Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2010 with funding from
CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois
http://www.archive.org/details/illinoisappellat305illi
|
40620 Z\e
ct Y =.
YERA SAVIOSOR, Adminietratrix of the )
Estate of Seott Davilison, Jr., decenged,
2 X APPEAL FROM
Plaintiff) Acpeliant, 5
z
ve i I SUPERIOR COURT
8 é et
spi opi HIRTON 1. & fae ra
ior Chiesgp warid TP. it COOk COUNTY.
fm corporatipn,
(Sefendents) Aorellees, 3 O5 L.A. i 5 4
H&. JUSTICR ANGEL DELIVESED THE OPINION OF THE GovaT.
This is an setion at law based urea the attractive nuisance
theory by the plaintiff, sadministratrix, sgainst the defendants te
renover demages for the wrongful death of Seott Sevideon, Jr., a
@Ghild less than ten yeors of ace. At the eoncluaion of the plaintiff's
ease the court direeted the jury to return a verdiet in faver of
the defendants, and it is from this judgment enterod pained te
said verdiot that the pinintiff apveala,
The pleadings allege thet the defendants were opernting
elevated trains neer the intersection of Virginia “treet and Leland
Avenue in the City of Chiesgo, at substantially ground level end
thet at the seid plince there was ® public playground immedi=tely
akjacent te the right-of-way and that the defendants’ trains vere
propeiled by electricity, receiving the electricity from an exposed
third rail; that on dune 15, 1935 a barrel containiag apikes waa
situated on the right-of-eay between the second and third rails of
tro s@psrete treeke end thet the plaintiff's intestate, a bey of
nine yéare and seven months, vent upon the premises, xttraeted by
the spikes and the reilrosd, etes, snd came te his death by coming —
an contact with seid third rail; thet the defendants were negligent
in view of the attractive misance aforescid by ssintaining an
improper fence sround acid premises, ssid fence veing a ac-cslled
hog wire fence, that is to assy, having seshes in which the strands
Tun vertically snd horizonteily with strands more than three inches
he
| ~2yS pare: eunee
: ( ot te xite BW .BOEGIVAC ansy
{ bs o9ah ett ‘ dJeoe to efeted
Bane J j ‘ i
4 |
P8100 HOT ) 4 4
F no gilli .f HOTHING Dag sNSA!
Pel x a . ¢ fice
IkUGO SMT YO BOLMIGS SBT GEPQV14RC JRGRM SOSTOUL .ht
somset.: ovttonntte edt mequ beaed wal te achtos as ef edt
OF Fiaehpotar ‘ede teninge xiztaxseiaimbs etthenteig odt yi ytoods
Fs s goth goosbivet ##90% te deed Ivtgaots edd tel segemeh TaveosT
memes: ent Yo sedeciones ods fi \Rge IST CRY mor mame eans DERE
id Me sorst a ai _Sekirer.s arvtet ot Yrut betes oereetsh eto cin ‘once
woman borssas tnemphyt eit mort ei tt bar ce one
: salasoge ventebete see teats sotbrev bise
Be seas © eter adnabasteb ot todd ogeiic egatbealy ee
a far toott: siaigiid to mottoveretal ont
Yost stromans pauomsyass ciidug & ae + ccd tale: fans : i
eer water? ‘atashastab si? dmg Bue yor~Ro-taydr ed? of suventhe
_ Sener ae aq geirintoss» agd gaiyteoss aWioireosie we bel ieqore
Ti _gartce geindssago ferxed = @8@L (af ‘eave ao dead pilex beads
Ye aiter bridg hes bucese amt aoowsed Yorersdgit ad? no betewthe
Doe yous eeiotestal ehidadala ont tad bas efeerd otarage ont
f Sajvext?« seveiaery edt aogy tase’ .esitmon aeves bas wtnay sain
al piso cdAaF8b Bhd of ones fue ,.0fo ,dmonGns od? ban eadiqe edt
1. apelihtieenamiatan: sede jitet oste. Dine tbe! tyetuoe me
al IS, @ atognnne soared
3
apart, forming, = virtual ladder for children to climb over.
The defendants filed an anewer denying the saterial sliege-
tions excent thé ovnershic of the premises, the operation of the
trains, the desth of the plsintiff's intestate and the heirship of
the latter.
The facts thet appear from the evidence are the defenisnts
epersted what is commonly referred to es the Eleveted ®siiresds in
Ghiesgeo. The undisputed evidence tends to show that the pisintiff's
intestate clisibed the fence and went uson the tracks selely to get
spikes from = keg. Ismediately sdjacent te defendants! right-of-ray
there is now snd has been for more than twelve ye=rs isast past a
public playground where children sare accustomed to olay, which piry-
ground has - fence on only three sides, but from which children heve
aceeas te the adjeining right-of-rmsy. The particuler vicinity is
in 2 thickly settled residentisl district of Chiesgo. The plain-
tiff's witness Gren, 2 boy who exe with plaintiff's intestate, testi-
fied that "Three of us boys went up on this bank of dirt, ani Seott,
the boy thet was killed, vent over to the keg. He reached dorn into
the keg and tock some railroad spikes, then he brought the spikes
over to his brother Charlies. * * * then he went back te get some
more spikes out of the keg. A train eas coming snd he sterted to ron,
He tried to get away. He tripped over the third reil.* The younger
brother of plaintiff's intestate testified: “My brether went over
‘the fenee and up the bank to get the spikes. He cxme beoek and gave
me some spikes and then went up the bank sagcain to cet some more spikes.
I gueas he got excited and started to run end tripped."
The eocident happened upon the defendants’ r-ilresd tracks
between Virginia Avenue and the north brekeh of the Chicago Uiver,
At the coint of the socident the railroad treeks run ess and west
upon sn embankment. orth of the treeks Yirginia ‘¢venne runs in «
i
eteve dello of mpvhLide se? cabbak Seakay: * ‘amdatet —
~ogeiis icitedex add gaiyrot sewene oe bolt etaahasttoh ott
ei? Yo sastareqo off ,eeehwets and te qideraneo oat fyoone anole
to qideries edt Das etedeetat alttiteiala 9d? to Atco ont asakesd
‘hap as .
mt wi
agnabesteh s4¢ ere senebéva on? moxt «80090 gad? efoat ear
at sbretlie® betewsl? add ee of Ketretet eintcmnee et tedw hosewege
e'tiivatelq ed? tedt woste ot shaet esashive betueqethaw off ceugnetad
~ $62 of ELsloe stents sat xovw twee Des SeG8? ont bodkife o¢etoudat
Yorlo-adesey Madaaheotoh of tnzoxtha yletethoaml ged m mort eedige
(«8 feay Seed ercoy ovkews madd stem TOY aoed ate hen wom at omede
‘nica fois wht of benotentos sce: ree Whhite ererts Sagetyyets offeen ;
ovad nethtinte. sintdw moti tod qaoble sondt vido ae sanet s eed Btimety
ek ghitoiv relvetdvey: ont . Yer te- ite gniatothe edt of wpenne
“wtheta edT opseid® lo f0bigeth sofpnehneer hetesen vitor © mt
mites? ,efoteotwi atttidataln die eo ode Yor @ seer eooutin athe
sftepe tue sith to dant wld? wo oy Si it IE =
otal avot Dedeavr oF iat sft ef teve teow hs |
aditce sdt tdjwoxd of wont jeedige Saorkhs ,
@hoe $35 o¢ eed dees od mad? * * ential anaes aeie-tien
rot 69 badvare of bah gateps eer ator? A «89% @c% To tue aetiqw exon
segatoy SAT feos Detes off tev Bevcdte SH .yeee vey Ge ReleeeN
were tas: todten! Ye" theltideet afednems ate Ntetdiy te temsoed
eve BAe dood eund sf seetice aft ty ee er eee
mae stow egos toy bt engl a wlnineealinasis hanes oatee
: * baqgcise See fer ot bodrode hae Bastons silistadinadialies
ae haotite: ‘etaxtadteb ant soow Denese “eaantooe seat: * ‘oe
s20vir opeold0 2 Yo dosent dived oa9 hae sumevil phage’ aoe
‘Hiew bie fee su tinend haonsbie oat perenne te tal
K)
nertheesterly direction. There «re ne atreets running north end
south between the river 2nd Virginia Avenue. Virginia venue ends
at the reilrosd right-of-"sy. Iazsdistely north of the right-of-rsy
emi vest of Virginia Avenue is = triangular piece of ground. At
Virginia Avenue this triangular sciece is 40 feet wide and tapers
tovard the west te about five feet wide st the river. This tri-
engular plece is bound on the east by Virginie Avenue, on the north
by = pisyground park, ond on the south by 2 rightwof-»ay fence and on
the west by the river. The size of this park is 150 feet north
end south by 135 feet deep. Surrounding this sleyground is «= hog
wire fence 49 inches high, that is, the strands run vertically and
horizontally, in rhich the equare meshes sre sbout 4 by 6 inches
apart, it is suggested by the plaintiff that it sefwee virtually a2
& ledder. In some places slong the right-ofewsy there is a borbed
wire, but there is no wire directly opposite the sclisyground. fhe
right-of-wsy is perfectly visible from the playground iamedistely
to the north. This right-of-e2y consists cf teo tracks, one an
eastbeund «nd one a restbound track, with a speciel live third rail
paralleling each track. On Saturday, June 15, 1935, sbout 2 P.Me,
sbout four years ago, the plaintiff's intestate, a boy nine years
and seven months old - born October 23, 1925 <- together with three
or four other little boya were opoosite the right-ofewsy. They hod
pleyed there before, Gn this otceasion from off the defendenta*
Pright-of-ery they saw a barrel of spikes beteeen the treecks. These
boys were, George Kdwin Gwen, Jr., nine yexrs cold, Oh=rles S«vidson,
a beother ef the deceased, eight and one-half yesrs old; beth of
whom were witnesses, and Jack ‘iasparo. they climbed over the fence
at s point shout 20 feet exat of the bridge. The bsrrei of spikes
wes about 25 feet east of the bridge. Charles Seott, however, went
through = hole near the bridge. ‘Gurrounding this playground on the
south, west and north was s small aesh wire fence, 6 feet highe
.
bee divon qin: edeotte om eis oxed? mokpoeTh Yretavritued
ehae aucoet siatgri¥ .surevi elmigtlY tae reves ode aeerted Atace
qer-To-tdgix ed? Yo trom Uosetbeomd .yootgntipit bepulben odd ta
ei 6. bevern te sosig telagecke? 2 ei Duma! akadyti¥ te teen tas
eteqet bas obiw gas? 08 ei cet taLuymedet alt? sunevh olmkpral
«itt aigt .towtt om te obty ¢092 ovil tvete of tees act Brewed
décox adt so ,sunew! siatgsi¥ ww dot od? mo Saved of eeehy tekepae.
so ban sons? yse-tobtrictt « yi déwoa edt ao hme .ltag bavompyada a ye
divon took Of ef itsq chat to sete edt -torls at yo teow edt
| yod s wt Bavotaysig eft gatbaprae® .qeed teat 6h ye dtwos, fan,
bas Yilsotérev ax shasric cd? gal tou? gigs vedend Gh sane? onde,
aeidont O yf + tugde ote aedeem etmupo on? dotty mi ,yiletneained —
es Ukeataty covtse ti gars Witutsle ot qU boteoggwa af #2 ettage
bedtitd © GE ovad? yorttonttges edt paola eetslg emee at stebhal 4
od? .tawerayedte edt etéeoqqe yleeotth otky on ef creat tus goad
Ustathonst tavorsyek: ri? wert elddery ydostteg ef YenRe
Re Site .etOett owt to etetanos Uowcte-tdget vidt ton 0
List Bebde SvEt Intesge 2 Atte .ioere hanodiae » ae han hewgitese
vole © Suoce 226i .Of enw syebawtan ag ins sn sabcotereg,
etesy onin yor « ,oisdeotuh att isatese ods aes atest tuet tues.
eeuid déin tedtogot - SSCL .f8 tedoss0 ated ~ Die edtnge never han,
bed yedT .yor-te-dsyla od? ettmeqge ox99 ays Shtels sadte tu0h 80.
‘etuchasteS ed? tte sett asizenpe ait mo senehed, ome, denen
eeost. ssioerd ont aoevted esitve to Lorzed « wom yedt pow =Te |
eHonbived ealzste ,blo esroy Anta .,xh ymed miwbd 9x06). «Rem. AEpM...
"Hg dded phe exney tiadeeae Hie tigto stossanb aah 3a, xeon»
coast od2 rave Dedutle yor? .oeeqne? took Aas sagenend ~edboameal
aosiice Yo Loved sd¥ soghtnd eds to tee toot OF, guods daikon. 4, #2.
dase ,xevenor .#008 valtedd ,sghhud 90% To tans feet 2S, funds pew,,
gi ed a a a alias i |) |
At the tise of the sceident the slaintiff's intestate
lived with his parents 2t the northeast corner ef Giddings Street
and Virginie Avenue, They formerly hed iived on Leland at Seekrell,
Frior te that they hod lived in an spsrtment bsck of the father's
office at soekwell and Leland. fFisintiff's intestate had been
going te school for 3-1/2 years. He 228 = bright boy ond had «
good stending in acheol. The tracks eross Yockwell Street on the
ground and there wis 4 third reil nesr the sidewalk and = sign
reading, “Sanger - Electric Current - Keep Out*. Pjaintiff's
intestate head to cress the tracks at Rockwell from the atreet shere
his parents lived, in going tc end from school for 2-1/2 yesrs.
There was 4 sign reading, "Senger - Keep Ont* at the tracks at the
foot ef Yirginis Aveme. Both parents cautioned pleintiff*s intestate
not to go on the right-of-eszy. His brother testified; *I guess
he got excited and started to run and tripped. In geing over to
the keg he stepped over the third raii snd in coming back from the
first trip he also stepped over the third rail*. fhe Owen boy and
the brother of plaintiff's intestate gave substantially the seme
testisony a3 to how the secident heprened,
The defendsnta’ contention is that it was 4 necesaary
element of sisintiff's case te show thet plaintiff's intestate «as
rightfully at the place where the accident happened and was net «
treapsaser upon the prewises of the defendants. Otherwise the
defendents owed him no duty, except te refrain from wilfully
injuring hia. This rule is thoroughly established as the ise of
this state applicable to attractive nuisance cases as reli 3 others,
The defendants point to the o=zse of Selevek v. Public Service Go.,
$42 Ill. 482, shere the court seid;
"It is likewise the rule thet the owner of private grounda is
under no obligetion te keep thes in any particalsr eteate or
etxedtet ed? te sond snvateesa ts af eva bet yeas tae
ill a
pro s baa Steathie edz i99a ter aus * noon orode pai |
a'ttidmiags § .°te) Goad ~ aaexmy® obagoods - Means" ~ : eal
exede teoxte ods pott Liorseot 1a axee7d odd noore of bad evsteoga
obze Oy S\i-8. 202 loodoe pa bas of yates at sy taorey |
fe Wes
oad natvrodto perience oat te « pie BB
: uistLiie wot aatietk ue
sendition to promote the safety ef trespassere, intrucers,
idlers, bore iicensees, or others who come upon thea without
invitetion, either expressed or implied. This ruie apolies
euuslily to sduits snd children.*
fhe court further states in this tc=ase€:
“fhe rule recognized in this state »s toe impiied invitetion
is, thet where the owner cf the premises aaintains = dangerous
condition or thing of such a charecter thet he may reasonably
anticipate thet children, whe by ressen of tender yesrs sre
incarpeble of exercising proper e=re for their orn aafety,
ar@ likely, beeause of their childish inatinets, to be
attracted to the dangerous thing and thereby exsosed to dangers,
he is required to use reasonable c=sre to sretect them from
injury, provided it is shown that such dsngerous condition or
thing is sq lecsted =s te ettract children from the street,
playground or place where they have = right te be. there
such sn agency is so igeated it constitutes an implied invitation
to gueh children to come upen the premises and they sre not,
in isw, considered treapassers, The rule does not apply where
the owner ewaintsins something for hia own use which, though
dangerous, would be found by such children enly by going upon
the premises as trespassers. In other words, to impiiediy
invite children onto the premises it is necessary thst the
dangergus sgeney, with ite sllivring and attractive choracter,
be so placed aa to attract the children there. (yieDermott v.
256 11]. 401; ; Vandolis a erre Haute
E . Ve Beil, 8 e 766) Af there is euch an implied
nvitetion to go upon the premises the child is not considered,
in law, = trespasser but an implied invitee,*
The defendants in their brief state that the undisputed
' evidence shows the pisintiff's intestate climbed the fence and
went upon the tracks solely te get spikes from the Keg, and upon
this cuestion George Owen, Jr., = boy 9-1/2 years old testified:
*e climbed the fence nearest Lawrence Avene on the
north side of the track. it «ss near the vlisyground. ie hed
played on the playground, the one just north of the elevated
tracks before this Gaturdey, and thet Saturdsy afternson re
saw a berrel of spikes on the railroads You could see the
barre] before you crawled over the fence. It wes between the
teo third r=ils. On this afternoon @cottie went to cet some
spikes and then, 1 think he brought them back toe get some
more spikes. i think a train was coming end he got scared and
he tripped on the third rail.*
It would seem from defendants’ own brief, from which we have just
quoted, that the plaintiff's intestate climbed the fence and rent
upon the tracks solely to get spikes from the keg.
The trial judge made this statewent in directing the
werdiect:
estebutiai ,aTeeesceot? te Yosice ods ot mereibace
tuoddin atte mage @med Off BTOHFo TO » eted ,eteibd
eolicgn slut ait sbokicsh se beveotgxee andéis ,sottetivat.
exorbi ide bae eftiube of wUleaups
reea0 eid? af eotade rediunt éruoe odt
aoitetive: beliqwi of ac otete ehdt at box ingoowt olor oat®
sugisgish = seleénien seedmetg eds te teawo edd onede ted gek .
Uisenoerst yma of fect tstoetaio 2 doses to gad? to sotsidace
Ste etesy Toles to seacet WwW one gaethilds add.
steeten geo ted? tel sf5e Tecety gaketezexe to
oi of ,etesivent dethiide sited? te ss Ss ae
watauasd ef Pad yisrsdt bee amide ce ny cag ge
ert wed¢ Zoedor¢ of a ssi vaoerat Gee 69 berivpet ak
to noitihac? svo'tezgash doye tadt riper et fi behivenrs
qiearts od? moti mesbiide dountes of ex kesreed, pears ae
yoets wuadie
axroge® 48d of Siyiy + sven wo benecaed
woitetivei beiicei aa eetutiterse ti beteool os et ne
Ft yods bre esalrotq eff aoqw emcee of fous of
ton eseb olur ofl ,eteeeegeats bozebienos ywed ad ©
eftide eau ave eld tot gaidsemoe ettstniee tenwo Od?
wantin oS os Yieo aerhiise dowe yd bavet of biaow
enh ad sont le He al RINE ate 9 ee
" ekodoersdo cvivonnste bas Kye atl fate
ȴ = | .
ans ae . , Zz reaiat Sohiner
Tehiages fon & e
ote * setival Spee oe Se
hetwqeihay eff ted efete tod tied? af eteebnsted edt 0 5
Gout Sue 38% od? Gott. eeatge toy of Velde “wloets edt mequ tase
jbeititess Ble erasy &\M-8 yer » goth ,#9«0 egroed aokteoup asd?
odd mo aimers sasetend featean sonst oft Gedekie ey"
“Qafione Divo) soT dSeontter Of mo eeston
ed? gee=sted ace ¢1 .sonet ed? revo befyes9 eroled
agg tener geting er oc gaan Foye
.
bas bexsee dont bas sation ter ataed Sa ee
sitet bxbd? edt ao bong ts? 9d.
teat oved ow conde apzt stoted ae tetastastsb, mott aves Bigow +i
fnee fas semst od? Bedmtio osetostad Al mgt i a odd tant _
| wed od moat esiige 299 of Uelog edoerd ax? sowu ,
eds gettoorib mi snnnetste etd? ebm aphut tndsd-oer” bia
"§ do th<t ae a matter of law under the evidence, ond on the
ground thet, in sy opinion, under many decisions of this state
and of ether ststes, there has been no attractive nuisance
preved by the plaintiff thst would tend te sliure «a child of
tender yesrsa to go wpon the treck,*
and this, of course, is the issue here, The evidence clearly
eateblishes thet the fence was about 4 feet high of seven wire,
eonsisting of verticsl wires sbceut & inches apsrt and herizentel
wires sbout 4 inches spart, and that there eos no other obstruction
than the 4 feot fence. Thie wes corroborated by vitnesses.
In order to proverly consider this auesticn it wight be
well to be guided by the expressions of the courts of appeal as
to what is an attrestive nuisance and shat is the duty of the ovner
or person in centrel of lende and buildings te protect children
from injury.
in the esse of Oglesby v.
219 Ill. ‘op. 221, where children «ent into an elevater building
upon the vregises of the defendant, which «ca not proverjy protected,
we said;
*#e deo not agree with the contention thet the elevator
Cannot ag a matter of law come under the doctrine of the
attractive muisence cases. Attractive nuisances heve been
defined to be such things causing injury, left exposed and un-
guerded, which are of such a character +s te be an attraction
to children, appealing to their childish curiosity and instincts.
‘The owner of land, where children are allowed or aceusstomed
to play, particularly if it is unfenced, must use ordinary ¢sre
to keep it in axfe condition; for they being rithout judgment
and likely to be drown by childish euriesity into slsees of
danger are not to be clagsed with treapsssers, idlers and mere
licensees.' City of Pekin v. Kolishon, 154 Ili. 141."
Se, when we come to apply thie rule te the fxets xs they aprear
from the evidence of the plaintif?, we find thet the right-of-rsy
of the elevated railirosad, the defeniante in this case, was fenced.
In other words, it had a fence four feet in height slong its right-
of-say to prevent persons from traveling upon it,
in the cuse of Seymour v. Union Stock Yerds Go., 224 Til.
579, the appellant wae attracted by a pile of cley slong the railroad
atete ers te suolekost raha |
Sonseiog avidoerias | : aod ond Bs
te Slide * siHiin oF beet Renee soem fa | | :
yiresin sorsiive off .oTed Sepei O07 Bk ,Ontgoe. te onas bas
.Wtie sever te dgit foe? > tuode enw enmst edt feet weentangnee
Icduenitat hea troqe cots © these eethe tnottrey Yo galtel
aoitoutteds tatte at acy stedt tol? bee (tases wedeal > Jo ie
<eonesatio Yo betexetigtios see ekat sonst test | > edd eas
od tigis tf wotfesgs sic¢ rebienoe Uleagen: of sehta at woh
ae Loonqn to eétuce sdf te engtewstgee ont yd Senin, 60:44 Kise
wens ond Re Yuk odd a pew dan semneteal oviteorets tof thet
nerbilde tontere 9¢ din been vende aap oe
of of! she at bloues 03 cian wo Mt =
anne Ae A
<< te he aess90b at? tabsuy enet wed Te
acme ge ovitorrs 94
! ae “a ry
i “a sige ee sated ea aah os
cig es ee etect ott of aa oe + oo oF a
_ feente- it eT ty teddy halt ov .EtatAlg et Yo eet tre é
: ame aa soee0 eidd ak sianbusteb-edt ebsotl ire | bes ;
one ati guods fisted ai teet 00? canst # ted #5
| bt Rome asad mort | iia
7
track. He went upon the piie te play and while so eng2ged wae in
ne danger. As the train passed, the boy no lenger attracted by
the bank of exrth, begen touching, plisying vith and running slongside
the sioxly seving cars, 2nd fineliy feli under thes, sustaining the
injury complained of. The court there e=id;
*Here an element intervened between the scts induced by the
nliuremente cf the clay pile snd the injury, viz., the movements
of the boy in plscing himecif in contact with end in running
nlongside the cara."
In further diseusaing the question involved, the court said:
"The proxiasnte cause ef the injury in this ec=se wes not the
pile of Slay, nor any denger with whieh the boy was brought
in contsct while gratifying any cutiosity or desire excited by
that pile. The injury ess proximately caused by the movements
of appeilant in clacing his hands upon end in running alongside
the oaras.®
In the ease of Ramsay v. tuthill Material Ge., 295 Ill.
395, the court held thet if one engeged in any operetion dangerous
to these coming in contact with it permite children rho ere
inespable of apvrecinting the <anger to come upen the premises and
expose themselves to danger, he must toke such swesns to prevent
injury to them a6 will be effective or exclude them from the premises.
$e it is the rule thet where premises become attractive
to chiidren it is the duty of the owner of the premises to tke
such steps to protect the children if they sre permitted upon the
premises, or to berriesde or fence the presises se that the children
wili not be able to come upon the premises, and if they doe so by
Giimbing such barricade or fence they become trespaesers and on section
wili not lie for any injury thet aay be suffered by the child under
such circumstances, unless there wos « wilful or wanton act by the
owner which would justify 2 judgment for injuries sustained by
the child,
Sut shen we come to consider the instent case, the surpese
of the plaintiff's intestate, after climbing the fence and getting
y
ai ese Seyegne on oifd« bat ysdq of aity Ore-anen Cone ae < ipene-oread
WW beroetrae zegoai on Yad od? qbscaaq alent ent eh ervgaab on
bingtoi= gelrast tae Atiw paiyetq gyntdewet Aagsd dtr te tape edt
ade ytinieteaus ,ued? rekhew Lied ylfeand? dae ets gadves vinoke ants
ibis sted? tty0o edt .te Demtalquen -quubak
Te or aE a See,
eae ahiegnols
tice disod eas ,bevSoval anbtonse este hseweedd wedean at
edt tom acy coco atdt ab edd to eammo vim yo
Ma
sblepnods satay Runigpendcs:..2.5 a
oift a8 oeQh fosessig idsdeut oY Essent to eeso oft aby» Lk Pes
auotsgneh solzsraqe Ue ai hoyonme ano DL tad? pied #xuoo odd ,aes
ete one asrbiide etketaq th dftn toatnon nb yatvoe seadt oF
fae aaatasie 902 nosy omod of ToyAs® od? galtntosrcus Yo sidegenmd
taevexc of ancen dove adet temm od ,tT9gneh of? sovloemed?. secqxe
saimerg eff north sod? shulexe 16 pesnapingdbirg 3 townie AM et
evites1224 owensd esalmesq axedw todt aiut ond ef th 08 ott
wat of exe hadsg oad Yo uname edt Yo yuh ad? ob 2 goat Lido ¢
“oY Romy bertimesq oxo yedt 22 andl r om of | |
asthlide ott ad? op seedestq od¢ sage? pyrene me en ska
i 08 oP Wd TE bas ,Ronbmene 96d Moy won of Ohde 4 tes. .
Itoe ae Par orstacgadtd snoced yeah eofet to steottend owe ga teim
ES NE
ont Yd to- webaee to fotite = sob ned veeLens morte fous
, - seats ie = t taut 6 ease biwow | ahi Seame came’
cpioionealbnan aoaeo onbteat ede tobkeneo of
oat % ey ve ’ ;
Y . gif to
8
wpen the right-of-way of the defendants, was - as suggested and
argued - t@ get some railrosd spikes out of « keg which it is claimed
wag attractive to children end which was near the place in question.
The ehild did get the spikes and gave them to his brother, eho also
had eravled through en evening upon defendants’ track, and returned
for the purpose of getting more spikes, when, as the facts indicate,
hesheard sn eleveted train coming snd in order to svoid this train
he started to rum and tripped over the third reii, which esrries
the electricity to operate the road, ond eos killed by the eleetric
shock, so that the fsct that he eas attracted by his curiosity to
obtain spikes snd did get them, sas not really the proximate couse
ef the injury, but his running ond tripping over the third rail,
and upon thie question it might be 2¢11 to consider what our courts
have saide
In the case of Simone v. “ole Yalve Ug., 288 Til. Appe
288, the euse involved the question cf a double gate which opened
and permitted entrance into the defendant's premises. The pisintiff
contends that the gates in the fence around the defendant's premises,
by reeson of their massive «nd peculiar construction and the fast
that they rere always opens unlocked end unguarded, 2lthough there
was s lock on the gates which was never used, ond by reoson of the
further fact that the children in the neighborhood were zllored te
play on the gates and on defendant's premises unhindered and vere
never forbidden to play on the gates and on defendant's premises,
it was inevsbent on the defendant to prevent the usintenance of a
dangerous instrumentality upon its premises by mesns of which
children of tender age might be injured, and upon the cuestion of
liability this court ssid:
"It is essential in order te prove the liability of one
who mainteins a so-called attrsetive nuisance, that the thing
which attracted the child upon the premises, or something
bas betetguwe af - eow weiaebaeted ad? to enteritis aie :
eteio et th detde gad o Ye tye nediqn bagriter snot 3 ao - hougts
wrokteeue oi soaig wit Then ger doidu hae nerbitde ot avidom - ms
oats ane eteiteud aid of med? orey Sar aetioe edd nei es
bamcutse hee iors? ‘edactasteb Moya antago fa fggotds betwee bad
eeepthak: atest of? eo ,eedy ,estiae ci wilig tee nw
ater? 2idt biewr of Tebto at bae patmoo nkuts bedeveds wa : . 7 " ; ‘
eoiere. «dOide iter baide of? teve beqaise ban aut ot Dodeste as ‘ 5
oiujoade s4f ys boLits gow bas sheet ad? Ototeqe..o¢ saatnnenie ete AM
ot Wieeims sie Ws bedoertes ae om ted see eye od
ie orid? ed¢ tows gaiqgit? bar aniainn eld dud a . adi to
ettwos tue # ine sebtemos of Loe of bs ti aotdeoup abit mou bax
vet oe Be <2
_
| pruned eas + -ot_oubal_ stot 1 aaa Yo Oeso Sah ak -
peneze dotds etey eldueh © te noiteeup eat bavloval ouco edt : se
‘Wtsatelg sc seveiaorg e*tashasted ad? ofnd none tne ‘petdinxeg bar
yesetmets a'éaehaeteb sdf bavete canst ods at vote, edt a te
fost od bas noddeuttenoe tebineeg bee eviaean rhedt ‘Yo menaen y w
pet me
stad? dauadsis \bobremgas has bedeelew guage eqeeis oxen :
ae
tn mre a
__ gteednets ettarbavted ao bas satay add a0 yal of
bids “ie wet
ae Ye eonenotains 9 enevom ez tasbasteb | eas bat -
TP
ess “ne te |
mers “ee Dw 2Oe
wen Aikeoth ade evemy of sebue at aktenas® |
ne a a te xe eee ea ee ee a eT “¥
inseparably connected therewith, be the proxiuste cause
ef the injury. 4a the Supreme Court seid in the ease of
ees vw. Burke, 256 Lil. 491, 496; "It is = necessary
elexent of the iisbility thet the thing which causee the
injury is tempting to children and te constitute = means
of atirasting thea upon the premises which the owner should
anticipate.*
The evidence in this eese showa that the boy ess not
attracted by the so-called gate; thet he was not standing on
it nor plisying with it ss is cherged in the compleint,
& gate is not inherently dangerous and there ie no
procf in thia esse as to who cpened the este or that the
defendent knew that the gate «se open, or who moved the zate
at the time the boy's fingers were injured.*
It necesenrily follows thet the plaintiff's evidence
Gees not establish » cause of action and the trisl court did not
err in directing the jury =t the cloze of plisintiff's eese to
find the defendants not guilty end in entering judgment upon such
Yinding. The judgment ie affirmed.
SUSGHENRT AFFIRMED.
BERIS E. SULLIVAN, PJ. AND BURKE, J, CORCUR.
“Ped BED teyoo Lntrt oé bas Potton te oe
er
ee “bee
* kev ends
of seo evmtasainte Yo snake sat ts aut eat gabtoerté al a0
a eee nee
3 3 “ti . ie cnet opoeomns eht? aoge Bee
wt Tah evi
iad pemeeiin’ sect juitaite oa ra
cy Seelownd eee pee et
rh, - wilt “att Soul iitaihe
sto Sas Seem eee Yo Rest ee
oar pives: ~_iitinad. wie oem gine ind Sibi
ie ara Bae don -_—
cane ode vuee Son endaaat
« Styeiuretaty Boy Pol @ 0 ay eit Sep ‘eo Bee
203 om yasg oF sobdidcet TereR
ae Sen oae ot Se ae tandiemad ave 2
eb sex Res ot. tenig et YALE? awe Saad s:e0sugeeh
erga wd Beipke age Died oe Per eee.
tiiew deus ona? wbbiddats
ar: Meat re ee ee |e £xd Faerie @. PP Ms
eee ae eS ee ee
40.820
VERA OAVIDSON, Administratriz of the
Eetate of Aeott Tavideen, Jr., Aeceingd
Plaintiff=s ppelignt,
APPRAL FROM
SUPERIOR COURT
6GkK couwry,
O8 REHZARING
BR. JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This esurt filed an opinion in 2 suit which wae pending
'_ here on appeal by the plaintiff, 4dwinistratriz of the istate of
Seott cavideon, Jr., dece sed, from 2 judgment for the defendants
in an action by the pleintiff to recover damages by resson of the
hesligence ofthe defendonte in causing the death of the dece reed.
The plaintiff filed a petition for s rehesring upen the
ground set forth in the petition. The petition was allowed and
thereafter the defendants filed sn ans<er therete.
After consideration of the questions that were involved
and called to our attention, we have resched the conclusion thet
the court will modify its epinion by etriking out on the second pose
eof the opinion «fter the words three cides, "but from which child ren
have eecess to the sdjoining richt-of-say,* so thet the langusge will
appear as follows:
"The facts that appour from the evidenee are the
defendante operated what ia commonly referre¢ te as
the Elevated Asilroads in chicago. The undisputed
evidence tends to show that the plaintiff's gatertate
Climbed the fence and went upon the tracks solely te
get spikes from a keg. Immedintely adjsecent to d<feni-
ants’ right-of—eay there is now and hen been for more
than twelve yeors inet pust a publie playground where
children are accustomed to Pity which playcround hae 4
fence on only three sides. *
and further, thet we will sdhere to the opinion herein as modifies.
ao
ol
as agi
a A
HORT Gazeta
NOD AOTNSITE
,¥Ta800 ROOD
.PivOD BAT q WOLEYGO dey GoAsVLaMd aeeam AOL TEU, kw
atte: coe Golde tte 9 at aokatge as beLtY sxu0e 1AT ; ay
Yo tate? odd Ye xitversetalinh’ ,r2thalele adt Yd Leogan a0. o: a = eat
“péwcbneteb odd tot tuemstwt » eort ,bewvsesh ,.xb soabives r z i re
od?) aoseer yd ssgeach revedet of ttitatele ad? eo notte 2 . at Bh
sheeceoeh oft Yo dheeh eat gatemco at etackactsd att igo
asl? moqy yaktosrisy 2 rot mokeiteq « belts Tutatelg oT
bus dovolis enw aaltttee oat .nokditeg edt at dtvet fon hanes
otered? te sae ae heLit atackmsteb edt
Revieval etes tedé amoltecer ed? to settevebiasee r9¢TA one ey
Sth edauteaes edt Redonen oved ew yaottantts wo of belico bas
“fee Bases at? x0 tue aan anne NE ee
| Men bLidy Mote aert ted” yeebie send? shrew elé Oe PE Oe
tte OReEAeL ont eoelt On *,qaweTtongigtt gatatoths edt of sxepen oved
iawoL LOR ae — ;
edt ee egaebive add sort toeqgqe tad? etoet sft? . |
ve ae @? horwe'tet —lacumes ef tadw hetereqe
bedewedbmy ef? .eqeeid? af shootlie® betevets oF
x — pee tedd — os rye ind
i zm Ph. 5 og treoetbes stheamt BiB # wort sediqe tex
= om ood was fr ~ eee et. 7 M
a ex sbidue # deeg etsey ov ¢
. # sad Saworsys doide ,yelq e¢ Seaeteseos exe sox bitd
* vaebie eonie ino a0
| hettiben eo ate melatqo od? of exorthe titw ow tallt ,
2
The juisment entered for the defent:ate is affirmed.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED®
DEWIS KE, SULLIVAB, P. J,
BURKE, J. GORCUR,
MEE Getios san rue nike ‘smell RN OME NOI
ay oe
WOVE RO: SAS
ae asta ae f bale nO
omaha 0m 8h ott at ater SO
kh A ee A me aOR 4 Gee Te ,
Mie Rens ey embebons aT ost Siem eal
apis? so pets : Seca ial a
Buck msnuckioerem eat Setanta doh annem an ae
elgg Raines wie me toe wiksaure eo motenes wht whthew Lhe 1
sae nw ey ner oe * otatoRe night isle
att oie FHmeiaee wer wet fa
eae seewetey (carey f
on ie np
Sua Oe 1 de
nye ‘oh
rahe ing of olin
STATE OF ILLINOIS
APPELLATE COURT nee Tao:
FOURTH DISTRICT
OCTOBER TERM
A.D, 1939.
TERM NO, 7 AGENDA 16
o%
GEROLD MOVING ee WAREHOUSE
12)
tb,
pirleTOrS aaa
Rey,
epi east ta,
The City of East ba
of the Dp )
Colum ) St. Lowis, Illinois.
f Appellant. )
STONE, P. J. 3 05 i.A. ] va
On June 19, 1937, the defendant throngh its
general agent, who was a neighbor of and well acquainted
with the president of apnellee, issued an insurence policy
to appellee covering six antomobile truck bodies of a mov-
ing van type against loss by fire. Said policy was in
full force and affect on the 27th day of January, 1938. On
that day a fire broke out in a building of anpellee wherein
four of the trucks so covered were garaged and the four
trucks were totally destroyed by fire and the resultant
cave-in of the building. Appeliant refused to pay on the
policy. Appelleebrought this suit to recover the amount
of his loss. Each party is a corporation. When the suit
was brought appellant undertook to defend on two grounds:
first, that the proof of loss was not delivered to appellant
within the time prescribved in the policy,- that is sixty
days from the date of the loss; secondly, that that which
appellee claims was a proof of loss was not properly
verified as prescribed by the policy.
A trial was had before a jury; the jury found the
wan sean: re
| “TODTeIG, HRAMR esate
PERL: A 63%
+ it
Die
2 Sekondtat NE a | i
a Re tee 2, sa
vate ‘inabiclotn ee ota N80 8 et 0 i;
betmtauiies ftow bas to xoddgioa # naw ‘oc 8 ange
YO Lon Gomatimnt Lil ‘bowead .woitoods bo
“von Te belbod dourd of tdowotua zie 3
CE yap ta vate 3
ae owe no bata Yo 2 Fe mnaicsty: is
eb sf 4 he si
se ai sade er sit at bedire
dotde: todd sons Denard Reogte *
4) stay
oe Prev
ahah
issues for the plaintiff and assessed its damages at the
sum of Five Thonsand Dollars. Motions for directed verdict
and for new trial were overruled by the court, and appellant
brings this’ apneal, urging the two defenses urged in the
trial court.
On the 28th day of March following the fire,
appellee delivered to the authorized agent of appellant its
oroof of loss. Eliminating the first day, that is January
27th, the day the fire began -- the fire burned for two
days,- the proof of loss delivered on March 28th, 1937,
was within sixty days from the time of the loss according
to any well known and established system of calculation and.
according to our St¢atute on that subject. (Revised Statutes
1937, Chap. 131, Par. 1; Chan. 100, Par.6). Appellant
undertakes to divide this time up into hours and show that
the necessary hours to make sixty days had more than inter-
vened. This unique method of calculating time is not only in
defiance of our Statute, but is such a method which under
the circumstances which obtain here we would not consider
at all unless we were positively constrained to do so by
substantial authority. This we do not find. In our judgment
there is no question but what this proof of loss was delivered
on time. Furthermore, it was delivered to the agent who
wrote the policy and who was a close neighbor of the president
of appellee. The agent received this, made no complaint or
objection or suggestion, and delivered it to appellant. This
agent was general agent of appellant; he wrote the policy; he
came to the fire on the morning of the fire; he knew all
about the situation and all about plaintiff-appellee and its
activities.
The second contention is that the proof of loss was
ont 28 segansh af! beseoves Das trisndelg.edt t0% eeuead
toaibtev befoetih tot anotvoM . .eteliol basenont evlt Xo, muse
taalleqqa big ,tisoo eft vd belerteve etew fsitt wea tot bae
oft ai hegiv seaneteh owt od? gaia .teeqqe-eid? egatsd —
erlt edt natwoLLot dosh to veb At6S exit a0 ut )
ett tas lieces to tasas bewktodiwa ent ot beteviteb ealfeqas
Ytarnteal af stadt .veb tet’ ot gattentnl & . 9801 to Yooxe
owt tot heated etfi edd~-~ aaged etlt edd Yab ong. Saki
se SUOL. At Bs toTaM a0 bexevd feb amol to reoqemt, ae
“gm tbupgos aeol ent to seus? od? mort eis Vixte |
“wesutsze beatved) .tostdue tatt, ao etutege 110,98 ae “2 008
tealiegqa .(8.78% ,0OL .qadd i L..4ad 105 086 NORK i
tedt vole bye atuod ofat cm outt.atdt ebtyth oo ea > .
~10tak aad? e1om bet eyed yixte eam of eto NtaRe |
at vino fom et omit pekdetsolso to boston oup ips alitt. be r
tebau doidw bodiem 6 dove ef tud ,etutate. pci to “ ,
NG 92 ob, ot beatsatsanoo view? teed otew bald feck
trompby i. eo aL .batt ton ob ow adel? Netrodene ist
imxeviieb sew eaol Yo Toot ated senv sud notteoup on ,
* Ortw aneee edt of beteviled sev te voronrortt 4
ed ;yoiloq ef? etotw ed) :taaliogge to taega » Hassan “aime
J i es iz ate ier bers
spp oe AN Sy 2s gS ged =
a) a
sawagos. me teota. ale, font sbanuese tne PAQORE: SEE cig
eet
not properly verified as the contract of insurance pre-
scribed that it should be, and was, therefore, insufficient
to amount to a proof of loss, and for that reason the court
should have instructed the jury to find the issues for the
defendant.
The pvroof of loss was signed "Gerold Moving and
Warehousing Co. by E. F. Gerold", and the affidavit thereto
was executed by Mp.Gerold. In German Fire Insurance
Company vs Grunert, 112 Ill. 68, the Supreme Court had be-
fore it an affidavit to an insurance proof of loss very
similar to the one at bar, and in passing on the signing
of the proof of loss, where the same objection is made,
said that the objection to sich proof is hypercritical. We
are inclined to the same belief as to this objection.
Avvelle had been in business for many years in East St.
Louis. ’ Mr.'Gerold the vresident thereof, and Mr. Hanson
the general agent of appellant had been acquainted for
approximately thirty-five years, and as said before, they
were neighbors. Hanson had written the policy in question.
His place of business was one block from the place of busi-
ness bf bppelies. Together these two men discussed the
question of the fire and loss, and in general the record
shows that no person other than Mr.Gerold was recognized
by Mr. Hanson or by Mr.English, another agent of the defend-
ant comany, as having any official identity with appellee.
Under no circumstances could appellant have been injured
by the failure of Mr. Gerold to write the word "President"
after his signature to the affidavit. In Globe Mutual Life
Insurance Association vs March, 118 Ill.App. 261, appellee
swore to the proofs of death personally instead of as
executor and upon objection thereto the court said at page
"Leg apaktimat! to dostinoo ent na beetiaew a lteqdty som
Ths tories? ,etoteredt wow baw led Hivode Ht said Sedstow:
ttoo edt aoeset stadt tok bus” eeol to Yoorg # ot tavomn of
eg tot seveer oft bitht of rv ent Betoettent oved Sigome
bas gaivou broren" ‘pedg ia ew seol: te: ‘toond ent ye
oteteds sivabitta od? Bde .*bLoted .t ut vee ad tevoretew
sodathesT ertt sented #1 .bfored.<M yd bessoene es
“od bad ghd omerqn@ oat 89 .6/T SEE ———ahe
“"" wae¥ deol to toot sonetiens ae oF: divebEtte an
are eit m0 manne at bas “tad ¢p eno ett of
“mtOR#DB Edo oid Ot ee tekled eitmr ‘bette ine
2 aad ar ene Bilas ome st of Foodie
Y hi a
woeiient Jit pea’ cReewedt 2aeb tet ‘ert? ‘BLO
“yeds" ,eroted Nise ea bids etaey everett “ ho veutde
=e as worhen ed? aettixe bed soeder” Je 4
od¢ boxewoe th dont owd opert tedtene? as SO 4
brooet edi inteney af bas ,eeol baa ork? ed? 0 4c a &
beziayooet saw blotei.q@M aeit tedto ae ¥ | , :
“Pneteh ocd to teene tedfons detignd. <u yd 6 eas at
GLlodqs diy YItnebs Latostio vas yatvart as So AC |
hemiat need evel taalleqqs bivoo eooandemirorto oa soba : M
pe
““trebteett" brow et @titw oF bloteD Jew to ovirita® 6 eal
tid LevtwM odolo nl .tivebstte edt of ements :
eelfencs ,f88 .qonr.IaT 6fl sora Rv #0
esec ta Dike tutoo ent ofemst? moltoetdo so
Fe,
180, "The addition of the word 'executor' to his signature
was a useless act" with the prefacing remark "The objections
to the proof is extremely technicai". In Templeton vs
Hayward, 65 Ill. 178 at page 180 our Supreme Court said
"Tt may be usual in executing instruments by corporations
for the officer or agent to sign his name under that of
the company as evidence that it is executed by the person
having authority. $till such a signature is by no means
essential."
In this case the proof was signed by the appellee
company; it was prepared by Mr.Gerold, its president, and by
him handed to the general agent of apvellant. That agent knew
Mr. Gerold was president of plaintiff company, and the
addition of the descriptive words would not have given him
any information that he was not already in possession of.
_ is next urged that the verdict is excessive.
The jury heard the evidence and made its finding. The trial
judge was in a much better position to determine that ques-
tion than this court.
There was no substantial defense to this lawsuit.
The judgment of the City Court is affirmed.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Me
eat
exe’ brow en) 20 sntinenaai
rong, efit <i tv Masi, hk
atuteng te etn )
ecokitoatdo sft” |
ev soteloneT at.
biae tty0d smetal
nonted ett yd met
ataen oC vd rei otmtsagte at
oh
i inace, est? yd beangie ssw iootc oft ef
Vd bas _,tnebtest¢ ett ,bLoted 1M vd beraaet
word tr038 tei? .teslileqga to taegs ietoneg eddie
eri? bas «Xasceroo. *uiasaln,) Yo tasbtaese t
tated ont ‘anioat and iiee bas eonobive ont
‘ania et tao iboaloe
CEMALTLA PURINE
sane’ igi ty
ae:
5 ae
STATE OF ILLINOIS
APPELLATE COURT
FOURTH DISTHIC? Abstract
OCTOBER TERM
A.D. 1939
STORE, P. J.
This ease comes to this court ty sear of a erii of error sued
oat to review a decree of foreclosure entered by the Gireult Court of
Merion County on Hovesber 12, 1936. The bill fer foreclosure vas brought
by the Mershants State Sank of Gentrolia, Illinois, as truetee in a trast
deed in the nature of a sortaege, ani E. 7. Johnson, es the holder of «
note acainst Fouer McGuire, one of the mkers of the note, (the other
joint maker, Anna “eGuire, wife of Yoner McGuire, being deceagsed,) and
William MeGuire, Charles McGuire, Carl SeGuire, Kenneth HeGuire, and
Everett ScGuire, minors, the children of Homer EcOuire and the deceased,
anne. MeCuire, The bill for foreclosure alleged in substance that Nomer
WeGuire and Anne MeGuire had executed « note and mortgage; that the note
was past due and that $1282.60 remsined due thereon; that Honer iicfuire
and Anna MeGuire were tenants in commen; that the latter died iatestate, and
thst she left surviving, her husband anid five named children as her heirs,
and prayed fer a foreclosure.
Upon filing of the Bill, « summoss as issued, directed to the
Sheriff of Karion Gounty, for all of the defendants in the cause, return
able on the fourth Honday in September, 1922. ‘the return of the Sheriff
on this summons shoes that it «as served on Homer HeOuire on September 2,
1952. The return further eheos that it was served uwnon “illiam tefmire,
Charles McCuire, Carl MeGuire, Kenneth “eGuire anid Everett MeCuire, minor
defendants, by leaving a copy thereef for tham at their usual place of abode,
with Homer NeGuire, a person of the age of ton years and upwards and a
gest hei. vp mbes eae ey
‘es 2 sod taponse"
hes : Zig ‘> ee een c
™, in
ou Pest + nace nf! inci Stay ets
yeades
nba tee. ae. +t hs Bf one:
Bs
member of the family of said minor defendants. A gunmrdian ad litem was
appotated by the court for all winer defendants and he filed 2 formal
answer, neither ewimitting nor denying any of the allegations ef the bill,
tat eubseitting the richts ani interests of the minors to the protection of
the Court. Sefeult sas entered as to 211 adult defendants ani the cause
referred to the Eseter to take and report testimony. The “meter duly filed
his report, cause wes heard, ani « decree for foreclomure and sale was
entered and thereafter the nreniges were solid, ant one of the cemlsinanta,
=. t. Johnson was the purchaser at said sale,
Thereafter this writ of error, was sued out by Fillism NeGuire,
Gharles sGuire, Carl HeCuire, Kenneth Hetuire ani “werett UcOuire, who
are still minors and 0 proseeute this writ by Fred EeGuire, their uncle
and nezt friend. Their father, Homer MeGuire, enters hie spoearance cand
becomes a party plaintiff te the writ of error.
Im this court, motion en¢ made by =. FT. Johnson, defendant in
error, for leave tes
4, File attached sugesstions of the trenafer of interssts
af the defeniant in arrory
S. Yor diemiszai of the writ ef error; or in the alternative
3. For substitution of new parties ae defenianta in error:
and
For the transfer of said cause to the Supreme Courts and in aid
and gtipport of said sotien presented certain attached suszestions supported
by affidavit.
Ghoriie E, Richardsen ani The Tezee Gompany, a corporation,
garties named In the eugesetions therein, esked leave to intervene in
this ¢ause and to adopt the suggestions ani motion of the defendant in
error, 3. %. Johnson.
And in this court aleo, so$ieon was made by James Halley and Fred
Sample for leave te file suggestions of transfer of intereste ty defendant
in error,
He provision wae mode under the Practics Act of 1907 for substitution
of parties or for guggeatians, sugvorted ty affidavit, as are now provided
fer, by the Civil Practice Act, ant ty the rules of the Supreme Court ond
Appellate Court. “he repeal eection of the Civil Practice Act, provides
that it shall not impair or affect any action or proceefing commenced before
the act takes effect. In view of the foregoing and the fact that this writ
<4 Me Ss
ny cal? settcgs ta. ot che
ve
be eullocters « “es ae praise “06 soaps Se ons
pease val es abe an Seare se ies 90 - = acaerad on
“a niga Se tela 9 anh is ee
i ad “a Ay ote ee
Abnesintowe aie | Rp. 00 in ceretestlaatastchacbedi
Dies Whang.
cael : Si ¥ ete ost aan
3
"eben veh othe sam gf Be vas Mies ath tn ‘-
ta So eis 4 exten a bate rat selina
ote ea term So Riww oy
"Sa nachos. ,canmainy 2 fee aw
i ercia rams ato mentor det
re
bat ing. "wad ata eH wf on ep enay
Fade
ce
of error ie fer the surpese of reviewing the desres of Zevenber 12, 1972,
@s are of the esinion that the sections of the Civil Practice Aet relied
upon br the defendants in error do ast avnly, and 211 these aetione ee above,
are cenied.
The arineiosi sontestians of the cleintiff in error upen the
errers aggigned sere;
¥iret: That the interest of Bener MeGuire in the suit, one of
the joint sekeres ef the note “es In contlict with and oppoesd te, the
interest of the minor Jefeniantea an? that service on the sinars by leaving
& @onpr of the summens with esid Homer Meinire, vas not goed service on
the ulnore.
Secont: That the decree wee entered solely upen the testinony
of the comcleinant sho “as wholly incespetent as a “itinees hecumae all of
the defeniants in the case vere defending ss heire at law af Anna Hetuire,
deceased,
Third: That the sete evidencing the indebtedness secured by the
martgege which was foreclosed shows on its face, as offered in evidence,
that it hed been paid in fil prior te the time the suit vas Sronghkt.
Fourth: Theat the guardian ai litem did nothing in the ease
except to file « formal anaver, and teok no steps to pretect the interests
of the miners;
Fifth: fhat the Gourt had no jurisdiction ta enter the dseres
because i¢ did mot heve juriediction of the minora wie were necessary and
indigcensable parties to the snit.
We believe that the first question, that of the mf ficiency of
services upen the minors involved, {2 the only serious question herein involved,
the return of the sheriff shored services unoen all sinsrse by leaving « copy
ef the eugmons at their neal place of abode, vith Tomer EeGuire, a person
ef the age of ten years and unvaridis ant a member of the family of said
Giner defendants, which return follows tho language of the atatute in feree
#t the time this service was made, Tt i¢ eontendsd ty oleintiffs in errer
that the interests of Somer YeGuire, ths adult defencdan% ani of hie children
&S co-fiefeniants were aiverse end rely principslly wpen the eases of Sharp
va. Sharp 353 Pll. 267: Heope ve. Seepaneki 209 Til., Manterusch vs. Studt
230 £11, 366 end Peaple vs. Feicke 253 Tll. 414, in sucsert ef their
eontention,
i femgose oer ere Bites Fy | . “ft odes fy oe is vas mec
oh, ci
ons iit as ¢ wing wert fo
im a Dette Eb
keel
+ wna ad sation nih
i _ be i as seh si ote o, oatg fame +
wee cd <t
,
4& \
fn the Sharp case, the iecne inysived in the plealince eas
whether the father, with hes sumeons had been left for hie minor children,
teok the entire interest in th= nreserts, to the exelusion of hie children.
There the Supras: Court held that a enpy of the sumone for a minor defendant
tenléd not be left with a sersen whe theuch net a sotinal complainant, is
& patty intereste? end tenefited by «a denres granting the orayer of the
bili filed.
ta the ane of Hentermnach ve. Stuet, the court heli that service
ween the mother of « minor she was the erediter fer shoss benefit the
property in question wee self and while not the nosiineal eemeisinant, waz
the real party in interest, and stcod in the pesition of com-loinant, sae
not goot.
She Feteke case, in which the rights of miners sere not involved,
Sas 2 petition in a quo werrents proceeding, where thers was an attenpt
upon the part of one of the petitioners to serve = copy of the netition ami
notice, upon a touri of directors, ty serving himself, as clerk af the bear,
and is sot tn point.
in the case at bar, while there aay have been a difference of
interest in degree in the equity of redemption the clendings do not iwileate
any eiverse interest, 28 between the father and the einer children, Their
fieterest in this court seemed to be not in cont lict, as thay all join fn
the writ of error. If as contented by slaintiffs im errer the note was
paid, it sonlé te to the interest of all te defend: if not veid, the
Horigaze: sould nave the right te foreclose the sorigaze end sell the entire
faterest tc the mertsarsd oreperty, regardless of mrmershig. Ve fin? no
eenflict of interest, se in the Sharp case and the Neppe cass. The sheriffts
return is the tesie for « premuaption thet he performed hie duty. Thet
presumption to be overcome wast be determined upon the face of the record.
Sharp va. Sharp 363 Illinois 267. Upen careful examination of thie record,
we find ne such conflict of interast, as would invalidete the service upon
these ainors, and divest the Gireult Gourt of Marion County of Jurisdiction.
fhe fourth contention of the piaintifi'a in error, that the
gusriien sé lites 11¢ nothing in the case except file a farmal answer and
teok no etese to protect the interests of the minors or to call the facta
im She cose, shich would have constituted e defense to the action te the
attention of the court, follows in logical sequence with the fire$ queetion
alot 6 SOS aR of oe ae hana
i toe bad: are elk
cae
sbestitae TL
sane, aes Bet aot ee “ate en a i
* sFiaais Legonts Siders, a seclietiad am aan
acs
1 iinet, conineels gtheda 20 ae
Sew. ieods. sakes. ae esate Manes, eee “ne oe wis 58
eae ‘idtinabat pie: ‘tenure ott Ait 2 ade: pen ad on
ene es
ij sevtrent tet aang tad te Gaieatioans eaited
Fhe seth tie is tae sii. ata ots
: oresin ae ae ot ‘Se ne soni
1)
5
Peised, that of propsr ecrvice upon the atmors herein favolved. If there
tas any conflicting interest, az between the father and the miner ehtléren,
ae tontemied tr pisintiffs in error, 1% would secesaurlig follew thet that
conflict of interest, should have been called te the aStention of the court.
As that question has been disnesed ef be our rulings upon the qnestion of
Bervice, we do not feel constrained te helf that the eueriian af litem sas
dersiict in hie duty to bie wards.
i% is eontended hy plaintiff in erter the$ the nuete svideneing
the imlebteness seaured by the rertgage “hich wae Soraclesed shows on ite
feee, ae efiered in evidence, thet it hed bean pelé in Pull, prior te the
tive the enit wae brought, snd that the jeeree £n mecation wos entered solely
mnean the testimeny pf the compinainant fa the lever court, =. T. Johneen,
sho it is clained was sholiy fmeommetent an¢ Aiacuslified as 2 witness
because aii of the defentants in the case were defeniing es the heire at
law of inne EcOuire, teceaced.
Ag to the first contention, ths rule thet a reteist fu full is
not conclusive sud mey te exsleined or contradicted is well establiched.
Witch. Adm. v. Yellhardt 82 Ti., 124, Estate sf Switeer v. Goertendach,
¥2e I13. &2em., 26 Tannson teatifie? that tt =e not nald. The adult
éefendant, Voner HeGuire, joint saker ef the note had every epnortenity te
present eridence to rebut the testiseay of Ishneon ae te non«seymsat in fall
of the note, ami soparentiy d4ié not see fit to de so, This court does not
Yeel caliet upon te wich the testimony with reference to sayment. And
we do uot feel ealled upon te pare apon the caspeteney of the ettness Johnson,
sith reference to the eetont prososition. In tha absence of a DILL of exceptions
er certificste of evidence, it will be presumed that the fintings were
warranted by the vrsofe heard ty the Court. In the sbeence of = eartifieats
preserving all the evitenee heard br the trial sourt, $t sist te presumed
that there was sufficlent evidence to warrant and sustain the finding.
Banneae v Nanneas, momrar Sroenendrkkre v Ooffeen, 105 Til, B34: Sheen ¥ Hogan,
86 id. 16; Davie v Americen ané Foreten Ohristian Union, 100 id. B12;
Sorgen v Gordies 51 i¢. 72: MeIntosh v Seundera, 63 id. 128; Rhoades ¥
Rhoades, 36 14. 199: Walker v Cary, 62 14. 470: Allen v Leloyne, 102 id. 28;
Beuck v Hauck, 54 id, 281; Walker v Abt, 83 14. 226; Carbus v Teed, 69
$é. 203; Brown ¥ Hiner, 128 IL1. 149; Go. 156 Allen vy Henn, 197 T11, 496,
Oo. 491-2 end canes these olted,
For the reasons indicated above, the writ of error will be dismissed.
pain leg Dred as Hees -*
aoe ¥ ~, * ae
‘ 3”
‘ a
er ? re (te Tes Orit hoe = re #F orate 0
; oe ea
” Singin ;
of [int nf delenet « Got? ofr old _snttintant taut nt a
pheialiGetes tive ef Set obers one i. imide taiew ae Be cts
: - rr Fao
stoi aeete® .v gerd tet +e otaset wee HITS sipator”
im siviy or Bike fem ea 9) tat? Daryl tesa cveediet
Pee Res ot ooh t te ath Pabatnte
; nie hav nme p cal at
ligt ct jaaen ad wi asco Cea ead oct ved ong nena
‘ asd ’ . 1 Fe ‘ x
a = 2. Se ey hys me Bs neyen ep Bepiad
tame pied Pe wale Tae ae ree tt owe wg a8 eon
— ee se ee eo
RPS UT Se SR
% iw 2
Roe ah oe Po
eet Fe PON eae sins a * alleegent as besicht
7 ‘Baceiorne a yore at ill tatne. a ae cd Setoed
seth s twat: = eee ban Scarranir ~ cone 9
th ¥ west wee oi kT oy ea) e a
a it oat pet pe salen ha
¥ amt et ES
sTaTE oF 1nLINors Abstract
APPELLATE COURT
OCTOBER TICRM
A.D. 1939.
9 AGENDA 24
GEORGE WEINHAGEN, JY.» Adminis:
: 3ERF Appeal from
the Circuit
a
ag a Williamson County.
f JMERRIN, an [llinois Municipal
Corporation,
Defendant-Appellant. !
STONE, P. J. 0 a Ne 8°
This was a suit on bonds Nos. 15 to 20 inclusive,
of an issne in virtue of ordinance No. 90 providing therefor,
passed by the city council of appellant on March 8, 1909.
Some two or three ordinances for the purpose of amending
ordinance No. 90 were passed from time to time after July
lst, 1909, but an examination of these ordinances shows
that no substantive changes are made in the tenor or effect
of ordinance No. 90. They were simply made to clarify and
make understandable the first ordinance.
Appellant through the years has paid bonds of
this issue Nos. 4 to 14 inclusive, together with interest
thereon. [t undertakes to defend this suit notwithstanding
the payments above indicated by saying that there was no
Yea and Nea vote taken at the time ordinance Nn. 90 was
passed and that said ordinance was never submitted to a vote
of the citizens of appellant as prescribed by an act which
went into effect Jynly 1st, 1909,- months after the ordinance
@llowing the issue of bonds had been passed and approved by
the city council of appellant. It requires but a glance to
see that the act passed Jnly 1st, 1909 requiring such
a i OWT. w ieharte oN a
SEO ae ey 3 fe AAR YA oie 8 babe Ye oe mf
bat sant r Sha Ain 4 : ak che
adi os His
AY eae tea
iment fearcnwp
typi, eat
Arh»
oe tecwk-tanbae 0
i , a 0, ae f
feu san ae) pa ay Ak a eh b 7 ’ ;
: Gh RR eT
"OG TA. re dor. ‘ie
ipeaie gram,
al wen
cartel on of aL nol ebaod | ao # 3 sam ate
ea an oa ae ee
wn thiaie Ne eed eed tot Roomas thts |
ah, wali area wena ten
‘ein ‘ita ‘ome ‘ot venus nor’ —— otaw 08 .
a ‘ ashe i ON
oi
re Sy a ik
tostie sO ‘sone? ‘ont at ‘ohaa ema senna
bing viliato of bea i thane ono
eo s Ke Kt
Tiss
iad sbaod hiag nad eta ole hore nat toaen
A “i me hey
on ‘ow ‘Stor? teat? gives we deseo thas eves
aaw og ont ouendbro ‘eat? eat te aaailane
eonantbro ert ro? te eriton Re Aen tit
UW bevoraga bas pereac food best ‘shod Yo enme |
of @dnals a frre naetsipet +1. saat tongs to
doun ante depen ORL on tot ! t
ordinance to be submitted to a vote of the peonle could
not effect this ordinance. The bond issue comes by author-
ity of the ordinance and the physical act of executing and
signing the bonds does not govern. (McQuillan on Municipal
Corporations, Vol. 5, page 4847, Section 2297: Chickaming
Township vs Carpenter, 166 1. S, 663).
As to the Yea and Nea vote the record on that
subject shows but one person absent from the city conneil
and that the ordinance was unanimously passed. At this
time and down until 1924 this was tantamount to a Yea and
Nea vote. (Barr vs Village of Auburn, 89 Ill. 361). This
case remained the law of the state on that subject until
1924,- that is, fifteen years after the issue of bonds here
in question.
Neither of these contentions can prevail, as it
seems to us perfectly obvious. Having taken that view, we
regard it as unnecessary to discuss here the question of the
city's being estopped to take the position it now takes. We
might add, however, without deciding that question, the law
of which seems to be well settled, that the city in this
case ought to be estopned from denying this honest obliga-
tion the valne received of which it has had, lo, these
many years.
The trial court ruled correctly on this matter
and its judgment in that regard is affirmed.
JUDGMENT APFIRMED,
Abstract
bineo efqoenm en? to otov a ot hettindue ed ie eonanibre
~rodine yo mewoo event bao’ eff .edtadthto elde foots toa
bas sot¢voexe to toa {ao teysia “ bas eonanibto ont to Shyh
Isqiotmual no mall ispom) tevoy ton eeob abaod ont Ba rig
galdualo tt) ;TeSS aostose ,T88d egsa ,a .L0¥ ‘coal z
reer ining ND gl el! |
tate mo btopet edt etov gol baa seY ont? ot eA.
[toewoo vtto of? mott tneeds noted eno tud ee pa
eict #4 -.besead vievoninany saw econsakbhto ods ‘tact. daa
baa aeY s of fntowstaat eaw ett MOL ittan awob ban eatt a
(£08 117 8 paaudnA to ogalltv ev rast) -9f0v som is ay
_ fttes toetdue tat? ao etate oft to wal on? bentones enna ‘ K
eter abuod to emmet sit testa sissy meestst .et tact -, we
‘fh ee <ilsvoxq aay enottaetaoo ceed? to redston ae ee
Se amest fast said Sarwan ‘eoulves ¢ibeapaed aaa
ent to sotteaup of? ered ensoath of ¢taensoenatt on 3 % ’ 3 } 5
a .wesiat won tt aot? teod oft dat of beaqo?ne _ gate id siysto ie: :
wal ed? .colieeup tant yatbtoeb tuortt tw .tevewor bbs a
ichtoae y
eidd at vito ett tand? ,beliter tine od of aes ta ch 4!
ae mes eel, aries
~agtido taenom eid? saryaeb mort benqotne od bin to oeso
oped? of bad sad 22 do tie ‘to beviteve outer vet mote
ed fe ith
Tottam etn? ono yltoertos bolot Hw09 atat ont “he Cl ms ' i iat
-bomrttie et brages tacit at txomnbot oe be \
-CAMaIT EA CHIMOCUT ; ae ae eae i )
2 Ee eee ahh he . Ko a
JoavedAs “or alee ‘rai |
“ et er. Bi a ii Pk nie |
a vibe Re! 4 oe
P ce :
erie ri . | ia
STATE OF ILLINOIS Abstract
APPELLATE COURT eae
October Term, Ase De 1939
Term Nos esa? w Agenda No.
Rarl Williams, } ye f
Plaintiff-Appelles,
VS
Se Sas
ranklin County, Illinois.
805 1.4.159'
Bertha Kraper, Pg’
eal
defondant-ptellant.
Dady, J.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
The plaintiff, Zarl Williams, who is the appellee herein,
filed his complaint in forcible detainer before a Justice of the
Peace against the defendant, Bertha Kraper, who is the appellant
herein, to recover the possession of certain premises located in
the City of West Frankfort, Illinois. The defendant, after service
of summons on her, appeared and at her request was granted a change
of venue to another Justice, who tried the case on May 3, 1939,
and entered judgment on that date in favor of defendant. Plaintiff,
with a surety, executed an appeal bond in the amount of $80.00,
which bond was filed with and approved by the Justice on May 5, 1939.
The transcript of the justice and the appeal bond were filed in the
Gireult court of Franklin County on May 17, 1939, and on the same
day the defendant filed in the Circuit Court her demand for a jury
trial. On June 28, 1939, the cause was called for trial and the
defendant then moved to dismiss the appeal, which motion was denied
and the cause proceeded to trial resulting in a judement in favor
of plaintiff. This appeal followed.
Defendant contends that the Circuit Court did not acquire
jurisdiction of the appeal from the Justice of the Peace and erred
im denying her motion to dismiss for the reason that the transcript
jopiieds- BLOWLAtT WO aTATe
in THVOO GPALIET
GEOF «i oA yrmet sedosod
ehonbres veanone abs
eat AT 608
nae
“qittetéd eolfoqqe edd at odw yeabbitiv fear riintnt oa Bit
@rid to ovtiowt » eroted remlsted ofdtovet at snderqaeo aki OL rt
| daa foaye ertt ef odw yToqen adtre€ <SratmeRed weit dantays Bee
pt Bescoo! eantmexg ctatase to mokesency els yevoden.o¢ yaketed
eotvaee aodts .taphroteb a? .ptomtili dotiaeel eek 20 etD ontt
mea & Detmem xy deeupen sed ta has berseqqe xed 9 errommuta Yo
‘OBO Ef Yeu m0 oLso eit betes odw voodsarrt sonttone oF eiaaey. to
(Thigatere sdustie teh te covet ct odsh Sect RO “drt hist, saa jr ba
‘100.084 Yo tmome odd at Brod Leoqad ms bedudexe ufone 9 Atte yi
OBOE <& Yol me ooldawh ett wt hovoraas bos ddiw belt? esw ero dotdw i
Ont} et bOLIY oxew tmod Leoque edd bee eotvent et To dgbtonmmt edt
eae ot mo be 4e8er «VE Yel mo ytewod atlas To’ Sawn Photo Ae
Ct 4 a0 Yomeed sed fuvot flies ot at bts, denne eee “ya
gid tee Eeitut wo belies eaw eanee ext <eber 488 Gems nO fete
botteb saw mottos sokew .fecdaa edd weteuals of Savon noid tnebroteh
“nove? mi énenbut @ at zattivgen Lotit of Bekecootg eaueo odd has
BewoLfet Iseqae eta? mbt
euivpos tom bib dusoO shsrorktd ait tae ehnetnoo jnaimeted = ‘
betts bas sosed elt to eolteul ed? mort Leeqas oft to aottvotbataut
tqitceneis erie tarit nonsen eft 10% aebmals of wotsom “ect aetyros ab
from the Justice of the Peace falls to show that the plaintiff
prayed an appeal or that the Justice fixed the amount of the appeal
bonds This contention is without force. The appeal bond was in
fact entered into by the plaintiff and his surety and was filed
with the Justice and approved by him within the statutory period of
five days after the entry of the judgment.
The entering into and presentation to the Justice of the
appeal bond for approval was all the praying for an appeal that
was necessary, and the approval of the bond by the Justice was a
sufficient fixing of the amount. (Fix v. Quinn, 75 I11l. 232;
Enright v. Rehbach, 153 Ill. App. 50; Natenberg v. Solak, 174 Ill.
App. 443.)
The fact that an appeal was or was not prayed on a certain
day may be shown by evidence other than the entries on the justice's
transcript. (Lambert v. Dabbs, 302 I11. App. 400; Cachren v. Sweigle,
213 Ill. App. 594.)
Moreover, as stated the defendant on May 17, 1959, filed in
the circuit court her demand for a jury trial. This amounted to a
general appearance, and she did not make the motion to dismiss until
the case was thereafter called for trial on June 28, 1939. By appearing
gonerally in the circult court the defendant waived the question of
the jurisdiction of the circuit court on appeal. (Chicaco Paint and
Wallpaper Company v. Hellahan, 67 Ill. App. 601; Davison v. Heinrich,
340 Ill. 349.)
we DP ee
Cm | ay : ‘ee
S wri nies e
eS ee
Tilinlnig eid Jats wode of aliat edeet ove to conseut ectt est’
teoque odd Yo dnwomn erlt Rexth eabteu' ofd datt x0 tainaaa ‘ah aed
at oem fried Reoyye ext ,oon0% duoctttw af mone » eidt
baLI% win tise yorum old te Ttintard edt yh ofet Senet
i 4) a ne Gas Re
to botseq yiosudade efs oiddiw ald yd bovouads baa . "det ;
AO 6 | 5 eatrsonegnust, oct Yo Yad tit Wests ogee ut
a ee
od to sotfeul ond o¢ molteaineserq bre otal palsedne eT ;
tadd Looqae ma 10% ee ee
|g 2aw eoksnut edd Xe diiod ont 20 LeVONEMR ect dna «rUeRROOOR SAN
yore PRVS, ofLT Av getup. 0 2%) idouome edt t0 gutxt? tmetoerae
iaepnation PRR OE OO
wet ete
dis’ Sa a ci cera RA
ateottant elt mo aelidme odd ects codiie bimebie ep sen} owes of at ab
volg hove “¥ Inectecuganel rO08 Toh Att ade coated. Wi Males ees ;
Caeet gf" ‘dee ae”
Pe kk, ear Cee ee
th Holl? .O8OL »NL Yad, ro eieiian echt pasty ae A TOVOOTON Cs
& od bedrane aldt slalud put © 407 name, gost Sue Abwomto, ect ~
tiger cotemhh of coltom edd exes tor: bLb erle bra yeoneuaegie Levene
gaiueeqqa YS, -CBSL «88 enul mo. Lead 403, tolleo todtaeradd saw eng, etd
Se moldseup er? bevlew tnabneteh edd dutoe ttuouto edd mt ‘leroneg
br tndw® ovanttd) .Leegqa mo dyuoe divorte eft 20.cetsotbalst ede
eloisetel oy abslieaes 2108 «GGA LLL Ne yomdal el, ov aatlesnea:tiadl
R BAAS: ee eee ee et pe Gr QbS fil one
Deere deer eeu ae oe ten wate sane Cadeugitay path He mod Asta Nah
“A
tt Ponts ot palatal teoet aches nh a
| ie
Defendant complains of certain alleged errors in the
admission of evidence and questions the sufficiency of the proof
to sustain the trial court's judgement. No report of proceedings of
the trial appears in the record, and in the absence of such report
such errors, if any, are not before this court for consideration.
Judement affirmed.
Apsuract
— Be
ig ie oer © ee wale the he + Reach ba hg” "yee «3
Ce ea ae Seta - pitataue i wat indore, ta
- r é be . v
A F i \ - 4 7
Meant lute we Ly, epee spe ei, qui Gy hialay Hehe: wd eee, eg. *
; eo we A RR, td. w pth aby. siayiheny ave, asa
CSUR ay Videtoey: ea 8 bi a Aig oy
UA ne ee et
SS Lge oy. fe areas ott haw ae vena
HaNe Hod tOty ahs. tell hereg, pid tap Amv age pane: tee ; .
RS EEE arti, ot art v dima, ada vo ata
digs DY) gtalAd x a alin de ON eGR ee 30%
4
+ ¥
a i AR Pa
Sh SRS ean 6 Baltes eh AY supe i serve aoa
AN A eats MA 2 a tah ih miele Janene, seat
pitta isk sbi , rn fe a pinot sweats ;
Agstract
STATE OF ILLINOIS
APPELLATE GOURT
October Term, A. Ds. 1939.
Term No. : Agenda Wo.
se
é at
Gity Court off
f é #
Francis AD spent from Ahe
4 f s
laintiff-Appellee,
VS. bast Ste” Louis, Illinois.
f aw
Francis J. Skye Dy¥stributing
an \nttn Weeley E. Lueders,
goefendant-Aprellant. ) Judge Presiding.
Lone 305 1.A. 1597
Defendant, Francis J. Skye Dietributing Company, an Illinois
corporation, bringe this appeal from a judgment of the city court
of Haet St. Louis in favor of plaintiff Francie J. Skye.
Plaintiff's complaint charged that defendant owed plaintiff
$1,279.00 on several different claims. Defendant filed an answer
denying any indebtedness, and a counter-claim in the eum of
$1,042.26. No question of pleadings is raised.
The case was tried without a jury. The trial court entered
judgment in favor of plaintiff in the eum of £820.10, and entered
judgment against the defendant on its counter-clain,
Of the items coing to make up said sum of $820.10, only two
are disputed by the defendant, namely, an allowance for {500 for
pereonal cervices of plaintiff and an item in the sum of $57.10
hereinafter referred to.
On June 6, 1938, plaintiff and his wife, Marion Skye, as
parties of first part, and Louis E. Levy, agent, as party of
second part, and Francie J. Skye Dietributing Company, a corporation,
as party of third part, entered into a written contract, which
recited that the first parties owned, controlled and operated
a certain liquor business; that third party had recently been
JOB edA aIOMIdJI YO @TATE
TAVOO ATALISIIA
Ty
C8CL . A yoreT asdoso00
.o# sbrepaA hp > Beene TE
; ite 3M Sb, ae ial hans
eee? “hs enedy
ry Lig a a
,ateheul ft
j var aR
Sear reetys
etontir1 TS yyHaqmod yrisudiasetd ovis “t stove | afvabmete Lue 4°
cataveoe wtto. eds to. trearg bes), & mort Laeqqa: atts anniad | rt a
eye? .b atonal tisetelq 20-tovat mt: eluod 698 Re 2 | tt
“‘Wisetele bewo snabmoteb sady begun setelqnoo styatintald cid Ps
-qewahe oe beltt daebreted .ectelo soorettth Leveyes. A10 oosenaert bs
to mitts ent mf-mielo-tedauee s bris \aeenbosdebrt Bar) antysed
-bestet st sgntbaete to molsnetp of . eB. myyidy 4
betes davon letiy off .ynwt « tuodttw Belit asw: nso ont /
\ Bevedce, foe ,0L.088$ to me oft at Titintala to: rove. ak pene]
- «mtelo~ne tesoo ash mo sasbreteh etfs. santexe saomstert
ows ylno ,O©.086$ to mm Diss qu etem of gator emedt ods 0. fs
ot 002) rt somawolle ne. vClonan .tnebneteh edt vd. repent
OL, Ta§ te moe ote mi mett aa ine Mitolals tT eaotvies tencerteg
‘2 : 40d borie tes sestantoren
as OTEE: totiel ,etlv etel baie Te FaLele, 88RL | 8 ont 0 a
. to Yeseq 2A _drege. ewwed “el atwod bae adteag tattt to. sotonet
~eltstogios 8 ¢ynaqnod gmtsudtrds ta eyae cational bre eitaq broves | i
doidw ,goatinoo negitiw & ojmt heres dr8q Bates to etuaq ae ie
befeueqo fina bellorésoo eecnte. solsisg’ teat ort tats Battoot Re
peed ylsneoes bed qated brids .gads: tapentoud roupat, fants 9 vi
Oy: { ie
organized as a corporation to engage in the licuor distributing
business; that it was the intents vartise of first part to sell,
tranefer and assign to said corporation all of the good will,
merchandise and other assets then owned by first parties; that
firet parties contemplated owning and desired to sell all of the
capital stock in said corporation to second party or his nominees,
and second party desired to purchase such stock on terms therein
set forth. So far as material, said contract then stated that,
in consideration of one dollar and the mutual covenants, the parties
agreed, among other things, in substance as follows: First parties
agreed to execute bills of sale to said corporation covering the
aesete then owned by first parties, describing the same, at prices
fixed in said contract, the same to be paid for on or before
June 15, 19383 that first parties agreed to sell and second party
agreed to buy a11 of such cavital stock at a certain price; that
first partiee agreed to devote all of their time and energy
promoting the good will of said corporation until July 15, 19358,
for a reasonable compensation; that first parties agreed to submit
to said corporation, at the time of sale and transfer, duly executed
resignations as officers and directors of such corporation, effective
July 15, 1958, or at such earlier date as might be determined by
second party; and that said corporation agreed to promptly account
for and pay over to first parties all moneys received by said
corporation in connection with the accounts receivable of first
parties, determined as of close of business on May 31, 1958, which
accounts receivable were to remain the property of first varties.
It appears that on or prior to July 15, 1958, the contract was
consummated.
On January 1, 1939, Marion Skye assigned to the plaintiff all
of her interest in the contract.
wn axe
gaisudiateth toupil edt ot SRBRNe oF nol sevoqso 6 98 ‘bes taagyo
Liles ot t12q tert? to aetiiaq % ER gerodeet edt sew $k ject tasentaud
eLitw boon edt ‘to {Ls folgeroqz00 bise of mgtaas bas ne"toretd
tedt isetined dort? vd ‘bese sont fewee “redito baie | es ibnerdorem
edt to Ifs {fea od betlaeh bre agtewe beserqmegnoe aeiéreq dont?
,eaenimon eld 19 ¥sweq bnooes ot notserogros btes ot toote rasta!
rleteit smies ro dgota Sosa oaartona ot bevised yiag ‘ 0a faa
Jets .betase medt Joersaoo bles .Leiwesem an 18t.08) Setkds0% tea ea
sotsusq, eng cSTHEMETVOD Lowden. eit bas 1alloh etto ‘to mobsenebiatis a
aetizeq gaitd tavollot ap eonatadyua af ,agaidd redto atone ere
eft Zatrevoo mottaioyres bliss of else ‘to afitd dh asad od :beomaa
pootty te .emeg od}. gnkdiugseh .netiseq taxtt vd, bemmo neds, meena."
_etoted to so rot btaq ed of .emsa odd) qtostsaco BAe sha 2
yiisq Sxooes hue {lea ot beergs sektiaq teat? ded 188eL | eh ecart
tet reotie mtadreo 2 te, toode Let iqas dove o Ais we ot neaxse a
¥grere hos exts ttedt to [is etoveh od beers: selinog. terkd
<O88r ,8f ylut [tiew gotietog100 hia to Lilw beog yeas gattongtg .
timdsa o¢ Heomgs aetixeq sett? sand proltmaneqmoo eidsmoasen! s x07
hestioexe yYIub ,1Setanats bose elas to ests ont ta doksawoqueo 1osaw/ Ct
evitoetie ,motisteytoo fovea to etosoeitd bas atoottio as enol tangtaes
eye
Ud benterreseb od sdgim es eteh tetiase dome) (8% 1880L EL Yint eed
tnuooos yYltqmorq: ot bestga, motsaroqioo: hee tads Baa” tdteq: ‘bones |
bisa yd bevieost eyonom [ia aeltisq sett ‘od Fevo. er Reeve
fait? to efdeviece: sinucaoe edt détw nottoennos imt so ftaToqT199 |
dotdw' BeCL LB Yak n10 ssoniend to exolo to as Bashete teh haPant ya |
seei¢tad ga1kl to wreqotd ‘old tenes. of) Otgw eldevieser aanuoe pt
@aw’ soaxs aco end. q88OL. 28f vYlul of teing 10 ao nant Nema naetne Prone a
{is aetentata edt od pacahesa' owta, isan <osen) ay tbe eu Ney
bard -foaadnoevedeiatnegpserateseds my x
Plaintiff testified that from the date of the execution of
said contract until July 15, 1958, he remained with and managed
the businese of the corporation, working "day and night, regularly
and steadily,” "breaking" new men into the business, lining up
ealesmen and selling merchandise in the place of business of
defendant and on the road, and that a reasonable compensation for
euch servicee would be {125 per week, From the record we believe
the court was justified in believing his testimony and that §500
“was & reasonable allowance for such services of the plaintiff.
Defendant next contends that said contract was illegal for
the baer that compensation was voted to officere of a corpor-
ation by resolution carried by a vote of the officers to be
compensated, - plaintiff being the preeident, and plaintiff and
his wife and one other person being the sole directors of said
corporation at the time said contract was entered into. Inaemuch
ae defendant accepted the benefit of services of the plaintiff,
which were outside of his duties as president of defendant, the
defendant ie liable for reasonable compensation for such services
regardlees of the contract. (ELoom v. Vehen Company, 541 111. 200;
25
Voorhees v. Mason, 245 Ill. #686.)
Ae to the disputed item of $57.10,- plaintiff testified that
on June 15, 1958, and after the corporation, pursuant to said
contract, took possession of the stock of soods theretofore owned
| by plaintiff and hie wife, $65.00 worth of such merchandice was
stolen and that on July 1, 1939, when plaintiff and defendant
settled or partially settled their accounts the defendant withheld
€65.00 from plaintiff, and that Mr. Alpern, the succeeding president
of the defendant, at that time told plaintiff he would be paid
therefor when the insurance on such stolen merchandise was collected.
a
to nottuoexe edt Yo stab ort mont tadd bektitaed Whintery
benanam baa Adtlw bentowe? od axel” er” yiwl Lids toettnos wh
ylrsliunes iegie Bae vad" antstiow ynotsetorses ef3 Yo adeotoud ode
Gi yedntT asehtait ea odot mon wom “gatiaeyt” "\xttheode bra
%o asentend to eoslq ett mt oe Lbmadoren antifes ‘bres. romsolog
61 motdoateqnoo eftancnsey « jatt bre ,beor edd mo baa duebere’
evetied ot Bieces odd mova teow seq SSL oF. bivow asoltvacs iy
096} gad dae Yaontised ett antvetted bt Bett! veut aaw sume bad, —
“ \aeteatatg eft Yo sentvxee dove «0% oonawolle eldanone
to% teaclli esw toeutnoo Bree sadd abrrednoo dxen. ‘aici
Sh staxtongh a to ‘exdottto” od betov eaw noltssmeiqmos eye moaoee 6ag
Laid oF ereottio Bhs Yo esov © US habrieo noltitoest te ig
pea" ‘*tjntetq bubs’ .¢uebledyq ond gated whiotaly - > \boskone que
Whee 46 e40gherth efda Gite Sntee Aoaved 4edd0 Ono ban ote aia
Hfoumsetl odmt Bevotne saw soaiinoe Bheo omit ott}! $e motden
SVridniplis of? YW acolvaes Yo Feed ett Dedqense taba |
pitt inabreteh Yo dnobleorq aa aehiuh ata 6 ebledio etew pene
jesiivei ‘Howe rot wolssenegnoo eldsnoaset 10% ‘ptabir at thabreteb
yoos , LTT 128 ume? eee v ) .goardnde wpndclr aes
| | sg -paireraa
gant betitdesd Vatintalq - Ai’ vot 2 mest beduyels acts hip cl ah Vis
‘phen 6s Yakmbiy’ (hate wioqsee td 4bG4e' skh eher lat’ bata
honwe etototexony ahoon Yo Aooda ont 16 ho tevesbog’ x60)" sioattnos F
new on tbeatforem Movs ‘to hacia 00,894 etiw aid bab tthanbets Ya al
jnabooted one Wisnlst medw beer” ft yt “no gadd bra mofode
Alodisiw snabnersh ots Béawoooa thedd beltiea ytistirag to Bel:
#iobieeia satbéedows ote yimeqtA au Sat Bae (ettsntelg moet 00.00)
blaq ed biuow ef Midatelq blot omtt Jods an rnavaitere “etlt “to
sbesoat foo aay Ga thcaRbasn trefosa Motte fo ) senauuat ert a dw setereds ,
Jicas tee ee rene cay th a ok? bey aes?
”
Alpern as 2 witness for defendant teetified he knew of the etolen
liquor, that "if I owe Mr. Skye anything, I owe him $57.10 not
65.00," and that no adjustment had been made with the insurance
company on the stolen liquor. Plaintiff's right to recover wae
not dependent on the collection of such insurance, and the court
wae justified in allowing euch item.
Defendant's next contention is that the court erred in not
allowing its counter-claim, which if allowed would have more than
offset the claim allowed plaintiff. This counter-claim is based
entirely on the charge that one Grigsby, who was a salesman for
plaintiff and hie wife hefore and at the time of the organization
of the corporation, and who thereafter continued ae such salesman
for the defendant corporation, collected between June 1, 1958,
and July 16, 1958, moneys from the sale of merchandise belonging
to defendant and, without the ddeane aut at the direction of
plaintiff, turned such moneys over to plaintiff to apply in payment
of accounts due plaintiff and his wife, prior to June 1, 1938,
from the came customers. We do not feel required to co into any
henxthy diecussion of the evidence on this issue, but consider it
sufficient to say that the record does not show that any money
collected by Grigsby on the sale of merchandise belonging to
defendant was actually used in payment of plaintiff's accounts
receivable.
Defendant complains of the refusal of the court to admit in
evidence a certain exhibit. ‘his exhibit is not abstracted, hence
defendant is in no position to raise the question. (Rehfus v. Hill,
243 Ill, 140.)
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
who
(r. \ aN 4 ae ihe!
ee < } ti
/
nefoge exft to weort ‘eri befttveed snebie ted or aonsiw ‘s We wteqia
ton OL.°8% mir ewo T ynnteityan eyta .aM ewo T TE” Yede actip tt
eonavuant off déiw eben need bed Fremfouths: ox Yortd ‘Pris * 00.809
ahw tevooen od semis e'Yinlalt .touphl meldge ‘eae ito Ytteqdioa
duo ert hire lopment Hous Yo nofteelloo ent ao fnebaoies ton
mest dove netwolle nt bertiyeut’ sew
jor nt berre pruee off Seid at notseetioo sxen ‘8! dnabrre tet. Abita ae
anit onom eved Pivow hewolle If dott (mtalo-rediioo wot gwiwotEe
bees ui melo-nednuoo INT .tintsly bewolie male ey soatto wi
01 pewaeles: 8 sew ow ,.yYsegtad ono saris ogriesio effin ¢ieaine ie |
polens innate wits Yo wats odd sa’ bow erodbe ertw ett baw” vunsataty
- naraekas siose-en beutinod sFteerots “onl ‘bets nodsareqos” an 80
{BSCr .L emt meewsed beyoelfoo yn vb dlbitibiy Suabrored odd 102
antanolad ww: em to eles efd cork eyettom {O8er at eit bh
%o nolteenth ony ts ne torennos ent Suorid te” Bria |
drenmngy at ylqe oF Wtiwlely of Heve averom dowd berrwe” ibeate |
8eer Vt omy. of totwy yeti adr bera Vibemtaty! eb semble (
“qn osnk on oF bettuper Lee? son ob eW | enemodsto: ones offs mom
$i tebtance sud yexees ahd co. eanphitve’ ets TO roleaype ly retoanet . |
" Yevom yns stadt worla tom aeob bublies ede yeas ee od frotod tia i
ot anignolos ealbaedorer to efae end io ydagixo 1 bodeetton ;
wine soe iicnerananel %o tromyng mt beat’ hansen aw drabeie tb |
we "Wy ie he 7S GAENROTORD Fee Letdevteset is
it Jims 0% sao eit to Taavtor efit “to antel¢ton ‘deabebnea! A
eonad {bevoattede Jon at si4ttxe ott? .sidtine mtedaes. & eonebive .
Lith sv guides) toa lo one estan oe sundae 60 at’ sPotakbretes
iy ere Be ‘(cope int aie
rheritvie ak guoo Labay eta to srommbirt’ ear 40
v ghee’: ay Cocoa hance fail rot
y
=
Weis
x
¢
STATE OF ILLINOIS
APPELLATE COURT Apstract
FOURTH DISTRIOT
Octcber Term, Aco. LOSS et
4 ar 4 @ <s &
ea é
Term No. £ é genda No
THE PEOPLE oF of SATS OF - of
j ; .
weit of Error Bbtla
County Court of dlinton
County, Illinois, No. 9
tL Law ol 3, ph liye ral
het endant in Error ¢
TED HOLZHSUER and MARY WEATHSRLY, Bon. Willian Ragen
Plaintiffs in mirror Presiding Judge.
ie ye 805 1.4A.160
On February 25, 1959, the State's Attorney of Clinten County
filed in the county court of thet county an information charging that
the defendants, Ted Holzhauer and Mary Weatherly, on January 4, 1939,
in said county “unlawfully * * * Gid live in an open state of adul-
tery end fornication, not being married to each other, but Ted
Kolghauer was then and there a married nan end not legally divorced
from his wife; and that Mary Weatherly was then and there a married
woman and not legally divereed from her husband," contrary * * * ete.
A jary found both defendants guilty “in manner and form as
charred,"
Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment made by
each defendant guy overruled, and the trial court entered a judg-
ment of guilty as Pu each ‘Perendent, te review which defendants
have sued out 2 writ of error.
Defendants contend that the information is defective in
gubstance in that it fails to state that defendants lived "together"
josuedA TAUOO BLALINGTA
| Dc ee ‘el &
dates to Hohe ‘tear
@ . oi. .atomtLex Nitto
ee arias
sini ats 20 vows ateanty ote aiid ila H Hy:
st
bi ae 48 Migs fi mente!
noite’ 26 otha ing ao at enki bin’ 8» ¥ bvhwataw : i
bet sit reside Mone 09 Doiveam guted tea sratssote ton wo. ,
wae
doonevid Whiegel tom bun iain bokveen © ovedt ane ned a
holrinn © evodt nae sede smd Vivoneneit pra dent ‘nde (ety ‘nad!
4 oe ae ob Vite
ote + © 4 yewntios * bint wo nous Beeuordd tEtngal toa ¢ ban om '
Last gets he
es mrok aw vonutad at" era sdeaboeten pm. se, SRE Apes
or with whom either defendant was living. The record does not
show that any motion was made to quash the information. The
motion in arrest of judgment merely states that the complaint
"does not state an offense against the penal iaws." In our
opinion, although informal, the information sufficiently charges
defendants with a violation of the Statute in question. (Crane
v. People, 168 Ill. 395; People v. Love, 3510 Ill. jae y
Inasmuch as the information specifically charges that each
of the defendants was married at the time of the commission of
the alleged offense to a person other than the co-defendant, the
information in effect charged each defendant with living in an
open state of adultery,- and not in a state of fornication, and
this is true although the word "fornication" was used. In crder
to convict either defendant of living in an open state of adul-
tery it was necessary for the state to prove that such defendant
at the time of the commission of the alleged offense was 2
married. person and had a spouse living. (Lymen v. People, 198 Ill.
644; Miner v. People, 56 Ill. 59.)
The defendants contend that there is no evidenee tending to
show that either one of them was at the time of the commission
of the alleged affense narried to some person other than the
co-defendant,
The case is presented to us on a stipulation of facts signed
by the State's Attorney in behalf of the People, and by the
defendants, by their attorney, which stipulation was epproved
fe
tom ae0b brocet ed? .gatvil saw tnebaeted vedties modw Attw to
ed? .aolismrotat ert daaup of sham sow, aotdom ye. tact wode
tntalquoa gilt tadd estate ylatem tremgaul fo teerts af mottom
“uo oI, “.ewai Laneq oft vantage eaneTie as tate, $08 sob"
aegiado yivtetotiiwa aelésurptnt edt ,Lemrrotat yvoritLa atotadgo
9u829.) iia pt. otwtsts oft Yo nottaloty a the edasbro te
| (388 -f1i OLS .ovot .v efgood 7~8es .L0% Ol. ednaad 9
dose tadt cogtade yLiselttoogs soktemretnl ed as dommeast |
So soheatmmoo. ot. #7 sate nad. £0, Seep ney, sabes ah ip
soap eras
ort? Tnabaghoh-og nde, gard pedey puted #08 amAn ihe AeamLke me
Me OE BALVEL sate toahee teh done. Rewnate NAS Af, keke
Sas ,sottagtatot to efste 8 at tom Sas = ret inbs iad
$0080 aL .Deay asv, "apttsotmat® Suow edt Cyvoritte ist at ~
~iabe30 etsta aago ae ot gmytl te Saahented aamtts Seton
Pasbupted dove tad? evorg of ofate edt gor, reemsensau
& 2am enaetio Seyedis odt to nokeatamoa odd, to emkt out ae
iil 8@L .slgoed .v gamyi) .gatvil eavega « apa ad ti ae
1.8 UF 86, .2faoed
ov gotinet senehtve on al atetit tale baetaon paca A wy ia
Role tmoo nt, ™, enit ect ts asw merit ®, ono Todt te ted woe
i ama ‘ha
Pevici f fan
hemgte avost to nottaiugita 8 no aw oF Satmenetn at gene ott
ENS ORL
odd yd Ams .oigosi od? to isded at yenxovta tee osld yd
bovotggs Bay polialugita dotsiw ,yemrotta atedt ba “ na
ee
by the trial judge and filed in the trial court. This stipulation
stetes thet no reporter was presert at the trial and that there
was no stenographic report of the evidence. It states thet such
stipulation is 2 "true and correct record and trenscript of the
proceedings hed," and then stetes what evidence was adduced and
concludes with the statement that “all facte not incorporated
in the trensorint® were waived. We have carefully read such
stiovlation or "transeriot" and in our opinion it does not appear
from such stipulation thet any evidence whatever was introduced
which showed or tended to show that either defendant wes married
and had a spouse jiving at eny tine prior to the filing of the
information and within the period covered by the statute of
limitations.
In his printed brief the State's Attorney states what he claims
certain witnesses testified to on the trial, but such alleged
testimony does not eppear in the stipulation or in the abstract
or record, = and hence cannot be considered by us. We can only
consider the regord as presented.
The cause is reversed and remanded.
Reversed a) rrewrnedled:
Abstract
Px. 2
ae < Ne \ EL ‘
+ ah, hy,
nottaiugita atdt .tivoo Latid ont af belt? bae egiul Latst edt yd
ove? Sait bas Labi ost ts moeerq wew tedtOEer on TaNe ANE
dove textt setave t2 .conebtve oft bo txoqat pbtiqarepjoneie Oct aa
edt to tetveenatt Sus Hrooer tostroo Ann ound sel noktaloghia
betereqroont ton stow? Lio" tant teowetnie wilt dete conmlienes |
fovea beet Ullateta. avai ol bovine orow "abtondaith sir At
sseqqe ton ae th sotatge-amo mt ee * Sq Peeenerd" o nottatngens
belie eew TAANSTSH voditle vont wore of behein 46 welvedte*tbbadle
ont to QmettY edt et robig ott yas’ te quivil eapegh a ’hait Bie
Y 2 etutade ont iadannthnatandandritissss 0.)
antalo ed tesw vetase cndennibe on wit aehabheeit a ats !
Bogelic dope tye isted aitine ot Settttset sanacutte abaesed |
PoetPeds od ak mw aOstsingIts et et eadqas FoR ehob qabaETHOE
Wino mae OW ei yd Setehieaos of tounse soned Bas ~ (drove 46
Detasaere a semen eT RIND i
Debmamert bas bedvevet af sani
ue igen Sbarevek fis Y taemteeets Wa Wise
a OI oe Te perk iy partie ia dant "ele
JosijedA ty esti he
PS; VL | RNY “het USE, Ty eA Lup yt Po)
é c : \ ae a
= en 5 Decree aia
Ste ator hearsay 4 Gi O22 FLAS REER ER. ae ae qe
*
Y Yee “eee: a nO a, oy hoed ae ‘pa
4 22K Se ogee: SU coteereha mace Rae 6 venous i
i H
PE ae ee
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 6th day of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty, within
and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present —-— The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice
Hon, BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOV#, Justice
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk
BE. J. WELTER, Sheriff
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On APR 61940
the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's Office of said
Court, in the words and figures folicwing, viz:
BE ME nainenhchiaietabiliceainbmiiabicatliig ;
Ree WE a hs |
REOULLIT WO MAUOD WMATA oy) a Wy
Tonyrara quowwe:. | |
N i . ( An
Nes te Loa Sm MOSK sam | Lea ea @ se re
ena HATE “TO TOO || Tuswoe womasuons anh 2
% moltetoqnod B ui
‘ ede ee
tam blegah
Oe: sbaleetse and “tne Sates Sas us ShetOL,C6 hua
i Hater 8 hadoubane tekupbase dade sosetonth Srcoet
ee vee, ‘to wet Log oat ot aeletbhs: at bas ara ays ip my
merchandise and fixtures. Upon two of these policies aseregat-
ing $9,000.00 appellee brouzht suit and recovered a judgment for
$9,259.95, which was sustained
o
y this court. Sundquist v.
Hardware Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 296 111. App. 510. Thereafter
the judgment of this court was affirmed by the Su
Sundquist v. The Hardware Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 371 Til. 360.
The facts with reference te the origin of the fire and
the finaneial condition of appellee sufficiently appear in these
opinions f the Supreme Court and of this ccurt and need not be
repeated. Upon the tflal of the instant case the defendant
contended, as did the defendants in the former case, that the
fire was of incendiary origin and there was evidence tending to
Tn his opening argument te the jury
1
one of appellee's attorneys referred to the fact that one of the
4
defenses interposed vy the defendant wes arson, which counsel
2 3
serted must, vider the law, be oroven by the dofendent beyond
ou
all reasonable Goubt. Counsel for appellant objected and the
Ny
court overruled the objeetioz and counsel for the plaintiff then
said: “They must prove beyond all reasonable doubt, as I told
you in the beginning, what they had to do”. In his concluding
argument to the jury, another of plaintiff's counsel in comnent-
ing upon the defense that the fire was of incendiary origin,
Said: "That is the way it looks me. People are presumed to
be honest and righteous unless the contrary is shown. ‘therefore
the law places upon these men the burden, if this man has committed
a crime which excuses them from meeting the provisions of this
contract, then they must come here with evidence that shows him
guilty of the crime of arson beyond all reasonable doubt".
@“2=
‘ripjemys no toitog oved? to owt og .eenchclt bas panbaaderem
- tot taommbert a Sexeveoos bus thee dtuortd eolloags 00.000 ,e¢ gat
LV dalam hoo atAd qd hentatsued ssw ho betw <BR. RRE OH
setteoved? .0f2 .amh ELE BOS (109 Veal ott Lexduit exswbtalt
| ta709 enetqye enti we beni tris, anw esha aids to tronmont oxtd
(GE LT LE 4.00 samt eakt Leateat os off .v te tupbawse
Sra ert ond te atatro ven ot sonaro’ “ Atha atont, eat
event at sserds eitaote fae aellegae to note Lbno9 rabecant att
ed ton Soon his gro atid to Bax daH0d onetqere ait to exotalqo
Suebaeted oy aso Sapvant add ‘to Labtt od? eee bedseqer
edd tart jones ‘tomtrot edt at atin bastob edd hatend an Seuss
of ankSaet eonehtve esw otodt das akgiio Yeatbasent ‘46 sew
vist edt of toeawgxe patnoge ald nt oaitoteb tedt detidstes
eit to ono tort Jost ont od howrete# eromos se 2 estou ‘et ot
Lescceroo dosbatw HORTA amy Iusbaoteh eid yd bewoqretal 3 ob
baoted tsbuctoh Sit yo gover od wat oe teh The ‘Sdlansa
edt bas ‘be faotdo tabttoads fot teased +4708 “bkdisaodner’ a
neds otitntats edt dot teaiiiod Sas so kseotue eid” pb binctave” |
bios Tf se Paton eItancanex tts ‘thoyed dvory Samm
i
~tranti06 ak teaatos a'tiisatesg to aeaseaa’ Tt
akgizo Vistbnoost to eaw oukt ‘ead ‘dont cates ay te
i ime {BBE
gattulonos aid cl ."ob oo tad dens dant soitenged Sat at we
o¢ bommaota 978 ‘gqoet wea be ‘eteel a ww oat ve dea aad 1bies ‘
erotetedt? \aede at ‘‘otibee att ‘gee bite evoodr bas Filall'le
bedtiemos “aad supa ‘elitd “se shag ‘ea joi ene ne aa wai oi
elds to addtetvéss sit antieen mot odd dobubne ewsbie fo fier mS
mid ewes dade sonwhles dd tw oxod oan Sete ede Per Soardinoe
»"Sduobh aldemoases Ils Baoyed soate to emtito eff to aap?!
ww
Counsel for defendant again objected. The court overruled the
rr
objection and counsel for plaintiff then continued: "We eontend
that is the law and the court sustains our contention this far
in the argument at least”. In this connection counsel for de-
fendeant tendered to the court the
was refused. "The Court further instruets the jury that if you
believe from a preponderance or greater weicht of the evidence
that the plaintiff, with intent to cheet and defraud the defen-
dant, wilfully and méliciously set fire to or cause te be set
pues
cas
= |
FS
Oo
J
>
3
a
C4
Ds
fs)
wa
°
‘gf
ine
o
a
Ps
fire to or burned or caused to be burned,
insurance sued on, then your verdict shculd be
the refused i
Court in Sundquist v. Herdware Mutusl Ins. Co., supra, at page
363. Theat case overruled Rost v. Noble and Co., 316 Ill. 357
and the cases therein cited, the court stating that the reascn-
able doubt rule which required proof of the commission of a
Is
felony beyond 2 reasonable doubt, either as 5 cause of actio:
or a defense in 2 civil suit would no leuzer be adhered te in
this state and expressly held that this instruction should have
been given. The court concluded, however, that the refusal to
give this instruction did not require ea veversal of that judg-
ment inasimach as the record disclosed that no instruction was
given saying anything about reasonable doubt but did disel
that an instrvetion was given which requireé a finding for the
defendants if it was shown by a preponderance of the evidence
na Bis
ads belurteve try09 oi sdetoal fo bane énebaotes bea f{sass0d
Mh tie 2 vere =
baetros ow rbenmtsnos aot Yitebsa 0% ‘feamvoo bas aptavatdo
gst eidt nofttaetnos two aniateage ts00 ori bas wel ot at tend
. “at
-ebh tot feenvos mo ttoennoo Bidd af ."gap0l tn fsemw9ns ont rt
: etree
sotdw nokvoundent oniwollot ett deurob ot ot betobrod casbaet
; ea adye
poy tt dadd vest pas atowstent todttet Fa08 at" .doeuter asw
ow
~
—
&
eanahive ens % dis Lew aOR 99 1 conprobroqen 2: nott ovat fed
-neteb odd Busvtss Sac deeslo ot tnotat Ag be htsatele odd tact
tea od of seus9 10 of oxi? fox ewees Lem bas tenth ‘aan
» j rh bay
bedisoash yore qorg ead honed od ot benues “tO Bows Ba «| ‘oe oult
ed Blsodts sothuey bestech: nett AP Ge) Bows ponpswveat to yotiog “eat: a8
| Mteabacteb ont m t
to szangest ao ktmobt ont ad at nobtoortect peaste cist be as
omorrqwe ett Xo solatgo ote hed Agro dos ne ttouatast boesrtes of
eney ts Stowe ..00- aul fsvtutd otowhtell “ tebupbaue ae ¢
TRE pied ate Pr 1°) baa alco vy seot beLuarev0 “ote saat C8
-nogset eat tedt paltetea s199 ould bed to plexes eoneod oft &
2 to ue Fee Lmmco aad ‘to nowy beriupex tohsy oly sawed
softas to oanse B 88 sodtle Hob. elgonoawes : sows aster
ak o¢ bexosbe ad xegasl out Biluaw thus Livio rs cl caaeteb es
eve fivode aeitourtant elds tang ‘Bled Uneoxgre bao otede: etde
2 Shee Lar
ot Leaster edt todd revewor vbobsfoaos $009 out nevis. Ee
abet ‘sede ‘to. Ineneven 8 oriupes tou bib aoliovtsent eld oF
BaY aottorstect on tadd beaoloalb brovex ont ae domengiat sun
ovolon lh bib dud tue eldscoased tuods. siidhves: Eada:
edt tot pekbs it 8 dortnges Ho bw cevds, eer soldeunsoat paren A “8
‘soneb ive ontt <0 sosszebroaexe © wd ew ae tt a or cea
i ee J oor tei
hee
1 RAR oul Pe eee.
that the plaintiff had falsely sworn that he was ignorant of
the origin of the fire, The record in that case also disclosed
thet a special interrogatory had been submitted to the jury which
specifically found that the plaintiff did not swear falsely
when he said the casue of the fire was unknown to him. It like-
wise appears from the record in the instant case that anpeliee
did not request nor aid the court give any written instruction
requiring proof of anything beyond a reasonable doubt and the
rr
ninth given instruction in the instant case is identical with
hs tenth given instruction as appears on pa,
the opinion of the Supreme Court in the former Sundguist case.
However, no special interrogatories were supmitted to the jury
in the instant case. The record here then differs from the
record in the former ease in two particulars, first the absence
of a special finding te the effect that the plaintiff did not
swoar falsely when he said the cause of the fire wes unkown to
him and seeond the erroneous statement of the law mede in counsel's
arsument to the jury which the trial court sanctioned, The
record discloses that appellee only reauested one instruction
which was to the effect that if the jury found the issues for the
plaintiff that interest should also be allowed. Appeliant ten-
dered twenty-two instructions, fifteen of which were given as
offered, one modified and six refused. In none of them werethe
jury told that they should be governed by the law as found in the
instructions. The statement of the applicable law enunciated by
counsel for appellee in their argument was erroneous. ‘The trial
court should have sustained an objection thereto. ‘The only
conclusion the jury would have been warranted in arriving at after
oho
res
ay ee
to snonenat esw on dads stowe Yioefat Bast tiidalele ss artestnd
benoLoeth cals onse teed ot Drove et? ,oxtt ont to. nig heo nas
dobdw vis, ods o¢ bedtindve meed bert Yrossgorrednt intoege 8 teat
view lst twews tom bib tiitetele ont teds bewo't vileoitteega
-otit ¢i mtd oF svonime eaw ott? edd To epeso eat bine edt neste
eelieqne tats eseo onsvent onc at broo9 et mort exaeee ont
aottoriseni cestitw yao evig diwoo edt SLd won Ineapet Jon bis
edt png tdveb ofcdsnonser s Snood aridtenn to toon, satu taper
dtiw Lsotdnobt ef expo sretent eit at xottovataat newts dena
To dd bup 6b sopeq To etseqcs es nolvauavent, covty dined edt
,0e80 telopbave tenmot edt at txv0d smonqare oy Te. rokntqe eds
rit ong oF boddimase eTAw ee trotsyorradat fotooue on
esd mort enottts nedé tect brave. ot seane: dustent edt Ph
i)
eoneede oily gexit sere leottnueq ont mt .9260) some brit: snk. ene
toa Bib. Tridatale euht tone toette ont ot. entbnkt tedvowese )
ot moray asw ori? eds IO ears edt pins on ceMty vLeeist opm
atieesvoo ai aban wal aid lo dnemetedea am enoTte efit inceoe ‘eo ta
esi? sbeuokvones #09 Laity edd Hote yxot, of of tap a
aotiorrtenk ene bodeaupet ¥-Ler@ oaiteagn deh eoaoloeth b
odd 10? sonnet odd tewod yah art 22 dsl tootre, edt of phy: :
-H0d tnailoaws’ sdewolln 96 o8ia bireda, teetednd sede atantata |
ee nevis ovew dodsiv to neortht ,enokdowrrent ome -egaewt boxe
ediéptew meds To sven af .besster xte bos bortibom eno. \poxotte
edt ai bavet ex wal oft yd bawseven 9d Siwode yeas vest Biot wat
vd besgsionsay wai, cidnoitone elit Yo. Sromaande ont. “seme btounitent
hd ue
sei ‘Iekat ei? . ,ayoenonte -2Aw tromegte thes mk cottons, rot Leanweo
wine ede “-esoxeds soitostdo as beniedeva mare
sorts ts pntviess ak betasctew noe oved ‘vom Aout bani sobeuifono9
dhe
the court had overruled counsel's objection was that defendant
nust prove this particular Gefrense not by a prepondsrance of the
evidence but beyond a reasonaple doubt. Under the holding of
the Supreme Court the refusal of the tendered instruction under
the facts as disclosed by this record necessitates a reversal
of this judgment.
it is aiso insisted by counsel for appellant that the re-
eord discioses appeilee to have been guiity of such fraud and
false swearing after the loss as to render the policy sued on
void under the provisions of the policy and it is insistod that
the record is entirely different in this respect from the record
in the former case. It is also insisted that the verdict of
the jury on the issue of the extent of the loss is against the
=
wheght of the evidence, Inasmuch as this case must be submitted
to another jury it is not necessary for us to consider these
alleged grounds for reversal and we refrain from expressing our
opinion as to the weight of the evidence upon these issues.
Neither is 1% necessary for us to pass upon the alleged improper
remarks made by counsel for appellee in tie presence of the jury
during the progress of the trial or the refusal of the trial
court to sustain appellant's challenge to the array of petit
jurers.
It is also insisted that the briai court erred in permitting
Theodore Sundquist, a son of appellee, to testify that in his
opinion the a@mak actual cash vaive of the merchandise in appellee's
store on May 1, 1936 was between sixtsen and twenty thousand
dollars. His testimony disclosed taat he was working in the
Galva store and assisted his father in making up the inventories
of that date which were offered and admitted in evidence. His
testimony further disclosed that at the time of the hearing he
was employed, and had been for a year and a half, sy Sears, Roebuck
an Be
Suabas'tes tadt new aoLsooido a" Loanuoo ‘boLurievo Bad ‘suroo eld
edd ‘to eoastebaoge tg 8 vd Jou serieTed rsivolerad ahad vox tam
‘to gatblod eft tebav $duab 0 Ldenoasen B oaored Ppt - eonsbive
sebau aobdor rant botohaed eis ‘to Ieaviex an sruvod ouergue « as
t 2h Fee
Loar Tet z aadot ievooen hee ioe aki ve bevolonip “a padre ons
: gms alits s
Cae add tude sem ae <0 Lpatinnoe ys Saseiuee oie | at Ai
bas budiet dove to veLios 9S oval od “eotisqys sveotoutb: hana
ee ‘hems yoitod etd te hare od 7. weol edd sods suizsowe ne
dads Bodebert ad oz bas yahies per: to ‘euoiebvona, oad x9bau Re
bro097 edd mort Joedset elis ai inowot ib vlow kde at prone oa
2 tobbtet edd dads bedetent ons ne at yeneo rte
4
“4 WH
could taniege al sao aug to ds tn one to aueat ods 0 ent
Fe)
bed: bende od gemi oeuo alatd as dommannt “,eonebive esti to tgate
i Soar
osedt weBLasios od ag yo% \asaesoon gon ai 0 ree todos. 08
8) ie bes s? “Bt
tye pateseugae out nhsttor ow bus isaxover “sot abasorp , ,
y peooe fae gee
saouwal saedd aout sonebive od to duigtew ont ot ap soir.
# etsy as » Hus if i
meqouunt begeLLe Gilt og Bang “od exh 0% yeaserer tt ha | ‘eat
ean Boeee
b taal Te ott te sonbeong edt ik voliogus 101 Feensoo yw ebpst af
an ty OO us 28 OM
Latest ont xe Leautex edd zo teins add 10 sponsor ent pelt
i ft TG EERE eg
(ee, to verte | esta od ppute Lute etomactoane | nteveue et PrH00
e _ ait i? Cee he
_ % Sige ge ~~
mar eet ig. Magee fanaa
galt diene at bexis tuo Leixé edt sould bovelent oats ¢ eb a2 ¢
a hE FOGE CTs Ms
; eid mi cad ‘yiitued ot seeliouge to. 08 a eaLrbaars
ae 5 BS tbo abe ia
ateoL logis nk oz Lbaedion ot od to eulev eso Lnuvos ad eds 0
7 Loge las Peeps
; ‘Bripayoudt vinews Sue ‘woodxte neowtes Baw acer ae bige ie
i aad Pata OES if Om aad $54 rat
ede at gataixow ew eit dunt beaotonts, Yaomban et ali
asixodusval edt qu snide at sodas? aid hetatets bas onbe avisD
aii .eomeSive ni bevdiobs Sas bevetto etew dotiiw o¢ab tadd to | i
ef natseed add to omits oft ds Sedd besoloath coddust eatseny ,
Hwoudeok ,eise? yc , tie s bas taey s Tot ased Bed bus ,Seyolque ese
and Company in Chicago in the office of the Merchandise Superin-
tendent of that company and that his daily work had to do with
watching the prices and price changes of furniture, rugs and all
lines of merchendise. Ue testified that before going to Chicago
he worked as = salesman in the Galva store for his fether about
three years, was familiar with the steck, had bandled most of it,
knew the wholesale and retail values thereof and had called off
the various items of merchandise to his father st the time his
father listed it in the inventories referred to. He was cross-=
sxamined at length by counsel for appellant and gave his opinion
of the value of certain items incuired about and was unable to
Go sc as to others, In cur opinion his testimony was competent
ana the weight to be accorded it wes a matter exclusively for
a
the jury. The trial court refused to admit in evidence certiffed
copy of the bankruptey proceedings and appraisers' report which
Giselosed the purchase of the Emery stock by Sundauist in 1922
In view of the condition of the record «at the time this offer was
made, we are inolined to think it was admissible. The other error
complained of occurred while Jd. W. Sundquist, a brother of appellee,
Was on the witness stand. He testified that a pano frame found
in the debris after the fire was a "Vose" piano. The plaintiff
ffom his sekt at counsel's table in an audible voice said:
Schiller piano“, Counsel for appellant moved the court to direct
the reportsr to insert in the reeord this occurrence whieh was
Gone, the court stating: *All right, The Court will allow that,
as the court heard it himself", Nothing further appears in the
record, Of conrse it was improper for appellee to have made this
statement. The court did everrthing which counsel for appellant
requested, All of it ceeurred in the presence of the jury and
will not cecur again,
-oiltequeé eetbnuedotel eft to esitto et at ogsofdd ak ymeqmod bas
dtiw eb ot Bad Axow vilab ald Jods, bas ynsgmos ¢add. to, deobsed
Ifs boo aguz .exwtinan 20 weagedo soley bap aeoing odd, sabdogew
ogseidd o¢ gutog sioted Jadd boititcet of ,eetboedorom to. eeakl
duode todtel eid tol stove sy{eo od} si nameslae a es bette, o8
.tt to FRon belbusd Sse goose edd cttw tat licn't, saw Bae g, gould
Tio belies hed brs lootedd aevlav (ister bos olpastogw edt, worl
eid emtt oft ds tented ald og (eethradotem, to emegt agoltey ans
-weo10 eew sh ,o¢ howreles cofvodaevat eit mt th betebs, sodtat
pointgo aiid evag bus teeileqqs tot Tesmuoo yd, dtgneL ta.. hontmexe
of eldsny sow baa dyods botimpat emest aletyeo, to anev.acit Re
tueteqnon asw vaontdaed ald notatqo a0 aT senedta pot. 88 04.0
TOT tloviesLoxe sottea 4 egw tt bebroces od ot, tdgtew od?. ‘bas
bettitteo » eousilve al shube of beavtes tauoo fateh ot oo teuh edt
flo tdw ioqet 'atesiatage Sra agatheeoor Yoterniasd ads to .neaee
eSSOL mt telspbur yd teote Trent edt to. oaatonug eft horeloe ky
aw tetio eidt ants alg ta hroeet edt to notttoneo ont to vehy ak
tome tedio ad? ,oidinaimhs asw tt wAntit ot Seat font OTR ow gohean
:oelloqcs to tedtord e7atopbawe e¥ 4% p.Listw harigsso to hae: Lateran
bavot ematt onndy 8 goed bettitnes et, «imate szendie, eat 0 ew
thitriate ed? .omaty "esoV” s sew exit eid tatte minded ead ab
ibise esiov sidtive as gi eidet at foansen te tfon aie moth
toerl5 of duwoo oft bevom tanlleaqe ret Leenvod "ens ta 16
, Baw dolsw 897017000 gist broser eft ot treet of te tnoget it
qdestd wolls [liv dao) ed? ,iats ILA" santtade, tune, uit. game
* exis mt BEBO CLs nondairy, gatdtor ."tLaparta, th Dugad. suo ott op
eae shan eved of seilegas 10% tegqoxgmt Baw. of genoe wm sbaoaets,
tuellegcs to% Leanyos doidy oatityseve BLS, txron, ost, stepmornse,
bus yruh silt 20 eonenets oft at, bewrupeo. tf to. Lk, ebeseomppay
VEINS cv eis Ar ra ss ain re FS Fy An ed | « wth ve nes DD 7.) oat LL bw ¥
dd? te sk wick oy tPrs Sopetimdt Wedhong? or oattagh /
bes anal $l ‘ alt ae Nh st # By Teeth he, boys 4 “2 ee ? ae ay ") aa Ge ; Ras: pS Es to Siegen waite
be
For the reasons indicated, the judgment appealed from will
Ty Tyry be 5 err we | ™ ty ARTs
CV US te Ns
a ae a el a ine — — een ae eR a
Si
amass Spano ie pedidoige 4 ste hagas, 9, Spa Tay
SEG walhowioma out Be woelrte ede val baer get ni 1 eeoge Fe
hte ey sansa bert, +o }O Dp abeabae. wath ot et
a | Swathi melt onsets ho “sede ‘ re 1 ei
sate Mgtovovbenranaiie “Ht 8 ane ht ‘ihe a
Cha: tained Cd Avia atti ‘ee ios poder: in oy
BAK GAM HR ko aMaihe) te by nechecatoggy. iow ne F Ath |
MEIN, ty of ) i iaieh aaah Oy vat rhc eh
opbatve rt sain. dete, Sn Sipe veg? Shaan ek eam oi
OF Diinlw baw Sos sos beyrteesige saath, bade, ea costly
ABP pond Hide takers Wea? nt mirbinhae | rtiig ay PRG ale
Re ee ee) of sit Shain va
begtiores A oowdhhee a) tlubs ¢t Sang to, Re SOE att oy “
fie Lite Poget ame hsnnpy Are Seton saris cat anit, dy |
SQL sch, tA tani OS seate gape, RA, creat a. ih Br |
ont revttias wiih? yout, mee tes eat saa we. oda aaa etl
seem ee ee ae “ ban r
tain, sient qin 4 Sigel Natadonne, APS 9 eBuies a tm EN
” 1 dete pee. oieonts “mae” 8 Nem cts 8 sha ms m rf
iplve warty as ahbern tae) aidpt Semcon,
Paarl 2h Sieg oy wow Roe LDmengh Moly, tee
pen Bobite Koh eTE Nee atae kenvoa, wh at. a te a ih
“ate ng whe, | LEbw, aN, nus ih ft r .
ORE BL eapmnyeys ‘ee in, tab hla
sdaté wep ying: at nasty ae, Wane
seemed sad cae cay Se halepenee aren vi s
i yin poh Lat
Oe re rare yt sie i wire, iyi Ait a (ye
STATE OF ILLINOIS, le
SECOND DISTRICT J I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73947) 33907
a Pe HEE ae
rie: mr wat Merrie
ified sity a | oe
Ag mn bei iid oa
y if Nel rene i vrs oe ay te. ant oN
ex
a
ae ee as
Bik ad ae Ty eo ee Piss fas ee f x
tay a aN ape
i at i i
s mene
nt Samo Bra 1010s, ah = sae
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 6th day of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty, within
and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present -— The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice
Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice
Hon, FRANKLIN R. DOV®, Justice
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk
)5 1.A.161
E. J. WELTER, Sheriff 3 0 Py tL A. .
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Cierk's Office of said
Court, in the words and figures folicwing, viz:
(TAMUOO STALISEGA ENT meta 4 1 oe )
ae pee to ye 8, oth yebeew® RG eS te boos.
Nisa
nasit rot mera pen Saued ‘ante wehae wee bid bau besiege er
tefonE tet’ tor etiezd bat to° sa teatt bonne al an ba
rd)
“ “eotsann grantiegt Tidy 2: an x0 vat nas
Sac gard out Na SIRI sagt es
.
ia 3 sonagay oo a inpeenst 008
IDISAT 306, ona i
4 s er .
SOe DA ES AT pa oe ;
oo é ee ye Bie eM it A us, “e ay ek , ay,
ion
eres:
4
* 1 »
0
= ”
He’, i
x VJ re * am
os! & 4
ie Sve fh
{
!
aN
. ‘
A
vatvt "Mt
pint uy
e $ SS pare
,
aa) Ving i
ah bec: rea
t
r bon
i Pe
GEN. NO. 9477 ’ AGENDA NO. 2
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT
FEBRUARY THRM, A.D. 1940.
a *
jg
HERMAN Re
ihertong
BESSIE L. HIRE, Cons
“HIRE,
Ze
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PEORIA,
Appellant.
HUFFMAN - J.
This is a proceeding brought by appellee to reclaim a
certificate for 50 shares of stock from appellant. The action
was brought under Sec. 7 of the Uniform Stock Transfer act
(oh. 32, seu. 416, Ill. st. 1939).
The certificate of stock was endorsed in blank by ir.
Hire. He placed it with Rogers & Company, brokers located in
the city of Peoria, Thereafter, Rogers & Company pledged the
stock with appellant as security on a loan. This loan was paid
and the stock again came into the possession of Rogers & Company.
it was thus pledged by Rogers & Company with appellant several
times, and each time redeemed by payment of the loan, until
March 23, 1938, when the stock was again pledged by the brokers
to appellant for $1250. It has not been redeemed from that loan.
Following the appointment of the conservatrix for Mr. Hire,
a letter was written to appellant bank by the attorneys for the
Tere
¥ \
Sali
g Y hy 4
S$ .OW AGwIDA ; eat TVAe .00 ED
oi Sas LEE
-BIOUTIIT TO PHUOD TTALINGIA MET ME
ToIKrera quooge
O0CL .G.A ANT YeAURETE
} |
; BGbERIyeAt,
i, ats VSZEND9 DHT. 138 mt
" obat os (MAH <5 WANS
4, 4
feenod. ,sisTR aed
——
> a
Ps e
IS { tk:
i i | stnelieqgA arty ae si Me
a - AMEE "
4 us nbs loen ot sellogae. a. tdasomd agtbeovoig 8 ak eld . ue
vy cottes efT .taslleqqs mort Aoote to adtade 02 a0 etsortserao i
B tos telenstT Aoote mrotinU eft To J .008 teban' tdguotd gw
| ; ; ARERL «t2 «LIT ,dLK +908 (SE vo), u .
06 yd ansld at bearobne eaw Asese to etaoltiires a AT i
at bedaool atsiord ,yusquod 4 exegoll déiw Jt heosig of .oxkh
eit bogbelq yasqmoD & erezoh ,tedtsetedT .sitost to tho edt i
bisq ssw asol eid? .asol s no ysiimoce es; tusiloage dtiw aoote [ H
| «¥ftsgood 2 ategoH to mofeeeneog eds o¢nt emeg atags toot ant Kis if *
ferevee dasileqqs dtiw yasqmod & Susie yd heahete eodt ns "
etexord oft-yd beghelq atsgs eaw wots odd ne stw eer a .
-asol tadd moxt bomeehet need ton aad tI .O&SLH Tot sasliec
air sm tot xtatevteanoo edd: to: ESE ORES: ay bbe to’
congervatrix, advising the bank of such appointment, and re-
questing information regarding any accounts or property of
Mr. Hire that might be in its possession. This letter was
written under date of November 20, 1937. ‘Twe days later,
appellant by letter, advised the attorneys for the conservatrix
that it had no accounts of Mr. Hire's on its books.
Yhen it was discovered by appellee that the certificate
of stock was in appellant's possession as security for a loan
to the brokefs, this petition was filed in the county court for
citation to cause appellant to appear with respect to recovery
of the property in question. (ch. 86, sec. 54, Ill. St. 1939).
The county court dismissed the petition and discharged appellants.
The conservatrix appealed to the circuit court, where the ques-
tion was resolved in favor of appellant by jury. Following re-
turn of the verdict, appellee filed motion for a new trial,
which motion was granted, and appellant brings this appeal
from the order of the circuit court granting the motion for a
new trial.
While the trial court might well have denied the motion
for a new trial, yet the case contained questions of fact as
well as law, and a trial court has a wide discretion in this
regard. He has the advantage over this court, as he hears the
witnesses testify, and for this reason, we are reluctant to
change the order of the court with respect to the granting of
the motion for a new trial.
