MiiteS'
-6*-
n1
1 >s
tp
Digitized by the Internet Arciiive
in 2010 with funding from
CARL!: Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois
http://www.archive.org/details/illinoisappellat299illi
117
35
FEB 9 '6'
BOUND
^Uo
40126
PRANKLIH V&oTS^GH. & CCap?ANT,
a oorporationj
AppelLlee t
I
mSYL KOuJAir,
C.0
299 I.A. 609'
APESAL FROM MTJHICIPAL
COURT OP CHICAGO*
Apiellajit •
MR. PR^iSIDIlTG JUSTICE] BURKiS HiUTiKJ^D TH2 OPINION OF THi COURT.
On June 24 y 1937, plaintiff filed two actions against defend-
ant in the Kiinicipal coxirt of Chicago and on that day two judgments
Ijy confession were rendereds. one in the sum of $169.50 and the other
in the 3«n of $368»76» Defendant filed amended petitions to yaoate
the judgments and on July 29, 1937, an order v/as entered giving
defendant the right to appear and defend, the judgnents to stand as
seourity* The causes came on for trial on December 20 n 1937, ^frbmn
orders were entered confirming the original jud^ents, from whieh
orders the instant appeal (Gen* Uo« 40125) and the appeal in the
case of Frankl in MacYe agh & Comp any, a corporation» ▼« Yfaayl Korpan>
Gen* ITOir 40126, are prosecuted. The instant appeal was consolidftted
for hearing with the appeal in Gen. ITo. 40126.
The judgments were entered on two separate chattel mortgage
notes dated Horemljer 23, 1934. On April 1, 1935, plaintiffs th«
mortgagee, foreclosed the chattel mortgages and sales of the chattel*
secured therehy took place. The proceeds of the sales w«re not
sttfficient to satisfy the indehtedness secured hy either of the
notes. .fter the sales under the chattel mortgages, and on .vpril
26, 1933, the parties entered into the following written agreementi
"AGKS.ltaST.
"IT IS HaRliBy .GSSJiJ) "between Franklin MacVeagb & Go-p a
BOH
O I ' j.
esx'
%.
t Jn>sIX9S(iA
•WUOD EHT ■55) BOBTKO SET CEgiHIYIlsa: Ofi^jS [iOriaiTt 01iai.:4.:« *SM
-imelefc d-snx'^iSi^ anoxd-oe ov:;f bslxl 'xix^nxslq ,ToeX ,,:^S sxiut nu
a*n««£b£;t o-wi X"& ^-adi no fcns os.goMD to tiuoo XsgloixiwM sif) n." ins
fdio &d* fertjs 03^691^ 1o tseja sdi nx sno «i)9X£!bK9n eiavv rtoxas^^noo ^cT
gnxv' ona sbvt xsfi^o na ,V£9X ,6!3 \;Xfft no {©cbwt ^*
aa fcfij.::i''e Ov 8*a*t%l)ir't &&^ ibtt&^sb fixiJS Tssqqs o;f :-„-^ :: . . rsfifreilsb
nttdhr «?5eX nOS isdiaoosCI no Xsi'xj ao'i no SinBO asair.oo sifP ^'jji-x.vosa
M»^?r no'rt ,ao'n©iaB6ut Ifiitiaiico ©£l* snxm'xxlr:' ^ —■;.-,'■-:•-■ "'<• ■■••:?o'xo
•do as. Xfjeqii-;} sri^ f)rri3 {aSXO^ *0l8: tjaftO} Xb&l;_v,jj .ins^'^^f -^ - • J i.-^Jio
MS^ roTi Xt:a>oW »y .faoi:j^.e'xoq,xoo g itngqcoO aS iJ^-soVojaM nlX^ga-x' lo »s^c>
•i^^xosi S.(jiia{lo -sisii&iiQa OY^i r^j pattaJn© snow Qtnea^- •'. >= ?
•ri^^lli-^nxeXg .,€eei tX XxntjA nio .*£ex <es xscfjiie-
lOfl
I * rroflf 3 s s;) is n s i J- J. _
.:.woXXc-':
t'C'x^cr.'c- eaxv? .:.u(;; an':'
* q.or :^ M^&sVojsU axX2f.rix5'.S n9sw.ts(f atias) : •; .{ ai TF
-2-
corporr,tion> "by its duly authorized agent and Secretary, Arthur
L. Judolph, party of the first part and V/aeyl Korpan, party of
the sec end part as follows: .^ITNiilSSiiJTHt
••WffilKjlA.S, the said ]?ranklin MacVeagh & Go,, a corporr.tion
had a chattel mortgage on the stock and fi: tures of the said party
of the second part at ITumber 7214 Greenwood Avenue, Chicago,
Illinois, and I
"..HiiiiUij.o, it took posO'3Ssion of said property under and "by
virtue of said cliattel mortgage on, to-wit: the twenty-fifth day
of March, ;-• ^» 1935, and held a dale under Eiiia oiiattel uor-i^^'age
foreclosure on, to-wit .^pril First, 1935, and has remained in
possession oi" said store up to this present time; and
•• .VIL;.LJ.*S , the said V/asyl Korpan is the landlord and c.vner
of the property at said add^eca and might he entitled to compensation
for the use and occupation of said premises during the time of said
foreclosure up to the present time:
"FOvV, THHESFORii, in consideration of one dollar, the receipt
of TJhich is hereby acknowledged, and also other valuable consideratioi
each to the ooher,
"IT 13 IDIRJBY AGBST^D hy and between the parties hereioi
"FIKST: That the said Franklin MacVeagh & Co., ag(^(iirBoration
are to convey to the said Wasyl Korpan One Dayton Scale/^571 —
Serial flOigiO? — 30# Capacity and one TTational Cash iiegxEHjer
#387416BB-1728i2 in consideration of the release of the payment of
rent for the premises during the occupancy by the said Franklin
MacVeagh & Co», a corporation, or its agent, and until the party of
the first part secures a tenant 'vho nry be selected and decided upon
for said store, said tenant to be secured within the next three
months ; and
"IT IS FUI^TIE?. DEiTHsTCTLY UlTDJliSTOCD .^IJD ..(B.ED that the
party of the second part, '^asyl Korpan, will not charge, or hold the
party of the first part liable for any rent for the use of sa. d store
during the poriod and prooesr of scouring a new tenant; and
"vUHTHiK, the said party of tho second part* V/asyl Korpan
shall not molest, enter or in any way take, or cause to be removed
any of the merchandise or equipmen'^ frcm said store.
"S^OITD: That in consideration of the above, a mutual re-
lease is given between the parties hereto. The said Wasyl Korpan
releases the said Franklin MacVeagh & Co.? 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 sfiid Wasyl
Korpan in consideration of any act? and the saLd Franklin MacVeagh
& Co., a corporation, relepses the said '.vasyl Korpan of any moneys
due Bald Franklin MacVeagh & Co., 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 \Vasyl Korpano
'•IT I^ IfUvTHiiR ..GR-iiiD by and between the parties hereto
that the transfer and sale of the Dayton Scale and National Cash
Register is contingent \inder the sale of the store to a ohird party
as a going business and tenant for said Korpan but if it becomes
necessary to remove said property fron 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
r
•s-
lo ^i'xsq <nfi^'£oa XxsJSvv has aasq da-il end- "io xixaq tifqXobttl .a
iHTStfiSlii'FiTIi - ^-i : :iai1: a« ;^"acs|5 fofijDOSS^ sjilJ
^oa^aMD tSunsTA iJoowass-rS J^ISV* 'xsd'mj'iJ jf-e ^xsg; finoo^a odi "to
Bn^ 5 axcrrilll
.;" j; . 'i9bnw ■^*xsq©«g; 6 JbiB. Io aolaa&Qsoq sEoc
till b&as.sime'i ssd ba^ « 808I «;JaiJ:'4 IricrA ilw-o^ uno s'xssQoLo&io'i
haii IQistli unsasiq §dit 0* <isj Btoia bisa 'lo noiaaeaaoq
"mtmo buB broLbiisl 9di at KsgioX ly;Bst' bisa 9d.
ooMeBst&fimoo oi bQliJiiaQ s& idglm bim caeibba M.e^ ... ^- --.,..- .^ '-'j" '10
j»ivsa iO «Ji?x;^ «ld" sni^swb aasimexq; ftisa 1:o noj:;?aqi/coo bn-a 93ij siiJ 'xc'S
*ii^^,...- ...w *_.;^^_. -, ..:.j '10 nQiie^sb-fcenoo nx taJDtSKSHT «V.Ovi"
sto I^d-^x&lf^ip .0 , . 1. ;& rlgaWofiM itiXifefi;!?!: Mi®?! . aiii . saKIf i'
- - X?c* "\I«X;30S uodx^ &aO as^q'ioil Ixa-ri' bisn:. ad^ oi x'^vnoo o:f sujs
It vtixuiir^.oq erIJ' "to seaeXsnt ©fij lo rfoi^afsbianoo rs-t SfSTX-aE3Ii*V
'to x^'xsja hdi liJnss Lna «d-n3S« a^i to ,«oxj.ei:oqxoo s « f oD i& xC^asVd-cjM
erfj $s£li assise A Ola'iaoe® SJilLQIKB' TJTPI^I'I: -'.TJ'a a I .'
#-. " ■•0 ,9s-sjrlis don- iixw ^'naa'coX' X-^s*' iS'x.5ti &xiOo&a silo' lo y^'-^P^
©'x: 10 98if »£i;^ Tiol ins'x ■«^Ha :rGl ©Xd'^iU: it'^q js'xix exi;:? lo Y^i-i'-^q:
bus j;t£isf5©* •W*n b ^wx'xlfss'e 'io a«©ooio ' ' - i^oq sxlv •
tiS'.i'^oyL XY.aBW »d"Ssq: bfioose t)d^ lo "^itris^i 5±&t . k.. ^Ai-HfHtJ'a"
osvocxei stf o:t Qau..'.;o 10 t s:is* y-s?^ t^i*^ JCix to loine ,;Ja6XoBt itorj XX^3
tstois bxae ; ": -raiaqxiin')© 10 ©nibxiei-foi^ra 9fi;' '-" ':'^- •
ijiu •.; ^Qvods sfii lu :iu.,c ,x8bxa£K>o nx JarlT rCCTlOCSa^'
Xtjgwv/ bxijB sdT .ojSioxI asxd-i.<;;q ©xfJ- aeovfoscf nsvlE ai aeasl
c;..-^*- ^w.. 10 noio\'3'soQToo .'3 t.oO :& lis^eYoj;?!! ni:Xiin/3tE'iI -&XJSS ori* asavs^XeT
jbirisi ^^es lo cti-^Xo Tina ao as3£.fiisi) "^xufe 'xo iS-ns'i ^ae lo i^iQiaxi'^q sxi* xaot'l
iXilrija-i^ biBS sdJ bti& tiox-; \';k3 lo noLic.%&bs.Bn.oo nx nmtto^i
.,,....... ....-: lo fiijcisos XvajSiK' .bxsa 9£(c' a^io&sle'x ^noxcf-siocLioo c t»oD -i
feiiJ- lo no««3ei xd ^noxia-xociioo s' ^.oO ;S rf^.^sVofiJ? axXi:rrjs.'xt bias -^xfb
lc5 .ifijL#or:!3 XL-j1 edi sttxid" *on &lb baaoXpstrol ^cJ^ttaqoTrq wIJ ;t^>ri.^ :'ok1
. r£J3q'xo3 XijasW Bl^aa euf ^ •V;<f gxtxr/o bns sub rs
Q.is-f:bd aaxdijsq edi K39sv;t£cf brjs ■^a' CD-. ;.'I TI'"
liaaO XiJxsoxD-sH bftB sX.sc3 nod"^^ aiCd' lo .. :.. /ians^-- 9x1* *firii
■\:;^v ':■„:.;; ^Kiiffc)- £; ©7 s'xo^Ja sxtu lo sX«3 sxfi ^©f>nX( ^ns^nx^fnoo ex 'XQiak^9ii
aerxoostf. itl It ifM fijsqaol'i &Mb aol ^^xf.snOJ' bnis aastnxBjjtf bkIos £> as
XsDR bxfiB tasaiias'iq biB'i iaoxl ic^'J^®<lO'S? J^i-'fi ©■VT^dtBi: oJ Ytjsaad&tit
-■:':c.- 3 t.oO :S JtlsfiSVOsM xjxXJkb'x'S: xo vj-^csqoaq sxl- k r ffj:' ^x^s^ ifaiso
jianoo fi a« jR«aa©'i3B aide' '^ns Jo t noiJfi^roc
-3-
f or the release of the payment of rent during the occupancy of
said store "by Franklin MacVeagh & Co., a corpor..tion, during
the time said franklin MacVea£;h & Co., 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 prgniees vrhlle an
effort vras made to rent the premises to a new tenant. There hy
defendant would have a tenant and plaintiff a purchaser for the
chattels. 3Jefendant aj^ieeu noi^ to charge any rent until a tenant
was procured. The parties conteiqplated that a tenant would he pro-
cured within three months. Plaintiff agreed to convey to defendant
a scale and cash register. Defendant promised not to moleBt plain-
tiff or enter the store or take ox cauee '.o he lercoved anj of the
merchaudiss or equipment fi^om the etore. In couDideration of the
mutual promises dafondant released plaintiff from paying rent and
from ai-iv liability fcr daraages, and plaintiff releasee defendaait
frcB any claim on acootmt cf u deficiency in the sale of the mortgaged
chattels. Jo transcript of the testimony was preserved. However,
the court certifies that the testimony estaolished that subsequent
to the quoted agreement,
"(a) Defendant, "»Vasyl Korpan, did enter the said store and
removed merchandise and equipment from said storj and converted same
to his ov/n use.
"(b) Defendant, Wasyl Korpan, refused to allow the pur-
chaser secured by plaintiff 7.ithin &v/o months after the execution
of said agreement, to take possession of said merchandise and
fixtures, and said defendant, wasyl Korpan, £:ctua.lly boariod up and
padlocked the said store premises so that plaintiff was unable to
obtain its property.
"(c) Defendant, ..'asyl Korpan, demanded and received from
plaintiff, subsequent to the execution of said agreement, the sum
of two hundred dollars ($20(.CO), as rental and cluirgee for the
use of said store, contrary to the express terms of said release
agreexent ."
Thereupon the court found thiit the defendant had breached and failed
to ccrry out the terms of the agreement, and that the agreement was
abrogated by the subsequent actions of the parties.
-£~
^tf»t95Sr •*Bfiit9cf won .^ Oc ..saxijieiq ari.-^ i' )tl9
........ _-..- u„i3Xc[- Ah.-. ^ ... ,,._.: ;'ax^
?>£''^^■^;■ . fiiiXfia ©ifc*. nS'ij&nox^GiiO;. .j „.. i^sjisj.oo^ . ^ , .toil
.n bi.ifi to noxQiii ^... .. ^ .r, rs ,;-.^'f., ., r,;,,,. -^j^
. ::fl«!g;Oxc -.itcfo
---•^STiJj^ . , , .....
-4-
A consideration of the record convinces ui3 tiic/t no error
was committed and that the judgment of the Mvmicipal court of
Chicago in the instant appeal? Gen* !To. 40125$ ehjoiild be and
it le affirmed.
JUDGaffflTT AFFIRILID*
Sxillivan and Friend, JJ., oonc\jr«
':;;; '4i •
■^'••■.■t-''t^..
■»'!'^-i-: ;.^:^
40126 ^
TJiAHKLli: MacViaGH ft/JCMPAKY,
a oorporrition*
OCfOJVi' Oli" OHIO .ao«
299 I.A. 609"-
.-appellant.
XH* PRSMDING JUSTIGii BUHKii Hi^U^^x^VQD THS OPINIOir OF THi GOUHT«
This appeal was consolidated for hearing with tha appeal
in tiie oase of franklin Mac Vea^h fc Uompariy» a po rporation p y«_
W asy l X>:or pant 0«n» !To« 40125 » in wMoh oaso v,e hate this day filed
an opinion. The facte and reaaoninc in that case are applicable
to this onse; therefore* the judgment of the liunioipal court of
Ohloago in the instant appeal* Gen. ;Ta» 4Cl26» ehoxild be and it
i6 affirmed*
JUtdi.JHT AFFIIllC:iD«
iiullivan and a'riend, JJ», concur*
l-
j.MX^yxmti M)'^ XM'iSi^
JL ^G 'tiJ i^
-'GO 9 .,f^-T !>?GS5
->
. te."e£X»q<r|o
Jbe^l ■'Sal) aMJ' sviifi ow Gasfc rfs^Mv; iti sSSIOJ' «o¥ ««f»lJ jlS"®§C?^?LJX2;^
«^SSj,^i«t.o ,«T,T, ^fenelTt fena ptJBTilXifS
40282 /^' J
MOFJlia B, ?01S and «ife:|T^D3
..ppel]knt&, } \APP.!JA.l FR<M MUliICIi'AL
D. WAESHAi'EKY, INC., a
oorporationi
Appellee*
v« ^' ; ^tjDi;? OP CHIC -.GO.
29 9: "^ 9'
SR. PItSSIDING JUSTICi; BTOKIS IR3LIV3RSD THaJ OPIITIQJJ OF THU 0OUT?T.
^ December 14, 1937, plaintiffs filed, in the Municipal
ccurt of C)hica£0, their statement of claim conaioting of two
counta. The first count sought rent claimed to be due from
defendant for "Tovember, 1937, and two days of December, 1937 j
and the second co\int Bought MOO for an alleged wrongful conversion
of an iron door. The eummonB was returnable on lecember 27, 1937,
at which time defendant filed its appearance and demand for a jviry
trial, and an order was entered granting the defendant an extension
of ten dajTB within which to file its affidavit of merits, and the
cause was continued to January 10, 1938. lj*hen the case was called
on that day it appeared that no affidavit of msrits had been filed
and accordingly defendant v/as defaulted and Judgment entered against
it for $740. On February 21, 1938, being forty-one days after the
entry of the judgment, the attorney for defendant filed a petition
in which he recited that r^i'ter the entry of the order allowing de-
fendant an extension of ten days in which to i'ile its afiidarlt of
merits he became very ill and was unable to attend to his duties
and by reason thereof was unable to file an afiidarlt. The petition
also 8tated,by way of conclusion, that the defendant had a full and
complete defense to the whole of plaintiffs' case, without, however,
alleging the lai-imate facts. On February 25, 1938, defendant obtained
leave to file an amendment to its petition, an affidavit of defe
f\^ *">
1^
X
ssso^
«EM>H
asatl s#& ©cf oJ' bsiai^Xo in©?- w'ji'a^oa ^nuop iM'SLklL a^T .e^ntree
noi3TC©Tm)o Xw'fecjartw p5>i^5JIXa k® ?o1 Q0X4 M^m)© i|«if<^* j&fto&f^ «»ri^ fens
,VCSX tVS as^iooil f'fo »Xtifj8U'XJBff©*K s^w aafiaHssjy^ «iSS? »tooX> neai «a \o
X'tul B %o% &H*an©.& bus. ©t>ii^:$i|0q«js a^i &©XJ:1: *its&ae"i©& «ail4 rfoMw ^4s
&9XXbo aew ©a«o &M norfi'' tSSeX tOX x'^wna'^^ o* b&tin±iRO'o qmw 9gu&o
belli need" &M aixie^x lo ^Jirv.gM 'ile ok ;im^ bBxmiiqm« ik •%»!> i&tii .^
ianla^s beisicis inomshui has boiXsjBl&b assr ;tnfil>n&lsb ^jXgnibioooa hsie
ori- tisJlR a\;j3b eno-Y^tro'i ^niscf «8eeX ^XS ^^xiWid'Q'S nO *0^V% %ot ik
lo JivsFjx'i'ifi etfx tXil oJ rioMw nx 8\:«|) ns* "i© mlBtt&iix& ujs Jn^toal
aox^^jj^ a iff 0^ &n«it^^^ o;i sXcfarrxr saw bna XXi Tjaor sa^occf sri aii'xem
nolfixJ&q &d1 ,ii trsblYiii nx-) ©Xi^ d:' oXrfefytf sew loeTcsif* ffoe*50t!: .■^rf brts
bns XXjl'I b bijii toJB&aslob 6tE;J *Mct ,noiaitXorroo lo X-f^'-^ \;ri»bo;fa*a oaX£
tTsv9v/orf ,^;jojf^iw t&a&o >3lli^n:isXq lo sXorlw sna o;f sanol&b eiQlqmoo
b9ru&^<So ^siakn&li^b ,8£eX «G2 x%^trs^m «0 ♦a4«ml 9ijB«i;JX0 ari;^ anissXIs
-2-
and a "dootor^s certificate," all of which were filed. Plaintiffs
were ruled to plead, answer or demur. They filed a plaadinc v/hJoh
amounted to a demurrer. The "certificate" of the phyoioian* dated
Fe"bruary 24, 1938, v.&3 adurcssed, "To whomeyer It May '^onoerni* and
recited that the attorney for defendant hud been under his oa.re since
Decemlser 15, 1937, and that during that time he was confined to his
Jioiae "a ^raat deal of the time* He is still linder my professional
care at this time, although his physical condition is consid(j-,ral)ly
improved." The court sustained defendant's motion, vacuted the Judg-
ment, and reinstated the cause, and from that ordor plaintiffs prose-
^ cute this appeal. Defendant did not file an:/ >)rief in this courto
\ Since the motion to vacate the judgment was made more than
thirty days after the entry thereof, it v/as necessary for defendant
to present a petition that would definitely show errore of fact ishich
might have been corrected at common law by a writ of error coram nobi jB
or ohat would entitle him to relief by oaaplaint in equity. Under the
practice in the Municipal court of Chicago the sums relief that covild
have bek3n given by a bill in eq.uioy or at coiomon law by a \Trit of
error c oram nobija may be afforded by a petition or a motion. In the
case of Clark v. iwin.- , 93 111. 572, plaintiff filed a bill to enjoin
the enforcement of judgments. The Supreme coui-t held that the bill
showed that in fact the judgment creditors were indebted to the Judg-
ment debtors, and stated (p* 575) <
"It follows, therefore, that it v/ould 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 interpocing
to prevent the consumination 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 frcxa making his defence at law
by scane fraud, accident or miststke, without ary laches or neglect on
his part."
In that case it was contended that the attorney who hsd been retained
by the defendant was in ill health, which prevented iiia froa filing a
plea. The court said (p. 577 )t
"If the general health of an attorney breaks drn.n, he
should notify his clients of the fact, so that they can take such
sxri ocJ o&nilf»o asm ©x£ s/axo"- J^*iXii gniiirb jajii £>rx.e ^re^X tol Tecfciaosd
^X«f,sXi»l>J:a£ioo Gl noi-J:6n©o X^oxex^q alii fi^WQrfiJiB ^ftwi- airij ^a s'sbo
.;?tuo» aMi tti Islnrcf ^s oXll d'on bib tia&ba&'i&l .I«©<iqa aM;f siwo /
/
nsidi iiitm Qbma. aaw ^ftsa^tot &tii &iu&&r Qi mi^osi 6d4 »oai8 /
3 xcfox i aLsxQg sfitt^o lo 3ti<fi s ^tf WJ3X fitOKaao is b&i osxtca K»erf 9t«;{j[ *ifai«
ft£f$ "xa&iitfJ »i5c?i:jo:pe kx JnJ:JsX<3[fijop xd ^i.Xat Oi? «xr£ ©Isiics blu&v ^^4 to
Ite i-Jt'fiSf B Tjcf s.-aX ctOBEeoo J'b to x^isrp© ni XX id" s x^ iteTis «©»cf ©Tad
eifiiJ fli •ftoi^OQ a5 1:0 nei^Ji^sq s •^tf beSiollfi scf y^sc alcT ^jt utixoo xoii©
nxat»» of ■E'£i:cf s bsXxl lliJax^Xq «£?e •XXI Se t-aiyi>>^:, *v altfeX Q Ito easo
MM STOcr« ©X»x ©ifif -^tl .'^as^K. 3 xfcsx^- lo nol. ......v -..•.-.. oni j'nsYO'ir- o..^
ifiCK;a oj &sXJl*rro aX axi o'jolfed" ^sxiyii/l q&ift. a o;.; iau/a in^iXaecjjs ^r
m *oeXs®K ^0 oeiJasX ^jss ;ttfori*iw ,9aJeiJaXa to *i»»&io6a ,fcwj3'xl ©iac«a ^rf
-3-
BtBitti as may Tae nececeary for their protection. Appellant ceomB
to be proceudinc on the theory ^lui-t he ie not at all recponcihle
for the negligenoo of hie counsel. The ycry reTeree of this ie
the law."
It will be obBeryed that the "ocxtificate'* of the physlcicn doee not
state for wh&t ailment he mia trer.tint^ the attorney. It statcF that
the attorney wab confined to his home "a great deal of the tiuie*** ac
vas pointed out in the Clark v« ,^ >' in£ case> supr a f th<s attornuy could
hare cooununicated with his olltint. It is apparent that defendtjit
does not Bhov<r that it exercised any diligence* The neglect of the
attorney was the ne^^lect of the client*
In view of our rullnc; that the defendant did not show dill-
Fence » it is unnaoesBary to diocuss the contents of the affldaTlt of
merits* Iienoe» we are of the opinion that the court ^fac in srror in
vacating the default and Judgment and in roinr-taling the cuute.
The order of the Municipal court of Ghicai,-o» ontered Inarch 30^
1938, raoating the default and judstaent of January 10, 1933, is
reversed*
Btalllvan and J'riend, JJ*, concur*
*?.. S£»^ftA »H!&' ■■4* '.'10 1 ,;:il 943 *»4,«ifa
#^:: . . . -i Ila hs 6'':;' ■ ■,;.. •v;i»>ei^_ ..":«& t%- «>d' 0;?
^CiiE'Sfi
it^Vv ^|S^<'.. vv
■-■ :v:x:-'X.m
>■ '-%fe:-^
!;^ *«ii>«'
■-^:..,..:.v.,,,j,^ .
'■■ '. V^?'": i, 'iif''fS'"i
V,^'«( ...•:, -5:
•'■ jfv ''
.^ ,..,
40425
aTAL prom ITUNIOIPAL
JXJIIT CI? CHICAGO*
BSNlTJCEr MaUOT^OTDRIirG GOf.PORinONi/ ) ^ \ _ J
IUCORPORATjD, a corporatiA)n, ' *
.ppellee. | ;
]IR« ER2»IDIl«rG JUSTICU l^HtCti' DL'LI VaSli^iD Ttti OPITSnoIT OS THj! COURT,
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 :;l,475t that he paid thereon
;-125 on September 11, 1933, and fSOC on October 11, 1933, and agreed
to pay the balance in inetalmcnts of C87#50 per month beginning
November 11, 1933; that under tne terms of the purchase plaintiff
delivered to defendant b: motor truok tractor oimod by plaintiff p
which defendant equipped with a device knov/n aB a "fifth wheel,"
which Baid "fifth wheel" v/tis a device for the purpose of coupling
the trailer to and uncoupling it from the tractor; that the "fifth
v-'heel" was fumiEhed and installed by defendant upon the trailer
built by defendant and also upon t,he tractor of plaintiff? that
plaintiff informed defendant that he intended to use the trailer to
haul heavy freight; tliat it -was defendant's duty to "ouild and construct
it BO that it would be fit for the purpose for which it v/as purchased}
that on 'Tovember 29, 19 33, plaintiff was driving his tractor, coupled
to which v.as said trailer, on r.oute 52, in the Ctate of Indiana, with
due care for his ovm safety and the safety of Baid evjviipment, when by
reason of the negligent and unskilled construction, teste and inspec-
tion the trailer and "fifth wheel" broke, collapsed and came apart|
that by reason of the careless and negligent manner in which the
"fifth .heel" and the coupling of the trailer were built and installed
"^M
"«*^
'' •Tsijotfte <to -^^z?^ aire csissyiiiiaa &mh^ misim oKiaisssjH *Htf
itl jatfcslo lo ;^Ksas;fe*a aid &©XJtl 11:i?ni:«Ia «J^£QX «M XiiqA c^
&9»'xsJ3 fecr« ,££CI til •rsa'o^sO raa 00«f 6hs tfiSOX ,XI asdiao^tq^)^ no 8Si|
*■-,'■-.'-■
lllifiiflXa oaflffoiuq arf* lo aiaid^ eiii i^baw Sarli ;££8I ^XX i:9d"«8v©|[
"«XoorIw ii;Jti:l'' a ajs rft/Oft-[ soJhrefe a rioiw heqcjiup© cfnijfeffslat) rioMw
iJjaflrf' J Tixd-rrxsXG. 'io :xe;Jt»sTd' ariif noqjif oaXs &na i{mbK®'i&b xcS .-tXiifor,
0* 'xaXisi* oif.;f ©ax; oi biS.r>n&^KJt sxi iadi ^Jxtjaftftolsb bexa-solni lliinicXq
^oxrxianoo bna bXix/cf ot -^Jub s Mm-jfonelsb sissr ;tx *jBi£i j^txfela'xl -yjaerf Xxfju-;'
ji!sejsdoT:x;c[ saw ^i xfoMvn^ tot eaoq-mq •ifd -xol- ^ll $«f bXjjov? ^i ^jarfd' oa *i
bsXqwoo tioJos^sf aM -gxtivxib 0J9* XlX4nl&Xq, «.££eX ,QS istfcKiVoTI ho Jjerf;!
rftiV7 «fl!Hjsl&Kl Its e#«;!-a SiW nx tS0 ©^«o>' ho « ^©Xi^jtttf btea ejsv*' xCoMw o;t
■»$<? fiSxCw t^nsxEciix/ps bias 'io ij^el^a sxicJ- bn« ^;^©lsa nw-o eixf lo'i erxjeo sub
-osQ;awi &£&a cKfa©5 snoic^oxj-xianoo beXXisIanw bns i'rrer.jXsSfx aii* Iso noa»T9i
lir&ciB aiHijo bns bssqflXXoo ^sato^tf **£»»dvf rfj^ll" brf.8 T®Xi«"r* ejct;^ aoli
IX..:S3ni: bna Jl^icf ©'i9w ■seXJta'io 9i£# to giialXcxxw? o &iii bRM "XsaGtw xiilil"
-2-
the coupling oame apart; that ty reaBon of the careieBs and unskilled
manner in which the couplin : pin was built on said trailer it broke
and can« apart; that because the couplin, pin ;ms careleooly and neg-
ligently made of li^ht. poor and improper metal it broke and came
apart, that by reason f the carelesB construction of oald .-fifth
Wheel" and coupling device they broke and c^ apart, that by reason
of dcfectire material and manufacture the flange or collar of the
coupling pin broke and came apart, that defendant ne^-lected to make
proper inepection and tests before delivering the trailer and thereby
overlooked defects in the "fifth wheel" and couplin,, device, which
defects caused the coupling device to break and pull e.part ; that de-
fendant made an express and an implied warranty th..t the trailer would
be reasonably fit for the use and purpose ."or which it was intended,
that the trailer failed to comply with the ^.arranties, that on Deceinber
1, 1933. defendant took possesoion of the trailer and promised to re-
pair and return the same to pledntiff on or before ;)ecomber 15, 1933,
,that on -ecember 09, 1933, defendant fraudulently advised plaintiff to
fwait until later for clearance from the inauranee company, that defend-
ant converted the trailer to ite 0.^ u«e by selling it on or about
jl^ecember 30, 1933, th.t on January 11, 1934, plaintiff discovered that
jthe trailer had been sold; that defendant then promised to build
another trailer for plaintiff, that plaintiff .vas damged in the sun
of 4-227.06 for the repairs of the tractor, .;i3,600 for the reaaonabl.
▼alue of the loss of use of his trailer for 120 days at #30 per day|
$425 "down payment- and 087.50 first instalment paid, totaling $512.50
payments made by plaintiff on the trailer, and exeiqplary and punitiva
damages in the -^um of $2,000. In its affidavit of merits defendant
admitted that it v.as its duty to build and construct the motor trailer
• so that it y/ould be reasonably fit for the ptirposes for Mhich it \.as
Intended, that is, to haul and carry heav;/ freight for lonj distanoes
■ while it was r.ttached to the motor truck traoiior; that the purposes for
{
baJ
,l^bn..«i B^ *-^°^ --^ -"'^^^^ ^«^ ^^^ *^' "^^ ''' %Xtf«c^««^^ -^f
^££^1 ,8X' x^<^^oeC£, .*<.l^ ^ «o mtotel^ 01 ,a«*^ ^^ m^^r^k^st^
o. .li.«i.l. Seo.rb. t^.«eX.t.^ ^^^to^ ,,S«X ,.^.Tf^^^ «? ^*f^*.,
-,n^e. *^. tVts^^o .^^ni «^^ «--^ -«^--^^ ^^^M X«l«;#^\
^ *^.d. .0 .0 .i snUX^a ^cf s.^ n*« «^i #^ -«Xxa.* ^* >a*.^oo^«« ;
i^ o«,.4 j^if^ &#«£ . rr -rts^mtJ&l m *isff* fSC^^X «^ asrfiaooo'^ '
«&*sxa^ srU«*o* ,.oi«(j *«««ix,'j*a.ti *e:t±t oa.?si. im^ HM^m^^^ ^wfe" as^
iTitisbft^sfe oti-rem to ^JH»*&i'Sl« eti nl *0(liO*S| to is»i« ^rf;^ itl aasmsb
0:.1fol 80aoi5'i0e[ od* dM# |X®doe^.^ jj^iiic* ;c«»»om arid' oi JbftriaMaSia «4«r ^i aXisiw
-3-
v/hioh plaintiff reqiiirod the trailer were ioiown to daf Qnd;mii| tlnH
the trailer viaa built end conatrxicteft :.'or the usqb and purpooeo re-
quired; thrl thsre was an Implied wpjrranty r.hat tht trailer t^oulc ba
T9rsonP-\i\7 fit for the uses and purpoaee for \7hich it v;ae manufactured j
denied thr.t there was a \>3reaoh of the war x.ntyt nnc. Aui^crfced jhat th«
trailer wae properly "built and oonBtructed i*or che unes and purpoQOB
for rMch It vfr-.s nrrxifp c: turoO 5 alleged th&t plaintiff made- ctefaHLjA;
in fcho payaent of the 00c ond and third instalaaents and in the payment
•f Olcx to defendant on accouno of "deduotitle incurance" oy reason
of the loBH ciue to vlie accident i that plaintifi ^jraBiaed to ^)&y the
■vlCQ det'uc title insurance; that Ijecuufcie of the defaults defendtuit
repoBseestd th« trailer af tei- haTlng declared the entire indGbtodneoB
due J that thereafter derandant offered to cone true t another trailer
for plaintiff » whloh plaintiff declined; and defendant also denied
that piaintirf »iaB entitled to the daintiges claimed*
A recitation of the pleadings indicates that the defendant
admits that ii \.as Ita duty to manufacture Btnd delirer to plaintiff
« trailer that vvoulcl carry heary loadts of freight along hii^hv/ays orer
long oiutanceB* ilaintiff main tains tl^it the coupling pin ^nas defec-
tively constructed* The iecue Joined was as to whether the coupling pin
/ n&t. offeotirely conntructed* The caee was tried bea.ore a Jury of six
r.«n» reaultins in a verdict f cr plaintiff in the sua of Olt^OO* The
eourt sustained a motion by defendant for a Judgment notwithBtandlng
the v.irdlot, and this appeal brings the record before ue for reriew.
rhe first point urged by plaintiff ia that in iJaBsing on the
■otion for a Judgment notwithstanding the verdict it was the duty of
the trial court to coneidar the evidence in its aspect most favor-
able ^-! t.h8 nlalntirr and Uu;t all reasonable inferences must be
rccolred most str«ngly in favor of the plaintiff* There is no sub-
Btaiitial dispute ao to the correctnesB 01 this statement of the law.
Th» corollary of it, stated by defendant, is that where the evidence,
, \
,vfmJbmr :^t-«f& ©toIocT h^ovst ««l* ■ «^i»ii«f l«»,(lt«" iiaf r m:j
,,, 0rf J-«iaa'a«>»ff6xriKl ajaNll^*©^ ilia, d-iirf^ Siaa "x?.itij|ftl<l irfi'©* »x<r4
-4-
tsJcen in its most fayoralBle aspect from the yievi-point of plaintiff's
oaset together with all reasonal)le infcrenoeBf does not eetablish his
ease, it is the duty of the covirt to direct a rerdiot for the defend-
ant. Therefore \ve examined the record v^ith care, in order to deter-
mine "Whether there is any competent evidence to svtppcrt the rerdict.
Plaintiff, who had heen employed aa a preBsaan, decided to
enter the trucking 'businees. He testified that in ugust, 1933p he
negotiated v.lth P. H. Bartlett, a Chica^^^o agent of the defendant cor-
pora tion, for the purchase of v. trailer. On September 11, 1933, he
made a first payment of ;)125 and simed an order for a trailer, whioh
defendant was to manufacture accoidinc to the specifications of plain-
tiff. The purchase price was t'l»314»46. Added to that v:ere itemB of
d66»60 for fire and theft and SjJilOO deductible collision insurance,
and a finance fee of ^94«56, trincinc the ag^egp,te bill to the cum
of ''1,475 •62. ::)ef endsjit* s factory is located v.t Louisville, I^ntucky,
and on October 11, 1933, plaintiff vent to Louisville to secure
delivery of the trailer. There he then made an additional payment of
$300, v,hich "brought Ms total "down payment" to 0425, leavinfi a bal-
anoe of $1,050*62, and he signed a conditional sales contract and an
instalment note providing for the payment of the balance of the debt
in instalments of :-37.50 each month after October 11, 1933. The con-
tract cwitained the usual provisions permitting the vendor to reposseee
and sell the trailer without notice in the event of default. Plaintiff
testified that on "^ovember 1, 1933, he paid the instalment due Novem-
ber 11, 1933, makinr ouch pajnnent to Mr. Bartlett in Chicae:o. He
further testified that on 'ovenSber 29, 1933, at about 4 aom., he ib.b
driving his truck, conslcting of a tractor and the trailer purchased
from defendant, in a northwesterly direction in the State of Indiana
between Monroe ond La?ayette, on his way to Chicago with a locji of
six or seven tons of printing paper | that he observed a truck caning
in the opposite direction, "straddling the center line;" thP.t he
f
!■• -^"
.,..«#: Mfex0o& tosiaaas'xq & as fe9:^oXq:ffl« nssd" burl drivr ,11:i5-«i«X« .s;i.viv..-
,ecnfl'x«afs* noieilXeo sl^ie&wfr©* Ot'l# ftffJS ifltwff* few^-^t-ll! xol 09#93#
.. .,. oojJoaG 0^ 9XXx-»»lwt»I diJ *KOW l'i.J;^fti«iXii .* £o;$X «,XX «©tfo#oO no btrsi
ita fe«s ;to<stc*rjot) enL^t Ifsnoi^ifcooo » l>9f!:?:la erf bn^ ,Sd4;0SOiX# lo oonjB
•noo ©i£T 45£eX <XX -xerfoJ^oO •xe*'i<s ifiaow rfoa© Og»70.;J l:,*) e*n^iaX.«*B£ii nJt
"ilx^tai^XI *iIsfG'Ui^ lo JfieYo wli' n.t »&i.ioti iutxdilw tiollsti mii XXee hriB
-5-
olowed down to aljout ten miles an hour and pulled to the ri.'^t so
as to pass without a collision; that at the moment he p\illed to the
right he passed over a oulrert; that v/hen he went over the "soft
&pot" at the oulvert he xelt a Jar; that he "pulled off to the rlgjit
"Aith my left wheels on the pavement and the right wheels on the graveli
All at ono«j I felt an impact from behind that carried the tractor for-
ward* I stopped* >hen I got out» the trailer f;as laying in the
ditoh« The tractor was on the highway. I did not haye a collision
with the veliicle coming in the opposite direction*" He stated that
the trailer v»<is ahout tv^o hundred yards away from the tractor at the
time he stopped the tracuor, and that "the road was even* Route 52
ic a U* Ij* cement hiehway» douhle lane with a Talack line dovm the
center and a gravel shoulder* The trailer was about 75 feet fraa the
road on its right side, the whole right side of the trailer was
crushed in* There was a very shallow ditch on the side of the road*
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 it* It looks like
a horseshoe, and it works on a swivel, rocks backward and forward*
It is constructed of steel. This fifth v/hael v^as part of the trailer*
There is also a pin that ie a part of the coupling devioo* The pin
is built into the nose of the trailer* There is a slot in the fifth
vfheel that this pin slides into and the coupling locks with a double
lock on it* The trailer, in leaving the tractor, nosed over the
rl^t-hand side of the tractor and took the right runnin: "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 vfhile I backed under it and let it down into the
safety catch of the fifth v/heel. I wired it there so it couldn't lift
out again. I used IC or 15 feet of barbed wire vhich I 'Ot from the
farmer. In th£^-t condition I drove to Chioajro." He testified further
«ii*^ Qi b«lluq oil vt06afi;ia adi i& isdi jneiailXoo b iuoMXvf s:%e^ 9^i sm
., jwftiaiXXoo « sTJssff ion alb I •■^iiwxfeirf sxlj ao a^w %&is^s^i fn^ ndtiilb
■ ,-:s|l(!l*v ^4i^„WifO*J^^ sd^ M3^3.. Tj^i^^a, sbTE«^ asiiJijasK^ ©-a-y^ ;J'jj«f^J8 8^38? .««Xi;«i;*. fSlw
S9 ©*«.oa .nev© aj8W fo^o^ adi^' imi'i fens »'X6i^o«'Si^ ^ii^ &s«(iOi>a esd awis^
©iii;t fiwoi) OKiX 2losXt( js ii^Jis;?^ ejiJsX- eMi;Q& ,*f«w%Jui #TOfl*R£i *y •'ff a Si
\iib,soiE 0x1;^ "i® sBie arid ito 4«^i& 'ifoXlsd'J y^st -e a«w s^erff *ui J>©iiax;so
• ftl X&©if«f ff*t±1: sljiT tl^&dvr diiri s x<^ ^XQLl&xi ^^ dt£n |^©Xq*»o new
* iidjswtc^l &t«5 l>1f*9Rto«cf a^'oo^ tXsvJcJsra a no ajlrtoif/ si &H« ^aoils&a'ioft ^
v-sqXIjs^* em %© i^e^i aaw X^axiw di'lll aiiiff .Xaeie 'lo &6Jo*ri;Ja«&« «i 41
^r\it &di nx ^ala e ax ©Torn* .risXJie^cJ cd* lo aaoa ©xi^ o4i:i iltocf ai
ftdld sQTO fesrioa (!S9;^o0t* ^xirf saisTfisX ai , cc^Xijsa* sMif til; «> :i»oX
a«on eri? ae'tl 'itQ £ts:iQitcr «*w ait ®ili* "ic i80iJ^.j©<f MI * - 4>ii; JbaiixaJS
-6-
that he arrived in Chicaco the day "before Thanksgiving day and left
the truck at the .jlant of the International Harvester Company. On
the day after Thank S{.ivin,.T (3ay he visited Mr. Bartlett u.t his office
and related what had taken place. He showed Bartlett the "bottom part
of the pin of the coupling' device. He stated that the entire pin
wsighed from twenty to twenty-five pounds and that the part r^hat he
Bhov/ed to Bartlett weighed aToout one and one-half pounds; that he gave
the part to Kr. Bartlettp who kept it; that witness did not see the
part thereafter; that Bartlett told him that he vdehed to send the
partf together with the trailer, to the plant of defendant in Kentucky
in order to have the part analyzed. .itness testified that "I showed
him a dark spot on one side of the pin* This part is a piece of
steel. .:>teel is gray. The da,rk spot covered a'bout one -third of the
surface. I acquired some experience with steel while employed with,
the Sellers Manufacturing Company in Mryfair. The larger portion of
the pin vaG fastened to the nose of the trailer. It is in the posses-
sion of the Kentucky Manufacturing Company;" that on December 1, 1933»
at Bartlett* s request^ plaintiff ordered the trailer from the Inter-
national Harvester Company and it wr.r? sent to the f no lory in Louis-
ville? that it did not ajain come into posseseion of plaintiff; that
after Deoemhcr 1, 1933, he called on Mr. Bartlett "a fav times;" that
the latter informed witness that the repairs would "be completed in
approximately fifteen days; that during th« seopnd. «eek in Decomher)
"before the second payment "became due, he asked Bartlett vhrt to do
about the payment that as to come due on the 11th; that Bartlett
told Mm, " 'on't worry a'bout that until your tre.iler is bu,ok here froa
Kentucky and we will settle all 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 Chicago; that the trailer v.as repclred In
on
Louisville and returned to Jhicaqo/^iocember 29, 1933; that on January
5 or 6, 1934 1 witness saw his trailer in uhe stockyards hookeu up to a
«wEi a^srf^j txijq ©j^iJ- cJisri;!- fees aftistro^t STi'l-x>"*£f9Wtf od^ \:iK»w-it aio'sl berfsiew
ftiC* ©jise 3-©fi bi& a&effSi'// ^.ssii* tJi c^<ts^ «rfv/ f-^^tsiJ'Laia •iM oar ixyQ ©rii
beisforfa !» ijsxy hailiJa©^ »ss«*B/ . fe&«f JUsh^s ^Jf-ijeg; «jc{* ©vart ©;f >rsrfc'SEo Ki
lo »fi»i:q B el sfnsct ain'f »i»j:q ©di? 'J» ®i>i:?i ofi© nto ^Of» :^f3:sl^ ^ mM
ar£a lo 5iM;3'«»no ^i/otfs ,oe"xar5'oo ^^oge 2{«f;& atft .;. •iffe^ el X©»*fJ *Xe«ta
j£;^ift' fe»T£oX<j«t& »XMw Xa©Je iiiiv/ e»itsi:T&<jx© ^ajo-a ,b»i:iaj:^0a I ♦aokeltcirs
-asyso^ «d;^ ci ai; iJI .'xeXi-s*! &sii 5eo sqok Qil;i' ©v' hmr^ia&t ®sn hit; ©/fi
-TdcffiX &tii mil xeXl^xJ Sifo"- &©i:obtO; 'i'JxdnMXq tJaeiiiis-j: a^J^sX^xjsC ^«
i>:Mi ^tJs^ttiii^Lq 1o nol&o^^rsoix oinx ssioa ni/SFt*« ^on l)i& -j^i^ i«dt jjeXXiv
;tj3i# ««a©iiii* w©"i m» ^deX^^jsa »^M no 6®XIjso ®rf « SS^X tl rtd«ffli®o»tf x©««
- mt A®#©Xc(SiE!0 ©^ &Xb«»' ciXJts^e'x ®i(#. d'Sii^ sn»Qntf±w &«aEsa:9 tiii lie^tf^X eii*
morrx or&d. ':^t>.«3rf ai "xaXSw-SJ sira^ Xl;>«*i ^M^ -J^uocfjs '^s'sow i»nor •» tffiM BXo*
jaM blQi Helium ^Mi »?©orro *^ ?s«I;t XXti eX**«® XXJtw 01^ bcje ^S^xf^K&a
ns©^ ^^i-^ii saaif? a.,a trf^fost ei«#: Xl;f0« :^Oi;><f atf ;Joit felBfiw mll&t^ 9di ^Jsri*
Hl-t»stJU3i|0* aa-ff tsX IjETsi' silj Isi^t |«s^oMS t© ^0© *i ^Ifuxsa tti xaS&tf M
-7-
Dodge truck; thft he hrd been eoin:; to see Bartlett every other day
or 6o» acking when the trailer would be returned; that the latter
kept telling hi» that the inBuranoe ocmpany h-aq withholding the re-
lease of the trailer; that on December 1, 1933, when he delivsred tha
trailer to Bartlett the latter said, "don^t v;orry about it, ths inoiir-
anoe will cover all damages, I said well it iz a ;^100#CO deductible.
He said well, you know those bills have always been adjusted. You
won't have any worry about e. C100,00 deductible," PlainiiiT tsEiifiefi
that on Jf.niuiry 9, 19^:^4, he cent a telegrum, dr;l"ted V:ith the aid of
Ms lawyer, to defendant <.<.t I.oui t.i; ille , Kentucky, xhe telegram readt
"Tour order thirteen two aix four oeptomber eleventh stop You recently
repaired trailer serial number thirty five naught one and sent to your
representative S H Bartlett here stop Have tendered one hundrud ei^ty
seven dollars and fifty cents to Bartlett "buu delivery of trailer re-
fused stop Kindly wire if refusal made on your instructions and if not
vdre myself and Bartlett so I can secure trailer at once stop -nswer
collect** J>efendant replied with a telegram seat on Janue,ry 10, 1934,
reading* "See Mr» Bartlett reference your trailer He mil handle, •
Plaintiff also received a letter frcan defendani; dated Louisville,
Kentucky, January 11, 1934, recdin£« "Confirming 'phone conversation
with you of today, V7e have contacted our l£r, Bfjr tlett and he has re-
quest tc:d that ne advise you -o aeo liim and he >,111 handle the natter
in r satisfactory manner .^ Plaintiff tettified that he die notreceir*
any money fro* the insurance company; that on January 10, 1934, he had
a talk with Bartlett in regard to the delivery to Mm of another trail-
er; th?.t at that time he kne^- his trjiiler hav been sold. He also re-
ceived a letter from defendant dated Louisville, Kontuoky, January 19 »
1934, informing him that because of a large number oi lo^ues the insur-
ance company had or.ncelad the policy of insurance and that for reasons
set up therein there would be no refund on account of the c^nceUation*
AD an item of damage plaintiff claimed thrt he did not resume his former
-,,4&.*t masi^^- «^ .^o«^^^ .Minim i^^ iii^^^b o;r,,^«^I «M
Tjirisxe b^^««i£ sr.0 &ox«.I>fis^ w^O! gp;^a s.ca.i ;^*eX*?^ H « #iri***ne«6t^
»«©XbKJS£{ XXiw 9^ xi^iu^'js xmx &mB^iy^%. ^i^M^^^'^-^t^' ..:*^^^^'^
»>iia«'SSTriROo SflOJ<Qt* 3|ixlanj^fl»0'* J^gisl^-erx «>««X <XX -^JBifiMTi t73J»wi^K©2£
»pi*iAB «4^ '^Xbnajt Xil%,^ ©^ t)«« JsM^t ®»-'J o^ ^^"^ »ul*^ av JTjjtfJ fe»*o0irp
bod sii ♦I'SSi «0X x-'^^'^ ' "« ^-s*** i^JSKSwoo ©sKiextfad wi* «otl "^©uea \;b«
*f4^J9XX9?»»»o arf;^ "io ;f«»oooja no J&jata-.- jCwot/ e-i©ri;f. Rl929j£*, f« ;faa
-8-
occupation as a pressman until the middle of Fe^ru-ry, 1934, q^
oro8e-03cajnination he admitted signing the conditional ealoc contract.
He said that at the time of the accidon- the highvfay vma dryi that
the incline to the right of the road over wMoh the trailer oored after
it left the tractor was ahout a foot below the level of the road "at
the deepest," He said that two left wheela of the tractor were on the
hiehway at all times and the two ririit wheels were on the gra/el
shoulder on the road, that nhis fifth wheel is connected on the rear
end of the tractor. The pin merely elides right into it and locks in.
This part ^as broken off. I could still slide the other part of the
pin into the tractor on the highway. * * * The purpose of the fifth
T/heel is to keep the trailer from lifting up," that when he saw Mr.
Bartlett on Lecember 1, 1932, the latter told him that he was insured
and that he would take care of settling the mtter with defendant and
the insurance company. He also admitted that on December 4, 1933, he
Blade a written statement which he signed and delivered to a repraren-
tatir* of the insuranoo company. The statement was introduced for tho
purpose of impeachment. He further testified that he offered to pay
the JJecember instalment on Lecember 10 or 11 but Bartlett told him not
to worry about the payment until the trailer cane back to Chioato. Ho
denied that Joseph P. Desmond, sales manager of defendant, demanded of
Mm the payment of a87.50J stated that he had had no previous experience
With tractors or trailers. He testified that Bartlett offered hin a
replacement of a like trailer, which >ffer he refused; that two payw
ments were due at the time the offer was made; th.a he was offered «
•like trailer" on the payment of $300. He also stated that on Januaqr
4, 1954, Bartlett told him chat his trailer hal been repossessed and
sold und r the terms of the conditional sales contract.
J. H. Reoh, on behalf of defendant, testified that he was an
adjuster; that on Deceaiber 4, 1933, he interriewed plaintiff in refer-
ence to a claim for damages against the Hartford Fire Insurance Company}
'■'"'' iH •Mile txr.'^u'jiii^ lo BlhhiM ©xi^ LlinU n«arae©iQ js afjtj jgox^Tsquooo
%&i^n 5©raH TeXl^T* sdi HoMw "ssvo.bjsot ©rid- lo ifS^ti ©d* »i' Sjlilesi 0itf#
sifj no 9t®w Xfl*G«l.^ ©fftf tQ elssdw *1&X o??* S>«3af^ SIbS aH "^ijesijosfo erii
I X*9s^ 0x(J jfxo arcew aXeeiiiSr Siisli ©sr* odi 6na asjaiJ Xl^ ;ffl -^w^^M
1t3«t ait* no fee^osimoo at Xsadt? ^jlil sxxIS" ^jad* ibnot ad* ao aai)Xi<fOife
*i:ii asiooX b'^tJB d^i od^ni Mgia asbkl'Si xlsiim ai:ei arlT «*x4>d'£'««^ ari^ to fta»
IM0 %6 i'^i^ %bA$o odi sdlla Illia foXiroo I ulto n»:}£0'X€r a^snr ^tsg; aMS
«tdK «faa wi aaifw ;JjMitf "jciu sHl^JliX uj&il t^lk^ni 9di q^^sit-S. t^i kI Xsorfw
iaWWaiiJ: a^w od ^^jsifj axrf bloi %Qii&l ericf ^SS^X «! ■zQdmsooH uo c?,3'9X*'x^a
ttjffis iiUB&(t8t6& diin i&iiBm ex{^ ^filX;^:^0«s lo 9it&x> 9^s4 bXjsow cui iffai* l>fES
s^ «S§@X «l> 7stiicteo9CI no i^Mi b&iilMihii osIg aiS. *^JSiqfac>& GOtt^tissni 9Ai
saH tot b9outQxial e&ir Sn^SLa^Bi^' '^dS •^jsq^fiioo eoflje^iani ®i4;> 1® ©Ti^e^
^<m iai:*£ bi4i t3&£^%BK ^^xrcT XX x« OX tsOSBOosCI no tjn9M«^eai x9tfia«>os;CL oii*
lo &&£iii3£ie)^ «^{t^n8lt@l> to T0^&£m& miss ^bstoma^ *% dqs^oZ isadi b^la&b
0£i&^iXQ^3c® auoir&ts^ qu t>M bs^ji ^ ij^a&^ bMatn lOdaV'Sl^ Ito ;itmep0^ ocCd mid.
M. MSJM b^-isYio y$^l^tjatS. ijsdi bstll^aec? oH «at©Xiii'XJ to rioIojbt* ifilw
b'»%'&Yi^. &m &d ied^ isbsm Buffer %^t%^ »iit sficX^ &di ia &ah 9imr aiaem
^jsjamX., sa> #<4^f J&d#,«ts <6W»Xe ^ . ♦005*: 'to #r:-3ffr:''c- srl:!- rrc *''z-ZLni;: cjUX"
-9-
that he aeked him quest ionn and th-^t ho ^wote dora the anawers, and
that plaintiff told him on TJecoxnher 4, 1933, that it w s raining at
the time of the accident and that at the time of the accident plain-
tiff was driving at a speed of tv.-enty-f ive roilce per hour; th.-t he
reduced the statement to writinc* P-nd that rl^^intlr^f read it, said
it was correct, and signed it. Perk M# lien, for defendant, testi-
fied that he v^ae employ.^d in the pay roll office of the (jhicapo
Tribune; that witness hroi\ght to court the pay roll records and can-
celed checks of plaintiff j that plaintiff \-orked for the Trihune from
Fehrui.ry 3, 1925, until the year 1935, v.ith the exception of a period
of not quite three months in 1933, and produced a check to plaintiff,
dated iJeoamher 31, 1933, Tor tviO days' work performed by plaintiff
for the Tribune; and ho procluced other checks for periods subsequent
to December 31, 1933* Joseph P. Deomond, on behalf of defendant,
testified that he was sales manager for defendant corporation; that
in November, 1933, P» H« Bartlett was enn^loyod by defendant as sales
agent; that ^witness saw plaintiff at defendant's Chicafo office, at
3839 oouth Michigan boulevard, on December 21 or 22, 1933, and re-
quested plaintiff to make a payment that was past due on the trailer
in the o\m of ^7«50, and also the sum of $100 that v/ac due for
"deductible ineuranoe ;" that plaintiff said he would bring in the money
the rKXt day; that vfitness told plaintiff that he had made similar
promises and had not fulfilled them, and that witness was firing plain-
tiff three dj-ys further in which to make the payments or defendant
«ould have to repossesB the trailer; that -witnesD told plaintiff th&t
if he woxild make the payments the repaired trailer v/ould be brought from
Louisville and delivered to him; that plaintiff did not offer any money
to witness; that ^vitnesa told plaintiff that the trailer had been re-
paired and vv/.E ready for delivery. P. H. Bartlett, a v/itnesE for de-
fendant, testified that in :;ept ember or Octoberp 1933, he v.aB the sales
representative of defendant; that he took the order for the trajlern
ijp,^»eMO «i(* to feGll'io IXsTicaq 9if* fii ba^Jgala saw e«[ iJ'j^i- a©!!
•tEse^ I^J3 BM^oei Here ^^sq »^;^ ,t*c0oo o* Ms^^J&^cT aa©fldi»/ ^iaif* {flismriil
b^al%&^- a %& £tol*«9t>x» s>d^ Ail^i ,,aS€X xr-eTj ©rld^ Xi^xW i3JSA?i; , S 'ipiisrECfiJ*!:
' .: . .t:#««6f;««ts6 "io IXjaEtecf fto -gii^c£0«a«Q .r;: riq-^acrT; ♦seel ,15 lecra^osCT oi
-•1 hnA t£S9X ,se TO IS tsm^Qea my vbx&velmd: dM'^M&m 4#B«i2 QCB£,
,.... ^ %9^ sifb Qm iGJii QQX$r "I© mat mii.QBla tms ,08«f®l lo mtia sila ni
,. rcllml& absm bM ss^isdi tli^i^i^^ M«* 8a«>«^J;ar *«Et-^ j-^si) ix&: sriJ
-.«riA% Bittvis Bs-^ Qs^ftils? ^s^^ ||M|5,.»«mmS^ *©XX.£'iX«^ *».« &;M buf^ S9i:imxr^
im^m^^b x&.siammcBq, ^^:i;:0m- 9i f£»ja&f. i^. r$4HMl 'm^b ^^tdt 111*
YOKom >jrifl tMtXp ion l>i:6 m^'nJ:j3% #ai£* («id q^ bdt^vU^b tiasi ©XIlyai««J[
-10-
which was to be manufactured accordlnr? to Bpecifications| that
"wltneBa did not rccelTO the "^87.50 vfhich plaintiff claimed he had
given to hiB on Tfoveniber 1^ 1933 | that witness receiyed a letter^
eifrned "by plaintiff* d^ted Hovemher 22, 1933, and sent to him from
Denrer, which lettsr ws admitted in evici^noe; that the letter states
that plaintiff was "stranded in Il^nver waitinp" for a load back;* thn-t
the next time he heard frco plaintiff was when he receiyed a Icnr dis-
tance telephone call the day before Thanksgiving, 1933 , in v/Mch
plaintiff "told me he vorecked the equipment! "that v/itnesa told plain-
tiff to come to Chic.-'roi thr. t the day after Tlianksflvinr the vdtneBs
spoke to plaintiff, who gave 3iim an ordor to pick up the trr-dler from
a f^arage of the International Harvester Conpany; that witness had an
outside man with a tractor bring the trailer to defendr.nt*o g;->rage
pending instructions from the insurance company; that at plaintiff's
request he called up the Insurance company; that pursuant to the cr.ll
Mr» i.ech, an adjuster j came} that plaintiff, in the presence of wit-
ness, talked to the adjuster; that v.ltnesE was a metallurgical engi»
reer; that he attended armour Institute and Leiwis Institute, both In
Chlcagol that after th3 accident plaintiff did not mention to vltneso
S&iWS. a defective "fifth wheel;" that plaintiff did not e&y anything
about the pin| that plaintiff "told me the fifth wheel and the trailer
broke away from each other. This cjollar xvd.b broken from the pln» It
was a complete mechanical fracture aa we term it# That means a tear*
It v/as wrenched. TSTo fracture whatever. It was clean. I examined thM
pin carefully. The color was gray* /eetnsy did not mention any dark
defective parts in that fifth wheel. I did not see any dark defectire
parts;* that the trailer went to Lotdoville the day after the insur-
anoe adjuster releaoed it; that .vhen it went to Loxjicville it w&s In
the same condition as rhen it cpme in| tliat witness attached it to
a tractor and cent it "on its way;" thiit he did not have to wire it
up; that on December 21 or 22, 1933, vitneae wac present &t the
afiiasJ'a %&&i&£ si£i ;?srf;^ j®oii&f)iy3 ni Sis**.£Jff&.s aaw r£e#,tsX lioMw *3:«Tfn9Ci.
iloMw Hi tfiSM t55f3EjhrJ^Q3lflfijdn' arj^^lod" "^Ejab sjxI* XJ;«? ©i«jd;^»X»J' »©n3^
«.ffiJ8iqf ^il^iT aaoHiJipr cfjad^w.^^rje^aq^pe gslfj- 6s:3js>©rff &ii t^ feio-t^ \tJt5«XsXq:
molt %&ljus'xi &di qij isioxq Qi ^06^^ ti& mxxt »v«® ejadEw ♦llMfti.sXq; 0^ 93Soc[»
til tl!io<S teiuili9(:al sl^do: &n« oimi^Bal Taos8.%A h^tt&iim M t»fit I14it@t
iS^MiXttfi x^a io^ f)x|> Vii«fii«Xq Sect*- "jXearfw xlcraxt" frxiJaetskfc « JOffiKSafe
t^Xxjsx* ^^i 5nfi l&&d^ si^ll'i. 9sii am &Xo*" llic^xiJtiGXij i^i f«jfcq ^d( stj^eiiii ■
il otiiq, 9di irao'xl iteiottf bhv islLao aibcCf *x©rtj)'9 4oJ5e a^nt x*^^ ^o%4,t
*«j@«i *i3iiT •*! m^xeS- ©w as ooM^oei'i LBOxttBtlomi ai^XqjRB?© « ««»?
ciJiijI) ^%£i crtsiin^m j^fc &i:5> ■^9Kt;ta»>. ♦"ij^as asw ^oX«o oil? ^■^XXb'^<&i:«o nt^
©fli^oele^ 3{g:<e5 ^r«« «ia£ Jt.*iJS 6i& I ♦X©$i: aj>^«« ©TJ:«i'&el:t(&
-11-
time of the conversation testified about by Desmond. .itneso
oorroborates the statement and testimony of DeBmond in regard to
the demand for payment of the 1^87.50 and the $100. itnesB heard
plaintiff tell Mr. Desmond that he v/ould "bring in the 5;^187»60 in
two or three days, and heard Desmond tell plaintiff that the limit
would be three days. .itness stated that the trailer was rapossessed
at the f Victory in Louisville and that they gave v/itneas an oi'vor to
sell it and witness sold it for $1,000; that Vifitness aav/ plaxn-iff on
January 3 or 4» 1934, and at that time plaintiff tanew that the trailer
had been repossessed; that plaintirf at that time did not meniiion ar^-
thlng about making payments. V.ltness stated that "we offered him a
new trailer that h-a^pened to come in that day or the day before without
any change in the original contract to replace the original trailer
that he had used two months, whatever it was, we would give him a "brand
new unit without any further obligation, except to pay the ^100#00
deductible plus CBV^SO. He said he would let me know. I didnH see
him after that* .bout pril a man served a notice on me» The first
time I ever heard about a claim for a defective pin was at the
attorney's office." On crosr^-oxamination witness stated that he
made an examination of the coupling pin in Ghicap'o; that he had a
laboratory test made of the pin and the collar. That the part that
was broken off was sent to Louisville with the tirailer. He further
testified, "I Can tell whether thore is a defect in the pin by the
fracture. This pin vao not fracturedp it w^ p torn." .'-ItnesB stated
that the color of the steel in the pin was gray? "like all steel**
At another point he said, "We liave twenty-seven colors in steel. •
He stated that plaintiff did not mention any Jark defective parts
and that he did not see any black defective parts? that the trailer
was not returred to Ghioaf'O until ] ecentoer 30 or 51; thr.t it was
delivered to the new purchaser on January 1, 1934 j tha.t the broken
part of the pin was in the possession of witness for t.o or three
i
S!x Ocl*?©!^^^^:* «J: Bfiir^rf bl/uow aH ^sii* .6»e^iKcr«e[ ,r3Elj;,4£»* 3:*ii*jaij5?iq
9^, %&b%Q jsjsfaewflJxw sViStg X®*^* ^«** &*» »XJLi:T»^o4 ai ^pa&j^wt ^^^ ^^^
dnei *'i*f8£)i;& 1 ■♦wo.asS sat i$tl IjImow ©jrf .|^xss «Ei .oe#78# «3i<l »MMiiii^»h
da'sJl ©jtiT- «'«« jcrt* soMkho « &t?v««a j«ms * ,^*,««a;A tM»ak :*#-«^ 5:*sl--1fefi-' aid
'-€SE^, djg-.^afW flliil' Ciirlisslft'j^ «■ ■sol: jK'Jai,0. JB d-imtfB Mj»«J| :«»V© ,1 s»8iiii
d^* #1^ !Sii& i^dS ••i-sifos' ©xf;f &-crjs jrlt 9tii 1o ©ft^afii *«4;^ ij;'2fo*^««}«fJS-C
b^i&$® «H©ii*l^v ».««>* ajiW ft nhttifff^iii-itt *oa aj8*if «i*(f stijSS! * ^svi oi^T."!
"♦Xee*B[ U.3 &j£l:X" ^xmif^ sajw ffif firi* i»t i*»*a ««{* ^o ico>X©» a^jT *aa*
-12-
days l,efore he sent it to Louisville, that vvitnees b.w it on the
desk in Louisville for six months afterv^ard, that It was notthere
at the time of the trial and that it wao nhrov/n in sorap." witness
stated that he info.-med plaintiff sereral time, that the trailer had
leen repossessed. Margaret Robinson, for defendant, testified, among
other things, that on ^Toremher 22, 1933. Beef or' s Transit Company,
Which She owned, made out a chock .ayaDle to the Kentucky ICanufacturin,
Company in the suan of ^87.50. It was stipulated .hat in 1937 plaintiff
asked for an order requiring defendant to produce '-a certain portion of
the coupling pin and the balanoe of tho p:-n at the trials' that defend-
ant admitted that it recoived from plaintiff the broken portion of the
pin and th..t at the time of tho trial it h.^d no knowledge as to where
the part or parts of the coupling device .ere. By stipul.Uon, a
c«.pling Pin -identical with the cc^plin, pin v^ich .as on the trailer-
T&P.S exhibited to the jury.
\i^ have given an oxtenaire summary of the evidence bee use the
question involved is one of fact, .^laintiff argv-ee. that pure, good
Bteel is gray, and tlmt the broken pin disclosed a black spot covering
about 1/3 Of the surfaoe. Hence, ho r>.intains, there was a latent
defect. Plaintiff hlms.lf attempted to qualify as an expert on cteel.
nren a cursozy examination of hi3 to.tinony reveals th..t ho did not
qualify as an expert on steel. Defendant insicts that there is no
. evidence that would warrant a finding that the coupling pin v;as de-
fectively constructed or constructed from a poor grade of steel, or
from stoel with a flaw. Plaintiff cnoedes that If there was nothing
in the record hut his o^n testimony regarding the color of pure steel,
defendant* n. argument -vould be conclusive of the iscue in the case.
Plaintiff asserts, however, that P. H. B.,rtlett, a v.ltnesr for defend-
' ant, v;ho -.vas qualified as a steel expert, "confirmed the fact that
pure steel is gray in color." An examination of the tef.timony of Mr,
Bartlett, an experienced metallur^cal engineer^ disclosed that he
"SX-
««JiESq[SJO0 *i:«K*«T S*X0^©SK. ^fflS^A «v^» ^««*"
r ^'«-. -.rf+ot eXdBTad Items' Ji tiJ«A«ll^..i1i«^^ ^« **«^
'■•.jXlBTJ «S* I" "•'' naiftw oil 80JJ-«««'«' °"
,„».X . «« ■«.«» .*«i«*n»* «« ,««« •*-^'^»'' •«* *" *^ *'«'•
,«fj V=,,i .-» i..mii«oo- .. ■ oo»ix*w Mw orf^ .»»
-13-
Tiae of th3 opinion that the coupling pin shewed that the "break
constituted a t^ar and not a fructuro. At one point in his testi-
mony he stated that steal ir. gray in color; however, v/hen aoked a
specific question he said th£?.t there are twenty- 8 even colors in eteel.
He rtate£!) poBitively» that he did not sec any dark, or "black, or
defective part, and that plaintiff did not state to hin at any time
thct there was any "black, or dr^rk, or defective part. The engineer
stated, positively, that the color of the coupling was gray* There
is nothing in Burtlett's testimony to support plaintiff's assertion
that the coupling was in any ""..ay defective. It is uforthy of note that
when liJr. Bartlett v/as on the stand he wcic cross-examined "by plaintiff »
and answered that a la"boratory test v/as made of the pin and collar,
yot, plaintiff did not csk him what the la"bora:;ory test shov/ed. Taking
the tectimony in itc aspect most favor,-^.l)le to the contention of plain-
tifi, ■:og€ther with all refsonable inferences, we are impelled to the
view that it does not esta"blish the cc»itention of plaintiff.
Plaintiff testified that he was traveling ten miles an hour.
The statemen*; that he ;3ave to the incursnce adjuster in the presence
of another witness was to the effect tlaat he was traveling at the rate
of twenty-five miles an hotir during a rain. \^hile traveling at a speed
of tv/enty-five miles an hour he s^ung 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 trailer war eighteen
feet in length and wns carrjrtng, at the time of the accident, a load
of seven tons. ..t the time of the accident plaintiff hp.d "been operating
the truck (consisting of a 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 loappened does
not 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 of negligence in the
-SI-
}! *'M^mi eii£ ul ita;*©^ swa *A ..-©xxiil-SjS^^ itf ^^aji- ^IlKae- Ji«^^
SwJbljfsT' »fe;a*r.)£M^«,:.#»^^ ^iEOij;B,'it<KEa| sti* i&0& aMtel ala# .4J.<*jK ft^£4> "illJMiMli ^^^
©xf# 0^ 6iiII®Qaii: o'xp, »w 4890001 alrri: aXerano»aeiS;;^£«, If^Jtir t«^«g®*. t'^ltiJ-
'V' •1f'5;MKJU% 1;it. welijsiKto&o acta- ^d&ilM&im 4*it: a*&;fe- ,# 1- SMtf vfalr
m^0%»S.l^%i 9ii* &SJ3 ^BQ^ 3rf^ to T«l>Xw«»«Ea «^^ «i *«>Qa ilea e jl&i?ic*a
ff«j05ji^i© #«^ ,'t^ia. feaS«iif^ fextjai ilip^i^^^ ^h©w baa ©Qo»X
-14-
manufacture or assemljlage of the trailer. This he has failed to do.
In Tie-ff of plaintiff* s contention that defendant should
respond for all damages incurred, it is diffioxilt to understand vfly
plaintiff, in hie telegram of January 9, 1934, tendered to defendant
the sum of * 187 .50 and demanded deliyery of the trailer. That amount
aggregated the instalment that fell due on Jecemher 11, 1933, plus
the ^KX} rieductil>le insurance. If plaintiff ..as right in his conten-
tion thc-t the accident was caused "by a latent defect in the coupling
pin» then there is no reason why plaintiff should suffer a loss of
#100. \S/hlle plaintiff testified that he did not go "back to work with
the Tribune until the middle of yehruary, 1934, the undisputed fact
now is ths.t he did ^^o hack to work on I-aoemher 29, 1933. That is
ahout the time the trailer was repossesBed. He then rei'used the offer
of defendant to deliver to him another trailer, giving him credit for
the payments he had made. A rer;,sona"ble inference is that plaintiff,
realizing the difficulties encountered in achieving success in the
trucking husinessp decided to abandon that busineiis, and he acoordingly
retxirnod to his former employment. .;e are of tiie opinion that there is
no basis in the record for uhe damageb lound by the jury. The damages
claimed are remote, and not supported by the evidence.
j^aintiff complains that the telegram and the letter from the
defendant and the conversations \<ith llx » Betrtlett after the trs-iler was
repossessed, show a design to mislead plaintiff to Mb injuiy. The
telegram of January 10, 19o4, told plaintiif x,o see Mr. Bartlett in
reference to "your trailer, rie will handle," and lihe letter of January
11, 1934, advised plaintiff to "see him [Mr. Bartlettj and he will
handle the matter in a satiaf fictory manner." .t the time thit the
telegrsm and letter -were sent, both parties kne*. uliat the trailer had
been repossessed and sold to a stranger. The only reasonalale con-
struction to place on the telegram and letter le that Mr. Bartlett,
defendant's agent at Ghicaeo, v;; s to discuss the matter with plaintiff.
' »0X« «ee«i «XjC 'xatfiaao«a £f.o ®w& XX©! 4^1;^ tjtt©j|K.U*ajKi; m^' i^^im^^^^:^
aijl^ ««oX « 5©3:i*ra £)XiifO£fB l.lWjjxsXq;. ?0G7 «o.a«95 o« aX m.&^^ na^#, «lt^.
jjDt4w 3l'S»!B7 od- 3lo^.tf OS ^on bXft *eC *J3|£d- bsiliSs®* lli^pMX.c «#&tf8? tOOXl
til &%&ii.i ;^Mi xtoXnij|<| eisbt to d*£a <»W • ^ojUB^XcEEad ^isai^ol: KM 6^ h»smri^i
»9^aBSJ^ axff .x^wt sxi- Yrf ftrnfol aojasmsfo sriiJ sot l!>too@« ««£*£{/
.««ti9£tiy9 9ii* T^rf fediT^o^^wa il-^ij :&«jb ,» e^fiiff ,, #«* ;d<pX«X,.*
10; %%tsj'^al aid Qi I'ixd'a^Xit ke^'Skim q4 tXSkiM-9tb & mdf ■ ■ ■
ttl .ti&X^r^iSi .sM 9*8 q;^ 'i'xX*kX«Xa c '^ ,|0X "^'x.
»£{;}' d;M;t «>ati:i^ ^£i _^ji ♦',*-4#a a **_44X.
-15-
As a matter of f.ot llr. Bartlett did offer to deliver a new trellor.
^hioh wae re..y. and to give plaintiff credit on the payments that he
had therecofore made. ..c we Imve seen, the offer w.b declined by
plaintiff.
Plaintiff also points out that defendant threw away the piece
of steel involved in the diapute, after defendant kno. .hat .he produc-
tion of that piece of ete.l .vould he an iuportant f.^tor i„ tlxe decision
Of the c.se. ..e do not helieve that the evidence .he... tluxt ohe piece
Of steel was deliberately thrown e..y for .he purpose of preve.tinc its
use in evidence, m any event, thex. io no evidence .vhich establishes
that the accident ^as c^uned l,y a latent Ccfect.
Plaintiff contends th^t defendant could not roposeess and sell
the trailer .ithou. firct re .urnin. the Payn.nts th. t ho ha. ^.o there-
on, and Cites IM^ht. U,,!^. c o,^ ^ ,,, ,,^^ .^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^
doc.rine a..ounced in that case c.not .e appli.a to .he factual situa-
tion before ue. .e j^ve held that the r.cord doec not contain any evi-
dance that the accident v,as caused by a latent dofoct. Ther.for., at
the time the trailer wt.o sold .Ic.int'ff w-o- in ^^-'. m^ - ..
, ..xiiu„ii „a^ in dej.iu.ult xn his payratntB
under the con.itxonal sale, contract. Bein. 1„ d.f.ult an. not ^vin.
Bhcvn any valid reason v.^ the inst.a.ent should no. be paia, defendant
was justified in repossessing and s^llin.T .^he trailer^
The trial court was right in oustaininj the ^notion of dof.ndoat
for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Therefore, the Judenont of
the }!unicipal court of Chicago is affirmed.
JUDatlTTT A.7FIPW-1D,
Sullivan and Ji'rlend, Jj., concur*
..,.„,. cvrf-v -trj^ti avsilocf Son oh m .*@9^P a^^ "^^
a .a« .saa .m^ .xxx. »s^:isa«:--^aa-i*iK-***^'»**^ *""■•"•
,M-Xi«* »d3 8«iil»« »«» snt»«»aao....; r.- ">9l'iM»«rt •«»
»o»bn»S8Jb ^0 wiSoB. ^' 8niHto»»Ba ,i *«sX^ «^" »''-- = ^'°' .
».■
40430
AP!PdLVL yi?dl| MimiCIPAL
cctn?T 01? oHiC'.no.
BAHiOSD L. M0H}iISLi3Y,
,pp,uanu ) 29 9 I. A. 609'
MR. i«i5SIDIirO JUr.TICi; BimKi D^-IIVUEi-JD THS OPINIOiy OS" TH5 COURT.
On l&ay 23» 1933» plaintiff filed har Btatement of oxaia
in the ITuniclpal court of OhlougOf in whioh she sought to recover
from defendant the sum of |975, "baeed on an agreejaaent attached to
the complaint* The statement of clalm» the agreement attached
there to » and all other proceedings had» are the s?yae aB in case
Gen* Ho« 40346» except that the recovery here uought is for a
later period*
Defendant prosecuted this appeal from the Judgment entered
and in this court the appeals were ccnsolidated for hearing* The
opinion filed oonourrently herewith in case Gten. Ho* 40346 ecihraoeB
the points rsdaed herein* Therefore* the Judf^ent of the Municipal
court of Jhio: CO is reToreed , and the oautse reaanded* with directloni
to orerrxilo plaint-iffe motion to strike defendant's affidavit of
defense! and for further proceedings not InconsisteBt with the
opinion filed in the case of .aBaa L* Mo rriB aey v* "^aarmond L»
liorricseyt Oen* Ho* 4034 6*
«ITH :;iHJCTioirj.
i>ulllvMi and jTrlendf JJ«f ocncxxr*
•ffi'.; Office *s:o TfiyoD (
? i if? «A s
■'l.ji* '-sj^ ">./ * XI .i^ -ii^ _ _
Silvio lo Sff.®a®^^4s ^aff fi&JLi/t JtsifmlMtq «S«^I ,SS ■^«M jaj0
^ . IMSSP ♦;&ffli;X'S.«Sii 'S«rl JHKafeiXofJiT&o Gas's' stSu^^^^ mii iimil»ti aM* ftl kl^
la^&itwM. &si.^ to *«T«ifi@fejifi &t^s ^»%ot^G^t .j«l«>«t0jtf 6(®aJjB'5 8#«fe|o«| safS-
40S49
aSOROB A. BOCiOymRQ,
/ ApotllMst .
BIRK BRC J. fclii/lSrir'^O. ,
a earper tloW
App<»ll««.
kUJ»IClPAL COURT
X«r^«
Plaintiff, an attorney, appeidB from a Jud|£i:u«ut in his
favor for :,50, onterod upon the verdet of a Jury In a contract
motion whoreln ho <itlIog«<i ti t ho had boon •oiployed hy and ptrfora&otf
logal oorviooi lor tho dc^fend^^nt 'orth $305. Oei'endttnt alloiied
that it ia<1 oald him all i&oneys rfue for hie eervicos.
Def«ndart corpora >.ion wao a stookholdor in tne Rocklord
Growing CoKpany cf Hookford, Illinoio; ?rank J. Lirk, dofend^int 's
vieo prAKidont and aocrotary, also whs vioe president aiid a
director of the Hoekford company; in September or October, 1936,
believing the Roekford oompony would t&o into bankruptcy, he, acting
for defendant, had ee-reral oonferencee with plait. til'f, wue «ae
aeked by Birk to acquire for defend^tnt, by purohaee from Xhe Liquid
Carbonie Corporation, the chattel suortgaiie on a bottling machine
which had been sold by tuat corporation en a conditional aiU.ee
eentraet (er ohattel sortgage) to Uie Roekford oempany; alter
acquiring the mortgage plaintiff was to replevin the machine from
the Roekford company in ti.e na: e of Huge Uoets, the agent of defen-
dant for that purpoee.
Pursuant to thie, plaintiff ptt*rohaeed at a dieoount, for
about 4*7800. the mortgage owned oy The Liquid Carbonic Corporation
and pr<?pared to replevin the machine.
\
,#l««Xl»«j<|^
\
,^ii.
'"■ ■■■''" ■■ ■■"■■ ,»««»-ivtsw)i:''«M.%fi^^il ir<pi»'«Wff--iJS»' i««l,sf' fedbiw iMfiM tl .#mi#
fciisi^#^ii^"^«^'i 'mm&^m'X^ ~t$-m^m't*^- %it%:m-impm. M.,'^^ ya &»jf««
" .itjtiiSi'^tt^ t:«Sli- '^»1r tamb
• 2.
itr. Mrk t»«til'l«d that when pl«4lr.tlft' was erif^.in&lXy
hir«>d» In 3«pt«al;«r or Octob«r, 1936, fiirk a»ic«tf hin what uls f««
would b«, KUid v^h^n told «300 iiirk »ald th.it ^-as iilgh ^or an or-^inary
r*pl«rin, to ^hlch plnintlff r>^pli«d that tiiis waa tuuro or !•■•
eeaplioatod; £irk tnon s^Aid, "X will glTO you ,^50 on account and
#250 sort Just MB soon as you got titl^ for u» lor i.his • iuipiu«nt , "
and that plaintiff agrood. A lottor datod Oc«ob«r 10, 1936,
•enflraciing this wa» roeelTOd ty pl-<i£itifi'. In -rhioh Birk atiid,
I an onolosln^ a cii«ok in tao uuount of ^50 ■'•'>'* pertaining to tho
Liquid Carbonic Biattor. It is understood that tirilo pay»«uat is in
full, unloso w« obtain possession ol th«! bottling unit located at
the Hookford Brewing Company , at which time wr will pi^y you an
additional 1250.00." Birk t<«stified that olaintiff Tras to "gire
tt* title to that iaachinery and we we're to puy hiei «300. "
After plaintiff arrived in Rockford to r^^'plevin the
Baohine ae found that bankruptcy proce«iilngs had been oomtbenoed
against the Hookford Brewing Cooipany; he filed a reciai&atien
petition in that preoeeding and then learned tn,^t Uie trustee in
bankruptcy eont«nded the chiittel ffiortgage to 7he Liquid Curbonie
CorporNtion , puroh-ised by plaintiff for the defendamt, was void
beeause it was executed without authority of ihe board of directors
of Ihe Roekford crowing Company, facing this obstacle, plaintiff
requested of Birk an additional j^^OO as uonpensation for Uie. extra
work whioh he claimed vae not conteoplated in the original agreesieot.
In the diecussion hirk exprc>«seJ disappointment in plaintiff, tried
to bargain with him fer only #100 additional, nnd told plriictiff
that iie (Birk) had an ugreement «>ith iiim to "get title to that
equipment for #300," but finally, ae defendant waa an;(^iou8 to get
the equipment, Blrk decided to pay plaintiff the additional $200,
totaling 1500. Plaintiff teetified that his arrangSi&ent for fees
at "that" time was "that for #500 I was to see that the Aortt^age
«a.
^«*-^ '^^ ^^..^ *^^ ,,^^ ^ , ., '*'^**' ^^«=^^ w^. ,i«,^,, ^
.«^4 t*tf<».^,^ .^^^^_^ ^^^ -^ *«*ft *to« 0,.^^
**i^« ^.M 4.... ,, ^,,^^ ;^ ''^*-^^ nu^,,,
«^^ «i^ ^^ M^i^^fc^ 'i«*»«>x««» «« J..
-3-
ihAt Blrk Br«s. Brewing Co, timA bought I'rem Tb« Liquid G&rbonie
Corporation «mo r'>oognii(Od »a vtnlid,"
Plaintiff «•• ouoeoaaful in upholding the validity of
iho chattol mortgut^e as atJalnot i.ho contrary claim of th« trattoo
in "bonkruptcy. Tnio was on February 5, 1937, i'lalntiff thon B*nt
dofenflant a toill lor ^500, for oervloeo rendered "in aandling
ReelaiDntion Petition «•> "ell a«« negotiation* ^-itn The Liquid
CarYienio Corporation, with l r. aoetx, with the Truetoo in binkruptoy.
In dr^fendant** stateoient of dofonoe it a^nlta the agroeatent lo pay
plaintiff ^500, and siye it uae paid hln this in full settleKent
of all claims.
If the prooeedingo had torminatod at this stage tho present
suit noTor would haTe been brought, ho ever, pi vintiff testified
that xbout February 10, 1937, several days after the Talidity of
the vtortgage had been upheld by the refers* in the bankruptoy case,
both Sirk and aoets telephoned hi« and scUd, "the owr.er of the
builiing wonH let us t.<)JI&e the maeiiine..,*
The Rookford Brewing Co&pany did bu»«iness in a building
Isased fron Rookford Storage Varehousc Company, hereafter called
landlord, then in receivership; the naci'^iine to be rf>plovied J ron
that buildln/? whs nbout 3 feet wide, 26 feet long, 14 to 15 f^et
high and w»e located on the flret iloor, projecting through ^ hole
into the second floor.
Plaintiff t<>stified that within a duy or two after tho
phone call above r-^ferred to, Blrk oaao to hie office, and at birk's
request and In his pre^eno* plaintiff phoned Thoi&as Uiil of Rockford,
the attorney Jbr the trusteo in tiie landlord proceedings, who
*mid tliey jid not eare for the equipaent but wantod a bond to
ffuarantoe that all damago done to the building on account of the
resMTal would be repaired. ;e also »anted the opening in the floor
• f the oooond floor r*placed. iihortly aJ'terwardo Gill prepared a
•e-
i-mim»U^i('n Hat t%Ji ainjt Mit bi*i^ »«.r< jM «x^^ ^1^^ «0&$$ 11ii<ii;%If
IwiliJfSe^^ VtJt#i2l.sX^ ,«^im»'«s>li .#-aji*i©«^" wsao «»««« feCi»««' it*fr»« ^iijis
^fHihiiiSfS 4? «.l »«»riiftijdf fellt '^«»<sai«>& ^aA*»»^ ki&ts^^ofl ft-T
. ■ j^sXijfed tdd'ts^'XSi/f «^a»^»«0 tg&ajsb-swtW ^j^rro^lS fc'«^1 •■ 5s«a»X
*»(»1 ex 9i ^X ,B«0-t *•»'* 6^ .Ofeiw *«©'i ® #«(» xtfef|«<f *^«l<#
a'ai'SiH 4 -iUo hid «^ etfeao altJa ♦tM fe*
, fit's «'i*^(g»H 't« .Ui«i a»»a»fct &»a©i^ ttl5«l«^ *)&«(f
-4-
p*titien to lero* dcfonlioit to r pl»o« the ileer «nd auliavquently
••rT«d pluintlfl' K^ith tt copy of the potitien v^alch ho v»a «^eing
to i'llo in M Eookford court on February 20th, uli&iain£ ue c&acViinery
had bftcoBo H piu-t ol' thi< bull iin^ boo ^use it w^a built in und could
not bo renoTOd without ^oriuuo damaKO to tho iuilding, Fiaintll'f
oaid he told £irk they must be prepared lor J'ebruary 20th aud thut
Uoots suiot be in Kockford i'or the hearing; that Liric e^^id, "by all
aeon* speed up t>iutterB*; that plaintifl' told hiu a reclamation
potiiion would speed up matters but chat plaintiff oouli not do all
this work vrltiiout additional cosipcmsation. Plaintiff testified tht;t
nothing was said about UiO partioular aiaount of fees to be charged
In the landlord oaso, but as lie reci«lled, i>irk asked *iiow much aro
yott going to enarge no?" and plaintiff replied, "Depending on tho
aau»unt of tiae expended," to which Birk r<°plled th^^t ue »oul'^ pay
"vhat was right.*
Plaintiff iil«4 <M iuiswer and a redan&tion petition
in the Kockford landlord's procoedinii, ani the aatter was r«^ferred
to * referee; three or lour -earicgs were held in hockford, two
before the referee und one or two before the judge; plaintiff
prepared a brief for the roiereo in tuis ; and lord oatter and, being
oaeoeseful, aill filed objeotiono; plaintiff prepared another
'^Ti»t to meet these objections, and tho referee's report sustaining
ylalntlff's position was later approved by tue vourt. Judgment was
•ntered roeoj^n icing that Ooots's «ortt;ago w»s superior to the land-
lord's lion. Cn the ssfflo day Blrk was in plaintiff's office and was
t«ld what transpired. Afterwards the naonine wae dellTerod to
dofWKlant.
As to plaintiff's clalB that on February 16, 1937, he wae
ttaployod by defendant in the landlord oase. where the landlord con-
tended the maa.lno had beoo«e part of the realty, £irk denied tAlo
OBployment, spying pi .intlff wa. retained in 1936 to got title to the
%i4is&iif;9u€f3^ bats %ti<si£i nj^i p■e^al-lqit <»s ^mthii»''iifh 99X9% &t a»iiti»^
IttJtiitJUit .gfldl^ilftrv;' urn e^ .ttsAJseik 8ic«>it«^'^< j^MOJiii^iw imrmimt mi tMi
j^ju^ ii-fiK i^$& ^fautM^^^'o^ i;«'$ &«^.^(;ti^%'^ ^(^ i^um x*^'^ ii%l^ 8iX«^ »4 $tim9
llH X^'' ^hiM9i MStlti iAM4 :^alt.£!&ii' 9£y 'tot fe'£d1^ii»a Hi »d #»IHB »#»«{}
ft^ £ieMHt w^*' &«3ts^ 3l^-$li£ th^llmt^t ^d »» $$^ ,«ift«<» JH.«il»£H>X •li; etl
»i£i iiii» ital^i!i«<i*<i*' ^ti!«ii;q[«>-s tt<i^fii«-X% &£» *?«« #ai««isi» oi' aisles uox
ms ,b^9^i&&^ ^ &x«^ is>%0v &%ak'i.d»/si tsi^ ^« tt«^«ii» j*»Y»1#il « «*'
t^m&m. baiAqm^ Ytitaimlq \»u&U9*liii» imtkt HJIB «2a«1taa«o&i»
«j5w •*! ,re«x ,«1 t**n«*»^ <•» *«** «*«^^ ••Ktltnl*-... -. —
•qulpuect «nd there was no additional doul; h* dldn*t r*o*ll haTlng
m. talk with plaiiitiff about i'lrOitlng th« landlord *■ clalA but said
ho bad d*f«ndant*« agont, Uootz, «ithor phono or C(\ll en pl«ilntil'f;
Birk also SMld he dldn*t know about th« spodl'lo eult ontlilod
*Xookford ^ter««o «»rohouBo": hovovor, ho paid the iilio to put tho
bttlliilng tack in ehapo. ills trstimony wao to tho of loot that plain*
til'f wao Ml rod to got "titlo" to or "poBBOoeion" ol' the uiaehino, Uo
uood thooo two vordo intorohanH«*^l7 throughout hie t«8tinony. Ho
oaid ho wao at no timo intorootod in tho logal proooduro noooooary to
obtain tho machino.
Plaintiff toatiiiod th t ho dovotod 71j^ houre to what ho
roforrod to ao tho Roekford Uterago %arotiouso or "landlord* suit;
thAt tho roaaonablo, custovarjr oUargo for ttuch ^ork in tho Unitod
Statoo Court io #8 an hour, but that ho suido a flat ohargo of J>300,
yltto a 15 oxponoo, boeauoo ur, Birk prostlsod hia other bueinooo from
th» defendant. Thio #305 ohargo io the subjoet oi thia «uit.
Dol>ndBr.t*a triof aoaorte that plaintiff, while he rendered
logal oervicoo in Uae landlord «;bse, w«a not (^ployed in any epecifio
litl<-atioB, but wao retained for tut sole purpoeo of recovering for
dofenlant tho bottling equipment on uie pr«iBlaoo of tho RoeiLford
Browing Cooupany.
Aa atatod aboT«, tho jury I'ound in favor of plaintiff, but in
aoaeaaing feea for lia aerviceo, allowed his only 460,
Defend'uit argueo that booauae of ih« conflicting t>*8tiibony
tho Jury had the right and duty to juigo the credibility of tho
witneaooa and determine tho iaeta and aiuat have concluded that l^isk
wao Intereetod only in tho recoTory of tho oquipaent and Uiat ho
had DO particular intereot in the legal proceedingo nooeaaary to
aoooapliah that end; aloo what tho Jury obvioualy gaTO i&oro weight
to £irk'a teetiraony with reference to uia denial of plaintiff *a om-
yloyaeat in the landlord oaae than it gave to plaintiff* a teatinony
to tho of foot that Birk agrood to pay hia -what waa right" for hie
-^isirisi^. jEi«»*i- Jf'ffl&ii^ -»M ;JLss*fe iwa«s|*i:-**S« a«t «i.frr«f ts-ss+jd^ him iumuqiupit
•'ni#»t* If at© ifcw %Q ^mm^ iM»jB&ri» ,8#»«.© ,#fflfa^ »*0mkm'Uk b^a itd
9$ xti&mmtmsi i»%mh<^mn lm*£ mU .«! b^^w't^H sai mats oa ^t^s »«;» »rf ».!««
|>«»S3£«#S ftiil U «s»aiat*'ii *i^ toll- d-K««^iif|M> n»IXf># *^r*aifeH!&*l«fc
ffilrf t<&'t *#J3^ii a«w tjftiw* milt' t^s^ »^ fof»®-ife« i^iS ' <»*
•trfiees in that oao«.
In vonrad o>ipp -bre^iPK Co. v. ^tclc . 85 III. App. 637, the
ylitintifl' app«<4l«4 I'rea a Judga«nt in hiti favor ror UOO. uis euit
vat h&*«d on a note for .)00 v,ith interest , !••• Vi adi:iitt«4 er«dit
•f ^00 «>ith interest. In rercraintj tt^e jutignent the court c id:
"The Terctiot of 4100,00 I'inde no hasie vrhate-rer in
the ^vHence. »"* the eyidenee in FU*.)pert oJ' t*te defenee
vent to the vhol* note und rot to a. part ol' it. Th«re wae
■o middle groundupon " ich the jury miK^t cesiprotaloe.
Under the evidence appellant was either entitled to a
▼erliot for the araount !ue upon th? note, or WiS not entitled
to reoover ^^t all.
ao , «rhea t>ie jury found the iseuee in I'-Tor of appellnait
they I'eund Uiat appellrmt was entitled to a rec^Tf-ry, >i>nd
they aiiould nave aeaeaned ite damagee at tlie 'i^uount lue upon
the : ote. I'ii ey opui d t.ot rif;.ht^'ull3r eay &ppellH/>t wa» et. titled
t o reo pT er. tut it ehould _ .aye only a fr action of ^-Jhat yag^ lue.
SVider tae eyidenpe all or nothini^ waf -'Hf * "
In Sfcedley v. Chlea,o <<. A.^. Ry. Co .. 46 111. App. 426, 42ti, the court
eaid: "Zne Jury leund ih.» injury vae caueed through the nci^liji^ftijoe
of appellee in eoernting the train. Hov they fixed the d uiiagea at
$100, when the undisputed OTidence ehowi they exceeded ^400, is in-
•olTable. •** If entitled to reee-ver fit nil, appellant was entitled
to • rer^lot for -he full amount of his dtu&«<^es proven. " In Ua ^oiBo -
poulos ▼. Petropouloe . 147 111. App, l.ttVi» plaintiff Tbrou^ht an ac.ion
t9T $500, having paid ^^200 to the defendant to I ind the bar(;;;^n and
$300 whi^ he clained he paid an the lolloring day; the verdict and
Judfnent were for 3300; in ooBtiB<;Ating upon this the court said:
*Tha evidence juatifies a verdict and judgaent for ^500 in f^^vor of the
plaintiff, e^ a verdiet for ths defendant. It ie an action a ^
eon trap tu . and if the Jury vere Juetified in finding againat the de-
fendant it should have been for ^ftOO."
In the instant case the evidence in support of the defenea
went to the whole and not t« a part of plaintiff's elaim, based on the
alleged oontraot for ais eerviees in the landlord case, entered into
February 15, 1937. Plaintiff, if entitled to recover at all, should
have recovered *305, aa hie testleiony as to txie value of iiis services
s»n* .vee ,m^ ,.ui e® ,M&SL~^.^jJsk.JiBlsaiiJLjmMM^^ «i
i-liffl »lii ,Oi&i«J t^'i t^si^Mt alii mi imtm^biil « mm.'t iN»itJ»«^ 'iUtfalfiX^f
«>«a»t<i»,^ siit 'to ^Tt9«i«j,JS!a ^ »!&im^.^'«?'ft ojfii' ■'^"«* ..»©«<* foiT« »d#,,
num mm-,m^ .aa* ..««^ ,xxi m , .i^_ai„jjjj.ji,.j^i£^
,, m. -t^^l^diit lbs i^ ^£ .dr«iB:|).{IS)l»& *i£# %^'t ioUbHWir « 'I'li «1'):i<$alitX^
&Xe®ifa «ti» *^ 'mtmm »ff 6«X*i#«» ti ,t!li*aJAX^ ,V«fX ,«i i««««^rf»^
«»^irt*« «M to »«£«▼ <*^ «#' «« i^w«*t»»* slat OA ,«««« fe»««T0»»ii »v»d
!• not son t rail otod. A* wa» atfttnd in kqi^e lf v. vnif iiaua,* fcrevinff
<;^^. . 294 lii, A9P. 37,40, "HsYlng I'ound det«rid.*nt liable ior br«^cn-
ing ita contraat tii* jury should ha-v«, by alBplo ooj&putation, aatl-
a«tt«4 th« dasukgaa ,..,*'
liiaftfndtint m^ya Uial even 11 tha Terilict wue tua r«8ult
•f ooaprvciaa, sueb a Tcrdlot lor plalittiil vlix i oi. La dlaturbad
•a thia account, oitlng eticea. ii> tka cited caftaa tna dalatiditnt
•ppaaled, -nnarf^eia nara trie piuintifl conpl'&ina. Iha uourta UuTa
said th8.t It isbettar policy t« end litii<,ution ^y suaialning a
Judlgmaat far Kk aaallar umount ihstn «aa clttisad ^nd proT«A ty tha plain-
tiff, »haneTar tna plaintiff i« eutisflad ^^ith it, tivar* i;o prolong
tba atrifa by raaanfling tha cuaa lor a new trial. Central iruat Co.
V. iottflin. 194 ill, App, 394, (not rt^portad in full), & arr*ao v^ tj^m
▼anea Yerra Jotta Co . , 311 ill, App. 516, bdao involved an apptal by
dafendant. iioggra ¥, Weller . 137 111. App, 314, an action for a ponal^,
■•rely hald tnat a oooiproi&iaa verdict wau sot involved -^nerc* the amount
"la vithln the r«nga oi the taa^l:uony of the i/itncaaaa .a e value and
ia aupported by aoaa aueh tettinuony. ' In the inatjoie oaae it ia ad-
alttad timt no contradictory avldt'nea on Ui9 ctuaatian of the v*lua %f
ylaintiff *e aarvioaa in tha landlord aaaa waa presented by the <)<>«
fondant.
Xf plaintiff waa entitled to raoovar under tne facta aa
]ir«aant«« upon the trial no vaa entitled ta recover the full amount
clalaiad. "a jury haa no right ta render a oaorlcloua and arbitnsry
J' Tardict In tetrU, diaragard of tha faota. a verdict o.ouln be conaiatent
tiith at l^aat soma lat^itii&ata theory of tha avidan «, cr wuat tha avi-
€anaa tenda to prova, and siuat rrat upon noma <*ound prircipla; and whan
it 1b not wftrr;irted by any le^itionita interpret itlon oJ ih» evidence,
or of what may be • airly inferred from the r-viiianoa, it ou^ixt to ba
aat aaltfa." Conrad Seiiw Brawipft coj v, ifgk, tts iii. App, 637.
Tha JudgiLant ia revaraed and tha criusa r oanded.
MVZRUi&D AliD }uXAMti£I),
Matehett and «^*Conner, JJ. » concur.
$ltm.ii% «M$t' «t<»W '^$i.i»'a,«7 d/itr 'U a»v9 i&M li')^,@<.4 i'<^.i?.«i«fl«^
.=t^«aw«3U.jgi^i*S .Uisri i.a ,»#n*«^« *«s»} .♦i'«8 .«««. .xii *ti: .,.MM^..ffl
rj^ i^««^ is«' fesvl^vni 88 ii** ,,fti£ .q^iift .ill. XlS « •tSl..Mifisc»^32.£LJt'SiHl
^^JJiKw^.4i 'm'i -mMm. m ,J^M ..^i^a ,Ut tsx «3iii»i_4XJg3tai^ .iti««*s»1*ft
mim fill .11 .»M» $»tv^D««i &m Jll "^ .^«[»inll»»l £U»t<*-^ imm x^l i«#v«mfi^ ttl
,?«d .<|<jA ,. _^ .:._,..,.., ,...,..._...... „„:„-™ ._M3Mi *»»^i«« **«
.,6*i*ttj9iflS8^« ♦«■«*?.» «»«i#- fete i^«»«*if<»« «1 ^ma?g*«t «f^
39692
r"
Ciry Nri.IIOHAL BAUK .vFU T/;U5T
COMPAlTYj a corporation* 'u trustee,
and Cl^mLJ:. i: .PUIiLIG T^:IET JOMPAiry,
a corpor:ition» as trust<ep
/ ppellants ,
vviLiiAM H. .aEinr,
PPTi'vL FROM SUPERIOR
T, COOK COUlfTY,
299 I.A. 610
t
ppellee» )
MR. JUSTIJi 3?RI,JND ^iQIlTJ^.D TH3 OPITHOIT OF TKi COIHrr.
Plaintiffs broueht suit against v«llllam H. "jtaery upon an
Instrument of guaranty made by Hr» oinery together vdth certain other
indiriduals, tliree of '.vhom were appellees in cases numbered 39691,
39693 and 39694* The four cases were consolidated on appeal and
opinions were filed in the three foregoing caBee on ^Tovemher 17, I95a»
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 23, 1938, of villiaia H» Jnery, and
represented to this court that on ^Tovenfljer 28, 1938 j letters of ad-
ministration had issued by the Probate court of DuPage county to
Ifarjorle ... -mery, as executrix under the last will and testanent of
her husband, and they moved that in accordance with Par» 216, sec.
92 (1) (b), of the Jivil Practice ,.ct (chap. 110, Illinois B*irised
Statutes 1937) an order of substitution of Marjorie v.. .mery, as
executrix, be entered in lieu of the defendant. That motion was
allowed.
■ ecember 27, 1938, plaintiffs, through their counsel further
moved the court to revive and continue the cause against Marjorie '. •
Jmery, ac executrix, ..iuhout a change in the title of the case, and
.|v2-., ti*
stite
i"--. «^ .
I : ■^e&M0^J.
10
et^Oiir tM UAlXSJW
utm^i^^mi WisiimQ m^ oMsmjM^ mmi:
|3C«I iVX 'istfan5Tr©¥. no 6«wa* Siiioaoio'i d&idi eS* ni feo... rr^ljteifo
5ffj& ii%%9ig^ *H «s±XXJS»? 1o t8S«X »89 iscToitoO ao illJjRS* srf:t
to Jff9aes»9^ feHja XXi?;y tfdjsi ttrfjT 'r^bnu x.tiiiio»3t9 <&b tT"
«6©« ,&IS trf*?!; iWJtv eonj3bl60&9 «i is^i feaveei v^r*
1.0 1. zjH"
»i4-aa^.
-2-
to authorize the is ui«^« «*•
iB.uanoe of .umaons iy the clerk ,f this court
a.a.n.t .e. a. e.ocutn.. co^„ai„, ,„ ,, ,,^,^ _ ^^^^ ^^^
^.h. t^ =xo.r an. jud..e„t or tM= co„„ shoul. not .e e„t«„,
against her ac executriv T^r.*.
xecutrax. That znotion was likewise allowed, and
sunmionK isr^ued rctumfihle to the iq-^o -. v
.0 the 1939 Februaiy term of court.
-. «Xe. .er ap,e„.nce .„ ..,,„,, ,„ ,,, 3,,,_^,^
^^y..c. a.. ,„tc„e„e. .„ t.a .co.a. p„coe«„^ „„„„,,,,„ ,,
tne Jut'smsnt of the .-u»ii or ^n„-^»
ap>. or court, an,.- praying that It he rffir«d.
n.. re..o„. .et forth an. ooncluslo., reached m c.use Ho.
^«.e.l are co„tro.U„e In thl. .no th. oth.r c.eoU.atea proceeain.,
^.nia. „. ..ery „a. the sole .efen.ant In thle cause, ana since un.
tno -.Datement statute ^nn^^^
(IlUnoi. Hevised ...atutas lSi7, ch..„. V, .>,d
authorities oon.truln. It (-ith, .^a^.y^,.l^t^ Opal^Klni^
-^ S3 xu. .a. .,t,.,,f ,.11..^. ,,, ,,,. ,;;;;3;^.
v,-oOuil£^ 296 111. «3, Kelthj.^_^iaj^ 231 .,, „ ,.
eeo^^^^ "" °" ^^ontractB, 1938, vol. e
Bee. 1945, pp. 5449, 545G) contract inM-n^c
l>e entered herein the ""^'^^ ^^^-^°"^—^' Jud^-t should
H. .mery. accordingly, the judgment of the ux,e-^icr .
two « . i^ X .ne . upe.ior court rendered
this cause io reversed and the cpus«^ ia r«n . ,
„ , , '^^'^■' ^^ reiuanded with directions to
enter Judgment in favor of «lalnfif^<-
Plamtiffs ano against Marjorie ... Jxnery.
as executrix under the last win o„^ ^ .
xast Will and testament of -yim^-, „
("eceased, for the amount sued m-r i
, ,, ' '°"' ^'"^ attorneys, fees, as provided
m the instrument of ^ranty, proof of vMch vva. ex^res^ 1 .
""" ""■' express,!;- postpone^
until final detennln , tion of the cause.
Burke. P. J., and 3mii„„. j.. ,„„,^^
•-S-
^ri i^n hXworia fXMOO sift'* ^® ''"***^'- "^
S.Kie.'^fvVrT .bteOS^ Oils "J- •-1-'
■ . „W* (,i »B,Bl>03't»l> SJ;**""* ''**''*^^-
» (I »ato .Wex E.»»»*.)2 68eiv« aioaUilJ »>«»• :
.jSle ,8Qa .M- .-t" «S .»_- ~i-- 8«S iSiiHa«-l2
, ., a .II iUS .in X« aS^jJl-SitS* ,81* .i" . **-»^
. i,„f ^vmiTS .«oJt^oa t««5*n^^ (®3^» ««**^ •'^^'
"^" r „.,a*ft errr d^M^^^ too:.*! ,^*«*i^W ^^ *aa«*rci«oi.
40337
/
HA.I10LD }.U JOHUS, V. / )
/ "\ ) AimjSA.L KiQM SUP LJOR COURT,
^* / \ ' I
/ / ) / ">I^K COUNTY.
PAUL J. LUTZisLL, / / ) / ^A X
AHPen.../ / i^ 2^9 I. A. 610
MR* JUSTI.Cxi; FHIiilUD Di^HlViSiaD Ttti OPI.TIQH Cj" THIi COttiT.
Harold R* Jones appeals from a decree of the Superior oourt
awardins Paul J. Leitzell, defendant, an attorney at law» $1,923*49
for legal services rendered partially under a written agreement
"between Jonec and Leitzell and alao 'Jinder an alleged oral contract
for the partition of two parcels of real estate in which Jonoa had
an interest as tenant in coi-Buon with other hsirs gf his father's
estate*
The ecaential facts disclose thc^u plaintiff wjiS the son and
heir at law of Maxwell M. Jones, v.ho diod intestate Janvtary 2^^, 1928*
^1.8 Buoh heir plaintiff wac entitled to 2/9ths of his father's eetate*
Hie mothar was ajj^jointed administratrix shortly lifter the intestate's
death, and proceeded to administer the estate from the date of her
cppointment until October 20, 1937* when she filod a final acaoiint*
IIuv inventory as administratrix lists various stocks, bonds and
securities of considerable value, but did not contain a parcel of
real estate located at 3945 ^llis avenue, Ghiongo, nor a cash item
of ;;'1,9.'U.10, l»uring the nine year period of administration, the
administratrix failed and ap.)aix3ntly refused i,o file -^ny current
accounts, and plaintiff was unable to obtain any informsition frcan
her regarding the relets, receipts on bonds or stocks or other income,
although he made nuaeroue reo.ueste*
On November 10, 1936, plaintiff retained Leitzell as his
fiiSO^
M\ \
'sfm^ £iiT -so ioB:Ko san; &simum mmm^ '•^i^ifmi .^'''
#fi«gas»s«S-B HPi^aH^w j3 3©l>««r: '^XX^id-^.«<£ fe«5»fefi©it s»©iTS£«e X«8»X 'mt,
*a* .jfito® »if* 8*3S? llj^.tKi^Xg^ ;^4a^ aaaXaaife aisfii X«±iJ^iBS«Q» aifiP _. ^.
iimJODQ£i Xaitxl « k&lkt arfa ttmiw «fg©X ,0S i©«R>*»0 liirtu d«««a*Hio<^o[«o
^ Xeo'ss^s; £? ffi,a*fa>» Sow MB c^JrtJ ■«««KfJBV aXcfjaidiieecc Ji««©ea
©fl* inoL^n%i<imi}.ti te bol%&%. tAVX m.i£i otis gixiiufi: •OXcXS^tXC^ ^o
a^ aa XXsE^iSil oeuiisJQi lliiitiJsJcr ,aseX «0X leefiHc^Tofc f*>
-2-
attorney to represent him in obtaining an accounting and Ms Bhare
in the proceeds of Ms father's estate, under the folloT.7ins written
agreement J
"To: Paul J. Leitaell,
111 v«« ..ashington Ct*
CJhio-igo, Illinois
This inntrument does confirm ray harinc; engaged, coiiaiix3:;ione(8,
hired and a^jnintaC. you ' .ij my attorntsy to represent me, personallyy
in all matters pertalnin^ to niy ri htB as the oon and hoiv .:': law
of li^cweil Mt Joner, Deceased, v/hose ietate is nov. ponding in the
Probate Coxirt of Cook County, under the number apper.rin.; at the
top thereof*
You are 1.0 rec^iTe for your saryiceL previously rendered and
to be rendered in my beho.lf , an amount equal to 25,t of any amount
of cash or t.uinj of value Lhtit i mbty receive on such heir from the
iistate of FAXwell M« Jones, iieoeased, over and above i.uiy real or
personal property heretofore inventoried in ssdd iatate,
Harold R» JonttS
Approved Paul J* Leitzellf
.ttorney."
Subsequently, in January, 1937, plaintixi^ requested defendant
to file partition of a parcel of real actate at 4721-25 I^angley avenue
in Ciiio-ijo, improv3d with an ei^ht apo-x^tment building* and some time
later plaintiff requested defendant to file another partition on the
property at 3945 ..lliB ?,venuep in boxih of v.hich plaintiff had an
ini-ereet as a tenant in common. Both partition suits ytere referred
to u&sterEi and extensive hcaiingu v.'ere had* 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
Othc o'-.ners of the property decided to settle their differences so as
to EuTO expenses, and acjordingly both proceedinga vvere dismisaed on
plaintiff's motiono* Hov/eyer, beiore dismissal, the court rerof erred
the ciusea to the respoctire masters for the purpose of fixing
attorney's fees and costs, and they fixed the attorneyts feep and
expenses at #1,323 .40 in cme ca.5e and ;Jl920«»4C in the other case,
aggregating: i:'2,632«80«
It clearly appeaX's tlmt in the probate proceeding the admin-
istratrix and her daughter, Florence, plaintiff b sister, aat-umed a
defiant attitude toward ple.ini-iff, and filed and refused to render
,TXX^aoe:£ef? tO'- t- v^ -'- wc»\ .^i^ {>m^5 beiixf
''- ^4 (si :g;.- ^ i. '''' '**^ XXe^«J~-w3iA l:d
*XXes*iisy: *% M^e^ fie-roTcqjg.-..
'^^♦'iE*«««>**iA ■':..■:•■ ..--. :.;.;,';'^..; >;; :
^rr^iiB^'ltS'fe- ilMif««f&p©t t'ii-^£ci^Xq ffS^X ,vlEii:«iff!:«L ai ,xX*.!ft«ts«<f«® . ,,,-.....::■?.,■.
otjnavJB 1S«JE|ii!fi^ Sfi-aCSf* *« m&iQ& £j»&'% 1® X«»isjs(j « ^ mim's^m *P^ #t
ogii;f »flK»«i fee* B^jfiiMisret %6«;ri®G[<a di^X© SW Ml^^f hWQXqal ^9^»ai0) e^t..
no b©&«i3S«il)- <^«>»- «»|rfllfe&ft«©-ij| if*«^^^ hrnfH- 'tm^fSW[K9 sfraa mi
-3-
the annual accounts roc aired by statute during the nine years
administration in the Pro'bate court, and although plaintiff often
30ught and requested information regarding income on assets "belong*-
ing to the estate, he w.s never able to obtain tho same* In f aot ,
the administratrix and his sister would not eren diocuBs tho matter
with him. Consequently, after interminable delay, plf.intiff e ought
and obtained the services of one or two attomeysi and finally
entered into the written contract hereinbefore set forth with Leitaellj
who avoordlng to the deeree appeared in court approximately on t^^renty
different occasions to force the adininlstrstrix to close the estrte,
had many confer-nioea with his client, the administratrix and her
attorney rer^rding an accountin,?, examined many papers and roports
from tine to time, %vrote approximately fifty letters to various ccm-
panien pertaining to the stock hold by -che estate to determine tlie
suttovjjit of dividends, if any, paid thereon dttring che period of .idminie-
tration, and in all devotacJ r^p proximately 200 hours under his contract
of emploj'ment. As a result of these services the administratrixj
after a rule to show cauee had been entered against her, and an attach-
Bent issued, filed her final account. This was procured entirely
through the efforts of defendant, and as a result thereof plaintiff
reoeiTod a chock for v5,782«50, being his distributiro Bh?ire of the
proceeds, aftiiT the deduction of certain expenses. This check was
payr.ble to plaintiff and defendant, the latter having therutof ore
served notice of an attorney's lien for the amount due him for aer-
vioee rendered in the Probate court proceeding. Plaintiff thereupon
filed the complaint in this onse to release the ac.omoy'o lien and
oano3l the check so that another nieht be issued to him. Lcitsiell
ansvrered and ;ilso filed a counterclaim, h,ll3ging there was due him
$3,aC6.18, lor services rendered in all these matters, including th»
partition euits. The chancellor allowed defendsnt !?1,0(X) as atooniey'i
fees in each partition proceeding, and also found that there was due
^rs.B&x ©Bin srfj 'onlrab aii/^jsda x^ bsxlMpint a^r^eo^a Imsim &Ji^
«8«oX»<f 3*9aas no srajonx saiMEB©^ noW^fiixo'iKi bsJaewps-r bija ^^fewoe
nixes*! &^f^i^ li^«©^ <J9a »'S#l«difi)9^«ti #o«t*iT03 fte**i«w, -^^ yowl; ^^?«*iie
\iiM ba^ xt%tm^9lBM^j^ ' 9^ ■ ttm&^ BMWpf- «*«*«©*» tiSb^" W^' ^^
T5X»^nistt» Ii«tcjj3«icq aaw aidl? •iuiJOcoB X««i^ xsK feeXi^ ,fc»waai JflWtt
©rtioloi ewrCJ sxixvaii W!**«X »ifi ,*a*&a*i»b ba» rkXi$tl»l(t, et »X<f«^sq
• ■xsa xo\ JBiri ©1^6 ;fx««5ae Mit tol itelX a'^cew^^^® f' ^O" b^vx^^
aoqsj&r&dii i'i*ni:jBi^ •^ftifea*ooi«| *♦-: -o-i^ ©iriE* ixi fe&«i9&i»i 8»blf
baa a&LS. G^\e>n'xoiia edi 6SA«Iiw; o* SMMiO «iKi* Hi tktfiXqaoo fttf*' b9ttY
m.hi mb Bsv^- &i&d^ saxgoXX^ ,'j*l<«X»*©\^fiin>© '« feaXil "iffteXfi Ssjb tt^tm^tt^
9«ft aelbtfXoci tSf!£«tf;?j^ susrC* XX« «x 6e'x«6jK«'S Bftcltiiia 'iftf 'V^«&6^«£|
a»^frt^dls ■aa-'istJO^Xf 'imha&'is>H i^®i|«"^X9»i«ib etfl! •aJiwa «oi::^i;ft£«q;
him #108 ■48 for s^rrioes untax ths vrittan contr&ot pertulnlng to
the Pro'bate court proceedings » repreeenting 25^ of the 2/9thB share
of plaintiff in a cash itom of "'1»951«10 which had not hoen inven-
toried \j thfl ndninistratrix* The dooree found that after ailowing
credits for payiuents mace hy plaintifx" and expenses incurret] by defend-
ant there wsm due the latter ;1»925«29» and that defondtant had a lien
on the ;^f782*50 check for Ihis amount* and ordered payment thereof,
i>efendant eerred notice of a cross appeal, ccmtsndino thit the
ehanoell«r erred in the amount of attorney's fees allowed in each
partition suit^ claiming the full amount of the re spec tire nums of
$1»323*40 and ..1*209 •40» rdcoimaexided hy the masters » and th;it the
court also erred in not allowing defendant the g^mi of '>1»445,«3,
helng 25f: of the amount recorered by plaintiff in the prohat«3 court
proceedings through the efforts of defendant under his written oon-
txMt with Jones.
The principal contiroreroy arises over the confitruotlon of tho
Titritten contract • Plaintiff oorifeende thixt the contract of enployjnont
applies to the partition suits p.s well atr tho services to he performed
in the Probate court* Defendant, on the other hand, argues that tho
omtract covered only *"he Probate court proceedings i an^ that the en-
gagement to file the two partition stdts wp-n ors-l, sejjerate and apart
froi the written agreeaent. The ("ecree si)ocifioi.ll7 fount? thnt
"suhsequent to the execution of the written contract ***, Jonet ro-
Huested and employed Leitzoll to institute tv^o partition suite *♦*,
and that I.oitzell did institute two partition suitf (deBcri"birg thorn
"by number) and rendered ccmsi('er*le vnluRble services in and **->■
prosecuting both of said cnses to the point of the entry of the deoree
in each case** .e think the ocntrr ct ii^ un^jnairruous, and that since
the employment with reference x,o the p;irtition suit Aas made long
after the contract «as entersd iito, thjre can be no question but
that it «8is an independent and oral agreement and was not included
.»to»tic«C^ Inoffi^iHf b®a0Jbifa. ^4:1 ^.im'mfi sLMi mt^^^&dii) 0^»mf*Q^ «»£^ m
;ufii!£0*iT»q »(f oi a$sim9« ©if* a« Ji£im 8« aiiaa aoiii*Tt«^ arf;* 0^ 8siX^f«
;^a^j3 £aa »#iBXiatt«ift «Xj3%e «A«r a^jSxra ixe)£^ii<£fi^ o-»» «ti£# «Xit •# itftmn^sst
etsdS ii«rl«ri;vo89&) -^ilu^ mtiXi^J^ mt vK^^tHatii bih llwf^i^d tMi htm
B^j^Xeiti ^OM B.-m him ^eeetcM^'acs.^ X«x«t art« tf«aBit«qtbKi hjr o^ ;tl ;»adij
-5-
in the -written undertaking. It is undit^-puted that in the oourse of
the hearing the parties stipulated p araonc other things » that defend-
ant rendered ull tiie neceiiuury cerrices in connec^.lon v/ith the parti-
tion suitsj that they v.gra completed to the point where c>?cree tvas
r.boul tc Le untared in each catse, and that they were disnii. ni-ed on
plaintiff n motion in order to ^tts further oxpontJe, and thcvt the
rouGoneble and iair aiuounto due to Leitsell for B.3rviceo rondtsred in
the^e prooeedinga were respectively *1,325,ao and i'l,209«4C'» r,s found
"by the masters. Under the circiiinBtariceR, and in vie-;v of the ctipu-
lation of the parties, -we thi^k the court erred in reduoins the respec-
tiye fees to >'1,000 each, and that defendant is entit-led to the aggre-
gate EUBi of $2,532.80, A Btipulatlon of the pcrtiec; in a proceading
is renernlly held to "be conclusive (City of Chicago y«_:;yrexel, 141 111*
89 J Brooks t« Ostr ander, 153 111* App» 78 1 and Julror y, aouelo* 165
111. 417.) ' '
iith referanCQ to the amount rjou,^ht t;o bo recovered by ^3itzell
in the i-robate oourt prococ.dinp:» vo are of opinion tiiat defendant is
entitled to recover only 21t:' of 2/9 ths of the iteci of ;i^l, 951.10, vftiich
Was not inver.toried by the administratrix, because it va^o through
leit?.ell«s efforts ^.hat plainciff's distributive ehare cf thiti i ten was
Bade avail.^blo to him. The larger dii^iriljutive share, of v/hich Leit-
?:ell uloo claims 25;f» vras inv .ntoriod by the administrntrix .'-nd ulti-
mately would have been paid to Jones in any event. Therefore, the
decree of the Superior court ie reversed and the cause is remanded
with directions thtt it be modified eo that I^itzell be allov/ed the
aggregate sum of v2,532.80 for services rendered in th? tT<o pai'tition
suits; «h.v.t he be paid 23' on 2/9thG of the Horn of ■;1,951.10| and
tliat after crediting Jones with the fees paid on icccun"., and adding
the c.peuses incur/ed by dui'endanti the decree fix the agf^regate amoiat
due Leit?iell as indicated herein, and enter jud^^ent tiioieon, and that
the £.;; ree? ie ajnount found to be due may be fixed as a lien on the
5,782.50 check in Jones's posseoeionk
JJ.1XJHSE RLlV-nSIilJ ASU CAUSE R illlA.lTD.^D
■.,'ITK DUlJJTIOirS,
Burke, ?. J., and Sullivan, J., concur*
-fisi^t&h tMi tS^nM$ smite T^iffflwa f:fe«f#^i«gJl';^« aslrJ^^ ««#■ ^itJiwi s&ifd
-■'■ ■ttrf* i^islwt 6ff» •,-#Sff(!j^» •laas^iesrt -e*^*! ■■<»* i^^m^' d^'''milimi:'^^MiJSJ^
oiwo'i att ,0'J^«^Stit fieri ©*>»fiSS^*it ij;X<»l>'i3'o«t8d'jE ■^«8r# BSfttfid^-ftCfXt »a©ift
-ifXxj bdM xJttctjsrtEtaiscfigi&jar ««^-" t«f b&i.ttii^mrRi e,.-^* «.'??6S aatiaXo oaXw Has
aifiJ^ t&'*«lE««aMlf •^;rt#v« pfjs al «»©»% o* &Jt4jq imftcf •r^ii feXtfOw ^Xs^jaat
riOl^Mrcfiq ©w3' ,©4* flJt i>«tt6»i>^■i^''-■ ■>.«,-. I v'-i-,:- ■rrv'^i- .■..•■<, O/- •■3, ■-•■■ •.•,-> ,*. ., ^.4 .....-- -^
2!«j« 4 6X,X^»,X¥ lo itt®ji V
40364
JACOB STL^HCSLa!, ^ .
Appellee, \^
TH01IA.S MUGCaTO, B. M. PATTOI
e t al • I
i'efendants .
OK APPa-a 0? B. IC. PAXTCjf,
Appellant*
GOUirf, C'X)K GOUETTY.
299 LA. 610'
MB* JUSTICE yRlJailJ l;allIV2K3D TH3 OPIITIOIT GS TH3 C-OUKT,
Mrs» B. M# Patton appeals from an order of the Superior
court denyinc, her petition and motion to expunge from the court
records certain orders entered, respectively, January 12, 1934,
vpril 12, 1934, and Hoventoer 20, 1934. The original suit arose
out of the xoreclosure of a trust deed securing payment of a note
for '4,0':>0 on property at 6822 South Mood street, Chicago, A
decree of foreclosure of the trust deed was entered l^ecemher IS,
1932} sale of the premises was had January 13, 1933, and tha report
of sale and distribution by the master was approved January 23, 1933«
No receiver was appointed to collect the deficiency reported by the
master, "but during the period of reden^jtion Jacob ^tangle, plaintiff
in the foreclosure suit, collected the rents from the premises* The
period of r edemption expired ..pril 14, 1954» Prior thereto v^tangl*
filed a petition in the Superior court qn d had an order that his final
account of the receipts and disbursements of the premises ^ approved
and that the balance on hand be applied to payment of real estj* e
taxes on the property. vnother order entered in the Superior court
Hovairiber 20, 1934, provided that the receipts aid disburseiaentB of
the premises foreclosed, ae shown by o tangle ' b account from October,
«OIH5L-q3ET2 lSt)lJt X
^£0^
•Taat^D EST ^ T30iHi«£o ^s agHavMaii wmim. souami «j|i
?ai'i»qMu acid Tl& x&bin, a& laoil aXsK^gs iK3*#^ tM «£! ♦axM
,l»SeX «SX -^TiJirnfit tYXavxcfoacici©^ <b©:£o;rn© a'ce&tio nis^r-rso efe^ooat
©.1on ^ lies #a9*PR£'Sq gniiaiass 6®s& *aifat« « 1© sswaoXaasoi afi* la iim
fSflqst «|4^ &UJS «£iEeX M^l •<^Mtt&X> bad M^ 9p^ia&%q. fuii lo oXj9S c^^eX
•»6£©X ,£S T^'s^-aJWi^'^ i^av-ptg^^ a«isr. «ft«J8iB,«4^ -^ ,floi#«tfix^-ei6 6«« eX^iai ,1j9!„:
©Xansiii ois'£S«I;t loi^. *|k£SX ,*a Xixq^ fe,ftTi:Xqx0 ml'i(m^k^t%9Ji9H9(i
Xaiti'x aM ^sifi as&'i© aa oajl Am ;f?i»o iKoi^cruS 9^i nX jek»W1*»« « b»Xxl
"io iiJneatsa-Ajjcfaife tan |i*{i„ : ^ J€X tOr; .■vfiru.-cvo'K
-2-
1932, up to and Including January, 1934» "be approved and tlw
balance on hand, of ^228»78f as shovm "by ^tangle'e report and
account, be credited to the deficiency entered in his fayor.
May 24, 1938, seme four years later Mrs, Pattoa 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 hy
the court, and prajrins 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 tha orders were
null and voidt Upon hearing, the court denied llrs. Patton^s motion,
and she has proeecuted this appeal to reverse the order thus entered*
Th» question presented is whether the court had Jurisdiction
during the period of redemption to enter the several orders coaplain-
ed of by petitioner* ..Ithough the original decree of foreclosure
did not reserve jurisdiction for any purpose, the order £5) proving
the master*e report of sale and distribution found a deficLenoy due
Stangle, amounting to ; 964*10, and it awarded him "a lien upon the
rents, issues and profits {.rising from the said real estate described
in said decree during the full fifteen months* statutory period of
redemption as provided for by lavv for the full amount of said defi-
ciency," and he was authorized by said decree "to collect the rents,
iesues and profits arising from said real ectate descri"beo in said
decree, during the full fifteen months' statutory p<?viod 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
pled_ed ab- security for the payment of the indebtedness secured
thereby, and the court retained jurisdiction in Baid order or decree
"of thig cause and the rents, isaues and profits cf said premises,
&t^ *Teq[0T: .-.»oXBnJ«*#-l6f mode qjb tS'i'*S2St to ,l^flM cto aoajslacf
jB &©Xil ii©t*aS «a«M t^taX:' qij^^x ^W'i 0«>s ,85©X t*S ^eM
Xd aotsB "jU» Xiefoiq:ris aif* tteiajm &A^ t^' mJt:!fsMt'!£ihth &m <sXsa ^
&xw»«Ics"Xol lo QOTO&b imit-gtL'O «fJ jfe»or£^XA «T»»ox*iiftc][ X* ^<> *®
^ ftoiaoqt *©*<****« 'atift^oa «s«^'£il llut »Ai ^isXiJib ssTO&b bjt«a nj
' ftr^ isJt &«tfi*r«)a©a <al»*®* Xaca ^iee «B«1 ^iaita ijitoigt Jtms ssuaai
•%&Si9x6lla& 6i^* t« Stasoism lltft »sit ^ot i>«« w«X -^rf tfo'l bjs&iTOTq aa
^^r* -^.^ P,^t
6 ■■::■;/
tic &jX''»^i' >0^;&©Xq
-3-
icr the purpose of satiefying arxah deficiency out of Bsid r(?nt8»
issues and profits thereof "by the appointment of a receiver or
othsr'/Tlae.'*
Tlie low ie well rattled thrit durin:? the period of r.B-Jen^tion
the rents from the premises belon;? to the owner of the equity, unless
they are seciuestered through the aqjointment of a. receiver or eciae
other dlspoBition thereof is made in thn decroa. ( Lightoap v.
Bradley, 1B6 111. 510.) The trust deed forsolosed oontaLned the
usual provinion pledging the rents, xscues and profits as additional
Becurity for tite ptr-^ymQv.t of the duht , and when the master's sale left
a deficisncy, -laintiff i.ould have "beoi entitled to the appointment
of a receiver to c llect tlrie rents and apply them toward the defi-
ciency. TTo rsceirer was appointed, Lo-wever, but in lieu thereof the
decree of sale and distribution found a lien in .tangle on the rentB>
issues and profits to the e:-:tant of t>964#lc, during the full fifteen
months' statutory period of redemption, and it wac ohvlously intended
that he should gi into possession and c alloc t the rents \.o moke up
the deficiency* Having done soi^ hz would 1»e accountalile to the court
for receipts and dishur Dements, just the same as a receirer would
have oe^n* 'ilio language of the deoree of sale and distrihution evi"
dently contemplated such an arrangement, and ^tangle, having collected
the rente, made his report to the court and had the court's approval
of his accounting dxjrlng the redemption period* e think the decree
of t:jile and distribution sufficiently reserved jurisdiction in ihe
comt to pass upon tangle's accounts, hut even without specific reser-
vation for that purpose, courts alvmye retain Jurisdiction to give
effect to their decrees ( First Hational liank of Jhica, -o v. Bryn Ms-wr
Building 3orp> > 283 111, App. 267; affirmed in 365 111. 409), and
since ..tangle was given a lien on the rents, issues and profite and
was there-by authorized to collect the same, it would naturally follow
^ateiia ejtJ ce «J[^?fi#S ai; a«iX a &r«o1 fiel;i^£fl«^ai6 l^aia j^^Xaa "io s®^o«5
AXjR»w tsvi's&d'i iS 3« eiftsii ajiS' dsi/t »a#«iantoatiiro'«i:Ji» 6«:« a^^jxaj^a-s 'sol
XsTO-xq^^ a«*'^j?^o acC# b£:i hff.s ixvoo 9di oj tx»js% ttM 9l>^a ^iJ^mrt. tfdi
^^ o* JEf»i^c#i:&ai3:a|, xji^^©^£ ar^jswl^ ata:i«n> ^aa^KT^ff,! ^■^iti-J' xo^ a»i:-^«T
hn^ «(90^ .XXI ilM aX Saa-xi^la ff*fi ♦^j^A *IXI fiSS ♦jl1HLB«MM
has 3#i'io^q ^«a a«Rf39i^a^afi% arftf so ^«.i:X * ssria a^ aXgfis^^^ ^nia
tmlXo-S ^^X0;r«„ ^a^ t4.,«ffll«»,««W 4«^XS^».iM| «saixorf^m. ^jcfo^wi;? «^vf
-4-
that the coxirt would tuiTS jurisdiction vdtMn the redemption
period to ■pa.ea upon his receipts and expenditures and enter
orders either approving i disapjroving or modifying thext.,
^or the reii£ons given we are of the opinion thp.t the
order of the F-uperior court of June 23, I9389 denying petitioner' b
motion to expunge the several orders f r jm tha record* ohould he
affirmed and it is so ordered.
Burke, P» J», and Sullivano J., concur.
^-^otsoto oe si d'i &ji« feaarxilsts
i^^r-.r,;,^J,.
^.rs^i'j^j^; ri^^y fiPfS ;f'^-:'.(.:";. iilT
40259
A-
AXEXi^Js^DlSR 'I. SPITZi f ) \
Ax^^eilf, / ) I
i ) ^APPEAI. JTRbM
s
ICIPAL COURT
vs.
0.b'
)T)ellanf.
Ail, XJSTIC3 ii^iTCliiTT .DJilVJfiJtiiJD Mi^ -ji^li.IOi^ Oi'"' THIi COURT.
In an action or a contract ( i'ourtn class) upon trial by tiie
court tiiere was a linrting I'or plain till i'or #252 witn jua;-rment, from
which defendant anneal b. The suit was 3or eervices as ari arciiitect
and in dralting pi ens lor tVie erection of a fas lHJing station in
ChicSLgc. Tnc plaintill testiTied in futets: <"e tijat derer..:^ojit ea;-
plcyed ''!lrr to draft the plsne and tsJfe ctiarf.? of tne construction
of the tiiiidin^ for the ueuyl coapensation of 6% of ta'e cost of con-
c-truction, v-ic'n Trag *5450. Defende-nt dirl not -oer'ait pl-^intiff to
superirteni tVie coretruction ; hie claim i^ee tnerefcre reduced ac-
corc'irf: to the urupI custom un'ler such ciicume tancee. Defendant
testifiec' plp.intiff a{;reed to draft several plraiR or sxetcives to be
Bubnitter' to him for his ;i.pprovRl or rej faction, iinri tnat if the
pl.'.'jiB Y/ere satisfactory he was to pay; if not Katisfactory tiiere
•rculn be no caarge. Defendant ar^-ues lor reversal because ne re-
jected the clans, beinf., tne sole Judge of wnetiier tne plans were
catisf actory. He cites aut orities from Goodri ch y^ Van, inprtwick,.
43 111., 445, to Union Leat.;ue, Club v. Blymeyer Ice^Jkacnine Co., 204
111., 117, to the effect t-at wnere one agrees to render services
satisfactory to anot -er party, he may not recover tierefor on the
theoiy triat someone other taan tne person contracted witn is satis-
fied. It ■will not be nec'='ssary to ciisciiss tJ'ie doctrine with its
refinements nnr" distinctions. Tne parties diss.gree as to wi^iat the
contract ir fact "/as. The evidence is conflicting on all ifjsucs.
In the trial court the burden of proof was on lae plaintiff. ihe
2HUO0 JA'SlIO:
1
fmu
%0 i (
.XSUOO fclHT uu .iiOliil'iO !S3# a{Sia.VXJii.<l. 'i'TJiaiOTAAl {lOlXBt/i; .lifit
*.cii Ytf S.3lti aocis (asslo li^iuo't ) d'OBtd'noo s no nciiSB as nl
laoi'i. ^tasm^btii iiiiw saSaf lo'i YiiiuisLq lo'i ignifjni'J: e asw stedi d-atteft
c^osiJirio'i^ xjs as esa ivies tot isosi? Jxsjs sxlT ,a.J!fisgcfi; d'aeBao'ts^ /ioiriw
fljc aoxJn.ts gallli'i. sb-b « to aoxJuQi© ©iij "xo't ai^jslq aftid-'tstfl ai huB
*«S9 taefcit9"i9fc ct-.sxij 9">:i.sj8dua ni fyi^i'tid^sQi Tti&nlsiLq ©rlT .oaaoxxiO
Hoi*OJJi.tsaoo Sfic}' 'ro 6;jiJ3£io ssLsJ- ba£ aaslcr sad" J'i-en3 o* arir:' Jb«Yoi'?
-noo 'to *aoo srict 'io ^S Ic rroxdaansg.Jioo Ist'su ^.d? lo't ^aifiXxifd sxf* 1o
o;^ 'i'liiatiilq txiirascr cfon r.lh *u,s.6rt9'isiQ .Ofli>S^ 3sw rioir^v ^aoitotj-x&B
-06 b«o.u&9i Qio'te^sncf ssw mistfo airi ;ao.£d-oi.'i^t3aco sxiS- .bn^dTtinsgue
inabne'ted .aeonBdamuoixo rf.oxje tsbnu Bio-taijo Isussr srf* o* '%nl.f>ioo
sa o^ a9riodr©:i3 ro p.asilq S.pys.9rsQ i'XBtb oS h^fiT:}a Ttx^tnEisIq bfit'tliH^i
sjis- 'ts. rnns hitt? .noid'os t^'c "^o i:,.«!.TGT:qcf*^ ain lo'J: niiri oi bQifhadua
-91 9Xi Qaueoad isaiavai lot aajj^us tttsijaa'tsa ,9^-isiio on ad ;:'Ijjc)W
9iav anjBig sad- ii»ii;J©iiw 'to ^gbi/t sXoa en* ^^nxsd' .anvSia 9ii* Jbsd'oat.
t ^0 jwj|; aoia. asV ,^y „ .4o J;iJb,o_oi). laoi't 89Xcl-i'xoi.;tiJ,« a^ljo .sB. .ijiocroBlei^raa
^OS , .oO anxi^3£M_jkoI_t9x§g5£i£_j^L^ «^^^ , .III Si'
asaxvide i@|jnsi od" B-ssase sno biboiit tMdi J-oe't'ls saj- oi ,VIX ,,III
Siij ao lo'tsieiij lavoooi *oa Ysra 9X1 ,x;dic«<i i»n:toiU3 oi i|j»ted-oi;'tsi*««
-si^rfa si iiJxw beiosiiaoo nosisq siiit neri:* taciio snoeKioa J-firiJ- -^oarft
sJi ilJ-iw snxTdoof) airij- seu^ax.b o* x^j3a8'^o»a «d ton IXx-v? ?! .belt
dxl;f ^fi-rtw ot Sfi ^^tgasth aexji«Q exiT .anoicTonx^aifc ^fto BtaQtaBnl'tst
.aewfspi IIb uo gaLjoxIlnoo ax eousftxve srIT .aj3?=' #3x-;^ nl iosiiaoo
•V*- r 4 .-f r r» f ^
2
tri.Tl waa "or t.-i? court. To-i- liiiain--. of tiie tri-il court a^^ra appeal
to t>ii«» court 13 <»nt !. :,l>>i :o t\ci ."an.? *ei^-<iit as the -verdict of i
jur>'. T'':^ controliiri.,; qae^cio." is raXo^d t-y dele.. -I'vr t ' e con ter- Lion
tiiat the findiriii ar.d Jucn^.otiit cr.; olea;c3.j and 4uai:ireali.;y r^cixinot the
wei^^ht oi' the f^vicleiices.
The 8T:Lfenfir( <?'icwh plH.u;tii"i' is f. lic.^iii-.i'd ircfLi :.r;ct ; dti'end-
H.nt , operaliii.-: acvrTuI «,^'-*-' ■■'iil I'U^ sca.:io..M, c. rice-cuia^cd uiie erec-
tion of arother to T^e IroatPd just acrc;8» tim street i'lo);; aciOther
staticn owi^ed :tiid operattd by ivxm, ivae uy.'ter c.r picjrit: vtB l-iitei.
up between plajatifi' tuic?, leferttcuit about uio. I'irsv Tv'eek oj -^uxy,
l--.'37. Bei'fiiioaiit s*ys ue tol':* piLti)'Tiif , "i \uuit a duplicate ol'
this station i f<ji op^Tn due, now. iiiat ail i v/ant is tue v>1hjip i.-.c-
cordiiig to tiii» vild Si-itior) eo L ccun get a pcrL.it," x)»-.aVridaiiT. '^ays
plaintifl' sut~i;^"=-: ted 30/^ie tiling ''urie-t arai'. {"-.l I'l f.-rent , " but u«-j'-iaaiit
eaid Ap vv-anted 'ohe *iae::ticui" Lt.'i*ig Tor £.•€■ new so-ition wx'.i^ r.iifc
ee^iopy Ici't oi"i', Dei'eiidtX; t says he uaid, "I ha,ve to niTe it &o i
CciH get a pe-rti'.it " ; t-.-ac p^;.ii.tiil' ui-tstid tiiS ijew Soaciou aii-ouid be
t'uixt oi pcroeiain sieel ena;»iel anj said he woLJLd prapare a pJ.M.n;
"If you Joo'z iii€ i'c , ail rieiit. 'fou don't nave to j.i-ve lae a
niclcel,** tc -.Thich deienlojit -^aid, ".P^iiu rifi.t, ii' yoa «s.iii «o do
thst, ^0 -laead,**
Uelc.jdaut aibo ttsci/ied he ai'terward rent wixu plaintil'l"
to the p'^dfit of tlit i'crcexijiin 3teei iii^aJ-cl cci^oa-iy waere *n eetifflAte
w&B f^ivei4 of iiirt cos3t 03" 5uch a baij.;iing aa piiiniiiT re couun ended,
Defei-daiit aaye ht; refused to go aaead on fcad.t plan iui'i eald be
wanted a plan acoordiiig ;c t.ae old u^ixiin^.. i^eiendaiit 3ays tnat
at this time only site:..c.ion aketc.ee aud nse.i i^u.de; ^le sciys ol 1i2.tif f
pei-aicted, sa-vint, the iaiidin^ cuuld be con6 .i..ctea ox yurcilain steel
enamel clveaper than of tiii-.-i, terra cot";,u oc Uiytuinti cioS.
i'lax/.tiff says :Jiai aoout Jul^; 8 or S defeiidant cai;iJ2 to .-.ie
office ii^l asxed how lOon he could i^et i.-ie pirj^a. P'j.r.:-i; viif -.old
Xso<iQJ3 Tioqii i%iJOQ -CfeXT.? &f.i 'to ■■ i\ii;/:J:'i fMi'T .d-xuoo '^i.^j T;d »©w Xfilii:*
"to ?3j'iiyjLXq«i' .= .truiw I" ,'tiX.T:dailq[ .f;XQ.:;' 'ni sx^e. in&omi't^d .'^IHL
-ojs BiMsXq. «xic> QX ci'iiow i XXij Jiij.iX ,woa -yaiiwieixo I'^tB X noi-J:...ii3 &Xiii
BXSB jriiBfeii^'iati ".Jijirxsq ^ ;J'sa iujo 1 os acitA-ia bXo yixid^ ci ■%ii.i.&%Q9
9ii;) ij.^xw' noiJasIe warx 9i.fo io'£ gaxir^- "iiiox j.iolii" sxid Xis;}i-i^'» 'ixi feijsa
X oa J.t 9vr£Xi ooT ^^vnr^ I* ,hlfiii ail av-^ d awI.o^'ieQ' .'Jc'io d-'taX t^OiMO
jOf^^ilg ^ axs?.qoiq i.X^jow sii !a.ec L'los Xsuica*. Xaata nx^Xao'ioa 'io iXiutf
£ 910 s/i^ 00 avsri j'uofc iJoY .^xtejii XXii ,jX siiiX j ' aob uox 'il"
0J& od- *ii*iw k,ox, 'tx .;3-aaXt XXA" ,&X£« dfiiiiit®x»i> ioXilw ©:}• "^Isaloin
.hs>.ht3»mBjOtts-i 'I'iXjnXxvXq «s sair;Xxji>«f e iiou8 'to ^feoy ftiU "to ft»vl-^ ajsw
dif iJXosa Isfui afeiq .tiiiid ao Iwaiie o^ o^ &9aii'i»i oil a^^e cfufifciiet&S
I'U^ai^iiCi: sx^^ s^"i j&is^iu m«o iiiiii atxlQ-SSAS aoiaesi-x® xlm> 9mli axrW .tB
Id®^s nX-eIt:a-roq 'i© f)9;^o>,i>;'afioo atf bXiioo saXX>X-tJi^>>'' ^^^ <isil\:,&a ,fesJ«XBiaq
.ssX:^ jsiiXii^Xi.^ '^o iiitoii m.ti^i ,>LQi'*sf "Xii iiaxi* i8q«=»"> i«>rx^na
- »Xo^ ^Ua-uXiiX^ .ai:ii3X(i S£tJ- le^ ^X.. -oo* woxt'^-^iaij f fia floi/no
hiii jie wouii 3J.lr..it several sxetcjuea so defendant Oculd aelect a
detsign; iie preparr^J. s^etciee v.-iiich a day or two later defer :'.aL>t
approved, sa^iiug, "'ITiiie," .ii'id t'.iat plaiatiri' sliould go a.nead,
Plaiiitili says cat about July lb ae "talked .vith del'endaxit and told
hiin the plsois vrould be ready next day; delendant told ax..; to deliver
the plane at the iTarragansctt ^otel wuere he lived, iu^d next day
(plc.intiil' eays) he left Tcur blue prints v/iiji specii icutiv^ns at
the hotel I'or oel'endaiit. Plaintiff says that on i/uly 17 defendant
came to his office for uiore blue prints, v/.iich were i^iven; .\e asi^ed
plaintiff to "hurry up lUid get the fi^^ures in," JJelenitiTit teetij-ied
that no blue nrirts /yre delivered to him at tne i^otel and tnut he
never saw the blue prints until August 9, 'Niien plaintiff brou^ it
them to his fillint;: atction witii a bill for$252,, whioji he reiased to
pay. Plaintiff says defendtiXit offered to pay lim s>50 for tlie
plans, whicli he refused to j.ccept.
Construction -.^as begun August 3; tiie building v.a« iinisued
about the rd.idle of i^bveicber. Defendant says that on Autiaet 10 he
employed pj; architect n?,j;ied Wagline to dr'-w plans. Plaintiff testi-
fies thai, on Au~u8t 3 he saw ..is plan beir^ used on tne Job. i«ir,
Goldstein, the plumber, testified ae used the bpitz plans und speci-
fications, itr. Kashbare was tr.e geieral contractor, (ioidstein says
the Spitz plan was the only piaji used an - ot>ver piaris '.vere drawn
afterward to get a permit. x.r. Kaeppel , iuaxiager of tiie A^ortj-westem
Terra Cotta coi.pany from wuich tae terra cotta was purc.iased, identi-
fied shop drawinge in two saeeta saowing cae exi-erior and inferior
of the nuilding as iiaving been laade urider ais aapervidion. i».aeppel
sain taese plane were prepared witii tae aelp oi tne opitz dr■.^<-iUtrB;
their draftsman, Mr. Anderson, went out cmd icasured tae old g&s
station and tae figures ca-.e froii^ these s.urces, ivaep^el says tne
Spitz plans were suffxciei-t basis lor an estiiaate. JDef erCoi-.t re-
quested Aj-iderson to ta.-ie iiieasure.'uet.ts of t.ifc eld gas station lec^-use
A Josi&a Jbi'ifoo ^cmhnii'tsb oa gftriod-s^^e Ijsi^rds isj:idue Joluow 9£L mid
|^»* 5ae iaabci'j'i^b d&kv boAi^i s*il eX -^iJO't itio^e isidt ixsa 1'ltSni.»L^
lerilQh od- it.iii JiXoit cfi^sjaJEsoQleL jT^afc ixsa xbast 9<f fiiifow Bjxslq 9iiS taiti
*fi snoitjtioiiiosqs XiJiw B-iuiq; si/Icf Tito'i i-'tsi 011 (a-^isa 't'ixd^ni^Xg;)
^msJ^xislsD ?X \;Xijl^ nc J-.sxi^ g-^css 'i'txdrufiX^i ,ici£ihnB't&b ^ol: Xs^oxi "ex[*
isaaeja Sii ;n9v-ig o-xaw fiox-itw .ejaxaq di/Xcf dieja 10't soi't'io eiti ot sofio
i)©j:xi;f83i^ iTatibjae'teG " ,nx a^iw^i't sfld- d-ss liriB <jtj Mj'sitB.^*' o# TilJfrii^Xq
9X1 *fedj Sob Idtou Bii^f ii6 saiii ocr Jba-isvilsb s^ev.- adTtitg ©ijXd" on" i&di
o^ fegexftet sii iiyxiiw .^SaS^to'i XXid « ricM'sr ctol: Jjs*e giiiXXi't airf oi maiii
-:■,.:-■ - %tii tol oe^ miii \;eq oi^ i>©5<«l'io :^aeJona"t9£> a-^Jsa ^tl:i*axaX't •t*%
;•••■'■■ ■- ' »#q?&.oj)^ ot bssu'iiti. sid 'MMdv ,aasJ;i(|
9x1 OX. ;>-8jjajjA ao i&iii^ a^ss oiusj&ixe'tsci .tscfiaevoii 'lo slhhik »iii j'uotfa
-x;t-a9:t fci^ffiXieX? .BasXq WjiicJb od" SiiiX^BW bsiiisn i9BiidO%& as iJoxoXqfflS
.im .cfot. *xfc)- £10 b&sja afli^^cf ajsXg aii! #£3 si/ S tafiaaA no J-Bd:#''BsJ;i
-xoege bna erojlq stigQ srft fesai/ ^xl Jbsi'tid-ao* ,'X9daiiiX<i iila- ,iii^.fa&X©fi
a-^jxje nxsJabXoD ,10 Joai^-nco iiiisn&s sri.l bjsw euscfxIeaJi ."I^M ^»aoii£oit
ftwxi'ii) »nsw aiifiXq isxito bxts fcsaix oAXq •^Xxtd arlit asw fiaXq s*lq8 &s:ii
■ iia@l,i ,&3asiIo-iyq ajsw «<J-Jqo jsits* 4df ^SiSdif m%'t xcmqp.oo stioO Bit9'£
X9qq«e3i .aoxexvisqua eiu t&btas Qb&ss. n»9(i ■stai^MM Ha i^aibliu^ sjC* le
; :'ib stxqe Sil* 10 q,£»ti VxiJ if#i« iie . -t*w «'£0BXq sieexf* l>Jt««'
aua^ -aX« •xiJ' i»axi;aa«ia frltje 4*160 ■txiHBW ,«oe'i3Lifl^ ^tM ,iiaMa*'llilfe I'lexid"
9uj^ sznB- l&qquBh .esoiixos »a(tiril# «©t'l: «-i^a «»l£xJ8x': .>b xioi;rjsd-8
38ij;303cr ttoii^ia eaa bXo axi* 'i^o aJneiiiQii/aisftin «2is* oi- aoa-xohia*. fioc-r. sxjp
he wanted it duplicated. Kaeprsel says, """Ve u,ade blue pri:. tea irom
an arc-^.itect 's (irav«iiit^B; tue terra cotta was made from Andersjii ' s
mea8urei.»eiitf ind arcaitect'e drawings. " kri'l-reoiz testiriec' iie took
measurerients at the request oi' del'srdant; he oays he Vurrcwad plarie
frcci and returned theui tc Spitz; he gay-s del'endcuit did not tell him
to do thid. Silver (the el.'ctrical cciitractor) says he Aid not j-^hvb
any olai. s or ?oecif ications ; .vrcte hie own frosi the buil'linti acxcsB
the street; his contract was v.-itii L.t;enhare, iv.£,Bhl: -j-re testilied he
never saw Spttz's picina on the jot; the pi&as used were dram* by
lit, Wagline ahout tae middle ol' AufjuBt, KaBhljare, however, 3,„w the
S:itz drawings at tht oi'i'ice of ...r. Spitz aoouc the ruiidie oi" August
and he says he had possession of thei- for tiiree or four lays; the
Wagline pl^ns, he says, were coiapleied atout /lUfe.ust 25, 'iiieEe plans,
approved t> the Departiuent of Puolic Works on t>ctobf^r '-.3, 19:r7, ttre
in evidei,ce. l^.e plaintiff poiiits out (defendant not contentjing
otherwise) t.;.at the V.'at^line plfixxs z-re axi e:cact dujlicate of tiie
Spitz plans.
Defendant produced a picture of the ba..lding fiecced, und
the folio'^'int colloquy i^etween court tJid counsel occurred:
"Lr. Gocdnow; Jiere is a picture of tJie 'buil'^ing. 'Die ooart: It
looks like he has copied tr.ese plana absolu bely . i.r. GoodnoT.-; All
he «.'fu::ted was a copy of tne old oae. He didn't vranjr a;.yt .iug new.
He didnH warit aiiy tile. ne dirln't want anytning. The -ouri: He
used the man's plans , didn't he? ^r, Goodnow; ino, he di i not."
The defenda.'.L, JLarretticii, testified that th«j new sei. of
plans? did not have a cariopy or Gi<<n and that at the tiiuc; he proceeded
with the construction of the "building he di'?n't have a portuit.
In the testimony of Andsrson appears the follo"»ing:
"The Court: The whole lay out, the design of it, the portrait
alongside of tie plans, t^iey arc tJxe oauie olcins, .reja't t.iey?
A. 5o. ******** The Court: ■^^->-^-* I want to know if thir. is about
a' aQ8'i9?jfi^ moi'i' sbam a«w ed-*oo s'ti,?'i asiJr ;a:r)ai%'jbXl> a' d-oSJMxioiJS tut
aiii IXa^t *oa bili d'lifeifcas'tsjb ^x^e sii js^iqa oJ itaxi^ b^t:fiu&@% fcaf aoft
jj^f iswjBXfc. sttsw i)9ew si"»«Xq sri* ;rfot ®iid no amm a'siJ4^^§ was itavftfl
*ajjguA ±0 slbhim 94^ &IJOQ& s^iiqQ »%^a 'i.o 9«ax't'ic 9.0* $j@ fsxuwaTb 8*iq»8
axii- ;a:£sfc' .if^.'i. 10 B.Q%sii -xo'i. amii 'io woxae^aao,*! J&iMi s»|i s^^f s>ri fcae
jCiOivX^. &-a&-xi'i' .,.flS j.ipw^lS^.iwecfB toj^Xqeioi) ©ifw ,axae aii^, aoei^ ©flXX^W
siij ,^'oex .«6X a:#>GfQ,>j-oU flo Bsi^oW pxX^wl 'to (ta^iatfi^g^Q #4* y;.i^ |>javox(i<|^«
^aibi-in inoo i'oa Juva.oxis i9ij ) ifjjo pc^aXog Vixiai&lq pdt .eonefelv» 'ai
,941* 'io.04"i5C'-tXq-w£»^o.'SJi3 its 9'xis sii^iq. sai.i:^,fiW 94^ ^.^4;^ (©sxnn:®iI*o
-.heiruooo Xeeiu/op beta Sisjoo xisf wd-scs" ■^gt$^£.&Q ^alvQllo'i 9^
• $A -13'tiipp fJiX,, , ,'^&ip^XltJ.0 ^ sAt Ip, @.i;ijjt^:i(i, & ex ;0,te©.|1 ;woa6ooB ,^M."
,fi9M.,^p.U!^Xi-u&, ^m^ ,i^ iip.Hi »H T.®«o |):,Xo ,9*1* 'lo,' „-x;!|j&5( «, e»w .£>|94'^^rjew aijff
^, li%uo'^ ©xjGC .sjax4*TCa.e ifitsw ;rViii-)|,b &E ,©Xi.# .■\E«|6 fiieW l/ri^iifc.^H
>; 'lo 'J'dS wail ©J.ii' i^JSri- b^i'l:£.iai,i ,ja»Jt*;*«'xi«i«l , J-u*ihii»'tai} ©rlT
j, l>Qi>4?@oc"iq sxi 9iaxJ sdi Ja j^jbiW &n^ naia ^0 \q,o£m~tt ^ sr^suf *©« bib WtmJLq.
»Jii.i'X3q js sv«jtl d•'^i^J;f> oxi gaibXiwd" sxIJ 'io nox*offt£*saor ■•' -^ i-'+lw
.ia-xd-iocr £)iij ,*! 'to naXa^fc ©xl* ♦*«o '^«'J'^ ftloiiw sx^T :?r:joO QfiT"
?-§«riv* 3''ai3'x^i ^aoaXq »iu«a wtJ &*si& x^^ ,»ctrl7 -^r -.-rXfi
■■co'ifj ■ i -iiii 'tl woral ot ia&n I ***** rJiuoO .A
the same as that. You don't say so, hut it i? obvious it is, jjad
any blind man casi see tii.at, too. ***** n.r. Goorliio'w: In view of
the fact that karrettick always said and testified Uiat he wanted
a duplicate oi" the building acrose axe street. Taat's all there
w&B to it, - a building - a duplicate of tij.e ^uildj-ng across the
street, A. i;iat is wnat ne told me vo.en I went out taere.-^^***
The Court: You mean to say those two buildings look alike?
A. xhe only difference is tuese vs'indov.'s are snorter. d^. Will you
answer my question. Do the two buildings look alike? A. iio.
14. One lo-tks li^e the drawing? A. All ri.ht. <i, Ihe building
he built looks like trie drawing, doesn't it? A. Yes. <i. Doesn't
look like tne building across the street at all. A. It is the same
sized building, the same length. C^. I didn't ask you tnat.
A, Ir^e only t ing different are the Trindo^'s. ^, I don't — if
you don't want to answer -vriiat I ask you -- A. I answered you.
li-r. Spitz: Are you througn wit;i rin-, Judge? ir, Goodr.ow: Yes,"
-r. Kashbare testifies he was in kr. Spitz's office in the
middle of July for the purpose of picking up a plan --md epecifica-
tions and that ae vas taere alone, -le first saw the bpita drttwinge
around the latter part of July o elpre a e star ted the foundation. He
says, "I had them I'our or I'ive days, I'm not sure, I suppose
Wafe-line ,;ot his ideas out of somebo dy' s pi anj. " vVagline was not
called as a T/itness.
It is apparent tj.e trial Jad,-^ was of opinion defendant used
Spitz's olcois in constructing tne building to an extent waich amounted
to acceptance. The trial Judge saw =ind heard the '.vitneeses. The
question is whether his finding is clearly and manifestly T.rong. We
cannot ''iold it ie.
The Jud^^ent is affir ;..ed,
HcSurely, P. J., and O'Connor, J., concur.
'to Yi&sv til :w(yabQoij *x« ****** .oocf ,d-jsaJ^ sea xiso mai balld -^06
9i»xi^ Llii B'^jsfi'i .*&6'Xja siivT asoio^ :§a.ibliu^ djii 'to dijaollquk »
^ - , ,, ,?»:ii,,C^ :;i-aoI a^iix.biiijer ot?* ©aoiU ijjsa od- oasia iioY .-^imoO ©xJT
woTj X-tJc>W .p .'li'.J-xpAia ?>%^ awq^axw 9isaii4; ax ^df rfsis'-tlii) x-C"^ ®^ -^
»6l ,A .?©2iiXs JiooX s-aw.&Xiwo" ow^t ©jfii" .od .«tQi*t9,yi) ■^^ lewaae
8nii)Xx»rf OffT ^g^ .^i&gii ,liA ,J^ ?3ax«r£if) ©4$ gjiiX aaloQ-f »<iO ,p
i'uasoiCi tp .89? ,A ?^i cf'nesob .saxwfi'xfe ^Ji;^ ssiXX a^tooX JXiutf ©iI
©ioass 9Xid- ax^I .A .XXe^s cJ'ss'xi'a 9r!ii Si^Q%Q» -gatblluo aiii- ©ilil atooX
,i^£it iiox iiaa J'afc-ii! I ,^ ,sM-%i\9.1 ©«asa 9ii^ ,^«|l)Xiy«f JbAsia
11 — t* mh I .p .ewo^niw ea>* SIS d-nsTEs'i'iil) gi&ij.,^" TE.I«e . Jjii-ci?? . *-^
arid- ni aox't'to a'sixq8 .iM fi s^w sji Bsl'ti + agj- 9i3dx£eje3 ,^aC
-»3x'ixo9(53 ba& asXq a qi; anx^ipxq 'to ©aoq^uoj. 9£i.t ico'i ^-t^^ "^^o Qkhblm
esniv/«i£ s^iqci 9xf;^ was iati't sH aSHoXb &TC©xii^ asw sxt c^jaxfd" Bais arrolt
t«aaai/a_l t^'^cBe ^oa ia' I .a^sJb ©yi't 50 ^JJfO't ffl»xi* Jb,- r-' "'"' < ^-"jaia
*c»n ejaw 9nXXs«W " «a i«;Xg. 8'Y.fcg^cfsigfa lo j-jjo BagJbl siri j .- , u.^^X^-jaW
«aada^lvf a e« £>9Xl£o
Jb9e« j^ae|><i9't&& noxjEUOE,^ *io a«w s^^i)*;'^ f-^xi^- 9ii* iaBiMq.%^ al f I
©xi'i .8S)a8©a;txw ©rict" &%ii©ri ^«e wjsa aafexfli J^ii* ,©x£T .©ooB^J-qsoofi ocT
9W .jiiJieiw -ai^aa'UnsiJJ bm "^XiaaXo si snx^iH.'i aixf itftifJftxftr ai aoxisei/p
.^GSMiiit'iA "■■•%:'
,ijjortjo ..♦1i ,to«n«0'0 fen. , . .1' .xiXs-jwaoAl
40285
STA^iLTIY SLOKSKI, doing Lusine^s
as Archer (Jrocery,
Appelle^,
vs.
E. 3^/Ii^REL'GA Mid ROBERT SW^REImCJA,
doing "husinesB as Swiereng* Bros, ,
AopellsLnte,
APPEj
klTKICIPAb COUI^T
,&0.
2>
29f9I.ANull
1:R. justice KATCHETT DELIVERSD the OPIi:IOK OF TilS COUKT.
Defen'^antB appeal I'rom a Jud.:jnent in the sum of ^183.14
entered on the finding of the court in an action on contract of
the fourth class. Tae statefi er t of clairo averred that Jane 7,
1937, dpfeniants received from plaintiff $228,74 in payment for
mercna/idise to be thereafter d'='Livered UT)on request; that plain-
tiff reqaepteH delivery or return of the money paid, wnich de-
fendants refused. 'i'ne statement T-ras verified. The affidavit of
merits (also verified) denied receivinf, th« money ^'ot any purpose;
denied any aj-^reempjit to deliver the nierchandise or to refund any
money to the plaintiff "because, 3S the affi'^avit stated, defer-'-nts
"have n^t received anything from the plaintiff nor have tney ever
entered into a contract for the sale of goods with future delivery."
