competenoy 
of interested parties and of parties who heave been convicted of 
crime, The second section limits the general competency created 
‘by virtue of the foregoing section’ (these being ite own words) 
by excepting certsin onses where the -dverse party sues or 
defends in certain representative or fiducinry cepacities. But 
to these excepted onses are made in distinct psragraphs certain 
exceptions in which such general competency provided for by the 
foregoing section is declared still to exist. 

These two sections, *s it seems to us, were independent of 
the third section, which enlarged the common law rule concerning 
account books by allowing such books to be proven as well by the 
oath of an interested party os by the oath of » disinterested one.” 


So from the provision of this section to which re have referred it 
would seem thet it was not error for the court to permit the clsiment 
to testify reg»rding these books of sccount. 

The defendants contend thet the evidence »-s insufficient to 
admit the books of account in evidence under Section 3, Ch. 51, which 


we have discussed. 



























eseis’ NH Iougmnt aace9eh add dtiw atetae Leer Siew to “kanxsave 

tad? atedea ode To atotivoone ert ya abun std Oey ay ot BA . 
te edeod od¢ vot of naantin teeseqwen 5 Pots aan sasmt ato ont 
atROL wadate wat ofS LST fh .GY Qh otek aad taaup 1: Suna 
ivan _ Bobs vere. 


ws mahalo ad? sagbannges wo tive ghtod tou fivis win ae onedy* 
Satesrotel te Yoreq Ye gewoote Hoot «= ao bohawet ei sareteb ~ 
Aiexeont eet ott ban dood dageow aid o¢ Vitaee Yon Aeereq | 
uleawis yd Shen ever siovate asivias adt fens © "© themkernoe |” 
Seenemed « yl Shan oro gone add tea? to ,deu nes aurt ors bas _. 
~yolume to veoh aha te bee sonnet to etevoo Chimur bith mh hobseg 
tweens bice ec3 sogqueredd Ses pk ae o@ Yrteq est oF gage 
F,eeonn set oi worehive we nes ad Ifete eekttad boc Sood 


LSE INT 


‘i 4 ix 


i swoitie « To Yousteumee ea? noaw aatownd gi teyoo eid? 
ghtee ghO8 syed .£fT OTL yetort sv savas A walt iy 


atetnivere trebanrbbit ite ae brome ow (tae afd to) 3 wekdoaR* 
te ors a tae £ eteddoae: sededie of epnereter. om gaived. 
eoe00 Ife ai ‘dant  gh.beotte ne ydered? treba sew tf tant einige © 
YIcsavoon tasees wit ot hodete aiored? an. yrbteoz, ye ¥ rarer 
fedd Sehesins aesd bed Ff TE .oosehtve at whoed wid tebe of 
beteuredal ax yd sXoad ad? of aevig o0 tan Dince spaabkye doue. , 
atiisages evitstaenterer a al tetern ites seterbe ant srodw yFteq ” 
erede yo ,ife ts 8 wé@idese tyobe ef boos one ageas aedt 
ts eedvav we! vbiteed tem Bivoo yerso ont tedt bise @ mottos — 
ade to estuly et beer saved Bivede t£ tapitees griggotet odd. 
*,aneitooe enibosndys edt to Batogotot ; 


 giswuelt sv gevgathew Yo sexo edt nt tervoo eidt alege neat” | 
‘thice’” yroltessp oll ® mogy OBS sqqk kin PAE 


youstecwed Laveands ort to stoosd Ghee att fo} tobtese ‘sax? ‘eaeee 
Yo beteivace seed eved adv esitveg to baa ashtueq boteoreial Yo, . 
erg YORI teqwen egeer Agr agimtl aoltoss aaa 3 bp ot 
ehtow ovo thi yalod send?) tnaitoos gaiousret edt.to.sotaiy. ‘ed 
: 14 séye ¢itay severhe edt etedw atnes abate pol ge tqSoxs 
tuG .paitioages yiokoubit 10 sydtetaoaetges alads ie 
akedroo qagatancie feattale” rely ace seace ei havaooxe ai ainsi 
ed? yd tot beabiverq yonstaqm tone, dows mod. sheen bisa 
ti peg Peg aiton 


to ean od 














staize of fr Ap tige ont d 
to dushbasqebal arew yey ot anesg F486 —8G0l@OOe . gr ieasge A 
guinrocnes ‘olor wel momsoe oft Beytelas dotite vial vobe. baud ith 
adit yi ilew se gover: ad of edood daue . OO BH 
"ono hetesrotnieth « to ittnc sit yd ae qer9q bateerosak a ‘to 








th borreter evel ow Aohte ot aotioee elit 9 te 5 sodstveta st mort ot 


“ytdueoos: Yo ‘ified’ ‘gandd val ig gy gute 


si * 
ol 
ite eal? PA 


at tnekodtiwant eoe eonsbire adt ‘Yond “paatacs 
dmtste £8 ft .© webtoe® vebas serahiwo ab taxvetorn to exteod 


The claimant identified the «ecount booka of the decedent, 
Samuel H. Yeiss, which were used during his lifetime in the usuel 
Course of business at his place of business at 624 Roosevelt ‘oad; 
that the books were kept “in the safe in the business of Samual H. 
Neiss and in the desk during the day", und were there at the time of 
his desth, snd were the “only books thet were kept" of his trange 


actions. 
From an examination of the evidence, we think the triel court 


was fuliy justified in permitting the books of sccount to be received 
in evidence. 4e must besr in mind thet the smount claimed by the 
Claimant in this proceeding xs not disputed, But the defendant te 
this elain eontends that the claim of the claimant is not provable 
against the estste of Ssmauel He ‘eiss, decensed, for the reason that 
from the evidence it sppears that the scmount due esa between the 
parties as partners. To determine this question it is evident from 
the record thet during the yearg the claimant »-s working for ‘ciss 
he ws being paid at the rote of $35.00 a week, tocether with 25% 
of the net profits from one of the departments ef the business of 
Samuel H. “eiss, degignsted ss “Men's and Hoya’ Tesdyetiade Vlothing", 
and the claimant continued in the employment of and was psid by 
Samuel H. ‘eiss upon that basis. 

It ia evident there were two claims due, one from the Hew 
YorE Tailoring Company amounting to %5,005.75, end the other from 
the Chicsgo Sample Vlothéters, amounting to $3,273.90, making a total 
of $8,278.65, and that in settlement of these claims Mr. eiss 
accepted the deeds conveying to him the rel estate referred to in the 
proceeding, and it further sppesrs thet subsecuent to thet time when 
an inventory of the estate was filed, the property wos inventoried in 
the name of Semel H. Weiss, deceased, ss owner and there is no 
evidence in the record which would indicate that there vos any cone 


tention at any time during the lifetime of Br, ‘eiss, or by the 





aineheses ad? ia exaod sawpoes eft Sattitaeds tnemtalo oft 

inven edt ah galdolll add gusvub Seeu etew foldw sale’, oli pa 

thee! thevenook A809 t2 saaninnd to eondq ald ta avonteud to aEtuED 

+8 Sdunsé Yo asontend att ah Olan ont at" dyed exew axood edt tadt 
to emit add 32 oredd stew Bas _*ysh at patted deeb edt ae bas anion | 

~enett eid ta "“Sqol stee tent atood haat ait anon dma, aiitnod. etd 


pei sanoktos 
tivee falst add anidd 9 anaiiihe itt to iit tin id | aa moet esis 


hevionss sd of taueone to atood sat galttieseg at ba lttdeug ee ase 
‘edt W Seukele tauems wit godt tnt a2 xe0d tenn OM _ seoitehtve at 

_ of tuphaeted ody ta .betugeth ton eew gathovoong aldt mi sanmtelo 
sidever, jou si tamale od? to mkole, edt tedt abasinoo mizlo ahd’ 
fad? sMOanex sed Tot ,boaeseeh .aeley .t Loumah ke etatet add tankage 
ed? Moandsd ang Buh danome oft tadd aacoiqe #2 eoasbive add mot 
mort taedlve af #2 sodtnoup eat eakwredsh of .exemézad an estineg 
aeie¥ xot gtidzew env thomtala alt axeey adt guttub tod¢ dreobs ode 
Bag ditty asdteyod qdoow # 00.88% te oder ont ta Skog gaded eam od 
Yo vasdinu! odd to atnsmttaqah edt Yo one mext ettiong fan edd to 
o"gakdtass ohaileypaek Jayok bas s'neu* a9 kevangiaeh neater. i Leyma® 
vd bise saw bas te taemyodeme ad? al beunktaon tamutelo edt ban 
saiond tadt Ae: mas i Janeen 


























motte amie tot ot tinespovdre site excogae * ne pst 
at belzotnevns sew ysreqorq adit sbeitt eon otnses | out ce ‘ on 
om ef ened? Sas teawo en .boasoeb unter 4H Le RY 


_ edt xd +0. seelo® ti To o santoree one 3 sn 


: ne hy ies, ep ee 
aN Why dae 4 


5 
executors of the estate after his desth, thnt the amount claimed 


by the claimant ws8 a@ partnership matter snd would have to be 
established in a partnership accounting. The books which rere intro- 
dueed in evidence, do not tend to prove that there was ° partnership 
existing between Mr. ‘eiss and the claimant. Further, by the contract, 
which wes in force between the parties and under which the parties 
continued to operste subsequent to the expirstion of the time, it is 
provided in paragraph one that ail payment for merchandise shall be 
made by Samuel 4. Weiss and that "all of such articles purchzsed 

shall be the sbsolute property of the seid Semuel He. ‘eisse" In 

the third paregraph it is provided thet 4, Berkevitz shall not enter 
into any contrset for his time of any neture or description "while in 
the employ of the seid Ssamel H. eiss," and further reference is 

made to the contract as “this sgreement of employment®. The last 
paragraph provides: “that this contract is not to interfere with the 
business of the caid Samel H. ‘eisse" The cover of the agreement 
reters to the zamé as "Agreement of Employment between Samiel H. “eise 
and Abe Berkovitz." 

The ouestion of whether the contract constituted a partnere 
ship between the parties is 2 question of intention to be gathered 
from the terms of the contract. Goscher vs. Bates, 280 Ili. 272, and 
in Smith v. Knicht, 71 il. 148, The case of Smythe v. ivens, 209 Ili, 
376, whieh has been called to ovr attention, seema to be in pointe. In 
this osse = Claim 2s filed in the Probate Court based upen an agrece 
ment whereby an engineer wes to receive one-half of the profits 
erising from 2 contract as compensation from = contractor, one of the 
Contentions being thet there could be no recovery in a suit unless 
there wes a settlement of the partnership affairs. The court ssid: 

*The eighth instruction proceeds on the theory thet if the 


jury find, from the evidence, that there wos * partnership between 
Evans and Smythe, then there can be no recovery in this suit 



























 peminte fewoue ont dads ere eld redte evetes out te axodueexs 

7 a, ed ot sved SLuew bars Ted dsm qidexoatnag A Ose ‘suambedo ong a : 
_ ~ettak axon doi sty exood amt s gititaveres qidex endtag a ak Dedehidates 
qisareatie, 4 rom ered? stadt every of bast tom ob {sonentve mL beMuh 
etoortaeo exit yt geet stmenkodo aut bate wekor ov aoewied gnateixe 

asitesg ad% doidw tebay bas sekdtac ent neorted oveat att enw Mokate 7 
ei 2 yemkt or? Te motteriqxs off af taouseadua ‘etetaqo oF Winuibbiad 
Sd Bieta ef ihataderée xe earteyer Lie sad? to dqatgated at bobivete 

bowenotud seleéien dows to fLe® dea? bee RoldW.Y Loodel qa epee 

ott *yestde? 6H Levaed Gane edt te ysesnony otdloede et o¢ Liade 
votes fou Linis stiveteet .4 oot BebEvotd af HM eraryertag Beidt ode 
at ofLide™ nokt¢eixbesh a6 oruden wits to amet etd tet doattase yas tak 
ai @eriarster teddeyt Bae " seise 68 Louas® bine sat te yo lqwe ‘ods 
thet ee? . "ecards Yo faemoerge ale” en deantade ods of Ohem 
f ont’ ftie ssateotat oF tos ei sortisoe Gidt Gade" peabsvers digs tget6q 


: 


. ¢oameswge ed? Texevoo ed? “sete? oh Levee hice odd To weankeed 
7 enket of Loumet nosweed teanyelqad 26 txomeerga* as Sune edt ot etoter 
ee bite ER, SORCE 3 tepane” Baa, Sey *exdivoxred odk hae 


H eyentte¢ ¢ betytitenos soertaot edt vodtede Yo molktaawn edd 660 oe 
| horedies od ef aolinetni to seiteowe # at -peltreg oft abewted gine 
——sbas {AVS £2 O88 yuated ov gedoeed ateotdaed ade te sated 9nd mot? 
(LET GOS gadowe ov otdyme o-onan edt sOhL eLEE L9 cag tee! ew ede ot 
at siniog wh af oF amsee .noliaetis tun of belive nesd-ued dotde OTS . 
-oarge w8 doy Beasd tryo8 etadort od af BeLlt ase atelo « Seng BLad 
“adfor off te Madesto oviveed of gow weentgas me Worse tao 
| gf Yo awe yeotostinee # mot? soktzsaaymas ae Toottaeo 2 nett (gekeite : 
|  weetae tine 4 al Yreveter ad ado bLioo aredt tad? gried anoliaetaco : 
(—- gbkee dxwot Od seTkstte qhdeteaieag edt Ro saomedeen dace erent 
; edt Yb test yrosds edt a0 ebesvons aoidsurtend dtdgte: edth Aw 


moouted qidarentteg se gee oTadt tedt ,sonebive ghd 
give ebdd ad yrevenst om ad ant exedt mode dt yes 





unless there ens s settlement of the partnership «ffairs in the 
lifetime of Smythe, There wos nothing in the evidence on which 
to bese this instruction. Claimant's contention wos, thet he 
wes to be paid for his services one-half of Snythe's profits. 
This would not mske them partners. Hurton ve Goodspeed, 69 Iil. 
237." 

From the evidence, ail of which is consistent with the written 
contract of employment, there remzins no doubt that %‘eise wes the 
sole owner of the assets of the business, including the real estate, 
and thst Serkovitz was entitled «ss an employee to his selary and 
aliquot share of the profits. There is nothing contingent or une 
eertein about the claim, snd we believe the claim for the »mount 
suggested by the claimant is borne out by the evidence, 

Ag we have previously strted, it depends largely uoon the 
intention of the parties as to whether the claimant was «= partner of 
Samuel He Weiss, and from the facts as they appear in the record, we 


are of the opinion thst the claimant «ss an employee of Wr, ‘€iss 


tener retention 





ON ER nA AED pl SELLA AOE AL OEP IENT thE > 


at the tise of the business SFARSESTIOR and that he waa entitled at 


aanee emer Pee omen’ 
_——— 


the time of the death 0 of Mr, feiss. to the sum Lae 2,069,865, being 
25% of ‘tes wan @ due and owing on two snhenkhe- - the Shiengo ‘Gample 
Clothiers, snd the New York isiloring Company - with interest in the 
sum of $728.23, making = total of $2,797.88 to be paid in due course 
of administration, 


For the reasons stated, the judgment is -ffirmed. 


JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, 


DENIS E, SULLIVAN, Pe de CONSURS, 
BURKE» J. TAKES NO PART. 







a. 


aff af aetiett« qideranties sdt to teeeelstoe « eew reds aBe 
delve ae onaebive edt ai guidtod eer oredT ,oityn® Yo ousseree 
of dedt ggou aobtaotiveo es'ivenin£® .aottourtent eldd seed of 
satitoete penn’ age te Tind-eng eeokrree aid tet biegy Od oF eee 
a 88 abgegebeos ¥ aotuud ser onteay wedi oxen ee? Siheee Boe 7 
























' gotiiew eft ditin tastetenod af soide to ifs ,saneblve ed¢ mort 


7 ; 
: ott aon ebion dedt Sdyoh on aniemet avede ,taomyetqae Do toerdieo © 


—«gktntes Lown edt gothulest ,eesutend add to utsena odd to temwo alee - 


; bas yeixe eld of seyoiges ae os Dedthtas aow xtivexted todd bee 
7 

q ty to swegeidoos gatdtor af ered? settberd ede te aneie touptin — 

| taons at tot wfials edd evolied ow baw ,wiato edt tweds wheres : 


| . (,womebiee edt we two eenod af doaminde edt yO hotneggne 
1 eid goss Weotek ehneateb ff berete YWaveiveto eved ow ea oOo : 
te coateng « sex tmendele ogt redteate of eo aatting eft te neheasdal 

aw ,bvone7 edd al tears yodt. en agoct oft sett deo yaater .H Le 
ake! 4T TO HeYOdREe He cow FHandalo od? dade aolnigg sdf to ets 


v Decsediiicaremonaiaaatenien alt nin 


te Relertne wow ed todd bax nontenanant sontbatd wid ont Yo att ond te 
A Le ALLO C Cn tee? 


= amend 


- yintad ” «80 BG, 88 Ye se eat ot ap iow ote te ddnab ont %@ sete ont 


i es ai Cate oan eT 


pfemae ogaezd® ont < stiwonse ext ch nadwe han eu moe sat Yo ae 








| eit mt testadal dtiw ~ yeugmed gaitelicl aot weil add hae yeretdtolo 

_ sermpe eub ng Bhee od OF BOLTES ASD To Lated e yakdaw yoeeBST} to muse a 
i" . snottnnverainbe Yo 7 
: pS eOTE Me ak toenghet eet adel eronson emf Tet) ¢ worst 


WF site's or. <7 ne oe a £ 
Usb edlg e¥ fi? dias aS 
a 


end eth Reis ~ nied a 





i - ' ; : & wy (gp %: F 


a“ wT GGA ¢ auc, 


if , ™ ¥ ‘ ; mG * 





40362 


GLENN THOMPSON and MILDRED Be 


THOMPSOK, APPEAL FROM 

(Plaintiffs) Appellants, 

Ve 
) 


SUPERIOR COURT 


/\ COOK COUNTY. 
1.A. 620° 


MR. JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINIGN OF THE COURT, 


FLORENCE OTIS, WEBBER CARTAGE LINE 
INC., 2 Corporation, and EDWARD E. 
KLEINSCHMIDT, 






(Defendants) Appellees. 





The plaintiffs by this sppecl seek to reverse » judgment 





entered February 25, 1938, on the verdict of 2 jury finding the 


defendants not guilty of the charges of negligence lsid against 
 -~ahapadlear nae dnd bcaeet es 


them in the seperate eeuplalate of piaintiffs Glenn Thompson end 
Mildred 8. Thompson, his wife. 

The actions grew out of a three-way motor vehicle accident, 
which occurred on Maroh 24, 1935, on ‘oute 42, or Sheridan oad, at 
the north limits of the Villsge of Lake Slu@f, between Chienge and 
Waukegan, in which plsintiffe were seriously injured. 

The two cases were consolidated and tried together as one 
case, with one series of instructions, but esch defendant was repre=- 
sented by sepzrate counsel. {he court overruled = motion for » new 
trisl and entered judgment on the verdict, 

As we have stated, these two oxses were consolidated, and 
tried uvon an smended complaint wherein Edward &, Kleinschmidt wes 


made an additional defendant. The _pleintiffs — were riding as guests 


ate 





A eR Arar tinenterie hm 


in the csr driven by Kleinschmidt and it is slleged that they were 
in the exercise o of due care and not guilty of any contributory 
négligence, 

The complaints in the tro cases were the same as to the 
charges of negligence, and the negligence «s to injuries, while 


variant, sre not material heree Wo point has been made by the 









, BORE tus 


















is ‘Yaticttbedl A eh ace Ly 
wa paste 


ehhh RGATHAS. SARE SH . ALTO. sd 
2a GhaAved sad Ohta TOO 8 ao 


‘ » Dp ee < 


eai300 orn we 








oS THIOO Bi oe 





4 \ One re _ sBaeL Legg, (efaabasted).. 
9 g a A. i ‘, : oe we sed PRE enn wm Mae 

| “shetiod we tO wOLHTTO any GuANVIGRe aeeww BorreUe a TO 

a dneojbut « Sexever OF Hoos Enters hide yo wttLintesy wat rei 

_ ait gate at paibatt Yt a to soibter ott isd eer se ‘reutdalt bore beretnd 

— tom etasbnoted 


deniees Bier sony tise To wegen» ait To o YOreiy 
‘Bote ieneinesal ated et idataty to statasanibo ——— tat al dened ; 





REI bam Bae UNE! 


— eloisev esd spied 9 to ‘fo fitied enottor ate: aad so 









i ete f tates noowisd nacht etal ty eyortet edt to Y spine me 01 
| | ' Rowutat Yfnuerton oven aMblitnisig Motdw int meyeduat 
‘on te xottency beict Sar borebifoenos wr ow aoeso ow? ar wate eit : | ; 

| netyds bay YaoknOteb Heed tud yetosFesedads to BeEdée’ end Atty, Se : 
wan @ tot moltor a saiicaletilaie fx u9o ont oie ones Stereqae a tinh 
8 Getbeoy edt ee Heeomybirt borenad’ bas are 


ae 
oe 


bas botehtlossoo etae gene owl onedt botete ovnd ow ea - 
S| 

ase *himdoen sell .f breed aisvads talalames bobrome ae oa bette 
os ee gaibiz orow ett Hatsio edt . _ etaobnsteb Lia Hhbba * obas 4 


ere: yedd tadt beyelfe ef at bas patameansbee oT novisb Po ae 
- erotudintaos yrs to Bh ei tort _ wtwe tub Yo —— prileod 








et aeeiaal 


2 

defendants as to the pleadings, so that the questions here involved 
are questions of fact, snd from the statements made by the several 
parties interested in the subject matter it would seem thet many 

of the questions of fact are controverted, However, in stating the 
facts it appears that on the evening of March 24, 1933, the defendant 
Florence Otis, since married and known as florence Otis Fetzer, 
spent the evening at the spartwent of Gordon Jones, at 11°99 Lake 
Shore Drive, Chicago, where « dinner party =2s served to the Misses 
Florence Otis, VJorothy Senn and Berbara Senn, Devere»ux Bowley, 
Gordon Jones and Paul Anderson. Just before the twffet dinner 
cocktsils were served snd Kiss Otis, with others, joined in the 
refreshments, she drinking one cockt2il, About 8:99 olclock P. Me 
the party left the spartment to go to 2 sksting rink at the Naval 
Training Station, north of the Village of Lake Bluff, which could 
be reached by driving up sheridan Hosad from Shiesgo, They left 

in two automobiles, one 4 Ford coupe owned and driven by Florence 
Otis, and the other 2 Buick roadster driven by Gordon Jones, In 
the Ford with Miss Otis were srbera Senn and Paul Anderson, the 
latter riding on the outside of the seat and Miss Senn in the middle, 
Dorothy Senn 2nd Sowley rode in the Guick roadster eith Jones. The 
parties in the Ford stopped for about fifteen minutes et ilighland 
Park at the Moraine Hotel, After leaving the hotel they drove up 
to Lake Liuff, about » mile, and overtook the Buick under the 
viaduct, where Jones ond his party had stopped to wait for the ford, 
The drivers of the two cars agreed that the Bick would precede the 
Ford to show the way to the entrance of the Navel Training Station 
skating rink, As the two cers started north from the viaduct they 

. followed a Webber Cartage Line, inc. truck for about = quarter of 

2 mile, the Ford traveling immediately behind the Buick, 100 to 150 


feet, secording to Miss Otis and Paul Anderson, and according to 














Ea m7 = 
5 i v 
bevieval ored anoitaayp od? tndt co ,egettheols, oft oF as bisa a cal 
fetovee ad? yo Shem atmanetete ad} govt hae ,to2t to anottesu ‘ors 
wae doit meee binge tl redten teepdve wed we Seveoretnl eoktrag 





ad¢t gaifvete aL ,revewol. ehodterer dace sts toast te adoktadsp ont te 
tasbaetet ef? Beek ,bf doced “te gaiveve oft oo todd azatage tf tant 
etostes a£99 bosorolt af avons har baistam sonke ebeo nonatelt 
ales esti te qesdel sobted to dasntiega oft te gitinevs ode seqe 
: nesabi edt of hevree aay gorse tenath « eTedw ,ogsetdd ),ovdad erode 
_weivel Rvseuers ,faeg eradtae dae ered yitatot e800 eomeTo Lt! 
xeanib setiud ect emote teak -geTehna Leet haw gatol mobroo 
ett ai dante, ,siette atin qwito eek baa bevzen otew. Bhinsio0e 
oN 0% Mafo'a OG8 twedA .iiadsinen aan gabingsh one ante te 





Leva ait te setr geitede « ot og of faemixeges oft tal yieaq vane 


_———_._—s_.s = es Se 


bdeme doise .Viede edad te ogesisy odd to dtaon ,noddnee, gainkert 

| Sheol yott  soueedde mexi Aook astigot’ qu gaivith yl hedoset ed 

aoaeteti WW aavéch dae banwe eqvee bret « ony seelidomotus owt mb: 

ai .eatol aeitot yt sevérd rotebeor dotud « todd sat dae ehto 

sd? ,nontedaA Lusi hae. gas otsdtst eter eftG eth détw, bret oat 

eotbbim edt at ano8 aelh ban seoe off To sbdetwe edt a0 sali renee 

edt .estol Atlin tetakeot. Kotwh edt ad shor yalwoh bar anes ydtoreG. 
basideii te esturim meetts? dyeda rot. beqgete brot edt al. pun 

qu eveth.yedt dated adt gaiveed tests, sfetel eniazod. odd, ta Per 

ait tehes.st0ice adit sootzeve das. , nin 8 duos, sttele, aed, ot 

- hre'l edt tot ¢tas ot hoqgeta bed yireq ahd pee aeaol, onedm, «tou bakw 

edt shepeta bivow Woius ad¢ tedt beotgs, ated. owt pdt to, atevtnh: ooh: 

woking? gainter?. Level, oft Yo eoanxtas, edt ot Yow odd wods of b10t 

yadt toubaly edt mov? dtcon betreve eteo owt ait aA ola ge, ga ktote, 

te tetxewp 2 tyeds, cot. souet oad, aonb. carte # tedden # mee 




















3 
Jones about 25 to 50 feet. fhe truck was traveling north in the 


northbound lane of the 18 foot conerete highwsy at . speed of from 
15 to 20 miles an hour. fhe Buick c»r passed the truok, Jones 
driving at 20 to 25 miles an hour, ond the truck going about 18. 
Miss Otis passed the truck right behind the Jones car a diatence of 
25 or 50 feet. When Jones passed the truck he wag going 20 to 35 
miles an hour, which was faster than the truck was going, The Otis 
Gar was driven at an average speed of about 25 miles on houre A 
heavy wet snow was falling and windshield wipers were working on 
the cars, fhe pavement was wet as the snow was melting os it fell. 

Just north of Lake Bluff two avivewnys lead off Sheridan 
Road into the Crabtree farm. It is 263 feet from the nerth side 
of the north drivewey to the north side of the south drivewsy, On 
the opposite side of the hard road near the sovth entrance there woe 
a telephone poie which was 139 feet south of the next immediate vost 
to the north. Another telephone post steod on the opposite side of 
the hard rosd nésr the north entrance which xs3 301 feet from the 
post at the south entrance, 

On the same evening about 19 o'clock the defendant Sdeard 
E. Kleinschmidt, with his niece iiilda, and the plaintiffs, Glenn 
Thompson and his wife Mildred, as guests, left the Naval Training 
Station skating rink in Kleinschmidt's twelveeoylinder four-door 
Cadiliae sedan to drive to Highland Park, where Kleinschmidt lived, 
end where plaintiffs had left their ear upon joining the Kleinschmidts 
to go to the skating rink. On their way home Kleinschmidt was driving, 
Glenn Thompson was st his side on the right of the front seat, Urge. 
Thompson was in the back seat directly behind the driver and Hilda 
Kleinschwidt was seated beside Mrs. Thompson. They left the skating 
rink at 19:05 o'clock, or theresbouts. It was snowing end the 


temperature was rar and cold. Double windshield wipers were working 


& 
at? ai dtvom gatievert asw feut? sdf .f8et 98 oF B82 tuoda Bonet, 
wevt to besas @ te Yietigid eterence tect Si ed? te otel bayodddtor 
senal .lount act Heeeeq cso doavll ed? .twed mea eeLim OK of 21 
e@k tueds agzon douxt odd dae qraed we eeite €8-0% 08 da yadvixd 
to senetalh 2 ess waneh add bnideg tdgie Aout? edt Heaeeg ekt0 aolu 
3 of % gncieg now ad Soest aff bewsceg sono aedt feet 08. te es 
ei$S 48% .qiiey sew toute ed? aed? tedest aor dolde stwod as seiim 
& e&eot ae eciie 25 daads te boege egatevs aa ide sevich saw seo 
gu gnivver eter avauiw Sisidebaie faa galiied eee wom towoyveed 
Lick #¢ ta guiztiom ase wane 40 es dew gew teomeraq 982) sated) edt 
ashivei Fro Sasi averevixh owt Tiel tded Yo déaen tent sik fh 
ehis kPyos ext woext feet 888 ef 21 west soetdaet edt otal Baok 
a0 .yowovdth adwoe edz toe Siie wien ode oF qewewite ‘steer ade To 
new ayods Sonatcae dees ed? teas Boor Brad ott to obie etigegqe edt 
feog Q2albonei sea ocd to Stvoe saat Gi ase doddw eloq enesdiqelet s 
te able a¢igoges eff as Soete teog sundyalad saddens adtton edt ot 
edt sort goot LOL cer dokiw senacene dtton ad¢ teen beot brad edt 
seoneteae dives edt ae teoq 
Srowhd tachasteh en? doolets OL tueds gataovd tess OAT MO 
neeid ,ottitedels ed¢ Bas yohlex gveta vid tiv gthdmdoantely «i 
giicdes? Lovet edd thed ,eteowg oa ,bowblis, shin edd has sogqeed? 
toobewwey webeilyourtiewt ethimdvealely af Ands goitess moktar® 
,Devid thimdosntels exede ,Atet basidgll ot svieh ot mebse vaLithed 


atbisdoented’s od? guietet moge tee thedd hol hat atttiadielg orede bas 
aunivich saw thindoemiels saad yan chad? 2G wate gabtedte edt ot og. of 


seth ,gese faett odd to Gags edt ag ebke eld te enn moaguod? melo 
abLiw has vevieh od? aided yltoetio geen ond edt af aaw seagwodt 


gnktade edt tel yad? » moegmedT sats obieod botnes aoe thindoea leds 


eft boe zateors eew #f .etuodaersdt xo yaoeloto 80:01, ts ants 
guidtow ete arecte bLoldebniv eldyod: «bive bas wer eee oxnpioteaqued 


4 
on the Kleinschmidt car and the windshield ras clear of snow ail 


the way scrTrosse 

Ae the Kleinsehmidt or Cadillac car came over the crest of 
the hill near the north entrance tc the Crabtree farm where the 
buildings are located, the Cadilisc and the ‘ord coupe, driven by 
Miss Otis, came in contsot,. fhe first the oeovpsants of the Cadillac 
gaw of the Ford was when its headlights were approximately opposite 
the left front fender of the Cadillse. Trior to the contmet between 
the Ford and the Cadillac, the suick roadster met and passed the 
Gadiliac without any trouble. ir, Jonés, the driver, fixed the 
speed of the Buick at 20 to 35 miles an hour at snd immediately prior 
to the secident, and the Ford coupe was going =bout the same, 
directly behind the Suieck about 75 feet, snd ur. Jones covld see 
through his rear mirrer thst the Ford we following, The contact of 
the Ford and the Cadillac occurred slmosat within a second or two 
after the Buick and the Cadillae passed each other. ‘hen the Ondillee 
and the Buick met and passed, the Csdillae vea almost on the center 
of the road, and just a little north of the crest of the hill. After 
it passed the Buick, Jones hesrd «= click, looked in his rear view 
mirror and saw the Otis Ford coupe proceed north about fifteen feet, 
and slowly veer off to the left or west. Jones stopped his csr and 
Tran back to the Ford and then down to the place where the Gadillaec 
and truck had collided, shich was about 100 feet from the place 
where the Ford was standing, 

When the Ford and Cadillac came in contact the left front 
wheel of the ford was broken go that it ended up in a ditch on the 
west side of the road near » telephone pole, but it did not strike 
the pole, After the contact the Cadillac took a southeasterly course 
across the east or northbound lane, ond onme in collision with the 


Webber Certage Line's truck, The right sides of the front of the 


s 
fie waste to melo atw bistdebake ont bin i290 thimdonntely add ne 
s8RG%O3 ve ‘att 

to teexo edt Tavo Smeo THe oalithet to thieoentely oft eA 
‘odd orede mts? eartder® ent af eomantne dtton edt re0K obi odd 
yo sevieh ,squo0 bso! sit bre oaiiibad ony ,Sotsool ats wgnkbliid 
onilihe) aft to etaaquoes oft teri? od? stosdnoe ni oreo altO eel 
stieque ylstamdxotace ocew oftaithesd edi aedw eew btol eff to wee 
nsevted tomgnon adt o¢ told .esiiibed e4¢ to rebast tot? vtol ont 
sd? Besong bie tee tefebaot deiitl odd joelitbed saé bie brot odd 
adit bexkt star ich adt ,paael th “seldyer? Yas duadttr oelt thet 
reir ylotatbewns hue t4 tod a8 ealia ae of 08 te Wolue aft to besce 
ones ods tuede gaiog e2ew ecwes Brot oct hoe yhatehivas edd 6d 
age b Lees naval oth bee q tee? an tueda foduel eit batded yltoorth 
te soetase ott eqaive iis? say bro ott tent rortte tase eld’ ‘avout 
ont se broves e mittee tednle hertwose onlithad odt bas beet odd 
ealitheS ade gece etsdite fone bar aay oeiLtbad eat bus ‘dokud adt “‘nodte 
tedaeo odd ao teomls eer oelizbed odd bors fae fon fo Basti od bers 
tadta oLkid edt Yo taoro edt to dévom elétil s jevt bas wbeot ent to 
wey geet ald as hadool stekio s a breed eens dotut odd beseeq #k 
«709t nseftit tuods dtton heonotd acnes bret eif0 edt wae ban torrin 
bas 180 aid beqyets sasot "teow so tet ost of tto 1oev viwole bas 
noses 8 ond eta sonlg edt of AWwok nedd hse brot edt od dond mew 
eontg oft mont toot nOL tuods new Motus sdebii ton bad dourt bas 
spathaste new bro’ odt oxedin 

| snort ftel ‘ext foatnoo ai ened oalithed bas brol add node 
| ‘ants ‘no doéib 9 ak qu debas sy tadt of nexond sow brol oft te “Eo ede 
gitzte gen bib th tud 9.109 saodqaies 6 ‘soe baot od? td oble seoe 
get Uo eretareddvos a foot eniitb20 edt fostaco aut somth “yetoq oat 
ed¢ dttw acieliffoe ai eunss bas (onal bavoddtoa xo ‘tess “oad” eaotos 
edt to tiort ot to seble digit od? .dowrt atlentd egetrad xeddew 


5 
Oad@llec and the truck came together. Immedistely theresfter the 


Cadillac burst into flames and Mr, Anderson, who was in the Ford 

and Mre Bowley, who was in the buick, rushed down to the dollision, 
crawled in the back seat and helped drag tir. Thompson out. After 
the collision between the truck and the Osdillse the right front 
wheel of the truck was pushed back three or four feet from normal 
position and up under the truck, bresking the bsttery box and putting 
eut all the lights of the truck. The front axle of the truck wae 
broken and pushed back undernenth the motor, The truck bumper ras 
detached and wes on the right side of the Cadillse, between the 
right fender and the hood. The Ford oie from 75 to 190 feet distant 
from the place of the truck and the Cadillac collision, and 
visibility thet evening wes bad, and the truok driver could see only 
about 50 feet shead, so that when the Ford #as 50 feet ahead of the 
truck he could not see ite the condition of the weather prevented 
the truok driver from seeing the Ondiilsac when it vos coming over 
the top of the hill. The truck driver did not see the headlights of 
the Cadiline as it came over the Bill, but saw them on his side of 
the rond when they rere within five or six or ten feet from him. He 
had on the dim lights of the truck, but hed had the bright lights 
on, the truck being equipped with =» button to step on to dim them, 
by throwing the bright lights up or down. He had not seen the 
Cadillac coming before the Yord got out of his vision. The treiler 
and truck together «was about thirty feet long end was losded with 
boilers end conveyors and was being driven with the overdrive on. 
The truck and trailer weighed sbout 21,700 pounds end the load about 
17,009 pounds. With that load the truck wes approaching the plsae 
of the collision st « speed of 15 to @O miles an houre At the time 
the Ford passed the truck the truck was going 20 to 25 miles an hour, 
according to the truck driver, ond the fords speed in passing wns 


about thirty milee an hour. then the ford sttempted to get baok on 






25 ‘ma he om 





uae 
























a ie 
ont vettsoted? yletetbaand ,wedsege? omen. doutt edt baw eaLkabnd 
prot edt wi sew ofw ,moetshaa . th bre eouelt otat, texud onlithed — 

sioiniiloo sdt ot aeoh hefieur .xelut edt sd one one .yeiwol .1h hae 
199%) ofvo sonqmed? x8 yorh Dected bas teen Xosd edt al belwete 
daett tdytt od? oaliibeo edt ans Aoust ot meowted moketilon edt — 

_. saoren watt Jest tuck. to send? aoad bedewy new dosed. ont to Leede 

“pattie bes xod yrotted oft gaitgesd ,towt? edt cobau qo bas: moktteog nw 

_ eee aoutd oct ke sine tent? ad? adeust onf¢ Bo adtight od? Ike suo 

| aor Tosa toute edt .tedam of% dbesarehan aoad Dbedeug: baeeneler 
edt asentod .oeiibed sid to gbte tdykt ed? mo sow Bae badoatob 

_ dantedh feet OM od 8% most exe byei ed? hood eit bas tebaet tatgiz 

 . she staigiiles oalilied edt bas dowsd dt te enala edt: mort 

yiite ove hiveo tevirh dowet adit tae yhad aov gatnove tad? xetibdiety 
eat te beode foot 06 ary biol edt atdw todd om ghaeds dteet 03 tuede— 
betasvers tadinoe adt 2o modttinon af tt aoe tom, biveo ed.tourt 

_. Seve primate sow #4 ade eoliibst aft galseoe mott tewdnd douet a 

“Ye. etdgiioned edt ese ton bib tevixk douss, ost .ALd ott to got ant 
te ebie ald ao msdt wae dot giikd of3, reve omeo #2 an ‘oallebad edt 

ou ttt most te0t ned xo xia to evi? aidvin eno, yest nein Daonedt A 
Btdghi tdgtid adt bad bed. dud.douns ast to etdadl ath peseiesation: ih 4 

; amoctt mlb ot a9 gota of notte « dtiw Seqqdupe guied douse. ond | 
Adit 2899 tom bed of .aweb, to qu, etdigil digits ott sven ws 
teliost eft .noietv aid te, tua, tog Drat edt exoied. gntwao 
d¢iv bobsol sew bag gaol gest yerldt trode) eer zens oot iiiee | 
wo avitbteve odt. dtin mevigd gated sew Dene SEO YOTAOD we 

suede Beol edt hee shitgod. OGT LE poate: bedysow selbord 3 


: 


OL odd tA stuod 8s satin n OB 08. ar. to besge « te 
etued £18 Pryor 8 of OS galog. 284 adouat sat sour? a 
env gafceag ai beeqe 2 fret eit baa wteyasb: atte | 


wa dand tan at batematic beck att 2edt <cued aa. 


6 
the east side of the road the right front of the car almost came in 
centact with the left side of ‘he truck, 

Immediately prior to the contact between the Yord and the 
Sadillac, Kleinschmidt wee hugging the center line of the road and 
driving from 40 to 45 miles on hour, He wae 586 years old and had 
been nesr-sighted from youth but wore glosses to corroct the vision, 
Re testified thst he could stop hie car at that tine within 20 te 
30 feet and 40 feet on that psvement, and thet he did not apply his 
brakes with full force for fanr of skidding, and went stout 60 
feet after the contact with the Otis car before it struck the truck, 
and Mr, Kleinschmidt testified that bis ear hed not come to » rest 
when it cellided with the truck. 

In this accident the plaintiff Glenn “hompson was seriouely 
injured, and by this litigation he seeks to recover damages. 

Reeiting the f-cte as called to our attention by the pl*sin- 
tiffe, and exasining the briefs thet were filed by the defendante, we 
find there wes 2 controversy unen orecticslly every cmestion of 
fect, ond thie, of course, neceasitater the recite] of fects as 
suggested by the defendonte, 

Our attention hs been called to the statement of Mra. "etver 
regarding the facts. ‘he states she wis driving her car some distance 
back of the Suick osr before the collision; that she had pasred the 
truck snd was able to see the center Line of the road all the time; 
that after passing the truck, Mrs. “etzser drove beck on the right side 
of the center line of the highway and continued north. ‘The helper 
Oy the Webber Cartage Coupany truck sew the "etcer onr pose the 
truck somewhere in Lake Bluff, After it passed the truck, he saw it 
get back on the ensx* side of the road and ssnthiialnae te in that 


position. He watehed it se far ns he could see, and »ll of the tine 
it wee within his vision it woe on the right side of the rosd, 


Benson, the driver of the Yebber Onrtare Company truck, saw the Ford 





c 8 
ni omeo teomfe tso edt to taort tdyiz edt bsor edt to ebie tease odt 
ssouts edt te ehie Pet od? dthw Pontaon 

aft ban &ee® edd aeorted tootane aft af tele ylorelbomal 
bas feot att to endl netaes, ed? gatnaed eon fhandosasers, oad: 
foil hen hte wtaey G8 see oR .thod we eudim 3 of Ob mock rare 





yaoieiy ed¢ toes ot eoeeelg atoe Ged dtary onrk baduighe~xeen aped 


nt OR misthw ont? tade de t8@ mtd @mte Rduon a Codd bedRisaed, of 
wba eheme tou th oS ‘add dar yteomever tet ae tae Ob bma.tewh 08 
Oh tesds dawe fon ,pembhbede to teek cot ooxel Lhed dike eaters 
,fowt? wit gosmwe $4 avoted una nif? os? dtiw tontane ont vette. toot 
tuow dod tuo Poe bad xno wht tact Seltitdnd shimlvembe le 4m bas 
sSoarte otte etx bebiTiow th aedw 

yieosdven bord moaned? mmf? TUeieie wd tarblogn widd ab or 
aah teVeTST of eens of Gobdmgihed ertt wh bad ~begwtat 

~oe ve ade yt coftneten wen of BOlIee oe etpeh wee ‘qakt keeR oo 
ow ~whashooteh ade we Helid erew toch eloted act gn tito fav yettas 
Yo mind terme yiowe yliseliorty geaw ye cevoudmee & ase etede felt 
i staal te Lotions oft xetativetoed ,arue to okey bas to2t 
ps ROT oO, gine clei atom: ee batawypes 

sontot ax to teemctata edt ot Aet¥aw aced eal nedtoetta wih oo 


 eSmeteh. SHOR TSO mal gaivieh sow ade getete anil astont ent pathteges 
: ests heoneg tnd ode tome » jaeieidins att oxoted ree Sodnl oft: 3o;atoed 


qomdt eft Lie beor ef? to paid TatTee OF gay oF eids cw hae does 


chia tdnit edt we dsond evoth aeeto® .«t8 , hound ad? getter vette, Pads 


regiod od? dive bourgtaos has qeeigit sit. to ones setae ode ‘Yo 
adh hace toy tense edt wok sear erage sunte® sadder oft Pt) 

tho wee et. domed melt tee wie te AeA FO ovat ab eteteeoe doers 
Partie mh dexenleenbtees: ture beet ooh Re ahee faite” ad? no oad toy 


oui) ef? % Tis haw yood bivoe on ee aan’ be TE belterew of nek theog 
: abnor oi? Le ohie tigi edt me ane $2 sokety wbtmbittw eee ts 


bre odt. mem coer, wasened —- woddo® adv to aovied oad: caonaed 


ETT CaS cL ey ee te binig Hating add exe 
eta heh  Borte ae e, tein ass PE haaoes a 


; re he ee eter as catia | cowie g tuade 


7 
pass the truck and get back on its own side of the rosd. The last 
he ssw of the Ford it ws going north on its own side of the highway. 

After passing the truck, Mrs, Fetzer first saw the lights 
of the Cadillac car approsohing from the north about 309 feet away 
from her, and that the (sdillse esr was travelling at » speed of 
from 35 to 45 miles per hour, and was travelling with its left 
wheels on the center line of the road, Mrs. Fetzer «2s driving on 
the right side of the center line of the road within « foot or so 
of the edge of the rosd. As the Usdillac nesred the Ford it veered 
to the ieft side of the highway and struck the left front wheel 
of lirs. Fetzer's car, and st the moment of the collision, sccording 
to the evidence of Gienn Thompson, himself, “either Mr, Kkeinschmidt's 
car wes on the line or just a little over it". <As 2 result of the 
collision the left from wheel of the Ford was broken, The ford 
travelled north a few feet, and then turned to the west side of the 
road and went in the diteh. After the collision the Cadillac 
travelled south = distance of from 75 to 175 feet, and it was at this 
point that the collision between the Gadillse and the truck occurred, 
The m@én on the truck testified thet they were travelling zbout 15 
miles an hour and saw the headlights of the Gadilliac car coming 
diagonally toward them 40 to 50 feet away. 

The Gadilisc was a big heavy automobile weighing soproxiastely 
6,000 pounds, It was equipped with efficient four-wheel sirebrakes 
which operated at a very slight touch of the brake pedal, 

There is a dispute between the witnesses ss to the speed of 
the Kleinschmidt car. The plaintiffs contend that the defendent was 
driving his car at an excessive speed - 40 miles an hour = and rely 
upon this slleg tion to show wilfullness and eantonness. Mrs. 
Thompson, the wife of the other plaintiff, testified that the 
Kleinschmidt car wos travelling at = speed from 29 to 230 miles an 


hour. So thet when we come to consider all the facts as we have 


ee 


y 
teed 22 .beox sft te hfe avo efi oo goad tay Soe dOnt? Of? eeeq, 
eyerdgid et? To able ayo ati oo dixsa antey any 2k broi edd temas ad 
etigsi edt wee tevlt destet .o1k ,voust odd gateang toetA | 
yous foal OOF duod s dftas ett aozt gelidesotgge t89 saitibed eat to 
to heoqe @ te gatidevesd ase Teo aeiisbed ont dastt ban gred non? 
shel afi Roky peti leven now has etude Log wolim & ot 88 wort _ 
ne goiveh oe teste’ ett Sok sda te aki tedaeo aut ae eloeiy : 
ae 19 taekt # sintiy baot gat To eakd xataeo edt to Site faigae et 
bexoev ti bro'l edd Bexsen oaliibad edt BA hee odt to sabe odd to. 
fonds sient at of ody dosrrte hate wonsigts ad? to ebie res ods - 
ya tbroons etokedl tos edt te sacmom ent a2 end ete atseater sok Yo, 
| atthéimiosn eds ete atectete* ethoamnda snongnedt mit BA bid somahive anit et 
ont to tiveany 2 ai SPL te¥e eiteee a rest, 9 ants avid xo Bee bratae 


#4 
he. 


ered at sation Rew baal ace te Soon trort great eds soteliios 
adt ko ebie taew ait ot bantut nen bate feet wet 8 ator betloverd 
ealLibad oat aotetiles sit xedta efit tb ait as aoe San bsor 
} wide te, anew as bas atest evi at ey moet. to onmateti a sieoe beisevert 
| ehorruooe tour? edt bare seiithed ont asentad nokeki Lon eet todd trbog ; 
| 
| 


| seta suodo gniilevesd etew yous eal boltitaes yout oat fo 96 ear 
| gakeor seo oallihad writ te abtgtineesdt att wie bas not ne atte 
oY awe tow 98 ot * mat baneot eLamoget 





worn dxoxage aaldaios slidomotue Wwaed aid & aa ead itbad oct 
eenatd=z ie Leede~tuot tnoiottre Ad by beqekape oow th sebawos 000,3° 
| sleboq edend aid to doyot tigtia ead * ts botorego doLew 


Lad nial a 


to eaes odd of a@ aeonondin ont nopebed ogugeie 8 ai eredt 
eas tuba? a orig tedt baosnoo ettidakedg ont 100 ‘thindoantolX ot 






ys | seconnotany bite paca LL Lty worie ot moldy ain | ode oc 
edt tadd boltiteot wttitniaig todto edt to othe suit smonqmos? 
| ax eotim OF of CS mott beege 2 te galilevert sae t80 thindonnteLA 


| Ylos baa. + euout aaa eokin op ~ beege: ovicavox9 ae te 0 ah 4 ga 


1 eva ov ae etent edt Lie teblence of omoo ow mede tadt o8 otuod 


8 
detailed them at some length, it was for the jury to determine ae 
to the liability of each @f the defendants for damages sustained by 
the plaintiffs. 

The instructions thet the plaintiffs contend were part of 
the record in thie case appernr in the additional record, which the 
plaintiffs filed by permission of this court. Upon an examinetion 
of the additional record we find it ia certified to by the Clerk of 
the Superior Court of Sook County, se 2 transcript of the refused 
and given instructions. These instructions do not aspear te have 
been ¢€ndorsed “given” or "refused" by the judge before whom the pro- 
ceeding was had; nor objections made to the giving 2nd refusal of 
them. As to whether the instructions must be merked os indicsted, 
it is provided by the Practice act, Che 119, Par. 191, See. 67, Ill. 
Rev. Stats. Bar Assn. id. as foallors: 

"The court shell give instructions to the jury oniy in 
writing and only ss to the lsw of the esse. ‘hen instructions 
are asked which the judge cannot give, he shall, on the margin 
thereof, write the word ‘refused', and such as he snpreves he 
shall write on the margin thereof the word *ziven', and he shsll 
in no case, after instructions are given, clarify, modify or in 
any menner explain the seme to the jury, otherrise than in writing." 

And it is to be noted from the langusve used in this provision of 
the statute thet the instructions shall be marked as indicsted in 
the provision. 

It further eppesre thet the instructions in the sdditional 
record were not certified to by the court before whom the case wes 
tried. Che 119, Par. 198, seo. 74 (2%) vrovides; 

* * * * The trial court record shall include every writ, 
plesding, motion, order, sffidevit and other document filed 
or entered in the cause and sll matters before the trial court 
which shall be certified as a part of sueh record by the judge 
thereof. All matters in the tricl court record sctually 
before the court on appesl may be considered by the court for 
all purposes, but if not properly suthenticated the court may 
orde? such further suthenticstion as it may deem edvisable,* 
and in order that this court may consider the instructions, it is 


necessary that they be properly certified te by the trial judge 








gh aninsetob of yret edt ‘wet eam “oe tiga se08 ta edit dekisted 
—" bentsters pegewat tat ednabaoteh oad ‘te Howe to vtitdeks ‘eat ‘ot 
| sothatatale out a 

“te free oTet babenoe ab th tbat oud font ook to unten oat ; : 


en? dolde bTenet fono bt ibbe eds ae xaeqqe 5.2 lat ai Srooor ‘eat \ 
soltoninans ne geotl «f1w00 aidt to nota ine A beret ottivakele 
6 Axel0 add yo ot perti¢van ei at batt ow brovet isnottibhs eae to : 


houustee odt Ye tgltonaent # ef ayae0® £000 to tru00 rokzeque ase 
| “evad ot teaaqe toe of auoitourdent anon? venoivosntent nov bas 
“ort ‘it mothe srgt ad aghurl aie ys hoeaut ox" te *aovty" baetobae mood : 


ated 


‘te Lonsitor bate gitivty ade ‘ot ivan aaettontso ron phot ean autbeoo 





_ 


an: ——- 


| shetnodias ‘ne boutenn ad ‘Yeu snoitourtent ett weil des of ry oe 
htt v8 “4hoe atts «tet ed off gion sotaoert ont w ‘bebtvory: ae th 
tae0L 002 ae ob ‘sfteoa td atate ver 


“nt ‘i Yrut od? ot eco ktourdart ovis ilese deen. own” on Ball 
esuoiftoretect mom! iaeao add to Wel oat at ew oyine fate geke thew: ae 
aibgias edit mo ,iieda of ,evdn fontae ogbul edt deiity belles ote 7 

od eaverces ad eo dove tad , iecvter? feow Cot atbow recdeune:! . 

iisde ed bas ,itevic’ Brow ad@ lowreds aigrad eat mo oviiw iiade 
 pketo Vthow yiirals work, ee meted toustent redts yeone omak” 
‘sgn ti tes att madd oulwxegre a Vitae eft of Oman bie akalqne ee, ve, ; 





a = +s 


=e oe 


te. aotetvory aide ri? Seeuy opnngess edt wort heton ot os at #8 het 


me 





| i ek hetworhas 88 betuem ae Linde enosdourzant ont ‘tnd ib otutate " 


| A tay War EY _ 

ab Leanoltisbs odd mi snodtousdeat eas sod ateeqgs peer os ea an te 
via ty Ry airs tim Ne RD ge 7 : 

i | aw enno at mots atoted t2u00 odd ve ot betibtzee ton oxor brooes ; 


& eke 
betes 








twebivon ©) ca 088 00 tet 04s 


tine ‘ereve obulomt Liade btoooT ewe dabet: oat 
beth seenvook wadkte bee tivebst ie pobre molten 
fasoe Lotxt edt oxoted evotiom Le fue semad ode. 

» gheh alt ad brecet dove te diag ewe HeMitoros ed 
eileutos broosy tryuod Laird edt at avedden 
‘te? druet odd 4d betohienot ad yam ae 

yan trvoo eft betaolinedtus plxeqot ten 

* eidaeives mak yam Jf we Motseszdae . 


‘gE th ganoltontiedts add teblaceo qin drved | nan 
webet Leied ode yd of Det LeTOD iroqorte ‘ed Ysa 











9 

pefore whom the oase was heard. There is = resson for the necessity 
of certifiestion of the items 15 = part of the record. This sourt 
is informed by this certification of the judge that the matters 
called to the attention of the apoellate court sere properly before 
the trial court. From these provisions of the stetute it is clear 
that the additional record is not such as this court ean consider 

in disposing of the cuestions regerding the instructions. 


The Supreme Court in the onse of Greenwell v. Hess, 298 





Ill. 459, upon this question, said: 


"It is the well estsblished role in is» cases, that in 
order to be preserved as a part of the record, 211 motions, 
including motions for s new trial and in arrest of judgment, 
and all the instructions civen and refused by the court, must 
be preserved in 2 bill of exceptions signed by the court and 
filed as » part of the record in the ecnse, Under our present 
Practice act the same might be preserved by 2 stenographic 
report signed by the tri#l judge, but they cannot be copied 
into the record by the clerk ss part of the record to be con- 
sidered on a review of the judgment unless contsined in such 
bill of exceptions, certifioste of evidence or stenographic 
report* * *, In the absence of » bill of exceptions or certif- 
ieate of evidence in such onses in chancery, or of 2 sténo=- 
graphic report signed by the trisl judge snd made a part of the 
record and containing the motion for a ner trial ond the 
instructions of the court refused end given, no cuestion can 
arise in a court of review on the sufficiensy of the evidence 
to suppert the verdict or on error sssigned for the giving or 
refusing of instructions, fucker v. Cole, 169 Ill. 159; Johnson 
v. Jarre 215 id. 542." 


Upon 2 like question this court in Jonelunas v. Chicago 
Fraternal Life Asg@n, 286 Ill. App. 219, said: 


"The clerk has erronéously inserted in the common lar 
record documents which he designates es instructions ‘refused? 
and instructions ‘given’, but st whose instance they were aub= 
mitted does not appear. Nor is it anywhere stated that such 
instructions were all the instructions offered, given, or 
refused, The proper plsce for instructions under the Civil 
Practice Act, is in the report of the proceedings on the trial 
and not in the common law record. No cuestion besed on the 
instructions is ssved." 


And then again in Surns v. Kunz, 290 Ilie Anp. 278, the court said; 
"The evidence is not preserved in the record, but the given and 


refused instructions sre erroneously incorporsted in the common 
law record. fhe proper place for instructions is in the report 


e 
eileasoas od? Tol noanst 9 af gred? .byaed sow ogee odd wade dtoted 


frwos ald? .breoer oct te otey s eu emest ot to meteacetintes te 
etetion oft tad? sghut aft to molteoltiteoo elde . epietat ef 
steted ylvaqeta emer Pryor adveaifieoougs of? to aotdaedta gut ot betlac 
teaio ai tL odutets edt Yo avotalvets seedt moat strses Lett? odd 
tehianes neo Iuoo elt $0 dove ton ef Dtooexr ienetdiibe edt vadt 
wwe ltoriged. ad? gelbteget aanoktaswn alt te goifeowath ab 

BGS spsay .v Diesgegep to aan edt al Paved among eit % 
thier gttatdeeaup aist nedy ~8Be .LLF 


Mi tedst .eeeeo «al ai gist Datiedidetee {iow ode ek FE" + 
aetoddom {Ila ,broo0r edt te trae & ea hevtenete ed of tebto 
_attaomiwt ke ¢eonrges at bee feiat won « tot anoltem antbufons »: 
toum ,ftcop eddy yd beasties base gevig anaiteuvteni edd [La bua 
bar txwoo. oft yt bengde sagigqecse te Lidd » of Bovaeeere ad. 
faseets tee TObN ,»@aep ody ai Srooas add to treo « we Holst 

cidgaryonate « yd bevteestg of Sayin onoy of? fon sodgoant | 
‘Beicoo #6 teaaao yods gud ,msbut Leixé od? yd bemgie sroget 
~geo od of broger off To freq es axade ade ys beeses asl? ota: 

fieuve ai benistaes aeeles taemabu, sd? To weivet 6 soe Dbotobie 

| gidcatgesate te tanebive te efeeltiteeo ygenotsqecse te Likd 
| ~tiivan te ugeltesexs te iLid = to sonasds edé at > 2”)? “Peaqes 
io mpitete » te te ,yTscesdo ai aoene dove. ai epasbive to otsod, 
aq? to giag os eben bre eptey fodtt ead ud bomgde trogert piidigeny: 
ia ont bane daixe eens tot maitem eft gaingevaes bar hropet 
i neo goktesup on ,#evig ite Seedtar deve ed? bo enedgourtenk: 
-eonehive edd to yoouelositas sf% se woiver To Pee 2 ah oe lee 
| to gaivig edt tok bengleas toT4¢s - bo) minal sg 4 ow 
|| forsdel gOGi »Lit G84 .es09 oF gadeyt »anottouutant te. galeuter, 
I | *,Ga2 .bf GLk sph Srzst vw 


| ‘gascid® «v asmylonch at tiyoo sidt aoltaesp eA s wogd 
| baer 


thhen ,8iS eqqA »LfT oR 





I wal sowed oft a2 beteorat yleveenortts ead gtelo edT* 

theavten! esaoitountend s2 aetaagieeh od dodge etacmuoob fSroser 
~urn etes yedd sonstent esomw te gud ,'sevky’ enoitoutieni baa 
, Mowe ted? dstate exodeyae th ef rok .thoacge fom seoh betsia’ 

me go ,fevig ,berelte exeltourteal od¢ fie exew sagitoutteni 
Livi) od? sebay anodtoutteni tod ooatg taqerg ed? .besvtet 

inizt add ag epethsocorq edt ta treges. mL eh ,teod, eodtoesi 

od? ao board aoivasup oh wbhreoot weak semano oft af som bas 

. $8 He nt ',bevee af saottorntaas 


MO thay aids iid SVR wach .iLL O88 Rul o¥ somal mh mtegs ment bas 
bae aeyty oct du gbroose edt af bovesserg. fom ek eoaoblye edt”, 


| gouneo Git ai Retcroqaooal ylewoonorts wte ettoLtour tent wt oT 
\ drgqas edt m2 ad enoktoauttanl tat soelg saqoxq oct. .btosex wei . 


ie 


10 
of the proceedings of the triel; they heve no proper place in 
the common law record. (Janelunas v. Chisago Fraternal Life 
Ass'n. 286 Ill. App. 219.) Since there is no evidence in the 
record the instruc6ionsa cannot be considered.” 

Finally, it sppenrs thet the inatructions called to our 
attention by the plisintiffe and contained in the sdditioneal record 
aré not properly preserved in order to be considered by this sourt 
upon the question of whether or not they were properly submitted 
to the jury. As we have indiosted, the instructions, so-csliled, 
are not marked “given” or "refused"; the record is not certified to 
by the trisl judge who he»rd the matter, and the edditional record 
is not such as to comply with the st=tutory vcrovision. Therefore, 
this court is umable to consider such record. 

The only question before the court is whether the judgment 
ig against the usnifest weight of the evidence, As we have already 
indiented, the ovestions were properly submitted to the jury for 
their consideration, and from their conelusion unon the faets as 


they appear, we cannot say the verdict is sgainst the manifest — 


POLARS OPE ABA LENIN Ms Si ta ah nat emere 





of the evidence, 


abi 


For the reasons stoted in this opinion, the judgment is 
affirmed, 
JUDGMERT APFIRUTD. 


DENIS EZ, SULLIVAN, P. Je CONOCURS, 
BURKE, J. TAKES NO PART, 








Of 
th Soely toyoNG ag. ered bog iLadee. ont te Lbeog song 
EAD? ST soidd .¥ sanyinget) ob poet wal moun aon at 
wat Re GORROITS am ei errs ennde .Cohhb. sak. ALT 288. aie 
| Y perobienos of Jonne® aot portant oitt bree = 
Ti ot belies acodtout tani add tomb ‘wiaboge PT “Vvttenle” 


hrqoer Imiodtibbe nai ni ‘ bandndnes bese ‘ettidaiato oat xd notdaddie 
trues elds wi borablenen “ae of vabto mk howres te elxacots tow axe 
bod dtunelive qixageta otes yout den to tedtedw to xolteoup ont nou 
oelleroe pavodtouttent edt yhoseolbat eved ow ak ett ‘edt of 
og belti¥rds ton af byeost ante jtbaewtox" te Nagy tg" bedien tom exe 
| | Proves Laneitibdea ofd Sere r99tam oat ‘besed ont sabot “Fedted ‘ode w 
i _orotaved? sap kedoor rodutnde os. tithe. ylanon of ne dows fon al 
at tate day sehzenee a8 eden at ‘roe abe 
deremeptier outs x nohibseite at Paw00 dtd anatod dokteoun ‘ino edt 
vhnet die vest ee oe voonshive ose to $:tg,t0W dont dmase aust sandoge et 
ot erat ode oe fot hasan vreceng oeee; snoktmasn ode sbotmodbad 
ae ntoat ond sacs so tau: Loes00 bead moc bam: swaddarnbseceo sade 
tify how teat krene: ede desdoas wea totines act wed ean8e ow stonaqe odd 
pi 4 peoererers = te 
eh daomgbut oat grt ao ease at 1 esate an a | 


it 





pean eA 6 See nee ee De eee pealelpasacons wikia sareesitneneiicocres ps tanteneplalape nti 











gRRR EE aA TRIM, - 


ee “3 sate 











n io 
M oe 
A 
og 
Ar, a 
r a 
; Bo PRES SA ide REN Se! EU AR an RNR ee REN get 
Wace RW AEA GR! PTE ry a 
x , sib 
* Saas bh Bs Pe ak TY 
ni My cc hak Set Oe 


Daa ac ae a #4 





a a ee 


40464 
PROPLE OF THE STATE OF 1LidWOols, ERROR TO 





(fleintiff) vefendant in trror, 

‘AL COURT 
Ve 

PETEN BOHR, 


(Defendant) Plaintirr in £rror, 


XM 
ey, 


Re JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF nIE COUAT, 

This proeeeding is in this Sourt upon » writ of error issued 
in reistion to the defendant, who submitted the ceuse to the court. 
After due considerstion the court, found whe defendant guilty and 
entered an order requiring | him to pay o%e isa) per week for a period 


a EA a es mosiee ~ 


of one year for the use of ‘the ‘ehild, 





_ the “proceeding was brought Upon an information Signed by 


I A PERERA AG ITTY 


a 


Berthe Gohr Complaining of Peter Bohr and filed on June 39, 1938, 
Charging the defendant with hoving on June 15, 1938, without ressenseble 
Cause, neglected and refused to maintein and previde for his wife 

and for Merilyn, a minor child under the sre of 19 years, his daughter, 
both being in necessitous end destitute ciroumstances, 4 jury was 
waived by the defendant when the case vag aubmitted to the Court, 

and the order appealed from wea entered as wé have steted, 

The prosecution has failed to aid the court by filing » brief 
in ansrer to thet submitted by the defendant, and therefore we will 
Consider the matter as presented, 

From the record it appears thet Bertha Bohr, the Complaining 
witness, was divorced from the defendent, her husbend, sbout seven 
yeurs prior to the date of the hearing. The decree was obtained by 
her in Waukegan, Illinois, and oontsined ho provision for alimony or 
Support. During the tro and one-half yerrs vcrior to the dste of 
the henring, the wife testified that she had received (5.00 a week 
from the defendant for the support of the Childe She testified 


further that she operated - beauty shop in one room of her residence 


i sfdenonnet tuodtien ,886£ 
ativ aid tot sbivet? cas alate daw, ad 


‘| 








TAUOE aA 


<onavring WS 


TSO. 


beuesd Toes To Fate # Moqw srawod eine ai et 


Saunas ap 







ie 






ot KOnne | | ghROWLLIN FO BTATE BHT Ao Bde 
{ 


OBOE 


etourt at tinbaoted (rxttately) 


oF 
\fwos sare 


; ela al siecedlh emenmrisebes 


ef 40 nolsEse ewe CRANE IG Jteee gorTeUE ofl 
poibesvety eint 


~Pryoe edt ot Senet ont petfaedue ecw ,tacbagtod oat ot aotteLes ak 


oats Noid 


tabeor & tot deaw THT Oe TG 


Se aie 


ce ephaetes wee peel stage O06 soldatenkened oh orth 
WAR bail wha gedsiapet nehto ae porstas 


SRS RR ome Ci 


erry aatt te. bacial tool — wey eno te 


Pt aren oe er SER Sil 


we benmeyis nottemeotad He LOO sdguetd new gatbewoory edt 


PRE HRA RS 


(Beet gue envy ae baLat Sar % 


|| prediigueb etd 


sae yout 


~tuwon edt of bord kinds 


teied » paki 


{itw ow erotetod? fae 4 


gainia food ad? .tie 
paves tvods ,haodand rod Pi 
yd beniatde 208 eereah 
<a yaomtia tot sotatverq om beniedaad 
9 etah add of toltd eTsey tLad-one re 
asoy 0 00a! peviaos: bed ode tect baltitos 
beltitead 803 solide add to Pocqve edt tot 


aon sb Leet 


dott veded te giiaialgmes doe anieree 
(ak seek mo gotved athe tmabaoted a“e gakgtede 
heastek Sas degperyen. nese 


garoey G1 to fas ait rahau bLide romts ® ae tot bee 
a sesosatenvotio efutitaeb bas custteesoea at ated tod 


gov oes O80 saute tucbeo tod eat xs hoview 


abetete eval ov #8 borsene aoe wort beiaseqga xebt0 6 eas 


asd ta moot emo al gode ytueod o beteraqe 


rit yd. duuoo edt bia oF beliet wad oldu9 saaze oat 
tasbasteb ont x honteedse badd ov vewene at 
ebotnenoxy ar “eet tous add eabLenoo 

4 adtxog tedt oxssoan tf beooet add wort | 
aebaatebh oft ort peorevth een qnaondin 
eit sgaiseod odt To @icb edt of tokxg eteey 
bee yetoolilt eogodsat ak Toad 
owed edt gat tuG stroaque 
¢ otiv edt agreed edt 
gasbaoted edt mott 


ote take reddit 


| 


4 


\ 


_ 


2 
end that she had supported and maintmined the child since ites birth 
with the help of her parents, She further testified that the ohild 
was ill and needed medical attention. It also aopearea that the 
defendant offered to heave the child examined ana if ili, pay all 
the expenses of the required attention. The Compisining witness in 
testifying, however, made the statexent that she had a good physician 
of her own, and that she had a home for her ehiid; that the ehild 
was being well fed and was in no needs. The defendsnt at the time of 
the trial was earning an average of 33.00 « week, snd hed not been 
earning sm average of $38.00 sinee January 1, 1938. He testified 
that he had been sending the complaining witness 55.99 = week, snd 
a few days prior te the hearing had sent her $7.0 for the suppert of 
the ehild, 
On July 5, 1939, the sourt found the defendant guilty as 
Charged in the information, ond ordered thet the defendent vay $7.00 
per week for one yesr for the subpert end asintenance of the child, 
the first payment to be mode July 6, 1938, sand further ordering thet 
the cause be postroned and set for triel August 16, 19238, 
The action is based upon Th. 6B, Fer. 24, See. 1, of the 
Iilinois Hevised Statutes, 1937, wherein it is provided; 
"That every person who shell, without any resesonsble CRUSE, 
neglect or refuse to provide for the Sunport or maintenance * * * 
of his or her child or children under the ave of eighteen years, 
in destitute or necesaitous Circumstances shell be deemed guilty 
of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by 
* fine of not to exceed six hundred dollars or by imorisonnent 
in the county jail, house of Correction or workhouse, not to 
exeeed one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment," 
The statute further provides by Par, 26, Sea, 2; 
"At any time before the trial, upon motion of the somplainant 
and upon notice of the defendant, the court at any time or a 
judge thereof in vacestion, may enter such ‘emporary order ag may 
seem just, providing for the Support or maintenanoe of the vife 
or child or children of the defendant, or both, pendente lite, and 


may for violation of such order punish the offender as for = 
Contempt of court." 


suid atl eeais biido edd bentetaion has betrocqye bed ene sian 
cataorag Ted to ghost edt dtie 


 Pildo edt tad? bostitecd roddcut ode. 
7 sit ted? azeeoce gale MN .noktaette Leolbax bebeeq-has LLt eew - 
ifs You | iit ti Sune hexiaeks Blide edt eved ot beret amabaetsd: 
- - seontin BAiaisiqnes eat Haltevtis betiseez s43 te. BORHOGRD oat 
neko teysy baw s bad odh twh? Save seodte oats eisa a terewad eaeiyhiteos a 
bibde ed¢ tent jbiise ted tot auod « ded one san bas taro ted to 
a ‘Sark Sct te frmbnot eb ant odode oe at il + ba bor Loe aaied hor 





ay 
bie .dosn # OF.8o oeand te stint fame ati ‘len ved & od tot J 
| te sap zal edt volt C698 +00 sa9e bad aattoon one ot roisy aysb wet o 7 















_ sbkisto eae \ 
es Yhllog tasbseteh add betwott Fti#08 odd 8865 a ue a0 i oe \ 
* o0.Te qos tachaotob ont tedt berebto bag wsodtamrotat ode Ab rota mi 

|, | _ editifo edd to soaedetatan bas troqque ent be 188% exo tot Sez eg me 
i dads guiebre <omtiwt bas .S8er 2 ert aba or od tromryec toney Pod a 
| | : ~" —.ee@r {Bf teoned Iniet ot fee bee bontogte0g od © os i 


5a? ° Sepa 


. ‘edt To yi 008 abe erst 83. “off ao beesd ‘et mottos sor ‘as 
} sbebivewg et #2 atorede Tes aaetutnge boeavos pnts 


qBeired eivonencet Yas ‘tuodtiw viiede ‘ester noeteg: wteve ta | 
a eougnetnias “to tteqcue edt «9% shivetg of samten to toed a 

H {eee y asetigis To on odd tebsu aerblide to bilsdo nil to etd 3 a 

ia utiles beneeh ed ilede eeoastesvoqhe auetheaensa to etutiteeh ake 
yi Seriwing ef Iiese toored? aodésivano ao bac tossemsbalm s to 

ee greunosingal yi so etedioh berband xhe Bosgne.ot feayto endl o 
- "et toa ,eeteditow to noltosexes to eewed ,ileat yxiauoo edt ak _ 

| *etnommoeitant bag ak Mowe sited. MG To geaey sao Rocone.: 


i 28 0084 ,O8. «tet. 6 eobbreag. eengeut ota: 
7 


7 tnandeiques edt te aoidom acgy feted adt eneted amit pe sarod 

Sg te galt yan te dtveo edt ,tuabasteh edt te eoitos fogy 

i you Ae TAhto Ytatoqmes dove codae yaw ,aoddaoey wh Ioereds « 

: stiv edt to a te a) rmogaey tok galb 5 

pon «agit ted «9 ,sénebnets A 
8 rat ea v talaaite ad borers, ste ion ¥ 


: erie 
2 > ppt  Teepureranens Gee 
rs Far : } ate Be ee Sin Visi = SSH eS wet 
Hi Hes i-ee J ; Mt WHE gee ? sine x sl 
4 / s : 7 eS 
7 . nd 











CaN ere a, 


3 
And sain, the stotute provides by Fer. 28, Seo. 3: 
“If the court be satisfied by testimony in open court, thet 
at any time during eid period of one year the defendent has 
violated the terms of suoh order, it may forthwith proceed 
with the trial of the defendant under the oriwinal charge, 
or sentence him or her under the original conviction, or 
enforce the suspended sentence, ns the onge may be, * > *H 
So that when we examine the record =e find the court's order igs that 
the defendent is guilty and the csuse is continued for the purpose 
of a further hesring, and from a considerstion of the matter pending 


here in this court we find thet the court has entered an order findim 





ON A ana iY preg gE ort 


rder thet he pay $7.90 for one 


ESET 


the defendant guilty end a temporary. 


Arar na aK TEA IO PN ht ict na conten 





© 


The defendsnt sontenis there is no evidence that the child 
is in destitute or necessitous Circumstances; tht on the contrary 
the evidenee appesrs to be thet the Ghild is well taken care of, snd 
that the ourpose of this proceeding ig te compel the defendant te 
Sontinue the payment of £7.00 per week, which =8 incressed from 
35.00 and voluntsrily paid by him for tre and one-half yeorse Although 
the fxets seem te supvert the defendant's position - People v. 
Yannier, 317 Ill. 521, this court ig uneble te consider the question, 
since no order that wos final in its naturé e<s entered = the matter, 
as we have intimated, having been continued for further consideration 
by the court. 

Yoon the srounds stated, the »rit of error is dismissed, 

WRIT GISMISSED, 


DENIS E, BULLIVAK, P.J. CONCURS, 
BURKE, J. TAKES NO PART, 


& 
78 PO 936 atet yd sehhvesy adudate wit yalege baa 


saug ,ttv59 aege si Yaoukteot ql peitedioce ad fryoo edg BP": . 
eat tasbaeleb ed¢ veey eno to boiteq hice qaitve emid yan te 

beoeerg ddiwdticl yes vi ,reheo one to eorcet ed? Setaloly.. 
,wtnio Lerloieo ode aebau tanheeteb adt to fete? adt dbin 

ao ,teiveivaes ianigéco dd veheo «ed Yo mad Bometnss to. 
fee * Jed fem 2620 add an Son dtTex behasy ass edt oomsias 





| tadd at tebie 6 ax eee oat bok? ger ‘browse odd onkuexe on goer ‘teat 98 

beocune ent? set beuniteos af aust att burs ii ai dashnsteb ona 
. ettbaeg pad ton wid te noid nreb Lena 2 mort bee sgatraed nodredt © te 
| gabon te rebyo sat boxsato ‘ie tus ord fnatd bast o we twos eit eek ‘eaed 
mene cod o0,t8 Sa. od te ie xobro  yrateqmet & base yells insbast eb add 


foearas cnn: Se ae ee “ei etorsentiareeg re Ith 


= sbide ald to troqawe ade rod zeey 
| bLide edt tedt eonsbive on ef avedd abnedioo ‘taobaeteh edt 
| Yrevsace ‘edt He te at eonnctameanio ayvetiaacoea to ‘vbathtaod at al 
bi 920 tse nexes [Lew ef hehe ead ted? od ot axaogga noasbive adit 
ot sichasteb ode Legmen of a gnths sootg eked te onog tant od? gent 


| 
nevt beacotent easy dose wieew sq 06.95 to tnonyed out oxnktaoe 


i) 
| mguott th eBT8Y *tLat-ane hee ged tert nie wd bieq witesnutor bas 0048 


.¥ 261094 - 88 rbt eon stanabasteb ant aroqaue et woee stort oats 
|, qietinw oat + Gavedae aew otuten oth wk ‘teatt mew tant sabre aus onnse 
soitersbienoo teddust tot. baanktace abe gatas ebotombiat ond or as 
i " % whe : “atsu00 oat = 
Pe “sbacetwesd ed TORTS ‘te tine. ede sosote ebavers oat aes + 

H | aceLnnte eaRy ete 





x 





| ee ay oe Wi sala whe aw? \a oleae 
| a eeaae ate ARRAS. BE BENET: 9 Ye, g AMAUS 








ettolseoup ad? tebisuee at eldens ef ‘Hves eat isa hl WEE “ezglaasl 


a 


ee ==: 


40288 


ALBERT CERVENKA, 
Appellee, 
APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT CouRt 
vs. 
COOK, COUNTY. 
LAWNDALE NATIONAL BALK, a Corporation, # 
PRANK Mi, JIRACEK and LAWNDALE AGENCY 
AND LOBN CORPORATION, a Corporation, 
Appellants, 


# 





Bo 
is 
wv 
# 
ba 
ais 


orth, ORL 


WR, JUSTICE MATCHUTT DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 








June 30, 1936, plaintiff sued to recover damages for ale 
leged faise representations through which he was induced to buy 
certain notes secured by a mortyage on real estate in Cook county. 
This and an amended complaint were stricken on motion of defendants. 
Novenber 15, 1937, plaintiif tiled a third anended complaint which 
deferdants made a motion to strike. This was denied, and defendants 
answered detying the alleged fraudulent representations which in- 
cluded a promise to guarantee the payment of the notes. There was a 

a careers 


trial by the court and a fincing for plaintiff in the sum of ~6000 


—— 


with judgment, from which defendants appeal, 





It is urged for reversal thet the compisint was inconsistent 
in that it alleged not only fraudulent statements relicd uvon by 
plaintiff but also a promise of guaranty. The defendant bank points 
out that any promise of guaranty on its part would lave been ultra 
wires, and all the defendants urge that the evidence of the alleged 
guaranty as well as false representations were insufficient, They 
also assert tnat the proof failed to show dawages to the amount of 
the judgment, or in any other amount, and urge plaintiff's decision 
to rescind was not promptly made and that the third amended complaint 
did not state @ cause of action, ‘The contention that plaintitf coulda 
net join in one suit claims Yor damages based on a guaranty and 
damages sustained through fraud and deceit is not available in this 


court. The question was not raised by motion nor answer tn the trial 











8eSob 


ARMZVAED TAREIA 
| pee ttoqgd 
THUGS TIUSALD MOAR GANTIA 


«FTO Ya eee 
% pa 


.ae 


( 

| 

 edveroqre) 2 , BHAT TA MOTTAM WIACEWAL 
(  YORRGA GIA bos ASCARI. AWARE 
{ Aeigetegro0 @ ,BOTTANCIAOO MAGt GHA 
{ staal teqaa 


THOR, HAT TO MOLMISO EBT COARVT ES Cs aeeaiaadaeal MOTTA Aut’ 


=f tot seyemed Teveoot ad hous TWigatale , bel 108 sant a? ear 


yud od beorhat ser ast do bute gue tilt ancktaduseotces gelat ego f 
Ytavos 2009 af states last ao agsudt om aw bOLNS Be hat aiasyit99 
etrabae'ted to telson cto aetogude atew *aletgten bebueme, Ae. bam aids 
‘phy bite tutalgmos hebneme beds ig z boti's Trheaiele ; bbe ae xsduevoi 
abasdie'teh bas ,bolash aw a bait? ,otizte oe oid oat 8 boast adaabae tes 
wii dolcw anoiies west get Suetubums't bageLte silt gaiyueh petomans 


S 2e¥ ete st aston ait to dAsy Eq eld saben od oo imozy & hapute 


es cmanamaepnes nnn et 


90004 to wns aad at ‘dritat ata ends gabbalr # bue sation ort yd fging } 
: 


Wu airaipbonite er 


sieeqce atasbno'teb sot mort ,tasmgbat ddiw 


MN la alia $e apa eT I , 


‘Pitstalenooa ah Raw dnislanoo oat sasig lastevex tot bogus al ded 
“d sous bobLet etapnedede 19 fubuer? ciao oe bene tte Se taut at 
atutog oud daed ne tab oat Vinetesy to. antanee 8 als ae Rbvatete 


ex¢iy ased ove: binow ttaq sti ao Yeas, ‘te qudnang beg fads dye 


bege lis ang ‘ke gonebive ont tadd syte ad neh ne ‘bab ent fs bate ~petiv > 


yout ,tmelolttvent ovew gucisadaosetyes enisk ua Liaw ea ytaetearg 
‘to ¢gowema sat of aogemsh wore of he Liat chy ealt’ saci eee, oete 
totatoeh atttitaiala ear bas ,tawoms tatto yas ak to jieusint ot 
gInieiqmeo babasme biicd ond dandd bon oben yltquotg ton aew baloass re) 


binos ttitakele gadt aotinesmoo edT smo Ltos to aaves 8 otate tom bib 


bon Yinersug so mo beasd eegacsh ict emtelo tise: emo ab atot toa 


aint of efdelteve toa ai gleoeh bas bustt sigue tit henietens eegemabh - 


Isict ot nt rowens tom seitoa yd beeier tom sew colteeup dT .tiH09 


| 


t 


court, as required by section 48 of tie Civil Practice act (Smite 
Hurd Anno. Statutes, chap, 110, par. 172, p. 590.) li, therelore, 
the complaint was defective in this respect the celect was waived, 
Hitchcock v. keynolds, 273 11li. App., 559. the complaint substane 
tially is for fraud aud deceit to wuieh an averment oi a guaranty by 
&@ corporation wituout legal power to wake such guaranty (People Ve 
First State Bank & Trust Co., 364 til., 294; Snase v. Madison and 
Kedzie bank, 354 111.,554; Awotin v. Atlas Bxchange lat'l Bank, 275 
Ill. App., 550) would not be altogether inappropriate, 

The controlling question in the case is raised by the cone 
tention of defendants tuat the evidence offered wag insulficient to 
establish eituer a premise of guaranty or lraudulent representations, 
Three witnesses testified in behalf of plaintiff, the pliaintirr 
himseli’, his daugater (Mrs, Kainan) and an investigator of tax 
records, ir, Berkuan. SJrank k, Jiracek was the only wituess for 
defendants. lie evidence suows that plaintiff ia sohenian by 
Nationality and about 78 ysars of sage; he is not uns.equainted with 
the English language, Jiracexk in April 1951, was the manager of the 
defendant Lawndale Agency and Loan Corporation, woich was engaged in 
the business of selling securities. Plaintiif had deait with the 
Corporation for a nuuber oj years aid was Known to Jiracek jor about 
15 years, Defendants (the agency and the bank) were located close 
tovether in the same building, but Jiracek was not oificially cone 
nected with — bank, Flaintiif testifies ne said ne represented 
the bank ah Abels this and there is no prooi that he nad any direet 
connection with it. 