The letter written by appellee to appellant advising
it of the conservatorship of Mr. Hire’s estate, was written
under date of November 20, 1937, which was but four days follow-
ing the appointment. The stock was placed by Mr. Hire with
-~ De
‘ee
-et bos ,¢dsemtntocqs dove to Ansd eft antatvbs ,xbtdavaounes
to yrreqotq to etmpooos yos anthrsyet noldemtotat aniteenp
eew teodteL ealdT .motazeseog ati at od defy Bon tsdt otlt .oM
,tet¢el eayeb ow? Teel .0s iedmevoll to etsh tebay nettiaw
xittevteanos ey 10% ayenuédtitsa édt beatySs ytettel yd taslleoqqs
vetood ati do ett sam to etowooos or hed tl sede
otaolttites ost tadt sofleqce yd Detevooeth asw st ned\ .. >
neol s 19% yttavewe es Hotereasog a'tasiLeqqe ot saw A00%8 to
tot dxyoo YJawoy of ut DeLET agw solsiseq aide yatoxord edt of
ytevoset od Josqeet déiw iseqqs ot taslleqys seypo of nottatto
(GEOL de .LIT Ae .008 38 .do) ,modtdeoup of ytteqoug edd. had
-Aatnelieqas beagtadoath bas soltiteq.edt beseimath gayoo ysnyoo: ont
-sesp eid stedw ,drvoo tivetio eft ot belseqqn xinteviessoo-eaT —
-ox golwollot .yiwt yd ¢aeLleqge to tovet ni bevloest eaw Hoks
.isitt wen 8 tot sottom beLtt eelleqqs {totbrev edt’ to aut
‘Iseqqs eid? egniad tuelleqqs bas ,bednetp esw noivosd déidw
8 TOT noftom oct gnttnewy goo tioorto- edd to tebie ent mot?
- 4 Lebad wea
nottem edd hetasb eved flew tipi drv00 istat edt oLte
‘es test to enotseoup bemtednoo eae eft soy ,letat won s/ 10%
eict af sotterosthS obtw s ead tivoo Lelit-s bes ,wel es Liew
eft etset ed es leeeae elds tevo essdasvis edd ees eH. .baager
ot taatoywle:x ets ew ,noaset stint tot bos ,vIlieed aoaventiw
to soitasi eft od Soeqeet diiw tayoo edt To tebto ent egnsio
fabrd went/'xo% sodtom ed?
gutetvis tualieqqs ot eelleqqs yd neddiiw rodsol ef 7
Hetsinw esw ,odstee eterti .aM To qidemssvieenoo edd To ae oh
-wollot eyab mot ted asw’ dotdw ,SeeL , OS: tedmevell 10 eteb tebay cy
i fi
aSbw ett .2M yd Decale eew soote edP vtrentatoqae: ei gat
the broker on October 6, 1937, and on that date the broker
pledged the stock with appellant as security for a loan. This
loan was shortly paid, and the stock again pledged on October
9, 1937. This loan was paid on November 29, 1937, and the
stock again pledged on March 4, 1938. This loan was paid on
March 14, 1938. The stock was pledged for the last time on
March 23, 1935. It is the position of appellee that by virtue
of the above section of the Uniform Stock Transfer act, she
has the right to reclaim the same from appellant.
Under the evidence in the case, we hesitate to reverse
the order of the trial court in granting the motion. Where
questions of fact exist, an order granting a motion for a new
trial will not be disturbed, unless it appears there was an
abuse of discretion in granting such motion. Carter v.
Geeseman, 303 Ill. App. 281, 285.
The order granting the motion for new trial is therefore
affirmed.
Order affirmed.
govond odd oteb tedd mo bas eet: is vehdatea i
gidT .as0L 2 tot yoinwooa an dimileqqy dttw neeiese
tedote0 mo begbelg aisgs doote odd bas veauhannianine see mat }
‘mo Bisq esw msof etdT .8€@L .A dora go baicoahianeianen te
no entd tasl ef% tot degbelq exw Aoova ‘ents: BERL: esinnaae
eudiiy ve tatit eelffledqs te acktleog odd at JE oeB€@L eS ; “a
ede ,to® tetanert? Aoo¢e motte odd Yo sobtooe evods edt to — i
stnsileqgs mort emes edt mas ioet onanenenenes “Wee
. stem .moktom edd gnitners at dwwoo Lata seein ‘ebt0 ol
Wet 8 TOT softom 2 guttasig sebi0 as ,ytaixe toast toa:
--° 1s aew etedd eresqqe sf eeelny ,~bodautethoed tom
-o) 9) ow te¢re0° -, noktem dove poténstp at aoktonoath :
Zod if hor ros SogQB8opLBScyaqqa te Let: 808g
sictetedt al Islas wen tot “ee edd sotto tne ot
ey ee Se ott shire
-bomrttts teb<0 | ln peers
1 Pte Spee pelt: aed ee
aie ep tw ye d6y phaint iy | |
pio” Le bee ig Sime ne
og | mae a | |
ey *
as
ret d Daw nin’ an RD «th 20) gia panei reape
Patio ‘ 3 ra wy PRRs phon we edaaver
de '
ay 3 iW ' e 3 ve oti ae pnt
i i wef) oe ¢
STATE OF ILLINOIS, }
SS.
SECOND DISTRICT I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73947) 23507
om — daonhue |
"i Da) ts mi
ae ee oe ae cet “tee an ied ma ,
Pe ee wishing oe
ay Bort ee 4, a a eae
Gia vn aia Ret Ret rs ae ay
He Se taney MON st a
we bibige Feige bik bat iaaearbooeny oie
EY gf? a near ane ‘argtinet
} ae a teibye eh: aU bei
a eee wininy aah ath
ie a meee
ian. Deaeieia sew tiswise
J age. men MAE CEI | OR roa tan 4
i Nes here pola hance Ra GOR
a i a
fl pk alco iy areca
‘ri we vee oa wi aa
Re | se) ade err
ie 4 | Aaah Ca bt eT when
BY ee AS IRE EA shi
aac
tS (ae re : aie Muga i as a ae
GR BE POT
Be el she op so
idee Ee ere
ee oe Ba 9 an a hn
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 6th dey of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty, within
and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present --— The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice
Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice
Hon, FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk 3 QO 5 L.A. 1 fa
\
Be dio WELTER, Sherift
a
S,
¢
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On Vad
the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Cierk's Office of said
Court, in the words and figures folicwing, viz:
oe SS
“THU00 STAMICS YS INT BO Maat ATA ‘/
at (eraiendon ‘to vb 490 acs yee et Wid Suvi te ena
if Per 6 frei suey’ he Bk ba ag Mae a
side iw yao? bas Derbawd, onig Sgapie ds Sno. “prod nol ie 148¥ '
razon {LI 9 atesq ort 10, soragata baoose | oe ‘tot bn
3 “ Hae bref Eh
eutteut piibiabet vaio 2 ada 20 ont on
soigayl » MANIQUH MIA otOH iia
soltaut .8V0G, Af apie AaB! ey
Fores} Moat i ourect a a
gal oA, Té 6. (Pikserig, rena gh 1 1h
‘ip
¥ 1 ‘
' a . sf i aa fdiad :
: Vaal he F ve Nera ae
ze . oe Pua ys ‘de. ee ee payee 5%
: 1% ae ee wart oy. Pie a ee Ae
; # y , ve ve (eats a ef TA
oe fe SS hit 2 4 fy Nk SWE $8 Ot a
be Fs ? ie ON Sa aS ear ee
” ei hy .
eS — mer
yrd- naa saws:
bisa to seit eect sift a Lough ace td edt
GEN. NO.9451 AGENDA NO. 3
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT
poration, et al.,
WILLIAM KELTZ, Jr., a Uinor, by }
William Keltz.:-ht | \
nn \
‘ w a]
Z Es
) | %
of the Wabash Railw. j a
;
ROBERT KELTZ, a minor, by William
Keltz, his next friend, ,
Appellee,
Vie
APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT
FRANK C. NICODEMUS, Jr., as Receiver WILL COUNTY.
of the Wabash Railway Company, a Cor-
poration, et al.,
Appellants,
WILLIAM KELTZ,
Appellee,
VS.
FRANK C. NICODEMUS, Jr. as Receiver
of the Wabash Railway Company, a Cor-
poration, et al.
re ee er i ee ee et ee et ee ee ee ee eee ee
Appellants.
res meter ne a es te re et rn rr ne en me re a ee
a a
HUFFMAN = J.
William Keltz, Jr., and Robert Keltz, minors, instituted
their suits by their father William Keltz, as next friend, to
‘normrerc amore
OAC .C.A MART YRAUREE
OO ee ee
2009 TIUOEIO MOST! AREA
.YRMOOO LItw * 1 sevtooes i
200 a e
‘
{
ne woken any | CEE
i ayvieoet se |
aay
recever for personal injuries sustained in a collision between
an automobile which they were operating, and one of appellants’
trains. The fether, William Keltz, brought his suit against
appellants to recover for loss of services of his sons and for
damages to his automobile, which was involved in the accident.
The three cases were consolidated for trial. Verdicts were
returned in favor of each of the plaintiffs, and this apoeal
follows from tudgments rendered theroon,
The suits were brought against 2p]
Ney
eS
©
baad
‘
o)
; {
et
w
@
ta
ng
@
re.)
@
pee
<
@
My
m
of the railway company and John A. Filbert, the engineer of
the train involved in the accident. The complaints charged
that the defendant receivers, through their servant, defendant
Filbert, operated the train in a negligent manner by failing
to give any warning of its approach to the crossing in question,
as reauired by statute. The jury returned a verdict in each
case, finding the defendant engineer not guilty, which removes
from present consideration the question of the negligent opera-
tion of the train.
The complaints further charged appellants with failure to
install sautomatic signal devides at the crossing; alleged that
the crossing was a hazardous one; that appellants did not have
the crcssing properly marked with sigh posts te warn persons
that it was a railroad crossing; that the planking used at the
Grossing was not proper and did not comply with the erfective
orders of the Illinois Commerce Commission; and that the view
north along the right-of-way, was obstructed.
Thé railway track ran north and south. The road being
travelled by appellees ran 6ast and west. Appellees were ap-
proaching the railroad crossing from the west. About two
hundred fifty feet north of the crossing, the tracks of the
~2=
Ue Tok Dent Maks ti,
oa by i
Ve ve
i‘ 4 &
, senses notett too a att benistam sotwtat Aenowreq sata coved
guctegs tive nhl hanes anal mabiene vnoitdst od? ebealen #
oh Tot bas esoe sid’ to seotvise to esol sot map ret ot “a 4
.dnebkoos eas xt bovlovat eaw lo chee eLtdomodus etd of asnoni’ we
etow ats tbde¥ Laintt eet betabt Loacco oTew e089 sould, im A h
Ieongs eldd bus ,2ttivetetq edt to dose te wove KE belt ger
| -nootost botebaet atnomebut mort ewoston ih
Cay atevioves Be ) sina Llegre tentags Shaan crow tue ome re A
ih Yo teense ont trod 2%, é autak, tes yrngioo, cewLiat edt to
t bogtasio atatsLqroo oat? .inebLoos ole x bevfovit akon ett
: tasbreres «taoviee thedt dyvouls cerorleoes burete od Foeis- yt}
‘ ae aoe
i Sey
patitet yd tennsa dnegifyen & ut ntett ‘ett hotereqe ‘1 i
e1otteesp af asiasorze eit of dosongas. atk to actotew yes arta ot
apse mi. tolbuev s bentwwter yw oat votutada xe dortuoe: ae
—— govomen dotite .~tlten ton t09atgae tashnotes et Bethan, x ) ;
' -“BTOCO. toagilgen ode to woitaoup Pred fHottemeB reno, : ott
a | Lote, i é, det edt to ‘ af yan
* , a Seen apoineaplegipaalaliaalieicn! 1) MRM eee
oF. owits? ‘dehy etna Ltogge bepttadte ator agatoLamos ~t
| evisoette ents athe ‘elanton sé bbb tee xegotg ied aw a
shins ons sek Seca gy
wel oud todd ‘bas jo featimod eoreaod stontLit
anhed. peor ‘eat “gues bas 2 dazon net pay yu t
aR: otew avelieqgh faew bus tooo a6 asotlegs
ows duodA teow ont or aataaor Saotlhax eat
exit to eteosit edd ‘sniebows ode to. sdnom vost
Michigan Central cross over the tracks of appellant, by an
overhead erossing, which is referred to in this case as the
viaduct. Appellees urge that due to obstructicns to the view
between the crossing and the viaduct, and due to weeds and
vegetation which appellants had permitted to grow up along its
right-of-way, their view was so obtstructed that they could not
sse the approaching train.
The question of warning signals, with respect to the
crossing itself, is not controlling, as the evidence of appel-~
lees disclose that they were familiar with this crossing and
upon their approach to it on the day in question, brougnt the
automobile to a full stop about eight feet from the track, and
looked in both directions to see if a train was approaching,
before proceeding further. The question with respect to the
planking upon the crossing, is not a controlling feature, ag
it had nothing tc do with the accident. It appears from the
record, that the only cuestion of negligence which could be
attributed to the railway company, would be the growth of
weeds and vegetation that appellees allege were permitted to
grow and accumulate on the west sids of the track and to the
north of the highway, thus obstructing the view between the
crossing and the approach of appellants’ train from the north.
Appellees Willian, Jr., and Robert Keltz, were living
with their parents on a farm somewhere in the vicinity of this
railwoed crossing. The accident happened on Sunday, July id,
1935, at about five-thirty in the afternoon. It was a bright,
clear day. The two boys left home in their father's car at
about two o'clock that afternoon. They met two young ladies
with whom they spent the afternoon at various parks and pleas-
ure resorts. Part of the time they were accompanied by Robert
ee
, “Ik yee
Me Ray i) WV aLARe Ae
| |
4
hy | | .
ash | ant At th iene en,
" ‘wel ead od eso tonztado of out seats vane eel leach -toubatv—
' apaghe? oe? . ape: aa i
ot baw eabkeow ot oud bas towbar od bas atteeoro elt foowted © Ly i
won But: Fa a. f
a
aay adt anos cay wor og beds beveg bad edna.teags sto Este noltstegev —
An # 4g nt ire
». ton Biss veda gett besoirsdedo 08 BBW wey sheds “ews tontitghs
i : fishy oY evHty wpe, o ‘eu
a sntasd _gadeconags oat wy
TA P, Voyran a sential : '
odd of soeqnet usttw celia pittniaw tt "pms Py. ee f i
| crete tag want ae fe
F «leqqe ‘to eonebive edd aa “al Llortaoe an - stress antanoto Mh
nd Se tee, Bae ie Pers
\: bas anteaor ated ddiw xeitiust o1ew yeild watt enoleats oe
eats he.
} ent stiguond «ao babar at yob edt Ho tt ot ‘Aosomags . edt 10 ‘
7
VOUS i
bas ptoztt ad mott door slate ‘dwode qoda tev 58 ot
' yee eer ks nite cori a a
anbdosotays aww ahead a ce eon ot anohioettb dated at Bexool _
; . ‘Aa Seton Oe.
edt ot toeqaet dtw motte: oup oat ee hesoord
' SC ee siti
i ae oust at gal Llortaoo 5 dom at ‘pitteaoro: a gecboli
ae yeh ue eee
7. edd moet aiRe qe y dil seaakiben eds at bw React oF # sutitvon bs
; OST won malaw oauepitgoa to notteoup <hune ‘oda dade,
to toworry ‘edd od SIvow 1 Tagnios Voutina e odd ee be ;
bak
ot bodstorsog oLew egolis acelfegua tadt mobtetepe
elit of bab. ‘werd oat try ebis jeow ‘edd 0 otal
Oak ebaded wely oie aattoustade iat nine re
tated" edt mort alot ‘ada ltongs to. tlosorqes: od get seg et >
‘patvis ‘oxow ,sd foi dxedon baz mt saw et ‘pooitecga
afas to ‘Wiktoty’ add ak ‘stodwosios mist 2 2 ‘no eéneng mh i
| ; eth ansoy “ow fou ett “aositadtn dnd ool
iW ~8a8.Lq ‘bas etteq dio tis ds. ‘noomedte baa” or
% + Bi ; pias:
| dxedoft’ Ve ‘Botuaqaoson Sie veda tS ie end ¢ pg
etd t® ¢ pty ha 4: 4 “id: | ie FS oe eet Mi bs fo sie A
$i eo ey . ORR Ay E, rea wea 7
q A i ; rs At | |
win . , } me 4 ‘ q : th ho
i Pay 0! ae fe we a ae
u
and Charles Tracy. Toward evening, the party of six left
mM
Michigan Beach and appellees took the Tracy boys home, where-
upon they started toward their home with the two girls. The
road over which they were travelling just prior to the acei-~
dent, is a rather unimproved country road, rough from ruts
and holes. "They were approaching the crossing in question
from the west. The west end of this country road had been
gravelled at one time. The gravel ends shortly to the east
of the crossing in question, and from there on, the road is
an unimproved dirt road, The photographs show that the travel-
led portion of this hishway is wheat is comuonly called 4 ons
track highway. The road is referred to by the witnesses as
the Steele Rosd and is about a mile south of New Lenox.
Qn
Robert Keltz received a head injury and does not remen-
v
Jer,
ber anything about the accident. William, Jr., states that
Robert was driving the car at the time and that he was sitting
in the front seat to Robert's right. He further states
that as they approeched this crossing, the car was brought to
a full stop about eight feet west of the track; that he and
his brother Robert looked north and scuth to see if there were
any trains approaching, and if the way was clear. He states
they saw no train approaching, and that his brother stabted
the car forward to cross the track; that when they were about
to go upon the west rail, he saw the train for the first time;
that it was right in front of them; and that he grabbed the
steering wheel and turned the car to the right, which would be
to the south and in the direction the train was travelling. The
front end of the automobile was struck by some portion of the
engine. The car was thrown over in the diteh to the south of
the highway and on the west side of the railroad right-of-way.
wihicr
-9teiw ,emaod eyod your? ont aoost agotlegqs bas foset
J emt .elnig owt edt ddty emo “ttodt ‘baowod detrsse ade n 4
1 ee a ay,
te --fgeoe ond of zolncg veut, gntilevart: -otew todd tio tei ‘revo } ny
My adsrt moxt dgner ,heor Yxsawoo bevotgmtas ont 8 a ab a :
solteem at antaaoro end saidenorqas ortaw rod? -eefod fas
ba
need Sard Soo yutavoo eins Ta bute daew od” -taew oii ay
a tase oft ot ylttoda sine Levexg eff vomit eito ts beLtovers i:
¥
br
Y
: ak feat aft. 0 ereddt mont bas nobfeauy at asteacte a 30 ”
| ~Llevams end tect woda adqetaotong alt beor ‘tabs ihe nr paca .
fy emo 2 beLIoo y fromm 9 al dadw at wan att to noktiog Sak i
; | ee esseoentiw eft yd of batie‘tet at beot ont _s Vomit som eu ia
i -xonol well to udvon oft s trode at ane boot af ee oe / i
{ shtomet Tom aeob has euutant boast “ hovtecer Boo ee A xi
i rere ¢ i ‘i
r tadt eotete ant LLL EF +tnobtoon as to ats. a
nh Rai. a, a, i
gitttie asaw ost deit bre ented edt ta a0 ont sutvixd acw . 7
setate teddwt. off tigi . e*tuedor, ot teen snort wie
es o¢ daqword asw tz0 edt ,smtasoto ets bedonoraqs wR me
«4 etew exedt PTs eea of. dtvoR bas dét0n boot dros aodvoud Porm if
; eetete oF ts6Le- asx yew edt TE ban autdosoraqe mice,
| hettste t6oddomd eid jade bos :omidonorqas stats } ont wae ag
ferdp. stew yedd. ses: gaah 7fosts ont aac Lh
A eal i ;
browiot mm ce
a aoe if ae
1 ite
ont beddass, ed tad Ses: polly to pir nt tiene ‘ew ta .
ad BLyow doLste - Sighs ons ot tE9 aud, be a ae. feoaw v4
edt rpakiiovass enw aberd ext seheeente eae at bap | “7
The evidence shows that the highway is about two feet
higher than the ground along the north side thereof. This
faet is borne out by the photosrarhs in evidence as introduced
by appellees. The photographs do not indicate that the grass
and vegetation wes such as to obstruct the view of the rail-~
road track cr to obstruct the view of approaching trains.
PP
@
William, Jr., states thet the car was stopped about fifteen
or twenty seconds while he end his brother Robert locked up
and down appellants’ track to see if a train was approaching.
According to his evidence, he never saw the train, nor heard
it, until it was right in front of them, and when they were
so close to the track that the front end of the car was struck
by the train. This was a railroad crossing on a country road,
out in the open country. There appears to have been no other
traffic on the highway at that time, and no noise or confusion
to prevent one from hearing an approachin
that the car was brought to a full stop close to the track,
is corroborated by his witness Bobbitt, who lives by the cross-
ing. He states that he saw the car pass his house approaching
the crossing; that he knew the car and knew the boys; that he
had seen them drive along this road and over this crossing at
previous times, He states that the car was brought to a full
stop before reaching the treck; thet it was then started for-
ward and was creeping along at about one mile an hour as it
approached the track; that he watched the car during the entige
time and saw it operated up to the crossing, saw the train
coming, and saw the accident. This witness says that the front
end of the car collided with the engine, throwing the rear end
of the car around to the north and in contact with the baggage
coach, whereupon the car was knocked into the ditch on the south
side of the highway and on the west side of the track.
ers
‘@tdt .toeredds shia diaom edt aqnels, basota. per age '
heopbortset es oorebive at edeetaotodq: eit yd suo. enxod, eb test,
eests edt tadd etaotbal tan ob. edgetyo¢edq, efT peti ‘
~[het oft to weby od¢ domtedo of ae-soun es, selsagepey Leegll
saletd gatdosonggs. to watv odd torxtado, ot, 0 gerd |
i
Soe
mit
; = dir besiool suodof nedtoud ahd bow ost oLtstw. shail: wn 38, a
A pokdosorqq¢s Bew niets BTL acm of glopud ah seesrys yee a
' beot YediOO so gnissorw AxsotLiet...esw wh: saat te ’ i
. aolaptnos to sation on bie yomtt dade de whale
re. eotiehivs ath .oleais yautdosorqes at guitsed ott emo, tae |
Best? lostd edd of eeolo gots List » ot. tinned (Sem tao. sid 3
~ea079 of yd aevil odw ,driddod susad iv. ald yo beds og ;
otf teat exods edd word bas 120. edd. wea. iad yp st iestasose
ce renee apele uevo: bas beot eldg. a dinn evisb. mort, aad
° Mick bedtate godt sew th) teed pener edt pa aay
‘df 8s cvod os olin enn decd ta gootn, antgesto, osm,
saidne oft gutuvb to sit berodaw od dadd plserd. ont, &
nieit edd wae yputesoro:. odd od. id nictianeiern oh we
The engineer of the train testified that he saw the car
approaching the crossing; that the bell was ringing and the
whistle was being blown; that upon observing the fact the car
s
did not stop, he Had applied the emergency brakes before he
reached the crossing, Ne says that one of the front wheeis
A
of the car eame in contact with the side of the engine. A
yn
nuuber of witnesses testified for appellant that the whistle
was sounded at s point north of the overhead creasing of the
that the bell rings by an sutomatic device and was started
ringing and the whistle blown at the whistling post north of
the Michigan Central Crossing, and was so continued until after
the accident. The jury found that the engineer was not nesli-
gent in failing to sound proper warning.
One of the young ladies who was riding with appellees at
the time of the accident, states that she was riding in the
back seat of the car with Robert Keltz, and that William, dr.,
was in the front seat driving the car, with the other young
lady at his side.
It is difficult to reconcile the physical facts existing
in this case with the exercise of due care and caution on the
part of appellees, They were in the operation of an automobile
upon a road with which they were familiar; the automobile was
brought to a fuhl stop within eight feet of a railroad track,
at a highway crossing out in the open country, away from the
noise an¢ confusion that prevails in and about switch yards
and congested areas of the city; they looked both north and
south along the track for approaching trains; the automobile
bu
wee end wan ed dads holtitees ntet? ont to teentene SAT
eid bug nbbetie asw Llad odd tacit yoatavoeto ott aitdssondege
{00 edt toet odd gabvadado nage taut 'peiwolkd unted haw 6ctatdw
ef qucled eoierd yYomoguane odd Debidee bad od* |qeda sor MES
_aleode daovt edd to ono sede yee ot! igttaadre ‘od Benesen
oxigas edt te obte ort uisdw, sed0d nf oie teal Be
oLiakiw odd tadd duatloqe ter Seltitned eéadeariw 6 Yedeum
edt ko gutuaoto bseitrevo.ort Yo cttod datog # Se bebaien ea
dk Lhtay bebasos wd od Bemmttons. iw Sad Wattasd Rsbtde te
eens os Yo.acsebive oals et ered? .wdteadrd ode Heddser
_bettate ssw bas esiveb oltsmosin aa ed darth ffed ent sont
: — dao anticehdw ent te ewold efdalitw ‘pott boo gectsa he
rodte: Lita benctin0s op eow ban <gubseorO’ Lavined” ret ttole oi
-iiges toniesw tesrigne eis sede bavot: Pir ent Jtdobtobe ont
LOW poe ty alae on, imbenaw! ogee bares ov unbttnt ak Sey
de seollogca diiw snibic wawode sekbet savee eft 1s snp
edi ai pakbit srw on tacit aoteca’ dneptoos’ ete tb binky’ Bad
exh: Bh DLE odedd bein . at hen dcedoo dtiw roo’ oct 26 “988d tobe
-guvoy sedio esd uddie yuo edd pangs) gsoe ¢rott edt ‘eh Wa
£ Pin nara Nb Be rei
hide egos rr odd oLlonodet ot dtvoltres az er” 1"
at? m9 sotdues fas e180 oh to eaforexs aft fd bY sane ware
elidomodus a2 20 nohteregs edd ut eow yor? Vesdthodae Yo: ose |
ay eLidomgss edt prekiteet orew yedt so tsw itvity Béow si aige
Beart Bsowliay sto. dee? digte abd te Gite” tists of tinond
edd mort Yaws .Videtroo meqo eAs i to gicktuore ents aS
sbuey dodiwe, dvode bas nt elhevery ode) detnettr |
| bus doco sited Beilool yadd’ pytts wild Yo sass rib ie
eLidomodins ‘etm: penton’ Lerainiog: Pegaibys tyanoreind whew” ‘
hogar 3 ip a, KEG TAT ANG: NRMP
het att eo duke Canmstolinll soa hee GRae
was then put in gear and driven forward at about one mile per
hour, to @ point close enouga to the west rail of the track to
be struck by the engine. Accidents of this nature are indeed
resrettable, but sympathy caanot be permitted to replace that
degree of care with which every person is chargeable under the
law, to observe for his own safety.
One approaching a railroad crossing, shouid do so with a
degree of care commensurate with the known danger, This rule
of law is so well established, that the citation of authority
is unneeessary. It requires that persons approaching a rail-
road crossing, mist make a reasonable use of their faculties
in order to determine the existing conditions, and whether a
train is approachineg close enough to render their going upon
the track dangerous. The anpolication of this ruis does not
mean that the train must then be across the hichway, or immne-
distely upon the highway. Neither will the arplication of
the rule permit one to so reeklessly upon the track without
taking proper precaution to avoid accident, or to claim that
he looked to see if ¢ train was approaching and did not see it,
when in fact the trein was there, as it is apparent from the
evidences in this case this train must have been.
The record has been carefully reviewed. ‘The court does
not find evidence coing to establish negligence on the part
of appellants with respect to the conditions surrounding the
crossing in cuestion which appellees claim caused them to be
unable to see the approaching train.
Yhe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
AM ty }
see elim exo dnode ts Saewrot sevinS base teen nt tq sodz a
o¢ Hosts and Yo fist teew env oF dxrome oeolo datog a ot ytwod ey
heebat ets ersdan etdd to ateeblooA .enmtgae edt ye olowtte ed ¥
dels eselger oF bedtlureq of gonnso yasequys sed yoldetterget
sit robay eldsegtsrio et noeroq yrove dotdw dtiw ons to semgeb
yyetee awe ets rot evreede of (tel
s itiw oe ob bived& ,smtepore bsotftat » nutdosexaqe em...
els zidT .tegnab worl ot iitiw edetvenermoo eran to esiyeb— "
ydixerdtue to mottetio eid sare .betlehidetee Llow og ab whit |
-list s aninorsorgya enoatesa get eextupert co cero ss
aelvivest leds Yo eax eldancener 9 exam germ guleaon® badt %
8 terterw ue yecotsibros vaitaixe edt emtmredeb ot sero mh nA
noqy gatos aiene teboet ot Sperone erolo pabserovegs et nten
gon eeob Slur elds to aolvestiqus ed? \.eworenmad Hoss? odd i
-omnit to ,yswinid sid seotos ed nedd senm about eff tad aon
to sotisotieae oid Iftw-redtten sqewdatdt edd now yloteth Q
tvodtiw dears orit a diliet ta ith es, on oF patents i
4
hie
> oa
edd antbavoriim enotétinos end: ot Pooqnon Attw. woo poke
ed OF ict) Baaves mhsfe eel Leggs! Ho tiw mobteoup at 3
hwy ieanaensivasyr vicars
lt 4
ic | sebanwes bas Densoves
dele, Ker TES ‘¢ vy ye ue
i ’ 4 Tr
ve Ae u
STATE OF Bare 2
SS.
SECOND DISTRICT I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
____________in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73947) B97
ve}
an ri : Pe Sem Om et oh Oe or Hen si
oF NE ihe ee Di ae agar dapiein reani eel i
bie’ ove eon Se ase OD bite a" Goagenread ie
hat! wou litaw Ora ed on. ee awn Cae
ee ian rue tee @'4 per Baye werent dhe ae al |
ee i a
PtY Chg 2 EOP UN in ig ue ea 1) Aa
a” he eal ‘Mim. jure Ad: tame il ee era ae .
ms, cae Dad ae BA bd 4 P a « add i LAVOE ae feasts
a abet wy be npleety Wish” Geely Lpow Bens fs Seals
jay. ¥ i
Pt Wakely tor nly . sae er ee ad eto + aaaiee
‘aj erated Ws se PP Repay inert at sett: suena 88% 16
Sha: akee "ete reahades Nihil siete eit
BS NR heh he SRG 5 i +e dash f
wecr * VCO ES We op bem ie we, aed ate
Ye dua) Depo Pie aaron ely nism Raed ott
‘ Weduers
Faas mae ca) ose
4) Suis LS ey Rap iy yy nahi vis |
age res ate senshi shoe Se
ne +n) ir ee ay
bf mye pASrnk na it oo 3 ee icy te ed ranean
>
) i : ‘ a% ie ro m a0 pes Maa Ee ary. ii mes 7 ai
OY. Sint haere satay ony wens
: bas ai Jn ea os OHO |
‘dered ob total lA bes a 708
fhe apis ovads ait st pe
ay eh
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 6th dey of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty, within
and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present —-— The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice
Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOV®, Justice
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk
E. J, WELTER, Sheriff
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Cierk's Office of said
Court, in the words and figures following, viz:
cs vcraTdst to yeb ate add yasoeut no {eieaiso he |
tubs tw
eile re
i joint by
bles
*
495 AT E08
MIO) STALISERA, BHT 20 1 ae ,
a y
cht Be
eynrot: ae Sokdiansapereh cate banawodd, ‘eno piod ‘0 es
ake
‘rozonbesl Yo, atare oad 20, Jia Lena
Us
Zz
ie":
“wokteut Batbioent awtuov ib cain aairs snait ‘ont 2 8
a nah niga aKa eg
to poutio! oricodie arnt — 4 .
dy a v te
: Paty anette oby
hos Pe ie ran
tt pin She fe Re te Wa ote R
} USO a ee ‘ein See \e
he
, + wy? . ¥ “3
2
. m
£ (matty hy ha i
a er Me tes fei ope
aay ig af et in
P n vis i «
: i kad A iad
~~ + Tt ‘i i PA areLS wii
I tae ye ioe et) es i Ae slat
; ; a
PED Wah by eed Ra ee aN AR a pall eel se
F : ; ] Hr titebal hy “ ae
‘ iy a 3 be eh .
a
‘é
vi DMs
GEN. NO. 9519 AGENDA NO. 12
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOLS
JISTRICT
ERM, AD. 19
APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT
LIVINGSTON COUNTY.
Appellant.
HUFFMAN - J.
This case comes to this court on appeal from an order
of the circuit court of Livingston County denying a motion to
vacate a judgment entered by confession in said court. On
March 30, 1938, appellee caused judgment by confession to be
entered against appellant upon two notes, one of which was
dated February 18, 1928, and the other dated February 21,
1928. These notes were signed by four makers, namely, Todd
V. Richards, Charlotte H, Richards, J. D. Richards and
appellant. At the time the judgment was taken against appell-
ant, Todd V. Richards and J. D. Richards were dead. Appellant
filed his motion to vacate the judgment against him on the
ground that the warrant of attorney in the notes was joint
only, and not joint and several, and that thereby judgment
by confession against him could not be had.
The notes were given on a form used by the Farmers State
Savings Bank of Cornell, Illinois, and are identical in form.
‘-
Sf .Ou AGMMDA f Dee ai i i WR ee
PRLOULLIT CO THUD HTALUITIA SET we tt Re q
moInTela quooga hits Fate hate
Mel «GA eu mar YSLAD HE'S ; ipa ee fe ) |
! | ' sade 4
\) Oe
| t ermthegak 5 a
Pre TEvONTD Mone Jamatea y be we Ae
sYTHUOD MOTeMMIVLI . Mad
; | ‘ge ar & wy a
cy Ot) ae
etosiledqA - ant: ‘i
gtebro 8 mort Ineuqe mo dtyoo abit ot Bemoo S880 etd ie
ot soitom 6 gatyseb ytntroo motasatvbl to tuo niona ose , ray
nO ,tosoo htse at notaactaes yd betedne smenegbust s edsosy i
ed ot motsestnoo yd ‘tnemebst boenso eollegqs ,8€CL (ok donsit ie
Baw dotdw to emo .aodom owt noqy sasileqgs ‘tenisas herotie + a
bi
“(£8 ytawridél Boteb xedde eft bas ,BSOL ,8L yYremide'l beted —
‘pho? ,vlemen ,etedlen twot id beastie erew soton svedT port
‘Bae Gbtsioti .d .% ,¢buedota .f otto Lassi ebassto bi ieee Ne
-[feqas tenteys nedst new dnomabut odt emit edt tA din ds
tnelieqqh Beeb otew wbuaieif .d .% bas ebsedoth .v BboT ,
edd mo mtd seatese tnembbst odd eteosv od ‘nn lite al |
datot asw eotou edt at yontotts to tnatiew odd dade
Da isnehd yderent dads bits _lateves bas Satot ton Bi
| ae .bed of Son binvoombd seutegs soles
etase etromrst odd YW bear stco% ‘8 10 nevia. orew ea our
“ yorrot ak feottnebt ets bre de onnauy vee to 2
The warrant of attorney therein contained, is as follows:
"And in consideration of the above indebtedness and as further
security for the same, I hereby irrevocably nominate, appoint
and make any attorney at law in the State of Illinois or any
other state or territory of the United States, my true and
lawful attorney, to appear for me in any court of record in
the State of Illinois or in any state or territory of the
United States either in term time or in vacation, at any time
after the date hereof, and to waive service of process, and
to confess a judgment on this note in favor of the payee or
any assignee thereof for such sum as shall at such time appear
to be unpaid thereon, including attorney's fees as provided
for above and herein authorized to be confessed, together with
the costs of suit to be taxed;***," Wo dispute exists with
reference to the facts in this case and the only question to
be determined is, whether the warrant of attorney is joint,
or joint and several. A joint power of attorney does not
authorize a judgment against only one of the makers.
& note containing power of attorney very similar to the
above was before this court in the case of Duggan v. Kupitz,
301 Ill. App. 230, wherein the power of attorney was held to
be joint. The position of this court in that case was supvort-
ed by the authority there cited. The warrant of attorney
under consideration herein, in substance and effect, is the
same as the one appearing there; the difference being, that
the warrant in this case is more extended in form. The power
to confess a judgment must be clearly given and strictly pur-
sued and a departmre from the authority conferred will render
a confession of judsment void. A warrant of attorney which is
joint does not authorize a several judgment, but must be
a
Kee fi
rawolfot as et ,bentedacs atetedé ‘cemsetin to newtew oa
teddiwt es bas seenbetdebat evods oat. _to motteredienoo. at baa
datogqas ‘otenimes Vidsecoverrt ydevert I ,omse ent tot “Wiwro9e
Yas to adeatsct to efst® edt sth wel ts Yeutoves Votes enlant bas
bus extd ym 2edese hetinv ost to qrodinres 0 etete tedto
at brooet to txuo9 yas ot em 102 iseqqs a gtearodss Loftwad
eit ze yrotiziet 10 edad va) ai to etomblit to etssa dg
onit yas te solteasy at to emt mrod mt nosis te aossd& bodtad
Sas ,Rascoig to coivies oview-of bas (rooted etab ait Totts
to soysq ed Yo tovet at ed¢oa etat no tnemphrt s aeetnoe ot
asoqgqs emit dem te Liede as mue dove tot toeneds eonyiaas Vag
bebivoiq es 8987 a 'yentotys galbutont footed? bieqny 2
dtiw sedtegod ,beeaetnoo ed o¢ besfioddve ateted bap evods sot
ittw atatxe edugelbh ol ".***;bexat ed o¢ tim to adaoo edd
oc moiveepp ylno edd bas ease etdt ot etost ett ot epnetstet
.Satof al qeatotis to Jaswiaw edt tedtemw ,el hontmeteb of
Jon se0b Yonx0sts Io row gatol A .tavever bus stl, x0
. s8texsm odd To eso yino Jantegs dnemebyl s eatzodtue
eit of relimte ysey yentotte te tewoq antatednoe edom A...)
:Stiqua .v osagud To ease edd af davoo eidd etoled asw eveds
oF biel saw youtotis To tewog og cietetw ,O€S-.qgA .Lit LOg
-troqque esw ease ¢edé at doo aidt to gotttaog eT »tatol od
Youtotss to tuetisw osT .bette exedd ytizodtue edd vd) De
edd at ,Joetie bug eonetadue nt ,atered aotterebiesos sebau
i hi
tend ,»suled soneiettth edd ;eredt gattseqae ene edd.es emeg yi
towog ecT .aT0 af Debuedxe oxcm ef ose eldd at tnewxew ort
eu
~auq Yitoisde bas neylg Yisselo ed taum tnomphut s Saye of u
rebast Litw berietaoo yilsodive oft mort ermtzaged s held aie,
al dotdy venuetis. 10 iastisw A. .bloy taomgbi, to sotese?
ed damm dud ,toomubut Lstevea 2 estroditus fom Boob
sailor
executed by a joint confession against all the signers of the
note. Keen v. Bump, 286 Ill. 11, 14.
It is our conclusion that the warrant of attorney con-
tained in the notes in this case is joint, and the joint obli-
gation of the signers of the notes, and that the judgment
agaihst appellant by confession is void. The judgment herein
is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to vacate
the judgment by confession taken against appellant herein.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
atengla tesivgas slavetaoo tniol a °
- 5 ee grad 7 ey, B resrr Tetras ia ee
oAl . oH :
paar Tye 4 Lath eee aa a eh Re SRS wea * A ce ,
~190 yontodts 4 . oat
IMIG sal CRN RR NL poe yn YP»
ie 4} ot
“1160 sy nes asd ot, <f rah a aw AS, PE mn
ie Same ee ioe Pap! ised
blov « 2 nodess?a00 Yd al
, . I Fr od | no K<): Woes ys hale
Sekw | |
* ae
ej
sevenbmeemnlbnes cowie conh seit eet
“py seuny od So ceeet nh ween abe ae oogaet eet ot
webu old doe Ja Iiode as aoe dupe well Reeveds eoagions vo:
bebivorg 45 Soot ei yerTadis prthelen’ eemundd eae ae
dsiv xedvened deenetace ad of doptapdee elesed, Sap o¥ede met
athe Ctpite ptayehd of "Ss heees ad Om, pia, y woos ode
oF Agkivoue ylan sai, Sms. anime pubtihuad wreak, pte Op ns5e tas
FEO. oh yopnatts, te Camm ot Seay Re, toalansegady nyt
fue, (20% xeusedso. to saevog a a ii ohh. a
MEE off Sh ete gia Yarsane. ‘paerebeh, 2 eabyadone
oft ag caf kaise (ioe yep gis te mereg, getmle Mod ali dy 4 ie
ALUN gene’ Fo EDO Ont mh. Meee eSdd, onsite sew oRmael
Ad bled sam yomesvs To weg mht abe cede OER Gb At, LOR
“SSRN Ko gan, Sade at dquos, gtd > oo btieag ont stator, on
conmotdn le Ines ott. .Beale exes weieedtyp a ee
os at, .JoeTts dpe eonatagen a0. there eoltetehtemes mame
told, «ithe! GOONS TEAR. ad) pene?! ;almeRme ete pad NM Atal
FRO H YA fale Piast 8A ei Aajeptke OCW, ok. Be apatet) | Md, Sew,
“te Vidobote fine aiata visa owt FORR trum bit, 2) neon if
a Likw dusty tan ya tres sem, male ester aE, fee Dowd
doltu conagitty. 10, QaaeREM 4. bot Seautet fe Hakaaiie|
ec tava dod ,¢mempioe, Sereven « ealenddue tom seed Mibag) |)
ine ae
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SS.
SECOND DISTRICT ‘
I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this. z day of
—in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
13947) e307
bee ot dTHeD afallonpA ori Ww aol HORMEL, al ayrent 4
‘Toon ob tosyodt lao4 Soe frond ail} to noqard adi ago on ME to
a ORURD boliitan aod Gift 11 FusO:) MBs hive vd ae: ange ait 40 hs as P y
gees us yy me Pex CR TEL Ep
. ; ‘ ioe: eR aE iF Se
REPEL Gti ky
;
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuescay, the 6th day of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty, within
and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present -— The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice
Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOV®, Justice
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk 3 0 5 (a 1 6 3
E. J. WELTER, Sheriff
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Cierk!'s Office of said
Court,
in the words and figures follcewing, viz:
(THOS BtALIOIGA ar 0 Mast A *
st eotsirtset Yo Usb ato ie a eens out 0 pineaere. ta
saisit Ew yet Aas bershoust ened, banpyo ds para pied ree to
SGL00EEST To ota? sit to totavald Sodas 0,
%
eoltevt ‘getthireant aauow Db cunt non eer alk
| ie ACR) toch RE irae AA sodtact peau stata ‘deat
. hi | a esibouk: wor ‘%, ita: ‘nom a
e5 t B. Jj 60 gS \ wrato enonmbt ar nen |
ora e Heat! on fiw us
(ase IN ' hala!)
at
4 ;
t ‘ f R
‘ { a ‘i
> £ os
cam ie Ae
n F
ashe)
i, Lay
aM
.
fs f
a
\ y ~ >
is eo +! “ ‘
» 4 . i
" * om ie
Sos SSE nee see es Sar SUR See ai sere sp’ Me -ne. brs aleenenaai
4 x a Nate out er Pi « - ee iv wi Ln Car A
Fs
ae mi te 8 ®, x r .c +
Pot eat Ug £8, Htlwot: “eobeownes te sais
tae 20 ) 904920 ae oie at toch eae beep
eb
j , ory ha. ik
aa ey os
x, “ Pte
CE. HO, 9528 AGENDA HO, 18
OR AA OO LORI
[oA ERR mR ONL
IN THE APPELLATE GOURT OF TLLINOIS,
SRA vee FY Poses Se een
at ROH f DT: 2 & Mus >
Ere re EARS A! “4 Tels a ale LOL *
WAURICE DARHER, Adminiat; £ f
the estate of bon ae at f &
deceased, and 3a I i f f p
e f |
CIRCUIT YS
VB. } SOUTT WOUnT
. ) DUPAGE COUNTY. MH
MATE COLDY abi-wernt it OTL mm } i
PINNING COMPANY, a Saetaretie }
(Johnson O41 Kefining Company, )
a Sorporation,
Appellant).
HUPFMAN «= Jy
Appellee aiministrator broucht sult sceainst Nete Solby
ang the Johnaon O11 Refining Company, 2 corporation, for the
alleged wrongful death of Geoasiec Darner, resulting from a calle
lision of an automobile in which she wos riding, with a track
owned and operated br Neate Colby. The defendant, Colby, filed
a counterolaim against appellee Edna Derner, who was driving
the automobile in which the deceased waa riding, and appellee
administrator. Thereupon, Zana Verner filed hor counterelain
ageineat Colby and appellant company. Trial resulted in vor
dista for appellees, whereby the administrator received vear+
dict in the sum of 24000, ané sounterclainant Bdne Darner,
verdict in the cum of $75, Follewine the usual motions,
_ Judgments were entered upon the verdicts, The appellant, Johucon
O11 Refining Company, proseautes this appeel from judgront
rendered upon the verdicts as returned against it.
} penne 54) a moaxoiniA mann a
vy | eOAs stad esee TRACE
ee eee
ia ;
> by Sete bY 2 . Py th
: ye @TMGOD Boat
i | |
oy « (daatloqca
% ri
“yO ‘soat duatana thee dhword 2
. ei? tot ptottevogies » yymaqued pmbatten £0"
. fot =foo n mortt anttiueos yewistl ofmaod 20 dgseb Lifton b
‘sie's wit gusts ws au
best? yxdlod ,tasbedtod oft ixdifod ot beer bn bs
pakvinh wow octw yromcd ambit eetfeqas dnakepe x a
i cottoces bas tits wt seam St lira AEB i
‘sthtenieiont ved Slt ‘eend wet anvil evodentat
“wpev nt betideos Leber? soinesn: tition: bak Wilh bi
res tne we i
° « ee
Dae aa sik lt
“ dectane Decruses ma = sue ap an
it was aGhareeé by the appellees thet Colby was operating
the motor truck Involved in the collision, as the azent and
servant of appellant. Appellant and Colby denied such allema-
tion and averred thet arpellant was not the owner of the truck
and that Colby wae not the szent and servant of appellant, as
aharged; and alleged thet appellant was not then engaged in
the operation of the truck throuch Colby ae ite eament or sare
vent, and thet it} had no control over clthor Celby or the truck,
Therefore, the disposition of this appenl reate upen the queste
fen, whether Calby was acting ss the agent and servent of ape
pelilant.
Appellant is a cempany engaged in the refining of erude
ofl, and in the distribution and asle of preducts common to
suoh industry. In the conduct of ite busineaa, 44 maintcine
certain stersee or bulk station planta about the country, whore
retail dealers are losated whe handle ita products, The pure
pose of this boing to facilitate distribution to retail desal-
era, Purguant to guoh plan, {t malnteined 2 bulk station plant
at the oity of Pecstonion, in Dupace county,
Collyy was et the tine in cuestion, acting as the losal
manager for appellant, under written contrast, which was enter
od inte under date of Jaruury 10, 1936. By the terms of the
contract, Golhy nereed ta devote hia entire tine to scliciting
gales of refined petroleun products for appellant, at prices
to be aatablished by appellant, ‘The anles were to be made in
the name of appellants the merchandise until sold, and the pro»
eeoda of such salon, at all tines reusined the property of
appellant. Colby by the terms of the contract, agreed to provide,
wo See
Stiserwqo bar tdlod todd seokincge omt yf honuade maw. a ap,
en treme orlt ap yrotebttes edt at Sevloval tome ‘iva wet
aspetie stom hekreh xdio0 han tanltows “ine Logs to dome
down? ould Yo vronwo ed? oo enw dnatteqqe tout berrews hms nok
aw ,Jaaliocge Yo fawsee bod taoye ost $00 sow yAto® tnd bam
nk hegege sort tox aor tnalteqqe todd hegetin dae yopaende
198 % tnmpM eo on tito? dtotonsth i Soe
dows? ott so qita0 iedtte rev foutsed on bat #2 dud Son
ntaoup of? cogs gree: Anoian 22é¢ Yo mathe oad yencteredt
ae a Ne Oe ee
ehew 0 untadnes se st beans Gea
ipptaiqueahandyd per “iy.
cactytigtat y Coyne eee
entegnton #2 avonined at Yo gouhwoo od? at
wredw .yrteune ont twodn ePaphc mobtere, Atel 39, enomoge nf
“10 oe? yadnuborg neh aChsod os Peano ose exefaed, Flaten
pip States pf aokpudingeth eppghtion’, oF gated ol@ Se eppe
duinig, sottpte, sti A Decdaenton $2 gnpie, dove of saavern. ¢amp
ee _gPw00, vues Ae ce ee Ome BD A © ee
paeecces penn
rit bee ai) A | |
Kin SRP a ane. hd hae
Pal eynn “ ee 9 oe f'< Pr i a ie es Syew on Gen
ay wee! ec ie RO Sae? ete >: ERM 2 STN he ae | ES
f & Nr aed
nae BAF BN ea
rao a
maintein and operste at hie om oxpenge, euch motor trueka as
nesessary to make proper sale and delivery of appellant's pro»
duete: that he would pay cll taxes on such equipment and License
fees thereon, aa rejuired br law. Colby's compensation wma upe
on o Sommlagion baatc, wiieh wes sot cut in detail in the con»
tract, and depended entirely uron the amount of arpeliant's pro}
duets he was able to sell, Ne could not make sales on credit,
withowt the written euthority of appellant. le was required to
providedpublic liability ond property damaze inegurense upon his
meter equipment, at his own expense, “inht to terminate the
contrast war civen to either party at anr tine,
he evidence conclusively shows that the truck was owned
“by Colby. ‘The contract 19 substantially the same ss that which
existed in the ease of Jones vs Stanterfer, 296 Ill. Appe 145,
and under thet case and the outheritties there reforred to, 1t
would appear that Colby wes «n independent contractor, under
his agreement with appellant.
The record end suthorities referred to in thie case, have
beon oarefully examined, while it 19 true that Colby was on=
gated in the regular trade end bueinees of srpelient in eclicit-
ing sales of its producte and in the delivery thereof, yot he
aid ao entirely upon his own time and was no wey in the eontrol
of appellant, exeept in the manner set out by the contract, and
from this instrument 4¢ would appenr that the will of appellant
is dominant only as to the ultinate result to be obtained and
cnet ag te the meme by which 1t was to be accomplished, Many
outhorities nay be foumd bearing upon the question involved
herein, but we consider those referred te in Jonos v. Standerfer,
cupreey ae Buftiotontly comprehensive.
<3
Be otovet “ogom dove yoeneqxe ave abt ge edemoqs Be 1
son ‘wldcatioggn Xo tuovb Leb bas ‘steer soqgore coin pe gs
sesoekt bes trom tisps itoare no aezes ‘io om vm, tio ed ge ms) ist ® ws
wt) use nokteaneqios atydied "soem et + weE 2 ooo
he hatte f:
ak oii a dike Os ho are ee a io
y a AT SARS Pate Same
fs Myr Soe eg i
“ond a danlleqqe te Senrosn eits mont
gat 2
efitore Ad notes orm don Sivoo oll stan ‘ot otde tte od oda
aio * ay une #0 ¢iteq todtto of novi maw me L280:
ns ns san eS *
dotde todt as bom serngeny fish spe "ates ya
43 Sas ¢ pt ‘44 PRB ce rapt etd rit
reat oank paed ee srotrebant® ay —e botal
ovad youn abtd ja od Dentetbe % edwoes
"Uno amr ‘qd fade wes of th oxktt
satin 8 ng i ts el gd
et toy jtootest? “pxovi fot odd 2t'ban néonbong edt Yo wolen pak
tortaoe oi? at yer on aim bits oaks mo etd anqu view ) oh BRD
hues tountnos edd yd toe den ioanan odd ad aysoce \onatloqgn
Sid 2 2 sE6 ls Vlei alien a a
Sas bontatde of of Sheer odauttty odd 6% un Yid suonbaad Ob
wait Pamerrewaihereatechye ryote, seiny spetng
PPS aye ; med
evromt mektecus at noqu gatuoed heim od tnt |
Sonetimes appellant's morehendiae would be delivered to
the bulk plant by rail, and at other times by companios or por
nons engaged im the trucking bueiness, At the time in queation,
Colby and a men named Uhristian hed been to appellant's plant
at Chicago Uslehte, where they secured twelve barrels of oll
and a quantity of sreaue and aleohol for motor vehicles, Gsolby
paid Christias for making the trip, and Christian a44 most of
the ériving. At appellant's plant, when the bill of leding waa
completed for the mwerdghendise, appellant's plant superintendent
inquired of Colby to whom the truck belonged, dolby replied
that it belonged to Christian, and Christian sicned the bill of
iaéing for the merchandise, Thus it appears appellant hed no
imowledre of the fast that ite merchandise was being transport-
od te its bulk plant at Pecatonica by Colby'’s truek.
Appelleer hove flied their motion to present and intro}
duse certain evidence in this court te which the trial acurt
sustained objeations, The snpellees heve prosecuted no cross
appeal and assign no srese errors, Therefore, we do not deen
it necessary to consider suoh motion in the disposition of this
appeal.
Tho judgments herein ageiast appellant are reversed.
Tuignentsa reversed,
oF beteviled od bluew enlhandotom atdnalloqae asomseree
weer, 19 wokapgnoe ¢ sont? swrido tm San ,Lter ye dante ated et
etolimeup af ome edt 2h eeunahend aAlieret ee me: Regen «
dnely a tupiioggs oF need bat autSotri? Sonex man 9 hem
ane en
“Lip Yo alerind eviews derwe0s youd oxody yeditytell ogaats? gp
Cotas
Loo fp. iw
‘e600 saelotsiov sotos zt odoin Dan onsery Yo yeténse » Ban
Yo Joon DiS aattoratd bas Ghia oft gubien wot ankvedetd Ateg
ao grtbal to Likd ed? aosty ,dunlg a*dantleggs 2A a Nee ae
trabrotatreqee icnig ettnetiogge youtbansinnes ei? ot pes rt 4
boLiqer Wise asboqotod ions add som of veo to by Pe
2o LLRd ond Demis aadtaresd fim quabtutuld of hoprated #2
Aw end
on best Sanlleqs axseqyp 32 gett Dn rnnmnttert edt not not gakbat
ee
sfroqenott uted wow oatbazdonna et Sait sot oad nad 20 opheswons
at eHOENe e'vEleO Wh eglensuaet Sp sente Sind pas 23
eh te tern cee Rees ce
bike
eepenn Te Bb
domoren ems uatioeen gentens stom etamdut Piss aa a
gt “ eins 4 siseaeuy 46 cigeh mk 2 oy by ‘ce DA ies i BAS ] sole wy
Ae tie m: RDS ye? a Laren te
: i by ut ot toad wt scart
a ee : RAEN TRL a cetiy ah ie ae Scat rants at
reat ineatinn pe ae wee eR oie ee eet eles wal i) bs aia
mtis yea ysis ‘i re etic ds
Mma kheara ye tedet ch ad Jaiteeriet peed emai Ralipe’ Mer tual, ember
ote Te shin tant bata tire hhh vip "i «stra
te
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SS
SECOND DISTRICT
I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this___— day of
__in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73947) B07
ban mi div0) atsliagg A aiid ts theealO MOE
qwsted ob, etootadlt ine% bes abtooih ont to WA wei) p Bas 2
ry oo baldisies ovoda OAT a deg & aouh hina an hi het at te: at
wut ee
(i smo brad si0 to taay, odd ut
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 6th day of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty, within
and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present --— The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice
Hon. BLATNE HUFFMAN, Justice
Hon. FRANKLIN R; DOV, Justice
TT al TOUNG aw : mm
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk On»
= + $ < % T h {
E. J, WELTER, Sheriff eee 1A. J 6 4.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On 4
the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's Office of said
Court, in the words and figures folicwing, viz;
piss ica 2 aot stato ait ot ber
ai te
i x
)
t r
+ °
‘
ti
+sy
"4
b iy af
iy
c :
or!
b i Ti
& i ae
x s
%
}
¥ 5
a «,
¥
GEN. NO. 9531 AGENDA NO. 21.
IN THE APPELLATH COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
ASPYARY TERM, AyD. 1940." f
ee FROM CIRCUIT COURT
KANKAKEE COUNTY.
SADIE YEATES, et_aa
neat
aa
F
Appellants, |
VSe
SCHOOL DIRECTORS O? DISTRICT
NO. 38, COUNTY OF KANKAKEE AND
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
j
Ey s
A as
a ,
*
Appellees.
HUFFMAN - J.
Appellants as taxpayers of appellee district, brought
their complaint to restrain appellee directors from building
an additional room to the school house in said district and
making certain other new and additional improvements thereto.
A temporary writ issued. Upon final hearing, the temporary
injunction was dissolved and appellants complaint dismissed.
This appeal follows.
Ward Mills, Richard Zimmerman and Cora Nichols were
the directors of the district. The school building was an
ordinary one room frame building, which had been kept in
good repair and was designated as a standard school. On Sat-
a RS a September 10, 1938, a special election was held
for the purpose of submitting the question of whether of not
a new schoolhouse should be built, and whether or not bonds
of the district to the amount of $5000, should be issued
therefor. At the conclusion of the election, it was announced
8 08 aceA ove! ae ale
CLOMLEII O THUD RTALIEGIA TET MI
TorsTela amooge | jes
io | es ff
. * * OAEL G gt Old zt _ ; wiht Laas "
TAUOO VLUOALO MORE JANge Nie
eYYWUOO SOLARVAN ii a)
/ : ; s Wl
: soit Mf
tisuord , dolcteib eelfLeqqe to ateysqxad ab eaistinacalis 7m
eatbitud mort sxotoeitbh eelloqgqe aisxtaet ot tate Lqmoo stot eh
bos totateath biee at eavort foodoe sit o¢ moot Isaot¢hbbs ms f
.ofetens atuenevorqutt Isnotétbbs bos won sedto aistteo saben
yvistoqmed eft ,snttsed [sntt noqU .bevaalt thaw vrstoqued A
,boweloe tb heen sinelfeqgs bos bevicaetbh esw nottonutat
awolLot fseqas etd? a
etew efodolM s1o9 bus asmremmtS biedotl ,eliiM bast
‘6 esw gotbiiud Loodoe off stolxatats edt to axovoenth eft
at dqeui seed bed dotdw ,paibiiud emet't moot. eno ;
-ta2 a0 ,foodos brebaste s as bain sic peg
sabmod ton 16 xeddedw brs lind ed’ “Stine ss hespigla
: fowaat ed binode ne to Sato odd os anh
that both propositions had carried, and on the next morning,
which was Sunday, directors Mills and Zimmerman employed
certain persons to move the schoolhouse off its foundation.
On September 14, 1938, the circuit court of Kankakee county
issued a restraining order against the directors of the dist-
rict, restraining them from proceeding with the construction
of a new school building and from issuing any bonds therefor,
by virtue of the special election. This restraining order is
still in force. School has been held in the usual school
building.
The complaint in this case was filed on August 9, 1939,
to restrain the directors from erecting a new addition of one
room to the schoolhouse and from making certain other new im-
provements thereto, according to a contract which they had
entered into at a meeting held on July 17; 1939. Directors
Mills and Zimmerman voted for such addition and improvements,
and the making of contract therefor.
Director Nichols voted against the proposed addition
and improvements to the schoolhouse. She had been a director
of that district for thirty-five years. It appears that she
voted against the erection of the additional room and the
construction of the other proposed improvements, because of
the fact that there were only two pupils attending the school,
and that neither of them were a resident of the district. One
of the students was a niece of director Mills, who had come
from Momence to his home and had started to the school. She
was about seven years old. During the third week of school,
director Zimmerman brought a boy about thirteen years of age,
to stay at his house, from another district. All of the child-
ren who live in the district are attending school at the city
Bin.
vue ae
Pete)
.2olatom txen eft mo bas ,botuiso bed anottieoqorq itod tedt /
boyolome cemrommtS Sas alLiM axotoetlb ,yebaw@ aew dotdw
-Toltabssot ect Ito sevorloodse edt vom ot Bnoateg atsadreo
yYavoo eoxs2nel to tryoo tiwotto ets ,SECL ,AL tedmetqee 20
-t2ib oft To etotoeribh sit taentsags t3ebto Satnterteet 8 Depeelt
noltouitanoo edt dtitw gatbeesotg mort modt gnintetteen tots
<totetent ebnod yas antweel mort bas gerthitted foodies wen’ a "to
ef tebto patnietiees eidT .nottoefs Latoeqa eit to ondtiv yd
foodes Lsvex et at Bled meed asd Loode® .eotot mt sahil
| | saath thot
(eee e demauA ao beltt eaw eeso atdd at tabs Laatoo eat ie
eno to solvibhbs wen 2 anitoeto mort atotosT lb ont aisiteet “a
~mi wen teito aistreo gatdem mort bas eavomdlootoa edd oF moos. Wy
bsd yet dotdw Jostdues 5 ot gaibtooos ,otetenit etnemevoty
etofoort .ef@L 4TL wit no blo gattecn 5 te otmt borodnd
,atnemevorqmi Has moltibbs dove tol besov asmronmt’S bam ett
_ -Totetedd sosisioo to gaiiaem ert pe
} nolsifbbs beaogorg edt deatsgs besov elodeli tzoteenid .
sadnotis s seed bed eG .eavodtoosige edt of icieiieeiaaae
oe dad? arseqgs ¢I -azsey ovit-~yirids sot, toiate bb tedt to
end bap moot Lsnottibbs edt to moltoete edt tantess Setov’ i
to eeysoed ,stnegevotqmt besogorg tedto eft to noltorntencod
foodies oft anibsetis aliqua owt ylao otew eredt tedt dost edt) —
en0 .totitelh edt to tnobtser s. sr]ew medd to todtios. tedt bap
e090 bast ow ,eLLil rosoemth, to.ccelm s) aéw etnebute, engine,
on, tae: edt o¢ betuete bad bas, omeit aa: ob seam § ott,
(938 To ersey MAEM duodas Yod.s tissoud sncsibuatib
-Hhitde edt to ILA ,telitalbh sedtons moxt eaned ee
ytto edt te Loodoe gaibnotis ere toitteatb oat at ov .
of Momence,
The testimony of director Gimmerman is to the effect that
he has a boy living in his home who has been there about two
weeks, and whose parents live in another district; that the boy
is thirteen years old; helps on the farm, and attends this
school, The testimony of director Mills is to the effect that
he thinks the building needs the proposed addition and improve-
ments; that the election for the new school was on Saturday
night, and that he moved the building off the foundation at
eight o'clock the next morning; that he did not know what
arrangements the children in the district had for attending
school at Momence; that he did not make any inquiry to find
out; that he entered into the contract for the proposed work,
not knowing if any children were going to school; that a little
girl stays with him and goes to schoo}; that her father lives
in Momence; that he has no way of knowing if a family might
move into the district with children of school age; and that
he owns no land in the district. Cora Nichols testifies that
the parents of the children are paying the tuition incident
to their attending school in Momence.
It is the position of appellants that appeliees, as dir-
ectors of the school district, had ho power to contract for the
construction of an additional room to the schoolhouse, without
a vote of the people, when such room was not needed for the ac-
commodation of the pupils of the district. In support of this
proposition, they refer to the ease of Kuykendall v. Hughey,
224 111. App. 550. Such was the holding in that ease. There
is no claim made by appellees that the additional room proposed
to be constructed is needed for the accommodation of the students
at this school. As a matter of fact, it is apparent such posi-
tion could not be maintained, as there is no dispute but that
am
| vrenite
ted doettTe edd od al maurremmis toseenth tq ynoutsses edT.....
ows Syods eteds seed asd odw.emod aid at guivil yoo s, esd ed
yod eid tedé ;totugelb uedtons ai evil atnetsg esodw bas ,,edoew
ald? ebeottea bas ,aiat edt go eqied 45fo ateey seotiidd et
tedd desite odd od af alii zodoerib te yaomtteedt edT, .foodes
~svorgilt bas aoisiibbs beeogoig edd absen, galbiiud edt sdaldd eff
yehiuts? so sew Loodea wen edt 192 aoltoete edt, ted? , (atagm
ts aolgsbupyot edd Tho gatbliyd eit bevom ed teadt bas, .tdgte
taciw wong don OI5 ed ted? jgotarem Jeon odd xoolo'o tdate
gatbsetts so% ded tolutath edt at. setblido edt stnemegnorzs
», Sekt ot yrivent yns etiam ton BL5, od. tastt, j2onemou. ta Loodoe
«tzow Herogorq edd TOI sosrdnoo edt oni betedne ed Jedd yduo
elttit s tedt j;Loosoa.ot gato, stew aarbitdo yas, tt gotwomy ton
wevil sedtst red tedt j{oodee ov zecg, bac mid dtiw eyede fate
tigim vine? » Tt gatwoml to, ysw. om asd ed todd, peomemoM ab
tedd bos ;egea foodoa to nethlidoe dttw tolrtety, edd otnt evom
tedt setticraod. alodol st0d. wtobrtasb, add Me bosl om eowo od
tnebtoat soitiud, oft antyeq exe aetbLide edt 20 e¢nezsg edt
yyy eatiey eX -Sonoim0ii mt Loodon auibastte, <tedd of ,
-tib.as ,aeellegqs taut adosileqqe to, sotiteog edd al dL, ....
edt tot dopitace oF gowog of bad ,toluteth Loodoe edt to .mEodee —
Suodsv yeeupdioodpr ot of moot Leaottiha, as, 10, nottoumtanop
-0s odd sot babeos tos asw moor doug sodv .efgoeg, edt to, efor 8
eldd.to ¢zoqgque al «tolutelb ost, My mide adit Xo Molss
prasiae
eted? . case, tadd at. enutb.lod, eit? Baw dow, “apaa SihonKld 988
boscqotg, sopy Lenoitibbe edd tedg: noeltaqaa, YS, eben, mtele.on ab
adnebude ot to soltsbommoosa edt tot bebeen pr ind 0 We
only two students are attending the school and that neither of
them come from homes within the district, but are apparently
residing therein temporarily.
The affairs of school districts are intrusted to officers
geherally designated as directors. The legislature in the
fullness of its power, has seen fit to so intrust the adminis-~
tration of the conduct of schools in general, to the discretion
of the directors or Board of Education, as the case may be.
However, this is so only as distinguished between the directors
and the patrons of the district. The board of directors may
not go beyond their legal power and authority, as they are only
agents appointed by statute to carry out the system provided
for. They have no powers except such as are conferred by legis-
lative act, or such as may arise by necessary implication, and
ordinarily, doubtful claims of power are resolved against them.
It is true they have a wide discretion in matters intrusted to
their care, yet they are but an administrative body, charged
with the duty of administering the law with respect to the
publie school within their district. It is their duty to ad-
minister the affairs of the district as directed by statute and
within the power and authority vested. Their personal differ-
ences cannot be permitted to injuriously affect the interest of
the taxpayers of such district, and when the situation comes to
that place, their conduct may properly be restrained by injunc-
tion at the instance of such taxpayers. From the record in this
case, we find nothing tending to prove that the additional room
is necessary for the accommodation of the students attending
the school.
The judgment of the lower court is therefore reversed and
the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
ae
to tedtien verlt bas fooroa edt anibnetts ets etnebudte owt eee 4
yitneisqqs ots dud ,totidelb eft aid¢iw eemod mort’ eee mot
.vittstoqmed mtevetit anthteer
aresitto of hotevttut ots adolitets foodoa to axtatts ono
eit ct otutsisigel eff .atoddotlbh ap bétsigteod Yiletren6s .
-aintwhs eft ¢aux¢at o@ of Ft meee ea ,tewoq Bt! To eeenliyt }
nottverseib edd o¢ ,isteney ai efoodoe 16 tovbadd edt to cottstt
.od yser vaso oft sz ,cottsonbS to breed to exodee rib eft to
arosoetth edd weswied Setletvenitteats ea tino’ oe al aldt ,revewolt
yam etodsettd ‘to bueod eff .toitéeth one to enortsq ed? bad
yino ete vost es .Ythroddves Bas tewor fsgel 2tént badyed og FoR
behbivorg modvaye edt ts0 yr1s9 o¢ ot¢utade te betafoqqs asness
-eigel yd bertetnoo ots ab dove ¢qeoxe etewod om sven yedT \t0% WY
bas ,noftsotiqnit yiseesoer Yd eatis yer es dove to” tos ovidel
stedd geatsss bevioser exs tewoq to amielo Ivtéduoh yyitraathto
of bedavwiat evedsan mt moldetoath ehtw # eved youd ote et dl
bestedo ,ybod ovitettetntmbs as sud ets yerds toy i280 ttodd
eit of sooqaet Athy wal eft anivedetatmbs to ydob edd AtIW
-ba ot yseh thend at ¢t .totatetb thedt miii¢bw Looroe ot idig i
bas etidtsta yd bedoothh ec ¢oftdets oft to artistts ett 4edetata
-rettih [snoateq uted? .hedasv ythrodtus base ewog ‘odd mbttie
to daeseint edd Jootts vlevotrwtat o¢ bodttorréd ed sonmsd eeome
ot eenoo rotdsudie ed¢é medw bus ,totateto dova Yo eroysquad oft :
-onutnt yd bentertess od yiteqotg yan s¢eoubmoo atedt jeos iq: ‘teats
atid Af S1dceT od mort Jareysqxsd Hove To eonsthat edd sere
moot Lenottibbs oilt tet éverq of aakbied ‘gaiddoa batt ew (eens ave
gnthiotte etushute eds to mottabomnooes edt aon on
—
-bébastet bas BesteveH § (Oo 8s ©
n
Tee , as oe » abe sic wd a Pe ” ‘wa
hla vt ee iB) A Beh che er, Os eae Sh oa i pe Ae Dk POSS ot
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SS
SECOND DISTRICT
I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereot, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this_ day of
——————e Sin) the year of our Word one thousand) nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73947) EB 7
er ‘bolttias ii eed erk Yana?
4
i aS sy ott Yo i
3 : ae 3
0 tins iy
sSOMb weeno
ie ts vad ‘ith. has Si uw
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 6th dey of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty, within
and for the Second District of the State of Illinois;
Present -— The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice
Hon, BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice
Sc oF 4 v
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk IUD ee & 64
E. J. WELTER, Sheriff
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Cierk!'s Office of said
Court, in the words and figures following, viz:
PRION TRALTALIA gut. ©, Maa? A TAL?
et Cebartdanh te web 40 ett "yabe ew 0 naan e vas
nit iw ytTo¥ Hin “pedbrtual ant ie esnweuht emo: bao 0
ak -atonteer bo odad0 ors” ‘to yotavatd’ ‘Bpionse. | ev
| -ateetiea tee / ‘nathan Mates, — BEE eRe iy cei ‘ Bi ;
sottout 5 iit il ,a10OY
- 1 ; % : ‘Soliant seca
i i y
ay
4
“Bor: AT EO hi oo
eli Mian ee me hah Ms
tie) Eat a hicks ial
renee aay > nee 2
ae Seas IRN AES Be Wr :
i ne pee MS lg ATRL ore
via nS AE le)
oI aap aR URI seein
GEN. NO. 9508 AGENDA NO. 6
a eR a a
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT
WILLIAM LATTIN, as Ah
of the Estate of Howare™
decsased,
APPEAL PROM CIRCUIT COURT
LAKE COUNTY.
Vs.
CITY OF ZION, a Municipal Corpor-
ation,
ere ne ee ee eee eer
Per Curiam.
This was an action by appellee to recover for the wrongful
death of his minor son Howard. Sriefly stated, the facts out
of which this case arose, are as follows: On Christmas eve,
December 24, 1938, the deceased, Albert Anclam and John Tietz,
spent most of the evening and night together visiting at various
taverns. Somewhere near the hour of 4:00 o'clock on the morning
of December 25th, they left a tavemn known ag Scotty's Place, on
a. motorcycle owned and operated by Anclam. They were proceeding
east on 2lst street, which is an outiying street but within the
corporate limits of appellant city. It appears to be a rather
untravelled street, without many people living in the vicinity
of the place of the accident. When the boys left eae Place,
they mounted Anclam's motorcycle, with Anclam riding in front
and controlling the operation of the machine. Tietz was riding
>
ak es at 0 “‘PHUOO STALIDGTA mer mI
_ TOTRTALC anooae
“V.oser cf eer rape
{ 6S oi
Ae) TAVOO TIVDEIO Wome TATTTA
; <¥TMUOO. ZHAI Bie REIN
Ne ( ~s07z00 Leatotiat 2 ors co :
Ve
¢ K ae taplleqga
: intgnouw eft tot teveoet of eolfoqas yd tenis a3 stan ener °
‘a
Me tyo atest eid ,Sessde eLtoiad .btawol moe nro km eka re!
8ve esmdalmid cd rawolfot as tp 880%8 9880 esi
.ctelT aiol bie melon tredla semsaiiel: oft deer WAS int
evotiey ts yaltteiv rollgesod tata bas pntitevs eft to baal
-asneait odd ere eases to thot ott: per picnic
‘patbeownns etew Yo melon yd Betetego hae Pathe
edt alddtw dad teers gabeiove ae-et doldw yteenta:
toddet 8 ed of auseqes #1 tte: dnatieggs té edtakt
ytiatoty edé at gutvil elqeeg ynam dvodtiw Soorta: be.
oon LT ook thet ayod edt cetW — .taebloos: ede" to: 60, ;
tao t galbix mafomh déiw ,efoyotosom ams toma
b * aie sew atal? .omtdosm edd to motéeneqo
directly behind Anclam and the deceased was riding directly
behind Tistz. In this manner they proceeded east on 21st
street to a place about six hutdred feet east of the residence
of Robert Cherry. Here, the city through W.P.A. work, had
been engaged in filling in a low place on 21st street. This
fill was about two hundred sixty feet in length. It was higher
than the old roadbed at both the west and east ends of the
fill. It consisted of dirt which had been taken from the sides
of the road, and which at the time in question was frozen and
very rough. [It appears that only one travelled track existed
across this fill. There were two flares at the west end of
the fill and two flares at the east end. Only one of the flares
was burning at the time, which was at the west end of the fill
and to the south side of the road. When Anclam approached this
fill from the west, he states that he did not see it nor the
flare, until tco late to avoid the accident. When the motorcycle
hit the fill, it threw Anclam and Tietz clear of the machine,
and they apparently sustained no injuries of any consequence,
The deceased evidently became fastened to the machine, and
sustained injuries from which he died. The evidence shows that
after the motorcycle hit the fill, it proceeded east for a
distance of about two hundred forty eight feet, where it came
to a stop at the side of the road and in an upright position.
The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of appellees in
the sum of $2000, and appellant brings this appeal from judg-
ment rendered thereon.
It is the position of appellant that the deceased was
guilty of contributory negligence and this is considered to
be thé controlling factor in the case.
oDw
; #efS mo tese bebessorg er tennsa elit ol
, eonebisen. edt to tase test berthitud xia dwods este s ‘7
' bad venow ‘sAst.W dguonts ysto edd (Oto .yrredd reedoit
aidT tesute vals 0 ‘ovelg wot 6 & nt gmbi tit cs Dense nod
toda td wile st sige £ al oo? ncaa bosbaud ows tuede asw ct
y. edt te abso teas bas eow var toa te bedbaot blo year 18
eobin ot mort cronies eed ‘bad co ketve aats"te begatenoe tt,
beteixe dont boLtavers ero “an ‘toad ‘enseggs a 9008
‘to be seaw ot +e sexsi? one bye ened ae abs
alt _baroaorgae. aoa, Beet sheer. oH. to obte. fom pa Al.
ae A ‘onid 1Ou ti eo8 ton bib ed todd aedada od ebervad etd 3 0%
td ¥ eLoyere don ent goede -deebioos odd blows of. ets. 00d fbi x
i yoaldonm od to ss0h0 stol? bas, aatons. werd ot tte at.
/9emeupesaeo yas to geltotat a. bonladesre tsersgae eat
bas peakdoom, eld of besodest azooed YL: ga meat
sede ewoule eonebtve ent sdekb of dotdy, oe seth ; .
ven 7 ab ese #902 sigte. tot pany ow Sou
Anclam and Tietz both testified that they did not see
the flare before striking the fill. There is nothing to in-
dicate what the deceased saw, or what he micht have said to
the other two boys. Their testimony is silent on that point.
it appears that the Cherry residence is at the top of a slight
hill and about six hundred feet west of the west end of the
fill. From the Cherry residence to the fill, is downhill.
After the accident, Tietz walked back to the Cherry residence
to secure help, This was shortly after four o'clock on Christ-
mas morning. Cherry went with Tietz to the scene of the ac-
cident, He testified as a witness on behalf of appellee. He
states that as he left his house, he could see the flare burn-
ing at the west end of the fill. He found the motorcycle with-
in about fifty feet of the east end of the fili. Tietz testi-
fies that when he started back with Cherry to the scene of the
accident, he saw the flare burning. Cherry returned to his
residence and reported the accident to the police department
and called for an ambulance. Officer Simpson reported in a
police ear. The deceased was sent to the hospital. Cherry re-
turned to the scene of the accident and then went to the police
station. At the police station, Anclam and Tietz were question-
ed by various of the officers then on duty. Their statements
regarding the accident were rather vague. in effect, they
merely stated that they did not see the fill until they were
upon it and did not see the flare, and that when they hit the
fill they were thrown from the machine and did not remember
anything thereafter until they came to at the side of the road.
Aneclam stated that he was going forty-five miles an hour.
Tietz did not know how fast they were going, but thought it was
faster. The evidence is in dispute as to the state of sobriety
ee
oor
ese don bL5 yout tone boititaos déod SielT bas ‘melo ‘
Sib
; -ot od mmidtoa et stodT .LILft odd arta bite exc'ied omslt “xs
te Pag
ot Bise evast raster en teastw 70 wae boeseved oat tid odeotb
oo
datog todd fo taette al yaonktaos sted? +axod owt neddo ont
‘AOR.
dda tie a to qos edt ts af soreiteer. ware no edt tenis nre0qds be
a SLE 1
: est to be taew ont Te ribs test bor baie ate awodn bre
b
oe
ar
,Litdewob ek _LLET esid ot eonebieet vrred® end mont 4 cia
poly * 3 df iS
ope eosebiae x yrresdd ody ot #esd benisw stort dnobLoon oda nxovta
| -tetxdd mo tvolo'o tgot tects vidzede oaw eld? .qted ‘ounces ie
: oe
-08 ett to enese on? of stol? d¢iw tnew vrred0 | ‘salarom Local
oH ,eelfeaus to TLeded ao seondiw a en belthteed ou ‘
ere
-otrd otslt aft eee bisoo axl savor ald Stel od as sosit ‘a6
oe ~dtiw eLoyorodon en¢ Bayot ef ,LLtt ond %0 bre tone ond” te ant
CF, ty wv a 2
ce i ii -tiwes stot? Litt ett ‘to hue sare end to dest wut ‘Swede uk
hele ty : ¥ 2 tot. 2 i
ont to eneoe ent of vrredd détw alond bedsate ext ide part oot
iy st eer sented
oid ot benwustet verrono “sabieted omit or we on
. ¢ | oe nes f
ER tuombtngeb eotlon edt oF tnebhoor eutd Devsoges bas
es Ly Metis ee Sap
a mt hadcoqet ronqmte qeoFt20 , soma Lodine Ba not . bet to
: it ¥o we eh me) em
ret wren stat iqnon edt od thes enw besnooes ear aa eot iy
at F aut ‘tp RL)
0. Log oat ‘os gnaw nedy bos Snebtoos sas 10 astoe ot ot bea dl
-cobtesup eTew sdeit bare moto «Mottada coktog ent ‘a ”
bs
ataemotnte xtoitt oxaub m0 nents exeortie oat ‘to anotte
NwAE « rtostto at ‘ONE eddos orow aber ¥
of Anclam and Tietz. Anclam stated his age to be 18.
Tietz stated his age to be 18, The deceased was 16.
Officer Simpson who answered the cali placed by Cherry,
testified that he saw the flare at the west end of the fill
when he was about four blocks west thereof. Anclam, Tietz
and Cherry were there waiting for hin. He found the deceased
lying at the side of the road. Officer Ruesch went to the
scene of the accident. He states that when approaching the
fill from the west, he saw the flare container at about five
hundred fifty feet distence. Appellant's witness Wilson,
accompanied officer Simpson and states that he saw the flare
burning as they approached the fill from the west, and that
in his opinion, they first saw it at a distance of from three
to four blocks west of the fill.
The road at the place in question was not closed to
traffic. W.P.A. labor had been engaged ffom time to time
during the winter, filling in this low place by throwing
dirt from the sides of the road into the travelled portion
thereof. The testimony is that the travel on this road is
rather infrequent. The witness Cherry, who appmmently 1%ved
the nearest to the fill, states that he had been using it in
driving to and from his home and his work. He says that the
ground was frozen and rough and that over this fill there was
but one travelled track. Hach end of the fill was somewhat
higher than the surface of the old road, and therefore caused
@ raise or bump. Anclam states that he had the headlight of
his motorcycle turned on and could see two hundred feet down
the road from the use of the headlight. He further states
that he applied the brakes of the motorcycle about seventy-
five feet before he reached the west end of the fill, but that
sind
.8L of of ops aid feteota malona astelt dna: Lisey t i"
AL maw beareoeh eff .8L ed od ops ald’ botede sted
vere yd heosiq ifeo et bexowane orm soagmte wookkTO Oe] f
iLt® edd to Sune deew ont ate otalt onit woe ed tad b t 86
sveiT welonk .tootedt daew adoold aot ¢uods sow ed nod ;
ha a
a boaneoeb oft bavet eH mid «ot amitiew evedd etew yrtedd San.
iv eit od Aatow owen xeeEI0 too ent 20, ebte edd de aakek :
vee edt srtdosougge medw tad¢ eeteta of .drebitoos odd XO on =.
: ort dveda ts vemkainoe exelt edé woe od teow eit wot Lik
ae | 4% .soeliWw agentiw | toe [Lega .oomsteib doot ystlt bea ut i
. ovelt eft wae ef dedt sedete baa sonqmla qéottie hedaagm 08 i
doit ban ,deew edd moxt LL? esd berlosomqgs yedd es) |
- seats sort te eonptels « te tk wae dant? yede wnotetqo hd -
- Lit edt to teow asloold 0% of |
of beaolo tot wew notteoup mt cost edt on beot edt aa
omic o¢ emit mot} Daasaae used bed todeL chase outer
gaiwoudd -¢ eosiq wel etd¢ ms gott{s2 yiedate Oust aakueb
nakiree bellevett elt otal heot edd ze aekae ent sort. — ;
. bevel yvitmeusqqe ondw ,yeredd eneutiw eff. roupertad 1 ‘
~0 SE oth gaten need hal ed tad? gedata aiftt edt of teorgert ¢
edt dedd-eysa eH oltew etd bar -onmil ete amor ba foal by
beeyso etoteredd fe ,beor bio efit to judiial ody, pn }
to digtibsedt edd bed of todd eotete maton, ‘Gad 10 Py
| ob toe bother ows ove Blyoo bas ae bomtut « Loye
setete widiwt oF .ddghibsed odd te ‘sey elt mort
0) agtiteven | tuods eLoyerotom vend: Xo: mated a bE
he does not remember anything after he hit the fill. The
evidence is not in dispute that the machine proceeded almost
across the fill before it left the road and stopped in the
ditch at the side thereof. The motorcycle had a third wheel
attachment, which apparently kept it in an upright position.
The deceased had been in the company of Anclam and
Tietz most of the night, end had ample opportunity to acquaint
himself with all the surrounding circumstances, and to deter-
mine whether he desired to ride as a third passenger on this
motorcycle. The accident was indeed a regrettable one.
This court is of the opinion that the verdict is not
supported by the evidence.
Judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
oct .L(22 edt tia od rotte gaidtyns todmemen tom asad ox
geouls beheesoig satdoam sdt tadt edugatb ot ton at eonebive
_ sdt at beqqota bas baor edt fief th etpted LL. ot. peores
Leer batds » bed eLoyoxotom ed? , .toozedd abte edt Je, dott
-mofdtaoq ddgtiqu ae al th tgedl yitmotsgqgs dotdw Sueadontte
_ poe melons to yasqmoe pat ak need Spd Penapeeh. AAR. cn
tatsupos of Yilusisoqe olame bex bus .tdstn elt to, dmom adedt
-tetob of bas ,xeccatemmoste gatharorwva edt tle dtiw Toad
aldd no tomseaceg Stidd 9 eo ebts of Setteph ed todgedw emtu
sno aidstierget a beebat aaw tuehtoog sdT ,eLoyezotom
ton ak dotbrev edd gad? nokatqo edt tot duvop, eit...
bia kind -— momebtys eui3, yd bedzoggae
.dodaane eauso | ests bun, bootaver eroteteds at taomebwh ) —
x enti “te Dae celeantl spiral eat
is labile ha. siege: wranLey, othe idan sili wane, Auta
en
LOABL' why of oath
wuetit ebale wad eidd ad Babee> vedi eer apa
MONS, NOR, Pate ge hd Ai? path Pasa
i gt gatanahtoed) OT) nla,
ethan ti: eunetina
i eS St Cue. Se ae ae bi Bali FRED, ER) i ace maa edit.
bog tee aR oy eviner eed
ditty i teed y Ryall anit’ aaa ge Tit aie potent
nae hath: Mee RT: Re Sito norte,
ay trrn Yt ae inti hy gen aaa: ES)
pAvomae te. wets eat aah wo’
4 POA He cyidee mA Le aerate ae outed, bed
iteohy, tok’ Beghooe awe? Oe RO. ie aha DRRRP sie re ba Ope,
acta t wl). <p etal eal chee eehe et) et? ane ae
ven Vaade eLegepadic age, Wa uate ete dea bie nal, pede
Pott spot Var dete eo Ba eee a. Be eet ” rio Hom Saree
STATE OF ILLINOIS, }
SS.
SECOND DISTRICT I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this EE day of
__in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(13947) S307
j LN &
nan Ml 4)
p cue
’ fi x sa
{
f i Aa
ta ,y " ne ne
rv ay ei he “Gg Le ‘7 i AW NG i
- j ee yi) ier ee “pse
j , ’ x res *
i y ? Ty
i? " f a Ce
ag
¥
1 A ee
sa .
» 4
? te ey sided i air sige
"fy Se
i,
a # i}
4)
: v MM
‘
sy
1
4
ne ’ t
;
i 4
4 nN
»
ke, ? ; ‘ )
his
Ee a rhe TAG: peal See
‘ bt at (sue asta ait 0 fot hoa
‘choad ‘ob “osaadt lage: bay abi
ata faititne ‘oveds ne cs nin) F dei bie
~ 41095
MARY B. SEVISR, Administratrix ow
of the istate of Albert E
Deeeaged,
ve
CHARLES P, MEGAN, Trus{
Chicago and Nerth Weape
Company, a corporakson,
305 L.A. 165.
MR. JUSTICE O'CONNOR DELIVERED THE OPINION CF THE COURT,
Appellee,
Plaintiff brought suit against defendant under the pro-
visions of the federal Employers! Liability act to recover for the
death of her husband, There was a jury trial and a verdict and judge
ment in plaintiff's favor for 415,000, A new trial was awarded and
this court granted leave to appeal.
The record discloses that Albert &. Sevier was employed by
defendant as a brakeman and between 9 and 10 o'clock on the aight of
May 21, 1937, the southbound freight train consisting of 86 cars, on
which Sevier was employed as head brakeman, stalled while going up a
rather steep hill about 2 miles north of Buda, Illinois. %evier got
eff the engine where he was riding on the fireman's or east side of
the train shortly before the train etalled, walked back te see what
was wrong and after the train stopped deelded to cut it between the
36th and 37th cars,
The evidence tends to show he closed the angle cocks on the
2 cars, uncoupled the air hore, then crossed over to the engineer's
or west side of the train, signalled the engineer to back up so he
could pull the pin and thus cut the train at that point. The engineer
backed up, ae he testified, from 20 to 60 feet when the front section
of the train ran into the rear eeection, The engineer further testi-
fied that from the time he received the signal he 41d not again see
the signal lantern which Sevier had, The train crew consisting of the
engineer, fireman, conductor and the rear brakeman, went slong the
aa ay pigeerses THIVGS .&@ YHAN
90 ARGRO MORG ; ctelwe® .Z grodfA to efefsi ed? to
5easeoed
YO THUOD AGT i
OUITHARO YT 2009 awe
eTAILY WHE A emauctT ,HADIMN .2 SAUAHAHD
‘Zar Dy a | cOk PS aie THOO & ,¥Nagmod
«TRUOD BEY YW HOINIGO ENT GRAGVINSd SORMOD'O BVLITAVL .AM
-~otg sft t9baw tnabneteh tentags tins tdgwowd Ttisalalt
adv tet seveoet of tos Utliidall ‘ereyolqrs Iatebel ed? to anolalv.
onbst Sas tolirev so bas fala? yiwt s sav et0edT .basdaud ted to diaeb-
baa bebuawa apw falta? wen A ,000,é1§ sot tovat a'tittntale al inom
- glaeqqgea of svael betaatg ta0n aida
hae) seundeee saw teiveé 3 trad iA gai? aseoloels Sicse: oft :
te Sdgin ed? mo doolo'o Of Bua @ avowtod bas samedatd a aa taabasteb
i@ ,B1a0 8S To gaivaienos aleit tagiervt Sawodddwoe off ,VECL IS yak
& qu gniog olldw bellata ,nsmedeud Seed aa beyolque saw statved slo tse
tog teive® .efontif{l ,sbel to dtuon selim & tuwoda Iftd qeove ‘s0d3 ax
to ebis tase 10 e'mamertt off no gatbia sew ed stesiw entgne edt ‘tte
tsdw 9e8 of doad bediaw ,beliatea siexwd edt exoted Vidaode atand ania
edd neewted 72 gue of Hedblosh boqqota ntesd ont tet ie Bae gnonw aaw
! ; 2280 ASTS hime ads
ad? a9 aseod efgna edt henolo ef wore of abnot sonebive ost
s'yeentane esi? oF aev0 beaacto eestt enor tla ads bolquecme e1m9 =
ed of qu ‘Xoad of seenigne odd ‘bellangta teat add to odie teew “0
aeonigne ed? .tniog tai? ta altar oft tuo aut ina akg adt fisq bisoo
moltove tnoxt odd new feet 08 ot OS mont ,beltiteet ed aa .qu boxload
~ttees sodden? ‘seentgne eff .noltoes taex edt osne sur alent odd id
pond
see alage fox BLb edt fangts oat bovieser on omke edd wort texte born
edt to guitetanoce wero Aleut et batt ‘aotve® Mosste wrotnal fame
at? enxanfe Dteeanw semastanwd wssean otf hee «tea cheas . - ene _
c ane i)
ote
train to ascertain what hed happened and found that Zevier was
crushed and held between the bumpers of the 36th and 3?th cars. He
was instantly Killed. Shortly afterward the front section of the train
was taken south over the hill te a ewiteh track where it was placed;
the engine was then brought back and the second section was likewlae
taken south over the hill, and after the two sections were connected,
the train proceeded,
The evidence further shows that when the angle cocks were
closed, the air brakes with which the train was equipped, were out of
use on the rear section but the engineer had control of the forward
section; that after the air horse is uncoupled between the two cars
and the angle cocks opened, thie would set the brakes,
The teetimony of the conductor and the rear brakeman is to
the effect that after the train stalled and apparently after the cut
was made, the rear section started back nerth or down the hill and
then rather suddenly came to a stop as though the brakes were set.
At the close of all the evidence defendant moved for a
directed verdict, which motion the court reserved. ‘Thereupon the
verdict was returned April 14, 1939, in plaintiff's faver, April 19,
before judgment was entered, defendant filed a written motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict. July 11, the court denied the
motion and entered judgment on the verdict in plaintiff's favor for
$15,000, Three days later, defendant filed a written motion fer a
new triel specifying a number of grounds. November 2, the motion was
allowed and a new trial awarded. Counsel say the trisl judge rendered
no opinion and gave no reasons for awarding the new trial.
It 1s the theory of defendant that Sevier met his death
solely on account of hie own negligence that after he clesed the
angle cocks on the two ears and uncoupled the air hose he neglected to
open the angle cock on the rear section of the train before making the
cut; that after he pulled the pin to make the cut (there being no
brakes on the rear section of the train), it started down hill anda
- abe
eav solve! gait Davo? Bna Senoqged bad tadw atetreoea of nha?
oH .euso d¢VE bas d¢0t ede Yo exeqeud ed? needed Biod Bas peddasro
giart edd Yo solgoes tnotd est Hiawiet ta. Utrede bollsd yltastant. sem
jbeoala aw $2 orosw iesat dotivs s of LLtd ent rove dévoe Aelat bv
salveili ass noifoon Snover en? baa xoad sdguotd ned? eaw entfgne ed?
,betoennes stew enetvoee ows oft saad baa a aha 19V0 aay benred
stew edoos elgns ef? neatiw tad? swode ‘cedduwt esonebive eit
Yo 3du0 s1ew yhoqglups saw slaw? odd dotdw dttw eedand ate edd ,boeolo
baswiet eat to Lortnes bad asentgne ed? tud moltoos arse edt no enw
e890 owt eat seexted Bolquoonv ef saed «hs odt rete tart tananens
“ eedesd ort toe bivew aldt \henege axsus ‘elgna elt ‘bas
“or 82 famoiiand <a07 oid Sha xotoision bat td ynbltdaby ott
$uo od tote yisneraqqe bas beliste miter? edt redta tad? soothe aid
bas [Ltd edt nwob x0 dtuon toad’ Botzste nolveos taet at? ,obAm daw
toe o1ew sexaad acd Hguad? en gots a of ono Uinebbus centser neds .
ee ma stad
“8 10% Bevom tnabsstob eonebive oft Ifa to sselo ‘ent a
"eat nequered? beviese: tives sf? aolton dotdw \dotbrey ‘petooulh
ef Erigh wove? a'ttivathiq mi .ecer of LiqA banisbod baw tolbuer
10% nolvom nedtiaw & belt? gnebnetes \bex0etae saw ‘taemgbat etoted -
ad belneb duos ott ms yist stotbrev adit oiintiiein Riaa’ tremabut
0% {OV st a'ttttetala ar toLbrey end 0 “tnomgbut, ‘petedne “San Boston
@ sot solvom asttinw ws bellt tuabneted \total ‘eyed soul? “000 ore
saw solton eft .S sedmevoli -ahanonp to 1tedewn a pityttooge fatat ‘wea
betshaer aabet Tabet ei? yaa Iennsed -abiaws faint 5 won 3 bas Sowolla
faiwt won ot ‘gntbuswa x02 anoaaet ont ‘ovas hus “notitge on
“dtaen aid tom rotvee tans taabasted to qroert ae 0b 02" 7°".
act Borofo asd cotta tant ‘eonsgt igen awe vid ‘So thncoos us aiags
oF betootgen ext ened «te edt belquoons baa exo ot ott nO ‘aifeoo olgns
anit antden eroted niet odd to noitoes 884. lk a0 2 Hees signs fans edd nego
ett ‘gated oredt) tuo ong oien oF ‘aia. edt bof. ‘iv od t0dta ‘ads ‘io
baa tia mob betxate ‘tt otal “eit ‘\ noltoos ented dng
os iggalie Cae t Meh ee a ee pee ip Ay
29 is ae> ~
an
when Sevier saw this he hurried in between the two cars te open the
angle cock on the south end of the south car of the north section of
the train and thus set the prekes}; that while he was in the ast of
doing this the engineer eontinued to back the other section of the
train and when Sevier opened the angle cock, the north section stopped
and he was crushed and killed,
- On the other side, the position of counsel for plaintiff is
‘that there was substantial evidence for the jury, first, as to
whether the engineer was negligent in the manner in whieh he backed
the train *** without any warning or acknowledging siwznal for as much
as 60 feet without any application of the automatic brakes *** so that
a coupling pin could be Lifted not more than 36 cars back * ~ that the
engineer continued backing “after he saw the light which he said he
saw, and assumed wae Sevier's lantern, disappear from view.’ That the
evidence shows the angle cook on the rear end of the 34th car was
closed so that the engineer had complete contrel of the 36 cars and
that he could have stopped the 36 cars in 8-1/2 seconds,
Counsel for plaintiff say that the triel judge, in awarding
the new trial, adopted defendant's position holding ‘that as a matter
of law no recovery could be had upon any view that could be taken of
the evidence," We cannot concur in this statement in view of the fact
that the trial judge rendered no opinion when he awarded the new
trial because such action would be directly contrary to the order
theretofore entered by him in overruling defendant's motion for judg-
ment notwithstanding the verdict, |
Plaintiff's position is that there were no procedural errors;
that the question of Liability was properly submitted to the jury who
returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor, and that this court should
reverse the order awarding the new trial and enter Judgment on the
verdict.
The controlling question in this case is whether the en-
gineer was guilty of negligence which, in whole or in part, brought
be
oatg ego of 2189 ewd an? seented ai belmwa of 2idd wae solve. sedw
te noigoes dison elt to uae dtyea afd to Soe diwpe edt no doow, elgns
to tea sdf mi sew eo wlidw teas ysodaud ond ton sud doe wheat edt
edt to soltvea vette edd dead of beunttnoe aeentgne eft. aid? gated
beqgose moliere sfuon ad? ,toan eigas adi Denego toive® asdu, baa alaw
pbeLitt daa dbesauso saw, ad bas
al tiftiatalg set foanveo to nolsiaeg eft ,oble tonite O83 MOS) ond cette
o¢ as ext) ,yxwt ai? 202 eomedive falsnsiedus saw iedt 3 acta?
hodesd. ei soddw oi <enaan ond ab Inepligen sav coontgme edd xedsesiv
soum a2 10% jangia avigbelwensos se gaiinies Yaa wostlw *** alaad elt
tad on * aedawd otvemotun sid to noktactiqags yaa suodsiw st ce% 080s
adit tat + * doad euse 0% madd oxem Jon LOTUS of biveo aig antiques,»
end biae of doldw digit ont wan oc aed ta’ galsload Hour timo soentgne
edt gadt ‘.welv mort resqqaets .niednet e'netves as hemusas Dray gee
asw mao #85 ed? Yo bao rap sM0 no sloop eines ent anode ponshine
bgta estas 8% eff to Lowaoo eteiquoa bed tesatgne edt tedd on Deeeko
.baosen &\L-8 ab wae 88 afi? Beqqote evad bivoo od tadt
gititaws af ,egbvt Jaint end dads yao Yittetele wot Leanwod ©... 05.) )
astiam 4 sa, tadt* gnihfed mottineg a'tnabneted betqobs ,ctaind wen edt
to melet ed Siveo tad? wely Ys soqu had ed biveo yxevopet on wal to
toast ont to wetv nt tnemetata eid? mt swonce tennao ek *,eonablve,ent
wen eft Bebiews ed medw motntgqe oa Setebaey sgiwl Jaia odd tad
“tebe oft of yimitnoo yUltestsh ad bivow aeivos dove eansoed Latat
~aoul, tet netvow a! inebmeteh gaiiszieve nl mld yd Detetne e1ototeisnt
toliney edd galbastadtivton trem
axotie laruhsoorg on erew esos gadt al nottteoq e'VidatalGe). (oo on
oxtw Yast odd of horeinewm YIrsqetg eaw Weitdetl Yo nofteeup edt tacit
Sivods Guueo eld? Yads Sos yroval a Tiivntsla db tolbev s bemwier
aie no tiémgbut tetne bre Laltt wen ee Ee
nettoe.s A (08 9908 Siesbaee
= soridorw af eaa0 sidt at molteenp yubiiowtnos ent 9°” ‘tino
titguond tug i to ofddy at \tetdw eomenttgen IO “CELig sew “vents
~4e
about Sevier's fatal injuries. So far as the evidenee discloses,
there were no defecta in any mechanism of the train. At plaintiff's
request, the jury were instructed that if they belisved from a
preponderance of the evidenee, defendant wae negligent and that Sevier
wae killed as a result “in whole or in part from such negligenece"® then
they should find for plaintiff. And in other instructions submitted
by plaintiff, the jury were told that if they believed from a pre-
ponderance of the evidence that the engineer, in the exercise of
erdinary care, for the safety of the deceased, could have prevented
the accident, their verdict should be for plaintiff. In instructions
tendered by defendant, the jury were told that plaintiff alleged the
train was equipped with defective air brakes yet there was no evidence
te support thie allegation and the jury should not consider that
question in arriving at their verdict. That the plaintiff could not
recover if they found from a preponderance of the evidenee thet the
sole cause of Sevier's death was oecagioned by his own act. We think
these inetructions properly presented the vital question to the jury,
Defendent contends that the court erred in refuging to give
three instructions requested by it. By one of these instructions it
was sought to tell the jury there wae no evidence legally tending to
prove that after the train stalled it “parted” or “broke in two" and
that they “must not consider anything that haa been said during the
trial of the case on that subject in considering or arriving at your
verdict. In other words ‘the train parted' matter, contention or
subject is out of the case and you will give it no consideration what-
ever." We think this instruetion was properly refused. There is son-
siderable argument in the briefs ae to whether the signal given by
Sevier to the engineer was a "back-up" signal described ee a “cirele
at arm's length" which signal plaintiff contends under one of de-
fendant's rules which was in evidence, was that the train had parted
and was not a aignal to back-up. There wae no evidence that the
"train parted* but that it was “cut” by Sevier in uncoupling it be-
soaoloe th sonebive af a8 383 o@ sabtetal fete? a deRve® suede
| e'ttitalelg 24 .alewt eff To aitasdoom yaa nt wfou'tes On stew Stet
| OT wont beveled Yeas Bf fads Hetourvant view Yant ear Teoupert
astvet tect Bas tnogl igen tsw trahceted (sonebive uit to eonsrebaoqorg
“ned? *sonsat igen ‘deus dor? ytaq ai to eTedw mt* tiveee & Ws ollie eau
het?indya anoivewianl «edto at baa -ttitntals “OT Bait Bivods yard
eng & OORT Bevatied yedt tt fait Blot oxew yeut ont (Mutatalg ww
to oatetoxe sie at visenigne édt tant eomsbive ode to oonarebmoq
| bedneverq evan Biwoo (Deuseseh off Yo ytOtae edt Tot ota yrentiae
( anettountent al .Tiitniale wot of Biooits tottréy “tdi \tnedtedaveits
esi Segetta Vissatale tats Bor onow Vuet eity \omabAOTOD Ye borehaey
sonsdive on aaw oxo? soy sefard +te eviveetes ag tw Beagtupe new ftent
“gadt cobiunoo ton Bivens (ut eff Sne notiagelta stay ‘troqqme ot |
ten blues Ttitntalq oft takT .totbaev thadt te ganvied a2" ata 3
odd tad? soneblve ads Yo sbtiivébnogora # sO4Y babe? teiee” wa-eotee:
Aatdt ok .tom mo old yd Bomotesooe caw APBOb a *xetved tO dauawronoe
“vast edt of softeoup fatty edt betnoneta yfxaqotd enottownt snd see
acs) of gnievtor nt berte tevoo of? todd abrotnon taxbireted
“at “enoldoustan t easdt to éno YX tt we Dotrousex anoitevntent cons
od antbast villager eonehive on anw ered? quel suit Iker ot @itgwok tev
“bao Yowe at sioud* 10 *bebusy oY eftate mie ott doete Valo overg
edt gala Wine’ nee ‘cuit #iKy yitdticd Ween edie Wem sneatene
“wey ta galvirss +0 natish fence at fooldwe Fort no eae eit to Laat
ati 10 notinednos rotten ‘petted niext edt ahrow edt or ToRbIev
nade nottatebiaces on tf ovty Iftw wey bia dane Gdd Xd Yee) an rsstdua
nee af ozedt ‘ beavter yfseqorq vow notvounvant wey sete ov 6* steve
Ne nevis “Haikgt ait redid ore et (88 stobad edt mt tempts eléexehto
‘efoxto" “gs ‘Bs Bediaesed ‘iting ke ®qusdtoad® & saw soanigne edt oF” }
"nef 26 one Tobi ebxotnoo Titsntalq’ Lamgte sietde’ satyastatena ts
bedteq bad aber edt tad? saw ssonabive at aay dott colnet eee.
ae eit? faltt bondhtvs Ga dew oreit? ” aeeaoad 09 Enmpte 8 ton se tn
d a0 a ant iguoons ne ‘teLvee al tuo" ‘aw ae tate sng .
a uN
-§- |
tween the 36th and 37th care, we think the instruction might also tend.
to eonfuse,
The next instruction which defendant contends was improperly
refused, sought to have the jury "‘instrueted that ae a matter of law the
failure of the engineer to reepond, by blowing his whietle, to the
back-up signal referred to in the testimony of the engineer, was not
and could not be a proximate cause'of Sevier'a injury and death and
therefore the Jury were not authorized to base their verdiot in favor
of plaintiff upon the claimed failure of the engineer to whistle after
getting the back-up signal, We think this instruction was properly
refused, The question was for the jury to decide whether Cevier had
given the engineer a back-up signal and whether the engineer'¢e failure
to respond by blowing hie whietle caused, in part at least, the fatal
accident, The inetruction would eliminate the evidence tending to
show the engineer 41d not see any signal,
By the third refused instruction, defendant sought to have
the jury told that even though they found defendant was negligent, yet
if they also found Sevier was negligent and that except for hie negli-
gence he would not have been killed, their verdict shoulé be for de-
fendant. The jury were told in other instructions that plaintiff
could not recover if they found that Sevier was killed solely as a
result of his own negligence, This was sufficient,
There was evidenee to the effect that no signal was given to
the engineer to back up beeauge Sevier was not in a position where he
could give such signal on aceount of the curve in the track, trees and
other obstructions,
There is considerable discussion in the briefs as to whether
Gertain rules of the railroed company were applicable to the facts in
the case and therefore admiesible in evidence, ‘%e think it would serve
ho purpose to discuss there contentions in deteil since we have
reached the conclusion that we would not be warranted in distrubing the
order of the court awarding a new trial, On a retriel of the case we
think counsel would have ne trouble in view of the facte disclosed by
J
win ;
buet osla tdgin noltewxutent ef? Antdt s¥ .ataeo ATTS aes adv aid asowd \
ylxeqotqml saw sbrotnoo taabnete datdw nottovaent txen ost
ed? wal to sot tam 8 86 tad? betouwtent® cut sd evad of $rfquoe yo
. edt of ,oitetiw aid gatword x sbrogeet ot teentgne ad te “etnttst
!" gen egw ,toentgne ond Yo Ynombtaed siz at of borteter Lamate greet
bia dtaek Bas yautat a'zeived to "smes otaulxerg a od toa ‘Bison ) bas
. sovat af tolbiey alest ened of bes txodt we Jom ete. cut wit ‘proteseds
setts elJaldw of tsenigne sat Yo eusifist dentate ad? nous ‘itintalg %0
Ulseqotq sew moltewxtent ntus antet avi Tamgte cwatoad poo
“bad relve? arid extv ehload of wort edd 20% saw ‘golteeub tage | cnuher /
etutiat e'xeontgas ott Lentd ody bas Langte qu-doad a nosatyne eid Pen .
"oFetet ott \tuaet ta teeq nt \bebuse eltatie ald malweld ws Baogaer of |
of sro sonshive ons etantmite Siow oldentant ott Se a
Yamgie ya see gon ‘bab oe
ovad of #djsv0 Inabnotes ,wolvowstant beater brbdd os VE ree ee
| “Poy .treatigen saw Snainstes Aawet vast queue” neve tact “na ee u _ :
* wi fgen ald 20% Vesers ged? bas tnosifzen saw ttre? bawe? “ouls ta
“Seb wot od biworte folbuey «edd dolled neod ovad ton biuow ed eoneg
. Vursolela tadt anoigousd ant tedte at Bio? erew eusl, oat att ==
a as a Votes Bellid saw aetvo® ‘tant basot code tt xovooe7 fen “ten biwoo
wtneloitiva saw etitt “seoneat fgon swo “ett “bed.
of mevi® anv Iaaghe on tadd toette eff of sonebive enw saat
‘ec eed moltiaog « at ton aaw etved sausoad qu ‘Head ot «
Bas seet? -tbott one figs ‘evaud edt ‘to tawooes ae fangts ‘dows a
: ‘© UN Niabltemutede seate
“Nesiheme 6 aa Stated oft ob netegpos 2h aldavehsenos ef sted? ‘ si 8
at até oft of ofdeot igus oxow Yuaqné> baoritex od? te solv abstuso
eves Bivow #f dads 6 Leonobive al oldtaatnba "cell ade TEMS tae
avad aw gonte flateb at ‘tisasemes ‘quod ‘Gd ueae be oroquny on
oft ‘gabdute th al Sednariaw ed ton ‘biaow ow ads poten fonog eit? "Pedoact
ee dora; jae edinge “4 he
ey anas ot 10 Istuden « m0 "aise "won 8 3 com
scone unit :
WG J 8 aes
Lame es
PEN Sheltie gg att) ba RTT Chek DEM
wd pihaleath a¢eat edt 36 vale mi aiineut. an. aaae y tn
-G-
the evidence, in offering any rules which ere not acplicable,
whether the engineer was guilty of any negligenes in backing
the train from 20 to 60 feet, as the engineer testified, 1a response
to Sevier's signal so ae to permit Sevier te cut the train, or whether
to create the neceasary slack it was only necessary to dDaek the train
a few feet, we do not pans upon, Eut in view of the entire record we
are of opinion we would not be warranted in holding the trial Judge
Clearly abused the discretion which the law reposed in him in awarding
a new trial. Yagner v. Ghicago Motor Coach o., #88 T11. App. 403;
Fone v. Halsey, Stuart & Co., 256 111. App. 169; Couch v. So. By, Go.,
204 Ill. App. 490.
The order of the Superior court of Cook county awarding a
new trial is affirmed,
ORDER AFFIRMED,
Matchett, P.J., and MeSurely, J,, coneur.
ie .—e
oldeotiags ton ox dotde velox yaa gatiet tto Al \ee 7
ew al asenegiigen yr te wits asw weentgre edt rodit oth” -oentase oF
" eanoge 61 al ,boltives? aeectgne odd ee ,feot OB ot 08 nett alent edt
“aedtedw x0 lest act te of xetve® ttareq of a8 08 famgts Ay we
atari sit xdac of yisssesen Yine nav tt doala visensoon out staste GF
Sw pr008s aiitas odt to wetv af ‘gut secs asaq “Fen ab’ ou par He
egdxt tatut ect gotblod al betnextaw of ton blvow ow ‘aokatgo 48° ous"
“anibtawe at mid at Senoqer val et tobtw nosterenth of boante’ elahets’
“1802 gah .12T 668 99 done’ sete ogaphad 7 soot staid waa a
ee ee , ioe rai .¥" aut
nae ans Ary bai ik ea
a i pave ‘wnwee: wet to eral bepesg head ‘to todas sar” OO i
| - pearrttva at ind Gel
Fi sili lea a: oFoeiniie safes golPoraubt af vineblsoa
° ; bee FGR Dib Leenrtane adit wees
s Suaenbe \.% eKeaiitew pas YL. ha atedoaan
+ beige? yaa weeds weve tatt Bled cout ass
ar} ‘=: Sak + Sore Bee? aetae (ont a Fs
Wel tos binw ed eaneg
a re 3 Ste te yust ott? jnabaot
Tey oaest tor Aivoo
ota 6.aMoniipen 70 eld te f Lire
Fe
92 Ae ze! : Yeats & 7 eotebive ase ened?
ik we
‘ond Gt tesaiges ont
. Ede | ‘ ‘ pet
haz a4 ,e26%7 45) a: avewo off te teecets 06 laieatis dows shite ae 7
sats >: poxtete <sneo i
, : i a . “a : LOTR i
tehs Site Sg s 7 8h) Bl He CESRP RSS SIGAVMOLeKES EF ss Me gtT .
3 : , . 3 i i : id Salle ed
gi ataeat eds aitszetigas wie tnaqgete bagudiet eft VW rape. hades ;
eres Divot fi aaidy 2 -enebive ai eldivetaba ecoteied? bite tho "nae
ni } tafe Liekseb af aneiznatneq sami ‘eeupert ‘ey oni : Af,
ed? gnideitalh wt tetendcdaw ed Gen Aigow ow Tad? oaidhtones até
, a oo Be
aw apeh mi? t@ fadutexr «2 ad fsict vee ew cdibemen rumeo
ya Se@eleatS ayes? ett te welv ni aiitiwed on. orad. bkwow
PuBLISHED IN ABSTRACT
Stuart E. Pierson, Administrator de bonis non with
nexed of the Estate of David ‘Meade
ishback, i sea Plaintiff Appel-
lant ho a et
4 Pi a & F
fal., Defendants-Appellees.” >, a
4 —“ QS
a Gen. No. 9219. ar U a
a al
Mr. Preswwine Justice Rress delivered the opinion
of the Court.
The above cause comes to this Court upon a second
appeal, from a decree of the County Court of Greene
County, Illinois.
The original petition filed by Stuart E. Pierson, Ad-
ministrator de bonis non with Will annexed of the
Estate of David Meade Fishback, deceased, prayed
for an order of court to sell all real estate of which
said deceased died seized and possessed except certain
homestead premises then oceupied by Louise Fishback,
widow of said deceased, for the purpose of paying
debts and claims allowed or chargeable against said
estate. A decree for sale of the real estate was en-
tered, from which an appeal was taken to this Court,
wherein the cause was duly heard and the decree of the
lower court was reversed and set aside and the cause
remanded to the County Court ‘‘for such other and
further proceedings as to law and justice shall apper-
tain’’. No specific directions were given in that opin-
ion concerning the form of order to be entered by the
lower court. The case is reported in abstract form as
Pierson v. Fishback, 299 Ill. App. 627, 20 N. E. (2d)
329, in which opinion a full statement of the facts and
issues arising in the former trial are set forth and
need not be repeated in this opinion.
Upon filing the mandate of this Court in the court
below, the plaintiff petitioner prayed leave to file an
amended and supplemental petition for the purpose of
retrying said cause. Upon the former appeal, it was
held under the facts then in the record that petitioner’s
right to sell the premises would be barred by laches.
The amended claim contains certain additional allega-
tions seeking to justify the lapse of time before filing
the petition and to make proof of additional facts
“
ie fe sd
L600
LT EE EE EEE
‘hareaa A ji oi [
ob
atv ston slot af, Ag “lida Xt nang evs coal
me Whudalt.
# he Asiatlef get
af ¢ sosilagg A.stcuthas
.G wil
aA a is QFS2 oh srotd
a
fotnied ot) Teaeg ital “iH crcaul Onigneny at eae «we x
Ji) walt do,
»
me ide & nee POO ant or einion d benny avarlig wt ae Ba a
ype) io drooly yianeD Stote ie fa mie snr ae
Its spaeokT DX bp 8 lo tala vitesse Cal ¥
att. to. Gexetinn WT aR wie aed ob he i
haw baxtoab-oloaidaed obeelh biveth go ‘eae »
Hsiiw to oldies inst [fe iloe of thea heereiiae :
Rabe icpoza beeper bao boxiga Dotty Bae 4 jae
Aninfital 4 seinen! yet alquradte trot woetierey Tate a ee id
uitiver lo sshynsty oP ae) Romeo ites The wrohine et
Ninh tone ag ote Vas TW bowtilia nic adirwes }
“9 above states Inet off BM othe vat ee ae wt ie aah
d1000 ait o) codeh egw lesa We doh met Sev
0} Io e-vioeh stfu Deaerd Jick savers ot stiprrostye > he io
se#060 alt ban abies fox how fewever eaters 4aprel ;
bea sodio douse wt tO wiawol) add of ee ‘+ =e
“i9gqe ada sollent bee wel oh 4a sautchnaoone rast /b Vee
“JO Jadt af covip oti viroliaprthy aft ya |
of} vd horadae ot of sare domme? OS | he pale
an mol fontiads mi betorpet ab eens gfP ses i9'8 oy ete
(5S) © .VeOS 28 aA JE eee Aooddasyt 7 wor ae
bite aioe? odd Yo Inomrotete let ¢ aeaistiepo toidw sti ASB. a -
bee Wot tee one Ieivt secret off at Sulerta: seuses
oinkyo aiibai hoinser od tom boom © ‘oy
too odd at te aitlt Yo sleboam oid: aati moqtt
+ Ritnista tlt swoled: haat
1H off of avnol fiver enol
lo oaoiiog alt 10% aeistiog ininosrolqune bik hafuennag Ma
aw 4 leeqgs Ish ite? ht ogy sere tips naizttoer hi rad
4 ranontitod tet Danes ait cf nodtatoe! ef ashrmpblat win
Holoel ad hetint of Dittew eommiaag ott dee obidgit 45 5 ame
wily fecoine an ttietias eosin mies bohweonss ofl'T
cil Siolod eeril to sips! edt oy liteer of aahiees amet” é
Kinet [auonitthu te toowy sileae ob five teitiag off -
SY
Page 2 Gen. No. 9219
thereunder, and the supplemental petition set forth
the conveyance of the premises sought to be sold in
said proceeding by said Louise Fishback to David
Donald Fishback, son of said deceased, and Jack Me-
Donald and Gilbert K. Hutchens, including in addition
to a 310 acre farm, a homestead property consisting of
eertain lots and dwelling house in the City of Carroll-
ton, Illinois, which conveyances contained release and
waiver of all homestead rights of Louise Fishback in
the latter premises.
The Trial Court denied the appellant’s motion for
leave to file an amended and supplemental petition for
sale of all the real estate except said homestead prem-
ises and found that the prayer of the petitioner should
be denied as to sale of all real estate other than said
homestead as being barred by laches; the entry of
which orders were assigned as error by appellant
herein.
In our former opinion reversing and remanding the
cause, we held in substance that under the facts set
forth in the record, the appellant should have been per-
mitted to refile her claim against the estate, to assert
her rights to rents and profits, and upon allowance of
her claim, be permitted to prorate with other sixth
class creditors.
The lower court erred in denying the appellant’s
right to file an amended and supplemental claim alleg-
ing additional facts and joining the grantees named in
the deeds and creditors as additional defendants, to be
followed by a rehearing upon the merits.
The cause is therefore reversed and remanded with
directions to the Trial Court to set aside its decree of
August 4, 1939, and to permit the filing by the appel-
lant of an amended and supplemental complaint and
joining additional parties.
Reversed and Remanded with Directions.
QB (A-19598—14)
C786 oY, 9 oa € egal
iffteS toe suttitug Ietassrefpgne adi hae sohnweredt
i bios of 63 itaror eseioteny bedi lo oonavavion -
hive’ of doaddeit osinal hing vd enifieotorg hid
-9M sont hor hesseooh bina to tem alenddar® hinnoll
soiibbs ci geibeloni enodloinl 2 prodit® Bre hlanott
lo suniletetoo yivaqony beotesoed were? qra8 OF gol
ows To iD elt «i o&uodl yaillowh bas sto) shat
hin senstor hortgivos esomgevaes doit .stonilll tot
ui Jonddaif ssinol to atdeit basteomod tle Yo a9via2
eoaiomorg totiel aut
ioi-notont atoelloenna sdf Botnsh tivo) fon? olT
Lol goilitod-Letremoleqne Bice bobssen: ae offf of avast
sro Aaciesmiont biak rary eotad Lagt act Ife to olpe
_blnode tenwittoeg of) to toner ott tad? Hea? here etek
Dine mod iad slales lio tle Yo ofpe of ga beiasheod
io vidas oft ;aedoal td Boru ported ad heelaanod
inoilsgas yi tore 4s heosieet orow mioiao dont
itera
ol) aria, Oae yoleidyor sulsiye tegmtet 100 al
tus oeion| alf robaw tadtooretadae fp Bled. ow Prt ie)
“a rom avad ileode tnalliagen off roswpeddai dirot
Meese (i wieles off taniaoe aiale tod slfiey of beilim
‘oe yognwaie gece bas aliera bie staan of alderyed
d)pte dadte vitien atevorg oF badtunse oad ettels rod
totibe ts ganls
a lanlioqye oft yoivnsh ot hore dyes rewol ed?
yotis mish intesmalresre bos bolvtonme maeited titers
“i bomse ssolunre ad! social bop sleet lenobiiia wits
ad of 2inelbuoleb Inaottibhs se wrotibon ee aboob alt
thon ot sone auissoder 8 yd bawollot
diiw hobusoey bus heatsvet eroloted? ef emmme oO,
ja, oo4eh sti ohian Jae-of! tree) Ie’? odt o} anoilogyh
-foqae odt vel guilit ont Meresip ot Bae PERE & tarde
Dus itielqeme fateagsiqene fot bebaodtie: ae to?
woihiug feacttthbe aaiaiot
Paks ate Alene hy tras 1h Troe hoeawwalh
; 121-—AA h oa
PUBLISHED IN ABSTRACT
Lottie Biehl, et al., Plait: ey v. The H. N.
Ap 28), First Pier arian an Pana, Illi-
nois, Louisa Clarke, ul A
fendaint- -Appellants. — Nelson, /Aui itor of
_ Public Accounts, Bx Rel., Plajntif- ee.
. The H. NW. Schuyler State Bank of
: eal a ea In-
rvening Petition of Louisa Clarke,
Amelia Granda and The First
Presbyterian Church of Pana,
Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellants. ¢ 3 0 5 L. Ae
Gen. No. 9206
Mr. Justice Futron delivered the opinion of the
Court.
This is an appeal from two decrees rendered by the
Cireuit Court of Christian County in two eases which
were consolidated by stipulation for the purposes of
this appeal, and by agreement of the parties, tried and
submitted on one record.
The H. N. Sehuyler State Bank of Pana, Illinois,
closed its doors on February 6, 1930. A suit was filed
in the Cireuit Court of Christian County by the State
Auditor of Public Accounts for the purpose of liqui-
dating the affairs of the bank, and on April 21, 1930,
one A. W. Frankenfeld was appointed Receiver. This
cause bore the general number 11178. On May 13,
1930, the Plaintiff-Appellees, being depositors and
creditors of the bank, filed a representative stockhold-
ers liability suit, seeking to recover assessments on the
bank stock of said institution. This suit was numbered
11180.
The controversies in the case arise over the admin-
istration of a trust and the handling of the estate of one
Kate A. Comstock. She was the owner of 80 shares
of stock in The H. N. Schuyler State Bank from 1907
up until the date of her death in 1923. The Bank was
engaged in the general banking business but was not
166
vqesteet, ot vem
a
alt %4 soldiqn 6d? feravih tomy'T sorreyt, alt,
“hee?
oil yf berebast evel owt mort lnsqqe tee aa
doidi exese ow! ai gogo” apiteid to geneD Hav?
to oscar oft sot weitglogie yd hotnbitonnas eraw
hue beivd esting sit to tomers yet hee Toate aidd
bres otro io ¥
wionilll aoeT Yo dan obit sobrade® Mook od
helit saw tum A .O8GL 3 ronda am etoob eth fos
inde oft yd vieere’) natterut) to to) Hetil on
inpil ‘io qxocpreg od? tot eteroasAnsildn® to sotiha ft
0) JS fixg A om boe clined off to aiefin’odt aniteh
aT, roviesegs Beavitocggn anw biotwatamrt Wak: Snm@..
re jell ot) SPLIT aero lereawg ad} otod
bas svothwasbh getisd eeolleaqA-Titaield ant
-blovdoote ovitalsaeateen @ holt vinad a To eotibers
aft no stognmeoeen tovenet oP enideoe dios yilidsil 219
bemdoauwn sev lim enll .conottani bine te anaes
PEL
.tiubs ed? tava geben eeae off af aoterovenimor ed?
ano lo otatag said Fo gallbaad odd bite fend g to aotacet
sora 0% Yo ware oft paw ad@ aleetamoa) A ated
FORT ston? dasa ofat@ asivudet A A od si dole Io
saw tun of TD ORD wi dineh wed te ofeb odf fitan qa
iow 20% tud easctand yoidaad iaveroy onff nt hegagne
i
hed
Page 2 Gen, No. 9206
authorized to take and execute trusts. On January 23,
1922, Mrs. Comstock made and executed a Trust Agree-
ment concerning all of her property, wherein and
whereby, she appointed the said Bank as Trustee to
handle and dispose of her entire estate. In the first
clause of the instrument she instructed the Trustee
to convert the 80 shares of bank stock into money to be
added to her cash balance on deposit in said bank, to
be used in the payment of her debts and a large number
of bequests, aggregating over twenty thousand dollars.
The trust instrument directed that many of said be-
quests be paid within one year after her decease. Others
were to be paid in payments running from five to
twenty years and others when children became of age.
To the Appellant, The First Presbyterian Church of
Pana, Illinois, was bequeathed the sum of $5,000.00, to
be held by the Trustee for a period of twenty years,
and only the income paid to the church annually during
that time. After the expiration of the twenty year
period the principal was to be paid to the church as
needed. To the Appellants, Louisa Clarke and Amelia
Granda, was given the sum of $2,000.00 each to be paid
in installments during a five year period after the
death of Mrs. Comstock.
At the death of Mrs. Comstock all of her property
was in the hands of the bank. Subsequent to the date
of her death, the expenses of her last illness were paid
and during the year 1925, a number of the gifts or be-
quests mentioned in the Trust Agreement were paid
by the Bank. The Bank stock was never converted
into cash and in March, 1926, it was transferred to the
four residuary beneficiaries in kind, each taking 20
shares.
At date of death the checking account for Mrs. Com-
stock amounted to $3,000.00. The account was carried
on after her death, and the business of the Estate
handled by the Bank. When the Bank closed, the
Receiver took possession of the trust property.
In Apri, 1983, A. W. Frankenfeld resigned as Re-
ceiver of the Bank and Nora Molz was appointed Sue-
cessor Receiver.