Defendsunts contend the juc' luent thould te reversed because
they were denied th<^ir rights in t at trey werr rot allowed to
introduce any evidence and in that their attorney was not pori. itted
to cross-examine plaintiff. A car^ ful exajrim.tion of the record
f'iscloseB tuese c i-i-r'TPs are not sustained. Attorneys for defen'-ante
as a matter of fact cross-examined ola intif f ,who wae tie only wit-
ness in the case. Defer danta offered no evi-^.e.'ice and produced no
witness. Xvo request by them for leave to introduce evideice was
denied. Attrrney for dfferdante suggpsted a ccntinur.nce uiLil
evidence migit be obtained but i.ade no uotion ti erefor nor any
showing Which would .iu^tify :. contin.ai.ee. A^oreover. r,ttoruey
>■
A.I e '62
38 SO^
i^I.eSXl lo aitife sxt* nx Jxj©i%l>ijt « moil: iBsqi^js eit^bn&t^rj
%9 itSMBittnoo no noJttoa n.p. ai Jiifos »,££* t« isni&ajtlt .«*£f*v;ifl,o^: fcs«£»,tns
-ai) xiqixlw , feiiiQ-^enoas 944" 'io ag;jL/d'9i 10 xtaTl'S.fi.i;! k9i$B^iip»V':-1tiIi-"
'to ilTjsfoil'ie- ^rlT .dsi'txrisv afisv *a&09;JjBcfa »ii'i' ,l«>au'i»^ 9t«»fciPt»T
icttv^» X&£^^ !^'^Jiii ^PH I'txd-ai-eXq sri* x?t««'i gniri^'^i^B |}«Ti«o-T ■ |cn !»r4Bif*
" .-sSTteviXs-^ fijjd-jj'l xi^JI-lwg 1)005 '**' oXjbs arid- lot Jostd'aoo « 6*ni har^fm'
bsiilsnio^q ton @b^ x&aro&tB rsJorf* J-ari* ak baa 9oa9hht» %m ^oufio-t^ai
,. Ij/ioost, 9i{;t- .'to fjcoic^saifivaiacd, .iirTE^'t^a: A. «"lftMfixaiX<| 9rfi:ud5X'^--BSOTi:o 0*
a*ruift£i%>l!!>.& ^,«'i a-^©xn;od-*A .i>9.ijx^*ja«8 ioa aas a^sijsxto 3saoXo8l^
-Jits' -5X110 ip4t B«w eriw,TJ;iijxsiBiq bB'tnlisuusB -esoto d-o«'t 'to 'raJ^am b ojs
on bsoiftotq hoe ©onsfcivs* oh fcST^Ttc e^fjeiias'taCI ^ftBjBO (S«t** «! a.s^n
v;iii5 ion to'is'XQiii aoiiosi on sJbjsiu iud ftani«*£fo ad drJaiat 9onof>iT9
^©ii'xo**B ,i9vo®"xo^ e8diiewnx4'ho6'« . ,9li*lw awlworie
I'or defendants stated facts claimed to constitute a defense wlch the
court in deciding the case assumed to be true, i<othing occurred in
the trial which infringed on defendants' constitutional ri,^jiits or
amount^'d to a denial of due process.
Defendants next argue lor revirsal on the ground the case
proved by tue evidence was not tne case alleged in the pleadings.
Plaintiff's demand was for |22d,74; the judgment was for $183.14.
The statement oi claim averred a traufisaction on Jane 7, 1937. The
proof BiiQwed transactions on tuat day ax d about but not actually on
that day, ho a_uestion of variance was raised eiJier by objection
to the evideiice when offered or by motion at the close o:' the evi-
dence. There was no material variai.ce, but if there had been the
question is not preserved lor review. lioreover, iu an action on a
contract oi' trie I'ourti^i class a case is wnatever the prod's ;(i:;j;e it,
korse --iubbard Co. v. mich. Central R, Co .. 265 111, App, , 162; 3
li.B, 2nd 93, Wanless v, Peabody Coal Co . . 294 111. A.pp, 401, 421,
cited is easily distinguishable.
Defendants furt .er contend plaintiff failed to iuake jut a
prima facie case. The evidence snowed defendants were wnolesale
dealers in fruits, vegetables and si..iilar merchandise and plain-
tiff was a rStailer of tae saxiie. Defendants eiiipioyed as a driver
of one of tneir trucks a man naimed French, wita 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 tixe defense
that transactions to -vhich plaintiif testified, whereby he bought
and paid for goods to be delivered in ti.e future, were so fir as
Prenoh was concerned without authority. Although not set up in the
answer, defendants were permitted to interpose tuis defense witiout
objection. ihey now cite Lerc-.ants' x<ational Bank v. ^.ic .ols
&_£o. , 223 111., 41; iviurray v. Standard Pec an Co. , 309 111.,
226; and Kusek v. Allied Packers, Inc. . 246 111. Ap?. 209,
a
^ ' .aaaooiq 9U^ lo £ain9.fc js^ oi ^e jj-rtworas!
.a^itifcasaiq dxi* ai J&sgsIXs aeao siid- toa a^w aoasbiva axl* ^cf fievoig
,^X.»Z8l% lot sew ^nsiaa.&ut 9rf* ;l'V,8SgJ| Tto'i eaw feofisssl) a'Ttid^nisI^
sdT .veei ,V aniiX no aos.i-oBBi-i&'xi: s £>9ii9Vj3 .oiiala 1© :tss»m»isiia ©xiT
no i£X.£jsw;l0i3 *oii it«<l ;^i/pcfe f>[i£ \;fii) ;J-£i:{^ ho 8floJ:io«axi««* j&firofia looiq
■-XV3 9^i 'to seoXo ©4^ ^& aoj^ofii '^rf 10 fe^is'l*!© ns^aw as.a^JbiT? »di oi
S ;g$JE , .q,qiA ^XXI d8S . .pp ,. f Xj^^ctn^S . ^,.f Io,j;M .^v , y ,eg-,..&K:jg..tfg[*< |i 9;e'XQ.J^
^-C&l' fXO*'. .q<3[A ,iXX #es» . .90 IjaoO vfco'i^^^ I ,Y seaXf^W.-iySe &^.«&,i4
, .sX<fjsxl8liiani;J-8i&,xi'ia«9, .e|:i..|>t.-l|9
a i^j^o fl2£j6*^. «* i)sXi:e'i 'i'titnlfiXg |>n»Jnos ^carf^ija't 8*i5«&a&l:a^ \, ;h; .
1t'fc|^«i.eX<i iaoiiw xi^iw ^ffone^l ^sMsea xisai js ?3ioiii* il®4* 'l»^ ©no 'to
|)9$'£^!^£ sx ;^x ,o.rm i>£t£ iBeb oi bttmoieuQ^si a»»d hmi t49i,l amoa vo't
-ifct^* o#i| .ai qif, it98 d-o« s^w .*4:.,.fia*0££i"iA , *V§GX *« «£WS^ l)®|;aooaQ£
&£. -x^'X o|i 0'i«>w te-iSfcJ-a't ©j^j M J&«ii9Ti,|^J^ f^-jo:!' afceoa "xo't Lxjpg^ bn*;
sii4- i!.L ^ d-ea. #©a i%iJo£fJXA *T£jJJ;icoxi*«iBv4i:^xii*i-w baat^omo aa^ dttmi^
f.>£Q4^ol4 :, T. :^m!^. Xa a oiJjB.l 'e^mJiO'Jte^i ^tiO' mtM !tj^<# .noLtostc^o
9
to the effect that persons ^ealin^ witn an assumed agent aiust at
their peril ascertain t'ae ffict ol" nis agency and tne exteriu ol hie
authority. Here the I'act oi* his agency was adiuitted. The only
queetion is t e extent ol" the auii-ority ol' the agent. The record
shows he was autiiorized Lo sell, collect, receipt aiid deliver and
to accept checks to the order ol' defendants. Defendants were bound
not only lay hie actual but apparent autuority. under the evidence
the issue presented was ol' I'act on wuicn the linUnj^i ol' the trial
court was Tor plKintil'l' . I'uis I'iiiding in that court is entitled to
the same weight as t^^e ver.ict ol' a jury, .^oreover, the prool's
and the pleadings here show defendant received plaintiff's money
and refused either to deliver the goods or return it, i:>efendants
cannot be heard to deny autuority of their agent wnile tiiey retain
the money '/rhich the a.gent received for taeui in treinsactions witn
the plaintiff. Defendant* say that as to an itein of jii24,64 cash,
Included in the court's finding, tuero was no evidence sustaining
it. Defendant? are mist.ixen, Tlie evidence she. s tnat June 7, 1937,
plaintiff bought from the driver of defendants' truck seven tuba
of butter at ■;fl36,64, giving in payment therefor nis cueck for
|112 ar,d thp balance in cash. This balarice of i?24,64 was therefore
a mere matter of computation.
There is no reversible error in tiie record and tae judf^ment
Is affirmed,
AFP IRKED,
MoSurely, P. J,, and O'Connor, J,, concur.
biootix Sift' .i^na^ij siX^ to \ilfx'xoi^o:sj& &sii 'to i^cf«*x» s^:^ ei aoij-asiip
feff« ■xevxXai* Jifia i-qisoai ,*QeiXoo ,XX98 gcJ- Jbesi^4jrid"iie s«w sri swoxie
8O09&XVS Slid ^afanU .■'i^x'xoxlivB iastaq^B tad Xc«#»s aM x^ x^^o ^oa
X«xiw 94* 'XG gtixinxi sxiJ iloirlw no d's&'i lo ««w Jb9*n3«eTl<| suaei 9tl&
o^ fe^X^xcras &x d"iwoo *^;| xii jjmcrnx'l: eiiil' .^tiitni^Xq: •to'l a«w dTi/©«
s'ioo^q Slid- ,i9T0ST0.-i .XiiJt ■>'■> -to *oxi)Tiev 9di ae *il^i»w sinas *ri#
^anoiiis a'Tix^iifX£Xq fjsvxsosi diusijnslaB ?.'0x1e »i3i£ «afli£asXq ©fi* feHfi
a*tt«l)a©'J;©€ .iJ-x aniii^si 'xo aiioos si'ii^ i9rl£»b Qi %0£iii9 b»@u't9r has
ai£i9i \mii aXxiiw iaegs iXsdi 'to •;^ii.tQsiis}& x^®^ o* Jbiaesi arf ^onneo
rij-iw 8aoxd'OJ68xieiS' flx msiii no'i. bevx&osi i^asjjfi sri* si^htfv r.^'ttom Bdi
,xia^o :^d,4'S|; 'to im^l hb oJ- a« darltf ^aa a^^rieXnieTEeQ , sii*
•gnxnxjBJ-aiis ©oiisbxvs on sjsw sxail* jg.jail)ni'.t a'^txwoo &fi* irtl ^•f>tfXoai
,'5'eeX ,V dowl. d"fiii^ e:/©£ia soci&bivs sxiJ .aasisi^e jua alee a;tas|>a©*l9il ,*Jt
&.^:0 mY9S i^oui* 'a^u#fia3'i0i|> to tBrtib &dt laox't 4^i%B©«f Ttlintelq,
%0't at4;ts4a a-Jtii •xolsisrfd- $a&m(,Bq tti -^atri^ ,l*8,d6X# t^ lo
9'Xo't9'i6di 9syr p^,i'^$ lo 90itBX.^cf alxfX ^xtaiso ni aoxieXetf sxl* b.u^ 5XX$
J^iTSjsQfejj^ dJsW feOB fcxoosi Siii^ ax lox-?© sXcfxaiSTS'i &a al f%^dT
,b9mttttti •!
.amiHi'Tu. ....-;...,,■ .... .., . ...........
>1M©«0& , .^ ^XQaaoO'O fcafi , ,t «! ,"tX©iw68M
4030?
CHRIciTlKS fi.
•t a1.
.,h. JU:iTIC£ KATUHJ&II iMi.iV*KifcD TH* OI'IMOI* UJi IliK ut>UHT.
Thla ifl -*n upa»>«I iron « d«lioleney d«or«« I'er the mua
ftf |l,a24.0i? witttrAd on hv>ril 15, l'<t^ii, in i'avor ol aruenowciicn
and (i£«inat th« Ken«r«, pursuant to a d«cr«« ol l'or«clo«ur«
t&t«ir«d iftreh 4, lv)3d, in sin «ctioo \)*^itn D^cmhttx 10, ltt37,
trh*r«ln urru«n«w*g«n ««• plttlntiJTl' unci Ui« &en«rs and otixer*
dei >n i'lnts.
It is cont«ai«d firet cnat th« Mllegatletie ol' th« cwi-
^lalnt lo net juaiil'y ta« deer««; th^t it do«« not s«t iorUi ih*
tcraa or th« tru»t d««d andnotiis on wUoh the nuit whb caBad; tnat
the coBplaint loos not »mv itny ri,4it to lert^clese in that ttio
truat rf*»d convfiyad to « truotoo ^^nd not th« plain till', nnd ti^at
tho right of ior»cIo8ur« «»« lor oui,ht iillegod in tho ooaplaint
Te»t»d oxolutiTOly in th*" iruBtoo.
Tho ooBiplaint all'^goo tho •xesutiea by tb« Xeh«rc, huobfoid
and vifo, en July 9, 192d, of tii«ir not* lor #1600, «n i.<aount ior
«hiob thoy woro indebtad; tho azaoution of tua truat daed to
tho (SiiaaKO Titla ^md Truat C^supuny "to aeeura tu« a^id rioto";
that Uta noto naturod July -^ ^ 1051, whan it waa axtandad until
July 9, 1934; "that tha plaintiff ia tha ownar of tue s&id nota
and a%id truat daed"; that dafuult uaa tawn u;»da in tha taraa of
tho truat daad and uota in that Uxm Ronara uava I'Ulad to puy tha
•■•mt dua aa principal and intareat; that plaintiff haa baan
o«Bp«llad to aaploy an «.tiomay in "Uid %;-out tha liiint. oi tha
:«A-
.»▼
-2-
ovBplaint and i» obligatad to pay attorxicy** i'aca 'Jaftrcin*. which
i» iM a<!i1itional ibdttl;t«dnesa undur th* said trust d««d; that
plaintiff will b« tbligatttd te incur oth«r eostt "which ar« ad<liti«n
ml li«ns und«r aaid trust laad*.
Th« o«aplaint pr^ys I'or I'erreloaurt of th« truat da d,
t%r judffBcnt >'or ^lafici'nay ler itny bulanea thAt uay ba dua aftar
aal* of th« prataiaaa and lor gafaral r«ll«f.
DalanrtaDta maf aarvad but ^^iJ not ^ppaar cr tmaver. XHia
e*ua« ««• rafarrad to a ^aatar. it ia apparant dafandanta (R«nara}
wara inforaad aa to tii'* praoeading for may filed objaetione to tht
roport of tiiii ih.&atar (Which wi^ra uvarrulad. fhay aid c^ot in their
•bjactiona aak« tha specif ic pointa on wnioh th«y now insiet. A
eopy of tha truat daad and uiipaid notes are attauiied to tha ooa^
Plaint* DafanliOite «ay thut th^re lure no facts pleaded on wuieh
allowancea for <kttornays' faea, atanograpuer*s uiarr.es, title
ohargea or interest oould be baaed, the truat deed presided I'tr
the payment of nil these. I; is urfi^ed tu;vt tiie ce»plHlnt dees not
aTor by whts the extension &gre«>&eBt "^^as »ad«. While tneae aigbt
well have be«ii set up, the mile, $*tione w/^ioh appear in the absence
of any objection by -lef andante was, we aeld, aufficifitnt under the
CiTlX JPractioe Act. which wae npplloable. Section 42 of that Aet
(aubeeetione (2) utd (A)) provides:
lie pleading shall be daeued bad in substance whio^i
shall cent<in such iriion..ution us a all reaaon&^ly
inform the eppoeite party of tlic nature of the claim
or defense which he ia o-aied upon to m«et.
''All defeets ia pleadings, fither in fens or aubetHnce,
not objected te in ih*f tri^ court, »iiall be deemed
te be waiwed. *
It is true the ooaplaint dil not (as under the loraer
practice aet wae usual) speoifioMlly lankm the oopy of the truat dead
attached therete a part of Uim bill, but thia is, we hold, nn-
aeeessary under Seetien 36 of the Practice Aet which proYidde:
•^enever an action, <1#i>r.8e or uouiiterolain ia
founded upon a written ii ptruaent. a copy tii*>reof,
^«£'<f ;S».«Jfe laa^JtJ t»i«fii a^* t^hus ««f9«sfe.**sf«Ml ie^ioi^lRJ^a »« ni
a^lSihiam rnxm .fl»i<*«^ ad-aes? f^j^^s^ %M»a.k &4 &«»te^ijr«J« -isti^ 'l:ll« t1.|»alfc«».i«|
»df ,««»t^;£i«! *,5> it»a>i%«ie ^raA &if-^ .J^d ,fe«ivtri*« »«»«■ m^ael^a^'t^ff ■
t^iife »»»ef «4i«i^' ,feH«^ miv- ■$m^.*i>%-m a»M&x^^^ ♦*# iid^w i&* ^tor©
;r«#l'l%'«%t' US:'^ inm itj imi>i^d9««rct9 )
■■'■'■ :■■■■:■ - :. ,. ' .jJSVi;.:.^ *;i': CiJ'
fe#«»t> *««*.* «m- t'9 x«im *it* «fli«tK fi|te«jri^»ii» im-mi) ««**a* woiJfs.p-i^
*iq
ftif*
:i^ r*
'".;-?
^SfA^ M"^ •
*»r?ia»'ii:v-
.3-
or oi ao taueh oi th» ■ati<« as is r«l«vajat, uuait b«
att>4cu«d vo th« pl«M,ding ae (ua •xhibit or rocltwd
th«*r«ln, unlets tA« pl9!A.A9T Kiiadl &ttAcl2 to uis
j>l0&.!ij3i; 501 alfidMvit atj-tintj: facta sijowir^g thut
auoh Inatruuaat la cot accessible to Uliu. It!
pl«tk^tnti ar.y rrittan Inatruirient a copy ttirrtoi' in»y
^0 attauiOd xo tu« piettiic>4« ae un axiaibit. In
• ither oaae tha a:iUtil>il «hsill coi otltuta n pivrt of
tha pla^^ing for all purpoaaa. Ko prof art bIiclLI ba
naeeaaary* "
Tha forcar prautlcf la oojaparnd with tha present under
thia aaetlon In iXIineia CItII ^ructica Aot Aimotatad, i^.aC<i»kill,
pp. 77-7d, and in th* 1936 edition, pp. 82-34.
Tha defondftnte also complain (quoting tha axa-ct langaa^A
•f their brief under Point IV) "The reoord irinewa the coisplata failure
•f plaintiffa to produoe In eTi.lenca Uw truat deed or uotea ueon
which hie slaioi for a defioienuy jai£7Q<9nt dependa* The plaintiff
vaa ivhown a typenrrittan copy of a truat ^eed with tyt»««ritt«n naaea
and he awere th&t theae typai^ri itan nomeo were tho tru« and genaina
aignuturaa of Cariatint a, Hon«r and atbo X. Roner (Abat. 7, a).
The aaae kind of teatinony was ^iren in th<> attempt to prove tha
principal Bote (Abet. 8); tha extension at^reaKent (Abat. 9); «n(jl
tha extenaioB intereat coupons (Abat« 9). Obvioualy taia canaoriaua
■ethad of oroTing ;> cane la oenduciTa ta fraud and injuatlct. &.o
teati&ony wur offered to show an exouaa for tha non-^ra -Suction of
tha ori inals." Thia Bt'itejuent Ib 'riolly unjuatified. The record
ahowa thut tn« original -jocnunenta vere ebown to the witneee, '*ho
teatifiad thay car* tha genuine aignuturaa of the makera. 'in-i later
tha aolicltor far pliiintiff aaked and obtained lenve ^f the iinatar
ta withdraw the eri,;in«l exhibita and aubatituta oepiea tiiarefor,
vhiah bra in tha raaord. The plaintiff upan the ground that tha
••!• purpoae of the »pp al waa for delay sjid trexatloc movaa tha
Murt to aaaeaa 10^ of the «Bount of the defloieney decree for
danagoaaa proridad by the atwtuta ( aae III, at ate hxr, atftta. ,
1937, &iasp,33, aea. 23. pur. 23). We hold with some heaitf.tien
tha Botiaa ou^ht uot ta b.- n^lowwd. The dcorae fill fee tiffiraied.
koSureiy, To J., and v'Conuor, J,, ooceur.
^-iuIMI- Mwtk'^m »Aiii a^^iia h%m>,«^^, »r^* fTI' i«|«^ it*4s.«# t»lT<l^ ■«:.|.*3tt# to
^itiua^^^ f^m:: ^m.f fiHi- «it'»* siiHW&iii ,«»»##■ i?*®'*^-**!!;^ SJH^i^' 3>^fi¥ " in^Wi »ij'-|iaii--
»j# *iifsps« «il t€«®»»3'^ *44' <8l *ji^(ii*i?j nan i|j*E«ai^«.*tf lis feefij^ »a8»it 9s^
.Tr»lt>'»\nc*M 0«ti«- rfi£* hlmi »W *'(«S .*fit .«S .#♦«■ ,S«:,lii»' tTCSf
43386
•It r9l .SJU-liiO 2., 3-i,\i.D,r }
v«.
\ (pCliWJt ,
JCii. J. ..ju.j,lH/vi. , plr«iuior &J" tin
I>#p»rta.»iit oJ" fi»e.«it ration itnd.
Xdueiitlon of th« :|t.ai,# of liiLt^m
)
1299 X
4-
lliis i» an appeal by plaintiff i rosi <u) erdnr «orUah
•ustained c«rtnln plftat to hi* petitioa i'or m. &an(l«Bu» %rid dlaiKivswd
tn« action with oetsts.
Oa ^o^ruory 2!S, 1938, Upland fllnd .ii» putitlon la tbo
MMO of tho P«oplo a^fcainst HtO.Il)i«n, Llroclor of xnm UopartiHcnt of
RoglotratloB :-md KdMoutlon, averring liiat at ad oxamlnatioc v.3t>»
Attetod by tho Doparttttflct on January 10, li and 12, 19-c^, ii«) tuoii
iho oxanlnatlon for a licier.oe to nraoiloo the trvntSiOfit of huttan
ailaonta aa "otnAr prttotltlLrnar** tt&d pa«sad it; that in Fobruary,
^ 1923, ha roeolTotf Infortbatlon from UiO Bep««rtiurat tn a no Had
yaooad and that hl« llc«£i8« w«uXd b« l»:^«d to ulu upon r«c«li>t of
ij^&.OO; that aeaordlogly ha forwardod ta tlia Dlroctor of t^a B«p«krt*
' aont on aaroh 6, 19S!«i, ** oau .i»r*«i onaeii for taut luvount, w»aoh
iha ^Iractor rooalvod aud o.»saf>d <«nd avails of «>hlwh aro hold
aceng tha funda cf ina Oaparti&Ant. Ula petition furtuar avarrad
that ha «^• gra.luatad front tha lnntlonal 3ohoel of Uhlropraetlo,
whloh waa and la duly raeorinlBOd by tha D«»p«»rtaant of hadctratloo
and Kdaoatlon and t/to ifradUAtao oi riiluh ara p»rj»lttad to partlcl-
> pat* la axasln-itlaoa eeiidaotad by i^o DopartGuent; that, th* our-
rloulujb of patltlonar In uio uell(«4(a oonniotad of anatomy, labora-
tory, hlitrelO(ty, dlaKnoolo, oh^eloloijy, cuffalotry, aplnfel analykls
w patiiolo^y, praotlaa, eiilrapraotlo taehnlquo, phyolotiiaraphy.
dS£C>)>
/ i
^
€J
a. H'^'^
timMH
iiU 'tm laiuntii
>miM
,!:*»*«<«*"* >ai ^:*it3' \tt i^uati-^ ttms. '^^!fmml^ Ui»imis[- 'tiMt'^' -^0 'ittm's^
kt'ft^irm '*l^ti»tm m»liU<»n *i^ •A'a»«#t.«eH»€ ^tn^ tti mhm^ nM^inaim
iihi%JMmr MsUm ■,%'ii»Amm ^ViitlvUti^ ^m^Qm^m M'^»imtKtn ,t«»*
-2-
ellnioal 'Ilagnei>i», cilxiio eoid (ii«»«ction. 7h« atudlva art contained
in tii* currioulkUB and «rM ro^uirM onA Avoiaundsd ty tii* Department
AB A oondUion pr«e«d«nt ol •lit^ibillty ior Ui« •xsdnU.atloA waich
h« look.
Th« Detltien furtiier »T«ra Ui«t t.u« DepArtment inilM to
loaito th« llofineo; tnat en rarloue ooeaeiens .^e ooneulted <«ith tb«
•fficlals reltttive th«reto »nd 4<»b«nded of uimn Uiat the lluftute
icsue; lit vee Infomed th&t tne lia<»Dee «0Qld eventually be
ieeaed; Uiat in thtt mefoitimtt he w^r Ht liberty to OMrry en tiie
praetioe ol* hie urol'eeaion. n^aibely, "the treatfeent el' human nllnente
without the uae of drug* and <Mithottt oper^.^ti-ve surgery aa *other
practitioner' to the aame effect and purpose as if he, your petition-
er, h«d reoeiTod said license'^ the petition further avers that
ta A^rll 16, 19 A7, the Departm«it and derend^nt iiaXlihan, fiirectsr
thereof, airltling the f%cta in the premiaeo, refused to issue the
licenae; that during February, 192S;, « iioenae waa erroneously
mailed; that tae department tind ita i)irect«r ixave no record of tne
petitioner having t ^Jten the ext*minution; thHt the SeparUueut haa
record of ether euma paid by petitioner )or the privilege uf t.<Jiing
the examination and of the euma received froA. him for the issu&nos
of hia licenae as *otlier praotiticjter"; that by means of tne fori?i>,elng
be is pr»*vente4 from carrying on nis prmotioe aocoriing r.o law
vhleh he is Justly and lawfully nstitled to do. The pruyer cf the
petition is that a writ of &andamus issue directed to Uallihae as
\ Director, ete. , to forthwith itrnxim »nd deliver the lioeni-e and eudli
\
further orders as justioe may require. The petition is verified.
Iho defendant filed its anower admitting tm exMibination was
oenduetod as averred on January 10, 11 and 1?, 1022; that dKlan4
took the examination but denyin^j ihat i.e passed it, on t/.e contrary
stating that *\9 ffiilod to usijl^ the general average ae roouircd by
tho Dspartmeat and the rulee and rr^.ulatione tiiereof. Ihe ariswer
tidi tift:v ti»fttinii&fi tux 3a«|.<<»»ft« awoAtwr mt 'm^ : ■ ••:««tt;
»«i»»$iX «bC^i iiiiM titms Ho bi^l^tmsmb bm 9:t'^>X9iti s'^'^i^-kii aX^lditt*
t^iJamM' ,f«ii«ii'i*H #afefe«s!'*1#8r ftxFw t?eiSi»t%Mef»^ 9£if ,T^«i ,.$X Xlir^A 09
\
iHNn&i^sJ: »d9 -v^ fl£l«( axmt (^vl#t><»ir affinu^ »ji# %« l^taia a«£^««l:««a.%« mUt
a.«np Jsx«!i*«a4flfiR«» JW »«*•*#■*«»«: 1t1»w»ai* •fi 'fit-it*! #*fe«^*Jf«* ♦rf*
-5-
»!•• a«ni»4 th« I>*QArtA«nt had at nny iiaf aotii'i«4l plaintiff th»t
h« •uaoensfulXy p»ft»*<! tb* •xaKlnution or tUMt i;l« Xlcenta *«uld
!>• IsKutd to nla ui>oa p&3rB.«nt ef |(5.00; that en tU« oontrRry nub*
toquABt to tho oxamir.utlon a foo of .A.vlO «ao roorivod in l-ho
■priJBgfinIi offio*^ of th« DopHrtttiont lut «%» not aec«pted toouuoa
th9 petitionar had failad in tha axaBilDHtion and ihttt thoroafter,
•■ Daooatoar II, 1024, this faa «(«« rotumed lo p^ti&iorvAr. Tha
anawar furthor as»«rt* that in J<aiuary, 192S, "whan patitionar w&a
«dBittad ta tha axaalc«i*»ioii, Uia DapArtuent vao oparutlcig undar
tka Uadioal Prf»atlea AOt of 1&99; tixat undar th« provisions of tuat
Aei, appliaanto for suoh licoiioeo wara not rcquirad t« furiilah proof
af graduation froa ka aeer«»dltad profaoslonai scUeol; tliat as a
Mat tar of fui;t, no drui^leoa •cnoolo, tsacm aa tha »oiiool froa wMeh
plaintiff wao 4i;raduatad (iftutiorial bohool of L.hirepraotlo) v^nra
••era<4lta4 Vy tna I>apa- tifi«ni; tnat tlxa re .ui-reuant :or ra^lstratlen
at tho tlaa and placo oi' axanlnuilen was tOat tho &pplleant paoa
a oueoaosfiil osuuAlnHtion in cartaln ^ubjaeto praoerlfcad, but as ta
thlo raoulrassant pi-ilfitlff JLdLiod to «s«iat th* sik&t^ in tiiwt he f&llad
ta paos tf axaatlnation an thaoa subjacta. Tha anawor oaya doiandant
did not iscua th» liccnoa to plaintiff In 1922 and ^Id not lnfoz«
plaintiff his licanoa vauid OYabtuaily b« issuad ar that in tha
■a^vntiao ua vae at llborty ta praotlaa oie prefaooion. On Uio oan-
trarj, plaintiff f«llad ta paoo tho axasili^ation prascribad inti io«
tharoferp, not antitl'^d ta raewiva tha lltiause.
Aa » furthar ^•imnf tha tatowar ot&tas ta^^t on April 22,
1037, plairitlff lilad i^ tiiandanuo pracaadlng In tha Circuit Court af
Sangaaon Caunty aantlnst dofartdant. Involving the aa»« subjaot i^attar
aa4 raising identical i^suaa a* t^tf. a copy of ino petition Mlad
ia that e»oa ie attaenad to tixa (Uiewer ruid inairpoaatad In it aa
Xzhiblt "a". The aaavar arara tn»t thareaftar dofatiiant on a rll 30,
1987, iB tap Sangaaaa County Circuit Court filed a Rotlen to strike
.•mi'^^^-ifM #*i*j &i«>. ff*lisaa|i{«»jis» .«t4i? 0fl i!.i».lM\ kind '^^m^'^^-i^^'^ »M,
©iff ,t»iS*J,# M.»«l, a^ I>wiit<;^i!ri6 «M*w »«»'i .«J^4# ,Mfei .,|4 siNl«»e»e m
**w «»«faiJr^-«>^ nijkf^w ♦XSi^.i ^TESs^feS^'^t ei IsfeM* j*^t«««4S i*a(^i;fc't %»-mm
jft Ska tf«4i \£9min>i'- M«miimm»tmM k^ithm»-^m m :>»m't a^$f0f^ki»v^ %#
m^nif »6n1 it^e0m t;^i^ i&m Man ^S!i,»m^.» »M,§£^*i%p m ^Mm% .im If^titm
tam-mm:. »»«i«[#« »KMitt #4* ^^?x®f;«»^: ^im^m^k 0v)s$$$m. ^mM0, tt«««^i5A8
-4-
■ad diaialaa Uila p rtltioa for m«n4aMua, u o«py of a«ld motion
l>«iBt attac^od oAd .->*4« a p«rt uf Ut«! niisvor: Uiat iho tiourt. oft«r
full houring, otruok vh« potitlou ir^a i,h« liioo wd *iit<*r«d • final
•r4«r '^ior.iotiing tQe> cuit tdd «»«o««int( oosio KgninBt plaiitiff. A
••P7 of t it or<)or i« likimiao attAcaod and Lnoorporatad in tha
anavar «a :^x^>ibit *c*. Tine otiower anya that on i^agr 21* 1937,
plaintiff aarrad on tij^a Aitomay ttenarid and upon dafanslunt an
appaal netiea wheraby ha ^ppvalad to the Appallala Court of tha
Stata of Illinoia frott th* I'inal ordar und Juil^wni ont^red i.y tha
Circuit Court of Sa&guaton County on kv<y ^, li>37» a oopy of «'hieli
netio* of «ppoal if alao attacnad »nd j&ads a part of u.a onawer aa
Kxhibit *0". Tha anawar furtiiar avara tna «kpp^«il vaa navar parfacta4
%• tba A|»pirll«t« Court of illitioia but was abiuidoned, auid avara
that thia «aa u final «1Ju4iotilion of Ui« iasuaa ^nioh ;9ira tha
au)>jaat uatier of t^ia suit und t^-unt -mf^n^Mnt plaada roe ^IJulieata
%9 tha nattara mxA u^aga oat forth ir. tiia causa, and avara pl&intiff
ia ^otoppad to raiaa t^'iaaa iaituaa in u<ia procaedin^ by rsaiMin of
tha final ju'ltft^nt *nt«r«d t^y tha Cirauit Court of Sangaaoa County,
Zllinoia, May ^, 1937. By furthar sunawar tha liafenOnt ■<?tB up tha
6 yaar dtatuta of Lioiitationa of tha 3tat< of Illinoia; s^i^ya tuat oa
it a f«oe th* pati tien »ho«a plaintiff ia vuilty of lauhaa and for
that raa»en ia ; ot «'ntitlai to a anndaaua. Tha anavar ulao (1«>niaa
tkat plaintiff ia f^ntitlad ta r-liaf of any kind.
Tha OAUoa oa»a on for xiearins Hpaa th« plaa of j>mca<i> ^nd
alaa tha plaa of r*i adJuUoata . aad upaa tha haarinti ta«r«of tna
fatition v«a diaaiaaad at pl»intiff*a ^.oat and tuara waa Judgaant
that thi* plaintiff taka rotniiii^ and d«fasidiU3t rauo'var caata. ifrea
that Jud^aant plaintiff proaoeutaa tnia »ppaal.
Tha plair>tiff eantanda ( oiting eaaaa uuoh aa ViUi Derrt ^.
ABdaraoB . 819 111. 32, mA ^aapla v. ;>unna. asa 111. 441) thwt a writ
of mandaaua will isaua to eaaaiaad the parfozmainca of jri official aet
whieh ia .. araly &iniBt«ri«l Aud not Judicial, .^d v;ita8 titata v.
;riT» » Isiil*' U^^ »1XX 1^ *iffl8^»-««XJ8*-. . ^^
• *>•
M*g<iS « ^^^ ^^* ^^^* ^^^ ^*^* '^'70, to U;« prepo»lxioB thnt Bosrdt
•f Htttilth ar« nr^t JadiclskX i;o(U«» in t,j;ut thrir tuti«« nrc »fi£i<iis*
trAtlT* not »aiGifitprial , .a^d iunt !or tii«ir r«i'u»^ U» t>«rrioni •
glT«n duty mandasBtts «lil 11*. Ail tills is «l«u«»nt».r]r. FXmLr til'f
Also contend* iti-iX Iho iuty n*r« set lorth 'wao a uontlnuin^ on«
ftKHln«t i^hioh th)* bar of tixe :}tKtut« of ii&itutton« or IwgUq , ! cnnnct
•▼«il to dfi'oat 9l»lntlfr'» <«eilou. All this :'or purpcuoa oi t/iia
doeivion mnj sJloo lio oonoodad <^itiiout in ■•i»y w^y d«i«rtuiniri^ tuo
■•ritu of iiiio upposJL, <U. though on it a 1'\o« tito (>«'titioa ohov*
lachwo "rhlch would bar r»oo"v»ry. Qa^rn^l l v, ^ aouatoA. 341 iii, bil;
t^pkint •»« Awoo . 344 III. &<^7. 'i'ae .'Uiswer of t.iit^ drl'ftticiaiit a«t up
now tettttor whiub, if true, weio dstoriiuinativis of (..^ti :i.)p««d upon tJio
K«rit» acdi to this ufrw i^<*tter plnlntllf l'Mil«d i^} ruply ei ts^^^r ai»iit4
ting or dnnyint; it. Uudor doation 4 el' tao iiftttda&iuo AOt, UH.
fttnto hmr 3t»t«. 1937, oii&p. S7) potitionor h«d line ri^.nt ^o rt'ply
ao Inothor oItII ouaoo. Ko did not t^Tmil iiiibiielf ul' uxa m prlvileg*,
and thlo now autttor (nncoly, tiuit Ui» iesuo hpro it*.* b«es uajudioutod
In tho wirouit Court of SikngoBton County otaxido uieiiLtod on tho
record. Tho vrlt of aondiu&uo !• {^ot n writ of ri^.At. wne pr<*yiBg
for aueh o writ must liaow a ol»<»r ri^t ti^rt-to, j;Y<{yBo t. .;»f'por ,
99\ 111. Anp. 164. PlalDtiff i** no rii ht to tho writ bee luoo no
is barred "by laches .
AiutXXKJlxJtxJixxlxxxKXjaiiuixxJuuL^ »fid bocnuso .he wAttor nau boon »dja«>
4ioiitod betweon thooo ijartioo by tho Circuit Court of liajnifmaa
Cour.ty. Vor thooo ro^nono uho Ju<t0Ront will lt>« aj:imod.
ll«S«roly, r, J,, »Bd L'Connor, J,, concur.
r^'t*.«« .*#»4^ mi^i^mm^i ?^iia «« ,0f!g .f*-^ «'€r;r ,«#■« •<** ^«ft '.jKjiftllt'
««?• t«S' #i««-fetfijrfeA' ^^aI-j 'tii %^mm m'i ,.tlit' «X.f:.l ■»»<£" .mjtm »y fai>i<^»;if
Wia^*^ 3#4#i*» ^i:^«^-x «: i»*.a*^ rti':s'i^ai4't^$imi'm*^'Wm'-W^^
Ki^»« m-4Mtt ^fi^ hnii t0mUti4i*i ift ,ii^»^ ^fttl .«l«#8 vmM. iiiMSM '''
»4 mm^fM t4Mif ^md^ 9$ #%it i>^ ■«#<! tM*^s*l#:Jt .»af .<i^ .in i-e«
... u f
40 36 5
JOSEPH ULAiltt
App«ll
.1
kK. JUUXICX kATCHKTT DiO^iVlSHtSi) XH& OPIi.IC)£ OM m£ COUhX.
Ceh«i« th« o^ntr of p«^ri&la«a jcnown as 3099 SoutH Kadsi*
AT«nu« la Ciiaa«;«, m J jauary S4, 16 27, laaevd the auu* to i.ahuolk.
Stonloy karoah, tho defand'Wt, purehaeed from Lahuoik tha burlnaaa
eonduotcd l»y hiai and «<»at Lnto poaaaaalon of the praoilsaa in
Oetobar, 1927. A* oontinuad to occupy tJae BsfeO until Juna 14, 1933,
«han ha ««a diapoaaaaaad ty a judgaiant in loroibla «>ritry Mud da-
tainar in f^Tor of aiaaa, who in tha r&aaritima by dead i^ad takan titla
to tha praaiaaa.
Xaia auit in tha trial court v»a by Ulaaa at,ainat karaah
far rant dua uid unpsiid ondar tha tarb<a of tae laaaa during tha
tiaa ha oeeupiad tha pratbieea. Tha oiaeont olaittad «aa ^2,944. 50,
Tha oauaa ^^/us tria4 by tha court. Yhara waa a fiiiding for pluin-
tiff in tha a«ija of #1,19 5, with jua^ent thereon and da]>ri V^nt
•ppaala.
Tha daian ant ar^uaa in the i irat plaoa th^^t tha atatamffit
• f elaim doaa not aat forth a oauaa af action in that plaintiff
elainad aa aaaignaa undar tha laaaa whil* the siataivent )id net
avar that ha aaa tha bona fida owner and aat forth hew and whan
he acquired title* ae required by beotion 2a of tha civil Fraotiee
Act, (111, state Bar 3tata. 1937, chap 110, p. 2386.) The con-
tention eannot prewail for se-veral raaaona. In the firat plaoe
• •■-■■ -*■' -^^ -mmi^
XX»Q<;(d
,»t^^
.^li^K$ !sm,(mimi^<i nm-
.adA^itva-s* IJ^. tj ^lU H «« aoUa«« %ii ki^iJ^m^t ««i»i*l* *»-iitfis»« •«■
• 2-
OfMdABt in th« trial court jft*d» do obJAOiien lo th* •iat«tt«nt of
ol«iB>. Ih« is*u« ma ho th« ««Bi^iin«nt «&a iu fact tri«d out. Svi-
4«ne« taercen wm« introduced uy U^e parties. Tuo court mad* a
finding. Undor ouch circujuetaneoa wa «rill (iot reverse tho judu;aa«nt
in ordor that a bettor pleading ■.amy bo supplied. ( x.yoae v. Kapfr.
28& 111. 3^6.) Seetion 42 of tho UiTil Practice Act, (111. Jtnto
Bar Stats., 1937. See. 43 (2), (3)) proTidos:
*(f) j:>o pleailng shall be deer&ed bad in sut^stMice
which shall oont»iin euch Intonnatien as ahull reaeon*
ably infers the opposite party of the nature of the
el!%iiii or defense «aich he is c-U.ied upon to meet.
*(3) All defects in pleadings, '^ither in iorm or
substance, not cbjected to in the- tri4..1 court, shall
bo deemed to be waiTOd."
In the Booond place plaintiff vooJi title to ths preuises by deed«
Ho had tho ri^t to sue on the lease irrespective of section 22 of
tho CiTil Practice Aot by Tirtue of iieotion 14 of Uie Landlord and
Tmant Act (111. 3 ato liar Stats., 1937, duap. BO. p. 1^37; achroe -
dor -v, a:ieotrio Apparatus Co. 270 ill. App. 23d.)
Again tho defendant contends that the judgment should bo
roTorsod because there was a Tarlance between the pleadings %ni tho
proof in that while the stat«&ent of el aim ullegod a cttuic of
action based on an assign«<«at of tho written leaoo, defoiidant on tho
trial was allowed to shew what amounted vo an oral leasing of tho
presiiooo for a period of yearo. which brout^t the loaoo within tho
proTisiono of tho Statute of frauds. Plaintiff oiainod only lor
tho tiao defendant vao actually in possession of the p ec^ises quad hio
possession io adaittod. Tho defenoo of the Statute of frauds ceuld
not hoTo boon suoeooofully interpoeed under such oircunstanoes.
Moreover, the utatuto waa liot pleaded aa a deionse. Purtnor no
claim of Tarianco wao ti.ado in the trial court as was necessary to
preoerro the quevtion in a court of review. ( Ill, ferstinia. v .
ThoBipson, 210 111. 226; PJcJcett v. Kuchan . 323 111. 138.)
•***« .XIXI -.,.*«*% 9»l!J«-»'t''i Xivi^ *rii- t® Si* ^^«^ i.^Sfi .ill «fiSE
«;:?j&v " "" - • ^ ./-.... ... ., ■ ., ,_.„ {ifoijji^
^^^ li^M^iarJi »'i^^-t<*'>i a«iiio»«;ie^ ^x^J'-jJE^^ ^'iiii^mum'it iMm •it
f4^ fi» #is«aa*'t*|.«ft»«9i Mtf^'"4ti9''i:4 ■;^#«!lli»*#'iii'«» B»*^
■" ^ t»kf^ ' .i«i»*tft» » «I ^^•'^ #|itt'ii»* *««3^ »«5^ ,t9yo»t»a
"'j^Mal m^'Z ,11% ) .^Ht^t 14 mi^ * a* wm^mop *iC* •vtsastq
-3-
It la n«ftt eont«nd*4l th« court •rr«d in atuittlng in
•Tld*no« •v«r ddlendtsoit'* •bjaetlena plaintllT*s •xhibit io. 5,
whifth was a l«dg*r «h«et vkieh Cehaa tcatll'icd wu* in thm hand»
writing ol' aniddr and Mise laaoy, Inia amployaea. he alao teatified
that tha raoord waa kept under hia nuperYislon aid central oiid that
it ahoved oarreetly th« dalwidact'a aoeount. Unider <ia.ae testified
that the paper «aa on orii<,inal u^eaorai'^diut ol* del'endaxit 'a account.
Th« abatraot anova that Ihia ledger ai^ect was a<lttifct«d in rridcnoe
•▼•r a general objection, ai d tuat defendant i><ade & motion t« atrike
it which waa innied. vue think the evif^ence waa admiaitible.
( Chiahola ▼, Beuaan Machine Co.. 160 ill. 101.) The trial waa by
th« court. There waa other evidcnoe aal'l talent to sustain tiie I'indingi^;
therefore, the admlaaion eV tnia OTidence, theu^ erronffoua, would
not be rereraible.
LABtly, the Aefendant e«nt<i?nda that the finding of the
ceurt waa contrary to th« evl lance. The claim of tu» pl^iintiff,
Torified, waa Tor ^2.844.50. Defmdant ada.ita he owed HSO. The
plaintiff arguea plausibly that the judgamt waa for tva lutount Iwna
than waa actually due. The unuontradicted evidence ahowed defen*
dant waa in peaaeasion of t^4* prensLis^a for a' out aiz yc'irs; th t he
rarely paid hi a rent in full lor any month; that he remained in
poaa«»aaion of the pramiaea until he waa put out unier a judgment in
fercibke detainer; that th« 5-day aetiee on T.leh the forcible entry
and detainer suit waa baaed and w .idb waa aerredon him atated that
the aum of ;»1,497 waa due and in arreara ler rent iind dffi&anded pay*
ment thereof. The lease, aa well aa the &-duy notice, were pro-
dueed by defnndant who waa called hs a witneaa under aectien 33
•f the kunioipal Court Act and rrho alao te>etiiied in hie own behalf.
He rel4ted hie occupation oi the proaieea ab ;~<i>eTe deaoribed and
•tated that recAipta were ^iven to hts ^nen he paid rent. Theae
r«eeipta, he aaid, had ber« lost. J^or a time ho paid 4100 per tbonth.
.S .<s^ #4dlrfe» s»"lti#alajlq in»«l#&at«?i M*tlm^mt»h ir»v<i ii»o««fc|f»
•j&iiideji eiti' nl ^hv mkii'i^i>i tm^.i^'Ci ik^istv >^««$i:$ tAi^X a 9@«r ^iifw
tfi^t? «»»|«#«} fisiii ^t^dAV'xs^e ^«>.ff i&ili^« bm ^9»<i tmw H*m VDsULJk-fb kern
•^•ps.^ '^t^iammt mi»- im-x %9'i a-x«4M«« mi ft««» »«fe «*« ?«*,*! 15# «» w»
•*m^ ^t»w ,»»if »« ififtft*^ «4;j m S,Uv 8f »»««»x *«fll ,t«rjije4# tam
«?s«w^ .*cs»i feieq ad mm ^iM p^ mrH M«W »t<|i«*rs M*i* ft*tx»*«
-4-
Th« A^prcsalon esont, th«n he paid v75 p«r month; later dSO per month
•nd «fter«»r4« 140. He nrnju h« told Uehen , with wh«« he talked,
that he coul(l net nay any more. He taored from the premieee June
14, 1931. Trie leaee and deed in eTidei:oe ^^ith teatiuony by the
plaintiff to the effect that the rent '^nti net psiid ottet upon defen-
dant the )>ttrd(*n of obeying payment.
Upon review the fin'ling of >he triul . ourt ie entitled
t« the eaae v«i^t aa a T«rJiei of a jury. Xae court (ie»rd ell
the fTiience whieh «ae se^iewhat oonflioting und Tery mueh confueed.
Twt oourte hare now held r^nt to he due. ( Uchwarg t. Login ^ 207
111. App. 310.) We connot eay the judgment is clearly and iBanif«etly
againat the velglit of vhe evilnnoe. It will \>f affirsiod.
yeSurely. r>. J., and O'Connor, J,, concur.
i* ''.f^^X^i
'jrf^^S'A I ■;#■'.;■ fe *^#
40382
RICHARD C. kAZKR, Individually and as
Executor oi' Estate ol' iiathie mazer, ,.
Appellee,
also Jmown as Katharine jkazer,
Appellf
'• / /
ER.
/
A
/Ae3?^^L i'^ROM MULICIPAL
.^"-^'
CHARLES J. SCHAEFERAnd WILLIAfc
A. SCHABFSR,
Appellsgfts.
1 COURk' OH" CHICAGO.
I.
kR. JUSTICE MATCHETT DELIVERED THE OPIEIOK OF THE COURT.
Plairitiff sued to recover coiipensation for occupation and
use of certain premises, also demanding interest from the date on
which the amount claimed was due. Defendants filed an answer de-
nying liability. Taey also deiagunded trial by jury. January 26,
1933, tiiie suit was disji-issed for want of p?;osecution; ivi.ay 24,
1938, plaiiitiff j iled a petition under seqcion 21 of the Municipal
Court act praying the order of January 26 might be set aside and
the cause stand for trials defendants an&wered; the court set aside
the order of disuiissal and reinstated the case; ^^ay 26 defendants
moved to vacate this order of Lay 24, wnicii was denied; defendants
appeal from tne order of i^ay 24, 1938, and the order of kay 26.
Defendants say the court nad ijoherent power to disiaiss tne
cause for want of prosecution, taat the order of dismissal was a
final order, arid that upon expiration of 30 days thereafter ths
court was without jurisdiction to set the order aside. Such is the
general rule, to whicii there are exceptions. Section 21 of the
Municipal Court act (111, State Bar Stats., 1937, par. 376) provides
in substa^ice t.iat every jud.^ent order or decree of tne court, final
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 migat be during the term at wnich tue same were entered;
that al-ter tnat time jui^^ents sx^all not be vacated, set aside or
SlB&O^
A
( B£ hm xlliiiibiribal ,HfflSAM .0 CDiAHOlH
.OfiAOIiiD UO IHUOO
i\
av
\
/jjsuoo SHT "io Eoii'Uao SET omMimn tiwm'im mi%^m ^m %,:•
no si"Bi) exit aioi'i d'ss^sirxi snijbfisaxai) oels jasBirasiq a'uiiieo to sajj
,6a -^xaiinsl. .'^awt Y^ iBxiJ' bsbciBiiieb oeX/s -yisxif .Y>tiIi:cf£Xl sni^n
,lv£ \;^ai ; aoxd';jo93 0'.f.q; 'to ioBW -xo'-t f>93ax:aaxi> asw *Xjja slxli' ,3561
laqsoiauM. arlJ 'to 12 uoispaa asfenu noxd'xcJ'sq £ fiallc 't'liiai&lq ,8£eX
X)as ©fixa^ cJ-38 ad' iii.^im aS y^buxi^X. 'io lobia 3s.i& gaiX'Sici io& Stuc^
9jbxBJ3 &8B iiuoQ osli ; bsiQ'frscis aiOBbas'tah iLexii lot bii&ia aau/so srid"
aiasbi.iB'lQh dS ^^ix ;98so axi;}' bQis-^SLilQi bnsi lasalaiaiS 'to tsMo 9iit'
aj-nfibiis'tsl) ;£)9J:n3£) ajQW x-.oix.w ,>S Y'S^ 'io 'xafcio alfid- s>*jbokv oi bovoa
.as Y^M 'io i9ijio snci ijiif^; ,6c. 91 ^^S. ijjsAi 'io ^sMo ©xW moi't IjosqqB
sxi.j- asxxaaxi) o* isv/oq d-naiexinx f>Bii d-ixtoci Qxii Tjsa a*rtal)XtQl9a;
jB a,sw iBBsLiiSXh 'to iBbio 9iii i&s:L$ ^aolifioeaoiq 'io icrnvr lo't aaujso
Qdi iai'i«si9iid- aT^sl) 06 to noid'six<u;e noqu *£fi.;t I-"w:^ .tsfcto I^'ni'l
ani ax ifouS ,©fcxa*i tabto &v.i irts oi aoi^oibQixai JworiJl^'.' 8.ew iixroo
9xij 'io XS aox^oeS .eaoxd-qsoxs eif: aiarl;^ ;oxr{w oct , 9Xi/T Ijsisnos
83:»X7oic- {dve .Tjq ,7e9X , .3.^sd-a isa 9cJ-B*a ,III) ioe cr-xuoO XsqioinuM
Xsnx't ,(t'XiJoo exid- 'io »0ioe.b to tBbio J«sma&i'l X'^^va .tej i 9oxir,lsrfiJa ni
-xboiH 10 ©bxaii ci-ss ,fc«*soj3-v 9Cf oi- d-osc'i'xis 9cf IXexia ,9iu.:ti»n ed"! xii
s.::;^ to a^Jrisflia/oJj'G 3fi d'iis'd-x*) oitusa Qsii oJ txiE lanxiem ©xi^. ;x I)9i'i
;fc9isd-xi9 aisw QiiWD 9xi;r rioixAW i& xa^sd ari* -^altub srf d-xlsim *i«oo *liJoiiO
2
modified except "by appeal or suit in equity or by a petition set-
ting up grounds Tor vacntinf: which would Toe sul'1'icient in equity
•provided* all errora ol' i ct which by common law could have been
corrected by tne writ ol" error coram nob i s. may be corrected after
the exT^iration of 30 days by a motion in the nature oi" tuat writ.
It appears from this statute that a final judti;ment of the kunici-
pal court may be modified or set aside after 30 days in four ways:
First, by appesil; second, by bill in equity, third, by petition;
fourth, by motion. The controlling question here tnei- is wnether
sufficient facts were disclosed to the court to justify tne entry
of the order of reinstatement after tne expiration of 30 days.
The uncontradicted facts, as we gatxier froti the petition,
the answer and other pleadings, are: This suit was filed October
23, 1935; prior to i^ovember 30, 1937, it was on tne past trial
calendar ajid on tiiat date wn order was entered putting it on the
regular calendar; the trial Judge advised the attorneys to see the
Assistant Cnief Justice to the end taat the case mit,;it be placed
on the proper calendar, Uy rules of txie Municipal court t^xe judt^es
established jury calendars for tae convenience of tiie judges and
litigaTits. This cause was olace on tae Trial Calendar 1, ijist ivumber
816, December 1, 19 37, tne attorneys for tne parties appeared be-
fore the assistant to tne Judae as suggested by tiie tfxiief Justice
and were advised by nim tnat, as requested, the case would be
placed on Calendar i<o. 1 and set for trial in Room 1112 after the
first of the year,
January 5, 1938, plaintiff's attorney again consulted the
assist ii t to the Chief Justice, wno advised niiii to watch the call
of the calendar of Judge Scxiller in room 1112, and expressed the
opinion that the case would not be called Tor trial before -Febru-
ary. Tlie cause appeared on tne calendar of Judge Sciiiller in room
1112 on February 11, and at tnat time attorneys for tne parties
vci-ixj-pe ni i as io i't'tas sd' hlwow jipijiw ^ald'.eoay is'i alsajy^tg . f « 8«|.i^
rssecT STsxi ibliJoo WiiX noisaiioo T^d" liolrfw *0i3t io it'otEte IXjs *bs^ivoiq*
'isci"'is baioe-xioo scT "^saiitaMPit auBaop loiis 'io ^xiw sxli -^tf fjsd-osi'ioo
.Jitrw .tsiivS" £0 9iu*sri srlj nl noid'oxa iS xd a^'^f) OS 'ie aoiue?Jto;x9 eri.;^
-xoxnijji 9xij' lo d-asffl;iif)ijt Xeflx't s imii ^iuia^s aXM ssLoi't stBBqq& St
;a^B^' 'xuo't ax a^^^ 06 lo^'ts sfsxa*? v+sa 10 bax'iifcois dcf •^sra d*£ijoo Ibq;
jnoxd-xcj-ag xd ^biini i-zilupQ kx. IIM x'^ ,bxi;oo9e ;Iiisycrfi vd" ,vi-si:i^
laxfusilw ax asrid- s-xsxi ctoxi'asijp ignxllo'id'noo Siif .itioii'om ^^^ ,xU'XUo'i
^ij-as &^ '<;'ixtai/o od' jTCXfou eiic'' od^ l>»aoXoaxi) stew B-^toel iaelol't'lua
,a\;sib 0€ 'io noxd-fiiiqixe ^lii islta dTtQmajJsd-aKisi; 'i* wbio a^*^ 'to
TQcToitod Bslil aB^ d^xjja alxfT :9ifi ,«3ai:fjB9lq isxi^o "fcni 'Zdwane ©if*
l&itt ^ajs? gi)'.* no 3.sw cti ,TSei ,0S tcecTms-voL 0* toiiq ;6eSi ,SS
dii* JKO *i §flxjd-ijQ ^isvfns es^ leli^ro casr 9d-«f) ^Bxid' no fiaa Ttafcflsljso
and- 9se oi ax&aioiia &iii .fcaaxvfijs ©sSiJ^ I^xi* ©rf* jisfexselso "ajsiwasu
£i90£lq ©ef *xlsxia oeao ©xl*^sxi;t fen© ©rid" od- soxiJaiit 'iaxxiO ^'neiexaBA
ae's£>-yG 9ii^ iiijoo L&QkolrtijM. edi 'to a&iisi Xi^ ,«£i)n©Jjso i©<joiq ©xi* no
bOB ©©sfeiJt Siid- 'io ©onsxftsvxjoo ©xid 'xo'i aiBSnsXso xtsji JbexfaxIcTjed'a©
tacfffix,''.! d-exJ: ^X n&bvi&liiO Isx-xT ©xict no ©oaXQ; a«w ©ajy^o alfJT .BdrussiJlX-
-©d f>©*iB9Qcj£ asxd'^jGq ©xid to'i aY9fl«G*;fB ©xi* ,V£ex «X isdmdosCI «6I8
©oxdBJjt 'tslifS ©xid- Yd" f>ed-a9S8^8 aa egbuT, ©xid- od- d-oed-aiBajB ©ri* sio'i
scf Mijcvy seeo ©xld- ,bsiB&iJp9t as \i&tii Mid -^tf J^dSivtsie ©-Eaw bna
©lid- isrUB SXXX xaooH ni XexiJ -xo't *Sb luxifi I .oii iE«fei*©i63 fl© ll>©o«iq
XXfio ©iic^ iioifiw o* ffliji &©alirl)is oxfw .©old-SiiX ^Ix^' ©xfi e? im'*BlBBa
&d:i h@8&®'xqx9 btts ,SXXX ciooi fli ^sXIixiofi ©aJ!>«^ ^o -saliifleXeo' ©xi* 'to
-ifxcf©! ©Tio'iscf l«iicf ao'l i)9XX«3 ©d *on JbXwow ©Bjso ©M* iadi aolnl«o
,...:oi xix isXXixioa ©sbut 'lo M£.a©XjBO ©xi* no i>&i«-^i-ii£ asuao ©xflj .X^'B
adxj^q ©ricf tioI av;9frtoJ*£ ©lal^ **5fi* *« f>m: . ^ ^.^^uids-S no SXXX
agreed tnat it be continued until April 12, 193B, PlaintilT's
attorney on April 12 appeared in me rooa named, it whicn time he
was Inl'crr.ied the cause could not be tried because it had been dis-
misBed by a prior order, Witliout tae knowledge of eitaer plai. til'f
or defendants or their attorneys the case had been called in room
1114 January 26 bei"ore Jud&e Hartigan and dismissed also without
their knowledge. On April 12, 1936, and at all titues, plaintiff
was r ady, willi?i^ and able to prosecute iiis suit.
It is a rule of practice in the kunicipal court that when
a case is disiiissed for want of prosecition notice stall be sent to
the attorneys of record. The appearance of plaintiff's attorney v/as
on file in the court at all tiiies but no such notice was sent to or
received by him. Because of this prior order of Judge ilartigan
no order was entered on April 12 by Jud^e Soidller. Attorney for
plaintiff first oVtained knowledge of the c.rder of disaissal on
April 12, 1938, The petitioi of plaintiff avers t.iat by miEtake of
the clerk of the Municipal court the oai.;ss was inadvertently placed
on Judge hartigan 'e calendar in room 1114, i-Jid thereby plaintiff was
prevented from presenting his motion to reinstate within the 30 day
period. The petition also averred tnat if the court had known of
this mistake the order of dis, .issal 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 stateiuents above set forth 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 L^unicipal court in tue cause tnat it was duly assigned to room
. 8''-i:'-t.i:*iix«I'^* «8£SX ,SX Ixiq-A. Xx.im; bauvuiaoo scf it i&di t>9»'tj^
9Si ©fflid- iioiitw i-js ^b9m&u aaooTi: s^LJ ni f>©iJ59qqj3 SX Xi^iqA no ^snio*?*
'i'iiitaisXg leildx© 'io aafceXwoni axid- Jir©jCli)-iW *isl)io loiTft e >j;cf beaaim
d-aoxici'iw oaXjs bQasiniaxb hoB iie^Xi^BU Q-gbul ©lo'tecf dS Tf^a«>a«"t ^IXX
1.1:l;^HXfiXq; ,a©iaJ:;t XX^ it, £)ii* ,6e&X ,SX lltqA flO ,ss-&9^woxuI tisii*
iisfiv Jisii^ diifoo Xjb^x ii^JUiS ©dcJ-. jxi aoid-OBiq 'io elui £ ax d-l
o-t i^asa ©tf XXjsae daiJea aQi*x;3j&aoac[ "io ifiXBW not jb»fiaiin8ifc si ssi^o a
acw x^n'ioiie, B^'Vliinlslii 'le son;3^«©qq« ©it? .bio&sx 'to ©Xr®"^^*** ®^*
nc Qi iti&Q e&v 9oi*oa riexfa on ox/cf asmxj XX£ ts iisJon ©xi^ ni six't no
ttssi^asK sabBt 'io 'xoiiio loxnq; aidi 'io 9Si;«o©a .lalil ^fgcf j&avi©©©^
to't 5£«*txo;)-jA .^slXifiocS ©siiXf^ Y;cf SX Xxiq;A no ija-xs^tn© sjbw ts^io on
ixo XjB8«ir<;ai£' 'io ttsM'S axtd- 'i© ssi>sXwonjC bsal^ixio isiil tXXiiaiMJ.q.
'io sataiaiffi T(6f *JBxi* a^sve Tixd-aijeXq 'io aoxJi^Jaq ©ill ♦6£ei ,SX XiiqA
&90.8Xq ^Xd'£»^T9VfeJBXtJ: b&ti ©ewso sild' *axjoo X^qxo.xauM ©xli 'io sLnsXo ©if*
asr 'i'ti*axeiq i^d^sufaxi* &as ,^XXX mpoi ax •5«6riaX80 ©♦ns^.i*^*-^ Q'^bijl ae
Y«i) OS ©Xii*- nxxl^^xw ©ijBdaaiea o^ aoid-OiP aixi anxJasBSiq atos'i i>sd-£isv8iq
'to isworol l»j&il ^TJBeo ©iiiJ- "ix tMdt bM^i.^ers oqIb noiix*9q «4S ^J^oti;©^
.. ,bB.-tsAim nsscf .©T434 iToa JjXwoi ieeainsxi* 'to i&btc 9iii s^Laieim aJt^W
no issqqaB ^on bif) islaaxloa ,v iiasceM to ©eao 9ii;J- a^e aoiiiieq, ©xIT
.afili£9xi lo't i-XXX moo's o* *©n^jia8B 3» Jbaoosi: ^iiroo XegioxcurM 9tit
,v 19X^^ fcsXJ-iin© S8.so & tfcri^ ^©solosii; won Si^xi ifo'XBse .nevawoH
^'mtalalq x;cf £.9xix'x®v ai ,uoi:Jxc>-«q 9f£T .©"taiij- S9'xa»qa« ^©l"isxfo8
L-X0031 'i© Ttaxnod-iij aiij 'io Jiveitx'i'iA as nai;ro« ©xf# 'i© ^xogqua ni fcoa
SJS'sr jtlJ-To't i©3 ©votffi a|a»<^,**s »*'* sc^-^'^^^oi-reo Tixlnxfjlq lo'i
Io 8&ioo»i ©xiJ moi'x sMsqqfi *x **ii* a%«a *»* noxJiifa^ Si.^ ni bs^«;fa
fli^jo^.o;? ba^^iaa^ XXtfJb ©jbw *i d-»M* ©8if«o sxl* oi iiijco Uqiolaisd ©xi*
1114 for trial; ttiat it aop?ared Tor the rirst time on the published
calendar as peniiiag in room 1114 on Jroiaary 17, 1933, nnl was con-
tinued rrom day to day until January 26, 19 38, when the order of
dismissal was entered. The anower also sets uo taat on April la,
1938, tJbe attorney Tor niaintilf appeai-ed belore Jud^e iiartigan and
presented an oral motion to vacate the disiaissal, which the court
denied, whereupon the aiotion was withdrawn and no foriiial order
entered. The ajiswer also avers t uat after January 26 the cause ap-
peared on the call of cases a6si_,rjed to rooiii 1112 for ij'ebruary 1,
and from tiiue to tiiiie until February 11, wiieu it was conoiiiued to
April 12, 19 33. The answer avers by way of conclusion tiiat all
orders subsequent to taac of dismissal were void.
In so far as tne merits of the appeal are concerned, it
might be disposed of speedily in f-xvor of plaiutiff on the ground
that defendants, by appearing in tne court ifr-er the order of dis-
missal T?as entered and by agreein-; to an order continuing the cause
and setting it ior trial on April 12, w.-iiijed che prior order of
dismissal and dire now estopped, greise v. iiiid-City Trust 6c Savings ^^
Bemk . 298 111. App. 17.
However, on the U:.contra:licted f^^cts as Liey aopear froui the
pleadings, the court had Jurisdiction uiider section 21 of tne
kunicipal Court act to sjet aside tae order of dis issal. Wheoher
the petition of plaL.tiff is regarled as a co:L.plair»t in equity to
set aside a judgment entered as a result of mutual luistake and grant
a new trial or iuotioii in t^e nature oi a, wric of error cjraai iiobie
as provided for in section 21 of th» Jiunicipal Court act and section
72 of the Civil Practice act, tae order of reinota tei^ent was justiiied.
The errors wnica ioay be corrected by the iuotion are "errors of fact"
whiou, if icnown to tne court, would have prevented the entry of the
Judsnent, w^ich are not, tne result of negligence and v/aich do not
contradict the records of tne court. We cannot suppose taat if tne
lo tQbro Qdi fisriw ^see.C ,SS y"3:k Wfi^t lidrof -^jsJb o^ ^j«£ moi't b^uaxt
^81 liiqA ao ssils qjj adea oals itswaxis qxIT ,i)S593"cis 3«w XaasiinaJtft
bos aesi*i£ii «3i)wt sxotscf BsifisqtJS 'i'ild-nx^Iq lil i{;9fPio#*e &di ,se(&i
191)10 liii^iio't on hrto ixweiJbild'xw asw noi^^cffi ©fi'J noqtJS>-tsr{» ,f>ain9i>
,1 -^fiiiT'isu lo'i: aiil ixiooi o# itdflei^as esBiJo 'to line sitj ao £i©iB9q
0* b&Jjril&iioii asw cM neffw , IX Ij^fititfs'ii Xi jmj ^ml:* ed" »ieii jtaoil fins
XXs A&iii nexet/Xoaoy ag ^jsw \;cf s'xqvs lewKoe ®Xi:'l .85@X ,ai liiqA
,i>iov di6« Lfesaiitieifc lo i&ii^ t>i ^aaisp^adu^ ttiobTo
^i ^baitieoaoo ai^ XfisQQjS siid- Id Biii&m iiit as lel: &a-lij[ '•'''' ■?^**"
Srit^oiS Sii* ■"■=^0 't'ltii-ilBlq "to lors'i nJt TcXxJ^sags 'to b9s6qitiib dcf i^ifgl*
»aif£o &iii -^aiusxl^itioo i»Jbife iic o;^ gislssiaB ^a' ban b&naiim e&tf lanslm
*io 'isIj-io lox'scq sia f^evljpw ,2X XliqA no XaiiiJ- i«t *X Stti;**98 J&na
.^M'A'-'^T'^^, -^^ -'^^^''^^- '^■^ -^'^''^■^M ^X-^*^-^^*^^ .i-.9qqod'8s wojk »i£ J&ac iBBsiaietb
.trV^ ,XXI S«S .i^ruBg
taxUsflW ♦XiiasX:TS8i& 'to -xsfcio sxii!- afcxa** iss o# *o*i *iuoS XiS^ioinwM
0* vJxjjpa fri drJifiXqiaoo « Sfi i)&.6iis|i«i ex '^i'iit&i£lq. 'tc aoiild-sq Sri*
d-neig bm: sl6*8i:ffi Xacittfin to *Xwsfei £ s^ t»r&im' tim!^bi:i k 9biB& i9a
j3_lrfoa i§ei.oo ieii9 'io oxiw ^ 'to 3ii/*Aa «ni^ wi rtoid'oiE t6 IjBi'SSf' tr&a m
noxJoae fjna *o« jiuoO XaqiciiiyM »a* 't© X2 nei^oee hI lol fesbivoiq a*
.b9Xti*8jjt sBVf ^flSiiiSivjjBd-efltei to iSi^to sri* ,to^, &6itosst'i XiViO »r£*'xo i-V
«d"oje'i 'to aio-iia" s^ noid'oiii isxi* xd fidJosiioo dd" ^jsift xiol^is- aiorta sriT
ieaebask^btm 9oa9'^,tL^&a 'io flum^ «ii* j-^tt atfi rioiriw .^asniahxrt
0x1* -tx isAf BaeqquB ionciBO »W .itaii^ »di- 'tp aMoooT: dx'J soil'>Jiiirtot>
B
facts HB set i'ortii in tiie petition iaud been called zo tne attention
of tne court, or iJ~ t..e court iiad jcaowledge tiiereof, tiie order of
dismiseal i»ould have tse.i entered, liie errors ol fact alleged do
not coi:tradicc tae record. It appears neitaer plttintiff i^or ais
attorney was negligent. In atiy view of tue case t.ie order entered
by tiie trial court reinstating tue cause a;id seuting it for trial,
was proper.
The orders £ire affirmed,
ORDERS APlTIRliiED.
McSurely, P. J,, and O'Connor, J,, concur.
a
aot-fdB^i^ 9sii oi be lino w»9<i bati miti^sq acLi nt ILifo'l 't'ea' a» %^a«l
ob be^sllA io£'t "lo a-xoxi« «riT ♦fisioi'iis Xi®scf ST«ii bXiJow IsaslasBlJ!) \
aid ton lll^nXiiXq leivjiah o'sjssqqe il ,/)ioo3n eiJif joxiwinJaoa d'Ofl
al! I
,«ijsrt€s , ,t ,^onfi€lSVO l>fifi , ,t ,^ ,x-^*tJjBjjM
.*S 6 <■■'-) ii? 5 .'■^i' 's/-: ■ ^■''- • ■«, -«».''K-f
40391
friOl'LI Of THB aTAXE 0^ liXl«yis,
Del'ttn^i^t iri/i<rror,
vs
Plaiiitifl* In isrror.
kR, XJoXlUB LaTCHKTT !) i IV^{iiiI3 Vtii. OPI-' lOi. OJ*' TUK COUKT.
Fad»r«WBkl, on u plea ol" not ^ai^ty, was trl»4 on vi
Information ol* live counto, J ilod ty C-iariotto a«Tm«J8, oach of which
diargodl hin wltlK the Tiolatlon en April 1, 1937. cf Section '.^4 el'
the kedicfJL Practice Act (111. iitate t»x Gtata. , 1937, ohap. 91,
p. ?00S), There wae a trial by Jury with Tordiot of guilty.
Motione for a n9« trial aiid in arrest were overruled and Ju:i0&ent
en the verdict wae <»ntered with ecntenoe that c^eferiiAnt Kixould
pay a fine of ^100 and ooets and be cosu&itted to the County Jail
for 30 days. By thie writ of error def«ii;1<mt seeke to reverse
the jU':^ginent.
Prior to his plea defend-:;mt made & xaotion to n^a^^ the
information and o&ch count of it. XiiO uotion wae lenied* Ttiie ie
the firet of the alleged errors argued. The information in the
several oounts in isubstauce charges th^t defendant, without a
licenee, unlawfully nttaehed ihm titles Doctor, Physician, Surgeon,
M. D, or similar words or Hlobreviations to ai«< r,mi9, iniicuting
that he was engaged in the treatment of human ailments as a
bunineea; had his nane printed in Uia directory of the fuliding at
20? South UiMte Street as "Paderewski and Paderewaki, Chiropractors*;
oaused his naste to be printed on a prof«Sf>ional business card as
"frank C. Padereweki, D.C. — Chiropractor*; had hi« nasie listed In
the ChioanO Classified TelepJ^ione Directory us a ohlropraotor, and
oaused letterheads bearing sijiiilar vords lo b© printed; that he
maintained an office for exasUnation aiid treatsient ^f persons
"L^
» Jl.
''1
^m ai «iyi-<tj*sw«»tai tt^'lf .fctfiJ^lia a'so-i.-x® fe»:ft»IX« ««£# Tft t«-xit ^M<^•..
ife*-^ ,it©*o^^q«^lrto « «« xi^otoft-aM »«oi^»X*Y fc»rUos«X3 egseliO •ti*
-s-
»filiot«a or ■upposed to !>• al'l'lictad »t Roons 1100-02, I«o. 202
8«uth 3tat« Utrvet. •auftpvil with a ohiropractlo tabl*. etc., for
troatmont of al'ilietod porRono; that Jivitnaiant diaioioatioMtod or
attasptc'l to iiagnostloato tlxo suopotod ailai*nt ol' Uharlott* ti«rm«s
(also known as li^rs. E. Gohults) as a rotatsd cervioal bono at th«
top of thf> spinal coluam, and! did unlawfully opsrato upon, prefffss
to hoal , prsacribo for and othorwiao traat an ailnont or euppossd
ails<ent of another, naaoly, Charlotte Henaos; that lofendrxnt recoa-
Bondod or proscribed h form of treatmont for the uiodieittion, r(>llef
• r cure of a physical or nental ailmsnt ^Ith the Intention of r<r«
oeiTing a fee, ^ift or cosipensation , etc., oontrary to iieotion 24
of the statute, «tc* The infoxmution ia praotioally in the
language of tiie statute and docs not negative tne exc^^ptional cases
to whioh this section of the statute (by other suctions) is declared
te be net aoplieaile.
The objections to tuis iniorxutttion are si'imllikr to those
urged on benalf of the 'leferidant in People ▼. ahaver . 2d9 111, App,
612 (afflmed by the Supr^e Court in 367 III, 339), and in P»ople
▼ . Spencer . 16 i.,ib. (2d) 936, There, as here, the defendant relied
on Poople ▼, Brown. 336 111. 267; People v. B»mea. 1514 ill. 140;
People ▼. Benaaa . 316 111. 547, «nd People v. b;ilis . 516 111. 376.
We held in those caaes ihat the objections to the infonuation were
not well taken and the Supreme Court approTOd the judt^nent of this
court. It vould serve no useful purpose co furtiier discuss these
objections.
Tl»e evidence offered was Kiveii by Cnarlotte Uen&es, wiio
is an investigator for the State Departsient of Rngistr^tion and
iducation. Uhe was the oeaplaining witness in P^ple t. ^pancer .
Her testisteny here is to the effect that b..« Trent to d -lendant'e
•ffice at 202 aouth iitate Street aiout karch 29, 1937, met the
defendant there, and thut he asked uer .© rrvum nt 3 o'clock
■"■-it 't^ (tfilda^ini ^cU j#Jt^ l^i^itt X^iimai te ijs^i'jLisxifiq .^ \o mxua -se
&f»list-s ^«»ft.«»*t9& »f(i ,9t«»A m tft-xerft .8e« u*a) .*l»4 «< ..g^Mf,#..t.I
«i$d ^»« ,fe»x ,«8 x(0»»ii #^i*sf# ♦t^t*^ tf«#» «w*>os K0« *^ ftsnio
which ehm did. 5h« deaeribsd th« vigfi on th* dlrc-otery of tii«
building, valoh wa* *Pader«iraici cv i' ad craw ski , Chiropracters". >iht
told d«l'«ndant she ti»d b««n su] faring with iitadaoiiCg, n«ard aivout
ehlropractle tr<»Atcicnta and won<l«r«d if thasc vould h«lp. Oefandant
told h9r to ooiuo into tike inner offico. & i« did »o. t>h« told
hl« h«r nam« was hrB* Sohults «aid vuat she IlT«d in Uicoro. Ho
aoiiod hor what illnooeea »ho had had am m child, her tjaiae arid
address, then said that chiropractic treatments were espeolally
good for the headache of which she ceaplalned and pains wuloh sho
told hla she and in her shoulder and an&. iie Xiad a number of
oharts on the wall and used tlioso in ouuiing oxplanatlons. Delfmdant
asked her if she was interested in having an exauilnation. i>he
said f'hp was. lie gave her a vrhlte «?o«b and told ti.«r to go Into the
dressing ropwk ^nd put the gown on and thithe would exaaine her ^ack,
whleh he did. She cuno out of the offlee and sat on a saall stooi
with her book to him. He used a neurochroiBeter« an instrument
wbi^ (as he explained to hor) sliowod the temperature of any ner-ve
that was pinched, he aoplied this iustnu&ent with ressuro to her
baok and said if there was any pinched n«»rve or any cont^estion that
It would cause a tenperaturo wriloh would show, aiid -n tiiat way he
oould t«ll whether oho had trouble in the upper part of her neck.
Ue eald ho would net gir9 a treatment until x-rays had b«>«n taken.
He told hor to ko to an A-ray laboratory and .avo ta^on an X-ray
of the upper part of uer neck, ile said th.it her trouble wae in the
upper part of hor neck -- the cervical. Qhe ottalned the A-ray,
wont back to defendant's office about April 1, about 10:30 in the
morning and saw defendant who told her ho had reoeiyed the ^-ray.
He told her that the upper part of the nook was rotbtod to the right
end this oaused all her headaehes and the paine in her snouH^rs.
ahe again put on the white gown and he examined uer back, pressed on
the ▼ertebrae with nis hands, applied pr«e«ure to the bones in the
region of the shoulier blades, ahe could hear Uie Lones snap, ue
$iii^l:>a»'l;gHt .^'£»£L SXii'sw ®sifm ti. b9t»hmvi j^m it4'mm^Mm%$ mitoMt^vtlii*
g,il .««»&' £0 oi b9rll »m $mi3 ksm tflt^^B ' ,»'ti ttsm tmnn «*ji' jtlif
hm 's^^'S-u idM. ^hliiSa mwB hj»ii baii 9d«i tt»««j»siiii #»t{v -smti b^ilmm
XJkl»i»»tii»9f ti^'^ slA<»iW«9t:i s»lirj{t%q^tXii& UnM kUm 'mni$ ^mmmthhm
l« ««i^i!ssi0 « b*& mil .jttt« .iM«9 «wi>x»tts^ -t^d o^ «Miiii DiliB itidf lietlf'
,2^«^r %»H »&Immt$ blam »iii«iM hm m» m^a wclt stm %^ ®«tf% ]|Ml»a*«A
i&M$ ilei-#««3*«»Ji ^«« ^0 »v«s3a fe»ii«j:!iJt<| ^os 4Im*^ «i»iJ(i 14 %i»* ham ti»M4
•iji -^w i»i^ iKi ititjs ,WMi« feX«»« skil^im nt-tus^t^^smi « »•««» l^fi^«w ii
,m.Mii a»ffd &«*{ sv«-^ Jfi*fl« t«»«l««Mt* A ♦via *»» ii£««iw ftjf &l«i'»S
X«%*^ Sim a»A»i »v«.:< ha» ^^o*«ietfjMX Tfisi-it us CM^ i^ ^^ "WMI ftl*! •!
©.l;r al OejOJC *tfo<f« »X liis^A $ii&^'& fronto «**«*^ffl»%«A •* Jlwrf *«««'
.in5»-ftJt»o*^ «*^ a* •i»|ji« iJl* W» ••<<»*JM»«rf "»ll IM ••»•
tvatnti «j»nt»\J
-4-
teld h«r t« Ii« on her back, h*ld h9t uarid i»iiii uie ht»ndft Mnd
turned it aidcwayB with r&thar quick atoTcaenta. H« applied th«
reurochroEieter, with its two pron^^s lilting into Ui« spinal c«lunn.
Th« txAiBinHtieB lasted about an hour. Ssl'ondant told uor that
in thrco nonths h» could haTO hsr fooling all right; that il it
took lengor tlian throo inentho tit would not churgo anything oxtra*
Ttao ehargo was 950 I'or throo motitho. Ho said th«it tho bono was
lD»ing rotHtod lin tho nook, k\n<i t is was causin,^ hoadaohos. Uho told
his «ho ooul!) not nfiord to pay f^O, &h« paid hia ^5 and ho t^ave htr
a rocsipt, a card and a littlo t;ooklet. Ihoso wero oiierod in ovi-
d9noo but aro not abotr.^ctod and cannot be found in tho record.
Tho wltnoso testified th«i.t defendant's ofiioo consisted
of a reception rooa and .in inner ofiice, w.^ioh vers nicely, furniahod;
that tne inner offiee Had a desk and cnirepractie tatlo which «»*9
upholstered «nd extended in the air and ^ould lower vith the weii^^t
of the patient on it. Tnoro was a dressing table ottA a it>irror and
day bod. She gave hin the naoio of jbrs. \, Sohulta and her addreso
a* I93& South sath Court, Cicero, IiXir4ois. Iioither name nor
any
address was oorr<>ct. iihe had aade arrangements Co wave/x l«tLer
froB hitt recelTOd at lUat nunber and Kuch letter was roc«iy<d. Tho
letter and envftlopo la which it wsis contained were offered in f^vi*
denoe but are not indexed in the abstract, and an oxaaiination of
tho record discloses tho sane are not in it.
Tho ooBpladning witncos was bent to defendant's office by
hor superiors. Defendant did not t«s^ify. b,o evidence in iiis
behalf wao su^Mitted. As already stated, important ojOiibito are
not iound in the record. C larlotto Uermeo testified Uu^t she was
not ill when ehe visited t^ie office of dafendaut and thut Si^e went
there to g'*Utor evidence of the unlawful practice in which it w<*s
believed defendant rras entca^od. iror the stuao reason she ^avo hia
a fictitiotto I uBo «nd address. Defendant claims on ths authority
•^" ^'—Pl* ▼. Jftach. 266 111. App. 272, An dPeoplo v. Ciua»J.iata ,
Sii'n «a««f e«b<- #«4^ M«» «it ,KMssti« •m.JiiSf t¥t ^$ «M|V «iiti:art» 9tSS
•X9xi '9ir»>j, -£»£i. fefte- ai ml A &l»^ »M .^St -^^ &S fet«1:l« i"$i> ]&£«%»' iibr mM
y.: .^ff&^9V- 0M - tS^ bmSf^t «»<f #«>'»JBKU» lija» l»«#lk.^1E«1»«i(l #«» ^ii» ilwt/" *lie(9i»%
haa tms%M A &m »£€m* ^jslsatttitli n «4)«r fln«;gS .ill mi itittJtiJtii *tij 1*
'jcmi' 9is%it i;«£@rJt$ii *6i««IXiJ «<n:»9iS» 4 4hctf^ <^^S Jd^ffoe 6<*'@I aa
.^.^vkr^^..^ ^ Ar«««>uf.«» erft .tttiA .til liM .£$&«»& .T liiaO^H. l0
762 111. 4?7, 200 I-. i£. 169, that this w.:ouDt«d tc sntrapueiit and
that a r«qu«it for ao Instruction in d«l'endMit*s I'avor »/^ould hm.ym
laaCA givsn for t lis reason. J'urthor, that there ^t^s «rror in
requeeied
rofusinc to ^Ito tha Jury «n instruction/te th« oiioot tiiat "If
th« effieora of the lav Inspiro, incite or eth<>rwis« pareuad* or
luro a dtfandant to coBiii.it a tflivia «hich iia nad no intention of
eoBB'ltting, and vould not uava othenvise uoAmitted, thon, undor tho
lav, in the absene? of other ircrlAintiting o'vidence, the defeciani
■heuld be acquitted. " There «as no error in tale respect. In
Peoyle t, Spencer , 16 lu,i&, (Sad) 9S5, ve Ueld in a askam where ther*
was a eiailar conviction on the teetiuiony of Charlotte Ueru.es under
siailar cirounstances that the judgment was not reversible lor that
reason* This ie rAot a case where an ofiicer of tiia law inspired.
Incited or lured the def en iant to coiair.it a orLae which he oth»rviat
had no intention to commit. There is no eridence tehdnini.^ le so
shew. The officer merely al'forded the d«ferid(tct an opportoi.ity to
eomeit one of a series of crimes waioh he had Jilrettdy planned,
the distinction is vital. J'oople ▼. ;*uai^liata . 362 Hi, 427; In
re Horwits . 360 111, 313; ;;orrells ▼. Uaited otatee . 257 U.o, 43B,
77 L. Kd. 413.
The defendant finally uon tends that error wiia couuitted
upon the trial of the cuuse in that Uie i>tate*s Attorney was per-
mitted to comoient on defendaiit'e failure to testify in his own
behalf. In support of t is uontention he uitee such otsee as
Austin y, I'eople. 102 111, 261; yuinn v. faoale . 123 Hi. 3^3; and
fapple ▼. Docalrison . 255 111. 31, with a^fuay others. The rule is,
of course, #»11 known «nd should be vigilantly enforced. rae ret^ark
of the State's Attorney to wtiich defendant objects w«s "If the
4efen4ant here, far. Paderewski, nad a license of any kind, to
practice (bedleine in any form, shape or < anner in the atate of
Illinois, it was his duty to i>roduce it. ' iftiile the remark of the
State's Attorney might have been c^re happily phr»ii»ed, we lo net
-'. .ill ..i»»^fta'a mXM ai ie*'i«» «« i^uiw »Tt«s<f ' *,,&«#«'i;aiptjwi ■»# ftXtto^a
4r««iU «it»4^ *»*» » «i hi^ti a* i-gSi© ifeaS) •^i.ii ftl ,iy|&,SSSi~-iiX,.l.fSMS
■»ii#-jJt«9B«fiu^ »mt *«««► #^». i^/iNf«»» t*a»***'* *a«sfes»t«fe 9>tSS
feste :««« .rfi «»x .»i<!f«9^ .y muui^ :xss .rfl ««x ,^iitol^i.jMlM
sktsr tr »«.w »*i»H^6 ^a«&«sl»l» itei^ *# tf"**^*^**^* "'^^^
»^ .fe«la[ t««- la «»rr»oii * ftA« , Jai**^-?*!**^ ***1l',«i«lrf #liBft«*1#i
W'*l««@' »i«- ei t»««isi4i "K© #<|»J4» ',-ait*l!-1&fia!- lit" *«i«.i!»»» ••its***
■i© ji««ai»i «jti* •ii^ *.#! •»w^««^ »* t*«** **^ ««* "* .uio.^iin
.5*
think ht traciiii'.roas^cl ihe rule. The Stat* al«aiy» lias th* riuht t*
discus* the otI snce »» It actually is. W* think thla statcj^cnt,
while clccc to the line, anounted to no oore. i'^yple v, jt*ieXey.
299 111. S76. w« find no revcreiLle error in the record. ! no
guilt of the defonilHtnJ. jL«. e4ttat>lieh^ au;y douttt vuataoevor,
MUd the judgnent will l>e ai'l'irmed.
a^oSuroly, F, J.. and t)*Cennor, J., i;oncur.
.Csr^IViA
•JNUiTtJ^TtA «<! lilw ti^jmibjtrt, •lUt htm I
.iE«(s»i»««i ,.1> t^«»£ttt«d*C9 fiiMt.t ,< ^x^iEiSnc^^d^
( f V
]A,'?;,rf'
■;'■• ■. ■: : ■■■■■ .,:^10: V:>:-
40398
Appellant,
V6.
JOms P. DOLAN and 2\L1Q£ fe, DOLANi )
Appellees, I I )
) -O'f.'
Ok iDUPiiRlOii COURT
ox^. coUj.,iy.
i.K. JUSTICK i.ATCHl<;'i:T DiX.I\'ER]:-:D 'i?KE OPIiaON 01' lliE COURT.
This is an aopeal ty pl-iintil'l' from aa order entered J..ay
19, 1933, vacating, a jude^nent entered upou tjie verdict ol' a Jury
upon an ex parte trial on Inarch 16 of the same year, I'lie proceed-
ing was by notion suoported by c- petition pursuant tc section 72 ol'
the Civil Practice act. Defendants' petition was fil?d April 26,
1938, -^ni W3s ar..erj5ed rjfter filing 3nd the itiotion wae further sup-
ported hy affidavits filed ii ay 17, 1938. kay 19 def en 3':int8 a.yde a
motion to iie'-.iss the petition -wnich was dpfiied. The question to
Toe deci-ied is wlether the lincontradicted facts 3s stated in the
petition and affi'^avits justified tne order entered. i'laintiff
contends that the facte were ii sufficient. The law apolit'S'tle to a
procee-^in, of this kind is well setled. The filing of tne petitian
amounts to the beginning of a new suit. Only errors of f^ct may be
corrected. These are limited to such as do not contradict the
record ^vhich w^re unknown to the court at tsie tiiue judi^ment was
ren-iered and which, if known, would have precluded tlie entry of
the Jud.i:;ent. ( Aiitchell v. i^vint^ !;. 187 111., 452; Domit ski v. A:c-rican
Linseed Co . . 221 111., 161; Smyth v. Far'^o. 307 111., 300; Harris
▼ . Chicago House Wrecking Co. . 314 111. , 500; Jaoo- bgon y . Ashkinaze.
337 111., 141; kcCord v. Brig^n. 333 111., 158; Ixarabia v. -.;ary
Thompson Hospital^ 309 111., 147.
The facts .-nade to appear are tjiat the ori,;inal suit of
plaintiff was begun September 11, 1935, and was for injuries said
to have been sustained October 8, 1933. Defendant appeared.
^.f v:>
-S99001CJ 9.ri'l .'XS9Y 9ii":S6 s/icJ' 'to 51 xfoicsa fjo Ist'zA s^i^g :<9i^ fiB iioqw
~gi;3 i.@s\i'iu'i aew noxd'oii): orlj- ^ric gniXi't t^j-'i.s? hsjba^ar*: 8je.wRae ,8561
'l"rxS ax*iXl ,&5t;9j-ci3 iQbio saj- jbsi'tict-ao't a.txv43fi;'i1:B Jbiijs ts.Qiil&sq
fscljXjQq 9Ai^ 'to sfixXi't 'jxil' .IjsI^cieB IXsv; ax .bcxjl sxrf;t 'to 'jnibseoottq
9d" x^''^ iJos't 'to aioii© \;XnO ,ixi.'3 v/sn js 'to gninnx^sd' siict ocf ed'nyofflJi,
©d#- *oxJbJ3T;{"fico ioa ob 3« rfox'3 oJ' bsd-iadX sijb ®a$if[T ,BaJo9Tioo
'to ^10' ao sfic^ l)»Jbi;lDf>'3:g &vt&si feXxJOW ,i-iW0iX3i 'tx .xisirfw bnB b&i&t:i9%
.3£2il5_lA..-'X-i^liiSM. :S?.*' t.III V8X ,MM_-*J_ii5ii2llM) .*n8aT>;;^iJf, sriiJ"
£|5-LgH ;ODif; ..XII VOf. .Pja3jiX.j.X.iflSS^. J-l^S-f , - S.£I XSS . .pQ jiaeeglJ
I?J"iL.£:i_£.I^.I^4 J^^SX ,.iXI ef.E .g?^-jJ:^a ,r b-ipOoM ;X^X ,.iXl VfiE
.V*X , .1X1 ©OC . 1&& iae oP^ nos crmorfT
'io d'Ijjs XcnX;.,xno -^r;* *j?.i'jr oijb issqqn oi 9bem aioc't edT
fjXfis e-Diiuiai lo't esvr £»n£ .fifPX ,IX lecfffls^qoG no^soT b^j^ 'ni^nl^Xq
answered ind averre.i a erit'jrious deTense, Al'ter auit v.'aa ^iled
no prcoer roticp 'to pi'^t the cause on u trial calendar was iiled
by T)lairit i:!"l and the suit did not appear jn any priuued trial
calen-^ar in SeptPT-ber , 19 36. A oyvcial trial caieixlar was prepared
ty the clerk of the court ori -.lic the cause '/as pl.ced an-: it ^/ras
called Fetruary ?, 1C33, --yhen it was '.isniisbed i'or wa^i t oi prosecu-
tion. Fe'brurtry 8, 1933, plaintil'l" caused iaotice to be served on
defendant- that on J^f^i^ruary 10, 153d, he -rould appear bei'ore Judge
Mciv^inley aiid ask to ^lave the cause reinstated. Aitorr-ey :'or de-
fendants appeared in re^^ponse to the notice nd was ir.forued "by
the i.iinute clerk that no order had been f.atered as tiie iil'oB could
not be lound, i^o furt-.er notices 'ere served, but i^ei ruary 16,
193d, plaintiff's attorney procured an order reinstating; the caase
and pl;^cin^ it oi. tne trial calendar. ^February 17, defendants'
attorney was infomied by letter that tiie order of diamiBsal had
been vacated and the cause pl-:vced on a call to be made later when
it ''^DUld be set lor trial, ...hiB letter ei. closed a trial notice such
as was used in the 3up-rior court to notice a v^ase to oe placed on
a printed calendar. iherecy defeadaiits were led ^:o believe uiie
case vTould be on tie printed calendar to be called in 193d. i-arch
14, 19 36, defeiidant in the County court was adjudged insajiC and
comiuitted; he was released July 20, 19 36, as having iiaproved. De-
fendants did not know of the judgment until execution v:as served
April 25, 1936.
iwo errors of fi-.ct are -liscloaed whicu, if Jaiown to the
court, would nave precluded tiie entry of this ex parte judynent.
Tne lirst is tiae reinstaLement of tue cause without furti^er notice
on i'ebruajy 16, 1938. The other is -che uncontradicted fact tr.at at
the tijae jal.^ent v.-as rendered JoiUi i'. Dolax. , one ol the def endc'u.ts,
had been adjudged in the Coun-uy court to be insai.e. It wat to
correct error of ft.ct s^ch as ti.at of rendering judt^ent against
3^v/ j-x :,nf} b&o^lq, e^.y SBiUiiO Siicf -'oinw ao &tuoo mii 'to ift^Io- Qdi ycT
-ifos^joit; io jfias- to'l i>9aaxpelr 8SV? ,+ i ij^ilw ,8S2I ,,S \jxsj^'id"9'S[ SaXIjso
xio i^srxaa 6<f ou soxcl-on jbsEiu>yo l'ixJ-aJ:£lq ,8£QI ,8 ■^xsuicfp'S ,aoi:*
agfcwX. ©-xo-isQ" iMeqai:. bluow arC ,6591 ,01 x^^v^do^ no d-srfi)- g^nefcwe'tsfi
-ssL- ic>"i; \4&aioJ':-'A ,£)9v'£d-a;u»i sai-^jsn arid" aviferf 6t isa Brus' '■^©frtJt'XbM
biwoo aoin aiU s*; .d^-xs^Ti ■> ag>su JbBxi Tie.b'xo on d^^irf* :i.teio S^jj'niw ©xfj
'' BiiiiibaQ't0b t'CI \;ij6ifs-cf9t ,'Xsi)aoIj3o Isiici- arid' 06 ii anio^siq 'ly'iiB
fcsii iB8©imsiB 'to TisMo etxS i&tj tsiiaL \d fcsmielai aaw ^ertiodd'a
nsii?,' ^sa-jsl sbsiH scf oJ" Il'.wo e ao bso-^lQ aau^o ©jid' l>ns &©Jjb6jbv sx^6d
xioiia soxj*ow IiiX'x,t s bsaQLou€> 't&i-^Bl eliii' ,i£.xi^ ^ot ^se «cf i)X«o* i-J:
flo &so.«Xci. ©a od" 9a*scj xi sioi^on 00' ^t-xwoo toiisquS »x(o ax b»&u afiw is«
sjOj svexiad oj ml s'lav/ s;ta-;-i;ao'ts>& -^'isTSiii' .,'XBl>nsXao Bs^axiq; «
xIoisM .BS^X ai bollBO so 00' 'x^l^asi.Ciio h&iai.Tq @iii no scf J5»Ixjow se'^o
-9(1 .fisvotcffiii aajfcv.'sxf 8£ tOCei ,0$i ■^XjjI JbaefleXsi bjsw sxx ;68*d-ijnffl00
i[)9trx9s ajBw aoxorwogx© Xic^iiJo d-a&iog&xit s-tO" 'io woiiisL *ofl bib einebait
' ' .ssei: .aa xxiq^A
ooxjon leaicJiij'!: j-xfoAcJ-iw sexfso ax^J 'io tiWflifsJscJswlsT: ©iiiJ' aJt' *eil"i diST
,si~-i43bn&'t9h fiiiii 'to sao ,iiBXoa .'i nxiot MnsJbusi sja^v ^usiHSibJut 9tsiii 9di
od- ajBw cfl ,9ri6gai acf o;f *iifoo -^JflueO »xl* ai fosabwtfi^ ass'cf *»*^
an insane person, a minor or feme covert , etc., that the original
writ of error coraLi nobis was designed. AIj. the cases ^re to that
/
''effect. Trie affi^iavits 1 iled in support of tae motion furtner dis-
closed that plaintiff, as a matter of f-ict, prior to the rendition
of the judfeHieat had settled the claim upon viaica her suit was based
for a consi ieration received by ner. The renj|itioA of jud^e»*^^.^
_under such circ.aiftfi.tdiiCLet was in^ the nature of a fraud, jf which
(we assume) the attorney who took the judgment was witiiout
knowledge.
The court ri;;.xtly t:ranted tiie relief demanded ly the
writ and the Judgment is affirmed,
AFPIRMED.
McSurely, P. J., and O'Connor, J., concur.
Xsai.ijirto &<.\.1f -jiiiii , .iJcJs xi!I^J22. SEM.'l '^'^ loniiE js ,noei©C[ arise ni n«
j-fii^.:t ocj- ex£ asa^o 9Jil.t IIA ..fesaaiasi) eaw aicfon ^0300 'igiis to iitv
iioiiiw "to ,fsi/^il £ 'to a^ud-jBE ©ri* jU bjbw «»p.j3U^affla91Ei^ xloae vdljoxf
-,,,■■' ^\:*--^ V'-:' :''^- "'^^:'*?'i
.s.
; {-■
•i<» '.?»
40409
CHARLES iiADtSiilK, . y. )
lppel3Jee, ^^'^'HT^ l\ )
/ \ \ APPJ!,AL i''ROAu CIRCUIT
'''*• \ \ i I \ \
I \ i / ^ } COJflX 01^' COOK COUKTY.
GEORGE E. I'ADEi^IK, IndiJridutiW and as / \ S
Adiuiriistrator de bonis ffion wijfu tne 'U'±1^ ^ ' )
annexed ol* the Estate If Annf Cejka, dlceaee^. )
WRAJ^.iL I^iUDiSNlJi, i'-\RT£ imBEK., I.^;J\A KLAUSf and \
TyJ S'IRST tATION.lL- EaI^ OF c|tCEaO, IL|ll>iOlS, ^^
a Corporation, Executifr, "v^^r /
^,«liar,t.. '29 9 l.ric C Ig
iiR. JUSTICE kjiTClIETT DEIJVKRED THE OPTMOK 0? THE COURT.
July 27, 19 35, AiHia Cejka departed this liTe in CooJc county,
lilijioia. About December 5, 1335, a v/ritiiig purportinj^ to be iier
last will and testaoient was admitted to probate and letters issued
to the First liational Eaailc of Cicero nanir;d as executor, i-'iie baiik
declii^ied to act and Febraary 11, 19 36, iieorge E. iMadenijc was ap-
pointed administrator de bonis non Vv'itn tne will annexed. May 28
plaintiff filed his couiplaint averring tne purported signature of
Anna Cejka to tae writing was not genuine; tiiat at the time of tne
execution thereof Anna Cejka was not of sound mind and memory, and
taat tne puroorted will was not her will; tnat its execution was
brought about *by undue aces" and fraudulent practices, lae complairt
orayed the supposed will be declared null and void. Tne aeirs at
law and next of kin intervened and became defendants. xhe cause was
put at issue ana T,ried by Jury, At tne cxose of ail tne evidence
the proponents made a otion lor a directed verdict in their favor,
wnic was denied. The jury returned a verdict tnat the instriiment
was not the will of tne deceased. A motioi. for a new trial was
overruled, and ^ay 26, 19oo, a decree was entered in coiifor.^ity with
t he verdi ct of the jury. Defendants appeal.
Defendant* submit 14 proposition of law and ar^ue as a
matter of law taat the testator was at tne tiiixe of tne execution of
the writing of sound mind and memory; tnat tneir request for an
,av
I
s* ,eiO;iIJ.JI .C^SDJp 10 miA2 tiAaOJfAii I'fifil'il SET
,vjni;oU iooO ni slil eidi bsitsqsb siitsO ^aiiA ,5SeX ,^8 iclfft
JbQjJsax aTd^i"©! bri& si-acfoiq od" i>9od'i:iiii)jB saw ia^tiieinBt baa lS.lv iasL
jtfiBd sii'i' .lod'ijOQs:© &•£; l)6iaea ©assiO 'to licmS. l&aoi&BSL i'aii'i axic^ od-
-oji e*iw xJ:«9i>£^i ,£[ s^ioaii) ,d£ex ,11 y'^-^^^j-cI^^ ^"je So^ oJ JbsalXeaib
SS ij;i3:«i .baTnaaoB XXxw sdj AcrXw ftpn axao cT a |) lod'fitd-slfiliiiijfi bainioq
'io enjia^i-Qls bsinocisjq en* ^nxTievB d-nxaXqmoo exa JbsXx'l; TixJrtxjBXq
^rij- 'to 9-iidj 9ii.t j-^ jfiilj ;»xixijn»^ d:oa aew i^iiicHiw a.ij oJ ajft^^^ annA
asw ffoxdJoOsxQ ed-x d->sjld- jllxw laxi ioa bsw IXiw bodioq'Sifg arid' d-siid"
diiXiiXqiaoo sai ^aaoxJ-osiq; d'nsXx'biJ.si't ba^ **ad.«r« »t'f>ni? yd" d-xtocffi d-xigaotcT
isi sTiQix 9ilT .&XOV l>ii.'.5 llun b&xsLo9b sd IXxw bsBocrqxre sitd J&SY^aa
a«w aaiiso axil ,ad-nsi:.ns1:9£» dfrnsoad biis ijsflsviad-nj: ni2£ lo d^xen bxus wbX
9oas£>xv9 9iiJ XXoB io 980.1.0 sxid dA .■^liif, "Vid" xjSXt.j orts Qsjaai. in d'uq
^'xovb'J: axsrid al toib-i&v bsioeiib & loi iaoxdoi^i £ Bbum ad-nsnoqonq sxid-
iiismti-iienl ©xid- d-^iid- ioifiiay js boaisjier x^ut «iiT ,f)ei«»i' aaw oixiw
as«r Xjjxid- waa £i ac'l icid-oiu A .Jb9«4s»09jfe •«[# 1© XllW ©fit* *oa a«w
xidiw '^d'liaTo'lnoo nx b&'x&iad aav saioab -e ,8iieX ,dS ■^j6M j^n© ,f>©Xi/iT$vo
,XB©qqfi a*iU3f)K9'i©(I '^?«t »^ 1© JoXMar ^xii
£ aa ©ifai-s i>i^^ ■*''*s-^ '^0 aoidxeoqoiQ l»X ijiiiidua Bj^nsfrrts'tsCI
•Lo itox^J.09X9 3.10^ 'io oiuXd 9X1" -LoiB^e^i and d«xii «r^X 'io -isW-eia
.xf. 10-1 daaiiOQi ^tisn^ ^BtLt ixtomem boM' bctlm bauoa to salc^xxw oxU
inetructeu verdict should have teen graaited, Tae plairitiff con-
tends i-l'ie evidence olTered presented an iasae oi i': ct which is
settled in hie favor oy the verdict oi ihe jury approved oy the
couxt ,
Anna. Cejia at tiie tiii-e ol u.er death was acout 80 years ol
age; sne was a •t'ido?? -.ithout cuiid or oxiildren or descendarits oi'
lEsj-iy c.iil'l or ciiildren; aae owned a uoiiie at 1316 ooutii 61st avenue
in Cicoro; tas .louee h^.d two floors; she lived on the second; ine
I'irac rioor was occupied oy iilizabeth Schroeder who testiiied lor
del'endatits; jars. Cejia was a jiohexuian zaid used •uhat Imigua^e; siie
undcratood En£,lisa; for aTu.ut 2'P. lao.itaiE prior to her death she was
attendee, "by a maid, i.iss Ireiie i>arina; the aome on the second i'loor
was si^ared "by i'.rB, Oejka vatJri X.vo cousins, llrst vith her cousin
Edward Vavriiiek, vLo died in 1&34, and cj,l*ter.var<3 v/ith. his "brother
Theodore, who died in 19 36, Tae plain till, Oxiarles ivadenik, is a
nephew of deceased; nis wife is a sister of Cyril katey ("boy
friend" of Irene "Durina) ; Irene says Cyril first asked her if she
would take tiiO .io'b of caring- aor i-rs, Cejka; siie too-^ it and reiuained
in t.r.e .oflie five weeks after the deata of her employer; siie is, 3iae
says, engai:ed to "be married xo Cyril "if 1 want to." ueorge iJadenik
and Prank Kadenik are nephews of i^rs, Cejka; Dr. Jo-in Kropacek was
her physician from March, 1934, up to zhe tiu-ie of her death. The
writing purporting to be her will was executed June 12, 1935. It
directs the First National Bank of Cicero as executor to sell the
home and pay to i..ary Doubek 4Z00 , to Anna Klaus ^100; ail the residue
to be divided aiuong her nephews, Charles hadei.ik, ueorge iiadenik and
Prank Uadenik. Ihe purported will n:.s only a cross in tne pli.ce
where tae nnsi^e of the t-scator would appear. ihe narue of tiie testa-
trix i3 not written in her own or in tne nanrlwriting of any person.
The instriuaenl; is witnessed by .Bessie liajek. Dr. Harry H. Hoffman ,.^d
Irene Durina. An attorney, tlr. kcCaffrey. was present and asked the
s
"lo 8*iXB5n9039b 10 nsifclixio 10 Biirio *jao.wv^, .,w..,^,. ., «* . ■^^^. ;;;a"
sifnevjB d-aXd niifoS 8X6X cfjtj smoii & bsctwo drie |ii»^|}IJ:d:6 ^o b£iiio ^njS
T^ilcroicf BXii diiw ]at&»f\i&it& bOti ,*€"§X ai^©xi> eiiiw ,i9id"3;v«V b'UiwbS.
& ax .ixxid^Msa edlijsxiD ^'t'lisaisiiq sxiT »asei ai 4s-£^ oxlw; .^s-ieBosiiT
Tjorf" ) -^a^JS^ Ltix!^ 'to ij»*ax« s ax aliw aixi ;|)98jb909I> 'io Wttdgfia
9iia 'U -xexi i>s2[a« d^etxi Xx^Vit) qy-** sns'xl ; (j&nxiwa ©nsil 'io "fcasl-xt
sris ,ax aria ; tJs5-^oX(![if© i9il 'io xid-a©^ siil to^'t^ ajtssw ©vxl fopxi »4* ai;
^loafis id sa'xoei) ",oiJ- ;tcU5W I xx" XxiitO ot baifx&st B<i a* j^sgaan© .e'lC'^a
a£w -iLsoBqorA adel .'xQ ; salts'^ «aa:M 'to awa^iqon s'x*^ 2fln9f)«»l :a:nfi'a:''i fixws
»xil' .xi;te9ii ^sxl 'to SHzx* axid- o* qjJ ,M9X ,ri©'ifiM iaoit a3J:oi:a\;riq lerf
i-I .eeex ,SX saut JfisJ-wosxs saw XXiw laxl 9^ o# aaicfioq'XiJQ aaxcTx-xw
, sxIJ iiee oj -xoiriioa?.** cfi oisoiO 'to iJiieff X^noi^^a *«5i|1, frif, f Joaiifc
9tsbis9r oiii lis ;OOXi| bxxjsX^ aonA o;^ ,00£i; atacfuoG ^is^^ oi" Y«ff *"s ©aoxl
feas ilrwjJiaa »aao6i) .atiasDaA aeXaaxiO ,B^ori«[9n lexi gfloaie beblrlb scf ocf
»©^XQ ®ii* nx aaoio b ^Xko axai XXiw 6diaoeri«« #.# ,3lla9f)«i4" 2tas:c«
-."iasc^ 9i)i io suisn sxiX ,^ii<SQqB f>XJJ0W 5o*J30;aM s4.t ' ■ - ^rJ- aasilw
,nos-xs? XciB "io 8aidiawi>nj34 sxiJ ofc 30 «wa;ltM,MJ??'=??v'^w *o« ex xxi;t
Dns nAm'ftoH .H ^TCisJa .^a ,>lsUH sisseff X<f Asaaaa-^X^^ • ;- ^afrcreni sxfT
3
witnesses to airn the T?riting, It revci.es other testamentary
papers. T'-e testatrix had r>rior to tni3 tl.::e, oa kay 11, 1934,
erecutpcl crothar vili; it owars nev si,^atur» ar"i Is ;?»ider '■j-.;ali
it i*? vritnec^ed by George J. Tourek, Jv:<\".e J. V'oli'e aiici ir-eodors
Vavrinek, ar.ci -^^r rilpd Fitn the cl^'-rV ol' liie Prol-'te court oi Ccok
county August 6, inT>6. Tnls l'or.!Ler will jiaiues CbarleB ivader.iic as
executor, fives to the nepnew Prank iiadeijik ^jJlOO, to Ueorj^e 4IOO,
to Anna Klau? HOC, to '. ary Doutek 1/3 of ti:<^ residue, and all tbe
reet and resiJ.ue to Ciiarlee ii'adenik. loureK, ^ho w&s I'or soxce years
attornsy I'or the testae rix iJid vao reDresentei ner i^. .any matters,
drSiir 'oiiis icri-^er will. Me weetiiied t"a3.t about a Eionu.i beiore. she
died iis '.vent to her aoine with Charles iNs.lenik, -sno said he lad "been
iiii'orued by his crotier tnac Mrs. Cejka v/ante-' to draw aiiotuer will;
he Bays ..rs. Ce.jka wxi.en ue eritered t^e r.ouec- lid not kno'.^ -.vno he v/as;
she loo'-.ed at aim but did not talk; Oharl'-JS JMadenlk as^r^d testatrix
il" sue kaew wn ; he ( loarek) was; srie said she lid not iaiow; darles
thea told aeT tnis was f^eoxje ioureic, to v/aici sj.e reuiied, "On,
ttiat's tae doctor," and Ouaries said, "ao, tu■■^z io the lawyer."
Tourek testii'ied that ne iiad seen her ten or twelve ti/aes vicin the
preyioUB j'ear; tiiac he observed a great oha-'.'ge in ina-s. Jejka in
that at t'..i3 tiiae siie Jid not know auyone aid did viot cjpfcaii intslli-
ge-.tly.
.Dr. iiropacek i,e«txiied cha.. xie observed the i^entai condition
of the testati'ix in 1934 and 19.'55; tuat she failed gradurjlxy; ianX
he observed t: is a'irst ai out J'oiie; tnat v;hen he caiae in sxie woula not
know him u.-leao he 7/a3 ix-troduced by the j.tiid cr by iheoo'ore V-i.vrinek.
She held a hej..rt condition I'or wi.icit ne v/aa ti'tabi-i.g ner tJid coraploined
of pain in lege arid amis; nt: was tiiere daily from 1st of June 1935
until the 2ord^ sue had urxnesis ana was not acie ,.0 contrcl elimina-
tion; r.e was tuere in June vhen Cnaries x^adenix and ..r. i^cCaffrey, the
lawyer, were ti.ere; ti^ey wanted to draw a new ffili; x.c was ueked by
34> iiaefejtiii a^XisiiO asiaen JXi* isffiaco't eixiT ,5g@X ,3 uaxTgirA ^:tai;oo
,00x4 »s'iG9t) ©* ,00X4 Ti-ii^b^'^ ■^m%'i w«r£q»*i ^iii o* a«Ti8 .,t©*uo©x»
9iU XX« sii« ,»i/l>±asi 3»ctM to 6\X sfdauocr x^is^ 9^ ..(JPXt 9tfirX2;«nnA 0*
a'is^'i 5ms -lo't s&v onv ^3ia%isot ,:ilaub»^ »«I-t0MD pi eMbi>9f% bfiB ^99%
^9i%9iiem x^i^'-^ ''■^ "^©^ b^icis^9%(J9i Oiiv km KHf§f»p$ »^ 10't x^^'^f>^i&
neacf iKjeii ©xl bi^a oxiar ,3^II©£^sid asXTE^ixO ii?iw •jseii i»ji ^ittn^w #ii |>9lJb
;IIiv ^9x£*oas w»xi) oi hnSoB-tr &;aI»0 ,siM. s^Mi %»0ei^!i 9i4 %^ tsi&io'iat
;a.sw Sri oilw W4J«3i Joix ^Ib 5»fii<>xi «xiJ ^ei^J-ne 9x1 ii*xiw «ai^fP ♦«?M, fi3|^,:t|[
zi'ul-scrae;^ l)d3£«^ atiif&i«ia ssXiexiO jiXjeci- cToa fcxi) d-iftf atixt>a *ai.:^ooX eda
a9li*5ii0 ;iro£Ui 4-pa fcJti; ©xie i^iaa sris .-ejBw (:isTj;oS) ©xi! otii7 w®a:il f^ifiy^
^xlO" ,l)9iXQ9cr. ©xis xioliiw oj .aisijJo'X ds'iostJ a«w aixi;?' 'X«fl Aiioi a»4iij^
??,,*t9-^«X 9£U ex *jBxi* ,oii" .bxjse asI-xexiO Ijxie "^tco^ooIj j«h^ ; e * f «ift|
srii- aj:,.vij:?7 astO;^ ©TXswd- te© nsj- aoxi xisae Aexf exi' *«xij ^©lli^asd- 2{3ri.'oT
., ,.^ ,^;„«Hi: j^t»0, *e«^ fl* »Sxu;xi;o ;r4B9T3 -e iievisacfo »il ist-4 ;iSfm.%:.ojtfoi:T»Tt^
-i£X©ta| sLssqe iton .5ii> i)fl6 .0Kox;^"^ moral s&a bib Qiis &izl^ »4xi^;|# i'j?^
ioa bXi/ow axia ijiaiw© 9x1 nsdiv^ ?«xi^ . ;©i«j^ a;««"« ^»%i'x a*^^^ Issv^aecfo 9x1
,3S9X .aauTu 'io d-aX aio%'i \;Xx6i> d-xs^i* a«w &ti ;assiB bim sasX xa aisq '!•
-j3xiX.cxX9 Xo^tJfloo oJ BldM ioa Bsw i)flis atj:»5aiiw 6ed axia }fts6« »xijt Ilixitr
©£» .^9in«0oM ,%ii bOB *iixal>al<i aeX^xffl xi^iiw tflixT* ai »i*a* sbw aii ;.ioi*
Mr. McCaffrey rhether Ire. Q^jka raa in a cort'lticn to anc-wer
quc^etions at taat tij^r trid iie replied slie ^ae not.
Toe evidence of Tourek, Dr. Kropacek, MIbb Durirs, Virtxinia
IVadenilc, W. J, Smith and Alo^rt I-lchals indica':e£ a c.-r.diticn of
tcrtatrix preciu-^lnc ooEsibility of mental cap'-city to a::ecatfi a
rill oiT ^ure 1?, 1935, wliiie iftssie lu-vj-^k, Dr. Harry R. iicffi:.an snd
Elizabetii Sciiroeder c.ive trsti ony ter.c'ini^ tn show tpstsjaertpry
cac?-city.
Dr. .•io1'fii:an testiJied at length to an exajiinaticn given by
hlK. to krs. GejJr.a .just prior to t;ie execation of tiie x'-ili, in w- icii
he says 'Jiat i^rs. :Jeji£a raepcnde'i intcilij:,exitly to qunstiona he
asked lier as to x-0'>^^ iis;.y dx-ues i u to^ii; to i;ai:e a iiolj.-^.r and eimilar
questione; he cpoxe ic hsr in Iong,iia.. ^:d slit ai^s^ve^'ed in iri£,;!i3h;
she toic' him that her huetajid wus detid; 'aia- erie hcd two c/.ilJren
dead aii'^ •diat oue oi' the c-ildxftn's nai..e '.^kjs 'Vary," IreixS Durina.
w-is cai:Led in, inter-oreted in Boheu-ijui, t-jn.d Dr. hofi'i^ian inquired
ae to I'ow tee'catria; was fecliag, cUid Iraitt tcid hiu. eha i:ad difi'i-
culi.y in scoring out oi" the ri^-:t eya; Dr. Hoff.je^ ^ays t^suatrix
vas ssated couiiortauly in a ciair ind at '.i^ec ■>70ulJ t^.et up aiiu walk
into the kitcben; wnen -;e "op/.^an his sjr.auLinjition xie asked Kx, ~i.c-
Caffrey to close tne door ^nd everybody laft the room except the
i.iterpreter; she knew dutea, the seusoas, the tisje of lay, ^heth^Br
she had jiiy rel-^tivee, past illii eases, -^hetiier her people n^i^re
stiaiii&t ber, i?heth-r she kriew ^vho wrts PresideiU, Tr.'ietii'^r sue- ki.ew
the ..en ti at were there; he ii^ade no pnyEicai exa-.iii.it ion; he saw
lire, r.'a.ic/ and I.Ibb Durina cu^d the other wciren si^'in tiie paper; he
thinks they sa.fi iiim Ai^i- it; he ^as not in t*>re??t;'d i-i t;:s rarvr.ter;
waa there to lisjcs a mental examination; he eayo sV;e told hiiu eb.p ras
"bon; in 1350 cr thersabouts; he says she ifidioated an impaired
meiaory in that she --id not know exactly :he y=ar of her birth.
Dr« Hoffiian visit-d teatairix at tie reqae?/- of l9-»ryer LcCaffrey,
won asw ?>ii8 |>.9l.ifli's-x Bui hci.fi, maii iiid:!t Am 8Jaoi*aaii|>
j3 »d-L.osi;£9 G^ ■^jio.eiqi.-s ijBiiTSiia 'to ;s*J;Iid"iea©c acl^wXosn^ xxt^Jsia©*
^ae rgsuai'toii ,<S .'^-xtcijli .id ,i£'t«-^- siaefia ©liiiw ,3S9X ,2X «n«X. no Xfiw
4l>j;a'» ax ,iiJ:?/ ©iii' Xo aox jx.09K3 sua od -xoi-xq istul .fiit^O ,8a^ ©* iairf
9ii anyid-afjiip Oo^ '(;XJiS3axxioJr3il .bsijiiogaai jsiit^v ,«itM *«£i# ^a-^ae 9d
■^Xxma -^fls ■3;*iXoi> s Q^M 04' 'iiuod' Jx asiaxis \f,i^ssffi ^©rf. o4 ea lari J&sia*
;id8ilsa2i fix jb<9t9Warxs aiia £*iiJi xiaxX^«€ Xii xsM ©a" s^aqu 9x1 ;@aoliJSi&iip
- c»ii)Xxas owJ &.oXi a4a iiaii3 ;,&.s9i:- 8£W bOBifajjxi %-&Ji J=jSft.t atixl ijXo* jsria
jeaiii/G. oa.«stI " .^iS-s^jba" ami e:ma a' xisiIjiXiio 9x£j 'ie aa© c^jaxfcr bnn 5«9l>
bs'ziiipax najiii'i'i@H ,ia iia-t ..fiBX^i&rtocL ax fco^stqie^tKi ,Hi: *9lX£0 asw
-rciii) Jbsti sila MSii Jjluj ■si/sil Lojf: ,3uii..Xf59's ajsw xi'id'«ja.si" wcxl oct' e«
Xi%i^'l^p,f e^jES oer.i'ioi:. .■sd ;e\:a ixi^kfx '&di 'io 3'XiO sxjiaae- tsi. ■^JXjw©
j^Sb'W hm (jfflr *S:^ >i>Xwow &&ffii j $a fjiiis "Sjugyf-S « ux ^iiqfJSJTLi^'iaiQS fe9d;-jB»B ,,-««'W
-Oii .xii x>'->3iaB 9x1 0oJ:*j?Hxa!«ss eifit £i»;;V«<l Sii a&xiw ;s9iis^i:S exit ;(0*a|
euvJ- Jtjasxs aoo-x 6i.iv v''ieX ^^odYi^TT® beti* xosh 9,4^ «eoXo oJt ■\c»i 'itjetO
,.,, , j&uex'^ aXQ.a©,^. Tt^xl -xi&xij&xtr ^.eaea&iiXXi; i«,i5<i , aavi^jfeX^i xa& Jbexi sxia
as'ff 9!.'Is ifuii fjXo;!' oria a-^a ..ani ;atoitoxi*is|sz:8 Xatu^-'a « s^jlsai o* arcsxlit e&tr
.f£*,xi(f -saxC 'io -xmx &^^ xltix»m "fH^^ *«« ^i^-* »^ *«^ fi-^ tjioiasm
5
WHO drove '-Am to the hoii.e i-". iii 3.utc ..ooile. Dr. A.ropaceIi. ".at; not
notiiied ■and ttzz r.ct pr^oent,
kra. Schroeder ssiys taao she sorff o^Irs. Ccjka i;u 1J33, 10 34
and 1935, sut •■'i'^ not notice .uiy a.ll'1' ^rence in Iitr coi;jxiion; eJ-.e
pail- her rent to h.^T tn 1&35 ai'jj rfCiivecI reutipts I'rc-u acx uo^>n
to the ...cntb of Jun^; a nuinber ol" the receipts siie st.ys v.cre
signed tv a orosr only; eiie did not jroiace anj/ oi' Uiese receipts.
¥re, Hpjelc 'ajs sU'; S£.w i.,rs. Cejl<a sign xTd that ...rB. Cejka
saw her Fipir; "'ler na:re; tlie "octor a;id le.Tyer \vfcre present v.'iiefi sae
BXened; Irene Durina -vss not tiicre at tiiat tiiue oat ca^^e la,ter; she
sayp trie testatrix see-.ed to be ail rii^.it arxd ol' sound ana disposing
iai'1,3 anr Tnamorj' at the time she pl,^oed her rxaric on the instroi-ent.
On any po3sibl3 t"..3ory of ia'v txie isaae here v a'j oT i'act
for t'le .jury. An exaniaation oi tie avidence disoloaes co some
extent the desire of -i^itnssses on cot i sides to exag^erPvte, i'lie
jury sav; cii? ?rltne333B and the tri.ii Jii.d.s,e saw .aiid ueard theia
testify.
The decree is affirmed,
A^FFIid-JSi),
McSurely, P. J., and O'Conuor, J,, concur.
t*a9e«>T:ig ii'oa sjbw fc.ecB:. &«|,.ti#:flra
§i:ia ;rioiaa:xtioo t&ii ax sofxs'i&'nifj -^mi ©c^lcTon t&si S^il SviS ,e£GI Jbxia
.a^^iaoa'X sasiiav 'io i^aus oojtifeo'iq ioH blh ©fla {'{;i:»6'%»c'g;o is ij-tf bsa^la
0Hs n^iiw v«&fc0i% B*i&vr •cta-f^vBX i>n« T6t«>'©t' ©lit^. -; ss:«r T&sf ngla 19x1 wsa
8u® ;-sa*Kl #jiu30 *J«iJ ©ait fsdi i& fiiBiii Sott bbw ^ni-rtiiG ©rt®^I ;6«»iT%ia
snxaoQ.vSifc fifiB iiiisjoa '!:<) Site ^-i-a-^'X 11b 94 oS fesfasse xl.T<fjs*$«i- fti'i;r Bije*
■ ■4,iaBmsjt^SiCil ©liJ- uo 2£i:,Bia Taxi fce'Oifil^.: a>;jla laieJ:* «£&!• .?*> .Y*xc!iM»flr;..l»«fi', fecim
^b^ani'ttB si ©saoaJb :»-iS? v, -.,«,■.-
*^,;i^ Bvi .;.
.;->t:v..:-
40278
Ti^A SLAV IK et iil. ,
vs.
CmTRAL TRUST COlPAliY eJ ax,
On Appetil ol" Ei^IlA DICJSt
SUPSRIOK JOUHT
Q
iJl. JUSTICE O'COXKOH DELIVERED TIffi 0PIKI&5 OF THE COURT.
The suit in tli<^ inst-int case ""as ori^.inally 'broUt.lit to
construe an alleged T7ill ol" lioriry ocliertr, decoascd, in -'hich.
the Central Trust co-pany was n.-ined as executor. The v/ill was
set aside by a decree ol' the Superior court ox Cook county md
the administration of the estat3 wae transferred I'rot. the Proci-.te
to the .'superior court. This appeal is by Eta-ia Di^^us, on'^ oi' the
heirs of Henry Scaerer, decea'i>ed, froa an order entered July 12,
1938, denyin/, her uotion to expun^je p-j.rat^raphB 8 ijjd 9 of an order
entered i«.arch 31, 1937.
The record discloses tliat on July 19, 1934, lai order or
decree -as oittered or. the report of a /ulster in c:.ar>cery t :at the
adrairietrator vitp.ir t^'/o d ys pay to Eiijua Dicus ^9t00 as a part of
the distributive eue.r«> of the estate. The ad: .ii iatrator prayed
an pppeal to thia court (lo. 33044) whica was on notion di'jiiie'^.ed.
Aft'^rv^ar! , nn August 31, 1934, another order was f^ntered tJiat the
admir istrator pay to Emaa Dicus -^4000; there is some uncertainty
whether this wap in ad'iition to the $9000 or in lieu of it. From
that order the administrator praypd an apneal to this court
(1-0. 37913) but the appeal Fas dismissed. Sometime later Eriiiia
Dicus fijiri others, us conservatrices of an incompetent -liatributee,
brout,:ht suit ii. the iiUiiicipal court against the ad,'air.ist.-ator and
his surety in whicn taere was a verdict and juf'i;aent in def *---nd-'.n t 's
favor, cvHd Eiaiiia Dicus tu.cl otiiera appealed to this court (i:o. 3^597)
where the judgment was affiraied and leave to appeal to tne Supreme
1
1
xiolii^ GX ,S£>e«oo3f) ,T3i9r£s>8 'CSiisil 'to l£i.-7r bs^^xls cm snJi is ao0-
si-L-ao^^ sdj itioxt Jt)sx%B'te. n&i^ 9»w iii&t&a. ©ad" _'i© aoid'fi'ijJfa.iatiircijFa arfj
9.ni# "to eno ,8.i;oxa:^fajag \;£! ex iesqq[i5 eiiCr ^cT-jaao .^^olxo^wS grf^ ^, |
. V £ ex , IS dotByA 5© 1 5 * Be .
to iffi-xo rti; ,*f;5X ,<?X yXwI. no j-jrsrl^ , eaaaXJia j^ bioo^i ©df
eJ.o jiii'io -^^avrts-io rsi tsidinn b 'to iioQSi sii* no Ijetsdrto a&v ssiae*
lo i'tp^q i^ 8£ OOOel auoxC BsmS. ai x^q aijsfc ovr* airl^xw •Eo*«*£d'8i.-iXirifca
Ji.j\;ai<I tcd-e'id-axriiL,i>B ©ilX .s;t.o;i8s fsiii^ 'to sisds sTxctijd'i'iJ-el^ adf •
.?>9aaxHei,b fiox^toiia no afiw rloxd^ (l^*08£ .oTl) *r£jyoo 3Xx{j- oi LaQqciB «e
er{c^ tjsrlj JbsieJiw siiaf la.oio larJ^iOOG ,i^£eX , XS JaugwA no .^i^wae^tA.
^C.1rij:«d-i3om; amoe. si fta??fl^ .-OOQI'I awoiCt smaS o;r Y«g To^texd-aXi-timfca
ffloi'!l .0 J: iO sjsll ni io 00061 Qsii o* floi;d-xbf>i5 nl asw axxicT tsxiJeilw
B:ai3a isd-^jX am.cJSiaoS ,£)93Bijai3J:£) aaw X«9q«fS «'Xi* ^is6 {SieVC .oil)
..eoj-ijcfiioail) ^tasisqiaoouX rm 'to asoiiiavrBsaoo a*-. ,3'rs)xi*o fiOB awoxtt
bfS£ -xo^tjsad-axnxwf)* ari* Jaax-s^^ ;^tuoo XfiqioiawM 6xl;r ni itus iiii^uard
a':rcT^^^</l®l) ni Jn9ia,i.fiiJt hw^ ioibi^v & ssM ©T9xi.t uoirfw ni >c;t9ius aixi
/
a
court •vaa denieJ by that court. Afterward he ad^ianistrator.havin,^
faiJ.Pl tc cc-uply *it^. tne order of August ;. - , li34, -.as reaoved froiti
office and coraiiittt^d for contei pt -did s. succe&tor adwinistraior was
appointed. Vlie aiacter oi' settling the adiiiiniBtrator ' e biccouat was
rel'erre'i to .-•. pioecisl coir'. issioner, cJid after a /.ie^riij^i ttie court
on ~a.rch 31, 19 o7, entered a decree v.-aicii recited in coneideratle
detail what hp.4 "been .lone in tlxe I'lstter; tiat on July 19, 1934, t:ie
administrator was ordered to pay Sniua Dicus #9000; tiat -Jiotaer
order was entcre(j Aufc,a8t ol , 1934, diiecting the adi-ini strator to
pay 2i4.r^a Dicue .#4000 "b^ way oi iistrib-ition; ti.at the ad.;.ini3trator
havin^ failed to lusie xne paynienta ^ae co^^Litted tc jail i"or ccnte:;/pt.
The order or -lecree of iiarcii 31, 1937, then continues ant I'inds;
"ae noT apjitars I'rjiu t'.ie subsequent nroceedings •»■•»■* Dicua (the
administrator") did not on July 19, 1934, nave in his possession
£8 a p--rt of the a&sete of ■•■ -^ * the estate" ;^9 . 00 wit/i whio_i to
make tn? payn^ent snd. t.iat he di'i not .ave Uie ^4.00 witu which to
make the other payjient to Ejuna Dicus; that the adi* inistrator who
succeeded JotJi 3, Dicus, tne origirip.l adndnistrator , presented
hie r^jort frcrr. vhic- it appears tnat Dicus, h» adiuinietrator,
had 1^2369.17 rnich witai certaii other pecuiitiee he tuined over
to his successor; that the surety corupsJiy on the "bond ol' f.'icue
ofl'rrej to psy to the successor o-dniinibtrator ^f 25^3. 57, txiat tne
order vs.s entered acoordin,,iy ynd tnat aJouiit paid, Ihe conterpt
proce'*Jint wcb eet itside &Jid vr^cated ae to Dicus, the adadnietral or ,
The court louud ho had paiu over to his succssBor ail t.ie itoney in
hie hands, anl the atter^pt of Sauna. Dicus &ni otaers to litigate in
other courts t.&s. enjoi-i^ed, for :...e reason tuai the Superior court
had f.;ll jurlsd! icti.-.n. i'roiu this order or decree Einiua Dicus and
otl »:rB prosecuted apprale, "but tuey 7,'ere not perl'ected and all
were iisn.isEed.
Janu?ry 7, 19 38, EnuTiS Dicus ill d what she desi^r.aies a
fi
©IcfjeisSianoo ni fcsd'los's xloxiivi- ssiosi) & J&sistus ^ViSei ,i£ rloifiM ho
©iij ji^eC'i: , yX Y.Xij'^ no d-fifiJ ;i0^^aB< ©fid- nx ©xiob iis^cf JMiXi itfiiiw Xi£:?9b
0^ io;t,«id-5Xiii.:ii£>js Sftij- gitiJ-osiiJb ,^£ex «IS ^giigwA. &©'x&i'n« s^'*' t©&to
ig^nx'i .br.f' Bai-fiiUnoy ri&ii* ,VEeX ,Xe rio"SJ8i^ to «>«^ssfi ice fSislo 9xlT
9xfJ^) 8XS0IC •*** BsnUpeeooiq cfrtejupaadi/a 9xfi ifio-t*! B'f'iSSej^B t^roit as"
1X0x^8963 oq sx.d nx Svjsii ,!^5ex , ©X "vjXxiX «o 3*00 ^^^fc ftdi'aiihalnlfltfeB
0* iiaiiiw .CicTxw OOOQ^ii; "sd'sitas exW * * * 'to ttaisajs 9if# 'to ^Tstf ''^ *«
ocj- :1oiilw :id-iw 000^^ sric ^rsii ian bib ©x{ .tsxf.t fens d-dE9iay;4^i| ^fi# Siillw
oxiW T:od-G-i*sinx.T^j3 exid^ J-jSi-li jsyoxG amaK of Jriam^sq t%riJo sxiJ siLsm
fisJnsaaiq; .^oJiiii-eXi^JtiabB X.eax"ax^o oxfd- ,awox<r .S: xtrfot Jboi>?9oojJ8
,Tto^aii-axnxfii£«a as? .aooia d-,0iij- aijssqqs ci-x x;&ixfw atoTEt #i:o«»'x sxrf
tavo bacnui &si ssxJ-Jtxxfsaa ^sxlto axaJaso uit^ rfoirf* "^I^eSSSt Jbsxi
ai/oiCt to £00^ Slid- no Yi^-'=c[i'iG«> xisriaa 3di iad.& .•Tt»a&«ooix!3 airi o*
Bdi tsa.& jVci .iSgSi^ •loJfii^exnixafcfi losssooi/a exit, e* t*5 "&* fcaiigtto
j-qcis^aoo ^d'£ ,i}ifiq ifiiJoaL~s cTjsxiJ JS>u* ■v;X,jaxi)'xo:>ojs fee's at i«© 8£';r isfsio
.•sol«'3:*8xriXiE.&£ sxia- .aijoio: oi bh fiisJr.o.svr' fena 9&l'3.s fsa e^w gxiiijgsooiq
ni -^jiSaoiK and- XXe. torias.ojjL-e ntd oi tero hljsq, b&ii 3d hasfet ^uov grTI
ni fiSsigiilL oi stadia tOA a«oM *maar to JigEwaJ*^ ^i^^^^^ elri
-tii/oo toii&que. 9xii ^Bsif dioBJiSt -'siiy -tot ^ilotn^ Ji&tr *8t^i>oo- ^trf*©
l>a£ Bi-'oiCi jaaiaiS {^saoejb 10 ««x>iO alxf;^ iaott .aolfSflM'tisst lliit £eti
\e 8©.tai^ia9b aria d'^xiw fy^'iri-- 9^M emm. ,8eei ,^ v^f-iact
"Motion" in whic - she seeks to have expunged rrom the order or C'fecree
cl" 1. arcn 31, 19 37, paragraphs 3 luid 9, which vacated the orders
directirg Dicur, tiie adi..iniGtrator, zo pay the oj-QOCO ruir'. the. ^ACOO ,
as above stated, ar.c enjcinfcd Emim Dicus i-'Jid tl^e other htirs '."roni
prosecutinr in -ar.y ct^er court any tait at^ainst the l'or~it:.r ioiriiriB-
trator or his surety because the Sup«^rior court iu.d lull jurigfiic-
ticn. Tne only ret/.BOE f^iveri "by Eiujjia Dicus in hrr i-otior. ol" Jf.rvinry
7, 193c5, is her allegation ti.at the court was '.vLolly v;i-:,.M.out Juria-
diction in Itarch, 1937, to sr aside thp ordorr. entered U 1934
for the payT:\ertB of ^9000 J^'Jid :'S4000, -iid. v/as vvi hout Jurisdiction to
enjoin the liti-ation as a; ove stated. We thiul: ther*^ is no r.-^rit
in eit?ipr ol" ti.ese cor.tenticns. T h e Su p -■ r i o r ^(-; o u r t ii. c^toinistering
the estate found that there rras error ir. ord-^^ring Dicus, the ad-
ministrator, to pay the $9000 and the f,4000 as ordered in 19 M,
tiecauee he did not havp the money. Otviously the Supfrior court
had juriFdiction of the estate and could adjust th? accounts to
speak th(? truth. Lon,:; .. Adm'x. v._ x hpmpsor. , 60 111., 27; ilirne t.
Schumac her . 65 111. App. , 542; Conant v. F-l^in City Baukirf Co. ,
2.'52 111. App. , 15o. There was no_error_ir^^rderine the injionction
because it is not disputed that Dicus, the adjuinietr-itor, pxid his
surety, hnd prcperly accounted fcr all the noney comint" to Dicus's
hands as adr.';iristra or.
Ercma Dicus filed her notice of aopeal f rci : the order of
March 31, 1937, whic". she peirciitted to be riis;..isspd. She cnrrot
afterward, in the s,tsence of any fraud, accidert or rristake, 1 ? ve
the oT'fer or decree of March 31st revrrsed in these circuicstances,
anri esoeci&lly since there i? no attei.pt to shor that what we.e done
was ii. luj way iir^.gula.r. It is essential tuat litii-.tion be
terminated,
'-.1. order ol t.^t Gaperior c;.urt of Ccok c.-.unty appealed from
is ^Xfirmed,
OHDEH AFFIH^iSD,
kcSurely, P. J., and i^atchett , J., concur.
as'iOKVO MO tsbto Bill* iii-Q't't i)Q-^iii^(pi6 @r&si oi sjt&sa siis rtoidw ni ^'aolioM!"
iEot'? atiri>rf TSJid'o diU ban aiJoJME siaaca l)aitJ;otas hm ^J^iMtB,,. ,f^TO(Ss 9a
•^iBJifnaX 'to ■loiioi'i led ni bsjoZCi smsiS. x^ nsvt^ a^^&^i x^o 9t^ "P?!*
-slt0t i'jyo.ri.i-.tw ^iHoiivir aj3-^7 2%iioo ^di tmU ao4d-JS8aXX« ,'?.«jff ,a.i ,65j&X .,|.,t
tiuoo ioJi-i^^qw^i ^rii" ■'^iBijOXVcfO .Tjeaora ©£[* sveii d^^ii Ml^ «4 ©Rwao^cf
'l^MSM. i'^^ ,.XIJ Od . aoeggtOiH- ,r .x ' fgfeA .. aff<?>I ,rf:t-wi# srf* atesqa.
aoiiomilai. ad* :5''E^^®^"0.JH,^^}t© j>n_jiaw^Sr;xs^ .SeX ..(jqA, .XXI SSS
ax.-^ biiB jio^Jsi^sjiniia&ii »jd[* ,swoi€ *sxi* j&©*a^»i:.b ^od ai *i: »ax.'iB09tf
s'si/oia ©* Biiiiaoo isscioiH axi* XXfi x.^l_ ^f.*xM/«»?tB ijii^aSP'^^ ^^-"-'^ .'vrd-^nwav
'to is&io &di iiiot't lAQ%q& 'io asi^c^rt -itrf ^Xi;"t ftasigL «fliaB8[
.'s&oasuaaujotio aasil? al haaTovaT: *aX£ do««M Iq aaxo^i. 10 labio »xf;t
aiio& a.9w iedw -JBiii woiia oJ iqmiiM on ei aiiaif* Stifltja TsXXsl-v-frRa ftos
^;arf.ffi»iyd.a&i*iX*«ia Xjeitnaaae ax ;tl li^lsi^stti v;«w -'-bw
♦fcaaniTila ai
4020^
iJ^Ua.a^ and M J Iiv-^UOER, ^Is wife, JOM ^^^-
BTiCUBKi;. and Jfi^I^ .::>"I.r;.Uff , /'
iS, ons and CUJ.-CU& a, TirrfLs, cmri/^tJ w,
w^fiioH, iTiaiii:= 'TSTi-a^, /r^THCn y. iiohl, in-
dividually £!^n<.' ae laenibttrB of the ilendrt^
Tionrfholoere ^rotoGtlvo CorjfJ.'cleG fcr "onfla
eold by uiiorioan Bond / Kcrtgaije Ooia.pa.ny
t\n6 as 7oting ;."rust.aes unfl«i>- the vivricue
Trufits •atablistattf "by tho Cora^dtcea; ^L.: OLi;
IadlTl'?u-jJLly and ae offloere and direotore of
;.h« A.n.«ricaji llond ■' lloxt^-ngii Ooopany* and
SAilC LVL ''•:-i3i: Cij* 0iriC,.2O, (desijmat«d >?s
"Prlnelpal Defendanto'*) , aOHTmi.-siAL ^ima
oorporationi HCTUL aLCA/.aIi. Ii^C.j LlffCOLK-
(KMl-^Wif ft oorporations 20 iiAfiT Of.«ii.'J; rriilia;;;^ ITIC . j
1061 av-^MOtfT BTJILV^IHl J^l? ^^XUTlOlf J S040
•UHKl^OrfS OvSiffiS", U«Bl{pRat0d M •'ireanlnal
d«f«n(^antB ") ,
Appollade •
cir.ciiiT 'i ami's
OCK)K aOJSTY.
i
29 9 I, A
an, JUSTica o»coiii»oR d xivhKau xhi: oPii^loii cv thk covjki.
Flalntilf*, ae owner* ol' <?l6,aOO in i'-ice wiiourt of t)on(i»
•f «I«van ••parata bond isauas uudarrrrittaja by dsf^iTl^nt, tha
Amcrioan Bond v iortgaga c»»^»ny i tha ag^jr^gate fao« aiueunt of
ntn« of »uob isruaa b»ing In axoe«» of v5. 174. 000) filad tnmir
i>ompl%inX in chaincarj ciaiminf ihero *»t frt*ud on tha part ef
•aa* of tha dafandant* in th* axaoution and c::ae of th^ bonda;
that th«ra waa a "oanspiraoy or ■cheiaa*' on tha part of »il oV tha
dafandanta in and abaut tba handling of ttkf^ proportl«a eonv^yod
to fi«>cura tha piquant mi' ««b« of tne l?onds; •m.f> of it in fora-
oloaura, and the raarg&niaation of othar of the propartier: thnt
plaintiff* bring th» suit *in th«ir ovm behi^f aii*l for die u*a and
banafit of all othar bondhaldara who ara ai»ilurly situjitad". Tha
r .iJii>(<?
bsui «8£f 9flt 'U'o'x hmi 1Lid.ii(t sma xinHt a.i* $tm niAt %tAi:i 9l'\iitatik%l^
-2-
praycr vas tiiat dai'eiidaoits, (a) b« r«at,rain«d I'roa •nctuab«rixjg,
transierring or assli^ing imy oi Ui« prep«rti«*; that » raccivcr
^« appeinttd ^o launag* and opcrat* tuc pr»perti«»s: iii»t d«l'cn>
iantr atiom to th* r«c«lTers theii In control; tuat tn« l^ooko
and records bo iumod OTor to tho r«o«iv«r; (b) U^at th« uourt
doeroc tiiO principal dol'«ncinnto diequaXil'lod, anl Ua,t tuey 1»o
roiMOTOd and oonptftont poreono appointod; ( e; tiiat the court doeroo
tho principal dcfon laata (guilty of nairoaoaneo i«nd misi'easariec
and 1 labia to th« (/endl\older» lor tno dftJaai^oo caused, vti tiic^t a
joint and oev*ral Judgnent be «nt«r«d upon n. proper aoooui'ting;
(d) that the principal detl«n ij^nto bo roquirod to account; thut tho
eroation ol' the coBunittoo "raeultlng in tho roori^unicatlon Biiheokoo
vao part of a fraudulent cooBplrttoy"; (o) ttimX tho roooiTor bo
appointod and directed to notify all c enoficiarioo to iile u.eir
claiMo "if they dooiro to avail thOKoelToo of the b«nei its tiiereof
and to coiitribute co the oxpense", und (f) lor euuh further r lief
as to equity may oomb proper.
Defenrlunto liled separate motiono to iiieniee tiie conpiaint
for a number f specified reaiiono. Ike aotiens wore eustMlned,
tho coaplttlnt 'lismiesed "for ^tOiX of equity at plfa.intii'f »* coeto"
and thoy appeal.
The substanoo oJ' th« ooiapl -int ^ ^i wo doeet ncoestrary
to state Jor the purpose ox hie deoision is chat tofen nnt.
American £ond ifcortgsgo Uoiapany was engaged in lin^moing construc-
tion loano for the purpose of making largo comuiiseiono, pl>i^cing
insuraneo on the prsperties and chart^ing ii;tt»r«st on undisbursed
funds during tne porio(l of instruction; tii.t to secure tho funds
*it dSTisod 1 soheao to float fi/st Aortgago liond isuues" and to bvU
thOB to the general public; that efendanto, iiarold, ILenneth <ind
Charles kooro were the principal officers und dir^s-tors utid in
t*vA?n>*-x A- iA.i;t:i i«r.4:*ti-s<§«wq: ?»ia[4 Its,* x^^ms ^{si£(j|iilsiia to ®iii'*;T;»'l«i*a'X*
«^ -^.^iii Sold! k-^i .,k«ti'UiMi^p9kk i^fl6et^:r«»'a:^:fe' 4fe'gi''»ai'a:t' pM' ] t fe0i i i.
^^m^m mM^&iMi&ux&m 9M'Mli^t$mm* *m0ifimsi0i^i^ "i& w»l$mm»'
&4 ^p^im:&t mis t&m i^) i^^mtMm>^'^»^' frnm^mnt « *is^ Ha^ «««
ilads alii v^ m»i%i6i»iimim m* pi'Um «* k>»iim%M km h^rai^ttm
'leiip's «»jB£i'xii'J d»m %9% ri) ftate- ,*»»«(»«:«# ^Ai m ^9»4ki9sc&!u ai bas
'■■■■■■■■ "---..j6M>qr«» <•*** *"*•■
-■»»*#«««« 3i«i»K»fli"t 111- Ummm a(«#'i*a*-<ps»^-«»^t«dli-'^^ a«»iT»i^
i«j|6«j:^ ,«s««lsisiaaK«» ft^if^i: t^ibam'l4t'mmtm&m tot «««ei a»i#
-3-
aotlT* chATrj* of i^e bu»iri«sa: that lor tii« puroos* of A»Tlxig
a«apl«%« control ol each i ond Issuo oo that la th« ovont of daiault
BO indiviiual bondholder could lako ftotien, the Bond Company or-
gan Ixod dei<ri)l^«nt, AoiorieaA Truat &. Sal'o Deposit UOiJpany i'or tho
purpose of acting as trusioo in th9 Tiurlouo bond Isuuoo In whieh
•xoIusIto rl«(ht of aetlon vie Testo4; t tat bo j^ooroi cortrollod
thlo oompany nrid «ero Ita ariiiclpal ol'i'lcora and dlreotoro; th^t to
Inauoo ^.he publio to buy th« bonds, t.tlso IrAfonuution «ae i.lvon
as to tii« several properties to be oonntruoted, their Iruoine, etc.;
that plaintiff a ptirehaaed bonds isnuod and »old by the kert^ago A
Trust Comnany on «>lcv«n build Lags » (naxaln^ chom) whluh were cob»
atrueted by the Mortgage and Trust Coiapaniea; that a proapeotus
Isaued on tho Churchill hotel stated the cond issue of <^930,000
vao oeeurod by a first aiorti:age on tne property valeh was valued
at #1,867,500, with a groaa annual inoeue of «39&,000; that tho
iaaue was guaranteed by the presi ent of ihe borro^^lng company, and
that oroTlHloD was mado for paysienta on the lean, tut thnt the
■ort^age was not a flrat lien, a largo amount of taxea being unpaid:
that a prospectua on the Albion Shore Uotel atated J:ie tend issue
•f #366,000 vaa secured by a first mertgag* on property Viriluod at
$61 B, 000, with a net annual inoone of #57,694; the Aloaxar tiotel
proapftctua stated that the lot^d isaued waa #400,000; that a eliailar
prospectua waa isRued aa to tn« other eight bull lingo; that plain-
tiff a, relying upon Ruch in format ion, bought bonda in ten ieeueo;
that without knowledge to plaintiffs, aone of the bull lingo were not
eoapleted tn rough laek e) funda; tae thakera of the uond iaaueo
deserted thf property in tn* ukidst of uonatruotion and :aeohanioa'
llena w«>r« lilod, foreeloeuro prooeedlnga w«re Inatiiuted by the
truetoo, and the iiicoaie of the ;;oapiet«d buildldge waa uaed for tho
purpoae oi oaying lerecloauro oxpenaea; th&t "in aany instaneeo tho
bonda were aold to tho pl«.iiaiffa wid to tho other InToatora during
•&4
^Imtvb t« tm't* &0 Mim^ m »imf«l J^ai^ ii»««i %« i«ic#ii«# •t«l^sro&
j&l«ta*i wtU4 »mmi It* imimi» »a'*«i « »«Kiii ^ficii'^. i6''''i'!si/ a«t» «.t3!«^
;««jK!-»®i; «»# al ft&JSM»'rf itJ^iMKl ,«*»!». s-mel': ;s»«i«i :^.«i^f»5 ,,»'»"ti#
-4-
th« p«nd(?uoy of Iht iorec4.o8ur« prooeedings wltliout myr inferoiing
th« Inrastors that th« bond Ispucb w«r« in dtcfault"; that th«
M«rtgag« CoBpany and the Trust Company oonaeal«d th« del'aultB fron
plaintift** and ether InTeetore and adT&noed their own lunde to pay
principal and interest ithout the knowledge ol the inToe ore; took
up the bonds uncancelled and held then on a parity vith other bonds;
that *in Biany init^noos" the kortga^e Company and Trust Company, in
anticipation of defaults, would oall in bonds prior to maturity and
exehanfcA them J or other 'onds; that the bonds ao acquired were
pledged as eeourity "with Tarious tanks including delendt^t, first
Sational Brmk of ChiotM^o" end the liability to tj|;0 banks in this
eonneotion v&s approximately #d, 000, 000 lor wuich the bonds were
pledged and th it this was done to conceal defaults l rom the inyes-
tors; that after tho eraah of September, 1929, the bonds pledged to
the banke were greatly deprecintod and it appeured that the a^ort*
gage Company and the Trust Company cou^d not reaiain in buisiness;
that to sa-ve thesu "defendtuats eonspired to depriro plaizitiffe'
from tjieir rit^ts and romodieo a^i^xinet thoEortga^e »nd Trust Com-
paniee, und thereupon "defer'^rmts created ^-Oi sieged bondiiolders'
protvctlTS coETi^-ittee under a deposit agreoffient* dated oouoter 24,
1929, for the ostenBiblo ourpose oi protecting the inYeators but
for the r»al purpose of protecting thso^selTos; that the *ir»t
national Bank agreed to finance the "project" and adTMiood #60,000
to the comiz.ittee to Holieit t.he bondholders ts dl«posit tneir londs
and l^t the serrlcesof come :!' its ofiioials who were placed on the
committee; that represent >tlTes ol the 0hie>4ti0 Trust Company,
another vank, ^jid of Uio Central Kepublio Bank ware eJiso placed on
the oom/idttee; that na^Ting aoeompliehod their "sohcmo* they caused
lattere to be i&«iled by tae kortgago Coi^pany lo tJ»e inweetore
stating ths tends eouid not be paid and submitting a plan of reorgaii-
isation, etc.; that uit committee placed advert iseii.ents in the
newspapers suggesting the deposit of bondo ^^lth the comuittoo; that
J!&flcst ..%ti*?^'l«lit «jrt* i^JUmuiUdKi x&^q^m'^ that's fi^^ fesft* %m<m&ij! »5i«^#'«d&
:si.#ii^t^tt«J. »il «*:«i«st^\ f^ fe*iii9& it»8^ti»J&ii *,»tt«f «-i#. fete. l«»f««9. «»««'.
*»1l3Mt4ai4(vI«f *f|5<5«i»..«* t#%i«!»s4» ft*mfea»t«ft^* sOMlt »fai«A»t ««it^
-ia^O t^jytl &«* »»»s*«,«M*»4.t t»«i»a« «»*&»jarx |s«« «#«S;vji^ «*»*> ««*■
*«!?£. »^»M«ir^f.»4M iMiMA»*49f«f :i,&,9^mpmm mmum4»& &Ai %«1 ♦Wei-y
-ft-
th« yirat National BanJc o«ntlnu«d to advonc* lunlB :.o t/i« coau^'ltte*
In furtherano* of tii« ••ahem**.
Tho ¥ill tlian ■•!• up the v;i.riou> pl^tna for ■h<>. vor^^xki-
satlon of th« pr*p«rti*s, «to. , and tn«n partioularizos (a) Albion
Shor« aotel Plan «aa adoptad Karoh 30. 19 36, lend isava af ^3*5,000
all in default aiaea Karoh 2^ 1^>29, u nav corporation to l>a or^aniaad
ato. , tna atock f \f diatributad to tUa bendJialdera arid othara;
{\) Tha Aleasar dotal Plan adeptad July, 1933 but not accompli aiiad
vmtil Oetabar, 1936; that in connaction vritii tii.n building, tiia
■artgi^ga foracloeura ^aaa wt9 ^14,500. Iha raorb^tnizatien plan
than fallawa: (a) Churehill Metal i'lan aieptad JK^rch, 193(». Xha
eamplaint daacribaa tha plan saii stHtaa IftUkt the ooiuuittaa waa to
racciva 932,350, baaidea foracleaura axpanaee ^uaA faaa in •xcaaa of
115,000; (di Harlivr Via« Apartitanta, 46d7,&a0 outetanding bocda.
Than followa what waa )ona. (a) Ja^kaao Park Heapltal, tltat a nair
earporatioB vaa ornatad to aequira tha preparty, etc.; (f) i.inoaln
Rabay Building, tha raarK^^ii cation of whloh waa ceaplatad Uctobar,
1937, that th«ra w«ra i)a?.7,400 outatariding tanda, v^ith aora than
1400,000 unpaid intareat, ate; (g) 20 Kaat Cadar Apartment olan
adopted in 1933, n«« corporation fornad, outataiiding bonda
$1,45S, )00, ate.; (h) Boaa&ont Building Corporation raor^anixed in
1931; (i) f ishington Corporation raergHnisatiou plan in 1033,
giving detail a; (Ji Diveraey Armabuilding Corporation plari oompletad
in 1931; (k) Domell Apartuanta, Xno. , reorganization plan in 1933.
Th« caaplaint than illegaa tiiat the total t«nd 1 Rsua floated
by tha Aaerioan B«nd i. Itortifraga Caupany aen. dieted of 169 ieauaa
tatalling an inveat&ent of #100,000,000, and that the C'Ondholdera
••Hkitta* la tha general c auittaa lor all theec propertiea; that
in Bioat of tha aaaaa tha reort;anisatien «aa carried on without the
approval ai' court; t<>at in a few canea the coauodittee aubmitted theae
reorganisation plana, a«ae to the State and bomo f tha Pederal court bl
The eoBpl<>int th»n continuea and aeta up in detail and at great length
4m^Mm$ \0m»tl ^saifd ,^u M i&ht^iN^Nr^ 90^' -mM i»#«« ^^om
'-'" mlt miiMJtmmt^B<si^^ *jS$- " .#d$««*i| «^i» »«9l «««£: :ii%9m
w»'>:- '-' ^M^iii^i^ txmt mmMmt (») ',itm^ $am trndu »v alias' -^
a»^* *aNm' J(fl?r ,».i*^k^^^^ ,~'"^i
imti^-' IheeiksNs^ t^ t9M% && is)' ;.*♦»,-* 'rf'sw vw^vo^
-6-
what am all«>g«d to be th« faots dlseloa*^ on Ui« hvarlng od tho
f«r«olo«ur« and raerganisatlon plana ol' tha Churehlll JdotaX in a
pr«saading in tha Cireuit Court of Uook County. ;iii&ilar all«g»tlona
follav in ral'eranca to tha Albion ;ahora Uotal ua o "hnx, toon place
in a prooanding inyolving that hotal, in the Circuit Court of Cook
County. Thon follow eo&afthat aimilar allagationa conoeming tha
raorganisatien plan of tna Jiarbor Viav aparttt^nta wiiora a bond Issua
of 4900,000 vaa floatad by tha Amariean Bond A: i.ortgago Coinpany
July. 192S, and a aacond uond iaaua of ^200,000; that dafemlta wero
mado in 1924, 19SR andl936 in tha payment of thasa bends; ttiiit
t!^ara waa a bond iasua of #1,475,000 agalnat tha 20 Kaat Cadar Straat
apartjsante in 1926. Turthar on, tha oomplaint aata up the rinding
•r ooinion of tha Judga of tno Circuit Court of Cook County in oon-
noction vith tho Ciiurehill iiotel proeaedlng. fhia oovara saYaral
pagaa of tha abatract. Xhara t*ro aavaral paragraph* in tha cob*
plaint vhara tha allagationa ara g«i«ral, uhciT^inK defendHnta ^^ith
wrong'doing in that uio banka protcetad tnair own int»r«et to tha
datria^t of plaintiffs hxid cthar c-oniholdara, orA a nustar of other
ohargoa of a aiaiilar charactar ar* nado.
Wa do not Btata furt^ar ill«gationa of the oomplaiTit but
wa think it auffieient to e ,y that pi Untiff a* auit ia an attei«pt
to racoTar daaagaa for fraud and daoeit by vay of a elaas ijuit in
alOTon separata bond iaeuaa. Xhara wero dacrnea entered In thraa
prooaedinga inTolring the Churohill Hotel, Albion Hotel and Lin-
coln Robay bulliing. In cotother buiiiing, tha Harbor ViAir Apartmenta,
a proeo'ding waa p«ri(iing unlar 7Tt in tha Federal Courta. It aaama
elaar that whatever claia plaintiffa had arialng out of thaaa four
bond iaeuaa wero adjulioutad or could hare bean adjudicated in thoaa
four prooaedinga, und may are not in a po ait ion here to ^oaplain aa
to those lour propartiea.
Dafaadanta u.aka a nuitbar of <3ont*>n liona why tua deorea
should ba affirmed, one of w.^ioh la that Jie coa^laint ia aulti-
issasi* isti li»f;»oift#tb«S «i»t<f «Y«jd M«|* rj* lb»*«i«l&«t*'«« «^»» fftMSftl 6rtod
«« aJUIipi^ W "•—'♦* — »**^-*. « "'» *^^v '^"-•'^ •"*"«■ ^-a** , it«il}»»©4>i«i ^tfol
-7-
farlous. *• think t la contention nuat bo auatalnod. flrat l>nt.
Bank of i InoQlB t. atarkfy, 263 II , 22; Lyona t. j|^3 ^ o . JttlohT
hXAK. Corp. 277 Hi. App. 93; Ooabt ▼. Ti^lor *Hftiiljig i. ^cxina yo.
890 111. App. 53.
In tho Btarkoy oaao, tho court ad^id, (pp. 25-27); "to
lay lovn any rul« unlToraally ^ppllo^tlo aa to Bultlfarlousneea,
or to say what oer.etltutoa »uItirt«.rlousr<08B as sai abstr«.ct .iropoai-
tlon , Is, undor thp Authorltlea, utterly impesslblo. (Qtoroy'a
Sq. p. • 10th od. - aoe. 530.) Thoro la no a«ttlod and Inl'loxlblo
rule rts to deciding whothor a pleading la Bultllarlous. 7^lO quea-
tlon la one «. leh Buat bo deteriiiinod Inrgoly by tiie olrcunatuncca
of •ach particular oaao. (14 Xncy. of il, > i»r, 19 6.) Ut.der ro-
oont decislona It la frequently held that the objeclleu of Bniltl*
farlooaneao uaunlly ralaea &erisly h question of convienlence In eon-
dueling the &uit, and c tlla for tlTie deoloion of tae court tilnpi^y
upon the question whether. In Ite dlaoretlen, tue yarioua ci«uaoa
aot forth In the bill niiould be tried In a oinglo suit or auould
bo diridod find tried in tvo or ruore siuita, or wnether a 4ef«rid>*nt
vho ie a neoeaitary p'i^rty la reapeot to ^tome mattera oorerod by tiio
bill la 70 connected rith th^ other .<attera Inyolved ^^a l« aiako
him a proper party in reapeot to thoa. ««* In spite, fiowevor, of
tho abooneo of »ny general rule aa to »kat conatituteo nultlfarloue-
noaa, it la g««nerally h»ld ^Jnt^X there are certuin prlnclplea and
t#ota by Which that lefoct nay bo dlaooverod In .4ny particular
oaao. by awltifariouaneae. e%ya a noto4 author, ia n'oant improperly
joining in one bill iiatlnet and It.dependent uattera and tncroty
oonfounilng thaa. **» But what la <4iro fanillarly understood by
tho tora 'aultifarlousncao, ' aa applied to a fcili, le whoro a
yarty ia able to o«y tnat iio ia brought aa a tofondunt upon a
record with a largo portion of 'Phlch no ubh no onnectlon whatever.
(1 Dftnioll'a Oh. Pr, - 6th Am. od. - *33«.)''
*-^t£m^ "tit a»-lit«fcl# ■»^'* t«ii^4" fei»i* %itms.tp9itM '«l' *l -»i«e>.,t»l»ift liwui'
-UOt ,|l4 , i|[a»i.<*«ir.|*Q» , tl» floijr***^ «' i£.JC#«t#« tflBftiSMt- *ffjt^««»» i'^tiaWfp^Hllt''''
-B*
In th« J-yoP» ««••, {i377 Hi, App, 93) eult was brou^^ht
by » minority oi' I'On-iholdar* against ih« truat«« under a £>ortga«a
and *la« aa depositary uiti9r a itapoQit agr«cn>«at and at;:Ainct th«
mortgagor and othora I'or porsonal ttooreea for an injuneiion a«ii!«inst
tho further proaooutien of a p#n<ling forauloouro euitt ^^o, Ih«
bill waa nald to bo aiultifarious la that it »oaJit to liquidato
BOToral cluiBia vr.ieh war* aoparata and diatinot and Joinod diatinet
aubjeot uattorgHg iiaat aovoral del en'ianta, Kone of wuom had no
lnt*r*at in eno or uu»ro of tti« mattoro involYod.
la the aom^ i ease, 390 111. App. &<3, iiuit -i^i-s i'rouii;bt
by a nuoiler of puroh.'^s&rs of vsashing aaaA.in«s frboi tue ei^r^^ant
oeapany llcgin^ tho aia&ainoo «'«ro %old by fraudulent Kiiaraproaen-
tation and that the a iloa contracts wore obtained by fraud. One oi
tho prayora of '.hn complaint vua that lefendant be enjoined from
proKOoutintr actiona »t lav on the centr&ctB. Zhc Appfllato Court A«]d
the eomoljiint vas multif«^rioua. The court there auid, (p. 6S) :
*Counael for aop-lle<>8, howerer, <io o>^l our litt^ntion to section
83 of the Civil Practioe Aet, •** and ineiet thi.t the only qmestion
for doterzhinatiou Iti whether, if th«^8« appelleea had brought separate
actiona, a coaa£ion question of lav or of fe^ct "'ould li&v^ &ri«»«D*
ifhiu section provides: '^i^bject ;u >*ulee, all peraoii« iBt«y Join in one
action as plair.tif fa, in «ho«) any ri^^t to relief in r^npeot of or
arinint!, out of the s^isie tranaaction or serios of tranaaotions is alle»
ged to exist, ^ hotter jointly, severally or in the altornatiTo, T^iere
if Budi perfions taad brout^t separate actions Hi<y coi>uBon <^uestion of
lav or f<c>.«t would arise.* In our opinion this provision eimply
extends equity praotiee as to Joinder of parties and euuseo of action,
to aetione at lav." The court than points out that section 23 vao
taken from a section of the iiev York Tractice act auid • .t conntruod
by the Court of Aat)*ale of Hoi* York. (238 i..y, 465.)