April 9, 1931, plaintiif bought from defendant agency the 
securities in question, six notes secured by mortgage on property 
known as 3834 Grensnaw avenue, He paid therefor (as a written 


stateuent of the sale signed by him shows) $6012. The property was 


owned by S. lorowitz. Plaintiif testifies - and 0h this point is 





aid is@) fom eoltossd Livid eid ‘to 6) aoitoaa yd botivpet as Lage 
sPtototeds etl (,008 oq ,8SYL .4aq OLE Gaile. jeseutese Oma buull 
-bevlaw gew fog'ted edt tooqeet aiat at svisosted eaw saisiquos ost 


efatadie taisigiios eal eRbaay Cae efil GTS. ,eabsocyed 





A. Ytaeteva 2 to Ineutdve we dy lw vb stoves bi ees tot abi yttene 
ot _Buseo4) iisten#y dove stan of tewog Seago woud Lw nolierToqres 8 -_ 
a i298 getkl bOE 





aye hes fide Sgieioxd aelsa wv aisowa “88a, iT. Dae ioe atabor 
.slalrtadzyqeat sedtexod fa ed toa bLvow (ose oo ss 

«tion os Yd Boetot al saao sid ak molswouy ‘wait £Loxd x00 ont ge £ \. 
ot dastoliiuaal asw bstetio sensbhive ese Jans einedae'teb “to ue 
noid es noesade? Fai luhkelt To “lasted, “to waiaorg a edd to sal Ldades if 
Yrivaiatg eit ,Viidalaig ‘to Tiaried at pel'titess usadoasiw sondT 


aad to wéegldeeval sa pas (dented av) cetcyead eb Meambs 





{ 
t 

im 

Tot easutiw yloo sy 2aw deoagit 1a anedd  aacckeot 4m «abroos7 ' 

yd sefeerod «et titaletg taisd ewosa goaobive ead “sstumoueteb 

“Bdiw. hesulsuposau tow al of ;e3e to atesy' SY suoda has witenolien 

edd to Tegsnam oid asw (Leet ‘LitgA al gesatitl .egsignbh ekigntl oat i] 









“at be jagae aaw doltiw ,aolistoqro9 assed baie yonegéA @iebawatl tasbao ted 

add dtiw giaeh bed Titvnield .delviveess gui five’ to auoactast out ; 

 tuods To0% dooet Lt es nwom’ wew bate atAa'y lo tedausa e 19D avtsarogxes 

bdito bateool axow (aotad eld baa yonsys ont) Bdoehne ted vemsey aL 

-s109 yileiottTio ton agw Agsatil dod “gatbtisd smew ont ab cestteiges~ 

| “peguseeigst of bias of aeltivacy “Yeivateld Jatned ‘omy adie: besoon 
gootkd yaw bai od saci “tooxd On di orsd) baw ettd sodnen\ hod aad ou 


a —_— 


“noddizw # aa) rotersct biey oR” .euas¥e pee 
aay ydreqoig oat S008 (awoste mbt yd beagte ‘| lee 66 
oa OS tee eee eu ‘seltisead’ ey SBE Eoret 


corroborated by his daughter - that he went to the agency in response 
to a letter dated arch 15, 1931, signed by the apency in the name of 
Jiracek,. He could not produce the letter, saying that when he 
visited the vagency he left the letter with Jiracek, Jirecek denies 
that he sent any such letter to plaintiff, Plsintiff says that wren 
he received the letter he went to the bank, saw Jiracek anc asked him 
whether the mort.age was good; that Jiracek said, “In case of any 
trouble comes up that they are willing to return my principal and 
interest due on that mortgage," Plaintiff slso testified that 
Jiracek saic the property was in very good condition, was rented, 
paid orn and there was money left over to lay egide, He says he 
turned in otner bonds owned by him and took these in trade, The deal 
wae made Apri] 12th but te had beer in to see ir, Jiracek two or 
three dsys prior to that time; he says that previous to the day of 
the sale he walked into the office of the agency and tald them he 
wanted to buy some mort. age notes, The tirst intereet tell due 
October 1, 1931. He took the coupons to the bank and to the cashier, 
$180 was 4ue and there vas not encugh Goney to pay it; ne saw kr, 
Jiracek who told him he should give the owner a chance: that there 
were a lot of vacancies in the property, and told nim to come back 
later; he returned meny times; about the middle of October, 1931, he 
received $60; he visited the owner of the mortiaced property, Ers, 
Horowitz, bit did not receive any more money. 

Plaintiff's daughter, Mrs, Raiman, testifies that she opened 
and read to her father the letter of March 15, 1931; that this letter 
said they had a mortcace st the bank an@ that it was a guaranteed 
mortgage, and that they would like to see plaintiff sbout it; she 
says the letter mentioned 3834 Grenshaw avenue, Mrs, Raiman also 
says that she was oresent April 12, 1931, and heard the talk with 
Jiracek who ssid the mortcage wae guaranteed and that if anything 


should happen to the bonds, “they will pay him in full and his 










itt senoges at yensge ads ot drew od dats - Kod igush eke yd, Bovaxesoxz0s: 
| te shan aad at yorsae ast yd bengte. TEAL, 16L, dares, botab TeddeL aot 7 

_ on nase test gaiqee ,tettel ext sewhorg tom bigoo ol) »atleoarity 
wotues dsoatit .tsoatit stiw sotiet edt Mel of goaogell ont. botiaty! 










ovriw debt eyes Vitgaialt .Vitiatets of medial, doa - yas tear. eri, teddy 
meh hades Bae Aoawaty, eae hah, ait of taew af cottet, oat Saviesetvoda — 
¥a8, 7 ®BB9 ain hea xsowt it tart shoen. eaw egeaixom oA3_ sestoaw: 
bas ieghontze ys iad oe gailitw 218. edd feds qa. e909, etdaons | 
gard bettivand oats rehs tielt "eased tem tedd 110 eub | fuemeeakt 
bednet asy sHolsibags boog ytey at aw ytregotq end hisa fooatth te 

ac ayss a .shigs ysl of teve fTel yoaom sew aneud brie a R00R: teas 7 
fash ad? .ohwsd of gnedd hoot hae ain yd Se awe anaes raat, th, board. ane 
to ows Agoatll .1i sea oF as ceed bert oad HSL finah, ham aawe 
te ¥ed at of guoivetq dads eysa of yoatt tact of tottd yah oad i , 
ad moit bloy baa yoaags ait to aottte agg og at better a hpi 
oub Llot daetesad saute oat atom. pgagtrom amoe, wd nite. bode A <i 











‘a to ldseo, eid of bre snad ost ad anequop, suit aoot afl. AbOL et xodoto0.. 
| aR Wem on (th yg 08 Yones dayons ton maw axosd, has vest, nem 0 ob 
. ¥ - 






pred? dactd joonedio ¢ temwo adt evig bivese ost mid Aled. ostw Aeonnth % 


deed sano ot mb bLod bow sie ORE oat at potonsosy te. sotmerem) 








eng iti duods Titolsig see a eeres biwew: Kost ts he i 8 483. 
0848., neahek Dakin! paalbsl veshana?s BEBE dbuaied : 





interest.” She says the exact language was, "kr, Cervankea, 1 have 
a very good mortgege which is guaranteed,” ohe says her lather ree 
plied that this was all the money he had and Jiracek said, "Yes, 
you don't nave to worry sabvout it." She also says that ir, Jiracek 
said the house was fully rented, taxes paid ond tiere was enough 
income irom the building that they could pay the interest and lay 
money aside jor the principal; she slse said she was present when 
her father went to the cashier in October, and the cas.ier teld him 
there was no woney, and he then went to wr, Jiracek wio told him 
he would nave to wait awhile, that tnere secued to be vacancies 

in the building; that she went with him again to the bank in 
October when he was paid $60; in the latter part of 1941 tuey 
visited the property and talked witi the owner; three of the flats 
were vacant, the lignots were torn out irom the walls, the plaster 
was coming down and the rooi was leaking, 

kr, berkman's testimony is to tie efiect that ne is employed 
by the Title esearch Corporation and made a search of oreperty 
located at 3634 urensnaw avenue, iound the taxes tor 1928 amounting 
to $498,72 were paid by the owner dune 16, 1930; that the taxes ior 
1929 were 9579.97, and tnat on Uctober 1, 1931, there was a payment 
on account by the owner olf 254,76, fhnere was a lorieiture for 
taxes on iiovember <, 1951. ‘Tne taxes ior 1930 amounted to y632, 387 
and nothing was paid on this, ie suid there were no delinquent 
taxes on April 9, 1931. The 1929 taxes did not become delinquent 
until kay 15. 

September 14, 1941, plaintiii deposited the securities in 
question with the mekmntank Lawndale State bank as depositary, 
signing in that connection a letter oi transmittal and deposit, 
it describes the securities and states tuat the same are deposited 
pursuant to the terms of the hortgage iolders Protective Agreement 


dated November 30, 1931, which apparently was intended to conserve 





hi. pp ved I ,edasvte) .1h" ,saw egeugost Joaxe ent a¢se erie © Seotedak” 


| ~ “wet teddet Yod ayea ond “ beetnatewa ef Moldw oyaadzest hooy yrev a : 
: oo ; 

- 189%" .dise teoatlt fae bed eff venom edd fa wew abst bactt bette : 
|  Yoosiitl ti tadd eysas oole est ",si tusds rtow od ayes) #06 WOK, . 


1 ai iige die gaew grant bas biaq sexed bed hex yliv't aew ‘peuos ond Bhan” 





















| | - wget bas dasuadal avid ywo bLy0s yet tedt yoibiind edt wort oucoat r 


7 

; nodw fneestg eaw ede bige cafe oce sleglouing ‘3il} tot obles veal 
ii win bled teiilesa eat bas stadodoo nt teiteso ext 08 ‘taew redder ‘fod 
| min Hlod ow deosull .th oF Jaew neds ed bas eens on were 
ye ‘getonseay od ad bexoes eens decit  oLdetnn ttew et svar biuow ef 7 
le se ai Saad esld of niege ssid a¢iw taow ein seat ‘yaabb clus ont a 

HT pee) yout LECL Yo dusq istiel ood nk , 008 bing saw out apie ‘00900 
i | agett erg “Yo ostis ;tenwe ent att iw beaied bas «sts gore edd ‘podtely 


dye Obi.) 


seis edit ,allew eiit moxt gue orcod’ ‘exe edcigd t eat tasber | ‘o1ew 


sanlaeel aew “toot eit bas’ “nwo tale’ sae eo" 


1 peyolque ef ei tans gostts eds of @E Yhoaisasd enamired tk se 
ier Yxrsgorg ‘to Hoteea & dbest bas aotigrectod ‘dotes abil Siete ‘odd we 
gate nuts eket tot sexad odd basot 2 OHILIeY Wala KOT9 bees ‘ta Betaset” 
tot nexadt sas Sade ;OCeL {oi 3 itut tanwo “edd wd bea’ si9w 80 80nd os 
saestysg & saw oteds ,fsel ,f tedoso0 ined gedd bas we. evag 919" eee 
i ; ‘eek ound te txot # saw ered et peng ‘to teawe ould xd tavosds “no 
i" ee Read oF bovuwoma OFeL Tot aoxes oat .LEUL \S eduovoit mo | peat 
| ; fuespaiteh oa etew stedd plas es valdd ao blsq asy 3 


° gnoupntiek smcoed toa bib woxad beet oat “steer ae tea 0 93 


eeaade | a tabavant paren onid y 





Uke theghh as dash | 





; es ae bak Saddinenesd ‘to noddet Py spe 


I . | tuemeetgs avisostor4d ‘greb lok oyagetol ous 4% 


a . : a 
- ae Pe bec atih nes ee ey ae ie bit” ze 


this and other loans. 

Jiracek testified plaintiif cane to his oifice ai the time 
in question inquiring if he had anything to sell; that he geve nim 
the name and adcress of the property covered by the mortgage and 
asked hin to go and look it over, ‘ie says plaintiff came back in 
two or three days and said he would accept it, that it was all right, 
Jiracek seys claintiff's daughter was not with acim on tat or on any 
previous occasion when he bought securities, some of waic. at that 
time, April 9, 1931, were in process of foreclosure. lie positively 
denies that he ever ayreed to guarantee any of tnuese securities, de- 
nics that he ever wrote tne letter of liaren 15, 1931, or that any 
such letter written either by him or any wes-ber of his organization 
is in his files, He says that interest on these securities up to 
April 1, 1951, was paid in Jull and deides that he was in any way 
acting in behalf of tie bank; te wave that personally he did not 
know anything about the condition of the property. Ars. Raiman 
testifies that Jiracek said ie was selling the bonds "from the Lawne 
dale Wational Bank," tie denies this, 

The action of plaintifY is in substanse for fraud and deceit, 
In such case we said in Malewski v, khackiewich, 282 Il]. App. 593: 

"It is also the law that in an action for fraud snd égeceit 
the evidence by which these essential elewents are established must 
constitute proct so clear and convineing in its nature as to leave 
the mind well satisfied that each and all of these eleusernts of fraud 
have been established, Union Nat. Eank v. Stete Nat. Bank, 168 Ili. 
256; Preston v. Lioyd, 269 I1ii,, 152; Woli v. Lawrence, 276 iil. 11; 
Garrett v. Garrett, 343 I11., 577; Gould v. lewis, 267 111. App. , 5693 
Standard Mfg. Co. v. Slot, 121 Wis., 14; s.c., 105 Am. St. Rep,1016," 

While the rule announced is for the trial court it is apparent 
from the remarks of the trial Judge tnoat ne had serious doubts of the 
sulticiency of the proof, At the time the judgment was entered at- 
torney for defendants said, “Your <onor is entering judgment against 


all three of the defendants?" The Court: "Yes, I don't know which 


one is liable, or whether any of them is liable." ‘he Court also said, 












; et ie o£ xedto. baat aus 
SHY AF 38 2olTie aid od, amas - Vitdatetg baititesr Aoaaett . 


. “SOT 

7 mic ove, sid taat ;Lifee of gutrhayas beg ad tL gitixigpat molsagup. ak 
- a. bas Kgsudtom ent YI bereves ytuedetg ot. 29 saorh be bas omen eat 
1 mk soad ouao Witsisly ayer ol tev ti dool bas og ot tit baiten - 
- diyit ifs sew tf sadd ,th tqeoss biwow of Sine Ana asd gould to owt 
Yas fo to deus mo mei atlw toa aew tadsdgued a'ttigaials eysa foaert 


a 


tans te dolew to emes ,asivtiyosa idguod sa sec mofsacoe ayotvexg 7 


Vlevisiecg a, .eivsolesugt To sessong al etew ,LeeL ee pana 







a ee ; 


— 
—_ 





~96, ,@9liizuoca ogo) 19 Yaa sotasisasy oF besyys revo off oe 


Yue deds..to..,.-f62@L ,6L Hota ‘te qetdel eis atqry tev9 Oa, tadt esta - 


Hh, 


toliestnsgte ai to tsdeam Yoe to gin yd xoddie qoagiizw xegdet doue 7 
; ; Aw, Cech EON Oe a 





ot gu eeliiivovs great ao deotedal dedd eyos OB ma ftt eid at at 


Saarinen 
rr 7 
- 


qohew gle al gew on duct potash bas Ifyt a bieg aaw Te eal 
tom Hib on yilesoatog Jaus ayoa, ou. jaded esd To MMaslod, ak galtoe 


aa 


asvizh ,aid ,Ydreqoie sii Lo edi ibace ace dxoda gaiddyas woot 












E “SS ane hai =e 


-nwed, edt, con't" ‘ehbaod eid yatifee saw od biea deoatkl dedt, seinivest 
8s? eodaes ok ".loel enoigel gfab 


a 
— 







sddoonh bite buss t Lou sguatedua ak. et. Tileatete, to, nokta, PAP — 


i686 .qmA, ffi S68 ,doiveitoed wy idewe toe af bisa, ow ogee sigue at 


sleosb bas bwetd tot noivos as at sadd. wal sai oefe et, t1" 
teuc beseiidsiae ats esoeuele Tetinaeee seers io baw Dal pe 
avast of as giuiso ati ot galonivacs bag teelo oa, ‘toorg 
bust ‘to afnsiie Le seers to ye bis fees ved bb tteltae Tit? 
effi BAL . z 
£0 . LIT BYE (aosorwed 67 ¥ i ‘Ser “ee yo 
3038, .qGgA ffl TOs , ad) cin. 1998 gi AS, che WETS 
«anor. ook ve “oA ay ves mes a kw ms as ne a \.' 





a 













“dotdw won #'a0b I ,aey" itrs0d ea vile 










bles oaks ‘dtu0d edt *otiedt et wecd te’ ‘yas tell 


Pee eee SE “a By 0h TA etn PTR = 4) vas J Seedy, cep ero Bt Rests , oe ar 


"It is an unfortunate Situation. It is unfortunate for everybody 
Concerneds It is unfortunate for an old man like this to lose all 
of his life's accumlations in one investment. He looks like an 
honest, hardworking citizen; I suppose he is a citizen; maybe not. 
On the other hand the practice is that these bankers don't guarantee 
securities they sell. So that it ig a difficult matter to pass 
upon. There is a contrariety of testimony. One Side tells it one 
way and the other side the other Waye ‘nd I cantt be govemed én-= 
tirely in the matter by sympathy. * * x" 

In so far as the bank is concerned, there ig practically no 
evidence showing that Jiracek was its agent in meking the sale of 
the seeuritian: The Lawndale State Bank was the issuer of the notes 
in the first instance and the evidence does not show that the defend- 
ant bank was the owmer when the Sale was made. Wo official of the 
bank was called as a witness. In so far as the Suit was based on a 


promise to cuarantee the loan, Knass Ve Madison and Kedzie Bank _ 
and other cases abeve cited show that this wes ultra vires the 
powers of the banke The judgment therefore as to the bank cannot 
Stand in the absence of a Showins that it was responsible for the 
alleged fraud. There are facts in the evidence which tend to 
discredit the testimony of the witnesses for plaintiff. AS 

an illustration is plaintirfts reluctance to admit his own 
signature. Again, it is unusual for a seller of Securities to 
guarantee the payment of the indebtedness. On the other hand 

it would seem that Jiracek would have known something about 
securities he was selling. To the Sugeestion that plaintirr 

did not act promptiy in rescinding upon discovery of the alleged 
misrepresemtations plaintiff's attorney replies that the suit is not 
brought on the theory of rescission but only for damges resulting 
from the misrepresentations, and thet only the statute of limite- 


tions bars such anaction. This is true, but suchaction would 


require proof of the value of the securities retained and which 





xbouyters 10% os anud to Tews ak sI ono Laud fa eiensétotas as ak JI" a 


aids mak ora bLo ns tot stand 20% at st. Sy vented ao ; 


fa eBod oe 
tone als. “to. _ 


na exit adoot oh ~ tno neval ao xt ano LiaLum 00s 8 


ston: ody proatiio « ai et exequue 4 pmogit to gnbtronb ra eteonod 
Shes wha Be ae 


j'nod arovaad esad? dacd at sekteera one bscl xorido, odd 0. 7 














eT nKLASS 
giitid.e ai ti dadt 9% »ifea bal geld Lwoos b-! 






-pasq of tostanm Jiu 
»aymemtdasd To pieltsitimoeo Ss. at oxed? 


eno of. alfed sbia. end 
sta certo snd bis xedto ont bas we 


spe bopmevog of) ftaeo 2 -bre: 
ie % * eydisqaya yd Tes 2am. ond, 24 vhorty ihe : 





soo Bi seed end aa et oa at 


‘on YLizettoatq ab owen? «benke 
eiit dats aniwods sonebive 


“9 efsa od uieiien ot deege 922 ev eo 


; 
netor sid io tensei oay ae areg stata olabavad ext eseliiivosa. a8, } 





-garebive pid Bae. eoustant Jaxit odd - x) 


@bHetsd on? fate were fon esom 
aid rodw vonwo edt caw, aned 318 


ait to Istoltie of sohes sow elas 
g ne beead sav tive ont ee taet-on al seaogiiv & as: belLlas gow ane 


seat sisbow bus t tee tet, sv oaans .naot ait esdaetayg od enkansa® | 


emmptoeserinnnee 


edt agifv attin osw pit 





¢ facdt woke Podho evades segeo: saghto, bas 


Sonnsd Hnad of) oF Gx ovetsved? Jremghut off saned avy ho wrowog 


pxtt wot ofdiancqaet aew df dxnl ~giwede « to sonecde edt ai Srete 


shive ed mi evost ote sexed? sbuavt bogoiis 


od fred do kitw Sorts 
»titskale zo% eeaacend by ont ‘to uromitesd? srt gibetoath 


“BA 
atiiiatet¢ ak noigardani ls ns i 


wo G Lif idiubs of eonad ou Lot 
ose to sofiea 2 x0? Lavauns ef ot amieyh | oudongte 















et agidis 
bared ‘ternto aid 0 
jueda guidiemoe sworst ovat binew desert socks meee pLoow 
»goifies ssw ed golehs : 


sagonbe tdobers ont tad tremesd ett ‘eotnacony 





tiiemielg darts, moksddaggue oft Of. 

- begeli« ade to yreve ou lb aequ antbaioget. mi yfogeno td i908 | om, 
gon si diva odd tals seilqest orotate af tiivnteia ane Losing >t 
Rebiivast 993 crab, tot vino ind soiestoret tO. Yuoads | sat 10 
@AFMEL Yo ofutata eds yLmo dass dna a enoidedaoaet 


‘bivew nokde «nove dud xound. 9: a belt. smotdos 18. 


Plaintiff deposited with the bank as mepeet tary. ot _ the Sondnolders' 


Protective Committee, there as ahd Such - prool in 


tie Fecord, itnout 
such such prooi the d ‘damages could Hot be aaee 


236 Ill., 276; Johnston on _v. Shockey, 335 Tll., 363. 


rtained, Siktz v, 


ae 
In the avsence 
of prooit we Sufer Shat the notes secured by the wortgage havea... 

Dickatantias value, It is clear, therefore, 


ee ne 


rere garnering BACT Eee 


that the judguent is 
excessive. ie anaes but to what extent we Cannot tell. Sor the 
reasons indicated the judement is reversed and the cause reuanded 
for another trial, 


REVERSED AND REMANDED 


MeSurely, », Je, and O'Connor Je, Concur, 














sigue dodbinod: hacol te eeat Lees | aa abciaet ‘ent aig tw botteoqeb ‘ridaiel¢ 


te het remeron 


suena le” Eoadhai ‘axis ath Yoorg ral ba at wrent “sett immed: avitostord 


dovemenonsit EO FRAO ed ad _— 
: — ee nn nee Teveteean 


‘ fentaeceses wd ‘tant “hives: geganeb ort ont ‘Toorg Howe 


“yx Hotenstot Gers , srr ees 


ot are Sgegdted Bat yd Hecuone eaten oct tend ‘xo'tak ew toorg to 














 goseade: “eed git Soke’ | EEE BSE B 






. eh Pepeeeyt err fade (stotorvent ce ae | ante Tatonatedue 
gee ee lites Jonapo ow gmmtee gene of Fed ¥dbiiea? ik “Getabbtxe 
bohusast Saveo ait ban besteves ai tneiy Set ont jis@eolbal ettoaset 
j fetes tedtonsa tot 


Pay 2 ae rie ze yor pasted oer 


set eee ES aa 
ele yp aeheete, © a ame eit at Bee 


ora eet begetia 


ates Le me 
pane Jebede rea 
Gis See say 
equucls tits eet Pale es 

et OR Kort ras sow! ah pe Ae Ee es 

wed hae SEARO Bw Sy oe ewe we EL eee Jog wae 

fey kA UE eer’ Py a nah Re eae Rey | ie eee 1 OREOLE LO 

Reeds cr eh ay eg, ge To, RA Warne ni Lewis: TER See. seared 
Se a ee agg’? MS a co pe eag ip Gein BL oun ae 2s: ene en’) 

i Oka RG 5g TEE é. ete pSRSe ewe ia » set avant week’ 


PT’ a es er a war Petite he 





40312 








MARIN BCKWALL, ) 
Plaintiff Below, ) 
. 
VS, ) 
. ) APPEAL fROM SUPERIOR COURT 
HUBERT J, ECKWALL, ) 
Defendant Below, ) OF COOK COUNTY, 
| 
On Appeal of KELVILLE R,. THOMSON, )} 
(Petitioner below) ) > Ey 
Appellant, ) 4 al 9 qT A © ia 7 


LR, JUSTICE MATCHETT DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 


Thomson appeals from an sallniadail entered May 6, 1933, dlaniasing 


ten anc 


his petition jor an conic sins ® 8 iien, “the Material lacts, whieh lor 


a 





the most part aes tren a Kiletiatiae, appear to be as follows: 

August 5, 1951, Karie ickwall obtained a decree of divorce 
frow her husband, iubert J, Sekwall, the decree gave the custody 
of their infant daughter, Mary Jane, to the mctner and directed the 
Payment to lirs, itckwall “as alimony for the support of said child" 
of 35 a month, and directed the payment of $1100 to Mrs, Uekwall 
in full of court costs, solicitors’ fees, alimony and dower, $125 
to te paid within 10 days and the balance in monthly instaliments 
of $33 each. November 15, 1936, upon petition of irs, Sekwall the 
decree was modified, increasing the Payment to be made to her for 
the support of their child to $50 a month, warie Leckwall rewarried 
and is now Marie Mindepnout. 

Cetober 15, 1937, plaintiff tiled her petition tor a rule 
on defendant to show cause and on December 8 retained Thomson to 
represent her, She entered into a written contract by which she 
employed him as her svlicitor and agreed to pay hin ain addition to 

—-—~~_———- 


ae ene rere remnants 


any sum silowed by the court 25% of the amount aetually collested, 
aire alosheded Menieabete tetas ee es 





Thomson appeared in court Yor her, There were many continuances 


and finally a hearing. December 16, 1957, the court entered an 


ST 














‘a 
\ 


SLE0d 


(dA WAON aTRAM 
 gFtole dt Ytadw belt 





vey 


SUAWACH LD. TAMU! 
»wolped dkebne ted 


. TRAVGO ACTASIUG MORE MARSA 
-YTHVOO BGOO TO 





,MOBMOBT .H BdcIVIEM ‘to Lesagé>: m0" 
(wofsd tenets ige9) 
23 Mellsqga. 


PO IM ge a ttn gyn my 


‘reo Ar ees 


.tRUOO. BHT TO WOLAIGO SNT CUAMVIUG TTEHOTAM GOLTaw, .Ae 


Sita tamth seGel. ,a ate ger erie tabi ie sort aleeqgs moemouT 


rntnmentnrss pee 


tot doidw yetou't inixs sam sail EL i Wak bay ts Tot aeigiseg aid — 


Nr eee neers Spree 
sawollot @a ad ef ts9qqs ,dodtnioyiie s moet waoaes tisq seom oxit 


Sotovibh ‘to seteeh « banietdo Liswiet siteam ,f6eL ,& seugud 
yYbodase ens avep setooh sat .ffawiedc .t daedeh , busdevii ted sort 

oft Peadostlh bas teddom odd of ,anel vrell ,tedrnued tue'tal risd¢t to 
*Aitdo Blas to duogqve sre <0't yoni is se” Liswist .etl of Jasayeq 
fiawioH ,exk of OOLLE ‘to susageq orld hovoerls baz _ nid moni & 82% to 
@Sle ,tewob base ynoutfs ,aset 'etetisifos ,ateoo s1u09 to fiv't at 
atuemiiedeai Yiddoom at soaslad est bas ayab OL aissiw blag ed of 
add LSLewiod .atu to aeiititsyg aeew ,Ot¢Ef ,di tedmevekx .ioss B88 ‘te 
tot ten ofc sham od of gneuygeq odt yaoleeotemk ,hoitibom sev ost9eb 


beivuanex Liswkioll aitaX Adnom 8 088 oo hbiids ties to ttoqque exit 


eint & tot noi¢giteq tad belit YWhitgaieiq ,Vee@el ,@f tedesoo 
od moamodt bentetet 6 tedme0eT mo bar esuso wore of tnebneteb ao 
eds ssinw yd deaténcs astilu a ofak heretae of& ted sSoveetqes 


og aoldinbs si wioa di Yag ot besexge ban todioiies ted ea ald beyolane 
Re ate per eA 


el 


-bedoeLioo Yileuiea Tasos eat to ) RES _sSusoo ont yd bewolle mus Ysis 
eS eminalies stam aaiinaaa.a:msacainaat naan acai ia Saar 


Te en 


asotevattaoe yam orsw siedt ,ted tot dsu00 ak betesqde noamoaT 


as botetaa dros sds ,VeeOL as tednigosd “paired a yllenit bas 


~ 


,tved@ebaih eiteaa wou ai bas 


order finding that there was due Mrs, Eckwall $1372.33 “from the 
date ol! decree to August 2, 1936, at which time the child, lary 
Jane Eckwall, became eighteen years o: age, said woneys being 

due to plaintiii for past support of said child,” and the proceed- 
ing was thereupon continued to January 14, 1935, and placed on the 
conteated motion calendur, 

February 1, 1938, hrs, lickwall filed a petition preying 
that Frank A, McDonnell be substituted as her solicitor, the 
petition was denied »ut UcDonnell ellowed to appear as associate 
counsel, February 25 Thomson learned a settlement had been 
isicest through McDonnell acting for kre. #ckwall and Francis 
Sullivan, solicitor for defendant, Dr. Hekwall, uvon terms that 
defendant pay $800 in full settlesent of the $1372.33 then in 
arrears, including alimony, court costs and attorneys' fees; that 
$600 of tnis amount had beer paid to olsaintiff, who immediately 
turned sane over to her daugiter, and that Bullivan was holding 
back $200 pending confirmation of the settlement by the court, 
Thereafter Nr, Coburn entered his anpeararnce as additional counsel 
for Mirs, Eckwall. 

March 1, 1933, Thomson, pursuant to direction of the court, 
filed his petition for allowance of fees as solicitor for plaintiff, 
set Yorth the substance of his contract with Mrs, Eckwall, and 
prayed that the amount of his fees be allowed against Marie Sckwall 
and the defendant, Hubert J. Eckwall, The petition came on for 
hearing. ‘The court was advised of the proposed settlement and 
that $600 had beer paid to Marie Eckwall, of which she had paid 
$200 to XeDonnell for his fees; that she had $220 of the smount in 
her possession; and that $200 remained in the hands of defendant's 
attorney, Sullivan. Thereupon an order was antered by the court 


directing the parties (including McDonnell) to deposit the pro- 


ceeds with the Clerk of the Superior court pending approval by vhe 














alte mont” ce 


te ae 


iblico act enttd.dodew te 


eV ELE Elewdod weal gub exwevent secs gnifalt tShto 


050k .Soteweud ef eotseb ‘to stab 


guiad ayssom hia 1938 to atesy agethgia emeosd ,filawie® east 


“fasnote orld bas ",blide 


ptee ‘to fveogse tesg tot tiksale Ly of eth 


eat ao iceois Boe ,6004 , Sf ee od Sewaltnes noquonodd aew gat 


ytaboeteso aolfom Setantned 


‘gaiyerq nolviteg & Belit LilewMoi .eth ,S8eL , fo veewsidel 


ed’  ,votiotios ted aa botutitedsua ad LfaneeGol .A Mastt tert 


oteloouket ae teaees of bewolin 


aged bed ioemalitos & henreel moemont @& yrentded 


ifsasetto ged beftooh saw onoltiied 


isennos 


eiosstl fae (Lewiol ceri ‘et yatios LLeacottoat guords bodeses 


te: dt emted o> i ,ifewiot tt 
at secs 8b .SVELR 
dedt ;ooet i eedatodde Aas adeoo 
yietaihesnt oiiw , ttitatele of 


gnkh foul gaw asviliv® gadd baw 


otu00 Siig 


fea nuoo Leneis ibis ea soneteaacon 


#two8 pits “to seseoecds og daawerne {woauer! 
Vittniose “go't tod lotiog ae noel ‘ko Soxewol fa Tot notstssa eld ‘potit 


hoe _ Liawioli -@%M rid kw toex¢moo ais 


“i faaaelites ot 


srs tai ret totioiios may h £f08 


edt ‘to tapme (3398 fiut at 0088 (sq tanbne'ted 


ttwon Ynome La gathetoat isiigieleaaes 


wed bad tauoms abst To 000g 


by 


eTegiigues tad 09 T9VO gime “bomtsd 


blag 


to gots anh nes gaikasg ‘os ‘ies 
eld betodsie exuded ’ all x09 teotedtt 
Lewiot seu xo 


Seer ie oral 


Ones 


erp aD 
‘ko onatadue out reer: toe. 
ae oneree fia Sus 


{Lawiod sirell baiiaea bowolls ad ano ais To Sovome eatt baad prbres 


May at oe 


tol mo 9ne9 noliiseg oat -ffawiosdl t trodsk , tustaottes exit his 


hos gusmelties beeogona adt ‘to beatvbs est iaueo ost 


 .gntnaedt 


{eS ae 


bisg bad are soliw to .tLewio® sivell of bied seed: bod “008¢ tart 


Pe he 


nt Jouoms end To one bil aie saad jase% ‘ald rot " Lkennedo’ 08 “oos¢ 


pel ae Ri fied ae Sy Dag 


a! tnabie toh +o ebasd out “ont poabenss 08g Sasi bre ;foleaserog ted 


" sau09 ostd xe ‘potedas Baw “ebto (a lneene aoe 


" (es, Siete L, cH Fhe B Gee: 
+d Le eontotias 


LM 


HLT 
~olg eat tiaoded ot (Lfennodoat ‘gatiutond) soleneg ‘otid  sadcotih 


BARS aa Soe 


4 en yd fevoreaa eli nee dsueo detisge oat to ‘Vane £9 ‘eah: athe ‘eheso 





court of the settlement agreement and the disposition of = 
motion for the allowance of fees, he order vrovided that /$620 so 
deposited be held subject to the further order of the court, and the 
cause was continued to May 6, 3933. May 4, 1933, Thomson served a 
notice of attorney's lien on defendant, Hubert J, bekwall, and the 
Clerk of the Superior court, Victor Ll. Schlaeger. hay 6 Thomson 
presented to Judge Lupe his petition to enforce his attorney's 

lien, He was allowed to tile it. Plaintiff answered and the matter 
was heard in open court. Thomson introduced is notice of attorney’ 
lien showing service by registered mail upon deYendant and the then 
Clerk of the Superior court, also proving ‘his contract with Diain- 
tiff, Defendant introduced the agreement to settle and the written 
ecknowledament of receipt of the sum of $600, and a statement signed 
by irs, Minderhout that she had given the money to her daughter. 
Mre. Mindernout also testified that she made the wgreeniont with 
Thomson to prosecute her petition to secure payment of money in 
arrears; that Mary Jane became of age August 2, 1936, had remained 
in her custody and control since the entry of the decree of divorce; 
that she was dissatisfied with Thomsen and consulted McDonnell who 
advised her toat the contract with Thomson was null and void; that 
25% for services was too much, rs. Mindernout said she wished to 
beat the petitioner out of his fee; that she and LcDonnell arranged 
with Sullivan, attorney for defendant, to settle the matter for 
$800; that in the presence of these attorneys she received $600 of 
the amount and in their presence turned it over to her daughter; 
that McDonnell was paid $200 for his services, and that at his 
direction she turned the money over to her daughter in order to beat 
Thomson out of his fees. She said she deposited $220 remaining in 
her hands with the Clerk of the Superior court as ordered. She had 


not received the 200 from Sullivan but understood this was also 


deposited with the Clerk of the court, Upon the evidence the court 





wintae te mettlecqath ont baw toangetss taemeliton et 
Pane! 


on O8Aai\gerls bobivorg tebze edT ,mae't to sonewolia edt toi nts 












ext bate ;*tveo 27, to tehse sTevloysl ed? ot teotdue bled ed betieog 





& kovtes Soamod? ,S67L db yo. Ee ,6 yo oF Homattaco sew 9389 Ae 





sat hie, digwmiod .b tisdab ,daehoo tes ag agit a'yearotte te soit 


hosmonT 8 ye .tegeaisiod . to¢okV ,dawoo tobteque ont to anedo | 


a’ yeutatin ais eougine of nolticog ala aqud sghul. o¢ bodaseerg ti 












wettan gut bose. borawa ce ttignisll .ti efit ot bewolle enw oh, mek st 4 
|  dypatovee, ‘te soiton aki boosborial mosgerit PTv90 MoCo oe braed oe | 
7 neat osit pte toebhie'tsh aoqu Llem betotaiger yd solvisa galwors mek o 
pate te. sit £4 boarsiteo ado amiverg oakc ,dawoo nokte que. edt te oe 
“bemie taometsta s bas ,00d% To save ent ‘to Tqieoer te daomgbs Lwomios ay 
re vietdyust ted of venom ont seviy bed one: sett twosrebekis, ae 





ast bow aly one glitsa od sngawetgs silt beoubantak taghge ted 


’ tne 





abe tiemeetyw edt ebea ore tony bedtitasd oa te fuomuabakt . et 


teh : 
~~ at yonom te tigareq exaena of aottiteg ted etiagaeng. ot soeaost id 


benkemer bad ,88@L .o seugua 996 10 emeoed Sanh yrak bined rn 


sy _ - 






“we {isnnotio’ bodlvexos bas seemod? meiw bs teetdangZh, oo ia as _ 
pia Salat foe fifua sew agenod? ag Dw POSTS MOQ, od? hf teal a | 





pgs ode «botebto. as. duos en so 3 i” 


a hd 


dismissed Thomson's petition. 

The statute providing for the creation of a lien in fevor 
of an attorney rendering services is found in fli, State Bar Stats., 
1937, chao, 13, var. 14, sec. 1, p. 176, It provides in substance 
that attomeyseatelaw should wave a lien upon all claims, demands 
~~ causes of action, including all claims for unliquidated damages, 
which may be placed in their hands by their clients lor suit or 
collection, or upon which suit or action has been instituted, for 
the emournt of any tee which may have been agreed uvon by and between 
such attorneys and their clients, or in the ebsence of such a,reement, 
for a reasonable fee, It is, however, provided tuat the attormey 
snall serve notice in writing, "which seas lay be wade by 
registered mail, upon the party against whom their clients way 
have such suits, claims or causes of action,” and that the lien 
shall attacn to any verdict, judement or decree entered and to any 
money or property whici may be recovered on account o! such suits, 
Claims, demands or causes of action from and after the time of 
service of the notice, 

The adverse parties have not filed any brief, the contratet 
is not questioned here nor was there any evidence tending to show 
that it was unreasonable. On the contrary, the record indicates 
that the charges were very reasonable considering the amount of 
service necessary. The uncontradicted evidence snows that against 
the advice of petitioner the parties in interest saw fit to settle 
all claims of every kind and nature, including attormeys' fees. 
drs. Eckwall aduits a purpose to defraud the petitioner and beat 
him out of well earned fees. The cases cited in petitioner's 
brief show thai in the case of such settlements an attorney with a 


contingent contract, who has given notice, is entitled to receive 


the percentage agreed on the amount recovered by suit or paid in 


settlement, end that this lien may be enforced by petitioner in 








,SHeRS9 Tus ‘iowa ‘to Od Aedss ans 


B 


-Mltites ea sesmogt. bavaimelp 
tovet Mi aeil a ‘to sotteere add rot BWwblvorq etutase ant 


2:88 tah stes& LET at howiol al agsivise Baltehaex yorrotts a. te 


Sonstadue al eebivorg tI (arg *G@ «fi .99a ,Of isa" SL ,cedo ,vEOL 


ebusiieb ,emislo iLa fogs meil e evan iu eile wel-de-aysorotte teds 
68988n8b hoatebtupiing rot amis to ae antbyto as sMoltos to, aeeues., baie 


Zo five tot ataeiia tieds yd abinnel tiend af beeslq ed you no daw 


Tet bonito ant food esi woltox to tk ug agerty AOGN 19 sigisoolLloa 


Meevtead bis yd aecy Heetys assd sven Ga Go isiw est Yue te Javome aug, 
mi to _atomgto ‘ioadt bap syeootte doa 
Yearosis et sens hebiverg .tevewoti .ek g1 e902 ®igenoaset B. tot 
xa adie ed ys golviss cdoidw® gaidinw ad eo iso evirgr i Lacie, 
Yeu etinetlio aiedr {Ori Teakege yiiag edt mage ,Lheor betetalges. 
Melt ans tant bus “,Goltes to seauso te tmilelo ,adive. fova avec: 
VAs of Doe bersins seteeb to tremyhut J9ibsey yas o¢ dostim Llade: 
vodian Goue to davoons xo bexevoost od Yaa dofidw ydeegetg. 16, yenom 
to oude eos tetta bee nott noktoe to 298189 To abasmes ~aaiafo, 
| -O0iten oat to gotvrem: 
deer doo eat stoicd Yar boli’ Fon svad Balsteg. gatevbe edt 

wells og eathons sonebive Yie estes (sar to8M 9tec hesotiegupa son et. 
esisotiat brosde silt eUTSTS 00 add iO -0idenodastas . *4% tk tend. 
to $8 01s eit gaitedlance eidaaoasos Ute . stow B9aT BoD oui sant, 
sanieges tals avole sonahive bet otbex toca ost \Vleseepon soiviss. _ 
eigiee os tit wae festet as rs pedizag ony temeisited | te solvba Pals. | 
fest ' aysrnodite gntboleat Steen baw bata yxove to omiste tp, 
taed bus renoldhe og acid buetteb od snorug « attnbe L Sahat ati, 

a" songts tieg aed beg io Beeap edt 8097, bentse  tlew ‘te A Paka 

& ddiw yemioss« na etneselétea sous to peao esis ant send wode tend. 
avieost ov, bettit as ai ,eolion roviy aes ony .i9ertno dasgatsaos, 
al blag “9 tive yd Dexrevoost tavose Si? 10 haerge epedusoteq 8s). 


ai toroltiteg yd beeto'tas ed yam nett adit deed Sno ,toomeLster ° 


| 


the client's cause of action, Case v. Bmerson-Braritingham Co., 





I1l1., 94; Standidge v. Chicago Railways Co., 254 I11., 524; that 
service of notice of an attorney's lien operates as an assivnmen 


to the attorney of an interest in the proceeds ol a settleuent, 


- 


269 


t 
that 


may be made by the debtor with a client, Baker v, liaker, 258 Ill. 


418; and that such lien will attach to tie proceeds of a settlen 
which by order of the court has been deposited with the clerk of 
the court pending approval by the court oi the settlement, upon 
service of notice of lien upon toe deferdant, Catherwood v. Morr 
S60 Ill., 473. The cases cited also sow that an award fixed in 
teires of divorce later increased by order of court for the supp 
of a child, by foree of the decree becomes 3 debt due from the 
defendant to the plaintiff on which plaintiff can recover in an 
action st law, Paulin vy, Paulin, 195 11]. App., 2350. 

It is suggested that the trial court was of the opinion 
petitioner's lien could not be enforced without notice to his cl 
the plaintiff, If so, the theory was erroneous, The statute do 
not require notice to tne client, and it has been held unnecessa 
in Catierwood v. Morris, 360 Ill., 473. 


for the reasons stated the judgwent is reversed and the 


sensei teAStte Me We GSA Nl AR ES A AER ROI ROC EARL OEE A EA TS a 





os 


cause remanded with directions to the Chancellor to “ dudgme 
a ner, 


(ne nen OLA EL EERIE IO BOTA PORE SE A el SNe i 





against Mra. Minderhout and Hubert J, Eckwall for 3200 and direc 


nr re NO PR BOI LO AAA LO LON BENE ENE O PL LOT A 8 FLA TO TOON At PEIN LOPE He 5 papery em in 8 fen TY OA PT 


the Clerk ol the 2 court to pay + tae petitioner, frou the tunds now 


ent 


is, 


& 


ort 


that 


ient, 


és 


ry 


nt 


LN ey pany Se i i et A 


t 


Pet pe at 9 


in 


eet UAE ST 9" ANNA 8 CREPE Vass tay ny geld IV MEWS Sal ars 


the hands of ‘the Clerk, #200 -_ sesbaenidsibcthcetnte of the sane, 


sein casitiona Va Ab Grsiensoninendaicaonacinn ELAS RE ITED 9 ANS nA se AMER A 


eee 
——_ 


REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH! DIRECTIONS, 


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


—_" 


Ss 4 











Te adiersde is vetaasteinedibin an ieee aaeeecenane oneal: tial Sa arom ices OO at NS ERR CT 


aR ARS ea Taglar oa 
nt wom abawt edt mort \tenoisiveq ent _yeq of auaie § end ‘Yo aero ey 
Re reRRIN: : 


e 


GOS ,.00 meacis wexdesoateme ov easy sites to egies at taste one 
garth cr er. Saf ,.a9 ayertiall ogbola) .v egbtpast@-sbe ..L1T 

. figany tees ms as esilarvegc mit ‘e'yenredde se To g9id¢on “to eoivaes 
sent doeme id tee g to abesootg act aL Sdetedat ne To yorred ts edd “oF 
ff Bes tess «vv reaed ytmstio a dtiw todd ead Yd sham od Yan 
drone céte8 & te ebsaoore elt of dpatio fiw sett Nese tect Sa8°% 848 
to wre Lo eds Aad hotdacted asad eat diveo At “t6 teBto yd dédaw 
aoow ,tuecsitses edd To twos ould yd tavexéel anthoeg trues eat 
.gizroll .v boowredtgs9 ,faghisted on¢ aogs nell to solvon to Soivees 
@ al bext't btewe as tett wore oe Le betto sskeo edt Eth |, LIT O68 
Srovque gif} tot drives to ‘nebee ‘ed besgewane tetel eotovth To seraeb 
943 mott ub tfeb s esmoved sexoeh edt te sere yd ,bLito a te 

is at roves ano Vridatele dotcw oo Yiidaists esd oo Piss teb 
2088 oe wf£T aes oitus® ov ok fet (wet te aottos 


5 titi 


teds acoiaiao std ‘to gaw Fevao talxt ot tadt betevggae af FI” 


vdmento eid of sotton juodéiw Beototas od dea bites adil u*xsno tt iteg 


aeob a¢utetea eX ,auosaovrs aew yioedd eas pos “4° /Prifntafe eae 
[emareerncs: BLod aod ech gf bue ,tueklo off of Soiton atinpet den 
erh , Lf5 088 ,aixtde wv boowredsed at 





+ 


ext bes beazsvat at tacanhut ‘edt botata wheaadt end tou “9% &! 
sor seme esate ARNE OR TS 


seater aetna eerie ataiennOMEnE aabeeerr sarees 





1.9 eget et 


denn hut tetas ef roliesnasd: omit of sno doo78b tiw bebusmet e@nao 
ee a em eas ES 1 aR ie 


oo Aen ate = 





engin wo nienapcncgsoss* 
* rononathibeimgentoc kdunleninatioh alee eS rs 


foorih bas OOS rot ‘Llewiod .t srs duh bas duottebai ,act tentaye 


alee eel 


a ae Lien hn lial aE 


ame ond ‘te ‘nodtenta lene at 08 ite Ld oath to mda 


Seen angel Hb 1016 Vt ee = ae riomien en RUINS eer 7 ag “Pia ef os 
.2TiOLTOBALA ETLW CET HLA HO ceil , cmeRavER 
, an st 2 RPGs. eae Des . ane 
“yawonos “ awe Bie. 2 hi emma 
Se aL ce ee a2) 
TA AR AeA “LS ee hye Sages SORA NOs 


WA. Aaa RO Sate hate 


ez Nate Oa eS a Pit SOURED) ae Somme tis ae Df 
Ja a 


40348 


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. 
OSCAR NELSON, Auditor of Public Accounts 
of the State of Illinois, 

Plaintiiy’, 





VBe 


PRUDENTIAL STATS SAVINGS BANK, a 
Corporation, 
Defendant, APPEAL FROK 
SUPSRIOR COURT 
OF CCOK COUNTY. 





CHARLES HU. ALBERS, Receiver of Prudential 
State Savings Bank, a Corporation, 
(Petitioner) Appellant, 


ve. , 29 


ACOB BETTEN and MINNIM BETTEN, Individually 
Ae as Executors of Estate of Mabel ide idady, 
Deceased, 


ee 
f 
a 


ee ee ee “EO 
e 
i=) 
> 
af 
ohn 


(Respondents) Appeliees. 


Mik, JUSTICE MATCHETY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF PH COURT, 


This is an appeal by the receiver Prov an order vides 


> cbt amehibaaelenice ee 


Nay 9, 19335, sustaining Seer esens to the zepert of a linster and 


denving the prayer ian the receiver Jor an order setting wniae a 
ae 
prior order snte sred on motion of his predecessor, directing _— to 


pil ineranieet 
socept « an ee? of the estate of Mabel ky Bday to pay $1 ,000 in “fw 


settler cent of a cls Am for $7168, 70 allowed by the Redalbctehed es court of 


Cook county ae at the sixth class, The waterial avarnents ‘ef the 


_-+__--——-. 


et A NSN RAN ati PTC. 


petition are that this order was entered throuy!. fraudulent conceale 
ment of facts and fraudulent misrepresentations o: fact made vy the 
attorney for the estate to the deputy receiver in charge oi settle- 
ments, The Master found the attorney for the estate who conducted 
negotiations had “infornation he did not divulge to the said receiver 
at the time he sought to make such settiement witn him", and that 
"resnondents by withnolding such information, wiies was peculiarly 
within their kmowledge, were guilty of sueh fraud as would vitiate 
said settlement and that there is no necessity for petitioner te 


return said sum of One ‘housand Dollars received oy him but he ig 





J : ers ee jr te: gut is 

tex xe ‘wee oO agate BET 10 AIOaS 
adawoaDa oftigud to zrodthoA ,HORGEA HADEO 
asia cant bed ‘ede98 odd a F 





« titaia ld. Eve 
her corradse weld 
s ,AWAd QOWVAS STATE Al THECUAT 
. ee thar ages “ 
MONS TASSTA tashie ted : “GEN 


TaAveo AOLHTshe 
.YTHU09 Bova to 





f iy e _ 
teffnsburt to xeviensi Qala st 2U.DIAKO 


Aeiststoqtes « ,aaed sacks soe8t 
, ims ile gaA (seals ited) 


Taw Ta a? attarig + if 
au . ov 
eo a < wok 
YtiewSivibat , eat wed “timrw bas ‘were moDAL 
,Vbod Ledall to. etateli ‘te exotupexil ae pew: a 


A a A ON TOON Bn LON, GON I, tO OO oe OU, gO, 


‘esa ALT 


Fae ain aaa 2. 


ier sheasooed 
oeileqgéA § (ataphuoqeeh) 6 6 fey 4 Ye 
| } : : : ” my eu “yah Ht fey ig, i 





/THUGO GhY UO HOLAIGO SH. GaRAVIIEE TTAHOTAM aoizeut Me rT 


perenne inchs fis wort tevisoes add yd teagee for) et obit ; 7 


alanine sire, 
pdenadeidanmonasgreneaneh neubeietseap bop aeinunncrie ae ene nose, 


“bas teteaat ® to txoqet sar ad eaoisqeexe gaistedeus * inet <2 Yai \ 
Bh DPS ite EAN ty Sneha arpa ll ARR SS aaeenna casi ETT gas a aa ‘ib. Aa ao ‘eae ; 
4 ie Ae ae E 


a pbias aatitoe ‘tebro am ‘tol revisor edt ‘to reyere utd Bier) 
commie Eel : rik mt 





ee es SO renee arpa 




















at ore Saba 
= OO NRT) DE Rede Kanner ae sr 


fist ab 009, Lé xea ot pba |  tedai to shetas: ant “to cette a6 rea 
: Oe allem ieets I ena tan placerat tip a _ ; ST 

‘to éth@o atadedd edt ve Sevolle ot Barve ‘tot misfo-s ‘to- dnomett 
ees ei sneer sain siakaoonctans a ARR, a tpi ii sian Rac tiaans rina ee non en Name tei ss 


oat to etre oteye hdbvadia eat "aeale Hinke orig “te as ang 





are moire SPS as hepmasacananyeinion 


~fandaée tus fubwent iguonsé betes a9 aev tehTo eins dactd o7E 


eat vd she feat “Lo anoitad neretqetaia fae tubes bap asoot 0 








i 
| 
| 
| | 
} 
i 


i 
ih 


-sittea ‘to ontario mt xevisoat viugos 903 co o¢sveo ‘sit. aot y xe 


| tevieoos bise ot ot ogluvib com bib od nobsautotaat 
fh ne 4 Mi 


| sams bas ,"mioa odtiw dome ts ea oun eviem ot ‘ysu02 8. 
iy : sl ; 





bsg Vita iivoeg asw notsiw mot temrottk fous ‘akb focuti bw of einen 109 aox" 






entitled to hold same as a payment on account.” The haster recome 
mended tie settlement “be set aside and said petitioner be permitted 
to take.such other action as he may see Vit," 

Respondents filed objection to tie report wuica the master 
never passed on, he having in the meantime resigned on account of 
iliness, iowever, the objections were considered as exceptions by 
the Chancellor and sustained, and a decree entered denying the 
prayer of the petition, Upon the liling oj the record in this court 
respondents made a motion to dismiss the appeal on whe ground that 
it was taken by the receiver witiuout autuority of tie court, The 
motion was denied, It is reargued in the .brieis, but we aduere to 
our former decision. 

Petitioners argue that aithough objections to the report of 
the Master were not passed on by him, his report is entitled to the 
same consideration that would otherwise be given it. ilanilestly, 
this is not poasibie. ine evidence is largely docgmeiiary. June 
bank was closed June 18, 1932, and a receiver appointed. January 132 
1934, William i. O'Connell becawe successor receiver and upon his 
death off July 24, 1956, Albers was appointed successor, Among the 
assets of tne bank were Jour notes of wabel Hady for $2250, on each 
of which tuere was an uipaid baiance oi principal to the awount of 
$1600 with interest, abel Eddy died testate January 31, 1932, and 
on July 22, 1933, the claim based on tuese notes was allowed by the 
Probate court against ner estate in the sum of $7168.70. Her will 
gave three specilic legacies of $5000 each to friends named, with 
residue to Jacob Betten and ikinnie Betten, who were named as execue 
tors. About May 1, 1936, the attorneys for the estate opened Lbego- 
tiations with the receiver for settlement, ur, Keenan, tie deputy 
receiver, intormed them that an ofiler for less tian 100% must be 
made in writing, May 6, by letter, tue attorney lor the estate 
mede such an olfer wiiecn Keenan, by letier of May 9, 1956, rejected, 


June 1, 1956, tne attorneys for the estate in anoiner letter made 





~moget gegeed ett "“.taseoss no + montage & e6& gwee hiod ot ereaenee 
body laxeg ed tenoisiteq bias pas. eblas ise ed" taausittes, aud bodaes 
",di1 o68 yeu ed ge aoitom Taste dove suet of 
tetas oid tokaw tioqet eit of aoitogtdo be lit adashaeqesH . | 
to dasooog 0 boogiaet saiisasem elt Mi guivad 98,80 heaesq woven 
ve awi¢qoexs as heieblienos stew aupitestde edt ters wok seaoanili 
euit gtiyneb beretas eeteeb & bis ,benlaseus ptm -tolieensd® est : 
Sxwoo eins ai biesst od Lo gaitrt ost sogU oid Leg oid L0 asyerq | 
fads Savora aio Ao Aweuge esis esiwe ib os woisom s ebam egusbnogest 
sit ,¢xseo otis” to wirondus juedtiw tevisest ait wd ead saw t 
od eteibs ow tud ,@teind silt ai banguset ah ae | bekaeb anw soitom 
ois ioeb spat ‘tHe 
to txeget add of enolivostde dgeent is tanks gugts ateceli ites | 7 7 
aad of beiditoe af sroget aia ,@is yd oo beseaq ‘ton otew tetas exit : 
«Gites tinal oi agvig od eeiwiesito biloow tedt mekeaxedlenios suns =} 
ssi 2 ULSS We.auyo ob wiegrad ‘et ennebive ect eid iaeoq ten ed eidt ; 
et rennet - sbesaiougs sevisset e bma ,SE@L BL sat ‘pewots eww iinad 
gis sous bas LOVLSOST ToBags0Ke one9d fienned' marries: a beer 
| aud geona TOG e900ue bed aiogga aaw ered LA de OL ae ist ‘bo dicen 
“done 0 1088s tot ybba Lode te astom iol or9% das ead ‘to tetas 
to dawoms osid ot lagionizg ‘to gods Lad ‘bhieon ne aaw exeid ido Lew “to | 
brs ae vt vreuast stssess hath yeh Lodesl “sfeonotat uiviw ys ae 
“asi ve bowolls gaw eeton sas 0 bessd uke to odd BERL ae eat 20 L 


+ + ee 


“Libw yah OF BdLhS to ue end aL atasaée. Ten entays ‘Frias stodord 






a 


1 ig tes b tibe ; 
‘dt iw “beaent abas in 03 dogs 008% te soioayel ol tiocas 8 fies a 


hmge ¢ os Sibieos a 


axe a6 “bomen e168 oxi isdsed 9 kau bas noisee dooat 
















“n0g26 ho teqo sdetas out tot aye mxease esta 128 “id 
ytugeb aclg (16.1189 » til -tu9ne L308 x02 weviee: odd Adtw 


8 od sou 3 sate mast aeoL tot roto ae jens cult ‘pearotal 





furtuer alternative offers, one of which was to pay $1000 in fuli 
settlement, June 12 O'Connell recommended accentance of $1000 te 
the Auditor of Fublic accounts, ‘the Auditor concurred aid on June 
15, 1936, the receiver wrote tlie attorneys the Auditor had approved 
and that the offer was accepted, June 27, upon petition of the 
receiver, tne order was centered authorizing the settlewent of the 
Claim in full usjon payment of $1000, The receiver notified the 
attomeys on July lst of the entry of the order of June 27, and on 
July 10 payment in full was made by the personai caeok of the ate 
torneys for the receiver, July 24 O'Connell died and Albers was 
appointed successor, November 20, 1936, Albers Yiled nis petition 
to have the order of June 27 set aside as above set forth. 

The facts alleged to have been fraudulently concealed and 
wisrepregsented concerned the estate of Mabel kM, Eddy. 

day 12, 1028, Charles kK, Eddy (then solvent) was divorced 
from his wife kabel for hie Yault. The decree provided for the pay- 
ments of alinony whieh be did not make, Charles iM. Eddy died Novem- 
ber 10, 1930, testate, end his dauerter, Jeanette Eddy Williams, was 
named executrix of his will and qualified, Ure, kabel Eddy filed 
her claim for unpaid alimony against the estate of Charles li, in 
the Probate court and it -as allowed in the amount of $126,400, 
January 31, 1932, Mabel Bddy died testate, naming Kinnic and Jacob 
Betten as executors, Thie claim for alimony agsinst the estate of 
Charles ik. Eddy, with the exception of a few iteus of pereonal 
property, a few picces of ral estate encumbered by mortgases and 
taxes, constituted her entire estate, Tne estate of Charles k. 
Eddy had become insolvent, made so (as the executors of Mabel KM, 
Mddy's estate averred) through his fraud in conveying to his 
deugiter, Jeanette Eddy Williams, all his estate including a4 large 
amount of insurance on his life in which his daughter Jeanette wae 


named ag be:-:Ticiary, The executors of Mabel Eddy's estate filed a 











fis ak ooord Yq of asw doldw ‘to emo “ate The ovidemnss fs roddaet 
‘od “OC Th i eoled goons habuoamosox tLe aned! 0 ef saat ia9a5 £3208 
eal go bis boTivyH0S to¢ibwa 60 edavedea ot lde® te mod ibys osit 
hoverqae bac vod tbssh ait3 eyeatodss asd “etotw 2oylone% axis ,ae OL ,af 
edt ‘to meokeigeq mocw .TE orl enreene BSW melto. eaiy bass baw 

ails to tmas Iisee asi ans sitordue b cod uo Baw Teh a oud \rovieoet 
ent betiivon xayiesst eat ,O000L8 ‘to inewcag moos List ced ahete 

fo ewe YR ent to tebto aad te citi out to tefl ytut ae eyemrodte: 
~d5 ists to dx do lenceteag elt yd abem 206 fiw mt jrmiae OL eat 
g@aw atedta bas bert Libs ane? 6 BS yiut wav lecot ast wot neaiek 
Molsideq ais boLi't eved LA OEOL ag aecaoy ell “tose coun bedatogus 
widxo't toa evods ea abies goa YH cont. ‘te tebto exis eves ot 

baw ‘belasosawe (it co Le baett need even of ‘pepe tia ‘adoet eit? . 

 .Ybba A fedell to etateo ast benresses peduovoxgo eta 

beotovih aaw (saevioa weag ) vbbs wk ws fret 8S er SE yok 
-yeq ect tot bebivetg ‘e@teeab eff .tfuet ald te fede a'tiw ats mont 
even beth yobs Ad as frend wis ten bib ed ro ddw qaout Ls to ataom 
aow ,@aelifiW yboe ‘gitensst tastcguab ais bas ad tadacd Ee OL 9S 
be tit bpd fedex anit set iiLaup shin Lftw ais. ‘Yo xixuoece Soman 
‘ai .@ eelredd to. atatae exit tantsge Wremd La bioqan xot mie fo. wt 
00d, said ‘to tawous oat pk hawoLte nar gt hoes dxu09 stedors, one 
to ‘ptadas ald tanisas Ynomifle 17. siale atat etoduosxe Be pera 
‘Lanoste q ‘to awed wot ste Mots qaoxe eis aitiw eh es ao ixad 
iti aegead 10m sed bore dasons etajan feos te aevotg wot a iwreaeng: 
a as fxadd ‘to esaves edt setae payee au hodut Lianoo ooxed 
‘Mu Ledell to tod uoaxs. oat PA ee oe oben day. fomad omooed bait bbe 
is ye ot ‘gatyevaco at ‘Beet alii gurls ‘Geneeee, oteden athe 
estat e oalbutees, otstas til Lis semobiiey hb edgoneot ‘dutdawah 


qtr bew we Shee 
aaw eidsnsot ‘totilgucb als so bate at oud ete ‘no eomertun it ‘to truosig 


Vis Hg vee” haat 


ra ‘bo Lit pistes al ybbe tedalk ‘to axotinexe | oat “stuete sued se. bewe 


ai ity 


bill to set aside these trensactions; the suit was dismissed in the 
trial court and on appeal to this court the decree was allirmed for 
the reason that the suit was filed prematurely, Setten v, Williams, 
277 Ill. Apo, 353, The opinion of this court also indicated doubt 
as to whether the proceeds of the insurance policies could be 
reached, Leave to appeal was denied by the Supreme court, 

ihe letter of the attorneys for the estate oi Mabel Eddy 
dated June 1, 1936, to the receiver of the bank informed nim of 
the above facts, stated that the estate oj Charles ik, Eddy was sope- 
lessly insolvent; that at the time of his death he owed practically 
$300,000; nad transferred to his inicnter Jeanette »500,000 in 
insurance policies; tnat the other assets of his estate were worth 
at the most 30,000 or 940,000; that Mabel Eddy's estate had liti- 
gated the question of the fraudulent purchase of the insurance 
policies with results as akited’ that it was the interition of the 
executors of the estate of Mabel Eddy, when the estate of Charles li, 
Eddy had been closed, to file anotier bill; tat the United States 
Government had a claim aguinst the estate of Charles k, Eddy jor 
$9,000 and wae threatening to take all the assets of the estate if 
it was not paid, in whic: event nothing would be received for the 
Kabel Bddy claim of $126,400 unless these insurance policies were 
held to be impressed with a trust; that ene of Mr. Eddy's dsughters 
hed offered te purchase the assets of her father's estate tor s sum 
in excess of its market value snd thereby reice a fund to pay the 
Government and make a small distribution to creditors, The letter 
said: “General creditors will receive approximately @g on the dol- 
lar. This offer, however, is contingent upon a complete settlement 
of our claim against her individually." The ietter pointed out 
three specific legacies of $5000 each to individuais named in ire, 
Eady's will and elso that ir, and lirs, Betten, executors, were her 


residuary legatees; advised that the debts of the estate ageregated 





7 ; i 


ody ui beaeimelh saw site etd janotroeauwit oped) obisk fou of Litd 
to? bewritts’ saw verosh ott sano ekox oF fesege No bag tuo Lebxd 
. Smet SLEW wv aetied \yletetemery be Ltt aaw tive est tatit nosset ont . 
‘Ydvob botadibal veis duwos alnt to aohitkge eiT 088 Joka’ IT ove 






















ed bIvoS asiolfod sonatuent ost to Bhsssota eng seit ectw of: BB 
sPrNeO emeTEgHd eno yd bekoeh aww iaeqce ot svasd ‘lbeonet 
YbSE feds ‘to etatdas osit rot-ayoctedta eho te wsteL ent ” enti dS 
hy mkt’ bbe lkd BhAE ote Ta? se vEdEt bat of ser ,f enut hetab 
qed sw yhbe .M eoltai® To efeitos ont tan} petade ,2teet evoda sit 
Video Lsoe'se bewo ef Mtaeh ell to suid sid te fend itesvLobat’ eases 
mt G00, 008¢ etteusot r9iteyssh cin oF berTieteameid be ;000, 0088 
dévow stew atates cid ‘te etesan teri oft feed yastottog oonstvent 
“EVEL bed Stayes a'(hb@ todeil fads $000,004 te 000,088 teom odd te ; 
sosstsant aid ‘to eaaitoreg tagfubset't eX te mobtesup eid ‘bedsa 
“eH to mokfaodat of? aew G2 Pade ‘sboteate ac etioase Atiw astotiog 
wi aefeedd ‘to o¢etes ot matty \ybbS fede ‘to otetes ant to ‘atotveexe 
aates@ bottal ext tend ;LLid aeiltome off of ,Aecoto mead bad YbAE 
edt YbbE .a seLtedS to oretes eft denlega atato @ bed themerrevod 
Thiejatee sds ‘to eseaes oct {fe “edet Ot yntasteetdd ‘naw Bae O00, ee 
ody tot Seriseet ed hiver galdvon tiers Hotmw at bisd dow hile HE 
stew wetoifog eosetuent eaedd addins OOb,O8L@ ‘to mtato cbba ‘feds | 
etetigued al ybbE .th te ono feds ;tawtd we Atiw Aseosrqud ‘od ; ot Biot a 
moe a tot ateded e'todsat ted ‘to eissas ont oasiorny of beterte bad ~ 
edd Yoq of Awl 6 saisy ydersils has eefet ¢eduea edt ‘Yo esas 
asttos saT yarofiteto of Aesiditfers Liem @ odem Bas tasaaes veo 7 
-Lob efi m6 Re yYLetamtxoidgs ovisoos Lite tes ibord ‘toes ao” ated 





dnsae L494 ete Lomoo 6 moqd dasgattiios ef preVewod exstto aia?” : | 
fuo Besotow sester onl “eliaubse toad test fentege mbats th te | 
{84W nf fomen a feubivipal o¢ dese Ooose to aetoags 
tet otew Yatosvooxe ‘ aapnigt ose s9' 











about $12,000 of which $3,000 were first class claims, The letter 
continued: “If we continue to litigate our claim againet Lirs, Eddy 
personally and are successful, all of the debts would te paid in Tull 
including your debt, The three legatees would receive $5,009,00 each 
and our clients would have approximately $60,000,00 left after papment 
of exnenses and attorneye' fees, On the otner land, if we were not 
successful, in such litigation, there is little likelinood that any 
of the general creditors or legatees would receive anything, You, 

of course, would be in a little better position than the others since 
you would still have your lien upon the real eatate,” Tne writer of 
the letter went on to exoress the epiition that chances of success in 
litigation were not sufficient to warrant taking the chanos of re- 
ceiving nothing, and thet it would be to the interest of ali parties 
if the settlement could be made “so that all the parties in intere 
will receive something proportional to their interest." The writer 
of the lettef also said that he saw no chance of working this out 
unless the receiver wes willing to take back the real estate covered 
by hie mortgagesand share with other creditors on the basis of defie 
ciency; that the sum of $500 had been suggested because it was sub- 
stantially the limit of ability to pay and still leave cther parties 
in interest the sum that would warrant them in releasing their 
cCleims, The letter concluded by offering to pay $1,C00 in lieu of 
the real estate and $500 theretofore offered and concluded: "I don't 
see how this Estate can be worked out unless you would be willing to 
take around a thousand dollars," 

Petitioner doee not assert that sny statement made by the 
attorney for the Mabel Eddy cetate was in fact false, The theory of 
petitioner is (to nie his own language) “that a fraud was perpetrated 
upon the eetittonchy/eme respondents in failing to disclose all of 


the facts during the negotiations for settleuent, including the 


fact that the label Kk. Bady estate, against wiicu the petitioner 





& 


. Settel ec?  ,amiato aeglo jail) stew 000,5§ doinw to 000,216 tueda 
yhbs eat taanteas sisto tuo etegtets ot exnlimes aw Ti" . tbexaldaos 
{int wk Stag sd biwow aided ond to Iie ,fiteseooua gta fas yilenoateq 
fogs 00 .000,2¢ svieser bhluaw gaetagel oot ect ,3¢96 tuoy galbufont 
treaysq godia diel O0.000,0e, yisdauixotgqgs svat hivew sinsilo ao bre 
vou szew ow tL , base mente eae 20 . ,eeet ‘ayantotis has ssaneqne to 
Vite dauis bootifectt efttis el stadd ,nolsagti hs dqua ot ,fe'teasooue 
HOY sgrkidyns oviegst Binow eseteget 10 atedthera Letensy edt to 
sonia evedie ofc sadt.acitigeg tetied sizttit a ai od hivow (Sa7HO9 To 
to se¢isw ont. “,etadae Lest ef¢ goqu anil .avey evad.fflita .b{yow, wey 
ai agesoue. to aoongio tskd aolaiqe ect egetgne of oe taow sottel oat 
eet to epnova ont gaided tastiev.o} saoloittse sea eter moltegithe 
asidtaq {fw to daetodai edd of od Bivow ti tend bas ,gaidson gaivieo 
feotednd ot pedsaen ai 
weticw edt * geetegai thes of 


tvo.eiad anisvew to eorado om ee oxi tans piaa oele testel, sat, ae 


ge" eben ed biioo. tae Litea aft. 5 






+ 


besoveo sistas Laer edt desd ofed of gaiiitw saw neviooet ext ape Low 
ofteb ‘to alaad ot} no axotibotoe terite adiw etade baeangsaitoa aid yd 
«fun saw di saueoed beteaggus aged bad 002% Yo mwa odd tact iyeagto 
esiiise todéo avwel f£Lite bas yeq.ot yititds ‘te timth odd yListtasde 
gtedt gaiaseiet al wad? tuaewtey Sduev.dedd ava edt tagrotal at 

to weil at 900,18. yaq of gaitatio yd. hebulomog totter. om? | Ratt fo 

nob I" phobslousa baa heretio szotozeredd 0069 bas etateeifaet oft 

of aatLftw od biuow voy seofnu tvo hoxtow od ano statem allt wait see 

* ,otallob basawodt « bayors oles 





ott yd obag tasmetste yas tect PHONED: 86K DOME TSMORTATOE 95 1Ne: > 
I te gress ax? ,eelet fost mi sew efatss yeba, fedeM. ent. to't yonroit he 
| petortegrsg sew huest & seat (egsuuast emir aaah won ot) eh sonoksiten 

te [is exofoett of ynbiis? ab etashocgess eablcsoour sive fd. moms 






had a2 claim for $7168.30, was receiving $37,500, instead of 
$11,502.40, as represented by the respondents." 