In the Stockholders liability suit, the Appellants
were not made parties in the original complaint, but
in September 1934, the Appellees filed an amendment
to the complaint making the Appellants and Nora
Molz, as Receiver of The H. N. Schuyler State Bank,
additional parties defendant for the purpose of re-
covering the liability on stock owned by Kate A. Com-
DOK of oat £ oyaT
LS yiecaet, «0 ates} oluowee bate olat of bosiroding 7"?
oA part s botmeze bre obnar doateno) 2dt * an
hus stort drogen vl Yo ie gaieroomad. eat
of ootnarl 2¢ duel ise adt hotaioggn oie :
tert at a atates writin reef Yo uneeli thaw nn
ostau'T oft heturiani ode tremytamt oct To-guanls ” .
od ot yortoan oft; soir dual to earl 3 off pi Ho Ob
ot ana! Hex af Heoqel ao onelad datonel ;
vod soval 9 bie sso vn oe bod
- 2tsllob basenod! yinaw 1 earlier eas ¥ to oe
od bite to yaenr Jad? tet a: = iii
ayant Spe . v4
q
of evi mot} patiny: aleonreay
ogs to ontaded aothtide seirvay
- lo dered) antretedeorl i aaa - #8 4
ai page toda meri antisigte a 3
ise ante! Wp piecgigt i aise
giitnh yleusin dase edt ot soa eau has
iat ytaow! «lt jo volmigz
«n dosude odf of blag od/al anw a ae Farinon
ailoitA bao oftal¥ ae
hing af at sons none any eat
od? sotty heivaq west Syit g
crraqetg vad lo fig deetamoD writ to titerals oilt
stab ot of tranpoeda® dand ad? teshuekodt alter |
hing stow ssoalli jael ved to eoenoqze alt dimebwod To =
od 19 altie oft to wederan 4 SCL sey di gotwh bon
hing stow juomeorpé tariD odt wi re ot me
betrevinoo tevor anw dsote dnefl odT dnt odt ae
ant ot betretanett sew tf OSL sora ni hie (
OS ygridlet dono bait wi zortistiongd yinubiaat 4
40") at ro snsona id nal .) a
hoittn® asw titrosed oT 00,000.68 of 7
sisie odi Yo aasitian of bun ltaeb roid
ait bseoly aned oilt <— brew ont et
heqosg tarred
-off 26 homgiest pricberae: rdaghe ar.
one botaioges aw slel, seta alo No apo ow
io!
ehuslieqqA od? tine ilideil aTohlodstoote i
tad jateloeros isithyito oil} ai ssitiag aia
inambaone te balit esallege A ili baet “rodanehaee al ye
sw bus atuaiisqgdé off patina daielqates sift ot Y
sine otsi4 taivedet A HH ofT to sovigoed an slol 1
a to sanpiiq aft sot trabus'teb Innoitibbe
0) .A- 9a yd howe dots ne a ad? aniisyoo
Page 3 Gen. No. 9206
stock during her lifetime and afterwards until said
stock was transferred on the records of the bank on
Mareh 29, 1926. By the Amendment, the Appellees
elaimed a first lien on all of the assets of the said Kate
A. Comstoek coming into the hands of the bank. It
further asked that all of said assets of the trust be
applied on the lability due to the Creditors of said
bank and in ease of a deficiency after the application
of said assets that the Appellees reeover from Appel-
fants to the extent that each had received assets from
said trust.
The same complaint was amended on several other
occasions, the last one being filed on March 14, 19388.
In April, 1935, the Appellants filed an answer to the
complaint as then amended. The answer alleged that
the Bank wrongfully accepted the trust and that Nora
Molz, as Receiver, took possession of the trust pro-
perty without qualifying as Trustee. It also averred
that Nora Molz was not authorized to take or admin-
ister said trust; that the cause of action did not accrue
te the Appellees at any time within five years before
the commencement of the suit, and that said Trustee
wrongfully took and converted the trust funds. On
July 27, 1936, the Appellants, by leave of Court, filed
a cross-complaint charging the same matters set forth
in their answer. On July 27, 1936, the Appellants
filed a petition in the liquidation suit asking for the
removal of the said bank and Nora Molz, Receiver as
Trustees of the said Trust Hstate. The petition
eharged that the Receiver had been cooperating with
the Creditors of the Bank to dissipate the trust funds
which the said Nora Molz was holding for the benefit
of the petitioners.
In May, 1935, Nora Molz, Receiver, answered the
amended complaint in the Stock liability suit, and
later an amended answer admitting the acceptance of
the trust by the bank, setting forth certain acts of the
said bank as said trustee, and admitting that she had in
her hands, as Receiver of said Bank, the sum of
$7,425.00, belonging to said Trust.
Voluminous motions and amendments were filed dur:
ing the progress of the suits but the original com-
plaints, as amended, the cross-complaint and the inter:
vening petition were all answered and the case at
issue at the time of the hearing before the Court.
The proofs, in addition to those already stated and
those disclosed by the pleadings, show that after the
death of Mrs. Comstock in 1923, her account was car-
; awit OM ina aa wack 7 . ay — a ft agatl »
hi eta abt Hay hee aihosil a suet rb dota
ew hind add te abide aft ae hettolenet! enw Ay
- sanitary ss dt Soomboont: oftiel AGT 28 iftyr
of A Bins oft Ty atsene af) to there ast tem o bomishs
FE stttact ort Wy eben - itt etn givieres dootemo) WA
ad sayert gilt to afaven Rowe “ay, tis tat hedas tadtest a
bing to atotibsr? off of sul filidell sit re Daaqgi |”
toftautlgge sill aye caistieh sto sem ut bts dred
-lipgh rw oie céailgt A of) in pista hie Yo,
mond lite en i fx roto he Me if hae Ae herahes oil) ‘or whan
send Pie
- aul tee Lecbarse. a fi ‘bint NK Heme Hata hinted: pee wT
OSE af ileralf! de boli owried Atty tenho lerrokaerios
| att at dome me hala adnatlangigA ad! 6ner ribeentie
Hint rae vranie ad Jriiniserd aut an apd a
i wie 7k Tin tasitt aght Porlipaavay olinthgeeene Hrostl oct!
oe dani) ai ‘hy deiseaiene, Het: UT OE an tol
a havin oats HO veandeues nde “ev yt agen teolliw ytoag
oitimbaao adad of bostedser ton 2a Soe) ers tam,
area fod bile qoiton Wy -aates okt dedt Bare bine y9t4l
atgiad atkey ail uth sarid iy te wevsthnegnp te adi od |
— eatar’'T bine tad? (ter fine edt to Wibotieetotaaios aif)
HOP ahiint teaert ail Detrntos Bir Ao0d tant -_
{ holt erie 7 ta rant ope a tored bury Ay tat; ve int. for
“(linet ine otter saree ot aaron Fikes Bi
ahralfore &, onft, OFM (TE atyl. HO) Seas TA
gt ao anilan Jie woftabiipll tlt ak tortion a holt
or eH vias ii alolf soy, ‘bra dent fitae wuld to leone
ofiilyg oft obwtell fal Bias gir do apitemnt
lili guile qoes oad hed creed allt tet hoprads:
- strat jain) ot) aingizeth ne Joel ent ‘ta miagihat)
. Hoviael ois, to ninion Hin sole wio% bine oft foi
it! a erouptlited Ad
ait borer aia lott seroKk Mat ya ad!
ite Hie TAREE ote of Sevalemes: ‘pabdeaens
uu hy omar gs Hep asa ott ag ticettin towses helweuta pie otal ©
ad? to eles atate deol pete olaal pitt yd tema pit
’ td ert od ert gontinha' baly sated: trina aa dond fine
. a be, ae ob thi anand bie te TAO Re aBrad qa
OO fae bie ar gitignoled 00.88 32
“ih belt evour xtrantirone bie smeiten enamine’
: HOD jenttyre ad? tid ejtie sit wo eastecig off Sat
aeini odt bow dninhqetos-aeots oft fiabrionia aa ethan,
in wane off Sid beraventa te aro9 aGhiieg goimey
Set) ot adied ‘gititend’ aft Ww omit of la sueat
ite botete vbaeih seodd of sotibbe mi pier ofl
any pathy. juift wrihihee, 23 aguiifvuoley att wd foaolsaifi oadelt
Ais ne gies 34 fo nas iy poveey ites ais haere
i =
i
a
oe
Vo ts
On,
aor my
anes
7
ne
; — x
\ :
a
oy
i
Page 4 Gen. No. 9206
ried on by the bank until the time of closing its doors
in 1930, and thereafter by the Receiver to the year
1935. Beginning with July 1, 1925, $75.00 had been
paid the Appellant, First Presbyterian Chuch of Pana,
Illinois, by the bank semi-annually until November
23, 1928, when there was paid the church $150.00, and
the same amount again paid to the Church on Decem-
ber 28, 1929.
After the bank was closed by the Auditor, the Ap-
pellants filed general claims in the liquidation suit
against the bank based on the said trust agreement,
which claims were allowed in the amount of $5,000.00
to the Church and $2,000.00 to Amelia Granda and
Louisa Clarke respectively. Afterwards on April 1,
1931, the Receiver paid a general dividend of 1214%,
and paid to the First Presbyterian Church $625.00 as
a dividend on its claim. He also paid the Appellants
Amelia Granda $250.00 and Louisa Clarke $250.00. On
January 15, 1934, a second dividend of 5% was paid
to all general creditors and at that time there was paid
to the Church $250.00, Amelia Granda $100.00 and
Louisa Clarke $100.00. <A little later, the Trustees
of the First Presbyterian Chureh filed a petition in
suit No. 11178, asking that their claim against said
bank be reconsidered and re-allowed as a preferred
claim, and on May 21, 1934, a decree was entered in
said cause allowing the claim of the Church in the sum
of $4,125.00, being the amount of $5,000.00, less the
dividend payments of $875.00, as entitled to a prefer-
ence. In the same manner in July 1935, the claims of
Amelia Granda and Louisa Clarke were allowed as
preferred claims in the amount of $1,650.00 each,
being the sum of $2,000.00 in each case, less the divi-
dend payments of $350.00, to each claimant. The basis
of the claims for preference was that the bank had pre-
viously acted during its period of solvency as a Trus-
tee ex maleficio of the Comstock Trust. Immediately
thereafter, Nora Molz, as Receiver of the bank, set up
as a reserve the sum of $7,425.00, being the aggregate
of the said three preferred claims.
In cause No. 11178, being the liquidation suit, the
Court dismissed the intervening petition of Appellants
en the ground that as claimants the petitioners had
previously gone into the Cireuit Court and had, at a
former term of Court, their claims determined to be
preferred and judgment or decree taken accordingly.
That as to any relief prayed, the intervenors had been
guilty of laches.
Wet of ot + ove
oo tiggitealo to aaatf oft feng dead wilt vd ao Deir
ney ado) guvieodhl hh bh elieomnd aie the:
nod bed UG.CRR Of VL iol aie Poo
etn to daad wetatvdeen? bet Jastlond é odd bing
toiniove”% fun yleutite-inme dal adt ed afoul
bia JO? devia oft hing enw sted? ged REE ES
amet wo dere? ol) et bing nee ao Soe ond
OGRT 28 29d
pA saht nolibud ods al faze asw aed ont
lui cottabinpil od} di stthile levendg boii ataailag
Jiuonests Jewitt Mer edt no bese dined odd tameye
OK, i lu inven off ot hewolle srtw anttnis doula
hue abuwil) effveA of (LOWS bere aarti malt pi
Jf Dead ne alte winith viev Hosden waa) '
Lom kt to boohivily lowes a bieg satiotedd olf 1ERE
aa OU.CLBE dored’) cnbatydtsorl jew at of had bas
otriallagipA. ld bias cele ob aniaile att ao beobivths
wt) SNLO0S atval’) eigen) ae 008 alert)
bing sew 6. to buyhivil ins 6 251 SL pianaat,
bing saw overt ansit ted’ 4a t dete dan Ue $
fae O00? ares siberé Rak ee
analesrT off axial sD A
mm polite e-betf dot) a_orkdedtesd
» bine tactiepa omminio: tiga goal, er aot ny
beraewny i vehewolbagen Kei tranrnbinsanetigel Pov
ui Lovotne 40% someb's BOD 12 vali ee praia
race ont srt devine) ach to oniele oft onaaodlis
‘git real 00.000 0% ty tawone alt aivhod)
; “thtog g 0 Eval Ait sue AE TAR te ainomtgad
ae beste Q1aw 7 oat neicod fae abe) eff
aes OOS to dieooerm od} aa eatinky harieiete
ivi oft ewol goane- doe mi 06.000,S% to moe edt wm
ahead aft Jirgrainky Woee ot 00,0088 Ie .
ane bad alaad odd tna ain: ocrecabont etoile
owt 1 20 yonayiow ta halved. —— baton sone i,
thobnibeanl dan 3 vlt . |
cps dee lied add to tavigoodt lag Mole ay, , ait
ajezotpas ad) paind OOCCETR to cane wilt aTLOReT mat .
emishs barratete ool higw A
ott tine noitshispil edt gaind ATUL 0M pated)
xinalisqey A to toitife gereevvetal ont
fut evanctiioy adf ehuseiais es tet bao sags
ede bed beetiwe’) tine? elt ofat amog
of! of} besionath gertelé iad j¥aoD Jo imtat
vigmirsoon nodal ssvrmob qa ror pen
wood fund xronsvratot od! si
Page 5 Gen. Ne, 9206
In eause 11180, being the stockholders liability suit,
the Court found that the Appellees recover the sum of
$8,000.00 from the trust estate in manner, to-wit: That
all monies in the hands of Nora Molz, as Receiver of
The H. N. Schuyler State Bank, which were identifiable
as coming from the Estate or Trust fund of the late
Kate A. Comstock, including all monies held by said
bank at the time of its closing, and against which the
preferred claims of Appellants were allowed and im-
pressed, should to the amount of $8,000.00, be paid over
by said Receiver, in due course of administration to
the Receiver appointed in this cause.
That the elaim of the Appellees should be satisfied
first, and prior to the claims of the Appellants under
their preferred claims, and that any interest the saia
Appellants might have to any funds in the hands of
said Receiver, accruing from the Comstock Estate or
Comstock Trust be subservient to the claim of said
creditors. :
That Appellees were not entitled to recover from
the Appellants any sums heretofore paid to them by
the Bank or its Receiver.
Decrees were entered in each case in accordance with
the findings of the Court. Appellants have prosecuted
an appeal to this Court seeking to reverse the judg-
ments of the Cireuit Court as set forth in said de-
erees. The Appellees have filed a cross-appeal in suit
11180, alleging that the Court erred in holding that
Appellees, as complainants in said cause, were not
entitled to recover from the Appellants, First Presby-
terian Church, Louisa Clarke and Amelia Granda, the
respective sums of money paid them by the said bank
or the Receivers thereof, prior to making them parties
Defendant in said suit.
It is first contended by Appellants that the Trustee
should he required to pay the entire assessment against
the stock held by Kate A. Comstock because of the mis-
management of the Estate, and that all of the loss that
acerued was due to the manner in which the Trustee
handled the Trust Estate. They particularly complain
that the Trustee should have converted the eighty
shares of stock in The H. N. Schuvler State Bank into
money for the purposes of distribution; that the Bank
had been guilty of devastation of the estate in that it
accepted and attempted and did execute the provisions
of the Trust Agreement, although they were not quali-
fied under the banking laws of Illinois to either take or
execute trusts; that the Bank was guilty of mis-
we eZ nal 0 ognt >
toe aitide!) ecolitortaete od) quied OFTT) sanna af
io nut 4d) 14 veges allegg A adf tadl evel fae? silt,
tod? sie) setter ob) ojalee deat ed? mort 10,000 88"
to qaverell ay elo eso% Ta ehind off af eainonr Ty
sideftiinvhi crow doidw dash oet4 voto Yall
otal wit io beet temn'T vo otete ost mort untmos aa
line yd biol esinegr He usihulonit asolente) <A sta7
ott idw tevizen foe -goieols aii In smi sdf te dae
on bon bowella sew etasileaqé To antinis howled
save hing od 00,000 22 Jo tenor, ad) of binedts Desert
oo ihoettiqginhs te ete sab at pvisssll bier ad
ani of betaiogege teviesoh wilt
botleitee ob bisorda assiloqqA aff Yo mints off fadT
vehew elesileade A-ad! Yo ental off of rotrg haw. teil
onde oft feowsint qin telt bas sanink berreteig tied}
lo <bered alt af ebyet cre of ova tipi etnailegaysé
10 91M Jootua oft non? gain seviowdt hig
Hine Yo otielo oft of teirtqedye od tant’ dotemeD
; avotibyerta
anit «evoo of Reltitas fod stew
vd meds of bing svoteterel ame qaqa
fouess
a
lie oomibroone mi ase dane af hewline sew eigese
Loteosaoty oved atcaiioayé simaDad? to eprihah sit ©
-abint od! sarevet of goolosk baet) eidt of laqaois
oh bine ni diet tae ea eed duel elt To einer
ties ni losqae-eaere n hollered esallaqg dA od Tei
tad) guihlod ot beta tino) ad fault guineltal er
foo orsw senso bise nt temeiaiqewe €n jeopiisqyA
“videorl tai atnaliogy A all mov ricer oF beltiige.
ad) sboait) aifentA bie edaal) gsino dD ead
adned bine edt vd tat bing ysaper To ante i aaa
vattiasy mei ‘gnistae nt Torey ee
ine bine wi |
ontarc’T edt thelh atwalloeepA gab baiursincn teal al Te
loins teaaroren onisie alt tag ot bovinpetad Maeda
aim off te nenaad irr ait vA ed td blot ayote odd.
tecld anol galt wy Fhe Meet Bea: aft To freer eager |
sonia S oft. dotedge if 99 tt ot snk asw berms
diniqmes vhaluobtasep onl shnbedl sony sift halbetad
vidgia olt botpvon oved hinoda soten’T off tal
oni ton atnte tive? 4 TT of? at sooty ed aerial
Anet ode tect? ;wottedisteih to xeaoqang ont 10? :
ti tadt ui olstds oft to aditeleeveh to yiline poad tf
atoiaiyory oil! otqsexo bib bie beiqareite baa.
-itenp fom s1ow vad! Agwodtin toomears A dar Todt
10 silet redtie ot etoaill to aval sebined odd qobae ee
ait to yiling sow doe off Jolt jeden? otoemp
Page 6 Gen. No. 9206
management of the Trust in that it took the amount
donated to Amelia Granda and Louisa Clarke and con-
verted it to its own use; that the Receiver of the Bank,
acting as Trustee of the Comstock Estate, marshalled
the assets of the Estate in a manner that was most ad-
vantageous to it, the Receiver of the Bank, and that
the bank did not proceed to loan the money due to the
First Presbyterian Church and the other individuals
as directed by the Trust Agreement.
It is conceded by all the parties that The H. N.
Schuyler State Bank had no power or authority what-
ever to accept and execute trusts, but the record in
the case does not disclose any glaring evidence of mis-
conduct in the handling of the funds of the Comstock
estate. The fact that the eighty shares of bank stock
were not converted into money but distributed in kind
to the four residuary beneficiaries was not harmful to
the trust estate because the cash would have been paid
out at the time of distribution, either to the residuary
beneficiaries or for other purposes connected with the
settlement of the estate. This distribution was made
in 1926 before the closing of the bank.
Because the bank was not qualified to accept or
execute trusts does not affect the rights of the parties,
especially when there is no proof of any mishandling
of the funds. The money and the property of the
estate appears to have been paid or delivered to the
proper persons who were entitled to the same, and it
was not established by the evidence that there was a
diversion or misappropriation of the funds.
Just why the installments falling due to the Appel-
lants Amelia Granda and Louisa Clarke on January
Ist of each vear after the death of Kate A. Comstock
were not paid is not fully explained, but the Receiver
in her answer states that she set aside a reserve suf-
ficient to pay the legacies due to said Appellants and
still has the full amount on hand, and is holding the
same subiect to the orders and dictates of the Circuit
Court of Christian County.
Under the trust avreement H. N. Schuvler was given
the sum of $1,000.00. After the closing of the bank a
claim was filed and allowed for this amount. It was
later set off by the Receiver against a note that
Schuyler owed the bank. A similar disposition was
made of a bequest of $500.00 to James Palmer. We
can see no evidence of misconduct in such an adjust-
ment of accounts.
; ani u wm die Ww, iw . Hi) oye
reali ailt foot it ttt af tenaT! odd To teemeagannat |
-109 hen otal esigold boa nhawr) ailomé ab Pealageb..
nafl add te co 7iseadl edt tad! pseu awo etl Old hebiay”
hetladcact iste dootentoD edt lo satel as gaiten
-he teour gow tadt sornen 6 ui sigtadl odf to atosse iff
tad) bus pleat adi Io teviasefl odt tt of aaostalany
aify of silt uot od? nial of fessor tom bif- fad old
fachivifat volte adt ban dod) setrobedeorh tet
dasmoom A derrT aft vd holostify aa
“A odf tect sothena adi Ie vd bebooemes si 1
tatw witodius vo two on bad dand sath obemilet
no) freee off tad .2ieu7t stosexa har taedua of ave
sit t Sonebive gubtels vag oadlsih toa waob ommo wd.
dsb taxi 1 di to =band ad? Yo gaithnad at at tenho
cote dund lo aetele zidyte odd dad tool of'T ataten
. nee uiLbetndiaih ted qeitem otal babies tom er
o} lularts:l fon av soteaisdeased yranhieet toot ad) Gt
fiteery neul onad fiirew dage ont oid atten Inne odd
rionbies oft ota romydteteib To sont off tn toa
ot ditty fietwenuon &ogmeeptadio tel to asivalfonad
shoot sew woiluditeil salt aietee ait to toeoiites
dom oft te peieols add erated acer ar
1” fqoee ot heililesp tot snw ved oft onymadl
otited art! Yo atdets otf) aie dow 20h ataatt ates
vnilbnadeion “p08 to Joorg ot al etodt marly ultsisoqas
of! to vheqorq oft bem verom edT eb ed) to
adi of hotovilal 40 bia a9od ovad.ot erase antes
ti bun are adi ot beltitin ovaae on attonteg teqomg
e ann otelt ded} s9eahive odt af hadsildates Jom acid
vahag) silt le aoiierajenqqarion 10.
Jory A. alt ot onh geillel wtroniighaeti: oft pelar ten,
prams 9% paisod hae abiueit) ailoarés
doolemoD A sistt ta dtaeh oft oatia teed done
qoyieoeH adt tnd Battalyye vile Jout ai bivep toa
tim avyoaer a _abian toe ode Hul) sotate seqece aod oF
hae atin! Sacgaph. bine of auly esinstaal adh gag of tagigh |
owt entblod af fire bined ne deer tot od aed tite
liroiD odd To sotstoiy face alealiven atak netdng same
WROD wailetul) 9 pai
worthy saw oitetse VOR Htncuorein tent od) mholl
e Saad odé To gniaels odt-ettA 00,000,5% to sus on}
enw 41 toawoar eidi mt hevwolle fas helA enw oielo
indt stom # tecissa teviacedH adi vd To ten total
sew pottizoqa® salimie A dosd sit bewo tabynted
ov ecole zomel of 00.0008 to Jeatpod ado sbanr |
tants ne dove af toubiooeion to eortebive om gee nAS
; ——~ to —
~
Page 7 Gen. No. 9206
Even though the terms of the trust were not prompt-
ly and accurately carried out by the Bank and its Re-
ceiver that does not in our judgment have any weight
on the question of whether or not the claim or lien of
the Appellees for enforcing stock liability was prior
to that held by the Appellants. The full liability on
the Comstock shares of stock had accrued prior to the
death of Miss Comstock. This is definitely shown by
Certificates of deposit and savings account books
offered in evidence.
The Constitution of the State of Illinois, Article XT,
Section Six, provides that—
“Every stockholder in a banking corporation or
institution shall be individually responsible and
liable to its creditors over and above the amount of
stock, by him or her held, to an amount equal to his
or her respective shares so held, for all its liabilities
accruing while he or she remains such stockholder.’’
Our Courts have frequently held that the estate of
a deceased stockholder is liable upon the stock held
and owned by the decedent in the same way and to the
same extent that the stockholder was liable in his life-
time. The only manner in which an estate can be re-
lieved of this constitutional liability as a stockholder
is by compliance with the provisions of the Administra-
tion Act, and by the running of the general Statute of
Limitations. Sanders v. Merchants State Bank, 349
Tl. 547.
The fact that the bank, as Trustee, was authorized
to sell the stock and failed to do so did not relieve the
stock of its primary liability to the creditors of the
bank which accrued before the death of Kate A. Com-
stock.
Tt is further contended by the Appellants that the
Statute of Limitations has run against the claim of
the Appellees; that the funds of the estate had been
distributed to the Trustee for the benefit of the cestui
que trusts and were no longer a nart of the Estate of
Kate A. Comstock. The indebtedness upon which the
liability in this ease is based is represented and shown
by a large number of certificates of denosit, which were
payable on presentation after maturity and endorse-
ment of the respective certificates. Also npon a num-
ber of savings accounts which were represented by
pass books which provided for the withdrawal of the
money upon presentation of the pass book and the
giving of a receipt. All of these evidences of indebted-
ness were in writing and hence the ten year Statute of
Limitations applies. The records of the bank show
HCE AY oh T onatt ~
. tain sig yen aren Jambeitt to Amid ont dork nevi
oF, ett hoe dos odd yd tao Berries yieteigans Dares
tdgiow vie ovred heorghet imo abled seoh ted:
to nail ro rink edt jon ca tarbfernw to foitapp of} 0
wold anw wile? doote antyrotns vot zeslleggh edt”
no viifidail Unt ofT etnalioagA add vd bled tedl Ot.
add of sahie howe bed sooty to omnaa dsoteinoD edt
vil wrod vlotiniob ai aid sedteino®) eel Yo daa
adoad lomosea azetvee fee Heogsh Yo anhniitdad
Astohing gt baveite,
IX ofoiteA, 2tordtlt to shat dt ty mentatiena alll
— te eakiivtetey th ttoitone
19 nottmio die gisthiand an (i -piybeitiete
hire oldizaojest vlevhivihat ad faite Aoideitttiet
iu tenoae ot svede han weve botiiets at ot eltei -
#ii ot Tenpe tenorms: me ot /bbed folate gad Sitote
aaisilidull ati fis ict Mar on sovede avieageer sod te
wibforabehy wae antieneyt otte to od ole ct ipa 0
te oteles alt tod? bio yiteenpert ogi arate tty
bled dante oil mode oldedl ab valiorbisete heanoreh
ad} of ben vow sense dt of trohaosty alt we Bawa the .
“til sil (ii aldei! ape vablodbsioete att ted trehee opine
1 ad ins «tateo ne didw nb soderior chee oie aonet
toblortdoota aan vtifidnil joneiteitiney ait te Barat
“aT leigh: ott: “ort vor oilt ttle sonaticgmtan ned “of
to ofrist® lecnetey att te neta Git 70 ine tok most
Oh ai tov eld aerate, tiger r-
hassle amw Jeter Toes sid at da fond oe
«ull ovoilor tog fily av ab at healiet fae doote oat? [iio ot
adt to aiolihare ont et viitidndl yraetbey ate te Hate
110) A she to dtesb edt aro }od’ baatraan dhesictw sf
oft tnt! admnMancck ott al falta inning “at a} reg
To mink. off detiere gut eed enoitatiaid eo otriate”
mood bert steies adda abet ait Pall Hoole A. walt =
ittese 4d? Yo Htagoad oft 4a ootarrT edt ob hainditiaify.
to strates odt te Mredow renol age ote a a
sift dot prey avnnthatdoballsdT asetena A
irvods fuey baimeeanaras AE at anes phlt ah difidadt.
orow doubw Jikoosh To aatnoliities Ia vadinnne agra 6 ed eit
~serohie fas atten tofte ibaa go oldayay
“DTH & torte oath, antanititras svitaoqeet ont Fo tint
wc botmoeoneins gi dolite Ainosyi: esutivea te rod
oft Ya Leveriuline wilt 40? habivordg dhider sloed eaath
9h bree olead asa add Ty mothaieameny pir “Voaont
-hetdshns 76 emeohoa sed We ILA tetany to piers
‘to stated? omar nat ad} sowed hap giitirew ab row 24on
wade adntnd odt in. throser oT vastiqes attod nt iit,
Page 8 Gen. No. 9206
that interest was credited on nearly all of the certifi-
eates as late as 1929, and that the last interest was
credited on the savings accounts during the last year
before the bank closed. The bank closed on February
6, 1930. It would seem by such records that all of these
debts were clearly renewed within the last year prior
to the closing of the bank. The amendment to the
complaint filed by the Appellees, by which Appellants
were made parties defendant was filed September 4,
1934.
While a large part of the distribution of the trust
estate was made during the years 1925 and 1926, the
funds due to the Appellants were never definitely set
off to the trustee for the benefit of the cestui que trusts
and segregated from the assets of the estate. After
the decree was entered in the liquidation suit allowing
the claims of the Appellants to be preferred and in
the aggregate sum of $7,425.00, Nora Molz, as Receiver
of the Bank, set up as a reserve the said amount in
order to pay the said preferred claims, and by her an-
swer and report filed in said cause still has such sum
in her hands awaiting the order of Court as to the
proper parties to pay the same. It is our judgment
that the suit filed by the Appellees in May 1930, and as
amended in September, 1934, for the purpose of col-
lecting the constitutional liability of the stockholders
was not barred by the Statute of Limitations and the
Court correctly found that the sum of $8,000.00, be re-
covered from any monies in the hands of Nora Molz,
as Receiver of The H. N. Schuyler State Bank, which
were identifiable as coming from the estate or trust
fund of Kate A. Comstock, deceased. Also that the
claim of Appellees be satisfied first and prior to the
preferred claims of the Appellants.
The compromise and release of the liability of Ruth
Schuvler Cole, owner of twenty shares of the bank
stock, whollv independent and entirely separate from
any of the 80 shares belonging to Kate A. Comstock
during her lifetime, did not onerate as a release of the
lability of any other stockholder.
In July, 1936, the Appellants filed a petition in the
liquidation suit asking for the discharge of The H. N.
Schnyler State Bank and Nora Molz, Receiver of said
Bank as Trustees of the said Trust Estate. While it
is clear that the said Bank was not anthorized to ac-
cept or execute trusts, the Annellants in this case dealt
and co-operated with the bank in the capacity of
Trustee over a period of several vears, accepting pay-
ments upon their particular bequests. The record
4
BAL WOK Ft 4 sya
-Hitias out to fle vsen an fetter sew deorsiol teal
enw Javiatni facil odt tadi bos, 22Cl ee steal an nog.
aaey daa! edt yanoh alccoson eneivee aft mo batibo
qiautds wa desolo daed oft bonole deed off arotod
naadt to Me deckt alerdear dope 7d oes blpow dl ORR oD
ining. i207 teel ult naltie bewenet ghinels orew ahieh
alt of tasmtbwents odT led oft: to goieols off of
etistsads iidw ad aselisacqA adit vd bell trtalgenos
J ormdnetqat bell eaew donbasleb sativa ahom stew
AGT
tea? alt to aottndivteth aft lo tisq oozel we aint
oft WEA? bos 6S@f einey off matiof shea sew etniep
fou ylotigfat: seven stew atontilogg A adi of eb abanl
#fen| aup iutaos od} Yo tfloged edt so} oodeirad ond of Ro
anftA . Staten adi do ateeen ath rics? hotenotmar bau
ait wolis dine sollsbiopil ord m haretap ewe gorseb onl)
ui ben Devioreta-ed.ol etieiiaquyA wilt To satinio edt
TvisnGA ag lol mio OO.ESL Te ta ne alanarane oct
ot tirrome hiae od} sri9ae1 @ ag qut tes oles adi to
-4 isi qf hoe 2mials howralany Hise og yaq of t9ba0
vise fous ead Hie secas hies nt Belfi de ily yb 70a
adt oc 46 t1n0D to gohto ont — abawd
he
theorabyt ara ei tL same add Yag 0 aang
rn .
26 bua OLCL veld mi aselloga A adi ad hol
-loo te sxoqtay off to} 2601 ~adeiges ai pry ses
ais) lodblooia ult to ytilkted Isnoitgiiases orl petitael
edt fare ercotiationnl jo otutste ot-rd horuid Jon sien
-t od O0.000,8€ to cerusodt ind} hago) witeeri09 dana
lol 20. Yo. «band edt at eaieone-yen atoT! hearevo9
doidvw lia slut? palvivboa. YJ ad? to tovienell ap
tarit 10 shelen edt mov? gain es ace ara
adt tadt off. boars) hootémoD A aia to
ot at volta fun teu bufhtattas ad eeolfogah to
catalog é silt Yo actigio.
Ltust o vtiticluil aft to gamehor bag eedenorenes FT
fil adt Yo secede vitew! te v4n¢o <loD sohyndoe
rt? atetmpe viata Fixer lonbrtaqahiyt yikes, anote
sonbinot) A ated at. saat boul aon ibe 0% se to RA
Hill jo segelod # ap oe te hits ,asetietel 2 mn
___ ?ehdorbists tao to aidan
alia nottilea « bolfl elmellognA edt { viol at
YH adT to eyyadecif of tat gotten te rin teaSak
fica to tevin lath so fete dan atest aa
tf olitl otis anit hina 44). to aaotenyT Ae
het OF ‘Basi <i retin ton aay Hout his ort dart tala #i
Heal seen =hit wiadeel leer A oft ater oteage 30 Teo
to viloncee att oth. dend edt dine ote xian
“THT unitawen perea? Lcrevee To barreqo® $990 axieurl
frooar ad slesuped vaittnidiag siodd coqn atwost
Page 9 Gen. No. 9206
shows that everything has been paid of the Trust funds
of the Comstock Estate, except the amount of $7,425.00
reserved by the Receiver to meet the preferred claims,
the payment of which is subject to the order of the
Cireuit Court. Under such circumstances the removal
of such Trustee would accomplish nothing and might
necessitate additional costs. Such petition was prop-
erly denied.
We believe the Circuit Court further correctly held
that the Appellees as complainants in the stockholders
liability suit were not entitled to recover from the Ap-
pellants, First Presbyterian Church, Louisa Clarke
and Amelia Granda, the several sums paid to them by
the bank, or the receivers of said bank prior to their
having been made parties defendant to said suit. ATI
of such payments were made voluntarily and without
any notice that the claim of Appellees would be as-
serted later. As to such payments the Appellees were
clearly guilty of laches and can not now recover.
Appellants challenge the jurisdiction of the Court
to entertain the stockholders liability suit because they
say the Statute does not authorize the bringing of any
eause of action of this character against anvone but
the stockholders and that Annpellants were not stock-
holders. The right of creditors to ste in equity to
enforce stockholders liabilitv has been repeatedly up-
hold by our Courts. Sanders, et al. v. Merchants State
Bank, et al. 349 Tl. 547. American National Bank v.
Holsen, 331 Til. 622. In the latter case the Court held
that the two facts essential to sustain a decree enfore-
ing liability of a stockholder are that the plaintiffs
should be ereditors and the defendants found to be
stockholders. In Union Trust Co. v. Shoemaker, 258
Til. 564, it was held that where a claim against a de-
ceased person has remained contingent during the
whole period allowed by law for presenting claims
against the estate and does not ripen into an absolute
liabilitv until the estate has been distributed to the
legatees under the Will, the claimant may maintain a
bill in equity against such legatees to reach the prop-
erty of the estate received by them. The funds sought
to be reached were in the hands of Nora Molz, as Re-
ceiver, and as such she became an equitable garnishee,
and the Court had jurisdiction to reach said funds by a
suit in equity.
Tt is our judgment that the trial Court did not err
in his findings or in the Decree entered and the same
is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed,
: ot bronze a foal a ant
iy toon 4 root ot ed Be a7 790K8
; prtire =" ¥; dw Yo Yaarrrney oct
mantis dot taht “seo tiaote)
Herston Silvers atemyt (fou
fj fron Tanoitihien ofetizancta
Dalinah vita —
terol’ Astor) arf availed o Ff
falomoe en asefleqa A ad} tat
o)} baltPae tow arow dir a vit dnl
) netrlataor a aianifer -
MINUTE ts flanté bute
hy ase1 ad? to tinal aut?
itotol, aathreq sbanraan! werk
9) vray atcen yap dine Te
) A to ntinio of) tad cation Var
vf fone oF ah natal hatrar
reo Hoe wad unt to vii vitals
ar alt eoraifads atirellagqh
Hf eohlodtente olf atetraian bf
sizodta 1 aooh otintate adh za8.
Jowtado eift te patter te oearnas
fiernvg A derlt Frerpe etoh farts Mate at!
iho to tfem ad? lethlod
inter oer: roxte arenoliin
In th wehhenh a) ao ad filo
f seyoiresy The i ‘Oe Aw by. Aah
jena votfal alt ai Bile, IT Pee ttoatn
inhine of Tertemase sion) owt wild tlt
sohinidteote « ‘to iiidail- siti ‘
vio oft bin etatibors ad Mirai
) tueeT wate ot ene hhedteay
newt tell Aled emw 2 JH Ty
» Aeivinree't deel meareey. howe,
wal ql Fewelly Bohra ofodur
f vty fore Otedae od) Jentear
anit otiten ont Fiten titi
Ina VE eorft aber etayal
sotewel ie tentowa wiles fer fide ‘
+
—
nod! vf bovieodr otetes adt la vie
eri li tei aneye B WiaRa71 ot ot
tool ols dome ag bam stevia
vel apg tenbe ‘ut bad Mera’) odt Ben
aimpo af tiga
aif? tastt franephas aie ef +
oroed ait of to eetball at of
booriilta oroboradt at
sit act PusBLIsHED IN ABSTRACT
Pa
Louise Wists AS dminiffeatix of the Estate of Atthur
B. Wist, decéased, Plaintiff. “Appellee, Y. Norman
B. Pit€airn an
Receivers of Wabash Railway Company,
a corporation, and Thomas C. Russel,
Defendant- Appetfants. S|
Gen. No. 9145
Mr. Justice Hayes delivered the opinion of the
Court.
| This case grows out of a railroad-crossing accident
| in the Village of Sibley, [llinois, on December 18, 1936,
| in which plaintiffs decedent was killed.
Sibley, Illinois, is an incorporated village of about
four hundred inhabitants, located in Ford County.
| State route number 47 runs north and south on the
| west edge of the village, and about half a block west
of and parallel to the Wabash railroad. The princi-
| pal business block is on Sciota Street, and runs north
| and south. The Wabash railroad runs generally north
| and south bearing at a slight angle in a northwesterly
direction as it comes into the village from the south
and goes through the village. Ohio Street runs east
and west and is the main thoroughfare connecting
| route 47 with the business section. The intersection
of Ohio Street and Sciota Street constitutes the princi-
pal business corner of the town. The main track of
the Wabash railroad intersects Ohio Street at an angle
less than a right angle, being eighty two degrees twen-
ty one minutes. The depot is located just north of Ohio
Street on the west side of the tracks. In addition to
the main track, at the intersection of Ohio Street, there
| is a passing track which is 13.1 feet east of the main
track, and a house track which is 11.1 feet east of the
passing track. These three tracks which cross Ohio
Street are planked. The crossing has the usual post
and cross-arms bearing the word ‘‘railway crossing’’.
The intersection of Sciota and Ohio Street is two hun-
dred sixty feet east of the Wabash main track. The
Brandt Grocery Store is located at the northeast corner
of Sciota and Ohio Street. At about eleven thirty
o’clock on the morning of the day of the accident,
Arthur B. Wist stopped at the Brandt Store. He had
Frank Cy Nicodemus, Jr., as ~X
ets eer fy) Waa AL” a, 2h) ect 4g
, : on on) a
re Chee oe: : 5
eprtle A Yo abetott sd ho iiwigicimb Asa aaiW satitods a
, ee * P Tc at i rere oo
of 2h oh eerorebonl tis ae, |
eevaigixod waist deadsW. fo ravipoa me
som, Ret: a D Bonn bua role yer108 ="
Sy LT 20g seedetetone 9
fe ee :
add te adage att haieeiioh mahi aves b re
Yeahidag ghd Lor, anni v8 te tee jane atl
DERE Bt vendipranatl vo eran) eaten to Suni ot ik
_betie) env jaohagsh eRitaialy iolvber net
herstebte “he aecale 7 Datesoqrasat ag et aoonll volta.”
wineo? tye ub betsoat aioaidadat perband aneh
afl! po dtges tite dior aie 7) tidannt ott Sie
vow oloold « ilar tride ban oestley' att 16 aha teem
ont fT haordion eta adh oF, ‘
on Say ain i nen siden ast ini By et test ney
¥it6 mandi ot b obgiin dibaila sts anid ent
oo fiives oct coe'l soalite edt ofil gomes Gr aa tonnes
Yano entre door: nhIOi-cgullie- add gwen boom ha
aaitsan iras erat noidtt ning wild ab teat
tat tosntg inh adT dotiooe evontend Gif dt
siting anf aotatitedes teent@ eteis® fing Jaane, OO tye
tn dont? finer od’? ewot odtf Yo vores ple Miirs Lote’,
ofurte ae te dood oid atepeteto rh ieoteat pps pee oS Se
: “owt reoraely ows VRE goied eee fifgiy pe | Sa
rm offOcte diver tay fedeool eb: eet i
of nabibbe af eilayed aft Te a:
aiodt deste oer te eek at a8
nlngy odd to yaa teat CAP and
aitt to tugs daat FET oP alee at
oid s209 deadly, lowed Gane Mima .
leo favee welt ead goleeote off fedale ‘ora Hoot Pe
| “eriiaaets gawiler* baow ott yatioad eitrin-eeo® Baa oe
unit out adore OMO hea sione te sottonmotat elt ee |:
ant ona ihere fod sift jo dane, test yt che er
sourvog fasedttow oa} de halasol ef s10de e108 oO phe
‘widh novele Joods tA twee ‘alts bag. uy HS
dmahiown adi: toga ott fo
bed 9H ote there ode te F
Page 2 Gen. No. 9146
a heavy load of flour and other merchandise on his
truck. He received an order for sixteen sacks of flour
which he unloaded. He was late on his route and im
a hurry and suggested to Mr. Brandt that they let the
pay for the flour go until the next trip. He had been
ealling at the Brandt Store since the preceding April
from one to three times a month, coming in from
Bloomington on State Route 165. At Sibley, both state
routes 47 and 165 are located on the west side of the
Wabash track and do not run directly into the village.
Most of the traffic from these state routes coming into
the village cross on Ohio Street. The daily average of
motor cars crossing the Wabash track at Ohio Street
runs from three to four hundred. About one block
south of Ohio Street and on the west side of Sciota
Street is a concrete, block garage building, that ex-
tends from Sciota Street west to within sixty or seventy
feet of the east rail of the Wabash main track. Just
south of Ohio Street and off the east side of the right-
of-way of the Wabash railroad and parallel to the
track there are a row of trees,—ten in number—then
two additional trees just east of the last tree on the
south end. These trees are from twelve to fourteen
inches in diameter and sixteen to seventeen feet apart.
There is a tool house nine by fourteen, ten feet high
which is five hundred forty-four feet south of Ohio
Street and twenty five feet east of the main track. At
the southwest corner of the intersection of Ohio and
Sciota Street is a frame building occupied by Doctor
Absher as an office and just west of that is another
frame building used as a beauty shop. The west side
of this last building is one hundred fifty-eight feet
east of the Wabash main track.
It appears from the record that when Arthur Wist
left the Brandt Store, he could look down Sciota Street
across the fields south of the village and see the Wa-
bash track. After he left the intersection, his view to
the south was obstructed first by the doctor’s office;
second by the beauty shop; and after he passed these,
by the garage building which is about one block south
of the doctor’s office and runs within seventy feet of
the track. Traveling west far enough to clear the west
side of the garage building, his view was partially
obstructed by the row of trees and the small tool house
just west of the garage. The fact that the track bore
at a slight angle to the southeast from Ohio Street,
narrowed the distance from which he could see. The
elevation of the track on Ohio Street and the territory
ty oyireve vitah aD Juonl eff0 an seot9 agalty oda. |
Morte offO te thet dasdaW, out pila: SRO TOOT
oald ata prod& fertbaget agot of mel coord ear |
e&
AER A a8 a a ee ae
Hit mn saifiradin ann sail fen ati te Baal’ rer é
um aie cyte . woatnin tt VOY LO (TM Parr Levin's of] ie i?
ne rape tee sit 1b. oe) ter OOD Aehnolay at
i} tot yal iedt dew ah ae hakeoyede pixie wad 4
aot feat yi % ait ron od) (ten, op of alt set vag 7
ot pra Pigs sihoonaty at) seule oe thot oll ta geyiiics |
goth a -yeiniwes Alice e: norait ovidt’ ob 940 ort
ad ate titer va {dik tA OOP sine ate ne totgmmoots
(5 bey 2 alia tear ad? eh Sotdoot ors GoD hig TE Radner
4 a
“itn aise Shale ceed er? paint oft te tole
aloisé Yo «hie jase add te! Daw tate ante. to Withes
vy tet? ait? saves’ dookdl oa taN0g 6: ei death
hoevee sn chem ahittiw of tev leat ets enet ebues
Yen Jouvt ufo dene W og) Veter iene oult to tna
light ad! Io ebie tees se tho Tm betel Oi to iiGe:
ails o) jollocw, ber bootie dete edt do aw ie
mith ised ni? net— Rant Ie wet 8 os se doa
. - weet rth: nant hal abt io loth fear: eed. Jenoehiitas omy ‘i
nea riiod amily At mor! ota eaote weed) fee dia -
Bar| tant aostnevowmnd donkey hrs nts cab woaltd me
Nail ton} bee tie Ar aiet Hy. ettiat senod foot al aru
in Wy lie jan4 Ute) rriol bereiacayl” gait ci dolilyr 1 caine
ee: diol Winer odh To teen inv? owt yjowwt date inert
bea’ od) To notaeatal od 7 Panekom heow:tinor wt :
sosed ier boignnos glblind sett ee Genre Bois:
rations af Sets to, tecrw tae, Bie mei abe ie Spee
ohin Jeaw oft cork viene & ao Been eotbligd gett
took: tilagis-iet i beerborn ono at pathlind Mek ait Yao
dsard ciao dental gut Yoga
fat " agli. mdr tees Tyrosere arth anarh mt [| ne
ne sto’? web deot blves sil tea] oiit Heh
: ‘h ue aut As ban vaalliy alt Ly diepe. abe it bari iY
soi. ane ait ¥é revit fe oT , dion or
“anoult ‘heaesa oi Otte eae: al ugod ot wW Lreniaeese |
TEE Aoold uns divide @f doidy™gaibliind 9
edt ei
‘ia tea rhesvou idle eat bog ante 2 shila
Aopert ot
or le as of Payers TAT tea catlovayt
ieee anw woiv sid pintbliod sgeteg- git To tehie |
* gested loat! flemge sd) bite een To wor gilf yet batortiedi, 7
god dort oft tet mal etl “opeteg-edt to tow denp _
fest of “ott fessdtnes odd of aha: idgile # tin
on? ana hinoo sibuividw mot? eotateiboea?
aratie ios sre as jeot4 1 Opal re alsa. silt to Aottarale: “0
fliv od) otal vltowtify wot too oh Dae deett dada
ee
Page 3 Gen. No. 9145
adjacent to the south were about on a level. At the
time of the accident, the deceased was in the employ
of the General Mills Inc., driving their Ford V-8, one
and a half ton truck, 1936 model, paneled body, cab
enclosed with glass.
The train in question was a passenger train having
six ears, which was twenty-four minutes late and was
traveling at about seventy miles per hour. They had
left Decatur twenty-five minutes late. The train had
scheduled two stops between Decatur and Chicago, one
at Forrest for water, and one at Englewood to dis-
charge passengers. The accident happened at twelve-
eighteen P. M. The engineer testified that he made the
station whistle for Sibley one long blast of the whistle,
and at a quarter of a mile south of Ohio Street, he
started the crossing whistle, which consisted of two
longs, one short, and one long blast, which continued
from the whistling post up to the crossing. As he
finished the second blast, he noticed a car through the
trees coming at a moderate rate of speed, whereupon
he changed his whistle from the regular crossing
whistle to successive short blasts trying to attract the
attention of the driver of the car, and then set his
brakes in emergency. It was too close, ‘‘he couldn’t
save him’’.
The plaintiff produced one witness that stated he
didn’t hear any whistle, but the defendants had a
number of witnesses who testified definitely on this
point, which clearly shows that the whistle was blown
in the manner described in the engineer’s testimony.
It was in the Winter and the cab windows in the truck
were closed. At this same time and just north of the
crossing on the house track, a box car was standing, and
just a block north of the crossing on the east side of
the track—and close to the house track—was a large
grain, elevator which obstructed the view, to some ex-
tent, from the north. The records shows that Arthur
‘Wist approached the crossing at a very slow speed.
Some witnesses put it at the rate of three miles per
hour and some at the rate of five miles per hour. A
fair analysis of the evidence and of the surrounding
circumstances show that at a point thirty-three feet
east of the east rail of the main line, he could see the
track south for about four hundred fifty feet. The deci-
sive point in the case is whether or not he exercised
due care for his own safety or was guilty of contribu-
tory negligence. In considering this point we are deal-
ing in seconds. With the train traveling at seventy
| Bee Lo! 0 es ae a
a +h level Ato sedis s9%8 ‘edinoe’ od! ot Jngnekba |
Tt molaine wit i eew Dyaeowoly gil dnsbinon wiht to eanih
ont FV biol vith eatvith ond aii fesomagy alt i
dé eho boloeney ae ALOK done not Med a bow”
; tagline beaoinirn,
aor tert 99m: eRe “i dy BO Holtwastgy i diett sd't rs
eaw" Bure otsl aohinien tool vinow;s sew colder verre 17
bart edt “sued te salir doayee toads te goilayen (>
> badcieod od Stel sake avon aswk aden disk)
| oo oR Diasiesst] eesaried pqars ome batafieded
“ait bb boo walord th ono hits potaw aol, dee OL $B cay
aloo te hanseqqaid Inehioss od PUNE opts
—odt oBaoe on terlt heiliedt deodens eet vil ‘Lawikaie _
priv iF “ait in fenid girol MT oldie pod oltenlw Honate :
eT toon oldO Yo dios alfa 6 jo wadteop & ta-bas
wet lo beleianes afoldter ollie qutiewons od? Betiabs
havnt teal’ fl plate gina py ban rvode Erg) aaa
od af atoteaden off ob ge dead peiftatiior arth
‘i abt Pas tf 7a i foeddent- wel’ denld Defonee oat ipcorleskecdt .
re mined w tweqe to otes oferehoer # tn yatigiod asent
-gitieson telogeT od) mgtvl obtener” aid heaagalo ath
it teartte-od girs} atasld trode evizmogue ot olinide
aid tee wedi bis 49 edt Ap geerehoed!) To: gana ote
bigs wl’? ealy wot pote th “aap. iisguolerd eae
Pa Tats | ally exist AB
jee helale iil apomtiw array by ‘Hidaialey, oat ia
« but d¢teehootoh eft tod Aiteldwe yee, seed Pehib -
a inse Ho ylotielion bofliMot sdw eseupiatiw te wade
oacweld anw ollalidw add judd paeode gitaale, dotabw. rien -
winontiaat el ineniges alt gt belivessh! tamqemed mr
Det off ni ewohanw deo ont biea tobai Wl pelt sk eae,
_—att lo dino jeut ban ett ong nut te daeate
"bas poiboata saw fo idee eg itl
To ohin. dass ort a0 geieeon o bteour 2 |
—agtal a dae ion} operat: ilt wale kaos: ee ann
ee aero of dveiy dl hodyertiedey dolibw -redewels aniserg re
tindiid: jadd ewoda Hrioner al? then codls snore tao 77
beeqe wole wer aie yas sei, :
jpg agtint pordd to adew mitt dedi d nro
A. stron neq alien vit 16 ates oth is omoa bon wot
Baie tain aif} Yo bees oonabive axlt” a
tog) sordid etait iniog a ta dadd wouw #aen eeaOTIO
~ adios bisos ett ,anil’ aides aikt 0 ligt tans odd Ww tase
-tsab of dou gitft bexband aiet svodasok eeu * oe
— baeisgeze of tomo sottod@ 6b om edh meatiog ayia 0
—udirites te qiling aew ie geltae mee ail 108 arene” o- 7 -
_ -Inab ors ow iiog aidt senebienna a1 jsonsgthade gaol -
= Ninoven ts eilllona widest adit arid —— ai a
(ose
a i
dnl
Page 4 Gen. No. 9145
miles an hour, there is but three or four seconds time
between the time he first had an opportunity to see
the train and the collision. At that time he was called
upon to watch from the south as well as the north. In
passing upon his conduct at this crucial moment, we
have to face the situation as it appeared to him.
It appears from the record that he had passed the
first two tracks and was on the main track by the time
of the collision, as the truck was thrown north and to
the west side of the track and up against the depot
huilding. The engineer testified, ‘‘He was three or
four hundred feet south of the crossing when I changed
the whistle from long blasts to short blasts.’? The
fireman testified, ‘‘Why he blew two blasts of the
whistle then gave a warning whistle and at the same
time set the air in emergency and the crash came right
now.’’ The computation of time; the position of the
train; and the situation of the deceased at a given time
are all question of fact for a jury.
A train runs on a fixed track and is slow to start and
slow to stop, and cannot be steered around objects or
obstructions. A railway crossing is a known place of
danger and a driver approaching the railway crossing
with an oncoming train which he has knowledge of,
or in the exercise of due care for his own safety he
could ascertain, he is required to stop, and if he fails
to do so, he is guilty of contributory negligence which
bars the right of recovery.
Counsel for defendants with great emphasis insist
that, under the record, they are entitled to a finding
by this court, and that the verdict is manifestly against
the weight of the evidence. With this view we cannot
agree, but it does appear that it is a close case on the
evidence.
Plaintiff charges in her complaint that this was a
dangerous crossing; that the railroad provided no
watchman, gates, wig-wag signals, light signals, hell
signals, or other mechanical signal at said crossing to
give warning of the approach of trains. The proof
showed the only safety warning given by the railroad
was the statutory cross-arms with the words ‘‘railroad
erossing’’ thereon.
In the case of Wagner v. T. P. 6 W. R. R. Co., 352
Ill. 85, the Court says:
‘“‘The rule in this state is that one crossing a rail-
way track must approach it with an amount of care
commensurate with the known danger, but if the
existence of the track would not be revealed to one
pee
+ bE Al airy
Ae
ality ipo? iol tooord? ted ab ovedd Gadd war ashi”
Bag Oboe oqo ite bee tenh ad sorkt at) noawitoih,
balige ea aa obra thd LA» uroiaion act tng niet al?
(RE Aa wit fe 2p {fave ‘sah, odd anivtd dolaw oF Bs
oH ERT, Laliriy ait! tn doeteos ald ogth atten,
wirtad henkogus: di Be Toitnstie Set Gomk ab sens
1 baal sit me (reno: Gilt tos a Regqay aT ©
HE | ‘ott vel Hoda oF at ee anol mectte olleity. add
1 HED! Resi yienld ov) wok oP Bobiteat oes ae
geen oleh das ‘fies Enea T Ap whew ft. SPT | fad oitchy
tibet orins dasees oct fina! yoneTsets tt ths 68) dee gant
VO ae la goiiandg odt mers: | “Dey wothatugegs: tT yet
ag “its ore! i ie fiiaiane 1o1) oft foo eatin pelt tree ¢ ots: an gigs
21 “vat 101.8) LO WOU eon Te FB [ae
ae Bits Lb afi of heals ef hon Rott boxit 6 for aorier et A .
a a eos ‘hava boron ad Loney fie) peta eh yolk)
to conte nrqial «Cai Siow? yew ter A | anonaieriadon
i Bienes 19) Vawtion adt emitlnnerggay aed « bas ‘gong
do gbulwonl ned ed inky ied polos Baie,
5 ad 9 tne wera: at OY hie Bah, {o oniewxe. we Uk TO i
ellsthad TP has “7982 ‘pt betivpyy ab af ietoss bins oF
Noidor pee sul; aon yeni leaigia: to ytiierg at oat oe phot a Se
br _ erovoont lo tight dt gia |
4st B vt verte hve aiushas'teb 19k fom
a. seri Lett * olieirs oie yarlt Sree. oid «pada elealt af ees i ee
Rite Cyt | slide’ auch wi sila ont Int him aoe ally ye
Jorma Ga wate eld Ei oorabive oft Ye iitpiew odg
bias ite “nang HOD 2 A «i th wen babel! bith nid
# rs g een Leah, er ‘futausone ‘thd ink Soest Raat = :
on dabiiorg taoliny stoked ryniueova astogicel 8
Phin «lnngte gaan sedan euumababper
_ Gt yuisanis iiak Is iegeare Taeaett
sedis ro lata
jonrg adh jog “ha, sean
xoorordt yp
ab ot at x ie 1% Ss smiqeWh to okies odd alle
] ee
. ex rm guidsow “ato. tnd el otete ebft mi lax od T
othe To hints me tie ti deep lggan tame toerk cay
silt 7 dd gue. ceroml yl) dipy, Sheree: 7
a Bag of se Ne ad Four blaow ae ccs’ ibe ticcn,
yy ss i,
“idedael nkant sult 10 Caw Dita: adowtt coo) doit .
ae ‘Bite died. riod? eae doth satis hoteifos aud Yo.”
- fs. wath feties, yu ee eae ailf to shin. dasw cedld |
“40 Rey if. give: + heal tea Toonrus aft snibiiad” eee
Tages f nsdw aiiaaots oth Ieltinoe 4997" heothrosst et)
6 ait to gales yprig
— feowlinn adi yd covlg, yale olde gino od homeode
- bitoa fis abiow otlt ttiw. ATLA RO yroininie sdf 2am
Page 5 Gen. No. 9145
in the exercise of reasonable care the rule cannot
apply. A railway company in the running of its
trains is required to exercise ordinary care and
prudence to guard against injury to those who may
be traveling upon the public highway in crossing
its tracks. The fact that the statute may provide
one precaution does not relieve the company from
adopting such others as public safety or common
prudence may dictate. The ringing of a bell and
the blowing of a whistle are not alone sufficient to
excuse a railroad company from maintaining other
means of warning the traveling public when condi-
tions are such as shown in the case at bar.’’
While it is true that the public is demanding lighter
and faster transportation and the railroads, in keep-
ing pace with the progress of the times, are warranted
in furnishing this service, yet in doing so they should
bring up the crossing signals for the traveling public
so as to keep pace with their increased speed. The
whistle, bell and cross-arm that served for so many
years when trains were run from twenty to thirty
miles an hour are lacking in public safety for the
modern-day, stream-lined passenger train which
travels at a rate three or four times as fast.
Defendants contend that the deceased and his em-
ployer were under the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
although this does not expressly appear in the record,
except by an affidavit filed in support of a motion for
a new trial and after verdict. All that the record
shows is that the deceased was in the employ of the
General Mills Inc., and worked out of Peoria, Illinois,
selling and delivering articles of food with a Ford
truck. Defendants further contend that plaintiff
should have alleged that defendants were engaged in
Interstate Commerce, and were not under the Act. It
appears from examination of the pleading that in each
of the four counts that were submitted to the jury, the
defendants were charged with possessing, using and
operating a certain railway which said railway then
and there extended from the City of Chicago, in the
State of Illinois, through the corporate limits of the
Village of Sibley, in the County of Ford in the State
of Illinois, thence in a southwesterly direction through
the State of Illinois to the City of St. Louis, in the
State of Missouri, and that said defendants were also
then and there possessed of and operating a locomo-
tive engine with a train of baggage, express, mail and
passenger cars attached on said railway, and although
- foamed ea ait! tte quiasadaen te wsichors ould mr '
aa: 26 0 - fe aad 7 7 ‘Cig
ai to patos oft tt Conqatod, gerution A ylang
Bag 5109. geaifap wifom29, od Deaiape. ei aiint "
| -Ritesoto at TAwehaid: otldoqg adt pots gallo vast od
aot? yieeccaen aft gyaiay dow ss0h goltpansig aie a7
2. Dre (ods 48 pigs ant adoib: yan rp
«peal th ebaowlian od} fie aoitetnogmenel
7 aint oft of bre to ‘gisaodd ad oi eo
. ue fine, eel iee iat Suitoahid #160 —
wart ony orsehiai. wee fecciand brawn it agtrobieny |
abivoty gaat wirhste ot tect tot onl mien ee”
ronmtor far BfeTBe | oldu: ue emoiio toda paadoba ;
et tosiottve sacle tore S78 obtain 4. th, ‘gaiwold. edt
> $Sio tiated mo2} VETER. hanover 6 OAsOKO
bres it thar sill wrilpved adt prierew to sigeeb,
“ced ts dan9 670 0 sorede ke dee oe mente
“ronbaid “aibegmtva ai ailing oat) Yealk serait “8 sible. Si
etait bas
bolmerenw ote eoneit add Io, eaugerg att ably annie s
— beiivadeovodl Ge wttiog at dye gates aut pres
pani auibergnt apf wut alanine yataxony add
AD. Traneye freestteroly) yhouk} iti eno br
. nm ap «at, hevrae tadh ontn-aveiny, Bieis isd | i
“whvidt ab wie? «east air ore erat pire anor 7
att sp} getaa hikdicg at yattoad th. “tied ch
dois aie Tages best posenie ab-mraboea ‘i
tent ex esquit 0% 10 samedd dber, Luloyest =
Raa ee 9 Bis Deyeacier ds athe taht biotin slasbastotly 7
ae soo 20 motets 4 x "ayaa We orld rola nai ;
Bidear odt al le 2 Tineo ve RD fos eoob win
. ta) nodog w jochoqqes at bait Sabie as val de
boos’ oft jadi 1A, toiled ite bee aie ert
oti Yo qolame adi ni sew bokeoosb oct tadd amos i
aionilfh 0109 fo dino, Dootyarve fue. et BUA . i
hol a five beet to aeloling geben Ba a fg
—Hitcoly tadd bieteos altel euiatell lp
- fonauin cay alenbeslah dart hemalts seni b
AE tod aol) sohver Jom oro hat gene alae
tog ot ted? quthnale aft 16 gotham iapaaeinays wet
—aale syd odd ot nonen eae shitta mitel act 7 .
. bros gitisa. suatangmeony Cocke moto |
nou} quwliny hime stoidw cevliog teh a ‘aetitatoyo |
aati art opmpidl) Th, yi oft dort hahnates wredt bak
ail) Yo dtl: aterortrog oft: danott afoot Yo
idi@ Yo gual
peraienas ie ib vlrateswaltron r i. ria aid
: oulsy ara aban eale iat tn bits, havea pte tA
iM oseT A aun hus Dveeagunny fine wordt ps ,
- bicg fier , A-OTERD AOS w sae toothed ie aatants. ovih
s
Page 6 Gen. No. 9145
the pleading does not specifically state that the defend-
ants were engaged in Interstate Commerce it states
sufficient facts from which that inference can be reas-
onably deducted. This allegation would, in all prob-
ability, be insufficient when tested before trial and
verdict by a motion to strike, but after verdict where
no motion has been made, it is ample to support the
verdict.
After verdict, the rule by which pleadings are con-
strued against the pleader is reversed and anvthing
necessary to be plead which may fairly be inferred
from the declaration may be regarded as alleged.
Wagner v. C. R.I. é P. Ry., 277 Ml. 114. The question
raised in the Wagner case was whether the declaration
sufficiently charged that Wagner was engaged in In-
terstate Commerce at the time he was injured. The
language used was ambiguous and cumbersome. In
passing on this point, the court says:
“‘The declaration as tested by a demurrer might
properly have received that construction, since it
referred to the previous averment that the defend-
ant was engaged in inter-State commerce, but after
verdict the rule by which pleadings are construed
against the pleader is reversed and anything neces-
sary to be proved which may fairly be inferred from
the declaration will be regarded as alleged. A
favorable construction of the declaration to support
the verdict would be that the defendant being
engaged in inter-State commerce, and it being the
duty of the plaintiff, as an employee, to couple the
ears, it might fairly be inferred that he was engaged
at the time in an act included in the business carried
on by the defendant in inter-State commerce.’’
A railroad company engaged in Interstate Commerce
is not subject to the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Goldsmith v. Payne, 300 Ill. 119.
The trial court denied defendants’ motion for a
severance. The engineer of the train in question was
joined as a defendant with the receivers of the railroad
company. We are of the opinion that the ruling of
the court was correct. Error is assigned on the form
of verdict given by the court which did not separate
the defendant, Russell the engineer, from the receivers.
Only two forms of verdict were given for the defend-
ants,—one finding the defendants all guilty, and the
other finding the defendants not guilty. In the case of
Meece v. Holland Furnace Co., 269 App. 164 (Third
District), this court says:
ere OF oth” oie 7 san
Yass'teh adt tadt oat eithalibes ton hoof gathwole add
eniate tf soomto) siateotol af hopin onsen atie,
ayp ad (a senoretiet del) lsat ort atoat yivsesitiars!
«Jory lis si Bisow sotayalla aif fatonbely 4ifeno
Bare fata arOted foteot nod'y jepaisiiineitl od etilids
clade bibiay vilte dod all rte of goboor ke toibra?
aul roqdne 1d aleine 4 th ohem mad ‘and molten oa
. dotlrray
foo. yr aoibaster doietor ved alae art totiey Paité
Sr ihberee Tut harris: ry. ph yahaote el} deateon frocrte
hartyhivt ad ghtet vam dot Baaltt of of PyvKesoAiT
footie <e hebrever ed vem notenifsah ed) tnott
ee ofT DIT ETS eh SA aay
noe reafoeh add vayflsitw ee eens orga! ont al Sonia
“HT ii Bayeute esw some W tadt Dependa
SéT Bboviuial sow od omit of) th gotenings Prpreay
nt onresratieura” Bae crorsidias acw hese sgarecal.
. vecee Mane sit tring ebft wa ot eal
hfvine rovrameh a vd fietsed ag mobteraiosb’
di vorie stolleirtienes Jedd Boyisest vad elreqory
‘hrotob od? ted? Insariova anotvew af: of bosteter ~
witia ine coTanmo stelRoralat of hoaeads vow tee”
Sep sie eecthaoly deity we efter. of} defer” 7
swan uiridtron bie hoatevet af sabegly art tantegs
ba anit berate od lite ynon doidtw bevang ad Of (em:
A fenelfs es) bofruegey ad ar pobaetaiseh add”
Precis of wollstaleh od} to nolfertinne) sida wal |
wiied | taushnotei edt jut? od’ Ditgewy tihrew aut
ott acted Hohre vernon stateostan a
dd? siqnas of payolqme ue en Rijataley oft
Debra enw od deh horratit od ehriay joie ‘He peri
hotrias esedingll onl} at bolelont tan. Pier ops Hew th /
oo) RM age VIO TOD alate TOFU 4 tashaestob oft ad te)
asramnod otsterntil of begeana vamos Daoriiay A a
oA alah cont soommiow sdf et ted tow et
PLY OT 068 sem 2 MiaGIED.
a rot gotten ‘utuabaotsh heimsh tooe Mat att
cae jotteeap ef abast oft 94 Tests eRE HiT \sonhiavae
huovlinr oft Ww atevioee alt insbroltofy » aw banlot
To uuilire oft duct coiaige pak te ora 97 eqs
nol odt yo fareieag ef ie Jovrios aay Simon
sietaqea tow tal dorlw dies on} vd aovig folirier ’
ersvisea’ od? meant reentiats wilt fear Anabsstah off
-brsteb sdt yolk wevtg’ otow dobre? to aaptat baud
ott Bon ov ifitre ie etenhosteh adl pital
ty een od ot witars tou etonbaeteb oil adifnd toile
brit) a gghk ROE La soe ery oF ansalt
Page 7 Gen. No. 9145
“Tt necessarily follows that if the agent charged
with the commission of the act complained of be not
guilty, a judgment could not be recovered against
appellee, the principal, upon the ground of re-
spondeat superior. The judgment in this case in
favor of the City of Chicago is a complete bar to an
action against the appellee for its negligence in ex-
ercising any permissive rights appellee may have
granted it. To make appellee liable upon the theory
under discussion, a case must have existed against
the city.’’ To the same effect are Anderson v. West
Chicago St. R. Co., 200 Ill. 329; Larson v. Hines, 220
Til. App. 594; Bunyan v. American Glycerin Co., 230
Til. App. 351. In the last case cited the court held:
“In this State the law is well settled that where an
action on the case is brought against two defend-
ants and one of them is liable only on account of
the rule of respondeat superior for the negligence
of the other, if the latter is found not guilty such
finding is a complete bar to the action against the
former. Hayes v. Chicago Tel. Co., 218 Ill. 414;
Anderson v. West Chicago St. R. Co., 200 Ill. 329;
Antrim v. Legg, 203 Ill. App. 482; Larson v. Hines,
220 Tll. App. 594; Billstrom v. Triple Tread Tire Co.,
220 Ill. App. 550. The weight of authority outside
of Illinois seems to be to the same effect. Doremus
v. Root, 23 Wash. 710, 54 L. R. A. 649; Hayes v.
Chicago Tel. Co., 218 Tl. 414. 2L. R. A. (N. 8.) 764;
McGinnis v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 200 Mo.
347, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 880; Southern Ry. Co. v.
Harbm, 135 Ga. 122, L. R. A. (N. 8S.) 404; Hobbs v.
Illinois Cent. R. Co., 171 Iowa 624, L. R. A. 191 7 E.
1023.”’
In the present case, the charge by the plaintiff is
the negligent operation of the train as it approached
and crossed the crossing in question, while under the
complete control of the engineer. If he was guilty,
the receivers were guilty under the doctrine of re-
spondeat superior, and if he was not guilty, the re-
ceivers were not guilty, so that the trial court was
warranted in instructing the jury in the form that it
did.
The defendant Thomas C. Russell, the engineer, was
called by plaintiff in plaintiff’s case in chief, under
section 60 of the Civil Practice Act, for cross examina-
tion by the adverse party and after this cross examina-
tion was completed, the defendants asked the court to
be permitted to cross examine him. This was denied,
GEIR oO 46 y aga
hogiads foes olf te ted? ewollat yiasesoon a1**
toi. od Ys bevisiqures Jag oft To nedaatimains adi bw
feciegn bowyoce of tow Dives heatehut « ilies
-oy to heoore odt ooge lecmatny ott jsoleqaa
ffi ona9 afdi mi josorghe, of “‘ociqre teebioqe
(tit of ted stolqrmos.e ai ogenddD to 4D od} Te 16uat
-zo ai osiogilaam alt rol sefleqqa od! tanta, todtodi
ovad vont golloqam ehfia evieaiorieg yee wie
vrosdt axl} ATO ¢ éldail sollagqa stem of ye epee
edings baleixs saved jaonr sano me Jitolzarsetbh toh
ten ll vy #otvo heh o2a dolla ames oti oT salon
pin garth 9 modsod < OSs HT Ge ot) FY A
eat 6D) wres with) pores hh oF weet ;be6 rg A, Rive
“hit hiros 4).hasis saga tual aft gl ae ak. SET
nu stow tact helties [low al wel edi ofaie aad) wi
-husteh owt teniane tdywoid ab eens odd ad mottos
lo togestn mo vine eldeil ai med} to sno baa) aioe
aoteuifoss oft ta) wotequaa taabaoqeel te ale an}
dome viltow ter Lave’ «i qadtiel odd 1 odio adé te
alt feoteze oottos alt of taf ofelqnias a et saibad
:htt UF Big Jo het vend) 9 sayeth aioe
He I OOS Ty A AB ego) ton v7 moewba hk
ai) ¢ horn.) Sab qgA iT 808 goed 7 aie
io) owt haat fairl Vv meng ke Hire « aga. HT ogg ze
ae or yiivoiius didgiew atk Les aga Jit o&e
Sit ote ayou. jestts BIT ects alt at ad ua esha Td aiotiiil to
-v o9RDTL + »OLG A HH wl 3G ALY en & oot wv
LOT (EW) DM aks BI BIG 00), at en
olf O28 oD Hh, 4 A Gonndloy .
¥ 8D ast prod roe 082 (2 YO A SE al G. TRE
ot ddo¥l (408 C8 My) A A al SSE ob 66t oe oe
JT T TOL AT ad S80 evo INE at SK Moy) showin
At
ai Titwielq adt vd optade ail} paso tas01q ald M
ladororgie ti ae ofett od) to deltas taepiigon ¢
elt reba ality toilsatp af grisaon off howgoan
ivy awe of 99h aff lo forties, stolqures
-ot to onbvealy iff sof My tah ae See
oy oi ting fon ainw ecl vitiqua Jaabnogs
sew move (xitt olt dadd om vetling toe orem arariss
‘i tadt arrot oft at 2tal od) withtowden a
saw eniads oft Meare D0 eamodT tasbasteb oft
robin eudo nf csen a Ritaialg of Rosie z Ballas
-nirietazs exousso? Jo avitoett livid odt to 09 motiose
-acitaxs seero eidt istte bas ¢iisgq roby SS fat
ot ixgos off bodes etaabistsh od? bofelqmos aaw
Hsiao saw =itT ote ostiemexs seat ob ila ot
a
Page 8 Gen. No. 9145
in which ruling there was no error. Counsel in their
brief now suggest that what they intended to say was,
for leave to examine. Upon examination of section 60,
and taking into consideration rules of practice and
procedure in a nisi prius court, the defendants were
properly entitled to examine him as is usual on what
is commonly called re-direct, for the purpose of clarify-
ing or explaining evidence brought out in the cross
examination, but the request in the trial court was not
for this, but for the right to cross examine. It appears
from the record that this witness was afterwards called
in behalf of the defendant and testified fully on the
case so there was not error in this regard.
In the giving and refusing of instructions and in the
arguments of counsel at the trial, we find no error suf-
ficient to warrant a reversal. The case was properly
submitted to a jury on questions of fact under the is-
sue. Nothing appears in the record to warrant setting
aside the verdict of the jury, nor the judgment of the
court below. It is therefore affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed.
<Q (4-19598—14)
abi oh a 9 pawl
viel) mi IsecnoD steve est ane ovodt potlet dotdw mi
wnw yee of fobasttd qaidt tadw ted? toon ane wor Tor
0 coiloss to moitecionxe neqU vonintoxe ot arael’
hon svitoerge to aslo cotheiesbianes ofa yane? fon
stow tanhastob edt As209 esirg itt a mf ethesorg
tadw no lave ef ag caiy oninuxe of heltitae efioqortg
-tlinals To seeqrring a6 707 -toatib-ovr Bolles Tinomod ab
aaa edd of deo tenon oomebire Rattitielgzs Yo gat
tom aaw dios Leiat od? wt teanpat act tod .doveninaxe
atroade fT .oriosazs aaa of idfait of? aol fief eid? 10?
holfas afeiawretie sew aaguttvr ett tac? broset odd mort
oft co-vilut beftiteot baa treabooteh oft Io Mestod ai
Atege sidf at o1ts tom aa ovettt of gan
oll ai fee atottorttant to gaientot bre gabvig ont al:
-tue torte on halt ow [atc od? te feenioo To atroamrgin
yltsqorg 2aw 988 ad? Lexrover e ianriew. of dein
-hi oft ofert toat do anottesap ao gine & oF beltionion
cities tustiew of bros of} of etaoaye gqeidtey, ana
oft to troarh at a anit Peat thse oll to toibre7 ont shies
fete srolored? af aT Bt tno
Shaver Bit) Sta
Cob BOONEAY a
ct
PuBLISHED IN ABSTRACT
+
In the Matter of the Estate of sit Past Incotipe 2
Joe Menichetti, ‘Conservator, Appel lant, v; Fr
%
T: Hineg, Administrator. of tera j Peat
Affairs, eh) ah Pool, Guardian —
1 for Santi Paffi,
ompetent, Appellees.
305
Gen. No. 9218
Mr. Justice Hayes delivered the opinion of the
Court.
This is an appeal from an Order and Judgment of
the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, which affirmed
the Probate Court of Sangamon County in sustaining
objections to an investment of nine thousand five hun-
dred ($9,500.00) dollars, made by Joseph Menichetti,
Conservator of the Estate of Santi Paffi, Incompetent,
in mortgage bonds of the Joseph Brothers Lumber
Company, and charging the conservator iwith said
amount, together with the accrued interest, aggregating
thirteen thousand three hundred ($13,300.00) dollars.
It appears from the record, that the conservator,
before making these investments, had applied for and
obtained the approval of the Probate Court of Sanga-
mon County, and had annually filed a report of his
acts and doings, which reports were approved by the
Court up to July 20, 1933. The subsequent reports
were not approved as to the investments in the Joseph
Brothers Lumber Company Bonds. No guardian ad
litem was appointed or appeared for the Ward at the
time of conservator’s application for authority to make
the investments in question, nor was any notice given
to the ward or to anyone on his behalf. These pro-
ceedings were ex parte.
The conservator filed a current report in the Pro-
bate Court, covering the period from July 20, 1933,
to July 16, 1934. The Administrator of Veterans’
Affairs filed objections to said report, on the grounds
that said investments were not legal as investments of
conservatorship funds. The objections were sustained
by the Probate Court, and an order was entered by that
Court setting aside, first, all former orders authorizing
said investments, and second, the several orders ap-
Ter
viotwvresces od} dadt .fridset od? ape eniqeal cl
* eyampree A. amar nner t
ant to aoiniqa oft howmvifeh areal settee yt, ool
le torsorghgl fier cai aa movi Lange tw ad Wik»
hoax usidw <ttesoD cocumgaa® to dane Mowll? odd
sudivintedw. ai vie: comiane to two!) otadesd odd
~tid ov? basavod) ania to tasmiaa mot adotiogdsS
Jtiadsioals. dgeeel, yd shat gtalloh (00,008,828) beth.
Snateqmoonl Mad ite To slalatt onl) Jo
vote! erodtortl dqseok odi To ehtod
Dine teow toteyisamos ard tr Fn bits ,
gillewreyun feexoiai berries ag ar vattiogol anon.”
tation (OMG 202) Batbowd owtdd fetamodt rasiiily
her 10? builgas bad etooarteora? omadld qeilaen wied
sue? to do) otador? adt to Tavorgepe, pee ye
elf to ttoqot a belf yilenowa bed haa oak
silt ad havorggs staw atroqer doth, hon weg
elnoqat tsuperdim ad .£8Q! OS ob apse danse
dqeaol, oli pi atoonrtaden a oF ae ioe Jon ‘9
be, caibreng of sbaodl gaggia gedangd
at ta bre oid mt ive 0 bane ay
onut-of xirrodiiee teF
vin ito ye sew TO CORD alananteerad of)
-orz gaod! “Mestad nial a ape ee
a1 aft mi tioot tnoriis Beeb de: TAPS TITGBITOS oiT -
BRE O° gist grovt botreqg of} gaiévos pu ated
‘apatatey to xolevainignbA of? S821 DT ylal ot
alatuoty add mo Pog tae of anoitooide butt
lo aimemtoovnicaa level tot stow prism ners dn
hetiotens «ry etonostde oft shanty
imilt vl bovsiow saw sabro we bets Artie! otintoyt oi
yristiodigs etsirie roorte) Un det ebiie gation
~<a arbi Ievevee edt chaevae Doug Pbitonntwgvat bike
Page 2 Gen. No. 9218
proving the various reports of the conservator. An
appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Sangamon
County, and H. R. Pool, Attorney for the Veterans’
Administration, was appointed guardian ad litem for
the insane ward, whereupon he adopted the objections
of the administrator of veterans’ affairs, formerly
filed in the Probate Court. The Circuit Court entered
an order holding that said Joseph Brothers Lumber
Company Bonds were not secured by a first mortgage;
that all orders of the Probate Court approving said
mvestments were void; and that the estate of the Ward
was entitled to recover from the conservator the sum
of thirteen thousand three hundred dollars. The Court
further sustained the order of the Probate Court dis-
allowing said investments. The mortgage bonds of
Joseph Brothers Lumber Company defaulted in the
payment of their interest in 1934,
At common law a conservator has authority to loan
the funds of his Ward. Our statute has limited this
authority by setting out specific classes of loans the
conservator may make, and provides that loans upon
real estate shall be secured by a first mortgage or trust
deed not to exceed half the value thereof. It further
provides that all loans shall be subject to the approval
of the Court. Ill. Rev. Stats., Ch. 86, See. 18.
One of the principal objections of the guardian ad
litem to the investments in question is that the mort-
gage instrument gives the mortgagor the right to sell
the mortgaged premises, or some part thereof, with
the consent of the trustee, but without the consent of
the bondholders, and to use the proceeds of the balance
to redeem outstanding bonds or to purchase or eon-
struct additional physical property for the company.
He contends that the provision of the trust deed could
be so construed as to authorize the mortgagor, with
the consent of the trustee, to sell a part of the land and
with the proceeds to purchase or construct additional
physical property for the mortgagor, and that this pro-
vision of the deed would authorize the company to sell
part of the land and to purchase different and less
valuable land, in lieu thereof, or to construct physical
property which would include personal property for
the mortgagor to the detriment and loss of the bond-
holders.
The Statute in question is mandatory in its pro-
visions, and the Probate Court is limited in authoriz-
ing only those investments included within the specific
language of the Statute. Any order of the Probate
R28 at etl GS ign't
oh sotermeme. ed to ahoqet aterucy et eit
‘neste to tet) thor!) at nated aBw
“wneiain ot vel yerrtodi a HM fra ri
vol moti! De astray fatotogia bev
amolienide sd? hedgobs of noqnetediy ssa ee
what 2tte “xemete® to Whi
borvaton Mio) Nysti) adh Sno atone a bee
vodiie.T eiotion dqesol. hice Jadt yaiiled tebio ae!
:oaeuhom beri # vd berioes tod orew tied preg)
fen acivorgge Jno) otedort off to erafro Me jae
trip? od \o states odt tad! fire ; biey ovew alnominavint
viva od! volevianos ad mor? vavesgt at bolliiis naw
ho stT 2tallob herhnad sent) hixesodt aeahidl
vib Mio) atador sift Yo wlio ont ries cee
jo ebdw! sseyinoay aT 2ideuteevih bine
(i) ui hotinateh yosqun todennl
REAL ai fortadint
cholo} Vihation ead polaris B
zidt hotimil sad stetele 19 — a
vd? srsof Yo seaeehs oflinogg
woqe enol tad?t sebrrorg baa —
inure og inghroen tere agit feytiroae
yodtm? 1. Aoersdt cole? adf Yel
tavonidn att of toottins of finite oe dAt HE
AT 992 OB PD abel veh TT
in unffnsue off Te enbitoaidy
rua oft tft 2f aotleowp af atreaiesval od? 0) matt
ita of tdetr sd? -mpeegtions dul} wavigg Iuomenrant' v3
diiw Jovied? tag smoa 96 VTE yal
lo igoenos ett toadtow tad setenst 067 6
iteled ad) to sivas sd? oan Of iva sabia d -_ ie) ; :
“chy ro Sredorod Ot Se Bbiod
“umes slim) vheqery | if
flues foal tert off 16 golerreny tn
tien comrade off pair ot He
fave bowl aiff to drag a ‘Ot olsen
latoitibbs toritaccs vo saadommey al
crue wilt Saul} Barn Tori rom lilt 401 tea
low ot anseciog of) extpodiita hook Bie tae
asl Bite tooth sendbamy of Saws Biel ody lo
{noievide! }ooriievros of vo Joona paif nid tel,
101 vineqen, lanesteq obaleat bhiow
Haod wil) Yo bas hate. teomittoly odd ‘of 0”:
“i if er herpes at Hotwomyy ai ite eat
-stroding oi batieail ai hwo0 atader oat Tit jetta .
vitiooga ull otdtew babelont ehrombedval déodl ying
atadord ail) to dobro “aA votubaie e268 aaa
Page 3 Gen. No. 9218
Court not within the intent and meaning of the Statute
is absolutely void and of no effect, and provides no
protection to the conservator who, in the event of
loss, seeks to rely upon the order.
The clear meaning of the language used in the
Statute, ‘‘loans upon real estate shall be secured by
first mortgage or trust deed thereon, and not to ex-
ceed half the value thereof’’ is that the mortgagee
shall become possessed of an equitable first lien upon
specific land, to secure the payment of the debt, which
lien, so to speak, follows the land, and it is clear that
the instrument in question which permits release of the
specific land without payment of the debt and without
consent of mortgagee, and permits a substitution of
other property either real or personal does not meet
the requirements of the Statute in question.
Where, as in this case, the investment is made in
part only of a large number of bonds secured by the
same mortgage or trust deed, the individual bondhold-
ers must be provided, ‘‘under the mortgage instru-
ment’’ with parity of lien if the mortgage bond is to
be regarded as qualifying under the Statute.
‘““Where a mortgage secures several notes there
is only one lien to secure the entire debt. The
statute is directed at the kind and quality of the
mortgage. A note which by reason of its earlier
maturity has priority over all other notes secured
by a first mortgage is as effectually prior to all other
liens as if it were the only note secured by the mort-
gage. If it is on a parity with the other notes, it is
none the less secured by a first mortgage unaffected
by the ownership of the other notes, and a mortgage
which secures a note subject to the priority of earlier
maturing notes is not a first mortgage as to that
note.’’ In re Lalla’s Estate, 362 Il. 621.
The Statute provides that the loan shall not exceed
one-half the value of the land mortgaged as security.
Therefore, the Court must look to the value of the
specific land mortgaged to assure that it has value
equivalent to twice the amount of the loan. This con-
templates a continuing lien upon the same specific land,
for, if there be power in the mortgagor to substitute,
the value of the substituted land may not be twice the
amount of the outstanding loan. Hence the Statute
requires a continuing mortgage lien upon certain
specific land worth twice the amount of the loan.
The contention of appellant that the loans in ques-
tion were approved by the Probate Court, and that
te ange “aif tat aldatieps we do hasaseeog senoaed [lode
~ (lotdbe Gob adt toctasuryae ell! a1u9ee Be pet ating
4 tyuiiiv bow ddeb add to foaetyaq ioadtier Baa} ating
< arene Balin [nieyes sorooa syemirear a oi
.
ainda: AOKI. toil. oueeboet wolemtros B
Pat olf od a a o Eat
‘ahi sill 3 te grimeom bith intedai ad) wlediiwes don os
gu. gabbeotq baa dante. ooo dae ing ylotulouda, eh
ee dase oll. Oy “ake 1Ohi roasts cok} i ot molisatoy
a Us) > abate oat Roger qloy ot acleae eal
athe i ree watactel wil} ‘lo. .wethenset qaolo od’
Be fis Fase a ke Hide ats a deat EOC KetHOL' atuint®
er At ion fine roa raitt fidoh Seieet: 40. 579 teal
aueation adt edt ab “ostadt goley edt Und feoy -
tod) teclé af tf bam, ual edt awnklot aasiqe ot oe joeil
$d) 16 seusfe4 aliartat doidveubitaeup ni iesoeedan add
Ww senntcat ident tse a diated Bis’ aarahent to trsenio
— tguqt dog asnb Iscosaq, 10 tao taitia, yhoqe7g ‘yartto
a _ wotaenp at stotnte edt 16 ainogrorinpyy at
ofiany el desnyteswid od? sano mee ae am wrod
ati vd pivieien liegt ap ‘vot iene yeval @ to vine wei
— blodbivod (eohiyiied 3d) beeb danct 40° anemad
ater oaatene oft tahoe habroornty o fawn we
. ote Diwne soestion od? te ned Yo dina dite "dieu,
nase Jiutei4 obieobeur gurtiinup aa hab oe
oT ddob stitna odd anttode of moll eno ce ae :
tlt 46 dilasp ban, fucit oct te hotaetify at piolde ©
Toifics- ati Jo porsor yd coidw oom A euedzon
heroes estog tedlo My 90: neditonig eal hb dese al
) totto He ot roku yilentoette onet saoghonr tet &
-trore oc vf hurimee atom re at) orem 1 an
“ H saton s4dio silt din qited # #0 ah FES)
hates thenur. oueat dor deste ed Dees peel: add
spratioot 6 hite motor adh) adi ae Jo qickeronewee oul
‘. =ofltea te irtivolxe and od tonidna oto # Rory Cotes
— feild od ae ognytio: Jerk 6. Jom ai vatetr sie ie
a ag a Ge ae eatin ata | Bey te
i
bat ees ee “at oud at mela ne .
shottedia of soemphioar odi Mf raven of ered, rie pe
aiff soivrt od tan wear heel bolrtitndam off To euiay eH 7
. obotate: adi arnt: neal sathaelated att ‘to Mreroerest .
ce hi vO ont te tosone ag? goiwt ahtait fecal atta ae a or
euro nt eceol aft tert teafiogge to molinetnos att:
fait? a alpdont pdt ow peers at5m soit
Page 4 Gen. No. 9218
the current reports showing they were approved by
said court was final and afforded protection to the con-
servator, notwithstanding their failure to meet the re-
quirements of the statute, is not tenable. In the case
of In re Lalla’s Estate, supra, this same point was
raised. There the Kellogg investments were purchased
under the authority of prior orders of the Probate
Court, and also were recited in the fiduciary’s inter-
mediate reports, which were approved by the Court.
The Court determined that the notes in the Kelloge
case, which were subject to the priority of other notes
maturing earlier than those purchased by the guardian,
were not first mortgage loans in the sense of the
Statute, and the objections to these loans in the Kel-
logg Estate were sustained, regardless of the fact that
the Probate Court had definitely authorized that the
investment be made.
The Supreme Court in affirming the Appellate
Court in reference to the Kellogg paper stated in its
opinion:
‘““The remaining notes acquired in the Kellogg
case were subject to the priority of other notes ma-
turing earlier than those purchased by the guardian
and were not first mortgage loans in the sense of
the statute. The acceleration clause in case of de-
fault did not affect such priority. The objections
to the approval of these loans were correctly sus-
tained.’’
We, therefore, are of the opinion that the order of
the Probate Court which was affirmed by the Circuit
Court, was proper, and for the reasons herein stated,
we hold that the Order and Judgment of the Circuit
Court should be and is hereby affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed.
GE 14 (A -19598—14)
BISe oY 87) t onad
uw! bovevyqs sow ‘vad! patwodsa ehreqot lasii silt
-oo off of noitostorg boiiReHosg lank aa ures bite,
1 ad taeor of orolis? vised! yoifentaGivion soar
send sit ol ltanot tow ef otatata adt Yo etramotrap
egw tivieg ease eid) .21qna jatated sailed a1 nt to
_ beeadound, orev ehronmteavrt yuote yt aff otodh Heater
‘aisdorT adi to ssbto soivg to vtrrodine sit iohan
aii etvrainnbit oft of Trettsar ava% oeala ber fro)
suo) odt yd bavoiqgr crow doidw ahroder elation
sgofleAl of af antec art tect Keninemiah Hirot 4n7
aio wilty to vitor ol ef toeidue otow oul seas
drainer aiff yd beanie, ssodt madd tails gariiant
edt Yo sescox aff ot annel ooeubroar fer fom stay
-lo3t ot at aseol seo? of anottnsidd adt bag S:
iadt ton? oft te eealbrepet beaiaters arow otetedtl gaol
odt ist hosirodias vietiaiieh bad med stadortT ent
5 shen of taoeleavai
atuflaqaé off guiartifie ai doped sarerged ofT
ali wi betste dqsey paollett ad? of soamraler at tod
+ mOlsige
yaolloH of) ni betinpoa axfoa ygitiamer eft”
-nor eelon role to ytitoitg scl of toafdns o1ew Baas
ceibrere oft id Bosal cect mat) wiles Bitint =
to gegen ad) qt eneol somedronr tert fed ovate Bite
ab te o#a9 ni gennio polfarsfsoe all .ofatate emt
anoijosido oft .itoiny dove Jostie ton ib digat
-20e vitsitos stow ateol ssodt to Tavongge ont oF
rn oa)
to sobre oft talt oieiqgo aft to ote sroteredt ew
Horii) off vd boarifia Raw doisher dora’) oad eT ait
Sots steed agoanot ott et bie saqere daw Piro
fiuvtiD adi Yo tuoargiuk bes tohxO ont tadt lod om
onriifin worl ef bie od blsode sa
aah inane
Gt Ttst-2) et
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 6th day of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty, within
and.for the Second District of the State of Illinois;
Present -— The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice
Hon, BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk
E. J. WELTER, Sheriff
oO U od TAs i 6 fe:
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On, APE 2 8 1940
the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Cierk's Office of said
Court, in the words and figures following, viz:
(PHUOD GTALIZTGA, GUT, 8 treed AT.
gt yUtewtdel to yeb ate sult pase rut pe! gavagdo- ts bled dae fe
eee aj
ntittin .ytred Sina berbrud pacer rap ag one. bred 0 to Teay out
isloarilii Bs stsic sit my, Fomsale baoosd edt t0'%- ba
‘ fs ‘,
eosveuy qeisiverd Su0¥ 2 came aol ge: de ee
a ep iteut HAMNER SO TAMA “+ HOH | y = oe
eolteut .VOd .A ecDeMAaT fon» el a
AneLD ,MOLMHOL x2 OUTEUL : | a
Sol.Aléog NS ee
> ‘ . . ‘“ ‘ ’ ia wo -
| ‘ P i a ’
es
8 ORO} 4 re af. 910 idiw-ot obtanrette saste aS :
fiaa to eoLlip e\anoiy oat ot. po nsw TOP adit Y, Pie
isty saniwalfor bong? bas ‘abrow a co
¢
Gen. No. 9517 Az. Nes. 10,
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
: ‘
EBRUARY, TERM. A.D.#940 j
ve a ype :
f 3 ;
f i i f i i
Lewis H. Armstrong, f & é \
Pyaantiff, Appellee | é Appeal from the Cira it
/ : * Covet of Whiteside County,
V4
Ben Sharer,
‘_@ Tlltkeis.
Defendant, Appellant.
VS.
WOLFE, P.d.
Lewis H. Armstrong brousht a suit in the Circuit Court of
Whiteside County, Illinois, against the defendant, Ben Sharer,
in an action of trespass. The complaint filed consisted of four
counts. The first three counts charge that the defendant did
break and enter a certain corn crib belonging to the plaintiff,
and took therefrom, corn valued at $500.00. The fourth count
charges the defendant with wilful and wanton trespass in taking
the corn, and asks for damages in the sum of $5,000.00. ‘The
defendant filed his answer, which is a general denial of all the
allegations set forth in the complaint.
The evidence of the plaintiff shows that he was a tenant
on the farm in Rock Island County, Illinois, which was owned and
controlled by Miss Cora Von Steenbergh of Indiana. Under the
terms of the lease, the owner was to receive one-third of all
crops raised upon the farm as rent, including soy beans and
sorghum. The soy beans and sorghum raised upon the farm had been
sold by the plaintiff, but the proceeds not accounted for to the
landlord. The corn had been picked and placed in a double crib.
The man who operated the mechanical corn picker testified that as
he picked the corn, he would pick six rows for the tenant and four
rows for the landlord. The corn was hauled to the crib as picked.
The defendant, Ben Sharer, owns and operates an elevator at
Albany, Illinois. He, together with several of his employees,
OL .o «3A
om
SIOMLIIL GO TAYOO STA LINITA She eae
TOIHTENd CMOME |
1.4 Tu i,
* to day0d ttworkd edd at tive s oa: guomd grottemm .H a twed Bad
torade mol , cusbaeteb edt dan tags stombL1T evenwod ebtaoehat
Mo To bedatenon beltt tatslqnoo eff -pesqeetd to aottos mest
SF anit bib sus baeteb eid tat egxedo atnyoo cont dest? en? a |
| AYibdaielg edd of gutgmoled dixo wz00 nbadte0 2 rete fae z
: - tao9 Aaan0% ou? 400. oowd #8 bexlsy mtoo “wmortored soot bas sah
gatasd at aeaqaont notasw ba» wt Ltw ad bw sashes eb ode eegt
oil? .00,000,%¢ to muta edt ix? aogemsb x01 azine bas “eamo0
sus arn
oud ifs to Istaob iereneg 2 et ato.katw ‘Towants abd boLit tabs ot
tusned & asw ed tadd swore tittnteta ent 0 sonobive oat i es
: lee aieaty. hi ia
bas Senwo eSw dobdw setomt.ist Gtmwod basta soos at st one s ¥
ia 7 : Lis 20 9 Bridd-sn0 eviooos od Baw ‘Temwo edt ‘eusel edt tw
| bus aneod Ps gatbvloat :tnet as mist edt noas Seater
; peed bed areet ‘ods nog! boatar sunitgt02 fos ansed yor ont a
edt of rot detayovos ton ebsesong ode dud Thbdalele out
sdbxo elduob 8 at beosia, bas bexote ood bad aoe oct
88 teu? bottitaed sostoba nr09 Loo tnedoen ot Sedan .
a
ay ae sdosens oe ‘Giae odd od Beles oow srx09 gat a
*. ey ti xi he
1 ; te notevels ap sotereqo baa erwo vroted oft
by eral
py - ygaseyoteme atd to Levevea sé bw cuted
we
went to the crib in question, and started to shell the corn, but
the sheller broke down, and the corn which was shelled was hauled
to the elevator. The balance of the corn in the crib, with the
exception of thirty or forty bushels, was hauled away by Mir. Sharer.
At the time Mr. Sharer took the corn, there was some dispute be-
tween Armstrong and Sharer, as to the ovmership of it. Armstrong
claimed that Sharer had no right to take it, as the corn belonged
to him. Mr. Sharer claimed that he had bought the corn from iiss
Yon Steenbergh. The plaintiff did not claim the corn on the west
side of the crib, but admitted that was rent corn, but did claim
all of the corn on the east side of the crib.
The defendant called Sylvia Young who said she lived in
Frankfort, Indiana. She testified that on November 19, 1938, she
went to the farm with Miss Von Steenbergh where Mr. Armstrong was
picking corn, and that she heard a conversation between Miss
Yon Steenbergh and Mr. Armstrong; that they discussed the picking
of the corn and Mr. Armstrong said that the best place to sell the
corn was to Mr. Ben Sharer; that Miss Von Steenbergh said that she
was going to stay until the snvien aces was picked, shucked and
delivered to the elevator; that she and Miss Von Steenbergh, on
Thanksgiving Day, wart to the home of Mr. Armstrong and had a con-
versation with him relative to the corn, and Mr. Armstrong said
that Miss Von Steenbergh could take eight hundred bushels of corn
for her share of the crop, and that Ben Sharer would shell the corn;
that Armstrong said that he owed Miss Von Steenbergh for one-third
of the sorghum and beans and he would pay Miss Von SOREN! 0c
third with corn; that if there was not eight hundred busheB& of
corn in one crib, that Mr. Sharer should go to the other crib and
take enough to settle on a basis of eight hundred bushels; that
Mr, Sharer should go to the west crib tivah, and if there wasn't
enough to make eight hundred bushels, then he should go to the
east crib and remove enough of that corn to make a total of eight
hundred bushels.
befvad saw bell ona asw dofdw roo ont Bas ,awob esos 2 to Ltodin pi
ot déiw ,divo edt af 109 ett to sonsisd ect . stodevele ond of
i | torade til yd Yews Seles aew ,sLenssd yIrot to voutds to nottqeone |
-ed edugqetb ento8 BSW ore.id M100 odd wood torede .1M emit oad vik
ghottemtAs wi t © qiterenwo ‘edt o¢ as Vie, dae Bao utaorsA. agows
beanoled ntq0 edt as ia sist of digits on bd retede ‘asia bontele
aeiM mort too elt tdawod bed ex tadt bemisto retede mt at ot
teow edt m0 mus edgy misfo ton B55 tiktaielq od ignedneedé no¥
itielLo bib gud ,s100 ¢met esw tadd bettimbs dud dite ott. to. eble ‘
dito edt to site sage ous fo Moo “ault to tie + f
nt bovti eda Bisa ow 30% strive betise ‘dnabaored oc? ist
us ede (Beer €L tedme volt 10 tard belitveed ext sanetbat dno tiae s ; ey i
a8, guotdensh a etedw datednoede cov aal da iw wens oat ‘ot nem
aethi noowted no ttsereva09 8 bxaed aria tai bos 109 “ier ¥
oo. oe
eee anltotg ai beseuoats. vent tant. iaonvemnhvit bas: Aerateoee x |
yt mise! seek hoe bgt ray ie
exit Iles ot penta saed ad “gad bine “Baortenh -wl bas aro edd
a
ne Gites me he ae? i
ede godt bhee Aarednesde nov ae IM band remade 98. © o¢ ar x08 nt
(; a ergs we 7" x i
| bas bevioute peloig asw qor0\ erttne edt Eitan vate. o antog esw
1h chad’
HO dgredueete moV aa li bas ‘oite tail ‘yrotavete ent ot betev Te
tal ri Biy jwe te ;
~f100 4 ‘Bed fis angst are nt % ‘etsort uit oT vad ‘gate!
vei
‘bisa gio teach = tll "has AT00 ae oF ‘eviisiot ‘mb ddiw: ‘noltaesey i
and Hoe!
M700 to eledesd posbawd tists oan hy dpredaeede 00 ‘gant a aK,
fae pb ges oh £4
i {TOO edt eda bivow rertaie woe ‘dans ban (070 end ‘to oxsde te
Fl
he he ‘wot sigtoduoste os eel bowo od ‘tela skew ‘aaotttemah
ire LOS E le
f -~eto ame dnsad aT ee Bi wea bLiow od bao ‘anaed bas snantgaoa nag"
pews g 7 Agnitie
Oe ddedand bexbausi aegte ‘fom Baw ‘ened ‘at tats aro “at )
gyisyeve
Pa dino redlto. ‘edd oe o3 2 Divedts ‘sono at sans | adino eno.
‘hh
oe re aun oxeds iy bes eat ste oe ont ‘ot os tig od We
ule va Lai ae ‘tut ey ts
oats of 63 bivoite, ‘ont aodté valoda .
* tf an
7" ty ie Jae f
4
tigts % Iatod & lem of # sio0 Sasid t
y te has 1d 4 y, t i
be iM Fest! De , F Peat 2 r Lhe Gaal Ss
at ae SR ANS) cena at BEG id REF ss : a oy eared
} © VigGit aan” avrad A Mek? bee bai en nes . tas
ee ae ae me ye we a ts eee ae hints if tat
tn
Cora Yon Steenbergh testified that she lived in Wranietant,
Indiana, and owned the farm rented to Mr. Armstrong; that she was
on the farm on the 2lst of November and had a conversation with
idp, Armstrong; that Mrs. Young was present when she had a con-~
versation with Armstrong in regard to the rent for the place, and
Armstrong said that he would settle for eight hundred bushels of
eorn; that he first said he would settle by dividing and picking
the rows and she said that she would only settle by actual bushels;
that he was supposed to deliver the corn to the market; that
Armstrong said that she was to get eight hundred bushélsof corn,
and pay for one-third of the crop which should be one-third of the
sorghum, one-third of the beans, and her share of the corn and to
cover the expense of hauling it to the market; that she said I
there wasn't eight hundred bushels of corn on the west side of the
erib, that they would take enough out of the east side to make up
the eight hundred bushels, and that Mr. Armstrong said that that
would be all right; that she then went to Mr. Sharer, sold the corn
to him and Mr. Sharer was to go out shell and haul the corn.
Mr, Ben Sharer testified in his own behalf, and stated that
he was in the grain, elevator and coal business at Albany, Illinois;
that he had known Mr. L. Armstrong for quite a while; that he knew
the Von Steenbergh farm, which is about eight miles southwest of
Albany; that about Thanksgiving time of 1938, Miss Von Steenbergh
came to him and wanted him to go to the farm to get cight hundred
bushels of corn; that he bought the corn from her; that she went to
the farm with him and showed him where the corn was; that she was
there with him on two different occasions; that he went to the place
and got the corn which actually weighed six hundred fifty-one bushels;
that he paid Miss Von Steenbergh for this corn. He also testified
in regard to Mr. Armstrong having a conversation with him regarding
the price of the corn when he wes gstting the corn at the crib; that
while they were shelling the corn, the sheller broke; and the last
of the corn was taken out in the ear. The evidence shows that there
were three hundred twenty-nine bushels of corn in the west crib.
e ag Te
ees ‘ani ofa salit pgnortemA .aM ot besoes mtet aut Sexwo bas soatba
bw HOLT se TEVIIOO 5. bad bas asduevoll to deff edd to amet ‘ud 0
uf mee a ‘Rs ms
a , “as09 s ber edi setw tnese tq ssw anuot om dunt “Tanger Ae
)
Pain ,e0elq et 10ot duet sit of Braget at “‘gnotdeurts ig tw sotteeney
is “to eletleod bexband tdgte tot olstea bivow of todd bise anonsemrth
" ~gatiokg bus gatbivis yd olvdes bivow ed bee ¢atkt ed tedd "ie
teledaud fsytos yd elttee yloo bivow ots tent bise ona bas wot ons
dadg jJewren edt of atoo edt teviteb ot bexogqwa ssw out at
~7m00 toeledeud betinosl tdate ten ot asw ‘ode tad? Shee. savteamh
edt to brisdd-ond ef Sivora dotdw qors eft to Brtitt-on0 ro wat
ti Bise ode ¢add idoslt ant ent of $i hil to “‘eareqxe, ae
Jaa
‘edd to eble seow odt mo atoo to, aledesd berbaudl tigte tune ened
j qu even of obits dese oft to tuo dayore eed Sivow ander: sede ‘ell
; it hte AG
tags gagd bise auotdemtA .th dads bas atedaud besbeen Sate eae h
! mie ney
ian 200 ede. ‘Bloa tered a ot tuew mexld outs, tase ea Tos: ed Biluow
we One Dep»
ettroo ot Lise bas, Llede tuo on of asw road. ba
ys . tads betase bas ,tisted wo. eld at. belttsact. retete nek. 08 “iy
be parce Yosdla te anentesnd f200 han sotave.e bere oat at con
went si teddd telidw 2 etiwo tot ssortenzA ‘wa ui aro a3 bert ont hia
a “to taowdtuoe esalla dda te tyoda eat dokrw ulist iyrodneode nov edt
‘ Ug Lui se Es fy ae
. dytedroes® moV eal seer to omit aakvigadaedt ‘toda & dead i" Me
Fi ea he pita
" * botbrucl tdgte gen oF must ent ot 03 ot outed bodnnw baa utd of ma
Le ot 7 S28
" Awol tuew 6de todt ited mort gieo edt dtiguod of teats jax0o, to i
i vf "paw ete deft tasw ozos edd etedw oxtd bowode ete. mic dé.bw erat ott
bred ene te
soalg els of tnow et tone jace Laasce dnotettib owe 0 tit the onedt
ry ma)
ietedeud eno-ystLt bethaed xte besdatew (llantes doliw ax00 ould ‘toa. :
pay (eZ
beititecd oale of 10109 ehdd x0 dgredapode ao sels Bisa
. he
oes ae ee er ha
i
; aasbiages ss ittiw sokteure tao a > ented ponder eel
iy
a
Pe.
Lt
\ ‘ ei 4 re
i tie dadd Goods oneblve od? saa9 eds at “wo aoiiet
In rebuttal ir. Armstrong said that he told liiss Von Steenbergh
he would give her one hundred @ifty bushels of corn for her share
of the sorghum and beans, but denied promising her that he would
give her eight hundred bushels of corn. On cross-examination he
admitted that Miss Von Steenbergh and Mrs. Young asked him for eight
hundred bushels of corn, but he said, "I didn't tell them nothing."
The case was submitted to a jury who found the issues in favor
of the plaintiff and assessed his damages at $570.00. Judgment
was entered on the verdict and it is from this judgment that the
appeal is prosecuted. The question for this Court to decide, “is
whether this verdict is supported by the preponderance of the
evidence.* 1+ has long been the law that a verdict of a jury on
a controverted question of fact should be final and binding upon
a court of review, unless the verdict is manifestly ageinst the
weight of the evidence. From a review of all of the evidence in
this case, it is our conclusion that the verdict of the jury is
against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that the judgment
should not be allowed to stand. The judgment is therefore reversed
and the cause remanded,
Reversed and cause remanded.
ah
agredaeete noV sell! Biot ef sedd Blea anotdamtA so Lettudet af °°!
etsde ter tot mroo To eletasd ysTis betbaort eno tod evig Sivow ed”
bindw ed tedt red sntetmory beiaed tod anced biee audgxoe ett to”
ef notvsnimsxe-eaots nO oreo to aleneud berbaor tdats ted sviy ”
tdgte tot mid dexes grvcoY .at fase devedceet@ noV ee bt tedf bode tha»
".onitffon medt Lied ¢*abtb I* -fitie ed tud ere to elodend berbavd ”
qovst mt eowaet edd Sreot odw ywt 2 of betélndue est 6eed ed #1
trembut .00.0%@¢ ts eogemeh eid beeasees bas Tt hntele ot to’
odd ¢ad¢ thomebut etdt mort ef ft bac solbrey eff mo Bosetns dew!
ai" ,obtoeh of Pusod ett sot adldeetp ef ~.bedssodotq ef Lasqqe”
eit to sodatebnoqeny odt yd bedioqyive eat toiStev atdd rententw
; so Yust Ss to tothtev 5 fadt wel ond aeed gaol esd 2 *. oonebhive »
voy gatbatd Sas fsx? od biyode text to wolteedp betwventage a’
ot’ fantoge <itadtinem af volbrev ont aaelat ywetver Yo sites Is”
nt eousbive eff to [fs to wotver a mort ,eomeiive ent to ddytew’
eb Yuyt eft to dolbuey oft say nofasfonos tua ah ¥t lease atidty
dnomabuk odd add bos ,oouebtve eft to tdulew Seotiaem edt teatsgs !
foatevet sictstedd et eaaalaat eft - baste ot bewolis ed ton blrade
behasitet ezmsd ‘edt bas
} eit 10. Tae ah ee
SNe tindnier’ estas “bas Seeteved wet Aowstiness® co eae
twods taadé ote
rotary Sata atal ae | Pry oa} 4)
sagan to - siaders
£ ak eds
ye a, 23 neds
i i 4 am ome bie
ORG Slat we eT nweR wav wet Bie, eat eae
Ei Meahioneac Lee ec ec ent, mt ag eee nt
Be GD Ope Oa Sete TD oh te alist
;
alin Pain des on ‘ea rents paws ie a re “
POISED RE A URE BS eae 9 aE eal gre fy hate
Dibthg (cet? Sie er ae re smokin CN wiv a te
af ive waye odd mo ate to edu. calmen dane’ Behan ‘ends eee.
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SS.
SECOND DISTRICT :
I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-__
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73947) <Q@BB507
we sit
i 7h L has
s y sot halt
‘ P, es? ‘He
we:
. j YU
i 4 | ee ip i
. f Lon *:
, Pe ‘ ? 7]
en : a 0
{ ot
; f LM
y iy WH rt
a tiie yh, A ie a pone eee ‘iets? a haa
aha tsa if 1: ney) "hy Ue vee eae als ti
; se + ey, dot bine nds a seal Obyatt he aaa
ts weap AR Gee re ea Le ob etait: ‘Serine:
Rs ae) es Way i nb aa eye Reon ey tainted tat? wae rahi
Mee vise Li i, ee wae
| eT WP tiene he a a toe
tp ein ha ety ‘Weenie Shee " sda Rae ne
asier Oeiae oy area I cla ah oe oT wun Pehla
rae ey OP Like ate hay een Hyatt) i‘
Lohan tego Cate Pri tan tae nie al <li i any My
Tot ge ery Pete NH RA all eg shut pet, sani “i
oop gine een aj bit uation Seine ri
“ode ie ‘evEwetiteen “AY Puasa :
Pe ee ppniiinrs wht ee iyi Me abil At
dyn 44 Ae eee aS Sort 4 | ;
Mahar irae: Hints hie is perpen sep a
Ape cy 6% haar achat’ Fae * erg
sich gbialle ‘egies haan Sdotedmat Cee
‘ ; ha es a)
igi, Wie: ieee een im
AlN
Rea ee tao shullogigA os to ae’ iawn Head vm |
hack al uaa nionnene eh ea:
Thiele oi em! ta nanan vee
5 Wana ee eas aR Sih i
Ae
AT A TaRM OF TH APPELLAT COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 7th day of May, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present -- The Hon. FRED G. "JOLF=, Presiding Justice
Hon. BLADE HUFFIUAN, Justice
Hon, FRANKGIN R. DOVE, Justice
ey (: EC h, 4 ze
x 2f &€ ES | q (2 SS /é
JUSTUS L. JOMIso, Clerk eb UD Lethe €O&
? 7
ete) whe aera s
SS
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On {yp
NAT
aU iJdttYU
the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's Office of
said Court, in the words and figures following, viz:
i ¥y ° o : 1%
hs 4 ‘ m
iy eae :
“7 A i 4 -
A
“ at <Yeit-20 yeh. cay eda eeheout. ous
a ee
evitot ‘pas Bezhaivd: Mele Srsesodt ae"
retoni{tl to edeté oul to dobrteld, baooee, edt “ot ahs
ES ran a Mes at on
eskseut + arb ine, peek +2: com et’ e's q
GEN. NO. 9486 AGENDA NO. 23
IN THE
APPELLAT® COURT OF ILLINOIS "4
f ?
SECOND DISTRICT. Po 4
*
s
wy j
J) |
u BS a
Ee F fist
@ sf? . Ne
ar E F
Ge
: ~
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
tal i
et al, ; é
Appellees, ; ;
F 2 APPHAL FROM THE CIRCUIT
vs. i f )
* ) GOURT OF WILL COUNTY.
HERBERT R. JONES, et al, )
COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY, et al, )
)
Appellant and Co-appellant. }
DOVE, d.
At the November election 1930, Herbert R. Jones was elected
County Treasurer of Will County for a term beginning December 1,
1930 and ending December 3, 1934. He qualified and on November 15,
1930 entered into a bond as provided by law in the sum of {250,000.00
with nine individuals as sureties. On January 27, 1931 he entered
into the required statutory bond as County Collector in the sum of
$850,000.00 with eighteen individuals as sureties. On February 22,
1932 he again entered into another bond as county collector in the
sum of $755,000.00 with the Columbia Casualty Company as surety.
On January 11, 1933 he entered into another bond as collector in the
sum of $300,000.00, also with the Columbia Casualty Company as surety.
On August 13, 1936 the People of the State of Illinois acting
by and through the State's Attorney of Will County, filed the instant
nnn Oe O 2 RIO AATCC e E NT
OF AGy MO,
SET ur
BIOMLLIT ¥O PAVOD WTALIGGA
orkrera andore
Tee ;
OAer .& .A Mera? yrentdet
‘i
( leromtrkrs 46 etare cut tm 3
(
b | poolledg
_ MIUOATO BET MOMT JANTGA \ | ni
nf ; .2v fi
- . . «MTMUOD LIEW. TO BAVOD Teac:
es : { : {exHOU 6”
ana oe Ee ia $9 .tAaMOD bisa,
{
P sist bas tasifeqaa
i
re enc ga PI aA CR ON ETO a ree aan
‘- ae
4 ef tedmsoed sninatged aries & ah ystayoo tite | to eke =
. 4g@L aedmevoll no bas boltifesp eh .ACQL. .€ tedmeoed antbae &
00.000, 0&8$ to owe edd ak wal yd bebtvorq as Suod 8 otat ‘ber i
S | bevedae ed LEQL ,TS yisyost a0 -sotteotm as. aleubivibat |
to mye edd at todgoeL{o0 ytavod a2 baod yrotetata bextupes 9
.SS YisuideT oO .aettetwe ss alsubivibat needtigte dtiw 00.6
1m edt ai tosoelloo Wau es baod teddoms ovat hetedae abege
3 7 7 ies + aye ey ay
oo | 2 2 bak a a ee ae bid ; ‘hy yetiach
complaint for an accounting against the said Herbert Rk. Jones as County
Treasurer of Will County and ex-officio county collector and the
sureties on his several respective bonds to recover,shortages, mis-
application of funds and defalcations during his term of office.
The complaint consisted of several counts and each prayed for an
accounting between the People and the defendants and that a judsment
be rendered against such of the defendants for the respective anounts
due from each as the account might disclose. Answers, counter-clainms
and replies were filed and after the issues had been made up the cause
was referred to a special master to determine whether an accounting
should be had, While the cause was pending before the master a settle-
ment was effected by the provisions of which the Casua&ty Company as
surety paid to the County of Will $110,000.00 and $15,000.00 additional
was paid by the individual bondsmen. $69,226.03, being the agount of
money tied up in closed banks, was also paid to the County of Will and
these several amounts aggregating $194,226.03 were to be distributed
among the various 118 taxing bodies lawfully entitled thereto. This
settlement was duly approved by an appropriate resolution of the County
Board of Supervisors on November 29, 1938 and all the taxing bodies ex-
cept the Village of Frankfort and the Town of Joliet thereafter passed
appropriate resolutions approving the settlement and accepting such
distributive share as computed by the County Board and executed
receipts therefor. On January 18, 1939 Albert H. Krusemark, as 4
taxpayer, the said Village of Frankfort and the said Town of Joliet
were granted leave to intervene and their intervening petitions were
filed on January 20, 1939. On January 27, 1939 Columbia Casualty
Company filed its amendment and supplement to its answer setting
forth that there had been a final settlement of the case pursuant
to the resolution of the County Board of November 29, 1938 and
igh:
: “itt fas tovoslloo yttwoo ofeltto-xe bas vtawe® ctrw to" ou - d
as wa ku eegsdrede ,tovooer o¢ ebaod eviteeqaes Leveves atid no ee — re
.oottto to met ald ae anottsolateb bigs baw’ to sone a
| entsto-netaven areal -ovofonts taste tmooos edt es Hose “ane
| “oews0 odd ay ebem seed ‘bed wevent odd setts bats ae
a ‘su ttnpooes as teddedw omtmteteb o¢ todaau Lelooge s ot bea none?
Date fe tedeba edt exo'ted anibueg enw eaune oie eLidw | bad od b.
a Bs ynsqnod Yoihiveed ‘oat’ do Law to esotealvorqg edt ve bodootte, eam
Ienotd?hbs 00.000,2L8 bus 00.000 , 0L8 tftiv to: ¢dan8d exit ot yin’
‘to tiuoms ods gated C0. 086,008" Thompbaad touStvibat ane ws 5
bas LLM to-xtauod. eft. od bisa oale sow yosted bowole ab qu.
bodudicteih od ot ovew £0. ass ARIZ natdsyorass adnsoms cotore i
_BLAT .odoroNe DeEE Ine one astbod sisson ate ouobiev os
op ee | dusiconare. (Ht! Seat ecet vet rer Y oO!
teELO’ tO mol bise eft hee stoTinett te eget rev’ pte rr
otow: “EHOLstseg anime wtotat ehedd ine onevabent or oveol' bee ns
‘yetewaed' skdintod PROC YTS Yeaunee nO” yeeer: 08" reheat
te napus ‘Sewans aot: ‘oa aneasah ‘sus Snebaoms: aaa
i: iy
alleging that distribution had been mace and accepted by 116 of the
118 taxing bodies which were entitled to participate in the distribu-
tion of said fund. In this amended and supplemental answer it was also
alleged that this settlement also provided that the county should
receive all dividends paid out by receivers of closed bans of public
monies deposited therein and the settlement was made also without
prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff to proceed against said
Herbert R. Jones personally and averred that the county had executed
its release to all sureties on all the bonds of Herbert R. Jones and
had acknowledged the receipt of its share of the total amount of cash
received by the county as provided in the settlement resolution of the
Board of Supervisors, To this amendment and supplement to the Casualty
Company's answer the plaintiff filed its reply admitting the allega-
tions as to the settlement. The Village of Frankfort in its reply
characterized the settlement as an “attempted” one and neither ad-
mitted nor denied the allegations of its amended and supplemental
answér. The Town of Joliet filed no repiy.
On May 22, 1939 the special master filed his report finding that
the defendants were liable to account and recommending that a decree
be entered to that effect. To this report objections were filed which
were overruled and afterwards renewed as exceptions and upon a hearing
had, the chancellor approved the report, overruled all exceptions
thereto and on May 22, 1939 re-referred the cause to the special
master with instructions to proteed to hear further evidence and to state
the account. Thereafter and on June 7, 1939 the chancellor entered
an order directing the Casualty Company to pay to the special master
$1,793.75 for services rendered by him and to pay to the reporter
for his services the sum of $1251.11. To reverse these orders ond
decrees the Columbia Casualty Company has appealed and most of the
individual defendants have joined as co-appellants.
3e
els To Sif yd betgeoss haa oben need bed sottudingels tsdd aatge. |
—-s sudiateth edé ot edsatotiasg of belttine, exe doidw eetbod saixed Bit:
oats asw di tewans {stnonef{qqua bas behbaoms elit ax -Dowt, bisa to. nolt
* bisode yinwoo eds teut bebivonrg coals tuomelttea aidt veda be s)
olf{dwq To efinsd beeolLo to erevieset yd two bisq ebmobivih Lis evte : a
tuodtiw oats ebsu asw tnemelsies edd bap atewends betivoqsd, ae.
bisa senisge Seeseid o¢ Tiltntelg eit to eddgly eit of | eatbute ce
bedwosxe bad ydauoo ed tadt betieve bas ylisnoateg eenot fis ited om be
Bue acsiot ,1 sxodieli to wbaod ond Le no eettomwe fis oF he
aso to tnwoms Levod edt to. stade ett to tqisver ody hesbelwom a
edd. to notjul[osex ¢uemeitiee old alt bebivotq Be ‘Yenupe ott w bovis ry
3 Ntlpgaad, eit of treme iqque. bas Tohembaoms alagt of setpEvoqse Yo
i teReLle ett gutttinbs yiget ast beltt ttitutele edd tewane Phas
viget ati at drotunetl to ogeLltY oft -tremelitea ont, ot es 8
~bs segitten bas eno “bedquedte" os as Inemelitea odd ont teantys 7 Ac
Latoomelaque S23. Sobaoms avi to acoltagel ie ont Babnod | :
By ies _ s¥fget om beLtt totlot to awol, ext pre
tet amber dtoget aid be lit totesm is ont sda 88 iilen a 3
7
mn
-
betetas wat tiie Pr REC L. s eau | a0 bas. aed tseedt? at ss en
‘teteam Letoaga edd ot yeq ot ymsqmod wiiswesd edd auitoenth et
sedioget edt of Ysq ot big ald ‘<a bexehaet spell pray
bas atebro ‘enodt. A or. plies Misti to me st
‘i ery: aad ae “sedunsieqgn-oo & a heal pibing 3 aii )
ne 2 ue "A on 4
The evidenee found in this record discloses and the brief filed
on behalf of appellee, the sole original plaintiff below, states that
a valid settlement of all the issues in this case had been effected
and that this settlement, legally effected, is the end of the case.
The State's Attorney confesses that the decree of the chancellor is
erroneous and should be reversed and suggests that this court find that
the sum of $5,737.21 due the Town of Joliet and the sum of $67.67 due
the Village of Frankfort be paid by eppellant to the present County
freasurer of Will County for and on behalf of these bodies, to be
withdrawn by them upon their giving a receipt therefor and that from
the dividends of closed banks the additional sum of $27.35 be paid to
the Village of Frankfort and the additional sum of $1,783.20 to the
Town of Joliet. As to the order of June 7th, 1939 directing the
payment by appellant to the special master of his fees and the fees
to the reporter the State's Attorney states he is not interested.
After the record and the original briefs had been filed in this
court, the order of June 7th, 1939 was complied with and satisfied and
on March 9, 1940 this court upon appellant's motion dismissed its appeal
so far as the order of June 7, 1939 is concerned and agreemble to the
suggestion of the State’s Attorney with reference to the 55,737.21
due the Town of Joliet and the $67.67 due the Village of Frankfort
under the terms of the settlement, appellant aid, on March 9, 1940,
pay those sums to the present county treasurer for the benefit of
these two texing bodies to be withdrawn by them upon demand and upon
eiving proper receipts therefor. This was done with the express
approval of appelles as shown by the stipulation of the parties
hereto, together with the supplemental abstract of record.
fhe intervenors Village of Frankfort, Albert H. Krusemark and
Town of Joliet have not followed this appeal, have not entered any
appearances in this court or filed any briefs. The only appellee not
Le
bani eotate ywoled ttivnieta Inala tro oon edt eottoags 1 tL
be bosootte heed bad ease aidd out eomak ait: rae) to snomeltten b
Boi opthdnasite edt 20 setoed ost tadd eeasetnod qoutes, ne
Beers bait srs0o ethit tadt eteegase ban beatevet ed Sivode bas am
ie evb Ta.S8} Yo ane edd bus totLol to awo? exit ens 18s TR eee 0m
dowel trovenq eit ot dan LLeaqs “ad / bheq o¢. drotlsert to.
ed ot ~eelbod eats to tisded ao bits TOL Wawa LEW Yoon
ee ot ol tact fo8 totetedt tateost s saivin tisdét mogy. mens, ‘du
ia btoq ed &€.S$ to swe Lanotstbhs aul? erlmed bewolo to abusbt
«edit of 08,887 44 Yo ime Lsn0tstbbe edd Sak trons: to \eselt
eit gnkdoertth C€QL git) sop to webte edd o¢ eA ude lidy” o
geet edd bis eest ald to tedaam Istooqs odt of tasilegges yo smenty
-betaetetat ton al ed -estese ysonotsA atotaea ode tetioget: edd 8
elit ch BeLit seed bad atetsd Lontgtio edt bas biooet on
bas boltettse bus dtiw beliqmoo saw REQL yatNoennh to sobre edd
eit 9% oldmeeigs bus hoateomoo at QLOL gh saist naan: dt a - mae
> LS.SEY Rh odd OF oOnet]etet Adiw YoutoTsA @'esns@ odd Yo moh
tua ttetinerT te egsLliVeedd exh Va. 76$ env bas te lLol to wo?
aeengxe edt dtiw snob asw ald? sxoteusdd adqheter teqotq pa.
) as Tre eeltis¢ eae? to moiteluqite ons qc owosle ies | id . ts , ro
«$10 09% To tositeds: ere eda stn soto a
in default confesses that the decree appealed from should be reversed.
The only two taxing bodies interested which were not expressly satis-
fied with the settlement and which had not accepted the benefits thereof
have acquiesced therein by failing to follow the appeal to this court.
Evidently there is no desire on the part of anyone to further engage
in this litigation and as stated by counsel for all the parties appear-
ing in this court, there is no oceasion for further proceedings in
* a
this case. The order and decree of May 22, 1939 as against everycne
ve
to this record other than Herbert R. Jones is therefore reversed.
foeteds agitoned onkt bes
RL. Wild oe fae poeeaton tp Avgeqy ais ade & Deanna: V tania.