In the instant case, there are probably smny hundreds of
t^mMtfM &^«a#i turn $sfM*m^k' .k@» ■i^ims»m» *t«w On^m. »mii*iSj» Itrct^tn,,
-■■ i\S^ *^|- ;»Jtea «««ii^ $%u<!m »iit-: ■■^mX%»%l$Jtj[m »>f>^:i'*i-»iQ^<!>^ •***
ftnso !^£ »!'«!; w^- »^«»"%«^~ £a<k- ^,-«^,dte»' :i».t.:: it«#4if'i^' iai^j|:i|p'«i^|( m^i9>9*t_ flip
»i©c^ ,»*iyj*3rs»#x«, <»fi,J- ai '«■» '«i;4#t**®« .tXtjaiLtt ^iMilJWi* ,4;at»». •* MUk
»»* «s ®*l*3n»« #*4^ ??«» »tfaiJl*qi -i^iJi*?:.-****^ swig- ",w»i |« «aol^sMB «ir
-9-
boncihol<l«ra who puro)ii»s«d their conda in Uie qukuq luanncr as
plaintiffs Durobaawd vaolr t.eiids i zfnu tU« kort|{a£,e coBip«aiy and
under tJi« at*M« facta. Jdillioiie of clollars vsortn of cush uenda
ara liivelvad in tht suit, at les»et nin« larga properties ara Inyal-
Tsd, nuci<ei'ouft iaeuaa ^ould necascarlly ariue as to «Hoh bond ist^ua
and tht faot thara waa but one bondiutldors * agraemcnt >?euld net
ohatiga the aituation. Ac said in xht Starkly oa^G, ('<26^ XXI.
S2) ■ultifariauancaa raiaaa a quaation of coRV(>ni«Qoa in can>i*uotlng
a suit. On* of th« teats is th« "iiiapreparly joiniii^; in one liili
diaiinot and indapandent uattAra ;:^d Xhertnty ooniounding tiisa*.
Whethar a complaint is ouitlfarious, wt t>iinlc« s1m>uJ d in loost
casaa ba laft lo Uif disoration of iif chanoalltir <aaA only booomas
a question of lav wh«3 all r9aaoni»bla (oinda '«'ouid reach tha s»n-
olu»ion Uiat Ui» iaattera «raro ^o invelv«d mat tuay »kould not ba
triad in ena »uit.
in tha^inatuTit jjaftje _wa tliink tJTy6_ooJ|ipiaint vaejmiltifarioua
and the court properly struck it.
Zha ord4ir or daerao of Uia Circuit Court of Uook County
appealed I'rom is affirmed.
MaSuraly, P. J,, md iatoaatt, J., .joncur.
'^-
i9si h£ii9f» ismmfm^^ ^ isi;«»&X'«2lJb.»tf^' »»» iy4 *i(V 'it^msii ta^t wiAt ftaii
,i.it ^iSt) «^««^ "^^MMiB-^^ ^ i^^^^ ^ «««li'jHiffl;» »ii* •^suttk
-flms »fl^' iiiii^m, hJLem mhSiMm tal^Bismi^^t itk s»^ «r«i 't« 'ii«ila(»»»{» «
- . I
V!rtf»o*»s ,.t ,ff*^#«ll IMS* ,»% ."4 »tX»^
..'./$:• .."i.4 .'i':^^, ,1-^fef ■■?<:.!%■ %xr
40333
hoae owj-ers' loan corporatiom ,
a »J o i >io 1 ;--i t. ic.i oj tne United
States of America, Createjd "by
Act ol" Congress, I
Defendant in itfrror,
ve. /
^ainttil' in iirror.
^
l^R, JUSTICE O'CuAInOR JiLIVERED THE OPiHiOiN Oif' TIIE COJRT,
ThP jiome Own --re' Loan Cornorotion "brouKi-t an action of
forcible detail er against defendant to recover posBPSPion of an
apartment in a building in Chicago. Tiiere v/as a nearint, before
the court witnout a jury and a f inding_tiiat defendant was "guilty
of unla-Jffully \fitliholiing from plaintiff possession of tne pre?, ieee.
The court snteited judt^aent on the finding but ordered ti e vrit of
restitution stayed for sixty lays. Defendant h;.iB sued out a writ
I of error to tliis court to reverse tne judgment.
We thir.k it apt) ear 8 t'lat plaintiff obtained title to the
•premises through a foreclosure proceeding ani afterward brought
this forcible detainer suit in the kunicipal court, Tne conteuti^n
of defer -■'ant seeiiis to be t-iat the real party in interest was the
Govemir.ent of the United ilales, not tne Jome Owiiers' Loan Corpora-
tion; tlat the ii-oney lent and to secure the payiusnt of which the
mortt-age on the oroperty was fjiven, bplon§dd to the United cjt-tee
GoTernment , and therefore the rii^ht of action vras not in plaintiff.
Plaintiff has assi ,ned cross-errors, contending the court
was not warranted in ordering tht writ of restitution stayed for
sixty days, an J furtuer argues that a vrit of error will not lie
in a forcible detainer case. We know of no aut-ority that '^culd
warrant the court in staying tne vrit of restii lion for sixty aays,
but since .ve iive reached Cae conclusion caat a writ of error wii±
not lie and tne proceeding* must tnereiore ce dis-.issed, we do not
S&i^O^
\ \
:£mjOO dA9[i5I!aJ* 02 ROhm^ |{
, ftOlTAHOSHOO lAOJ '8fi2v.»'0 SMOH
.«▼
.*#»'
■^'H-W,,,
8 f d .A.i
OB lo iteiaa^aaoq levoosi's oA ^fu;5it9'I©Jb *anx«ajB rr»ax«*9i) dX^Tls^o't
axo'tscf ^sx'vic.qA & 8.SVF 9^©xiT .osfioiilO ai s«-tl) •£■£*'«'' « Hi d-ctftjoHjTBqa
tJi'iliJB" &BW *rtsf)£#i$i> ^tjsnrf- ..ojtxftni't b bras x^ii\ & d-yoxid-lw i-ii/oo orf*
" .asaiitiriq, stf* 'to noiaaaasof I'ixd-aljsICi iuot'l: jjaibXprfil^iTr Y^Xi^'^^'fi'Cjrf^ lo
't© .tlTJ? Srit Xj©T2(&'2o i-ucf jwxbid'i: ©iij no isf^m^huX, fisas^its i-iuoo sxfT
d-xiw & iuo 1)9 JJ8 3tjxi d-iiBX)n9't©G .ev.Bfc \';J'xxa lo'x fesYs^s aoiJ'ifi'li'Bftt
9il* OJ 6lixs- 6snxjed-cfo "i'lid-iiXjalcf d'jsjfi' a-rijecr<jje *i: :inirf*-*W
Jr(si/oicr f)ajsvn[9d"'i(ri 6ae ■gnibBsaotq aii/aoXosiol e dgMoTrfjC aaaxmoiq;*
ncxd-rtssaoo sriT »d"i;;oo Xsqxoxnif.M arid' iti tl^xuB TLQaisiBb sXcfioio't 8ix(#
ed.i a.sw *8Si'^*iix ni: Tcttriq Ibsi ©ft* cf^ui^ arf o* emBse &Lwba^'tQb 'to
"SiocioO rtBoJ: ' eionwo eiaoi, sxi^t toa .as^Bd-S bs&laO bM 'io Jnafiinisvot)
9d* iioxii'of 'to ;^uDiJs:\;j3g siiJ- siwosa o:f fccss tnaX y*^0'5 ^^^^ *«ri# ;aol*
/itij'nxaXq fix ioa a«v? noi;}-o.s 'io d-ifiiit »ii^ eio'teterW &nf; . Jn^xsmsvoi)
lo't fosYsts nox;] -jJiJaei 'to t xiw axtv •gniisfi'io ax Bsd'aciijsw ^fon aew
axX i-oa XXiw 101T.5 'to c^i'IM• s ^flxid- a^U'^tM t^ii^iw'l b«*. .a^sb ^J-xia
ijXxfcw Jsri;! i^j-x'xoaji/ij on 'to worrsf sW .saeo isaieJ'sl* sXcflsio'l ^=! oi
,s-^a£> ^*XX3 7.o't tLoiiPiUaei. 'io :!-i'Xv: ©xij- anxYsi-a Hi J^tfoo 8<f* *a8in«w
iXxw -soils 'io :J-xiw js Jexij- noiauXonoo siis bedoiosr sraxt er 9onxe :tiicf
^ou Ob 9w .J^98aiL-«ii) ©d sao-tsxoricT Jewas ss'-^i^sss^o^^ ®^* ^"^ ®^-^ **"
discuss fxiTf'iPT fie contftntions of the rnapective parties.
In ffe iitworth v. banket on e. 233 111. ^pp. , 4-3, it ''as held
a writ of error would not lie to review a Jud*^dat_ entsred in a
I'oroiblo :V?.t ainer case. That Iiolclinii; was approved in City ol'
Chica^-.o T. ChioaKQ 3tecuud-iip Lines. Inc .. 328 II].., oU9 .
Tlie writ of i^rror is clis.asaed,
'.VI-lIT DI3 loSED.
McGurely, ±, J., und I^iatcaett, J,, concur.
, ' ,i ^ *> t
'i'll*
■ >:u.i, ..'.■: ■3ao-«".^-
40359
WILLlAk BURKE HaILON, RUSSELL )
TYSOfi, ART:-iUR LYLAK and BENFSTT )
A.ILiiOR, Trustees, , ,--h''-*-v
Appe]|lee3, ) \
/ ) AKPIAL iTROk CI^CUIt COURT
^^«.X^, .J^^^'-'-SF COOK ^UtiTi,
lilCHELE VIKCI, ^.'-^^^y-' ■''■■-^^^'pr ^^*-... / I
/ „''Appell9|l't, .^'f / I
/^, J-'' .i^. _;^ .
iTR, JUSTICE 0'COFi;OR DELIVERED THE OPIi^lOI. OF THE COURT.
Octotpr 9, 1936, plaintil'ls I'iiecJ tneir complaint in
chancery to restrain defendant from re-odeling a Duiiding and
praying tnat he be required to rei^^ove it iroia tne pre::.ises.
After tiie issues were made up the cause was referred to a master
in chancery who took tue evidence, made his report, recoiomended
that a decree be entered in accordcince wita the prayer of the bill
and that defendant be required to reL.ove the tuilding I'roju the
premises withi . six months unless within tuat period he r&iiodeled
the builciine^ in accordance with plans aporoved by plaintiff a. A
dec ree was accordingly entesred and defendant appeals.
Plaintiffs have filed no brief in tais court.
The record discloses that plaintiffs, tne 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 -mA in Lo^-eruber , 1927,
sold 12 of the lots to defendant for |11,250 - a down payment of
$1125 and the balance in montiily installments of ^150 each. In
January, 19 28, defendant on paying $9000 casn was given a discount
from the purchase price so that, the lots cost aim a total of
110,125, and February 3, 19 28, he was giv-n deeds to the 12 lots
which contained buixiing restrictions t-iat prior to January 1,
1940, defendant would not erect or per. it to be erected on the
THUOO T|UO.^CO mom JAE^A i ■%, :: , ..,-..->,
.^A**;^'
«»*«»h.^
\-,J ■'■■
.T>iuoo rffix '50 itoiai^o aHT dHHaviJss Ho;moo»o goiTsirc .mi
fes^HQjQiflto&ai ,itoqs*i aid ebeai .QoxisJbiv© sxl^ jIooS^ oiiw v;i®orteilo nl
IXief sj^a^ 'lo f&x&rq, atLi xiiJ-xw aaiifildooos ni J^si&iaa ©cf ©artoafi « d'AxU'
sxii- laoil ^ciibliud BtU s>vora&i od' b9iltsp&x ©cf itixfiJ&xss'i©!) d'sxi;^ fens
biiL^boi'a^i «&.ri iioxx^q t.sud- xaxild-xw sz^iau axld-noia xia .iliid-xw aasxindttft
A ,e't'tj£;Jni.KlQ ^jcf fesvoicqe sHelq; dii\f 9oasisiooo« ul 3aJ:l)Xi«ef 9x1*
.al^eqqa cfnsljns'isii fens ^iSTBjJ'ns ^(; l^yibn p o &a aja w 9<H0dl>
♦d'lwoo alxi* at 'is lief on fcslx'i evBrI a't'lid'flijsl?
o^soiiiO 'to i"t.3q ^^Iisxid-uoa ©lid' ai: J3©;t.BooI fenjsl .ca.ijs'i lo asiofl GOl
'to ^Qs:.e bOB ieeiiQ xi*Q£I ^la^tfisxxcrqqjB bn& ^asiJa riiVSX nsswd'ed'
.VKQI ,i©cfBi9YoVI ax fenjc x^'^^^P'^^i 9-fi* JisbxvifceriJB ,;Jg9iJs fcsJBleH
'to d-nsOT^iijq awoJ) jb - OeStlX^ lo'i J-aslins'iefe od" ad'oX 9Xf* 'io SX JbXoe
nl ,iioaa 02X^ 'io BinQsaLiBianx TjIjUaoifl nx aormXecf sxt* fjxis SSXX$
*n«oo8J:& ii nsvia asw riaeo 000«| snx^tJBq ao ismbasilsb ,8SSX , ^laiJiifi^
"io XfiJocT i3 filxif d-aoo sJ-oX ^di i&tii oa aoiiit »«jax{oitfg; »ri# moa't
Bd-oX 9X 3fIJ- oi ebaob iiQvig Bjaw 9ii ,8SeX ,£ \c?«'J^<^9''^ ^^'^'-■■' fC!SX,OX#
,X xvbuubT, oS loiin ^j:?^^* aaoiiol-^ia-ii sfUbXiwtf |)©nifl:faoo xloxxiw
9^cf no baioota ad" oJ- JXiui9C[ io d-0919 ioa bLsjovr irisbnft'iaii) ,04'eX
lots any 'b'lilding except a dwelling. Il' the nouse waa I'or one
fa:iiily it was tc cost not I^bp than $7500 ajid muet not iiave a flat
roof; i^' the dwellinfe- house '^as constructed i'or two fan.ili e it
was to cost not less than .$12,000 nnd he not less than two stories
in heijl't, to "be built of hrick or stone and mi£,ht have a flat
roof; that all "builrtings were to have foundations of hrick, ttone,
concrete or cement blocks; tliat the prenases should not be used
for carrying on any trade or l-usiness, and tixe plai.ntiff trustees
reserved the ri'.jht to modify the restrictive covenants.
Some time thereafter the parties entered ii.to an undated
agreement wnich puroorts to be a bill of sale oj an oil house
locatsd on the subdivided property about three or four ulocks west
■O'f the lots purcaased by d.ef endaiMt . The old house was ^iven to de-
fendant and by the terr.>s of the agreeiaent he was authorized to
remove it to one of iii? lots at his ov\\ expense, 'ITie a^-reeiuent
furtn.er provided tViat no alteri^^tions or changes should be made in
the old Vuilding before plans and specifications were subii^itted to
and approved by pi intiffs; axid further, defendant agreed to start
work on such alter-^ttione or clianges within 30 days after the sewer
and water mains had been installed by plaintiffs in Egj^leston
avenue, the street on which defendant's 12 lots fj.ced. There was
a further prevision that if tae rei.odeling of the buil.iing had
not been started w-itiiin the 30 day period after the sewer and water
mains were installed, it was agreed "that tne eld building will be
considered an unsie;htly structure and a detriiuent to the surround-
ing property," and Vinci agreed to ren.ove it at his own cost; t .at
if it were not reiaoved within 60 daye frou the time required by the
Realty Trust, the owner of the property, tae Realty Trust migiit de-
molish it at defendajTit's expense. lue cost of all permits were to
be borne by defendarit.
The contract, w..ich appears to be typewritten, contains a
©no lo't 3SW asjjofi ^irl* 'tl .gnlllfbn* « *q©ax9 afllfjlinrf y*^ «*oi
39i'ro;fa ow;}' xwari^ seal ioa s>cf ba^i 000, SI| nerd- sa^I d-en *aoo o* eew
is^rt a 9Vsr{ jrlgisi bm^ ©nod's 10 atoxicf 'to i-ili/tf 9(f oit .drxJ-sii^I ai
.©jKoc^g (Stoiicf 'to srfoiJjsbni/o'r srisri o* sisw s^ctlbliud IXb j^Bx/^t ;T:aoT:
b98u ©cT Jon ftlfioxfa eeaxaisiq 9xi^ :tfiii.* ;8i[oolo ijassnso 10 atsionoo
^aia&noroo QriioliiaQn Qiii -^i'ti^oiH o& iii^^ii ©tfJ bensaeT
sawoiX &Xo OB io Qiaa 'to XXirf s ©tf o# a*iacra«<? lioiriw ^nftraedTtga
©^ |)^sixoii4'Jjf« 8^6W Sri *i:i©ffls 913:3^5 sJiJ' 'io aarcs* diCd' -^tf 6'tta doBftnei
tasassd^js QtCS ,aaasqx9 iiwo axxi Js 8*©X std 'te 900 ©I *i SToaari
ni s&sffi scf £»iw©rfe a^jji'^'SJ^o "lo gnoid'Eisd'Xfi on t&sii l>«*iroi:et i:»rii'i»^
oJ b&&timdsji 9'x^w snoii-eoi'tJtosqe 6ns erfceXq sio'iscT saifeXi«cf &Xo sxii'
tiscTa o-i fiesaais ^aabne'tafe .laxWio't bote ja'll:x*axj?Xq ^cT J&svoiQf^ Jboe
•x-^srse &iU iQitB etxssb 06 nxxl:!-xw as-ga^iiQ ■xo anoi*e'3*;tIa xiDlii h0 ■^'s«w
noi-asiBaa ai e't'tiialBlq, x^ fisXXs^ani nsdd" J^d llfiiiaia 'xscJ^.w fens
a«w siailT *J390tet e*oX SX @^ A.inbas'lfib doMvi no ^es-x^a sri* ,9wn»v«
JwsjEf aflxfcXiifcf sxl;t 'to saiX9f)0i.i8i sxi* 'tl isdi «oXei:rotEg isxtd-iw^ «
sd IXiw iiatbliijci bio edi i£ijii* j^©9^ae bs->v ii ^b^tXsHat ©^*w •fli*a
-fenuoi-xiia sxf<t oi JasniXi*©!) « ftos STCii*oija#a ^XJxi§iafl& £ib h*X9biaa»ti
tBiii ;*6oo awo airi *s *i 8vofl»^ ©J i©9«8JB lofllf fene *,1{;^^«»««»^^ a«i
siij x<^ i)9xi«p9T: siaJ:> sxlcT moat atjeJ^ 08 nixf^iw I»«vom»^ S-'on ©iJ»ir i^i '*ti
-9i) ^xisW#aiJiT ^:rXB8fl 9itt ,x*i»qo'xq sxi:^ 'to -xerniro ©riJ.^au-xT x*U»^
oi sTdW »*xx5af»q XXb 'to c^aoo 9x11 .dan«qpc» n'cToibaoIsi) *« *i xlaiXoJa
' ' ' ' • . #xteI>hdT9-Jb''' ^cf erf'-^H ^o'
paragraph whica was stricken by dr-iwing lines tiirouj^u each ol' txe
tyTjewritten lines; that paragraph is as lollops: "S^CO. D: Inasiiiucu
as the purnosp ol' movin;-; said "bail Urifc to lots 1 to 5 In ^iocic 9 is
to use it as the f?Jseletor or fraiue v.'ork only lor a brick tuilding
to \'t \x6>-'\ lor residential purposes, the sail purci^aser agrees to
aubndt olans -Jid specii'ications ol' the reiiodeled builoiDt,, I'or
wri'rten atinroTal as required "by tne restrictions on his property
bel'ore -'uly 1, 19^3," There is a dispute as to v/hetner this para-
graph v,as s ricken b-^-for' or after it was eit^f^d by defendant, but
we think t'lis nupstion is not of controllinti iiarortcunce. The undis-
puted evidenne is that '^iMci moved ttie old house or barn and placed
it on one of his lots in the vrintT ol' 1927-S8, i'he expenae of
niovint: «a8 |1500 which he paid. In Larcn, 1928, Vinci installed
:v in lows in fiv*^ rooms of the building, caused partitions and
floors to be installed at on expense of ipQlS. In August, IQiX),
he connected tne Dre-uises with sewers and water, constructed a
bathroom and a eaten basin at an expense of 5350; in April, 19.32,
"Roof boarding reoaired and entirely reroofed, ioors fiy.ed. Cost
$375," In kay, 19 33, foundations were built, excavations, con-
crete basenient floor, concrete in garage portion, ciLaiiey bospiaent
to roof, at a cost of |2009; In August, 1935, ne installed an elec-
tric lieiht plant in the bail ing at a cost of i65L; in April, 1936,
he -^"ivided the rooirs, making a dining room, a bedroom ^xni a bv=th,
for which he paid $225 - a total cost to hia of .^6024.
The undieouted evidence also tends to snow tnat througnout
the period of time defendant was mcvint- and repairing -he building
plaintiffs had a representative Wiio was on tne ground practically
every day. As stated, tne property was vacant fan- property and
there vi'ere very few buil-^ings constructed on tne lots :ind no build-
ing of any consequence was ta^in^, place daring tne depression, so
that tne building program was practically at a star.dstill. i„
fSii 'to tia&o xiauG'xxIJ- aaaxX ^iirnratb x€ a!at;^oiTiia saw dojlilw tlqe-r^BTBcr
idoumeal :-(Xii00ii.8" caeoXXo'l e« si riijBigis'jjBq. *sx« jssniX iis^cUxwagv;*
si S :iooXa .«i c o* i; ad'ol o* ^«ii)Xi«ci' I>jt4sa ^^nly®ffi£ 't©. ©aooprirq; mi^ »«
^i:;^ilfl«r ioi-xtf & XiO'i t^Iho jI^ow siiuatl 10 ao*»Xs3i5 «*£# ea *i »a« ol
o;J $i3&i%p TSfa#ii&i«(| Mae ,#Aid- ,a«aocrxifq Xaii'fl»|>i)8»T %e't j&ftiijtf ©^ et
-jst:s^ V^liii "x^MBdw oi a*J ©.*iu<5ai£> a ni ■9t.&.dt , •♦8S9X ^X ngloT. sto'istf
-3i65i«,9£tX ^^sajB4-'?coc5is^; iS^iXXo-E^afliia 'io t<>n ei iK}i#a»«p al^* inirfct av
'io »«H0jpt9 »iiT ,8S-rsei 't« ':£»laiw siid- ai ad-oi slxi 'to eno no ^i
|i»XXjs*q«1 ioaiV ,8S.fX ,xfe%«ii aj .i>iij« ©li- fffri^w O0Sl#««i^ ^flivoxa
^Q^;'||.*4;t*'J|^ «I *44&^ 'to aanQqpcs n«> ^e i>oXIjB.tsni sd o.-t aiooX't
j| J)jai?|JB?i#e«^ie.,,*^^ I^xie a%9W« iitjw aasiwo'SQ ^i^J- \fe9*o»a«oo »ii
^fiSAaeaecf x;.simiilQ ,,fiax*aoQ sai*i«3 ©i, ,^t«>^«flop |?io©X'i dtaMfflSAcf aisrio
-DsXa fl© AeXX«i80i ajci ,6£ex ^dsLswA njtnieoc^l 'io ctaoo /■o's: 0*
S«xt>X±xicf »xt} sni'iXBgeT i)m Ba4fr«fl|, aaw- !^ix#jbn».^«f) snti^T 'io baited sfld-
^XXsoWpJSiq |),riiio^a «^ «® s^'^ o^^* «vil«*«9««^q«i « fieri a't'tiJai«Xcr
-f>Ii«cf OH JbiJB P^oX exf* .«o bd^owtinaoQ: 9^atbLlij4 w'i -^fiov -'x^-<i? ?i9ii*
08 ,u. ::.asag©fc sxij snxtiut aojslfi saiifi* a^w eonsi/pepaoo ;. . : ani
^ ,IXX.at.«..a . .« xXi«;>.i^o*^*« «^w .^.uor^ ^nltli.^ .n. ..r;t
addition to the moneys pe.i'^ by Vinci '-iS above et;'.tel he also psid
plaintil'l' ti-uRteos $35 a lot, sr ^420, ub .lis propcrxiur.ite share
for the care of parkwaye, olar.tin^; trees, etc.
The seirer onci water aaiiiS iaenoioned in the ai^reejient or
bill ol' sftle -ere instfillcd by !jl;iintillB by 3eptei..bi-r, It 3'j , arid
on the 26th ol' that iaonth they wrote delei.daiit advisine, nin ol'
this '-j-iCi statin^; tKey thou^^it he should proceed v'ith the reniodeling
Ol' his building in .'..ccordance vita -he aj^ree^^unt v.i"-iiOut lur-clier
drtl-xy. .l''ru;.i that tine on the matter T.'a8 ta en up betwe-^n the
parties 'jnd their rrts-oective couj eel; letti^rs pf^sued bsfeen them
and conversaticnB were iiad witii .^ view of reac.-ing an r^,ree.'Aent ;
a-3-aa.r ^ntly not ..in^ caae of theru ;-ind tlie v^ork oi rei-iO deling was
from time to time cs.rried on by defendant.
A nuuibor of p'"ints ara luude by def y>dant as to the exclusion
of evidence, - tnat pl-,intiffs refused to approve proper plyXiB for
remodeling xhe ouiiling, uuat ol.'iintif i s are t^uilf^- of lacues nd
tiiat it would be hi^ijily inequitable to rsquire defendant to remove
the builing or to remodel it as plaint ii'fs gut,i,:e8t at l.trge addi-
tional coBt 7>n~n the building res '..rictione , by "...eir own ter s,
will expire witiin less than a ypar - Janu ry 1, 1940. V/p think
this contention raust be sustnined. Defendant started to i;iove the
buil.iinr in the winter of 19 27-?a -.nd for a number of yeare t}:ere-
after was re^>od?Hng it at ,jreat expense, Wiiiie objections were
froLi tir.e to tiae made, t)lalv tiff b ""id not file their complaint
until October, 1936, nearly eijdit yeare after the property was
sold, b.iil .ing moved ivr.^ extensive rei.odeling done. Tais delay,
we t.in:, constitutes Is-chea. Bran denbur/^ v „ Coupctry ...glu."b _Bld£, .
Corp . . 332 111., 136; DeGama v. D'Aquila . 101 Atl. (i> . J ,0h. )l028.
■ff' the l:ra>. ienbuTK case i bill was filed for a mandatory
injunction to ccii^pel the re^i oval of a builJxng or for t^^e re odeling
of it. The court t..ere in considering tae re-ody whicu was sought
■tQ is3»ms-ef$B &iU al h^aoisiwsi eaiaw t©^«w baa t^wbs atSi!
&ff* .XXadWd^rf qw, |H9-=u5* RiJ-W *S9*,t«rw'fl ^ii^ ^O QMiJ i0A0 ma%1 ;.Xf^l»b
iKSf&l no&^isQ b0BQ^q_ oisi^d"©! jieenifoo ftvxtfoe^qaw'jE xlsmi^ Sbati a&icfi-sq
• 8SW,-sE£xX3£iOnae^ -io i'io?^ bs^ bat: rnddi 'to »jc*Ba -^^M&'osi 'zS'ii3&:^JiSi'(ipB
noxauXox© 9xi* oJ 3« ^a&i^JK'teli igtf Qh&fo. &i^ a^nioq 'to •i9<:rAUxn Ar?.;,; -5:,; y-
10't axisXq: *£9iq:oic3[ STo^qf« oJ JBe®*/'4s^ a'i'ii: #nJI®X(| iMM - , soae&ivo 'lo
-«i&^j8 ©s'rsX *« *89;aa*J3 a't'ilcJ-nxBlq b« *j: iBbo-i^-i oi %o '%aillludl »tli
^^j^sd- iti."?© ii.fi.iio .^cT ,anGi*oXTd-aaTC gaxJ&Xxuef s«cr ,nft4w *soo Xeanid-
alitiiii' -^W ,O^QL ,X ^i; jaas^ » iBs'^t ^ iisa;^ saaX ni;:!*!^ onicpc© XXiw
arid- ayoitt 0* fts;^i£.?8 *a-s.5n<^'i»(I »fc»nj;j3;!-eua scf ;^«i»ai aoJt;^ns*ao3 airf*
»9i9ta a-ijsa'^i 'to i^cfmrn jj lo'i fca*-^ SS-TSex 'to tisini^t .»ii* -al -aaifiliwrf _
-•■xaw anoxd-o^ttiTo sXxdW .sanaqx© *s9is f& ii '^aiX^feem©-! a-aw isJ-'is
iai&lqitioQ liedi 9in ioa bib a'ttl^cixAlfi ,»kBi& *ih1^ o* bM^ raot't
■ aisw •\j*'S9qorrq 9xf* 'xsJ'ijss aifi^Y iiigia At'^"^*^o «®^Si: ,3«tfod-oO lliau
,X^S.9& aix^t :i0nol( aox-ta*'©"®'^: svieaeAxa &«.« i)©TOfir gnliXiwcf j,^Xo8
.©SOX(.iiO.t.ii) ,i3A XOX .aXxjjpA'G .y jBgtgiMg. ;&£^ ,. XII 855 ♦'*flS£2.
;RftiXs£>0£9'X ©xU xo'i 10 aaxbliJucT 6 '±0 i«voiua-x ©ii* X««saoo oJ .loUam/lni
said: "The rei/^edy is subject to the defense of l..cueB - the net^lect
of the person wno l^nows nis ri^^ai. to have teen wroni^fuily invaded
to taice action " ith reasouat/le proLiptness to protect aie ri^ht arid
stop the invasion. Any considerable delay not satipf actoiily 9:X.-
cused will \,.xT .lis rit,-^t xo relief, particalurly \:u<^t^ he seeks "by
a mandatory injunctioii to couipel the reiioval oi a valuable struc-
ture, 'i'lxe rit^ht to eniorce a restrictive bit^reejient luriy be lost
^y lacuea or acquiesceuce, especially wheii tiiis resiAlts i: tne
maicinfe of expenditures by defendant. *•** Ihat t'ue a^rseiu. nt Vias
but a limited liiue to run has, in connection with ot>ier circum-
stances, been rej^arded as b consider.-ition adverse to its enf orce-
in en t. '" i'ne court tjien quoted witii approval froiu tue . DeOama case
decided Dy the iNew Jersey court. In that case a person icnov/ing
tlriat «?. building rescriction was being violated by tne construction
of a garage by a neiehbor, made nc objection until the conptruotion
was npar co:i.pl ction , and e.fterr/ard waitpd for over a year before
filing a bill for a mandatory injunction. our Suprenie court ouoted
in
witii approval,/the Prai' den burp; case the follo':».in,-: from the l<ew Jersey
court: "It was the compl-iinant ' s duty, if s;ie inteiided to if-sist
upon -All enf orceiTient of the restrictions, to have acted promptly
after sue learned ol their actual violation by defendajt in April
and before he had expended any consideraole sum of money on tne
bui] Ung. ^ * * It xs one of tne rules oi a court of equity ouite
strictly enforced on a bill for a biandatory injunction to protect
restrictive building covei ants, tuat the application muat be
promptly made. Complainant's delay, under tae circaxristanceg, in
taking lef^ai proceedings to protect her rigJits constitutes such
the
l^c'^'eg that I deeir. it inequitable to grant her/relief siie now seeJcs, *
i'uad out Supreme court continuing quotes from the Lew Jersey case
the following: "And generally, whenever plaintiff stands idly by
and penits the erection complained of to be made and expenses
to be incurred t.herein wit .out objectii.g. his application for
.tosla^a QiLi - af>JiOj:iI 'j:o ■asna'i©^ sjii' oi ^ostcfue ex x^emsi ©xlT" :bis8
»xe Y'i^j^'i-^''^^^5'i'3ijjse d'on ijjslsf) aXrfjsia.bisaoo ^114 »noxa£vni srio" god's
©aeiscf i3«>^ JB Tero lo't Jbsd-ijew f>ijB'?n:fi *t.@ biitj ,aoi#oXqiaoo ijssn «jbv
^axgiii oj Jb©l3ii*3-i;i arle 'ti ^xiab a'^aeai^Xqiuoo sfi* bjbw . woD
X;Xi'qj:aoic( fe«^o^ svwxi oi' ,aao xd-oi'i+aei oitj 'to d'as^ii'^oio'tne .i^ noejw
Xiiqi. fli ;ri56i>a3'tsi> ^of neic^Bisiv X^xf^oa tiaxi^ to Jb»" t. 'xs^l:*
Sitcf no -^Qiiom lo au/s sXd-stiabxaaoo y«*» b9i)U9qx« hMti »ff ^lo'tacf l)ii8
s-xwp \(^iiijp9 tQ iruoo u 'to aeXjja ddi 'to sao ax .i ^ .anil^Xii/cf
ctosj-o^q o* noi*omjtni: vioJafinsia jb lo't XXxcf a a« AatOioHlii© ^C-t*©-ti*8
9cr Jsuia aoxd-eoiXqqa axtt cfsnj- .a^rasaevo© sajtfeXi«4f *TJ:*oii*B»»
ni .aeoofi^BfiUiDiiQ sxid- TC9i)m; ,x«X«iS) a»*m5nijBXgjMoO .aJ^fioi -^cX^iiiiioiiq
ilouB a9*w*.t*8nQo ai'risl;i a»n ;to9d-oiq o* aaalJj©906iE«j XsijaX ^alilBi
©fit _ -
'-' aaaflacpcs f)^^ sf^sis scf o.^ 'io bsxiifiXqmoo noiJoB- ajriitt^»« i--
- ,...'„^*«nirrva:« aid .sai;ro9Wo Juoxinw axs-xsii* Mi-ti.o«l erf o*
6
tho aid of a court ol" equity cor'^s too late anri will uot be enter-
tained,"
We are further ol" opinion that under the rule which is
referred to as "Balance of Convsni?nc<=»" the iciandatory irjucction
is?ued in the Instfint case ou^ht not to stand, hill v, kiiiibpj.1 ,i
269 111, , 398, Tlie court in thai case eaid: "In caeee v'uer©
mandate ry injunctions are iisted for, 'it is tue dutj of th.e court
to consid'rr the inc^mvenience and daiuaje tUat will r-^sult to the
def-ndont as \<'ell as o/xe benefit to accrue to che coiQpiriiijr.'.nt by
granting of the writ, ani. where the defendant's dT,i.a;.e3 and in-
juries rill be gr?«iter by granting the writ than will be the com-
plainant's benefit by granting the writ, or gi'eater thaii will be
eoTpl-.in3^t 's daraagee by t^ie refusal of it, the court will, in t.ie
exercise of -i sound discretion, refupe tne writ.'^^ * * It is x^ot
every Cise of a permanent obstruction to the use of ari ease.».ent tkat
ectitles the aggrieved party to a restoration of the forr,-.tr si'oua-
tion. Each case depends on ivis own circuras.arices. The courts, in
the exercise of a sound discretion, must 3eter;.irie in such instances
whet^ier a r, andatory injunction shall issue,"
The let in qaeetion on wi.icu tne building, was olaced by
defen'^ant is located ' ear railroad ■cracks aiid seei-s not \.o be as
deeiralle as tne property f urv ler west where iii 19o7 there appears
to haye been urner construction 35 residtiices by virtue of wiC
Federal 'ousing law.
For the reasons stated the decree oJ' the Circuit court of
Cook county is reversed and the cause rer;iairided with directions to
disxii lss th e suit. , .: " " '^'"^ ^^ — «— «-^^ — -
" ' P^YSHSED A1:D RBLJ^J^IfflD WITH DIHBCTIOiiS,
MeSurely, P. -7., and Matciett, J., concur.
C"
~*i!&*a» ocf i-oa llt'^ Jbae d^-jeX ooJ- aejaoo "yjiiB-p© "to iruoo b 'io fel« oxii
■■■■.■"•'' ■■'■ "•■"■■ ' '"* ■■'- ' ■ ■■■■"', ft^aiei-
^IL^ifi&i J. ^r XJ tlH *{>iiB^8 o;t j?d« *i%jj6 ©Biro *n*J:J'efjl »f/.* nl h^mal
ftisif^ 898^50 al" :£>i<6a ©ajBO J-exlJ fii Jifioo »rfS! j.ei^ ^^#ffl edS
*ii?o& aria "to y;JiJb 9sdi st i-i" .to'i bsis^e sife «.fioi*s.nijtni x^oisbcv&oi
"Btio^ 94* ©cf IXlw flisiii' d-itv 9£l# aaifasis ttf '*9*'»©'S3 Stf XXi¥ Atei^ift
ai ^,Q3f%u<30 bM .aitoasiajswsiio hwo sa-i iio mhm9(i9h •sjaso xlo«St .hoi*
•39ona#8ai d^tm ai diiiains^^fo J^eKsa .aoi^sgi&^i-fe hmoo, a te ?sri»«®a» •)££*
a& 9cf 0^' ^foa Siosda /jiis ajlo-glj i^io'iixis'i xiB©a l>«*«a^i »i faabnsrlsb
©xii *lo QwHiv^cT esoast.6iaei aS hdi:*owiiJ'S«©* T»Jb^ a«|rcf'»riW{•o*
'to i-zuQo iivo-iJLt) 9dyt6 aa^oafe' si4l''iif«*s' ir©©«A»t'V- aiitf
■•^>::. yt:-''i'i:'y -"^"^i ■:>C'J -,..v"'t ■■■■■•. , ■ . J :■ ;■
iA'^-:$i.m^X'^? ''i-M: t^ /;!,■•■)':' •■*':( c',.; >C
40468
Apu%llan1
! i
V8,
SOL D. LOIBY,
/ )
/ ) ""^ I ■
,'URT
4
^,
liH. JUSTICE O'COlJi^iOR DELIVERED ilia OPILIC* OJ^ .diJ!; GOui'tT.
Plaintifl' brcufc,i^t aii action against deferdbjni- to reccver
^56,13 cla.iBiei3. to Toe balance due on a chattel mortgage oiade by
defeii'lant, Defendant denied liability ano I'lled a, counterclcim
for hJIOOO J'or the unlaT;l'ui detention by plaintiiT of dei'eridant • s
auto;.-obile, ihere was a trial be-'ore txie coart v.'it'iout -z. jury,
a fiiiJiUfe ag\:iiR8t plaiutifl" on its ciaim, l'iri.;infe. i'or def .-ndsjit on
his counterclaim for j?250; judjaent v/as entered qi\ the bindings and
plaintiff app^ale, Def eiidant aas filed no orief in 'ojiis c^urt.
The record discloses txi.at pl;.intii'f was tue o"/ner of a
chattel Kio rt^age civeii on deaendari t ' s automobile 1.0 sf^cure hie in-
del'tedj^ese. Plfexxitiff fcreclosed the cnattel ...ortgage and a balance
of -550,13 over the prcceede of tne sale was claiued to be due.
Defe-'idruit testified taat the autoi.iObile telt'iifced to him; that the
license for it was issu6-d to his v^ife angler r.er iiiy,iden nsme; that
he was a private letective; tnat his olace of bueiress ^ae at 119
Kcrth CI -;.ric street and was i:;ncwn as tht> "Illlois Sttte r>eteotJ.ve
Agency.* Ihc evidence furt.'ier suiows that defendant kept his car in
plaintiff's -arage, tne ace unt charged to the "Detective agency,
6uid that at tiie time in question taers r.as due plaintiff for garage
ser-^ice and reoairs a balaiace of ,^2G5,
Tiie evidei-.ce is ^'urt^ier to the effect t,-at pcsyments u-iHer
th- Chattel mortfciatje were due ..icnthly Ljid tiiat a payment of ,;j25.31
fell due Karch 28, 1938. uolby testified that ne sav a rer.reeeiita-
tive of plaintiff or: tnat ^ate and, "I tcld hici tnat thfre was a
Bdi'OI-
{ • )f«r«'-fi-L_ s-Dijuo aa/^i-'HsoaaAEff
^.
ay
.vu«*^lHO "5.0
^ef sbijfflr 9s«sJT0ia X»*l«ri3 e no sub Bon&li-Q sd o* J&axalxilo SI#SSf
ao i a&b a^ti&h "xo'i :gai.l>iu't ^mi&lo eii. no 'ilij-iusXci ;:^aai^.a£j ^iiifoxu/l >l
♦ #'ii/oo siivi ax 'i9XT:Gi oa i^aXJi'i a«n ^j^^iis'lsC ♦aXa©qqj8 Tli^titijBXq,
-njt airi aiuooa o;J sXicfoicoJus a' JfiBfcnai^fo no iisvi:.^ dgaad-ieEt X*^*ailo
&&iia£.iid B tOB ©B^B^io* Xstoj-jexio svxld" fesaoioss^co'i '.tli^Easi'i .aaSii^s^cTsJb!.
.&JJ& 9cf o^ f>!?jiiij(sXo ajisw slfis ©xi^ to ei)si9aoiq ©.fid- xsyo £X.SS$ 'te^
©xsi- i'Biii ;ff£iil o& bfi»anoX9cf eXjcd'oa;pi-«fi ©4* *Bif;t l>ei'ii#?d*, Jfffii^ae'isC
d-fiXiJ jQiusa noi>i;Sitn tarl isljfii,,' s'liw sixl ot bnu&ai b&w tX 1,0 't ©aada^J^,
bll i& aaw aasnieiicf 'to soaXq eiil *sriJ -STicfos^&i:' -^o'^virjiq a. asw sd.
8/Lio'.>;t©G 9j£>cf8 exoiiiXXl", yfl* 8£ cnrorti saw fcfw ;f«9'xd-8 JlxeXO d^oW
^-j,Bi&^ lo't 't'tUaxBlq &iJb saw ©i£>xij aoxd-asifp aj; ©aioT &-m,if.,iedi has
.east '-to ©ofteXecf a 8ai&Qi%'' fjoe BO'iTt^B
lefmu a*n9fin{6q *s.rl* ios'tlQ 9xi* 0* i©xtd-i.u"!: eX 9{>!:i9i)xvs sxlT
Xc,<:Sf 'to. d-n9ia\j;sq ^ iBtLi bcu: -^XxWaofa sufc 9:t9W S3«3*k©ai X»i*£iio - xli
a asw sieii;^ osii* lairi bXo* X" ,£>rw »*«5 *£nd- no 'niiaXBlq 'to svxcf
iue date on the note, that I wanted to pay it, I also viaxitfA to
pay $25 on account jrovide-i he released the car, on account ol the
Illiuois itate Detective Agency, de aaid he woald t3Jit.c. the /foney
provijed I wo-ill e,ivs idm the c:;attel aaorte^age on the car and p':r-
sonally atsolvin^ tne in'leljtedii3S3 oi' tne ccrooration. 'x^at would
te -itoat four aundred aad sorne odd dollars"; tJiai. he rei'used to do
as plaLntiff's repreaen tt:. uive requested taid tnac plaintil'l' rel'uEed
to let defeiida/it luxv-e the gjX Uiiiess ne paid up.
The court I'oui^id dei" endaii . had tei;>dered t.ae proper airiount
due under tne c/iattel luortgage on luarch Z8 but that the tender vas
rel'ueed.
Plaii.tirf 'e representative testii'ied t^iere "^vas no tender
made and consequently no refusal, Ve taink the I'iniin^- is contrary
to thf t^anii'est weifeu-l oi the evidence, axid moreover, we think the
tender was iiO c sucjj. as ine law requires. There was no -actual tender
of noney or check. Under xiie. circ-u;u8t'.if:.ce8 tliis was insufJ iciwit.
Moreover, according to defendaiit's own testiii-ony tiie tender was
conditionalliy made; he testified he agreed to pay pro-vided plaintiff
would relea-oe t^^e car, 'A.iiici. it reJusea to do, *^e gee no reason why
the car should have teen released at tnat tixiie since taere was due
plaintiff ii265 for garae,e service, includinj^ some repairs.
Plaintiff furt->er coiiteads tnat in any view ol tne case
there -as no evidence to warrant trie court in lixin^^ the value of
the autoj^otile, wlxic the court apparently did at ^4130, allowing
defendant credit lor #iiOO wnic^i it received at tne lorecloBure sale.
We think the contention aiust be sustained. Xhe only evidence as to
the value of the car was that given by defendant, who testified on
the trial, held June 23, 153o, that- iie Dou^iit Uie car in I'voveiiioer,
19 35, ^.n.i paid .>347 for it; t/iat he had driven it about 43,000
miles; that it was a 1936 i^iodei, wn tnis evidence tne court fixed
the value of the car at i450. inis was not warraiited by tne eviderce.
<,.A .^?® Judgment of the L^aaicipal court of Cnicago is r^versAd ^d
judgment is entered in this court in f.vor of ola.r tJff i orir
uj. piHxr.xiii lor tj^g amount
oi b^iscmr-i obIj; I ,&i. \f:.q oi .bad-new I i&sii ,sd-on -[isi;^ no Bi&b stih
erij lo iauoQij-ii no , XJaO sxl>t i-seseals'i sa fjSBXVoiq j-i-fijoooc no 8St Ajjsq
■^■sacirt &d.i sab;) bluov srL 1 i^a aH ,\;on9^A svlionjsU. a^JjtjJS sioniXXl
-Tft'Ct ^)fi» 'X*iD Slid- rxo igf^'fia^'T'^o-^'^ isdJ-^uo a.l;^ /axxx Hvi;;^ Ll-fJOf/ I b^bivoiq
,qv i^BQ. '491% saali'jiJ ticxi Qiii' ssr^ici jni5£) as '!:©£■ ;J-9l oi
Tjiij'ij-floo ei gax.f-nx'x ^ncf ilaixi'd' ©V/' »iaajj'l3-x oa ^^XJ-udJupseacQ JbHs aJb^jH
Sfij- iaixiii- sw .xevos'xoiii iuui ,aoa^X!i:v3 5x1* 'Xo Jxii^iQW itsaAinjSjii 31IJ -0*
TSbr-Bi Imuinjs o« e.ev.' siaxIT .asxxxipr*^ wsl isxij aij lioua sou a«w I®&fi9*
. JHf xoi't'iiiieiii afcvv siili osoiiisd'eiKiJoixo axiJ- laiaiU ^iifosrio 10 YSiiOi't 'to
't'tiJ-nxaXq bsfjivoiq \;sq oi fesaij^us sii fiax'tid-gaJif 9J.i ;ah*5xa xLJLi&i^oiiibaQO
■^riw aossoi ofi ses sW «o£' oi .ossiJ'tsi ii 'loiiiv/ , ,xj80 $rti" aBasXai ,.6X«qw
,8'2l£iQ9a Bfuoa si^Jt^i'-toiU .di/xrias 9;a3X£a -lol 2dS^ TxxinX^X<l
©a^eo '3iI;J' io wsly -^n^^ ai cfsixo abiisiaoc^ .tQiLi%ii'l 't'lx^ax^X^ , , ■.:;,..
^0 ©xiXav ©xi* ,^nxxil al i'lsjoo am dvcuaxiew o:t ayaabxv© oa sfi^^ aisxl*
sniwoIiB ,Oeiit ts Jsxi) YX3TX9i.ec3.q« ^awoo &iii ■-SiXiVnf ,aXx£fo.aoJxifi, axf*
.etX^a s-xiieoXo-^iox ariJ ^£. ii9vx909i ^i iioiiiw OOSi i§;i .*|Jf)sao inja.^xs'^'^af)
oj s^^ smiwhlvQ \iaQ silT ^fcsnisiax/a ©cT 4'e,*J« ^^oi^'^sJ'iipa 6x1* iaJtxI* 9W !
no fef^rtiJ-asd- oxiw ,*0ia£)fl9't9fc Tjtf nsvis *«xi^' 8x;w ax>,3 exl* tp suXbt dsli
,'i3rf.-usvoii ai 1^0 axid d-xi^uod sxi J-aclj ,o&$l ,6S anxit h£9d ,£etx& ^dA
OOQ.&f' iwoofs *i nerxiL Jb^xi sxi *«a* j4^, ■XOl tj^6| £sla(| txi^ «8S8I
bsxrt j-xjjoo 9xi* ©oiisfixTs otdi nO .Xafioxu 6£^4.« aaw f 1, ^BrfJ ,* asXiia
s>oi9hxv9 sri* x<^ bsJiusiiBW *oa ernw aial' .Oei^^ *« 1&0 edi 'to stfXsT M*
of its claim, 1^66.13.
JUDGMENT REVERSED AMD JUDGkEUT
:t5jv'T.::Rji:D li'i :ui3 ocuni.
McSureiy, i-, J., and iiatcaett, J., concur.
(r
* -J,. ■■■..,:':. ■ '■ "■■■ i: f-, -i ■ ' t ,.■;■■■;.. ' 'iii i ; fcy^if^ ?' '
40687
HIBJiARD, SPEIJCER, BAE'iiaTl & i )
COi-PAiry, fi Co ri.>o ration, | /.Ak
/ ) i?Pi:AL i/ok :il;C'JlT COUHT
YS. / )
CITY Oi' CiilOA0»'i'''''^'''ymicipal \ i /
^,^''* Appellee, ^ '^ O Q O "^' " r.^" " y| "^
kR, Jbol'ICii O'COiii^OR DifiLIVSRi^D iMB OPIx.101^ Off TlIB COJHT.
In =1 condeir)n'--tion proceeding "brought "by the City oi' Chicago
for the purpose of widpring and improving certai^i streets in Cuicag)
there '^es a veri^ict -.nd juc.^^ment in plaintil'f 's favor, liyins; the
aniounl of just eoipensation to be ps-id i or its property ta^en at
$3,9CC,GC0. Jud^juei'^t was entered for this fuaoont on August 7, 1924.
Septeu-ber 30, 1925, trie City paid the jud^.jaent I at no in t -.rest
although, interest vrss deniarjded.
In the in?5tant case plaintiff claims j)ki07,45tS, 13, ceing b%
on the ju:?_inient frcm August 7, 1924, to Septei.ter 3o, 19ii5, iurid
alBO claiiis interest on txie ^207,453,lc5 Iroai the latter date until
Judgn.ent ir entered in the insuexit case. i'uese facta v.-ere alleged
in plaintiff 'e au.encisd complaint, Defeudmit, the City of Cxica^io,
moved to dis...irs the suit fjr tlie reason that the amended coiiipiriint
on its face showed that plaintiff's claim was tarred by tne 5 year
Statute of Lin.itTtions, Tne motioa was sascaiiied, the suit dis-
missed and plaintiff prosecuted an appeal to the Suprea^e court of
this State. The Supreme court found tnat tne case "was wrongfully
appealed to this crart as tnis court is wit.i..out Jurisdiction,"'
and transferred the case co tnis court,
A number of poixits are made by counsex for plaintiff, the
purpose of wt.icii is to iiav^^ tne Supreme court reconsider its iiolding
in the case of I31akeslee ' s Warehouses v. City of Gnicat^o . 369 111.
480, In that case, -riere the claiia made was siiuilar to the claim
A fTUiiifHAS ,^E0iia«32 .aflAaaiH
03«oi:aO 'to y;*xO ©ifif ^d" id:siUot€ gnlbe»ooiq, aoiienmobctoo & £tl
%&oliiO ai aisdt&a nx3cfi«io saxvoigwi bos, gi-ji.i'^&iw 'to eaoo^iag srfd- rtol
9di gaixxi: .To'fi;! 3''i:ii:tf£ijEf.XQ ni ^ii©i:i^biit ha^ toibt'-^y e ssw 9t9di
,|kSei ,V j-ajj^ifA no Smsomfi Bixi.i 10% b&T9&aid 3^w imm^bul .OOO,O0C,5f
^S giiisdi ,ex.«e^,V0S$; aajx.ylo '£'.txd-0ij5lq 98«o ^txieJ^ai sM} al
lilts ,QSeX ,vJo 'S©d"^)i3d-q;aa «* ,i{>S>'e.C ,V jgjJsM Mol't j'nsfligfiX.'t 9J^^ iio
XxJcftj ad'*iii> lad.JjsX Qsit i^cx'i: SI.eai^jtQiil ©xIJ- no d'aaisJxii a«tJtjgXo oaXa
.bs^axijs 919W aifojs'i ©asii'i .ssjso ^rcsi-sxti arid" ax b»'m.$-m''&i tmst^bu^
^Q-^poliiO to ^*i;0 »«# ,3'aQl)D9"l:9Q' .i-riijsXgiaoo -ba^jnaauB a'Ttiil'M*!^ ni
^aXiiXgDaoo fisJbaaioa ®ii* i^siici" fiosaoT Sil* ao'i itiwa sxlj a .1 Jbsvoai
1UB9TJ e sxiiJ- \;cf i)STi>8d' sjbw s&i»£o a*t'ti*nx.9Xq JjBit* Ijewoiis «*«'* aii. n©
«.4;{£)jl'xua 9Xi;t «Jbeals;rsjje b£W ccoXd'ooi sat ,3ao> sd'x;d'£;f&
'to ;tii;oo sij^siquS sxid" 0- Xasqqe as fe«j0O98O'.r 4iX;i i+u J^aaain
YXXjj'ts^oiw asw" saiso Siii- iioxi bauot izao^ sjasxi^iju aat ,9*fiJS «ixl#
" ,riox;^oi6ai::£wt ■^iJOi/j'iw el Jiuoo sldi a« *i«oo tixi* o* J&aX*SQq«
.^ajjoo sixi^ oj^ 98«9 9di bQiid'tacuiii boB
arid- ,TtlJ-;uAXQ -xo'l Xesnuoo icd sJbsiH sius eJfiioq 1© lacfaiun A
aoLJbXoii s*x ■X9.&xai"ioo©i diijoo 9iU9iqjj8 ^li* srjBii 0* ai rlolriw I0 ©aogiifq
»XXI e6£ «og ^fioixiO 'to ^J-XO .V BsaiJOiisigW a'egXa&aLsXa '^-^ '••^'-■-' -^ 'I ax
adjEsXo -^.-'Xii ocf XijIirnXf? ejaw obsfa fjijsXo axij s^axiw ^sax-a ........ .i... .Obi'
of plaintil'l' in the instant case, it was neld that the action was
barred under tut provisions of ^ec. 15 of our Limita-tion Act, within
five years.
In the Elakeelee case aft«r a judgment er.tered in a condemna-
tion proceeding was paid by the City, the ovmer oj property con-
demned, more than 5 yfiars after the paytLent o:' the ju,',. iuent brou-ht
itifOiM i x suit again et the City for interest on the full amount of
the .ludgment frorc the rlate it was pntered to the date when paynent
was made, and for interest on such unppdd int-irest after the date of
the payment of judgroent. The court held this clfiii;i nas barred 6
years after the ju4(?ment was paid, arjd sai'J (p, 432): "Kie record
conclusively shows the cla.im is for inii-rest, ini bein^ for interest,
only, she could in no event recover interest un interest. The
trial court and the Apellate court correctly so held. If she is
entitled to recover interest at alJ., it is only upon *54:,554 from
the date the ju-"-:Tflent was entered to the date it was paid, Elaine
V. Cit?/- of Chic ago. 366 111., 341." The court tiiere furtucr r.aid
(p. 485): "Section 15 of the Statute of Liif.itations provides tn.eX
actions on unwritten contracts, awardsof arbitrators, or to recover
damages for injury/ to property, or tc recover pcse^ssion of or
damages for tue detention or conversior of personal property 'and
all civil actions not oti.erv'ise cro'^'ided for, shall be coiui.enced
within five years next after the caupe of action accrutO.'" A?.d it
was held that tiie r.ction was barred by the 5 vo.arB anci the .lud^-ment
of the Aooellate court (29? 111. Apo. , 268) '.vas affiriiied. Cbvi-
ously the '^oldint: of the Supreie ct art is bir.ding en this court,
Feldiiian v. Cit y of Chi ce^o. ?76 111. App. , 142.
The iudr^aert cf the Circuit court of Cooic county Is
all irmed*
JUDGiiJilNI AFJIRMBD,
iiCSurely, i:*, J,, and katchett , J,, concur.
aiiiiiw ,i-oA aoii&iSMilJ. tuo 'la 61 .osG 'to fiiioxsivo'£iS[ sis^i T9bau b»tt&ii
■■■'■'■ .aiHSx STi't
tsi^HQid ^a'»m_,buli &jii to tsta^jsq ad^ ts&'tsi at-ssY 6 visdi siom: ,fe9cia'»JE>
'ic ;>-0ijCMS£ Ilij'r ailci- no -Jasisd'nx xo't v;^i2 ©"^^ ^JsaJtsgs^ :Mi]s wfgyfciB^
'to 9d-.«f5 Silt isd-'t^ ^»9%a;^fii: l)ij?!Qm/ j^u^ no ;^Sl5•^9i■fxi lo't fios ,9b&!s sav
9 ffsocx^cf aj3^ i'xtalct eiiicf i>Ij>xi J-iijoo axIT ,iiio^t<ul 'to iassis^Aq dxlt
, Jb-sossi s£S*' ; {S8* ,q) &1<r?. ban ,Sx£<j e£>?- d-H©i25;i£iiJt 9^^* Tsit^ bis&x
,«s(5i&7ai xo'i ^aiocf ijifc ,;;s»isu ai -lo't ei aiislo axiu awoxie Y-tsvlsiiXancj©
ei 3d3 'tl .flXs-ri o8 v^IJ ooi-xoo d^iwoo si-£XX??CiC,A ddi- fe/te J'tx/oo L&iti
luo-s't *5e,'>34 noqjj v,Iao ai oi ,XXj3 ;Ji-: ^sj^iisirix i&roos's. oi JbsX^i^H*
.giftiji^XS ♦cijeq ©aw ;J'i: ^jjsI) Siic!" od" tstsc^a© a^w d'Hsatsltut ®^^ s*s.b 9dt
bXzB isii^ii)"! a-x^iii i'-TiJoa «xlT ".Xl^f. ..XXI ddS , oaje si.fIQ 'to yJiO .v
d'.^.i-ii^ es^ivoi^ Bnoid;£d-iifii4 ^o sitr^jstS «f'-" 'io 61 noxi-o9fi" :(36fr *q)
tevoos'x ci 10 ,Biot.si:^icfif5 'i;o8|'ii?w« ,8*o«'xd'aoo mt&it'^ais ao enoxd-ofl
fcnjs' x^tscioiq Xaaoa'roq *io nfoxsisvnoo ^o mi*a.Bisf> 9(it •tot aes^cusfi
ijaoaa.Tiiaoo scf XXea's tio't fes&ivoaq ssimi^rfjo isa anot^o^ lirlo Lis
ii b:iA. »♦' *b9i!io;)3 aoi.so£ 'to 93.uiio ario i^J'iij ^J-aten eriaaY ©Tit nixii-iw
-iTtfO .^SiaiiTis s«w (88S , .(^[qA .XXl SCS) j-ti/oo itt^lLsqqA 9d^ te
.,tiJ-'oc giili- no ^aibiiid si iiuod shioicjwS sifj 'to aaifiloxf sri* ijXairo
.S^X , .qg:A .XXI d75 ,^i^g o|iiO ;te vflO .▼ assabla'i
ai 1£jniJ0& 3tOO0 'to J-XiJOO iiUQtlO &dA 'io ^iWS^JJiJt •f^
• ■■•' .•■-.■■• -;■.>;... ; .-V ■- "■'■ ■-■■ ■ ifin&SSnt'ttji
sf'Saa
Ap p e 1 1 an t ,\ ) ^^'"•
vs. / )
CITY Oi(' CilUAGiO>*-:^rtTr^'" )
?>99 T./l, .
4
LR. PRESIDlliG JUcIICE kcBUHifiLY
T»Ei IVERKD TIS, OVT'.IQK OS T"iS COURT.
Pla'rtiif fileii z. petition ajrainet Vi* Citi^ ol' Onicapo, the
chief Jurtice -ind 15 ol the asBOciate Justices ol" the i-junicipal
/ court ol' c;-iicapc as'., iny I'cr an jittorney'e lien; he nlaiuis tlmt
soEi-^t -inii over ;^9CC0 ia ^.ue him I'rcir thpse Jadti;es for hia g«rvic8B
In ohtaininj^ Troia the Supreno court a writ ol' liiHTidai^uB ordering
the uity of Gliici-vgo to pay tx:e Ju-'.^^-es pcrtions ol' t i-flr statutory
aal'.iries '^ i.ich ^. .id been Tritlxiield on account ol' t.iie Oi t;;;' ' s :''inaxicial
condition ■^.urin.j; the deprnSBion yoara of i.95'^, 19''S'=5 and 19.'54. j»otice
of (ilaii" of lien --as f^iven the City, .^.icii i'il d a»i vnsw-r allev^i"t,t
aiaon^. otiier things, tr^at pliintiff oarsnot uisintain axi .ctior a, •.inat
the City of Ohicaj^o to eiilorcc an att'-ri- ^y • r lien, clpiuiinii the City-
was riot 3vbject to the orovisione oT the Aitorrey'p j^ien t'l; i.te,
111. Rev. Stat3., 1937, cLap. 13, p.r. 14, fee. 1.
The amended peiitior; asserted that at a meetini, of tiie : uni-
cipGl court Jud.__r'S held June 30, 1973, they un-niiuously t^ r^-^d to
join 'dth Ja'ge Ly']. p in court pT' ceplirj>s to collect baclc salaries;
that plaintii'f sl oul :1 he tiioir attorney sn ' that they woul'' contribute
to hia fees an'' eiT^nser'. "Def endrritf! filed 'jnsv rs de^ yin^; any con-
tri-ct, expr«»8S or ln.]-liod, or any knowledg* taat he repres'^ntsd them,
and hIuo dt'iiyint, that tfi<* sun clai;'r:Qd was reasonalle.
Triii^ %vaE had t"fore the court without a Jury, wiiic* held
plaintiff ha^^ net Droved ti o allei;?'^ erfi^loynent , rind a decree -was
entered JMniin,; tiie issues --it'- the -^pi' -•.: 1 u tfc , that plaajtiff did
not ;ta.ve any lien -iij.biinst :iny nonets :ue to defendants in the handa
\ ( \ ,■■••§,?•;-, ??^ f ;,
,'iiUOU lovlto 'iO V { \
ia]aaa8»M spxsauii okiaiefc .H«r ' ' "'
9oi:4o'4 ,MeX km SSeX ,Sf^.<?,^; "t^ si*^in .«©i««t:«S#^ ^4# SCSI's i^f p#i#i|>«si8
,.ji«i^i>IX^. «owa.;iH,.is®^ l»--xr<- ^i^ii'K. .,T(;ifi(;. ©xicf q3&ir% .a«* peii ,lE©..flU«Ia.-;'|o
.*!. .o*» .,I>X ."E-Sf ,,SI *eti3>io ,V$@X.«,.&#«^ .visa-:.,,,^!;!
-Iowa :9ii* 'iQ i^Jf?i*»«i^ ■» ^'S '^^•'^•^ &9$i96aja noi;4i^9*g feef!ttSiiift*fi[T.v^ ,,:;;#?
q;J- &as-sa«! -iloj^'eiiila-nw •^tSfi* ,5eex »0'*; *aul 6X914 a^^jH'^ -^Tf ©«>;'■ X*f4o
jseli^Lae io«cl *3*XX©5. ocf a^nl;.fe9a3ors«j tXB05> aJt ^.r^J •^ftw'^ j{;J'iw jt4«>t
8«w &9"xo«& a ^fl« ^,imMs\i;Q£qma f'^s^slLs ©fid' &«voi<j *»a bad ">.
of the City, -ind hie petition and ameided petitions were f^ iaiaigge d
at pla Li.ti.il" ' a cos a. i''roi! tnis order he aoT.als.
In its fieqi'jion tVi-^ triy.1 court .ifol:!, in subrtancc , that
plaintilT relies apon an implird contraco ol" einploy: .cnt ; th i.t the
evi lence to support t is is Vbteinint coiiveraations oi' plaiiitilT with
the
variouB oi^/d e Tend art ts in '.riicri taoro waa no direct r?j'ere;ice to the
extend ol' px .i.ir. til'i" ' s eauylo/i-cnit or tae deJ'fjiar' ii. ta ' liability for
fees; th»t the evi^ieiice cyiiwisus ol" i.i'j'ir.-.i'-J'.oe Qy pli.i!.til'l' -^id
derii.ilB i.y Uie dei8na:iiit Judges, ixi.i tiierei'orc tlif; uourt cculd not
■a;y tuat Dlaiiitiil' aad proved .ii£ caae by tli prc^onder-ujcp of the
evidence, imoreover, trii..t \'dicre tAtre ar^ tv.o or .^ore p.:..rtit&,
plaintii'3 or del endai'; , to a law auit Lu l uct .dl oi" tLt partiee
have Cii^ployed ai* a.'s,tori.ti , the xvu-ciii iiy pur^itB c&i.iOv be i.eld
lia"r.le ..or any part oi' BU<Ji ta.fLoxiiey ' e t.erviceB t ei cly bee; aee they
knew rucl' s-rviceB vJerc bein^ rendered, nxid tLut ILey v .uld beiiSfit
by the oucceee oi tiie lyrccw-dinjife.
In ti.e j'UTB l&3'/3, Iv. 5;s sjnci 1?54, ou/in^, the Jepi esf-.ion , us
Cit: Oi" Ciiicat,o ft'as having axri'i t;alty in coliectini^ taxes ^nd found
it iiupoaeibii; to ijay aix city eiApioyeoB their refc.ul;ar sal^ricB; it
li.ade redi^ctions in ite api^ro^rititiona for tueoe, ii^^clulinj^ the
salaries of the ikunicipal Couiu Judges; there 'v&s a dcf iciai-cy in
the a.-.orcpriation loi ti;eBe salaries of 4-i dijt puy for iCoi:, 73
days pay ior xS3o, arid bi, dayt pay for j.9u4,
i-o&t oJ the Juwofcft sicquieeced ii^ ti..e -irso deficitucy,
understijriding that it ».»8 te ,.poi;^ry , uut uixca in Jurit;, lJo3, the
aDoropri'i'wion ordj.n^ice provided j or a 73 day deduction souie of the
Judi^es demurred to i:;i8. it .■■«.£> i,>ie O'.nsexitcjB of opii. '.on/che Judges
that t.ie City xx...d no ri,,i.t to C-.u»o«x any deduction in tif^ir statutory
oalaries and inat the acccDcatice oi a reduction vas upon the unier-
staniing that when ihe wit.y waa in t,ood iinjicial condition t.r.ey
ooul-^ collect tne mount s teporarily withheld. In The People v.
^•^iiJ- .on.-j^Ji^fjfua Hi .Jfcjlsjri i-'Xi/o© Xai:^;^ srf* ifolsloQi) m&i iit
to't x^i^i-^^^^ * B^mhntf'tisih 9M 't'^ ' timm^&li^- ii'^'TiltaiM Iq 'to 3a9tx9
a^ji^t'^^ii '#itr *io' Xl»i' ifdwi Jx/<:f *ijsjfe 'sk*^! «''(Sr '■,::;^ %^^»^ii -t^-'l^ttfiiAJBi
«f j , afl'ia»st(}»i) ©li* j^nlai^S ^»Z'^£ hnd tS.'Sti ,SSti a«js€it «ii«* *X
to ' ■ *
city Ql' Ghicat4Q. . S51 111., 396, opinion lile«^ in FeVruary, 19S3,
it ftaa !i9ld i:. *lTrct t.iat statutory aal^ries could not te re^Juced
during, tiic ter-:i of oi'flc*.
''■/■lilf t!ie Juii;e«, generally, were willing to cooperate v^ilh
the City, Juf.^e Lyle refused to iutaorize the City to uake any de-
ductions I'rom his Bal-i.ry. A meeting, ol" tae Judg s waa Ueld about
June 30, 1933, at -Thic ; the matter of tie deductions I'roiri the
salaiies wae '^iscusBed,
Pl^.irjtilT testified t'lat in June, 1933, lie had been retained
by Ju i^e Lyle to institute 'j.iit :! or lim; that afterward Lyle
broujT'"_t T)l;iir,tiff into a conference wiuix Chief Justice ionotety
regarding the sitir^tion; that on June 30, 1 33, plaintiff 'ttteiided
at gonsteby's office, who Trent into an adjoining room iXi'l u )on his
return sr^.t ' to plnintiff that a meeting had ju3t been held, at-
tended by 24 of the Judges, -md txiey \vere all vviliing to Join in
Lyle*3 -iction; ta'it as plaintiff was ieavint> Sonsteb/'s olfice
Judcea Padden, Scuiller and Rooney sai I to -(laiatilf they were
tjilad he had been piok'^d to hdOidlr- the case.
Plalr;tiff irB-- filsd h suit in the Superior court seeking
to enjoin the City from ^'.'ithhoi ling payoient of salaries; the suit
•vas filed if t.e n-^x: 3 of Jud^e i-yle uLone; subae'^usu tly it was
amended, making tlie otier Judtses co-plairi tii f a, witi-; the n^ijues of
the 7-Ai^,?.a attached, Bi,-:ued by Lyle, pur.ortint: to be ti^eir agent.
Tl.is bill ilso T)urported to be J'iled on be.uaij of ot.^er oi"::'iciaia
of th;> Git , incl.uUni, the mayor, the city comptrollpr, trie city
treasurer, tie cit . olftrii, thp head?. oJ' all the city d.^part..ants
HZii all meffibers oi the city ooanoil, and the prayer for relief v%b
the sace for all of tham. a^o eviJence was iiitroduced upon the
trial of the instant case uiiat plaintiff had any arraiitiSxuent for
fees Tiii.i these other city officials, itlthougiri .le claimed to have
sought relief in taeir behalf.
.0ox"J:'ia "io una* ^M ^aliub
••*Ji -^iie »isa= o* Y,J10 »ilit 938iiiOA'*Ki} a# .f>»aij't©<« »Xy^ ft's^o't ,xSi.'^ •Hi
^»nli8^*i: aas»cf fefsil ail ,e£®I ,»««!> al i&t'i h^tllin&i ttiinl^i^. -/A.-i
iaiil amiis htm ato&i %nis:i,lo\,h& ma Qdnl tm-^ wM.-f4^»itto st'xtf**8£5o^ *»
■ ' mts «AI»ii iifesj/ taut bBii nAi^^&m a -t^^t t'ltialaJi^ Qi.f-iss atui^r
. .ee«o 9i%t '^IbfUad^ &i bQ^^oiq a»9*i b&d «£[ £>cX3
ilus exit jsajtBXfia "Jo 5n®i6Kies0 gx'i^'XoiijaiHw jstoit't t^i& •itl* aiet'^*' «*
Basw ;ti: \;ia:^jjp*8ifws lanoX*.- ®Xx-»- ^^l^w^ "^e eaasa 9i5if' ai issXl't «««r
to asffiius sfl* f«lw .■•fii:;nijBXq-.o« a»slnflt «*5;Je 9M sat&WB ,6»J&xr«xa«
CAsiaiTi© i»ii;?o 1© "iXa/Hd ao fo»Xi'i »rf od^ b^ii-toe^isri^ #8l» XXicT elxflf
asti;j$ii#t;«c£»ft ^c^la 'jxf* XXs 'to eil>«»i-J *xl* ^aL-s^.X© ■ti**^* «^* ,«»Ti.'««»t»
©aw 'tsXXsi tel •xpx;*'^:^- •rf^ i^m ,Xio««©o x*-^o •^^ '^* spi&tffljsat Xi« feOB
isji;j xxeqi/ i»»ox;liO'i^£ii ajuw »oa»LJt*/» OKi ,^»il* ^9 Xls «o't #mB8 »ri*
-xo'i *a9i>i9a.T«^^« \»m iveii 'fii^aiiiXq *.*Xi$S' sjubo ^na^Teai »x:£* 'io Xcii*
ar*^ o* fceaiiisXo ad ^wexlJls .aXjUoXrio it*io "isiiJo matuii x.i i^ t©ol
Del'ex. .leasts perBU&fively sagteet tnat this pioceedia^ i)idi-
cates t ut pl.iir.til'1 wae retained by Jadfe,<i Lyle alone.
The recorc" ic i ull ol" e\xclei.ce conceri-infe, alleged Ktate-
meute tj various JudfeCe indicating tUe.t tuey lAad 8.ri unit err. t audi ng
rith plaintii'l' ti::at he tlioulc repreoenw tLem. Judg^e Lyle testil'ied
that tie ialkea vitii Judges Schiller and ACcarti'.y ttnd ocheiTler oJtjcl
that eacr. d1' them said, in subetarice, that plciintii'l' woulc be taken
care oi'. iHach oi' tuese Judges dei.ied tueee ccnvereationB,
Pla.ii.tiil' ar^uee that the te6i;i-.ony oi Judges uraher, uelander
and Erickson supports iiis Gmplo:,m8nx, Judge uraber waa coni'ased in
iiia tesciiuony tha . pluintiil' was in tue Judges' Lieeting on June 30,
1933; tlxis is now in accord v^^ita ti^at oi aiiy other witness, including
plaintii'i', Judfed aelaiiier t>r-8tii'ied taat Judfe.e Lyle said at xhis
meeting hfe was t,oinji to eiuploy plaii;itiaT to represent ij>iju to get his
pay c*nd said, "If you fellows don't t^.o alon^^ v/itu me I wu. toinfe tc
start iixy proceedings tiysell", " Judt£,e hriciceon also testified that
at the meeting in Juiie Lyle oxiowed ieten ;ina'».ion to file a suit.
It would liiake i,hi& opii-ion fliuca too lon^ to iteii ize the testimony of
the defending JudfeCS contraciictint, ail statemei ts purporting to iiave
"been i.i<.dc by plain .iff or Jud^ie Lyle, authorizing plaintiff to rep-
rer.ent thefli in ar^y le^al proceedings. Oi-ief Justice oonstefcy at
contld^raole length testified and :\euifc:d categorically tne testii^ony
ol pluii.tii f ai..d 01' Judfee Lyle touciiing any eiaployLisnt of plaixitifl
in the a.atter,
Tlie trial court was evi .ently iuipressed vy the f uct t.aat the
eviier.ce was c.nf.ictint, and was reiactt-uit lo find apeoificaily as
to which witnsB rraa Lestilyiu^ trutafuily arid '.v .ich testified other-
wise, iiie court tojjs. lefu^ie in tn^ rule tuat tae plaiiitiff is bound
to prove aia case ty tae .)reponderance of zae evidence, and held
plaintiff had failed in trde respect.
In tnis court we frequer^tly invo..e the well known rule tx.at
,y£ »mit ft.©- B«i**6fli '3«:3l)ii'ti »iW G-l aJ8«* ^'t'ii^fliiiiE^X rMM xu&i&ly&»^ Bid
g»iif# i'js iSiise »lxd »b-^aj1 O'iisiv.d' |)»i'ii;#asiii' 'i*^fitei«li aijibfefl^ :„l!,'liiMl4tq
lt'tiii-al«X^ 'io *£»ia^oXc[X5'« 't"* ..^aixiow^d' d-E^Sg*! s-s:^»l» -i« &a[£ 't 't Mais Xij io
am TcXXsoi'tiosqs hn'i'i o3- d-i-u^^ai-'i^j^ saw Ivii* -saiJariilrtoa ««»if ftQ'Sfef't**
&K«ocf si rtl*nl^Xc{ ©rtJ *43nJ sXtn ^a.t at »sk^»^ ^e®^ *^woo 9ilf ,«aiw
.l8»^a9T alii* ai fe»Xi#l fe«xi rti#Ki.-5Xa
the trial court, Wiio sees ani }iear6 the vfitnesses, is much better
atle to determine tae credibility oi the witnaBses tnaii is a court
of review. It is axiomatic tnat the opportanity ol" the trial court
to pass upon the questions ol credibility is much greater tiiari tnat
ol" a court ol' review. Xhe People v, Overbey . 562. 111., 4.66, 4^-92,
where it was sai'' tiat '. )iere tne evideixce is conl'lictinj, tne court
of review will not substitute its jai._u»ient Tor taat of tiie trial
court. Sef also Pase v, iveeves . 362 111., 64, 72, snd Scxrader v.
Schrader, 293 111., 469, 475. In 'lall v. Pitten,;er . 365 111., 135,
136, it was sai^ that the litidint,a ol the trial court would not be
disturbed "urlesE njariifeetly and palpably wrong,"
The mandatory injunction proceeding brougijt in the Sunerior
court was tal en to the cJuprer e court (L yle v. C;it.\ of Chioap o. 367
111., 4l) v'^rre it -as pointed out tii.at the proper practice ir. euch
a case wat by inanda;:us, anJ that the complainants had mi sappreVi ended
their remedy; subsequently an original petition for mandsa-'ius was
filed in the SupreKe court eeekinji to compel the autuorities oi' the
City of Chicago to appropriate aiici pay the amounts withheld from the
Municipal court Judges; the proceedings ran ir. the iiaiue of The ppople
ex rel. Jo'in i. lyle, ;jid a number of oUer relf-.tors. ( 36C. 111., ?5J .
It was t.iere held t.iat it was the "utj of Lhe City autiioritiee to
make the necessary appropriations for tus full anioant of tue salaries
of the relators. Shortly tiierea ter tue inecant petition to enforce
an attorney's lien was f il rd ad served upon the City.
Exaii.in «it ion of tiie record leads to no clear conclusion that
we cannot hoi:" the findings of the trial court ad^ferecly to plaintiff
with respect to any express contract of taaployment of plaintiff by
the Judges were h.ai.ifestly and palpaily wrong,
-l.tintiff arfeues t at tue defending Judges had knowledge of
the pendency of the li tijiation, made no objection to it, find acc^ptsd
the benefits derived. We think there can be no doubt taut the Ju.l<^es
knew of the ir.andai.us fuit brougnt in tne Supren^e court and acr^uiesced
^Ttifoo 9j4* jjWii^ali'tfios ex ©sosfcirs »ri* •-zaiSw ^sa,i bl»9 taw #1 s-zailv
Ijsit* 9iiJ 'to J-Ajfi3 ao't ^asiOiifiiit "^^ a^J'tiiiJacfifS *oa IXiw w«lv»i 1o
.Y i sfe^Tix lp.e &gg ,2^ .M ,.XXI Sdfi . ssvaeA , ,y g ^g. ^ e«Ijs e^fi .^rtvoe
,a6X ,.XXI 3S5 .•sms ^neJ.tif .r XJ^gK nl .@T* .tS# ..XXI 8«S . i»b^xrto8
e£f ;^0n £XiJO^ ;^ii/co X«i:rc^ @£ii 'ta a^albni'l 9di tmsii .blAC saw (fl «dSX
* f^no'xw -^XcfjsqXiBq bcu -^X^stlXoa^ a«i»Xax/* iA^nutBlb
i;»>i9g«8 »4* «! d^iiaooTif ^tilb&^aoxq, aeti&aulal •^^o^jtlsaeai »xfT
,fl©sj9 ml 9oito«Tq Ttsqoiq ξt d-fij:)'* i"jJ0 fes^wiO'g a**-' *1 *""■■'• , ......1
8«W ftai«<sf>nj5m lo'i aoi#i:;^»q X«ai:;gXTO SEA X-lt^9i!af-,i>-S:.j'-i ; ; ii9il*
s."># iao^i bl^sMSXf' aiauoma &di xaq bas »iJid'xqo^rc.f: oi .13
sX«o«>^ sfli' 'to •aiaert ecii al mx 9SBih»99Q%^ »ki ; ttses Xefffslatfll
.{SS ,.XXl Od£) ,M%etBi^i %*>:iio 'U •X9(jr.ESfj;a « Sob ^»£x■l . ■ -i x»
t&rl-S xioxauXoaco ass la on oi Bbsi»l Moo^-x *ii;Sr 1© a»i
,:^a6%yir XldAq^£»<S( -^
lie 9^h9ivQsx^ hdk ataJbat 8«xifl»'toA •i-:
in this, but it -^oes not follow that they are "bound by any implied
eontraot to pay i'nr th« serTicea ol' plain till', x'ne_ Jcnsw tne result
would h*\^c heen tne sarte if the prooeedinga were continued in the
nani«» ol" Ju'lse Lyle alone. In many cssee in tiiii >tate the claim of
an inpliftf' li'-hility has been denied. In Cnica/^o. ijt. C. &iL. ; \ .Co.
T. Lp. rried. ^6 Til., ^13, nn sttorrey aad teen expressly e-.ployed by
ori» !?>f several parties interested in certain land to repreaer. i, him
in T Itifratlon; he brought suit for attorney's fees against one of
the ottier ^ar^iee ^'uo had i:nown oi' tne litigation, vas a o^rty to
it -^nr* hpd recei-^ed the benefit of tne servicee; ti^e court held he
coil'^ no* recov?r, saying tliat wmIIb tua def e»iiant*fl c-,nduct "i;.&y
have been unr^enerous" there was no legal licibiiity on hie p&it.
Th" couT-t als ' paid, "it would be a most dar^-fcercuB precedeiit to
hold that \?ocauRe t'le defendanx had sat aiierivly by .•^id let counoel
einployed by ^jiother art,ue i\ cause waic^i ii won would esiCure nis in-
tereet, taerefnre he agreed to pay tiie ojiwiael in propon-ion to the
benefit tViue received." In ^el ker v.. .br own . 93 Ilx. , 373, 386,
under somewhat simil-ar circi^.sta'.Ges, wnere piaxr;tiff 8ouj,-it to rt-
ccver 0^ a quar.tuTB meruit, it ^as neld t^iat tnere wag no implied
cc + nct on the nart of the defendant to pay for tiie ser-vicee, "not-
withstanding the '»-ork i^as ber.eficial to l;im, and he stood by wit.aout
o'b.1«»r''; irg to its boin^/ c'one on his prer.iises." Jonee ▼. aperice; r. 7&
111. AfT>. , ■*49 , 7>^7>; arospberr v. Kn iKh t . 266 111. App. , 133; Ii o i th -
weste rn It. k y . Acsderay v. Wadleigh . 367 111. App., 1, d. Cases
from other Jurisdictions p,re to the paiwe effect.
Plaintiff quotes qt sume Icnidth froflj iliomton on Attorne%t
at Law, aeo. 519, but t is aut/ior cites, unc'er section 519, the
Larre^ cse, suura, saying ti at "It ie equaiiy veil se(tled, roYever,
thot one oerson cannot n.aife Euno her his del tor ^'itnout iii:^ conbent,
eithf-r exrresf cr implied; ard, thereforr, the mere fact that profes-
sional 8<;rvicee inure to the benefit of one wi^o did not contract J or
<-
d
JiifSdi Sii^ weai MSfif .'tli^ai^Iq to asslnsaa siij •£»'$: Tjisq o^ J-oi^titde
•serf &9'^ol#ie i£i«««Tgx« a»«<f fe«ri t?* «"*«>**« flj9 .©XS" 4.IIJ a6 . J^mvssJi. ^y
to 900 *3fii^24J3 ae© t a'x®i*io**J8 "^s* *i«8 j^,^ifoittf »ri jaolJe^i^lX nl
'"■"■ .#ts% aid ao xgliiXdaiX £»S9-£ ii>H id* »»«>fi!* "swot^aAsnir fiescf oTjRri
/4<JiiwQ0 *&X l»iui ^sf '^X;?fs«ii:« t^e AaM *iiiiiJ&H»i#B '»sii »9ii4t04 ijisitf t>l6d
b^il^mi <9a S4SW »*{»xljr d'Aii;^ ]bie>f^ aew ^1 «^1ijt9ib oxi i to T9V99
-^00" ,8»oivieB »ri;^ -je't xaq ©d' *rtfifeH»l!*fc ©rid^ *lo *««6 -i
^worii'i'i'r to' feoo*8 sri has ,iaiil ©* X|».4ai't».i«tcf a«w SC*©*- «;.' ^j ■-! i. — s •» »" n ,t i^w
-.inog ;£BX , .qqA ,iXl ftdS . Jt?:?>ixa, ,y at*^ g .^jy-jBC^ ; 5gC . , .-cfA , CXI
a^ar-i) .& ,1 , .qtiA .III 78S ,^^X9ih»f ...T Y:fflil»«:a.A > ..,...., xLJ?31ia*]¥
,'s®ysj-od »l>»W.t9a XX9W txi«d©« ii" ^I"*'*^*^^ iffi"«-' .trtcrl .'JS'se <L9.Mf;.4
-99^0^4' iiiri io»i »^»j9i 9fl'* ,*iQ'i9'i9ift ,»"ifp ;*•>>.'■»•■■ ' '^
.,vi ,tf>«'ftiif»'^ .+ ojs ?).;?. oiiw aao to *i -• .loia
them, or con3ent to th ir renlition in his Leuall , or lead (jounjel
to beliere by aiiy wori^. or >:.ct ti.at lie v/culd pay Vor uio;*., vili not
create a liabij.ity on aia p.irt 3"or txi'^' attorney's coijponeatioii. **
Other quotations I'roii; the Bam« aut..or are to t^^e ueui-e eJTect.
Caaep cited by Dlaintil'l' merely uolJ tiiat «. contract to e;^plc>y aii
attorney n*ed not b« C7T>re88, but soitetiHipp Uiay be in: lied, wx'.ich
doubtlees ie true.
Defendants Jiake a I'urtiier point, >vjiici. we uold is cunclu-
Bive aviirst -olaintilJ', It sn^uld be r«iiiei«ibered tiiat ple-xn til'l' ' s
petition ie bnse'? upon cervicee in procuring the ispuaijce oi' tne
writ of Ti&n^arjiUE "by tne Supreme court (360 111. 26.) Dei'endan tii
say the record suc^/s that plo intil'f a».B already received I'or txifie*
Bervicee i rom Judges not defend >yrit8 here ana ai.iuuu t lartjvaly in ex~
oessof the fair and reasonable value of txie services periuniied,
I'he record siiowa fiat the writ of mandaiiius eoiflfaanded tne
City to atjoropriate tne sua of ^XdC ,61'?,92 for tie purpose of
paying the Onief Justice an : tie Atj3ociat.e Ju?i^-es of tne i-uiiicipal
court the Kioneys due tnem; i.nat many oi the Judges paid the X'j per
cent deiT.anded by plaintiff for ais services, aj /;re.,utint: ^10, 51b, 94,
He ie asking i roru the defending Judges nere additional amounts
aggregating ^9,324,53, wiich, if allo«^ed, vould make ss total of
#19,8^:0.47 for nis services In recovering, ^y mandah.uB, ^Id0,6l7,92,
Attc neys testified for niaintifi' as o «'hat woul'! be a
reaeonable fee in this case. T eir fi^uree ran from \'j per cent
of the qjnount recovered to 25 p^r cent. The a-.;torrieys for defend-
ants fuve their opinion on a ner diem biois of ^100 a day, /m ez-
perienced and T-ell Irforiied attorney paid that there was no custon^ary
cnarj?e for suca serrices based on a percen tHj^ie basis. The testiuiony
of the attorneys ^Joee not ive a B-^tisf actory basis on wr.ic:i to
estiniw-te tne reaeonabls a-^ount on' the fee.
It ie well eettied tnat the court is no i bound by the
testiruony of attorneys upon the question of fe^s but siiould aiid will
.^Wia- ai «a«X;t«fii0ft
-«X©aoo ai. J)Xoi- »w rioixiw ,araiei| 'saiyjw'l « »ai«fs: 8*ais^i?i»'t»G
ndci^ba»t^ i,^ .*XXi .gSS.) *icey ^insti: «H?S , »jci^ %€^9immk»*m^:\i» iknw^
^©Q OX *a'^ fejtaf a-a^fe^'S. OifcJ i« -^jrujJB i«iij {imd} ^uh 9%iiam 1^^ ^tuca
.I'S.axe.aXf ^aiJ^e.*^*.^ ^aaoXv^csa akuL t&i ■xtU^0£q i&f k»btmm^ *a»a ,
aiKAioiwe j$«BBi*i:feJb« auari aegfetfl. g^XJbna'lafc *ii* jawx^.^isiaCaa at tHr^
1# Xajo;^ fi «ii.6« 6XJJ0W ,,69woiX^ "ii .rfoinw ^5iS>*S€iat 8al#«8»i8i*'
.gt^Tld^gexi ,a&r.'afifca«ffl ^ff, »^«i-j:»voo»x ajt aa&itrtos eJrt "ssl f^.0"'8,ex|
-^a»'t9b -rot 8^i?iiTE0**a srf'Jt; ,i^«»3- itaf SS o* *iMEtY9a»s ^ajfofw a«(t ta
^tsaro;t8ifO Off t«w 9l«ri* *««f* l»i#9 X*'ff'^e**« Jb».«TO'tni i !»'« ?5-,» J)©on»X-s»«l
^KQfiai^eav*- ©iff -vais^ef 9-A^$m^'^^q. » oo hoa^cf a^sinaa i^*»«, «0i.?Es»S««*'-o
; .## -aalasr «e axejstf ^•so^aal:il^fii5.Ji avi,iv *a« a«i*.-.:ft#«««***^*^* *<^
•^ X^ l>a«od ioa al t-xaoo *«» ^*^* i^»X*ia« XXaw aX )I
takci ii to coii£idci£t.-ion its ()\ n jjano'^iod.^.e ol th?. v?,lii'' ol" +ne Ecr^ices,
Morrison v. Jurmers u:-XfcVL^L.ox ^o, . 619 ill., 372, 378; Gentlfcxaan v,
Sanitary Siavrioy . .?.6t 111,, 317. '.lie Ju'^;::?s or tlie Circ-'it md
Supi-rior courts nad jcc-isioii at :*-^oat tae baii^ ti::iie as is inrol-ved
here to e_iploy iittoj.neyrf to recover leiuotions in salarx-.^e uia/je "by
the oouncy; « iay e-.pioyBi .o reoreoer. ■. tLiea attorricyB ol' ui^
atsuidinfe «t tills -.ar; tiie afet^re^ate recorered wasi cpproxiiaately
♦100, ouu, aii.i I oi tii.iB Rcrvice the attomeyc received y.'iovO, or
approxiaiatfcly 3 pc-r ceut, wiiiela was considered ty all as a reaeoD-
able lee jor aucii dervices.
Ihere la no contention thbt plaintilT hu.d a saparate MbgreeLiait
witii oac.i 01 the Jud^^ee as to tixe ai^ount ol' his cor^peneation, "iiX&t
services ••3re rendered Jfere rendered l"or the Julfeoe collectlirely , and
he i a c-iere lore not exioitied to receive ^ore thau waat such collec-
tive services were worth,
Xhcre ia force ia t'le ariiUment that it is extrei^ely d ubtl'ul
that if an exorets coatracx. nad bee:i iuade tue aiuoant of the flees
would /lae beei^ left open and unde.teru.ined, fhe '5Xact jimount to be
recovered Tas certain, iino. also the 8iai-,..i.e u^et od co secure t-is ha4
teen Judicially deteriU.ned uy the 3upreiiif court, as coui^sel Jor
deleridaTits s&y, tnat ..itu ?ai taoee f..otoi8 teJ'or* the^i it ie doubtlul
thai any fee .^fe,reed upon wculd have exceeded ^bJ'jU,
The Oicy asics that we hold t^.at tne Attorney's jjien stfitute
of iliii-ois ir, not uiiplicaLle lc it, m-l'I peraaasiye *c:a3una =trfc pre-
s-nte-? in bu -> ort o'f tnia poBition, J-n view ofour con clusion th at
the^^rr*er of _the_l,o yer court in dia;;.i6BiPg th £ petitlon^ j^^iuat be _af-
flr>Led, it is unneceoiary to pass upon t-is quesTioEi ax this viiUeT""
i'or the rcustcs iiidicatt"''. the order of tiie l,ri»J. coDrt is
affirmed.
Matehett, ard O'Connor, JJ, , concur.
j^J^im^Mm^ ;^'^'* *^'^'^' ,.Lll Wxe . ,&0/iii^My^M wt^m^t .v «9«.J:txoM
Imt*-. jJAjOuiO i!».d* to ffiSjj'.fsHT- siiY ,?i£ ,.1X3: Od& , j; p , iT:.f eiG ,Y;X^1rLA£^§.
«© ,0OOSi i>9TXS09'x extitn^ita »n.i noivsae ai^d' "so't has , 000, OOH^
<-a@@£@'S £i s^ £l& %(i b&i^bs alios aa« £(ai:£t%~ ,^£i&o 'Xi5«i 2 ^Xd^fAialxoaqq*
-o#i:£©o ££a«a #»x'-^ K«fJ'')' ©T<3ir. ©visc-'x 0^ fc©X*iJxis i«xexiJ_jBl_jM
»d^ Q$ SaiiQm& a9Sxs> axtX ♦^9ffii.asE®*®f>aii J^jbkb aa<|f® #'t»X fi»»flf wwl ibIi»ow
lo't Ida xiaessA ♦Jrtacw :-3-f££oi<iaS ftsiS \fi b9i£tts%9i-9t
lijl^fiiicb si ii sisxil aio'tsd aio*ojs'r taorl^ XX« Ailw ia&$ ^%j&» «^
«tiU08$ |)»fc*90JKe araii &X«£)W aio«« **»1e^ «"?'! V^ -i^-i*
9*iu^£^B aaiU. s*xaino;r:tA «ii* i&iii fcXajd »v *jarf# aastis ^i^ •tfl'
40654
MILL.:K ICT3 OOMPAOT,
a oorporation» / ) / /
Appellant/ )/ AJ^^pJAL YRqf^Qi:^ GOmiT OF
▼• y*^ X L- ^/ cme.tGO H. I: GETS, >
-ippellee. ; ,/ "^ '^'
PRSSIDIHG
lL.j/JUSTIC:J aCiJIIAH DJIIYIMZD TH3 OPISaCN OF TH3 COURT.
Plaintiff filed a complaint against dofenda,nt, a former
employee of plaintiff. The action v;as "based upon a written con-
tract dated January 13» 1936, in and "by which, defendant, employed
"by plaintiff to peddle ice from house to houae in a designated
territory or route, acreod that for a period of t\7o years after
he left plaintiff's employ he v/ould not compete v;ith plaintiff in
the ice business, solicit or serre any of the customerB of plain-
tiff, nor divulge the names of sxich custoaers to any other person*
The r estriction applied to the territory served hy plaintiff in its
ordinary huBiness. Defendant left plaintiff's eiqploy, and at once
engaged ir. the ice business for himself or others, peddline ice to
customers of plaintiif in the territory served by him while in
plaintiff's employ, and also soliciting customers of plaintiff,
A temporary Injunction isrued. Vfter a trial of the cause before
the court there v/as a finding tht.t the contrtuit between the pr.rtios
was without consideration and a judgment order was entered disoolving
the temporary injunction and dismiscing the caixse for v/ant of equity.
Plaintiff appeals. Defendant has not seen fit to file a brief in
this oourt.
The written contract provides, i nter alia , that defendant
would not, vjhile in the employ of plaintiff 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
^0 TflUOO
i
All S.S
i
..^s**'
«TILft?OI00 KOI fiia.IIK
*T
onicriaEHi
-Hoo a&m.'m a noftf b&&&€ a^sBr S!tolis>& Miff •l^iiaiaXq ltd 93-icI'JHi«
' - ■ ■ .....■■■.■■- . .,■■ '■■^'■
•PffO #» fcofi «x«-£^9 8 nt Jcd-aJtaXq #l!6X tnefeG©'?-^^'- ,M-*r, ;■«.,/< -.r-c^ori nro
©* soi SHJXf>b«q: t«T6il#o TEO iXsaisM tot sasr ..,.._
.m^nlaXq lo arroaro^auo a^i^ioi^oe «®XiS 6ii« t-^ol nio a'llio: ,
BnivXoaaif) b9Tt9(^fl0 aaw te&ico ^c&tagiissl r, bn& nc t3' ';-;.ftJ:' rrc: j-joxfJi.
•XiiVg9^^^ Ji_am jo't satfse »ifi 'gHi aSimB.': -.tars;! i»rii
tnebnolab ^Aiicf «f|.tXB taj^rtx »80&lvoaci *oi5rt;?r!0 nQiilrjn osl'.
o^^Xwvxb ,.+noflncoIcias rioi/e lo noJt*afllflr(«»' •«£# cJtatfaibdrainl ai«©\:
-2-
oorpor tion» the naaed and addresBes of the otietomsra^ patrons or
agents of plaintiff J that for two years immediately following the
termination of his amployraent with plaintiff defendant would not,
either directly or indirectly, for himself or any other person, firm
or corporation, oall upon, solicit, divert or take away, or attempt to
solicit, divert or take away, any of the ouctomere or patrons of plain-
tiff whom liefendiint had called upon, aolicited or sorreO during his
employment i.vith plaintiff; th t for a space o. two years after the
termination of his employment d(jfendo.nt would not, either directly or
indirectly, for himoelf or for any other person, firm or oorporatlon,
•ngage or enter into the ice business in the territory described in
the contract, being the city of Chicago Heights and the village of
Stager, in 3ook county, the villages of Crete and Beecher in ^.iill
county, and the village of Grant Park in Kankakee county, Illinois.
It appears that just before the sirnln- 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 av/ay from
plaintiff customers that Jdller had served while in the eraploy of
plaintiff. On January 18, 1936, an official of plaintiff corporation
called in its employees, including defendant, who were en;;aged in
peddling ice, and informeci them aa to what Miller had done smd told
them that in order to protect the interests of plaintiff company and
to prevent a repetition of nuch conduct by -^.ny of its other drivers,
each of the rsmainin drivers inuat sign a v.ritten contract if he
desired to keep his Jobj that any driver rofusinc to sign such con-
tract would be dlachfirged. Jaoh of the drivers was presented with a
TiTTitton contract similar to the one that ciofendnnt sii.'ned, and after
the drivers had read the e^-jne each signed the ccntract th;\t applied
to Mm* Defendant worked under the written contract he oiqned until
April 25, 1933.
That the contract was rene enable in point of time and territory
%K> nmtissq, (S'lefliodas/o arlif lo «aa«S!t&fej5 brat Bomsn erii «HOi:dft*to<X"s:oo
,iO0 ijXjifov.' jfifc,t0!8l©.<> 111.1 aij.-,X«i: ditw i&eio^iilqm ixM lo no i^^xtiatxes^
■ -•■jUXij 10 ^a»^|^?^- fe aiE^^^issre *i!Ji lo;i^ «^JiKF» SaE^i't© *tt®v^j| t*i:oiXo!S
0tS^ •s&$\& B%^&\r ©wd 'io ©Oijqa « lol #.5£t* s1:li4'flJUi)i ASM #ai»flPcoiqngi
4mil;«.«i«>^i:©0 le /S'xil. ^rrfira^eq; «eiSi^o '^^.b «el 'i* 1:X«a»M «»t ,i^*o©r£i6i!l
ma^^t X4^>tm 3U>.d«? h{s:& &®# JioiXea. ;&if« t..$pe> sM %9 8aa3»iat«f »«i ff« bsilrrjef a
i«ii;#«T©<Siio»^tl:(t,tti«X« It* X»i$ii5:3» e« s&CSX ^aX "^sWRssfl «0 « lit l^fliaXq
-mu siotta M^ie ^ ^almltit %&TJt%J^ 'ipca i«M# IflNt ^'M 9<(>t>^ <>< ftstrla«l>
-3-
waa not disputed, and it was conceded that dbfenc^.nt riclated the
terms of the contrrxt, and the sole q^uestion for uo to determine
is, was there a sufficient consideration for the contract.
The theory of defendant in the triul court wuo that Bince
there ims no change in the wage, hours or vvorklnr,; conditions of
defendant al'ter ha signed the contract, there -^as no consideration
for the contract and it was, therefore, unenf oroeatle. Plaintiff
admits thr.t there was no change in defendant's wages, hours or work-
inc conditions after the sii^.mne of the contract, but claims that
the contract v.as valid and enforcaahle beca.uG9 (1) "The mutual
promises made by and between tho parties in the contract constitute
a sufficient consideration therefor; and (2) The plaintiff told the
defendant that it would di&charge him immediately if he did not sign
tliiB cwitrnct, and such f orebearance from discharge, under such
circimBtances, is consideration for the Gontru.ct, and in effect
amounts to a re-employraent of the defendant."
In Hyan ▼*.,Hagiltont. 205 111. 191, there was involved th«
question as to whether or not a contract not to engage in a paiticular
business v/ae founded upon legal consideration, and (a& pp. 197-8) the
court said: "In all such c f.ses it is not the business of a court to
inquire whether the consideration in adequate or of e^ual value to
that which the party loses by the r eatriction. In cases of this
charactar it is impossible for courts to tell how valuable to the
ccmplainant or how injurious to the defendant may be the rei:,traint
soushi to be imposed. It is sufficient to uphold such contracts
if the court arrives at the concluBion that there is, as a matter of
fact, some legal consideration; but the adequacy of tte consideration
iB within the exclusive dominion of the parties where they contract
freely and without fraud." (italics ours.) . number of other Illinoi
cases to tha same effect mi..;ht be cited, if it were neceosuxy.
That a promise by one party is nufiicient consider; ti on for
a promise by the other is an established rule of contr.ct law.
ItisalsM. «,»X^«a<?:xo'ifl««H ♦Baols«ediJ' ,«U8«r ;fl i>ff« im'iiaoo «>rf* sot
e:iJ^ oXo* Itiial&lqi mtSt ^8} ii|« i"3iol;©'i»iit a^l^jaiafeXaitoo *n«ioi"1tlWB a
ad!i fesTXeTsJ: a;^ msfd^ «X€'X ♦4X1 cOS ^fio;?Xi3.iaE ♦y ti<s^ nl
etii (e-r^^I •q[<j *6) l>«x» t««itfaTS&i«eoo X^ftaX noqEtf bsbcrwot ajsw aa^nJtswcf
r *'j:ao» .0 t© 3a«nleijytr ad;^ Jl'Ofst ai ;tl seaaeifOA/y^ '' -jor
9di oi elrfjsL'XjST w©if XX »* 0* a*iaii!H» xot 9l€i&aoxi.ailt j-o^-ssiio
I0 sa^ii^aaE « &s tei e-xeii^ ;^afi^ tx&iMijl®m^ «rf 7/00 s£[# If
oxixXXl i»if;ro lo ^«fcu;tf A (.attire aoiX**!) ".I^jwbii:! ^aoil^iw baa -^Xooit
-4-
f orDearance to do somethin-- which the party had a legal right to
do may constitute a valid consideration. (See 13 G. J. 324.) Prior
to the execution of the contract pl-dntiff hnd the legal right to
discharge dafenciant at any time without notice of any Bort, and
defendant had tha right to c^uit pl.intirf^s employ at any ti»e without
any nor,ice whatsoever. In clause oevan of the contract plaintiff
agreed that it must give defendant throe days, notice of xtB Intention
to discharge, or, in the alternative, three days, extra wages, hefore
it could discharge him; and defende^t agreed th..t he must give plain-
tiff one week.s notice before quitting Ms employment. Plaintiff con-
tends th^at When defendant was presented with the option of immediate
discharge or the execution of the contract, thB forbearance froa dis-
charging defendant upon his si^^ing the contract wxs a sufficient
consideration for the contract, and, in effect, it amounted to a
reemployment of defendant by plaintiff. je tMnk this contention is
a meritorious one. "A valuable consideration consists either of some
right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some for-
bearance, detriment, los. or responsibility .iven, suffered or under-
taken by the other. U Pag. on Contrr^cts, (2d ed.) sec. 514; ^^eo^
Z..^0p5^rcial Ufe^Jna^.^, 247 111. 92; Buchanan. v^International
B^lk^ 78 id. 500.)« (Anders_on_v,^lls, 335 111. 524, 529-530.) «It
is not essential that the consideration should import a certain gain
or loss to either party, it is sufficient if the party in .hose favor
the contract is made . . * Eart8..with a^^^t^v^hjh^ mi,ht othexvise
tMTl." (6H. C. L. p. 658. Italics ours.) . valuable consideration,
however small it may be, i. sufficient. (See Orr v. Orr. 181 ill. .pp.
148. 152, and cases cited therein.) Ma.^ other cases to the same effect
miGht be cited if it were necestsary.
^^^~i°^J:^.„!^-^i-l-°-^-t erred in finding and^deoreeing
that the contract was without consideration and therefore unenforce -
aDle, ^and in d ismissing the bill for want of equity.
„« (.*e« .t .s SX .*£) .»i:*^«*l'.<»« »"''' . «»n*=no.- ■^«' Ob
«»«1BX« *=«.*»= «i* ^0 «'»™'' ''•^'' ■« .--«--*-«"'•«"■*•
«,t.o- .=«»« ^.x. ..^^ »«,* .»^X..«..*X«^ «X ,» .^B»xto»« ..
.„oo «««X^'' .*««.«It»» aW »tt.*i«P -=-x.. *.W« ^'-t^- .» «"
» ». ...n<.»» « ,*oe«. .X .«» .*»««*«*» ««* ^^ »X.«.*X.»»
,». .0 ,o«X. a.«xe.« ^W««.X««« »X.«^* ^ •»" •-'"•"^- ^
.,^« » ,„«%,. .««x«^xxxte«,^x» .»« .*«*«**^ .=«»-•*
,.„0« ,.X. .^ (.^^ ^=) «^*-^*«= ■«> '^ '^ •*"'* « X* «-^*
mr.^ ,1X1 X8£ tS3;0.jJtJL^ *«®J **il9io|lt«rs •! *»W ^^
*o.lla e««.a .£* od ae««. t«d*i» X^^^i (.ai«.»^* ^^^
. .\.: ^-XOlf »f
-5-
The Judgment ordor of the City Court of Chlo.^co Heights
is rerereed. and the cause ia remanded, with directtone to enter
^ decree in accordance with the prayer of che complaint*
i^Jm^Jui) \:1TH DIFLICTIOFS*
Sulliyan and Friend, Jj«, conour.
*5-
1.:*. t
y? ,!•■•? '*.a ,s t. jiWit-?
'If
39867
Appellant*
jOMx^AITY, a. o r j tf . f a Wfi o i t^ ^
"^,.
ITiCUlT COURT,
ITTY.
■A, 6 1 5^
MR* JUCTIC" ;JULUV.]J DCIIV:^!^!) THi OPINION OF THi COURT.
This i8 an action by plaintiff, Mary Klenner, to recover
upon an insurance policy for ;i^2»000 on the life of her huahand*
wherein she -was named beneficiuryt The case was tried before the
court and a jury and at the close of all the evidence defendant's
motion Jiii&t the jury "be directed to bring in a verdict for i)74.24,
reprsuenting the amount of the premium paid on the poliq^ , Viiae
allowed. Judgment for plaintiff for .74 .24 vae enterea on such
verdict and Lhis appeal by plaintiif is brought to review said
Judgiaent*
Plaintiff* 8 complaint stated a good causa of action*
Defendant' s answer interposed the defense that plaintiff
wa£ not entitl&d to recover because the policy contained the
provision that, "this policy shall not become effective until the
first preBiium upon it is paid during the good health of the
that
insured," and Ahe insured was not in good health when the first
premium on his policy wae paid in full^ This affirmative defense
raised the issue as to whether the insured was in good health vhcn
the first premitaa on the policy v.ds:; paid the momincr of Iteceniber
12, 1934* This Mi&fi the sole isoue presented by the pleadings and
tried in the lower court*.
AS to the material facts bearing upon this issue It wae
uncontroverted that the payment of the first premium on the policy
^<
ij) A
A 1
*&is*X»<j^-;
J3 t-mA^moo
Kb£iMsisd tad 1;o s'iiX ei£4 no 000* S| lol \:oiloq; oonfi^wexii n« ttoqu
ilaca HO bet^itiQ asw ^s*^^?::; lol lli^ftlAlq %ol Jnaagbi;^ .bs^oXIa
♦ noxJ^ca 1o fi.awso boos -a bsi&iB iaiBlqmjO &'''i'ii.ittl&l1
©jd[;t betiirJnoo xoiloq &ili sawi-josd lavooei o3 b&lii^tt9 Hon ajstw
st£i^ Llirw s>vs.ioo'l'i& maooad Jon IXMa \;olXoq[ sM^" <ijsaj fioxexvo'Xij
»£ij' 1o dilsiisi boos «i* jjnitxro &i«q[ aJt *1 noqw iMixairxq ieril
tsdi
^S'a^i'i ftrii aarivs? iSd'Xesjd boos «^ *o« sjawr betrtfawi ewiAbrta "^bsiwani
eQno'ie& ©Tld-afii^x'ils aMT *XXifl: at bir.q sjow v;oxXoq aM no mulaeiqi
Hiiiiw d^Xjisjcl £ioos «X QflW b8«£Marii »ifi^ aexfJedw oi as si/seX oxTs boali^i
Tcacfeisosa lo s«if«:om s^E* l)i:«<j a«w ^oiXoq sxld ro c!WXiHai<j ^a-ii'i 9rf;r
feijs a3iiibjE5©Xq ©xfi x<i &s*n©asaq[ ©ueai: aXoa sxl;} a^ss? aixlT .5>eeX <£X
«.-tiuoD tQWol t,di ffx 5oii;t
B^w i± siiaei aM;^ jnoqu snlT-xcf r.icc-i Iiii::.-.ji;.L' cr-i oJ .:
-2-
was completed around 8 a*m* December 12, 1954; that Buoh prtyment
was ma.6e "by plaintiff, the wife of ineured and the 'beneficiary
under the policy; that either during the evening of Deceatoer 11,
1934, or on the morning of December 12, 1934, plaintixf telephoned
an a^ent of defendant to ocme to her home for the promixaa; that
plaintiff telephoned a pliysician on the morning of Deoeiaber 12> 1934,
to attend her husband and that v/hen the xjhysuiGian arrived at her home
betv/aen 8 a«m* and 9 a»m* that morning he examined the inBured,
diagnozed his case, found that he was sufferintj from pneumonia and
thereupon took him to the hospits.1} that the attending physician
testified that the insured was sufx'ering from pneumonia at 8 o*clook
on the mornin :■ of Lecember 12, 19 34; and that he died at 6j15 a«m»
December 13, 1934. riaintiff offered no evidence and none appeared
in the record to rebut the evidence submitted by defendant in support
of its affirmatire defense that the insured was not in good health
when the first premium \i?.b paid on the policy Deceniber 12 » 1934*
Plaintiff contends (1) "that there was sufficient evidence
clearly tending to prove the essential elements of a cause of action;"
(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 di ecting a wrdict in favor of defendant."
The rule of law expreesed in plaintiff's first contention
is sound, but it has no application to the instant case becauwe the
only iBsue herein is based upon the affirmative defense pleaded by
defendant that the insured was not in good health v/hen vhe first
pre\nium v-ac paid* -^n affirmative defense may constitute a complete
bai to recovery, although the allegations of a complaint are ad-
mittedly true. In passing upon this question in \/allner v« Chioaiso
Traction Jo. , 245 111. 148, the court held at p. 152:
"The party making the motion [for direction of verdict J
Jnay rely upon the failure of proof in any respect naceeoary to sus-
tain a verdict. The question presented by such a motion is not
iJneJS?*5Q: doisa -^M.^ i^€^I ,^1 xdcfiffaoaC «k«^ 8 fefruoi^s bs;foIqmoo asw
^tL0i»llsin«>cf 9iJ;t ^Kis betasai 'io ellw erf* tlliv^ni^Xq x^ obsm esvr
(&erjtr«nx edi beciMj2is.& oil -^Klsrtom J'isif J .«»J3 6 6jso •ai#j3 L J
«jaJ:oJ:e"!5j£^ g^aifefrsifJs *d* *«f* j-jX^-^iJ^Qii art* o;J aM afeo* aoquQ-s.9tii
*>E*fl Si{?5 crx3 ftsife 0ii xtjsdcf btxts 5^@i ^Si t£&d«©&ii»<I 1© j:ini;rr^0K arfJ no
jfi*Ij3i9rf boo® ifi ion e^w berarsrri arl^ tf-^aiJ ©^it©1«j6 •Ti^tijaBfillja s*J: lo
-^eejt ,SX -je^aQosC: Yoii^oq ad;? /to &x«^ <3^i? iauiiastq: tatil 9jrl;t nariw
X^ii^ ejtfs cf«rfj" (£) tefi *j'^ct ®i=^^ ^ol ioci It) site ».eir ,fteeB©09& worr
©rlcf saisjoocf ©a,?.© d'nsd'afll mi& oi ao t.: ao tlqqsi on a^ ii isr€ «&risros al
vtf bab^dlq eenelob aTliaantVh^ arfi iroga bseacf ex Hio'fffri sx/eai xXno
tfi«il saiS nsxfw xi^Xasff baog ni: Sett assw &»it0SixX arij ;^sil;^ Juabfrs^sJb
:S2X •g i£ ^Xsil ^^iroo edi ,iiW .iXT ?M: tj^oC. frox;loaiT
-3-
necessarily, as insisted upon "by defendant in error, v.hether the
evidence tends to support the allegations of the declaration, but
13 Whether there is evic^nce legally tending to suetain a rerdict
against the party making the motion. (\LOlf X* ^Mcbeo t>ign Printing
££., 233 111, 5C1») The question therefore depends" upon the
?^Sr!^L°^ ^^f '!w®" ^""^ evidence of an affirmatiye defense
o?ored ff^?h« ^ZfV°''^ ^^ ^^^ arermente of the declaration are
JicI^d'or'expLi;;'^:^^^ °^ ^^^ affir^^tire defense 1. not contra-
(To the Lame effect are Cohen_Tg_Hew_Yorj^i4 fe ins> jp^ . 256 111.
-pp. 345; i^anicto y^_r^ru£e_nj^j^^nBui^ 235 ill. ..pp. 057,
^ttorijght V. iCnl.jitc of ■.eonr-if.Y, 253 111. 460, ^l^^j^^^^^j^jj^^^ro^.
£o2J:ta|L_I4£e_Ia8.f..J0i,. 237 111. vpp, 220.)
-a to plaintiffs second contention that the question of the
health of the insured v.ar. one of fa.t for the jury, it io sufficient
to say that ^hile it is true the evidence presented concerning 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
rir.t premium v;:,s paid on his policy, this does not mean that the
question mu.t bo submitted to the jury if there is no conflict in
the evidence to prove the fac* to be one v;ay or the other, rnat the
insured in this cauoe wa^ suffering from pneumonia at the time the
first premium v^s paid was positively proved and V7as not disputed at
the trial, nor is it questioned here. This being true there v»as 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 tha Jury." Buchanan
V'-iiCpttish UnijonL 210 111. App. 523. To the sajre effect is Yipoda
Y. . Bomani 20' 111, pp. 612. The apparent good health of insured
prior to the date of the isr.uance of the policy, w!ien the first pre-
mluM thereon viae paid, vta.c entirely immaterial,
AB to plaintiff's final contention that the trial coiu-t erred
in directing the verdict for defendant, it is only necessary to point
-e-
^ dMi nnea ion a90& aM* ti;S.tXo« oifl ao »x»*i
ni JOlXlHOO OR 8l Ol«tt3 IX x^«& '^**''
l»iid *mT .^erf#o erf* 10 t«w 9K0 »<f <»* «^«^ •"' ''^^ ^
,. ^*..aX. ..« u^^n^o^^^^^^ ^- ^^ ^^ «^^^^^ ''^''
Off 8«w ©«»xf* ©BmosK* •i^-' -a**w
*Bif* x^j88ae»»a inn saw *I »o«tai^3 --^-^ »» •»»»*
~,H^ooW Bi tosne «aa-'.^^ Of ,^8 .^«5[A -XXr nr. ,.o2.u: ^si^o^v
h&i'ze *"w©» XBi-sE* «c* *««^ tjg^ftmm^ Jmn -♦-i-^^-^-^-i
-4-
out that "the more reasonable rule, which has now come to be es-
tablished by the better authority, is, that when the evidence ^iren
at the trial, with all inferences that the jury could Justifiably
draw from it, is so insufficient to eupport a rerdiot for the
plaintiff, that such a verdict, if returned, must be set aside,
the court is not bound to submit the oaee to the jury, but may direct
a verdict for the defendant." (i>i5EPJls_Xi_GM_oafiO^&^Jom^R^R« Co.,
110 111. 340.)
Defining and clarifying the rule as to the circianstanceg
under which a trial court is warranted in directing a verdict in
Offoutt y. Col umbian ^position, 175 111. 472, the court held
at pp. 475, 476:
"♦It is apparent that "evidence tending to prove" means more
than a mere scintilla of evidence, but evidence upon ..Mch the jury
could, vathout actinr unreasonably in the eye of the law, decide in
^^v^ °£ ^^® plaintiff or the party producing it. It is not intend-
ed by uhiB practice that the function of the jury to pass upon oues-
tions of fact ID to be invaded, any more than i t is intended that
such lunction 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 sus-
tain the verdict. In neither case is the court authorized to weiri
the evidence and decidij where the preponderance iB.» Eee, also,
hi.ddall Y.^ Jansen, 168 111. 43, and '^8Xik_j,Jihi^a^o^t2[_IiaJ.l-mj Ooj_,
"Ihich confusion has doubtless: arisen from the different mean-
ings attached to the phrase 'tending to prove,' but j-iving it the
meaning as held by this court in the Bartelott case, "above cited, -
that it is 'evidence upon which the ^ury could, without acting un-
reasonably in the eye of the law, decide in favor of the plaintiff
or the party producing it,' - mo t of the apparent conflict between
the cifierent cases disappears. Thus, it was said by ilr. Justice
Maule in Jewell vj^ Parr , 13 Com. Bench, 909; 'Applying the maxim de
gipJ-PJ-s non curat lex, when we say that there is no evidence to gcr"to
the jury we do not mean thfit there is literally none, but that there
is none which ought reasonably to satisfy the jury chat the fact
soupht to be proved ie established.' It is, of course, true that
there are cases where there is literally no evidence in support of
some material and neoessory allegation, 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 charucter
to be the loundation of a verdict. In either of such cases the coxirt
may, when the question is properly raised, so determine, and direct a
verdict as in cases vvhere there is no evidence. *'^'--- .s well said in
Conio r V. Giles , 56 Me. XSjS, 'there is no practical or lOirioal difference
between no evidence and ..vidence v/ithout legal '.»eight.' It is true that
Buch motionc are not to be regarded with favor. The province of the
jury must not be invaded, (graz ier v. Howe, 106 111. 563,) and vhere
reasonable minds, K.ctini; within the limitations prescribed by the
rules of law, mi, ht re. ch different conclusions the evidence must
be submitted to the jury."
r
<>wa @(f o;i 3X000 vor S£xi doxdv i&lar oLdsaoi^s^t @ioa sAi** iadi tim
(.DM •III Oil
ascaajJacaso^xo «w£^ oi ass eXi/t sifi :sxslt"lJh:aXo ftns ■^Blnktod
l>XsfI 3'tu«>« o&A t2?4> *XXt 3VX <tK>X^i:ao<x3{L n^±<fcg«I oS . y Jjxjol'iO
ni sMoeS) ^isxl aiiS' to ^x® ®*^* «-^ •y;Icf&:tos,»or'imr -sflijoa Jt/od^Jiw «bX;joo
iWi &e&nsJfii ai ifi aeiiff v9«9ia •^« tfes^-evisi ««f oJ «i: *Ofifl; lo enoJtJ
^o2i)tc9v JB e&isis ^&a 6^ mtiom jb -^d" bsfesvci ©cT o;t si noijj^offu'l dcmn
-BUB oi ■soidebi'^S) "io itfiisw k^J 'io SrifiF'Q^ss od.: " -y X*^l:;c;? v/q£t j» ^ox boe
,oeXi( tS9<i *t&i 9^si%ohm.oq&%iq_ ail* e c-sfj bsxB ajjirsbivs atf;f
t.oC X'»9'Xigg_-<!i*|lfi_ag_iSO'M0 *v_jl66S' feuis iti^ .Xii 6a X «i>r.uAr/'. »v XlsbtiS
- nbe^jEo «T0tfj3 i»ajso ; ;j| ad^ «! Siuoo aM^ -i^cT &!:. .;)ia
"fiu sniic^ ^uciia'iTy ,'1-i.u;^;, ■"^iju'fe *^^^ rf»Mw KOQ.y ©ortsiiiYs; ' 2^ ."i viici*
tlldniaXq ©ri? lo aovsl ai »bio7/& ^wjbX eri;? 1« s^© adJ ni i?;Xcf«noaj8©2
neo'^i&fi tfoiXtnss ^nstactf/* ©il;;^ ']^ Huem - »t^i ;gfri«ijti£!o!r<i ^^^sq; ariJ ^0
e& cUxaac ©fi# ^rxjbcXqqA* tSOe ,ii©«Ti9€ .laod SX t ■ -^
o;t oji o.t eons&ivs Off si «j*!:arf:f ;tJ3dJ ^as sw K&i: . . eg
Jjisxi* ^A:xfJ' ^si€ t&ryori \;IX.cTC;.tiX si ^-soffj .^ ^--jj. «ii5
^oal ©fi* is3d^ X"-:ts\, QdS \'isiis,z oi tjIc, ' 'oaou ax
i^di &tni ««aitf042. to *3i: «H *«b«»ifaiXcu: .< . t^ - .-: r-i.-Ycici yd o^ idsuosi
io ^foqcjus ni sonotivo or; 'jXXeiecJiX ci e'i:i>iiJ o'y.&rivY asa^o Bxa eaexi?
Qiadw axaxido Xii^i **-s osm'ct Surf ^noXdi^ieXXs v^rtsaaso^jfr ftris Xaiia^ect ©zbos
X9ii>iiXsMlo j& Xslj\r!ijrfiitf«anif b«« aviatrXcMtoonJ: 00;} I0 :' r — ' tjiasILe, -^sts
s ^tosxib ;>»« tOftliarxsifsfo oa ^b0UX3X -^X-Jsqoxq si «( , ., :i,.;,, i^di n9s£» ^\Jam.
ul bi&a ll0w sA **»f .aoff&bivs on ax artail;? s'i?,d>: senGO rcl a.6 cfoiu'te-v
Off©^»'nXI> Xfioi;«oX ae Xsoi.to.'j-tcE cji aX stMrf » ^g^ ,»M ag t8.gXlf> .v to-- fro D
iJiai^ ewT* ai il Uid^lm X^sl ii/oiiiiw ©one&Xvs bets souyblTo on" no©A-iod
sxeri.v bna {<«';a3 .XXI dOX t. ew p H »V ^-■Xss^:''!) tbafefsvf-i «tf ,toK iiws: Afrut
»xf* -"Kcr berfitioss'xct BnolTi7I5TX~'5l7" nM'Jlw . '.« sXrfj!'ro2,'a&i
Jsofii ©G«&biy» arfj anoiawXcfso o inaae-fixb £: ^wjaX io '^sXif^
-5-
WMX9t as here, the evidence presented in support of
defendant' Q affidayit of defenee ia clear and convincing and
there is no evidence fairly tending to prove that the insured
w as in^ good health when the first premium on the policy was paid,
the trial court had no alternative but to direct the verdict for
defendant.
i'or the reasons given herein the judgment of the Circuit
court is jvffirmed.
Soanlan » P« J», and Priend, J», concur*
i>««Ma&-i adi ijidi ©vott^ o* soJ:6it»* •^i^lJB'i •saoftlv® oa ^^ri ersd*
*ejj=iis«at:'iLi ^wm^sm*
'**?i .
**t^':'--'.>
■r'-IV:"*
40403
f
H. 1?. B0ST3II, /^^•■''^ ( J) f
AppelleeV* ^^ )
) APPEAL PROM MUinClPAL
T. )
) CJOUiiT 01? CfflCGO.
WBGTURU UtTITJD OAS AHD iOLJJCTRIC )
GQMPiVtTY, a corporation* ) -2
Appellant. ^9 9 JJ^^ |.fl ,r^
MR. JUSUC'i: SULLIV JT DiLIVilR3D THi3 OPIITIOIT 03" TE: GOUIlT.
This appeal seviiks to reverse a judgment for ^500 enterod
in faror of plaintiff, H» F» Bosten, in an action tried "by the
court vjithout a jury, which was brought by Bob ten for damages for
\ injurlae to his person and automobilej alleged to haye been sus-
tained by Mm by reatson of defendant's negligence in the operation
of its motor truck. The Judgment appealed from also contained a
i
I finding that plaintiff was not liable for the damage to defendant's
I
' truckt set forth in the latter' a counterclaim, v/hioh damage it was
stipulated upon the trial amounted to $140* No question ic raised
}
I on the pleadings.
\
This action arose out of a collision between an automobile
owied and driren by plaintiff and a motor truck o\med by defendant
at the intersection of Cgden arenue and llain street in JJo^mers Or ore,
DuPage county, Illinois. Ogden ayenue is a four-lane highway running
in an easterly and westerly direction and is forty feet vdde. Main
street is a pared highway, thirty feet wide, extending in a northerly
and southerly direction. The two highways intersect at right angles
and there were "stop and go" traffic signals on all four comers 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 a
northerly direction on Main street. They both continued to so proceed
/}
lAttotitJH mm imm
.0D,'.03K0 W THUOD (
' is'®»Il9(I(jA
"Haa tie&iS ev^ff o4 b&Q^&Xlc <9lid'offlOifJ3rjes feci:® noeistj eiff 0^ aoiiirtal
a**w^n©^o& 6^ ^^?,fflel> sri^t 10 'i old's il *ors aHW lliSttlalq taif* gaiftnJt!!
asw a &smajs^ xfoirlvv ,jalJBl©T:0*nfffoo e'-xs^^al mii al dixQl tea ^ijloxnc^
;?K.*&XT©'i»b xii bcrxwo aToi/iiJ 10;) oa js bnB Vti.;issunlq_ ycf K©viib fcriij betmo
^rtinnyi x-*5Wif3irf srwI-'iMOl i. al ©wrrSTB a©!)sO ♦aionilll ^-^^kx/co egfiljtra
. nxaJfi .sbJter Jeel 'ij;?'!©'!: e± bna nolit>sxs.b icla«s;ts9w btj^j yJ^^*^«J«Q k^ fli
to aiemoo liiol Ila no alarcaia iai«^* "oa forris qeie** ©tew eitarf* feme
-'XQ*Xa siii'gll I-snsla n»9ia &n£ ben: b&vodH doittv <fK>i*o®a«©*nl eat^T
-oo-sib -<i;l3ejBi3S nx? nJt sijlXaTfi^* am oXidoiao^w*? ''^'^ r;: :.': , .vlisi^rr
s ni •Bail&rsxi am :iou-zi bio% a^itt^bRBtQb on,- siwnovn i'^b^j no aoii
-2-
until they oollided vdthin the intersection of naid streets. This
occurrence took place at about 4 p.m. July 1, 1937, which was a
clear day.
The only queBtion preseutod for oui- detennlnatlon 1b whether
tto rmaing^ of tto trlaX court upon «hioh the Jua,snont w.s baaod were
against the toanifoot ..eight t-f the evidence.
Ihe controlling issue of fact presented to the Jury v,aa the
signal exhibited by the traffic Ugh. Just prior to and at the tl„e
the roapectlve .otor vehicles entered the Intersection. Both plain-
tiff and defendant assert that the traffic control si,jnals in operation
displayed a green ox »g„. signal m hi. f.„r a. his vehicle approach,..
and entered said Intersection.
aiding in plaintiff, a oar with hi- «re his wife. Jella
Boston. Who sat to his right on the front seat, and her sister.
Blanche ■fho.pson. who sat in the cantor of the rear seat. Plal„tlff.a
wife and sister-in-law were interested v^tnes.es. not only h.cuse of
their relatlonsht, to pl«i„tlff but because they both had a suit pend-
in. against defendant for injuries received In the colUslon involve*
Here. Pl^„uff . hi. ..«, and sister-ln-law wore the only wltnesse.
Who testified that he h.d the green light, giving hl„ the ri.ht of
way as he approached Main street and entered the Intersection from
the west on Ogden avenue.
-B opposed to their testimony, Charles p. Johnston, the driver
Of defendant. a truck, Kenneth Olson, an employee of defendant not on
duty at the time, .ho was riding on the seat of the truck alon, .ide
Of Johnston, ^rank Lo„„ a pedestrian .alkir^.- south on Main street
on the .outh side of Ogden avenue, and .^ra„k .tech and ..Ifred Bolte,
.vho testified that as they approached Ogden avenue 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 ae his truck approached Ogden avenue and entered the inter-
'1 .
r
.^. *«.<? »«• l«^»»^"l ««* "^^ *" '•"»" ^''^** "'* '° °^'"'''" ""
,,o».,«,« «1 «X«.... Xo..,.oo »«•*«, «-. .^* »-- ^-'-^'■^ ^- «"
..«.«^x,^ .,««..-'««^'^ "'"» ^* «» *"^«»" '"^-^ """^
bsTlOTRi mUUm ^ «i ft^rTi^t*^^ a«ii5tri«i tot
: ,;«*« «ta« oo -*»»« *«X,. «.l«a.l..« B ,8«4 *^-^ .«'"«"^ *
,X9rf* f.«W0J3 -£«!* ta«,^«l* laniiaa MaiX 6« ««* '«« ^«I* *•"*'■ «^"
SX-s-ohia Jtwon «il 10 dlMo_^.icXeTXl«>n»« .>'»"■'* ^^"^ '•'"■' ^xMo«oW*
B'Jns«.l«.t8b ni bsnwae* niaiiSMiiM •Til saatT .»unST<! m680 ^o »«iX
-3-
section» it had the green or "eo" light in ita faror, giving it
the rin-ht of way. Johnrton was an interested witness 6ino«, in
addition to being the driver of defendant»B truck, he was made a
joint defendant in the pending action heretofore referred to brought
by plaintiff's 7/ife and siater-inlaw. Olson's only interftst was as
an employee of defendant. There is nothing in the record to ahow that
Long» Stech or Bolts v;ere other than disinterested \4 tnesses.
It is true that an effort was made to discredit and impeach
the testimony of the three witnesses last mentioned. JIo witness
testified directly that Long v^as 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 scone of the collision was that
he v«iB not notio*? there. Long's presence is corroborated in that he
told the police officer who arrived at the scene shortly after the
collision that he skw what occurred and gave the officer his name
as a witness*
As heretofore stated L^tech and Bolte both tettlfied that as
thoy v;ere driving south on Main fjtreet and approached Cgden avenue
from the north the red li^t was against them and they stopped north
of the north :^ide\;alk line of Ogden avenue. They further testified
that while thoy vere so stopped, waiting for the light to change to
grean to permit them to proceed south across Ogden avenue, they saw
plaintiff's car approach Hain street from the west on Ogden avenue
and defendant' £; truck approach Ogden avenue on Main street from the
south; that while plaintiff's oar was sane distance west of Main
street and defendant's truck was some ditstance south of Cgden avenue
the traffic licht changecl to green or "go" for the north and youth
traffic; and that r.fter the collision Btech parked his automobile
on the v/est side of iCain street, north of Ogden avenue, and Bolte' s
truck was parked behind the car belonging to otech.
Plaintiff sought to shov? thtit neither Stech nor Bolte had
stopped their vehicles on Main street north of Ogden avenue, prior to
B afejoffl i3.s*? a^ tiorj2;t a'iJ'rtfi&Ks'ieb "io rssvircf) erf;? 'gaiotf o^^ ttoUlbbm
• asaaen^ JsBT b&i^&iesni^tb rtssiS 'xs4^e ©new ©*X©S a<? iCo«ira ^^ffoJ:
9f{# -x'eiijg ^tfisofia ®jri©oe ©rid' -ifjff bmi.'Z'm ^W i©s>i;t"3te s^lle^j.. arf? bloi
V7«a ijarf;? ,ei;cfevr. rr^^O aao-sojc it;?«03 Sssoo-xq; <»;J flsati^ iimi^ 0* «^»iq|t^
ijlt fljotcl Jifi'iJa al^ m 9ssti&vsi Kofe^^ JtiOjfeoxq;(pi S'&tni a'di!«jl)i|«>M& feus
b^ stXoS lOjrt do9iQ %dail9a 4iiid0 w0L» »$ tOgm'^ "^
-4-
the collicion as they testified Lhey did, and that they were not
at the scene of the accident at all. The only witneBB for plain-
tiff who testified directly that .stech and Bolte were not where they
oaid they were innnediately prior and at the time of the collision
was plaintiff's wife, who Bp.id that shortly "before her husband drore
into the intersection she looked toward the west r.ido of Main n treat
north of Ogden avenue and saw no automolailes or trucks thera. The
testimony of the other wltnesfiea who testified in this regard ^vaa
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 posiiions stated hy them.
Plain uiff also sought tc eho"v7 by the testimony of one Glenn
..olf that -tech and Bolte were not at or net.r the intersection to
■ftitness the -ccident* .i.c>jordin;i to -olf he did not reach the scene
until after the oolllsion had occurred* He testified thiit upon his
arrivjil he parked his automobile on the north side of Ogden avenue
west of Uain street and that at that time there were no automobiles
or trucks parked on the west side of jilain street north ox Ogden
avenue» either north or south of the trafiic light at the northv^est
corner of che intersection. olf • s testimony is silent as to whether
or not the persons injured in the Gollicion had been removed before
his arrival, and sxnce both otech and Bolte testified that they re-
mained on the scene only a few minutes until the injured persons had
been removed and that they ohen had driven awiay, Wolf's tustimony
that there were no automobiles or trucks in the vicinity of the
northwest comer of the intersection is entirely valueless and in-
ef fee tire in bo far as it was intended to discredit or impeach the
testimony of .i^tech and Bolte*
Thus on the controilin: issue of fact in the case three
interested witnesses tee. if led in plaintiff's behalf, including
himself, while on the other hand in addition to defendant's driver
and Ms other employee, Olson, who rode with the driver, three
#oiT »T«isr X9.4i tmii bnc e&ib ■^atf* hei-ilin^i x^^^ ae aolfsiXIoo orii
jGaR9ialXXD!> Oflo- lo saalS srf;? J/s bns loiisq T[i©rf^lbs.'aKi 9:r©¥; Tcsrf* ii»isa
»rfT ♦eioxfi J8:SSfj'j'X* *£« asXitfcyaa^aje oa waa tea ©arasTJS si&i>jj,Q lo il*^orf
"hm i«o©*s -sarfdsifw »oiu^©H ion bit) v&cii iisdi ioal'ie M^ Oi> %X9'x«wn
xtctel© ^iSo 1o isisftautci-asjir ®10 lerf w®rfe o;}' $sSi\iJOs oala lliJfliuBXSE - •■**^^
©^ if6i;ro«^a"iratfiTi aiJ* Ti-ien to -*4 i'6« «e*vv s^X«a a«j8 xiute^S ^*rf^ IXeTJ'
aM noqp ^i'^Jtf^ b&ilid'Qi&* aS *fe«Ti«o»6(\ feail aftiaiXXoo «i;r i^^lfi Xxdni/
e«;nsv/3 nsbgO lo s&ls ri^-xajcx »iiw «© ^lidotssDiUis aixi beaT'Sfiq; dri XiiYitta
^sewtf.l'i&n »if^ ;Jjs «l^i%lX oil^jSi.? ©ff;? lo li^ijoa lo dJ"S©« taffJio ,9«nsvs
erro'iecr 6»T0jaan nS«rf a^i^ aojrslXX&o ©xf# fii 6«1li»t«'l fiiaoa^eq. «38Bfe^ sort to
'"VX x^^ 'iM^ boili^ee* ©#XoE BitSss liosia il^oef »»«fi8 bnA ,Xj3vX'xtjs airf
bad: ecos'xoq i^&ti;tnl i>di XlJ^mr Qdiirnin «7G% & xim amo^ 9di no beitlam
Xrtfuadi^&i B^^iiWT ,t<ew^ fl»7i'2& fitfiil atd& xsdt i^t bnii benroa^z n3»<f
odd ifo^eqaX tto d^l&didell) 0^ bebisBiBi tiisw ^1 ?d aal fr« nX GTic^oe^la
SHibwXoni ,lXari8<f a » 1:^X;fnlaXq iii JC>»ilEX?a»jr eoGit9c;fXw t>»*a©i9;ffli
leviaA a«*fiafonel95 ©* miUlbba «! fenad aerfio •«£* fro sXlrfw ,1X©ubM
-5-
Kltnesses who wers dlsintoreBtad In so far „„ ,v.
teotlfied in defendant's Dehalf.
inasmuch as this o^so wlix ,, .xi u„x,hood .e ..tried,
-. refrain fr«. further discuselon of the evidence.
W. „e f.^nar with the rule that the findin, of ,^ „„,
i3 entuxea to the ,.^ ™i,,, ,, a verdict of ., ,„, and the further
rule that it is the peculiar province of fch<. . .
. ,^ ^ ^ ""^"^^ °^ *^^ '^'^^^ °^ Jury trying the
racts to ^aea upon the credibility of the v.^ -
±izy Of the wiT;nesae8 and the ^ight
le t^r V "'""• " ^^^ '^"- ^^- -- - —
r ^^ ""^ " ^ """^"' - - — . -ce the court
or jury trying the facte ftas the advantage of th«
iraniiage of the opportunity of
seeing and hearing the .vltnesoes and of iud^-« r .
ana of judging of the weight to be
given their testimony bv fhf*i^ . ^.
the fl d. " '"' '^"^^-^"^^ ^^^^« testifying.
the finding of a court or the verdict of . ■. u
turK«^ -, verdict of a jury should not be dis-
turbed unless same is inanif,^^*-!
»an.fo„tly against the „ei^, „, ,^, ^
However, after a careful e^^natlon of aXI the evl..nce In
-Record, .vin. In .nd .l .he e.e.ent. t.t the court sh I
weight that Should have been accorded their ta..^c„ ■
at itq •P4 ^^ tcjoxmony in arj-ivinir
at Its finding in this cause, v.-e are im^.i. .
Of the trial "^ '° ^°^' '^^ ^^ binding
the trial court ^s manifestly against the weight of ^he e -
and that the end- nr , .- evicence
cause Xt "" '^ "" '"-" "' - — ^ - ^^'
-use. xt IS not our intention ,» hoxa or mtl^te that If upon
another trial of this cause ^ ^, ^ ■
»r Plaintiff "" " '""" ^^ '^-"'^^ - ^"or
r Plaintiff upon the sane or praetlcall. the s.^ evidence as la con
tained in tlie record on thi<. ■, ^'
on this appeal, a judgment entered on such fl„d^
or verdict will be reversed by this court. "'
^or the reasons given the jud^ent of tl. Municipal court is
reversed and the cause is remanded.
aaxan, p. j., and Ppiend, j., concur.
^''
-5-
® .:^-. ..... .■■^-.-3,iM»^ ss»te^&cJs;tQ&. ai.Jfe^i^'i^«»*
40216
OHEGAGO TITL3 & TRUST OCMPAHY,
as trustee by successiorii etc.,
Appellee »
A^jHA.M J« iilSJNBJl^wa et al.,
Appellees*
PHtUP A* ^'AULSCM et al,p
(Interveners),
--ppellees.
On appeal of MAY^R EkBA.QlK,
(intervener),
\ppellant.
M^Yim KA1U3IK,
.wjjpellant ,
T»
APPSAL ?RC3II
CIBCUIT COURT,
COOK COUITTT.
29 9 1.-
PHILIP A» PAULoOH et al«,
.ppellees*
MR. JUSHC.S FRI^arO H^iLLVJRm THiJ OPlinOW OP TffiS COURT.
Vayer Karasik appeals from two decrees entered in the
/ Circuit coiirt involving the foreclosure and reorganization of a
"bond i83ue underwritten by the Madison & Kedzie titate Bank, In
cause Uo. 40216 (hereinafter referred to as the iisenberg case)
Chicago Title ^■. Trust Company, aa successor trustee, filed a
complaint of roreclosure, wherein the bondholders' itrotectire
committee and Karasik became parties by intervention* In case
Ho. 4C217 (hereinafter referred to ati the ijirasik case) ilaraslk
filed a complaint, seeking to restrain the ccmuittea and its nondnee
from using his bonds in payment of any part of the bid at the fore-
closure sale held in the ^isenberg ca.>o ; aloo praying that the agree-
m^"^ ^ussfstA
ifimt TMmzQ
*Ti^iaK)P 31000
blf>Q^
^JfnsXIeilc;;
» ilr|5SXi;«q,q
-ui i-i^ i-eiii
►23Em01^ fJ>l!©^I2Q EHT a^ISirVLIM dlSR
••;rjx, ..SM
aZ .alfcat »#j3*a »±sli«^ !a,HUJSi,^j6i«|![,«i(i^: ^tf a»»;J;fj:'w:ii»&£Si; #fi«al badtf !
(98«o Bice tf£i«eia« fiii^ a« 9i ^CKX|;f|«|T^9;t'|£r[ie>:c$x£) dJESOJ^ .oi/f &sttti^.o
-as'SSiJ s^ci' ^Md' afli^caiq oaX.
-2-
n^ent, under which Karasik had deposited Me bonds, l,e 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 hie v.rltton dissent from the plan of reorgani-
zation; th.t no foes be allov;ed to the reorganizars ; that a recJiver
be appointed; th..t the court remove the committee, and alsojpnaylng
for general relief .
The bond l.sue involred orlginaUy aggregated ^210.000, tut
l.y prepayments w,s reduced to $193,000. Madison & Ked.te State Bank
was desi-natea ao the orl,i.al trustee, but In .^e^ruary. 1930. that
hank transferred its assets to a nev.ly organized hank, taown as tk.
Badison - Ked.ie Trust ^ Sa.i„gs Bank, m l,oven,her, 1931, the latter
was plaoed in the hands of a reoeirer hy the ..uditor of a>bllo
.^ooounts. In „prll, 1930. a b»dholders. cc:«ittee was organized for
the protection of the holders of bonds sold hy the Madison 4 Ked.le
state Bank, .hlch originally o<«sisted of .hel Darts, ahalr^^n of
the hoard of directors of Chxca.l Title & Trust Company, Chester Oook.
an independent real estate operator, .tuart Otis, an officer of the
City "ational ^ank d, Trust Oompany. Hira^ .ody. formerly connected
With the Ocdy Trust Company, and ^. a. owanson. .horUy after =he
com^ttee »as formed Ssanson and Oody resigned , and „bel Jjaris . who
had assumed che cliairmanship of the coimnittee. died. Hr. :,avis-s
place was taken by Philips. Paulson, an assistant trust officer of
the JMcaeo Title & Trust Jompany. and at the time of the propoeed
reorganization the committee consisted of ^aulson. Oook and Otis.
Under a depoeit agreement prepared when the comiittee was organized,
Ohicago Title i, Trust Jompany. 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 sume effect as if he had signed it, and that each depositing
^
^
5e.«Xoab acT ,abnod aM JbonaoqeD bad ^i^^.^E H.xiiw ..bn.. .^^ne^
iva ,000,0X5.1: bel^arss* xUan^^t^o bsTioTBi »
S.^. .0E9X .vx.«,J.'.i « *•«' .-*--* ^"^^'-^^ •^* " 6.**.tBlaeb .a.
,.„-.c «« .x.'.8X .«*^o,r.i .*..« .,„iv*e *«»**^fc«i«.-«^"-«
.0 n....iBrfC ,alv.. le.. to .o*aXa^. .XX.n..i.o .oixiw ,..^. e...a
a»axvaa .^ .b^i^ ,.^:^^iime>o a.1* ^o qid.nos^ci^^ *J# |^«i»/ea^ lM«C .
-3-
'bondholder ehould bu fjiyen a certificate of deposit * which recited
that the bcndholdor haci deposited his bonds pursuant to the tome
of the proteotiye agreunent and that he . oixld "be bound by all of its
terms and conditions* The agreex&ent provldod thct the committee
should have power to adopt a jjlan of reorganizationf to be binding
upon the depositing bondholders t and th:'. t it loiivht subaiit a plan to
them for their approTfil or rejection; that when a plan was submitted,
the bondholder should have twenty days within which to register his
dissent and vdthdraw his bonds, upon paying to the comiaitteo hie pro-
portionate Fhare of the fees and expen^ses inc\irred« The agreement
also prorided that the depositor ohould fumioh in VTriting to the
depositary Mb address to which all c<ganiunl cations should be sent? it
gare to the oocanittee power to enrploy counsel, and io fix their
compensation^
The bill t-o f orccloDe the trust deed in the iocnberg cause
was filed ..pril IC, 1931* The bonds hi.d previously been called for
deposit, and from the outr.tandinir ietsue of .'192,000 there were deposit*^
with the depositary urdcr th? agroenont bonds in the principal amount
of ^:185,700»
There appears to be some doubt as to whether Eart;ilk was an
original depositor, iiowever, a certificate of deposit was i;2EUiit to
hiM iiepteatoer 22, 1931, showing the deposit of |34,000 in bonds, and
stating that it was a tranafar froB a prior cortifioato iSHuet! to
tho Pharmacy Paper Box Jompany* rhat certificate also contains a
statement that the depositor i« bound by the terms of amondmonts to
the agredBkiut adopted in January, 1951, and it arently dalir-
ered to i'^rasik personally, becf^use ohe certiric^ite itself vvus offered
in evidence by his oounuel upon hearing. In that certificate KarasikU
address is given -In care of Madison & Kodaie Leavings Bank," and evi-
denoo was adduced showing that Karasik furnishod this addresB to the
party in charge of the depositary rocords, and thnt no inctruotions for
r
8dj^ 1^ ^jL:< lerf l5«wc*<f 9d" hlim^j 9a ■^MJ'fe'ferk #3tiiiBE©#i£a^ •ir'l*»a^o«<i' »itf*'' 1©
aid to^aji^a-x oi)" jioiife? HJxIiJtw a^afe •v;i0««p* ev^ hXi7&d& t&h£ttsibn»4 axti
«o^ eii^ 89iiimim «i^* 01 s«^'Sf| a0<^» * afercdd' «l£t watfeif Jiff feitij ^ffftoelb
- ■ ■ - ' - ; f
^jQ!^iMi&3:. i;^i;«Ci/.ac^ Olid ifi' s&'iiotf Memtmtm :«iii vi»1btm iS^mitrnqph iAi diiv
-v. ...,-,■• ....^:. •■■^■■- .■•■:"^^ ••-^■-^> -.^^;':.^> .,l*r^ ''V0?#f,'S8^1f^ #
bras t»i^m4 nl ©0«>«^S4 1» tfieoqslj «l# *g|iiw*if<& ^Xfit-X «&S l#«B»i«e2 afcit'^
o;r e*a«Mai>««a« "io a«5»;' &4li ^cf l)Kiio«i' .»4 <!So;Fii»o^dft *itf;^%«rfj ■;^n<«K»tfjjl*^
~2i'B £»f® "tato^jCi agniariki eiBUfijt a& m»ibm "io mm at* tt»rtQ 8i aatTfi&a
-4-
a change of 'iddresa had bean rocelred or recorded.
After the decree of f orecloBure had been entered in the
^ieenberg case, a plan of reorganl .ation ..a. formulated by the
comnittee. 7he d-^creo provided in considerable detail that If a bid
at the r,al. war. ,Bado pursuant to any plan, the mater Bhould be so
•drised, that a copy of the ,lun .hould thereupon be iumi.had to the
maBter and returned by Ma together with his report of eale ; that
the ncunes and addresse. of the nondepo.lting bondholdero be left with
the »a.ter. who v.a. to .err. them .ith notice of the contente of the
Plan, as well as the date of th^ sale, .^ invite the. to Join in the
plan, and it was provided that irt connection Mth the notion to
approve ^y cale. the plan Blxould bo BubM-tted to the court, ihe
decree alao provided that due notice be ,^von to all .ondholdera,
and tl« court rcaerved Jurisdiction therein to pass on the fair^eee
and equity of any plan uub^tted. together .ith the feeo and e.pon.es
incurred, m connection v;ith the moUon to approve the sale.
^n the plan for reorganisation vna Initiated, the eoulty
Of redemption .... vested m the e.t aide Tru«t ^ Savings Bank, aa
tructee. for the benefit of braham J. .Isenberg. be ..xaith and Ida
^^laon. In order to protect the redemption rights, the coxnrnlttee
acquired the ec,uity of redemption, without the payment of o.ch. by
providing that the o-*nero of the equity or redemption be ^iven a 7-1/2^
participation in the corporation to be organised and a lease of the
property, expiring January .1, 1940. .t a rental of $550 per month for
a part of the t«rm and S6(X) per month for th« bala«,e . with a per-
centage clauae. The trial court had previously. i„ o.embor. 1933,
determined that a fair rental value of the property was .75 per month,
nnd had directed the receiver co make a lease to .iaenberg and : mlth
for that amount. Two years later the matter aLmin came before the
court, and tho net rental ^aB raised to .V,5C per month. hen the agree-
ment with the OTWiere was negotiated In 1936, re a e^t ,
' ^"---^ estate valuee had
""if*
i:^ I
^v •**. **^f#«ffl ili^lw fisM>> ©'V^-^w ».* »^ ©4w ;,iE«*aj«a «rf*
-4-
a change of address ha* been receired or recorded.
After tho decree ox foreclosure had been entered in the
^isenberg case, a plan oi reorganisation 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 furnishod to the
master and returned by him together with his report of sale; tlmt
the names and addresses of the nondepositing bondholders be left with
the master, who v;as to serve them with notice of the contents of the
plan, aa well as the date of the sale, and invite them to Join in the
plan, and it was provided that in connection mth the mocion 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 couro reserved jurisdiction therein to pass on the faime.8
and equity of any plan submitted, together with the fees and expenses
incurred, in connection v.ith the motion to approve the sale.
V.Hen the plan for reorganization w.s initiated, the equity
of redemption was vested in the .Vest Side Trust & Savings Bank, as
trustee, for the benefit of ..braham J. ~^isenberg, ;.be Smith and Ida
Simon. In order to protect the redemption rights, the committee
acquired the equity of redemption, without the payment of cash, by
providing that the owners of the equity Ox redemption be ,^iven a 7-1/2^
participation in the corporation uo be organized and a lease of the
property, expiring Janaary 31, 1940, at a rental of §550 per month for
a part of the term and $600 per month for the balance, with a per-
centage clause. The trial court had previously, in r^ecember, 1933 ^
determined that a fair rental value of the pro,.erty was C375 per month,
and had directed the receiver to make a lease to 3isenberg and f.mith
for thPt amount. Two years later the matter again came before the
icurt, and the net rental was raised to ^450 per month. hen the agree-
ment with the owners was negotiated in 1936. real pc,^ .
o» recxj. estate values had
sxiiJ" "i® 8*fl®i^!3oe sxli lo eoiiiia dilif ^osi^ arisa o;! a-s?'/- of£w «i9d'a^a s£td^
sri^f oi alot oi m&sli 9ii,fal 6n.e. ^sXse ^di lo Qiab sdi a^ Haw sa taJ=5lq
0^ HOid'cai sitli diiM twl^o^imoo ax ^^si^d b&trroxq, ajgw w^i bn.s .rfalq
«,.»5;efeX9t£i£>i«) cf XX« od- asv% sa ®s>Mois ©ufe clsiid- bobxvoxq; oals a&'xoob
SQ^^M:iait siii no aa^q o;^ axaaad* cK)x*oi:fo«xi£ft t)®Ti«as!t aiiroo arfJ- ba.-^j
Y^-lij'P© 9jc[^ tbsij3X?xnX aAT? n&i.iss±a&s>'X(i&% lol riisXq oxi* fiexXV?
as tsCrivsH aigfiJfcr^^S 38, ^awiT s&ifi ^ta^w aif* ni: &©*asv -ssm noiiq_siohei lo
©»^ vt XEiiH© oii^ tStiigxcc acxiquiPf.iQ'x ©iiJ ;iosiio'£q Oi- ♦xab'xo rxl .noxaxS
^4f ttlaso lo itrrsOTSSQ exid- i'-iiOsrCJiw enoxiftgHafce'i: lo TCuXAfpa sxia- hortiwpojs
';';G\X-V' a n^Txa ©ef noiJQMasjs'i lo •vi^xi^jpa arii lo aiSKWO s^ict djajfi jjni&ivoxq
ed-3 lo 9a,GQX s fojKJS b^^Xn^to &d od iioWjs'xo^'cao 9*1;^ nl aoxdisgxoii'asq
lol rlJ-noia 'x»q 03e# lo Xs*k92 a ijs ,Oi^eX tXS X"^^-'-^^^ 3*ti:a±qx3 »T2;tisqo'rq
-I9q ij x{^xw , ©©caXscf 9i£c; 10 1 xjifioai 'xaq 00d:$ feus at*x»* ©//J- lo ;txjBq b
«ii*fiO|a :c9q aVfi* a^sw y^^©«10^<I »rf*^ 1« ewX^v X^^^jRo^s: -xi^l a i^^ bsnimreieb
diissG bns s^scfnsai!?: oi ©•■ajgsX jes o'd^ssi oi tisvisooi sdcf bs;ro3:cx& bsd bus
sd* oiolQtf ofliao «ij3S.B ao^ifjaet adi t^isl a'xssv; owT «:fm;oius :i.p.dii -xol
*>88as^ arf:^ xiatfvv .fl;?aoia a©<s 03J^ o^ Jj^aijatc asv^ X«*ns'i ;f&n srfj bna .i-iuoo
bed 3®x)i«v 3*£;*e0 -l^-SQi^ ^QCQl nt b^i^itio-^Qn sjsw as9n770 srlo* dihr rfreein
-5-
beoome enhanced, and the ns-o rental ./as fixad, as hejretofor.
stated, ac 055O per mon.h for a part of the terra and $600 per month
f 01- the ualanoe, with a parcent,:.ae on the ,.ro.s r.ntalsover a certain
amount*
..ftor tho e<:uity of rc,;,-,mptlon -.as ao<juireu and a leaae nade
witi. -.iBon^erg and s,ntth, tSa oo^l-.t.e adopt.-l a plan of roorgar.l.ati*
-Mch providod 1„ .ubManca th.t an lUinolB corporation should to or-
ga„l.«d to tai^ title to the property for the benefit of the bond-
holder., that the capital stoc. of the corporation ato,uld be divided
aaone the depositing bondholders, with the exception of 7-l/2c; of the
stooK Which V..S to sc to the ovmerc. of the equity in p.y^.nt of their
redemption riehta, transferred to tho <.ot«ittee.e nominee. The plan
contained detailed information ae to tuc bond is=ue anc^ the property
covered by the trust dee<i, the receipts .„d dlsbureements of the re-
ceiver Since the inception of the reoelversmp. the ^ount. and de-
faults in the payment of t^eo, the terns of the agre^ent „tth the
owners of the equity, the proposal for reorganisation of the corpor-
ation, .na the fees re.ue.teU by the cc^ittee. its counsel, the costs
of foreclosure, tho cash advanced to the committee for the benefit of
the bondholders, the estimated co.t of reorganization, and for carrying
the proposed plan into effect. ihie plan v.,,s mailed to all bondholders
January 29. 1937. and no dissent. «rc roceivod by the committee during
the p,riod Of twenty days allowed for ttet purpose, it ..„ therefore
concluded by :he committee that the plan w.s acceptable to the holder,
of principal bondc as, l-ep-.ting 135,700 then on ueposl-.. and arrange-
ments were accordingly made for holding the master- s sale Harch 11.
1937. The only bid made, ae shown by the master's report, ^. that
Of the nominee of the committee, for *30,00O. This did not t*e tnto
account the unpaid taxes on the property, which, up to 1936 and excluslT,
of ir.terost and penalties, amounted to il4, 694.84. To this item there
would have to be added the 1936 general ta«», amountin,:: to 3s,soc, and ':
■*8-
' i«.iy» «f 6X^0-.. nci*«<..*.» «i* ^« »«-" ^-^i"^* «.r«^* ■<*<=««*
«t. «i» *««»»^* "ri* « »bW «:»• .»»>** to ««^ ««*'Hi «*to.^
.xx.i««K »x« ,.«*«B«^-8=a.x.a M «**« ,tJS«t6*»oM-*«» «»««
«,«« «*rf Ite -ftlts afltl- .900,05* »t ««*»!««.<. «B * ^^-i""" «•» *»
„t^X0K, 6r.« 8S9X W ^ .^»M. ,t*«,o:t, «.** .a«* ««t». «^ ^»'»*"
(«„ ,aoa.«# a* :*»**«"««' <«»«* x«*«<« 8fi«x Mil »•»« «' "■ '"■•'- """
-6-
about one-fourth ^f the 1937 general taxes. Thus, exclusire of
penalties, the unpaid taxes st i,hc d.-.te of sale '-/ore approxin)f\tely
$19 »000» .which together with penpJ.tieH would "bring the aggregate
amount to liSSfOOO* This BunHf added to the bid of the comnittee^s
nominee, '/ifould be equivalent to |55,000« .hen the bid wat aaua the
net income from the property, without deduction of taxes, -was $6,600
a year, and after makinf? allowance for tcoces of ii^3,200, the net in-
come vould be approximately ?^3,40C a year* .-pplying the test of
value r.pproyed by the "uprome court in Bry n Mawr Bea ch B ldg« Oorp»
T« jfl ret ^ration al Bant, 365 111* 409, and capitalizing the income
at 8^, the fair valuation of the property would aaoimt to $42,500,
and this was substantially less than the selling price after taking
into consideration the unpaid taxes*
The evidence discloses that alone with the noLii'ica'oion to
other bondholiteTa, a copy of the plan waB eenc to Karasik, C/O
Madison & Kedzie Gavinge Bank, on January 29, 19o7» The envelope
bore the return address of uhe canmittee, and v<aB never returned.
It is therefore fair to aBbume ihat iiarasik received this notif ic .tiont
sent to the address which h« itic loft with the depositary. Karsik
did not teatify at the hearing, and the presumption that he r^jeived
notice and a copy of the plan is not in anyv/ice rebutte':'. ftei tha
expiration of twenty days, ho\/ever, Karasik* s a-torney appeared at
the office of Chicago Title & Trust Company and demanded the return
of Karasik* s bonds, and he delivered a ..ritten demand which referred
to a tender of $1,7C0, under protest. This donanci v/as refused, on
the ground that the committee had already determined that the period
within which dissents .vera MllCved had expired, E-nd had caused its
nominee to bid at the master' a sale, .vfter the cule , tha committee's
plan of reorganization was presented to tha court, together with
the mf.eter's report of sale, and a date w^-j fixed and provi^^ionB
made for due notice to all parties who v.i.hed to precent their
obiectione to the confirmation of th^ .ale and plan. Karasik
afi? sijasi a.sw iiX4 9At stfutii .000«es4 oj ^frsftXsvJtwp© stf &iaow ^eenision
'•-mX i»n sstfi* <,OQS,§| lo awsaJ 5©1 aMijafWoXXia »ni^S£s to^tlB ftire i-i«6x «
^ #aa^ fiii' jiOtx-t«lQ:- - ^^^^ « 0|>JH$# TtX©3Jsaaixa^iqq« ocf bXuoiz eraoo
93»ofli ©rid Sfii&>tU*i«iio i&KJ8 ««0^ •XXI eae ,,alafeg X.aftQi:^J3K J^g^-^-O-?
SHiaije^ i©*1t« eoirxg; saiXXoa «tfl* ««a«t;r a«»X x;XXAt*jiei-0tf^j 8«w aM* bna
*>»Ti0ceT ©jl ;^£!Cld rtoltqaKjasrf<j aiiJ ifi*i ^^£ilij&9^ cueU «'« ij'ii. :..i>w Joa uio
(■'M -c-sit^ .r.ioiii/ffarf 0c!ivnj«.8 p.i iOi:i ai n,oXq aiid' lo X^l^o ^ "fl'*-* ©oUon
isiurjo'x S)i£# fcs&n«jaiol) bna xt^-^itimcO iauri: -1 ©XciX »s^8lffO lo solllo &dt
b»'Xtotert AoM'w basudoh aiiilxis a btnvfklBb sri bn^ «sbnod" a'jLxsaTsii lo
boi'xeq; dx£* JMt bfeflJtene^eb ^baoxX* bad &9Siiimsoo orfi . iiiatc,g ©xlj
••'.;?i b«BitfaBf biJif beta t^«^ir oIJ..:: sie.v a^ao«ai»j xioMw nM^x«?
'^ -iitlw t©i£rsQOif «*t«o.o t Jnsoiatcti ej3!v jioi^frtijjtnijgxoea .ro ««Xr[
SH0i^sit©^«I bos- bexll «a# tv -^ «eX£- - ,;taVTxn oif;^
•lia^^ iceooiq o3 h&daiw orfw a«x;rijBq XXv. oj otHon awb wl ob«ja
-7-
Objected to the confirmation. .„d the upprornl of th. s^e and plan
Of organisation orer Ma objection con.tltutos the .u„Joot „«tt«r of
the appeal I„ c«,.oUdat.d oaa. „o. 40216. tao»^ a. the ;iae„*erg
o&se .
oase •
Karaeik.s .rtef aet. rorth thl.ty „.parate erroro and ae.eral
different points .nC legal propel uon. as ^oun. for reversal. .«„,«
the... the principal o,nU„tl«, l. ,hat the p„..or of a court or eomt,
m rorsoloeur. caeec to paos upon the fairnen. of the plan of reor-
^nlzatlon In oonnectlon v.lth th. confl^.ucn o. .ho wa t th. «ae
1= eu.ject to the l..ltatlon. Chat (1) the oh.>ncall.r ™ot re.ulro th.
preoentatlon by the proponents of the plan of aH. .. »
-oe pxan oi adeijuate and authantlo
infornatlon onablln- tho <.-•,■«<,,. .»
m. tha e.eaoi.e of a„ infora^.d judicial diaoretion,
an. (.) U.. ... ...,.,,.,, ,,^,^ ^^. ^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
the holders of senior e^uitieB. i^der the fi.«^
una.,r the first proposition, it is
argued that information wp^^ i^hh^i^ ^
« ,, . '.lohheld fr«a the court which would hav«
enabled it to oasn «Y^«« i * •
paoB upon .he fairnese of the plan. This annt. ..
■in „~«^, ^.t -H*«*n. fxuB Contention
~- ---' - P- P^^aented c^talned a full .aerlptlon
d 1 in ""; ^■""^^"-'- - -- --. ---auxte ^ th, ^rtgagor.
-Un.ue„t ta^e.. a complete hlato,, of th, fore.loaure prcoeedr^
::;r'V' "" ""^"-"^ -^ '"- -— — -- ^ -p^i
-ace„ent of the plan of reorganisation and the aotl.tle. of th
coxniaxttea, ar. well n. o ,*. *.