The material facts in regard to the actual settlewent 
made between these two estates appears to be that Mr, Kelley, of 
the firm of Ditchburne & Lounsbury represented the one estate and 
Mr, Williams of the firm of Castle, Williams, iong & wevarthy tae 
other, Sometime in the spring or fall of 1955 Lr, Williams suge- 
gested that the only way out wac some kind of settiexent by which 
money could be obtained for some oj Jeanette iddy's imuediate 
needs arid to satisfy the claim of the United States Government 
against her father's estate, A nunbér of conrerences were held 
and it was finally agreed to try and get some dispesition of some 
of the insurance policies from which enough money could be realized 
to pay or compromise all lisbilities sgainst the label Eddy estate 
and catiefy the legatees, specific and resicuary, and thus dispose 
of all litisation agsinet Jeanette Bédy. It was agrecd kr, Kelley 
would communicate with s11 perscns interested in ine habel Eddy 
estate to the enc of negotiating settlewents; thet ur, Williams 
would in the same way communicate with creditors and persons ine 
terested in the Charles M. Bddy estate. Cursuant thereto nezotiae 
tions were opened up for the settlement of petitioner's claim, 

One of tne insurance policies was issued by the Aetna Lite 
Insurance company and about April 1, 1936, Mr. Williams and Wr, 
Kelley went to Hartford, Connecticut, to take up the matter with 
representatives of that company, They were told in substance that 
if Jeanette Zddy would personally benefit the Insurance company 
would advance eash (not more then $70,000) toward the end desired, 
Upon returning to Chicago lir, Kelley took the matter up with the 
legatees and credjitors of Mabel Bddy, including the undertakers 
who had a claim against the estate for $2532.50. Tentative verap 


with these persons were arfacged, About the same time the letter 


cite Re Beotank ,O08, "6G gatviever ear. ,08.88i%8 10? mislo« bag. 
* ,ahnohaogaet oft 4d betassatgqet, an 6 Oh ROB 5 LLG 


o) 0 Pte totes teutesa ot ot freget of atest fgitet sm elt ¥ Ca pope “xan 





hits o38se9 Bite otis botaseervges yrudeavod & entudded if, te only, Abhs 
edd ‘YO Te0OR 3. good ,amelliry ,efiesd to ark: oat}. to Ome LEW, tM. 
og yeh CELLS: 22 GECL to Lisk to gabtes ed? mh, guttemo®. .xedto, 

doide yd Suesoddsoe te bats ‘etme aay who ye% Tino sx9, todd bedeeg,, 

egaiboumt al ybbs sitemsel to smo tot hentasdo od bivoo. venom, . 

 piewewsves agiate hadiat edd Le minuto edt Uraltes ot.. hae shoea 
“Piet exe" aepasye'tico to tefman A .etaia a! tedde't,, Fon, tealene. a i 
ae ko aobtleogeth omos tem ban ytt of bootge iteatt ea, 22 baw, 
Mekisot od hives yenom siguose dotdw mort, agioi log oosmrna at ost, 2p, 
; leis Ybiifedeid ods: ta ntaga: | ag itt itdal.. ils oa inaignos. A: TAM, OF . 
 eeogath aiid Sas, giaxbipot bas ptttosce saootvagoL elt ytetine baa, 


Teele 





VOhlet .ta hoenys aaw FL .ybbel atsensel, tealegs aoitayloli ig to . 
 Qbbt Loted esr al bedactednt envereq Lie dédw odeodnumaoo biome 
{fi AO aad CEE te Secs petobwedsttoa. aaitadtogen to Qos, ey oF otates, 
7 rk @neeteqg bas avotibers. asiw stsoiasanso. yaw oape, exit ct Alon, er 
| ‘wetdousm ofetecdd tnaszety..otedac ybbR ait cs lresi, 9cih ond, egaomet, _ 
sthete..a' redoiviteg to traasdddea edd cot ge henego ined . 23 









etki amtoa ia: xa boweel sew metot. iow. eosenuend ast, oO 9 at sha f= = 
tk tes BmetLIW aM .0CL gf tinga daoda hae, esq, gosascant 
aioe tedcem ond qu otad of ,tusbtooanod ., hroténal ot joer wettes, 
gacds soassedue ai blog stew yal .«ysequieo, eit. To, povite 
yneqios sonenvatl addi toned “ilesoatag higow YbhE ¢ oni 













me oritetael . 308 asemneenene chine al shih che 
(Suks gue od PROT, cshoget 





of kay lst was seni to the deputy receiver Keenan with offer whicn 
he refused to accept, Later the letter oi June ist was sent wits 
offer which was secepted, es stated. When Wiliiaus «aid Kelley 
again conferred it was found that they were sort avout 25000 of 
the necessary auount of money and Wiliiams wrote the Aetna coupany 
asking if the amount to be advauced migit not be increased to 
$75,000, In res onse tie Aetna company sent its representative, 
ir, Cavanauen, to Cuicago. At a joint conference mr, cavanaugh 
said he nad heard rumors Jeanette bddy was a spendturift and tne 
Insurance company would not ba willing to advance money wituout a 
court order, it was then decided with Kee consent to apply lor a 
conservatorsiip for her, Tue Probate court of vook county named 
the Trust cowpany of Ciuicago anid Anna Carpenter, a relative; 
Williams became the adwinistrator with the will annexed of the 
Charles iit. Bddy estate. The mares ot settlement Was again taken 
up and it was agreed tial tlie amount to be paid to the. executors 
of the estate of Mubel N, S@ddy aid to persous interested in her 
estate should be 937,500, wr, Relley tostifies - and his testimony 
is not contradicted - that ur, Willisus suggested that as all the 
other creditors of the Charlee KM, Bédy estate were receiving ¢°.1% 
of their clains he preferred that the estate of Mabel a. Eddy 
should receive tie same smount. Thie agreement was unde shortly 
before July 1, 1936, Orders were cbtained trom the Probate court 
and a check for $11,502.40 was paid to the estate of Mabel VM. Rady 
en account of its claim against the Charles hk. Eddy estate, and 
the baiance of $25,997.60 to the Bettene and their attorneys. 

the controlling issue here seems to be one of Tact. ir. 
Kelley testifies that im oral conversations with tue deputy re- 
ceiver and his attorneys he gave full ixforwation ci tue settlement 
in so far as he had Mmowledge at the cine of these conversations, 


and that all the faeta were not known to nim until about the first 


BS nara li 


a: 
< 


iP 


hy 


heisw totto dviv seneek saevisset yideob ect os Jupa saw gat yeu To 
aidkw. fee agw vad gre ‘le tetteai esd sesved ,dueooe of Béantet off 
youisd fae amelifiW aenY  hetsta sa ,bedqeoda Baw doliuw ratte 

te O008G tuods drome etew yeds decd bayot saw ti Betis’tnos alage 
Uisquds aniedA old sforw ameiiliW hae yonom to dmwais tee soem bas 
Q$ Beaaotoai od. son tegim booneyha ed of tavoma adit ‘li gatites 
,evidaddseetget avi tmose YouQaoo sHdeA ef} eeme eet aT ,000 ave 
dguetaved ,~h gonoeretnes Saleh s IA \.ogsoldd of (asdeneveD . tH 
edd Bie PLL hitecs Be eaw- hh Stieases axcuia bikoo Bad on Biea 

& tproisiwv youom eosavhe of galliiw od fox Lito Utté gino o eonetia nl 
e.%et Ylogs ad -Pdectos tou diiw beblosh avetlt eaw 1° pxehbio detove 
Pomme ytnved deg po gigas etedent eal .ted rot gidetotevteande 
jevitalow a wetnegted ange bos egeoli ‘to ylte goo saut? ould 

aid To hexenne LLiw est driv vodavdetatabs ‘ord eawyed amet LEEW 
nevad sitye eew didmeldsee to reste BAP Letesan yobs arr eer yc 
erotuoexs oie of Bhey od ad “tavetk sity fens bootye ‘paw dt bits oH 
goa al beddsiotal amoeiey of bas Yabe VM tedelf "to etedas sit “to 
ynomideed ald bus ~ wefiisvesp Yotlel ce .d0a VE wd Btvdite eta ve 
oct: Lie ae Jans tetvegyus eae lt LIT aM dads + patot sett aco toa ak 
EL,9 gaiviaest gtew stesso (35H VM go lredd wee “to rotted “alite 
YSSK Jk Lodall “to stetes oft Ged) bowteterg om ante (3 Lhet¥ Ye 

= ¢fidrode oben paw daommetgs wid stavoms gies ose Ssrteset bfuoste 
dugoo etadatd oss mot'r bosistdo stow wteh1O eer yr yet ovoted 
Ubha MN Ledsk to etatag odd oF Slag aawOs. 86a ,Tk@ ret dodo! Ss Hite 
bog ,odetas Ybba JA ao Trend odt-cenbega mhelo adi’ to tayoods ne 
ceayemnedia: chedd bie! atertededh ed 00,100, 88h" to 60 ie Low’ oid 
attik: tact te. eso: ed: of aaiese ood otteet gabifortnco ant © aiid 


Ot Ytugeb out. dtiw swoleeetSvacs Lavoe wt dent Beltifaed yotied 


\ PWone Lttoa ond ‘Lo soddeunetal Liv? evag ed ayomionts “ala ‘bab teavieo 


| ‘@euoitaatovico eeodd to oul) ont ta Sgbolvomi bar be as ‘cet oo ‘nk 


‘nent Mie ud duodd Lidmw wid of dwomi Pom “Stew atest edt Lhe das Bete 


Aay of Tuly, 1936, when the settlement was wade, tie says there was 
no obligetion to inform petitioner's predecessor of the things of 
which he did not have kmorledce, His evidence as to what was said 


at these oral conversati 


o 


na is contradicted by the parties with 

whom he says he talked, Petitioner urges as a mutter of law that 
although a representation may be true when made, if thereafter 

such representation by changing circumstances becomes faise, the 
representation will constitute actionable fraud if the parties te 
whor the new representation was made are ignorant ol the changed 
cirewustances and the speaker rails te inform them of the changed 
conditions, allowing them to act in the pelict that the original 
conditions still exist, Petitioner pointe out that the conservae 
tor's estate for Jeanette Eddy was opened a few days alter Mr, 
Kelley received notice from the receiver cf his acceptance of the 
offer of compromise; that within three days sll the terms o7 the 
settlement were reported to the Probate court, Petitioner says 
when Kr, Kelley learned the facts he should have reported them to 
the receivier, citing Loewer v, Herris, 57 Fed. 368, 6 C. C. A, 

394, We do not questicn the rule of law announced in that case, 

In weighing the issues of fact it appears it is the werd of one of 
the parties egsinst the word of the other, and the burden of proof 
Was upon petitioner mot only to show fraud by a prevonierance of the 
evidence but by clear anc convincing preponderance, Petitioner re- 
lies much on the Yaster's report, The rule es to the weight to be 
given to the findings of a master is not spplicable because the 
Maeter, whe was i111, filed the report without ruling on respondent's 
objections, The record does not inform us that he gave any considerae 
tion to theee objections, fhe evidence taken is in the record vre- 
cisely as if it had been taken by deposition end the cause heerd by 
the court, True, in considering the Findings of the Chancellex re 


Bust not overlook the tact that he did not see and hear the wiinesseg, 





4 : 
f easy stegt ayes ei sham sav gasustiten oft naoriw ,5FCL ,yfat To yesh . 
2 to egnids aod? Lo tesasosberg e'xecoltiteq orptal of aottegtido om — 
Sise ssw daw of an gomehive efi .egbelweot sved ten bib of potty | 


-dtiw aoltueg ect yd Seto ihettaos ef aaotigatovnes Jere, on 09d, te. 


tadt Wel. to tedi 28-8, 88 BeETE seaot: tved ,botlat sf ayer ox moni | 
tofiseverid ti . ghee nese sutt edt yen coljatmesetqget « Kgvorttip 

gig: . eaiot aamooad: agonesaauesio guigaado: yd. mothed tapastgon some, 

' ot. netttag sid 34. buat’ efdeaoites asgutitenmss ifiw aoltadnere: get 7 



















begaais ib ‘to dnerengl ote. sham saw so igedcesotges wenredt mos 
bogassio ott to aoat. ametat od afie’t tadesqe sat bre, eos tudhesineks 
ss. fertytro exit tastt Ledded ott nt dos of amet gaivelia,,enottthacs 
c -sVareettog ect tact tuo etntog tenoititead . tetne Lihte enotrtiaoo : 
| MK aod le oysch wet-2 bonege enw ybbe ottenast, aot eteta not ; 
et to seamtqooos ait ‘to tevieser ost moxt soliton bevteser yotisx 
edd To: amrot otf cle aygeb setdd nittiw tedt jpatmermiog. to, te8to : 
ie _pyeo wemodtive®  déruos efedexG ody of bottoqes stow tapmeLttoe 
ot spas Hhottoaqet oved Hbivede ed efos't ecg bomsol yelled oil tote 
a 2 0.8 ,895 ,b0% TA ,givtel vy. sowopd gpritio: (tabvieoet edt 
,o2e0 gadt of booavenns wal Yo ofvy ssf aolteoup tom oh oF ..d08 
to suo to brow oat of ¢4 stesqeqs PE tevlt To asveet ext, nkagree 
toorg to aphisd ot fae ,tedto sdf To brew 9c7_ daattene. abitzaq ont 
ost ‘tp gomertshaogete @ Yd huext't wore of vino ton toacltifeg moqgmeaw 
-ot yonottite? ,soaarsbaocete galonivacs. bas tg9f9/ Yd tud noushive vas 
bad ot. togdtew oct of. ae olor sxT. attocet a'vatest edt aq, doom ee ht 
pat paueoed sitsotiqge. ton et seteam we te agotbelt act of mevig — 
o' stiehasyeerc: ao gitkiet tuecdtiw tveget edt boli't ,L0b saw ost jsoteet 
: ohiemoo yas evag of sadtoew aotat. tom e90b beooet act mena 
| ; : org! frooet odd Hi ai noted sousbive cy ae panattoetde: saesid: of m0 it 








- presi saneo oot das aoltteogsh: at aexet seed batt + 


We have toxen this into consideration. We are not convinsed by the 
arsuments of petitioner con the facts, The letter of the receiver 

to the State Auditor and his petition to the Chancellor for autiority 
to settiea dao not indicate any reliance by cituer of them unon repre- 
gentations such as the petitioner now argues were iiude and relied on. 
The death of William 1b, O'Connell Aeorives us of the denefit of his 
testimony. Te was at that time represented by a competent attorney. 
It apsears that he caused the facts to be investigated on his own 
account; that most of the material facts were of record in the 
courts, O'Connell was a competent ani experienced receiver, 

| the issues of fact the Chen'celior has found in favor of 

resnondents and this court would not be justified in holding the 
hancellor's findings to be against the manifest weignt of the 
evidence. The correspondence indicates that in making his settlement 
with tie estate of Mabel Bday the receiver understood right well that 
her estate was trying to get the best terms possible, There were 
any coutingencies in connection with the settlesent of the contro- 
versies between tie two estates and the difiterent parties who were 
interested in these estates, Everything was conditioned upon approval 
by the Aetna Insurance company which was to furnisn the uoney, The 
consent of Jeanette Eddy aod ner corservator also became indispene- 
able. The bank had received 25% of the debt due to it before it 
went into receivership. There were many equities to be settled and 
worked out, including the right of the attormeys for the label Eddy 
estate to receive just compensation for services which had been well 
performec by them, Their claim for compensation would he entitled 

to priorty aheat of the claim of petitioner, The petitioner's 

claim had been allowed as of the 6th class. Many of the claims 
against the estate of Mabel Eddy were preferred, Yor instance, the 


claim of the undertakers for $2532.50, the claim of the Collecter of 


Internal Revenue tor $37.60, and geome others. ‘The total of the 


" eat yd heonivacs Jon eta_.aW Moltisrshtienoo.osat sist neaat evad. OW 


weiter tue tot. tolleonen) ods ..ot avttited efe baw tat ibyaA etedB edt ot 


a0. boi for Ha shat orew,.ervagta. vou conpidideg ont as dove anoktatwea 


a aid te ¢itesed ent to.an sevixresd Lfeaap0') ,domektfiW-to dtgehied? 


i YoRiciia dietoguoa. yd bedseagtiget omit tect te eew ok esomiteest 
hi Mito ei so botegiseoval ed of adoetvedt beaueo on het od wan gee otk 
| old. si beooer ‘Lo arew.atogt dairetem ent Boteomw decd pS emoone | 
7 | <tevieoes. beoneiaears fas taatesgmos A pew Lfonnod'G/»,atuteo 


to roret ai bowel est roflesnedt® ex? foeed.te saveed ed. om0)’ bine - 


I _ wt aoisied ci boitiveau, ed ton biwow t4900 atid shoe aldaebaogees . 


ot lo togdow gealines ad? tectaga od ot agai batt.» teLleonadd . 
toometiiee eis golnan af tend geteolhnt eombasogartr09 907 ...eonehiye 
tess ALow tigis boodersbhay taviss et oct YbbE toda. to etedas - eats abe 

stew ered? .eidteseq saet teed oc tay 08 galytt.sewr efatas ned 


-qutneo ad? Lo smemetijoe ade sole wqitoeanos ml. Be tonegit £99 | eee 
stew ofw eoliteqg Josie thib ans has aetedeo ows odd soewded eelexov ; 


Lavor ous og. penat di baen, aan galtiyrevii ,setatae peeadd sh hedeotetat 
ect ,yecow est setae’ 04 gav doluw yaeqmes eonervent anted, extt at 


~aiege thai aamosd oa La Modevees 00! ‘test Acie, aaa stteaceal. tovrasamoo ae 





f, revicvex sft to tettel esT.. .atoct sit, aor. temettiveq. to ,eineamigae 


t “Nqet Nogy maid To tesithe yd sommitor yma etecibak tom oh efetpay ot 


7 


tt ergted dt .ot ash tdah: eld to RAL bevinoet: best aad Cr : 


daa hotties, ed of aeddtupe yma eter eves? »,. ghdete visess “oubunds | one 


ybhE fede ext sot cyenrotte edd to digit ould gathefoah,tsonbetvow — 
ifew seed bed soisdw esotyaee tot moitnens gino, tout evieost ot shates 


7 Biteneisiteg eat \TAnoattem dn: miata anh-Re manele 
; -emiefo, edd to yrsi.., pasty 90. 908 to ea: hewodta 
a oat aARPeeRie, S08 .bozmetena, exew, YbbE Leda to etatee; 9 
ie. mop potion, edd to atelo, aft , C8, REAR sot, amon i 
Ot 2o, Later eat, sR tens @, 90198, bf 4 CDTEE ROW, 















10 


claias filed and allowed amounted to $11,165.77, without reference 
to attorneye' and exccutors' fees, personal property sasese ents 
(including imheritance taxes and other expense of adrninistration) 
which would amount to a considerable sum. 

It is apoarent from all the eorrsaspondence that O'Conmnroll 
as receiver well understood that his claim againet the estate ef 
Matel Eddy was being settled ucon an individual basis diectinet from 
@il the other claims, Age 2a matter of fact, the money vith which the 

ttlerents were finally made al] cane from Jeanette Bady. The 
Whole amount paid was 937,500. Of this smount $11,502.40 wae pala 
to the exscutots of the estate of Kabel Baay in full settlement of 
her Glsim ogainst the estate of Charles k. Eddy, and $25,°9°7.60 was 
paid personally to the legatees named in her will ana the attorneys 
Who had practically created “er estate, 

Assuming the findings of fact by the Chancellor to be true, 
respoudents were not interested in Low the settlement should be made 
Or tue procecdsB tusreot divided, Poselibly the distribution might 
have been worked out by paying the whole angunt of $27,500 to the 
executors of tne aitate of Mebel Eddy, but the conservator of Jean. 
ette wd4y Geciced ctiervise, Te may cuess the motives but we 40 not 
know. dhe question cf taxee mey have hed much to do with this, or 
possibly (as there ie testimony tending te show) Wilifanns es ad- 
Wilistravor ce Loris non of the estate of Charles i. Eddy desired 
that all creiitors of that estate should receive their elsins on a 


nn 


pro rate busis, This comen far from esteblishing fraud against 


Peapoulents by ..9 estate o° Mabel Bddy. It is anparent 6'Conrnell 





PROT INS IO f2: O PIE NE SSN PM or 


(experiance? as hs waa) know the tiffi teulties of the problem and 


ei ILO POR 
pliant ctlenerlrtatsntaserine™ NAN RI OOO a Ea 


thougnt nis estate fortunate In gattine $1000, Tae inal settlement 


spa see tO YELL TI OA I 


nee Ra RO OA 


TE teeth ceisesiaetaiie - 
made by all the parties was to some axtant based unon the set’ lement 
of the glaim of the Bank and otiers against the estate of Mabel 


Eddy, wiien was made with the approval of the court, It is 


eT SY ITD 








‘i 


weasre ted thoddtw ,o0.8aL, L6H ot bod mponts SewOl La Bae ho LT umteds 

: eiaomeadabe Yrreqotg Iencersg vest 'stelvien Saw “eyontoteened 
(nottarte thbnae ts gene yes vente Sne tekst octet heedat gatruteot) 

| | «we olveretianods & of daiveme biuow ty tiw 

LE cusyo"' PRET ovo bnonsetees ‘qe tte On Protege @2 $B oo eos 

te 43atos ect gantewn iiteio eked sett booteisdaw flow aorteoor ae 
matt toobteth ataed fuahivinal aa aoqge betieed gated vew .bdh) dade 
ont else Atv veto set fost to vedtam 6 ai -emkelo- aadteoedh Bhs 
on? Vybhe oftenuel Mort emo fhe shaw YL fant stow etosastites 

bine ver OF TOM, £2P drnvoue ott YO ,O08, Th¢ cow Rieg ¢ovome afodr 
6 Proce feten Lint at YPhE Lada ‘to atutes en? to atetvesxe esff of 
eer 08,090 288 tas  yese A weltald bo acedes ont Yiakoge whede tad 
ayerdlés of Nae Lite tet W heman seetegel ens od YLisaowtng iteq 
tates 1 HAvaets yileottearg bed ede 

wtted a¢ of rolisiasnd elt ed dont Yo agri batt edd gabiweak 2 6 be 
shea oc biveele “tae ittee ant well ab betéeteinl gon etey sdasdnoqgees 
tig ter nottudteta ks ect yYidisdet lHehivih Tost6es ebooobte eds ao 
“eit 49 OO8l888 te dowaud oe Loci ant aaivaq ed tus Kettot need os vas 


ats “Le tote vese toed ‘eit “tue | QORM fedel be soatae ond Te etOruORKe 


FOR ch aw fod goviten off nadie, “eine \Relwrastes AAKIGON EASA’ od¥e 
“go pated BF iW ob oF sfoaer han ered yam eenad Leomptteaup ‘ent ~ awenl } 
=~he ex aemkiLi¥ (vote os githned yoomtiaad: shoorecte: aw) yldbadeg 

pet tees hbH UF Reine to adates ont “to see gtyed eberedantedoia 
@ me antefo thad? erases Sfoore ehatee navld. to etostbeteon tie veal 
eaten hoett sake lidetas sert ta'> weit: ote? aahend) ates) etq 
peered! tereced eh el oyhat fevtew oo atates ord yd) aduebeiogaet 
“Fate on efong 0d Lo ebzd Lub2 TREE eit whit (ew, ebt.em benmedeeqns ) 
prude Kart * watt : _.COOTH gethttety ak ateneprek Staten whet osiguaate 
treae tvder Arf noow beeen ‘Fubsne ound os Raw SELRG WED Lie Me eben 
foie te atatan ort tenlwyo- 18nd oe bac’ MeO ent ie Klaky ede ao 
el et) ctiwoe ect Ye Levergee odd dtwiebas Gur dolkaw yybed 








1 


difficult to conceive of any tneory upon which his suecesser can 


now overturn that settlewent. | We hoid as @& matter of Lact tae 


wn 





ae 


claim of fraudulent misrepresentations through concealment o1 
information woich the receiver was entitled to have is not 
sustained by the clear preponderance of the evidence required in 
such cases, ihe order ol the triai court is thereiore allirmed, 


AFFIRMED, 


lucSurely, ©. J., and U'Connor, J,, concur, 








as 


Mao toneeoonea ali doinw ‘nequ we zeend Cine to avisoneo of $iuoltteb 


sean mY -- ie pte cain eran 


Ne 


‘ont deat to x6 dae & as bion ev “ diteue idea sas 3 audti¢avo wort 
WS arhesrerokinee: ee encarta 

‘ke doemlsedaon Sguorns ahold ad seeergeteim Fae libuer't ‘to mie Lo 
Jon ai oven of boliisns eaw tevlesex sdt doldaw noitestotat 

ni b6tivpet sonebive ed Yo sonstehnvesia tests old yd henloteua 
wboaritts stotereit ai frues isitd aud To tsh20 el 186360 foue 


cc SUH ITLA 


~tuonon ,.t tonne)! O bas ,.t 02 Vlotuo 


‘ ae 
j Ba 
=: 
4 40> 
v é 
hip 
be 
Ee te Con, en 
f 
, Pot 
aay Wa AW hea ta 
rf De ey 


wd age 
oy ka ie 
ae oe ae oe i ey We Cut oe ay ESibae 


Neen pee 


40431 


MAXWELL. LANDIS, 
Apvellant, 


oO» GHI CAGO ° 





PPEAL WROK MUNICIPAL cous 
vs, # 


TIMOTHY LAPPWRICH ana 


ee Se 
x es} 
tr 
i *k 
; fi 





EkiL AOSEMTHAL, ih 
Appellees, 
"Sesaueenere : ‘Sperone a 
UR, JUSTICE MATCHETT DELIVERED THR OPINION. OF THE COURT Zz 


29O9T.A, 639 


In an action on contract by plaintiff against det'endants 
for money alleged to be due, as agreed, tor a retainer fee ag 
attorney, and upon trial by jury, al the close of all the evidence 
defendant mil Rosenthal requested an ina taietaa verdict in hie 


favor, on wiich the court reserved its ruling, The cause vas sub- 


Nira rrnnnanete 


mitted to the Jury 5 which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff 7 


with dcheowe. assessed at $300, Thereupon defendant Hmil Rosenthal 
 oseisaeiieliatiamaae: — : ; 
made a motion for judzment notwithstaiding the verdict, oursuent to 


Tia eee 





section 65 (3a) of the Civil Practice Act (ill, State Bar Stats., 


1937, chap, 110, par, 192, p. 2404.) ‘The motion Was allowed and 





judgment entered notwitistanding the verdiet in favor of both 


defendants, From that Judgment nlaintitfr appeals, 


——— ree 


the question for decision is whether the court wrred in 
allowing the motion and in entering judgment, Defendant Klapperich 
has not apoesred in tizis court or filed any brief, It is argued 
in behalf of Rosenthal that the ruling of the court was proper Yor 
the reason that the uncontradicted evidence sustained his deltense 
of the Statute of Frauds set up in his affidavit of merits, and 
that under the evidence he vag not liable to plaintiff for services 
rendered, In passing upen a motion of this kind the question for 
the trial court is whether there was any evidence from which the jury 
could have foun? that it ian Rosenthal was liable as alleged in 
the statement of claim, Wolever v. Curtiss Candy Co,, 293 Ill. App. 


586, and cases there cited, 





7 






























: ( | CAL LGM - 
the tte SRP AA, i 

, LODAD IND @O PRUOO. GATLOTWUM MOM dameta a 
; 7 \ “te : “ Pet 4 Ba a — \ : 
F x \ pitt i wo tC ha HOTAe Ae YHYOMTT La 
yp Se a FY cue if _ AAEM OR Ta 
. . ( »846 #ifeaqa A ; 
aa ead a | sheure a 

f. 7s ~. , Sone peas \ 
%O #Ole oan @uiaviise veepotau eOLTEUE cite eo 


einebue teh getieya Tiidataig yd testinoo ac aoltes as aI 


| ‘ee eee eer 
‘a 


eons hive <i ifs to seofo sat 3a tret yd fwiat soqu bas ease, 


, oe 


i ais mt dothusvy Aetosrteat ac bedssupet Iscdt nes ol Cee tebaeteb 


— «dye aaY aauas etl ,uaifor adi bevesser given edd dotdw oo stovet 


|= leslie eaaaa 


i tlitubaig to “ove? ab doibrev s bentuten dokdw yaut edt of bototm | | 
rar a 


7 “Leiitawe ok Ltnstc dash oa ‘hab rogues aT 0088 ts beensaee souened aiky 
i Tecan werent ni a =f 
of dasustuc ,fotbuev odd gathaaterd iwhen +comabirt cot noltoh « e £3 

| 

ie _ agate we sdes@ .££1) dod sottoet® Livi0 edt to (et) Ba noltsen 
f 


} baie hewolls eaw ackiou exit (8088 wg , SOL tg ad tae reat 


7 | 7 nies cas ‘vitdatale toemabut, tect mort © setisbasten = 


2 API LP PHENO en —— 


ee, hetiw Sinoo este asctesctw ot notatseb tot woisnenp ant 

ao kreqga le inapasted ,Jnvmebut gaiteias at bee noltom ont eels 4 
: bsugts at ti ,Yelad yrs beLit to fxwoo aict at betescae oewten: 
tot wogorg saw itumo off ‘to gaiinua edt tant Lasttiea of ‘to tnied 


p az no'teh els bentketase pakiek betothett neon ery esl aneaon 98 


Bt eek ives tot riisate lg ot aidet£ son ase 
| got aottaeup sat balks ads to aotton a 


“rw, sat tig Lely meey Seenes yas ecw erent 





The evidence tends to show tnat plaintill is an aitomey 
at lew practicing hie profession in Chicago; that slapperich was 
arrested on a criminsl charge, taken into custody and his bond 
fixed at $5000; that on March 11, 1933, while sce was in the County 
jail, Mr, Rifas, who was then at the law office ol plaintiff, 
called Rosenthal by 'phore anc introduced ‘im to plaintiff; that 
Rosenthal told plaintiff he was interssted in the Khapperich case 
that Klanperich was connected with his (Hosenthal's) firm; that he 
had been witn him for some tine and was innocent of the charge 
iatnes him; that he (Rosentlial) had been called to come at once 
frow out of town; that he wanted to take care of the matter and 
was anxious to have Klasperich released on bail; that if the bank 
was open he would put up the money ‘or the bail himsell, but siuce 
that was impossible he would guaraitee s bond. Plaintilr says he 
told Rosenthal that he (Landis) would have his own sister (irs, 
Kech) schedule her real estate on the bond ii Rosenthal would give 
her a written cuaranty to old her harmless in case Liapperich 
failed to appear, and tiat Rosentual agreed. cde says: "I told 
him I would charge him $300 retainer fee and make no ciarge ior 
the bond, He agreed to this. I offered to send over ior the 
eheck, but Rosenthal said lie was in a hurry. ue said, 'I want you 
to immediately contaet or confer with Kiapperich. I want you to 
tell him what you and I taiked about, and I want slapperich to know 
that I am looking out ior uis interests, and I would like ior you 
to cet me a statement from Elapperich to we tuat you were over to 
see him, and also a statement from him to give you a cheek ior 
$300.' He suid I should send over to his hotel after I finished, 
and 'I will give you the check ror $300 and Sign this indemnity 
agreement.’ ‘hen I prepared the indemnity agreement.” Plaintiff 


further testified that he contacted Wardemh Sain and met Klappverieh 





) 
LEROD 


yomrodis a3 of ‘itiaielg tans worse oe ehaed Séabitee. ot 
“eat tistregqell dadt .oge: 20. ak aobeas tore gis yntottesra@ Wel ta 

Sood eld bas yheteus avai apraled yagterfo fechatrs & 1g ‘Hetenris, 
ytaved edd at egw aa oLinw ,85@L ,Lf doteM oe don} yoo0e6 ts “pext® 
heen ‘to seltte wal ect te uedt eaw ode ,ae'tif ,1M ,Llst 


at gas ‘Masate Le. oF meet bovubortut ban scodet yd foils neaom’ Ae fle oi 





egies tio 23 seqedi ent wt be feocod nt saw ay Skis nialg blot fadtasa oh ; { 


¢ 


an tent :arit (a ae 19 aa.a.0f1) eds dgiw beggeanes enw Hekcegan tt todd 


at \ 
iy : 
} egiedo add to dmseoanl eaw Bas seis eitoa rot tad cid bw ased Pah \¢ 
ay ‘ ‘ : / ; thy oe ae t 
ie @ono te omco9 of heligo ased dad (Lacita 2 oft ) oa sadg cmb foatese - 1; 
Ry 3 MN : 7 
bas tettem oad Lo StHeo esat oF botiar asi o asid abel 0 add ity | 


dead ood ‘Lb tact died ao Aenaetot sia inoqee LA evar oF swokene —- a 
eotta Jud Eeantd diad xs tok _Nectom ang gu sug biwow ot oqo enw \ 

‘ Lg 
paw tadt 


eh ayse thivateld hood B CST iSieuvg piuow ox eldieacdut Be ‘ 


2%) sede te mwo ais eyed bLisow (ats net) od tant Lest nop r ALod ‘ 











1 evig bLluow failtneaesl ‘tk baod esd 1X0 odedas leer rod efubedtes. (oer, . 
i) doizsqgela Ba59 ak age lonred vod pLos of vtaonain, neds ew a ron, ie | 

bled I®  iayea ob -Dostge fasit cove tert bow etesgge: OF, besten, ‘ 
i . | agt aginits ou eal Dis aot xenteses 08 msi egrasio biwow Tomb | 
{I gals 10% tTevo biies oF dste Yo t oe dais od boots . ox ne sbaod ont 7 
| voy faa9 I! ,bisa on yriwael & ai ea¥ ou bias 300005 tod AeMica 


og HO% dam I vi Luo gge iehw te iaog x0 teas age visto tbonat oe es 


| nA i wk 
| = wend od dptesqgela gasw T bas . duode poaided 1 bas voy daciy aid Lot ie 


HOY x0 eal bLuge I bee sadaousd ad ada 0% tuo gaixeok ba ey fad 7 


ot 2ev0 e198 Hey, geadt oss oa Ho lusagali wor’ inouosase 4 re a thes 









a yp aueind a ied mia bee 5 008% ° x0 fore uit, ano 
" sous 9tae wt 





Migatelt 





in the warden's office at the county jail at about 9 o'clock that 
evening; that Rifas, Sain, Alapperich and he were there; that he 
told Klapperich he had sayreed with Rosentnal to prepare all the 
necessary papers to get him out on bail, and that his sinter was 
signing the bond of »5V00 at no coat to anyone, and that Rosenthal 
was agreeing in writing to indemnily srs. Koch. He turther says: 
"I told Mr, Alapperich, ‘Now, you understand that trom the agreement 
I had with Rosenthal, that you and Mr, Rosenthal are to pay me $300 
retainer fee,' Mr, Klapperich said, 'That is agreeable to me,'" 
Then he prepared Exhibit 1; hblppperich signed it, and alterward he 
Sor that Rosential wanted a papex* showing that it was agreeable 
to Klapperich. hen he went to the bond court with the bail slip 
he @btained from the county jail and prepared tne bond and submitted 
the bond to the court and paid the dollar and klapoerichn was released, 
Exhibit 1 is in evidence, is dated Marcn 11, 1935, is directed 
to HB. Rosenthal, and states: “Please give my attorney, Maxwell 
Landis, your cheek for 7300.00 as retainer's fee. Mr, Landis will 
have me released on bord on your letter of indemnity." The letter is 
signed "I, ii, Klapperich." Plaintdff's evidence is corroborated by 
that ef Samvel Kifes, VPlaintilf also introduced in evidence a re- 
ceipt from the Municipal court of Chicago of that date, siowing the 
payment of 71.00 by him for real estate investigation in the case of 
People v, Klanperich. Plaintiff says he did not know at this time 
that Klapperich was represented by lir, Bradburn as his attcrney. 
Plaintiff further testified that on the Wednesday following the 
Saturday wien he saw Hosenthal he had a meeting at his office with 
Rosenthal and Klapperieh, ide told them he had taken up the Klapperich 
matter with \r. Stiefel, wuo represented the Empire Paner Company, 
from whida the bonds were stolen; he says Rosenthal said to him that 
he would have to give plaintiff his check for $300, but remarked that 


didn't cover the entire case, to which plaintiff replied that i+ aia 


























ar 


tads xoeic'o @ ¢guods ta List yiavoo olt te eoltto e'nebraw edd ad 
en fao¢ jeteud stew oul Bae HoiveqqsLé , niet jee'tih tect ;gaineve 
aig If4 oiagetq af Ladiusaod dtiw beeras ben otf doiveqqeti biet 
gaw tetuiea ain teddy baie ,Liod mo dso aid goRn oF etoger YIserepen 
fatitmegot Sedd bas ,suoy~na of dgeaoo om te OGOEP to Siriod ode gakugte 
Ta yee ransr ws ah dood .a@th Ytinsebal ov yaldi¢w at gntoetas. gaw 
tadanenge gid sott tady Gasterebars voy ,wow' .dotreqas Tk seu BLot ol" 
008% om yaq of sia Lsidmesoh 61h bas voy tadt ,fedsasaod dtiw bad I 
' ea of sidsoetze #i tact! ,biaa dolvegge ld ,1zM -'.99t-vectater 
on braerred ta bam, #2 hoe Ea Solve qqqil jf Fiche persgerq 9st maid? 
eliseerss asw Ji tat guiwoda useqeq se bedaaw Lentusaoh teat benteloxe 
gife fiad edt citiw Sauce Baok ett of ta9w of nett? .dolteqqa Ll ios 
bettindys bas faod eft bersgetg bas Lkel ytawoo od? mot? be ntatdé vest 
b8eae let sew deiteeqald bite tallioh one bbeg bas dios oct of Baod edt 
potoerth a2 ,G80L , IL sows bode wf ,onshive ote £ tidhiad: hast 
| ‘{[fownsMh ,ysarotta ya ovig aesela® teetote Bas efartameon .& of 
 Skiw eibasd tH eat atteniates ag 00,0086 tot dooto anoy ,etbaed 
ai teféet et "“.yttomohak ‘to ted¢el twoy 10 baod ao deawelot em eved 
yd betaredetzes ai vsoashiva a'aiigaieht " doiregqefd-.H . 1" bengla 
-~3i 6 #0ceihive mr beouiottnt onis Trtentese’ eate® Louse kocdads 
ond gitiwotea ,otabh tani ‘to oysotdu ‘to dasa Leite 2nuM-Ostg mont -t4te0 
‘to onao oft nt nolvesttaevat otetes Laon tot min yd 00. 16° to taouyeq 
omit aiid de word ton 615 of eysa Tritatelt .toetisaqgelt Vv bneeet~ 





syenrotie eid as arudberd .tt yd betaseserqet asw io troqge Lh tans 
.. pt yatwoliet yehaenbe¥ ons no tent hoititest xectiwt Tridsbetd 







itiw pottto aid te anifoom @ best oi Laitaeeod wee ed nottw yebtutee 





fottsaqals eit qi mexet bad of aodd bled ef: sto itoqga (4 bus, Lectie2on 






+ gttisquiod zeqel etigal ent betnsaorget odw ,fgteixa we ag Ee Coe 





gent ain et bisa indtaveoh eysc eon ;uelode exe abned od 






ie iy Fousemet gud COORG tot doedo adit rebeutesy orhy'® 


not. Rosenthal asked what would be the whole cost but an objection 
to defendant's answer was sustained by the court, uyon wiiat theory 

we are not informed, At any rate, plaintili told Rosenthal he was 
looking to him for payment and asked tor a check Vor g3uc. Rosenthal 
said to never wind the check but talk about the whole case, and asked 
what it would cost. They then discussed tne entire case. Kosenthal 
left, after which Nlapperich told plsintifr he did not have tse money 
and was sorry Rosenthal didn't pay aim; that he wanted to bring ir, 
Bradburn, his attorney, over to see plaintiilf; that bradburn was 
Yauiliar with some oi the matters, Plaintill, he says, toid bhlap- 
perich that he would not proceed further in the case until he ree 
ceived his $300, Klapverich replied that when Bradburn came over the 
matter would be straigitened out, 

While this evidence in gaterial matters was contradicted by 
eviderce offered in behalf of the defendant, that fact is whelly 
immeterial in deciding the question now before the court, namely, 
whether there was any evidence from which the jury might reasonably 
find defendant Hosenthal liable under his affidavit of merits, 

We hold the evidence was prima facie sufficient to snow an 
original promise by Hosenthal to which the plea of the Statute of 
Frauds was not a bar, burger v. St. Louis Bed & Ail’g, Uo., 206 
Til. App., 256; Bettis v. Chicago Coated Board Co., 145 lili. App., 
590; Duzenberry v. Nimmo, 228 111, App., 445. Defendant Kosenthal 
made no motion for a new trial in the Municipal court nor does he 
argue in this court that the verdict of the jury wae against the 
manifest weight oi the evidence, nor any nrocedural error. In this 
coldition of the record, the motion for a new trial was waived, and 
since we hold that the court erred in allowing the motion for judgment 
notwithstanding the verdict, it follows that gadgment should be 
entered in this court on the verdict ot the jury. Denny v, Goldblatt 


Bros,, Inc., 298 Ill. App. 525, 333, and Kauders v. Equitable Life 


suttestda aa cud ta09 & Low sit of bivow dailw Bedew Ladino eh ©: som 
Yloeds dvi megs ,dasoo eft yd beaiutene aew towers aMSnsboe'teb oF 
aaw oc Laiiinweod blot Lhitntetg ,stet ‘gate tA show o'tnk tort ore sw 
fedtaagoil 0UeG tot alors « a Lae ecten Binge Tie ayag reo miki Or aes dail 
beieb bre ,eeao oLodw oA dwoda silad dee wbedo ont bontia steven ot bles’ 


fadtneaoh .9ea0: oxiine ot fenenoeih vecid yYoHT  steoo binsew wt tenw 


yonom onc eval som bin of Tiitabeatl@ bled dott age Lh: sioksw atte (dtl - 


Sh gated ed bodmew od gait: mid yoq Pd abibh daddosede yrtoe baw bas 


wax anudbord gent ;titsaietq ees ef seve (yemotia Bil  nendbore 


Wqe la SLod 0X jaa om , Thidare l% seretien edt to omox cidiw eet iiaet 
wer et Litas snes aay ai xcecietwh bawoorg dow biwow asf Sadd° dokeog 

aus wavo sien weodberl aenw soto betigoe delvevge lA ,O08S ain pevise 
sto kenotdytette od binow xat¢cmr 

ed detoibetiaos est eteddan Le lresan at Soredive atid eltaW oo OF" 
‘ydfonw ef test tad ptaahaoteb ads to tfacded wt bote' Tio’ ashive 
Uisusea . dives ost orgted won nobiaoup end galbloob al keteedamnk 


Yidesorset tigim ytut edt deldw wert sotehive tas aaw ore? teHdodw 


,tgines 10. tivebitta afd xebaw oidald Ledtaetod Inshao'toh oxkt 


me Woda of duaioitina elost aatty aav sons hive est Diod oW" O° 
to stutei® odd to Beda edt doddwiot Lattaseod yd setaorq Letty hee! 


G08 4 +60 .wtM 3S bed eived .t8 .v tegtee . wad @ ton ‘eew absent 





> 


(g GGA. LLI GL, 199 bre0t Dotsod onpatso sv etised pods , .qqd’ yftie — 
Iledéaeao8 tnabos ted «6688 , gga 6fL1 ee oti o¥ yerodao est (088% — 


ef.asah ton dasoo Laqtoinull add gi Leite wou tot sottven of eben! 


eid deniaye aaW prot edt "to dobbrev edd deds ttmoo dias ak eugta 


aide al (touts Lstubooote vow ton jeonebtye est ‘to thgtew ¢aetiagm 


bao ,kevlaw sav folst wan 6 tot cottom ont ,~htosot ede To sets ibuoe 


4 


: 


fnemghest rot coktem orld gatwolle at howtre Sawow sa) pals decane nailoncull aT 





Insurance Society of the United States, Gen, No. 40395, opinion 





filed February 27, 1939, not yet published, 
fhe judgment of the trial court is reversed and judgment | 


entered in this sites on the verdict in Tavor or the PLaintist, 


a or ern Pee meg ee mayne nal Pane ATS 


Maxwell Landis, and “againet the defendants, Timothy Alapperich 





and Emil Rosenthal, for the sum of ($300, 20050 


REVERSED WITH JUDGMENT FOR 
PLADNTI‘VY IN THIS COURT, 


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


x 





: nolaiae 182608 oan 98 of ~ Soar 
; dosiakiduy soy tea gees 8 euserdot bot 
tnostabut,. baw beetoves ek ttuo9 fatus guid to Taeagbet_ ox 


4s ibtate Ly sat To teva at totbier ‘pal to fty0s eked at heretae 
pashapeaant ts St USA THE one oni cheesiest on iljaipaliasabiiadlenitinaren<e Arnanliniatin iy. 


se ironge LA wit oma sataabae ‘tab odd taaiegs bas ,aibasd [flowxsl 


epee lest mise belie tae senna ien wave Fala ane aaa anaemia ce i Se rain car ea RR ar oe ee 


30, 0084 ‘to ane add tot oni howtiht03 Liam, bus 


hd el <p  soreyoinie pent 





. “ ssove TURES BLIW ameREVER 
“2800 BIRE MI WUEPREAGH 4 8 Sen aixoeedw'bne 


‘ ' oY 48 she £4 bis x 
. i i heeds ee ry TH 


eeuodeo .4%.,tomneg! 0 bas 5b 10, yforetel 

















“ty wied 
bill ay f 
; + Se ie ied age 
7 * 
7 ¢ t ‘Se ‘eh 
t >i fide fen a8 Rg 
) id liad 
, s 
> 
CR AEA AUR 
bi a s Oe Rade 6 
| | ei 
mi «13% § o ee Be es Pc Sr 
aa y 
7 Ht 
eC pEse 
* ioe 
| i i t é + A oad ® 
| a, ing i tts aie ity 
' f yaar SOR a ae a a a 
i 5 Uwe 
i a i de SUR ss 
¢ 
4, rte, Cera 
“ Ae Hy 8 es a SR 
N : ye 
, 7 = 4 i dtr Weniee e eae at Ra Pla ae 


cate ane Oe dae Sakae eRe 


i uj * 2% addon Paes 
ang ae we rer 
sy Ae PURE Bbw Hh ks Saati Ese 





Bis Ig RRM, se Rak a RR, eg BE nh BEE 


ttn tec tn tng 


40439 


MARY STARK, 
Appellee, 





We APPWAL FROM MUNICIPAL 


NEW HOMS BSWIFIT ASSOCIATION, COURT OF CHICA GOs 
B® corporation, a 


) dia a3 
Appellant. i 9 99 ].A. 622 


MRe JUSTICH MATCHITT DeLIVinsd THE OPIWION OF TH: COURT. 


) 
) 
) 


In an action based upon a benefit certificate the plaintiff 
filed her statement of cleim and the.defendant, thereafter, its 
affidavit of merits. Plaintiff made a motion to strike the affi- 
davit of merits but withdrew the motion. She then made a motion 
for summary judgment. Her motion was supported by an affidavit 
setting up facts, most of which were not contradicted. Defendant 
filed a counter-affidavit and the trial judge (hearing the motion) 
entered a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $335, from 
which defendant has appealede 

The uncontradicted facts appear to be that on May 8, 1936, 
Michael Stark, husband of plaintiff, made application to the def end- 
ant, a mitual benefit association, for a membership certificate in 
favor of his wife, Mary. The certificate issued May 15 thereafter. 
The certificate of membership is No. 6042 and recites that it is 
issued in consideration of the membership fee, the application 
executed by the member, and payment of all amounts required to be 
paid by the certificate. Undet the heading "Provisions, Conditions 
and Benefits,” the policy provides that the applicant for membership 
must be in good health, have good habits, not be over 70 years of 
age; that the certificate and the application attached shall con- 
stitute the entire contract; further, “this Association assumes no 


liability until the Certificate is issued and actually delivered to 











~ MigA « 


iS Bert. 
i 





Tey 
rau 





: A, ee Big “ty 
a ee se 

\, 7 “hy, : ig 
saudi "amare Yau 


| 


. Win. : é eateeuea 
scheianni MORE LATTA 
409 LOTHO YO Pe 


“SS— AT ees 


.THUOD BHT YO HOTNTGO SEY GCHTUVIIE TYAHOTAM HOTPSUt .AM 


ay 
eMOTTATDOGLA TIIEBES AMOR WHR 
staid aay Si =i 
ote Lag COM 2 En 


tt ening Ne , 


Stijntelg edd assobirticves Jitensd = moqw besad nolior na aut 
agt ,»isttecteds .tasbneted ent bas mals te suomntnds weal boLtt 
-itte off? ofivde of mottom s sham Yiidnieli  .aditem to sivablits 
noitom s obama wads eff .moitom ont woxbdiiw tud atiuem to sivab | 
tivebiiis as yd betronque asw meliom 10H » droog hurt, eT emM a xsoet. 
inabreted .~betothattnc o on stew Aoidtw to taom gatos t qu gnitves 
(noivom est gmivsed) epbyi, Lobsd eco bea tivebiiie-tesmuoo © belie 
mott «2508 to mra oft mt Widniele to tewst at roast « boredas 
«Solsoqyes pia trsbreteb sto tstw 


yoeOL .5 yell mo tetls ed of tseqgs stoalt bedaibett noon. ext 





bee teb edd oS mottsetiegs ebam ettisnisle te bnadaus sazase Leao kt 














ni eteoitidioo ghietoedmem 6 tot .moivsiooses tiiened Lautum a ,itna 
stettsoteds aL ysl bouaat etsoliisjiseo eff . yYtalt sotiw eksl to rove? 
ai db tans aetioot bose ShOO .o al qitimrednem to otavittsres ent? ‘ i 
moltinoifqes oft ,eet gbhlaxedmem elt to mo ki etob Zeng nk bouaai 
ed of botinper atnywoma ILe to dnemyeq Se « teduem odd xe boduoexe 
emokdibeod ,anolaivotd" sribasa ois tobentt sotookiteteo ents we beg | 
qidevedmem «ot tnaoiiqgs end tadd aobivexq yoiloeg ont He ett tenet ons 
to stasy OY tevo od gon ,asidad boog evant .Adinerd boog mk od sam os 
~n09 Liada bedosdta nottsotiqus end bas edsottteres ent’ ‘tals igs 
On aomuEes moidcioosad alas" «tong ast idoatnoo extine one tad. 


Os bereviteb yllewion rn beweal at ii we hike ane 8S 


«Dee 
the member during his/ite time, and while he or she is in good 
health." The policy contains an incontestability clause as 

follows: “after this Certificate shall have been kept in continuous 
force for one year from date of issue or from date of last reinstate- 
ment during the lifetime of the member, it shall be incontestable, 

if assessments have been duly paid, except the limitations as to 
prohibited risks, crimes, and self destruction, as hereinafter set 
forth and made a part hereof, but if the age of the member has been 
misstated the amount payable under this Certificate shall be such as 
the member would have been entitled to nt the correct age, in accord- 
anee with the classification." 

This certificate wes Gelivered May 15, 1936, and all premiuns 
were paid. Michael Stark, husband of plaintiff, died September 2, 
1937, and the certificate was in full force and effect at the date of 
his death. ‘hereafter, in -eptember, 1957, the plaintirf submitted 
proofs of death. The policy provides that claims for which the 
association is liable will be paid within 90 days after the date of 
due proof of deathe Defendant has not paid the sum due according to 
the terms of the contract. 

The defense presented im the counter-eaffidavit is that good 
heal th was a condition precedent without which the insurance cootract 
would not go into effect; that the cmsideration for the benefit 
certificate was not alone payment of premiums but 2 warranty by the 
insured of good health stated in the certificate and affirmed by the 
assured to be a fact in his application, in which, in response to 
questions, he stated that he had not been treated by a physician 
for 5 years last past and that he wos then in good and vigorous health. 
The counter-affidavit asserted these answers were false and fraudulent; 
that at the time the policy issued the insured was suffering from a 
chronic venereal disease, wes taking treatment therefor twice a week 
at the municipal clinic and was a patient at the Illinois Sducational 


and Research Hospital. Defendant contends as a matter of law that the 











ae 
ted To 
boon mi at ede <o ef slidw bme ,omts stif eit gutitsh tedmem odt 


aa cavalo YiiLidsivedyoont te antedmen yotlog eff “ct lcost 
avounisno> af tqext noed oved Ifatia steoltitve) aids r0editA" sewollot 
~9tatantet desl to eteb ew xt co syne to oteh moxt teey emo tot so70% 
eoigatnodnoont ed Efarte oi eteduem oft to omisette add errteah dom 
od Bs amoidet inkl edd iqeoxe «i5isq ylyb need eval at nemensans ae 
#98 ted teniered ae emolioutiash Boa fore « Semlro catatt beti¢ tdorg 
need Gal sodwen ovo To ops. erid ti ted .toonerd freq s' Obaw bre Md 0% 
ee down od Liata etenitisred sit tobe oldeyaq tawoms oft botatae im 
~hyooos mi .oge2 doetten of) ts of bottkiad mood eval biuow sedniom eld 
| "»mitcoftlaeslo eds déiw sone 
eius Laney fis Sne ,d60hL .Gi you beteviiol aaw etaoliittes aint | ? 
e& Todas qe’ Heio .Tittnialg to baedaud iret toatoty hines eal 
to stab oa? te dostie fas soxot tivt gt sew etgoltistee odd brs a6@L 
bags inacty a Tiftmtaly ads «Veer a Tedmedge’ mt Ted tected stit nob alt 
ans sho Lely ret amielo daddy asbiyerg wilted ont _ssiteot i] Btoorg 
to a3.ab ads tedie wyab Og sp.indd iw bie od ffiw eldett al mots tooaea 
ot gatbteoas anh asa edd bieg Jon acd tnebme tet ssft2ob to room on 





. dosti ot ‘to weap Baa 












hows, dealt ai 4 Iyab ti ia~setnwved ast i patroaerg saneieh oat 
toentew 0 Ponenirens ond domtw treat bo Jpabegota mo 2¢ Loop 8 ro A} Seect 
sMenod xy tot no i3atob kano oud taht itootte osm cy ton bLu0n 


old vd Waetrew 8 tad aims ot 0 J mearyeg enol ann. aaw oiactttsr0s 


sy 


etd ye beer kits pers. stsoltt ites ont at bovase Adee Boog 20 bomvant 
ot qanogqass nf slo beh ai amit collars at at ost s fetal of ‘bemmaas 


 aetofayig & vd betaozs need fen baat eri dad betate out ,anoiseeup 


pcb i“) 


ssid Leon ,BHenog Ly be boos aa eons asw oat Sadi ms taeq seek wees, us wor. he 


‘inetubue) bag ealet otew axewans ewodtt bedrssna “diyabETisereseso9 ext? 
; wets 4 


& moth aotzetiva asw Domant oats bowed Yoileg hws seuss ond ga sadtd a 
Cr SRS Oe ORR 

toew a eotwi tolozors snendaexs Sables ae soncenth Ieeronsy oLso 
bi ed y gaty 3 “ae 

Lenott souba efonifit od Age smokieg . F om, baw, olmite fogko tam 


ald tas wel to r9dtem 2 aa abxedn 9 dambao%en shad tquok 


=3= 
incontestability clause of the policy is predicated upon the 
existence of good health at the time the benefit certificate was 
issued and that in the absence of good health of the applicant the 
certificate did not become effective or the incontestability clause 
applicable. In other words, that recovery is precluded by the 
assured's i11 health at the time the certificate issued and the 
folse and freudulent representations made by him in order to get the 
certificate issued. wvefendant offered to return the premiums paid 
by the ascured. 

The language of this insurance certificate was chosen by 
the insurance company and if ambiguous will be construed liberally 
in favor of the insurede (Jabara ve iquitable life ssurance Coe, 
10.) The certificate issued May 15, 1936. Assured died September 
2, 1937. This was more than one year after the issue of the policy 
and the incontestability provision had gme into effect. There is 
no claim that the assured died from any of the causes specifically 
named in the policy which would exempt the company from liability. 
Defendant cites many cases holding that where good health is made a 
condition precedent to liability under the policy a plaintiff may 
not recover where it has been proved the condition preccdent wee not 
complied with. But these cases do not consider whether such a 
defense is applicable where the policy contains an incontestability 
clause of the kin¢c which existed here. ‘he reason for the incon- 
testability clause md the construction to be given to it is well 
stated in Powell v. Mutual Life Inse Goes, 515 ilie 161. The oupreme 


court said: 


“Clauses in life insurance policies know 2s ‘incontestable 
clauses’ are in general use, and in this state (Laws of 1921, page 
432) and in other states are now required by statute. In the earlier 
development of insurance contracts, it not infrequently occurred that 
after the insured had paid premiums for a large number of years, 
the beneficiaries under the policies found, after the maturity thereof 
by the death of the insured, that they were facing a law suit in orde3 
60 recover the insurance; that in certain answers in the application 
it was said by the insurer, the insured had mace statements which were 
not trues *** Hecognizing this fact and seeing the effect of it on 








ivew doldw etnamedete obam bak bewant odd .romnant 6 





a it~ 
edd cogy botaathety al yolfog edd “te senate ‘eibfidatessnonat 
eae etagitiezes $iiened axfd omg ody Js diLsed hong To soneda ie 
st dmsolifggs sid to Htised boon to somende odd mi tai baa Seyaat 
narats vi iLidatuainoont eX? to evitce lio emoed ton bib stesliitces 
edit yd bebulostq al yrevooes dadt .abtow sedto sl. -elidsoliqgs 

etd bua hewsel edaeliitueo end emit ond se diteed LLL. 2 tbeuses 

ent geg.od tebe ai mid y¢ eben amoissinenouqet dnsivhyett bus eaist 
bieg amyimerq aft auudey of beselie Jmabmstou..bevaal eteotitizes 

| i | | sbomrase ond yl 

yd coaoro ae stsoltidres ene nomet misty to ageugnstl eff... nds 
Yiiatedi£ bestiancs sd fLiw evougidms TL bas. ystagewo eoreruert, eto 


: r, 
ae, Ata 


goneran. tbl ofdad ivpt vy exadah) sbetuant ed? te tovet nt 





eG + LET OPS 2992 somexnanl Satimebuxt sv todef  4VM. acd, LfT 088 


“wedmadge® beih batweaA .O5@L .8L yal devant eteoltivres eff (OL 
“yobsog eit to oyeal edd Tetie 1sey orm mand stem eaw sist, s VSOL, 08 
ai exsdit ,tootio otai omg bal nolalvetg yi ilivetsetnoont edd. bas 
Ytlsolticeqa aseuso eft to ye mp x? beth besumas edd. tadd mtelo on 
Viifideil port yraguoo end Iquwexe blyow deisiw yoileg ext nd. Doman 

& obam ai miieed boog steniw tedd geiblod seeso yuam.aetito dashaekted 
Yee Giivsielg a yoifog edt tobas ye ilidail ot inebeserg mold tbaos 
ton acw tmobsoesg moidibmos edd hovong seed sed 3 eredw. cevooes dor. 
& fovea tedjealw toblenep dom ob apace enest til. s0i¢dw: botLgmo 

ge ilidateednoont tS ented 110 0 yoileg say stadw eld iicgs. ak esneteh 
“moomt ef? te2 soasex ent .eted beieixe doliw bert mit 30, penal | 







Ifow of df of nevis od o% poktoutianoo oft. bos. seunle. Vdilidedued 
omoaguc oat £21 siLI GL5 «200 ean otht Leuduit «y Llewot ai botase 
| thkee duo : 


sidstasiocont' 38 mvond getotlog eonetuant stil mi aeauslD"....... 

‘eB eq efSOL to ewol) e¢ete cintt al bes .oun Letoney at ota 'soamelo” 
teiftes oft ot ,eduisia yd botuspez wom ete seteta tedto mi.das (Sea 
tat? beruusco yitnoedpoxtat ton dh «ad actdavo oonezuent | samqoLeve! 


gezsey to teduun ogzel 2 tot ampimerg biagq bast Senceat eed | ye " 
g ae be ter 















hosted’ ysitutam ets totis .bneot selsifor end robmt aettst 
tebte mi tive wal 2 gatoat stew vers Farid abet 


rat aut: Wy Ear wank edt 

nOitacilogs old nk atewans miadtes mt tacdtd Sipe tae 
F ‘. (mee ; “epee Eas aud ‘ bad # 30 

me $i te sootio oft yatoos baw dost elty gntatmgoosn *t* . ab 


oo 


thé insurance business, numerous insurance Companies inserted 

in their policics What is now mown as an incontestable Clausee 
The incontestable Clause now in general use is to the effeot that 
the boliecy shall be incontestable after a certain period, as ene 
or two years, except for defenses recited therein, «x This clause 
&mMounts to an agreement between the insurer and the insured that 
after the expiration of such period, the company shall be estopped 
from Contesting the pelicy or Setiing up any defense, except such 
aS may be reserved therein, *%* ‘The Stipulation *«+* Yecornizes 
fraud and all Other 3efenges and constitutes a Short statute of 
limitations in favor of the insured, the purpese of which is to 
fix a limitea time in which the insurer must asecrtain the truth 
of the representations made, and in such C28e@ of o breach of 
Warranty, the insurer must, under this Clause, assert its Claim, 
Within the two year period, either by affirmative action, or by 
defense to ep suit broucht on the policy by the benef isiary Within 
‘wo years. (Monahan y, Met. life Ins, VOe, 283 111, 136; Weil v. 


Federal life Ths, LOe, 264 Tll, 495; 3 ongan ve Vederal Life ins, 


COe, 231 Tll. 359; Royal Cirele y, chterrath, 204 111, s40.y7 

Other Supreme court Cases to the Same effect ares Ramsey v. Old colony 
Life Ins. COs, 297 Ill. 592; Flanigan v. Federal life InBe Coes 231 
Tll. 399; ei Y+ Federal Life Ins, bas 264 tll. 426. The -Ppellate 


oe 





Court cases to the same effect are: Kanter Ve Continental Ssurance 





UOe,s 251 Ill. “Ppe 2723 Bethke Ve Cosmopoli in Life Ins. YOe, 262 


Ill. App. 586; vamee Vs National Life and secident InSe Coes 














265 Ill. App. 4365 Baker v. Prudential Ins. 0o., 2979 Tlle \ppe 5, at 
De 16. 

Yefendant makes the further Ccntention that because defendant 
demanded trial by jury and the Cause was plaeed on the resular jury 
Calendar, the motion judge of the Municipal Court was without 
Jurisdiction “e.enter 2 summery judement, Zt is conceded the 


Hunicipal court of Chicago has such power, but defendmt Says that 


the motion judge of the Munéeipal court has powers only similar 

to those of a master in Chancery or commissioner Sitting for the 

purpose of determining the regularity of the Pleadings ana entering 
orders for their amendments and nothin« further, Marrone v,. shrat, 

275 Ill. “PPe 649, and other Cases are cited, None of them Sustains 
any such Contention, AB a matter of law, there was no defense to this 
Claim on the uncontradicted facts. The Municipal court properly entered 
mer mae npr oo AIS, “ a rs A Soin elite cnn Siete tia - ~ 
she judgment. It 4s affirmed, 


en JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, 
MeSurely, Pe Joe» and O'Connor, Je» concurs 





a ee 











peytaent seinsqgeos sonsxuank Bi i ammasit ,asoniaud sagiinics odd 
egauets efdets® sqoont #0 ae sword Wor at ¢adw eobotteq tend at” 
gant soot off oF gh sas, Lerorep. grt Wort gasels eldadasd so ont 
emo Bs hott og atatres g ted ts eidateedmoont ed {fete volley ens” 
gausfio any ** wetovens bet loss agagekab “ot Gqoorm «BtSey ows 10. 
¢ airuroms 


gerd botasnl ace bra retuatrt eis meewied Srosvetse ma 0 
Heenye ao ed J feria. sgrenga® & eid 4 DALLES, dosra.bo mp ig atiqne edt setts 
Hose fqenk 6 « eoaresso Ura Gu guises ze ‘goilocg silt ‘gnidae foo mort 
goakrmope ss F* wets. eLghd s sie ee suberedd bevreaoyt od Ysm as 
te etutada duoda & agdsrd Es 8n0 9 bra adanotet qotido Ile Sne heent © 
of 2i dobiy oe Sag? qu acs 2 BOTNAK: eit to vovat mt ano ised iil 
daucd afd miasteses jeu comant eat goistw ok omit” peg Eki @ alt 
». 19 doaesd 6 te e&a2 gove ght one ¢ ob.ent anoliad nee otgot ads ‘to 
estate “go i Predas yo anelo eit? tobe — feu gosvant oft . Qssttas” 
ef ce ene os ey it omic yd zedite ehboiteg toy ows ed midi tw 
aiidiv Yaetot ened aits wd orto ans we ¢dadoud: dive. et ease teb 
ati 4 saat »fft e686 92.80 2ank oti stad «VS ersclusto i } 2 BTBEE ows 
ieee, oo fevebs'l_ VaR ‘mele 10S .fTt “Bas u200 ae 
We gee «Lil S08 ~igeetostod, ¥ otoxtd Level Bee Tit (eS «2 


ae wie, 508 to |8i8s hors od eeaee x09 omraue reisO 


gery ® BLO 9% ee 
SS. mal st hi, Lecobe, + foe, Sas 2% | see £11 vas eo 200 9 sant ett 
aah «Lil 28S 1290.80. oii, igrepell «v¥! fis eed a 


3058 poatte ousce att ‘ot panne dchad 
180s aqqa cess ‘Tee 200 


eraliodgs ont 


_ eonmseaas Ledmentinol 2 Tehae 


BOS 2202 saat Shit g88. Lfeqomes 200 cae aos off 
ee ies saga «ttt 


ae O8 eored t sabi soa bos Stil. Lane mest eh +N Some aomal 
aoeb res PE ae 


ta 4h saga «£42 evs 0p sent Jelinobse ot cexad 
; eOL oo 
dere bere ko & garaned seadd nolimes sm noni tut one asian “rabroiet . 
pebranish 


asw. sanso exid Brus cunt we ‘Leite 


GUE setunes os, beosly, 
oybsrt, no 180m axtd i sbnekes 


Sypocis hw sew, 2000 Logte instil ens ‘Lo 
dram bnt team & node ‘od so Li oibatsat, 


Se hit EP 


edt psboonoo al Of 
a aed opsoitd ‘to ‘}xwo 9 Loq bo ts 


Peels angen 2 mbneteb eared 70709 sion 


ietinte vtye wiswog eat oan Logi oars eats ‘w sab, seton odd 


‘eid tot gatiera ~onot oa tamed £2 yuaonade 
graizains bre agert hoo Ly oats . qebre tees | onde gntntase 
vtesitist eobdion bas at nombnems siesid ‘x0 

o bas «28 saa fit ave 


Pt ee esoutel 
eiiataia proitd | te one sbodie: ors, peeso ‘totly 
obtt QF. eenetee on ape eros ak 20 xetvam & 8 BA. iy 


oe eele Sx iba Mh ih Pind peat sick ie eta RANE 


boxed serge 2, $oy00 Lea : 


Sagar oie np ia PI A sr assihataiet meen 









‘eamta eA EMC ca 
: sTu0n89 ok Ceadid ba ne 





cae xed eam & 2 ososts ‘0 ~ 


ered ‘to sson 
3 arbre 


0 Linea 00! au aes 


40449 


In the Matter of the Estate of 
JOSEPH J, REITER, Deceased, 








On Appeal of {ELEN DOLD, 
Appellant, APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT 


VS, OF COOK COUNTY. 


MARIE A, REITER and AGNES A, REITER, — ¢ 
Administratrices of the Estate of 9 9 T A 6 2 2» 
Joseph J, Reiter, Deceased, yy Lelie 

Appellees, 


a ee ne ee ee Mee Se 


MR, JUSTICE MATCHETT DELIVERED THE OPINION OF TH COURT. 


Clainant, tteien Dold, filed her demand tor #500 against the 
estate of Joseph J, Reiter in the Probate court oi lLoox county and 
also a petition praying its allowance as ol tne sotto slaae, The 
Probate court allowed as einen ‘a ad te. eit ciawe and paearer 


the prayer oi the petition for preierence, Claimiant appealed to the 


Circuit court wich, July 15, 1936, entered an order direst iag ae 
Eee “ 


a na ee —— 


AOC Tete 


claim be allowed as oi the sixth class, Claimant has appealed to 


erent ~ 


this court. 

It is contended the claim siould have been allowed as of the 
fifth class because it is a trust fund within the meaning of clause 
5 of section 70 of the Administration Act (111. State bar Stats., 
1937, chap. 3, par. 71, p. 78.) 

From the pleadings and facts stipulated it appears Josepn J. 
Reiter died August 7, 1936. in his lifetime he conducted a real 
esiace, mortgage and insurance business at 15435 West 5lst street, 
Chicago. September 1, 1936, the Probate court entered an order 
giving leave to the administratrices of his estate to carry on the 
business ior 90 days, whic they did. At the death of Joseph J. 
Reiter the climant was the holder of a note for $6500, executed by 


Harry A. Larke and Auna Larke, his wile, o: July 30, 1924, due 5 


years ‘rom date and at maturity extended by agreement tor five years. 


aag00 ‘PTuDzTO MORE nce 
= 9Eu0D #000 to 


gga. AT ees) 


RATIEE A. BUA: bas’ paren Sa eta 
ae, od.adanl anid ae: es a E rsdoy 


a 

wt 

c os gta: epeyeirt 0 
a ‘posllongs 


By 


ae SNe %o xorarag aH? GanuV Tame ‘TesNOTAN mortaut ae 


Re 


fate Tia 2 gee IO stwo0 ‘sdiddor isin at werien al Aonsk tte. ttn 


botaes: im: sane’ ere one te ae ‘hans ene bewolie txu09 ‘reo 


a By we aha 


ted BRryonsss z9bt0 


OT RE RTT AR Se 


et gn ga ed 


od. beleaqge cae perareres ea To ‘idxie oid 


EY EAE RE PILE A 9 Pee RY NAL 0 


edd to 2a bovolle cost evasd f btivoits Laapian eee % 


° 





This note had been reduced by payments to the principal amount of 
$4800, and payment thereof had been assumed by Carmen Arcieri and 
Helen Arecieri, his wite, who in tne year 1925 purchased the real 
estate known as 6205 Soutii Washtenaw avenue, Chicago, which had 
been conveyed to Joseph J. Reiter as trustee to secure the paynent 
of the indebtedness representad by the note, By their terus the 
note and interest coupons were payable "ai the oifice of Joseph J, 
Reiter in Chicago, Illinois, or suen otner place in eaid City as 
the legal holder tuereol way lrom time to time in writing appoint," 
Prior te the death of Joseph J, Reiter the Arcieris often 
made payments of interest at the offides of the deceased, who 
thereupon notified Helen Dold of such payments and upon surrender 
of the interest coupons would turn over to her the moneys so paid, 
October 27, 1924, the Arcieris paid to deceased $500 for which he 
issued a receipt showing it was to be applied in reduction of the 
principal indettedness, The extension provided for interest paye 
ments on January 30 and July 30 of each year and tor “the privilege 
to pay $500.00, or more, ou any interest-due date." ‘this $500 paid 
October 27, 1934, is the subject matter oi this controversy. ‘he 
books and records of deceased e.ntain accounts known as "Notes 
Payabie Account", “¥irst Mortgage Loan Account” ang "'D'--ehig- 
cellaneous Accounts." The "Notes Payable Account" shows the fol- 
lowing entries of notes made by deceased and delivered to the 


claimant, Helen Dold, or her order; 





Date of Note Amount of Amount of Date of 
ote. interest Maturity 

ets vet cal kpc ina acc ncaa cg a os 

October 4, 1934 $2000.00 6% per annum On or before 3 
years after date 

December 14, 1934 1000.00 6% per annum 3 years alter date 

January 5, 1935 1000.00 6% per annum 3 years after date 

May 19, 1936 1500.00 6% per annum 3 years alter date 








———- 











ae 








The claim of Helen Dold based uvon the notes above described 





SBS ay weber 
‘ko towome feqiostre ond’ 108 ut aemces yd beoshet naod best aon alot 


















bas tay toni isare0 yd heuiscn need Bas Yosabact tdieysiy "Se r 908 





‘Lewk ois bean nilotay B&OL teey oud at poe ett eh. don desk a0 L0H 
bed sin det e Out Leo <2 NHR TS wemmerignW i uae @089 ea oWoot’ ‘otases 
Snonyeg ont eruosa od ootartt ga setied t tigen’ of bays vine mood - 
Be git ancvet thet yal wston ont, ea fad cyrayges eesabodvobat ot, 2 
: it deae ot to oobtte nis oa" aldayag o1sw anogiion “taeresak: ‘fre oon - 
' as void bies ai syalq tate sowa 16 a LenkELT ,ogao tad at tote — 


* gntogge galjiaw mai exiid of ambit wow yaw tootedd tobLlod iowa oa 
Mette altsiotA add totisa & dqdeot to asash add of rors 


$ _ 
| acw ,bgaseosh ait to apoitto oct ta vevtedad to Senes NSE oben 
we : ‘ _ 


4 


 MOhne THe ogi Dae ed Mepiys 8g foe ‘ko piot ui9 La baltttes aoqu97e. i 
7 flag oe. Bye Nog git qea o¢ evo aust biwow aeteguos daotodat oat et 
i: ad doidw tot 008% beessoob ot blog eitelota odd beer NT xagoi00 i. 
- eat to moldouoox ut boilggs ad of aaw Jf galwosa tgteces * (bowend 7 
a : 
) 


Tye taotodai tet hoblyotg nolacesxe adi pehscked sean’ Eaciootsy Pe 


: F pers 4 
egeitviag edd" sot bas tasy awe ‘to (0G yie bae 08 vtssinat 0 some 

| blac a0ae aid? ".ete5 subadtwarediak Ye wo , et oat <6 (00. 208% ya cot 
, woo a is. 


HT JYaterotings ¢ iit ‘to tase wai feet due ead Be Ur we wetted 


"¥o eget °° Ye betomt’ 
_ Mb brates , gactotal  - 





eteh tet'te avasy : 
-« gtsh Tests. avasy &) swone wog FO, ben 
Lf Feb setts ateoy & mans tsg xo 






3 

was filed in the Probate court of Cook county and allowed as « 
non-preferred claim and is not involved in this appeal, ‘the pay- 
ment of $500 made to Joseph Reiter and subsequent entries reparding 


it anvesr on the books of Reiter as follows: 








ee NE A AR RN CN ae ce ve 








IN CASH BOOK; Debit Credit 











October 27, 19354---First tortg. loan---Arcieri--- 
357 Carmen Arecieri payment y 500,00 


IN LEDGER; Debit Credit 

—_ "First hortgage Loan Account" ; 

October 27, 1934--eArcieri R ae eres pay- 
Ment---C 23 2500.00 














Sere a er ee 


1e@ books show mo lurither ex.tries from October 27, 1934, 


up to July 31, 1936, om which date these entries appear: 


NE Re Ae A RE RNR 





N JOURNAL Debit Credit 


July 31, 1936----¥First sortgage Loan a/c $500, 00 
-ceericlen Dold #500, 00 
Arcieri Payment Loan 
R 357 made 10/27/34 





Tit LEDGER: Debit Uredit 


"D miscellaneous Accounts" 
July 31, 1936--e- Helen Dold--eArcieri R 357--- 
payment 10/27/34 J 146 $500.00 


mn ee ee nr 





te me ee ee ee 


The books of the deceased do not contain iniormation indie 
cating that Reiter during his lifetime gave notice to the claimant 
of the payment of this $500 and the employees (manager, etc.) of 
Reiter since October 27, 1934, have no knowledge whether such 
notice was or was not given by the deceased to claimant, ‘The 
Areieri mortage loan provided ior the payment ot 6% interest at 
S@iieannual due dates, As soon thereafter as payment of interest 


had been made to Joseph J, Reiter by the Arciggis he would pay to 








i ae bowels bas vsriues woe) te FMD BAAKaES oat sk hellt asw- 
= 5 § eh oes sty ip 


aq oat »faeage abd at Revlovas vou al bate aakato pevretexq-non 























































ahaa all aeitius Sirickn One bua xetio® figpeot ot obam ‘coe te too 7 
bien Baya Pie - 
sewoifot as rod ied 0 atood att a0 aascae ab : 
: a a 7 ‘ ) ‘ y ier, Dah wwe 7 
Siboxo sided At jelay por ‘han “ide 7 
i reas : we ws - 
a 
mvnlrvelotéi~--anel ,ydion dart nme dE OL. ait tododod. 7 
60, Oud g daeayeg Lreiota soured T8s - 
. Rea Ti) toa tak 7 
‘Hthbezw) J idati . gy) AED AL, - 
LS eri we C7" <ipisen fom dete” 
. -~yeq itstotA---088 H tigiotA~=-bE@L vs tadoted 
00. G084) : i q s A oe Dann 008 +5 ae at ‘af 3h th ae aor : 
Pe eS v . ; - 
. : wecuogemy 
. ebGel TR tedosov want asindem tase tuk, oat Shia. aaogd ext. ait te - 
; sat Te". 
mapuge aqbssaa emesis stab godaw Ae, PEGS 6 ae ela, 8 ot - 
» ghbbared, so. tidoG . pad atm _ sua Mr, 
Wi elke we ORME o\f Reo syagdtos For t-te ae utah 
06.008 § 7 Lot 16 £5 Hmmm oe 
aes Tess acod dusayeS bretotaé. 1 gaho st 
se\TS\ OL oben Vas # 
Pikea 8 Pape Ge. I a ope ab mi 7 
NedausdoA aooeaelioseba MAP Mui goe 2 Shaya. 
wn«T2E A trelotAwe~h lot no lok warn beer 8 yin 
00.,008G | = OSL G BENTS\OL dow anog ! . i BS yout fee = 









Te onieatnememeiine 








sehen oe 


are “4 BAD ; EES oe ; yaewok L 


eibal aotisuzoial aiataeo Jon ob bessoned sit Ag edood sont on woke 


Bas 






tosmisto sds of eoljon oveg omisetit als gatsub tetiof§ Korg, 3 5 | 
eh ws 


‘te (,o¢9 ,wegsnam) essyolams edd baa 9008, ekg 38 saomeag, oat. . 







pein «ident Lo, ons beanoooh euid a wordy ton sie 





2 a ie tested ub Rd to, a2 cama and. Se bob 





claimant $135, 6% of $4500, and the sum of $4500 constituted the 
balance due on the mortgage note held by claimant without deduction 
of the $500 payment which was made October 27, 1934, The lust paye 
ment of interest ey oe deceased during his lifetime to claimant 


appears on his books and records thus: 


on ne ES NR A A CR 





ee 


IN CASH BOOK: Se ee _ Debit. Credit 
February 4, 1936---[nterest Arcieri R 357 730 
lelen Dold ~135,90 





a ee a eee 


Some time alter the death of Reiter which occurred August 
7, 1936, the atiorney for his estate submitted to Helen Dold for 
her signature her claim against the estate, which nad been prepared 
by Joseph A. Ricker, from information received by him from the ad- 
ministratrices. ‘he claim showed in addition to demands for notes 
payable to her and executed by deceased an item of $500 which was 
the payment made October 27, 1934. A few days thereafter claimant 
called at tne place of business of deceased and of the administrae 
trices of his estate and inquired why she had never been informed 
that $500 had been paid on her mortgage note. Kr. John hk, Krump 
with whom she taiked told her he had not been given authority by 
deceased to speak with her about the matter, as deceased in his 
Lifetime undertook to personally handle desls of that nature. 
For more than 15 years immediately preceding the death of Joseph 
J. Reiter, Mr, Krump was one of his trusted employees, during most 
of that time acting as manager of the business, Claimant during 
that time often dealt with Mr. Krump in connection with her trarnsac- 
tions with the firm of Joseph J, Reiter. In November, 1936, claimn- 
ant advised the administatrices that she desired to sell the 
Arcieri note which showed an unpaid prizicipal balance of $4600, 
She was advised by lir. Krump, office manager, that they would en- 
deavor to sell the same for $4000, the amount remaining due, and 


she then turned the mortgage over to the aduinistratrices to sell, 











of 


ody ‘botutiterios OO8SG “to mua esid bas 00a bs to re “Bete ‘$name 
fektowbos tvoritiw tnemtelfo vd biel sion ‘egegdt om eds no eub ‘oonsiad 
wyeq feel bot keel FE xedased abe eaw doiiw susmyeg ‘aoa odd “te 
toeotafo of smite til whi waiesh paveeebn wah bem dastotad to ium 
‘emg abtooet bie aiood wt no ean eee 


Cee ee 





ot 





AN a ae PN A NR ane RC een 











tifhet> SiS 9G, 
PF «1h. Se 

OE VES H Peelows owe Varc eer 

00 ,2e £4 " blot ae Loli 


ee ey Rene ARN EL RM IAN e OR NM A AE A om RE A A UNA 


Uteuidet © 








Pe yeua beriuso90 doidw tetieH to dtesh ext ‘todte amis einoe ing ee 
got Let soLeH of Bett iadie eaten ala tot Konrot ta exit 4 860L, 4° 
beteqer¢ aesd bet doinw ,ataseae edd tankens fates Ley tol oruvecgia ten 
nl extt ment adci yd bevieget soltenvotak wort ,tokekt LA dqeaot yd 
aston tet ahismeh of wolstbbe wt hewos mialo oat wneotxtextatata 
eaw do Este" OSE ‘to moti as Heaseosk yd hetuneiee baa’ "went ot sideyee 
dtrsmielo tevtestsdd eyabh wet A .seeL TR tedostoO shan snomyee bid 
esitelainks ect ‘to bane hoaseoeh to aeentaud ‘to sos ta exit ‘ts ‘bette 
heurre'tai need teven bad ode yaw hotivpal bas etetas ‘ihe to. ha 
quirk <u miel .1ai .eton sgagtsom. tail. 46 ‘bieg ased bait ose tactd - mY 
ud ytivorlsvc nevis ased ton bad ed cod blot beaist ede vost de | 





wa tel ook beesooeh ee ,tettes ead tuoda ten détw dasgea ot hesssoeb 
. otuten tact si éiseb eibasd Cikenooteg of doostebaw ambter nL 
Ogigeest ‘to dtaob ext gathvser¢ wiketndbbwiki evmey af past etom tot 


tien gaituh ,2eeyolane peceuzt aia to exo saw qauwrR ‘ut \t0d ios a 





‘‘gatcuh tommte£  .esortlasd edd "te aegencm a ‘piltes out at . : 












~one matt mee ddiw oitoe ston @f qaived .2 ayiw aLa8h stad Eo omit + 
suisse) {OBRL prodamvol aL leet teh Co lqedet Ko iret out ‘diy ‘enol 7 
edt Loe 62 bexieob oy: sed nopitistelntube ‘ond ‘iden vi tn 

008 Xo “ooiwlnd tec toaire diequy ae pewosie ie bite eton . 

=O Asta yaad tacit . 19p8 tet sokte , waa Stil boetvbe ov oe 
bre anh patabsaet davome one 000ag: ToT omny oa | 
ae are ee ee ee a ae ee 


The administratrices then caused to be put on the note an enderse- 
ment showing the payment of $500. The mortgage was sold by the 
administratrices for $4000, which was paid to claimant and soe was 
advised by Mr, Krump to tile a claim in the Probate court against 
the estate of Joseph J, Reiter, 

The question for decision here upon the stipulated facts 
is whether this claim is for money received by the deceased “in 
trust for any purpose" within the meaning of clause 5, section 70 
of the Administration Act, We might be disposed to hold that it 
is, were it not for the narrow construction put by the courts 
(including our own) upon the 6th clause (now the 5th) of section 
70, We have recently given consideration to this question in con- 
nection with another claim against this estate, Our opinion will 
be found dm the katter of the Estate of Joseph J. Reiter, deceased, 
298 Ill. App., 313. We there quotea with approval from the opinion 
of this court in Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co, v. Julette, 137 Ill. 
App. 161 (Abst.) as follows: 


"It has been repeatedly held by the courts of this state 
that the word 'trust' as used in the 6th clause (now 5th clause) 
applies only to technical or express trusts, and that it has no 
application to trusts which the law implies as growing out of 
contracts, Felsenthnal v. Kline, 214 Il1., 121; Svanoe v. Jurgens, 
144 I1l,, 507; Ford v. First National Bank, 100 Ill. App., 70; 
Shipherd v, Furness, 153 I11., 590; Wilson v, Kirby, 88 Ill. 536; 
Jarrett v, Jonnson, 216 Ill., 212. We are clearly of the opinion 
that the facts in this case do not establish an express or technical 
trust, The trial court therefore properly placed the elaim in the 
seventh class. (Now 6+h class), 

In Felsenthal v. Kline, 214 Iil,., 121, the Supreme court 
said: ‘We heve uniformly held that the word "trust" as used in the 
sixth (now fifth) clause, is not to be taken in its general sense as 
embracing every case in which a confidence has been reposed, but 
must be understood in the restrictive sense, and applies only to 
technical trusts, having no application to trust which the law 
implies as growing out of contracts, (Wilson v. Kirby, 83 111,566; 
Svanoe v, Jurgens, 144 id., 507; Shipherd v, Furness, 153 id. 590.) 
There is no construction of the facts in this case which can bring 
it within the definition of a trust ae defined by these decisions, 
and the courts below have each properly placed it in the seventh 
(now sixth) class,'" 


These remerks are applicable to the facts presented by this 








ie i ett ee el 


a 


~eetohns te eton edd no tug od o¢ Heaguso nedd asoinsertalainbe eat 
. efit yd bloa asw egsadtom sat 008 ¢ to taemyeg ot niiwodd Fade 
gew sca bas duimisto ‘od bleq asw do tow OOOA® Tot Sb inide Ping 
vanisgs tives etedowG eat nk mislo e& efit ot quurwd ,cM yd boalvbs 
| et9SieA (Ul daeeot to otedes ait 

etost besalugite ont aotu sted eotelosad tet notteoup on? 
HiN beessoob ait vel bavipset venom tot ek wteto giftd texcterdw et 
OY moltose .¢ gaueflo to gainsom eit aidviw “eaoquug yas coh 
$i tect blot ot Seaogeibh ed treim sW ,yitad. cettetdeininbA ext to 
etiveo eid yd deg seitouttenco wotten et tot ton tf exow ,at 
neijosa to (de@ ont woo) erieto ddd ant moog ( eno S50 autbutent) 
~fOD Gi tokenenc aint o% doiseteblenoo novig yltreoeat sya eW . .Or 
fitw sogaiggo 1uO ,etateo alot tsenlegs mieLls aedtone, stim, noktoen 
= a8 


boeeooah ,setiel .b soos a) 





a8 


noiateo sid. mort Lsvorggs ddiw botoup stent oY ,b10 «GGA LT Bes 


L£i VSL, 9td0 luk ,v .00 Jann? & ceol 'atnecoteM at giyoo aint to ° 


rawollot as (.dadA), £0L .qqA 


etede aidt to attsoo ocd yd bled ylbssesqet, aeed. aad re ae ails 
(eexelo dd@ won) eebelo Ad8 ort ok bees ag ‘tenrt’ brow ect dant 
om esc cdi gedt.bas.,edauxs saotaxs to LJeoiaoss ot ying eoltiags 

‘to tuo gatworg ae aeifomi wel sid dolidw eteutd ot wmoltsoilqgs 
esesrel sy. gomavea ;ISf ,.df0 ALS , pap sn HT ,atosti ads 
70" , GGA Lit OOL ,dned Isnoitsd ters woe , LIT bal 


( A gers .v prot 
-ad8 .fL1, 88 ,ydttd .v moaliW ; 002 ,.fil cal ,geontul .¥ ans 
moinigo ed to viuests sts ow .Sf8 ,.f£L1 Of8 ,moparot .v siete 










Iscimdoad to eaetans, as daifdetas fom ob seso aint at. atost odd tends 


edt at waielo odd booaslq ylesqotg stotersnt sanoo Leatt ont “ters 


s(apalo dda wok)’ paelo sineves 


“ dau09 emotgwe ond , ISL ,,ff1 SIS ,eni ta .v fedtneetet nt © 
et ot beaux as "saurs" brow esd ject bied ylorotion eved eW' :bise 
ag sanoa Latenes ati ut mexed od ot tom at ,eauslo (it tlt won) Mtxte 


gud ,beaoget meod act somtebilnago o dotilw mt sass yreve gitosrdas 


ot yiao apilqqe bos ,sanea evisoitieser ext nt bootetebay od Je nm 

. .. wel et dodow tauit of soltsotifggs om adives ,stasat, fsoindoss 
-800,Lf1 68 ,ydtid .v soeliW) ,atosrdrioo ‘to tuo gutworg as soilqmui 
(,0@2 .bt S8L ,Beemred wv brodgtde ,8O6...b4 AML ,soogrul Soneve 
gnitd neo doidw easo eld ai afost odd To nolvourtanoo om ef 9t6 
,atiotatoeh, easst yd bent'teb as taurt,2,to molgiuiteb edd aldt tw ot 
dtceves oft ot ¢h beosiag yireqotg dese eved woled etisoo silt bits 










Mh aaslo, (adie, wom) 


aist yd betasaetg atost eat of oldsollage ots adpamer 9998T ony 





giaiel aid to wetiell edt of bayot ed — 





ig ee a a 





record, Claimant does not assert that sne is able to Ldeiasid her 





/ trust rund into the estate “ Joseph qe ‘Reiter as aia claimant 
ee pncerwineOnca aid POE RAE TNE SRT NS Rit 


| an 298 Ill. App., 313, It follows that the Jucgnent of the 


nnn rr en ML ee 





Cireuit court will be affirmed, 


Ret ae NTR norma ore. 
\ ee E ORIN ES 


assem 


tits a AFFIRMED, 


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


‘omeal sostt ‘os ofds af 6éu gerd tedeea ton eodh Fuster 


poten peu prt NR 


a re 
L009 
“daante le BLb ée wetted [b dgowst he “sade bale “Sd ack bast sows Bd 


Ae NT ame MC I 


= INE en abner ine 








5 RENE ah aie ian Sanne ape 


ede'té Fao but ous edt ewollet 1 188. gqk LET | 


at ke a RD iin a Nem Bee LVR pene reese emer: rah ae en mt eterna eh 


TT ee - beotet'vts od ftw trues thvertd 


 GaMaTaU eee 


LEIA) 





i i‘ eS Sabedod ‘eet bits ..0 63 yfoumeol 


i'mhow aie yi Lek TST 
































; sy es is ists { re prey me ay 
- eka hay) a Sug ay ee hates 
‘ers O23 Hw | mE 
4% 
a5 a LOIN § 
= d 
] counts $Y ay 
we Le. sek To OR 
» ee] Pry et 
ey Fe MB ORETS LOY ae 
et W ~ ‘és Y  arery ay irene oad , 
‘ : : : F 
ar a eo oe ahaty 
5 a Sak 6 eee be Nie ae 
, 
t% 
3 rs i pepe ahcit 2D 
: a ony eat it ai : 
Oe ns 
5 rar Het 
; eh oy 
iS a aes Bi fi Ae de a RE 
: 
3 <S 
“s > 
Ne 
& f Pa 
S ™~ ; a 
. sha 
| * 4, \ ss 
|| x ® ‘ * 
i Psihves “ ‘ ft 
| , i B ne : 
i 
| : ; 
| 4 
i ws 
it Pee 
Ni . 
| ; i yy 
i maa : r rh ime 
{ ’ “y ‘ Ka ‘ an PN et 
i ; ‘ aE are) Poh eae 
} j eet 4 G. Vek Oe Loam pares) 
Ae < we ; a) " ¥ ae 
i ‘ Prone AY “i es iy, P ad ve ‘Apher 
iH " we be ‘ rarer , ¢! qn ae lea 
i A ys 
H - i are qilwory a eek Lagat 
H ro ie 4 
1 _ ‘“ %y “% ® 1 tin maueer yd 
sh we Y ‘oe fe at Oy Ss ge ae 
f F e 
4 4 a 
wy ESe uae hs aye aiid of Lats Ao Va ot 
ae NESS pee ; piste Se es 
‘ as oae i sree fad eae Bie USCS 
yt ie iy Wet Se 





ry 
wh oaaule, Asia be nti) 


iy es ‘ iNet 
1S) Peeatay ate gue tes SORES cana by on et evih (at 
& a! dvaeris vee oe iy if My tat yet ak Re pd: vee AS rt os £3 Se PS ai oh Pir Pedra tha 





40462 


LUNDE & BUSWELL, INC., a Corporation, ) 
Appellant ,~> 





Vs. 


APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL 


} 
) 

TREMONT MOTORS, INC,, a Corporation, ) COURT OF CHICAGO, 
Appelice. ) 


wR. JUSTICE WATCHETT DELIVERED Ti OPINION OF THE COURT, 


in an action on contract against three corporations, lred 
Hawkine, Inc., ilawkins Treiont, Inc., and Trewont Lotors, Iinc., on 
account of premiums alleged to be due on insurance policies as per 
schedule attached to the statement be erin. the Jirst two named 

| corporaticns defaulted and judguent Was rendered against them, 

} Setiiak kotors, inc., filed an affidavit of merits denying liability. 
There was a trial by the court with finding vor deiendant and judge 
eat from which plaintiff appeals, 

the statement of claim averred tuat all the policies ior 
which preuiums were claimed to be due were delivered to detendants 
and accepted by them, ithe statement further charged, "nat the said 
defendants are interlocking and successor corporations to each other, 
and became successors without full compliance with ihe Bulk Sales 
Law of the State of Illinois, and that by re:son thereof each and 
all thereoi have become and are now jointly and severally liable 
for the entire amount of deuand," 

frenont Motors, Inc., denied in its affidavit of merits that 
the policies listed in the schedule were purcliased or secured for or 
on its beralf; denied it was liable tor collection and payment of 
premiums said to be due; denied the yeltelces any oi them were de- 
livered .o the defendant by plaintiff or accepted by defendant, and 
denied that it was an interlocking or successor corporation with 


respect to co-delendants, or that it purchased any of its assets 


p from cither co-defendant, or that it failed to comply with the Bulk 





gasoh 














{ A Moltetogred & a Ou cone a nee 








% 5 CAR ile: 1 a, , it te z he ao poe va Bs 
SATIOTHUM MOHY GASSSA ver - 
y 2 hp aedes,. DY we 
ih -ODAOTHO To BHUGD — { jsok Sa200%09 a We ‘enovolc soa | « 
i ( 30 Lleqgé. , Gy th pan! aoe sey |e 
¢ 7 : dir wa vt ik, gi - i a 
eca .ALees siete] 
-TRUOY SHE YO UOIMIGO HY GHAEVIuMe THAHOTAM goLseit A 
; : : . wh ish Mod a 
bert ,aaei¢erogroo eeist feateys toettuoe no mottos aa nl 6°” _ 


7L 


ao ,.9al ,@xetom daomext bas ,.0nt ,taoue2rT aatawell ,.oal ,eatiwall Z 


= 


ca 


sow hikdsid gauiyaeh aditom to tivebitts ae belt ,.oal sexed taomer? | 


weg @6 aetoifog esastveank ao euh od of begelfa emuiuetg to dawosos 
bemen oWf fatit ot .mialo to daomededa ont ot bedossis eLubstion 


eit Tattiegs bertehist asw toawghet has hod iveteb eaobtetoqroes 
rn) 





- agbut bax Saaebuo tek rot gakbatt all d4HOo ons oe febad & gow ered 7 


} 
, 
i : a Acti 2 mus Ne eth i dW sc Aa cae 


-ais9qge, Tiigatelg fo ithe mort dasm “ 
‘| aot eeboilog oft Ife fece boxseva minfo te taewetata ect ASS Brcee 7 


adusbse'teh ef betevileb stew sub od of beuiele exvew sawlwerq sotdw 
bse edd teu” ,begtado tediawt sooustese ent .medt yd hesgeooe ‘bas ; 
,tedte dose o¢ saeisvetaqros tosasoous bas guliselietai ats agaaas teh 
 egefes Aled oad ddiw oousiiquos Liut smedtiw atosagooue emsood bits 7 


‘Pane dose Toditens tousox yd dads bate ~8LonlLLl ‘to etete oult to wed 










eldest eitareved bas yitniol won sts Sa smooed ved Yostedd Le 
" basweb ‘to tauronte outta ees 


and aditem to iivebitte agi ut betnad ,.oal ,erotoli tnowox? EBs ae 
to Tot horsess to Heendotugq e1s¥ ‘eiubedee ost al posers f etetioc ott 


aot a htt An) 


net ati ‘to Yas. bosadotud si tad to ,atas 


Catua ent Kdiw vlemoo of bettet #h teds to ,tasb 


Sales Law, 

The evidence tended to show that delendanis successively 
engaged in the general automobile and sutouoblle accessorice busi-g 
ness, first, as Fred tiawkins, Inc., at 2240 South Wabesh avenue, 
afterwerd as Hawkins Tremont, Inc., at 30 Hast Lake Street, Chicago. 
As a matter of fact, these two corporations were not separate and 
A4ietinct, Fred Hawkins, Inc., merely changed its name to dawkins 
Tremont, Inc, iay 29, 1936, Peter Tremont acauired the holdings 
of his former associate, Fred Sawkins, in the two corporations 
first named, At that time it would appear Peter frement was «. 
heavy creditor of the corporation. Jume 22, 1936, Tremont notiiied 
the crediters of Fred Hawkins, Inc., tiat He had on ay 29 acquired 
the interest of fred Hawkins in the cornoration ior the purnose of 
preventing an unavoidable torced liquidation of tiie business with a 
heevy loss to creditors and total loss to stockholders; tiat more 
thorough irivestigation had disclosed that under the then cireum- 
stances the corooration could not lunction properly because of its 
inability to meet cbligations with denleted assets; that the financial 
condition of the corvoration was that tuere were liability accounts 
payable tor $10,264.33 including claim ius to the State of Illinois 
to the smount of $2,724.05, which was a preferred claim; and tuere 
were notes payable of $8,220; accrued payroll and interest was 
$707.68, and factory accounts payable $942.40. ‘his, the statenent 
said, did not include accounts payable to the finance colipany, the 
greater portion of! which was believed to be secured; that the assets 
consisted chlefly of accounts and notes receivable to the approxi- 
mate amount of 910,982.90, the actual value oi wich was doubti'ul, 
The only other assets were equities in used cars, approximately 
$5,000, and the machinery and fixtures located in the premises 
carried on the corporation's books as oi the value of $4,700. The 


notice went on to say that a plan had been jorsulated woich Was cone 








= 
" 
" 


AHA * 
TA EY te 


wed eets@ 
Ah covtbasoties ajaehie te b Saat ‘wie os bokaet’ bam hive oatt | ‘ eel 
«ieiid 94 Stodaeooe efi Gletie Bas oLidemot ue fatenes ous ak bancatedl 
eunve HasdaW fitwed od88 gz goo, , Vanbiwak bord & he Oe .2aen 

» geo Eitd teats axed $aok OF te ,,901 ,tnomexT aentiwakh ae brewers tte : 


bas Otetaqer ten orew anoitetagtes ows eaodd . fae? ‘to rods am 8 BA | 

autuwall oF eine te agt bag cane Clots m , ont palstwat hovt “tatters 

ayathlol e ans betiupas snosett soded sR RL. eS yal sol; Sinema : 
enoiteteyxoo ows sit ME ert awe box aSialoosas aeatot ad, te. 7 


# auw sronetl tese4 saegqn bLuow 34 gate tadt tA... bomen ters} 


se Se 

















betiison faomext Oh PL ae saul -foltatoctos ecrlit ‘Lo totibexe wees 
borkupee. OS yaad a9 bad ad bast 190d ,aainwell Pow, ‘to, etod there, eat 
te ecogctwg eit vol aolistoctog auld af eoutawall bowl Te, ‘teetetat eat 
a atte aesatend ait ‘to noizabhup kt beotot eldebtovsau ss yaltneveta 
oxen dad jaxabledioote as seol Leto! one eto) ibeto, ot eeol yvaed 
~mwotke tent aad tehay tang bovologhh bad noiteaitesvnt dguotods: 
att ‘te. ogueped Yiregete Rotto.ssut ton binoe, molianegtos, ond meomata 
ishenent exit tad jaseugs bedotged djiw atobieyt ide tesa oe. Wiitdeat 
Bi ROgo8, Xeiikdeis exaw etent Jads sew, agiseregzos silt, ‘to, “soit hbaoe 
aioai fil tp etezi edt et oh niato autbuteat 82,098,044, to, ofdovan 
ateds Boxes patie Lo hetre' tet 2 asw Koddw paouser, SH To. taweme stot 
| asw tagtodat bos Lloryeq .pewzeoe,, 08S, 89 ‘to. a litayed: edo, oxeW 
TORE 
Pal _ sehequos soneakt of et ofdsyeq atavooos ebutont ton. bib bas 


taemotete eft ,aidt Ob, s2h08 sideyeq. athyooss, yrotes't baa, 89 





etenss edt tadd ;bexwosa ed ot. hoveiled eaw dotaw. ‘to. woltzog, redeem 
~ExOTaaA, ois od aidavieoos aston bas. ad moves, silt Aden begetenoe 


ont AOR rant to ex iav eld to ea exo0d aL AOL 


ditional upon its acceptance vy the creditors by waich one of tne 
officers and stockvolders, to regain part o! a substantial invesie 
ment, was willing to advance more for the business; that tais addi- 
tional money would enable the company to pay the creditors a sum 
equal to 20% in cash in settlement, fhe notice pointed out that a 
forced liquidation would mean tremendous loss to creditors and 
stronely urged acceptance of the offer, The statement was signed 
by Freeman & treenan, attorneys tor Tremont, 

June 26, 1936, Peter Trewont notified the creditors that on 
July i 1936, he had purchased the entire assets of Uawkins Tremont, 
Inc., for $4,100 and would pay the creditors 20% in composition of 
their demands, No creditor, so far as the record shows, made any 
objection but plaintiff refused to accept the 20% offered to it, 

June 29, 19236, Peter Tremont caused the defendant Tremont 
Motors, Inc., to he incorporated, the stock consisted of 100 siares 
common and of par value of $100 a share with 50 shares issued 
($5,000 coneideration) to be received therefor, and the eetinated 
value of property to be owned for the following year, 910,000, the 
erors amount of husiness to be transacted during the year was estie 
mated at $50,000. Incorperators were Peter C, Trewont, ilarry I. 
Freeman and A. Kornfeld, On the ijiret day of July, 1936, this core 
poration went into the premises theretoiore occupied by the other 
defendant corporations and toox over the business purchased from 
Tremont. The business wae later resoved to 4838 Cottage Grove ave. 

The evidence does not show that any of the policies of in- 
surance (all of which were outstanding at the time the Tremont Kotors, 
Inc., was incorporated) were ever delivered to it, It does snow that 
Peter Trewont requested the assignment of these various policies to 
the new corporstion and that plaintiff endorsed them but the insur- 
ance companies refused to accept the endorsement and, aS a matter of 


fact, on Magust 13, 1936, cancelled the policies for non-payment 





bit te asta tig trin yd ezeikbese osid yd eonatgeses ast mags fsnolttb 
staevath laissed aden & ke Meg ckeyer ae (atebledioods bas, ateottte ate 
stobe ptuis dead japentesd ssid tet srem matue rhs ot eatiiiw gow (nom ; 


Mise & exot thers ent Yea oF yaoaquas eat sidane Sisow Nenont fanolt a 





s edd i990 badntog so ivon ant .tnswe L4908 ot aes0 at ROS OF faxupo 


ys 


| . bas ateiliberta of anot axobsenard Pha biuow modtshiuphe beoxot 


ow 


boasts aev Jnomstata oxi? 19tto ant ‘bo sonatqeens heats Yianotta 
ea g Fare ee)” Tare ee ois SP RRC 


! a A 
3 SOMOTE tol ayemtiotita ianoetl & namsett yd y. 












no dade Bios khozo aus bebtiten Jaquet teted ,@6eL ,aS eat 


hit gant ’t 
_ foie eatawat to adeaae erline ot beasiotua hat off BROS nL RAMP 


to not9 taoquoe nt ae Mtosibsto sadist waa Aivow bra OOL, ao AS 6 AE . 


yaw ahaa ewocs bagoes ent a6 tat og ated thers gif. sR, inte 


buono? sree bed ers bee all Peowon® 1etot 1O5RL eo pia 





eotacia 00L to hedetanoo aAoote ait sbatatogroont af of a0, ett 


bewaet aetaiea oa iiv etede s vo. toe exiev tsq ‘to bos to 109 





“begemties auld baa tote rede bovioogt od at (aotseteptan09, roi *#) 


Fe eh OD 





out 290 Od tA0Y , onbaipetale aad tal beawo od ae veteqore, te euLay 









ati 
~hees RSW 1BOY edt gattub hadonancry od ed eapmtaus 2, Swan aa0T oma 


; ko TE 


ei ersek ,tomexT .0 tated iret sto setogrggal, +4900, oot te settee 






“L090 ets dE 2k sutut to yh sant ous nO. bio tured A bao, x8 nanny 


Prepay odd a bedguooe sxotoserads avatuere esis, ofak, fnew mostotog 








Mont. doassiotsc esontaud adit neve AOgs bee ‘agpi texouxoe price? 
ha en 4 Ne 
d ber . 





10 he 


:o¥8 evord eyed 0 GES od bevous qotar, 2ew egeataw 





| "8, ty 


a is 


went a tu edt? beatobae  mssatag ‘taut bow 






a ‘Le reagan s £ a8 , bie ‘Jne.ne et obAS asi Sqsove of 
ve Dest. i ah ie el 


aad cy 





of premiums, 

laintirf argues in the first place that the Trenont 
Motors, Inc., iz liable on the theory taat the directors of an ine 
solvent corporation are trustees for the creditors snd moy not pure 
chase the trust property to secure an advantage to themselves over 
the creditors, All this is quite true, but plaintiflY did not sue on 
that theory nor try its care or that theory, The reeord shows no 
suggestion either in the nleading or the evidence thet defendant 
corporation was liable in a suit at law because there had been a 
fraudulent trsenefer of property to it by the former corporation. 
That such was not the theory is evident trom the fact that Peter 
Tremont from whom defendant cornoration took title was not made a 
party to the suit. No judwment can be tckenagainst him in this 
proceeding, Plaintiff cannot in this court secure the reversal 
of a jud.ment on a theory never oreseuted to the trial court. 
Hayward Co. v. Lundorff-licknell Co., 565 111., 537; Remington vy, 
Krenn & Dato, Inc., 289 Ill. App., 548; Naticnal Loek Co. v, Swords 
fo., 290 Ill. App., 42; Lawson v, Jorjorian, 293 111. App., 431. 
Plaintiff, however, suggests thet in the 4unicipal court in a suit 
on contract the risits of the parties depend on the evidence and 
are not controlled by the pleadings. It cites Walsh v, fallis, 
266 Ill. App., 341, and Wertheiuier vy. Glang, 277 Ill. App. 38. 
These cases are not avplicable to this record, It is true tiat 
thie court will vot in this class of cases where an issue hag 
been tried out reverse merely in order to require parties to file 
better pleadings. These and other cases so liold, We have never 
held that this rule will be applied in a case “where a party seeks a 
reversal on an issue never presented in any Way te toe trial court 
and urged for the tirst time in the Appellate court. The unfair. 
ness of such a practice must be appurent, 

Plaintiff aleo contends defendant should be neld lisble 


on the theory that where one corporation makes ea conveyance of its 


Bb 
‘ 
, 
chsh 4 te _ 































anaaadale eid dads asetic gerht ent af Gente Tes ka ss facste 

aM? fa “lo eietesese eid teu ereest eit ag aidakt ga: caus yarotoll 

tee FoR yeu bas a2teotiheto ad tot nesteuxd ote saldsasaqtoe susytea 

“ore sev ieanose oy speinevhs ma suuoge ad Este qeTe seared ess enedo- 

Ho oe goo BPS ttieskefe gud joorit.atiap ef alot S£A, serotthors. ods: e 

j ‘ost awards eer gat ,eresds dunt fh SReO BIT wat son ytosss: tend 
| tuebne teh tard sonehive o3 46 guibsete act at tedtis aot daeague: 

7 a wegd bed stecd eaueged wal fe tive 2 al oldetl sew notiareexoe, a 

| ektetoat 99 teatet odd yd 3h oF viroegosq to, te tsasts. te Lashes : 

j - “ered tad? dogt edt apxt dushive al yroaltd end toa egy. done test, : 
® shen fon sew of 1} used aoivecouto tnshas tsb sosiw; sett, PaometT : 


yy, < @ icy as siti FAMsSBS or tas 9d aso tnenyhot. 08 . Piva, dais ##: wie 


coiencitaliiasl exupen Stucr eiut ni Sosa. TikdaeLt » “.gabboeseng, 


| yr. _notxpisaei PVEE . LLL BOE | Qh siicnteaiens 
| ghtows sa iyo.8 lasso iaal 70S , cggh wi fT, OB: , .9pk 
| . 4, £0 . aA wiih G88 Od Ta Hoge 7h. cA out eR, : 
| ‘Shue s td $2500 feqse tesa eat ai tad¢é atemgune rover Putanewe = 
Bete eunsibive giid 0 bas deb axidaed ect ‘te adsigahte exit tantdaoo 0 _ 
i | eilist sv deieW netio vi agiihes Ly ont yd heLfowdsan ton, is : 
“CBs eek tghe .nief0_.y toaioctineW fee, pds. 6 GA: a 


I tat anrd: ob ot: SO alas as m. ideotiage +o O2R ; clans 


oikt OF avbride etiupes os vrabre ad _ioxem eerevo% tuo | i 


teven sven oW selene oe aseso tasdic. bee. ilkitall remo 


2, - 0G 
8 ~istaw AP seven ose.iteaga oft a okt 1 bund 


a i 





proverty to another for the purpose of defrauding creditors the 
grantee corporation will be charged with notice where tne presie 
aent and directors of the grantor were also president and Jirectors 
of the grantee cerporation., Plaintiff points out that futer srenont 
was an officer of Hawkins Tremont, Ine., and was alse the purciaser 
at the sale of its property, and that on July 4, 1936, ‘hen ae trans- 
ferred this property to Tremont cotors, inc., née vas its president 
also and one oi the incorporators of it, and, as a iutver of fact, 
the sole owner, Assuming ail this to be true, we canuot see on what 
theory this would make tue new corporation liable for insurance de- 
livered to the old one, No evidence was introduced tending to shew 
the sale was in fact fraudulent, and is it were the rewedy would 

not be by suit at law to hold the defendant ci rporation liable, 

Tae cages cited by plaintiff to tuis point are Simmons v, Koselan 
Security Vault Co., 331 Ill., 563, anid Suerwin-Wiil Co. v. Watson 
industries, 361 fll. 5983, An exaninaticn discloses thay tuese 

cases were not suits at law and ure in no wise applicable to this 
recor’, There was no proof! of combination, consolidation or merger. 
The mere gale ot the property of one corporation to another does 
not tiake the vendee corporation liable for tie vendor's debts in 
absence ol fraud. Vietcher Cyclopedia of Corporations, vol. 15, 
secs. 71247126, opp. 169-176. 

It ts apparent the controliing question in the case is 
raised by the contention of the plaintifr tuat the sale of the 
chattels of Uawkins Tremont, Inc., to Tremont vas invalid under the 
Bulk Sales Law because of the failure of the vendee to give at 
least 5 days notice to creditors berore consummation of the sale ss 
required by that act. ‘the statute is found in Ill, Revised Statutes, 
1937, chap. 1214, see. 78, p. 2817, ‘the Act in substance provides 


that sales of merchandise or other goods and chattels oi the vendor's 


business otherwise than in the ordinary course oi trade and in the 











7 





dewks ao aaa sounso sw ,outd of of akdd Ife paduueed steawo 0 ofoe ont a 


7 a 


My Ty 


exit Wied Lbs adi buss toh ‘to aaog Teg id to't redd oss: ‘ot iregorg: 7 
: 


wiaorg ais ere sey ooiton Htiw begrane ba LLiw nol tetoqr0s eotnera 


ates yout dos tnettusng gals Stor Tetaery sad ‘to arotoen th phe “dma 7 
ces 7 
no.09 x2 rots Seat tue génbon Ti ttnte 4 imei tereqroo. essacis, ont to a 
ae 
tees sox0g eats veig aew bus ,.oal doower? ealdwak- to reottio ne aaw 7 


~anetd BS. us roe eL £ yet ao gee? hae esto gerd ‘dl ‘to otis pae ea 


tess tasca adi aan ey seal ,arodou taeuet? od wire gore ends howto 


dont to weddum 2 ee ,bms ,¢i ‘to axotatogzenai edt to eno ‘baa Be 


~ob BULB weal tot elidel oo biexoq: os Wen oud oii biuor atke qrosnt 


wacie av Leatkees bevvbordal aay sotahive ot cane bio ‘edt oF ‘Moneeds 
PT: Bord ys 


bLuaie Ybsiee els eisw $i 2L hes Joie Lebsare’ so5% ok asm eles = 


* edihidel Hot iaroy (ts0 doaebne teh ails biol et wat ts ue x ed "Fo 
BGS tr de 


bas ionoh a. pe ssosanht ete suilog ates og Thine Lg we ‘besto aoeao le 






“ Bondeit Ee eae bas ,oOe sola L&E os 
: est fadd eeeolocibh- solteainexe mA | 608” 
Mg igs ‘od ‘eidand tous oaivy om at ete bos wat te p agive fon foe : 
roy a 
t8yt0m xo ‘Boiteb tLoasos vol Send duos ‘to ‘toorg on ‘sew. erextt “etooen | 
Wf ay Obs ny 
Hoos weds one ot aoLsietogron enc to vue gota etd to "Lite orem 









“ae gideb ‘ara beoy ‘ect tol sidelt ‘poltstogres ‘Schuay eas ee it Rex 







OL “tov. “eesi0l da 0060 te akbegoLoyy recotest duet to prs 


: See a 4 ye 
ai easy ois at  molveoup aaliforsnee * uid enagh al a a Be . 











exit rebmw bitevak® 2B" saémex ngs laa faowe st aalawall Yo 
‘fs avis od esbnev auld to emntist out to ‘veusood wd “ao tse 


ne 9 Lie ait to noitemuwastoo oroted atotibote oe soiten a eval 


seduces’ beatvol fit a bawot ak stutede ont 





Y ae nk eT hee r0 eatw00 gah nd - 


regular and usual prosecution of the vendor's business shall be 
fraudulent and void as against the creditors of the verdor “unless 
the said vendee shall, im good faith, at least five (5) days before 
the consummation of such sale, transfer or assignment, demand and 
receive trom the vendor a written statement under oath ol the 

vendor or a duly authorized agent of the vendor having knowledge of 
the facts, containing a full, accurate and complete list of the 
ereditors olf the vendor, their addresses and amounts owing to each 
as near as may be ascertained, and ii there be no creditors, a 
written statement under oath to that effect," and "unless the said 
vendee shall at least tive days belore taking possession of said 
goods and chattels and sat least live dsys beliore the payment or 
delivery of the purchase price, or consideration of (or) any evi- 
dence of indebtedness tuierefror, in good faith, deliver or cause to 
be delivered or send or cause to be sent personally or by registered 
letter properly stamped, directed and addressed, a notice in writing 
to each of the creditors of the vendor naned in the seis statement or 
of whom the said vendee shall heve imowiedge, of the proposed pur- 
chase by him of the said goods and chattels and of the price, terus 
and conditions oi such sale; Provided, novever, thet it shell be 
larvful for the vendee to pay to the vendor so wuch of the purchase 
price as shall be in excess of tre total amount of tne indebtedness 
of the ventor, before the expiration of the tive days hereinbefore 
referred to," 

Section 2 of the Act provides in substance that any vendor 
who makes such sale or any person making such sale for or on belialif 
of such vendor who shall knowingly and wilfully make or deliver or 
cause to be made or celivered any falee statement or any statement 
which in any waterial portion is false, or shall knowingly or wil- 
fully fail to include the names of all the creditors of the seid 
vendor in said statement as provided in the Act, “shall be guilty of 


a misdemeanor,” etc, 



















od Liat seeutoud s'tobasy exit to agitvosaotg Leuau hae talugon 


a eae Las" tobaev acy to atedibets sat taaiegs es Siov bas Jtoofubuest 
_sieted aysb (8) outt jaast ta .idlet hoog wd ,Iiase sebaev Biae edt 
a, fri 4: 4 has 3 +4 : “at % > % o's he Fi 7 ow - 2s — 
bite hassed _Toemngians tc Yteserts ,olne dove lo noitemmurngo ot 


i edd. to Ato teboe t: 1S Had a 8 nediiiw ~ teboev ent aot, evisost 


: 
to oydo Lrenat gas Wel Tobusv aca to snege beattodt ua ylub 8 to ‘Sob iev . 


. agit to gall ataiguon bas adetupos , Lilet # aniniedsos jatos't ext 
4 oso oF YALwo AdAMOME hos aezsethie wow ,tohasy est “Lo, erotiieze 
1 ; | :  «& ,8todibere of ag exest ii bas ,benlatiesan od, yam ee. anon om 7 
| Hise ei? saetnu" bag ",toetio Jedd at dtee tobi toa sete aesstew 
- bse to Notsaesaog galdas ecoted ayesh evi't, tasel. te ‘fLeste: oebasy 


TO teaead, old exoted aysh evil teeel ta bos sledtado. baa eboog 
~ive ‘yee (to) to Hoiterabienon 16 ,ealng eesdorg: ait to. cecil | 7 
of ‘sauso Te to vito’ diet boog ad ,tolereué apeabsddobal to soneb — 


i boxeteizet ys to yilanosteg tea od af sas te bisa to hous tab of 


a gaiticw nid sols om o ,Seaaethbs oi he toeith ,bequasa Spencer ena 


to eee fior oat ul hemsu tobaev esd to etotisera aut ‘te does ob 


: -tug besogotg edt to ,sghelwomi eved fiads aehaev bisa ot sosw. to > 
gS “Tr / PR = ey Ey ‘ = 4 3 ~ ‘ 5 


aatey ,scitg od ‘to baw alatitade fas abegy bhwe oft to mia yd oaado 


| ad [Lede tt taut ,xeveved ,behivetd iaiee dove te enettibnes time 
f eaccig tug aut ‘to dows oa tobasw edt of Yaq oh gahsaey esht = eae 
“rd 





\. . es to pattwomk Lisde, to outa. ert sagtion n 
| . es ran é M Bi ape a 
lL: eee ait To etogibero edd tis to, eet 


PS ERS 





Par, Wa, sec. 4, provides tuat any ereditor or creditors of 
the ver.dor in case of a sale contrery to the provigions olf the Act, 
"may pursue his remedy either at lew or in equity, again.t elitiuer the 
vendor or vendors, the purchaser or purclasers, jointiy or severally, 
or against the whole or any pari of such stock of mercuandise, mer- 
chandise and tixtures, or otuer goods and chattels, oy a suit either 
at law or in equity, wichout having reduced is ciaim to judguent; 
and tue court in which said suit is pending shell have jurisdiction 
to adjust the rights and equities ol ali parties having an inierest 
in the property in such proceedings, * 

the statement of claim here dbes not disclose any suit 
brought under this seetion ner could any such suit be waintained 
under the facts disclosed by the evidence, The prool snows, we 
think, sufticient compliance with the provisions oi the Lulk Skies 
Act in the sale made June 22 to Trewont, It is suggested that the 
notice was insuilicient because it was not sent out "at least tive 
days" befcre the sale, but only Your days. The evidence shows tiat 
the notices were wailed to the creditors by registered mail on June 
26, 1936, snd that the sale was completed July 1, 1936. ‘there is 
in evidence a registered receipt of the notice signed by plaintil?T, 
dated June 27, 1936, It seews clear this met the reqguirewents of 
the statute and the cases so hold, JFiedier v. uckreldt, 355 111. 

11; #idl 





277 Ill. App., 451, 
These cases iiold that the Bulk Sales Law isa to be strictly construed 
because it is in derogation of the common law,and tiat the proper 
method of computing time within the meaning of the statute is to ex- 
clude the first day and inglude the last, Other cases to the same 
efiect are brown.v, City of Chicago, 117 Tll., 21; Gordon v, People, 
154 111., 664; People v. Snow, 279 iil., 289. Moreover, the purpcse 
of requiring notice to be given under the Bulk Sales Act is that 


ereditors may take such action as they may deem necessary beiore the 






to ato¢lbero 1o totibeco yes dads aehtverq ,8 .994 ,wOB tet ~~.’ 
JOA Bad to enolalvotg odd of Yiwituog dfe2 uo 'to 9eao at tobasy sat 
edt outte tiutege ,¢ytinpe ai towel de tetste qhadea ain ederag yom" 
Viietevexs: to yliakol ,atee@iotug 10 Tse@elstug avid parvesney to ‘obtev 
etam ,eaibaisotod to xaode save ‘to Ixed yon vo otédw eat tantege ts 
@itis time & yd ,atetie:® bas abooy rete +o jpetsekit bite sabbauils 7 
stasmynnt of iieio eid heorbex giaiverd- tens iw vuviupe’ ito wer te 
Molfotbekivh ered Llwity gaiensg ai dike hise Hotdw AE #208! ent’ bee 
deetoiat m6 gdivac eeitised Lis to #eistupe’ bos etugic Ons FaDtbe OF ‘4n 
¥ @unidresexg cowe at yYdroqgotg Sit at 
dive yde esoloelb fon asdh exod wield to tinskerete el 890"? : 
boniadatam ed diva Sete Yow hivoo Toor mottees GAY tobow digvord | 
ow . Bir ocie tosig SAT . .senebhive silt yd beso foe th ayost e&% tebaw 7 
pelde aivi ext ‘to eagketvoug out citw eons biqarod trotorVtue Mids 
“ed3 test beteogaua ef 21 ,taomext of BE eavt obam sles Bhd ak POA 
avit ¢asol Je" Jue iawa tou sew ti weuepod Fao ks tteent ekw Bots on 
gsiig awede oocsbive saT .eyeb 10't Yinc Sud | oLas oct exo'ted “ayah 
ent ao tiem betegaigex yd exodibers att ot boLtian avow agoiton ot 
gi staal (28@L ,f yLet BoteLqned esW ose ont Jedd daa ,BECK “YOR 
,Yibvalelq yd Senge soisun ott Yo Sgisve't beretatyed a wonebive Ht 
to eiaeustiupst ond Sou wits tasio amese T1 “aeer yee oe 


ty Bosnia 


“££1 888° .gbL tod ov mel it bio: ow eegsa edd pie’ atotese: 





itd ,.¢gA WLLL HVS gooce . 
bout¢enoo YLieluse od of af wed. es iee divG eld ¢add bios eedeo Soest 
asqotg oat seid baa, wal aomado sad ‘be foltegotes a¥-ei Sh seueoed 
-xo of st eiudsse sili to abi edd mits tw emt gatdugaoo “to bottom . 
-omga odd od: ‘aoeao toro taal anid ‘vewtine Sins yal farit odd bute 
eigood .y Mobxod 746 ..1f1 TIL, ve awoxrd ote parol - 
‘ gaogiug: edf ,zevoereM . e6S joke evs wong. : 








ted. ‘i soa. as led Peace odd. ‘tebaw fovky od ot 


gad ecoted visdadoed adeb “ged yedt da ‘molted ‘How 


eonsuniiation of the sale, Talty v, Schoemholz, 224 Ili. App. 158; 
Tipsword v. Doss, 275 Ill. App., 1. «sa defendent points cut, 
plaintiff with full information took no steps toe preven’ the cone 
summation of the sale and did not bring this action anvil nearly ? 
months after it was completed, 

There is no preot in this record ti:ut the assets transrerred 
to Tremont were worth more than Tremont paid Vor them, indeed there 
is not a scintilla of evidence in the record tending tc show the 

no 
actual value and theretore/svidence tending to stow fraud in that 


respect. “here is no prool that Trevont motors, luc., agreed to 


> 


puy the debts of iiawking Trevont, inc., and wituout suc egreenent, 


in the absence of prool of fraud, there could te no lishility. the 


atatement of claim asserts the existence of "interlocsing corporae 


4? 


tions," ‘there is no proot of this, Un the contrary the proot shows 


Without question that each corporation had an independent franchise 


fi 


and was a distinct entity. The facts that two corporations were 


4, 


organized for tne same or similar pursoses, or that certein direc- 
tore of one sight be directors of the other, sere not sulticient to 
Bhow & legal consolidation, Beardstown Pearl Button Co. v, Oswald, 


¥v 





13¢ Ill. App., 296; Wheeler eme Harvesting Machine Uo., 175 





Ill. App., 69. Defendant points out it is highly significant that 
the claimed transfer ci the insurance policies to defendant was not 
even mentioned in plaintiif's afiidavit of merite, Nor is there 
prool that at any time any insurance contract existed on which the 
defendant corporstion could have recovered in case of loss, 
Plaintii? contends that a new trial should have been swarded 
because of rewly diseovered evidence tending to show that a payment 
hed been made to defendant corporation b, the Chicago Park District 
in discharge of a debt due to Fred Hawkins, Inc, Inasmuch as all 
the assets of Fred dawkins, Inc,, were transferred to Tremont and 


’ 


by Tremont sold to det'endant corporation, the defendant corporation 





Ratio al -ifl DbReE: 










She vue. erubeg trishio teh GA 

























. afta wud iMevetg: of aqeda on food in komen ottn2 ftv A bw’ rebated 7 
: TY viveen Cicaw molsoe abst gala’ tom beh Bene @fsa, ord To aoiisiinge’ : 
a Ait ae bate Egatas eww PE 26st acidnom 
‘7 heereteavtd atedas eit cH.d broosx wid wi ‘town, of Wb 6YeHT 2° Paco 
| eveit hewbal © west? salt bise¢ tehones? neds oto dtoow Stew tones T of 7 
7 git werle of galbuat biever out ut sonedive Yo allitateé 2 ton eb 
dent ni Suet wore of Yalbapt wo ribioe Nn drenste bab Sulev Leutos - 
a of peers ,.00l ,atoted dmonenT: deft “tovrg on ef over”  bosqast — 
_ 

: — PMsagStgS Love fvoldiv be , ent Ytnoter? enivwah ‘to addah ect yeq” 
7 gael RK ELhie iL of of bined etedt .heett ‘ro ‘reexy +p gorende wrt a - 
7 : -Stoqieo gnizooltarni" to sonoteine edd afiece mie ls “tg: fitemeyexe” 

— ewotle toorg odd retinds ous HO .ebod to Yoore an et orenT *® emoit 7 

| eetdouset smohusgebit ne hed mobterogtve ose taht notiesuy tieirtw a 
1 ew atoktatogtyo owd text atost off aides fontsets & Bee bate” 
| 7 
: 


aoo1th Aieeme' Ged to ,eestoetug telimia to ames ood tot BORE coh Te’ 


ot one to ttiwe Fon eter /xedso Shs “to etotoeT Ip ad dag bar oine® TOoeTod! 








if . 
| P .tettablicened Lege l 8° wore: _ 
av vetoes’ ,00S , eqd VET a - 
| fond doeektiagie yein ar tl two atotey tosbaste® © ed aga ooo. Sa 
Zz ton. aaw duebadieh of esiotieg eenexueni ens To totebetd meetin - 
| a @tedé at col “Ladinaa to #ivabl tte wtteitaiety ot benobiins va 

| ‘wis Holsw ho hadaixe doeté nos sone tweith Yow sal yaa te sas toon 

7 > Jgeet to saad at bevaevooer ever Sivoo mokterogtos tr 


7 lvsciniaal reek ere bluode Lefes wea ae tend ines: m 


us ‘fis ae doumasnt’ pool (aniiwel bork of ind: saa 
bite Shomer? oF botte tederd exee 2s oT” janbiwel hott toe 


PRE, ae pieced ined Sie Oateebdee"Pebhet 





was clearly entitled to receive such payment, 
if 





complaint i 
fate teint 


ihe whole evidence 
shows that/plaintiif is entitled to any remedy it is by way of 


the trial court is thereiore affirmed, 


n equity rather than by suit at law, the judgment of 


APFIHAED, 
MeSurely, P. 


Je, arid O'Connor, J., concur, 











viilemagtiled hedpsonited ont... .teemyeq gous gvieset of bells is ag. + aie sew 
v 


Sect Cchatrel aren nese 


to yor w at at votes Ute od etd Lice at Pi kbebe ke Lett: ‘aorle 


DN cae AREA DRERE OS Seem 





‘te fusoybst ent ted ts tise yd mest asnten etispe 4 onthe Laatoo 


ee, 


ebamre ths sioteteds leds dicta faint eas 


en: 
tS a 


Ca TTA 


stvomes ,.U ,xomnod'?o bois ",.U .4, ylexuton 


1 Edo ad Tent al ty iw 
(ha. Cet Pye A a ae ae ae SI 


Sore eT ee 


et 


40478 


CHICAGO TITLE AND TRUST COMPANY, 
a Corporation, as Successor-lrustes, 
Complainant, 


vs. 





MAX ASTRAHAN et al., 
Defendants. 





APPEAL #ROM SUPERIOR 
NORMAN M, KERTHS, Petitioner, 


Appellee, COURT OF COCK COUNTY, 


299 1.4.62 


vs. 


GERTRUDE LEVINE, Respondent, 
Ap} pellant. 


——e——e— — eee eee ee ee 
3 


MR. JUSTICE KATCHETT DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 
By an amended notice of appeal filed August 30, 1933, 


Gertrude Levine seeks to reverse an order entered on August 22, 


Seatac Te 





1938, in and by pace the receiver of certain preuwises under fore- 


closure was airected hed turn the same over forthwith to skeen ae 


Norman M, Mavtes, ies receiver “eg file tite account and report of 


receipts and disbursewents within 5 days, and to. turn over to stains 


all rents accruing after July 20, 1958. 

The material facts appear to be that on the 29th day of 
Cetober, 1931, the Madison-hedzie State Bank, predecessor trustee, 
filed its bill of complaint against kax Astrahan and Dina astrahan, 
his wite, to foreclose a trust deed executed by tie defendants on 
Mareh 21, 1927, conveying certain premises in Cook county, to secure 
an indebtedness of $72,500, represented by an issue of bonds to that 
amount, Attached to the bill was a copy oi the trust deed, bonds, 
etc. The bill was in the usual form and prayed the relie!l usually 
allowed in such cases, 

June 2, 1936, Gertrude Levine tiled her petition in the 
cause, averring that she was the owner of the equity oi redemption 


of the premises described, having derived title thereto by quit- 

















» 


“eraoh 


We liz: okt wae 


“ 


Yaasioo ravar ita, “want qnaere 
,opdeutl-noaasoove as olsen qT oy s 


. trans Lgmoo ere Pea 
i ev ile 
- ia to “UAHAATAA. Xam 


»& dashes ‘tot 









HOTKGWE MOE TATA ‘CS ee 
qtomeit iseL: SHIRE a HAM ; 
ea ilagga t bay Oe _ 


1 ȴTHUO9 Boce GO TAUOD 
7 - 


“gga AI eee 


a Acne 


36 ener 


pn auives eCUNT AHO 
ine tLe aek 


a i a gl Sn pn geet mn, gly gin, get getin, ilny agin gen, 





SHO Me 4O WOLATEO “at CHR La TVSHOTAM gomseut it — 


a 
eSEOL 05 (FauywA be lit fasqqe to asitom hobrens od \:: 
a 2 Q&S fauguA ao Ss ted ne tebze. 5 getever of aieosa entived outa 








| -_¢temottiteg of. dtiwdsnot tev9 omiza “ait eesid ot betoetib ssw etusole 
7 


NN NE a ets ROOM Unt RRA AEA EEL MELE SO SPER NCEE atin enn einen eR Pe Seo Nag 





Seer acetal RON baa pi aS AN 


to dtogex bas sawoves eid oii ot “tevisger eds ,petioM .f somto 


| 
ft aprine eS SIT VITA 


’ 7 : 
ss martolt webau esaliaetq alesaso To mardepes als, ilo baby yd Soe ai me | - 
) 

|. @isok of tav0 ES oo bas ~ausb @ alatiw adneweetudalh bas atqiecer — 

Hiss. 828L ,O8 yYiel tet'ts gatutoss ataet um | 4 


i ‘to yab As@R ens no tadd ad o¢ tseqge atvoet Ialistem. edt 
i ,ssteuts tonsevebetg ,Aasi eleiG sixbed-noeiball edd ,[ECL todo zr: 


¢itouen tefier eid beyetg bas mot Lavay eas at eaw w Lihd « “a 


a ; 4 ae x vias 








claim deed from Harold Cusack on April 17, 1935. ter petition also 
averred that she wos in possession of the premises under a lease 
from the receiver and was the owner o! the furniture, equipment, 
etc., located on the premises; that she was not advised of the 
things alleged in the complaint save from the complaint jitsei!, and 
she had not been made a party defendant and prayed that leave be 
granted her to become such, and that her petition wight stand as 
her answer to the complaint, She was granted leave to Vile her 
petition, and an order entered as prayed on June 2, 1956. 

November 19, 1936, a decree of foresiosure was entered, 
the Chicago Title and Trust Company having in the meantime succeeded 
the .adison-eKedzie State Hank as trustee. ‘The matter was heard upon 
the report of a Special Conmissioner, sand no exeeptions were tiled 
to the renort, The decree tound $97,356.31 to be due; also found 
the rights and interest of John ii. Avrasa, holder oj a sscond mortgage 
for which Harold Cusack was found to be personally liable, and di- 
rected that in further default of payment tne premises should be sold 
by the Special Commissioner, ‘the decree conteined all the usua 
provisions of such decrees, 

arch £, 193.5, tne special commissioner filed his report of 
sale to the effect that Khataryn A. Stevens, pursuant to a plan of 
reorganization, offered and bid tor the premises $6700, and that being 
the highest and best bid he had sold the premises to her Yor that 
amount, March 2, 1938, the report of the special commissioner care 
on for hearing and upon the motion of the several parties constituting 
the Bondholders' Protective Committee, the court approved the same, 
The report stated that the bid of $6700 was by Kathryn A, Stevens, 
bidding in behalf of first mortgage bondholders who had deposited 
their bonds with the committee, "said bidder being the nominee of the 


committee"; that there had been deposited with the committee bonds in 


the aggregate principal amount of $58,000 out of a total principal 





SY NGde - 


it ; 
he @ale mnotitieg teh .8hOL ,TL Lixqa oo Hosaud KLloteH mort beeb stale 





$asel s tabuys asaimety act to cane ait ss enw esta. Sond ae et : 


fe 


diemgivpe ,etudicaalt ey to “one exit 28% Pn ‘aviaea: est wor 


eee 


edt to beelivbs aga aaw ose Cand jase tuetg add vere botavet 039 


oe 


a 

7 

_ 
bus ,tleast Jnielemos sid moxt svae seated, oh edt al bogeife agndas 7 
od sveel gals beyst gq bas Saebtsteb ysteq s oben. sised gom bes ote - 

_ 


as basta ¢egin soivizgeq tad taut bee alone enone d od bear eet og 


Mh 725, 


“xed $fit of sveol hotuery saw ore ot nha Legpioo ‘ont ot <owans ted _ 


i ; -O5¢L ,2 aaut ao beystq e6 hetetma tebio oe bos woltiveg 
] 


behesoova sulsagem eft al gnived ynsqueld textT bas efeiT ogeolso ent 


ft MOqe based sew tadiam ad! ,9ayantd, Be dat adede ehubet—noeihak eds 
ve Ky wit ay “ 7 
7 bo tit oley anoitgesxe on bag. Manca ne faineg® & ‘to sroqe7 edt 


7 a 
o 


jborstas sew @iveoios1o to sexseb 2 0b ef OL tedusvolt he hy 7 


brwot eeia :anh sd od, LE 888 ,Vee have’? sot Gh owt  ttavet ett of 


! egegttom brooce s ‘to Zab tet Geet aioe Ig teetedat- bas agigity segs 





f -16 Boe ,Sidati yifsnorseg ad of bawot aaw Aozaud bLlotak slo igw tot 

 «~bfoe og Sinede eoetnesg ssid fueayag to tineteh tsdtqe't nb said: betoon 
i feuan edt [fe henisinos setooh sit ,tenolsaingod. Ls foes: exited | 
—- ci sce celeese. ode  yaestosh doze te snokatvorg 
| to ¢yeqet ald bellt isHoies tmmes felosge ort ebek ye aiacnbilall 4 + Le 7 


to asiq @ os Fisvetug ,essvers .A mMypited sad’ too Trs® ent ot kee 


gaied tant bas ,GOVG asetneng oft tot bid baw bete't'bo ottastabstoe7 a 









; : 7 
{ fads tot tad et acsiaartg ‘eat bfoe bed of BAP Seed bab feoiigt id se 
. emso toncteaimsies Lsivsga ont to yrowe od? ,8beL |S dora ae 


et ‘to esnimon edd gated tebbid bisa" 89Tt Lined: ‘estt tb 
ak abmod Settiumoo edd ndiw bes teogeb neod © ‘bar ottaitt 
- -fsqtonktq fetot # ‘to duo 000,886 Yd dmoms Leqton 





amount outstanding of $68,000; that the Bondholders' Protective 
Committee Lad acquired the second mortgage on tne premises and tne 
equity of redeuwption therein, and that at the expiration of the 
period of redewption a corporation would be organized under tne 

laws of the State of Illinois for the purpose olf acquiring and 
operating the premises, and stock would be issued to the depositing 
bondholders on the basis of one share Yor each $100 in stock de- 
posited with the comnittee, The order adjudged and decreed that the 
special commissioner had in all: respects confcrned with the provisims 
ot the decree wnd the law in conducting the sale, and that the sale 
should be ard was confirmed and approved, It also directed that 
"said plan of reorganization proposed by said committee be and the 
same is hereby approved," Also that the Bondholders' Protective 
Conmittee accept non-denositing bonds for deposit tor a period of 

90 days trom that date, 

August 22, 1935, Normen M, hertes filed his petition setting 
up the sale by the special commissioner on April 20, 1937, as here- 
tofore stated, Further, that on July 18, 1938, he obtained an assign- 
ment of a judgment in favor of the Foremen-State National Bank v, 
Max Astrahan et al,, defendant in the cause, in the Municipal court 
of Chicago, ior $5,517.75; that on July 18, 1938, an alias writ of 
execution was issued on the judgment and the execution placed in the 
hande of the bailiff of the court to execute; that neitner Max Astra- 
han nor any other defendants, other heirs, administrators or assigns, 
of any person interested in the premises within 12 months from the 
date of sale had redeemed the real estate sold or any part of it; 
that the bailiff levied upon the premises under the execution at the 
request of petitioner, who desired to redeem irom the sale; that at 
the time of redeuption petitioner paid to the bailiff of the Munici- 


pal court $7,200.27, being the amount for which the premises were sold 


with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of sale to the 





2-2 eet ee 


ES 


A Ne ee 





ee en ET Nt A EA 
oS 


eyifostor? 'axshilodbsmo® oft Sant 7000 Bad to gatbasdadyo feces 

end boas souluetg sit mo agsatrom brieses edt beriupes bes Peg Ra 

eid ‘to noivetiaxea exit te fend bos afetesdt noitquebet Poe 

eiy tebau bexioseto sd biiow noitex og: oo & soltqusbex to Dolteq 

i Bie gnitiupes fo seoqus@ orld tot esioniLf{l to etst@ sd¢ to ure 

gnitteouab oly oF hoveat ed bluow foote bar ,asetatetg ods bdtvaceue 

«06 doota mi COL Koss tot stsida ofio to ateed add mo atob Losihaod 

eit ted¢ bestosh Ans beshufbs webtoe sill © ,settinmoo et citiw be¢Laog 

amleivorg oft Utiw bewrotnos alosequet Ife ni het tonckeclamod Laetooge 

-@fs8 ois secs bas ,efee ont antsoubaoo mi wel off Baw est0eb edt to 

fadd Hetostib onfe tI ,bevotaqds horn bemtttnoo aew bas ed bivoste 

ois Sas od ootittainos bise vd boeoqere Holtestueatos4 ‘to ael¢ bisa" 

evitostotd 'arebhlombaod ert gact oa fa $ »bsvotgas ydatex ‘al oiase 

to botteg e tot disoqeh tot abaod gnitieousb-non sqso008 sets fumed 

. ated tos moxt aveb oe 
gilttes nottiteg ei belit asttel a nance ,cheL 88 teugud 7 

-eTed as eNSOQL .OR Litga io tenoksatmmoo Letosge esid vd etss oud aus 

«ngises as boaistdo ef 880 .8£ yiut ao tent , tediacul sbotsts ototod 

.V Ane& Lenoitell state~nsmeto® onlt ‘to tevatT ak Feeaabet B 1. 3 nem 

dtso9 Inqgtotavil sat at ,eavso edd at tashasteb ,,1Le° te sedetd ek xail 

to dinw astie te .88CL ,8L yet te tadd :a0.0L8,88 tot ogeo isd ‘to 

‘ett at beoalq toitvoexs sad bra soompbut ony to bevaak asw Holtusexe 

-eiteA wel tasitien Jant jstuosxa oF Faxvos ould to. thilted asd +8. abnet 

eiigtess to atotsttaininbs ,eries gordo “ gtiieh ne tab ‘taslto ees ton ‘aed 

edt mott eitnom Sf aiddiw esalwerq edd mf betaotsdad noate q xe to 

:ti to dtsq tas to bloa sisteo aot ont pens shox bast else ‘to ae 

edt $s motiwesss od tebss seetmarq ont ‘nog botvel ‘yhi tied” aad ‘gadt 


bibuhd 
ts tect :eise ect mort mobet of boxtasb ow vnoki leq 3 to Sasup ‘t 






biog etew ageinetg ond shh tot orien ‘end | galed 198,008, ve ‘eR 





date of redemption; that Mertes on July 18 received his certificate 
ef redewption from the bailill which was duly tiled for record in 
the oifice of the Recorder of Deeds in Cook county, pursuant to 
law; that the baililf advertised for sale under the alies writ of 
execution; that on August 17, 1935, the premises were struck oif 
and sold to petitioner for 97,265.67, being tue amount o! the re- 
demption money, interest and cost oi redemption sale, and no greater 
bid having been made, tuereupon tue bailiff made, executed and de- 
livered a deed to the premises involved in the cause to the petie 
tioner, wio is now tue owner oi the property free anid clear of 
rigats of ail persons; taoat a receiver nad been tueretofore appointed 
who is now acting as receiver oi tue prenises; that tue time tor re- 
demption Trou said sale exyired July 20, 1938, and all rights to the 
rents, iseues and prolits oi the premises of tie parties to the cause 
expired on that date. fhe petitioner was entitled :o all the rents 
collected by the receiver or which accrued alter said date and tne 
receiver should be directed to turn over possession of the preuises 
and all rents, issues and profits trerefrom accruing on and alter 
July 20, 1933. The prayer of the petition was for such an order. 

The same day, August 22, Gertrude Levine filed ler anewer 
in wiich she asserted sue was the owner oi the equity, adwitted cere 
tain allegations, neither admittedmor denied tne assignuent o1 the 
of the judgment of the ForewaneState National Bank against Astrahan 
on July 18, 1938, but asserted thai the judgment in so fur as sax 
Astgahan was concerned was void and oi no sifect ior the reason that 
the purported judgment was obtained under an alleged power of attorney 
to confess judgment on a note signed by the Astzgahan lnveatment Core 
poration, and guaranteed by Max Astrahan; that the power to coniess 
judgment was executed by the corporation which was the principal 
payor of the note; that Max Astrahan was one of the guarantors, as 


appeared from a certified copy of the traiscript of the proceedings 


in the Municipal court, which was a@@ached to and made a part oi the 





atsoltisies aid bevieosr S&L yint ao astieol Jans j;molktgqmehet Yo otab 





ak pieost tol bellt yiuk esw cotdw *titied eds aext OLS cms het Yo 
3 oF thabertg', ¢dandé #980 at abso to xentdoet dilz “Ye 632810 suid 
A te gicw egife edd “aban eice tot beaittevba YYitied acid “fadld {was 
v ee to dowste Wiew toaluorg say ,beeLr WL teva ito feds jHoldioexe 
~oy 3 “le Suiféas oid gaked fa daa Ve ‘o'r teMoisiieg ot blow baa 
tasty Of fre ,sise gditc@usber ‘to feos bax bastedal ,yotom nottauen 
-ef baie batnoexe eben VikLicsd add uogyet) dd , ohem dood satvad bia 
eifeq eae 6% Settee edt at bevtovat aseluerq ody of oe & ‘bevevet 
ie teelo Bas sent yvusyotyg sce ‘to tenwo sid wont et oitw ‘tte aol 
hesaioggs erotodeteid mod bed teviess1 a sant jemostey ifs ‘to avaglt 
=9t *oi owid ocd Jane jaosiuery eit ‘to cevison¢ ga guises won at ocw 
— oF Btiy ix Ele Baw ,SEUL (OS YER beviqxs ofes bise won't welt ques 
eauss oas of aeiviag ot to eseine tq ext ‘to etlioxrg ‘bhe souaal adaoz 
adies end Ife 0: beltitns wav “enoltiteq ast etabh tedt ao beriaxs 
eit foe siabh bise isda bewives Hoidw 10 teVvisost of ud betes LLos 
‘pseiuer¢ end Yo nolesestoq teave mnt ox barnot ih wif pikes” veviesex 
Site bas oo giivisss aotietens afl'tos ¢ Bee aeuaat vedas tie she 


kabts ite Howe Tob BBW note idee add to teverq aT “Seer | 108 si 


eye 
Qe ADA 





rewean sei petit snived eberdreD ,S& teugud ,yeb erwma” ent 
wo beddiubs: .vitupe ed¢ ‘to wnwe pelt sew oce hedreaes eta Ho Kiow’® id 

oid ‘to sHecumylivae ext boineb ton hestiobe reds tent  enokinge Lia tad 
‘pedagseA dentaga ans Lenoliied eda! -maast ol ‘euld ‘to doom but, ‘pH 8 


‘eaM eo tet ob at Srembet ons tals hedioees ce COL .bL eit no 


gecad aoassa 6cd° rot dos'tto: ba ‘te bua blov wew otto dos ‘paw nndiomt oa n 





———S—CS 


answer, She, therefore, averred that the alias writ of execution 
issued on the judgement was void and of no legal effect; and further, 
that at the time o! the alleged assignment said judgment was void in 
so far as defendant hax Astrahan was concerned; that the levy was 
void and of no legal effect, and that if a certiticate of redemption 
was issued by the bailiff the certificate was void ond of no legal 
effect; tuat if an alias writ of execution was made it was void, and 
the deed purporting to be executed by the bailiff of the Municipal 
court conveyed no better right than the bailiff had and the erg 
had no right because the execution was void. Further pope epee 
receiver, she denied the petitioner wes*‘entitled to possession of 
the prenises or any of the profits accruing after July 20, 1938; 
denied petitioner was the owner of the property or any part of it. 
She prayed the petition should be dismissed. ‘The transcript of the 
proceedings in the Municipal-court in the case of! Foreman-State 
National Bank, a corporation, v, Astrahan Investment Corporation 

et al., was in contract No, 2757726 and the statenent of claim was 
for money due on a promissory note executed by the corporation and 
unconditionally guaranteed by defendants, Mendel Astrahan and Kex 
Astrahan. The claim was duly verified, the affidavit stating that 
$5000 was due thereon against the corporation and the Astrehans; 
that the affiant was faniliar with the signatures on the promissory 
note and tiat these were cenuine, This was sworn to under date of 
February 17, 1932, 

De Ancona and Pflaum appeared as attorneys Yor the plaintiff 
and Stuart Hertz as defendant's attorney entered appearance for dee 
fendant and confessed judgment which was entered before Judge Hartie- 
gan in the Municipal court on Vebruary 24, 1932, The note attached 
to the statement of claim is dated July 16, 1930. ‘The power of 


attorney is in the usual form, The note is signed by the Astrehen 


Investment Corporation by Mendel and Max Astrahan. The power of 














noksvesxe ‘to dixrw asiis ost sett ‘borteve , oro'tevetit Jere’ * scgwatt | 
.todmdivt Bas ;sosTto LageL om ‘te bas blov saw soemaayt edd mo bovdet’ 
at biov eaw ¥oeimbut bise Fretless ‘pegs fhe elt “to amis ond te said 
aew wel edd “Sent jHentsotoo asw nedevteA xe tanhne'teb as "8% oe! 
totstqmuebor ‘te etsoltisxes ¢ ‘th dart has {dostts fess ft on to Ana BROW” 
Lage t on ‘to hes blow aetw adedktideieg ace titied ody yd boseat aew 
bas blow | aaw $i obs aew aottveexs ‘to ditw acila ne tk def¥ i teette 
Laqioiaud ods to YiLtad oid ud hetuosxe od of gaitrogreg bees ont | 
titified ec} bae hed Ttilied edi ced? tdaly r8etted om bavevitoo ‘dines | 
See atone rofdivi flov caw aoliusexe ot Saycoad étyiy on Bad 
| ‘te 16 Lenses on of hoftitne aew tendifivea edd helash oda, tevteser” 
GEOL , O08 yint todte galuxooe etitore sat to vite to eee bierq ‘edt’ 
“ Si lo dtsq yas to Uhteqota edt To comme one sew tonoititeg Belneb 
‘gid ‘to tefrosnax) od .benatoeis od bluotie nolsited ext rere, a 
etedienstetot Yo sao eat af denen Léqlotnem ans at dpnipeesaae 
“go kte-tog2 08 sosudteeval mefetstea wv , aoldatonres a aria fenot+ah: 
raw mials to i noite Fade ost Ban OO¥VaTe of Foattads mb sew vo keorss 
baz aol dst qt aD oid vd betusexte atom yroeatmond s ho ebb yecon tot 
sak ‘hos asderdaa fehasd padnebie ‘teh ut bee dnetairy eitehohs kbhos Aw 
tal? guitads ¢ivebttts elt ,bottizer ytub eke misio ent © lnedertea — 
| jensen ed bits bow ‘no tteroqros gift tentogs aoore tt sah anw 000R¢! 
yrosetuorq ant 10 ‘eetudangke gsit “Ag tw aekiics) saw onett'te oad nity 


‘to eftsb ‘sebaw of mnowe eaw alt? eatunsy otay eeend ted baa’ ston 


‘seer ie ipteueaot 


Yuidniela estt tot aysarodds a8 botseqea ‘gue tS™ bas atioonA ot | ‘si Sia th 


mob tol soumteoqgs betotas yentodte a’ saehite tab en ‘ate fred@ bie 


& j 


~itroll abet etotted bowsias aaw do bite Lior boswittos ad bearna 


Lahey tube 








we sewoa ext .ooet ,oL yiut boteb ai misto 
assist exit wd bong ka ‘et ston eat ict ‘Lawes oil 


_ “te ‘towor - antt ‘nudacd A xavi ‘pie “fonasil we 401 


attormey on the face of the notes provides: "All the orovisions 
hereof shall inure to the benefit of the bank and any legal holder 
of this note, And to further secure the payment of this note, the 
undersigned, and each and every guarantor and endorser hereol, 
does hereby authorize any attorney of any court oi record to ape 
pear for him or them, or any of them in such court, in term time 
or vacation, at any time hereafter, and confess a judgment without 
process in tavor oi the legal holder of tnis note and against the 
undersigned ** any guarantor or endorser, or any of them, for such 
amount as may appear to be unpaid thereon, with cost of suit and 
reasonable attorneys! fees, and to waive and release all errors 
which may intervene in such proceedings, and consent to immediate 
execution upon such judgment, hereby ratifying and confirming all 
that said attorney may do by virtue hereo!, and hereby agree that 
no writ of error or appeal shall be prosecuted on any judgment 
entered by virtue hereof, and that no bill in equity shall be 
Tiled to interfere in eny manner with the cperation of any such 
Judgment." On the back of the note appears the following: "FOR 
VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned do hereby jointly and severally 
guarantee the payment of! the within note and all costes, expenses 
and attorneys’ fees paid or incurred in the collection thereof 

and the eniorcement hereolt, end waive any and all presentment, 
dewend, protest ** notice of dishonor, and consent to any renewal 
or extension of said note, without notice to them or any of them, 
and further consent snd agree toe be bound by all of the terms ana 
conditions thereoi," 

Of the many questions discussed it will be necessary to 
consider only one, namel., whether the judiyment against the 
guarantors in the iiunicipal court of Chicage was valid and binding, 
If it was, then the redemption was in due form and Mertes, as re- 


demptionist, was in all respects substituted to the rights of 








® 


anoiaivert off ILA" teeiivesg sodou eds, to seat ody mo yortotts 
mbLot teaet yoo bas dasd adt te ¢itemed edt o¢ saunt tferte Yooredt 
ait ,aten add ‘to taemysq edt otvese sediae't of Sok. tom ality To 
 eoted teetobng bas, tosseteny YIOVe, dite toss bas, ,hemgtetobas 

qe ot brooet to umpo yas To youtotise yous ssitodivs ydoredt ened 
anid maxed ai ,tuwoo, dove al mest to ysie to ,aond, co mic, rot: taeg 
suodt iw iheoyhuh 2 saotaon bee. «xettsotes emily yas te ,aotiaoay Lo 
ois ¢eniage bar eden sits to tshles lagel sdj te tovel, al, sessorg 
dove tot ,sedt to Yas to ,Ieetobms to Tot unten, (a8 #*, beaglete how 
bas tive Ito taco stiw ,aesteds Siegas ed og ss9qgs. vem 96 ton ous 
actorte. tis sesesiet bas eviaw o¢ San, 299 ‘aysanotss eldeaseeot 
eseiheaual ot faeen~o bas ,egatheessesg cowe at eneviodat ieort slow 
Afe gti fre bus paiyiiter ydeted ,Fmeagiut dexe sou Helwig exe 
sed? eotas, yeted bar ,teeted autriv yd ob. yan qeanotte blew test 
 tapmgheh yor wo Seduovsotg 6d Liede. Lasgga to Torts, to dew om 

ed Liste ytiupe al {£id om gedd bar ,toeted extatve yd hexedas 
four yaa. to. aoltsvedo edt ditiw semen ao. ak ote taotat of be Let 

_ AOC" santwollot sdt etsoqas etpn ext to toed aid, 0O. * toemybat, 
ytistoves bas yltatet ydeted ob beaglarebuw, osft (TAVISOGR HUTA 
agansyxe ,steoo ile bus aten aisiin. odd ‘to daaoyeq ett setastesg — 
‘toeteng moisosifes ead ak beviyont to bing aeat fayemtetde hoe 
,tasadaeaetg ffs bas yas sviav has , tested, faompototas odd, bas 


fewer yaa of snesaoo, bse, ,tenodelh to seiden, ** tastoxg ,bnaweb 








wwedt to ys to weds of sotton duodtiw ,stom bisa, te noteaedxe, to 


lle 
TSE” 
Sada) 


bas acriat ond to {Le vw bavod od of .extge bas laid atu we 





plaintift, who obtained the decree of foreclosure, and would te 
entitled to a deed of the premises at the expiration of the period 
of redemption and es a matter of course to the rents and profits 


after the execution of the deed to him, Stoddard v, Walker, $@ Ill. 





App., 422; Porter v. Citizens National bank of Evansville, 202 lil. 





App., 621; Donahue v, Central Lite ins, Co., 233 Ili. App. 254, 
Respondent contends that the matter was disnosed of without 
a hesring on the facts and tnuat this, as a matter of law, wes error, 
She cites blair v, Reading, 99 Ill., 6C0, and Glennon v, Eritton, 
155 fll., 232, 40 8. BE, 594, The contention cannot be sustained, 
The Civil Practice sct was applicable’ and under section 40 of that 
act all allegations not explicitly denicd were admitted and proof 
was not necessary, Strickland v, Washington Building Corporation, 
287 Ili. App., 340. The perties seem to have understood this and 
the cause was submitted on the uncontradicted Tacts as the same ape 
peared from the pleedings, The enswer of Levine was filed on the 
saue day as the petition of Mertes, In supvort of the position 
that the power of attorney did not autuorize a judguent against 
Astraiian and that the judgment might be attecked collaterally three 


Appellate court eases ere cited - Sharp v, Barr, 234 111, Apo., <14; 





Cohn _v. Kraus, 255 111. App., 391; end Dulsky v, Lerner, 223 I11. 
App., 228. These cases are easily distinguishable. wsertes cites 

two haryland cases where under authority similar tc that here con- 
ferred it was held jud ment against a guarantor might be entered, 
Johnson v, Phillips, 143 lid. 16, 122 Atl. 7, and Rhosds v. National 
Bank of Cockeysville (i/d.), 190 Atl., 750. There sre a number of 
Illinois Supreme court cases wiich hold that the question of authori- 
zation to confess judgment in cases of this kind depends upon the 
intention of the parties to be gathered from the entire instrument, 
Holmes _v. Parker, 125 Ill., 478; Packer v. Koberts, 140 1Iil., 9; 


—ilegeruan_v. Scculte, 349 111., 11. Decisions oi the appellate court 





ed Sluow bas ceximoigerot “Lo e9t09b asl boaletdo ‘ont .Titatele 
‘bolxeg ‘pitt ‘to solteriqxs edt te aeaimerq edt ‘to Beas @ ot woth Ee he 
etitorg has atast odd of aatwoo te tedtam s ae bas nokignobos ‘to 


LOT OP .toxts®_ WW bishbod’ said ot Beeb oxls ‘to nots uosixe ‘ould nodte 








fit S08 ,ofifvanevil to snod cenoksek waestito ov teix04 yosh aaa 
8S .qqa - [LT S88 ,,00 .oal til fexts09 .y_suilanod isa +c 


tpods tw To boeoceih Be ratte Sit tedd abustnos dnabaogasi 
stoits saw , wel ‘to tettem 6 ae ,alids tans bas etost autd m0 anitesd a 
Hott iad V¥ foam it) fnie ,008 ,.ff1 @@ ,golbeeh .v staid setts om 
.Doatstava od Founso sotiaed mos ad? hea y i Os SES ee aes 
tend to UR, moldoou tebrw bas sidsokfeggs aw toe soitoor chvid ‘oat 
“toot bas badd Lobe erew bo taes vitisiioxe dou anotvagetis ‘tha’ "Fen 
(Sobterogred quthiiol snfastdes¥ .v Sow fistase Linley ‘fod aaw 
base aint Booterehau eves os moog waisiag edt Oe acl ert ‘yas 
“qs esse atid ae atoat botoiherttiwos au ait no bedtdindve: naw ‘sae ont 
ast so bo lit saw ealvet to t98wane esil Jagatbeste edt aioe ‘poxeeq 
“aoltisog odd to dzouaus wl .esdred te woisiieg ‘odd ae eek suse 


dentsus taoughyt 8 exitodiue fed Ih yoorodts ‘to rowog edd dasid 


gor ylistetstios botostia ed dig far Fj aosmgbet as salt bas ‘ussiattaA 


she QGA .LLIl bes LES si Ls. ted * beats ote ‘goees $100: ‘ote Lfoqaa 


£f1 8% ,xesxed .v yaletet bos ; £28 Gch LLt 8ae guar 2 aiied 


esdio asties: .oldsdaingniteib ylises ste aesas aoa 888 ion 


«soo gted tedy oft gelimie vd itositus coho 970 LW eoaso Sue tyne ‘owt 


' betes ne od iigim totnetery 8 ent a8 ‘Sie mays but ‘bled enw tt “bertet 


pre 
i Sieh gyi heh 


 fenoited .y ebsoda bas ,v .IsA Sai OL .bM EAL EOL ULES gt soni 


Han iP a hea 


<0 coda 6 ote ered il ec? oer (. bu) 





(ps 


wpe 
eit nods ehosqoeh bnix eisdt +6 enao ok dasa be¥ ‘saeco i noes 

* Paocured ack stitue add mox't ‘Paddahad ed of detixaq’ ’ : 
4@ . ffi OAL ,adzedom .v soloed 1804 ees "ast y: 


 ynuoe ofatingea end to aueiekoed: ‘i fies & ane ¥ 





7 
: 








ae ee 


en 


are to the same effect. Sharp v, Barr, 234 Ili. App., 214, Section 
6 of the Negotiavle Instrument Act autiiorizes the joinder in suits 
uven promissory notes of persons who are jointiy and severaily 
liable, Many Illinois cases liold tunis way be cone, Linuel v, Weil, 
By, Halieam © 


95 Ill. App., 15; Page v. W. eo, wa2 lll. App., 462; 





Geneva Organ Co, v. Ambassador ieatres Corp., 249 Lli.,App. 390. 





The Illinois cases also hold toat the some presuuptions ol law in 
favor of judaeents by confession zre indulged as in the case of 
judgments entered upon confession of orcocess, Alton Banking & 

frust Co. v. Gray, 259 Ill, Apo. 20; and Aiton Uanking & rust Vo. 

v, Gray, 347 I1l., 99. it is not claihed def erdant Astraian was not 
liable to the amount for whicn jud.ment was entered and the judguent 
would not be set asiie even on the motion of astranan vituout a ahow- 
ing to the effect tnat he was not indented, the answer of Levine 
does not deny the jud, ment was entered lor a valid indepntedness, 
Moreover, Levine is a tuird perty here in so far as this judsment 

is concerned, Then, too, the rig,ots of those redeening are liberally 
construed to the end that debts, in as far as possible, siall be 


eid, The pleseing of Levine 
& 


— 


coues very Jar irom showing that this 


nem Ne reer mens ype ene semen te 


judgment was invalid, The record snows tuat attorneys representing 
the interest of the bondholders had notice of tue proceeding and of 
this appeal. they have not appeared, Apparently the vlan of ree 
organization has been abandoned, 

The appeal is without merit and the order is affirmed, 


APY IPMED,. 


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








Moftoe® .b48 ..qqa AST DOS ate avowed) 6 ytee tte ames pit (oF. ate 
e¢vise ot tedatet sit eaeltadins teoA tavnuttenl eldsitoge oat ‘to’ 
‘eilatovea bite ¢“ivaiot sts ow @acearay ‘to estom yreatliaoty sods 
bie¥: 0 Sesame gt 9405 sd yee eich Blom eewas adoniill ynsli \eddal£ 
Po a¥ eget 24is 4 sagh «fll 3e 
O88 asks @bS , .g¢od setteeut tohecesdms .¥. 00. tegtO eyoned 


nb al to broliuuteng Stee oft tard bLod cata toemoratoni lll eT 





88h ,iaGA ALT RIS. gO mag 


‘to @aso odd al Bh bagivbat orm nelace'taoo ed. ataaeahut. to: s06evst 
& anidort motets ,oaeactd ‘to solaes laos aequ. betetas edsombyt 
600 depe'l ohne @ aos lA foe 708 sqqd yi{T C88 ,yatho py 409 tamet 
sou gew nelevgad doshoe'teh bemtals tom al a% .O¢ ,. 10%. TRS) vere ay 





jmmighwt odd bee boweden saw dasa bot dodiw toh damon eat: oc (oddaedd 
-weis « dupdbiy sadectoa ‘6 aoldom oft mo. nove, oh lag, des: ed: ton higow 
enive. to *ewene ol ,atdebul tom sav eel tans sootto end. oF Sat 
aeenbeddabal bilav g sot hated ce ap gneamnbet, ect yooh tom: avob 
tueapbut aidt ea set os ab etsd yoteq brind » ef entvred 4 tevoetok 
eiiersdht evs goineshot eons To adagdu oad ,ooF cod, demragnos at 
od {fens  (sldiaeog es ret ae al ,atideb gant bes grit ads Bows ated 


eens gead | ged Woda, MOST tek ELE aouoo Intnectidhaan te yaleayees eth a bitag 


guigaeaerges ayentodiia tact awvone breset out higewnd aew daomg het, 
‘to bite gaibosporg eid to setion bell @tebLombaod at To  saetetak ols 
megee “ho getty oie qismpisgga .hera8HRgs Ton ever yer? .Lagodte, atedt- 
~bouchowds coo, sel Nodipeiosy te 

,boutitts ef sebto ocd hac thiom twottiv al (aeqde ett 


te 


eIHDIOD piel ‘aii as pee yey a : daliseabet 





40330 


ARTHUR L, PEHILEGRINI, 
Appellee, 

APPEAL FRCL MUNICIPAL COURT 

vs. 


OF CHICAGO, 










WILLIAW A, BREDENBECE, 
Appellant. 





) 
| 
) 





f 62 
29 TA 
NION OF THE COURT, 


- 


wR, JUSTICE O'CONNOR DELIVERED THE 


Plaintiff brought an action against deiendant to recover 
$1762, which he claimed was balance due hin on a deposit he made 
with defendant under a written lease, by the terms of which defendant 
leased to plaintiff a gasoline servioca station Yor a period of 10 


years, There was a jury trial and a verdict and judguent in plaine 
a STEARNS ILI SPC Hh as ULES AIRCON AM a SRN le A 


NA at nal tan enemies pict aceite 


tiff's favor for $1488 and defendant appeals, 

fhe record discloses that October 18, 1935, the parties en- 
tered into a written lease whereby defendant leased to plaintiff a 
gasoline service station tor a period beginning January 1, 1936, 
and ending December 31, 1945, at a graduated monthly rental of from 
$140 to $200 a month for the last year. ‘he parties seex to agree 
that the case is to be determined unon the meaning of a paragrapn of 
the rider atteched to the lease, the pertinent part of which is: 


"Lessee *** has deposited with the Lessor the sui of TWO THOUSAND 
DOLLARS (92,000) as security for the performance: by said Lessee 

of the covenants and agreements contained in the within lease and 
rider attached, and in the event of his failure to so perform, or 
of any breach of any and all of such covenants and agreements, 

and such failure or breaci shall continue for a period of thirty 
(30) days, then and in that event the said sum of TWO THOUSAND 
DOLLARS (92,000) shali be forfeited to the Lessor as liquidated 
damages ***, In the event of full and complete performances of 
aii oi such covenants and agreements then said sum of ‘(WO THOUSAND 
DOLLARS ($2,000) shall apply as payment of rent for tie last ten 
(10) wonths oi the term of the within lease, It is understood that 
Lessor shall psy to the Lessee so long as the Lessee has permitted 
no failure or breach on his part and so long as the lease remains 
in force and effect interest at the rate of five (5%) per cent 

on said sum. Said payments to be made to the Lessee on the iirst 
of July, A. D. 1936, and S@ul-aniually thereafter, but shall not 


accrue or be paid jor or during the last year of the te Z 
within lease," . f alee 





oS oo) SAAD 0 RURRA 
,oileqga 
TAUOD JATIOTAUM MORE CATA Rei NE eh A 


OOAD THO TO 


¢_% 

{ Ee api aged ob : 
| av 
{ 





_AOUMWECRAG WA MAIGUIW 
etme l feqqé 22° ye ,weta dE 





pkibiar 

- -THUQO BHT %G KOTIES aur GHANVIUGG AOMMOO'O BOlTeUt . AM - 
THvo09x of Sagbaetyb teniage noltom ma digested itdhalt. <0)” 

i shan orl tiaoged ¢ ao abd ovh sonsled esw bemialo ex rio tet, SO0L8 .* 


. Frehew teh slo icy, ho, aed ed yl Steet modclvw se sodas toshasltep nets 
q - O£ to bolteg os tot adteate andvaer eadforeg, # Mhidtiatele of Heanel 






mwtialg nt taespouh Sos tolbtev @ bate feted etal «ew ore? 9,ereey 
SL MC rye eteoon Cem tia heehee RERUN a bn hcl dan es i naronatntipomenn nantes re ia 


anh abs evannilen on ; 


-eLeoqgs tuahns'teb bas 8hOb aot covet At TeRt 


ee atrraiere: Ne ee gs _ 


te goliteg edt ,280L ,6L sedete0 tsdd vecoloeth brooet ot 6) | 6! 


| a 
Ie 6 tittdialg es benwel Jasbaclsh ydetetw corset cotslrw e oFnt Beret 
4 BOOL , £ ute aml gulinitged belies ret nottete solvres: entioees 

) fioset: Do Leto yiitoos heteubetg 8 te ,apeL , LE. te dino 9ekt BnthAS pes 


i wes emia. a ® 
7 estes oc mone aabinco ert .sesy tank ot tot dtnome ook oF ODTE { 







‘to dgetyetag & bo gaiacow ext coc bemtarreteb ad of ab saao Ont, taut | ; 
: tad cotum te dgaq doeuitusg ect ,oemet eat of hotoatte tebigt Xt ue 
7 MUABUOHT. OWL ‘to awe sid t)0eeed ois tiv, betienqeb ped #e poeRei™)\) 1. 
- sedeei bisa yd wmonsstoetieg ost tol ysitwoss ee (0U0,8%) SHALION a 
( Ste. erael aintivw ext ab, boatsioon atnenoetge fae adnenevoedieds: bo.) — } 


to ,steolteq oa oF sivtiat ain te saove oot of bas ,besostia 
' adaemestas bas adascevoa Hove to, fle Sie yom to soaond: 
yiaidd ‘to boiteg a 10% ewxaisdnop {fade sosetd to onuliet do. 
CUARUOHT OFT to awa bisa ect dneve stadt at doe sodt. eyed ( 
botshicpi£ awe tosasd sii ot betisttot ed ifede (000,8¢) 
to esousimetteg eselguoo bus [int to dseve odd ol .*e* BO 
CHAZUONT OW! ‘to awe bkee osdt ataeweeiye bas atnanevos do 
i” ; met taal add vot toot ‘to tnemysg ae Uloce Llecde (900,8 
| tant boovetehay ak 1 ,eaaet alitiw ods Yo atest ang t 
| bostiareg aed oenesi ons ae. gnotoog, seeged add’ ot qeq, Lian 
iia anieset easel edt ae gnol os base staq eld no sigaerd Lo OF 
ss $apo xoq (8G) evit To siat one te teoredtnk tosTte baa 
garit ond ao seaeed sat of obam sd of adnemyeg bt: 
| Fon Lfede tad ,tedtestedt ¢iiswnne~imee baw ,88 
ss eri ‘to acted osit ‘to ts0y dest exit gattwh to tot f 
ak’ O s" iH 


ae 












ee 
Ne oe cans Pity 


at 


Plaintiff tock possession of the premises January 1, 1956, 
but failing to pay the rent lor kay and June defendant brougnt 
forcible detainer in the kunicipal court waere judgment for possesséon 
was entered in his favor and plaintiif vacated the premises June 
22, 1936. 