7 Liso Fe inf 23 ise bp yr odd ede
ie : 96 2 . ae Bot A ben at, ete . ic sAcy : ae,
ha =. dw b nezedtat
atte Ylasetgxe "Sani pet 2
»dru09 Shae of Laeags, outs wottor og antih dear outthan ws ;
ROT OMS seat
egssce, weds Ba Pg tc Bt Peden Mi Rs Dots nnn Def Maske tax rs
~rseque wolves od Lp 102 foengoo w Sedade ax has noftap tit e269 at
At apasbeovors, edit ast colas00e on & ot eiedceat oe contain
Ree RM, feateen Fe Ter ae ad “ss hee Mead in Mihv ts as ry
| sbooroyer, exotexer? of souot, «A dupdzelt mada seen Pome hl
eo btag od CEWVE8 Sa, ne ian tela ne | ele rane! ep pte te aba ¥,
| hhh edt dyeesinad’ de sof aa
AAT DEHN REMC) gael wewh To weeny Met ag nih caethew's
sogkt eff bes Cork mit ta weddalt Sudo ona Sa hes As es
shbatavsetah tom eh ad seven yoones die Sake all ROP T RES
Shit) ah balks vend dank webed Lortoded weet tae tereowte wih
bat Seliwlise Daw Shy belie eam ROE Ue be tp bas maha |
lavas, ats lveabe th) eobdon wae tieey my Crear ede Riad - cr re a. u
ante af 6 ldpeona bas haaspuaeo wheat “3 » aah he ‘alread ‘whe: bea
» Fahl ph) ob Ge whgece tar dd he Cowtorne RE PR ele tem
Sry Ye ena Ll) att wach DO eROg ae hoe oe bot 2 .
pObet Wt ROUEN $0h, AAW Pad felons Neca arpa aeanlivich yas
Mth tened it wed, cedvadesd tate dieu! aati Se ae
MOGs Dog Did uw cute oe oie dal bh ok ee LOOM stag 4 )
dno uae, ert, ow eNeh set mhee a hiaicltcatslh sent
okie eld: hee camels mula bay ‘mst MY apnea a ee nos age |
hiro aos ao Rhettnde: Ah phat Kelp ‘pith 10.8 anomnes
tes anemaiet: i PRP Le « gO ALOEE, B larga .
ton bengder. dak: wring a Cee euegihy honest gary bows m
dee oe LLedh, 40109, pmtth' a aad gis wei: ei » oral: ut sas ne
AY ava if
STATE OF ILLINOIS, iz
SECOND EDIST RECT i , I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73947) <23e07
‘
Bas at tuo stallions acto shen, Hoewnor al aural a
tdi SH Sooedt 1058 baw me ait to awe att $8 ;
. e ue
i yo a ed i i
hay! AP ae
‘ i
yr nets eka
aN tart S90 ;
‘ hive Aa bien
ee
(® x “a
: a POU
Nat iad & a pay ening fe ae wei
' a, | ’ ea
afi
“TL?
doit i
2 a=
‘4 } !
,
‘
‘
‘
al
a
4 r)
{ .
“a f
vp oes
vay
4 DO tt gi
Haylie 3
‘0 aCe
ye ’
’ . . na ¢ ) io
hy Clty e okie 4
‘ r ‘ 7 As 4 vu rs i
eH
TS
AT A TERM OF TH APPELLAT COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 7th day of May, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty,
Within and for the Second Distriet of the State of Illinois:
Present -- The Hon. FRED G. “OLFS, Presiding Justice
Hon. BLAINE HUFFIUN, Justice
Hon. FRANKLIN &. Dove, Justice
JUSTUS L. rorsar, Clerk ~
#. J. UELTER, Sheriff
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On \A\
the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's Office of
said Court, in the words and figures following, viz:
ean tit te eeeneonenees aa ;
rae ™
:Sfonk Lit 40. siete ont 0 sorstela
‘ 2 % a : ;
. 7s. o 7g Sa : poet x
cokvaut aukbteoxt eee 2 ee ical a |
GEN. NO. 9511 AGENDA NO. 8
<Tera
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
aft a
SsgCOND jee i fg
; a ,
JESSE P. HAYDEN,
Vs.
FRED H, BREDEMEZIER
BREDEMEIER,
en a ne i ee ne See tae Seth “Se
o ome
% POR
Appellants.
DOVE, J.
On December 21st, 1937 Jesse P. Hayden filed his complaint
and cognovit in the Circuit Court of Kankakee County and recovered
a judgment by con¥Yession that day against the defendants Fred H.
Bredemeier and Elsie Bredemeier for $2655.00. Thereafter and on
January 3rd, 1936 the defendants filed their motion supported by
the affidavits of the defendants to open up the judgment and for
leave to plead. These affidavits were, on motion of the plaintiff,
stricken. Subsequently, by leave of court, an amended affidavit
was filed to which was attached a copy of an instrument signed by
the plaintiff and dated July 23, 1934 and addressed to John Krueger,
Secretary-Treasurer of the Federal Land Bank and to the Land Bank
Commissioner of St. Louis, hereinafter referred to. The trial court
again sustained the motion of the plaintiff to strike the affidavit
as amended, denied the motion of the defendants to open up the
judgment and for leave to plead and directed that the judgment
rendered on December 21, 1937 stand in full force and effect. From these
orders the defendants have perfected this appeal.
BIOMIIIT TO THUD DTALGISTA
HIATLIA awrodg
OLOL GRA ft © yerke Jet
wruogfo suv Yor$ tastes
AOD WAAAEMAL TO PIUOD
“a hovk eduabasteb odd fastens vob touts nozesetnoo xe |
a0 ) be tod tapos? 00. aan rot qetemoboxt otelE bus :
(Mtdntelg ed to so btom 1G orew eghvebitta oot “aeola
_dhvsbitts bebaeme as twee ‘to eves w eitrompeRdie a
a ato og. bonsozbbs ‘bas geet ae va poses » ‘bas rt
used bast, edt o¢ bas olne8t bast Lenobet ot ‘to ‘reumsert—
a | dxp00 ising edt 88 howteton ‘aotteatoned, evol 9 ‘to rosot
a i ‘ _dhvebitts odd eltrte, of Attentete eal “te. 0 Bos att bouts ,
“ont oe nog od. ‘udaabaoted: onl te. nod to oad i bebzed |
ale mort “.dootte bas coro fare’ al ‘haste Tee ‘
: ‘ Iaenge ald bogeorcog av
The amended affidavit of the defendant Fred H, Bredemeier
states that on or about June 16, 1934 the defendants were indebted
to the plaintiff in the sum of $20,410.00 and accrued interest;
that at that time they were also indebted to John Heldt in the sum
of $1,000.00 and to F. J. Cloidt in the sum of $2100.00; that in
the Spring of 1934 at the request of the plaintiff the defendants
applied to The Federal Land Bank of St. Louis and to the Land
Bank Commissioner for loans to be secured by mortgages on certain
real estate owned by the defendants; that loans were granted the
defendants aggregating $15,700.00; that on July 23, 1934 each of
the said creditors of the defendants, including the plaintiff,
agreed to scale down the indebtedness due them from the defendants
and accept a smaller sum in full satisfaction of their claims
against the defendants; that John Heldt agreed to accept $600.00
in full satisfaction of defendants’ indebtedness to him; that said
F, J, Cloidt agreed to accept the sum of #1800.00 in full satis-
faction of defendants' indebtedness to him and the plaintiff agreed
to accept in full satisfaction of defendants! indebtedness to him
the sum of $12,500.00 on or before August 1, 1934, or if paid
thereafter to accept said sum of $12,500.00 together with 6%
interest thereon from August 1, 1934 to the date of payment. The
affidavit then states that the plaintiff agreed that when said sum
of $12,500.00 and 6% interest from August 1st, 1934 was paid to him
that all his claims against the defendants would be paid and satis-
fied in full. The affidavit then recites that thereafter said loans
were obtained from The Federal Land Bank and the Land Bank Commissioner
and that each of said creditors, including the plaintiff, was paid
the respective amounts so agreed by them to be received by them in
full satisfaction of their respective claims against the defendants;
Re
‘wabsaeherd 3 heat tushostah aut, ‘to “tivebivts bebaons ca” Y
betdebut etew edunbaoteb ede Acet 124 emir tuods "0 ao todd aotata
rdeotetat bastoos bas 0.0L, ose to are edt nt Whtatele ett ot
mre ecld of $hLol io ot heddebat oats A 0 yond omit todd ts at
sot dasd 400. oorst to oure echt at thtosd, +b 7 ot bne 00, 000, %0 :
ataahactes.osd Vldalale eds 0 seompes odd de MERI to pateqs-odd fi
bast ot os bas etwed 8 Yo weet bus Letehbet ont ‘or bobiteeh iM
:
atstres £0 ety, x6 berw09e ed ot aanok 10% memo bea beim) nip
See
Ph hese. ads Horan sr asso our Matha enodtbero btoa Cf it
lel ao eth od
: aye iiithe lav)
00. 0088 tebabn of beers ‘YORE nulot edly ears ont te 8!
ie h fk ot eweucma. il
‘pins Saad jut o¢ aneubetdebal ‘enshneted to nolsostaitse aay |
£9 ft Rmehe Wy Ne Span 4rd as
<aidee List nt (00.008f8 to mea ont sqe00s of beorgs #6 be :
beerg2 tiidatsig edd Sas aubet os aneadeddebut ‘adupbae teb to me
i Bi Pie eae
mid o¢ saanbotdobnt ‘tadasbaoteb to nolvestettes Liste at :
44 uy thy aly i
bieq te 10 AOL i amguh omted 10 20 00. 008 Si bs b
A
ent -inemeag 10 etn ext od eer J teak not? puns none:
Kiet! wyet Ce
mmase bise xed sade beoras tittateLe out todd ‘eotnte. aostd 4
‘mid os bkaq aw QE dal seupuh mort seorotat ba bee 00,0 og
welder bas bag ed blvow “afushaoteb ©: ead “gentens amtaie a
—- ennol Bisa redtseteit dads eedioes meds Shvabime ox? .Lfu% mb |
| tomo tae Lmoo aor boat odd bra oe ‘aad foaebet out? eid feedaile . “4
a bieq enw (iidaielg end gabbylont phd get a beg af
needs. ul modé we beviooe: ed of mori ye booms « |
Bh, “fadumciotes ons ‘tanteye ae a ak ait
Si for Gee Sty ayy cin
that at no time between July 23, 1934 and August 15, 1934, the
date of said alleged note which forms the basis of this suit,
did the defendants or either of them receive any money or any
other thing of value from the plaintiff; that the note sued upon
is wholly without any good or valuable consideration; that the
plaintiff, on August 15, 1934, the alleged date of the alleged
execution and delivery of said note, did not part with any con-
sideration or anything of value and that neither of the defendants
received any consideration of any kind or anything of value on
account of the alleged execution and delivery of said note and
that no one for them or for either of them received any such
consideration; that each of the foregoing statements is true in
substance and in fact; that each statement is made on the personal
knowledge of affiant and thet if sworn as a witness in this case
affiant can so testify. The instrument dated July 23, 1934, above
referred to, the authenticity of which is verified by the affidavit
of the defendant Fred H. Bredemeier is as follows:
"CREDITOR'S STATEMENT OF INDEBTEDNESS AND
AUTHORITY FOR PAYMENT.
Application No. 107679 Ne Ps Ly Ay OF Ls Ci Bos
Applicant Fred Bredemeier
To Jesse B, Hayden Momence, Illinois, July 23rd, 1934
Momence, Illinois
"You hold a mortgage as an obligation of Fred Brede-
meier, Momence, Iil. for $17,000.00. Kindly state below
3,410.00
the earliest date said indebtedness can be paid, giving
the amount which you will accept in full satisfaction
of the same on or before said date, or thereafter, and
return this statement to me.
Signed)
Secretary-Treasurer or
Loan Correspondent.
To John Krueger
Secretary-Treasurer or Loan Cor- Date duly 23rd, 1934
respondent and te the Federal
Land Bank of St. Louis and/or
Land Bank Commissioner.
"The amount of the indebtedness he ndie to above is
17,000.00 836.03 i e
37 410.00 as unpaid principal and 306 .90 unpaid in
terest up to the 16th day of June, 1934, upon which
date or after which date said debt can be paid. Said
end .ACCL .ef dangud bas AECL .€8 yLot neowted omit say al naa
obi eldy to. elasd of? amtot dofdw ston Segelte. bisa % - me}
Yas To yenont: ys oviovot mous te rerlgte a fe) mr ae edd f ae
noqu beya oson edd “pads ittdatela eit mort ouley 0 gutta gs ee
oid Jadd jmotterebtecos | eldaulsv, to Boos 9 4 duortt tw ‘Ahoee
begeite edé to eteb bogelis off ERE al feirgua nO, Mitta 8
s) Mie
“HOS ys as bee, vi ton bib nee bles te Warten’ base m4
bas atou bisa to " eevited hus no ituoexe begets. ods e. 2 :
sows yas beviese: song ie ‘toddio 0%, ro sod not ono on dade |
at out ef atnomptete gatogex07 ait? to. ‘dese ted. nol terabla 10. i
isaowreg edt m0 obam at tnestetave done tat joer at bas ty
e880 (Blas at eaemd hn 8 ae erows tL tede bao duals 10 8 conten =
evods ERE eS vlwts ‘beteb taonurstact ext? svitteos, 8 noo én Lhe
thvabitie eid yd Rettizey at dott to yiiokinedsya one ae be benzo om
te tawoL tor es at telemebere a ae ‘suabaateb st by
\ YA eT hale TOES ‘; a
,of .o hy to oA ute am at
afer mes ist vedon iit (conor robyelt
Wr
-eberd beri to parr de roe 5 hts ao
woled etefe yin tt its tt
aeivis’ bisy-ed nse Seenik leat bise jane
nolvoateitse Iter at tqeoos Litw voy nis ig
ine hipaa a0 to. veda bise exote qh a
‘et Plt ot feutetas naonboddohat ents te Mihi od’ |
-at Bisqay £0-2€8% Bie faqtomtay Stequy as ©
indebtedness is evidenced by a mortgage due on the lst day
of March, 1944. The debt is secured by a real estate mort-
gage which is recorded in book 377 page 335 of the records
4.00
of Kankakee County, State of Illinois. Upon payment to the
undersigned of $12,500.00 on or before the lst day of August,
1934, or if paid thereafter, by including interest at the
rate of 6 per centum per annum on 12,500.00 from said date
to the date of payment said sum will be accepted in full
satisfaction of this claim.
"In connection with any loan or loans that may be made
by the Federal Land Bank of St. Louis and/or the Land Bank
Commissioner to the above-named applicant, it is further
agreed that said sum may be paid in Federal Farm Mortgage
Corporation bonds of the last issue preceding the date the
proceeds of the loan are disbursed, fully and unconditionally
guaranteed both as to principal and interest by the United
States. It is understood that such bonds will be accepted
in payment at their face value with any necessary adjustments
for interest accrued to the date of payment. It is also
understood that such bonds are issued in denominations of not
less than $100.00 and that any necessary adjustments between
the amount of this claim and the nearest amount it is possible
to disburse in bonds on the basis of par plus acerued interest
Will be paid in cash by the Bank.
"The undersigned creditor further agrees that directly
or indirectly no note, mortgage or other consideration will
be received from the debtor, incident to such acceptance,
other than the consideration paid by The Federal Land Bank
and/or the Land Bank Commissioner, and that when said consi-~
deration is paid all claims of this creditor against the
above-named debtor will have been satisfied in full. No
person, firm or corporation othsr than the undersigned is
the owner of any interest in ssid indebtedness.
"All papers evidencing this indebtedness, properly
cancelled, and with proper release, will be delivereé to
the Federal Land Bank of St. Louis and/or the Land Bank
Commissioner in exchange for a copy of Order for Shipment
of Bonds, and a check of the Federal Land Bank of St. Louis
in payment of any necessary adjustment, according to the
terms stated.
"Said bonds should be shipped for delivery to and for
the account of the undersigned, to Parish Bank & Trust
Company, Momence, Illinois, which is hereby designated as
the agent of the undersigned to accept delivery for it and
on its behalf.
(Signed) Jesse B. Hayden"
it will be noted that the amended affidavit in support of
the motion to open up this judgment does not state when, where
or under what circumstances the note which forms the basis of
this suit was executed. Nor does the affidavit make any reference
he
. Vs Pe
Oar iN
usb gal edd no oub ogsattom-s yd hoonebive af évonbesdebut
~trom edeteo [ser s yd Souvoee at téeb efT .AACL .MoteM to
abiavet eddy to 8€€ essq TYE wood at bebiocet so Ldw 2358
vel 003,
edt ot tusaysq noqU .elomt(iI to etas® yx estasnad %
teguk to yeb tel ait eroted to mo 00,00%,5 ra * latebar
edt te yore ig a ey ge yd iotteoreld biog i” Bie
eted bina mort 00.00 nO munis teq mudneo ted (2) ;
Iivt af betqeoor od Iittw wwe bisa onareee te ‘to o¢sb odd of
smisio aldy to nottoatatisa
eban od yen ¢add ssol so asof yar détw adkteennoo pe
: ined bast eng co\hbas elvol .d@ Yo uned hast Lerebet ont yd
Bsr fe: si ¢f ,¢nsetiqgs heman-evodes eit of tendlant no
Moist Iesehet xt mg St Be Vast cA Siete tedt beer,
ont eteb eit patbecenq oral to abnod colts
vilasold bbaooass bas yilot ,hoarude th vo neol edt to ab
hosia’ edt ¥¢ fectednt Ane Leqtottry Ot an 900%
Secqesos sc Iitw ebucd dove ee) bootetehsap at tL
edooutevihs yresesosn yas détw evfav sost thet ts ,
goals ef JI oy gs to etseh oft of Beuytoes saetetal 10
. goa te ey Pus Doe ot bevaal ets abood dove Fait
asowtad parr erro Feerson 933 wis tadt bas BO. 00L ads
eidiesog et di davoma steotsen edt bas mitsle'etdt to”
Feotetat , _Demwtaos aul teq to pe hae wm ‘abnod Stes
ee fh gadd ese si o 2 beat ent
i fvsteiiesmo oP Pod sa 0D
pn eoes some of ta dine EM edit mort 5
a buat pal agrt ot x oe noljsteblanoo ent Aadd t
; -fanoo ese a tenotg
. : eit teaisgs sod. a@ ie ate iis Seg he el ok:
' om Lint of eiaaiene it eved SL ie gest bemss-v
i at bengiatebas edd aedt ts: Sa Lose so mkt (moateq
eoomieddabat bise at tuetedat yne to ‘reswo it
: to ry pn 57 aes
ot 5 beter st Tab oof tthe a iy eset ag pr 4 Oe
4 ie j Rend oh oN fry Roe :
eae tot 2 te ¥qoo 8 to
| afuol .352 to Ahe& reuebet edd
suit of gnthrooos ,snemtanrtbhs
a x0 bus ot wievifeb “fot boqatde ed’ ae
Ay atts he ec Po daitel of Se erttr
4 pe une Betaseieas eted el dotdw yetont.
tgeooe oF
| 7 MPRSER : +f opsel, _ Ghee) wea seen Maa al ie s
to duoqque at dtvebirrs bobneme ils aid iit ot od Ee MS. o.
etedw ,cedw edate ton acoh trempbul, elit qr asqo osname
to atasd edd amzet dotdw efon edt seonstampotto tedw me,
& soneretes yas evlsa divebiitte edt SP P eee se
F asd
}
, wh apa Bide ae PF pe
wi - yy 2S to leg.t aes Sittom | ag
ir fh
y }
\ abn t bi
Ie a oaeh h Lad
viwtiy Bbnegnwy wo,
to the note as having been executed by the defendants to the
plaintiff as evidence of any part of their original indebtedness
to him. It does not appear from anything stated in the amended
affidavit that the note sued on has any connection whatever with
the indebtedness referred to in the instrument of July 23, 1934
executed by appellee and directed to The Federal Land Bank and
the Land Bank Commissioner. What does appear from the affidavit
is that the defendants on June 16, 1934 owed the plaintiff
$20,410,00 and interest, that the plaintiff thereafter and on
July 23, 1934 agreed to scale this indebtedness down to
$12,500.00 and accept this sum in full satisfaction of defendants!
indebtedness to him, and that this sum of $12,500.00 was paid to
the plaintiff in accordance with that agreement. The affidavit
then states that at no time between July 23, 1934, and August 15,
1934, the date of the note which forms the basis of this suit,
did either of the defendants receive any consideration or anything
of value from the plaintiff, nor did anyone for them or either of
them receive anything or any consideration from the plaintiff on
account of the execution of the note upon which the suit is brought.
in Parent Mfg. Co. v. O11 Products Co., 246 Ill. App. 222
there was a motion made to set aside a judgment by confession and
grant the defendant an opportunity to plead. The affidavit stated
that no consideration in law or in fact was given for the notes
upon which judgment had been taken and thet there was en absence
of consideration and the court held the affidavit insufficient
because it did not state any facts but only conclusions of the
pleader. In the instant case there is nothing stated in the affi-
davit to the effect that the note sued on had any connection
De
a Sa ht et
a
i
iota i
eit of atosBueteh ent yd betuoexe seed aaitvad 38 tog, ‘ay
seenheddobat fentstra, uieds to gus¢ [1s ‘ro eorebive as tiltatelg
pet)
bobmons edt ai Dodsta satdiyns moxt, maeade fou Baob ar val 09
ca
igiw vevedadw solspennoa yas esd co. beve oon ‘edd tact Hil
| ACOL £8 Ye 6 Faoiwatant oft RE of Reazetor agoabeddobal
- «baa thet bapl Fetabs™ pitt oo bedorth bas eeLteqga Yd, bes axe
' thvsb 21th eg most zseqgr esob teil - Teno tee taod dpe baw : "
\ _ Mtbtatety elit bow ter Ry: enh oo Béapbreteb ett ed
ao bre tedtsereds Tivuietg edt ted staeredat ban. 00.
i (Of awob sbenbotdebat stds oleae oF boortma A€@L, £8 Wa
et os x6 ao tooete toe Liat ok we ad witty an br 00% a St
fa
’ gntdsyee.« To shot bidubtaitih oyhe. sttvopt iret er ht rein adh ff :
iy to tedtte 16 madd tot emoyns BLS ton hedrntur mt, mith J f
SSS hea. attr as ee aie’ 20 av, 90 ats qed ot
"bree o.tngertao Wd topemtat, ‘, poten 08 at ahem tae ing ‘s :
; coneads fe 2sw eed tad ned notes Sood Sac natasha pari a cn
i): daotoivimant sivebttis eft bled tivod ede ‘Be ~siakitie “om
Ne oi? To enotawfonde inc $it adost yes edsde tom pis tt’ vat
Y ~ltts ‘ed st botste ‘gakiton at ‘etedd saao Sastent “eta ‘at a.
> nottoonnes: ens ‘dad ‘to “hettd etox off sedi” ‘footte. edt si ere
aL
whatever with the indebtedness referred to in the instrument
dated July 23, 1934. If the note sued on did have any connection
with that indebtedness it was certainly incumbent upon the defen-
dant or one of them to set forth that fact and to set forth the
circumstances under which they executed this note and how it
happened to come into the hands of the plaintiff and how and why
it was signed and delivered to the plaintiff, and if it had any
connection with the instrument of July 23, 1934 or the indebted-
ness therein mentioned of the defendants to the plaintiff, those
facts should appear. This was not done. The only facts that
are stated are in connection with the indebtedness of the defon-
dants to the plaintiff as set forth in the instrument of July 23,
1934. EHliminating those facts, inasmuch as they are not shown
to have any connection with the executicn of the note sued on,
there remains nothing but conclusions of the pleader. In our
opinion the trial court did not err in holding the amended affi-
davit insufficient.
Appellee has assigned as a cross error the action of the
trial court in permitting appellants to amend their motion by
filing a copy of the instrument of July 23, 1934. The court
permitted this to be done upon the same day appellants’ motion
to open up the judement was heard by the trial court. The
record discloses, however, that the amendment was made by leave
of court and under our liberal statute on amendments, the trial
court did not err in permitting this amendment to be made. The
orders appealed from will be affirmed.
ORDERS AFFIRMED.
TX : yee, eee
Frovurntect odd ot of borroter aeondeddohnt edd dokw dovedaiy ;
notteemnoo yas evsd SFB mo here efon end TI “sate ye" yin beteb
| -neted edt aéqu duedavent yLotnines now 32 esonboddsbnt ‘teat tobe
4 eit Adact ¢oa o¢ fae fost tadt ddtot ton oF mbt to exo eS ae
$l wod Bas ofon ett betuoere vedt Kokiw tenn sosistanuotte
. Yiw Bas wod bas tiivnletq odt to ehusd edt ottt smoo dt heeded Ly
yobs fad ¢t th Seo ,tébtotele eft of bevovtlab fia homie tow'dt
) nhetdebat sat to SEOL ,€S Int to Sremrrtact ens dt tw hotéeenno
‘| snort (Ttldinke tq oft o¢ stnahseteh eft to benottaen Rietedt” ee
teat edost (lad sd? .emod don eaw ete?’ Jteeqge binode ‘teat
“=f6768 eft To geacbetdebxt ot dttw moMtosmnos th ots bith iia ae
| 2S Ulht 46 snemodbant ott Hf bE Hee an rsvabete bas od ro a
i mote ton ets qodd ee fovumannt ,atont ‘seott “gabtantatte® tek
eo Bore ston ostt to. nottsoexre oft détw nolbteenns Tae) ‘ait
| ‘a0 al .xebeelg oct to Saotevtonoe tua Smtddon amtemor:
Lite pebmoms eat patho as tab You BEB dura tind ott! tea ‘
‘@ Tgnote it toak® ‘tivab | ‘ :
i ett Yo soktor silt TOTTO 28079 i as beaitases ead ol leqyh © sit ie
. yd cotton tledt fhaeme ot etuslfeqan sotetimred at dtHoo tobnt |
tritoo ofT AECL’ (ES YLUt to toometdent oft to yqoo 8 gottit ay
110 bom tagastleads tab emaa end fous ortob ad oF abt odetnrsg Y
on? .divoo Latrd add yd beeen aaw taemgbyt bit ai’ ego of ey
evesl yd ebsm saw tuembaeme eft dadd tovewor “abnoloels brovies |
feted ont vetnembaems no etstste feredti xo tebmy baa’ tuto ‘tO \
sir soba ‘ag ot ‘tasmbaeme alte steeping adh =e tho) aid
Mt
*
i
tr
a 3 ¢ th : y"
STATE OF ILLINOIS, }
ss
SECOND DISTRICT I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this z day of
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73947) G@EB07
iD
>
ms
\
k a (ie) PI ne
r a
‘ 4 ; te
x . 4 ,
ae it J
:
Te eh eet Pan? Co ae
, ; 5 eee Seas ll 6 viel
Bir os! lee: Re el! hee he , a < a ; Hi Mh. Aste! deals prec
ae Weg roy
ali
ares eh 4 yet ®
fa 7 .
q) f
i
: j i Te hes
f é; i ih ¥
ys , i ‘ pan eee f if a von, Oe ‘iat ve st eS re ha “
an _ : 1 - , Yet?) &o Gg er toes ‘yr iyo in Ysera tele Rell oi
Kovohe nick \ eee alte + Ani ies
Ma
: 2 ty are ,
id i
‘ iy P ng i an
\
7
;
:
Lr
ap > mj
9 J
7 »,
eG iy
x 7 - i
+ , ‘ Pe ab % A ie Mooi
: , . we RLY le “— ee ee 3
. "
ue Ob Soousslt fpoB bao ot oe te set
nn ie a dn
i | ' a
: a «Rod See
Wirieis
beg Janad Belts) ss avods ord, th SiG
PEP Wa “i bias Niet Wine see 7.
| ; bisa Sh fy ad} nifte bata band tnt. dvd ohtnisted tena
AT A TERM OF TH APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 7th day of May, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present -- The Hon. FRED G. “JOLF=, Presiding Justice
Hon, BLAINE HUFFIWU’, Justice
Hon, FRANLI 2. DOVE, Justice
sustus L. somson, cere G9QH I.A,
eda. RR, hie tb
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On MAY
the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's Office of
Said Court, in the words and figures following, viz:
i)
~THUOD ETL iiteta hin Gh ree) MRE
a a Pe awe ; : Be * cee
at. ,xsli to ysb dd¥ edd tebaesst Ho “sntBd¥0 ts ates.
Fmt : 4 i ay ot E
eYt10t bas horbacd 9: as bas ge euord, S110 Sxod 0
o : SS
ootdent anibiserd oncann acini .moH efT -- pike
aoiteut. , "LF St AI .20H
‘ 9055 aut VDE - toe ARE. +108
ee) Se fae Os sn0£0. eMOEIZIOL '», I courant pt
J tin 7 Soe ae
trifede SCT Ta" 1 Py ae Bs 3
: To toeee ys 5, shied Lor ‘eeu Sit Sas ebrow ona at
‘wd
GEN. NO. 9518 AGENDA NO. 11
wf ¥
ee
if
f TLLINcIg”
RISA E. STRAWN,
Appellee,
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT
VS.
€CURT CF PRORIA COUNTY.
BRADLEY POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE,
a Corporation,
- eae Ancccigtt Netighi Megas Micggit
Appellant.
DOVE, J.
At the time of his death in July, 1936 and for several years
prior thereto, George 2, iacClyment was treasurer of Bradley Poly-
technic Institute located in Peoria and as such ex officio business
manager of the Institute and business officer and secretary of its
board of trustees. By its charter and by-laws it was his duty to
see that all the rules and regulations preseribed by the board for
the government of the business affairs of the Institute were faith-
fully observed and among his other duties he was required to take
the initiative in seeking investments for its funds and was res-
ponsible for the faithful execution of all contracts made with the
Institute. The by-laws also provided that he should collect and
receive all fees and moneys from any source due to the Institute,
make a permanent record thereof and deposit the same in an appro-
priate bank account and was required to exercise general supervi-
sion over all acts of all officers and employees having to do with
@
oi
‘
"
TIVOATO ENT MOAT JATTTA
YTVOS ALHOST TO Tao
>
atsey Lerevee tot bas O€0L eee at dteed ald te. outs ‘in
-yfot Yolbst& to serwesort asw éoomy [dos eptoed soterent
eeedtend otoltte xe dome as bas sitoet at bedpool ‘ otat teat beuto
ot ydub ald ssw dt ewel-yd bas todusdo ett ye ‘woudentd
“got hasod od wd bed tuoneug afotisiyget bis dob ead its
adie erew edutivent ot ‘to ettetie seentaud ett to trom
eist od bosivpet cow od eettub testo eid atoms bes’
iecasal esw bas aha etl tot ainsi te PakORS:
bus soot too bivose, od ‘Fads birmticie’ ovis soars edt
Boi
ha cis ak emsa exit ateogen § ‘Bae » toot Prone ia. |
dtiw ob o¢ sien aseyo Laue bas areornio Lie ’ °
Ae
¥' y
Dh
Pate
the receipt or disbursement of funds and securities of the Institute
and to examine all claims against the institute and no money could
be drawn unless the amount had been adjusted and settled by him,
The by-laws slso required him as secretary and business manager to
give a bond in favor of the trustees for the faithful performance
of his duties in the sum of at least $40,000.00, the premium therefor
to be paid by the Institute.
On Januery 10, 1929 Risa HE. Strawn was the owner of a small
farm in Peoria County, where she and her husband lived, and on that
day they executed snd delivered to the Bradley Polytechnic Institute
at
their promissory note for %3,000.00 due five years after date with
6% interest, payable semi-annually, and secured its paywant by
executing a mortgage upon said premises. On February 3, 1934 Risa
E, Strawn paid $500.00 upon the principal sum and on January 14,
1935, $37.06 was paid so that according to the records of the
Institute there was due on July 24, 1935 principal and interest
the sum of $2617.31. Prior to this time Mr. MacClyment, acting for
and on behalf of said Institute, made several trips to the home of
Mrs. Strawn and urged her to pay the amount due and advised her that
if it was not paid foreclosure proceedings would be instituted. In
addition tc the mortgage held by the Institute, there was a second
mortgage upon the Strawn premises held by a Mrs. Blair. Mr. Mac
Clyment knew of this fact and he contacted Mrs. Anna Westlake, an
elderly lady, whose husband, before his death, had been a member of
the faculty of the Institute. Mr. MacClyment informed her that the
Institute held a small loan and that the borrower wanted more money
and upon his representations to her she gave him, on July 2, 1935,
her check for $5,002.00, the check indicating that $5000.00 was for
2
“Bliios Vero on. ‘bas otudiseal odd Santags amisio. tte case a
«mid yd belttee bas begautba seod bad etm edt esaolow mwe'tb oo
ed tTegstan aeontegsd bas qusvetose ap iki! bextupet.oe te ewsl-yd om
eonamrrotteq fotd thet adit tot easter’ anit ‘to jtovet af Saed s ary ,
totesedd mimenq eft ,00,.000, wrt tenes 48 to on. eis at seliub eid te
salt Paar 4 3 | vesustaaul eid yd Beg ed’ ow
Tfeee 2 Yo Yonwe eid wow wets e & seth OSer ee = oe UE Fea
nat afer e Yusuidet 10 sseatmeng Btea nogs egeptrom 5 S pati 991
yd Yiseuast oo bas ava Isqioatiq odd moqu 00,0088. bisg 2 : . |
. ont to abtoset edd of wathitoooe dedv 0G. Skeq nsw 20,588 8 fe
toonetai, ban Lachoatag REL AS vLwb ao vb acw otedt otud, a ae :
Mi .gnites .Snomyidos .w omtt aidt of told ee
To emoc edt o¢ aqiat Istevoa ebam ,etudivenl Siee to Ahatied a0: | i a
doit r9d boeivyoe baa eub tanons edt ysq of, sod, ory, am are ye
Ae
.
%?
bnoves. ‘8 Baw pre jetmthtant ond, os bios pveirieny pore of MOLttDhe
eve .M . tis ,2i s yd Alon asalmetg owerte. oss, soa ; wo ios
as ,eisitaell such ,exti begoedaoe ed bas Jos? pitt 29 wot \taer ro
to tediem s need bed itseb ald exoted ,husdeul euodw .ybal xt 9
odd tact ted bemrotat tnemyl[OoeM. «oi sotuthdusl edt te vthues
YoLtom | Tost hodusw rewowtod end dant bop aeol f . 1B: ) 8 bled « }
ERE 8 xit 10, sibs OVER ade Ted ot. suobtaarenetges at, :
rot asw 00. OTs sede: aetinrtte, woode edt aihicia ” - tani
Pee aap st yates
ae 4 ‘ , Ay st ok r vig " Me re :
tere Gh ae gecko anne fame aed he. ay tion
the Strawn loan and the additional 52.00 for another purpose.
A short time thereafter Mr. MacClyment advised lirs. Strawn that
he had procured someone who was willing to loan upon her premises
a sufficient emount to pay off both the firet and second mortgages
and requested her to mect him at his office in the Institute on
July 24, 1935 and execute a new note and mortgage and that at that
time the mortgages then on her property would be released. On
duly 24, 1935 Risa E. Strawn, accompanied by her son John &,
Strewn and his wife Meude E, Strawn, went to the office of Mac
Clyment in the Institute office building and while there they
executed their note for $5,025.00, payable to the order of John R.
MacClyment, Trustee, said sum payable in installments the final
installment falling due on duly 24, 1940, To secure the payment
of this note they executed their trust deed, by which they
mortgaged and warranted the premises to George 2. MacClyment,
Trustes, and also executed and delivered to him an assignment of
a certificate evidencing that Mrs. Strayvm had a one-sixth interest
in what was known as the Seovell and Gelke Trust. In return for
these instruments, MacClyment delivered to the Strawns a release
of the Blair second mortgage and in answer to their request for
the release of the Institute mortgage, MacClyment stated that he
was busy but that he would execute a release within the next day
or so and would bring it to their home or telephone them to come in
and get it. MacClyment further stated that the proceeds of the
new note were more than sufficient to discharge the principal and
accrued interest upon the Institute and Blair mortgages and that
there would be a smail amount left, which he would either pay the
Strawns in cabh or apply it upon the interest due at the end of
the first year. Shortly thereafter MacClyment delivered to Anna
36
6 pte teempen ted ed: ‘owens i ba, easadzan proves, toa ed
e » ,omoqiug sedtons. tot 00.2) Lanckt thbeveaid bus ws ost .
| Gadd mwas | sarid beaivbs tnecnylQon . am widdtelercvens omtd ¢7
nee biexc Tot Hogs meat of gat Lite ew uty encgmoe | vn ‘
“gegegdcou proves bird darkt ont uttod th0 ‘wed ‘ed. tavosia pas
mo edutigenl odd cb eoltto etd te mid téer ot tod Poverty
Gadd $8 dade bes ageyirom Sas oon worm eduosxe Sas RCCL
"gO Beaselor Sd Binow yiteqorc tout ao uted gogngv tom ond,
2 RMo% aoe tod Yd betsaqmoags sowed? A seis 26k as
gall to S9lTIo eddood tren eawetze i -ebyait etbw abd br
yodt etsdd oftdw bas nutblivd eottio edudtsaal edt sh
| Moadol to tobro edt of oldeyeq .000280,26 102 oton. sheds. bed
Isnit end sitnomilsdeah at 9{ésysq a teary
oe foemysq eft exmees of .GACI yAR ¥Lv5 mo ‘en aaRLiot ts
youd solde yo ,beed tented atods botuoexs yous von aus .
vtnemy Losi il egt09d oF aealast¢ ed¢ botuetiaw hap}
to dnomin tees as mtd o¢ Beteyhleds bas. bodvooxe cals, bua: 1083
pteetetat dixte-eno.s bad myett® «ei fady getomepive eveotns i
o Tok saptex/ nt: sfamrfpedLed gaa, fflovoos edd:an eworl zaw de ,
— sasolot # gowexté add o¢ hotevilob dacmtoostt,, tasmuateuk 98 i
5) et tedd Potove: SoemyLOoeit eOMSQPTON, edudldast odd to
(yah. tron. od gtitiw easelen 2 etwoexe Livow od, tela pai
HL emoe of ment onodqelet so pmod ttesd. of d2 Baad 5.0 DUB Os
“tit to ebesoorg oilt tadd Dotere nodes, BO hh a
bas Lagtonteg ont epimioa lo ot, teolo ly tim: edt mpg
todd bas aegestzom wie lt ban. etuticont ede: nog, ® ne
8 mj
wf ig op Wat iT aig
~ La ree tee éP ne ey
Westlake said note for $5,025.00 and the trust deed securing the
same, together with the said certificate evidencing the interest
of Mrs. Strawn in the Scovell and Gelke trust. On August 6, 1935
this trust deed was filed for record and MacClyment, upon the
stationepy of the Bradley Polytechnic Institute wrote iirs. Westlake,
advising her that the note which she held was a first mortgage note
secured by a first lien upon the premises of Risa =. Strawn. There-
after John i. Stravm called at the office of MacClyment several
times for the purpose of procuring the note and mortgege held by
the Institute and the release of the same, but MacClyment made
various excuses. On November 18, 1935 on the letterhead of the
Institute, MacClyment wrote and delivered to John HZ, Strawn the
following:
"BRADLEY POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
PHORIA, ILLINCIS
November 16th, 1935.
Office of the Business Manager.
Mrs. Risa E. Strawn,
Hanna City, Illinois.
Dear Mrs. Strawn:-
My association with your mortgage matter
was to assist you in the refinancing of the first
and second mortgages for which your Hanna City,
Ill. property was secured prior to July 24, 1935.
July 24th, 1935 a mortgage was given to
me as Trustee in the amount of $5025.00. It was
payable in nine consecutive semi-annual install-
ments of $125. each beginning April 24, 1936, and
the remainder payable July 24, 1940. Privilege
given to pay all or any portion prior to due dates.
interest at the rate of 54% per annwa, payable
semi-annually, the first installment being due
Jan. 24, 1936.
Ae
anid gaitwoen Beak, tevts ott bas. 00,280,288, 0%, eton. pian
teenezat edd gntoneblve eteottiotes, bise edd Atty ‘madtogoy pms
RECL .o Sengul nO ,teuntt exiked bay Lloyook, ot mh owause, vont it
| ett soqu , dmesg {008% bas bxooet tot bell? asw beeb sayad | ;
geleliee’ .2ay edosw odutisgeny obesteetyiot yelberd edd. 20. weno ee
«Stem egeaitom tacit es asw Bled ede dotdw etos, ext tent cod : |
s@vedT .awasté .f sali to asa lag td | sad mOgE! nels faut 8 Nd,, ae
mi iszeves tues ioni to eoktio odd sa elise Aaa 4 adtob 10 7 |
Vd biog egegdtou has ete, ede gabiueotg to eeogaug. ont, tot ws
ebam tueuy lool gud 2088, edd to easeler, ond. bas etuatsant e
alt To bacdtesvol edé oo URL ,BL redmevol 20 ..2eeuexs auol
edd mwart® .5 adot o¢ beveviteb bas etomw, ienisucini |
"
e Dit 4
ée _sornemt “CHAINER RINABE.
me - ‘ aLOML LE eATKOES $ wen S x: be i
“tet AGRE BOGMOMOM es, bam ee ed |
> “/-
hives oat anenanelt nent mtdatn dalenh: Lean!
Le aie ‘
ware. 2s? Go RR y ge Lesion $ «stat ie ea a AO pi sod x:
wes BOC
z % M a) “2 4
Gt pts ate ee ca a ee her
pRERL AS YOU oF tokxg Bexugee oon wrens Et ce
2 core RT a a SSE hE io
im ree. Leusts-ine ‘
Base get ae ikl ad
- . pe ot tolz ee ny rte ved
Perrin ayer LAS Z
prere ad
‘ : = bse N TE aoe er |
Nee ae ete fh a a Pear
: ' ats Ld
pershied, ee was tz ie Jieum pi Ae BR:
The security is the home property at
Hanna City and the assigned trust certificate
for the one~sixth-interest in the 263 acres of
Towa land. The Trustee to pay direct to me for
your account, dividends from the Iowa land.
This we hoped to be sufficient for interest and
principal payments.
The $5025.00 mortgage was given to
first repay the second mortgage of Mrs. Blair,
which was surely pressing at that time. Also
texes and loan expense. As early as convenient
for funds, the Pradley loan in the amount of
~2500 to be repaid, and the $5025 mortgage to
then become a first and only mortgage, secured
by property stated, and payable under conditions
set out. The $2500. loan to Bradley to be pay-
able rrom funds to be received under the 45025
mortgages under date of July 24th last. And your
responsibility for the Bradley loan ceased both
as to interest and principal as of duly 24, 1935,
and your sole responsibility is under the £5025
mortgage bearing interest at 54 per annum and pay-
able as stated.
We have hoped that the matter could be
entirely completed before this. Ail taxes, insur-
ance premiums, abstracting and recording and
loan expense, and interest account Bradley loan
were cared for at the same time as the mortage
to Mrs. Blair was paid. The latter was cancelled,
released and the cancelled papers returned to you.
Very traly yours,
G. BR. MacClyment "
On September 10, 1937 Risa 2. Strawn filed the instant com-
pilaint in the circuit court cof Peoria County making the Institute
a party defendant and praying for an order directing it to deliver
to the plaintiff mami the note and mortgage which it held and that
it be decreed to release the mortgage of record. By its amended
answer the Institute stated that prior to July 24, 1935 George Rk.
MacClyment ascertained from the plaintiff that she required a
mortgage loan to refinance the property upon which the institute
had a mortgage, that MacClyment informed her that he could secure
the money for her, that he did so secure it from Anna Westlake and
De
te ¥idueqdot Te eat faye i .
} sdeott tice’ bs seors hee bas’ ‘yeto ‘pret saohsey ae
ao Sars 3 on of cabana gut at smb ~
“ bas’ Saetesat” tor i saoholvive rele ie Maint adoad 5 a pe oi |
tas byweds ig ge si?
aha rip. toy soEation keiblig Peas ols scot serki! - Peres, — i
cheesy ist" Se lek Se at
ran i
6d Spek tetn 2eOed ame eo pe Le oth orca
, beurose ,egeatron.yino bas ve 2 da tas ld
genic brood tebe olgayed Bae , t seesut: he eee Cae
Webel ont yelbare oF spot .O0Rst, © het suck a)
“it Bite tad “otha tet Bee rt a ali) |
. a ae eo cick tootaey ef qoititienaed efoe au wee whl etna i
A,
A Fe ERE |
“ed ae Ted das ont sede my eved oW ‘ i rave
~twent ,aexed LL. icit axroted pur vier abe aa ‘. "qa ¥
dns ‘anthrooer eer geitserte rene ad (iis
neol yalbsia Fy no ; ,Sanogzo. weal a mh
“egegvxon edt ep yeas tse tol betso emew 2"
fhe LLlepane, sow settal a -bieq esw utel— ,eeM ot
Woy of dowmvsier ereqeg Belleoneo edt bes boaselet z
oD ~emwoy visors ytev CR, BEE ROAD aA. Siaty ae si %
ot - grbere Looms ia VO RATES MRE RR: Bie
oily ouatnat oe ou mts a SR ph seoetges, “ai
-gevifeb ot ti axitserkb tebi0o op ot satyata bao tnebacteb vi
deus bos Bled $f dSidw essadaan bag ae, edt fam ‘Pitvatate ad
bebuonms atk yi ..bxocex 49 ogsation est t sapolot ot beot09b °
i earned sed Case tute af, Satis tadd tril stig
exsose Sivoo ‘off “tals ‘Ba pare hacia Seth te sgdrc
‘bus eXeltesW snnd moxt tf eurosa og. bib ed dadd red x0 “yenour
i te
i i a *
RP ai aA pi ‘. es heyy
, '
in exchange for the sum of $5025.00 MacClyment delivered the
Strawn note of $5025.00 and the trust deed securing the same
to Anna Westlake, that MacClyment did not pay the Institute the
amount due it from the proceeds of the loan made by Mrs. Strawn,
and that it esnnot ascertain what he did with the amount Mac
Clyment received which wes due the Institute upon its note and
mortgage. Upon the motion of the Institute Anna Westlake was
made a party defendant and the Institute filed a cross-complaint
against her in which it alleged that George 4. MacClyment was
the agent of Anna Westlake for the purpose of investing for her
the sum of $5025.00, that Anna Westlake delivered to him said
amount and she instructed him to procure for her a first mort-
gage lien upon the premises involved in this proceeding, that
contrary to her instructions MacClyment did not apply any portion
of the money received from Anna Westlake in payment of the mort-
gage indebtedness to the Institute. The prayer of the cross-
complaint was that a decree be entered finding that MacClyment,
at the time of the transactions, was acting for and as agent of
Anna Westlake and that the mortgage held by her be decreed to be
inferior and subordinate to the lien of the mortgage held by the
Institute.
In her answer to the cross-complaint Anna Westlake denied
that MacClyment was the agent of Risa 3. Strawn but avers that
he was the general agent of the Institute in loaning its money
and collecting principal and interest due it. She alleged that
she gave MacClyment $5025.00 for the purpose of satisfying the
Strawn mortgages, which were held by the institute and by Mrs.
Blair and she charged that Mac6lyment received the money from
her as the authorized agent of the Institute and that payment to
6.
eyo edt To dromyan at Slattasit anak moet Fevtenen Yemon eit 20
vs
f f ] , ah
db P ay a 1a
i) 1
‘ a
edd Bexevileh taomyL0oal 00.28024 10 swe orl¢ wo? ennadexe
- ense ond sainweee boob tairct odd Bas 90. asoug sr
eit stutidenl edt ysq toa. bib dnemyLooe dads cola itaew and : i
WETTE .ac yd sham neol edt to abeesorg edt mort at eub parent)
ost dayoma edt sltiw Bib od tedw alsdveoea Jougya at todd Aon
bus odo 6&2 dequ otutiteal éf¢ oub gsw siotdw Sovieoes aemylo q
acw eisicveell anda etudttent ode 10 aoitom ond nog sogegitoat .
taltsigquoo-ueorte 8 bette eduditenl odd bas tupbsotss: wueq B wes
aew suey l0osi .A egs0e® gadd bonetie th siekdw at. got ta
wei Tot withivialea nl ‘to seoqury ane xo% anhaeth a, ad ine
Pre (galssoootg aids as Ssvicovai uhaibtiah une oq ott ¢ é sy,
gotiurog Yas ¥lqqs ton BLS daemyf0osh euolfouttant ned ‘Ge ig oe ns |
“s8g0mo eds to teyetg off .otudttenl edt oF daeabe, ae
etoomyf0oet sand enlialt beietse ed eetseh » dadd aaw =n
sins “Rekaen éiisfteel! sited sit tijd ball otit di Sadi ‘eis Ps hs
“det etevs tud pwede (2 auth ‘to dienes edt Bew ‘tne aie eto
Bie i ate gare ot eve tent és te aed ae eat aa
*
piny
him operatecé as a payment of the Strawn note and mortgage which
the Institute held. After the issues were made up the cause was
referred to the Master, who took the evidence and reported the
same, together with his conclusions, to the chancellor. The
master found that in this transaction MacClyment was acting as
sole business manager of the Institute, that in procuring the
sum of $5025.00 from Anna Westlake, MacClyment was to pay the
Strawn indebtedness to the Institute and that said indebtedness
was in fact paid to MacClyment and its payment to him operated as
a discharge of the Strawn mortgage. The chancellor, after over-
ruling exceptions to this report, entered a decree in conformity
therewith dismissing the cross-complaint for want of equity and
granting the prayer of the original complaint. From that decree
Bradley Polytechnic Institute appeals.
In our opinion the evidence sustains the finding of the master
and supports the decree. George R. MaéClyment was the only person
authorized to receive payment of the indebtedness due from irs.
Strawn to appellant. The evidence is that he made several trips
to sse Mrs. Strawn about paying this obligation after it became due
on January 10, 1934. He told her he knew where an amount sufficient
to pay off appellant and the amount due on the second mortgage to
Mrs. Blair could be obtained. On July 2, 1935 he obtained this
amount for these specific purposes from his. Westlake and there-
after on July 244 1935 in compliance with his requést Mrs. Strawn
cams to his office at the Institute and executed the new note
for $5025.00 and the trust deed securing it, together with an
assignment of the trust certificate, that thereupon MacClyment
delivered to Mrs. Strawn the release of the Blair mortgage but
did not give her a release for the mortgage held by appellant,
7°
tho Later essays tron ‘hai é¥or mwanse oad to. eourcad 5 as ‘betstego” alte
asw avs ous gu obit etew novea! add ‘dogth Brew’ osidteant” bie
‘ed? edsoges bas sonehtve sity od ott otal aad OF Herre ter
od? soLlesxedo ott of ,enoravTonos ats dtiw centogos’ ema
as galvos aaw ‘tiometooste nottosanctt alds nf Sede Snot rode
* eld adit-iroorg wb teat sud tent ett ol id Aihre-We b* ote
xd Yea of esw $xoisy Soom oteleaew anit ort 00.8808% to” ‘aise
avenbeddennt bike todd bres stusheant edt ot ‘geonbesdobmt awa
as Hutedeae mit'sd Pooiysd atl Boos detoury Ions ‘ot bisa toot nh tsiw
~tevo reste Tofreonads att segpattom owned edt 40 ep tierts
Vw Larto ineo at versed 2 nodeud stoqet wide ot vaohtqeoxe ‘tEtine
Sas qtiups te daaw to? ‘Sn be Pymdd—-daore: ‘eas ‘atten tiets “Ae bworotlt
esTo8h sisilt ‘toevt yfhtaLamoo Teatgixo eit Yo TeLST Laas seittitsty
‘yatsoyas etutttent y Neesting ethene
eotdaa Maid to gaibalt ‘edt entstane otniab ve ‘edt ac fttno ai at’ ba
noateg YIno eat aw frome IDs ° of sg1080 % isbrti'as ext! eteoqqwe ite
et mort ev® wadvikeddobat Wits "xo since évisssx oe hoxtrodtits
eqiay [stevea ‘bat ba ‘tad at ‘sore lve ‘ont sa tue tloqde ov meptte
eub enisoed tt ‘tedte Wottagitds: ali¢ gatyag ‘duada cwnrde sette 008 ‘ot
tno to Prius ‘Sioms as stertw west ‘ed ‘tail blot ‘eH Bete a OF yuammat 9
ot sasatzon baooes ons 16 eub traroms odd bao suslieggn to Ved
olay betistde on eer es ive ao -berttsido ot Sisoo “tes eat va
~oxerld Bas ols fede oxi! mort asvogtite pittosga dasitd Yo Oat
weit wart dadped ate dtiw Cdumbtyndd at eet BS Ue ind tod
| “exon wen odd beduvexe bas etottceat edd th 38820 ahd i outs
“as atiw ‘teddogos” at git tvoea Beeb” tanae edit ‘aa 00. 88088 “ +
“Iaemy LO ont aoquersds sedt otsotntites ‘eared 0d 0 7 cromnigst
dud egagstod tisié of¥ to ‘pascter olf mmnnde ‘ot te ore
” .daalteqqe Yo Biot basdsson' ‘etd “Hot ‘Wieeter dd ‘oF son'btD
“¥?
although he had previously received from Mrs. Westlake the
amount represented by the note and mortgage which appellant
held. from all the evidence it is apparent that MacClyment
was acting in his capacity as agent and business manager of
appellant when he received the monsy from Mrs. Westlake for the
specific purpose of discharging appellant's mortgage and payment
to him, in equity, operated as a payment to appellant and dis-
charged the indebtedness due appellant upon the Strawn note and
mortgage. When, on July 24, 1935, MacClyment refused to deliver
to Mrs, Strawn the release of the mortgage held by appellant,
he had previously received from Mrs. Westlake full payment there-
of. In bringing about this payment he was acting as apnellant's
representative, lacClyment by his negotiations as agent for
appellant procured from lirs, Westlake a sum of money sufficient
to satisfy the Strawn mortgagse which aypellant held. Appellant
does not contend that MacClyment was the agent of lirs. Strawn
but insist that the evidence discloses that what he agreed to
do was to arrange for the refinancing of her loan to appellant.
What the evidence discloses is that MacClyment advised Irs.
Westlake that appellant held a mortgage on itrs. Strawn's property,
that there was a junior lien thereon hsid by another party, that
they ageregateé approximately $5,000.00, that if she would give
him that esmount he would pay off those liend and procure a note
secured by a first lien upen the Strawn property for her. Upon
these representations Mrs. Westlake gave him $5,000.00 for those
express purposes and this money came into his hands as the only
person authorized by the by-laws of appellant to receive it.
Counsel for appellant argue, however, that inasmuch as MacClyment
did not pay the amount due appellant upon the Strawn indebtedness
but converted it to his own use, the only reasonable conclusion
E.
odd exsltael . ach sor hevieoox Vevotverg best ed a
. pei : be sa
° duaitoqas dotsw egege most bas ofon ons wd be 1980
ete ‘ JOS be 8S ing Ritautd
inom LOoeit todd $oreqcs ar t ponebive add te ar b
to * Tegenem ‘amentiurd bie tues as ‘Yhesqgeo ‘etd nt aatte
Ps
‘end 10% oisldeol! a mort tenon od bovieoor ea edt tus
if tf ped.
“tmoneys bas esan stom ef taasieqae amtprssioetb 20 enoqzing otto $
é f erals Biel es
~atb bar tel tecce ot ‘demyad 8 as begereco vxdtupe a ithe
i Lae eS
baw ‘esor wee ott noass tustleque out aeeubesdodat ed? bes
seven ot bearter ‘Sueury [Oost RRL is vist no "xed 403 ! A :
nal teqas xd ‘bled enagtzom ‘odd 10 sesefex ia pis fe,
ho! apr Api
~oresid dmenyed, Ela’ ednisuell en ort beviooet “lewoiverg bi
| e* tapi feoce as ‘gatton eew on tnamyed ‘ends sods ‘oulacind: a
a: 2. age Tf
oor wane 33
“rot $rons an anol tatsosen ald w ‘daemr, feat
‘fas torvie ¢ reson to mse 8 ouaideci ‘eu ‘mont heawoorg ye
aot rad > rekid ‘phon te Se as OH pit
tna Ltoqas .bLlod dnaLleage “Hoh enoadon ame 1se oat sas
idea amas anit to jae3s SAY. aew nome foal dadt ‘brodnee
eae of ‘beotas os tow sea ceadLfoatb sonofive ont ‘aud 3 ie
i ‘lowly dybudea SO haga
-tnattocas od asol rod to suionsatter end ot opcetts ot ssw of
. - fi wage ay dé Fs ny
ett beetvhs snare fea sede at ‘sovotoetb eonebive o
; ¢ ser ait mA
‘eregors et owense en ho sasgizon PY bien juntteqse dost pel f
: wr i 42 a he A et deo
tons weteq ‘redone vd bled soonest ake pe sat oneds
| ovis Bisow ede ob ‘tant 1005 000 ae ‘Ubeantzorcas 5 5
“gon 8 ‘otu007g Bae ‘ano ft eens Yo ‘Yad ‘DLoow of ony
| ‘nog’ ted ‘ot qerodona swore ‘ont soqu neki ‘fort? ad
“enodd to? 06.000,8% anda eves, cial deer sent yy em es
fin eee Piet eon <t
vino. auld rr | edn atd oda onino Teno shia 6 bre Bea
ibe ef & py ’ ¥ -G
snot as dean det even Ao ag
pi wh’ silane
| aeenbesdebat mwesse end | nogs dual! ones, Sod
an vs habe Noa. 4 8 «, OW hs Ok eae
per ea eldancasex ‘lao edd eau awe el
a
that can be drawn from the admitted facts is that he continued to
hold this money as the agent of Mrs. Westlake and that the result
of the entire transaction was that the Strawn mortgage to appellant
remajned a first lien and that Mrs. Westlake's mortgage is infer-
4
fem
ior to its en. We do not think so. Theye came into MacClyment's
hands as agent of appellant money furnished by Mrs. Westlake for
the express purpose of satisfying the Strawn mortgage whieh appell-
ant held. The receipt by MacOlyment of this amount was in fact
payment to appellant and operated, in equity, te discharge the lien
thereor. MacClyment so stated in his letter to Mrs. Strawn of
November 1%, 1935 hereinbefore referred tc, Furthermore some time
later Ross S. Wallace, presidént of appellant, stated to John J.
Strawn that he had seen a copy of this letter and then advised
Strawn that some of MacClyment's affairs were not in proper order
but for Mr. Strawn to go home and not to worry. Mr. Strawn tes-
tified that Ili. Wallace also said to him upon this oceasion:
*You will not have any interest or principal to pay, don't give
it any worry”.
The evidence is further that the books of appellant relative
to the Strawn loan were under the suprevision and control of Mac
Clyment and they discloses that on September 5, 1935 MacClyment
eredited the Strawn mortgage with $124.31, which reduced the prin-
cipal sum due to $2500.00, that on the same day the books show an
interest payment of $76.20 and on January 22, 1936 a further
eredit is shown of $76.10 interest due January 10, 1936. These
last entries were made by MacClyment so that the records of appell-
ant would disclose that this loan was in good standing. There
was also introduced in evidence a statement in the handwriting of
MaecClyment dhowing the Westlake and Strawn transaction. The amount
9.
forewit is
ot beuolduoe edi nat ‘at ptost bosdtnbe og nos wet, oo ABO ted
* Jn pein
tinset odt edd bao ede ideow enh to snegs, ont Be vemos ane heed
duel loads ot egead rou rwranéth eid dade asw woivoauants oxtiwe edt. se
ig¥Rs Wit
-retol al canpinoe a'ealeiéeoil adh tedt ius nots ‘teukt o
e' daany [don otal antag ovoull 08 siebstd fou ob aw ar eae
rks Mea Ae 9 Mag. 4
To% odsitae 2k a bode Lams yenont inst ioggs to onog9 ad ebasil
‘ile, OF
-Ifeaqs dokdw ogngt om nwerdg . eit sadyrandee ‘to enogig auovgxe ent
vG fi oie PL ere?)
dost fi Baw FavOnB sidsd ‘to daoury Donid xe iqteoet out Lod Pr]
hs LOR
seli edt agradea.th Ot utiege at betetoge pos eyiry pe ot taoacg
To awaicé ec ot nettot e kit at betave 08 “auoury Toate + Toote st
ext d emo8 emaresid it od bowretet ovotednbered Rees BL “xodaovpi
“a jadot od bodega ,tasLlogqs to taebteosq c0oes.iai 2 anol. codpl
boetivbs coeds has setzet ald? to 7qoo a 90a bad ex tot mae
xeb10 Teqotg si ton etow askatts e' taaary Loa te. ence deat aungae
-se¢ nwsité “9h, “ToTOW ot son ‘bne eaori 03 ot awasde al gai Ps
snotespo0 abit noqu ota on: phere oata soatten at ‘tadd belt a
ovis t'n08 Puig ited od Loqiontag To duoodat ae eved tou LLtw wo
a ae
evitsion inal Loqge to aaloed oud tard ‘restora at consbive ott a
‘eal ‘te foutaoo bas soda Lvorrase exis wobaur ortew “uBol sowessd0 ost of
“err: dnd
Snomry L008 aeel & rodmeddos rr nds ‘exo Louth yes bits brags)
rash. ve ©
~niag osit hooubor sto bat LE. ASLE ilgiw oegé10n sowp'r8e ant bet ibexe
na wore adood ant Usb ening ond 0 tadd 400, 00884 od out awe Tagte
as ‘yonlsuurt g acer «88 iieunat 0 bap os. ard ~ 4 i, we en Poi saree |
‘ezedT .2¢ei (OL yumumst oud daeredat 06.05% ‘te emer
~Lleqas to ebroet ‘ent Heats oe tence LDoatt Ad oho row colaaa Munk
rst autem fr at ae eo i Sth one Sa
to gabtiawbast edt ied duemedasa 2 nisi a feokiontel ain i :
savome oor ssobtonanend aa ba eiskdeon ons gn bron some =
“8
ay
he received from Mrs. Westlake appears thereon, together with
the amount he paid to procure the release of the Blair mortgage,
together with various other items such as abstract expenses,
taxes, recerding and the items credited to the Strawn account
on appellant's books for interest and the balance as shown by
the books of appellant just referred to.
The decree is sustained by the evidence and will therefore
be affirmed.
DECREE AFFIRMED.
idiw wedsogot ,nooredy eiseqqe owpltecl andl mont bovieoes of
oRsR dion xlel@ eit to eeselex edt smoot of biog ont duvoms std
“yseenogxe dostinds a0 dove ansét roddo avohtsy sttw nedteyot
tiusodos mwbise eit oF bod there unot? eu? bue gutbrooe boxe
YS nwodle as sous ind od¢ bme teotedhh cot wilood: 2" Sasileage ao
soit gate. yet ve .0d bowtete: dest, saeLleqas 20 loos et
queen | Litw bas conshive edt yd bentetern ak eetoed aft ath
.
«THELUIA shADKC
a .
: }
M i} ; .
ate
:
4 * “ .
* t 4 7 1 4
my ey
‘ wt
vi
i Ls
k -
od *
e ”
ei) i
¥; cm «
i * +
i } "
fy 4 he
‘ + dealt’ aoe
& . av.
§ » Lee 2
& 4 hy ray Ot
MA
4 gts * hoa had oh r
fut eeITSy as P)
ann S Bie
wend ag see Aen
wit we 4 fei
+ v eek a 3 eoraitt |
rea tpewd Ses as cocoa
o tue oleetg (efalilaw. .2 ager redid
" : ; oo
" hax ‘oom Sng a awit opeere
merry: > ood va? sees
d - aes
Z ; )
' y keh Of weyers go7' tee
é Anal mo. Sed? Bakake
i arr NOR eras sa Dit pox*
» heaeneiie Speke a
1 hy * , & Ls 4 pn q E irre eer
O88 Yoh: ete Kate acres ae) oR)
val Y ’y
0 SER ee Tout. Cee De i My,
Y ow subd beck siecle is hon phe “0
- 7%. r "
ef un a BORA: Chee agi ata Soe
) muy. OE "hy eaten ‘ ti stack
Twi tGe. Waly AIX f SUE: kite chee
; Pos
e Cie ede ene wer ftae Pant
coer ae
reek site wad fakes PA) a a Siam tan
i tif fatale
yomobive al hentioddéag hie eam
[ oe Nia
id aed treme Fooncee SDR
ff
ey ips
mA Ee
ms
STATE OF ILLINOIS, ie)
SECOND DISTRICT J I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
____in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73947) S507
Ms 4 of iuol) adail aga 4
4
~ bins to fess ott sfie bre Baa yor tse obertivterd { siowthii
v
bi a a oD Ai
s®
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLAT.: COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 7th day of May, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present -- The Hon. FRED G. “JOLFS, Presiding Justice
Hon. BLAINE HUFFIIAN, Justice
Hon, FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk
aNnrewrr cy we
Hho idles OL BR eee Sheriff 4 @ 7 —~ / 1 Zé 2. <
i
eee
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On MAY 1
the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's Office of
said Court, in the words and figures following, viz:
+ AE Yall To yeh 99 ori vebeouT 0 reds0. Ps poet
: wyaaor bas ‘Dowbaiuit cate ‘babeaortt: anid brba in6: to
:etont Lit to siade Bs to sobaseld sio9ee ons 10% bas nid
<< aise ed raimt +d : => a
. aces
-ogtiaut , pal toon isto" 20.08 “noit sat -
: asitent. ,! Hic ToHUH SMAIR Son © vy Rays
eoldeut A IVOG. fe BO =o " ua fai
E tae (HORICIOT es corer oe
P. ~ a aes \
<¥ “gy tw . : he :
i om e x b> ; s ji re oO g tixede SEEM Ce Pag
OFeT Gf AM 10 :tiw-o¢ -abuevrnosia teas sera
to sofltte afi 1040 end ai bolt? esw gus0d wosel
Siv: oui tiet estjit bre. abrow
GEN. NC. 9530 ot AGENDA NO. 20 _
te ne te ee
ae
JAMES J.
etc.,
APPHAL FROM THE CIRCUIT a ag
Va
AUGUSTA PETERS, et al (Walter
COURT OF McCHENRY COUNTY.
Haertel, Appellant) )
ee i een nr a ee NA a es on ee en Te
Cae LN
DOVE, d.
On March 15th, 1939 James J, McCauley, Administrator de bonis
non with the Will Annexsd of the Estate ef Charles Peters, deceased,
filed his petition in the County Court of MeHenry County to sell the
real estate or his testate to pay the debts of said decedent. A
hearing was had, resulting in a decree directing the administrator to
proceed to advertise and sell said real estate as provided by law.
To reverse this decree Walter Haertel, one of the defendants, appealed
to the Supreme Court of this State, which transferred the cause to
this court.
from the record it appears that Charles Peters, a resident of
the Village of Huntley, died on November 23, 1939, testate, leaving
Augusta Peters, his widow, and an adult daughter, Caroline Peters
Webster, his only heirs and devisees. By the provisions of his will
he bequeathed and devised his property to his daughter subject to the
life estate of his widow. On December 23, 1929 this will was duly
admitted to probate and letters testamentary issued to his widow.
eelieg
2 evonto wer MONT JaaIsA
> i ‘.YTHUOO YRMZROM BO TAVOD ° jes
gettew) le je ,2eaTEs
: “elsod oh notertatatbh ‘estou +b sonst eee: UL 6
,bonsspeb ,eteteT eoliedd to etetad edt to bexenn’. oe ne 10
edt ifon ot Yeagod, YimeHou To srvey yard edt ak apbitiey “os bec
A .tnebeoeb bise to addeh edd yeq of stedeed, hd to oa t
of sovsiéetatmbs edt paitoert) eexoeb es at. sabtiimen .Gad ¢
aswel yd bebtyorg ee edsves Leet bisa flee bas outscovbs
belsoqqs ,atasbsoted edt to sao .fodiosl todiel! eotoeb alt |
ot eause odt bensetano? afew ,ovsdG alas 1 29%
to dnebiaer s arotet aefsedd tedd siseqqe ah ipomes tia
gnivsel ,etateet .e6el .€5 tedmevol no fete Yo Ltn to 6
etetol enilorad cmlagenl tivbe as f ae ban ‘woblw abn 8
iftw aid to “anires oit YS .seoatveb bas sige ts
The following March Term of the Probate Court was fixed for the
adjustment of claims and publication duly made thereof and an order
entered by the County Court determining heirship and appointing
appraisers as provided by law. On dune 6, 1931 BT. H. Gook filed
his claim for funeral expenses and this claim was allowed and judg-
ment rendered in his favor for $324.25 on November 26, 1934. Nothing
further appears to have been done toward the settlement of the estate
until April 8, 1936 when “rs, Peters, as exeseutrix, filed her in-
ventory which disclosed that her husband left no personal property
of any kind or character but owned the dwelling in the Village of
Huntley, which was occupied by himself and wife at the time of his
death and according to the é@aventory worth $1500.00. This inventory
was duly approved. On December 28, 1936 the said Hdward AH, Cook
? filed his petition settine forth that he was a judgement creditor
of said estate and interested in its administration and that Aususta
Peters was both physically and mentally ineapable of continuing her
duties as exscutrix and praying for her removal. Upon a hearing an
order was entered removing her and James ¢. licCauley was duly
- appointed administrator de bonis non with the Will Annexed of the
state of Charles Peters, a€eceased. Thereafter the appraisers, ap-
——
pointed on December 25, 1929, filed their report fixing the amount
of the widow's award at $600.60, which was duly approved and an
a er,
order entered finding the condition of the estate. By this order
it appeared % that the liabilities consisted of said widow's award
f $600.00, claims allowed amounting to $354.25 and costs due and
to accrue amounting to 4275.00, all of which aggregated $1229.25
and thet there were no assets in the hands of the administrator.
PS ee
=e ie
Thereupon the instant verified petition to sell real estate to pay
debts was filed by said McCauley as administrator. The petition
Re
au utaioay: ‘bab calesies sie me peeing ‘odd we
belit weod «HK .t- Lees 40 sant ad» ,wal yd, babtvorq 2s ‘pt08 ' .
sgbst bas bowoLls nsw miso wird: bas Jasin gxe Levenst tot mutate &i
gaidsok .J€el das tedmevet x0. BASH ot wovet eid ot Botebaet 9
etatee of¢ to snemoltten aad fuswod fob shed: even od araeqys te :
sito ferit (eEntooese “aa esotot” eeprom ECL {8 eng
yiteqorq Isnceieq on Hes brsteurt fad told ‘boro Loa tb- “do bet Ys 1
to enalitV elt ai guklfowb et benwo EP ne tharian’ te batt y
ain to emit ord de etiw bus theamtd yd bekquove aeW spoonadl ew
-Uxotaevack etsy .00,00%19 dttow- yrodaevid ‘ond of sha 058
Hood HN Suswh biea-ent d£OL- BS nulitieiina needed
wottbexo tuenshut s caw ost todd donot gxittes mlsiteq di
steigua ‘sadd Bois Hottsttetnimbs ‘ear af hodeetstnt bas ovate Wie
tert Saek teat drtcio “t0' oldeqaorih yiletnem bea dhiaeteedy’ tod waw 2
“te gnliden @ woyU Vtavoner feit Yor pultaTg bak efavietee ed de
“sq Lsb saw yotitbOolt YG toast bine tei sevidestaiysitogmlinet
“ed¥ To"bexvnak Litt sat aatW nba ekadd ob és idetiinbs belt!
nel i en de edd todtadved? , hexsesed: cere ea 8 a
“tebto aidd Y& .e¢etao edt to wolsibace edt gatbatt “ ra
” Beeps 2 wo bw bras %6 fedetenos pereavegar’ rbmdtone
* Zhidepenenenala iit to! athniut bilt HE ndoges “on ‘abr
iin ‘Oy odated’ faut Lloe ot ao beived bettitor duntdat ont
* “Grodttted ‘eat ‘uciacnanel “vote Dott” ‘Bila ee
wobbw eta of Beavimd ox t weedtet awd ihiteld
recited the foregoing facts and further alleged that since the
death of Charies Peters the real estate had been rented for $20.00
per month, which rents had been collected by the Evangelical Lutheran
Old Folks Home of Chicago. It was further alleged that the taxes
had not been paid ané that the taxes and penalties upon the property
anounted te (380.09 and that the property had been forfeited to the
State of Illinois for non-payment of taxes. Appellant was made a
party defendant to this proceeding and on dune 5, 1939 filed the
following unverified answer: "Now comes the defendant by Marcus J.
Sternberg, his attorney, and deniss each and every allegation set
forth in the action brought by the plaintiff herein and calls for
strict proof. He denies the right of the pleintiff to recover upon
said action so brought by him herein".
The record discloses that upon the hearing counsel for appellant
objected to thé court proceedins to render a decree or entertaining
the proceeding on the sround that seven years had elapsed efter the
death of Charlies Peters ‘before the petition to sell real estate was
filed and objected to the introduction in svidenes of the appraisers’
estimate of the amount of the widow's award and the anovroval thereof
by the court. These objections were overruled and the cause proceeded
to a decree and it was stipulated by counsel for the purpose of making
up the record on appeal that the several petitions and orders herein
referred to should be made a part of the record on appeal, together
with a copy of the record of san assignment by Aususta Peters executed
December 15, 1938 by the provisions of which she assigned to the
Evangelical Lutheran Old Folks Home Association of Chicago all the
rights which she misht have in thse sstate of Charles Peters as his
surviving widow, heir, lematee or devisees. The decree, in addition
to finding this fact, also found that the dsughter, Mrs. Webster, had
36
pdt ogate teadd boselis sedtaut das avoat. indent odds
0090. anand ontun, Laee-ot io neta dh
csieitul leoileguavh edt. yd, betpolloo.ueed bai edaes doide eth 8 : ‘
aexat edt. t2dd Seacils todtavt aaw {1 .ogspldd tq omoll, ado
VitpaosG ot mogy cebeianog, cme A0mes ad dads dap bine need: tom bad
» edt of heittetso® seed bat ytxeqorg edit, ads .buo..20.080} 0d hot 10
a cham gow tanklogaA ..20ked te seamyeqenon wot, aloati{y. ros
odd beCes CECE (2 oawh mq bos gubboovane: elds od: tnabseteb wime
+ apomsM yd daebroted sult anno, wot) svawece -hebtizovas gc. f
dea coltsyolia yxeve bus dose aeiaeh baa ,yontedea add.
tot allno bug siietod Widalele edd yd tquow s9ddos, ead gbe
ogy seyoseT of Wbdatsl¢ edt, te diya ets sehaoh oh onto
‘vpowhe Slat ere Ofer bewed ghee ddlgwondiemy,
gaiatadsedne go 2eToeb a tebret ot antéovnits pay orn on
eit tose beagele bed exsey sever, tact bryotgcedtd BO! BF
kaw etadae Ieee Lfor of coliiteq eit evetedy nnvihonetaiadbed ataeh
‘atoalcsqgs eid To eonadive st soltorboutal ent of beteeide owe ma om
foexendh Levercus ot baa Srewese twob lw est to- teremn ettcbone indi
- gacttoe Ro eaortag silt t03 Lenmroo Ad. euncniiite wih |
ateved exehto bag enoltivog fsweves edt dadd {geqaa x10, meni al
todvexet ,Leegge go -hross: arit to dusg wm ebam og a TM f
betveews aredel sdewnud yo tansmgiens ast bxgoot,: edd Bo |
eto beasteee ote dots, to anolatverqnedi, we BL
one: ‘{in ogseld) to. soldatoeeadA omoH | evfo®. B10. a0" dud.
eld 68 e1ete% eelxsd® to etsteeveds nh evad be
conveyed her interest in the premises to her mother end had also
conveyed to her mother all her distributive share in the estate of
Charles Peters, deceased, and further that on April 6, 1933, Enos
Connley had obtained a judgment ageinst Augusta Peters in the amount
of $319,13 in the Circuit Gourt of McHenry County and that on July
25, 1932 the State Bank of Huntley had also obtained a judement
against her in said court for $226.11 and that on July 27th, 1934
Walter Haertel, appellant herein, had obtained a judemmt in said
eourt against the said Augusta Peters for $192.00, The decree further
found that the said E. H. Cook had filed a claim against said estate
for the funerel expenses of the dsceased and that his claim therefor
had been duly allowed by the executrix and that Dr. Oliver I. Stoller
had filed his claim against said estate for professional services
rendered the deceased during his last illness and that said claim
had been duly allowed on Mereh 10th, 1937.
Counsel for appellant argue that this petition was based in
part upon a widow's award which was allowed more than seven years
after the death of the testator and that the decree is therefore
erroneous.
The law is that while there is no statute of limitations barring
proceedings by administrators for the sale of land to pay debts,
yet the right to sell the real estate of a deceased person for such
purposes will be barred after the lapse of seven years unless the
delay can be satisfactorily explained and in this respect each case
must rest upon its own peculiar facts. Hurlbut v. Talbot, 273 Ill.
299. It appears from this record that the only property which
Charles Peters owned at the time of his death was the property which
this decree orders sold. At the time of his death on November 23,
Lee
- .@nte Set Ste tedtom tod 67 doa tmotg eid srt tebrs9nt wit V8
‘te etatae oti ni otente ovidddinteth ton Lie *toddom sont of beve !
eon! LECL ,d Linqh co todd todtert Sos ybowsends (sretet-delt
‘dnpoms ef nt atedot atecacA dentaqe dtemabst s Pertaddo bad % f “s
Miss mo dale Soe ysaw0d viele te: trod: theortY orld of Ch) . eK
‘tieradol 2 Sertaddo onls had yoLtn@ to oot edat@ ods ECL:
MOI {SETS “ThA no Halt bas LOSSY “tor Fives Sfea sven >
.» &hee ci tose Sirt. » beristdo Bat yatloted tanlfeqqs, letras
wordtr?%, eeroob ef? .00.SCL8 rot atedol ndamuA Bkes ond untied
etetes Dise gentena minlo 2 Beltt Sed voc? yaa Shae ode oahe
gottevetd mise vid edt bow beeseoed eds ‘to aesneqxe Lavenmrt o
GoLiode .I revhlO .10 dadé bos xbudgoexe: ert yd bowels yes He soi - Daas
. esoiviees Innolereetorq stot etsdae blaw Jankage ante wid 2 site
mists Dine teitt Soo avon deel ef wntenh Doeawopb ont
7 kat a Cid tOL Horse go eomuamniiits
mt Beasd. eew noid ited olde tadt eopte trelledqs tot x
s Riney never mult eocr bewoLls eaw dolkitw Biswe! @wookw a nog
erotetedd at seroeh edt tedd bos s0teteet oth to tees)
S8 EPs ine SLO Gp be cr ter e4 Nae. iw bit ak | ays wis Bee: aes ‘> "3
pri
- galrrad aaetdetimil to odutsta on ef ‘sett eLidw a wn 7 ’
ooo ‘Yeddeb Yq ot Pnal to efee off tod e'totette takiahy vee tt
‘doug to? moeteg bevssoeh n to otedue Lser wnt os 09 tegi0'
ent eaelmy apey nevoe to eaqat odd teste bots od |
exs0 Hose tooqeet aint af baa bentefoxe ‘“elitotopiatiss ed wan
(REL RIS yoda Vv andi “yn 908% pipet’ et sr -
fel kD tedinevon enn to emit one da. parse ns .
Bata, ve | Cer: , 29
im :
1929 he and his wife were occupying the same as their homestead.
His will was admitted to probate ard on December 23, 1929 his widow
was appointed executrix of his estate. She fixed a day for the
adjustment of claims, made publication to that effect and the court
appointed appraisers. 9n November 26, 1934 the claim of Edward H.
Cook for funeral expenses was allowed by the County Couxt and there-
after the executrix filed an inventory. On December 2&, 1934, which
was seven years and five days after the executriz was appointed,
HZéward EH, Cook as a judgment creditor filed his petition to have the
executrix removed, alleging her physical end mental incapacity.
When she became mentally and physically incapacitated does not appear,
but she was removed and the present administrator with the will annexed
was appointed to coliplete the settlement of her estate and the appraisers
appointed by the court in 1929 fixed the amount of the widow's award
and this was approved by the court and this award, together with the
allowed claims for funeral expenses and for physician's services
rendered the deceased in his last illness form the basis for the
present proceeding. The facts in all of the cases cited and relied
upon by counsel for appellant are easily distinguishable fpom the
facts as disclosed by this record. When this property ceased to be
the homestead of the surviving widow of Charles Peters does not
appear and in our opinion the court in the instant case rendered the
only decree that was warranted under the authorities. The delay of
the executrix Augusta Peters in settling this estate and having an
award set off to her cannot prevent the present petitioner, who is
the administrator de bonis non with the will annexed, from proceeding
to subject the real estate of the deceased to the payment of the
allowed claims against his estate.
oy
ey):
-~ |
add tot Yad a hoxkt ed sotsdee ene ‘6. xteoene Wntath
‘ wi disoo edd bis teotto Isty oF nottsolidng sham) ,emtela To %
‘4H beewbl to mislo edd AL@l ~oS tedmevoll a? ewetonqas:: .
-orsitit ben HeoO Yavod esis Ye Sewolls Bsw esamegxe Loren" 10%
doidw ,€@L .8S sodmeood nO .yrodmevit te bell? xbidsivexe edt te
a \Sedaledas esw xitdwoexe oft tedts ayeb evtt bia extey mover
bs hy edd ‘ovad ot soltiteg ats Belft toxthere teemmbat os es A008 ; z
4 vyshosquond isimom ban Leoteyte red gulge Lie .,bevomer xb s
ytecrge. tow aeob botetlonqsent yLilaoteyd¢ ins ¢lledcem eased ede
bexosns Sitw edd dit tovetiatatobs taszeta ont bas novoutos anw ode 8
| sista eid bos efsiae ted to tnonelives of% etviqmos ot bodaiongs |
| brsws etwobiwienit To snvome odd boRtt ERCL af txv00 ods yd Bi
eit didlw reddego? ,biewe atdt bus duos oft yd Sevorggs aaw ena
eoolvree e’neiotaydg tot Ans seaneqxe \Intenvt 0X ante to:
ede tot sieved ont mtoi exenllt vasl eid mi benseseb sit Seteba
beltiet bas Betle saans ait to [le at edost edT’ syathbeooorg @ e sort
edt usat eldsatetunnit¢elb yiiexe ora tuaileges 1dT wore
ed ot beanes ysteqorq elds oe .brooet aldd? yo beeoLoe i ae ®
i tom usab atedet velial® to woitw gaivivie oto eeveant is
eft hevobuot sas Japdack edd at txoos et nofmiqe two ni bas acKE
to veflob ad® yseliivoddus eit vebay Ssdastisw asw sarié oso0b' yin
oe potved bra atatae abit naiiddee at srese% sdamud rajvoexs © m
sek coniwe: quenndsiieg tnezeig eid trevetg ee Se #00 bes :
galbescord sort \Sexenue Lilw ed dédw nom etaod eb xademtetabbs 4
edd bo tnamyey sift ot beaseded saz to sdstes Get ests $00 |
Hite AA. pple Ogi eit hex: ad 2 a ta) yh Gow 8 er oe i i
\
gh
-
sa
mA zi)
The statute under which this proceeding is had provides that
the practice in such cases shali be the same as in Chancery. The
question of laches in the allowance by the court of the widow's
award or laches in filing the instant petition was not reised by
any pleading filed by appellant and is therefore not available to
2
Biting v. First Nat'l.
pa]
fa:
No
fu
oO
tI
hood
pa]
°
nN
ea)
appellant. Hirsh v. Arno
Bank, 173 Ell. 368.
The decree will te affirmed.
We Toiey
Weep AT men
DECREE BEE LCSD.
-_ —
sid webivond Bad of
at 7 “Qyxesned9 ct as one so i MPa Y
a divoblw oild Yo ‘Plswe iis wi Sitewotte Wb A 8
RE haa oa a RB a a
se Gitdbades Ris vaOaUbé oA REN QP A A =
| nie rou ww satin 108 “2 “ake al wa
‘peta: RL SC tombwerd a poleevittylds On ete
| Miciganits Die ate tee yesh “pei:
elt lok ot rong wie hag te nbattiens ten prvsedboy:
is 4 ‘ Cd-Kaange ee baad rent hate 8. totais
qeeeain Tot aeod fetarinagaeal yLide fog bey ethane ened <6
Bitters Li eet otis cater te lated talnentd) del babe Aironet i
: BYottotsgs cil dno wipaee dad he Onl toe edie oe tee) ge E ah "
; braxa a wok mht te Shones enh Aewtt WRN paved: ‘tit gt! Bi
| Od Metw vetegod © Pewee whl Soe Fur VD ae, mene ie
agulyrer: s*enlctyaty 409 tee ae Sie enteerl 9s |
pitt Te teed gtk phe eden ae aaa: wie: ett
botox pus Bodie ween eda te tact ice lett’ agmatiee
eS GE oléaratwantene Chhewe na the ttelew ng inane
{ ad oF ferent teqnuq ehdt ede vireo WRU Wi De NO MOw 2 by Gis }
Pode wn: Genin te alee hoe rahe gp ty Rviaa abe Oly ecu ia
Oh? Irie ona deegel ely wb io ene Ree ieulceu
PE TRERS al smal eam oats bei TRANSAT ae WUE ae,
ie Qrtvat ten het abe yank ire det SRO eb aemeak a |
oh one yumtmedtatog’ akoddyd wae’ te ee gt ected
BasBodowsd. copied chien tsa ditdes. elk wehbe erin. eae gh 9
o
SBE
a
if CUFT teemnor seta Seeth dele eM obi
by Pe eee sh ah as Me oe WES jeiue have
ie a
STATE OF ILLINOIS, |
SECOND DISTRICT i) ee I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this____ day of
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73947) @iS3s07
et AL WANs
i i ae
ish
EE alt ee ia
e
'
}
is ’
,
: \ vf
,
a f : ry
¥ 4 wen
4 f
i
en ibe 7 a
AS IL —
AT A THERM OF THE APPELLAT COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 7th day of May, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present -- The Hon. FRED G. “/OLF=, Presiding Justice
Hon. BLAINE HUFFIUN, Justice
Hon, FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice
JUSTUS L. JOHNSOM, Clerk : ss oh “ \
| 305 LA. 486
E. J. ‘/ELTER, Sheriff DUS dolte
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On MAY 10 1940
the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's Office of
said Court, in the words and figures following, viz:
,LRUOD 1.12 400 T2A CHT TO MALT A Ti,
: : Per ay
SES rea Rey Be ee ae x
Eat to yeh ddéf edd -vebeauTt ao. ¢st a5 ws “pled Sno,
eS Lite
sVtTO? bas baibaud oata Gcise avodt ano baad 10 a TBOY, ‘elt, |
ea h
« ;
stomilit to stsde oft Yo totrsiaid Snopes ed ao8 bre aldtiw —
‘
sotseut ontbhteer? .Faio!” .D CENT .m0H eT <= tae
eoiteut ,TLUTTIUS AMEAIS ook
F
LR ee ren no Re ee vs
eSitsaut ,TVOG .f THADInANY, enod
4 : A Bee
teld: MOeIOD «tb BuTaut,
‘ ;
~~? ) a. carr sat
tt iseS. AIT oe .d
SS Se SS
m0 tiweow he oa) Fs > “es Mat 4 ae mat
to sofTtO Btogeld edd al bolit ea t1u09 « oud Xe copatgo
ssiv ,jatwollot rét3tt bap ebtow ond “at seni
7)
bans
GEN. NO. 9514 AGENDA NO. 2h.
eR Og Ne ee A EN I RG I
ee ete Re NE ARS SR RN
mr ee ee
IN THE APPELLATS COURT OF ILLINOIS,
SEASON) HTATE Tom
Me PIAS BOS Rw DL md ata d Etc J.
?
FEBRUARY TERM, A.D.
HUGH G. PARSONS, a
Lanipg”
VS. }
PARSONS Li r, INGy, 3
a Corporation, a.
\
F ‘ & bey.
helliee, } § \ A i os
Woe es P
APPSAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT
PARSONS LUMBER coMPaM
-@ Corporation,
WINNEBAGO COUNTY.
.
re a a re et ee ee ee ‘
Appellant.
ooo
SR NE an eR a
ERUPFMAN = Jd.
The Parsons Lumber Company wes incorporated about 1922. Hugh
G, Parsons became President of the company and continued in suck
Gepacity until the close of 1931. After his services had been
severed as President and manager of the corporation, he brought suit
against the company for $1951.20 for back salary. The company filed
answer and counterclaim in that suit. Parsons filed replies to the
answer and counterclaim. While that suit was pending, the corporation
filed its complaint in chancery against Parsons for an accounting with
respect to certain items of expenditures of the company's funds. The
trial court consolidated the law case with the chancery action,
-AS «OW ATMADA
.CIOMLLIL TO L2V00 ATALETA MAT wa
MOTATEIG COOMA.
OPAL ch UTEP YRAUNSN'T
TAGOO FIVONTD THT MOAT CARICA
.YTMUVOO ODASINUIW
'figui .SSOL gwods Seotstoqroont aw yiocmed tedmed ‘gnoated edt .
fore ot Belmtinos San Yasqmod afd Yo thobleest casosd anoar
ased bad acotvies aid tettaA LeOL to evolo oft Lhiny
edd of asliqot bellt/aacatet .ttea stadt at Aman sbanupases
fitiw gattasooos ae tot anoarsd tantens yreomed nt behchiane
ett .chavt e’yasqmoo edd to nares Shapes to rigs aisiieo
it appears by the allegations in the bill for accounting, that
between January 1, 1927, and December 31, 1931, Parsons had expended
$18,986.83 of the company's money, which expenditure was grouped under
three headings, designated as “expense account," "travelling expense," and
"Auto expenses.” It was alleged that none of these expense accounts
disclosed for what purpose the money was used, and it was charged
that he had used the same for wrongful purposes; thet such expenditures
were not ali bona fide and made in connection with the business of the
“
4
company. ‘The compiaint for accounting prayed for discovery as to the
actual use and purpose for which the monsy was expended; that an
accounting be had in order to determine what sums were improperly
expended, and that upon such an accounting, «a decree might be entered
finding the amount which should be returned to the plaintiff corpora-
tion by Parsons.
Parsons filed answer to the complaint for accounting, admitting
that he had been President as charged; denying that ne had made the
alleged expenditures of the company's monsy without the knowledge
and consent of the directors and stockholders; denying that his re-
ports of such expenditures were made so as to conceal the true nature
thereof and the purpose for which the same were used; aileging thet
all of the expenditures were for the bonefit of the corpore
with the knowledge ané consent of its Board of Directors and the
stockholders thereof, and approved by them at each annual meeting,
to and ineluding December 31, 1931, The defendant Parsons denied
all charges of misconduct with respect to the use of the company'
money and denied its right to an accounting.
On June 26, 1936, the then sitting Tudge of the circuit court
of Winnebago county, entered a deeree for accounting, wherein many
Re
ne , . upse™s ou “sth
| tout onktumeon io LLid eit af anolsageito oss Ne. sence
‘ bebneqxe bet snoated .£EQL , Le ssdmened bre ,VS0L ,f yusuied o
" oumeqas naiilevext* " daeoon se.e [Ke * 28 hesaajieob aualbsed ¢ 2
stauesos iit. aaodd ‘to egon dsdt begelie saw FI. aii "
hay wedo sow whe has ,beay saw weston edd eo i daslw, tot base,
er fore dans inegparciry, Lartgnerae TOF — beee bad ns
edgy of as vtevoogts wot bel getddwooos ne v
_ a Foald sbeobuogxe, aow ‘Wwaom odd ‘yon Tot sec oe
vizeqorant, ore Baws, pein ossharras ob od thang ai \ |
Ming od digi pened, & ,gattayooos sy aye, Ogu
%
py A rs
eBTOGZ09 ‘rosutelg eds ot hemunton ai bined loti os
;
i, edt eben bad ef tad? gaityied frome aa inohteext 9g snk
eybolworl edt tuodtiy venom, & NyasasIDo opi te benicslncahaas ,
“set eli tad? gebraeb jarehlocipota bas exotoemth’ Sit te ,
«etited curd edd Lpgodos of as 99 shan omew aotut tbneqze som, 10,
stad gatyetio jbean stew.emsa edt dotiw 798 eeQqnHg Aid fie
— eban ,sedtesquoo od Yo ¢ttaned odd FOX. etow aanytihcere aud 29,
“a odd bas. @roteetiC.to byact att To gaoanoo bas. tice i
(settee angie dope th Meg? NF. havonue AAS, toads, axobs
Detaoh gapatel tayhmeted ed. ALOE. ff seam nattateat
Ai ysaquoo, odd to au ocd o¢ sooques, dtin, ¢ophnqouluc De. ae
iain Leidisadbicidinioivn score —
i i _ inn azened ah 890%9098 30% pene nee era "ae
LSE ait We fui? Heteeh enw tot
findings of fact were incorporated. By that decree the court found
that Parsons had been fully paid his salary up to the time his
services with the corporation were terminated and that he had no
salary due him, and that in fact he had overdrawn his salary in the
sum of $300. The decree then found that certain expenditures were
tabulation of same as set out in the complaint for accounting; that
Parsons had failed to itemize such expenditures and that there was
nothing to show for what purpose the money was used, other than
the general designation of general expense, travelling expense,
and automobile expense, as above mentioned. The court decreed that
the company was entitled to an accounting from Parsons with respect
to the expense items of $18,988.83, and that he should return to
the corporation such portion of said expense money as should be
found to have been iauwesatiy expended, and ordered an accounting
taken to determine such amount. The court then decreed that the
total sum of $19,288.83 (being comprised of the two items of
$18,988.83, expenses, and $300, salary), should be the subject of
the accounting; that the company was entitled to a decree for said
amount against Parsons, subject to change by the further order of the
court upon the report of the Master in Chancery to whom the cause
was referred to take the accounting.
The Master proceeded to take the accounting. He found by his
report that Parsons owed the corporation the sum of $554.63. The
company filed objections to the Master's report. Parsons filed
objections thereto. All objections to the report were overruled by
the Master, and were permitted to stand as exceptions thereto in the
trial court. The Master's report was filed January 14, 1937.
Be
eid omtd} eff of qo yrefse ‘ahd bisr el int mood bad oe
mt) om bad of tadd bos botectaret erew notteroqroo ‘ext itiw ao’ oly:
j “eit “at yustee’ etd awetireve bed of tos? mt’ tad? bee wit Sad te
O extow eotus tiroqxe ctetteo Yerts brwot meds eeroed ‘att ‘00e} t0
edd of Sehnoqeerroo dotnw ,yonoot e'ynsqmoo ext ‘to encerst yd
4h
| es
bayot sr00 ett estoeb stadt ya .betetoqioont etew tost to ag
7
7 ie tate fadkénooos tot treks Lamoo ent af suo doe as etise ‘to sobte!
1 wou aw otett tel? Bue astrdihaoqxe done eximest ot beltst ‘Dext ano
i nadt tedto fees asw yonom odd exoqiuig tactw ‘oT woe ot ant
© Veeroqxe gatifevett .eencexe {stenes to motteagteed Letem
( tad? beetosb s109 off .benotinem eveds es ,eemeqre eLidomo dy
7 fooqner dtiv uaceiet movt yattmones as of Belldione raw ymeqino
ie ot motes bivoda od told dos .€8.5b@, BL) To emett cnnoar®
ed Bivode us venom eaneqxe hise To noistoq doue ato, at
satinvesos ns betebro hae bebneqxs yireqotgms god oved o@ Bi
} eit tedd Boorse sodd #1w0s od? tations dope nana
‘ to amest owt eff to beattqmoo gated) bees S ,eL¢ 16 moe
| ‘to footdue edd od Slvoda , (rusted \O0et bas | demmedze: eoltee
st _ bise «ol setosd s ot beltitae sw rin canoe ‘edt tad (antdaiiooos
> . ods to tebro tedvit ete yd ezasde of ‘cbt mere Hsia
pear oa ria ne en {iti GO ais A le
ati yd Bavot of .acktavovas edd slat o¢ Debsooorg rede oat
en? .€8.AeeG To mwa est toisatog109 ond bewe eroert “tad
“beLlt enoaret .tioger etxocesil ode of unotivetdo Soltt
vd belirstevo erew dnoqet oft of guoldoaide Lin “soderead * a on |
edd at ofetosdt wet as baste ot sethbitian! a et
ey gcutiad , SA PT.
Following the entry of the decree of June 26, 1936, ordering
the accounting as to the fund in question, there was a succession
to the jurisdiction, the Judge granting the decree for accounting
having died. On July 27, 1939, the circuit court of said Beant,
in making disposition of this cause, entered a decree wherein it
i% recited that the court was uncertain as to whether or not the
@eeree of June 25, 1936, was a final decree, but wherein the same
was treated as a final decree, and binding upon the parties and
upon the court, in adjudicating and determining that Parsons was
indebted to the corporation in the aggregate amount of $19,288.83.
The court by the present decree finds fhat it has no power to change
or amend the decree of June 26, 1936; that it was final as an ad-
judication of the matters in controversy between the parties and
of their rights relative to the subject matter of the litigation.
All exceptions to the Master's report were denied on the ground
that the decree for accounting entered June 26, 1936, was final
and binding on the parties.
It is maintained on the part of appellee corporation that the
decree of June 26, 1936, was final and determined the rights
between the parties, and gave judgment against Parsons in the sum
of $19,288.83.
It is maintained by appellant that such is not the situation,
that otherwise, there would have been no object to granting an
accounting; that a decree is not complete which requires further
judicial action on the part of the court to give it effeet and to
grant the relief sought; that this was an actioh for an accounting;
that the right to the accounting was denied and the amount involved,
in dispute; that under such circumstances, the right to the account-
ing was a question to be first determined by the court; that such
finding was interlocutory in its nature; that the amognt for which
Ae
Ticesainne
poisefto |, d€@r rr onut to éexdeS erfd to erdde aut aatwortor eh
wotdevoonva s asw overt ,rotteonp nt bart oft OF 2s ‘anivoniodos sit |
gattnvoosa tot o¢toeh oat gabktnars ophet one to ttorsettwt edd by
edirnsde Bide to Hoos tivorko ditt jeter .fs Yeot no pees oiwad
: é} gtotedw seréed s bouetas .onueo efad ¥6 dotsteoqarh “Yabtn . n't j
Sit} god 16 aoiidédw dy ke atadedbay dsr Mudd odd deat ‘Vaated 3
“etee Sad miorédw tud jeeréeb feat? s ‘daw ,deet (22 eavt 306 r
. bie esitaag eft nbay anthatd brie ‘ botoeb ‘rome pts bedps §
Ny adw enowint s8H¢ patdistoden “Kde Sextdsotsoths az (F409 we a
’ L£9.@89 0% to davon otdseres off af nobterodtoo’ on? of Bebe ‘
extsifo OF Yéwod on asd Jt Yedt ubets Coveed Ydodsuq ons yd “yids a
, “pe an ea Lentt Ghw PP tad PSCeE” Se otwt Ye éotosh edd’ t bin %e
Bis aeftrsq edt neewted yarevottiod wt Brottan edt ey FB
wootton ttt ort Yo Wedel detdve ante Oe svies fee atds tr Sheik:
: “Patdty wid nd Hotish ovtw trode a teetamt elit ot ide : a
h, ) ‘Yat? sow barbell as lined Boteins ee, "ao sine ait hi ie
| ae ne Ee Sep Sarstey eit ato : va
; ed? fait shied Sk délfeqqs to Prat edt to mnt sical
Asisty ots benteteted Bas Tortt saw EOL (as onthe 4 5
gue 6No ‘ak “efoatet veer rss boy! ‘bets | esta ove to.
" t ; ee ALE OR mht a we ee Bes er 5
et molssuitte eit gon al dove sand tiatloqas yo enn!
Og ghidhers of destdo an’ deed even Bleow etedd , a einer |
dorddyt wertyper Hohiw’edefdmos Yor et eetded s Fant ts
od Bas sobtte $f svii) ot fine ‘ode Yo Heq Bate “sh ada ut
‘eatdavenss ins “40% Hoos ‘he esw etd dod ‘tiawoe Yeltes “ ont
eh tbledt frvome “ott has ‘Botha’ ‘Baw ‘wntdnuogos ‘ede ot bagi ii
-tnsooos Odd oF Sdelly Sn?’ (eobnaddhotointe” Kone sdbany teste
dove todd ;t1y0o edd yd boutexoteh textt of ot oteaoup a
Hotdw tot togoms edt tad? sseacuas ed ot yrotuoorsesat caw
in
4 q 4 +x bs ri
’ ye yet Ws heey
Parsons might be liable was not then fixed and determined by such
decree, but that the decree merely set out the particular fund for
which the accounting was to be had; and that a final judgment could
not be rendered in the case until after the Master had taken the
accounting.
Tt is thud apparent that the disposition of this appeal de-
pends upon whether the decree of June 26, 1936, is to be considered
as a final decree, or as interlocutory in character.
It appeared from the allegations of the compjasnt for account-
ing, that the character thereof was complicated and extended, and
involved many transactions extending over a veriod of five years.
The decree granting the prayer for a¢nount’ was proper, The right
of the corporation to the accountings was denied by Farsons, Where
the liability to account is denied, there must be an interlocutory
decree finding such liability before there ean be a reference to
a Master. The decree in this case directed the Master as to what
items the account should extend. This was proper, as such directions
included only the items that were in dispute.
Sometimes the accounting is the main relief sought. In other
instances, it is only ancillary to other relief granted, and in such
cases the decree by which the accounting is granted, may be final
with respect to rights of the parties which must first be determined
before an accounting would be in order. Here, the items constituting
the subject of the accounting, were in sharp dispute as between the
parties and nothing appeared in the pleadings at the time of the
decree of June 26, 1936, to indieate in what manner or for what
purpose the money was used. That was the sole question to be
determined upon the evidence introduced before the Master upon the
hearing. Neither party was in position at the time of the decree of
5
Howe ¥e. bentoneteb bis bextt aed ton saw oldets oe dota
10% bast selvotszeq. eft tuo) toa yLexom pernad outs tadd: tad sg mn
| bLuoo, Saempbut. font? 5, taut bas. jhad ed at sew nattavooss. ers dons
eae odd ngnd bod. Tedaal, oly. s0a te Lifer gepp cut at herebsor oa: a
| . sab dade ene to: soltinogesh, att sand, tnenagae wnt er PT
bouebiauos o¢ oF et COL .ds emt to sexoeb sat reddosiw moqy, & a
i | retosnsits al Petey teeted, 85) TO, ootoMb: teat
ae abopnetss bap Retpotiqnny, agw sniids ssuhdaaaetnsa ont + tn ¥) 2
\ , LeTsay evit to botied, B. "t@VO.. antbnotxe. enoliosanett Daasrscti’
“Bigs eat _«Togorg, ae scuooon Tot sevatq, edt pabsuery, @
ng “exestl -samonted yd, beined enw paitauooon ott of doktonoanon Ad:
S Veetgonlaesnt ns od Jenn, steds, botaeb ek sasonos- ot pom ; |
ot pocetetet e ed mae ored + ompted Wiltdats- doe anthalt 9 7
t to ot ea, tetanM exit Betooth. eae afar ak. eeroed oat. wie
enottoor th dope es ,neqoTd ssw abetr -bnotze. BLvoste, da09oe esa»
ts ae mEn{ ine sotuaath ae evew tadlt amedh, pdt yn | bob
. ‘todo at. tips, totter, niaw ont at subangoves 7. seat tonne. 8
* dove at bas. bovnorg Aeb Lex ‘feato ot vieLitonn viog: BL ah, «a 391 ste
care . Sent? od yan (de tanrs ak antdouroso8 odd Hokstw we WORRHR: ont.
hontarotes ed, dart, teem, okay aotéreg, iis no. etdgt.a8, ipo a
sattustdanoo ania omit ate tebse ak at bLsiow, ‘aa binge 08.8
odd, agonted ory adage th grtede, ad, etew cot dnurooge ant a0 ‘tenhte
ort 20 emtt edd tp uaatheelg, oft, at Sespocgn, ombsgen. ‘er net
aie ot to. ‘seinen ted, ak, eteothat ot sOERE m8 one en
yin 0 OF aolsgoup, aloe edt eaW, Aah bear eaw youn. cult 98 ‘
ae. flocs totes edt exoted boowbousat. conobive ads. oan J “
to est9eh out to. emt? oat. ts moka Lang ah eew wixaq neds bot ot
it antiet ak yeaeioett morn new
4 ‘ a iW ht)
June 26, 1936, to say that such deeree was final as to the amount ‘
of money for which Parsons should be held liable to the corporation.
An appeal from that decree would have settled nothing, as no court
-ecould pass upon the questions involved until the accountings had been
taken and the evidence presented as to the nature of such expenditures
and the purposes for which they were made. it was the determination
of this that necessitated the accounting, and it was the necessity
of the accounting which made the decree of June 26, 1936, inter=
‘loeutory. No rights of the parties appear to exist, except such as
.
were incident to the accounting itself.
Appeals should not be taken piecemeal, As stated in The People
v. Stony Island Savings Bank, 355 Ill. 401, at p. 403, “A decree is
appealable only when it terminates the litigation between all of the
parties on thé merits, and when, if affirmed, the court which rendered
it has only to proceed with its execution.” And further, at p. 404,
"But if a decree provides that jurisdiction be retained for the future
determination of matters of substantial controversy between the
parties, it is not final." There is no question in this ¢ase but that
the decree retained jurisdiction for the future determination of how
much, if anything, Parsons was to be held liable for, to the corpora-
tion. This was the sole controversy between the parties and hence
it is evident that the decree of June 26, 1936, was not a final decree.
Since the decree of July 27, 1939, from which this appeal is taken,
treats the decree of June 26, 1936, as being final and conclusive
between the parties, it is erroneous. The authorities referred to
in the above case, and in Smith v. Bunge, 355 Til. 229, are illustra-
tive of, and conelusive, with respect to tie above questions.
As we view the decree of June 26, 1936, in the event an appeal
had been taken therefrom and affirmed, there would have been nothing
6.
uf
sao ts0q700 te ‘oe ‘ekdalt ited of bloods ‘eek dotiw 0
ee F. oeuis 3 if. : es
“Sue on Bs vathidon | be idee eved biaow / eatoed teds mort La
Bs ere dy ree a ee: em Re 7 AG PRS DJ
need bed snbtawoo0s old Lions beviova! enoldaeup edd moqy enag bi
iy? he. wt Se cat ae: A
“nom? Eoneexe owe to. oxidant eds oe ee bodnevexg eoneblive © bas
Ne Ru akg
noltactore teb edt asw a 18h an er6w ‘vont dota =o aseoqany
Saal Gig th Ge? Ree > ape
vtaseoer: ‘ond sew tt aap <actinvooas eg pes bath vi tedt el
ES Ms ET tt ay: wh Pe ae: St. i
anedut woeek os exist to ootoah ead ebast iloLitw ands 1B
A ee Ses pom ea aly Late
es none syeexe «tekze ot taeage ‘goltaag ‘eit to adiig.ts on ff
me } PARC. 2 PARRA tte Dah OES 2 ROT Ba Sane rae ae
iit stfeadt yridiweoss eft ot tnebtoat
; vt ote Dae ae a ee
elyoot ott at bodave A “vinomaooig nba ed gon bluode elseqqé
we AD dees, tly, SPS i. ome cy Fh ae i 22 “Hine DP ec? Wel
at served ro COh - ey sss aae” tase 2 Ua hse bast
*
tet & pare tag net Lay pak
odd to fis moenaod ‘to 133 sit ont vetantired dt aa ea
gg ti hue ‘ a 8 eae rhe ‘ es rn: bt Fs Pry gro '
betebass Lin ‘gw. ody boats : anes os sad e Shar Lan ee ols
aye 14 BPINDS OF 9 ried
0h .q ts “toda, BoA # aot tvepxe abi sd bw boevorg ot vino &
igo Bab Tat. wath BAM i:
ord ot eid a beaisior ca nodolbaltt initd Sob eer a as is
Sh gat RE Uk aR ee a
ods noowied yerovorduce fatinosadue to ated to nott
| shai ays + eee
‘sade sud ‘shne etdd ad motdeeuy on ‘al ouedT Se iy ton
aliens Saat ae fhe i Boutsbe aM ’ ,
woe ‘to ‘nolvsnkuresob exudate ols ‘tot aottolse 10eb @.
: & Wat te ia 2e ae as tp el Hes ores! AQ Oats : g 5
~sr0CI109 odd ot ot eldatt bled ef oF usw eho ioe 8 sian 1b
hers, sy aed ‘yt ti seuree 4 dy yr ya
hice!
io , , F Boe a nr ia vx) Ses nm
seor00b ‘feat? 6 sou 86W ERE as ane 2 ‘oetoeb oft fade
“ooned aa eotsusg odd noowsod vexevor2i00 o fos
be bt arog at pin "tt eis rf hr 20 ose? par il a
| capes at Leeqae ‘alis dobiw 0% eee LY to becky
me ra hs 4 } at ra heey, mye ee oe i
oviowfonoe bas Laakt gated Bs rs pos ont
Fi he wieg eee 8 Pte. ‘y yan AY enh
of Berietet eoiehsoitue ent Seedhigeetneh et + noliret f
eo cy fa fig KY hat pa crag pn Sort of A Mt bg +
~axdaulth ere ese vi “be oe aes v “athe af fas ,ea8o evods
, BI a ORR CS wart a A
sanottaoup ered ous od tooqaet thy ~ovinulones bas «'
' Caw. taal Reet were ads
teeqae: es taeve Py pa see os pn 4 to eee 4 + wetv’ py
ibe mene) byovshersdy sy cdepiaher uae eat 0 he
_aaidtos need evad binaw etedt yomah ate Bas | ateteds 1 at
% gexpad 22 wits ao biting A aw WaRBE, meatal val
ayant “ a }
fi : a?
the trial court could have done toward proceeding with the decree,
until after the accounting had been taken and report of the Master
filed. The fact that the court by the former decree held that
appellant company was entitled to have an accounting as to certain
itens of expense charged by Parsons, did not produce a situation
where it can be seid, that it followed as a matter of lew, that
anything was due and owing by Parsons, to the corporation. The
reference to the llaster was made for the purnose of determining this
question. Thus we find that matters of substantial controversy in
issue between the parties, were not determined by the decree of
June 26, 1936, and could only be determined upon the accounting.
This is manifest from the decree itself, as it reserves jurisdic-
tion of the case, pending the outcome of the hearing before the
Master. Therefore, we do not consider the reference in this case
to have been an execution of the decree, but only preparatory to
the rendition ef a final decree.
The decree of July 27, 1939, from which this appeal is pro-
secuted, is reversed and the cause remanded with direction that
the trial court proceed to consider the exceptions as filed to the
Master's report, following which, a final decree shall be rendered.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Levan, « ip + ew go (Oke ee
_aer08 ons dt bw getboonorg brawot a0b orn ‘Bisos
Vor HILny Fae
“totes eit to troyor Bree wextet nood bad sattnugoos edt ode
tedt bled sored sent0% edt yw sxv0o odt tons toat ont ae: t
NOES eT
“ttedreo ot as nites as oved ot bolsteae ew “yaaquies a zy
we ttaudte 8 enuborg ton 5Eh 28208 Te4 yo bosrado <itt had
Lag
elrit gntnimeteh zo peony outs pen sbamn enw / sodeslt eat oF
gt yeTevoTdaeD tetdnetedia to erot test oats bak ow ew + oi
oh ETOOD Cae! SF Rontanp ees an sew veoltneg @ edd of sow
. -naktsv0008 outs noes bentmredeb ed vie big, Pap det
‘ wopbe taut novrone ot er (Moatt oor005 esd nox “ssottaon, |
edt eroted ‘pabuaon oat? to enontiso ont antbaeg, seaso neat: 3
oneo eit at eoneTetet odd toh Lanoo tou ob ow omtexedt | f
ot yrosereaora vino tue 1eotoeb odd to oltvoexs xe 6 ene
eonves he era ch ®
ae 4
ae’
add soktgetth ddiw bobnanet oaune oft? hat 19
eles
rh sid ot belt ae anotiqeoxe ont nobtenoo ot ‘peseory #3
’ ener
“sbenebues od Lier sowoeb Isatt 6 ost puLbwoLsO®
neereoh Loach 6 26h aap ORES | aw) te oat ode theme
we -scotdeerth déiw bebaseet bas bee ak
“to ¢
‘ htt ihe ee
ind bio eu.
i. wee dao Agewnes lw era Me ite}
f Bee hk 54, ¥
ete a ei -
ty a tie
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT fs I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Wherecf, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73947) <@SBe07
be oP
. Ndi ye
\F
‘ Pint ¥
] bine he in wl vita br bea 9 :
8. be, st BS
Bie it es “tread saltagae oft to
40438 soo, ee ‘on off ore,
%
2063 LAWRERGE “AVENUE om é p 4
GORPCRATI "Ry a 3 ASAE
fappetyint, /) 6 |
AL, PROM
thy de ; é \SUPERTOR count,
¥. " ; f 3 z . 2 2 %
é 4 3 Le WOOK COUNTY,
OUS VAN NECK, CHSCAGO FLAT JauIToOR's ) —
UNION LOGAL NO,f1, JOSEPH.BURKS, ) a i eee a ou
ge 5} ig’ pa a 2 y |
f Appellees, ’ 8OQO5 1.4.48 6
MR, PRESIDING JUSTICE MATCORETT BELIVERES TRE OPINION OF THY OOURT,
Thie appeal is pending on rehearing granted on petition of
the plaintiff. The action in the trial court wee in shaneery for an
injunction to reetrain defendants from maintaining pickets at plain-
tiff's premises, ‘the bill charged the picketing wae with intinida-
tion, threate and violence, A preliminary injunction Leaved ae
prayed, The defendante anewered admitting the maintenance of the
plekets but denying threats, intimidation or violence and claiming
under the Anti-Injunction Statute (fll. State Ber State., chap. 43,
$l, par. 2a, p. 1849-1560; Lawe of 1925, p. S78, Smith-'Yurd Anno,
State., chap. 48, par, Za, p. 158), the picketing wae lawful, The
Cause wae referred to a Haster, who tock the evidence and reported,
finding the avermente of the answer sustained, recommending the dis-
eolution of the injunction and diemiessal of the amended bili, Ub-
jections by plaintiff before the Master upon the hearing before the
Chancellor stood as exeeptions, were overruled by Macter and
Chancellor and « deeree entered as recommended, Plaintiff appeals,
Section 1 of the AntieInjunction Act provides:
"Ho restraining order or injunction shall be granted by
any court of this State, or by a judge or the judges thereef in eny
ease involving or growing out of a dispute concerning terms or con-
ditions of employment, enjoining or restraining any person or per-
sone, either singly or in concert, from terminating any relation of
employment or from ceaging to perform any work or labor, er from
peaceably and without threats or intimidation recommending, advising,
= ee others so te do ; or from peaceably and without threate
timidation being upon any public street, or thoroughfare or
highway for the purpose of obtaining or communteating information, or
wORY J
,TRVOS ROLAUSUR
+7HUG0 BHT IO MOINTGO SNT GUARVIJNG PTENOTAM SOTTSVL OnIGI ea. AM
PEUOA
to neltited : ne betaatg galuaerion a0 galore ak feeqas ant
ae set yresnerio mi awe Puw0o Lele? edd at Roltes edt MusatalG oa
~atelg $4 etedolq gutsladatan movt staabasted ateutees of mortonytat
wablattal tiv sew yatiedotg ed? Seguede (ltd edt ston imarq at nity
ae beuert acivenvtal yeanimties A .eoneloly baa ataeust waokt |
add 20 eonaseintem of? galt¢iuba hexewana atushasted oat sbevera
Qilstalo daa soneloty vo sol¢eblaliatl stegult gated Six avexetg,
\B> .qato ,.etet@ cal eger2 £11) od usage nett onuint=teaA od? sont
Onn brwtnlt kms OT8 of eeer te awa youss-~9ear < call we, WN. ee
at ofutwal a8 yattesotg ods (685 @ AS Taq, aed sate * - re |
sboTroget Bras gonebive 909 toot sal ot0tnan 3B a3 borates iar i oauag 3
<aib oft antbnommooe: ,dentaveam severe oft te ad neaieva ett anton?
“sO iftd babavax ent to asa tmsid baa solsonwtat adit 2 mossutos
add sroted gates ot ot? noqy tofaaM ext erated Wtetala w snotzoet
bas setaat ys belwitero ose eaott qoaze a8 boots wokteomad®
2 faegqga Tiss alals deomeamooes as boxeane aR2Red & bas polis
tmabiveng toa gottoan{al-tana adit te £ eipick,
ya Bednaxy od Ifade nottountat So qebt0 yatatest
Qfa al Teeted? segbyi, el? 76 Prem re hsgee 0
“MOD 4D amie? gilarsonee wane anes &@ to tuo is
-5r9eq IO monte Yas palalets “6 pain, tte
to noltafes qs gaizgantase? sort vsr90n08 aL SO %
next ae ,1odal <0 dqow Yas mictaseg OF Baleagn
Getelvba ,grlbnersoget noltabinitnt xo stags @ &
-etaeudt tvedsiv bane _idagoneq most 10% ob of on wxedte
ge gaatdigwened? go .feouts olideg yas Pl at
i ae , anger ee vate coranoonerte OE
ra Aw
Fr Hi oh ST Lae eS . vi
Se ae RY eee
i
4
~we
$o peaceably oné without thrests or intimidation persuade any person
er persone to work or to abstain from working, or to employ or to
peaceably and without threats or intimidation cease to employ eny
party to a labor dispute, or to recommend, advise, or persuade others
wo to do, *
The evidence shows the pickets, Aobert “cleod ané Joseph
Burns, were not ewployees of the plaintiff corperation. They vere
not prospective applicante for employment, but were mesbers of the
defendant union and for wany yeere had not rendered service as
janitere, They testified, denying threats, intimidation or force,
and the Master found these unlawful methods had not been used. They
edmit that in so far aa possible « "secondary boycott" was established
egainat plaintiff in attempting to induce the repair man, the eoeal
man, the gilkwan, the garbage man, the leundry man, ete. to cease
performing their usual services for plaintiff and ite tenants, One
of the pickete occupied the alley in the rear of the building;
another the street in front of 1% intercepting persons furnishing
services, geods, ete, to plaintiff and ite tenants, and in eo far ae
poesible persuaged them to refrain from doing 9.
The building consisted of 37 one-room furnished apartments
in which about 75 persona lived, I was a three-story trick with
Englieh baeement. Plaintiff rented the apartaents furnished, There
was one atore in the basement, There pickets were placed at plain-
tiff's premises on July 30, 1957, There was ne dispute between
plaintiff and any of ite employees concerning terme or conditions of
employment at thet time or since, Anton Easlukas, a nether of the
defendant Flat Janiter's Union, wae then employed ae a janitor, He
continued tc serve until March 17, 1956, when he was diecherged by
plaintiff after notice, The janitor work to be done at the building
41d not require the full time of a janitor. <Kaslukas served and wae
paid on the basis of part time servies, He received compensation of
£75 per month, Se far ag the evidence shows, he 414 not at any tine
complain ae te the wages paid or the conditions unéer which he worked,
He testified, however, that the manager of the building asked him te
render certain kinds of service which he teld the manager wes againet
f
-
aeersg Ya ahayeteq doiisiiantial to ataexnd? tvodtiw daa oq oF
ev to yolque of ve ,neldaow sett atatsda of a0 d4ow Gseeteq tO
. gna Yolqmn oF eanen noltabliaivat «ae avaeudt tued?iv dns
, wteito ehayetog 10 ,oaltvdbe .baemmoser of to ,etuqedb sodal 8 s ab oF os
!
Agqeee> baa Soede grodes ,etetelq eit svode sonebtve ed?
erew Your .seftategtoe Waele ed? te ‘eoeyoLqus ton erew aod
ety To ateduen siew ad taseryoLqme 16% esasoliqgs ov lzoeqnorg ton
| | a2 eolviea Serebret ton Bad eugey yaen a0% dae cota tuabacted
| (so19% Wo mOltAbiatial lataows gabyaed \boktiveo? yotT erat tmat
Yee Bony coed tom had ehodtem istwolay ened? bawot s9teatedt bas
‘Pedal idarue baw “SS ecyod Teubncosa* a sidteaoq ee tet on at tast tiaba
face edt ymam ttager et ooubad of gattquetis nt Tusatety sontage
eeace ot .ose em yuhmuat edt yan epading etd eomtite edt am ..
dad ngnamed 092 baa ‘Yiltatale 102 asolvres tees sued sn store? “3
' jonlitiud ed’ to cast an? at ‘qelle edt benquoos stedota ad? ‘to
Bott
gulda torus? aHORT Sg antsqeoresnt tl te tout at ‘peexts ont “aodtons
4 of be ieee
es iat oa at bas ~atoaned? ott baa tetentala ‘et ote ssheoy 4
t ehGbes
+08 gateb ort atertet of andt bebauereg,
ce eee mada
atnoutisgqe Bodelowwt meoxr-one 0% to Bedutence ant ba “eal?
dt ts aghast qrode~éerile | a any #t evil naonreg ey ‘tuoda do hshe ‘nt
ta. Hae Sco
“aieia va beoalg exew ateteig ooadt “taomensd edt aa ‘erots one
' geeuted otuqah on aav ‘ered? weer 08 od ao es tuor i
.. Af:
to anoté Lines to aered gatmrenaeo nosyolque: wah te we bas. ‘vise ntata
fis aT tne Pee
ode te edness a aatuland ‘notaA. oats 10 mis ‘tads fa ve caveligne
on 108 Laat & 28 Beyolque nade aay nota a x08 taal fast ¢ tna ne nabaoteb
‘qd boyuedest® saw ed ned ,0eet WE donaM titan aries fe ecabbees
gathitud et ta snob od ot aos aodinat ‘ott ‘ eotton 0928 Yhivataly
any baa Sevres eatulead. “rob taat A Yo ents Liat est taper tom BRD
i
a aieom.
10 naltanneques bevicoas a swozrae oat te 2 aleed ast 20
0 Sage uv Bis GE
| Beton. od otis ‘Tehan oasis Lines th. ue iio tea
pods
oxadt ‘peda tows’ atnenésage ons esse ‘pital tnomeead doktgaa
oy 3 Yeah ae
a »~
a Pee ee
SN Se cae ae
aa, oe
the union rulea, The proof does not show whether there wes any
quarrel shout thie or whether Keslukae was diecharged for thet
Yearon, At any rate he umede no oretest against hie discharge, He
has not aeked for reinstatement. A subsecuent statexent by plain-e
tiff's president indicates Karlukae was thought to be negligent,
and that thie was one of the reasone for discharge. The defendant,
union her not complained about bie discharge or asked reinstatement,
Before the employment of Kaslukas was terminated in March,
1956, plaintiff installed a supposed laber-saving device kncwn es an
automatic stoker, designed te perform mechanically the work of
feeding conl into the furnace, The plaintiff informed Saglukas of
thie and that 1t would render lese janitor service necessary. “hen
the employment of Kaslukas ended plaintiff employed « “re, Vickery
to perform certain servicer in connection with the apartuentse, Mrs,
Viekery aleo took upon herself the duty of shoveling coal into the
etoker, he ie the wife of William Vickery, Together they occupy an
apartment in the basement of the building, "he is paid 530 per month
for her services, The husband, William Viekery, aleo render s casual
services in end about the building when and ase requested, He draws
no fixed salary or wagee, Hie compensation depends on the amount of
services rendered. Weither “r, or Mre, VYiekery have made any come
plaint as to their wages or the conditions under which they work.
Neither of then belongs to the defendant union, The evidence shows
(and 1s not contradicted) that one of the pickets invited Mr, Vickery
to join the union, He inquired how much it would cost and was told
$215, Mr, Viekery replied thet he could not afford it.