, cii WOJ.X at.- a otateaent of fas- a„A ^
a 6 t.i'i , . «xpensec requeetod and
a entailed statement of 'h« r^^w^^
,, _ ■"" '="^°" rendered. i„ aoMtlon to this.
the court had tdrore It on
^ "^ lnf.n..tlon c=„cornl„. .he .ai„.
the property for the purpose of aeter^nlnc the adequacy and faXr-
n... Of the bid ,-. the ^.ter.. eale. .„ objecting to the o.nflr..l.„
^he e.le an, „.„. ^,,,^ apeclflc.ll. objected to .l.l„g «.„,„,
^nd hi. aeeoolat... ae .™ers of th.e.utty of r e.e^tlon. shares of
etook representing an undlridod 7-1/2.^ Interest In the r.orga«I..d
ooBpany. oUniiar proTl«l«, «s approTed In BrjinMawr Beach_Bld£.
,,:_,,,:.,. ,-", ':;:.. , .'■ ■' ..-v ■;''■:.:-■:„ '.■>;','•■• •'■•'■■;■'; i '•' "'^v,"f «'^ ■■'.:■.■ ■;; < .•"''^^...■'
«*...^:,a -xoi^'l ^x. .x..x^ -^^ -^^ ^^^'^ ^
irf, l» QOiJjTlJM Bill fcW lMiSfl»l««8«»* W 1
-xj«9i »K ^ ,. , . ^ « «rf+ ^rt feM ad* 'fO 836"
■ \ - «. b«*oetrft» w^oni^*^« nieiiiiiiJ: ,««x«.^.«x#«:#^ -^
-8-
OoTv* T> JJTBt ITational B ank« 36S 111. 409 • It is ooimuon practical
approred "by the courts, to acquiro the eciuity of j odemptiono in
reorganlzutionB of this kind* ^.1 thouw thoBe redemption rif-hte* the
commilteu could not haye proceeded with the plan) the property could
not bo turned over to the bondholders « and the court proceedings
must necessarily extend for fifteen monthe morej v.ith a poeeibility
that there mi^'^ht have been Bome redea^jtiont by the ovncr or tome
subordinate interest* to Lhe detriment of the bondholders, There-
forot acre«mento by oammitteeB to acquire redemption ri';hta» and
therehy facilitate the immediate oporrtion of a plan for reorgani-
aation* liave been generally upheld*
Karasik further objected to the plan because Jisenberg and
his asBociateB were given a net leaoe upon the premises upon temns
hereinbefore set forth* The court had before it appraisals made on
the properly and its fair inoane value. In 1933 the fair rental
was fixed at <)350 per month* This was later raised to C45C» and
by the decreo of which Karasik complains the rental v.au fi.-cd at
.;550 for part of the term and i-'fiOO for the balance. There is
abundant evidence to support the rental values thue dotorminod by
the court) and since jiaraeik produced no evidence whatever bec^ring
on the value of the lease t tto are not disposed to disturb the decree
en that groxmd.
The contention that the plan proposed by the cooaoitteo
preseirved the rights of the holdere of ;3unior interests at the
expense of eenior interests » is likev.ise untenable. It hae "oeon
ccneistently held that the court hr^s power to approve a plan which
provides for participation by Junior interests on a parity with
ser.ior IntercDis. In the Bryn Vav.r Eoach Building -^orp* v. --'Iret
ITatlonal Bank« supra j the coiamittee purchi^sed the equity from the
mortgagor foJ :^1C,00: in cash, although the amount of unpaid mortgage
bonds *ae many times that ox che sale price | nevertheless, the
court approved it, and in Uimmel v* ^traus, 288 111. pp. 5 66,
•8-
c'gr-: 8001^ i%mii> sittf bss» <, a:t»l>i«)de«fisg[ isuSj^ «i4 «iw^ te^^^a•Iwj etf Jon
&«i»a '£« x&ir<^o ad^ x4 tasoli(i«ir'iiQz ^m'a x«e«Hf s>y«^ ij(^;il8i «it«i£4 -jr«tf^
£)as s'^p<&»»3-KK 9ifcaeo»cr aalq, aAi f^ ^99s»^9 -mdi^t ili»«iia.
'ittttmU zsr^iMv «9«r«S>J^9 t^n fmsm^'nei ;^i:«4ti«;^ ««tnl:a Itius t-'tx^oci «»/f^
<S$a *<j[Q> •XXI 08a «<-,if«,'xs av .atjs ti^i beveiqqja .^xuoo
-9.
the cotiiiaittdi:.' allol ^B.^ *-i,- •
axiotted the junior Intoresta lo ^ of fv.^
entity . ^ ^^" *»^ *^e reorganized
entity in exchange for the redemption ri^ht. . ^ ^ .
P-ion rights, and th^.t arrangement
^vas approved by the court.
I^ Plan i. .u..,e. o.jeot.. .„ .ec.u.a of r„. .„. ,.,,„,„
was in^oauce. .y Karaaii ....in. upon th. .u..Uon of foes. .„a
therefore it ..oula 3... »„eo.asary t, ,„ into ..„ 3.tana<,. .i.oua.ion
Of this queetion*
-,«er o.rafully axa,rt„lng th« plan, and taking int. conaid-
.ration the o.Jeotlons ur,ea ., K..raaik. .0 fi„. no convinoin. raaaon
Why the cou« ahoul. not ^ve app.^.a the plan aa m. a„a e,uita.le.
Th. Plan ha. .e.n app.o.oa hy all of tte depoaltln. .ondholaera .ith
the exception of Karaaik, and no bettor plan haa bean au.* ated.
«a,aai. atiU h.a the pri.ile^ of Joining with the other bondholders
m oonat^tion Of the Plan, or in the =v.„t that he doe. not -vl.h to
avail hi^elf of thia privilege, hi. rt^hta to withdraw hia bonda
are fully preserved in the decree, upon pay,aent of hia proportionate
ahare of the eo»,nittee.a ehargaa and e.penaes. fte court atixi retains
Juriadiction Of thia phaae of the .^tt.r. and if the withdrawal ohsi-ge
IS unfair the oojrt ia at liberty to revlae It.
In addition to the points v,e have dl^uaaed, Karaaik «k.a
nu^roua extravagant C.rgee of fraud^ent and unc onaoi enable oc.duot
en the part of the oo«lttee and the truat.e, all of whloh vere ever-
ruled by the court after a full hearing. These ctargea were not
supported by any evldano, ,*ataoever. It la urged by Karaaik that
the promulgation of the pUn itaelf waa a breach of truat, that the
ihlo^go title 4 Truat .■ompany perrdtted itself to be embarrassed In
the perf omanoe of Ita duty aa trustee by attei5,tinE to enter int.
oontraota with Iteelf for profit, in providing for the depoaitary and
for agents to perform the necessary duties in connection with the
deposit of bonds, and in not ebjjetin'; to periodic requeste for re-
ceiver's faesi that the failure to give due notice to Karasik or his
-s-
5*.S..«= ^. :.= „•.,..;;* .,:."£.4I MiTOT,:** t«-«l*«-.«« I*,!?"**., "?*';5<f*?*/*
-10-
counsel of the p r omul (jat ion of the plan, and clui liolding of the
Bale wac a violation of the trust, as Y/as the manr.gexnent of the
property and the refuoal of the oonanitteo to return the bonds to
Karasik when he indicated his dissent to the plan. In the main,
thece charges have no foundation in fact. Moreover, charges of
similar nattire have frequently "been dealt vdth and disposed of in
recent decisions, and their legal aspects have "been definitely
determined. ( CM c 3G.0_JlJt le_ &_Jh-u^^ 361 111, 261;
Straus V . .nderson, 366 111. 426j Brgti jfewr Beuch B ldg. Corp. v.
First Nationa l :nanky 365 Ill» 409; Himme l v. ..>t raus, 288 Ill«
;ipp. 566.)
Lastly, it is urged that the masteir's sale is void, because
it vrae held on room 337 bounty bxiildingp as directed in t,he decree p
Instead of room 412, as provided by rxae of court. ..s to thi^: ob-
jection, Karasik makes no showing that he suffered any £;pecial
damage. He does not allege nor did he prove that he proceeded to
room 412 expecting to attend the master's sale, and misaod the ssiae
because of its being held elsewhere. He evidently knew chat the
decree provided th;:^.t the sale be held in room 337. It was subsequent
to the entry of this decree that a general rule wrb adopted by Uie
jud-.-3S of the Jircuit court, providing that all sales be hel In
room -^12. Both places were fully accessible to the puolio, ^nd in
the absence of a showing of any injury to himeelf , l^rasik cannot
8';*ack the validity of the sale on that ground.
There are no new legal questions involved in this proceed-
ing, the gere ral principles applicable to cases ox this kind having
been clenrly laid down in Bryn <Iawr Beach Bldg, oorp, v. jj'iret Nat-
ional Bank, sugra; .^traus v. v ndereon , s upra ; and liimael y. r:trauB,
supr a. Therefore, the decree of tjtie Superior courtj_in_caj4ue_No»
4C2l6» approving the plan of reorganization^ in con nect ion with the
confirmation of the maater'a sale, is affirmed,
-^__ , _ __ L.iCHiiJ AJFIUKJD,
"oanlan, r. J., and ^ullivan, J., conciir.
--'«*f# 1* * ax{* saw aJ3 ,;Js4*i;f ©if* "io jawid'JsIoiT « S£W aLse
oi a.5«©<f '^di nrai&i 0; eaJ^riasroo siU 1© i«Birl©i •!£* **ij8 •^*i»cxoiq
. / «-tj:to5 *a&Xg rfo.Q» g iiwiaas: itrcxg tdSI^ «iXI aaiS <noete&n- ♦y asi^j-iip
*XXI BSfi ^ajtfjite^^- ^ y l9m.Xtl 560* .XXI Sas X't'^'-" ^'-.Q2MMAS.^J^
'^^'' ' ■■"'' ' ^ ' •" ^^^^,, ^^^
exa;f,:$.o&<f «ti6f ei »X<8« «t'%s<^iu5in acU ^JecC^ liQsvJir «1 ^i «^j. ,
«(j1> SMd' oj^ d... ,itm& tii &Ijj;^ x^ b^itirti'^ »» «£!X- s^anl
i^'if b@Jbi»i»o&'xq dxi ^ll'^si^ sv«'xe[ ®if |)lt> ton ngoIXa don aft^A «H *&Q.BS^b
«^^ ijftiid wtiiBt '^jX^rrobiTS ©K ,»ittMiw»aXe bXattf ^jnlstf e*l 'So s ;
=li«i ®«f'"8»x«« XXs isdi %&thir&%<i t*'!t»o-p. ijbwiTie -©/fit ift,j«eB,fi*ft.v
'^'"'i0mm'9 :&l»4Sit»l tlX©smM o<* Y'^-^'tw* tli® to F.rrtiiro.rra .s *o s&Kaf»f%|nri
»6«X»«8 »<■-• ■■^X.S9 «r.- -r!:* 3tpj5.+ ;'a
-6©^d6*e<i aitt^ ai fedYXernl anoltfaejtrp X«t
^iJ^M!!!LJ^^j!SM$lS^^ ^ aaXq «i* jfiwJhroTrcqj* ,dls
50'
,I>©Ri^l1:1:fl si ,dX«a a*ic«>*a.ePi
40217
CHIG GO TlTIi^ «b THUST ^CMPAIIY,
as trustee Tsy succGDSion» etc.»
Appellee ,
v»
ABIo^HAi: J, -]ia:..TrB.T.G et al.,
defendants y
Appellees.
PHILIP A. P^'ui^^OW et al.,
intorreners,
.ppelleee.
On appeal of W\Yi^ iSARASIK,
intervener,
Appellant*
VAY-SR KAR^iSIK,
plaintiff.
appellant.
PHmi* A, Pi^UL:jQN et al.,
defendants.
cnicmr couiiT,
COOK C01I1T1"Y«
■] 29 9
Lppellees.
ki^. jmTlOTi FB1.:S0 KJLIVi^luD I'm OriTTI'fT 01? TH:^ COU!?T.
In the Karaexk case, ITo. 40217, which was caniBolidated with
ITo. 40216, in v/hich opinion ht.s thic day been filed, i^rauik'£ com-
plaint filed pril 26, 15o7 ,againstPr-ul3on ancl the other Lieiabers of
the committee, Gliicugo rltle S-, Trust Company, ae dupooltary, and
others, it is alleged that Karasik deposited his bonds oeptem'oer 22,
19:^1, hut Was not informad of the contents of oha deposit agreeraenti
thr.t ho nevor tji,v;ned the dociaacnt; that it ia mic onaci enable , in-
ern^.tnble and lacks mutuality! that he firtt learned in iJeoeniber,
1934, of the contents thereof, and thereupon demanded the retui-n of
hie bords, v.hich v?a& refusedi that the committee, through its counsel,
promised Karasik* s attorney that it would give him notice and u copy
of the plan of reorganization when promulgated and VrOuld return the
bonds on demand if he dissented from the plan vdthin tvonty days after
f ■■'■
fiaoh
- mV - ■-■■ '■■■:I
*TL'WOD 3000 I , itsfK&T^safil
( « sS'aj3XXo<jq*v .
5^
O O ' y ■■' ^ -' g '- ? '» : '■ !»•
*TJ2BO0 SHT SO mmmo EH^JC OSHSVMSCE Q»IHt tOJSfOT .fin
-aiao a'^laatsjali ,I>©X11 iacwsd" t"6*>'«iif^ ^M rt»'ifi,it^o jdLoMW; jii, «dJSQ* »©!!!
te/3 «>5x«*±uoq»& as tV/L-j^cKJiS *mn$ 1, s^SJl% &'^&&M0 t99ii tsmon -90.$
••■sedcxaosU jkX SofrxesX {tsii:l ©jaf ifad* i^iiX^u^iM asCo^X few* sXtfs J 1*^,^*9
^s^t'lrj aic£!5 x^iamn a Mi Jar mX^ «iefv+ ^r.¥* ^i+V,Uij.- - „ .
-2-
notloe ; that he relied on such promlBe sjid v«lT,hheld action for the
reooTcry of hie "bonds; th&t in 1935 a decree of foreclosure v.aB
entered* and that knowledge of lihe reorsani:r^ation plan came to him
throu- h information ohtained from his G0un8«l in Llarch, 1937; that
he thereupon intervened in the foreclosure proce-idine, und filed his
objections; th-s-t when he orijjinully deposited his honde he gave the
ooDunittee Ms aadress for n0\.if ication purposec as "Ifayer i:;ar£*sik»
C/o Madison Ix ICedzie i^tate Dankj" that in May, 1932, the ■l)ank v;as
closed, and Jhicago Title ;:; Truat Jonapany thereupon "becaine isucyassor
trustee, y.nd that the committee and itt; counsel knew ever since 1934
that Clarence -delson \vtis accin^^ as attorney for Karasik, and tliat
Karasik'c address was 3401 .• idvleban street, c/e The Phacnaacy Paper
Box ^Jompany; that despite those facts, the committee deliherately
mailed a copy of the plan to Karaaik in care of tJie hank, icnoT/in" that
he wculd not receive the letter eo as to afford him the privilege of
filing: a dissent v/ithin twenty days fr'jm the o&.te of niciiling cf the
plan; that never thelesf:, he attempted to file his dissent vitliln
tventy days, and tendered to the depositary and the ohairmsm of the
committee hie dissent, accf-fflipanied by tender of 'l»70i, under protest,
"but that his demand was refused. It is also alleged that ;iaen"berg
and his '^.s-sooiates v;cre insolvent and thcit depsoite an order entered
in Ju^e , 1935 > in the foreclosure proceedin^B, requiring '-he receiver
and its counsel to ,;Ct \vi thout campensation after July 1, 1955, and
as loag as the receivership net lease romaincd in effect, and that
the r ^ca5.ver accepted ^645 and its counsel '445 in violation of the
order, p.nd he sou'-ht the r.2li ef heroinhefo^e rat forth,
ithout iToing into an extended discussion as to the evi-
ilence, it appears 'iuita clearly that che notice £.nd plan vere sent
tc the address left v.ith the depositary by iLarasik, and thrt ro other
forwarding address was ever designated. 3y his o^vn petition it
appears that he knew of the plan within t\*enty d..y3, but Tiled to
make his dissent until after the twenty days had expired. The re-
,,, o,«, ^ a.». .i. O.«eo,s. .XX.ra.*« ^ .«-• .^» .,*«P«-t*o
.^« .,x,Xa .«« w««. X..«». .U ^- ««^- -«* *».» i»,B .».*a«J
.«I.I T=a«»*i a<fi. »\» .i-^i^ «4bXtM .w isM 3.,w ,«t6*. .'^ieB.aX
\jX<„«««X..ft o««J«.o. aSJ .»aoB'i 8=.eriJ s«,B.» i«i» lxo«S«9:*<l«
,«£. .nl^-ri .to.* ..li 10 «« ni «.-«S.« .«X, «ri* to ^«o» « 6»"«-
to .-.eX-vi.^ o.-;J MM 6^01'W OJ =^ =^ ^»rt«i "t* ^'^""^ JOH "«.w «I
„i»to *m>a=.ii> aid »xn 01 «*««»"« «i ,M»X»«iT=v»<. i^' l«X5
,^*tfn«K: ».«<*> i.^»tf« "-i" '^ « •*""''^" '" ""^ '" *"** *""
.««! is3 stoJorfnXMSri iBtXlR^^l «.■ *"•" <'"'"■'«
^IT^ «C1 0* a/3 potuaBOBX* fc^6n»|3t9 M «*<»i -J-'-i'^ ■'«<«'*» , ^,,,,;
*„« 8«* IWXS Bmi »oi*or. «iJ l«tl 1£X"«-to iJiW ?««J?l'' " <•'""''
■ffljiJo (w JbHJ ten ,iln«£a T" X«»Xao(ia6 ei£J.jM*f »»9X ■ o*
fi BoMiJoS iwo ailt ua .»fi»ensXa»*,i"f. ">" «««6l>« jniinOTlol
oi beltiit Juct .ai^jB titiM* nM*i» mill »dt ^o *> li* a«»«ii*'
-3.
.uxx«mente Imposed upon the dissenting bondholders for withdrawing
their bonds were not unra.u;onablo , and since, as said in Hinimal v.
LtrauB. 238 111. .pp. 566, K.araBik bad assented to aid v;as bound by
the provisions of the deposit a^^reement by acaeptinc his certifi-
cate, he could no. withdraw his bonds .ithout ccxnplying with the
requirements thus imposed, '-.e ."o not faal called upon to di.cuss at
length the charges that the fc-os for services were exorbitant. The
record indicates that the coznmittoe and itc counsel had not re.eiyed
.ny fees for their serrices, and their request for compensation and
reimbursement of cash advanced, as set forth in the ruorganizution
plan, vras not objected to by ..ny other bondholder, Kt^rauik adduced
no evidenoe to shov. that the fees ^e re unrc.sonabla , and from a con-
Bidsration of the amounts set forth in the schedule we •^hliik the
court y(cM entirely justified in allov/ing the feee roqm^stad.
7or these reasons and tha reasons r>st forth in opinion
in case llo. 40^16, we hare reached the condusion that tho decree
of the Jircuit court in tliis caufc-e should be iUTirmed. It is so
ordered.
\Ti'IiiM:JD.
Scanlan, r. J., and ;>ullivan, J., concur^
r
Y«f ^fmf'<f »i3?r fei® oc? l>«#n9Sis« feaci :ltaj3'X£l «dd8 .q^A *IXI 8ES uSiWttB
eft's ^i'iw sni.\;Xq«©o tf:as)^iiw al){?©{f ^id irsithd-^ln i^tt hlmo ©ii ,9*«o
": ':• Y *d(,r.'Oe>:<iV ^ :f iit,.. v i^ •;
t- '■' Ifi-^i'l •■*;-; u ■ .: ; j- 'iti.: J.
40378
Appellarit, )
T8,
)
a
P1£TER KklKIilOriS,
Apveil ..;e. j " "x
MR. JUSTICE FRIE1*D DELIVERED THE OPIITIOK OF THE COUnT.
TrAz cause coii^es up on appeal I'roL^ tiie Oouuty court lOT tne
second tii^e. In the I'irst instance ( oaee ^.o. 39093) an appeal v&b
proaecated iroi:. ar. order entered ivarcii 27, l'»36, overruling a
motior- ol' defcndaiit ii.* t.^e nature oi' a writ ol error corau. nobis
to vacate ijo. order ol' the County court ejitered January 3, 1935,
disaiissin^, defendant's appeal I'roiix a judgiuent entered in livor ol'
plair til'] lay a jastice oT tiie peace on June 11, 193o, I'he queetion
prf-sented on t.iat appeal is suriiciei^tly set icrtx^ lii tne opinion
tner; I'lied, 'Ve reversed the order ol u.uron 27, 1^3u, and re^^anded
the cause i.o the Coonty court with directions to periuit plaij.tilT
to answer defendant's petition oi" ...arcu 17, lyoo, to vacate tne
order ol' January 3, 1935, and "lor eucn iurtaer oroceedinge as are
not inccrj si stent vitn tnis opinion,"
Wheii tue cause was redociieted in the Cotuity court plaintiff
filed at. aiiDwer ik-aroh 4, 193b, alleging various iiiattere in reply
tc defendant's pjttition in tue nature of a writ of error coragi
nobis, and averring that the order of Jaiiu^ry 3, 1935, *d8 not
entered by ^staite u..d that no error was coi^iuitted by the clerk or
the court, and that no error of fact appeared in the procee ing
which would justify tiie ordr of diamisaal of Jarmary 3, 1936; and
plaintiff 8peci=illy averred "that in the issue of the Chicago Daily
Law Bulletin of January 4, 1935, it was plainly axuiounoed tnat said
appeal had been disdesed by the court; and tuat defendant knew or
should have inown tiiat the appeal was dis.iseed on January 3, IS 35,
THUQO yiiiUOO ikOm. JAiiUHA
I .
.fiiTOKiitias ss.Tsr.«
aitfofli ui#%Qo iot%« to ili^ £ io Qiuiaa 9iii ai ^oeliaalojb lo aoli'cai
fSSSX «S '^ijQiJCu;!; i^To;^;^ i^iiiios Vi^'uuoO »sii to t»!yto aa 9iM9av at
'to ror&'t al Mn&im tadin^bu^ £ %dil Xjesq^jf; e* iuBha^tab ^alaalisaib
aoiiHsap »si'£ .OS€X ,XX douXt ao eoadq ^liS 1q ssi^Biut a \;tf 11:l^aX«Xq
sdi nijAOJuY &i ,deex ,?X ^dusi. "io noiJ^iJs^ a'*asl)ft»1afe tswane ol
9tB BSi B'du.ibstQootq isjiixu'i il»ja« net* J^n« ,d£«X ,£ '(t^^iJiuxl lo isJb-xo
* .aalaxqo tkdi litl'ff SmSalBciooai: i^n
Xlq9% al eia^i^m Buoliav '^ax^ttlXa ,8£CX «* £U»i«ii idwacuB .us beXlt
tagipo Tte-x^a 'io Jiiw ve -to Siiji*n ^iii ai aoliiiaq b* SaBti3if'i.9b at
Jon ajfci* ,3£*X ,£ ^i^ijafit 'to Tdfeio sii^ dAii;^ ;8aXaT9T« Ijob . aidpn
aaibsisooiq siif ax l)*iJG©qqB Jas't 'tc 'xciis on J«d;J fcflju ,#TiJO0 sxii
ijtm ;dtQl ^t '^nj^wiwT. "to Xaaaifiiaife 'Io laJbio ©xi4^ x'^-'-^e^t feXwow dttltiw
XXijsd os«4>iiiiJ »ii^ 'io euaax sxid" ax ^jBiW fiea^ar^ \;XXttlo9q« t'tiiaij&lq
hls& iiiixi booauoaiva x;Xiii,eXq a«w *x ,afiCX ,^ xxauaa^ I* aXleXXxfcI waa.
-xo wsai Jft0t,m»'t9b ;f£alcf fcua :*imoo &di xdi b9mi^6ib a«»rf l»«rf X«sqqii
-2-
and that he waa in duty bound, li' ne had any cauee lor moTiUfe tne
court to reinetate the apieal, to make such motion within sixty days
al'tpr the diemiBsal oi' said appeal, in accordance with th« statute
in Bucb caBP made and provided; and that said deiendant tnrough
negligence made no such luotion until more tnan one year after the
entry ol" said order dismiseing said appeal,"
itarcii 2b, 1938, defendant liled a replication to tne ariswer,
which the court evidently re^arled as h motioii to etriice tne ariswer,
; and this motion was overruled by the court. i'hereupon, wiiuout
i
hearing any evidence, the court en tered an order reinstating the
cause and setting it for trial, and plaintiff appeals from tnat order.
In the report of tne proceedings tne c.ria.j. court certii'ied
that it considered the document in tne nature oi a repxication
filed by defendant to be in eflect a motiou to striice tne ajiswer,
and it overruled tiie motion, but tnat since tue plaintiff did not
aver that his cause of action was meritorious, the court considered
that defendant's allegation t/iat ne iiad a iiieritorious defense must
prevail, and that he was entitled to have the case reinstated witnout
introducing any evidence. *e tnink the effect ol the order of the
trial court was proper, but in reaching his conclusion tne Judge
inaptly overruled tne motion to strike the answer, wnereas he snould
have sustained it, because tue answer ^ab, in our opinion, insuifi-
cient, lor tie folxowing reason: lue Unicago i/aily i^aw iJalietin of
January 2, 19 3b, announced a call of tne lirst loO cases on tiie
calendar, stating tnat the lirsc ten cases on tae call would be held
for trial. Defendant's appeal appeared as case i^o, 47 on tne list
of cases publisned. Defer.dant was Uxerefore justified in assuming
that not more than ten casea would be called on Uva-t date i^nd on
euccpssive days, and txientlov tnere was no reason wny he enould
have examined the Bulletin on the follov.inei da^ to look for an
order of diemissal. Consequently, def enaarit • s motion to strike
-s.
a^«.fc Y^^^8 aiii^iw noid'cuH rioire »:i-B.m. u* .lanqq-s sii* ^^jsj-aniei at iiuoo
sigii&tiii taeibt&'iQb hi^e iMiii ba^ j5«i>ivoiiq bas, a&«JHi ':.-9so iiotfs nJt
«»itd^ i»^'t*i ^»»X sffo n6i"i;t s.-'io.^ XiJiUj Hoi^^Oia Aoua oa »£)fiHi »o«9:5»ll8on
,-xe«Fssjs «£^ axilla ot aoitoia a && b^biJ&^tt ^X;rnQblv» ixueo etH xloljfv
jti&isisrta -dilJ ^•3-iitd'a o;t naUoesi M i^B'tts ai »d &i :fa»hm'X9b %& A#il1
Sea bth 'itlialai^ 9iii 9oala iAAi^ud ^aottosa 9df b»£M%':^to it iiS«
$e&sm ^BtiQ'i&b es^olioiltBm s» hud on iMxi^ flOi*.8S9XI« a* tiSAl>aa%6l) &»tit
a.tfcr 'to TC9M0 9/it to *09't't» 9M Jinljtl* ©1? .»oitdftlr© i^iis saldufioiritl
safcut. »il* i-iolawXonoo aixi a^iJi^^Q'^ ''>■': ^^'^ ,^s<|0'i(| «dw iiuoo X^ll*
-I'iitiaai ^aolal^o luo ux ,aAw xvytsau tiSii saxfeodCf ,*1 feaftlfijaua sr*rf
'to nJtraXiija waa. \:XX«a oaMoiaO aaf :aua««* gnlUQlX&'t -©tfj^'^lrt ,*^fl«flo
9fli iio t^QBAo OOX cTa-xii ©li* lo XX*a & fesaoW^anja ,««« ,S ^ti««««^
l>X©ri »<S tJLuov XXe© «iiJ ao 8sa«o «»# .lait't »M»**il*SisWA*«,t«6i^e ■!:««>
^ail Qdi ISO V* .01 *8jsa am iista^qqjs X««qer« 8'#ou3l»«e t«(I .XbH* rot
so bm »#«fi *iJ^* no i>»iX«o dd bluov a*ajB0 «** n»jf#' *Tea^ t«« **rf*
ne 'xo't HooX o* Y.JBii gHiwoXXot 90^ ao atiBlLuS. »dS b^nimxB av^n
^^ifAti ai aoltoin a''*xi£!f)ri9'l»c .^Xcf aaupeaaoO .Xaaei^^a-tb 'to isbto
-3-
that o-vrt of the answer ^lio'i ayerred that defwidant knew or should
have known that the appeal was rlianiissed JiUiuary 3, 1935, sliouli.
have been allowed.
In reversinK the order ol' March 37, 1936, remandin the
cause to tVie county court witii directions to permit ol^iintil'l' to
answer rlef ^iriant '« netition of karcii 17, 1936, to v-jcite the ordt»r
of January 3, 1935, "and for such further proceedings an iTs not
inccnsipt<»nt with this opinion," it was clftarly intended that the
cause should proceed to hearing on the merits of the petition for
a Tlt^f^ error no rain nobis and any answer thereto that might he
filed hy ilaintiff, and In entering the order from which tJiie app*al
ia orosecuted the court evidently intended to cive effect to the
mandate of this court, issued pursuant to our former opinion.
Therefore the order from which this appeal is prosecuted is af-
f ined^ in consequence of which olaintiff should be allowed to
file an >in3v:er to the petition for a writ in the nature of a writ
of error coram nobis, not inconsistent with the views herein
expressed, and tlie parties should then proceed to a hearing "before
the court on the merits oJ" the petition and answer,
APFIRIbLSD.
Soanlan, P. J,, nnd Sullivan, J., concur.
feluoxia "Eo wsxoi *aai>aa't9f» iJitlS b^trsvi- rfolxnr tsiraae 9fi;t 'to itea &Biit
♦ b«WOlX« H9«»J 9V£ri
■xAbio f*tli 9^iB9^&r Qt ,desx ,VX lioit^M to aoii:J:#ft9 e * i-n0l)fl«^»h i^wtiexa
ton etc. KB 8aHi:Jb98&<rtq t^/f^ttal xfoita 'xa'i baa" ,a6tX t8 tr»fi"«*^ to
lot nc'.tt/';t9«» »rf* lo eJ-ircam ©xi* ao gnitasrf a^ h^^&orr
jiel^v 'to eof»j.
■ i't
oionofi sweir ea* ittfxw ;^n©»eii3Ho»ai j«a . aioojrt at e •too tai«> 1*
vto'ted afli«e«il « 0* b9»9oxq a»ii* AXaode 8»1*t -;ftTcqxo
.iaswHi'a'ftA
,7Uoaoft , .t ,ctjBTJtXXw8 fcjcifi , ." laeoQ
;"iv '■•;';. *•,,>-:'^^■;:J^.Jtv .4;.. ;:'•
40546
J J
Appe llan t » )
I APPiL^L FROM CIRCUIX
) COUBT, COOK GOUN'iY*
▼ •
CHIJ.-GO OliT PAILV/AY CQKEAHY
^'^" .pp,ne». ! 29SI.A.616'
MB. JUSTIGi5 FRI.;SND DjO-IVlTJRaD TiDi OPIlTION 03 THJ COURT*
In the trial of an action on the ca&e for negligence, r«-
Bulting from a collieion betweon a street car» owned and operated
"by defendantBf and an automotile in which plaintiff v;as a passenger,
the coijrt, on defendants' motion, directed a yerdiot in their fayor
at the close of ol'iintif f »s evidence and entered judgment on the
yerdict. Plaintiff ap}yealG and the Bole isf^ue involved is ^Thether
the court erred in thus dlrocting a verdict in favor of the defend-
ants •
The accident occurred 'Tovemher 23, 1928. The facte con-
Btitutinc plaintiff's case, as giathered from the testimony of two
witnesses who testified ten years after the occurrence and who were
reepectively ten and seventeen years of age at the time of the
occurrence, may he eunmarized as follov/s: ..bout eight o'clock on
the evening in question, eleven persons were riding in a six
pasr:enger fttudehaker automobile in a southerlj'- direction along
Kedriie avenue in ChicatTO. Plaintiff's father, ./alter Ryjewski, v/as
at the -wheel. Three passengers, including the driver, all men,
occupied the front seat. The rear seat was occupied "by three
women, each with a cliild sitting on her lap. Two persons occupied
the collapsihle seats hetween the rear and front seats. The irlt-
ress, :;dinund Ryjewski, plaintiff's "brother, v.ho wac then ten years
■^n
'■ ■"'"*''^'*' ■' ■' ■■■' ■ ■■■'■'■■■ ■■" '" ' ' ^ '* ' , :j.Sn£
■■■ -ix®& si*0£it eiiT ♦6S€X tSS tafitesvon bSf^'psro»o ^neJ&Jtaas ©d'V
odJ 'io sail* ©£l« cfa ^a lo ^^©t fi?#«i^xj©vaa btm s:iQt Tj:l9vit;^oay;a©i
SfioXjis rmiioetib xliBti^iso.& si iti: '»Xxtf«MB6tf£fs ^»i*s<re5«cf£t rsoansraiejsc
*n9J3 XXjs ^rttjvi^a crf;J sftt^-s^Xaai uBi&gneaBnq sotrfT •Xesftw sd^ *js
fe&lqwooo amaToq oiirr .q«.X tswl m -^rU^H tiMe s: tnemo?
-*iw ®£IT .a*^4sa itno;-!^ i>fffl ^jsfrit ftit#;:«tf|(lrl^ 6i.#««s ©XrflsgsXXoo ©xfi
aux;ox fti5cf n©il* eav/ oHw ,t9£[;^0'««f amJt*i!fiaX^ ^iafav&OY^ bttumb'^ tag©?
-2-
of age, sat on Mb mother's lap on the left side of the rear eeat,
and plaintiff, then seventeen years of age, v/ee citting on the left
side of one of the collapsitle seats. It wao a rainy ni-ht and the
accident occurred on Kedzie ..venue near 50th street, v.hich is a
"dead street, " and does not intersect iiedzie avenue on the wast,
iSdmund Hyjewski, plaintiff 's younger brother, described the
C-eneral seating arrrjigement of the passengers in the car, and said
that he was sitting on his mother's lap at the left of the rear seat^
He testified that the accident took place on Kedzie avenue bat.,een
49th and 50th streets, that just before the j^cidont his father "v/as
driving on the side of the street and .; street car was comin-: north,
and our car wr.s going south. There ..ar tr.^fic passing to my father's
right, about fifteen cars, .s this traffic passed n^ fr.ther's right,
kie ear went on the rails. Before the acoident, .vith reference to
the two sides of the street car rails, my father's car was on the
right hand side. ,vhen ny father v.ae on the .rong sido of the street,
I saw a stre.t car coining north on Kedzie. 'Xhe street car was about
half a block away. I heard the .treot car bell, and the street car
hi. the left Side of njy father's car. The left front of the .treat
car hit our car. I don't remember anything after that." The only
material evidence given by the v^ltness on croBs-examin- tion 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 m. I remeiriber the collision, but nothing after it.«
Plaintiff, testifying in her own behalf, said that prior to
the accident her father was traveling south on Kedzie avenue to the
right of the street car tracks; thrit there v/ere c-^.rs in front and in
back of him, and that one of these cars crowded her father over to
the left Bide, ohe continued:
"I saw this machine crowd my father, and he was travelUng
the north bound track. :iy f .ther u;,a chen on the wrong side of the
street ac. about 50th and Kedzie, it was about 75 to 100 feet from
^Oth. It is a doad street. At that time ths street cai had just
;ri8X od:f MO 3ni.};Jia 3i«r «S!gjj3 1o mmx n&e4neYS& aQdi ^ItliRlslq baa
sdi bna M-iiK "^kIsi & ^m *I .asfa^a sMia^jsIXoo sutf;? to ©ko lo efrla
J3 s± rioislw ,*0©5#8 ^JOd 'xasiK »irH9va 9iabs2i no l»»*xti;ooo iiiabxoojs
•*a6^ e£{^ no ©w«ev« ©JtsfieiJ. dei^Btoieti *on a«©b fcjs* "j.l^eT^a b^eb"
arfd' ri9tfi'X»a©S e'i®i£*0!£<f -sssntfi&x afllxijnisiq , Jt::^s^V7•«tX•-l &fijifgi&S
r&JUca &JSA vad8o 9Jiii tti air«sjn«eaag[ »ri^ lo ia9m»Btu&t%B : .Cij:t9«ag
«©»•«•* ©rf 9««nTs ©isftaX no sojaXq :Coo^ tee&loo© sii£;f im(* h^llitsei 9H
««'&68'x58 «rii lo eftla ,syB«> w sySf |Ba aiB?? t«^«Tt ta J^®^-^ .sfeia b«ad; *iisi-x
iUQiSfs, aa^ t«i« i^mi%4M a^ •»£&£> siS in» jft«>A 31111000 xeo ^9«x#a « vsa I
icQ%s.ai fi^i.. |o *«o'se1 -ll^aX |i<t *««» a*ieei£*»^ ipi ^« ©bis JloX e/f* o-ii.:,
'^Xct© s»"i? "♦^j&jf* '3tt-*t« si|Md"X"« "xsctaemin i »B»'ti 1 ,»» «»e cfirf ico
,d-i3e::iJ «/«■; aol;JiJn4asX0-e8Ot».«6> aasiritiw orfJ Y«f «©Tis aonabiva JMXie>isist
oad OCT Sifnsva ^isbaS joai ri^jtrea s^nlXsv*'" Sii *n»*looe suivt
■ ■■ ■ ... , ,■ -^^
«i btt^ Jm%% ai axso ftuow atadJ- :
•^lll&rfs'Sif aj3W 9rf bitifcj «aarf;?Bl: "pa bwo'xo oaJ:;i;«iii iJixict una 1"
•£tj- 'to ©bia gnoxw erfi no fiarf^J a.,ia r^^ir,! t^U *'As&t$ •/iTJjocf xf;f -ion Qdf
-3-
crossed 5l6t Street tracks, ajid it was coming toward us, From
this east side of Ked/.ia, my fathtsr turrns d hie v/hauls to^»•ard3
the west, to the right. Then the street car was comin,; :.t such
a rate of speed and the motorman was eounding his "bell rrom a
distance, when all of s euddon the street car hit in the left rear
of our oar, the front side of it hit, the t.-treet oar, c^nd my mother
was killed outright. ..t the time the street car and my father's
oar came together, my fnther'ti cai' wus at an ant;le , facing tuuth-
i»est» ?rom the time when the street oar and my father's car caiue
together, i was unconsciouc after th-it. ■• ■>-«■ There v^eve several
automobilos at that point travelling south and near my father. I
cannot recall how many tnere were. Before tho acc;id.;nt, tin^ otreet
car was on 51st and the motorman did sotind his bell. Just heforo
the accident one ^cre^t car hell t;ound-;d Boverr,>,l timer,, li^/- father
blew his horn and ble\. his horn. He got his front wheels and front
rijht at an an::le facing south.'.eu t, -ad the next thinti' I icne.. .;j
were hit in the left rear, and after that I don't remember, iieveral
of these cars travelling to the rii^ht of ray f Either paaued iiim up."
On cross-examination she testified that her father w: s crowded to the
left by the car p.t his side» and in response to several CiUectiono
she made the follovdng answers:
%. Did the cur hit hia?
A. It pushed us over*
<^m Did it hit youV
A. It forced us ovor> yes.
(v» It knocked you over?
A. It didn't knock us over, it just forced us over.
Q,. Yihat part of thr.t r.utomobile hit your automolfile?
A. It crowded us."
She further testified on crost -examination as follows!
"The side front crowded us. It was c amine towards father^
and it wc-.s touching our car. It was touching the front side. .ith
the left side of that car he -.v s gradu:.lly tpJcine more space, by
that I mean, scraping aloncs'icle of our car. The length of the dis-
tance that it scraped ^^J.on,side of our car v;as not a block, but
about 75 to ICC feet. I didn't see the car after that. -e didn't
pasc that automobile. It v/as travelling south on iwcdaie. It was on
the south bound track. It v/as at our right. It was not in the ..trcijt
car rjiils, it wds or. the i,'ide of our car. e were travelling on the
rails, ./e were travelling on the sou oh bound rails. ..t tliat time
when it was crowding ub, we were grexiually getting over. There v.ae
a car aheaa of us. .e did not try to pai^s any car."
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 pluintiifu auto-
mobile turned on the tracks near 5 :th street just ao the street car
had crossed to the north of 51st iitreetj also that the motorman rang
his bell and plaintiff's father sounded the horn of his car, iorom the
evidence adduced, the jury might fairly anf* reasonably have inferred
that the motorman saw the automobile in which plainviiff was a passenger
aS^^woo aX:>£>xIv/ eld t? src'xij;;- •t:fi<'{*.r,^ v-f ,&xs&ali lo 3&,Jta j««© aM;l
«j»«!«jE *^©-X 9*14 uX; *M «&•» d^«i&'£*a *,uv iiv.'v'ma « ':fet M<fl n^riw. ,©»nj3*ait)
■aed^jQffl 'v;Gt '^a^ r-i^KG i&&%Ju said- t^Jxjrf jx 'ie> a&la ;^hct'^ ©jd;:} «i«e tire lo
a^«iS»f^t T5£S iJxte xa«. *^««isira ed:-* mi^4 ^i- iA *0^l'S$m biilli;^ saw
J- ^,.^,,-..--. V.,, ,..,,,. !.,, . rf;|f^r{,3 sijiiXIsysic* *E£iQ<i 4,^0 rJ& mXtdoaoiuB
J'l^snEi'r.; .A:olefi tertaw Grfsriit vjjiya vforl XX^josi ionrieo
«.>To'l.v- ....... t....,-,,, .,.:...;. LfRitma foil* rt-eifrxo^Oi:-.' ■ ■:--.^ ^aXa ko aj8W ttao
^m"' f"' ' ^Xasfiw i'fiotrl gM s^as aH »rc2€>f{ a.: ■'■' ?jiOi£ aM weXcf
X^-....., , -.'j<e(tatefts'i ;«' ''roI) Z. ^4^^ '-i^^l^* fens «'2:„.„- ,^,/ ttt ^M ©saw
^' • t ifta»wa|aje \3pt-i«roX j|©^1t ' «^^
traM ;?i:i£ tsi) 9iiJ bl^" i^'"" * ' ' ''^ '
' t-spff*^!: Qfettfiwo* aaijbo .. »fi«r ^IsFotto *ad*xl a&ia wff*
£^ . c)'rtOtl o^^ ^iiUL-^.uO: yaw >JI •1E4S& -ajsat tv^aEM^e©^ ««w *Jt fcxta
Siir^ ,^&oXdr « jofj asw "jii-o -.^i/o lo . soa ;^i i^^^sii ©on«i
#*g6i& »W ^»j;s;lj za^-l^ i3p srfi? oae ? 'aaxr' 4 *i:^^'i QQ£^ tui &V istodJi '.
1^ iism fi ,e.is;©«Ji rto' ii;?Hoa^n:iXIisv.i5^d' s.y;W ^I ,&lliJomo-itia imii aa«q
d«4S'2^a ©f£;? a.i, ion '^.r-?-/ ;U *^il3,2^ %j^s> >^« a»»- i"! .3i0>a'x4' aHi^oa fftwoo 9tii
©£# ito sc-'^J^-^T'-S'^^ •■•:';6~:f e^v/ *'Tjeo 'tuo %o &ib.i-3 ai££i ft© a.f3W jjt ^aXi.yi tcso
©asi* *.«ii4 ?- •3XJ'£i'£ bfim^Ef 43«o« ®4^ n« ^IXX^^sr/S'sJ^ ©Sjear , ©w ♦aXls'x
a^sf/sgsaaiS? .T«»tt& jirfiJJ©:?, v,XX.exj->i*t^ eTcaw s;v «aja t^RXbvm^s ami il n9d\'r
-4-
on the north bound trnck and that the inotorman had at least half
a block in whioh to determine v;hother he ought to slcoken hie
Bpeed and allow the automohile to coBipletely clear the track "before
proceeding past th© point where the automohile wac then Btationed,
Y.'Mle there is no direct evidence to indicate -whether the motoajnan
did or did not see plvinuiff *b car, the fact thtt the raotormp.n xang
the "bell and th^it plaintiff's father sounded hie horn conu ti ;;ui;v.B
Bome evidenoa from v/hich the jury might have determined whether or
not the motorman wr-s aware of the danger and in the exercise of
ordinary care employed the degree of caution commensurate \vith the
ciroumstp.nces to avoid a collision*
The law applicable to cases of this kind is well settled,
and inasmuch se the ca;.-,e will have to he retriedp it will sorve no
useful purpose to discuss the legal principles involved, ve are of
opinion that the court was in error in ^^}j'lS^^,^^J^^J,^j£_2:^^,^,
that there was no evidence of the essential facts vrtii^«di_j^^^^^
be^n^tted to the Jury, and tli«refore^the Jud^ent of t^^^^^
court is reversed and the cause ie remajided X??. &^4^^^
Scanlan, 1". J.» and Sullivan, J., concur •
Xl^ iJa^eX ts Sieif u«m:<ni<m <6d0 ^^sdi &Ka al^sit ^mM4^ Stt&n i»i»- tio
%© 9«1©^*2C© ©if;? rri fee te^a^ exf J to a^tEw^ a!ig?\f ft«ar?;o;S:ear •cfj- *oit
,bal#cfaa XXs^ ?3j: b^M sMi^ lo saa^is ad' ^Jisfaolj-fcf^ w«X ««Cf ,_ ,,,.■,.
on oTiea 111^7 aj: ,bsxaistt scf ad &y£fd. IXlw .ms^ ,mi$ m dttm^ant bns
^0 s^^ sr ,b©vXovnx 8eX<iisKl:Eq Ismi'm^ s^ae^ib -©f ;«BOt^«q Xulaaa
■■K-7:eiM.f^ -.*-W Aj<
,#wa©o.^.l.*fi»v±xxif8 64*18 ^.i «.i «rjj3Xa»oa
-.-v-i- .*''■#"*■:
rli --i ": rifts i
,>■;%;..:{?:'■;#■"••:!, Wi?; ^v-^'i^!-^;
40318
CHIOAaO TITIS. AKD THUST OOiiX'AIiiYj
%8 3uee«3sor In rustt
Appellee, )
JOSEPH OHflll, et Hi.,
V i» .r^l of LiOii'.i. J. i.IVI»IG3T0Jl,
Intervening Petitioner,
Appellant.
aocK aoi KTT,
.A. 616
r
CPIfilON OF THC OOUf^,
This f^pv^enl comes to this oouTt from ^n order entered in
the Superior Court on February 25, 1938, approving n. master* a
r^oort of a^.le in n re-1 pstt'^ts aortgi?ge foreclosvire proceeding.
The ittterrener i^as not "n original party to the ^uit rnd dl 3 not
appear until 8eTcr«,l years nfter the entry of the foreclosure deeree.
For aome re son not plsin to vs he ^^is oermlttPd to «r3pe-5T in court
on report of a'»le of the lO'^et'^^r and filed ^^^t is referred to is
object ions which -fre do not find in the 'batract. Intervening
Petitioner olftluw to h ve recovered a iudp»ent In the Muniolp.^1 Court
»i> Tlnst the omert of the fee and tfc't Rt i^ bslllff^a snle on asid
judgment they purchMsed the fee, *11 of which w-^s, of oourae, aub-
aequent to the aortg^^ge lien and does not ■-'ffect it in ^ny -^y. He
»*-• then permitted to Rppe»r in court '^s -^n intervening petitioner
?»nd objected to the Aa«ter*8 report of ^r^le although he did not
appOKir before the masterr and present his objections there. Hie
objections were not nnie exceptions in the trial court. In " Idltlon
to this he bud a witness sworn who testified before the court na
to sooMi fn.ota In Connection with the m-ater'a report.
The complaint of the intervening? petitioner, -s we underatind
It i3 th?t the a-'st'^r took n deroait of ''!,"'"''' In c<ish =-nd aome bonds.
^.
.^HM *^^'
VR:^itit
no
■t
O X i> «*i^
,f I
«.3! of * •■
,stnorf eases ^■«i' iIrro ffl OOO^II 1© #i««CF9* « Mf ^i
8
and the b^lanoe wai to hav« been ps.ld ^j«n the ^•'le w^g confirmed.
The tot«l bid was ^50,000 ^nd the bidder m*».de ^ lepoait of ll,r>00
Id Of»8h and !?13,500 In bonds ^^xid the br'l'^nce, «» heretofore stated,
w««» to have i;)een p'lld when the 5sal« wpb Boprovedt
When a ■«8ter sella property, the -s^jI© thereof Is not in
nny sense r» ooapietcd trnnariotion, but is :jeTely 5in aooeot-noc by
the master of an offer 'irtiieh he ^e|^orts to the court nnd the so-
c.-'Ued fj^ie ia not oo-nplftted -lintil th«? court ,;:i"9^es its oonaent to
the oomoletion of the *t;~le, J..pvy v, 3ro3 d? ^y-* J -^ r men i3u i 1 ding
Oort^or tion. 7 £6 111, ?79,
^9 w. s -!<^ld in ' tr*^ us v, /-.nderspn. - ^tS 111, 4S6, at page 433:
"The officer conducting the '^.-le '^cts ^s the -jgent of thf court
in offrrint the .ircnerty for eaie. His deel«T-tion 9tri<ing
off the orooerty to the highest bi-Mer o-'TTie* with it no
intftrest or title to the prooerty. The bid ia only in offer to
buy. Until, and unless, the court oonfirme the r-eoort of -rle
m^de by the officer oonduoting the ^^le, there ia no g-le,''
Rren if the intervener* were properly before the court, ?
o»»nnot see Juet how they *ere injured in ^ny w^y by the court pro-
ceedings ^nd no such injury h^'s been pointed out to us^ '^ihlle
the master ie bound by the frme of the deoree *nd cannot v ry
therefrom, yet the entire gua '#.-•« paid in oo«piianoe with the terms
of the decree of foreclosure. The tri^j^ court did ri^ht i -
the iB^ Bter*8 a^le in the rora th- 1 it did«
for the reasons herein given, the order approving the
•r>ster*s reoort of s-'le is hereby affirmed.
HiB£L, J, OONOUTfB*
BURKf, J, TAKi;3 NO PA-^T,
,.o®a*Tit.a!C»«> ev'.'f ^Sj*-:-: nth\ £C?ti>M- bin.q wm<!^ swsif'. o.t -a.-; --.ncji.! ■ »tt# lto«
^^^*.j»S€s ©'sotQii-^tiOii? »•; , ■*^jK,T^:IM' iari^'fes^' «iM^^' >^i: 0^:^^(,Si?' fells tftt^to a1
•fc^ro'sffq^i' B.^w »X,;vS siia'-^ fl9<<w ti;?--;* Il#«€ii «v««| o# (Eiew
"Qtq Jiraej® «fcd>^ ^ad i^mi xtts^ al pot&ini ©it?** ^^i w©f/ tstft *** toaami
X^iiv ifmn^A^^ fast*- «o»»«it »xJ3 lo «»*^* ^s** TC^^ ii«,»BWf |i4 »##««jP' n^
•(^^ giK-iv««.«qA ^liTt© «Jt# «i(i«v.it aiarTc^iS ««««.**S- W, f»'!| ,v,,.,r-
40307
IQHAZ19 J^IUL, et al.
APPKAi imOM
01 ROT} IT COURT
OOOK OOUBTT.
SOOIITT SAM BIAGIO OF 3T, 3IAGI0
PLATAMI« (also known ^s i^oCii^ii
SAl BIAOIO PLATAWI), « OoTpor' tion, )
App«lirmt. )
MR. raKSIDIUa JUSTIOit; DEiilS £, SULLIVAM OELIVERHD THE
OPIMIOB OF THE OOURT,
This is ^n ♦ippesl from "decree «nt6r<=rd in the Olroiilt
Oourt vhereln <^ meriber of a society which it is nlloged ri^s inoor-
por«)te<l under the statute, not for 'profit, hnd formed t corap»jn7
oonBlstlng of approxiaately 130 membero for the purpose of paying
death pen<U.tie8 ^'jnd other benefits. A dispute »ro3e «mong themselves
?.bout the carrying on of the business and soae of the asembcrs had
beea expelled from the sooiety, partioulfvrly the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs illege th'it the officers ?,nd dissenting members of
the Booisty %re still oonduoting the business therpof, colleoting dues
a&d aessssmenta for siok and de»th benefits, although they h^ve been
advised by counsel -^nd the ine\iranoe dep«rtaient of the State of
Illinois of the illegnllty of the society*? continued opemtion.
Plaintiffs further allege th^it they ^.re willing to .'»coount
for any moneys which may be due to the society '>nd ?«re willing to
abide with all oourt oriers entered for the pr«eerY?»tlon of the
society's ns-^ets nnd the equlti^ble distribution of q^ae; th»<t
plaintiffs »ind all other raembers similarly situated tre being sub-
jected to certain penalties and liabilities because of snid Illegal
operation of the society; th t the societyts funds, !^s-;ets and nroperty
are in d*!nger of being diverted or diminished from its purpose by those
in control, unless restrained by the oourt, and plaintiffs «sk that
the oourt deterajine the rights of aJ.1 the p'^^rties nnd th-t a
i^^-XS^^j: t© :»®afi^yt '-^M^-'nol %%^k^m ^i xi*^^;^dm$0 ,t^ $u09XB^«i>
.B«^9tf ^xr^if t*^^' ^sjotfti* ,»i^lt»B«<f i«fn«i Jfeo^- 3C«i8 «o't »t«^4t«#»'»« lout
♦s#i*«**^ fc««H*;tiso» ««^*i:»0« a«f# 1«. t^ila^sXli «^^ to Blonillt
<-<fw ^wi'ssf ^f-sr.'i &9*®f/(*-i« ti''3<:«Xi^J^.» ««*<*«»« la^^o IX^ Mb sttlitaiMlq
■^noiii T«^ s®e.'3^Mcr «*1 mxt feeds i:«i«ift«« |)»*t*Til> af^-^*^^ t© T«Sfl.«tl> fli w«
receiver be apoointed to conserve ?^nd diatribute tht aoolety's
Assets; that ths oourt preserve the society* a funds ^nd assets by
neoesa^.ry restriotlng orders and deoree the distribution of the unmm
Bfflong all the sooisty's menbers ^nd dlst^olve the st'id society*
The dsfendr'nt8*'anBwer deaies thnt they reiineuiahei any
right to strike the oompl?>int filed herein ?jnd ailcfres thrt ssid
ooapinint f^ils to et^^te ft o^use of motion, further an8«r'?ring
defenlnnts s^y th t jurisdiction, with r«»g rd to reinoorpor-^tion or
oonf#7ming to any law, is the exclusive privilege nnd authority of
th« Seoret-ry of St'vte or the Director of Inaur?»noe«
Defendants* answer neither admits nor denies th^t the
society's .ns^cta ^re about f4,000«00; neither '^(dmlts nor ienies
that the defendant society hi^s received n certificate or Dermit
«8 alleged in the complaint.
A motion it^s ande to strllce the oomplnint, which r-a© over-
ruled. Ho motion n^xa mr.de to stTike the -insw^r, plnintlff,
apparently being slit isf led i^ith auoh'^nsiper.
In some »?!y the o^se got before ^ ai^ister in ohrnoery,
although the nbstr»»ct does not show how. The wbatr'iiot shows thf?t
a decree w-^s entered April 28, 1978, The master's report w«9 filed
liay Id, 1938, although an order .^-g ent<^red April 7, 1938, ai'klng
objections to the master's report stnnd ««« exceptions end setting
1 exceptions for hearing on ^pril 35, 1938, on November l>i, 1337,
an order w-s entered appointing Michael A, Romano «s receiver for
defendnnt Society San Bimgio riat'»nl. No RDpesl was tnken from
this order,
AS heretofore stated, on / ril 7, 1")38, an order »^9 ent'^red
■mking objections to the "aaster's report stand as exceptions, and
setting ths sxoeotions for hearing on April ?5, 1938, it© eTee:>tions
sppear in the abstract. This is imoortant for the reason that
»it» tad* »»i;it«dfe «©« «iJm^» f^iiitm vimmn *titt*ii*fJbe4f»-'
patHfTaph 3 of the decree which i=^:'9 •nter«d April 28, 1336, resdt
aa follows:
••3» That the Master's report nnd the findings therein
oontained -re true nnd oorreot, except n^s to the exceptions
f-iken to the conoii aiona of 1?^ cont^'ined therein, ^hloh =? id
excentiona h?».ve t>een suet-a.ined snd filed with the Court »\nd
the Master's ooncluaioiis in respect to the Inv apolionble
thereto h^re een heretofore overruled. ••
«s hnve not been privileged to feno?' what the exceptions
were to whioh the court refers*
In its decree the court isaucd the following ms an order:
••It is Ordered, Adjudged ?,nd Oeoreed th^^t the Master's
report nnd findings therein oontnined '^re tme and correct
B'^ve insofar ?e thia Jourt h??® 8U8t?>ined the exceptions filed
by the plsintiffa in connection with cert-in conoiuaiona of
law and reoofiiraend-^tions In rs; rd thereto ai°de b/ a-id . -^ster,
whsrefore it ia Ordered, ndjudred nnd .}ecr«»<*d that the i^id
report of s^id i;i='8ter-in-Chr^ncery, John A, Sb'^rb^ro, in -^ll
respects, otherwise th'^n those oonoiusions to rhich "olnintiffs*
exceptions ripre been au8t«iined, be ^ni the -^me ia hereby
ratified, oonfirawd and approved by thia Oourt."
fhe decree then continues;
"It is further Ordered, Adjudged '^nd Decreed th'^t ''-^Id
esse be r.^in referred to the >.f»id y*>$ter-in-Oh'ncery, John A»
Sbsrb^ro, for the purpose of taking teeti^aony and re ortin^ on
the persons who '^re meabers in good standing of ^^id defendant
society aa of the date of the filing of the Joaipi^int herein,
to-wlt, November 8, li^37, ia,nd for the reportirip, by sf^id :«' eter
of the manner, jjethod nnd r^tio of distribution of s->id funda
Jimongst the members, • * • and th t !?^id sspster ia to report
to this wourt, with nli convenient speed, hia findings, eon-
cluaiona ??nd reco«ii>endr>tionn rer-ohed by him in thia wAtter.
It is further ordered. Adjudged f»nd Decreed that the
Jurisdiction to pna^ uoon the amount to be nllo*ed the olnin-
tiff a for their costs ».nd the o«ount to be r.llowcd -^a ?nd for
their attorneys* fees in rfrr^rd to this proeeedinfr '^nd the 'taount
of fees to be allowed the eoeiver herein for hia (services be
and the -j'iiBe is hereby reserved by this Jourt; •'nd the Jourt
further ret-^ins «nd reserves complete jurisdiction to enter *»ny
and tsll necesariry ordera to csrry out ^'nd effect the terma nnd
provisions of thia decree ^nd to »rive ^ny further directions nnd
orders whioh aaay be necessary to distribute the n;4Riets nnongst
ths parties entitled to s;^ae,«*
Thereupon there ^*in yorepared f> 9tl9iil««tion «is to the m9terle>l
evldentl«'ry fncts, snd also ? certific-'tion of purported oueetiona
of l«>w involved in this prooeeding, which prooodure was doubtless
intended to coarly with fule n3 of this court. The certifioation
1 . iawrttte *rf* X<^
ij4i^5#. SfaijiJ r ■ '„> iSi. Si aX0l9'i'@j(v;
XI?> fti ,>■ , . *?■;■. fei":« lo Jttoqar
i^iis'^SSf SJi »S6i]-5;:. Ul , ■ I'fflifS i^'J^WST m^M) B«©X^q903r«
:««.wa(i.tiio» sad*- ftisoroftf) arfT
ffo 3Ki#^ee?.t. ■ s.-.: v/ " ■' »rf* "Sol: ^#t«".eft®:dH
aisaal kitm lo ,......., .- . . -. .-. .....''Siii ,^gf5CBis «ri.:? lo
'«»^l«© ,a^«i*fiit fiiff ,fe»swv'' *••:>•■'* ^-<'VTy, •;*■,.■.. ,ir. ri.n. •^. ,#twt^S- aXilJ o#
tot M» 8K. - . .. ; »4 «'Jt tmw«L» Mt i>fji< s3»ot> tiorf* 1©1 et^i* ""
a*©" ffisJ®i'e^i-*» 'feX4 «»ii ai^'x-^ i^vX*®**/' »rfl £?»w©X1k JKi &t ft'^"■1: "^o
ft^nr m.'i'ii »di i^Bltm bnsti ittm t^f so o-? -esowa Xir fciiii
4
of questlona of lav irxTolved in this prooeedlng were oertlfl«d to
by th« trlnl jwdK*. Th« oueations, threp in mmber, nre lengthy
and inrolTCd, f»nd contain so muoh thj^^^t is not uf^ees^-'Ty, and le^TO
out BO much thnt !• needed in order for » court to be ?ble to (^lv«
auoh oonorete nnsw^re -^a would be helpful in this situation*
Rule tS (section 3) of this oourt cro^ides in part as
follows:
••(a) The jud^e of nny oourt of record, tiny, if the
parties litii-^nt rodent thf?reto, certify '^ny question or
ouestions of Isw -^rislntr in any o-^qe or -roceedinir TPh*}teTer
which isny ^'^ tried and figglly determined before hia to this
Court, if the o-^ae is reviewable by this Court, together vith
his decision thereon, • ♦ •*
The difficulty «ith this cae ooaing to this court »*t this
tlae is this, the jurisdiction of the ^.i^a* hna been speolfiofilly
reserred by the tris'l court, by its deore^:, for »11 ourpoaea la
connection therewith until its flnnl lecision is re-:ehed. There
bas been no flnf>l dlsooaltion of the subjeot'-estter* this is
neither an interlocutory appeal nor is it pn appeei from ^. fin«l
deoree, und «8 the rule uppliea only to c^ses which h«ve been
flnnlly disposed of, vff pre un*ble to se^ in wh^i^t manner this Tpoe»l
would lia in this court. The rule, ftcnordlng to its terms, applies
only to any OTse or proceeding *hioh m?»y h^ve b<»en tried =ind finally
daterminad, .'«e do not balieva th t In the present condition of the
record this c-^ae la properly before ua, nnd for thr«t reaaon the
appeal fro* the Olroult Oourt la hereby dlsmisved*
APPKAL DI8UISBK0*
HEBEL, J, OOliOURS,
BURO, J. TAKES HO PAt^T.
««irM!»t*- ■■ ■ ■ .: to Mmi$nf>!j^
RjtiJ* *^ #ic,d»s Bids '0i ■^.niaHfHO ms-m. M& dH^, '^iMJi.ttih t«or . .;';'
jS^is?^ *ir#«S. fifi>j£if^ )a«»i5« 0^ xim mH-i40li kim "^^tltt^- , ':i:»«9>^
mt mimm twMf ^^ M^^' j^m m0>iii^- '%^ ..^^^^^ y^^.>^^%"
,-ri^''t'i ■■ ■'■■■'■ ■■' '■ " ^'' . ■■■■■■■'/-■■
40517
H, yof ^HLAMK A OOMiAMT, )
Appellee, J
T. ) aiiiiloii'Ai. 0(M'aT
APPEAL FROM
B2L0IT JAIHY OOsit-AWY,
Appellant*
299T.X617'
m, PRSaiDlUO JUSJTIOE 0SMI3 £, SULUVAH 3SXIVE-ieO THK
OPliaOH OF THE OOURT.
Defendant brings thle appeal from i tudpaent, entered In
the Uunioipal Court for the sum of ^?3j315£25_Jtn favor of plaintiff
and ngalnet defendant «e the b»laaoe due under 9 written coat ract
for the oonstruction and aountlng of t«o automobile truck bodies on
t«o automobile truok oh^'^ssis mhioh ehassie were furniehed by
defendiint to plaintiff for thnt purpose*
Judgisent in thle case w.^^s entered oa «t notion of the plulntlff
who moTed the eourt to ttrlke defendant* • anaver for the reason that
It did not aet up fi Vf'lid defense to the ols^ia of rjl^iintiff, •
The AiBsnded statement of olaim consists of ^ det^tiled reel-
totlon of other evidence ;\oooBpenled by letters and exhibits
attaohed thereto in connection irlth the transaction between ol«iin-
tiff nnd defendant*
It appears fro« the ple«idlng «nd evldenoe th^^t plaintiff «»nd
defendant enterfd Into a written oontrsot, thereby plaintiff agreed
to construct ?.nd aount tr-o automobile tn^ok: bodies on two «vto<noblle
truck chassis, the oh<vsals hawing been furniehed by defendant. In
acoordnnoe with certain speclflcstlons; th-t plaintiff w*<8 to
receive payoient for said work upon its ooorpletlon*
It further appenrs froa the pleadings 9nd evidence th- t when
the work was finished there was not, apparently, a complete or
substantial fulfillment of the contract, in th^t the automobile truck
*>*-4AAi„^,
i \.
umt ^&smA
VX«G»
•«oi5f9iti«oo B#i S0^i/ 3*t0w JbiJBe t«t tn*jsst»<s wvieaftT
%^ s^aXqaoo « ,xX*«««J^<l« «*«« »*» »^i»rf* fcsrfsittil urn ixo^ fid*
8
bodies did not oomp-y with thP s^^eolfic 'tions; th t plaintiff
deisanded pnyment for Its work, but defend nt refused to aske payment;
tb-^t on or Tbout abj 8, 1927, defendant paid plaintiff 5?,310,35
on Account on the contract, withholding the brdanoe until plaintiff
should ooaplete the work by conforming the bodies to the speolflos-
tlons as set forth In the oontrsot. The plaintiff <ippi«irently
ridmltted non-ooapilnnoe *lth the oontr^iOt ><nd speolflo^tlons ?»8
plaintiff again reoelwed the automobiles to make ohnnges In the
bodies and A^,t)ln returned theta to defendant*
IB Its answer defendant recites irtiat transpired between
the parties, stating that an agreement vr'^s ent^^red Into between
plaintiff nnd defendant to have oertnln bodies made for oertnin
autoaobile chassis; th??t a dispute ^rose betv-een the pj^rtles,
dsfend<<nt claiming th-^t the bodies were not In aocordanoe with the
specifications; th-t defendant paid plaintiff -g^SlO.SS on account
on said contract, withholding the bnl>>noe of the contract price
until plaintiff would finish Its work to comply ^Ith the 8peolfle»tloni
at contained in the oontrt^ot,
L>«fend-3nt«3 answer further at'^ea th.t thereafter olalntlff
undertook to complete its perforaisnce under said oontr'^ot to confora
said bodies to snld specifications !».nd made the chflnges '»nd alter-
ations referred to In oaragraph 5 of plaintiff's amended stattsent
of claim, but defendant st tes that the changes s fores'* id dli not
ooaplete the perforannoe of ol^ilntlff under snld oontr'sot In that
they did not wholly confora 8?)id bodies to s'lid speclfiootlons but
■ Id chr>nges and alterations constituted only « ninor oortion of the
alterations required of plaintiff to comply with the specif lOT>t ions
of said contract*
Uefendant's "nawer further st-ites thnt plaintiff olxiims
th'^t In order to complete Its perforanjacs under srld agreement
e
iS-.asia-<fiiff lf:&B& «* tm»i/t9i's: *s^afitT»t*6 *t<«l' ^tHov Wi"'*i^' t&m%9q t^Jtmsmfiii
. . ■' < ■ ia^o sUt «!>•/.
' ' iteJi bl* bLraaeTot* «J>8ii«ji«» mrft tuAt', j,,. •:-.-- ..-.•<,. ,■.;,,-,,. ,.».iijsXo to
*"'■ ' wislf^ tl-iffaXitXct ^i^d* *'ft*«t« T*llt«i^ %9nmiis n*iasibafinf>i
3
neoording to its tarnie, to b« entitled to the b^Innoe of the Agreed
contract price for the work csiied for by 3 'id ?^gree.n#nt, it ia
required by plaintiff, by a«id epeoifiostiona, to do the following;
to change the shape of 3-'id bodies and the eh'ipe of the roofs -iUd th«
aanner of '^ttflohing the roofs to the bodies nnd the mouldiUKS around
the windshield windows; to make, according to the soeoifiostiong,
the prooer ailowtnoee for expansion of the wood fr^^iae-woTk due to
tenpsrsture changes «<nd changes from dry to ^et, -^nd to correct the
swelling of the bodies and spres^dlng )»t the floor line by remoTal
of Hluainujo floor comer angles snd floor plptf^s, »\nd raising floor
plntes, and the removal of the entire top wood floor <%nd insul'^tion,
and >sir drying same, ?»nd dr9i»ing bodies together hs auch -^s possible,
^nd replacing insulstlon »nd cutting down ?ind replsoing floor, and
le-^Tlng apaoini^s between all boards to allow for exo^msiott, Jind
pnintlng floor snd nil of wood frpoe-work with nsphaltua paint, nnd
reducing .'ilusiinuffl iloor plates and angles with non-rusting screws
land bolts, ?>nd to cut the top flange of stainless steel side kick
plates nnd placing new »«ngle on top to meet floor plate; reDl'>cing
all aluminum mouldings on the side door openings, rub rails and rear
obrome plated bus railings with brass nickel-plated screws instead
of iron nickel-plated screws*
Dsfend^nt's answer further at-tes th-^t the work mentioned in
paVftgrsph 4 of its answer is reouired by the t raa of said contract
to be dons and performed by the plaintiff in order to comolets
plaintiff's performance under said contract and entitle it to the
b-ilanoe of tlie contract nrioej th* t dei»ndant has st nil times been
ready, ^xble and willing, and has offered to plaintiff to make said
chassis and bodies thereon atrfiH^ble to the plaintiff, and to do all
other things reouired of the defendant under said contract in order
to enable the plaintiff to complete snid nork but th<=t the plaintiff
«1 H ttn^mff^^'^^^ M»B y^ tort MJX** jfitiwr •<(» «©'t toittr *0«T#ao6
ot »Mfe -alit-Bw-ftiK-^tt ife0«w' ^di- %« 'ersai'Sia^xw' tcflr a»ii^#««Xl« %»^«i*cr tilt
■ 'M* ,iioiftit«t?'*^ tot >?»©XJ» o# Rlif'»orf''il« jSF»^t«€ f^ffi9»9« sitiireftX
•jfftl* aljlw' I^s^e- «;<8#i«i«.fe %o %sf-«ff sr^Srt «lfft J?i»l|>'##^'&«^-4B#Xo<f' felt.*'
<3£#«t M» iillm ^sft ,#||jfef«:*sja ««n&fe «»t'i« 9Mi' m e^il>|afs» aU^S-issui* .JCIjb
llB Qb ©* fefi« .'lljttfflleXq »rf* ©If «X*«Ii«TB flo»x&«f* »»ifeotf hnti tle»ffii»
4
delayed and refused to oot&plete a- 16 nork nnd to do the thimre
reoulred of the plaintiff to be done under s«!id contract before
plaintiff l« entitled, under the teriae thereof, to the b«»l»?noe of
the oontraot price,
Oefendnnfa »n3«'er further st'^tes th^t the f?»lr snd reason-
able value of plslntlff'a work snd performanoe In the present form
of partial oomuletlon snd oonform?tlon to «<«ld speelflottlons -^nd
•aid agreeaent is not in exoesB of the sun of 3,310.35 heretofore
paid by defendant to plaintiff, and the plaintiff has no further
olalai ^g<?lnBt defend?;nt for tbe b-^isnce of the oontr«ot prloe
unleaa snd until the plaintiff ehall perfora the thing* required of
It to be dono by snld oontrnot and aald apeolflontions*
The Durpoae of ple^^dlng Is to aake «n issue upon which
eTldenoe a»y be heard, vhen the motion -sas made b/ the pls»lntlff
to fltrlice defendant's snawer thereto auoh motion iras equiveilent to
p demurrer. In the i4unlclp9l Jourt rir-^otloe n motion to atrlJce a
ple'dlng has the effeot of n lemurrer thereto.
In State Ctreet 7Urnlture Op . v, rmour i. ao . . 259 111,
App, 589, the Court an Id:
*The mflln question on this record, the rn fore, la whether,
admitting all the Tteli nlerded f?ot9 "S gilci-ed in the ?-ffl-
d»»vit to be true, 9ild nffldAvlt at^'tas n legnl defense to
plalntlff«a el--.la, • • •■
In reading these pleadings in the inat'^nt c?>se we believe
the answer sett up aufflolent to tT>ke iasue with the o1rI« of
plalntlfl and evUeuce should h«ve been heprd upon the snme, -e
are further of the opinion thrt the court erre d In striding the
^ no war and should have perm itted the 9 »me to at^nd nnd should have
he>»rd :"ny competent evidence offered thpr>^on.
For the rensons herein given the judgaent of the uunlclp»l
•-«©e«»^ fcua sA,»^'% ®a^ *^rf;» aftjr^s^-© '3;»£i*t«l t#(rai«r« a»#a!iii^»t«Cf,,,
■••»"•'» » *a»l#X« t*lrtl»i3tl»Xii '
t© M*«Xe arit <?#!-» mmt mim&» ^'f^itfiWrntl^f »tm t««rwt*' '•«t"
»w .^i^s '»4» ao<ii7 fc^^^i^' mffS' mm 'Mji<IMi' «Rt^l^ itf« t1-i1^£tXJ!lX^
ve«s-'i -^ii* l^<»-x^llii sOKaifii^e i43J«ii®»« t»* fcitAttf
i
Oourt ia reversed Jind the o^use ia rein«nded vith direct lona to
permit the defendant :^ rf??aonable tia» to file J»n anewer to pl»»in.-
tiff'a claim and to try the issues aade thereon,
JUOULiEHT RitVE n^feD AfiO CAUSE
HEyANO&O WITH DIHI0TIOM9,
HEBKL, J. CONJUtS,
OURKfc, J, TAKIO no PART,
: ■ .■■,.,■ ■•■■•;■.- .?■;;'*■
:" ',r. ' ■■"1::* -^
r^i
••« . T' .
im'h ■' >if\'} f^
40339
kPV^iM FROM
f'H--'W't i'5rM)F»T^
i' u.'i i>J ''. mO<
Corporation,
Appellee,
UERAtD ?• S£RVATIIG, et nl..
On Appepl of aOHARD J. FITSPATRlCtC,
et nl,.
Appellant 8*
im. PREiilDING JUJ^TIOE aE»lS it. STjLilVAK 'Ji-LIVT-HSD THE
O^lMlOJi or THE OOURt,
/. Judgment by confessiion '^ a ehtered in f'ivor of plaintiff
Ford Roofing iroduots iJo. «nd *gRln8t defend^-nt*, aiohftrd J«
Fltspatrlok, et el. for the ffum of 5,3??8«05 flnd cost a, for prlnolpi*!
»nd Interest on •<». Judgtaent note.
Therer.fter the defend«int8, appellants here, o-'iae before the
court 'vnd filed -» i^etltion nnd motion, stating there wns no conslier-
«tlon for the s^ld note from al^lntlff to defendants nttd th^t the
saae --^a invalid, ^nd pr^+yed th-='t 5T.id judginent t)e ooened »»,nd th«»t
they be permitted to ^ppe«r and defend and th-^t -^sld petition stnnd
?>a their affld.'ivit of defense.
This Mutlon the court ordered entered ^^nd postponed to
Maroh 38, 1938, nnd ol?»lntlff *^9 ordered to file *? oounter-«f fldrrlt
vithln 10 d?»y8 -"S to ililirenoe and th^t defendants reply to the
oounter-»;^fld vlt ??lthin 10 days thereafter.
To the counter-Rf fld-trlt filed by pl-^intiff there w*.s
att?>ched H oontr<)Ot of gusrsntee which ? -s enter<pd into ber-reen
plnlntlff y-nd defend-^nts ^^^ranteelng the ouroh^'slng of aup-iles by
one -enratlus to the tixtent of 10,OCX),00,
The answer of Hlohrrd J. rlt«p«triok nnd Irene a. Kltzn^triok
to the oounter-afild"vlt oontriins the following:
THUOw. -lAli
. \
J)€f^OlUii -^o
fi^lOKltq lolt »,«#80r» .bifp ^0 ,8818,111 to «£i« ®;^cr i:ot »£b 5^© ,iojtt;f«q«#|i|
9ff;t d^M bMfi »$&'■> 'nii^fi^h q^ YlttalMlq mm!t stoni timi 90 %&t aeXt»
S^iv«jbitt*-i:*9itmi©© R axil o^ fe«>T»l«to ««w ttl*«i ♦8SSi ,8S rfortflii
•.•m Qt&di •ni#ffi«XCi ipsf Mill: *l'V«Mtf«-t#4'«ft«r» »*# «T
"deny th t alchard J. i'ltapptriok, to f-)Clllt«te s-^les, found
It neceaartry to est'ibllah hia o«rn iiatributor, r)« pileFCi;
tht on ".n-1 -fter April 17, 1938, ^i-lntiff ^f>re or»-viit to
iierv?'tiu8 f^or more th-.n 10, 00^, -nd thr^t continuously froa
April 17, 1936 until ..ervtius llscontinue'j *ou3ines<5, the
credit (• iven hla by plaintiff, -'Iw^ys, "^ncl <?t -^ny one time,
WPS in excesi of X"),000, and v--a in excess of lefend^nta*
limited feunrantep, ^nd the («rchflndise for whioh this suit is
brought to recover, c:>»8 sold by cl-ilntiff during aTld r-eriod
of tims and w>n.8 in its entirety Inoiuded in. the credit j. iven
in excess of the liiaited gu.*^r*3ntep ooni:^ined in :a--id oontr ot
of ^'ir^'ntee, r»nd th t these defendints nre not ii^ajle under
<?flld oontr^'Ot of j^TAE-r«?ntee or ?old note ;,i-"en to a^curp j?id
jj;ur«r'^ntec; th t theue defen»i^nt8 h?ve b?en rftlesed of ?»ny
liability under the contr^^ct of ^^isr-^ntee beo^use nlsintiff
did not eyerei-se i\.© diligence to collect froa the principal
debtor; deny th- t :ji.'>intiff dern«?nded of ervtius the money
sued lor nerpln, "nd th-t they therefore h-^vc bfen relr- sed
of li.fbliity; th«t the indebtedness •ued for h?Tein r-3 Included
neither in the oontroct of <-u-^r«5ntee nor in s^'id note, md
piftintiff w ;s not entitled to confess judjrment on -^id note
fv.'inst the itepatrioka for sr>id indebtedneae."
re r.re not determining f«t this tiiae i?h«tlier the v3l;f»intiff
should or should not recover, but re think the f-ets set forth in
««-id answer are sufficient on the f ce of the record to h«ve
T«.mnted and required the tri^l oiurt to re-op«n the ar-id judgment
3nd to have permitted defend??nt8 to na-^ke their defense. In rr fusing
to do th^t, we believe the tTi^l^^^ooujX^o-bmJ!/^%ji^._,BXJ^T^
for the reasons herein given, the Judgment of the a^uniolpal
Court is reversed and the cause is re»ftnded »lth Jireotions to
permit the defend*; nts to aake thPir defense by the introduction of
evidence r.nl proof in support thereof*
JUI>J:Ao"ST R VEH3¥.D kUQ OAUiifi
HJii3EL, J, aoNoima;
BURKi, J. i'AKeS MO PA:<T,
'" ■" ■■- ■■ - > - " ''!■■-' ■ ■
>
'C :' i^- .■.'"/'
*!
'■■■ -a^ ^ti&m %@'X sait;}'wTi»y
. l'» #■&■■
''«s>f:^ u Mi-a tat 9i:A»li4s^^^ii '^J i&aX^:,.^
*«»fi^^(; time ^0.a flSfio-t? G* It/ ftifef iJ^tEii^jai gae l^ft^OATtMi
^ia«?i;^^ fill .i^Ritstt^f. irlsrf,? »■ -f talas^lt afe es^ti***^ *f«rf •# &««
le^iaii^Eife sM Is *jK««ife^5 ajtta- 4£f«TJc.B w*»'s»tJ ita<o-n-»-^t ftrf* «»t
tjS' .molimtit Mh'^ D9tej8«js©i ax »»««« -tuft *>«i? fet?eitT»« «i #isn»0
-■
-- r-i rr:,dfX:^
;¥* ': v-*T * ?«fcf^.»-
*««v;'
■f
, , . . "If
.- : -ua
^M-» *:
40338
JOaSFU >13H£R and hMtJlTlk nSHER,
doing business *)8 i>13UkH AMD KISHLR,
ilftintiffa - Appellees,
Ai-iLAL i'ROU
M4X ao-
Defendr<nt,
RAVSaaWCO A?AaT«lK«T OOHPORATIOW, ft
oorporntion*
Defendent •> Appellant*
MR. PRESIOIWO JUSTIOS; DKBXS E. 3UiXlV."..fi JaLiV.^ l:U TKi:-
OPINION Of THt OOLHT.
This is nn appenl from ?i judgi»?nt entered against defendants
in the Runioipal Court in the sum of j300#00, for Rttorneya* fees.
Defendant's seoond ^laended nifid»Tit of afrits ir«s strioten ?=>nd
judgment t'S entered ^s •'foreanid.
PlRintiffs* filed p st^^te-nent of clnim ?»ll8glng thf»t they
were retained by 1efend«nt to represent mid defendant in %11 anttprs
arising out of a certain petition theretofore filed in onse Ho»
551603, then pending in the Superior Oourt of Oook Oounty; that
defendant agreed to pey plaintiffs a reasonable oompens'^tion therefor;
thut plaintiffs rendered oert^in sf^rrioes; th^t piftintiffs* services
resulted in the entry of "^n order in 9«id onine No. 55160:^, then
pending in the Superior Court of Cook County, in f-'.vor of defendant,
and thf»t the plaintiffs '^re entitled to the sum of #300.00 as
reasonf-ble Go»pena»tion for the serrlees rendered.
Defendant filed ?» jury demand and subsequent thereto filed
a aeoond amended affidavit of merits, setting uo th"t the defend«^nt
denies th*it it retslned ulolntiffs to represent it in all BJ^tters
arising out of the r»etition theretofore filed in c^se No. 5516^?,
then pending in the Superior 'Jourt of Coot County, but th->t on the
oontrsry, defendant retained plaintiffs for the sole purpose of
8€£0»
i^m: .
«'tl9»^X^.A' *-
«ni#»i«i
''■■■Mi^:
\
■ ,ltoi6a»%^
■■^wmMM^n %m
% f^m'tmmm
■ *: .. .t;. \
TO©
•A '^ ?r ?:l^
,#fi.^i.I*>fers^4 - ';rja.«JMl«let:.
s*ii>^fc«?.1-r»fe *«s-i»^» j&-»i-*;t«© t?r^'"rf^f?t ■» a***"^ iM^m^nt Mf^ ri r-,,,-,
,e3s>l »axea'so**s Tat ,0^* «ye «iii'* «i $%m^ .» a »tf# «1
»&:|«i»»^#f j!i' Urn 1im%%tm-'%am t!im%hu%
I'o 980c:^J/^T 9io« «ii^ ^•'^ »ttit«i«ic( fe»ai«4snt taafene^afe ,Vc,«'s:rnoo
3
responding to 8"ild petition in b«hf»lf of defeninnt; that defendant
dcni«8 thf't it agreed to pay plaintiffs nhrt is oo^itaonly referred to
"■ « re^aon'ible fe«*, but th'<t j»11 risrties had i^^reed th!»t only r-,
nomine*! fee would b« charged for suoh servloee «8 might toe rerruirpdj
thnt the defendant deniee th t the ^tition theretofore filed In
oniee No» 551603, then pending in the tuperior Jourt of Oook Jounty,
wT<» denied by rej^son of the serrioee allegedly rendered by plnin-
tiffe and defendant therefore denies tht pinintiffa ^re entitled
to the sua of I300.00,
AS before st ted the iiffid'^vit of defend^it wiS stricken and
Judgiaent wne entered by default.
We do not see how judgment could hsre been entered on plain-
tiffs* statement of claia as it only -^ilCKea th t plaintiffs were to
receive "re^sonflble oompens-^'tion'* -ind no slleg-tion or proof suat^in-
ing SROM ws ra^de as to vs^hftt should be oensidered 7^9 ''re^iisonnble
oompens^tion", except the acre oonelusion, which st-^-ted;
" * • • th«t Pi'-lntif^a are entitled to the sum of Three Hundred
(3300»00) Ooil^rs as re:^9on»?ble coa >ens?>tion for the services
rendered,"
The affidavit of .aerite denied th^ t the services hid been
rendered or thrt defendant 'Agreed to pay the ooapens-'tion. Jiurther,
that the (^greeaent -'s for only n nominel fee ^nd further th^^t the
agreement • ^e th' t the rittorney rlnwaon was to do the work «nd r.l(!»ln-
tlffa were merely to supervise the pleadlng-a «»nd uae their n'»«.me.
The statement of claim and the »ffldnvit of merits made an
issue which the our t should have tried nnd It ted error In
strl.iclng the defendant* a affidnvit and entering ludgaent.
For the rertsona herein given the judgment of the '>:unicip'«l
Court is reversed «nd the crune is rem.«.nded with iireotions to ^rrmlt
the defendstnt to file its nffidnvit of verits uoon which eviienoe
ahould be he^rd «»nd judgment entered in pccord'vnoe therewith*
JUiXJi^EKT RKVCRSiD kHO G/.USE HKMAHia;D WITH DIRaCTIOlia,
HEBEL, J. OONGI/RS,
BIJRKX, J. TAKStS NO fAv^T,
!2
-ai.cl^ ^d" &&i:o&tt».t x-f^^^.*-^'^'^ «#Qivv'-*»*!! »<i.t t© «©««»«t y^ feftljjafe »#»v
-cti-sic tiQ bmnt^i^ a»s»d ST-s/i il»©6 tttmk^infl wM ss«® *oa ©S 9^
40404
OR. i, H, «(li.l>18«
V,
JOSEPH A. RU3HT0«,
Appallnnt.
APPEAl, ftiOil
MUMlOiPAI OOURT
OF SVAS3T0S.
^ jL o±\
im. PHSSIOIMG JUSTIOK i3E«IS £. ®.'i.LIV, « DELXVE ?feD THK
OPiiiioN OF ms oor-^T.
Tlii« ia ?tn appeal from ?« judgment for l:l,3J*4«00 entered in
the jtunioipal Oourt of fe-vrinston in fpvor of Jr. t, H, Willia, plain-
tiff, nnd i^gnlnst Joseph H. Rushton, defendant, for aervicea rendered
by the former rt the Terjueat of the defend?jnt#
The record discloses th-'t there ia no diarmte 'jb to the
a^rvioea h'lving b<»en rendered or "^a to the noount "sked ther?=for, or
tha offer of the plaintiff to t«ka a. leaser sua in order to get the
I Bonay.
Oafand^nt claimed th-t he offered to pay the bill without
any deduction, but thnt he panted to ?ay it "t the r-^te of §50«00
per month and inaiated on paying the entire sawunt, but in imounta
to auit himaelf and at times convenient to him, ve cnnnot find
anything in the record which i»ould juatify such action *nd we think
the tri.-*l court r»e justified in entering judgment for the amount
olalaed and ^^dmitted to be due and owing.
For the re^sona herein given the judptnent of thf .'ii.5nioip>^l
Oourt of iTtnaton ia hereby Rf firmed,
HiLB£L. J. UONUURS,
FURKi, J. TAltS HO PART,
iim'% l^MH.'iA
tmi)-^ r.mr<^i^u
^mw^f'f$ te
<-.•' JL. V/' o-bTa* a.
^ %2> \>^:
( ,t&».
^%Qtm\m ,jk mmoi
\
«||ffliro iMt^ •iiri)' M P.W h^tt&aH^ turn bmkmXP
,£rs-M8i'i!iSi& f«aaieaui»'
•i^fNsnci
o9
''"^ '-''- ,t??4<I 'C;
40435
liOK*..H ti. i'lTOAlrtfi and frikUti 0, HlOOOtllUS, )
JH,, Mecelvers of V^ABASH HaII. my GOiii-AfiY, )
(jlalntiffa) Appellants,
(Oefeni'snt) -ppeilee*
MH, PPvISIDISO JUCflCE DKNIS i, 3UU.1V:MI DEtlVS: ^^0 THK
Oi'lfllOtt 0*- THK OOUrlT,
A oompiaint in ohtinoery ^aa filed ^^r,'?inat d«fen4%nt -appellee
and on a motion to strike, the <j'*id eoapi«lnt vn» dlsaiasec! for
w«int of equity ^nd plaintiff brings tivls aone'^l. The- oomninlnt,
the all eg t ions of which re sauet ooneider ^^3 true, on suoh aiotion,
defendant h-rlng filed no ?(pr-e'r».noe or briefs in this covrt, is
set forth ^9 follows:
"Th.Ht the defendant began negotiation with the Jioxithwestern
Hide --^o. of o^n '-ntonio, Texas, by wire f.ni \nil, for the purch-ae
by hia of h lot of hidea of ?irhioh »'id iiide Cp, w-s the ovnr-'T,
and on which the Laredo K^tion«l tir^nk h«»d a lien by mortg^>>;e, or
otherwise, nna, nfter aeyerf-l d^ya oonsutimed in oomiinjniO' tions, the
defendant ••rrnnged for r credit in f^vor of the l-redo ^>^rik i^ith
the ^ontinent'^^l ii!»nk of Jhic^^ro in the 3u« of *!bout "8,0*?0, ^nd
uTj^ed the L-^redo I'lnk to h sten the shipment of the hides *ith
Irsfte «tt?iohed to Xhe bills of loaing#
That the hides >w6re shipoed In two c^rs under order bills
of lading to the ;lidrs Co, r^t Ohiorigo, '"hieb billa of I'dini?; were
tnlten up by iefend.^nt -^t the CJhio?«^':o i^nln -'nd aif'iied to the
nbash -nilroid ^^ith the endorsements of the Hide Jo. -^nd defendant
thereon*
That the hides «»rrlved over ^?»ld nilrond f>.. few days '^fter
loading in lexfts, and s«id r«llrond aailed to the defendi^nt freijiht
bills on the t '^o era at- ting the kind vnd <(reight of the pro:^«rty
and the r^te per owt, of the oh-'r^s :^ccrviinfr thf^reon under the
spplio-'blc nnd duly filed t;riff, the oh"»rpes on o?>r 3tL»^M-3044,
fro« error in extension, being st- ted in the sum of ?91,36,
instead of .^8dl,16, *hioh bills defendant oro^nptly o^sid, and
which shipments were ieiivered rs >er his directions,
Thst the mistt^ke in the rendition of this bill w?>a discovered
by the rnilrosd very shortly, »^n1 corrected bill g-pnt to def^ni-^nt,
who objected to r^^ylng the b lance becuge he h'ld purch- ged the
hides on condition th-t the liide Oo, p^^y the frei^rht,
Th«t the T^ilrofd's wttorney then adireaaed defend'^nt by
phone ind by lettf^r respecting the 'ayaent of this b^lf-noe, ^nd
received the response of refua-^l to P'5y because he h^d purchttsed
the hides under !^gr•e/aent th^t shioper would pay the frai ht.
SSI^O*
^^tu^l
^
-;_; 3 it i e
set i)»BeiS»»ib fIftW *»iiaXqLift&l» Met fH^i ,a:;lT^K .■■ti ^i' li-vi;. g nn hn>\
al «;rT!y.30 si if* afi stsltcf to, »a*MS«a-«q[q« oM
ftf«#^*H«l##tf^^ «<f# #tM |»ipi*-e|-*«!5»H »(»!»SM* *!
f««f*
'JO
^/■ir. ^ - •^- : ;-■ '• t-^ ^> - .-v '- .^ :! . ■- ' '. . ' i ,-r- f-r. -orr'-
,*rf_jji-3=il srit i(^<I •«>^
«norfq
Keanvtaile, defeninnt rendered to the Hld« ^o, ■» atnte-nent
of his o^yr.^ent• on the sbicaents vhioh w^re deducted fToa lt«
invoio«», ▼if»: dr-^fts psid, ^8,871.88; frcij^ht ch-rcr*»fl oald,
?1,519«48# Including thia &"l'^noe# lue to •nist-s'^ iition»l
frel(.jht«
Th«it th«'re??fter ol'^lntlff nToi;?j;ht suit % -inst aefen.-int
la the Municipal Court of Ohlo»>go for rewovery of thl« .>l'»nrjc,
nli«j<-lng the trans port 'it Ion find delivery to defenri'^nt of thp two
onro of hides, the charges sooruing on onr tLbAai-3^44 under the
appllc-^bie tariffs the sua of ?89l«16, the rendition by alstr^ke
of bill for auoh ch:'-rp,es in thP buib of 391.. ^6, -nd d«»fend«!nt*e
refu8=il to xj^y the b'^l^noe b«ci\J9« he hpd ;?uroh:ised pii hides
on connition of the ahloper )?'ying thtr freii_iit»
Th^t defen'i'nt tiled thr<*«; pffid?vlt9 of defense in «-5ld
suit denying »ny mlst-ke in the rendition of frel^rht bills,
ol«>lrBlng, the cl«intiff'^ ?ece>t?»noe of T^ytient of the bills
rendsrsd as s rele?«.se of hla liability for further charges, but
not denying his uroh-ee of ^.-id hides in either,
rhnt tri'l of this suit -r^a begun on »-roh 10th before
court '^nd jury, concluded on the next igy, vhen verdict "as
returned in f^TVor of defenclr.nt, rnd judgment entered accordingly,
and aotiona for ne^ trial ?nd in nrrest of judgment overruled,
^nd «iD;:e-»l gr^^nted on condition of bond in 30 days «»nd bill of
exceptions in 60 I'ys,
That on M-^roh 18th plnlntlff aode motion to set -^alde the
j^udgment of M^rch 11th because of surprise from defend-^nt's testi-
mony, »hen called as n witness in his own behalf, to effect th^t
tis hid not purohnsed ^f^id hides or dirfeoted th^ir shipasent, and
took vn the bills of l-^dlng ooyf-rlng them ^t the b^nk solely <?s
-in ficcoouaod tlon to -=='ld Hide ^o. or its represent tive then In
Chicago, at his rRcrueat, -5^ id ^^tion being 9ut>Port*'d by the >iffl-
d-ivlt of ols^lntiff's sittorney of defeni-nt*B clalo over phone
■^nd In letter of i.-njrch^ae of s-^li hld»3 on condition th t the
shl'ioer rwy the frelf:':ht, •'nd of defendfint'fj failure to cieny such
purchase in either of the 5 f fid vita of defense filed herein,
which notion <-=s denied,
Thot within 30 i?>ys ^rom the entry of jud,-TBent the r-l^lntlff
presented to the court ^n np =ft 1 bond In the sum fixed, conditioned
■^8 rer.ulred by 1^*, and signed by ? surety ownln;^ unenov abered
real estate in Ohloago of the vrlue of '10,0T'', rliioh bond the
court refused to Bp;iroTe beciuse not ^asde on « form used in thr^t
court.
rh'-»t within 60 i^iys from the entry of judgment « stlpul tlon
extending the tljte for fliln;^ bill of exception? ^0 n-^ys »^ «
filed vrlth thn court clerk for entry on the record, but •••?8 over-
looked -nd not ent red on the h?>lf-aheet.
Th?»t within the time fixed ■* blxl of fxoeptlons •«-^a left
with defendant's '■<ttorn«y, who remDrlced thet ?n appeal rould be
^ wste of money, from defendant's insolvenoy.
Ilint, l<:tpr, ^n order f\irth*r extending tlae for bill of
exceptions 10 l^ys "- s ic^^de,
Th^t on June 9th .d^lntlff's laotlon for n further extension
of tine for such bill T'a denied, befpuse the record did not
3ho'r atlpuletlon for the 20 day extension, whereupon such Rtlpu-
l-itlon T- 8 produced froai the clerk* =? office, And the court at 'ted
ch-t order would :oe entered on next d^y extending such time nunc
210 tunc ->9 of June 3th, "nd on next d«y the oourt st-^ted thU,
'■■ r'!*^'T . ^■•££qq.»
.•.<,l!!*X©
,«»rfili'^ ni '■'■:■ toa
.■i»
•*■■•
^ -^ ' ' ^h
ytt't^t^'f'^ toff* fff«»i?»i»|Kfr>' %i^ Y»,
: i ^
viif? Z&^i^ ^i'lisX.. »-CC< '^^
•tay©" fir??' ty-: , - ■ rt
t^ Uipi j^ii
ogu£ iwai? daup. ^ti.iMn2-:.- "^
3
oountiUe; Bftld gtlpulntion ^nd prftvioiis order, the time for
filing suoh bill -xnn ^ i^ys from entry of Jud.rment, y^^roh 10th,
TBh ion time errired on June 8th, oV'"rlooklng the f-ct th^t such
tlae runs from the i^iy of the overrtiling of the motion to v^c^.te
jud).:a»nt, also beo-use ^n apoP"! bond hnd not been filed.
Th^t ahortly th*rp-fter plaintiff moved the ooi.rt to
correct the record to shov entry of judf.aent on v>roh 11th inste-ifJ
of M^troh lOth :nd fv;rther extend time for filing bill of exceptions
nunc pro tune -'s of June 9th, supporting such fBotion t»ith the
'■•ffid' vit of plaintiff's ?ittorney th- t the tri^^l of c.-'Ap. -b?
begua on «sroh 10th -mx-^.. continued to foilo»inf (i^'y, ''n^j offer
of the MunioiD?*! CJourt record of ^i^roh 10th to s-^me ef-^eot (such
■otion ^?<» ienied, and f^fcisin renewed within 'v> ri^iya thfTe^-ft^r,
•^nd p^'sln denied rith le -ve to file bill of exceptions respecting
suoh motions vithin 'V^ ^"^ya, nrhieh ?r»a duly presented, and so
a»rked, but not signed) «
That following failure to obtain return of the bill of
exceptions from defen nnt's attorney, :^nd secure further time
for filing suoh bill, oialntiff's attorney ^i^rote the a^id Hide
Co. informing it of defendant's tegtimony, th t he h-.d not
purchased s^id hides or directed their 6hir:-nent, ^nd h^l t-^tren
up '^ipid bills of l^'-'llng solely as nn s^ocommo^'^tion to it or ita
represent tive then in Ohiongo "t his request; -and requesting
information ;»a to the ^-^me, and its response, th-t the nides were
sold to defen«5nt and shipped b his direotion, fuii. rpirticul^Ts
Of which were in the h^nds of -^ oertf?in is* firm in CJhiCvgo
representing it«
Th?!t in v.i;,uat plaintiff's attorney »-««8 afforded,
by said iRr firm, insT;.ection of thf telegrsws <».nd letters vyhioh
h?d :5»»s9Cd bet*reen defend-nt ^nd T^id Hide ^o., ^-nd of the deolpr-
'tion filed in s suit which h«d been instituted by defeni^nt in
the Oircuit court of Cook County Jigainst said Hide «o. for
dimngss from inducing him to rnarohf»se s^id hides by fsilae repre-
sent t ions of their {<;r<de and condition, spid deol'^r«tion being
sworn to by defendf»>nt before his attorney.
Ihst in Jcptembi^T, plaintiff ^reaented to the ssld trirl
judge n petition to vcs^ste the jude;(Bent rendered vs ^fforesnld,
reciting the proceedings h?«d in 3'^id svit, p«irticul»rly the testi-
mony ^Iven by defeni-'nt th-t he hnA not -lircn :aed ??a.id t-ro o rs
of hides or iireoted their shipment, ''nd took up the bills of
l^din^^ oov^rin^f them soxely ^s -^n Toooiimod'^tion to 9<»id Hide Co.
or its represent- tive, Tnd crtllin^r p.ttention to =. suit »hich
defend?»nt h-.i instltuti^^d in the Jircuit Joxjrt of Cook County,
IllinoftSf esTKlnst a*. id Hide Co. for i««m'<gea in indicing him to
nuroh-'se 3- ii hides by f^Jlse represent: tlons «s to their fcrsie
«?nd Condition, ^nnd of defenlpnt's swearing to the deol'^rution
filed therein before his attorney in this suit.
Th-^.t s-^id judge refused to h«?^r 3-Ud petition "nd directed
th'^t it be impounded ssnd refused to r'ilow sJi "JOie-'l therefrom.
rh?t within y) dpye th^renftrr plaintiff orcsented to --"id
judge s bill of exoentions upon his •'otion resoeoting sflid oetition,
which was so marked by hi*, but not ginned,
that defend-nt's a- id suit r^K-ilnst g^^id Hide Co. wse
dismissed for vr"nt of i.>ro9«oution»
Th-^t, I'ter, ?l"intiff renewed the saotion for the signing
of said bill of exceptions, which "^'s denied.
rhr^t thpresfter -ol-^intiff sued out of ^.ppellste Court of
Illinois, i-irst Jistriet, in v>u8e So. 37?;89, n writ of error for
J6 Ttlii kt:* tc n-Ti'fiT'^
Si'
%i^xt£r*,ii>f ti'Jk ««jfc*-* ■>>tii*4 wji^j^iij' ♦$•**■ ■-•"i t te _ ft ii i jip t 'i it ifc- , JW»T at*
• «
■'0
o
bisn
i. coO
• f J
.r|
- a
■ -?i
■it
»«.&
•
4
\e»eT€ ,.«ii
the reyletr of the '^forea^'id orooeedinge, ordera -^nd judy -ient.
In which RMid As>nell«te Oourt rf fused to gr?»nt ? petition for
aftndsofuui requiring snid Judpe to siim a-^id bills of exceotions
90 presented to ?.nd so (n^rkej by hla, "»nd held; th«-t the -^ffl-
d--Ylt in aupoort of the rdotion to voorite the jud.pTient oould not
be conBidered -^a to evidence ^.iven "t the tTi?l because »
gubetitute for 8 bill of exoeptlons; th^t 9 oourt r*5eord oould
not be correott'd ution f^ota shown by gffld vit -m^ the of fioi 1
org?n of the oourt showing orders entered on the i-iy of ismje
•♦nd the c 9*8 to be ORlled on the suooeedintj 'i^y for tri^l, '»nd
th t the motion to v c- te the jui^iiwnt of wi^rch 11th, mr.dc on
Mt'Toh 18th, conatitvited -• brr to « 9iib9<?ciuent netition to v?o>te
auoh judr:ment =nd ^^f firmed r.'>id 3udi,ment»
Th''t the jniniciD?! -;ov;rt Act provides that its judymentB
m«y be v^^csited uxion bill in ecuity*
Thr.t ^7i?^id Judt?;:Rent "-3 bf-.aei unon -n'l obtained thron|.^h
f^ilse, perjure^;* "nd fraudulent t«*3tia»ony, wilfully »nd designedly
given for the ourpoae of procuring its rendition, '^ni thereby
plnlntiff "-^s denied rf^ocvery \jpon •? just ••>nd lawful defa^nd.'*
As heretofore at-^ted, defendant filed no briefs in this
oourt*
A reading of this bill ahows th-^t the mist *» Ice, which wfts
the onuse of plaintiffs* loss, was the ;-{allro««d OomD?iny*a mlst'^ke
and vas not in any sense « mutuj!J. one, further oonaiderlng the bill.
It is oulte apparent thst they >:«eleoted the trlbun'^l for the he-? ring
of their grleTRnoes, namely, the MunlclpRl Court, and there received
an adverso decision* From th t decision the o^ac was apperiled to
this oourt, being Jsuse ao. 37385, entitled, ^^b^sh "ilwr.y Jo-fto^ny
▼• Uus Dreyfus 8« in -^hich the 8ubatf>noc of the ch*ir,re tm-ie in th^t
bill 'THs passed uoon st th t time by anoth**r division o^ this oovrt«
In its opinion this oourt snld:
"It Is also urged in one of its oounsel^a nf fid vita th^t
aay 34, 1933, ol^intlff turned over ita bill of exceotions to
dsfend-%nt*8 -ittomeys for exa«ln.=>tlon "nd p»pprov-^l or correction
with the underst'^ndln,.; ^nd greer.tent th t it ^-q to s^e r«'turned
for settling snd noorovil by the 001; rt June 6, l^^:-;, ^nd th«t they
rlllfi-lly r<7fused to return :^*ine, e find no <iub3t'>ntl«?tlon for
t;jis contention in thp record »nd it is sufficient to at-te th^t
if def«n:i?nt*'» attorneys ^er-^- guilty 0I -^ny Puch conduct the
oourt was '«vr!ll <blf; for redress*
Geptenibcr 9, 19!??, ol-^lntiff filed ^ c>etition in the nature
of 1 bill in eouity to v«.o.'.te the jud^Tcent, -je i^re cf the opinion
th"t the court > 5 Justified in r fT.,f«lnfe' to consider this 'H?tition.
Section 21 of the Vunlolpf-l court - ot Ives to the Munlcinfll court
power to vvone = jua.^.^nt on such ? petition only in o,ses where
-hi
LfJt
f
bur-
r
uH i.ffil? s^'^
m^
Xit^^^:
•i
'Xi.a^lO
»tttf<JO
tm s-'^w iuijs
■ga.pa»0^. l«f»ilf>^ JiiiU^ ^fmtttim ,^@tlt^-^ ,arT ^j; ;.'... Xi«
c
^i^IJ *,«»« ijC a^ji a^ ijiwiBi »'*
-A
b
- -di
no motion to v^dite it la a^fd* -within thirty i-^y? ^ft<?r the
entry of th* juflgn»«nt, -^nd In thia o-^ae aucji motion »S9 m^d«
wnd -lenled ^Ithin thirty iya fro* the fntry of the Juv3i?/inent,
( ?lor" ▼• i'iclda . 156 111. Apo, ?41), ;n order denying »
(SO t ion m-^de *ithin thirty i' ys -'iter its entry to v-^cete ^
ju<l^st«nt of the unicipil Court I3 fin«»l -'nd no subs'^'owent
motion to T«o-t« it ill lie, but the only cnrthod of reviCFlng
It is by appeal or rrit of error,"
From ti re ding of this bill 'nd the cnsee oited by plaintiffs,
<re fire a^tlsfled tb^^t the trl*;! oourt vaa right In austiilning
defendant's /sot Ion to atrlke the ooaDlaint. In order to sustain b
bill of oomplslnt in equity. It la neoeasary th"t the f^^ult ah?ll
aot b« th t of the plsintiff, 3uoh does not 'api?e'*r in this Ofvae,
Plaintiffs hftve «» veiled thenaelvee of all the tftia^diea i^hich ths
law prroTidea, inoludln^ -^n a.p;;eal to this court, "^nd n^e fio not
think th'^t a review of the entire prooeedlnga, including the
deoiaion of thin oourt from wbioh 'se h've ouoted, is «* proper
8ubject-a^-tter for •? complslnt in eouity,
*or the reasons herein given the ju }g-.n«nt of the Circuit
Court ia Tjf firmed,
JU0O¥EltT A? FIRMED.
HSBSI., J. OOiiOURS,
BORK£, J. TAKjtC UO i>ARt*
'*"*
- • •«
40451
OSOAH SQHC}RO«« } ^PP^At ¥riOst
■ - ' /:
BESSIE 30HCRC«<, )'^-~y / i / | COOK OOin-.'TY,
) , , "rr."'^ion ooii^x
Appellant.
m, PRESIOIKO JU6T10K OEHIS £1, SIFI.UVAN JKI.JVS "ID THE
OPIHiOS OF THE OOU«T«
Defendant i^esgie Bohorow brings this ^^o'^e^i from n deoree
of divorce entered «i?;«iin«t her and in f ror of her husband f aoar
sohorow on Jebrusry 1» 1934 In the Superior Oourt, t^nd ileo from
on order entered May 30» 1938, denying the petition of a^ry Trnjrer,
oonaervHtrix,
Plaintiff's bill ohnrged extreme end repe«!ted cruelty,
alleging th-'t physio-^l violence had been r^erpetruted aK^^inst hia
by his wife, I'here v^b also on file "t th^t time r cross-bill by
defendant neklng for separate -as intent nee, ohprging desertion for
more th'^n one year nnd th»t def«»ndRnt ^^3 living separjitfi and ^p^irt
f»om plaintiff through no f^ult of her own.
At the tiae of the hearing dessie "ohoro?f ns nn inmste of
the Illinoia ^oepltal for the Insnne --t ixmning, Illinois, e^here
•he had been ooamitted on the petition of her huebt^nd.
The parties sere married uny ?a, 1918, %X Ohlo^'f^o, Illinoia,
aad as the result of g'tid aarringe one child wae born ^nd «!t the
tlae of the filing of the complaint the child T-.g 14 ye-ra of ?=,.«,
The parties lived togethPT in Jhic-f-go --^e huBb?.nd ?>nd -'ife, plaintiff
■aye, until ueoember 32, 1937, r-nd defendant oontende until Sebru^ry
1, 132B,
Plaintiff filed his bill for divorce on October rA, 1933,
ch-'rRlng extre^ae and repeated cruelty, on November ??, 193?, there
was appointed s guardian ad litem for defendant, and the following
^
I r Fi ATP 6 ^1
m?s nmmtim nmtii^m ,:ssi«ft sMfsm* ©iie !»«»«■ «^ e,*-.^i-^' ■
.^^ j(B|5RS'<9.fc ?» Scusi: hmo^p- nt^ m^stt^ mm-'S^'^^^ 4rH»m ■ tnstia9j'^ '-> ,.i.i.i'>:
■ %.>' :! Ifif^'iuwfet' &i 'Mm «ftrf l*itiiafi.ji?|« ^t-Ttttt*- 9fn&tib t©
t© »sr«^i«i s,». )&«■»- »o*oji#£* ®i;i3,«®R ^^tx&i»^ Mi t^a s«ai* Ml #*' • ; ■ "
,sioni:iil »or.iPfi>if*u t-f* ,8X61 ,as ^jas l>»i<rr«B: 9Tr»w »»i*T«<| «iif
•a^i ,x
*?;SeX ,?>t t9<fo#f>0 fto sotffViJb »©% Xlltf «1^ feaXI* ItX^JiiirXt - V
Tsfitwollot ftxlt ba^ ttfasi^a^lttlJ t«t g«;fXJ- j»« «i>!jUb«*iMS « k^^nioqqB 9m
8
toy a«l<l guardian obti^lned ierv« to employ oounsel* On i^ovembeT ."^8,
1933 an nnmiftx w^s filed rnd slso ^ orossi-blil for sepmrate aainten-^nce,
based on « charge of desertion. The evidence -'^a henrd J'-nupry 11,
1934,
Pliintlff testified tlv t on June 5, la-^?, the defendant beoa*e
angry ^'nd hit him vlth n aop stick; th t Loi is >olinkln xps T)re3ent
«t the tlnrt; th t on July 19, 1935, the defendant hit him on the leg
with «* ohalr nnd th^.t he never g ve her sny o?>uae to strike hina on
either oooaalon. Plaintiff fvjrther testified th^t on Oeoeaber ^?,
1927, the dcfend?»nt struck him In the f-oe with her fi^t, le-vlng
Birka on hi«; th t he left on th t d^Jte find never ilv«* with
defendant "fter thwt time.
Louie (iollnkln testified th?»t he '<!9 iDrfC-qent June 5, 19^3
and ear the defendant etrlke the ^Islntlff y^lth ? otlok and thet
About Oeoeaber 3?, 1937, he aj^w a^rka on plaintiff is^iioh plaintiff 3?'ld
he got froffl his «lfe«
ho evidence as offered fsa to the ^erloi^sneas of *'ny Injury
thftt WHS sustained at the tiow of these nilej/ad aseaulta, or »-hether
they <'-ere intentionrl or "Colient<=l, or th it olalntiff atteapted to
prevent hla wife froa striking hlai»
On rebrunry 1, 1334, " decree of iivoroe wa entered gr-^ntlng
plaintiff ouBtody of thplr minor ohiid, allowing '25,00 fees f ch to
the ^?irdl«n vl iltyia md his J^ttorney, ^nd stating that the r;l>»lntlff
had offered to iepoalt *^SO,00 In the lb»rrla iruat =ind "nvlnKe Hank
for burl'Al expenses of the defendant, subject to the order of oourt.
On July 16, 1331 pl«lntifi filed ?> oetition in the j robr.te
Court of Cook Oounty ---nd «"9 nppolnted oonsprv tor of the pat'te of
the defendant, Cn October 14, 1937, the plaintiff, by order of the
Probst* 3oart, -f^s reaoved ig oonserv tor ^nd Ma»y fr-pr«r» defend?^nt»a
slater •^''9 unpointed as oonserv trlx«
ia^tHSf wm 'sif^ii^t' !»iirt»s ^-M {%iiikiB mm .» «(tiw ntd 9'l<f I)A» t^BJt's.ft
♦ *n:a<^ -to ift^T© *ii# ©t Jto^t^ttR ,*wsfeil»^«l& 9df t& ««.««««?*» isiuan* -tot
~ **scf©r-s 9mS# rtJt mittfm, *'? ftaintl 'ttitiiJt«Ji« .JBil -•*«1- t^'U i^
8
Cn Ootober 3;^;, 1:^37, the oona^rv-jtrlx filed "^ net it ion in
th« oupcrioT Court O'se oh- rging th^t the diToroc decree entered
February i, 1J34 wae fraudulently obtained by f - lee and nerjured
testimony, denied the r\lleged «otR of cruelty -^nd ststed that at
the time of the alleged aot of cruelty on :)eoeajber 22, 19?!7, the
defendant r^s oonflned in the Lutheran Oe^ioonese llosolt'jl and
•aid netition Tr-'yi thit the decree be set ^side s>nd declared null
and void, it ulso vr^yed for support, nttorneye' feee and gener**!
relief.
An aasver denying the cb«^rtre8 of frsud -"b filed i-ebru^^ry 11
1338.
>xt the hearing plaintiff t- g cs^lled as f witness by the
oona«-rTntrix, under S«otfton 60 of the Oiril Prftctioe Act, '^nd testi-
fied thPt oa February 1, 1328 he filed n petition to have the
defendant oo-waitted to the Hospital for the Insane ot Running ^d
th"t on July 16, 1931 he filed c oetition in the Frob^.te Court to
hire hifflself sppolnted eonaervtor of his wife's estate.
On K'y ?5, 1938, by order entered in the County Court, the
defendant wr»s restored to re-aon r,nd on July 16, 1938, an order ^^s
entered suggesting her restoration and rroTiding that the c^uae
proceed with Bessie Bohorow ss defend;^ nt in her own :?roper person.
Pliintlff filed her notice of apr>e«^l on July 14, 19?43, -^nd
prosecutes this appe^.l under i"5rngr«pb 200 of the Civil iT-otloe ct,
which provides th>'t ^a to appellants who «re infants or non oomooe
^*"^^f» *^« oerlod of disability ab^U be excluded when computing
the tiiM in which the «T)peal ah^ll be perfected. Under the fr»ets
here, this g*vc defendant 90 iays in which to perfect an 9poenl,
*hen this matter of dls'ibllity vr^a cslled to the attention of
the trlBl oourt it appointed a ^ardian nd litem. n9 w 8 its duty,
to protect the interests of the ins'^ne person. After he w-s appointed,
a oros3-bUi was filed by the guardian a^ litem on beh-^lf of the
s
fers-'-ja-jH® .■=!<5''iif>:st '©©♦soTi.fe Sfff^ -t^A^ liMi^n^ifitf &tmQ tx^at, teit^qiM •rf*
M« X-atifiSsS «i«rfec©««t ifjs*raii.t».i ^» at Ssalla©© «,i^;w *ff,s£>i»a'i«ft
«3wwX
eMv Tf«*-;t© as ,S£iX ,#i tif^ J^© ia«« ««:«|.ra- ot !>#«»*#*«««« i»Ji*iiJii»t»&
♦Xa^«j.5 «^ S09liim ol ii9X.iw aX ^ffil-' C36: itej»i&i»»l,ffe «t«^ «Xtff 4.<>*'***
4
d«f«ndHat insane wo4Min« asking; for aepnrAte mnlntennnce on the grounds
of dtnertion .^nd atptlng th^^t sh« w»« living sepsr^ate and fipart
frott h«r huebnnd without fault on her ys rt, I'his vsa npver put n.%
Issue, by r«»ouiring; an finower, and no Attempt ^r,.9 a?>de to offer
•▼Idenoe in supoort of the olftlo of the insane woaosn,
Ahen the ol^ilntiff testified no objection "trs m^jde -^g to his
oonpstenoy. He sr-a xxxxiiqr inooMPCtent and should not h«tve been
permitted to testify. As the court s^id in i^orrison v. ^orTls^ p.
241 111, Apo. Zbd:
'^IX being conceded th- 1 appellee wns oenti^lly Inoeapetent
nnd bad beon ooModtted to «n ^.syium for $he insane, apo«llj%nt
w«8 not « oomuetent witness in -^ svit" ag^dnst her,"
In Holtpfi V, -Aankei^. 198 111, 407, it t^-s held that under
Section 2, Chapter 51 of th** -.evi'^sd 3ti»tut€«, entitled "Evidence
nnd Oepositions** the parties in int*»ri:"8t were dlsouallfled ns
wltnf^ssea «-8 apAinst nn ina^^ne defend'>nt.
In this Court the point Is raised in the lnstf>nt onse th^t
BO objection was Made by defendant, '-s the 3upreaie Court st-tcd in
tb« Oflse of CA=»rtwrlght v, ^.Ise. et al, 14 111, 417, *»t 418s
"It is true, the jjuerdlan ijd litem T'^iaed no objection to
the ooapctency of the witness, Bwt this oannot crejudice the
ri^i^hts of thft defpndwnt, whoa he repreaentftd, The auprdi^n
could wNlve none of his rights. They ^.re coawsitted to the
protection of the court, whose duty it is to notice le^,itiai*te
R.nd siibst'jnti^l objections in such s c»8e, whether missed by
the (zu'irdian or not,"
It WIS error to permit plaintiff to testify, *hen the attention
of a court has been called to the f ct that a minor, ins-^ne oerson
or any other disqualified defendant is oresent without popresent^ition,
it is the duty of the court to appoint *i represent'^tive for such
person. This, howerar, does not relieve the court of the neoesciity
Of looking rvfter the interfsts 6f its w?rd, Tho aj^pointment of the
representative is Merely an aid to the court snd does not in ^ny "-^y
relieve the court of the responsibility of s-eing thnt the rights of
•uoh a defendant are protected. It is the duty of the tri?»l court
Bbmim.^ 9di RQ «©a#5ft«#ai*«s ^t^%fq^ 7.^1 ;^£i«# ^mx^m »£iM»Ri iasba&f^
:«SS .qqA .^Xi il^
. tm *» ,»fx* .1x1 ^x ^u^i^^.aug tv iMAjMa,§a ^a »a*o «<*■?
"■ ^ Males'* TSfftedte ^m»& a itf©J!i» «i ««©Xif»atf^'«* htitsp^^s^im baB
ao«ts»q flwassai ^-t^aeift^ .& i.f^€$ *^i^| wtt ,^t fe^l^X^Jfftf ^|^
9
to 9e» th«t the fru^rdian »d Ilteg or auoh r}«rBon«« represent -^t Ire
proteote In evsry wsy the l^^rnl righto of the oonrt^a w-^rd. It la
not only the duty of the tri«l court to see th-t no inoompetcnt
erldenoe is 'flaitted, but the court should also see, upon ^n
inapection of the ple-jf^ings, tint the croas-blll we either defaulted
aa to the plaintiff, or oipoed ^t isnue 9.nd th-t evidence wss
produced In regard thereto.
The contention of the plsintiff in thiqi oourt is thut the
law is well settled th-t where no answer ia filed to » cross- bill
and the parties go to » herring on the bill of oompl«9int snd f»nawer
thereto, the cros?i-blll may be oonsidered ns ^b^ndoned. Such could
not be true in the o^se of an in3:<ine y^rd of the court, where
aaterial rights if 'proven would i«seea3!?rily defeit the cause of
action of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff further argues in this oourt th'^t the filing of a
petition nr>9 iu>t the proper -^ny to vnci=^te «. decree in a diworoe o?«9e.
The 9RBie wps not ohflllenged in the trial oourt by n motion to at rice,
but issue ^■■•n tsken by fiiin^i nn i^nswer and he^^rlng evidence. In
this court no motion was ande to disalss the arpeal, but issue -■^•^a
joined in this court by filing briefs »nd <»uoh ouestion cannot be
r'liaed now for the first tine.
The decree of divorce provided th'-t -50.0"! be dC;:)osited with
the Harris Trust and Savings iJank to oay for the defpndpnt'a funeral.
The plnintiff in this cause having h?.d himself nppointed conserv^.tor
of his wife's eat-^te, then having had hftr oooaiittecl to »n ina-^ne
Asylum gnd then h««ving sucoeeded in having ^ decree of divorce entrri^d
ugainst her, we presuene the offer to deootit the sum of dO^OO might
be considered as unusu:«l.
Vroa • review of th" Tfoord ^e do not think there is any
competent evidence offer-d in this o«ae, even «pproR0hlng the reculred
^Sitirt» 0i .n«ijr««s e x^ itum XMtt »ii$ ml b9^miM^ $m jsiaw »ss-Sk self
,i««»«y^ ©•j^aa^fli^lafc 'SiJiJ Its'! -^s^ ,»t ,3l««a B^jaiva^f i#« 3»««:| ii4^:ic?»H »at
] proof, to sustain the dtoree entered in the trlsl court. The
jianlfest weight of the evident JLaj^^i^4^Mjt^the_|i^^^^^ snd eith'^r
"t the tiiae of the original henrlng or f\t the hearing on the
petition in tne nature of n bill of review, the bill for dlTorce
should have beep. dlBBlaeed for "^pnt of eoulty,
For the reasons herein iclven the decree of the 3uperlor
Oovirt le reversed.
v
-xolsa^s^ «Hf* te *«i5^-: MmJi^ msmm: «ejO«.«as sif* lel
....
f.;^.,'»; ,.f
:• ?m
i . .1^
iXflt^:^
u
r , Uj
i>,f^:-a-
■::' X
-?'*■'"■■
: I'
-.. ^,:
;. ij'2 ;s«
/:'??5 ^^'l
f-v S^^'i!'
^^r
^ ■ t''i^'$
•^.^i ^rd
■m
m. r^^:..'
.'■ a'i,i?,<J
>i.;;?
? /^f
','-.»4.;tt
.^ S " ■
'S-'Ki
■ ■;r.*.i#ry
■ T -.:■:. i 31.**. ■.- ' •■^■f <>^,if
v.->i< Nf.:H-
ClHOliIT COURT
m, PREGIOISG JUSTICfc mtllZ S. yULLlV- M JiiLI^l^tlJ m;^
OPItaOH OP TrtE 001. ifT,
A deoree of divorce »;■» enteredl in the Olroult Oourt in
f:^vor of pisintiff Ilr. i(osoh« «nd ag'^inst the defen<l>?nt John -.oache
on the oh tge of cruelty, froia wiiich decree defend nt brings this
Apr'eal*
The decree entered by fh*» tri-^l oourt granted the nl^lntiff
a divoroe and ^wfirded her the coaplete title to » two «»p»rtm«nt
btiilding ioo'ted in Forest i rk, Illinois* together with '^ll the
furniture and furnishings therein and ordered the defend- nt to v^^cte
a roofli which he hod occupied in his spartment for ye-rs, within
twenty-four hours of the entry of 3=^id decree •'.nd reatr->ined and
enjoined the husb^ind froa entering hie ^^id home*
The decree further provided th- 1 there should be p?>id to
plaintiff the buib of tll6*&0 for attorney's fees and court coste«
llriintiff is Gd yenre old ond her husbr-nd, defendant herein,
ie 71 ye^rs of -^ge* The three children, s;ll t>orn of thig iBsrrl'ge,
nr9 adults and aarrled. The perties to this suit were a«rried in
1894, and lived together pa huabnnd and wife until separated by
the entry of the decree herein dated July, 1^38,
In her ooaplaint nl«>intiff '^lieges three speoific nets of
cruelty ?<e follows: on October 1, liS5, she ^aieged defendant
seised her by the throat with both h^nds, choking her and thre'ttenin^
to kill her; on Mrroh 7;1, 1936, defendant struck ol^-intiff; nnd on
April ^0, 1937, defend'^nt struck plrintiff with his fist snd pushed
['■
MOm ^H^ik i ',30308 OK AC I
tmm- nm^i^
O A U* « li. * X 'U <^' Ws,
aids' &3«i'xa j^ao^^^s-si; ft^to^fc rfoicf*? a^tl: ^\tlmiiG to i>3t¥efs> a^l n©
I
,fll9t«'a *«el5«9l©fe ,l>sinci»ad tcad ferts Isle sxf^&t ^® «>i tli^aiRl^'i
at b^l-xtim 9t^^ ^lu» sla'* o* swi^i^q ad? ,MlTTJRifi ^tv ntl;fb^ »t»
♦ 8.!;f:X ,\'X:tft li»*.«jb jnim^ saitoai* »i8t« I© XXi$-£E» tuii
rto"Jb«fi itll;t-ni.5«X« it®«t;?8 3-a«&a»1»fe -^^l •i^ rfaxeM flo jt^*^ XXl3t «#
3
her violently tgainat an loeboif in her hom«* c l ii, ?in ^nd injury
to h«r shoulder, eto*
rinltifciff further ?\ll«ged th-t she r^ms th« own«r in fe«
• Imple of real estate in J^orest P rk, Illinois, to,j;ether with all
the furniture nnd fuiAlahings therein, ^nd th? t defend^int oecupiea
8 Tooa in pliiintiff's fkpftrtment, but th- 1 the D?»Ttle8 hereto h>»ve
not cohabited rta husbnnd snd wife for over five years last past
booause of his cruel trentment; th t defendant m^iint'^ins his onm
room and does his own oooking, irtiile pi^iintiff doea nia l.-fundry work
and th t defendant hss not contributed to the support of t)l«intiff
and their obildren for the p^at seven yC'^rs, 'Although ^eli able to
do so, and th't defend??nt hss refueod to move from s-'id oreaiiaos »nd
live elsevhere,
f'leintiff further alleged th«t dcfej»l«>nt has 9 oonslderable
amount of o<?9h, bonds and notes, which plaintiff believes «aount to
■eversl thousands of doll'^rs, which '^re the joint property of the
pnrties hereto, but defen nnt refuses to give pl«tintiff her share
thereof, •'nd further "tlleges thrt the defendant is the owner of two
and one-half «cres in J\irnee, Illinois, -^nd th«t olaintiff I9 entitled
to a half interest therein*
Defendant* 3 %nsv«r dsnies e«oh of the -ots of cruelty yllejred
in the oosiplaint and avers th t sirce November 10, 1333, plaintiff
willfully «ind Intentionally deserted the defendant, ;ind in his counter-
elaia defendant prays for ?> divorce on the ground of desertion,
Uefend»nt further denied th^t olsintiff is the sole oimer
of the Vorest Park re«il est te, but «vers he his an undivided half
interest therein, and '>lle^:es th't the s<ime ^-js purchased out of his
funds nnd earnings; denies th t he h«s failed to support plaintiff
amd their children, or th«t he h«»s any consider'ible amount of o^sh,
bonr^s or not-a, but admits th-^t he is the title owner of t*o '»nd
one-half acres in Jurnea, ^nd vera th-t he is 70 ye^rs of ^gt and
£%m XtMu&t %J.(i K*oli Itlfsi-eiXq- ftXlrfw ,i«l:«®©» aranr wtsr «^a5 Jba,« mo©'*
.Isarn • «f«|!»«siK? ij|#'j? iBOit s>iTOffli ot bvimsjl^'j. ftEd »«t,ffil«r«t»fe *«^# Mus «o» ofe
art 1© tonwo »Ai &Jt tmfm^1:,ek «rft #<?jgt# o»l»I4:« 5«>«{*'i»t JNt« ,t ©»«»«!*
m^«I^X«? 4tS0X «0t T9<J«s>vo» ® fla|« ^BAi ««»?« to«« #iii«Xq«oo sri* «i
tlM b9blvtfbaii m B»{i 9d a«»-rB #*«f . , tt<sir«» r??«iM^ «4# to
|>a« o«# to r9Bw& •XtU 9rf!^ •! ^ "o^^
hat* «s« t© ft'S-."9»t 0^ el »d tf^at et»ir.« fea« ,»«»««£* «l »»«»» lX«rf««ao
3
Is not -^ble-boflled, nnd th-^t he is unrjble to secure employnent
bco^ivse of his '^^^e*
Ue f sndant • a count <»r-cl»viBi follows the ^-ileg^' tlona of hie
■ na»y«r and vers th- t the parties floouittilsted a^^fficient funds out
of his e'^rnings to ^nirohnae the «.part«ent building in Forest f^Tt
iBjad th?t defenJ-'-nt mnde certnin ifflproveiients thereon which ^-ere o»ld
for out of hia earnings, f^nd th"t title to the a^me is held by pl^iln-
tiff, -'Ithough defendant is entitled to an ecsual interest therein,
mnd silthough plnintiff h^s often promised to pltoe the oroT>erty in
joint tenancy, she h«»8 failed to do so.
Defendant -vera th* t he purchased the t"0 ^nd one~hftlf •'cres
in Jurnee out of his own comings J^nd th t title is in his own n«««,
but ^ciaits that plaintiff is entitled to ?in ccjunl interest therein.
Oefendant prays for an -^.coountinf^ '<9 to the rents collected fro«
the -tpfirtment building: by ol'tintiff qnd prays th-^t the title a^y
be equsliy divided, na well * s th© household furniture.
The deorei" of the trial court «w<!irded plaintiff » divorce »nd
iwirded the apartment building to her, together with the furniture,
^.nd ordered defendant to v^c^te the -^.ms w-ithin "^4 hours ^^nd enjoined
him fro« entering said oreai^es, eto,
:>«fendAnt*8 theory of the case is th'^t the preponderance of
the evidence ya not rith olaintiff, and di i not justify the entry of
-^ decree for divorce. Also, th^t the evidence :<?lailttedly shows that
inasouoh ^8 both husbr^nd r>nd wife contributsd to the purchase 9nd
upkeep of the family '•.partaksnt dwelling, th)it, therefore, it '^"s
entirely lneouit«ble to divest the huab'^nd of ^11 interest in -i^id
flipartiBent building ^nd strip him of everything he h«id In the world.
The testimony in this c^se is not sufficient to sustnin the
decree. The plaintiff did not testify ^?a to the charges a-de fi^iPinst
her husband, except when the -^newers were suKtrested by le-ding
questions. In several instances plaintiff "guessed" th?tt th^t was
aX v^scfortp sill »ffissl«f ©* 0a«l!««'i<^ iit»#t«! 8«d 'astJI^it-Mlq M^uoii$in bns
.&a/B ^sif^iuisi '9^#,.<»*l>®*»(ait#flo-i> ,•?■** bna im^BtfiA rtt«rtf.;«upi iiOi/««finl
isA^ *i?,4* jT^?*!'* •b»««aw8" nUMalei »^oaz»»vii iA-x-w®* al .«noi4'^aifr>
4
tru« m answer to quest ions -^ut to her in h sugsfeatlve form. The
happening of October 1, 1935, where the ch- r r thtt ciefpndant
oholced *'nd threHtened the plaintiff, she g-^ld th t he kicked her.
As to the Incident in the kitchen, ^hen the diamjite w-»9 h'^.d with
the decorator, where it w^b cl:^lmed th-t defend-int pushed oli^lntlff
sx^'inat the ice box, no one testified wUeth^^r such not w^a accident-
ally done or if he purposely injured her.
It further sppe-rs froa plaintiff* s t^stlawny that defftnd;ant
is living in the 3»>me »p'rtaent with her, although she say»he
occupies a separate room. The decree finds th-'t they h?tve not
cdh^tbited b huebf^nd and wife, nithough there is no evidence of this
fact «nd, if it is true, whether this resulted froa n*tur«l onuses
or intention.
Plflintiff st'-ted th:it she does defendsnt's -T^ahing, «nd
apparently willingly. The evidence shoT^s tht the narties h^ve not
separated, except -'s they aiuat 8epflr<>te in response to «> decree of
the court, *e do not t ink it is the function of a court to aepsrste
aarrled people if they do not voluntarily 3*pfir»»te themselves* The
public Dolioy of the iatf?te is that couples toe enoour-tged to live
t0i^«ther -ind to sust^iin the marriage rcltion, rther th^n to sepnrnta
tbea, Oertalnly, it is not one of the r>rovinces of « court to
order » separation which has not already tnken rl?ioe,
*• >«re ofthe^ opinio n th ;^_tfa|^ court e rred in ®nt^ringthls
decree 'is the m&nifest veij^t of the evidence is a^inat plaintiff.
Therefore, for the re-^sona herein givon the decree of the Circuit
Oourt is reversed*
BURiCL, J, TAKES NO FAHT,
• •£94 M^fs'ixt mi i^'iit tlf:n »A6 ^'^ti.mt»Sfi ^^ l!«swa**«0til* fen/? b«^Qd9
:ftia tv.<pi? t«><5* '*^-?^-' e^fi^"^ *®"ia>a>lit «ifS. , ^M»<«ft« * JjB.fl;^(|^« # «t«Jtqu^«
40358
Appellant,
AUOUR AiiD OCMPAKY, an Illinois oorpor^tlon.
R, H. Q^alll, A. ^'ATGOH AliilOl R, LAUMNOE
ARMOUR, Li:'3T£:=^ /.RMOUR, PHILIP 0. A,RMOUR,
3E5KLL I. AYtHY, HENftY '-. BCYD, D, A,
OKAWyoaa, OHftaLeS F. ai;RTISS, CHARI.E'S J,
iAULKNEn, JR., S/EYKOf TH KIRKLAiiO, JA^ilS R,
LtAVELL, JAtfK^' A. ^OX-JNOLUH, 0, R, MCLSf^i^AK,
Ai<TUUH isEtKER, HA-FY G. MILLS, i-rtlLI? L.
REiD, JHA3E UUiAW, iXISUA ,ALKF.:-'t, 3. isAYJiiift
WALLACE nnd FliEQ&^ilCK li. PFilislGi, ^ Q
Appellees*
APiiAL FROM
SUPERIOR OOl'RT
OOOK OOUNTY,
lA. 6
r
MR, JUSTICE BURKE OKLIVgRED Tlii OPiHiOa OF THE COURT.
On April r*^^, 1937, plaintiff filed his amended oomplsint in
chancery in the 3uperior Oourt of Ooois: County, and Pileged th«t on
May i38, 1334, he was the holder of 10 sh-'res of 7^ preferred cumu-
lative stock of Arosour & Company, -in Iliinola corpor'-tion, one of
the defendants, which, vrith other atock, he hnd ouroh^sed 15 years
before; th >t on M&y 28, 1934, the outst-^nding shnres of the oorporo-
tion were (s) 573,313 shares of 7;i UOO.OO ppr oumulntive preferred
nnd (b) four Million shrires of £35.00 p^r coaaiBon, t^ro million of
Olaae A and two million of OIpss B; th"t under the oorpoT«te contract,
the preferred sh*<r^8 •■ere entitled to receive dividends of 7ii, out of
net profits when declared by the board of directors, ^nd nothing in
excess of 75t, no matter how large the net profits v^ere; th^'t (1)
preferred dividends were mamul^tive; (g) ^ reserve of one year's
preferred dividends tub to be m«int?ined; (3) th.«>t no shares prior to
preferred could be iesued, nor on « parity with thea unless net
e«>rning8 were twice the amount reoDired for dividends for the tot^l
number of existing '♦nd oroDosed ah'^res; (4) no merger could effect
preferred; and on liquii tion, voluntary or involunt'>ry, nrr ferred
uom d^m'tk
:foc; ^=n^ii%m
s\
f<^\.
VA
.ffo.
HHOaiJfA
•YTtrJOO s^o
1
1^
i«9$Ii9qqA
to nolllXttimf »0^«»o» t»q ©©•tS| I© »*t8^ iteiXXte ttjot (^) !««
,*o**rjffJoo st«?tocr^0» »^* rr^tystf *ftif# ji s«.*!XO to ftolXItft <m# 'Jb«t« ' A' •iffl®
e:^ »oitq »#^>»Jlfe on #if<f* <^) j*>««X^f«XA» »<f ## a«* 8^»£>lvJt£> l>«i«it«\«ifl
*e«rt« fcii/do los-xaa 00 (^) j«s»»ric fcaBoqota fcOi? gUifal^s to irMaow
3
received all acoumuiptlona plus its *100,00 par v-^iue before any
distribution to eo-nmon; on redeaption the onme plus "15#n0; (5)
no ohange in the oh>raoter, cIhbs or aaiount of ah'- res oould be awde
oontrary to the oh'^rter, •'nd no am'endaient to th t ohTter could
• ffeot the rigjits of the preferred; th»t ootnmon sh'^res -ere subor-
dinate to preferred, nnd were entitled to receive t?ll remKining net
profits; th t dividends on preferred were paid continuously from
1933 to Jtniiary 2, 1934; thPt th^restfter arre^rsgcs "^ccumulJ^ted
until by MQy ^8, 1334, they totalled I'^a.SO per ah'^re or some 16
ffllllions of dollars; th»t no dividends were ever •j'^id on Glass B
ooiwaon and none on Glass A after 1935;, th^it on May 38, 1934, ths .^
offloers and directors purported to adopt a pl«»n of recapituistion
providing for: (1) the isswnnoe of «? class of new 6> no-par preferred
shares prior to plaintiff* a old preferred, ?*nd for the issuance of
9 ne-r class of oooiaon shares; <2) for the exchange of e«ch old
pr-^ferred ahsre for ons new prior preferred share, plus two new
ooflwon ah' res, fi-nd (3) the oanosXlation of old preferred acou:aul»Jted
dividends and priorities; that in connection with the olun, oom-
plio^ted financial data and nasaes of ^Igvurea were involved relating
to the defendant oofflpany and over five hundred aeparpte units in
all parts of the United States and foreign countries ranping from
packing and amoonia plants to curled hair factories; th«^t this
required oonsider^tion of consolidation of e-^rnings ^md income of
the foregoing units, determination of reaerves, c?ipitfil <ind earned
surpluses, income and ejcpenees, provisions of mortgp. es and other
corporate documents relating to th* retention of thp fotegoing, and
limiting the declaration of iividends, depreoii?tion policies,
inventory, fluctuations '^•nd other iiianifold details in the huge
oorporote structure and system whioh sffeoted its financial position*
that oomplioated le^r^l ouestions '^rose relating to the effect on ths
s
©fc«fl7 «rd MiKSO fi©T3ria to ^ax/«MR,p. '3r« sa«i» ^t^a-eAt^'fio art* ai »sfl«rio oa
, dl ®w«>s -iro ati-jIft'i-Tia^ -08 ♦est 6*Jj»### t***-^ 44««X ,flS t-^* ttf llftm
a »a#(IC; iio ^i^q T«v9 i^'xsw elJiff^^ivi^ 9ft #Aii^ {^xftUob lo eaolXIlA
,, f^tf* ^^^■f j: ^ss -^^M ix® jTftxl^ {SSfi 's»#lr« a ssaXO ao »am baa flo«saroa
t<k mm-milt »&$ sot l»3W 4Jl9«t»1:«^ J^iO «*l%l4ttl#jU| «t ^^IKI ••vmo^
^^fi «Rrf «ifjtq ,<ncfi£[fi Jb«iE?9t»«^ 'MtiiE^ii wna »ao %q\ vxMm fta^XQlstq
^:&e»o« J&^t-x»la-Ks{ hl^ te sol#aXia«iaiBO «»4} (e) btm «i9s«i|b ji««ai«o
till* #JMf* ja9itE0#«»«t xtmA t9l%u9 &t a#a«i;q *i«o«io« has 3alalo«q
tft iMBoenJt t>ni) agititAimd, to i»»J:|«£>i;io«isoe t^ iioJtfi»Y«titito^ ^•vitipe?:
Tfij^to boM s0s^^;g^7Qa to s^«Z«lvoirq ^sftafltem-K* te» ABooai Tt/)^
!;«.•', ,j^ioa»*ot »fl* t© iSoi*a»^»t fttft o# i|c ; ^oamueov yj.j^oqiroo
a^iid »jf# ai uliMfh MetlitAe ta/i^o iHis itiioJttf^ir^QjErXt ^xxotamat
3
then recent Business OorooTr^tion 'ot of 1932 upon rights CTP^ted
under prior •>ot9; the power of the oompany or its sh^^ re holders to
disregard the terms of oontriot of nlaintiff tnd other prf^f erred
shi^reholders by issuing purportedly prior ah-^res; the po'!f«»T of
the LeglslAture under the tederfll -rnd irfte Oonatltutions to 'Author-
ise changes in oorpor->te ch^^rters in such c>53fi9; the rights of
minority shareholders; *»nd the appllOMtion to the complex dividend
relationships of osrent '?nd subeidi<<iries of Ir^wt of itinny states •=>nd
foreign countri^'sj th^t pl^^intlff «nd 3 gre'^t majority of the
preferred sh^^reholders had no techniG».l, lej,^«?l or 'accounting skill,
th?^t the foregoing finsncisl '^nd le^r?'! knterlal r^s utterly beyond
their *>bility to grasp, s.nslyze "nd interpret, ^nd could not hi^ve
been known or deemed to h-^ve been known or re^son^ibly f^vnilablc to
the«; t.h'-t nX the soiioltf^tion of defendants, plaintiff piarportedly
exch'tng^d his old 7)b oumulstlve preferred shares under the plan for
10 new preferred and 70 common sh?res; th- 1 the new pr«?f erred wps
stated to oe nrior in dividend nnd liouid^tion rights to old pre-
ferred *»nd ««J8 a 6;^ convertible oumulntive «h»^re without p»?r vplue,
and thPt plaintiff did not vote for the plan; th-t plaintiff nni «
gre>»t mnjority of old preferred sh'^reholdera believed, it the time
of making the exch^n^e, thnt (1) the company and n ruiojorlty of its
8h->rehoider8 could by voting in fr^vor of the plsn, comryel the minority
to cr-noel ROOuMulatlons '^nd other priorities; i'^) th t the reouired
majority had approved the olsn "^nd therefore the o«incell!?tion of
priorities w<b binding; (:») th-t if they did not exchange their
sh««res they would receive no future dividends, ^nd th- t the non-
assenting old preferred would not receive ncou!Bul»tted dividends; (4)
thnt there were no funds av?»llr.ble for dividends, nor >»ny feqgible
way of obtnlning them without gpcrlflclng orlorities; (5) thnt •»
number of defendants held only old or.ferred shares so th-^t their
ot Bt»feXorf<?'s<sd8 Bti TO t^^cfwoo M^ to tfrto's *>Jf^ ;85roffi tottq xtt&mi
feffj?. 99tBin ^s® "io (rsf«l lo »9>l'i!$kbi9<Stm hex tamni^ *« ecflrfftHoi^isXM
elXirfs ^itsiifdew.e TO Xe^stsX 4X«oifiLrf»9* o« bfuS »t«l>Xoff«ra;«ift f>»ttt»t9t«J
^OX»tf t-£*^*9if'f« s*"' X./5|'E#-#.-^ X«:sjM £?!?« X«loaA«it aaXognot »d# *.«stf*
6# «iif«Iiws'« tX<^J«J8<>8^*'f *® K»0£f3f a©5=>f^ *vjtri ®# fe»ft«»,fe to ffwonst SftStf
Yl!>»*t©cf«<Ki' t^i.tn(iftl^ ,»,#a;«fea9st«b t© H«l###i®iX<>« »dif t« #«if# |<ai»ir^
Ttft a«X^ »i** "s»fefiw ask^.«iife IMitir9ift?9«y ^vifmlirnxje ^ ble Bid b%^a»aox9
»## feai'xBtsTq vaa s>ift frndf iSi»Xf-A« n^ssH*© OS Jbc* bsitdl^xq w*fl 6X
-©•tej fcio o* »td;!il^ n^tivhtmilMti RiraBXvlis ffi -iol^qf •<* «1 £»*«*•
,9«X«r ^:«<! ^'fo^ii^ #Tv?4s svi*«XMBiJW« sidX-iT^irtf©© |« « Mwe fi»« l>#!rt«l
« fc«s tli#fli«lq !f/ifi* (iUsX'q; »il# «ot *S^v ioa bit tUltal&lq Snd:t baa
X*iTonlK »d5 X9J?«!^0 ,«jsXq »d* 1© tWiriRt fli siii#o"r t«* i^Xjtf©8 «T«l>Xorf«tisj<a
bariup»t M$ #»*if* (S) i«6i*litdl««i i»it^o Iw* »«ol#«XwB«m«A XtWf^o ©i
-fio« »«(* ;f f«rf* fcna »»iia©l>ivll) «*rii#til oil *Tii^0'st ftXiif^ x»<t* tvx«<ft
»X<^ie^s"t W^ ^ofi ,e6a9feiyjt6 «ol »X<f8Xjtflv» vimfi ofl a^s»w »t««£* *ft4*
•tX«jf* ^<?<lJ^ oe 89i«ifs fesTistsTxr M^ t-tnt AX«if »i«itfcii«t«& to T»cr«u«
4
peraonnl Interesta were Idervtlol rith oiflintiff'a, r\nd did not have
personal interests inoonslstent with thoge of pr^'ferred; th-^t
the foregoing beliefs were material to the interestfi of the olxintlff,
the subject artter of the oontrnot of exchange, and in inducing
plaintiff ""nd 85> of old preferred shareholders to exchi»nge their
sh^^res; th t without the foregoing beliefs ns to the finanolpl
situation, thfilr rights, the neeesalty of exohPa^^lng their shares,
aad the personal interests of defendants, plaintiff ^nd 'i grcr^t
■ajorlty of old preferred shareholders would not have exchanged their
shares nnd siorlfloed -acoumul?ted dlYldends, as the amount of aooumu->
lated dividends alone which they aaorifioed on one 8h<ire (^^39* 50)
would h«ve purchased at legist 38 ahfxres of old common; in f'^ct, the
foregoing beliefs were mistr^ken «nd false beo«)u?'e, in truth, p<oouihu-
lated dividends and priorities oould not be cancelled by ^ tnnjoTlty
of shareholders and the plan did not legally bind ol'^intiff and other
■inority old preferred shftreholders; th?.t in truth in iJeoember, 1936,
all remainlne old preferred shareholders who had not exchanged their
shares did receive accuwulnted dividends, after suit h^d. been filed
on their behnlf, and thot if plaintiff had not exeh^ntjed his 8h»»Tes,
he too would h^ve received such "OcuBulistlons; th- 1 in truth there
were mnaerous fe»8ihle methods of making funds '»vailnble for dividends
wlthor.t sacrificing old preferred sh«rsholdcrB» ncoumvlnted dividends
and priorities; thit in truth the person-'l Interests of defendants as
shown hereinafter were directly oontr«?ry to those of old pref^errod
shareholders; that the plaintiff «nd a majority of old preferred
shareholders were ignorant of the rights ?»nd of the fore^oii^; i'<ta
and would not have exchanged their .sh<»rea if they h^^d Icnown the true
situation; that for their knowledge on these exceedingly comolex
questions, plaintiff snd other orpferred sh-reholders neoess^rily
relied upon the com iAinlet ions nnd representations mnde by defendants
directly and Indirectly through purportedly independent Oomittees;
ti«il* fis^^BwtfffwtB o# ««»liioii«ri-itil8 bmr&titrtf tla tm ^M tarn mxtaXmlt!
-y0««»s>« ifl ?««©«» #d* e« »«l>iif>e!j!'»#*.' b'^t^JLmt^f*^ brnQlti-^mm fi*« e«T»rie
ti^m A»i«8il«x« tf»a fe«iS «iiw *tC4j6X0if»7ftff» feft-ST®!*^- feX« 3«lnl.«aj»t XXi%
fe»xn «9»d fc«if »tJtM8 rraft^ (SfefloM-yife fc-**iatt»«eo« •vieo^'st bib e'n»iie
Bbnablrl^ r6f »Xtf«Xi«iVB ^ftcfiiTt i|ctXf«a t© •!»«*»•«• «Jrfl**»t tijoTaBjwrt 9t«w
efefl»|jj«'l& /»»t*X;5«is£rt>«M!t *e'3'a.irXoi'?«>TR«f« fe©'!tasl;.«it<|-l>Xor ^laXtlrt©.*® j'weiiftl'K
fetttetasq feX© to ^lt©i;«» « fms nitnl&Xq ndi tmOi iefbl€ti»t»An
Xfiqaeo ti^sixiba^oxa 9§9A$ ao «>;*fc»X#0ttJ< ti»if» tot tnHi jitoi*«»*i«
'^Xitff»«»i>i9« »t«JsXoii»rti»rfa fe^itftt****? x^Ato tarn nttai»ln ,«floii^c*tjo
j8»s**iieHso* :rfi9b««a»fcni xlb^tioq-iiKs A^uotAf YX*09tll5flX t'«« ti*«>5>«-t^
s
that th« old prefftrTert shnreholders oonsist^d of over 15,">00 Indiv-
IduAls with the aajority of holdings being leas th»n 10 9h«r««« *»nd
that they ^ere «oatter«d widely over the united St-^te* »«n'1 foreign
Countries; thit the lefendftnte had full knowledge of the lpj?;r<l and
financial d^ta involred •»» officers nnd directors of defende.nt
coapnny -^nd its subsidiniies, and thj»t a majority of them or their
relatives had been directors eontinuouflly from the tidp of is»u9.nee
of Dlflintlf fa ahpres; thftt they h^^d avnilnble a irritten le^-l
Opinion concerning the rights of plnintlff and old preferred sh?»re-
holders» nnd ndv^nce and detailed info rffl*!t ion throu^ reports of
auditors and other experts ?>« to the fin«noial situation; thitt
defendpnte were In « fiduciary -md oonfidentlsl relation requiring
the highest degree of fidelity «3nd good ff^ith bec«?uae defendants
were direotora nnd officers of the oofflpany and agents »ind proxies
for preferred shareholders; thst they had control over l.-^rg© blocks
of shares and ^ere in n position of extraordinary looinotlon p.nd
control (1) becHuae shareholders were widely scnttererl and numbered
over 40,000 lndividu'?ls; ( ) th t there ■*!--'9 nvmllable to defend?»nta
without personal cost n force of 60n oompany ?nen for solicit- tion of
proxlea wnd exchnnges, while the cost of indeoendent solicitation
wss prohibitive; (3) th'^'t they had control of 3800 offlcee '^nd Jirfotor--
of
ships i^nd/innumerftble lucr»tiv« oontr-^cts Including yearly le^^r.i fe*»B
of ?94,O0O.O0, nppr'sls'^l fees of ^36, 000, no, «ocountlnc; fees of
*130,000,on, and fees of 3-1/2 miUlona of doilsrs for refunding
oper«tlons; (4) th-^t they hsd control of the dividend policies of
the company »nd its numerous subsidiaries, transfers of funds between
them nnd their utlllx^itlon for ^irurohpses of oroperty, retention of
securities In company tre^^surles, t'^^^ demotions ?»nd other mntters^
policies JJJid prnotioos which «»ffeoted the sppnrent condition of the
company's affairs and ability to osy nivldends; (5) th^t they had
«3t»el<i! *,s'S34 tssTo i®f,Jf«*« ^«if ic»il# ^««J* |«t&ti,«>ii<sit«sjcie fe®t%al««t V9%
&»:a;»cfj»6*8r fea© feS'«*<t4.»i»» iji»l>i« m.mf. &iX^l&4^'if^^ «8i*e.&»d CjE), X<»«*a«®
"to
t*»t XsineX Yi^*»^ il>«if>'<X«ifsi: nfmrtam ^ritxitm/i »i«.a"Xw.4B?^J?\^iist »sai:^8
I
oontrol of the company rcoorda througli whioh they oouid iiBpede *.n
exnalnation of the finnncl!^! situr-tion or pttempts to oont«ct stock-
holders, sb ws done when one M, tiubinson -^ttemoted to expralnethe
books* fnd ^h«n ^Inlntlff tri^d to do ao; th t pT?=ferred sh^, re holders.
Including plaintiff, reposed special trust ~->nd oonfidcnoe in certain
of the defAodiiats, including ic« H. Frince ?>nl J. A. MoOonough vho
org»»nij!:ed » ah 'reholdprs* proteotive ooatmittee nnd represented to
plaintiff «nd old preferred shareholders in solioitinf- ?ind obtaining
widespread support, th^t actfumulipted dividends ?ind priorities would
be protected; thst ieffndfnts h«d " lefinite person=»l flmncinl
interest, adverse to pr-^ferred sh'^reholdera, in th-t they o^med
750,000 oosamon sh'^res, acquired in soi»e OTises for ^<s little ab 16#
per share, and nt lenst 112,000 shTes of which w^s .^onxiired softer
ths plftn was announced; th^t the common eh^^res had no v^ilxie, having
received no dividends since 1935, and that defendants stood to f..'ln
5 Billion dollars in oapit?l v^lue nnd 3-l/^ millions per ye^^r in
dividends by wiping out <iooumulntions on prf^ferred; th-^t other f'^ets
showing bias will be disclosed by «n examination of the books whioh
defendants h?ive rp fused to oermit; th-t df^fend??nts seriously contra-
vened their fiduoiory duties by misrepreaient-tlons, conoealcient, non-
disclosure snd othfr inecuit ble or fr«(udulent conduct, which c^used^
induced and nided in creating the aist^.ken beliefs of old preferred
shareholders, including plaintiff, in obtaining oroxies from, and
the support of, old preferred 3h reholders, ^nd induced them to "ooept
the pl^n, exhhange their shares nnd saexlfioe their ricoumulpited
dividends and priorities; th-t to induce old preferred shareholders
to accept the pl»n, de'endants representPd in writing that they would
fully explain the ri<?ht9 of shareholders under the plsn; th=»t this
represent.'<^tion w«»s grossly fnlge in th'Jt defendjjjnts lotuslly '=nd
intentionally gwve incorrect infora»tion es to old preferred rights
as follows: Defendants f-lsely represented th^^t aprrov->l by ? sj^jority
Ms 3ii>s>-q&ii bLmxi x^^^ &&ii.f^-» i%M©*S0# «,£!i:i»©«it ^jjtB^SioO 9At \& i&%taitt,f>
S«ijeij8#«f® fe«« ^ffi^i»iXo« fti !s«»i!i«M!f«it*^ Jl>*2f©t»«iq[ 1*10 pan llitfuisXf
p^i^amM ^Mtii^t^ »i.taJ^9k ^ |>at^ ttambrnt^h inAi il»9;fo»{rotq »<f
i^SJC «« «inil m 'SEd^ ^<»«»J^0 flffiOB Hi f»&%iAr|l'0<!$. «e9t-«!l4ai. ftlMBBMtt OOOsOS*^
^1?^ «iiaX^<^^ .€i)^ 'i^M micfiM aetm^eii .(Nt# ^«# ^mmmmnM sum ct^iq ^/fj-
«ts.*i^ ?®4»o,. *«!(*„ |^«nct^1:,^:«g iso moitaXiKiewSft^ tm ^U%if._ ^ ,«lwi»t)lvife
felt* ^imt^ 9»l.x.mq 2jflX«JU*.f9, si ^tlitatiJiX^ 3|j8ifeij|©fii .^ ;^t£il8
T
of shnreholdera bound the non^saentlng ainorltjr, nnd th'^t the ol?>n
hnd toeen «o aoc«pt«='d «ind wna blndln)/ on pl?*intiff. In f '•ot, n apjor-
Ity approv"! could not bind the minority or deprive them of noci ■««
I«ted Alvldenda -^nd >riorltle«; th- 1 defend'»nts f^ilaely represented
th^t If preferred ahf'.TeholderB did not exch?^n(.^ their shares, they
would not reoelye future dividends nor t^st due ?eoumul?»tione, in
fact, old preferred shf^reholders who did not exohnnge their 9h^>re8
lAter received »11 unpaid accuarui^tiona in full ^ftf-r Emit h^^i been
filed n.galn»t defendants; th-^t defenct^^nte f'^lsely represented th^t
the oomp«ny'e financial sltuT^tlon w«a euch that It h^d th^ rlf-ht to
lesue ahxT^B prior to old preferred, Fftefa In fnot, the eontr-^ry t^.b
true; that defendrtnts m«9de other ^slse represent- tlnna whioh their
refusal to T5ermlt exn&lnatlon of the booica ainkPs it impossible to
allege; th t to induce the preferred ehnreholders to "ccent the
plan, defendants falaely represented th«t the net j^ysete of the
company ^ere less by '^6 millions of dollars thsn the stt^d capital,
*nd that therefore no dividends oould bo oald unless «i nlan "f^e
Adopted cpncclling '^ooumulatlona, in frot, net «i93ets were ?0 millions
In exoega of st'jted onpltal; osh on hand totaled 11 millions; earned
surplus, 9 millions; r^nd income avnll^ble for dividends for 19t^? yrm
I7.45 ner shnrr, and for 1924, 11,78 per share, so th' t dividends
eould h*>ve been psld without wiping out lecuaul-tlons, -"nd th^t current
Assets were In the rstlo of 6 to 1 to 'current liabilities, f s oomosred
with 2 to 1 for the previous 10 ye-^rs; thr>t the represent'^ttlon <r"s
flirther false in th^t thsre existed numerous fenalble methods of
permitting psyment of dividends, n*»mely (1) by direct reduction of
stated capital under the Illinois Jus. iorv ct; (?) reduction of
the psr vnius of the shnres effecting ^ reduction in str>ted C'ipltwl;
(3) redemption of old preferred by -» reflnnnolng lo-^n ^nd (4) other
methods including c»nosll»tlon of tre-aury sh res, nnd ncoountlng
prsotlcsa used by defendants; th'^t the defendants f^issly represented
r
t
^»%B^^ xl^f ir^fi^rfoar© Jon feife «niv BT»feX©ia«ir..«rit 6*5ftal'«HQ M© ,*»i!l
js®s<f fc«j^ ;J-ityfi Tw^t*" lXit/5- isti Sfioii?j'i«ffls«'»©.« jbia^y XX» fe«nrJt«e»ir t«#jii
©i #«%if '^^ l?i*4 #i #g<«'* d&tiiMi mw ai^it^Mlti i«4®)ftjsftl1; »»i^,a<piot» 9di
«s* T't#^T:il'ao«> SiCI' ,#«#1 ttt iS^ifw ,^»'rt.«l*1q fcie ©* tol"W| ««T«)Pfe »0««i
■sm> ttuM ^ 8s»Xa0 fci«f »d tlsfm «i9ii«lJJvl£ €«s a««l«T94* t»At 6a*
&^%&n ;««oiXi'if« XX fe«X«*o# Isaarf no ete*"© jXjftJ^lq;B© t9&Mtm to lietox* al
B«w SSex wl »feH».«>iTjH> t©l »XdaXX#vi5 ««©aui bm imQillim t ««u-X^txr«
#«»i:"Ktro ^n.if^ Mw »aij»l#^iij£i£foo» tvm nysttqtw imdiM-Mm a&acf ay^rf bluett^
fcartisgeioo «» ,«i«l#iXlfif#iX tfl«TTir» o* X o#^ t<a •*#«« •««» al'«*«« «*••«•
lo eljoii'*«m »I«fl»«et StfoireBsaa 6»t»i3e» «Ttoi(# fwiy Hi MXiH ««uf«txA
to uoXtOi/feST #ostll> ^ <X) itXtiajsa ,«il»«9l>iiri& t® tmm^&m »ai»tlmt9q
t& aoU^xrb&t (S) i«o* ♦<i«oO ••!* •iofliXXX »/rf# !«•«» i« ^ ^'
^s<i#o (*) ij«.« /i«»X ^X«»fl«flit«it « l|«f ftt^ir^ "> s*!**?***** (5)
^itflwoooe hat^ ,«®i<?:iC« t«»««»«* ^* ««i*«XX»»«B» »«lfe»X©i*l BbaAim
•
the flnjvnolfil situ<<ition of the oompnny b/ oinnipulpitlon of thf oonplex
corporate structure throu^x lnt<»r-8ub9ldi'=!ry tr^'nsnotione «nd book-
keeping entrlee purevnnt to a gener'si sohe'ne to oonne^l funds »v«ll-
«ble for preferred divldende nni otherwise minister to defendant's
oonflioting personal intereata* «nd is a^mplea of the nf^nipul^^tiona
snd further taisrepreacnt-itione, the following lasy be cited: (?)
Merely by voting the shares of s f^holly owned subsidiary, without
the knowledge or consent of preferred shareholders, defenlinta
increased the surplus of the consolidated pnrent oompAny by 50 millioas
of doll=^ra; (b) .even millions of dollars of C' ah held in escrow
pending ?« court decision '^'■-9 set up as ■^n expense nnd Cirrled "s n
ll«*bllity on the books, thus oonoeoling ^ t>otentlsl fund for divi-
dends; (c) Thirty millions f?»,ce TT?lue ©f seourltles of the oorpornte
•yatea were purchased by defendRnts with funds th-^t could hsye been
used to oay dividends; th->t instS'^d of cancelling these securities
and thus rele-slng further funds for dividends, defendants ordered
the securities to oe held In subsidiary trensurlea so they were
required to be treated as nn outstanding liability in determining
whether there -^ere net «».ssets !tv<iilnble for dividends, ^.nd th-^t this
wfts done after IdSl while ».ocu!Bul!»tlon8 were piling up; (d) '^"rnings
were retained in the trenauries of subsidltfjles so *s to ail ere pre sent
ability of the parent to pay lividends. On the other h*nd, where It
served their purposes, as in 1825, dlefend«nt8 throuf^ stock control
did the oontr?»ry ^nd eoueezed «^ll subsldl'>ry funds into the parent,
showing CTrnings of lB-l/3 allilons of dollars, ^nd r-fundlng oper-
ations of 180 ■llllons of subsl^i'-ry e^curltles crrylng *s high n»
Tjt Interest were delayed to orevent making the -^''Vlngs avnll^ble for
preferred dividends; (e) Properties were o^rrled on ths books st
appraisals which were not uniform nnd falsely represented the situation
thJ»t in 193!! th« v^lue of the nropertles w.-a stated to be 316 allilons.