Defendant's position is that he is entitied to retain the 
deposit because it is expressly stated in paragraph 7 of tne rider 
that this amount was agreed upon as liquidated damages in case 
plaintiff failed to carry out the terms of the lease, while on the 
other hand plaintiff's position is thai the deposit was made "as 
sisal for the performance of the covenants of tae lease," and 
that the provision is for a penaity and unenlorcible, 

Toe undisputed evidence is that plaintiff denosited with 
defendant but 71350. fae jury deducted from tnis amount the rent 
for the months of Kay and June at $140 a month, a total of $230, 
and made an allowance of $82, being oneehalf the anount defendant 
claimed he had expended in repairing the premises on account of 
plaintiff's occupation; but an examination of the itemized bill shows 
that a number of the items were not made necessary by what plaintiff 
did, and this appears to have been the view of! the jury. 

Defendant coritends the court erred in failing to perwit him 
to open and close the trial because the pleadings showe’? there was 
no controversy between the parties except that he had interposed 
an affirmative defense, Counsel in his brief says defendant admitted 
in the pleadings that the lease was executed and that he received 
the deposit. We are unable to find in defendant's answer any ad- 
mission to the latter statement, The execution of the lease was 
admitted but there is no edmission that he had received the deposit, 
We think the court did not err in denying defendant's motion te open 


and close the case, 


Defendant further contends the verdict is against the manifest 








,9OL ,f yteuial asaimerg ay to aolesseneq Hood Vhigaiald , ~ 

tiguexd jiehre toh gaul Soe yea tol gnet sat yeq of gailist tud 
aebseeoesog tot saenghul erenw ¢iwoo Legtotawll ect at tenisdteb oidtono? 
eau sogiaiyn edt bedwoav The: aiete bas covet ald “a betedae 2ee 
| | .d8CL , 88 

ead aldvak od fel Pes ie at fea deals ai aoltivog or ¢habaa tes 
tebiz edd to Y dgaigstsq of bedede yLeastaxs ak tt euvased fieogss 
. 8880 ak eegaueh heleiteplt ee coqn heetygs ear dnuoms atdt tad 
edé mo eLicw ,~eedel ant bo gerred euut dee yuges. od. foiiet Yittatela 
as" @bsu eat tieogeh euid gact el aeitiagg a tilsalel, baad rediq 
bas " ,gaeot ois to atnaceves et le aongagotreg est 191 yt ixyose 
»eLd tov tasas bie oo Leneq 2 hd as Medal veg ons tact 
dtiw beotieccoh Tiltiatselqg ders #4 saushive beduae Liss. oat. it pe 
$oet edd dawens elad agtt hadoshes yrut oof ..0¢6Le cud jasboe'teb 
BSE to Lagos a ,Waom 6 vALY te snub Bae yes to arid om, alt tot 
tasbasled savomm ef3 ‘tLad-ane gated ,864 te soxewolls se ebem bas 
‘te sabooss ao nosinezg esd goitieges al bebseqee bad ex bomislo 
awoie Lild besinet: eid lo mo ltingivaxe ge ded pmohtaquoso al Mtitnkelg 
Trisnielq sede yd yesseoosa shan ton or9w awetsi ot to tedawa « tact 
etwh eel to wekv edt ased.avecd o¢ RILS GER eolhscoaed thd 

win. thirceg of. ated a. bsute dxrues oe. shantene HAAR 5 
226 one hewode agathasia. ons agueted. teiza asit , aabte, bas de ot 
boaogred al bail of dads gaeoxe eolfxeq odd mpavted “gerevordnos on 
beddtahe anobae toh. ayer ‘Qeind abo at, wert oe seno teh ovedaut 1i%e 18 
‘bovisas ‘od. tedd bas botwoexe aav genat sid todd ajaibeeta sot at 
~be une, Lowa te al duebas teb gut bap ot ‘pido, ons ah. vHgogsh exit 
- qaw camel edt Yo. toltsoexa ont | “deme ade. goadal: vee ee. "Rothe tm 
wtisogob edt ‘bevisost bed od tads sotestmbs om et prea “vie botttuaba 
vee ot ‘mol tos a’ daebisp 39h aaresh, wb x28" tou pie, ‘trybd bly oW 


i tha 88S Weead ond wa o td Pike 
, + PO kee . w 


faotinca eit teniage at toibrtev sat abastaos tedtiu't tasbue'ted — 





weight of the evidence and in support of this the argument semms to __ 
be that the evidence disclosed that the amount of deposit was 

fair and equitable under the circumstances and was therefore 
liquidated damages, as the rider provided, and that if defendant 
had not been precluded from offering testinony of witnesses as to 
moneys paid out by detendant in connection with the execution of 
the lease, “there would be no doubt left in the minds oi a jury as 
to whether or not the defendant is indebted to the plaintiir," 

We think there is no merit in the point mude. DVelendant ottered 

to show that before the execution of the lease he had paid $825 to 
a tormer tenant who was occupying the premises at the tine, to 
obtain the cancellation of his lease; that he paid 5650 to a broker 
for obtaining plaintiff as a tenant and paid 200 to his attorney 
to draw up the lease. We think the court did not err in excluding 
this evidence, On the trial. there was no suggestion when counsel 
made the offer that plaintiff knew of these expenditures, and, as 
said in Dunn v, Natenberg, 208 Ill. App., 30C, which was a case 
similar in character to the instant case, “Defeiidants sought to 
prove on the trial that at the time the iease waa executed they had 
spent a considerable sum oi mwoney in reiodeling the premises in 
question, ine court properly excluded evidence of the amount of 
these expenditures, ko doubt these expenditures were made for the 
purpose of secuFing tne execution of the lease with the orivinal 
lessee, but tie lease itself did not expressly provide for any 
reimbursement to defendants for these expenditures other than the 
promise of the lessee to pay rent,” 

Defendant further contends that the court “erred in nolding 
that the liquidated damages agreed upon by and between the parties 
was a penalty and not liquidated damages," and the case of Parker- 
Washington Co, v, Chicago, 267 I11., 136, is cited, In that case 


PlaintilY entered into a contract with the City of Chicago lor the 





oF an moe gnomegts act efdd ‘to drogque af bas somsbivye edd te trgtew 


aew tigoaeb te savour ott yvacdt peeoloalih eanshive edt tect ed 
erotetedt wew bue eeotssiamuortio elt tebaw eidetiues bas thet 

dasbae teh tk tant Bae ,bebivorg webix sed ea Se gensh botsbtupts 

of se soeesatiw to yaoultass gaiteltto “.ott behuloexrq mood ton He cl 
to molsxseexe oad Adiw nolissaneo af sashbueleb yd suo biaq aye stom 
as vist 6 te abuim ead it titel tdwoh on od bivow steady" ,ousel ort 
® Yittoialo and of basdebai at tiabis'teb eds son Xo noxddonw of 
betetio inebhastel ,shem Saieq sat ai sitem on at exon antes oW 

oy aseé-biag bes ef epesal ear to seitusexs ent etoted tadd wosis ot 
oy ,suit of fa aoaimorg ant ait taneisa Bsw one tnenes temzot « 
texoxrd @ of O€8% bisq aH Jails j;senei eli To na iie tisenie eid atetde 
| yentotys sic ed GORY Slag Sas duaasi & ae TWitntetg gainiside tet 
“gatbuloxe oi ‘tte fon hib ftge0 set sxabas oF er ait qu weth of 
fesaues nascdiv axsianuace et saw oiect Laing ee a0 .20n9b ive aide 
an ,bas , agtutibasyxe eset to we ol Tet ate ke ¢edt r9tto oxid obsm 
eaeo & aaw doifw ,00& ,.qqA .{fl Boe varedootal vant mi biss 

ot tiuguoe ‘edasbie tom" ,eeso Sastenk ong of setostasto ad xeLimte 

bel youd boduoexe sew base. edt esis ono te decd Laird ent so svotq 


at eeataetq als goitshenset ot yenem to ome aldstebianos & than 3 


t 


‘to Sasoma oct ‘to aanebive Sebutoxe yitogoug ttsoa oath snolveaup 

sit tot eben stew aeiudibaogxe waosit taxol ou ,20%st Lbaoxs weeds 

fssigito edd msiw seee L rises toe mairicteae ane ena aareuese a. eaoqiug . 
Yos zot abhivoig elenerase Fon bib Lieess enney oui ud a gagaet 

ast esd Teite aoxhd bss qxe anos tat adnchuo tes of sasupetudnion 

*,do91 ysq ov seegel ost ¥, peadee ts, 

Baibfos ai berrs" gtwoo edt sect abaed neo tedid tt drahce tog | : 

iasifiortd eid asewied has yd soqu beetas eoyomab hotabtyptt. oud aast, 

~Zeaaed te ees edd bos " sageuse beisbiupil ton bis Ytleweg 4 aaa 
eeso tant wl bette ef (0eL a-Lil VaS ,ggsel 





eat rot ganeto ‘te. ys20 eds aisiw teats ne0 & otad bexotne “mieatace 


erection of a pumping station to supply water for the use of! its 
inhabitants and jor protection against fire; and it was held it 

was legal to provide in the contract that plainiiff would pay $50 

a day as liquidated damages between the time fixed for completing 
the work and the time of its actual completion, The court there 
further held that the word "liquidated" in such a contract does 

not always etermine the question whether the provision is for a 
penalty and not for dawages, and said (p. 139); “Where the ine 
tention of tne parties is in doubt the courts are inclined to con- 
strue the stipulated sum as a penalty, because the theory of the 
law generally is that compensation siall be the rule and the ap- 
plication of that rule works justice between tie parties. *** In 
order to determine whether a stipulated sum to be paid for the 
breach of a contract was intended to be a penalty or liquidated 
damages, the court will consider the language used and the subject 
Matter of tne contract to aseertain the intention of tne parties, 
The use of the word ‘liquidated’ does not always determine the 
question," Again, in discussing this question the court.fin Advance 
Amusement Co, v, Franke, 268 Ill, 579, said (p. 581): “As was said 
by this court in Gobble v, Linder, 76 I1l1., 157, no branch of the 
law is involved in more obscurity by contradictory decisions than 
whether a sum named in an agreement to secure performance will be 
treated as liquidated dawages or a penalty, and as eaci case must 
depend upon its own peculiar and attendant circumstances, general 
rules of law on this question are olten of little practical utility. 
While the intention of the parties on this question wust be taken 
into consideration, the language of the contract is not conclusive, 
The courts of this State, as well as in other jurisdictions, lean 
toward a construction which excludes the idea of lhauidated damaces 


and permits the parties to recover only damages actually sustained, 


*** This and all other courts seem to agree upon the principle that 























| abb to eax sue cet sedew yLoqua 6d Moltate ‘gallqniiy eto nottoste 
‘th bied aaw $2 ban yout tesisges solvoetoxg tol box ‘ddaed tdadad 
3 ss OVS Yee fakvow ttitakeiea: tet Pouttdod ont ul ehtverg ‘ot fegel saw 
gaidsiomep tot exit esif ash neewied eegemeh Setebivetr de Yas 
-prendd dos ef  .webdofomon Iextou aff ‘to émtd oft bes atow add 
ea00h tootinvs «£ owe ci "Hodebliuris® brow edt tavd died rerdast 
.@ “ot ef sotaivete edd vented’ moltesup otf3 ‘wntirs yep eyawls. tou 
fi Ost atau” :(@6L .q@) Biee bas ,aegdmeh sot tom hue “dLaneq 
~oe of beukiont et s¥tu0o ead Mueb at at soltzaq bA¥ to motdaes 
et Lo etoeds ons odusoad ,ytiense & 8a me bsteingise odd outta 
-qe sd¢ bos elut est of Lhese aottesnsquos tet al ¢ilsxdsey wel 
or cawtitog eit soewsed eotisut aitow ofut Yast tosoLtaditg — : 
eat wok hing od es mee beaatugria a todderw Snhitetes of tobto 
petebiuphl wo ydienng 2 od of Behiedat gaw doets noo a! ‘te ‘dowerd 
saatdae aid base heag eqengties edd Nobienes {iw truoo ort | agyemeb 


peotinag odt ‘to aoisaasaz oad nitsiitecee oF $éextaoo sid "te tettam 






‘esit ociners dos ayervis tem asob ‘hodahiep ee! frew ‘end TO seu “silt 
aptaviA natives edt soiveaup elit guisetos lh ‘nt sakegA” "snot taoue i 
at v.00 tne ' 





bias wey vA" 63 (080 1g) Bee , OVE ,ILT Bde, ox " 
odd ‘te donstd om TSE ,.iLT OY ,aehata ov siddod nk ‘geil sind ee. 7 
Nett anolalosh yrotetbettaeo vd yt iiseado ‘eromr al pevfovat ai wt 


ed (Ew Sonewtotieg orvoes of Fueeetys on KE bomen awe B seoddosdw 





r . 
i, 


tawa sexo cose 8 Hie Ue leuseg @ To @e ganas hotebtuple ee peres1s 
arene ,aoorstanmvetio Saehbaetiw baw aaa ia! tive diel seid aneocenl 





a stipulated sum will not be allowed as liquidated damages unless 
it may be fairly allowed as compensation for the brezeh, *** We 
have frequently said that courts will look to see tne nature and 
purpose of fixing the amount of damages to be paid, and ii it ape 
pears to have been inserted to secure the prompt perloruance of the 
agreement it will be treated as a penaity and no more than actual 
damages proved can be recovered," 

In the instant case we think the purpose of tixing in the 
rider the amount of damages, viz., $2,000, to be paid, was to secure 
prompt performance by plaintiff, the tenant, of the terus of the 
conus, It is expressly stated ‘in the rider that the 92,000 is 
deposited “as security for the perform: ances said Lessee of the 
covenants and agreements contained" in the lease and rider, 

Complaint ig also made that the court invaded the province 
of the jury. The record discloses that <fter the jury retired to 
consider of its verdict, it returned a verdict fi:iding the issues 
for plaintiff, fixing his damages at 2362. ‘he court then inquired 
of the jury ae to how it arrived st that figure, anc there was con- 
siderable discussion between the court and the foreman of the jury 
and also by counsel which clearly disclosed that the jury was cone 


fused by the figures, The court th- n sent the jury ba Ck and it ree 


Aor ay cme AEE TE ENN PLN PANE SAME ONT PS SANS AAP sem 


turned a verdict for $1488 wrich, as sbove stated, was made up of 


eahaticeas cnn ten he AI at iO EF eres MIRON A A Tt A ee 





pene semen ener tlD 


a ae ee ee 
the amount of the deposit less th 18 rent Yor May and. Jube ‘and oneehalf 
of the $164 defendant testified he had expended to put the previses 
in order after plaintiff vacated them on June 22, In the colloquy 
between the Judge and the foreman it developed that the jury, as 
above said, thought the $164 was too much, We think there was no 
such error as would warrant a reversal of the judguent, There was no 
dispute about the figures and the rent rewaining due and unpaid, amd 


the only question was as to the amount of the repair bill. 
The judgment of the Municipal Court of Chicago is affirmed, 


JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, 


MeSurely, P. J,, and Matchett, J,, concur, 


SS 


nao Lay aS guunh bodahiupli aa bewelle | od ton {Liw'mua fate sigotde” & 


ew wee wipgstd of tot aoiteensqsaos en bevolle yIsiast ad ven ‘fh 


Bos etusen ac? see ot dool Iftw atryeg taeudy Sise yltnoupett evad - 


age ot th foe ,bieq ef 03 ssyemeh To Sruyomm ot Anink? t6° saterte 
eit I¢ eonamtotisg tqmeug sa2 otysee of Sefasent seed evan oF atasg 
feydoz aact stom on bas usisnsg 2 es hatsord od ribw st themeetge 
“* bevsveost 80 aso fevorg eaegateh 
end at anixit to seoguvg eft Anids of eaeo tastent eds al. 

etvoea of sew ,hlaq ed of 006,88 , Riv ,seasieh “to tnwome ott téebix 
edt to exted oat ‘te ,Jogast ade ,'trivaiale yd sonemrotrey Fqmo®q 
al 900,84 exis tert ashie osit af hetate YLeeetoxe wt FI ,ebeeL 
giff ‘to seas. biae be i Me ene att tot “siixwose ae" petisoced 
tobix bas saci edd al “hontstapo efaeneetgs bas atasnevoo 

eontvotq Sit bebsvai tiv09 eid tadd eben oeie #Y thfefqmdd °° 
ef poritet yust sult rodts tend eenoloath proost ott  .ymit sit? "re 
aeuect ont eabhte deta a bootuter tf ,tofBbrey sy? to rebtadoo 
bertupnt sent givoo ent .Saed te aogensh eis snteit ,trbtaiare ‘to? 
eto aeWw otsit bas ,siwalt dedt ¢s hovivta tf wot of ne ytet sad ete 
urut odd to namexot ed bus dtudo onl nocwied wokeetoets efdatebia 
enon asw ytut edd tacd bosoloeth yFtse £6 dokww Leenues td oets fine 


=o7 si bas dosd GIst exit taes co att ftu00 edt .2otugit oct qa doeut 


marca very mem ay ee Ce OE eee mete” 


‘to au ebam asw ,betete avoda as _ Mo Bote &sare Tot tothveav e@ bartsyd_ 


re eS mat Rane nem a PI SY EE a eg erm 





oe 


‘tied-on0 bas odgt bre ye tot $08% ens aaor $laogeb oa 10 dabome odd 
avainexg ent dug of hobmeqne bert od hettivas? thabaetep Sore ‘He ‘to 
wupotios esd al .OS enwt mo wants potmocy tthtatate tedte tebte at 

ge ,Ytwi end sess bogoleveb th nemetot oft Bas eabut ast witli 


on asw stent aokdd OW dou oof naw bOrh ont ‘Feypont bina’ ‘svode 

on saw otecl. ,toemgbul sit to [eateyet & jasurew Sivow as “sorte dowe 

bas ,biagay bas 3ub gitaleast taet edt Bow setuytt ext twos etvcelb 

.. sikid tieget aad to taveme ett of 88 Baw notteen, Mee ould 
Cpomrdttta ak oyaotiO ‘te txK00 cchcacanee “add bid Paap cis So 7 


SaMAL SA TRIMOGUL pest : # % ne re i sik 
THONGS. ¢ ob 5 Feed Bam, 8 9 aden 


40351 


RICHARD ALLAN DILLMAN, a Minor, 
by WILLIS E, DILLMAN, his Father 
and next Friend, 





Appellant, 


APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR COURT 


vs, 
OF COOK COUNTY. 


299 1.4. 623° 


wR, JUSTICE O'CONNOR DELIVSRED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 


CONSUMERS SALLITARY COFFEE & 
BUTTER STORES, a Corporation, 
Appellee, 


eee ee ee eee ee 


Plaintiff, a child three and a half years old, brought suit 
by his father and next friend against defendant to recover damages 
for personal injuries claimed to nave resulted througn the negli- 
gence of defendant in setting fire to waste paper in the rear of 
its grocery store, as a result of which the paper blew against 
plaintiff and he was severely-burned, There was a jury trial and 


at the close o!t all the evidence the courtfinetructed a a verdict lor 


sm Fain nl ithe acan eH = - ee Ce ee 


defendant, judi; ment was entered on the verdict and plaintirr appeals, 


_ aahheied TDPRI R ATR nS a een 
etn tet nr ttn San Oe ee 
Net 


The record discloses defendant conducted a grocery store on 
the west side of Stony Island avenue 35 feet south of 82nd street, 
Chicago, The store was one story high and had a frontaze of 48 feet 
and a depth of 70 feet. The lot was 129 feet-in depth extending 
from Stony Island avenue to an alley, ‘the rear part oi the lot ex- 
tending from the store to the alley, 59 feet, was vacant, lear the 
south part of the vacant space sand about 30 or 35 teet west oi the 
store there was an incinerator made of 1our posts driven in the 
ground, about four feet high; around these jour posts was a wegh 
wire extending from the ground to the top, out tor some time prior 
to the accident, April 7, 1934, the wire had broken dow so that it 
was only about one an’ a half to two feet above the Ground; ashes 
and refuse had accumulated in the incinerator, From time to time 
defendant took various kinds of waste paper and refuse lrom the 


store and burned it in the incinerator, Some of this was heavy 





. voneint pope Pt 
ie ya iaeliogga — ETS > a rae 
x erJ0u HOLARGUE MORE TABS. 
an ev i i ; SE OWT ie 


® @MeIOO YHarivae eHamvenoo 
,8elterogtos 4 BEAOTS Amara 
os LLeaya & “ae 


- -¥THUOD 4E0O Fo 


Te arees 


02000 HEY BO AOTMIGO BEY GanaVIuE oe Hil 


Pie Sb 4 


ee 
<< 
i] 


five teiguoxd bio atasy Led ‘ ane sets er) & Mugatest . 
ne end 


asgemeh Taveost od dab aa tb taniege boots’ $xen bas apuitet ots ree. 
BT ote 


-iigen edt dygotais bes Luass eves oe pombe Lo ae tesfok fengeres, to i 
‘Lo tees giit ait t9Geq ornare at one ankeeee at dg o9tob, ‘te eons 
there: 

tanteas weld r9as@ erg dokde ‘te iueon 8 88 erode sp00%3 ‘ht 


“fom isias act ‘8 gaw ores’ ebonrusd vlereves. sew ox bas “Udabate 


<0 gokbxev a bod onttanl a0 act eonebive ent fle 29, eric edt ts 


eh AO ANE NN CN pe Oy ee es 1 At TLIO PACA Ba aii 


‘9 Lesque ttitoisiq baa soibsev said 20 horetas ape taemyhut. danke 


2 ARDS ST ces hei Ee ee k 





a sie 
ey 


= HO: ptore erecatg & hedoubsoo tah as ted asaoleats brevet eat sae te ; 
, iv NG ote s 


i aents pa te sdwor soot 3& outiove bas fer nose to obits oitttal + ; 
a soot ab ‘te ayodnor't a bast bas dgis Yxode al oxosa oot ‘ 0380 tio - 
: ss 8 SS a 

—_ gaibaeaxe at qae ak seat esl aaw tol owt stoet or to seb a a -¢ 


6 Weed v2 DeU 

: = tor oni ‘ro rea see% oat “Wetts me od eeceva omelet viet mer? 
2 4! AIO é 

ext. cael stasoov saw , eet 86 eeeite gad - of erode eit, ae 


he iy 


ons. ‘to ieew iee't as to 08 Suoda bas seuga tnaoay at 30, 















oy si F 





ould ah: ney tb stood Kans to obam Tees amt 


| “pow & env eteog iso k coo bawoxe syed ave 


**, 


rolee outs emioe 101 tod 908 husk ot Sauer | oat 


2 


waxed paper and some of it cardboard, 

fhere was a one story building adjoining detendant's grocery 
store on tue north extending 35 feet to S2nd street and apparently 
to the alley on the west; a grocery store extended west irom stony 
island avenue 55 feet and in the rear of it was an apartment, next 
a@ barber shop and then another apartwent, all one story in height 
and each naving a frontage on 82nd street of 25 feet. Plaintiff 
lived with his paremte in the apartment near the alley; in the 25 
feet immediately east of the apartuent plaintiif's father conducted 
a@ barber shop; back of the apartment and tie berber siop was a 
space about 6 feet in width iouediateiy: north oi and adjoining the 
vacant property in the rear of defendant's store, but tiere was no 
lence, 

The evidence slows tiuat shortly veiore the accident, about 
1:30 p. m., April 7, 1954, plaintdit was playing wito a sind pucket 
and a shovel in the space in the rear oi tue apartment where he 
lived wits his parents. there is also evidence that an employee 
of delendant took some papers irom the store, threw thew in the 
incinerator :nd set jire to them; that tnuere was some wind lrom the 
south as well as that created by tne burning papers, causing the 
papers to biow toward the north, and a piece oi the paper wrapped 
around plaintitf's left leg and severely burned him, The distance 
vetween the incinerator and the rear oi pliaintili's nome was about 
50 leet. 

there is substantially no dispute as to the facts above 
stated and the only substantial contlict in the evidence is as to 
whether plaintiif went to the incinerator, pulled out some of the 
burning paper, a piece of which blew around His leg causing him 
to run back to nis home, or whether the paper was blown irom the 


incinerator and came in contact with plaintiilf's leg while he was 


on tne lot on woich was the apartment where he lived, 





bln Sadie 


es e'doehne lob guiniothse emth cine guct a: Bite, & aut roan 


Uldkereqae bas ¢eeite baS@ of teat a8 gulbuntxe idtom sid ito eat 
| a * 
qnore mort Jeew bebaeixe etote yreooty a ;taew ssid my yells ens ot 7 


txeon ,tasadtege.ns as $i to tex edt ab bate geet ee eine ve bas tel 


: 

ra e “ cyte, Gs 7 

iq ss dlgted at ywota aa Lie ¢ staeastega sould ors err bas qoue xodaad ry 
PY as ; 

t ‘“rttsnisiG teat as ‘to gooute £aS5 no Sgstaott « ankin 1989 bas 


#& eds. ni jysiie ett teen ¢asoitaqe BAS ni dinetsq eid ag de- bovit 
besoubnos tessa a! ttitatele smeutiteqs est To dase Yleret bent test 


& sew eee eine ens brie jnentus gs ode ‘ta deed iqoua, tedtsd a | 
/ he 7 R Pe Wal 
edt aaispotin bas ‘to aston (Lorex bound aspiw sit joa’ @ toda eoege 


oh KOS ae 


on aew ovens dud were a! tuebis teb to 189't vigil at vite qorq fueoev 






5 
5 
i 


: 


nn im Bs 08 
. ,oonet 
te veepesg adi | 
_ tnedas. (iaebiooe nr eteted yittoda tent ‘aweiia sonsbive oat pied f 
a «(ME emp | m Poy i 
t bes ata A, 2 ~S i 
“tedious ‘page s ajiw gaiyelg asw tresnbe ta AECL av tag .oat +e 8:t - 
6 a 
: oa etedy Jhomisqe ead to Teot ant rik. ‘soage rc ak fovoria a bas. - 
eal ss bed i bed tat 7 
: - 


i 7 ae seyoicwe ae jas eonabive ceia ai erent aago0rs¢ ata btw bovit-" - 


edt at noel woud Stode ent sexe aveqeg. emiog Moot faabue rob to 





$ t6ae ot ty - 
ons mort palw 9n08 BSW otsait dade jm od ont ros ba toteteatont 
$4 7 Bie Gade :G Agi : 
: ads “gnieuao (8t0Geq, yaimeud exis ve posaero tasit aa tow ae Anes ao 
_ ngs ay 


beqasx¥ tsgsaq edt to sosig « bite ia208 ou pxawod word of by —_ 
‘ © ib —_ 
_ 












i  apteaaclneg 9af mee eeanee yiexevea bas Lo fe. aoe on 


eveda avant ent od es etenls on 5 viiatdaasedue at erent ‘ 


sd aes sie sonebive ais at $oiitn09 tetinate due ino ent bas 


ous za oun two betting fosatentouk ud ‘ot ta9% 


ans ee e? 


ez aniaueo get ais bavots wold wo kai to et J 
. ais wor awe Ld gH t9qeq. ous sesigoutw 10 ono el 


Hm: re ie 

eat en 9 Liaw gol a wiisulese id jiataee, a 
HY, 2a RE Bk k 

bovis on ‘exsdw ‘saomssegs odd 





Plaintiii's sosition is that the evidence is to the eltect 
that detendant on prior occasions had burned the same xind of paper 
in the incinerator, "and because of the dratt caused by the heat 
from the combustion and because oi the wind, the burning papers 
had been biown about the neignbornood"; that when plaintiif was 
last seen, a few minutes belore the accident, he "was playing with 
his toys on sis own lot in back of the building where he lived"; 
that "The difference between the plaintill and the deiendant appare 
ently hinges upon one single question of fact, namely, was the 
plaintili at the time olf the accident on the premises of the de~ 
fendant, or was he in his own back yaed.3 

Detendant's position is tiuat plaintilil went over to the 
incinerator, pulled out a piece oi the burning paper, or that it 
came in contuct with his leg, and tnat he was Jlirst seen about 6 or 
8 feet from the incinerator monty toward nis rome, with burning 
paper around ore ol his legs; that "There is no duty owed to a child 
et any age who is a trespasser on private property other than not to 
Maliciously injure him. There is no contention in this complaint 
that the defendant set a trap, or otherwise maliciously injured the 
Plaintil?, thereiore the only questions in the case are whether 
or not the delendant was negli-ent, and whether such negli.ence, ii 
any, made any difierence in the instant case;" tnuat there is not a 
wecintilla of evidence "that the wind blew burning paper out of the 

¢ 
receptacle, and caused it to come in contact with the cuild's 
clothing, *** It nowhere appears that the cuild was to the windward 
of the incinerator when the burning paper came in contact with his 
legs, *** that the theory of plaintiff is that tne defendant was 
negligent in maintaining an unjuarded iire where it must have known 
that burning embers might be carried irom the iire to the plaintiff, 


and that defendant was negligent in failing to maintain any guard 


or protection around the tire to keep it irom being blown by the 








ie 


goo tis exit oF Bf sone bive any tott ak aeitlaog e'Tiksate£t 

tSae a 6 botx ease oid heated Bad emoleweoc woing a0 Snebae'teh tadt 
teed est yd boeuso Stertb esd te sevegosd bas" ,rotetentoni ext sat 
ST9ge2gd gusatud ons phakw ouF Le -saueoed bas soiteudmes ost ‘mott 
agw titsalel@¢ nedw sact ;"*beocsodngien esis diode awodd need bes 
dtiw gubjelq ¢aw" of ,dugiioos any avpted estunin wetos ,asea seal 
i*bevil od @tedw gaiblind adt to Aged ab sol awo eid ao ayot eas 
-taqge tasiseteh oar bas Riftaieio s#dg nvavded egnere tt ib edt” gadt 
edd gew ,vlensa ,toet ‘ie moiteswo afygaie ono nbuhhianba Yidde 
~#h eit ‘to agaimaig edd ae t¢ashioosa o2- ‘to omit edtite VWhitatedq 
“‘ busy Moad awo abd al ext eawiiotaabaet 

elt ag Ante tiew Piltated deat ef aoitieog e'snshbag ted 
sti send 46 ,tHGeg gators Sad ie e9e@ig Ss THO ba fing , totasontont 
go @ duods asea farit edw es deat base ygei eduoddiw vectaco at omeo 
gsinted atin +9a0d aia haswod griiaast tofateniont aatd ,aaorr’t feet 8 


bListio 2 Gs bewo vsub an ot stent % Saat ;agel eéc to oa0 ‘bawote LHGST 


‘of otor ment todse ytreqeta steritg nO Meesscastt 2s af edw.sge ys to 


Jalsiqgues eidtd ut netiassaco-om ef sted? said evutal yleveiol fem 
eit Setutal yisvotoiiam seiwtedio to, qatt 2 $98 tisdae téeb ant teds 
i Sedteuww-eta saso ody ak gnoldaaup gine sis orolersdd, tridatetg 
td ,sonsyliges sowe tedtgedw has", Jaegiigen asw fishse'teh edt ton to 
# don al eteds tend ";ees9 tasteai edd al vonete Tt iS yas obest , yas ; 
sit ‘to tuo s908¢ waked weld lbabw eds jadt" eocebive te oLfttatse 
a! bidsdo ag adiw Joataoe ah “eiteo ot $i heasneo sda , oLoatqsoet 
biswhalwesat ot gew bilso eah dads e1z9dqs oreiwom ot eee gatdsoto 
abs atiw soataoo at eueo taqeq gai wend edt aoc ‘tovsrentont | “eit “bo 
\@aw taabas teh aad secs ei tThisaltale To Laid sets ah nme jaget 
awonal -oved van o£ otesiw otht Bobtewgaw ne paksied atom ab, troatigen 
(Mitnietgentuds ectivedd wot! hePrass sd tay ko BL9di09 saoune dane 
biasa Yas mi gbctas oc anh Ste E: tk sang biges ae selereracan ieee Decsamall pte 
edt yd awoid sgaiedmott St. gent set: a0kt ot bases nottoosora ‘to 


wind nbout the neichhorhood"; that this theory "woul? be 911 right 
if it was shown that the voy *** was rightfully on the vrenises of 
defendant, or that the burning paper was blown from defendant's 
premises orto the premises occupied by the child's father, *** The 
law in this state is that a child trespasser is owed no crecter or 
different duty thar en adult. The only exception is in fevor of 
children who are attracted upon the premises by something wiich is 
intrinsicoslly alluring ond which actually attrscte ther to the 
premises,” And that counsel for plaintiff on the triel expressly 
stated, *I don't claim, your Honor, thet that is an attraetive 
nuisance," | : 

Plaintiff called two witnesses who first saw olaintiff after 
the turning pavers came in contact with his legs. These two boys 
were vlaying ball in the vacant premises immediately south of the 
vacant espace behind defendant's store, They were Leonard Jacobsen, 
15 years old, and his brother Willis, 21, Leonard testified that 
he heard the child scream, turned, and saw him about 15 feet from 
the fire running from the incinerator toward his home. dis brotner 
Willis gave testiuony to the same effect excent he said the child 
was from 6 to 8 feet from the incinerator. 

The comolaint charged that nplaintifl was on his own premises 
when the burning papers came in contact with his legs, There is no 
allegation that would bring the case within the attractive nuisance 
doctrine and, as stated, couksel tor olaintiff on the trisl exe 
pressly repudiated any such contention 2nd takes the same nosition 
in this court, 

We think the evidence #11 shews plaintiff! was on defendant's 
premises near the ivecueeates at the time the paper came in contact 
with his legs, ani the court did not err in directing a verdict 


eee eee 
In this State the law, as we understand it, is that infants 





er re ee on aie 





stindiieteeentdanmaamaaiedioaaaed 


have no greater right to go upon another's property than adults 


except where tne doctrine of attractive nuisance applies, mcDermott 


tegis {Le od Sivow" ytoedt atdd tect ;"hoodteddetan est tuods batw 


to esetmet¢ ont no yiisttidg is eaaw #** yor ett gtedt oworle aew ti ti 


Sr Sp 


a’sasbustsh mett awold sew teqse gniniad edd tent 10 ,tasbae'teb 
ect ¥*“**  tedtealt e'Altino sat yd heiguocg Bee imetq and ofno aoe imexe 


to tefaaty on bewo at tosecqeett Sfinn 2 teddy at etate aids ot wel 


‘te tovet af ef motiqeoxea eiao edt .tiubs as sadt ytub tnere'tt LB 
ak dokiw anid¢temoa yd asaieoata ect nequ hetoettic sia oriw aexbiide 
edt of mod? atoattis ‘etiautes Sfoldw bae ualtotls viteolaningat 
i yleestgqxs Istr} ast no Thitutele tot Leanwoo teddy BRA " ,aeatmorg 
t Syiteettie ae ei sant ted? ,tonmot any aialo ¢'aoh I* .betata 
| . ” conse tun 
| mavte ttitniatc wee favit ow seaventiw owt belies ttitatelt | 
evod ows esas! angel ait cdfiiw tesiaoo mi emes exeqne antwced end 
ent ‘ro it woe vleteibeur? seatosra tamosv edt ak Ifed baiveta exew 
_naadoosl btenosi stew yaa .otote altnehaetebh baised sosce tnsoey 
feds heittiacs bused oe BEI LI tendtord eid bas bLo are9y af 
mot't soot 2f tueds ain wee bac bemths BS TOR bitte ect Bised om 
<edtord els ,omoi ald brerot tofatenioni ens siott gator ati edd 
bisa edd bien an gesoxe soetts cman’ pat os vnouwtsaeas 8VSR eisiie 
toterentont ext mot teet 8 of 8 mort asy 
eseinste myo ald oe aay ytidnie to tans begrado tate Lemos eat | 
om ef oxen? aye l ata diiw doaditos Ai smsgo aroger yabotud ais ne dw 
gsonseaiun avitoattte and oidtiw oaso edt yaitd bisow dads nottaadtia 
exo falxt ect no ttttaiele tot feeauoo .botada as baa antttoob 
moiiteog Smaee edt aenet base nottuedsos tig ine Klass betaibuges ‘yileeeta 
dred atid ni 
gitnshuetsh x0 8a% Piitntalg aware ‘ifa eoashtve ont sabia ow 
Soatnos at amen seqeq odd *omtd oat On rotetantont osit Ts0n ‘toelnong 
Sokbter' a gittootih ni 11a ‘gos Bib sxug0d ent bas weet ry std kw 
(aateemmemeattnente ter tC A RT ers B 


a@tustat dads ef ,tt busterebos ewas ,wel edt otata ‘ake ey is 


aviubs madd vitecotq e'1adéons sogs o8 of odaig ls, ‘gedsoTm on ovasi 


fi 4 aie it aed LF FAW EA APSR PIRG Ke 
ee - We Vn la Ge Pn a hee Lede oe we EES ns ce cs et ela a ec ae, 








Ne ee ae Ne 


v, Burke, 256 Llil., 401; Matijevich v. Dolese & thepsr@ Co., 261 
Ill. App. 496, Hut some autnorities held that a child seven yeara 
oid is incavsbie of being 2 trespasser in the eyes ci the law, 
Section 1049, 1 Thompson on Negligence, where the author cites 


Dublin Cotton Vil Co. v¥. Jarrard, 40 S. W,. 531, affirmed 91 ‘ex. 











289, ‘46 5. 4. 959. thar ire sug. as the ons in tue instant 


case Would be lixely to attract pleintiif, see Sneciit v, Yutervury 


es eS ten 


Co., 127 i.¥.3. 137; Union Pacifie Ry. Co, v. KeDonald, 152 U, 3s. 
230; Ross et ux. v. Vnester Traction Co., 7% Atl, (Pa.) 133; 


Piraccini v, Director General of Railroads et al., 112 Atl. (H.J.) 


Sli; varr v, southern Pennsylvanie Traction Co., 253 Pa, 274; Kavat 


v. Biedronski, 2748 Ill, App., 623, (abst. ) 


2 i 
a 


the doctrine of atevaativs nuisance was ee the saoieiele 


AOE AAI wa Sea nike Ra) poe ae RAN Raney Ne 


oi the Superior court of “Cook euske is beet iba: 


nth ecicneeramennnn ere ree 
“JUDGMENT AFFI Sv ED, 


McSurely, P. J., concurs, 


Matchett, J. dissents: I agree the evidence indicates the injured 
child was on defendant's sremises when 
injured; but notwithstanding I think there 
was a question of fact for the jury. The 
burning of inflammable paper and refuse 
as disclosed by the evidence was inherently 
dangerous, ‘he question of whose prenises 
plaintiff (a child three years 014) wae on 
when injured is not material, 


PX me IE NERS I ah nn PEA ts gg oe 


es 


Sa 
“> 


eee 


£a8 ,.90 bisgendi _8 saad fod .v sotvelitad ;f0b ,.1i1 8@8 jeatwd ov 


REBBY, aeyss bLido & Sasd bigs eis iredsue BLOB “tut 38h <qga Lit 





1 wal eit to asye edit pe UHABAGQesws 4 pitted te 9idaqedah ‘at Bio 
aesvis tottus sd stsciw ,wonsgif[ysk wn sow questl £ (ebOL cateean 


| oxet [@ boaritie ,f88 .¥ .6 Ob ,bxsiust .+ .0D Lio od) 0d a Ld gt 


- a x + ey, y = ry ; my 
tustant edt at ooo ect ee Cowe eatst w tact .@ae@ .W 4a Sd, CBS 





yo 


i yasiueia! .v dioacG eer ,Titniels gesattie of yleail ed binow @eao 


Fa mee 


i wi .U SOL ,bismoGoW v.09 .vk ottiosd meinl ;vel .o.Y, i nk: 
| ;66L (,o%) £4 EY ,.90 sotsoart ' megaedy Yuku $8 e508 j 
(.b.0) wth SLE , dg de ebeorsia ‘to Laasus) tofosxid i hutasdies 
NY oi 





| geded ;aVS .2% ECS ..00 neidosss stuavivenned os 


ee 


(.tads)}) ,688 ,.qqA fit aye dienosbeid ¥ 


H ‘ 
_ seit XE ag io do bated hme. tiauord ow Read i gatved paso oat” ics 


i ee ee es 





serraent aut yairomineae- ar aav Sanaa txp aviteettis ‘to eaiadsoh edt 


“7a bean itis et Eytan, ‘Moos to dtyeo roltequa ei ‘te 


a iegjenevicastanetafcaeiumumnpareeanaantamnad selesceliaiela ston naan innamomntiinddIt S PE 
TEMA T ERA “Waar ut 


I = ; atuonoo , ab t (Ylerueoll 


hetutal sai aeteoifai sonebive oid eexas i iagseraib .t iiedotal 
ned® aeaivexd s'iorboe'teb at saw bLise “ine 84 


! atads Anicit I gnthnatedtivien gud ;beautat 
| ext  sotet- scdt re? font ko ok fe exip eo Bar 
eextss bue teesq alidammaltni to anicatud 
ylineradnl sew eocebive edt yd hesolorib es 
soaliusiq gaodw to ceiteenp edi .ewotegoed 
nc wsw (blo eresy seudd bLtvo we) Vikdadelg.).. Sore brleenel 
| fetwatam ton ei oiraait aeole 


a | ey 
l 
‘ x avg 
4 
x " BAT) & wy 
a] a e 
ve 

; ‘ gate 195 

Ue, Oy ST aR, ea eee ee AR aie 


40379 
40563 : 
P & Z 
C- f 
BRENDA HOLTER, : : / 


Appellee 
: APPEAL FROM SUPURIOR COURT 


ves 
_< » regs iy MOTTR ry 
OF COOK COUNTY, 


9991.4. 623° 


MR. JUSTICE O'CONNOR DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 


FORREST WEBB HOLTER, 
Appellant, 


ue ee es ee 


April 13, 1938, plaintiff filed her verilied complaint lor 
@ divorce charging her husband with adultery. ine complaint cone 
satned the ordinary allegations as to the marriage, etc.; that there 
were two children; that defendant was earning about @70U a month; 
that ne threatened to dispose olf his property, stocks and bonds 
and leave the State of Illinois. She preyed ior a divorce, that he 
be enjoined from disposing 901 or encumbering his property and from 
interfering with ner, and that a writ oi ne exeat renublica issue 
to prevent Sim trom leaving the jurisdiction oi the court, 

April 20 Vollowing she Viled her verivied petition praying 
Yor temporary alimony and support jor aerseli and the two minor 
children, snd again for a writ ol ne exeat republica, Un the same 
day ean order was entered which recites that defendant nad been 
served with notice and appeared in court with his counsel; it was 
ordered tiat he be given five cays to answer tne petition and tne 
Matter was set lor April 27; that ne pay $25 a week alimony and 
that he be enjoined from vehttue shone, bonds, etc, May 27 an 
order was entered on motion of plaintiff that a writ of ne exeat 
issue lorthwith upon plaintiff diling a bond of $200 without surety; 
the bond of defendant was fixed at $1500 and the writ issued. 
anotuer order appears in the record entered way 27, in woicn it is 
recited that on motion of solicitor ior plaintiff and after the 


writ of ne exeat had been served by the sheriff and defendant 


| taken initio Custody, defendant appeared in open court under the 


evEOs 





 8aa02 
aero Acriiaat 
polis f 
THUOD ROIKIEUP WOAT LA WETA ( . aga 
4 thi 5 SBR 
.¥TRUOD AOD TW ( 
,ALTGOH AGaW, TemRAOE: 


es : | rae EESaaA 
| Eso AL eee awe 
efAVOO GH? TO *OFaLgo ae CEATVI La OWNS O eirauy a 


tot ¢aislgmoo bsttitev ted boLe't Ttisatalg ,BeeL SL Liaga 
“foo talelgmoo off .gtedinbsa diiw basdaud red yatgredo sotorhb 8.) 
| gtedt dead ;,o¢0 ,sgaiviam act as a8 anoliagetle aaathse ont, bo nted © 
sHsnom se VUSE Suodse gaiatas saw tusboeteb tert pmoth Lisle ow! Stow, » 

ebaod Sas exoote ,yireqorg ali ‘Io eeuqels of boneteonmd oo tacit 


oc gadds ,sot0vih « tot beysrg oAG ehoud fit ‘ta sdadG ent oveo£ brie.) 





Mott bos yIusqergqg ela gaixredmpene to te gntaoqa ih wort baakogme ed. 
oveni soiidsgex gsexo ga to Siuw a Jad base ,wer nein gnite'tredmd - 
efruoo sag ‘Ye noitoibeltut ont guiveel mort wet & tneverq of 


guiyerq meiditeq bebiivevy wed befit ete gatwelfol O8 Litqh 





sonim owl oid bee ‘tisaved tot trogqua bas ynomile yreatogeed tot 
aise oft oO wep itduges Jsexe $2 te ¢iiw » tot atege bas ,methttdo.. 
Ted bat jasbae ted taad aodtoe. to Eel bier asw tebto as yeh 
sew $k ; Leeasoo ae asiw F1LUOD itd bare gq 6 thas soltdon ‘dtiw beviee 
Shs OMe. noid iveq ‘odd re wa tu og acer" ovit ney ty ed aa salt botebto 
base eaeak ia aeow & ee yaq wei tits 88 dieqa toi dea asw tedtan, 

aa VS youl ode. abtiod horde inlay anot t pentotme od oui stadt 
jsoxe om ‘to sixtw # gang Tiitatalg to settom ao bexesae aaw tebio. 
-ygerua Tuodsiw CORE to baod w gaits tlitsiels mnogu déiwddcot eveal 
bousal sixw edd bas OOGLE da bexit saw gashasteh To hood ems 

ai ¢i noidw ai VS ye bovetae Htosex ois mi ers9eqqs tebto rend oma 
aus vais bas ttituiece tot se¢ieifoa to noitow mo desis hbethoot 


fnabaoteh bas Ititede eat yd heviee oeed bar saoxe bd to tbat I 





a Sn Jie i vials TS os I Ri 5 hs ad 


ee 


he 
custody of the sheriff; plsintiff and defendant were sworn and/tes- 


tified that he was unable to give bond for $1500; it was ordered and 
decreed that he be kept in custody oi the sherifi and delivered to 
the warden of the Cook county jail. Jume 22 there apvears in the 
record the written appearance oi defendant by his counsel. June 

22 the case was heard belore the court, witnessé¢s sworn, and de- 
fendant was defaulted for want of answer. A decree was entered the 
next day; it recites that delendant had due notice of the pendency 
of the suit, Plaintil! was awarded a divorce, solicitor's fees ard 
Seaneng and it was further decreed tiat the writ ol ne exeat 
republica be continued in full force and ’eitfect. 


July 15 following the entry of the decree defendant moved 


\to vacate the order of default, the decree and all eubsequent orders, 


and to dismiss the suit because it was vexatious in that a lormer 
suit was pending between the parties in the Circuit court of Cook 
county, brought by volaintiff against defendant ior a divorcee; and 
the motion further states that deferdant had filed a crossebill in 
that suit. Defendant did not tile or offer to file an answer in the 
instant case, ‘The motion was taken under advisement and on July 21 


it was overruled, It is trom this order tiat defendant prosecutes 
aa ha 


et ee 





ne ee ee en ED eed OO iD RRO URNA NE 
— sontee ~ Seanad ietenniiameedietoc ee 


the meer number ee 


ae 


galy_ 20 ‘defendant toved to quash the writ of ne exeat re- 


publica and to dismiss the compl Laint; the next day the meter vas 


Pe ara A en rai hac aatectniacal 


overruled and defendant fas appeaied to this court, number 40379, 


rane 


eer te ere IT TO IEE 


Defendant contends that the writ oi ne exeat should not have 
issued and that his motion to quash should have been sustained, We 
think there is no merit in this contention, In the complaint, after 
stating the cause for divorce, it is allewed that defendant haa 
threatened to dispose of all of nis property and leave the State 


and that plaintiff believed he would carry out this intention, On 


the hearing of the divorce suit plaintiff testified, “He told me if 





: Relay 
: sua ebiae imowa otaw dushae'teh baa Ttituislq ;ttitesde att te chorea: 


- bare hbwebto aaw fk ;O00G LS tot Bood avis oF eidanw asw on dads boitte 
of beteviltsh brs Tiiqers sai ‘to yhoseno al seed od) oti tess pecans : 
aNd as atasqqs stedds S&S sant fist vintwon xo90 sit to nesbtew ant 7 
oo. gant .Seanveos aid yd gashas'teh to sonstseges aest btw Sat Broset —_ 


90h bas ,atowa a¢esentiw ,tivoo ext etoted breed aaw ease exit se 








i end be 1938 aaw egies) A ,tevaas lo jaar tot hed (usted enw tnsbast : 

; youshaeg sdJ to soizoa axvb bac tushus'teh tact aetioe: tt ead ¢xon 

if bas 95st a’totisticoa ,sotovib « bebiewe esw TtitalalL) -,diue sit to 

| ss pees ga to oktw edt tent bestosh teilttut saw tt bas ‘stombLs ; 

i 4 mies ; .teotts ae gorot Livt ab beawnittaos od aolidutes 
 bovem fawbuets5 seroeb oft te vidas ond gautwoliot SL g int. wrow hood 

~aTebto sodupsedue La bas eetoeh evly , tive teb To ‘tebie ests staoavot | 


| 


Fe ¥090 %4 txuo0o siiortD eff ot aotice ont Moswted gathneq enw tien! \ 


tonts't s tedd at auoliexev aaw t]- saus0ed loa ont’ ‘mae biwe hh ‘et bis 


i hae ;serovib « Tot Tashi ‘tab geniege Ytidnielo yd tegnerd |, etavos 
al [ff@-aaors 2 balit bad snsbieted sad estate rehetut nottom ext 














edt nt tewans o@ OLft oF tSTto to oLkt tom HED taabacte® itive tect 


| £8 ¥Lful a0 bre taeusaivbs rebay codst aaw nottom owt  ,9e20 tapteat | 










“Betuoseota tinebits teh dere aebte eist mort et FT peluriévo sew tl 
| eenneieitnidilinaiemmmmminantee enn fi 


nnn, 





NENT ELLE LEED LL LLL LOA LT ene MEMS TR NRT MDF 


. a: \ Ite ft 8080) tediwva Leeqqe edt | 


WRT my, sates eateesammatial a elena 


j 4 reemenreinetseeinanens! 
St taexo an to siaw end sigeup ery bevou Sasbas'teb “os ven" Ae Prat can 


RD ie a 


mite > amin 


ecneiient mn eeersecmmernaon ” 


| sGVEOR todmusrt \ovey'9 nists rm i MpLaosas + aac | sprite to rer ———- 
eyed ton biuoda gegee on Yd dIXw edt tedd whavdiios “diehdeted 99 
av sactemtbacis aesd evad bilicode Beoup oF abitom ae 
aotts «dike Lqatoo ed} at dotdiastrtos attd at Prem da’ 


I went ahead with this action he would leave the State, take all @ 
his personal property away and leave me without any suvport whatever, * 

As stated, defendant filed no answer to the complaint nor 
to the petition for a writ (both of vhich were verified) ani has 
not submitted any defense at any time either to the petition or to 

he complaint, 

We think there is no merit in defendant's contention that 
his motion to dismiss the suit should have been sustained because 
another action was pending in the Circuit court, While the record 
in the appeal prosecuted by defendant frou the dismissal of the 
Circuit court suit, as hereinafter mentioned, is not a part of the 
record in the two appeals belore us, yet we have examined it and 
find that the complaint in that case was tiled March 31, 1937, and 
charged defendant with habitual drunkenness, He did not answer 
that complaint until after the institution of the suit before us, 
viz., April 13, 1938, in which he was charged with adultery and 
drunkenness, and the adultery was allesed to have taken place 
April 12, 1933, more than a year after the Circuit court suit was 
filed; and apparently the reason no answer was tiled to the suit 
in the Circuit court was, as stated by counsel for plaintiff, that 
there had been a reconciliation. It was not until about twelve days 
after plaintiff had tiled her suit for divorce in the instent case 
that defendant riled his answer to the suit in the Circuit court, 
After filing his answer in that suit he iiled a cross-bill in the 
Circuit court April 26, 1934, praying tor a divorce, Two days 
therealter counsel for piaintif!, pursuant to notice, moved the 
Circuit court to dismiss the divorce suit without prejudice, The 
Matter was continued from time to time and the motion was allowed 
October 18, the order recites that defendant's answer and cross- 


bill in the Circuit court proceeding were tiled without leave of 


court. Another appeal was prosecuted from that order to this court, 











h 
\ 


ge 


w Lis oist, .ocetB oct eveetL biyow od mottos abst stiw pects taswt. 


* teveisie dtocqus yas duodtin em ovsel bas yews ytasgote Lenosteg eid 


ten taislques sds of .z9uade on beiit dnebae'teb..,.dstada aA in eete sp oy fs 
aed bas (beltitev etow dokay to déed) tiaw 2 c0't mottiteq,sat. of. 
ot go aAolsi¢eq add of t3entie emis yne te ganeteh yoe bettindya..doa. 
tal aLotoa, eld 
test aciinetucs s'tagbaoteh .«é thasm oo 2d otadd cloitds OW 6 yh ent 
esusosd bontsiaxva aged aeved bluode ikus edi aaioath ot aoltom 24d. 
broses ont olin. ,ftyoa divetlo add al gaioueg eew nolies sediens 
af? to fesalimeih salt sot paebae teh yd hbatusseotq facqas edt ab, 
eit te gasq s tom ai ,hecelioga ted tealhezed o6.,3iua,.dtu0o giveth 
bao t2 bonimaxe sved ow vet ,au ete'ted eleegga ond ect at broset 
hae ,NSGL sé stots 047) ean sage sadt ab gobeiqueas odd dads yhal hs 
gowate ton bIh cH ,seganednwth Lfautidad dtiw toebus tah hognedo,, 
eau erGted tiua sat to aeitutitesl sas vette, dita tatelqnestedd- 
bee eeatinbe si¢iw beatesde eey ed sioddw ak ,BSCL SL Lbaqd postive 
soaiq neded syst of boyelis saw yretiuhs ed? See ,seennedavth : 
_@sw tina duvoa t¢iwothd ad? todte resy eo medt onom ,880L ,S1 Sian, 
dtye sad od balrt eaw tewane ca aoaset ont ylinenecqs,bas phellt) 
fase ,Tihintelg ret fesnves y¢.botsie @8) ,2av trig .dhuendd odd nsth) 
eysh sviowt tuods Litou ton saw #1 .molteltioagset a.aeed had exodt 
ease taateni ent ai sotevib.tel give ton hoailt.bed ttitaiealg tetts 
.tuuo9, tivoth® eat ak thus ec¢-ot towers aid beLlit Jashbagioh dadt- 
edt af {ftd-eeote # belii of tine gadd at towsns eid gallit redta, 
syed owl, .e@otovib s tot gaiyerq: @69L 0% ditgd- damaged ivuet lo 
odd bavom ,seiton of tasvetuq , Tidtdaieig tet Leeaueo t0d teamed | 
ed?  eshbuteng twosditiw cise sotevtd odd achaske of #tueo ytiwonldy 
hewolls oaw noitow est bus emit of sgke mont hovabtaes eaw tedhaay 
-egoto bus tewene e'tusbas'teb seis setioet tobro ved? 8h tedots0: 
sto avesl ¢uattin belit stew goibeesvorg sisd9» gieerko edd ab ifhde 
,ttueg ebay od tobte feds gott hetusecote saw Lagagge. sioataaiil uel 


we pee) 


number 40579, which is still pending, 

We aleo hold tiere is no merit in defendant's contention 
to the effect that altnough gaome of tne orders mentioned show that 
defendart and bis counsel were present, tiat atter these crders 
were entered counsel filed what he designates a special appearance 
and therefor the court had no jurisdiction over hin, Delendant 
was in court, represented by counsel, «s the record discloses, and 
the fact that he had not at those times filed a written appearance 
is of no importance. Up to the present time there is no defense 
suggested in the trial court ia in this court. the two orders 


appealed from are affirmed, : x 


ORDERS AFFIRUD, 


MeSurely, P. J., and Matchett, J,, concur, 











wehibieg [flee ef dobew pevaos eedmun 
nolinetanos attnebhteleb mi ditom om ei Oued? biow osie oF. 
gece wode Sonoitusin areshxo ent bo emon dgwodtia Seis gootta odd ot 


Bstebis sasct yatta fend ,Sa@este exaw feanuoo ais’ bre: dosinoteb 


‘eonerasuax Isibeye # secougiseh ot tedw belit Lewowes bevetae earew 


tosbue'te? mis tove moisoifeixcut om bed times out totetedi> has 
bie (wosoioulf brosex ost ae \feanvoo yd hetopeatqet ,txnoo ol sew 
Poteiso ces e#o dew #& bolt? gents onoid te torr bad of tant. dont oat 
Serotsh on ai otedd ome Selene ott ot QU .sonedrogmut om to af 
exsbro ows orf Jetueo eit mi ton Puveo Lelts edt nb bodoogauea 
boat tie ore ox Bs deottine 

CUMATTTA SHEETS “ee jet ak Do oped 


sthoutoe ,.b  .tterote ban ..b 02 ,¢ lero 


js 
ys 
“ 
nt 
avy 
Te he 
‘ * 
P Ae A‘ 
« % . 
4 « eg ba ; 
Wie Ms" 
j i aie one REE UN 
x ‘ 
‘ $ or Bea ae 
ee va f ph - xP ba if 
LEROERS, Ne CEO EIR o 
a eer yee wae 
o 7R nt¥ S we Pera Seale Fee ie Se ‘Saad OUP RON. wey Fd Ae 


40405 


TRUMAN W. WELLS, 
Appellee, 
APPEAL FROM HMULICIPAL ZOURT 
vs. 
O¥8 CHICAGO, 





EDWARD B, LONDBERG, individually 
and doing business as Lindberg 
and Stringham, 





LINDBERG AND STRINGHAM, Inc., a 
corporation, 


Ne eee nee Mee Se” ee” 


Appellant. 


ER, JUSTICE O'COLNOR i BLIVERED Lod OPINION OF THK COURT, 


June 20, 1945, Truman ¥, Wells brought an action against 
Edware &,. Lindberg, individually end doing business as Lindberg 
and Stringham, to recover $314.66 for services rendered, Lindberg 
filed ar answer denying liability. There was a trial betore the 
court without a jury and April 28, 1936, a finding and judgment 
wee entered in plaintiff's favor against “Hdward FE. Lindberg, 
individually and doing business as Lindberg and Stringhem." Fol- 
lowing May 6 plaintiff took out an execution and the retum of 
the bailitS shows he made a demand on defendant May 27, 1936, and 
on August 5, 1936, the writ wae returned by the bailils no property 
found and no part satisfied, About 15 months thereafter, viz., 
January 10, 1938, plaintiff brought garnishment proceedings on the 
judgment na ing Lindberg & Stringham, Inc., corporation garnishee. 
Interrogatories were tiled which were answered by the garnishee, 
the substance of which was that the garnishee had no funds or 
property in his possession cidesiee to the judument debtor, 


Lindberg. the garnishment was tried ee ore the court without. a 
ene ee 


ANTE EEE Rtg get 


jury and there was a finding and jus.nent in plaintiif's favor 


arene cen TO a PEPER AE I ee Os FO 








rr A 5 AT OEE aE TOD SO IIE, 


against the garnishee ior 324,76, snd the enroiaket appesis. 
= (pe SAEE ADOT gh 


Plaintiif's evidence is 60 the effeet that he was employed 


















 & 
_ a 
BORGR 
Bh tad ‘es ona 
: SLE Ww F asaunt 
99Lfoqah 









THUOD JASIOLMUM MOR TARIA Ri a 

ce 
yilasbivinat OALSCMES a mr 
pte diab. ae Beotiaud ypaioh hae” 
twee eee hae 


ety hae 


sO0DAOTHOD ZO 





& 00] ,MAHDATETS ca onuaquta wy 
: toLsetoqtos 
: W?ital lege. ; d ¥ oma t mad ; 


vavod MeY YO MOTAIGO Ruy CURAVIURG nomoo" 9 worwat a cat 


ie Santeae AGitoe se Mhpwond alieW .¥ asmux?t acer 18. saul 


a atedbat J aa seoutevd gateb bax yiteshlvisak ato dbaka aif pawht 
- ‘ 
(Stedbaid petehset esoly tag. tet 89 a LER: {evooet at yaiasigtt rte: baie 


Was 


xis sie ted felts 8 eew etodt i iiidets aaiyenh ‘tome its ae bo Lit 





ys, 
ie 


| Sfepsene. bark bre anihalt « ~QbeL , 8S Litgaé bas eeu, & | tuoi tw 2u00 
seTedbaki .2@ brewba*® dantege tovet a! Thisatelq mt bexetns saw 
«fot “,mengaitie® Sas gredbaid as eaenteud yatob bas cileubivibat 
r ‘te mutet elt bas aoitvesoxs as tue AXood *thtatelg yan gatwot 
«bia ,BCCL ,TS ysl dasbaetob ae basmeh s ebest of awoste Yebtiad og 
yeitegotg on Thilisd ext ud beatutet eaw tlaw ent 0E0L —3 feuaua m0 
, iv. ,wsttaerscd addnom @L suodé bottuttes traq on bas bawo't 
| edt ae auntbsesorg drome tovey tdgword trhg¢aislq eer OL ranma ‘ 


,eonetores, noivsereqros ,.onl ,medgaitsa a gredbatd gatos tami 


_ eedaiazey od yd botowane erew dotcw belit ona — y 7 
ta 





¢ 


BF pens esw ox sand tootte ostt' a verbien hay 


by defendant, Edward &. Lindberg, who was doing business ae Lind- 


berg & Stringham; that there was due and owing to sim for services 
rendered $314.65, for waich asount he brought suit and obtained 
judgment; that he obtained an execution and while it was in tre 
hands of the bailiff, Lindberg, Stringnam and Peter i. siengei 
formed the corporation and all tne assets of Lindberg, Strinchan 
and Hengel, who the garnishee claims were mexbers ol tne coe 
partnership, were sold and transferred by the three individuals 
to the corporation - Lindberg & Stringuam, Inc., a corporation - 
as evidenced by a bill of sale dated June 26, 1936, It seems to 
be conceded that neither indies. Stringhas nor liengel made any 
atteupt to comply with the provisions of the Bulk Sales act when 
they transferred the assets to the garnishee corporation. 

The garnishee's position on the triai and in this court, 
as stated by its counsel, is that when the original case was tried 
"Lindberg and Stringhaw were in effect a partnership, a co- 
parinership end cnere is only one vossible way of proceeding 
in tois case and that is by way oi the appointment of a receiver 
and the fiiing of a petition for the dissolution of the partner- 
ship to deteruine the individual interest of the copsrtners, sub- 
ject to the copartnership lisbility «** 

“We are prepared to prove that he was not doing business 
individually but that it was a copartnership and that copartuershp 
transferred all of its assets to the corporation which was formed 
by Lindberg and Stringham," 

On tne other side plaintiif's position is that this ques- 
tion was adjudicated when the original case was heard, ~here suit 
was brought against Lindberg, individually, doing business as 
Lindberg & Stringham; that part of the judgment order found that 
plaintiff was entitled to judgment against defendant «nd that he 


recover "oi and from tne defendant Edward Bb. Lindterg, individually 





. AGbOS 
ebaid as seouteud giiob eaw ow ,predbaid .& Saawhd , tashae teh va 


Ves 


re 
esoivies tol atid oF gntwo bas oph eaw atest sud vimasigntate ry ‘pied 


bealeddo, bas Five thgueid ef tnwome Aokcw r0et 28. DEE hor)eboet 


oe 


edt af saw ti elidw bas softuasme og bettetdo en todd. 3 tnomebul 

f Seunel wl ‘ote Btis uecynind@ ,gtedbals , tikiled ocd m4 ehardt 
medanizge ,yiedbaild to adeseas ooo Ife bias aol TaTeyree ‘alt bom ot 

Sey edd to etsdixan erow winks ts sodafnrng aitt oriw., canta pots 
alavblvibni serie end yd pete teats bas bloe ster diets nd t2q 
tae te Beredtod 8 6al"jmedgnitse & utedbali ~ aottetoqtoe sift of 
ot asowe YI .88Ck 0S Soul boted afae te LL 2 xd heosebhyre ~ 


yrs ean fexaok ros apsianet de wrodhakd verigion mind be bsonoo od 





| agai tee vbtch xtnt on} te suokatvorg eid sigtw eluaoe od squoste, 


-HoLteroqtos eedeinreg ost od atesas osly borreteneat x at 


Raney 
aS ie * 


| “ Stu08 hdd at bos Letrd saad 0 sok? 220g a! oie dare ent ha 
boss aaw ees Lenigito esi rosie desid ek doa nues ett a aa as 
‘soo 68 ,@idexsatisq s tos‘tte ak oxow wniigatnse ‘baa gtodbala* 
gnthessotg to Yew eidieaog $00 uno at eres: bus ‘Clean 
meviooest a to tnemtatoqga odd te yaw ud ai dart bas eseo olds at 
-t90d%60 ett ‘to nottuleseth ei} rot aeisiveq « 6 gal itt eas bre 


| iene wetoudtsg09 one ‘to tao to tat faubivbbal ould ealuresoh ‘*@ ‘gid 


iA. TO 





Sie i ee whitdats ‘qhilwr0i9 taqo0 ant ‘ot toast 
brs. esry"t 
easateind patho’ dos | Baw sa tests evotd ot botngora 91s ow aes 
enw 
gsioro: iSt5¢00 tarts bas qhslete i 42 g90 é eaw th desit tod ‘‘ileubsvis ; 


: ‘ 
a: wom 3 Fang iy 


| beaarteolt aew de kite noigatoctoo ‘oat ot stoaae at to ‘Lie 
. * smedgaaes ‘as 


vies exo . Braet ‘eaw 9869 Anakgito | ods uaa f 


tans bawo? saben: Soompbut oat: Rin tu0q it 8 a8 
ah, Sele 


ed ¢add bas J neboe"teb tontogs ina ot — 


| 


a 
1 


Se‘ gal 














and doing business as Lindberg & Stringham", $314.66. 

On the trial of the garnishment proceeding both parties 
put in evidence on the question whether Lindbery was doing buri- 
ness under the name of Lindberg & Stringham, or whether he was a 


D>) 


menber ol the partnersip of Lindberg & Stringham. ‘ns court found 
the issues egainst the garnishee and we are unable to assy that the 
finding is sgainst the manifest weight of the evidence, In these 
eirouwnstarnces we are not warranted in disturbing the judgsent. 

The garnishee further contends that "plaintiff can preceed 
against the garnishee only where tie deiendant could have isaintained 
@ successtul action against him,” That is not the law when the pro- 
visions of the Bulk Sales act nave not been complied with. Cohn vy. 
Malo, 196 Ili. App., 538; Moneki v. Smith, 224 ILi, App. 206; 
Larsen v. Ritter, 227 Ili. App., 300; irieling v, Mmling, 243 
Til. App., 475. 

in the Cohn case we held tuat where goods and chattels were 
sold by a debtor contrary to the provisions oi tne Bulk Sales act, 
the sale is void as aguinst the creditors of the vendor and that 
they might be reacned by garnisisaent, Tne Bulk Sales act provides 
that woere goode and chattels are sold, such as in the instant 
case, notice must be given to the creditors of the party proposing 
to sell, and unless this is done the sale is void as to the vendork 
creditors, and the creditors may pursue the goods or tue proceeds 
thereof in the hands of the purchaser and maintain garnisiment, 

40 Goliplaint is wade as to the amount ol the judument 


rendered against the garmisiee, 
the judgment of the Municipal court oid Uhicago is aflirmed. 


PIL ate 
 tiiiitdatiiie aati uaa 





JUDGRENT AVI RUED, 


MeSurely, ». J., and Matchett, J., concur, 


00,8168 ,"sedgoiede & yredbail as eavaiesd gntoh, bas 
galiueq Mtod gaibeesotq tnomiainreg edd to feiti eat a0 
eiaud gaioh eaw giedbald tes3edw soltseup sdt no soaghive al tug 
es esv of ‘tedtedw te ,sedgaiace 3 giedbaid Ito eman edd tTehay aaett 
Set fxuoo est .meduginc? & gredbnil to qirveramarg edt to tegaem 
eit ted? yee of sidacy ats ew hoe eeceinang ot tentags eeueal odt 
easrid al ,enasbive eis to tig tow teotiasm odd tantsgs af gakbat? 
-teeagbet off gatdtuselb af betastiae fea 912 ay asonstamvotty 
besootg aso tlivaialg” ved? abasince secigty't sesigiitey, edt 
bentadiiak eved Sivoo dashusteb ods etedw yino sedeiotag edt Jeotene 
~orG 909 oosiw wel aad tou ait zed? "nin fanieze soltge fu‘tegeooue & 
Miia tiv beiiquoo seed don evad tos aolnd Atwt ot toe anotaty 
[908 .agk itl DOS Mido ov Ligne (260 ,.q0d .ffT 6eL ofa 
BOS .aak tu vw aabloite ;008 ,.omd tL 88S oxgse te wv nested 
| | OR ¢ OGh LET 
giow alejisso dae aboos esedw tat Dist av sago piled edz .al. ., 
,fos seleg ilvh ens te exoleiverg add of Yretdaoo sotdeh 2. yd bioe 
tedd Soa tobasy ent ‘to etedibets ant Jenisge e8 blev.al.oefee edd 
aohivetq tos sola AivG oct .dnemielorisg yd besoset ed tdgla yout 
gas? amt ai¢ ak ea dove ,blos ete efetiasio bus adoog et9ay tant 
giles oqorg Ysisg ent ‘to exotibera eds of movin of tenn egiton.,9aRe 
dtobaev eds ot wa biov ak eiaa edit engh Bt eisis enatay bag.,Llew of 


abesvotg eld to shoog at Siatig Yam argo shete orld HAO ru BBs aes 
.jagmlldlote,y Bietniem bras wesdeing Ad To shied sdf ak Toete 
frombut end to. cowome os0 of as gbhow al dabgtymoo OA, 9...» 

. : et obliaiwing’ bof duatege bogebaed 

»bearitis af oysoteal te tivoo Jegtolaull off to tnemahsh OME ony ye 


eer 


CUT TOTO ee 


ieee 


‘\guondo ,.0 ,tvededel bas ,.0°.o  qlexidoll 


2 eT HG abd tani De RA 
4 n An | 
a Se At Ee 
Ce Bind hoa. Fae 
pty do theds de? oe} 


“ine” “be sey 


40427 


MINNIE MEYERS, 
Appellee, 
APPEAL PROM MUNICIPAL COURT 


f 


a 





ALBERT J, HORAN, Hailiff of the 
Miunicipal Court of Chicago, and 
MICHIGAN OHIO BUILDING CORPGRATION, 
a Corporation, 

Appellants. 


) 
) 
) 
VS, ) 
) 
) 
) 





July 19, 1955, the bichigan Ohio Building Corvoration ob- 
tained a jucement in the Municipal court’ol Chicago aguinst Irving 
E. and Leontine Mosemann, husband and wife, for $793.27; Mareh 
17, 1938, an alias execution was issued on this judgment and iarch 
28 was delivered to Horan as bailiif of the municipal court tor 
service; March 30 the bailitf served the execution on Irving HE. 
Mossmann and nearly a month thereafter, April 29, 1938, by direc- 
tion of the Building Corporation levied the execution on a 1938 
Oldsmobile which was then in the possession of Irving #. Mossmann, 
The next day Linnie Meyers brought the instant case, claiming the 
automobile belonged to her; there was a trial of right of property 


before the court without a jury and a finding and judgment in 





plaintiff's favor - that the bailiff turn ower the automobile to 
ee A erect OO te etree ee enn ger mer np PIU ETS OPTI STEVES ETE OE BLO 


her and that she recover her costs; defendants appeal, 

— The record discloses that Irving HE. Mosemann purchased 

the autouobile in question, a 1938 model, in Cctober, 1937; it 

was delivered to him apparently under a conditional sales contract. 
Plaintiff, kre. Meyers, testified that she was a sister of defendant, 
Irving ~. Mossmann; that she head advenced some money to him and 
March 20, 1938, gave him $115 which was the balance he owed on the 
automobile, and he apnarently i a clear tiile to the car at that 


time, the same day, March 20, 1938, defendant Irving HE. Mossmann 





.  Sttival gagings oggoldd to sasoo dagia brs oat ak #9mmg bast, 2 boatas 


st inceh 


‘THUGD JATIOIAUM MOAT. GAUISA sane i'l 
ee Ee 


( 


MATA Om, SH dil ; ; a ita : 
& “ aff “ko TILLEST ,WAROM ([O rieatda - 


bue ,ogeetdd to gue) teglelaull 





™~%, ,AOITAROGAOD OWICITa ORO WADTHO Ta 
Bs aut p UL ERE OST ED. 8 : 
ne” g heen ialdh er 
S, ath ma 
‘pauoo Wier eo a0%t are ay Gunkviaue sob! O eo Trevt" eo 7 
_ sao fe Listoutoo paibiivg ef dagisings ¢ one 28eL er vit 


Mote {TS 599@ tot ,otlw dag bue teu o Salsgatia 8 id oat noed bas, fl 





Sal aie 





tok s4NoH fagiod suis ads ‘to tb Lied a ABE OS spell Doneytiob sew 88 


ocak bus tremsoui, aldt ao bovasl aww Haltuvexe aalts: es e2er st 7 
7 
-H gaivei ao aoitwooxs edd bevier Titlisd ext 08, forall ipotysos 


_roetlb yd ,BO9L , Oh Liiga , Tad le se test od aor & Misapa. bas ananpa old 





BEL 2 ao aolivosns edd belyel melsetagTo9 gakh hue ot, 0, mat 


Ba 


iiiaueeod .— giivil to aoisasegeg ett at aadt asw. sagan, eitdousb £0 


ott gaimielo ,gea9 sasiant edt tdguetd ereyel obmntik vad. don oat 







yigotg to tuigtz to fairt « saw eters. axed at bognoted ptigonotua 










ai sess bar bas yotbolt « has cust, 2. tugs ty t2u09 pt sroted 


Oi ‘aval 





amare senaiantowe te 





hesedozug, hiasieao% .%. yatver 4 souid sbncioeis oie 3 ou 
i” red 7) 
(ah (NEeL ,tsdodao af ,fohom BECL a sHontesue ak Sais op 


executed a bill of eale of the automobile to nis sister, Lrs, 
Meyers, for an express consideration of $800 and it was acknowledged 
the same day by Mossmann before a notary public, out ise automobile 
remained all the time in Mossmann's possession. April 4 Mossmann 
obtained a city license for the car in iirsa, Meyers’ name and on 

the next day a state license from the Secretary of State, sieo in 
birs, Meyeré' name, Mrs. lieyers testified: “I believe my wvrother 
attended to the purchase of the city vehicle tag and state license, 
The bill of sale was given to me on i arch 20tn of this year, **x** 

I received the Certificate for vehicle tax and State license at the 
same time, The State license tag was not issued until april 5, 1938, 
as that is when he went to settle this all up and gave it to me and 
I told him to go on and drive the car," Mrs. keyers furtner testie 
fied that she had never driven the automobile; thet she took the 

car as security for the money her brother owed her and the $115 

paid to the Finance company. 