June 21, 1957, Gue Van Heek, seeretary-manager of the de-~
fenéant union, wrote to Me, Holmes of the plaintiff corporation that
an agreement had been entered into between the Chicago Aeal “etate
Roard and the Chicago Flat Janitor's tnion, Local lio, 1, specifying
that oll mulldings eared for by other than the owner must have the
services of a union Janitor; thet thie building wae being serviced
th aw Host cattrede wed’ gen boe8 toorc oat voter’ moti emt
gad? aot begreteats saw saxhlest rect ody To wist ‘tives forrawp
sh ,opiasineth otd tanteaga testo1g om ebom ed otax yna 24°" woke
watate ye Pndwevere tnenpeadsa A tnoletatenbet <b? Sexee ton aad
inbgtiges of 0? Sdyuont ew tatwinal eotaothal tnebsiery oH
imaaseted ec? laguation rs Got anowder net’ 16 ono Raw ORME RARY Bia
tooustageales bovta vo oguscion th ela swede Dentafgnos ton ve —
dors# a2 Sebanteeret vey eaxtufeet Yo Shonyelgne Sat exOted - re
he Oo wedet wobveh yuivae-redel Sesogque 2 botladant sence
2 to avow om? ¢ftootmarfoem wrotrag oF Bempteab visde?s oftanmstya
26 natufest Beorotnt Ytientafg of? leoartt eft ofnt eon gabbost
noi yrneseben sotvren too tnat eet tebner Bivbw dt tant Sna atte
ereasl? .201 a boyétqes Vttentala sobae Gaxeleak to tabeyoTQhe ony
cowl attending bat dite sebtoennes at we>ivres’ Atasroo mrertey OF
ttt Obtt thee Gnd Loved 8 ered om? Tewred wbqu’ ab09 offs YreMelY
sit Yqwood Yet tecvegek ‘veresol? sarftiv 4 @itw! elie: wh ome: yxptor
- genom t9q 088 Btagq ef bA® “Sgaththed ear te ‘tabled ett it sreatragqe
- Teutao e veamer cote erederY mirth (baedewt eat jebotvses red cot
avext s® fedsewper ea Snes wedv gah Tin edt tieda ona nm nootvree
46 vavoma ony ne abreqeb notvaenegwen aff *eeger 10 rales Sextt on
‘anon yh oben eva eretelt Lott co oe celtt tom” sBorebaer avotvrte
wivow (adit Molde reba enottibace oa co aeghd Shed? of ba tntata
-— “ewoite! bomebive’ sift” neni” dnabaetes ontt or epatted bed? to rode tek
yusitolV waif Bavtvar eteumbe eff %6 one dais” (netbbnicenod” soa WY Baa)
ffov aaw Bna too Diwew $f Houm wed Sexkwpalt oft lhoznir’ ot tot’ ot
°° ae peotte tem pines on sade bebtyek Greamsy’ Ae eR
seh ef? to tepanan-ytoyerssa .fee@ wav GipdD reer (is enw Oe
Jan? moltareqres Yidwterg wt? to neato Jaw es over netnw daasnet
| spate rast opedtdd ear moowted’ otat” Dorothe noed ball seenowrge’ ta
i “styles Lf 0H tend wena eee taal reshlbeannsthetigertts
"gd svait fom romeo Odd madd vedde Yo xot Bevas Wpnebttud £18
Deeivaes gaia’ ‘ea depcroyel wrevchent redhnn baie rs te
os? ea ¢2¢30 eoeegee We alate
4
J
:
ote
by & non-union man, The letter stated: ‘Cooperation placing union
janiter thie bullding greatly aprreciated by thie office.* Plaintiff
replieé June 30, 1957, that it had no agreement with the Chicago Real
Estate Beard; thet the property had been turned over to the core
poration under deeree of the U, %, Gietrict Court, and that the builld-
ing was then opersted under the decree by the owners, Thereupen, the
pickets were placed about the premises,
It ie contended in behalf of plaintiff that the «evidence
shows there wae no labor dispute within the meaning of the statute at
the time of the picketing. It is pointed out thet Kaslukes wae dine
charged more than fifteen sonths prior te the time the picketing
began, and that neither he ner the union sade any complaint about the
G@ischarge, There ie no claim that the work necessary to be done
about these premises requires the full time of e janiter, The job
at best was about one-third of a job, ae shown by the feet Aaslukas
also took care of two other buildings, The work to be done wae lese
after the inetallation of the steker, The employment of « janitor
was never more then casual in its aature, Kaslukas bas never asked
%o get his job back,
The controversy which caused the picketing of the premises
wae brought on by the request of the union that this eacual work
ehould be done by some member of ite organisation, and apparently it
was satisfied if Kr. Vickery would pay dues to the union, Seer this
dispute rise to the dignity of a “labor diepute* within the meaning
of the Anti-injunction statute? The anewer, we think, must be in the |
negetive. In the first place, the diapute is not between the ew-
ployer and the employee, Aecent cases construing this statute hold
this is a necessary prerequisite to application of the statute, he
employee hae made complaint or is new complaining. This ie fetal te |
the defonae offered,
In Swing, ot al, v. American Federation of Labor, 372 Tl, _
91, 22 %, E, (2nd) 857, the Supreme court of our stete passed on this
point. In that case, Swing and others filed their bill te restrain
be
nein gaiosiq solsareqeod"’ iPe@ats sevttet afi .cem neinu-non a xs
Tilsaiali *,eoltto aid’ WW betaleouqes YLinetp pethiind aide testinal,
fae eysold® eA? mttw inemepiye on Sad $l Bade? ,VoRL .6& enw baliqas
~i99 ed? of seve beni coed bad yoxeqoag eld, fads pdaned etages
mb Lhe edt tad? bus sawed fofaseld ,& .V edf te esteed sehan molsaneg
ed? ,seqveied? .atenwo afd YO sexped ad? sohay botaneqo aelt.eew gat
Asaltaerg ould tuoda hesalq exe etedotg
__ seaebiye axis dase Wtatele to Vesed aL Debwetmeo at 71
sib sav oaiulosA tect tye Detatog at Sh .gattedota ad®, 20, emkt. salt
_ gattedtote ed? omty o6f of seiag edtnom apes ts3 wast exom Dogsade
| a? fuods Talslqnoe yas ohem nodaw ext 10M od. vedston tad? dum ,noped
on9b of od yiassqoen Anew edd add alate oo. ef exes. eguadeesd
dot sdf .xevinel s te omte Sin? edd sentupes, sontnorg onedt.duods
eakulegs Soat alt yd mwoste oo Col # to Satdt~ano gusda aay teed te
noel say onod od of Mzow ont agnthitud aai30 ove 30 gran soot oats
30disal » To taegyolgme eat .tedota add Io moitatiateal eddsotte
said teven eat eadwieet ,emetas att at dauas nat MieR Fer eH tae
aentmong odd 20 aattosete edt dennae ote snide noxht os
tuow Laveen etd? tadd sotay edt Yo taoupes oct ‘WG a@ Selguord 2aw
#2 Yinsisege dna .noltastasgio ati to todmam emea yd enok ad a Lisoria
Bid? nook noLay ait of souh yaq Diwou yredDsY «aM Tt Dette stan caw
(gelagem edd mlddty "etuqe2d sodas” a te yehaBth ent oF sate ateqash
‘| art? at ed toum ini? ow ,seweae ef? fetutada Holtonn il-tand odd to
~me of% neewted ton af stuqaih ag .~ooalg saat? edt atk ar eeaaen
Bied efutate aldd gaiwutages seaas tnqoek, soayerqae ads baa wovelg
of eiatade edd 2e nettactiqas of atintuperesg Yrasseoen & at alde
ot fate at atdt SEIT 2S A
LAE 89% < suid aman sieiael A diaswananas ta’ }
me at, TSR (Anh) ee
howtos 0 Like chen Debit wenate tuk saiasnnianeabaiea ry
-S-
the defendant union from picketing in front ef plaintiffs! place of
business. Phe defendants moved to strike; the motion was granted,
and the suit 4iemilesed for want of equity, The facts averred in the
bill were that the defendant union demanded that plaintiff require
ites employees to join it. “one of the employees belonged to the
union; none of them wished to belong te it. The employse# were
satisfied with their wages, houre and working conditions. This court
. peversed the judgment of the trial court and granted a certificate of
importance to the Supreme court, (298 T11. App. 63, 14 8, ©, (8nd)
268.) To the contention of the defendants thet the injunetion was
prohibited by the Anti-Injuaction ‘Statute, the Supreme court pointed
out that the contrary had just been held in Meadownoor Dsiries, ine.
v. Milkwagon Dvivers’ Union of Ghieags, Bo, 75S, S71 fll. S77, #1 HE,
(2nd) 308, and said:
"The opinion in that case was filed while the present appeal
wae pending and in it we held the act of 1926 hae ne application to
eases “herein there is no dispute between employer and eaployee, In
that ecace all of the arguments presented by the appellants ia thie
cage vere fully considered and it if now unnecessary for ue te ree
peat what we then eid, *
There was a dissenting epinien siting caser in which it
had been held in the construction of a somewhat similar statute that
no employer-employee relationship need exist, Lauf v. Shinner &
Company, 503 U. 8, 323, 58 5, Ct, B78, 2 L. Ha, O72; New Negro
Alliance v. S9., 305 0, %, S82, 83 3, Ck, 703, a2 L,
Ba, 1012; Senn v. Mion, 201 U. &, 468, 57 8, Ot, 887,
863, SLL. Bd, 1228,
The decision of the Supreme court of thie stete is, of
course, binding upon thie court, and the decisions from other juris-
dictions are net controlling. The *uprene Gourt of the United States
has denied gertiorar, in the Meadows ,
in this state now becomes one for the legislature. in the Xeadoy~
moor ease the Supreme court distinguishing the case of Senn v. Elie
Layers Union, said:
| "It le clear from this language the court was limiting ita
views to the particular statute under consideration and indicating,
in the clearest language, that the privilege of ploketing, even
SS
ir gage, #6 thet the cuestion
i=
Y soalg ‘sttiteialg Ws thovt af qulvedely wert eotnw Sambastod alt
.besaeig saw soltom ody jelata of Lover stnshaeted eff ° .oneiitend
ont mi berieve atoat eff .yWispe Yo tuaw 10% Setelasdh vise edt fas
otinpet Tiltateld tad? Bobnawed welns tahneteb eft sade evew LLKC
of of Bopneled soeyotque wad to ono .82 mtot oF aseyolque nts
| w1ew Beelofoms on? #2 GF ynoled of Harn ty made Yo ehom qnenny
‘ gives ald? ,aneitibnes yatdsow ina @ued ,degaw eheds ddiw bertettan
(6 SPMUETETISO 6 Berney baa x09 Lelnd nc to toemdut, wid beotoves -
(Bat) SL (88 SoG VLE BOS) eawed emorgue ede of eotaduogmt
Gay noltomutad of Tadd ataabaoted add to notenssace odd oP) '( 088
Setalog tives eaetqul off ,etatac® aettoruiel-ited ed Wi Dad sd trtoreg
| “emake sesmetedt: At Bios noed taut bad Wurwaoo edt todd gue
au (evs LIF 0s i
i
. Inbqus adv olide Boll? saw saae Gadd wl On: saad ta
oF patie pres We bak SORE 3) fee Se Doo Te & Baa galbneq
al ,evyolque tne te noawted etuqe th an af everte .
aid? at egoalleqqa ed? yd betas etnomgta ed? to ease tan
won o¢ aw Got Vaseeanenms won ef ¥ nT Shae
aw
nei Ae At oe te Bae
tt dolde wl seen gatt to cudates ‘gattnenald ‘4 ow or0dT
ana! dot abd 2u5 eal
Tad? otutate relimte Janene & te Moltouwrteneo oat at Dinas need bau
A zonatds wv wal talne boon ‘qidenotsnton sovolgn nomovel Poe
eB we 1898 bo od 36 8FE 90 a 8 aa 286 ie 8 808 oe
98 20" 20 2 88 888 48 .U EOE ,, | 2
ov
om , Tea eae a
a “8 vain esovas sift «
(V88 70 @ 882 .8 .0 £08 ~ .-¥ Anes 18108 ay
SSE DH ot 1B 608
o # : cn Pe west + iat ene be
te at stats olds 2 rwos sxengu? one 10 nolezond ont
tA o ed Pa yyete
~ainwt 10st © rout anota Loeb ods San iweo ent nog satbais
t j a Seed
, asses Beata ant to r0? enone oat rgnbLfoxtnee toa ore bye
CYL Sy ie. & ae
notes ada tadt of ag ed? at Selaed
“ . T tasile soomebaet « Me. ceyatane.
-wobass wif at ,erstaletgel edd xe? one aouooed woa a state a ah
aa3%o Ph seni wet
| BERE Y ate %9. onao odd Faery he suuoo onorqul et ‘ease ones
.*% . ey 624 ; Ra — <
neh Iehobs : Bae ode saunas pia aon’ ak 0 Be ye or
“anitasibat Sea foe tahey Peed ene Bee 5 lp
%
ae
-be
where peaceful, did not extend te cases where unlawfal agte were
committed or intended to be weed for the purpose of Leselicing
secondary boycotts, Many other cases on both sides are eited, but
in view of the decisions of this scurt condemning boyeottse and pro}
hibiting the interference with constitutional righte, pointed out
herein, the acte of the appellees, in combining, ae an aggregation
of individuale, te pieket in the manner described and found by the
master, were unlawful acts and justified the issuance of a» permanent
injunetion as prayed, *
We think, too, in thie ease the “aster in findings the
picketing wea entirely peaceful overlooked the undenied testimony of
William Vickery te the effeet that one cf the pickets (iclLeod) came
to Vickery'¢ apartment in the building and said that he (Viekery)
‘wogld join union or elec" and “You don't want us to bomb the place
ao yout®
The judgment will be revereed and the cause resended with
Girections to set aside the order diesolving the injunction and dis-
missing the bill,
REVERSED AND ARMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS,
MeSurely, J., concure,
O'Conner, J., dissents,
‘eo Vndifeor Rétnosaw edt Seteottéve titesssy Uoritlie bal gts otot
(Secitel) edosete of Yo ono fant” toeTte odd of Yrodbtv MAETTAY
” quad ebia tithiiitttn brid’ Welle te Riiidze’ dbl rn
get peetioros Sabie dod na deene edie.
“iho Beant fou, eadeix fanektrhtoaeo aby
em, a pédtioaed denned ety af
taecamasy « Lo yorclweny edt Heliisen, haa ofan, Geta
od? gafbatt af detect ont ofhd ohne at (ood (inte et” (OOO
(qeoxotv) of tact? Sten Bas patdtaud edt at daousadge WeeRe IY We
mnt ‘sat cod ot ow tied Ainashaaitientticiedingecaedoer B.Leow"
aa’ act 2g iiptip wie aad 9 thoy ab
Me be besides Satins 6hb. She Dit UE ich eT ak” 888? OD
“sane batt Hottonutat cid ‘gate s0dtts Ginti-thb Unita Vel ed We
seek a adit
Basis ss ‘Cheam CHA, SERIO TT han anton & aan
ine geewied etsy Sh an of egertr eter eamap
“gtnall © Oe Be yr Be FAR OT ca reer eke te ila 225% seaa
oy wom wi 2 Bera OS" arttSians |, “\wittsagd |, toca
:
sigio #ogniao aeizn _. ebtngeath: ask wenn"
liosatanes off af Alek nead bea
Sie ut Lee ag ek 9 beam glieete ales oener Cepia ie Le on
BS Ay ie ; a4 "had Le * Ore aft . a sy yoRs 2 mm go ryaagnod
TN aig RNAs: ser roe tay
pt SE SOT eS Om ae et oe ON . rae. eon, bans A! egal
7 0 TS ,060 48 0 106 waotey exgpel O£ee ov meee palo ‘bt
Eek bs ol a me
Pees axaruatet tt Yo mebalesns ace
Lele abe DAR , 1 tides Rog we Line ie .ew00
, eater! Aedind edt ta Mee Geant gre nos oy hs Log tuiae ton wus modi ea
‘fears age tad? sa ’ togm ek ae eae ms SONIA AS hatawd vas
wig Bi t ,wirdalelees ney 462 ono Bombo woe otate aed ne
we ee eee
t2h5. «¥ Bost IS seas ol? BAlensepesease Peeee “sonega? ams waa gy
4 mi hi Slat
toy tugee ge ene gual aia cent sania ‘eh exe
Age de abt? ariee thos emia etutace
7s Ve UF
SS
i ee et
Se eee
40436
i 263 LAWRENCE AVEAUB BULLDING
) =< Appellant,
ceed
oie
)
|
1 i £8 SUPERIOR COURT
ol ees COOK COUNTY.
) %
)
)
)
Tey.
Vie.
GUS VAN HECK, CHICAGO Eli
' JANITORS UNION, LOCAL NOs
_ JOSEPH BURNS, Pa
x” Aop@llees.
fe
ASRS
AY
fe :
wR, JUSTICE O'CONNOR DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE CoURT,
. SOB tA CAEET LIE LI ETE $
* 8 RENE OPRORN TI ORF EDS
e . =: yop enemas est S LSB
fe st eALERTS
SPR AA Los Sedans ASRS it IG, Se AA TTT HT ES RLS >
prenee tes
Plaintiff corvnoration owns and operates a three-story
English basement brick pudiding containing P csexe ant 37 furnished
| apartments of one room each with Pullman kGtehen and bath, in which
about 75 tenants live, It filed its bill (aiming it was involved
in no labor dispute; that its building was being picketed by mem-
bers of defendants! Janitor's Union whe by coercion and intimidation
prevented other business concerns from transacting business with
Pleintiff, and plaintiff prayed that defendants be enjoined from
doing the acts and things complained of.
Defendants answered the complaint, averring there was a
labor dispute between the parties, admitting that the building
was picketed by members of the defendant Union and denying all
wroneful acts of coercion and intimidation, The case was referred
to a master in chancery who took the evidence, made his report
finding that no illegal acts were committed by defendants and recome
mending that the suit be dismissed for want of equity. Objections
and exceptions to the report were overruled, a decree entered in
accordance with the recommendation of the master, and plaintiff
appeals,
The reeord discloses that in 1936 and for some time prior
theretg plaintiff employed a janitor to do the ordinary work around
the building, and there is evidence that he was discharged March
coe
Pye g
) ein,
, ; i 2 P- a ‘ae.
: ; pe ee ,
(
i ae,
AU09 HOTAaIe GATE (
(
a
ay -YTuvoo: #009 ‘gr
:
i
| aia w|
“aes MILEOS |
\#” ,PHUDG HH? To #oluIdo. snr canay Law AOWMOO' O MOL TOUE .
Sree me
W ODADINO. AEH wavy aD
; Mae ail ,MOIMU BROTIMAL
, SRE EAS OL
Om i”
prog €
besva
Sey: i Ba ae ne 9 Bie toetn te apathy Nihiagp ages ty
wente eens 2 2 #etateqo baer anwo aoltetogtoo Ytigatelt
figs B4
bosip Ler vé bas come palates cop ppt volad papanged A iiant Moam
tte ‘ba
sto bse ak ,dted bas ne dod 4 moat tsa ao hw ings aves ene to rinnrzage
& Pee OF RHOITRRETS
seriovat aew ti ainda LiLtd etl be Lit +1 wovil vdrr ae av tuoda
mie pales em
~ 290 vd potete +s anted saw argh idud ag’ fads sepmedih todal on vn ’
aottabindsat bas nalsrees xd odw nota ‘e’tedinat’ hetnsbas ted to arof”
déiw eesnieud gaisosansty mott emzsonoo seontend todito hetnever
mot't bentotae ed stashaetebh sedi beyetg vitbatare bas Se fri |
eto benisfames ogetar be ‘Wer exit ‘peied
2 aew oteds gaivteva ,tatalqmoo ef betewens atasbae ted @
yathiivd odt secdt gattiimbe ,seltisq odt nsewted otugeth rodel g
fig gniyneb bas cola’ tashas'tebh edt to ersdmem yd hetexolg esw
perts'tor eav oeco ont .nolttebimital base sofotece ‘to atoa Lutgnomw
troqet etd sham ,sonebive eit aAood ontw vreoassio ‘a xeteom a ot
«moet bae stauahneteb yd botdiomon etew atos fage ttt on tacit pakbatt ,
enotsostdo “Veinpo to tusw tot heseimaib od tive ont. tant. patbass |
ot bated 09 9e759h 8 ,belutrevo etew trocet edt ot enoktcooxe bas
| “Migateta Beis ,tetasm edt ‘to ao ktabasmueoe' edt dtm oonabto008 va
Aicasseyd i i i
toltq ents emoe tot baa d8@L Ai fact eoeoloeth brooex ot 2
bawots atzow cxantbxe odd oh of totinet s beyolame ‘Witte
Pe eS a sew ef fats oomebive ai ome” bas
&
17, 1936, on account of inefficiency, as claimed by plaintiff;
while on the other hand there is evidence to the eifect that he
would not perform certain duties, claiming they did not properly
belong to the function of a Janiters that afterward there was cor-
respondence between the parties, the defendants secking te have a
union janitor employed, while plaintiff's position was that a
janitor was not needed because in the meantime it had instaiied
an automatic stoker, the use of which rendered a great part of the
janitor work unnecessary, Attached to the verified complaint was
the affidavit of Eleanore Vickery, in which she swore she was
regularly employed by plaintiff corporation “as a janitreas or
housekeeper|;\") that the building was equipped with an automatic
stoker and incinerator in which the tenants deposited their
garbage; that she was entirely satisfied with her compensation and
working conditions, and that there was no labor dispute. On the
hearing Nrs. Vickery testified that the building used about 15 tons
of coal a month during the coldest weather and that she shoveled
the coal into the stoker,
Plaintiff's position is - and it offered evidence to that
effect - that after the automatic stoker was installed it employed
& houseman "who in addition to the inconsequential time in firing
the automatic stoker, was employed in cleaning the building, or as
a maintenance man"; that about 16 months after the janitor was
discharged 2 representative of defendants took the matter up with
plaintiff with a view to having a union janitor employed to work
at the building, and seid that if Mr. Vickery, the houseman then
empleyed at the building, continued to do the janitor work he would
be required to join the union at an initiation ree of $212, and that
unless this were done defendants’ union would cause the building te
be picketed; that June 21, 1937, the union representative wrote
‘plaintiff that the union had entered into an agreement with the
pitigaisly yd bowtelo as ,yeneloitteat to dauooon ao ,d8eL TL
“et ¢edt gos Tis edt of sonebive ef etext busd tedto ons 10 ottaw
yiteagag Fou bith yet astute eottub mlesiso mro'treg ton biuow
-%00 saw erect hrawieste tedd yrosiast a to aotsoaut edt of gaoled
& oved of guiveea sinshactob oad saekiieg aed heewied ‘eonebnoqaet
gw tadt eaw noltiaog a’ Yibtate Le oLidw boyeLgns ‘tod last notaw
Bdasini bod th amds anon oat as osunned beboon ton saw nod kat
edt to t1#¢ tasty g botshaat shy tet to oan ont ,totote ottsmotis ne
asw tate lqmos beltixev edd oF hedoasta sViesecos aay row od tna
eew ode otowa ore sotdw at eytedolV etonseld to tiveblitts ont ‘
to aeottinsl, & an® noldeteqz ae Thisaielq yd beyolame feelings
oijemotus me dgiw resin sew gatbitud eit tads Fipreceexonnod
tiesdd Hetiaogeb etusnes suit doldw at tofetentont dae texege
base no tts ne q09 ted dtiw beltsiiae yleaiine saw ere tacit seuataag)
odd m0 .etugeth todel on aew ote) gant Are , Bott kbmoo gaitcow
anod ef Suess beex gnthltud edt gait beltisaes yrextotV et aalzeed
befevons eda tadt bne tedisew teebloo odd gaibruh dgcom # Le00 to
| stodote eat, oF), SOO OE
sais of eoasbive bets Tio. 3 bog = a) nottiaog al ttigaield eg
bsyolqms si boliesani eaw redosa oliamosus ods todte Jacd - toons
gaisit al oats fatiaeupesanocoat eft ot nodtthbs at ose” remenuost * \
es to poibLid eit gaiaseto af beyolque asw ,tedove ottemosue. ont
| sew (todiast edt xotte endtaom of tuoda, taxdt ta consnetatam @
dtiw qu tetiem sit dood atashas tab, to, evisatnesstqet & bogradosth —
adzow of beyolams. tovinat solay e goived of woty # dtiw Mitadete he
neds aemoawod odd ,ytodetV .7u Th tedd biee, bas, notin ate is
biwew esi dtow totingt ot ob of bounitago ,acislind ott, te, boxotame —
fadt bas ,8{8§ te so't nolteks kak ue te molnw ot atet ot stivapaell ee
ae
Chicago Real Estate Board, which agreement specified that all build-
ings operated by anyone other than the owner must have the services
of a union janitor, and sought to have plaintiff employ a union
janitor.
Plaintiff aleo offered evidence to show that about July,
1937, a picket was sent to the building, who was later joined by
another picket; that they walked up and down in the rear ol the
building bearing a placard on which was printed, This building
unfair to organized labor. Chicago Flat Janitor's Union, Local
Number 1 A. #. L."; and that they stated to persons wio sought to
make deliveries and to do business with plaintiif's building taat
plaintiff was unfair to union REnOes
irs, Vickery testified Ory ae occasion burns, the picket,
ran into the building, grabbed a workman by the arm and prevented
the removal of ashes, and said he would cail out his gang and clean
up the situation; that on another occasion hobert AchLeod, business
agent of the union, threatened William Vicxery, who worked part
time at the building as maintenance wan and part time as janitor,
saying that unless the union's demand was wet by hiring a union
janitor the whand wiwke be bombed,
The picket, Burns, called by defendants, testified that he
Was sent to the building as a picket July 30, 1957, wearing a banner
on which were printed words to the eifect that the buiiding Was une
fair to union labor. Je denied he had threatened anyone at the
building; testified that he had talked to a number of persons who
came to deliver laundry and other supplies to the building and told
them of the dispute, and that these men being union men refused
thereafter to deliver to the building.
MeLeod, called by defendants, testified he was business
agent for the defendants for 11 years; that it was reported there
Was a noneunion janitor working on plaintiff's building; that he
-bitut tte tas bebtioeqs tnametga foidw br aod ‘stadt tabi pays Se
“o oLidy
seoivies odd eved seum r0oawo eit add roskto anos vi rape agal
motmus a “olgue Hbsaiala avant of palguen bas “tot Last mo bas Th.
| he rol tO Uehiaak
viet jwoda tad wode 08 eonsbive borete oats Yrtdatelt 7"
“ bentot tedat aaw “oxiw ~gaiblisd ext ry ‘ine ‘aaw joxoig a ee
ous to test odd at awob bas qu bedlaw coat jadt iteilotg ‘redttonn
ee path lied eial® bedalaq asw dotdw mo bisesiq 8 gntzaed ate
Ap " laood , sola e'xogtast salt ogaoldd ‘todel ‘boainagte oF he
ot sAguoa oxdw anoateq od bedase yous ‘salt?’ baa oe A’ mY r Se tlin
tans gnibLhud eiiltalets tiv sesateud ob 6d baa’ by sietiaer via 44
agrees aotaw of aistan os aw FVM |
oy retete call
— ae ee IOs ee
totolg eis , pare nok shove oine\ ais boititesd ‘qaedodV
‘besueverg bus mts exit ut neaoktow 8 “be ddaty vanib fad | ont’ i
aesio bus ania aid duo ifsc biwow od bise baa ,boudea te ry Nha om y.
: ‘esontaud ‘boodoM dusdod moteacso todd ons 0 tant rie TY a aw
SA Ss go nc tary
“gt8q beatow o”dw “UTex0iV mot LLiW beustacids es0b t exit! Yo ee . ;
ac mpky? ® ook, Amon. math "
BE ge agne ae outs diag bia em soasaed nda aK aalbttus @ 18 om :
tp, ie oo
‘ molas 8 acts bf xe jou saw bana 8 (ola out aso cia tat Adon
beduod od “pliiow Neate ent ine
wee ~
fe
“J
v
4 fe
oil tans boltigesd yadasb 0 tob yd belles eek “sexolq
; 7? 2 oF e a be
qenited “gaitaew , veer ,08 ysut foulsig a es gat b Liwd od oF ine’ salt
Tee 8 sen dg
-ny eaw gotbitud old jedi Yootte odd of Bbrow bosaisa 919"
i ee
elw enoareq to todmsn 2 of ‘boxted bed oat ‘tant bolitvent te
bios bas galbiled edt of eo tigque odto Site “Ubane nev wis S:
" boau'tor aoa cola ona Prey poten "Party bas eduqath eit
* ; eee gab iind ont ‘oF tsviiob od
9 esenioud eaw off boitivesd “ad debi toh’ xy Wiktces' ‘wa
ae?
'
ens ta outoygiis beistse1dd bed oxi boineb oH .xodel be al
exons betzeqes sow ti sedd jets0% aif Ferny y |
AMEE eR et ee Nb Pid ot Se 10d Ais’
Yo
went te the building, saw irs, Vickery and later her husband, Er.
Vickery, came in; that the witness asked him if he had a union
ecard and Vickery answered, "No." He denied foreing his way into
the Vickery apartment or that he made any threats,
Shere is other evidence to the effect that om one occasion
the police were called to the building and found Burns and the other
picket in the alley, drew their guns, arrested them and took them
to the police station, but no complaint was lodged against them
when the facts were explained,
Considerable other evidence offered by pliaintiff is in the
record tending to show that the pickets and other representatives
of defendants ' union used threats and intimidation to prevent delivery
of goods to the building or the removal of ashes, etc. On the other
side the evidence is to the effect that no such threats or intimida-
tion were indulged in by the pickets or anyone else,
We will not detail the evidence further, The master went
into the facts somewhat in detail, f'icding in substance that plaintiff
had failed to sustain ite claim of threats and intimdation by a pree
ponderance of the evidence, The picketing was admitted but defendants
claimed it was peaceful and therefore ought not to be enjoined, vee
cause of par, 2a, sec. 1, s. anh 48, Ill. Rev, seat a930( mele
Master saw and heard the witnesses testify; his finding wes Te pa ee
by the chaneellor, In these circumstances we are uot authorized ‘
under the law to disturh the finding unless we are of opinion that
it is against the manifest weight of the evidence, Pasedach v, Auw,
sea 111. (401; Stasch v, Staseh, 355 Ili. 581; KRosakowski v, Bagden,
369 Ill, 252,
Upon a careful consideration of all the evidence we are unable
to say that the decree of the court is against the manifest weight
of the evidence, The finding of the master and of the chancellor was
that the picketing and persuasion were peaceful and lawful, and since
tM ,basdewd red total bas ytentotV atk wee aad Lud ot ©
i
noinw # bed ed te mics hele anentiw edt tart int amano ayedon¥ r
whe : ‘
o¢at yow eld yatotot botaeh "s ".o8" , botéwans (redo t¥ bas bts9
-aSaetds yos shen od tans 10 dnendteqa vrexi0LV ous
tiaat
aotessso ano “0 tant sos tte edd of eonebive tedio at ete
tento oft baa anivd bawo't bas gaibilud edd of belles oT98w rerer i
mot Loot bae medt betestta .8avg tledy wetd ,toils ect at doxole
meas tenisge beabol sasw snlalqmoo on tud Holtese eodton, ms ot
sbonielqze eter esos? ‘ont le
st tha'ton
edt al ei Ttitnatelq yd boxexte eonebive tonto efdarebtenod ‘
Fimesz'h
eovitesneestqet zetitvo bus ajexoiq et? Jadt woda ot patbang. ‘brooes
fe siz
ytevileh tievetg of notishiatial bite sisords beew pokne esaeere pe 2
ss
teddo eit sO ,ofe ,eedne ‘to Lavome': edt 10 Babb Liha out, ot eboog “to
~sbimital to edsetdt dove on tend soeTts oat of et sousbivs bs ote
-oele enoyne 10 etexotg ont w mi begLubut oxow s pat mois
Ae 5 ie 3
taow Toseam oat, tesittu't sonebive edt Lietob ton fraeen EF \i
é Go a5 ¢
tThidaisig Jacdt eonstadua mt gaibal’t ,tisieh ak tsciwenos a |
, amy te)
“91g @ yd moitebm! tat bas atsetds to mieLo ett abadava ot aus
+ LOOM oe Te 7 #8 eu
eiuebas'teh sud bots iabs sew guivexoig ot seoasbive om ead 99
-od ,beniotas ed oF tom sHgwo oxotetedt bas iitoqaga ‘ear tt dominate 7)
h big 10 {hae ey
Pd
“f i
— Se rsee Nat, «Von itl op Asia. f .99¢ 28 Tag ‘to oases
va wey eeh aew gutbalt aid ;ytlieed seanoatlw oui seod baw "a Tossa a
rr
46 fz ye
teds smolaige to ete ew seeinw gathait sds dzuta tb ot bas ree
BHA. 2V doshsasi .eonsbive edt to tater dpgtinas ont soemans
ie Bieamtctis ;488 .iL1 388
sa
besirolive tou 9% ew eooisteauorts ouedd al «ToL tooande
tighen tasiiaon ould renee at prreny eat, ve,aaroohag2 tat
eow. s0LLeonads aii ‘to has tolaam ode to yathott, oA ..98 rs
eonta bas. Lv'twal bas tuteoasq etew noleayeteg Snag
/’ the passage by the legislature in 1925 of section 1, par, 2a,
? L gence WK. dtita. bw, F962) | A
ue. 48, Ill. Rev, stat. 1937{ sien picketing and persuasion %
are not to be enjoined, This is the holding ef our Suprenie court
in Feneke Bros, Ye Upholsterers! Union , 358 Ill. 239.
Counsel for plaintiff in theiy repiy briet say, "“Interfer=
-
ence with customers, interference with persons with whom plaintiff
had contracts, was the basis oi the complaint, Throughout the
heariagiplaintarr was willing, and is now willing, to permit all
the picketing defendants desire, if they will confine themselves
to the front of the building and giv@ vent to the advertising
campaign, but contends the defendants' actions were, no matter
what the defendants call it, a boycott." We think it obvious that
picketing in front of the building would serve little or no purpose
for the reason that apparently all deliveries were made in the rear
and not in the front of the building,
We are also of opinion that the priuary purpose of the
picketing was not to establish a boycott and injure plaintifi, as
it contends, but on the contrary the building was picketed in an en-
deavor to benefit defendants' union and its members, .
Complaint is also made that the court erred in excluding
evidence offered by plaintilf to the effeet that some of the drivers
of trucks who came to deliver goods to or receive goods from the
building told an employee of plaintiff what the picket had said to
such drivers, Some of this evidence Pay ruled out as
being hearsay, We think the point made is not of importance in
view of the fact that a number of drivers were called whe testified
in substance that when they were advised by the pickets of the
union's complaint they refused to go to the building afterward for
the purpose of receiving or delivering goods because they were union
men, and under their union rulés ought not to "run" a picket line.
And it is shown that afterward some deliveries were not made because
2 tag, pee to’ ser, nl etudeletges nt ye oli wr
ALG 39% y oh 2 %
ci pt Bares Bon gt yoke te Be \reei NViaee” volt TIT (ea ‘id
. twee omstoxe tuo ‘to aaibLet ont st: atnr So et ell w heal .
ye pee aoe 268, LLT'BSS gaok nye eLoigt ye big’ bie ® .
esi ee orgs? tect i tt ténlatg <o% $b0nee 7
‘Titendela moc Adiw axgaxeq ddiw osnerétist ad set PME iitiwsone) |
oad suodguetd?§ ,talelgnes sar” re ehded Gas ba + tiered aga
Lia thorteq of ,galiiiw won’ei baa ,yatiiie saw reincabiet thet?
sevioeueds entiaces {ity yecdd ti ,orbeeh atnafasteb PF eay”
| etlaisrevBe edt of tev avis Bee galbitud edt to saott ond ot
<wetiem on ,etTew enoisos ‘aetnshas'teb on? afnestnod sod “emg kacgnas ”
tart evoivdo $2 aakdd of. ".dtooyod & .$f ffsv atnebns'tes ent Fare”
es0ging of “0 sitttl ever bivow yuitbiind et to aot? Hi gattvuarg?
tser esis i shes etew eotisviteh Lie yftnetsqqn sade moeeeT ont ror”
-BalbLius ond Yo sxor't oxit’ ‘ok For “pitt” 4
ead to seoquuq yreultg edt tert nolakgo to oelz’ oink’ ow \
pe a Rtitnielg exvtab baw stooyed « Makfeatas’ oF ¥en ckW gutveioky
He, fs GL betetoig agsw yaibiiud edt yretinoo 819 mo dud pabastinco ee. |
¥ «atedueat att bac motav ‘stnshaoteh $itened of torah 4
-gaibuioxe at borts fiwes ent esis eben otle ab gute tymod howtsty *
| ~exevia gif Yo omen saild P09 lie eds O04 Witt aLele Ye betotte obit”
er ght mott aboog eviossa to of ehoog t9vilébh od ommo ow edioiad ‘a :
lf gt pee bert dextotq ont al ‘Yridniely to seyotame aa bLoF giiatiig’’
as tuo beLux pedioandovaed wonebive ald? Yo smog er oe ;
“4
ai eosedrogmt to tom at obam taiog eft dagdt oW adtunagadia?* ‘
boltitasd ow belies etew erevirh to 19dasa a seit soak ‘ont te wety ;
eauaved sha dom etew aciumehiio’ emon biawredsts fois mwortt
ty
to do so would be a violation of the rules of the union to which
the men beionged,
For the reasons stated the decres ol the Baperior court
ef Cook county is affirmed.
oe
DEGREE AFFIRMED, |"
a NEILL
ec
at
a
| MoSurshys P, J., and Matchett, J., concur,
a
|
_ Mek ae. 968 20-99. at ¥9, smrsnin ao a chet
fanzine, 0 2 ree ode haters sreme a oti’
ne a he OU BA 0?) feneeoe j
SILI aati wie i AST: Saee ey BLY Seer ted ws Wego dane itbW Gait” .
tis: Reo "(eka ee ath a «att - te 4
{leo theta at: get kin wee'as tlw Spat tin oav aedbelalea
ew ineami? ond tone Lite geod Bh, ,ereeeh ata antes jeliveisty sai 4
BtitiaLieerhe oy oF Seby Gel ae “BALeLsed one Te ‘yaeet odd cal
ivan Of youre tiviton ‘ateetus Ted ef) elieeae bed’ ‘i. wo
fads vevoivdo 2) asied oR * .Siougod @ 72 Stas adonbre teb wt a
pisow yuiblius et te sae nd gattoxatd >
taex eal? cb Shoe eae sohanedsoe iin eiveotprqe dant ndvedy ee ae 4
pote siuds ots bY sere wag Fon wil?
ane ig eevee vows tte oa? tee nolates Be ont! ane BRe | fa
oye Wepre
bageney. et to atsveii er
Saat
itt Ahibele ty eauics pon Steed «seated OF Ge eer
he tw Gt Rte th iy kee gulh Swe eat vueeenee Bie “ae Did) gee
(= ae
yalbaieks al bert! Tisee am Tatty bh bits al: resacioialt Ym ARy
4H ¥ +
Stoo i¢s sat, to. dad, swe . ves (Ss wee Es MED stele ‘eu bere'tta: obaena to”
add Mee ohpen avineds. Te ef thee sort ios y?. omen “oie”
MS:
iG Padere T
Spay AS
of At<au bet detode edt Fale Tiheabady ta seyotene nt gic
aa fj
me tea bodirs aodtostdo\ged ‘sot tee nist to’ eee
Ys 1 rae
ak eored ouied totes eh wham rtleg: whe athe ; an
haPhisae? Gs hel loo O18 Bete e ELD ‘So sedan a toed ror 1
| adi t9 atedaldg oi Seuivba ogee You?, cese ed oe
dat byeweeria paihidud wade ef ag et besmien ease: Oates ’
aohkucerew rod: etre ato ay, aticorting so gakeiwoay 4
gins: toso beg ("in oF 090. ee eg neha ahs .
@miisead Shuat sot we ‘annteviiend ston <teidoneattt havin al
40955
BORD STORES, INC,, a corporation,
Appellee,
ee
a
vw
a |
THE GHICAGOAN, INC., ¢
HOTEL CHICAGGAN CATERING
eerporation,
PERION COURT,
QOOK COUNTY,
In an action in forcible detainer te recover additional
space in a building located et 63-69 #, Madison street in Chicago,
defendantea made a motion to strike which was dsnied, and plaintiff
@ motion for summary judgment which wac allowed, and defendants
appeal. |
The rights of the parties are based on certain leases and
agreenentes attached to the affidavit for judgment, terms of which
are not denied in the affidavit submitted in behalf of defendante,
It appears that December 17, 1929, the Moly Motel Company
Gemicsed certain apace in thie building te Tllineis Sené Stores, Ine,
The hotel aesigned thie lease to another corporation known as 65 West
Madison Street building Corperation. The arsignee made = supplemen-
tary agreesent in writing with Illineie Bond Stores, inc., whereby
the space of the lessee was enlarged te include all the third
floor of the building with the exception of cample rooms on the
north side of it and corridors leading to it, This egreement also
‘provided that the lessee might further enlarge this space so as te
include all the third floor upon 30 days written notice to the
lessor to enter into an appropriate agreement covering the additional
epace,
On the same day the leasor (65 “est Madiaen Street Building
Corporation) entere4 into a supplementary agreement in writing with
the Seavey Building Corporation which held a prior lease, By thie
supplementary agreement it was provided that the Savoy Suilding Cor-
a
aa
oo
a
S8e0s
e hte ditbded 4 or (ezsore dung”
alt ¥
cg mont. a3
~TAUOD ORT TO MOINTGO ANT CUAZVIIRG ‘PTaHOTAN SOITCUL ouxaresat m
faneltibbs evocet of sentaten eidtoret af mottoa na aI a
,ogectdd mf feoxte mostbsX .¥ @8-56 te betecol gntbiied a at eoaqe
Ttttatalg bas ,beined vaw doldw odlate of motfom a shan ed nabnetas
atnabnetsS bana vbowesia ' caw dotdw toeomhul yrammue tot nottom a
baa asesel niatios me beaad sis seltiag ed? to atmgia eff
doldwe te senet ,fnemyhut rt tivabitta ed? of Betoatia afnemeerga
wotnabseted ‘to tiacded mt detetadus tivebfYte edt at beined ton eta
ysaaned Level thow ad? ,@S@L ,Tf tedmeoed sad atacqge #1 a
~onl ,powot! baoS alontfil of gatbhiind eidg at eoaqa aladieo bealaed
teev a8 wa nwond aolgaxoqios tedtome of eanel atds bengisea Ietort ant
-nowelqque a sham ebagisea edT .mottaroqroD gatblind tee1te noathaX
ydeusdw ,.onI ,aer0d® Brod atomkLIl dtiv gattinw al towoorge west
butd? od? Lin ebwfont of Degualae sav eonvel ent Yo eoaqn on?
ott ao smoot ofgnas to aottqeoxe ail dttw gutbLind edt to t90!t
oule taemeergs ald? #1 of gntbacl siebizros bas #2 Yo obla soto
of ea o@ esaqe aid? egraine-tedtiwt tdgia eoavel ont tasty bebivorq 7
odd of solton nettinw ayab 08 aoqw toolt buld? ott Si sings be
fanoltinda ext yakrevee saapowge staliqoiggs ae otal 19tH8 on ‘ a
qntbLtuG toex2 meatball a0" 88) weasel suid yab enna ete mo
div gultinw of taemeergs Yuadmometqaua # otnt bexetae (no
~Z~
poration would yield up promptly thie additional space on the third
floor then under Leane te it, if Illinois Bond Stores, Ins. should
at any time become entitied to take this sdditional apace under ites
agreement of the sane date with the lesser, Savoy Motel afterwards
changed ite name to the Chicagoan, Inc., and on April 5, 1927,
Tliinois Bond Storee, Ine, assigned all ite right, title and interest
under ite lease and agreements with reference to these premises to
plaintiff,
December 27, 1237, plaintitr served a written notice on
65 West Madison Street Building Sorporation, requesting this addi-
tional space and requesting the corporation to execute an appropriate
agrecnent as provided, On September 19, 19595, the Building Core
poration, as lessor, demired to plaintiff the additional space pur~
suant to this agreement of December 31, 1936, On Yetober 15, 1938,
plaintiff made a written demand on the defendant, Chicagoan, for the
possession of the premises which was refused, and January 7, 19539,
thie suit wae filed, The other defendants are sub-tenants of the
Hotel Chicage, Ine,
The agreement of December 31, 1956, between 65 sect
Madigon Street Building Corporation and Illinois Bond Stores, Ine,
recited: “It ie contemplated by the parties hereto that the Lessse
may hereafter require an enlargement of ite space on said third
etory for merchandising purpoeea, In the lease between the Lessor
and Savoy Hotel Corporation covering the hotel portion of said
building the Lessor has reserved the right to withdraw from the
hotel tenant such additional espace on the third etoery of said build-
ing as might be hereafter granted to the Lesree pursuant to this
amendment. The Lessor agrees that it will within thirty (30) days
after the receipt of « written request from the Leesee enter inte
On appropriate agreement, in which all of the parties hereto shall
join, further enlarging the demised space so as to include all of
said third atory with the exception of such space ae is taken for
building elevaters and other utilities, Said agreement shall ex-
fag Re
Datsy od? se eoage laneltibss aide yltquerg qu Siery Sivew noltatoq
Biveds .onl ,oerets boot atoms Lit th vt oF easel soba neutt 00!
atl tebaw eoaqs Inaetd ibhe ole A deen qareyeton tin,
aixawxsdte fefet yovat xoaeol odd stiv a9ah pty oat B04
TECE 8 Legs ae baw , ont phi -age oye
Pseretal bas olvtt ,tdytt ett the hongians onl ,sex0s8 haok atoms tit
og ppa prong, exest oF sonsuoter diy atosavotya dna easel aft sebay
eThttataly
‘no eotton aestiaw = Doviee Ttbnlale veel Te aedasset |
~sbbe ald? aatsvoupes nestenoqtg? gatbitue feerts geerhsl seev 8D
stalxqgorgge ta etuoexe OF matsatogyes od? Balteoupor das voaqe Lamort
7300 gathLtnG oct ,0ECL ,81 xeduotae® 20 .bebtvong 9a. themnenge
~tHq, snags iawoisibba off Iesnlale oF Sentmed ,zeenel ee, mettageg .
,S80L ,OL sedoto0 a0 ,85CL ,f[8 asdmesed to taemeetgs aid? oF dnaue
en? 20% esoyaotd? .tusbaeteb edt so Saamed nettiew » oben Ytttalela
\G50L T etayna’l das ,deeutet sey dotdy sentneng ad? 20 notengasog
edt 20 atasnet-due ots sioaboeted sedto onT bolt? sew tlug aft
yo» 9 90Ah, ,ogeotd Levelt
| tao% 88 noewted ,osel 16 srtnseet, to tnemoesas. o8T 6)
sont ,2ou07@ bnod ALont{IT baa soltarogred gasbltud teen? mop that
geared out teat ofozed aptdraq edt yd betalqmotaee at t1*.tbedtoos
Siidt blas ao soage eff to inesegqelae na eilopert isd lagied yaw
sooaed od¢ seewted easel ody al ,seanquyg ‘ 70% proto
Dias to noltsog feted act, gatazeven. notearogred, L9Poii voras das
_ odo sort warddttw of tdgts edt bevzene sad. compel, od? gatbitnd
~bitud bles Yo yrote batdt ods so spsqe fesolelhds dove tnene?. Letod
etd? of tasumane goveed edt of Sognaty set Isered of tdatn ae gat
(e¥ad (05) waist otdety Lity tt gada RoeTge toRsed ent “Tombaeas
ofat sefee sessed eft mort faeuper settiaw « to tqteoer edd toga ys
i vA
a Fy y y tet
Bai) eT
.
pressly preserve all of the covenants and agreements contained in
eaid Lease as heretofore and hereby amended * * *,*
| By the lease of December 21, 1936, to the Savey etel
Corperation, as jessee, after reciting the provisions of the lease
to Tllincis Send Storee, Inc., section 3 of the lease recites. *The
Lessee acknowledges that it is familier with esid Send Stores lease
ag now amended and with the provisions of eaid further emendment
thereto to be executed at cor sbeut the time of the execution of
this indenture referred to in Article First hereef, The Lessee
agrees to afford the #aid Bond Stores, ax lessee under anid Send
Stores leaee, ae amended as seforecaid, the following rights and
servicer as specified and defined in said Bond Stores lease as now
or hereafter amended: * * *,* Gestion 4 recites: “The Lessee
covenants that if eaild Bond Stores should at any tiae heresfter be-~
come entitied to take the additional space on the third etery of
gaid building, pureuant to #aid amendment referreaé to in Article
FPiret hereof, to be executed at or about the time of the execution
of this indenture, the Lessee will promptly yield up poseersion of
eaid additional epsee and afford said Bond Stores reagonable
facilities for acoomplishing any guitsbie or apprepriate revisions
in or alterations of sald additional space, *
The defendant, Chicagoan, Ine., says defendants are in
poseecsion not as mere tenants at will but hold under « lease which
Gemined the prenisen for a term of thirty years, It argues that
defendants have the right to question the option granted to plein-
tiff by plaintiff's lessor, It le said thet the right of plaintiff
to exercise the option is conditioned upon plaintiff's requirements
and needs; that ne partioular form of langusge or technical words
are required te create such a condition presedent, and that strict
compliance with the terms and conditions was necessary; that it was
necessary for plaintiff to aver in ite complaint and to prove upon
the trial an actual bona fide intention to use the premises. for the
stipulated purpege, and that plaintiff's lessor could not waive this
HL beniataeo staemeetgs Daa ataanoves aft to Iie evtenetq Vieseng
: "2 *.% Aobagme ylosed Rae. qreteteted. an enaet Abe
Letall : eee edd of AECL LE eodmoned to oesel edt WA ..
easel sdf to anolatyerq edt gattiees tetts aomaned as ysotseregned
edt" .sadtoer saget pdf to 8 aottona ,,ont ,aeter? Raed atentitt of
gaanel swioté baoS Blas Atiw weiltmet af cf fads aegdelwoados eqaagd
— taeahnems yodtawt Stas to. agolatvegd add dttw bas behqems won. ag
to soltweaxe ed? te emt? ed? tueda 10 %a hetsoexe od of et ezods
ovsaad adt ,toored tart efottas at ot Doxzetes otugashat std
hook biga tehqu soanel as ,aes0s2 daeG Bisg odt Daette oF geenye
baa atdgin yatwoliot ed? yblangrote 2a Sohaoma 98. .enael vexods
wom aa onset norose back Btae at beattes das betttonge as nentynes
senret edit" iaetiogs & aottos® ",* & * thebagme tot taeted x0
~od seTiseted ents yas ta biveds goret? daed Sten It Sad? stnaneyoo
te wrots etd? edt ao egace Lengttthds edt oat oF Bol? 4209. emoo
— slottes at of Sertoter taombaems Dia of tnauerug. .gatbitnd Bien
nosstuoexe pid to emt ott tuede.co t4 Detuoexs ag ot ,towzed tarkt
te solesennog qu Sblety ylsqmorg Iilw seared odd ,ouutaedal ald? to
eidanaraes ss07d baod bisa HyoT3a dae epaga Lanesdibba bias
snodatves sseizqotgge 40 eldatine WS, yatdetiqnooas Tor, gett tttost
_, “s90aga Lomesgtbbe bisa. to anetioxet fe a0 at
aL ose atnabaeted ayaa, oe BOQ isl) ,Inabagteh oat. ory eet wanna
Molde easel a tohaw SfLod dud LLiw ts. atanags ‘Stee 28 fon nolseensog
add geugrs ¢1 .staet Yated to sexed a 70% sentmerg ody boatman
-~ateiq of betaargy soltgo edt agtteoup of taégia ode. wad sapabaetab
“‘VWstatelg Ye tigts oft todd top of 2% ..x9aes.a'Iitntele ys Bt
atnomertupes e'Iittntelg nogu. Spaott Lhaes at goltqe mt. entonese. et
abvow Isoladost x0 spawyasi Yo wie? zelwoliteg on fad? tebonm, hae
tolzds fad? be ,taebsooig mol? Lhaoe a down etante. Of AOTENROR 98
asy #2 tad? ;visaesoen sow gnettthaoce baa eaze?. de at by 90 : ! t
neq evorg #8 baa tatalqnen.aft ah sevaved SRAahALE VOR RRONAOE
odd 20% gentnora odd. eau-od .nettactaledst aged» Se ae ae
he
condition precedent for defendants; that the contracts and egree-
mente, first, between plaintiff and plaintiff's lessor, and secondly,
between plaintiff's lessor and defendants, were made on the same
day and relate to the same subject matter, were known to all the
parties and were executed for a common purpose, Therefore, it ie
argued, these must be construed tegether,
Defendant gaye it is a direct beneficiary of the limitations
imposed on the option of plaintiff for the disputed space, and that
the contrect between plaintiff and ite lesser was for the benefit
of Gefendante, and that d4efendante are, therefore, entitled to have
ite provisions enforced; that the complaint war ineufficient in
failing to sllege that the additional espace wae ded aint
and that,ae a matter of law,when a right
of action depends upon the performance of an antecedent condition
or the existence of an antecedent fact, a complainant suet aver the
existence of thefact or performance of the condition. It is said
thie proposition of law is applicable to a complaint in forcible
Getainer; that pleadings are to be construed strictly against the
pleader, and assuming the law te be as set forth, the evidenclary
facte as disclosed by the affidavits in support ef and againat
summary judguent are ineufficient, and that there wae an issue of
fact for the court or jury as to whether plaintiff in feet *reguired*
the additionel space for nerohandi sing purposes or whether it needed
the additional epace at sll, The affidavit submitted in behalf of
defendant denied that the additional space was needed by plaintiff
for merchandising purposes and denied that plaintiff intended te use
it for that purpose, and averred that its request for the additienal
apace was not made in good faith, Ae evidence of thie the affidavit
eteatee that authorized agente of plaintiff satated to agente of de-
fendante that plaintiff 4id not intend to use the space for mer-
ehandieing purpoees and, as a matter ef fact, some time in the
future intended to use it for other purposes,
If the law applicable 1s as stated by defendants, we think
she
~semgs baa atesiiaos odd Sat? jadaahacteb cet tasheoerg,coldtbaen
ibaooes baa ,roaecd a tittatalg dae tiltatalq seewied ,texh2,cataen
ange, a3 so eham oyow .aPnabnsted, bas roanes ge tissnielg avewted
ad? {ia of mwoek crow .eTias Jooidueomss, ad? of. ots lox bas.yab
ai TL. ,euotered? ,e90quvg nommoa 2 tel hetusexne auew baa, seldiag
| stadsegot Segiganco ed tawa gagd? . .bewgus
enoit ad tmtd od te qwistoliossd toorts # al th oyee Saabrates. gon os
dads Daa ,eaags Seteqeth ods 493 Vileatalq to melsqo.ode ae hosoqme
| tiiened ed? et saw sonael att Bae Wiitalasa nequded seawtseo, ad¢
|
* et le ee eee el ee ee
oved oF beitiiae ,o1cteTed? 948 ataahaeled Gadd ona ,etaskgeteh to
ai dnetolTiuea! sew tatelqueo ait Jaded (heouetae angtetvorg asf
—« Eibdatale ed boboon aay soaqe Inaolttoba odt tadt ogelia.os gatiter
-—« teigtt a gedw,wal to vottan 2 a,tedt bas agostNe pate toaadonen 30%
| wolslbaee Inebeoetas as te soasesotyeq edt aoqu abneqed Koltea to |
ed? t9vVa foun taantelquoo a ,toat saebeoe! aa na, to wonetedag, 908.00
| hias al 22 .seltionoo ed? to eonsmietieg ao toate ait to eonetatxe
| eidtere? at tutalqwon 4 ot eldactiqaa at.wal te mots tnoqons etait
eg teniags yljoivds howxdaneo ed of ona spatbagiq sad? . itentesed
Yistoceblye.ods ,Kdaor dan es od ot wal ede yatmwase Aan suebaglg
| Feahage Das to troqque AL ativeh£tie afd yd Doxoloald aa atest
| Yo oimel os aaw cuvsdd todd bre .aeholMaegh exe Jasmghul wiasmug
. s) feel md WUIadals roddede of 29. yuh xe. deues ex tot fos?
bedeor Ji yodtedw 10 eencqivg gain tinaderen teh sesqa lanolstbha edt
to Vaded at Devs tadue stvebsMs oT 4lia te eonge Lanoid thhs odd
Bevalale Y deheon saw eoagn Lanoissbds eds add Hotned tasbaerteh
sam oF Dedneeat IWsasalg gad? Hotaed hae aoaegmg gate tbaadoyan x92
fangteihds add 19% geouper ast tad? Dotieva bas ,oroqwa dade ot 22
Givebstie ed? add te eonebive s4 ..ttei Sooy nt sham gon asy songs
ab Fe Ntagge Of Hetasa Iitatelq Yo etangs hosivastus dadt notate
_~$0m,/ 20% soaqa odd ORE 06 AAVAEA ROE AER i ei i
odd at eat? smon ,toat to ToFtam a ae bas Aerogiug an ecnaet?
honoqiwg sedio 10% t2 oan oF he
= Be
it would follew that the effidavits disclose an tesue of fact. How-
ever, we do not agree that the agreementa can be interpreted ac-
cording to defendant's contention, There was no agreement or con-
traet between plaintiff and any one of the defendants. There was
no contractual relationship between them. The agreement of Gecember
Sl, 1936, between plaintiff and its lesser wae not for the benefit
of defendants, The Chicagoan, Ine. in ite leese of Gecember 31,
1936, acknowledged that 1t had notice of the agreement between
plaintiff ané plaintiff's lessor under which plaintiff had the right
te request and obtain additional space, this space being part of
that which was leased te the Chicagesan, Ine, #y the terms of the
agreement between plaintiff's leseor end the defendants, defendant
bound Ateself to yield up possession of the afiditional space if and
when plaintiff beeame entitled te it under the agreement between
plaintiff and ite lesser, The use whieh plaintiff might make of
the additienal epace was a matter wholly immaterial in *o far as
defendant ie concerned. The condition of the option was not that
se but that plaintiff sheuld
notify ite lessor and obtain frog it an sereement for the leasing
Thie wae the condition precedent and the
only one in eo far as this defendant is concerned, Plaintiff's
lessor is not a party to this proceeding. The option was from plain-
tiff's lessor to plaintiff, and while the contract recited the eir-
cumstances which might in the future cauee plaintiff to exercise ite
option, that circumstance was not made the condition upon which the
lease of the additional espace was to be executed, Under the plain
terms of defendant's contract with the lessor defendant agreed to
surrender the additional space upen the execution of a lease there-
of by ite leeser to the plaintiff, and upon the execution of such
lease te plaintiff, plaintiff beeame entitled to the possession of
these premises, The affidavit for defendant tenders an immaterial
dseue,
| We have no quarrel with the law as cited in defendant's
~d-
-woll 208% to ewaed aa seoloath etivebstia eds tags wollot Biuow tt
~92 hesetqgseiai od ase avagnogtgs od? tad’ sedge son ob ow ,tev9
-199 4 MHeMOOTHR OG Raw oXedT ,ROlTAeTIOD a'SnabmaIOd ot BotbuOD
naw opetT .agaabaeted sd? to ono yaa dna Ti1ssalelq aseuted tosrt
redugoss Ie gnemeerge aT wed? aeewded qidanotielox Lautaattage, on
siianed seit 19d Jon saw reseel att bas Wktylale spouted ,OORL Ls
AS todmeoed 30 easel ati al ,o0I ,sapgactdd edt. .,edaahnoted to
Aeeuted dnommenga ott Yo eptten bad 2 todd degdetwondon ,85@L
triget oad Dad LUtntelg dotdw sebow cosMeL a ssolelq das I2tsntala
(To dunq gated ecage aid? ,opaqe Lanol?ibba alatdo baa taevper oF
ocd to aexed ond YS .omt ,aaogeotdd aay of heasel saw, soldy. teddy
Seabaeted ,rtashaeles edt bas yoseed a! Thisniala noavd nt, Smemonsae
ns 2! epaqe Lemolsibbe od? to, metacsseog qn Aloty ef, %
agorted taemosga os, caban, £490. deleheee, amecet, 22btabala, weet
Yo sxas ddyte ILsalelq dodew oan ec? .sosael att das Ittatalg
ee 162 of at Letcetaset yliedw yettee 2 caw eosgs..danoltetbba edt
test dom saw nolzgo ed? Le nottibnoo.ed? ,demieonoo at tnabisied
bimona BssaLelq tev ted goage, oct oxtuner zo heen tats W2Intala
aginael off 293 Inempetae na Jt mou ataide ban yossal ett ytigon
ei? baa taabeoorg aeltibace ef? saw edt 02802 Lanols2pba fous te
a'tigniels .bearsonee at tashneteb elds xe 202 ee at sna xiao
~Hialg wort sav aeltqe off .gaddsooorg aids at ysing a ton at somaet
~iie ed? botioes toarttnes on} sifdu das. ,ttaselg of sonnet a! Tits
att splonexe of Lilssialg eauae ewwtyt sig at dye doldy asonadamuo
ats olin nequ nolsthace edd ebas son sav sonatamyorto Jedd .aolsqo
«titel edt sadn) .betuoexe od of saw soagn tenoltibhe aif to. seset
OF heenge Zaabnsieh wssel aly Atty Joattaop a! sashacteh Yo, aeied
dove to aedtuoons edit moqu baa ,YiIntelq edt of seaael sit yi te
20 AoLenesaag od of Holtitae enaced Tidaisle ,IUsatale oF ears
lalzejaunl ae siphaet gnabasteh wot tivabltia edt . Ren SERN A
7. ee: GW
of hekawrnd sauna i
~b~
brief and elaborately argued by it with eitation of more than one
hundred and seventy-five authorities, The law is elementary. The
undisputed facts show that it ie not applicable,
The purpose of a summary proceeding is that the court may
determine where there ie any issue of fact to be tried, If we
understand the law appliceble it eppears here there ie no iseue of
Gohen, 284 T11. App. 181, 197;
Bery v. gk lon, 298 TL1. App. 471, 478; Soberts
v. Sauerman Brog., Ing., 200 T1l, App. 213, 217. Defendant says,
however, that foreible detainer was not avallable to plaintiff; that
its proper remedy was either by suit at law for dasages on the
covenant or by suit in equity for specific performance. Sefendant
ie mistaken, ‘Summary Judgment may properly be entered in a forcible
detainer action. Wainscott v. Penikoff, 287 Ill. App. 73, Flaine
tiff could maintain ite mit for possession under the forcible
Retainer Statute. §2, par. 4, Chap. 57, 111, State Sar “tate. less,
p. 1713. Jo. v. Seegrin, 275 Tl. App. 419;
vest Side Trust & Savings Bank v. Lopoten, 358 T11, 631, 639;
Wainseott v. Penikoff, 287 T1l, App. 78; Goldblatt Bros. v. Hoefeld,
iInc., 284 T11, App. 31, 37,
The judgment will be affirmed,
JUDGHENT AFFIRMED,
O'Connor and MeSurely, JJ., concur,
.
ode
(a0 aad enom lo meltatle Atiw 3h yt beugue Yloteradele bas, teted
ont .yaudnowele al wel od? .nedtivedsua eyileyiaoves baa bexhaud
. sidsoligga ton ab 2h Jad? woda ates? botuqathay
Yaa guweo edt Jad? al gatheoooaq yissmun sto. es0quyg eat, 96°22
ow ti .,bola? ad.o¢ teat to, eumelt. yas.ed. ued. tuate nna
te eweal om ai cued? ored atacqge 34 eldestiqga wal edt Sustatedan
iveL .f84 .ags 11 OOS ,godod .¥ .2D dewalt & off27 onsetd? tos?
aiiedes 18% 17) .qgh fit O88 ,.90 sasmateed wh easotd® .v yxge
SiAe tashmesed FEE 81S gah .L1T 008 \ .G0k Pond mamnomad. 5¥
tadt {Vitiatalg ef eiésitave fon new Geatetah eidiowo? tad’ szevewed
edt ae Regaaeh yo? wal ts tive ys uedtio eew, yoouss xeqouq aae
fasdasiod oamaerelseg oliioeqs qe ysinpe at Five Ys 70 Snaneves
sidiovet 3 al bexatay ed viveqerq Yom taompoal Yramawe ywededatn as
“nals .9¥ .gad. fff OS. ,RRodtnes .v tonantes..netton sentated
eidierel edt vehew goleagencg aot ¢im asf alatetan Siwoo, itt
SECL .adase sak state LL5 TS pgadd gt .taq _Sh. <tutad® sentated
1645 sega .d12 OVS ,atsnecs .¥ gD spends! omoll Lemenred » LVL 00g
(O50 M50. SLT 888. .getegod «¥ Agee eaatves 4 taut ebis seed
Biaieel .v gon Staldbie® 18F .qqd..L1] OR .Rostned «¥ sfooaatey
\
ne ty nna hiitadite sad diianeamiaa aa as30 cine
cone pe GEMAL TA TEAMRGUD no epee wees aq o, tas. at. womans
wd sapsntan silt ameeenadeasaeae
Jigks taide seanet ame
yk, oe 73 rake 4 Ef stBdF ZO
5 ‘i i te, sanet
a ‘ , “a 2 ae ae ~ § oe ae th oe $. ths a.
es iy of ie gaanteoe a 'Seabuo toed, Fe. ears
eae a3 oy Gage Leia 2 ae A an tN ARR
titntealis att of sgpand att “ te
ped Oita hed, i ee S20 ee Sid re) so aed
aut. tivab tie eff ...20ciees a ante
neg eo
41079
WILLARS LL, LAUEA, Administrator of
the Estate of somags S, Lewer, |
Deceased, é
‘AL, PRON
4 cracurr covar,
ve\, |
“Lern, go.rsr Af
COMPANY, a confe
eOOK COUNTY.
MR, paeerntey syertoe MATCAKT? DELIVERED THE OPINION oF THE COURT,
In sn action under the statute for wrongful death, upon
trisl by Jury there was a verdict for plaintiff with damages of
$7500, on which Judgment was entered, This is a companion care to
General fio, 40919 by the administrator of the estate of Ella L, Lauer,
in which an opinion hae been thie day filed,
The Leavers, husband and wife, died as & result ef injuries
suetained November 20, 1927, when the automobile in «hich they vere
riding was etruek by one of defendant's care which wae being pushed
east on tracks which intersected Huclid evenue, « public highway
running north and south in the City ef Chicago Heighta in Cook
county. The material facts are the same in both eases, but for con-
venience we restate these facts here.
* ©¢* The sacoildent in which these two lost their lives
occurred November 26, 1937, at about 6:00 7M. They were riding in
an Oldsmobile automobile, which #r, Lever was driving. ‘Sueclid
avenue wee paved, It was ecroseed at right angles by defendant's
right-of-way on which there are eix tracks 71 feet wide from the
northernsost to the southernmost rail, Fictures are in evidence
showing the situation at the crossing at the tise of the accident,
On the west side of the street, 6 feet north of the northernmost
track and 23 feet to the weet of the weet Line of the avenue, wae
® small shanty used by a flegman, Fifty feet to the weet of this
was a small latrine building. fhirteen feet north of the northerly
track and 6 feet west of the street war a arees-arm bearing the
sg Kg vataryes oh
*
y f , . how se ‘
re yo HARMQD
ah ih Pee ou oles? A a ? Ah Se oF Meare
PEUQ) SAT. 39 MOINTSG, SE, AAAT LI rrawtan Sk
et Tou ee eT Re ee teed
36 belaeah M¢ty Ytvabatg cot Polbuev es how ouadd ‘Yiwl Yd Lolad
of “e4e Hotnagues a al ett 'Severhe daw Snemgent Holte ne (OOete
seuad” vi aff Yo etadas ead Yo Tetettermtabe bas “Qe Cleon Tol Leven
| bored ab tae need Gad "noralge as aekaw ak
solatat to Piwdet a an Bers lothw Baa Baadenit stout ed? 400 ERR
eree vad’ Mobie ab ortdones se off bade peor (08 xodiaovot ‘ponte
Hedenq gated tev Motew eas a'taabaeted to ono |
ont stiduq's ,suvevs Aigewa ‘bebtibieetdih Wieite “tds bb-40LE
| fe09 nf adtyte® ogaetad to Yeo edt Al devoe Sad stom gabnme
-209 WoT ted ,senas figod al oman eff ois Gdoct fattoved ait” gtdoee
voted vant ene? ofateed ow sonoiney
novi tled? guot ow ‘ened? doldw at Snebioos od? ** *
at gatbia oxew yod? .«.% 0018 suede Ya weer [68 Woda snes? N
bifews .gatviah sav vewed .«4 dotdw ,oLtdomotus exkdomabio bal
stinsbneted yo asigne tugtt te Seneors saw PY .beweq sew eunevi
etd mort obiw test I exonwt xte oun ered? dotdw ao Yow-Todigh
consbtve at ore newitett Ilex geonmreiitwon edt of Taom
tnebloos sd? Yo omtt od? ta gateners ont $a moltautie edt ee
gaomared?ron ad? to dtrom tot 8 .Soorts eff To eble teow ont 0
saw ,euneve off to entt Yaow aff Yo Seow ads oF door 68 Ana soart
sid? Yo teow ont of fost Gtlt .nengelt a yd Boow Woate Lom a
‘laedtron eft to Saxon toot meatal? .entbited ontetal Hawa ss ; | i 4
~2=
words ‘Hmilway Crossing.* About 150 feet north of the track wae a
round eign bearing the letters "2, A.* Yhirteen feet north of the
ereoseing ané & feet east of the highway wae ao etreet light. This
was the only light within 200 feet of the crossing. tuelid avenue
wae designated as a through street by the preser authorities. Stop
signs were ported at every intersecting street, There was ne light
of any kind on the crossing or on the weet side ef the street. The
pavement of Suclié «venue was 24 feet wide at thie place. The trains
of defendant ran over the two inner tracks, The outside tracks were
useé for storage purposes, est of the fiagman's shanty was a stene
and wire fenee,. ‘There wae evidence from which the Jury might
believe that on the night of the accident a train of rallrosd cars
was standing en the north track to the west of the crossing, if
this was true, there would tend to obscure the vision of travelers
approaching from the north, The flagman wae net on duty at thie
time. There was no wige-wag or moving signal of any kind maintained
by defendant at the crossing. There wae no light in the crosa-arne
and no light on the eressing at all eo far as the railroad wae
concerned, The only artificial light wee the one already deseribed
on the esst side of the avenue. There had been snew in the morning
and the pavement wae elippery.
“Herndon, the rear brakeman, who was the only sccurrence
witness and who was called to testify by beth plaintiff and defend-~
ant, eai4 the moon wae shining, but other evidence indiented 1% wae
dark at the time, Herndon had been employed by defendant fer about
twenty-two years, The crew in charge of defendant's train consisted
of Herndon, another brakeman, a conductor, and engineer and a fire-
man, The train consisted of about eight care which hed been picked
up at Joliet, The scar farthest te the eaet in the train wae a
gondola car, and the engine was pushing thie and the seven other
care east across the intersection. Herndon says he was eitting on
the southeast corner of the gondola car, which he thinks was empty.
Ke had en electric lantern auch as he used in giving signals to the
~8-
& sax doaxt eds to MPx0m foe? OBL tuedA * gakeaos? yawllak* abaow
edt to diven feet seatuid? “A AY eaettel ont gaitaed apis Saver
ais .tdgtl Jourte s sow yawtigtt oy Yo Taee fost B Ban galeeory
eunevea Silov2 grteeexo act te to0% (008 atdgw tagtl vine oct naw
qove ,nehtiaecdue asqerq ad YS Seente aguords 2 as botanglaed omy
tigil on sav erect tonne gaftesaretal reve te betnog e1sw sages
ed? .teesse ani? 2 edie PRew omF ae co gadegote Ot HO bak Yne Yo
antert edt? .s0alg ed? $8 abiw 90? 66 enw sumeve Btfouk Yo sreasvag
etew adnar? abistvo ed? adoort conn ov edt reve nse tnabaeren’ Yd
erode 5 naw Waade a'namgel? of 2o sae% ,Ronogtyg eRerOye vor Deny
pteo baorliet Io slew? o gnebtens edt Yo taylan edt wo fat evetled
TI ,gatenox. ode Yo teow out oF Aoas? Atupm eat mo. yathuats say
etelevawt to motetv edd suveado of ta Atiow. eeecd .pird oy, stay
aid? te Youd no ton sev mamyali edt .dox0n Ate, POX}, paldoaonage
hesisteias ded yaa Yo Lenpie gatvon xo pavenin o8 pew ened? .omtt
Smin—eReTe odd at Tigll om. naw oaed? .aALnRoT9 os fa, tnshmored xd
“baw baotlias ont aa a2 oe Lia tm gatoners sf? ao, sAgtl on, has
galnyom off ad wenn need bed sxed? .ouneva ol? 30 ebse tuae edt no
wbuelad bag YWsalalq tod ys YLLFAS oF Hallas saw ody baa maont ty
nav 82 Begsothal semebive sedto tud .patatde naw noom oft bia ,tas
suede 10% Inabastah ed Deyolgue seed, Dad nphorsk outs any t8 Atab
beselnaoe alert a'tnabsered, to egtede at wore, od? . PRPS, METER
“Seti 8 bas isealgne daa yrosoudsoe 2 .ranelend todtona .robanels,
hedety aeed had soldw oreo godgte tuoda to Retetanoe ales oR ian
1M AM Aken ont ah spas od, OF Spestap® ape, OAR.» ARLIOL Se My
_eddo apye a3 dns aide gotiawg sem ontgae oft, das .ap aLobaes
NO gatttia aay of ayaa, sohanol ats ae i
cIASEA, BOM, AAA, 08, Anh cman niepeny, (AM: Rs “OPA, F
oe
engineer and ethers of the crew. There was no other light on the
gondola, He was on the top, about 10 or 12 feet from the ground,
The engine which wae pushing the train of scare hed electric head
lights in frent and aleo an sleetric heaélight on the rear, It wae
& road type of engine. ‘the crew had run eround other care right
west of the croceing so at tc get these particular care ahead of
them and deliver the seme to the ©. & ©. I,, which was about three-
quarters of « mile east of where the accident happened, There was
@ box car in the train whieh vae higher than the gondola, The other
brakeman on the train rede on the car Just behind the gondola.
These care were from 40 te 6 feet in length, se the froat end of
the engine which was pushing from the rear was about 400 feet from
where Herndon war riding, ‘The train wes moving on the fourth track
from the north. Herndon says that it was moving about & or 10 allies
an hour, He first saw the automobile coming south at a epeed of
about 26 miles an hour when the front end of hie train was sbout
150 feet weet from the creseing, The automobile, he saya, wae then
300 to 400 feet to the north, ‘The headlights of the automebile were
lighted, He eaye the whietle of the train wae blowing, He heard
the whietle and saw the automobile practically at the same time.
When about 50 to 75 feet from the crogesing he swang his lentern out
aeroes 1t ae far as he gould reseh out from the ear, Leaning for-
ward, tie swung 1t eaet and weet in the sawe direction the train
was going. He aid not get down from the ear onte the ground, and
nO one was on the ground signaling. The lentern was an electric
with two bulbs, It wae produced in this court on orsi argument.
Rach bulb is about one-quarter of an inch in diaweter, nly one of
these was lighted, When the train wae about 12 feet from the erosa-
ing he gave the first signal to the engineer, ‘The automobile 414
not stop, He felt the engineer apply the air brekee and the train
stepped about 120 to 150 feet from the point at which he gave the
signal, The draw bar or coupling of the gondola car hit the auto-
+
od? m0 righ aedto on eae oxedt won edt ‘to ceredto bas baa xosntgae
-baworg ont most tas? OL wo Of dwoda 10d Co ne ame ce “ shane
Pamnvtone elatoele Bas axao te atest ott gntdng aay ‘dotdw ontgns ‘edt?
asw 1 .taet od? ae acigtthaed eiitoste ns oste baa sno} at “podigit
; a Sada faeh tau
tdyls 2189 asdvo bawora owt bad wor9 ed? sontgee 0 oat? bact 4
ow Spake
to bavite ax asiioltasg oats ie3 02 ba oe gulscese ‘edt Yo ta0w
A Late wae
~soruts tueda saw Moldy cel as e) eae ‘of mae “edd aoviteb bua wed
{ows fe Jxeqeray
saw eedt -Deneaged tasbiove ont wrote 0 t0 eiin s to
we ae Taabe sed" Yo
xeite act? Alobnoy ent nsdd ‘edgtd saw dati atand edd mi 109 xed 4
lta § ve wgaanee ng? Baw
afobaoy eit? batted tout, uss ‘ett ne shew tant act ne nanedand
¥ ) Wear eens? endive
to Bae Snot? et? on cigaal at dost 08 of 0b ‘sort x ov e100 60
+ ey is. 88 oe fame sete asf
mort deet OOb fuods enw xa0t odd wor? gatiiang aay do trie ‘
) hyp oie 2o fe ee a
aoard ado? ‘edt ae aniven esy intent ‘oat gnibin saw ove
oe Unede. .grrt # |
aslis OL 10 e tueds ‘gatvon taw Py; taat ayes aobared ‘abeea Gab
ut aie 242 eoekee
te boos ‘* ‘te dd wee gaimes ‘sl idomot us ‘ott wae deat of wed aa
7. Re nate
“twads saw Aland sta 20 Bue dnovt edd dw xved mn eeltm 8s
i: ; 3 Tees oP Be PE be
nest? ‘Baw evan od ,eLtdomed wa ‘oat “tenor ‘CaY Bete 4 toot | oat
ps eo, Tepes om.
etev otdonotua ‘ont 0 atity£ tbasd ‘os? ” doson ‘ent of toot eteet 008
Daned on gatwold new ntexd ‘edt te “oleetaw ‘odd yan ~j ‘ot botaatt
; wae se Seis 3
‘enkd onaa oto ts qileotsearq ‘oLidomot us edt 3 Bs tae ont
Shaner es
ao amxetasl etd gouwe of gatasote aif ‘nor? ‘toot ‘at of ‘08 joel shld
Les. ae gget a
10% gninasl a0 ed? mori due Honor bisoo ou A as’ 00 82 sects
‘ at top i tee sane tuder Bee aoe ee
sins? sd noktowutb ones od at taew ons feae 3 3) yawes oft beew
; mm eee 8 fim
“bas avery ons ‘etn ‘ta0 ont ort sob 293 ton bis of guia ene
is ¥ a £h ra Le es. va
‘otagoals es tw weretast ol? vant Ears bawors ed? #0 ono on
| thomas ‘Isto no dus0o etdd at ‘beomborg saw Pr aa ‘dbf SPH
te sno ¢ino red ometh at ‘dont 's na to ‘strap-on ‘Fueda ‘a “Gid ‘deat
ates Ghose safe. am:
-201d ‘edt ‘meet 4003 es ‘guoda cow xioed edt acti saw ebudt
af gee ‘cat Chin i il
pis oltdesetna ant “avonigne | on? of tana te
fetes ’ prenee ont cae
ntact ont na vedand win sad ulngs wovaigas ie pe |
“een ~weke eoemeree. agit + + OA ahah: bo
“st veg ot fozetn ts tntog we ee | ; 8 OE pM
p> iyo Da can aheg nan gan’ a Eabiuied Gn eal Gt ae
_
tf lat
~~
~~
mobile right in the centex and carried it over the crossing, the
ecoupante were rendered unconselious and died shortly thereafter, *
&t the clese of all the evidence defendant made 4 motion
for an instructed verdict in ite faver, which was denied, and 4% is
argued in thie court that the instruction should have been given
because defendant wae not negligent in proteeting the ereseing nor
in the operation of ite train, and because r. Lauer wee guilty ef
contributery negligence. In gaze Ho, 40919, we have held that se
far as protection of the crossing and the operation of the train
were concerned the question of the negligence of the 4efendant was
properly submitted te the jury. The erersing ae maintained was un-
usually dangerous and the Jury could properly find that defendant
was negligent in failing te have a Tlagman at the crossing at the
time of the aceident and in failing te see that reasonably safe
lighte and signals were maintained there, “e think, too, the question
of whether there wae negligence in the operation of the train wae
alee for the jury. “e have so held in the companion sare, and the
examination of the evidence in thie cage does not persuade usa te a
aifferent conclusion, ‘ee Opp v. Pryor, 294 <1l, 538.
The question of the contributery negligence of “rr. Lauer
presents a question different from that we decided in the other ease,
Mr, Leuer wae Griving the autemobile and was in control ef it, If
there wae negligence in driving it it was hie negligence, Ag in
the other ease se a v. G. & E. 3, Ay. Go., 248 Til. 128;
— v. ; » 261 TLi, App. 127} Greenwald v.
» S32 Ill. 627; and Provenzano v. Ill, Cent.
Ao. S87 fll. 192, are sited and relied on, According to the
Cates, it wae for the plaintiff in the first inetance to produce
some evidence tending to show ordinary eare on the part of “r. Lauer,
There was an eyewltnees, and ne evidence was offered or received ae
te the habits of the deceased with reference to care, ‘The evidence
shows that at the time of the accident Mr, Lauer war forty-nine yeare
of age. He was in good health; hie eyesight was good. The evidence
abe
we
oT | santeseot> ent deve ff betsiss baa TOT HOD eas nt oAale —
* set taeret? qivrade Heth baa ayolouncony heirsbmet onew ety ed
ation a shan tanbneleb sonebive edt Ila to saolo odd aA pps
ef 2 Sas ,boinek eaw doltdw .sovat est at solbaov bosoursent an 7
sevig seed evar bivoda noktouritant en? gas gaweo elds ab | mm ge
ion wiiepoto af? galtestortq al snegkigeon von aaw Senhaeted oousoes
to Wiley sew teva ah seusoed baa cated agt te aotteneqe by *
oe ade Sied even ow eteou 0% aaa al soney linen
chess ort? to soltveneqo ov daa aatnsoce ae To nottoatong ue ut
aev tanhasteh est to sonegtigen ext? to mgponeyp off fommpcnn same
-ae enw bentataiem oa grteeere ef? “Pt, oa, 08 Revcinme Seas
tnabneteb gad? bart PP Ae A eee ae
od? te gatanere od? #0 mamgalt, a ovad oF pahiiat af ts
ots Yidanosseyt Pant non of antite? af tna tmabloos eA? 10 eats |
. | 82 Bead
oltseup efs cot ,Anid? ow e101 Deatatatan exow olamte baa atdgtt
= Bt
oar ALONs OF Ye nattauege qat gf epmentines apy eued) uae 33 ~~?
h
ants aa .9800 molnaquooe edt at bled on evad oF inl Bie att ee oP
t sees Oe Sek Aa Pe SS aa
0856 AST oes v ee
‘souei .th Te sanvgt fgen uogud renee oar 0 mosaoup edt Ps x
ia ®
-9850 Tedvo edt mt heblLoah ew sade sot? SnocortE® neLsneup a ue
Som y
p) ee to Loxiaoo af sav Baa sitdonotua eat yatvesb wav oma oth
i xeercoR
ai eA ,conegifges eld saw sf Ot Baty ied at epretios: paw —
(OS! £17 80 ,.00 Wi I KD 0. gambeod exod on nae
e? Siseages) qTSl a A £Bs « ; aot ; :
209 LEE. onanuqvers bas {¥88 .£1T 93% Sg easel
ods ot yatbioees “no Donon Das Devte exe Set sfit F08
pouberg of eonatont sextt ect at Yittatela edt cot new GL 42
pant! oth, te faq edt a0 oreo Waanloto wore of ieee Se
aa bovieoer vo berstte esol souebive, on ba xevon F eae esactl
rm $42 OM y wets fae
sonebive ei? .e1ae of conototen ate beuaesed ods Ye nttdad 060 of
twat Gl ot cate oat Yat beacete
annoy entamyet0? | od owed ~ anebtoos odd 20 ant aw
a ae ae
K
eet ae eee
=5-
alee tends to #how he wae driving the sutomobile seuth en Sueclid
avenue at the epeed of about £5 te 30 milee per heur, ‘The jury
eoulé conclude that such speed indicated due esre on his part. ee
fendant eaye that police officers equlé see the cars on the crossing
when at a distanee of 150 feet, The inference is that Mr. Lauer
enould have seen then, Thie is unfair sinee at the time the of-
ficers viewed the scene of the accident the train of cars was parked
serose the street ana at o standetili. fhe headlight en the engine
(unlike the situation when Mr, Lauer sapproaehed the erossing) mage
the train visible. Also, there war a spotlight on the equed sar of
the policemen as they eappreached, The lantern used hy Herndon in
his attempt to warn the aporeaching automobile, ae we have already
eaid, had a smell electric bulb, and there was evidence froa which
the jury might well have believed that it would not have been seen
by Mr, Lauer under the clreumstances in the exercise of due care,
Herndon eays it wae moonlight, but this was contradicted and seems
improbable. Herndon gives no evidence tending to show negligence
on the part of Mr, Lauer,with the exception that he kept on driving
toward the crossing at a moderate rete of speed notwithetending the
approaching train, It is apparent Lauer was looking ahead of him,
end if he head seen the train it ie fair to oresume Ke would have
stopped, The cases are all to the effect that the question of son-
tributory negligence, under such cliroumstancer, is for the jury, A
railroad oressing is, of course, known to be dangerous by every
person of experience, The cases say one approaching « croseing
should look and listen, but the cases aleo say that 1t 1# not at all
times and under all circumstances negligent not te 4o eo, Here all
the clroumstances as to the physical situation et the crossing, the
eondition of the weather, the location of the train, ete. must be
taken into consideration, ‘The following cases juctify a holding
that the question of Lauer's contributory negligence, if any, was
for the jury: Lannon v. City of Chicago, 159 Ill, App. 505; S, & H.
I, By, Go. v. Beaver, 199 T11, 54; Lundquist v. Chicago Aye, So,
fe
biious ao dtvon elidematee edz palyine saw od wode a? eboos oois
tx, eff sed cog selte 05 of G8 duoda Io heeqs edd ga ouneve
~gi ,Juaq Old no vuen enh Satealbal beage down gang ehutonoo isco
galaacre ect so arao ate eea Sivoo saeeltic eolleq gait ayes tmabas?
ieved .WN tad? of songtstat edt . .3oe% O4L Yo senatath a ta, aed
~to od? omit ody fe osnte atalaw af aldT madd) noes. ovas biueds
SekzaG B6e auao 10 alexd edt Ineblooa ad’ to ences amt Devely ateokt
esigne add ao tigiibaed eff .Litteboata 2 34 baa soorts, od apenes
chas (giftaeots off badsaonggs tema! sth aomde nelteutia sat outlaw)
t© geo Bawpe ef go sigiigegs « saw ened? ,oatA ,oldtety alec? ede?
at aobarel yd bony custast est .bedesetqgs You? oa memeotlog ong
Uaerle evad ov as yeltdonssus galdonowyqs ect ua of tqnogga etd
tigidu port somebive saw exreda bre ,dind elaseele Kfame.bad-abias
2099 990d avad goa binow $2 tedz bevelled ovad iiow sizdm wast ada
+9189 eh Io ealozexe edd al sconatanuorlc 9a3 aebnw seed 6th
sages bas Desolbarsneo saw. eldd dud, tdgtinoem.eeu th avan sebeTyl
ponegiigen wode of gatiaes soapbive. en sevig aohateh oLdadouqat
gatvich mo tqed ed tad? goteqeexe edd Adivysomad «ah Ye dang ade ae
edd galbnedadtivion beege Io séat otarebom # ta galasose off Scawod
sid Yo daeda galsool aw ueupd dneuaggs Of 1, short gntdonorags
vad Sivew ed casserg of slat 4.01 mboge ods moon bad of 2b baa
“090 26 noltaeup oud todd taetie es? of tia era aeane adt »beqqede
A , Yr ed? sol al ,sconatqawerto dow sebny , soaegh ines Wied mt bat
views Yd evotexnah ed 09 mwonal oawoe Yo «al gatneers bagation
‘getanote @ gaidoaciqgs ene Ysa sense ad? someiregne te aenyeg —
ila ta jon af Th todd yee cela aeene sit tad snotelt bas soot btwade
Lia ex0t 208 oh of 204 davai igan asogataguente Lin cehan hae seme
ed? ,gairacip ot 4a soitestin Jenieydg edt of ae neonasenuotte acid
ed Toum .oFe ~nless ad To aotteoel odd ,redieow ody Yo noltibaes
gathled » Yissou), senae gotyotfo? os? ‘wokderebiance otal aeser
(ae8 yaa Ut .sonsgiigen yiotudiatneo a'cemel te noltaqup oct fact
[om
AAD HOS 40h 111 98S ypanok 2o. WEED oF somal: Vol ete
“6+
$05 Til. 106; Petere v. Chicago Rye, $o., 307 T11, 202; Henry v.
GC, ¢, & St, L, Ry. Go., 236 111, 219; Soulter v. 1. 0, 8. R, Ce.,
264 Ili. 414; Zeylor v. Alton @ Gastearn A, A, Co., 259 111, App.
293; Seveld v. Grand Trunk seetern Ry, Go., 285 Tll. App. 8&6.
It is further contended that the court erred in modifying
defendant's requested inetruetion No. 6, This inetruetion after
etating the rule of law applicable to contributery negligence con-
tained thie further sentence --~"The natural instinet of self-
preservation does not give rise te any presumption that the deceased
was using due care and caution for hie own safety." The court re-
fused to give the instruction e« tendered and modified it by striking
out this last sentence then gave it as modified, The defendant
argues that as there was an eyewitness to the accident (the brakeman,
Herndon), the presumption of due care did not obtain and cites
Goodman v. Chicago & , I, Hy, Go,, 248 T1l. App. 128g Devine v.
exo 03 1o., 188 Ili, App. 854, 550; and Newell v. &, &. G.
& St. L, By, Co,, 261 T1l. 905,516, Uefendant says there wae no
evidence whatever of the habite of the deceased ae to prudence er
the exercise of care and caution in the ordinary affaires of life
or any other fact throwing light upon his exercise of ordinary care
at the time of the accident, and that there was, therefore, no basis
in the record upen which the presumption of due care arising from
the natural instinet of self-preservation could be based, Af 4
matter of fact, in no place in the trial of this cause, so far as
the recoré discloses, 414 plaintiff contend or rely on any pre-
sumption of due care arising from the natural inetinet of self-
preservation, No such rule was contained in any inetrustion given
at plaintiff's request, and thie watter, in so far as it is in the
record, is injected by the ebjection made te the deletion of thin
sentence from the inetruction,
in instraction Ho. 13, given at the request of plaintiff,
the jury was clearly told that while the law 414 not require of
plaintiff's intestate an extraordinary degree of care for his own
+
© yumoll 802 L£1T 962, 90 Lavk onmbddd’ Ww paptes jbo itr B08
<BR A at .0 wt wv apetwed yeea Jer ves soo lye U1 28s 9 DL
ah EET BBR ee v ablvar thd LEE 208
\88 .qqh tft ten ¢. wat Kaesd .v Biawed (208
aalgitbem af hexse davoo ond tary waite ‘cedtawt ay ee Ahem aed
xobts moldowrdant arity 0° ou mobtowitent bedacuper b'dnabacten
sued Sanegiigen’ yeodiestines eb sidadbtqun Sal bo"SDe oad gubbave
Letse te Fouttan! torwesk ant. vonstaen ceddaut olat hantad
beaasceh ont 2 ant? soltqumety yas of sala ovly ton aeob “nottsva vie! enone
<ot tavos odf * .efetse nwo afd Tot ‘goltuas bas oxee “oud ahie tee
gntdbvte qi #2 Bettibon ban berabnes'ss nolboineial off ovig of Beat
““gnahasteb ett bottibom an #2 ovay sect oonstnen tual ater to
vsompierd adz) taebloos ody of noontiveye ma saw “oxedd oa tadd 0b
“getio bas atatde ton bib cus oub 20 noltqummore ot (noberrot |
¥ gatved g68f .qqA . tit eae ,.6d.
240.0 Ww Lpwoit baa edt 08 Joh iit BBE" .
“on saw exedd cyan ¢aabnoted Ors oe Vrit 18. ot :
xo sonebuxq of 28 Besseoed ot to ed tied’ od Yo coved dw sonebive
“wttl Yo ertatte yrantbue eit at hol#usd baa tho to salorexd ede
rene yiankro to oxtotaxe ald moqu #dgit patworts teat <edto yas 40
atvad om oroteredd \saw orend tard haa ,Imeblosn ott to ‘ould ett da
“nent ‘gatetca pres ob te aolttquue org ‘estt ‘dotdw nou root oft nt
‘A BA jBeaad o¢ bivoo noltavreawrq-ties to’ on. font tetutan edt
es te% of ,eawao ale to fetxd edd ab Gale on at od % ‘fonda
-orq yas ao yler ro bnetnoo Thtdalele bLd | novel pices edt
“tfea to tontians lauten dt wott galeria onae ou oa notte
avvig wottosmtent ya at ‘bénkatnoo naw sleet ioe om “notte sree:
out ’#i al dh oa cat on ab vrotten etdt bas Veedaped 0/44 ti ;
alee te dobtetes eat ‘ot oban + aatsoetdo od wt bevootat ae
pet Paka
Pane te tuoupor edt tn novtg et ‘eit "haletbSi
$e sutupia goa B19 wal emt ottdw vast ator Yieaere oaw woul ed
oo
eafety, it wae recquireé of him and his nexteof-kin that at and
before the time of the injury ordinary care should be exercised
in view of all the facts and circumstances shown by the preof, and
thet what was oréinery care would depend upon the circumstances ef
each particular case, that it was such care as @ person of ordinary
prudence would exereise under the same or similer sireumctances,
In other words, plaintiff tried the case upon the theory that it
wae ineuabent upon him te prove the exercise of ordinary care by
the deceased, We hold the court 414 not err in so modifying this
inetruction,
It is urged that the court erred in ite ruling upon the
admission and rejection of evidence and in particular that it was
error to admit in evidence ixhibits 1, 2 and 3, being photographs
of the railroad crossing at which the accident cesurred, There was
testimony before the same wore admitted as to each and every one
of them that it wae a correct, adequate and proper representation
of the place where the aceident occurred, and this by several
witnesses, The claim agent of defendant, who had been familiar with
the crossing for twenty years and who testified, made no statement
tending in any way to show that the photographe were not fair
representations of the physical situation at the crossing when the
aecident ocourred, There was no errer in this respect. Srownlis
v. Brownlie, 557 T11. 117; People v. Herbert, S61 T11. 64.
Ovex the objection of defendant the court received in
evidence a certified copy of the weather report of the Heather
Bureau of Chicago for the month of November, 1937, from which plain-
tiff read to the jury information shown on the repert for the day
Of the accident, November 20, 1957. Defendant objected thet the
report of the weather Bureau at Chicago was inadmissible te prove
weather conditions in Chisago Heighte, twenty-seven alles away, and
how contends thet the court erred in allowing the same in evidenee,
@iting Handfelder v. East 5: Dis tr 194 Ill. App, 262,
where records of the weather Bureau of ®t. Louls, Kissouri,were held
<-
‘Dne $2 tad? ald-te-?x00 oid San mit 30 Seutupes vow tl, (ysetas
Dealexexe 6¢ Slvois s1e9 Yisalbro tulad sdf to oat? ect ezoted
bra \Rooag off yo avods aeomedrawotto one sfoat edt [ia to weiv a2
to seematomweonts ed3 noqu baeqeh Sirow esao Yientitc sas @acw tart
eaanlbee te noetTeg & Sa saad fome saw Si Jad? ,eaan waiwoltiaaq doae
.es0nataamnnis aeliete 10 eae» edt xekny oxiotexe Biuew eonebweq
t2 Sats vteols aff noqe esas odd bela TUinlatg .ehiew vedio at
ye stat Prentice to satotexs ec? evonq oF aii segs taedawpond sav
etey gefytiaen of at axe tom SLb tawoo od? biod oF boaneoeh odd
aie mous (pation otf al Serve tuvee sat tact bogw al aE of boot
act ti Sad? qalvoltasg mt dma sonebive te aetfeeten bas notes taba
eduatgetorg amied .o fre & ,L atidide. sonebive at ¢iube of serie
sav even! deviveso tnabinos ed? deity ta gakeeors daotliox oxi? to
ene YxeVe Hae dose c? oe hetsimba oxey omse odd exoted ynomssant
‘MoLetoeretges Teqor hua sfaupabe ,toerwwd 2 sav, et sald meds to
Laxoven yd elit has \deriwoeG gaebloon ot exssly porta oxi to
dSiw iwtiimet need bast ote ,Janbnoteh to taeye xteloe od? | .neanantiy
donee fe om bam ,Seltigaet odw bam azaoy yaert 10% guieeouo edt
Giant ton o1ew etquxgetedg eff ted? worls of yew yaa ne nalhaed
otf? mec gtkerote oft Ye netteutie Laoteywig edo to anolsatneserqet
atinves® .tosqze1 etft af sere on sew sted? .beriooo tashioes
28 ALT 186 gusdusll .¥ ghaeed 41% LIT 705 .eiinuerd .v
“qt Bevteoes saves ad? thakmeteb Ye seksneido en evo» so men
ibaa ail ie aii tiie i ta digg iia
-alalq dotde aoxt ,P8OL ~xedwevell to dtmom add ce? ogeoidd to sequsil
ost Sait evostdo snshneted .TUGl .OS asdmevek Ivabtoos wif te
overd of oldizcishant sm ogeeitd ts wae’ nesitael eft To dueqet
dae ,yawa oelin neves-yWaow? ,atdgiol egaetd? mt analstance tadé sen
Ourebive df omas at gatvolia tt hewie mwes ait dest wbnesnos vou
SBS ,qq@ {00 bef gelatels gavel e628 gags | ¥ sabletbaal gnitto
Ge
inadmissible to preve conditions in Madison county, Dilinole, There
wae positive evidenee by tr, Saker, 4 police officer of Chisago
Heights, to the effect that on the night of the aceident the pave-
ment wae icy and the night cloudy. «e¢ think the evidence was sid-
miseible as tending to show the state of the weather on that day,
Trayee, 17 Ill, App. 146, The
it ie apparent from the abetract that the issue in that care con~
cerned the quantity of water, which at the time in question was
being drained from the land from e remotes point of the county, and
the Appellate court held that the ®t, Louls weether report wan net
competent proof as to the particular quantity of water felling ina
the City of East 5t. Louie, [ilinoie, We held the court did not
err in the admiseion of this evidence,
It is contended the court erred in admitting testimony ae
to cara which at the time in question were in and about the creesing
but not attached to the train which the engine wae pushing. %e-
fendant objected upon the ground thet if the purpoee of thie evidence
was to bring out the fact that other care standing on sdjacent
tradkes would ebetruct the view cf the crossing te one approaching
from the north, there was no allegation of negligence in thie respect
in the complaint, and Buekley v. Mandel Srog., 3235 T11. 368, S75;
Miller v. ©. & 8, W. My. Go,, 347 T1l, 487, 49%, with Anderson v.
Gy Be Je Pa Ry, Co., 245 TLL, App. 337, and Urben v. Lore Marquette
Ry, So., 266 T11, App. 152, are cited, ‘The evidence wae admissible
for the purpose of showing the generel situation at the creseing
although not particularly alleged es negligence in the compleint,
GS, & E, I, By, Ge. v. Beaver, 199 T11, %.
It ie urged here, are in the companion cage, that the
damages avarded te plaintiff sre exeersive. As we pointed out in
that case, however, where there are lineal deseendante the Law
oxedt ,atoniifl ,yinsoo gontball mt anoltinace everq of van
CBRELA? To reekrIe costed # rJeted. WH Ww eemehtye eval snes Ame
=ovaq ond Saebtoos out 29 fdyta eit mo tadg Foerre ost of vaadaton
~he saw eonebtve ods Antdt eh .Yhwolo Figin edt bus yot eau Sem
{Vb tai, ne, xed any edt Ye eats ost worn of gatbnet an of
oat O51 .Gae ff) Th Bayes .¥
2 and betoaxtads yas Une st wetter tashaseh doky no , 10882 seb LoRbnak
HOO gna Tad? gt gamst ed? fait Joatdeds edd sort tnere
aw HOLIRAy AL emtT ott te Avidy tote te. wttnswp , aie.
bee ,¥sewon od? to tatog evomet @ moxt buat of? wort Sontanb gated
Jom Say PuOget Tediaow Blwgd 2% eM9 tadt Biod syuoe otalleqgh eft
at galliat setaw to Yetiasup taiuetinsg af? of ae Yoong Taetequon
fon BLb too La Se of ALOnLLIT atuad .80 fea Yo yAt0 ot
ven _stonobive e4iit To wotaptnbs amt ak rye
as yromttaes galst tabs 2 nt pore Fau0e ot hobaetage af ST cramgpons
nM: ads tod Daa at ere molseour Al omls odd ta Pm aza9 oF
_saateang nav entane ed? Agise atest PM Pt, Pot aA FoR, Pa
sonehive aids to ssoqiug od IL dadt bayoty at? sage beteetdo snabaa?
__ Sneestba ao gathaata eaas todte tadt Jost edt tuo gaind of aay
anidonorige Oe OF gatanote odd Yo wely sat towitede Diuow adgags
Foaqaet aid? mL eomeptigon to mottagolia an saw eyed i adasibibel a
(ae 1088 ff] GEG . .gon8 Sebaes .* Setleud bas ental
* ih eee sites ee WS. ae
eldtastnbe. aaw « sonebive s et bs
aealie ods arn sonmaines a, Beanie, visa |
Sue wate repre ae a | rare
; a daa Anas, robnagnee LP AP eee Mme. BB x0 caeqen
Pr duo betatod ww aA Bs
_ mat esta, otaabaogned Annie ona a ered, mse, as ev 4
i 4 te Me $2 Hock tite Me wes tk eee ov.
-G-
presumes pecuniary lere from the fact of death, gileex ¥. 2:
330 111, S71; Dukewan v. ¢
¥e find no revereible error in the recoré, ena the juag~
ment will be affirmed,
JUBGMENT AFFIRMED,
O'Conner and ZeSurely, JJ., Gconeur,
ee a TR ae
~Qe
sixeid oF ggpiiz .dtaeb Te foal odd mort seed Yuedaueeq peameetg
POL -fL2 VOR 4 BB. Hh oll phi TA oR oD ek oY semoriad (£98) 450 OGG
~pout eff Bag ,hieoen em? af tovie efdlesevet om bast of 6 ho
Y ae to ebortltis ed itv trem
sQAMAT WIA SHAMBGUR ..- % polhee? an eid zoeken
etwonge y bh 4 tlowiot baa comned'®
| : % dotiy son , Onno saeaaee
soo Gh TR
gitenup, ot? Pains
we. eae wee
i at Aedosd?4 @on Bad
if sage Soetenide Peeteat
to Fake Seat ah@ te6 sities of 268
fawytedea bine steer
“om? oo OC) worse
- “eigeue Rane tatatoqnene, orl, me,
a ae ae ee me me eT
+ * DE gili GOS 9 QO ge oD A pd ofl ee
mit te gece mae see
bennila Uaateeliues ten sippemeties
: b Ani ; i rs ~ we
ye = ob rf <* La * " p u “ 5
’ . WE ae 5. Vie enn dels Diprang =e
Mi $ a 2 POSe Bs
ie oye bee ® wy Biden tania or ’
at ee PP ewe te 2. owt Pte) & a crpaauitade
ii tinateegeet Caeeti om evedt etede .teroet uaeee Saas
4 Ly
a7
40778
LAURA &, &, 2iQCUH,
BERWIH H, wART,
PIRST HATIOWRL BARK OF CHICA Fi pPERIOR COUaT,
JOHH ©, MEINDBS/and JOHN C, 3 ! :
PARTHIDGS, individually and &
menbers of & Bondholders’ Pee
GOO COURTY.
Sective © tee under a Ugpoeit
nt e@ Deeenber 31,
pr aanil : gg get ¥ :
& z TGNAL BARE OF SHE : ts CO
WISCONSIN] as/Trustee undey th 0 A if “As 4 8 e)
W411 and nt of Joachim Johann,
and A. © LvB & GOL, & @
HA, JUSTICE MeSUAELY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
September 7, 1908, plaintiffe filed their complaint charging
éefendants with conspiracy and fraud in connection with the handling
ef bonds evidencing mortgsge indebtednesa on eertein real estate end
aeking for an accounting and other relief; the matter wat referred to
a master who tock evidence and reported, recomsending that the amend-
ea complaint filed February 1, 1959, be diumiseed; the ehanecelier ap-
proved the report ané sustained the motions to dismiss, ana plain-
tiffs appeal.
fhe Ashland Industries Building Corporstion on January 1,
1926, issued ite first mortgage 6 per cent bende in the prineipal
gum of $1,500,000, These bonds were secured by a trust deed from the
Ashland corporation and Maurice Hothsohili, one ef the defendants,
to the Foreman Trust and Savings Sank, as trustee, conveying resi
estate properties and pledging 9456 shares of $160 par value prefer-
rea stock of Harrie Brothers Company, a Celavare eorporation; the
trust deed provided a sinking fund to be used for the retirement of
these bonds; they were also secured by a guaranty agreement executed
‘by Maurice Acthsehild and four other guarantors (two of whom are now
dead), Thie agreement guaranteed the payuwent of the principal and
\TSvOD UAT (oO MOIMIGO AKT GAMNVIUEG YIZAUGON AOTTAUL AK
@atyiede Salalquos «ledy HeLlt stititnislq ,BS0L ,F sedmesqet
gatibaesd etd Aviv noltoensoo mi buait bas yoatiqanoe dilv stashasteb
bas efates laet niatyse ae seenbetdebnl egagrton gntonabive abned te
of bevtetes gay rettam et iteliet tedze baa yaltavocea na 10% gation
-baema odd tact gathnommesce1 .betsoqer ban eonebive doos ody xotsam 8
-cs twifeonsia edt pbesstmth od ,260f ,f yuawadel Soft satalqnos ao
-alaiq baa ,actmeld of snoltem ett? borlatewe bna troget oft bevorq
Jf Viaerml mo aolttare¢rod galblivct® aaiatawbal baalded eat is id
laqtesisg odt mt abnod tneo t9q 8 spagtvom deult atf beset ose
git mort Beeb taux? s yd berwoes ersw abaod exsdT .000,008,1% To mua
\Staabreteh edt Teo one .biisesdtoR eolwmell bas moltereqres bnaides
faet golyevaon .sevanrss ta .iaa@ sgalve® bas tees? sacetol edT of
| -1etewg evlay taq OOL$ te sesade 6808 gaigbelg has eelivegetq etatsea
oie tRoltesoqion stawaled « ,tuequod aued?oul slaiel te seote hex
Lo Pomertter od? cot beaw od of Hawt gatanta a Dehiverq Beeb seuut
« hotwoens Inemootys YWaateny & ww Setvese osla exew Yea? ‘jabaod onedt |
yon ste mode Yo owt) exotaatamg pHeammemmmenten es
ee ey a ea ene. Lae ee ye ee re
~2-
Anterest on the bonds, upon the sonditien that whenever the principal
amount of bonds outstanding was reduced to 61,000,000 all liabilities
under the guaranty vere terminated and the guaranters discharged, The
Foreman bank, as trustee, was later replaced by defendant First
Netional Bank of Chicago. The bend lesue wee reduced by payments to
#1,145,200, January 1, 1952, there wee « default in the payment of
interest and aleo defaults in the payment of tazea for the years
1928 te 19356, inelusive.
A bondholders’ committee wae formed to handle the situation
under an agreement dated becember 31, 1951, and aporoximately 90 per
gent of the outstanding bonde were deposited with thie committee;
January, 1056, pureuant to the request of the committes, the first
Rational Gank, at trustees, offered for sale at public auction the
Harrie Srothere Company stock pledged under the truet deed, which was
purchased by the committee fer 52800 and the proeeads distributed to
or held for the bondholders. in 1956, preoeredingse te reorganize the
Sehlané Industries Bullding Corporation were inetituted under Sectien
778 of the Sankruptey Set in the Federal Court for the vorthern
Dietriet of Tliinois, and a plan of reorganization was submitted and
confirmed in that proceeding on August ©, 1938, At the request ef
the committee and becauce of the pendency of the reorganization sro-
ceedings, the Firet National Bank, ae trustees, refrained from in-
etituting proceedings againet the guarantors, mirice Aothschild,
one of the guarantors, offered to the trustee 7145, 200 of outstanding
Athland bonde on condition that they be canceled and the guarantors
released, The trustee refueed this offer because of an ambiguity in
the provisions of the trust deed and the gusranty agreement with
reference to the trusteo's powers and mi thority te acoept thie offer,
In 1938, pending the reorganization proceedings, the Seourity
National Bank ef Sheboygan, owner of 79000 of the bonds, demantied
that the Piret National Sank, as truetee, inetitute legal proceedings
against the guarantors, Yhie demand was refused by the trustee,
~B-
faqteoni«q od? tevenede ted? melaibaes add nequ ,abmod od? mo teotetak
eelteifticall [fe 090,000,f9 of besubet saw anibnatetvo shaod Yo tniiems
af? .Degradoalh erotneiawg odd bas beteniates otax Wastes att “elias
teall tashoeted ye Seoslget retal saw yoatur? sa tnad aamoudt
e? afsenyaa YW Seevbey caw eunel Saod edT .ogeetm> to amet Lanoteat
to taeatyaq edt at Sivetod a wew ered? , SORE © qraunay ” eee
nasey ede TX vexey Yo Seiamyeq edt nt et Luo tob onfa Ba ne ~—
| eviey Toatt ‘oe ASOL
bite speneetne
Neivartla edt eLdaar oF hewre% saw sorstameo. tino lodbeod 4 - rau
seq 08 plosaatzorage baa , feet m8 nasaeoedt fedab smenoerga ns
a Tike
teettinnen eid’ dttw betiaaqed onew woned antbaasetve edt te avo
feek% at? ,ceteinwon eds 16 Seowpos etd oF Paavets, 380d a ie
end moivswa otidug ta ofne 1% betette sootarns ae sanal famepgae
saw dolktw ,boob tewct od? ebay henbelg deote yasquod aredvox! shrtal
- 6F Batudixtet5 shevso1g of? Bae OBOLE cot ests lnmoe ant Yd Denadoteg
odd sainaguoet of agatbesseng .88@f aY .arebLedhwod ent ae Slat do
aeigoe® rebaw Setytisenl eisw metsaerogriod gathiiet wemctental Sasidsd
| bite Aettiogwe saw soltauinagteet Yo naly « bam ~etomeLIl to tobwteld
- Yo Seanper ext $4 ANGI .o TatQuA ae yutdesvorg Valls af Demsitaee .
-ot¢ nelfasinayseey add Yo Youebaey ats to enusoed Ane Gad¢ faves edt
«i mex? Hentorter ,sevars? ss ined fanottal tertt on yeyatiewdo
olideadse® getvan stotneiae odd Penlage waatheosotg gattut lie
| ERP BO TONES RS OS NSO ret meiaty ett Te sete
stotmerawg eft Das Seleonas ed Yor? sade notethnoe no abnod Santee
nk YEmmidun m8 Io eacaved qerto tit Reertet eotatt? ai? doewaler
doiw Toatestgs EaaKag oAT bas Beeb tout ote to anotetvorq sit
yuetto aldy Sqeeoa of ee Prod?t es Sas wieweq a'ood wet ‘aie oF eoaersTes
| Rebaaned \ehmed ext Yo O00RF Io TeNUS <muRYodeHe Yo sins sfawattat
| “ Bynkhessotg Ingol errttet oetawey aa) teeth cantatas
ee eG ed poautet kaw hremah aftt ecotmenay | ?
ee ee t> “nm @2eete 282 Beet? eee eee So ete so etry eid? pons wir Cs
~S-
May 26, 1928, the Shebeygan bank brought suit in the
fuperier court ef Cook eounty against the three surviving guarantors
and the First Pational Sank, as tructer, seeking a meney jJudgeent
against the guarentors and an order enjoining the trastee from ace
eepting the tender by Maurice Aethsehild; the trustee filed ite
answer to this; subsequentiy, ané before hearing, the Sheboygan benk
filed ite amended compleint, veoiting that since the coamencement of
the original proeseding it head investigated the financial condition
of the guarantors and new believed it to ba for the best interest of
all concerned’ that Eotheckild's tender be accepted, and asked for an
order directing the First Sational Sank, a9 trustee, te accept this
offer, cancel the bends and executes a release te the guarantors, The
Sheboygan bank wae @ non<-depositing bondholder and ite suit wae a
@lase suit; ite amende@ complaint set forth the bond isoue, the
guaranty, the financial condition of the guarantors, the Sethechild
tender and the ambiguities touching the authority of the trustee in
the truest deed and cuarenty agreement, Plaintiffs say thie wae the
result of a “*“eeeret deal* and part of a scheme that the Sheboyrean bank
vould *about face.‘ An answer was filed by the iret Setionsl Sank,
as tructee, asking for directions of the court, The other defendants
also snewered, including the bondholders! coumittes, recommending se-
Oeptanoce of the Rethechild tender,
Auguet 8, 1936, a decree was entered finding that the
acceptance of this tender was for the best interest ef #11 the boné-
holdere; thet the trustee had authority te accept it, cancel the
bends offered and release the guarantors, and the deeree directed
that thie be done,
September 7, 193%, the original compiaint in the present
ease was filed by plaintiffs Sleeum and Sohn, esking thet the deere
of Auguet Sth be set acide, and aleo asking an accounting and s money
judgment against the guarantora and that the sale of the Narri¢
Brothers stock be set aside; thie complaint, on motion, wae etrioken,
February 1, 1959, the present amended complaint was filed,
“ir.
ot BL Stee Thgwow dead megyededs ad ,ObR@L 82 YAM... 4)
atotnaiay guivivine esuis oft gentage ytauom A009 Yo J1n0e qolaequa,
inompiy, Yyesem «2 galdepn ,ostawi? aa ,daei Lamotte saatt edt. Aaa
<8 ao%t setawud edd gaintolas isite aa baa anotmaiasy ed? tentaga
ati Heil? evdawr? odd phi idoadtes getivad yd sebnet add gatzqen
to taeeeoncmmos ef2 sonia tat gatdiors .salalquos beinems ath DeLlt
netgibaocs fefonant? off Setagiteeval bad 7! yathessenq Lantgiac edt
Ro Cnexetal sued edt 402 ad oF FL Sovelied. wou.hna anotamiany od? To
na <o% bedae baa bag qaens ed tehned atPLidondion sade beaxennce, t£e,
aid #qooon cf ,setem? as smal Lenotzei gnad) edd galsoouth aebug
oa? .2rorsareum ait of cegelet = eiuoexe faa shaod odd Leone 19220,
a aay dhua a2 bne tadloshned paisiacged—ion » vam Saad, aagyodeas
sus mild .ouamt Baod add dtaot toa gntatqnes Rebneas o24 gtien asale
|
BMiidoagtoA ai? ,21stasnauy edd Ye motdibaos, latonanit ed? ,ytoatssy
ai sevewt? aff lo ytireddun oft geaidoves aeldivueidms ed@ bao aebned.
pdt ane LI Yam ATLisetals tmenmeye YneweR bas heeb Jnwnd edt
Anad magyoded® on? gad? enacion 9 to drag due “Leek soxnoe’ a te siveew
ines Lenestai ta11% edt vd belt? any tewana gA * .20a% Suoda", Diuow
—atnabeeteh tacts of? .tasan add Yo anoisvoonth 70% poldes ,~cotansd 24
(08 Btlbaeomoset sedttawes ‘anedlodbaed sd? gatbulont ,bevewana nla
nie -sehaet Ditdeadtad eff to sonatqeo
eld tadg gatbait bowssas sax couneh o ,86°8L .8 damgme 9. cps ty >
ahaed edd Lia te seeretal teed edd 10? aw tebaet atde To eoaetgeose
|
i, AOMOLES AaY ROLLA ADV RARLGOOR AREF ‘pabtan, bon..96 498
edt Leona 34 Dqe00a of YWiroedtus Aad seteusd oof todd (onebled
Deteetlh eer9sh st bas weuetonmave eds gaseiet bane heretio abnod
‘aotearoa thence Ran sy dat nod of ald? sade
fmensty ed? af dataiqnee fanigiao ad? ,S68L. pare anew ha
i yores 2 Baa gnivavoces ne yates onla bas ,pbies too od apr
{ANAT OAR 20: 0508 AME SAE AEM AAAS ANE SOE SOON
Ee ee oe a a ee
~dw
eeking thet the decree of August @, 1936, be feclared null snd void,
that the trustee and the seukere of the bonéhelders' committee be
removed ané held fer malfeasance ani sisfeneanes and that = money
jadguent be entered against the sarvivine guarantere, Sefendants
flied motions te strike, which vere sucteained, the trial court ap-
parently being of the opinion that sli the matters eet up in the
amenied complaint hed already been heard and decided by twe courte
pricr to the institution of the oreeant proceedings.
Plaintiff Slocum ie the owner ef ©9000 of the bende:
plaintiff Cchn owne §600 of the bende, and they aid net depegit their
bonis with the committee; plaintiff Hart deposited his bends, ag-
gregating 1200. Plaintiff ®lecum had breught mit ageinet
Rethschilé for tae non-payment of the interset, and on Septesiber 87,
1937, had judgeent againet Rethaehild for #404,.1°, which was affirmed
by the Appellate court in Sloeum v. Harris, 296 111. App. 367, and.
leave to appeal dented by the Supreme court.
Plaintiffs attack the eale by the trustee of the Sarrie
Brothere atock pledged under the truet desd to the bondholders! seme
mittee for $2866; this steek «as sold at public auetion and the pre-
eeeds applied on account of or held for outetanding bende. The
amended complaint contains no allegations as te the actual value of
the stock or that the enle price wae leae then the value or that the
trustee was without power te well. Moreover, thie *ale was fully
desoribed in the Federal court reorganization preeeedingse and after
evidence before a master and hearing by the court the sale wae eon-
firmed, 411 questions with reference to the action of the trustee in
gonnection with the Harris Srothers Company eteek were finally de-
termined in the Federal court, and ites conclusion is a bar to the
plaintiffs’ elain in thie reepect,
The amended complaint charged fraud in eceepting the tender
of Rothsehild of 143,200 of bonds and releasing the guarantors, The
@ueranty agreement provides thet upon paysent by any qumranter of any
amount pursuant to the guaranty agreement he became entitled to a
abe
~oter Sma Link Devsfaed ed ,SECE o daugua Yo. eetesd odd Gadd yalsne
eG eesti mmot 'ausdicudrod oft Yo exedeem ody Ane ovtart? ont gadt
qetee ¢ Sad? bas senaseeieia bee seeanaetiaa tot Siet Bae hevorws:
sJasbastel .atetaetangy gnivivime edd Jeniage beredne od saargbnt
~q% fauno0 Lele? off Doniagaws stow doldw ,edinds of aadttom belit
edt AL Gu Sea acedsam ody Ila tad? aoiniqe edd te gated ylenewmg
etiwoo out “os Sobioe> baa Sis coed yhsruls Bari tataiquos Sohnoms
-SHAiSesootg Seesaw oHF TO sektuTsseal oad oF sEbTy
{ahaed edt Ye COOR) To tomwo edt o2 euvel® MazMtalt | 6) Yo
aiesd? diaeqesd ten O15 yea? baa ,ebaod af? te 6684 enwo aio? Tutdnlalg
aga \obaed oid Destecqeb tel Ykentele jeertimmoe sad Attu shamed
anlage tive Imywoud bad mened? Witdaieii .0C8s) galsapees
VS yedaetqet ae tea ,teovetnl eff To Zaewyaqenon ed? TOD Dikdoedtes
Dewiitts saw Golde ,41.0804 aot bitdeadtoh sealaga thompbul Sad (VEOL
‘bios (2OE .q@A . LET BOS ,S244sN Gv gwcels nt CaMEG evalleqas’ endoyd
deued onarqv® ect ed Setmad Leogqe ef evant
alvrall adv Yo catsirnt af? qi olan ang Moasee erBisabelki 8
wines tereStowbaed add of feeb tents edt aad Begbsiq aoete exedtosd
ery af? Bae nolteua stidug 9a bice saw Loose vid? {QOESt aot sodden
os? abmod yoldaategue vO? blow co Ye sawoder Ho Dotleqa wbsvo
- te sulae Santee wi? oF tn anoltagelle om aatatnee taltalqnoe Sobmoan
edd fait a6 salav edd aedd seal sew eoicgy elas off tant <e doote’ od?
ylivt saw alee aids yaeveose# Lies of aeweq tpoitiw sew seternt
getts baa agnifeosory solterinagross saveo Lxtehel eff af Sodigeasd
“cot asw ofse ee tqweo off yd gattacd baa eeteas a eroted sonebive
ai eesanid od? Ye nolsos ed? of gone Tete Atiw anoiseoup 14 | .bemudt
-ob Yllaalt eiew Zoets yaaquod siedvevd aixial edd dt lw aolsoonned
ad? of cod 5 of neleufends att daa ,fxuee Lerobet edtont Dontored
wabass oft yattqnoss at huax’ Beyrede Sadaiyues Sobaems ea? 8%
of? waxetnataug od? geieaelor Ons sbned to 000,50L% Yo bLidoadtoR Yo
ita Yo TosneTaRs Yae Wh PaBMYEG AOU Fads AEbivoTy smemoonRA TRATAIR
ER eee eee SS lee
~G=
lien on the truct estate to the extent of such payment, but sub-
erdinate to the Lien of the bondholders, ‘otheechild hsd sequired.
$143,200 of bende and tendered thes for cancelation in order te re-
duce the mortgage indebtedness te 51,000,000, If this offer vas
aecepted Rethechild would become 2 orediter of the mertgage debtor,
but subordinate to the claims of the bondholderz, It was while the
question of the authority of the trustee to accept this tender war
pending in the Federal court that the theboygzan bank filed ite suit
asking for a money judgment against the gusrantorse anc for an order
enjoining the trustee from accepting Acthechild's offer. The bend
holders’ committee filed ite petition in the “egeral court esking
Ate authority to appear in the «tate oourt proceeding and te agree
to the compromise offered by Hothsehild, Yhie wac referred in the
Federal court to o master and evidence was lnatroduced as to the
fgnancial cendition of the guarantors, The master found thet Sasuel
Harris, one of the guarentors, hed died in 1996 and his estate had
been settled before there wae any default in the mortgage under cen-
sideration; thet Db, ©. Harris, another guarantor, bad died in 1935,
leaving no assete other than insurance payable to hie family; that
the committee was unable to find any assets of A, Marris, another
guarantor, and that i. i. Baum, another guarantor, bad emall aseete
and large liabilities; that the only one of there guarantors with
aeeets wae Rethachild, who had large licbilities, and thet suit a-
gpinst his would probably reeult in bankruptey. The mester reported,
recomsending that the committee accept Sothechild's tender, snd it
wae so ordered, There ie no evidence of fraud or conspiracy, but
the order wae entered only after careful consideration,
Plaintiffs next complain that the deeree of the Superior
court of Auguet 8, 1934, le no bar to thie action, as that decree
was procured by fraud and collusion, The Sheboygan bank'e amended
Complaint was filed on behalf of all bondholders ané agserted that
after an investigation of the financial condition of the guarantors
ate
het te Sheeyey Mone to faetxe sod as ecePee eewed Oh mo AOL
hexhupos bad Aftinettoh .erebfecdchwed ett te ment add 6? staakere
<ot of rebto at HOttefeodes «rt wad? Herekney Bae abacd to°0OS SETG
“eew tetto off7 YT 000,000, S9 Oc enendesdetal sgagtate oat aonb
20FdeP enagtiom 4cf% to sostbeto s amoved bivew bitHoadtvo® Serqeosa
ect efittw saw TI waxed forbned edt te stato off of edankixodie tad
baw Tabwe? efat Fqsosn oF watenrt att Te yo troittus ed? Yo notreanp
tiue uti Dell? shad me_yed edd’ eA? Sade siv0e Lirebst' oat Al gakbaeg
sedte N# OT Sas wvafnastscn off Fantegs saeapbul Conom # Tor gataes
* Lened sa etre e'htitoettot gattqssos wott settrtr uae gathtolae
gakvee Prwod Lerebs™ ot ar notshrey ets berlY setetmmes! ‘erebtod
gd? at berre'ter eae ate | bertoedden qe Beretio eb redegned ont bd
get Of 96 beowbortht saw comeblive Bas Teteem & OF Pty0s Lerebet
Bad ofatee eid baa acef at het hat ,etethe ety eee t6 ene” es teral
noo Taday spastrot aft mt sfontOd Yah Caw ered? exOtE bols7—0 aved
ROT HE beth Bet otnetsws vetPons jeferes 10.0 seit taokredepra
qoittone \wiviel! 4 YO etenwe ene bekt of Olden sie Sete tamos eae
vtoren [fens bad jrotnerauy tomtone vowed 2 WM Pott how tor neteny
' detw everhatany east? Yo eho Yin ont vats wetshThéatl eyakT Bab
-2 thus fed? bes ,eeltrtdarly syeat bad’ onw Bitteenver saw etesen
SF fre (rebnot ohitdoette teases eerthenos bt tant yrloiienmoees
hee” veer yo Auer? to eenebivs of ef ret? jReretco of saw
. | \nettersbleae’ feteras codta {iho heterne aw Sebo eee
cebregie® ‘et Yo sonst 8% tal? ate iqnes teen’ eTtitein lt Sov kareed
sate tat? an ,nolfoa side of abd 6 er ber 0 Peingua’ huis
bebrems aad poenionmend od? wetavilep bas pape Rene
“Wael 6. Wea ae ey rf
“erotanvairs ade Ye sesipnedinnneange t% od? Yo Aokwaptinevit fi
of: Rb (Pitas gost @f gepeseeie eieeedite eet Bee eiaiiiileaaas: :
a
ee
~
it wae the opinion that Acthaohild's tender should be asceepted, A
decree to this end was entered in the Superior court, Aotheehild'ts«
bende were accented and the guerantors released, $[¢ apoeare that
both Hart and Slooum knew of the pendency of theese procesdings;
neither, hownver, mecGe any attempt te vacate the decree or appeal
from it; dart, as a depositing beondholder, was represented by the
committee. The deeree in the “Superior court wae not & consent deerece
but wae entered after plaintiff had investigated the situation, and
upen the hearing the decree wae entered, The Superior court found
in ite decree thet the sult wae brought ae a clase sult and thet ail
parties were repreeente4, Filaintiffs, as +e have said, neither
moved to vacate or appeal.
Ne facte are shown eupporting the charges of fraud and
ecOllusion. It is too well settled to require extended citation of
authority thet mere conelugiona se to freud are not sufficient, but
that facts must be shown, Harrigan v. County of Peoria, 262 T1l,
36; Knaus v. Title ¢ T Gg., 366 T1l, 698; Plank v. Plank,
$03 Till, 254. The Superior court head jurisdiction of the Sheboygan
bank suit. All parties were in court and were represented by senbers
of their respective classes and by the trustee, white v. Maegueen,
360 Ill. 236,
The instant proceedinga are in the nature of a bill of
review, which must be brought for error of law apparent on the face
of the decrees and aannot be made to function at an appeal or writ
of error. Begner v. Hooyer, 314 T1ll. 169,
Plaintiffs argue thet there was no asbiguity in the terns
of the trust deed with reference to the authority of the trustee to
aesept the fietheehild bonds and that the action of the trustee in
this regaré was impreper, Examination of the trust deed (sec, 13,
art. &) showe the trustee wae authorized to accept and receive in
satisfaction of the mortgage debt “such amount and amounts of money
as the trustee in ite unlimited diseretion may deem advisable." we
i.
-
iborgnoaa of bfvoss cobtot B*httdondtex Yadd nolatgo eit bew #2
s'httdonaro® \sxwoe rolteqht ed? af Bexstns sew bae eldd oF oe serseb
fed? eiteegqe aT sbossolon srodnanasy "ed? bas bishsoned par abnod
iegnibescorg sbextz’ te ‘goaabreg ‘ed? to ‘wont ‘mwoot® ‘Baa ban t2ak idod
Taeqas 6 eedeed odt sdanay or] Fqmotts waa shen tev owoul \aodd bon
ka? Qe pedionergt: baw ,teblodbned saitteegeh s an iat it wort
sewsdh Pedibe A don Sav gabed Telaequt off Al doroed oat “\ebdd hanes
bak .koltabtia ont betasiveeral bad Yurtatatg «dt Seresa0 haw dud
“BABG? Pad colrsque SH Boredad baw verdes’ ond galxaed aa? noge
1th Fast bas tive state s a tiybor Baw tak ed Fadd ooroeb adi al
veda aea ba ivad ov ab 5 aTaeeabast bothiethkih view bélbteg
» pena erawk 92 ‘tabaee ws ho bednkt Sa boven
“bak BHATT 16 nowiadd act” galtrocaie awods 1a adoad ot” wicr
te mOtzaetio pabaetxe etivpes ot ‘Beltzea Slew cov of ‘gt hehaatioo
‘tad tnetoltia | yon ote Buen? oo aa anol féass vite tial <a hioaihe
Ect S88 adios 12 sdauigo panna Level od’ stim ttn Gadd
whale ¥ Moat 868 {itr ast, suit 3 of Li 4 inal
aagyodede 6ay 10 nottorBalaut bad Px6 hevienerl oat” ae” tet B68
areden Yd Betnos ergot Stew Baa Pande Al otew ibidteg « th “Sika dane
neuron ; vv sth hahaa all Ne ‘Baa id taht "Gulbbegs the
reas ome TS .o Pane ‘ese tht Gee
46 rfid d Ge oodan odd al ota npatdes or fubbads’ wn -
ada2 4d} Ad Pneidcen Wat to torts Yor Piiguord od Faun dod wolves
“thw un Beye fa a8 “noksonat é¢ sida ed Ponnas baa ooroeh add te
SO dye” Stir eke” gave Wy tomaet .t0rxe te
ange? edd nt ytogldmwe on saw wrod? daad” ehiel Cedi
of ooteust off ‘to qidédtun od? of soneteter ativ heed ‘Tawid 6 ad? to
“Wh Bedewxd ad? Yo noives off tad} Baa udadd Blidond#ot oct tqevea
GF ibse) Bood vend? bate Yo noltantnax® vteqeiqll sav tegen’ clad
di Wieser Bae Sqdbbs of beetdedd be saw eoduwrd ext awods (2 dus
yanon to stmvens tne trvdna dove" gen “egegtrta sett to nested tented
we *yelden tvs oooh tow néttordeth boftarinu of ni sore
are
zi am a lat
i
find no language specifically authorising the trugtee te acsept bonds
in compromise of the guaranty, A certein amount of diseretion wae
ledged in the truetee by the terme of the truet deed, but there Le ne
@llegation that thie discretion was not exerciced honestly and fair-
ly.