I
"XlfiVfi Ssfe«0«1' l*stOHS«» e^ !9*?f»ffS'» X^^'-rsa^l ^ o* tis^tfRinaq eelTJ^fi* gaiqi^i
£t^^ m-eA ftXfx^;» *;';«i' a^Kff'J rfWr* »#«,«sfc»*tafe t«f Meftifoiti/q 4Mt»w. sB«*«ite
a* d[-^itf ar ?jjft.i-^t*» «*lJfXita/o»» t^«»iii««^wte t» Rin>illtm 08X to eflOi#«
tot »X^*Xi«rift e^filv«e «rijf s«i-''^«»«t *nttiir»*i? ©* hs-XisX^fe ♦«•« ^Bftfs^nl Jft
iioilXIffi ex?? »^ o* b9*p*« 6«* 8al*t&qOt<7 «rf* 1© frflX-^.V M# «8«I «i **«f*
•
and in 1934 the defondants represented it to be 56 niliione less;
thtt entire properties were tr.«»n9f«»rred to »»nd fro among subsidiaries
in over 1800 eepnrate tr-'ins^otiona, with importJint Influences on
the ability to cxr^ke funds availsbls for dividends; th^t ??3 nn exi^aole
of the taetioSf f-^lse reoorda rsnd effects on dividends in such oises,
we n»y cite the tr<!n8<40tions with ijoss^r Opt,, « subaidi ry; thp?t
defendnnts bought up through other subsidiaries »nd ret-»ined in
the trenswry ovpt /i <> of the ifSosser ahsres* Aft«r soliciting the
remaining holders including olRintiff, to sell p% boolc v-lue, which
WIS less th*\n 1/3 of the price pniA for the shares* aeffndl»int8 forced
plaintiff to oooept thr>t price by ordering 3 sale of ill (^saets
through their stock control. i'l«intiff had received no dividends
for 10 yCKf on Mosser» yet the president who is one of the defendsnte,
received » salsry of H3,000.00 per ye*tr, plus - bonus of '"^O, 000, 00;
(f) Jefendsnts falsely represented th- t the net book -agfts of the
company were 184,084,000.00 p>a of the time of the plnn, when in
f'iot they were .34^,462,000.00; (g) ifumerous siail-^r manipulations
▼ill be disclosed by sn examination of the books to which defendnnts
have denied plaintiff aocsss; th'tt to induce preferred shareholders.
Including plaintiff, to give proxies, support the plan and exchange
thsir shares, defend'^nts represented thnt they h9d no person?^l inter<?8tt
oontr*»ry to preferred, thnt, in fnct, their personal interests were
directly -jdverse because of their preponderant holdings of common
shares, as alleged, and because of contrr'Cts with the company, through
which they m.-^de illejiTil profits contrary to their fiduciary status,
including sales of six stockyards properties to one director who
twined a profit thereon of .150,0X>.00 per unit; th t opposition ws
stifled by giving opponents directorships rnJ psying them for sh-res
in full; th^t defendants, for their own benefit, used >\ force of 600
oompany employses headed by one Arthur Jones to solicit proxies -nd
9
««i>4#«i:si«JN8MRifi 'sjsXJtai* «tfO««»wft (j|) ,j^»000,gS*»s^^g:| »*•• %9M t<i?.J
■ «oaiiBO» 1e ajptlMorf *a«x»&ao<|««q if^^t 1© ft«ii?«tiB|^ ,«®««irl!!» .^Xtis^iEl*
,«if*!itf« i!ET»4;»Aifci» T-i^di oi '^t.^'ntme ttnmq Sm^»llt
10
•TOhangea st eompnny expense nnd titut, paying^ them with oonp'^ny funda
th'^t oould be used for dividends; th'it in aome 0'^>ees they were
«bsent from work for 7 veeka; that the foregoing mlai^iing and fraud-
ulent ievioea were part of 9. g;«nernl sohere deaigned to aiarepTesent,
falaify and oonoeal, nnd to keeo preferred ahnreholdere ignorj^nt of
their ri^ta and the mnteri'il f^icts; th'tt defeBd>«nta did not inform
preferred sh-reholdera of their right to diaaent or proTida s fanaibla
Mthod for ao doing; th^t the f<?l8e represent ti one j^nd other ineouit-
9hle aotivitiea ? foresaid i^ere carried out by defend^nta with full
knowledge of their falsity =nd with intent to induoe the f^lae
beliefs, ignorance and miat'^kf^s of old preferred «»h«ireholder8; th«!t
plaintiff and old preferred ahpreholdera relied thereon <and in
reliance thereon ertered into the oontr'?at of exoh?)ng«; th^t under
the t-rrma of plaintiff 'a oorr>or8te oontr^et, the ooapsny had no power
to ^-dopt the pl»in and thst it v >3 illegal under the lawa of the state
and the federsl nnd atste oonatltutlona, -snd that bec^uae of the
jMOtlvltlea aforesTid, it yma unlawfully adopted; thst no r>«aeta were
added to the ooap^ny by the pl^n, th^t it w«8 merely '^ re«^rr?ni^fl»ant
of book entries aoooapliahing the sftae effeet as « proceeding under
77B, without the inaolvency, publicity, or court *Juperrlsion therein
provided; th«t the dat^.lla of the ▼ rioue tr«n«sctiona .rs oeouli-rly
within the knowledge of defendants and nuawroua oth*^r anl^wfol
actlvltlea will be dlaoloaed by »n <«T«Tjin«tlon of the l>ook8 snd rfoorda;
thnt plaintiff has tendered bis new preferred and oofflaon to defendants
and has deis^ndsd ttas return of hia old preferred shares but h*a been
refused; that theae f^ota h%we only recently come to hla knowled^^,
namely nftrr )eoeBber, 1936, when it - a "nnounoed in the preaa th«^t
suit had been aterted by old preferred ah-reholdera to collect qr^oujau-
I'ltiona; th^t the original complaint f- s filed April 30, 19J7, Plain-
tiff prfiya th^t the oontr-ot of exchange ande by him In Ignorance of
hla rights, be reaclnded 9nd ct^noeiled, ^^nd th^'t defen5i-nta be ordered
lo #«4ftto«:§i et&feXdcf^t*^!* &»<rttet9tq 4|*»3i «# Aojb «iJis«3O0 bast X^lulat
't^hMif tffiS^ ja^sifsjts t© #o.Kt*a©® &4$ &t«i bm:9tiB s^m^di 9ea»li9^
t:9m0^ Ofl bf^ tpesawoe ®di ,J«j«f#itos »tffi0qT««* »»11iffli«X(| to ttsxi^t •itf*
•%»!? «#>»«tis «ir i^Md^ }^^i^G^£!@ ti^tw^XdH ««%' #1 «iiljsi!»iteli$ mul^lvtt^n
'^K:«iX*i»*5 »t« »fl©i*»j8«it«t? 8yoXi«v »jC* lo aXijBtfWb trf* l-erf* {Jb«l>iYe«q[
t^fiiwM^t*^ of ff©ieis6« fc«?'! fc»ire9ft»l^ «f«.'. «i'' .b^til^ftcr ; X titi •.■■■ Xc; :? /!?
4«a,fe»Xw«MEli *iff 0# •fiO«l tJt*"*®*** 1M^» •fWlf »#*lA 1»«<»l'
ts^t 8«iWQ ^m al b99aif^mt& »m n ^-rfw »6fex ^r'^^fp**^*^^ T-t*^,
-sasAf^f^js *©9XX«« «* »it«hXotf©ic4» i **w»
•alftXf .nex ,0« Xi««A Wit 8fiir iftijtXi^Mt XAtt-l^i^-.
u
to isRue to plaintiff the orlglnnl 7^ prefcTTed sh'T^a <»nd pay
aeorued dividends ther«on; th-^t Jud(,,.Hent be entrr^d *» >;^in«t defend?»nte
for ^13,50; th^t defendante be ordered to retuxn to the company any
profits they iiive aade directly or indirectly through the plan; that
the defendants be ordered to make full -^nd oompiete discovery of
matters within their personal knowledge 9nd under their control '■ni
of their associates -nd conff^der-ites, 'nd for general relief,
jefeadants filed ».. motion to lismiag, ^Therein they naked
the oourt to enter *• judgment on behalf of the defendants for the
reason th-^t there h»s been ? misjoinder of counts ^nd of plaintiffs,
and aileg* thnt counts 1 and 2, respectively, wre inconsistent and
sfford xu> basis for •? ci^use of -ction, and that no judgment c^n be
given in favor of both plaintiffs in th-^^t one pi«4intiff is the holder
©f 1% preferred stook snd the other is r^ holder of 6'./ prior preferred
stock; th'^^^t s?»id oomplnint shows on its f?»ee th^t the is«?upnoe of
the new preferred '»nd new coaaon stock therein described -r^s lawful
j»nd in ftocordanoe with the orovisions of the statute in such cses
■sds and provided; th^t a^ii j»aended ooaplftlnt fnils to at?.te fnots
showing wherein ssid issuance r-^s uniswful; th-t s<»id eomolf'int f'ils
to state f^ots showing wherein the plan of recopits.lis-ation therein
described wr-^s ille;C-l or void or without the powers of the company
or its stockholders, or in violr'tion of Mxiy st'^tute or of the
oonstitutlon of the stpte of Illinois or of the United states; * * •
th«*t aaid oo«pl»tint shows on its f-^ce th^^t the plaintiff, Uidwitr,
r»e s holder of ssiJl new preferred and new oontmon volunt^^rlly m-tde
the exoh<«ng« nnd is bound thereby; th^t no f^ots «re stf^ted disclosing
any Misrepresent '^t ion, intentional or otherwise, by "ny of 9«»ld
defendants or any reliance by either plaintiff upon «ny reorcsent-'tion.
Intentional or otherwise, b/ any of these defeni'^nts; th?=it the f»ct8
alleged show on the fsoe of the pleading th^t en oh plaintiff hns been
XX
»^a»hti fij.e^& *iml/f$f^ imx»ta^ ftd #aso£^£>iirt t0&i tf^smtit 9ba9iitvib biwttt^m
tM^i inslq, 9d9 ^$iiindt xltnailMi re xXt<»eiiJ> »k>.<m nsv^si t^^t tt#i)«t^
!• ^t4¥^}&fti'^' 9'^9XqjB<fi hsL» llifi u^sm of Ibi9r&tx0 »ci 9tamba9l(^ tilt
: '■' •^iT.sfeatal^fe •If* t9 tX«Mf^»fif «o #H«jB^I«rt •« «*♦«• of #Twoo orft
i)mM m9tsim»oai •%« ,iX«ri#»i!i^9T «& ]»iitt X mima^o tnat •9«>X£« 6a«
aw^ 089 fasae^feMi; «MS l'«^* feat* <.iS£^i6#©«, 1© mf&nty « t-ot aij?'^'' "" ?••<»•->•*«
ts^f«rf »rf# »i ttimMln ««» #Mir m tttK-aijsXq d^otf t© lev, . r.. „..,.,,
M^r^'yi'S^ lEdX^ |d %« 1!«JlX«^ « til %»dt« ftiit ^ i90*9t p9Ti9iX9%q ^7 to
ai«Ts^4-s a@ii3^&ll»thiJ^9^ 1© a^X^'ai^^ al»t»ifef jtoX^ofs:- »»»*•- «f
fR^^oo «<f« '!« 8^«voq: *^i tmmtjtw «« ftX«v «« £f&3*lXi tKw t»efl'£D0»i>
• ♦ • i»»^j&l« fe»*4xr£5 syit lo «• aX^iiiXXX t© ©t^^ei *At 'ia a&i^ijtti^eo
^Itfti *«.1E«« t** «»aXwTt»rf»o. lie , a»&*ni9iLstsi ypa^
a»®cf «49rf ni*flX«Xq #«• t»A* |«XI>««X^ ^-^ .aus £^&ji6i-..v
18
guilty of laolae* and is eatopped to .n«?int-'in bis c>ile{^ed • otlon;
thnt the f^ota «lleg«<i 8how th-'t e-'Oh pislntiff ratified the plan
of recapitalization by receipt of dividend*, continu»n<ie pa n stock-
holdT, <»n4 exercise of the ripiit* of -^ stookholder ftoiording to
the status of esoh und^r ?5»id plan of reofipitnli? «»tion. » * * where-
fore, the sftld d<?fendif;nta wnd enoh of the« aored th«t 3«id 'jmended
Oompl9int tnd ooimta 1, 'l snd ? thereof be dismissed ?ind jud<';ment
entered on b«lialf of defendTtntt* On jcoember 'J9, 1937, the oourt
sustained the taotion of defen'^'>nts to riismiss the nnended oompli^int,
Pleintiff elected to sts-nd by count 1 of his oomplsint, which count
has been quoted ftbove, ^nd the s-^me w<is dismissed, fro« which decree
this appeal h&s bewi prpsequted*
Plaintiff filed » motion, supoorted by suggeatlons, asking
th-'t oertf>in parts of appellees* brif*f be stricken. Appellees filed
countersng egtions ind decision on the motion w^^s TPv.erre6 to herring.
At the ct-aje time plsintiff slso '^sked for additional time in which to
file a reply brief, which motion r-a slloved# However, no reply brief
WIS filed, ;^ hnve thorou^ly £T5« mined the briefs, abetr^-ot -^nd
record, nnd in determining the cpuse, hrve iisregnrded whsitever is not
In the record. At the outset plaintiff coaplnins th^t the motion
filed by defenisnts is not ndecuate to cover the points th-^t Te r"i?ied
on this 'jppeal, A perus-'l of the «otlon «ind defendants* brief satis-
fies us tht-t the motion tp-«p bvoad enou^di to fully acou»int plaintiff
with the points now urged, whieh we nssuaie »re the 5n«f» points th^t
were uri5ed before the chancellor on the «trgument of the motion.
The plan of reo«pit»»lir«ition/ « copy of whieh wis »tt>»ched to
the amended coaplf^int, w-^a sent to « eh stockholder, .^t th»t tlae,
there were outstanding 573,313 shares of 7p preferred stock of »• p^.r
VBlue of ^100,00 per share, 9,000,000 shr^res Clusa A eosnon stock of
» p«r Vilue of iSSfOO T>eT sh^re, and "?, 0^0,000 sh^^res 01»ss h coismon
»»l^ *ii«r -ftfjtitR^ titi#«Jt«iir **!** f#rf# tNMGii iMii9jcx« wn^^i Mf tnit
btdb!S%&ff1^it«i tisi^' h^&oi s^At t0 a^^^'haiiit'Bf&p.Mm'f^b fi|^« "tifir^'^ifil j
0f ^tm Hi «mif tm-ettHhM tiiit !b»3iM''^i^ YtitnMSti mutt mkt^te ^at tk
1:a4:«cf '10?^ m'i'T^'nm^ th^molJUvm 'm.0it&P 'i^iiSv ^ffti'ief Yl'^tt js •11^
fejr #«..?*ttt«fe ,*.t«ittf »«* l»f«rl«i!ocft itl^wfcft* w«i( «» •6»J[« view
-eiift» tijhEcr^^»»#a*i!©*t»& *«!,» atttm <Mt# if© i-sirtd.-- . , : i^Mi bo
49?pit tr-rf* t& ,t»Morti^ooi'« do** or fcr»« ami «tirieXcn&o?> fe»fi«9«ii »tf^
0OR»0i} e.efi»xo «««<^^ii coo«ooe,5i i>«e *»»Ki! .ar? ^o otfX«v ^«r '■
1%
•took of n pnr vnlue of '">:6,T>0 per eh'^re, dividends of oreferr^d
•took were ixesaed on J«miary 3, 1351, and by J«ay 38, 1934, the '•cou-
■al'«tlon« *aountPd to ^S^SO per «jh*T*», or nn 5»<ypT«gat« of »;bout 18
million dollars. The plmn offered plnintlff ten 9h'»re9 of 6J
oonrertibie prior preferred and twenty 8h»jreq of ne* eoiraon stock
In exohnnge for ale ten ahfires of Tjb preferred and b!»ok dividends,
which <>iaounted to ',396«00, Che jlnn ilao provided th^t Class A stock-
holders ifho h»»d n preference over ^Jlsss is, -were offered new oonunon
on a share for shnre b«»si8, ^^nd the JlaB<« B stockholders frere offered
•ne half share of new oonuBon for enoh share of Jlass B. stock* A
section of the plnn contained ^ verb«ti>n copy of the proposed amend-
aents of the ^irtioles of incorporation. <>n exsminBtion of the plnn
discloses th''<t it inforaed the preferred Btookholders th'^t their
spprovRl thereof 'and deposit of their pr^ f erred stock, was option?!l
with them. It is not Contended th^t the rights of pl?»inti^f, or of
snjr preferred stockholder, to ncorued dividends, coi;ld be effected
by a vote of a aajority of the stockholders. It is clO'tr th^t the
right to the accrued dividends w-s »» vested right, »ind th'^t «»ny ^tteaot
to deprive a shareholder of euch right is frowned on by the oourt3,
la the plan, no Attempt was ««de to deprive plaintiff of his ^♦ocrued
dividends, or to force him to surrender His ten sh^^res of preferred
stock for ten sb-res of prior preferred stock ^nd twenty ahf-^res of
new oofluBon stock. Under the plan, the exohnnge «??>8 volunt ry. In
support of their argument th«t the plan w-'-s lep.al under the l?w,
defendants cite the onge of Sprague v. Illinois ^ivrr inilrpad Op,.
19 111. 174. A rr- ding o f t he authorities convinces us thst the
proposed nlsn did not contravene eny provision of the st^tut'^a or
deprive plaintiff of any vested rlg^t.
^e turn to the oontention of plaintiff th -t his amended ooapl'^in-
showed that thera was fraud and overraaomng by defendants. The
til
^(d-^m»h2m ^«?^i^ bm. ftd^-tsti^w Ijt If t<mr^»- «»^ tM f»t *s«arf©3c» .ai
l>»7»tto ]ft%«9 «««&Xoi^«>0#8 $ ««iiX& «ii# twu». .^-ctietM a^^ife tol «iia4ft « 1x9
-i^HOfli^: &9«0©.»'S^? »«*# lo t<ldo iKiii#j4e'3t9V « fe'«sl«^««jo a.itXtj »rf* ^^ aoljTBde
■ *arM«*Jf!8 i(^i» rp4t l^t« .,#4bX« fe»#fi*V #. WBW afestlJiVi;!? fefs*rtC5«j8 .«lE?, ©^ *ii^it
t© Ba^jpife xtis^f^'^ Smr. aE»e^a l>»Ti«5;9*Et t^t*? Id •td'SjSils «»# tot ioo*«:
fli •ri'^^^aoX^^'^ ?'>'*''' »B«'«rf^*» ^^l* 4««X^ iadtf »«IibU ♦ioo;^a aommop wsw
- -,w«X »^^ t»l»fvf ir^aX e-m naXij Hd* tf^^-jfi^ ;ret«li;St.« timdi to tt0q«[y«
>,aO f>i^^«£U^^}^^^fi ,t- ftioaiiil ,ir » i^a^TS^ |. t« .••»». awf^ »*Xo m^a-Bb^stal)
»A* #«rf* »4i 9'^9j&ivm^9 9»iH^f.ntmj^t'i» a^jti>«»it A .*Tx .xxi ex;
14
ooaplaitktf after aettitiK up the prellminnry f^ets, atntea th'^t h«
and "« great msjorlty of old preferred ahgreholdera" believed
T)irlou0 things. It loea not nppeir iiow plaintiff knew th?»t a
Majority of the preferred shareholders believed as he believed. This
is not «i class action. Plaintiff also states thnt he and a otajority
of the preferred 9h«*reholders would not h!«ve exchanged their shares
had they knovn the true situation* It does not 9pi>e-r -^s to how
plaintiff knew thnt a mnjority of the sh'^reholders would not have
exchanged their sh-^res. The oomplaint then continues with the
alleg'tions showing ths power of the defendants who were directors
•Bd officers* The eorpor^'tion is a large one, with subsidi'^Ties
snd affiiifltes. Undoubtedly, in any l^rge corporation, th^re is
opportunity for wrongdoing* The f^ot that the officers nnd directors
have the power to do wrong doea not give the plaintiff the ri^t to
SKiintain his complaint* Fraud is never presumed; it must be pleaded
and proved* Fr^iud cannot be alleged by f?eneral statements or by
allegations by way of oonolusions. The exhibits which are attached
to the complaint certainly do not show any aisrepreaent^tion* If
defendants made aisrepresent^^tions in writing, the specific allega-
tions should be made, setting up the written stfttctaente with the
approximate date when such stateoientB were made. If the misrepresenta-
tions were oral, then th*»re should be proper alleg'tions as to such
oral misrepresent' t ions* 'a« Tgree with defendants that tba complaint
does iu>t set up fnots showing fraud*
Another criticism leveled »t the complaint is th-it it wds
barred b/ laches. Plaintiff exchnn^d his stock in 1334 and received
ten shares of prior preferred stock and trenty 8h*»r<»s of oonmon
stook* He f.lle^s th-t in December, 1936, he re^d in the preaa a
state'DSnt th-^t sv.it had been started b/ old preferred sh?»reholders
to collect accumulated dividends, and th-^t he then acquired the
t&l»lt!mm ^ii0.:t0M: »#a#l3«»^»^ d*-l«r ii^m%M m .»e©i*«*fl»»«a<iaT«jt« jte5«*
18
knowledge of the fnot« set ud in the sjaended ooapiiint. The ^mendad
ooaplalnt ^"S filed on August 37, 1337, He knen thnt the plsn hPd
been nut into effect in 19:^4, sind th.^t the rights o-f «>11 ^^tookholders
were awterlnlly • ffeotfd by the ?idootion of the olan, yet, riorjordlng
to his own ••lleg'^tion, he waited from Jeoember, 1936, until August,
1337, before filing his amended complaint. ThP origin'».l oompl«9int
wn« not included in the record, hence, we r^re vnKble to a^y ^rhat
it oontnined. fie cannot, however, hold that on the free of the
aaiended coaplaint, plaintiff wrs guilty of laches.
For the reasons stated, we are impelled to the riew th<^t the
motion of the oh<)ncellor in sustaining ,the iBotion to disolas was
proper. Therefore, the decree of the superior Oourt of -ook Oounty
Is ».f firmed.
OEOREE kf¥lTimO,
OEMIS E. SUUIV.'K, P.J. AMD HE BUI, J, OCSGO-i,
.J
m
»it-:3t© .*5iisl ®*^* a«, #i».il# Mori ^x^UfvpA ^^$&mJ^P »* ,l>»ain^i3!po *i
A
-;=-f J^fyi
40314
WA3:50a-rOCJAJiO]IITAS COAL CO^S^rAY, ifiC.,
a oorpOT'^tion,
Apnell'-nt,
.Pi':Al, r-HOM
29 9 I.A '^l:
01' JHi
lil'JSdliilTY IKSUR'hCi!. OOUi'ANY OF KORTH ) / | ---^^
AMiTtlOA, n oorpomtlon, ) / / ^
Appellee*
iJft. JUOTICE BURKK iJSLVlX.V&U THK OPl{«iO« OJ" tHft; COUwT,
Plaintllf, » oorpor-tion^ is eng?!?e^. in t he retail co9l
business In ChlO)<«go* Uefenlant, qn inaurinoe como^ny. Insured
pl'»lntlff»8 trucks for <? perio'3 of one yepit laeglnning July 1", 1931,
und' r »rh^t w-ia known is a public liability Dolloy, on Movember "^^
1931, defend'»nt, throup-h Its n^-ent, g-ve written notice to pl'ilntlff
of cancellntlon of the policy, such o?inoeli<stlon to beoo«e effective
on woveaaber 8, 1931, »t 13:01 Ai u. The reason asgerteri by the
Inauranoe ooapany for the cancelintlon of the oolioy wib th'-t the
prealvuB h-'d not been paid, plaintiff Insiated thr^t it o-iid the
premlua to the i^luamcr pwltors •^orpoT'^tlon, n oorpor tion, on
/^u^j^ist 11, 1931, and th"!t the intter corpor-tlon wna the "i^^ent of
the insurance company. Therefore, pl??lntiff argues th-t thp ^remluB
▼ns aotuftlly p«ld to defendant. The controversy -^roae beof^usc the
Plumaer editors Oorpor-'tlon filled to trinamlt thp oremlum to the
InsurT^noe coappny. In the cinoellntlon notice, the insur*inoe
company took the position thJJt Inasmuch °n the nremlum hid never
been r>'ild to it, there »• s no obllg<4tlon to return nny so-oallc-!
unp'^rned premlua. Plnlntlff nt all times Ti'ilnt'ilned thrtt the j,, ,
w^s p»\ld to defendant and th-t the insurf^nce policy ••'s in effect
degplte the notice of oiqinoell?»tlon. Plaintiff i«»l80 insists th <t the
attempted cr^noell'^tlon af»s ineffective because defend»?nt di'i not
tender ths une-^rned oremlua. *ftfr the r^ttempted cancellation, ->n1
on iioveaber -5, 1931, one of plnlntlff's trucks oolildei »ith i
MO!
fftmoc M^xtiAim
»i(* ftf fc«^rt«npf?F aoi8jg'9*t »rfT .III .A iC^tSl tH «XS^X ,8 ic»darave)l no
Wt l>JUq #1 ffUi botRi^Mi tttSalMlH. »hl&q a«o«f t0a. bad Btriai*«q
to i«»->^^ »ili nm' aoitr^oqToo 'jc^HmI m.& tsHi ban ^iKQl ,iX ^bo^mA
9d* ft# «/il««»Tq ©if# *Jtman«T* ©* »»Xi9^ fX0i^.<K!to«|««& Bir«#i««f) «»«ft«ii
aiylsjexq act* J^RiIi feftnisi^aiw •swi? IXa »« ltJt*Bi«X^ .«)wii»»tc? fedHTPBixx;
ad* #fiiiS# BJ^slewl osXe YtHtalnll «floXir«XXooa«o t© »«i:,t©n «if* atiqaat
i&a bXb taeim^'i^b »Bi/£0»if »vito»t1r»«J b^w «o1*«J-' •-'■■'■' - '■■■^•-^-'■'■•-=-' ♦'•
2
street OPT •♦nd the drlv«r w«8 "rr*^8ted« k renort of th(? oolliaion
t»^8 «;lven to »-?rtholonwi|i - JHrllng Oomo^iny, It la oonoeded that
the latter coaoany wf^g the duly authorized agent of the insurnnce
coaonny* On Moveaber ?7, 1)31, the j;;enernl ^itfent ^rote plaintiff
Bt itlni^ th'?t its reoords Indicated th?*t the oolloy h?id been o?>noelled
•^e of l4ove«ber 8, 1331. On ttoveaibeT 30, 1931, plaintiff rrotc the
general nt-;ent that it woiild investltr-te and defend ^ny suits s^R^lnst
it, and would expect the ineur^inoe oomp?iny to indeaanify it rg«ln8t
any los-^, judjTments, olnirae, ittorney^e fees or eoats "^nd expenses.
Plaintiff's driver inrolved in the ^nriteat, w»ia dischrrged in the
orltuinsl or quasi orlmlnHl onse ip the ;4unloipal Court of ChlOf'go*
Thereafter, t»o minor txccidents occurred, one on Oeceaber 4, 1931,
in which the d'laiage w-ss ■ll#':n, nnd one where the i^m<^irfi amounted to
^12,00, Both claims were settled, Hoth aocldente were duly reported
to defendant, who replied in the i-me tone 99 it dia to the notice of
the first riooident. On Jr-nu^jry 18, 1331, plaintiff wrote to defend?>nt,
discussed the accidents th^t hnd oomjrred, and st'^ted: "we do hereby
cancel a-»ld contTRCt ^s of the date of this lett^'r". The letter 'jIso
again informed defendant th»»t plaintiff »'ould expect defendant to
•Hke good all losses sustained, whether the clalma had been p»id, or
should be paid in the future, it conoiuded by stating that the
une rned preolua was .36&«56, !^nd th- t the exoenaes incurred up to
th»»t time by re-^son of defendant's refua'^l to carry out the -^rovlslona
of the policy, saounted to 94,30, find accordingly demanded ■>■. remittance
for the totnl sua of H&b,76,
In chronologicf'l orier, the next step ^"as « ol*la asserted by
.lllnrd <lohardson, <5 minor, for personinl injuries growing out of
the collision of November 25, 1931. in pi«<intlff notified defend»*nt.
An «4Ctlon w^s commenced by the minor in t)ie .uperlor -ourt of '-00k
County p.£/-lnat the Chicago 3urf?^oe Lines «nd plaintiff. In th^^t notion,
the minor, illlerd 'Richardson, claimed damjjiges of *?5,oao,i'>o. The
s
iSoi»iii!&o QiU to ihioq/^t h tbnta^t't.i- a.«w rmvitt #rf? bam xeo *©i»lrtNB
b&fXGq»% t^wfo sa»w c*fl«^iop* 4|«i #.l»!»Xi#»« iwaw WBli*!^ lUoei> ,00. £^
«S?#d3l»|> to »»• Xs^ot "(d^ "iti.
vrf I>9t!t9fie« ai«XQ « eew sr«*« #«*» *tf^ ,y«lit« Xi^oXgoXoflo^rfo ni
le itwo aHiwtrts Bai^tfto-* Xi^aos'*? *««* ,««fliiB ^^ ,a©at>xsiIoi^i DtckXXIW
,:^nshfl»>«.b i>«llXtofl t^X^iilftlQ «X^sA ^•XE6X »€?i x^dmsvoi-l lo nolPiXXon 5d*
ioow to rwoO «©x%9qi<a 91^ mX %mlm Bdt x^ k^tm^m.
3
summons gervel on nlrlntiff r^^n forw rded to df»fend<int*9 fj^^neral
agent. Defendant nf-nin re iled th«t the ooilcy h^d been cnnoelled
and declined to defend the c^'se. Pl'ilntlff th-reu-^on emaloyed nn
•attorney who Investlg'^'tcd the scr^ldent, G<m8ed photogrnphs to be
taken and filed w ple», Thlai attorney nerformed -^ll other necessary
serrloeB In connection with the prep9r?^tlon of the c ^e, hen the
onae WAS re?iohed for trlnl» ?»nd nfter p jury hscl heen imp'ineled nnd
the opening stRtementa mnle, f aettlciient *as effected for the sua
of *1, 900,00, of which Plaintiff paid ;950,00. Fl«lntiff also peld
to his attorney the aum of ;?50#00, which wna « reiaonsble fee for
the aervioe© reniered. On June ?i, 193?,, plaintiff filed its atate-
laent of clpim in the Munici »«! Jovrt of -Chicago f>nd sought to
recover from defendant Thf?t it asserted w^s nn un^^'^rned ;rremlum
'^mounting to ^B36,23, ^nd in «fldition, the gnm of !'96»30 for settling
the minor drim-?^* Cfisea, ?50,00 'paid to plslntiff»s -attorney for
^ppeirlng in the riolloe court at the time the driver »raB on trial,
510,00 for coat of photogr-^phs, -nd -3,00 paid to a reporter for
taking testimony, a motion to strike the claim vr»9 9\i9t'»lneci, on
le^ve grented, plaintiff filed «n '^!aended ati^tement of cl'^la,
D«fen<-l"nt filed P.n sffid vit of merits nnd -t set-off, rhe 8«t-off
■ought to reoover from pli^intiff wh^t it termed the earned premium
coTering the period from July 1?, 1931, to NovembeT 8, 13/^1, il?ln-
tlff filed c^n affldr»vlt of merits to the stt-off. On June 15, 1934,
plnlntiff oommenoed inother action in the yuniciTini Oourt of Jhlo^^o,
The aeoond action, dealgnnted in thr?t court . the first cl^sn,
was grounded on the sausc insurance policy. It =>9serted thnt on
lorember 25, 1331, (whloh as After the ^ittemptefi osnoell^^tion by
defend?^nt snd before the -ttempted fiTncell-^tion by plaintiff) one
of the trucks insured under the policy collided ^ith a street c^r
of the 3urfnce Linen, and th t plaintiff reoorted the accident to
defendfint, who declined to defend the cnae, and that Alllard Richard-
Jr
an &»to-i^<?«9 a<xr«»^f>^jl* tti>ali?i^ ♦•»*«:> «d# fca«1:®i> ol^ bao^Xonb bae
»ff# fir»<|¥^ .«?»?» »i?* td aCkltwtscTW'f? »f^tt iTtl* floi3h»9nfl®o at »»oiT%»R
&S4t l5«lsH»c«i t^fltarf b!ft^ y(%ttl a t«fljp fcfl* ^JL&itt tot foflsri©fi»t e^w fts«0
mm »At t&^ fc»t.i&4i'it'» a.?"*' tBm^Xitm » ^^hjm 9ta^&9i&ttt gDtlasqo 9kt
t^im 9*ls ttit&tmm .0c,0««^ Hm J'ltiiitsi& miifitt to ,oo.oc«,XS lo
Ojr^ri^»#«t lm» «9i^c!>«lY!C^td ftm'^ Lltql^kam 9Sit M mi^le to tarns
if«t t9«^«>*^^>5 »»1;ti!^fli«i^ o* felAq ^•a®t «eis«o $fg.f«^fc teats stf*
,X«sit* isr& ejw» ifovltfe »<f* SN#i# ^rf* ta Jhs'iM*© •tjil<»<? ad^'jii a«i«.««Mit<i«
.sfiKXo 1^0 tfl9a»$.tBt8 £sfo««ta« «* l»»Xit ttitixi«iQ ,Mta«ta 9V»9£
tt9-d"»«! *£rf ♦tto-i^©e .« fcflR eil79« t* #|mftl>X1:t:» «« i»9ilt *»i?fa«»%.»e
-flfitXi .X«6X ,11 T9«*fiiS«i«K 0* <,X«eX «S;X tJC»t ««** bwlieq »if* s«Jt»*^«9
,>5€I ,3i aflut «0 .tto-^^e 9!l!f oif «;Mt»« t© j>Jhr.BJfeJtt« «* i)»Xit tti#
•oi«»lrC& to ftttdO ImiQlajj}^ ^at at udtt^^ xstH/mi* fo*MMi««i«©o 1ttt4Bl«Xq
XfS n&ttRlL9^apv> &«tcf«W*« Sitf* iE»)fl« •*<? dUi&v) «XS@X «2£ ic»d«»v©a
«fl© <ttl*0lftXcj Ytf ttol^i^ilsoaftct i>ii#iq[«»##** ftrf^ *iol«tf l>«i» #iifel»«»t9^
«R» tsai^re js sittv b9billai> X^tIo(x »rf* ^sfeau &»tiM»«i «iro«Tt »?** ^-
o# *a«bio?ie •srf* l5»*««w?»T tlitniiOii *«ji# law ,e»iT4.5 - — -- ^^s? «iu^ ..,
4
son* s 3ilnor« t^b a pmaaanger on the atrept c r, being injured in
the sociflent; th t the minor by his next friend aueci the reoelvera
of the Jhl09go Surface Lines and pliintiff, olj^iming damages in
ths sum of *Ib,000,aO; th-^t plnlntiff w?8 served with «i suuflBone
and requested defendant to d>^fend the c^ae, which defend'^nt declined
to io; th t plaintiff employed mn pttorney, ^ni th^t the c^iae wf>8
settled for a, 900,00, of which pl»»intiff pnld #950.00; tht in
adJition to its rortion of the aettlciuent, plaintiff >=tl80 pf»id
expenses* attorney's fees »nd costs, which Jig^^regated the tot^l sum
of -1,34^,15, iliintiff ssked judgment ng^ilnst defeni^nt for ths^t
aawunt. :jefend-^nt filed in pffid'-svit of defense, »» jury trial -rsa
wnived, '»nd the two esses were oonsolide^ted and tried together. In
the trial of the oonsolid'ited cases before the court without ^ jury,
the court found the issues ci|i?Aitist the plaintiff and in f ^vor of
the defendant, and assessed the damnges of the defendant in its
set-off et the suh of fc411.38. The court overruled » motion for »
new trial and entered judj,j;ment on the finding, to reverse which
plaintiff prosecutes this ftppe«l.
A great deal of the evidence is in the for« of records, letters,
notices, policies and oth^r dooiioients. i'or awny y'»<^rs ol«intiff hsd
been eng^^^^ed in the ret-iil oonl business ^t 6876 iouth Ohioago Avenue
in Ohioago. Araong its custoniRrs were oertaln mnna^ers of real estr^te
offices irtio handled insurance rs b part of their bt;8ine88. to ret-=iln
their cosl business, orior to 1330, plaintiff L»uroh«sed its inmjranoe
fro« these real estate ■ana^er8. One of the re^^l estate aanaKPrs
who was a oustooier of plaintiff, '■<>^ :i, T, ilu.t«er. B<irtholora?^y-
Oarling Company w^s » general ln8ur??nce broker, a conl mining: company,
whioh Hoparently *•*• an affiliate of plaintiff, w^s on friendly
t^ras with the insumnoe broker -^nd thereby the parties became
aoquninted. On i-ebru«ry lb, 1930, ol^intiff ai'»4a Inouiry of the
ss^fr X«i^# ^fffc '» ■,»««¥t»* t© , >-if«l!iitS* ««-^lM»JUt. .iTiM-Mi^Stie •?xx««H*.
al ,%9dt9^«ft bnirt fmM fee»#:^ⅈo»nos' »•!«» »9r^ efw# 8Mi# !>«* ^b»r,L»v j
■■•'=f.H'2r>v^ osfi»i4'P ^0©a a?8» a«i. 8|»»ajr,»fi*f ,jt«»* XIaIin: art*' ai fe»8»^» «•»«
^t9%mtm 9rfi*»» Ifl»t »iW to. soo •8T»-$(ffls«« »*«#«« li*w* »«.«ri* botT
XXfefi^i-E^ oo 8»w ,ltiJmil*Xf to »*j»JlXini9 «« ««« itX*«s^«l«t» ifoidr-
5
insur'fnoe broker oonc< rnin,^ insurance rates. The brolteT off^r»»'d to
■ake a oompi*Jt« survey of ita insurance. On I'Pbrunry ?-6, 1930,
plaintiff wrote the insuranoe broker qa folloirs:
"Repiylnii to your letter of t^brunrv 17th, which --^a in
reply to ours of the 15th: re rouid be glad to htve you advise
us before t-king your tiae to make "! trip out her^, the b?^^9ia
on which you ^ork»
"You underat tna, our insuranoe is given out on ^ reoiproOBl
plan. In other ^rordfi, we are compelled to turn our ineuT^nc**
over to those who i-'ive ua their conl business* Uth this in
«inri, we wouli be glad to h^ve you advise ua on just nh-^it b^gia
you Tould be in oosition to hi^ndle it for ua*
•^A orofflrt reply will be qppreoi'^iterj, after the reoeipt of
whioh -H-e isill o? glnd to f-^iTP you further det^^ila,"
On unroh 7, 193^0, the inaur?jQoe broker replied n^a followa:
"Replying to your comaounio^tion of February ?6th, relative
to your insurance, -^ wiah to Jjdvise th-^t the only b^ais on
whioh '»e do business ie one of service to oi^r clients, Ae are
not in '» DOS it ion to obtain neir customers for you ?^nd we h^nre
not worked on th^-t bssia in the D?^3t,
"Our deelinga with the vnsson Conl Company nre strictly
that of service to them in cutting lown insursnce nostg, -^nd we
believe in the long run th t this will be of benefit to them.
It mny be possible th^.t fe could work out gome ^ny of 3Prvin<?
you in auch a manner th-^t you would not lose j»ny of the business
whioh comes to you on nocount of r<=oiT>toolty,
•^Aa you no loubt know, we obtained ^ reluction in r>te on
your yard nfter sinking in an^^lysis it the aur:gC3tion of r, L,
A, •KFiason ^nd will be very pleased to go into the matter rig-in
if you will ao advise,"
Plaintiff wrote another letter to this broker on ?a .roh 13, 1930,
stating that plaintiff nould be , Isd to go into the mntter of ita
insuranoe with » view to securing n further reduction. On June 17,
1930, the inauranoe broker wrote plaintiff .«s follows:
" '^a nre enclosing herewith /^ reoort covering your insur'^noe
in deti^il, also insuranoe policies whioh we h«ve h^xd in this
office for PTimin'^tion,
"When you have had an opportunity to go over this report,
we would like very asuoh to cnll on you rfs/ rdin^: "ya «ni mc-^.na
of ssvlng the ?^8aon->i ocahont.-^s v^oul Oom.'i^.ny money in their
inaur'ince oost, and it the a.iae time f - vor4ng the 'i,.ent8 who «re
now pl<)0in^ the busines?,"
On July 1, 1930, the insuranoe broker wrote f^urwser. In part, ts
followa:
"iAT, tt^aaon ha a inatructf>d that w« rrite thia inaurinoe,
however, because of the ole^aant rel-^tiona th t hfve existed
, ,;i10 -; msfX iiciilw HO
9Q(i&'mm.l ■see flta^ 0/ t-^i. m »■« ,-; -diro al ,a»lxi
^fB^rf- «w )E>ii^ jG5{?x Xi»t w^ *Qfl ai«M«s «>i^ aiiltinQC » tsjt *oc
, ' '!<? d"fsf^' iio £>siitow toe
9w ijae jB.'aor ml av^r.^ . --.-iii* oi' ©oIv^de to *oil*
R«««i;«(Mfif tri# to yntm nmox ion feAoo^-' ioat ^'^'^ t^tisu^m .« riowe nl u<jx
ISO 8.t*3 ai aoii^ft^bst s &%ii,«#d[© ©a ^«c- a.-. •*
*»»aiv£i4« o« Him ;jox 11
elrii ai: isjsd ©Tf^-s^ ©« d&ii^ »®Ji^il^ •ft«f"" "" , ■'^/t^r as.
,*^os/s^ eld* ^<9v© «■>> o* t^Jt;.'; ''-^ "■■ ■
iiJt&^t 111 ^leaoas t«Wj,«oO ij-c- ^.-otun. .'.— -- - -- 5;e
«>T;fi ©rJ'w eJaeg-"- erf;t gitifeiiov^t twcit msn?- -Tv. , :.;il
bPtween your oftloe and the f»89on-Poofthont«« '-'O'^l Oomrwny,
we •uggeatPd, ^nci. wr, -nsson *? :!;)roved, th-t yov continue to
«ot «» broker on this busine-a. In ioin^ this your office tIH
obtt^in the re^l^r brokerage oommig^ion ^nd *<* will fi^'ve aerred
the r,8 9on-PoOT!hont'«a woil -on «tny, which ve hr>ve f^niepvorei
to nocomplieh, e will oj^.li on you vfry noon Te^rrUng this
aMtter,"
Shortly after the "bove letter r'^a written to Plumraer, Mr. Uutler,
nn eaoloyee of the inaurnnoe broker, ofilled on T'luaaer ?^t his pl?.oe
of buainesa i<»nd disouased the oolioy of insurance to be written on
plaintiff's trucks ■^9 of July IS, 1931, Cn July 10, 1930, Mr. iJutler,
on oehalf of i^rthola'^y - : -rling Oompnny, wrote Pluauier, «« follo^a;
*• /iith reference to our oonversstion relative to the -saon-
Pocphont-^s Joil Jom;'^ny lif;bility ' nd property iim^ce insur' noe
on 3Pven trucks • nd thref c-e'^eure c%ra for ^35/o0,000 liaita on
lir^bility, "nd 10,000 limit on property i'^m-rite, we wish to
'Viviae th t on ^ coaauerci"! p^y roil bt-sia the coat will be
?991«t3I« This will 'loo cover '^utoiaHtio^lly any hirel ^utomobltea,
their hired o<^t8 to be ch^r^iied «t a r-^te of i.75 ner hundred
doll-»re coat of hire, .ill you ple^^se submit this to the -'^ason-
PoCThontr* vo?il -iosap^ny, flonjj with nny other flKurps which you
any h'^ve obtained. If we onn aerve you in ny other ?B^nner,
please feel free to cnii on ua,"
Other letter* were written, snd on 'pril 33, 1931, plaintiff wrote
the inaur^noe broker, ria followa:
"l nder d«te of /.rrll 14th, we rnaroh-'sed « new Chevrolet
oouoe «t « coat of ,614.00 - erisl No. lAE ^34030 - 'mt'ine
i/a48ti33.
"Mil yoij fcindly h?>ve this OK-r cov-red for Jire 6 Theft
under our fleet policy ^P5i> ,*33615, i r.il^delphlr? i-ire A a^^irlne
Ins. wo., written thni .5utton iPteraon. '-igo h^ve it covered
for .ublic Mfibility -nd i roperty )''ai?'ge, o\jt fleet policy ilAL
171?8, iniblic Xn-lemnity Co., written thru ilummer e-'ltora.
"Kindly hnve insurance effective immediately.
"Thflnklng you for your proapt nttenti n to this matter,
•e ^'-re."
On Msy 5, 1931, plaintiff -^-lin wrote the insur". nee broker, stating
th«t he hfid not he-^rd from him th t the insur-^nce w»8 olaoed aa
requested in hia letter of tpril ^?, 1931, Cn kny 7, 1931, the
Inaurenoe broker reriiled nn follows:
"With reference to your inoulry of •••y 5th, we wish to
advise th t the endorsementa taking onre of oover«(j-e on the new
Chevrolet woupe were forwarded to i'lummer hc- Itora and . utton
i PetPTson on u-y bth, «ni '-re no doubt in your h-^nda by this
time. If not, kinlly -dvise «ind we -'ill i9<*ue duplicates. •«
r9iXti0 ,T.!'4 ,6Sti Hi^l tiJ^ iSt «i£@i ,S1 ipStft *o «* ftslew** feel's iirdlHi^i
■ oi ■
•■:0
'.9
^■!)
ffl
,XA4^ Tf®XX©q *- . 't
• STSll?-'!?^-' i . .. - ■.--.,, ■'£
, ... ^.^ ^ _^ ^ ..*f»** •* •
»M# ,Xe8X ^fxm tt0 ' .*X®eX.::^i8SJa««*'t«-lr*i|tM^^M^ at ti^H»ap9t
e« (ftfciw «w r','rfi8 ' t««* W t^Xtfpafi- 1.-- -^tat: iC;rX»^«
fto^^u-a hn.'i sro tin »n tammd-l ot b«hi '■.,,.■. - •- ■ •»-.'— .'-rfo
airii* ^^icf BA.aj^ri taox ni Muoh on s"ti>. J>«c ,■• 4
• «'»»«tM>XX<^ib «ja»»l XlXv tw *«A wii-v?-- t . .U
?
Th« court received In eridenoe the Automobile lir^bllity oolloy unrltten
by defendants covering the o<?rlod from July 1'', 1931, to July 13,
1933* On July 6, 1971, the Ineur^noe broker *rote nl-intlff fiU
follova:
" *e «oknowled(re recelr't of your letter of July second,
eaolosing exf;lr- tion notices received from your broltera in
connection with your ??utoiBObilr insur-nce. ' s yo>.) 1s:no-»", ^e
»»re nrr?»nglng for thf r<='nernl of this insurance; it, of courge,
will be crsdltCsi to the '^ncount of the gnniP -enoiee, <?s you
requested**
Tlie court received in evidence -^s an exhibit, ^n invoice on the letter-
he!\d of ^nrtholomry - jflrling Company, ihe invoice pives the d^te
of the policy, the number, the n^me of 'the' insur^tnoe ooaipany, the
property insured, the amount r?nd the premium oh-'rged. On the left
hand siie appe-srs the word "Assured", followed by the natae 't'saon-
Pocahontas Ooel Company, ind to the right hsnd side appears ••Acc»t
of Mlchnel 1. Pluoimer, '3 7747 South Hsleted Street", i^low
the n«oie of th# assure j ai pK-rs the d-^te of explr-tion, July 1^,
1932, The invoice tlso confine ?> printed legend in red ink, which
re'»ds as follows: "Itske ??11 checks nayable to Mettholoaay-jsrling
Company, •• The court 'Admitted «inothfir exhibit similar to the one
last mentioned, for -.n ^i.iition»l orpmium of ^9»64« The invoices
were willed to ^, T, Flumaer, There is tpstimony th t he In turn
■nde out invoices on his own letterhead sjind delivered them to nl'in-
tlff. One of pl»intiff»» witnesses testified that Flummer brought
over to plaintiff's office the original invoice isgued by i^nrtholomay-
Darllng Company. L»»ter, the witness st'ited th^t he misunderstood the
question, and thnt what he Intended to ^-^y * s thflt Plummer brought
to the office of '^I'^lntlff the invoices ra«de out by lummer on the
lAtter*s letterhcds* Plaintiff deliverpd its check isted September
17, 1930, p-.yable to the order of j lummer ^e««ltors O'crpor^tion in
the sum of 991,61. The check, received in evidence, oenrs the
»Sf tis^ O* ,X^X ,SI XiJ!?^ ««"'^ Sol's ^ »if* |iiiflt«v«j© a#«afefl«t»Jb x*^
»i ir5iBi»^ 'K.tioii m^^. ft^^'" '-rfa
*i^ ,1R.«^6& ^utm^x^mi ^f %& 9«ri8« ant ^'xftdmm ©rf* «it(^ti:<Kr »tft t©
i*0'»i.^ n'if^^'^s■ mbiB &i&mi $i^i.t ^A^ ^i m» ^^empoO i^ tttooffiiido'^
nt^lA^ ,^«i feet fli tijss-^ai t^Stsitc:, » »fflFi«-Mis» «j®X# aaio-mi trf'^ .SgtX
«a« »iJ* ©J isill»t& #i<Jiiix« •s»g#oai» i>»#tii«fJie tiD&;0« iifT "•xasQaJO'S
^xJ^iiXj-Ec i«»r!!sKiil^ *«ift I>s>i1i*«.«t 8««8«ojMii 9*ni#aleXq to «mW *ltli!r
»i1i flo laaaawl*-! ^tf t-oo »fe-ffl« e*®l€rtr«l *^* t^Jt*iiAiiX«f to •©11 to •rfJ «#
8
•ndorsement of the payee Jirul the brinis str-fin,:) showing it ma nald on
"epteBber ?0, 1930. ->uring the month of eptember, 1931, iir, Butler
t»0.ked with Mx« Ji^noe of the plaintiff oofflp^ny Tnd wjb inforaed tbst
plaintiff hRd paid i-iumaer the noBount of the ln3ur'=noe premium*
Manoe testified thnt t^tler s'sid: "Well, 0,K, e will cret buey nnd
try ta get our .uoney from I'luamer." lhcre??fter, •» conferenoe we«
arranged nt the office of the in»uT?»noe broker, Thich «•-« ^tt tended
by liiRnce, /iumiaer, « ur. wlnrkson of the insur'»nce b»oker*a offioe
end a Kiss sigele* Jl^rkson told riummer he h^d coomitted ^ serious
offense in th-.t he had colleoted the money for the inaun^noe premium
und had not paid the company, r?nd th t he hnd better go home ?»Bd
see what he could do* iiubaequent to the oonferpnee and on October 7,
1931, i-luAmer brouj^iit to the insurance broker 10 shr^res of b^nk
stock -nd took ^ receipt re-ding as follows: •♦Received from M, r.
Pluiiuser, for Mummer's uefiltors '^orporition, 10 shares of itsnd'.rd
S tional uank stock, oertifionte No. 845; -ind it is understood by end
between u, t, rluaimer and u-^rtholoany-^^jrling Company th't s'^in stock
is being deposited by him with ua ns ooil'?terj»l security only for his
indebtedness, nnd not cs paysftent thereof." Undoubtedly, the arreng*-
ment mdc ws of mutunl avivr»ntftge to the pmrties.
The tri-a court found tht:
"The olwintiff entered into its oourae of bosineas dealings
with irf^rthoiom^y-^^srlinrv -o., dlpfpni?5nt'a ♦^ ent, b re??8on of
the induoe/aent held out by rtholoas^y- "rlinr ^o. (1) th"t it
would p'iYe ::l?intiff « more efficient 'mfl economical h^'H'iling of
its insurnnoej ^nd (e) th- 1 plaintiff's renl estate mannger
oustomers would continue to be er*'ditci with -^nd to rf'ceiT'p the
8' me coiiiiiisaions they h-^d received before on the inaur'ince premiums,
«nd would continue to h"»ve the .=?• oie inducement to ;^ive ol-«intiff
their respective oonl orders."
Dafeadint argues th^t the trir-l rourt h->d the ripht to believe the
testimony th-'t the invoioes from rv-artholomjiy-u^rling '-o«o«iny were
delivered by flummer to pisintiff, 'ind ^Iso ;irge8 th t the pl^^intiff
w^.s bound to t-^ke notioe of the iej-end on the invoioe th^t checks
should b« mndo pay«tble to li-^rtholom'^y-j rlln^ Ooapriny. 'l-'intiff
aaoi-aras « &<»#;*• l<a»ec fcsjtf »rf TfttewMl^ fiXo j aea^ft siO ♦«X8«i8 s%JtU « feflA
fefijt' »iB04 ©g i»tt®cf .fcisrf »il s-ffrft i>fl.'5 ,xa*<yj!sol> ^.if'^ !>i8^ ttnj bsjef i>«*
• f .M aw«t fc«vJt®0&*l'* i««rexX4A as ;§ai&*seT *?i«is>«»'r r Soo* fenr. 3foo#fe
fttrfe««?^'' 1fi> »tt.i?^e t!X ,««t##«©f:^ot s%otXst!fH t^-jrSgteBffX^I- ttot ^tasiaatfi'li
8li< tot ^Xno Y^liirasu X»^»t«XXe» a?? er«r ri#tw waif tsf fe«Mr|»o«r«lb gfllfMsf «i
jli«iC.t iximt shcirtjo -lsi« 'eiHf -
tt irdf (X) .o-«* ^niXtP
to -^titasii X.f?»l«a««o.«@ fi«-^ '■
^essyiiTiST- t !?riJ it© 9 :
•rf!f avails^ o* *iisi« »rfi t>««t trims X«It* «(t l*ifcr wagt» *tt««bi«tt«G
Iti^jHl'^Xd 9^* S^^'Sit aos'^tf 0«Xfl !>«.» ^|t1:l*«l»Xg ^ t^amx/li x^bittwil^fo
^1X*fli«X'-; .tftnqffloC ^jfilXtr^Q-'XCftiolodtrftB Q* ©Xd*.t«<? *i''S» 9<^ blsJOliB
9
repalB these oontentions by naaertinj^; thnt tae strteneat of hl«
witness w"e c-used by a iBi«under8t'<n<3lng of the Question, ivfaioh he
correotecS before he left the stand, snd th ^t the le end w«trning
debtors thr.t nreaiuAa b« osid to i^rtholomiy-Osrling Oompgny 7^=»8,
in fpct, directed to i'lumwer. The psrtiea 'iIbo 1t?^w different
oonoiusions from the invoices, Dlf>intiff ineistinf th^t the invoioee
show that the insursnoe broker considered th^t the iebtor . T.
Plummer, "nd the defenrinnt tgserting th'=tt the invoices show that
the debtor tie the assured* 8=.rtholomay-iJ^rling Oomosny ^f-a undoubt-
edly nnxioua to procure the insur'^noe business of ol-jintiff, i'l»in-
tiif WIS nnxious to remnin in the good graces of the various rftal
est^tte nirents in order to hnve their good iriil in the ^'^le of oo^l.
If it *er€ not for the leaire of oleintiff to leal through the
v->riou8 rer.>l estate brokers, the inaursnoe could hsive been pl*?oed
directly with B.'ir>holi>may-')''rling ^o«p»*ny. It is sijzjnificfint th<»t
on July 2, 1931, plaintiff wrote '.frtholomay-uarling i^'ompany as
follows: "The %tt^ohed notices of the expirition of several r^olicies
have been received by us. «lll you kindly see the Tenew?>l8 '•re a^de
•*nd sent through the s^me r^reneies," On July 0, 1931, Knrtholom'>y-
Uarllng Company wrote plaintiff ^acknowledging the letter of July 3,
1931, and the expire tion of the notices, stating "As you know, we
ars arranging for the renewal of this insur?'noe; it, of oour<sc, wlli
be credited to the -account of the si^as agencies, os you requested'^.
In % second conference in the office of yartholoasy-'^Rrllng
Company, Ur. D«rllng told the participants "there will be no halfway
route in this ciae, the only thing is we want our money", ^nd "there
la no way to straighten it out other th^n to see th^jt we jrst nald" ,
rislntlff malnt^tlns th-^t the testimony "s to the oonferenoes in the
office of ii'^rtholomay-Onrllng Company and the rsoelnt by thTt
corpor tion of the shares of b^nk qtock, is strong eviienes th- t
s^^t^lcwiil i^at s-^^it 3«i?8X«ei 'ktitalmJigt ^saofiwari 9«f# ino'tt iK^oiecflonoo
tdS- «fc^£fo«t«s~3- i-^at; o* f'iUfxi.^M t© Mis»li? »rf* tot *oa »»«ir #1 tl
t>«d*I<? a«*d" ®i?^ ^hrQV> &mmn%imm ^At ,«fT«^itME<i «»***8@ jt«»f !»tfoit?-ir
10
th« ln«uranoe oompjiny reoogni«:«d Pluamer ns ita -gent, -' t th?t time,
th« general insurance broker w-^o enie-iVorlnK to oolleot the pTemlum,
snd r>t the s^me time, ende??Torint; to mftlnt^in good rel-^tions with
»11 pvirtiee* fhe f^et th^t .b-Hrtholomfjy-J^rlinK *^offlo«ny mnde •=>n effort
to oolleot froa i'lutnaier does not neoeesarlly eet'^bllsh the f?ot that
thejr nere reoogniring him hs their npent. '^t tht^t time, their
position ^fts w^ll understood by Dlaintiff, If, by the conferences,
the parties oould pre-rnil upon Plumoer to r;:iis« the amount neoessary
to pay the premium, the matter would he disposed of to the 8<\ti8-
faction of all parties*
As suggested by plaintiff, 's^ have thoroughly exnrBined the
exhibits nnd the testimony in order to determine yheth«»r the finding
of the trial court w^.s against the manifest 'eight of the evidence.
The record discloses th ;t there is -^bundsnt eviienoe to austvin the
finding of the oourt thnt rluBHser ^--g the ngent of plaintiff and not
of defendant, 'a th© premium ^".9 not o'^id, defendant h-sd an undoubted
rl^t to o^ineel the policy. Motice m^s given on November 3, 1931,
th^t ths policy vould terminate at 12:01 A. m, on r«ovember 8, 1.971,
Plaintiff WIS affordsd ample opportunity to procure other policies in
order to orotftct itself -p^inst claims. Having determined that the
promium was not pald^ to defendant, the oourt was right in finding
th-^t dsfendisnt was within its rights in oaaoelling the polley, nnd
tlnat plaintiff was indobtsd to defendant for tb^t portion of the
premium oovering the period from July 13, 1931, to iioveplj^j 8, 1931,
<\9 have Considered the other points rnlsed "^nd irgued by the
P'«rties, but in view of the finding !n??de on the orooosition of agency,
there is no need of extending this opinion by a discussion of such
other points, Bmoause of the visws express«dj_th« Judgment _o f ths
Municipal c our t^ of Oh lo«^^ be and it is 5l£LjriiSd«
JUOGtiElIT AFFIRMBO,
OEMia E, SULtlVAN, F.J, AMD Hi;BEL, J. aONOUR,
^imlm^'t^ mat tt&^Xl&s j»9 ^flia«swK»Ds» «*« fWC^icd «©i3.??it:»Bai lintftaay, »rf#
la^lit «ft£Klt !t«4# »h *$1!i^%» XifiM BAmM ^4«Jt«ri«t»9« »¥•» 1(»4{||[#
-si^fte msit «* ^a JN»*«eifc «4 hlmm tntf^m ^iSS ^i&t/lm^rq salt x«<I •<"
4 0561 ,? T«wr»s«®K «& aevii a*^ 9«X*oM «M:®*i«<? '^sS* lanugo 9t ttts^tn
• X?fel ,s 'x-'s>&m^rQii,-m •u ,A JCB-sSX ^® »*««J^!R««^t bUmm x^tlm »ii# **•|J3^
iji ^ai^ilQC! xt»(M& ^smm-^ e>t xitttif^m'e& *X^* tmSntHXti e««. ttX*fli«X^
»ii# tMU bmimit^t^h %Mvm. •«»i*Xe> ?«ii:l.^-jf tJimH H^^q^. o$ i»i)»o \
" 'iilfcftjrSE «i i?^lit ««w t««0O *m ^tttm tm9X%.b ©f^ l^*«^ *oa turn mi^imrtxi \
9ii«r %« fiei^-aroi} &»if trot ^jruOuielttbi e« &i»#4«l»i »«>v 1:ti#al«X«r t«4{#
(imi9. to flcXesiioalfe s xd Boi«iqo «Xi^ ^lba9im t* l>«^«tt oa «X ^5»rf* ^
40481
TH0MA3 HROWR, MILTOM TUaiir.H »<nd
WILLIAM MA30N, } APPEAL KROM
2WYX61!
OUT A. UOH OSOtt ?«.nd ISALTEK J, CUjJSaISJCIS,
at ncoeivers of the Ohior^go ailiitnye Co««
n Corp** ©t 'il,, doing business ^a / I t i A -^^^ OOUNTT*
CHIGA.UO oUfijAOiL LliNLG,
App«Il*e8.
MH, JU3TI0I; BUHKJE DELlVKuF-O Tva C; iiUCii Ck THE: OOURT,
Thl» la an appeal prosecuted by pl-^intiffs froa )& judgment
enteTed in the Jlrouit Court of Cook County, following the tTl?»l
of n personal injury i^.otlon, wherein the court direoted ? verdict
In fTTor of defendants. There is no sub0tsnti»l dispute r^s to the
prooosition of law th t In oonsiderlng the taction for '■ directed
▼erdiot, it ms the duty of the court to consider ?ill of the
erldenoe in its ^speot most fsvorrible to the plaintiffs, together
with ail re son^ble inferences arising therefrom. Therefore, we
have o«r«^fully examined the record in order to determine whether
the court v'ns justified in t.^king the 0"^e from the jury.
At -bout 8 A. u. on ^iiRuet 19, 1937, plaintiff Thom»»8 !?rowtt,
ficcofflonnied by olnintiff Milton Turner who occupied the front se^t
-longslde of him, ws driving the 1939 model N'^sh four-door sednn of
plaintiff Ailliam Msson, who r s not then in the o-^r, in -n ensterly
llrection on Lake Street in JhiORgo. Lnke Street is nn e^st «nd
west highway. Above th- 1 street is m elevated r«llro»»d, supported
by steel posts. Sangamon Street rvins in a northerly and southerly
direction and intersects L^ke Street. 'Jefend-^nts operate trolley
o-»r8 running on steel nils on both streets, il^lntiffs BrowA "nd
Turner aought d^msfres beo'juse of person^jl injuries, -♦nd oi-iintiff
M^son <isked for d=»nii.^B to his '>utoaobile. Brown h^d permission
fr»m Mason to drive the letter's nutomobile.
i im» mmmi >A9Siim ^mmu s4MaRf
•V
.« X
• YTfeOOC ^OOr |r \ t I \ ar- , ..... . ,.ip ?© ^.qtoD <s
\ \ ♦Smia IbAiRUS 0©AO.IKO
*»iMav s tstiomih i^si<&n aiiif aistarfw ,rroJ:#«# trr.ut«i l^momtmi « lo
«if# %o X£i!> tBt>imo& &* inroo »At %» xitjb 9dt fttm ti «to|fnc«v
,awotfl nsfflflMfT ttltnluiq ,^sei .Si *»«»»* n© #* .* 8 #m»^? t
^X«i9#«jift «« fli «%;p9 nm at urttift ^on e«ir &d9 ^^MM amllWH Ylltittelq
b^i^'naqvim ibne^lim hmt!S!yml9 an »i i^mte t^Jt •we<r^ ,— '■':;ifl **■:»..•
Ttaoaas Brown testified th- t he left hie home, looeted -bout
13 blooks from the plnoe where the nceldent ocourred, ^t ^bout 8 a.m.
on August 19, 1937, nnd drove e^st on I«ke Street, tnvellrg in the
eastbound atreet o?>r tr- oks at an averfi^e soeed of 15 mil^s per hour, -
He st-^ted th t on appronohing Snngnnon street, he was driving froa ^
6 to 8 miles an hour; th t directly in front of him wns an automobile
wnd n truct; thrt the truck crossed the intersection of t*tke and
SRnp:^^Mon i^trnets, 'ind thJ^t the 'lutomobilc nheflid of him w^'S going
ncross the intersection nt the time the witness's ?»utomobile reached
the west curb of Sang»?mon Street; th-^t he brovight his ^^utomobile to
n complete stop ?»t the ^^est curb of 3angaraon otreet; th- 1 he looked
south on 3?inM<^aon Street and obserrcd no tr?>ffio moving north thereon,
and th t hs looked north and saw ?5 street c^r f icing south i^nd
standing «»t the northwest corner of Osngsaon «?nd teke Streets, and
that some passengers were getting on nnd off the street o? r; th«»t
he did not see the street c?r when it 3t«rted up, ^^nd tht he ^as
watching the traffic In front of him; th.-t he shifted his i^e'^re Into
first soeed f>nd then Into second speed f'.nd proceeded to cross the
Intersection, going east on the e- st bcurti trnoks of L'<ke Street;
th^X when the front i»heels of his "utomoblle vptc- in the northbound
trsoks of 3an^.:)mon Street, he he-rd -^ cr^^sh; th-st his lutomoblle landed
sgnlnst an elevated poet located -t the southeast corner of the
Intersection; th'>t he wps bleeding from" hiVhepd and had s pain In his
shoulder «^nd b^ck -nd th t Turner helped him ^■let out of the ?4utomoblle;
th^t they rent to the northwest oorner nnd hnlled « p^^salng motorist,
who took them to the office of ^ ohysldsn at 138^ ^est Js^ke street,
Witness then testified jis to trentment by the ohyslcl«?n "ind 8t"»ted
th'^t he iif<is confined to ^ hosplt')! until September 6, 1337, "ind to
his hone for two months tkere^fter, ^^nd th'<t he was un«ble to work
on sccount of having f'llntlng spells. On cross-examln'^tlon, witness
testified th-t he had driven ^utomobllca for 35 ye^rs, <«nd was
^lliioAoim^f) ttB s-^-^w s&iii t& ^ti&^ iii xltt>»riS> ;^!^Air i^uttd &a wclhB 6 ot d
r««!U^ 5«j?o #ti&«tc »£[# Jl;© toe «K} ^itt^i^jftmf ssa^aseeiw? »»o« #^«r*
; ?*XI«foi6oti/« ^mt to Js« ;^9i «irf i>«?^i»ri T*«t#'i' *'-4dri! IHB* al©««( laws -rsbii/oiie
4*e!l'XS}4oai g,ai®B©C5 b fe*ii«:rf mr twtt&s^ <ri8»«fdt^<Wt, «a^«- ©if $&9is ^«ri* ^.f'li^f
»-t»®t#SJ »iM *e»^ OSei *« atioi:e-^«f « t& *®iS^« »il!^ oi ii»iJ^ al««* «m*'t
©jt Mb ,TSei »d tMarat^^e |.4tii« i#J#i;«?«Oit a o^ feftisitaia© sew «d tJsdt
9
thoroughly familiar with the intersection where the aooident ooourredj
th^t he knew that a etrect oor lire wne ooer»ted on anngnaon "Street;
th'it he e«tia<>.ted th 't the dietanoe from the west curb of • nnii^aon
Street to the west rfjil of the oov^thbound tmoKa thereon w^is 15 feet;
that hie automobile w^a going 5 to 6 miles an hour T^hen struck; that
he did not see the street dar 8tf?rt aouth on ^>ng^!Bon xitreet sfter
he hf»d et»»rted to orofl^ the intersection; th t he did not know how
finet the street orr w^a going} t^f^t the left renr end of hie *(uto-
mobile r a s truck by the left front of the street car; that th«
pavement r-'.s dry thnt morning »nd that hie four wheel brr^kee were in
good condition. He further st 'ted tht on n. dry p"vement he could
•top the «^utomobile in 10 or 15 feet, '>nd msybe in s shorter distance,
Milton Turner testified th^t he ^ns sitting alongside of
Brown; th^t they were both on their way to work «t the time; th?>t
when the automobile w^s loo feet west of ^J^n.^mon street, it ra«
traveling ebout 8 miles nn hour, "nd th t they m-re following ft cir
and » truck which hnd been in front of them from Ogden - venue to
3an^!4«on street; that when the -^utoajobile in which the witness v?-s
riding came to the west curb of 3?tng-»mon Street, it slowed down to 4
or & mllec an hour; that he looked south -^ni anw no trnffic coming
north on Sanj nmon Street, ?nd th)t he looked north on ^ang'»aon b'treet
and spw « street onr standing on the northwest corner and th^t he saw
pnssengers .netting on ?ind off the street ear; th- 1 "we then continued
from the west curb of Cnnfrmon street to cross the intersection mnd
I didn't pay «ny more nttention to the street cr until I he^rd it
hit the automobile* then the front ivheels of the :iutomobile were in
the northbound tra«ka of S»ng«mon 3treet, it wpia struck by the street
•%r, The left front side of the street car struck the left rertr wheel
and fender of the f^utomobile. After tht-tlapact, the automobile wns
thrown sgeinat an clewnted pole on the 8outhe?»st corner of G<<njrimon
j#t9t.t(^ sommm^J: a<si Mfmm& ».w mil ««»#»««#«'« taiii mm:i ' M 't.adi
iBdt Iti^'vrti^ a^ulbfi %£iQii net ^i»Xi& $ «f i ^fflat^ ism nti^omtuM 9£i ttuti
tMtf t9tn.^B aei{i«^.^^ xi« 4l'#.u^tii i-tats ■£»# shNt^^ti '3<id' '»»« ifect bib ad
tPOif woisi #?)« tih »isf #fj/i»f {«.i3i:*@»»T«Jf«i »«* s»0t© o* fe«^s#|i 6.«rf iM
fli «t«»w 8«iC.fi!r;d' li%wiw %if4A »ig $s0 im^ ^imi^om f»dt x^b »m iativtg^
,«aflj»#ai^ ^^itieojcfe ^ ni m$x»» ^^ 4t»«t Si; t$ OX ai ftXi^(Mee^j» aijf'' <l<l#«
t<fdf lemi* 94$ $s itGn 9i xsw -xleif^ oe £(ih)^ m^PK fiSi iaoi immM
9m tt «^»«»ttliS ati^Mg&!»& to if&^is t90t 0^ mm 9££eiQK^»m »dt M9dm
t«o t s^-^w^Iidl: »»*» f»<f* tf^M jfe«# «7««if «» »«liiD S ^t^A s<S<'tX9VB'X#
o# ftSttd'/A jer»f»:sO «oi1^ naiErsr to #x&»i[t ai mf^ fmii ttontn i^tni » tea
tarn m'Sn^Jtm »d$ Atfl&v ai 9li4fm9»tte 94$ em4?t ^Mdf itt9ite aomr,}iaaB
Sfliaoo enis^^f osf w.«s buj^ Aiuum JbMeol 9A i»df i'ta9d M» •ftXiit ..
i99%f$, a«limW^>l^<^ 99 dtt^tm b^iQOi ftl( tsdt bOB ^fS'^Xtfi fie:- 'i<i attoii
v&ti 9 A &fidi b&jsf %9a%9o iQ9-}fAHoa mAt m> jptlM^.^i y
b9mtttn>9 iiMt »w« tMt i'x&o H9%i9 Mi t\9 bem 99 li^ift^^ staisut
#1 &rt«»^ I Xl#ia» i«o t»»T#» 9ds 9t a9iin9tfB ««« tff« xm 9*abit i
al ft7»« 9li<i9Bi9tsst« iMli to eX««4w ^ao'irlt 9d« a9m ,9lid9m9»m
XftftiSfv t.8»i: n»l »di sff&srt*« ««0 ^eftiiffi 94t tc #«**«»
t«ir »Xlcfo«o*w-8 9dt ,#o#(i«lled# t«r
4
and I.qk« Streets* The nutoooblle I'^nded on its right aide* 'After
th« Impaot, the street ort stopped ?0 feet south of the center of
the intersection. My face -'ncl left h»nd i^erp out up f>nd I helped
BTown get out from the ^rreoked o^r.'* He then testified na to visiting
the doctor, while (\t the doctor* a office, tvo Dolicexen who hnd
heard of the nocident, nrTlved and took him to the scene of the
accident* The street oar had departed, and the vritness ^nd the poiioe-
••a waited for « few minutes until the str et onr onae north on its
return trlp» The policemen examined the -street onr and the automohile
«nd mode out an piccident report. On oro8 3-exs>minption, this witness
testified th>t when the qutomobiie -«8 100 feet west of 09ng*»»on
Street, it -rr^a going 8 miles an hour; th.t the iiatf^nce from the west
curb of oangamon iltreet to the *cst r-^ll of the southbound trj^cks it
■9bout 10 or 15 feet"; %hrX the diatRnce from the north building
line of i.?vke Street to the north r-'il of the i-estbound tmok '*wouid
be pr^jotlcalljr the s.-ae dlet^noe as from the sldewrilk line to the
track on .inn^^aon Street," He further teatlfied on oroas-exaalnstion
th t after starting across the intersection from the s^est curb of
Ssngemon atr^et, he did not see thp atrf^-et o«t at«»rt south on
Sang?jmon ctreet; tb t prior to the morninp of the t»ocident, he hsd
been driving qn •jutomobiie for ?>bout 8 ye-.rs, !=ind had frecuently driven
the nutomoMle In which they ^ere riding. He at ted th>»t on n dry
street tr»v«Ilng 6 to 8 miles mn hour, he could stop « 1929 H-^ah
with four wheel brakes, in 8 feet; th^t he wna f?vmillar with the
intersection, nnd th- 1 he w^s not oaylng very ouch Attention to wh^t
iirown wfts doing in the wny of driving; th-t when he siw the street
CTr for the first titne, the automobile wi»8 'it the sidewalk on the irest
side of Qang-imon .street, ^nd that he had not <jeen the street o-r until
that tlrca, <ind th t he did not notice whether the street c^.r wi»s
standing there "when we were back quite «. dlati>)nce«<*
¥»j}-tA «»£>is fii'^tt. @di ao Si^tnal &iliicm&Sigii ftdT .8i^»»?tS «af«4 l»cts
&®^i«d' I fcit«i q«; #»ro sir^?' tm^d *%»X SMti* a^^et t^. .aoktn^BrBial »rft
a«aiB]§ar'i^ %© f6*«- #&»! OCX ©.©*• «lid«*e{>tw« stl^ Itsriw tj«f4l' ft«iti*s«?
fidi^aKlasfflaEs^esiseT* a© &s*il:l^e[»t T»/ii(f«jy^ «K *,*©«ic*« iioi&*^>^siw»S ao Moat*
»«> -ff#*f0e *««#• TfM> *9#«f*« «il* *«a iloii fcife »il ,*««!t*e! iie««55i»:ff©
ir»Bll ©eei » qojffs ifoXiwt? »if ,^«otf «« e*Xl« e ©? ©■ Ji«Ji*rin«r i^fnftt
!?»»»• atfS' HO iX,f-*«*is »«*;r *i» »«* t»lMoK&ttt» •Ai ^mti Wilt »df «iit «MI
Ii;tflif/ n..'t5 .t««n3-s iftrf;f ii«se #©u tj^4 »^ i-aiSt ban ^f9tt& jxoia;$i!ui^ lo »M«
«*»o««*6XJb « »tijus* M«i# •x*w 8W nsrfr" tsQd* sitlfcnpte
h
Wllli'3i« M'^.aon testified th t he owned the automobile th«t
w a involved in the ncoident; th^t the thT«e Tslttintiffe worked in
the a-^me vioinity, «nd th-^t on the morning of the aooident, he did
not need to be nt worlc until C) ., ,, fjnd for thfft r^ son took «
•treet o->r to his pl-ioe of employruent ; th- t on the -s^ay to work, he
eaw hie automobile turned over against an elevated post nt the souths
e!««t oorner of Banganon rmd Lake Streets. He testified th^^t the
brA.kes were in good condition, rmd thr t prior to August 19, 1937,
his OTr "IS "in perfect condition*** On cross-exsainflition, he stated
thnt be did not hive 5 s-ifety atlcker on the car.
C, Uousle testified th-t he v^n n. police officer for the
City of ChiOT.go, resigned to the Desplaines street ^t-^tion; tb*=t ait
about 8:15 on the morning in question, he received a ofll to investi-
gate an ficoident, •»nd thst he and his partner. Officer ijoilth, went
to the sMna and observed the automobile na it lay ^ilongside of nn
elevted post on the southe-^st oorner of i^nngraaon and Lake Streetsj
th-'t they then prooeedtd to the doctor's office -^xvi returned with the
plaintiff Turner to the scene of the 'ooident, where he interviewed
the moterman of the street or-r on his rfturn trip; th^t the motorman
atf^ted th-t the outonobile "wv.s goinj^; 50 ailes an hour or asore and
Out him off"; th-^^t the witness then stated thnt he did not think the
automobile dDvuId go th.t f'^st; th t he examined the street o^ir «nd
taw a dent on the front left hand side of the street c-?r, which w^s
In the resr !\t the time; th t it w?8 not » very Isr^e lent ^nd one
eould tell th^it there had been an impact; th-^t there t""^8 some blnok
paint on the dent «nd Xtrnt there were no other m'^rks on the street
e*ix, fmd th't he examined the nutoaoblie snd "spw the left re.->r wheel
and fender w a dented".
R. Smith, a police officer assigned to the Oesplaines Street
Station oorrobor^^ted the tpstlraony of his partner.
i
« *<jo* GOfi««'r *«rf# fot &«?? «,M.A e lltattr 3ftt©« >e ocf ©1 l>«9£r ion
^tetm »iS »S6l#»iSlsE*x«i-«»«to 0S> i*miiitst4ti *i><mwt irl" "teaw icjed sltf
-Itatvai et lies a fc^lSKJaa ftrf \ja0itnnt1p &i ^Isiteo «rf* sd 81:0 tuwlm
tfim ^dfM& TWdiltO »f*ii#t3^ 814 M« »H >«tf* foa^ ,*«'»!> i««>« W'#*|
ire to »&I«!|^qX& t»i^ ^-^ B^ »Xi«f«^e#tri» »ii$ b^irtssi^o tixa «fl»«« flufif d^
*i{* diiv Si9mtutf^^ m.B »«i'*^o i»toto«6 9dt of 'iim>»smo's:<! tttnif x^d$ ti?4t
fcas area f© ttrnA sn u^llm Ce s^-^os »*^*' «ii«?«>»8o#Wie •rfif *»d* ftdfii't
«rft iairf# 5h3U frifc »iJ *?rf? Mif^t^ H^&i mmtta ftif* >«iir i*tko «lif #!!<►
&«« if/t© fmiin fidt fe^fliisiejra <M ^ip^f J j»*1r iT^rf* d§ dingle •iltfo^o^xr^s
8d«- ifoJtffw 4^.09 *«»-r*8 »jcfif lo »fci» JbtfiwC f^X #a«t*l: »J# 'Jti» !«•& A »«#
*»*T*e ftdl' no «3lt«ir if9«f#d ©« *t«w «ierf# #jw» I>ii« *«•!> ^Ai ao ^Uq
X<sarfw i#«t rt»X ftisl* wA«* Jb4i« tlicfoiBoJxrii *Ai l>64i3BUIit« aK tiii^ IkiBt t««o
■-'■ ■■■ ''■'-'■ ■'"'"' ■'■ /' ^''^ '■'^•'' '*•"&«#«»' ~ ^'fl^ i«»^'
6
Henry ^-rtln testified th t he va empioyej nt ^^n eat^bllah-
m&n% nbout 35 or 30 feet east of the 90uthe«iet corner of 'inn^f^iaon
*nd L*)ke Streets; th'it '?bout 8:05 >■, ii. on the dry of the ?3ncidient,
the witness nr-a wsiting for ?i truck to oome in with n shipment, nnd
th t he «• 8 standing on the sliewnlk in front of the pl^ce, loolcing
northwest; thnt "there vf->8 a bunch of traffic going by** , "nd th«t he
paid no ?»ttention to the traffic; that «tll of '< sudden he he-'ird g
oraah and noticed p street o^.r; that "I noticed 9 bunch of tr»?ffio,
ft truck ".nd car and then I noticed ^jnotber c^r behind this first
oar get hit by t|»« street c^^r and I tsrent over there. The street
e^T wAs going south* It wvs a one-aan street c-ir, I didn't see the
operator of the street cr until the orMata**. Upon being *>8ked whether
he notioed the automobile before the iaappot, he stated: "why, I
noticed part of it. I didn't pny sisuch attention to anything at the
ooaent, but I notioed thnt the front of the 'automobile r«s goin^^
noross the north and southbound tr«»ek9»'* He further st ted th^tt the
autofflooile Trna struck whan its front wheels were in the northbound
traoks of fiang-aon Street nnd th^t the tf 'r of it 'r a in the southbound
tr-)0ks; th-t ha saw the atrf-et cnr hit the automobile, «nd th-^t the
RUtoaobile v^g thrown off the trr?ck ^nd hit m post ^^nd tirped over;
that it vaa thrown in n kind of «np;le gidevr»ys snd landed up atr«inat
a pHl»»r over on the 9outh<><)8t corner of oaniirRaon *ind L"«kP Otreeta;
that the Mutoanobile turne i ower twice and l-^nded on the right side
with its front facing Sfist ^nd itg rp?r wegt. He st«^ted that there
was a lot of traffic going e^st on Like iHreet th-'t hour of the
Borning; th't when he first 3«w the ^^utomobiie, it w^a Just ibout
ooaing into 3anga«on Street, t-nd th t the front wheels were Just ibout
entering the southbound tr'>cks, -^nd th t, f>t th??t time, the street
•«r was atandlng still; th t when the front wheels of the i^utomobilc
were in the southbound nils on Jna'-'mon street, the street aar waa
,*«».tin©K ^4:^ lo t«t" «»^* B® •** -'^ 36:8 *if0Gfs *ii4J^ ja$»9i*8 93(«kl bfljt
fcfip ,tiiaj»^iifa « ait 111 as ss^oo o;;? iotn.^ a t**^: ga'l*i»v rrut eASii^iw »At
^^etlt BxAi b&lA^ t,.«s ^fttiiJ'qrit?; fe»©jtt(a«" 2 a^Ai fcnts tbo feii« idxiriT a
l-fesswrsts Mt ,^.*risff!? T-sty® #.a»w J Mm ic«» *»0it#« ft4^' -^ iid tsg fi©
,»rf*»«E*- fe«i»f' ?^i«€f a««|^ •*iifte*ts> ^ffJ ifiiSi/ Hiss #d*«*a #4# 1* vote^^qo
tiSif *M;I I)*!ti5 ,eXirf«MB<i#t«5 »ff# *!:«{ T»t! *9»t:18 »/I* wae id #Aif# ;«iefiY#
jirat^ l>9<?qf J .ba:(» ^»&ci n HH has 3S»«** aJ* tid awfttfl^ ««'»■ »Xldo»©*w«
jr»«t*8 ««# ,^aj tMt *fi #erf* fen* lejffljs-it i!ia««KJii#»»» »ifl ^ir^^n»
T
pnrke'i, '^nd th t he ild not notlop ^ny oassengers (^Atting on or off.
He further testified th»t "just before the imTj-ot or or*»8h, I did
not he-r ^ny sounds of gongs or wnrning given by the operator of the
street or, and th-^t the street o->r stoppel when he oroased the east
and Fostbound tr^oks* He crossed them ?nd stopped* lie milled the
OflT away, ^fter the street ef=!r hit the ost, the street o -r stopped
fbout one length south of the e-^stbound tracks. < bout the e^'st D-^rt -
the front end of the street c^r stniok the r^utomobile", on oross-
ecanins^tion he tentified th-it he had been drivinfr nn automobile since
h« was 15 ye«jr8 of apre; th?'t the fiutomoblle inrolved in the -^coident
was tr^rellng " >^ oouple of nilea -^n hour When it w!ie gtruok", "nd
that c.nrs *er« parked along the south curb of L^ke street at the time
of the ^qocldent. He .'•eknowledged his signature to n statement »ws.dc
by him to nn inTeRtig5».tor fox defendants on Oeptember 11, 11?7» He
stj^ted thvt he did not remeiBber whether he told the investig-ttor
th-"t he oouldn*t give any information '■a to the speed of the street
e^r, thit pertiaps he did make the stnteatent, hut he did not reaipmber
it; th*t he did not reneaber whether he snid the street o?>t fan nbout
10 feet after the sooldent; th>t he did not remembeT thnt he s^id
the ftutoaoblle moved to the right to p.woid » collision; th t he did
not remember whether he ststed thnt the automobile ^-.^b goin^ between
15 msd oO miles ^n hour, •'nd stnted, "maybe I did snd m*iyhe I didn't
iMks th t stfte^nt". He testified th- 1 he has hnd occasion to stop
automobiles with four wheel brakes tr-reling Pt speeds of from 35 to
40 miles i»n hour, and th>'t he could stop •* 1929 four door Hnh,
equipped with four '^heol br-^kes, on « dry street tr«ivellng rtt from
4 to 6 miles an hour, in "^ oouple of feet",
St«<niey Jpejeher testified th^'t he its -i oommeroinl ohotogr-n-
pher. By menns of his testimony, two jhotogrsiphs of the lutomobile
lying on its side *gAin«t the eleweted post on the southeast corner
of Sangamon snd L^ke streets, w^re introduced in evidence.
t
Mt a ,fiiE*?«o tc t^m*k erf* *Tol»<f ^tift" tntif ii9n£t^»t ir««#TLift an
.fc»crt?«ts Tft» teftTTtf'e bA:} ,«.««» ftiiaf #M t««> t«»9^^6 ndt t&i^A ,^[ew« tso
-SWOT!? ffi? « *arXJtde«wtcf» s>if# ^otnt^a t«o l-^^i^xfii »if? to Ms #«©«! »itf*
iwsit «ttft f.« ^?*«**i*i<i^ §t«iJ Yb <hudti rf*f^t>& arf't aafii^ fc^ix'jRq *«•«' »*»• *«jif*
1-9tf&»aS<!5t toil hlfo *>£j {futf ,tUS!fSS*.r*B M$ 9%jm hlb iMf «qiJ«fi»<f tMf ,1^6
fclfTS &rf #Bd» »«<Ib»»m t&tt bib a* t*lf* j#fi»:feiooe Stft T«»*li> ifttst OX
feife »4f ftdf jweieJtiXco .® Moy?i o* itf^it >»M ©# B»«v«ft oXld'oeiOtiit #i(^
o,t SS «0Tt to efcssqs *« i«iXW)»rrJ s^sTrrd i?»«a*» ttrot fC*i* ••XMo*©*©^
,!!&«« 'xoofe wot esex *» qo*» blOTja »4 *«jsr^ Ml «««!Oif MB KftXlaf Oi^
tto't^ *« SS^XevsT* *«^t*« X'^ J^ «^ ,««ilii«r X»«^ tiKftl ttfiv l»»Q<jlxf0»
-fii^*d^ XfliOT^fltfree s liie^ erf tpdi h^itifsttt «ir»t»cr^ t»-^»*-
^?»xrroo t»fitniitto9 ndf no #to«? l»*i!!'r«X« »tf* #»nl«^ii ^ll •#! rfo sniX-t
H-iiry i-oeneokl* n boy, who, ^t the time of the trlnl, wpt
17 ye-^ra old, testified th'.t -t 8 ©•clock of the morning in question,
h« w^n helping his mother in a tsvern st feoria -^nd l.-^ke Hreeta;
thflt he -^8 on hia r^y to c-sh ?. large bill -^t ^ t?^vern looted '•t
the northw*^st corner of "^nnjr-^mon Tnd L-^lce 'Hrf'ets; th'?t he -sliced
Tfest on the north side of L»\ce Street, -nd th-t when he reached the
northe-iet corner of l.eke nnd Snngmaon Street* he a-n* - street osr
parked on the northwest corner f-'Cin south; th«t he vs "'aitlng
for the street c?>.r to go in order to orose '^nd th^t he w?is etching
the conductor, th-t the conductor -rna tnking f'rres snd i/ivinj^-; tr^na-
fera out. He stated thnt "then after s s?Kile I ^-^.a just y^oing to
crosa, then I he.-^rd ^ or-rah "nd I looked "nci the ptret cr hit the
left Tpnr ^eel -and re?»r fender nnA knocked the c^r over twice
against a no»t nnd rolled b-^ck. ihe street c?r Tfjoved up to the corner,
then he ^itopoed -nd w-»ited for the noliOfaen -nd the policemen
checked up." On orosa-exnminstion, he atoted th-t he ^^n ot the
corner :^11 to^ethfr before the 'cnident and ?fter the ?»ccident -^bout
16 minutes; th-^t when he ofiise to the corner he 3"^ the street c-?r
standing there «nd frioing south, -^nd th"t -"bout 10 minutes "fter
the nocident, he 8?w three policemen «^rrive. This witness rpcognired
his signature to a statement that he give on iepteinber 14, 1937«
On the tri'^1, counsel intprrogRted hia ^s to whether the inve9ti;^''tor
«»aked hia if the street or»r n^a standing or Moving, nnd if it '-^a
■oTing, bow f-'st. The n'itnass answered: "I do not know how fpst it
WHS polng". He testified th t he lid not tell thp investig-tor th'^t
the motormnn sounded his gong; th t he did not tell th*? inreatig' tor
thet the e^tstbound "utomobile taoved to thf» rit^ht to '•void hitting
the street onr; th-t he couldn't see; thr't he rJid not tell the
inrestigstpr th t ♦^he front left of thp o<--.t struck the rit'ht re«ir of
the "uto, -^nd th-t he dii not t<»il the investig-^tor th^t the street
cr hit the left gi ie of the ^^utoiaobile*
• jpe4;ilM.«« s^'^ ■»«< tM* j«r*a©« r.:«itJf;t Tt«B-i©0' t»*'?riirt<j« 9fl# ,ao i)»:afi»tt
f^intiim^ fejRsr ««^ ;r*^rfi» ^feoas? «w>o«© o*' "JT^^teo «t «5® o* *«© s^3«ic*« »d* tol
•'«j^? tit! «,«© tft-t-Kifs- »rf? fea» fedilool I Ssift «!««»» »■ l>i:.?»»if I «»«!(# gescTO
a»»^9oiicH; s«f# ^i5« n9«t«©i:i©<T «^:t Tot hstlmt hSf h9<xqofw^d tf^
-rno *«9»te *!<* ^«s *ti «Bffto» »sf* f^ •*)?» etf flftrfw f «if# j8»*aale SI
&»:5liT:go©!»f ?f««n#Jw aid's «9^1t«» a^suw&fleq si^^rf* #«i» ted ^'^wMfIooa terfd^
»Bv ti tl hgtH t'^lrm tro BfiJtfeB«*» e*rw ^/^o *»!Mffe ©ifiT \i mid !)»*»*
#1 iefil iron v^csH ton ofe I* i{>«wsw9«B «»»3#^ *f«? ♦iTwerl w»df ,iffivo«(
T0*«3E(X*a»vrti axft iX»* tea fciU »rf *«o*- iSfl®8 ^-t^ l»&««©0 hahcto^o* »d#
bAS llaf ten *l^ »tf #««i? {*»« *««f>Xwo© ttf f«d* J«»» **»»»#» «»ri:i
1« 5»*T rrifelT aril 3l»trtrB rti*© «dJ lo if»X #h©^ •if* »Krf* t©#i?^l*8«r«i
**>9«*8 9/l# tBiO- i:o#«Dl»a«Vtti iirft fX»#^ ton Ml» ittf Iprft hiff ,«t«;B »rft
, .*Xltf0mo*i/» m^tn •biB ni^i '»«^* #iU T«r©
9
aeoTge SkJila testified thiit st ^bout 8 ©•-look of the oaornlng
in ouf'ntion, he wns ■tandint; on the side-'nlk outside of the nlant
of the <efTii-^r-tor Apnlic«noe Ooapi^ny, on the e?st side of ^:«n^aolOB
street nnd about 25 to 30 feet eouth of the southet^st corner of JL.f<ke
und Sangnnuin .itreeta; th't he w^s looking north on fJanj^f^Bon street
and weet on Lf«ke street; th t he a-'p- .*». one-mnn street <5">r 3to?> nX
the northwest corner of ■^«»ngamon and Lrke streets, »?nd thr>t soae
pwssengprs ^^ere ^^ettiny, on ^nd off; th- t there ras r Mnah -ed3n going
e^at on Lske Street; th t rhen he first <i^v the ■automobile, it r^.»
3u«t south of the west street c^fx line on Sangamon street, »,nd thit
the f^utomobile we going Pbout 4 to 6 miles an hour. He stated th't
"the Auto w«8 just flb0T.»t commencing to h'«t into the southbound r^^ils.
*hen the front wheels of the riutoflKsbilP were in the southbound tr-^cks,
the street crsr started. I he^ird no signal or gong sounded by the
operr'tor of the street c«<r at the time it st-^rted to go south on
Saagaaon street, or before the impact, / 1 the time of the impact,
the street c«r w-'s aoving '•bout 8 to 12 miles ^n hour. The left aide
of the street crt strviok the left re^r fender »snd whe^l of the ^ uto-
Mobile, turning it over tvfioe, «nd it i*^nded p|.^?.inst ?n elev'sted pole
loo* ted pt the southeast corner of 0»inK«»mon and l.?»ke streets. The
front wheels of the sutomobile rere on the northbound tr-^cks of
Seng^i^aon utrf^et, snd the renr rheela v^ere on the southbound tr-^oks of
San^«a»n itreet f)t thp time of the collision. The automobile is ^^bout
10 to 1? feet long. At the time the street c-^r started, I 8«?.w the
operntor of the street o-jt hsnd out tr-'nafers -^^mi collect ftires. The
operator was not w«tching traffic going e-st on Jake Street nt the time
the street o»t et- rted," On cross-emmln'ttion, he testified th-t the
front of the street c^r w^s f»bout 3 or 7 feet south of the building
line nt the orossvnlk of If^ke Street when it r?9 standing; th-^t he
saw soise people getttag on the street o-^r "nd some getting off, »nd
th"t in his opinion the automobile w^s golnrf from 4 to 6 miles \q hour
»i»<I ta> tt^ntQP ie<s9.dtiton ^dt 'io iitifon jt««^ OS o* 3S: ^sredjt £ta« #t«TjfS
<Mi«)R jTad^ h«# «e^e97#$ mlo-i J^B jau)««^ft^ to lEtaic^ tssvidlicoa 8if*
»4Jh ^ £)<l^iiC8 SfiO^ X9 X'«rt^8 9<<t i^7<»t«( I »l>»tf90fft YAd #0«7#8 «4#
,*o*tQisi 9111 1© ftmi? «£i;r JTA ^#»««gjai Ullir 8*5f«t»<f i;o ,t89«*8 aoK«»3fUl^
»^a; jJltsl Slit •x«©£l_ fljs galJtffi gl &4 B .fi^^n ^oivo* bjiw t«® *•»«*« •/!*
-**ii4? *il;r to X0»4» i.^ij "i;®i>cfsl t*a3t ,0%%l $d$ t^teiH T«0. *»9'rir8^jB^tJto
al&ts &f»tp.r&S» stm tmle:$ii t^ts&l .#jt &«.«. ^^iMt S8V«i: 11 ,s»i<i^tf* «»|Jt€fOf:
■^<> &itt>m%t bauoUA^mm *.6i ao 619^ 9l^^ti« «■•»« *^i feas ,*8»x48 iroABtn^S
sm^n el sfMomo^a* SMit .aoieiXJEo® »itiJ' 1« •wl^ sutW *« #«<iit*S in»i^:5fl«8
8ft^ W&» I »fe«#tj?#« «»® #»^X*8 »4* «»i* s4* M •Jl^fOl ^991 SI Oi^ OX
9ii"i »*ST*1 *o®XX«o Ms aTft^aus-it *«r« .felttftri t«© **«x*8 erf* to xotsto^o
'>;i<jt* 9£f* *« ^^isf^e 8i8si 00 #8.e'8 i^lo^ t>jttt«xf salil«*j6w tea mtn. XQ^ntmo
Bdt t&dif t&llli'c^i 9tl »KOJt#0«l»«* 8-880 to ffO ", J> 9 ^-X. ■-•;*» T«e *99Xt8 »«**
8flibXi«/«f «il* t© titmz *89t € «« 8 teftf« fsi ««<j i99?*» 94* tf fno^t
eri inif* j^sZAfle^di e^w *i a»Ai *©»x*S siJfeJ to SXjmt»ot6 »dt *8 «aii
6fl* ,tt© 3t«t**»s «eoi *'^ »««> #»»t*8 «rf<t ao gai*;J8jt «Xqo8q •«08 wjac
•KroU or, e»Xjto 3 o* t> ffioit sfiiag , t«w 8Ni:44|w«>*«# ai<| n^iniQO eiif ai *«d»
10
AOroBS the inteTBectlon, He atnted th- t he hnd driven -automobiles
for 23 ye'?T8, and tb?t he h^l experience in stopoinfj, <?uton)oblles
at i^peede up to 45 -^nd 50 mliea an hour, Mxi th^t In his opinion a
1939 JHneb with four vheei br«»kee in good condition, being operated
on a dry onvesaent Rt 4 to 6 oiiles an hour, could be stopned In
fro« 1 to 3 feet, -^md th' t If it w-»8 equipped with two wheel brakes.
It oould be stopped In C to 10 feet,
A physician testified o<5 to hie aervloee ^nd the re^-sonable-
neog of hie chnT^es r>nd the ohnrgea of the hoeplt^l, >»t thli; juncture,
the plB.intiff rested.
The def endnote placed on the s1>.«nd' the motorman nnd eeven
persons who were nwasengers on the street e^r r>t the time of the
accident. The eubstpnce of th^ir testimony t^-s th't they observed
the ??utomoblle traveling es^st on Lake street -'t a speed of around 50
■ilea an hour; th^t the ^utooiobile w^s from 56 to 1'^'^ feet Test of
S^ngi^mon Street at the time the raotormBn of the street car started to
erosr; the intersection, and th^.t the motorraTjn stopped the osr ouickly;
thi»<t the driver of the !»utoraoblle tried to swing out of the -^y of
the street c-sr, nnd th'^t the automobile "flew across to the elev»ted
poet"; that t e operator of the street or^r then drove the street car
Across the Intersection in order to e,et it out of the ^my of traffic,
3nd thpt the operator of the street car vps not ooiieoting fares qt
the tine of the crnah.
George Gersch, the oper?ttor of the street 0--.T, testified th^^t
he was 47 ye^rs of t ;e, nnd th-^t he h*»d been employed ^9 i motormin
for 35 ye?»rs; th-t when he stopped the owr nt the northwest corner
of Jengamon and L^ke ntr»=et8, a wom^n got off nnd another person got
on; th t he closed the doors of the or, looked e^st and vreit but he
oould not see f^r because of the building on the north»e8t corner;
that he started the o-^r and .oved nbout 5 feet when he g^w ,n automobile
04
« jx«>iitlqo el^ Hi t*^^ bats «Tiwii oj^ »elltt 03 l^.^ 3I» oi^ qxr al^tsiste i^«
,9^i.8^ X»»iffr ©** nfim bm^lflu^^ asm #i tl *■<«'£{«' tsstjn »#«M8t « <># X leo^lt
• ;f9t»1: OX «t 3 01 £f^C?iC70#8 mT &Xj;/«o #X
.-...-rt'x-.'rff tiiiS' J'* •XiS'tf'X^^irti^ »j!ft to «i^«i«f» (III* Anil 'ib^siMo tlif l:o staMt
to #8$w #'#«! f^t o^ 9S wfitft e«w dXid'c^bo^tfR •dt #AiCir i«fif<Mt fljr 'adXiiB^
to tswr trf* t© *tfo ^iwe ef b*l«# ull^omofaM miii to ttriiik 9rf# *»tf*
•sso tfsts'Tts 9rf* ©v«Tfc a9At t»e t»»"s#« ©rf* to 'S0#<n:«c(d »rft #«<!* t*^*?
,©ntsT:# t© t^ **** ^o *»^ ** *«'Si «►* ««fc»d Hi i!ol*9»OT»*Rl arft eeoTC-
#« sdiTjBi ^ir©»iioo #©(3; »«?!» tft© *»»itt« tiur t« «<i*«E«»ti« »rf# t»tit ftu"
*■■■'■■ """ .AHWd «lf* to 9«!l? «rf3^
fog it««t»<r tftifd^ofiA iSaif tt« $9% itmm « ,»**««*ll dilfta feox tum»^R
jtantoo tBSKriC#tojr •!(* fit© '^albltud iwlf t» •«'■ 'on i-ix/c^^-
eXlrf6«ao»««' «« w«« tit «»rfw t»«t 8 ^wod^ **^*
II
oomlng e!»8t "bout 300 feet -^iff?/ st «bout '-5 miles 9n hour; th^t he
sounded the gong, ini th^t when it sn^e red th^t the -".utomobile w»»8
not going to atop, he applied hla bT-'lcFg nnd brought the street q^t
to « stop on the engtbound trnoks of L-^ke Otr^et; th'it the automobile
continued to trarel p'^et snd atruclc the «!trret or^r '>n6. then struck
« pillar, and th'it the --iutomobile 4iri not slacken its speed when
RPpToaehing the intersection, «nd th-it ther'^ hides in
front of the street onr to obstruct hio view.
It is manifest from the '^\>ove st-itements th«t there -v-rs a
clear conflict ns to the essentl'^l issues. >Ve h«ve not su i
the testimony Introduced in behslf of the ^efend«nts becau ve
b«en searching the record in ^n endeavor to aaoert«>in nrhether there
wns sufficient competent evllcnce, viewed in it? nfjost f«)Lvornble light,
from the st-mduoint of plnintlffs, to r^^nyire aubml^slon of the o-^ae
to the jury, -ve hn-'re, however, read ?»nd considered ''ll th<» evllence.
The burden rested on plaintiffs to show affirmatively th«t tli«y i«^ere
In the exercise of due o?tre, or to rolse » re«3on«ble inference of
such c»re. It wns also the duty of pl'ilntiffe to she*- ^fflrmstlvely
th^t defen 'nnts, by their servr^nt, were guilty of negllp;enoe which was
the proxlmste 07<use of the in.jurles. A c^rf-ful perusal of the tsstl-
•ony convinces us th«^t in directing the verdict, the court inv^/ied
the nrovinoe of the Jury, e h^ive remd the or-'l ooinion of the tri^l
judge wherein he corr'^otly states the orincir>lea of Inw involved, ^,e
«iliO not© th«)t he announced thnt in deciding the motion to instruct
the jury for defeni^mte, he h!»d no right to ^-eigh the evidence, Despite
that statement,^ ia mfl nifes t that he did weigh the ewUence. r- '.re
of the opinion th t the court tss not w.«>rr«?nted in holdinjr -.-tter
of Inm ^£_*_2iSLJuat i f f 8 ^£5._J5i^tj^_of joont^^ Becnuse
of the views expressed, the judgment of the Jirouit aourt of Cook
County is reversed and the 0!»use reminded for a new trial,
RfiVEHSID AND HiJtfANDRO,
OHINIS £, aiLLIVAN, P,J. *ND HiSlh, J, CCHCIJ ^,
u
MOf/^f^e iDf»if^ fjflp TCi»» ^♦S'T** *»«[* Stuff ts &a» *8*"9 l^vijiif ot bnuattst&9
»*rfsjil ».X#.««ov«l i»em %.tl at MrnHmX-^ ,s«>««fciir» d-ft*sr«qf»<M> *a9isi%rff» «jb»-
OTft* tM* i^<**ff^ t-i^evl^isfttlt'ts woifffi ^S^ tttifslalq no fcsi'S*'? ii»£>i£«f stfl
totni»at fst npjt^eae »(!;}• %aibto^& ai .t^'fl^ f>8b«cr.i;0Hcr« •«? tsM »tott mlt
40326 9
OUiUlDlAli iiAiiOOHiC'^ATlCJ*, a ooroorn
JAM!^i3 A, 10*,
i
) APPEAL itROil
«UHiair=AL COURT
) J 01*' OHIO AGO.
In R«4 Intervening Petition JOHM vr,
BFNNB,TT "^nd ED'VARO y. ocLBAOH, Attorneys,
Appellees,
JAM£B A. 10'«, GORHAM b^OKS, et q1., )
Trustees, )
Appellants* )
itH, JU3TICE HEBEl. DELIVin.EO THE Oiai^'IOii Of TUfi OCURT*
On M)-roh 15, 193?^, n judgaient r,?s obtained in the Municipal
Oourt of ChiCBgo by the Ouwrdian fij^ncorporntion og^inst James .\»
Low for the sum of 34,098»75« An sppenl t^-^s t-'ken to this co\;rt.
Pending the gpoesl. Low lied, his death w^s sugfreatcd here, ".nd
the cause proceeded in the nime of his executor. On April 11, 1933,
an order ws enterrd in this court f firming the judgment, cn
February 14, 19!?5, the Ciuardion 3-ncori^or tion j^aoiKtied the judgiaent
end all the right, title • n.i interest therein to >orhi^« lirooks,
i^obert • - one, II, J<imes JfCkson, Jrahsim Aldis -I'nd "Mussel Tyson,
"8 trustees, -vnd the assignment oontf?.ined a recital to the effect
th"t the judgment h' 1 been fallowed p3 n olnirn 'itrjpinst the est'ite
of Jiaes '^» Low, dece^^sed, in the Prob«te Oourt of i^oolc -ounty on
April 8, 1333, On k^roh 31, 1937, John ^, Bennett «nd Edward U,
3olbneh, the ttorneyB who represented the ^unrdian Hn^ncorpor- tion
in obtaining the judgment ^f-j^inst J-^mes ^, Love, filed n cl»»ia in
the Prob.'ite Oourt of Oook Oounty in which they set forth -"ll the
fncts alleged in the ^tunioipal Oourt upon which judginent v.% entered
<»nd Alleged th«<t the Prob»te Jourt b^d complete "^nd exclusive Juris-
diction to '»djudic<»te their cliim; nr-yrd th«t the court imoresg «i
lien for attorneys' fees on the clnim 3illo"*ed in the Probate Oourt
■,f<5.i U BXUM
««»»£J:-9Q[^
ii^
■}>« *■ i^*ii:
,<hcjtfoe 8jt^^ o# ad^j»^ e#w X£«q^£ aA •0T«88O«^S§ te mv •ti^i xaI yoa
*o»ne 9dJ o* X«ijt©« 19 JbwiJtjBtaoo i^A«aifl$l«e« »rf* fen* ,<»^^^»+.^"'i
Ill iBi«Xo e 6«Xn ,w»4 .^ sMusl »»iil«»-« J^n»ff^bc'£ ^<J^ j5*»lnl»»#«f® al
♦-xiroC »t6<r©«<l 94* «r b*wQXX« mUl- '^x^trtoiU to\ ii«XI
3
*»gtiln«t the estate of Lo* and upon th# funds derived therefrom*
After a he-^ring in the irobr-te Oovrt th?)t oourt dismissed the petition
of Mesars. Bennett and <^oIbp.oh. From the order of dismiss^fl entered
on November 30, 1937, ..ennett and Uolbcoh appcflfid to the Girouit
Oourt of Oook County. The record indicates th' t this ".oue^l is
still pending. Thereafter, on Oeoember 3, 1937, -lennett ^nd volb»ota
filed « petition in the Munioio'il Court of vhio«go in the originisl suit
of the Guardian Banoorpor- tion agp.i&et J^mes a, loir, in vhioh they
allege that they h^ve »? lien for '■ttorneys* fees against the trustees,
-assignees, of the judt^went «i<pinst Low for services rendered the
>u«irdi=*n d^noorpor tlon in procuring the original judjjpaent, and in
representing ^l^'intiff, the Guardian b-^noorpor'tion, in the ApoeH«?te
Oourt.
The petition in the iaunicip»l -ourt seeks the same TPlief as
th t sought in the FrobJ^te Oourt. A motion by defendants r-s made to
diemisp the petition for the re son, ?tmong others, th-it the court was
vlthout jurisdiction to entertain the petition »»nd clnlm; th- 1 the
Wobate Court had complete jurisdiction of the subject afctter, and
/thPt the mtter wig lis pendens nnd undisposed of in the Circuit Oourt
j of Oook County, where the sipoe^il is still r-endinp;, -fter n hearing
en the petition '^nd motion to dlsml-^s "^nd the '•nswer of the defendant
' trustees, the court entered judgment -"^'^Inst the trustees for the sua
1 of »iX,440.19, This Is "n '»poe'>l from th t judc-ment.
In In re Fstite of -tghl> '-^7 111, 5?9, " petition —9 filed
in the Probf^te Court of Cook County by the 'dalnlstrator of the
estate, seeking f=n order for the s-'le of renl eet-^tc to p»y debts.
In th'?t proceeding the ouestlon orose ss to the ownershlo of the
renl estr^te by the nerson irhose est te i»as being administered. It
seeas th^t the s-me ouestlon hns been rlsed In another oroeeedlng
and the Question of the oimershlp h^d baen determined in th^^.t oro-
X^siS Am^w ax ,i«oa .A setB.B.tr ^sKi^^^ AoX^B^ogTootaJsH HjsXfoTjRirt) «wft to
»ss»tt8»n:» M* *8«X.«s« »sf>l »3t»«to#*ff Tot asiX « nrvs^d \^d^ $&ai »^9XX«
0* 9>t>.m ©"!*' s#jS)Rl5fi9T«fe t^ aoticm A •i^:tfoO «;*,j!rrf0T^ *i» at M^ssoe ti-At
Mi i'^M jaiftXo &a« floi*i#fl« ftf* fsii6tt*$m &t s^lt^tmltisi ftsoAttn]
#ttfoO *Xsrt>TXO »£[# aX to fc*8oq.eXJ!>JtJjr ib«« i ^^btxm. gj , ! gsnw t®*:f.«B 9rf* .#.«M*\
SfllitJ*^!! « <K»*tA ,gaX&a»q XXX*« sX Xis«qer« ♦^tf 9«»iSi7 ,^*a009 afcoO to,
*ii«?fca9t»fe drfd^ to «6irexs/t srii- Ms eeXtaii^ 9f iSaXtoa &a« flroX^Xtt^ 9£ft no ;
&US adi lol swft^sinif 9>dt ^aixis??'* *ii««fgl3irt fs»i:«^« ttifoo 8if* ,«»*#B»ti:i
,*«S8saWt J-^'ri^ «»0'i* lM*f$q£ a» bX ftXHt •tXjd»>«l$ to ,
!»«Xit ®w »©Jt#i*«<j I- ,ef^-a .XXI VSS >I<!.?i;tg to » UU^ W al ffl ^ ^
»if# to •toistfiBiittimt'' Btii t<f t*««o^ stcwO to fii/ov ®*«d©«t »rf# ftl
orf^ to qirfatdftyo «df* 6# ii% »so'S« aoXtseirn wi* siiXfe»«ooitq *pil* al
#1 ,^»«r®*«iflX«fc^ SitiM feK« 9*»t«a »«orf* ftOeitsq ^Hi ^ ttir*ea I«&i
^flXBssooTq T»rf?Oit« ai li««i«T «««<* «M ttoitv&ni^ •«»• «lll» t«<l# Wbs-'h:
3
oeeding. Th« court held th't the Probate Oourt wns without Jurla-
diction, nod sr^id;
•♦The controlling f^^ot or oueRtion in thia c»8e ia ^s to
the ownershiy of the rerl est te in question nt the time of the
denth of '^oid trederiokpi h» ~:tphl» fh«t w-a the controlling
fict in the former onses* e eon ^nd :5ublic polioy ftlike demand
thrt when t^ matter, whether consisting of one or more Questions,
h-^s been solemnly ndjudio-ted, it ??hnll be deemed finally ^nd
oonolusi^ely settled in j»li aubseouent liti.v tion bet»-cen the
9"iae jmrtiee when the 3»^ae Question ^risea. ( H^nn^ v, iend«
102 111. 596),"
In b-^oon T, MPJohelt. 373 111, 90, it wr^e held th- 1:
"A prior "'ijudic tion bet»^en the g-^aae pMTties is oon-
oluslTe upon the-a, not only ^^a to the matters rotually deter-
mined, but ^a to every other thing s^ithin the lcno»ieda,e of the
parties i^hioh might h ve been stet up "9 * j^-round for relief or
defense. Ruegger v, Xndi^nflpolia ^n;^ wt^ Louis -!Rilro''d Op .
103 111, 449; Ot-ersf v, ii>^i;ins « 57 id. 344j Hamilton v, uimby.
46 id. dO; oby v, Onlumet nnd ghion^o O^nal 'ind uppk Jp . . 165
id. 377,"
The petitioBBrs, hnrinp submitted their olnim to the i'rob«te
Oourt, and in the ribsenoe of iny showing th-^t th-^t court h^d not
Oomplete jurisdiction of the entire subject nwtter, i*-* oonolude
that the Uunicipp.l Oourt, upon the f^ot being presented to it, ns
it WHS, t^vtthe olaiffl r^is pending^ »nd undianosed of In the iTob^'te
Oourt, should hnve dismissed the petition. Therefore, the judgment
of the liunioip<)l Court of Chierjgo is reversed ^nd the onuse is
reni'tnded with the direction th- t the oetition of ^ennett nnd (<^olbaoh
be dismissed.
REVERSED AID ?lg:'.;AKi3£D WITH DIKKCTIOKG,
DEMIS E. 9ULLIV/Ji, P.J, 0ONCUR8,
BURKK, J, TAKIS MO PART.
e
- :i'(ii:
j?ir.<irft .feiSiS 6AW *i ,C1§ Ult S'fig ^i4«'^'04f,^, .-y
lit
S«i ■'■■1
«&irX©v«so» <N? ,iE»tt»ffiii *^i&«i;<Jw» a-xitfl* oi^iT to i{«>4#9i£>»<i^^fif& »*»iq«50©
iauA •Ai l0
,1^-A^ gti
40263
J AM* 3 A. 3lJf{ai'.9a, ) APrfcAl. tROM
(rialntlff) Appellee,
]19
GorpoP'-tion,
(Oefend?«nt) Apoeiiant.
fi'f. JU3TI0K HE.'-iKL OJCMVi'-'^fD Tit: crifiilOJl OF T:!F. OOURT,
This is '^n -jotion *>t iiw to r*?ooTer ds-arages for peTson?!
injurlee which the olaintiff oialtas were o \u«ed by unwholeaom* food
served to iiia in i restaurant owned and operated by the defendnnt.
There w^s s verdict by the jury and judgtaent w^s entered by the
court for the plaintiff in the gum of 750, The defend-' nt moved
for n 'directed verdict ^<t the close of the plaintiff's c^i!?e, for
% directed verdict -^t the close of fill the evidence, -^nd for n. judg-
ment notvithstnadlng the verdict* The three Motions were denied
by the trial court. The olaintiff moved to set a side the ^Judgggjat
-lad for a new trial, which motion vh» alloweg*
The Oftuse la in this court upon the defend^^nt's two soosnls,
one nn spplic tlon for le-ve to apD<»r»l from the order ^raHtiag the
plaintiff n. new trlAl, end the oth r an appffsl from the orders deny-
ing the defendant's motion for * Ureoted verdict »nd «i judj;r.Tient
notwithstanding the verdict,
As we h'»ve indicated, the petition for le^ve to npv^.p^l by
the defendant in this oourt from the order of the triPl court
gr«ntlng plaintiff's motion for a new trisl w??8 denied, :>nd this
ruling of the court is in effect th^^t the trid co'.jrt QOtftd croperly
in allowing the plnlntiff's action for -- nc?r trial notwithet*nding
the verdict of the Jury. So th-t «rhen we ooise to consider defend«»nt'8
■otlon for cilrected verdict, it would aeem r ther inconsistent
for this oourt to i^aes u;x)n the question th t hns been o«lled to its
attention by the npi^'sla here ^endlnf , for the renson th--t this court
i
ssi^»^:js &*ft % » ^•irfi.S5af?^'i'«B s^f Jt#«|« $rv&o miAi Mk fti *#tf«« wff
Yd t?"*t:f<:«8 0* »V-^^X Tot aoltfi^^o «»4# ^h^tmiimi fw« J «w »^ •
*ii.?oo I'Stiad^ »ii* "io if»Mo sifcT Boi:Tt Jiiao© mMt ml iaMba^f»b «i*
\X^ist?oiq fc9to«« irtj/00 i.«iti? atf^ iMi H^ttn at ei: #«&(©« *df to. Hflllut
fi^l o;r IjsjXIj'O aft9<J eciJ #^.if# HGl*«»yp wrfiT floqxr »«»q et t«r»e «if?» tot
2
has coiiaidered and pegged upon tbc ■petition for l^'-ve to "poeal
filed by the defendant in this cise, -^nd reached the oonoiusion
thst the tri3l rourt "-^fi Justified in allowing plaintiff's
notion for a n«ir trial*
Th« aattcr is etlll pending in the trial court ?^nd the
oueetione rnised here aay be properly eonsldered by th;t court
upon 'i further trial in disposing of the litigntion. Therefore,
la our opinion it is^ould be inconsistent for ub toboldth^t the
trlnl oourt ■•nr9 justified in granting the plaintiff's aotion for
8 new trini r%nd in denying defendant le ve to •'s'tesii, >%xi6 then
consider the Question -■.& to whethf^r the co'> rt t=^^* « in error in
denying the defendant's motion for s directed verdict, '^^s ve hrrt
indict* ted*
For the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed,
APP^AX. 0ISJiI38TO«
wiRKE, J, ';ak>s no fart.
$
aoia.ylo«o» »rf;t fe9rf»,!R»T bar ,fl»Sieo sitf* wi taafeftH^^fe fndt x^ fc«Xlf
Jb^intiibak
"■■'■' ' ' ' y ^.
£■ f ^•,.
40376
SOPUIK Cl^HOLl. ) AF^'EAi FROi^
)
(Plaintiff) Aopeliant, )
) OIRC'IT CJOUHT
▼ • )
aiTY OF CHiaciiO, » Munlcipnl )/ f I / /|0O0K OOUKTY,
Oorporstlon,
(Defendant) A...eliee# )
MR* JUSTiCE HEMEl. OEX-IVV :'i!:i) THE njl6l0« OF THK. OOLfRT.
Thit is an appeal by the plnintiff from » judpiient entered
bjr the covrt for the de'endnnt notvithst'^nding the verdict of the
. jury w«»s for the 9l«!Lintiff#
It ig ohTged in the tg t at ementv filed by the pl'ilntlff th^t
on NoTeaber -3, 1936 she wr» riding ?»8 a passenger in '^n sutoaiobile
which iv'^s toeing opemted in « esterly -ilreetion on li6th i-treet
Rt or nesr its intersection with Indians avenue, in the Oity of
Chio?go» snd thf^t she -v» in the exercise of lue oare and cnution
for her own safety; th«t the defenl'vnt had charge and control of,
ftnd wrs ooeratlng n duap truck in « northerly direction on Indiana
Arenus, nnd was executing n right turn into 116th 3trset; th«t
the defendant did one or acre of the following nets: («) Carelessly
and kMgligently operated the truck; (b) CTelessly executed «»
right turn which ntps not ns close as prsctloal to the right-hand
curb. In vloi«tion of the "t?»tute of Illinois; (c) onrele^aly f>nd
negligently dr«vs the motor truck to the left side of 116th street
when traversing «n intrrsection, contr-^ry to the statute; (d) o-re-
lessly «nd nepiitr^ntly drove the aotor truck unon the left hulf of
116th Street, contrary to the statute; (e) Cirelesgly -ind nefrligently
failed to give nn audible wj^rninf? with f) horn, contrary to the
st«tute; (f) csrelejisly nnd negli>;rently, ^nd Tithout ^>rnin|?: drove
tho motor truck from Indiana Avenue into 116th Ctreet ?jnd to the
left side of iieth atre^et when the left sido was not clcrly visible
f-
'"'"'"■ ,tiittil§lq 9^9 xcit mm t^
siM-4jSti»«-f rj^t «[.«^ M§ %mfitm»m '«a ^ni'i^it' -mm -tn^ M^i «# t»<^#irelt' m
,'^0 lo'xtfSfi'e imiR i^^tM'h bm^ S&i»ta9tffh «tit tt^M ixt9\iii» jxwo rBd -rol
#ftdi* ifnmt^ (if&U Qtal atuf titbit * -^tfm^-xn^ ; ,
hatii-'M^lr »iJ* ^jf i.j»9i *©«?«? e,e oaoXo «is ton^ »*??.• lielrinr a%s/$ tO^it
bRM \lm»X^fsro (0) ;&imtXU to »*af*«#a ®rf# l«i tt<aS^ir aJt ,rf«ir©
ftif* 09^ ^T9T^/fa9 ,jnrico;c( ^ dttn snlxtTf^w iilitflAwA auB 9vt^ o# Jb»Xl«t
©d^ ©« t'fls tmriQ liiBll o#«X »iiH9rA /tiieiJiiAi; m«5% i©»i* ieo#eiii arf*
fflXi^lsiv xl%mi» toa e«w s»l»X» -n^X' Bdt ««<&» ill»«ti ^^^'^^ " ''^-■^
1
and th« vie* thereof wsb ob«tTuot€d by motor vehicles pr^rked
paraiiel with the south curb of lieth :treet, without exeroisiag
o«»e to discover the presence of the '<utomobile In which plaintiff
WAS riding} by reiaoa of which the automobile in "j^hioh the ol»»intiff
v»B riding come into contact vith the defeni?int'a aotor truck, '».nd
the plaintiff was injured*
th« answer filed by the defenl'»nt denied th?^t the nlslntlff
w«^s in the exercise of due otc and caution for her own 8?<fety,
and denied thnt the defendant did 9Xiy of thf? nets of negligence
alleged in the complaint,
At the cloee of the plslntiff»<8 o^sc the court denied the
defendant's action for »i directed verdict* At the close of s*ll the
evidence the court reserved ruling on the defendant's motion fox
? directed verdict, md submitted the cnae to the Jury. The jury
returned a verdict «gftlnst the defenlsnt foT 'ISOO, Thpre^ifter
the defendant filed « written notion for a nev tri?l, fhr court
heard i^rguitenta on the oiotion and entered ? jud,;cKent for the
defendant notwithstanding the verdict for the plaintiff. The fippeal
here is proaecut'^d by the plaintiff from this judgment*
irom the evidence it appears tb-^t the plaintiff, on November
23, 1936, was a single woman, ?3 yerrs of Bge* ft that time her
name vf>e uephie Krolak snd she lived fit &027 South k?^plewood Arenue,
OhiOf«go, Illinois* She expected to be married shortly, and had
spent the aorning of flovember '3, 1936, apartaent hunting with her
prospective husband in the neighborhood of his home at 11737 iouth
Oalumet Avenue, Ohioago* About t^o o'clock she decided to go hone,
end it rr\A arranged thnt her future husband's brother, Ouerino
Oimaroli, would drive her home in his brother's IS,*^! Ohevrolet
two-door sednn automobile* It wis e cold clny, and she ohtnined a
blanket which she wrapped around her feet sfter removing her shoes
•Jb^^tft^Jl^ »*'' 1-tii?.cflisXq iff*
* ^tMif>liifaQ9 Ml at *«s*XJU
,7*®*«J,. OB «>* fc®feis»®i' f»i4© -it?©!©*© «sr|: fsrosf* .»*»»©ii^O ,4«»iifl«v4 $nimlf^
©Hi«a00 ,«©4#«^«/^ ^♦fjUjE^fffwiS «»Tai^iit: t»if tMt f^tfi^firtMnm' il kttm''
s
to k«ep her feet wnra*
auerino Oimi^roll drove the ot. He w^9 ?1 fnrn of ^htb,
had driven o?»rs slno« 19S9, He had been :<i truolc driver in the
OiTili!).n Oona^rv^tlon Oorpe where he b'ld driven for « ye«r nnd o half
and w»» nn experienced automobile driver. The br?>kea on bis
brother's oor rere in good oonditiob* -»nd the err hsd n city sticker
on it* It T^a ft dreary 'iriy; had been snowing ■? little, and the
wew.ther v-^a Cold*
The plaintiff sat in the front 3ej«t, n*^xt tc the driver,
Oifflaroli drove the opt to the ol^*oe where the «»ocidcnt occurred.
This «ooldent ooourred 5t 116th Street on the east oro3s»'slk of
ladiAnn Avenue. .IlStb Street wm« a p«ved street 30 fert 8 inches
wide, Indiana Avenue nlso w a a paved street^ 30 feet 3 inches wide.
Indiana avenue ended ^t llOth Street, intersecting the l-^tter street
only froai the south. On the touthe^et oorner of the intersection
there n-'s r^ t?3vern. from the south curb of 116tb 3tr?et to the
tnvern wns ft dist^tnot of 17 fs«t 5 inches. From the eset curb of
Xadiann Avenue to the tnvern »«« « distance of ^.? feet ? inohee. There
was a sidewalk on ervch sids of the tsvern, eaoh aidewRlk b<^ing 8 feet
9 inohss wide. As Cl*»roll operated the n^t west on 116th Street
towards Indiana Avenue he w?8 traveling on the north side of the
street on the inner lane, find the left wheels of the o?>r sere north
of the center line of li6th Street ail of the tray from i-rairie /^venus
to ths point of the collision with the defendant's truck. The o«<r r^^a
goiQB »^ « speed of 10 or 15 ralles an hour, the driver never having
hie foot on the aocelerstor st ^ny time. There w«s n single nutoot^ttio
windshield wiper, r,nA this wiper *-» «^orkin«;, but thers wns no snow on
the windshield.
It further a?v.>ears froa the «vidienoe th^t it or ne*»r the tlas
of the nooident the driver *ind ths plsintiff were not t'^lklng, snd
,97V« ^© rt««t -TS «-^' *^ •^'^ m«r#- #V«ff5 if0«P!ftit'' OWlir^WO -.A„;^.v;v:.
i:9afe>i#« ^flo ^ ^s^rtf "i^t^ ^lii ton» ^^A-^itiha&ti ■1m&^ M untf'^ x^m «*%aii#i»'scr
•UsTiTatjao #«»&i©s.n «ritf «>«a£f>» »®i*Iq »^t ■'«# t.m »fii m^nb JXo«,«el©
' 4»4f"t« »»!«■ dtt&et ttdi «» |^il»yfl«#-- ««* ftii n0m^A imnlh&X mbrwet
9m9irk airJtft^ «»«t xn-^ Mi t© IJJt H^f^ (f$m.i t<s mtUX X9tssm Bdi to
»««? t»e »rf* *iesfit* 8»#««;riB*t«fc' M# mi'» mimti£0» atf* t«» Saiocj -®jf» ©tf
Sflivejff i#ih»n t^-rf*!) ».ff* ,"Stf«»ir ej? «»ii«i «I •««» -ftX ^© &»»«?« .« /* »pio;v
tftUmtm «Xifiif.« a#w«iT«jfr .«»i* ^» ♦« t«»t.«««X»oo« Mbr Aa '»ofil airf
4
ftfter ie^Ylng Prairie Avenue, the plsintiff tooVc her oli/Tette*
out of her purse, took n Olgnrotte »ad put it In her nso.th, took a
BMtoh, lighted It Tid • s in the *»ct of lighting the cigarette when
the ooiiisloti oocurred. There ?, s no Tc<3rning ox honk of n horn
prior to the colllaion. She eiaply 8t3.rtf!d to light her cigarette
and the next thing she resseddsered t??>8 s i«rk b^okw^rd, then forr's.rd,
Sh« looked up and s^^w the defendant* 9 triick; up sgwinat the front of
their Of?r, end she became ncrvo\>s. The left front of their o?!r w-^a
up cignlnat the left s^ide of the truok*
The driver, Olanroli, testified th^t 'na he apnrosohed Indiana
Avenue there w^t another o*ir, moving- ?\ftC9d of hia '>lso In i^rly
direction, trBvej.lnf- 35 or 30 feet «?he«d of him. Xhere v-^a a car
parked ^^t the left curb of 116th Street on the f^ •^t croas-wslk of
Indiann i.venue, »*bout 9 feet fro« the corner, Ihere were also two
or three other cars pnrked f^t the south curb, i'here «?- 3 ^leo another
oar parked at the north curb of il6th Street, =: >/l:Tif'roll s.ppro«ohed
Indlanio /venue the csr thr^t h-^d been ahe?id of hitn turned toward the
right »»nd continued vest, Suddenly the defendant's truck "i^ppeared
right in front of hiia, when he w«e only 10 feet »»r.y. He tried to
turn to the rlj/ht, but there * • s o^r ofjrked there, eo he applied
the brakea Pt once, »»nd the o?>r skidded and the err -^nd the truck
oolilded. The truck w-^s 3 big Mnok truck, lo-ied .»ith dirt 'nd
weighed 5 or 6 tone. It <va 10 or l"^ feet )»ide -^nd 18 feet lon;^,
IPhen Olasroll first saw the truck It .•"'s nointed north - northengt -
«nd hnd not completely straightened out fnolng enst, ^fter n<«klng
n right turn fro« Indian^ .^venue. The front of the tn^ok ins even
with the east orc8«-i«"^lk on Indian? nvenue, «'nd <"»8 3 or 4 feet
north of the center of 116th -trpf-t. The truck eounded no horns or
elgnalB prior to the siool ent, gfoa the woment he flr?it «»"w the truck
until the moiaent of the iapsot only -» second or less time elapsed.
««*i'it»i'*.^i9 tdiif o^©©i» fitmi^q mt» ,©««»vA .»J^jti«'rJ ^flivcsX •«•***
1o t«««r«l »ji;f .*t^MB« ,««?■ i^iigi«'^ e:«#,a.«3tas®^-afo «a.f *nia[ lur^ ^f«r &»3j0oi; »]i«t
©Wit 0«X4& «t.9w »«®^T «f«»ff:9€5 ®4* «©"ifl *s«l. t; #a»«f« ,«la««v* aatuifefij
bsllm^ 9if,©» j»©«*j^.* |5fflji?:««?^ %BW a a-e-tsf •iti^itf;^ t^jitf «*«isli' *tft «t^ atif#
iOif^# »4# fe|t« «isS' ««f* M* !5»M43<e. T«s«: «^J" J^®« ^4»*Nio #« iMBoSister <wf«*
,-^.«o.i $^»t H. kii^ aJli^ t»«l H 10 M feisw'ti: •»««#» «# ■«- fe»rf?*i»w
^i^.'Kf; «*il^- ♦tMS' prisi?! Sfito fr»ff«*<!38l»«#e tJ'*^**^'?***^ *«« fe.«ri !>««
Th« lapqot threw tn« pi«intiff into the windshield s^nd stae
reoelved aeriout injuriPs, inoi(;ding 't fractured nose, p«riBsnent
Internal nr)«nl injuries, I'-eerr^tions on her frsoe, ohipoed ?ind broken
teeth, Pnd i««ny bruises ««nd oontuaiona on her her-d ^nd. body, ••11 of
fritioh OT'usad her severe «>nd I'^etlng p»in«
It is suggestPd and ?3daitted th«t the tTtxak ai-^de the rifrht turn
from Indiena Avenue into 116th Street srlthout atop-ing.
The olaintiff suggests th^t there i« but -> single question
oresented for review, «nd th-,t is ithether the evidence of the piiln-
tiff is legally sufficient to austi^ln the c-ua© of action, snd further
su><.i<ests tht »rhcre the evidence is confUotlng it is for the r)l?!.ln-
tiff to establish her onae by n. preponder-noe of the evidence, .'^nd
orove th-t she we in the exercise of due o-^^re ?^nd caution for her
own safety ^t the tiae the !»ncldent oec\*rred,
Oounael for the defenirnt in renly to the ^T^i«ent of the
plnlntiff thnt the sole nuestion presented here is whether the evidence
introduced by her, t,-ken -e true, rts-kes out « prim:^ f^oie oose, at- tea
that the record diflcloaes error in the ot^ae that would hr.ve entitled
the defendant to ^ new trl^l if p judgment notwithst^^ndln^ the verilct
had not been entered by th« tri-^l nourt, r.nd th^t the record ol«^rly
discloses th-.t the verdict r « contrary to the nr».nife;st eight of the
evidence, «tnd then oniis the nttention of thi?? court to the {v,ot-:i as
disclosed by witnesses for the defendant,
Kvldenoe is offered thit one Eugene Bowles w^e the motor truck
driver and th^t he -^na en employee of the defendant, the Olty of
Ohicflgo, %nd had been so employed for twenty-three ye:»rs; th- 1 he w-e
hauling 9 load of dirt with -, three ton M?.ck truck; th-t It »v.a ^ b«d
day, snowing, not very had. but there »«« enox jxh snow on thp ?,treet
to cnuse « skid if the brakes were applied. At the tl.e .nd just nrior
to the .cciient he w^b tr-^vellnp north on Indinnw Avenuo, >^hen he
o-.me to the south «idei->,ik line of 116th street, he stoor^d to -ermlt
8^#..*8 ^^J^'t'o la^, min * *«« ««^^* .ttnf i^ mi^f \t<^A xfi hBtssbM^i
,*ffl8&ja»t«& »«<* tot MiBesfftlv? ttf bmolosib
6
•oaM ohiXdren to p^ss from the west to the «"-Bt on the oroesw.lk.
After the ohildren h!»d nna^ed, he rut the truck: in first sne«^d, nnd
turned the corner of 110th Street, Roing e st. He snw Olmnroli'e
ear coming west, the TrindahlAId full of snow; nnd this witness further
testified that figuring the drlTer of the o«t oould not see him, he
caAe to n aesd stop^ tb^it the front end of the truck ^-a^ obout 10 feet
enst of the orosswnlk. " i stopped in order to give the nwn n ohancs
to go nround this machine, he would have ? clear ro^d to the left of
me, but lnste/»d of that he r-^n he^d en into asy truck, •• He further
testified that at the time of the collision the truok :- a at^tlonary.
There were other witnesses, thres of whom were police officers,
and one a l».borer vho w^iS employed by the City and riding with the
truok driver. From the eviiienoe offered by the police officers they
saw skid aarks extending «t le?*at 10 feet from the b 'Olt of the nnr
In which the plaintiff r^as riding; that the front end of the truck
was *vbout n foot or two south of the oent<=;r line :;f th^ ro*»d, 9o
th"t when wo ootae to examine the f»ets, it w«?is clearly «i question
for the Jury, not alone to p^sa upon the freight of the eviienoe, but
to determine the credibility of the witnesses. There F-g sufficient
evidence to Justify the covrt in oermittlng the Jury to t»89 upon
these questions, and the Jury h«!-^i -aed upon them returned a
verdict for the amount h* relnabove stated. In complinnce with the
faaiiiar rule th^t a verdict cannot be directed for the defendant
where the evidence, t^ken rs true, together with the most f^vorpble
Inferences that o«n be dT»wn from such evidence, tends to support
the ellep tlons of the plaintiff* «i complaint ^nd sufficient to ra«ike
out a prima f-'Cle onse for the tanlntlff, th« court should hwve denied
the motion of the defendant,
;)sveriil c^^ses in which the "upreae nnd Ap-^llate Coi rta of
Ilixnols hnye passed u,x>n this cuestion, h«ve been c^=lled to our
sttsntion, one of which is Kelly ▼. ahiCrtj.^ Pity i?y. Oo . "^83 111, 640,
7
It appear* from this o<j»e thnt the olaintlff recovered ?* verdlot
and judirwent In » peraonfl injury suit, rhioh v-^9 ?ffirra«d by the
Appellate Oouxt for the first District of Illinois. '• oertificj»tt
of importftnoe »\nd s^ppenl wns f.nrpnt*d by the Appellate Oourt, itnd
upon review the Supreme Oourt s^id;
"It is first insistf'cl th'^t the court tj-b in error in
refusing to exclude the e'videnoe «nd instmot the jiiiry to find
defendant not >ij:uiity, '» raotion of this eh^r''Otr=r, rtcoo^ .•?»nied
by the proper inatruotion, ^--.n fnrjae -'t the close of the oi^jiji-
tiff's cae nnd renewed ^ •'in »t the olose of •'ll the evidenoe.
The court refused to f'.ive the instrvction, -nd itz refu^il is
''S^^igned "IS error. The only ouestlon raised 'nd preierved for
review in this court on such raotion i*, loea the evidence on
the p«rt of the pl?iintiff, if t-^icen ?3 true md most f<'vor'nly
considered for him, "-ith *ii juat inferences to he dr: "rn there-
from, mske out -^ nrimy f"cie cse on' the o^rt of the r^l^^intiffT
The question of the ^eij/ht of the evidence or the Gredi'Dllity
of the v^itnessea o^rmot be eoneidered. If th^re v^b «)ny
evidence in the record from which, st'-^ndlnf ->lone, the jury might,
wlthov.t "Otinpc unre-j sensibly in the eyes of t e Ir-w, h?ve found
the icr^terlf^l 'vernentfl of t»)e rteoinrptlon to h?>ve been au^tnined,
tne ."sotion x- s ,:>ropcriy denied and the instruntion refusedi
tlo^;re^;or v, veid. ijurdooh & Oo . 17fi 111, 404; I.ibb/ :«Oi<elll j Llbby
V. Ooolc. 2'^Z id. 306i !)evine v. ..jelr-ino . ?7? id. 166,) "e c^n,
therefore, only review the evidence t thia time for the nurcose
of nacertaining whether or not the evidence on the p*»r-t of
appellee eet-^bxiahed n pxlas f - cie cse."
In the o^se we have before ue the evidence -^a to wh5>t occurred
»t the time of the collision is confliotln^, r«nd It ^<^9 for the jury
to consider the oueatlons of f«ot "S well ns the credibility of the
witnesses and determine from this evUenoe whether the plaintiff
itAde out n. prima facie o«se. In determining this Question so far as
we are permitted to do so, we believe the T>ln.lntlff did est^^bllsh
a PTlfoa f^cle onee, snd therefore the court erred in sustelnlng the
defend:"nt*s motion*
In the c>8e of qyers v. jtforthwestern £.1. K. "i. Jo. 318 111,
24, the Supreme Court held th?'t the Appellete Oovrt Is not '.v.thorl?ed
to rever:»e, without rcfaandlng the omse, n judgment for the nl«ilntlff
on ? finding of f-'Ct th«t tne olnlntlff wrs guilty of contributory
negligence, where the evidence is contested «nd th-'t for the nl^ln-
«i ■
9:«nx«s .»Jt ?? ■'• -*
Sitin Q$
^fxj; ^di*-
feft.?"-- -
?, " ■ ■•'■ A •;
-fr
■55 *rf* J-,»!
^^■<:
... I'd ■^'— -
P
J sfi, b»;t.'- ,
IK*.-
-^ ■ "■• -'■■ i5Si<v- , -.
i
*«iM-9? « feft-swoot^i tli^iii^iq »ii# t^» «s^o «i4# tt®«l t«fi9qqii ft
Silt tef fceag'sti't^js e-^ ifoAtfw ,«*i«« 1{ri?^i ijf»«o«T«c{ a el iriro«::4*irt 6n«
" ^■■" ■• ■'■•■ ■-' '-'in «si ii«
.-jAiai ^"■- *" --''-ishf ■■■■
:!9.
••■»
•W .
* • . ' . :ii
Xxui BdiS tol sffv tl feff# «3Al^oiXlno9 el R«»x«iXitte 9^# to nmls sr,? tfi
a« t./5l; o8 floi58*»0f» «iii* ^&itilmr9fitb al «•«»«« fiog.^ .<?fli!lip3 « two tl^Mi
®ri# 3ftl0X«*euB fil A»TT» *t«o0 •<!* 9%9t9t9di btm ^•em ^J^dgT «»iTa »
• i-£I 9XS ,ffO0 . 1? .^ .Xg gt9»ee-gtf»t<?« .r fWt»fM lo »«iPO •«# fli
8
tiff !• sufficient to prfloUide the trlsl oourt froo fll Tooting «
T»rdiot for the defendant.
This rule h*>« been unproved by the Snpreaw Oourt in
Gbgunon ▼. ^>ii^'btiii.<Mi.e. 331 111. 168; ftleo In i:vo.>.XQy v. Jhlo-.^ g
Sapid Iranelt wQ«« 33b lil. 164.
It is suggest' d in the briefs ths»t the eviienoe of Tritaesses
is contr»\diotory, but 58 we have previoiisly stated, th t aubjeot
w«« properly one lor the jury. Ho loubt the ^ury considered the
•▼idenoe in the iij^ht of this accident and oonoiuded th-it it w*«
sufficient to sustain the plaintiff's case, e are inclined to
agree with the jury, and having reached this oonolusion we -sre of
the opinion th-st the court rrs in error in entering ^ud^^ent for
the defendant notwithstanding the verdict for tha plaintiff, smd
being an erroneous order, the order of this eoiirt is that the
judgment order entsred by the trini court be reversed and judgment
entered here, in ^ooordnnce with the verdict of the jury, for
11,^0, __
mdi-Ji., J. TAJICtS HO PAST.
8
SMM!^ »r miM *yl' mm \mi ,Ul tm ^MlMMLiMM ^"^ l^™^@
,*ai' ♦ill a«a ..a<^ 5^ita.{n1' fejgi^
J»ul
atot
. *^'"'
Isr.
'.
fjmK
♦\-'
:^«i|
t^^l!^ ¥i(a[M{K|.9li mfi fi%flMWm
#J^
sXiT .1, »>iLia*S
40 SOX
I'ULLaAM TliUST & a* VIHG9 aAM, a
Jorpor tlon,
(i'laintiff) App«ilsnt»
▼•
LTJCZAS J/rtEOKI and VIOTORIA JANKOKl,
his wlfa, 9t ^l,,
(Oefend'intB) Acpelleei.
AFFHAL FKOM
MUPltRIOR COURT
^
MR. JUSTIOK mmt Dli;LIV£.:tO THE OJ ItilCS OF TAt acin;T.
This is "nn apper»l by the plaintiff from an order entered by
the court .n kebru ry 8, 1938, overruling and denying oisintlff's
motion, which wns filed on January 21, 1338, to v^O'^te 'ind exounge
the order entered on J'inu.ary 17, 1936, vs.o»tlng n dpflcienoy decree
entered in the shove o^use. " "^""
Thli is ■\ foreclosure proceeding filed by the plaintiff on
May 23, 1335 to foreclose the lien of two trust -lepds* both executed
by Luolfin Jnreoki ind Victoria Joreokl* Ouomona ^-^8 issued on both
of the deffindants, who frilled to sppor, enter an fope^rs^nce or
flls *n answer^ On iepteaber '35, 1935, ?jn order of default on
personnl service nnd talking the oompiaint ?9 confessed ^i^inst the
defi^nd^nts Luelnn J^reokl and Vletorl?» Jpreckl a'-s ent«^red»
Thereafter, on October ^3, 1935 *» foreclosure decree ^^n
•ntered upon the r*»port of the "Kist^^r, n gj'le -^-^a hsd "^nd ui on
approT»l of the ^»le r^ defioienoy deoree '"s entpred in f-'vor of the
plaintiff ind ar/^inst the defo!ndi»nt8, iucl^n J rwokl, Victoria
4arsckl, Joseph Hsoewioz ?»nd Franoss ilaoewioat, for i'l,45??,06«
Thereafter on oscsaiber 38, 1935, the defenlinta Luclsn
Jarsoki and Viotorlii J^reoki, upon written notice to the ol^intlff,
Kftds a motion In open court for Ifs^ve to intervene "nd file n
petition for the v«o«tlon of the deficiency decree entsreri i^t
thsa, nnd on this d?»y nn ordsr w«,8 sntsrsd th«t tht motion filed
TPTJOD KOlK-I'iUe
if*o<f «« &»twi»i .a.si? ««g«a»i?t *43a^«it£*)^; A4;%»«9if tm 4i»*««Ii iWJl©*fcl i<((,
«©<fu ban b&fi Si.m «Xi?e js ,tsjbr» srf*^ !t«> #«og»rr srf* aoqu bf»i»#i»«
*b«1j«;3ij?! fc»t»#Jt» ^«te«>l> xou^ioilifc »di* 'to floi#»o.«v mii %«% aox^^. '-Q
a
thi« day \>e continued to ■)eoemoeT 31, 1 '35, It is contended tjy the
plaintiff thnt the defen'i''nts Luol?tn J-reoki ^nd Vtotori" Jarecki
did not, nor did any one on their behalf, on Lieoesber ?,Q, 1931, or
any other i«y, within 30 days from the d.-fte of tae entry of the
dafioienoy deor e, file any ritten, type«?ritten or rvrinted action,
petition, nffid^Tit or other dooufient, except ■? notice of notion
filed on oeoenbeT 38, 1335, for le-ve to intervene md file ^ petition
for the Tno?»tion of the deficiency decree*
Thereafter on December 31, 1935, the court entered «n order
giving Lvician J>reoki and Viotori'? J-reoki le^^ve to file insts^nter
* petition to ▼'^onte the deficiency decree ^^nd get the hf^^^ring on the
petition and ^ny "^nawexe ^nd motions which night be filed thereto
for Ji»-niuary ^, 1336, on the contested ^Botion calendar, nnd on
January 13, 1936, the plaintiff filed p typewritten motion to strike
the l?»8t aentioned petition on serersl ground*, including ir»?nt of
jurisdiction. This petition pnd motion to strike onme on for h<*^Ting
on Jnnunry P7, 1936, '^nd the coiirt entered sn order euetoining pif^in-
tiff's rttotion to strike the petition, on the ^'^me day the court
entered a further order i.'^iving the defendant LuciJjn J-^reoJti ^nd
Viotorifi J-^reoki le-ve to ^ile "n -isended petition within 10 Iftye
from th-st d"te, directing the plaintiff to answer within 6 d«ye
therenfter snd setting the c^^uae for he)!«xing on .fcbrunry 1-1, 1936,
The nnaed defendants filed r,_ typewritten »=iaended petition
for the vnoation of the deficiency decree, -nd on t ebru^ry 8, 19'^G,
the plaintiff filed <» ty^ei^itten tnotion to strike the amended petition,
or Hffidrvit, upon several fj:roun'«8, Inciudinp rr^mt of jurisdiction.
Plaintiff's motion to strike c^aie on for hf»ring on Pebru^ry 17,
1936, f'ud on th t Uy the court entered an order vesting the
defioienoy decree ^ -^inat the lefendinta iuoi^.n J reeki and Viotorin
Jnreoki,
e
%o ^£W.X ,8^ T^o'ai«p»u no ,tlitffft(5 'slJ^rf.t ao ««i® y«j8 fe^fe «*« «*oa tttb
•s-a^^Atsjai »iit ©# ^wr^tj: |^(&i!>ts«tf feiii;ottsi? f^m la{©«t;!>t ai«rilo,«kf serivi|
9iii m 'gi^Hrn^^ ^Af tm M^ <Nlt«*fc '^i»i«>|t-Al5 »fft »^i?i9.RV ©* ttitlitsmi s
et^t ei f£i/f*j:* aol*i*i»q &»ftasai» urn «W^ &t mrmt ial*»t«t ?iio*diV
coi^i^&q; b^iim^m^ si^-jrf ir^^qx'^ * Mill «#«M*«»t*fr bmm Mt
The plaintiff took the position th-t the or ler fntered on
February 17, 1936, purporting to vo^te the defielenoy d«orec was
Toid for -ant of jurisdiction j'nd thstefore waa n, nullity 'ind should
b« ignored and di»re(^?>rded, and the plaintiff caused ??n if»li«8
execution to be issued and had the sheriff m?».kc s levy,
Hiereftfter the olalntiff ore^ented "^nd filed <? written motion
on J-itmwry 31, 1938, to VTCnte '=^n6 expunge the ^ force >i id T:)urported
order enterfd on cebru^ry 17, 19?6, -vhioh wa ^iJasost "^ ye-<Ts ftfter
thnt dpte, on the ground th-t the court had no juriadiction to enter
the purported order hecsiuae it :8 b-ecd on an naiended petition to
▼acate filed on J-ebruary ti, 1936, which ws aore than "80 dsys '^fter
the entry of the deficiency decree, »nd further aiored the court to
dismiss the pmended petition on rrhieh the puroorted order t?'?s b^sed
for -^nt of jurisdiction.
On February 8, 1938, the court entered ?>n order overruling
and denying the Inet aentioned aotion of the olw.intiff, which was
filed on January ?1, 1938*
The plaintiff contends th-^t the motion is not recording to
the provision of the section of the st<itute ^ioh reouires that
the antter sh^ll be presented by n written aotion -»nd sffid'.vit, r;nd
relies upon Oh, 110, Psr, 174 of Oec, 50, sub-par, 7, of the Civil
Prnotice 'Ct, 111, 3t» Bnr St^ts* 1937; ynd further contends th'^t
i*«r, 198, 3eo. 74 (3) of the Civil Practice ct in j^bolishing dis-
tinotions between the common l-^w record, the bill of exceptions r>nd
the certlfie->te of evidence clearly intends t.h-t motions 8h«U be
in writing, ^nd points to Pi^Ta^rraph 1 of Rule 6 of the ftules of
i'r«<otice and i*rocedure adopted by the Supreae Court of Illinois and
contends thst it provides th t 9ll papers shall be fairly -nd le^^ibly
written, typSTritten or .printed, ^nd the clerk ah>>ill not file siich
as do not oonfora to the rule*
a.piXs a« fcaeuv-o I'it^i^.lfil^ ndt ban ^bnbv^rij^Qt&lh bim ftatftflgl 6cf
• X^»i «i ®Ji.€s 1:li«Sfie diJsJ- l>«iJ .b0.« j^swasi iKi es txoitts99it9
«rasf «* fi«i*o.l:iKlitft ©« ^«*f ttssm sneI* tail* 6«</©ii;g »rf* ao ^9ttih isidt
%m^\& »X»k 08". «RfU ^'x^sjsi ae«! rfSifftif ^S^Si ,8 ^jBtfier©-^ oo J>»ii1: A^jsOirtr
*assi' ,XS t«<««flje^i flo fe«xil
bRf ^tirsibitl^. bar. noliom si^ttiTi^ « Xrf feaifaaeiMtq »rf XXjBtfa vettnm ©rf^
XitriO ndt to ^V •i?^q-^wR ,0a ♦©»8 t© »tX .tM »©XX «i© flo«?tf t©i "r^'
-8i.b ^/'airisiiod/^ ffli *o^^ »»i;h&.«l«I XivlO »i^^ It© (K) ♦T #©«B <,9ex fT**^
©tf XXjSrfe enoiiToffi *-.ri:f ehff9*i5ri t^T.«»X6 wmotiv^ \o ti^jsoitlt^so »rftf
to a»Xjy« ®ii«* !to a ©iw« to I ' Oq-tP-t^m^n. «t «*«!©<?( foae \sffli*liri» ill
XidX^si fc^ie ^Xii.31: stf XX^ftrfe BXeqm XXjs *««# «»«▼©«(? ii i^At •^•tmr-
The question here is not whether these .1efen(l*»nt8 eoaolied
with the rules p« reculred, but whether the oourt on Oeo«aber 38,
1936 hwd juriadlotlon to entert-nin the order oompi^^lned of» The
oourt h^.d juriadlctiou, but the only oompl?iint made --t the time the
■Atter '^' 8 presented to the ooirt r^.s not th^t the motion ■.; g not
In writing but th?>t it *^a presented in qn inforgal .-BpnneT to the
oourt r»nd, upon motion mnde in open court the oourt ent'^red the
order conpi'^ined of, nnd that it was the 'letftno-nt«^ motion "for le-ve
to intervene nnd file a petition for the veation of the defioienoy
deeree'* !»g«»in«t them. The plaintiff contends tht it '<'^8 «•• raotion
for le«Te to file *» petition for the v«c:^tion of the -iefioienoy
deore*;, .^nd not a motion to v^o*te this decree; did not constitute «.
motion to v-icste, airil wr« not sufficient to give the oourt juris-
diction*
«e agree th t the rule provides th^t petitions and affidavlte
must be prepared in trriting and presCBted to the oourt ^nd filed, but
this is not p petition nor '-n ^ffidvit; it is ^ laotion for le^ve
to intervene nnd file ^ etition for the vadRtion of the deficiency
decree, >»nd while it was not pres^ented in the uianner required by the
rule, still the court entertained the motion 'nd entered It* The
court lid have control of the litlg"?tion at the time the motion ^-^a
m?»de, and the cueqtion of jurladlotion goes to the extent th"t the
oourt is without nuthority to entertain the proposed motion. The
motion '^'S entered within 30 aays »»fter the deficiency decree
oomplwined of w s entered «g?inst thege defendpnts» Subseouently
the oourt extended the time, rjnd finally n r-etition in writing ^^-s
filed, Jts reoulred, and It Is vpon this Ti«tition -^nd aubsenuent
prooeedlnj: th*t 'jotion of the court 37^-3 had«
The court "ll^wed the pi?iintlff»s motion to strike the petition.
»£ft btif;f^>jhis« tieiioQ ^0$ t'tm9 ae<|0 fil ^li><^ .aol^^iK ncupf .«Jt!^% #-s;uoo
■■■*'-■
8
uid at the s^^me tiae entered s^n order ^aiowlng the dafend^nta Luolnn
Jareoki ^nd Viotorla J-recki, to file nn ^nended petition within 10
day« from th- 1 date, and the plaintiff to nnewcr within 5 d^ys there-
after.
The question seeaui to be whether this order is n. final one
In the sense th< t It finally disposed of the matter th^t w^s being
ooneidered by the court. When we examine the or-lcr thnt vt^a entered,
we find the court only ordered th«t the motion of the plaintiff to
strike the petition be suetpined, but no di8ffllS8!>l h^s been entered,
and the oourt r>t th^t tiae entered s further orier gmntirip the
defenij^nts If ve to file »n aiaended petition within 10 cl'=»ys, 3o
irhen we ooate to consider the record, *e believe the oourt h^d juria-
diotion, "ind when the order v^r^s entered on iebrusry 8, 1938, denying
plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendants* nmended petition filed
on t ebruary ^t 1936, the^ oo^^^^ order
from which the defendants now api^al*
For the rensons stated, the order appealed from is affirmed,
ORDKB AFFIRiiED,
BURKE, J, TAKSS MO t'kdU
r>
8
-«T9iffif st^l) a £clj^#i9 ■r»»?8i5r.B ©t It jfctitt«iq M* i^fiuft 4«*.»l> Ji^tft woieI «t«fc
©ig .aiffffe- OX nMtiff noitii^^^ 'mbn^itmM ab ©lit 0* •r^-*! etasftin^t^^
40333
IN :li- -STAfS. OF '-"lAiflJCl, H, '^IiaS,
ABE BERKOTITZf
(Ol«iiB««nt) >^pi:eiiee,
V,
APPEAL raOM
TH£ WKST 81 DK TS03T A.MO 3AVIJIG8 BANM,,
« oorporntion, and ROSE VEIDD,
ikxeoutors of The dst«».te of Onmuel
H* ^eiss, Jeoensed,
(iJcfend«nt«) Appellants,
1/1 /I
2P9' ' ;;'
MR. JUSTIOK HEBEt DELIVE f.FD THK OPIfiiCN OF Wt GOU^T.
Thl« Is fjn appeal by the executors of the i^atate of ;>niBuel
\ H, veisa, Jeee«-8ed, froa an orier entei'ed in the Circiiit iJourt of
Oook Oounty allotting the olnlm of the ol««^lmnnt *.»siin3t the £8t?>t«
of Samuel U, ieies^ dieoe^<*ed, for ;2,069,85, together ?'ith interest
in the svibj of ^728,33, ;ri-»klng ?» tot«l of 1/3,7:^7,88, to i>e >=»i(J in
due Course of ^UainistTition, which el'slm !r«s diestlloi^ed in the
Probate Oourt of Oook Oounty, Illinois,
Complying with sn orler entered in the Oirouit Oourt of
Oook Oounty, the olJuimsnt filed n bill of piarticulnrs in Wiioh he
alleged thit on J-^nuary 8, 1^6, he entered into « contrpot with
Samuel 'i, 'eisa, deoe«>9ed, ^'hereby he *m8 to receive the sum of
135,00 p*r week, plus 25;fc of the net orofits from one of the
depnrtments of the businesct of @&id ^nffluel !!• Aeiss, designntf'd na
"ien's "nd boys' leridy-Mide Jlothing**, 'ind the « reement continued
from yenr to ye^^r until the de^ith of o^mel ii. eiss on December 10,
1939; th-^t during esid reriod settlements werr i}«id[e from time to
time, «nd that there ?»Te two Recounts - the Net» York Tf^ilorinp Jotno-ny
and the Chio«go ^-mple Clothiers - uoon which the claimant iid not
reoeive his one- fourth shRre of the net urofita, which com 'iniea
were indebted to -.eifla in the respective sums of <:5,005,75 ««nd
$3,373,90, These creditors being indebted to veias they conveyed
. 'ff' :■
nM 1-<)> as;© iSio^t «#iiosq taa »«t 1;o ^S8 »^Xq ,3f9*ii tsq <M3«IUt|
oif.8K!i* fflOTt •ixf.ss *TSw n^inm\^l^tmi b&kx&ti M.e© sflifwfe #«jf^ lUStX
2
to him In p'?ym«nt of their --^looovinta, two p'iroels of rerol eatr^t© in
Ghlo^go, whioh are referred to ss the "Olnrk Jtrect** '^.nd "lir^nd
Av«nu«" propertie*.
In the 1- tter v-rt of July, 19^9, Berkovitz "nd 'br^-haa
Zuoktman, the l-tter being pn eaploye? of Mr. eiss for 01 ye«rs,
▼ ifiited jeias who w^s ill «t home. mt. d<»rkovit7 told ieias th-t
he h'^d eight hundred socse odi dollnra due him on the Jhic->fro i3in.«ple
Olothiem '^oooxmt -^nd twelve hundred eome odd dollars •iv.e hitn on the
Mew York railoring Company r.ccount. Mr. eisa then s-id thit the
«tooount sho'i'ed in the boolcs; th t he would be do-'vti in ^ ^eek or
ten days ^nd i^ive bprkovit? credit for it in fnll. tie never returned
to the business} pfter th-t oonvera^^tion. Upon the de^th of "^eisa,
Berkovitz filed his claia in the Probate Court in the sua of
,069.65, being 35>fc of the sura due «(nd owing on the t^o ■accounts —
the Ohioago >>a«ple Olotbiers -nd the Hew York Tailoring Oomi^^ny.
Upon the trial of the C'luae in the Oirouit Jourt, whioh ia
here on '^ppenl, the estate offered no evidence, .-fter " hf^rinf; ■«nd
nfter the present tion of ■rguiacrita, the court entered ^ judgment in
fiivor of the claimant in the sum of 3,065,65, together -rith intpreat
for «728.33, mnking ^ totil of '^,797.88 to be osid in due oourpe of
administration.
The errors relied upon for r^vera?*! by the executors of the
»-8t-te of >.Muel H, elas, t)eoe«3ed, <».re; (1) The court errpd in
holding th«t the oiaiannt ^r^a •. competent jfitnest? to orove the books
of aooovmt mftlntflined in the buainees of -s^muel h. eias, Jeeeflsed;
(3) the court erred in -^dmlttln*!: the books in evidence withov.t proof
th^t such books were true and correct; :?nd (3) the coi-rt erred In
allowing the claim of »be Berkovitz in the f=ice of the evidence which
conclusively established th t Berkovit2»8 interest, involved in the
claim llquldj^ted by the acceptance of the re^l est-te, - s joint
•t
tsM «mln^ M<Skt ^^iTc^jfit^^. «tK w^iaiROiC ».« iXJt ««v 94|f .ceiat^. J»9#lelT
*Xqi^£^ ©j|.wsi/!© 94? no aid ftiEjf' atrXiol^ Ms© MKOtt feaT.hitf^f #4*1 » fo^?ff aii
■SiSs? #ftrf* ,fcjfe.^« m^t sfliiaw •'sr^ ♦#«w<9««if \E.isf<?a»0 ^i%mlt&f iioY »9H
tBa-r**itJ: if^li* tft«J»;i©i 4Sg#<SdO,r *« ««« s4# ai jiijamlflio »fil lo tonal
»l!# to «td*i^01»X© 9m <^ XR«!t»ir9« ««t ««!?« b«IXBT »t05«e «tfT
111 fe«n» *«)i/o« »ii!T is) Jfti« ,Mbj»»©»53 4*«f»» •» 'XstfP' i^ t6 •#»9a;!«
t*©t^ i&&tUt^ 90a»l5Xir« isi «3ioo«^ »d* SflXttlaftK fii h*r-r.9 tttrntf^t (8)
nl Jbftxaa *no«o »<i* <€) feftA ji-o»txo» iaa* •««.» m»m •M»6ti d%9» UM
jioX4t» *€»fi»J&iT9 »ii* l0 »©«! ©iSjr ai litXvoaJtsa •tfA t« al«Xo »iS* gpilwaXXr
««f;f ffl t^vi&r&i i^tm-ififfii s»t*lv©.-j!'s©. ifd# l>»«{eiX<l®*«« YX«Ti»wioa«o
s
owntrohl^ of 'I'^ld ta'^I estat* v.itb the lece^eed, Dnntuel H. vei«««
AS to tbe point made by the executors of the estate that
the olainant ws not a oompetent wltuea-^ to prove the books of
ftooount in question, "eo. 3, Ch, 51, lii, 't, ■■■■^t 'Itftta. 1937,
provides th"t:
"Whtre In any oivil ■ ction, auit or vsroceeciing the cir^im or
defense is founded on « book recount, my p'irty or interested
person any testify to his r»ooount book "nd the items therfiin
oontslned; • * * that the entries* therein ?r»?re macle by hiueelf
and Kre true nnd Just, or th?^t the ;"rtie were a<?de by « decenaed
person in tne usuhI oovr?** of tr'^dc^ snd of his r^uty or employ-
•nent to the onrty so testifying; :^nd th?reu:on the s'jid ^^ecount
book "nd entries shall be admitted as evidence in the cr^uae."
This court in pfls<9ing upon the oomnetency of ?» witness in
th« onse of biller tr prgves v, Fratz* 173 111, App, 304, snid:
••section 3 (of this '^ot) we regnrd ^n ■^•n inienendent t^rovision,
having no rpf^rt^nce to eith r sections 1 or "• ^^e tre of
opinion th»t It was ue^nt thi»T«by to -^rovide tb- t in nil c-^®ea
R party mnj testify '^a thrrein st ted to the extent neoepaTty
to J^dmlt his books in evidence. If it h'^^d been intended th^^t
suoh evidence could not be given to the books by an interested
party where the r^dverse oTty ^cted in ^. re present -tive o^.a«city,
then there *-»8 no need to ndopt ?!eotidin 3 i3t ^11, or rhere
section 3 s-'id th"t the party oould not testify "by virtue of
the foregoing section* it shoi^ld h»^ve ri^^d 'by virtue of the
foregoing or the succeeding sections' ••♦
Then ag«in this oc>>rt in the c»se of tioGli^eaon v, Hcugel^
137 111, App. 360, upon ? like nu^qtion, 'S'^id:
"The first section (of the ^ct) tre-ts of the gen*r«>l ooaioetenoy
of interested parties ;^nd of p<rtiea who h^^ve been convicted of
crirtie. The second section limits the f ener^l coupetency 0Tf?ted
•by virtue of the foregoing section' (these being its own -orde)
by excepting oert^in opsps r?here the -dversc -jerty sues or
dsfenJs in certain represent-tive or fidvci-ry o?p*iOitle3, Qut
to these exoer)ted o-ses "re m»ie in distinct pnTagrfphs eertr^ln
exceptions in which suoh gener^^l oomnetency provided for b/ the
foregoing.: section is deol-^m still to exist.