Counsel tor delendants sey tiat "An execution upon a judgmeit 
is a lien upon and binds the goods 3nd chattels of tne person against 
whom it is issued from the time it ia delivered to the sheriii to 
be executed.“ We siiall assume this is 2 correct statement of the 
law, but it will avail defendants nothing because tue execution was 
delivered to the bailiff of the Municipal court on wareh 26, 1938; 

8 days prior to that time, viz., march 20, plaiutiry received the 
bill of sale, s0 that the title to the car passed 8 days vefore the 
execution was delivered to tne pailiiyr, 

But defendants furtner contend that under the law, “an 
absolute conveyance of personal property, wnere there is no delivery 
to the vendee and the possession of the property is permitted to 
renain in the vendow, is fraudulent as to ereditors of the vendor," 
Yhis statement of the law seems to ve conceded by counsel Yor plain- 


tizf but the argument is that the evidence does not show that plain- 


. BTR ,rstele ain of efidewetue ext to efes te fiig & boduoeite 
bexhelwomies eaw tt bas GO8G ‘lo aoitereblases agetexs ae tot  atayell 
eligemesus gai due ,obidtay eta ton 8 etoted amaamaeok yd yeb amae ant 
mismesoi & Livgi  .delesesaog e'naemaso at emis ed} fis bontamos 
an big Susan 'steyeR ,ate mi tea art vot eansotl ytte & beciaddo 
mi otia ,etate ‘ie yYRetetesh sat mott eemavti atate é yab ten edt 
Netond yan svaiied re iholtigass axveys% .erd .eman 'hteyeM .etH 
sas neokl atata bas ged eloidey qiio-sat te seadesuge edt of babastte 
Re*xe ,isey sic? te dtOS dotea oe om oF asyig sew efee To {{ld oT 
add ts Sengott ease bar uci eloidev 19't etaoftls1s9° edd bevieoe: I 
,280L ,a fitei Iisa bavasi tem asw gaz sonsoit otede eit “emt onus 
bua eal o¢ Ji svag bas qu Lie eid eLties od dasw ot mode at tadd sa. 
aftes?d tii¢us't preyed Lea “eee Sao evich bas ne 03 ot atk bree x 
eid-deot ede teas :eLitonotue eds wevink teved bed ede ‘tedd ‘pert 
S484 ect baie aoe bere tettord ton ge Host edd tot witness Ba abe. 
ene Gites eonentt and ot hed 
Smuygbut se aoqu adfixvesxe a4" tact yee tdiebae'teb tot fea murod > 
jantage adetsq ect ‘te aisdiess daa ehoog odd ghakd bas aoan meit s ‘i 
of “Etizasie ocd OF Heteviles el af owty od¥ mot't beveat af af ‘most 
ant ‘lo dusmetede toerroes 8 et 8iod savews Liede eo “.betveexs od 
aay aoidvesxs ous saveood yaidson etoehue toh fieva fLiw tt tud wal 
3EeL G8 deasa ne fxvoo teats iuxil anid ic Tri Lied Pyk 3 ‘ee peseviies : 
edt bevieoet ttisvuielo ,O8 detex iv | ‘amid ters of toixg avab rs : 
ont sxoled wyah 8 Seseagq tee 63 6s Oidid ofF Jews ‘on elas ‘te LLid 
“Weta tied enit oe ‘potovileh sew “nottuosxe 


Vs Re ay au B 


pA" [wal eos tebay Feild bass so xedtant sinebuetes tue 


rey 


YISvifeh om al oxeAd o'taiiw Vite gotg Lanwwoenog te ‘somsvermon otutoads 


of botdiaisg ef wireyotg ait “to nolaeeanoy eats bow gobney “gud 08 
: OG oh 


* ~xofnev oho to exoskhsits at aa ‘Sus tidlert’ ab “aobasv and at “Simone 
& 2 Seid Ra- 
-tisig tot Isenuoo yd bebooues ou of aisea wel odd to ‘taomadad a eid? 


i ee 
-ntely dels wos tom esob soashivé edt tant et fudmugts ont tud ue vite 


tirf dic not, in fact, teke possession of the automobile. We think 
this is contrary to the evidence, All the evidence shows that from 
the time Irving E. Hosemann purchased the automobile in October, 
1937, it was continuously in his possession anc never in the 
possession of hie sister, Mrs. Meyers; snc this seems to have been 
the view of the trial Judge, who apparently based his decision on 
the fact that, since at the time of the execution of the bill of 
sale there was a balance due to the Finance company, it could 

have taken possession of the automobile, and that plairtiff, having 
paid the $115 remaining due on that date tothe Finance company or 
to ‘nen brother for that purpose, was. in‘as good a position as the 
Binanee company, In this we think the court erred, 

In Lickor v. MeClelland, 84 I11., 471, the court in passe 
ing on the question whether a sale of versonal property where 
delivery iad not been made Was valid as against creditors, ssid 
(p. 474): “The policy of the law in this State will net permit the 
ewvner of personal property to sell it and still continue in the 
possession of it. Possession being one of the strongest evidences 
of title to personal property, if the real ownershin is sufficient 
to be in one, the apparent ownership in another, the latter cains 
eredit as owner, and is enabled to practice deceit upon mankind, 

It is he well eeteblisned doctrine of this court, tiist on absolute 
sale oi personal property, where the possession is pervtitted te ree 
main with the vendor, is fraiiulent per se, and void asc te creditors 
and purchasers ****," And that where there is a sale of personal 
property “but it remains with the vendor, if it is that charaeter 

of property that is capable of beins removed, it is fraudulent in 
law as to creditors and subsecucnt purchasers, notwitnstacting the 
aalé mey have been in good faith and for a veluable consideration," 

So far as we -ave been able to find, the law as sbove 
etated has not been changed or modified in this State. See iuschle 


x. Morris, 131 Ill., 587; 24 L. R. A. (n.s.) p. 3134; Bass v. Pease, 





aning oW ,eiidouetus edt to seleaseeog salads aa mi ,ton Sih waas 
mort $ext + ewoda gonebive oxi Lt” sonebive sid of ytertaes ad. eiat 
 ~tedetoO ni alidenotue edd bosesiotyug aAnaamaos 1.2 paival amis edly 
ed¢ af seven Sas sohaapaneg sin ak yievounld nas aaw 3 EOL 

need ever of amaoa alat tas jateyou ,8tH ,totela aid te sols aegseg 
fe aoiciosS ais heasd ylicoteqge ox swabyt felix wilt ‘te weivy set 
to {Lid ent ‘te mottvoaxs ant ‘to omid eskt te eons tent font sald 
Hfseo FE 2 TALEND soasalt ont of 9uh situa & 860 sted? afsa 
gaivac Jthitake fo gadt bre .2fidomotus edt to nolesoseog notes eves 
TO YAaqnico goncmi% ent.of stab test me eub aninianet alle ont biaq 


dj ee coitiaog s beog es ai aaw ,easoqtig tert tot sentotd ted ot 


bette ganos edd daukd? ew aida at Caagqies sgoosnlt 
eaznsq wi dines sild , IVA , iil a8 bas Lis (90m Pas Zentest af 


ere lw yiuegetg eccarsq to eles o tocsersiv eae ent xe, ¢ gat 

biee ,etovinero tenleys es bilay Bat ghsn used ten had yterviles 

edi giotog ton Lfiw stagi alist al wat ana ae xoiteg oat" 7 (avn +o) 
end ai eunitnoa ifita hus $f ifes i eexoqety fedeertsq to tanwg 
asousiive geagmotts eat to sao edied agisagaeos att te melaeeaceq 
gnelotttua ai qisetsawo inet odd ‘ii ,ydteqetq faacateg of efits to 
Siac aureus ont ,tedtons af qidetonwe tasteqqe edt 189 at od ot 
sbaitnas ooqu tisseb eoitsatq ot be ldens at bags ,Teowe as tibet 
etuloada Na ted? ,¢tuoe aids ‘to snirtogd bheteiidetae Lfow ad! ak ot 


«at of bectienag af ackeasseog act stedw ,yirsgqetq fenoateq te 2 fee 


etotihets of 3a hioy bas (8 weg tnetyiveatt et ,tobsey od? maw aten 


fanests¢ to efse a al oteld otede caddy bad "weet euoenctonue bas 

tedoatedo jaiit ei Si TE vtobaew ext sittw enienet oi twa" Ysusqerg 

mai tae Lobuett ef tf ,bevonet gated to sidaqes ef taeda yireqotg to 

esi gnthstedtiws oa eroeciiotwe tasupeedue oma aresifere oF, Bs Wal 

* mol terebiesos olden lav &® tot Sas mabcriet hoos af need even eat 2 158. 
eveds aa welt edd batt et side ased eva: ow as tat 98 


eisos ul. sek 238d8 a Lit sh beltibom Ka) bogaaio need von nad posate, 


a oes ———— tosh vie ee fc Hane! Aaa 


79 Ill. App., 308; Pennywitt v, Lindsey, 162 111, App., 102; Jacob- 
son Vv, Patterson, 190 Tll. App., 266; Swith v. sneuoelier, 204 Ill. 
Avp., 606; Williams v, ead, 219 ili. App. 5; Katkins v, Dunbar, 
232 Til. App. 1; Grimes v. Hodgers, 263 lii., App. 429; Doty v. 
O'Neill, 272 111. App., 212. 

Since we nold that plaintifi never took possession oi the 


nn OT IEE tN ect ER a me men ete perenne a 


autoviobile, the judgment of the Municipal court ol Uhicago is 





reversed and the cause resanded witn directions to enter judgment 


eee _ 


in favor of defendants. 


= ee REVERSED AND RSKANDED WITH DIRECTIONS, 


\ 


MeSurely, P. J., and Matchett, J., concur, 


~feoe & 7804 ,.qga .tit SOL ,yeebatl ov is ee Lwyeuips 7808 + agh ase ey 


offi 808 toi fe ome nk av i Lt aae ~-GgA ffi oef moet8a? ie v. gos 


 Esdews ov saitiee 3@ .oGA itt UL , #8 wv smsitiny iver «GA 
VOC ; 98) .qgA .iil Gos 229 abo cA :¥. wend if ck Bi 4 BES 
R48 4 -¢gd. £62 avs Lieto 


eis bid Ag ieassa od Boo Rove s Vhid ate ly fend Bios ew wonte 


crate relent la ba peptone ace envettenpeche eee ne org 


ei ogao ied to FAO Racket ertd te Saeaphst sat 4 SLidonotue 


sia janet ios 


tog! Serie od aaoldoerte ai bw bobasuos seueo ens baie boezever 


; eee 





; fash ais rob ‘Lo rove’. ni 
; ‘ 2 a a A RC s }3 By 
SHOITOERIC HII Gidsawan Ga USGREVER os 


sTHOROD _ ob itecedail poe ,.t ,¥fet soe 


ey 


* ow. c 3 ae fi 
af Bae Bey sae 


— 
— 


40446 
OSCAR 5, STEIN, 
Aopvellant, 
Vs. 
ILLINOIS PUBLISSING AND PRINTING 


COMPANY, a Corporation, 
Appell.ce, 





MR, JUSTICE O'CONNOR DELIVERED IHE OPINION OF THE COURT, 


Plaintiff brought an action against defendant to rececver 


—— 


dawaces tor he 2Eea> le a contract entered into between the 





ae oe 


parties, “July a, 1933, defendant's motion to strike tiie second 





amended complaint was ahsones and the complaint stricken withent 





leave to amend except | As to paragraphs, 12, is and 14, July 30 


tg ep — 


following Tiel Tae to file his petition to vacate: the order 
_ lil 


— a et hn epee vin SO Pere 


of July 1, ike leave Was denied, It is from these two orders tnat 


\ plaintiif ore 


fhe record discloses that on September 2, 1937, plaintiff 
filed his verified complaint in law to recover damages for tne 
claimed breach oi a contract entered into between the parties, The 
compisint was in 1] paragraphs and the damages were laid at $150,000, 
October 18 defendant filed its written motion to strike the complaint, 
specifying three grounds, ‘he next tnat appears trom the record is 
that on November 30, 1937, plaintiff served notice that on the fol- 
lowing day he would ask that an order be entered extending to December 
ll the time for filing an amended cownolaint, and on December 1 an 
order in accordance with the terns of the notice was entered on 
motion of plaintiff's solicitors; December 6 a verified amended cone 
plaint wae filed whicn is in 12 paragraphs with exhibits attached; 
December 21 defendant filed its motion to strike the amended complaint 
on four specified grounda;s April 30, 1938, an order was entered 


striking the amended complaint, "and the plaintiff ig denied leave 


to amend except a= to paragraphs numbers 10, 11 and 12, which deal 








,WIsTe 8 RADaO 
oe Lone 
eA US EN Beles 

vay 
push Tonk» ais 
' OMEPUTRT CRA puthel ave RLOMLAAT 
> ,foiterortod e ,Yuauwoo 
,o¢ LLlaqgn 


22009 BEE %O AOTHIGO Ht TERK vEsa nowHo9" 0 aprreut a 


she iE GHA Vit id 


 tayonet af taahne Teh tanissgs tolios us drip eord Tridgnisls — Ea ec Sr bel 


ant: asawied ofl bsisdae touts ape « bad heeunteiosal ent rot eojennd: 


eee eenaN eye 1 Ohana sriselapicnene 


Proeoe ait oalixta oF soitom a! $nabias teh ECL 2 vin | saoigteq | 








amr i «mene pe? 


_ tment be noxio Raye taka Lanes and brs hare tDe enw tate Lamos hebnsats 


hernia marcescens tee 


08 eau Ad Bes ef St edaargerog oF ae ‘beens: Baeste of 9: rere 


i eteetend Joke er AUN Nag enti OE 


— Eebto eas at noe ot nels tteq bea efit a i guoe tidateLa ‘gniwoior 


wens tare oth pine time TS a 





danas erento owt ‘ouods “owt ef tL .beitiob saw eyael tn tud 2 sis to 
‘iene ‘Tritmtela 
Stigaiela ,VECL ,& todmetes’ ne tedt essoloath Broost oAT 





eid tot seygamsbh tavocet of wei at tols{qmoo bettiiey eid beLit 
i  9ft ,esistsa ent ssewted otal beiséae seatines « to dosetd bomtelo 
: .000,08L6 ga bisl otew aonemebh sot bas edgatgeteq Lf ak esw tats Leno 7) 
ii fabatqace eit etictds ot soifom astiliw agi be Lit sushi teh Fe <oveied 

* _ ai broost ot mort sraeqgs vant ¢xea adil = ,abavotg sess gaiytiosga 


i «fot oat mo test sotton haviee titgataty ,VéeL ,0& tedmevel wo set 


L 


adaeosd of anibsesxe bored ne ed tTehto me Jade des blaow oa ort 





a _— So) eee = ee ee ae SP oe ee 


with executed pertorwances uncer the Contract sued uvon, aii as to 
gaid paragraphs pleinti:f is hereby given leave to amend within 
five days," amd the defendant was ruled to answer such ascended 
paragraphs within rive days. Yollowing, tuere spoears in tne 
recoré = notice by plaintilf's counsel to counsel ler delendant 
saying they woule appear on kay 6 betore the trial Judge ond “ask 
for leave to vile the Second Amended Complaint in Law instanter," 
and for a rule on defendant to answer within 5 days. Jnere eppears 
in the record a second amended’ complaint iiled may 6 but apparencly 
there was ro order entered permitting this to be dome. ‘the second 
amended complaint, which-is wasivicd. is in 14 para;rephs with a 
number of exhibits attached. Afterward, on June 2, a stipulation 
entered into between counsel is in the recerd in wiich 1: is 
stated the parties have stipulated and agreed toai the cine ler 
defendant to plead or answer to the second amended complaint be 
extenced to June 9, June 9 defendant filed its motion to strike 
the seecnd anended cosipleint, speecilying seven reasons therefor; 
July 1 following, av order was entered on motion oi counsel tor 
defendant striking plaintiii's second amended complaint, “ard 
Plaintiit is denied leave to amend except as to paracraphs nunbers 
12, 13 snd 14, woieh deal with executed periormance under the ale 
lezged contract.” Plaintiff was given leave to samend these parae 
graphs within tive days if he elected to do so, and defendant was 
ruled to answer within 10 days thereafter, 

The next toat appears frow the record is a notice served 
July 27 on counsel for defendant by plaintiff s counsel statiing 
that on the ‘ollowing asy they would ask leave to tile an amendment 
to paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 instanter, snd tor rule on defendant to 
answer within 20 days, «and that a further order be entered dismissing 


paragraph 13 of the second amended complaint because tne claims made 


in that paragraph had been settled by the parties, The notice 





i 7 at wa bie ,Wogu deve gestiacy eld tebay aecnsuxetreg botvooxe’ Mtbw : 
a Ree sae g=- : i: Hain aoe Puls ofa f 7 : 
a MEAT LW ete cse et avael mevin Ydetsd ai Tilvataig MART BATAR Slee 


hebugiua dove towade o¢ bolut sew Jusbas'tes sale bins * ,auab avid 


i 

| atif’ Hk ataauge etedt .gifwelics .eysb evt't- aiidhy asigeugecayy : 
| | -* | fatsbab Yo oe. fae aes of iegauoo ef Ytitniata Yd atiton s brooet : 
| daa" bas aghut faitt edt srévad 8 yak no taaqaa oikew Bee galyes ; 
4 todnede at Wad ad tobatguee bobnemh baoeea edt sikh oe eee ‘tot 


ategage etsal .eyeh @ alisiw sowane of sasbag ted No pLutce sot bre 


yid wexegge iu @ Yaa Beli i tiieiqnues pbebuahe hnoose « proest edd ah \ 
















Haoosa adil. .engh od es aint yaits hateq hetatae tebte on age: eteds 
og Staw adgaryateq Af ab 2h ,bottdvev ef deiude tate Lqmog behaose | 7 
solide sugive 6 4S etwh og (bwewted tA  hocoatie: atidtixe ‘totedaua 
: @4 32 doisw ni breaex edt al ai Lovagoa uoowted oP pet Setedae i. 
£61 gmid edt Jasd heotas goa batelugida eved acitzaq ait ybotate z 
ad dnisiqmos bebaske basase sit of toweda to Seale ‘od tusbastob : 7» 
stitta ot oeltom ett bolt sagsaeteb @-9aut  .@ emul od ibshuesxe - 
ploletede atosget Asvea gaily lieoqa ,talalqace bhehoous bageos: vena 
‘tok feeaucs to neisan no hetedus. asw TORO 1 aaboLet £ Cedar ri 
bas" ,taislqguos bebnews bacgea alitivatety gatdiaee sasda9 teh , 


eteduun edqetyataq of an teeoxs basme of eveel bedooh at Tiksatest 
_-fe a3 19bay soaemietiog beduoexe ditw Leeb doddwy dt baw ad 
: =8459 seeds haem od aveot aevtg agw Thidsie lt. * toathaog ht 9: 1 






 gaw taabasteh bac ,o8 06 od bedogte ed th aysh avid abiis be eigetg. 
. tetiesteds eysh OL abitie taweae: ot beter 
beytes soliton « ab buoost est woul eteeqge deat juan: ght 1x3 “anbet 





gniveta fesaioa s ‘ttitatela xd taehae teh -to't Seeman m0 0S, is 7 
Pt agah cose ne SLkt oF svael das binow vedt 7m”: anckwo ote paid sit ; 





eo ‘ucteie oiet cue bias Bas wt eee 


further stated plaintiff would ask that a final order be entered 
dismissing paragraphs 3 to 11 inclusive, so that he could appeal 

to the Appellate courts July 28 plaintilf filed an amendment te 
paragraphs 12, 13 and@14. In paragraph 12 plaintil?Y claims 4560.40 
for a number of sets of dishes, which amount he claiws is due and 
unpaid, The auvendment to paragraph 13 need not be referred to 
because it is aduwitted the claims made in that paragraph nave been 
auicably adjusted, in paragraph 14 as anended pisintilff claimed 
$1694 tor obtaining a number ol subscriptions to defendant's news- 
paper in accordance wit the terms of the contract. July 26 the 
court entered an order giving leave to plaintiff to tile an amendment 
to paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 instanter, and further that paragraph 13 
as amended be dismissed, It was turther ordered, "that the defendant 
answer or move to strike the said Second Amended Compiaint, as 
amended, within twenty (20) days from this date." The next day 
ariother notice was served by plaintiff's counsel that on July 30 

they would present plaintiff's petition and ask for an order as 
prayed for in the petition, Tne petition is in the record, naving 
been riled July 306. Ko order was entered giving leave to /ile it, 
but on the contrary an order was entered July 30 denying plaintiff 
leave to tile the petition "on ground that sawe is not an ewergency 
matter." The petition sets up in some detail what had been done in 
the case, the tiling of the several documents and the orders entered 
and that the matter had been pending nearly a year without an issue 
having been reached; that unless a final orcer is entered disnissing 
the complaint "without prejudice to paragraphs 12 and 14, the plain- 
tiff will ibe torestalled irom taking an appeal on the matters alleged 
in paragraphs 3 to 11 oi the Second Amended Complaint, which constie 
tutes the major and most important issue to be decided in this cause;” 


that it will be a great hardship to plaintiff if he is obliged to 


await a trial on paragraphs 12 and 14 before being permitted to apper 










bote tise ad tabte fenlt @ Jait des 5ivow Weiget 8 ke be. tute pices . 
Les gas bisos ed add oe ,eviewlont IL at & asiqarger9¢ gikeatan tb 
od dopa asm ug petit Ttitatele 68 yiub «sis9s atatlegga ext, ot 
Ob,G88y amtato Miiratalg Ri dAgatgatag wi abl ‘has af Sl asigataetoa 
bos sub ak eanisie ad savesie dotdw sone Lb ‘to ates te te daa &, xot 
ot bexiretex od goa heem &f dgatgatag od yo whos us eit ‘ -bLeqas 
f Seed SVSh Ager gets g tadg at aha emielo est bets inbe al $i onnaosd 
_ bemtelo Tivaieiq bebnoss ag Af deargeteq ad bod anh bs, video tus 
! -aWo a'dasiae'teh of enoijgqtrosdve to todawa a atiaiaddo mot bCOLe 
ag BS YUL .toattaos edt ‘to amred ods ctiw eonabtoooe at tegeq 
F Kaaibae sue he elit of tilsialetg of oveet gaivty sebto. Shas bexegas dxwop 
SL dywtgeteg dedt tenviwt bas ,tetmadank AL baa 6L . Sh sdgoxgexag. ot 
tashas teh odd sang” ,baxtebto aoidas't aaw $2 sboeatmelp od, pebsame as 
as isthe. gag) ino Davo ath, bagane bize esis Preceyy od. evom ‘ES towens 
ysb txsn edi "“.edab aint wont aye (e8) ys cod aitald iw, 4s bobsoue 
Bos: Yin’ so tadt Leaaucp af Titiatalg yd bevica saw, solion sestons 
B8 Tht) oe tot das hoe oeliljog a! ttlininig éaeaetg biuow yout 
Sabyat mover oud ai si soiditeg oat Hole ivog oats at tet bovara 
vs oft oF eyaed gaivig bere) as ase tsbio ol 408. vial, betir ead 
° Yitaielg aalyseh GS yin betetus GW T8hi9 Ae Xteri soo, ou no sud 
Yorogreue ae tom al oogsa cent bavetg Ao" moisiveg eat efit ot. oveod 
ai snob aged bas sodw Liageb smoa at qu ates. npbtiies, oa, . + xedtom = 
beratne BLSHILO ont bas atasavoeh ietsves sis Lo goitht ess 19280, on i 
eueal a duodtiw seey 2 ylisem anibaeg apod. Boal tedden aad tend bos | 
i goilaainath betesas ef tebto isait » aeelaw sent ibotlosot need amtved 
f etiely adt ,dL bag SL edgetygersq of solbulerq suodstwm tateLonoo, ot 
bepo Lis Buedi em. ealy No Les qqs a8 gittusd mort Dolieteagtot odd ay ue 7 


7 iss . i. 
7 ~itenos Soldw ,taietgmoy be bits ata DMOPOR edt to MS: ot & B8teg 







"SEBO aids oi bobloeh od of. ageet. inwtroant, seo FBP: 


5 


‘ Sous - Beds loxeq gated. eto'ted AL baw. 5 it «dais : 


4 


the major issue in dispute; that olaintiiff is a resident of Ylorida 
and it would entail grest exoense ii he were compelled to make more 
than one tripv to Chicago; that the trial calendar was congested and 
that vrobably ‘he trial “on paragraphs 12 and 14" would net be 
reached for a year and a half, The petition furtuer set up that 

the order of July 1 should be vacated and in lieu thereof sn order 
be entered disnissing the second amended complaint as amended "with- 
out prejucice to parsgraphs 12 and 14," eo that plaintiff may 

appeal to the Appellate court, 

The first point made ” counsel for defendant in their brief 
is that the appeal should be dismissed because the orders sppealed 
from are not final. In the reply trief counsel lor plaintiifi say, 
"We are rather surprised at the deiendsant's contention in this court 
that the order appealed trom is not finai. In tne lower court it 
was the contention of tne defendant tat tae order of July lst was 
final, and our conte.tion that the order should be clianged in form 
to make it ffimal. Due to the objection of the defendant, the court 
refused to entertain the petition contaluing the Yorm ef final order 
which we proposed,” but the tinal order proposed, as disclosed by 
plaintiff's petition, was that tie order of July l, i933, be vacated 
and in lieu thereof an order entered diswissing the second amended 
complaint as anuended "without prejudice to paragraplis 12 and 14." 

If the order were entered in sccordance with the prayer of plaine 
tiif's petition it would still leave pending in the trial court 
the matters set up by plaintii? in paragraphs 12 and 14 of the 
second amended complaint. 

It has long been the settled law in this State that an appeal 
will not be heard piecemeal except under exceptional cirounstances, 
and there are no such circumstances in this case, 


We have exauwined the authorities cited by counsel for 


Plaintiif on this point, one of whien is Strey v. buehl, 265 111. 


& 


ehizoft toe tnehiset s al Tiidsiele Jedd jetuqeth ot ovest totam oat 
stow sisi 9% fs Llegiaoo etew aif ti S809 gKs bade liad ta ‘ikuaw 4 ya 
bas hedeopaco caw tshasino dsitd oi fads jogao lis od aha?’ oka neat 
sd tou bivew "ai bas SL silqongaraq ae feist ec eidadice test 

tect qu tee tenitet metiiseg eat that « boy 1s9y # xo% bscnane 
tebitg Ms teevand veil af bis Setsasy ad iivede £ y iat te sebto eat 
-itiw" bebaens af daiaiguos Ssbueas bacess suit using inath Sacatm oe 
yaa Thigaialg tsdj oa ",4f bas SL sdyergetsq of eottuterg tuo 

atzuoo olellaqga asi of Lesage 

Yeizd tiod? af dwhoeteh tot feeauog Xd ebsa salog dayit eat ne 


heleeqcs etehto anit seseoad beaeinalh od bivosa _Leeaqqe esd “tadé eh 
ee ALiitaletg not Loanmues tein yiget esd ak phage. fed. ote mort 

_ ot HES aint al Noiguet sea a! dushaeieb ons ts boeixquua redddan, ors owe 
#i dxvoo towol eld ai .iomit Joa ai meri beleoqge tebi10 ons test 
eewr tal yiut to Lebo ens ged doabseteh east To aohdine #400 out eaw 
mIet at begaeno ed bivosse xobx0 acs Jess Beds. 9209 Hue bas , teat? 
t1H0p efit ,foabaeteb eid ‘Lo soi toe ldo onli 05 oi -Locti’ tt oxen ot 
tebro isalt To mte't etd guiulay noo no is isog end nisd te tig ot bonstes 


i 


xa heeolos if cre sbsaagotg gebrto istic ied cue "POs P eres, | ow Hie tity 
Verenaeres s8bRi ,f yisil Lo tebi0 ent Jedd sew wughddiog of ttigmteta 
bobasos, booses.edd griigaiselh bezssue tebi0 ne tosrodt uetl at bas 
"SL bos SL adgsigstsy of eoibhulerg suodtiw" bebasus as sais famoe 
~alelg to xT9YErG ois tiv eonshtoses at beredne szew tebto edd 22 
givoo tetas axis nt gaiboog ovaol ifice bLuow dk noittiog a Maas 

ait to BL bue Sf angeraeten ns ritsalel¢ xs as soe axe 370% ony 
dabatquoe bedasse baoose 


iseqgs as sad eista eisd mi wai belties cd nad saot pedi #1 ee 
_aeeonst amsorte Lanoiggsoxs tehsMi sqgexe Laousoote btes a od ton jate 
9389 aicd ul aspies amotio Hous on ote ood bas 

rot Leanues yd betie nedtizods ue. ons hontuexe evasi o 


{£1 808 ,idoud .v youss at siotde to emo ,tatog eird a0 ‘itintete 


App. 554, and think none oi them is in point, 

In the Strey case a bill was tiled to enjoin defendants 
from declaring a forfeiture of a real estate contract and trom 
prosecuting a forcible detainer suit, A temporary restraining 
order was entered which was subhsequentiy, on motion ci delendant, 
set aside and it was from this order twat the appeal was prayed 
and allowed, Yhe court said no point was raised as to whether the 
order Was appealable, but that it appeared that the purpose of the 
bill was for a permanent injunction and that complainant's rights 
might te lost if a temporary injunction were not issued and to 
remain in force until final nearing, ‘The court there said: “Owing 
to peculiar circdmstances and hardsiips, the courts have reiused to 
diswiss appesis trom some judgments or decrees whicu did not come 
pletely disvose of the case in wnick they were entered," and the 
court continued ani passed en the merits el the appeal, 

We think there is involved in tne instant case no peculiar 
circumstance or hardship that would bring it within the exception 
te the general rule mentioned in the Strey case, 

The motion of defendant to dismiss the appeal ig ullowed 
and the appeal disuissed, MdgDonald v. Walsh, 367 ITil., 529. 


APPEAL DISHISSED, 


KeSurely, P. J., and hatenett, J., concur, 


“Jontoq at ai meds YO Onoa tatad “Bas “bee laea 
udtubdsted oietas of betki aaw (Lid = deso yotte edt al 
mort bia toettaes stavns Last o To etitistrot 4 gaiteload mort 
gizaisudeet yudregned A .tise aetleleb eidtoret « antivossorg 
winebie'teb “te aoitem ao, yisseupeadye ser dotdw berate eew tahro 
beysrd asw Leoggs ans fast tabre eiat mort aew ti She ebias t¢e 
eit vaddenw oc se bevlar aay faloq ea hise sxsos edt bowl ts baa 
edt ‘te suoqivg end fact Bexasaqye $i tadd tud {sidgiesgqa saw 1ahto 
etaigit a’taantatgaes ¢ans bas coltonntal ¢nenestreg « tot asw Ditd 
of bas heveel fom evew dettosnubias gxatogdet a Ti deol od stdgim 
giiwo" Siew ered? dxves sat pattess fteatt fhide egsot af nleader 
6s Soastat evead efxwoo o03 ,egivebvad bas aeons amborks ‘tel fues¢ ‘ot 
mites toa aib toldw eseuseh v6 stosmyhel eae mett aiesags ‘setilets 
odd has “ bowados orsw Yeds Sotnw af eaco aif TO seocats ufets La 
-faogan eit to atizom edt a0 hedeag hae bedali aos 809 
qekinuseq of Seno sauctaat odd ai bovfeval ai exvedd Aekds s¥ 

dokéqsoxs est atigiw at gatcd Sicow deus qidebasit 16 99 tei eatiot to 
~$ano yerge 6dt at bonolfien ofut fexezieg ony of 

beveiis at fecqqs edt eeiseth of dusbas'teh to woitea eat 
[088 £80 Tae .deceW uv BienoGbd <decetnats Lesqge edt Bas 

cqua@etuale Janata hae, Sees 


jedenoy (10, stedetaM Had UT pe fotusiom 


40394 


ANTON BARUSKI, Bxecutor of the ) 

Estate of WACKLOW MANKAVICK, Deceased, ) 

Appeilant, APPLAL SROM MUNTCLP AL 
i 


vs, COURT OF VEL AGL, 


STANLEY WARNIS and THERESA WARNIS, 
Appellees, 


oa foal oa } 
ri ar a 4 
LR, PRESIDING JUSTICE MeSURE 


DELIVERED THE OPINION O# THs COURT, 





This is an action on a prouissory note tried by the court, 
/ who found for defendants and plaintiff appeals, 


Judgment was prisichab by contession Yor en on hovember 


eet eee en A NH NE Ae Bh AA RSC nape na SEpaatone! pein ntee rica Areal acd ee! 


13, 1936, which was wiiuaaant +o. the death of the payee, Wacklow 


Mankavick,who died karch 5, 1956. eke eeeeeey on sindhhene ol de- 


nas ranma ne een Tetras ee eee te OT See 


fendante the judgment was vacated and they were allowed ts defend. 


se ener marae 





eens cement eV A Ae TIA ERAT IY EN a iy {PP arch ine Bh Hp AES BE REP A POR eS OPE AN Le 
teen rn aaa 


Plaintiff introcuced in evidence the note, dated tebruary 


_— 


} 


15, 1934, payable to the order of Wacklow wanksavick in the sun of 
$400 and signed by defendants, The defense was that the note had 
been paid ir full to kankavick, 

To supoort the defense there was introduced a receipt pure 
porting to acknowledge receipt oi the money and bearing a cross 
which a witness for deiendants testilied he saw uwankavick place 
upon the receipt alter having received the money irom dejendants 
in payment of the note, 

There was convincing evidence that Wackliow mankavick could 
write hie name, One witness testified that he could write his name 
in Polish, English and Russian. Another witness testified that she 
saw him sign his name “quite a few times. He always wrote it. de 
wrote fluently.® dis will with his signature attached was introduced 
in evidence, It is improbable that Wacklow kankavick, payee in the 
note, would sign the alleged receipt witn a cross when he habitually 


when executing papers signed his naue, Also, three witnesses 


testified that tne defendant Theresa Warnis, sometime after the 


Se aa = 


aeson 


ait To sof ueexe Diguaae dita, 
A 69689990: AOLVARIAM WODIOAY , to sisted 
TAtiotiu woat Aad” wfaeiieqga ~ 





yo. 


-O8A9 Lio LO Tuco” ey 


Fg Om. ATMAAY ABHATUT bra tata Peat 
Cds," Beetisaqgqa ‘ Sy 





“Dae war raut PUICIBSAY, Ai. 
.THUOS SET To dord1Go Hit CeAev iis 


 $tuce ont (da baits atom vrosabiotg » ao mottos ae ef efaT peekical 


saiascge Ttidatélg bie afiebasteb tot basio’ ‘oclw 


« & i 


bans B 


asdmavok wo OG ical tot coless tnos ed shail ecw r trompbul 


sl Aare theta SRE NA ie dS td sou ou aris sine ePUmAeL Madiiiprttancinco saat 


We Line %  FOYSG wit “te itaeh add ot Faweeadue” aew datdw bee ‘er 


aah Ba eres ae, : alnariondedaaied aeer a miloaaies both ‘onw’, dolvednalt 





pik Lec acidabc lta Ars 


vba tab od ‘pew0L ts oxew “uid “pus batasey aaw to@mgbut estt ‘adusbaot’ 


DONNIE PN Es PL 4 palaces MAES see a agement 





VP wd einen naira eongane mere 


ytavids? bodes (etoa oat asoebive at pesbhortai Ttidoke £4 
‘to wa etd af Aotvedned wolwtesV ‘to sebto edt of oidexea AECL, ar 
ben sion OAs Peat dew Saanted adT  vedaabusted wd bony £2 bas OORG 
wMotvedne’ 93 Ifo at plea meod. 

“tuq ¢qisoet e hooshotini esw etedi eeheateh ect. deocaue: of : 
aeote 8 Shixsed bas yoxom eid to taiessr syhofwondos of gatttoq 
coal Moivedusd wae Oi hetieeed atiesaytos tot seeatiw s dotdw 
atoshastsB aott yores sid beviesoss yaivas xed'te Ser auds eid soa 
«ton oft to aaa sob wt 


om 


blucy doivetnsl woidoaW sad) sousbive ginke it¥c0b bat’ e160? 


emsn aid siiitw blyuoo eof dedt bektisaet eseatiw enO omen ald etiaw- 


els tadd bottiseeds aeentiwv wddemA .oeteeuil dae debigad ,delfod ab 


efi .ti stouw ayewie ol ,semts we't « etivp" oman ald agie mid wee 


‘Peoubordial asw besoatia etusengie eld ddiw Lftw at *  yitaeslt eftoxuw 


ad¢ ai eeysq ,dolvedoel woLioaW Jada? sldadotqul at #1 = .eonebive st 
ylisutided ed nedw eects & Asiw déqiesst begetia est agis blsow ,eton 
aessand iw eetdd ,oela sien atid bongia ateqac gunitupexe ne clw 


mn ten hn tak agt gadt bettites? 


eRe mer 
CF ARS te Ae 


} 


decease of the payee, Wacklow Mankavick,stated tuat the note re- 
mained unnaid, 

The court rather abruptly, without perultting aYgument, 
found for defendants, When couusel Yor plaintii? asked tue court 
how it could believe that a man who eoulé write very "iluenily" 
would make a cross, the court replied that he was familar with the 
practices of the Lithuanian people and also he said the court 
"would not consider that 80-called receipt worth the paper it 
was written on.” If the court was of this cpinion he should have 
entered judiment for the plaintiff, whe produced the note un-~ 
cancelled, | : 

The judyment of the trial court is reversed and the cause 

te scttaiscites Been 
is remanded with directions to reinstate the judgment entered by 


i ee 
contession, 


rene 








ee 








ieeiaienieatiacemncoemenanitishdatacanaeiiem niet ies eat ee NTO NTE CN CS NONE Ratt fection 


REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIGNS, 


Matchett and O'Connor, JJ., concur, 


RC ALAA PE EEN ANN DN ENA NOE ST ANS ND caren" 


Sb nd nc thy NEBL IN Ay NR BEE Start 


=@x even ods dad botiste,Agiveinsld Relay, a ROUAN agg ‘to snsooe 


| ree 
" qed 


‘ hb corey” ‘Soritam 
,tHeaete Buidd lakeg $soclt tv Wetquids weridat druo8 Sait 

‘tisov eit bawag Tiljaietg cot feeuseo apd -63ashaeteb tot havo® 

‘vitaau Lr" way ed itsw piuoo odw aan «2 fads avotted binee bh wad 

sat adiw teiiust saw of sade hakiuoe xsoo soit 1eR0T9 4 adam &inow 

duwoo 9nd bies of owls bas eiqoog aatiandd 2a ait ‘to asoltoatg 

$k aegsg ead ddsow dqisoet bo liso-oe tact tobtadco ton bixow" 

eyed biuess sai sodaiqe eisy te asw dtuoa edt 12 "mo qeddiae saw 

~ay adouw siz hesuboaqg ea ,PUitalalg end rot tsa bast bexetme 

phe ttoqaae 


‘Pansy oly shia siacihidhinda ei tawoo dcaiad edd ‘to mre ent 
Lh EN CORN eed ae 


idan aa Yaomaoat ‘eas Y stosankor | oe eacitoonty ads bohaawen, TT: 


aoe a a a fiebeae’taos 
,@MolPOGAIG BIW GACUAMRA. Gua GKeRAVER eet Pe 


tuenen, «bk ,toanoo'O. bas stedotel 


Leo ee iF 
ae 
rh 

i 6.8 
t oa 
a i a gues ars meh 
eM SM dt 
5 «! Le 2h ey, ay oh ag a ahs 4 ergy ata pee acoe 


ease ten AA lk ee, 3 Hh ee , val ® Bhd ete” ie de | ee hes 





40424 


LOUIS J, BOROWSEY, 
Appellee, 





APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL GOURT 
vs. ; iy 


LLOYD 0, GILBERT, 
Appellant. 





LR, PRESIDING JUSTICE MeSURELY 
DELIVERED CHM OPINION O° THE COURT, 


Plaintiff broug:t suit claining that defendant was withe- 
holding Yrom him one-nulf of the commission collected by delendant 
although there was an sgreanant between thew that it snould be 
divided by reason of tneir joint eilorts in procuring a lease, 

The case was tried by the court without a jury and at the conclue 
sion of plaintill's case defendant introduced no testiuony and the 


gourt gave judsment lor plaintil? in the. sum.od.,.g2270,30, The 
2 POAT AOA Py OE IY ENP SEN REMADE TNS PTE Te I a PMN Tt 


reanntreccan si a a RTPI - 
CT A YW eR ERIS AE tif RelA TO 


question presented is almost -wholly one of fact and there is 
virtually no disptite as to the transaction, 

In January, 1935, plaintiff undertook to procure a lease 
for Christen Kaad; he knew that defendant was acquainted with 
Werner Vieboldct, owner of property which plaintiil desired to stbmit 
to Kaad; at plaintifi's vequest deferidant met oim in the office of 
Mr, Netherton, Kand's attomey., there is virtually no denial that 
at this meeting it was agreed that defendant was to subuit a proposal 
for a lease to Wieboldt, and if accepted the comuission earned was 
to be divided equally between plaintiff and delendant, Aetherton 
testified specifically that both parties stated tne commission 
would be divided. Defendant, testifying as an adverse witness called 
by plaintif?, did not deny that this was the agreenent. 

In a letter from defendant to Wieboldt submitting the provo- 
sition to rent his property, plaintii!'s name was mentioned as the 
party.througi whom the inquiry was wade, Subsequently plaintiff 
wrote defendant confirming the conversation and saying that the 


proposition to rent Wieboldat's property was considered Tavorably 


ASAD 


_ -,- RRQWOHOL UV SIVOL 
,eelivagaA 
PHUOS 
: eaV 
(THETITO < TEE 
etn Lisaga 





YIRHUZOW BOLTEUL, DAIETeSRT . AM 
TRUCOS MKT YO WOTKIGO Hon CaglEVIuRE 


asidiW @2€w Puabos tab dot gatcielo Siva taguverd Thidnierd ’ 
Snebasteb yo bevoeilco molasiaumoo et To ‘tia -ano wuts mort gntbiod 
6d biuodea +i soils Modt weewsed SNpMeSI Qs Ma aw eteit Higuosid Le 
.eneel s anitxootq ak advolie guiet afsds to noaaet sad bobivib 
euiones eit tes bas yuut s twontinw gio oat x beixt sew gees ott 
sue hoa Yaoulless of beoubore at Smee ‘tok oase a! Ttad niete ‘to nate 
‘edt 08. OVE ta ane Bat a fligatete sot _Japombut o7eg $1409, 

ai evened Ams toxt to eac yiloriw teomle al bet neaeta nottesyp 
Heitosene 1s ect of as etbqath on ¢lieuttly 


Sesel 6 stuootg of doottehas Trliatastg ,céel : Ersunel al 


tong ih ty ee OE 


dgiw betalewpos asw topboe'teb geds werd oN : bao dodo dint tot 
ttud@e of bettash ‘ttituislg deldw ytusqotq to rsawo ,thLodelWvenreW 
‘te soitio edd af min tem Jushasteb steevpex a Ttitnialg ts ;bsad os 


gett istaeb on yileuttiv ei sired .yomiotts e'besi ,oottenied .tM 


Lsaogotg 6 timdua ot eaw sashneteb tent hoetge asw Jt gaitoom elit ta 


sew bettas molodiumos eid bei qeooa ‘ti bac ,FbLodstW of sepel & tot 
aostetite .dasbhae'teh bas ttignialq neewisd ylisups beblivib od of 
— qotaetmmoo sat betate aslizeg dtod salt ylisol'tioaga beittiees 
beffes asentiw setevhs ne es gaiytiteas ~iombretsd .pebivib ed bisow 
,tasmeetgs odd esw addt tadd yaoh tom bib , thitatstq yd 

-ovota et gatsdloudue thLlodeiW of tasbne'teb mort tetseL a al 
adi ae bonotinem eaw oaen at Ytitaisia ,yireqeta ela taem of noitta 
‘ttiinislg ylineupsadue ,ebam aew Utiupat edt mow Ngsordt vtied¢ 


ext jadt yoiyee bas soiteatevaoo ent gaturitaoe tanbas teh esoiw 


rey? Joa Pe me ae Teer rp, Se eS ee 


—— 


by Kaad. Another letter followed to the same effect. ‘The negotiae 
tions lor the lease to Kaad were coupleted sometime later and dee 
fendant collected some $4000 as commission from Wiebolat. Ao part 
of this was paid by defendant to plaintiff, 

Subsequently Netherton inquired of defendant as to what he 
had done with reference to plaintirf's share of the commission, to 
which defendant replied, “Oh, to hell with HBorowsky, vhat do I care 
about him?"® Te which Netherton replied thet while the narties were 
in his office they "had agreed upon the commission and I think it 
is vrett» small to clear a fellow out who origin=zted the deal and 
brought you in, Gilbert, He's the feSlow who told me to call you." 
To which defendant replied, “Well, that is my business, not yours." 

At a later conversation Netherton inquired as to whether 
defendant had teken care of plaintiff, to whieh defendant replied in 
effect that he had his $4000 and that vas his business, Detendant 
had an opportunity to deny the toregoing conversations but did not 
do so, ‘his evidence was amply sufficient to support the claim of 
plaintiitf, 

Defendant says that plaintiff failed to orove thet he was a 
licensed real estate broker witnin the City of Chicago as required 
by the Municipal Code, Plaintiif introduced in evidence 2 license 
to engaze in the business of real estate broker in Chica ago, but ape 
parently this was procured subsequent to the transactions above 


narrated, cowever, plaintiff properly says Died prool that he was a 
eT A al rt 


LA RIOD OF LE EAL ONTOS ft NC 





a 


licensed real estate broker wae unnecessary in this” case as aid bial 


ERMA RT cen 


PRE aN 
not a suit brought aqasn et a olient but against the defendant upon 
ieee TIT Se I ae mers pee ate A ae bP VONAGE a em NR Tartine eimai 
his agreement. ml pay plaintiry, oneehalf of the commis ‘sion earned, 


nd 





el 


This was the sit .ation presented in Simon _v,. Bollei, 243 rl. dies 629, 
where the court said that the question whether the s,laintiif was a 
licensed real estate broker was immaterial, 2s the suit was not 


brought to recover a broker's commission but was based upon an 


g 


~eltogon edt .toetts ease et of howolfot xettel sections bea yd 
“9h fru tetel emitesmos betelemce sisw bed of saagt ont tot anol 
dteq of .tbfodetw mort Nofeniuimas es QUO, smoke batosifos tusbhne't 
_ _ # et Edaie te ot dngias teh vd bing sew eldi ‘Se 
biped aioe ot ed aah tated to hetiugai motterfel yLltaeupsedua 

of ,Nolaatunoo sit to atede e' Tikdatesiaq ad eonete tet bt be enob bea 
ergo I ob inde ,yxeworod d¢iv fled od sical Sei Lloer ‘tnabne teb Moinw 
ewew aottisg 33 o ildw ¢add beffaer aodtecite do tow et "Tutd tuods 
“gt te buid Ll hae nofaetmmoo ent nequ heatae Sad” yorld eo frre ated rk 
bas faoh ett Betentytto odw tuo wolfet s tselo o¢ ffeme vitera et 
® voy [leo ot Sa blot onftw wolfe't sdf ato .daed£i5 ak NOY diguord 
" exuvoy ton ,eacntand yo at tedt , ifow" bob lgor tasbas'teh dotdw oT 

tadiestw ¢3 as betilupat asedtandsad Aoiisatsvaos teded 5B Ha | 
ai bolfoer Fnsbacttas dotow of , Yettaletg ‘to oes. naked bed taeboeteb 
dnebasted -Ssoentavd afd aaw tent! Sas O008G eid bad and tadd too't'te 
toa biA sud enoltanrevncs yatogetor “ais yask of ystaudtogqe a Bast 
to siglo ed¥ fronqua of drain iTine yfqas acw sonebive ebst 608 ob 
9" Te EF alia bee 

ON Sa Flas “Svea di Be tig? “Hisite ty Gene ayes bousaetea °°" 

hertupet as ogee Et “to qt ED a3 alsitiw tetord states Leet ‘boaaookt 

‘earteott &@ gonebive ut beoubovdad VT F$ nie lt ‘ehob Isqiotnull ond ya 
«qa gud ,ogeotdd af tedotd edetes {ser ‘to eneuteud ext nf sygegae of - 

evous siokdomanss? ant of fooupeedue heiuootd enw ‘etad vis newae 

a sew orl tesit ‘toota dents Bysa viteqoxy thd ois £4 “aovewell  boderren 


1 Ait WE RARISE INCH BEEN SE SERBS AIAN NE MR meAAN TY dou nuseroy ccc reappears neon ihe MineigcepiaeniARACAGG rn imeprecinevaisalteaay! 


Bel at ae Reo eins ut Yroaesvs nny & sew tedord Statec. ‘Leet PRES SF 


TY 
oe eI RAREE NOISE RATE ICLUT LT erry cacy 14 wer moana ns sa 





bes! Sas bi9'teh oid dentese au ‘toe Ete rs sontaze tune tive 6 ton 


al eine i ee ner ee) nem estan rma I aE a tea 5 a 
“bested Hoke 3 Evusiod ‘esd “to ‘Yraiteene ‘Ytisntn ta Yeq o¢ Snsmeotgs eid } 


(ea. Ged: ‘tet gag eT me ik hetnosate wotdestie odd new ein? 
4 saw tittnisloq ent toiidoctw notteaup ole ‘Yous ‘piss’ Sie “Sud Saene 


“You aw dine ond ae ,totrs Somat enw toxord ojasee a 
ager yy 
‘he soqs Bbeasd eaw sud totee tmmoo at aaaiond B ‘revooe if ‘tauosd 


ob dete eh ee ee ow 


agreement wade by the defendants to pay sim a part of the commission 
received, In Gross v., Strauss, 208 lil, App. 263, we held tiist the 
suit was based upon a promise made by the defen’ant to pay plaintiff 
one-halt of the commissions received by the defendant, and hence 
Pplaintifl! was not obliged to have a real estate broker's licensee, 

To the same effect are Jarusz v, Namon, 245 Ill. App., 600, Gibons 
v, Williaus, Monicer & Co., 191 lil. App., 594, and Marcinkevich v, 
Wilson, 183 111. App., 147. 


No substantial delense te the judiment is presented and 


fe nmin onan ante ancien 


it is. affirmed, 


pee FOI A tL RED POE i IN A nN 0 


” eel AFFIRMED, 


Matcnett and O'Connor, JJ,, concur, 


x 


nefeniumen ont Ys duaq 8 min yeq of adnehue'teh et yd obsu Fnosncetge 
eat tend biect ow ,8aS ~OGA .LLL 80S pBESOEIE V asec 2 | wbeviooet 
ttitaieSq ysa of tasiasteh eds yd ebam selmorg ws nog hs heacd aew dive 
Somed bas ,Iriahbos'teh suid yd bevisest anoles amos art “to “t adt-e ne 
~2anasil 'tedord atugae feet 2 eved od bsgiido gon saw Tttinisle 
anodio 908 ,.qqA .fIl 2828 ,sousA .v sautst ets joe'tto sigs oot oT 
aN dotvedaiowes bas ,6ea ead «LLL tee .. ) ® | weit ten | 

| WAL ,.q@A . CLI 882 (Hoe aitW 

Ang betnenens. gi saemadut, eit of gaca'teb faidassedua of 

: aetna n| 


wbsaritis af th 


aiees SER NS ETNA Ae Rental 





a nalie o neem creme 





CAMA TVA | oe 


a 8 


«THO M09 ee .roi199'0 Ens ¢tedcoteM 


Sy 
eS 
OF — 

vw Sf: id 
o Neth we Sr tS BY 

on t 
F eS \ PID A 4 
‘ é OF 
: mw 

i 1 a tri 

P 

} i.» ; Sits py 
Fey \5 ed Saag th a aed 
J < " ¥ oF) tAggord 


Oh 


40465 


PRESLEY L, MEVILLZ, 


) 
Appellee, ) 
) APPEKAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT 
vs, ) sees 
) ru Pate VIY 2 
R. B, SAWYER ) a 
; Appellant, ) ~ ra lam 





DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 

this is a suit on a bond given in an appeal irom a judgment 
rendered belore a justice of the peace to the Circuit court of Cook 
county; on trial belore the Circuit court judgment was rendered 
against defendant for ~527,15, from which he appeals. 

Plaintiff obtained a judgment against Harry F. Pearsons and 
certain other defendants belore a justice of the peace oi Cook county; 
the deiendants appealed to the Circuit court, having filed an appeal 
bond in the usual form; upon a trial de nove in the Circuit court 
judgment was entered against the defendants, who sued out a writ of 
error trom thie court; this court held that while plaintiff had a 
meritorious claim against defendant Pearsons, yet, because of a mise 
take in the form of the judgment entered by the Circuit court, it 
was reversed and the cause remanded tor a new trial, Neville v, 


Pearsons, 263 Ill. App. 637. 





After the filing of the mandate in the Circuit court the dee 
fendants other than Harry P. Pearsons were dismissed on motion of the 
plaintiff, leaving him as the only defendant, ‘the surety on the 
original appeal from the judgment of the justice of the peace to the 
Circuit court became insolvent and defendant Pearsons was ordered to 
and did furnish a new appeal bond, with the present defendant, RK. B, 
Sawyer, as surety, This was in the usual form, in which the surety 
undertook to pay any judgment rendered against Pearsons upon his 


appeal to the Circuit court. Upon the new trial in the Circuit cow’ 





vutivesu HOLTSUG DHIGIGaAL .AM tirye oe 
.THUOSD SET EO MOIMIGO SHT CEARVI GC an 


dasmgivt « mort fseqqs os ai aevig bood 6 ao thve « at tet 
dood to Ttwea divotte ange es soeeq ond ‘te eoiteut & eroted berebae4 
: betebust saw taemgbul tines tiuexdd oid sxtoted ‘Inics ao “iydawoo 


@issaqqs ac detdw mort (aL T8ag tot tnsbueteh saniagas 





| baie anoaraod .o yrtead danlags tusmgist, 8 beatside Tilsgnteld. 
eases wood ‘te eoagq sat to eoidgart s aroisd ‘gd aabae'teb nosite igaa 2 
isoqqs ae belit gaived ,jitw0es tivorld ex of bolseqqe edaebas teh edt 
fayoo diueti0 ost ai gven ah Lelts s ogy ;atet Leven out’ ak baod 
‘to tiaw se iwo bewe ow ,piasbasted odt taniage bersias eaw taemabut 
@ bed Ttitaialq ofisw gexd bien guwoo aint ;sd4u00 aidd mort tor 
eaima @ to geuesoad ,Jey ,aaostsed Inehaetobh tantege misfo avoltogitem 
$i ,stu0o Jivorts edd yd hotetas saeambyt ect to mrot est at edad 
2¥ sifive ,{ieiad wen » tot bebaagwet sauyso oft bus hestevet asw 7 
NES wag .fLl 88 .gaoateet _ 
woh eit dxuoo diuatiO ost ot otebusa oft to gattit ost redtA 







\ —_ 
S 
sat to mottom ao basalaeib sisw snoetsed .4 yrish osds x9xito agnabaot 7 
| eit ao ysSetus off .sasbasteb yfno eit sa mubel aatvans, tks: : 


—ytetue edd doidw mt ,mrot Isvaxs eff of aaw etut ee an a 


aid nogs eacataed tasisga betehdet snemgbst “e weet, 





judgement was entered against defendant Pearsons which has not been 
paid. The instant judgment was rendered in a suit on this new bond, 

Defendant contends that when this court upon the prior appeal 
reversed the judgment and remanded the cause, tuis vacated the judge 
ment entered by the justice of the peace and the appeal to the Cir- 
cuit court, This is based upon the erroneous assurption that the 
writ of error, when the case was here before, was sued out to reverse 
the judgement rendered by the justice of the peace, CUbviously this is 
not the case, The writ of error was sued out to obtain the reversal 
of the judgment in the Circuit court, The judgment which defendant 
now seeks to have reversed is the judgment upon the new appeal bond, 
given in connection with the appeal from the justice of the peace to 
the Circuit court and given after the Appellate court had reversed 
the Circuit court and remanded the case for a new trial and while the 
appeal from the justice of the peace judgaent was still pending and 
undisposed of in the Circuit court, In other words, the reversal and 
remandmicent of the Circuit court jud.ment by this court merely ree 
manied the case back to the Circuit court, leaving the appeal from the 
justice of the peace judgwent to the Circuit court as it was before, 
It needs no citation of authority to demonstrate the correctness of 
this conclusion, 


Plaintiff says that this appeal is prosecuted tor the purpos 


= sigma - eee TIED WT A ter 





of delay and that he is entitled to an additional amount of 10 per 
Seren cet PP NS SEINE IIE SS ELE IEP NT —_ ee —— / = : ; ee 
cent. as provided by the statute. Chap, 33, sec, 23, Ill. Kev, Stats, 


1937. Ye think this point is well taken. The judgment in the justice 
court was entered October 24, 1931. the judgment in the Cireuit court 
is for $527.15, and 10 per cent., or $52.71, will be added to this 
rhe Pala vexatious delay, Koelling v, Wachsning, 174 Ill.App, 

’ a ° 


The judgment is affirmed with penalty, 


~ 


AFFIRMED WITH PENALTY, 


Matchett and O'Connor, JJ., concur, 


eed gon sad doidw enoetast Jasbas'teh fenitage bavetas asw tnomabst 
»baed wen eidd mo tive a ai hetebnet saw sxemg het, tastent ont ere 

Iseqqe szcixg et soqu sxu00 eine seciw feds abmetaoce sashne ted 
«shut edt betsosy plat ,saveo adi Sebmemet brs sosoghst, sad besteves 
atid old ot lseagse siz bua enaeg eny ‘to soliteut ant vd berstns tasm 
eis sacs nbtsenseys Buoenorge Sit sequ beasd ak aid? ,tauoo tivo 
setevet ot iuo beue aaw ,oxctsd Siem sew arco aft aedw ,torrs to tiaw 
et atdt yfavoivdS ,eo0ssa afd te avigant sad yd hevebnet dnemgbyt ed¢ 
Isexsyst sit niasido of tivo BSre asw sorte to tgitw eT ,easo out Ton 
fasbhneteb soidw ge esi, e8i 8 6,duwae ¢ ues ie ans ak Snomsbat auld to 
vbaod Leoqes Wen ant mnogu tosaghut oat ot hoets vet eves og evleoa won 
ef sonsqc ot to soltaut oft mort {meqqe ext Atiwv tof sdoenmnoo ni eh 
hears Tox ba dxs00 ote Lisacs oxy sotte nov ig bas saur00 $ tuo BO edt 
orld elinw bac Ieiss went & Tot sees wii boheme x bus tases “Sluotd at 
bas aaihoee {Lise aew sueaghut sogeg eft to soiteut edd mot't taeqae 
bas Ise@rsvsit ant abtow resto al »drtH00 Zivorts exis at To beaocetbaw 
-or yfetem dirveo aint yd sasm.buf tauos # fuer io exis ‘to dno mb memos 
903 mott Lesage silt Bnevaos JT HOO diwowid salt od dosd eee 9st hehisa 
eStOted aaw ti se Saxw0H9 th wovkd ent ot Etemhut 20694 one to sottaut 
to apentoots00 ect Sterchanones od etirodtua | ‘to aottathe on sheoa $1 
. : . | -HobesiLotto9 e bis 

szoqiug ost 10% heduosaotg al tas aga ais saat ayaa Thisais ld 


SC aidiertineiti one: eee cmeetce 


| teq OL to tnuoma Lemoitibbs ns ot belsicas ef af tens has yslob ‘to 
—_ a nee yea Hana Dy a Eh a RORY TR tee ay, a Sp RAI AR “Laan <p woaistbreeranuee : ie 


eetste ,veA [Ll ,é& ,oea ,e& ,Qacd etusate edt yd bebiverg rg Prk 





eoisaut, asit nk gnosebst sit .aeded Ifew ef toteg abdd unisis ‘e® ECL 
deuce tiuorkh® ond at Josaubst off .L8eL dS xeddtoO bovetus caw Sa909 
aids of bobke od Lfiw ,{V.88¢ xe | oft199 seq OL baw ,é1,.°8e¢ tot ef 


Ps £41 ave gadaadoeW gv gatilegd Ya led asottexey “cot sasmgbat 
= | ESE, LSE 


ws feneg sid tw ‘bomtitta 2 ‘wk beat" Py fh it 


TE oreo TA 


LYRIAMHE HUIW CaMALTTA : p 2d Per: eT 


auotoo , th, tontiod'O bas Ytedotel 


40466 ! 4” $ heck 





JOHN CROFT, 


Pt ¢ 4 
Appellee, a 


APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT 





VSe 
OF COOK COUNTY, 


R. B. SAWYER, 
Appellant, 


—SS_ eee 


2991.4. 62%? 


MR, PRESIDING JUSTICE McSURELY 
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 

This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment of $492.95 
in an action on a surety bond, . 

The points made in this cuee and the facts are identical 
with the points and facts in Neville v, sawyer, No, 40465, in 
whieh an opinion is this day filed. 

For the reasons stated in that opinion the judgment of 
$492.95 is affirmed with the added penalty tor vexatious delay 
of 10 per cent, or $49.29. 

SPYIRKED WITH BENALTY, 


Matchett and O'Connor, JJ,, concur, 











\ a aaboa 
m~ | 
KON 
% PRORD. WOT 
, sellsaca 
eTUOO TIVORIO MORE SARITA 


abv 
~¥TMYOR A009 Ta auf 


POO PO, a, BT, 


, toe t Legq&: 


‘aga f£Pees 


YIRAVeOM MOLTEUL oidleang 5 
»THUGO FHT @O KOTMIGO, SRT. CaARVIUAG 


@G.Seh¢ to tasombuh # mott sasine'tsh yd Lesqas as at ebsit 


ehriod verse B io mo itos HS at 
fesitoehi ete atout edt baa sago elas at sbasi ae nkeg eal : 
Hi ,8Gd0b ,o4 ,taywee .v ellivall ai etost ben atitog odds aig tw 
vhalit yeh alse at aoiniqe 8 so batw 

to Snooybut at meiniqo teads si botate enosast acid tot 


wateh awoitsxevy 10t ytlaneq hebba edd dtiw beuxitte at ae.seng 


228, OY to ,tn80 usq OL to 


 YTCAUSE AVIW CUMRITAA 


stuomeo ,.bb ,tonned!O baa stedotaX. 


SYWAR 04 A 


(\-. 


40467 





JOHN W, DOBBINS, 
Appellee, 


Dd & 


jo 


7 2 oa 
APPEAL” FROM CIRCUTfCouRT ; 





OF COOK COUNTY. 


) 
) 
) 
v5, 
R. Bb. SAWYER, 


Appellant, 


S999 T.A. 6253 


MR, PRESIDING JUSTICE McSURELY 
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 


Defendant in this case seeks the reversal of a judgment 
of $556.80 in an action on a surety bond, 

The points made on this appeal and the facts are identical 
with those appearing in heville v, Sawyer, lio, 40465, opinion 
this day filed, 

For the reasons stated in that opinion the judzment in this 
case is affirmed with the unas penalty of $55.63 tor vexatious 
delay in prosecuting this appeal. 


APFIRNWEZD WITH PENALTY, 


Matchett and O'Connor, JJ,, concur, 





. VOROb 
AN 
~ . { ,CRIZEOd .W MOL 
t / ( oe LLeqga 
. TAOS TTUOATY MoMENIAwadA ee 
{ 28 V 
-YTAUOY BOOS WO ( 
( -HEYWAS .a .Al 
( stasileg¢a. 


raed AT ees 
YURAUGOM SOTTEUL QURTIGSHS HK 
TUCO ERY Yo 4OTMIGO BAT GaREVIIAC 
truamabet e to Leatevet ont exses sano aid? al Jnsbue ted 
nce yteque s ae folios ai ni 08 .O08a¢ to 
feaiinebht ets atect oct Sons Iseegqs ains ao sham etntog ext - 
molaigo ,C5d0 oi stagwne a¥ oilived wk aaiaeqae eeods atiw 
| bei ve eds 
eids al tremygbut exit fteintgo Red mk hedate snORest end tod te 
ansoliexey toi OS -08¢ ‘te ys lensg bebbs ont eke bear itts ail eee 


dae TS barre aativoenona a veiet 


ȴTGAMES HEIY Gant EA 


stuonon 4 bt ,rouned'O bos stedotel 


g FE oh th Rim Si Pet 





40627 


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE 
OF IiLIlols, 

Petitioner, 4 
APPKAL FROM MUNICIPAL COURT 


Of CHICAGO, 


299 I.A, 98% 


kk, PHBSIDING JUSTICN MeSURELY 
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COUR’, 


) 
) 
) 
) 
vs, ) 
) 
JANES FARLEY, 


Respoadent, 


this is an appeal by fhe People trom an order granting a 
new trial where defendant was found guilty of ski Mel takes 
assault with intent to intlict bodily injkry. Defendant Tiled 
no brief in this court, 


Upon trial by the court defendant was found ¢ 


uilty sana 
sentenced to the House of Correction for one year; subsequently, 
pursuant to notice, defendant filed a petition undéer section 72 
of the Practice act alleging various errors of fact and asking 
that the judgment be vacated and he be granted’ a new trial; the 
State's Attorney was ruled to plead, answer or demur;; The People 
filed a motion to disuiss defendant's petition, which motion wag 
overruled and a new trial was ordered; on application to this 
court The People were given leave to appeal, 

Defendant's petition to set aside the judgement of conviction 
and for a new trial alleges that he was not represented by coungel 
at the tine of the trial and in consequence thereof Was unable to 
present his defense to the charge made ayainst him, 

The record shows that defendant was brought beiore the court 
October 27, 1933, and on his motion the cause was continued to and 
set for trial November 10, 1938; Noveaber 10th the trial was con- 
tinued to November 29th; the record shows that on this date defendant 
was in court with his counsel and was arraigned and pleaded not gadlty; 


that defendant was advised by the court as to hia right of trial by 


a 


TS9OB 





( StaATa WHY to KIORs 
( YaLOUrL Lays 
{ ,waoltised 

THUOS TAGLUIMUM MORE JATSSA ( 
( sav 

sWOASTHO HO ( 

( . « SETHAG , BAT 
( ,FashmogasA 


"aca AT ees 


#900 ‘ny ee. toturee ‘a ‘qu Lie 
8 golinety tebto ae mort efgosd eit yd Iseqgs ae et eldl 
Bie hi screen to ww ileum bavo't saw dashas ‘tab rte fais went 
balit tmehacted .vivhai viibod tol Link oF tuadad astw chars 
ude elds ad senne on 
bac ytfioyn frvsot saw toshasteb dtu0oo eas fale? nog 
Y id oespsa daa irasy 9c 19t peltoeuxes os nano out ot Lines thee 
sv noidese tetny moltited se feLit driebies heb an iton ot Jnasexng 
gaites bas toct to ators auoitey Betge le goa sottoatt ent te 
ect :Seixd wen s botnets ad suf ine betaony ed S110 00g bist, and tend 
elcos% oll -<tumeb to tewsis ,beaelq ot balut asw yontos tA a'etata 
aew Noitom dokdw ,noliited atinehae'teb ealmeth ot nolvom be iit 
aint ot noltsoltqgs me ;hstahte esw Lai«d won r) bag be Lutreve 
eiasaqus ot avaol pre etaw sflooseG sat Stoo 
noitoiveios ‘to Saemubut esd sbias fee of aoltiteq s'tasbaeted 
fsanues yd besnessrqe ton asw od tedt aogetis [sits wen @ tot bas 
of efdany asw ‘tosteds somsypsadoo ai bas Leits oft to smtt edt te 
in gantexs sham eyxredo edd ot esnoteh aid tneaetg 
divoo sit eto'ted tiguerd asw tashay'teb test eworla broset sat 
bos of baunttace asw oaueo ett noktom eid mo bas .8t0L ws tadoto0 
-itoo aaw Leitd odt StOL redmevoll ;88eL , OL tadmevoH Isitt tot sos 
tasboeteh stsh aids no stadt aworle breoet exit ;AtOR tedmsvot oF bowatd 


-véLisg tom bebssiq bus hengtarts saw bar Leenwoo afd diiw truoo of asw 


yd Ieits toNngia aid of as trv0o eft yd heaivbs: aaw tnaboe teh tadt 


jury but elected to waive this and the cause was by egreement between 
the parties submitted to the court for trial without a jury; the cause 
was again postponed and set ior trial December 8, 1938; the record 
shows that on this latter date defendant was present in court and 
represented by counsel and trial was had beiore the court without 

a jury, who after hearing all the testimony of the witnesses “and 

the arguments of counsel" found defendant guilty; the record further 
recites that uvon the motion for final judgment on the finding of 
guilty the defendant was present end renresented by counsel, 

Defendant will not be head to deny the record that he was 
represented by counsel, It is elementary that the statement of 
the record must be accepted as true, The People v, Noonan, 276 Ili, 
430, 435, 

The petition for a new trial does not state any facts which 
defendant could not present upon the trial, He asserts that he was 
acting in self-defense and could substantiate tnis “with credible 
witnesses if civen an opportunity so to do." Defendant was at 
liberty from October 27, 1933, until Deceuber 8th - more then six 
weeks, He had ample time in which to prepare any defense he might 
have, The allegations in the motion were insvfficient in this 
respect. 

His petition for a new trial merely presents general sallepae 
tions that he has been deprived of a del'ense to the charge made and 
ie a law abiding citizen and is not euilty, and it these facts had 
been known to the court the court would not have entered judgment 
herein and would have given defendant sufficient time to employ 
counsel to vresent his defense, In view of the recitals in the 
record of the many continuances eecured by defendant and that he 
was represented by counsel when the case was tried, these allegations 


in the motion for a new trial will not avail, 


WTS: Hee the 


aeewiead toemecetss vd saw saxeo oct bone eldd eview ot hatoele stud ibe 
geuao eid tent & tuodsiw Imint tot tisoo alt of betétadwa agitieg ent 
broset ast ;S8Ci .6 tedmseet Isins tat tee bas tedeutsed singe eaik 
bas dtuco af dnesetq ew duchoe'teh etad rettel aldd a6 tedd ewode 
tuorntiw traoo erly ototed bet eaw teint bas Lorsuon yd betrsasteet 
bre” seaaentiv eit to yoomisvass end Ife uckitsend tatts ondw ,ctet a 
werittyt broost sft sydiivo tusbas'teh bauet “Lerncnwoo to atnenugrea ont 
‘to yakhbart sot no teem bsg Lenit tot aotiom edt moqu tadt sotioes 
Asauves yd hednseercet bas teesete eew daehoe teh ort ysLiug 

aaw orf dedt hroost aft yaeb ot bused od tom LLiw tambneteg (9 VO" 
‘to dmoaptade sot tedt yretoewete ef 41 | donno Yd hednsastast 
okt ave fanool .v efcosd shit jaunt as hetqeoeso-ed team broset off 
| | oygeh 08a 

dotiw afost ys otete gon eech Lalad waa es tot mois btoq eAD 07H vie SOs 
sew oo tads edteans SH feted orld cogw seesete tom binos tasbie tsp 
sidthexe d&iy" aius otsituedadue bigos fiom eur tebh-tlea wh gnttos 

ja saw gushos'te® “ob ot o8 ydiovtseqqo me asvig tt esssenttw 

xie agdt ertom - d36 tedaeset Lita ,SEeL 8S stededoO mort yoredhT 
doigia od een 'teb yrs seegetg of datdw nk emis ofqxe had eh veioow 
aiit at tuetoklYivaat esew aokvom orld: ak anoltsselin edt svat 
stoogaet 

wagelia fetonsa edceaera. yforem faint wou a tot mots tteg'e dt 

fos shaw ogzeds ect of saneteh # to bevingsh aed eail eX fait anoid” 
bed atost sasgili TL hae Wihicg ton ei bite. asaisio gaibids wal eB ek 
Joombut, bexedoe oved tom bivew dayeo aid Tigao ons ot avond Heed” 
yolque ot omit towlot rina tosboeteh aevig evad bivow bas atered 

edt of alations edd te wety al, seene'teh etd daasete of Leaves 

od tact pag tasbasteh xd porwses sgonsutitnos you edd to Sroodt” 
etioiisgelle saclt ,boird sew eaao slid nes Lee anoo yd betavestdeT eam” 
Lieve gon iiiw, faitd wea e not to ttom edd Pa 


Rs 


it has been repeatedly decided that the purpose of the 
writ of error coram nobis and the motion substituted for it in our 
practice is to bring before the court facts not apnesrine of record 
which, ii known by the court at the time the judpment was rendered, 
would have prevented tne court from entering judgrent, The Peoole v, 


Crooks, 326 I11., 266; the People v. \akielny, 279 111. Anp., 387; 





Jacobson v. Ashikinaze, 337 I[1i., 141. 





No facts were presented in defendant's motion wiich would — 


peat ae em De el at A he A pect ne NA in Se ei NM 





ee 


justily the court in granting the motion Tor a new trial. The 


— en en eT LL aA HL A EN Sepa a a ve tec P ie IK a Naa 


order of December 23, 1935, overruling txe State's Attorney's 





motion to dimiiss defendant's motion fer a new trial is vacated 
and set aside and the order setting aside the judpment of the 
Municipal court and granting a new trial is reversed and the 
cause is remanded with directions to remand the deferdant to the 
custody of the superintendent of the House of Correction to serve 
the remainder of hic sentence, 


REVERSED AND RELANDED WITH DIRECTIONS, 


Matchett and O'Connor, JJ,, concur, 


els: 20 oseqtug ons sent hebioeh yibetesqet aped aan 31 
<0 ak Sh tol Hetuticadue aeijon ot Ane gidos mgten torts. ‘to J kiw 
Bicaet to giliascqa das adosl draco a8f. eteted galid of af soifoetq, 
_batp het es¥ samemgbul, sit ealt afd da danes of yd Awomd. th foil 
vy eicest ect ,.tuemitst attired ae meti dtucs oft bot aevetq aved hivow 
og ¥B8B. , FCA .fL1 OS , yep 





biwow sade . Sandig? Lal e! deine ‘heh. as bEsiaserg, Iaiioksind RIeST old 


Sy ee ae 


eit she iad wea a rok Aelson ead yaks TBLB, a Stu09 eas ioad 
asa nal dnc 

a txammetin, e'edace ent gaiturrove ,b€0i ,8 qadusee® to tebe 
betscay at daiti wea 2 tot sgiton attiashagteh aahmrts of. okt om 
iit Lo taenmhut act eblas galiiee tebto sat bas eblau dea baa 
od! fas Seoxeres ef ialts wea @ gtiiaetg bas dtuo0a fJeqiolasl 

edt et goshsoteh acd Soanet of eachioetih ativw Sebasgast al seuas 
eyvrss ef deiteatred to sceok ext to gavhuetaisequa di to ybodauo, 
9omdase ald to wehbalenes odd, 

UOLTORNIG BITW CHGHAME CHA CHBARVER | eed pyrerhE 


ss 


stwouog ,.o5 , roared! O has ttesdteM 


40368 


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 
ILLINGIS, 





) 
) 
Plaintiff, ) 
) ERROR TO THE MUNICIPAL COURT 
vs, 
OF CHICAGO. 
LESLIE RHODES, 
Defendant, ) 


29971, BoRe 


MR, JUSTICE O'CONNOR DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THS COURT, 


An information was tiled against Leslie Rhodes charging 
that he tailed to make a return to the Department of Finance showing 
the gross amount of personal property he had sold during the month - 
that he had violated section 13 of the Retailers’ Occupation Tax 


; Act, par, 452, chap, 120, Ill. State bar Stats. 1937, The case was 


{ . . . 
tried, defendant found guilty and sentenced to jail for a term of 


60 days. tie sued out a writ of wore from this court, challenging 
the suificiency of the information in thai it failed to allege that 
the Department of Finance waintairied a branch office in Cook county, 
and that defendant's failure to report the tax was intentional and 


wilful, After the record was filed in this court the Attorney Gen- 


<a SITES IE I POEL PEE Ot BLE IE 








eral asked leave and was peruitted to file an amended information in 
which ‘the two defects — ous in the oriz sinal complaint were 
cured, a | 

Defendant contends that the court erred in permitting the 
amended information to be filed, and that it cannot be considered on 
this appeal; that the orisinal information was wholly insulticient, 
as held by this court in People v, Debiet, 296 111, App., 215, where 
Khe information was similar, 

The Attorney General contends that the amended information 
was properly filed by virtue oi the provisions of section 13, 


Div. 7, chap, 38, Ill, Rev, Stats. 1937, That section provides: 


"The prisoner shall not in any case be discharged on account of 


BaEod 


10 STATS.SAT LO AIGORL BHT 
~SLOULLIT 





g tkhtaiels 
TAUOO JAGLOLAUM GH OF ACHAT 


SEP ae, te 
2CVAGIES O 


“aed Ae T ees 


“oGos aut TO ROTwtad wr Ceaser fom 2010 aorreut “He 


,B8GORA ELdeGs 


OP A EO a GOO, 


deb ce ‘ted 


giigiaco eebhedh sifeaod feniaga belit saw ak dara phi mA 

goiwose sodgsail Lo toomguaged srt of oxstst # exten of beoliat ed sadt 
- dtaom edd galish bLoa bak sa yduedetg fsacareg te cavems sory: elt 
Bei aoitaguooO 'exuslisdek edd to €f soltgee betsiotv bad od tani 
eaw gaso adi .VéCL .atste wed eased .ff1 ,08L ,gsdo ,S8b.,taq ytoa 
‘to aues @ 20 List ot beonstaca bone yiiiug bauet saahac'teb ,baist 
gaigneifsns ,¢gtxues alls ment ere ‘te gixw es $uo beove ob . ,2yeh,Qd 
Sadé egelisa of beligt tt decd ail acidaurotai oft. te yonotoitiue. edt 
Ustaves do00 ai soitizo donerd 2 hoalisfales.eosaait To inouiizaged Eth 
bas fereiiaesak eaw xed eft teoaqget, od azulist a'tasboeteh tadd bas 


“299 youtottA axlt dxvoo eftt tik be fitt aaw Br009% edt teottA fv tilw 





mi molidssrtotal bebuems os efit ae Bota dove g. 2am baw oyna d. hOB Late 


aztow gaisiqnuos Lfeaigito eat af ene tiobenials. evoatsh pee Mt doinw 


salt harks ee A th omy 


-_sborwo 


eat gaiitimreg ai berte guinos oft Tact abastacs Jaab os teG 
mo betshienco ed sonaso ti dadé Sas ,bellt od ot nolismtotal bhebnoma 
,toeioitinent yliodw saw nek tanieetih feataito ost tacs :ieeqqa afat 
etodw ,df& ,.qga -S£1 8@S ,telied .y eigosS al fiseo aids yd blow as 


sieLlimie asw soitsmrotal saat 


toit¢emrotnt hebnsma edt Jedd ebnestuco isrened yantodsé elit 
OL solgooe te enolaivotg sit to auduiv yd betit Ciregore asw 
tasbivora moisoes gadT .SéeL .atete .vel .fil ,8& ,qeds wo «vid 


49 taooos ao bestedoath ed eeao yas ai ton Iilede senceaita oAt® 


any insulficicney or iniormaiity in the complaint, or on account 

ef any informality in the warrant, or vecause it is not under the 
seal of the judge or justice, but the wairant iiay be anended by the 
judge or justice of the peace at any time pending the proceedings, * 


We tuink it obvious that the provisions 01 this section are appli- 





cable only to procedure in the triai court and do not authorize 
cng NAT CID TO ee SHEE ATCT IS pati onan aan tee — ou pnt f Sy ET m = 


awenduents in the appeliate court, 


fener BERT SO RIL 


section 92 oi the vivil Practice act nas no application 


ee tam Nt A 





to criminal cases, 


ihe original iniormation being insullicient the judgment of 
arrose ecaninanssettramnsilnnsorsceenes 7 - ae 
the .unicipal court of Unicago is reversed and thé tause-remarret> 


nh WY 


PER el sit ‘ 
ORE et EOE ETE Hd CEES OID RIL 





caste Nal ee oe IES 


REVSRSED AND REMANDED, 





NN 


MeSurely, P. J., and Matcuett, J,, concur, 


tnsooe Ao LO 12 As dquo ends of yi ifewre tad ‘tO b arraherdplon vari ys 
eit tebau tos ai ti oxusoed 16 ,sasttewW gid itd Wi tdwaxotal ‘gets ‘to 
eds yd bebieae sd yem taotiew eAs Jad epee £0 aybut eit ‘te Lesa 
* eagaibseseiq etd ghibasa eats yas ds gogeaq silt to sotteut to abut 
sei age he Hoisooe, Bias to ahoLelvotg ant heed Biaivdo 3 anidd 9W 


exiroiisus fon ob bas stec0 isiztg ont ui stubesetg of yino sidao 


pp ee TNH 





eee labo aa ce es Wi eae ae 


Ea estos 
rere wiuliedga eis al adhe niroms 


ee 





ice LAS i hi 
ONT NS gery PS 


soltas i legs ox aed goa aotveatd Liv bo ads te Se aoldooa 


89880 festutro oe 


A i 


to treo bs tf gals sre iesttuame aaled Rt abi tees feaiyizo ‘ext 


set CHARAN shacecan tein ansiaetreionen aeanininetsoninatienme 
sae wHNRS SET SRS beetevet ad ogeoidy ‘to, drweo “Cagho fut osid 
spose ee SCRE LEE EI sitet Rr ra te tutor lectins Ly lad Srksdcnenmsamec SARAH sh Blip ng eg 





CHAT ILA pe ron cians 


2 } Eva Xs ta 
AM Chee ee Baw 
708 S51. pik pene Us eke 





40662 


WEST SUBURBAN FIRANCE ALD THRIFT 
COMPABY, a Corooration, 
Appellant, APPLAL FAHOR CIRCUIT COURT 


ve, GF VOOR COURTY 





LATROBE BUILDING CORPORATION, a 
Corporation, et al., 


a a i a ens ee ee 


Appellees, 


UR, JUSTICE G'CONNCK DELIVERED THE OPINIGH GF THR COURT, 


Plaintiff filed iss complaint in chancery seeking to re- 


OLED 





dees certain real extate from # foreclosure sale apd Se souped the 
aheriff to recelve $6,000 tendered by. plaintirr te aie to effect 
the redecotion. Defendants filed a written motion to disnier, the 
motion wae sustained, the couse diasisned tor want of equity and 
plaintiff anoeals. 

The record Aiscicses that in Novenber, 1927, Charles #rey 
and vite owned the real estate in quertion, which was subject to a 
$60 COG first mortgage bond issue, It wan also subijeet te a second 
and third mortgage ovrned by pliaintirr, the West Suburban Finance ana 
Thrift Company, whieh filed eult in June, 1931, to Yoreclase ite two 
mortcayes, in August, i938, the Chicago title & Trust Conwoany, 
trustee in the trust dead given to secure the payment of the $60,000 
bond issue, at the request of sw bendholdere’ oretective coumittee, 
Filed ite sult to foreclose, Plaintiff was made n defendant. In 
Cetober, 1932, plaintiflr, under a decree entered in ite eult fore- 
cleeing the second and third mortgages, purchased the property, «us @ 
result of which a deficiency decree for $17,726 was entered Vetober 
19, 1932, againet Charles Hrey and wife, Pinintitf riled ite answer 
to the foreclosure of the $60,000 bond issue and wade proof of the 
amount due it under the deficiency decrees, 


The foreclosure decree provided that if the defendante or 


some of them 4id not pay the amount remaining due on the bond tissue 


¥ 
B) 


race 


pereny O8A BOUNTY MACHORUe teew 
; Aeisezeraes a , YEATROO 
FTAVON PAVGHAG MORE JARDA ' sha sleuaa 


RTAiOSe BGO Bo - - 29 


a , WOPTAROSAOO oataared ‘wwORTAS 
fa te yo ktarerne) | 





« 
GO tN a a 5 li, fn, gE, gn. 


eee 


~PAU68 SRY 4O BOTRIGO SHY GeHeViLaeT HOUROdS HOLTEUL Bid . 