It is said the trustee permitted defaults in the payment of
taxes, but there is no allegation that the truectes could have avelded
theese defaults or head any money to wake such payments, There is no
allegation that any more could have been realized for the bondholders
4f the tructee had instituted foreclosure preeeedings, ‘The committee,
representing 90 per cent of the outstanding bonds, was of tae opinion
that acceleration and foreclosure were inadvisable, ‘The complaint
does not suggest that any greater benefite for the btonchelderr could
have been had than was obtained by them in the reorgsnisation ace
Complished in the Federal court.
industrious and aetute coungel for plaintiffs have soresented
@ large number of points and eitatione whieh would unreasonebly ex-
tend thie opinion to comment upon, *It i# jurt ae ieportant thet
there should be a place to end as that there should be a piace te
begin litigation." Stell v. Gottiieb, 305 U.5, 165,
we have presented the affirmative reesens why, in our
opinion, the orders of the Superior court susteining the sotiene te
strike plaintiffe' amended somplaint and dismiseing it were sroper,
and they are affirued,
APPIREED,
Matehett, *.J,., and O'dennor, J,,coneur,
at
abaod gqeeca of eatuwsd afd gatealiodtua yilaeitioegs ogaegral en bas? |
saw nolsorse tb to tnweme niaties A .¥yenetarmg edz to oe inorquoe nt
on al etext? fed .boeb Parte ed? to oetet edt yl osteus? edt at bopiol
-ttat San ylssencd Soatorexe Jon saw mold esoa lb aids ed nottagol ia
¥ es:
~~
's
to SreR TAS edt al af fusted bettiore, setenst ona Siaa al a
bedteva eved Sivoo astaus? eds gadt aglvegeltla on al ovede oud nena
oa al oued? .atnomyeq dose eden of yoaom yaa Bed 40 st iuateb onait
atebledined off 10% hertiaes ased evad biseo e10m wa tacks nottaetia
bald atieae
MEFs iamoo of? .agathooveng ersmolocre? betué teent hed ootaus? ads u
notnigo ed? to eaw ,ahsod gatbnatesve sd? to sass 294 8 paldaeneuges
“iw Sete eaw
tnialqmes aiT .eldeaivbani gisw euusoioeto? baa Holt sreleo0n sade
ny af Seven
Rives sashLlodtned adit 10% atitened setaetg qe gest saoagie ton ae0b
~0a solvaainagtoet ez at nodd yd ben taade haw nad bad seeds ovad
Holmes See
: Jt100 Inrebet oie at ¥
betavesrs ovad a1t2satala 30% Louawoe ofutns ew evolstasbal psa
gion? ?an7
“x8 Vidsnena tiny sinew doldw nnoltad te bas nsntog Qe seaman eae a
fasts duadroqus aa gout a2 #1" ‘tog fasames of nedaico SLAt baet
of soaig 2 od biueds ext sadt oa bne of seatg s of Dives onsds
#8L 8,0 808 desitaoe .v Lose wnoteaste ht a no
qwo At ,Ydw snoeaed evitzertttts edt Sotaesesq ova on prea
ov sneltem od? yuinistau= Javos sahceqet anid bid nuebee ‘it aniabe
areqorg otew of aaten ina sd ete Satataues dobooan Jevttatals existe
C)
| ,GERAIWA
swo800 6 r9nn00"9 jaa, ron lahore yt
ma ed? Te
| wee Pepestiee
: ipaater ada
rior? eit wwoddn (és ‘dus |
ro Seen rwan set Te ites? bg
rae tak fey Shi ge eaten oat od |
ne
40B44
VERCHICA 8. HOIRLAREY
of the Zetate -« 4
Degeared, :
e Administratrix
° pe ney,
Beg
Appellant,
BOXSEN BAKING gOfp
and EDWIN 5, KJ
Py “
MY,
( — sppetlaeng be : Te .. 4 3 9
WR, JUSTICE-MOSURELY DELIVeRED THE OPINION OF Tay ccURT,
Wiehael HeInerney, while driving bile *oerd car westward in
Germak road in Chisago, collided with « truck going eastward belong-
ing to defendant baking company and driven by the co-defendant,
Edwin 5. Kellogg; as a result of the collision Hslnerney received
fajuries from whieh he died; hie administratrix brought sult against
the owner of the truck and ite driver, alleging that Solnerney waa
exercising due care but that defendantes' truck was so carelessly and
negligently operated by Kellogg as to cause the collision; the case
was tried by court and jury and a verdict was returned finding de-
fendants not guilty; motion for a new trial wae overruled and judg-
ment entered on the verdict, Plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff firet asserte thet the verdict was against the
manifest weight of the evidence. The accident happened about
3 o’clock on the morning of July 14, 1937; with McInerney in hie ear
were Arthur Roes, Andrew Hruby, Jr., and Joseph Jeske, all employees
of the Link Belt Company; on the evening of July 13, they had at~
tended o meeting of the officers and employees of thie company at
S5rd and Haleted streets; after the meeting, MeInerney with his
party firet went to a downtown restaurant on Van Suren street near
State, where they had something to eat; they left thie place at
about 3 o'eleck on the morning of the 14th and proteeded homeward,
They drove south on State street and were stopped by a red light et
Cermak road, or 22nd street; when the green light came on they
turned weet on Cermak and hed gone about « block - thet is, opposite
sas aingentotatnbl » ,LIMAYMTOM 4H ADTMORSY
wae
,THUOO TIU
SYRwUSS
"eas ATad
.PrUaC 18? 43 AOTHESO ant easV 18 YanH Owese fit
: tad? seltaget is
wt Syawlese ane Drot aff gatvind oftdw yeonvenTel Leadet® 6 oo! 1)
~yioled Stavtass yotoy Aowtt s dt bebti feo ,oysotad al hae stamepd
| {InabneYeb-oo eM? YO MOVED Baw Yanques Yalind Inabastel ov Bat
. Sev heoex Yortenio solelffon ef? to Tinaew a ae {gRokie® 2 ntebo
tankage iwe ttyuow! xivtaqotminda wid yer antcossw dot seteuped
@aw YonIesloN Sade gaigelia ,ceviah Ste Bae aowid wie Yo yeawo ole
fae yLarefeins oF saw toms 'adnabeoted Said Sud ess cub galetotexe
ouso oa? jnofatiloo ad? savas of sa gyotiok WW betaueqo yksnoghiyen
-ob yasbat? derristes saw otbrev 2 hna Yuu, Ana 2100 YW beret maw
~g8l Ban Desuvrevo vay Iatws won a xo wedtow 44 Loy tow staahawt
slosige Tutilel sothney od? xo bevetie tape
of9 Ountwiga vay Sotvrev ond Sak? wetouna Foutt AtivataLt im
Feeds benegqad taab.oos ‘eit ,eonehive 4s Wo etqtow snettoing ~
tao Bid mf yerves tol! atte Veer ef Yint te gateron ai? ne Meolote &
sesyelqne Lia ,ede0% dqevot bas ,.2t , ede! west enor ue onON
-ts bad gold {UL Yiwl, Yo galmeve oft ao pyneguod ties antl edz to re
ta yaaqmoo ald? to aesyolque bae ereoltio ed? Yo gniteoem s bobaes
ald dtiw yeorsnlo® .gattesm writ, testa: yadeoite baselak aetna
7300 Secuta seul sav no taeiwatees awotnmwob a oF taew fant? wag
fa eoatlg sid? atel yod? (tee oF galdsemon hat yout erxoste otaa®
.btawemod bebsosorg bas Adel odd to gaterom ont ne aooio'e & tuoda
te digil bex » yd beqgote row baa Seoxte tase no aewon ore oat ie
todd mo omen tdégll averg ad sect (roouwe bass 30 be 02
etlsoqqo ,si tant ~ Joold a tuoda enog bad dua damyod phe
tive ted ama?
aa
Dearborn etreet, which mune nerth and south, when the collision
with defendants’ truck, Griven by Kellege, occurred, Cermak road at
this point rune east and weet and ie dightly over 8? feet in width;
there are two street car tracks on Cermak, both of #hich at the tine
of the accident were on the nerth side of Cermak instead of the
center.
Plaintiff makes the point that as defendants’ automebile
was proceeding sactverd in the east bound car traese, which were on
the north sida of Cersak, it viclated paragraphe 151 and 152 ef the
Botor Vehicle law, chap. 95-1/2, Ill, Nev. Stats. 1857, which in
effect saye that vehicles shali be driven on the right side ef the
poad, with certain exeeptions, one of which is when the right half
of the roadway ie closed to traffic while under construction or re-
pair, That wae the case here, A railroad viaduet crossed Cermak
about a block end « half west of the place of the eollision, The
pavement on the eouth side of Cermak rond immediately east of the
viaduet had been torn up, leaving the two paved pertions of the
street car tracks on the north side of the reed the only espace for
traffic, and east bound traffic used the street ear tracke, lefend-
ante' truck was on the north side of Cermak road, not ln violation
ef any provision of the Moter Vehicle law but because traffic on the
@outh side wae obstructed by pilings and tressels weet of the
viaduet and the torn up condition of the street eact for a short
bleck up te the street car tracks, which, ax we have sald, vere on
the north side of Cermak road next to the north curb. ‘“oreover,
counsel for plaintiff concedes that east bound traffie micht preeeed
oa the east bound car tracks, HMeInerney's car war proceeding west-
ward, straddling the north rail of the west bound street car track,
while defendante’ nutomobile truck was gcolng easterly in the east
bound street car tracke,
Plaintiff's theory is thet ag the vehielee approached each
ether defendant Kellogg sufidenly and negligently turned hie truck
in a northeasterly direction, bringing it across the path of
Melnerney's car, gausing the vehicles to eellide despite Melnerney's
-f-
neleiiioes eff netw ,dfvon base Adaoa acws doldw ,teerts arodiaed
ga dbeot dawxe) .bewiwooe ,ypolie! ew aeviad ,dowrd ‘atnabaotoh ddiy
Uighiw al gest 06 seve yltdgh& el bas taew dna teae ant toloq ela?
ont? od? ta dotdy Yo dtod tase nO advert Yad Yooute ovd oxa oxallt
ead to saeeens tewred Yo ebte d¥ron edt no e19w tmebioos edt to
a _ swotnee
efidometus ‘ttnabaoted es tad? tetoy ott sexnm titdasal if = aoe
ne wipe dotcw ‘edoane tho bred Peae ofd a2 Duawteao akiieal aaw
ei? to S8L dns [8f adgwugatag Detalety 21 ,lemse® Yo. ebte dozen ed?
ak dotdte .TOCL .etad® veh .1fT .S\l-6@ .qaro ,wal ofoldeV tOFON
‘pdt Yo Whe Fegtx od? no Hovid oof hans bolotdev Yad? ayoe toette
tad gig sat mort of folew Yo ono ywnoltqeexd ntedyeo dtlw \baos
-o1 qe HelYoursancb 4oBav oftdw Prd OY Sebote of Yaubhes bar Yo
Aéirs boevord Youbaty baovttey A” wel bebo bar daw Haat “Alag
od? lwolstffoe ea to coat oat Yo phew Lad # bine Moots a tyeda
ant Yo ene yfetatbenmt Snox xawred to Sblw Hiwoe ext ho Phomevag
ext to snottroq Sevag owt Git gatvsbl qu avd hood bad Poubalv
eg) Gage ULtO ont Buor bey to obte fan off AO bitewts “no Foouds
- ebitetet Jexootyd ao teonte ont hoe okttaid sabe dae baa (ol rtaTd
| ‘pottatety at goa .bade daaced Yo ana fton bas no baw tound Toda
edd me atte? sausoed tod wel efendev a0te® ed? Yo nolatvery yma to
ait to teow efosvew Baa egntiiq yw badsinntedo saw ebte dtuoa
toitt 2 vet tase toeute oft Yo nolP Eno qu mod od? Ba toubaly
no’ Otew Bisa évad wu'da <dotdw indies Gee Pesute edt Os qu doold
\gaeeere® idude dison eff of “fxed Baot daawsd to ebta diton odd
Reeder ftatw Otter Aawet yeas saad sobeonos ¢ Tiltabalg 10% Lenasoo
— ngdew BabBSeodte nav dad 8! yetxedted “ladoard 4e0 Bawed Fane ed? no
| vioatd 8 toonts beued Hou sit'%6 Lied abiod Sat gab iSbonti bios
dose Bedssorqda sefotiev odd oo tact of wroads at ated aig’ *
; dourt eid bemtut ‘ones! igen baa saannll 38 tier 4 tne dé stab
do diag ot? seorea ¥2 yatgatad ‘ took vn
nh Pewee ee a gee Dee 2 se QF 2, TOE beg nae, ENS
ato
efforts te avoli an accident.
senke testified that he was en the back eaet of the sar on
the left hand side behind Melnerney; he says defendants! truck —
ewerved to the left, cutting right ia frent of “elnerney'e car; that
Metnerney sleo ewerved to hie left and then the aceldent securred;
he saye “elnerney'e car was going not mere than 85 alles an hour and
thet defendants’! truck averved in ite pathway when 1% war beteren
25 or 302 feet away; thet Seclnerney @verved to the right. «hen Jeske
testified before the coroner's inguiry inte “einerney's Geath a few
weeke after the collision he said he could not tel). how far apart
the tere were when defendants’ car started to aeerve; that all he
saw were the lighte in front of him and he 414 not aee the truck
until the moment of the impact; that he could not say as to what
@irection Helnerney ewung his automobiics.
Rese testified he wat eltting om the back eest of
Melnerney's car on the right hend eide and the only thing he eould
remenber was that he sav lights in front of them at an angle, whieh
appeared to be lights of an automobile not over 16 or 12 feet away
when he saw them; that he was not paying any particular attention te
Welnerney's driving,
traby testified he wae on the front seat, to the right of
MeInerney; that when he first saw the truck it wee on the weet bound
rail, close to the MeInerney car; that the truck euddenly made a
short curve, turning to the north. At the coroner's inqueet he
testified he did not see the truck or ite lights before the eol-
lision.
John Halvor, chauffeur, an independent witness who was
atanding at the northeaet corner of “tate street and Cermak road at
the time of the accident sald he noticed the Ford in the weet bound
tracks and the truck coming in the east bound treeke; that he heard
the sereeching of brakes; that after the collision the ford was up
againet the right nand side of the truck, whieh was facing in a
southerly direction,
tt
Saobiooa an Sova of aftette
fo Gan off Ye 'a0e deed edt ao sew ad fade Boltitasd edeet. © § by
gouwie ‘atcatosted ayaa ad pyeansalo4 Haided ebia bnad tel eds
teas paao atyectento Yo Jqeut wf figtt galttue <t%el od? of Bowrevts
thevgeeo9 taebieos aft sof? bas 3Ief ald of Hhowrews osie youvesIon
Daa wed na sefia 68 nad? erem ten gatog saw 190 9 yeartenToM ayeered
avouted anv tL node Yourltsg of? ak Levtewe Xowse) 'etuabasted tad
esas) aedé Odgsm em? of Dovvewt ysetenToX tad? tyawe feet O8-a0°68
wet & d#aeb a'(eatenio’ efni yidopal s'teneiee ef3 @roled bestiteds
faaqa tet wor {lee gow Siwoo ef S102 ef metetifos add etka saooe
od iis Gad? teviewn of Setasta too 'stashadted modw qiew @1s0.982
| Mowat ont @90 toa bth of Bas mid Yo Snos at atagll ort evew was
dushe OF em YAS fon Sfuco ad Gadd prOsqH! ‘edt Yo Scqnom edt Litne
,@Lidemotus etd gawws yomiealol aoltoetse
‘No 2498 doad of% no Galttis saw od SeLtiseesoases — 6 foes
Sivoo et gatcs elmo edd Das abfe Sand teigta off mo ceo af yercenton
Holdw (ofyea aa ta mead Yo PHovt al etdgll wee od tad? aw nOdaemer
Yaun feet Qf two OL tave fon siidemotaa ae to atsdyil ed of Hotaeggs
ef sattnotes walusitisg Ya yaliaq tom sow od tale {meds wae ed node
(9 agmuby da ah genr ato
%o tegit adt of ,taee Saort at? ao saw ed Belttsae? ydetey (> 6
haved tose ad? no sew tt dowt? off vas taal? od nedw tad? yyenentow
a bas yinadhwe tourt od? Pact trae Yertentol edt of seolvo Liar
at teomend s'tenesos off GA .dtuem edt oF gataiwt .eriwe Preds
-f09 adt cated stigil aff co Sewst ed% gon don DLh oc bebtasood
d gat beotoy Tillakels wt geeges
haw Odw Geant te tnebteqehet sa piwortaads tov Lan Mtob ee oo O°
ta Dac dawte® Bas Seerle egatl te réms00 Sasedoaen add Za galhaate
pawed teow ed? af fyo¥ off Beottonved bisa Snebtoos edd to ents edt
bused ed tad? jedoaud Saved teae ed? nt gatmoo dewrt ent? haa adownt
gw caw Suet odo aolstifos oft costa tums feedetd Ye-gaddeoeros oat
mes ingatna sev dots , Nouns: ‘esta Yo obte Saad ¢igtu oat Pantages
Sdn aid stivine $2 witented to /steoenth tinedttuee
sg ~~. & * did '
ya. oe
BA ee
dames G'Leary, snother chauffeur and independent ei taese,
wee talking te Halvor at the time; he said he heard the tbrekees
eeresching and eaw the two cere some together: that ehen he firet
gaw the teo vehicles it lecked to him at thouzh ‘they vere going
where they belonged, one was going east and one wae going weet in the
ear tracks, The truck var going east, straddling the east bound
ear traoks,* When O'Leary reached the seene of the aceldent the
Fora was on the right side of the truck, *nosed inte the tide of the
mid@le of the truek-tewards the front," Neither of these witnesses
gaw defendants’ truck swerve towards the north, nor 414 they under-
teke to state what caused the collision,
Charles Boyle testified he wae = police officer araigned
te the accident prevention bureau; that he took pictures ae soon aa
the injured parties were rewoved from the Perd; that theese show that
after the eollision the rear of the truck wae entirely on the north
side of the weet bound traek; that the general direction of the
truck wae aimoct east and a little south; thet there war contiderable
Gamage to the right frent fender and wheel of the truck; that most
of the damage to the Ford war to ite right front cide.
Bees the record show clear and convincing evidence as te
hew the saceident happened? The witnesses for plaintiff are in-
Gefinite. Jeske says that before the aceldent Nelnerney's car wan
- swerving te the left, but on eress-oxamination said it awerved to
the right; that he had o “distinet reeollection* of it swerving to
the right. ruby eays defendants’ truck hit the ford ear ‘sideways"
on the right hend side, Halvor saye that after the collision the
truck wae facing in a southerly direetion. C'Leary says the ford
wae on the right eide of the truek “nosed into the #ide" about the
middle towards the front, Folice officer Boyle took pictures of the
automobiles after the collision ana says these shew that the rear
of the truck was entirely on the north side of the west bound track
and ite general direetion was slmoset east and a little south,
Under such confusing circumstances the jury could only
speculate ae te the cause of the eclligion, They could Just as
EP) ene AE tm OBS
ae
aaentiv trebaeqebat bas iwettwede cettona \erked'o wemey OY
abvand off Susert of bran ot jams? eff te vovEall oF gutdiae sew
duel? oxi were fat? tredteget? ood aten owt ef? wan Doe Qaddooorde
ghtog erew Yat” dgued? an etd of Bodod! $) eefolder owt ont” inte
adt nt feow gritos sew one tre sexe qntog nae ome \Segnoled yout oretty
bawed tone ett antThbatte ,teas guieg saw Hourd off § etoaet cad
et to @bie et% e¥ot hoten* \xeurd act to abte te_le eff nO waw Brot
noasonttw eoed? Yo roi? tot "snort ay abuewos aout ait ‘26 oithbiin
ae re Mron eft abrawod ovrows xowe? tatnabreted wae
| fetattfoo pucboerredienmdbgonse 2h? |
Sotginus deottic seffoy & waw of Heftsewee olyot eetret? — “08
ae néok tm BetHToty Moog en tack prapvenian tresses |
fod? wore esedt todd {duo eff mott bevemer eeek aettaad berwtnt en
diton od? me ¥Lotline saw Zour? orfs Yo <ier Ot nolnfI foo od? totta
odd to moftoorth ferenen ef? ved? pdoary baved teow ed? ‘to eb2o
ofderebiones saw oxedt tade ptitwoe effet » bie thao Tromtt saw Wot?
feow Pant pNowrs orlt te Ceedw Baw vebset ener? Peigts orf of wpamad
os “\ebte erort gatgis att of saw Bro™ ons of egamad’ edt tO
of a8 oonedive gatontvnce ban asefo worn proper eH? woot >
| nit ona Tttabale vet odtentiw eat thenvqyad thebiees eft word
— gaw tho af yorronTet trebtesa ent snorted Catt Wyeth oateey er tat ted
ot bovrswe of blae netvantmexe-eeord wo tet (0YeF of? OF yalvrowe
ot gntviewe gf to “nettesficse: sontte:s* « bad of Sade edger one
eyewebte” sao bre% edt Pid dowd ‘etnabreted ayer yee ay hy Sie
edt motetifoe edt xetta tae ayes xeviai =6.ebia baad Seyler ood we
Bao ont SyRe YXoM'O \HOttoorld YLramyues. a Ad getest asw dows?
edt tuods *obie edo ofmk Bevoa* doit? ort Yo ebie eiighy add no ‘tay
eft te nowrety foot efyot reettto sotfet .tuoct aia ehusret sinbia
emer ec? tect wore one? oyke Ses votetifen et arte seftdometiv
feort Brwod teow elt te abe Hever ext Wo ULerttne tow aowtt se to
tower Bft0Ll ws Bere thas tools ea nottowrth Inteney ort bes
Une bivoo yest ont aeonatemsorto gatawtace owe eebAy (8%
eh ae ee eT eee ee er ene oe er ON a pe ae
Me 48 tan
b=
reasonably conclude that if the Ford had not awerved there would
have been ne collision as te conelude that the swerving of the truck
eoused the collision. It is net within the prevince of the jury to
guese where the truth lies and make that the foundation of a verdict.
in Offutt v. Columbian Expoeition, 175 T1ll, 472, the opinien notes
thet there are cases “where there say be come evidense tending in
gome remote dezree to suppert every allegation, yet of tee incen-
¢@lusive and uneubstantial « character to be the foundation of &
verdict." In Virginia & & “. Sy. Ge. v. Hawk, 160 Ped, 548, 562, 1%
was held thet a esee should never be left to & jury on a cuestion of
probabilities with a direction te find in accordance with the greater
probability. ‘fo allow a jury to dispose of a case simply upen
weighing of probabilities is to turn them loose into the field of
eonjecture, and to have the righte of the parties determined by
guess,* In Hyer v. City of Janeeville, 101 Wis, S71, the principle
of law ie properly eteated, ‘In a case like thie it is inousbent
upon the plaintiff te show by evidence, with reasoneble Gistinetness,
how and why the accident cesurred, *** To present two or sore tates
of a case upon which o jury wey theorize as te the real cause of the
asoident, putting one cenjecture againet another and determining
which is the more reasonable, comes far short of making a case, * * *
4n examination of the numerous authorities cited will disclose that
the principle of law does not admit of question or exception, that
where there ie no direet evidence of how an accident securred,* * *
4t is not within the proper province ef a jury to guess where the
truth lies and make that the foundation for a verdict." %¢ are of
the opinion that in the instant case, in the absence ef any con~
vineing evidence as to whether Kellogg, driving defendants' truck,
or Meinerney, driving hie own automobile, or both combined, brought
about the aceldent, there oan only be surmise, Courte ado not mulect
litigants in desmeges based upon guess work,
It ie said that counsel for defendante wae guilty of mie-
“gonduct, with special reference to his argument te the jury. ‘pen
the trial defendants’ souneel had offered to place on the stand de-
—
‘Sineow evade Bevrews fom Ba Bao’ off 22 Pat? ebwlemoo _Idancaaet
dour? of to geivvewe off Fad? obo fones of ee nota flos oa Abed ovat
of waut ey Yo sdelvoty aft aksstw tom et ST moter ifoe add Berneo
PoLheee a to woltainve? off tad? etae bra well dowd edt evectw Gosy
\ padon Welatge of ,2> SLT BtL HSITigoge® fasdmwsod iv SITIO AT
ni QAEAG? eONedive amo o¢ Yam sued? oLOMe*® NOEAS O19 OTEK) Sade
-eont eet Ye toy ,mottayelin crevs Puoggan OF eovged efomwt omoe
4 Yo HolPabnwet ado wt oF wetomradd a Lattastedwventy bas ow tents
a2 28S (ane Joot OBL (tese .v 169) .y WW 8 @ wtndgety at "20ddeov
to MOLFeaNs a © YEH A OF FIel ed even Bivote sans 4°Sad? Bied waw
qetaetg off tlw somabroons al Balt of weltoetts a Atty setetlidedosq
& nog (Lents e2Ae 8 Yo eveqnsD OF Yall se wolfe OF \ yeti idadorg
16 Biel? a9 otal seoer molt ius OF 41 wots RtGadoEa te yandaten
‘YO BenkmvedeR seftesq eff Yo eeaaht emt evad of baa ,orutos{aes”
efqtonts of% , 208 .o20 FOL (elifvessal Yo ystd iv gay wl °* .aa6ug
inedavent of 92 stad OAL esao a AT* sRerarecyttoqony @! wal” to
<2eentontiets efdanoacet Atte ,eonebive yd were OF Tiisatalq ed nogE
noGave ence 16 owt Snonerg OF F°* \hereweso SmObLoas eA? Yutw dna -wod
ott to senac Inex Sf OF a eetceed? Yee~wt @ doldw negy sha e To
gittn beret ob hoe <odtonn tenlage e1uteelmee eno gaivtuq tnebtoes
© ° © \een0 & gaikas ‘to toca ast Besos ,eldanoedes tom ef? af Motty
ted? ebefoold Lilw Serie sels kxedtus evorsmen of? Yo nOttantmans HA
tats (HOLPEotze 46 noRPeenp Te ‘gtabe tem aeob wei Yo ofqhouhsy ade
° @ * benrwse9 Saedlooe sé wei to eatedive tometh on ef oted? orerty
et eeade enon oF Yt s to sontvoerd teqo1q edt m2ttiv Som aL °9t
26 ors 9% "Sotdter a tot nelsebawet df tad? oxaw bad Boll Mauet
«00 Yas te consads off ai pease @aadent odd af gadt notatqe edt
(Mount ‘e¢oahaotes gatviah (soled aedtedw of Ga soneSive gatonty
‘Sigwond ,Benidmos sted te ,ofidomesws nwo ett gitvdad (yentenTet ao
tofum zon of ataved ,eotmiya ed YIno nad state \taeblooa ois Suede
e witow e2eng aoqu besad segenad at efaaglelt
ante to 4@fiw_ she ataabaoted 16k Leanwoe Sadeoh2ak O29Toy 0) So
nal .xuwt ett OF FaomwyTe td OF sonoLeteT IdteeqE' ABI .FoubAOD
ities ame SB ee eS ee ae ee ee ee en ee ee ee a ae
aie
fendant Kellogg, driver of the truck: counsel for wlaintiff objected
te hie competency, whieh objection the court properly sustained,
Speie, 285 ll.
App. 23, we noted that thie war sometimes called the “Sead Man's
Ghep, Sl, §2, T11. Rev, Stats, 1937, In
Statute* and thet Wigmore on ividenee (2nd ed,), $878, 5. 1008, had said
this rule of incompetency rests on “some vague metaphor in place of a
reason" and aske, Can it be more important to save desd nen's estates
"than to save living men's estates from lose by ieck of preoef?*
In his argument to the Jury counsel for defendants referred
to the defendants! inability to present to the jury felloge's teati~
mony ae to how the accident happened; thet he had tendered hin as a
witness but plaintiff's counsel hed objected as he wae not competent,
although plaintiff might have waived this objection ané permitted
the jury to have full information ag to the occurrence, The tars s
eited by plaintiff in whieh the condust of opperting counsel] was
eritioized deo not present « situation like this, and we know of no
rule which holds that it ie reversible error fer souneel to refer
to the fact thet his opponent has by objections, although properly
sustained by the trial court, prevented the fury from enineionn ali
ef the facte,
It 4a euggested that « certain instruction ¢iven at the
request of defenéanta' counsel] should not have been given. Vhe in-
etruction properly told the jury that one of the me thode of im-
peaeching a witness war to show that he had intentionally made a state-
mont prior to the trial incofisistent with his testimony upon the
trial with reepect te a material matter, |
It ie axiomatic that the reviewing court should only
grent a new trial, when the verdict is atenened, when At is against
the manifest weight of the evidenee. All questions of fact were
properly submitted to the Jury, who saw the witnessee and heard
them testify. Ite conclusion was that plaintiff had failed te
‘prove the allegations of the complaint by a preponderance of the
evidence, te do not see how it can be said thie conclusion is
ageinst the manifest weight of the evidence,
~b-
hevostde WideLale wot Leanwee vei? ae Yo sevieh ,ggollek saabae?
bantedaum ylteqotq Swee off notiootde dotdw ,coneteqneo ald of
1ST GOS \gLoue .v sogmedet aE TSC ndash .vewh LIT Ste qdd) vga’
steak Bao" acd Sollao acattousa saw aid? tate Soden ow ,oS vqqh
biee Sad ,800L .@ ,8TO¢(.b9 boS) sonebivll se etomgé¥ Sands bag Portus ade
@ % evalg aL totgaton smgev emoe* no steer yoreteqnosnl to elat aime
aetstae o'pom bueh evan ef taattoqmt esom of #2 nad dea bas *noases
*’teong Yo deal qf aeef sort eetates o'aem grived evae ot mads*
houretex svantootes tot Lngawec yal edt oF tnempyta etd al of el ey
witae? atguoiled qt edt of @nosenq OF Wilidant ‘ecaedasted) et) of
‘a 80 nist herebaed bast od Tadd tenenqad ¢nebsees set ved of sa yaea
,thegeqmos fon saw ad an Hetoetdo bed Leenbon a! Itésatale ted: paentiw
bottlers dna mottostdo aids beviow eved ¢igin Wsetelg dywodsio
aease oc? Son errN820 edt of am noh@anwited Lin? oved of wil adv
aay Loanyon goleoqqe Ie fonbaco edt Molde af Btsaatatg y¢ botle
on te wont ew bas ,alet oxkl sottantte » saoretq ten ob bestoss tye
aston of Iesnwae so? tore elddasoven eh at Gait ebind’doldy eles
| UUmeqorg davods ia anoisoetde Ys aad snamogge afd Pads teat ed? of
[is gadvonk ott riwt ef? Sedaovere yoaven Late? edt yd Semtazoue
oni nes atest ent te
ect ta nevig aottowrant atettee:e:t ath iheseeggenies OB) «i dat
oat off .novtg nocd eved ten Siuede Loemes 'atnshroteb 2a’ troupes
| wnt Yo sbodd om edt te ono tat wast off SfLod eleeqotq! meltowale
-state 8 ebem Uilanei@asent had ad sede wode od sew eoendtinv a gn isoasg
e897 soge yoowtteet aft d3iw gnetetenoons fatat oft of aedcq tnem
etiam Lalietan a 0s Jouqeet atiw Laka?
“ine Sisocds taxon gatwetvet ed? sagt sivapoiza af 8E- 06) oe 80)
tontage af 2 setw .beteatta af SeLbuev edt netiw «latas wea a taety
--- @4ew Teel lo snettseup [14 ,coneblve sdt Yo sigtew teotinam edt
— pesod Dan soanent iv on? wae cow yyawt edd 09 Seetlodws ylroqong
of befia? bod tttentale tad? eaw motawfonoo eg%.> .eRivecd mods
» et Ye sonarshnoqeag a Yd tatelquee of Yo anoteagelis add evorq
r ft mosnufonoe afd? Bee od nao £2 wor oon dom ok aH!» .ppnebtve
s x) : ; al
aes ee ——— PP eee se ee
oFu
Yor the rearons indleated the Judement te effirned,
JUVGMENT APPIRBED,
Katohett, ?.J., concurs.
O'Geaner, J., dis#eating:
In my opinion the evidenee shows that the south portion of
the roadway of Cermak road west ef Dearborn street wan torn up ec
that the east bouné traffie wae shunted te the north and eauld pro-
eeeg east only on the south or exet bound street ear track, in de-
seribing the situation sounrel fer defendante in their brief sayi
“Prom the railroad right of way east to Federal ©treet (a short
block) and south of the street car tracks, the asphalt pavesent on
Cermak Soad wae torn up. This all formed a sort of bottle neck, s0
that all vehicular traffic on Cermak Read wae forced to the north
gide of Cermak Koad from federal Street west under the visduct, In
feet, the automobile traffic was shunted by means of traffie son-
trel lines, onte the street car tracke at about the interesetian of
South Dearborn Street with Cermak Resd, *
The accident happened about where Cermak rosé would be
intersected by Vearbern street. elnerney, driving the automobile
was straddling the north rail of the weet bound track - the preper
place for him to drive. The truek was being driven east, eouth of
the tracks ané swerved to the north on acoount of the condition of
the pavement on the eouth side of the street, as above stated, fe as
te proceed exet on the south street car track. when the truck
swerved te the north, KeInerney saw the hesdlights on the truck and
thought there wae to be a head-on collision and in an endeavor te
avoid it, turned his car to the south and the driver of the truck,
with the same purpose in mind, turned toward the north, but it vas
too late to prevent a collision.
in this etate of the record, I think the verdies of the
jury finding defendente not guilty ie againet the manifest weight
of the evidence,
Someitte aL saompbul, odd Hodeothal saoaaay odd woh...»
Ye nodduog Avon oct dastt awode onaahine, odd solaiqn YB AL oy
O8 Qu Huot say Faeite nuoduasi Lo taaw beow, Aamaed Yo yewhaow adt
ong Sivas baa ctson ote of detauta aew ofMeit bavad seas add tads
~95 il .kea%d s29 Jooutn bawed tase co adnan ads mo Yino face beeo
_. ae Jelud aled? af avaabnoted 19% esses aelsautte aft yaidiaon
(tunis a) Jeowts Letehei of Jase wou to sign hequitas edt aol!
«RO Shonevag sletqua att ,aseont Iso soeste aff Yo stvon bane (dogld
| 90 oan A6830d 20 2208 # Anmwet Lhe Ake, au nod mew Dao Agumed
Hi Poubaly oft cobow taew geqaso Lanebe'l mort Aeok dawsyed to ebie
to moltooanetal adt gueda te ape MAP FOMED AOt, AAD, eeenll Lows
ad bivow. sees uunieetstennaieeaniameall sD ali alt
slidametne eds gaivish ,yemisalok feos medial yd betosatetat
seqerg ed? ~ xoax? Saved teow et te liar doson ed? galthbaisa saw
Yo dtvoa ,3aae nevith gated eae Aquat ef? ,eviad of aid tot soala
20 eli ibaa eit Io Sauonen ge Stvon odd oF Loviewa dae adoaad edd
| ae on sbudete ovoda an Wooate ede Yo eta Atwon edt, no, Anemone. oct
dad ect wads loett 140 doette Aduon 93 no taae Deseorg oF
ot tovashas ae Kt baa noletilos agebaet s ed,oF new ovens tdguedt
Baw ah ded <n taunt bat te ak tou an a
snl Lita «hetatiics s tsevetg ef etal eat
‘iin amatnan ete nati ednannpedh Meataadiia qroqucy
tiglow geetlaam edt tantage ot sautemanenniaeatinenengiced
wee a Ud fatatowee ot be meamepennndes )
ti mesinivace afae@ Sten edewe 24 woe) oo ‘Ramiak af
i Ten,
AUSSELL A, BM, ANDSAEYR,
a |
¥. §
y, 2 i oii a : = \
BEAN F, RLANK & LAWRENCE j e :
A. PETERSON, /, j dgncy pe cou,
Pefendants. ) = mesma
\ ) c SOCK coUNTY,
AS paces
Appeal of 2 p, KLARA, 3
On peal of of ce OF. = . ey
Appellant. ) 30 D 1.A.489
MR, JUSTICE MeSVRELY DELIVERED THE GFIICH OF THE COURT,
Plaintiff? brought suit alleging that on October 31, 1°86,
in Evanston, [llincis, defendants Klarr and *etercon asesulted his
with violence ané maliciously beat and wounded him; upen the trial
apecial interrogatories were ubaitted to the Jury asking whether
each defendant, respectively, maliciously and violently ageaul ted
and beat the plaintiff; each ef there interrogetoriee was anewered
in the affirmative and both defendants were found guilty; Yetersen
was ascessed £100 to compensate for plaintiff's dasiages and defené-
ant Klarr $800; Feterson hae paid hie amount and defendant Slarr
slone appeals,
The defense was that plaintiff negligently drove his auteo-
mobile into the automobile Griven by Mlarr, causing it to collide
with another car; that plaintiff dreve his ear away from the seene
of the aecident witheut giving hie name or address ani that Alarr
pursued plaintiff for the purpose of apprehending him and turning
him over to the police; that vhen defendant compelled plaintiff to
step his car and demanded that he return to the nearest police
atation, plaintiff etruck Klaerr and refused to go, whereupon Flarr
weed only such force as wat necersary te arrest plaintiff and com-
pel him to go with him to the police station in Evanston, illinois.
The evidence prevented to the jury on behalf of plaintiff
wae enntradieved in alnost every respect by that offered on behalf
LTA. aed win, Duet wee ne agteas aif Liat Thee beer
pose Beis eRe u Pay tot ih ni’ * we on Ww sh
ae iS 8 he | G0 dae to. eo stan logge pags Adee, att. sori!
tate eet 40" worst iter cutev ase Taavesid Sth we“
aan ale aw eo seapaeD
Peet, af, 3040308 ae tad astne tte, save, tquons, pera Lie heads
mid botiuenea soored9% ine mall etrahagied ,stontstl. getensya ah
Redd esi gulins Yul ad? of Redtindua grew aerodsyonietal, Latosge,
betivasas ylinelety baa vievehotian .xloviteeqsen ,taabasied dene
hetewase aaw selredagerissad seeds Yo dose jIiidalelg ads @aed baa
noazedes jYilwe Sawot crew sdgahneted diod dea avidangitia edd mt,
~bnatabd daa soyemad s'2itdatelg 10% efaeneqnes of GOL) deagenea, raw.
wield Jasbapied bas Snvome ald biog ead noenetes 40686: taeS% san,
tzos ats of Pavriswe alargas enoke:
“97 ua, Std oyenh. s ainenab natal satsntale, test, Baw aan9T9D OMB oo. ons
ebtifes 09 94 pateuae ,2aalh ys meviad pitdonetus, ot oat eLisom
eneoe aig sour yews 188 als evoth TiidasalG dasd, i190, codtons, dey, —
1t9lk Zacd bao seetbbs 10 een als golvtg Teodtiv. Jnehiosa edd, 2o
getenys bas mid gatbagdorqge %e. enoquad, pds. SOT: PUsALOLA HOURTHE,
of Tusalala belloqnep Enabucied som fast sootlog. eft,o%.19ve ate
eollog taensen alt of axutext ed Fast bebaaneh bas sao ald gore:
vials soquotedw, .09, 09 depuiot bys .wials Kowsde, Ussatalg .notsate
“09 bas TUtsialg s90RTS, OF CIAASOPOD, BEY. 2%; CORED, omnia
AtomsiLi ,mosasavl mt aottata sotleg edd of aid Atty.o9.0t)m
rlsajaty te Issded as tw edt of. bernesetq: sonebive ont ie A968
4
Sfleadead am RamaeOese @adée af behenoew Ghee Sasi ts ot ey | ee ea m "
-2~
of defendant. Ffiaintiff wos §1 years o14, 5 feet & inches tall,
weighing about 155 pounds at the time of the ecourrence, *Sefendant
wae 31 years old, weighing approximately 175 sounde. The altercation
happened on the morning ef October 31, 1936, om Sheridan road near
Royes etreet in Tvaneton; thie was “hesecoming* day at Herthveestern
University and traffie at that point was heavy; the care were parked
on both cides of the street, leaving only the two midéle lanes for
traffic; plaintiff had perked hie car facing north on the east side
of the etreet, in front of « group of fraternity Rouses and deormie
tories where he wae te meet his cousin's son, Charlee “edleliand,
to take him te plaintiff's home in Wilmette; after Pevlelland had
gotten into the car plaintiff Grove out into the saerthbound lane and
Says thet hie right rear fender grazed the left rear fender of 4 car
parked in front of them; they proceeded northward on Sheridan at the
rate of 12 to 16 milee an hour; plaintiff says this was the only ae-
eident in which he wae involved.
| Klarr says he was in the northbound traffic lane vhen
plaintiff suddenly turned his car inte this traffic lane without
notioe and struck Klarr's car, foreing 1t into the southbouné liane
and causing 1t te callide with a car coming from the north,
Defendant Klarr followed plaintiff, going north on Sheridan,
Greve his car alongeide that of the plaintiff ané crashed inte 1t in
an attempt to fores plaintiff's car to the curb, At isabella street -
one-half to two-thirds of a mile north of Noyes - defendant foreed
plaintiff's car to the curb, Aecsording to plaintiff's story, ser-
reborated by HeClelland, Klarr came around to the east side ef plein-
tiff's ear, opened the door, reached inside and grabbed plaintiff by
his jacket end hauled or dragged him out of the car, There is vary-
ing teetimony ae to what happened next, but the jury could preperly
believe that Klarr struck plaintiff several blowe,
| Plaintiff received a cut on the nose, both eyes were black-
ened, a out on the forehead, » out through the eyelid, a ewollen jay,
Ge
fist eater? & feet & .bfo eusey [6 egaw Tilvalali .¢nmabaoted To
tnahasted ,eonetaweee off to ents seta #a ahawog 88L treads aatitgiow
aeltaoret ia oT Sha wod Ove Usvamtxenges gatiigtey ‘bie’ armey “Te usw as
nen hae nehineit on se8er 18 sedod00 0 gatntom add ao beneqgad
misdaavitien te ysh “antmoe onod® naw aldd qnetanavs at Seord anyon
beiieg evew otk ad? [qveed saw tatoq fast. ta of22ott bak ‘et tatev tht
aot wenul efAbin owt sit eine gtivael ,feotts aft te sebis ted no
ebke Teas sie ne AdToR.. Mehoet iso ole hesueg, #04 WIalalq iottaw
ainehe bas adeven utlieratar? Yo quowg b to tnott af ,teows eff Yo
baatlelOe® gefpad> nen. a'ntewoe etd teen 2? anv od eroite sau0?
bad BraffefSok ie9te tedteutky mt emort a! Yiltatale ef mtd edad on
bas saat baveddsren ro otat tuo ever Tithtatg «a0 ed? ofat nettoy
aso # to vebast tae1 tefl sat ‘Vesnty sehue’ asee Prerey ald sad? eyse
edd $2 nabined? so dravstron Seabee Yodd uot to taoet AY bodeag
-o8 une oat | nsw ends eyae Yesvatate twed na Sette er os SW
patton wae oi dole al tadbis
gedw onal otttant baveiditonon eae ‘af tow ‘uow ot yan ate OM
“" Yuodtiw saat otter otdt oft cao aid Bemese Yiaelbue Thidatele
onal _awodis wos ox? otnt #4 ghforot .1a0 6!axalz doorte bas eotten
| | SPS Sty sad Gta’ Gade eh tS SRBET Ce 22 ‘gnteieo Baa
\nabtued® no ation gatos .Yiténtela Bewolfot vraft tnabadied °° **
at #2 ofad Bedaoro ‘Bes Witatate no te tad? ebtegncts wae std evorb
= teorte affedsal tA dave odd of aso 10 w"Ytstata lg eared of Yquetie aa
bootet ‘taabneteb = sexo to decom offs s Yo nbutdd sows od Ytad~ento
| 109 eros e Ptigetale et gatbreoo’ “Sewn edd ov ‘nao v¥Yhedntate
| ~atatg te oble taco ect of bawors | ones wal (bratterton wf beswiedot
ond wittatate bedderg bas ebtant bedonor ine wcos sit beneqe ‘ano
“Tuy st etsd? tao oct Yo 100 utd bewga betun ‘ban ‘Podoat” att
treqett Biueo eat arts tud ixen bone o¥ na aonttoed at
| ,owols faveved rteeenyeterst Fentt Gadd od
aint eres bere diod oon ‘eft m0 ee bovteoe Tinvatane” aid f9q
I vest nettows 3 a bk oye ‘ott ‘dguordt tuo ‘haciter Y eclt! 8 2u0 | be
‘ne Cael oot @bomantceoe cendn @Gaeaeefla #26¢ Bede 6h eee
whe
geveral obresions on the jaw and cheek and « smnll fracture in one of
the bones of the elbow, A photograph of plaintiff te in the reeord
tending te confirm these injuries, Peterson grabbed plaintiff frou
behind, holding nie arses, and while he wae so holding plaintiff, Slarr
hit his ence or twiee more. A decter testified that he examined
plaintiff on the day of the injuries, found him almost hysterical,
with two definite, desp cute on the head and abrasiong ana Lesions on
the face; that pleintiff was confused and exsiteble, and the deeter
diagnosed his case ae a contueion of the brain,
it le unnecessary to decide whether plaintiff wae involved
4n a eollieion with ancther automobile, az testified te by Rlarr and
denied by plaintiff, er whether he was leaving the seene of an ace
cident. Plaintiff wae taken, while in this hysterical condition, to
the Evanston police station where he was found guilty of leaving the
scene of an aceident and fined, but this is not of decisive impor-
tance in thie ease.
It may be admitted that a private person way arrest without
& warrant for « misdemeanor committed in bis presence, but neither an
efficer nor a private person, in attempting an arrest, may resert to
excessive or unreasonable force. Klarr admits it was net necessary
te inflict sueh injuries upon plaintiff and sdmwite he beat plaintiff
a2 punishment for leaving the scene of an accident. ‘ie testified,
“] administered « little punishment to Andersons” and agein, that
‘Anderson will never forget, he will never leave the scene of an se-
eident again, *
fhe jury, which saw the witnesrer and heard them testify,
would have little trouble in arriving at the conclusion that the un-
provoked assault by defendant upon the older plaintiff wae unlawful
and malicious. The verdict of 1500 wae not exceaelve in view of the
serious nature of plaintiff's wounds,
_ Defendant says the court committed error in instructing the
fury that although they might consider the fact of plaintiff's con-
viction of a traffic offense in enother preeeeding, sueh finding ie
she
ae we
Ye eno ns e1wtoatt Liaw a bas sade bas wal ed? no egelnoty Fongren
a 2
buceet od? mt al Witaialg to dqaryos org a swodie oda ‘te eonod outt
hike
won? Vittatale boddary aoae7 6% setauiat aa nds wit Ineo og patbnes
wunth sttitalale git.tb Lox oa aw of oLtdy baa ry ats path Lon bated
bantwaxe on Saud dortignes: aot 00s 4 oom solwe 19 eono meet ‘tha
wuss Segoe
taosiete yd Foomle mbes Sayot setautal eal Yo ws ont nO vue
% ~o¥ 2.
no anoleel bia anotsatds bas bad edd no atue good sortatied ove aay
am
sogaos outs Sas ,oidatioxe baa beswinee new Rive mig © fp ieoat ext
-tlatd eis to uotendaoe ny aa ease end hea “
ve ey
bevioval sav ritsazelg orid oat abtows ot yunssscsany at #1
whe 82 At at eqotie e ogend
Sia tuAlh ys OF bettitnes 8a 1 pLtdowot we reds onw aa hw woleitioe a as
“on ag To aneoR add yatvact eae od tedzortw 10 <Mdsntala vs ve bound
og old Lhaoe [aotxeseyd aids at (elide smanas aaw By etary pea .
Lic Tole ate
actd yatveol Yo iW itwy Save? saw od ort aie noktate vottog _motanav’ tt
: SRIAg
<1ogal sviatosd te gon af etd gud .beait ban Saebioos na Yo sneoa
Tuas tw Faette Yan Loateq otar ing s tacit besttaba CJ ven a
aa nedtien Sad eanee o1g esd ne begs Lamon ronmonabess a aot A verrry
ee Ramat 1
| of P10eet Yan (faerie aa yattquesee nt soeeg ofaving a son soak rs
| 1 hts & i
viapasoen fon saw ti atleha wenli 20408 eldanceneiny sg oviaasaxe
| aignap fui
| Musntata saeg out ad lube baw rhisatese nom eerwtal sows ‘PoLltal of
a bel titees on -tnebtoca aa Ye ensoa oud parvand 0% amencia tug 0a
| fads aiags ban imenxahas of 2 aemte tug otgant a berodeintishs a”
jes se ie
| ~00 as tO engor axis ovael coves Rove hay? _stogee? xeven hte neat obra”
Tisc~on
- “swhtane ‘medi? Brees ba es mend tw eda as sot vet, ot ill Sie,
mn att fast notewfenes od 2s galy kets at elduest eleett ove boyd
fu twata naw visdatala tebie ae nog Saadaerad wa | spans
ott 10 waty at ov taneoxe fon kis 0088 0 toibeer ont “sawotoan ~~
~ coum da staan eran ata
path, ga toountens. mt sorte botttanoo gru0o odd ayer Zaebae?
(whe, a Ratele 2p Tat ait teblenoe tigim yo |
ey are ee. A Ge ee a |! ee Te MR ee ee eae ee ae ee Pe Pgs
glpak Ob
oy
evidential omiy and set binding or seonelusive ase to the faste in the
present case, Thie was a correct statement of the law.
Mowever, ali ef the ergument and instructions given or re=
fused touching the alleged commission of a traffic offense by plain-
tiff have no bearing wpon the sole question in this case, namely,
Dd Gefendent use excessive and unreasonable fores in attempting te
arrest plaintiff? Ae we have indicated, the evidence that defendant
was guilty in this respect was so overwhelming ac to sake 411 eather
issues, by comparison, immaterial.
The jury returned the only verditet that could properly be
returned, and the judgment thereon is affirmed,
SUDGHENT APFIREED,
Katehett, *.d., and O'Gonner, J., soncur,
+
‘oats at Faron? sti? of ta ov tavtones 10 antbatd ton baa ie fasheidiv
cual of9 to tnometate dootxbe « daw ald? .dhe0 Phenbee
-o1 10 sovty snctverrant baa tnenigia of? 10 Eka \xevewon
eee ~ wi meee ; 86 oH 3 + hhc hel ye sie al , 4 gy tl "este petkson : : healt
,tleman yeas eid at aoltesup sites ex? nog gatxadd on ovad 22H
ot paid Gaadbe’ ii Goi dlditaba nial tah Whltckd’ bl Geek
“tuabasreb #6i¥ eoaebive oft botadtbal shad oe dA’ Writentala teers
aemto fia mn et pa Lunripetassdhe on eae w donque ‘shag at vatiwa saw
tama sand
. be f itegetg biwee | seat totixer ao Bostuder yuh, od? er
“ prea pare eer
oe ce te exam off uotvael = et necverte te ,TRitehalqg W doh
oa ol BHATT THEMOCUL eiag ak ofa ,wote oan Titeniel? =
sie gaiveel te witwy hanet sew of oredw gaddate eoliog atemaaue:
eit eviutesd te goa | etwoMon, 4% xORMOD!O Aa awbeb Festa
ND aide af vont
SFS@LTs Tart Heese Say PE) » Face Sade Lada od tan x
rwisleox ted .seonrg etd af baht tomes aamtenehedn« wot sametag a
of Senet Yar <The TEA OH * naben ree OL ,eetaq a7 AVE Gy & Fon saottte
eTaAstepar fon aae atishs qaalkt sessed eidasesacray a) ov tnbeens
“ia TLitutelq ao petanial ctantam toLttad of
OLTSEGEG @ inebleoa ta lo eaeee ef galvaet ae? ranmslyLaty ea
His22 é “tsemagelok ef teentelang eldeAt a bones intake 2
-0e AS 20 eosee oGo ovat aaran Litv wi stags sda Lido wowrebes®
| ° ahage tanto
Dates Ree eae tee met: ae dehie y ysarl oat? :
in) edule
«ay ody far? seiavieues og fs poivierea aL eleven? teens ova bie
, Stloalaia table wh saqu dashaetiad yt Chua 8 ‘basoreng
uff to wate ah evisregve Pon eaw GOSS te Baiieses ae «aio £04 Lam er)
Rio 8 TE eew) why a? ott avetyen ¥,
g2 gcigentiect mL geves, bev? tamey Pewee Bay beh ad tuehbowtes heey
finiady to. ?oe? off Sablanes , tipi geet sesituiiinas #009
i
at pueDRST riowe at thegoong “edfons al onnette ort ieee s to seseei7
Ne Ry ge 5
:
2
Fs
oa
=
40901
ANDARW BEDWAROGZYK,
Appellee,
ve
MATILDA YOELIA, .
tratriz, ete.,
et
MR, JUSTICE MeSURELE DELIVESED THE OPINION OF TRE COURT,
Thie proceeding involves the foreclorure ef the lien of a
trust deed dated March 24, 1925, executed by John and Sozalia Eudla,
which hae already ocoupled an unconscionable amount of time of the
courts.
When plaintiff filed hie complaint of foreclosure November
5, 1936, he made Matilda Yoelin, individually and ae séministratri«
of the estate ef Hiehael Gorski, a party defendent; a decree wae en~
tered ordering a sale of the property, from which Matilda Yoelin
appealed directly to the Supreme court, claiming « prior judgment
lien on the property by virtue of a decree in favor of Yoreki, and
attacking the validity of the trust deed and the foreclosure pro-
ceeding; the Supreas court, being of the opinion that no freehold
was involved, transferred the ease to this court, (270 Ill, 804.)
In an opinion filed by thie court Soteber 25, 1989, 301 I1L
App, (abst.) 610, we gave consideration to the variour claims of
Matilda Yoelin, with special reference to her claim that a creditor's
bill was filed to subject Kudla's property to the lien of an award
made to Michael Soreki under the Workmen's Compensation 4ct and that
plaintiff's righte were subordinate to the Gorski decree. ‘%e held
against there claims,
The master in chancery advertised and seld the premises in
accordance with the terms of the deoree for $5500, and the report of
‘the sale and distribution was approved; Matilda Yoelin filed ex-
ceptions to this report, which were overruled, and again she appealed
V¥
aaa
"tentals +o een
{A008 Di GO NOTKT4O AR? CeeNVIUNE LAGAUESM BOTTEUS me”
‘ ee
& te moll edt to stunefeexe sald seviora! aasbosoorg out
Slhwk shiasoh baa aio yd bas noone oB80L eka hough Dosad aah, 2) vet
ei? to ent? Yo tavoma eldanotoenoony ma Betqvoee vaagite aad dotsty
se anend
aximevet aiseoloewtot to tataiqmes ald belit VWilsalal¢ nedh
siwtertelainde 2a bas Yilesbivibnt .alleeY eb Ilsa ebaw od (OUOT (Ve
“08 tav eotseh a [tashbnetad wuss & ,idexod Lesdolh to statue sd? To
siisel ablife’ daisw moult ,yWauseqosq edv te eles a galisite boust
Snewgout, soltg a gniatelo ,saveo exorgut edt of yitoetlh belasqqa
haa ,£ase0 to xovst af seused © Yo ombuty yt yeueqota ed? ne met
-o1q ouseloete? add baa Beeb tous off Yo ytkbtlav od? yatdoattn
blediset? on ted? aoiniae sts to poled ,fiw0oo emeigit edz? jyaibeao
{,.o08 111 OFS) -tiseo ald? ef ease edt bervretanats ,dovioval saw |
LIT £08 ,@8CL ,SS aedor00 tuo atdd ed Hott? aotntgo na al
| to amtale avoluay elf of noltenshtanoe evay ox sOL8 (dade) age
e'sotibese « vant matafe sed et soneiele: Lalseqn atiw wileok abLita
Buava on 20 aokl edt of yoxeqoug alalbuh tookdwe oF bellt aew Litd
| tad? Sne 0A nedtsanneque? a'seminot ent sehaw Loiexo LeadolM ot ebsm
bled e% .gomeeh tdareO ed? of stentbuodue o1ew sdrigia a Tttsatalg
at aoatzerq off bios bas beettuevda yroonade at sogeam edt ist
to txocet off fas 0068) 02 verD0b sdf to awuey ed? ddty eomnbrooos.
«xe belit atieey abittat jbeverqga saw moldiitadaty 4, 404;
Belaeage ofa alone Sea ,Seluwxeve ovew doltdw guoaen ald of 1
oh ae
-f-
te the Supreme court, arserting that a freehold war involved, The
Supreme court held otherwise and transferred the cause to this court,
(371 Ill, 833.)
The only point now before this court is the regularity of
the sale and the order approving it. The recerd shows that the
master sold the property fer #5300, which was the bighest and best
bid for cash; the attorney for Hatilde Yoelin asserts that this sale
was net for cash, but the record shows te the contrary. “he algo
aseerte that she bid, on behalf of Matilda Yoelin, (4560, which
ghould have been accepted by the master. The record showe that she
41a not bid this amount in cash but offered in payment the deerse
entered upon her oreditor's bill based on the award to Gereki, te
which proceeding plaintiff wae not o party, and which, as we have
seen, was held by thie court to be inferior to the rights of plain-e
tiff and the rights of the trust deed foreclosed herein,
when the muster's report came before the chaneeller he teld
counsel for Matilda Yoelin that if she would bring inte court a
cashier's check for §80 more the court would aceept it, but thie
proposition was net aeted upon,
Her present appeal ie# wholly without merit, ‘It le just
as important that there should be a place to end ae that there should
be a place te begin litigation,* {tell v. Gottlieb, 205 UJ. 3, 168,
272, |
The order of the chancellor approving the master's report
of sale is affirned,
GADEA APFIAMED,
Matehett, P.J., and O'Connor, J., concur.
-f-
edt Deviovet caw SfLodeert # tact galeteess ~trwoo ometque edt BP
P1902 Bids oF seuoD edd borastanes dae snhrisito blvd Tuwv08 esotq
(888 147 ive)
to eticalsge: ef8 ai Savon aide oe tod won patog ¥ vino ont. atunteniin
ai? tac? wrode Beocet ott 4th etreveet alte ine ban ots edt
ned bas saedyid odd ao sot 00ER4 x02 erwqotg edi hice tetiae j
olaa sind gem? efccnae ANeoY abites xot yoowesea @et pene 103 Bid”
cals ad? .Yrstsaee sd? of avode buooes oft tud fase 10% fon oaw f
dott ,O368) ,ntleoY abfttak to Lieder me .bid ede tad? a
eereed oft troirysy at SereYre tue dase af tawene etdt bid You REP
of \Lieoo of Brows oof wo beaut (ftd etortbero wed nog? Beieene
vad ow as .foldw Bas \¢fasq « tom saw TUtntelg gatbsevorg Hone
neater etifets off oF Ttobretal et oF Paves wild yt Eo saw nese
vihersd Beeofvero? deeb Seid ent Yo witighx edt han Vite
Sfot af xslieonads odf wvo'red enmee troqet #eFemw edd neih 99 fe
& Twee otal gat Dinow ode Tt Cade nt foot wbL 96 XT T5oanvoo
eld? gud ,of tqrese Sivow eveo aff seom OEY cot soete * yotdeay
| equ Befea tom saw solt heogery
teu aL 01° |‘ Pieoe Guede tw YLlondw ©! Leegya taseety we
Binode sretlt tate eo Bee oF woul 2 of Bivodw eveds tate gnatvogal ew
~~ a “ 608 Senet pee ¥ _ asppunienyicd wong Ce ce ae
ne Relist Apidica me “a SSE
f evodht ateote se elt catia wnewiiney edt te © sub at) “nae
AUT TE RGD OF WP onosy NS atbod Pouisew oF bell? ame bhae
il isi «aden sail bona nee
bape ! ot steabinodae wor miiqie a2 2tembade
minke gente ria
2 oR CRS may files ae teelrtnevte Yeretate ah seg * ne ett :
'
Th Sees Be Ay rt oo eres aff Ye enced wie. de ey cacabrsoes ne
ray
oe
we ae hd ES Kd antiga toerwr a Bart geteke eet hae a bh ae, Laat j
Tee em eer ae ae eee er me me Cet ee et ae yg ade
40834
PEGPLE OF THE STATE uF xT edlll t
THR WEST Sips MRUST AND SAVINGd
HANK OF cHICAdOy j
f Appelleg¢
)
nee )
ABE MIGHELS My -
Petitioner-dppellant.
MR. JUSTICE MeSURELY DELIVERED THE GPIRTON OF THX CoURT,
Abe Michelson filed hie petition in the liquidation sre-
eeedings of The weet Side Trust and Savings Sank of Chicago asking
for the allowance of a preferred claim of ($45,000 and for general
relief; the chancellor held that hie preference was limited te cash
on hand and due from banke at the time ef the closing of the bank,
and also denied other relief sought, ané frou thie decree petitioner
appeals,
Was the $45,000 in the possession of the bank to be used
by it for a specific purpose or wae this an ordinary deposit, om a
parity with general depositors?
The evidence before the master showed that petitioner,
prior to February 19, 1952, had been in the wholesale clothing
wusiness in Chicago for about twenty-eight years; he was illiterate
and unable to read or write Englieh; his signature, which appears in
the record, indicates thie; he did hie banking business with The
West Side Trust and Savings Benk, hereafter celled the Bank, where
he was a depositor with a general commerical account; he purchased
real estate mortgsges through L. 1, Heymann, president of the bank,
and a special account which he had in the bank would be charged with
the amount of these purchases; these securities, which are itemized
in the petition, were kept in the poesession of the bank, which
issued to petitioner a “Safe-keeping receipt. “
-2AUOD SH? 19 Morntqo a cont iand ‘raaaveo astra Maat
4.4 nn okie Bat Dem SRD
fy soltahivptt eff af noitieeq aid Belt -wentetot™ Ga. 1 Bete
geikes oysoldd to Anaa agaive? bae JeuuTt ‘ebt@ see ed? to agntheos
Leiensg 2 Bas O90 ,8a% to alate devisterq 2 to sonevella eds 10%
dene of Dedtatl saw coneretetq wf4 tad? hied toLfeanano eft yrobler
> jana ed? to qrieeio ed? to ems) sis 2 Aaned wor? oud “Bas baad no
xenolisisey eetoeb afd? mort Soe \idguoe tohiet cede ‘Delnebosfa- ua
; e OY «ten O84 ent dome * olLseqas
Soew of of anad edt to motaaeaseg wi GOS GR ond wale) ooo,
& HO {tiaogoh Cuenthve as stds eaw tO sooquug OPteeqas ror Jt Yd
“(lamest tteg tads Deworta regeam oft exoted ednebive edt Sia
gnidtols elarelodw edd nt meed bad ,S0ef Cf yirawadel of solid
steer iifh saw ot taqeey Sdytenesaow? swods wt ogestdd AL neontand
at oreeqge fotdw ,ewtangle atd jdalign’ etiaw 10 beet oe eldens bie
oct diiw sasnteed yatdned aid Bib of qaide eeteotbal sbnoeer ont
eredw ainsi edd Selles settee wits agaiva® baa tam? apse seeu
hesadouvg ef {inuwcosa Laolrsamoo fatensg 8 at bw ToT te0qed Py sav od
ited edv te taeblasig .anamyed .« wd dyno? aegegiuon otatas iset
atiw begrade ed bivow dad ont nt bad ef stotte tawepes Iatooge s has
bestmett ora dotdw sole twoee ea od trenadrens saedt to tape ont rs
~R~
February 12, 1922, the bank war holding in safe keeping
for petitioner securities of the fase value of 262,000; in Devember,
1931, some of there securities kad defaulted and petitioner dis.
euseed the matter with M. A, weir, the bank's cashier; Heymann, the
president, and *elr then had segotiations with petitioner ae a reeult
of which on February 19, 1952, the bank purchased all of petitioner's
securities for $46,006, which war a loss te him of £17,000; the check
fer $45,000 wae issued by the bank; Weir inquired of petitioner what
he was going te do with the money; petitioner replied he was a sick
men and wanted to protect hie family and was going to bay Liberty
Donds with the $45,000; Heymenn said liberty bonds were too high
then but that he would purchase them for petitioner; on petitioner
inquiring aes to what Heymann would do with the money in the mean-
time, Heymann replied he had teld Nr, Weir, the cashier, to put the
money in a special account, ‘and it is just the same like you got
your bonds and mortgages in safe-keeping,”* and “when the ponds go
down" he would buy them for petitioner, The check was net in pe-
titioner's possession but he endoreed it and turned it over to Weir,
receiving a deposit ealip from “eir; he said he wae “kind of diszy*
and @id not examine it. The president again repeated that the check
wes “like you got your pape# in safe keeping and we buy Liberty bonds
for you." Thereafter plaintiff inquired at the bank once or twice
a@ week as to whether they had purchased the Liberty bonds for him,
Weir teetified before the maeter that Heymann told him to
refer the petitioner to him ae he did not want petitioner to drew
the money out of the bank; that petitioner was te be threwn “off the
track from buying liberty bonds;* that all of the banke were in
desperate straits on February 19, 1932, and thereafter, and the bank
414 not wish to deplete its assete by having petitioner withdraw his
$45,000, Weir said he was inetructed always to tell petitioner that
the market on liberty bonds was still teo high, and he, petitioner,
“was always cast asides" that in Oetober, 1932, the money wae etill
| in the bank waiting to be used for the purchase of liberty bende,
.
q
~B-
gaiqeed else al galblod saw dnad ed? ,S50L .@L prawsdel
,sedmeost ai (000,969 te oniav sus? aff to eal? iawoes sonolsiteq st
-225 tenolsiteg ine het iuated Sat aeiticvess ered? 2 eno8 fbRs
aid ,snanyell pretdisas oad ont ythoW 4h. dtiw r9ttam oft Bemaio
tiuset & 1s toMelTtFeq att sroitalsogea bad neds atew bas Inebleeng
o'coneltheeg te Lis denadowg tnad edt ,SECL OL vrsurde’ ao doliw to
xoods ect (000, 7% to mid of seof & sew dotty ,000,0a4 tot! selttubens
Sarthe weieltiveq to betiupal iLeW paned eit. xd bouwat saw 000,386 rot
ioke 6 dae of Botfton wonotttieg ;yonon edt dttw ob of gatog. sawed
q@tedit wo of gates sev bas yLkwet aid’ testorg of hetnsy daa nas
tigid 608 exow abaed ytuodtl bias onsayek (000,80) odd, dttw abnod |
1eneitiged mo premeltiteq «ot wel? esademag Sivow od tadt ted ned
<taom oct mf yoaom oft A¢iw 66 Sivow naseyel sary of 2a sabrtupat
ead deg oF \reldaso at? ,t2eW wt Sled Bad od bet iqet nnamyewt ,eahd
$o3 Woy SULT aoe oct tort ah vt haa” Phwodon chtosge ant’ tends
6g chuod af? mete" Bad * ,patqoed-otes nt wogagetém Ene Ghadd 4ydy
-o4 oi ton sew doedo af? .denolditey «0k heodt wo Bivow off Yinves
vitsw of rove ££ bamtwt Bae tf Denrabiee ot thd motenowiod eabHeLTET
*yealh Yo Sania” aew od Blan od pate most ghia tleoqeb a gatvtoooy
deode oft Sac? Dotaeqet atags trebtewry ox? .9t enlmkxe ton SL bas.
abaed Yaodlt wd ow bas grtqeet etak af deqeg wot 6g Boy OXLI* saw
aolwt xo sone anad oft ta bortunnt Timbale tedtadred? * wey 264
mtd Tot abadd yued)l ett Bexsdoteg Bat Yea? “tort bdw 6s aa doow s
of aid Sfot ansmyel Jade reguem odd erbted Dertigedd “teow ©) 8°07"
‘werh of qanelttived thaw Son BLb Of ad mtd OF weHOks troy olf “eter
oat Yo” Avorn of of saw tenoteiteq ¢ads {Rad oat to the” yatom oat
at grow biiidd ode 46 Efe tade * pabued yeaed ET salted sort doant
daat od? Bas rot taeted? bas S801 pr yrhidet ne aeterte staneyned
sin wexbdtiw seaoltsiteg gnivad qd ureada azt etotqat of mite 'sba Dis
tai? wohottifaq Ife of eyawls betowstent saw of Biwe ae¥ © 060,088
\genetstteg (od dae .daid oot Ttece new whaod yWiedtt we towisn ed
Elida bau Yoow eft REEL ,aedesoO aL Paste "YoRlee saad" a ev!
nbaed YIIe6Ll Yo deatotwe eft rot Beau wv enorguicen tied oat a“ Pe
~~
April 1, 19328, plaintiff was 111 ot his home, and at the
request of Heymann, Ben Nieheleon, petitioner's brether, took a
Plank cheek to petitioner and bad him sign 1t, saying that Heymann
was going to buy $50,000 of liberty bende, This check appears ee a
charge against the special account on April i, 1952, The bank 414
not buy the liberty bonde but redepoesited this eheck te the same
aeeount on the next day. Subsequently petitionor had frequent talke
with Heymann concerning purchsee of the liberty bonds, deymann
ageuring petitioner that the market price wae going down, Petitioner
left for California on January 14, 1932; the Auditor of Public
Aecounts took charge of the bank on March 4, 195% and a receiver was
appointed, The bank never reopened, February 19, 1942, and at all
times thereafter the bank hed on hand in exeese of 546,900 in eath,
All of the above facts ere contained in the report of the
master in chancery and supplemental report by the same officer
serving &6 a epecial commissioner after the expiration @f his tera
ae master. The reports conclude thet the 245,000 left with the bank
for the specific purpose of buying liberty bonds became a trust fund
for which petitioner wae entitled to a preferred claim; that this
was established by the three persone who were present at the time of
the transactions, Heymann was not produced as e witness and did
not testify. The reports find that the bookkeeping methods used by
the bank in handling the funds are of no importance in view of the
agreement to devote the fund to a specifle purpose; that the device
by Heymann of placing the fund in a special account was for the
purpose of augmenting the bank's cash reserves; that this did net
change the relationship of the parties, The supplemental report
recommended a decree allowing to petitioner a 146,000 preferred
claim, payable pro rata with other trust claims out of the deposit
made by the bank with the Auditor of Public Accounts under the Trust
Companies Act (chap, 32, par. 287 et sec., Ill. Kev, State, 1959),
and if this be ineufficient, that the receiver of the bank pay the
balance with other preferred claims in priority over general claims,
ae
ot? @a Bas ,solorl viel Po (Lf emw UTPntalg ,Se0L (xf Lhaga
8 doct ,varttewd’ e'xenertiver ,realoerolM ned rmagyet to feeupex
acawyot tacit pulyse ,¢f mghe mist bad bua wenetsttey of doode sete
& ba erseets Xo~e RAT .whaod yrredLL Yo 000,080 que oF yntOR wey
62) dund ef? .880l f Lixqé no Sawooen Latoowa ed? tantags’ ogrtsile
pms GE Os Poot Ide horteoqeben fat abned yPeedLE ear Yud son
e#iat fneupert bad «tonelsived ylreevpests® yeh vxen oc? no TAvOOOR
anacrgell .sboued yaedts eft te eeatewe yntereeros anesyel Athy
TeTOlLTiTe™ .ewob paloy naw sofre Jorrem ent sade? cenol? tveq gakiiote
sid? Yo tot tbuh off T6E0L je wremnat ne atnrethtad cod ster
saw “evisoer a Bas S2@l ,} dora m6 anad et? te egiaio soot at cvobod
fia te Dre ,S8Of \Cf ersmdet Denequer deven wind edt “pet togge
feed nf GOO,82e To steoxe mt brad wo hart awed ext a9¢ Ines? wont
att to ftoqer off nt henfetnoo ors stost eveds ect Yo ETA 8!
reeltte ecm odt yd troqe Intitenelques Bae Yreonaiio at teres
mies etd %% noltartqxe oft vette venoteeimmos Lateoge a am Batre
Koad ad? ddiw Tiel 000,239 ont fat? eBulonce ef2oqua otf .ceteee ee
Srv® fart? o omneed sano’ Yoved?l Gniyed to sseqryq oft fodyw aie Sort
atid gecdt tutale herietertq 8 of belsitne sew wenokt tes Motiv aor
%o emt? adv ga trovenq stew ov emoeteq srutt one yo Bediekidares wav
bLb Bre oeentty 9 se beenbery for adw anadyet Janokfeatinar? wie
yf Seay aboriom entqeeidood ert gait belt staoqe: eff .ytives? ton
ed? to welvy mi sometroqmt on Yo ore abmut edt gel Ibeed nf anat oat
solved ef? gant jencqum oftineg: 2 of Bitvt ent Steorsb oF tnemeotga
etl? cot ine Prwooen Lafeeqs 8 nt Bavt off yekoate Yo mnaeyet Ye
dor DLS sid? fade jeevte¢er dese eo anad aif gattnemgua to eeogtig
froqes Latnomelaqua emf .woktteq sit to qtifenattater oct eyninilo
Derteter, OOO".,8M! » tendi¢ive: ef uniwolfs vorseb a Bebriomecses
» = — eit ‘to to eutele tact recite dvi sia Sut otto ric)
“eee etek ver 10 Kinedbecled ae wae" - sh mn
emisls Lacorteg xovo e806 cate woebrebegnilee ted otis ry
Thereafter there intervened two trust and preferred elaine
ante whose claims had been allowed by the court>: namely, The Truet
Company of Chicage, sueceesor in truest under a certain trust agree=
ment, and Zdward Berkson, successor trustee under another trast
agreement. In the decrees allowing their claime it was previded
that theese were to be pald prior to the clains of ali other erediters,
except these on @ parity, and alec gave them a lien on the deporit
meade with the Auditor of Public Accounts.
These claimants filed objections to the master's repert,
which were overruled; theese objections urged that the relationshis
between petitioner and the bank was that of a creditor and debtor,
Subsequently the receiver and theese claimants filed further ob-
jections; the chancellor overruled these objections and exceptions
except in certain particulars,
The decree found that there could be no question from the
evidence that petitioner's $45,000 wae left with the bank fer the
#016 purpose cf purchasing liberty bonds by the president for the
benefit of petitioner; that an express parol trust war created, ané
petitioner was alloved a preferred claim, paysble “pro rata with
other preferred claims in the same manner." The decree then found
that such preference was limited to cash on hand and cash due from
Danks at the closing of the bank, and aleo held that petitioner wae
not entitled to the benefit of the deposit with the suditer of
Public Accounts as petitioner's trust agreement was an oral agree-
ment and not equivalent to a deed, We are of the opinion the master
and chaneellor were correct in holding thet the evidence showed the
creation of a trust fund of $46,000, left with the bank for a
specifically designated purpose,
In Beople v. Farmers State Sank, 238 Tll, 154, 137, it was
held that there are two kinds of bank deposits: special and general,
As a rule when a general deposit is made the bank becomes the debtor
of the depositor te the extent of the deposit, but where money is
deposited to be used for a epecifieally designated purpose it 16 a«
-wialo bewreters bas toons owt Donevratal ered? «sttaetedT
foun? sf? pxfoman ooeieo ond yo Gewolta ceed barf eehafo weodw wi¥ite
~oergd Fours alates « «obnw teers nt tossessve (ogactd? Yo YanqdD
Sours aedtona tebe ose wrt woutevout foadres Serewby Bas fiom
bubivets tav ¢f amtale “ted? gniveftn wewtoen sit HT Ueneieeeys
aiot [Bete Kerio (Ia Yo onfelo off ef Yoluy Stag of of orev sant fads
PtacqeS wrt no meet © wed? eves ons Bas vette ss me sent FQeoKe
— \apmrcoed of Téut Yo <OPENMA oft Ate Shim
Sroqet etesaam ene oF anotevetes hort’ einamtelo over ©"?
qidenotealor s09 tare Ropu enetbostdo sennd {Selitxove erew dolifw
tWtded Bos rostheto 2 Yo Jedd aw Mind ont baw Tonolttteg newwted
ado “edt SeLtt ettinmthio even? Bae Yorlebon site <feweupwadye
anettqeoxe dna anottestds seedy belerreve vol feonaite oft tenottost,
: - ecstwelttrag mtatqeo nt tqooxe
od? woxt HOtTeenp OM of STvOS eral? This ‘brbot boteed ett 8 "”
ead so? Mnad oft agtw Pref aaw 000,80 w'renoltited ratr sonsbive
oct wot tnsblecrq edd Uf ahuod ytredtl Bnteatouig To osogtiry’ ofoe
ante \Betoro aew tony? Louse enetqxe na Tadd Yuenostitey te Hhtened
thw stax exe" alduyay \atalo Derretore o hewolis ext conte tee
bape? weds eoreed ot? * commem oned off mt emtalo Borrereag TelttS
go ob Mane Baa Band Ko dees of bot hnel tae sonetetory Hole raat
baw tenottiteq tad Pied o8 Le bam twed edt Yo gnteolo ottd ta’ natnnlé
(Ye HOtLSwA OMe Hrte theoged Ont Yo thremed sir or Selettns ton
aoprge [ard oe aow tremoenge Bert? Bonet Med ae atadodA OLTdwt
<9teae adv noltig’ ef7 Yo e¢e OF bee a of taelaviupe tow Sma’ taem
ont Dowbsls eonebies cat warty patSlom nt tovriod stew wot Leonkde Bid
| a tot Kiad Ose wr kw sIeL 000,899 Ie haut Paired #26 AOLTAOTD—
, ONY, wean TET haemo’ esangtaed yLinoltteega
wav! et (Vor ast .£1T ets (ane ist Vv afgoed at le"
— Lteteneg) Bae Tetseqe te01hegen Aaad Y0' abn bud one Stadt taut Sod
— qoddeB 629° Gekooed anad Oxtt oben’ at PLooRes foxoney © neds tie aba
“OL Yonom etodw sed \Pleoqeh ont To” tnetie eit ot tortnogeb ‘baat ae
PP er Te yam) a ee ee ae
a=f=
special deposit and the relationship of debter and erediter dees net
exist. This distinetion has been follewed in People v. Bates, 361
tll, 439; Bailar v. O'Sonnell, 565 T1l, 208, and other cases cited,
Cages cited by opposing counsel, like People v. Farmers “tate Sank,
Supra., and People v. State Bank of Maywood, 54 111. 519, 526, are
not in opresition, as in those cases the record disclosed no agree-
ment whatever that the funde should be used for any particular pur-
pose, It can hardly be claimed that the real estate sedurities
originally purchased for petitioner's account and retained for safe
keeping in the pocsession of the bank, estebliahed the relation of
debtor and creditor. Bearing thie in mind, no subsequent change in
form of theese securities cr bookkeeping accounts with referense there-
to changeé ite essentisl transection as the creation of a trust,
Ho particular form of worde is necessary to create 5 trust.
Any expressions which show clearly the intention to create a trust
will have that effect. Dawes v. Dawes, 116 T1l. App. 36; Heople v.
¢ ALe er Cou 8 282 fll, App. 343, S51; HWittueier v.
Heiligenstein, 308 Ili, 434, and other cases, ‘leymann was continue
ously deceiving petitioner for the pursose of “throwing him off the
treck" in the purchase of liberty bonds and Neymenn's purpose was to
keep the $46,000 fund aa part of the aseete of the bank, ‘There is
point in the suggestion by petitioner's counsel that the receiver
should not take the position in support of Heymann's deceitful con-
duet by arguing against the return of petitioner's money te him,
It ie unneceesary to comment upon the large number of cases
cited by diligent eouneel for all parties. Petitioner's claim reetes
upon the undisputed fact that the {45,000 left with the bank was to
be held by it, just ae it had held petitioner's securities, and te
be used for the specific purpose of purchasing liberty bonds.
Reduced to ite simplest elements we have the picture of
an illiterate, sailing customer of « bank, trusting ite officers to
carry out hie epecifie wishes concerning a certain fund intrusted to
‘their care, and a bank president who, while pretending to the customer
2 ae
| tom Baek aexibers deo rotdeb Yo qidanotiaier ed Das tteoges Latoega
{28 .a0gas .¥ gigogi al Dewnile? need san motdontiesd ald? ,2atne
sbette agen xsdte bas .608 11 806 fieqgetl® .v zatad ie0e okt
inal iat axenwel 7 ofgoed eAti .Loanwoo galzeque yo bet.to “nena
orn 988 «218 [41 $85 ,bogursll 20 nail etags .v gigoed bas se
(weetgs om Bonolaath Syoget edd seaao ened? at as sett onge nb fon
“tng safwattuag We sql Beay od biveds ehawt aff fad? sevetady saan
selsiuuben etatas Leet ed? tadt homtale ed yibued aap ot 2980
etae 1Gi Daalaton baa fanooes a’ sees ten x02 fonatorug Yllantgine
to mottaler edt dedatidatas ytnadl ect | 2o woteaenaog sit at gatgoos
ab apnade Aneupandue og ,ontm at atid gatanel .xottbere bas notded
sored? soneigies dilw atnvonoa yatqeediged 1 80s iuvoee onadt 0 met
| stant 4 20 wottaeto ed 94 mottnennats Jatingege att Degaade of
i ee
-FeuTd @ ner OF Tisencoen Of absow to. meet sefueteyag. OH oo.
faust & piacere of aottaedad odd Yiuseto wosda dotdy enolesetaxe yd
-¥ ghaged 105 yh LIT BLL gnawed .v gous tog tte tadt evad Lfty
NW SRLOMEELE 1198 505 .agA, .L1E 208 is :
THOLINOD RAM RNARYOR .aORAd reeit a one 8h, old, 808, ‘sebotoneas.ttet
ods 308 HE Detvestt® Te oooenng OOF. THE Semeel fog Bety ened Fie
of Ag, o80g3uq a anasyox fae abnod ytsedti tq enatiqaug oat at *tomnt
at ered? teed og 20 senns edd Yo tu9q ae bau? 000,804 att 2
| xevinges odd tad? Lopauoo a'sesottiteg yd mottacggue aug al tatog
“09 Lutiipoed a'naseyel To tuoqaue af ngltineg edt oxet ton
iy cee
_ md OF Yonom o'cenottizeq to muuget od? seatage gatugrs vd toup
| -8gag9 To aedeva ogzet say nogu toommpe os Wienpeognay et gX
atne7 aisio g'xompitites ,apttnag ffs x0}, foun ; ts mitt. vA Dette
oo saw. nad at ASly T39L O90,8d), aay gadt tos? beruaetnoy ont Beg
of han ,aeltinvecs e'xeueidiveg bled bs
ad ot ages).
_) stbmod, youedts Gelber enema 9f2to¢ We
bt ge gpl stinaisunt, does. Pi pigs cicada
| (OF Dedeyrtat dant atarips, a gaimroonoe, padet. »
‘Seemann sith bh, anbtentems atten setsinbinese teks cn
~G-
to do ae directed, attempted, by banking sechanics, te divert the
customer's special fund inte the general assets of the bank without
the customer's knowledge and contrary te his directions, Sething
the bank might do could destroy the relationship of trustes and
bemeficiary without the consent of the beneficiary.
we are of the opinion the chancellor erred in not diresting
payment of petitioner's preferred claim in priority to general
Claims, Ase petitioner's $45,060 was intentionally used by the bank
president to augment the assets of the bank whan it was in Pinencial
4ifficulties, and did not uss this fund for the specific purrese for
whieh 1t was delivered to the bank, plaintiff is entitled to resert
te the general mass of assets for the return of his money beeause
that general mane wae improperly augmented by the use the president
made of petitioner's property. People v. Sates, ®51 Ill. 439;
pe, 2765 I11. App. 68; People v.
Ly-Fs bank, 281 Ill. App. 292; Bailar v. O'Sonnell,
284 T1ll. App. S31; and People v. Illinoie Bank & Trust o., 290 Ill,
App. S21. State, ex rel. Jorengen v. Farmers State Sank, 121 Neb,
632, contains a comprehensive discussion of the rule, and says!
“General depositors are not entitled to the fruits of the bank's
betrayal of truet. ** The doctrine requiring the beneficiary of a
trust to trace hie trust funds inte some specific asset or property
in the estate of the trustee or in the hands of his receiver as a
condition of reclaiming them did not originate in any moral
Lae 1 Pee IRE 3 b& &
|
philosephy or in any sound principle of equity jurisprudence, The
defense of that doctrine lacks cogent reasons and involves a resort
to opinions reiterating initial fallacies, ** In equity the de-
positors do not have a valid claim for the amount of these trust
funcde, Equitably they belong to intervener and the district court
wisely ordered the receiver to pay them in full." Many other de-
Gisions from other states might be cited te the same effect,
The special scommis¢ioner held that plaintiff, being the
beneficiary under a valid express trust of nersonel property; is
=
rn
y
eit trov th ot mo toasta se gntdnad w Ded quersa Dezoorth aa “eb, ot
Suodtiv wwtad el? Té #reces Lexonog eri? ofnt bat tatooga “taomotnue
‘gnidgell vemottoerth ald of yistta0o ina ‘esbeivomt 1 'xeaotawe ott
pew soreuet Ye qiseneltaten ot yortaed Sivoo ob titgte tnad dads
-wratottensd emt to dnonnoe ‘edt tuo ty yuaterte
gnidoetls tof at ber1e effeonade af? mokotqo ett 20 om phe
feneneg of Yivoliq at mtate borreterg a! aenott tte % St aomyag
ined oft yd beow Yilenoltastat eaw 000 84 a'renetttvog vy _uatale
Tatonastt it naw th medw daad ett to atonsa edt tnemgue of taobieetg
20% enoquig oktioege edt ot Bawit alt) vas ton bEb bas 9082 tuod Math
¢xonw: of beltizne at witaterg vined ats ot berovi ted sow ot aoe
q ' gauaped yoros aid to maut on outa 02 stones % ‘saam areney edt ries
tretieorg ed? oan er? yf beonomgua vireqengmt ew soa Ioreneg tats
1085 men £88 casted a oigoes sxor9qorg a 'xemett it 0q to obax
LPay 159. YS
ci." iayen bre aire ont te soteewostb ovtenederquoe vaio set
| a*iinad edt to ad tort ode 03 ‘betthene ton ox evet tneqeh Tagonee
a to visloltened edt antatupor ontxtesb ott inet sao t0 favor? i
erreqorg uo teees oltteoge omos ognt wast ewst elt coast oF 3 Lb arty:
a 8a xovieoer ott to wba seit nt 20 ‘sotawsd od? 0 ‘erates ody nt
| “ Kaxom yaa at ‘otantshxo ton bib med? guimtstosx Yo ott tono0
eet GEE He
ont | -vonebursqn but etiupe ‘to sfqtontes srwes ee ad ‘we Yaono oftdg
saenot & neviownt bas enon set ‘tango coat ontutoed teat be es
7oat begegecogH | Per
~2b ant ‘Winps nt o* eetnalie? ‘atte gaiteret tos snoLn: o
“gawd as oct te tnuons ‘oat ‘aot ntate bifav s eves ‘fon ab “vroeteog.
fuse dotaselh oats bra xonevaesial of aaotod ved ieee shan
-5 nadto wat 0 tht at ‘most Yoq of Soriseet 4 box © yoaty
~ aeoeeag art Eta ort J
(tostte samen eat of Betts ad ‘pte aotats . sotto mott snot
fae OL Lepage. wht FAM, KIRBP
oe sated Mutatala tautt Sted ‘onoteetnaoe hp 9 pete:
a Po
entitled te the protection of the deposit made by the trustee with
the Auditer ef Publie Accounts under the Trust Companiez Act, The
chancellor sustained exeeptione to this finding and held that
petitioner was not entitled to this pretéetion, resting hie ée-
cision upon the fact that the exprees trust herein wae established
by parol evidence and not by an instrument in writing. If the ex-
press truet 1s established by parol it ie difficult to see why it
should not have equal potency with an express trust eetabliched by
& writing, The only difference relates to the evidence of the fact
of the trust. It would seem sufficient to establish thie by parol
unlese there is something in the statute whieh disqualifies sueh an
expre se trust so established,
The Trust Companies Aet (chap. 32, par. 287 et see,, T11.
Rev, State, 1989), wae firet passed in 1887; at the same seeaion a
new banking law wae paseed. ($1, Shap. 16-1/2, Smith-\lurd Stats, 1969.)
This provided that banking corporations were authorized to “accept
and execute truste.* The act placed no limitation upon the kinds of
truste which banke could accept and execute, but the use of the
word “accept” indicates a voluntary assumption of an obligation and
not those resultant and constructive trusts arising by operation of
law. At that time the statutes seemed to bar corporations from
acting ac trustees, or as executors, conservators, granteee in deeds
and trustees in real estate under wille. “ee 144 Corpus Juris 2956,
for & statement of the law at that time, the auther saying that
where there is no statutory repeal the o14 rule is #till followed,
and statutes providing for the appointment of persons to such
positions of trust are conetrued to apply to real and not te
artificial persons, It therefore became necessary, in order that
corporations might be appointed as executors, tructees of real
estate, etc., that a statute be passed permitting thie and giving
such corporations equal authority as in the ease of the appointment
of a natural person, Out of this situation grew the frust Companies
Aet of 1887, As ite title indicates, it io an act (1) to provide
0 Cpe
iv sovaund odd yd gham tisoqeh sit To Roltoetorg ont ad ? Desetene
wt. .89A aeeiasqyed tauwsT oxt7 tobas ST RHODDA ol Idee ‘te ‘ror LbuA ont
sie ’ ? Rate
fad? Slod Sma yalbali sid of anolsqeoxs bentaseus x0f Leona
vob old gettuen ,agsseatorg e169 of bafettne ton sav ToMots £3 9q
Sedaiidates saw atezod. tauts aeeoxgqxe ef? Sadd sont ols nowy moze to :
wae o88 TL .gaitiaw af toemuatent mm yd ton bas sonebive loraq yd
tl yee con of Zimolttih ei #2 loreq yd Dedet tates a count Jou
YG beteiigates taus? seorgxe as Stiy Yousteg Laupe ova fon biwoda
teat ode to oonebive odd of aeteler opaenettts vino ed? “apnitiew »
tg
ford tt aid? detideses of taalotiive moog bivow 1 fawn? omit
Aa dope seltisaupelh dpidw piwate edd o2 antdtemos at ores asolay
ee $ s ASR ithe
petadisatee oe. BD erted ; one
ef
id, «2098 to TSS seq Sh asso) toa eetasquod seus? eat
5 ort wi tans i
# noleaes oman eft Ya {T86s at bennaq feutt caw s(eues satass awe
(.e6@2 ptare beasihn ald te raven ya ead? abl ees S. wat t pained “-
rae's
A peor ye
Bebe
Sina melsaasico ms te UE yeatander | 8 ) netasibat " }qeeon” bre
Yo nottanoge wW gutatss star evtsourance | bas tnaz Lune =a
» MOTI amottarogtoe tad ad Homeva aetutera edd ont? gait #4 wat
aboab af igetiatg ,Sietavyesace ,s1osw9eRe Be +0 evetauet aa yess
82S alah auqugd Abt ee) .siltw ebay azote fart, oe aootauts or a
tact golvee odie oft ,emds fade 2a wal b oe te Suqnetage 2 es
showollot iftte sf efun Dio ada Laoqet yree esate on ed ered? ot ary
dove of eHosieg to Saontalogqs eds 20% | L 74. netutate a
. OF toa baa {aor ot ylaga ot bewttenoe ove taynt Yo anette
tad? s9h10 At \Yraseeoen emapad eyotozedd tI .anontog, tanottien
sg SAWS, 3, ROORRURE cB TORHOERS be DePntogas e¢ Sage p nanteaese que
gatyty bas b adds, Balti Laxey bonseg od erutate * Saute ete feame*
tnoutnioggs ad? te ease od? at ne wiper Casha some oe
sotmaqno) dour? edt very aottautta sf hy: tee © a%o
ehtvads af (£1 264 ws 42 OF poorer Ptr ett pA a ~~ :
Be
for the administration of truste by trust companies, and (2) to
regulate the administration of trusts by trust sompenies, The
banking act passed at the same time had for its purpose the reneval
of the restrictions on the appointment of corporations se trustees,
By section 1 of the Trust Companies 4ct it is previded that any
corperstion incorporated under the general coreoration lave “may be
appointed assignee or trugtee by deed, and executor, or trustee by
will, and such appointment ehall be of Like force as in ease of
appointment of a natural per-~'a, “
It should be :. hveg hat this fe the only plese in the
Trust Companies Aet which uses the words "trustee by deed, and
executor, or trustee by will.* It is based upen the presenee of
these worde in the act that the sonelusion is drawn thet only such
express trusts as are created by an instrument in writing ean ine
voke the protection of the Trust Companies Act. e are of the
opinion this is a misinterpretation,
fection 6 of the act provides for a deposit with the
Auditor of Public Aecounts for the benefit of erediters, This has
been amended several times, and in 1929 it was amended so as to
limit the corporation from accepting and executing ‘any trust con=
cerning property" without complying with the previsions of this act,
Thie lenguage would seem to indicate a legislative intention not
to limit the regulatery sections of the act to the express truste
referred to as created by deed or by will. A reasonable construction
of the Trust Companies Aet 12 that it applies its regulative pro-
visions te all trusts which corporations are authorized to accept
ané exeoute. Such a construction would seem to be based upon common
senge and fair dealing. In In re ional Bank of Ottawa, 273 11.
App. 645, it was held that a truet company's deposit with the
Auditor of Public Accounts was for the proteetion of a beneficiary
under & writing not under zeal, In Jones v. Lloyd, 117 Ill, 597, a
truet in real estate wae upheld although the only evidenee of the
creation of the trust was « plesding in a prior suit, ough pleading
=:
ot (S) bie \rotneqnos teint qo bbnine to noltextntntmhe ode veh
at? .hotneqeioo Fowsd YW etter? Yo noltextetntabdsa od? stalugon
Isvonex ect okoqtaq wrt cot Dail omtt onan Ott ga Boaneq soa gnbduad
2ooteiit se anbitercquos To theatntoggs axt no anoltoluseod ant Yo
qha teat Bebverg et 92 2A Sotitaqaod Fhuxy b4d Yo £ noledoa ye
od Yst swel mofvareqred Kareney ectt “cobaw Betavoqiood! nostaroquoo
get stPtEe xe \rOtimeks baa \hosh YW Sorbet ao songtnan botmloggs
26 bnxd At ne verot SXtt 26 of Made Fnoeratoqas Move Baa ,
feruten = Yo steatntoggs
era anrancnecan a ae
bie (bash Yd onsowns* ahtow ead tenn dohitw YOA gbsidgmod daut
| to sonssete ost moqu Dessd af st “i ittw wd ebfentt a6 \rosuoene
doue qin tad? math of noted tenes eat $449 Yon sft wi abrow ened?
ati? AO "gattiaw ar Yosmertant aa qt Beddete bia'ne atadud ‘baotgne
hdl ear" to eis BY og08 angueey teoxt “ott ‘to nolvostoty ad exoy
Pe nortadoiquetatdta # a2 ddd ‘aosatge
50 ake thiarmauitad caliente a
san sid? catetibew to Sitetes ad dot wenudosa bhidwtto wed lbwh
a Ss of babwore eaw TF C602 vid Bia \nomdd faaoven Sebnome need
Snes famtt yaa" atdvoeds Bad gulddeesd mort Hold, oad Sint
gee abit Yo nnetatverc ets daetv guixtelos Ywodtty “ytusqbig gandies
ten nottnetat evttetetyat 4 ofadisdd d2 ose Biuow sgauadal ela?
atesy? eretqxo off ef foe odd Yo weoltoon Yrotaluged ont ‘fhats of
soltourtenos eidancaset A .Litw ad to Deed ot Sibadin ia Sercoiten
wodg evttatoge: aft waliqga tf adh UE deh db iidqabn “iedt df GS
tqeo0n of Bestrordtim ous anotdanoqred dolce Stout riety tabla
homme ewer prercmer sess 8 Rapevertoed
pe Team ay
| at? dttw FIeoqeb in weal vray Yar? Sled eaw parryi
— yuate eters a to nottestoud ity Wer ‘dad ‘didudoda ‘ol faut Fe vot Lbwh
a See SRE TEE beet ov Heath it * fonpehreaghieany sels
=G—
was obviously not a decd, in Smith v. County ef Logan, 284 T11. 163,
it wae held that in construing a statute the intention is the con-
trolling factor, and in Hoyne v. Danisch, 264 Ill. 467, 1% is said
that in construing a statute such conetruction should be avoided
which results in great ineonveniense or absurd consequences unless
the meaning ef the legislature be so plain and manifest that avold~
ance is impossible. As pointed out in the brief for petitioner,
if only express truste created by deed or by will come under the
protection of the Trust Companies Aet, there would be withheld
from ite benefits written truate involving real estate where no
seal is affixed to the writing, truste of personal property evi-
Geneed by writings not under seal, and trusts like that in the ine
stant case, created by conversations, facts and circumstances,
Cases cited in opposition do not squarely meet the pre-
eent point, although expressions may be found in seme of the opinions
indicating that the creation of the trust must be by sowe instrument
in writing. In Beople v. Cody frust Co., 294 T11, App. 342, the
point was whether there was an express trust or a truest created by
operation of law, ineluding resulting and constructive trusts. The
gourt decided that the trust there under consideration wae the latter
kind and not, therefore, under the Trust Companies Act, A similar
question wae involved in People v. Chicago benk of Commerce, 296
Tll. App. 497, where it was held that the evideness, although in
writing, wae not sufficient to create a truct. That ease went to
the Supreme court (371 Ill. 396), where it was noted thet the ap-—
pointment of the bank as trustee was sotually under seal and there~
fore, technically, # deed, tut after an analysis of the writing the
court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate court that if wae not
suffielent te create an express trust.
We are of the opinion the petitioner, being the beneficiary
of on exprese trust, crested in a legally valid manner and accepted
by the bank, is a trust creditor entitled to recourse against the
éepesit with the Auditer of Public Accounts. ;
EE
SOL 117 08 paged Jo yegueo .¥ Siiné. ak boob a Son ian
“noo ast al nolinedal ads STI Ass s pilesdenos mi dacit bied oey. #2
biae at 2s TOS 1/2 90S sloadnad .¥ gaye at bas soto? snsstou
beblova eG bivoda aolgowssance Apws etutase a gatwpence ak gate
cao les Begnespencoo biuads <9 somsiaevnoont saety nt na Linon do.ity
~Siova tadd Teetines bas aialq os od oumtatatgel ed? to piinscn eat m
‘tenet {Feq Tor Yotws edz AL Sue Hetntog pA .oidiesoqut ot ber
add "9daw enoo LLtw WW x9 boed ws Setaexo atewrs veoncxe ving 2
Slendeiw ed bivow e1eds ,79A porceanr® ceust add te splpppeess
om story statee lass gatvievsl atamet, asst ia av ttoned att mort
-ive yreqouq Lanoe1sq te asawis BRL bea edt o Boxttia et fines
Birae
~ai of? mi tad? effi ataus? dna efaon tabaw fon agattiny w beoned
Seonatamsorto bas stoat emets annoys vd bor sero onae nas
~erq od? Seen \Lexaspe gon ob mottieogge at bed to senad i eee
anetalgo add to omen at bavet ed yom acotsnengxe ‘Sguond La sates Seen
Saomsatant emoe yt ed teum sount ond 30. aoli sexe sit ont artdaotbnl
eS a
Vi Hotaeto gaung « se dawg - anorgxe ae nae - onedis sedi os saw taheg
ae he
eat sngautt svitowisiemes baa ants Lue et gatbotont wal to } Babb atege
— tegIes oft sav molsaiebienos rebay ered? Susts oat tact Bebtogb sxuep
Pet eA
asilain A sh selnaqnod Samet age sehas Avtoreteny ston bas bale
OCS \eonpmned Jo Jews onsotdd wv slaved at beviovat ‘to noktaup
(at dquosdtia ,coneblve edt tad? bLod saw tf wiordw TC .agh .L1T
od #aew ena0 Jad? ens a etaese oF tastesrws son saw apatdiaw
ae eat tad? beton waw $i exesdw .(8@6 fT £98) r0s eerqua add
~oreds baa laoa rebas Uiaugea saw sotauat pa anad on} 3 ppt
_ oft gaisiuw edd Yo aloyiana me 10F%0 awd abook & Xt
oP
ton naw 3 taste (Une staLLoggh edd 20 {nemo A? Semlths fees
MID
«fered BBotaRe a steeTs os sans
viatet toned oat gated ,xenelsiteg ed? motatge ong te. pee OE # (Baa
Aeigevoa bag sennem Sifay yilagel » at betacve dure anegxs tng
90d tantaga ee-moge7 og, balgttne x08 bore four» abla ot x6
ec a Pee oe pouunlimaele peti a mat thah oh hai
oe
-16-
For the foregoing reasons we hold that the chancellor
ghould not have sustained the exceptions to the master's and
@pecial commissioner's répert, and that in eo doing reversible error
was committed, The decree is therefore reversed and the cause
remanded with Girections to enter a deeree in accordance with the
recommendations of the master and his supplemental repert,
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS,
Matohett, P.J., econours,
O'Connor, J,, diseenting:
In my opinion the Trust Company Act is in no way apolicable
to the facts in the instant case. What defendant bank 414 wae not
Gone by virtue of that act,
“ina atoeane sad of snoddqeexe varie ci a sate
Lempira
‘Come ow ae a Fars; at
‘dia Bas tednan edt 20 nae
| piri entiitastin din duentvan wr sens
a) phi aed Liiw Ww He yao Ve. Sot aere aTeres ae
pees to et bh ethers PUP oR GM. R tii. Pauses wake he
al SP ae lh ax an
aie wi taae edit steve? Sop ,feen ee ba dhe
nausetaapoilo bas steak ,wteitennetned. yt oot sete eonae bday
——ee otf Teer vlexvauppe ton GE Ais heoqwy at hot le oena? : nw alin
anaiatqn ott to sear al bnyal ed Yam sienenenqne cg saci Tae intog soy
cian? sane yl ed tuum Foene af? big aoijaene aff $pamt antesod bet
ie GOR. oh LY OCR 5 OD tort eee oF shame’ eter ok
1d hevages faune «© tO done aeoEEe fm hee vanes anchy oc, Wane me eee
st? | gaSawest ovltowrteses faa gnidioeet, padanleps tal ‘te ant2nroqg
ecuread ad tar Agivarcehiaaes «aebaw ete? sewst ont Janz Bactoas sues
ia tteee A BOA pedcogand gawk oft anh .oretened? eee hae fats
AU per? 38 seed gogo keS WV ieee Bt Dey tevek Sam nee 8
mi hamuett Le ,eonobiye ait Sos Sied war Th waerht Whe vet, AT
ot joo shen Tent ses « rg O21 oF tassel Tiare Sd 2 nee pakiies
wipe gee tact? beter aan Sf wrecie 1806 . LET 49) suwae Selle sc rd
-aat 60 ieee vebae Ce leusom sae aaa, oa anes only bl Peas a neg
ef3 galt¢ine eat Yo tieqiaga ma aeele, gee shoah Uisolatoss ow
for new 4i Sat tare nom E Lene ete 2e Ta eagh ah, ade hereto samen
Poet spots An eTaoND Oe ty
wk
eB
a
>
ow
tesvened olf gated .~sseetsiteg ae sino oat *. one haa
A» APPWAL FROM
yy MUNICIPAL COURT
UC OF cHIcado,
805 1.4.49]
BR, JUSTICE MeSURELY DELIVEARD THE OPINION OF re COURT,
Iopeliant.
Plaintiff, a minor, brought suit by hie fether, sleising
that he sustained injuries by reason of the negligent operation of
defendant's trailer truck which caused « collision between it and the
Yoré automobile which plaintiff wae driving; upon triel by the court
plaintiff wees awarded damages of $85 from which defendant appeals,
The acolident happened about 4 ofeloek on the morning of
January 21, 1839; the Ford ear driven by plaintiff wae vreceading
north on Canal etreet; the truck was going south on Uanels; at a
point about 100 feet north of the intersection of soosevelt road
(whieh rune east and weat) with Canal street, the truck turned eact
into a driveway which runs into the Chicago, trlington & wuiney
Railroad terminal; as the truck turned into thie driveway it was
struck by plaintiff's Ferd ear; the point of impect wae between 7
and 9 feet weet of the east curb of Canal street, with the truck
headed into the Griveway and about 10 feet beyond the east curb,
Plaintite hae not appeared in this court in support of thin judgment.
Plaintiff teetified he wae traveling about 15 te 20 miles
an hour and noticed defendant's truck when it was about 50 feet from
the driveway; that the truck wae traveling between 25 and © wilee
an hour and plaintiff was 25 feet south of the driveway when he
first saw the truck. ‘Sefendant argues thet 1f plaintiff wes driving
a distance of 25 feet at 19 miles an hour and defendant's truck was
‘going 28 to 30 miles an hour from « point 20 feet north of the drive-
way, 1% would have been impossible for defendant's truck to arrive
Hon sata
avon sastoram
: “QDADIND >
TOR CATS O
«TRUGOD MRT WO MOIMIGW An? Cana LRG Sanus siesta"
femee2s ..% TOnsIOD*D
| atiieaealib aik ‘es Weis ibe ial Maal
(Re nite suego Hmegtigun add Te monsex Td esturtat Dentateme od. Faue
act baa 22 neewled motaifIce 2 Seeuao dotdy dound xolteut atgnsdasted
tuwoo oft yd falid? noqy tgaivied saw Tiltnkalg doled oLtdomes se bot
afaeq¢a dnabneted dotdw mort 88 to eogamah bedtewa saw Yeltalale ¥
Ye yalmrom ed? me 4oofote & gveda beneqqad tacbioos aut? ‘3 |
qulbeeoorg sew Tiltatalq yw nevind tse Srol add (eer IS vrewnal
| a 3a {Lsnad mo dtvon gntoy saw Xount edt {feerte Lane) mo dimen
haor ¢leveseoh te molfoeatetal ei? Yo dduon Poot COL tuoda talog
tase enwd sound of? ,feeus Lane div (fnew bas to29 saut dots)
conte & sotgniiau® ,ogseid®? edf ofnt ani dolce yaweviad & ovat
ame $2 yewovlah eld? etal hema? Mowe? afd ca { Lanterxe? Saorltah
T neowted saw teaqut to Mnfog od? wane Due? al titvatal, yw xousta
; woist edt cttw .deerts Iansd Yo dave dene edb Ye teow gout © has
dae teas oft Buoyed feet OL tuode bas Yawovlad att ofat behead
| ,teompbut eld? to txoqqua al tuuweo ala? at beweqqe ton oad tiugaters
-— gethe O8 of Sf suede gatfevers naw of Beftises Yitdatalt
nowt foot 08 gueds saw #2 Mode dowd e'dnabaeted Seotton hus awed as
soli Of Bas 8 neewted yatferatt aaw douid ont tart pyeweviuh acta
ad modw Yaweviah add to dtuon test 88 naw Yitatase baa wind ne
gntviab enw Vilsatelg th tact nougaa tnabnetet ound edt wan Sext?
-— aaw dowat o'fasdaoteb Aan wwod na eattm Bf $a ook 8S To sonateLd |
re
_ cevdub eat Yo divon te0t 08 tatog # ment aod ne soft OF of 8S tog
q p~ = 4 ia ae _ Ce ea i \; Pas At ae roy a Bet ; as
Bw
at the point of ecllisien prior te the time pleintiff arrived there,
Plaintiff seys he 41d net see the truck until it wae 46 feet in
front of his. The courts have said the law will not telerate the
absurdity ef permitting one to testify that he leoked and 41d not
see, when, if he hed properly exereised his eisht, he would have
seen, Grubb v. Illinois Tertinal Go., #66 Tll, 520, 337.
béward Mueller, the driver of defendant's truck, testified
it was a 3-1/2 ton truck, loaded and headed for the Chicago,
Burlington & Quincey terminal; thet the entrance te thie is on the
east side of Canal street, 150 feet north of fecsevelt read, and is
about 40 feet wide; that he firet obeerved the Ford driven by plain-
care when it wae 150 feet south of Roosevelt; at about one-fourth of
a block before making the turn inte the driveway he sut on the
directional arrow signal, indicating he was turning te the Left;
that when he etarted to turn, the ford wae about 100 feet seath of
Recesevelt read; the truck at this time was coing about 5 miles an
hour; the frent part of the tractor wae over the cast sidewalk when
the Pord struck 1t st so plese about 16 te 18 feet from the front
end, The witness gaia he turned on the signal lights about 6 faet
before making the turn; that these signal lights are on the front
fenders,
Yred Palm testified that he was employed in the police
department of the Baltimore 4 Shio Railroad; that upon the oceesion
in question he wae walking south on the east side of Canal etreet;
that he firet eaw the ford when 1t was about 150 feet south of
Roosevelt; that 1t was going between 50 and 65 wilee an hour,
We are of the opinion that the finding of the court that
defendant's driver of the truck was guilty of negligence and that
plaintiff wae free from contributory negligence was agalnet the
manifest weight of the evidence.
A fact of considerable importance in testing the relia-
| bility of plaintiff is that he testified he wae « student at Crane
High Sehool; that the accident happened on Saturday morning; that
|
|
Se
eo1eds Hevinis Viléatalg emis ads of sOliq solelilos te sateq ad? ta
mi Zeot 6) saw 22 Lftnaw dowitd aff goe ton BLS af ayae WrLeRsOFS
eit? efaxvelet? ton Ifiw wal ed? blaa ovau atu0S oat ons to taont
ton 32h baa Bedool of @ad? yinsees: ot ono gales Leroy % thawed
evad bigow en ,?dyis aid Deetorexo yixoqorg Bad od 2 etlw ,098
NGG OBS .LfT 885 +02 fenuetet stent oy sai son
bektseey, ound a'tnabaeted te tev igh acid? ,veliow! PaswBR 9 9
"a @aeolaD Si? 1? bebsed bas Bedsol etowxt? mot S\L-8 2 aaw tt
ad? ao af ofas of gocautme df tacit {Lantored yortup # aotgatiqnt
si bas heer tLevencofi to asron Poet O81 sfooute, fana® Fe obits Tae
-ataiq yi aevieh bxot eds bevxosdo gout? od tadd pabiw. Tet Ob suede
te sig1H0 3800 tuoda Ga {tlevesoek to adarhchl foot Cot seed a , Geely 3349
auld no tug ad Yavevieh ede ofnt aut ed? yutian ' ereted seold a
1eiel edd of gainusd saw or gatsactbhar efongia wouts Lanett eens
te duos fost OOL tuoda aaw Bunt adit ect oust of Soraage od aorte fade
ne acti & tueds gatos saw emt sist $e xovsd edt ihaor 2 Levenoet
nedy Alawoble tear odd 19v0 sew tosoRts ec? Yo Steg saett, edt i wae
sno? ona sort teet Sf ot el twods soals | 2 ta $2 dowste Mowete in Suet
test ll Swodn at cigil Lnggte ods ao Benin | (fe Stee ‘syontiy oat ee
Snort edt no oun agdyti Lamyte oneds sada (mut od yasten oxeted
sore RRR
vakiee ons at penne now oni dada Dortsanes aes boxe ot tenable
aolsaese ed? moqu tad? jhserttel endo % oronts Lad ods to tnemtqaqed
iFoorta fans. to ghia tese edt ae Aauon gabitew eae os solteaup ak
te dtvoe feet Oat zuoda saw tt neste bro odd was south, 4. teas
tered aa sellin aa haa 08 neovtad patos, Load th teat. it Levesoot
_ taste t1u09 od? to gntbatt ont dacs aotatgo oa te cy hs esi die
tad? Sas sonegiigen te vi Lhug saw towed eid te novia a 'tuahaered
ott Tenlags row coneat igen quoted ivtaeo mon? nent ame. tite a atalg
* eoneblye edt te fiiytew ¢ fuottass
beh Ho edit pattaed 1 ni sonstroqat eidarghience 19 fort A
gner0 te aabuse a sew od betitzecs ot foatt be ; 6
‘heath ieuiehoeaian ‘teheaainelt im, Sane aie roel Pradier .0
9 sonareld a
=3~
he was nineteen years old and out of sehool for tvo veeka thereafter
on aceount of the injuries reesived by him, On the motion for a new
trial the principal and a teacher in the Crane Sigh Jeheel testi-
fied thet he was not absent frem school for two weeke after the
accident; that the school records show he wae absent on January 24,
but wae present ell other daye of that week. The court indicated
that he woul reduce the judgment te #60, but vhen defendant
inéleated that an @ppeal vould be teken the court eaid he weuld let
the judgment stand at 564,
For the reasons indicated we hold that thie judgment
ehould not stand, It is therefore reversed and the cause renanded,
REVERSED AND REMANDED,
Metehett, ?.J., and O'Connor, J., coneur.
182thoxedd adbow ow? Kot Loudow to due Baa Bio ausey abedealn day af
wea stot Bette ote ao | ate Ye beltboet eoltutal ede te rasobda no
atinet féotoe Mik tae edt nt totdhot & Bis téytoasig ed? baked
hdd tote eatese owd 40% Loedod Rott Hite Yon Wav ot Haat RSET
OS Utiamet He Pasnds sae oe Gods aDrodet Moros Sat vids {tnsns0—a
botsorhat Hwee est .a8bu tad 20 exab vedeo tte thesdde ane tit
“Peabittten mectw tid 088 OF saamgbat od? e8uDet Bivow od tads
tet mpreiiealvenaglhtend ad bensterbyrene tabagn nk tadd pea bd.tnad
nn a
“dasephoy kas rate asian saladaleameanaieetil oaks #980
Lagndoednedveiiniepnenielig i ecuphpsinn, 4
* Afean}- (iiaveaeal te woe Sout Cez tee $i aosty wate
ay +
}
|
aadamnt (ma Wit karl aint wi qadias wroted Aooke 4
| [euei wif of guint? sev wi gastactaad ,fangte worse Lanes
12 seesse Feel OOL Tueda ed ued eTHAN09'9 Daw 9 9b,%
im 262m & tuode gatwy sow emtd aLtt Te soaat edt thaorx tiovenogs
itae aff vere esy tezeesd aff Yo dueg anor? elt turn
vt GL of OL tueds eeatg # 94 91 dower Soh eu
ves? ©S tueda aveyult fawgta od? ae narmut oi Slee sean? iy oat Kinet
<% $83 mo ove eenii farale oneal? tae tou eff anthem oat
ecilon of? pi hegolome vaw on tant holtsened miae Bert
f er see £ eay jet thaoentinv® eld? & wreatd iad wht te came ae
wie lane Yo fife tean wt wo APwon Qaltiaw Sew oe acksvouy ah
oes tueda sew 8 wort Bae? ott aes Sour? ws tect
vost fa aetie £8 bee OF anowted _odeg, ase 22 Saas Letereneod
favs ganaa @4¢ to aulbet? oa Fae? aotecgs eae ‘to ore ov sal ;
asa eo¢eniiaen Ie iiwe caw aon? ed? te savin a tambo tod
ag #a2vlase nov sonsal Seer taedwivteoe srg? hoa noe raigataly
AOEDLTD § at ‘he fity.tes ts dew a
Cie BARE
-nileg ef? galdee? as sseatueged of oeapaanae 19 toat A ary:
‘ » are, Ld
asc fa tachets » san af Sehtitees ac tat at hanna, ;
~ome tecteras vekgetal wo Aneel seibtend: age tay
~~
40885
SE@CULT COURT,
¥. ;
HERBERT K, aneay, 4
and ea@ gxecaton, #ex
STASLEY SMEBY aba RUT?
SUCK CQURTY,
2
3 a) 5 T. A, 494
MR, JUSTICR O'CONNOR DELIV RD TNE OF LHIO# GF TS COURT,
Plaintiffs, the grandchildren of dceorgiena omepy, deceased,
filed their complaint against Yerbert ”, Sweby, a son of the de-
eased, and hie enlldren te set aside the will of “eergiena omeby
and the probate thereof, They charged want of mental capecity of
the teatatriz an@d undue influenes on the part of Herbert &, “meby,
Sefendants denied the charges, There was a jury triel and a verdict
peturned that the inetrument was not the last will and testasent of
Georgians Smeby, A decrees wae entered setting aside the will and
the probate thereof, and defendante appeal,
The record discloses that Georgiana omeby was G2 yeare oid
and for a short time before Cetober 6, 1957, had been confined te
her bed. Gn that day ehe executed the will in question anc “ied two
daye afterverd. he ilved in the firet apartment of a twoeatory
frame building ot 2964 KM, Pulaeki read (forzerly Crevford avenue),
whieh she hed owned for some time but which she conveyed to her son,
Herbert Smeby (whe Lived upstaire), by a quitelaim deed, Heveaber “4,
1923, The Seed wae not recorded until July 27, 1637, At the tine
ef the execution of the deed tre, “seby, by a quitelain deed, cone
veyed property looated at 726 ", Aagine avenue to her deughter,
Walda May Siiiieaweon and Herbert 0, ©Llitaweon, her hueband, in
joint tenancy, This deed wes recorded Secenber &, Lose,
The will previded for the peyaent of vre, Gmeby'e debts and
SS ES IE
“i
betugia say ag
br oe Toe ee ee ee ;
al ” et % 4 or e a 80
4 oh MH MB LAR oul Tye %
;
- Goat (7Aev bots
‘iogPis- age Seg
.rrayas
ila yt)
“Tes AY =0e ho a el eat
TRESS cue WO RGOINIGG BHT. antan rianidindan-anctiah ie
$% che Feet Lae
bene ofent anetyrosd te ‘gosh iidebuars ont, alalt
~ob en? to n08 8 stout ot Mmediek gentaga salalqaos ated beitr
Yden’ quatgzeod t% iftw odd ebins tea of sotbiide ald San sdonaes
to ytieages [efrem to toew Bequads yo? Roonsdd stedons. off: bas
-Yeue .% Peeduel to gaeq ed? ao soneultal evubaw das xiu@agned esi?
foibuev a baa falad yust, a saw oced?§ .segtado ante botned a7 nabae tod
to faemateo? bax Iltw teal en? fon sav Tnoment eat odd taste bomtut er
Dna {fiw ed9 abies gatifes beretae saw sotoeh A. yen? snatgreee
feeqqs etaabasted Bne sTooneds seadony nia
blo erasy 28 sav , dome agatyroe® Sats apeolnats S10007 en?
oF benttnce seed Sad \VECL ,@ xedotoo exoted omtd frome s ‘x0? _
ove? Bolb bus colftaewp af Iliw oa? betuoexe oats wah tad? a0 bod aod
7 Yas e-ows & Yo tnomicages text? edt at Bowll od? bumerat te weed
. (euntevs bre'twat? vitowzo?) uot tieels< .@ d80a ga goth itud emer?
on te of Beyoveoe ona dotdy gud omtt enon 0? Denwo edt ode dod
88 asdmevell bond utelotinp = ¥¢ ontatagu bevil ody) edo 2x0dsoU
emule edt 32 .TEOL .TS ytut Litan Bebrones ton naw dead edt “beer
-ne0 ,boeh miafetiup s yd .ydemt vai beab edt te ‘noktvooxe ‘edt 16
Bodeiguab sod of ouneva ontoaf .M est ta potacel wereg0rg boxev
at sPaadaud 10d onmatiite 2 sundxoi! bes sommatttay ah abt
+800L 8 aodusont bebasown aew Dead seat sxonaae? a Lol Ag
baa aided etyden® ou ho sneaqae, ot seh hehiwene Like oft.
cd
bequeathed te Herbert ©. “meby, her aon fone of defendants), her
household gecdis, furniture, ciething, jewelry and pereonel effeste;
to Wilbur (Kilbert} Oleen, her grandson (one of plaintiffs}, $806,
ané te the three ehildren of her deceased daughter, = note fer 63,060
secured by a truct deed on lake Jurleh property. Gne-half ef the
residue of the estate wae devised te her gen Uerbert, and the other
half te be divided in equal parte - one-half te Herbert's children
and haif te the ehildren of ber deceased daugater, “vlda “ay
williameon, erbert wee naned executer.
The evidence shows that the °%,0006 nete seeured by the
trust deed on Lake furieh preperty, which had bern executed by her
daughter, “re, Williawsen, and her husbend, had been mirresdered and
& release decd executed at the time of the conveyance by “re, omeby
of her two pleces of property by quitelaim deeds, and that this was
Gone because the property senveyed te Herbert wae sore valuable than
that conveyed to Yre, Williaseen,
The evidence further shows thet from about the year lee
until Goteber 6, 1927, "re, Smeby had executed four willie, July 16,
1337, her attorney Thomae Mathiesen, whe head been xequainteé with
Mrs, Smeby fer a number of years, drew a will for her with whiek gia
was not satiefied and afterward she desired te have thie will ehanged
whieh the atterney aceordingly 414, tut, ae teetified to by hire, he
made an error by leaving out a pereagraph; that about a week before
Coteber 6, he prepared another will and mailed it to ‘re, ‘meby at
her home; thet after thie will wae mailed he received & telephene
@al1 infversing him that “re, Smeby was 111; that he went to bor home
Ceteber €, and found her in bed, At that time Leura Sehoff wae in
Mpa, Omeby's bedroom, arrangements having been cade to have her there
tO witnerse the will; that “re, Saeby signed the will in the Eitehen
being unable te do go lying in bed and it was witnessed by the ate
torney and Laura “ekoff, Serbert, the ¢on, wae in the house at the
tise and there wae some evidence he wae in the Eltehea when the will
was executed, |
onlin
« (adnabaoted te ene) wee vod , yom! .“ seeds! of badd aouped
istoette fanowre; ban witewet ,guintols OTUs LOTHT ,tde0R bledaaned
.OOSe ,lettitaiafs te ene) aoahsaty tod oa re (snedity) ard LE or
| 000,59 to? efor 2 ,xedaguad beasessd ted to naxh Lido sordt og of An
edt te tlasi-en® sWeegore fofres oXel ao teed gaurd a wW deuwoes
sedto ef7 ban ixodz9% nou “et oF Begiveh saw statne ede to exblaox
netblide 4'fxediel of tfadeone using Enupe at babivid of oF ‘Thad
‘» ot Bee
| Ratt ab Kult rotetgaat devacond ted Ye Hoebitse ett of Riad baw
got wonne bonaa naw gxedcel re
sd? YS Demwews ston 000.8? edt Sait avedta sonabive off hi
| ‘oH We DetunMRe eed dad dodiw \yPuoqonG Sofas elad wo Boob Saund
“bam Betebcevim nesd bad sPandawct tod ory L pre ey ree tg Tr
wont oak yd conayevngs ode te emt? ont te botvomxs Boe
ame adds dacs bre ahaeb nbalortup xd Wregorg 2 0 seostg oud
aac? siéauiay WtOM Baw sreduel os bovernes wexoqerg edd
pauased 4
tan 2suta eat.
“Ponmal Lite oerh of botevnos satis
eASOh ao Rate lee
i “peer: 9% ode JuOds sox fads ewortn restau oonvbive oat didn
; mare ar acs Bere
} al vist Siliw wo bea uoexe bas yout om Tees 0 tedot oo fm,
co aa
St bw detataupoa need dad ow eneaonae a’ sanodt? a ued hh
ath 5 2s ii Be wk Ee
och dolde dtiw aod 20% Lite 8 worb ood te eden = 10? Wome rt
Degrade iLie alas ovad ot Bontsed ode Dunwr9t te bas bolralean ron yf
Poe 2 4
* ont ake yd of boliesoot Be stud DAD ‘iuatbroses venmoeta ada Rew ge P
oroted Saav s Fivod 8 Jacke igwepatag s tuo gatvael e werte ne a y. Sas
vas, We
ga west 220K OF 32 beftam one fiw sedtons boragenq of ® sodetod
, dh, pobeds
onodqeted . bevteoes ond Sellaw saw Litw anne reFta ads Lom ats
aod 0d or Saw ed tacit (ELL saw went wet tat abd
. ae ‘ ats ihPR ioe Oey ae A
| at eae roses aud wort tame +8 “bed at ed & bawot baa
hae vp Tout ed
i)
oroiit x00 avast oF baat need yatved esaemsnneria wmoorbed 8! ‘vd be wera,
a
2 £8 cose :
CR: BS
2 —————
medot tx os at iLtw ocia boagie Yeme aah saat Lite eat 7,
4 Cee soot et]
GE De ne
<ta ona “e besa and ty naw tt bas bot at wae ot -. of pidann gated.
are t aig vb abide
; ent te eawon og at saw 08 ads sundro .Yedez wettod daw qorret —
| wor deek $hok evened eatol
/ Kikw edt andy nedatht at ai saw od eonobive enon Bagg 2 Petyen Srveses!
| ane waded aryon OE OD Aah aeeig Lekw MEE
oe
Or. teorge “ebader, who first wet “re. Smeby Jepteaber,
1922, at hie effies, teeatified that he also treated her at ale ef-
fiee February, 1936 ané April 22, 1937, but 444 net see her from that
date until Geteber 4, shortiy befere «he died, ae Oliver, a regis-
tered nuree, teatified she arrived on the sase Goteber 7, LEAT, and
etayed watil the next dey vhen “re, Jeeby @led. Jack Soe, a groger,
testified he saw her last on UVoteber 1, 1027, These five oereone
teetified that in their opinion, when they taw “re. ‘meds che wae of
sound ming and memory.
Seven witnesses on behalf eof plaintiffa gave testinony to
the effect that in their opinion Ure, “meby at the different tines
they saw her wae not of sound mind and memory. ‘They were or, Ulvestd,
a Gentiet; his wife; Geear Kolb, and ineurance broker; Ur.