These two sections, -"s it s'^eas to ue, Tcere independent of
the third section, "rhieh enlarged the oonuBon I^sf rule conoeruing
account books by =^lloirlng such books to be r>roven ^s well by the
oath of nn interested ptrty s by the ©''th of - Usint^'reBted one,"
So fro« the provision of this section to which -^e hnve referred it
vould seem th'- 1 it r s not ^rror for the court to oerait the cl»?lm»nt
to testify regt-rdlng those books of account.
The defendants contend th->t the evidence 's insufficient to
■^dalt the books of -^c^ount in evidence under Section 3, Jh, 51, which
«« hKve discussed*
it tuff $ ^■»bJtyr9t%
■■m&^i. r-rfif $:<«<-: iocs? #fiya&t».^3 si4.fi ^t i0:Jttmt vm^ a^irattg
fe»8;.!ft»6«sl> .« x0 ^tmrn »iw^ «»©.«;. »4o **,wi^ •*•<> t*«j#^ JusiK sj^i'-j- m& baa
J&iffi# ,^f;S .<m« .ill ■i^i'^l tiiSii *V ^WjJttJS'A tffiJtXJ^^^ ^©'iHltM »M'
:.*?i*^a ,j»oi8r.ii?0jap ai.t£ i ««3fgflr' ,©®& *q!SA •XII 'f$X
.^«8tfe^•r«> t*^f®(t^qaoo I?««?€r?>;5 »{f>t a^iwli iToi*5»»s-i bfleoas '^tlf «««-i*d
Th* olftlAant identified the <-?ocouAt books of the deoerlent,
3«iiiu«l H* -eisSf whioh vere used during his lif^'tioDie in the ueu»l
Course of business »t his pl$?oe of biisiness rit 634 v^ooaevelt voad;
th9t the books were icept "in the vsiafe in the business of '-^auiX H.
<^ei8s and in the desk during the d^^y", and vs^ere there -vt the tiaae of
his de«th, nnd were the ••oniy books th=«t were kept" of his tr?»ns-
HiOtions*
irom an examination of the evidence, sre think the trlil court
Rps ful^y justified in .^eraittlng the books of -account to be received
in evidence, ..s «ust be- r in 'nind th- t the «jnount clesimed by the
eleioiant in this proceeding v-s not disputRd. aut the defend^int to
this oi'^iM oontends th^t the claim of the olalainnt is not orovuble
s^ainst the estate of 3»muel a, /Sise^ deceased, for the re-ison th?>t
from the evidence It appears that the f^aount due vng between the
parties hs oartners, Xo determine this Question it is <?-vic?ent fro«
the record th-^t during the ye?rs the claiainnt -a working for «el88
he wa l>elng pnid nt the r te of ^35.00 « reek, tofreth?r with 35^
of the net profits from one of the dcpartmente ef the buainees of
c>a«uel H. -^eiss, designated ss *iA«n*a «nd tioys' "^er-'dy-tende clothing",
end the olslaant continued In the eaployment of nnd was ??ld by
Saauel u. else upon th^'t b?>sl8»
It is evident there were tro cliime due, one from the Mew
York Tailoring Ooaonny amounting to $5,006»75, end th«» other from
the Ohicsgo :i«ple ^^lothfttrt, smountlng to 53,373#90, naklnp; r, tot^l
of j^8,278«65. And th^.t in settlement of these cl^las Mr* .eies
■iooepted the deeds conveying to bia the re*-! estate referred to in the
proceeding, nm it further -sppe rs th t 9ub««^cuent to th^t time when
an Inventory of the esfte wis filed, the property v'>9 inventoried in
ths nnme of : <miel ri, relss, deee'>Bed, ♦is owner and there Is no
evidence in the record which would indlofte th>t there -^og ^ny con-
tention nt «ny tioe during the llfetlae of «r, .ei,s, or by the
ts matt arf^ ;?8 siariit «^s?? has- ,»?«£' ««!# aal'itfij ii5«L ^sijt al bOM b»JL!»»
oi ^imMai0,9ii M^ iMS& ^aSiimiSi tea ««w fsi^ecMrvij tJtift fU. iaamljslo
»ld«vmq i0a 9l tamsl^JUc ^t la wjUbXp, »4<r t«J^^ •^a^«ioo nXeXo fiX4#
.,.„,,, , . . _ . ^«iM«. t-^Jab^ jaoq«r wXft^ .o»II.X#iflw8
tt«i»W •tM 8BBlJsIe «mdi t& tit»»0iXt#(»pi fit ti«^ &il» «ea.8TC«@| )o
fli jbftiico^fi9TJti bjrw x^tqoici^ aii;r «MXX1 Mem 9t»*^§ ^,.%^. ttoira»Tni ffj»
..•fl©o X«fi ce^' '►^^rf* *<"•<** »*«»lbflX l>lfif!i» |f»lif» Miio»i SkiJ ni s»*jeviv3
6
executors of the estate after his d«'th, th"t the amount ol"l«ed
by the olaia>nt r-rs p partnerahlp uatter '^nd would h^ve to be
estftbllshed in n partncrshlo aocountlng. The books nhioh rete intro-
duced In evi3etice, do not tend to prove th??t therfi v«a «» pnrtnership
existing between Mr* >ei88 nnd the el^imifint* further^ by the oontrnot^
whioh v-^.f* in forcp bftveen the pRxties ^nd under which the oarties
continued to operate aubeecuent to the expiration of th? time, it is
provided in p«rRgraph one thot till psy^ent for merohsndise she'll be
■ade by >iBuei H« v^eiss and that "aH of siich grtioles purchased
shall be the 'absolute oroperty of the s-id V'muel H. *»is«!," In
the third parflgrJiph it is r)Tovided th?>t' a, y-erkovitz shall not ent«»^r
into any contract for his tiaie of riny nature or description "while in
the employ of the said 3«sBtuel H. elss,* ?snfi further reference is
•»»de to the oontrnot ^a "this mgrecaent of employment'*. The Isst
psragraph provides: '•thst this oontr-^ct is not to interfere wtith the
business of the s-id Ssniuel M. eias." The oovpr of the -^grepment
reters to the g^jie as "Agreeoient of employment betrf?en t^omel h» selss
and Abe tierkovltz***
The Question of whether the oontr^ot oonstituted a prrtner-
■hlp between the pr«rtief! is ^ Question of intention to bf? g?ithered
from the t^^rms of the contract. Go«cher v« LV^tes. 380 111, ^^T*;^, and
In ^mltb V. Knight. 71 111, 148* The o^se of Saythe v, ^v- nn^ 209 111,
.''VS, which h'^s t>'-t?n ceiled to our >»ttention, sfcma to be in point. In
this case <*. olslm ».-*8 filed in the Probnte Oourt br^ed u]'>on an sgr^e-
■snt whereby an engineer rfa to reneivs one-h^lf of the profits
prising from a oontrs^ct as compensation from '" eontmctor, one of the
oonliCBtlons beln^ th^t there could be no recovery in « suit unless
there ws « settlement of the partnerebio affairs. The court s'^id;
•The eighth instruction proceeds on the theory th-t if the
Jury find, from the eviJence, th-^t th^rp ♦? s • pnrtnerahip between
Evnns snd snqrthe, then there c=>n be no recovery in this aitlt
. I
fff ''*Sf«i'«* .H £«w«i--^d ^iflss M^^ t© iif#«»3!«»^^ t't&l&t^'^ %df 94 Iliads
al *ts%ioq iiA «Mdf o# 8«#&® *xsoi*ia»##ii tu© <&» Mile© «**>«* «.«rt 4eirfw ,»T5
««9*r^« m fJo^M fe*8«e' i'tt/oSJ alstf^'sr'^ 9>«f* «si fc^XJt ».«* iii.l«X«» »>»««9 ■.«*«#
unless there --s s «ett.leuent of the or^irtnership «<ff?iT3 In the
llfetlra* of Umythe, There we nothing in the evlienoe o»i W^iioh
to b'se thi« inot ruction, tU^im'tnt'a oont»^ntion ' a, th<^t he
w«» to be raid for hie gervioeo one-h-'lf of .".inythe'a profits*
This would not ai^k* the« partners. Burton v, i>oodflr)eed, 69 111.
237, •
From the erllenoe, nil of which is oonaietent with the written
eoatrnot of enplo/isent, there rea^ins no doubt thnt eiee ^'9 the
•ole owner of the aaneta of the business, including the tp'I estate,
•nd ths.t Berkovitz wns entitled frs an eaployee to his o iTjr nnd
aliquot share of the profits. There is nothing contingent or un-
oertpln ^bont the cl<(ia, «nd we belieire the clftim for the ^^mount
Buf?;ge8ted by the oloiia'^nt ie borne out by the evidence,
Ae »e hsre previously stated, it depends largely upon the
Intention of the oartiea ne to whether the olflim?int ^ois n prirtner of
Saaniel H, ieiss, snd from t,be f>ots -*s they apr>e>»T in the record, we
are of the opinion th'^.t the olainent >?a9 an employee of Mr, "^else
«t the titae of the business trans^totion 9nd that he w?^9 entitled «t
the tine of the deeth of Mr, «eias to the sua of 13,069,65, being
35)i» of the sua due and owing on two '■■ooounts • the Ohlcgo "a^mple
Clothiers, ind the «ew York i'^iloring Ooopany - with interest in the
sua of tTaa.as, ankin^ » total of $2,797,88 to be paid in due course
of adainistrntion,
ror the reasons stated, the judgment ia «.fflraed.
OCNIS £. SLLLIVAJi, F.J, C0M0UR3.
8URKK, J. I.^.X£S «0 ?AHT,
s/f iftfl* ,?ft~'v? ,ctol#«s<^«©o ®»te^a:^^XO •J«-©l^eu«'£,tsjKi sidJ «»'.•'«? e$
^iSitef ,S£<#i©0,S^ t* tew* »iiJ •* •9im ,.iiS T* «[#<^«fe ♦§» t* Ml « tilt
'■ ■' '»Jt»^^ eg*'.©i,rf® ®iS:* «- »'*aB»6««-« «»# ssft ^sli'« fe«» »j^ mm *if te ^t
«j«* «i, *®*ts.,^fii rf#i^ « -^rt.i^caot' B«i^«»-^-*;'' '■ **»'? ^®® »^^ ^'''^^ «,«i«t*ijrtoip
., . »&M-<sll't« -tl, Jasaiffewt ««Svt ,j.|>«lisi^® «fl»8«»^ sifitol --'■■' *i''i!"^''''
40363
QhiiiH THOUiSCli mid MlLDnEO B*
THOkPSOK, ) Ai'i
(Flalntifft) Appellants,
▼•
SUPERIOR 001.' RT
L^A
FLOREMOE OTIi, i*Tt8a£R (;/;RTAUE LlfiC ^ Li / \ '^^^^ OOVJiTf,
IMC, a corporation, and £0'*AKi) ii.« )^ \ / i
KLKINSOHMIOT, )
(Oef«nd;».nt8) Apoelleet, ) >/|vr\iK\T ' "^
UA* JUSTICK UEHEL OELIVERS-O THE OPINION OF THE GOlj'RT#
Th« plaintiff* by this ^of>e'a seek to reverse » judgment
(entered February 35, 1938, on the verdict of " jury finding th«
defend?\nt9 not guilty of the ehsrges of negligenoe laid ng^inat
tb«B in the separate ooaplaints of plaintiffs aienn Thonpeon pnd
Mildred 13, Xhompson, his i»^lfe.
The motions %rev out of n^ three-wt»y motor vehicle ««ccident,
which occurred on March 34, 1333, on '^ute 43, or ^Therid«n '^o«»d, ^t
the north limits of the Village of Lake Bluff, between Ohiengo nnd
%au1t;«gnn, in «rhich pl?»intiff9 were eeriouely injured*
The two o«8ei were consolidated «nd tried together ^b one
o?»ae, frith one series of instructions, but dch defeni^nt ^ss repre-
sented by 8ep«\r?»te counsel, ihe court overniled ? notion for p new
trii^l and entered judgment on the verdict,
Aa we hnve stated, these two o«see were consolid>«ted, ^n6
tried u^on an '^.uended ooaplsint wherein £dward E, Kleinschaidt rr-s
mf^de nn additional defendant. The plaintiff a were ridin ^~ --jests
in the crir driven by Kleinsohaidt =!nd it la s<lleged th°t tbey vere
in the exercise of due ere ?ind not guilty of ^ny contributory
negligence*
The coaplaints in the t<70 onsea were the s'^iae stn to the
charges of negligence, and the n*glii:enop -'9 to injuries, while
variant, ^re not m-iterl-.l hera* lo point hss been «»de by the
»U' Gmjdiu jbfl-ft m
^*>»-.^'
•%8« x*'^^ ^^<f^ &^19XXa el $Jt bti^ tbimdibtieilh .. ^
■ ^ottt<!Sii:faot) xom J.& x^Hi^ *«« *«* **** ♦***> *® »iRJt^»wi. ttf* ill
♦9oa#aiX5iW5
a
defendants «.8 to the jie-»ding«, so thst the queationa here involred
are ouestlons of faot, »nd from the stntetuents m^Ae by tae nerevftl
psrties intereated in the subject natter it would seem th- 1 awny
of the ouestlons of f:>ot are oont rover ted* However, in at^-ting the
fnots it aopesre th^-t on the evening of W««roh ?4, 1933, the defendant
riorenoe Otle, since married and knoifn r9 Florence Otis Fetter,
spent the evening ^t the "ipartment of Otordon Jones, ^t ll'^O L^ike
Shore i^rlve, ChlCflgo, where n dinner psrty •'♦s served to the Misses
Florence Otia, Jorothy 3enn ^nd lB«»rbar?i ?enn, Oevere«ux Bowley,
Oordon Jones «nd I'^ul Anderson, Juet before the buffet dinner
cookt^tils were served r>nd i^iss Ctis, With others, joined in the
refreshnents, she drinking one oooktril, khovt SiOO o*olook P. if.
ths party left the oparttaent to go to ^ sketing rink nt the iJnvil
Trnining Station, north of the Village of Lske Bluff, irhich eould
be reached by driving up 3hcrld?in Hoad from OhiosgOt They left
In two automobiles, one ^ >ord coupe owned and driven by i^lorenoe
Otis, and the other » Buiok rosdster driven by Oordon Jones, In
the Kord with diss Otis vere 'itrhnrn senn "ind i'Bul Anderson, the
l%tter riding on the outside of the sent and Miss 3enn in the middle,
Dorothy 3enn and riowley rode in the isuiok roadster rith Jones. The
parties in the Jord stopped for about fifteen minutes pt uighlsnd
Park at the Moraine Hotel, ^fter le^^ving the hotel they drove up
to Lake iiluff, about «» mile, and overtook the buiok under the
viaduct, where Jonea nnd his narty had stopped to ^^it for the j^ord.
The drivers of the two errs agreed th?<t the Quick would preoede the
Ford to show the w^iy to the entrnnoe of the N«»v''l Training Station
skating rink. As the two core st«?rted north from the viaduct they
followed a Vtebber Cartage Line, Inc. truck for ^ibo^jt a quarter of
" mile, the ?ord traveling lamsdi<»tely behind the iJuiok, 100 to 150
feet, according to JiiST Otis ^nd r^ul Anderson, and sooording to
•^f^B> i'di «©»» I>Xm©w #i ^»t*Ra' *©®|;«fjs/e »rf:* tti b&f9t^xiiftti 8®l*t,aq
|ji;*8»© mM^ tiiMs »^^4 ^« ,.^-a,».iiit «ift l« ri*«0j5 ,^4io^tfissra aainiATf
<»At »«os'i?»MA X««»f *»« l6a»S st%si«hL»H «««« i»;*5«Jt $alM d^lw Jbrro^ •rf*
,Blbi3im, 9M Oil mm «fi» INst^ ^^^ «4f . 1;« »M«*«» »# «» a«i**« xfbt$»l
3
Joncta about 35 to 5'^ fe«t, Thft tmok vp.9 tTflv«ilng north In the
northbound lane of the 18 foot oonorete highway '^t n speed of froai
16 to 20 allee an hour. The biiiok or passed the truck, Jones
driying at 30 to 35 miles nn hour, "nd the truok going fbout 18.
Misa Otis peased the truok ri^ht behind the Jones o<tr to distance of
25 or 50 feet. lihen Jones passed the truok he vr?9 going 20 to 35
■lies an hour, whioh wj'.s f lister than the truok rss going. The Otis
CRT wns driven *^t an ^^rersjie speed of about 35 miles nn hour. A
be&vy »et snow was falling end windshield «ipera were working on
the oars* The pavement k-js vet f*9 the snoi* waa awltin;', -^s it fell.
Just north of Lake Uluff two drive^-^jys lead off Sheridan
Road into the Orabtree f^rm. It is 363 feet froffl the north side
of the north drive-f-py to the north aide of the south drive«-?<y. On
the opposite aile of the hard road ne-^r the south entrance there vi^b
a telephone pole rhich wr's 1S3 feet south of the next iasiedi^te post
to the north. Another telephone i>o8t stood on the oprosite side of
the hard ro^d ne-^r the i^rth entrance *hioh ^^<i 301 feet from the
post at the south entmnoe.
On the anae evening n.bout 10 o'clock the defendant F.dward
S. Kleinsohoaidt, with his niece lild?, «»n<-i the plaintiffs, aienn
Thoapson and his wife Jiildred, na guests, left the aaval Training
Station skating rink in Kleinschoiidt's t we Ive-oy Under four-door
Cadillac sedan to drive to Highland lark, where Kleinsohmidt lived,
end where plaintiffs had left their oar upon joining the Kleinachmidte
to go to the skating rink. On their way home Kleinsohmidt was driving,
Oltnn Tboapson was «.t his side on the right of the front sest, Mrt,
Thoapson wis in the bflok seat directly behind the iriver and Hilda
neinsohwidt w*b seated beside Mrs. Thoapson. They left the skating
rink at 10:06 o^olook, or there«^bouts. It — ^a snowing -nd the
te«p«r/>ture ^?>s rar -nd cold. Double windshield wipsp« were working
saaoii:. ,iaiw'X't «»fi» f^s»s8«§ i.?$ 401^4 ifrfft *"?M©il' an teXin OK o^ Hi
,gX ^:/©{fjK ^f|ie?5 3<<>iraif .»«!* fejBig 4^{m^ .«^ •»iiiB- «S o* 08 #« gairlxb
dS ©# C€: lisi©8 ^9m M it>x;x# »«ir b«>«s«^ »»a«t. a*M *#«*1fc ©8 ^0 3S
9h.t!i Am^a mi^ jBOtt #»®t M^^ M ^I .iS«:«^t «»u*el«'3cO ,»tf.t o#«i i^aaJK
9«.w mi»iit m&^iti^m M-»&* «i« i:«-»a .hmt 6t«iS ©ff* 4« .»ftJt» ^^iio^^qe «4*
»dt SMMrt *®#i iC« SiSer 4«Mw ©»«ftT#«3 dttot! *wi* *«»e £teot £:ir«i! 0rft
Toeix-tK,-©!; ^»J^eJtix©-eTXew# s*#&iaiil«»efli?X8 «i j«t«Xs 2MeX*«*» «o**«*'^
8?&Xs5jEj©Bal»Xl 3rt# B«^*^-i5)t a<><?^ ^«® Ti©«ur #t*X Ijjiri ii3;1:Xta4«Xq n«tfw ^»
«»tii ,^fc»# ^m'tl 9ti^ iQ i^lt^ «Mft «0 *feA». »Xrf #« ««« «o»qato(«T fl«tXO
»«* ^a« ^ivoat am it ♦**<»oirA»afiit* to «S»«Xa»e eO:CX *« Jinfs
4
on the Kleinsohfflidt o«r ?nd the windshield ra« ele^T of «now »»11
th« vny Aorots*
A« the Kleinsohmldt ot Oadlllao ear oame over the oreat of
the hill nenr the north entr«noe to the Ornbtree fi«rm where the
building* »!.re located, the Oadillwo nnd the ^ord oowne, driven by
Mias Otis* o?m« in eontpiot. The first the oooxjpants of the G?»dill»»o
• 3w of the f-ord w^e when Ita hesdlighta were apT^roxirar^tely opposite
the left front fender of the 0>%dill<!0* Prior to the eontaot between
the Ford and the Cadillao, the riuick roadster tset and pt^ased the
Oiidillao without ?^ny trouble* Mr* Jones, the driver, fixed the
•peed of the duiok at ^ to 35 aiiles ?<n hox^r -^t ind immediately r>rior
to the accident, ^^nd the Ford coupe wis going "botst the qnae,
directly behind the iiuiek «»bout ^5 feet, '•nd Mr, Jones oould see
through his TBviT mirror th^t the Ford wris foUowinp;. The eont?»ot of
the *ord and the OadillRO ooourred «il?noat within a second or two
after the Buick ind the Oadillae passed S'^oh other* hen the C!*i.dlll«ko
and the Bulclc met and passed, the C'.dillac "t-a almost on the center
of the road, «.nd just a little north of the oreat of the hill* After
it pasaed the ttuick, Jones he'srd >• click, looked in his re-^r view
■irror -^ind t^v the C^is Hord coupe orooeed north «5bout fifteen feet,
•nd slowly veer off to the left or v-est, Jones atoned his e^r and
ran back to the Kord and then down to the vji»,oe '»here the Oadillae
and truck had collided, which was about 100 feet froa the pl»^oe
where the Ford was standing*
-Vhsn the Ford and Cadillac came In contact the left front
vlMel of the Jford was broken so th 1, it ended uo in a ditch on the
•est side of the road near » telephone ^ole, b^^t it did not strike
the pole* After the contact the Cadillac took a southeasterly oourss
aoross the east or northbound lane, ^nd caaie in collision with the
febber Cartage Lineie truok* The right sides of the front of the
lie w«x?s lo ti-aio «^w 6X»jld«i)iyiH •»** Iken -s:,?© *fei«rf©Rfl;i»Xa 9fJ# ise
tssXTw t-i«j#Bi4'9»«i l>e«» *« ^woii n& ««Xjta ai^ ®l aS in HitisM ^i'to Sm^qe
efts ,6ii?fe© ©«^<3& .^ &iS.p ,*i»«if1: m tfstKi^ :i9ltM «d* &islil»tf tXI^©«MtXi!>
©55* «« ]b«0098 .« aif?^ii!? ti»m£^ bttnstaxf&Q fs«IIlfc»& ftifl' J^« j^tot t^
'>.«XXl&ifO »cC* aei?^ •T&if#i3 ii©-*© t»is«!8^ »«XXlli«C» in«* 'I>h« iftJtwS' ik# k»it»
t<9ttA •Xii^ »^* Ic s^»«>7® 3£l# to ditoa aX##ii « *8tft **«» »*•-«©« ^'i* ^o
w®Xv «f«9T «Xff Hi BsiCooX ,^oXXo ^ brr^^A ««<i0^ «:!rdiir8 sitf# itft8««q tl
^^^91 a99flli tmdf< ti$%on *«»©o*se 9q&o9 ^%&% ftitO srfV wan Imia ^e-xirJtffj
bis:s xft© aixf fc®<?qo#8 ssiroii •^wa^ xo *t»X »rf* <&* Ito t««v yXwoXb Iwaa
©«XXIfcftft »<£i# 9'ssid'?? «cnsXq ««l* 0* i5w«fc ustif^ ba* fc«©'4 sflft «;t i»j8<f a^^
»oj5Xq od* ffiorrt *»at OOX l-x/o^s »«w tfoiiTw ,6»WXXo« bad iStunt be»
♦3psl&a«*8 8JSW feio'f »rf* •'»T&fi--
;rj«OTt nsX mii tt^Mtam al 9mm mtiibat) Ims IN;«t »i^# mA^
ss7tf«» -^Xtcsjrejesif^i/o* « 3f©o# e^XXlfcaO Mft #9«#fioi» «fft TStf^A .tXoti *rft
eri# i5*Xw floieiXXo© iiX ftsno JEw-s «(Mi«X toii^tfii^voQ j •^i' •«««»*
difl' lo tfloTt »rf# 1© «»M« trfait »rff .aI0^# •••nl.l »3/»#irA0 «©tfd«i^
5
OadillPO »nd the truck o«m« together. Imaedl^tely there?? fter the
Cadlliio burst into flamea nnd iir, Anderson, who w%8 In the frord
and HTm iJowley, who w^s In the tnjick, iMshed do'^n to the oolliaion,
ornwled In the b^solc seat and helped drag Mr. Thomoaon out. .^ftPr
the oollieion between the truck «nd the O^^dillsio the rl^ht front
wheel of the truck ivps p«ataed bP.ok three or four feet from norasl
position and up under the trxjok, bresking the battery box «nd nutting
out nil the lights of the truok. The front i^xle of the truok vae
broken and pushed bnck underne/^th the motor. The truck buaioer w?s
detached '\nd wr-& on the right eide of the Csdillso, between the
right fender ?!nd the hood. The Ford kfps from 75 to loo feet distant
fro* the plftce of the truck •ind the Oadillfsc collision, and
Tisibility th t evening t«'*8 bad, and the truok driver could gee only
about 50 feet ^hend, so th?»t when the Ford -¥-19 bO fe«t «hesd of the
truok he could not see it. the condition of the xreether prevented
the truck driver from seeing the Osdlllso y^hen it /'as coming over
the top of the hill. The truck driver did not gee the hey^dlights of
th« Cadillac as it CQjae over the liill, but s^w them on his side of
the roRd when they were within five or 3ix or ten feet from him. He
had on the dia lights of the truck, but hsd had the bright lights
on, the truck being eouipped with 9 button to step on to dia them,
by throwing the bright lights up or down. He had not seen tue
C^dlllflc coining before the ford got out of his vision. The trailer
and truck together was »bout thirty feet long n.nd wme loaded with
boilers ^nd conveyors and w^s being driven rith the overdrive on.
The truck and tr?»il«r weighed ?*bout 'U,700 r.ounda ^nd the load «bout
17,000 pounds, ^ith thpt load the truck ??8 approaching the rl-^oe
of the collision ^t n gpeed of lb to 30 miles ^n hour. At the time
the iord passed the truck the truck • tg goii^; 20 to 26 niles an hour,
aooording to the truok driver, ^nd the ford^s speed in passing was
about thirty ailes an hour, vihen the i'ord ?jtte«pted to get back on
®if* T#t1:i9*t»4# Xl^^-^tbrnml, ^xs>4!i'^^0 WBfts jiami »dt btm &^iiil»isO
Igmipa &9T1: i9^% %ti0t tQ 9911^0 i^^ b90imm 9(am Jtsntt vif? \o Xs«tfw
a«¥ 3f«itf«;r 9sii lo «l«4t jTisoit a^' i^ipsiwf »il# %• «»if3ii didt ll* fm
Xiae ^♦« feXwt© twi^fe Jto-sfii* %.m MM «fe«^. it^w icOa^v^ Hd$ ^UMUtr
»tii to l»««<{js f«9t 0(S ftnw i^fi^ 4^t &^^ #«# »« .^««t(ji tt«t 04. inM^
to cWgiieMfSWd ftdii »»« t«J« Slfe ««^iltfe 3tOifT£j- *j*l i»^iAii ftdt lo qo* «Xlif
551 .alrf «OTl »«6'i fr»« XO IEJ« JMfc aTll «ltf#i«l »«ew Y«tf* fl»rf*9 iiiSOS Hdi
v.^d:^ll io^ixc «ii# bM bfsd #«rf ,3l©in# •<?:* to »*ii^!iii «iJt) «rf* no ftjstf
T»Xi.eT# wfT .aoi»iv aw t« *^ *©i *««t fitir ?««t»d »flJt»<» o»XXlb«0
•«o 9TiTisTt»vo mit dttm nmtfh ffliw^ ft«w bm^ «tt©t*v«o» £«»« BT«Ile»tf
»^3Xq »rf# ^tm*o'iqtiM ««« 3t»i«t «tft >t«i #!»<<* ri#if •utaxaocf 000* 'S'X
^It •!(* #A *tMmi »« «9XiiB Or©t ax to h^m «,t9illoo «iJi %©
,su«4 BJt «»XXa S€ ot OK a** Jtos<««f -*•««*. •«**^*^* ^^^ i)»»as;? t^^oi wi#
i«« ii«flrf *»T. A* bas- •'s:uOJtl isa laiift ntfiXd* *uo<j."
6
the east side of the road the right front of the car almost came in
oont«ct with the left Pi^^* of h0 truck.
iBaeilfttely ->rlor to th« oont^ot between the ''orrt ^n6 the
Ondlllao, Kleinsehfliidt w.'<p hugging the oenter line of the rod ^>nd
driving frocB 40 to 45 ■il<)<; an hriur. He 'v?,b 58 yowrm old »Bd hsd
been ne'sx-eighted froa youth but wore gl Bfyes to corrnot the vision.
He testified th- t he cwuld atop hl«» o*»r nt th.^t tiiae within SO to
30 feet BBd 40 feat on that nBveBaent, and t^f*^ he did not '^spDly blfl
br^tkes with full force for f««r of eklddin^^ and went about BO
feet after the oontsot «ith the Otle car before It otruok the truok^
and Mr, irieiosotiKldt testified thot bis car h-ii not oohsr to H rest
when it oollided «itb the truck.
In thle nooi >nt the pl'^mtlff Glenn Thoapj»on war aerlouely
injured, snd by thle lltigi^tion h« aeeke to r«?(?ovor Anmngfit»,
Keoitin^ the f cts or OQll<id to our attention by the pi in-
tiffe, and exQuiiniBg the briefs that were fil'?d by the deffsndJ^nte, we
find there w*'*? ?» controTerjry upon orpotic^lly 6VRry orueatio.. of
f»ct, ind thle, of eour!»e, npce9niitnte« the recital of f'Ct<» ng
euggested by the defond^nte.
Our attention h >? been oelloi to the <»tflt««ent of Jir«, ^G%9f>T
regjsrdln^, the fnets* ^"he st^ites she w- p driving h«r oar aotfl<^ dlatan'^e
back of the Enaiok o^r befor»^ the oollixion; tn«it she h*id p'i??:"ed the
truck and ean able to see the center line of the ro?.<1 all the tiise;
that after paeeing the truck, Mrs, ^etirer drove br»cK on the rijfht side
of the center line of the hlfthv^y ?«nd continued north. The helper
On ^he %ebbcr Cartage Co pnny truck s-w the ^et»cr ocr o^ai* "^^
truck aomewhere in Lake Bluff, .after it i->PB'>eH the truck, i.. ■ it
get back on the en*' «i'1e of the rord nnd continue north in "^hnt
position. He watched it aa fnr a« he co )ld see, and »11 of the ♦line
it w*fi within hie visiOTi it wr on the rif:ht Bide of the rcsd,
Benaon, the driver of the lebbor Oartn^c Coapany truck, nvtm the ^ord
nx etABO taoffllB iso srf;t lo tno-il ;J-rfgx'x arid- bBou 9f(.-^ 'to sbis ifsss scft
■ti^if h&0' hla »«J8®\ S^ .ii;i«^ ®i •'aato'i^ «jS5' ««iX|» <9* c* ^ ,«o^ gaitri^.ts
-*»»« 4 0^ «»^»^ ^Jissi' fe.««C *@!^ siiEi ?^tr fef>i%isJ@!»^" ilxiaaloattiwIX. ♦iBK &«»
«w. «»^,al«r»t*!>- t^^J- t«t Ii«li-1E #^t*lr f*^t' -©t^i^tf ■ jmJ* ||»i«i^x« 6is« ,allli
f'';i^, ; ®il* aa/Hf s«» "S-^-itJ©''- »^t w.^n tms'ti '>^m^'^ ^Wf*^'^ t»4df»f:
'l»Rl»:-'#tft 't^ £;£» l«» ,««« j^if^'^' «Na^'##^'ieii&'iii ft i»»if##]iir' •(}■ .ie«jrtifio«i
&«©'* *4ir,-iris»^.^_j||>^*, i|ii«((pf99; »2ti(eJ^X«p Tt»«lflf»« »jW 'te it»iri .mm^-^^
7
pas? the truok and get b^^ok on Its own site of tb(? rond. The Inst
he saw of the Ford it f^-^a going north on its own side of the highway*
After pnisaing the truck, Mrs* Fet?er first anw the lights
of the Osdillao oar approaching from the north nbout ?>')'> feet away
froB her, and that the Cadillac ear vaa tr?» veiling at a speed of
fro« 3b to 45 ailee per hour, and wr.s tr^^-rrciiinbr. with its left
wheels on the oent^^r line of thp ror-d, ivirs. Fetzer r^is driving on
the right side of the center line of ths road v'ithin n foot or so
of the edge of the ro^d, f-s the J-Jdillic ne^red the ford it veered
to the left side of the highrpy nnd atnick the left front ^heel
of iirs» Fet«er»9 car, »?nd st the moment of the collision, svocording
to the evidence of tiienn Thompson, himself, "either i^r, Klelnschmidt»s
car wns on the line or juat ^^ little over It". As n result of the
collision the left fror* wheel of the iord nna broVcen. The tord
travelled north ^ few feet, and then turned to the west side of the
road snd went in the ditch. After the collision the Cadillac
travelled south ? distJ^nce of from 75 to 175 feet, and It ipos <»t this
point that the oollision between the OadlllTO -^nd the truck occurred*
The men on the truck testified th-t they vrere tr'»velling '^bout 15
•ilea an hour ^nd saw the headlights of the Jadillao car coming
diagonally toward them 40 to 50 feet away.
The Oadillao was s big heary autoaobile weighing approxlaately
6,000 pounds. It was equipped with efficient four-wheel air-brakes
vhlch opernted ?>t a very slight touch of the brake pedal.
There la n dispute between the witnesses -^s to the apeed of
the Kielnschmidt c->r. The plnintiffs contend that the defendnnt was
driving his car at an excessive speed - 40 odles an hour - and rely
uoon this allegr tion to show wilfullness and mntonnesa, Mrs,
Thompson, the wife of the other plaintiff, testified that the
llelnschmldt oar wr^s travelling it •• speed from an to 30 miles an
hour. So that when wo come to consider all the fncts ns ^e have
to &«>®q» J8 »« ^aiil#v«'s^ »«;«^ iff® »®Iii-fe«8 »|C* 3^«iS[* fefflfi ,t»rf »o«l
Q& to im'i » etMitm ^&% ifsli to mil xa^iieo ^Ai to t^bU tti^i;t 9£it
X»artf« ta^xt nti a^* i»»^*» fen* %^wd-^M 9d$ to ^i« *t*i 9ti* ai
';. 'ifci-isiisRaJift^ tin xumi^" ^tMmiM ^mm&m mHP t^ 9mmUv^9ii$ tt
M0^, trff *««J4©l't:J «*■» Me^ *^^. ,^® |»»,ito i»««t n»X »tft aolaiXX©©
31 toiKfa sfliXX«Y«iK* 9t9^ Y®«^* ^i*"^^ 6»iti#»»# <»*«♦ 9A* m «•» »df
gate©© xe© &»lUbnO •!!* to ati*slXJb««rf «4# w»» feo« ««f©iJ J!« ■»Xlffl
.XI5W* #«»t og »# c* ««d# »««wo# ixxjiisoaiRxe
««:ijR'j:d«^i;j» iDf»iJ«-«tfot tnaioXtt© ri^Xw fo«qql<fl?» »«w *l ♦•fcJU/oq OOO^d
.leJbftq »;<a^d »ii* t© ifowo* ^iC^Xa t««* * ** k»*Bf^e Hoiifw
8ffi«* msEim&t9b 9At i»€i banta&o attX*tti4»iQ »iif •«*• jTJbiwifeaflisXS ^ui^
^IST fen* - itworf fui e«Xi«s 0* •» M»q» #vi;«»»*x» «» H «.«• Air
®<f# *,b4* l>»J:ti#8&* ,ttiJ«i«Xq t»rfto •Ai to *lXs suiT ^iJCKo^c^i
B^ sBliai OS o* OS «ait b9»q» « *J?' »aXXl«v««f ««« ««© ^AtoUowxisXX
S'trrr? r^ *« 8*fipt s^tf XXs ^»fcXanoo o* «Mfioo ' ■ ' "^ " "^ mtuod
•
<l«t»lled them f»t aome langth. It was for the jury to ietermin* ^e
to the liability of eaoh #f the def«nd'»nta for <1»»m«ge9 nust^ined by
the plnintiffa.
The instructions th t the plaintiffs contend were pert of
the record in thie osae nppe'r in the ndiitionpi record, wnioh the
plaintiffs filed by perml3s»ion of thia corirt. Tjpon nn examin^ition
of the ftddltlonnl record we find it i^ certified to by the Cleric of
the Superior Court of Oook County, ae a transorlpt of the refused
and given Inetruotiona. These inatructiona do not appear to h»ve
been endorsed •♦ given" or "refused" by the Judge before whom the pro-
ceeding ?ens had; nor objections mnde to th^ giving ?nd refuanl of
then* As to whether the instructions muat be Barked "^s indicated,
it is provided by the PrflOtlee Act, Jh. 110, P^r, ivU, ^^eo* 67, 111,
H%r, Stats* Bar Aasn. iTd* 9S follore:
•♦The covrt ah'^ll ^'jive inatructiona to the Jury only in
writing -^nd only a to the l^w of the c?8C« ^hen instructions
nre «5 8ked which the judL^e cannot ^l^e, h«> shall, on the mflrgln
thereof, vrlte the word •refuged', ?nd auch 9s he reproves he
ahsll write on the fn.?>rf.-in thfr«of the -orl 'given*, '^nd he shrill
in no osae, pft^r instructions «»re ^iven, clarify, modify or In
any ajnnner explain the fj^me to the jury, otlier»rl8e th^n in rf^rltlng."
And It ia to be noted from the ianguftge used in this r^rovlslon of
the statute th«t the inatructiona shall be tunrtB^. as indicated in
the provlaion*
It further ftpps^^ra th-'t the instructions in the additional
reoord were not certified to by the ooiirt before rhom the o»se was
tried, Ch. 110, i=-r, 198, :eo, 74 (?) nrovidea:
" * • • The trl'iil court rfoord ahull include every Tit,
pleading, motion, order, riffldvlt snd other doounent filed
or entered .n the nrune ^^nd i-ll matters before the trl^l court
which ahall be certified <fa n nnrt of auoh r^^oord by the judge
thereof, i-ll matters in the tri-i court record ^•otu«4.11y
before the court on appeal awiy be considered by the court for
-•11 ourooflfB, but if not properly ^uthentlc?ited the court mny
ordsf suoh further «»uthentlC'>tlon 3S It awy deem sdvlsabls."
%nd In order th- 1 this court rnxj consider the Inatructiona, It la
Bsesaanry th^t they be properly certified to by the trinl judge
"Ot^ M* a»ii» tHt^t^f^ ^^&i «6ifer IPS' *jfe»»iit»«* ■«« *ji»Tii« fc*a(ir©i!»«» ii»«wf
'J** !«*«#«« M-Jt '^aivili »^#'## «l^-ffi8i •a«ifia»|-tf® 'iiMi ifejiif »j8«r ]^ilr»»&
«ixi «f»"*©«4^ ,x<li .«af «©i:i: ♦:j*!5\!N>a sw^ii't'w^ ^m ^ httbitvc-
titroil'a^xt.tssisi «i^#l *aaf5® «rfi? H© T.r?I *^ o^ »« "vlno fen* -gfti^lit*
to aol«lvot«5r aia'* «Jt £"»fe0 »^«JErs«isX mMt tmiti h^&& M «# »i #jfc twiA
j»«»feiv««? <s?) ♦f .ft*® «««x ^«»« «oiX •rf9 .fr«it*
«3f!>fc'}; «»rt ■^ff JbToesi ii©w® l:**^ *'?«q « «jB ' ^'» '^d XI — ►^ u-iiliJ
T£Xt*crtor MOO*^? ;l'TyoO i'^t't^ arfJ (C i f '* »'t'*«'f '^rtd'
•
b«fore whom the 09«e wa« hord. There is • Te»»eon for the neoessity
of oertiflO"tlon of the Items is «• part of the r»eord, Thia oourt
Is Informed by this oertiflcstion of the jvidj^;© th^t the matters
called to the attention of the Jtppellate oourt were properly before
the trlnl court. Prom these provisions of the st'^tute It is cle^r
th'^t the ndlitionol record is not such ss this court c^u consider
in disposing of the avestiona regf'rdii^ the instructions.
The Supreme Court in the o«!Sc of Jrfi^'nwell v» Uest^^ "98
111* 459, ui on this <?ue8tion, 3^ Id:
"It is the rell established rv>i€ in I'^-v o^sses, th^t in
order to be preserved ^.s n -ohtX of the rpoord, ^11 motions,
including motions for = nc» trisil ^nd in arrest of judgiaent,
«nd «11 the instructions j/iven nnd rpfused by the court, must
be preserved in •» bill of exocctionB signed by the oourt ^^nd
filed ns ? p«rt of the record in ti\e c^se. Under our present
Praotioe act the 3'--iae might be preserved by ? stenogrsphic
report aifined by the tri^^"! judge, bvit they c?>nnot be cooled
into the record by the clerk -s p^rt of the record to be con-
sidered on » revievr of the judgaaent unless contained in euoh
bill of exoeptiona, ocrtifio^jte of evidence or stenogmnhie
report* ' *. In the absence of '-' oill of exceptions or certif-
iowte of evidence in sr.ch o-ses in ch-^ncery, or of -; steno*
gr'^phio report gi^ijned by the tri^l judge -nd mp)de p. p»?rt of thp
record "nd contr'inintT; the motion for ^ nev tri-^l and the
instructions of the court refusr^d ?.nd j^iven, no ouestion c^n
•^rise in r\ court of review on the sufficienoy of the eviienoe
to SI! ,>port the verdict or on error "ssigned for the giving or
refusing of instruct iona, 'iuokey v, Pole. 169 111. 150; Johnson
▼ . F^rrell. ^15 id. 54.?."
Upon p- like question this oourt in J^nelunws v, vhiCHKQ
Fr>iternal life /«»»iu "^80 111. App. 319, siid:
"The clerk n»vfi erroneously inserted in the ooxmon I^t-
reoord docutnents which he desifprxptes f^s instruotif»ns 'refused*
!ind instructions 'given', but at rhose instance they ^ere sub-
nitted does not "ippenr. Hor is it ;«nywhfre st ted th-^t such
Instructions were -^ll the instructions of ered, given, or
refused, Tht proper al«oe for instructions under the Jivll
Prnotioe ;ct, is in th*? report of the proosedings on the tri**!
pind not in the oo^iion It-v record. So cuegtion b^sed on the
instructions is 3'^ved.'*
And then again in i^urns v, Kunz. '^90 111. !'-rip, 278, the oo\irt s'-ld:
■The evidenee is not preserved in the r'»cord, but the ^-iven «»nd
refused instructions «re erroneously inooroor ted in the oonaion
Isw record. The proper ?l9oe for instructions is in the report
tTW0.» »MI •l)'XiOO«'J »«i# 1«| *s^ « «» ssffi^fi ©«[#' to a9i#*$Gm;rt»9 la
jM»** ,«fiiil8«j#p alflsf jsoo-if ,e8K •III
j^tujtsi ^Hi-j&i? Bdi x^ hBmftis'Si bn^ at'vl^ a-«ol*0£/ii®rri ad# XX*i 6«j8
■■■"-^^ ' %g»a .fei eiK 4Xs%ta-i ♦#-
,■ ■■• ■■■■ ■•■■ ■ ;■'■■.#
:Bjla« ,8IS .Q^A •IXI S«SS i.j?r;lB«^ %tlul Xefiia^ii^i:!
-tfyR ©'?'??5 ifdiJ^ @©n»stiF;ai «eojlw i« *i^ ^'^svisi* haox^rrajxi^ai ba»
;5i,«8 #^so®o Oct* .,8tR jt^fA »jL|UC'06« «MHS ♦* JSSSli ni «i«®« «»«W AoA
;^a<jq»t »J^* .aX »i tR©X*»»T^»i«i «fl^ 008*X<J i&qo'x^ »>.- ^ *,...-:c-.:-,-h ,r,:.x
10
of the proo«edlafC8 of tTie tri-1; th«y h?ve no proper ylnce In
the oouiiion It rftoorcl, ( J neXun-'S v, Ohio.ii.-o tr^tyrn'^l Life
^9B*n , 386 111, -p. 'l^») inoe' there is no evidence in the
record the instTucfiona Ofinnot be considrred."
Flnnily, it -^ppe-ra th-t the inatructions called to our
attention by the plftiatlffg and contained in the -dditional record
"re not orop^rly prpservf d in order to be conaidCTPi by this oourt
upon the question of vhcthrr or not they -"ere ororjerly gubmitted
to the jury, A3 »e have indioat* , ; inatruotiona, ao-c^iied,
lire not marked "ftiven'* or "refused"; the reoord is not certified to
by the trial judge who he^^rd the matter, '^nd the addition«<l record
!• not auch ?>8 to ooraply with the st'^tutory oroviaion. Therefore,
thie co\:rt is unable to consider auch record,
Th« only question before the oourt is =vhetheT the judginent
is (dgflinst the tiianifeat ^veight of the evidence. As we h'^ve already
indionted, the oueatious were properly submitted to the jury for
their consideration, '^nd from their conoiueion upon the f^ets -^s
they appenr, we onnot a-f-y the verdict ia sgainat the nsanifest '^Ight
of the evidenoe, — -.~^_
Kor the re^sona «tr>tcd in this opinion, th* ^ -rnt is
affirtted*
DE»H,> ^, .;..;, i.H, P, J, COHOURS,
BDRKK, J. TAKES NO PAIIT,
f>-$ ^'-slliitfjo ^0« «i itoW* miAt i«»Jbi»«t<rt®T" to '•fl«vji«' JN^jf'j.^ja (Ton %%m
4»t<}?t»:««ii^t .a&,i4ii,tr(r5»t t*<i*^**f^'^*>** ^^*' rf*Jh« , ^«p«>«!, isii awBf rfw« #Qa.. «i
40464
)
(nalntiff) oefendnnt in trror, )
PITfcR aOHH, j
(Defendant) Plaintiff in error, )
f~
Ihl. r,ro«edla« i, in thl,, oourt .r,on , „lt of .rror l«u,l
/ m «i,,tlon to th. d.f.od,„t. *o ,ub«l.„d th. o.u„e to the court.
, *n« du, ooru,li.r.tlon the court found^the d.f.„d«t guilty ,Bd
««rM^_„ord«_re,um„g^^^^h^
»t on* yem fox th« u« of the ehUd. ^^ '
»^.2«''«??lngJ.=s brou^ituDon ,n lnfop.atlon signed by
Berth. «ohr oo,pi,i„i„g of feter Bohr and tile^'Z'jZ^':;^^—--'
Charging the defendant ,1th U.nng oh .uh. 15. 19,,8. .uncut re,L,tl.
«.u... »egleet.d „„d refund to :„lnt,ta ,n. .roTl.1. f„r hla .If.
«d for «.rllyn. , „inor ohud under the -,. of 18 y.,ra. hi, .,u,ht«
both being in neoe.eltou. ,nd de.tltut. olr<^™,-nc... » j^^y ,., '
«.l«d by the defendant ,h.n the o,.. ,„. ,„,,uted to the court.
and the order appeniad from »«(, •«4-e»^^^
Ki- *-a jroaa w/^a entered ^^ .,.« ^,^^g stated.
The pro,.o,-,tlo,. h,. fnled to nd the court by nun(- . brief
in ,n,,er to thn ,ub,l.t.d by the det.nd,nt. ,nd therefore « .ui
oonelder the «Btt«r .« presented.
*ro- the record It ,ppe.r, th.t Berth, .ohr. the co.pl,lbln,
•""' ^'^""'^ ''"- »"' ■«•'«*.«. her hueb^n,. :,bout ,„,„
r.r. .nor to the d-te of .be be„rl„e. The decre. ,,, obtained by
her in ,ul..,,„, ,in„oU. ,nd cont-lned no provision for ,U.ony or
•upport. ^rln« the t,o ,„d one-half y. ,. ,„„ ,. ,,. ,„,, ^^
the b.rtn,. tb. ,lre testified th,t .be b,d r.ceWed :,5..0 , .e.»
fro. tb. defendant for the .up ort of tb, ohlld. sn. te.tlfl.d
further th.,t .he operated , be™,y ebop m one roo. of her re.ldence
■S'"-
'!-'*■:■
'^r Q f^ A I S SS^^-'-'
fc^0«i wi^ t0 ti^ir ^ n^qir #T«<^ ^m mi$l w^mm^W^^m^^^ ,,., ,
a
p.nd th"t ahe had aupported and mn.intsined the cnili sinoe its birth
with th« help of her p»irent», 9he further testified th-^t the child
wat ill rmd n»«d«d medioftl attention, it -^Iso s-ooe^rs* thnt the
defendant offered to have the ohiid ©Xf^salned <rnd if iii, pay all
the expene^B of the required attention, the coajpiaining witneaa in
trustifying, however, aade the st.^tcsent th-t ijhe had a good physician
of her own, and th't she had a hoae for her ohixd; thn the ohild
was being weU fed an^l was in no need. The iefendsnt st the time of
the trial was earning an average of 133,00 « wecSc, f^ind had not been
earning «a average of |38,0D since Jnnu-sry I, IB3B. He testified
thnt he h^.d been pending the ooaplainitig sritness l;5.on ^ T^^ek, snd
s few days orior to the hearing had gent her |7.0n for the support of
the Ohild,
on July 5, 1938, the oourt found the defendant guilty ^a
oluirged in the information, r,nd ordered th t the <iefend«nt oay $7,00
per week for one ye^r for the support and malnteninoc of the child,
the first onyment to be *,.!• July e, 19?8, .nd further orderin^^ th^t
tho ORuee be foatponed ^nd aet fi.r tri?^l August 16, 1938,
The action is b-sed upon Oh, 68, if?r, •>4, 'ec. 1, of the
Illlnoia devised at'-tutea, 1937, irherein it is ?^rovi.3ed:
negleot or refuse to provide for the aur-ort or mnten^noS * * •
In ^lltll Jf' ''''''' or Children under the ^'e of eighteen ye.rs
i? ? -iii; ! ^'' "^^^'^^i^o^' oircuai«t.noea ah«ll be leered i^nU
? finJ !J * i:""?' '""^ *=•" oonviotion thereof shall be P^.nishld by
L the 00 ntv ]°.,rT^ aix hundred doil.TB or by i..;,rr8on'ent^
e?«i.H .«-; ^ -^ ^' 5°"®* **^ oorreotion or wrichouae, not to
exoeed one ye^r. or by both such fine ..nci i.t»orisoni«ent,-
The stotute further provides by Inr, 36, See, 3;
"At nny tiM before the» tri^l, upon motion of the oompl^in«,iit
and uc^n notice of the defenJ^nt, the oourt nt nny ti»^ or^
eefii't^'^rotLi:.'^*/^"; ^^ ^^'^'^ ^^^^ e.po^^lfy'Jr":.?'. ..y
:r:hj;r;r-ogr^^^^^rt;rd:-?^n^:;tror^::rg:L:::tr^ia<.
:oJte'^»Jt^i?'::ir^^?^ ^-^^ °-" --^-^ *- ^fr^n^f^o?^ -^^'^
^rf<f tsrtit »«5ecc« ««sii? fi ,ii0ita^it» i«-oi&asg fesl}»«ij lsa.« 1X1 lustv
£»Ji^ Mi^ fjsA^ ii>xtm %&ti tot 9«to(f '# hMH M9 tsAi b&» «£wo seif t9
l«s SKi# #!(•!? t5< tflf«li«*4a* frdt ,&©«« cwi ffi 9«nr ^» bwHt li«ir saletf a»«
"fiief^ff #1^' bMd bm^ «i9«# ii 00*^5$ 1e ^jf%€>v«> He gcrljnA^ anw SMirt tdt
l^s l^ocf^*nB ®<a'# tot C.'O.Tl rm *«»« !&:a£i siiJhC^.iwl *^<-* -* -v.^*^^ t^Ettib w»l «
■ ,8ig^i ,sx Htn^xsA Xsift «»% #•» J&«« 6««o<j#»®<r net msn*® trft
iS •I?*® «dS ♦'S,«t y¥ ^sAlrewi isfiifitita'i t^ir^si^a •«!?
4ii8«X«X<^iai3 ©rf* lo aoi.#o» j»<?^tf ,r.>r;x uir ^•"f-^^..- ^y^?.; v^v_. ;f.,K
^s.«» *«lil MSfMSa */i*'0«f 1C9 ,*xi , „ ,- -^a
s
And jsg»in, th« atp-tute proTldes by i.-»r, 38, :>eo, 3:
•If the court be satisfied by testimony In op«n oourt, th< t
at nny time during s^id -xriod of on* yprr th<? defendant h'*«i
"^J^i"*?!: !^r ?*^^® ^' ''''°*^ °''^®'» ^* ^'^y forthwith nroo««d
^Ith the trl-1 of th? defend-int under the ori^jlnsl oh^rife
or sentenoo him or her under the orl^in^l eonviotion. or
enforce the suspended sentence, ng the case m.'dy be, ■»»*••
3o th^t when we examine th*» r^oord ^e find the oot^rt'^ orier is th«t
the defendant is ^.alty ^nd the cn^se is continued for the purpose
of ?» further he-^ring, »nd fro« a conaider-tion of the antter pending
here in this court ^^}^Jht the court h^s entered g^ order findiig
J[fjj£^£or the support of hie ohJ.id* ,
The defend- at oontends there is no evidence th-t the child
is in destitute or neoeesitous circuaatrmcea; th t on the contrary
the evidenee appears to be th-t the child is well tnken c.rf^ of. t>nd
th^^t the purpose of this proceeding is to compel the defendant to
continue the ony^ent of I7.0D per week, which -ns inore.ged from
3.00 ^nd voluntarily f^,id by him for ti^o r^rxd one-hilf ye^ra. AUho^igh
the facts eeea to support the defendsnt'e position - people v.
larmier, cl7 111. 631, this Court is umble to consider the -uestion,
since no order th^t «.a final in it. nature ,..« enV^red - the «.ntter,
as «• hnve intiaM,t^d, Unvlng been continued for further oonsider^^tion
by the court.
Uoon the ^rounds stated, the -rit of ^rror i, dismissed.
'^IT aiSJilSSKD.
DKBI3 i. 8UU.IVAiJ, t^.J, 0OW0U:iS.
BURJCB, J. t:X1!,8 HO PART,
is^.il* si t9.f>i# 8*#itxfO© ®«[;f Infill: m- Isa^^nr »£fi asniffijsxa ^w «»iJw i'aifjt i»S
,fi0i*e©«p »ilt T9i) 18000 »^ Siidmi:' ai #^jije® sMt ^jES^ •ill tXS ft^tlSMl
40288
AL3KRT CERVi^afKA, )
Appellee, )
) APPKAL FROM CIRC LI IX COURT
vs. )
) _„jy COQ^, COUfiTY. ,f
LAA'ivDALB UATIOivAL BiVi.H, a Corporation, ) ^'"'^'''^ -^^ \
Appellantn. ) I /
IR, JUCTICE lAATCiDCTT DJil^IViSRiiD TIffi OPIlilCi. OLT THK COURT.
.Tune 30, 1936, plaii.tifl* BU'.id to recover c^a.:;a,,es I'or al-
leged I'alse repre3 3uti.*iona througli vhich he was induce'^ co luy
certain notes secured oy a xtiortfoa.^e ori i-eal ostute in Cook county.
This and an ai^ended complaint were stricken on notion oi' del'endajits.
ho-re^her 15, 19.'^7, plaliitiU* liled a t'lird ainended cox-mlrant which
deftt ;!H,'-,ts a-idft a laotion to strike. Tiiis TFas iei.ied, -tnd dere.ndantB
anevered -"leuyin^ the alleged I'raa'Julant reprfisentations v/iiich in-
cl-led -i promioft to ruarantes the pa>iiient of the notes. There was a
trial by the court anrl a f in- in^ lor plat. till' in tue sun. of +6000
vith Judgaient, from which defendants appeal.
It io urived I'or reversal t.iis.z the conpi-aint ^^an ir. consistent
In tnat it all«?(jed not only fraunulpnt 3trAt?i:et.t8 i?licd ujon by
pliintil'f but slso a pmii.ise of ^uara/ity. The defendant bank points
out taat any pro. ise of ^^^aryxity on its part vould liav- been ultra
iiree, -ii-.i all the iefeuiants urge tnat tiie evi.:'.encc of tne alleged
guaranty aa ''fill as fal«e representations w«-re ins af f icier.t, Tney
also assert that the proof failed to saoir daiiiag-s to the omo-int of
the Juf'^.iaent, or ir any c thf r a:.-ount, -md urge plaintiff's decision
to rescind was not promptly i-iade an i tti?.t the third amended cori.)laint
di.^ not statn a cause of action* The contet.tion that rilaintiff could
not Join it. one sait claiuip for ia-ja^jes based on a gjsraj^ity and
dair.ut-es suacained througli fraurl an^l 'Jeceit is not available in this
court. The question was not raised by ^::otion nor answer tn the trial
6680^
'{ .AllMVHSO TflKSJA
. I , ■ — -* ■ '■ - ■ ■ ♦av
% ' I ■ ■ ^^^{ y^- ...jl ins aiiOAaxt .iS x;iAiit
,^;J-i-iiioa sLooO ui Hi*v;t«-9 ise's as© ;s^«j4^T©ja a i^jjI" festifftoa a«ftoK ai«4'"iBa
lt$si&bim''t9h fc-ajs ,.fe®ia9fe saw sidT .8i:i'j*a oii' aei^oja a »b&Bt ita&ba^Xpb
OOUd^ 'io aiifs Sii^ ai 'ItiJ-tu^Xq ^©'i ^albai'i » baa t%mo 0iii x;rf XjBJtt*
i>S5j©XXj8 9di 'to 9onsfciv9 oxij- #«xi* s^'^*' •^nafjXJataJb 9ft* XX» fc«e ,S:llLi
XsrlT .i'.iaioi'tttecti; aisw aaoi^*jf jEisaftiqont asIbI s£ XX*w e« "^cuETcaiia
'to iwjonm 9!di oi aosisu^fc voiin oi b^liA't tCc a
aoiaioafe a^'l'ti-iuii^lq ^^ru bm^ ^taisoss^ i^riio v*-^ ni 1:0 ,,*\ia»i«««':-iiii adi
inl&Lqisoo bi>bmmi btidj- &£ii isd-^ baa elwBBt Tji*%8aeHQ iea ««if tflio««*x o*
blmo 'n.iialj&lq *«rf* neid-asiJuoo ©xiT ,aol*©j» 1« »«m«0 « 9*41*8 ion l>ib
jbae -^Jrujisus. s no fcsa^d 893«a5jsfc Ttol' eaijeXo *1k% 900 't *on
airf* ni olrfi^i^vB *oa ai *i9096 l^os hisnT't ti^aoidi fesniiaj-.i-: «osfiia«6
i>iiT* ssU aX ^©wenis ton Hoi^ois ^d" ft9Bi*!'i ;toxi sew noiiaswp «riT .Jiuoo
court, ab required by sei^tion 4b ol' u^e Civil Priicvice act ( Uui tu-
Hurd Anno, iitatutes, cii&p, 110, pur. 172, p. .is,t^, ; ii , Uieitioie,
the coiuulaint was defective in ti.is respect tUe c ei'cct ■viue v.aived.
hltcuuocJt V. i;byi.oldb. 27d 11^. App. , 559. Vi.e co.'iMX-int aubotari-
tially is lor Ir^LUcl a-^^d deceit to vuicb aii averiiier^t oi a fcuarax ty by
a ccrpori»Lioii witaout legal power to iuijjie audi j^uaranty ( ioople v.
yjrst otate -Daiik & Xrust Co. . 364 111., 294; iuaasE v . Mudi son and
Kedzie ^htxija.. 354 111., 554; Avoiui v. Atlaa jjIxcxi-afKe -ivat'l r^nk , 275
111. App. , 5oo) would uot Le altocetiier in up propria;.©.
The coiitroliintj question in tue case is raised by the con-
tei^Lion ol dorei.ucM.ts tiiat tue evidence ori'ered v/us ixisuriicient to
ebtablish eitiier a prciiiee ol' guaranty or iraujaleiit representations.
Three witaeseea testilied in be:iail' of piaixitili, tue plaintiff
hiiuseli , iiis iaute-iter (-.rs, naiiuar.) ui-id aix inveBtifc,Ator of tax
rftcords, ^r, BoxjiJuai., iTran^ *., Jiraceic «,as tue only witness ior
defendants. i.ie evidence e-.cv.s t.iac plaintiff is ...oueiuim by
nationc^lity ari ' about 73 y ur.-. of age; iie is not unacquainted with
the Kn^:.is^ lanbuage. Jiracejc in April 19 51, *as uie aicuiaj^er of the
defendant L&n-ndal* ii^eiicy and Loan Corporati.-n, w ..ich ?,aB engaged in
t.ae b.Bincea of iiellin^ eecari-cies. Plaij,tiif had dealt witn tne
corporation for * nuuibcr o. years cu.i was xnown to Jiracek for about
15 years. JDef ei.dai.t8 (the at^ency ta* ;. the PanJcJ were located clobe
to^eU.er in uie borne building, but Jiracek f.&b no^ officially con-
npc-.ed i«ith the bank. Plaintiff testifies iU: said ne represe. ted
AC
the bax.k buVdenies tni. aiid unere is no proof that he iiad any direct
connection with it,
April 9, 19 31, plaintiff boufc.-it from defendant atjency the
securities in question, six notes secured oy mortgage on property
knowr. as 3334 drensaaw avenue. .ie paid tnerefor ( i^s a written
8tate..c-nt of t.xe sale ui-.ied by niiu sliows; ^6012. iue property was
owned by o. lorowitr. i>iaintiff testifies - cjil on tuis puint ia
-iUl^) ia-A doi.tt>jsi'i LxviJ ftiii lo S^ aoiio&a xdl b^dtiijpdt «« ^tiuoo
^9'iQ'ii>-t»siJ ^'il {*ii9^ fH «SVX .'Xi^q ,011 »qj»£i8 |«ied«jr£4& .onoA i>zuH
fe.U ia tioa.4.b« jft . Y , !s 9# A-^ l-.i'SS' I .Xil l»d^ ,.|£ii) Jat>i'i: ^ :ifH£d a^fcJS JQiil
t(S[j3iq^<|ieal X9iisi9^di£4i •«f *«a tlwow (oca « .quA .ill
..•jlv hdialaup&j&au toa al »jrl ;»3,« "io ai;6«Y S"? i-u.iajB • ..tjc x;^xI-jaoXJ«n
Siii- 'to TsaJS-owM 9xii a^aw ;X£«X Xiiq-A iil iasjB^it .»aii,^j;:LfiX xi^ixsna. sftj
at |>«^«ane s^? ifdX^>w ^fcolJ-jBToorLoO tmotl btm t^ooft^ •XelinwA.X to^isa IsA
itiidiifr itjotb %aii ttiialHll .a«i:tfiii.o»a aaiXXaa It asdrrXaiicf sii^
*«iod« •xd'k sle«»«^iT» ©J^ iWonx' a»w fca» aiaiex 'i« -tarfauja » i«ft aoxijaioqioo
#aT6Xo |>«;t«o«X »*##' (aCoad aiil ba» t»a*:a* »ri* ) »*a«X>t«»l*fi .8X«3\ €X
-aoo xJ^-C«io-t^^« i^«fi a4w i»3«^lt *ud \:^Hlb£ii^ doea »x:^ i»dO*
Jba^uoeaiqd'X W feJUa exi aai'U^aa* rti*fli«X«i .iaxsd diri^ AtJtw fe»^os»n
ail
' t*'x»««'*<I «• s^BijiicuH \d^a-i«ro©a 'a9*cn v:jta .uoiJaat-p ni sftlcritifoaa
"^^ '^oii^lHv J as) lolsiaxii fexa^ eE .©i/aavB wijxisxaiO *5G6 8« iiwoni
. ; ' x^iaqotq 9iiT .SXOd^ (aworia miitl x4 ^aflgio aXaa adif 'to Saa:a»iAi(i
si d-iiloQ- elxiJ ao i>a*i - asX'ii;raaJ rtliai&l'i .siiwoior .fc x^* fcanwo
corrotorcted by hif deugr.ter - that he v.-eiit to tne at:ency In r.'>&pon«e
to a letter dat'--d ^fc.rch 1ft, 1931, 3it;nefl by the citer.c;y ii. tiie r.air.e of
Jiracek. Lr could not nrcduce the letter, say ire, that when h«
risited ti'e ae:ency he l?.'i"t the letter rith .Tiraceit, Jiracek deniee
f'-.at hp sent any such Iptter ^o nlair.tif f, Plr-intil'f says tkxt when
he roceived tK*? letter ho, -rent to the tarJc, saw Jiracek fiXi-- asked him
whether the mort aeie was jiood; tiiat Jiracek oaid, "In case ol" any
trouble cocoes up tJial t^ey arc wiliir.,^ to return 2.y orincipal and
interest :iue on that luort-iT^.e, * Plaintil'l' .^Iso t'sstii'led t.iat
Jiraoek sal'-: the r^ropfrty ^s.s ir vftry tood conr'ition, '."as rer-ted,
paid £Ocd, arid th^re ^'ae nion^y Irj't ov^r to lay c.sidc'« Re saye he
turned in ether bonds owrifd hy hiiii hrd tool: thece in trude. The deal
wap made Aprli^ 12th but ae na6 \)cei ir. to eee . r. Jiracfk tT;o or
three* dr.ys prior to thnt ti.'.ie; t'e says that previous to ti;e 'cy of
the '-ale ^e '^'alkod irto ti^e office of the agcxjcy and told tneni he
wantf^d to buy sor;C nort, ai^e noteB, The firot li-.tereEt fell due
Octobrr 1, ir^l. He took thf- coa^onR to taf> bsnk an-l to the cashier,
liao was ■'ue ar i there •7a6 not f;ncui-;h caoney to pay it; nc sew h r,
Jiracek who told hir; he should ^ive the owner a chance; thr..t there
were a lot of rrcir.ciea in the pj-operty, arid told r.lm to cojie back
later; he returned .tisn:; tiipes; about the middle of October, lb.-)!, he
received ^60; h'-r visited zrie. ovvner of the inort^^r^ed property, iir?;,
JToro^it?, bMt ^td not leceive -;'y i:i0re uioney.
Plaintiff's 'aiighter, J^ra. Raiiixan, teetifles that she opened
and read tc her father tte letter of j*a.rch 15, 1931; that t.iis letter
Bald t>jey h;.id a moTt :^s,f -yt the barik on.^ that it .TaB a t;U"rai.teed
mortgage, an 1. th.-:.t they would lii<e to see plaintiff about it; she
cays the letter -rentioned 3834 irenghaw avenue. ;rs. Rain -in aleo
says V..p.t fjhe wa»? or- sent April 12, 19 Tl, md h-?ard the talk with
Jiracek who said the mortgage wae guaranteed btx." that if anything
should happen to the bcnr's, -they will pay hiit in fall and his
to 3aisn 944" aX t^asB^^^^xit -jfT fe*n^i« ,I5«4: .^81 si»%A^ i^tJ&b m^jti^l & o4
a9J:a»£> :S.»pMttt .^©oa-x^X. xi#l^. U9J|«I 9^ iftsi »|J^,^aH9afi4 9rf;r fe«#iBi
aarfw #att|^ sx;»8 *i1ti;;fa4«Xf ^Itltalalq 9Sr -ttfiiitL sioust'xm» itsnu^A imdi
Jbius X£fJ:oo^^q ^ intfif^lk q^ :^aiLlt^ 9%» x^^i ^^f^^ tun BtnaQ^ Mliuoti
'10 ofr# £»v^tk% .xi »»B of ati aa«id ^i mi. iu€ >i^fM ^xqA, |ife«fli- • saw
ad aroud-, AXp4 f)j:|«'s^ SMB.'S %4^ .'^. ool't'tQ «4iJ?: .^^nii ,>»Jii«w »X «4i»t« ««I* '
.S-^A wjjfa 9ii lil xaq oJ v:®^©*^ riyijon© t&a. ,»mr «'i«|»* &««,©« ft, «JW? 06X1
*xf ,IS«X .^acfaJoO 'to sXfe&Juu •*£* iu^^s' ;tt»mti :;;»«« Mn"Xi./#«i .»4:4^«*'^<sl
Jb9®*a^iBU- a say* il Smdi ba»;.,*m«S »M 4a 93.«a*^«V?f AfA'X^^t blma
«il« j*i *«ocfiS -iliialBlq see 0* aollf fcXuow x*^* «»-^ .«3fiH*ion
rf^lw j£X«* ^d$ i)-j»»ii..,&ttf . ,X£e4,«SX,Xl^# :*IP»«^«« ■•-'■•'
' aff|jrtr^0fl 'il *«4* baa fts^^o^iews •«» »»«a*Tt«« »«Ji ai-sa ©r;^ 2[»j.'i'ii'
interest." t>ne naye tlie exact ian^uate was, "i-r, oervanka, i hHve
a very good moxt^t-r^e wdici. la fe,uarariteed, " one 8a>8 her lather re-
plied taat tble was all the moriey ne Jaad ai^u Jirucek Bald, "^es,
you <?on't nave to worry aiout it," iihe also says tiiat i<i.r, Jiracek
said the house was lulxy renved, taxes paid ...iid ti.ere was «nough,
Income iroir; the building that they could pay ti^e iiiterest and lay
money -sid- i'or LKe priricipal; she ilso said elie v.5,3 present vhen
her fatiior Tirent to the cashier in Octoler, and the cas -ifci told him
there v&g no ^noney, and he then went to ^..r. Jiracek wao told him
he would aave to wait awnile, tiiat tnere seej^ed to be vacunciee
in the building; that sne went witii ixim a^ain to the bank in
October when he was paid •^60; in the latter part ol' 1951 t.^ey
Tieited the property and talked wicu the owner; three of the I'late
were vacant, the li(|i,at8 were i,orn out iro£i the Kalie, the plaster
was coming down suid the rooi was leaKin^,
tr, uerjtman ' 8 testiwiony is to Ui.e ei'lect t.iaL ue is Ciuployed
by the I'itle jiesearch corooration and uade a sc=iroh ol" prt^perty
located at 606A uronsjiaw av<fnae, loond the taxes lor 1928 aiuountixig
to ^A96,'f2 were paid by tne owxier June 16, 19iJu; that the tuites ior
19i29 were #579.97, and Luat on October 1, lv31, tnere was a pttyiuent
on account by the owner ol' *2i34, 76, Xhere was a lorleiture lor
taxaa on November '<i, 19 bl, 'I'ae taxeb lor 19 50 auiouxitcd to v^^^, 87
and nothing was paid on this, ue caiu tueie \ext no delinquent
taxes on April 9, 19.'^1, I'he 19id9 taxes did not becoue delinquent
until * ay 15,
oeptexiiber 14, 19>41, plaintiil deposited the securities in
question with tne xKtLxKAaxt. havn dale State iiank as uepositary,
signing in taat connection a letter 01 transiiittai and deposit.
It describes tne securiti^is and states tuat tue same are deposited
pursuant to tne tenns ol the iiortgage uoldere i'rotective iigreeiuent
da'.ed i.o-'re- ber 30, 19 31, wxiicn apparently was intended to conserve
,33 a'" ,i>i«a jf-soflTEiX Sius h&si sri x^a^'® »^ •tia asir aid* ;^j8x{* £)9iXq
afeojsixl- ,xiii J-aiW s\;4ja oaXe SiSS **»:J'x ^sj^dz x'^'^^^ ®* 'srjBB- J'aofc 0OY:
istii i>Xo;r oxfw 3i$0i?'xZX .X& 0^ ^J^inew a»di «£l bxis ,\;»RO£i]: oa tMVBTiidi
al :^ii«<f &di 0i &i.»-h& ssid M't9 ^a»v »m ^mii ;^Ribliv^ ^M at
TcaJ-sjalq sjif ,aXX4Sw ®di riiotl iao m:o3' «!9w a^-risiX axi* ,;taa&«r »««w
aoitraiioiae SSQX lo'i a»XA;t «il5 bauo'l ^etumra v&tiaa&^H ^tbl ia b9i&oo£
'to't R^xisi ^tiJ' tuxii ;06ex ,SX aiitoi xaHwo axUT x^ A-ta^J »^»w Sr.S^lil ©;r
jflSifi^iig « sfi^ 919x1* ,XSv^l ,x lEstfoJoO m i^xU ba& .re.evS* «9w «S9X
Y«.SJ;d«; ©5 b-^iauGum oeeX tol aexA^ aiit .X£'i?X ,S rtotfoiavoKi ffo aaxa*
tn9ijpxiiX«i» oii a'is?r 9i»ti;r &iijw ©S .aiil* ao ibi»« a*w ^aikioa box
iasuvail&b axaooaflf ?oa bkh awea* &SeX arfl .XCeX .ff Xl-atfA no asxe*
■' -'^^ -•■*^^- 1 ■■• -'■"'■'■■ ^■■'"^:'-- ■•■-' ■^'-•■■-" ^''^ax'^icaiS Xl*a«
iti aaidiiiJOQa afU bs^ieoqsA 'itilfliaiq ,i£eX ,^X -xadjaa^qfafi
iairiadqdfe si^^ »aii»a ad* *«iiJ aa#»*a Jbcwaaii Htf a :- ^tfxioaafc Ji
Juamae-xsA avijoiatoi^ a^aMol Asaa*-!**^ aitt 1© iwr- MTauai«q
-.^ .* ».*.«.«..*«* *«w vl*fla-i«aa- xiaiiiw .XCeX ,0^; laifcia^'oil biH^b
this udAi oU.er loai*fc,
Jiracek tf£*iried pla ..r.till' ce-i^a lu Lia oxi'ice at tUP tim.9
in quRijitiori inQuiring il h.e had ai.ytiiing. to Bell; ti.h-t he g&ve lii»
the naiue and ad/ieBB ol" tiit property covered l>j trie uiortti-ii^ and
askod 111:., to cjo rxcl looii it over, -^e sayB plaintifj' caxun baCK in
twc or 'Lurpe di».ye and said he -•.oald accept it, tj^at it was uil rif.ixt,
JirHc^ek says olaL-itifi' 's daut,iitpr ^'as not wita xiim on t.-at or on tjij
pre-viouE occ^r.lon v^Iaen he tou^ilit aecuritirs, Boue of v.-.-*ic. at that
ti...e, iipril 9, 1931, ft'ere in procecs ol' I'o j-eciosuie. ^.^e oosi Lively
denieb tl.ut he ever Ut,rfeed to e.>^«>-r£H'- tee eXiy ol' Luese eecuritiee, de-
nies t.iat ue ever v/rote tas letter ol" > arcirA 15, 1S31, or triat any
8UC.. letter wrii-teii either oy nixa or M,ny ;ue;,.l;er oi liis org;ii.ization
is iu "-.is i'iles. He s&yu; tr.at iiiterest on ti.eee sccarili':iS up to
April 1, l;vol, Taa paid in Tali aiid de:.i'=3 t^ut he v/as in any way
Bctiiig in behair el' t^e banit; ue -ay;:; that personally ue did not
knov/ uTiy thing alout u.': sjoxilition cl" tiie property, .■..rs, haiiixan
testifiae that Jiracek Ba.id i..f! v.'«is eeliijiA_; the tends "froi. the jl awn-
dale i<aticnal rank, " he ^eni>:8 tids.
The action ol" plainttTl' is in autatanoe foi- faaud ■•jrid deceit.
In sue-- case 'rre oaid in iilaletTrw.i v, ^ackie^iui.. . ::S2 111, App, a'udi
"It is a- so ihc' lav t-a,': ir .^n action lor Truud a.u deceit
the evidence ty which these essential eleiaents are estabiiahed laust
conrtiture ■rod' ::-■ ..lear .xnd ioiivincinjj li; it; n.iurf- :is to it-iive
the mind well satiel'led that eacri and all of these eleinents ol I'raud
h-\vr LfT esl i-l. "-.'•:,, Union bsi^t, JiL^.k v. oL ^ .te at. iin:.i .. 168 ill,
256; Pretaton v. Lloyd. 269 lix. , 152; Woll v.'iawrence . 276 111. 11;
Garrett \. uar.-ett . 34.'. 1^^.^ 577; uoul:'. v. ^ evia . Zijl 11^, rtp,-.,o69;
Standard kfi^. Co, y. ijlot . lai Wis,, 14; s.c, 1G5 Am, bt. Hep, 1016,"
While the rule an:-ounced is lor the trial court it is apoarent
froh. the reiuarke ol the trial Judge tnat ne had serious doubts ol" the
sul'l'iciency oi the orool". At the tiuie the .lud^Ji^ent was entered at-
torney lor def endajr ts said, "Your onor is entering Jud^^ent against
all tnree ol" the defendants?" Tiie Court: "Yes, I don't know whioh
one 18 liable, or whetner aiiy oi taext is liable," The Court also naid.
a
,di£l;i»irx 11& &MK tt isini:t ^^l ^qpoQis blaow ^ bias &m «\4^ 9sxd:4:, 1^9 ,<»«t
Xiij6 4*4i; -x^j ,i&8X i^X 4,&%4^M. to xsStfsI siU dit<»iw 1979 04 *«xl;)' eaia
.■y0v[-%m .Ml.'mi» ail tvtfiii jbsX>s»|} fejaus I|i/l,„£t|^|iiJU<| <iimV fX^&X ,X XitqA
^ii&oah bim buM-x't loX ©ptxajfftcrija at «i Ti.i^^^^^'*- Tt<? noXfaa-. jB^i-^
;5t(@ .q,lA .XXI S6S .ri;?x?.;aX ^a£ , 4 , >v. i/iif$.^liViL al blsQ. o;r n^'^o r^oiiis al
#i909& JoiWi biSM'Si'X iq'X noi^o^a a& at iadi^al siiJ^ osIa.jE-
3v.«ssX oi a<«? ©'xjtj^isn a;^i ax -^aloaXvaQi in* liMSIo oa "tpoii; b .0
buxit 'te atn^iiisXe «8©xit 'to lis bus /iajEs Ji-uil b?»i'Ul*A8 I'' -. ^jt:
.XXI S6X .: ^a,ed .Jg..:. a;r,--Jc'. .v ^.:it>'a .ij^.A gyXaU .i'^^drilrfA 9V^4
;XX .XXl 'aS^'S /aoua^Wfii «'- r'lXo y :S'aX ...xXl §aS ...b'^oX' . ' : ''''^
;edd< .q-.lA .Xil VdS. .jij-^s^ .v ;:^,^9u jvve ,.XXI ••■£ ,i.,
«*,aX0X„c»H .^a ,aiA SOX ,*o.a ;I^X , .^iW X5X .^oXo .v ,<■■>-■ . :v^:^v jv^.^'^^..^.-i^
9«1* 'to 8*rf«oft euoitta b»it 9A i»i^i ©Bljtft XAlld^ *i» "ib airiafli** »riJ uioil
-i-* bo%9ta9 asm iaBist^bui »sii ©ai^ •di yi .ItoOT:^ »ri* *to taa •^ ^^'^'^i''?'
*aa!i-45ae *fl»iBtil>J-'t ^att9tm ai itoaeii tirdY* ',i>l«i8''^^aBK.t^'I^'^' ■■■■
,,&l«a 'oilA 4-'Xi^iS ti^' ' ".»i«tei^ s-ii ^si0 ^o"t^^^ ' .isno
-It 18 an unfortunate situation. It Is unforLunate for avorybody
c«moerned. It is unfortunate for an old man like thi. to lose all
Of his life's accumulations in one inreetment. He looks nice an
honest, hardworking citizeni I suppose he is a cltl.en; maybe not»
On the other hand the practice is that these br.nlcorc don' r. guarantee
securities thoy sell. ;;o that it is a difficult ,,u..tter to pass
upon. There is a contrariety of testimony. One sioe tells it one
vvay and the other side the other way. . .nd I can. t be gove:^ed .n-
tirely in the matter by sympathy. * * ^-»
In so far as the bank is concerned, there is practically no
evidence showing that Jiracek v.as itn agent in making the sale of
the Bocurities. The La;vndale State Bank was the issuer o. the notes
in the first instance and the evidence does no. sho. that the defend-
ant bank .as the owner when the salo ^e made, jto official of tl;e
bank was called as a witness. I„ .0 far as the suit .as ba.ed on a
promise to .naarantee the loan, i^iass^y^iadis^^and^^^^
and other cases above cited show that this was ultra vires the
POw^«of the bank. The Judgment therefore as to the bank cannot
stand in the absence of a shov.ln that it was responsible for the
alleged fraud. There are facts in the evidence which tend to
discredit the testimony of the witnesses for plairtiff . .,a
an illustration is plaintiffs reluctance to adndt Ms own
Bi/Tnature. ..gain, it is unusual for a seller of s.;urities to
Fuarantee the payment of the indebtedness. On the other hand
It would seem that Jiracek would have kno.vn something about
securities he was selling. To the suggestion that plaintiff
did not act promptly in rescinding upon discovery of the alleged
misrepreBe^tations plaintiffs attorney replies th. t the cult is not
brought on the theory of rescission but only for daiiBges resulting
from the misrepresentations, and that only the statute of limita-
tions bars cuch anaction. This is true, bui. suohaction would
require proof of the value of the securities retained and which
.,.«..» «J* t,^i .«^. SOB a.o* .«..Mv, «i. ta« ««»»Bi4«« .««♦:-*.
''<^^mi!_sm& -^^^'^ *•«" ^'^^ "»*'■'= '"^''^ '""° """" '"
, ,.,, . ,|ito«K BoiJo^da.6 3»<f .«"^1 ai •« .»"•*«• '"»'° '^"f ^""
plaintiff deposited 'vith ^-hf ha. if «<. ^^
J.._, ^^ ,.^.'''^ ^^sj'ailaa depositary oi the iiondnolders'
Protective Co;junittee. Tiier«» i« n^ «.,„ T . " "' "^
^~~-~--~~-..^^..^.,......Z^.^.:Z^^ P^^..i'^ ti^e r.cord. Without
^H«^--PH<>?: J^j^-«?i..c-id . not 1^^^^^ i^uilli^Ii^ .
236 111.. .76; iohnet on^^Shocl^ei . 335 111.. 363. i. Uae_ab3e..ce '
;l.^'°!^,.^J"^:^l.*^»l.B^3°te, secured ,b. tl,e...,ortga,e ^^ ^
^^stantial value. It is cle... therefore, tuat .Ue Jud^ent is
•xc...lve in H.ount .u t to ..at .xt.nt .e cannot tell. .or the
reaeone indicated the judment is r-^versed mn f.»
r -versed .-.uir] tne cause reuanded
for another trial.
nSVERSED Ai.D i^uJii^im),
McSurely. l>. j. , ^^ O'coanor. J., concur.
.^SKItiAMiE- ©5A.: GSgHSySS.^
H'^^i ■
iVv' }•'.
f\iU-^ii -.'..*.«''«■
^.^_,.. , ;;
; . ,^^.;
^
;■,:: :.; ^^-'^vV^
'
S:' ■ ' '" ■"
»
, <„
.u,"y::. r/^v
".■>::■■■:!: A *
/;A:' '.'.'■ ->
.'■ *! 'V'l
. ' .
"! '^i '
■'Vi/K' ■■■•*;£?
■iffPi'i Xi^'i
„ ;=,*■.;;.,>;
i '\:'.«.
- <" *'
... XJ^^': '■■
,.A. - ;^ <:
a4 **«'
40312
Plaiiitil'l" jelow,
VE.
HULERT J, aCK^VALL,
Defendant is e low.
On ATjpeal of kELVlLLlS H. THOMSOE , )
(±'etitioner ijelow) ) ^ O f>i,
Appellant, )
) AFPICAi. mOsA SUPERIOR COURT
)
) Oi' COOK COULTY.
)
LH. JUSTICE MATGiiETT DELIVERDB TlIE QPIKIOl' OP TlIE COURT.
TnoBison appeals froiu an order entered lo^ay 6, 193H, disiuxseing
iaiB petition aor ari attorney's lien, i'he uaterial Incts, wnicn lor
the most part appear I'roai a atipulstion, appear to be as follows:
August 3, 19 31, itarie ^okwall ottained a decree of divorce
froiu Jier uusoand, lubert J, licicvs-all, i'he decree (^uve tae custody
of their infant rtau^ater, i^ary Jan-?, to the mctaer and directed the
payment to HiTs. jicKwail "aa al iraony for the support of said child"
of v35 a laonth, 3.nd directed tne payment of ;1100 to Krs. EcJswall
in full of court costs, solicitors' fees, alih.ony and dower, .^155
to te paid witnin 10 days wad the balance in monthly installments
Of ^33 each, l^ovemfcer 15, 1936, upon petition of i^^rs. x^ckwall the
decree rras modified, increasing the payr^ent to be maide to her for
the supuort of their child to ^150 a month, ^arie iiokwall re^.arried
and ia now i^nari* iiindefenout.
October 15, 1937, pLxintiff filed her petition for a rule
on defendant to snow cause and on Dece-ober 8 retained I'noiiiBon to
repreo.^nt uer. iine entered ir.to a written contract by wuicn she
employed him as her eolicitor .ir,d a^reedjo p_ay^hiiu in addition to
any-BUJP_ai.lowed by the court 25^ _o£ . the amount actually collected.
Thomson ap peared in oourt forjxer. There were many continu^ince.
and finally a hearing. December 16, 1937, tue court entered an
'"^
""''*'*». ,y,^v>
'iStm^ BOlFMWii JiOfeit viAHSl'iii (
.yy&uoo aooo uo
sxso»
.IT-CUOO. SiiT UO dOIilI'lO SJlfT GliiHaVIJaia TfaUiOTAU SEQlTaOT .fiM
xo't lioixiw ^s^yjkj'i Ifiii? .rj;.ia siii ,a«iX e '^'^a"xa3'«J'jB ae iQi aoiJi*»q axd
9t\S bftJosTiif &a£> ifsrid oxa ©xi? .oi .simsXi ',:rjjiii ^tsiti'^net inm'tai ii »ri* 'io
"Miiflo biijs} 'to ^fioqqjye ©fii lo'l xwo'^'-^-t* ^^'* ilawsicS. ,8iM o* ia^mc&q
XlAWaioS .S'Xii c- OOXX^- 'to ^u«£a^«<8 ©ri^T P)'/>vi ji»aX?> j>a.e ^dinoai & 9Sf 'to
8SX# jtarwob bna v,/.io:j;1X£ ,ei»9't '»U6,?i3iXo9 ,a^eoo -tiuoo 'to XXi/1 nl
Ji»ji;^ XXewrio^: .a-i>a 'to a@iil^9Ci u^qu ^dC^X ,«3X tedBiOroii ,dQB& 68^ 'to
fed i'.-s'SBJi*'! lIjBw^oia. ©J:iE*4i .ii*aoai s 06^ 03 £)Xxrfi& tisiij to iro^qua 9iii
.j'Mo^siv&axM 9ii.eA won si jbaa'
siJL;^ JS tot aoii-.i.<3-3q t9ii £oirt llxJaieiq ,r$«X ,8X i®do*oO
oi nol^tbbfi ajfc min xfQ o-^ fcss-Sii^ JSjat: •xo;^ioiXos i«A a* misi btxolq^9
a»oflja«ai:*noo >crttuE oasw sasii'X t:x»4_5o3_.^*^®»-i!:^_?f?.^?5?^-?^"?^
as i,9i9*n'3 ;tiuoo iirij ,veex ,dX i*cfiWoeG .»Mi'»««ri » xLlAait feofi
2
Older I'in-lirr^ that tie re ras due iiPS, Eclnrall ^12)12, ,.''5 "froix. the
date ol' decree to .vugust 2, 1936, at wiiic":. ^iir^'^ the child, i..;ry
Jane Eckwall , lecanie eijsnteen years o^ a^e , pai.^ :..oaey8 beinii;
due to Dlaiutil'r for past supoort ol' said cnild," aij^l the proceed-
ing was ti ereuoon contiijued to Janunry 14, 163 j, r.nC placed on the
contr?<ted r.iotion calendar,
Fel ruiry 1, 1938, I-rs, '.'.ckv'all I'iled a petition praying
that frahk A, L'cDonnell hp eubr?tituted as her solicitor. The
•oetition v^b denied "'Ut McDonnell r;iloved to appear as asFociate
counsel. Fetruary 25 T'..on-;3cn learned a settlement had "been
reached through iicDormell acting I'or iiirs." liicKTall and i'ranciB
Sullivan, solicitor I'or del'cndrint, Dr. ji:cl:"-'?ali , u :on terras that
defendai.t pay ^800 in lull set Lie.,; er.t of the i::l372.33 taeL in
arrears, including ali ony, court costs -.nd attorneys' feps; t';.at
^6CC of tils amount had heer paiO to ol'--.ii; tif f , r/ho icxij.ed lately
turned ■^'^- e over to hor dau,.,Jiter, ^nd t}iat Sullivaii ■5as hoi Unj,
tac^ iJSOO pe..-!intj. conl'irmation of tVie settlement ty zhQ court.
T.iereafter i^r, iJotum entered hiu a -jpearai;. ce ae addj .ion-ii counsel
for Lrs. i-;c::vall,
^r-ircn 1, 19 3 3, Hiomson , puraaant to direction of Ihe cour'^,
filed nia petition for allo'.^ai.ce of fees ae so^-icitor for pioin'cifj",
set J'ortu the 8-bst:ir-ce oj" hin jontr .ct Tim i^ire. nicl^wall , .u.d
■nraye-^ tiat the amount of his fees ■':e allowei a£i.in3t i-.arie ^ck'.vall
and the defendant, Hubert J. Eckwall* The petition caie on for
hearing. The court yae advised of the propoaed settleif-ent ;ind
that ^6C0 had beer, paid to ^tarie ^ckv^all, of '.Thich aWe. httd paid
$200 to IcJjonnell for nis fees; tiiat sne had ^Z2k. of tiie unouxit in
her po38j33ion; ind that 1^200 reriained in the hands of dcf rrdant ' 3
attorney, oullivan. Thereupon aii order vae nntered ly the court
directing; the parties ( including jvicDorinell) to deposit tl.e pro-
ceeds wit-i tue Cxeri£ ol' the Superior court pending approval by ihm
Y^--"--'- ,fri-i-''3 suit efcxl^' i'ialaw **; ,dS§i ,g ^arssswA ciJ- ••ta«fc 'to «*«!>
3;»rli- ;8'^©'t ' a-^sd'iojiii bm ^*eoo :tiiroc ,xrjo..Yiiij3 ^nlliijX.onl ,ais9ix«
/nidruijlq lo't ^o^xolioe ai? B99*t %o 9o;iavGlXje -lo'i ftoid'l^sq eixi h6li1
bLia , XXjbw:jIoSi: .si.««i ft\t i'ff io.&xtaoo utti lo 9o*j£lacfi/a axl* jti*io'l ^Tse
XIiar'jio.2 sl-iii^. d-aaii-a-K tawoIXB ©rf" ass's si^- '^iB s-rf^
tol no Si^o aoiJx;)i*q sriT .XXawioS .t j-xii'uii ,*.; " ?>;•; r^'^
ftajB d-asmeX^Jse bseoqoiq arf* ^o fceolrfcA •£?? *iiioo siti. .gnliaari'
nl iiiijoasfi ©ii* to OSS$ Iwaxi •£[• *«i4*. ;«#»t il^l io1 Xir.iunr y . y-
court of t:ie aettleroent ai;r«en)ent and the disposition of Thoics^on »8
liie
itotiof. i'or T.ne allowance of fePB. The order provided that/l;6S0 so
deposited be r.eld subject to the furtijer order of the court, r,nd the
cauee w<?.8 continued tc kay G, ^93'}. May 4, 193a, 1 'oif-son served a
notice of attorney's lien on defpcdsmt, dubprt J. J^ciSTrall , and the
Cleric of the Superior court, Victor I. Gchlaeger. i^ay 5 Thomson
presented to JudfJie lupe nip pcuitior to enforce nis attorney's
lien. He was allowed to file it. Plaintiff answered and the matter
vae hf='ard in open court. T -onsson introduced is notice of attorneyb
lien showin-r, service by registered mail upon def'^^ndant ynd the then
CI "rk of the Superior court, ilso prcving hie contract ^^ith t^iain-
tiff. Defendant introduced the agreeiaent to settle and the written
fcoknowl^diinent of receipt of the suia of !ij600, and a gtaiement ai; ned
■by krs. iuinderliout thac she hy,d tiiven tiie laoney to her daughter.
Mrs. Ijiindernout alco teetif ied ■ ti'.at Phe ii.nde the Bgreera^nt with
Thomaor to orcsocute her petitioii to secure pa;<,a.)ert of money in
arrears; that Jtary Jane becaiEf=- of age August 2, 1936, h :d remair.ed
in ner custody and control since tne ^ntry oi tue decree of divorce;
tnat SAP was dissatisfied with i'nofliB«n an.i uonsulted ivcDonnell vho
advised her t.:iat the contract with Thofuson v'as null and void; tl^at
26,^ for services was too nuch. Lre. kinderxiout eaid she T^ished to
beat the petitioner out of his fee; tl-.at sne and :*.cDonrell arranged
with SullivaTi, attorney for defendarjt, to settle tne mptter for
$800; that in the presence of these attorneys she received ^600 of
the aoiount ir -^ in tireir presence turned it over to her diuthter;
that iicDonnell was paid ji200 for his services, and that at hip
direction she turned tne uioney ovsr to her dau(.jiter ij> orde to beat
Thoinson cat of his fe^s. ^le sail sue depositod ^220 rejnaii in^T in
her 1 inds wit.i tiie ClorJc oi' t;ie Superior court as ordered. due had
not received the •'>200 froia oullivan but orideratood this vnn also
deposited with the Clerk of the court. Upon the evid^^nce the court
ailjf &!.!«, ^ |X#wit9,ia A it as or «B. ,tml^0i^'i9h m mil^'x^Mta^^B 19 %oU9a
«»ifJ 9xf| Ijrts jtrtisfciSfcs'isfi ssoqu Iljwa l^eisfais^©"! -vjef .•oir'XfB aniwoxCa noil
•".^jt.Ait £l<tlw t&s'^tnm eJtfl gii^'rQ't.f o«£(2 ,#^uq3 x&H^^M 9iU( ^f :8|it848
,j^tif tmsm9t}^w &M 9ii0iA 9iie j:«Jt<Ct J&dl't^^ssi 0ftjU' |£»dMil9^£U:ii£ .ci^M
l>«iii;«fa»t Jfeiiri ,$StJ[ ,2 j'eiJSiitA.. »t^i«.'t.o ftatesatf 9kta% t^ia^j, .'„■: ^- ;a'2a9T:T[«
*»rt* ^JfeiesY feae Mwn 9avr asasaoinf ^^iw #^«Tf*not). »43' Js^^ X9ii b»tikvba
«t *«-c£aiTr axis 6X«» itsotit^bni^ %f*i5I. .^uw oa* ««* «»»iyrt«fi To*t *f2
■sol -cBii&m 9sit 9Ui99 0* ^f^mhast^b 10I ycatrao^Jjg ,i»viXX«e xiJiw
to OOSt , bfyi93»'X fluis fl-icfffto^r^jB $«9jli !« «!},fl»8st<j, ti^fi *»i;fi ;008^
jtsa'ri^M*^ t»i:i..©*, i»vo ^l b9a'tu$ «;&o»#»itq lisrt* 04 hm #fl«ojaafi ♦rf:t
*^8d o* i»l«o 111 it«i*islstf^j6 19A 0* t»T«, .t«»ae^ ©n* JbL^.-i-ii...' ?.c:e n6J:J-o*«i6
o»|# »ji»w Hid* !i(iot$i9!inu *fc«f .liWTiXXiiS ffi«i • ■ . '--i
dismipned Thomson's n<»tition,
\.he statute nr vidlrjg I'or tne crentiorj ol' a lien in f-jvor
of an attomej' rffndering servicee Ib I'ound in ill, btate Bar 3tat8. ,
19 37, ch-^n, 13, nar. 14, rsec. 1, d, 176» It, provid"S in substance
that attonieys-»t-law ahoald iiave a lien upon all claii.is, demands
and causes of action, including all cluimss I'or unliquidated dai'iat^ee,
which Kiay be placed in tixeir hexids by tneir clients i'or Buit or
collection, or upon which suit or action has been instituted, for
the amour. t oi' nny I'ee which may have been G.fc,reed u ,on by sjid between
sucu attorneys ani thc'ir clients, or in the y-bsenc? ol sucii at^reement,
l"or a reasonable I'ee, It is, aowever, provided tii^it the attorney
Bnall serve notice in writing, "wnich service unxy te xuade by
registered i^iail, upon the party against .vuOBi tiieir clients i.-ay
have Eucn suits, claius or cauees of action," and tnat trie lien
shall attiCii to any verdict, judgment or decree entered and to any
money or property w/iicn may be recovered on account oi such suits,
claims, de.'iands or caus'^s ol" action fro.r and al'ter the tinie ol'
service of tr e notice.
The adverse parties have not filed any brief. ihe contratt
is not c:ueptioned nere nor -as taere any evidence tending to show
that it was unreasonable. On the contrary, the record indicates
tnat the char^.es •■'ere very reaaonable considering tlie a...ount of
service naceasary. The on contradicted eviience Siiovs that against
the advice ol' netitlonar the parties i;- int^ir-^st aav/ fit to settle
all cl-iuia of every Jcind and nauure, iiicluding attonjeys' fe^s.
i-rs. ick.vall ad its a puroose to defraud the pntitioner and beat
him out of well earned fe?B. The cases cited in petitioner's
brief s.icw tna l. in tue cssr:- of suc^ settxewents 'on attorney with a
ccntir:(;,snt contract, vho hue given notice, ie en 'titled to receive
the percentage agreed on the aiaount recovered by suit or paid in
settlwnent, and that this lien may be enforced by petitioner in
.«»j»i»»a .'aMmajn' tseaifflBJJi
....«« «^ e.,.,,« .ui at »„„o-| a. „oi,«. »«i.,*«, ,.^„„. ^ ,,
.»m»>,i, .„„a.I» if. „„,„ ^i, , ,„,, ,,^^_^,^ ,.x-,,.,,,,„„„. ,,^,
.«.,«u^ .«.W.,iIn. „•. a«.,. XX. a«i,i.«X,„i ,«x,^ 'l, .,.«, 6„
x» *i.., «t .*„,ix. ,i.£t, ^cr aiu«ii ix,4i ai MMX, ,.-• ^^ ^lom
«t .t«..i..aax „„c ..4 „oX,.. ,„ ,i^ ^..x„, „,,„ „ .n.X,oaXI„
to ,a^u»4Xo lisitf feai; 5^0 firs pt*« xlawa
_ 1£Cf »iu.^ ^. ,«., ^ox^a^a aoiriw« ,Si:»xm^ ,ai wl^oa «va«,a iX*^.^
eXJ.-sa o;^ cH'i w««. i^^i^tai al B^l^rMti axi* a«.«r,m*t^;t« soirAfl .«xi^
.•sal '8^r»lTso^ir£■ a«li>i.xeai ,#tjt;ifin hn*^ i?nia[ ^^xara 'to *«4«Xa XXj*
s'T9««x^i}»<;5 ni 69^X0 B9BJ»|» 64^. ,,**^9.fl Moiw^^ XX^ir ^« ^iii«^ mid
£ ii#lw ^duuocf^^i «« «;rTO«ai^;f,ea 4oub t© 6«4»« »i,j,|t al imM updB '^pliff
avxsos-i o;r Osliiim ai ,»oict.©xi cyiTis a«xi ©xiir ,*4>«5#flo» tfin»«al;^«ot>
£si l)i£^ t© d-iuB ^rf J)©'xeToo9a *nwo4i« ©4* w l>»«^8i» .a»e*M«OT»q sil*
ni Ts«oi^iJ©q ^Ctf &o©To'to» sd tj^jk tieii ttdi isif^:i brtjy, ,:fnefl»X*.t«8
the client's cause oi' »otion, Casr- y. Ei i>erson-B raritinf;htun Co. ^ ?.69
111., 94; StantUdfee v. UiLJcaKO Ila-ilT^ays Go,. 254 111., 5P4; that
service oJ' i;otic« ol" an attoniey's lien operates as rm acni -rui.ent
to the attorney ol' an int'?rf»6t in tlxe proceeds ol" c: set tlei .e^it , that
may be n-ade oy the debtor with a client, Baker v« liakfir . 253 111.
418; and tiiat such lien will attach to t^xe proceeds ol" a settlP;..f>nt
irhicii by order ol" thi court iiae. been deposited v'Jith the clerk of
the court nendirig approval by the court oi' tiie settle .er-.t , uoon
service ol" notice ol" lien uuon tie del'e; dar.t, Cat)ier'A-oo d v. A^orris .
360 111., 473. The ;a3ee cited 'aIso s .ot- that an award fixed in &
4«crer> of 'Uv'irce Inter incr-^aaed by o'rdfr of court J"cr the '5UT>port
of a chil'^i, by i'orce of the decree becoj.'ies a debt due fro:;, the
deferidart to the nlalntiff on w^iich plaintiff can recov r ir. in
action -t law, Pauli n v. Paul in. 195 III. Api-). , 35C.
j It is suggested that the trial court -mc.b of the oniiiion that
.' petitioner's lien c-ul'^l not be nforced v^'ituout notic" to his client,
I the olaJntiff. If so, the theory was errorieouE, The statute ".oes
not require notice to trie c..ient, nji.l it has beer' held urneccroary
I in C ^'t .^rwood v. l^orris. 36G 111., 473.
/ or t;ie reasons stated the judt\;:^ent is reversed iin:^ the
cause re u-and^ -.vit h directions to the Chancellor to enter jud, nent
against Mrs. feinderhout and hubert J, Eckwall for $200 and direct
^^_j!!i^'£^3i~--^®--^-?ii-^..-*°^ frou the funds now in
the hands of -he Clerk, .#200 in satisfaction of the sa}.:e.
RBVifiRSBD MW KEitAIJDED WITH DIRI^CTIOUS.
McSurely, p. J., and O'Cormor, J., concur.
i&rii- ;*"5 ,.IXI ^aS . .0Q ev;.s-^Ix.Bi-I eaJ^oirfO « y ytjfeJfcftrtfiJe :^e ,.IiI
tae.xiir_,hia.& iw> a^; a«JjjT5o:G noli fj'xtitn&tiB na tiy *»iJoii *to •oiv*c$9
i-noi/ffsj^j-^a fi 'to el>s9ooiQ i^i^i oi ria«#*J8 LltK iiotX xi&m i&rif boii^ ;^tii
to sfiQly »ri* x^ti-w &<5)*laoqsfe aesd .a**it ;^isj@t> iidf 'to t&hio Xd naldt
,ilkr^.Mi -.7. PSiSil'liiMM^ ,*.u!/5 .s'isfc di'-i iioqu iS9lL to dol*on to oo^rtott
B i-'.l b^Kit blii-ftf: na isiiS viq-^z ©bXjb fcsJio e»etao «rit .fft* , .•^•^I' '^^'^
:;j« 9-rfJ^ lo't *T«oo 'io iBhis _x^' b?»eB^io«-^ neitftX »»^orll!t lo sftWM
^m moil &-y.'l -^dBb B e«ffloo«>d &Bto9b ©li* "te »«*s©t ^rf ^bliiio » 10$
.08E . ,<rfA ".IX I eex ,^M&.jJL.SilMje% '^i'^*^ n$mm
•oiiiiqo srf;; 'to a^^^f trijuoo Xai-x* sri* :faAi Ji»S-8©S2iim ai *1 ■'■''•;
,;ta:si:X3 siff oJ -soii-on J^irodd-iw B'»eiolas. od *on b^sico a«iX •'^9nol*l*#^
^tj&s$so9miij 6X»ii m9<i e&a il bos ^iaekSo &iiS 0* s»i*oa stiupsi #•«
.S?ii , .XXI Oae .aiitpa .» Jboo^yTOiiJ-eO at
.ftjsass »ii* 'to a©iiS43l;9Jt#6e nl , -' '-^
40348
ProPI-f': OF THI5 CTATTJ OF ILLIxnGIS ex reo..
03CAH JiliLSOU, Auditor ol" Public Accounts
oi' tne St-itf cj' IllinciE,
Plaintil'i',
VB.
PRUDENi'lAL oTATiS SAVIlMaS BANK, a
Corpoi'Jtion,
Del'endant.
CHAI-vL.2i3 B. ALEKRS, lieceiver of Prudex.tial
State. SavlufeB BanJc, a Corporation,
(i-'etitiorif-r) Apr;^ii.:.ut ,
V8,
)
APPKAL J^'ROM
) .iuP TdOR COURT
) OF CCOK COUKTY.
T
)
JaCQB BJJTTEK and kIj!<Ki:d: UiCTTEiiJ , Iridividually )
and as Jfixecutore oi" Estate of Mabel M., iiddy, )
Deceased, ' )
(jrie spun dents) Appeij.eeti. )
iy i.tiL
rj fclr
i
Mil. JU3TIGJi liATCiiEX'r DiSLIVERiiD I'liE OPIi^IOK Oj? i'iii! COU«T.
T'lis is an a^ipeal by the receiver froiu an order entered
May 9, 1933, sustaining exceptions to the reoort of a kaster and
denying the prayer of the receiver /or ari ordpr aettinf- Hside a
prior order ent<^r(?d on motion of his nredeces^or, dir<;ctin,'; him to
accept an olTer of the estati; of Isabel IL, Sdd?/ to pay 1,(.;00 in full
8ettl*»'ent of a claim for $7168.70 allo-'ved by tne Probate court of
Cook county ae «f the sixth class. The luntori^l Hver'-oiita of the
petition we that this order r-ae entered throui.; fraudulent conceal-
ment of f -ctB and frau-'ulent ffilert^presentations o:;" fact v.-jde by the
attorney for the estate to the deputy r*?ceiver in cnarge oi sflttle-
inents. The I^^aster found the attorrioy lor t-^e estate viio conducted
nefectiationt had "infor'-.ation he did not divulge to tiie said receiver
at the lirae he soUf^^t to a.aice auca settieL.ent vritr. nLu", and that
"res ondents t ; '^ithiclding suoli i::f ormatiou , -..ic- wtts peculiarly
within their knowledge, were j'-'iity of such fraud ae would vitiate
said settieoiwt and tiat there is no necf^a-ity .ior necitioner to
T'^tum sxid cur-4 of One hoasand Dollars received cy aim out ae is
h:
6|.50f'
,191 x» aiOiilJ.II '<iO LiTATU KHT '1.0 :'^^.]HGLFf
,«ioalIXl "to siisja eil* 'to
.•>■
.8T
( «%£rl>M •# Is»ili|M '10 0i&ia^ le aTo^uoex^ a« baa
i ,f>»ad9oe(l
ham t^iamU •» 'io #'x6q'6Y sM o^ s aex j- q9»g» _^aiaxj8 j-g tfa ,e£9X ,Q ^c<*V
Xlif't ai 000^£% %siq OS ^^M.M XscfsM to «*«#»« iffFTen
to #11/00 ©a-wd^'i^ »rf.t Tjdr &»voXXfi OV.^dlft itolt atl^f® ft to #f?*»'r'*»It*#§
9di 'to B#fi9iin«»r& Xjeias^lt^jea siiT ^••^Xs Mxtv
-.Lssoaeo 4'i»Xiii>£f«'x'i .(ai^oaxl* iM»%et£w 8«w laM© «lrf* n«i#l*»<T
©ii* vcf 9lmm t&s&l 'to aa0l'*j5#n»e»^q[©^8iffi tcieXi-'fexijrtl
"SX**90 "io satailo aJt «»rX»69:£ x^f*^^ »'t^ a* 9*W*« wf* tot xfi^oSii^>
-3vi90-:>'i £>liie arid- oi ©gXi/vifc .4'0« |>if> sri noi^.fiiinotial*'
YXiJdXlJLioeq B«w iiaiiiw ^aosSMtsrtottit xloua sxbtbXo
?>r»|;fiv JbXwow a« fcxiatt xiawa to x^M^a ftvir .asJjoiwotT
»^ i«aoxi'l:r9q tot x$ksae9&a on aX 9i:»ri* ;?£(. '> =
?i 9d i'l/d atixi t^o fcsvisos^ bijbXXoG ijnjeeiioii saO : -i^a mxntfli
entitled to hold same as a payment on account.* The kaster TP.com-
i-'iended t e settlement "be set .iside and said petitioner ce peroiixted
to take.aucj' ot.ier action as he may aee lit,"
Reaoondente filed objection to tue report Wiiica tue Jii^aeter
never piisaed on, he uavin^ in Uie itieantiijae reeiguud ou accooiit ol
illness, ^Icwever, tne objections were considered as exopptions by
the Chancellor ana sustained, -.tna a decree entered denying tue
prayer o::' t:i.e petition. Upon the lilinfe. oi tne record In this court
respondei. ts uiade a motion to dismiss U'.e appeal on oiie trcund tuat
it was taken ty ta^; receiver vituout aut .ority oi tue court, liiC
motion was daiii^d. It is rear^iUed iii the . Uriels, tut we adu«^re to
oar forruer decision.
Petitioners argue taat aitiiough objections to the report of
the kaster v.-ere not passed on by hiai, uis report id eati i:led to the
same oongidaration tiiat would otr.erwise be ^iven it. .-arilJ eBtl;y ,
this is not uoaaible. ^ae evidence is largely docjjiaeii *,ury. j.iie
bark was closed June 18, 1932, and a receiver appointed, J;ti,a ^ry 1^
19 34, vTiliiani i. . O'Oonneil becauie successor receiver tuid upon nie
death on July 24, 15 56, 4iJ.cera was appointed sacceB-or. .iiiiont, the
assets 0- tne b^jiic were lour notes oi' ii..abel isiddy Tor ^225o, on each
cl' wr.ich t.i.ere was an unpaid baxance ui prino-pal to the auiount of
*16uO wit., interest, Isabel ::-ddy .Ued tescate Janut.ry 31, iS32, ur^d
on J'uly 22, 19 3.i, the claiiu bctsed on t-i.ese notes was cJ-lowed by the
Probate court aKainsi. ner estate in tae &uu ol v7163, 7^, her will
gave t]ire< specil'ic legacies of #5CoO eac to fricndb n.ik.«d, ., ith
residue to Jacob ietLen and i-iiinie hetten, Wixo ^^ere nuJied as execu-
tor*. About ...ay 1, 1936, tJie attorn ^i-s I'or tae cs-.,u.te openad litgo-
tiationi witi the leceiver ior settlement, tax. heenan, ti.t deputy
receiver, in^oriued theai that an offer ior ieus txian 10o>* xuuct bo
made in writing, kay 6, by letter, t-ie attorney for the csLt^te
made Bucix ari offer w,.icn JLiewxn, by letter of ^ay 9, 193^, rejr.cted.
June 1, 1936, t.ie atLomeys for tne estate in aiio -r.er letter made
" t'Ji-i 336 v.^^ 9x1 a& aoiiati, xsaio nous QilBi oi
Xtf aitei^q^s^s sjs fesisijiattoa s'l^w aaoii-o^td'o exit ^levs^ofi .aasflXIi
*iuoo aiiict iix .bioos'i sii^ io gaxXI't dxi«^ ia^-qt* .i5oi3".J;^»q sxiJ 'to 'X»y;jbtcq
„.,;,= , . i*«ai;®io9& t»*£raoi ijuo
siiJ- 0* &»lji*i«s si' 3-to<£©^_ sIjeL: ^,,at4ii itrf HQ l>»a«fiq $t}Si ©aew TsfaaiS erf*
9iii. ,^iiiJ uei»uj0oi> %L3i^iBk ei ©ons&xir& sri'x .©icfiaeoq iQa eI alxfJ
eixi floqw ^iua «»vi»oa5 laaissooi^a ®rfi»»»d XleanoU'O .X awlXXiW ,I^SeX
iio^d ao ,v>eSS4 lo't x^£)£ Xsti** *io «9*o*i «iitii aisw ataad* aili'.'to eifsasa ;
"io ;taiJ©aie ©xU ot XfiqioaiaqL 'io •aiisXjsd iii«qaw tia a4»w »««xiiJ' d6Jtxi« t» |
axi* x'^ JbswoXX*^ aB^5- seJoa ©asxii sa l)©««<f miaXo ©jrfi ,E£eX ,SS t-f"^ ^^
XXiw 'laii .0V»8SXV# 'io iswa sii^f ai »i».waa -xaxi jaalAj»« ^li.oL jJ^croxl
iiitiw ,&*aert aibaaX-xl o* liods 00004 "i® aexo^saX ai'Uoaqir 9Ta8
-ogaa fisaaqo sJ*i^ae »il^ lo'i s^e fl'3^©*!f« e^ ,8M5tX ,X v -^ .bt:©*
0tf *aijffl i^OOX a&iii aaaX Tto't la'lto aa iAA^ smM M .iisvijosti
* ©i^crea •xtt\ot >caax©**J8 Sffi ,i:©#*»X )£</',« X*^ .ani^irtw «!•&««
fuiti. r o.ltoriiati.ve ai'l'ero, outs ol' wiiicii v-ae to pay .-jlOOO in lull
settle^.irii;, June 12 O'vom,«'ll recor^cet;ded acceptai.ce of JUOO to
tiie itudiLor oi' futlic r.ocounts. iue ^lUjltoT i.o2.i.urred rud on Jane
l'-3, 1936, t'le reoriver wrote t.ie attornuya tap. Au<lito.r iiiid approTCd
and -nat tiiK ol'lsr v/as accepted, June 27, upon petition ol' the
receiver, tiie or^^er was eiitarad aat-iori?ina the settleiXi^'nt oj' t,li«
cliiiL-i in full a on (jay.Ti'ent oi' ,ilOwO, The receiver fiotii'ied tiie
attorneys on July 1st ol' tne entry oT t'\e order ol' June 27, ^jjid on
■^uly 10 payinert in full "J^as ai?de by tne personal cxaeok oi" tiie at-
ton'i**^? i'or tlie receiver. '^uiy '?4 0'>^orineil licd cind Albers wae
appointsd 8ucc3Si;or. iiovesiber 20, 1;>S6, /iloers Jiiel -iIe petition
to have the rler ol" Jun-^ 27 set aside as >iLove aet :ortli.
Ihe facts alleged to Jaave been fraudulently concealed and
a i^re-oreeented concerned t'ne e^tat-^ of kabei k, Eddy,
:^a.y 12, 19^8, C'aarles fe. "Sddy ( tiien solvent) was divorced
froai iie rife -.-^lel lor lie lault. The decree orovidel for the pay-
atr.tc .f alLrony ffhic'o i'e :^i:^ not C'.aJae, Cliarlee Jt. Sddy died i«ovem-
Irer IC , IS 3l , testate, ;nd nir. daagiter, Jeanette Kddy //iliisjui*, was
nfujicd r ecoitrix cf i^is • ilJ ^m^ r.u&liiied. l.rE, ^ij.tcl Sddy filed
her claim for unpaid &J.iaiony againBt trxC efjtat^ of Charles .... in
the Probate court ^ijr.f. It as ollcf--! in the £UJ>ount of 5l?6,4GC,
Janus.ry 31, 1932, ir-abel Eddy dierl -test&te, naaiini; ii.inr,ii and Jacot
Eetten as executors, Thie claim for alii^ony a^.'-lnst U.e fptat^ of
Charles i.. ad^iy, vitti t.ie exception of a few iteue of pereon&l
property, a I'er pi ccf of r al estate cncvutbered by ciorttai^ee and
tixes, oonutituted i\^t entire estate, l.ie estate ol Cnarles k,
iiddy hhO. become insolvent, -.j.de so (as t.it? exeoators of kabel 1. .
3ddy'8 estite averred) t iroUi^^i liis Ixaud in conve^infj to nig
daug'-iter, Jeaneiite Sddy Williams, all his tatate includint a large
aacunt of irvuranc* on ni-? liie in f^iioj. .is dua(.^.ter Jf.ar.ette 7»t
naiked as be:, ^ficiary. '^he ejrecutorB of label Eddy's estate filed a
(■
lit}"! ari'OOOll •%»%, OiJ'ajsw liolsxv 't© ©iio .rxst'l© 9vid'fira.&;^JJs x^d^xut
ii4'<^lX^ to &oiu&icif>otiB fcslsassxaritoaoi XXouflaO'O SX stsuil *4ndia9i^i«a
®r:^ fe^lli^on *xsTl«»ost 9.11' ,000X^ 'to d'aw.y.iieq «©' jj IIuI k1 fijJ:«X©
Ko biTUs tVli ©HwT. 'fo •x©i>io sadr *1(9 x'lSm siiS 'to i»X yXjjI fto e^emot^j*
ear a-ss-iXti feiii* fe®ifc) XXsaa«0*O l-K ^Itft^ ,T»vii»osi ©jf^t Tto'f c-^fterto*
aoi^i^sq aiit Issii't s-xscfXA ,©E9X ^QS -s^KfiaavQiiS .loeaeoowe bi^iai&qjiiM
St&otorlh a«w (*«»vXos «9iat) TrJbfeS ,1 esXTtJSi^O ,SS0X ,SX t*^
feftXl't x^hS. 1»<S&^ .aiM **«l'tXX«s^ &a» IXiw airi lo xlii-woa;; •
fli .ia 89Xi«x3D lo isijsJ^ad axi* ^^sfllas* ^fissasiX^ bijRqau lo't laL
,00^,SSX| "to iauQim Q^i ai fcsvreXXc s«- il ftn* #iuos. •*«a<
doa«li fiaa sinrsiM aalsKsa .t^s^ss;^ Jbdlfe X-^** X»fif«M ,SSeX ,X£
lo »#ja^a^ SiU tanleajs t£'"<J^^^* '3-®'^ iai«Xo akdt iaio^fjaoftX"^^
Xfl«oai®q lo ai«©#i vrol a It e ««!;}• <|«ax» »'i* ifJfi.w tX' ' '•'^»*
c J|»a^ e©,iijsa;f-i0ia x^ h&'ti^dmi&em tt»^e», X»^!*s te? 9»^t,l% ^:- ■ ,
,M, 8«>XTCj8iiO 'to 6isi»9 mh ^ ,Sfi-mm *!ti*a». %»d '■ '
■ • .M X®'vfjBM lo a-iod'isoaxs. a-rCit ,a«) ©« .©fe&>^ ,*a»'"
9-gxAl » -^aiiii^lQCiJi 9i»i*s aJUl iX« ^«i«MSlXXlf ^fV' ' '^■'
, .« JbsXrt 9;J«*8s a'x^lia X9cf«ij£ 'to aac ' .'ix*iiuu. - ■"
bill to Vet aside .heae trtw-cacti odb; tiic suit was disiuissed in tiie
trial court an i on -ippeai to tiji>-- court tne decree was al'l'iriued for
the r -aaor that the suit was Tiled orematurely, iictten v. ffilliams .
277 111. Apo, ^5?>. Tlift opinion of this court -dso indicated douut
as to wrietiier the proceeds of the insurance policies could be
reached, iieave to ctpp »ai was denied by the Supreiae court,
'i'h© letter of Vie attoi'neys for tiie estate oi' kabel Eddy
dated June 1, 19 36, tc the receiver of tl'.e banii informed uiui oi
the above facts, etated UiJit the estate of Ciiaries i^, iiddy was aope-
lessly insolvent; t/.at at the tijue of hie deatii he owed practically
#300,000; uad trsurisf erred to his daughter Jeaiiette #50u,tnvU in
insurance policies; t^.at the other ast-etB Oi' hie estate were 'vortii
at the most ,^30,000 or #40, OCX); that Isabel Lddy's estate had liti-
gated the question of the I'raul.ileiit purchase of thf= insurance
Tjolicies with results us stated; tiiut i o was the iiiter.tion of the
executors of the estate of i-'ibel Bddy, when the estate of Charles it,
Sddy had been oloof"^. , to filo -^.not.er bill; ti^at tl-.e United iitatee
Gov-rnaent had a claia aj^ainst the estate of Charles k., Eddy :'or
♦9,000 and was threatening to take ail tne aseets of the e8tf»te if
it w)i8 not ',>aid, in wuic- event nothing ttouI.' be received for tne
A-abel Sddy claii-'; of #126,400 unless these insaraiice policies were
held to be impressed vith a trust; that one of l^r, iddy's daugiitere
bed offered te purchase the aetets of -.er father's eetatf J or a sum
in excess of Its la-rket value on€ theroly r«v,iee a furid to pnj/ the
Governcnt and maice a aniall distributiox. te cre'itors, Ihe Istter
paid: "aeneral cr'>ditori will receive approximately t/ on uie 'ol-
la.r. Kiis offer, however, is eontint>ent upon a complete settleaent
of our claim against her individually,* The l«tter painted out
thre? sp'^cifio legaciee of 55000 eaci to iadividuals nai.<ed in i^re,
Eddy's 7/tll zjad also that -.r. and i-Ts. Letten, executors, were her
residuary legatees; advised fxat tae debts of tae eat -.te i. . re-atcd
tuit ai fjsaftfaxai:^ sew dtv6 «ji* ;8iiol#t»«afl»*x»f $ftfi/£j i»Mse tdB oi IXldf
■Hoi's: ,b».!*rxi'l'.t^- 8J5W «»Bif)6fc sif^ iTEJii-oo bMiS: ot t&^^qq^ ao ba& Sftuqq Sjaiik
*dwel) i)9crfiiDJ;fj«i oels drtJiTOo airi? lo aolaicf© SilT .f.gf, ♦Qii^A .1X1 fVS
»cf foX0©© asioJtXoq- 90fi«itJ8rtl ^^ti^tf to Bfessde^a; ftjrW TE^xWax^ o*- ai
't6 inlsi h&Bao't£il iH«t^ &iU 'l:o tsvisooTC sxl;^ o? ,d?>^X ,X ©nwt 1b*l:al
-»^0A «jiw \;Jbl>« .S asI^jRiiJJ lo 0#j6;ts9 &sti ^^ciit b&i&i^ ^sutou'l evode sfJ^t
fxi 000,uQSi 9Si^&iisi&t n^tii-gsmk sin o* J^^jTss'iacun;* fc^ii ; 000,005$
-IJiX Jbfisrf. sJfliTa© a'^isJba XacfisM ^'.aci* :0Q0,0*$ tH 005,06$ JeOffl orid #«
WJdi tQ tt&t^^mSni arlvf a«w ^i-i iBd^t ' ibhieSfi a£ si^XoatVi rfi'iw aaioXXoq
,S a9X*MiriO 1o 9*«^gs« ad^'aailw ,^{>S Xscf«M 'to ©>?b5-99 s>jrf# 16 Bte^uaax*
«©*jsiS l)9JiHU 9j1? ^&£it iXXief tsxij-dm? ©Xl'l o* .SftsoXo rradtf Jbfiri x^MS
' " IS el x^^^ *'^ a»Xt«ii5 1:ci ft.F«iB'?> •ri* #«n2j8i^« iaIjsXo « bati ii^mstfife^
"ii ^iBimn »d^ 'to eissBB f*di XXe '^iaj- 6i aala9j'c»li!i a«w gnA 000, €$
«^9w aaioiXoq «3««iw®ai «8»xi^ aauXmj OOl-^aSXil lo -rtiiJXo x-^JE'S Xacfsii
»M t^q. oS haul & ^alvSi \d0%^iis bn& 9UlBr i^-incfm 9ii to '^'ssoxs «
•Xo.h «*U no In® x-^sJainixoiQqa ©rl«d»-i XfXw g^^tlb&ttt XiM»ffll«* 'ift'llt^
;^aeiaaX**oa 9**X«pBoa b noqi^ d'adgjot^rtoo «i ,t»r9'«4M' ft^tto aXifl .-r f.
JtfO fi®^'a?loij xsn^l ©x4f ",^IXjiS«fei*l.l>ai t»ii ;fisj«ijs^ iilafXdttfa to
;a*WHl ba^Bii slBuh tribal 0$ rfejss 0003^ 'to «#lo«B''-t oi'tlo^^'qs --©'XilJ
•s»d ^t^'tr iBtoiao^xe ,a»cr*oa .e^a fenjB .^xM *«ri* o»'Xii fcoii IXivr a'^jftfci:
about ^12,000 of ^rhlch >3,000 wer«» rirsl. class claiaas. The letter
continued: "If we continue to litigate our clsiim agalnet ira. i'ddy
personally anfl are aucceeBlul, all of the ^otts would \e oaid in full
including your debt. The three ler^tees would receive $5, .^00,00 sach
and our clients would have approxii. aitely ;?60,000,00 left ufter pajpiient
of ex-osns^e 'uad f:ttorT:ey8' fees. On the otj.er -ar.d, if we v/ere I'iot
Buccesrf ul , ir, sue. liti^'^tion, t'-ere Is little lijteliaood taat any
of t"i;e .renf^ral cr^dlto'-e or le^^atees ^::oulcl receive anyt .ing, You,
of course, wo'il'^ be in a little better position tiiaii the olucrs aince
you -wo ild Btill have your lien upon tlie real estate, " Xhe writer of
the letter went on to ezcores-^ the opiriiori that c lancea of Bucoese in
llti(iation were not sufficient to warr-mt taking the c .arjoe of re-
ceiving nof-iing, and that it would be to the int^r.»8t of all pirti-^s
If the settl rcent could be a-^de * 30 that all the parties ixi intereet
will receive aomethlng proportional to their interest .* Tlie writer
of the Icttet also said that he saw r.o c'l-mce o." T.-ori.ing t lia out
unless thf^ receiver res wining to take back ti'.e real estate covered
by hie iorttragesaxid sliare with other cmditors or the bat^i j of .lefi-
oiency; that the Bur of * WO ha^' been 3u,;L'.eetea because it wae aub-
startially the llti.it of ebilit, to pay cMd still lt;ava othf,r parties
in Intfrfist the p m that rould -arrant ti^er;; in releasing t eir
claims. The letter concluded by oi'frring to oay ^l.COC in lieu cf
thp real pptate ^nd $50C theretofore offered ac^ crncluded: "I dor. 't
aep how t is Ketate can be work-d out unleee you ? oul.^ bf wililrife to
ta}c»> around a thousand dollare,*
Petitioner doce not as^^ert that any etateraent iiis.de by the
attorney i'cr the kabel ILddy estate was ir f ict f--ilse. The theory of
petitlon'-^r is (to use his own larii^uage) "that a fraud was perpetrated
by
upon the oeti tionpr_/the respondents in fiilitife to iiscxcre ail of
the facte during tue neK-otiations for settlet^ent , ir.cxri int^ tne
fact t .at the kabel k. Eddy estate, =.,.ainst ,v..ic-. the petitioner
. ii;»*.t9X ©4X ^Sii'dstlTt as4iXo iB^l'i. sisw 00Q,?:# rfoirfw "to 000, 2X| ;f»o(f«
IX«'t ill i)ijsc| »<*■ JfeJjOGW 9i'Js^§ 9iit 'to IIjs ,Xa*tfiSflootfs «is 60^ \:XXj8no3a»q
tcmsss^siq 'i^i't^i i't&l 00.^0,061 ■^X©^«u-4j50'rqq« avsai RXi/ov ei-a»lXo auo 5a«
Tjn» d^#iii feooxiiXailX ^liill el ^tiaxi* ,aoi^«,si*IX i«S(.«r« .at, , Xtt'ieasoowB
,iJ0Y .^aX.ai'^Ha 9vi&»»it |>Xiic'»s' es9*«asX ^0 a-Tetl|>»-xa XjBttsaeg ©a'i' 'to
'to a&^l5« 9fil' " .s^jBd'ss £««t «4* ao(j^i «»iX 5JJ0Y ©risrf ;XXxiE feXwcm u«x
a^Uxaq tlB 'to is-BTLSitsii :«nU 9* &^ .^sXuow ii; ;fjsrf;j: bit* ,a«ixJ*on ^a^viino
^a,aigj-i U,..ixj;.. iij» ;|J^§. g »iif„ j: Jf ; ^jrij-sT .^9 ** Bh^m »^i blitoo tafiss<^S.ii&a 9di 11
taetsidi ^ni.A%oft to soii^iio ©n *ee 9fi :^jtuiit Jbi^s oeXjs t^iial 9i;!!i %o
"dija a^w *x ©aufioeef &e*a^e«S.y« ait^d had OOSt ^0 iswa f>dS *jb£W t^afl»io
e9iJ-"££? :e3^^o 3v«dX LIx^b t-as ^sq. o* i^iiXtrf^ 'to limlX s^i* ^XX«i:^a«ia
^■. Tcisiil -a-a-i: a-s^ Xe-x ai .asto;? j-a^'i-xs-T bXiJCT? ^JfirfJ «.us dd* t^Mt^tat ak
."10 *»9iX at «K>0,XI Tt««j oi iflit^/tlo -^^ ^*it«X3flto» TsJisX sria" .smXaXo
**xxo.b I" :&6JbwX'>a««> %-rLS ijs'iaTt© &%Q'tQt9%fnii 006$ ftaa :■«#«*•»: l««i a rf*
0* SfliXXiw ^<f feXxiO'^ wax 38fjXnfc' two i)©:i'i©w «*f aso 9*j**»S alJ^^ iws.rf *©a
,■<,./ ^-, .V . ; c ■ .■: ■ .V. ■■(',,. ^;..,»,^aTcsXX©^ ^n«si;©xi«r « fiajwoxs 9Ji«;^
lo ^EiQdricr 3iiT ,6aX.«'i ^o«'t ai s«w 9v»«*«9 tJ&«^S; Xecfaii ©£l# To't "\c»m:©##«
ft»v*-^'3t*»q'x»<l B«w {>u«il 4! JjefL^" j(-9S»i^^^ i^o »^^ **» *>*) ®^ tcenoicrt*«q
sil* sfjlIlrXoni ,*nsi.i9Xi*©a not anoitsitoaan ari* anliwi^ •*«>«'* »«^*
ha^ p clai: I'or $7168.30, -^as reoeivii.g ^37,L'>00, instead of
$11,502, 4C, as represrntf^fl by tl'ie respoi. dentB, "
The Bia+erial f-ct? in retiar-.i to t'ue actual eettleoient
made betw^pn t eae two estates ap tears to be thut Ili', uell^y ol"
the firm ol' "Oitclibume h Lounsbury represent c^d tae one estata and
Jir, v»iiiiqns of thA firm of G:;i,3tle, Willi;i.fie, i-ont, ii. iucOartuy tne
other, ?omPtinje ir the sprint; or fall of 1935 -.r, U'iiiiajaa sug-
gested that the only T8,y out '-at sonie ^ind oi' 8etti.?'-eiiii by W:iich
money ccul3 be obtain e:T for ",ono of -Teane tte liddy's iEii.xediai;e
ne»d8 aTi'i to "atipfy tYxet claim of the United jtacec ..-overiiiiiunt
af^ainst her father's eR-:t\tc. A mu^b^^r of conl'orsiiceB v.ere held
an''. It ras firally agreed to try and ii,et soEte .Uspcaitior: of soiae
of the iriEuranct policies fror; -vrhi - h erout;h uonuy could be reaiitcd
to pay or compromise all libilitiee si.f,airf.t tLo Label Eddy estate
and c?.tiefy the Ipfjatees, ppeclfic Knt5 rfsic'aary, r-jXii. thus dispose
of all iitiation aiisinet Jerxiette Eddy. It was c..j..rc d t-r, i»liey
would coEnunicate \"\XY. all -pcrscns irterotted ii. tne A ak>el fiddy
estate to the exi ' of negotiating: f ettleo^erits; taat ./-r, '*iliiaiLB
would in the same iray com-iiani cete with creditors aiji peiaons in-
terested in the Charles ?1, 2dly estate. ^uraaaiit tuerstj negotia-
tions were opened up for tw-?. aettlejaf^nt of petitioner's ci.».iiii.
One of ti? insarai^ice policies Tra« istaed by c..\a Aetna Life
Insurance company nni gbout April 1, 193G, Ilr. Wilii^ias arid :.r,
Kelley went to iartford, Conn ?»ct icut , to taJie up :iie matter with
represer tatives of that coiuoany. Xhey -were told in sabstaJ>c« that
If Teanette iiddy would personally benefit tht Inuuraace co^iipany
woull advanc- cash (not mure tiiaii ^^70,CjO) toward ta-s end desired.
Uoon returning to Chicago i.r, Kelley took th^ natter up /atu zue
legatees and creUtora of I'.abel ?.ddy , injlulirie, tiie undert.u.ers
who had a olaiiri against the estate for #2532,50, Xe^tatiTe .eras
with these persons were arra-^ed. About tue oauie tiue t^xe letter
--'> Tt* ItfsaJ.aai ,,Ui>S,V.S| aaiTJtsoft-2 a«7 .^^^Oa.SSI'Pl "Xet al^Io « .M^
»ii^ X^t't&m^ ^ saoti «aiif;j?.iXli¥ ,®X:r-i^O 'to iscsi'i ©ii* "lo s'aaelXXJtW ^,»M
-jifcffj 8ffl«5iii;i.W .'St'.'.;:, e PCX lo Ilis'i %q s^ai-xes. 9d^" (ti 9idi.f«mo8 »'s©4^,p,,
xioMw ^e' #a«issii)J£>e 1© bal.:i ««ii!xe si«w ^jjo y«^ '^Xao «rf*/i-.a4# &f.*»91.:,
&m)e--'^0 xieijiaoQsl.r. ■^m^ i^B >&«*» T^^ 0*^ J&^-e'X^ ^X^Jb't, ^<f»jir, |,| . .fcop .
M^:ILbb% &d hSmu x^ao-a 'iii^fsam ik>Adv faeria, «-»4QiXo^, taajB-iiifsai »iSf,t|)t,.
*mtioii6a o$id-i»iii- ^u&Lo'XiJ^: .&^i^it&e> ^hhU iM. a9lmdQ. 9dl roX. Ht_B»t9t
.aiieX©. s„V.'x©aoiifi3-9ci 'to imm:Uiaii &fi;i T&'t qu $mm%o mm^--»n9Ki:-
»'ii-X fiiiiGA Sfia- xd Miisel m«t^ B»i©l.£oq^ »«««(« ifsxil ^sj-i*. t© ,%oi?
,tM £«m afifejiiXiW .x'l ,O£0X »X XixqiA .^JMjds fccwf '^nas^iaoo »axi»3Af«.ill
it-fiii* aotts^-aCTije ai X-)!©--^ 9ie)W -^dili .'<;i^qiiiQO :i»M "Xn . «t»TX*«^fl»^»t<I«^
\;ia«qcttoo -»0£sai-«aitl ,«tti;}--.#i"i9fl»:d' '(£iXj&iioa'SdQ i*X-i?ow /ijfclWS :;«(*4*««»t Tt^
- ,i)»"x laftfc - bcis> ©^. ;&X4»«»*- : ( QQOim% m-iU m m .i m) 4P«©-. # »*WrrM, .*Xf «W
of '• iiy 1st wr^8 i;ca\. to the dt,.ml.y recf.'iver i-eenat. ^ilh ofl'sr wkicn
he reruee-j to Mcoept, Lav^r the letter oi Juno ist '?/a8 senx, 'Aitii
ofl'er *iiich was accepted, fce st&ted. ATiien <vilxiaa.s ia.d Jieiley
agairj conferred it wa« found tuat tiiey w^re siort aouut ^3oOO of
the nece6-i«*ry ttiiiount of u*outj a^d filiiaius v/rote t:.e Aetna. coLipaxiy
aekine, if tht? amount to be *d\r-iiiced luigut not "oe ixicreo-sed to
^75,voO, In rea onse ty.e Aetna yoj^p^jjay sant its representative,
kr. Givanauia, to Chicago. At ;i. joj.nt Lonferanae ii.r, ^avsuiaUfcAi
sail he .lad hoard rii^uors J-janetta i^ddy 'vaa a apeadt-irift and tiie
Insurance uoapany would not oo v^fiilinti to advar.ce i^icj^e;/ wic^-iout u
court ordar. -^t "/as th«2ii decided ^/itl'i jier consent to e.pi)iy for a
conser^rntoraiiip for her, Tiie Probate court of Joo'k couxity njiaed
the Trust uowpiuiy of Chicago and Aniia Uarpenx,vir, a relative;
Willi.ii/e beca;.ii.' tne adu^iiiistrator vitri trie will sTi'iexed of the
Charles :^. liiddy eatite. The liicictar of aattiejuient was again tjtkeu
up and it v-aa a^veed tiiat the aiaount lo be piiid xo the exacuto rs
of the eatate of iiabel k, oiddy ^i^d to persoiis ii-tercdted iu her
eetate should be ^f57,f;00, Jh.r. iieliey tceuifies - and hie tt'&ti...ony
is not ocntra'Ticted - tutil i^-r. 7>iilicJi.3 suiigested ti-a t as uii the
other cre.iltors oi' the Charlet' it, 3dcy eB.,&.te Wfre rvociying ^,1/
of their ciaioif- he preferred t/.Kt ti^e eelfcte of i-a-bel m\» Edoy
shoulc* recei"ve ti.e ifaaie fajiiount. fnit .^trceneiit vclB i^ude shortly
before Juiy 1, ISSfi. Ordt rs vere cbt£iEtd froiL the i'robr.ter court
arid ft cir;tc* lor yll,LC2,4C wat paid to the cetute of i:?.bfcl iL, f.ddy
on account of its claim against the Chailee It, Eddy estate, and.
the talaiice of ^2b,9Q7.60 to the Jiettene &.'id Uioir attomeyB,
ihe controiiing iooue here seeij to be or.e of "fa,ct. -Ir.
£elley testifies t/^at in oral convv;rsi. ;ionc \.ith taaj depucy re-
ceiver an:; his attoxxieyo he e^uva fail ir.f oi'^;j,i,ion of t-^e uetticiiojat
in po far as iie liud. kno^'lcdtie at tho iLuc oi u.ese coiiversatioi.s,
JUjd that all tae f -ota were no^ *ariovrii wC i.iiu until aooui; tiie firit
jtisiiiw •'iiaVto dit/r Simsi&9Ji is-Yif^b^i '\;g''i.h';if)^. &iiS ■ o'<j Jitari ' bmtst isl xaA 1o
'io 0©0S| j-iiorie itaiit) «''£-?>w "!^$.d;7 J^il* |?Mijo1 a«v ^i b&*tt9'tm6 aJtAs-e
a8»aU;4- £sl«&a ©'««' .^to^eitj-se to ts:J'.t.«ii-? A/if ' .©.tuba's \;l>Jbi;' .it e&IiiJi£)
"^.X.9 snXTi3©3i »'$«« ©iJ-jedas- VMS «ia gi^X'X«riO ©jf* 'to axoi ib»%9 t^itj^
,.%&&S; .iS X3i;^a:M 'to &ii>JiS9 0ii.f ^.Bd;i btV'Xf^l&x^ od 8iaijaX?> 'ili«d& ''tut
., .i'fMf.'- .^o&'t 'to sxio acT otf' Bisoss* . ©^arf &!Sira«l 8aiXXc«rjJ'iEto®."'»JSJ
la'xl, * siii tfuociB Xiinu aiiri 0^ mom. S^a sia'^v a^o.e'i silt Xlii *-«di^ f>cta
8
-•ny p''* ^"''Z', ^^■^f^, "'''"1 t.he nettlexnr^nt was uade, ne ^ayn tliere was
no o'blit^r •"iop tc lni*ori:'i n^t it Lon't^r's prefleces.-.or oi' tat^ Uiin^n oi"
T'V.lc''^ hp ■-'If not ^f^/^e kno'^ledC** ^^is rvirt'-iic.-' ao to ■wiia.t 'taxa j&,id
at t'lepf^ or:il corrfforeationn i-:- contradict;^d l^y f/ie partic.3 vith
w'-oir he nav-p hfi talked. Petltionor urt^ee as f.. nri.ter ol" law that
althous-""^ a r»r)rosei'tat.Lon may Vj'? true '••■hen wade, if thereal'ter
ruch TPpr-^Rr'ntg.tion ty changing ci.rc!;ii)s cr-uices leci'mes faieft, the
r^prpp-t^ntit ion v-li?_ consti-'ratf! acticnr'.lcle fraud if ti'.o partieo tc
whci' the nev r^^preseritotion rar. laade are ignorant of t-ic ciian^ed
clrC'OiastriJicws end the spea:;er I'ails tc inform tho^-o. of tae cl^jiitied
conditicr.g, allovini^ tlieiu to act in t'he beiief that tae original
conditions rtill ?xi£t» Fetitionrr p.irt£ out t-xat th3 oonserva,-
tor's oEtate for Jeanette Kddy ras opened a fe^r days ^fter iir,
Kclley raoeiv:»;i noti:;e froni the receiver cf his accr^ptancr of the
offf^r of connronice; that v^itMn three ciaye all the torm? of tlie
settlCTient -wc-re r-'port?d to the Probate court. Petitioner -^aya
vhor. It. is.elley learned thei facts he should have reported thei/: to
the receWier, citing Loewer v. H&rrie . 57 /sd. 363, 6 C, C. a.
394, ■'« <''C not quf-t U;n tlie rule of law announced in tri&t case.
In •'-ei^i ing the ipsupe of fuct it appeara it is tie vord of or e of
the p3rtieF E^finpt the wor'' of the otner, -ind the turden of oroof
was upon petitionfr not only to show fr?ud ty e preponderance cf tke
erl'^erce >ut "by clear anf. convincing prenonderarice. Petitioner re-
liffi rr.uch on tiae -.as-'.er'a report, lae ri'le se to tv.v wp.i^.ht to te
giv-n to tae firdinge of a ;i..T.Fter ie not spplicafclc hecauee the
Ifapter, '.vac '^as ill, filed the repcrt rithout riling on recponcJent 's
o"bJeotion8. The record i-'oes not inJ'crm us tJ.v.t he j.f.Tf any ccnsi.iera-
ticn to tiieee objection?. The evidence ta]<.ef Ib in thfr record pre-
ci?ely as if it had le«n taken hy deposition jul the cause >-et.rd hy
the- court. True, in consi<^erfeng the i'ln-iin^^s of the Cr.antjriic v ^'i»
amst not overlook the fact th-it he did not eee and :ur.r the -ffiUt, ;«,
ft
&&^- •uftxitf' a\;£« j»H ,»I>*m saw ^a*ras*I:J*«,o »j*t atsrCw ^Sfei »T/^- "^^ TIll!>
- SMdt Wei 'io "ceJ-^jaM J8v «£ a^S^t' «©floi;tiit»^ *fc9*X«;t ijft ^^©e *ri mo0m
,9e4»o isiixi at Moa/JOiinis waX to fttin ^si^ floJ-i-Rawp :foa ©fe •>' ,^GjS
lo 9ao 'to fi'fo-? !>il# ©i :^i 8aa»qqe ^1 ^Sjs'i lo «s>iJ88X ♦*{* 8«^-^®-t*'^ «I
ft«[* 'to 90fi.ei»Ano«j»it « \^ hu&xt woria p* /i.;o Jofl i^aoiji^sg noqw s««r
e'd-xiftfyaaJjosi ao s"-tJE"»t iuQiiil'ir *^9«|»t »rf* IMtXit ^iil sAir «siw i,x»t«*H
iv^ 3ii^ i^f^ii fcriB sea *on &ib «.cl ^«il* Jaa't »rf* itooXiovo ;^on ;f8«.a
Wft h-iTe t">«n t'li? in + n congi'^ sration, ?^f are not onvlnoel h.^' t'le
•rsunent? of -o^kti-MonrT nn the fict.s. Thr? l^'itrr oi' th-a r^icj-lT^^r
to +/-'A '^>*-.r,t.<a Au-'ltor ^n-1 hig rr^t Ation to Uie C:aaiicellor for ait.ority
to s»'^,t'l"i ■V"' not indicate apy reli-ince 'jy "itier of t.^ow '.loon repre-
ientptions suoli as thr\ petit 'on-^r no'P -irrues ^'er'^ /.Hfl,e Tind relLed on.
Th" -lejt.h 0?* Willi:^! L, O'Connell '^,'rpri\cB vis of the bftriefit of h.i«
teatim-Tiy, lie ^ua c-.t t^iat tiii.c re,)r<inei-ted by h. comp-t^nt attorney.
It apr-ear'^ fiat he :;aa?e-l the f ictn ,0 "on L.'>vei3ti;/at'*c'. or. his o'^^n
•cc'junt; that most of Uie material facts v er*^ of record in the
cjarts, C'Corinfll -■aa a cojupetent aril e:v.er leace'i receiver.
On the isG.;. *»? of fact tha Chtuicallor hh,B fourd in f.tvor of
rpspocd^nta ?.n I ti.is court v.oul^. not "be Jiistifi'^d in holding the
Chancellor'? i'iri-ilingg to he a^jainat th? r.arii'est rei^at of the
•vidienot, Tht> corr •^epondence iiidicates that in uat'iuj; his s«i-tle;';ent
wif'^i t .e c^'tate of ?'2"bel 15dd.y the receiver understood rit;,ht -well tiiat
li»r '■'e'f'.ate was tr::inr to get the hest terir.s posBible, There •«'ere
ffidnj C',ritin^*t.ele3 in conx.^ction Tith the eettie^ent of the coiitro-
Trrsieg tet'^een the tTsrci eatatea -ind i;hti difi^rsnt partif'ja who '?ero
Int'-rpRtad it. t lese est^i-tea, l-'verythiu ^ vaa conditif^ned upon t-riroval
by tht A«tna Insurance coaipsny whic: '-"Jas to furnif»;i the !on^y. The
conser.t of Te::inette Eddy -ii d a^t cor;aervator also became indippene-
atle. The bank had received 35;^ of the •'•=»bt du'^ to it h«»forf it
went l!;to receivers" .ip, r..'.ere "--^re aany er.uLrles to be settled find
worhed out, ii-cludinj^ fhe rijht of the attorreyp for the i. .ibel ^Sddy
•state to recei-^e Juet conoenaatior for 5<»Tvice9 r-hich had been v/ell
perfori.ied by them. Their claim for conpergaticn '"ould be »n + itlGd
to priorty :Viead of the clain of netitiorer. The petitioner's
claim hid been sliced as of the 6th class, .v.any of the cliims
against the estate of Isabel Sddy rers preferred, ij'or instv^c«, the
claii ?f the undertakers for ?S532, "x), the clalr:. of the Colleot'^r ol
Internal Pevenue lor ^37. 6., ani. eowe ot'.ers. Th» total of the
9iiS x4 fcscnlvnes ^en «»:c« .j»W .^jn^iitirskkntmo 0&irt siff* n»3fij# ©tjbM «W
^I'XQiJi.;^ 7.©*t •3CoXX©ofj£;£ip e4# ;03- «oi:#i*®e till Iieub To(ri*.«A 9*b*8 (»jC{^ »j(
;.«w@ .»l:£l j?i<j, j^.fte^i|;@,«>vft.5 »< m Bi^sit »&. be&tseo sr£ t«fi# =■.#»»» gq« *I
9!ii# ■ rji.; -iJ^iE0,!8*'S 'to >'j:'^w.-.fi[i;!i4i'i, a^Ii^ct^jeb .aril to •.^aoflt^ *«f^ ■- j.ifiw®oa«
^, jfMi ;^nlhl<^A:Rs, ,fc©i'U *:«.«;! ©rf ;J.«>^ .tiKo'*: ^i:j^o© :»iri* ,tr:ij# 9j«®|)nocie«»a
*«il^ Xtew *48i'Si ^o.&<*8»*:feaw isviso^i; ©iH^ f MS :X»<rsM 'H •*«d"ffl.9 .(Si'C* ri*^
*1 *xo'i»cf vti: -ojr a«ft ,tefelj fi»j(li. ,;*<» ^SS ij«vie»e-t l)jaii aio^d' #i!iS^; .«Xcf« -
&fta :,fo«iX;r;?,«s^ «<f txcf. e»i;Mi.f)® •^xusfij ©tew e^axlf •;;,.^v^iBtsv^&o®'X 0-Ai2i d-iTow
.._^ ,. . , ,,.a'-X^«piii:*sqt i»xf.T ..T.axtp^^li^.?^- i8i«>X« <Mltf 5o Ji«silxsi, /^^Toi^cq Qi^
'-ii*, ., 90JEVE>,tai'4 xa% ,.|).sT:'3tp!l:ef«f .#tow iC-^J&t ^»-tf«tit., Ito ■##**«» ■,.«4#.- ^«;al«st«
10
cl-jLi-K J'ilfd an:; al.loT'C*. Suuouritod to .vll ,1 *." 5. 7" , rtthout rel'cvff.aD
tc '*tl orr.ty e ' an,' rx-ccutors' i'tto, prrs-rrjal property sMncHe: ,i>»-.t§
(iriclujlrig Inherit '-r.ee tr..xcB ar-^. olr.er expense cl adriiclstr^i''. -' on)
wJilcii woald u:uo\^L.t to a cent ider&l It tur-..
It is .up':arcr.t fror,: all thf^ corr;^,p,^_ndei.i ^r that O'Cciirrll
as rcceiv.r well ur.A. recced 1.' a': hi -5 cls-im ngalnrt tne >--ntait- c*"
McVel ilddy vs.a tsing nettled u;on on. itn'ivldi.Hl bucis iictir pt from
all the otUer cl-.itt.F,, .u- a H.o.tt'^r cV fact, tho> mrr!«y ri + h vrich tha
se wtler.ciits v^re i'ii-.:tllj laude all c:'i;e i'ror. Jr^.nBetts JSddjr. Th(»
whole orao -in t pr^il ^£.2 J37,5CC. Cf this sjTiount $11,50?-. 4C •''ar pn.la
tc the ex--5utoi''e 0I* t-ie potf?.le 0I' Ma'bt't Bd'ly In full r-ttli^^rfnt cf
her cl:~am u.^;/.!.' jit V-.n estate cf Charles !.'. Ed'ly, jn-^ §?'5,rP7.60 -^aw
paid parEcr;:J.ly to tli« let;-.'.teee nain«;l !»- her will -D'* the st + ;.Tn«ye
who Lad pract.lnally crej-ted ..er eotate,
Aoauiiilni; the f lud '.r;/:'- O'" f^c.t >)y the C!.micellor to "be. true,
reiipciidejata -er-^ not iiit?r stei In xo't the settlement should "be mada
©X tiiO protetdB thereof uiirlf^s::!, PoteD.ly the dis''.rihuH.or irl-'ht
have l.c.«ri -foriipid aut by p.;i.yintj. the ^.'aole oii-Ujaot of *^7,5'L.^ to the
axfjc^toj-s of ti-c c^.t.-te of ^i'.abel "£d.i.y, >,ut th^ ccnoervator of •■'■j»»yn-
•tt£ i»d'iy .'ecirtcd ctherri-if, '^r, may ..-uesc th<» i-,ctive8 but ^^f •'0 not
kiiow. Tus Liursl ion cf trr-e? ia».y h^'.i'e had ^lUch to ^o ^-ith tlils, or
pca-ihly ( aa thrr:- ie tr ntin'orjy t*»rdlncc tc Ehov") '■Pll ': l.-,:jr rp -i<»-
Biuiiti.*-or v^e lq: 1. non of ti:f' »r.tate of Ch-vrl^e : . Kd^y ^.(»Bired
th*1, all yr.j-itcrB cf that ^stat" erciild r«-'oelv« tholr cliina on a
pro rat/- b.^sie, "hia ooiaoR f--^ froi. rat-v-bllahing fraud ftf;ain«t
rjOiijiiliti'uo by .h'9 e'j vAt" n " liijh'^l TSd.ly. It ia anr.-ar'snt (.'•Conr«ll
(•--.p^riaj.cai as ii2J«ja)_ jUiov.jJ^\^^ .^im of the problftri and
thoa4i;it .*i3 ciot'iis fortraute An s-sttlne ■^lO.-O. Txi'? finial settlement
iii!x:c\ "/j .ai tao parties -TaJ? to 'lorie extent >'i3«d unnr. t]n» 'if't leaent
oi' wi:a« olu,i.i of the 3au]c ,xa.\ jt.. jrs '.ij,i.U' n t.i*« ■?6'.atp of isai-'^l
Sddy, .^ ic.i -raa aaia v;it:i the -ipproval oi' tlie oourt, I t Is
Oi
(ao>v*«rrl'8j.niitfea 1'4 ^fflMHsfss' 'J«*iS:?o fe'SitB nm^f ' t is ■ri»S'l%'»iiai- 'Baltic S'iicii)
ftsm/'a '»X'i«'%«ibl»£io9 JK «'dr ' J)r (sifojsjs feXs/o-^r 'x{«j:,<l«r
hM^ nm^ Oh- i^'^. ^ I'M' $tfMmm niM tQ ' ,-.oa^\?S^ z&'w ftXfiq ^tsuesm t»Xoxim
>£tf At OOS,i*''.| ts i)'mr«::;js ®Xoxi*r scif ^^ni%s^n ^tf *«e fcsattow a««a' »vijii
■ T© ,aW# iftt%' ofe''6i i£8JafT hJSPl »T.i«,f? xmi »«x.a3'''%o- »g>l#8»iti) tfiS '■ .wo«Ji
-he »s »tmklti.w (woets «s jgttl^'s** ■\£notii.+Ta«3' ai-s-xani* a«| ^JX«'i:ia«cr
» 3« aaljp.Io 'liw.-ft »vi©«-ii!5>^ 6l£;iMj»- '■'«f«^«ft j-jfecli? to a-iaJ-i-b *>*»•., XXa i-»jW
' 'XX*nsixetO'» *ftf»*£-««t0if" 8i- ■ *I' ^x^-'tM M^^tM^'^tti'mtM^ii'mi&' '^r nt^miLmm*'^
11/
difficult to conceive of any tneory upon wnioh hie successor can
now OTorturn tiiat s«ttleiuent. tie huj.d ae a luatter ol fact Uid
clHiui of fraudulent xiiisrepreseiitatxuns tjirou^i concealuatit oi
inforciation vriiich the receiver was entitled to nave la not
Buetalned hy the clear prfeponnerance ol tue evidei-ce required in
Bucli caccs. xhe order oi ti^e triaj. court is liiiereiore a:lirmed.
i«icijare.ly , ^- , J,, ana u 'Connor, J., concur.
r
M
080 ioae©03Ka aixl xioi/.w aoqw ^osxii "^ixs lo aviooaoo o* JXuolVtil)
♦ Iss-wiiTtjB siolsisitt' ax itisos £iili4' &iit 'io risfe'xo ©Jtii .b«3«o xfoua
40431
AcuPllant, )
) ivFPSAL a'ROL MUl;IClP;iJ. CGU^' Ci OjIICAGO.
)
vs.
TIkCTHY £XiUf»P;<IRICH an^
Appellees,
MR, JUSTICE M^VrCHETT DELIV2RgD THB OPIi^'ION OF '-'m COURT 2_
?99I.A. 6^2
In an action on ccii tract by plaintiff ai^ainst <^efendarit»
for money allsgei to be due, as agreed, for a retainer fee as
attorney, ^}j)d upon trial ty jury, a. tiae cio-e of ai:. Uie evidence
defendant iSmil Rosenthal requested an inetructed verOict in hie
favor, or, w.dcn the court reserved its ruling, Xlie cause vas sut-
altted to zh? Jury vmich returned a verdict fayor^of plaintiff"'
iPith dajgagee aaseesed^at |300. Ihereupon deffjuiant Emil Rosenthal
made a notion for judgment notwithetai.dine; the verdict, pursuant to
section 63 (Sa) o? tae. Civil Practice net (111. State 3ar State..
1937, cnap, 110, par. 19 i , p. 2404.) The raotion -/as allov-ed and
judgment enterednotwithBtanding the verdict in f .*vo x of ootn
dei'endanta.^ Prom tliat ju Ifeuent plaintiff appeals,
The queatioi. for decioion is whoth-r the court ^rred in
alleging tne luotion xnd in entering jud^ient. I>efeu:lant illapperiah
has not ap eared in tl-it, court or filed ax.y brief. U ie ar^aed
in bcalf of J'osentnal tnat the ruling of the c©urt was proper for
the reason that the uncontradicted evidence suatained ais defense
of the Statute of Jrauds set up in his affidavit of merits, and
that under the evidence .;e -as not linia^ to pi.intiff for services
rendered. In massing upon a ir-otion of t.ie kind th<^ question for
the trial curt U -hether there was ^y evidence fror. which the Jwry
could h-^ve foun^^ that defendant Rosenthal .ae liable as alleged in
the ,tate„e.t of clair.. Zolev^v. Curtise C..,dv .. , , ,g, r,!,..^.
586, and caspe there cited.
lF.hO^
C ,i
u:.;>;; '■■.v.v K I;*!'
a^ 9®! T;»i-i^^:^«'i i>. •so'i; ,i»©&'s,^ ske ^ewa erf Qi issalLs ■^•iioat Tol
~offfs aevir aaiiaa ejfi' ,:gc%llin ®dl .f»®VT:3sa-x i'lijoju add- iioixiw no jIcvbI
,,aiBi£' r&i^ ai&i^S .1X1) ;JoA e.oito-Bi^. XivlO sri^t 'to (bC) 8S noii-oea
£ae fiswolis 6iiW aotiom. sxl'i' {.^0*S ,q; ,i:ex .ijfjq ,0X1 ,a«ilo ,V£ei
li^J'ed' 'to liovje't ui d-oi£-i«r sjrf.* ^Riba&tmiiilwioa bQisias iasmt^bui
♦«X«eqqjB *rti*ai«Xr taemi^tist Jerii" mo»t .a^osbiisdiaJb
xfciiieqqjsXS inat^^e'tsG ,;^xid»H^&i;t jjnlie.tm ni lini^ no2d-oia ©rlj siilwoXXa
icl ^©qotci a£iW j-tti^o ?>xi.t 'to gcxXui exid- .t«ni Lad&a&aoP. 'io 'tjMxied tti.
bm ,si.tiBii lo ilrsbrVU alii ai qrjJ He ebmi''^ 'to »^«i?s*8 ©it* lo
^o't iioiiaaWiO ^di baiiC ai^U 'xo noiJ-osx a n0Q» gflioa^q fli .fc&^a^nei
YTwt sSt uoiiiw laoil ©oxi9h-iv9 \;xi£ ,aj3w sratii tadi^it'y ai ^tuoo Xelid" flxf^
ai &9a9XI^ 8J^ elcfaiX 6£>v IsdimaoR Sruihm'iBb i»m hnrnt •rAA blaco
.qqA.XXI sen . ^oO ■^bv:^0 aa^iuO .v rtsTS £oW ,cilfiXo to ^osaratsJe srii
^«t+^f^ /»*f«ivri'.t artisisa Rftf, .888
T>ie evi-ler.re ten.^s to ^'ji.ow cnat lalai'iT tii'i' ic tdi attJiiipy
at Is.w oracticiHij his Tsrol'tP^ion in Chicago; t 'at i.lapr^ --ricli ? ae
arr^'sier! or :i crinun'^1 cnarge, toiien into custody s.nd hie Taoxid
fixed at $5000; that on L.arch 11, 1933, while ae 7.-as in the County
jail, Ir, Rifae, 'vho vras then ct trie l^■.' ol'fice oJ' plairitil'l",
callerl Kosent-.al "by 'phoi e anc'. invroduoed -iu; to yliintilT; tU-it
Roeenti.al told plaintiff he was intereetei in the hiapperica cjase;
that iJ.aor)erlch was connecteJ ^.'ith Uis (lioeenti- il ' c) I'ir/ii; tia,t he
had been wit; hi.. J'or eoiae ciLie and was luriocont oi the caar^je
against fiim; that he (RoaentLal) had toeon call-^d to cor-e jit once
frou. out of town; that he wanted to t-xi.-e care of the iiii..tte.r and
was nnxious to have hlaooerich rele=iGed on b'i.il; th^t if the tink
wae open h<» would put up the laoney .'or tie bail iiii.i3elf , uut 6ii.iCe
that waa i.apoBsi1;le he would i^;uaraj'.tee a bond. Plaintiff auye ue
tol'' Rosenthal that he (Lan'is) woal i .lave his ovth bister (.^wrs,
i^loch) schp-^ule her r^al estate on t-ie hond ii' xiosenthal -vould ^ive
h»»r a vri ten ^iiaranty to hold her hartilesB in case xJ.apperioii
failed to appear, and taat Rosen t.ial at^reed, ^ie bctye: "I toid
hia I would charge aih^ #3uO reuaiuer fee and lu&ite no ci^ar^ie for
the fcond, 'da agreed bo tnia. 1 ofl'ered to aend ever io* Uie
cliecJc, tut BoBentl-.al ^aid i^e was in a hurry, .-e tiu.a.d, 'i wtuit you
to i^Linediately comia-ct or coi^fer v/it^- iU.apperich, I v.^ait you to
tell iiim T'hat you .j^d I talked about, cJid I w^Uit xvlap^erich to inot
that I aiii lookinij out ior uie interestB, cOid I would j.ii.fe for you
to ..et me a stataiaent frou ij.upperich to a^e tiicAi you v»ere over to
•ee hii.'., and also a acateiuen„ from ..liia to ^ive joa a ciecjL ior
|300, ' he 3uid i anouid send ovex- to his uotel after I fii-isi^ed,
and 'I will ^'ive you tiie cxiecji: for 4>500 and sit^ii this indeioiity
at re em en t. ' riien I prepared the indeujiity agreement." Plaintiff
further testified tnat he contacted War««ft ^ain and luet laaooerieh
jbacd Bid ^tui Xhefaao gmuI .nsiie-'i ^w^tMiio i&atmirtd ^ no b9S9'=i'i%M
j£xii' ','i^tiiii:sli.l(i oi -Hid tm0iJhQt!ii3.i >nft «.-foi%* T^ Xisii+ ns 9 o?? fiftXIiso
9x1 t£i>J^ lifl-si'i (a'Xi.ix;JiasaoH) aJUi ri*lw ijaj-ssaxioo sew liaiiatiqeJCS. t&sii
eoao 4-i. oii^ioa o^ i;$XX«o nsscf Iw&ri (X^u^neaaS) «ri ;tsil^ ;aijkft JenijBji^^ .
ban ■x&^i&m &ix:^ 'to aoso siM'-i ot bo^iiaif »ii ^aiJit ;nw»? 'tp #«o a<yx1t ,j,
.ax.S.) adJexa awo aixi «v«aj Miiow («iJ.fl»J) ©4 >ffiiii' Xjsxli^naBpS ^''^9* 4.