«ge oF — ene Me Sma kgwog ebs be £8 tMisatad 
ERAS Soman eric NO iret ca a ee oad 


adi feqiace oe bes ea hnitiisnecsdial a moet vtates Janet Merese woah 


FEA PRIS DNA LYRA GEA: HEI 








SON MRD Ne Sean el Re OR EEN 


taette at aia wi Tusabesa 4g hesobusd G0, 3S avinoex. of Tiixedes 
ade te bw bh as aaisom angd baw @ baikt esaahos tet .aelianebot and 
hae ytivom To. dase xgt hewatow kh oaune vit ,benleteue sew aoks om 
siavgga Ttitalela 

Yent sofawro ,TSOL , ialtetahehi ai sane sesctonih broows gat rl a 
® oF Set due saw Sb ici dotsaeus wa etatan inet aif baawo atin bas 


| Saceee a of tootdue onlin sew gi ..gueal baed egaystom teci't 06,088 





hte epnenit wadtedad fac arte ,Ttitateta vd bouwe egepdirem fuldd hos 
! ove efi saoisexat of ,f6¢£ onl. ah tive belli selde ,yaeqmod SP tiaAdt 
 eaeeeod teuttd 4 Biel egaolde oN? BSL ,deugeaA al eoyaudron 

OU, UGG ent Lo Sosattey ode wrbeee bf atviy beab Pawts ox? al sedan? 
Seti tea svidosdets tatehiedbasd a Ia jeenpot edd te ,ounak beaod 


ak ,.fashve tub «2 sham aew ititaield .esefoetet oF dine agt beoLlt 


SS ee ee 


wetet dine efi of botesas astesh @ asban ,Vilialalg ,Stek ,wededed 
\ @ an .yrtsqeig OM heasiotug ,aagegstom bile bas bovees en) gatneto 
4edodov betotas env OLN, TLE vol setned yoostel teh # Aolde tq 3Loset 
ae@ann eff Sodit WigoiesS .etiw ban yout ealted> fantoge {R808 . 04 
i ads ‘ie teotq ehaw bom ounnl bard 000,088 aid Ie oxsaotoe tet od of 

oetoebh You tolteh ode tebaw #2 awh samome 


0 ataebas leh eay ‘tk Pare Rebivotg sexseh eteacloete? eff 





) feweet boot e69 ao ewh gaiaissrr tauame edt yoq som kh aad? to omoe 


with costs, etc., that the property be sold an‘ the proceeds ape 
plied toward the satisfaction of aucun Indebtedness, ani that if 
there was « surplus the macter bring sauce surplus inte eourt, 

And obvieugly if there was a surplus it would have been paid ta b 
the Finance company on its deficiency decree, 

In August, 1934, plaintiff reeeived a masier's deed as a 
result of ite purchase of the property in its foreelosure suit, 
Three months thereafter it eonveyed its interest in the property 
by quit Misin i: Kthads wetsi and wite, sa joint tenantea, for 
$750, Metzl waa at the time chairman of the bondholdera' protee- 
tive conmittee and the largest individual bondnolder in the 
$60,006 tenue;s the conveyance wae made te kKetzl and hie rile ae 
nowinees of the bondnelders' committee, The conveyance was ape 
proved by = resolution of the beard of directore and stockicaiders 
of the plaintiff corporation, About tive swntas thereafter, in 
April, 1935, a deere? war entered in the bond issue foreclosure 
eult which provided that any bondholder or grouy of bendholders 
mint purchase at tie master's sale and uze bonds in lieu of cash, 
September £3, 193%, the Gaoter solid the premines for 36,000 te 
George A. Konner, a mewber of the bondholders' protective committe, 
whe was one of the lerger bondholders, jie buupnt ae a nominee of the 
bondholders’ cowittee and the purchase was sade pursuant to a plan 
ef reorganization, a copy of vhich was attached to the wmauter's 
report of sale, 

‘he master, ir hie report of sale and distribution, reporte 
that he received $3911.47 in cash, wost of which wae applied on the 
costs and expenses of suit, and that for the balanee of the sale 
price of 36,000, viz., $2434.53, he accepted bonds and coupone in 
accordance wit: the provisions of the foreeleuure decree, 


the plan sowed tnat $52,560 of the bonds were outstonding, 


that more than 86% of them had been deposited under the protective 


t : 

ee skeggotqg easy fawn bien od yereqexg ome gasid ,.ote ,ade0o dtiv 
ti dad? bas ,#anchsdsebad aewe To soltuntadiwa one panos aude 
stitutes of! geiatwe sowe galtd tefeon etd awiciue a saw arent 

@ of bieg nea owed afew Of sadorse a gar exacdd Lu ulenetyde fates 
.?htesh vont lel toh afi as _— oonenit Pere 

an bowb etodaas 8 beTioget Vhigutete PGE .teaged al 

fine @iutoinetot s¢i Gi vyeusegete a47 Yo SREAD ER asi te tivess 
Yitaeete eat ai fastedai asi Soyo vas $2 +92 tannedt artt som sors? 
“et ,oereeset fotet aa erie bee fasted icone ab eat ni tin xd 
—aoiote “dretisthacd aaF “te puneatiiate emi? ont te sew Gatell .oare: 
ee wi teh tevifoed fowhivibal ooogeel oad baw watt iaves evky © 
0 elie aie base isted of eben saw couayeveos edt? jeuewt GOO)088 - 
a Sev eo Vaes oa? Joedthaes 'etebischaed wit to ansataed : 
atehigiteers Soe atatewslh te bxeod ad? Yo weltolonwt @ gd Bevery 
mab wee heoied? acig com vk) SootaA. .wedteveqteo Yrldwlaia eff Ye 
exuegioeie? eveah bacd #dF ad beentus eaw seeped @ pG8Ol , Liagte 
“pred Louies ‘le eset, to tebivudbaod yne fact hebiveng wahdw thaw 
ago to Sebd a2 ahaed seu bas oleae s'aeicam ets fe eeadoteg Sry hae 
6 309,06 to! asaiwiw off dion totem oho MOL SO sedantqed 
settiunns svidentete ‘wteilenhacd aif Yo cds « seam .A agreed” 
edd? Yo aeuiwed & «« tigeod @K eae tiashwed cegial eA? io sao aaw ode’ 
nekg a of Gaenwted whew eae overotse odt bac esti iumds ‘eaehtedbasd” 
a’ sedeow ef of Bertadtw wav doidw lo yous =e /sokpaglaagtost ‘te : 
oiee to Heqet 

ettecet weleediudulh bua ofea “ko Gtdqen aid ch yueteam eat OGL 
ed? a4 bebieas taw dolsw ‘io team ;ddaw ni WH. 21884 bevieser oi vadt: 
ive e232 Te Goitdied ond tot ¢ant Baa ypdive To eoaaeqae has ‘tues: 

Hk anequeG hae whiod bedqoved eA (LO GBERG , wav YOOOsaG Te sabre! 
.oetoeh stiacignto? ead te witoleivote an? ale sonmebhtegoe« 

(garth bautetue etew shacd odd “to O08 kee ¢ade heware aude oat 

“S¥teotoxg ad? aabaw hediagged aned hed wedd Yo OO wate orem sams” 


~ 


agreement, and the plan contenplated the property te bid in at the 
lowest price at wnieh it could be purchased to protect the interoste 
of the depositing bondholders; that if at the sale ans bia was mode 
which im the epinion of the conmalttee was uore favorable to the de- 
positing bondholders than having the property ourchased by the come 
mittee, it would not “ave ite nominee buy the preperty; teat if the 
committee was the suecesatal bidder tye vlan of reorganiration would 
be subaitted vor consideration and apvroval to tne judge of the 
ecurt hearing the foreclosure aagse; that 1f the eomolttee's noninee 
akc ulé be the nucceseful bidder it would cause ite nowinee then 
holting title to redeem from the aule, After the eale vae made by 
the master to Hencer, athey bendholaere, in relianee upon the plan 
of recrganization, deposited their bonds, raiein, the total of dee 
posited bonds to 95". 

in February, 1°36, the master's sale was aporoved by tue 
court snd an amended plan of reor,anization presented te the chane 
Gellior, whied was gubsatantially the wase ap the ori;inal) plan except 
that it recited the purenwae of the property by Kenner ss nowinee 
for the comnittee, and provided for the termation of a eorooration 
to hol’ title inetend ef a liquidation trust. The amended plan ree 
cited that the eomdittee would require ite nowinee then ioclding 
title to the property to redeem fro: the master's gale, then convey 
the preperty to a eorporation to be organized ag the “Latrobe Huild- 
ing Corvoration,® The amanded plan waa approved by the court, *ho 
found that notice had been giver to all the bondholders that the 
Plan would te eubmitted to the court for ite appreval at the tine 
and place stated. the decres approved the uavter's sale, and the 
amended plan olso reeited that the court had exacined the original 
an? amended plan ond after hearing found that the auended olan vas 
fair and equitable, and it was deereed that the exehange of old 


securities for securities under the new plan be approved and that 


ei? ga 2h Std od Ylusegetg o8t betetoet aes sate ef? bom .Poeeverge 
aieotegal ois Joetosq of hoaaietse of binge #2 satew de madeg teawed 
obo sew Bid ~Ke efue mo de UL ¢asd pouwehiedbaed galetavcesh ond to 
«6b oH? 6S siteiowrt si@6 eae ascii baweo see Yo aylaiqe edé ont slodedw 
amass e123 yd hezadousg (eRegetq sat yawn edd etebiodbacd gai? leog 
ont “th ded pePeogats vat yod se aiwon ath evad goa binew 21 , sets ha 
Bisow Mehasiuayioer te dudy aad vothid eo bereouen wa? maw pedo hanes 
wif to exetint ect a& Lereeqae ham sei torebbemes 10% best ieatug od 
ecaiuen e'opti inns of? VE tend peeme wines Soares ont ypatteed  @iseo 
Meds onions of) weeuve Sivew $3 tebShd tv teoesens edt ad Sin eda 
Ud sheet ane ofan sat orth ,efer ads cont aeshet of e714 gahited 
mig o82 coaw warinlties af ,wtebLodbaed welts team et totean and 
ooh Wo date? ote patetet ,cbard sheds botheoqeb juehtent seqgnogs te 
s28@ of chaod tetheog 

Sad YS Mevetgga sav Olas ai aecean os, 08eL prveendst al . 


“uae eas GF. bedusnong geitacinungtoet to malq hobeieme ca hae Steen 


Squexe naky ~atiyirw ens sa sees elf yYLlaliaasedoe eaw cokdw yroiies 
@salaaa 4 TeeweA yt yoeogena 6:9 to weaving eae hodhoost, 12 gate 
seltgiedtes « th Soltewnet ost <0 febivete Sae , sete beago- e872 vet 


oot uote Sebsosw GAT  seesud moilatlussd o to baotent wf2he bLod |e 


QAihset aes eeaduon at! etiupex hivow setilense add oasis bode 
geTace todd ,eine o'eeteam odd ook awebex o@ ytteqosa edF of wAdhs 
bile! adowed® edd se bextnagre ad 68 notterequogoe of utneqete eat 

ole ,oxwen add yd bevorgqe sae fade bobs ofT * wekdetonred gat 
os? jac? exsbloeibaed off ifs of sevig med het. oodeva den? bavet 
ents et ga Savetage- sit tek o1eee oo 69. beet tedun ed. Binew asl¢ 
ettcle ,oleeettegeam ef hevretemm eoteeh a7 .detata apale bow 
daatgite wai honinexe bast twu9 edd tach her ines pele mele bedaomn 
gow mely. boboome od tase haxet yaiaeed sete fun snte Soham baw 
ais) bho ke egendome es) tadt peeteeh sew ab bow pedder legs ban shat 
i fact bse hevotqus ot neky wea ods Sehaw seltitepen se? saistiasses 


copies of the amended plan be mailed to all depositing and rone 
@epositing bondholders within 10 days. The decree approving the 
master's report of cale and reorganization finde that all parties 
were notified, and the regord discloses that the attorney ror 
plaintiff, the Weet Suburban Finance and Thrift Conpeny, a defendmt 
in the vond iseue foreclosure suit, #as served with notine ef all 
ateps taken in the matter, and that no objeetion warn made by the 
Veet Suburban company to the anended pian for reorganization, or te 
anything that wae done in the matter, 

Afterward, pursuant te the suended plan of reorganization, 
hin ima tae orgenigzed the Latrobe BuilAing corocoration, to which 
Sidney Ketel and wife jicerel thetpremiees in July, 1936. Auguet 
10, 1936, Renner who as novinee of the committee had purchased the 
premises at the foreclosure eale, endoreed hia certificate of sale 
whieh he had reeeived from the macter, in woteh he reeited that the 
Latrobe Building Corporation had paid in full the amount ror which 
the property was sold to ois by the master, and the oreperty had 
been redeemed from sale. 

Sore than ms month therearter, Geptember 23, 1936, usen 
notice to counsel for the Weat Suburban Company, Ketzl and Kenner 
present? their veritied petition ‘o the ceurt in whieh trey set 
up the Tormation of tne Latrobe Building Corvoration nursuant te the 
amended plan; that they were president and seeretary respectively 
ef the bondholdera'’ protective committee which had oresented the 
amended plan; that the provisions of the plan had been consummated; 
that the equity of redemption in the property had been conveyed to 
the Building corperation by the nominees of the bondhel¢ere' ore- 
tective cemmittee who held ‘title; that there nad been a redexption 
from the sale; that the plan had been approved; that the reorgatizae 


tion loan had been made, out of whieh all forcelosure and other 


costs and expenses and part of the taxes would be paid; that the 


* 


ago haw guidiesuek due ot bation of alg, bobo end Yo aatgoo 
eit guivoigge otresh e@i. .eysd vf adadiv avebfodhood galtigogead 
wetseng fe tadd eholl apitesiaogtoss bas. odes, ‘to Stoacet a! teteam 
<0: yomtetie ede gad semedonkh dresses wld, bas ,bodtisen ster 
dmhcoteb « .Yaeqsee J tind bas eemnads apdgadel dee® esd 4 Vide nadg 
the te welten soir bevasa sort pilon eapmodeeiet enpok bagd ads, at 
add oS them ae Achiaaide ea dats ban yeptiam sa? af coded egate 
oF te tied tases agers tet avy Sohaeme ot ad yRaquee sedtedab Jal . 
tation at ob aaub aes dais galdtyas 

Mobtarinaytess ‘te nade hehaemn. oid0s smaxenug, buawenstA . /, 
Bo isiy of ,tehtavsere gibi ink edested ee bemiangie eabtiango pat 
‘eg aes  OOO quis’) ct seoteengtead dogeran otie dan, dated goakse 
Od? hemmtonuy fod eombieone of? fe enalann 40 oc apages, BERL ot 
eins te ateoli hrwes eit beaetobus ,olee suseotaeno) ode, te woodemag P 
odd tad thier .ossiotay ab preteen quit oonk hevioaee bad on sedsiw 
tobe vot énivmne oh Lovt at bhaq ded aelsosoqned gath sind edestedt 
Moma “itegets act hee ,xedees ed qd abd? Aiow saw yoroqetq o42 
alae aot bowechex seed 

mons hE 68 wedintyeG , wes tectedd ataga « aed) 97e@k, 

sauce baw JeteM  vacqued sedeudut gonW wad 103 Lasanoe of golton 
fon ees dadew uh taooe ont of modtideg baltizay tigd? hotapmesg 


aihnt dnoumeng agiteteqted pathilud odented s4t Yo aatacwaets| edb .gu 


wisvitesqest yreieiges bon fasbleniq stew yadd Jans panig pebaems 
edd bedcunete bad okie eess kagon evissedeng ‘eqebtodhaed emt to 
pheteanwanen seed bast ankg ait te eaciniwong aad dade paeke bebagma 
ae Boyernon ceed hed yYiaegete es? af modtqumhet iaaiiaabiiiaiail ed 
ony etebhoukaed add he asaateen ome yd agitetoytes gmihlin®, ene 
nkasties n need bed owede ted? 224th) Med,odw geht hameo: vestannt 
nehaaginet oid todd phevetage mead hed mele oth dade podee ont maz? 
tedte bas oveneterte? ifa dokde Yeduo ,eham ened bat anol. aott 
wad fale phtag od binew aexad e09-2o tang dos, eoeneqne, bas atage 





balance of the taxes were contexuplated ta be paid out of the funds 
in the handa of the receiver in the icoreolosure suit; that the 
Bullding corporation Aeld titie, ete.; und on the same cay an order 
wae entered finding the facta substantially 26 wet torts in the pee 
tition, and thet the Building corporation had redeemed from the sate 
ter's sale and was the orrer of the presiaes in vee simple sutjeet bo 
the trust deed on the property wnieh nad been executed te seoure a 
reorganisation loan of $6000; amd the court sien vound that what Had 
been done wae all in sceordanc@ with the awended plan of reorpaniza-~ 
tion, and the receiver was ordered to surrender possesion of tire 
prenises to the building corperation.< 

the reserd fur ther dimicees Laat afterward the .oldere of 
$50,000 of bunda exehanged thes for stock in the Bullding corporation 
in accordance with the reorganization plan, = tiat Oetober 10, 1956, 
the S.ilding sorpsration paid 93789,.¢2 ipa eaeki that in order te 
Bake Payment o2 the reorganization costa and expenses and accrued 
taxes the building eerpe ration had borrowed $3,000 secured by a trust 
deed recorded September 9, 1936, to Victor Langaett, trustee, and 
that the trustee and syrtle Langsett omned the $96,0U0 nete and trust 
deed, 

December 15, 1936, which wae more than Tour gonthe alter 
Renner had delivered hie certificate of redeuption acknovied ing ree 
ceipt of $6,600, as above stated, plaintirr, tha Yest Suburban 
company, tendered $6,000 with interest, etc., to the sheriff of Cock 
County te redeem the property from the moster'e sale, plaintilrr 
claiming it wae omtitied to do se by viriue of its deficiency decree 
of more than $17,000 above referred to, contending that the aiteapted 
Fedewption from the sale by Kenner wae ineffective and voila, 

Plaintiff contends tiat the steps taken by the bondboldere' 


Committee in atte .pting to redeem from tae master's eale “amounted 


merely to the certificate holder executing and plucing of record a 





abugh eff to ¢ae bkag od of Sede Leumtace: due eons off te abautad 
ous Sadd giise staneios1ey act al gevinoes af “he wbdad ode ar 

T6h20 ac Yah gama GAT de Bas peeda ,eLi EY boot wmeksacogtoe Balb Live 
«sq eft ul SGx0% fom aa ¢iivayactadou Gh0n't 24% gathalft boteiant @he 
“826 O4¢ wort bamaher bod Aokdevertas geletiwh eae tate sad ,aokshe 
ad tuatdue elqule sat 2 geeleetg oH) te teaee Gad dew tan efaa @! ted 
@ Orveen of hetveses aoad fee dehie Yheegorg o5f ao boob Pants ‘ode 
bet deste sad has@t wie Ieee a0¢ fue pOUSS ‘te meet aol faalaagtdes 
~galaegivest tg asiq behacae ost. iw goaebtosas al iia ane eutes aged 
ais t9 aGleaesage Sehoovive of beantue wad KevVieoet ens baa ,mekt 


Saltepeqtes gwthiiea edd of seed 





te, Biad sas ast rowed ts $a? wawoBeth emai vet hveger eal 

sk Abas aibsanst BREh Lio end 8k agate *O% meee begomiote whaod ‘te O60 ,066 
WEOL pOL rede and ae hae Maly miientangtost at dalw sonohneded ‘al 
of «wehie al sane youreF\gdegia 86. 26VES Blag seltareqtes pal biiit ond 
 Beirewees ban eeooges bate erase aoisestuexgweet sed To onemgng ode 
Jesuit a yt erasers Goose sbevovied bot mebteveqies gaitiiv® emf eexet 
bias eokues ,ieeagnet tedelY of ,S60L ,e oduerye® baprosan hosh 
fautd Baw stom GOO,8o ed heveo Peeegasd eLieye Ane voters? odd tans. 

wedty etigacs 40h tact etem eaw delew ,oo0L ,8% seduenet 
ast guivieivsaive moltquetes To otasltivaeo eid betevi igh ban Seumeh - 
gud«ds tee’ oft  riddalede (hedete evede ae 000/08 To’ tates 
dood to Widwsie odd OF ,.age [easregnd agdw OOO, 39 Bevebaed , chequed 
Yikemielg ,@lea a! tedecs ace week Yoeeqory eo wbebet- of “RMD 
Ootoeb yotobo teh adi Bo omraiv wh ow of oe? hele ites gow oP gabateto 
badqussze elt dad yalhacdane od hore ler ovede OOULTES mat’ wren te 
stor baw eviseo Tien? sew tema ye oat piid oot't molt queber 
‘wrebionbucd 64s ¥¢ apaed wgerH eds nace ehavtiod YeLeniere’”! ie 
bormyome” oLoe etaedesa off cott meehen Of. Gabi qastis W) Sete times 
fh bteese Vo Batoody han gakdood=w tobdns osenlt 909 whe |F yloTOM 


eertifioate of redewption, without sayment of the amount o! tue ssales® 
that what was done “did not conetitute a redemotion in luw «and tnat 
the redesption proeesas lacked the esgantiala of & redeonilon in 
Tact; that the eomulttee could not redeem row iteell snd taet page 
ment of the sale price ‘aan element Gl a atatutory redeupe 
tion;* that “Hedexwption under the statute ie a cash and carry tranee 
action;"* that "Kot = (ime wae paid to the useter in Gisncery maxing 
the sale;” tuat "All that de required to make @ redgwption ia pay- 
ment; and the omly thing tiat ofn Dé a Predemption under Section 15 
is payment® (See. 15, cuap. 77, Lil. State Lar Utats. 1937); that 
"The record shore tuere was no idea oF thought thal there wae any 
money toa be oaid ior a redewption, it was all 4 paper transection 
and aceording te plam;" that “ihe sinsiieity of the etatutery orovie- 
sion on the redeuptione is strixing, Ali that is reyuired of the 
redeoptioner ie to pay the debt with interest." and tat the record 
shore that all the expenses and all paymente made were Srom the proe- 
ceeds of the $8,000 mortgage claced upon the property by the Puilide- 
ing scorporation, Ye avree with toils latter contention, The record 
shores that all the moneys that went to pay expences, taxes, ete., 
were obtained from the #6,0(4 loan. hut we are umable to agree with 
the statement that the methed of redemption is strisingly simple; 
but are in secord within the statement that “the bar lo eaid to regard 
Statutory schenes of redewption from judicial sales as a baffling 
complex of pitralls.® 6 University of Chiongo Keview, puge 625. Ye 
are alec of opinion taat redemption from a muster's eale pursuant te 
a foreclosure decree dose not always reguire i.e use of soney. and 
it seems to be conceded that even though the certificate of sale and 
the equity of redexption became vested in tae same person, tuere ie 
ne merger and the certificate of eale is not thereby destroyed ‘ut 
the right of redeantion ecntinues, Rooper v, Goldatein, 356 111,125, 


Counecel for defendants in their brief say that "by their 





* s0Lbe Bit “Lo Fowoma od To daeagur snedi iv ,aohtquebes te othe hitdens 
duct hie wal af woligumbox 2 etutijenos fo BB" eneb abe dart Jadt 
ai soltuesbet « Yo sleitasees ed? he went gasoetg Hol tqueber sit 

“vagy fact hay tieeli aaxt seeder Jes oar) eet lemon eae $a8d" jéoet 
“qushen YtoIwtete a io gapasio titvuetahal soity sie ef% Yo Seam 
ansi/a} YvEeS Day Hien 2 wk S2udarw sat tebau abtteawbok” sand "inetd 
ghtiem (ernie ai teteek aft of biog eaw eats « 204" gant *snoldee 
«yee €4 eolgyaphes # svnu oe borlupes al Dedd LA" sedy *Zotae’ ora 
‘Bk aelvos® tobas aviiqnebet a od wd Yue) gubad ytnd OK) ban Pinon - 
dand® {(0EOL Leeese eek SPAse ED (FF Yqeee (Or Leet) "erway eh 
Ylte aaw sr9dd seat sigueds 16 asbht on anw S4eea? ewoae brevet ent* 
woltomeiery waged 8 Ree ww 4% “leodtqwohor ao ret BRE bY od yonem 
‘Speute Vaashdade axe Ye ebtebignee sat® dowe“ianly 69 Qarbioces he 
ets "te hotluved wt goat LA eerie ‘e2 ouctsquehot snd ne aole 
brsbar oa? Far? BAA * peonedal Aghw fdoB od? vag 04 4) tomo quebes 
-o4¢ 6243 aost ate” g825 adoemyag tle him eee eete eid Loe tans awaits 
ubiewa’ dad Qu edreaeey oe Ange BeOE LG SybgdteR 060.00 Hae" Ye SbERE 
brovet sat .oodddetadh cette alsa dtie serge’ eF “\moltarogtos pitt 
e998 , SORES ded bags Yee ot daew feed eyosom ott Cy todd awore 
Agiw setes of sidan: ote oy fut anol 000,88 oxts mnt bontatde: etew 
9 Sat a ‘yagalubtie Gi nolsgmeter to beddou add Seid Fosmetata asd 
brayer of iad ot wad one* Jost tamne deze wit dete beooos wt ete Fed ~ 
gai ttiad & on e6fae Lalaleut sett aciiqaeted “ie eandsrioe euedutate 
&® .880 jou \welvod opandae to Gskatevial a © eo ctete by to: xd faites 
of sanwrke ofa & ited air b Roe aiitgoeter JSwae woLdtge to sels ets 
bits staaiow to bay aad at Lupot wyseis tox se oh @odped ‘otLacteotot 2 
baa otbe Yo edeortidzes 8A) Muoill aera “yaad Bel tos oa” iy ee ot 
ak ered? ,mowreg dase Od) ab Beendv dmnoed aot tqnabor 36 Wake ed 
dud boyouiesh yserod) joa ai bron te ‘phadlilives ext ie ‘qeytem os 
eet 1tT Str Lajoseptad wv zeqgoll seowaldnce nolddanbed 46 tage oe 
vical wat Hi he He eh eT ees ee 


igh ry! 





motions to dismiss they admit that George Kenner regoived noo sity 
er its ¢ uivalert from Latrobe Bailding Corporation." but they 

say that Kenner wae the nominee of the committee and held the eer- 
titicate of sale for the benefit of the depositing Sondnelderse; 
that the Buildiss cersoration “was eoryanized ty the committee Sor 
the benerit ef the bondheldere os part of the pian of reoryanigae 
tien;" tha: Lf any money had been actually pulé toe Kenner, "it 
Foul’ have been the bondholders’ money, both before and alter the 
Paywent., Inusouch as the bondholders surrendered their rignto ter 
stock of the corsoration thie comporation would Lave been entitled 
to reactive back the redemption money pabé. The situation *saa not 
different in substence than Lr George Kanner had held the equity 

of redecption ue well se the certificate of sale in cis own right 
and had, under sueh clreumetences, sade out and recorded a certifa- 
cate oF redecption, thereby phowing on intention te redeem and giving 
retice te all persone interested of such intent;" und that in these 
eireunsatances the redacotion would hove been geod under the rule 
etated i. tne Hooper case. 

A@ a regult of what wae dene in the foreclosure, redevption 
and reorganization plan, tie depuoeiting bondholders ner iiave stcek 
in the Building corporation in lieu of their bande, and tue non- 
depositing venduolders ave received tasir preportionate part of 
what was derived fron the proceeds cf the foreclosure bale, and 
so far oe tae record disclores, no bondholder is complaining that 
the plan toliovwed waa mot the best one anter the glreunstunces, 

Section 18 of chapter 77, Ill, Nev, Stutea. 19357, provides 
that, "Any defendant, *** may, *** within twelve sonths from aaid 
sale, redecu the real estate ec wold by paying to the purenaser *** 
the gum of money for whieh the premises were sold or bid off.” 
Usder thia provision the purchaser is entitled to hie soney but 


eodviously he cuz do as he pleases with the certificate - .ive it 


aatz qo bes | Stusoloorey BHF Ok ettob aamr tear ve hve0r * on 


. 


Yow om Sevigwes Tema agsost tans 3 kate yeas #0 bine th of anetiom. 
: yous sa * oddest eqned Rann thee edortend wore tan tay bu hy att 0 
“295 sind bhow bis eats hanes out te gontann ais aoe roams tert ae 

ieteh Losbied amis Laoqne made ko sensed eat so elee ‘ro oseothy 
103 9053 Lange ois ES boninnyzo ont modennagtes wate Lisl oud at 
sontnagtos od meby ocx te Ptae se ered Loxbsod ness to sPieasd poy 


ai" stonaes of Alwg yliesteu seed bast eaten Yin 3a Saiid “paott 


Y IRQ P26 


oss tod te hie suo hed ag od a Scene ‘aod Leabaod ant ngad oyed A iuew. 


tet atsgit tied? hoiehar te He atoh Lextbacd ant Ga douono al stanangag 


eet ee 


bold igay pees *¥ed biuaw aghtutoqnos. ode etseroqroe, aH, i feet, 


“eh ty 


fon ane Goksawshe ett hag. nanan sold gobo ald vad svioons Abin 
Gtawne Lied bind Bash Ben cas synes 2 Vt itd somusason wa duno 


fine WE A david 


daigin awa wbis ab ofan te oieed iiney att ae Ake as oka gabe te 


a¥ittxse a bobrages ‘fit See ohaw ste anz aauaxte Howe webs a bal ban 

? , ga Buen 

aaivie ee wean bor ad avisuedad Died gabwods domes sHolasquaner te sao 
Pe wie hat 

waned at fault bins * ; famed at awe te bed ap aed al aanexog kis of gulton 


otis oat tobaw fees w9ed oval hawow wets qaebe ose eronasemotte: 


c ae oes hts Sars Z Paster Miche sey w essen So Giese eae 
ae .oea9 “regeal aia ak begage, 


. ; . ; agit Vis meee deny 





Jane Hwee 
dante eves wees ate Louibaes yates aeant asia ae. aoitaahsaytoor ote. 
THD SRS 


sn08 ond how sahaod q2eu? te wed at nelterertoe gaintiud 6 ed eh 


yee 


te #t2q Saaoloroqorg aiods bovieves Ovad sxehLoubnod wadt noes, 

bad ghee orueoloes at ewe ae absaoera, one wont bey iamb ae Pos sei 

' Tah ae a 

sana paid ade cqmo at cuntgseaud om oonvconte beooen oat a ‘wt *, 


ed wa iN 


seapansanue rio a sd ‘ebay ang food ei DOM Bae benettot akg a3 ne 


| aebbrorg “eer wnsese -ver Ett wT rotqesto ie Ly] aoktont 
btas wor eiidaas ey lewd abate ens se any pando tab at” sata 


Rese cihe tai : 


a ey 


=) - veanaorug ane ot ankyng Ww bow oe eiatee Laos aus aneher . etek, 


wy hes Be ae Payee Heat 


*.3hy bh xe bien oxew aoaiuetg auld sie hate et yoaes te moe one 


vik. DAR MNR: | ah 
“tu qo t0si aud og Detittm at no Mssio'EM wate molaivers, eta Fi aay 
Nes ews. . sa PA Ww ”* P 


#h aviy ~ “aguatilan0e. ous wate s0ean fy om ve of nae od vtewotvde 
, ES "Ea ibeaee 





away or take what he ia offered for it - and chon the reper ocre 
tificate ia riled by iin ehowing the redecntion has been made, we 
think this ie euffictent unless what wor done war Traudulemt, 

In the luetant enme piaintill wae in neo vay efrauded, It 
Was advived in the foreelosure euit and the various etepe taken 
that there waa to be sw reorganization in «hich the depositing bonde 
holders would surrencer thelr bonds for Rtegk in tie corporation, 
and’ the metnod by waleh this wae to be aeoowplianed was pointed out 
in 4etail, Defendant filed an ‘answer to tue Toreoleceure euit, 
proved up its defluleney decree, Was adviewd oF the reorganization 
Plan, ani onde ne objeetion at any vie: but of the contrary, ofter 
it had cbtained a deed under its soveglesure oi the eecond and todd 
BOFteages on tie property, sold and guilt claimed all of ite interest 
in the proserty for 37% to  nowinee af tue Com. ittee ef bundicld- 
ers, abc Uiroughout the proceedings usde no Gbjeectlen, afterward 
dangsett and site lent the Sugicing cCorpGvation $6,000 Yor whieh 
they now hold its trust deed and nete, Under tueee circumatarn ces 


RR A AN NERA CRITE S IL IONE, 
to couplain, It is cetopped 


sine hoask 


we think pladntirs is net in w peeition 









by its evn conduct. Chic 





Ill. 646, 
the order or decree of the (hLreult court or LOOK gounty 
ie affirmed, 


AVY LIRRED, 


BoSurely, /. J,, amd tatehett, J,, Gonheur, 


we 





“59 tegqot, Sas ade hag » #2 tet bers the ef en datin aint xe awa 


ey ,@hum seed anil Mettquebet suit gatworie on bets et etna tits 
fae Labvar’t aw, auch aay dariw new Lr S4oso2 Thue ek a hls katte 

st deduartes Yar on at aah Frid ake ty voy rants? ost at 
mated aqete sughtev oud frm Phare evs otae oot wid wl hou vhs nsw 


iN] 
ined pats tavens ete Modade oid neltaetanyeoe & od wf eae wend tats 


Mo tdatogtas au? ak seove tot ahaad fate? xotae reas iiuow ers tod 
tue bes aieg are bode Liquonen ‘ed od sew hts  diedae ve podion nat brs 
yt tve eiueelost9? ead os rown ite RY) beg fant sete tates at 

Rok LHe d Ragr ae eae ‘te bon debe aow ,2eubek ‘oi te Ftp aa ae bevorg 
so2te sEtetises add we sud camdt yan de sob ieotde et * Bho Baw va kg 
Os bat ne haoae oHY Lo sivas isa ath te 49a feat a beaker do hast a 
tate bas as te bie hasiels i bup bax Bias cLeregwig ext ats nogustt0a 
whiodbaed ‘te const moe ot “he sports & o eet 20 ties cong oat ak 
banwaettA neds onto an oheuw aanthooo are eas “supdasorts bas tt 

to kak 101 099,88 aglseTogres gah hud walt aie £ elke baat ttomqaad 

MOG KsFewiatisc spent TebaAds .etan here bane rauns eik bLoa won yeas 


endian meee 
eqqosa uf sf ehhh ite oe inode e ah Fox ab Yi Makete sinauts ow 









wana an 


yaauos Hogs ‘te Piuse ‘teondd add to seteeh fy zobx0 eat 
. . shoot Tt a 
ONAL OL, | 


” xwo 800 ae ttedaiai be ak “a .vietuSom 


t k 4 by ee eS Let, aes 
oe. TY I se HR eam Rae: aaa ons 
i a ee  & 4, 2B os OEE: BOY eee Rte ke FPS | ¥ he i tohatl 


epg y Ly teh Go Re uh te {dskotte 





PI 


PUBLISHED IN ABSTRACT 


P. N. Chiasson, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. National Triangle 
Securities, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. | iret / 
/ 






Appeal from Circuit Court of Pike County. 
YQ 4 F 
OcroBer Term, A.D. 1938 «y & ey 


Gen. No, 9158 Agenda No. 25 


Mr. Presipine Justice Riess delivered the opinion 
of the Court. 

This suit was originally brought by plaintiff-appel- 
lee, P. N. Chiasson, a physician, heremafter referred 
to as plaintiff, against National Triangle Securities, 
Inc., defendant-appellant, hereinafter designated as 
the defendant company, before a Justice of the Peace 
of Pike County, Illinois, seeking recovery of $500 
damages, on account of a claim for medical services 
alleged to have been rendered to Oliver Collins, an 
employee of said defendant company. - 

The suit was afterward tried de yiovo on appeal to 
the Cirenit Court of Pike County, without a jury, and 

a judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff Chiasson 
for the amount of $443, from which this appeal 
followed. =. fee 

Defendant company owned and operated an orchard 
in Pike County, and employed one Thomas Smith, 
who was in the fruit commission business and an ex- 
perienced apple dealer, for the purpose of generally 
advising with said company in regard to the manage- 
ment of its orchards. Smith went to the orchard weekly 
during the summer and fall months when spraying, 
picking and packing apples was in progress. The 
President and Secretary of defendant company made 
frequent trips to the orchard for the purpose of exer- 
cising direct control over it. 

In addition to the help of Smith, it became necessary 
for defendant to have one experienced in orchard work 
and handling of men to personally direct and earry 
out its orders relative to spraying, picking and pack- 
ing apples, and for that purpose one James Bright, of 
Griggsville, was employed under an oral contract. 
Bright personally hired and discharged men who 
worked in the orchard and kept record of their time 
of employment. Checks for wages were signed by de- 


Page 2 Gen. No. 9158 


fendant company in Chicago and sent to Bright, who 
delivered them to the employees. Defendant also gave 
Bright a cash fund to be used for small emergency 
expenses such as repairs, equipment, gas, oil, postage 
and other incidentals. The expenditures by Bright out 
of this cash fund were reported regularly and submit- 
ted to the detendant-appellant by Bright for approval. 

On October 12, 1934, defendant was operating a 
truck in its orchard which gathered up the workmen 
who were employed therein, took them to the orchard 
during the day and at night returned them to Griggs- 
ville. On that evening, two employees of the defend- 
ant company, Oliver Collins and Roy Vaughn, were 
injured in an accident in which the above truck was 
involved. Upon being notified by telephone, Bright 
went to the home of Vaughn. Dr. Chiasson, the plain- 
tiff, had previously been notified and had gone to the 
scene of the accident. Dr. Dilts rendered first aid 
treatment to Collins at his home and recommended 
that he be taken to the hospital. 

Dr. Chiasson testified that he was employed by 
James Bright, as agent of the defendant company, to 
attend Collins after the injury and take him along to 
the hospital to which he was taking Vaughn and con- 
tinue treating him until the defendant had discharged 
him from the case. Collins was taken with Vaughn to 
a Quincy hospital and there treated by other physi- 
cians. Six months later, at his home or in the office of 
Dr. Chiasson at Griggsville, the latter resumed treat- 
ment of Collins. 

The defendant company denies that James Bright 
employed Dr. Chiasson to treat Collins on the night of 
the accident, or at any other time, and denies that 
Bright had any authority to make a contract in relation 
thereto which would bind the defendant company. 

Appellant company was operating under and was 
bound by the provisions of the Workmen’s Compen- 
sation Act of the State of Illinois. Subsequent to his 
injury, Collins filed his claim for Workmen’s compen- 
sation against the defendant company. In this pro- 
ceeding, the Industrial Commission awarded Collins 
the sum of $20.00 for medical services rendered Col- 
lins by plaintiff Chiasson, which amount was paid by 
a check made payable to and endorsed by Collins and 
Chiasson. Seventy-five dollars was also allowed and 
paid to the hospital for another treating physician and 
surgeon, Dr. Jurgens, whose claim is not involved 
herein. Dr. Dilts was also paid for his first aid treat- 
ment. 





Yk xh 
tain VY 


a 





at 

oP & ; 
j iow OR 
9 be a 4 
a do HPN A 


SiKRSELESSLAS 


ne eh B2nh ae ds 


ft 


we 





‘ ree sagt pmeee ane bee “ ha 


v Bees soe PY me he ah bones te pe ‘eat 
“eA als. abit 





Page 3 Gen. No. 9158 


Defendant company contends that the claim of Dr. 
Chiasson for medical services was submitted to the 
Industrial Commission by Collins; that the award of 
$20.00 was made to Collins for Dr. Chiasson, which 
was later accepted by him and that the plaintiff is 
therefore estopped from proceeding to collect his al- 
leged claim from the appellant company by virtue of 
his alleged contract of employment to treat Collins. 
The plaintiff was not a party to the proceedings before 
the Industrial Commission. The Workmen’s Com- 
pensation Act deals exclusively with matters growing 
out of the relation of an employer and an employee. 
All except employer and employees are strangers and 
not bound by the Act, and their usual lawful rights and 
remedies are unaffected by it. Augustus v. Lewin, 224 
Ill. App. 376; Hoyt v. London Guar. & Acc. Co., Ltd., 
227 Ill. App. 92. Appellee Chiasson was not bound by 
the award of the Industrial Commission. His alleged 
claim did not arise under the Act. His suit is based 
upon an alleged contract. The Workmen’s Compen- 
sation Act does not provide that physicians may volun- 
tarily come under its provisions, but a physician’s 
right to recover from the employer fox services rend- 
ered an injured employee must be based upon a con- 
tract between the employer and such physician who 
is not under the Act to pay for the services. Augustus 
v. Lewin, supra. 

The defendant company contended that the plaintiff, 
Dr. Chiasson, failed to prove by competent legal evi- 
dence that Bright was acting as an agent within the 
scope of his authority when the alleged contract was 
made or that the same was entered into or ratified by 
the company. The authority of an agent to act in such 
a manner as to bind his principal will not be presumed. 
A third person is not justified in assuming that an 
agent has certain powers, unless he bases his opinion 
on some material evidence of such authority, and a 
party dealing with a special agent or an agent only 
having special authority to act for his principal, must 
acquaint himself with the extent of the agent’s authori- 
ty. Murray v. Standard Pecan Co., 309 Tl. 226, 140 N. 
E. 834; Cabiness v. Texas Tie and Lumber Preserving 
Co., 152 Ll. App. 406. 

James Bright was acting in the capacity of a fore- 
man or special agent with limited powers. He person- 
ally hired and discharged men; he kept the time of the 
men who worked in the orchard; he received their 
checks for wages signed by the appellant and delivered 





Page 4 Gen. No. 9158 


them to the employees. He had at his disposal a cash 
fund of about $100 to be used for small emergency ex- 
penses, such as repairs, equipment, gas, oil and simi- 
lar incidentals, and he reported expenditures from this 
fund regularly to the defendant company. Bright was 
in no way held out by the company as having authority 
to engage the services of Dr. Chiasson or that he in 
fact did employ him, and Bright testified that he first 
learned in June, 1936, that Dr. Chiasson was claiming 
that the company owed him for medical services rend- 
ered to Collins. 

Edwin L. Brown, Secretary and Treasurer of the 
company, denied that Bright had been given any au- 
thority to incur any obligations or to issue checks or 
pay bills on behalf of the company. It is elementary 
that the authority of the agent cannot be established 
by declarations of the alleged or supposed agent and 
what he did. Patton v. Young, 233 Tl. App. 515; Mer- 
chants’ Nat. Bank vy. Nichols and Shepard Co., 223 Tl. 
41, 79 N. EH. 38. 

The authority of an agent, when the agent is directly 
involved, can be established only by tracing authority 
to its source by words or acts of the principal and ean- 
not be found to exist solely in the acts o? statements of 
the agent himself. King v. Chicago B. and Q. R. Co., 
235 Ill. App. 401. 
foreman Bright had any authority to bind the defend- 
ant company to pay for the medical care and treatment 
of Collins. The value of the emergency treatment so 
rendered by the plaintiff, if any, is not shown by the 

vidence. The treatments extended over a period of 

almost eighteen months subsequent to the injury. The 
plaintiff had ample time to communicate with author- 
ized agents of the appellant, and under the cireum- 
stances, was not justified in assuming that local fore- 
man Bright had any certain powers, and it was clearly 
his duty to acquaint himself with the extent of the loca! 
agent’s authority, if any. 

The judgment of the Cireuit Court is therefore re- 
versed and the cause is remanded. 

Reversed and Remanded. 


(71985—1-39) 11 ge 


Vas Geiss what vas 


- 
, 7 
. Hipee twa? [ eel i. are 
i: oe 





Pe 


j 


| 
} 


| 


} 


AL " 


PUBLISHED IN ABSTRACT 


Mrs. Florence Engelking, Appellee, v. Springfield 
Brewing Co., an Illinois Corporation, Appellant. 


Appeal from Circuit Court Sangamon County at 
October Trrm, A. D. 1938 fot a 
Gen. No. 9150 Agenda No, 20 


Mr. Justice Fulton delivered the opinion of the 


Court. 

Mrs. Florence Engelking, the Appellee, instituted 
this suit against the Springfield Brewing Co., a cor- 
poration, to recover on a promissory note dated De- 


/ cember 7, 1935, in the principal amount of $1,000.00 


signed by ‘‘Springfield Brewing Company, by C. Engel- 
king, President.’’ Mr. Engelking is the husband of 
the Appellee. A copy of the note was attached to the 
complaint and was payable on demand to the order of 
the Appellee. ‘ 
The Appellant corporation filed an answer setting 
up four defenses. First, a denial of the execution of 
the note or that it had not been paid, or that the Ap- 
pellee was the owner and holder thereof; second, want 
of consideration; third, that C. H. Engelking was with- 
out authority to execute the alleged note in behalf of 
the Appellant; and fourth, that the books of the com- 
pany showed that C. H. Engelking personally advanced 
the sum of $1,000.00, and charged on the books that 
the loan came from him and that subsequently the 
Appellant corporation had entered into an agreement 
with the said C. H. Engelking for the satisfaction of 
such loan. The answer of the Appellant corporation 
was verified, and no reply was filed by Appellee to said 
answer. 
The case was tried before the Court without a jury 
and the Cireuit Court entered judgment for the Ap- 
pellee in the sum of $1,125.00, being the principal 
amount of the note plus stipulated Attorney’s fees. 
The facts in the case show quite clearly that C. H. 
Engelking, the husband of the Appellee, was President 
cand General Manager of the Appellant Corporation; 

that on December 7, 1935, the said corporation needed 
money to meet its payroll. On the same date, the said 
Engelking obtained $1,000.00 from his wife, the Ap- 





Be ke SG eet 


ea ws ine oi 





Page 2 Gen. No. 9150 


pellee, which said sum was used by the Appellant 
corporation to meet its payroll and pay other bills. 
These facts were testified to by C. H. Engelking and 
also by the then auditor of the corporation, Joseph 
S. Meyer, who further testified that the $1,000.00 was 
advanced to the corporation and paid out for the pur- 
poses above specified and that the money had never 
been repaid; that he made out the note upon which 
the suit is based payable to the Appellee but did not 
remember exactly the date he actually drew the in- 
strument except that it was sometime after December, 
1935. 

While it was stipulated that on March 11, 1937, the 
said C. H. Engelking made a statement under oath 
for the purposes of re-organization of the Appellant, 
to which was attached a full and complete list of the 
outstanding liabilities of the Springfield Brewing Com- 
pany and contained the following items: ‘‘1-1-37-C. 
H. Engelking-$1000.00’’, and that interest was paid to 
C. H. Engelking on the note in question, still we are 
convinced that the preponderance of the evidence shows 
that the money was furnished by the Appellee; that 
the note was executed and made payable to her and that 
she has never been repaid. ‘ 

It is the contention of the Appellant that the loan 
was made by C. H. Engelking, the husband of the Ap- 
pellee; that the same was carried on the books of the 
Company as an obligation due and owing to the said 
husband; that at the end of one year the Appellant 
corporation paid the interest on the loan to the said 
husband; that at the time of the re-organization of the 
Appellant corporation, in March, 1937, the husband 
executed a sworn statement as to the liabilities of the 
corporation, in which statement there appeared a loan 
due to the said C. H. Engelking, and no note or obli- 
gation payable to his wife, the Appellee; that on or 
about the same time, he agreed to satisfy said obliga- 
tion by taking certain stock in Appellant corporation. 
On the questions of fact, we think the evidence clearly 
preponderates in favor of the Appellee because of the 
execution of the note, payable to Appellee, and the 
supporting testimony by her husband and the auditor 
of the company. 

The Appellant further contends that because no re- 
ply was filed to the answer the defenses of want of 
consideration, lack of authority of the husband of 
the Appellee, as a corporation officer, to execute the 
note, and the satisfaction of the debt between the hus- 


Bick abew Youn: -_ wes 


oat © 
ss oe i )4 
a ; 





Page 3 Gen. No. 9150 


band and Appellant corporation must be deemed to 
be admitted. Under the Civil Practice Act of Illinois, 
Ill. R. 8S. 19387, Chap. 110, See. 164, it is provided 
(2) Every allegation, except allegations of 
damages, not explicitly denied shall be deemed to 
be admitted, unless the party shall state in his 
pleading that he has no knowledge thereof suff- 
cient to form a belief, and shall attach an affidavit 
of the truth of such statement of want of knowl- 
edge, or unless the party has had no opportunity 
to deny.’’ 

Under the old Chancery Act it was held that when 
no replication was filed and the cause was tried upon 
Bill and Answer, an affirmative defense set up in the 
answer must be taken as true where no testimony was 
taken on that issue. Watt v. Cecil, 368 Ill. page 510. 
In Ogent v. Beasley, 284 Ill. App. 363, where the Plain- 
tiff was ordered to file replication to the answer and 
he failed to do so and went to trial on Bill and Answer 
the same rule was announced. It is a familiar rule 
that pleadings shall be liberally construed with a view 
to doing substantial justice between the parties. In the 
present case testimony was taken on the issues raised 
by the affirmative defenses in the answer, both by way 
of stipulation as well as by oral and documentary 
proot. We believe, therefore, that the strict rule of 
admitting the subject matter of the affirmative de- 
fenses in the answer should not be applied in this case. 
The Court heard all of | of the testimony on all of the. 


iSsues raised and in our “judgment was warranted in, 


finding the issues for the the Appellee. The judgment of 
the Cireuit Court is ther herefore affirmed, 


Pa Affirmed. 


/- \ 


(71985—1-39) 14 <gBe 





-_ 


Hap" ai eee 


PUBLISHED IN ABSTRACT 


Selma Adair, Administratrix of the Estate of James 
Adair, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The Alton 
Railroad Company, a corporation, 
Defendant-Appellant. 


Appeal from Circuit Court of Sangamon County. 
PL J ! X 


Ocroser Term, A.D. 1938 ©? ©) CY 


Gen. No. 9160 Agenda No, 26 

Mr. Justice Fuuron delivered the opinion of the 
Court. 

Selma Adair, Administratrix of the Estate of James 
Adair, deceased, the Appellee, brought a suit in the 
Cireuit Court of Sangamon County against the Alton 
Railroad Company, Appellant, to recover damages 
under the Injuries Act, for the death of James Adair, 
who was killed on November 10, 1936, while attempting 
to drive an automobile truck across the traeks of Ap- 
pellant where they intersect North Grand Avenue, in 
Springfield, Illinois. The case was tried before a 
Court and Jury and a verdict rendered in favor of 
Appellee in the sum of $10,000.00. After overruling 
motions for judgments notwithstanding the verdict 
and for a new trial, the Court caused judgment to be 


entered on the verdict, resulting in this appeal. —— 


~ The complaint consisted of one Count charging the 


Appellant Railroad with negligence in the operation 
of one of its trains and in the failure to keep or main- 
tain warning signs and signals at the crossing where 
the accident oceurred. 

There is some conflict in the evidence on the question 
of whether a whistle was blown or a bell sounded in 
compliance with the Statute, on the speed of the train, 
on the weather conditions at the time of the collision 
and over the conditions surrounding the crossing, but 
in our view of the case it is not necessary to discuss 
the negligence claimed and charged against the Appel- 
lant. The primary question is whether there is any 
proof in the record showing that the deceased was in 
the exercise of due care for his own safety. 

On November 10, 1936, at about 4:15 A. M., while it 
was still dark, the decedent, James Adair, drove his 
truck in an easterly direction on North Grand Avenue 


| 


} 





Page 2 Gen. No. 9160 


to the point where the tracks of Appellant intersect 
said Street. North Grand Avenue is a cement paved 
street designated as temporary U. S. Route 66, and 
runs east and west through a well built up part of the 
City of Springfield. The double tracks of the Appel- 
lant’s railroad cross the Avenue in a northeasterly 
and southwesterly direction at a point approximately 
100 feet east of the center of Sixth Street. Sixth Street 
runs north and south and crosses North Grand Avenue 
at right angles. The width of the pavement on the 
Avenue is forty feet from curb to curb and the total 
width of the street from property line to property line 
is eighty feet. A street light was on the north side of 
the Avenue twenty-feet west of the Southbound rail- 
road track which is the west track. There is a fire 
engine house fifty-five feet west of the railroad tracks. 
The track nearest the engine house is the one on 
which the Appellant’s train approached. The front 
of the fire house stands about twelve feet north of the 
north curb of the Avenue. It was 35 feet wide, 75 feet 
long and thirty feet high. The east wall of the fire 
house is at right angles to the Avenue and not parallei 
to the tracks. The testimony of a witness for the Ap- 
pellee, Melvin Wing, established the fact that from a 
point sixty feet from the westermost railroad rail, a 
truck driver going east on the Avenue, could plainly 
see evidences of the railroad such as a tower house, 
gates and signs. He also testified that such driver 
would have to be about sixty or seventy feet west from 
the Southbound track before he would get a clear view 
down the railroad for two hundred to three hundred 
feet and that as you go farther east on the avenue 
your view broadens down the railroad to the North- 
east. His testimony is corroborated by two photo- 
graphs, both taken in the center of North Grand Ave- 
nue, one at a distance of fifty-two feet west of the west 
rail of the south bound track and the other at a dist- 
ance of forty-two feet west of the same rail. In the 
last photograph the only possible obstruction to the 
view would be a row of telephone poles one hundred 
and ten feet apart running along the west side of the 
right of way and a small ‘‘No trespassing sign’’ lo- 
cated on the right of way between the two poles near- 
est the Avenue, aay 

Into this situation the deceased drove his truck east 
on the south side of North Grand Avenue, travelling 
at the rate of eight miles per hour. Just east of the 
intersection of Sixth Street and North Grand Avenue 


> n 
satp Whe Fs 
: a 


_ te 
2 
RE hot 





Page 3 Gen. No. 9160 


he shifted gears and drove ahead to the tracks. Just 
as he reached the track, he turned his truck to the 
south and it was struck or ‘‘side-swiped’’ by an engine 
of Appellant pulling a train travelling south on the 
south bound track. The truck was thrown some twenty 
feet to the south and up against the tower house of 
Appellant located south of the Avenue and west of the 
tracks. The gas tank on the truck exploded, caught 
fire and the deceased, James Adair, was dead when he 
was taken from the wreckage. It seems clear to us 
trom the manifest weight of the evidence that the Ap- 
pellee has failed to prove that the deceased was in 
the exercise of due care and caution for his own safety 
at the time of the accident. The burden of proof is 
always on the Plaintiff in actions of this character to 
show that the deceased was in the exercise of due care 
at the time he was injured. Stack y. East St. Louis 
Ry. Co., 245 Ill. 308. Proof by the Appellee in this 
case that the deceased was in the exercise of ordinary 
care for his own safety was essential. Greenstreet v. 
A.T.& S. F. Ry. Co., 234 Ill. App. 339. 

Testimony of Appellee’s witness Wing above set 
forth, coupled with the photographs mentioned, show 
quite clearly that deceased after passing the engine 
house had an almost unobstructed view down the track 
for two hundred or three hundred feet and that after 
reaching a point at least forty feet west of the tracks 
he had a clear view down the railroad tracks. Al- 
though there is some testimony concerning a fog there 
is no evidence that a train with an electrie headlight 
could not be seen at a distance. In Greenwald vy. Balti- 
more & Ohio R. R. Co., 332 Tl. 627, it is stated: 

‘It is generally recognized that railroad crossings 
are dangerous places and one crossing the same 
must approach the track with the amount of care 
commensurate with the known danger, and when a 
traveler on a public highway fails to use ordinary 
precaution while driving over a railroad crossing, 
the general knowledge and experience of mankind 
condemns such conduct as negligence.’’ 

This language is adopted and approved in the cases 
of Sowers v. I, C. R. R. Co., 261 Ill. App. 63, and Pro- 
venzano v. I, C, R. R. Co., 357 Tl. 192. In each of those 
cases the facts were similar to the evidence contained 
in this record. Appellee relies on the case of Pokora 
vy. Wabash R. R. Co., 292 U.S. 98, to sustain the verdict 
in this case. The facts there did not show as stated 
by the Court that the train was visible to Pokora while 





<I TECNA 


Page 4 Gen. No. 9160 


there was still time to stop. It was further stated in 
that case that a train could only be visible to Pokora 
for a space of not over eight feet before he reached the 
track, and that the testimony permitted the inference 
that the truck was in the Zone of danger by the time 
the vision was enlarged. The case expressly limited 
the opinion in the Goodman ease in 275 U. 8. 66, with 
reference to the duty of a driver to get out of his vehi- 
cle and reconnoiter before driving upon a railroad 
crossing, but did approve of the holding in the follow- 
ing particular : 

‘‘There is no doubt that the opinion in that case 
is correct in its result. Goodman, the driver, trav- 
elling only five or six miles an hour, had, before 
reaching the track, a clear space of eighteen feet, 
within which the train was plainly visible. With 
that opportunity, he fell short of the legal standard 
of duty established for a traveller when he failed 
to look and see. This was decisive of the case.’’ 

_ We believe that the Court should have set aside the. 
verdict and granted a. new trial because of the. failure_ 
of the Appellee to prove that” the-deceased was in the 

exercise of ordinary care for his own. ‘safety _at and 

before the happening of the accident... 
~ For the reasons indicated the judgmént of the Cireuit 

Court will be reversed and the cause remanded for a 

new trial. 

Reversed and Remanded. 


(71985—1-39) ag 






Se ee tay 
y+ , - “ 

cae aH ae ana pubis 
. a , 


res dake ‘ 


> 





PUBLISHED IN ABSTRACT 


Motor Acceptance Company of Illinois, a Corporation, 
Plaintiff-Appellant, v, Lawrence Ehrhart, 
Defendant-Appellee. 


Appeal from Circwt Court of McDonough County. 


90 
Octoper Term, A.D. 1938 Ke 2 &} 


Gen. No. 9161 Agenda No. 27 


Mr. Justice Hayes delivered the opinion of the 
Court. 

The sole question for decision in this case is whether 
the Appellee, Lawrence Ehrhart, defendant below, or 
the Appellant, the Motor Acceptance Company of Ili- 
nois, plaintiff below, has superior title to a certain 
Plymouth four-door sedan. The former claims title 
by purchase on January 23, 1937, from C. R. Woolsey, 
an automobile dealer with a salesroom located across 
the street from the Post Office in Macomb, Illinois. 
Ehrhart gave Woolsey, at the time of purchase, his 
check for six hundred eighteen ($618.00) dollars, and 
his 1929 DeSoto ear in full payment. The Motor Ac- 
ceptance Company claims title by virtue of a condi- 
tional sales contract made January 6, 1937 by Everett 
Rainey, a salesman for C. R. Woolsey, to the Woolsey 
Motor Sales on the same automobile, which contract 
provided for payment of $66.00 cash, five monthly pay- 
ments of $25.00 each, and one payment of $465.00, and 
provided that title should remain in the seller until 
all payments were made. The contract further pro- 
vided that the car was to be used as a demonstrator. 
Woolsey sold this conditional sales contract and the 
note attached thereto, on the day of its execution, to 
the Kewanee Citizens System Company, who placed it 
as collateral with the City National Bank of Clinton, 
Iowa, who afterward sold the contract and note to the 
plaintiff. One payment of $25.00 on the contract was 
sent to the Kewanee Citizens System Company by 
Woolsey and credited on the contract. The car car- 
ried dealer license plates belonging to Woolsey, and a 
checker for the Finance Company checked it with other 
cars when he called weekly. 









ty 


avevy & 
ES Lot tai 





i ee 


fa i. < 


Page 2 Gen. No. 9161 


On August 3, 1937, plaintiff filed his affidavit for 
replevin_ and bond in the-Cireuit Courtof Mepornoneh 
County. <A writ was issued and executed and defend- 
ant gave a forthcoming bond. A trial was had before 
a a Jury, and at the close of all the evidence, the court 
directed a verdict. for the defendant, which v verdict was 
rendered and judgment entered, finding the defendant 
was entitled to possession of the property described 
in said writ. 

Plaintiff complains that the trial court should have 
heard the case without a jury for the reason that the 
defendant did not file a jury demand at the time of 
filing his appearance, but filed it at the time the plain- 
tiff filed an amended and supplemental complaint. With 
the turn the case has taken by not being submitted to 
the jury for final decision, and the court passing on the 
record on a motion for a directed verdict, the plain- 
tiff was not harmed in this matter. 

The material facts in this record are few and stand 
out very definitely. First Ehrhart, the defendant, was 
an innocent purchaser for value, of the automobile in 
question, from a dealer in his home town. He paid 
cash for the full purchase price of the.car, except for 
allowance received for his old car. He had no notice 
of plaintiff’s lien. At the time of the purchase the 
car was in the salesroom, with other cars carried by 
the dealer. Second, the sales contract, on its face, 
showed the car was to be used as a demonstrator, and 
that checkers for the Finance Company involved in 
this ease called weekly, and it is a reasonable deduc- 
tion that they had knowledge that the car was being 
offered for sale by Woolsey and his salesmen. The 
field representative for the Finance Company testified 
that the conditional contract was on the demonstrator 
plan, which permits the man who signs the contract 
to operate it for the purpose of demonstrating for 
individuals who are interested in buying cars. The 
evidence further shows that this Plymouth car was, 
for sometime prior to January 23rd, kept in Woolsey’s 
sale room, and it was there with ten or twelve other 
cars, the first time defendant looked at it. These facts 
are set up in the amended answer of the defendant and 
are established by the proofs. 

Under section 23, of Chapter 12114, Illinois Statute, 
Bar Assoc. Edition, it is provided that, a person pur- 
chasing goods from someone who is not the owner and 
has no authority to sell, acquires no better title to the 
goods than the seller had ‘‘unless the owner of' the 





OS 





Page 3 Gen. No. 9161 


goods is, by his conduct, precluded from denying the 
seller’s authority to sell.’ 

The court said in the case of the Illinois Bond and 
Investment Company v. Gardner, 249 App. 337: ‘A 
customer going into a retail store and seeing goods on 
display offered to the publie generally for sale, and 
buying the goods in good faith should be protected 
against the holder or owner of any secret lien of which 
the purchaser has no notice. To hold otherwise would 
seriously interrupt business. We believe the legisla- 
ture in passing this statute meant to protect the owner 
whose goods were sold without his authority or con- 
sent, but for the protection of innocent purchasers, 
having no reason to suspect secret liens very wisely 
added, ‘‘unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct 
precluded from denying the seller’s authority to sell.’’ 

Some duty at least rests upon one who finances a 
retail dealer to see to it that cars upon which he has 
a lien are not left under the domain and control of 
such dealer on his salesroom floor to be offered to the 
public. The business of the investment company was 
to finance retail automobile dealers, and it did finance 
them for a profit. It assumes some, risk as to the 
hazard for a profit. A person going into a place of 
business of a retail automobile dealer, and purchasing 
a new car commingled with the stock for sale, from the 
showroom of such dealer, without any actual knowl- 
edge that there is a lien upon such car, and who pays 
the full purchase price, and to whom the car is de- 
livered, is ordinarily under no obligation to examine 
the records to ascertain whether there is a lien upon 
such car. Gump Investment Company v. Jackson, 142 
Va. 190, 47 A.L.R. 82. 

Under the holdings of this court, in the ease of JI. 
Bond Investment Co. v Gardner, 249 App. 337, and the 
National Bond Investment Co. v. Shirra, 255 App. 415, 
and the Gordon Motor Finance Co. vy. Aetna Accept- 
ence Co., 261 App. 536, the trial court could not do 
otherwise than instruct the jury to find for the de- 
fendant. 

In the absence of evidence upon which a jury could, 
in the eye of the law, reasonably find in favor of the 
party holding the affirmative of an issue, a motion to 
direct the verdict against the party so holding the 
affirmative should be allowed. American National 
Bank v. Woodlard, 342 Tl. 148. 

Where an affirmative defense is established by un- 
contradicted evidence, it is the duty of the trial court 


avi 


£3 
TS 


tal 


ee 
oe) 








. 
) 


oe 


at 






Ye var aes Ry fase 
RE AD Rhee RY ay 2 
ft 


ten hy Lb tae 
i a) . ay a 


ay 
(y= 





Ss 


: . 
‘ 34m | _ © 
whe of bedantom Kh 
} 


Page 4 Gen. No. 916] 


to direct a verdict for the defendant. Fuller v. DePaul 
University, 293 Tl. App. 261. 

We are of the opinion that under the uncontradicted 
facts of this record, the well established principles of 
law and under section 23 of the Sales Code of this 
State, that the Trial Judge did not err in peremptorily _ 
instracting The yuy to find the nent of ‘possession to _ 

| the-propert the-property in” “question — ‘In. the. ‘defendant, and the_ 
i judgment-of the CI ircuit Court i is therefore. affirmed. 
i “Judgment Affirmed. 


(T1985—1-39) 14 gg 











oe 


(© 
wis 


Sie, 35 


istayde otha da dee 2 eae, 


Mi 


# 





; : “4 
“Oy ol re - ( 
ue (Y= bof 
f re / 
( f 
General Number 9139. Agende Number 12, 
wr 
IN THE APPELLATE COUAT riy 
OF ILLINOIS 7 
2 
THIRD DISTRICT f } 


o 





WAIL TERM, A. D. 1959. 


STUART E. PIVRSON, Administrator 
De Bonis Non With W411 Annexed 
of the Estate of David Neade 
Fishback, Deceased, 


Appeal from County Court 


of Greene County. 


Plaintiff-Appellee, 


~VSe 


LOUISE FISHBACK, Impleaded Yith 
David Donald Fishback, Peter 
Castleton, Archie Fullerton 
end Paul Fullerton, 





Be 0 68 60 S32 59 86 40 Ge 29 GH 89 9 OF 2% Oh OF 
é 


DefendanteAppellant,. 
HAYES, J. 3 


Thig igs an appeel from the decree of the County Court 


. (pestis IOI TIS 


of Greene County, ordering a sale of resl estste to pay debts. 


Nercgnist 


David Meade Fishbsck died on December 6, 1927, testate, 
lesving surviving as his sole heirs st law the Appellant, ond 
one son, The Widow was appointed executrix under the W111, but 
did not qualify and nominated her nephew Guy Lowenstein, who was 
appointed administrator with will annexed, Frank A, Whiteside, 
s lawyer of Carrollton, Jilinois, was employed as attorney for 
the estste. The Will was sdmitted to probate and letters issued 
under date of Janusry 4, 1928. Under the terms of the Will, 
efter the payment of debts and funeral expenses, all the property 
went to the surviving widow, Guy Lowenstein continued to act 
as administrator until March 10, 1930, when he resigned. Clyde 


Linder, Cashier of the Greene County Bank, was then appointed, -- 





seam ebrraga, 











Po “a 
{ om GHGOO ATAUII%a BHT ar 
\ 


| 4 IEORLALE Bo 
- ; = \ 
a ‘ ‘ \ TELNTEIG GAIAT 


: \ ae ‘ GGL 1.0 A MAY? THEA 


fevev qavol ser) Leaqda tov artetutaty ,wOBRYTY oF THAUT a 

OenedséA I[LLN ATIC mot eLaot S a 
shask Bivsd to etates edt to 

_ a beaseoed sspadae ey, 7 






eEtAvoD emaevs To 
oe lla qqheBtigabald 
we Yom 


— 
tt ew hebse Loud ,ADAGHE TY ZeIUOL 















eo Se @* Vr 6 #8 18 62 £4 BR HO fe 


. . t terest ,toacsde ty Blanod pivac a 
-_ os : sotre Lid etsiscd woteltes 
7 ouaTEK AN ot Belew atotse lle ius? bag , foe 
7 _ pibieee SE ; dice LSequAcspanneted eect a 
- _ t abl 4& 
- n | 
- - 
: gruel y yigved of? te sexced elt mort dace ar ef onee ar 
rented es RRA aH) HiveRCeg Sit Ca ee eh tee 
7 
- oB3MBD TAG, of ed tes isan to ofaa 8 ite hie axs00 erest te 
7 . ‘cine. ©. oe 
pedatees. .FOeL WF xecwooad no helb tovzdsal€ shag bivaG ~ 
7 
pha dant fegsA eft wel de etied efoe eit ea goivivuge ante 
fuu fit? edt sobne xtetuoare bat nedqas per wohl adv woe oe 
7 
8 
7 nat ode ,aletanewed wad wetqer wert bod anteon hats: vitieup # ton 5 DW 
_ . »;whiset ink .A ana? ,boxeona [fiw -ddiw codevteatn taba bosate foqgas 
_ Ol yettrette eg Aovelqms eaw ,afontfil sto’ LLoweed bole 


Sauaet etettel tre atedotq of hetiinhs vee tiny sft aged s 


afll¥ erif to amre? od vehal | Leads bod wtauinat y ‘< 











fous Pear 


En oe 


d mere ett Ifa bee dages 


- -eesbogntoee het? eow ‘saa etwot a 


7 Ah tn 


ae ae 


on March 15, 1930--asnd continued to sect until October 7, 1937, 
when he resigned. Appellee, president of the Greene Gounty 
Bank, was then appointed administrator. Neither of the last 
two were nominated by appellant. F. A. hiteside slso acted 
a8 attorney for Clyde Linder during the time he wees adminise 
trator, #nd slso represented Dr. Horerd Burns, and the Greene 
County State Benk, two of the larrest creditors in the estate. 
Up to the time this proceedings was instituted, Mr, Whiteside 


advised appellant, ani was considered by her to be her attorney. 


At the time of his death, Davi Meade Fishback was 
seized and possessed of the real estste involved in this proceed- 
ing, being a farm of 310 acres and 2 residence in Carrollton, 
Illinois, which he and his femily resided in, as well as pere 
sonal property thet amounted to $12,483.10, The clains against 
the estate argrerated $44,650.63, of which Dr. Burns! was $18, 318,50, 
and the Greene County State Bank 914,083.38, leaving » deficit in 
the personal estate of about $29,000.00. Immediately after his 
appointment, Guy Lowenstein proceeded to take charre of the farn 
land and collect the rents therefrom, Appellant made no objection 
to this. On January ll, 1929, Guy Lowenstein filed » current re- 
port in which he reported hsving in his hends 2 bDalance of 
$11,057.97, efter paying 911 preferred claima, costs and expenses, 
and asked the court for authority to psy 24 per cent upon sixthe 
Class claima out of such balance, He further stated in hie ree 
port, thet in his judgment 1t would be unwise to sell the land, 
and if the sale of land be kept in abeyance, the price of farm 
lands might increase in value sufficient to pay the sixth-class 
Claims in full. The Court approved thie report, and ordered 
24 percent payment of the saixth-class claims, and finding it 
was not favorable at that time to sell the real estate, ordered 


the administrator not to be required to file ea petition to sell 


m Fw 


eTECL .S tedoreo Livan Foa of beurliace han--O6€L ,Gf dota no 
YFnwel ensex) ecs lo Inebleerq ,esileqqsh  benaiser ed aecde 
Seefl ad? te tedvieH .rataitetutmhbsa betatoqaqsa nett ear , ined. 
betes oafs sihlseriaW® oA .% stiglleqas Ya hetaninon ge tew ow? 
wsintmbs sav ad anit ent anisuh teabnli shb¥l0 101 yentotia aa 
ateett eff has snared hyseok ,1t hetnes atqes nate hag stOsany 
stains add at atotibets teegqiel old to ows pinad eTare nse 
ehkootian® yuk wetuslient sew scitheeovte ett eat? edd of gt 


aEeintoetis vet ed ct tad xd beteble ie o wow ithe wfoalleaqa fhorivbs 


psy tandieth ehset btvall ,~idneb ett to smtt ont 3A 
~beaeorg eidd mt bevioval sietes leet els 20 heseesaog bua, healer 
sod Lforra) nf eanshlaet.s bas setos OL6 Yo wrest a gated eyat 
weg ba Ligv.ec iat Debloay- yitmed etd dosent Motte etomt sel 
Fen lana emisls aft. Sat itl 218 of beagavoma fedt Yrregotg fenos 
408 16 ,8L8 gee Pani sc dotsie to ,G0, 068, d6¢ hetegetgne states, amt 
ak tholteh's gaiveslL ,86.860,5f6 dus esase wraDed ereexd afd bas 
eid teste eledattrewum “480,060,282 trode Yo etstee Lenoateq. sat 
erat off to suteto eidat ot bebseoorg “mlesengwal wt). ghoesmtatogags © 
acivasido on efaa dreileqqga wottoreds. atnes ate goelfoo baa baal 
-o1 gaeraio « belit alagenerved yuo. ,2Sef lf yraunal, 20 Aidt oF 
YO gotaled «a shiek aid ai anivad hetioget ed datdw ah t199 7 
s2ORNGUKS Ive s3a09 ,aminio Aerielesry fia ail yag. nada oS TBO L68 a 
witxie cingy gneo veq $2 zag ot ¥Yelxedtus ret trsas edd heaian, das 
St aii si hedatn sarigtei of omar Lad dome. LO B60. antane haalo 
a tL asta ifes oF eaheny asi bivow at ¢ rosnrghasty ahd at Bat, stt0q 
ore to golig ada eoneyeda ne ‘tqad od dial 26 efee , ond. 2h, Baa 
godie-cxts edd you of fnetedztwe eviav, at suserame teigite abnet 
hereby bia ,tvroget- atds bavernqea gau00 sd? Alu wt nmtase | 
2 gnida2% Imo jaatalo egaloqdoxin, ald iq. snemyad Meeoneg #8 | 
baneino tates Lev oct Liee oF eady todt dm, aleenevas ion ane | 


Pa - dv ne eee ene er ee er i 





real estate to pay debts until such time as creditors might 
insist on so doing, or until the price of real estste became 


more stable and said real estate be sold to better advantarce,. 


On January 14, 1929, and after the time for filing 
Claims had expired, appellant, on advice of her attorney lir. 
Whiteside, withdrew a claim which she had filed against the 
estate in the sum of $2,469.77, on notes of her husband, repe 
resenting money from her father's estate which she had loaned 
to her husbend, Clyde Linder, upon his appointment as admine 
istrator, continued to collect the rerits from the farm. During 
the time he was administrsetor,--2 period of sbout seven years-- 
he was never ssked to sell the farm by any of the creditors, 
and he did not file en anplicsation to sell the real estate be- 
cause of depressed lend velues, While he wag edministrator, 
he paid an additional dividend of 9 per cent upon the sixth 
class claims. Appellee iikewise continued to collect the rents 
from the farm, after he was appointed administrator, There was 
no demand made upon him to seli the real estate. He decided it 
was favorable to sell, 2s there did not sappesr to be much pros- 
pect of en increase of value, and on November 16, 1937--almost 
ten years after the issuance of original letters--Appellee filed 
his applicstion herein for the sale of said real estate to psy 
debte,. 


The only question involved in this case is whether 
appellee is «uilty of laches in his long delay in making ape 
phication, and whether there has been » reasonable excuse 


shown for this deley, 


While the statute of limitstions in Illinois fixes no 
time within which a claim ageinst the estste of a deceased 


person shall be enforced against the land of which he dies 


is 


figic exetibeyvs oe amts eoue Ifttny etdeh yeaa of etates Leet 
amased states Laer to sofyg orlt L[4htru ao ,aniob o8 no detent 


PUA NaAvha vated of blom ed efatae f[sor Hiae Ora efdate. stor 


\ 
ayfkits xot eaftt ant atte baa ,eSeL Af yvauneb wo 
eth Yeruoedtes vat to selvhs mo ,Inallaqan ,hertqzae burl amlalo 
sit gantaas heLtt bart ade dotds mialo a. worhitete ebleod tale 
=(2% ,hasdend ted Yo satan no ,VT 638,98 to nive edt al etatee 
bensel bad ane dots etetea eo 'recigat To MoLr Yerod guitneser 
ativia es tisaviftogda sii neoqa ,rohatJd BOLO Lnsdent ved of 


quivud .mmel eff sonst atnet edt tostloo of pounttnog ytodavia£ 


weBYRAY Navas Tueta to Hoty awe oOdartatainhs wew at eke wat 


grad fiers ade bo waa ve oat edt Lfer of bexes totem enw on 

~od atates Laon att flee ot totteokleds me aft tot 6bb white 

. yratenveloiabe caw es efit! ,roviav Sart bereetreb to satlae 
wideLe sr Nocit Tras wary @ 36 baehiveéh fanolkelbba tie Blaqg an 
adnes ort doeéiiog of hewaiznoe enlwoitl eslleqqa eatelo eom£o 
bew ered! ,soteotiafatnba Setntiogqas sax si vetia ,oral odd moat 
SL hebfosh wt .zeieveo fase eff Flee et atd noqy shaa hone on 
peng Noun ed of sooqua tou b2b evedt mo aiiee ot ofidavovst saw 
POM Lom TECL ol nednevet ao baa ,gulae¥ to eeasrone ie. SO F omy 
HOity seiloqqhe-sietiel Lanigino Io etaacwaat ed? tesla ereey wes 


eae ct evades Inet blar te ofan ant 407 fi hanart debi ini» 


| ktdeb 


aisdtede pl eeao etdd ri beviowil no ftwemp, y lato ‘ea? 


~qa uckdam ot qaleh anol atv ne ronant t© go Ltwy et sefToqys 


eerore oldancenet ¢ | 908d went eradd conte stv fen snolanetég 


on Boxt't Bhomk LIT et anoktod takl to ooNTeT e ante. atrial ae 


hesaenwi « Bo etaghe erly deniogs miele % Mokeiw atest omte 


_ _ a ooo a yw oo Ve 7 e gcaahh ete Hae Naor ol 


watad ness ery anode 


™~ 


~ 4 @ 


seized, yet by analogy the time has Deen established by the 
courts st seven years efter his death unless there ia some 
valid reason for further delay. Goodrun v. Mitchell, 2356 I1l. 
183, 187; Hurlbut v. Talbot, 273 111. 299, 309; MeKean v. Vick, 


108 Ill, 375, 376, 


Appellee's resson for undue delay in the application is 
that creditors were “appessed sand lured to scquiescence by psy- 
ment of dividends and that they had a tight to believe that the 
application of rents from the farm toward the payment of their 
claims were sanctioned snd approved by. Louise Fishback (sypellant), 
and thet g0 lone as dividende were paid they would in the end 
gecure their money, and further thet appellant did not want the 
farm sold to pay debts end thet che ssked a creditor not to 


force the ssle of it," 


The proofs show that appellant was not anxious for the 
gale, but the responsibility for teking the initial steps in 
making application for sale of real estate to pay debts was 
not on her, but on the sdministrator and the creditors, iIt is 
also true thet she permitted the administrator to collect rents 
from the land and apply them to the debts, but under her testi- 
mony she st°tes that nothing hed ever been said to her about her 
heaving the rents on the lend. She further states that Mr. White- 
side, who was her legsl advisor, never told her she was entitled 
to these rents, and the first knowledge she had on this subject 
was after this application to sell was filed sand she engered 
Judge Hutchens as her lawyer. kre. Fishback testified that 
Whiteeide phoned her end she went to his office end he advised 
her that he expected the estate to be settled up shortly and 
proposed that she withdrew her cleim which was on file for 
$2,469.77, and thet he further etated to her; “If you will 


comply with this, I am sure you will cet six or eight thou- 


aw 2 ww 


ent ¥d hedeildatse mead sad enki odd yaotana yd toy beater 
omoa mi evadd reeaing dvesh gil tetia sisey nevae te at xyoo 
eid, GS pilectatik .v nyrbooh .yolLeb tendtagt vot goasey bilav 
stot¥ .v Meaotov 7906 ,2@8 ILE SVS ,Jodiel .¥ teclawH ;vaL ,el 
OTH STG LIT BOL 


ef nolvsciiqgs edt at yaleb subryui sol noreet ateoliaggs 
—— td Hones aelupos of besul hoa heaseqqes” erew exod Eber tac? 
eft ted? avelied of sdyin ao. Sad yeds Jaci brs abnebiv tb io them 
“tens to ae tial eazy SrA OR oet off mort agnet lo noltaoliqga 
vitaaliegga) xundide tt oaltiod Ye hevevgas bie henoltoage slaw amteto 
ko att ni binow yedd bieg stew romeityth as geo os Jakt Dre 
et vem Tom HLH ine Lleqaa fasts aecliaurh, bam -aYenton sheng S1uUVAR 
ad ton setibero a betes ade todd Baa pe deb Tog -. od aioe a3? 