Ghristenason; Herbert ©, Yilliamson, #re, “meby's son-in-law (but
whose wife had died prier to the exeoution of the will); Xobert ?,
Maddeek and Leeter nell, *illiameon's teo sone-in-leaw, Or, brown
(who wes called by Herbert Sneby te attend his smother) #aw her on the
@ay the will wae executed but he was not called ase a witness, There
ig considerable other evidence in the record bearing on the subject
ag te the mental condition of fre, “aeby and ae te whether undue
influence had been exerted upon her by her son Herbert to bring about
the execution of the will but we 'think it unnecessary te detail it
here, hether Mre. Sueby had mental capaeity te make the will and
the question of undue influence were for the Jury. Sulzsberger v,
Sulgberger, S72 111, 240, Upon a consideration of «11 the evidence
in the record ve are of opinion we would not be warranted in @ige
turbing the verdict of the jury, confirmed as it was by the chancellor,
on the ground 1t was against the manifeet weight of the svidense,
Refendante contend they were denied « faire trial in the
adwieeion and exelusion of evidence, It ie argued that herbert ¢,
Williameon was pergitted to give testimeny which was incompetent and
highly prejudicial, ie testified he was married te “re, omeby'e
» ,
« FCM RREe
vtedmed gee weet er tox tert? othe tobado gros ac ;'
ee a: » Rigg
te eld ta sed hotest? 09 La on Sand Salrteoes ‘yeoktte ald be A we
tad? mot? aed sea fae bib fud ,VOeL ,22 Liagh haa aces \uaade’ wort
~aiag@t & ,SevllO sem bak ode wiorted ine e ‘aedoeo tay ofa
baa TGRS ,? usdegveo easo oft mo boviwis ode Doltitens ee bere?
teo0rg a oem deat -balb witom Oth wesw wb txen oat iteaw 2 sours
SHOCL OG evtt enedT SOL .f sedevo0 no goal ‘ted wae od i best coe
to eew oct Yeu! woh wee teas aertw motatge sheds nk sad? Bench yy)
-yiowen oan bate beugoRr e
o¢ Yrontsa o¢ vag evttentalg Yo Tested ps y aon ent ty paves pees
ar a oe Lig §
some Saarortth od? fa qWeet eet sazntae uods at sade ‘georte ons
yeraoy £8 oe eter + ll Viones baa Sata Anuen to gon naw ved eas —
’ S. trodord comment baa (E108 12080 . “tly ats (aestaed 4 |
td) walonlenoe o* went em yonman Stay 0 ‘Sredeelt (ae reget
a gandos 1 (ifLtw eff Yo nettuocze ott ot vorey { Soke ype Bh oem
a sd walon~smoe owe etoonmet tty i fone 8 mange ban toobdak
| edd no ced wan (conten eid basta ot wens sendeoit w elian ew oa)
ouedt seeentlw ans Seilee ten ow od ¢ ted besuooxe new ihe tle
tooldus ed? ao gataaed bucowt aft at somenive xesive sidenebienco
— euhas waded of un Baa Yen? vase Yo nest tinee » tatnon act ot ne
“tuods gated et tredus® nea sed Yo tod noqu Seruexe need Bad
f gp
ak Ltatabd of qissaspenny #2 ania! Bae oud Ete ed to ia vaelloy ols
(ore Be se
bas Lite ad? ofan 0? Yetoaqas Latnon Bast went a este te seed
y ene RP
“¥ emteds iy) veut odd «0% otew sonoultat sub 10 rostsoup om
My 1a Fe 4 eee ee
senebive edt Ifa te nolewiadionee a aogt 088 “Et bebe
| anh at Detaariay ad fom Aine ov selnigo Yo o78 ey Droge wit ad
‘0! Lonaaste ott yd naw th aa bomritinee seat oat be Seger oe
stanabive edt Yo sdgtow gnottnan ads vantage: naw a Davos. at oe
ap b | ie ees oe
odt at fatet utat & botaed wee Xone bae09 oe
. as ae Fa meet pt pil
a Sxodcon dadt Deuges ol Es “ssonabive te ‘sotnutoxe bas Pa genarnn
3 iettaed Mette Yona
bna snot oquooat nar So kaw ‘wontanes ots hall beretaron —_ —s
; re ae ae ot a
af ydent sare ot Bette eow od portizaot ot Jatolbutertq
!
t
z
aoe
daughter, whe pasted away ouguet 15, L827} that he had Eaowi re,
Smeby for about *0 years, Se then testified conserning the twa
pieces of property conveyed by the quitelais deeds exeeuted by Mrs,
Smeby, it wae objected that thie wae immaterial, The sourt held the
evidence wight ¢o to the question 6f undue influence, The witness
then testified about the 75,000 note and other satters, That after
the bank with whith “re, “neby did business sloeed, which was in
1932 or LYSS, Hrs. Wmeby seemed depressed and forgetful and often hed
gevere pains; thet they hed Sr. Johneon examine herj that he ob-
served her in 4auguet, 1987, the time Hrs, “illiaaeon passed away,
and she seemed to decline physically and sentelly after that; that
up te the time hie wife died he saw xe, Omeby frequently but after
that he did net cee her often; that it was difficult for him to see
her; that she would gall for him but he was not teld of this fact,
The court: “what was the source of your information?’ If you did net
get the messages, you didn't know anything about it. ‘he had friende,
dian't she? A. Loura ZLekoff told us,* it fe objected this was hear-
Say and the objection was overruled, The witness further testified
that Wilbert Oleon, Mra, Smeby's grandson and onc of tho plaintiffe,
who lived with Mre, Smeby, tola Bim he had te go cuteide te telephones
that thore was @ telephone upretaire in Herbert's apartment bat
Herbert's family €14 not want him to use the telephone, In view of
the recerd we are of opinion any error in thie respect would net ware
rant ue in holding that the verdiet of the jury should be distrubed,
Mise Kekoff having testified on the hearing.
We are also of opinion there wee no error in peraitting Mra,
Vivested to testify that in her opinion Yrs, Smeby was uneble te
oarry om her business transactions, Wor was there any error in per
mitting the witnesses te give testiaony to the effect that Bre, omeby
wee very fond of her grandson, “ilbert Cleon, af it might tend te
shew that there was undue influence which caused #re, Smeby to give
but $500 to him, We are aleo of opinion there was na error in ree
wt mous Bart ent fault {POSE EL gawyuh ymen Boonag ostw ye0eMguad
eur off yrinieston Selitioey sont on, PHY OF toode cet yeas
at YW Setopexs sheeh mieloting ot vd beyeraoe yyeqosg. ‘te peoekg
ans bied faves ef? ,falaedsmul saw ets asd betgetde aaw oe _ oom
eaartiw ost stonentint owbaur Io mokteaup edt OF OF sctgtm conghly
retts tant .scottan qedto baa ¢tom 000.85 ade Suede hertata: ot node
at ome Hotew ,beoole gaantagd Sh Yom , aah moldw Abbe Anad att
bat netio bas Lott egro? bas beneeiqed heaeae wast, aa ener x0 anes
~ie of fads prot ominaxe monntios .et bas Yor? tad? jankeq worse
fave Bosneq soesell(2¥ way eats eds {FOOL sawed at sad bevaen
ae had TOI Uiasaem baw yitaotayte omdload af Aemond ode Baa
(«Rete fuel YLtasuper? went ev! wae of beth ety att oat? oft of qu
860 ot mae tor FKuOLTTED way $2 Parte taogte aod eo Fon DEH ad Fade
| -Taet etnd Io fed ton eau od tad als rot Sep Stuow enn teat ted
fom Sth woe Xt {noltamrotek iwOy To eoTWeR Oct new tamu" tsau0o edt
ebro? bad od? 31 tueds gatdtyns vont sath wey ,aegareen edt Sep
tated saw alat betoaide at a1 _* am bias Vested suse A testa ohh
— ReLReet taeewt aneattw att bolweraye taw noltoe(de adv Baa we,
TEGALAls ot to one baa moabawny a'ytoet ea ,moelO Pandity fads
venacigasea of sbtefwo of of bad od mtd Bros Ment ee AP be tayLt oat
: ted tennteaqe ettusdael nt Sitetaqy anetqelet « naw oie? dent,
to wotv at .otorqetes ec? oan of mite teow ton BAb ‘Etna 2! ezodsel
a 30% bittew Soaqnos sidd nk vows yas Aolatge to et ww biooes ont
| sbodurete Lb nd aipade wart er? To totbany att sade minted a, oy rae
sBatigod off a0 bertigaes 3 ae, teen Aare
wel gate toro Ri torre on saw STOde materi A te oats ws Cn me vate amgtan
ot pldens aay went opt wotmiae ed at tas {teed oF, taovd
7 sme at worrs Ye ered saw OK stoetfoannant anontnnd te a0 ne exten,
“Py Bits
deur, set teste towtts ait oF LHOMLTS OT orks ov Risdon a
~5-
fusing to persit “rs, “erwin caeby, wife of Merwin smeby, one of the
grandsons, an@ 2 Gefendant, to testify - she wae incompetent. In re
Eatate of teehan, 287 111. App. 54.
Gemplaint te algo made that the court erred in restrieting
the erees-examination of *libert Clasa, The complaiat ia thet he
testified on oroes*-sxauination he had lived with Kis arandacther for
over 11 years. Se wae thea asked if he ever paid her any board, It
was ebjeeted this wae not eress-examination and the objection wae eua-
tained, There wae no error in the ruling, Hor waa Olsen an insom-
petent witnese, as defendants contend, because he was only inter-
rogeted on direct exawinetion as te matters oocurring after the grand-
mother's death. Firet par., sec. 2, chap. 61, 11. Nev. “tata, 1959,
Gomplaint te alec sade that the court erred in permitting
plaintiffs’ eounsel te impeach one of defendants’ witnesses "in a
manner not authorized by law;" that the court permitted Mildred J,
Smell, one of plaintiffs, to relate a conversation with defendants’
witness, laura Eokoff,after the funeral of Mra, ®meby, The witnese
teetified that Laura fokoff told the witness that ferbert “seby, the
anele of witneec, 644 not want vertices interested te see the will for
nome reason; that he had diseusced the will with his mother before it
was executed; that she did not want te sign the will but afterward did
eo, The objection wae that thie was hearsay evidence and after the
will was executed. In connection with thie counsel for defendants
say, *#hile Laura “ekoff was being eross-exaained she wae sesked if
such a convercation® had taken place, Mise Sekoff anewered in the
negative. We thisk there was ne error in the ruling, The hearsay
rule was in no way involved, Belt Ry. Ue. v. Confrey, 808 Ti. 544,
Defendants further contend that the court erred in giving,
at the request of plaintiffe, instructions numbers 1, 2, 3, 8, 7, 2
ang 11, and in refusing te give defendants’ tendered tnetruction 13,
Tastructions 1 and 2 advised the jury en the queetion of the mental
Capacity the law requires of one who makes @ will, and &o,.2 alse ine
eluéed the element of "undue influence.* There was no substantial
-8-
et? te ene ,iemt alwneit To wie ,wlems Alwcel wah @togeq of pales
#11 stead qroond saw vide = VRIIG0E of inshaoteh a das, .2noebueny
98 .aqgA c43 TOS. gadest to etared
Baleciniee: ai bewse tene0 edt Gadd. sbam onte ah Mnlslgm@®, oy ont
e4 Seat af tetalqnoe eA? ,poald dasdLin to. O88 AG LONER EROS: OY
29% anifombesty ats dtiw bevll ted et solsantmane-aegts. 29. bestia
«tk Reaaed gee aod Slag tows of TL betas aecty pov eh. .atapy dh, seve
(Rin haw ROLOSLS> On7 ban Bossanimane~aeoP Soe suv Abad detosido naw
(snes fe BOR LD BAW TOK .BRLLUK od? as NORTH. 08 Bam oTMST, .bemtat
athe: Ene cam act ORvACSS \Saettoe stanbaetod. ae ,eRondiv sated
bran ot? 19Fts galrivs9e STOR am Of e@ Beltaninens seonlh ne bev ages
| inal taro eS 17 ih .qado .2 .098 y.teq Fett? .dtacd.s!xedtom
I goatetersog ab bev taweo ond gad shew opis af tadalquod,. éede
pat aeeusativ fatnabasted to eng doaggas of Lepnwoo. attisatalg
_. sh DegbLiH Dots ianeg sewo9e ods ads *iwel ys besinedsua fom sennae
f ladgabseted tty sottansevane & etalon of ei Maalelg Io eno. Alea
axenttw en? .ydeni ast to Laness? ef? sorte, evo stnal ,aeemdiy
ta eens saeduet tags aseativ off Lez. Todet ermal sadt beLissaes
| 16% Lite sci 09 of Deteosetat settaaq daaw tou bid. ,920ntdw Yo efenw
Ah pwwied aecitom etd atte Litw ett Bengwontd dart of todd, juonaes, omen
DRD Scawnsde dud [Low edt ayle of Sma fom Atb ode. sade. pharuoene, gay
a? gee te Be epmeblve yoetaed sow adds Sade, sow saltee(do ef? ...08
| _ Ripmbaeted «0%, Levaver elds shhe. nottoganen #f),, bagupexe aay Litw
Th beles new ore Soatmexensegrs pried saw Todek atumd oftae® 4 tae
saat id Bexewans Ytodo® a9 2h . .senkq aedep had, *nalsasrevang.« dove
qasnsed od? ,aaiioy est ot t9aKe en eau oped? melds, ev sovitayen
boo .LfE G09 .yonae? .¥ sR aA gfek devloval, yaw. on ot sam often
wgalvty a1 doves Suvee oct sade Sussaee teilsant. Beaadaetese. . cae
GAT ad ak ah euedane enostonntent sateen enema
.Sf poisowtant bevebaey lepnabaated ovip oF Qalertom, Ah bpsgit Baw
Lagnem iad ie notte sup ods ae vt, ont, _Dootepe & <.., he
1 ont cals & ot bas ity @ posax Bcd ono tp aenlapes ws LO 3 :
-G«
error in these instructions, Campbell v. Sempbell, 128 fi, 612;
Dowie v. Sutton, 227 Y11. 193: Sulgberger v. Sulzberger, 872 111, 240,
Vouneel for defendants contend that the mourt gave & nunber
of instructions on the aueetien of “undue influence* although there
wae no evidence that would sustein sueh a charge. %& think this
eontention cannet be sustained, There wae evidence ta the effeet that
shortly before Hre, Sweby ied, her @on, Nerbert, 4id not went clain-e
tiffs te see her; that he salled te, brewn to eee bie nother shertly
before she ied but 414 net eal hia a¢ o wituees, nor aggount for
his abecnce; that the distribution of the croperty (which eoneleted
of from £16,500 to #18,000) mace by the will was some evidence pro-
perly to be considered on this queetion, ‘there is other evidenee in
the record bearing on thie question ehich we think unnecessary te
detell here.
Ineteruction 6 complained of told the jury that ‘where a
person receives the larger part of the property of a testatrix by her
will,? or where the will io made for the chief benefit of such person
and euch person ie one in whom the maker resotes confidence and trust
“end where such benefielary cauase the will to be prepared and i«
present at the time of the execution, euch facts are circumstances
tending to ehow the exercise of undue influence,* and that if the
jury velieved from the evidence and under the inetrusticn of the court
that kre, Smeby repesed confidences in Herbert at the time of the ex-
eoution ef the will and that Herbert caused the purperted will te
be prepared and wes present at the time the will was executed, the
jury ehould consider esush facte in determining the question of undue
influenee, One of the objections urged te this instruction is thet
there was no evidence that Herbert caused the will to be prepared;
that it wee prepared by the attorney, Themas “athieren, br.
chrietensen testified that on October 2, be saw Xre. “weby and that
she wag on her deathbed} that erbert asked him if his mother could
take care of personal bueinece and anttere releting to finances, The
“atelier eet tree aan + Lfodgnad Lanottodatent ovedy at tovte
.obe- jnxr Ott gueiodetal .v aparedatis tees’ Ut tis eodiud .v ahvod
qedaun 2 ove, Sumo off gadt Suetnde edhabadtes set Lenawee eee
| “waedt dguedtia *eoneultat buban® te nolssoup ott no adoltoursent te
| ain? amine all -*F1alo s tioue ntstene ‘biuow “gastd dncbive oa ean
gadt teette edd 69 sonabive sav exec? boatstou ed. toanne ‘neltasdnee
enbale gre ten bth aprevtped 08 ‘god both yea! .aqt oxoted uloveda
F “swede ‘Seaton ald ees 6? avout .s doliaa od tadd 3 19d pen of aiid
“40% ‘dauooes 108 aeant ty a aa wid ithe ton beh gud” poid ete se
i hedeianoo ‘dobite) eawaorg ‘ont ‘to ‘pottudbaseih “ade dada oonveda ahi
ir — “Shaabive tose new ‘ghiw ont ye eam (060, etd ob 866 ott nott 6
i ‘al eotabive ivdto ‘at otedt’ .notdéeedp asaté no Meaebtedoo ed ae “thes
Hs ow erase esenau staat ow dn btw aoltesup “alds no galaded Srose od
Lae’ te reoget of teaw woe a ieee
i. + babe sab Wt Hed “Lo! BLAS LNRSa™G AaNUNDGD Rg? TORR
oer aie ree a
| porteg hows to #Paned tohde ad? Ot eben at tthw ead widde’ ae * FN
saad 'fns coneblinco sssoqet teten ‘oct? honty al ond SE mbnieg dou baa
| OF Baa’ boragere od of Efiw odd’ ‘gouwnd Yunbbstemed’ dbuh bxkde “haa®
: iP seomagacuorto ous etost done \noliwoaxe eat to" bakd’ ‘oad ta dneneng
© GP Ha ana Sono bold Gol 0 Sn
“woe ‘oft te nottowseat * eid” Gadnw han’ bonabive sah eat bobbed ving
oxo “eilt do ontt odd ta tuedzed wb sonobitncs Sesoqér Weal eal tac
co ‘Thy berroqieg “ae ‘beawas. fxbdati sada ah ont ‘da nostibe
; eat bes uoexe caw ithw oat omid’ ‘ond ta ‘dneeerg ae1g uae saw bnd boubqong od .
f ous ‘te notteeup “etd ‘poletorend ob ‘at ston dove ssabbenoo ‘bibede’ Qed
bade ‘al soltowtfent w2de Ot bégrw anoresotdo dotdo end? to bees « seoaouittad
“{hoakawes od of thiw od? denuse duadaell Gad Pu |
a “aha okdt ait cael eeros ta ‘ent mienerietrersier er
‘tadlt ‘bra ont ont seat a! .o aedoted no via" rr-re woanddotutd |
biwoo wenzon ane 1 wld boxes dredeell tale (hods at NA ae
ue eoonadlt of pittaloe axedtan bas anonte a
~
Go0ter replied in the negative, Thereafter, Or. thiretenson was not
eslied tat a new doctor vag galled im. Three daye afterward the will
was @xeouted, |
Wilbert Cleon testified thet after hie grandmother died his
uncle, lierbert, teld him not te say anything te the Williameons es te
what teok place. It was not error to give the inetruction on the
ground there wae no svicenss upen which to base any undue influence,
By inetruection 7 the jury were told that “inequality in
the distribution of property" among those whe would inherit it if ne
will had been made is not of itself evidence of undue influence or
unsoundness ef mind but was a circumatance that might be toneldered
ge tending te ertablish undue influence or unacundneee ef sind, Ye
think the instruction was not substantially the eame ae the in-
struction condemned in Donnan v. Donnan, 296 ili, S41. The instruce
tion wee taken verbatin from an instruction approved in Iingland v,
v. Fawbugh, 204 111, 344, There was no error in giving the Lartruc-
tion,
Plaintiffe' inetruotion 3 told the jury what was charged
in the complaint, There was no errer in giving auch an inetruction
Since there was evidente tending te prove the allegations. Lent, Ay.
Sq. Vv. Bannister, 196 T1l. 44,
By inetruction 8 the jury were told that in considering the
oase they should not set aside their own common chservationg end ex~
perience as men in the affaires of life, ete. but had tha right to
coneider all the evidence in determining where the truth lies upen
any material fact in the cage, This was a proper instruction and the
instruction, condemned in Steinberg v. Sorthern tliinols Telephone
Se., 260 111, App, 53, te not in point, The inetruetion there
authorised the jury to deternine the law according to their cemson
observation and experiense, to such provieion ia in the inetraction
before ue, but on the contrary the Jury were told to take their ex-
perlenees ae men in connection with the evidence in detersining the
facta in the case.
ote
tom ose AgaMogetlA? .ao ret Teena? _ ev laagen oat al beliqos wetead
Eide 96t Demepnt te sunh cone? at doling poy ieteed waa. a sud Dalkao
: _ebataoexe eae
aid bedd tedltoukows, a2d Getto Sad? SoLsPees mol #1eGLI¥..06. 0) oo
ot as angrmessite emt oF palatyns tea of son aid biet ,taaduell «etouv
aud we mObTowetand al? evig ot. sorte fon saw tl . ,ooale, seed sade
} stowseStat oxine yes enad of doidw aoqy eanebive on aay. wradt. bapetg
|: th we sinaperdt* tad bfod expe yrol edt % mossenrteal 4g py)
on %2 $4 Anodes Sivew ody ened? gaows *ysaeqorg 16 wolsudiateld, odd
‘9 soneeltal ovhow 30 soaehive YWeest te. ton at ebac ood Sad Lhhw
Dewebeagoe od tayto told sonasammotte. » taw tod Sake Te seonbavosa
(elie, te shonbasaens 70 seneutinl eubam dadidatee. of. patbood a
i ~oh ad? 98 9009 9? ylLalanstadee tom vaw mottousseat.odt,angde
| opemtaat otf (150 .1fT O68 .genned .v gagnod at Senwebaoe aettourts
if + Spetge’ at Sevorqggs seltevatent na worl aisadcov sodas naw nott
(roatass odd getely m2 qo on Baw onedt ae sale entisaeaealli
. Semzado saw sadn Wout, edd Dfos t aottoustnat tateeentast. ee
sottometant se Apwa yalvig ot wore om Sav, gxedt. dnsationcaas
Uh aban? .eneltegetia oat evox of gatbact seaahive,eow onedt. conte
3 si oth £41, 88L, csiantlad Yong |
oat sadceblomes al tasg bos exoy pret odd @ aoktowetoel Wo
he bee agcliavieedo gomeas awo pled? sbtna ton toa Sivede yodt vanes
| of tégiu odd Bed tue ote \etsl Yo exsate edt wt mgm ea eonsinea
tiremelthetpnetntlcetyret nn
eadt nibieretend rr sintog af som af 888. .aah, A518 yh
nonmee gtedt of gathicoee wal edt emterreted. oF yuul,, call ber,
solgoundand edt of af motatvorg dows eM. .eometuoque dae woeta
He RE ink
“ne “ied? ena? of bled oxow qupt eis Ytartceo os ne tel ae erohed
et? potateveteb a2 eeaebive ate dite nedzooniod af som we Oe ke
i
-8-
Complaint is also made to instruction 11, by which the jury
were told who would inherit Mre, Smeby's property in case there was
no will, It is said this instruction ignored the will of Mre. Smeby
made July 16, 1957, There is no merit in this contention, The
Claimed will of July 16, was in no way before the jury for consider-
ation, Moreover, the court at defendants' request told the jury
that one eould dGisinherit some of his heire if he desired to do so,
it is also claimed the court erred in refusing to give an
instruction tendered by defendants by which it was seught to have
the jury told that "1t is incumbent upon the Plaintiffs in this
ease to establish undue influence by a preponderance of the evidence,™
We think there was no error in refusing,
The jury were told in substance by a number of instructions
thet before they could find the testatrix wae mentally ineapable of
making the will or that undue influence was used, they must believe
these to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. And in an
instruction given at defendants’ veunest, the jury were instructed
that “The law presumes every person of legal age has sufficient
mind and memory to make a valid will and easte upon these who contest
a will the burden of establishing by the greater weight of the evi-
dence that the person seeking to make the will was not, at the time,
of sufficiently sound mind to make a valid will." Even if we
assume that the word “establish” as used in the offered instruction
was unobjectionable, we think the jury were sufficiently instructed
on the two questions and the refusal to give the instruction was not
reversibly erroneous,
Upon a consideration of the record we are of opinion that
no error complained of was of such a character as would warrant us
in disturbing the verdict or the decree,
The decree of the Circuit court of Cook county is af-
firmed,
DECREE APPIRNED,
Matchett, P.J., and MeSurely, J,, concur,
Yul, eft deide yo ,Li melvonrtent o2 ebem onfis at satalquod | oe
eaw ersextt saee at Wroeqwag ot went opti ttredat biuow orfe blot ores
ome -3%" to litw ed? berongt nottourtant a tes? bse at $I “site 04 oa
edt ,aoifaetimes aid? mt titem on al etext , Teel Of Yint sham
~teblenco vot gael ed? exolted Yaw on at eau .34 viwt to iftw dempade
vist eat bles te oupes ‘agnabneted ts twee add ovoptON ,pnesas
of ob of Seoateeb ed if auted atd to onoe ttusdntats biueo sae 28
na evig of gatenton at bewie s1v08 ont beatsio oata at ¢I
evad ov teiguson saw tf dotdw yd agnabaereb we berabaoed sotfovgtens
otdy wk strLantalt edd noqu $nodawont et 4" sands biet vist, Sand
Meonobive adv ta sonatsbaoqen4 & Yd sonential eubay eLidatan ot B42
ff +2
” -patau'ox a novuy 96 nav enna gute? oe
" anottoustant te cedaun 2 Wd sonstedue at blot oxew Yau. adit ott tata
to eidsqsont Vilasnos aay xiudstaes ond sat} bis190. Xeds ototed “tna
ovelied taum yodt .boaw aay ‘soneut3at ‘oubay tadd to fiw edt (galien
AA AL bad sonsbly® add to conausbaogera, 4.4 serena od. of euedt
hetowrtent oxew youl, oft ,teeupet ‘atnabneted ta aovig nolsouat and
tneloltiue aad eye ingel te soeteq. Yreve soayeeng, wal ad?" stadt
| eetnos odw saody nogu ateso baa itty bilay # exam of Yoouen baa dale
Pape P edz to tigiew tsteery edt Yd gaidetidatag Ye. tae he
ov tt nevi "ity bilev o slam ‘o@ bats,» weee_Y
“mottowrtant beretto onl? at boas a8 “det idatae" bao ott asd, omuees
botowstent yituetozyie exew vast ed Aatdt oy eidaagszoetdoay nay
toa esw sili edt ovis of Laswter 9a? baa, ot, ae
tads mosmtae to #18 ee , sropen est, % sottepebtenee, adpWiseus yaad
au Insris4 ALuvow, 8s retomtado a dows to aaw Yo bentalqugs reste 96
2 .o, s9UR8D edd no dodbxor ear gatduusase at
4 ate at ywawes Heo) to Fawoo FtyorkO od? Yo eegOSh AME. 9 conve
, oe ee geet ad eeantned mee 6s Feel sal ane
CaMRIVUA HaRDEG ; ge
Tr ve otelive of? dein sotpownnied g6°aee 8S papaetneg
a : By ¢ "ae ¢ ae ee ee > =< ewe eS Fy
40927
JUNE GOGDEROUGH and LYDIA soopnxguan,
i
i
af
LYDIA eooDENOUGH
v.
GEORGE OBEARARDT
a minor, by Gfoage
father and next
ine? 1305 1.4. 499)
Appellant,
f
MR, JUSTICE O'CONNOR DELIVERED TRE OPINION OF THE COURT,
LyGia Goodenough in a pervgonal injury case, bac a verdict
ang judgwent in her favor for 42600 against George Oberhardt, which
he eeoks to reverse by thie appeal,
The record disclores that about 3:20 ofeleck in the after-
noon of Getober 25, 19357, June Goodenough wae driving her Ford auto-
mobile south in Leramie strect. Her mother, Lydia Socdenough, was
in the car with her and as she was croesing Foeter avenue, an east
and weet through street, the car ccllided with an east-bouné Chrysler
automobile belonging to defendant, George Oberhardt, and driven by
hig son Kareld, Forster avenue, whieh is located on the north side
of Chicage, is « preferential street ~ there ere four lanes for
traffic, It is intersected at right angles by Laramie street, which
has two lanes for traffic, A "Step* sign is located at the north-
weet corner of the intersection. ;
Plaintiff's position is that the Ford car stopped at the
"Step * sign and saw defendant's automobile traveling 40 te 45 miles
per hour east in the south lane in Foster avenue, about S00 fect
weet of Laramie street. The ford then proceeded across the inter-
section and was struck by the erxetbound ear and both eare came to «
atep at the southwest corner of the intersection,
On the other side, defendant's contention is that when
she
POUOHNCOOR ALCS bam HOVOMICOOD aUME
ge
‘eC Qh. ATL 2084
jae OF Shee
| -TAUOD GHP YO MOINES) SHYT QURkVEEe AOMMOD! O MORTOUY “por”
felivev a bad .onad yiuvtal Lamoeteq # at fiquenebood alLiql
| - onie neces eye tentnn OO at seen ae tne
-faoqqe etd? yd setevet of aden of
tePte edt nl doofo'e 05:5 tuode Pale SeeeLonkd Bisset edt 9! hoy
| -ofus Bxo% ist galviah sav cgiomsbood emul (Sel ST aedored Yo nook
—— aaw gwonebeod aby peedtom wh .foents ofmenad af ntuvoe ofkdom
«RBS Ae HkNOVe TOTAOT Enlesen eee ort ox hme ten MrtWaae Ode mt
qefeyndd baved=teae ae rite Debt Loo wee ett eokte dywordy Boe ban
UG meVEnd ban ,Jdendred> ey100% , tebe ted oF Bi—neLet oLtdonotus
abe Mon eH no BetMOOr ef dette ,unorn nate bios vow oie
HOT sonal wot ep ered? - Seorte Laltnereterq s 62 ,ogackid Yo
| | dotiy (toerse olmeral yi selyas digte fe Bevoeeratnl et UT .orriert
decent of ta betaool et agta “yesh” A oPTaeF cot Remkt ove sae
| -nolsooenetal off to deeves feow
ne Ta Deqyote tee Brot SHE gadd at HOLTtwOd a TteAtATs |
(| SOLEE SEU OP GREET Siem a'Snabteteh wae Sra tgle * yore"
4 foot OOS tueds ,sueva sesso al onal dtwow ens wl sens “hod aq
| ~iotud oF Gaores Dehewootg nods DoT ofl Sorte sinval to teow
| a of omso s1a0 sided faa aa0 Snwedtens edt yi founse sew bne avEtoee
| 2 lcbHn snokPoexr0Int odd to renx09 Peewtitwon edt ta
S a ee: — owe Coe ia tee it ea il ce ee ee eee Cee
oe
defendant's automobile was about 100 feet west of the intersestion
the Ford wae shout 80 feet north of the intergection, both traveling
at about the same rate of speed; thet Harold, the driver of defend-
ant's car, ecentinued on and when about 20 feet from Laramie street,
the Ford car which was about 15 feet nerth of foster seemed te be
slewing Gown - did not step, but on the contrary, inereseed ites
speed, and a¢ @ result the care eollided,
The daughter, whe owned and wae driving the Ford car, and
her mother, brought euit againet George and Hareld ~berhardt, The
complaint was in two sounte. The first was for persenal and property
injuries sustained by the daughter, June, and the second for personal
injuries sustained by the mother, Defendants filed anewers and
counter claias, Hareld seeking to recover for perscnal injuries esus-
tained by him, snd George, the father, for damages to the Ghryeler
ear. The jury found both defendante guilty and assessed damager at
$2600 in favor cf the mother, Lydia, Afterward on sotion of plain-
tiff the judgment against Herold, the son, was set aside and the
eult Giemissed as to him, The jury ales returned a verdict finding
June wae net guilty ae to Harold's counter claim,
The only matter argued on this appeal ie that the judgment
against the father, George GOberhardt, is wrong and should be re-
versed on the grounds, (1) that Harold was not the father's agent
at the time in question; (2) that the court erred in refusing to
permit Allen Preeman, a lawyer who wae agsieting in the defence of
the cave, to testify; (3) thet there was error in the instructions;
(4) in the remarke of the court; (5) in the remarke and conduct of
plaintiff's counsel, and (6) that the verdict is excessive.
(1) The evidence shows thet Hareld, whe wae about
eighteen yeare old at the time of the accident, was driving his
father's car *soming home from the sefety lane. My father didn't
send me, nobody did. I went there on my own business.* He testi-
fied he tock his father's car and drove 1t whenever he wanted te
do #0; that the father paid for the repairs, licenses, ete.; that
a
fe
Holfteoristat sit to feew Feet COL twoda aaw elidemotua e'tnabasteb
atiievard dved ,molfeesvetal ed? te dfton tee? 08 tucda eaw bx0T odt
~baeteb to tevinh ets ,biowaH teddy pbesqe to stat anaes eff Bocda Fa
,teenrt)e elmaiai met? tee1 os tvuoda modw bas no baualinon ,140 8'tae
sd oF bemees red no to dguon tect Of toda haw folie tae Brot edt
| atl heasersal ,yretdaes of? no Fad .qore ten bib ~ awobh gnivels
4 Debits oxao ai tiven's ca Bas ibowge
Boa ,%a9 Bae? edf gntvich aa dna benwe: este vtetdguph ed? 6 cots”
| eft .tircadyed! Biers baa ‘agree! Saniage tive daguord ,teivom ted
| Wreqoty bas famenned 26% osu deni? ax sndnweo ove at aw tatalquoe
j laneeveq 16% Srooes odd bus on , ret stguab ens we bentavewe aolastal
l hos eaewans Holl? efaabasted tadisom oct WS Sentateve selistnt
so weg seluslat [anoeteg set aeveeet of gaiiees Biowell yamhalo 10sawoo |
| “eleyad eff of segamah tot yredtat eft ,sg1esS bas yuid yd Bente?
fe eogamad heseovas Sno ytiing stashagteh dgod hawot wart edt sise
anteiq 26 molten a0 DuswrestA .a2byl redton ade tomers? at 008st
elt Atte ebhies 76% ean ,aoe adv ,Afoval tankaga Snemgdet ot This
gafrint? seLiyev « bemavdet ovle yu od? eld of sa Boastmeld Sina
-ttale xstewon a Slowal of! aa penal.
gaomgiul ef? Pais a2 Lasqqa eld? we bewgts setten yao ett one
-st od Bivona Soa gnetw at ,Shiaduedd egiood ,teteat off Tentage
$aega s'isdtat edt ton sav BLersR tage (i) ,abaworw odd ao beater
of gntevter af beres treo edt cade (&) taoltaonp al emit add ta
oe eaneted off wt grivetesa sav edw teywal » jasmeevl sella tiaveg
{edeifountent eff al sor1e gaw erect? Fare (€) pytitees es josan ond
20 foubneo bas sxramex ott at (4) {eawoo edd te exttawen ed? at) 4)
vovingsoxe al sOfbuey odt tadt (8) bas: ,Leanuoo a 3tttntala
tueda enw ofw ,hLousE gedd wwors somehtvevedT (L)) 0» © yor!”
eid galvin® asw ,saabloos ef to omld ad? ta Dio ausey aeetiiygte
S'ablh aedeet q seneL yeetes eit zoct ouod gatmoo* aa9 e!sodtat
(-teeed of“ vaentaed ove (a me exeds daow I «bth whedon: om: have
ot Seinsy ed toveneiw ti event Baie 109 a! redtat ats Soot od beth
a 74 i a ee a eS ee ee Se ee eee ae ee
<-
on the day of the secident he took the car *to heave 1% tented to
comply with the rule of the police department, and to have a sticker
put om it to show that 1t wae exmmined.* We think this evidence was
sufficient to show that Nerold, at the time, wae the agent of his
father.
(2) Plaintiff called John Bronold who teetified he saw
the accident and that the Ford car etopped at the north side of
Foster avenue. On cross-examination he wae asked by countel for
Gefendant if someone from counsel's office had not telephoned him
yesterday and he anewered, "Yea, sir.* %. “A young man by the name
of Allen Freeman called you on the telephone --." This wae objected
to by counsel for plaintiff as being immaterial, The objection was
everruled, The witness then said someone from defendant's counsel's
office called him *Lzet night," and he did not say that he did not
gee the accident but that he told the person on the telephone just
what he had testified te on the stand. The case then proceeded and
afterward Gefendant called witnesses, one of whom wae the young
attorney Allen Freeman. Counsel for plaintiff objected to the wit-
neas testifying because he had been in the court reem although the
court had, on motion, ordered the witnesses to be exeluded, and he
was not permitted to answer, e think it clear the ruling was
erroneous, when the rule excluding the witnesses wae entered no
one could have foreseen that Freeman would be called to testify and
this did not develop until the witness Brenold was on the stand.
The ehief point in sentroversy on the trial was whether the Ford
automobile stopped at the north side of the intersection. Witnesses
for plaintiff testified that 1% wae stepped at that point. On the
other side, a number of witneseee testified thet the Ford did not
step at the intersectién, Broneld testified he saw the collision
and thet the ford ear waa stopped before entering the intersection.
It was sought to prove by Freeman that the night before the trial
Syonold had told Freeman he did not see the accident, The ruling
of the court wae erronecus and under the cireumstances, prejudicial,
te
' ithe
of begeed 71 avad of sas of? doce od taeblooa ef? to yab ed? nO
ta Garo? wb
qedeite 2 Svat 6% Bas ,faemdaoqed eoifeq of? Yo ofva ode ddiy
‘paw oonebive atid dobds of * Bentwaxe ‘daw $f tand Wore OF #2 no #uq
ald to teega o0% tawv eal? head ta Biovail fads weds ot ‘suis ttt
ies aodtat
vos of bobtievet odv bLonewt not Bettas ttitntate”® (ey “°°
to ste dtwon wit $4 Beaders sao Dio sit Yad bu YnebHbod is
set Iaenweo yd Sedan sew of woltanteinxd-a004 ne” lite aS
ele? ton Badd soltte »' Teatued wed? onddmon
aman wit Yt man eet all 2” * the Weir eed dd aa BBB
‘pafostse baw sia © .-- ononester ode ao voy Beffio ‘nadeert ‘Néttt'Yo
“paw Moifoetdo wit .1efieramat guied dd Witte Mite ide tecndbd et ov
at ieetivos W¥nsbastes Mort enoemos Bias hod? vasarty edt” setaaeve
“You ‘Bab’ sit gaits yaa! Fon BIB" ot bas * oye toni ‘ard Sorted’ sole 7
Fout Smodyered aft he abtog ‘ait? ‘Brod ‘ot Yad gud gutbloos él bbe
Bna BOSeerorg ned¥ sakd oaT” Sdave ond nO oF Beldizesd ‘bak ot Yally
‘Ghuoy s#9 Saw mod Ye eno .eoenenytw Beliso ‘Qnabne’ F bh,
«tiv od¥ of Bevoetds Yitentald soy Teanwod named’ ablth Yourodde
eld hysieitd th asin’ Fide’ vd dh Woe Vie aif dled GCA We,
ed bua ,bobuloxe of soenond tw od ‘Berebi0 | no ltom no Sad too
"paw gotta eft chet’ #¥ Maske Oe” - Hrowans ree ae
on Doredne nev @oesentiw ott gndbito: aif
bite Utidhod oF BefTeo ef Bivow miweort 2a09 weeasre?
Beate orf? do sew Sfombet sent acy c2tiw qefewes gon BEB alitd
ByoY ool? tony ecw sav Tata? Ont ne Yeveveutacs AY tated toide elt
aeoobevty Jrottoosrerk? say to bis cron ‘at Fe bebyorh ot tdbmotue
est @O tatey TAMt th Seqqore now 22 vad) bePisteed Yretntdtg sor
ton S48 Boo eit ded? Sortirect wonnenriv Yo edulis oble Yeiivo
nolaltfen oiiY wan orf SePVigee? Blowowd AeL¥oowretnt off ga qote
nolteentetat sdf gatvedne oro'ted Deqqots Waw tho Buel sie Yad Bab
Lala? eH? steted ont tn ots eal Homoort Y¢ avevg oF dives oaw 9%
“patios edt “ tnobloos od? von ‘ton Bib ‘ed anmeoct niet iat hacer
Latotbulerg neonstemuosto oat asbau “baa avoenoris ssw nen Foad’
ene Ee rena ee el
8 i
ile
<oe
Defendant complains of an instruction given at plaintiff's
requeet ae to the right-of-xay of vehicles approaching an intere
section. The complaint is that the statute whieh was embedied in
the inetructicon does not apply where there are stop signs at an
intersection. The jury had the right to be told, as they were by
the instruction, that under certain ericumetances mentioned in the
inetruction, vehicles approaching intersections from the right had
the right-of-way over those approaching from the left, and this rule
was not changed by the fact that there was a stop eign st the inter-
section,
The other objections urged by counsel fer defendant as te
the remarks of the court and of plaintiff's counsel, and that the
verdict 1s excessive, we think need not be discussed here, since we
have reached the conclusion that there muct be a new trial on
account of the error in refusing to permit the witness, Freeman, to
testify.
The judgment of the Superior court of Cook sounty is re-
versed and the cause remanded,
REVERSED AND REMANDED,
Matchett, F.J., and Me®urely, J., consur,
wie
“ae one ee
a'ritdaials ta avy soltourtent as te eatalqnoo dnabasted
‘ Ti # Scnmao
tesa na galeosorggs eelotiey 20 Yor=tomddglt edit cr ea ta
“al besdodme naw colew ovutate ant dads al tntaiqnos ott “snottoos
aa ts angie qote eae ‘erect oradw “faq ton eeob soltemstanl od
Ys orew Herd as Kray hcl pes Broglie gh, Bog! wnostoseretat
ad? ne Denottnen aconetoayo lio atatreo aba aaa “ nolsowstont odd
1 2 Re BED saunay “aee
elvi ea san tel ota mon? saidosorays eaodd “sve ‘Yaw-2o-8 a ed
“~% baer 2 Teakee
<tead odd 90 mgte qot0 8 aw eradt adi Goat off yi bopnado ton saw
* 2otownns et Son Yoateveey
. frho BRacvort MalTe
co ae snaduered 20% foanweo we hops anolsoside sedte edt was
i Yiitnisia dor feaaves |
ond Sadg bes .Loemvoo s'Y24¢ntalg Yo has aos edz to eae
ant Setetiv eff .Seleaaere |
ey sands jeued Densuoetd 26 fon Deon sats? on yovtsneans sf :
hin Weal” ath Bartao wary
no Lata? won s od teum oxeds tad? ads
2 of tails Sud tubbiose exe een
ot aanoor' Rnd bw oat timeg of ‘Miavter nk sours te tnuoo0
* im? “o of Gel 53; st! tant ee
; «UtLsa08
fiw Reliae Peake ed aa Pk desig, 4
“0% at Wavos 000 te Frw00 telnet outs tes
hehannes ae od? b iL Spee
of Bad of eaanned doletivnes eben
ASCHAKAS oR cxanavan
4 | “wt y Ie ask veto G23 (bas cas ia ae spe
eA & Sets tS foa tay
|
vow vontangid so waheePben eee wee wane “ieee
Se a on
»
ai Binow aAgoert Dat? seanegnt wrt Rinbo the
¥
*
“~s
oe)
At
*
| . ie wae Sey ees Lop oe ohh 28 asd
| eye? eld youd ets eee Tabs Get ne tenevbababe AE PE teq torte at?
on t say Yo Ghis aren aa Pe heagore ‘oY Bde
i uke Poa? 22 See ages ker 2 Field DaPhireer vistake ty “at
‘ inn Sek Weel el te “tie Fo aS Resieleia te “adeon 2 obits. mde
steiifen old wan ef Bayes ptexouc’ WR ieobveras’ tf en) eede
coirasexers : glygetns wtebed heceete $aw Sao Beet ont ‘bade Bab
Htat end erpted gin ate Fade inaeett Wr avery, bad siywon bier ‘Vw
| a ae
ron Tom OLB oat sane or ied hawk be a "a i
t
~SLV0LlEeL STS ,Reokateswosin 4 ig ‘EROS DAB avonmetis same
40937
AUGUST BLOCK,
Vv.
W. ¥, KIMBALL Co ‘
eorporation,
MR, sustros ¢
Plaintiff brought an action against defendant te reeover
$10,407.20 claimed to be due under the terme of an oral agreement,
There wat a jury trial and « verdict in plaintiff's faver for $5,000,
Defendant moved for judgment nctwithetanding the verdict and at the |
time aleo moved that in the event euch motion was denied, that it be
granted a new trial. Afterward plaintiff, by leave of court, filed
his motion for a Judgment in his favor for 719,407.20 instead of
the {3,000 awarded to him by the verdict of the jury. ‘The court
sustained defendant's motion for a Judgment notwithstanding the
verdict and plaintiff appeals,
: The record discloses that plaintiff in 191% was employed
by defendant in the making of pianos, Ne continued working for de~ |
fendant until about February or March, 1930, when he left the com-_
pany. When he wes first employed he “wae doing cabinet work on the
bench making grand pianeos,* and continued at that work until 1923,
at which time he was made foreman of the department. fe continued
in auch position until about September 24, 1927, when he entered
into an oral agreement with defendant whereby he was te be in char
of the department. fe was to be paid certain specified prices for
the work completed in that department, out of which he wae te pay
the wages of the men (around 30 in number) and shat wae left wae tt
be paid to him for his compensation, there ia no dispute about te
eval agreenent except that defendant's pesition ia that he wae te
be paid, as above stated, but not to exceed 350 per week, while —
‘plaintiff's position is there was no such limitation, |
if
te
| ‘apveces ie saabaetab taataye solges na > tawerd, viltetars bee! fio
tneneorgs Lave fa Yo ented Sus owe oe
000,24 tot tove? a'itigntal@ at i gotbrey « bas Latut lai? yl @ saw oxadT
on? $a Bue tolbuev oct ‘padbantedt twten #neaghy te? devon, taabastet
od th fast \Detned vey aotton sown tnoye gat at tad Seven eats, east
post? f1H09, 20 ovael yd ,Wteatele SsgwseezA, znaeh ttt, “ied Rig se
% hevtent 08 59 O49 9% zover and 4 tnemabut » bi ents. sit
tawoo edt 8 .¥twt edt to tokiney av yd mid of beduaws 000 0684, ode
ody gazdaatastt fveon tnompbul, s 10% aotzom atesbnoted bontatawe
siseage =e
\3 bayoiqne naw R£@L a2 Tritalelg dada sescloaih Bicoer ad?
b wattaes ef .shemtuaqeb ong to memezet ebam sav ed omts dotdy #0
| \ Seretae ed nedw .TSCl ,e8 asdmetqe® Jueds Livan note teog dgua aa
acto as ad of naw od qWeveds tambaeted Atty taemoerya fare aa Conk
de seeing heltiosae alates bles od of saw ef _teoutraged att ‘to
a
eh jena ot say ed dotde to tuo .Jneatangeb Tadd al mi agen row eds
3 5
a tuoeda wren oe et ered? snodsnancnoe sta nen aid ot ‘sda -
-fe
The evidence shows that every two weeke plaintiff made out
the payroll showing the amount earned by each man who worked in the
Gepartment; the emount to be caid by defendant for each specified
piece of work; from the total of these prices, the men's wagee were
deducted, and the balance retaining was paid to plaintiff. For ex-
ample, the firet payroll made by plaintiff under the oral agreement
shows defenéant company wae to pay #2211,53, The amount the wen had
earned during the two weeke was $2116.05, leaving « balance of
$96.48, which was paid te plaintiff, The men were also paid by
defendant the amounts specified in the payroll. Plaintiff centinued
in thie work from September, 1927 until December, 1928, when he was
eomewhat demoted and Herman 8, Kunde, who had been an employee of
the company for 34 yeare wae made foreman of the cabinet department.
Two departments at that time were consolidated and from thet time
the payrolls were approved by Kunde. This method was followed from
December, 1928 until sometime in January, 1930, when plaintiff was
advised that he would have to go back to work on the bench, Shortly
thereafter, plaintiff claimed he had not been paid all that was
coming to him under the terme of the oral contract and he testified
he presented Gefendant with a bill for $16,467,20, the amount for
which he sued, A few weeke thereafter, plaintiff left hie employment
and hae not worked there since,
Three witnesses for defendant denied that plaintiff's
Claim wae presented to them, as testified to by him, The substance
of their testimony ie that they aid not see the bill until shortly
before the trial, which was begun March 20, 1939, Flaintiff brought
his sult eon January Ba, 1956,
The Di-weekly payrolls, all of which were made out by
plaintiff beginning October 8, 1927 and the last dated January 25,
1950, show the amounts paid by defendant to plaintiff every two
weeke covering that period and nearly every bi-weekly payment sade
to plaintiff was $99 and some cents, except the first payroll shows
he was paid 995,46 and a few others were approximately 196, The
evidence shows the number of hours worked every week by plaintiff,
ca
tue ebam ttitnlel¢ exeew ow? yueve fad? ewoda sanesbive edT Nit
ett? af Sedcow ow nam tose yt Bonise tawoms ef gniwoda LLeryeq edt
beltiosgs dese ret tusineted Vib the. ed of tawoms edt {taemPcaqed
atew seyew o'ram ent rected saedd t© Latot ex? sont iaiow to eoslg
“xe %0% .%2itnislg of biaq sow gatelomes vomited ent baa. botaubab
saempatga Lane adt ughnd VpLIntala Ye sham Llowyag teatt adv ,olqms
bad not oof tawome ec? 53,1884 yaq of saw Yiaqmoo Snabnetob ayoeds
te eenalad gatvael .80.0L19% nav aseew ovt odd gatuh ‘berrse
‘Qo Btae osle erew mem otT ttivatal of bleq aaw dotdw Pee
Bownitaes Yeetniart .tloryaq off al bottioogs etavoma edt 34
nw eit Hdd \OS@L jxedmoced Lita TOL candinetged mort sow a2dd nd
to seyelque no need bad ody obaud nasil bas “botoneb 4 ta donee
‘dnonesdge Gealdee ods Yo mamoxot obam naw easy 36 sot wagnee ade
‘gnts @a3 govt Bue betebifosnes ovew oot} tats 2a ataend ing
wort bewslfot sav Bodten aid? eine yo bevowgqe w1ew artonyed at
naw YWitdlata aedw .O6et ,asundt al oaltonce Idan BS0r ,rédmeoed
ede dened outa no Snow OF dod Op of ovad Bivow ed fact bonlvbs
sew tad? Ife btaq aeod ton ban ed ‘hemtalo Tittntalg | set taoredt
pePiisesd ad tna teattace taae edd Yo amied ods tebay mid of gatmes
“dot fnitons sd? \08.90A,0L8 act Efkd a dvtw dasbasted betaen aeug od
) taesyo fqn eid fter Tiitatela ted taerade aiteow wet A | sbowe et "Eas
ae oonle oxedt bedtxow ton saad bn
s'2iftaietg ¢add Bokaed taadudtsh or itetaa™
eddddudda off aid yd of Delttvacd ba .meds ov Detmonerq enw ab
| efdeda Erdnw Lid ‘edt ede ton “BLD youd tas ai \omtiaed teas e
gdguoud Taidatart” .ctet 108 dorsh myod saw ad chit wae pony
yd two ebam otew so Leb ‘to Ifa et iorvad 1 yiate id ra fnew on
Be quaint Sosab gaol add baa VSL .8 aedodoO gntaniged Tilt
gwd wrove Yriendate of Snabsiotes yd blag stavoms at Sat ol P
‘phan Fremyaq Udeow-£d yxeve Ylaaen bas hotieqg tad? gates
_ eon forge Yertt eft sqoexe (ueded dade Bae Ode Baw 34.
uae de a a a ee ee ee
aaa
Sard
They vary from 194 hours dewn to 94-1/8, 88, 70-1/2, and ene but
Bl-1/2 houre but on each occasion he was paid substantially the same
amount, a little more than °99, On one of the payrolis, July, 1228,
he was given two checks for his two weeks' work of 352.99 each, A
witness for defendant testified he called this te plaintiff's at-
tention and that he should not again go over the §100 for two weeks’
pay. Thie testimeny is denied by plaintiff who explains he drew the
two checks so that the other men who were being paid at the tine
would nct know he was drawing over {100 because if they did they
might be dissatisfied vith the amount they were receiving,
Plaintiff's testimony is further to the effect that from
September 24, 1927 until about January 25, 1980, he never made any
demand or said anything te defendant that he was entitled to sore
money than he wae being paid as shown on the bieweekly payrolls and
that the reason he Gid not was that he waa saving the money so that
in case there were slack times 1t could be drewn againet by defendant
to pay the men,
The evidence as to the making of the oral agreement in
September, 1927, is that plaintiff, Sunde and Huseby were present,
the latter two representing defendant company, and, ag stated, there
ig ne disagreement in their testimony exeept on the point that
plaintiff says there was no limit of $50 per week placed on the
amount he wees to recover, while on the other side, Huseby, whe was
the production man and superior to plaintiff and funde, and whe had
been in the employ of the company for 42 years, testified that the
maximum of G50 per week was placed upon the amount plaintiff was to
recelve and this ia also the testimony of Kunde.
On the trial, on ¢rose-examination, Kunde testified that
shortly before Block left defendant company in February or March,
193¢, he checked up what had been produced in the department in
which plaintiff was employed ané that *As near as I can remember, the
surplus was about $5,000.00, the accumulative, That consisted ef
various parte of grand piano. There were some complete cases, As
to how many I would have, *** te trust my menory, I could not answer
ited
gud ono Daw ,8\i-8T 28 ,8\i-d? of avob etwed dOL sett ytav ye?
omee aft ylfeetaszedim Aiag sew ed motaaooe dese go ted eaved 8\l~i6
,898L \elwh ,eiforyan af to ono 20 008 masit oom off0 lL s «Paves
& eae 98,962 to ayew ‘edeow ows ald wot adoado owS gev ly saw od
-Sa e'IIttately of aidd Dolian of boltiiact? tuehaeteh so? asemtiv
‘uainew Gwd sot COL) af? ceve om alsge dom Hinode oc tacit daw noksaes
ad? weed a0 antealqnze odw Ttitntalg yt Selneb aL yroalsacd gid? .yeq
out? of9 Te Slag gated svew off mem cede end Jade os exloeds ont
yous 2h yous Bt eawaood COL! «seve gaiwauh saw ed woud som b Leow
awetviacet ete yedd tnvens eft Stiw Sattadsanath od getyie
mort tadd ToT ode of weddunt of yRontoned a!Trtsmbals. 660) 6!
Une aban! even of yOSRL 88 Cumunel twoda Laem NOEL «OS cedmedged
eon of Balditne naw vA Sad? gnebeetoh of gatdeyne Sioa se buamebd
hee eflosqnq titeew-td eet so awode 2a diag gnied sew od nad} yonem
tet? om yYonem end? patves naw of dad? saw ton SLO on notaey od tact
inabneted Yo Fontegs award of Diwoo 24 eamty xoate oxow owed? enne. mt
. i ove Sige fem gag oF
nt taeaeorge favo edt to pattem sdf ef am somehive eff oo)... 0
newex etew ydeael dom show’ ,Tisvatale tad? ef ,T8AL ,xodmstqet
erode ,hetate aa bara .ynaqmoe Seabeetod gubtasnexqex ows xottel ont
gakt Matoq edt oo tqeone Yoonkieo? ated’ aL tneapengesth on at
edt mo beosle Aeow toq O82 ‘to Fimtt on sew evedd eyan Teentale
saw cttw ,wdeast .shte “oto edd mo olidy ,xeveoss of say ad tawoms
Sat ow fom ,obawi Ses Vibrataig of tolseqm bus aan neltovherg ent
ody add Beltivae? ,ateey 8% s0% ysaquoe ed# to yolgue en? mh neod
ot sew Wiitetaly tavews sil? aeqw Seesly nav teew 19q 086 to sumixan
hawk te wiewtteed aft ols af ated Sax oviacet
tang Seltivned ehwwi ,motvanionxe-seoxe oo ,Ladat- ait a0
tems co yume! at ynequos Saabuoteh Pted spold eyatod yltnace
at tasettaqeh ont at Seauboxg mood hail face qu bexoods.ef ~OBGL
odd yusdmenet ase f es “eon oA Want ban. Semntene aair Yasbabad Ais |
snlhine
that correctly. = d14 not make a written memorandum of it at that
tine, that fleure wee in ay memory, *
fhe defense interposed wae (1) that plaintiff had been paid
in full, and (2) the Five Year Statute of Limitations barred plain-
tiff's claim, At defendant's request the court instructed the jury
that defendant had pleaded the “tatute of Limitetions and therefore
plaintiff could not recover for such amounts, 1f any, as they found
became due to him “within five years before the commencement of thie
suit whieh was on January 24, 1935, *
(1) Defendant contends that the reeord diseloses plain-
tiff has been paid in full; that the bieweekly payrolle made out by
plaintiff, covering the 2@ months he worked under the oral agreement
of September 24, 1927, shews plaintiff was paid approximately #99
and some cente every two weeke and that this course of dealing be-
tween the parties show the construction of the oral agreement
placed upon it by the parties, vis,, that plaintiff wae not to
receive more than 550 per week. In further suppert of thie conten-
tion counsel for defendant say that prior to the oral agreement
plaintiff was working in the grand cabinet department for 90 cente
an hour and at that time worked 52 hours a week, so that his weekly
wages were §46,90; that under the oral agreement, ace testified to
by witnesses for defendant, plaintiff received approximately (13 a
month more than he wae paid prior to that time «- about ©202 per
month, while under plaintiff's vereion of the oral agreement, plain-
tiff would be receiving §574 a month, or an increase of approximately
$371 per month and thet such result shows plaintiff's version of the
Batter to be wholly without merit, In this connection we might say
that plaintiff, during the time he worked under the orel agreement,
drew §6,066 ae appears from the payrolls made out by him, and in
addition to thie sum he seeks to recover $10,407.20 more, or an ad~
aitionsl $371 a month.
On the other hand, counsel for plaintiff say the inerease
in pay which plaintiff claims he was entitled te under the oral
mt, 1¢ entirely reasonable in view of the fact that the
abe
fast a 21 Yo muhnetomen nettins « odam fon S26 I .yftoentos stadt
* Senomem ya nt gew euwgt? Sad? lend
bisq head bal TLiGwiel, Patt (f£) anew boooquetal snavieS sdf © home
=nislg Servet anoltatieal! Yo stutat® ag0Y evt™ ef (S) Ome (Lfet at
yas off BoForwant tayoo aff gueupet o'#asdretes TA mato w'Ttsy
Stols1e bas sHotiesimld Yo esatae® sdf bebaolq Bad Saadeeted Fads
Onvot vor? sa , erie TL .wtdtwome cows «ce? toveses Son Sivoo Wivahaly
nist Yo ¢remeenennes aff sroted steoy ovlt wldstw" mtd of 60S emaced
| th Doe i wean * 82@L (Oo YuaunAat ne waw détdw owe
~aislg esseferth Sceoet off tant sbnetdos tasbeeted (1) eee
a Seo shan etlertse yilomwatd eff cade (Ltt AL Stag ‘aedd acd ttt
Tadasotya Lets only rabay betsow eM artrnem OR ett nabeeves’ Tettmtaty
| CUP ket amixondgs Dhaq naw Titsmisty eves {Veer et samen gerte:
meth gmk aed te serwos Atty FeAT Bin wilsww owe YHeve etHes “Giod Bie
| ss Ptemeetye Leto aff to eofterrtance off wode seltred off ost
oo fon wav Ttitatat ded (sntv (wolfuaq edt “Yt OF doqu Heoald
—— apenhnoo SL8¢ to Moqeue seddayt aI teow t9q 089 nadf “ere ovitsodt
Yoaneerse Lave ot of toltq tadd Yau Sdebsoted tot Teensoo nol?
siseo 6@ Tol taemPascod dentdan Sderg act Af gabliow aw PELOWELE
‘qideow afd tod? os (foow s ered 88 better emtt Fant fo baa “wert ‘ns
ot BELT Feet a9 (faemeerge Lave edt tobe add (08.080 erew degaw
ag GL YLetatitven qe Bovisnet Tittatal (MnabreTed dot wWeas ont ty ys
j gag 8OG4 teede ~ omlt fad? of toPre Bled Sav Gi nadt ote atieH
ettal¢ tnomeerge fore edt to motertv ‘ew Ytietialy deine wl tity deed
yleveutxerqce Yo eeserem? na to ditnow w SYOS gnivisoot ad Bivdw THT
. noftedey e'2titntelq ewott ¢iueer dowe fold bee démow seq ETS
(S68 Jegle ow noltoonmms etdd at throm Suodtiw ¢Liedw ede? teetae
taemestga fore off Tebse bostrow ort ome? edt anbewh (Trlntalg tact
Bf Bao woh ¥¢ Two ebam aLferyaq edt sort wiasdqe dn 880,09 WD
=e od to opetion or reqpanteptamenatane se 200%
: gal. yee i sh wht gel Bowe sumtin a
ee ee ye ee ne
¥
‘
k
h
~5=
thirty-o44 men employed in the departeent where plaintiff worked
must be paid firet before he would receive anything.
Plaintiff testified he made no claim for aéaitional com-
pensation during the 2S months he worked under the eral agreement,
This fact, taken in connection with all the evidenes in the record,
we think, clearly showr that the verdict of the jury, which apparent-
ly adepted plaintiff's version of the oral agreement, is againet the
manifest weight of the evidence, If this were the only error com-
plained of, the jucguent would have to be reversed and the cause
remanded for a new trial but we are of opinion that rraetically all
of plaintiff's claim wae barred by the Five Year “tetute of Limi~
tations. And although the court instructed the jury, ae above
eteted, that if they found for plaintiff they could only eward such
compensation or such amounts ae they found became Gue te him ‘within
five years before the commencement of thie suit which was on January
24, 1935." The verdict ia in the teeth of thie instruction because
five years before the commencement of the suit would be approximately
January 25, 19350, and plaintiff earned nothing under the oral con-
tract after January 25, 1930,
In Killer v. Cinnagen, 168 Tll. 447, it wae held that in
a guilt brought on an oral contract te recover wages at 65 a week for
services rendered from August 1, 1882 to Mareh 30, 1802, the Five
Year Statute of Limitations, which wae interposed, barred reeovery
for all wages claimed to be due five years prior to the beginning of
the suit. In that case plaintiff, ea sister of defendant, worked for
him on a farm and olaimed $5 a week for her services. ‘he sought
to recover for a period of nearly ten years, The contract war oral,
The court there eaid: ‘The appellee [plaintiff] was only entitled
to recover for services rendered within five years prior to the date
when the sult wae brought, *** unlees she could show some new
promise on the part of appeliant sufficient te take the care cut of
the Statute of Limitations." UOefendant requested instructions on
the Statute of Limitatione which the court refused and this was held
to be error,
i}
-8-
Boduer Liltaiaig evedw gastareqeh ad# ah Soyolgne nom Sbo~ytalds
) .gaidtyns evieosg bivew ed etoted seat Maq od taum
~neo Lamolzihds sot atele on aban of beltsdeed Pisaltelt
tosmsorgs Saxo aft a0obay Seduow ef adtmom 88 ode gatumb. celtesneq
casee7 alt af senobive edt Ile atin nottosanos at aexat 29a etd?
-tnowqaa Hotdw ,vurt ant Yo totbuey ete gorid auods qfaselo .datd?, ow
adt Seategs ad ,tmesworgs Leno. ad? to sohevay s'Tiisntele betqods, yl
~00 tore ylne edt wrow piid 2 ,conedive ot to digiow seeltaae
: sause eid daa beatevet ed of pyet Sivow Saompbul, edt ,to bontalg
\ Lis yLiseitesay gait notnige to em ew sit Labat won & rt behasaee
aiwtl Yo stutard ase evt% off xd bevied sew chao a! titstately Re
| eveda na ret edd Dotoussent twos seit sdquoitle bed aanodsay —
citgiv® mid of ebb omsood brut yets ae stavons Asia. xo moltasmequeo —
yremieb me eaw cetty tive aldt Yo tneansonemmoa off oxeted asasy ovtt
ss se nesd mottonutent aidt Ye dteat edt at a2 fokivey edt *,800L #8
' Yietamtzctoqs of bivew 2tum ent To Tasmeeneamon edd e1otad arasy evlt
-seo Lnxo of? taba natiten bemiae Tistatelg ne ,O6CL ,38 yawned
: | -O60L ,@8 qussnsl cede tomes
ai tad? bled saw th TOS LAT O8L omenntd «v wehUA al ce oe
ot Moow a 84 39 ceuew teve0et cf Jonrtace Lare ne mo tdguedd tinea
ovrl ene S061 Of set of S601 .f tonguA gett hewbnet seoivtes
Yuveoet bertad ,heaoquetal cay dots enoltadind! to otnder® inex
(Yo tuted at of tolsy srseg evst oh od oF Lomtelo eagew Lhe ot
i 90% Redvow ,tanhneted To totale # .@iivatelq eene sade al. ,ttoe edt
tiayee af8 eegivres sec "0% doow s 26 Sontalo brs ana? « pom
favo eae teastcos edt seumey ned {lxaen te hetveq 4 Tot “evooes oF
etab ef? of selaq erase ovll ahdtiw Sesebaet geolvige sot cereces oF
wen emon weik Bive0 ode naoiny “ .Saiquond gow Fhye ed? aedy
Yo swe eeae od exed of IastolYiwe Inalleqea Yo dag ed? na eotwong
mo atoltouttant Roteowper tnadastod anosSat itd Ye etutare edt rt
mint ina note chee. Reece ee semen. ae to hae. nt i
in the instant case, plaintiff testified that the records
whieh he kept ané whleh are in evidence, show the amount of work
completed in hie department, and that upen auch completion he was ene
titled to be paid, The evidence shows aubetantially all of the work
was completed and delivered more than five years before the sult wes
brought, And as said by the Supreme court in the Miller case, “We
do net think the evidence eshewe a case of mutual accounts, *
Counsel for plaintiff contend the Stetute of Limitations
has no application to plaintiff's claim and O'Srien v. Sexton, 140
Til. 617, ie relied upon. In that ease, O'Brien brought sult on a
contract upon which payments had been made at Gifferent times, The
question of the Statute of Limitations wae the controlling point in
the case. O'Brien entered inte a contract with Sexton to provide
ali material and perform ell work in plastering a certain building
then being erected by Sexton, for which O'Brien wae to be paid
$9900 in inetallmente ae the work progressed. O' frien aid not com-
plete the work claiming he had been prevented from doing ¢o by
Sexton. On the other hand, Sexton contended C'Srien had abandoned
the work and he was required to finish the job at a eost greater than
the contract price. The court said that the lact work dene by O'Srien
was one day lees than five years before he brought suit; that the
work to be performed by O'Srien for Sexton “was an entirety;" that
“where one continuous piece of work, consisting ef a number of parts
or items, is to be performed, the statute of limitations does not
begin to run upon the completion of each separate part or item, but
upon the completion of the whele." ‘Ye think that case is not in
point. There 0'8rien wae te be paid for completing the job #990,
while in the case before us, plaintiff was te be paid by the pieced,
ag and when the work on the pleces wae completed, This is shown by
plaintiff's testimony and by the method in which the business was
conducted, jie think the Five Year Statute of Limitations barred
plaintiff's claim and therefore the court did not err in entering
Judguent in favor of defendant notwithstanding the verdict.
be
ahtooon aff fans Bolti¢eeds Thi?eiaig ,96a0 tastant eff alo «~~ 40)
xrow to Savemm oft wede \eonebive nt ore dofde baa tqex ed Motdw
“ne aew 60 OL@olgmen coe ogy fads Sia (tnomtaaqed ath at beteLqmos
suow ed? te [fe yllaiteetedye avwoede soneSive eif biag of of Dotede
aew Sise edo exoted araey ovit nat? evom Dereviteb bas bev olamee saw
ow® ,seee gellin soe at tues emesqut edd yi dian en bak ,@iguond
* stnveoss Jangunm te esas 2 owors eonebive eff Ankdd gen ob
anGhtatie£.! te ototes? edt hnetnen Yattntelg w Loammod © ©) sor
OME (BRURGY 7 gEsul'O dra mine stYistestale ef noléeotiqaa on aad
& a0 2iwe Miguoréd aeltah'O , sano Gad? al .meqw bebien ef ,¥10 ,141
off .gomdd teouettLd Sa ebam seed San atnomgsg Aoldw nog Poatsao0
al dugeq gatilevaaoo est sew enettatiand te atetet® edt to aetsaenp
ebivesg of mo?xee dtiw towttmes # ofat Sevetwe aelss'O eae oe
nutbiiod atatuao a gatteteate st stow Lia orolieg ban tatvodam dis —
Sieg ed of sav aetna’ Aoldw vet .setme! YW betoers gated matt
emne 200 bth motad'O sDoasemme q Stow of? am stnenl Latent. nk Oeeed
vd ca gaich mort betnavete seed Basi at gotatale Maow off avelg
henohaads Sac aelad'O hebnethem novxe® ,iaad sedvo of? oO ,nosneR
naid uetaeny Faoo a ta dot edt datal? of .betlupet gaw ed Sua’ teow ec?
meitt!'O ef enob taow Saal ect sait? Size gages ed?) ,eoitg Poartnos odd
|
ent gait pilus tigsord el eteted suaey av2t sad? asset yob ont asw
ted? “3yverttze ae sew" notxe® <6 netuli's yo beorvetreq ed) et ater
afzeg Yo asdawn @ Lo gattefenos .stew to esely sHond!tses ene ovedu"
fom seob snottavimti to atatsse! ons ,domvetieg ed OF eb yandsdiad
(ged ~metl wo tus etsiagee doae to Rett elquom arid aoqw furr. ot mdged
f£ gon et osa0 Salt Antds et “.aledw of? Yo sottelques env mogy
_ yORGEH dot of? grtvoiques set Sieg ed oF saw metri!> wrod? ,taieq
.2osly otf yd Sieq od ef naw Tidtatel¢e aw e10t%ed oawo emt mt olidy
qd meoda ef ele? betefiquos saw eanetg ef? no Avew oc¢ node bas os
now stented oft dotde ad Sonten olf Yd ham yooutteed a! tetatate
horied aneltadiat to eteeats anak ove} edt ants? of ybetexbmeo
gniaegae mt 19 Son b2h aneo eM? erotexeds bas mialo — ae fs
tag hii iii ta tatiana enn |
te
The judgment of the Sunieipal court of Chicexo ia
affirned,
SUDGHENT APFIRMED,
Matchett, ©.J., and MeSurely, J., coneur,
|
pated! O ge pak otmow Tend one caUl” km, aan wally xno
a
ee estas aeons a eae
eave Bea Tearoanmy keh tate: meneame mh: Peis arti nina, o
a erelinensiis & tis “es hermarse ie ahabrent = orn
SAH Le He ROE wn, OES nae orem Dermal |
SS SD LR one at tele amence ache vahebeneteineias
Raia, header ig: eae ae PREAH He vd
6 ge <P alas tee atace atta 2 a:
none Crcuaimane ce eae ts
wrt? ee eeneneRRANNBRER A i000 62 oo at
iho ON Re OP he Perens 8 eket : natn al
RO ated a gtetmate whee stecsteitiipaibilic
hee eh -oP ede oMtet Ss Apbebrore eaten sonoma »
whee ot OR meted’ hemseweerag eat
(yi Be SRIGh mort bet emiery wag ne mak:
aenehiwda Amst antes deeaieuinie:mnPHN shit Neue
| tadd astaweg cote a ta col eae Metary. A late adel ys ea
eth fast: pete: tayeot ae sesantbiesnieii ‘“
eta RO LOdNAe Le QintiR tale coteN he, eoRbige®
Hh SHOM Ano at Lets eons Atay eRe
oe ae ee ere a ee
Rie C8 etan fade: tehaevey . ceitaisaieinat
(SS cab ome gorse eiqoge weet: en 1
| a ee, Steg we eh ane af Fa 5 EOS
1 ole ae oti Oe
MA. PRESIOING JUSTICS GERIS Re SUILIVAN delivered
the opinion of the court.
Cotcber 16, 1936, Nora P. Yen Deralice, Sxeoutrix
of the Estate of Walter J. Van Derelice, plaintif’, brought
quit againet Baniel 3. Wentworth, claiming thet on September
4, 1926, at Chicago, Tilincts, defendant made a promissory
note in writing bearing that dete and delivered the ame te
Weiter J. Yan Serslice and thereby for volue received promised
te pay te the order of said Walter J» Yon Serslice the eum of
$10,000.00 gixty days after date thersof with interest thoreon
at the rate of 7 per cent. per anni.
Plainsif’ further allees that defendant hae defeulted
ain the payment of seid note and such default atill continues; that
there is due plaintiff from defeniant on anid note 96,404.R1, being
$5,000+00 principal and $3,484.11 for interest at the rate aforesaid.
: A cognevit wag filed by the attorney for dcfondznt,
waiving service cf process, confessing the sotion of plaintiff
fur the above named amount, being principal and intervat on seid
note and also such attorneys’ foes as the court may allow.
‘ Thereaz'‘ter on Gotober 19, 1036, an order wag entered
by Judge Kelly, directing that judgment with exeoution be entered
for plaintiff and against defondent for 18,990.89 and costa, wich
ia |
| feb AT aoe
i | Poreviieh KAVEAIR 6B GrMad LonPeWe oMLORRUS mL
| stuoe ods to sotntqo ult
|
| zirtwpext ycotinwséi an¥ «4 axe ,O5CL (aE audoto =
} tdguoed eetontaig josktemen eult <© qebuen to enatent atte
aodnotqol to tat galmtato dttortee® ot fetnal tentegs thee
| Enmore: 2 ofan tinhmekeh wtomk it yogmetad te ,ONk . Lt
: ot omnp orl? Rovevifed bro tah tade ynbined gnicinw ab von
hoster bovieows onlay toh yore dns coklened meV .% tet.Low
‘ali to mue oft ootintet mY .b cad Lol Aten to coin ont of Yau OF
; | aman eo, tno m0 vba wit Yo
if bod tusteh enc dnabmoteb texlt eedeti vectiturt Tettntalt
| dad? younttnoo ILtte tinstok dom has efor blew to themeaq ent mt
| gited ,£f.dGD, 02 ovon bine mo dmieeteb mort TrtintaLe onb wt erent
| i .ptddeddta “svar Sas Ye saedevar aes Ir.38),83 bas —— ee |
| aohaoted rot Yoomette ort YS BoLtt wow thvengoo A
Widtnteld to sottes edt snteeetnoo veneoeny to estvrow a
bowetns aaw abr rte BERL BL tedotd no tes teones
beretns ed mottweexe ftw tnomplut, tar gattooths avtten ula ¢
ay
ee a Oe eT eT earn ene
wa oe
er
wan includes 9606.71 as atterneys' fees.
On Hovember 16, 1956, the limited and special
appenrence of defemiant, by hia attorneya, was filed fer the sule
purnese of making defense as of sala date and not for the purpoge
of giving eny jurisdiction over the person or property of seid
defendent prior to aaid date or waiving any defenses defondant
has to the jurisdiction of the courts prior to hig motion to open
amt set aside anid Judgment as being void sni without merit.
Cn deoasber 4, 1956, Judge Bristow entered an orier
directing thet said judgment by confeesion be opened and giving |
leave to defendant to file ingtenter his answer to the complaint;
directing that said judgnent stem’ as security; thet execution be
stayed until further order of the court, and thet plaintiff heave
leave to file instanter a demand for a trinl by jury. n Doconber
5, 1928, plaintify filed a demand for a jury»
Gn January 22, 1997, on motion cf plaintifr, Judge Bris-
tew entercd en order striking defendent's answer anid ordering defend=
ant to file an amended answor on er before February 1, 1837.
Qefendant in hig amended answer filed February 3, 1937,
admite that on deptenber 11, 1926, at Chicago, Tilinols, he made
& Gertain oromissory note in writing, bearing said date, for the
gum of $10,00G.00, with interest st the rate of seven per cent per
anmm, emi delivered the samo te Walter J. Van Uergiice, but denies
that he reocived any value or consideration for said note; slleges
that the supposed promissory mate of the defendant hes been paid
in full by the Ironwood Syndicate, end Indtena Corporation, said
corporation being the real debtor, benefleiary and recipient of all
the consideration for which said mote waa delivered; that sald payment
+) aunt "ayentod tn 3a,190008 enbutenh-amn
fnfgoye baa Setimti of ,88CL sBL sedmevoll nO
olor ott aR MLE gam eyrmogin visi Yt inshneted to sonetseqs
seam ody Tot gon fas staph Hine to an geneted yabien Yo seem
“pine Yo Waocerg ze moptsg tif tev motvetietint ys gatvis to
daabaoteb eenered yin gutvie vo etab Bhan of -tolcq srabneteb
Mexe oF mottom ots of toltq etume edt to moltelbetant edt of wart
“throm worthy ine btov gated ea snempbl, biae shina tox baa
reine As beratm wotetnfl egtul «BCL gb rodunget m0 i
- qyutvtg Ban bemeqo of notasetnos yf tnoumbmh bhan duct
rtelquoo ett ot man nls ota GLE eT sabaNRO of week
ai moltreexe Tart Pehoner 2 bnate Thomghet ktan sed? yattoorts
oved Thttnrtel: gadt Bas .oevoo oft to vefro rettews Lider beyate
sedmosn mo spent yd Sate? 2 so% Dash s cednetent eff .o¢ svedt
we wie wart, 6 te% bastioh « boLth iIatelq CECE 4B
colni opbub 4 Yitiatels to medtom no (WHOL Sh yraumab ne 6 sols)
COL LL quateniel wretted ro ena e: tet
sTSRL .G cramrdel beLtt tees behbaess etd mi tandem - , Be
Ma piealeticpenit wnipaheamemenmenain drat
exit Tot , eta Lien gitimed yenttier nt atom yrosetsors misteso a
anknoh ted ysollerci sal «bh nesink ov. enae pdt bonevbink deus 4 rumyed
aowelin jaton bien vet Mottevebiares to oxiav ye beviovey ost tant
Lisg need aad Saabapre» act Yo elfen yosetmor: Reeoune sid Sankt
Atma to ttarucm0 snthed bon ,etantbary Soomionk edt Wh SM sk
ean Seeing ibe
oemheudewnd tate dares osetia oyest : okt wt
Pamghert. tal paket arede gana eens ‘ We, |
eS ae ee ee es ae ee Se i. y
ae
in full of said note constated of the payment ef 96,000.00 in
gash by seid Iremecod Syndieste tc plaintiff's testator, and by
the igmuance to plaintiff's testator of $5,600.00 worth of sock
of geid Iremeod Syndicate, ssi4 stock being recéived and sscepted
by plaintiff's testater in lieu of the belenee die on said note;
thet sald stock wa isgued and accepted with a presumed understand}
ing that the plaintiff's testator might have the right te surrender
w614 stock when snid Gyndicste was im a position to reepurchase the
geome; that the supposed promissory note of defendant aforessid, was
Presumed to heve beon gurrendered anid destroyed on the Issuance
and aeceptance of said stock by plaintiff's testator and that
defeniont assumed this had been done, until he wag advised te the
contrary, some tine after the demise of plaintiff's testator; thet
| &efendant received no part or benefit of the consideration for
whieh the promigsery note sued upon herein wae delivered: that the
Ironwood dyniicate paid anid promiasory note in full, as aforasata,
$5,000.00 in cash and $5,600.00 in stock as vill more fully appear
in the records of the Ironwood dyndicete and by witnesses having
Refendent's amended anewer further allewes that the
@apposed promissory note of defendant was offy conditional; that wha
guid note was executed and delivered by him, certein persons, in-
cluding plaintiff's testator and defendant were interested in pro}
@uring title to some 400 agres of land in Gary, Ipdiens, for the
purpese of forming a corporation, to be known ag the Iromvood
dyndtcate, through whieh anid lang/to be subdivided and sold;
that said group of persona were raising money & that time, for
the purpese of purchasing title te said property; that plaintirets
testator agreed to be one of theeriginel investors and eereed to
advenoe the gum of 910,000.00 te the proposed syndicate for such
wnliee
ah W5.000,88 te tmomysq orl? to bedatenos ston Dies to Lint at
wi hae ,totateet e iiidmiake of edentiinyt hoowtetl Shay of sans
zoom to diner G.050,08 Yo tor adoo? alYhtemtaty of connuant oft
bevqecss bia bevtvoor pnied tours bise ,etagtiny® boownotl Bias to
qedor biae mo eM) eonaled elt to Mott nt wodtmteet wt tivntase yt
~banterehidt bosmeeny a itive Setgeves ban bevwat eaw doote bide ads
‘tobrevtme of tight acty eve tigi totsteet al tara tele edt Badd gob
al? gnacertiwor of ro ltisod o mf vaw otsothryt Stem cory Aoote Disw
new ~bioeoretn Yashwtel lo evon Yreratnon: hexoqge ot tatt qemu
sonmmer odd no heyordesd bra Lesoltorne need eval of Lomemetg
tact) ona cotadne? p'Yitintaly Ww teote bkas Yo sonatqevon hain
ott of Doxtvia saw wi Sitar ,smod sood hel ptdd Rommas taabastes
sg Biaeorota aa , Lint mt efor yromstdong Stas tag canes
we “smeseqe ULLut oom LUwy ea toeta at 00400848 tue zines nt 00,000,893 —
_
1 aienaneenend eaonaienetie eamenpentberieowinr veces. i”
gid, tari? pegolia tet: sevedte Debagne wena Digi
a rosie dart santana tape emaienencaammanaietsmeiadin ;
oat anor aiadioo grt wl feveriien bra Sedans new efor Dine
| sete a2 hetepratat crow Inateeteh bee woyeraey atitntal gatbate
add to yaretbet . ymed at fal to Recee OOH amon oF OLtte yabeme
«hoownesd st? os Neen of of yOttopee a yntero? to rogue
attitoningy Gate petted blaw of ette gateatuny te sroqey aie al
ot deetua Ane mrodeovat Lantgheoed? te eno od od feioens motateet .
cnt 0 Steals Renoneey ett at OYCARYAR TH AA . |
eeih ce AB. Chat hts
——_— ee
ied
pUurpes®, Upon the condition, however, thet he would reesive a
miarentee of reimbursement im case the said orovaged Ironwood
Syndicate showid fall te ineorverste, or if said Syndicate should
fail te obtein title to geid lend under some form of oresnizetion
fox such purpose; that plaintif?'s testator ond defendant, as well
as all the other original incerporators of the Iremwood Syndicate,
Inew ef the foregoing cenditicns upon which the consideration for
qe4a note wae based, and knew that gaid sdvancement of 716,000.06
wag not for the uge of defondient tat fer the use of the proposed
Syndicate in cbtaining tithe to the land aforeasid.
| Sefeniant's amended answer further alleges that in con=
aideration of seid advancement of said $10,000.00 by plaintiff's
testor to the proposed Gyndicate, 1% we tentatively understood
ly the original incerporatera @f said Syndicate, that decansad,
by reason of said advancement, should receive a bomig of $5,000.00,
be paid out of the first profits of said ynditeste; that on
liny 26, 1827, the proposed Tromrood dynidivete aferesald was in
fact incorporated under the lewa of the State of Indiana, and .
that shortly thereafter said Ironwood Gyndicate aequired title:
to the 400 acres of land, for which purchase of land plaintifr's
testator bad advanced the aforesaid gum of FLO,000.003 that a2
Obligetions of defendant upon whieh said note was conditioned, wore
thereby fully performed and satisfied and defendant was released
ef ell peraunal Liebiiity on seid note.
Refoniant's amended answer further elleges that, for a
further and separate defense, the cause of action stated in the
complaint did not accrue to plaintiff af any tine within ten years next
before the commencenent of this action; that the mip nosed promissory
mote of defendant herein sued upon is dated September 11, 1926;
that gaid note is in words and figures as alieged by plaintiff and
contained a worrent of attorney to confess Judguent " at any tine
hereafter"; that at tho time of the filing of the declaretion herein
oho
Rin
a ovieoet Sivow on tant .teveworl .aultiineo ed? noqy .enogiy
poownott Lewocuty Bios ect? nso mi taonpenndriter to eotnattemy
Bivelo etsofhne hive tt to ,etetoqrsont of DET Divot. eraakimng
foltagineprto to ot emoe rela Bast Ditee of ofttt atetde of frat
ftow va ,Snabnieteb brs votstaot et iidniate Sart powered Howe “rot
‘oeAoLEaee Soowner? orf Yo etotmréerodmt fnrttshro “redro ont LON en
“ot nohiwreblanoo ett sold meq etfott tines ‘pritogerct att To wemt
30.900, 0288 to tremsonevie Bkse fait wort bre ,boted Ror ston Blan
Fremenena bows to een oft vot tod trabao teh to emt elf rot det Rew
ps gemntnampnemntntinwathcr esi sos sg ;
“wits nt tectt novelties torttn? vewens Hebttome #iinainetet °° +
a Ytttittete ef 09.000, 0£8 htne y*tinnblonbpsanpterenealiinds
Sooterahmy eLovitednet aw 2 ywtoothrys bewoevry otf of tetnet
“gPenanooh fadt yeteother® Stee YW etotmroqroont Lenty tre el? yf
1905000,0¢ to’ gumod 2 evheoet Bivodi ,themorevbs Biss 16 nodes yf
ne tat? yetostinye Biae to et fterq text edd 6 veo ‘bing et @
at spr btsectols steothnyt foowner! Semoqen edi? .VROL (OR yall
brs yamstprt to erage of? Yo ewal arly tebe edmroqroont Pont
Seldtt ferlcpen etrotheet Boowrortl Bitne ted taornd? Ybeeode tad
e'ititaters fret Ye seater ttofdw tot ghtet te wered OOb emt of
ite tai P9008 00, On 6" ae peomapeman thane nat ene
heoraned how weaned hem Settelten das Seattinrine etter ieltorects
oe viedo Mate mo gt erie Kanooaee Lie to
gro pteul? mepetta rortiart weetn febeome eltenbretet
ort nt betste netiss to ares ert? jerneted etereqer bts terhihut
txon erhey met fetta ent? yee ih ee eihicsy 4 dorednia wide fkb tHkeLqmos .
Tohinhaoy betodie ad? Yoth qHotios ata Ye tremsorerind’ oat oroted
> poner VE AR HAN A NE RTT
hole Vhisatale YS begs Lia Oa HrALT baa BD p hear nett
‘ott yn tas tia: ‘eeetiioo oF yomtests: 30 mr Bontatros
oe
mo cauge of soticn existed under said alleced note, in that such
Geuse of action was barred by the diatuté of Linttetions an
Jeptenber 11, 1956; thet no sotion wis brought by plaintatr or
her testator avcins?t defenient won sald note until the filing
of this mit on October 16, 1936, ond that no cirounstanees
mist whereby the running of the Geatute of Lanitetions would
be tolled, and thet by virtue of the foregoing facts plaintirr's
sétion herein 1s berred.
Befondant'a anended answer frrthor stetes that on
Goteber 19, 1956, judgment was confessed by plaintiff? ageinst —
defendgnt wpon the aforesaid surpesed promissory note of defonde
ant; that no sumone was ever isoued and no jurisdiction one
obtained over defeniant by his appearance or othervise, prior
to the running of the Statute of Limitations eeainst said alleged
notes that defendent never consented to the entry of the judg
ment by confession aforessidy that until Novenber 13, 1956, no
iewiul appearance was entered herein by defendant and no summons
wae issued heveing that said power of attorney, by virtue of
the Statute of Limitations, had expired ten years after Lis
execution, on September 11, 1056.
ss Mefendant"s amended anawer states thet for a furthor
aid separate defense, the said supposed promiasery note ef
to plaintiff's testator et the time of hig demise; that for many
years prior to the death of plaintiff's testator, defendant «nd
plaintigt's testator had been office associates and had mmerous
that during all of said intervening time, plaintiff's testator
never nade any demand, directly or iniircetly upon defendant,
either orally or in writing for said 10,000.00, as mentioned
in seid note, Gr for eny part thereof, or for any interest seine
that said facts wore known to plaintiff and that sald note. was
bectled
‘dose tcl? mt yoton begetla bias qwhnw hetetse mottos to eouno om
19 Tatdnbade Wl ténmoet wow nolton on tact YOUOE ir ediegae
ektie sod: tener seen ther nog tenner tabi ailiedlr ar”
Bluow eiottedtutt to wottnye ott 86 qibhinm ete: Yiorele Hits”
pamerenedneennamnebtintimen chen tseot coy 6 Am
béemesil ef dtoredt nodal’
tte godt cieieati diaiiiiadiond Ca sw Pte
tumtans Vutantate wl Sonus nse ed trembut DEEL er Hecbieo"”
enenutivaanen sesvnermndemnatnrn htnsorotn ‘ect sar tahoe ieee
Prenunnoprmneonntvetntavees antonio saute”
“pogefEe Dian furtcas enattettahs Yo edutare ext to geben oer
~obist est 20 Widen i OP SoitnotnGs were orstnites Hid Toren we
ay gOBRL (BL tedeevol fren tel
sina oc itn welamahies et sansniale iad de edule adie *
to omdery ed nnammetaleadvonndvanes tate i
Want wor gesit sews an ms
Drs tiahasted <‘otateed eS ee we be
olin
described in her inventery of her husband's estate, as “value
doubtful"; that defendant verily believes thet slaintaff nerson-
ally knew of the interest of her deceneed mmsband in the 400 seres
of land in Gary and ef the Trenweod Gyndicate, witch waa Lnserpore
ated for the purpose of subdividing and developing anid Land,
becouse plaintiff adreve by gcid land with her tmsbeand, since
dacensed, many times and investigated the imprevezents being
Made thereon.
Befendsnt's amended answer further gets forth thet by
ronson of the fallure of slaintiff's testete to heave made any
demend upon defendant under the aliegsd note sued woon herein,
when eccountings wore made between seid decessed «nd the defend-
ant, and by reason of the fact that during his lifetime, desessed
airected ali his detiands concerning said note, to the Irenrood
Syndicate, defendant was led to believe and did rely upon a pree
gumption that sald note was canceled when the conditions upon
whieh it was delivered ware fully performed and satisfied by
payment of €5,000+00 in cagh and the delivery and acceptanes
ateck of the Ironwood Syndicate of the face and then uorket value
of $5,000.00; that by virtue of all the acts and conduct of
plaintir?'s testator during his lifetine, defendant was lulled
inte inaction and took no stepa to secure the return of, or to
Pen eee a Ie A, RS OF gaia note; vherefore
Plaintiff is estepped from any attempt to bring thia note te life
end te take judguent thereon:
A motion was filed February 10, 1938, by imelia PF. Reot,
by her ettorneya, for an order substituting her ea party pleine
tiff in said cmuse and likewise substituting her attorneys for
the attorneys whe had represented the original plaintiff. This
notice, 1t is alioged, waa entered in accordance with an affidavit,
but gaia affidavit does not appear either in the abstract or in
wile
extew" on veda a Dasdeal ted te Yretaeynt tod Ad boddconed,
~noatog Yiddalely tadd aevellod yLieev Paahaeteb tect 7" Laftdwod
nets WR odd aL fandan Domeaosh tod. to teexotat odt te wont ¥Lia.
wroqisatt aon dole ,otralbayt: heownosl ol Ro haa rod al bat ‘te,
inal Line gatnoleveh ie pathtviieie to esoque ett tet beta
woete cieimaaronptesndintientiphirtite’so08
ef feu shee atom sndrel dene taieeaatamamiaaianiaia |
_ Ws ohan eva of eateet aM ttatale %o. emits oi to momaen,
ileted gous Dem otc beyoila of? sepmy tanceeted mor bramep
cbrbtob ecg brs bernogeh bing smowled shan ovtow eyatteuooan mode
honesoed somito%ts ots sim gad? fost edt Yo Monsen yi Dan gfme
Loormett ent? ot yovan dias gatrmoones abaoneh ath Le detornth.
nor 9 OOM Yet Lk Lue eweLiod oF Sed naw Inabna'ieb qotandhaye
(Hoge anolt thaws els nec Lelaanos ase efor bia tect mottgmm
Wi howtntian banchasmobte: ULL ggm kewwti lob gow 8h Apt
0 sonmtqpose Hein WrevsLob ot bac thao At OI SE To Amamyag,
avisy tedtrom merit han eon ect? Yo eeokinyt beenmost ots to toate,
Reipomnaae hee whan oc? Lin Yo RET Wh fact, AAAOLEE Ye
DoLink ast shaken eb .outtets vid gabud totageed ah rete:
of w 4,20 Muntot oct won of agate on loot has mottoant ota
erotensris yoton bine to sokfelloonne Lauton edt te Room Aeon
meinanninethaniatnatatinaiting became Bren y bo)
ercads tmammbt, eked at Bam
teal, ation et amakianteenes wane ots de el eT
tdvabticte, sn, eqnapaoosa 1 Sozatm aoe geaatin 2h yon fr
fi to goastudia odd sk tondtle seeds tog goah tty | he
on Poe
the record, so we are uninformed as to hew the now plaintiff,
imelie F. Roct, obtained either the note or the consideration
given therefor. %¢ think these facte or documents should
have been sulsuitted to this court for consideration. After a
trial by a judce end jury on the issues made by the oricinal
Gaclerntion and answer, es smonded, the jury returned « verdict
for 5,000.00. Just what this verdict wee based upon in the
way of evidmmoee, the record before wa dows net disclose. Tt 4s,
#0 obvicusly, « compromise verdict by the jury thet any further
coments thereon are unnecessary.
| We think the trial cour$ wes wrong in refusing to
permit the defendant to testify, as Bo estate ond ne heir as such,
is a party to the litigation end had no interest in it at the time
of the trinl.
As was geid in Gece ve Reidy, 179 T1i. 408, ot pepe 405:
"fhe defendant here was not defending as trustee, con
coin a ae’ oy ndminietrater, nor as helr, —
by ef sny deceased person, nor as
Rrushag of, oy moh bak oton’ op devtanpe cages
8 own as grantee o execu
o: the estate of Tenac « Arnolds The statute cannot,
it 4¢ quite apparent thet the ofily issue then te be
considered wae whether or not there we a dafenge to the original
Judgment which was entered. The proper practice is to enter a
ftignent eltther for the plaintiff or for the defendant. As was
seid in dohmader v» Heflebowmn, 245 Ti+ Aye 150, ate page Lé42t
we
\Vittatale von sit gut oF on Bosrtoleitne eta ow on broue by
Holterah tance eri xo efor ost tortie bontatd fre oor =
Aivonte wiromoch to vies wtedte tute? of veotetbd aeviy
a eeetA «sto bontobtemao uot detoo afi? of Bett indie need ovilit
Aaatsiee att yl eine wooed oi 9 tet tin will a Yh Lalbed
totbtey « hemivtor vit ait betrome ve label
eto nt moctr boots caw cule wit ratte tant Vodsoddiet ak
ot XZ eosoLoetd vom eood a erated Poor: od? ,ootabive 46 We
desing nat Soci, ont we olkbeow wetiompioe “
oe ’ weil sMlewonwdo
Se: tated orth street of” pxcogsad
love an abort om frit odsine Of ws \YERteOY oF trincitiohen Git tammy
aadheulaanieghespmgiyhmicedionye cuales: A
ot at i Ea tr at A
sesabtaas shaneamenannalin on te
D setons imimis Stalelaae ssuanen)
.
‘fvans brie Aken ee
-
B=
These errors which were committed by the trial court
were corrected by the subsequent action of the trial court in
vacating the judgment and entering a judgment notwithstanding
the verdict in favor of the defendants
When evidence was offered by the defense, even with the
restriction placed upon it by the rulings of the trial court in
refusing to permit the defendant to explain the circumstances of
the transaction, for which we think he qualified as a competent
witness, no reply was offered by the plaintiff to sustain her
positione The defense was a complete one, both as to the facts
and the law applicable thereto»
As was said in Kelly v. Jones, 290 Ill. 575, at page 3578:
"But there was no question of weighing the testimony
of the complainant against contradiction, since there
was no contradietion whatever of the facts testified toe
Where the testimony of a witness is uncontradicted, either
by positive testimony or circimstances, and is not inherently
improbable, it cannot be rejected» (Larson v. Glos, 235 Ill.
284.)" Morris v. Carrogo, 292 Ill. App. 620.
' Plaintiff evidently relied solely upon the introduction
of the note sued upon as evidence such as would entitle her to a
recovery. The presumption of its value as a binding obligation
disappeared when the affirmative defenses were established by .
uncontradicted evidencee JLohr v. Barkmann,Co., 355 Ill. 335;
Nelson v.- Stutz, 341 Ill. 367. When these affirmative defenses
are neither contradicted nor explained, 1t becomes the duty of
the trial court to direct a verdict for the defendante Fuller v.
DePaul Unive, 295 Ill. App. 261; Wallner v. Chicago Traction Co.,
245 Ill. B48.
We think from a review of the evidence, there was no
evidence remaining which sustained the allegations of the declara-
tion,. as the evidence offered on behalf of the defense completely
eliminates plaintiff's right to recoverye That being true, 1t
tayoo {Istet odt yd botsimmoo extew dotriw axorce oven?
ni txyoo faivt ot to mottos tmeypeadue ont yd bébosizon otew
gifiasteaddinton trestghvt. s gatrotne bas troonsburt ont gittsdav
sdasbneteb edt %0 ovat mb Yokbrey : exit
ont cttw nove ,eemoteb odt yd beretto aw comebive modW
mi druoo Latxd edd. to apitinvs edit yd #2 noqy Beoslg nolttotrteet
‘Yo eoonstemworto edt mtalaxe of snabmoteh odt thorreq of guteiter
tneteqnos # es betitienp ef wantdt ow cotdw tot (noktosaitert ‘onlt
ted mistesa ot Ttidately edt yd Bberetto asw ‘qicort ‘on _neoit tw
avost eld of as diod .ono eteLomoo » eaw ounoteb oat sHolt faog
sotertert? ofdsoticaa wal edt bas
188 oneq fs eve LIT oes ehegol “V wiles nt bkat aaw oA
yrontieot ort yada tow ‘to noltaeup on Baw exile ee ; Ri 7
volbhartace
e0d Botttiveot 0% edt to roved. ‘09 = eayw
teltie ,betotbetdnoony at easntiw a To
yltnotosdai® ton et bue ,egonatemsotto to yaontaee
ne A nal -togpeaal«oh ne LAY Oh
sottouboxtat est noquw yLleLfoe holier Ultnebtye | Mitta aft
s of sed elftine Biuow es dom oorebtve ca, ogy Beis. ton ste to
nottagitde gatbatd o es euiay att Yo moltqtwestg al : “eytevooo"
. Wi Bedetidadae oxy eoancteh. ania 7 og and 19%
yaee LET 8ee “{actcnmnadaall SW aod.” se swe
eoafeteh evivamttie exedt nedW . «S85 ate: ra aim : v_s98 fol
to yuh ont romooed #2 ,bontelqxe xon hetothertmeo todd ten ets
-V golish sinabaoteh edd sot tothtey 2 toorth ot tauoo Latat ods
eG ottonn cuaptd¥ Romital 4488 saGh + £0 A tds
nest 3 aBobaecin wit arttene ot yan isch
tL ound ena tact iesivenat aes ‘tae ‘utebieatabe névantat te
Oy
was the duty of the trial Judge to enter a Judenent pon ebctente
Meredicto, «i in so doing the trial court committed no error.
For the reagens herein civen the judgnent cf the
Superior Court is affirmed.
SUMMENT APFIIUED.
HEBEL AND BURKE, JJ. CONGUR.
ae
othe,
wade dak hed 4 eee he st Saban, sate gt ‘Yo yiub ode Lal
Ky aoe a2 pistes Ric en ache
we AEP et sorte ate icra fitobs
efnakus Tez Ps UTR.
' ss ye
i 2eiv neve ot TREES eae ae sei phoagpesi dice” si *
te podem Pund orto voit weal Ke ie gama | ,
Peeaenog ff a8 ett Li LSt Se9 wit fo oy os ober rut ie
det Abatens of Vtidntate oft YC Bere tts baw eiiet om qhootithe
Riek i oe ta APOU ot) eveigmed & ean saneven ot fot shig
OF ree efdaatigas wat od hoe
106 esac fe (87% »ist OSs ohBED i -¥ SLD . fue bat ‘pie ah es :
‘ 7 ie
vynceivens aft pnitstew to aolvaeme ba naw ‘pre
tsady copia gtaltots #riitow. Teoteye:
of Beltivavl etont elf to Yovetatiy
< woos e ,botastbestaoony at eeont ty is ‘te candies AW
eidieresiant Soa et bina eQoset ems mule <0 b emia 2 20g
wry a 852 208° >¥gontwal} shqtoos on al Fons ¢.
v
on ay prey sire ¢ ok OR PPL esd a :
mortonbeortal ai2.accu eletoa Bet LO%. hihi tae
i pat
ung e no as: aotedy spear adi
asageted ove somlt ha ome intl M odd —
Se viet oft semooed BL bontalann ‘som, Bint 91 Vane BOD
¥ Seal etoctaeleh edt, c% Sa dbear A. so0nth, ot i
wpe Steer, Que Se, ow ee LE spine 1h»
¥
98 Wik oem rer ,
an) t i
BS Oa rttde Go
yiave Layette oanotes, ett 6 sexed +H "
$4 quien? Bated sat sereyoaet ot ies ao
40941
In Re Estate of
FARRILT Ae MITCHE
BROWARD GUERIN, COOK COUNTY.
PlaintiffeAppel lL
Te
MAZEL M. GRIEFEN, 805 1.A 494)
DefenisnteAppell se.
Mite PRISIOING JUSTICN DENTS &. HILLIVAN delivered
the opinion of the court.
_ EQpera Guerin, « brother of Harrhet A. uh vote,
deceased, brings this appeal aa one of her heirseatelaw anil
next of kin, from an order entered in the Circuit Court of
Cook Ugunty on April 19, 1939, admitting to probate an un-
executed copy of a purported will of said Harriet A. Mitchell,
aa and for her last will and testament. This appeal is taken
‘om the seme orler as was entered in the Probate and Circuit
Courts in the couse entitled, Appeliate Court No. 40940, In ze
Appellsnts, ve Easel Jie
Sida) ois eet bili Mh Uh. dean ebthmdng he enter ot the
Gircult Court, which court affirmed the action taken in the
Probate Courts ;
Tnagmch ag the facts and the law are the same in this
Case as in Case Noe 40940, heretofore referred to, the decision
fm the inetent case will be the same.
KROL .A.1 208
bovevicoh MAVIAIUG .u SIME KOTTEVL oVOZeRAt
Poe edt te mabtien ef
ttedon te +A fobrell to weston 9 yatrosD Rnaebi
fins wal~towtted od to ono na Leouga ats? eguted gbonsooad
To ded Htvorctd onl at bovotaw coho ma mort tl to deem
ans in efadong of yatssinha CEL AL LteqA no ysawigd food
Horo «A tobrisll Sten Yo Lite Sebroqumg a Yo yoo Betuoeme
toed wh Laogss atsit rtmamataot bun Lite teak ed “a hae Ma
stat mtd mtn ot Soa on St nh Ha ‘ee “Wiha
etiy mt oman ox? oe wal el na etost ect na sagan .
Motatooh ert ot bowtetter anelpsghehng wo os
“De
Therefore, for the reasons herein given, the judgment
and erder of the Glireult Court is hereby affirced.
JUSMENT AND CROSR APTIRME.
HEBEL AND BURKE, JJ. ConCUR.
ee
HhOh AL GOVE
os
homgrtcok MANTA ot eM AMIENS ant
‘pilecae SH A Coben to meted #92 i
Bei vatntameted cit Y0 ome 90 dneiga ahh
Yd tang Pct ct aut onmiling ements
fist cor ete, a QR Ree PONE Mk Ly a
akeneent ad dederslt bisa piberhsigenie te
i ee ot inet ane nae |
eh’ 6k spit ne tae is emeeatten enn on
40942
In He Astete of
HAZEL M. GRIGFEN,
DefendanteAppelles. }
MAs PREGIDING JUSTIC: GENTS &. SULLIVAN delivered
the opinion of the court.
George P. Garin brings this apreal from an order
entered in the Probate and Circuit Courts in admitting te
probate the will in the Estate of Harriet A. Mitchell, 2eccased.
An order wag entered in the Circuit Court consolidating this
couse with two other couses, viz», Appellate Court Gnse No. 40940
and 40941, respectively. We have todey filed on opinion in cause
Ho. 40940 which is controlling in cause Ho. 40941. Dut, as no
briefs or abstract were filed in this cause, we are dismissing
the appeal for failure toe comply with the rules of this court.
This csuse was taken on briefs and abstract to be
filed Novenber 24, 1959+ Inasmuch as no briefs or abstract have
boon filed on behalf of this appellant and no extension ef tine
having been asked for or granted, beceuse of such Violation of
‘the rules of this court said appeal is hereby diamissed.
APPEAL BISHISHl0.
Hopob ANO BURKE, JJ. COHCUR. .
hereviled WAVI.LIva 12 BN HOTMOUT outaesee st
soe at matteo
tatrn ta moth keacen abt eauied mbead sepsis
of gntitinbs st stood ttuontO faa otadort od? mk bore
| pBonaooet yLiedtortit «A Podreall Yo ofabell oni? mk Lttw ott etedorg
acs seb mance can a
sik iit ora ow . geno cae st sh cae :
sPuuoo sind to eoLur ort atte yLqnoo ot ountiet vot fe 1
ed of toorieds bna wtotnd mo nested naw oasmo ett iy
40988
HOWARD L. SMITH and EX#A OLSON SHITE,
Fleintiffa - Appellees,
Ve
A. SALAVITOH AND OR, ARO., pg corpéx-
and JAKES TOPF, @t slice, \ ff | .
m' { iGR GGURT
sppellant@.
ef E. & SuITH, pecease
Plaintiff - 4ovelies,
Ve
A. SALAVITOH ANG GOH, IN0., = corporation
and JAMES TOPP, et al.,
pefendents - Appellants.
HR. PRESIDING JUSTICE DEHTG &, SULLIVAB SELIVERED THE
OPINION OF THE COURT,
The defendants 4. Salaviteh and Sen, ine., = corporation,
and James Topp, et al., bring this sppenl from judgements entered in
the Superior Court, this being « case of trespass on the cxse for
personel injuries, wherein three judgments were entered on the
verdiotea of « jury, 2 follows; One judgment in the sum of %@,099 in
faver of Edward i. Smith as idministrater of the estate ef E. %. Smith,
$500 in favor of Edward L. Smith end 61,500 in fever of Eoems Olesen Smith.
It appesre thet on August 3, 1936, sbout 2:20 4. He, at
the intersection of York Hesed and Grand Aaveniie, about two miles north
of Elmhurst, Illinois, an automebiie ehich belonged to Edward LL. Smith
and which was driven by hie father, Bdwerd W. Smith, a man $2 years
of age, collided with a truck at ssid intersection; thet the truck
with whieh seid sutomobile collided was driven ty the defendant James
Topo; thet seid accident resulted in the desth of Edward “. Smith
end injuries were sustained by Emma Olson Smith, his wife, ani Sdwerd
L. Smith, his son.
it further eppears thet when the seoident occurred it yas
my 6
ot
(
88800
eHTINS KOGdO ANKE bas HTIMe ot CHANCE
inate tacts _gbeeliegga ~ attteatalt it ain
| “ oh
THUOS ROLALIUE Fe
-TTANO9 OOD Ste¥eTt od? to vas . isin Sah J Guava
' avectonea ™ ene e& CAD |
a Q ne ya Pea §) Bae 8 te ou ee!
ens Re 4he = Mh se
&' wHT caRavIaae KavEWauE of em GOLTGUL OMIGLPEAG |
oTHUOO ANT wo woLRT9
«tolteroqroe a2 ,.onl _no® base dot¢ivaie? .A edaabast eb od? ; Gane.
as beretae etasmpbu, moxt ineqqe eidd gatxd gots #9 age? nomel bas
sot oacd od? mo seeqeett to e290 2 gated elds, oftvet yetrenss § edt
oat Ao hererns erse etnemghut serd? alterede enottubas Lanoereq
at 000.84 to sue ad? ot gmamghut eno | owolLot w4 Getet @ te efotbray
iting 6 .f to etetee od? to xédaxdalnines oa dotae a buseb¥ Yo rove?
.dtie® goetd simi to rover at 008,18 bas thet. Seonbi Yo reve iat 0088
ma oe oA 0838 tuods 288L ‘42 daugua 0 toile Seeeege EE!
- dts08 aoite ow? tyods :! hava banr® bie duet t46Y Yo noktosersaat edt
‘date ode buewbd of begaoted dotde Sildometun ae sedond Lit ,torintata te
ar0oy ra non a asi ams . brswht cronget ett ee nevixd sew dedtte bas
sours ents text “abktooeredat Base te baud » itn bebeETeo' yoy te
si ett pen wa Katie Ths “Bhea 4 wares
ttre SRM Fe i
hE ie A ob rn ‘aur
a
& Olesr moonlight night; that the said Edward #, Smith vho was killed,
had prior to thst time been empicyed for avpreximately 25 years ae
manager of the stock department ef Alfred Decker ¢ QOchen Company;
thet seid Edeard %. Smith ewes driving seid sutemobilie in 4 southerly
direction on York Road at 40 to 45 wiles an hour; thet his wife wes
sitting beside him end ws2 asleep; that his sen Tdwerd, ace 30, who
as heretofore stated, was the owner of the autemebile, zs sitting
beside his mother with his arm sround the back of the seat; that
they had spent the week-end with relatives =t Osonomewoe, Wisconsin,
and, because of the crowded condition of traffie on Sunisy evening,
hed started from Cconomeroo at 11:00 7.M.; thet it «=s aporeximately
106 miles from Cconomovec te Hlmhurst; thet the Smiths had, therefere,
peen on the road some three and = half hours end had traveled about
104 miies; that the car, = Ford Y-8 coupe, was tvo months eld and in
perfeot condition.
it further appesrs thet York Road «ss = through street
protected not only by stop signa but also by warning signs; that the
intersection where the socident oocurred is not within any city Limits;
thet Grand avenue ot the place in question was « country rosd,
macadamized gravel to the east, and gravel te the west; thet according
to Smith it wae not » traveled road and ot the intersection the
view was obstructed «t the northeast corner by = cornfield which Came,
eecording to setual measurements, within 15 feet of the concrete;
that there were no lights of any kind at the intersection.
It further appeore that the defendant James Topo was
opereting « 17,000 pound vehiole 22 to 24 feet long and was proceeding
in 4 westerly direction on Grand avenue; thet this truck was dark
green in color and was covered by a brownish bleck tarpaulin. It
is claimed that thie truck suddenly came out onto the highway in
front of plaintiffs’ southbound sutemobile, blocking off the entire
‘Yond; that the driver of plaintiffs! sutomsbile applied his brakes
and swerved te the right but ws unable to prevent the collision;
32am
me
sheLliad new odw d#io®? .W btewhd bhae edt todd {gin ‘gt imoon ‘webs e
e& atesy Gf yYlevonizorgge cot beyolqus mood emt? tant. et tooling bad
{vasqued modo & texeef hertls te gnomtseqed doote ede Yo teganem
yredtuoe ¢ ai glidomotws bhee gasvizd ear ad be Baanbil bce tnat
sew Stiw ein ted? yrwod an aefie Of of OD te book Aro1_ ao maktowrth
om ,08 994 ,btewb? moe ale sede pqoedae nev brs mid sbteod yattte
| guttile asw ,olidometwe ed? to temwo dt ene aborote etetetered as
ted? ;?aen edt to toad edt bavows mun eid atin tedden eid ebived
Wianenaganegs aPOPOBANOOO ‘te aeviteler dthe hae~toon ads sae, wae’ wae
| gpakneve yotew’ ag PLtort Yo noltthace bobwoxs att to saynoed ebas
ylotamixotqgs wow th sadt 7 eMet OOslL te Sowomoned® ett begista bad
eeTteteteds bed edtim’ ad¢ tedé jsemsiwll of Sowomonood ee wolim SOL
tuode beLover? bed baw etwod tied 2 bun ooxdt mon aor edt mo meed.
nit Bae bio editnom owt sow qequue ov brol « eeted oat tent a dor
teste Myvord? # exw beol AteY ted eteeqas ie ), ang
edt date Yaityle sdlntew yf osha tud emyte cote A vee es
gettmll ythe yt atdtin tom at berxupee taebioos edt otone
oe _ PRRGE. Oo 85 ¥
foot Ytsives # aor notteoup Py woes ont ts ouneve LH
gatbrooor guilt ytkew bit of Lovey bas staso eit o# Lev ovens best have
wat aottoontetat edd to bare beor belevert @ tom een Mts atime ot
me dokdw bieitares © yd sbat9® tesederon oat ts iets @ ue a ;
“ Getetaned Ant te Hot EL, abdtie seenenorvasen Leutos sett oF gathtg a
“Mio todereda! bd? te bad yuo to etdgtk on om oxo ou oxvdt tad
“gw Godt etmst faabioted eds toa eteoaus resins 41 tues iat: ho
gakbeedote ase base gaol fowt as ot ee eiotder aves Boas ty 4a ai pAdter*en ..
“wei “aw Mowe Htas tot jounges basro 20 noivoorsb setae nab Ror
#8 .mkivngeat to0td Mokaward | aw Borovee aw tne x
“RR Suny tt ont ‘etn too omen ynobdus *
orden odd Yko paiteold ,eitdonodus ny ee es tele, >
owned aif betteqe oitdomedus (ethbondete oy hes
jnotelLioo ed? sasvetg of Sideny acu tud teigks ont
Te au RE’
K
that his ieft front end the right frent ef the defendenta’ truck
opposite the osb and just behind the right front wheel orashed
together and in the soilision “r. Smith wee se injured thet he died
and his wife end sen were injured.
Plaintiffs case was predioested and piesded upen « double
theory of liability:
Firat, that the truck of the defendant head failed to stop
for the through highwyy, ond
Second, thet if a stop was aade, the defendant, eoted in
direet violetion of Chapter 96-1/24, Psragravh 34, Seetion 3%,
Cehill's Ill. fev. State. 193%, which provides;
*(3) [ * * * soter vehicles entering upon or oressing
sueh highway shall come to 9 full step as near the right-of
way line of such highwsy as possible «nd regerdiess of directicn
gshall give the right-of=- way to moter vehicles upon such highway. ]*
It is further claimed that defendents drove ssid truck
damedistely in front of plaintiffs’ automobile.
Defendants contend that dames Topp was 2 chauffeur fer
& Salaviteh and Sens, Inc., on duguet 4, 1936, and on that day was
driving the defendants’ truck dorded with preduce from Uhicage to
Rockford, Illinois; thst he hed with him « boy named Joe whom he
wae taking to Hockford.
Defendants further contend that the truck wes 24 feet long
and 14 feet wide end that the combined weight of the truck and its
Sontents was approximately 17,00 pounds; that the truck wae 14 feet
high and was a new one, about two weeks oldj that the truck was green
with @ream-colored trimmings; that only 2 em2ll sortion of the panel
of the truck showed because the entire truck »:s covered with »
black or brown tarpaulin; thet the driver James Topp had been » truck
driver for 21 years snd was a licensed chauffeur; thet Topp had gone
to bed at 3:50 dunday afternoon and got up at 6:30 or 3:00 Po¥.y thet
the truck had not been broken in and ese being driven from 2% to 25
miles an hour before resching the scene of the sosident; thet the
&
Sout? ‘etnahaeted edt to taort tdgit edt has taoxt ered old ads
bedasto Leedy taott tifgta one bad sid teu mae dao oat etheocege
both od ted? Heswbat op voy dtine ti aoteLiloc oat mk bas ‘voategoe
sbotutas oree noe bas ot tw eld bas
sidugeh s gens bepesig bas betsosbeng eon e9n0 tettaentals ie acs
: _sVeRLAeaRs 3 te bs “
code. of holier bad tanbast eb pdt Yo sours oat teas out esp
tl 1 Varig bd oes “S.2e
ak bates tuabasten. eas acbem gew qore s Lhe Sad
s8E BOLIOOR dE daaxgetat sA8\s~ae rotund ro, ed te
seablver doidy .f8@t sents re o Ltt Sas vr
om ytutt
feaoto ro méqu guitet@e eeleidev totem Siete lim OO
ra cd seen ee 00 Lists of enao Lleke | r
iiiteworte ° éeet or bee eidtaes¢e wr
of. yew. aOue mos 8@ seloidey Totem ry ‘yen = + = eat vd iisde —
dour? bien evetb stashavkeb tedt bemtato wees et +
elt imiog teehee
— -olidomotue ‘att idaintg te ‘guget = ‘vstatboms
rot wortwato » eow que? somcl tad? bastaeo a
2% Ue eee han i betostuss
95" Wh tat? ne Ane ,QSS of Seemed Me gy Gn nme Ae sobvoraratal
of eeots® mort eourorg Mttw debsos Xowre ' ‘atanbasteb edt
hmwvea Starts Sait
., od mode e9b bomaq yor « mia Stiw dad of teat jotoni it. maheoee.
shtetdool of yaidat sow
wyatt a tie C4 te eee of
*
_ peel test 25 ase gears eae éndda basenee rear sinvbast ot
eeremrtote wee water
ie bare
ett has Xourt edt Yo. tiytew heatdmge oxtt teas bas ob ocean bageoe |
toot bf enw Aust od? tedt johawoq 000434 Ustantxoraus Tite aatat tos
nest, pee sound ede. tent ght, 9980" 259 Seeds: «Ate eae A 7" wna
feasg. edt to Roltreq fLeme 2 vine sade joptpanass ; is cates
e thy beteves poy sour? oxitag ‘ont Sauaced
ry
: 22 YAROveae #
dout# 2 need bed aqet semel toviub ads rere i
Roe Gs Wesed Ai Be
* ,
SHay bes agot sod _ ster vedo boaneoti Sat « wea? a ry ie
dedt jel ed 00:6 to 9e38 re, 99, Bas : haved ae #y
shat eh. smb it ARAN te
(908. Pot itnabioos oat to, neces od? g ay |
aaa iq Se re jgert
Bs
0848 48 bed on
e
last step which fepp aede wee at Harlem and Grand avenues; thet asid
Topp hed mede thie sume trip to Hookferd on thia route two er three
times a week and esa very familiar sith thé read and thet he had
@rossed York Road sbeut 200 times.
Defendants further sentend that at the place shere the
acoident occurred York fiosd is a two lane eonerete elab, while Grand
aveme ig wider and ade of macadem with an asphalt top dressing; that
the accident ceourred about 3:30 A. &. and the moon == ghining
bright; that the visibility was such thet objects could be seen Slesrly
from 2 distance of 309 to 409 feet; thet the defendant Topp drove
the truck te York ord and, knowing that it was « etep street, came
to & atop about 3 feet west of the stop sign snd af thet point he
Could see in either direction for 400 or §00 feet; thet he saw no
Oars Coming and started to cress the resd xt = speed of frem ¢ te 7
miles an hour; thst when the front end of the truck wss 15 te 17 feet
west of the west side of York “oad he heard » crush ond felt the
amash of something whieh had coliided with the side of the truck;
that he had net put the car inte second gear st the time of the
Collision; that the foree of the impact ~=s 96 grest ag te toss his
truck to the south and turn it over »sgainst the telegraph pole at
the southwest corner of the intersection; thet he heard mp hern, no
sereeshing of brakes or other sounds before the coilision.
When testifying the defendent Topp said thet when he got
out of the truck, it was lying on ite right sije, facing east;
that before the collision the truok wes on the right side of Srand
avenue going north. (This evidently is an error os Orend avenue
Yuna @est and west.)
Sefendant Topp further testified that when he looked at
the truck he found that it had been etruck ot the oab on the right side.
Aa ® result of the secident Edward 4. Smith wae kKAlled. His
wife received injuries consisting of broken bones and lecerntions,
|
|
ey
+
Soe @ens jeeuners brow’ bas aeirel ts ese Sham qqot Aolide qete toad
eetds te ext Otyox aiid co Drotaeol ef qhrt emse alat sham boil quo?
bed of trie dae baot ang dtiw tetiteet (Lov ene bas Asow # eomkd
esouig OOf tuode beet Arey beesere
ed? ersdy opeiq edt ta tedt kuetnoo rodexst ethahastet
baer) aildw ,dele steremoo easel owt @ oi baofi AvoY herrwoe0 tnebloos
ted? ggadecerh qo? tietgen an dtiw wmbseeem To ebem bas. tebhe ef ouneve
gainife eew soom of? bas oh .A C838 duodm bertwote enebicos ed?
yiteeio meee of bivee etoetdo tars dowa are yttlidsety, aut dost itdgizd
aveth qqet #anbseteh edd tedt {F902 COD. oF OOF Yo eoaetelh s mext
Sued ,teette qote s pew 22 tad? gaiwont {bas beef, Meo. od soutd! sae
ed talog teddy ta bas mgie qote oat te seen soot & swede qove » oF
an vam on fedt jtest C08% te OO 10? aoktoerth seseie mt on: bivoo
{of 5 mowt Yo henge c 6 boon ost ngs of Defuse Me gdbnss exn0
test V4 of GL vow Aout? dt Yo das drotd odd wodn’ Sand prved ae sollte
edt? ¢Let bas demre 8 bused od beol Asef to efde teen od? Ye seee
{tours ef? to eble ed? dtiw bebliioo bad dohde galdrenos to dasme
ait to oust add t4 taey baoese ofal.sao edt uy don bed Od Godt
(eld eaot of om trot, Oe eon teosgms odt Yo Sotet ent tet yaosalklion
fo Seg dggtyeied odf tenkege Tove $f mtut Bae dtuon 6H? .0o Kount
om ,2tod om breed ef todd jaottooexedad od? Yornedted shondigoe edt
9 ateleliioo ed? ereted shaver teste to esdetd Io gatdosetoe
toy od aedy frat bies quel taebasteb edt patgtitect menses 9) oo
ifese gufeoct ,ebhe sdgde wel go gaiys enw #2 ydoutt ede to tuo
baero te edhe aigde O42 Ho exw MOowesd od? mosedsiod edt erected gedt
eusevs host? ee totes ae of Ultuediye ald?) »,détod gates “euntrs
tn bedeed 9d gene todd betttenes edseut -qqot ¢mabastod: ro sone
shin tdgtt edt Mo Goo 9dt te Aowrte mend bed tt tails awed 8 007 |
siti »hedikX anv dtis€ ,0 Drews tushsooe sat To rt. $d an bad ot
nevvauailids hen saned asaierd to : i
he ogee welt sake erated »
:)
while their gon sustsined « cerebral econeugelion, from whieh they
bave practically recovered.
when testifying the defendant Tops, driver of the truck,
44a mot have 2 very slenr idee 2s to his appreech when entering the
intersection st York Road whiie driving on-Urand avenue. ie testimony
also wae taken under the gtatute, prker to the suit, and it veried
materially from the testimony which he g=ve¢ whiie upen the witness
stand. He testified that “the front end of ay cnr wea just off York
road, hitting the macedemized - -*. inter on in his testimony he
said, in snawer te the question, *Yeou mean it e=s juet over the resd?*,
"Yea; that isa, bout three-quarters *** I «se elesn, way s¢reas the
oenter line already." When asked, “And your front end reached the
weet end of the concrete at the time the collision eocurred, or not?”
he answered, "Yee", then asked if he saw the headlight of any sute-
mobile coming down the road, he eneswerdd, *No, sit. Yell, =bout 590 feet
there is a little siepe in the road, and you could not have seen it.*
The defendant Topp when teatifying se te the cornfield -t
the corner, in which the growing corn spparentiy ebatrusted the view,
stated that "you sould see over the cornfield." He aleo atsted thet,
"You Sould see over it to » certsin extent. It wasn't necessary, you
Could see in through the roed, and through the edge of it.” He
further teatified that when he approached the intersection he etosned
three feet weet of the stop align; that he covld see in either direction
for 400 @r S09 feet; thet he enw mo earg coming ond stertod to cress
the rosd at from 3 to 7 miles an hour.
Topp's testimony was contradictery and indefinite and the
jury wes well justified in disregarding much of it. It is ovite
evident thet his intent and purpose wos to svold making any statement
which would tend to show thet he was in any way Liable. With regard
to the testimony of the driver of the truek, when he stated that he
looked each way for 2 distance of 500 feet, it has been held that
law will not give credence to teatimony thst one looked but did not see,
e
“yod? dotde mort ytoteeimaeh Lexdores & beibetiirn how Sreuy ottite
eioutt off to covith .qqo? Prehiteteb ent gasyttvesy nay” ake
edt gattotne mode dosotces etd of aa sebi resid yrov's s¥an Yon BED
Wesltes? alk .emove baerd-so gaivixh oltnw beon WroY Ye hot¢oeexosnz
belrov tt bas ,tive od? of tedey ,otvtate odd xenny Wednd UAW Wal
“geoatiw edt noqs slide oven of Molde Ynonttess edt Rove’ yrtab¥edhe
_tr0¥ tito fewt sew 199 ye to bad eieet edt’ ted? bottifeed on” Jbabte
ed yromitesd sid at mo ceded | L hebtwebetisn eke git ets Ybebt
a*{bsot of? tevo tewt eew $2 nese woY” .woldedup ent od Yeenne nd (Bike
edt BROToS Yew sisete anw T *e* eretraup~oord?: tuods .e2 gente yeay*
edt hodoest bas seoth toy BAA” bolas codh Wy ybeotti okt tetaed
"$tom xo ,berxwo0e aotelitoo sit omit odt ta Storenen nt to bas Fede
mote yas Yo tdytibaed edt woe od tf Pitted wont VYedy* (Berewena on
toot O08 duode ,ifeY .tle ou" {borewdad ea (Bact Sad RWod Yainow oftdee
"oh gee oved tom Blue coy Bae ,beox ont nf bqote Sh¥eLl® af oxeity
te bleftatoo odt of en gilytiveet netle Got Ynehawteb’ eae “© ©
wolv edt betourtede vlinersqge mton ytdwoty sd¥ dotdw nt (tentoo et
ated? betate oote oH *,Bfoftaroo edd Yevd oo! Hive wey” sate Dovate
wor yrrssesoed taeew #2 .daedes aleeaso # Ot HF teve vow bite BY”
oH "$k to egbe odd dywordd Bae sot oly “dgueend ai bee bites
| mottoerts redtie at eee Bivoe od dat? jrgte qéhe adr Yd Hoy soot contt
eeoro “od betrets bide anna Laue ot wae ad dodt ;s00t 66a “ed Gon “ser
Seuedt ae ee tin tod % drt Fs Biot ede
odd bae etinttehat hae yrotothattnos aAw ‘yionteads “etqqat™) “oo”
stivp ef #2 wtf to doum gatbeegereth ak boltitant Ller amr Ytot
tnometave Ye gniden bieve of bow secdtun bak $nottd Bit Fast tnobive
ee breget dehy .eidell yew Wie oF ehw ext Pot woite ot bof Siow dOtde |
"aif dokd netove of aba Touts bit HO weRETh Olt tH yRoRhenet uid
Yaict Bod mabe whit 24 (HOE Coa to’ weatNee Lt” teh pre Moae! DeKbOL
ose tom bib sud Dodook emo teat womktass ot sonebers ovis
A A Ral
6
when it is perfectly apparent thet if a persen had leoked he muet
have geen. Laveen v. Jorjorizn, 293 Ili. App. 4515 Gahill'g fev. State
1933, ch. S6n, ser. 24; Jones Lil. Stats. Ann. $5,933,
Que to the fact thet the esaupante of the ford sutemobile
sustained such severe injuries thet the fether, Edward 9. Gmith was
killed and his wife snd son were rendered unesnatious, much of the
teatimony supserting plaintiff's case depenis upon the testimony of
the driver of the truck, Jemea Topp. it is quite evident thet had
the driver of the truck complied with the requirements of the statute,
the accident would not heve occurred.