»i^i^ &XUOW XsfUnseeW 'ii bewtf f^i'-^^ -so 9#«*a9 Xas?i tftri eXxifisrioa (rfo,»?,,
jiax'i«q,qiJX-i ea-so ai aaeXisncj^-il larf .bXdxi o^" y^I"^''*'*^'^, «»**'^?^ ■«: ;**l'^,;
ijlvi I" :aX'i*a »ii .iaai^a ij8x.^tt©8«ii A&xii Dcus ,tesgqfi oJ .baXla^
oi jjox; <^iU>w I .iiui-seqqjBXa. liiiw le'tuoo 10 ioitiaes -^cXa^t^ifcatsenl ^J^ v
tfo-\j t:o1 aAiX ^Xij»-w I btm .aiaeuaioi «i(i xe'i *uo j«lit««|^^««,,,| Jff*.;,
o^ 'isvo 9iaw ijo^ iMiii iisa Qi ££oi"xa(i««X:i xao^l ta»0s»i»t9 a •at io-g ^t ,,j
lei 2i09£io B WG1 aviii o* aUxi ao'x'i jawiwiaia « o«jE» f>iwi .M^ri aaa
.Saiielail I t^^'U Ia*<wi 4^4 o* i9V& bmB blMom I kim ' . jEI
^*im»i>ni aixl* Oiiia l>i«8 0084 uo'i at»aii4» axi* «o ■■■'»*
rtiiaLAl^ ".*«8a»9aai« Tt*ilW5»l&ai «il* i)ax»«ia^q \/'-^^-' , ' ..'?"''"»^-''^^«
in the warden's ofl'ice at the cou/^ty jail at aLoat 9 o'uxocx that
evenin,.,; that Rii'as, otiin, iJLupperioii aiid ne v.ei-e t^iere; t:;.'At he
told illapDerich he iiad a^ireed with xioseiiUxal tj prepare ail tiie
necessary papers to G*=t hiit out ou tail, uoid that his sinter was
• i>>,r.int., the tond ol' >c5loO at no tcs"x to anyone, and tixat Rosaithal
was agreeing in writing to indeuinily are, Aoch, He further says:
"I tol'l 2>ar. iilapperich, 'low, you u^:dere^and tnat iroiu the at^reement
I liad '^'it'i Rosenthal, that you and Air. Rosentnal are to pay me ^^300
retainer fee.' ^r, ivlapperich said, 'T-.&t is a^^Teeable to me."'
Then j;e T)repared iixJiibit 1; ivlnpoerich sifened it, and afterward he
•acplained that Roaeutaal wanted a paper' snowing Uiat it was agreeatle
to IClappr-rich. hen he went to the Bond court with the bail slip
he ittainpd from the county jail and prepared tae "bond --ind suhi-itted
the tond to the court and paid tae doiia.r and ivlapperich was released.
Kxiiitit 1 is in evidence, ia dated i^arcn 11, 193 3, is directed
to ''5, Rosentaal, and states: "Please give uiy attorney. Maxwell
Lan'^is, your check for s?300.uo as retainer's fee. kr. Ju;.j;di8 will
have me released on bond on your letter of indemnity," i'he letter is
signed T. il. ivlapperich." Pl^i/i^Aff 's evidence is corroborated by
that cf t5ai'uel Rifs-s, i'lamtilf also intro uced ir. evidence a re-
ceipt from the Muriici|»al court of Uhica&o of that date, s owing the
payiiient of vl.OO hy him for real estate investigation in the case of
People V. A-lapperich. PlaiTitiff says he did not know at this time
that Klappcrich was represented "by Lr, Bradhurn as his att-rney.
Plaintiff further testified that on the Wednesday following the
Saturday Wien he saw Rosenthal he had a meeting at his office ^rith
Rosenthal «uid Klapperich. ue told tuem he had taken up the hlapcerich
matter with r. 3tiefel, wuo represented the Empire Paoer Compiny,
from whKithe t jnda T^ere stolen; he aays Rooentnal said to hiiii that
he would have to give plaintiff his check for iiJ300, "but r«markei that
didn't cover the entire case, to which plaintiff replied t^iat i* did
a«w i9:!tn):a aixS Jifiij' iux.'-! ,lxi'.d ao itsQ salxx *©s ot axQq&q xtsinsBOQa
zs^jjBa i9ric?iij'i all . .iioeii .3t4 ^'tii*;fi.«J^fll &i j-nl^lx-n ai 3ni9sx^4« e.fiw
toxiimeig.^ »ili' iS0i'i isii;i .oti3J3'X9.biYfe vox ,^»o*'i* ,iifjii®oqi!XS ,^i/l l?Io* I"
OOE|i <*ia v-ssg oj fi'ia XsaJaeaotS ,td biui U0X *.siicf , £aAttx»BQH. rli^w Mri I
qiXE Xlxid 9rf!f diJLw ttuoo feKoii 9x1^ o# *a»w ani ii<9ife .rfoi'Xf^fFqjiXSL 0*
fc9.t*i;;.uf«8 fefiis feaotf *iid 6«iJiQ"5'£g &itJS list ij3'Ki<03 ^xl* iflcx"^ bsnJrjBjtftf ftxi
.M8«oI»t 8^,w iSolxsciqjBlil IjiiA Tt^llob set* &i^q l>its ;fTjj&© stU 0* feabcf »xi*
fea^ssTlf* si (C'^ei ,IX iistjaM f>dj«l; si ,Qi)i\af)lv9 nJ: ei: X ^icfiiixa' ■■ "■
• 'XXstTiwusM ,1^*'^'^'*^'^* ^'^ »^-i8 3ss»X'i* 59»;f«3'8 fetiia ,X«r*Pt98oH ,K 0*
Xixw aifcorJ; .1^ .6«'t e'lsnxAsci-a-z 2« OvJ.aOSi^ lo't iiosxlo •xi;o\: .eifonaJt
ax ti**5M%X siiT ",x*iflmsft«i 'to i:fl;f?®X iwo^; no tiwd ao i)®a«0X9rt ©s ftv«xi
-ei j6 sortftf-lT-a nl BsouooT^ai oeXfi Ttl4faiaX"?t .«Bli» X^yracB \o imAt
9xi;t salwo-ia ,«tfil> *sa:i* 'to os-eoXxio "to^iifoo Ie<5:i oxiixiia ari:;- atoi't *q-Jl9o
*to sejao 9rl;> fli ftol^^^sslJaarni 0**t.?BS Xfis"! 'xo't xairi v;«r 00, Xf 'to Jadiay.B^
ami* 5l.rf;f «*fi womi ton !bX^ an «^«a TU^filjsXqL ,xioii9^<l«XS ,v •Iflr*»?
.•V;9n^ct^s aiil e^ frrxicTfcsia ,iM ^cf j&sirisas'scf^'x sbw xlolt^qq^XX ^»Ai
dti^ ©oiTto airi *« snXif^ism m feeif »ii X«ii*n«3oH vjea ««i a»i?w \;fifca«*fia
tfoli9qQ,eX^ oit-t qij afl5{«* bAii si\ mii^ hlo& 9ii ,iio£'isqq<alA bsw XeatfrsaoH
.*«il* te^iijsfliPi &ssdl ,0Q€$ xo't Misitio akii 'i'tliai^lq ©vis 0^ ^'f^'^ bXwow axi
4jl5fefe Jx 4;S#t B^lXq©! •nX*:«li5Xq rfolxiw o* , sa«o axXixro ax/J- «aroo j'nfcife
not. liorentJial asked v.-hat would t -■ the whole cost but tin objection
to del'er.'iaut ' B aii3*er was ousta.ined by tiie court, u.'on 'li-al x'iK-jcry
we are not iiilcxmefi, ^t ai>y rate, pi i*.iiit il'l ■'vOicl iioaenl,hal he v/aJi
lookir.ti to /-ixJ'i I'or payment ^Jual a.Bkeil .for a cieck. lox ^3\Jw, r^oefe/ithal
said to never mind tiie cu ook bu t. t<*lk about tixe wiiole case, lmC^ <A£.ked
what it wculi cost. They t'aei. discussed t/ie entire case, xvoserithad
left, .ifter Wiiicii ixlupperich told plAiutifl' Ue dio not hcive oa.ie luoney
and was sorry lioaenthal didn't pay nim; tiiat tie waiit^d oo briri^ I-r,
Bradburn, nis attorney, over to eee pl&intiil; tiiat LradLurn whb
la:.iliar vitii soiue oi tl^iC lariLtere. Fl&intill , iie sa e, toxd i^lc*p-
p^rich tiiat he would not proceed I'urther in the case until ne re-
ceived hia ^30C, Klapiierich reoliel that riien iJradbum caiue over the
mattpr would be straitiutened out»
W? ile tnis evidence in jiateriai -atters war. contradit;ted by
evider.ce o 1"J ered in behalf ol' the defei.darit, ti^at fact is waolly
imaateriai in deciding tne question now before trie court, naiiely,
whether there was any evidence froii^ wnich xhe jury might reasonably
find defendant Kosenthul liable under hie affidavit of merits.
We hold thft evidence wae prima facie sufficient to b/iow an
original pro .iae by loosen thai to 'r.i.icii Uie plea of tne ot;,tate of
i'rauds w-13 not a bttr. x^ur^er v. ot, l-ouia lied A M.ig.. co . , 206
111, App., 256; Bettia v. Chicago Coated Board Co .. 145 111. App. ,
39u: Duzenberry v. i.i.umQ, 22y 111. App. , 44ii. Defendswit hosenthal
made no Jiotioix for a new trial in the i*uni . ipal court nor does he
argue in this court that the verdict of the jury was against the
manifest wei^^^ht of tne evidence, nor ray T)rocedurAl error. In this
condition of the record, the CiOtion for a new trial v/aa waived, f^nd
since we hold tiiat ^Jae court err-'d in allowing the raotion for judgment
notwithstanding tue verdict, it follows th-it iadgaent should be
entered in t is court on tne verdict of the Jury, Denny v. Oo_ldblatt
Bros, . Inc . . .. ^QB 111. >.pp. 325, 333. xnd hauders v. Equitable Life
no Most -2^0 «»■ >i"w^ *aoo »Xo.disr ©ilj- is»cf ijlwow #«'i.fw fc«:iei3 Xsif^'HS^oH .ioa'
tttA 'gitl-zd »;*■ jsod-aaw »ii, ^mit itaJtd x^^ i'^utlh ifsn^ne-aoH^itTOB 8jew baa
«'«5«X..a. ijXtiit. :« 8 v;«a Sii /t*Jtid'ai»X*i .a'!E«3'd\9« sd? "i© aaao-s ii^Mw xjelXliflat
,a5ii*.Bs 'io.*l\rs^iVta al/i "isaMw *»Xd"ali X«£ii'^«»BdH^iKJBBfi©*t9fi iiailc-
"i© &#i/;*.«ira ®d^ 'to jfeeXq 8ilf iiaititf - oit Xia^taaac^H .is<ir ^aJEisou^' Xf5Bti:aX«tt'-
©jl.aaafe loa i*t«©0 X«<,ii:a iflwjii arfd' iji X«liEf w«« * ^«'t aoiJoiii ©« oA^iai
©xll ianijaajR e^w ^ctiifc ^i^L:? 'to ^tsiMav «ii# ^^sjii* ^tiiQO &kti^ ixl •tt8«i"'*
ai^iJ «I ^^ot-xa JUituh'^smnq Tjn* ton ,«oa8>Mya ©xUJ 'l© ir^^ifitw ;^a6'tia«fflE-
«tiv.i ©xos^iAioa .▼ isMii*^- fi^ «-5SS' .asc .«<4A ,xxi ees ^jjis^^ssaS-.
Ineurance oocie ty ol' the United States , der., ino, 4039 5, opinion
filed February 27, 1935, not yet published.
entered in thie court on the verdict in I'avor el' the plaintllf,
Maxwell LandiB, and agalnet the defendante^ Timothy Klapperlch
and Kmil Rosenthal, lor the sum of ^300.00,
RSVERSSD Y/ITH JUIKJMSli T FOR
PL>a'vTI>T? liv THIS COURT,
kcourfly, ?, 0',, and O'Connor, J,, coucur.
/ni^ai:«i;^ 9dt 'to tov.'3't xiJt J©i|>i«T fnii ao *«aoo aid* xti bBtt»ta»
..OO.OOS^ 1o mm 9rf* rot ^XjarUxseeoH IkaM. baa
.1.*^-. T.-^.*tiip.j«a«». — I atatw
,:;,.v^-„^ ,..-::....;■■ ''■:.;" ?iA''^l^v::^-
: .(,, s^ ■■■■'•■ ■ ■•, ,■-■ ■ s^'A, ■ ^' f ft-' '-"^ '■ '» ;f 5 ;.; 'ft
,.:,,.:,.:■■.■ ■ ..-■ <■'■■'-■ ■-' ■-;■■■-■''* ■X!*''asi.i^
- . ■■.■'^',.*j - ' • ' - - ' I ' ■■ ' ■'■''■' (■ X.- '-
■ ■ , ,- - '«-"■■■ t.,-^'\-:.-^,^i - ^.J:,-.:<i^?;^' ■-■
}-:'jf ■-;>;. vss.
i^i:!. ■:'.','* •?:
.>t i'f": 'f-^' ^^ '
;! ?j.i! :'>':<. ^V *i-'* £■'•*
40439
Appellee ,
HIV e^l: bcut?it Arj.'ooci .tiou»
a oorporatlon*
>>-ppellant»
i APPjil/O- TO':!! MUHIGIPAL
} COUT.T OP CHIC.-. GO.
;
299I.A.
lER. JU&TIC:dJ MATCIL'JTT DiUVJIUiD TIIS OPimOH Q^ TEJ GOU}^T.
In an action tafied upon a "benefit certificate the plaintiff
filed her statement of claim and the .defendant i thereafter, Its
affidavit of merits. Plaintiff made a motion to strike the affi-
darit of merits but withdrew the motion. ^"he then made a motion
for Bummary judgment. Her motion was supported by an affidavit
Betting up facte, moLt of "Ahich v»ere not contradicted. Defendant
filed a counter-affidavit and the trial judge (hea-ring the motion)
entered a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of #335, from
which defendant has appealed*
The uncontradicted facts appear to be that on I'ay 3, 1936 j
liichael otark, husband of plaintiff, made application to th3 defend-
ant, a mutual benei'it association, for a membership cortiiicate in
favor of his wife, Uary. The certificate issued Hay 15 thereafter.
The certificate of membership is No. 6042 and recitec tlir^t it is
issued in consideration of the membership fee, the aijplic:ioion
executed by the member, and payment of all amountE re^iiired to be
paid by the certificate. Under the headinc "irovisions , Conditions
and Benefits," the policy ^lovides that the applicant for membership
must be in good health, have good habits, not be over 7C years of
age; that the certificate and the application attrchsd shall con-
stitute the entire contract; further, "this ,.S8ooiation assumes no
liability until the Certificate is issued and actuivlly delivered to
5 '^'^JQD (
« 9® XX Of ^ A
*Y
.?ajDo SHT 'SO wmM^t m's milium, ttshdtam siorracn; •sof
a^t.l < •i:Q#'l£©*£aiJ.,-t ,;tflji.^ft«'is& sriJ- has, ssUkiLo lo *R9iff9;Jfi*a 3Sfs feaXlt
1
tiVfi&il'ifi K.Q Y^f o®cf^oqqwQ a,£iw neidoffl 'isH *^«6£Eis&ift Y'^^'SfWKi/a ret n
• !)sXs«q4je a.«jzi J-«i>'&nsl9& iloMw
-fefltslBE) exfd oJ^ woi^JSDlXqg:^ 9&.affl , I'il.drKlj^Xq lo bnscfaijri tSftc-s^U XsarioiM
noio/?oiXqq^ odi ,©©1 qJrIa-xscfia©iK 9x1;? "io aoiii^Moblstsoo tis. 'o&ueai
ocf oi botXari/Si s*mro.Tia XX.e. lo rfnsiiPcijq ^arri-. tistSm&m odi xd bQiuoexs
(jirtaisrffiioia lol ittBoHqqa &di imU aabivoxq xsiH&q ^sli " t <siS l^&aBS. brus
to a-xasx C>V aovo sif ;}on ta;^i<fi3ii boos ©vari tdil&ad boos ni ecf ianra
-rjop LlMa b&doBiiis ttoii-QaHqKie taii brts ©.ifaoilid-^ea ®ff;f ;taii- {©^js
on BQmjiiQs. noiJxiXooaaA aM;f" ,i:©xW'xx;'l iio&iinoo ettim &di oiui^lis
0* bs:covlX©i> xJU^io.^. hm bmanl ax ©^.aoi.! JbfxsD sif:r IlL*«tf vSi-Ii-ff^sf r
-2-
.. ^ or her
the member durinc hio/Life time, «ll whne_jw_or _ghe Is in good
health." The polioy contains an incontestability clause as
follows: ".fter this Certificate shall hc.ve 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 assesj^nentB 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 und t this Certificate shall be euch as
the member would have been entitled to at the correct age. in accord-
ance with the classification."
This certificate w?,s deliverer? ::ay 15, 1936, and all premiums
were paid. Michael :-,tark, husband of plaintiff, died .Gptambor 2,
1937, and the certificate vtaB in f':ll force and effect at the date of
his death. Thereafter, in .eptember, 1937, the plaintiff submitted
proofs of d-ath. The policy pr-ovides that claims for vhich the
associn.tion is liable will be paid within 90 days after the date of
due proof of death. Defendant hat not paid the cum due according to
the terms of the contract.
The defense preeented in the counter-aff idavit is that good
health was a condition precedent without which the insurance contract
would not go into affect; that the consideration for the benefit
certificate was not alone payment of premiums but a warranty by the
insured of good health stated in the certificate and jif firmed 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 v.t. r, then in good vand vi.Torous health.
The counter-affidavit asserted these answers were false and fraudulent;
that at the time the oolicy ia.ued the insured was suffering from a
clironic venereal disease, was taking: treatraont therefor t>irice a week
at the municipal clinic and was a patient at the IllinoiP :iducr.tional
and i.eEearch Hospital. I>efendant contends as a matter of law thiit the
-s-
5og^ nl _3i &£{a ,10 QJi 9-CMw bng ,oioii s'iiXN^M sni^ii-sb iscfaift/rf oil*
aa sewBJCo %3iIid',»*»»*a0 3KJt lis aHi<is*no& voilocf srTT "« iljX r,8ff
a0o«ni;tfjoo ai *Q93{ nsetf ©v^ixl Xlijrta adr.oi'ii*"i©& aisii •x-erflii" tm/ollol
-o^isianife's *eal to 9*is5 jassl 'to aw-sal. I0 si^i> wp-sl 'li^sY ano rrol soiot
t^Icfataa^rnoofii: erf II-arfB it ^%9^Sw&el osSi I0 oaUsliJ. 9di"SRirub *a*ffl
oi 9t» sttmliMiJtmXl 9dd Jqsoxe «blisg yrjjst, nseef sv^ arfnexneesaeB 1i
i»..i^-afe..,.,94* *« *^1:is lim 9owi -SX0I: #i ?^ .d*«oJti|^;^it«.% ,«^^ .j|nB ,ve-ex
oJ^^sX&^qos »fsh aaa pdi kx K-.id isu^ha^l^ *die»b ,1o lootcq, 0ir&
» 4 * 1,;*' i'-viv ^ ■■■J?"'; : ■■- "/' • '
dit®ft«>«f erf* lol nox*B19bi^|«)0 add' tfjsiJ* t^Toel^e oini. o^ J on bXwow
&ai Xtf fco.iaiEl'ila Jtfw 9*soili;JT[»o Bdi at b&iAia diL^ed boog lo beiuatti
•rfJljsaif fttJ9xCi^ty bne boos h^ frarlJ laii* bft;> :£:1 axes^ 5 xol
tii%9lubai&'x'i brm msZa'X 97«w asewsrra ©394? b«^'i vii£ji;ll«-i«4'tttroo arfT
B asotl ■giatzBtlua aair b^-xtsBr^' ' '
IiirfOi*.go*r&£ aioi^iJtXI aft# fs #j»#i, .:.,(?qloxm.v. ■
-3-
incontectalsillty clauee of the policy is predicated upon the
existence of sood health at the time the "benefit certificate was
isr.ued and tha+ In the abBence of good health of the applicant the
certificate did not become effectire or the incontestability clause
applicable. In other words, that recovery is precluded by the
asL'ured's ill herath at the time the cortifioate issued and the
frlse and frr.udulent repreaentationB made by him in ord^>r to get the
certificate iepued. i^fendant offered to return the premiums paid
by the assured*
The language of this insurance cen.irioo.te .vac chosen by
the insur^inco company and if ambi{juous will be construed liberally
in faror of the insured. ('Tabaray* Equita ble L ife --ssuranoe Jo«b
280 111. App» 147; Baker y. Prude ntial I nsuranoe_Cjo«t 279 111. App.
10.) The certificate issued Lfeiy 15, 1936. ;vssured died ..eptember
2, 1937. This was more than one yeiiT after the issue of the policy
and the incontestability provision hr.d gone into effect. There is
no claim that the assured died from any of the cauacB specific ,lly
named in the policy v.hich 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 v/here it has been proved the condition precdont v>;.f. not
complied with. But these oases do not consider wiTother yuch a
defense is applicable where the policy contains an incontestability
clause of the kin^ which existed here, ihe rec^son for the incon-
testability clause and the construction to be givan to it is well
stated in I o w ell v . Mutual Life Ins, Qo. , 515 111. 161. The ..upreme
court said:
"Clauses in life insurance policies kno\m £-£ 'incontestable
clauses* are in general Ube , and in thiy state (Laws of 1921, page
432) and in other states are no>- required by statute. In the earlier
development of insurance contracts, it not infretiUently occurred that
after the nsured had oaid premiumt' for a large number of yeors,
the beneficiaries under the policies found, after the maturity thereol
by th3 death of the insured, clmt they ..era facing a law suit in ordei
to recover the insuranoe ; that in certain answers in the application
it was said by the insurer, the ini;ured liad made statenents which wert
not true. - -* iiecognizing this fact and seeing the effect of it on
e£5w »*^^^'^x4;2©s Jx'jsjjotf arf;* ^"^^ ^^^ i.B d^l&mt &oeg lo «oitefaJbc«
aewjgiio ■\eiJiX.tcrfi*B©;Jnooai: 9tii 'lo s>Yid-»e11t® ©laoosdr *crt bib eiaariXix^Q
®ii? ^«g ©^ i:g»i»*x© Ki axiji -^ e^«i^ a©:«i*jei^«9«©x^«>i ^neXi/bw^J'xl fen« aaXsl
Xllert&dll b©wT*snoo srf IXisr aiKJiisxcfefcc ti hsxB -^^qmoQ Qomi-xuettl J^^
• qjjA *iXI §VS t-rOO egufcBXifSg-X XJsXj^e.fotfxa «Y ^e^^g jV^X .rrfr/^. ,1X1 O^S
%ed^a^i(l9<.: b&lb l>sis:«a8A »a£^ «aX %^M. fxsuaei: s^^ailia-xs© aril , i*9X
XoXLoq. sii* l0 «weai pxfi? laitXa %m% »n» useI:* ©sea e&'w ain"? .'S'SGX ,g
ax «aerfT ♦J'ool'i© -jcfuj: sopa b^j^tf at>i&treiq TjitxXMsitasScjooni sri^t Jbts*
. T{XX.i!OllXo9qa Si&&ss&o &di lo xas fliE)^"i b©X& fes-imsa^ |i^tf.^a^*>«J:«4;p. oa
^-^^IXXff^siX «©a:t -^^risaoD ©4^ dggs^ss:© bXifOW 4»i*Cw ;^oiX^g «0* ni fesasrt
£ abfiffl ai rlilGefi boo^ srceriw Sjsri* gui&Xori s^aao ■^Xosa ae^.to d'i5sl>ffe"a;©a:
%eBi 'xlxJcL^Xq: fs YOiXoq- adi taJ&iw %4llM£i.ll o4 Jns&sosi^ noXtfibnoo
^0,n 3/w .ijaafeKiO&^iaf aoi^xbcfflo ed;t fo®vox<j; fita®^ serf. *X ©««if5sr tjevot*^ jtorx
-nooiiX ©t£^ t&l mmm% Qii'X • aT&ri bsd-Elics xioMw &,eJbI «ri^ to ©«if*Xo
XXsw al j}i 0^ kstXs ©Q Q? is^ti&ti%$amo oHi l)x» 9«ja8X«> x*i-C±Bf«*f3s.*
©sao:£(j««jidy. ad4,.XXI £^^ v.qO ,8gl glLX Iw;^tfJ8l .V XX8W0.I ni haisia
e^wq «Xsei lo a-iijjjj:) ©*j3Ja aMrf nX ftna «9«« Xjaiunsji ai sia Ui&suslo
tebto ni iiua wsS. t) shXobI s'xsv. i^orlj it.f:iifci tbstuant Qdi lo xt?.«eb exlJ v.-i
i«>,xct./5tl:XggB s?xf j ai aie'^s/ia iitlB*-i©o nl tmii jsoaatrjaiti oxii tsvooss oi
?i9w tfoixTw s;tlI9£ssc^J5^a &^)jetff barf betsjaal srf;; «aetx/ar;i ©11;^ v.r 51 -;« t^.r .. .^j-
no di ^e tfosnc ©ric^ -^ irises &jtfi #s«iS sM^ gius-tflaoo©;
-4-
as may ^e ret^erred the-ein. *4 ^i:"" i'^-* ^"^ defense, ex--Dt suoh
,:^Vfc; ?^/ ^^® mnurer must, under tv,^^ -. °^ ^' breach of
within the f.vo year T,«-r-i«^ unoer this clctuse, aiioert it" ."t, •
dpfioMoa + jt-tii perxoa, either >>-«?• r,i-r4- » "■- '-•^■t t ic^ claiia,
court c..e. to t,.e o.,« effa-t ., .^~ ■^'°''""
■til. -pp. 586; jamer ir - . •
p. 10. ^^ •'^^* -^P* 5» at
defendant jiakes the fvr-fht^- « <- ^.
lurohe. c:ntention th-t becpuse d^r^ ^ .
demanded trial hy jury anr t>, - D3..,use defendant
oy Jurj ano the cauee vva. placed on the rerul.r -r
calendar, the motion ju.h^ of fch« - ■ ^^^
,,,, ,_ ' ^ '^ '"^^ ^unxcipal court wa. without
" CO enter a summary judpBient n- 4 o
-.^.^...__jr juugment. It is conceded the
i/^unicipal court of Chicp.^o Voo
th« »nf . defendait saya that
she motion 1ud/!?p nr fv.^ n ^ . »"»•
- "" juag e of the Municipal court
to those Of « . ^"'"'^'■^ °"^y «lMlar
those Of a master in chancery or commi.Mo
jf vtr commissioner sittinp- for +t,^
contention, as a matter of law f>,«^
. ^,_„_.~..1J£ J^aw, there nas no defense to this
^laxm^on^^Uie uncontradicted facts Th« y. "Tl ^ '
';^, ; *'• "^"^^ Municipal court properly entered
the Judgment. j^t^saffimBd^ -'■-^■^^'-^'-------■^^'-^^-^..Z^
y^ozurely, p. J., ^„, O.Connor, j.. concSr"*^^ '^''^-
■ »,^.-«u«-'f, .Q3®Kie0«? ©ocf3X«sni ^^^^
«^, ....onoo «1 *l . J«St-> .X--?. ^.:^«^«^ ^i^ ««^
»rf* ■sol 3fiiJ-fa ^ „„t«±ffl^«*©& T» »80Qttffi
40449
In the it-atter of tiio Estate of
JuSliPH J. REITER, Deoeasfd.
On Appeal of lELBK DOLD,
AppelliUit,
VB,
kARIF. A, KEIT.>ja and ACiViiS A. REITSR,
Administratrices of the Setate of
Joseph J. rieiter, deceased,
AppelleeB,
;lPPJ:-al :m(;L circiiit court
OF COOK COUNTY.
299 I.A
im. JJ'JTICE ilATClfSTT t)E;LITiSRS7D TIffi OPIKIOii 0^ lira COURT.
ClaiiitUit, ueien Dold, I'iled aer deitaiad lor ^5uw at^uinst tae
estate of Joseph J, Relter in tne Probate court ol uoo^i. county and
also a petition praying its allowtaice as of tne ^iltii clasB, iue
Probate court allowed the claim as of the sixth class and denied
the prayer of the petition for prefereiice, ClaiuiEinL appealed to the
Qi rciit cou rt w .ich, July 15, 193o, er.tered an order directing her
claim be -:illo'?'ed as oi the sixta class. ClaiiLLant has appealed to
this court.
It is contended the claiui b lould have been allO'7ed as of tne
fift:x claae because it is a trust fund oit.^in the laeanint^ of clauss
5 of section 7C ol" tlie AdiL-inistration Act (111, iitaxe Lar btats. ,
1937, chap. 3, par. 71, p. 73.)
Jrou tue pleadir.fc,9 -ind facts stipulated it appears Josepa J,
Reiter Jied Auguat 7, 1936. xn nib liletiiue ue conductsd a real
• staoe, inort^^age and insurarice business at 1545 vest .)iot street,
Chicago. September 1, li<36, tne Prol-ate court entered an order
glTine: l--ave to the adiiinistratrices of his eBtatf» to carry on the
businees i or 90 days, wiiic tiiey did. At tiie dpatii of Joseph J.
Reiter tne cliiuant was tne nolder of a note lor *6500, executed by
harry A. Larxe aiid Aiuia Juar^e, his viie, o. July 30, 19 24, due 5
years irom late and at maturity sxtended by atreeiiient lor five years.
U^O^
'to 7.s:.i,i-':. ••)--.. to tr't,Tjp. - ;u;j .ax
T ■•-■ /'5. ^
^4 iW^Sj»qo(.k
'^jsa-: Id; ^(^<|i;..^o
. '1 V
,9SfjLX©qg;A
.ThUOu
^oia.i«iQ m^ aa^vi4ao TxausTAJir ssissia- .jjm
:n
, 1 , -
■sad afli*09il6 i^bto a» ftstsiTa® ,«i6ei ,€X ^Xtit, ,dajtx!w ^ijjo o jitJOi iO
., .f^i >
ijsa'i £ J9»itojuAaoa ©xi «iid#»liX ai4 a3J , .M<IX ,r^^^^^^^^
,iy»i*8 ;raxe #a9W, £*^X,^f* afieal«juti- '©oflSB^w'fi'^i
)9*jioex« ,OOS64 Wt »*©« « T:e i^jfcXo^ •A^ ««* tfm.^
L:d
'XBiV.
im .*ia hrtft 9*£f! iUOl't 81JS9Y
Thic note h.id been rec^uced by p^i^-ifients lo the orincipal gaaourj-*, oi'
'$4500, and payin«»nt tliereol' had "oeen aaRUined by Carmen iUrcitri ?.nd
;ieler Arci^ri, his vTii'e, who ii. the year 1925 purcjias^d the real
• state known as 6205 ooutii rfaohtenaw avenue, Ohicago, whioii liad
"been convayeJ to Jooaph J. Relter as trustee to secure the pay.'iicnt
of the iniebt«dness rei'Tesentad oy tne xiote. I'^ their ter-i-s tiie
note c-ni iiiterest cou.-onB were ijayax-le "at the oii'lcf o3" Joseoh J,
Reiter in Chicago, Iliii.uiE, or 8uc-. otrier place in eaid Uity as
the l«/al iiolder ti.ereol" uiay Troi^i time to tinje in writing appoint,*
Prior to the death oi' Joeeph J. Keiter the Arcif:ri6 ol'ten
made payraents of iviterest at t'ie ol'^'ic'ee ol' the decea5':-ri, frho
thereupon notiJ'itd lielen Dold ol' fiuCii payments arid upon surrtnler
of the intereBt coupons would turn ovor to hei ti'.e moneys so naid,
Octoter 27, 19 34, tlie Arcieris paid to deceased $500 Icr vrhich he
issued a receipt 8howin£ it t/hb to he applied in reduction oi' the
principal inde> te.iness, Tiie exte;.sion provided I'or interest pcy-
mrrits on JanuATy 30 -ind July 30 ol' eacii year and ior "the privilege
to pay iJ500,00, or more, on any interest- 'ue date." Jhis ;?500 paid
October 27, 1'. .'54 , is ti^e subject matter oi' thi « controversy, The
books .-tn'^. records ol' deceased c ntain accounts kriovm as "xctes
Payable account", "i'irst x,.ortfcia£e Loan riccount" ani "'D'---. is-
eellaneous Accounts," The "Itoies i'ayable Account" snoirb the I'jl-
lowing entries ol' notes raade by deceased and delivered to trie
claimant, Helen "Dold, or h^r order;
Date ol' Ixote
Amount of
A ote.
October 4, 19 34 v2000.00
December 14, 19 34 1w.0,l>0
January 5, 1935 lt._0.00
May 19, 19 36 1500,oO
Amount of
Interest
Date of
i.&turity
6% per annum On or before 3
y ar? '-fter date
6ii per annum 3 y::ar» >Xxf^r d-ite
65^ per annum 3 years after date
6% per annum 3 years after date
The claim of Helen Dold l-.-^sed uoon the n.-tes above desorib
Qd
sil' rioxiiw "xo'i ooet &9a.t;9 09£» eJ feijs^i exic«ioiA ©xl* ,>5l?r ,Tlf TtscTod'oO
»B»Xlyitei ad*" lo't baxs %mx liajs* *io OS ^jXtfl- &«e 05 x'^Jsaaat no ai'ff«flt
bUa, OOaf airfT " .©Ja.b ©jaf;-^«9i9;ttil xm no ^atcai 10 ,OO.Opeig -^JB? ot
jiial'Oii'* «ij rmooii eiauoooe ai«J;ijt) fci=>8*ias>afe 'io aJ^TtoosT fcoa v^ipptt
«jji|ii— -»CI»» fetus "JniJoooA .a£©4. »a#»*'a:«M£ i'W'JcJt'i" ,**tfMoooA ©XrfjB^«^
-Xcl; srU B'worls "i^ajuoooA sXcfjs^a'C «ia;Jr®(S'' »ii5E !« ♦«i^^Xi^ooaA euosflaXXsp
,;«»fcTto 1J94 "?o »AX|>a_^X»J^ ..,taBffluU»X»
' 'to eiiaa to *rtjrio@t& ■ 1;© liKSfoiaA •HSU 1:0 »ifAt
borflTtoBiS'lt ovocf,6 a»f ofl »rf;? noau feft«^(f bXt0 n- '"
8
was file(^ in the Probatf! court ol" Cook county and allowed r.B *.
non-prf I'erreri clain; and is ziot involved in tnie apoeal, .'.he pay-
ment of '^500 made to Joseph Keiter and suoeecuent •?! tries rcfe,arding
it anr-ear on the books oi' Rfiter as I'dicvrs:
lis CASH BOCK: ijebit Jredit
October 27, 1954 .^-'Irst iortg, loan---ArciRri---
357 Garir^en Arcieri pa.ymftnt i 500, 00
IE L^DCtER: Debit Credit
"i'irsL i«i.rt^a(i,e .uOHTi A-jcouJit"
October 27, 1934-— Arcieri R 357-— Arcieri pay-
ment 23 " ^500.00
T}ie Looks 8Jr,.o>' no lurui.er e:.tri?;s Iroj.^ October 27, 1C34,
up to 'alj 31, IP 36, or. 'Viiich date f.iese entries r^ppear:
IN JCUHKAL Debit Credit
L^uly 31, lv36 -i-'ire't ii^ort^^age Loan a/c $500,00
_— rielen Dold ^500,00
Arcieri .r-ay::. u.t x.o.-:j'i
R 357 aade 10/37/34
li. LiiDOiiR: Debit credit
"D riisceli,ar.eoas acccurits"
July 31, 1936 — — d^len Dol-l— Arcieri R 357
payiv.ent 10/27/34 J 146 ;J5G0.00
Tae booics of tae deceased do not contain ir.l orii.ei.tion ir.di-
cating that Reiter during his lifetiiae gave notice lo t-.c claimant
of the paymeut oi' this 1^500 und the euployees (iuanager, etc) of
Kuiter since October 27, 19 34, uave no knowledge whether auch
notice Was or *a8 not ui^en by tae deceased to claimant, I'ue
Aroisri aiorL.at,e loan provided lor tae pi/i^ent of 6/» interest at
se^iii-annual due dates, as soon thereafter as paytuent of iiiterest
h&l been made to Joseph J. heiter by the Arcieris h« would pay to
e
^ 4|ii &®woXXs bm -^d-nuoe iooO to j-'ijuoo ©;t«d"o'jt<I 9iii nx bsXl't saw
:8woi.io"t 6.M -xsii^H. 'io eioocf sri* no iJ8»or<jJ8 #1
tlb9%0 tl<^9<L '.TLOOS. ykAOKl
OU ,0051 iTr»ia^i;q lisiotA aauBSfiiO VQS. ' ' , '
-Xsq, iisxo'iA- — Tag H i-xsisxA— — MfiX ,VS rrsd'od-oO
--^Ai
. oo.ooa^ o^1ftea5~9i«i7i0^dr>Ti'i --•--§£ ex ,X5 -^x*^
00. 00c # hloCi tteX-H— —
i^£\vs\ox »]5»*iK res a
— -V5C H iioxoxA—tXoC: rt9X»K — -figex ,XB ■^Xi/l*
«.+ xr^ff &x«ow ftii HxisioTC^. »xL' Yd •xedrX&a .Ti ilqdaoX. ot 9iiata tweef I>bx1
claimant ■1135, 6% of ^i4500, and t'le buiu ol' $4500 constituted the
balance '^ue on th«? mort^rage note held ty claiii^ant vitiiout deduction
ol' the #500 payment wuicn was madt OotO'er 27, 19;54. Th-? 1 ri»t rjay-
by
ment of intprest madj/the deceased during his lifetime to clai'..art
appear* on lia books and records thus:
II< Cash BOCK; Debi t Credit
Vebruary 4, 1936 Interest Arcieri H 357 /30
ielen Dold .^135.00
oorue time after the deatii of tie iter whicli occurred August
7, 1936, the atorney for hie fsiate aubruitted to Helen Dold lor
her sif.rnature her claim against tne estate, whicii nad been prepared
by Joseph A, Kicker, froti infora'.ation received by liiui frons the ad-
luinistratrices. rhc^ claim s^iowed in addition to deii. -3^:138 for notes
payable to her arid executed by deceast»d an item of -i^SOO wuicb. was
the payment made October 27, 1934, A few days thereafter claimant
called at tae place of cusinese of deceased and ol the adinii.istra-
trices of his estate and inquired why she had never been inforcied
that ^'■'500 had been paid on .ler fliort,-;age note, ^:.r. Jolm i^. Krump
wit i whoii' she talked tcld her he nad not been giyen authority by
dsoea&sd to speak 'A'ith her about the matter, as deceased in his
lifptiffic undertook to personally har.dle de.ls oi' that nature,
i^'or more than 15 years iijaediately preceding, the de-ith of Joseph
J, Heiter, kr. Krump was one of his trusted eaiployees, r!jring most
of that time acting as manager of tlie busixiesa, ClaliJiant 'luring
that time often dealt with ii-r. Jiraxiip in connection v;itii iier trari tac-
tions with the fim. of Joseph J. Reiter. In .^ovember, 1936, claini-
ant advised the ad;iii^ istatrices tiiat she df^sired to sell the
Areieri note vthia. showed an unpaid principal balarice of $4500,
She was advised by ! r. Krunqp, oifice mcynacer, that they would en-
deavor to sell the same for HCOO , the aaiount rei-aininj., dae, and
shp then turned the mortgage over to tr.e :^d:.ar.istratrices to sell.
;>'a6.2X«Xo oJ saiiJ-s'txI ®iif ^al^-isb fose«e©«l) 3rl;t\^£i^m ;tB!!»i9cJ'ni: 'to ^nsm
OO.SCX^. bl&a a«X»H
««w itoiiiW 00<5| to fflsifi na .Majseoaib t<J' fc»#uo»xi9 fcisft'ifflrf od^ aXcfe^Aft
$a&ialiUQ %&i't69t9d3f axs^b w®'t,A .I^K^i ,VS rtftcfoJoO •fcaai *ndJSsv:«g art*
-«t#eiiixflii}« arid to lux«5 Ms^soeii 'to aasaiaiio 'to »OJBXq oxij^ d"» fisXXso
|)ftijno'ciii noatf lavart b«xi dM t^w fi(»itittp«i Ijoa ^utisi"** eirf io asoiii-
QuijuTiii .id OirloX .xal .9*00 ©gaB^tofia ■tail a© feijBq nsstf bisil OOQ^ **ri*
vrf ^*ii<w:{d-ii*j n©Tia a^ad J[oa t&d »ft rtsii J^Xoi' JbaaClB* ©ila ftiojtlw flJiw
nisi ni fiseasoefe •« ,t9;rd-eia «iW ^i/ocfa ^©ri lid-iw jJiAOQa 0* Sita&9o»b
.»riiii?.a tiixii 'to sX-ssfi oXfeiuixf tXX«iM>s<«4 oJ- jlood^isfcru/ »nil*8T:iX
dq^aol 'to rii*«9fc ©rU -gntMoBtq X^etaiMami' 8i«fl:j 3X naxiJ •rto« «©t
#Bora a«iiiJf> ,8»9-y;oXqifi® l>sjainJ atxi 1© 0«o b^w qsojxS »«lt ««i#i»a .t
-oa^iiao:* -'isiiil^iw rf©i^o»ilEtoto m -<|saL«ia .-x-M i«* ii*' tXii*» ■!»* 't :-^'b^'
' ■-..:.»<£* XXnB- Oi h»%i.9i^h9M--S-Mm eeeixd-ed'aiitiiilw' ^ii* fc9axvfc£ 3'n«
..■j08^# l^%&a»X«rf X«tjl6-«fcfe«'t J»^qrt«- «• fc«w<»^ £f«J;tfw »*'0H ii©io*xA
-«© |>Xwow t«ia^*«i* *^«>SJScy«a ©oi^'U ,««^2l . ..*ie.tvbc ejgti' drffi
bm '^«ub ^ttlaisiismi Aawoows »Jt<r .OOO^^ tt>t o«m« »ri^ -xowftt
The adininistratriccB tnen caused to be put oii tne note aii endcrse-
ment eiiowing the payment of ^JSOO. Tiie mortaat^e was sold ly the
administratrices I'or MOOO, wuicn was paid to claL.iant .uid 3.ie. wae
adTlsod by Lr. Krurap to i'ile a claim in the Prooate court against
the estate of Joseph J. Reiter,
The question lor decision here u )on tae stipulated 1" cts
is whether this clai. . i:3 for uoney received by the .iocaased "in
trust for any purpose" within the laearjing of clause 5, section 70
of the Administration Act. We miiyit be disposed to hold tiiat it
is, were It not for tlie narrow conatruction put by the courts
(incl'Hin.v our ovm) upon tne 6t.:i clause (now tae 5th) of section
70, We have recently (^-iven consideration -o tj^is question in con-
nection with sinotlier claim at^ainat this estate. Our opinion will
be found In the i^atter of the Estate of Jose.-)h J. Reiter^ deceased.
298 111. App, , 313, We there quoted with approval froia the opinion
of this court in Mcrcliante* X-oan & Trust Co, v. -iulette . 137 111.
App. 161 (AVet.) es follo'.vs:
"It has been repeatedly held by tiie courts of tuis state
that the word 'trust' as used in the 6th clause (now 5th clause)
appli-^s only to tec'iiiical or ex-oress trusts, arid tnat it nas no
application to trusts wiich the law implies as growing out of
contracts. ?«?1 sen thai v. ill in e . 214 111., 121; Svanoe v. Jur.i-ens,
144 111., 507; ^ord v. First .National Eanlc . 100 111, App,, 70;'
■■^_iphqrd v. i'^urpess, 153 111., 590; V/ 11 son v. Kirby . 33 111. 536;
Jarrptt v, Jonns on^ 216 111., 212. \7e are clearly of tne opinion
that the facts ii. this case do rot establish aii express or technical
trust. The trial court t-T^-refcre properly pli-ced tn-:^ clai;-. in the
serenth class. (I\ow 6tu class).
In gelsenthal v. Kline . 214 111., 121, tne dupreiue court
said: 'We have uniforudy held that the word "trust" as used in the
sixth (no'.v fiJ'th) clause, is not to be ta.^en in its general sense as
embracing every case in w.iich a confidence has been rnosed, but
must be understood in the restrictive sens-?, and applies only to
tec'irical trusts, 'laving no application to trust which tne law
implies as growing out of contracts, ( Wilson v, jJirby. 83 111,566;
Svanoe v. Jurf:gns . 144 id., 507; Shipherd v. J'urness . 153 id. 590.)
Tliere is no construction of the facts in t;-.is case ^'i.icu can bring
it witnin the defir.ition of a trust as dpfined by tt-r-se decisions,
and the courts below have each properly placed it in the seventh
(now sixth) c^-ass, '*
Tncse rei-.arks are applicable to the facts presented by tiis
ajBW 9xi«3 bfxr. d^osral^Io od" lii^q saw rfolxlw ,0001^1. 10't seoliJ'JBlJBinlfliAi
»ii?i'x»fl .t ricfaKoX. 'to a^jeJ^as »iiJ
aitoiil feis>;tfiliiq:i*a arid- aoou snsjtf nolexosft lol noi;|-8ewp oriS
ai" B9ei.'©o&I> oxid- i^sf fi^visoai '^snom Tot ei ./itiajts sijSt ipjtfi'erf^- al
ii. i:»M blQii o& fioaoqexi) dcf ij^ri^iim. sW ,»itoA noid-B'x^fsinimljA sxl;)' to
ad'xwoo ©iij ■^ccf ij£;q {tQtiQxstiBii&ii woiiiin ©x[;t 'ip't j-on *! a-syw ,8i
noxipsa 'to (iWc; ©xl* woi:f) ©eij^slo rid"c) axid" noc[iJ {sswo xvo ^jnibijXoni)
XXiw nolniqo XiiO *sd"«J8© gliij ;t8fii4;s« wi^^Xs "xadionB Aikv. noltopa
., .X,XX,^t§X > 9 ^ <^ 9 Xi^E . y t ffp „,, j'Jji.'iCiT ,^ ± , .J-.t^.o g^ J,gi ftej'l§;?JPJ! «! *i«oo ai;,jcf*..t©
:9-vvoXIo't a.s (.J-scTA) X9X
(©sjjbXo xidS won) ssl'^Xo x{;t6 ©XTtd" ni besx- 3£ 'craxJiJ' btov? srl* j-sxi*
on e/iil c^x i^iit bits ,K3"SJk;id- aasioxa i(? XBOXffiiosd od" \;Xno eelXqqjB
'to isjo anxwo'xa S£i aslXcfini w^X exld- aoixlw s^SAfi:}- od" Moi^jBolXqqB
^enegifa-l .7 sooBVci ;XSX , .XII I^XS .:;'j:sxj:a ..y Xj3x::fns8Xf?'g ,e.&o&'ii(iOQ
~;0T « ♦"qc{A .III OCX ,^'is5- M^£AtE^LJl?£l. jJLJ^j^I '"^^^ ,.xxl ^*x
,-d£i3 .XXI 88 ndtlil ,v n o a XI W ~.':>Q?, \ .III SSX ,e^sxnJJ'^. .7 fe?ejJfl/rX^.
floinxqo 9xi* xo x;I'Xi3SXc. 91^3 sW .SXS ,.XXI dIS , fipsxmoT. ,y .j-jii^jiil]?.
XBoiartoaJ" no aaoiqxa fits xis IXdxscfas d-on oJ!> sa^o sixid- nJ: ed-o.R't 'nii inA-^
9xi* nx liiXjsXo 9x1^ £)S03Xq \;Xi9qoiq aio'tsisrij Jixroo Xalti 9XlT .d-sutj
*(a»sXo iid-3 wo:^) .aaeXo xid-navfta
d-xxjoo 9Xii9iaw8 9xia- .XSX , ,XXI *X2 .sftxXa .y XBxid-nagXs'S: nl
©ii* nx h&Bii m "d-SiJid-*' i&'iow srU J-jbxIj- BXsri y,Xsmol!inij flVijrf »W' :bXB8
sa saxiQB Ijaienos ad-i ai n©>:sd scf od- d-on si ,9aujsXo (ifS-'tx't v^oi^j xl'd-xxa
iiid ,l)©aocfo"x iiftod" a,exi eoxxfiiti'ixtoo £s rIoJcxiw ax saso xi9Y« snlo,eicfBi9
od ^rXflo aexXgqs bmi .eaagja eTxd-oi'idB©oc exld- nX boaiBT&bnu acT ^axrxa
w«X 9ffd- xioixiw cTairid- ojT noid-^oxXqqxi on aaxvBXl ^adsxiicf Xeolrirroa;^
•695. XXI bC .iXcrsi;^ .y n oaXxW ) »ad'o£-xd'noo *io duo anxwoia aa -asxlgxax
'(.oee .bi £5X .sasaxau "t l>-xax»:gXAci ;!COe ^..M U-l . BXW^xiiX^^ v_9£n«28
anxicf xxBo iioxiiw sB^o'iii-iF fxi a*OB'i exU "to xiold'oxjid-anoo oxt ex aiexix
,anoxaxo&D ©aexid" \<i b'dnft&b a« ifaxxiJ a 'to aplf Ixix'ioi) ©rid' alxtdlw ^Ti
if>a©v©a ©Jd* xii *1 MoijXq \;Xi©4oiq: xtoiJ© ©vjexI: troXgcf ad-TWoo ^di bae
sirid ^d foe*rx9a©rcq aJo.el ©xfct ocT ©Xd'^oXXqq^ ©xs aafT-^xoai ©aaxiT
record. Claiui;urit does not aeaert tliat aae 1b able to trace Car
trust I'und into the estate ol' Joseph J, Belter as did claimant
in 298 111, App., 313. It lollows that the judgjflent ol" tha
Circuit court will be affirmed,
'■ """"^ " — — AFi'IRiiuSD,
itcburely, i, J., arid O'Connor, J,, coxicur.
..■^.,■ t ♦■•■i'l!"'. 4^. ■••«». >•»«««
-f >
.l^:'^<'^
:..«^J:'lii'*A ^n-ii &
40462 4/lC^-^ \y
) A
LUKDE & BUSWEIJu, U.O, , a Corooration, ) >/ /y
App e i i cUi t ■.-^.^---'^ ''^ '
vs. J ii?P/:Ai. KHOi; MUJN-ICIP.X
)
TREtONT iOTORS, liiC. , u Cor :)oration , ) CuURT OP OrilCACK).
kJA, justice ItATCIffiTT DELIVERED Tim OPIiaON 01^ THE COURT,
, In aii action on contract a^^airist tiiree corporaticiiS, ired
liarlvins , Inc., ilav/xcins Arei.oiit, Inc., and Ireiiorit; motors, inc., on
account oi" preiuiiuas allefeed to be due on insurar^ce ijoiicies as per
sc^i^d.ilG attacaed to tae Btalejiient oi" cliiiiL, tae lirst two naoied
cornorations defaulted dTid judg^aent v.aa re/idered against theui.
TreiT-ont motors, ir.c., i'iled an afl'idavit ol' ii-erits denying liability.
There ras a trial by tde court ^ ith finding I'or delexidant rind judg-
Eient froBi which plairitif^f jatppealB,
The statement of claim averred t.^at all the policies i'or
which pre.iujr.o were claiiaed to be due rere delivered to defendants
and accep-:cd by them. iiie atateiuent furtner cuarfcied, "iiiat the said
dclenduuita aro in c-.rlockinti aiid eucceuaor corporations to each otner,
arid becanie succesfcors .utnout i'ull coaipliuncc witii wic ijuik tiales
Lar of the State ol Illinois, 'jnd taat by re >son uucrfeof eacn and
all thereof iiave become toj i ure now Jointly .ind severally liable
for the entire amount ol' dtui.and, "
Tre^ ont -otore. Inc., denied Ij; its affidavit, of iftpritB that
the policies listel in the schedule were purchased or secured for or
on ita be alf ; denied it was liable lor collection find pajiiient of
or
preriiuBiB sairl i.o be due; ieni^^d trie policiee /any of them were de-
livered .0 tiiP riefendant by plaintiff or accepted by defendant, ar.d
denied tn^t it was an interlocking or 8ucce;:..or corooration with
respect to co-rief enlants, or tiiat it pure lased any of its assets
from citaer co-defendant, or tnat it faile>. to coi.ply •<^ita the Lulk
3Si
no , .Dili ,axoJo-»i laos-aiT ££1js , .aal ,Jaoiis*ii' aaisiwjsjK , ,onI ,sfti^w»II
•S&tft feat cra»ljiio J:9i> -xg': ^aibnt'l rijxw ^laoo ©rij- x^ i»iiS b bjsw siexfT
,aX&5»q<;ie TtXJ-ni*iXq; x/oi^*' fflot'l 3"a»iB
fclse srfd- J^fiu*'* , f)sa'J'3-'^o isiivt-xux ;^aaiu8Jjsi« axil .fli»r.[j \;cf Ssi-gaooje Sn«
asXija ;iXu*i oiw ai^iw sotu^iXqaoa XXi/l ^uois^iw a-xosasooiie Q£s»o9<i bojs
ba& sioaa 'iotiasiijr aoa,;©'x \;d 3-jBa* feae .sioaiiXl to t^i&t^ o&i 'io ««<I
eXvf«iX "(cXXsiavsis fcoi; xXd'nxot won sis tim «ist>o»cf •▼«£( 'iosiori* XXa
j^iiJ- B^i^em t© ilvidbi.Vt& ail id ^sJfcnel* , .o»^I ,8to^o«i jfao.aaiT
10 lo't feaiiJosB to hfiSiiiki'tuq sn;j5W sXt/lioxios «j^ii^ fll b»*8iX stloJtXof »ii*
'to ia&arcaiq has aolitiellQH loi aXtfalX 8^w ;^i ft-jiasi) ?'tjteri«tf a*! ao
TO ■ .
-»i> ««s>w ma^ 'to Ynje\^9J!'»^^oq oili- l>9li^l> ;•»& »«f o* fei«a amuxaisaq
8i9S8fi 3>ti 'io Tjni? fjseBXio'iwo Si >-t<5fW tco .a^aaJbfiB'tefe-oo 0* ioaqasi
Sales Law.
The evi.ir'r.ce tei.ve'^. lo pho* that del'tnidia. Lb sjcc est ivfly
engaged in the i-ener&l autonoiile pXiO Huto...oi lie acceesorife tuai-
neer, 1'irst , js Frecl uavkinc, Inc., at ?^24l.' So-itu "f'uijreh av'riuc,
afterward ae ^av\ine Trer.iont, Inc., at 30 xio-Bt i^&jie B'rfcet, u/.ioago.
As a D.f'f-ter ol" f -iCt , t^.ese tvo corooratione -rere not &cparace and
i^lstirict, yrefl Kawl;ins, Inc., merely ciicXfeec its na;'.* to rig.wkino
Treir.ont, Inc. . rv ?.9 , 1536, Peter Trei;.ont acoairf'd Uie uoidirgs
ol' his forr. r associate, i?'rM lia^Jcine, ir tiie tvo corooraticns
first naTiei, At thnt tirjp it would appear f^ter Tremcri t wub e
heavy ereditor oi' tf/e c:or->oration . June 22, 19.'^a, irei'.ont riotijied
the cr'^'Utcra of i'red Jiaw^iins, inc., that .le Lp^A on i. ay 29 acquired
the Interest of ^^rod Hawkins in ti:e coroor&tlon ;'or t/ie purpose of
preveiitiri! an unavoidrble lorced liquidation of tae ruaiiiess '"Jith a
hee.-«ry lo?5 to cre-il. tcrfl .?jici total loss lo st-jcknoloeis; t.i.at mors
thorouo^.i i'lVostiar.t ion had disclosed tiiat under tne tnen circim-
etances the coror>ravion could not function properly bejauee of Its
inatility to r;ieet obli^.-Ltions v,-it,. isileted a£::exB; tiint tue Jlnan-ial
con-litiDn of tne loraoration v/as tiiat tiers rere li-.'bilit^ itccounts
payahl-^ for ,U0,?6'i, 33 including olaim iu =? to txe .jtute oJ' Illinois
to t>ip ^.mount of $2,724,05, which was a preferred alaiia; uic] tuere
were not^s payable of :>S,220; accrued payroll and interest was
$707.63, and factory accounts pavatls i9-42,4o. This, the staleruent
said, ^ii not include accounts payable to Xxie fin.uice coutpcOky, the
greater portion of which was believed to be secured; that the assets
consisted chiefly of accounts and notes receivaLls to the approxi-
mate arnount of .^10 ,9a2,'3 v., , tne actual Vilue oj -.v.iich ahs doubtful.
The only other assets ware equities in used cars, Hpproxiru itely
|5,000, and the mac inery ^md fixtures located in the preii.ises
carried on tue corporation • f* booKs as ol the value of 44,700. The
notice .'ent on to cay triat a plan had been i or^-ul-ted *;'iic.i was con..
s
bile »j«ajsq9« ^ofi s'law anoiJjB^oq'ioc ow;t ©8«iii ,^a^1 'io i9it:J'«m a bA
Xj8i*flj»ni'^ •ltd' ^fi-dd- ;«d-0S3« fe®l9.Xt»^:>i^ii» |i,0Oj^4»)iiiI«r<J i9»m oi %^,lli.(S»at
ai*«iXXl 'ip si^ijJB ©fi^r p* m;^- «iaXo gail-«Xo«i SJ?,>aS,pX0 «S'i/«>WjBT|^iI
8«w.^a9tsd-i-ii JbOK XXo-ssis^ fe®j;«ao« ,{OSS;,,,at 1.ie,.*X(f&t«t: t®*«^^^^
immJMs QdH ^sirfi' ,0^,ef^e.v sXifjs^js^ S*aAfo»a« >PE.#*(»a1^.^
ditional upon 1 1 r. accsntarice ty the creditore t>y '"iiich ono oi' the
o I'l' i c --^rs -IT-' ctodc'iolrlers, to regain part o^ a aube trUiti&I inveet-
ment, was willirii, to idvanoe laor'? l"or the "busiu^sa; tiiut t.iia .'aidcli-
tlonal mon(?y '"ould enable the coiiip;jiy to jiny the ore^U i-or» a sum
equal to 20.:' in oash in settlet;ient. The notice ooirit.-il out that a
forced liquidation 'voulvl mean trer.iendnus Iorb to creoli'.ors arid
■ tronr,ly ur^ed accepti-ince oi' tue- ol'i'er. The rtateiuent was signed
■fay Freer.ari & Freet.an, attorneys^ I'or Tremont,
June 26, 15 56, Peter Treuont notiJiPc: the cre-^itors that on
July 1, I'-'iJe, he had parciaeed the entire ^He&ets of : «,wkine Treii-ont,
Inc., l"or C^4,100 and would pay the cr€*ditorB T.0 1 in coi^oositicn ol'
t'-ieir drnarrlB. lo cre.^'itor, so far .-.x tha lecord «ho"a, ',.~.ie any
c'bjpction but ol.-'intiff reiused to accept the 20,/C offered to it,
June 29, 1536, Peter 'jira:(ont caused .he ueJ'endant ireuont
Ikotors, Inc., to Ire incorporated, xhe stock ccneisted of luO sunrea
oonmion and of par value ol* iilOO a ehare v^ith 5-- s iares iaeued
(#P,COO consideration) to be received t.ieri^for, and the eEtiuiSted
Yalue of ibroTjerty to te ov^aed for the follo-vinji year, #10,000, ihe
(CTOfB aiix^unt of >~iisinpep to he trejfifiacted :"urin,^: tr.e year was esti-
mated at #50,000. Incorpor&t ere v^ere Peter C, Treuiont, harry 1,
Pr^eman and A, hornfeld. ('r\ the /iret day of July, 1636, t':;i» cor-
poration went into tiie orci-uises theretniore occupied by tue otiier
defendant corporations Jind too-v over r. ae buBiriese ourcaaeed froru
Tremont, The business wae later re. oved to 483i3 Oottaf^e urove ave.
The evli'^nce 'Ofs not siiow v'i-At any of the policies of in-
surance (all of which v-ere out8t;i.. lin,, -^t the tirte tiie Ireiuont iotora,
Inc., ^ap incoroorsted) wpre ever delivered to it. It does saow t-iat
Peter Vreaont reouested the assi^nrcent of these various poiicies to
the n<»w corno ration a^d tixat nl xintiff endorsed thea but tae insur-
ance ooiupanies refused to accept the endorse/nent and, as a laatter ol"
fact, on Aagust 13, 1930, cancelled txie policies for non-payment
<"4a»v«i; I^ 14 fife J edi/a ^ lo itxttq; flijBj^dTL o* ,eT»i)j:oxfaloo*a Rru- at^olllo
m/s jm 610^ I b» to litis x^'^l "^^ Y.^^is:Mop 6nS sXdjsiis jbiuow ■v;9nofli Imaolt
a audi- isjo trtAnioq «oi,to.a sxi'X ,.tn&i'B©IJ*9e nl jc{a*p ax SiOS o3" XjBwp*
«»ijsj£ia OOX 'to fee^'slaaoo :riL0&:f3 4iSi: ,*»*«'SOQ"Jooal 9^f oJ- ,"***''^ 4»to*oM
j&«»(i3«l esi^ite 0€ ^y^Jtw di^jEis fi OQX| to oifXev ic^q I0 ^fte .nofflfB$>9
&«jts!iixiai9 dxU baa ^%0%-irsp:;^ ^©vlsofi dcf 0^ (aoJtjju^sJbiaao© OOP,a$,)
-•too aiiiS .Sg^X ,'^X«t 'io ^«fc i'aiil sxiJ' xtQ 4^X«'t«iQ4 .A liccB aaflts»W
.©re ©voix) ©i^crJ-piJ as^*' o^ b^rm^&i le^jaJE saw f||»«4ewtf .9«t|..... .r^-^-^' •"'*'^
•al to ©©iolXoci 9xW '1© -^tta #<Bii*/w©iflB $^tt mob s»»n»4>|yi$ ©xCJ
,8io:foM. *flO(H©i1! «iW »iali 9cli fs. gniftasJa^u© ©i|»w jglaii^ "i«» XX^) -
#j8ii* wofi« •»# *X .*! 0;i- fo9asvli9^ tsy© f«»f |l>*|f?ott5ii!«|«4^«*- ^. ■-
Qi 8©l»iXoQ: •tfoJcxBV »S9sLi 't© ^a®ifflB^|af«^ ©d* ,.fc©.*«aiip©*i trroT-^T? T9*«f
of prei-iiuma.
Pl^inti:"!' ar.iriiea iii ViQ 1'irst place t..at ti.ie TreMont
liotorc, Inc., 1? llaVle on the tiieor;/ t.iat the ''irectore oi" fa; in-
solvent corooration are truataes : or tlie credi our'? ;-.n',i m'.-.y no'i pur-
chAB© the trust property to aecuie an advar tai;<» to thcrriE elves Aver
thp creflltorB. All this io quite true, but plalrjtil"!' did not ;;.ue on
t>:at theory ror tr" its caee ai- ti et tr eory. The reeor'- j'ho*B no
suggostion either ir. the nlefdin;. or tJ::.e evi'^ence to^t del'er.i^ant
corporation ^ ab liatle in a ruit £.t luw 1-ecauce tuere had teen a
fraudulent transfer of property to it ty the foriucr corporation.
That such was not the tUeory i& evii'ert froja the fact tnat Peter
Trer.ont froia whom defendant corocraticn took title was r:ot made a
party to the aait. l^o ju'^.jiiont can be :,.j£r-n against nim iu this
proce r-dinG. Plaintiff cannot in t.iis court sncure tue reversal
of a jud .ment on a tiiecry nov«.r oresf-.jt id to the trial court.
Havward C o. v. lurdorff- J-icicnell Co . , 36 5 1 1 1 . , 537; aeiainf-^ t on j^^
Krenn & Dato. Inc. , 239 111, App. , 546; liaticnal Loci v Co. v. Sr/orr^f
Co., 290 111. App., 42; Lawspn v. Jo r/orian . 253 ill. i^pp. , 4,-^1,
Plaintiff, ho^'ever, su^.^eets tnat in the municipal court ix. a euit
on contract the ri ta oi' the parties deym-d or. the t-vidence nnd
are not controll*»d by th" plea-iingB. It cites '.Valeh v. i 'all ie.
266 111. App., 341, --u!^ '»V>rtheii.>er v. Ulrjig . 277 ill. App. 339.
Thene cases ar#» not aDplicahle to thiK record, I^ is true tnat
thif» court wil] !ot ir t.iis class? of casea vh-re an i^eue has
"broen ' ried out reverse nerel: iu order to require parties to file
better pl'^r^dings. Tlxese and otmr uasea no .^ola. >/a have never
held that this rule -.Till ta applied ir. a case ^..ere a o-^rty seeks a
reversal on an iesue never precentevi. irx i^ny 7?ay i,o tne .rial cjurt
an-^ urged for tae lirst t ir-.e in the Appellate court. The unft^ir-
nesB of such a practice fuunt be appjrcut.
"laintiff aleo contends Jef pu lunt e ould be neld licble
on the taeory that wh^re one corporation makes a ccnve^ar.ce of its
-i0q ^-OF! ^^.^./a brtK -ii'iC'j il^eio 9fi^ T.u'r sf^^isini atK aoiJctoc'xoo Ja9/Ioa
«o aiis jorf fei'b "ttiJfjJ.ijXcf ^iuf ^enrti 'Hitsip ai eia? IXA *eidi-Jt?i0^o ©iJf
on 8W0rt"3 M©©»'X ssrft .■'gtoeiiiC ^(8«>t -?»© ©--s^o sji x'X!^ "suji-j ^iosjcI* *«fl#
.ttoli.'stoeritoa xsuwo't ©ef* x^ ii. oi x,'i'^*jqo%q 'to 3»lsnai.>' lia^lubusi't
^^$'9^ iAfxi iaal ao.i HL^r't ta-sfiivs -si '^xosii* ^ajr i-os b»w riowa d'«iiT
,.£?;!* ,.qQ-A .IXiSa£^. , iM.iS^'^S.>>l.--iJ?LiiOi3Blii 5^^ . -t^fA .XXI 088 *%^
j-jRAi* ajj-s*: as. o'l tii'-im^^i aidi a^ <:rI'iaii.:iXq^ *Ojr« »i.a Qs»8«« »»n»d!t
ssXi't OJ ssXitsq; ©-sii/pe-x 0;? xaiTo nX /.Xs^eai ««^»'W^ iuQ bsXti ^a4
t&YQa ©veil »% .oXuii oa asaisa i»iiiu J&Ofc «a®x{5 .?afli&«9Xq <Ts;tif»d'
» ei<^5B YiJ-X^o B 5.-i9iivf afi*so s -iX 69JtXQq;« ©OT iXi'sr ©iot 8x4^ *«£!* |>Xft4
propert. to nnotner I'or the purpose oj' defraading cryditorb tne
Rrantee corporattoii will 1,e caargad v7it.i notice v.aere wie yv^bL'
dent an 1 -li r'^otora of tne tirautor '.vere also preBi.lent aiid iirtctors
ol* 'cHe ,;;r-ir;t«a cci*;)oration, Plaii^tiri poii-tB jut t-i.aii -ri.toi j.'xevaont
^.■4t an ol'1'i.cer oi' .Iawi:in» Tr<3..x>nt, liic, JUid was aisj tiic parCi...£.3er
at the salo oi" itc^ proporty, :m<l chat on Jalj x, 19 3d, uitu ue trans-
ferred cais prop-.:rty to TreJ.;ont i.otore. Inc., ne -iiB its ^zesidajit
hIso Aiid oii'? c-i' tiie incorporators ol" it, and, a.s a uiutuer oi' iuct,
thft 5ole o"-rior. .issuniirig ail this to be tine, "."e c.Uaij,o i oCc uii ..'Uat
tifjory this ".■onid Riiike tiie naw oorporation li-t'';le J'or iiiiiurau. ;jc de-
liv^rfi 10 */ie old one, iio eviiance V«aa ii. trudaoed '^ciA..iiii^_. to siiow
tne 3ale -.t if? iu fiOt fi audulent, iUid i:^' it were tli.tt re.jady viu-ld
not .^e "by aui^i at lar? to hold the derendant c.r,;oratioii liuble.
The cases cite;l by pl.).ii;tij'l" to this puint are LiiijaQ^iB v. i.oe eittn4
5ecj.rity y^j.lt Jo . . ^.^l ill., 5C3, ctnd . j^ierwin-A'iil ^j. v. A a t son
Industries ^ 'i-ol 111, 59 d. /w'l exaanatloAi iiocloaei t-i.a- tx^ase
caeee ^^'ere not suits at law ar-i u,re ir. ao wise ipplic-aoie to oviie
rpoorl, ni<3re ■'.as no procf ol' cOi::bijji,tioii , oonsolidation or mar^.er.
Tlie mere 3:.l? o r the prop?rt:,' ol' >ne corjora.\,xou to ^lo uuer ajes
not ru*";e xhe v«»ude:2 corporation liable i'or tie vend-x"'3 ieuta in
abs«»nce ol" fraud, J*'leto.i«r tyclopedii ol" wOr.:)oraticii3, y^l. lb,
seoB. 7i'-4-71l-J6, jO. 169-176.
it is r.nparent lus eon trol^iiijj question in tae case is
raised by the liontention oi the plaintiii t-xat tiie sale oi tho
chattels) of ha^kina Tre^iont, Inc, , to Treo^ont as invalid un ier th«
Fulk oalea Law because ol the failure of the vexiJee to ,,i'"e at
least 6 days notice to croditore beJore consuiumation oJ' tne sale as
required by tli&t ^gX, ihe statute ia fyund in 111, hevised btatutea,
1937, cnap. 121f, sec. 78, p. 2317. xhe Act in subutanoe provides
that sales of roercaandise or oth-tr goods and cliuttels of the vf»ndor'-i
bupineas oth rrriss thar, in the ordixiury course of tr-xde :.rid in the
"iao-xq mis »'taii¥ aolion Aiiv; 6PS7.«i:c ©si Iliw r-:oi ;t-eioqao© ©sd-nsTca
8TC6>iJ'oa'xii -boe ^as'.lasiq coils &ir*^i- ^Qicmtii ^hii 'ic eioto»'slh hhss iiteb
iaoiSBx'i. iiiiv'-i. J*iiid iiic eiuloq t'\ iJiil.v.l'i ..aol't^'toqioo »»*iiB'is sijcfS 'to
,iOi:,'i 'io ri©ff3*ji£i c Si ,&nj3 ,^2 'to siod'd'ioqiooni. arid "to eao !&£U5 baXe
~9i> »ijim'Xkseai la'i yith-^ix aoxj*'xoc'*oij wsn Qdi' 0-ai^ssi ftj^juov airi^- -^jioeK^
.»X<:f«iX aolJJBioti'i-o SiXtH^^aa'i&b ^liif hioil o^ wax ia ifluB %cr erf i^oa
ff<^ «;>fiW »y ,cO. ,ilif*ai ^ 9i^ .b/te .Cde , ,XXi iSC . . oO j-.to.eV Y,»JmfO»8
©aoiiJ' i'^iiJ esisoiatiiL ■ iioicf-ji-xiljiiisxe tul .b^f: .1X1 Id?) ' ., e&|i,;ffi i fjb ,i i;l
8i.tl;i- oJ ®Xef.eoiiqQ;& ©isiw'on ajt ®ti5 b:«i wal :ta BiJiiyB' ifon ©isw 399»o
.'j^s'ssiii ^0 aol^^biloeaoQ ,a<Adt:SildaiOO 'to 'tooiq on asw ©rterfff ,^^©6'ii•t
oi^oi:; !i«xiJofiJu od" aoiajBaoQioo ©isc lo \;;^^8qo1q strii 'io sXie oi:»«S 'bt^
tti «*U9ii e'iobfl©v aiii lo'i s£4&il aoi^eioq-xoa »8l)«»v «ild- siCjeai l^«
«ex ,Xov ,eKoiJfi'xociieC' 'io .^a&ecioXox^ i£«..a©*«l% .jbxfjfxt 'to at>m9d&
■■'■ '^'' ' '"" ■■'■'■"■'. «VX~edX .«q .SSXV-l'SXr'.ao**-.
oii;J 'to 9S£& edi cTjsad' 't'iidiiXfiXci 9iU 'to aeijitf&i'aou sdi x<f A»ajt«^
tB svi^ 0.J ©»iu«av ©xii" to siuXijs'i ant 'to •auaa^cf witJ, a»Xa£ iXaS
«fi sXiBS ofi* 'to Hoi^ijaaaiJanoo axo'tscf aTco^ifeai© 0^ »»!*©« «>{;«& 8 #a«rX
,Be*ju;t-£ttS Jb«siv»a ,XXI ai bvtuot si sJu^Ta^a •ill' ,#$A *«^ ^<f fts^lwpM
••fcjvoiq sofie.Ja<.-rws ni ioA 9iit .VX8S .q ,8t .©»» ,4-£SX .qfirfo ,ve0X
B'lobcEsv atU 'to eXad-^axio .5n« abooB «»dt0 ■«• »elfift8rio«»r. '.i&^t^sii
&di al Jbn*^ 9i)iJT:cf 'to ©si-jwoo TfXisnifcto aiU- Hi oAAt »eiirt~»ii3-o BBoaiSiicf
regular =und usual pros-^cution ol" the ■'/endor's husinesK sliall "be
fraudulent arid vci'i as ugairiBt the creflitore o'l the verdor "unlees
the said veMee shall, i. good I'aito, at least J"ive (5) da.ys ti^fore
the con summation ol' suca '-ale, transfer or ass3i^inf''''it , dei:»atio and
receive I'roru the venior i written slaten.ent uriier ovth oJ' txxe
ven^lor nr a luly nuthorized ai.'ent ol' tne vendor tiavin^: knorrl.-'dge of
th<» faotB, contai!:in,c' n full, accurate and cociplete list of the
erpiitore of the vpnlor, thoir ad:iresse8 and an-iourits owxn; to eaca
ap near =^8 :.;ay he n,3certau>ed , an^i if ta<=>re be no cr^'Utore, a
written stateiaent under oath to that effect," cJid "unlees the said
Tendee siiill at last fi"ve iJays befo3?e takinc poaseseion of eaid
goo-^.s and ciiatoele nnd '.>.t least five ie.ys before xhe payment or
delivery of the parciias 2 price, or consi lerat ion of (or; any evi-
derce of indettedi ees tixerefor, in i.:;oorl faith, ieiivfir or cause to
"be deliver'.^d or i:-M.C or cauce lo "be sent pfcrscniilly or by rey^ietered
letter ijroperly s'...iciped, directed and addresHed, a novice in v,-ri iing
to eicV; of the creditors of tlie venJor nra.ied iu the s.',.i.'"' Rt;..! en.pxit or
of whom tiie said venoee shall h.-ive kiiOVviedtje, of the prouobed pur-
chase by aim of th- sal J e.t>oas and chatteie iMo. of tr^e price, teriuB
axi'^ conditions of ruch :;Hle: i-rovided, ncever, tl^s; r it ?h.-..ll te
lawful for the vendee to pay to ihe vendor po iiiuch of the purci as*
price ao shall "be in exoese of t-.e total aniount of the indebtedr.sBS
of the ven'or, before the expiration of the fi\e days /lereinltf ore
refenel to."
3ecticn 2 of the Act provides in substance that any vendor
who maices such bale 01 any pereon uiaJting such sale for or on beaalf
of suoh vendor who shall knowir.,,ly and s.ilfuily x.tike or deiivnr or
cause tc be made or "elivered uJiy false 3 .aierent or aiiy s .^.teiQent
whic. in any -.at?ria.l portion is fulee, or shall knowincily or wil-
fully fail to Include the naxiies of Mil the creditors of the ej-id
Tendor in said statemejit as provided in tae .ict, "anall be guilty of
a Qiisdeiueanor, ** etc.
sio'ts-i at-afe (3) »yl't ttttml i& «ii^iA'i J^oas ;«i , Xlgsu^a »d&a»r ftiag «£[*
«il^ 'to Aiiio istbnu cf .i6ia&4!aJs nad-Jiiw js ioh«fflv eii* tfioi'i 9vj.»j>«tc
ftfii' to Jail --tcfsiqao!} lui*: ac^jg-ijuyois , IIi/*t a v^ninlfs&nGo ,8*0B't «rl*
ifo«a oi* n«-two ad-nuosise f;>fl£ 8^am9%iih& rjioxfe ,Tof nsv ©rij" "lo^ BTo*lfsfl^«
« ,aioJ^ JtiiaTco on aa, »«sii^ XI bm ,bf>:d»i-i9QaB scf, ^«,«t sjes "Xissn Bit
fei»8 't© rjoiaa»aaoq ,^fix:5Lo^ t)-5:c)'taci 9i%&h^rrt ia&suL *j8 IX&xis '>9&a»v
-i'/© xjfus (lo) '.to a^i-^-fsisbisaeiB 10 ,,?»3iiq faeiSoiaiuq sx-ij "to •^levilaft
oi jjaiijao -i;© -isvii-al; ,ii;J.i*j't ftoo;^ csi ^lo'isasa^ «B9-iI>©;^cf©&«i lo 8o«©|>
fcoTOJoiasi ^0' -to ^iXIanosiaq ;^ii»s sd oJ »3iwjs 10 fiitaa 10 A©iE»vii^b otf
aaid-xiTT rti; 9oi3oa *« ,l)9aa©'xj'^&® &*«« ^jJ-ooixb^feeqmoa "^Xiaga'siij Te»J*t4
•so i'ap.ais:^-;;!?! f)l.:i3 aj.ii' ui 59iii»'.;a 'lofjjsiev *«* 'io rsio-'ibsio &M 19 rioca ©♦•
"luq hoaoLiQiq, 9£Ui 'io .s^SoX^'oaii «>v*^ii liMm 9«.&£S9v 5l««« ©4* ajo-'iw I0
Biiii^J- ,3oi;iq oiicJ^ to &.'va ti9i"4sjiu» feiis .sIj^o:^ i>ij|« -sul^ 'io ajla x^ vtaada
ad' Xij:',(i3t Ji iMdi .i^jvs'xroii ,j&.®i»ivo'a:'i aai«s ds>Af» "N acoid-Jftaoo &«»
«aB.'iaai;q aiiJ 'to xktua oa lobiieif »xW o* ^^qt p* «aJ&na!,T •At to'i XmIW*!
»39af)ft;td9Jbiil eiij 'lo j-nuoia^; Xxs^lo* s;^^ ^io a.a«o:j£» JXi «cr XXjwia SB ^x>l%^
9io'l3f/iilsi»r: a^jsii ©vi't axii 'to aQXdj»T;igiCP (tfi*t *>ie'J«d' .,,to^««aT ©di to
IXjAilsGr no -so lo.'t ®XaB xiouB, safcia*a fiCi9%&.% ^m a« ^»j;^« 4»*ia aesl-stfi o4r
•10 'x->rli9b^%<i oisa ^XXjj'iXi's» ^w ^X^i^o^ XXjaeUi pm '^«i>,*i»v: rfoua 'ift.
;^a$*H©;t43-ra ^as -so ^asmejjsj-e aaX^'i .,^ae. ,(^«3*jiX»b^|,0,,9Ji»,^
-Xlw 10 TjXs«ii»ofui XXisrie 10 ^saXai «Jt aeii-ao4j Xj8j«9**tt IfOf ai, iiO't*ft"f''
JbMe sjttJ to aao^^ifie-io »d* IXfi. to «ft#s^, s,4;i!(*'.!»A^^ ' ' ^ "'* x^i*^
i ar, dOft, etc, 4, pro\idee t.^bl any crefUtoi or crc-dltcra of
the \ei.dor iu cas*^ ol' j. :-.ale cu.trc..ry vo the provisions oi' tu-i jict,
"may pursue .de rei:»;Jdy eitlxer at Itiw or ixi fc^aity, at,t4in..t eitL.t.r the
▼ei^dor or vendors, tne puri.-aser ox purci.asers, j.ii.t-.y or :=tVt^raily,
or aKaintit the whole or any part oJ" aucii block oi" luercaan jiee, mcr-
chaTidiee and I'ixtures, or otlier jioode and Ciiutueia, by i suit either
at lii.^ or in equity, vfi ..Jiout h^.ving, reduced iiis ciaii.. to judyiicnt;
and tae court ir. viiici. Baid suit is pending saail have juriodiotion
to id.iuBC the rifeUts wad. equities i^i' i-lu. purtiee liavinji un iuiereat
In the property in suc.i proceediHiaS, "
Xiie Btaxeraent oi' cibiiia XiSjre ubtfe not disclose aiiy suit
troutj^t un^ler tiiio section ucr could ioay such euit "be liuiintained
under the f-...CLS discioscd by the evidence. The pr^oi e.ovte, we
tliink, sul'iicient to^i^liiuice './ith the provisions oi' the tulk Lklea
Act in the salp made June k2 to Ireuout, It is 3Uge,estt;d that the
nOwioe v^as insuilicia'^t Iccause it 'Viis not sexxi out "at leaet Iiv«
days" Lefcre the sale, but only lour days. Ihe evidence shore taat
the notices were mailed to the creditors "by re^iBtered j;.ail on June
26, 1936, sjid tiiat the sale was completed July 1, 195G, ^^erc ie
in evidence a regisiiered receipt oi' t-.c notice signed by plaintil'l",
dated June '>i7 , 1936. it scaiiE cleii.r u..is *uei t.ie reviuire.i.er.ts ol*
the statute und the cases ao uold, i'ledier ->' . :^c^3'eldt . 535 ill.
11; midland .^11 uo. V. i'ac^era ^otor lraf.a?ort, 277 111. App,, l-^l.
These uasea .^old t^^ai, the Iiulk Sctlee Law is to he stiic-ly com^trued
because it is in derogation oi the coii^iiion law, and tf-at the proper
method ol computing tiiue wltiiin the aLP,a.i.in^ ol" the statute is to ex-
clude the I'irtt day and include tne last, Otxier cases Lo tut: tame
el'l'ect are hrown-v. City ol' iJaicaRo . 117 Hi., 21; Gordon v. f'fov-'le .
154 111., 664; People v. ^inow. £7y 111., 289. Moreover, the pur:.,c8e
of requiring notice to te ^iven unier the £ulk ^alee Aci, Is that
creditors ruay taive such action as tney uiay deea* necessary beiore tue
X'j sio.J.i&*i9 '10 ioiih9%& x&i i&iii i'^iiii.vaxq «* .39« ,j«OB j,ta*l ■-...... .v -:-
sdi t0:i.ti^ i^nxii^ ^%iri.itpi> ni lo w««X ijp. laxiiJtd TjfiS;fi»i aixl diifeiijq ■'caffl'*
-•i&ta ,©si:iinivi):oTf9;ii to iioovj'a iiaj^'s to lijftij ^ae to elojcfw eiiJ" iJafiiiajB "i©
J-ii/s xGfiB esftX&dii* ^Off a»ijfc o-isii mifilo 'io Stfjai^jniB mtL -'•'!;'
n&SJ^ ilu^^iii 'to aiioiaivo^q siii siii^ ©oniiilqiiroc/ *K^ioi't'ttfB ,a£«ixfj-
•45 isiiU HSs&ji^iis si SI i,4ae^a«i'i' pJ' SS 9au1 ^bust sXea »xlir ai i6A
evil J-sisa'X J'js* ttf©' irxioa iw a«vi^ i-i «jai*»rsivif- *^ii*(icjl'*fifc'anx smm ha'titin
t.sxxi av©ilB »oja2»i)iv9 sal .ac^Jb i«6"i ^cXiia ^iftf ,!3Xssi »ilJ 6Tco1»cf "ft-^
eauZ no Xi«^ J&eie^ai^a's ^d eio^fl&eia »itt oi b9Xi>ea ai-xsw .a«oiJ-on 9i1^
ai attdifr ,d£ex ,X ^Xiil b^i&lqtacQ saw »X«a e£f* Paris' bsm ,S£9X ,S8
,l'U#m«Iq \if A9a;aJ:a soiJoa Qiiir 16 Ji^issa^f bsisiraijiai a ©onaJEtx-ra l?I
lo «Ja©ua9aiiJpd'j Sii* fam aiild- -iiiSXo a.'a©®8 IX ,95^X ,t&' »fx«Cr' feiBi3'»il
.XXI a££ ^ :lfbL&'i.:!Lo'2. .y lalbftJi'g ,&X®f2- ©» aesi^o »rfvr htm iiuiuie aif*
^Xei' ,.€|(j^ .XXX ^VSJ .J-ioqsr^'x^ TCoJo^i aT3^pi;:i .. ,t ^qO., M O, ^txg.Xf:.fcit ; XX
ftajjici'srioo •■iXvfsiTJ-Q ad' oi aJ: vjsa ssX&a 3£Xi(i ©fU ssiii bXexi «»*«o •a»ilS
»9qo"iq; ^ri.^ ^e^^^ *fc«s,wiX aoBiiaoa aii* "lo iiQrJsso'**-^ ai -*i '^1 aaw£oarf
-xa o^ ei ad-i^d^B;^!? 9ii* "io ^alasaa »xU aidtflw aatt^ %al;iuqm9o to bod$9A
©ms-a ad;r,,o4-'' 9ae«o xmUO \imi axi'J 'ffiiijXowt .S^ae- t«» <^'«^il «4* afii/Xa
,3Xf TQ-3-i .7 gofc-xoO :XS , .XXI 1"XX . Q^nahiO la v::rlQ ,y..awpi.a : »l« *^^tl»
a^oqiiiq eiltf .^SYoa-xoii .CSS ,.XXI' 672 .wat^ .▼ sXGoa'i ; , < ^1 ^5X
tail;^ 8i *oA as>X«a MXua 4sii^»Lau c»rXi^ &d oi 90X*oi^ ^i.-iixiupti lo
8
consuiiii...tion oi" the- fa] e, ^i' r.lly v. Ifohoenlxolz . 224 Hi. Ap;:, 158;
lipswor^ T. roes . "7^) 111, Ar.\^., 1. ^^s >if I'tuil^nt p..ii:tf. out,
plciniii"!' v.ith i"j11 info relation took no ?ii,:B tc prc^ven"- tne ccr-
BuEiniation cl' the sale it ■! 'iid i.ot ti'int tliis <.»ytiori .in.il nearly 7
months .v,:'tcr it •• ic co^iplc-.ed,
I]-; .r<'' is JiO prcoi' in thic rrccrd t..;^', the c.3&etB t3-tjaef erred
to ire.oiit rere viccUi. inore tiian i.'rei..or4t pc-id I'or t]:Ri-, Indeed there
is not a scintilj.a ol' wiaenct^ in tic record tei.dint, to aho^' the
no
actual valur \vi therelor_e/'-.videi ce tendinis to s '.ov- i'raud in taat
respect. ..iiert; la no prooi' tLat Tre.. ont -.otors, ini^. , a^^re^^d to
pay tli.e delts ol' i ■•-iff i ins ':reioi.l. Inc., and v^it-^out tuc-i a,_reeii.ent ,
in the abHc-r.ce oJ' prooi ol" i'raud, luere could Le no ii-.bility. XJae
atate. 'nt ol' ol:ii.ia a~i:iwrtu tLe ei^istence oi "in verxoo .inji corpora-
tlcna," There, is no prooj' ol' tuis. On tiie contrary ti';-: proof snowg
without question fiat each corporation h-xC an inf^epen.leJit irujic>ii8e
arid w&e o liRvinct ortity. The factf; that two corporuL: r re
ori^c.; ized A'cr t/ie ssjue or «iuiil./.r pur o?e3, or th-,,t c-rtain ""irec-
tcre of one j'igLl be directo.s cl the other, ^eie not saliicieni to
B'io-f, u le^al coneolidetion. -eardstown i-earl -button Cq» v. ije rbiiQ,.
13v 111. App., 29C; Wheeler ^^ ao^^ Ii3rv?f;tinfi i'.achin^ ^o .. 175
111. ikpo., eo. Defeniant ..ointe cut it is nie^.ly si,,r.il'icant that
the claiiiic;d tra,:,9l"er cl the insurance poiioioa -cu dei'^ndanx. vhr not
even jieiJticn-jd in plaintiii's il'iir^avit of x-jerite, ::sor is there
proof thitt iit any time any in6>-ra..c« contract existed on Thich tne
defer, iant cor,>orvtion could have reco^'ered in Cc-ee of lo38.
Plaintiff contends t i.at a uar trial Bn.uld have been av-'arded
I:)ec8.u8e of t: evrly discovered evijet.ce tending to show that a payn^exit
had teen made to del'^no'ant corporation b. tlie 'Jnicat;o i^ari. Dietrict
Id discharge of a dett iu» to ired ilawking, inc. Inaejiuch as all
the .'Assets of i'red iawhina, Inc., were transferred to Irp.ont and
ty Ireii>cnt sol.-^ to defendai.t comoration, tr.c^ iefendo.i-t cor jorati^jr.
-noa (iii.i rneirs to- Oil- »q«;-,j« on jiooJ nol^im^no'tni. Zttft tUl'^rTt'Matmiq
T ■^I'Xfi'-Mi Xl.iiJt* fioiwOti ax.i'tj -aHirtiJ J-ofj bib hm. aXsa *rii 1o floit^iaguao
«iiT .'^ifiiirsf.Kii on tvl jFjIiica BtSisif ,l>itMiT*.t 'JfD 'ioetij *i:o soire'a'fB oxl^''"itl'
BeldQ'.tBf't tia^bLt^qebiii as iii-il aoiiJ-.c'xocrioo Moei? tsi^'t aoif^sup iuoritiit
e^^ I • .gij--^ ■^'^ j. ^f^^'^ ?V' ^'^ ^ ■' - y'^Q-^^ ''-^^- « "^ '^^' ^i&'^^^ i^^s , .^qji. *ixi csi
Jjsfl* *0«oi'ii.iv> xs ^/.:;.sxr: ai »+l ;?i;o aJ-aie* ^.mfcnsl^Q: .69 « .QqA ,XII
«£[,* flaiilv «o f)«iriix«> i'OBitaoi) ©OfuWiiafti t^Cifc ^*^«^ ^jcus-tA taini^ "toOT^
,82oX 'to aaao nl bst^rooiBt 9v&ti blU(3& miHttotrx^o it:utha9t9h
^xssisx^q ^ ^jsxlcr waffs 0$ ■^ttlbmt sone-JbiT* Jb»it*vo&ail> ijXwsa to ©6i/s9»<f
• XXe •« xloufiiiKsttl .onl .•«i>Ii?«H fc^ttU o^ *afe #*frl^ « 't© a^i^rioeife ISi
was clearly entitled to receive such payiteiit, xiie wJaoie evidence
8:iOVB that/pliintilT is eniitied to uay remedy it is by way ol'
complaint in equi ty rather than by suit at law. The judtimeiit ol"
the trial court is therei'ore al'l'lrmed.
l.''C3urely, F, J,, and O'Connor, J,, concur.
40478
CHICAGO TITLi /UvD TRUST COliP/vHY, )
a Corporation, as iiuccessor-rruatee, )
Complainsurit ,
MAX ASTRAHAK et al. ,
Del'endaiits.
IJOIUAN iL, xiJ^XKSt Peti cioner,
Appellee,
vs.
GERTRUDU liSVIi.S, Respondent,
Ap,) ell ant.
APPEAL FBOhL SUP'ilRIOR
COURT OP COOK COUKTY,
^
D> ±
A. 6
i.H. JUSTIOfi kATCiiiiXT DELIVaiHED TrIE OFU.lOi^ CT "jlUS COURT,
By an cU.;ended notice ol' appeal I'ilod August 30, 193B,
Gertrade Levine seek© to reverse oi^ order entered on August 22,
1933, in ai-n by which tiie receiver of certain preiuiseB under i ore-
closure was riirected to turn the same over forthwith to petition «=r,
JNonrian 1&. MerteB, the receiver to file his account and report of
receipts r.nd -^iBturseiijentB v.ithin 5 days, ^ nd to turr. over tc * ertfli
all rents accruinf;: after July 20, 15 53. _
ITie material fact* appear to t-e thiit on the 29' t. day of
Octoter, 1931, the kadiaon-hedzie bt&te tank, predecessor trustee,
fil?d its "bill of complaint against kax Astraiaan and Dina AStranan ,
his '"ife, to forfclopc a trust deed executed by tue defendants on
iiarch 21, 1927, conveying certain prej^dses ii. Cook county, to secure
an indebtedness of ip72,500, represented by ari issue of bonds to taat
amount. Attached to the oill was a copy of the trust deed, bonds,
etc. The bill wai in the usual form and prayed uie relief aeuaily
allo^'ed in such oases.
June 2, 1936, Gertrude Levine filed her petition in the
cause, cxverrinfT that php was tne owrier of the equit., of redemption
of the preiuises described, having derived title Uiereto by quit-
%J ^
(
.VTilUOO AOQU iO THUOQ (
(
' {
;i (
8V*0f
,8r
, ,X« *fl ilAHAHTaA XAM
.lafcsXIsqqA
.'i'/TUuo J^T to aoi^3:x*i'0'sitr'«iSBaTivi3.o; TfmiDTAM aori'8'UTi .Hk
,isiiol3'i*eq o:f xii'iw^id'Ttol i»vo Qsma oiii sstui ai M^paaiJb taw Btuaolo
'to \ab .!j@S sriu no d-jsiiit &d oi -xseoqij «;roi-:'i leli^JjBia ttHL *
^clBiisiti3h. aaid bas. a&ii&'iis£i. XMd tsalii^ Sal^iXqaioo 'to XXicf ai-i fioXl'i
«iJJ0©8 0^ ,x^''i^-^oQ AOoO i3i aeai£i9iq ni^^'iaa ;^ai\&va.oo «VSex ,XS iio«fiiS
^Tigii^J oi ebaoa' 'to sJosel ne ^d Ds^usesj-iqei ,006,57^ 'io se9n.E» ;tcfQbal rts
.abnocf ,i>s>9J5 ;i«ij-i^ sd^ "to x<hjo js sjbw XXic; quj oi boiixtMiiA .iauoim
XXXciiaiJ 'iiiiXs-i »iia Jb«v,*iXQ Jbi-Js anox lauau Qdi ni a.8%' IXlcf «iIT ,o*9
.a(>'e£D £LOi;a rti JbdvroXXs
claiia deed from ilarold Cusack on April 17, 19 35. iier petxtion also
averr«d taat sh'^ '.'as in posseoaion ol" t'ut premioee under a l»ae3
fron the receiver and wa3 the owner oT xne l"ariiitare, eL^uipinent ,
etc. , located on the preruiaeg; tiiat Sixe was not advised ol' the
things alleged in the coianlaint save I'roJi the complaint itnelJ , ;ind
she hud not been made a p >-rty defendaJit aixd prayed that leave be
grant'^d her to becoiue such, and tiiat her petition iiiif^ht staiid as
her ax\8wer to the complaint, ohe ^as granted leave to I'iie her
petition, and am order entered as prayed on June 2, 1936.
i^ovember 19, 19 /S6, a decree ol" I'orealosure v^as entered,
the C»^icago Title and Trust Company havin^^ in t.ie meantime succeeded
the : adison-Kedzie 3tate IBaiik as trustee. The matter vas heard upon
the report oi" a Gneclal Coriadssioner, arid ao exceptions were riled
to the retort. The decree I'ound 49 7,356. 5j. to be due; rtlso found
the rights and interest ol" Joiin i», ivraea, holder of a second mortf^age
I'or 'T.hich Harold Cusack /-as I'ouiid to be personally liable, and di-
rected that in further default of paycieut tne preiiiises snould be sold
by the opeci:! Cos^td ssianeT, ijie decree contai/ied all the usual
provisions of Ruch deerees.
karch fc, 193 , tr^e opecial coE-TiisBioner filed his report of
sale to the effect that i^atnryn a. Stevens, pursjant to a plrax; of
reorgeuniaation, offered and bi4 for ti^e preiaiseB ,^6700, an^-' triat being
the hirrheet .jid test bid ne had nolcl tue preu.ires to her for that
amount, aarch 2, 19.'i8, the report of tur special coniiiiir.3icner cai e
on for hearing and upon txie aioticr' of tne several parties constituting
the Bondholders' Protective C0iiin:ittee, the court approved the aaiLe,
The report seated t at the bid of #6700 was by isjithryn A. Stevens,
l)idding in behalf of i'irst mortf^age bondiiolders who had deposited
their bonds wit], the corjmittee, "said tidder beinj. the nominee of the
committee"; that tJiere had been deposited v'itn the oonmiittee bends in
the aLJtretiate principal amount of ^58,j00 out of a total prlnciDal
»a^*x i3 if'biii/ a&viissj&%% sj.iJ lo ooxaa&eaori sti bjsw ©xia ttaxii' Itsi^dra
, ;Jn9imil jjp8 f»%uiinxi.-'t exf^ ':© 'isa'wo t>.s!^ oaw ferus ^evisofti exfd' fiioil
®rf^ 'lo jb9«ivfe« *oa asw exle .>«.ri;f ;a98laLSi{i axiJ m5 b9i&oo£ ^ ,oi9
dd ©vsg'i ^jsii^ fcexr^xq ji>ria ^i^fcas'ist x'i"2*<5 « afc-ero oesicf *on &6Xl axia
tsxi <»XJ;.t o:!- ht£oI iotfasTg 8*^ ».fi«' ,*nial^oo sili- o^^ '" tsxl
LsiNesooua smlsasmax ©xlj- ui ^,itxv«;{ -viafcfs-iuou ^auil |}fU5 sX^iT osaoidO arid-
bnubt esXs ;^.ub srf oJ-, If ,dae,'P# Biitio'}: sstio*!; ®;/iT .*to<v9i ©rid- o^
»Sisa*ioia ftaoosQ ^^ to %0tlod .cajBxS ,M aefijX 't^ Jas^e^ni: fc.Ts a^ii^xi: ©Jtf*
-ift bfUi ,©xeffiil ^XXiiaoR^sq arf oJ hnijo't saw 3io«a«0 ibIo^«ii xioixiv lo't
,S39^osfc ilsiTB 'to ajfiolslvoiq:
'to x^'xoqo'i, eiri !)3Xi'£ asnoiesi^unes I«io®qjs 9a;f ,c"E9l ,S &&ia^ ."' :. ' >
'to aisXq £ do tcviuetmi ^sa&raiU ,A £f^ica*i>?ii ^Biii tosTl:* «!«• oJ sXa«
*i-5xW •Jo'i 19x1 oi- as^aXiasig ©ai bios h£>ii -sxi feicf *B©«f bim #a<!>iiai.rt 94;^
Sflli-c^itBitoo aeiitjsq letfjvaa sxU 'to notJ^^ia ail? jififOtA* fc^* ^nixetri le*!! flo
.9£tt6e ®iii JbovoToq^B J-ixjoo 9x1* ..^si^imuoO BTi&&'»&C'i1 ♦ ai96X{>rlf)noa »xi*
.Bndvsi'B .A tt^ttiinA id astr D0V6# 'to &M ^iif i&s:l& bn^MiS^ioq&t ftifT
fca^laoqsfc bsd odv B%9bloiibaod 9a£8*iofii itaii't 't» 'lX«/(«rf ni B«ii''<>i<^
sjxfd- io donlmoa 9ilJ /^niscf ^©bijM JbJtaa* ^Beiilinmoo 9ii^ M^tm mbaa<S tXmdi
Xjoqloaliq X^JoJ s 'to *wo OOO^Sel 'to *fl«OJa» Xsqlorriiq 8*r>aiflt.o.e ^ricT
3
amount outstanding of ;;f68,000; that the Bondiioldere ' Frocective
ConiiJ'i t cee l.ad acquired the second mortfjaee on tiie preiaisee ::m6 "i-ne
equity of redeiiiption therein, sind that ^t the expiration oi' the
period oi" redemption a corporation '.^ould be organized under the
lawe ol' the State ol' IJ.lincis I'or the purpose oi' acquiring and
operating the premises, and stock would be issued to the depositing
■bondholders on the baoie ol" one snare 'i'or each ^lou in stocJi de-
posit(50, witl- the coiimittee. The order adjudged and decreed tr^-a^ tue
special co-.^d sioner had in all respects conforjued witu tne prcvisicn s
ol' tiie decree wad the l.--.w in conducting the sale, and that tne sale
should be and wae confirmed and approved. It -ilso directed that
"said plar. of reorjsjiization proposed by said cdTuiiittee be and the
saiiie is nereby approved," Also that the Bondholders' Protective
Coii^d Ltee aucept non-deiositing bonds for deposit for a period of
90 days from that date,
August 22, 193o, lnonaian k. ..ertes filed iiis petition setting
up the bale by t-ie special commissioner on April 20, 1937, as aere-
tofore stated. Furtiisr , that on July 16, 193d, he obtained an assign-
ment of a ju 'E^Sient in favor of he Poremeji-Stete Jxetional Bank v,
Max Astrahan et al, , defendaiit in the cause, in the Aiunicipal court
of Chicago, for ^5,517.75; that on July Id, 1938, an alias writ of
execution was issued on the judt^nent and the execution placed in the
hands of tae oailiff of the court to execute; tnat neitner j^ax AStra-
han nor aiiy other def ei-daata, other heirs, administratorr or as ii^ns,
of ttiiy perso/i interested in the preidses v/itiiin IS cionthe froa the
date of sale had redeemed the real estate sold or any part of it;
that tiie bailiff levied upon tiie prei.ises under the execution at the
request of petitioner, wno desired to redeeai I'rou. the sale; ti.at at
the tiiiie of redeiiiption petitioner paid to the bailiff of the Mu: ici-
pal court #7,2Cmj.27, being the amount for whicn tae preuiises were sold
with iiiterest at t..e .ate of 6/. per annuin from tne date of saxe zc t,-^
I
{
%
»di feOE; 89aJ:.ia©iq snv+ no aa^aiicom fonooss siild" I)6Ti:xirpoa ht&ii 9&i:ilma.oO
siid" 'io noxd'aiXQxa srld* ax ci^j3f<;t bae ,ni©:£©ilj- aoxiqau&b&i to Y*-twpo
srlj iS-oajLi .besioaa^o ©cf .tliiow nox j-jsioq'ioo s noliqin9b&i 'to i)oli9Q
' J&oe ^gnxiiwpos 'io ssoq-xiiq sriJ" lo'i sioaiXXl 'io sisvte sxl^ 'to awaX
arixj-ieocx^fc sxij oj' h'^uaai: 9rf .fcXjJow slooja Jbru?. .aaeiaieiq exii ■^ali^t&qo
-a£) 2Lood-a nx OOXi^ iio*y lo'i: 3'X.Rria sno Io oiaBd sjrfd" ao ai9.bXoxii>nod'
axle? cr^rid- tos'ios/^ .ftnjs .E)8a-^J"ti>-B is/jio si'i ♦ssd-JliiTfiioo arfj- ifj-xw .[js^laoq
a roisxTo-xq axid- xiS-iw Miffio'tiioo aJ-oeqaQi iXis nx baii •xsnolaelmaoo IslOQqa
sXss 9xij iBiii bim ,9X^8 srij gniJot-Jbaoo fix wjsX elTJ- fe'cffir ssTco^fi ailit 'to
i'aii^ i)8J09Ti:6 08 .Lv il ,fcs>v-oTqq,e fiiie bemii'lnos aaw bsis 9cf i)Xx;oxia
9vij-09doi*I 'aa©^Iou.P>iioa s>xy ysjtiJ- oaXA " ,ft©voaqq£ iccTaisxi al' axasa
Io 6ox-i3q jg 'iol iisoqeh lo't BJbnod" snid-j:aou9i)-fion d'q©ooj6 eaiiliimoO
.©d'jefi if-jeiid' atoi't 8x;ja|> .'0§
3«lJ*9a no±*l*©q slif J&eXi'l asJisH .SJ xiarffiol ,8SeX ,SS ^awsi^A
-919a aa ,T?;9X ,02 IxiqA. no isnolsalaiaioa XjBlosqs adi \;cr ©lea sdJ- qu
-njjXBgfi iX3 BsiUatd'o sxi ,bS9X .SX y-Cj^- "0 ^J^xl* ,%sidif%at .fead-jad-a ano'to*
»v 3lfifia: lisnox^fitt siaiS-iisw&'to^ ©rit "to lor-el Hi ieiBm^bul « *io d-aem
;}-ixioo iBqtotauli Qiii isx ,©SiJso ?»rt* ni d'os.brig'tsjb , ,Xj8' d-s najfteid-aA xsM
Io ittv! s&ils. ruB ,8Sex «6X ^Xxjt fio cf^iS ;a?'.VXa,a# To'i: .oaeoixiO 'to
9ri;t Hi i)90i3Xq «oxcJ-0o9XS Sii^- fjto? *«9xns6«t s^iJ' «o hemal bjbw aoid"«osx©
-fi^ct-eiv xbj^ laxid-isn t&iii .•s.tLos?:© Oj d-iiJoo ^i:t^ \*i<} ItxXx.ed' aricf *lo ai)n«jxf
.anaJtriaJS 10 s-xodBi-Jaxriijafej^i ^eiiari -xsrWo ,a*f«il>ne1:a& 4©iW-o X'^"^ ion n«ri
«ii* moi't Siid-aoffi «X ahiii^^ saalmtq &d.S nl J&^ia^i^{fai noaisq X^^ *^
;*i.^o ;ti£q- --jais ^0 f)ioa si&tWlM't' qM bssi^^bit l>exl aisa lb 8#«A
9xl# d-is noi;^iToa2C9 axij"- isfinxi esetaiSTq sxf^ rioqtf boiveX tliXificT aii^J iexi*
Jb d-Bxid- .-©X^a ©xitr mot't mobdX o& ,be-xlS9% oxftir .'xswoidrxd-sq to Jaex/pei
-loinuM 9ri* 'to 'tliXxed axii hi blsq ration iiQq ttottqmba'i *io aaii ©4*
bXoa 8'X3W aseixiieiq &di xioixiw iol Jnuoios sdJ aniad: ,?S,0Oa,f$ ttaoo I«q
date of redemption; that Mertes on July 18 received ais certificate
of redeiiii) iion froiu ti.ie taxliii" v.'i.iicii was auxy lixed lor rocoi'd ir<
ti~^e oific'i 01 tiit iiecjorder oi' De-do ir* Ccoi. county, pursaaiit to
law; t'iiiii til© uto-iliif c4dv>i.rti£ed for sale under the alit.s wril of
execution; tkai on Aufeast, 17, 19 3-), uli? prei-ises were otiack off
and sold to petitioner for *>7,265,67, Leing txit autount oi tLe re-
deii.ption uioney, intbreet and coou of redei^ption aale, and no gr ruler
loid havirij usen ri-ide, t^iereupon t.ae ■bv.viliff luade, executed aiid de-
livered a deed to tae prexiiisea involved in tue c.vuse to the .peti-
tioner, w.iO is now tue owner oi tiie property free aiid clear oi
rigats 01" all peraone; t.xat a receiver aad been taeretofore appoiiited
who is now ucwiiit^ as receiver oi' tae pre;aises; t-^at Uxe ".Lue for re-
dCBiption froio said sale e;vpired July 20, 19^3, aiid all rie^xts wO tue
rents, ieBuee and profits oi' tue praaiises of ti^e parties to tue cause
expired on tuat date, X'ne petitioner was entitled ,o ail tae reiits
collected by the receiver or Wiiioh accrued after said date and tne
receiver should be directed to turn over possesaioi: of tue preu.ieea
and aix T-^nta, issues aiid profits tuerefrom accruing on ajrid ai'ter
July 20, 193J, file prayer oi tue pi^tition vras for sucu aii order.
The aacie day, August 22, Gertrude j^evine filed ..er aiis.ver
in w) id she aasertPd a le wa3 che o -ner o: the equity, ad^tted cer-
tain allegations, neither adi-dttednor ienied taie assifenueni o- tne
of tiie Ju''f^jnent oi" tiie J)'ore...an-otate i«ationai xjank at,ainat Acorauan
on July la, 1933, but asserted t.aaL tne judiuusnt in ao fnr b.B itax
AetBahan was concerned was void cUid Oi no slfect ior tue reaaoi. tuat
the purported Judgiuent was obtained under an alleged power of attcrnt^
to confess JuJe/iient on a note sitned by Uie JistBatiau investuient Oor-
porcition, and -uara^.teed by max AStralfian; taao tne power to Gonfese
Judfe;ment was executed by the corporation wuicu was the principal
payor of the note; t -at kax Astrauan was one of the guarantors, as
appeared from a certified copy of tue tra. acr.pt of the proceedinge
in the kunicipal court, whicn was 4)Maohed to and made a part oi the
/
r
ai Jbrteosi lo'i Milt TcIiJfc ajsw aoliiv*? It'xlIijBd" adi taot't aoliqiUBhet lo
'i« ;>I's;-(y asilsi &tU ■xabim ^l&s tot Ji99ii^'xavb& "i'illlAti iiiU i«ifi"";WaX
'!is*ar^'x^ ■«#&«« ,9X«« aeii-qics£»&^' 'to #aoo jjita ;?a®T;<ji'ai ^-^enofir rtol*gixr»b
lio ofi^Xo £>ria sft's'i: ^^i-'^aqoaji dfl* 'to tsitwo »iW won el ©i*«r ,*!tdnol^
b9ta^Qq^B •x«r*tod-©l9ii# K^stf fesil tsrieo&'t & i^di jsnoets'q XXa Tt© a^xlali
-©■x -sot 9jai3- »ii^ Jisi:;? ;asaiifi*'S5 sii* 'ifl'^»vi«08t d;a giil^o^ won ai oilw
»£lid' o# fi^^l^Xt iXds .&£u> t^'e:^X ,€iS t'*^'^ b^tt'qXi^' eX«» .£iJ:W«r iaovl: jtt>I^<;t^fi
8;^sl*'x exi^ XXa o. is&i'^icfn® asw tsnoijxJset ^^^^ ,^tot ^sixlt ao H^etiq^
9d^ boB sJisJb bias x&i'is bi>uti>aM doltiw io ^svlsosi siij ijcf fcecfSsXXoa
e»exm©-i^; ©iid" 1© lioiafiesaoq l©rb «««*' o* fcaJfteiift sd" fcXwoxSa lerloasa
t^St» btm ao ^nXkiiooM sstot'tat^xJi slJtl&^q bis^ adiiaal .atnsi XXa bOB
.tshio as tt'jwa te'Jt' »*w rmljid'sq &sxi 'ie te-^s-iKj aiif VS£®i: ,081 "^iJQwt
"X^o Ijs^JlwJb* itviwpo sxifi 'to '%&ivrw 9M SAW ©iiS fe»*^*aaA slfs' -Kb-iW'latl
oaxUstcfBA daalasit ;j£ae6L Xsnold'sa esJjstiV-raeiutfiiao'i a^xii* lo^ciSisa^bul, aiU lo
XA-s a^ ijsl OB fii *n»i(i5,it't 9J3* *^ri* fc»#u«ie«j6 >ifr ,6t*X ,6X i,iut no
#«ii^ ttoa^e-x dxi* lo'i tos'ri& &a 'I9 ba» blct new fesftussinbo e«yf a^dmsteA
■ Xaqxoai'iq ©litf sjbw xtoixiw n©i5-jB-ii)<lto» »il* ^cf fi»^^«*^* *^^ ♦ft«nc5f>«t
aaitxBssooTti »rf* ^0 ^rqidtoaa^'jt^f til* -1(9 ^croo &^ni#i«© m *-
answer, Srie, therefore, averred that the alias writ of execution
ieeued ov tne Jadeiment was void 'tn'^ of no legal ei'foct; and farther,
that at the time oJ the alleged assigmnent snir^ .ludgment v/ae void in
80 far as defendfint i^ax Astrahan was concerned; that tnp li-^vy vvas
void and of no legal effect, and tiiat if a certiicate of reder^ption
was issuod hy the bailiff the certificate vae void ^nd of no legal
effect; t lat if an alias writ of pxecjtion was iiade it vras void, and
the deed purporting to be executed \i-j th«» "bailiff of the Mu;;ici.pal
court convf>yei6 no better right than the "bfiiliff had and tiie bailiff
a£ to
had no ri(-ht because the execution was void, i^rther answerin^the
receiver, she danied the ■oetitioner t&s ~ *^ntitled to possession of
the preriises or any of the profits accruing after July 2C , 1933;
denied petitioner was the o^mer of the pronerty or aiiy part oi' it.
She prayed the petition should be ciis;:.isse3 . Xhe transcript of the
proceedings in the kunicipal" court in t/ie case of Jf'oreciaJi-State
j^ational Bank, a co -ooration , v, Aetralian Invest:. ent corporation
et al,, was in contract ho, 2757726 raid t.;e Btatei.ient of claici was
for money due on a proaisaory note executed by the corooration and
unconditionally c-.uaranteed by def ei'darto, i.lendel Aatralxan and i. s.x
Astrahan, The claim was duly verified, the affidavit statin^ that
55000 was due thereon against the corooratiojv rjid tlie ABirahans;
that the affiant was fa ili^r v/ith the signatures on the proi.issory
note and t .at these were eer.uine. ILis was sworn to under date of
yebriiapy 17, 1932.
De Anoona and Pflaun. appeared as attom-ys for the plaintiff
and Stuart liertz as defendant's attorney entered appeararice for de-
fendant and confessed judgment whicxi was entered before Judge ilarti-
gan in the Municipal court on February 24, 1932. The note attached
to the stateroent of claim is dated July 16, 19 3^. The oower of
attorney is in the usual form. The uote ie signed by the Astrehs/i
Investment Corporation by ^endel ^.d ..ax Astralian. llie power of
,'is)ii*iiil basi i^omTto £agt>£ on "to baa felov ejBur ifneflfe^istwt srl* W fcstfosl
ai bicTT 84vr *«9xaal)i/t ^i^e il'ttftMrsfejlssjs fiwasXle *fi;t 'to aralsr wilt &£ fmdt
«oi jqi'!««.bo"j *to »^jsol'^i.tt&© e 'li. 3.ati3 bri& ,#o«Ti* .tM-gst on to ftcw JiioT
I.S39I on 'to "Sms \6ior aASi?.' &,t,6oiti;ii*6 "sfjtfsf TtXXtsd &M x^ beusni 8«W
&n« .feiov aaw Ji ajb^-ui aevv ctoi^nosxa to ixiw aaiXa fltfs 'tl' ^jeitf ;3is(9'l!l»
X«qioi;-!wM 9rtJ 'to TtiXiacf ©rfj- xjd" Be^cosxs scf of grti^ioqiuq MsA 9/f#
TllXi^cf *ri^ &a« feari 't'txXii'.cr »rU narf-j txigl's T:*>#*©(f ©« M^sVnoo #lJjd0
.*i lo d-ia^j v;jrfcB 10 xit^ir&tq is>dt to' f^ie^WnUt ' &MVf I9nel#l*0(j -Ssia*B
esw aiaXo to imw&ifi&iii srid- fine 5Sf?8fi5 ♦oH ^o«t*n6& Hi *Btir iiX*-**'-
hm nol;rjBT:oQio» a£tt TC<f ^»*"^^*® «>*6fi-'t*o»'a-^«K>^<f « "« •"'^ t5«fl«A't<>T
xaiS Jbm im.^'si^A Xsfii^aM ;j3im3feii6l*fe' ■^■- Md'i^i«»iii5«iS '^Xil(e'ft©i;JJ'fttto©ftir'
Xtoaeioio^q exi* no ^ttvcu^Siii^ke 9itt\inv %«lXite 6«*^ *a6'i*tW- '©rf*' ' JJ"*!^
to eUb tehiVJ o* aiows caw sJt.it .»aijJ««>i stl^iv »«#ri* *«rf^ JBfiia »*o«<'
ttii'nlBXg ©jS;f -lot axsinrao'id'is ajs |}f>as©q<SiB'''auf»lf'*8: 'feiife *l*«i»
-sfc lot 9oa»i»9qq& fisas^ns ^sfwoj^ft 3»Jrt8l»k^tj#A ft* a*«*K i^&u^t' btw!
-l^iali 9Bi*J^^ ftnotscf J!>oa9*n« saw riolkw *a«jatgii>wt fe^dftatttoo 6a« *'n«ftn«l
te^'xawoq 9d;T ' MQI ,SX ^Xwt Aslisfc al «UI© to *r»m#:rA*t «ri^ o*
flaxl«;^;?aA ftiir ^cr 1b0flsi« «i: o*ofl 9^' .m^t i«<r«fi •iMr -^ «^ -*^rto;^J«
atti'XTiey or. the face ol' the r.otee provides: "All the rovielone
hereof shall inure to the beneJ'it ol' the bajnk Ejid ai^y legal holder
of this not*^. Anl to iurtlier secure tr>.e paymert ol' this note, tne
undersigned, and eacii and every ^cuararitor an'^ en.iorser hereol",
rtoes iiereby autnorize ar!y attoruey oi any court oi recorc' to ap-
pear I'cr i^ini or them, or any of thein in sucn court, iii terui time
or vacation, at any time hereafter, and confess a jui^i.ient without
process in f3.vor of the le^al uolder of tuie note and against the
undersifejned -^^ ar.y t^xiarantor or endorser, or .-Uiy ol" theii., for such
aniO'ant as ma: appear to be unpaid thereon, witii cost of suit and
reasonable attorneys' fees, an.-' to waive and relej-se all errors
f: ich may intervene in sue i proceedings, ^und content to in-mediate
execution upon such jud^ji.ent, hf»rpby ratifying and confirniint; all
that Faid attorney may do by virtue hereof, ancl hereby a^^ree that
no writ of error or a.ppeal shall bf> prosecuted on any Ju^irment
entered by virtue hereof, and t.-at no bill in equity siiall be
filod to interfere in eny manner 'rit-i the cper.-^ticn of eiy such
Judtnent," Gn t!ie hscx ol' the note app'^ars the following: "FOB
VALUE RECEIVED, the undersitned do n^rety Jointly and ee-o-erplly
guarantee tae payroei't of the wifiin note and all corte, exfieneee
and attorneys' fees paid or incurred in the collection tnereof
and the enforcement hereof, and waive uny ar.d all presentuient,
deii-and, protest ** notice of dishcnor, an'J consent to any r'^newal
or extexeion of said note, v/ituout notice to taeiu: or :-Jiy ol' thex,
and further consent snd 4»tree to be bound by ^11 of tne teruis and
conditions tnereof,"
Of tnp many questions discuE^sed it will be necessary to
consider only one, nainel , vnet'ier t:-.e Jal^i.ient -^tjainst the
guarar-tors in the nuunicipal court of Chicago ^as valid an^ binding.
Il it was, then the rede.'.ptipn -^as in due fonu ind kertes, as re-
demptionist, vas in e.ll r»8o«ct.8 eubstituted to tne rii-its of
•aabXori XeaaX x^-- ^^^ itasd »di 'to ^l'.t*iT»{f »££* oJ a-xupii Ileria to9l9rf
Bdi ^aaJiJi^ bae. 9*«a siri* lo •ssfcXe^x .I^^ftl «£i» 't© i©y«l ni otssooicr
has Urn "io #ac.f xid^xw ^m^iitiiSi Jbis^tus ©cf ©^ laa^^a 7jua us, ictkomi
.. (fmi* ©sug^s. -^cfeiftil J>«x» ,1©©t«j^ ©ii^-sir it«f ©fo v:*-"'^ t«'"o^'^« ^■i^a :^e,tii
,tjuaMna*!*Jt "^«» "iJo jfe»iuo9aeTg. *>ef XXari© .Mscti* i© loiia 'to iitw AfE
©tf XXe4« Agtia^e «i -J--^-^*^ ©« *«^^ !>«« ^'iof^^^J^i ©aiiiiv ic*^ fce-xs^Tn?*
ri©0a ■^a* 1© aoi*#a:©go ©li* jitlw^ ^©ajsew t«« ai &i©t^9jfli of,*eXit
SOU" :gfli:iroXXo1 «ii* stjeagqa ©Sh^rj ©^^ 'i© :is«!tf diii a9 * ftms^bsfi
'■jXX.sTt'^Tos Jottfs \:X*aiet X<i^^^ii oB frftajjlai^exui ©xfi- ,aKVia&SfS iHJJAV
S©aa^«jx« «s*80.o iX« &ns nion atsi3^£'<v @M 't& 3ii»ii3:%eq, 9di 99iaA%&iiB
•Jtp»Tafii» aox^oaXXoo 9di aX S^fXtfonl »© fci«9 «»0't • a^J»JTJ:o.t^« baa
,*a©ja#a©a9iq XXs fc£i« t^iiJ ^rlaw baa /tQ^%i»sy iassmoiotaB 9di fcrut
XcwtKRi ^nfl 0* J-i»saoo &ae i-senorieJtfe 'to 99l^-i»a- ** ^as^o-sq ,I>xia.u©i)
,ai9riJ 'to -'COS 10 fflftii:)- o;t 93l3-oa *«Oii*iw .©.ton &x«« **© a©i«i»»^fic© ?fl>
baa aan-si 3jJ4 to lie x^ fcKwod- ©tf .o*^©«sti« *m. >iif»«0© X9iii'Xti't bam
, »«ii ^«wjt«s«i.*a»«:i' vt »^^ i©x^©/Cw ,\tXdffl«a »9f>o teXmo «©t)iaaop
.•aaifetitrf tm fclX«v,aew ©5«piii9 to ;*'»«qo Xaqipinua eH* h| a^oinjsififc'a
-©i,8« ,a©*tsM f>iii6 aao't safe nX wr' f«i*(j[ja»*©« sdjT n»fl;f ,«ew *i 'tl
plaintilM" , who obtained the decree ol' I'creclOBure, and «ould ie
entitled to a deed ol' tue ore, ises at the expir::,tion cl the period
ol" rede.'.pticn and as a ruittrr oi~ course to tuf r'?rt6 tucir picl'itB
after the exf^cution ol" tae deed to hire, S to ddard v. Walker . 9BGD 111.
App., 4fc2; Porter \ .. oilizeus i'.ational £ank of Kvansvl lie. 202 111.
App. , 621; Donaliue a> Uentral Lif e Ine. Co. . 233 II'.. App. 254,
Respondent contends tnut the iaatter vr-js disnoBed of T/itliout
a hearing on the facts bOid tnat this, as ?. luatter oJ' lar, ■^■t.e erior.
She cites Blair v^ Reading . 99 111. , 600, and Glertton v. Iritton .
155 111., 232, 40 h, E, 594, The contention cs.n ,ot te pudtr;.ir. td.
The Civil Prj.ctice act was applicable'- ;-ind un'3er section 4o of t.'.&t
act all allegatlone not explicitly denied were admitted arid proof
was not necrasary. 3tric:<J.an d v, Wasnin^ton 2uildinfc. ^corporation .
287 111. App., 340. The per ire seeru to aare understood thie end
the cause was safc;itt€d on the uncontradicted facts as tJie ssuie ap-
peared froE. the pleadings. The answer of Le.Tine wtiS fllfd en the
saiiiC day ae the pecitio: of ii^ertes. In support of tae position
that the power of attorney did rot iiitiorize a jud^-ent a.-ainst
Astrahan suid ti-'c-t the judgiiient luii^ut te att, c]k:ed collaterc;lly tri.r€e
Appellate court cases .r cited - Shar-r- v. £arr , 234 Hi, Apo. , .14;
Cohn V, i^raus . 2f5 111. Ap:^., 391; tnd DulsKy ?, Lerner ^ 2:i3 Jtll.
App,, 223, Tiiese cases ^re e >.8ily distin^-uishatle. ..ertes cites
two Maryland cases 'aere anier aat:;02ity ?i^iisi.r tc that here con-
ferred it ■'^as held jui j/ient a&ainst a fUarantor mignt be entered,
Jolirson V, Phillips . 143 id. 16, 1£2 ivti. 7, a.nd hho&ds v. ->itional
Bank of Oockeysville (-. i,), 190 Atl, , 750. There are a numtftr of
Illinois Supreme court cases r ich ..old tuat tne question of auti-ori>
lation to confess ,^ Hi^ment in cnses o.;' this kind depend* upofi the
inter tion of tne parties to be gathered from trie ei^tire instrut-ent.
Holmes V. Parker . 125 111., 473; Packer t. hphert-B . 14o 111., 9;
ifiiiilig, 349 ill., 11. Decisions ci" i;iie Appeli:i:e court
ad £laQvt baa ^exsjsoloBio't 'io «oito&& ©ri* bvaiei^o QOar^TtitalBiq
i)OXt$q Qd& 'to aol:^Jzrtqxs axiJ i£> B^altmxq. 9ili 'to besb « oi bel&l&n»
ajx'toiq i>xia B^a-ii^di oJ ^a'siuoo 'to iQ^J^iXf b sjb 6xib rxoid-qmabai 'to
• III (0-e . -xs aCIisW . y , i)X!||->b <ij|£; ♦sdri ocl" ^ssfe ⅈr "to aoliuo&X9 ©iW isd^'te
.III 202 ^ ^Xx iyagjBVti Ip i>. HBd , j^ gel j ^^-.a ^^ ,y teJ-^to^ I^Stl^ , .ciqA
.I'SS .qqA .Jill £6S . ^oO >8,al 9'tivi: Xia' x^aoO ^^ SifxlatxoG ;XSd ,.?<IA
^tfeiliiw 'to baetomth ai:w i«.+t«ffi Qri* J^eri* afca^^noo ^nabnoqaefl
♦10119 saw ,wbI 'to iej*.affl /s b« « a IxlJ d-^iiJ" baa sio&l axid" ad gninissri s
. ftoii-jlia: .y aog.qgij:a fine ,03S , ,III 9@ . ygJ:l)B»H .v i-fcgia: B«*la ©j«3
,A®isJt*vJ-aiis 9«f 4'omx$a mtimimti «iT ,^«e ,3 .H O* ,2CS ,.XII aSX
-(J4J oaba a^l a* ajToist b^ioibi^Tttctaana tasii cto fc«**lfK«ii'ua 'Br«w »alJjBO sii*
»ii# lito ib'iXx't e»w salvia; lo lewaas afC'l «8ai3iC;ai«i^ «»£t* iitoalt Aftta^q
"'li>i*i8 0<j Vjdt 'to tioqqtfs fll .aa^siS t^ loxcrlij'd'q ■9rf^^ a« 15»I» aaiaa
>Bfli«s« ♦fltsiaafewt « •sltoa^ixis ;t8!i filfc ^•twod'Jjs 'to T«woqf ®rfJ j^rf*
a«tiiit •^XX»ta#»IXoo ii93iof;J:J-a acf idglia ysmisgbai ♦il* *.« isiijii^aA
;JiXa ,.QqA .1X1 i'CS /ytr,a .y. c.^ariS - fe9*io «-.xe ««8A« ^Ttifoo •*J5XX»fqfA
,XII 5SS .laa^Sil .v Y:XgIt>a &ss ;X8€ , .<?^ ♦XXX 358 ,a.M^^ ,tV a^ffO
B'^ctio asJie-'w .i)Xdr«xiaiusat*all> ^XXe*;® 9tJi aasAs ae , .qqA-
-noo «isri d-fiil;r o^T ^^XiEsis Y^itoxlJua tft^tiii «it©iiif aaaao firwXtt*!! •**
J[i3aoi.t>.-l .T ^bBom ban ,V ,UA SSI ,Sx'.l)M S*X « MliiMS^JSLJiasMfiS.
■io as^^xsaua a s-m eiam' .O^T , .WA oeX ,(..&ii) jjilvgllg^oQO .,^0 ^fm^ ^
-iioxiJu* 'io fioif»»i5jp »xi* tjsii* feXofi''ri[ai£'w''«#tt»» Moa e ■ iXXJ
©xi* Roqp 9ihmq&h hahL SitsM 'U s^AMpat tm:- ■f^J's
;? ,. 1X1 0*1 . aii»dloH ,v ica^oe^ jit* \ .XXl ' , • :_22iSXoH
#TEUoo ».:r«XX©qqA ©xi;r 'lo e«ol8Xo©(l .XI '..XXI 8*6 «atiiJiia.iL.-*X-j:«ii£:iaji.^ia--
8
nre to th#> satae effect, ■iixr.rp v. ii^arr . 2'64> 111, Apv, , <?i4, oection
6 ol* the i<e^otiajle Instruracr.t Aot auti^orizes tuo joirAder ir suits
u jon proiriis3ory notes ol" persons v;ao iiXr- jciiJtly ;.;n:i eevfraJ.'iy
llal'le, luany IlliiiOiB cuses ixold i^.is i. ay tc c:cre, 1. iiiuxiel -y . Weiji .
9 5 111. Apr-., 15; Page v. V. h\ h'all^jji Co .. 215 ill. app. , 46?;
Gpnevs. O rg:ar. Co, y, Ambas ea:flor 'i'ii.eatreg Cvx^,> . . 249 lii.App, .3^)0,
The Illircis cases also hold t at Van sante pres^.ip tioris ol" la^ in
I'avor of jud.-ir.ents "by confession .„rr indJ-iied as in the case of
Jud;^ents (entered unon c ■-■rf PBsion cf rccees, Alton i::-^-iJciafe &
Trus-t Go. v. ^ra .v:. 259 111, Apo. 10; ■aii Alton ll^ixikiiiK ^^ Traat Co .
V. (^ra , y . 347 111,, 99, It is not claihied dei"':i daiit AStrauan vae not
li'tble to tae aiflount for ■.vhic-.i Jul, rr.cit fr>^s -■x.tered find uie judt^ent
would not be fet asi ;9 even on the i;iotior. of ji.str:man T-itij.out a e^iow-
in to t^iC 'Effect fnat he '.'7aa not iiide^ted, 'iiie aiiuwer of i^evine
dofts not deny tao Jud, met't raa orjtsrei foi" a vt-lici indcrtedness.
koreover, j-evioe ie a iuird ^;j.rty heie in so far a.s this jud .jiicnt
Is concrrned. Th^n, toe, the ri<-,/.tt of ti^oee redee., ing nre liberally
ccnstrued to the er^d that delts, ir. ;.e lar i<.s poseitle, oiiall be
paid, ilie ple ading of Levint coiiieB vaj;^^£iiX JxSiiL, Jiioy; in g tnat tijit
.•)u-;^jiicn t was invalid, Tae recor'3 aao'^a t at a:torney8 represen rin4~;
the irterfst of the tcndholders iMd lOtiea of tiie oroceedine .^id of
this apoeal. Tney h'-i,ve not appeared, uipp=irently tne olan of re-
organira'ion hac "been atan Ion ed.
The an^oeaJ Is vithout iuerit and the order is affirmed,
Ai'?I?ilL2D.
KcSurely, P, J., and O'Connor, J., concur.
■ al iml 'to 8R<:iJq:;j;..;«©sq ^>mei QM:rBni blad <&&Z^ BQSBO ^loailll S/fT
-ft-x 'io ni5X<j: sflj ■«{;IJa6>'3t^:'g«Si>. .J)i3i«e^«q^ ^ofi ®v,eji YS^ri*' .X«««f<T£, »idt
.■:;'. . ..aiSaJJilfi^A -■ . . ■-' • ■■'• .,.,:;.;■. ,:..U'';. i,..^.!:
■,>i
,"iif3aoa ,.:,T. ,TO««-0SH> &ae ^ #1*-' ,*S ,;icX»i«S5
■ti.s ii#v, *(''^:
Ii^m;
40330
ARTrrUR L. Fr^LlGRIKI , )
Appellee, )
vs.
) APPICAL VRCL kUKIGIPAL COURT
WILLI AL A. BRI-^DiCKBECK,
A-ioell^Tit . )
i^. JUGIICE O'GOJSil^OH DELIVJiHED TIL£ arii;iOI^ Oi-' x^a. ^;uu.'vr.
Pl'iir.t il'l' trouKht ar; i^ction against dei'endafit to recover
$1762, whic i he claimed was balance duo hit^ on a deposit h.e made
wit'n de'i'ndant unier a wrlttf?.n 1 ?ase , by the teriiiB ol' vvhica delendant
lpaa'»d to olair tiff a ,?a8cline service station for a period of 10
years. Ther e •was a Jury trial and a verdict and judgment in plain-
tiff 'sjt'^or for_|1488,_arid defendaiit appeals.
The record difcloses tiiat Octoter 18, 19 55, trie oar.ies en-
tered into 9 written le^se ^hereby "iefoudant leased to olaintiff a
gasoline B'=rvic^ station J'or a period 'begiuninfe; Janu^r^ 1, 1S36,
and '?n "ing DeceL^er 31, 19 45, at a gradu-yitod cont ily rental of from
$140 to $S00 a mcnth for t\e. last year. xhe pj,rtieB ae-::-. to agree
tha* the caee is to "be deter. .inad u on the u.. a..ing of a paragrapn ol"
the rider att'ich<»d to the l-^ase, ti.e Dertir^eut part t^f ■:iaxiiii is;
*L»B8ep **■* has do'^osited with tiie Leaoor tne su- of iTiQ XdCUoALD
DOLL.iHS (i^2,oou) as security for the perfori^ancca by said i^essee
of the cover.ants vid agreer.ients contitined in tr.e within lease uxid
rider attached, and in the f^yr.t of iiis failure to so pcrforni, or
of any breach of any -^rc^ all of 8uc;i covp^.-ints .aid at^ree.uer.ts,
and such failure or breacxi siiall continue for a period of tliirty
(3C) days, then find in that erent tie BaiJ sum ol i.VO mOUoiUMD
iJULxiikhS ( y 3,000) analx be forfeited to the Leer or as liqui'iated
damafree ***. In the ever;t of full and coiiuleie pcrforinaxices of
ail ol such covei.aTitB aind unreel.. ente taen said suixi of "WO IHOUSAiiD
DOIl.^S (1^2,0(0) 8.' al] an ;ly as payj..e.-t of rent for tne last ten
(lOJ luontiis 01 tne terui of the wit^iin leaBe, It ie underscood that
Lessor shall pay to the Les^^e" so lon^, as t^ie ^.easee uus periuiuted
no 1 ail are or creaca on iiis part und so lon^i aB the lease rei^ains
in lorce und eff-ct interest at tixe rate of five ( 5;J) per cent
on said SUB. Uaid payxuents to be made to the i^essee on tae i irat
ol July, A. D. 1936, and eei.i-annua J y tuereafter, mt shall not
accrue or be paid for or during the laBt year of tae term of the
'^ithln lease. "
,0043 IHO ^0 .
.«r
T Q'Q'^C
,::a , ..;t:-> .u:j: 'I'?
Oi "to AoxTOf M ao't aei#«^s atjJLv-^^jB »xiiIoa«B « 'i'ti*=ixi:&Jlg odt.li^ll^^I
.«Ijs»ci<P *i«5Jha»t»£> i>fas„©e>.X| *c*1 JtOW^^^ H'l-tl.t
-as &siJijBq &sii ,S£ex ,SX locfotaO ^sili aaooXoeib f>io(&«^ sxf't'
£ 11i^4fiij8.XQ Qi lb2»r!««>X *fiaf;ii'3t9& •^cfsTCftff*' «is»«X fi»**li'!? « o*nl fe»t«t
,M9X-, X %%i^.iiisn\> ■^aiaitt-%?id hoHi>^& tG't rnitist^-m «olTt*B: affU^te'*^
iBofx't 'to XAd-a»^ ^Xiitnoar X'»©i^*?i;.0«ia « #« ,a*6X ,Xe lecfiiCJOoQ gnl^n© fe«»
«>9!HBed bias \^cf E»jfi6irio'i'xoq siii xo'l \;^iiu'j9a a£ (OuO.SIi ) eJIiidJXJCI
ijiui saw©! aiuli^^ sx\d" tii JjeaifcrKao© sJ-nemsfiiij^ J^iiji Binaasvoo orl* t».;A:J-
•xo jin-xo'xisq 08 Q^ Btsjli^'t aiii io :-!:itiVf> Sf-di al baa ,fcpr'.-. '' -''-/-
tj*t:1xJJ 'to boiiftq a lo'i ©i/uii'itoo XlJBife iiossirf Tio sioXj... .. ,,^..-. :...
OKAfeUOHX 0¥'T 'to iiuja I.i«a sx'4 *k«v» ^sxld- ai bxus a»^i' ,BXsh (OS)
fc»;f*f>iupJ:X e* to'^aej: ©lij oJ Jba^Ji 'a'tuo'i 3*^ ^Xfifia (UOO.S*, ) &iiiiJ.J.OG.
to ssoiUJjaxe'tieq •ieXqiaoo bcis ixu't. 'to *.j©va «ii* al . *** as?iB<««t»
Ctliu^UOHT OiA"'. 'to iSii& tl£B iwiii 9iaouis»ti^*i hna. aJ-iijsa-*^'-,-,- ■ ■.,..•, '; o XXa
a9>t *a«X faxiJ- lo't Jneti 'to i-nem^r^jq a« i£Xcc>i Xliina i , .IJOQ
*«adf boois-XQhau ai iX .ae^i'^X «Xii*Xw ©xi4 lo osio^ ajv (oX)
9nljssi.9i oafsaX Qiii su a«oX 08 fon* iisq^ airi no ao«e ■ -'
Saao isq (S'sS) avi't 'to &iai ©£i* *^i Jasis^nl Joi^'tts fcay «o:tot ni
;reil f siii uo soasaa »xij ui i>bBis. »<3 oj ain«ia\;«(} Xiiijfc .aajs fci«a no
*on XX«iSa iud .t'^S'ta&iedi ic*-'£-«^«"«--^'»®® ^"« '^^'^-^ *^ "^ ♦^'^"' *^
BtU Jo fins* ©fU 'io -xisa^ ^b^X aii*. aai-SMfe -XO not blijq »vl no ^i'-i'^o^
-4v
Pluir.til'l' tocic possesbioii ol" tae pre-aises Ju.iuary 1, 1936,
tut lailiiic to pay ti^-e rent lor i^ay and June defexidaiit brout^it
forcible detainer in the kanicipal t;ourt T.xcre jai,-i;.,er;t for poso^saion
was entered ir. Iiia i ..vor and piaintilJ' vacated the pre-dsaa June
22, l.-).36.
Del'Rndarit's position is that -la is entitled to retain the
deoosit ■beoriBe it is axoTt^Sily stated in piira^jraoh 7 ol tae rider
that this amount "as agreed upo/. aa liqai.^.ated dauaagea in case
plaintil'l" failed to carry oat tii.e terms ol the leas^, v/hile on tixe
other aund pl'-intill ' 8 position ia tiiat the deposit v^as roade "us
securit;..' lor t^ie perlori:iauce ol tlie cioveii;:».n .8 oi Vii.: lease, " and
that the provir-ion is lor a pei.axty and unenlorcilile.
The undisputed evidei.ce is Uiat piruintili' dcoosited with
delendauit 'fcat ^'1350. Xae jury dedactod Iroi:- t.xis aiuount the rent
lor the flionthB &1 iay zjid June at 514 j a /uonth, a total of 4230,
and ECeide an allowai'ice of '$32, tein.- one-half tht aii.our.t defendant
claimed he had expendei in rep^irinj; tne prfciiiioea on account of
plaintiff's occupation; bu c an exa-.i:iution of the ite;j.iz9d bill saows
that a nuiiiber of t.e iteiiE were not .i.ade necessary by v/uat plaintiff
did, and thi? appears to have been the view oi' tne jury,
Defen'^SLTit contends the court erred in lai^-ing to perxi.it hi*
to oper sUid cloee the trial becaise t.ie pieadingc snowe ■ trere v-^as
no ccntroverey botwecn the parties except that he had interposed
an aff ir :'. live defrnse. Counsel in hia brief says defendarit ada,itted
in the nleadings that tne lease was executed ar.'J. that ne received
the dfoosit. e ^.vy. unablr to find in def ftx^diUi t ' a ai.swer any ad-
mi seion to thr latt*»r statement. The execution of tue lease was
admitted but there is no eflrdecion that he had received the deposit.
We think the court did not err in denying defendai.t's motion tc open
and close the case.
Defendant further contends the verdict is ago^inst tue r&iniJ'eat
tti^Si/T(S iiuibrn't^t mauX. 6n« ^.i toi J'nsic *ii# Sjisq oi gniXijs't iucf
\ ■ -1 if 'f, ■■ ■ ^ \
S{£# no »£i£^W ,$e«dX ^xU^ 'ltd eaxxe^ 8;.i>r 4ju^q ^ihao oi JbdXi^l: 't'U4;a|«X9
' .. < .•iaxoTics'iateiiu ijtJjB y;*X#*^«^a m 10'i si n^iMlvotc »di i&di
^a«5a6l«b j-nuottig ^jH 'ILmi'-^iio ^a.l9<i ^^^ >d ftdasvQXX«, oe 9&e« >gi«
anvii* XX2<1 Jb«sXiHA;>X aUJ- to aolieia^limxit ws tu4 'iaf>liJi(iiiOtSiO M^'X'lltaiJtl^.
.X;i«t Qiid io W9iT »xl* asatf aiTaii Oif ttixiimfi atdi baa tkilb
b»B0Vi9ial bad 9d $»iii.^9^9 9»if^ '
weight of the evidence and in support oi' this the argument seirr.s t©
be that t>ie evi-^cei^ce disclosed tnat the auiount ol" deposit was
lair jT.d equitable unier the circomstaiiceB vid vas therei'ore
liquiiated donates, aa tne rider provided, and tnut il' defendant
had not been precluded Troi. offerin^j testiiuony ol witnesses as to
aoneys paid out "by defendant in connection with the execatlon of
the lease, "there would oe no doubt left in the laiads of a Jury as
to whether or not the defei^daiit is indebted to the plaintiff,"
We thinX there is no merit in tj.ie point xuade. ijefeiidant offered
to B.^ow that before the exec^tioi: of uie lease ne had paid iS25 to
& foTiuer tenant wno was occupying, tue prtaaiees at the tL^e, to
obtain the cancellation of his lease; t;iat he paid .>650 to a broker
for obtainint^ plaintiff as a tenant and paid #200 to his attorney
to draw up tne lease. .ve think the court '^lif not err ii) excluding
this evidence. On the trial- there ^as no suggestion when counsel
made tiie offer that plaintiff knew of these expenditures, and, aa
said in Dunn v, Katenberg . 203 111, App, , 30C, which was a case
similar in character to the instant case, "Dafei.dints sougiit to
prove on tiie trial tnat at tue ticie the .;.eaae waa executed tiiey nad
spent a considerable sun of Money in re;.;odeling the pret^ises in
question, iue court properly excluded evidence of the suuount of
tnese expenditures, ivo doubt tnese expendituies .vere juade for the
pui'poae of securing tue execution of the lease v.itn tiie ori_;inal
lessee, but uie lease itsell" did not expressly provide for any
reimbursement to defendarits for these expenditures otner than the
promise of tue lessee to pay rent,"
Defendant fart-ier contends tiiat tne court "erred in hol'iing
that the liquidated daBiafees agreed upon by and between the parties
was a peiialty and not liquidated damages," and the case of Parker "
Was-iinKton Oo. v. OhicaKO . 267 111., 136, is cited. In that case
plaintifl" entered into a contract -with the City of o-aicago for the
SMS?f ixeoasfe 'to iaisoim aiW ;^isxl^ fcaeoioaif fronsMvs sxit J^riJ ed
sio*i9'ieiI;f caw hm- asofua^Eauiaiio ©fL^ isfciui Qldailuo^ ba& tt&'t
as •%%«{, a to abi'ihs. smi til itsi i^sjoh o« »cJ |>i«ow aasxiit" .sa^oX 3£i*
b»iX9'i'tQ iiuiba&'teQ. ,9bii&i. iaioq aui i\i iit^sa. on si Bi9tii Aiitiii 9W
oi SS.&$. bs»q basi »ri &«j-:kI Qui to iioHijQBXs &n.i ^xo'tad i&sii voxi8 0^
XQnioiifB Bid oi 00S|. 6i:*5q 6«J^ <i-ii*snftd' & sa t'iiifiijslq aalots^do lot
Sni.bwXox* ai ti9 Ion fcif^ ^iwoo Sii^ :iaim «W .••4i«i 0xi* .ijjB^IWCjii pt,
Issiit/oo nsxiw ooi^8^>ijswa en a*vv ai«xiJ' Xfil-xcJ »x4^ «0 ,9on©f)XV9 at&t
8Jis ,i>as .••iwii&ffEipcs sanacf io vsraf 'ttjd-ai^Xq ^^ii* i»*tlo noji 9b«M
3a«o « B«W flaiiiw ,<X>£ , .<iqA ,1X1 SOS .^- isgraaj-jgiij »y najoG ai blB9
al eQsXuaetq 9xit ^^^ -^^'^'^'''^'^ "-^ -^snuiE 'to ixoua 9X(i£'x»£>XBfloo £ ^no^f
'to iMJotm ®ii* "to so««6Xvft l>©|jiiXax» \;Xtt®ta^q ^luoo «il'l ,aottz9iip
»xl^ lo'l el>«ut ttidw a©'xiLi*ifcrj©Qxs ftaajEiir *aui>i> oA ,«*iij;Jxfea9<5X9 ©a»xi^
Xjsnxaiio ©^ xl;J^Xw 98«sX mU 'to fl«I*ii9«xo sxU sni**Jo«6 '^0 9«oqituq
^CkS 10't ajblvoifj ^jXaaatiqx* ioa lib IXssjX «a£»X 9di iud ,©9aa9X
■♦*fl0i x-SQ »* a»e«»X 9^ '»o <»<nf,)o<xq
SflXl'Xoti ax fisiift" ^Tuoo eif^ j«xic» afcti«iit©o T:»fl.#ii.''t #n«l>a»'tv .
«3^g^3J8U 'to safio sxl* faoa ".essjimiB^ Jb»;t,sfeXueiX toa bsm xil^aQii
sasa ^axi,r nl .boito aX .dCX , .XXI V»S . omolsfQ . j ^aQ xiorf:^aXiia»W
•'-1 < -lo'i oafioXnO 'to Tj^iO axl;J diiw toaiiaoo ^ oJnX fcaistn^ Ttl*nx«Xq
erectloii oi" a pumpinti station to eupply water l"or the use al' its
inhabitarits nn^J lor protection against I'ire; .-ind it wc^s i^eld it
■was legal to provide in the contract u.at plain oil'i" would uay $50
a day as liqui^iated damages between tae tixne 1'iy.ed for coir.plet ing
tne work and the time ol' its aotual coripletion, i'iie court there
further 'leld that the word "liquifiated" in suci a contract does
not always tteteriuine tae auesti-on v; letner the orovisiori is I'or a
penaltj' ^ind not J'or daioaijes, 'ind said (p. 139): "Wuere tne in-
tention ol' tne parties is in doubt t.ie courts are inclined to con-
strue the stipul^trrd sum as a penalty, bp.caase the t leory ol' the
law generally is that coii-pensation siiall be the rule an-i tae ap-
plication ol" tiia ! rule works justice between tue parties, -^■^* In
order to detenaine whether a stipulated sum to be paid J'or the
breach oi a contract was intended to be a penalty or liquidated
dstcages, the court will consider the lan^y..A-e used an J the subject
matter ol tie contract to ascertain the intention ol' tne par'ies.
The use ol' the word 'liquidated' does not always determine the
question," Again, in discussing this question tae court in Advanc e
Amusement Co. v. Frank e. 263 111, 579, said (p, 581 ): "As was said
by this court in gobble v, Linder . 76 111., 157, no tranch ol the
law is involved in more obscurity by contradictory decisions taan
whetaer a sun. n Hioried iii an at^reement to secure performaxice v.'ill be
treated as liquidated da^ajses or a penalty, ^^c as eaca gubs must
depend upon its own peculiar and attendant cirounist ances, general
rules 01 law on tais ^aestion are oJ ten ol' little practical utility.
While tne intention ol' the parties on this quf-ation ust be taken
into consideration, the laii,.u<..,e ol' U.e contrac. is not conclusive.
The courts ol' tnis dtate, as T/ell as in otaer jurisdictions, lean
toward a construction *.iiici. excludes the idea ol' Iftauidated daaa^ee
and perrtits the partieg to recover only dai.at.ee actually sustained.
*♦♦ This %i.d all other courts seau to a^ree uoon the r.rinciple that
si bi'^d ajsw il ixxis i&tl't ^gaidsac aoiSoatoiq ■not tars &$£vaiifi:atiai
Qa# xsit^ !t.liiJ!;ir 'ttiiiiisilq ftiiit •hsjsiij'rto©- siii ai ^Jblvotq' ot X«a»X sjiv
-^« »jel* l>fiw ^.Un tixit &^ l£.Bm a©i #«sm9(|^oo i^&& el ■^XJUtsndjj, ««i
Hffitgy^ flArftftiJoo »xi;^ aoktasusp nidi ^aXs9iS99tb ni .rtlBgA ",fleli'«*#l^
bim 8«w QA* :(l6d .q> feijes ,t»Vg .1X1832 ,t»ii-x«Tt .v .oD imm^Bsj^A
9jl,t 'lo xionjiad on ,vex ,.I1I dV . lol'.aJtM: .y sXyTdioO nl #t«60 «irf* 'te(^
asm aaciairisb icioJ-olM-xJaeo Y<f t*-^i:"®®<^G »ioffl ai feevXorfltl ififl WaX
©tf XXJtw soii8an:o'i'i©q: «r£uo^» ot #rt9as9«isJ8 as ftl |»»xaen jsuje b isrfJeiiir
Jawffi seaa riOJi^» «ja ficte ,1t5Xi»a»q[ & to in»s«sa* *»#«MJBplX bA A«*»9i5
,fc9at«^ax;a \;XXjSiJiroii ttojjfinAfctXno^-JiVa©** ©»!»**«« »^* adiM-rsti F:;!.:
a atioulvted euin will not tc allowed as liqaidated damut^er ur-lc-ssi
It may ^p fairly allowed ue compensatioi. f'-r tUe treiiciv. **•» We
hav* frequently eai;? tUat courts --viii look tc ere t'le utiture and
pur'io^a of fixinf-; the aiiount of daua^ieB to t'e nt*id, iinl ii It ap-
pears to tiave 'been ine-^rte'i to secure the proi/ipt perforn.eaice of the
agreenent it will be treated sie a oenalty and no luore than actual
damages Dioved can be recovered,"
In tile instant case we tnink tVie purpose of fixin^,^ in ti^e
rider the smiount of daiaat^es, yiz, , ;2,000, to "be paid, was to secure
prompt perf or:usc'ce by plaintiff, the ter.,i.t, of tlie tor..i3 of tlie
It-'ase, It is rxTjresely stated in th?'- rlaer t.iat the |2,0C!0 I9
deoosited "ac pecurity for the pprf crHiRUcesby said Lessee of the
coven?)ntF and "igreements contained" ir. the l=?aBe and rider.
Complaint l« also r:ade that the court invaded tiie province
of the ,iury. The record ■^ieclcs-js tl-..*t .%fter the jury retiied to
corpi'ier of It? v-^'-dict, it returnrd a vtrdict f i- lint., the iosuee
for nla1.r;tlff , fixing his d;aiaai_:es at ''•36?. Ih-? court then inquired
of the jury as to i-cvr it arrived at that f if:ure , and thorn was uon-
si'^'eratle di scission belvs'pen the court <'vnd the foreL;an of the Jury
ar -" alsc by counsel "rhich clearly dieclcsfd that uie jury y/as con-
fused by the figuren, Tbp court th-n sent the jury bacic iMd it re-
turned a verdict for ;H4B3 w-ich, as above stated, was irade up of
the amount of the deposit less the r*=nt for Kay -ind Jute and cnG-half
of the iJ164 defendant testified 'le had expanded to put the premises
in order after olai/ tiff vacated tne;,; on June 22, In the colloquy
between the Jud.re and t'^e foreman it dev ilop«id t^iat tae jury, as
above said, t'lou.^ht the 5164 wan too uu oh. .Ve thinK there was no
such error as rrould warrant a reversal of the judt^/uent. There was no
dispute about the fi ires aiid the rei.t re. .ainint due -drnd unpaid, aad
the only question was as to the amount of the repair bill.
The Ju'.ment of the kunicipal Court of Chicago is affirmed.
JJI>C-itEi.T AfJ'IUkKD,
MeSurely, P. J,, fuid Matchett , J., concur.
6ae -sii/J-^a as'i fioa o.f slocl X.tJt-v a&ruot3 }j>ni ^iins ifX;tnoup©it ©VjSri
-q« Ji 'il bna .i-isq i^d o5 so;^BixfcSb to ^auof.s^ ■s.f^i' ?^hixl't 'to 6fflO«»"Xi/Cf
".ifsisvoo^i arf nfio Jfeevoiq; «9sAia«l)
sdi at r.c^txi't "io egoaii:q &di Tlrudi 9n fta^d li\6;J'eni sri* nl
siAfoss oJ" ssw ,j-i.j?.q ©J ou ,v>00,St < .sxy \Bd's^iii^t to inuos^ ^tit i»bii
eftj- 'to f,<iiied sxivJ- 'lo .i.uas^ 9rl;t .'t'tJtJ'a.xpXe \:ef 90fs«ffi'ro'iT9q iipaoXq
«©ni'roTcT 5ii;r te.&iJViU ;f-xuoo ©itit tjjr.id' a&jstrf ©ele il talsZqaid^i '' '
«aoo ajsw '3"i3ii.o f^rus .aaiJTjl't J-jb/IJ- *js l>»>vlTnij it wo.'f «* aa vrft^t orfJ^ 't©
^u\. sdJ^ 'to mjiiisio't sn'J- bnM ituoo aM fiSfW^^d" itoi:»BiJ08lft dJt<:f«T©&X8
-noo ajBw ijiut s^i^ '^^^■^ beaoXoalfc tJ^rtseX;) i<dl<*?f Isanuoo t^ dartti Sm»
'to qu aJSwsEc aijw ,b9Js;ts 3/o:.'*s as .xioi w 68J^I|; tol i^ibtBr M f>»ntui
tied-sno Isfis ©duX. bra?, -^bM to't ^ft^i 6di a^&T JiaeqtB6~»Hf^'tO Jatfiaaus' 9*1*
aeaiiiift'xq sdi iuq at fisfornqxa fejexi txf ij»i1i*a9;> JHuSfefld'tsfr *&X^ sriJ 'to
^jupolloo oiiif nJ. .?S ©nut. no isi9d^ b^ikoer 'i'tlicxtAla t9il£ TSfcio al
QB ,\;ii;l ©xid' Jea* fceqoXsvsfc ;Ji nBisQiol sti* bati BT^hljt 9x1* f»9i»*9cf
on B«w sT&xiX .*ai»ic^£iit &iii "to XjBei9v»a « ifmsiaaw bluov? s£ ioti« deuB
.fcoiatxi'ta aX ojifiylxiO 'to iiuoO XjeqiolcmM *xii *to immhliii sH^
40351
RiraAH:) ALLAN DILLMAK , a Minor,
by '7ILLIS '•:. i:'ILLk.-\l. , laie F-:itlier
and next friend,
Appell.int,
vs.
COKSUkKRS SAt.ITARy C0FJ»1fiii. &
BOTTKR STORKS, a Corporation,
Appellee,
APPEAL moh. SUPERIOR COURT
OF COOK GOUi-TY.
' 2 -a.. -^3^
^K. JUL:TICi!; O'COM.OR DiiLlVilKED 'x'Hfi OPIi.lOI> O-H' x'xiii COUhT.
Plaintil"!', a cliilri tiare^ and a hall' years old, troui^ait suit
by his fat I'^r and next I'riend -t^Hinst defendant to recover daiiiageB
for personal injuries clainied to have resulted t,..ruUt,ii tue negii-
gerice of c^ef fn lant in setting- fire to w-^ste paper in trie rear of
its grocery stor«, as a result of which tae paper blew afsainst
plaintiff an' he was severely- burned, Tliere ?;as a jury trial nd
at the close of all the evidence the courmne true tod a verdict for
defendant, juiitment "■'SiB entered on the verdict and plaintiff appeals.
The record discloses defendant conducted a grocery store on
the '.eBt ai'^f of Stony I elan;? avenue 35 feet south of -32nd street,
Chicago, Tae store was one story .ligh and had a fronta^.e of 46 feet
and a depth of 70 feet. i'he lot was 129 feet in deptu extending
from Stony Islan.i avet.ue to an alley. The rear oart of the lot ex-
tending froi. the store to tne alley, 59 feet, '.as vacint, iear the
south p-irt of thp vacant space and about 3(. or 35 feet ^-est of the
store t'lere was an inciner itor made ol i .ur poets driven in the
ground, aiout four J eet high; around these four po^ts vas a u.esh
wire extending froci the ground to the top, but for some time orior
to the acciient, Aoril 7, 1j34, t-e vire had broken 'own so tiiat it
was only about one an ^ a ti-ai' to two feet aoove iae ;jrf?und; isaes
and refuse had accumulated in the incinerator, j^'roj ^ time -o lime
defendant took v;.riou8 Jcinds of waste paper an^l refuse from the
stor^ ruid burned it in the incinerator. Son:e of this ^as heavy
xeeo^
,t>a»l'X% tx9a has
,9SXi9C!qA
-iia«n »i£J fti^aoTtiiJ- &@ilmi»% evej^ «1 6*iai«Xo i»»lxtf|,,Kl J^apftn*? -lo.Tt
,8X«»(?qa 'ni^nifiXq: fe«e Joife^ev sii* ko fes-xs^fl* •«* i'cwaBahtft ,^ae^^91•j^
ao Urtoiu ^leoo-xg « B«^o£ri^rf€»o ^rasi^ns'tsjb ttdaoX»«l£» fitYooev •4fX'
,*99i;t9 fe«S6 *£o iid^ttOR ;rs9l as ew««Tc fcOBXtl %me#|l t« efeia ^as* an*
^•a't S* 'io »iiainot't « fe64 biSB Agtii t^to^a »no ••w •i»ia aril .ogaoiriO
8HJti)a»J-xa ilJqaJi) ai t9»'t tSX ««w #oX adl' .*ea"
•oc^ foX axitf 1o Stm ^JB9'S 9^' .taXXe oe o# ajsnavi.
>:fj i«ail .#a»ojjv a«w ,j«»'t @8 .t^^Jl^ ««**♦* «io*
axSd-'to ^t'sow *9®'i a£ to Ofi taorfa fims aaaqa ir*
9di at a»vizb a^seq ruot to slwBfli •ja^Btafli-..- .
' d»9ia £ ei8W aJ-aoQ «i;o'i aeaM* Jb£i£fO'x« ;if^M i—'t ««»ot ^-oT>.' . ?)nuon5i
toltQ- *^i* aaioa ro'i iu^ .goiT axi* ^^ h:^:■.>■y -,^.t , 'o^i -t.r^
aaxlac jfeflmis «ii.^ avad* d-aot dw;
a«W^f 9JH^*jao«t »toJ*. "9t&linau90i? ■ . lat ^a«
eri* molt aau'ist hn« taqisa a^aaw te r^r,>.5f ,rio^ii=T ^or>i *aa6«a'tal>
^ Finn OTn.fH
iiqeb a fecus
J - i. ^no*B moil
waxed p tper and some oJ Lt cardccard,
iuere vnxa u one 8tor> bail line adjoiniii(i dei'endatiC • 8 tsrocei'y
store 01. Lue uortu extending 35 I'eet to ci2nd street uj^d apparently
to tiie alley on Uie ^.-eBt; a e.rooery store exter.ded vest iroiu atony
Island ;-iVenue 5g feet an-j in tiie rear ol it was an .aparti.»ent, next
a barber shop and tiien ajiotner apartment, all one story in aeight
and eacii uuvinji a Irontafce on a2nd street ol' 25 i ct^t. i'li^ii. til'l'
lived rith uis pareiite ia tae apartCienl near tne ulley; in tne 25
feet iiiiL.edia.Lely east of t^ie apart.-ent plaintiif's f-tKer conducted
a barber shop; back of t.ie <iparti..ent and tixe barber snop v-as a
space aooat 6 feet iii width iiii-iediately nortu of arid adjoining the
vacant property iii tx:e rear of defendaiit's store, but tuere vms no .
fence.
The evidence a^iows t. i.a,t Euortly bei'ore tae accident, about
1:30 p. a., Aoril 7, 1954, plaintilf .vae playing., witxi a eand bucJiat
and a buovel ix. tiie space in tne rear of tiie aparti^ent v.here he
lived wiL.. nis oareiits. L'aftre is also evidence t.i&t an en.ployee
ol del eii'^.ant took some papers fro^. tiae store, tnrew tiieiii in tne
incinero,tor nd set j ire oo them; tuat t^.ere was BOJi^e wino fron; the
south as veil as tuat created by tirie burnint^ papers, causinj. the
papers to blow toward the north, ana a piece of tne paper wraoped
around nlatntiff 's left leg arifi severely burried ixiai, The distarict
between t!ie incinerator ai^n the rear 03' plaintiff's xiouie v/as about
50 feet.
Ihere is substantially no dispute as to the facts above
stated and the only substatitlal conflict in tne evi>.ience is ae to
whetner plamtiif went to one incinerator, paiieU out £iox.>e of tne
burniof naper, a piece of whicu blew around niu le^ causing, iiim
to run back to xiis hous, or wnetxier txie paper was blown frot. tiie
incirerator and canie ir. contact vith plaintiff ' s leg wuile he was
on tiie lot on wnicxi was tiie apartment Wixere ue lived.
s
i' '
,hi£i0^t%BO a 'to ejSMja bcus X6qi.''ii bdXAW
Xt^oorii B* j^UiJbne'i&L a^s-^aiotfe* ^iaiMiud xrto^s ©«o, * «*»# 6Tt«iiT
ix6a. ^ici9iaiij&q»^ aa ««?? ^i to las-x arii ai ta& tfad'l 8« •*»* ■ i«I
i4i»i9xi al i^.'sotfa eaa 4£fi :V'*i^i*>^ii*'X«t^ tsfi^oos Hojij fens qoxLa ijui^cf jb
«d oisfiw i£i9tiiiiia<is ft^-^ to xms^ Aoi al so&qa »iii ai Itroiin a baa
ae^o-i-ct^^ ^^ iiiij. J 0ai\»hiv9 oeI» si «T»iiX .a^rnid'xaq Bid tiiiw beril
9sLi al madi wQiHf ^ateia 9iit i&on't sistq.eq oibos Moo^ itaaJbne'tdb to
BiU sBQi't baiv 9uioe a^w aaaxii ;t«£i^ jaed^ o<f a'sJt'c isa A^ae te^.fttafcJtonl
9il;t ^4niBu«o .aaaqjeq i^alu^ad e£[# ^sf i>9J4i0Ts s^»a* a« XX«?