"tt 2o efan edt sort 


eid sot avotxne gor sew tnallonss tant wotts etoora ent 
ne aqet? Lett tat ect wei taas sok yiftidienoqgss: ect dud eles 
anw etdel yaq of alates fse1 Yo elea tot noltno kLags ‘patdan 
ot $i aevotibers eft bre sodardetnimbs ens mo tod ved 10 ton 
efmet Foollos od tofattetntmbea off Hettiateq ete Tacs outa dels 


eifos? ser nebnur tid yeddeb ad? of sends ¢tloys bas bast ed? mort 


vet tyvode ted of bkae nesd teve bal gutdton gaits Zetote ere ynem 


aod tcl val dart) pevate vedewut se brat ent ae etney edt yitvad 
belitiag sew oe ued blot seven ,noatvba Lanel not waw odw’ .obde 
Sooldun stds oe Bat ede sgbelwond sotlt oA? bag ,atner event oF 
heyagne ode hia belt? aew tien oF fottaoliqus etdt «atta naw 


tad? Hollianot Aoateleld ech  wweywal vad ee snetovelt eghul 
Aseivba ed has soltto afd of gnew ame Bae sed bemollq ehieet iar 


bus yftetode qe belitee od of states odd hetoaqxe en sands ‘tod 
nok @f2% no ea dott mialo ved warhddiw ode ted boeoqorg 


Eftw voy IT" pred ot hetade edecit of 3 aity bie (oO eee ee 


~ 


- 6 «a 


sand dollers out of the estste." She atated that she then went 
to the court house and withdrew the claim. It anrenars from the 
record that at this time Whiteside wss representing the Greene 
County Bank, who had a claim of $14,000,900; and also the Burns 
Claim which wes over $18,000.00, Whiteside, in his testimony, 
edmits he advised her to withdraw the clsim, and further stetes 
thet the advice turned out to be bad, The creditors ¢ot all 
the rents for the intervening years as well as getting the 
surviving widow to relinquish what eppears to be » bona fide 
Cleim, and although it is probably A reasonable deguction from 
the entire record that both sides and everyone interested were 
wishfully hoping that lend values would edvance, there is nothing 
in the record to indicste that there was a binding bargain meade 


with appellant for the delay. 


To speculate on market values is not recognized es a4 
reasonable excuse for deley where it is the duty of en edminis- 
trator or executor to sell. Pope v. Kitchell, 354 111, 248,256; 
Vieries v. Krehmke, 295 Ill, 265, 2713; ®hite v. Horn, 224 111. 


238, 245; Gresham v. Brock, 212 Ill. 579, 582, 


This spplication not having been made until sfter the 
expiration of seven yerrs, the ourden to show justificstion for 
delay resta on appellee, The oniy proof made vy Appellee in 
meeting this burden is that land velues were depressed and that 
the widow lured them to slesp. We cannot hold that this 16 a 
reasonable excuse, particularly when edministrator makes anplica- 
tion to sell real estate to pay debts without offering to account 
to the Widow for rents received which belonged to her, end without 
offering to put her back in status quo on her claim thet was withe 
drawn at the instance of the sttorney for the two lerrest creditors. 
The decree of sale would have been more equitable and wholesone, 


1f the court below had ordered the administrator secount to Mra, 


> ao 


trew edz ede tat Satage atti “,etecas sft to jue atallob bass 
afd mort avnequs tL .wlslo en? wexbative bar sawed tauon od of 
eneet) eft yailineasanwey anv @hlnesdig® eamts eid? te tal? brocer 
acted sid onta Sere (90,0 0,800 te @iato e bart ostw. .wnafi yTawoOd 
eeuomiseet aki ot yohived iW ,00,000, 81% vero ese doith otelo 
getete xedvaut Saa yutalo sid wevhivéiw of vec heelvba of etinba 
ffoa tou evedibers ett bed od of So Hemunt sotvbn eft tant 
add antéten ea Liew ea evaer an inevresinl ed? wot atnet octt 

ehtt anod « ed of avascaa fenfy detuodifies of wobiv gniviv«un 
EYES cols ouieh sfidanopaet o yidadorq ef Si dauodtia bas waiate 
eves hetaarein: stoyiers ‘hia eah tp fifod tent Brooen etltae edt 
gatiton st etedt yeonavee biiow souvlav Baal torts antgod yiLurdate 
gies diearad antbatd B sev ovedt tate efaskhal of provost edd m2 


.valeb ef tot Snalleqqa dé iv 


6 20 basinyooes fon sft sesfev fedram oo etaluoeqe of 
wainiohe os to wich add af Ff snedw yelesb sol sevexo seldanoeaet 
2098 ,825 fff bot ,Ilesorts .v sqo% fies of sotuoexe TO TOF aid 

aifI ASS yosoK ov evi? piv’ ,aBR (fT 6@S ,odsuiet? .v aelrel¥ 


SH ,8TS ,LLE SL Hoare ,v madaw ~4b8 BES 


eit vette iitau ebhea ses sniverl ton aolicolhinga eldt 
ol noltaskilteu, wore of sebtud eg  aneaey Agvet Yo nolsetiqxe-— 
at aalLeqca YG stan toord yiao sdT wwelleqqa no aefeer yelob 
fans Sas berssiaeb otew aeeuiov Ansel tadd ef nebawd ald? siltvesr 
a ek atdt Jged Dies sonnes of .qeeta of edd beowwl woblw ed? 
-a¢hiogs atHam sotenteictigna nerfle yinalugttuseg yoawoxe eldanon nen 
tavaoos ot gaitetio guodtiv etdeb yeq of evsteo Leet [Lea ot Holt 
Siyodalw fra ,red ot beytiofed detide pevigoes adoet rot wohlY eis of 
witiw saw fadt malo wet ae avp auwate al toad sas Jaq oF wisielio 
»2rotibero jsanist owt ed? sok yontosta edgy te sonatent of? Ja -aieath 


souerelode biuw sldetivee eves used avad bliow efee to estoah sdf 


~~ 


~ 6 « 


Fishback for the rents during the years intervening since the 
granting of letters to the time of ssle, and had ordered thet 

she be permitted to pro-rate with the other sixth-cless creditors 
on her cleain. If the decree is sllowed to stand as entered, it 
will take the entire farm, and deprive the widow of her claim 

and rents which she was entitled to, and which she would have 

had by following the procedure prescribed by law with resgone 
able dispatch, To leave this decree stand would be an imposi-~ 


tion on Mre, Fishback and would work an injustice. 


For the reasons herein stated, the decree of sale of 


ror pene ethene 
ante rere z a = SA A LM aE DEE TM ad 
—_—_ AO a TENSION EB IE PELE AD aetna 


the County Court of Greene County is hereby reversed and couse 
ne 


ORR CEN eae EP eS LA WD Lt SIRO MIDE IS CAC ELA ELIE EA NRT DW ABBE RIEL SO Ra 


remanded, 


sone 


REVERSSD AND AEMANDE 


«Qe 


sat gonis asafnevredal azaey ant ga inub etaes off sok Noaddald 
Sesig betepio bad na a@lga to euke ect oF atxediel Fo guiinaty 
avotibers ara loadxin sedge aft Adiw siet-ong ov bertioxeq ed edn 
vi ,berstas sa baste of Bewelfs af seveeh ats tf also sed mo 
giela sed lo webie ed? svitqeah baa ,eral axidvae edd eaat Iiiw 
avacd Slvow ole coldw Bona ,ot beliiios eaw see dotdw etaet baa 
wtongex Agiw wal yd Aedingeeng eruSesoaq wit auleo{Iol yd had 
=teoqai sa ad Blyow Basta eotgeh ald? eveel of  ,datagals aida 


solsauiat ae woe ALyow hae Aoadigl® 21k Ho. agls 


to sis ‘a _to seroeh eds eerars atesed srnoraes edt oF 


a and SP eedialitideet et 
Se ee hte 


B85o bee beorover Wiorrast 7 yenwio enee7D te Kani _wWawod ent 
* er ARs Prati a Wyant contra sev ausananaen gees a re teen ine 


bebasues 


TRI gee 
aie end 


.GUGHAMEA CMA CUBAEVRA 


te 


> Full 


LbAsa & 


General Number 9139 Arenda Number 12, 


IN THE APPELLATE COURT 
OF ILLINOIS 
THIRD DISTRICT 


ST ave BEE ya 
_ +SANUARY TERM, A. D. 1959, 


STUART &. PISRSON “pape 1 REPEAL 
De Bonis Non WAth Wi nexed 


of the Estate /of David. Meade 
Fishback, 













OM GOUNTY COURT 


EENE COUNTY, 


LOUISE FISHBACK, Inpleeded 11 th : 
David D Fishback, Peter H 
Gastleteny Archie i railaten : 


and Peul’ Fullerton, HONORABLE le 


Defendent-Appellant, JUDGE PAE 


rf 


ERE Bg gm meer nacre ns NNER TO ANN ee ep . wena 
This is en sppeal from the decree of the Qounty 
¢ourt of Greene Sounty, ordering a ssle of real estate to 


pay debtea, 


David Meade Fishback died on December 6, 19°27, 
testate, leaving surviving as his sole heirs st law the 
Appellant, and one son. The Widow wae appointed executrix 
under the Will, but did not ocualify and nominated her ne- 
phew Guy Lowenstein, who was appointed administrator with 
will annexed, Frank A, Whiteside, a lawyer of Carrollton, 
Illinois, was employed as ettorney for the estate. The 
Walz was admitted to probate ani letters issued under date 


of January 4, 1928, Under the terms of the Will, after 


i168 


* 





ae 


Sl teduwl esbnaana €Sle redow Lavened 


"ROO ATALINGTA BHT ut 
SIOMLLIT To” 
TOTATEIC GAIN 
mm BEM . 


*, OOF: 
-% a, . * . 
i : : W 4 
} ¥ a = gears” ate ~*~ 





™, 7 \ 

TRUCD yrwden KORG SABIE votsttetatuha \WORREIT .a THAUTE 
: in hexoriate ALEY ATM nol atnod af 
LYPHUOD LiMaRAY TO \r\caheeit Bhyed. 20 os saed eute '3e 


Re . we cote donde £4 
“¥SO0 AT ee ms” 
wae NceeePeagiaites a 
: ~~ ae - ey, “ 


eye 


P en i 
en amd 


: 
a ‘ 
* 
ra F ; . % ‘ ' at 
a 
3 
: 
3 
e 
e 
a 
¢ 
* 
. 
* 


: aa Ne Ae 


yotot ood. £t bival 
Prod ottlota \nese lien | 
Just fine 


‘ 


red Ts 


S320 bedsot b — aeIvod pe 


emigre a ef Pre | ware! igh AD MOH widotie st £ 


OYE LTEL RL SHAUL “onal leqqh-tas bneted 
‘. 


Sd: SNORE AORN RRNN TT, omsnemn Cea oe a ce. a 


ca ngnaannnee eee 


““NdnweQ ef Yo eoxoeb onl? mout, teequs na af est 
1 . ; 


os afaztee [zex to ofee a saiteiue senor enaeTO to gavod 


2avGeh Yaq 


eek PS 
ee 4 gee 
bo 


a SOL 7 yadmeoed ne beld xocditett sheet bived 
eft wel de ettad ofoe eft ae anivivrua gritvaes ehiseut 


ra 


xiutueexe hotatogqe eew woblW eff © .moa ono bas stnelfeqar — 
-20 ve hegantmon bua yiifevp ton B£5 ted , CLE ont nebay ' 
it fw nod oxtatituba hetnloduh ae Ont wiketenewod yuo waag 
wos iforrad Io teywal os ehleost ah A Annex sboxennn £ttw'. 
ed? ,edeteo oft vot yernrotia.ss beyolqme sae etonb ist, 
odes wbrus bevent exeotel bre stedota 6d bedtinba wav aa t 
nedie ,[Lf¥ edd Yo emted en reba .e8eL yb yraumst to 


~& - 


the payment of debts and funeral expenses, all the property 
went to the surviving widow, Guy Lowenstein continued to 
act as administrator until warch 10, 1950, when he resiened. 
Clyde Linder, Cashier of the Greene dounty Bank, was then 
appointedeon March 15, 1930—e« and continued to ect until 
October 7, 1937, when he resigned. Appellee, president 

of the Greene County Benk, was then appointed administrator, 
Neither of the lsst two were nominated by appellant. F. A. 
Whiteside also acted as attorney for Clyde Linder during 
the time he was administrator, and also represented Dr, 
Howard Burns, and the Greene County State Bank, two of 

the largest creditors in the estate, Up to the time this 
proceeding was instituted, Mr. Whiteside sdvised appellant, 


and was considered by her to be her attorney. 


At the time of his death, David Meade Fishback 
was seized and possessed of the real estate involved in 
this proceeding, being a farm of 3510 acres and a residence 
in Carrollton, Illinois, which he and his family resided 
in, ss well as personal property thet amounted to $12,488.10, 
The claims apeinst the estate spgregated 444,600,635, of 
which Dr, Burns! wes $18,318.50, and the Greene County 
State Bank $14,083.38, lesving 2 deficit in the personel 
estate of about §29,000,86, Immedietely efter his sppointe 
ment, Guy Lowenstein proceeded to take charge of the farm 
land and collect the rents therefrom, Appellees made no 
objection to this. On January 11, 1929, Guy Lowenstein 
filed s current report in which he reported having in his 
hends sa balance of $11,057.97, after paying ell preferred 


clsims, costs and expenses, and asked the court for author 


169 


kal 


~ “Ss 


ytasgorq eld Ifa ,eeaneqxe Lonoke’ futa eadeb to ¢nemyer acid 
of bevatituos stasenswou yw) swob iit galvivewe iff od 3 ow 
oir gieet sa nariw alte OL Horrsiy £5 nas nodes tniabs BA sos 
send saw , £026 wood envexd edt to satsaay ctobatd ebyL0 
LE sus Soe o3 beunitnoo brie GOL BE ‘gual homed ntogne 
Srebie sec wsellaqaa "bem! pate ori fect SSOL ws radod 00 
odetsetatihs dbedriioggs aed pal .to86 yinuod Pah 4 Bat te 
a eftiatiegas xe bet anton orer owt Saal ects te roid Ler 
antau ahatd @ gheiD sok yentosta 2b botos oe fe sbteod tnt 
“AG betnseevast oe ts Bee roderdutatmbs: Few arf ents ang 
to ow? anak et ave ‘yaaw0d erserd ett fea enue tsawoll 
a bits aul it bas of ql ,etatee ert nt erod tbews seogtal ents 
.tarlfeoqe beelvha sient law. nil bedit tient ase antbesoord 
»Yortotts var od. ot sot e bosebtenoo * new bas 


“Abadda kt obae’ btvet tases ett to emis ett tA hh 
ni bevlovnl states fsex exit to beeeeasody brs bos tes, aeu 
ponebiest a bus eetea O10 to met 6 yoted cgalbss dong atria 
“‘bebtact ylins? a tel baa ed dokde seLonti il os Lfowzad ng 
.OL O88 S68 oF hetavoma tart? vredora fancareg aa ‘few ea nt 
to BO. OHO Phe , betagetgyys egates: ent Senteya amtato en? 
awd enserd sit brs 20. B16 .aLe RAY ‘eate a Hobbs 
Lanoe req ‘ost wh. tote ® getveel . BE .28040.58 And et ate 
mtafocws efi u9tis ‘ied sthemml 8 .000483%, duoste. to giates 
mies edt to, egradde adet oF . _Rebeooorg akedpcerod wo. eiaoe 
ont sham se liogyA saortora dd, ate oat. toelioo bs bast. 
_Shetenewo “HO 2805 LL. eeuned #0 vetdte ot no ssoot de 
pit nf gnived bedroqet eri do tetw.. ak ‘Frogs, SreNAwD,, 3. belth 
horistets ‘ifs gatyaq vette sT8 ,F90aLL8 to, gone isd 9 sbasd 
reaatis, 10%, otal Bly enld bean fan, _speeascne og, n7e08, seedy 





GR % B-. 


~~ 


ity to pay 24 per cent upon sixtheclass claims out of such 
balance, He further stated in his report, that in his 
judgment 1t would be unwise to sell the land, and if the 
Sale of land be kept in abeysnce, the price of farm lands 
might increase in value sufficiently to pay the sixth-class 
claims in full, The Mourt approved this report, and order- 
ed 24 paseout payment of the sixtheclass claims, and find- 
ing 4t was not favorable at that time to sell the real 
estate, ordered the administrator not to be required to 
file a petition to sell resl estate to pay deots until 

such time es ereditors might insist on 30 doing, or until 
the price of real estate beceme more stable and said real 


estate be sold to better advantage. 


On January 14, 1929, and after the time for 
filing claims had expired, appellant, on advice of her 
attorney ‘ir, Whiteside, withdrew a claim which she had 
filed sgainst the estate in the sum of $2,469.77, on notes 
of her husband, representing money from her father's estate 
which she had loaned to her husband. Clyde Linder, upon 
his sppointment as administrator, continued to collect 
the rents from the farm, Daring &ne time he wes edmine 
istrator,——. 2 period of ebout seven yearsee he was never 
asked to sell the farm by any of the creditors, and he did 
not file an application to sell the real estate because of 
depressed lend values. While he was administrator, he 
paid an sdditionel dividend of 9 per cent upon the sixth- 
Class claims, Appellee likewise continued to collect the 
rents from the farm, after he was appointed administrator. 
There was no demand made upon him to sell the real setate, 
He decided it was favorable to sell, as there did not appear 


to be much prospect of an increase of Value, end on Nov- 


i = 
ty, \ 
wn athe 


ose to vuo emisflo seatoertutea floqu sao tog S38 Yaq oF we 
ad itt acd erogert eld me bedade vont? oH .sonsted 

ent If Baa , banal ord ifes ot ee iwnay ad hivew gL tnamabut 
eDtal mret Io eolig ond «SoMayece nt tq27 sd baat to else 
eeato-dtxles sit yao of y¥lineiottivue eulev aft sesstont tetyia 
-sebro has dteqert- 3 Leis hevotcda tr): of? fint fk enters 
“boil bas yamislo aaelo-dixte eff ia tmremyen snoeneg Ss be 
_ feet efd3 Ifse of smi ade ts elderovat von aaw: at git 

ov Servivper ed of gon nodenteintabs aris herebro yetasee 
Lian etdeb be ot states Inet flee ot nots tveq 8 eilt 
Sténw "£0 vantob 08 tO Setest tig. ato thera ca) ents doue 
fax bise bas afdage oro emaoed etadee Leen ke vottd ‘ode 


egataavbs satsed 03 bios ad sdatac 


<0 emld efS wetta Brie yeSeLl ~af yoramnel ao. 
sem Io eolvba ao winsifLeqge ,hoxigqxe had auislo sorltt 
had orle doirte atefo s werbrtd fw whteod Idv oth yortod ds 
aevos no AFT .C0R SE io muse eft nt ovsTee naa dentsegs bellt 
evades ea’ xadet rT gel mort ‘Ysitom yittnenenq {9% sbaindo ue wen to 
mogu reba td ebylo -Snedes toa ot beuso. Dad ‘ort fo tstw 
: Joolloo oF hownisnoe (sedans ata tnbs 38 snomestoage ata 
“aaah ear ea omzs adit gai ated | of aor? edner odd 
‘seven Baw on me BLASY, bates suods Ie borreq 8 we \rodauzet 
pL ‘edt Baa e108 Lbor9 old 40 was Xe are oni ifee ot boxes 
es gansoed atndae {sen eds Iles 8 aodssoiqgs. pts eit fon 
od, Toanzetetabs 28 od erndw -201is¥ baal boneonze 
erat wit erent treo req @ 20 ‘Anebivib Lanote nbs ns baq 
edd tuelleo os Sewn tIsoo stiwextt seLfench - samts.o asalo 
wrod. snd ain tabs beanteyqs Aw: ent “seo ts ort odd aor: wing 
sO8R088 sen ent {Loe of mid hoax ‘ebss fans on paw sted? 
saesgas Joa bib eveds en: fen ot sidatovst aay $1 "‘Setibaaly ot 


ee erin. iit Uhl. Bh aa fin to toectota deum ad ob 


ee 


ember 16, 1937 m= slmort ten years efter the issuance of 
original letters—sAppellee filed his application herein 


for the sale of said resl estate to pay debts, 


The only aquestion involved in this case is 
whether appellee is cuilty of laches in his long delay 
in waking application, and whether there has been 2 reason- 


able excuse shown for this deley. 


While the Ztetute of Mimitetions in Illinois 
fixes no time within which so claim areinst the estate of 
& deceased person shall be enforced agsinst the lend of 
which he dies seized, yet by analogy the time hes been 
established by the courts st seven yeers efter his death 
unless there is some valid reason for further delay. Cood- 


ee 
run V. Beta hca 236 I11. 185, 187; Hurlbut v. Telbot, 275 


~~. 


re rere ES OIE 


Ill. 299, 509; McKean v. Vick, 108 Ill, 573, 576, 


ee ced wt Te 


Appellee's reason for undue delay in the applica- 
tion is that creditors were “appeased and lured to acaquies-— 
~ cence by payment of dividends and that they had = right to 
| believe that the application of rents from the farm toward 
the payment of their cleims were sanctioned and approved 
by Louise Fishback (appellant), and that so long as dividends 
were paid they would in the end secure their money, and fure 


ther that eppellant did not want the farm sold to pey debts 





end that she asked a creditor not to force the aale of it." 


The proofs show that appellant was not anxious 
for the gele, but the responsibility for taking the initial 
steps in making application for sale of real estate to pay 
debts was not on her, but on the administrator and the 


creditors, It is also true thet she permitted the sdminis- 


ie 


to eonaueael ets ystia atesy fed tromis mew PTEOL af nodme 
riieted nofisetiqgs eid bell? aelleqieepiesiel fantyine 


»2tdeh yaq of estatre Leet bise to sise eft 0% 


ef sean sindt ai Bevievni notteesp yine eaciT 
yeleh nnof afd mi eesfonl to ytiton ei eslfleaqqa recditesde 
~forset s seed eal sxedd tedteny bas eo iteoligga anise at 


sYaleb aidd 10% ovode eauexe efds 


etomtf{l af enotiatinly Yo atutad@ oft oLtdw 
to otetes edt teniags olato a dotdw atdgiv entt.on raxtt 
to Seal .edd taniegea beototne ad {Lane foateaq benassed a 
road eat emiy ect qaoLans yd fey ,bonteae oth ert Aotcin 
amnion aint tetts ersey Rn ely #4 adeno et me botialidadee 
hood tate® sedtist evasiah fiogses Siiev emcee eft exed? eeotns 
STS HodLat vv dud int PSL .6SL «fLk) B28, el fsiiog sh oT AUS 


ee al 


2oTS ebVE aiil: BOL. clo l¥ v noo soit ; 008 a@@s, sft 


-sotiqgs edt nk vsleb “eubay nick noenet a teelIequh 

~netupor os Seok baie " pesgeqan” ST ew ax0? Lhexe ‘ada et sons 

ot aig te e bad yor tens bas ebnedtvib to tnemyed we songs y, 
brawos errs eft sort asdmex to notteos lags ont facts evetied ‘ A, 


bevorqcs bas benoltonae oer eutate itedé te snemyeg exit iG 
abnebtv th a6 yok oe ‘tant bas | (amet feqan) tondde !% estuod w KS ~ 





tt A sini ‘yorom koa org pre oats ne BLuox wor bleq one 
atdeb ese od bfow sre ons tnaw ton phe tastteqae sana nods 
. ot to : ofae an? e070 (09 fon “ox Lberta a exten ‘este tacts bas 


uoixia ton onw sides Kasia worl Btoorg eff 5. 
Laitiol act anided tol yt iiidlancgqaen.sdt.dud yoies, off got 
yer. od eteten Iset: io, 6pm» ant. rotsnotioas wa lsan wet aqets 
edt bier mot ore ede ‘no tard ‘gto no domssaw: etdab 
asistahie ant hind Sheek die: Pett euedcenfenwkitt cevostbeke 


_ 


trator to collect rents from the land snd apply them to 

the debts, but under her testimony she states that nothing 
hed ever been seid to her about her having the rents on 

the land, She further states that iir, Whiteside, who was 
her legal advisor, never told her she wes entitled to 

these rents, and the first knowledge she had on this subs 
ject was efter this application to sell was filed and she 
engaged Judge Hutchings as her lawyer, Nrs. Pishbakk tea- 
tified thst Whiteside phoned her and she went to his office, 
sind he advised her that he expected the estate to be settled 
up shortly and preposed that she withdraw her claim which 
wes on file for $2,469.77, and thet he further stated to 
her; “If you will comply with this, I am sure you #111 get 
six or eight thousand dollars out of the estste." 3he 
stated thst she then vent to the court house and withdrew 
the claim, It sppears from the record that st this time 
Whiteside was representing the Greene County Bank, who had 
a claim of $14,000.66; and slso the Burns claim which was 
over $18,090.8& ‘Yhiteside, in his testimony, admits he 
advised her to withdraw the claim, snd further ststes thet 
the advice turned out to be bed. This lawyer was represent- 
ing adverse interests. in this transaction Appellant got 
the worst of it, to the advantege of Whiteside'e other two 
clients. The creditors sot ell the rents for the interven- 
ing yeers as well as cetting the surviving widow to relin- 
quish what eppears to be a bona fide claim, and elthough it 
is probably a reasonable deduction trom the entire record 
thet both sides and everyone interested were wishfully 
hoping thet land values would advance, there is nothing 


in the record to indicate that there was e binding daresin 


Cc 


made with sppellant for the delay. 172 


a cn 


ot ged? yloyqn hae Bast add mort stnev toelicg of rotiett 
qiidion sadd esetata eis ynoaltae? ved reba Jud stash eat 
no atnat eft sotved vad dueds ted of BEae coed «eee Bad 
nev ow ,ohbfeedid yeh tact satndy song? ene bral oits 
ot beltitns eee eds rast bLot seven wotlvia Lnagel nod 
~die aids ao bed aris osbelwons Feash salt Seta trie’ ened 
i orig prs beltt new flee of nares sean ated s9ot8 Baw toet 
ae Masdie tt soc wroywal tea Be Seabank eabul Beskeia 
soLtte aid af taew ere Bas vad berode: wb leedt 2AW J ad? Belted 
helttes od of stathe eds hetseqxe od teedt sod beotvbs eri bria 
fafstiw aialo “sd waxisitiw are Sorte Beasqete sre yidvose qe 

of Badate sedtuvt of tose ine VP COR SS TOT are? oo aa 

ten Lffs voy etm me bo cakes qd iw ¥lemes ae sou TE" yen 
atk “yevatae ect te ton etefLob baAaRwOnT srigue <6 xfe 
woubdt ie Baa eavod sev0o ddd oF daew ite i one Sasid bet ate 
omit eine. $e tal? Biose« seid mre « eLagage 32 mtato wed 

bed ole ,dameG yeauod ensex0 orl? wii Lenonencion paw ebfsesidy 
aaw doltse ntese aneud odis oats has 700,,000 5% to miafo 2 

ed atimha .ynomitaet eld nt. ebhaed tt ak 000 88 nevo 
tads beds wn seddast has smtelo ons warcbaiw 8 net beetvbs 
—bnise ana Bee nequal etat »bed ad of tu0 bent? sotvba ong 
T9y suai Lough no ttosa nant elie al 2dgotetat sero pat 
ows tertito ot ebfnog tft ‘te eyadnavbs add ot tt zo tenor ade 
~aswredat edt 02 edaen sag rac) 308 erosiber9 ont eanot to 
-nife of wen te aaivivewe ents antdtes 58 Low as Btaen eo 
tf Aguods Le baie aslo ebLt anod a od os erseqqs Jariw detup 
Stage: eniins eft monk no bt oubeb oldetoaset s Yidadorg al 
Viigiiaiw ever Beteshedal enoyrove Bnew ponte tod tadé 
giddtonr of wrant sbohevee ‘bLuow ‘pewlav baat vents gattqoit 
‘nleytad asiontd « see eters feed ethotont or prover ‘oct ot 
Seite nas + oly? eieeite® ate oe Snatiienee ata Raed 


a ~ ae 


To speculste on market values is not recognized 
as a reasonable excuse for deley where yee the duty of 
an administrator or executor to sell, Pope XN. Kitcheil, 
_ Til, 248, 256; Vierieg ve Krehuke, 295 Ill. 265, 271; 


eal 
intte v. Horn, ac Seam 258, 245; Grehem v. Brock, 212 I11. 


579, 582, _S 


This application not heving been made until sfter 
the expiration of ot the burden to show Jjustifica= 
tion for delay rests on appellee. The only proof mede by 

Appellee in meeting this burden is thet land values were 
depressed and that the widow tied. thew to sleep. ‘Ye can= 
not hold thet this is a reasonable excuse, perticularly 
when administretor makes application to sell real estete 
to pay debts without offering to account to the Widow for 
rents received which belonged to her, and without offering 
to put her back in status guo on her claim that was with- 
drewn at the instance of the attorney for the tro lergest 
creditors, The decree of ssle would have been more eauite 
able and wholesome, if the court below had ordered the 
administrator account to Mrs, Fishbeck for the rents dure 
ing the yeers intervening since the granting of letters 
to the time of sale, and had ordered that she be permitted 
to pro<rate with the other sixth-class creditors on her 
Claim, If the decree is allowed to stand as entered, it 
will take the entire farm, and deprive = the fidor of 
her clesim and rents which she was entitled to, and which 
she would have had by following the procedure prescribed 
by law with reasonable dispetch, To leave this decree 
stand would be an imposition on Mrs, Fishbeck, 2nd would 
work an injustice, particularly when it resulted from 4 


lawyer trying to serve Clients with sdverse interests, 


9 
¥ 


bestingoooy fon at eeulsv taaxam no eteafuesqes of 
1 ysuh offd et oe peteee Yeleb tol wawoxs eidancesst 8 ap 
vffesiod £1 ov oer » gL lee ot eee eee one 
pivs BOS. LEE 28 soxnaione Oe getrer {BSS yGsS offs a 
SII SER  Asore ad neato ques ,BER Saat ie efl"T OH. oe prine 


2.) sea eve 


tetts Lftns ebhss teed anived gon aoltaolfacca gin? 
~sort tant wode of nefrrud ant ers9y reves to noid signe odd 
ee sbam toorg wine edi? ea lfeqqs nO steat “yaleb 0% notd 
etew sevlav biel dacit at sebasd aids snttess me solfeaia, 
-teo ef § =6,gsele of aed Sores wohiw edz sand hits pevasraah 
yisalvoltsaq ,ennoxe eidanoagen s ad aidt tacit biod “ton 
otates faex Sfies at ao tdeotfqqa eine rot erdain tabs ned 
ot WOBLN, wali of daveoen of giiseltto tuonslw atdeb yaq of 
gitres to guaddiv bas ,ted og baune Led Nofdw hevieoe: etme 


eNgin saw 3 ast alate wed a6 own asgote nit doad ted $119 od 


APR) RHR ee my pcre 


Fae yal ows aft tol yensesia oft to sonagant orld ta ama 
~$lups sion seed evad Alfsysow efern to peroeb onl? .atod Lbets 
end betebte Dat wolad bees edt tL ,owoneiormw bas afda 
aut: etriet ost? c0% dontitalt exit of inuonos 08 sg etnimbe | 
anetssl to Bilis net g eis eon te qn inersad al er29¥ and? ont 
bess lareq ad ane fs act hereto bad bra yates to omtd ons ov 
sort me wick thers avalourlaxte ‘senld 0 ond 6h tw ets Cong od 

ve ebered ne ae basta ot bowolte ot cerosb ons $I amin le 
to wobs ied ke oviageh bas caret outine oats ound ELtw 
fotiy bas ,oo ds 3 Lone bee exe otete esas baa ntafo aod 
 «Sedinos sug erubsaord ads gniwoltot ve bad oved Biwow ee 
eerseb eld eveel of sdio eget ofdanoesen sta bw wal xa 
hLarow Drs tondste £% err ft0 soli teoqat an ad biwow basae 

& moxt bot Lueet gk ees piteluolites, sotseutat fis axon 


j 


osteotetat had co atte ssnettt « oeret 08 mates nowal 


po 
For the reesons herein stated, the decree 
of sale of the Sounty Zourt of Greene Sounty is hereby 
reversed and cause remanded, 


REVERSED AND REWANDED, | 


/ 
i 
ne _ 3 


EAS 2 


gexced ef? ,bevate miesed anoaset edt 10% 
‘yiewanl al yiawoR enver’ to derek ed OR ene te efee to 
~Dehisnet obuao bts Heanreverr 


So Slat atoning 


~CAGHAMGH GHA CHGKAVaR ont 
' Ae nant cece alc att ee PE ees 
\ a. Se 
QF 
g y at i 
t 3] i 1 


= — i 


a4 } 
— f : 
f fo] 
IRENE KATHERINE THIELEN, é f i ~ 
Appellant, f § 
-VSe- s ¥ 
VINCENT | THIELEN, 
eee. 


Appeal from Circuit Court, McLean Soa 
January Term, Awd. 1939: 29 91 A. 6 27 


Gen. No. 9176 Agenda No. 8 


Nr. Justice Fulton delivered the opinion of 
the Court. 


On the 25th of January, 1957, a Decree was 
entered in the Circuit Court of McLean County 
awarding a divorce to the Appellant, Irene 
Katherine Tnhielen, and against the Appellee 
‘Vincent Paul _Jhielen, on the grounds of 
desertion. There were no childcren perm of the 
marriage and the Decree required the Appellee 
to pay to the Appellant the sum of $125.00, per 
month, and the use of the Homestead premises 
located at 1518 Last Grove Street in the City of 
Bloomington, Illinois. There were other provi- 
sions concerning the use and division of property. 

On the 25rd of August, 1938, the Appellant 
filed a Petition in the Circuit Court praying 
that the Court modify the said Decree of Divorce 
in the following respects: : 

1. That the monthly payment of $125.00 
be increased; 

2. That part of certain insurance monies 
alleged to be due the Appellee be 
given to the Petitioner; 

Se That she be awarded one-half of the 
net income from two grain elevators 
and a farm belonging to the Appellee; 

4. That she be awarded a one-half interest, 
together with her dower rishts, in the 
said elevators and the farm. 

The grounds advanced by the Appellant for modifi- 
cation of the Decree were that she was under medi- 
cal care and needed additional funds to pay doctor 
bills; that she could not make both ends meet on 
the sum of $125.00, per months; that due to the 
condition of her health and the fact that the 


“¢ $s Q obs I e ee twAL Rae oleh ee YVisntsh Pie 


BAAN B. 


\ MQISLUT BMIMIETAR AMAL 
\, .ftasllogqd 
% : = 2 
\ ; 
bo ; METI GUAT LUTOULY 
seffeggh 


Pyeue sastoi eters tutto mort 1 Esoggh 


8S ,0“% sbresA ave ow .wed 


to nmofictigo aft boteyiteb mod Les easttest ht 
SxT00 edd 


aew seroed es ,VECL .yiaunat Wh ALES echt 200 


YI ra7r90 arelol to S00 divostd offs mt betetna. 


ene2zt etaellegqa edd o¢. sotovib a natbrave 


eelisggé aft tentsue Bos ,tefofat enitedtsx 
. “¥o ebimrory edt mo ,nefofd? fved toaeoatv., 
e@ddotd mrad. NelibEd ia. Oar: onew, ‘ona... . ot depene dD: 


selleqda end bertcpet setood edt bie sgabartam 


T0g | 000d SLE to mve add taalleqga edt ot yeq. od: 
aoete ny Daesteonot ed} to sat edd boa ,ddaom: 


Yo YILU ert ck seerde ovexd deel Bfet te botgool 
~ivoeg. epee . eter ereiT .ufontift .sodygnimoold 


evtteqetq to cofetwib bas cau add nateteonoo | enoks | 


gosifeggA ash!..S6@E ,tauqvéA to BrdS end 10 


qirtyetg taudd onic end ot sokiiged g belkt. 


gotovid to setoel! biea edt vitben waved oft dad 
: sedveqeor aatwolfot edt: nt 
ak Oe oo. ases te daonysq- eiisaois okt tefl wf ; 
sbeeaetont sd. |. 
esicom sonatvant atiadteo to tuaq ted? .S - 
ed seileacA eld exb od o¢ bexgelfe 
tonolilted ont o¢ avevip 
ad to tiaf-eno bebiswe od erfa. tad? 6 
etatsvele. atats ond mort amoort. FO 
reeifeqqh. and ot naftganofed uwtet s bag 
.tnonedat ‘“tsc~eno pe beitawn od fe dat? .s 
art at ,atdaks tewod ted dtiw steddenot 
wm%tat ecdv bow atotavelo Silas 
~itkibor, ot daaifeqaé eit yd beonavbe absrety ed? 
~Ebem taba aew ace tedd orew eetoed edd to mottss 
yatoob yeq o¢ sbaut L[anotdi bbe bebeen bag etso Lao 
no deem ehne died eam tom biwoo ese tadt ¢ahitd 
edt of aub dadd ygitnom teq .00.ESLG Io mre odd 
edt tart toast ons bag rdipec tert to. nol¢ ibaa 


i sos 


Pee, 


Page 2 Gene No. 9176 


surroundings in Bloomington, Illinois, where her 
Homestead is located, are utterly incompatible 
with the state of her mental and physical well- 
being, the Petitioner was not able to reside in 
the house on East Grove Street in Bloomington, 
Illinois, and was obliged to pay considerable sums 
for lodging each month while residing in Chicago. 

The Appellee filed a motion to strike the Petition 
contending that the subject matter was res ad judicata; 
that the petition did not state or allese any change 
in the circumstances or conditions of either of the 
parties or any other matter which would justify the 
Court in modifying said Decree. The case went to a 
hearing before the Court without any further answer 
or denial being filed, It is apparent that the 
motion to strike was considered as an answer to the 
petition because oral testimony was introduced by 
both the Appellant and Appellee on the hearings. The 
Petitioner testified that she was living at the 
Edgewater Beach Hotel in the City of Chicago, and 
also in detail explained the cost of living respect- 
ing food, clothing and many other incidental expenses. 
It included such items as Lodce Cues, tuition at a 
Law School and Doctors bills. Her’ conclusion was 
that the payment of $125,00, per month was totally 
inadequate to meet her necessary living expenses. 

The Appellee testified that he spends less than 
$75.00, per month for food, clothes and lodging, and 
that he is paying the Appellant more money each month 
than he has for himself; that he has paid the taxes 
on the Homestead premises each year, and that his 


i income was less than at the time the Decree was 


entered. 

The Court denied the petition to modify the Decree, 
and it is that ruling or tne’ court which» the Appell- 
ant seeks to reverse by this appeal, 

Sec. 19 of the Divorce Act provides, that the 
Court may make such order touching the alimony and 
maintenance of the wife as from the circumstances of 
the parties and the nature of the case shall be fit, 
reasonable and just; and the Gourt may, on application 
from time to time, make such alterations in the allow- 
ance of alimony and maintenance as shall appear reason- 
able and proper. 

The application for an alteration or modification 
of the Decree is always addressed to the judicial 
discretion of the Chancellor, and, ordinarily, in 
the absence of fraud in procuring the Decree, the 
inquiry is, in all cases, whether sufficient cause 
has intervened since the decree to authorize or 
require the Court, applying equitable rules and 


ay re ool ote) 





tert evonw ,atontiil ,notyntmoold nt egntbrwornre 
eidttaqmoont ylredis ete ebetscof ef beotsamoh 
-ffew Isoltaydg Sue Let aoc ost to otete oft citiw : 
at gblser of slda ton saw tehotttiel edd nated 
afiny oe tmop ld gt Renee evot) tes go eanod ett ; 
acne efdntobtancd yaq of “beg ido saw boa .atomtif(r - 
sogpotdd at gatbteet elidw ritmon cose gntsbol 0% 
moltited eff exftita ot nottom s SeLft selfeqqA edt 
redaolbyh he eet gew tedden tootdne ant tect gntbmetnoo 
extents yas anoelis to eteda gon bIb motttideg ent tearft 
add to tattle to anofttbhnes to. aesnetemortto odd at 
edt Ytidest biuow dotdw tettem tedto yor to eelddaq * 
g ot tdew sego odT .eeto0d Hiss antythbom’ al. Se00 
tewese tedtayst yas tuordiw dawod end eroted antased | 
end tard tneteqge at tI ,beLtt antad Istneh xo 
adt ot tewane one sa berebtence eaw efftts’ ot - notion 
ud beoubowtot enw yaontteet Leto eauaced wottiveg 
edt ,xnatasel edt mo eeLfoqgé bag tosflloqgsA edt itod 
edt tg adtvil esw ore Feud boltideedt seen tei 
hag ,opgmDidd to yt edt mt LetoW doped ‘tod awo: 
vioansen aotvil to dees frit bontefqxe Lreteb- et Sata i 
-neadeqxe Lednabfon? sedido your bra gatritofo” .b007' sat a 
gis nottiud .senb enbod as amed? dose béobiulort as ; 
ant notantsnoo 4et yalttd BtOIS6C ‘Sas Toons’ wer 
yiletod eaw einer 4eq (00.d8f3 to dnemysd ‘ert Bog 
seurteqxe Eetkvil yisesesen tod teen of. ot airpe bart 
nest seo absege od tadt betthivess: selfeqaa. bagi ( > 
bas qpitghol ban eedt6lo .boot wt dénom tog (00 sate 
ridnont does vahtom oto titel Poca ent antyaq | ‘BE, et: deat mo 
vexed ent bie® eal ed dads pifeemtd Ot earl ait: weit . 
git dadd bes: ,186F Nore eoutwery beeteeroti ott ao ‘1 
eaw eorsed edd sate aris ds aed easel eew supeat: i Ve 
se batedne — 
OO7GO6)..eckt. “yitbor od ‘note ttég mr tbo teen S950 9 eT" “4 : 
~fleqqk ef? datdw Save" ous Ts” st himt Saas * "ek FF bie 
.. eiseggs. aidt yd eetevet’ ot avtosa tne 
edd deft ,esbiverq tok eater hl edd to CL, v08 
bisa yroxtie ert aakdoiios “tebto dove oxen Ysa dtyv09 
Yo neotatamuetts edd moTt as etiw edt ‘te sareqed ater 
efit od LIfe ease asd to’ oritan adt Sas eetdtagq exit 
nofdsotiqgs so etean davo8 etd bus ytest bose eldsroasst 
~wollg eft at asotieretia dove evam ,emt? ot ‘emit mort ~ : 
-noasot *seqqe Ifate ss eonsted al gin ‘Bete “Yaroat fs to esns 
; seqorg bae ofde 
nottaolttbom to moftetedia nes tot aghtesbiqas eit | i. 
‘Istothe? ect od Seesetbb, evewf£s at eetoed edd to 
mt ,yfitentbYo , bis rollesnad) ore to mokteiaetb 
‘ont ,oerped srlt gobissorg’ nk Beret ‘to ‘potteeds odd a 
ia trotottive teiterw .bewao Efe at .et erinpnt — 
extrottue of setseb odd eonts benevagsat ‘and 7 
bate ynanie eidatiupe oxtvlegs: .d4v0d ‘sedi extupet 


n : 








toe 











7 fie qeaoi RO erind of pedyte vce 
- BAN & i ot ~ 2 oe oe 


we a 
nee ee tts my 


Pace 3 Gene Now 9176 


principles, to chanse the allowance. Cole v. Cole, 
142 Ill. Page 21. Smith v. Smith 334 Ill, 370. 

The question presented to the Court in this 
case, therefore, was whether or not the circum- 
stances of the parties had changed sufficiently 
to warrant the alteration and modification of the 
allowance awarded in the original Decree. 

It appears to this Court that the needs and 
necessities of the Appellant have been created 
by her own acts and conduct in desirin;; to live at 
a Hotel in the City of Chicago where the expenses 
are much larger than her mode of living to which 
she had been accustomed at the time the oricinal 
Decree was entered. ‘There is no proor that the 
ability of the husband to contribute or pay a 
larger sum per month has changed. In fact the 
testimony in the case shows that his ability to 
pay has diminished since the entry of the Decree. 
The fact that the Appellant. is dissatisfied with 
the terms of the former Decree is not sufficient 
to give the Court power to alter or modify the 


‘allowance. 


There is no basis in the proof. for sranting to 
the Appellant the other additional property rights 
she seeks. To grant such relief would be equiva- 
lent to veversing the action of the Chancellor in 
the orisinal Decree. The partics had their day in 
Court with the risht of appeal if the Decree was 
deemed erroneous and the Circuit Court had no 
power to chanze or modify such Decree upon the 
same facts which existed at the time of its entry. 

The Chancellor heard and saw the parties on 
the hearing of this petition and his ruling in 
denying the prayer of the petition seems to us 
entirely just and correct. The order or Decree 
of the Circuit Court is therefore affirmed. 


pCO N TE ANAL SLE ALLO LILIES APA RE PON SELL OIE OIRO Nal AI ve 


ASYIRMED. 


BIS BR 


atte ,o8 man & suet 


.ofod .v efed .eoaswolla arth. engecto, of (nolqtantsq 
,0NS . £51 b88 ddim av détwe 48 eget .sLT Saf 

afd? of dayod edf oat batnesend, soiddeup eft, 
-morie edt tom 1. tantedy gaw:.otoletedé | 4g ORRO 
yfdooloitiua begnade bad aeltaag edd to, seoneds 
edd to nottsotitoog bag nolttanedlea adt daavsaw od 
.eoroed fentgito edt at bebuewe, sonewolls 

bros abeen. ald dadt dened als of etesggqa. ti 
bejaeta meed evad toelLeqgA edd to astileesoon 


te evil o¢ uoiv*eeb at doubaoo Sag etoa cwo vad yd 


wonneqxe of? exadw oyaoind to ctld edt at LesoHs 
doidw of .goivif£ te ebow ted sedd regteal douu..eas 
fentalxo eit gamit exis ts bewotaveca need bed. ede 
add tadé teotg an ef stedtT ,bersotas caw sesoed 

s y8q 20 etudiataap et bagdesd edd io wWiitda 
edt toat ai .«begeacde ead icon. tag ore contael 


o¢ ytifida eld tedd aworle saao oft al yoowtiaed - 


,sotoad oft to radae edd eonte bedelaink® sed yaq 
sick Ev. botteatterels: al toeiiegghs edt tadt Jtogt.edT 
teotottiys ton at cere cemrrot.edd: Ie anrioed edt 
eld wat Dest sods at. towed. FerUGY edt, evis.oF 
‘wD LO Ife 

at .neitaets wot. too ent at etead. en,af etedt. 
atigis ydaagorg Lemmidibbs tedto odd, ime iLecca ould 
-sviupe od binow tefier dora dasqy oT .wedesa ocle 
mi tofigodad) edt Yq noltes edt gateweveu of daol 


at veh sheds Sari ao tdtisg edt . sgotoatl Lents iso ante | 


gaw geTo9ed edt LE Leegga to ¢deta edt détw tagod 
oe Dad dtgoD glwewkd edd Sue emestignxe benmeb 
edt soqes eewsell dove yitibesa to esmedo, ot sewog 


wetdae pitta amiz add ta Retnbce clo Fafw gtost emas 


no setdisq erfd wee Sieg breed solLeonarld edt 

et gaifus eld Oboe ooltideg aldd to .gcitaed ott 

ay of aumeee noliide, edd to Temes odt -patyaeb 
eernall. 20 tebso edi .doenteo baa seul glesisne 
. bemth tia sie texertt at #arg0 Sdasaineiaahe ont ‘to 


vio praia aiannmnertnnes oi sailiii alsin “SRT RARER Spe O.- POp i stag UVR Vere ain 


CRMRE Ta 


ee 





STATE OF ILLINOIS 


APPELLATE COURT 


299 1h 427 
FOURTH DISTRICT LOA | 
wen QE TOBER a ssusnsnnon TERM, A. D., 19....2.8. 


At an APPELLATE COURT for said Fourth District, State of Illinois, begun and held 
at Mt. Vernon, in said State, on the...@PtRdary Of QGLORER. occu , the same being 
the Fourth Tuesday in said month ol......... SES) 1) Sa eee ee , 19...28, said term of 


said Court being held according to law. 


PRESENT: 


Hon. 0. gS) 508 DN OS a 5 SR re Presiding Justice 


5 Koy mma 7 2A <4 DA Ol ad t= 8 8 ©. a ee Justice 

Fon. cones 1502054 5969) 0994) 205 9 D> Se ee , Justice 
= WADLDER M...BUCKHAM ou, Clerk 
sore 5 hy B12) B Pare Bo BO UY Senet mS Ty a 


Court opened by proclamation. 


ATTEST: 
vommarWaller M. Buckhary cmun Clerk 
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterward, to-wit: On theermu.\wW.unen i ee day 
(o} a eer March vcs _ A.D. 19.29, there was filed in the office of the said Clerk 


of said Court, an opinion of said Court, in words and figures following, to-wit: 





STATE OF ILLINCIS 
APPELLATE COURT 
FCURTH DISTRICT 
CCOTC3ER TERM, A.D. 1958 
Term No. 5 Agende No. 14 
IKE MCCRE, 
Appellee 
Vs. Appeal from the Circuit 
METRCPCLITAN LIFze IN- 
SURfNCE CCHPANY, @ 


coryoraetion, 
Appellant. 


Court of Saline County. 


Ne eS ws se wes 


Murphy, J: 

This action was to recover on an industriel life 
policy issued oy the defendant on the tife of Vallie 3B. Moore, 
the wife of the plaintiff. The suit wes started before a jus- 
tice of the peace and therefore is without pleadings. Plain- 
tiff recovered &@ judgment in the circuit court and cefencent 
éppeels. 

The méteriel policy provisions were thet tne policy 
constituted tne entire agreement, that if tne insured was not 
alive or not in sound health on tne date of issue then in such 
case the insurer mey declare the policy void and its liability 
Shéll ce limited to @ return of the premiums paid, except in 
ease of fraud in whicn case the premiums were toa be forfeited 
to the company. The policy wes incontestable after it had been 
in force during the lifetijue of the insured for one year from 
date of issue. 

The insured made application for the policy August 
15, 1535, it was issued September 1 and insured died March 14, 
1936, from pulmonary tuberculosis. The premiums were all paid. 
There was no mecical examination prior to the issucnce of the 
policy. Defendant contends that insured was sufferin, from tne 


G@iseese from which sne died «at tne time of the mekins of the 


Term No; 5 ' Agenda No. 14 


&pplication and the issuance of the policy and thet therefore 
she wes not of sound health and that the policy is void end it is 
only liable for a return of the premiums for whicn it made proper 
tender. 

On the tack of the application and immediately pre- 
ceeding certain questions and answers appears the following, 

"To induce the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, to issue 
Policy ana <s consideration tnerefore I agree, on benelf of my- 
self end of iny otner person who shell heve or cleim interest 
in any policy issued under this epplication." The meterizl pert 
of the applicetion tnen states thet she had never had tubercu- 
losis, thet she wes tnen in sounc heelth and hed no physical 
defect or infirmity; that she hed not been uncer the care of a 
physician within three yeers except for occasional headache. It 
concludes that statements recorded ere. true and complete and 
she egreed that eny misrepresentction would render the policy 
void and thet the policy should net oc binding unless upon its 
date she was alive and in sound heelith. 

Defendant offered tha applicetion in evidence and 
plaintiff objected on the grounds thet the policy constituted 
the entire contract and that the éapplicetion was therefore im- 
materiél. The case wes being tried without é jury end the 
court admitted it subz;ect to the objection, 

the stctutory provision Sut. Sec. 661, Chipt. 73 Ill. 


ey. Stat. wiich requires thet a copy of the epplicztion should 


4 


}~ af 


be endorsed upon or attccnhed to the policy end made a part there- 
of end thet the cpplicétion and policy snall constitute the 
eutire contrect hes no cpplication to industrial policies Sec. 


ay 
Bk 


6. in view of the statute and the policy provision that the 
policy constituted the entire contract the application was not 
acmissible <s being @ pert of the contract of insurance but it 


wes aamissible upon tne question whether there was preliminary 


fraud in the application. It is evident thet the representations 


nw 
. 














aD _ 


a 





rr eT 


; + -_ > of! f 
_ a - | | ae 
| | ~ 
oh Sree 
ba “el 
ow wows ‘ 


oe ee Od 


ee i) 


: 





Term NO. 3 f,enda Ne. 14 


sonteinucd in the epplication formed the inducement to th. usicn- 
dent te meke tne centrézet. No necical cxéwinetion hivin, oeen 
node it was the unly source of knowledge for difanceat to know 
of applicant's physical concition. It is true thet since the @p- 
plicetion was not attnched to the policy or made @ pert of it 
thet the matters steted thorcin were representations and not 
werrenties, Spence vs. Central Accident Insurcnee Co. £36 Ill. 
444 but froud would viticte the policy and « false representetion 
as to a matcrial fect knowingly mcde would constitute fraud. 
The application was admissible on the issue of fraud. 

The evidence discloses that insured was treated oy three 
doctors prior to making the epplicetion. Dr. Johnson carly in 1935 
Dr. Beltz, July 1935, Dr. Skelton 1934. Ali these dcoctors testi- 
fied. Dr. Johnson stetcd that he treated insured for a cold but 
that a his opinion she then hed pulmonary ‘Luberculosis but thet 


he told the insured she hed & colu. Br. Seltez stated ne treeted 


her for generél debility which in His opinion hea existed for a 


few months bcut he cid not give it ¢% his opinion that she then had 


oO 


tuberculosis. Dr. Skelton treated her for headache in 19354. 
November 2, 1935 insured entered Bochne Tuberculosis 
“ospitel at Evensville, Indicnae for treatment ane wes discharged 
November 17. At the time of the first entry, in connection with 
her examination, she geve a history of her case.- This became 
pert of the hospital records and was introduced in evidence by 
Gefendent. Pleintifi ning various grcunds. Pro- 
per foundation wes laid end the contents of the history sheet 


was materiel to tu: issve of fraud. Hrenicke vs. Prudential Ins. 


“G0 £60 T1ll. Bodo. 6st . 
The history sheet as teken oy ir. Weod showed thet 


in July 1634 insured spit up @ little tlocd cut ene thought it 
wes throat trouble, thet in January 1935 si. hed influcnze cnd 


Stayed in bed one week end cfter thet her neelth wes bid. In Mz 


she developed « cold and started couzhing more end begzn to ex- 


Term No. 5 Agendse. No. 14 
pectorete. She hed night sweets end lost weight and strength, 

In Mey her physicien put her in bed dicgnosing the cése es tuber- 
culosis. While in bed she gzined some weisht cnd felt better. 
Dr. Crim who ccnducted the physicczl excminetion ct the 3cehne 
Hospitel testified thet upon ner first entersnce November 3, 

1635 she hed reles over the upper lobe of the right lung and 
roughened breething over tee uppsr lobe of the left lune, thet 
réles indiceted some pctnolozy in tnet loves which cfteor cn X-rcy 
end spectrum test wes determined to be tubcreulosis. He gave it 
cS his opinion that she had been so afflicted for six months prior 
to hor first. .exenine tion. 

Thc only countcr evidence is the testimony of the 
plciatiff. He stetcd thet on the date of the issuance of the 
policy the insured wes in g00d Acelth end that sne did her work 
caring for the home. He knew of her baing treated by the several 
doctors mentioned but steted thet ne did net know of the tuber- 
culosis until after she entered the Bocnhne Hospital. 

In Sulski vs. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 196 Ill. 
app. 76 the court neld that the fact of the sound heclth of the 
insured at the dcte of tne policy wes whet determined the lic- 
Sility of the insurer, not the eypcrent necith of tne insured or 


1 


anyone's bolisf thet the insured wis in sound nealth <.t that 
time. 

Under ths evidence we are constrained to hold that 
tne insured nec tubcsrceulosis on the dato of the issuance of 
the policy cad thet she head knowledgc of her condition at the 
time She mode the ¢cpplicition. Tne statements in the cpplica- 
tion cs to her heclth cond that she nad never been cfflicted 
with tuberculosis were material representetions to the issucnece 
of the policy end the known falsity of the seme constituted 
fraud < 

Cne afflictcd with pulmonary tubzrculosis is not of 


sound health as < metter of law. Gecrroll vs. Metropolitan Life 


i 


ee 


Ins. 9o. 258 Ness. 249, 154 MN. &. 757; Levanaoski vs. Equiteble 
Etie ss "hie Go. 10S Nes Ll. 646, 1O7 A. 216, 

Counsel for plaintiff rclics upon Welsh vs. Pruden- 
ticl Ins. So. 685 Ill. App. £26. In the Welsh case statements 
in the cpplicction were held to bc representztions and not war- 
rantics. The distinction between the Welsh ccse and the one at 

ar is that in the Walsh case the court found that statements 
were not knowingly false while in this the evidence of the hos- 
pital record shows that insured hed been told wecks before the 
épplicction thet she had tuberculosis cand thc symptoms she had 
&s given by ner for the history sheet were such ¢S are univer- 
sally known to cccompany tuderculosis. 


For tne reasons assigncd the judgment is reversed. 


. . Reversed. 



















et Pa moaqu. 
a a 
7 tinensiade se30 dela say ¢ 
o% 7 wt 7 : . 
bled vw ots 
rer 
ft eacetad nottont sei. 


oa oi wan 


7 2 Ras OR bees C = 


a 4) Gi GE San’ ss 


ir [29 “leant Yon 








— 7 
24°32 ewane Dr@nen tabi 
: - 
7 -_ 7 -_ 7 
7 poke t 7. e@lsring. 
Wt <7 i ; 7s) 2 VFL 
sf Mane ate : a ‘ 
7 7 
: ; ; : - ae 
| “ Cire Ge fates I PYSS 2 oo BU Pes eee. Tea 
- a oe 7. 
Lee A Ce eRe Gide ees ele gece: eeeiy see 
SAS SRY SERS TG SP Plea Pie Abe Ast Tose. 
7 <> BE 7 
| eiagnerase Saxo TeLSY 28g) ae ro SA. «itt Bee se ae 
: 


red 


: ‘ eR ee ok eer ee ee ee Pies oO es ae eas hy r i hte 
“ihe (jer Gay eropiagi wees Sn UN ary ed ios of Sw pag ss. SP iya.: ; 
“fk aes Re * Mie goal SEG ae a pas) ery ey ie nd ayn iJ a t b ree i a : 





; 
: 
. Vin - eye pea de ae 7 . 
i 
wae 
iis 7 er 
Petes |. fea ee BST Bsa Nene Eos 
; 
7 nas iyke AGA BOs 2ay 8 
- Lan Gud Pkg: ad od bis o7pove 





7 
2? Vance Se Se ea eee a Sec eh a Pri st 


. 





; Pye _JAMES R. _MCLAUGHLIN - Sse , Clerk of the Appellate Court, within 


and for the Fourth District of the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true 
copy of the OPINION of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in my Office. 
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, L-have set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court at 





Mt. Vernon, this a _|_day of ; ; October, A. D. 19 60. 


f AANk = EEN 4 Wk ecg hii 
Clerk of theAppellate Court. 


C 


INIdO 


STATE OF ILLINOIS v6 \ j 
APPELLATE couRT = / | j 
FOURTH DISTRICT A } 
OCTOBER TERM, Ae De 1938. 
Term No. 20 : Agenda No. 8 
Executor and Trustee of the Last Will SFuaea FF OA gf $) 
YJ telhe VE 


and Testament of JOSEPH KARNER, Deceased,~ 
Appellee, 

Appeal from 

the Circuit 

Court of St. 

Clair County, 

tii inois. 


VSe 
DORA KARNER, BENJAMIN KATZ, DAVID KARNEH, 
Syek Karner, Libo Spiegel, the Unknown 


Heirs and Devisees of JOSEPH KARNER, 


UNION TRUST COMPANY OF EAST ST. LOUIS, 5 p Perens 
j 
| 
{ 
i 
{ 
Deceased, and Unknown Owners, Defendants, 
i 


Maurice S. Karner, Appellant. 


/idarphy,d: 

This suit was started by the executor and trustee 
of the Last Will and Testament of Joseph Karner, deceased, 
to construe said will and for directions. The testator left 
one son, his only heir at law who is defendant appellant on 
this appeal. 

The will after directing the payment of debits and 
certain specifie legacies to testators former wife and a 
nephew, bequeathed one half of the residue to his son and 
as to the other one half he disposed of it as follows; 

_ "The balance of my estate shall be bequeathed to the follow- 
ing persons; David Karner's children-Lee Karner's children 
and Syek Karner's children, all residing in Poland--in the 
State of Woline, County of Kraminits and Town of Lonovitc. 
Also Libo Spiegel and children, all residing in Russia-- 
State of oline, County of Zaslof and Town of Belaratka. 


This balance of my estate shall be divided equally among 


“ay 
PARSE AAI os ae ~ 
ieee Pt ret stra centr EEO 





N 
ay gh 
+ _ re a a 0 
. 
. Fy : ‘ var ee bee's ‘ 
ie 4 Bn cd i C . big re Tete See 
aie ty yi? 
: = 7 @ 46 2% 
Pa : rs ‘ : : ; re See 
iv at 3 . 
+ 
Wieige i 
* rs ‘ 7 ¥ , 
i a " 
thy 8 ‘ 2% ae \ ee ; 
* - ‘ fF : on J . = = 4 
- ; Het ewe pike Win 
4 ay a 4 OE Beceet 





‘ 


ust ioe 





i RE of age 


he 





beds 03 


peony 
pa ION Bhd Ral 








ae 
Ne} on 
F 
; : 
rae 
, - 
‘. 4 
a 
. ‘ 4 
. A 
: ; 
he er cas wt se aaah Be pepe ak «. Pola 4 "iy SNaate ogee Oe Rete ee 
i Bi saatt’y) a: Shoko gogo! ALViseen searges 

















tone wane sosinad a“ wi aa 
> st & iat 7 ata ‘og we 
| Moe es dortlatinit” sett 
‘ “hve i. dike - bh ote Eb 
- + bie esh eo gama 

= it Fe GRD ORLIN 86 efnee 
eh ray “ab bee 

y Ai e yi " h, Sas 





eer Spo eriek . 





a 











4 


MS 





Term No. 20 Agenda No. 8 


my relatives' children and the money shall be immediately 
sent to my relatives in kurope, who are in starvation, 
after my decease." 

The court entered a decree construing various 
Clauses of the will and gave the executor certain directions. 


This appeal is from that part of the decree which construes 


the paragraph above set forth. The construction placed upon 
£4 was that the bequests therein provided for should go to 
the children of David Karner, Lee Karner, Syek Karner and to 
Libo Spiegel and her children share and share alike and that 
all of said legatees should share per capita and not per 
stirpes. Defendant appellant contends in this court thet 
the evidence shows that the legacies lapsed by reason of the 
death of the legatees before the testator and that the one 
half descended to him as intestate property. Considerable 
evidence was introduced to sustain thet contention. That 
question was not raised by the pleadings and it does not 
appear that the trial court made amy finding upon it. It 
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. 
Defendant-appellant further contends that the clause 
is so indefinite and ambigious as to a designation of the 
beneficiaries that it should be decreed to be void. The be- 
quest is that the balance shall go to David Karner's children, 
Lee Karner's children, Syek Karner's children and to Libo 
Spiegel and children. The evidence shows that David Karner, 
Lee Karner and Syek Karner were brothers of testator and that 
Libo Spiegel was a cousin. There is no need to cite author- 
ity to the proposition that property may be bequeathed to the 


children of a certain named person without giving the names 


of the children. The persons who take are those who can qualify 


as belonging to that class. Whether there are persons who can 


=-2- 









et “ 
soe Ape me 


Me RawhS ide tapi lece ws 





GE HE aad BEL PSE oat Sema wae Sue 
2 © 3: "SE OQ) 4a Berka 
iin See ES ar a | 


se ae ay) Wags Wseaa fuliec eons teatits 3° 4 
Weta BR DORA SEG he RAK gt) Pe 








i 
\ 
: an 4 é : Bt ay Yr > wer an) ae Brie ie ; 
; Peers R eet ad ey 5 UL geseno SF ord Dae Tliw elf to gangpato & 
eee | 
GAP etm tk adi tes Owed mous ae + Liars eae aS 
~—_ oe 

#-Pegass.: Roasteerekes ae eT ES Gas $° Tees i wait 

seine 3a Pectiie Wee ‘ aoe 





Tae sow oe 







eo ae 


gh kyrar’ (aaa 


























Page REL ORT Pe Ma Reh 
As 
rm 
y < [Sg Rome dee ees 
a 
eee : : te 4 2 
~ PO%- e - & oy e 
“Vo HOLS ME ee oR. ty 
= WBS A eey ho nar ted yaar “ 
; ey ae , bloc eitacead sit Dae af geoep 
Px a ke 2e' 4 £2, Ok So ot 4 ay aye 
‘ be wie the Terry) NE whe eRS Mis A, setae 
; 
Tone rad Re wd ve Heye Lau ¢ <oneK oAk 
u ie ROOM DA es ee ime B aw smygatos Oded 
. i ed , ,* ' 
a 
s&s Bei" 
ey 





a ; \i i vom ¥2 oor Pac sone ceogegds ee oF gas 


‘oa teq fanaa aletaoa & Jo ne ‘okie 








ay f 





te ane tee per pale ce 


SLLuko swale to 





; ae a oreit tote? .asato tait of gokgaoted ee 





Term No. 20 Agenda Wo. 8 


qualify is another question and one that is not before this 
court on this appeal. The first part of the clause is an 
absolute bequest to the children of the persons named except 
as to Libo Spiegel and she is included as one of those to 
take with her children. 

The sentence that "this balance of my estate shall 
be divided equally among my relatives' children" refers to 
the one half which is the subject of this bequest and the 
word my relatives’ children refers to the children of the 
three brothers and the cousin and her children. The latter 
pert of the sentence that "the money shall be immediately 
sent to my relatives in Europe who are in starvetion efter 
my decease" is not the creating of a new bequest, but is a 
direction to the executor as to payment. The words "relatives 
in Europe" refers to the same persons previously mentioned 
that is the children of his brothers and his cousin and her 
children and the words "who are in starvation after my decease" 
is not a reduction of the bequest given in the first part of 
the clause but is a direction to the executor to make payment 
immediately to those who had been previously named that were 
in starvation. 


The court correctly construed this clause of the will 


ree ——— 
TITRA DE LR nett Hm RE NNER PDO IIE 


and that Aine ia bors decree sppealed from is affirmed. 





cee REE ees 
me TSC ieee 


eens ornmwsegree Attizmed. 


Abstract 


r3r 


ee Se EY ip fol 























eerily wets Coa ef gale yoo tits BKerPawag 20 

iP ye: Poi? Io daag s4ale Wo! sLenyga ards ge tance 
: ma iSite) VET 2G Awtoalae wit of greaged etulonds 
Gy Beecher fa 24 PoSBuitany af vio ff Lie oicl Gh nt eA 
veri baked fod ase wed 

Ea mele Fe tr fi fj ao? SA RA tom eS 
Of asptax “Sardt ig *usves aS Ves LRDLVLS ad 
eae O63 Seve ped math josLess aA nf cola Fowl omy oie 
Bee to fie. S net @ «all TROL Pe PEE *ouvks pies eit baow 
Qvrws Sat arKeeiilain sad W Ataeco afd Ses avoctoad osese 
WEE sia Was anh” Sah eynetiog ate 26 otag 
Soelt Aostuyiada Si oee- ode “ieee ol neviteles om oF thee 
‘BS. Cut ,Feavssd war e ty wie olf tho ef "segooed Yn 
gaviguio: ys, siteeyad ot 8a Sotsoteg aoe oF aokdewz eh 
ent Sees aie LYS aiGates sacks and of vieket “eqoawi sl 
ost WSS ARRAS mE WR WU el nic 3) werk i ivy ole ab. ot 
Seeaouh yy “Ladd Ma feetets Ge eee oa” abhqow waht Spa herh lide 
6 PEG FELRE Sas Bay 25 MS, ABS iis Lots ae & tes ad 
Pee a Ge hk oer wid $48 07 Seldoeitt » af gwd aggats ee 

5 

Saw eis Goss Ave Sivege aned oul oy taba 62 ef erelSpmms 
eivaveeta mt 

Lite eg? Ly Bt wh tt Ki aso “itsetess Suteg wet 
HeHTetaie g a, bey PVioEs Bit sé rng teddy Site 
aDerclids sau m : ; ; 

red 


ee ae | Pe re 


dfvone af yesiawp 
































eee 


Y y 
STATE OF ILLINOIS i j ra 
APPELLATE COURT S 
FOURTH DISTRICT 
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 1938. 
Texm No. 32 Agenda Noe 23 


RUDY PHILLIPS, Next Friend 
of Bluford W. Logsdon, 
Plaintiff, 


Petition for writ of 
Mandamus. 


VSe 


WILLIAM Le FORD, Judge of the 
County Court, Gallatin County, 
State of Illinois. 

’ Defendant. 


A ee ee. ES ee. ee 


Per Curian: 

Rudy Phillips, a minor by her next friend filed in 
this court an original petition for a writ of mandamus acainst 
William Le Ford, Judge of the County Court of Gellatin County 
end seeks by this original proceeding to mandamus the seid 
respondent as county judge to compel him to take such court 
action as may be necessary to require the administrator of an 
estate pending in his court in which petitioner is interested, 
to file revort and take other steps in the administration of 
said estate. This action is not in aid of any proceeding 
pending in this court and this court has no jurisdiction in 
such an action. People vs. Knodell 40 Ill. App. 101; Jennings 
vs- Horton 59 Ill. App. 519. 

Petition dismissed. 




















































” 
- ‘ oud re 
$s.2°3 ; 
i 
? i 
ie . i 
1G ae ts a i 
4 
4 
J % 
a - x 
? : 
a) 
: - od 3 
Dr Ete ae son ss Fee 
ae te Pe A nek . a 
tae ae i nee 5 ag 
EE Saag Rath ASB at bd 
‘ ve bs ¥- Lr J i 7 ca a 
ees a) A 
4 ? 4 7. ? Pan, Se x 3 
, Sra 
; RLY, 
7 ‘ai 
bi lll 
ye ETT PRY BEE 
ul \ 





Bea, 


if 
i ft 
Fd £ Pod 
STATE OF ILLinoIs ; rd gt" 
APPELLATE COURT =” 
FOURTH DISTRICT 
OCTOBER TERM, Ae De 1938. 
Term Noe 38 Agenda No. 24 
: Ss 
a 6 q) 
BEN HUGE, 299 1.A. 628 
Appellee, 
VSe Appeal from the Circuit 


Court of St. Clair County, 
ILLINGIS CLITRAL RAILROAD Illinois. 
COMPANY, a Corporation, 


Appellant. 


ON De OE ES 


Per Curiam: 

By this action plaintiff seeks to recover damages for 
personal injuries sustained when the automobile which he was 
driving was struck at a private crossing by one of defendant's 
trains. Pleintiff recovered a a Judgment for 44000. from which 
defendant appeals. to 

Various points are alleged as erounds for reversal 
but only two have been arguede All others are deemed to have 
been waived. The two argued are that uo negligence is proven 
and thet plaintiff cannot recover because of his contributory 
Negligence. Both questions were reised on the trial by a4 
motion for a directed verdict. 

The complaint contains three counts, the first charges 
that the defendant had for 15 years prior to the accident sound- 
ed a whistle at this crossing but that on the occesion of the 
accident it negligently failed to give such warning. The neg- 
ligence charged in the second count is that immediately west of 
the crossing the track has a sharp curve that runs through a 
deep cut with a bank on the right-of-way to the north of the 
track and that defendant permitted weeds, brush and trees to 


grow on said bank so that it obscures the view to the west for 


one who is at or near the crossing, that the defendant had 


aa EE 


hres 
Fe Son te 





Term No. 33 Agenda No. 24 


knowledge of such dangerous condition and that it neslicently 
drove its train toward said crossing without giving warning 

of any kind. The third count charges feilure to ring the bell 
and blow the whistle as required by statute at public crossings. 
Defendant denied ali charges of negligence. 

Plaintiff resided on a farm near Belleville that was 
severed by defendant's right-of-way, the residence and other 
farm buildings were loceted nortn of the right-of-way. The 
private crossing where the accident happened furnished plaintiff 
the means of ingress and egress to the land south of the track 
and the public highwey. The crossing was about 200 feet south 
and east from the house and there was a slight down grade from 
the residence to the crossing. 

A short distance west of the crossing the track curves 
to the north and west. At the curve it passes through a cut 
leaving a bank on the right-of-way to the north of the track. 

At the time of the accident the bank was overgrown with weeds, 
brush end small saplings. fhis growth extended to within six 
er seven feet of the north rail. The growth extended to within 
125 to 150 feet of the private crossing. 

Plaintiff testified that he drove slowly toward the 
crossing and stopped with the front end of his car 8 or 10 feet 
from the nearest rail, that he looked west and stood there for 
several seconds looking and listening for a train and not seeing 
any and not hearing any train shifted to low gear and started 
across the crossing. He drove in low gear and continued to 
drive until the collision. The driveway over the crossing curves 
so that an automobile does not cross at right angle to the treck. 
The train was 75 or 80 feet away when he first saw ite He stated 
that when his automobile was stopped the point where he was sitting 
to the nearest rail was 12 to 14 feet and at that point his view 
to the west was unobstructed for 300 feet and beyond that he 


could not see. He stated there was no whistle blown or bell rung. 

















iw a 
* 
f.4° 
x Thy a 
ae os : j= 

uh May eh een ‘ 
hen ae 1 ‘ ; 

; ey 4 
yf fe “uy 
i 

2, 
: 
i 
* oa, 1 “ 
‘ 















= 
* wt te 
ie ‘e 

af Baty 


ay 
i" 











i 
woos te 
me ; 
“ 
3° os 7 
aves x 








Y : F a f+ ae be ran “gat cehae 
: , , 5 ; 








Term No. 33 AZEOUA Woe wr 


At the time of the accident it was raining and the window 
on the driver's side was open but the others were closed. 

Marilyn Emge, a daughter of the plaintiff, who was 
riding in the back seat testified that plaintifi stopped the 
automobile 8 or 10 feet from the treck, that plaintiff looked 
and listened for a train and thet it was stopped for three or 
four seconds. She testified that no signal of any kind was 
given by the train crewe 

Plaintiff's wife and son, Ben, were in the house and 
both testified that no whistle sounded or bell rune. Cletus 
Biver, an employee was in one of the farn buildings and he 
testified to the same. 

Three men residing in that vicinity were called to 
testify for plaintiff and all of them corroborate plaintiff's 
evidences as to the growth of weeds and brush on the bank and 
the obstruction it furnished to one looking to the west from 
the crossing. 

The evidence is that from a point between the rails 
at the crossing the view was unobstructed to the west for a 
distance of 600 to 800 feet. Five fect north of the crossing 
the open view was 400 feet and 8 to 10 feet north it was reduced 
to 500 feet. 

Plaintiff had resided at the place for 15 years, was 
well acquainted with defendant's operation of its trains over 
this track and conditions at the crossing. ‘The train crew in 
charge of train were likewise familiar wita the conditions at 
the crossing. 

It appears that this track was used almost exclusively 


for east bound trains and that this train was going the ¥susl 
direction and on the regular schedule. The train consisted of 


en engine and eleven cars and wes running 45 miles per hour. 
In consideration of the appeal in the Marilyn imge 
Case growing out of this same accident we held that there was no 


statutory duty resting on defendant to give statutory signels 


-3- 






ome ae 
Aer 

















































' - oh 
* . wt , ce 
4 me it a2 ran ey 
; ; ee B's ty, wt 
; " ‘ Pikes 
- . . ph? 
- r 
© 7 4 * Pro AS 
bs ‘ i 3 ph sae rd 
j ‘ 7 i Whe dt teks 
a . z 3 hoy : egg) 2 4 
. : ra 
: i 
‘ : i : 
; H i 
t = ' t ) ‘ y 
5 5 2 
Ts F 7 
ton : i : . D 
Ld . . fy 
wa * ha 
‘ § a . . 
: ‘ - 
a: 
, i F 
rn ® = . 
P * 4 
. : ; 
ee - Ee z 
3 6. + i 
i. Ls . ad 
ds ce 5 WF ap, 
1 4 : 
F F : 
eee oe “y 
B + eee 
=e : 
es ‘. ; 4 
es Mans ity “f bt 





eae 














Term Noe 665 Agtuaun wue wz 
when the trains approached this crossing but that aside from 
Statute there was a comion law duty to give notice of the 
approach of trains at all points of known or reasonably 
apprehended danger. C. & As ReRe COw vse Dillon 123 I11. 570; 
CoBe & Qe ReRe CO vse Perkins 125 Ill. 127; Co. & Ae ReRe Cow 
vse Sanders 154 Ill. 551; I.-C. Ree Cow vse Scheffner 106 Ill. 
Appe 5644; Coyne vse C.C.Ce & SteLe Ry» Co» 208 Ill. App. 425. 

If the conditions shown at this crossing meade it a 
place of danger than it was under a comnon law duty to give 
notice of the approach of its trains for the conditions shown 
to exist were such that it had full knowledge of their existence 
or was charged with knowing of the sane. | 

Whether the crossing was a place of danger was a 


oe 


question of fact and there ls ample Syadenos in ‘the record to. 


i iets bias court's ruling in subaitting that aati to the 


dary the jury by their verdict Raven found that the crossing 


. linet 


was & place of danger it was also fi ae of fact wie Sib 


cena Mast tat oem eS MARTON aN trae Vs suey 


the defendant gave weet staan of 540 epproach. 


AS re 
ee pulse ineatn aptaipaipaneapnineatlaiiccenints® beh ADEN Ree UNS EE Ree RE ea et 


a ehece is a sharp conflict in the evidence as to whether 
a whistle was blown or bell rung. Plaintiff and some of his 
witnesses testified positively that none were given while the 
train crew testify with equal emphasis that both were given. 

There wes some evidence introduced by plaintiff to the 
effect thet it had been the custom of the defendant for many 
years to blow a whistle and ring a bell at this crossing but as 
to whether there was sufficient evidence to support the court's 
ruling in submitting those counts charsing such negligence we 
express no opinion for the verdict being general we ere satisfied 
that there was evidence to support the charge of negligence in 
the second count. 

fhe question of contributory negligence was raised in 
the Marilyn Imge cese and althouch she was a child of tender 
years end only chargeable with the care that a child of her age 


and experience would be expected to exercise, and the negligence 





















if 
ae 


: 
ee 
ay ? . 
iy L 
aA: 
+ 
J 


ie 


} 











CN ee 
—t 


Term No. 53 Agenda Noe 24 


of her father would not be imputable to her, we believe that 
the points discussed and cases cited are applicable in this 
case. We there said, "Defendant contends that since the view 
was unobstructed for a distance of at least 500 feet west of 
the crossing, that is in the direction of the approaching train, 
the plaintiff and her father should have seen the train and 
that when they testify they did not seé it, it is manifest that 
they did not do that which they testified they did. If the 
automobile was stopped 8 to 10 feet north cf the tracx and then 
started over the crossing in low gear and was struck on the 
crossing when the train wes traveling 45 miles per hour it is 
very probable that at the time plaintiff and her father looked, 
the train was not within the 300 feet of unobstructed view. 
Defendant relies upon such cases as Grubb vse Ill. Terminal 
Cos $66 Ill. 550; Provenzano vse IeCeo HeRe COe 557 Ill. 192; 
Greenwald vse Be & Oo ReRe COs 552 Ill- 627. The evidence 
in the Grubb case was that 50 ft. south of the crossing there 
was a Clear view for a distance of 450 ft. and 75 ft. south 
of the crossing a clear view of 175 ft. and that at a point of 
100 feet south, the view was 112 ft. In the Provenzano case 
the evidence was that for a distance of 25 ft. from the track 
the view was not obstructed for 900 te 1000 ft. In the treen- 
walk cese 30 to <u ft. from the crossing the view was unobstruct- 
ed for a distance of 200 ft. In Lewis vs. Illinois Terminal Co. 
276 Ill. App- 610 an abstracted opinion, this court held the 
plaintiff's intestate was not in the exercise of due care for his 
own safety at a crossing where he could see an electric car approach- 
ing 700 ft. down the track when he was 20 to 30 feet from the 
crossing." 

We are of the opinion that there was no error in sub- 
mitting the questionof plaintiff's due care to the jury. 

The judament of the circuit court is affirmed. 


Judgment Affirmed. 


Abstract 























? : (is 
bod 
> 
ve. 
ow ’ v4 
- Py * ‘ if 
Ve i i 
i , $y 
t 4% /| 
, 2 sik : 
' ef ‘i y ee 
f 7 ° 
‘ ‘ 
‘ et ‘ ae se 
. ‘ ‘ > 
i { ! rf ca 
‘ Anat aa 
‘ : Pi i * tes 
\ { 
F 1 
; i ge ? j ep 
4 bom? ¥ e 
‘ wh der Pt Rd hs & 
‘ f a a te bee) ee 2 
ter ; i 










Larus 









4 
pe 
4 
al 
rae 

een 
ers 


7) 
} Beit frayed Wess 
wee a ae AR eT Rie ty 




















"tty St dh as Aa 




















°; 1 ¢ a) ot AR 

: This pecexveduhool he ct transferable and 
must not be taken from the library, except — 
when properly charged out for overnight use. 



















| Jalan 
ae ere } 
bs ALi; 3 7a 7) 
OSI ATUL TORS ag CEGHAIY 


[files SC Lea O56 5 Ye -4?¥6 
[wh UFe~ Bo | 2 2c lssx 


Senne: 


| GAYLORD NO. 139 


sO fou — 


fot A bho ENG 


RII Pn 


[1 hfe 


ot eh AM * TaN Lon 















Cc > 





bn J z 
AS = mY UT =O Za 









i 




















BIG §SoO. 
U(- 2626 








Da, 





or 90. 


4GP3- ok 








? A pKe PUL 2Pn. 
__BI2pele 




















La) 


71 735h 


§ 
; 





He 


Sela lee