Jbaqqjsiw Tsqisq ail* to 909iq » ba& ^riitioa eiir ptubwo* wolcf oi Biaq«q
eociidiiBiJb 9aT .iiitii fcauiud ^Xs^svaa bitB gaX *taX «»l:tJtiniflXq bauoiM.
iuoda 8£iw 0iaoii a'TtxJaijaXii ta ijaa^ ari* l>n« 'xod-aiaiutoai: srii aesni- J
avocfa s^asl aa* o;} a* a^wqailj on Y'£'t«i*a«*arfMt ai
e^ ae al soaabir© axii ai #oiX'ifloo lainuiindaa x^
^di "io aiaoa iuo b»lLuq .xotd'saixianl aili a* c? cact^aaw
ttiii aaiauiio a^jt aiii bcwox* waXrf lialifw 'to 99'^iq e. ,i9c zud
ddt mil awoXd aaw «qaq atil ^ail^axlw to ,««oii aid •* il»«rf aiii o*
a«v ad aXidw ^ttl B''ni*(ii«Xq ri*iw *a**ac-. ^a xoie"
.feariX Bii aioilw ^a^a^ijsq* aflJ a«w xioinw ao ^oX «»*ij ao
i-'laintii 1' ' 8 jo si lion is Liiat tne evidence is to tiie ell'ecv
tiia I de.l'eiicwrit on prior jcc >,3ioris uad barned ti-e saiue jiinu ol' Xi-:-i.p9r
in tue iacirierator , "nXxu uccau&e ol' tue drHl't caused by tae heat
I'rotfii t.iC coa-bastion suad becausje OJ ti.e "vind, tixe luriiixii, p^^pers
had teen 'biown about tJie rxeit;iiLori.ood" ; tliat Tiien piainiilf was
last Been, a lew minutee uei'ox-e tx.e accid-^r.t, ue "v-ae pia^in^ with
hie toys on ^^ia own lot ii:- Lt-civ ol' tiie tuiiaini^^ where he xived";
that "Ihe dil'i'ererce between the plaiijtil'l" arid tae r\ei enOiM>t appar-
ently iiinges uocn one k?irji.:,le oujestion oi I'act, riarLely, was the
plaintifi' at the tiiue ol the accidei't on the preiuises ol the de-
fendant, or was i.e in his own huac yiiird."
Delendsuit 's position is t.-at plaintill went over to the
incinerator, pulled out a piece oi' the burning paper, or t.iat it
came in cont .ct yiitu hie leji, .jnd trial ne was lirst seen about 6 or
8 I'eet Iroru the iiicinerator running toward uis injme , vitn 'burninfc,
paper around one ol nis legs; that "Tuere is no duty owed to a cnild
ol any ui.;e wiio is a trsspaeser on private property other t/ian nox to
maliciously injure iiioi. There is no c&m.enLiori iii tiiie complaint
tuat tiie delendant set a trap, or ot-ieiT^ise lualiciouely injured the
plaintill', tiisrelore tixe only quest ions in tne case are v/hether c^
or not tne delenaant was ne,[^li.^ent, and v/hetiier bucu ne^^H.^ence , il
any, tjade any dil'l'erei.oe in tne inst^^it caBe;* ti^al ti^ere is not a
Bointill^ ol evider.ce "that the v/ind blew burning paper out oi' the
recentacls, ajid caueeri it to coaie in contact wit/; tne cild'e
clothing, *** It nowhere app'^ara that tne c-iild was to tae 'vindward
ol" the incinerator v^iien the burnint, paper caiue in coiitact with iiia
lege, ■*«* tnat tne theory ol' pi liiitil'l' is t.xat tae defendant was
nefelit,ent in maintaining an un^ uaried lire waere it aiuet have kno-'/m
that burning ei^bers mitint be carried iroux the lire lq the pj.;:i.iiitilT,
nnrl t.i.it del^n-iant was neg^i.,eiit in I'aixinj,, to maintaiii any ^/uard
or protection ar.ond tne Jire to keep it i roni bein,^ blown by txie
j^^BoviX 9X1 »-xdxiw •^aibl.iud sdi Xo ^s^d xut sol avo eid no a^o^t alxH
-•£acq« :taa&ij® tQ.b »iiJ foous 't'txtai^tq sdi a9»w&9d eottatsTiift arfi" tAdt
«*6 sii^ fo aa«x3£i?iQ ©Aid" ao ;^ci!5fuo$« ori^- *to ssiit ©df* .^Tjb TtiiJaiaifl
" i.l^t:«iX 3iojs^ av^o sin tix «il saw lo ^S&Mbant
ix d-^iiJ 10 ,ifJvi*iQ aniii-xijo' siiii x© »o©j;<j ^ *mo fo®XXwq ^rcoifAadRlsiil
^olaiAxi fi^l'iir ,9iXiOXi aid M^'sro^ s^'^i^ ^t^'J^ lOSat&alQiii adi .taor'i ^aa'l; 8
jfc.Xixi9 a ai bmvte x^ub on ei s^tsa*" l^/i* :a;aAl aifl to «ao Dnwona ti»qf«<Z
o^ ioa imtiy isidse ^^zoqoxqt siaYltq ao ^ftsd^qsa'Xi^ a $tt 6dw ^j^ XitM %9
Snlisiq^i-iQ sliis ill a0ii:i&3iim oa el »*i9df imlA viulal ^lauojtoliAtf
awoaii: 9Vis4 Jajwa #i a-xaiiw aii't »»oijeMsa»a» s'*'i2iiijl0i. 9:4iL3»n
V
wiri'^ rhnnt the n<»lrh"*~orhce(l* ; th-«* this theory "^oul-^ be all ri3;ht
il" it 'Tae s>^o'!»n that the "boy *■** was ri^^htfully orx the prenuepp of
defendant, or that the burninf r^ner "nas Vl.cwr froir ^'el'enclant ' e
Tjremiaep crto the premipes occupier?, by the cnilfl'E father, ■^ ■ ^ Tli«
law in tuifi ptp^te In t'net a chile" trerpaescr ic ored no f;:rfc.tt.r or
different duty thex pr rflult. The orl-y fxceptior if Ir f-o.^or of
children who are "ttracted upon th*" pr<r ders by serf thing r'icb is
intrinsicolly allurln.v 9.r.d vHich actually attrccte tLc-n to the
prewiees." i\r.d that councel for plaintiff or. the trial e'.XTjressly
stated, •! don't claiTD, your '-^onor, th,-?t that is f:\n -Attr-iCt iv«
nuis^Jnce,"
PI ^ir tiff called two vjitneesss who first saw -■lairitiff after
the turninj.': ps-oers carae in contact \<^lth his lege, Thest? t-^o hoy»
were nlaying ball in the vacant preiaisea ir.:trr;e<Jiately south of the
vacant 8'iaee behind def end^int 's store. They were Leonard Jacobsen,
15 years old, -ind his brother «?illis, 21. .Leonard testified tnat
he heard the child scream, turned, and saw him about 15 feet fron:
the fire rur.nini:- from tae incinerator toward nis ho.^e. ciin brother
Willis .eave testiiaony to the same effect except he said the child
was from 6 to 3 feet frorxi the incinerator.
The complaint charged that nlaintiif was ot 'lis own ore-jisRS
when the burning napers caiue in oontact with his lejiB. jlT. pre is no
allegfciXion that would brinji the case within the uttractive nuiaonco
doctrine and, as stated, coufcsel for rii^Lrtiff on the tri-.! ex-
pressly repudiated any buc;'. contention ^nd takes the sam.e -poeiticn
in this court.
'Vft t^iink the evidence all f ov.'p. Plaintiff wes or defender t'«
premises near the incinerator at the tiir.e the reaper care in cortctct
with hie legs, pji-i the court did not err in directing a verdict.
In this Rt-^te the Irt', as we undprstari'' it, it that infants
have ne greater right to f^o upon onother'e procerty than alu] ts
except vi'nere xne doctrine of attractive nuisat.ce applies, McDermo tt
iti^ls. XX.P ocf frIi/PT*' x^O'^df sXsif i-eiit ; ••^ooiliotfrijiPn srf* *worf.a bain
'io 8«»8JLjastq srij- ko •^IXi;t*iiglT eaw ♦** ^^d" erft t£tlf cnrorfB b«i^ ix 'ti
• '*cu55n«ts6 moft awoXrf sew ^^^^^(y 'Qtilatud »cit issii te© ,*a«l)ne*t»fc
'tc tor^t aJc si rsoltcreox^ y:lno srfT .*I«|>« ns fUBif* ifj-wfc 4'a«'x«'nJt&
\rl889iqx^ Leinl axid- rto ttxt-i;i:.i?Xc lo't I««n«oo *flrij fc«A * .aealfflftiq
ayiJ-O-a^i.t:)';?. up eJt j'arf.t :S-«r!.t ,T:ofToH tuc^ .sriaXa i'aob I* ,JbA^i$^a
* *9onA«Xj;fa
e"?orf ow* PcsiiT .819 1 alii rfJlw *©»*nfoo Ri *is«o eiscf^tf isisnlniifrf ad*
©rit *to Mi'uoB TcJ^'^t^lMiraBii assXitts-JCf Ijxisojbv «x1(:i^ ni XXccf ijai^jeXcr aitir
aioit iQHt 5X ;^£;ocffi Miri wee ba^ ^bocrxa^ ,m«»'t©8 bXlrio «ri* btsssi 9A
t9i'.ioi(( eta .aeoii aXri b'sevoi loifjaianionx s>jS* aioil ^Blamir ailt sxlt
.lEotjs^9iiioni ori* isoTt ^f**'* 8 o;^ d moil aaw
B»8liSJ!^%«f rriro airi no a«rs? Ttii^iixaXq i-si-ii f»sB*i^rio d-iuaXfaioo aiclX
on el sTAii^ .«j^»X aXri il^iv ^oBd-noo flx ftouRo srcdg^or gfllnijjcf exi# nadSr
©oosaiijn svlJo^rK^**?. 9x13" .HXii^iw aa^o »ff* •^nt'SiS fcXxJoir ^axli^ xioX^«3^XX«
-r* L/iltf 9dS no 't11:^:ixsLc to't X©a4«oa ^^Al'aJ'a a£ ,i)fl« «ninc>sob
aoitlaoq sun&a ^di aa^At bna aoliiteSnoa daL% x^t^ ^9i»tbitqB% -^Xaaaiq
«'tn®JEi«©'i»ft no eaw TtiinXj&lq aw^fe XXa asaniafcXva arf* iaiiid'
.^ailji^v c 3ni*od*iijb «1 Tfr» #©« Itlft ittiioo ^nJ ,. tXw
airaslal *«xt^ si , jM biauBjai^ferJu aw a£ .waX arf*
T , hur ke, a 06 ixi., 401; ja ati.levici a v. Dole ec & iilieparcl Co .. 261
Hi, ^ipo, 49c, i^ut scrac autiioritiee acl-i luat c ci.ild seTex": years
old is in caosoie oi' fceint, h treepaeser in tlie eyes oT tae law,
Section 104W , 1 i'hoiupson on iNfctfiit;.cace, vrJisre Lit aatiioi' citat
Labi in Cott on uil Co. > . .Ta-rrard . 4C U, i/, 531, ai'i'ir.'aed 91 leJ^.
£09, \'d i, *, 959. .'-hal A I'ire siio : ^b t.ie oni: ir. t-)i laitaiit
Cise would \-e liAfti^v to attract plriintij'l' , 3'»e 3r:''ic:i t v, '^'xteruary
Co. . i?.7 ..%.Y. >, li7; jnion i'^.cirie Ry. Co. v. kcJonald . If)-? J. o,
230; iloB3 et u x. T. Ca eei^e r Traction C o.. ?:» ntl. (Pi.) 153;
Pirucci iii v , Director (ie; .'g r al of Rsti lroad a et g .l.. 112 Atl, (l,'.J. }
311; Oarr v, .jOuzhevn i^emi^sjXyainiftTr Ac tion Co... ?5S .'5.. 274; Kc>nat
T, B i edror -iBki . 278 111, App, , bS3, (abst.)
Hie case naving 5J^«S-_^raii£ii4-.att4-:tad.iL4^^,fiP^th^^
the doctrine ol' attractive nuisance was inapplicatle, the Judgment
ol" the Superior court of Cook, county is ariircied,
McSurely, P, J, , concars.
Matchett, J, dissents: I agree the evidence inflicates the injured
child was on 'lel'er-.d.int ' ? -irer isss «'-:en
injured; but notwithstanding I think there
wae a cu^gtion oJ' I'sct J'or tli'^ .jury. The
buminti ol" inflamruable paper -and refuse
as disclosed by t'i<? evi^lciioe '"ae inner ''Utly
dangerous. The question ol' wnoee pre'iises
olair.til'f (a ciild ttaree y^nrs oil) T7aP on
when injured is not mat<3rial.
ffii^©X «sv9a JbliA-la ii saixi t>lod ««iJi;i©iid'jj« sxacs J«i ,69^ •<?5A .XXJ
,w.«X s-ci:}- lo a9-^« feT)." rii 'i'fli«8£.qii«T* « jjiuod" 'to »XcrBqj»8ai ai ibl9
.x©r xe Isftfliil'ile , IS? *W .S 0^ t ftgtg ^^^l .?- .oO , Xxo miiifO ni Xdtfvl
.«- .1- SSI .jilJznoCoM ,y .oO .N-H pi't.i;D.aU noiciU ;V6X ,b«Y.a yfeX '..oO
;Gi X (..»',^U .I.tA r.V , .gO j;it|,J:Jofi?T .,.?;,^J.as.(^'>,^l. ^x/j^ , J; e . 'e9.oH ;OSS
(.X..W.) .X.tA SXX . .Ls_ S» atific^^MifiR 'to I.^i.Si i,sO iQto&iifL ,y 4iiX.aoja'ii5
(..t?!cfa) ,£«d ,.gqA ♦XXI feVK .,jt3( aiioiJbs i :a «t
.awmiiiUi Tm«oaut ~^""~'~"" ^— — —
narfy 3©ai-:7<5^a 3' tfJBfc.fT»'!l&^ a© s»*»v bXij*» -„... . ,;.;
^aiftBi .brie isgjsq aX'ijBimaaXlai lo gninixid
^X;tnR'rf<r;nl 2«w •©oa^.f^ir© ©rit v:<^ l>«8oXosife e^ ,i , . .: ,. :;
aoei-nsia; fflao.ciw 'io A-ioxcraoxip sxJl , 8^0^93 ixAis
oc eew (mc e-s^es't eft's 1^* fcXlii'o «) 'I'ti^^uX^Xg ,,.;. .^ .•■,
♦XjBii».t«.ra d-on eX jbft'xwtiii fl«iiw
''■■ < t^:. '■ ^T'.;
i/A'-: i'SV. -^"w- 'r,.l Sj
40.^79
40563
BIGSKDA HOiraR,
Appellee,
) iiPPEAj- raoi: iiupriRiou court
)
FORREST '^ii.BB hOLTilR, )
Apprllant. )
OF COCK COUKTY.
^
290 - - -^^3
MR. JUSTICE O'CONlvOR DSLIVSRID TliE OPINION OF Tl-ffi COURT.
Anril 13, 1933, plaii.tilT llled iier -verilied complaint lor
a divorce caarjiixit, Jfier nusb^ina witn. adultery, liie compl-xint con-
tained tae ordinary allegations as to tiae marriaj^e, etc.; tuat tnere
were two cnlldren; tiiat delentia.iit was ean ing about j1<j^ a iuont^i.;
that rie threatened to dispose ol his property, stocke oJid bonds
and leave tae btate ©1" Illiixois. She prayed lor a divorce, that he
be enjoined Irom dispobint, oi' or encumbering his property >i.nd 1 rom
interl'erink ^iVa aer, and tiiat a writ yi ne exeat republica issue
to prever-L im I'roui ieavin^^. xne jurisdiction ol the couit,
Aoril 20 J'ol^owin£ sne I'ileu her veri.ied petition praying
l"or te.'.porary alimony ai:id support i'or nersell' and t/ip two jninor
chil ren , %xid attain lor a wri i 01 n^ exeat republica . on tne same
day an order was entered which recites t .at del'endunt nad been
served v/itu notic* and apyei:.red in coui't vritn his counsel; it was
ordered t lat ne be ^iven live -.aye to imswer tne petition tixii tne
matter was set ior April ?.1\ tnat /le pi^y i^-j a weeic aiiaiony and
his
tha;. he Le enjoined I'roni sellin^/stoCK-s, bon(^8, etc, fliay <;7 an
order 'as entered on motion ol" plain till' tnat a writ ol' ne exeat
Issue lorthv.ith upon pl-ilntifl' liiirig a bond ol' v2oo witnout surety;
j the uon I of deleiidaiit was 1 ixed at j>15uO and tne writ issued.
i
I ^^otuer oner appears ;'.n the record entered h.ixy 27, in w.^ici it is
j recited tuat on ruotioi; oi' solicitor lor xaintili" .-u^d alter tne
1
] writ oJ' ne exeat aad been served by tae Siieril'l" and defendant
\ taken into custody, defendant appeared in open court under tne
i
{
.YTTOOO XOiJS '^0
,81F-. ■■ . \ .
«h:s
<'x»d$ aaiis ;«oJ-e ^s-j^^iTism eni& ai as anol^fijjdJEi* ^isaiJb.f)© »jfi*.,' •.fe»:^if»ti.:i
s£>.-:i«G! SfOis. aafocJo ,>2d"r0<i{«<i€i alii "to ©woiijsjfc^ o# i)®««i^J88iri* tii taxi*
^iisjQo Biis io aoiJoi ballot ^^* ^iuv.s©! ^oi'i wid j-noveitcf o#
SJix^isiq aojt;fx*9t^ b3l'ii-x3v ««>xi b^Lx't 9ii« 3a.is^0ij:o't QS Xiiq.*'-
toaim owe? ^^il^ fora«5 'tX93'i«i/ to'i irQqqua baa xf'O'Siijs ifxeioqitisj- 'xo'l:
•■'-*ii»9d4 k»A 4aiii}m'l»h tBr».i «i^*4o«-x .ttelii*- Jrwiec^ito B«w «t»6to as '^CB*
B«w *i' ;4:»8at;o0 aid- £l#i«r »'tiar®« «i M«»fcrJB bm 9&iioa ami Jb©n««
jjBg.Jj;g an 'xo dxtw is *jaiiJ Ttii axi^Iq 'io aoliom ao fia-xe^afe ajaw n»l>io
iXi^tiis itsoaiiw 00S| 'io baod « sttxii't Tii^ai^X^ no^ti rii»iWiL>f ;L &usai j
«X .-^i a9x...w nx ,VS \;«ii is-x^^Toa J&ioootc »tii al ai«9ffcs i^?io tBatoaA
aLii %»i^'iM baa 'illiui«Xq to't ao*iolXo« t« nolfc ^io»i
6X46 MnoaiXJU* »&»« « d£f -^^^f. »ii #ail* ' f f S Xi««A -xo'l *«a b- '
cuPtoc^v ol" the Phfrilf; plsirtil'l' a; d defendant vere svoru ojnd/tea-
til'ied tnat he rixG urabie to t-ive fcon(3 i'or v'15CU; it v/rb oitierer? H/.d
decreed thst he te Kept ir custody oT tiip Pi^eril'l" arid dviivsrfci to
the rarder. of th^^ Cook county ,iail. June 22 ttiere appears ii: the
record the rritten appearance ol" defendant "by his couiisel. June
22 the CQPe -was heard before the crurt, witness^B sworn, and de-
fendant was d'"fHulted lor ;-uit of answer, n decree was ezitered the
next day; it recipes that defendaiit iiad due notice of tae pendency
of the suit, i'lainiff was awarded a divorce, solicitor's feee ^nd
aliir.or.y snd it was furtt.er decreed tiiat the writ oi ne exea t
rep ublica be continued in full force and el feet.
July 15 followint, tne eiitry of the decree deferdar^t moved
to vacate the order of default, the decree and all eubsequent orders,
and to ;li8uiBe the suit because it v;a8 vexatious in tuat a fonder
suit was pending between the parties in the oircuit court of Cook
county, brought by oliaintiff ag,ain3t defemiant ior a divorce; and
the motion further states that defendant had filed a crosE-bill in
that suit. Defendant -lid not file or offt;r to file an finsrer in the
Instant case. 'I'he rr^otinn was tak-n unier advisetient and on July 21
it was overruled* It is from this order tnat defendant .jrosecutes
the appeal number 40563.
July 20 defendant moved to quash the writ of ne jtxeat r& -
publica and to disBlss the conipiaint; the next day the motion was
overruled and defendant has apjjeaied to this court, number 40379.
Defendant contends that the writ of loe exeat should not nave
issued and tuat his faction to quash should have beti- sustained, '"e
think there is no merit ii. tairj oontei.tion. In the coiiolaint, after
statinij the cause for divorce, it is nllefoed that defendant had
threatened to dispose ol' axl ol' hit property and lf?avp. the v;t\.te
and that plaintiff belleTed he would carry out this ir. te/tion. Ln
the hearing of the iivorce suit olaintiff testified, "tie told ice If
©4
f)a,« £iI»i9ot:o aav/ j^l ; 00314 t^o'^ fcoccT »vijs 9? sldsnti st^v 'ni JariJ- fcai'tii
0* b^t9YilQb fcxus 'I'tirssfis srl* 'to x^oisvo ni ^oaM »tf *rf iarii b'^nnoBb
'Hit al- szB^qqn &%eiii SS ■aot.;'^' .Xi^t viJ-noon iLooJ -^d) to XTSfciEW erfj^
■' OfljjTi ,J[8«ai«3o airi y<^ ^^HBbaB't^b to ^&rmis&qq« ndJ^Jtrtx? sxtt bnooQi
erid' &9i9i:«e e&v aanc&eb A ,^©wa«fi lo iam^.' lo't bailu^'i'l^b sew ^n^fenol
■^oasftaoq saJ to aojjoa tSiiJb b£,xL i!xtiba?>'t9b i.&tAf astioat i'i jViJeb cJ^xsn
6as aas't a'lo^fioJtloa .soioTriS « fi»i)iisw4i e«« t*li;;rai«I*i ,*liia srt* I0
.J-ss'it!? boB aoi«*t Xitfl «i l)ti£inx;^aao ocf jBj>£X(ftfq [9?
la.Ttio'i « iadi ni ajjoli&xav a-sw d'l *aij«o«d #iij« enii etahmll oi baa
iooD 'to ttisoo iluaniO 9tii tit asiJuAcr «ri# noswJod s«i&i^»<I 8«w JHwa
ni iXxcf-maoia £ fisllt bj?if ^txBjb/islsfc Hatfi a»*fi*9 isr^jrijwl aoXlooi erf*
atif c.l -xsvrgas f«i <)Xi't of i^Tto to ©Xi't *o« M6 toBbaBtsd .iluv. iedS
IS. x,LiSL ao bm-. t«9ia99ivb£ i&t>nju n»lja& 9e.f1 aoiitm vSHU .safiO iaeiaal '
aad-jjosaoiq 3^aafcrt9'b>i» Jsilff «Ee^i;o alif* f^'t el *I ,MXij^a*To aaw #i
■^ .Sdeoik ^ajferunr Xj89qcr*i »if* •
aaw aqx^ocT srf;^ ^fii> *x«n txii italalqamo iHdt moimalb oS bae aoilrfBtr
«eT50* %&€mirx .ttuos nXi^ «(# 4>^Xeo«tt« ami faeita9'k9>b htm A^XwTiaro
at? ,l>6ai^i^8ir8 aaarf ©v«ii bXi/ofia ££«iijjp od^ aoi^Oin aiil t^dS beta D^x-H-ji
'bad j0jBl>£i9'tal) lanJ- ^e^AXIiS ai i^i ^ao-atdvifc lot aaiao silt aai*-8*«
s**;te axW avasX fccw! t#-i»<[oi<i aliS to XXa to aeoqslB o* l)»rt»i«Mxi*
no .aolinciicil ehii tuo ^4iao fcluow *ri 6«ir«XXa<I ttiJiilflXq ^TiJrfJ 6a«
tl aci bXo* 6ii" ,69rtiieftcf rnfalBlq Hua^trorlb Usl& ■'- -^^•— >'f ««<*
I wrnt a!ipad with. tr:ip action he ^rould If^av^ the State, t?;'':e rll of
his pergonal nrcp^rty away ard l^ave oi'^ ■'.•rithout any «?ur>iort ^hr-.tever.
As stated, dfi'en.''ar; t filer! no anr.T^er to the oonol 'irt nor
to the x>etiticn i'or a ^rit (both ol' -"hich wore verii'led; an-i has
not LMi'bMitte'3 any (lelVnee at nny tiiiie eith<»r to the petitior) or to
the coTsplaint,
Wo t.iink there is no j;U'rit in del'endar^t 's contention that
his motion to disaiss the suit !?hoald have been euetained "becauee
axiother action i^as peii'liiit in the circiit court, Wnile the record
ill the appeal prosecuted hy del'en'lant I'ro:;. the dismissal ol' the
Circuit court suit, as h ^reicarter ^feutioned, ie not a prrt of the
record iii the two appi?als bei'ore as, yet ise have exarainf^d it rind
I'ind that the comol.-iint in tii.at case 'vas filed inrch 31, 1937, -md
char^jPd defendant with habit.jal drunr-enness. He did not p.Tpwer
that corunlvint until after the institution of the suit t'>for? ue,
viz., April 13, 1933, in which he was or:arf-:^d with adultery and
drunkenness, tui-^ t!ic adultery war allet-nd to have tuk^n pl-;ce
April 13, l'J33, raorp tnan a year after the Circuit court suit was
filed; and apt)arently the reason no answer v.as filed to the suit
in the Circiit c-^urt wan, as st-ted by counsel for oliirtiff, that
there had been a roconcili .tion. It was not until about twelve days
alter plaintiff hud filed her suit for divorce in tJie in stmt care
that defendant filed nis tu.swtr to tne suit in the Circ ilt court.
iwfter filing hie ane.ver in tnat suit he i il'?d a cropr.-bill in t'iC
Circuit court April 26, 195- , praying for a divorce. Two r^ays
thereafter counsel for piaintilf, pursuiuit to notice, moved the
Circuit court to disiwise the divorce suit wiv.iout projaiice, Ihe
Batter was continued froui time lo time anr^ the motion was allowed
October la. 'i'iie order recites tnat def enciar/t ' 5 htmivt and cross-
bill in tne oircuit court proceeding were Jiled witnout l^ave of
court. Another appeal was ^roeecuted fro.-' that order to tnis court.
•x«« fttl'^taaor) sii-t ot tswsae on R®ii,'t itmbn6'i^,h^&»iAia nA ..-'.,. ,^
n»ir flu9 ftvoo Jiyoiia 9j1* t^ils ts^x a ««#* !»^<»ffi «e€«X iSi Xl'!f<|A
Jlwe s.aiJ OCT bali't 8a-;w •s-swaxte oa aoa.Tsi »;ii" -^XJasxecqfi fecoa jhaXJ^l
J*JE{* ^'t'U^^aieXa Tto't Xesawo© t<^ i>s^.;.t« «« , j^bw tTU"^: 4Xm«^X^ «*I* a^i
fiisuae *aa^»ni o4* «4 »oi0viJ& •sex Sius i^ii MXll bisii "S^x^al^Xq i«*'t«
,.^iuo9 ti4^-ri!> »ilf ajt tlum Qiii oi ^awarfcs alii fcaiXx'^ crii(#La»1to:.
s4* tii Iflsf-sao-;© e 6®Xii sxi Jiias ,r«xli ai i^waos ai4 salXi'i i u i^^.
srit |y»7om ,s»i#Qa «;^ jTwijeTMq ,TU*a4:«X« t^'t X««;a««»» Tt»#'ijs«»»a*
fce^oXie oaw nol^o* »ilJ faaus aaiJ ol ©aid- iaoil isunida©* a«w t«*t4Mi
-E«oio 1-iic Tswsnfs s'JTttsSas'Ufe ieti n^&ilift islnc© ©iii: .8X •X9rfo*«tt
number 40579, vhic' ie i?till uendirii;.
We ileo iiola t-i^rij is no merit in del'erulai. t ' s cor.ltntion
to ttie effect t-iat although aoine of the orders mentioned alxov tiiat
defcniart and ais coarx&ei 77ere pre&ei.t, t^iat after tixese c-rdera
wfTP enteral cour sel filed wiiat he desifc,natee a spsci&l appeare^ice
and therefor the court had nc juriadicticn over hi/i;. IDefetidant
waB in court, reoreeentej. by coansel, .s tae record iisclooea, atid
the fact that he }!p,d not at thoise liiiiea filed a ^A'ritten appearaiica
is of no iLiportaiice, Up to the preaexit tiiue there is no defense
sugfsested in tiie trial court nor in t'lis court. me two order*
appealed from are affircied.
lAcourely, P. J,, and Matchett, J,, concur.
aeic^ri^jvlrioo e,'' ifmbi^^'l■e^b nl iixem oxi ax ^i®*:! iiloxi «?8X4E «'*'
eiefc'xc »s6ii* 't^^tjb i.e.tiS ,Sa»^e^iii ©'ler; Xaaujjoo aiii bcw, i'mi\ao't»b
»sro8i.i6©wc nsd*#j:iar « bbli'X eamiJ srow'cJ' *is #on l^s.d «xf. cfjarl;^ *o£T: oif#
Mm'tsfc o« el etsiU ©iai^- ji^^ssiQ «fW ©* tjU ,©©fi#;fioQjai: oa 1© si
*«t;ouoa , .^ «df*».iit>*JsM boa , .Ti ,<i ,x;-^©'iuEioM
- ■■■' ^^^■"\ •- ■■ ■" ' ; ■:■' > ••■•'-V »'■■ .. h^^-i^/i
■ ■ . . ■ ■ •' - ■■■■.: ■■ v--^:;.. ;;v. ;h.'a.V';
' ■ '■ '■^■' , •■ • ■ ': . • .' ' ':V'\ ;:>.. -ijij lii^.,.
■v: 'i) ■; :
4040 5
Appellee ,
V8.
EDWARD B. LJJSTDBLRG, inc>.ividui.lly
and doirif ^ueinesp as Lindberg
and 3tringKani,
APPblAL FROlu MUivIClPAL OOURT
OS' CiilCAGO.
LiKDiil.RG A_.D SIRIiiGlAia, Inc., a
corporation,
Appellant.
an, JUbTICa 0»COi-AiOH i)ELlViiRi2D Xcx-i OJPII lOK Ob Thii COURT.
June 20, 19 '^5, Truman ?/, Wells brougat an action a^rainet
Edwarrl L. J'.indberg, individually and doing businees as i.indberg
and Ctrint^iiarii, to recover ;;S514.56 for eervices reru'ered. i-indberg
I'llr-d ar, ra. fivrer denyin/; liutility. 'i'nere "faE a trial before the
court wiUiout a .lur.y a:d April 28, iS36, a I'ir. -infs ajtid Juc'c.n.ent
wt.8 ent-^red ir plair.tiiT 's fi.vcr ae^sinst "F.dvard i. Lindbert,,
i?i(5ivldually .-*nd icine businees as Lindberii end Stringhem, * Fol-
lowing I- 'ly 6 plaintiff took out r^n execution and the return of
the tailil'f fKov'8 }ir tiade a dei-pjid on dcfendaj-t ^' ay 27, 1936, and
on August 5, 19.3fi, the v/rit wac returr>Gd by the f:ailiff no prrperty
found ind no part satiofied. About 15 iiiorthe thereafter, viz. ,
January 10, 1938, plciirtiff brought fe,arr;i8i ment proceedings on the
JuJtjnent nr. ing Lindberg 6. Btrintaaai, Inc. , corporation gamie lee.
InterrogatiripB were .-iled wriicu v/pre anBTrered by the garnishee,
the Babptar.ce of which was tiiat the garr.isnee had no furida or
property in hit, poaseeaion belon.iin- to t/ie ju ^ment del tor,
Lindberg. ine garnisiiiLent ''Vae triea beiore tne court witaout a
jury iind t^iere vvas a finding and jud^racnt in plaintiff's favor
against tne garnishe* for ^^324, 76, ^nd the garr.ishee appeals.
i*liinti;f 's evidence ia to the effect taat he ^as eiLploypid
ao^vt^
i
i
■*^**
S«(.def£»ritJ: Sis e«9aJ^sijcf ';jaiob ban
v'&i
adi B'to't^d Isiiti a ax^?- gix^dX .^illLJalX ^^nl^aafc tewEfts na b-^ lit
Sa^mgbiJi beta '^^^vtlhai'i /a ,dSfI «8G XiiqA fe.v AC^J-'t « tuoxtJ-lw .ttMoa
'to irxij;^9-x siW' 5n.i floidrasxs itu3 i^wo jCood- "illd'siilaXq 9 ^«M ^nlwoX
%ii9qo%(i on 't'tiXiBrt srij ijof 6.9trtiJ*'»t 3iiW Jt-xw »rfc^ ,OCQX ,?! *8«jjjjA no
, .siv ,i*J'tfi9i9fi* ari^nom GX ^tuodA .boTi^.i-iits ti^q on fcrn; &m;ot
,«9r{gl:i3s;i ^jiW Y<^ £>oiewan« ©inw xioiilw fceXit ©isw Sf^liod-iiaoiiftinrl
•20 Bbnjj't on bad ssiiBlnxMSi ftriJ i'BzI;? caw tioljaw 'to ©omsJacfwa »ii#
■sove^ s'Ttli^iiisXq nl imm^.kisl htu> i^atbal'l e e* • ~ ■ ' bcu; iriut
■fay iereniant, Sdwar-i t. Lind'oerg, wiio was cloin{i busine^^ .ne .. i;;i-
teXi ^ Striiie-iaai; ti'.at tiiere was ■lU'^ anj ovrinti; to -vhi. for bervices
rendered #314, 3 j. Tor v.iit i ji^xount lie trouiijiit ruit -UicL obtained
Judg'-tt^nt; tliat lie obtainei an execution ejiA vfiiL'.e it *<*& in tixe
hands of tae bailil'J', ^^indterfe, Strixi._...aji. and i.^et6X' *.. .cr.,^4i
I'oruied tiie ccryoraiiou c-uid all t.rie ■isseto ol' i:irid'berii, ■vtrin:^iA&ua
and 'isngel , wlio the garr.ieaee cl;-Aio;8 were laeiLbers oi" Uit: co-
partnersiiip, "^ere sold and transferred ty tue three iudiviiaale
to the cjorooration - Lindberg ti Strint,,iaiii, Ir.c. , a corporation -
as evidenced "bj- a bill of sale dated June 26, 1956. it eeea-s to
be conceded tliat neither i^indberfe, otriHi^iai;* nor lien^el m.'^de any
atteiupt to comply witn tue proviaions of the Ttixlk Silea act \'fheii
they tx'HnsJ'erred ',he assets to the garnisaee corporation.
The garriishee'a ponitio.i on t^:e irifXjL. tuid in this court,
as stated by its coaAsal, is that xhen the ori^^inal case was tried
"Lindberg suid Strinehiaiu were in effect a partnership, a co-
par tiiersuiip a/id ., iore is only one possible way of proceeding
in t. is caa« a,nd taat ie by way of tiie appointruerit of p- rfrcoiver
and lue liixn^ of a petition lor tiie dissolution of the pirtner-
ship to deter.aine tue iiidividual intorest of tlx'^ cop rtners, sub-
ject to the copartnersiiip li;^bility **■*
"We are preptired to prove t:'uit he vrae not doing business
indiTldually but tuat it was a cop ^jirLner ship aiid that copartnftrah^
transferred all of its asBefes tu the corporation wliioh was for;i!t?d
by LindberK and otrintJiam, "
On the otaer aide plaiiitiif 'b position is tiiat this r.ues-
tion was adjudicated "hen t>ie orifcinal case T»aa h ^ard , hc^re suit
was brought against Lindberg, i. rfiTidually, doini, business as
Lindberg a. atrinfeXiaxn; tuat part of the jude;ment order found that
plaintiff was entitled to judynent against def eiidan l ind that he
recover "oi uih i rom tue defendant Jidward £. Lindberg, i:.dividu£.>iy
s
e»olyTc«a lo'l :ulxt oJ^ sniwo bas sirb sja-w st^xI* {^AOi ;ji»Xiljgnlt#S A gtstf
'■ ' lofefiftii .d •sed'ft'ii iop ..i«.ci:aJai^*^ ,a'^&cfJbniJ: ,'fiiliaicf •il^ >» a&acxl
KSnii^iliil'G! ^iiricocrfenJiJ: lo 	««ib »ii.i 11m biVi mlia%»^oo tisii b»an.ot
1;-. • rt©M«iuriiocj ^ ■ ^ ,&siJ"; ^umd^RlxiQ ^ SiociJbotJL - aoifsiogtoo ^di oi
0* aaj©«8 *1 tdl,Ql tdS aawl. Ii#^«& aXifsa 1e iiirf jb i^cf Jbsoi-jsjislv'o aA
,i"!r«oo airl* ill htm l»i'x:i siid a© ael^Iaoq m'sftrfain-xeg ex..
tftTisodi; a to *ii8iK?ixEoqq« ©xii' 'to ^«w ^flf aJt *ari* ban •8£0 oixi* al
-asnJTL&q ^ttf lo noi^t/XossiJb »il* lo'i anlils^q jb 'i« aaiXll sxi* bOB
«tf»a jB"X»a*"Xijq[©» ©ii* lo Jaa-ssJ-flX LAubirlbsiil 9Jii »ainix©#»i •* flxbi
*^^^ '" ' «♦* '^iflXid-diX qiila-xanoiaqco »£» o* #»et
easnisiref salol) «+oa baw »d ittdi arevf e# fcaijaqsiq sriiB a*"
^rfetaui^tfiqoo J«rt;} Jbos qiileisaiiiBqeo b baw *i #Aii* *Brf ^ILauhlribcil
*«iaiol aAW rfolitw aeJ;it£i:oq^o« «wl* o* «l*«a8A atl '• i*
\'"'"" "■■ '/^"■■''- '' ' ' " ^ •♦afiriaoi^te iwiAa^acriiaia \ii
-aax/p aliI;J ^jbiU a I aoX*Xaoq a'fUJ'aijBXq •Aia vtiiia -
^ius aisrfr . fe-xjseK SAW 9«ao X^ai^Xld r !.soJ:fc«U« aijts.- aol;^
aA aaftKXaxJtf s«l«l» ,xXXj8i/J&lvil>al: ,snacJft.nXJ. *aiil«8« id^uotd aaw
^Adi bawo't t^Jj-xo ♦oaiagJbut •«'* la t«»«^«j;i* }i»Qii^aiic4-6 o& ^%9<Sball
9d)iadi baa i a&bm't&b tsaiMB» ia»a»bfii ot b*£itim aaw rtiialBlq
and dolrij, businenB a8 Lindlierg & Stringhsun* , i^314,6C.
On thf-j Urial ol' the gamiBiucuf-mt proceeding,, i/Oth pftrtie-^
put in '-^Tiderce on thp nuestiori whether ijindber,i rr&a doint<. btipi-
nes8 iin 'ar the name ol" Lindlserg &. Stringliara, or whetiior he vae a
me.Ti'ber oi' the purlJiers -ip of Lindh.-^rg 8: Strin.rharu, i'a? court founrt
th« Ibsuos :>.,'>air'F>t th« garnishee and we nre ur<i->.hl^ to i3?-;y ti-at the
fin.iing is :./;'^in8t thn manil'est weight oi' tne evidenoe. In tn'^se
ciro uEBtar ces we '-ire not warr.^nted in .iiatarbinj-; the jur'^aent.
The gnni slice I'urtner conterdo that "plaintifi' can proceed
against the g-^rnioji-ee Dixly where tae del' c^ndant could have i^iaintained
a cuGceos^rul action a^^aiiist iini, * That is not the law v;iaen the pro-
▼ ibions oi' the Bulls ^jrtlt-s act n&ye not oeen coiupiiei witii. ^ofan v .
i^. al , ,1 I9£ 111. App., fj38; x^pn eKi Y. _ S^ith. 224 111, App. 206;
Larcen v . 'Utter. 227 Ilx. App., iUi; ji^ri eiiriK t. Mxli nf,. 24d
111. Aoo. , 475.
in tii.e Guhq case ve uold tuat where goods axid caattelg v;ere
sold "by a debtor contrary to tue provisions ox liie BuIk ;i'ilee a.ct,
the sale is v. 'id as .(., ..Inst the creaitors oi' Uie vendor and that
they i..i^^ht be reacned by ^arr.iaxOiient, £ae isuxk ti-iaee act crovides
that ■• ere goode axid ci'-uttele are sold, suca as in tae instant
ease, uotije uust "bo given to the creditoj-s ol tue party proposing
to aeio. , ^ud unleas uiiia is done tue sale ie void as to tne vencorfe
crediooia^ ^id tiie creii:<ori3 liiay pursue tne liOode or tue i^rooeeds
thprfof in the hands oi' the purcaaser ati'l liiaintain jjcin.iaiuuont,
1.0 ooi:iplikiii t ie wudft aa to the ajuooni oi wie judt^iient
rendered ag .inst the ganlisnee.
The judfeiueut oi' the ALunlcigtti.,j;jfljixt.^,oi'...uhio.9jso .ie al'£irmed.
Mcburely, x>. J., and Jiatohett , J., concur.
"l^ki'i ijaioJb B«w ■^.^'i^dbaiid %esis&s±^ nolissup ^/it no «9n«>ibir9 ai ^ffd^r
9x:i;t i-«.a,? ■%&!& ©;!■ 8i«ls«w ®*is »w hm, ASi-leiniJBj^ arid' ^aoLsaji 8«traaJ: srf*
&«»OQ"i,-ix iW5> 'rii:3-ni,sXft" a-jBild- aiiiieJfioo 'xmiSX'St »«ii«g,i:i.ia*?3 &rIT
•oicq 9fl* ad4w w*I aii;J- iavL si ^JSciS " ,jiv. i^ ^^riicgi^ .aa.lJ^e Xtt'taeeo.pua «
;dos ,f?<jA .iii ^s^ .4^.i^.. ,,y.M{4.ii^lf ;ase *»q«iA ,xxi eex ♦fi^ai
.cro/s 8oX«e itlJua ^sa la aaoxBivoici M^ o^ ^•-sj-fltoo •xoJcfeft ;« ^tf tXoe
daol>aav atU ocf e« feXov ai sXes ©aj ««ot) aX »i4;t. jiiqXw iS>i|» .Xl&e o*
40427
Appf^llee,
vs.
) APPEAL FROM kUi.ICIPM. COURT
AL13^'P? J. ilORAS, luilifl' or the )
Municipal Court ol' Chicago, axiA )
a Corporation,
Appell&iitti.
^
i-R. JTJ3XIC3 O'OGliiiOH i)iLIViiiE) iiiii '<Jim-,10h Oil JJilfe GOiJhl,
July 19, 1935, the i.iciilKa» Ohio Euillln..; Corooration ob-
tained a Judsinent in th.e kunicipal court ol Chicago ag-iinst Irving
E, and i-eontine luoszukaxui ^ hustaiitl ind File, 3or v793. 27; i.arch
17, 193B, aa al.ias execution was iBpued on tiis .:;ii(l, jJif.nt fa;id ^ arch
28 wae delivered to ^-.oran as l/axliif oT tii.e i.uiiicipal court ior
service; i arch ;50 thfl Toailil'f" served the execution on Irving )i\,
AiOSBiiann and nearly a inont^i ther'after, April 29, 19,58, by direc-
tion ol' the Buil Uni Corporation levied tne execution on a 1933
Oldsmobile which was Itien in the poeseoi-ion oT I nriiig J. ;^08«niama,
^ The next day -innie keyers broufrbt the Ingt.iijt case, clfirninti the
automobile belonged to her; there was a trial of rigrt ol' property
before the court '"itnout a jury ar.r' a fin Un^, ;urid judtjiiient in
plaintiff's favor - t'aat the bailiff turn orer the autoiuobil* to
her and that she recover her costs; defendants appeal.
The record discloses tiiat Irving ii. imossmann parcuased
the aatoL.obile in question, a 1938 piodei, in c ctober, 1937; it
was delivered to him aoparently under a aonditionui sales contract.
Plaintiff, i^rs. ii^eyers, testified that she wus a ticter of defendatt,
Irving i!.. to 8 eniann ; tnat she iiad advwiced BOiue xtoney to hiia and
March 20, 1938, gave him j?115 which vsras the balurioe iie owed on the
automobile, and he aoTDarently go t a cliar -i^e to tne car at tnat
time. ihe £5aiue day, karch 20, 1933, defer.dar.t Irving iL. *-o»8Uiann
^alfil ,4-ft^i#^^ o:^sOi:4:3 'to t%uoo l&ii,lQ IfmM,. ^df fl|; jra9«%]^t,, ^ JbsalAt
.^o*!:.'^^ ;?Si,£$?# -Xd'i: ^sXlw boi^ J^&ii'iead ^nima^aQU. »/Silttto»d bOM ^SL
, »tii ^almt^lQ ,«ao Ja«j-sai 9j&i id^uo'tti «i©-^»i4 ©InnXiS x»Jb #xsa effT '"^
xJ"i9q:oiq Iq ^Ji^ti to XjBii;J s 8«w ©t:©^ ,jT9rf ot JN»||fioX9ef sXlcfofno^i/Jt
Jb9««rioaiiq xjo/aasaolJ ,.3|.^aXTf«I *i&if* #ik»o^^i^
jon'simo Bj»Xmi J^ttpii^ihaoc & lahcxu ijXJftaiflqgis min as len^rlZab saw
fcna mill oi ^aaom sxaat AdoaoTJb.8 £)Bfl s/ia if"Ax£^ jtitMjaifiaoM .S snlrtl
•xU no l»»wo axi eoa-sXacf 9ui aaw xioJtilw aXXf tplrf 9v/ss .''"^ '-'" , 02 xioiaM
iA^.i t& iBO 9xi* oi 9X;Jlcf xaeXo a lojj -^X^nsiBcrqa ail f O'^octiifi
executed a bill of eale oT the auto: obile to nie sister, i^rs,
Meyere, i"or an expreee conaiJeratior. of |800 arid it was ac^j:iov.'ledged
the same lay "by ikl-oasmann before a notiry public, oal ..ae au&Oiiiobilt
reraained all the time in kosamann's ooBsesrion. April 4 ^os&aann
obtained a city license I'or the car in i.rs. i^-ftjere' nau^e ai.d on
the next day a state license J'ron the iecret.xry oT otate, ...xeo in
Mr». i^:eyer4' n^utie, kre. lueyers testil'ied: *X believe uij; cxother
Attend'="d to the purcii.ase ol" the city v:ihicle tag and ittite license.
The bill of :-ale was giveri to me on ..arch 20ti^ of this yesa, ****
I received the Certificate for v«»'.;icle tax ana btate liceiise .-tt the
eaiae time. The State license tag wae not issued anLil j\.prxl 5, 19 38,
as that if »"her. he went to settle tnig all up aid gavfc it \.o me and
I told him to go on end drive tae car,'* Mrs. ke^era furuncir testi-
fied that she had never driven the auto, otile; taut eixe too^i the
car as security for the oiooey her brot.'ier ored Vitr and tue $115
pail to the Finarice cjmpiny.
Counsel for defendants spy t ifct "iin execution upon a Jadcimeit
ie a lien upon and bindc the goods md ch-itteie of t.ae per&oxi against
who^u it ie issued from the ti^e ii ia d'?livered to tiie ;;hriiii" to
be executed," 'Ve siiail aesume this is a coriect atataiiiciit oi' the
la-t, but it will avail defendant* riotning bicauae uae executioij was
delivered to tae bill iff of the j.:anicipai court on -.area 2d, xy38;
3 days orior to t.iat time, viz., .uarch ao, jjia^uciff received tne
bill of -ale, so ti.at t-i ^ iiiti'? xo tii« oar padjed ii days i.efore the
execution Tras delivered to tue oailiff.
-.^ut defendants furtfi»»r contend that under the law, ",An
absolute conveyance of personal propei'ty, Wiiere there is no delivery
to the vendf?e and 'he pooeession of the property ie peimitted to
r'»7.iain in tafi vei.doe, ie fraudulent &b to cr- ditors of u.e vendor."
'/hie atateiTiert of the law aeeiue to be conceded oy coui. eel for plain-
tiff but the argument is that the evidence does not show tuat pJain-
t
.31^ ,1'dd-sia aiii 03 sXi<i04iio;^u*s 9iiS to sXau to .CXicf « fveJ'iJsftxt
no fo:ui sai*£a ' artd^.'-^M .aiM tti nso arLt tot *a'a«»lX xiip « fteaxa^rf*
«*7ir?i .143-^ aXiij lo d*OS rfs^3*i a© *w o* oBvi^ sje* ■sXea lo XXlrf sAf
,8£(>X ,S XlxqA ll^aij fesL-asi i-oa bjSW s** ♦©iwoxX ©*«#8 •udK .©iHjtJ- ^bus9
hLia Sitf Off ii tv.as -^f** fi** J^-^* fixili eXiiea «»#'"i'ns'ir sd it»rfv isJt JjbxI* •«
-l*-®94^ "i&is-xij't BTEffl-'is.-i- .ntM " .ifTp ??£ti fivi'xh has h© ojs o* mid blot Z
!9xi# iodJ «i:la J;*^"!* :aXi:<fcj2SQ4*jjjfl &dS m»vHk 'X»r»0 Ji«rf e.ila *«ii# J6>»lt
exit 9i-it ij-^^ lOi'' M?vo l^rf^oicf tnd x^ticm. 6di t0*t '^;^H«998 'm t«*
... . ... , 'U, -vS'"^
i-anljas* tiwaisq ^^^^ io aXsJ^ssia ferte efeeos ^^i^ sfeaicf Jboa aoqw emit a «i
;8£ex .b£ fiSijBiii tto d^ijoo Xja^/c-iimM eri* to ^■iiXijBrf •i* d* *«it»triX»i^
add- b®vi©»»i 'aXjia^Xq ,0S ^"isid \ ,s.lr \mal'i 1t»sU oS 'nol-xq ax«6 6
©# Jb9;tai4a'i3q; si ■<:Ji»<jot(i &lll lo itoiaeeaBOi? »fW l>fifi »iii5 -J
-aifiXq Tiai Xaaiiuoo Tjcf b^b&i^aoo 3<f ol ax4»»« »atX tili 't© iia&i»««**i4i ei^i-
-nifiXq *«Ji* woiiB ton csefo sansl-lT* sil* ;f«AJ el Ja&it.U8TB ©riJ *wd" Tti*
til'f ■'l' not, in I'uct, taJte pos8'='8?lon ol' tt\.e auto; obile. We taink
this i.. contrary to the evidence. All the evidpnce rn&v/s that irom
tbo tiKe Irving is;, koseraann purchased the autouobUe in Cctoher,
1937, it "*6E ccnlinuouely ii. hie cssessior jri-' never i>i the
posree icn oi ^ie sistpr, iarB, lieyers; 3T\(' this s^PTuf tc havp teen
the view ol" the trial Judp;e, ?'ho E-prarcntly cased liB iecision on
ths fact that, since at the tioie o:! the execution oJ" the hill of
salF there rae a balance rlue to thp l-^inHnce fnr.prJiiv, it co'ild
have taken poEae:-;sion of the automobile, and" that plnirtiff, having
paid th'^ ^115 remaining due on that -^ate to thf» -finance conpar.y or
to her hrother for that purpose, ^ras, in ■ as good a position ae tne
Finanoo coir-pany. In this we tnink tne ciurt ^rre.^.
^" "i'lc-^-^or V. ^icClelland . 34 111., 471, the court ir- pass-
int; 0^ tne question whether a sals oJ' porsonfil property wjiere
(delivery /i.ad not been made waa valid as a(^ain9t creditors, ngid
(p, i74): '*Tne policy of th^ law in this otate vill net p-TJiiit the
c^-ner oi' pers'^nal property to eell it arid still continue in the
possession of it. Poeeepsion beinr, one of the etror.,.est e-viicnces
of titl? to p«>rsoral prop*rty, i/ the reivl ovrnerBain is sufficient
to be in one, the apparent ownershio in anoti*;r, ths lattc^r ;;ainB
credit £B oT7n<»r, an<' is enatlrl to praciine d'^ceit uncn 'uan.V:ind,
It ip '.e well established doctrine ol tiiia court, tl -r.t -.r %b^olute
sale Oi' p»reciO.'Jl orooTly, rhrre the: x^opser-.ion is per- i-*- tod to re-
main with th" vender, is fraiialent per se , rur? voi^ sf to cre-litorB
and purchaser! **-^*.* And that where tiiere ie u :--i.l?r cf -oTsonal
oropTty "but it re lins witii the vr lor, ii' i ;. is that character
of oroperty that is caoahle of tein re. ovrd, it is fraivlulent in
law t^s tr. creditors? and siibseruent purchasers, notwit sta.- fing the
r-JAls Bay Jiuve 1 eerj in ^'ood f^ith and for a. v-Iuable conaiderat ion. "
Bo far as re avf been able to find, the law as above
stated nas not been cnanged or modified ii; this atate. 3ee -xuschle
^'. Morris. 131 111., 537; 24 L. R. A. (n.s.) p. U34; ..ass v. i-ease .
s^t^ iii- tOTsn 'bete aoljsaseRO.,: aiii ;^i x^saomtiiaoa zaw ii ^VSW
a©9cf «»Vf;Ti o^ a.«3s>3 8i:.i.t '.ar. ;a'iSY©M »atii .^t'-yiet^ aid 1© nol3d«ead|(
n© aoii"Io9& air:, ^-sasri -.jX^ao^Aj'.igB omf ^agfcwli i«iii- sxl* 'to walr »sSi
lo liiff fsji^ Is fi-Qld-i;:-)»x«' ftii't 'to 9/ax;t asii i& ©oais ,d-«iii' ^o^l sdi
10 ■^.•i»&-';oo ©oasni;*?. siit o:' 9&&b iBS^i^ ae »0fe gnJ:nis«fi$it l$£l^ j^M bi&q
"SBBq •:u.d'ix*Qa ftii* .iS";^ , •. ill M , Ijxif lis lUsM ^ ^y t f^ ^c ^pXj. al . ,
fei/??? «e*iG-iihe'XiD i-ealisjjje Qjs />i.Uv 8«t* ©j&Bfli aaea Jon fcsd ■\;'S«viX9l>
srl^' iti ^ual'^aoo lli^isi .htm tl ilsa oi Y,.t^«><:joi<j XJsncaisQ *£o isti^i)
«al/is isifssil Brii , i^rfJoci.e al (iifi8'xt>i5we it&'t&i.:^^ 9d* 4«flo ai atf ot
,l!jii;s[0Bi3.T nofjij d-xsoj^fe 9oiJ-©*:ig 0^ i>oXd"««9 sJt has ,t??«^c) a^s i-J&g.^*
s^iaLQ^dj: as t-crlct ,^T«oa e.hii 'io 9niiJoo& &«>i<8iX(f3.->a» Xlow t.'t ail ,|l
-91 o;t fcei-ii^nisiq ai r.ciaijssaoq *r'.i oiaiiv/ ,x.tT:s<jc*tq XjBaKi8't««5^ 'Io sXae
BiOTlfje-^o «>:r 3.S Mot hiw. , » £ 2££ insXiuf J/iSil ®i ,tofcKftV «rf:5- xJilw aljSia
Isaoain.q 'to sX-jia is al sisao' ©idiiw ^faxfi- &£iA »,**** ■Tsa«ri3'xii<?. &a|
■£s^o«T«iT3 jaiij ax ti ': X ,*£oJb««v »jcii rtjiw eiiiesi-asi *i *^<f'* Y**9«[«*<!f
ai imLiihimt't gi ti .&3ro,.?i9-x anlscT to 9X>f«qeo e^ .tArf;^ x*^®«oiq; .>o
ari* giiib i&^s.a*iw*(3a .aiss-'aifatuq; 4'a9i.<p9s«fMe fins siQiMsia aJ" «« WaX
©vocfe «£ -^Bi ^sls ^bnVt Qi 9ld:& rxs^of ©tax »w a# *£«l! ^
ftlripsffh AftS .9:^fi;fa siili' >.a liai'txJboa io Mjjaafio noecf Jon a^rf .fto.*a*a
7y Hi. App. , 303; Peiuiywitt v. .uiridaey . 16,2 lii. App. , 102; JacoTa-
B on y, i ''Hti,er8o n . j.9u 111, App,, 266; aiiiit.^. t, /xneiuoelier . 2*^4 111,
Aup, , o<j6; WilliardB T. .^ead . 2ly ill. Apt^. 5; *.a t icifi s v . uusi t ar .
232 Hi. ADD. 1; urimes ▼. >>od^.erB . £63 lix. App. 429; Doty j ,
O'ii.elll. 272 ill. App., i212.
3inc« we nold t-iat plaintiri" liever cooii possession ol the
automobile, tiie judtgaient ol' the Municipal court oi" tfliioago ia
revereed and tiie cause rejaanded vltu dlreotions to enter Judgment
In l*ATor oi deTendaiita.
^ . ., -^ ixSVlfihtiiiX) AfiiD RflUfcitiiiiSD *lT,ti DIRfiCTlOiiS,
kCviurely, j?. J., aund iii-aiohati , J,, concur.
. 'a^tffi jjH f,r^ s a'i,-f.4 &S ',£ .v^fA .ill %,'i'S . b&% i^ , , v aiab 1 III W ;SOd , .^qA
,v_^£gfl i^'* .qqA .j.il €S2 . aTC 9; v il>0;-i, .y sam.£^iJ ;X .q^A .III S6S
.a!XS ,,<?<|A ,Xrl STSS ,4X191*0
* - -VI. J
40446
OSCAH 3. 3TBI5,
▼e.
Adpell ^i^t,
ILLINOIS PUBLl3.'.n\G Ai^D PIUi TXl^G
COfcPA^Y, a Uorooration,
x^ppell. e. )
UR, JUSlICifi O'CUluiOR liliiLIVl'iR-'S.D mS. OPII.ION OF TilK COUUT.
ATP-SAL l-HOM SUPERIOR COURT
4
Plai-ntiir brought ar) action against (ieJ'eniunt to recover
dafflat'.ea i'or toe breacii oi' a contract entered into betweftn the
parties. July 1, 1933, defendant 's aotioii to strike thf> second
amended cooiplaint was allowed and the complaint stricken without
leave to auiend except as to paragraphs 12, 13 an:'. 14. fuly 30
following plaintilX «ftM^,^^t to Tile his petition to Tacate tne order
of July 1, hat leavj^ was denied. It is from these two orders that
\^ plaintilT aoneals.
The record uscloses that on September 2, 1937, plalntiTf
filed his veril'ied complaint in law to rroover iaraoLges Jor tiie
claimed breach oi a contract entered into between the parcies. xhe
complaint was in 11 paragra ;hs ax^i tne ^atiagfts werr laid at i#i50,uuO.
October 18 defendant filed its rritt^n niotion to strike tne coir.Dlaint,
specifying three grounds, ihe next taat appears from the record ib
that on Loveiabor 30, 1937, jlainttff served notice th?it on the fol-
lowing day he would -.sk tuat an ordsr be entered exteh Ung to December
11 tne tiL.e for filing an amended oomplaint, ind on December 1 an
order in accordance ?/iti: the terms of the. notice wr^.g entered on
motion of nlaintiff 's Rolicitors; Dcoeiber 6 a r^rifip"! a::°nded coUi-
plaint wae jiled wr-ic is in 12 pnragraphs v'ith exhibits ^tt-iohed;
December 91 defendant filed its icotioiii to strike thf aR.eaded complaint
on four rpecifl*-^ prounc^p; April -^0, 197>B, an order -jrf? entered
striking the abiended complaint, "and t; e plaintiff ie ie-,if.(i leave
to amend except a to paragraph, numbers IC , 11 ar.d 12, w..ich deal
bt'hO^
( ,*$•;«■ XI© CO. A
■^ ?^ ^f|«r O^So /^--^.,.V .*^^-^xeqq^ , ^^ ^^^^^^^^
^, O IB.
® »^ ^v^'a.
iu^xiSiv CT«>!;oit^^6 Jfniislqisioe sil;? bats J&«iWoiIfi B«T«f ^niiJlqaaoo 5«fonefii» j
,eX«so-Q« TtiJ-ni/eXq /
siii lot a$s«KJfi*' isvoc^i o^ WfiX ni Jai&Xqaxoo fesi'tii^r sixf fceXl't
.OOO.uaXi J*? biaX '>ievsf ass^rasb ©at Jbas 8ilq«is«T:eQ XX njt esw i-aiisXQittoo
,jnii!Xcaroo sxi^ sjiiija od rroxtoat aa^jXiw s^l bsXx't Jasfcarj'tsJb 8X Tftcfo^oO
-Xo't srtr no ti-ii;?' 9oiuon ti9VT.9e TU^niai.; ^^GGX ,0e nocroisvoVi no ie^i
tu& X idfe&ooG no &i-« ,taiii£qmoo b&ba&sm as sniXl'i lo'i matt ari* XX
no l)9ift.t>:^j> ©•'•.'w aoii on sxLt 'to aiMed »xt>- ii*Jtw scii£b^o©aJ8 nX istao
-ffioo fce^n-iojB ^®j•ti^®v jb 3 a©cfcso®CC ;8TOilolXog 8'"i'ti*KX«Xf[ 'io j^oiJom
;l)9r{o;?.t.ii a^irfJtiixw ^•*i'«' sffqartgat^? SX at al noiiiw fcaXi't «flr $ctl»£q
tttiiiXqmoo ft»?in«»ais aii* a^'it^fs o* ci6tio.s a&i bsin tciBbm't&b XS tftdmaoaG
fiei^cfn^ 57i5if i*tMo OS ,B£<?X ,0f: IltqA ;flbn0oi?, ft^i'tiosx^a -xuo't a©
rith executed pcr:'oridance» uiider U;e Oontri*ct tiiied upon, m..'. na to
3ui:l paragrapiit piviinui ! it hertby ^iveis leave, to u.i.^e.u<l v.-ituin
five rlayc," ;-a";d Sue def'/ndm. t •waa ruled to hJ-s^.■er eucii cj-ieiided
paraijrapt.s viti^in I'ive days, rollovin^i, txivie Eij.ecirs iu x'ut
r-Dcort^ a r.ctioe by pluintil'r'e couiisei to QooiiSfU ior I'il' '::tj.fiiu.l
fayirii tu-ey v-ould appear on ii-£.y 6 'belore li^e trial Judt,a w-d "ask
I'cr leavi to 3'iie. tue Second ABiended CoikplHiiii, iv j-ht; ii^staiitf^r ,"
3rd l"or a Tvle on delVndarit to ftxisv^er wituin fi d-t./B. Tjaere appeaTB
in thp rt;cord Si, second aniended complaint i j-led i^ ay 6 tax, uppjAZ-eiJ uiy
there i^&» r.o older ei-tered oeriui i.tinft this t-o I-h lone. 'iUe second
ationded oooipleir.t, ^hioh 1b "veriii d, is ii. 14 para»;,rapJi.B with a
nui.;bcr ol" exJ-lbit* att'-cixed. Al'tei^'ar(> , on June ;£, a stipui;-tion
eriterod into between counael i& in the record in ^ .ich i is
stated tl^iC pe.rtiv=>B have i^tipul^ted and agreed ti-ui. tiie L.iiiie I'cr
dcfend'-JTit to p3 c£<.d or t^us^er to the second amenr^ed cocipluint be
exteji'ed to June 9, Jims 9 del>nrtaut I'iled its uotion to strike
the aeocnd auended coiuplfint, specilyinfe; seven reasons tni,r<^i'or;
July 1 I'olloT'ing, un order tras eiAered on motion oi cour sel I'or
del* f^nriurt striking plaiiitiiJ' 'b .second aaiended complaint, "ard
i'lainti:!" ifc ler^ied leave to a^^end except as to parae. raphe numbers
12, 13 and 14, w\ich deal with executed perlorruance under the al-
lefcfd cortract." i'lain till was given leave to &-7isnd taeee p?ira-
grapJas ».it in live days il' he elect e'i to lo so, and del'endarit was
ruled to answer rittin 10 daye thereaftep.
The next taat app'are froci tbe record is a notice served
July 27 on counsel lor (lefeurlant by nluirtifl" s oouritiel stating
that on the -ollov, ing ''.ay tney would rtsk l-'av? to lile an ^iiieiidxaent
to paragraphs 12, 1.' and 14 instanter, -'<nri Jor rule or defendant to
answer within SO days, aid that a furt.uer order be ejntered die issing
paragraph 13 of the second aiaended comT)laint because tae claims made
In that paragraph had been settled by tue parties. The notice
tidbit' . limuijoo oi i©©j5iij4>o 8* 'i'tlihi^Xg ijef a^iJort a bxon^i
3lajp." I>iXi3 a^juii X<alt^ o&i s^ttfth-i d •^j.siij no %ja&qq& hlMO^ X^^ aaJhjJBa
'','i:3Jsi«;i'eaj; '^sJ. ai 3aij&lq_i3iQQ k&hOBisii. Snaaoc^i ©if* sXi't o^ ■svjsftX tol
e^&s*Qi8« &««Ai>i .«^«fe ^ fsiiiiTlvr •sf>wa«u5 ©i^ jrasija^'i^jfe BO 9XjJa £ lo't fiffjp,
^Xj"i.£9^««jqis iiiicf # x&d b'ii'i-i iaX-HliirnQQ Jua&oaKjB heio&^H js bi cost, sd^- oil
ad" ;)Tii43XQ^oo &86aft£ai? ftaoasa ^xlJ 0* latraiiti 10 ftMSi9X«j o# Jaa^W^HA
jio'te'xsjri* ac4on#8i: «ji»v9,«. sjiii-^'iisii^ga, , jJ'a4-aX^«©» .&®,a.O!S!*e fiat»sa «xi*
•sol i^e^aijoo 'io arM^^aiii s:«<a fest^J'-t© .aj5W ■inj'IfX© ii& v;gfli:wXI<l1 X ^Xh^
-Xa -jiU TS^flAi *oa*iiaiy"l"S9(}: iN>4^iiO«^it« fi^lvv XA»i) fi»ii;w ,^X Sii« &1-.^S1
-^etr-q «»a»ii* J^as«*3 o;J avesX asTlg ««v/ '1XX#«X*X^ " ,.*o«t#,<toa- .*a^«X
.ts^'tssTce^;^ 8T£«b OX aJtiiifJN' t»w«aA .«# J&»Xj#!^
aiis^sia Xasiuioa a TiliaiaXq x** -inw&fK*"^* -rot x*aa«oo no V5 xXati
tBatmbodtae a» *XJ:.'t .0^ 9^*.*X afa© fcXwow Tg»xi;r Tjarfc aciwoXXo't »i4* «* ^jm^-
8al88Xxii«X_Jb |>f.T:«ita9 aj«,.-j©J!)^o tmU^ay fi tf»4* fc.ws;,.,irs&!"|fe 'Oft *I^M^-#1«'''«^
d^flt affllAXo Btii oeueoad 3"aX£X«[flK>o Ij^baaai* fcnoaac mAi 1^ EX ffqats^sTtati
further s'-itftd nluintil'l' would ask ti&i a final order be entered
dienissing paragraphs 3 to 11 inclusive, so tuat j.ie could appeal
to the Appellfcvte court; July 2a plaiutil'f .I'iled an Hfliendii.?rjt to
paragraphs 13, 13 and 14. In paragraph 12 plaintiff claiBi» #560.40
for a nuiuber of sets of dishes, v4iio)i .uiiOUMt he claih-e is due and
unpaid, Trie au-endineiit to paragraph 13 need not be referred to
becBUce it is adjidtted tiie claims luade in that paragraph xiave t".en
ai^icp.bly adjusted. Xii paragraph 14 as aii^ended pxaii:tiff clf.imed
$1694 lor obtaining a number of subscriptions to defeniarit's news-
paper in accordance ?it the teruis of the contract, July 2d the
court entered i^n order ^.ivine, leave to plaintilf to file ai^ am 'iidment
to paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 instanter, and furti;er tiiat paragraph 13
as afiiended be disanisaed. It was lurth-r ordered, "that tne defendant
answer or movp to strike ti:.e aaid Second Amended Complaint, as
aiuended, witliin twenty (20) days froi;. tnis date." ine next day
another notice isas sc-ved by plaintiff's courisel that on uly 30
they would pretsent plaintiff's petition jind ciSk for ari order as
prayed for it tne petition, J.ae petition is in tne recoid, naving
been i iled July 30. i.o order ^as en \,ered t-iving leave to ^ixe it,
but on tlie contrary an order was entered July 30 denying plaintiff
leave to iile the petition "on ground tuat saiue is not ai. etiergency
matter." Xne petii,ion eets up in some detail what ^xad been done in
the case, tne .ilint, ol the several docoi^ents and tne orders entered
and that xne matter nad been pending nearly u ^ear witnout an i i^sue
harin,^; bepn reached; that unless a final or er is entered disji iesing
the complaint "witaout prejudice to paragraphs 12 and 14, tiie olain-
tlff will i,be iorestalled from taking an appeal on the matters alleged
in paragraphs 3 to 11 of the oecond Amended Complaint, wuich consti-
tutes the? ajor :ind most important issue to be decided in tnis cause;"
that it v^ill be a great hardship to plaintiff if ne is obliged to
await a trial on paragraphs 12 and 14 Lefore being permitted to appe/
O^.OdSl icjffliaXo TUsni^Xq SX tUm'^^itnq 0I .I^X i*flfi SI ,SX ■JiQ4rta£aJsci
l)«fc s0j& ei «Hi^Xa Ssil icujoM& a©J:*iw »»®iiei;jfe 'io alsp 't& '%&<io^u a tt> rot
.fesaljsXp 'i'ixiax*aXQ tBhmM& »» * I . iit|:«i^.fi*t4B<| ul .^ajsjuti^A •\£X$f.Boi^aifi
-swiga « ' ^.aiaijfls'ts.& o3- aaoi;?q.ii:osd[ija to x~>cfwjj£i « gaiaiadd'o -xe't i^edXl-
suit 6S •^X»ib ,tr©jEJ'x*a©o aiiJ '£0 mm^t .944: .-.iJ'.iw ft©cKs^«o»©ij. al .%$f<i»4i
SX xJqjisi3*;xsq i-Afi# T«xiJi£;'t i»eua ,ptnja4"ani kl baa tl ,ax isxl^jai^fiiJSQ . ©if
^Jb ixBa s^'i ".«#jBi) aixi^- ovot"! air^J^ (GS) ^inaw# aJtiWJtw, ,f»aAtt«auB
a« leifeiio iXi^ TiQl ata^ bjtsa aeiJid-sii e'TUi'ai^ia ^aaaaitq i>.,j:i(0W yjailit
aaivsj.! «l>-ioo9t »iic^ lis. ai aoiili^oi adX ^miiii&q; &iii ^X %q'X Jbsi^AXf
■ ,ii QiXX oJ, »y«».X ^aJtviij iS>st&Jao «.«iy «»iTffl, oH, .05. ^X^'^, l>f lit a»,«#
Jbsi£'*»J-n9 8ISM0 9xid^ b«s a^asiajjoefi XB-iavss 9^ 'to aai.li'i ©lid" ,9330 3X1*
^alaai^-mtb beioia^i ei ■xs&'TO Isai't e a«8Xxitf #»xiit ;Jb»xloj8»iit a&»^ gfliVAXl
-xiiBlQ sxiiJ tfrX fcojB SX siiQ^BiajBi^Q 0* ©&xl)Ut»*xq iumitV *ai«lq;i8»o 911*
fessoXXs 8a©*;J«ifl axlf HO Xfs-9ciqj3 oe sniaLe* ffit.pt't jfraXla^ea^©'* «k^ IXIw tl^i
-icTanos xi^liiw ^*ax«XqxaoO ftefcosmA J)a©9i^§ •rif '!« ^^^ <** ^ 8ii««i^«K««I f|
*;9exwo sixi* ni feafeiosJb »(f 0* swasJt #flfi*?ogiai *8 0« *,«» ?o^«jKj ©«£» i***^*
f*,^,Ji9all«fo al 9x1 ti YU*ca«Xii 9| «JtJi«I>^«4 #*e^i f «• "5^*
•.aqqjB 0^ &«5*Jt/^iT©q soiaef sio'tad i^l fca« iSI adqsu&^yxisq flo -^a. wb
the Biajor iBsue in disoute; that olaintilT is a resident of f'lorida
and it would entail great exoense i r he were compelled to maJce more
than one tri") to Chicago© ; tuat the trial calendar wa? con ^eate'j and
that T)rob ily .e trial *on paragraphs 12 and 14" 'vould not be
reached J'or a y-ar and a halJ', The petition i'urt.ier bet up that
the order ol' July 1 should be vacated and in lieu t.^ereof ^n order
be enter'^d disfijinsini^: the second j:ui.ended coa.plaint as a.',ended "with-
out prp.iu'ic to paragraphs 12 and 14," eo thj.t -latrtill' uay
appeal to thf Appellate, court.
The I'irpt point t.ade by counsel I'or 'lel"en1fjit in their brief
is t i?-t the appeal should be diatiiss^d becauep tne orders appealed
I'roni ^r? not 1 inal. In tne reply brief counsel lor pluiiitiiiJ say,
"We '-ire rather sarprised at the deiendaiit's contention in tnis oourt
that the order appealed iroii is not linai. In tne lower court it
was trie contention of tue defetidant t 'at tne order oT July 1st '''fas
final, ;ind our conto. Lion that the order should be c ianged in form
to make it I'tYial. IXi.? to uie objection ol' tae defendant, the court
refused to entertain the petJ-tion coni-aiuint; tixe I'orin of final order
wriich -."e proposed." But tne i iiial order proposed, as discloped by
plaintiff's prtitiQ-., was tuat the order of July 1, 1938, be vacated
and in lieu tiifreof no order entered disuiiaaint' ti^e second amended
oomplaint as ai.i*>nded "witij-out prejudice to paragraphs 12 .ind 14.*
If the ordor wpre pnieied in accordar^oe witu the prayer of plain-
tiff's p(»trtion it T'ould still leave pending^ in tJ:e trial court
the matters set up by plaintiff in paragraphs 1? and 14 of the
second ar:ended complaint.
It has ion, been tixe settled la* in tais itate tnat an appeal
will not be h^ard pieoeiueal except under exceptional cirouiiistances,
and there are no such circjiiis tances iix tuis case.
We have exaii.ined the authoiities cited by counsel Jor
plaintiff on t.iis point, one of aiou is otrey v. x-uehl . 265 111.
vioa d^Am 0^ b9ll9qiaoo &i9w S'U 'li i»s£i»cpc:» ^^^'x^ il&i(ut Miiow ii ftoe
baa &9i8©gnoe esw leijitttijss i&Xr^ s»n^ i'jexi;* ;ogi«oliiii oi qitJ eno ««xl*
xsfe'i^ sv<i 'leata^tiJ i»aiX ai fetxie ^sia^sv 9(J folAJOils I ^Xul' 'to z9bto 9di
•5#a t'U^.iXjsX'j ijixij ©« "^^X has SX sd<i;«i8J8Xsq o* 99j:£>ut;9i^ $uo
fi%uo& &l«XXd^e|A »£{^ o;t Xii9e^s
t9li<i tt^i £il if^uj,iyii^'t0t) xot XaaawoQ t'>^ 9JM» ^i?J:o^ ^a^l'i •xCC , ,-..,.
,J%P9>o »iJi^ al it.oUi.i»^iip^ li^ imbmmii ^di it& k9&i.i<^U9 larfJjB^t. •'?« •¥*
ti iT.vQO a*woX pM a-l .XjeaiJt ;r©a si a»^'i l>©X«9qg« ^stiio ©it* #«f£*
SBV ta£ xliil> 'to 'tpb'10 9ii* *»i4i i-flfiijisel;*!! 9j^ "to flol^iiatfloo 9di a«v
•xsfcio X«al'i lo ano'i 9ii4 ijuXiii*ii^aoo floWi^tsq; ©£i# alaitQia^ oi. bsau^sa
^;<f bssoXasib a*i .Mi^oqoiq •£©l;io isax'i eii* i^*rtC " .Jbaaoqeig ow rioixiw
£>9*iso*',yv9rf ,65tfX ,X xlsj'l 1© ao&io ?ii* i^iiJ e«w ^uoiaiinq, a'TtUnieXq
AefcaeiaB baoas»8.sAJ" saXeaXfiiail) b9%9i^9> t^bio ob 'toatBsii U9tl a^ bm^
. * .hi fcrtfc ax 8.ii<i«i»»is<f 0* eoifewtt^^ ^uedtfiw" fceftnaiHfl^ ^^i^Igmo*
-ai^eXg lo i^x&tq, mii ails^ .%Qmh%ou9i^ at h9%9ia» «x©w lafcto »x{#J*Jt
Jiiaoo IJsXi* »ii* ni ^aXbrnti. 9r&9L XXiJs feXwow *l a»itli»qi B^l'iti
aa* io J^X bn£ $1 9Aq»i^e'i&q nl 't'tUstialq ^cf qw *•« «w**Bm ail*
.^•aiisX^o *«l>a«sajs ftno»«»
Xsoqqjs ciB iM$ fiisi^ •ts^i ni w«X b»l^i99 9di nsad a^dX ««f£ ■ ^ ,^
• aa^o aM;r ui a»i>«jB*ai«w»'iio daua on «ii' '?•?«» ' f-'-"
Tto'i Xaeruioo -^cf l>9*ia a^liiTOdih^ sxi* taniflsax* •▼«^ -
.£11 2Sg . Xiia;oa .V YSi^ra ai iiaiii^; V -^- ^'-''-^ '"'■ "'' 'i-iii^^^^f^
App, 554, "^xiil think noiip ol' them is in point.
In the St re J c^st a uill ras iilert to enjoin defenoants
froK (ieclarint: a forfeiture oi a real esLatt contract ciTid iroiu
proapcutint a I'orciole detainer suit, A ten.poraxy restrt.n.iiig
order vraa entered whicl. ^as suhaequei.tly , on motion cl' delenctai. t,
set aside eMd it rae frcia ti-is order inux, t'ae -appoai /?us prayed
and allov'ed. The court uaid no point '-ae raised us to wiietker txie
order vae appealable, but taat it appeared taat the purpoee oT tiie
bill was for h pern-aj-ient injur ction :ind txiat complainant ' fc ritiiite
might be lort if a teuiporary injuiiction A'erenot ieaaed ..ui'\ to
reiialn ir. force until final hearing, 'The court there faid: "Owing
to pecuLi^r circdmg tarices and .aardsiJiipe, the courts hj.'ve relaeed to
diaaiiee appeals i rom yome jade.>ient8 or decrees ^"hioii did not cou--
pletely dispose ci" tne case in wuica ti.ey were fef.tered," and t.-ie
court contifiusd or. i passed on the oicritB of the appeal.
We think there is involved in txie instant case no peculiar
circaiLP '■>'. ce or hardsaip tn&.\, voal.^ briui^ it within the exceotion
to the gc'ieral rule mentioned in the atre^j f case,
'Die xiiotio.'i of defendant to disiiiss the appeal is allowed
and the appeal iis;.ii68ed, JfadDonaxd ▼, Walsh . 367 111,, 529.
APPEAL IlIa*il3tiED,
koSurely, P, J., an.^ i^^atchett , .T, , concur.
uttd's't baa ioji-ifaQO dS&Sn^i 1^^% m a* ©fti^Jis'tio't j6 aa.tl«X&»6 iaoi't
»i.^i-x a^fnusial&lqinen ifisis km aQXiomttstl tasii^i^naq & ro'l a«* iiJtci"
0t JsiibSii /sulfas i fee rts-s isei^^awtai t^aiofjifis* .a 'tl i'aoX «cf *iIS'«'fi
aitiwo" j.t-i:^3-t ■^•xsild' d^TEii'^a ©Ail: »®«d,^;8srf l^nt'X II .t aa: «©'s ol ' aji 'jKiaffit-sc
|j»v?©XX» a A Xiisqqs ©/it eaixseif* o* Jn^fcji&'tefc 'io aoltajii IxlT
^ese ,.X1I V5e . xleli'-W .v XiX^ aoS&li «fej>«aiiSBi& i«9qgA «^» B^
40394
AbfTOi. EivRUaKI, Jl::ecatoi of the )
Estate ol '.VACKLOW MAITKAVICK, Deceased,)
Apcexloi^L, ) APPiiiAL iiKOk liUiilUli'AL
vs. ) ■^.;Ui;T Oi.' ^iiioAijtO,
rXAKLi'nr •.fiiRlIS and Iiu:KESA WARIvIS, ; y^ffh C% Cl^'T ^
Aopellees,
Lil, PRE3IDI1;G- JUSTICB kcSul
DELlViiRiD 'i-iii. uPlJfr.IOi>. Oi.'' Irtii COUwT,
/ iTiia is iixi action on a prou^issory note tried cy tiie court,
who four.u for del'eridaiits and piaiiitiri' appeals,
JudgfT-ent was entered bj confeasioa l"or v544,ijij on l^ovemter
13, 1936, -viiich was sutsequeiit to the de&.tJ:i ol tiae payee, '(•■'i^cklow
kankavick , who iied inarch 5, 1936. iiubeequeiitl^ , on iuotion ol de-
I'eidantB the JurUiaent was vacated arid they were allowed to dd'end.
Plaintiff intro'^iuced in evidence the note, dated i'ehruary
15, 19 34, payable to tne order of «'acklow ^.anioivick it. tne sui of
$400 and signed by defendai.te. The defense was that the note had
"been pai:!i i: full to i»:'-«ikavick.
To aupoort the defense there was introduced a receipt pur-
porting; to acknowledge receipt of the iiioijey and bearing a arose
which a witness for defendants testified iie saw i..aiikavick pia.ce
upon the receipt after lavinb received tae tioney from defexidant*
in payir, f»iit of tiie note.
There Tas couvi-ointi evidence txiat Waoklow jmai^ikavick could
write hie nsu-e. One witness testified tuat h-3 could write his naiiie
in Polish, iCnglis.) .ind Russian. Anotiier witness testified tnat sJie
eaw him sif r his name "quite a few ti.u3e. --e always wrote it. .le
wrote fluently." .iie will witu his si^naiure t^ttaciied was introduced
in evidence. It is iuip rob able tiiat '^aci^low A^ankuvick, payee in the
note, would si^n tae ;,.llCe,'3d receipt wlta a cress Wiien he habitually
when executing ^apere Binned his naiue, aIso, tiiree witnesses
testified tnat tu. defendant Iheree* Wamie. 8oii.etiu.e after tne
^QSO^
"^- ( ,■.•..,,•...
,;htjjoo sxid' td foaiii^ aion Y'sosai-soiq jB n© aol^OJs eta ai teiifT
Xi»istd*tt bs>i-kb ,»*on ditt aiictaSlWaJt ]i9Qijhoxiili 't'tii-alMX^i "'..'""
SsK »Jt>0 «ii4' drsilJ- &m\' 9»i%'^'l®b »iil' .s^.iebnsS'teS ^^;cf Stasia brm 00*>#
»iis iadi jbei'tijesi aean.tiw asxiJ-ooA, .xieiSKiia bus. jisilgaS. ,.fiaiX0*I nl
TCXXijwd-Xcf^ii ©d iifi>Li\^ aeoto a uiiw *qi909^ bis~^3ll& Qiit a^la bJLiSOV ,»:foa
a»Bas.a*iw asiri* ,oaXA ♦Sia^ii aixi fcaaa^a a^q^q a«i;fiiP«X9 cwxftr
a a ■;, T M I
decpaae of th- payee, ^v^cif low .VanicHvicic. stated ta^t the note re-
mained unpaid.
The court rat.er abruptly, v;it..out perxuittinfe aivaii.ent.
found ror iel>ndantB. When counsel Tor plaintilT usi.ed me court
hoT' it could t«.lieve that a man who could -rite very "iiut..roly-
would ir^.kP a croBs, the court replied taat he was ra.Alc.r vxUi the
practices of tie Lithuaxii;^ people ar.d also he .aid tue court
-would x-.ot c^rsldc-r that so-called receipt worth txie p^per it
was written on." ir the court was ol this cpir.ion he a.^ould have
•ntered judjr.ent Tor the plcmtin", t;ho produced the note un-
cancelled.
ThOud^en^^f *^J^i-lj^^^^ is rever^sed and jl.e cause
r"
Metchett and O'Connor, JJ. , concur.
8
«fedIX8on««
,%ii»aa9 ^.»%X> ^fom^P'Q hm !i$i»ii9i,MML
'"--.'■ KiOU
". ■"• XV' ^^:iJ::ttf
.. 1 ( .
a,' J, I 'u.fV-i^t^
404?4
LOUIS J. BORG^ffSKy, )
) MTiija. J''RCid kUi.ICIP/iL QGURT
pnt. y
LLOYD 0. GILBilRT,
Appell
l,R. PRESIDIi^a JUSTICE kcSURKLY
MlLlVSRiiD -..'.la; OPIi^IOI-. O^' TrlLQ COURT.
rialNtiiT brou^: /c Suixt clciL-iiifo tiiat del'endarit was with-
hol;ling J'roni liui one-Hi.al" oi" tue coi-ii-iSiiion collected ty defendant
although tuere was an agreement betveen tiieiu tnat it s-ioald \>e
divided ty reason ci" tiieir joint eiTorta in prooannti a lease.
The case was - ried by tne court without a jury aiid at tiie conclu-
sion of pi- ir:til'l' 's case 'leliJidant introdiiced no testL-ony ndui tne
court K&ve jud.-jtent I'or plaintil'£ in^^J;i3^,..*uii..«4.",.^^^ The
question oreaented is almost -wholly ane ol" f ict an i there is
virtually no dispute as to ts^e transaction.
In January, 1935, plaintxlT undertook to procure a lease
for christen I'^.aad; he knew tiiat del'endarit was acquainted with
Werner "iebol'H, ovr.er ol' property which plai^til'l' deeired to eabj.it
to i^.a>'.d; at plai/;til'i ' 8 lenuest dol'andant Juet aixa in tne ol'iicp ol"
Mr. i<eth'=rton, ivaad ' 3 attorney. There is virtually no denial that
at this meeting it waE agreed that del'endarit was to 8Ub..iit a proposal
Tor 1 I'^ase to 'ieboldt, tjid il' accep ed the coiru.icnion framed v.'a»
to ce divided equally between plaintifl' axid delendant, i^etherton
teetil'ied specifically t.iat both pariiea slated the coauhission
would be divided. Defendiu.t, ter.tiTying as an adverse witness called
by plaiitiil', did not deny tiiat thlti was tne ae,reeiiient.
In a Iftter I'roi;. delendant to '.vieboldt Bubr,atting the orcoo-
Bitior to rent his oroperty, pluu. till ' e na...e was n.entioned as the
party throut;.i Thorn the inquiry was made, oubseque^tly plriiritifl"
wrote defendant corfir,„ing the conversatior. ^md saying;; that the
proposition to rent Wiebolifs property was considered favorably
XHuop ciA<iiL>i.-rjja !SQn% ,ia
. ttiB IX^ qcfA 1 " *
Jaefeaa'tsi) X^ haio^Lloo aQlfiSiiii.aoo siiJ 'to 'ti.afi-sno iu1j>'. ffcx't -^nlblod
.«8i59l j6 sniiijooaq al a^-ro'tts inlot 'li^m 'to aoataai xJ bebirlb
'Uloxtfjo 9ii^ iB foiifi •^lut js ^ijoiUi:'!? cfijjo© ^iii" "ijcf 6«ii? sew 9»mo «rfr
idf ,^__j50£^S«.$L..-l»-.£iwe .fe4i4',,jii.^^^ •sot ^mfl^fcut •^rj&g ^^"^a
si s-xa^t^ !-rifc> *o^'t lo sac x^^otiv Seomls si b^ioAa^'ttn noitssvp
,ttGl$d&8aBiS »cii oi ajB «;^*qalfc on ^XljPtfJilv
il-LcJIia oi b^iieiib 't'tli,\iii,lq iioiilrt Tci-isqotq 'to i6ijwo ,*.bIod'9jt^ isrrxo'W
'to ?»oi'tlo eiii ajt ffiiri d"»i;i J-itfetiin *ob iaeur*-! s' "tlld'nxslq *b ;l)^fiJi ^*
ijixld Xeiaab on xXX*;jj*iiv si 9-isiiT .■v;9ii'io:)';tjs 8»A«Bi ,nod-isri*9ft «rtM
XeaoQoicr « ^Luajjs o* ajsw d-afil>j-iB'i©& i^sii^ b3&'x-g& saw *i snl*s»fli elri* t«
a£W bsfriBQ cioiaciivu-aoo »rid iia.qsaaj3 "ti fciii: .JfeXocfslW oi' »ajP9X « TOl
no*T9riJ9Ki ,tUMbad'tab bi^ 'ttiii-dalq nsawj^d xLlaupB befilrtb dcf o*
aolaeiinmoo sdi b&isis B&l3teq diod iBrii >cXXi5ol*tlo9qa hsl'tiiesi
f.«Xljay aasiijiw 9sisvi)Ai «b 8i-» S^iV^i*''®* , J:Tuafcn»lsG .|)»l>ivib ©rf fcXtiow
, ;f asiiiaei^fi oriJ asi? alsiS isuU- x^^^ *o»t Mb ^'t'ti&ni-f fn v-d'
-oqoiq ©ii;r gnX*itto<rfya iftXocfsiW o;J ;tflefcr»»'t»it r^oit isi^^sX « nl
'nic^nxsXq \(;-C;^''-9'JP9acJ0S ,6bBm. e«w ij-jjcopaj: »£l* aoxiw li-s^uordi xiip.q
2
by Ka-id, Anotiier letter lollowed to tlae aacie elTect, llie negotia-
tions 3 or Che lease to Kaad were co nlets^ soMptline lit'^r -inr} de-
fenda/it collected some ii4000 -^.s cc v i ^ision I'rom v/ie>io].dt, .0 part
of thin was naid liy dPJ'ondant to plairtil'f,
Subsequently l.etnerton inquired ol' del'ei.dur.t as to what he
had done vith rel'erence to j/j air.til'f g siiare of tJie co.^dneior, to
which Hei'er, larit re.ilierl, "Oil, to hell vith Porowsky, '^hat do I care
about Kill?" i'o which I^etherton replied tlisA vhi] = the parties were
ir his oflMce tiiey "had a^rep'l upon the coiu-.iGsion cxi'' 1 think it
is nrett.- small to clear a fellow out v/ho ori, ;in -ted the dral ^.nd
brout:ht you in, Gilbert, He's the fellow who told r-e to call you."
To which def end at t replied, "WpH, that is ir^y business, rot yours."
At a later conversation l*etherton inquired •^s to wl-.ether
defen.'aiit r.ad t;'icen care of plo.iritiff , to vhich drfeidaxit replied in
•f"J>ct that he h:,d his ZAfJOQ ruid Ihnz vas his buslnesG, Defendant
had an opportui.ity to ^eny the 'oregoing con-versations but lid not
do 80. Jhis evidence wae ajixply aufficieut to Bun >ort the clnin. of
plaiiitiff,
i^efendant nays that olaintiff failed to jrove th- 1 ae was a
licensed real estate broker -wit.iin tlae City of Chicago as required
by the i-un icipal Code, Plaintiff introduced in evidence a license
to engare in the bjpiness of real •r-'sxate broker in Chicafio, but ap-
parently t lis was DTocurerl subsequent to the transactione anove
narrated, ro-'ever, plaintiff properly eaye that prooi" that he was a
licensed real estate broker wae unneoessary in this case as it is
not a suit broujAt against a clii^nt but against the defendant upon
*^^" *§?^?®.5i®5i._*? ^*y plaintiff one-hall* of the comiJ.i.sion earned.
This wan the situation presented in 3im on v. J JoHel, 243 Ili.App.u29,
where ti.e court said t lat the question wiiether tne olait-tiaf was a
licensed real estace broker was inuri;-.t erial , ,8 the suit was not
brought to recover a broker's corjuission but v'as bused upon an
i-Tceq 0- ,&bIooQl^' isoi't noxe'; i,.^i-^oo ei^ OUOI^I ©moE JbsJosIIoo ;^fU8l)nel
4,i'l:i:;}',iijGi(:j oj" ;(nj(slj(*s'tffi& Y*^ ftx^iq e«w sirld- to
^nefcitotsd .15 8 ilia a.; of aid 3^,^ Jt,xlf ,';;rs>» 000*^;^ «irf fcjsxf sxl i-^rij- ios'ltft
ton M/^' c!"ycf fsnoiJBia-xavnoo ;^«ib-asio'f 9xl;t vas>. od" Y*l:"Si-'*^o<fgo a& b«A
lo :Tfi:j5Xo srf^f d-iot!f|«a oj JrHjzoiTtjjis -^tX^xas a^w ooafaJbiv* aJtilT ,ot: of)
a BBv 9ii t.i-:r:.t svoTo oi f'sXijj'i TtX;trii:*iXo i-sdd e^jse s^:fsJ&«d'i9(I " '".
feijiaitfpe'S Hfi osjBolffO "to x;.^^2 <>ii^ iiixili-v lexoirf ©ifi;:^s9 Xjjsi t«Ba&Qll
©«fJ9oiX ^ wons^fvs ax b9Qksbo^.tni Yt'LtnisXl ,9lSo6 XjeqloiruiM 9xlJ \;cf
•►gfi Jucf /oaeolitO nl is.ioief BiBists is^i 'to gaenXsucf *rid- nt eacafl» o*
« RJ3W Sri iariiJ looiq ^jbxW e^«a ijXisqctiii ttii nl^li:i .•xUTtrroH '.fcsd'aiTaa
nQqii ioBba^'t^b »Ai iealM-gd iuti Ifa^SiZd' e *aai«i5« i'li^uotd Hue b ioa
,fc9fli«® noiejxijuttoo sf/.;f /lo tX«H*9no I'l fri* aixf
,9SS'.<2qiV'iXl eji-a' ,l9XXoa: ...y nomtli at &«tn08S'iq aw.i;;!x..wis sii^ ajsw «ixiT
a OBW TtiiiixBXc, odi •xeiid'^xfw aol^aejjp dWtf *«iiJ 6Jt«a d"Xi/oo "art* ©»9rliw
tfofl saw d-lua $>d& a'i! , Jjalis ifcrauai aaw w:ioT;d edai'a© ' . f^aattaoiX
na noqu bQ&Md sfi\r jucf noise Xjmuhoo a*i»2foicf a levosfc-s 03 irl.-auond
agreement ia;j.de "by the del'eiid U)t8 to o'ly aim a part ol' trip, coiniiii -sion
received. In Uroas v. .itrauaB . 2uii ill, App, 2uS, wo lield t>ii.,t tiia
BUit was "based uoon a prOii»ise ;uade by tl.f> iel'cr art to puy pla.ir-til*f
one-liair of fin coi Lini ssions received by tiie defendant, iind hence
plaintiff was not oblig(-d to liuve a real eBtt^te broicp.r'B licenre.
To the ^ai.iC .effect, are Jaruez v. i<auion . £4r". 11], v..pp, , 0'. , Gjbons
T , Wjlllaf^B. L-onicer c. oo .. 1^1 1x1, Ayp, , 594, and ii>ar cinkev i c a y ,,.
Wilson . 183 111, App., 147.
ho subs uuritial dei'ense to tue jaa^iiejrijL_i_§.^p^r^e ?j:id
it iB affirmed.
JU.'U<'IfiI«.ED,
ItatcAett and O'Connor, JJ, , concur.
©iW ^.ituj ,5ifjxi 3w ,S6S ,fjQA .XXi a:)ii ^s^f^ u j^j i i- ,y.y. , as oiO al ,&svieoen
'ft I id la Iq x&if qS jais: as'tsb sxij vcf sfox\>i aeimoicq « a<oqiJ JbsaBof ajsw JJtws
,'^i'l ,,qc(A .XXI 531 , aosXlW
■.."■-, - • ■ ' r i 1,. , •■
40465
PRifiiiuEY L, LSVILLS,
Appellee,
J APPSAL I'llOK CIRCUIT COURT
VB,
R. B. SAVIYEH,
Appellant,
MR. PRBSIDUsG JUSTICE McSURELY
D]iLlVER.-:D TIIE OPIivTOK OF THE COURT.
V \~' ,*^ ^^
Xiiis is a suit on a bond giveii in an appeal l"rom a judgment
rendered beiore a justice ol' U\e peace ^,o the oircuit court ol uook
county; on trial bei'ore tiie Circuit court Jud^ent was rendered
against delei^dant I'or #527,15, Trofli whicxi he appeals.
Plaintii'l" obtained a judtiii^ent against ilarry P. i-'earsons and
certain otuer delendantB beiore a justice ol' tiie peace ol' oook county;
the del'endants appealed to th« Circuit court, having, iiled an appeal
bond in the usual I'orm; upon a trial de novo in the Circuit court
judgment was entered against the del'endsmt*, who sued out a writ ol'
error I'rom this court; this court held tr.at while plaintili h<4d a
meritorious claim against defendant PearBons, yet, because ol a mis-
take in the lorn ol" the juf^^ment entered by the Circuit court, it
was reversed and the cause remanded lor a new trial, l.eville v.
Pearsons . 263 ill. App. 637.
Al'ter tue liling ol ti^e mandate in the Circuit court the de-
fendants other than harry P. Pearson* were dismissed on motion of the
plaintilf , leaving him as the only defendant. The surety on the
original appeal from the judgment of the justice of tne peace to the
Circuit court became insolvent and defendant Pearsons was ordered to
and did furnisa a new appeal bond, with tne present defenda.it, R. B,
Sawyer, as surety. This was in the usual lorm, in '^nich the surety
undertook to pay any judgment retidered against Pearsons upon his
aT)peal to the Circuit court. Upon the new trial in the circuit cou-
SSi"©*
THUOO TITJHIO i^lOfit wI^^^iA
YoaguasM sE}iTaot aaiaisaai .aM
J'neiji^ftut * ^Koi't Iseqq^ cm ai asvig lined jb oo d'ijJB £ si eiril'
X«sqq* n.« iJ^Xi'l aaiviifi ,j"'iiJOQ ;Jixi3T:IQ »ii) oJ fe8>X*®crq£ sJ'njBbiis'tsfc ©jd*
itisoo iijJOixO sad' ni. gvgn £|; istts & aoqsj jcsrao't Igsjsu sdi .ti fcfiocf
a bjsil 'Xli;raiaX(i sXxx«- ie,s:.i fiXsii ^texjoo sirf^ j^-snoo aisii aioi't lom*
-ai(a a 'to seiSBoad ,i9X ,ano9T:ss*i inBfcnislafc ieal&iie. fKl^Iu awoiio^itsm
j^v_jjXXiv®j4 »XjSJ:id «rsn s r.o't betci^.:d9i s»aiijso aiiJ L-oa I)«!»a9V«-r a^w
.Vea ,qqA ,1X1 SeS . eJoa-r.as'X
drii od 90B©q srl* 'to aoijaiit Sii^ 'io ;^.n6«Bsbi't sjci* ^oi'^ ■t^sQ'J^ Xanlsiio
0* b9%&bio aixw Bnoa-x&d'i iixaJ&ixs'te^ bos imrioBat &imoBd tiuoo SiuotlO
.a ,a ,;tr-B)ia'i't96 ^noas-xq arl^T liiXvt ^baod Lsoqam wfta « ilBimi.''t fjil) &«s
•^crsiiiB 9x1* diilii^ ax .ffiio't XjsiiaJJ Si!* al anw aixil .^Jaaiia a£< ,19yw«8
axd noqw eaoati^s'i Janx^^a.^ b&t9bciai inanv^but >t«B ^^q ocf jLooiishau
'uoo nuoiiU «ii* ai l^i-.i wn:i 9xi* aoqU .*ax<oo iluoilO »xl* o* XseqQ*
z
ju'lnnpnt was entered at^ainet defendant Pearsons wJiich hn.e not been
paid. li'ie Inntsnt judtonent was rerdered in a suit on tlils new "bond,
Defen-^ant contends that when tils court upon the prior appeal
reversed the jud./i.er}t ani reinsu';ded the cause, ti^is vacated the judg-
ment entered by the justice ol" the peace and the appeal to the Cir-
cuit court, ihie is based upoii the erroneous assu. ption that the
writ oJ' error, vhen the case was here before, was sued out to reverse
the judf^ient rendered by tiie justice of the peace, ..bviously this is
not the case. The writ ol' error 'fn-s rued out to obtain the reversal
of tlxe ju-1,insnt in tiie Circuit court. The jud^yrient -vThich defendant
now seeks to r-:ive reversed is the judi^raent upon the new 'ippeal bond,
given in corin'^ction vrith the appeal from the justice of tie peace to
the Circuit-, court and given after the Appellate court had reversed
the Circuit court and reniaiided the case for a new trial and while the
appeal fron; the justice of the peace judt^iaent waa still peiv^'in^ and
undtsoosed of in Uie Circuit court. In other words, the reversal and
remand^a-^nt of the circuit c-urt jurl ment by this court i-ierely re-
manied the cuse back to the Circuit court, leavin^^ the apoeal froni tne
juslio-^ of t/ie peace judiyaent to the Circuit cour;. a;? it was before.
It needs no citation of authority to deii^onstrate tne correctness of
thi3 conclusion.
Plaintiff says that this appeal .LB_J3rQJBep^ted.^._f Qr the parpo««
of delay and that he is entitled to an additional amount of 10 per
cent. 'IS provided by the statute. Cliap, 35, .;ec, ;13, 111, hev, State,
1937. e think this point is vrell tai-cen. The jud,>L.ent in tiie justice
court was entered October 24, 1931. The jud^Etent in the Circuit court
is for ^527,15, md Ic per cent., or .,'52,71, wi!" 1 be adied to tnia
judfinent for vexatious delay, x^oellinb v, f>'achBninfe , 174 Ill,App,
321, 323.
The judgment JjB^affirmed with penalty,
AFFIRMED WITH PENALTY,
katchett and ©•Connor, JJ. , concur.
.finocf W90 Bi.icf no tins s .ax b^^&bnsir e^w ^a^is^s^ift tciaiecti ©riT .ijt^q
XaaqqjET ^oiiq ^iii aoqw JTiiioo eici^^ jcsecw iadi alifxai'aGO *rfa.'-n«1;»€
Ifieisv-91 5>xlt aijacl-co oJ- ^'ifo Bst's. saw 'ioit© 'io i-Jtttv? ©xfT «»a£0 «xli J-Ofl
,6nocl' ijBsqrtjB w«n arii' moqu ^iij?i24il!w'i:. Sifi Sii l)9at9T9*s ©vsil o;f 8>I»9a wen
@i saaaq si;.? 'to fsoi^sut ^^^-^ i&o't't iB^qqp: &di dj Ivi aclio&m-ioo ni nsrl's
»xlJ aXirl% Biiic i«ii:f wsn s ■so't sa^a «ifJ fcefuusiuai ba& truoQ ikuottO 9dt
bn£ Xs«i9V9i axi* ,8ljiow ■lsn'J^l3 nl ^ifiifoo ^ijjoilD sdi aX "to £»Qaoqei£>n«
»rf;t asoi't Xjs»oq£ srld- gaxv&oX ,s^ii/oo ^iiiO-iiO sa'C^ o;:^ iojBd aauo ddt bstciBSB.
,tno't&ci afiw il sc Jii/oo i^l sjoixO sxii- oi :tijfta5^1)wt sossq ©xl.t 'to soXJaut
'to a89«^os»i'ioo ®£t:^ sd^B-xianome^ ocJ x^l-iQa^iis 'to aotieito on eJbssa tl
,noJte£;Xonoo elxli
•aof^TCjjq ^/i^^ji^,,M9^J^^§S>JQ^.^I. J^^SW ^^^'^ i&tU a^fi I'txd-alfiX^
taq OX 'to ^mjOiEwi XBaoX^16£« ns 04" ^©X*i3'«e ai ©xs iaAi fcnt. ^caXst 'to
.ai-i5*e ,V9H .XXI ,£S *08a ,££ ,,qdr£0 .0ju*ii;}-B ©ri* ^rf Ijsfjxvoiq: efi .*«»o
asijaut 3^^ «<£ tm^st^biJl sxi'r .asiUsi XXaw ei iciloq aiti* ainixf* a^ .TfiCX
fflXrW oi b^lti- scf xUw ,XV.23# "to , •iJ'a&o *s9q OX ftcui ,cX.VS?.| to't ai
.qqA.XXI ^VX .anlxt»fia^;'>y «y ^gJtXX»<Ml. ,yj8^»6 awci^^xar rsel crn»mj-jfeat
«oSg f XS&
••■ " - . Yt JATtM H?W (raMHIttA
-..<-. , : -■ ,.TriJOAoo '..fC ,toflflo9»0 ]b^ >*»x^o*fiM
::i
40466
J©HN CROiJ'T,
Appellee ,
▼ Bi
R. B. SAWYiiK,
Appellant,
r / /
APPEAL FROl^. CIRCUIT COURT
OF C00£ COUJNTY.
JiR. PRESIDIXia JJoTICB Mc3U:^=lELY
DSLIVERED THE 0PIi;i01.i OF THS COURT,
ihia is eun appeal by dei't^nJant froia a judlt:Jiierit of si>49?2,9 5
in an action on a surety bond,
i'he points made in tnis case and tiie lacts are ideiiticatl
with the points and I'acts in Seville v. oawyer . iio. 40465, in
which an opinion is this day filed.
For the reasons stated in that opinion tue Judji^ent of
$492.9 5 is affirmed with the added penalty for ▼exatious delay
of 10 per cent, or #49,29.
katchett and O'Connor, JJ. , concur.
dd^Qt'
.YtkDJOO JLOOO 10
TJiSHUseM soi'i'eux ©'AiciaaHi .ati
♦MccT Y**T^"8 ■« "© aoiiosi as at
" ,Ji«Ii't T^ftlj aixii ai aoiniqo nu» riaJtriw
A'^'' ■-/^
,\:\.. , t ;;;.'»:j:J*
40467
JOHl* W. DOSBDiS,
Appellee,
vs.
R. B. SAWYiiR,
Aopellant ,
f'^-ixato-J.
.^'
iJ^PKAL'PROM GIHcbTf^COURT
Oi" COOK COUNTY.
29 9
i^R. PRESIDIl^G JUSTICE SfioSURliLY
DSLIVSRiir) TdlS OPIivIClx Ci?' I:IS COURT,
Defendart in tiais case seeks the reversal ol' a judgment
of $556,30 in an action on a surety tond.
The points made on this appeal and the f icts are identical
with those appearing in i^eville ▼« Sawyer , ivo, 40465, opinion
thip day filed,
JTor tne reasons stated in tJ.at opinion tiie Jud.^xnent in tais
case ia afl"irz.ed v/ith the added penalty of v55,63 I'or vaxatious
delay in pro3ecating this appeal,
APi'lRjuJiD ''/ITH PEiiALTY.
Matchett and 0'Cony.or, J.T« , coxicur.
c:
0§
.ST
{ »d'a/.}Ii»s|cj.A:
yoMim&M gsjiteut siiixiieais«t ^sm
*jHai6;i!byt * "^^ X^aisrsi siiJ' 2:5ta®a ssjbs nidi nx ;}'ae.ba«»'t9Cr
.^itotjf '\£;t'9ii.<3 js ao iioiioii as ni 0&«dS6^ lo
Xsaiins&l ©"!« aja^l »iii S)iu: Ijisqqjb elxlit no »bssa tttnleq 6dt
.YTJA^^ KXJW qaSi&I'it'iiA
40627
THE PSOPLE 0}P THE 3IATE
Petitioner,
JAASS JABUKY,
Api^iliiL jtHOk MUivIUIP/vL COURT
lespuiiuei. i<, )
299
<
DiiLIVSRiSD i'HB OPIIIIOK OF THE COURT.
1' iia is an appeal by The Peoule I'rox:. ari order granting a
new trial w}:^re defendai.t vmB rouiid ;.uilty or malcini^/maiiciouB
assault with intei.t to ini'lict uodily gln.lury. Defendant filed
no brief ij. this court.
Upon trial by the court defendant -as founi guilty -md
sentenced to tue JiouBe o:' Correction for one year; subsequently.
purBuant to notice, def^n^^ant filed a petition un^er section 7^
of the Practice act allaying various errorf^ of f ct and ^.ving
that the Jud.B.ent be vacated and h« be g:rant^^ a new trial; the
State's Attorney .'as ruled to plead, answer or der;ur; - The Peonle
filed a motion to dinr.iss defendant's petition, .^hich motion ^.s
overruled an^ a new trial was ordered; on application to this
court The Pe :)ole were ,aven leave to anneal.
Defendant', petition to set oside t,.e iudr^ent of conviction
and for a new .rial alleges tnat he was not represented by counsel
at the tLae of the trial .., in conseou.nce thereof was unable to
present his defense to the cuarpe made a,C:;ainst uiru.
Tl.e record snows that defendant v.s brougjit be.'.re the court
October P7. 19... and on hi. .otion the caure -.ns conti..ued to and
set for trial l-ovember 10, 1938; i.ove.ber 10th the trial was con-
tinued to November S9th; the record shov's that on this d.te defendar.t
was ir court with .is counsel .^, .,, -^rrai^ned and pleaded rot .uilt;
that defendant was advised by the court as to hi. ri^ht of trial by
VSdO*.
( STATa MliT ''iO £J:«I05[«I ST^
( 3 T
yiJii*'!i,US04ii iiOI^'ouIj 'witi,XO.Xc.v*Ji'i ,/i&
is^XI't ;jTi«Jbnft't9CI ,vii/|",ax \;Xibod JslTxai o.^ i^usj-ai; /Uiw ilueasa
titueiio slrl^ ni "teiicf on I
bar' Y*-^-^^'.y ''nuo'T: srv j-nsbnaTrsfc ^tifoo 9if* v;^ ijsiti xioqU -^
,-\;;X^09jJ9SiafjJ8 jTA'Sv Qao "xo'i nox j-f3©itoO 'to oawoii SiiJ o* fesonaJnsa
gr noiJo^B T9^(iu noid'XTScr « f^aXl't ;fiT«bMfti9& , salmon o* .taei/ftiuq:
SalTies JbnjB *o ;'t 'to 3-10119 auoia.6r giji^eXIje ioa ooi^oaTt? *xf;^ 1©
snd" ;SMltS wen ^ f':'>rf'nt^T3 ^cT sd bnje fes^aojar ad ^flsflt^fiut Oiiii iMdt
apw «oi;?om ffolriw ,aoJ:tl^tacr a^ in&biw'tsb Beiamtb oiJ noii'om js bsXi't
airi* oj- noid-BoiXcr^js no i&steMo bbw XaJta* w«a « fcae i>© Xx;ix»ir©
,X««qoB o.t avB^il fusriy 3idw sXqo»*J edj d°iuo9
X-^iniJoo ■y;'^^ 69Jn93?5TCT»i :Joa aaw srf d-jBxiit a^asXXjs Xjeiij ursa a lo't ftns
0* sXcfBHU aMvr 'to<>i'iici3: soneupaaitoo ax fana Isi^i »i<J 'io Siali sxi;^ is
ixiioo T>sii «)io"i:»rf j-xiguoT-cf apw ivmbit-if't^b isAi Bvotia bToo»i oriT
bnp, oi bfiiJ^-'iiaoo ar^^f saiteo flrii" KoLtoai Bid bo fcfi« .BESX ,VS t9<fo*oO
-nco 3ef/ Xgxii- odd- i-fd-OX latfcidvoH ;S5@X ,0X -isdm&roil Istlii lo't *©b
iaa&nslar: stsb nlsii no iaM anos-fs b-reosi sxl* ;xl±es tscfflravoK 0^ ftswai*
;^*Xi*a i-oiT bebfislq bcw. fi^mjiiJiTf? saw fetuf Xftantfpo fllxi iliiw itxjoo nl sb-W
jury tut elected to v^aiye this nrid the cauae wae by a{<;reement between
the oorties subn.itter? to tiie court lor trial ritnout a jury; the cause
was at-iin postponed aiid set i or trial Deceirtber 3, 193d; the record
Bho^s thax on tMis latter date defendant was or;*Bent in court and
renresented by counsel and trial was had beTore .he court without
a jury, vriio 'tl'ter hearin^^ all the testiniony of tne '"itneflees "and
the argon-.ents of counsel •• found d'^fon'^nrit , uilty; tho record further
recitfis that uoon tlie motior. for final Judgment on the fi..,ding of
guilty trie defeni^ant was nr^eer.x. snd rerir^sented by counpol,
Def'-'njant "•'ill not be hpard to ^**ny the r«»cor-l that he was
renres^ntH'd by counsel. It is p-len "ntary that the stater'-^nt of
the record must be accepted as true. T he People v, i'l pons uri. 276 111,
430, 435.
The T)etitio;i for a new trial does not state any fncts wViich
defandar.t could not present upon tne trial. He asserts taat he was
actin.j in self-defense and could substantiate tnis *\"ith credible
witnesses if r:iven an ooiortuiity so to lo." Defendant wps at
liberty fror.t October 27, 1953, until DecG.;\ber 8th - aiore tnp-n six
weeks. :ie li-^d ■Ma-nle time in vvhic^i to T>reoarc any defense he mikht
hare. The allegations in the motion were ins'iff iclent in t .is
resr)ect.
lis petition for a new trial merely orosents cjer.-^ra.. allega-
tions that he has been deprived of a defense to the charge Tiiad*» .und
is a law abtr^ing citizen ind is not . ailty, -mH if *hese facts had
been known to the court the court wouli not nave entered .iuir.ient
herein and rouli hwe ,iven defendant suflioient T:i:ae to employ
counsel to nresent his defense. In view of t.ie recit'ils i". the
rpcor'* of the r.any contiruanceB srcured by deferdant and that he
was renresented by counsel wlien the cane vas tried, these allegations
In the motior for a new trial will not avail, 'r
Moo®rt 3jri* ;8eex ,6 iftdmsofflG Ifliivt 'xa'r *;»» ^ae k^9t3:o<i&aoq ais-ga 8«w
bfl.-:^ .tiuno ni itasBeiq sis^? ;tasbfi*'t9l; **«& rcsiriHL aislS no iteil^ sworfa
iuori^Xv ittufoo ©lie; afo'^scf &.&xi s««w Ifjti.t fonft iaanttoo '(jcT j&eta^aaToran
'■ ifctte* 5i©a(B?'»rtJfiw »ri> 'io 3?;nomi*8aj^ 9ri;f lie yitiifieri tai'ts oilw ,x:'ii/'t a
'to -^albiixt 9>iU no *K9«gAjtft iJBGit «&'Jt a^Hom^M ft^tfu iaiLi 8o:^io©«
'to imtmiBie^ "^tSt i&a^ x'^s&msn^l^ «i *I .leaawoo '?;rr ft'^drteasioeit
»jsw sri i&tU scfirfta®.*!! att ♦X«xt4' ©a* mqa tsmsmxti ton fcl»DO ;trt8f>fiB6*ti*S'
9l<flh9'X9 d^lw* eixitf oc^>-,ii:4is.ia<iii8 feXA»e© ■bfUR ©an<^'t.9Jb-'iXeS est saf^oa
■xie msii ^-xok ^ 43-6 •jarfa^inre Xiiwii ,seei ,TS TCftcfctaO fflBit Y*"3t»rfi:X
^^riaJ^ni erf fisn-yi9i> ^ctb ^T^cgie; o? rlaiu'w nJ: i»mt& e>.f.^m& b&d »H ,s^b^w
-^seXXJB .X«tsn:s3 siJ-neapiq T^susiffi Xjaii;* w^a a r&t nQt^if*»<r el^
i^«ri siitoGt 9«ojl.i 'ti fonp ,i^*iiiv>, iJ0« ex fixj^j muiJit} gniftlcfB waX a ai
^£oIqffls 0^ tfflid- 3-£aftioit'iJwa *w«&«s,l&/> issvia aTaxI f»X00*? hiw. al^rad
9xW ai^alfiUofiti 9ii* 't© TOJtT n.T .9«a«'l9J) itJ:d& rnBurcf at laani/os
aaoii^asXJjB eaQiii .batxt eaw ©aao ©«# aariw X««w«>o yA A«*n»»»ic{©i asw
It hat. keen repeftt^dly dtclded. that the purpose ol the
writ ol' error coran i noblg arii the nictlon oubetituted lor it ir, our
practice i? to tiir? brlore the- court lucts not apoearir.t ol' record
vhich, ir knowri b.-y the court at ti-xe tiiue the* ,1ud».,?i«it was rfendered,
would have prerented ttie court IrofU enterint judtiii.eiit, i'he i'ec l e v .
Crooks, ?>2Q 111., 266; The People v. ivaitielnv . 279 ill. Ann., 337;
Jacobson v. Aeh^^lriage . 3:57 Hi., 141.
i facts were preaeuted iti -iei'didant 's motion w.ich would
j^u 8 t i iy the court in granting the motion I'or a new trial. The
order oJ' Deceriber 23, 193 J, overrulini'; tke Ututoi's Attomey'B
motion to disr^dse del'end'Uit •a jraotion I'or -j r^ew trial is v edited
and set aside ard tlie order setting: aai(5e tiie .ludjnent oi' tae
Municioal court ar.d i^rartin^; a new trial ie reversed ynd the
eauBo is re.-uani^fl v^t': Ur'^ctions to reicand tJi" dof er.d'^.r; t to the
custody of the su^ er inter,:? en t oJ" the irouse ol' Correctior. to serve
the reuiainder ol* hin sentence,
RiSVERSED AJvD REI AliDEI) '.VITIl ^IRECTICRS.
katfehett and 'Com. or, JJ, , concur.
■tUQ >iJt ,ti lot b»ivSio&<iii9 cuiii^et 9M bsi» ^^< S:oa ■W%,<^ %o%i.a 'to HtM
> y , , ^ ^^ij>r5--^'^'^' »*iiO'i«Jit^t aj-^-tf^^'fw «oal ^iwfcs aii^i' l>9#a©T»iq sv^n feluow
..;?&£ , ,crcjA .lii ^fS ,-fii,^.A; si^4, ,.« y .g^ ^Xqo^'ji, , sjii; jSoS , ,1X1 S$£ ,8^0233
»iiJ i>;i* fc^axsva-j »j: x«i"x^ '^*q,\ & j^iu i- p.*5a^i baBs irvo^ XeqiolntfM
.liifaaoo , ,T.^ ^xom^oyo baa 449ivAt4ili
;,. :■•; ■ y-i'. fi p.. I
40368
THE PEOPLE OF Tiffi STATE Off )
lU.IiCIG, )
Pl<iintilT, )
)
▼ B. )
LESLlh; RiiODiSS, )
EIIRCR TO THE ku^.lCjLPAi. COUi-.I
CI" CHICAGO. .
29 P ^ A. f^2F^
iR. JU3TIGS 0»CCffi.OR DlSl.IVERSD TIE OPIlITui; Oi' XiDi CUliivW."
An inl'omiat ion was liled a^-inst Leslie Rhode* caarging
taat he lailed to maJce a return to the Departiuent ol' i'iuance Siiowing
the gross awount ol' T^ersoral property he iiad sold darin^. the i.onth -
that he iiad violated secti'.n 13 of the Retailers' Occuoation lax
I Act, par, 452, cnap. 120, 111. State Lar ;jtats. 1937, ihe case was
tried, defendant found guilty and eentencel to jail for a teri(. of
I 60 days, -le supd out a writ of error froi- this court, c^-aller(. ing
the sufficiency of the infor-.-ation in tiia •_ it failed to allege that
the Deoartuient of Finance maintained a branch ofi'ice in Cook county
/
/ and tnat defendant's failure to report t'ae tax was intentional and
I wilful. After the record was filed in this court the Attorney Gen-
eral asked leave and was permitted to file an amended information in
. which the two defect* pointed out in the ori .inal coEiplaint were
cured,
Defendant conter.ds t.iat the court erred ii^ penriittinji tiie
amended infori..ation to be filed, and that it cannot be considered on
tnis appeal; tiiu-t the orL; inal i./.fori.ation was wholly insufi icient ,
as /leld by tnis court in People v. Deket . ?96 ill, App, , 215, wi.tre
Ikhe information was six^.ilar.
The AttO'mey General contends tnat the ai^ended infora^ation
was pr erly filed by virtue of the provisions of section 13,
Div, 7, chap. 38, 111, Rev. iit-5.ts. 1937. That section provides:
•The prisoner snail not in any case be discharged on account of
8aeo*
MQ iiiiAxa SET "ko ajL^ioa^ hht
I ■ ■ . ,ar : , ■•,•■••
soia^iii:!.© e9bo0i sixasj 4"8iu-.^:ai3 bsiii 8ijw tiox^jsimo'tni oA
X4Bf aox<t&(fuooU ' 8*5)9 lijeisifii biIS 'io SX Holloa® baJjBXoiir fcfid sd i^di
a«w »aao aai .VSQI ,s,i&i& iJ&ii &-^M& .III «O.SI »q«ilo ,SQ:^ ♦tjmj «#^
lo iuiftj » ■so'i Xi^f. (Jw ^ftsaaiasa has •^[^Xijag bnwe'i #a«£>nfi'i:sjb ,l)aixd"
*aji^ 9S®Xi.B oS h^Ll&'t ii s &xLi' itl aolimno'tnl 9£Lf 'i© xomioX'nuB *4*
.•(j;:friiJ03 JtooO ai soi/t'io iloiiRxd *? ?; ii--.iij|*s.j;#ii: ft&iieai'i 'to <in@ia*iAg8tQ »rii
Jbas XjBaoi*iii9*ni bjew xxJ- sxi;^ itaqBt ot 9^:ji>Iifi'i s' tfijsfcws'teb ^jsjld^ bos
-xjffltJ. X^niOvtd-A arl;^ i-ii-'oo yirii ril fifflXi't a«w Moo«i sii>t na^f'tA .Xn'iXiw
fit aoliBinio'iai bBhiiQioii lus sXl't o^ ^$*|Ja;i9f^^a«w fea* •▼ssX b93i«c Jfis*
,b9'tU9
no fc9i5i)isnoo acf J-onaso ti i^Ai ."ror. .fosXi't 9cf o.+ noliastao'tni babmim
,;tti3xol't'-tiJanl Y:il0iiw eaw ooid-CiVJio'tnl Xaai..;llo 9«* JjsiJ^ ;XB»qqjB slxi*
ei9£(v/ ,axs , ,qcsA .1X1 S9S . ;ta>apri «v aXoosJC al ituoo aiiU x<i bXdii a*
ti^liitiis aew ooiis.iao'tnX »xl|l
,SX noxd^ose 'to saoiaivoiq »xiJ lo 9iJ*'sir x^ hBli't xii^fr-iQ «»*
:a»3bxvoiq nox^oea ^^^jIX ,TS(?X .a-J-si^ .tsH .Xil ,8€ ,q«xio ,V ,via
•to *njJoooa ao l>s>sifixloaXJb scf ^aso i^iJa ai ^oa XXflxia tnaoai-xq sxlT"
any insuffici :xicy or iiuor^.aiity in tne coiuplaint, or on account
ol' ar.y iiiToii^ality in tiie varr;.Mit, or uecaasc it ie i^ot oi'ider the
seal ol' the ju c^^e or justice, iut tiae wa,. raiii i..;^y be aii^eiiiled by the
judt^e or justice ol' tlic peace at auy ti^i.e peiidxii^ ^.ue proceedings,"
Vtle t^ini>. it oovicua bxiai xxie provieionB oi Uiis section are appli-
cable only to procedure in tue trial court and do not autaoriz*
ameiidi. er ts in the i^ppellate court.
section 92 ol' the civil Practice ACt nae no application
to cri..anal cases,
xhe original inioruiatioii bein^, insaiiicient tne judjjuient ol'
the iunieipai court ol' onicago is reverBe^andrVS:S^"(SWCiVnr I ' emtuigBg r ,' "
Rj£VJsiitSBD AhD REkAJDiDED. '^"•-
licJurely, i-'. J,, iUid j».atcuet o, J,, concur.
s
sxid x^ fos-baoiue «cf ii(;isisi *«©%>««• suit Jtid .saiJsiiijt 'io ©a^iJjJ, <bdi 'to X.s9a
•asaao Xjeulialio d#
w-\:.: :>;<^
";rB«rrKWa«ri-i?fflaS'^'~'SHf^£'l^ ax psjasiiiU 'tod'ijuoo XaglolrufM ndt
,1 iP'
»i£foaos , .t ,c}Jaiiad-«M i)iiB , .t ,% ^xlnitfB^lt
'^»^!i^'■! Vi •■:-•, ■■'.J. J ','/■< J
4<. B61
COkPAKY, a Corooration, )
Appellant, ) /UT:'.Al. *HOk UihCJiT CCUKI
)
) 1 ^ *-.-'-^'^
LATHOFK. i'UU'-Il.J COHPOiUTlOil , a 'I ^
CorDormtlon, 9t a1.« \ I '"'^^
Ap;>«Xl«c*. ) ^
i
VH, JU;:TIUS Q*Cijki>OH DifiLlVEKiJl; XUE OiUi»Iui. GF TiiH> UOU/iT.
i*lairttll'f filed 1A« cot^i^'l^iittt ir> caanoary aaeiiin^ to rf>>
d«»9r- certain r«*al «*«tat« irorA « I'oreelosurc aal^ ioid to oofitp*! tb«
•hcrilT to rftciv* :Sf6,000 t0n!l«re(S by\pirUr. t H J to iiisj to el'Sfret
th«» r<id<»r..ptlen. Dei'erirlarita iil^r? a written t^otlon to ')i8>tii»P, th»
notion w»« •uetaln«4, tnr cpiis* disi-li-Mft ^ ler *';^'»tof a^ui t.v sr.<3
plAiRtiff app#<al«.
Th« T*oi:-r^ ils»clOB«B tUat in fcovanber, 19?7, Charle» J'ray
an<! *ir« owr.ed t , *» real »i»tat«» In f!U«Btion, whlc*".. »ja.« aulj#»ct to a
$60,000 first nortftag* fcord iB»u<», It w>ib alao subject to a &«onn4
and thlr4 TRorttiaii;* ovri«d by ]}l>iintii'i', the Wttsl ^iuburbfiji FinMno* aBd
Thrift uoj.pijiy, "fhlca J lied auit in Juna, lioi31, to iOi«eioa» it» two
■lort^.ftf «••. Ir Aununt, ifaa, th* Caloa*^o Xitlo A xrust Uoi^vsiny,
truBtwft ir. th« tru«t !j*r»d k^'V'*'' to Ji#!care tn« patyh.ffjt of tu* >i6o,oo0
bon-H influx, it l:i« r^qii'^Bt oJ' a bondhol'lara ' .rotactiv* co.-j>iitt«©,
filed it* suit to lor-Jcloac, L'iKintlff waa KHda i d^'f writlant. in
Ootobar, 1V3S, ;)l-i LntifJ', uiidar a ^l«cr«'« t t^red ii. Ita R^lt fore-
elo»in|{ iha s«eond ani third iaort£.a(feo, parcuuaed the ;jroperty, >i« a
rauult of which a 4<*floi«ncy doerve iiir ^17,7i76 whp ei.t'-rad vctobor
19, 1932, qjftluBt Charl»» i' ray ur><i >»lf«. ^I'llt.tiff JiiM ita nnairar
to th«» iOr#olo»uro ot tho #6C,0Oo tend t««»u» ju.d &ad«« proof of th«
■B«uat du* It un-iar tho iof icl«»i.oy d*cr«e.
The for^clofir* d^cr*" or-jvldi»d tnat if txi** daf «»r. lar.t« or
aoa* cf thoa 1i^ not p i.y ttin aiM>unt r«<vainlaK ^ue ok tho bond iOKU*
■ i
i
,9»i3,i«'i>..iOa flfViioftletv, '«it9l5lodf)a*»<f » lo .rs!,frnp»% »rii ^Toe ,©itBai htt»€
, #t!S«Jt fe«o«f ©arf ao «t»l> 5i«ltti»a!rr i(i»«m» erf* x«<I ^o^ ^^t* ■•*'♦ '
with coBtJ", »*to., triat Ui«» property b« >old lOi ^ Ui« proo«9(ts ap-
f>ll<*'1 to^ari t)>« SKtlsfaetioii ol jouoi^ indvbtvdnffac. art ) tu»,t if
th<»r«» «»» !» eur 'Ills th* aatter briUt, nuci* aurrdu* Iht'^ court.
▲n4 obvloualy IT ta#r(» «a« • furpluc it »oai<) rnuvc b«i«r. pal>1 to tk
In AUK^st, 19,^4, plaiutli'l r«o«ly«() a uhk tor's rlsed as s
rssull ftl itn nuro>ias« of txi« oropv^rXy in ite ]'or«>clo«iirff null.
Thr«» nionths tiier^al'tfr It conv^-y^d Its lnter*'st in tiie proa«rty
deed
by nuit clniltt/to .ji-!n«y feSteX jfWifll ^-Us, y^s Joint t«niw;t(., lor
|7!S0, Mstzl »«a at tri«» tl»e chjiirr-atn ot ti>.« bjcdholdftra • protss-
tlirs CO :vu,ltts« «kr>r) t.us largest ir;dir.l<1akl bonihol iwr ir. tn*
4ftO,OoO iRnus; th« conveyat/es vas ir.ad^ to it >tKl nnd ais T^ife as
coi;.lns«s oi' th«» tondhci'lsrs ' -OifiK,lt.t,e*, *h« ooriv«',v«u;cf
proTsd by ^ resolution ol* th« l'03*r'< oi' r!ir«ators and stoaknoi Jsjrs
cl" t>;«» plviintilf corporation, vkbout live months th«r«al't --r. In
April, 19 "^S, a d#cr •• waa «j.tersd t , ti.«» loud itseue loroolosurs
suit >^hiclk provided tuat a*jy fcoridaoldsr or ^rouiJ o3 l;oi»dholvlsr«
al^.ht puro/tass at ti*« Master's sale tiri;l ucfi bonds in li«u Qf cash.
Ssptswibsr '«;3, 19^'., tiis ciaat-jr soirt th« pr«r»iees Tor ?G,>' vU to
Osorge A, R-^nr.er, h jr.^ fc'»r ol' tJie b .ndJiol isrs' prctwctlve cotfcr.ittS'^,
"■'ho vas one cl t/.e iar^'^r br(Hduoi.< j-rs, i« buut.'iX. fi« a Cut^iner oJ tnr
bondliol 1«rs* ooi^.lttoo and ths pureuass was a^ado pursa<*ct to a ^>lao
«jf r«organl;eatlon, » c 'oy of ■'■••hlch «at nittci'-d lo iht uii.tater's
rsport of sals.
"hs »ast»r, I' ul*' r»port oJ' sal'" and dlntrlbutlon, r^r^orts
thai he r«>oelYo4 ••'5511,47 In eaah, laost oi' .»Ulch vas ap-.illed pr. the
costs an<i sxnwjie(»» ol' suit, «*ud thai for th«» bf»ijtfkoe of thf uals
prieo of 56,000, viz., J243i, 53, &• accepted houds Jind coupons in
aeoordanos wlt.'i th» provliioua o) liis J'oreelosurs d«cr«p.
Ths nlnB R .o»od t.iat *52,5.<J ol tiis bnds wars -jutst of.dlng,
tiiat Bors taan »€t oi than u«d bssu ds^ositsd unlsr tiio nrotectivo
0- ai bl&Q s^'*^4 ^VM.:i ,hii>-C'W $ii ««i{fiE*?«a « «ji»v atiori It %J^nM^lr40 froa
#'X»^i».tf3fe»e'J^* fort* StO^a^li^- *t:«» f;•1S^i)!t>d Sjlt 'jfo Kfal^Hi.iptttJIfl .(T^dT il»<r91C9 .
»ri« It© ft»o|9«sfoi ^ s* >rta^3«f «& ^m-rnhX^iihatiid iii'^sl liM t^ «s«o a«iw (wfw
«*X*« te l^«<i«ti
»i4#a<» ■lH»*i«f<!l« '«-aw iialrtw '»« imm^ ,d#»# al T'#»li'i«l SwTi»»*T; md-iifi^''-
ai;r««w#>nt, %nf* tii« plan contoiupl^ited th» property b^ tl i if) ut th«
lo<>'««t i;»rLc«» !»t Trhl«n It ooul J be purc.i.apd to pr«i»>ot tn« Inter- ftt»
oJ' tn« flfpcmitlng bon(ihoIr!era; tnat 11' ^t Ui« »«!« ftn- bli* *»» V':j<l#
which it; th« opinlor< oJ tu** ooKjaltt** •*• ^lOrt* J"'xTora>/i« to tno ie-
poaitlo; bondi'iol'itrt than ht-vlji^ the property parouus«d ty tne com*
Bltte«, il wouH T;ot .it»v*> its nowifiw* buy tii« -.roperv^; tj.at ii' th«
eoi».'!4tl«« was Uiv auoQfnatjX bi'lrier u-t» plan oi r*or^at.lE»tioD would
h^ lulimlttud! Jor corisi'lBrutlcn '4rj<t lin^iroval tc» lint .lu'lc* of ti^«
• curt ^.^arlng tn» 1 oreolopur* a»i«; tj^at IT th«» coi'.i.i tte»s 'a no in»«
•h- ul.'^ fcr th« nuecfttteful bidder It woul<? cu.. ricrlfjee then
hoi "Jig title to r«'!ecjr: J'ror. ths aal», Aft«»r tnet uilr? ^a* >;.««• by
th» jr.u{'t(*r to i»«»r.;;-r, ctl.cr ton^hol iJ»rB, iu r^lic«i;co upon tt»» plan
of r^orf-fii. l^iition, «<«r)0»iti»c! tJriclr boridn, raiiilnc: the to v,»wi of ie:-
posit«>4 bnn-l* to 95 ',
In Jf 6lr-i»Ty , 1?M^ th« B»«»tar'B »iU.« wa» upvirovcd by tae
eourt iini at. *»«rl*»f1 plaii of reoTt4.ani«»tloil pre»«Jnt^vi to tne cuatt*
a«llor, whlo ' was vutslaiitittlly 'h« eaec &») tit« ori,;i.r)iikl plan yxoopt
tii»t It r<»oit'>!5 t)i« purcfm««? of tUP propcrtv by ji<?*;rer a« no:; li'.»«
for th«» cov:. itt««, and proYidftd for tu«« for. -;tlon of n aor;>or»tlo»
to 'ioll tlti« tr !-te»i of a lii^ui.lation tru«t, the a»eu<1«d ol*ri r«»
oilM thj»!. the oor-.. itt«* wouH rvq^ir* itc nc Iuad ihon .elding
tltlft to the property to r«do«a fro ln« luustcr's o«l«», th«v convty
the property to a corporHtton to b<» or^^vnixad m th« *i.atrob« rujld-
ing Corrsoratlon, * The amended olan w>*a approYCd by tbe court, who
found that notice h xd been c^^cr. to all tiie bondhoidere that the
plan would be eubnitt^'? to th** court Tor Itn apnroYaX at the ttcie
and pl»«e etoted. In* jfeoree a.jaroved the .aij-,(»r'» sale, .OKi the
aRftidei plan ;»iBO recited Uiat ttte court hi*d exa inc^d the orii^lnal
anf ajreried plrxn mi fter h^arln^. fouu'i that the i«ti»snded Ian wmm
fair and oquitaVle, .r i il 'h» dncreed tiiat tuo exoi^a.- »;» oJ old
soeurltice for aeeurltleo under tiie f:«w vian be apyrowed and that
»lf£;>^ »«»« i^iif ->:£)(» «i:«« iM^' t^ji^ 'ii ^«;.':j ;ai<x«)>i9^i^$t«^ i«tJi;riao«»l) •«$<} ^»
ooT>i*» ol* ths Mscendvd iilac be nuilAi to all depoaLtin^^ u^d ron>
dl^pofiltlni boadhol<1«ra wit/iir> It days. Ih* <i«or*« ^ipprovin^. th«
BE:A>t«r's r»"iort oi" ;al» and r«or^'.u-iizaiion I'inde that 'Ul nurtiea
w*re notlJl»d, anr* th*» record <»l«cIo»«a tlmt vh© attorney I'or
plalnti/f, tiia t»at i^aburban ifintaiam nuA Vhrilt . >..p»iiy, a rt«l>ii«:1i« t
lij thp Iok4 iH9UC roi*»clo»ure euii, ^at tarytd ^itti notlii*' oi' all
• t«p» tttken it tn<" matter, wfiJ that uo obj«»ction wae juj-.de by tha
test iiuburlan eoi^ipany t« th* Mi.-)endi*d f»l:4n ; or leort sa isation, or to
asytMnti thttt vfeB »«»n»- It- tar KAttwr,
Aftffrwar/', purft-ujvrt tc the icen^*?**. I>l«»xi ci" reor;.,ttRlzatl©u ,
thft oosifeittas org»r.i»a<* the i.«trob# iHill^ing Conorat ion , to «bieli
Sl4n«7 &*t<?l :^d i»tf* conrwyert tl3etpr?inie*B in July, 1&36. Augu«t
10, 1036, Mapr<f>r who i-.» no; in«a oi' the coj;!.ltt«« h xd purcri»aff<i tha
pr«riio*n at th*» ror«closur« R'^ie, «»ndcreer' hl» cartllic-»te of nala
whloh he h:iiS r#c^iVf»<J froi- th* miietwr, lit wi:lch ha recltftd that th«
Latroba Building Oorporatton had paid in luli ojrit Tor w lieb
th» nroparty w»» »olr<i to r>lK by thp si/iC4t«>r, iir ! U.;: property had
l»««n r«dt>cBi«d rroa: Et»j«.
fcorc thi*n r motith t:i«ri9aft«r, Septaobar 33, 1936, a Jon
roiloa to ocunaal fur tha W«9«t Suburban Cotepcitiy, J^atsl wirt Hitv.n^r
praaaft-* th*ir ▼<"ririe<l patltlm o tu« court It; wnlcii t-.r-y »et
up th« Torn itlon of tiia i-fttrr.b« Buiidiinfe ;;oro ration pureu-uit to ti»*
amended platv; triat thay w#re prA«id<»nt and aocr^vury resn^cr iv»ly
of tha bondholilara' ;irotactlvf oai<ttittae wiiic;i hi.4 ,reB#»f.t«rt tha
ar,*r.dad t^lan; tnat U.»=- t>rcvialoiia ox tha oinn had o*»»n ooii»uB».:«tad;
t^hat tha a-julty of radeuptlon in tli* oror>'»rty h-xd ba<»n coinv*y*d to
tha Baildin/»^ corporation by tho i^o. Ineea of trie bondi oldor*' oro-
taotiva oarunlttaa who * -3 1 Itle; tUat ther«B riwd bann a rada-ptian
fror, tha ual*; th<*t , u had baan -.pnroYai; tnat tht* rt»or»<ai'lBai-
tlon loan hnd ba«n •&/)«, out oJ which xll foroelosura and otfaar
ooata vid axpanaaa and part of tha iojiaa would b« paid; tnat tha
■ C»«M '^^Jts^wtti. »**5 /j&fjaiK ,■««*««« «iy t{-i| ,«r4*i , «# film a*^ \jtft«^««# ».4*
.nmfi »<»*i?-C ,«®- «»4*a»;#i:?®i(ji ,'j*t'sjs#'««i<,# A$mm. a^m^- .^0^ ■■,.::, %;4-t:
^adacce ol th« t nxea w«>re c->nt« ijl;*t*4 to to p«l.-' out ol thv .(\.).ub
1b tae hvuiJs oi' Ui« r«o«i'ver ir. u.ii ioreolosare amlt; t:.&v the
luildinfe: oor;)oratioBL a- id titi*, «lo, ; ■...<, d ot* Ui« fiaxuc :'(y ^ja orrttr
vat er.toroi 3 l.-Hnji th« f^ot* r, ii»tj»f*tlaliy rte i5«l iort'i Li t)a» pe-
tition » .«. ! t .at the Bull Un^ cr.no ration h.ixd r<ti6*i<;ff.1 i roa. tiie :^a.p-
t*r'» Kal* an4 »ia U** orr.er oi' tue prti^lsos ir> ;'«c sitijil* •u'tj-Ect 4o
tht tru»t dftcd oii ti;e prop^^rt^ v.ici; n...?! baen ^raco^te.? to a*ouir« a
rtorfcaa^ieatiaB loar of I^Wi^O; fUid tne court ^.iK) JouncI th^t y^i\m% iiad
tion, iUii tn« reo«^lv»r «»« orlere^? to aurr»Mi »r o km .-res: lot. ol' tu*
prme^ib^B to lae ^uix4ifi«^, curuoration. '.
Iht rtoord I'nr -..i«r dlatotea u i. -it afterward ti«» ^ol 3«r« of
♦ftOjwOO of bu.nd» •xo'.ajijied tiia;. i"or atoc^. ir. ti^e Jb,<ililnfci eorpcratien
in accv»r?lftiic« wtt.. th« rwor^iajilKation olan, *ni t .»t October lu, 19^6,
tiia ii iidini. cor.joratioii p&ii £3739,02 unpi»lj/tux©a; tisat li. order to
taiic pu:/ih«;it o: tn« r^or^^anizatlon uo^ta ;;£ti iixpeuuca £0*14 uccraad
tuxa* t>i« l>aiidJLiiifc, acrporation as-^d tcrrowad ^4,wv/C( aecurtd by » truat
4»ed r«oord«d ^tafu'bt'T 9, lOis, to victor AitngB^tl, tr-.8te«!, aiii
ti'iat tue T,ruat«€ said i.yrtJLa i a>i..,H»»tt o'^ii'Jdi trie 3S,cuO not-a juid truat
da«d.
Dac«jB)b«r l)i, l{i36, whtou vaa laora thoii four ooGthe aft^r
Hanri«ir had <l<»livar«d hit certificate of r^-da* ptlon uckno l *d Ing r«-
aalpt of J6,0».-0, u» .^kove sttte-i, pit*lr. wli i', tn«j "'o«t .jul-urtaB
eoAp«x.y, tar.darad *6,vi:o ^It.. lut^r-at, rtc. , to tiiw sJufrlff of Cook
•cuiity to r»d<»«ii. tha prop^rt^^ frot tna kjiatar's nAlm, piulniiif
elai..ii)g It WMa «9iUti«d ■.- '. r»u b;/ vir ua of it» aeflwiyuoy dacraa
of Jtora taaii ^i7,uOO aio - i znd 5.0, con tai. Ui*ir. li'Ut the attacptad
rtda<iiption fror tua .^ana by ^v-Uijier wt4a IrjeiJectlva und void,
i'lilntlff cotiterid* t-a t tr»a stapa t««k«n by tne bondaolc^era '
eoBiAittaa it. Atia ptiju^ to reiaato fr.>it taa Kaatar'o eaia *ajbountad
■•raly ta tJia aartlflcaia holdar cxacuiiiit^ a»d pi.^cinn of racord a
tut i9»l4'^tf. •itfi.si* sat -ni i!i««lj!i#'x«ii »>':.3 te 't*^^* 9M e*« *«» «!«• tttHJ^
JM^' Ji«if*' laja(:J feaL«-i «*.£-•* JTiit^ .^4? ■?«£»« ;«SV'^»* 'l« aaoi: &aJ't.asZ£(Aj|'K««t
t%;l"t« «it«««a -ittdt mijte^ st*® s««' iisiiiw ,M«£ ,81 :t#*iaBft»«<S '■'■''''■■' '-'''
that want w»» ion* "'lid not conatitutc n r«H.«ts.piion iu lu«r toid tuai
th«» r^dw ptlon t>roo«»« i xoktfd Uic «Bo«r.'viai.a ol » r«d«i .i,r.,ion in
fact; t.'^.at tn« uosuiiitt*^ could not i-^AtuDUi J'ro;^ Itiscll u^id i.iat pay»
an
Biont oi' U*«» tfttle prloe Ij/e^frftniial «^i'Si«.«»nt. oJ' n wi.atat';>ry redtnap-
tlon;* tjjat "Radaii'jjtloi; un'l«r Wie Bt<*iute iu a c.teii ai'.) carry trana*
aetioB;" t'.'.at "liOt a ^U^ .'.u-'- to tne i--i,i*t(sr ix; Uitti,fc«ry tuaivlnjjj
tn« Bal*;* tiat "Ail tUat ie rCiUirad to »»**£© a r«d«ii r-tioni is p*y-
r/<-'rit: '.uid cue only tuin^; tua j, g^r. ixs- h r*d«ttp1;ioo ujj }«r -i»ction li*
la p&yscent" ( J«o. Xii, c.-^ap. 77, Ii«. Jtat« haX vtiAtB. lVx^7); U:!«t
*'rh« record aho«» tj»er« •«» no id«* oi' t/iou^ijht tuau t.ier# 'vae .?uiy
■on*y to bfi -.kid lor a r«d«^-^ption, it »-;t8 sill ^ p.'vp«!r tiai.attctlon
•Ad acoordlndi to plan;" ti^at "^uc 8l-.r>iisity oJ' tiio efatutory ;>roTl-
slon on ti'i* r«de^..ption8 is oiri/nrig. All tuii.;, la r«»<uir«d cl trj«
r*d*i'~'ptioriAr i£> tu pay tiic :i<»bt witii ibt^rest." And t -viX the record
«h«v'B that iXi tK« *xni»i s»8 uiin ail o«tynii>r.ta euid« t«er« J" roc. txm pro-
c<»«^4» of th« ^a,i>00 u*orttJ:as;« vltc^d upon tne .ro.ocrty :y tr.ff ' ulld-
Ipj corftC) ration, '^a •j.r*'? -firith tulj! latter contaxtion. he record
•ho»ii t^i«t all Ihn Btou#»ye l.iat. wwnt to pay ffixpfiTiSea, taxi*» , 1^1. t. ,
'^♦r* okii^iiriad frojEP tho ifi,<AAj loan, hut «• turo vin*iV.lfi to fijrtpe with
th« f«trtt*B.«nt innt the metho'J ol" rtdoaptiwn la Btrii.iutily aiiupla;
but IT' ccrd wtt.i ii;« »tHt««<*«»t tiat "tho Ljir Lu rf»i;i to re^^ard
• tatutcry 3c »«4i'«« or rind*:jptlon I'roai Jmlicijtl »hl«» us a lufijing
co»i>l«3c oJ" plti'alla.* a onivflrsity of wuija^iO --.oviow, ,T*ii« 62ft, ^>
ar« alao of oulnion tnav rB4*uptiu« Vrou- a «uat*r'» !'»!• p^r^.^ar^t to
a fc.r«»o-Lc r' ~.re« io ^« i.ot iilwa^g r«<«ulre u .« ubi; of .oiiwy, ^jad
it ••«* conceded t-ua'-, ev^n inoutjix tbe certifio*i« of p-alr :»fid
the {-auity ^i rede. .^t ion Laoane irr»ted ir. Um^ aaae per»oji, tii»r« ie
ne aeri er ^n' t/ie eertifloaKt of naie ie r.ot tuctrety deatr- yed at
the right of rede*, tion e<(itiAu*e, '-oop^r t, .^oldet oiti^ •^S6 ill,l?,a,
Coutprl lor iaf M<r<.ai. t6 in Ui»ir bri«f say ti^itt "by in*ir
' -kllii^' «i a.^i..?i;r^«r&4»t 4 «:£«<«' &t ft#^i^^«« ttl 't«<il £XA* ^«^;^ *7;ii«« ttil^
tAsa t^nu .«#'«#€ it£i #»i»#r. ait ,rf .«»£{'» .fit' .^c; }«#!«• jat«<t»i^
%m latitn cict;''.^ /j>ai t%i(<Ny td'iisii pk mtiv ikit»J^ »ir«^ M«ft*i ' »i9f*
•«i[^ «;^ ^w'iK'i »t^'^:' 9^:^.3. *#a«i3^«<» (jU l^tsa ft<»e^^$t(> •!{# CX«' t^if? awoi£i
6fee»ic Afit' .noi»d^$«d£ «c«ti^l isju^# jtt2» ^^t^e »# «iMl#iiir(»<nfto sirl
ftxa^iff^ <f9 htM tat tAif ittii* $uM iu*^i»4a »di &fkm iitfiMd ttti^ttt iai
Mt*S!tt sue j^pi|>.»j«i^X6i; .y >;»a#o.. . . ' '-xl^
■' tJtfttt^ xi* i&^^* tee lr«*.Hrf lidiii >: >'>
»otlor« to ''ItJilft?: thry a<fR'.lt ti»«it 'j«orfc,« «iiw>.n«r reooiT*4 do ■ • t'y
rr Its ♦» .iTHlTt J'ro-;j iatrob* Lull'llnti Lorpo ration. " i-ut they
««y tT%t K*nr*r ♦'*t th* noAvlntte oi" %n« con<mittef» ujTid lield the cer-
tifl-ial* cJ* S'ile Jor -.r.<> fc«>iiMl. '. oi' r/ie depoe itiJnt; V.«>n5jii«id(»r»;
f'liit tii« Bull Jia^ corr^oratlon "vap or,; «m< I »•-♦♦«! ^5' ttif:- cosoavitt** Tor
th« l)«i«rit c'" trte t'rn<lhel4er» a« ^nrt ol" ta« ^:i!\rt oJ* r or^^iar.isA-
tlon;" thsi: IT any money uad t««i. iaotviHily r-ui-'.: to i;eiai'»r, "it
wojI 1 rav** V-eon th« bor.rlhol Iwr*' soney, Vot;. beJore :uri.l aJ't«r th«
pfty\i.*HQt. Irj'^isn.acii -ie ti;© ti,iidliol'?.tr» aurr ««ad»u'ft<! tholr ^i^■i^tE» lor
• took oI tc.e fTcr. oration tlie coo-t'oratloR rtulf' LhT b*e« »'j.titl*4
to r^f^-lT© bftCi the r««J«ss3t>ti©B- ftcney^pAl^. Th"» .'.. Itaaticn »!a» rot
difr Tt t ir •iiV!«t8.rvce thar- ij' C^-oTti* BM.rirr l5-;»d iiel'?. the ec.ulty
or rjdp.'ption '*«5 veil q^R th« certi rlc&t«^^ of »alc li; ;.lo own rl4ht
tin-; hud, uriler feueh circiiCifftsr- c««, 'vsid* out and recorded « o»frtir4-
cftte ©r r*d<i» -ption, tiicrefcy eUo''viHi» ui^i in t en t iojr. to Ti^.f,ifeu -iXifi ^iiving
r.clic* tc ?ill p«;r»oi.« its^«r<»8te>d ol* oacsi Intent;" ijui that iii tnett
ciroj&fttjj.sift* t>i« redft- ption »'cul'i ii./.ve ceeii ^oc^ under the rule
etuvtff*. i tht? Up fa r o«.»e.
^va a r»s it o r wiat «u« done iti Mii» i'ortaloaaro, redo^ption
and r«*ore,iuiix«tion :^iskii, t;i-? -ienv^i; i. 't Jja^i tundiiolder* ne^ u;iVB steak
In thft ii^jil-itnii cor,->oratic: ir; li«wi oi lh«ir tat.d», nnd ti** non-
d«;;>0Biting l^-jrid-iol-Jert aavn r- c«ivfd taair proaortl(-«n.At« p-.rt oi'
whttt ■»*• ;lcrivw<i froL. the prcce':da cT Uia I'c z-pclo0ur«» B'*ifi. -tnd
•0 i'*r 5.6 tie reoord Uscloxee, no con-Uioi ler la oottplai/ infc that
the pisui lolicwed »«• not ta* b«»«t one ar.*er the ^iire^luor.^x^J9»t
Sectiun 13 oJ' cii^pt^r 77, lll« ..#.v. .-tute. IC*37, orovll?**
thmt, "Any 1ffJ>f 1«nt, ''" ;6.i.y, *•• within twelve .-onth» froia ftaid
«*le, r«d«eii.. tn« r«Hl estate «o fl'>ld by pwyiuji to tne i>arc/i»»er ■«*•
tne sua oi money !or ^'hisa tne pr«f i»e« were avid or tid off, *
Ua<1«r thii :>ro^i«ior) tk»« ^ure ' > . <-xaitied to his ^.oney but
•bTlouely he cur. t!o us he pl-ftsee wiui Viie certlJ'icate - ^.^v* it
left ««(t!r i»<»i^,AA»lii» »iiS' ,.&tef ^ ^J9i5t^m ,4ftii f aft&feot |i«E* '*!^#«? ♦Ti»»*i[ «|,
•«.9iU ill SMtki hOAi ^i^a^iAA d»m *t« b^4 S!$%»4f til B.-^m%-9fi iX» 9i MtJt^ta
tXtT'- . «j^«^' %Vii£i fe^Jk'o-'^ amis ii.'i»h^t f»di 99s^iu*t»mu9tl*
,t»t>s&.Jsai:0*iio fi>j:W «»fei5i* »£tf» #»»<;{. feJU |«^ fi** i"- ■ '•''*
fiiwot .wxt »«i4a«;-i .n^viftwa ai^lw «♦* .t^sa *
a
•Wttj or l.-Uce -hat ha ia on-rt^ l^^r It - y.ijd hoii ui« -ron.-r i:rx^
tilic»tr iB Jllrtj bi' in. chowlng lar r«dt>.. p tiori Umb b#»en ji,«d«, ^«
thick thlrv Is t^alT icl«rit anl^'^tsK unat vau jont »c^r l"rft.i.*«u1 <"nt,
U. tlie inMiftni eN«« plali.tiil' w^» U ««, ay r^pfrttu^'isd. It
wae .'jJvi«**,1 Ir. u\9 i'orfaioac^r* cuit -41. ,i t.^c ▼•;;riouB ctsp* ta««R
•h»t tr-.f^v ■'•»» to If H rport^u.lzation ii: ^chich th« 'J-'^oftitlug bond-
hol^^^rf wcuH 8urT-i->r their b-.R^« for Rtoek h. ti;i« uoryormtion,
ar>» th^ .T.«'Ciio^! by t^hioh thl * «uft to fc« HOOoA.piiiu.e-i ras pcUt»d out
in -^o.aii, :)«J>M«,t ril«,x<J ;^ v^BV«r to la* lov. oiORure nuit,
prov«d Up itfi rtefiulca.cy dcor«», »;i^« >4vic«d o3 u.o x-rtort,Af,liiftt Ion
pl*n. .a-] :v',.d<' no cVjrcU-or- ^.t -^.y Ut^s. lut ox^ tctc coiitr«iry, ^/fter
It U'*.1 cl-«»ii.e-i a :e*d ufuii^r itr, /orrc'ic8«r« s»i Uic si^cot^d ur.i i.ird
B.oi-t^..a.»,eB CD t.u* ;irf^,p«Mty, «c»lcl twid quit olaiaftd nii oi its ir.t«r<^»t
In the ;.ro;«rt> lor i7fk tc * fto..inee lii t.,,^ co-. ittf« 01 bcndi.old-
*-rs, ui-j- ;,ruou^i^out Uxe prcce^dinfes ^ridf uo otj«caoii, ,-.ft*rwftrd
i_anfio«tt uri'.-; . tj « lei.t Ui« i?uU..'ie^, cor;)© ration ^a,.>.;& I'or -vhich
tuey nc* .-.l 1 its trus;. .1»r;^ i^iici note, under Uie»e cixcua..«tar.c««
W thiiik Piai;. ti:l is nftt in ^ potitioiv 10 I'O^ .; i^iiy^. It lt< f.to;.oed
111. 646.
.h» or<ler or .>cr**" oi th« v-LreUi ccwrt oi v,oo^ «■ u„ty
i« fclTirrayJ.
ii«aur«iy, ..'. J., axid »^fctcUf-tl, J., concur.
.t.f^iric&n-^T'i fliiir. *de!& e^jw i»nv !*«*X«fl .t'l-^ialTt^B el alii* lAsildt
««5tf*5j aiTf*<r« tiJ^i't*?if- i>t<5 hem iiwe an ■7 ©^^jf sti ^wivfc* ajiw
■■.(■■■■
•»»3 .III
K.- C-f- vy-^'
^ PUBIISIIHU IN AbsIKACT
:-^4
/^-f
p. N. Chiasson, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. National Triangle
Securities, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.
AjipvaJ frinn Ciindf C'lurf of Pikr ('(unifif.
October Term, A. D. 1938 •^-- ^,
Gen. No. 9158 Agenda No. 25
Mr. Presiding Justice Kies.s delivered llie opinion
of tlie Court.
This suit was origiually Inouglit by plaintiff-appel-
lee, P. N. Chiasson, a^physician, lieremaFTer referred
to as plaintiff, agaiiistTTatrcrrral Triangle Securities,
Inc., defendant-ai)pellant, hereinafler 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. ~ "
I Tlie suit was afterward fried de novo on appeal to
I the Circuit Court of Pike County, WTthout a .I'urv, and
a judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff Chiasson
f or the amounF oF^^MS. from which this appeal
followed. ~ -
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 weeklv
during the summer and fall months when spraying,
picking and packing apples was in progress. The
President and Secretary of defendant companv 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 carry
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. Cheeks for wages were signed by de-
A
I
Page 2 . Gen. No. 9158
t'endant 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 Briglit out
of this cash fund were reported regularly and submit-
ted to the defendant-appellant liy 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. diiasson testified that he was etaployed 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 \"aughn 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.
i
Page 3 Gen. Xo. 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 pioceeding to collect his al-
leged claim from the appellant comjjany 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. An (Justus v. Leivin, 224
m. App. 376; Hoyt v. Loudon Guar, d Ace. Co., Ltd.,
227 111. 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 for^, 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. Aur/ustus
V. Lewin, supra.
The defendant company contended that the plaintiff.
Dr. Chiasson, failed to prove by competent lega! 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 witli a special agent or an agent only
having special authority to act for his principal, musr
acquaint himself with the extent of the agent's authori-
ty. Murraii v. Standard Pecan Co., 309 111. 226, 140 N.
E. 834; Cabiness v. Texas Tie and Lumber Preserving
Co., 152 111. 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
i
r'i'SO 4 Gcii. Xo. f)158
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. Pafton v. Young, 233 111. App. 515; Mer-
chants' Nat. Bavl- v. Nichols and Shcpard Co 2''^3 111
41, 79 N. E. 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 can-
not be found to exist solely in the acts oi^ statements of
the agent himself. King v. Chicaqo B. and 0. R Co
235 111. App. 401.
IWe hold that it is not_§h p'^''" by the evidence that the
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 shomi by the
evidence. The treatments extended over a period of
alniostj;ighteen_^month£ subsequent to the injury. The
plainflffhad amp!e~time to communicate with 'author-
ized agents of the appellant, and under the circum-
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 local
agent's authority, if any.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is therefore re-
versed and the cause is remanded.
Reversed and Remanded.
(71985—1-39) 14
/
^.tc
^4
.-tr-^'
Published ix Abstr.vct
Mrs. Florence Engelking-, AppeUee. v. Springfield
Brewing Co., an Illinois Corporation, Appellant.
Appeal fniiii Circuit Cotui Saiuiamon Cumitu
October Term, A. D. 1938 ^'■'
Gen. No. 9150
Agenda No. 20
Ml-. Ju.stice Fulton delivered tlie opinion of the
Court.
Mrs. Florence Engelking, the Appellee, instituted
this suit against the Springtield 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 tlie 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 l)ehalf 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 M'ithout a jury
and the Circuit 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
.and 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-
i
Page 2 Gen. No. 9150
pelleo, which said sum was used by the Appellant
forporation 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 M'hich 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 ^nfe, 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-
ll
Page 3 Gen. No. 9150
band and Appellant corporation must be deemed to
be admitted. Under the Civil Practice Act of Illinois,
111. E. S. 1937, Chap. 110, Sec. 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 sufi&-
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, 368 111. page 510.
In Ogent v. Beasley, 284 111. 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
proof. We believe, therefore, that the strict rule of
admitting the subject matter of the affirmative de-
fenses in the answer should luii ]>>' applied in this case.
The Court heard allof ihr testimony on all of th§„
issiies raised and in our judgment was warra_nted in_
findingTllilisiues for t]ie_Appelleej. The judgment oi^
the Circuit CourF~is~therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
(71985—1-39) H,
l4.o4
-M--
M-.,aJ: d ^ OjX^'t if./f^f
Published ix Abstr/Vct
Selma Adair, Administratrix of the Estate of James
Adair, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The Alton
Railroad Company, a corporation,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from ('irciut Co/iif of Saiif/aiiKDi Count if.
October Term, A. D. 1938 O '^^i O "^' /\
A' --"' -^/' A. st\
Gen. No. 9160 Agenda No. 26
Mr. Justice Fulton delivered the opinion of the
Court.
Selma Adair, Administratrix of the Estate of James
Adair, deceased, the Aijpellee, hrouu-ht a suit in tlie
Circuit Court of Sangamon County against the Alton
Kailroad Company, ApiieHant, 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 tracks of Ap-
pellant where they intersect North Grand Avenue, in
Springtield, Illinois. The case was tried before a
Court and Jury and a verdict rendered in favor of
Appellee in tlae__sum_of .$10,000.00. After overruling
motions for judgments notwithstanding the verdict
and for a new trial, the Court caused ju dgment to be
entered on the verdict, ivMiltiiiLC i n "FfiTs'^ppeaL
The complamt consistt'd of une 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 occurred.
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
■IS-is
Piige 2 • . Gen. No. 9160
to the point where the tracks of Appellant intersect
said Street. North Grand Avenue is a cemenr 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 tlie Southbound rail-
road track which is the west track. There is a fire
engine house fifty-five feet west of the railroad tracks.
Tiie track nearest tlie engine housL> is the one on
which the Appellant's train approached. Tlie 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 parallel
to the tracks. The testimony of a witn^ess 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
\dew 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 trespas-sing sign" lo-
cated on the right of way between the two poles near-
est the Avenue. » * •
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
Page 3 . Gen. No. 9160
he shifted gears and drove ahead to the tracks. Just
as lie reached the track, he turned his truck to the
south and it was struck or "side-swiped" by an engine
of Appelhxnt 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
from 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. StacJ; v. East St. Louis
Ry. Co., 245 111. 308. Proof by the Appellee in this
case that the deceased was in the exercise of ordinary
care for his own safetv was essential. Greenstreet v
A. T. £ S. F. Ry. Co.. 234 111. App. 339.
Testimony of Appellee's witness Wing above set
forth, coupled with the photographs mentioned, show
quite clearly that deceased after pas^ng the engine
house had an almost unobstructed view do\\ai 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 ^^^th an electric headlight
could not be seen at a distance. In Greemvald v. Ralfi-
more <& Ohio R. R. Co.. 332 111. 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
co mm ensurate 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."
Tliis language is adopted and approved in the cases
of Sowers v. I. C. R. R. Co., 261 111. App. 63, and Pro-
venzano v. I. C. R. R. Co., 357 111. 192. In each of those
cases the facts were similar to the evidence contained
in this record. Appellee relies on the case of Pol-ora
v. 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
5 J." -'^'i :"i
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 case in 275 U. S. 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 di 
TVNews
OpenLibrary