It has alse been held in 2 similiar esse thst in an setion
for damages resuiting from » Gollision of sn sutemabile, which ess
proceeding on Stete highway Wo. 41, with defendant's automobile, whieh,
without stempping as required by Sshili's St. ch. G5n, Par. 34 (3),
had entered such highwsy from e side road hidden in a deep out, the
liability ef the defendent was clear. ever v. Steges, 264 Ill. Apo.
656, wherein a writ of certiorari wos denied by the Supreme court;
Egpp ve Barger, 264 111. App. 484; Mantomya vy. Nilbur Lumber Go., 251
Ill. Appe 364.
We think the evidence shows «© reckless disregard for the
rights of the plaintiffs in the setion of the driver ef the defendant's
truek in driving into York Moad in front of the oneoming sutomobile of
phaintiffe without heving given any notices, or without paying any
attention to the spprosthing sutemebile which he must have seen. It
ig our opinion thet thie wae the eele or proximate ceuse of the soci-
dent which resulted in the death of one person and serious injuries
to the other two persons who were riding in the Ford sutomebile in
question,
It is contended by appellant thet the verdict is ayninst the
manifest weight of the evidence, #e do not think this is true. There
is much contradictory evidence on both sides and we do not think the
verdict end judgsent should be disturbed.
| As was gadd in the ense of sears
3
a a Seteek bed gorteg o£ tL tant sgooragge yleostucg af #2 code
oted8 waht Likded (42) aga SfT 208 .osisopteh «v goame] .nees sven
-GE0.88 .nmd ,atetS .fik eonob {Mi wteq w@@ ano .eteL
eitdomotue bret eft Yo etasquope ody ted? Mgt edd OF OM. ( Pow Ltd
eow dAving * DrenbE ,radsa} of? sad? eviavteat erever stove bereateue
edt to doim ,suoltsteony Setahaet stay aes has etiw eid bee beLits
te Wlomiteet aff moqu ahaeqsd oneo a! Rtitaiese gattroqeue qromtvene
Dad fad? tasolve o¢ivp ef #1. .qreT aomel gion? acto to: Tevith adh
etutete off Yo etnseertupes adt Atty betlenoe downed out. to xerted. edt:
eberxue00 eved toa bivow ¢taubiocs. eae
aoigos fae at trdd e920 tolielse « a2. bded maed gele-gan.tt § Ts
kaw Apt .eLsdonetue a to Medel {leo 6 woxt nasttueet nogedad te¥
| qlekdw yelidouotun e'tashasted Athy Lb sol Ywertghd state me gathesogne”
(8) BE sae gat do 028 ef Lided WO hentimen on 'palduote tnedetw”
_ edt yt qeeb # at mebbid beet ebie « mort yerdghd sess bexetns bad”
“aaa -LL1 DES wauate .¥ Zevet -teelo enw tashaotab eddy Yo sess
{ftu90 gmetque od? yd Helmed eam tisxeldtee te thaw @ mbivredw .088
- «22 Tedsl tudtiy ov gymednel (a8) Gah Lik perryrt
“eat sot sarereth suspen, & ewots wdietee odd: antdt eh oboe
o' gnabasted sdt to tovinh edt te solses od? ab stbhtatela edt to atdghy”
Ye pLitonptne RELRONEE, NY 39: RONERS beok Mat ofat yrtvich at doure
We gatyeg twodtiy to ,eetton ye aevdg yatved tuedtiw etticn tage | |
fe see oved teum od doddw siidenetue yaddosongqe: edt ot aekemenen
~L0os edt to oawse etentxorq to Loe ods vay edit gest sotnigqe tooet
esitytcl suaitee has moetag eae to déaeb ode ai Dotives: dekde taob
at etdemotys brov eat m2 yatbiz orow.ode anowreq ont \xédte wt F°
edt Pontoon ef tolbrey odd toad tasiseace w babaorace ‘abt —
+ haat Brow ieide
exed? turd et efit fatae tom ob ov sonable ode Ye tig Low ‘teoktnem
laenaaal Riad oe FOF 8
oat nda ‘st 68 bv hiss ited ao soanbve yee ep eae |
, ‘ b adres ye pahge ont ve
pas! Bai | spadnutaid 0 Blsode #0
% as me ‘Stes 7 ® rom
Ve a
scene banat det ea ee al Ee Shain see
7
Slayton Lumber Jo., 226 fil. App. 267, at pase 290:
*Yor, if upon » consideration ef the evidence in the recerd in
a @sae in this court, re shovld be of the epinien thet the
evidence wes evenly bsianced, we could not, under the isw,
get aside the verdict beceuse it is oniy where ze find the
verdict to be against the wanifest weight of the «videnee that
we are authorized to disturb it. The question of prependersnce
does not arise at ail in thie court.*
This case is peouliarly one wherein the verdict of the jury
should not be disatrubed without greve ressonsa therefor. Suoh testi-
mony, 26 wae here adduced, ig the kind which should be submitted to a
jury where the judament of twelve men mey teke inte consideration and
pass upon the facta presented, the demeanor of the witnesses shile upon
the ateand and thereby judge as to the credibility of such witnesses,
The trial court is thus better fitted te judge as to wherein lies the
greater weight of the evidence than is = court of review.
it is further claimed that plaintiffs were guilty of sontrib-
utory negligence, The Supreme Court in the ease of Blumb v. Getz, 366
Ill. 273, at page 277, eaid:
*The cuestion of contributory negligence is one which ia pre-
eminently a fset for the considerstion of = jury. It cannot be
defined in emnet terms and unless it cen be said that the action ef
& person ia clesrly and palpably negligent, it is not within the
province of the court te substitute its judgment for that of » jury
which is provided for the purpose of deciding this as well as the
ether questions in the cage."
48 te the contention of defeniant with regard to other errers
committed, we are of the opinion thet no error was committed in ruling
upon the evidence and the admission ef hospital records, es well as
the giving of the instruction complained of. %¢ think 2 fsir trisl vss
had end that the court was justified in overruling the motion for a
new trinl and entering judgment on the verdict.
For the reasons herein given the judgment of the Suvericr
Court is affirmed.
SUOGHERT APYIRMED,
HEBEL AND BURKE, JJ, GoNOUR,
’
108K ogaq #9 g%BS .agd pienso pe
‘it bxoom oft nb onuseiys ode Yo codtazabs o 4 aouw o4
iruoe eat a ae 7a
“eds tedt nn weg ed? Ad. ad ferent
Sie ball wre ae Sine at ai Pi Seuaned Resgaind Viner sam ohtes pd
dnt ERENT ER qrueeth oY Beliesites ote ee
"-tryoo eidd at Lia te sedze toa aged.
Yu; oid to dolbsey edt atotede eno Ylxadiuesg af sano sist... bi £3
~tteas dow .xototed? anoeest ovary tuodtin beduasell od nana
* of beddindue ed dLvorte doise bats oft at ,beoudbe oxed sow an . WOR
Hoye *itdw evaesativ ad? to Tonsemah ed? ,botaeverg atost odt moqu aneg
seeasnntdw foun to Ytilidibase aft of as syhwt yderedt has haste edt
edd eois atoredy of eo sybut of bavcdl, rested eudd ef smoe datas eat
gtohdw Sy lip aap yea ipvavaryp 9 2 ee
-diténoo te rid stow ettigniala tadt bomtaie redtzot aa ee
0 AA dh DP AOR. AOR, POD “s.r vote
phhow 4
— et dolkde me a omega Eston to serv es
fotase 21 «Yt,
to pene ed? tedt bkrs od meco #2 seefay ban ig hos yo
ra a ier eae
gxorre tedéo of Bregex ddiw tanhmdted to doltdernes oat ot Ba
-"'yalon a Bodetsince ‘saw donne od Hit délaigo sdt Ye “ote “ow bod t tautdo
OO —— eee
“sdokbray Sdé'no tadagpit Jabtotas ia Lobe ¥en
rotreque out to teeaghat oat Paar atored teiteti ‘sat ‘gedit taxed
oad tii * 9 ’ { a —
erm tytelo 88 Bases Peay
Ge Eee ‘ee (atroter Eseiqead Yo doxdetinnd ily Bde sbddbive “dad Hedy
| enw islet thet « dnidt of Mo Bantelqnoo matdourtent itt Yo "yatviy “Ode
's | tot t dalton odd ail Luntoro ni BeHived eae dxodo “eds Foiit Bae Beat
Sit Qty ggapew sre Ha’ al dxiéo a
* git 2S ,
— DENAEGYA THIMOGUE Oy, sesame
= illite + GA agua
ay gooehive Yodteshe 4a Ciel hd 4
x ou ta
}
.
41012
LAKS VALRRY PAR prgatiorag no., /
4% corporation, 4 At J
"Bonet
MURGUISAL GOOHE
oY gaToade.
Appellee }
305 1.4.495°>
Mis PHESTOING JUGTICY OSNES Ge WILLIVAN delivered the
opinion of the court.
Piaintafy brings this appeal from a jecement onbtered
dm the Municipal Court for $65.79 in favor of defendent. Wlein-
tiff brought suit eguinst defendant for the price of certain
dairy products purchased by defendant from plaintif¢ in the
ou of G112.%1-. efendant filed an answer admitting asid
smount was due, and by way of soteoff and counterclaim, olleged
thet plaintiff hed wreached « contrast for the sale of milk
between the parties end claiming to have sustained damages In
the amount of $200.00. ‘The Judgment entered in the tris court
for $86.79, ia the difference betwoon the $200.00 damages alleged
and the $113.91, which plaintiff claims as duo and owing it.
The evidence before us does not show there wos 2 sontrect
between the parties whereby plaintiff was to furnish milk to defend.
ant. dGeverel witnesses testified as to the damages sustained by
defendont and the court entered Judgment an stated above. These
witnesses were permitted te testify that as 4 reault of plaintifr's
failure to furnish defendant with its products, defendant lost
customers ond @dugtained desmeges of $200.00. Other witnesses,
testifying on behalf of plaintiff, state’ that defondent had been
asked to sign a written contract with plaintifr, ct that defendant
. + ve ae e
t 4 { ~ = ’ ‘
ii
bi ’ a = ' va ’ hd a a
ad it aay pla? 5 pe 4 ag
BIO LAT TOTMIR
“ @ N ‘A I 4 0 Cum st ig Sangha ods Sade. Yee
: | ,fetuavetq rds a. gala ROTH rd
ett haxevbind MAVEAAUE 2 CIN GORTEUW OMELLORND IED Sore 90%
ASLiv> O42 Ree Op bom
hetetne tremout g awk koa | Bild eprked i xatents
“ntact “sfnobawtsb Ye Toya ab SY.06) seh, Fup? Katpteos oft wh
. mhatroo To eotty edt wo ¢nabnotad ye Lik leh
aes setiile ieee ea Ae ee: . $e
x SLizre Wek 2 tas. :
| dhaith aioe ‘oda By SETH oe
| ‘ Towvee
"tthe te olen cit 08 Poartmos a hedonerad de
Pwebrtembetreriesmei es
| tiweo Sabet ett nt horetas trenpial, ed 90.0080 to tmuonn’ ere”
heghtie wepocids 00s 000: eth seated etecinieass Gari Gaiiae ail:
“2h potwo bas ooh em ambedo Yattmbakey dotther LCDS eit bee
« Peoee “ens fe af gee fed
Saaxtnod sou osnitt wocla fox koab au exstad 0 fog init? #40
“Arne ot am teat 9 Ses Ee
js — pane oy tc, Styeo
_ nest? raveda botate an asomgiut, Soxetae seco ei oe “i
e'ttttntata to ‘timer a on taitd YEkteed of botthmeg oven on
tool snaometod yatoubor ett papers tops |
er ee 200 ro0nt te negannh 5 tatu io wc ~~ r
LOT OE LN 9 IPP Pee Ferg :
GRA
ale
hed refused to do so, and as 5 cemsectionce defendant did not
receive any milk.
From the evidense presented for our consideration, there
appears to he no legal basis upon =<bich defendant could substantiate
his counterclaim for $200.00 because of damages alleged to have been
gugtained. Ne contract ta offered in evidence showing over what
poriod of time plaintiff wes to have furnished milk te defendont,
the price to have Yeon said therefor, or cther information showing
on chligntion on thepart of the plaintiff te furniah defendant
with said dairy promctse. Under the circwistences defcandant has
mo legel bagia upon which he could establish the demeaces allesed
in his counterclaim end the trial court erred in slowing said
Snagmch ag defeniant has admitted in his anewer that
he ewea plaintiff $213.21, ani there is no legel bests fom the
allowance of his counterclaim for $200.00, the Judgment of the
itunicinpe). Court ic hereby reversed and judgment is entered here
in fever of plaintiff ani aceinst defenient for 9113.82.
SUMAN REVERSLY AND JUOGNGHT HORR
POR PLAINTIFS POR @1L5.m.
WWBGL ANa BURKE, JJ. CONCURS
ole
“ cua
ton bab SHED WHER 9 8 tai at ener aes
: - Ht tod wie wii % oP
%
erteutt yntgnpntemeren stfstalipaes Swabtaikigih eet
edattuatadue bios Smainotel doth nog stead Lage on of of wrsoqgn
ood eval of Denelis sesenah to eammaed 00.0088 ot mtatorstiue etst
tase tevo gatworlk wonsdtve at hototte ef Fomténos oi shenhateim
simahtoteh of alin dexletust ovat of ame 2tahely aut? Yo bolreq
pitiwete noltenotat totite to ytoletos) bhaq meet eval of entra ont
taabieteh detew’ of Tittataiq ed? Yo Pusqedd no moldaghide na
Seuetta wepamed att satiate: bone od sake sma eed leah
Stee yatwoLts ak beere sioe Late? one bas mtatoesmu0s ast ak
arts ae ta .*
Koxmiaan am 9a cm |
tad? towenn ott at botdinbe vat Miabeoteb ba
oft tet nteat img on of wet ioe <Aibtiil &
it eobtiea a? cogetod
if, OY 20.3008 te demueinty eae?
Wisialeky eodely Legian wh pe!
‘ iy
ord
tend sare Dawe ad?
a wet « gov ‘Se itatete ehteds eed oe muted:
6 so SS Mat seeamat ie Spapree site
tae 7 ¥, aM,
e scconhet beuwitn atu aby ten tevinwtad
S ULevest oF Date Sota cena aemueret,
Ret :
ob dp.tertsth we e orbs
DORE he ca oo | . fe
ha 4 RR 30 insted
a Pie ‘ 5 oe er eee ae se ery om Hoch tee ry
Bi
41000 ae
PRASK SWEENEY, a
hae |
BISMARCK HOTEL Sle, & eorpe cA tel Z Ej
FIRST WATIGHAL SARK CF CHIPAGO, & anki ng i
Corperstion, and CITY HATIPSAl. een i
TRUS? GOMPARY OF CHIGAGO, & banking
sorporstion, COOK COUNTY.
appellants. 30 Sy. A. 49 6 \
Mh. JUSTIOR S0RK% BELIVERED THE GFINIOR OF THE QOURT,
CIRCUIT SOUT
This is an epnerl from a judgment for ©4,942.85, entered
ageinet defendants in the Cireuit Court of Cook County upon «
direeted verdict. fhe judgment represents deaueges for the esenversion
of » oheok dated June 32, 1936, drawn by the Chiesve Title @ Trust
Company upon the City Setional Geak and Trust Cempany of Chiesge,
payable to “Frank 5, Sreeney", which bore the elleged forged endorse-
ment of the payee. Following the slleged forged endorsement appears
the endorsement of the Siemerck Hotel Company reading “Pay te the
order of the first Sationel Sank®. At the close of elaintiff's case,
eounsel for defendants sanounced thst they did net intend te offer
any texstigony.
| The record discloses that on “ay 2, 1936, sn escrow agree-
went involving the real estate st 4019 Irving Park “ouleward, Shiesgo,
wee mate, The Chiosge Title 4 Trust Gempany wee named as the esorowee,
The agreement, provided that the funde be disbursed unfer the
direction of the Bille Menagement and Mortguce Corporstion. Sub-
sequently, the Bills corporstion instructed the eserowee in vriting
to "pay to Prank 5. Gweensy" $4,942.80, Accordingly, on June 22,
1936, the Chicago Title & Trust Company drew a cheek on the ity
liational Benk & Trust Gempany payable to "Frank 5S. Sweeney" for the
amount indicated, 0. I. Dunn wae then vies president of the Bills
corporstion.e
He W. Owens, * vice president and escrow officer of the
rm OL ATOR “teste: AM
oPRYOO AUT 10 MOIMLIO ART pone AAU apireut “aft. ute
Logadas ,O8e8HG,2S Tol smamyduy paw dennt taille —"
& Roqu Yttued aged Le Mod shuord9 edt at stanbaetah seakage
aokexavace add tet eeyameh etaceorget saemabul Od? foshzev bi
Pest § of827 epsoks ont Ys mwah «bB0L 8S anu Deteh sede 9,20
eoRnoldd to Yequwod tewtT hae dash Lanoktell yetO edt moqy yiagmod
~setoba® boytot hogeils edt etod doidw ,"yaaeon® 46 Aaeel” of eidayeq
atneqge tamoetobie begrcl begelie edd yalwodiot .2eyey edt Xo tnem
odd of Yai" yaibaot ynagaed Leto Aotamele edt Yo saameqnehae eds
eck atttitatele to oeoke odd th Aste Lemgttel sexti od? to aehto
tolto of baesad ton Lb yods tod? heonwonne etaahaateh rot foanyoo
-Wwoattest -
moerge worsens me ,O8GL ,& Yel no tad? B8eeLonth brocer eit id
sageolidd .beevelyo4 axed geivel @L£08 te otetee Leet odd gatvioval tem
sSeworoR® edt er boman aew yreqmed teusT 4 elgit ogeotac ‘eaY | obnat tee ,
oft t9hnw Dbeerudelb od ehawt edt tedt bebiverq ,taemeetyge OdT
“di .tol¢esoqto®? egey?x0K das snesegenet’ slilé sd¢ to aoksootth ©
guitize af eeweres odd detourseai aelteroqtoo alii ont stitaoupee
8S saul no ,elgatbeoves .08.800,09 "yeasens 4 aimert of yaq" of
Utd odd wo dodo o woth yaaqmod foun? & OLI2T ogeotdd ont BCL
ett sot “youoewe .8 dnert" of oldeyeq yneqnod text § ans Lanoltek
BLLté adt Yo tuebisone solv aodd aow smu 43 0 .dossothat tavoms
ant Yo te0lIto wordse bas anen ee il. - ogeuy mer
2
Ghiesge Title 4 Trust Company, testified that at the time the check
wes iseued he wes acousinted with the sleintiff and thet he then
understood thet the frenk &, Seeeney named «@ sayee vas the same
peraen who is the plaintiff herein. He further testiffed thet he
delivered the check to dunn, who e232 connected with the Bille eerporse
tion #t thet time, «nd thet plsintif? wes not present st the time the
sheek wae delivered,
Plaintiff testified th=t he was eng>zed in the "real estate
tex business;" that he undertakes for trust companies, benke end
lew firms end others te “outline the bsok due taxea owing on any
particular cieos of real estate and mke our recosuendsation a6 to how
sevings ean be effected legeiiy ao the Title & Trust Sompany will
isque 2 guarenty title aaking the preserty serchentable «sein after
having been cluttered up for anny years;" thet he was the scle owner
of the business; that he employed from 10 to 17 eapleyees; thet one
7, Je O'Mara was employed by Bie from September, 1935, until the
latter part of June, 1996; that o'Mare received na compensstion 20% of
the net fees procured through hia (O'Mera's) solicitation; that he
enjoyed business relations with Sunn and the Silis corvorstion; that
in connection with the preperty at 4919 Irving Perk “oulevard, ‘we
were Oslied in by Hillis Nealty;" thet Sunn telephoned O'Mara the Latter
part of April or the esrly part of Mey, 1936, with reapect to a
tax search on the Irving Park Zoulevard property; thot 300 or 490
propossis went out of hia office each month, @onsiating of e tax
aeareh and « letter of recommendstion as to how savinga could be
effected; that he did not learn that the chesk had been issued until
the intter part of April or early in May, 1927; that he then exewined
the check and caused a netice to be served thet his endorsement thereto
was forged; that the endorsement on the cheek wae thet of T. J. O'#aray
that he did not authorize the latter to endorse the cheek and did
not Know thet O'Mara was receiving it. Gn eroge-examination, he
testified that in soliciting the Bilis eorporation, O'Mara was
&
doedo ont emis odt te Ses hortitect ,yweqmod test 4 oLtlT ogeotad
nedt of tod? bae t2italeic eft ditie betateaupos sew sd bevel ase
ene Od? cow goyoy Re bomen Ysaeowe .¢ Amett edt sort booterebhay
od ted? Dowkitess t0dxvt of afeted Yritnisiq edt ef odw ageteq
=stegto® siiiG ed? dtiw beteenaes gov ody ant o# A9edo ede berevésod
edt omit od? ta taesetg goa new vtdtatasy ted? bas ,omed. fede 8 aout
| sbotovised eon donde
etatee Laon? edt ak bogeyne wae od tere hettisess IYLtatels
bat etna? ,etineqmoo tawt? tot esdedrehay od ted?) "qonenteud zee
gan mo. giles eoxet tub dest edt oatitue of eroxdto hae omtlt wel
ss wed OF af Mektebmemmeoen tum odem ban sentae Leer to conte telvedireq
| {ite Yneqeod taut? 4 eLett od? os Yinged begnetle od mao sgadves
rodte aleat eidatasdetom Yreqery add yadion oles? YOReramy: o eunds
senee. ebee out gew od tedd "petsoy yoann tet aw boretévle seed paiva
eno dedt jeeryoiqme Vi of Of mot? beyolyns of sant yasoniond sat to
od? Lktny ,SCL yredmetqee most ahd ys beyokqne exw etat'O oto
2o 2OF moktennsqmos we bevtooor oxsk'G fade WERK anwL te treq tested
od dei yaotsatiotios (e%ersK0). ake Mguetds betevete seek gam ode
Sed? tachtetogree aie edt bea mast d¢hy enoitedet eeeniesd beyotac—
w" ,hvevelvo" xxel gaivtl @£0) te ydeeqety edt dtiw.moedsoonneo ad
usttal odd etsd'O besouyele? ane godt *pythaed alist ys-mk beliso erew
sug ® ot foaqeet dtix ,OE@L .ysu to traq yicee edd so Litgh- to dang
OO xa ORE todd pxtregery Srevedive™ stot gadvel ent ao dosnee Zee
net # to gaiteieno® ,ftnsm dost esltto eid te tue thew edesoqety
ed biuee eystves wed oF a2 noltebmemmeset to setted » haa dorese
Lhtau beweat mood bad dede edt osdt axned tom b&b oa sadd, ~botoerie
benigake mod? od. ted? gTSOL . yee ak ylere to Lines to taaq tested’ oat
‘eteneds tnesentohas etd tedt boveee ad of seitod & beeueo har tosis eta
jeteRtO 1% .T to ged? vow toads eft do tnomeexobne edt sede yhoguod. caw
ed .soltenimexe-esets a@ th gadvieoet saw atal'o ted? won tom
ony ovaiO ,nokteroqtos flats patstesoe al. gsdt bekthtest —
3
acting ae his (pleintiff's) agent, ond thet the Bilis corporstion
hired his firm, acting through him (O'Mera).
Jounsel fer defendants at=ted te the court end jury thet
O'ilars, who had had the cheek, 29 2 friend of the Semptreller of
the Sismarek Hotel Company; that O'Mara hended the cheek to the
Vomptreller, whe handed it te his sgsistens; thet the latter went
to the tank and had the cheek hongred; that the money was obtained
from the bank and brought ever to the “ismareok Hotel Company and
paid to O'leras that the reeson the hotel comesny “happened te cash®
the check was that the Somotroiler knew G'era; thet he (the
Comptroller) did not notice the name of the oayes om the cheek; that
he (the Comptrolier) did not require Oo'Mera to endorses the eheok and
aid not question it in any way; thet when the Coaptroller cave the
cheok te hie asgistant, he thought the latter wouid recuire the
endorsement of the person whe wis to get the money; thet the asaietant
was under the misapprehension thet the Vomptrolier “knew that O'Hara
wee Gweeney;" that as 2 consecuence the check was esched; thet the
check which was made out te Sweeney waa, in reslity, intended for
O'Hara; thet O'Meara was hired te de the work; thet, in reslity, O'Meara
and not the plaintiff «xa the payee of the cheek, and the person
intended to receive the money, and thst O'Mers, and nebedy else, was
hired to do the work for which the money wae given.
The first oriticiem Leveled «t the judgment is that the
Court shouid have granted defendants! metion for a directed verdict
becouse of the feiliure of the plaintiff to preve his title to the
eheok, The record shows that plaintiff, through the solicitation
of his agent O'Mara, ws employed to render certsin services in
connection with the texes on the Irving Fark Souleverd property;
that =n e¢sorow agreement was made; thet pursuant te that acreement
the eserowee was directed to pay to plaintiff the amount of the check
in Gontroversy; thet the check was drawn and delivered to an officer
ef the Bilis corporstion; that shortly theresfter the cheek «as
; Lye ties sa? gee oof
Rolseteqtad PLiLe ods tast One Peeps (e'PLivadela) eLd oo. abies
o(a7ak'3) mid dawendt gattoe gmail aid bond
tadt yRul har 21u00 90. oF Hotrte ssashuerad sor Leen coor
te wilostqne” edt? te husdst «© een .doedo oft beg bad ow, ,onento
ada ef Xoade eft bobasd sreli'o todd yyoocmod Leto Sovemat’ ogg
Snow wedeel od? tet jiaatetees sid of Yi bebmad, ow qtallossqmed
healetdo saw Yonom adt sods jhetoced Apedle ad? Dad bas aned eds of —
bas yrgnod Latel Xoremes# add of save tdguetd dun dang. oft, ment
*daso od bensaqed” Ynegmes Leted vd? apesex sat fadt jexed'g of bieg
os ae » 88), a8 teed jet9k'0 wend TeLiesigmo? aut Fast aon donde, add
‘este Hiosde ast me peyec edt Yo cane 9s SeLsen fom DLd (xaLLoxPgmod
has deeds edt avxebus of axeii'o. etiunex fom bib (soLLertqned df). oA
_ oft oray xelloztqne® off mode tadt you qin at, th mokterup tom dsb
odd oxtupex bivow wetted a3, tyuods o6, gtnatalsas ahd of Apede
ttetekene edt. $akt quonom ont tg of sep ody monxeq ed7 To. saomsexohae
(ate 'O Sadé weed” xoLLestqne? oni? dad? eotpnoderquandn gxit, gabau sep
sit edt jbodeno sew Aoedo edt eomewnsenoo # es sad? “yyonoer’ saw
got bebaetul ,yfdiacr at .eow yorews. of t¥o aba, aay dotdw, doedo
STEM! .Ytkisex af feat ylzow add ob of boxtd ane atek!d sods. saneli'p
ven ,onte Ybodon hae ,nta'O fade bas _yenem ot, avieosr of behastat
| - sfievdy eew Yeoos edt dotdw tot Aven ed? ob of boris —
adt ted? ef taomgbul ed2 to belevel matodsizo tatttodt skeeoqery
dvibsey betontth 2 tod aedion ‘etashasted hetueta svad dines. 4zu90
edt of Ltt nid oveta of Yigaielg edt to etustet odd, to. suupoed
_ mottetioslon edt dguomdd ,t2stnlesg tadg avede brooss. eal.» 9Moodo
. ah, eeotvxes £99799 tohser of Doyokqwe ean yexeK'0; dmope, atd.Re
. UMFregenq brevelueS Arai gatvel ads. Ao g0ned eft sey sotsosases
‘ean, ted? od sansexum ted jeden saw. tapeesTys voroRe ne tent
deeso, edt te tauome,, ade 3atadedg, ot eg. of DosoarLd van, gewoToR® oe
reoltie #9 of Dexoyiteh bee. guexh, gay, soado, OD
ase foode oft reftaoredt yltrode sant ynottetoqzos eLLti odé to
4
gaghed for C'Meara through the good offices of the “ismerek Hotel
Gompany; that O'Hara endorsed the nome of plaintiff to the cheek,
and that G'Mere hed no authority ee to dow “« are of the opinion
thet the proof ¢stablishes that slsintiff «se the payee of the oheok,
pnd that the Sills eorperstion, which controlled the eserew direetions,
intended sisintiff to be the payee.
The second ocoint advanced by the defendenta is thet the eourt
sheuld heave gronted their motien for » directed verdiet beenuse of
the failure cf the plsintiff to srove thet the cheek ws delivered.
The escrowee delivered the check te #r. Dunn, an officer of the Sills
Gerporstion. At that time O'Mars was in the euploy of slxintiff.
The evidence shows thet the check was delivered to O'liara by Mr. Ounn,
Aa O'Hara wee then the agent of the plaintiff, delivery to him was
delivery to plaintiff. furthermore, plaintiff testified that in
April or day, 1937, the coneeled cheek «ss exhibited to him in the
éffice of Fred Gardner, secretary «nd treasurer of the Silla corporstion.
It does not sypear that the Sills corperstion, which direeted the
issuance of the check, raised any question as te the delivery thereof.
It will also be observed that in the st«tement which counsel for
defendants made to the court and jury, he declared tht his pesition
was that in reslity O'Mara and not Sreeney wes hired to do the work.
It is olesr thet the pesition of counsel for defendents, during the
trial, was thet the cheek was delivered to O'Mera, whe heaving been
hired snd having done the work, hed the right to enderse the same,
and thet in reality O'Mare and not Gweeney was the payee.
The third point urged by defendants is that the court
erred in instructing « verdict for the plaintiff. That point has been
fully answered in our diseussion of the first two pointe,
Finally, defendants maintein that the court erred in »daitting
the check 2s sn exhibit. Gur discussion of the previous et askes
it obvious that the court properly admitted the check,
for the ressons stated, the judgment of the Circuit Geurt of
Gook ai. is affirmed,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
>
feted sorvemed® ods to eeoltto been edt dguott? axel’? tot boggso
etoado odd of Tittaielg Te. meat pdt begzqhae gza'O, teas ivasqmed
tolaics ef? to ats Of ob of os ¥eizodtus of bed #rak'O teat baa
atoedo off to seyeq edt ese TWhidalaly rads eoietidnteo Yootq at tag
sstoitosrib wotoee edt bellortmos doldw weltsroqtoo elite ode ¢ te a at
,. SSOTT ode OF oF Weentale de
too edt tedt #2 etachapted odd ys beonsvhs tnleg bagoep od? att al
to eeuzoed golbrey hefoerih « tok solsom ghed? begaety evad Divods
cbotevs igh pow goede odt ted? everg of Yittutely edt to oputte?, ode
eifta oft to teollte av ,asud 18 of Joode edt hoxeyiied ¢ ® : =
éMLsntele Yo YoLqne sdf at sow axel*O amke tod? FA wmossrteqroe
maki ot yt BTAK'O of boTevileh ssw doodo ot tedy_ evote, SS ;
saw mid of yxevilsh cttitalala ous ¥¢. savye ost gone ann ousM ©, oh
7
us fs eve
mt teat baLiiteod Tritaledl | soronrodd rit Rt rere | yroytion J
my & ae
sy S84, M2 wht of betididre soy doede beLegase oat ECL pte te xe
noktetogres elit® edt to rotuasert bas cissoros _steabe abe os} to. 90. ; :
ode. betoarth dotde FOL Fo toqToes efrsa ode sade Fegses, fos. 96 ae
a
Wee or Sd
stoored? yroviler st? of es aokteeup yar boeter sfoedo oat it To,
02 Ipeduoo Moldy taesetete edt at sade bovreedo 9d gots # asf
soitleeg eid tnglt bosaLooh on avtut 5 bas t1u02 adit ot bam 5 -
oAtow sat ob oF betid sem Xemsere gon nae! steH'O yelser at oe ! “A
eat gaizub yetnehasteb rot fponwes to. sottieec odd ‘aff xpele ay ;
aoeg gatved ote yanni"0 of bexeytlod enn fondo add. tad. aan vhebtt :
_ammee of? serobae of sigs edz beet stor odd snob saat dente ud
oh fais ed? enw younows fom bas sushi! xe ines af ‘eatee j
i #xy790 pdt todé et sfpakagt se, w begty te atoc putas bt Per
awed andi tatoo teat sPitentede dt rot toibtey s gat gourtend ak be Tr a
.einiog ow? #exit edt to moteswoeth tuo at Reroweae YER
gakttinbs of bores Gavoo edt thae Mista sew vasa i
eodem etateg puekvery adt Lo molesuoelh tO
edoonto edt bettinbs ytage fewoo + .
sahitendisanpyitemibesbeperg sic. (ghee aun cra re
ee Lat him sc Rn AGED. gh A,
“OmMATTA ‘rumocut | atlases
m VII GR's aad xirewde oid ee ee
ROSE HATZENBUAHLZA, A
| Appel ey’,
41018
eee te
o “ti.
*
‘
PPRAL FROM
ve j oy) | | COUNTY COURT
MISKE, RUTH B. MISKE, Lf \ goox county
MISKE, LOUISE KISKS, t)
Se eer ewe ince cae Mana! Maal gyal Mae Mint!
Appelients.
“805 1.4. 4967
HA. JUSTICE BURKE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THs GOURT.
On dune 12, 19230, the County Gourt of Cook County allowed
plaintiff's motion to d4emies the appeal of the defendants from « judguent
ef a justice of the peace, ana en duly 1, 1939, denied defendants’ motion
te vacate the order of Giemissal. Thie appeal seeks to review the aetion
ef the County Court is dismiseing the appeal and in declining the vacate
{ the Gismiseal order. The transeript of the justice of the peace shovs
is
that on April 22, 1939, pinintift filed her complaint in foreible de-
tainer and nemed Alfred Miske, Ruth B. Miske and Minne Hiske 6s unlaw-
fully withholding from her the possession of the premises therein named
that he iscued @ summone which was served on Alfred Miske, Suth B.Miske
and Minna Miske; that the defendants eeked for and were granted 6
change of venue; that the case wee trie@ on May 13, 1939, and resulted
4n a judgment that the plaintiff was entitled to the posseseion of the
premises from “Alfred W. Miske, Ruth B. Miske, Minne Micke and Louise
Miske;" that on May 16, 1959, he (the justice of the peace) declared
the judgment, in so far as it affected Louise Mieke, te be null and
void, because che wae not a party defendant and had not been served with
summons. ‘The trenseript further recites thet on May 17, 1959, “defend-
a ants all praye@ an eppeal to the Gounty Court of Gook County, whieh was
q gllowed upon the filing of a bond, which aleo included Louise Miske, in
the eum of $100, and the payment of appeal fees." On May 17, 1929, an
appeal to the County Court of Sook County was taken and approved before
the justice of the peace. The bond recites that Isabelle Miske,Alfred
MORY JAA 49
PHYOO FTHVYOO
YTHIW WOOO
eee alin ae
. bil oy ltétaielg Sabeaemge
4 yh UD Pe senna ee
THUG8 SHUT YO WOTHEGS BAT axvEENd ated ZOrtevt ori
| Pewotle -yonsed dood Lo teyed “yond ‘edd eter” ke dal ad eh
taeagout, a mort atnadnsted oft re Looqgs anit wateesd of fofdon a! th 2 a:
aotton ‘atiniaeted belied W6CL f yLee no Mis ywodeq ont Sam aes .
nokton. sit wetver of aisou Invcur utd? .Letelsath Ye Mebue ae Seti
etsoav eft natatired at hns Laeqqe ed? yateateskd ab taod a edt
avorln eoneg etl? Yo ooltaut eit to taladannt aft vaobxe L soduas «
<0 eidtorot at tatefemoo «ef boltt ttitatalq 0604 08 Zeaga m > ter
| aus iaw 98 edt saath” he exteri itt’ votaby bow itA boman Oa }
jbeman ntoteit? sontmetg off Yo moteesencg edt xed moat x a
ednLU.d MGA jotelt Sextla to hevwod enw doldw’smoamme a | bi
a Deters sxew One tot Bédad atdahnoten odd dad sia “che sl om bas
betivagt haa ,e50L at a tat" 96
ait Lo modanauecg ont of be lttens sow Wittatatg od Gods am inti
pitwed Bis oxetM anakh ode’. anh oan ou Be 2A" wort eee .s
- betatsed (ooaeg oxi Yo vextaut adr) od renin
fae flu od of yodatlt ontudt Setoo¥te tf ve ak oe
win terse hast ea Sac eaten aa ee Btov
bated" \06RL SE yit ad tad ebttden aedtraut Helvounaet of --esoaeu,
esw Moti {¢tauDd 4000 26 Saud yemwod att 08 Sanage am, 5 “lhe ce pee,
ab edath satvot bobuioat onle dotdy. sited 4 Yo BALLER 867 mo
A, gO gL ystt ne wast ptt ptt |
stoted beverage Snes Meda? a hase mnipielgen vod
DovsAemeln. otiedaal gest sestose fae fall
Went, ty
So atin
ab
’
mune 4% ell oan nie
2
Miske, Ruth B. Myske and Minna Maske are bound unte the plaintiff in
the penal sum of $100, and thet the condition of the obligation is such
thet whereag, the plaintiff recovered « Judgment against Alfred Kiske,
Ruth 8B. Mieke and Minna Miske for the restitution of the described prea-
ises, and costs of suit, from which duégment Alfred Micke, Ruth &. Mieke
| an@ Minna Miske have taken an appeal; that "new if the gaid Alfred
| Mieke, Ruth 5. Miske and Minne Miske shall prosecute their appeal with
effect, and also (pay) all damages end loss which the eeid plaintaff nay
sustein * & * in ease the judgment from which the appeal ie teken is
affirmed or appeal is Giemissed, then the above obligation to be void;
otherwise to remain in full fores and effect." The bond is cigned only
by Isabelle Hiske, the surety, and by Ruth 8. Mgeke, one of the defend-
ants. On May 31, 1939, pleintifr filea her spe@ial and limited appear.
enee in the County Gourt for the purpose of “contesting the jurisdiction
of the court.” At the same time she filed a written motion which prayed
i that the appeal be diemiesed. on the same day the defendants presented
- @h oral counter motion, aeking thet a rule be entered on the justice of
the peace to file an smended trenseript, which motion vas allowed. The
‘ste of plaintiff to diemiee the appeal wee continued, and on June 12,
_ the County Court sustained plaintiff's motion end dismissed the
4 appeal of Alfred Miske, Ruth B. Miske and Minna Miske. On June 27, 1939,
_ the defendants and Louise Miske filed a written motion, praying that the
: court vacate the order @ismieeing the sppeal. The motion waa present ¢d
by attorneys Schachner and Siegen. The motion was accompanied by a
"petition, verified by one of defendants’ attorneys. On July 1, 1929, the
: Court denied the motion and petition to vacate the dismissal order. on
Say BO, AO00 drtewners Sehadimer ant Siegan withdrew their appearance
j (88 attorneys for the defendants and Louise Miske, and attorney: Lawrenee
“Lenit entered his appearance in their stead. At the same tine, they
signed and filed a consent to the substitution of attorneys, whieh reads;
“We hereby consent to the withdrawal of Sehachner and Siegen, our former
at tiitatelq edd etay haved exe edeti sautM das oangh »& dtuh .oxte,
dowe ef sottaglide edt Ye mokthinge edt Sad? dns ,00L6 Yo mum Lameq ort
sOAOLN BowilA seniage Suemgbul » horevooet Tisgatale oid ,aastedd
-~me7q bediaesed aid Yo aodtwtigaen gil? et eai0kM sant Aas oaegh of dtu
exeLH.G Miu e209 BewILA tasmghut dotdy mox? «tive Yo atnoo Ame ty
-, . BeWMA Bion ect? tt won" fade itaoggn sin meus? ovad exlalt ada
aviv Saeqqs todd etuesdorg Lise oxeth aanth dae eaiede 6A dite ,
Yau Titsatale bee of) dotdw esol bas weganad Lie [yeq) gate Sas atte
at meant at Leoqge od doddw wort gnemphot ad? ease at * # * atots
{Stor af of mebtagtiife eveda ext med? sdeentmsn at, Leeqgs od rts
“UNO Hengte af Suod ad "stone ban wonot List at ataner a =
<tastob od? To emo yoxtegh 4K sitmi ya Daa \yfonun old yexalK 9
“~tneqga betints dno Intoage tad boltt IrLtalelg 980 90 yah 00 sat
noktotbetzul ev yatveatnes” te eeoquug gal? xg? Tuwed yenwod fader
boyntq toldw aotten aattine « belt? grantee bes §
Detaseerq otnataeted edt Yad omne oct 9 phonetmekd fet mee ei er}
‘Ye woLteM en ne Darerne of elim a snc? gatdan .nolton wetauee Li
aa? sbowoLis nav nakion dosdw .Sqtvesnore behaeme na oL2%
Sf om Mo Bits shommbtnc sav iaeqgs edt aetmath of
ag
iy. a
ie
a ¥¢ beinaqmosoa vaw aoivon aff .tagele bas wentoadoe phere
ons GEL ,f vine AO .eyamrotia ‘stnsbaeted te eno yd. 1G.
0 suelo Sssatmeth ef? etaoay of aotttteg bas notion sr
“soneresgys Reedy werbdtty asyela dae yemrlgatiot nyoarore:
oonorwed aysmtocts bee reel entvos bas ataalaoteD ett 2 :
“ord jontt owns ots 24. shaate aged? a2 91 as |
inbaet delete .ayentorse to eeenniaree. a o? #neanco
Fs)
Attorneys, ond consent to the filing of the appesrance of Lawrence Lenit,
as out future Attorney in the shove entitled cause.”
fhe first point we will consider is the contention that plain-
tiff should have served Gefendante with notice of the motion to dismiss
the appeal. The record establishes that attorneys Sehachner and Siegen
appeare@ for the defendants and argued against the motion to Gismise. They
aiso presented and argued the motion te vaeate the order dismissing the
appeal. Apparently, defendants’ position in thet the notlee shovlé have
been served on them personally. The substitution of attorneys and the
concent thereto shows clearly thet Sehachner and Siegan had authority to
represent the defendants. As defendants were represented by attorneys of
their own ‘ghooging, they cannot now euccessfully complain that they were
hot served with pereonal notice. Another point urged is that the justice
of the peace had no pewer to change the Judgment order by declaring the
judgment against Loules Biske to be vold beesnuse she was not a party, nor
aerved with summons. The record deoea not show that this point was raised
before the justice of the peace or in the Gounty Court, and it eannot be
raised for the first time in this court. Louise Miske wae not a party,
4 nor was she served with summons before the justice of the peace. The ap-
peal bond filed with the Juetice recognizes that she was not a party de-
fendant. We do not understand how she can appeal when she is not a party
ané when there is no judgment againet which she ean complain.
The point on which defendants place ehief reliance is that See-
tion 180, chapter 79, Ill, Kev, Stat. 1939, provides that “no appeal from
a justice of the peace shell be Gismiesed for any informality in the ap-
peal bond, but it shall be the duty of the court before whom the appeal
may be pending, to allow the party to amend the same within a reasonable
time, so thet a trial may be had on the merits of the case." An appeal
from a justios of the peace must be prayed, and it is eecential that the
! parties appealing file an adequate appeal bond. The defendants contend
| that under Seetion 160 it wag: the duty of the court to enter & rule on
the defendante to anend tok bona within a reasonable time. They argue
a
ares —"
a eed pitas
Fhawd womenent to eonmteegea af 26 YRILET od? oF Mmennco Dan Yom P
JULRY bis ”
*.onus Beltttne svods edt ak yomrostA owtut hohe
shale ted? wottacines set af aebLonon Lite ew tnteq tort? oat . se,
i awh
Belaath of aoltom ott to eottGn dfiw etnabasted bevree ovad | Biwodta pm
te. gt
fingeke hen vemipaclow ayenrotte fatt pedetidetas Sxooet ert? -Leoqgs 91
wed? .ketonkd of soften eft sentage Seugue baa atnehasted edt «02 o* 0
7% some
ont patestnath xine oilt ofsoav of motton edi Semyte Sas botnsaeng »
ovad bivede cotton odtt tart? of aotttecg ‘otnataeted yyltnexsqgh Lae
ef? Bae ayetuerta ‘to nottutttedua edt weitsmoweg med? ao Soviwe ved
of Wivedtus Sad angett as comdsatos tat yfusete awoda oteredt 9 anos
20 eyomrotys YS Setasserqet erew atnabasted sa vetushasteb sat mane 4
vaow act Sad wna <GeReMeaOun wom Fou west attnonde exe
Lev
“a?
sotveut, of? dade of bey hte tedzona seotvon Lanonseq Atty men ton
“ede oubualoe® Wf cobeo tmeybut toga of savog on Da sone a cs
tom ,yane # ton usw ifs vausoed Biv of of exalt entvos tantage 8
healat sew tatoq sic? ten? worn ten asob buobor oft “amon sth De
io PEP CTR
od fonmmo fi Bas \otived ‘Cndiod' 6? At we ebeeq ent? 20
‘@truaq 6 Ton aew e2ist® setuod meet
ee eoneq of Yo Gottuut od? otdted anonawe Att heviee ode nie
-ob-ytunq 2 fon new ade tat soxtngooet suktaut edt détw best? ae Lane
wong # fon at ite mei Lanes and ode vod baatermeiaa 90 6d nabore
sataiqnos aso 6h dobty tentage Sasmmbut on af omed
6G? @73aam
~998 t#af at eonskior teltdo oSalg aaa #
nowt Lavqge On* tat? neBiveng set tage «ved «LIE .CF aotgatio 4 08 AY.
~oh sith nb yéttnariotat wih wot Dovatmalb ef Lads eoneq est Yoo oltoul @
Laocgn wit ste eroted Yuneo ite Ye ub oat of Etude 4h tu sh no
oldancentr 9 ktdtty onte' ae Boia of youu oe wollte of ai ant
iawyge 14 *. sand exif 16 aticom oil a9 Bed od yam RUBE a ome
ont add Iettaeend ti tt Bite \boyorg od foun eoneg sd? to cottaut 2 moet
haetnes sthosisteb eA? eked Tnoqe f Yi; att
AO of 2 tame oF fovon sat te Yih edt
ougts ted? oeuld eidancaney @ atdttw a
> Zz
os
a a ay
exe
4
that the bond which was filed wae in substantial compliance with the
statute, afid that the court had jurisdiction of the appeal by virtue of
the fact that the boné was signed by the surety end by Auth B. Miske,
one of the defendants. Appesis in foreible entry end detainer are gov-
erned by stetute. The eppeal must be perfected “in the same manner and
tried in the same way a0 appeals are taken and tried in other cases.*
(Sections 19 and 20, chapter 57, Ill. Kev. Stat. 1939.) The bond must
provide that the defendant “will presecute mich appeal with effeet, and
pay all rent then due or that may become due before the final determina-
tien of the suit, and also all damages and lose which the plaintiff may
sustain by reseoen of the withholding of the premises in controversy, and
| by reason of eny injury done thereto during such withholding, until the
restitution of the possession thereto to plaintiff." The sppesi was
prayed by ali of the defendente ané the bond recites that all of the de-
fendants are bound thereby. Ase stated, only one cf the defendants signed
| the bond, Alfred Niske and Minne Miske did not sign the bond, and,
therefore, did not effect or prosecute an appeal ae provided by Section
| 20 of Ghapter 67, (Foreible Entry and Detainer Act) Ill. Rev. Stat. 1939.
‘The defendant declaree that the appeal was not a joint sppesl. We have
'
| carefully examined the reported eases and are convinced that it ia not
necessary thet the parties appealing shall specifically state that the
appeal 1s a joint appeal. if they all pray the appeal, it ie a joint
appeal. The reported cases also convinee us that the defect in the bond
ie not a mere informality. One of the essentials in an appeal from a
_ justice of the peace is thet there be an eppesl] bond. Numerous cases
hold thet where a Joint appesl ie prayed end allowed, ell appellants must
aign the a bond, or the appeal on motion will be dismissed. Son-
ryard v. Page, 255 Ill. 267; Hileman v. Beale,
2216 Tl. 385; Setries ve “mates 152 Til. 214; Town v. Howleson, 175 Til.
86; Fortune v. Gilbert, 207 I11, 235; Stiefel v. Amalgamated Sheet Metal
| Morkers Local Union; 198 Ill. App. 94;
Ghureh, 195 Til. A pp. 510,
wet ste noma Anata, aA EA ARR OL
to omtaiv yd Laeqqa edt to aoktotbeiau|, dat tings eft tad? Dike ote
X0LK t De Ho 9 WE Bamana Anod 9 tat fost &
“Woy e1s tatoteh ban qutae eidtougs ak aleaqga | radnadmeO 919 20.0
has teonse omse oct ak" heteetesg of taum Ieeqqe od? Osueate Oh Me
“saense wedia af Dalnt Dae moded ous siggags 8 yay ouse eft at &
Poum haod ga? (,Q60L »tag0 .YoR .Lt TS sotqedo Of bas OL
hae .foeTte déiw Leeqqe dove etwgenonq Site’ tuahaeteb ed? fadt »
-saimsaieh Kat a? eugied out sagoed vam edt ao. exh med? fans. Lf
Wee Wlsetalg ed? detdv a90l baa sogeusd Lieoate tenntion. ait 2
Sag .Youwvetsscs at seaimenq edt to yatbloriddty edt to sence vs ahetame
add Liaw ,gathfeddtty dove gatauh ofesads aned yautat yaa Yo 4 ——
gew ieeqqs od? °,Y2Ltalale o¢ eteseqd soluseuacg ed? te, “=
~aP sit Lo Lis tect aottons amed at Dae atnabasteh.odd to Linus h
bangs efasbneted edt %o one ylmo ydetase 9A. -ylomed? haved one a9 sd
sba0 yoned ed? ayia tom BED oXadh name has oxash Spwdsd » shmoe
“soktess YW Debdzvong 08 Laaqgs as etwooncgg so soe%e foa ALD youctes
-Q8GL taf .YoH LT (994 venketed dan wees oidteao$). ¥9 totqedd 2
ovad-o' secaoanan co oma esa
ted af 42 dad? Deoudvace ota bas senso Settoqes ed? Sontaae yLivtoqse
oud fads efoto Yilaostdoege Liats gattanqys aeléase. ed? dod? yratncoen
tntol 2 gf tf .faeqgs edt yarq ide yadd 22 .taeqge tatel.« of
hued odd ab too%eS outt tad? as gontvmee onte senso Sotsogen od le
2 mort Seq as ak slattoonee edt to end yeh amo 'st ras fo5. a
_ aeRed awoxveaull .haed Leaqqe as.ed ened? tact st eqacg ed? to. =
Pa. staat ioean Lin. shomekie. ton sovamy. et ewer Stak 9:mne: SU BE
“aed. sbenehents of Atte rotten. 00, Lean OF waitneh Salen :
eieeS «v fame til 7VSS sist 862 ,egad .v Susvaal 3
LE OVE .honetwoll ov avet pefS fit Sak \akioX, «¥ Ankabe ,
fate foods Soteuagions ov fetetae R58 06 YS aH.
9 enunge | | ottaeattenhht Mes
es
—
Plisintiff sleo calls attention to the failure of the bond te
provide fer the payment of rent due or to become due. Beeause of our
views on other points, it ie umnecesesry to decide whether the failure to
q provide for the payment of rent due or to become cue wae such a defect as
7
,
4
b
i
4
;
:
}
:
could be amended.
Defendante further maintain that where any defencemt is not aade
@ party to an appesl bond, the eccurt may, if is deeme neesesary, issue
summone requiring the appearance of such defencant, and thereby obtein
jurisdiction of him. They rely on Section 191 of Ghapter 79, Til. Rev.
Stet. 1938, which reade: “When an appeal shall be taken by ome of several
perties from the judgment of a justice of the peace, the clerk of the
court shall iesue a cummone sgainst the other parties, notifying them of
the appeel in the said court, and requiring them to appear end abide by
and perform the judgment of the court in the premises. “**" ‘This action
ie not applicable to the facts in the ease at bar. It has reference to a
#ituation where less then all of the defendants pray an appeal. In the
instant ease all of the defendents prayed an appeal. They also appeared
in the County Court end urged thet court to permit thes to amend the
appeal bond.
Por the reasons stated, we are of the opinion that the County
Court of Cook County was right in diemiseing the appeal. Henee, the
orders of the County Court of June 12, 1939, and July 1, 1039, are af-
firmed.
ORDERS AFFIRMED,
HEBEL, J, and
DENIS &. SULLIVAN, P.J., CONCUR.
&
et Bacd ea? to euulist ont ov noktnst ta alieo on.ta Witter tlle
ave to eauased .owb emooed of "x0 aud tues to tnomryag ta ‘tot eotvong
of wxelist add setPocw obitosd of: cisasvoenay ef st wtntog ‘toile ae pay
as Teoteb # down saw oub omcoad of 40 aud tmox to aamyaq ont wor we
- jbobaems od S.tuoe
eben ton af tedarteh yun onedy pact ategntan roritwt s¢nabmeted ae Dee
on ad .Vreessosn ameob #2 2 \ Was favo adt sbnod Lneage ‘AB ot wud s |
% eee eal
ntasde yered? bne vtasneted soe to eonetseqqs edt ‘aabrispen ‘enone © :
Seiete
+)
veel it ,2¥ otqand to JBL motvout no Yow Yodt aid to
Lawes to ono ye meted od Stade feoqas an medi” "hab asia? be Tad?
“edt Ye droto edt ‘eos od Yo cottaut 2 Yo daomptul od? wort sabieag”
te mad? yatytiton stoktaag wd? att danbaye antenna 8 owsht Liaili Priel
Wi Shida bus tasqqn of wodt gatatupex bas «fevos Died sat ab thege i
nelvon aldt *ee0 sao ndmeng ‘odd at twos edt to ‘gnowy but, din tee bak
2 oF soneis'tor wad $f und te seco od? nt aéont’ ead Ot via ie wa
ett at .Laoqqa na You adnndasted ont Yo Khe madd ah nottauete
heseeqan oats yest “vineqge as Beyerg atmabastes sit’ te ‘a iee HN?
ont ese of ined? temeg ot P09 ‘taat beget had Put ‘viata a
esaued ‘ed? fads notaigqo od? to om ov ybotate anonsor sat a0 itt
edt .sonek Lav aae ont pataatan ss nb tiigix baw Ytawod dood Yo faved
-T4 912 ober a Lara baa peer 3 wat te seed mpc yo
(Fi eNO Re? Som w, 826 ot
eomngplies neared :
‘2 a se o®
nv
41047
CHICAGO TITLE ABO TRUST COMPARY,
a Gorporstion, ag Trustee,
Ve :
THOMAS D, RANDALL, BOITR-K, ganna,
et Ble, ¢
Be fe WEAN Se
LOUIS SUSHAN, : |
Apoepiant,
: GOOK COUNTY,
Ve
OHICGAGG TITLE AND THRUST COMPANY, a
corporation, aa Trustee, et si.,
305 1.A.497
Appellees.
MR. JUSTICE BURKE DELIVERED THE OPINIOW OF THE couNT,
On May 3, 1927, Thomas 0. Handall and Sdith A. ®andall, his
wife, @xecuted and delivered their 346 coupen bends, numbered from
i te 346 inclusive, for the aggregate principal sum of 2299,900.00.
The bonds were in denominations ef 7500.00 amd 91,099.90. onde
numbered 1 to & matured Hay 3, 1389, and the balance matured suceessive-
ly thereafter on May 3rd and Kevember Srd until May 3, 1987. They bore
interest at the rate of G-1/2% per annum, paysbie semi-annually on
the Sra dey of Hovember and wey of enoh year, evidenced by interest
coupons atteched thereto. To secure esyment of the bonds, the
Randalls, on the same dey, executed and delivered their trust deed
te the Chioago Title and Trust Company, as trustee, covering the real
estate and improvements known oa the wsyne Manor Apartments, locsted
at 6928-30 Wayne Aveme, Ghiesre. This loan was for the puroose of
eonstructing the building. In selling the bonds to the public, it
was represented thet the buiiding wovld centain 60 apartments "completely
furnished." At the time the bonds were sold the tuiiding was
appraised at $396,000.00, and the land at #20,000.00, a tetel security
of 7325,090.00, The trust deed provided that the borrower must deposit
each month 1/6 of the semi-annual principal and interest throughout
the term of the loan. The original underwriter of the bond issue
VaoLls
sTHATMOO TOUAT GHA LITIT OOAOIHO = #
seeteusT as .wohteragzoo 4
‘DP “Ss ae =e abe we irpey
Ve. ote : ay pity fc ewe ty
Py os 2 SuAuan a tee
std 3 . FOU
vine ope ot AS er
St pectunineeteeminendl
pee “otek 6 eae erued |
a a ae LeRICE BR Oa ving & |
vv.
TANGO TIUGATO
YeOD.AI2o0e
I9e% enoemnte ;
“eee, us a
sa ivhews Adtter .bAbs staee
Nig > sits
aoe eft eed settaag
sven BHT BO MOIKIGO An? canayiaaa marta gorToUL TOU IM balls Piel’
aid ,lishbmai oA Atiby hac LLebanh 0 armed? fees, 8 ye thegen ae”
MATS hareduun .ehnod Raqueo BOL thed¢ hegeytieh bas betupex® .o2 bs hae
20,000,0089 to mwe Leqtontzy stagetage eat tot sortoulond 996 of 5 at
atta 0000048 Bete 00,0088 Ye pnattqninomeh at ent ebned OMF
ome enennn aire 25 0k Dorwtam 2 98 £ horedmum
ered yadT .YOCL .f Yok Litany Det tedmovgh has bat quit enna .
Ko Yileumne-imon sideyed ynumae req RB\-8 to eter O49 ta :
teetetal yd heoaebive ,ta9y dose te yok bas redmevell to ho yah te oa |
_ 8dt yabmod edt to taemyeq oTuOPR OT _s9foradt Dedontte wmeguon
boeb feutt tied? bexeytish bas betuoexs ,ysb ease od? go etfaaae
faox ed? gaiteveo ,sotavtt ea ar" taux? ban eL24T nn ne ia 4
besnool ,etnouttaqs tommX eayert od? es awond atnemevorqui bua etetee
Yo seootuy edt tot eow ane etdT sopsoddd eunevd myst OR |
th .olidug edt of ehnod edt gatiien at spf “ond yt oo
Letelqueo" etnontieqs 08 aletneo bivow gatbliw’ ent teat petaeeenaet ene
apliceantenensieantendbiciee°eleicnanenete son * beds ,
3
was Leight @ Gempany. The principal snd interest nayaents were te
be made «t the office of the intter comoany. Yerious defaults were
made in the poyment of principal, interest and taxes. A bendholders?
Comaittes was organiced, which csiléd upen the bondholders te deposit
their bonds. Gn Moy 15, 1924, the trustee filed its complaint to foree_
Close the trust deed in the Cirovit Gowrt of Cook County. The canes
wae referred te a Mester in Yhaneery, who reperted his findings and
recommendations. On Februsry 21, 1926, =» decree of foreclesure and
gale was entered, Attached thereto weg 4 Gopy of the original denesit
ngreement dated February 1, 1230, a8 smended April ‘i 1926. This
depesit agreeaent purported to be “for the protection of the bend-
holders or first mortgage bonis sold through Leight 4 Company".
The preamble of the deposit agreement recited thet it was the intention
te teke action to protect the verious defaulted iseues underesritten
by Leight & Company. Seetion lief Article i, thereof named the
Chiesge Title and Trust Gompany as depesitary, snd Seetion = ef the
same article provides thet upon the determinstion of the committee,
bonds of any given isaue were to be onlled for deposit. A holder of
any such bonds sould deposit the same with the depositary and receive
® eertificate of deposit. Also attached to the statement of intention
to bid, was a plan of reorganization. On May 10, 1939, the daster
filed his report showing thet he sold the premises to “licebeth
Henderson, sa nominee of the committee, for the sum of $40,099.00,
The Chenoelior directed the committee to give notice by publicstion of
the date set for the hearing of the motion te affirm the sale and
the plan. On June 7, 1938, Louis Susman filed objections. On July 15,
1938, the court referred the petition for affirmation of the sale and
for the sppreval of the plan, and the ebjections thereto, to 2 special
Commissioner. Susman also filed objections to the aecount of Harriet
Henning, who had operated the property. ie sles filed » petition in
the nature of ® eppss complaint, The court aleo referred the objections
to the scoount of Harriet Henning te the apecinl commissioner and aleo
wan ef o
f DAd
g
of Grow aénsmyeq Seoteind bax Logdonteq ad? (eunauelt-eiiehee Gow
arey ativele>d asolte! .yaeonoe tefeel ed? to soltto edt te eben od
terobletbaed A .aone? Das tuprotat efaqtonizg To themyeq edt al sbem
tizeqeh of arebiguifwed ad? aoqes beliso doldw gheniaeyte asw ecttinnse
perot ov Satalqmo® eti bolit setawrt ade, ghBBL, a@L Yok 20 ended’ xiede
seueo edt + Vand #000 Yo sx god #igotl® oft ak BOGE tasse oad esese
base egaibalt eid betroqer ore aytoomed® gi toteck 2 of bortetes ene |
hue etuecloete? to seth « ,B8GL ff YXauidet a0.) ssnokéisbaenmooer
“"PEeqed Lanky dro Adt 36 yoo » Rew otensds basdona th OOO aie RM
eid? ,O86L o {hagA bebuege as ORL f Yraurdst betsb ‘taaahorge
«bod edd to sodtoetets edt rot* sd of betrouzua tom sete theog sb
s"yisened & ¢igted dyvetat biew shaod eyng?tom FexZ2? to srebled
nolsaetnt elt cov tk dd bettoon tnanaerga thpoqeb sit to widasexg edt
astiiwetstay eouead Se¢luehod avoizey sdf tontorg of motton sist oF
ost bomen Yooreds 4f eLetter Retk mottnet .yraqmed& siylod! yt
add to S apdtoek dae qetetigoged ws yaxqned tere? bax eStkT opsondD
.90ttianee sdf Yo aodssatmreted eit mou test aebivory ioitrs ease
Yo teblod A .tkeeqeh rok bedice ed ef o1en sunet aoviy Ye to ehnod ,
avienet bas yustieoqsh add dtie eure edd tieeqeh biveo abaod sowe ya
xoitagial Yo toematate edt of badentéa ondd. > gtheggeh. to etaoltitioos
rofack o6¢ .@ECL ,OL Yak a0 .soktantamgzeet to maiq a een ghdd ot
“Aiodont{ of sontueng ent Bice od. sadt gatvode trogen aid beset
4009000, 004 te sue sé¢ cet ,eeddiawen edt to soakeon as yudetebael m
te noitontidug yd solten evig of eettianes edt beteosih telleoasd? off
bag ales edt mudtte of agtton sit te gatas edt toh seninedbiede
ai Ylsl a0 sareitoside beitt fomauv® atued .Q8CL 4¥ enwk moo am -
bee alee ont Yo Hodtemtdthe tot Moltiveq eit bextsten tryed ant? _RUOL
" fabueiee 2 of ,ofereit emodtosico add baa, .aake adt to Levoraye ett tot st
teixuel to aqvqoce edt of sxodtoetde holit ealn aemeut- .tecateetemen i
| ah moltiteg @ DSLET eale oh sixeqone ode antghceiictoninasipivedal, | 4
siodtenein: adt berxete oale. trueo at séadadqnon meas Do eee te
eae henaueintsetenes Lakesue- ome ot: ganar ankxall te Has9Dv
3
directed the specisi commissioner, /report “3 to whether ®ueman be
granted lesve te file the "petition in the neture of « eress-comphaint".
Suemen wee nst an originsi wurchsser of the bonde but ourchased the
game after the entry of the deerese of fereslosure at prices ranging
from 19 te 23 cente on the dollar. The apeeial tommiasicner reperted
to the court. Gn the basis of the repert the Shancelior entered «an
order on June 30, 1929, (1) confirming the asle, (2) directing certain
ghanges in the plan of reorganization and sopreving the plan as se
amended, (3) approving the repert and aceount, and (4) denying leave
of Sueman to file the petition in the neture of A Gross complaint.
Susman filed applic=stion for an alloewsnee of fees te his «sttorneys,
which appliestion, together with the applicstion for fees filed by
other counsel, ses referred to the apecial commissioner. The apecial
tomaiseaioner in a supplemental repert recommended the silowence of
fees to Suamen's counsel. ‘hen the report came on for hearing before
the Shaneelior, he dissilowed any fees to Susman's attorneys. Susman
prosecutes this appesl from the decree confirming the ssle and approving
the plen of reorgenization, from the refussl to allow his petition for
effirmative relief, from the order approving the aecount, ond from the
order allowing fees to vorious sarties and refusing to eliew fees te
his counsel.
The first efiticiam presented is that the decree, which
placed certain defsulted bonds on a parity, wes procured by fraud,
and thet it was the duty of the court te modify such deeres. The bonds
and Goupons maturing up te and ineluding way 3, 1929, nusbers 1 to 5,
in Bhe aggregete principal sum of 43,000.00, were paid and canceled,
The mortgsgors failed te deposit funds for the payment of coupons
Series 4 ond bonds numbered 6 to 10, in the aggregate principal sum of
$3,059.00, payable Hovember 3, 1939, Leight & Company tock up the
matured bonds and coupens of this dote from the bondholders thereof,
and by notice served on the trustee dated January 37, 1930, pourperted
to sssert the right of Leight & Gompany under the trust deed, te hold
8
_. 42 aameu® tedftedm of se $10gex\aromohea sence Aslooga edt betoersb
o"tnksdguoo~aseto « te exutes ed? a gokgited® aft efit of oveot bognexy
adt hagedotug tug abned odt te tTeasdonug Leakgivo me ten sew aemeye
galigass saaisg de stemedoezet to aeteeh off to Yutas od? caste. seer
_ bettoge: reapisatemos daioaga aft »stsiieb ed¢ no etaeo ES ot CL mont
Be hexetas tolleonadd of teqos ef¢ To alecd edt AQ .t1vop ade ot
aiatroe gaisopeth (8) ,%lee edt yadmatrmoo (4) S561 OF anul ag gebze
o% 20 maig edt gutvergss ban gottasinggtans te. aela od? af aegaaso
svasi gatyieh (>) par .tauovos das tieger, ad? gatvorcga (£). gbehagne
stnisiqnee ssoto # to siuites OA? at molsitag adt OL22 of, aameul to
aaYerrosss pli ad aast to sogawolis ne mot soltrodiqua heise gamag®
W DaLst weet rok sodseoligaa ods ddim xopteyed .aptteotioan detde
_ dateeae oct .x9motmaiamen Latosan adt ot, hexzetex. ean, eeeno0 tutto
to Soasnoiia edt hebasmmenst stoqer Lesasutigqua « A. xacokeshemes
erelas gadtasd tot Mo ose s7oges add Aaa -honnuan aaemas oF apet
omeuh .eyanzodte a'anuaue 9 a9et yaa hewollnath od ,telioonadd edt
anivorcge bas eLaa alt gatextinen pexpab adt moxt ineqqa aidé eesvopsenq
ter sottitec eld wolis of Lassiter gd? moxt ,Aettenineguoes, 20 aalq ent
ad? max? fas .tauesos ara ppiciper en
oe
ee ee SS Se ee + ar
:
|
|
|
t
> faa
scitamaelt - bone 908
‘ tebte oemnth ale, sede 42: etnemnenainaeiiat ial ae
_abuart yf hezuoetg aoe _ttizeg a so. ebsod, bedduateb pina. anal c
ebned of ,29x9ab dowe yYithou of sxwan edt to Niu odd om, Js. todd, has
8 of L exsdeys ,850L ,f YM gatbudons bas of au gotrusam, saequoo, bas
sboLenaso das bing e1ey 40000046? to mum Lagtontng of 08 ke
anozyee te saemyag.ens Tod adavt. dheogd of beter axeangteomeat
to map Leqiondzg stegotyas edt at ,0L ot 2 botedmum abaed bap d patsot” —
_, Pit qur toot yuagme® A tdgtod PSOE of xedmavol oLdayeg, «00,000.88 —
_stosreds steblodbaed ed? mort Seah nes ae ome vaionamoelll |
vimgiiaiee sans bepestamiaaa anne aix add sreene
4
guech bonds and esupens so purchased by it en = parity with the
unaatured bende and eoupons. it fniled, hovever, to cive auch notice
to the bondholders. The trust deed prevides th=t in the event Leight
& Gowmpany advanced any of ite funds on principal er interest, then on
failure to notify the trustee end the bondholders, the bends ar toupens
so aecuired should be treated ss eubregeted. In Nevember or December,
1989, certain bondholders and representatives of Leight 4 Gempeny held
meetings to determine what xetien should be taken in view of the default
im meeting the liovember 3, 1929, prineipsl and interest asturities.
Homer ©. Tinsaan, * Ghicage atterney, attended the aeetings. He had
gurehssed 2 mumber of bends of the “syne Menor Apartsents issue in
behalf of his clienta. As # result of the meetings, Tineman agreed (a)
te take over the title to the property, and (b) to cure the existing
gefaulte under the first mortgage bond issue, and therecfter to keep
the bonds in good standing. At the time linemen agreed eo te do, there
was nieso mn seeond mortgage on the property, securing an indebtedness
of Thomas fendall ond wife for £11,500.00, chattel mortgage notes held
by Homer Gros. for the balance of the purchase of furniture im talled
in the property, an unpaid oblig tion of 71,360.09 for carpets
purchased from Wieboldt'sa, and an unpaid charge of 9990.00 for a stoker,.
It apoesrs thet Norman Rendall, a brother of Thome Handall, whe had
ho interest in the title to the Innd end building, had joined Thomas
Randell in the execution of the chattel mortgage notes for the
furniture. iIn conuntetion with the transfer of title, Tinsmon executed
an instrument to indemify Thomas Randell and his wife and Rormen
Randell and hia wife on account of all of said obligotions, except
the second mortgage. Tingwan, however, agreed to pay up to 13,000.09
to acquire the second mortgnge notes. Lumedistely upon the conveyance
of the title to him, Tinsman made « conveyance thereof to his wife,
christine 0. Tinemen, who thereafter held title. Leight 4 Company
suspended business on Yebruary 17, 1930, when a petition in bankruptey
waa filed against 1t in the United Stetes Distriet Court for the Northern
>
ott din Ysiteq # a0 ¢1 yd beastonay ce eaoques fae shud dow,
- gotten dave OvLy of grevewod , delist 21 seasquo® han shaod botudemaw
Sigisi trove edt we Pols eOhiverq Deeb sours O67 sonehsoddued pas,ot
wo madt ,teerstai to Laqtesizg aq shagt-at2 to wa Deoaavhs yaaqmed. 4
eroqies to efited oat ,eTebloddaod ot? Ane voteurs edd YRiton of etudiat
,redmecat To Tedmeval al bedegerdue es doteext od bdgods bogiupas gp
Sie yroemed S tieied te eevitetmeeetqen bas exobiodbaod atatveo «esGi
tigeteb eft to wely ai mevet of bivede aoites tear satmsosed of egaktess
ealfitetem teevetni bac Teg tonitg ,Os@L 42 redeevoll edt gaitesm as
bed ON segadteem edd Aohmeten yyornotts ogentsd # qoemenk?. 4%. come
gh euset etentrowl tomav eayoe Qdt to ehaed to rode « beasdoeua
(a) beerge manent? yepakeere oo to @ivert = et oetnetioa etl te Lieded
guktvixe dt etvo oF (d) dus yysteqore Ode oF O4FLF Of TOYO, SAntae
qoed of Yettesrsmt Mie youre bred syagerem text} od? tehan atiewted
acodtt ,ob of os beotgs aement?l omte edt ¢A .gakbaste booy ai ebaod add
‘nnenbetdsbat on gaitusee ,ytxsqorg et so Syopitom hapeee a onds aav
bied ston spepitom Lertedo 00.008, £1% tot ofan bane Lichwel gemedT, to
pefletent eryéiarut to seedoreg ad? to sensed adt toh seer temoll
“1 gboqras tot 00,088, 12 Ye aolteghide Diaqty As yuéreqeny, ede at
sredete « tot CO.C08) To Sgtade bleqay ma baa get thiodelt wort becadouna
had ow ,ifebast seemed? to stedterd « ,iiabaed semxol todd etnsqqe #1
enktodt bentot bed ,yatbiied bat baal em? ot ekeks ed2 ak teorotns oft
od? qot stton sgegtzom fettedo eff To Godtmexe edt ab Liehaas
‘badedone memank? ,oltad te cotenett od? dtl modtoensoo aly | ,otutingwt
anevo® bas etiv etd hae Llabes® exmodT Ytianebai of taewyrtead ae
goes yanoktegstde basa Yo ifs te tnveson wo shines dae tdehaes
00.000, 22 of ay Yaa oF heompe yrevewad yasenalT sgngtiom hageee ott
“poneyorsoo oct ogy YLeteihoasel »eeten egegtxem dagees od? exivpom.od
. Sani eld of Tooxveds soteyorscs # Shem memess? yaks ot OLtss end S0—
* queqaitd & tetghel seltst blot testeovod? mite enemas NE
netetand at mabetton, 2 code. «Rh aX ramtey, ‘ APE
8
Sistriet of Illinois. Possession ef the property ‘as taken ever by
the new owner on of before February 1, 1930. iipen so deing, the
Tinemeans peid Leight & Qomyeny the sum of 57,971.18, being payaent of
ali the bonds and @oupons theretefore taken up by Leight & dompany.
As # result of this payment, 211 bonds snd coupons due and unssid
up to and inetiuding November 3, 1929, were retired and canceled.
The general pretesctive committee for the bondholders of bends under
written by Leight & Jompany was formed on the eve of ite benkruptey.
Prior to the transfer of the title to the Tinemans, the “andalis had
turned over to the general bondholders group, which wos negotiating
with Tinsmean, certain acecumiiated income from the property in the
amount of $3,085.50. after the Tinemens took over the premises,
this general bondhoiders coamittee turned over the s2id accumileted
inceme in the amount of ®3,085.50, to the Tinemans. At thst time
the bonds on the “ayne Menor Apartwente hed not been called for
deposit. Appellees waintain thet the soney so turned over constituted
& partial offset to the amount advanced by the finemangs te place
the issue in good standing, Christine 0. Tinsman opersted the property
from February 1, 1930, to July 14, 1933, st which time o tax receiver,
appointed by the Gounty Sourt, took over the operntion of the building.
The Tanemans did not pay the monthly deposits called for by the trust
deed. Bonds 16 and 17 came due on May 3, 1030, at which time
Ohristine 0, Tinsman held the record title. Avopelleant insists thet
Tinsmon acquired bonds numbered 11 to 38 after maturity, that they were
not canceled, and thet they should be considered eaneeled. He
(spp@liant) argues that a freud vos committed on the court in permitting
Tinsaen to prove up these bonda on a parity with the other bonds. He
declares thet if the trustee and the committee were diligent in their
(@fforts they would have discovered thet the testimony of Tinaman wag
fala¢, ag was later disclosed by his own books and reeerds. Appellees
answer that Christine Db, Tinaman paid the semi-annmusl ingtellmenta of
interest beginning May 3, 1930, up to and including November B, 1932;
a
Yi i9ve aedet ase yeiegerg edt Yo Aokengased .eloallil te soLzeesd
ad? syntob om meg ,086L gf Yreumdel eroled. te #0. samo wom one.
te dmenyeq pated BLS gTe Bo mus odd yuogmod, & tdysod. biog. atamentt
sUagaeS & tdgied yw qw Meies stetetensds snoqueo baa abned odd tis
bieqau bae oub eteqyeo bas absod Lie ,taemyeq ait to, divest « BA
sbelooune bas betktex @xow ,GS8L 42 sodmeved gasdulons das of qm,
~rTebay ghaod Yo eteblodbaed edd toi 8é¢tianon evitonsore Lepeney, od?)
- « eXotqutdaed afi to Ove ed? ao bawset ese yisqmed & ddgiod ys aedtize,
bad piladant edt ,enamand! edt of oltit O62 to eeleaett sdt of tokxd,
aistettoyos see deidy .quetg srehiedhagd Ldeteney od? of seve Demawe.
edt ai ytteqety edd sot) Smotni Loteiummoon nintiee ,memendt dtde,
ss%einerg ed? Tove Xoot agemandt pdt rasta .08.080,58 To suveme
beteiumuoce bdee sda tavo bentyt sedtsinage arebledhaed Leroney aida
oald tedt 24 .ameuaatl of? Of .09880.28 To. tawoma edt.at,emooms
‘For Heiiso meed toa hed atasntreqs togek aayes edt Me chaod edt.
Detythsenge. r9v0 heatut 90, LOKeR AAs Fads Ahetalan.QOOLiNNED oS KOREEDy
, teakq ot enomend? edt wW beomavhe tavema od? of teste Lestzeg a
vWreqete edt hetniege aemeaid 0 ealtetedd .yathaste booy as -eunnd, add
vrovleost Kay © Omid Molde to ,GECL sbi Ylul OF .O8EL .f YRawedel mot?
-BUsPLiud aft te aoktecege adt reve aoot ,#xuol ysawed ed? ys betalonae.
teytt edt yd tot belize atieogeh ydison edé yaq fon Ath ememaaas, oc?
tadt Motde te .O88L 4f Yok no Sub emo TS bas OL ebaed - oho.
teds atatent taeileqqh .2iti? brooer sdf Died gomandl .@ ealtasndd
eter Yad? tad? ,ysiqwsean tedie BE of Li doredmm absed boxigpo, aemenhd”
aff .bedeonse beteblenoe ed bivede yods gadé tne ,bedeonse tom
oH sebtod x96d0 edt dtie Ytiteq 2 Aq ebaod eand? Gy overq. of mamankt
tied? at treglith exew eattiauos edt das seteuss odd 2d Stasi? eoneteeh:
ace Memendl Yo Yrowktnas adi sad), QOTeveDELh evan Divow yadh wetorte. —
aneiisqys sabtonex hae stood amo sid xd beagioath sadad mannegmeinh
te ataemilatent Lauman~tmen od? Dded momanhe 9 ea ktasrd rade ee asia
ABBE “‘ sednorok Brlbuload bas, of, Gu _OEGL 9h YH erty we :
6
that during this period Homer 2, Tinem@an srranged for verious pereons
to take up bends numbered 11 to gg when they became due, from the
Oréginal corners thereof; thet slthough the actual payments to the
eriginal holders of the bonds, in some instances, vere aade subsequent
te the aaturity dates of the bonds, the transfer thereof hed been
negotisted prior to the respective msturity detes. ve have examined
the reeord endi noted the testimony of Mr, Tineman in the originel
foreclosure case, and aleo the testimony introduced before the
special commissioner, and find thst no fraud was perpetrated on the
court in proving up bonds numbered 11 te 2 on an equality with the
ether bends. The record supports the finding of the Chancellor in
the original deoree and in the supplemental decree that the disputed
bonds were, in fact, purchssed for clients of Mr. Tinsman, and that
they were purchased on or prior te maturity.
Appellant also maintnine that the committee and trustee were
guilty of misrepresentation and grese negligence, and sre liable fer
the damage ceused to the investors whom they sretended te protect.
Umier this point he states that the bondholders were kept in the
dark as to the defaults, and xs to the fact that Leight & Company
held the defeulted bonds on « parity; thet the committee manipulated
#0 thst the defaulted bonds and coupons in exeess of #10,0999.09 of
Leight & Cempany were paid; that 93,009.00 of the incom in posseesion
of the committee woa used to pay Leight 4 Gompany on its defeulted
bonis; thet this °3,099.00 was lost toe the bondholders; thet the
Committee vorked out s desl by which Tinsman was to maintein the
future payments, but that the committee sllowed him to manage the
property and not te pay a single cent on account of taxes from 1930
to 1934, ultimately resulting in the appointment of 2 tax receiver;
that the committee stood by and permitted Tineman te take up bonds
numbered 11 te 56 uneanceled without informing the investors of such
fast; thet contrary to the prevision of the trust indenture, the
Committee did not require Tineman te wake monthly depesits; thet
3
etoetTeg auekiev tot begaarze aesend? ok Tomei Doiteg eiat gaiewd tant
od? mott ,eb emaned yds sede ef of If betedewn ebned qu etiat of
ont ot etaenyeq autor ot dguosdtia tad? jlesros? ersave Leukgere
tnteedue then site yosonetesi omos al yehaod ec? Yo e1ebied Lnatyito
need bet loereds getenerf sd# ygabaed od# to eoted yStisiem ede of
Healwexs eved Sf -seteb Yliwtem Ovigecqeet end ox golve date tteyen
Lenigéte ett ai mamenkl .xk to wonmtteo? edd be?on bas. brooet outs
git steTsd beowdotss: Yaomktest sd? enin ban yenen emveadootet
add a¢ hetsrteqTsq sew huntt om tadt Bolt bar yronosecsanoo Satooge
eat déiw ytilawpe ae ae G8 @2 IL betadmea ebeod qe yatvosq ad ss0d
ai tolieosed$ edt Yo guthait edt etteqqwe Broost eA? .sebaed 1sdd6
besuqeth ot tat eevosh Lesnemeiegua adv ai bas OTeOd Lankyite eat
ted? bas yaewentl .1% Ye atastlo wor Benedomug 4 fost at gorew ebaed
Ulises et telty to a0 besadotua snomaee
o1sy eseuT? bas sotstasee Odt t6dd antatalen eela fanlieqga mae
‘Set sidati ere hae ssonegligen seers ban cdolséemenenqerade Yo “qestiy
etoetotq of bebmetera yodt mode etotsorat od? of béense.ogemed ont
ed? ai ¢¢94 oTew etoblodbacd edt teds .getete end taieg aid? totet
- Ragee® 5 tigield sods toot off of on bao yetiusteh od? of-ea stad
_ Retalac tase sottinmon os? tedé pytived 4 me ohtod betiveter edt bled
he 06,000,044 te aasexre at snoquet ban ebned hetiuated ent fads OG
noleatasog AL emomad AF FO OOOO, Sd tad? phteq Brox Ylagmed A sdgiet
‘perineted aff ao Yaaquod 4 tdglod ynq of been ane esdtimes sido
ent tedt petebLedbacd eit of teal saw COs000,89 etd? gods yehmod
add misiniam of enw aemenzT folds yd Lash s tue bettew eedtinuos
‘O88 sort sexed To tavooos ac teen oigate © ea ot ten bas Yereqony
| gtovisvet xat « Yo daontatogas st at yaktionss yledemstin Qe6k-ot
shaod qu eist of aement? beteinzed baa yd boote osstinage edt add
toe te etateeves edt salurobmi tuositiw Seeonsons GE of Lf Sexedava vi
add .oxetaobat tert ect To notatvorg asd of Yesutnoo add yteet |
. tadd potteeqed yidinos even ot mamankt ehuper fom BLD odtt
sf
they permitted Tinsasn to prove up the perity of bonds numbered 11 te
38 and the oricrity of the interest coupons on these bonds; thet they
permitted defaults in the nonpsyment of interest sinee fovember 3, 1932,
te the date the complaint wee filed, and thet beeauge of the cross
negligence of the committee, the bondholders suffered the fellowing
loss: 1. Pryment of 93,000.00 in 1930, from income, to Leight &
Gompany; 2. O@feults in 1929 tazes - 24,519.96, 1920 taxes - 395,010.74,
1932 taxes - $2,255.63, 1932 taxes - $3,500.90, a total ef £15,277.33;
3. Fiscing bends 11 to 38 on parity aggregeting °16,099.00; 4.
Pladhng interest on bonds 11 te 38 for November 3, 1932, in the smount
of ©4,610.75, superior to 211 bonds; 5. Pliscing interest coupons 7 to
11 superior to the bonds of the investors, .ggregating 91,524.00; 6,
Failure to take action to collest the debt from the makers and entered
into a deal te release them; 7. Allotment of 7-1/2% to the owner and
$2,000.00 to the junior mortgagee. In connection with Bhis point
appelinnt states thot “for the gross negligence of the committee the
court allewed it and its agencies $6,000.90 ae = reward! 4 negligent
trustee is not entitied to rewards." Susman states thet on January 27,
1930, the trustee, by receipt of 2 notice from the house of issue, knew
that the mortgsgors hed defnulted, end that the house of issue was
Claiming that the bonds on which default had been made were being
attempted to be placed om » parity; thet the trustee knew thet under
the trust indenture, notice shoukd be served on the bondholders, and
that neither the trustee nor the committee should heve vermitted the
defaults to exist up to the filing of the complaint in 1934, and that
the members of the committee and the trustee ore linble for their gross
negligence. Appellees point out that as the bonds und Soupons which
matured Neveuber 3, 1929, the record shows thst sll of these were said
and canceled by the Tingmans when they took over the premises in
February, 19350. At the time the Tinswans teok over the property, no
other interest or principal wes due under the bond issue, the next
maturity being way 3, 1930, At that time no taxes were delinquent.
od if bersdaum ebrod to Yaltag edt w evorg of aanonst ‘borttareg ae wae
ead? toads jehted ened? to anoquos tesrstnt ode te Witolre ad? bao ri
sees e redmovoli sonte taoro tat to ‘taopysamon ‘ad? at athuored bess 2q
e Beets odt %e ap urded ‘todd bas “betin’ Rew ‘tnteiqnoe adé “baeb “od 03
‘pabvo tio? of? botothue erebLoabnad ond seatttemos oad tS san vous tinea
“Bh tighat of yomonat mort .086L at 00.000,t1 to's dames i eet’
bT.020,8) - eoxet ‘bet 86. o1a,be - sonst eeer al ed iuatad Feiss
jet.TVE EL) to Lntod 0 60.008 28 ~ cone? fobs 28.028 08"- bed HEE
= ae 100. O00 ,8r¢ guitegotyae ‘ythreq to G2 of &f cpsyress galoalt we
tavews ont ak s88OL .2 redmevok sot 8 of Ti ahaod ao teorotal’ gabbalt
ot Roquoe seerstat gatonst “et jehnod fis ot rolvoque wav .bte, te
. “400.be2 1 ft galt ngersye “serodeeral edt to ebac od’ oat a od wittaws ,
berotne ban Sredes odd mort fdeb ot ‘footie of Sate aha orn
Bae romeo edt of RE\I~¥ 10 ‘tueateLth i. inoatd tb Seeblon ab kesh hs Gan”
. txten atdf itt bw noltoennes al soopeyton wh ede oad of 00.000,88
ost cots temon ould ‘te “sontyi igen « coors ‘sa eat “Pod ge daalioneh
tami h igen & ‘Voower f es “00.000, at setoaege ate bas #1 bomdtis soo
48 ereume’ ‘ae teat ‘eotete ‘amma “we vebrower of battione . eh Sedeuxt
wand ‘Suet “to seved ode nort ‘eotton s te “tqtooby WW seven o i soeer
' ‘ese owes! to esvod ‘one sods ‘bas “hetiusten: bad hon dtegantunn eon odd ‘pia
“pated orée oben need bed #Luetob ‘olde ‘ne abeod ss a a
“‘gobau todd wont osteurt ode ‘bed jyoizeq & mo boo: ea ee
: bae erst foabacd ond | mo bovess é¢ bétode ‘soiton sortnetal chal Far? oat
add beteterec oved Aivode seé#imvos od? tom dedeie? sid ‘shabek tage
sade ba beet al tatetqnes oe to gals adt of rn deine’ oe cbhuateh
eeoTR xieds baad ‘eidatt ore | Seteuet ode ‘bn GP Fg Re
dotie snoquoo ‘baw ebaod “edt ce Gadd gue daloq eoolleqqa seedeghigad
bing ore seed? ‘Yo ie teat evade itoees ool + ,eer of teat eth gat = :
; “at oselnone eds ‘e¥0 ‘xbet oe Gea si wine old Sadain kaa i
: DRT “> wp 4 ao a
on .yereqora “odd 180 toot eel td we st } <a i
Wee? ei ay oe
tron oil? \ounel bod off tobmu oub any Laqtonteg to &
Hutt godt mated “ws disney sant ge asses Pei
wteoupatieh arow géxet of a a
oe
8 SRE
8
fhe 1927 and prior youre’ texes were paid. The 1928 taxes, s@ a
result ef the reassessment ordered by the State Tax Commission, were
not due and, in fact, did not become delinquent until July 10, 1936.
fhe 1929 taxes did not become delinquent until Mey 15, 1931. The
record shows thet following the general defsult in the payment of
intereat on Hay 3, 193%, the committee cxlled the benda for deposit.
Ag goon ae the committees hed obtained a deposit of in exeess of 20%
of the bond issue, it seted pursuant te the terms of the trust deed,
to declare the entire issue due snd psyahle, and cslied on the trustee
to institute foreclosure proceedings. Prior to thet tige no recuest
had been made on the trustee te file a foreclosure. Under the srevistens
of the trust indenture, the trustee wes not recuired to foreclose,
except upon the recuest of the holders of 20% or more in principal
amount of outstanding bonds. Ghristine &, Tinsaen paid semi-annual
installments of interest beginning Mey %, 1959, to and including
Wovember 3, 1332, aggregeting $36,965.55. (uring the period when Yrs.
Tineman operated the property, (from February 1, 1939, to July 14, 1933)
in addition te the payments of interest ageregsting 36,965.80, the
Tinemane made disbursements aa follewa; #1,745.50 ta Yieboldts in
payuent of oarpeting; $4,251.50 to Hgmer Gros. in payment of the chattel
mortgage notes; $7,547.48 to holder of junior mortgnge, and in excess
of $900.00 on stoker payments. Ourdmg this period all of the income
was acegunted for by the Tingmans and spplied in connection with the
preverty. In sidition, the Tinsmans supplemented the income frem the
property with their own funds to the extent of over $26,090.09. It
wang the additional contributions made by the Tineaane that made posible
the paywente of interest f¥om 1930 te 1932, and the other disbursements,
whieh were of benefit to the bondholders. The special commissioner
found thet eliminating the payments to Leight & Company and te the
holder of the junior mortgage, there was 4 esah contribution by the
Tinsmens of $9,845.17 for the tenefit of the bondholders. fhe
acoumuinted income in the smount of 3,085.50 in the hands of the
re
8
& an ,eexet BROL dT bing oxse gexet fateoy totty bam VEEL oT
exow ,foineimmod Ket eing® edt YS betebre suampaseewex oc? Te thunes
-C8CL ,OL Yul ttnw tusupadtod emooed tom bib ,toek aL ,has sub ton
edt .fSGL gil yell iktau Inoupadieb ssexed ton bib soxast ORCL ont
lo daomyny act aL tlusteh Lareaeg edt grisoliot ted? ewore bxeops
-tieaqeh set abaod aft ballon netsinmee edd ,LECL gf Yok Ho sentepet
_ ROS ta aavoxe at to sieoqsh « bentatde had qeettionad sit an noon BA
shosh teurt odé¢ to amre? oft ot thevetag hetes th ,sueel hod edt Yo
setewt? add mo heLico bas .aideyeg ae eub sueat extiae edt eialosb of |
tasupet on Smkt todt of Totti .egathsoeoty oxveoloortot etutltent oe?
enedelvorg ot reball .oruyolootot * OL1t of eoteyr? ef? no oben m9ed bad
aeneieere? of Seriupet tom enw setauts edd ,eryemebal feutt edt’ Xo
feqtoatiq ai orem to {08 to arebLod edt to saeupet edt moqu sqenxe
Leuane~inog bkeq asmactl .6 eagtettdd? ,ebaod gathastetye to taveme
gaibulont hae of ,O88L 4 Yok gainatged seetetnt to etaemiiatent
21H Mody Hoktoq 847 GastwG .08,888,98) aattonetays BERL QF redmove
ty & £04
ae,
(SECL ghL ewbot ,OfCL ,f yxeurdey mort) .ytrogots edt heteteqo aamentt
edt ,08-888, 989 yattaptaye teotetat to staamyeg ot of aoktthbe at
th etbLodety of C8829, 2) sewolio? aa eteomoetudedh sbem enamagtt
Lettedio 9d¢ Yo tneuyeq Gt. .20nl TOMOH of O8,18S,8) iyattogzee To. taemyed
sepoxe al bac ,oyegtton tolaw, to tabled of OP. ThE.T) jeoton oneytton
emeoni edd to Lie bokteg aid? gadrw .etmemyeg texote mo 00.0085 to
ed? div coftoenso® at hatigas bas saeweatT edt yd tot betaumoog gan
edt moxt emoond odt botaomeleque emementT edt .aolsibbe at ,ytreqeta
‘#1 00.000, 082 yevo to tuetze edt o¢ shat amp shed? ditty ytreqets
sidinseg shem test anement? ont yl ebem stoltudiztneo | tS. me
“nioomeetudeld rsdto put hus «SCL of ORCL wokt tepretas to ef oe
xonoleetono® Iskoves ad? ,atebLodbnod edt ot thtened, ‘20, oer. sotite
od? of dae yaoqmed & t4yted of sinmmyer ont aaktendmate teat Bavot
edt yd aoltidtzinos deed + aor wrest salud Risen — 4
ad oe ahand sd oi. 98.880,80 jtiniabicaitind yout»
|
:
}
.
=]
general bondholders committee, 2 the money of the Randeiis a8 owners
of the property. As the fandalis eade such indome evailable to the
genersl bondholders committee, the latter body had « right to turn
4% over to sr. Tinesman st the time he took over the proeverty. At
thet time ne defsults existed under the bond issue. The special
Commissioner found that the psyment to Leight & Company for the
defauited bends and coupens was made out of the scraonal funds con-
tributed oy the Tinemene «nd not out of the income from the property.
@e are of the opinion thet in sli of these findings, the special
GSommisasioner «sa right. Ae te the claimed loss to the bondholders
in the nonpayment of texes, the reeerd shows that the oroperty was
operated by tax receivers of the Sounty Court amd the Cirguit Osurt
from duly 2, 1933, to Februsry 1, 1936. On february 1, 1936, an
erder woe entered in the tax receivership proceedings dismissing the
tex receiver and placing Christine ©, finsman in cessession upen
the condition thet ali ineose from the property be aprlied on taxes.
She entered inte pesseseion and eperated the property pursuant te the
order from FYebrumry 1, 1936, to April 30, 1927. Her husband, Homer
&, Tineman, acted os her agent from february 1, 1936, to the dete of
hia death, Murch 11, 1937. Pursuant to the court ordes, «11 income
during the oeriod of operation wes applied on aceount of taxes. re
Tingman received no compensation fer his services, although beyments
of $50.05 a month up to e total of $650.00 were deducted for rental
of furniture. As soon as the plen of reorganization was agreed upon,
Christine 4, Tinaman deeded the property to Harriet Henning, as
homines of the committee, fer the purposes of the plan, and iomedintely
thereafter the coumittee caused an order to be entered in the fore-
Glosure procesdings, permitting Harriet Henning to retain possession
of the property under bond in lieu of receivership, and directed the
aaid Herriet Henning to apply ail the income toward the oxyment of
taxes, The coumittee employed Norman 1, #endall to supervise the
operation of the premises on behalf of Harriet Henning, upon «+
%
etsave ae alichaak adt te Yenem Of? ear 4602t sam00 et9bseddued Latoneg
sit of Sicaileve qmogad dove hem silwhass edt aA ._Ytroqetg edt Re
_ &tt OF Ieyix « had yhod xattel add ,20tt humo etabloddagd Letoney
th .Uisaqorg edd rove Aoot ad omit odd. de mews? .xh of eeve ah
dekoege oft .tueai baed ois sebry betabxe etluateh ea emit sods
- al# sob Yetaqmod A tdpted of anmmya ent tad? havol teHolemdnane
aes abavt Lensetoq ef¢ to t9 eham ace enoguee ban ehaed betsuated
“Vereqorg aif mot? sucess ed? to tue ¢om bao aneownt? add wi, bodatias,
fekeoge edt ,epathai?t eased? to Lin at ted? notmiqo ed? te. 1m oO)
-ereblecheod edt of sael bewtalo edt ot eA »tiyte wer toMoteedemon,
how YSte eng edt ¢adt exode Sroppr od? ,enret to saeryeqaen edt mi:
duped. thuerdo ad? dae ¢eued. yYasvod. ode To. Orevsepen zat Wh ROCAEPED,
so) qBERL gL exmurdel BO» -BRCL gL VERU TIT OF gEBEL oh névl monh,
_e89%at fo bedioge od Yxeqotg edb moth emonnt Lia teat mo itsbage, ang,
xom0i sbardeun roll .TEEL OS LaemA oF .O88L of YeaeTdOn mont zebra
to ated one of ,BEOL 4h UrMUTdRT MOTT smege Zod 2m HOPOR aAMRAhT 9K,
— gmooKk Lis gabe Ivop odd of dnnyetwi »TERL gli Monell, gltaoh abd.
oth .90xnd To davgone mo baklage ear solsetago to beineg add, gasmub
atasmysd dguodtir yueeiviee edt no% aolseanogmes og beviecet neamentt
ietaes tok hevoubeb erow 00.0888 te dated » oF ay démom # 00,082 to
wets beoras esx gesteatanpioes to mela Ont ep Room Oh . opeuthant 20
| as pine Sodtie of YSTSCOTS Ont Haboed mameat? 9 enktndrsd
yledatbount bam .raig odd te ROME URL: OAM: FR gPOREAPOOR: EP BP, SOPRA,
ete? edt al DetTedae @¢ of TPbTE aa beaupm enssianee Age,
nokammnees winger 0% Babu} Yesrtou yatsetarm, smgnubeapens erimal
ed? petperdh baw «qaserevinpos Yo whl wh Baoc tabay |
he taemyay odd Dtawot smoons. ode Lhe wana of yakanal RabeteH bien 1
ont oncrzoque of Lebar shaphiitrojadioss iP riagary yh st
|
16
aompensstion of 5% of the gross income. The record shows that ali of
the ingome as accounted for and used fer the benefit of the property
and the first moertgsge bondholders, and that the *inamana contributed
large sums out of their persone] funds. The trustee and the aembers
of the bondholders committee were obliged te exercise « sound ond
honest diserction in calling the bende for deposit snd inetituting the
foreclosure proceeding. “€ sre unable te agree with the santention of
appeliant that the members of the committee and the trustee, or either,
were guilty of misrepresenting the situation te the bondholders, or of
any negligence. It does not eppecr thst the bendholders suffered
any harm by the delay in filing the complaint in fereclosure, fhe
mortgators (the finndalla) were not released frem liebility. 4
ae ficiency judgment vas entered sgeinst them. After 2 sureful serusel
of the record, we conclude that the contention of °uemen thet the
trustee and the bondholders committee were quilty of negligence and
misrepresentation which seused damage te the bondheldera, hos not been
sustained.
Appeliant further ergues thet it wae the duty ef the court
to disapprove the sale, to fix an upset price, sad to direst the
trustee to bid under the powers vested in it by the trust indenture.
The plan presented to the Chancellor contemplated the orestion ef a
eorporetion which was to sequire the property, and the isenance af
common stock to the bondholders in place of their bonda. 874/24 of
the stook was to go to the bondholders and 12-1/24 to the owner of
the equity. The corperstion was te pay $2,090.00 to discharge a
$5,400.00 junior lien, and to assume all coats of foreciomre,
reorganisation fees, expenses and unpaid taxes. The stook wre to be
held in a voting trust for a period of 5 years. The plan was modified
te the extent of (1) reducing the owner's allotment from 12-1/2% te
71/24; (2) the appointment by the court, in lieu of the Coumittes, of
two of the three trustees; (3) shortening the duration of the trust
|
to Lis tedt exods Hrecet adi .pmenni ecoty ad? to 28 te motteemeqmee
Vireqotg adf to ¢iteaed eff tol Deew bas tol bedaueoos gay emovas ond
betydixtag sasannt! ont tndd bas .enebLodbaod sangtiom #exth edt bas
etedmen eff bas eotauns ait ,.ebawt Jenoateq tisdd to two anue.agtad
hae Rauge # Setotexs ef begdido sxe agttiases esahlodbaed edt do
odd gaituslteai ban theogsbh tet ebrod ed? gadiles mi aoitotoah teened
Yo agltoetaee ait déiw songs of Oidagy etn OF «paitbescotg etezeigered,
sT°dILD TO ,OMeUTT Sdt hae cedsinmos odd to aTedmem eAt tedt taekiogge
to to geteblodhaed edt of soitoyélea edt gadtnesetqereta te. ytilwg eter
hazeliwe stebledknod ed? Jad? xueqqn tom egeh th .ooneghigen yam
ed? eetupeaiosret al saielqueo odd gakilt aL yalob eda i etadvyee
A s¥tditdedl mezt Poaeelox ton ets (aitahaeh edt) exetegenon
Inewteq Lvteuge a tects. .meode Yankee beredae ast ¢asmmby yousozkes
edt tet nemaue to aossaernon add tadd ebudonge om ghsover edt te
bre songytigen to ytliug orow eettiones ezeblodbhaed ed? ham eatautt
nosd fom ast geTebLodbnod odé of epemab beau Aoida oksatnonergerade
iaesoon etn) => hnhed ee
xugo otf. 1 Bo tah od? pan gi sods, geuate rede: tandiegdd oo evo
adit teetsd of bas ,eodtq teogy me X£t. at y@iog, enp evezaganth: oF
sorutmebmd Fouts odd YS th at SOrROY exewor, odt Tehau dL of aogwumty
e Yo moltrer sd? Deteiguatage relLesandd, sat 0% Dosmreona msi. oMt
te Soaeugel ed? bao ,yexegong edt ontypps, of. een Aodide most oxeqT0o:
ToRS\ETS .ebaod siedt to aeedq mt stehiodbued ed? of s0gte somes ;
_ te teawe edt of A8\i-SL bas gtebsedhaod siz of 0% of aw loots oxit
© ggtadoath of 00,000.82 yoq of sen soktesogtoe est. »ehiupe edt
setuvoloorot te eteor ils sevens of bre yaeld totant scat
o¢ gt eav doote, edT yaexed bheuny bam seameqse, . }
betiihes saw anig ed .atsey.@ te belxeq..4 ¥62- Lenurst yaktor.e ak Died:
of RS\M-GL mort tmemtesis atzenee edt gatoubes (4) ho gaedae edt ots —
To y2etsisneo sit Yo wasd ch _teyow edt yd gusmtntogae eat (8) 4k8 oR
taut? edt to aolteruh edd, aa
wat Fs,
pur eee. 2
1i
from five to three years, and (4) reduction of the fees af the committee
and ite agencies. With these modifiestions, the court approved the
esle and the olun on June 2%, 1939, and reserved fuling on the
ebjections to the commissioner's resomuendstions to pay fees te
appellant's counsel. in the cases of Levy v.
Gorp., 366 I11. 279, and
Sore., 365 Ill. 403, cur Supreme Jourt reeognired the right of a
¢ourt of chancery to fix 9m upset price in mortgagee foresiasure asles.
While the trust indenture provided thet the trustee might bid at any
agile, such inatrument did net recuire the truates te bid. Appellant
argues thet it was the duty of the chancellor to fix sn upset price
and direet the trustee to bid. Paraphrasing the langusge of the Eryn
Mowr Beach ease, we sré of the opinion thst under the sroevisions of
the trust deed and the circumstances of this case, the Chancellor
did net err in refusing to require the trustee to bid, end that there
waa Ro négligence er failure of duty on the truatee's part in failing
te bide
Appeiiant aleo asserts thet the plan and aale were both
unfeixr. There is ne chalienge to appellant's stetesent that in order
to approve A snle coupled with » plan, there mst be two requisites,
nem@ly, s fmir plen and a fair eale. He nrgues thst beth the plen
and the asle were unfair, He charges thet the original plan tended
to deprive the bondhelders of 15% of their seourity, and thet the
amended plan deprives them ef 10% of their security. ue te the
objection of appellent, the common stock elletted to the equity owner
was reduced from 12-L/2%to 7-1/4%. ‘The junior mortgagee wee paid
$2,000.0@, or 376 of the face amount of the mortgage. He calls our
attention to the case of Cyse v. Los Angeles lumber 9,, 208 U. 8. 196,
(the reorganization of a corporstion under Seetion 778 of the Bankruptey
aot), which holde thet the steckholders of an insolvent eorporation
in which the stockholders have no equity remaining, may hot porticinate
eettionee edt te eset ed? to Meligubex (>) hae gatooy oords ce
Sdt Havongys F2H00 9dt ganodtnoshibom ceeds? A248 .ackencga aff bas
od? m9 galint berroner bas ,G6GL , 08 anvb mo male edo has eden
Qs gent "oy Gf emaltshueamooet a'xsaetsadamee ea? 02 saoitoeatde
nathited sepsecnyoubsoss .¥ Yxed To seane edt ak yoanueo et tan tioaga
Bedi dened sek yak ov dnet Sepeidoh tegkd bas g6T8 4440088 ooG Red
tte teigds oft Dockagooet t1seh smonqué typ .800 Akl GRE.gngmed
eeaiee eteeedpetet enegtzon ai sodng deaqu oe £22 of ersearso to #rupe
we fe bid Ihyis seteutd edd dedd bebivete suwduedad toute edd oLhde
taaiieggs bid of sesautt ons Stiupes tom Déb taemut pend. dowg..odap
eedto donq Se xd? of tolisemado eg? te Yuk odd enn dh todd, sougae
SXrE edt te @pesgned ort gatestdqatet shid of gadeutt os? toendh. dae
‘te eaetetvety sd¢ toham ted? apiaiqa edt te ote ow eee doen med
ered? teat har bid of eareurt ot suhupst of gasawhor at x70 fom bib
qatite? of txnq efoeteut? edt so Ytst Yo aruiiet to amines
ited ster ine has anlg add tad? efteenn ovis tnaiteqcs ” .
sebto mi ted? trometars e'tneitoaqe o vate Lbado on eb red? stistaw
weottetupor owe od fem onde santa * atte ‘pelques oles 8 ev aie ‘es
nalq sit tod teas Bouts oH olen ret a hae asia «ist pie a
bebaet nate Inakg iro odt tot peytede of Vahitay oxoe ine eh bas
ed? fads ban svelxyone ‘rhed? to eet to exebodbacd | od oviegab of |
‘ont of a wehtu0e8 chet? to tor to neds ‘eovinaob as ie gaan, hia
a
- ‘3emwe uttuoe out of betteiie foore nommos ode send teaes ‘te nottostde
bieg ane ‘soncutron rotaut, oat “eet ot R\ESL mort beoutor snr
eR Se
xo elise oH seqeutton ont Yo Ima cost od? Ye © ae to
nf 644gxad Blasty Bea-eteieene® aoe? gos eR & ‘ s
80L of +0 80 «92 sodnist sokepnl got Vv sae8 ‘to vero ods of motéaoddn
ond pelea ot tab. b
cor gureaated ot Yo aye moltens robay soit rrocz0® " to a)
| aoltstoqtoe tmovlocat ae to ersbLatdoots: oar "tad se
otaqhestreg, tod en eautadenor thos on cna
; ws
13
in a plan of reergenizetion unless a fresh contribution is made by
such stockholders to the corporate sesets.
Ge. v. Sertell, 297 Lil. App. 643, (abstract opinion) this court ssid:
"it is a astter of common knowledge thet business men
regard auch intervening rights x having censidersable value and
the ooyment of considersble sume to get them out of the way is
not unusual. *
Gur view ia that the helding in Case v. Los Angeles lamber Co., sunrs.,
does not affect whet wos said in
In this etate the mortgagors, the title holders end the junior
mortgageea have redemption rights, end therefore, they have something
to Contribute in working owt the plan. It is common knowledge that
® bondholders committee may be unsble to proceed with «= plan of
reorganization unless they have disposed of the right to redeem. As
to whether the sale wes fair, the proverty was bid in by the nominee
of the committee for $40,000.00. Under the opinion in the Sryn Your
Beesh caa¢, it is necessary to add the amount of all unpaid taxes to
the amount of the asle bid to ascertain the price being paid for the
property. The ssle bid ef 40,000.90, pilus taxeca, makes the total
Gost of the property te the depositing bondholders sapproxiantely
865,122.13, A considerstion of the record satiafies us that the
Chancellor wae right in confirming the ssle.
Appeliant further contends that the court wae in errer in
réfusing to ferce the return of the 5% commission which wae paid te
Norman Pandall for management. The court suthorised the owner te
remain in possession under » bond. Appellant contends thet the statute
which suthorises the court to permit the owner to remain in possession
under bond, dota net authorise the owner to charge for sanegenent,
The owner wae a nominee of the bondholders committee, Although the
statute does not say anything about compensation, under its general
equity powers the court had » right to allow management fees to the
agent appointed by her. ie are unable to say that in so deciding the
Chancellor sbused his digeretion. ‘e have alse considered the point
that the fees allowed to the depesiteries and to the committee were
excessive. We cannot sustsin this contention.
Sf
US ehas et wettudtetaeo deer? s opeLny soltezinagroet to ankq ead
taunt be sits? ousotd) al .etesen stereques odt of erebfedsoats: down
rbhee ¢1v08 eidt (nolnine toerteda) ,fb8 .qqh ofl TES aifeemon ov ogd
abt auter aliteabieaet anki aan men pe Re pg ay 8 “
a ALN NTO nN Ne Ee om Yae
— .-p2 sedeyi eelonns aod .v send al gatb Los eit tet at = |
.Jietzes «v.90 aust bao off)7 qxnosdd at bise enw tow testis tom eseb
teolmut ed? has ateblod sfil? ot eProRegt tom ont state abit ar .
paldtemoe aved yedt ,eroltered? bas eeddghy noLtqmebet eved acepagduen
fade egbsiwond AOmMoOo et ¢I mete ond two gatston ab otudietaes of
to asia « dole besoots ot eidany ed yam osdt iano # Toh
Gi .meober of sifylx ot to basoqath oved youd essiay not
eontmon ed? yd at Bld sew vireqomq odd ytiet now eiee odd rodeo
Just ave ‘ont ml molniqo edt reba 00,000,008 ‘tot osftinmoo nites
oe eoxet biaqaw Lie to tmvome edt the ot yrneseoen ei tt ean e dense
edt ‘tot bisa gaied eoltq odt aintreses ot Bid eine odd te “a ‘tnwoun odd
Indot ort estan jnoxat vig 0000000 ho td afoa ad? '.yereqote
qletenixomggs winbiodbwed gaitioedsh edt o& ytreqotq ed? to gee,
out gadt eu seltetins brover att to dottawedsmnes A EL AKL BSS
stice of? yodmettaoce ah sdgit ae
ai torre nl eaw tues edt tudt eheataoo rodtwut gaalioggA . ».
et bieq aew doidwe nolecinage 22 ef? te axutet edt setot of galaut or
of teawo edt hesitodtus tue0 ef? .taomegatem cot Llehash acme
otutete oft tad? shastcos tusiieags shned 2 tehaw aokaseseog al atemor
soivsseacs at stomet of teawo edt timrec of trueg Badd ponroddus dolde
daemegence tot agrsde of tome edt setvodtus ten aod heed tohae
(att tyros lA ,90¢tincoe ateblodbucd od? to eeatuon 4 004 tenue Oat
dexemey efi tebay .solsesneques tuede gaidtyrs yaa toa noob stutete
add of esot taowegenan woils of tdgke # dad txu90 oft etowoq.Ythups
ad? gaibiosh.oe ai ¢ed? you ot Cider, O86 9. st0d Yd dotadoags tags
tuiog df bexebienoo oale ovad oF ,molteToadd etd boeuda roLieouedd
S18" sereiamoo aft of aad satenteanes add? of bowolin eset od? tedt
ya a eee: |r ae ee SOC ae
13
Vinelly, appellant urges thet the denial of fees for services
rendered by his attorney, wis unenrranted. The speeciel commissioner,
who wee therqugtiy familiar with the emtent and value of the services
rendered by counsel] for the appellant, reoomuended that they be allowed
the sum of °1,250.00. Appellees point out thet ail of the medifiestions
in the plan as adopted by the court, vere net induced by the efforts
ef counsel for appellant. That etatement ils correct, Nevertheless,
the efforts of counsel did result in benefit te the bondholders in
that the shere ef the owner in the stock of the ner corporstion was
reduced from 12-1/2% to 7-1/2%; the depositary fees were reduced from
€3,280.00 te $1,579.90 and the committee's fees from 12,187.09 to
£2,015.00; the term of the voting trust wes shortened from five ta
three yeere, end the protective committee sas deprived of the privilege
of naming the sejority of the trustees. In First Notional bank v.
einlle-\meker Bids. Uors., #89 Ill. Aop. 188, we affirmed an allowance
to attorneys for bondholders who sppecred and procured changes in the
Plan. «as the @state wns benefited by the services rendered by counsel
for appeliant, ve are of the opinion thet he should be allowed
. peagonable fees te compensate them, Having carefully considered the
faote and circumstances presented by the record, we find that @569,9°
is a ressonable fee for the services rendered by counsel for 2opellant.
For the rengens atuted, 2ll the orders end deereeg spnenlied
from are affirmed, except the order entered September 11, 1939, which
is hereby smended by allowing the sum of %500.00 to Louis Sususn,
appellant, for the services rendered by his attorneye. %o amended,
the decrees ond orders of the Gireuit Gourt of Cook County are
affirmed,
GEORENS aND ORDERG AFFIRMED,
AS AMENDED,
ORHI8 E, SULLIVAN, Pod. AND HEBEL, J. concur,
aoolvron ret eset to Lainsh edt tad? eegtu taallegas ,ylianst "f,
- gremetsetanes Latosqe of? Sedworrewity wow qeiedses din te Beteiadd
“wedtyree sift to euler tae ateted ont dttw dhelimod yliguevedd “adw Gilt
bowolle of yedd dof} babasemodes ytactiegge S49 “xo? Loanses 4a botinady
asotteodtiben tdt te ile tadt tye tatoy ‘pberreagh 360,088.82" Fo.eup. oat
etrotts edt ye Btowkus ton ote (ttved Sty Yd bOdeaDA” ‘ob Aelg” ot nt
cepneledeseyal,otperzen ef, tnemetete ted? »tueliongs sot Sonnyyo. te
riiaccd esebteddaod nf of Seger. ah Shyent B2h Soegupe. tH. eetetre. gat
S86 Mekipweczeo wR gat to Hoole ode at teavo ost to, exwde od? fase
wert beoshor grey geet YRetdmoqsh edt WET of ES\I-EL max? boowbes
| OF OOQNBL,S§ mo? e208 steottinuco ont daw 09.8%? of 00,008.59
o¢ evi} mort bemestods ave touts pattov sdt to. mrot. ot 400,860,589
cuntsiaa. oft: Yo, bovsryeh: con, oOttinmee ora fondant, 26%, 058. sSFHRE. SOIT
o¥ Meh domedsel tort! ol. .eoeteyed at Yo. yttsotsm edt. gatman Yo
vonasasis.ce hoe? ov 88L, 500d 0682 008 vCiae pnble, selonimoliedes
S6t at. seynnde horuscT bas boreaqes ote exeblonhaed. woh sumotte, of
{agaueo YC bovehaes agedvrog edt ys hetitoned saw Stadee 09. pA made
| Pewolis ed diveds .e4; todd Molatge edé to ore oy .tantlegae xo?
ead berebinace ylistores gavel ,medd Steenequad of sot eidanognos
00.008% tad? halt ow ,buooer oft yd dotesserg ssonetamuprto ban etost
stasifecge ot Leeauoo yd berebuay seatytee edd 0% get. eddengarer. ¢. at
| badesgue, eevee dan erebte ody, Lie ,besets eapecsx est r08
dots ,C80L lL xodeatye? beystae rebto edt tgsoxe .bomltta
qflameu®. eho, ot 00,0084. to wun, odd aaben.tn. x4, hebaens, Wend Be sa
gbonaemn of aNpatotia elk yd dexehaot sveiyes edt ok faatioage
ots vinu0d Xoo Yo Fxu0d ¢uondd pdt Yo euabre han RAMEDGh, AAP
Saseigites tet gxtedo ot renee add. eo ieedtes tan weak phoma txts
j STi seat nn PT £1. PR A SOM SHER oat
Sains 284 tet edteanege tuede gaan Yee tom eed whotate
stat com temetnmesllaa vais tah eae re te |
a Os cag OM, bedadorae RS ae
« t or g P ion FP DB aeite ws #2 \ oF
faise ef bervthiano® enie ernd oF wed teense & hanade teiiwousd® ,
my He? «we Tyee ey iia ih par ua bhvodin: ns oat
41120 Na
GHARLES M. ViITG end eazafeau ptf
: Pa BAL BROS
(Plaintiffs) Appeliees,)
Ve
GF GHICsGG,
S05 1.A.497°
MA. JUSTICE BURKE O2LIVEXRO TH OFINION OF THE COURT,
STAWDARD INGURAHCE COMPASY OF Bea
:
(“efendant) Appellant.
for some time prior to October, 1938, olsintiffe orned
and opernted s tevern and night club at £934~-36 jest Ssdison Street,
Ghieege, under the neme of the "Olub Rendeveus*. On the first fleor
there wes = ber and » restaurant. The second floor consisted ef
two six room flats, separated by s selid pertition. fhe flat over
Ho. 2934 was oo¢upled by plaintiff “illiem 4. Katt, an stterney=-
etelaw. He oeeupied thst flat as his home end « part time lew effice.
Thet flat wes aleo used for keeping the aupclies and as an sffice
for the tavern ond cabaret business. The recerd is confusing 2 to
the occupancy of the flat above No. 2936, On October 28, 1928, in
eonsiderstion of the sum ef 2625, plaintiffs made and delivered «=
chattel mortg2ue covering all of the personel property in the premises,
to the First United Finence Corporation. fhe indebtednesa was to be
repaid in quecessive instalimente of 715.95 ner week, The mortgage
lean was made by the issuance by the finance company of three cheeks
payable to vlaintiffs. One of the checks in the eum of £20.90, ens
endorsed by plnintiffs to the Bstionsl Gesh Register Company; a
second check in the sum of $61.95 waa endoreed by them to snether
finance company, snd the woney for the balance of the loan ras
apparently retained by plsintiffs, ss the third check w«a endorsed by
them in blenk. On Hovember 19, 1938, defendont issued ite policy
in the sum of $4,990.90, insuring plaintiffs for 4 term of one year
against direst loss snd dammge by fire. The seliey is « “tendard
inaurence policy, to which is sttsched - Chiesgo “osrd Standerd Contents
wort JANTS
TAUOO LAC LOLNUD !
sQOS STNG “WO
“FOL AT 208
oTRUOD SHT ¥O HOINIGO SHT oan V1.8 EXAUE xOrTeUE ee
wie ot fede |
benwo sttitaisle 98eL st8d9200 of roltg nit soe x08 |
aL hex? poaepes |
|
“atoonte Aeatbell tees BE-DECS ta duto figin. bue area 3 « boten
tool? garit ed¢ a0 ."auevehaos duo" ie to omen. eat what
_,, Ye beteiengn yoodt baooee edt -énetunterr Pgh
xeve tet} ed7 qmottigreg biloe » ys botaxnqee sae Ge
_. pWatOnes a5 5890% 4K med iiee Magadads yo bet Etaligecs |
weodtho wel amit ¢uaq bas ened etd on bass F5at bedeyoog sit srai-ts os
$ATPIS
eoitie me pe bas seiiogus ed? gatqved 39% bons ople pay 825% 2
Ad
edt
of ae gateutaoo ei buenos eseateud fopedee. bane pe nty Me te
mh ,860L , 88 tedasos m0 -oses ok sveds terk sia to eq
ai or at rab
& beteviied bas sbam att isateta 18888 te ave edt to ‘mohtotebs
aacietre 24 aa Se 5
.eoadwerg ede ak etrego%G Lsnoatoq ode to ike yatroroo *uegiton Tere gg 7
od od aon eeombesdebal of? .n01er0gto® sonantt begas tankt dt oF
eangtton ont -deoW Teg 00 8i8 to staoniievent ortaeeooue ai aa
2 oe tee ae RPE
exoodo sends Yo yancmoe vonaalt edt yd sonaused od? yt peg Bede f
Yo aad hin b oldate
06 exis uoado ode *
nee 4 ont to ms aie ° 2 A gee eB crt oy
gE jutscmod tagetge” deed Lonott ou ods of att itatalg pt Les ge
wedtens of aeds yi heatobae one ae. £88 ‘“ mare oat ab a vm
naw aot agg to gonsind alt tok yonon od? ban sieqmoo eonantt
yw bestobas ene foedo butdt sat om yettttatsia ys bentater ytaerngqs
yoilog ati bowead tacbaotob ,880L ,OL todmevoll ao. eles t at aed?
Tay ene to miot 4 tod SPtalela. yaktuent 4000000488 Ye uw ott
_ Pupbaat® » af YOlloq od? soul We syansd dae enol # |
staetaed bushast? btso% gh hg e bedoetia ef doide of » oes + - ae
‘
4
3
Form. The tbody of the voliey centeins « cleus¢ th<t ‘unless othervise
provided by sgreewent in writing added hereto this Gempsny shali not
be lisble fer less of dum ce te any property insured hereunder while
ineumbered by « chattel mortgece, and during the time of such
dnoumbranes this Vemmany shail be iiabie only for lose or damage to
any other property insured hereunder." The Yontents form, in vart,
reeds; “4,900.00 on contents (ss deseribed hereia&) while contained
in, on, or attached to the brick building situsted 5934-36 vest
Wadiseh Street, Shiesge, Illinois. Hote; For informetien only -
The principal business of the ingured is (deseribe nature of gcoupancy
and merchandise covered) Invern, The term CONTOATS sa used in this
poliey shell (except 2s otherwise exeluded) include werchandise,
steck, stere, office and ghep furniture and fixtures and aechinery,
apparatus and equipment, supplies of every deseription; property on
which liability is recuired to be specificslly sesumed by the cenditions
of the policy; the insured's interest in persons] sroperty of others
when the inesured's interest in such personsi property is net otherwise
ineureds * * * The purchese of property on the installment or part
paysent plan shell not invalid:te thie insurence ond thie insuranee
aheil also sever the insured's interest in and liability for preperty
desoeribed in this policy, purch:sed on vartial vsyments.* On Jamary
13, 1939, by authority of » search warrant, federal agents found «
still and paraphernalis for the distillation of aleohelie asirits in
the flat sbowe Ko. 2936. On that day they arrested Charles %. Vito,
ene of the plaintiffs, and cherged him with opereting « etili. Se was
lodged in the Sounty Jail, but was relenged on bond and came back
to the premises. There wee a fire in the presisges on the sorning of
damuary 29, 1939, between 5:00 wem. and 7:55 a.m. Between the time
thet Vito ese relessed from the Gounty Jail, he wes in and out of
the premises from time to time. At the time of the fire the pleaintiffe
were operating the tavern without a license. At the April Term, 1339,
ee)
selwradse exeing" godt teuedo 2 aniatage yolieq edt to yhed ed? smret
ton Linde yreqme® ahd? ofexed hebhe yndtiow at tmameenga yo bebivorq
olide rehayeced betvnnl yeteceta Yas of Sgomeb to geo tet sidall ed
town te easd od? gain bas ,egagizem Ledtado a yd beredmyent
_# egemeb te esol rot ying vidal og diasite Yasumel ede soansdmwont
» eng at cervot ebaedao® edt ".xehawered Soxuead yereqera rede yes
boninémws oitéw (adored bediveesb ex) atnesnoo ae 00,000.88" rebsor
foot GU-PSES Horautin gudbilud Aosee! ont of bedond tu Xo fo vat
~ Yio sektemrotal te¥ :etet atoms Lit sogroldd atoorse dee
ysaequweos to oxuten sdtremeh) el bexunad edt to aesaleud Koqhonitg ‘on
atc? at beew ee BTESTKOO meee ad? yereveT (bersvoo setbasderem ‘has
wsathnadoree sbuloat (bobulexe eetwredto as #90x0) Lite yorson
cVtsaitoem has eorex tt bite stutiawwt ¢ode bas settto .sr0ta “ ote
do Yereqoty jaoltqixoeed yrove Yo eetiqqwe .taomqiuve bas epblitans
anoktinaed dt Ys bentend ‘yltackrtoeqe o¢ 4% Aoraupes ab Yrliioall dodde
atedte to ytreqota Lonoereg at teorotal s'doueal odd jyods | oat to
selwrédte ton ef Yeroqerg Leadersq dove at teeretnt écbdedeal odd monte ote
tteq to feemiingent edt mo yrepotd ‘Yo sensory ‘edt 8 © phenuend
sonteruent efit bao wometuent sid? ete btlevat ton Lisda ania darter
yftocore “ot ‘WHiidatt bao ms Yooveduh BYbetiens odd toves eats Liede
yrewmet #0 “.otmemysy Lettre mo beendotug e¥OLLog elite ai bedéxoseb
fs bawot etneye Lereter ytrerver stowses # Ye werodeu w ete Ver
at e¢ieloe vkiodeoie Yo sottelttterh edt tet axtanrolgntsg bus Lite
sors Mu aeiead® beteerrs yedt yb fad? AO -PECE 0K vod tant oat
cow of .2La¢e & ghbteteqe Mitty mid begewito bare jeri ttaterg edt to ane
ioad sas Bas bnot a@ bestest eaw tet et waived bt at ogbed
te gikerex ont ao weelnong edt wk oxkt & gee oxbat "sho aot att oi
omit ste meewtos = s.e A8tT Bae aoe oore moby red cee 108 eens
s
3
the Federal Grand Jury of this distriet returned ean indictment seninst
Vite and others, chirging them with wniecwfully operating «= still.
He was convicted and senteneea to serve a term of tro yeere in the
Federsi Penitentiary and te pay certein fines and cefalties. On
uny 29, 1939, pisintiffes filed their stetement of claim in the
Manioipal Sevurt ef Ghieage and asked for judgment »gainst defendant,
based on the fire less they suffered while the chettels vere covered
by the insurance policy. The ease wos tried before the court without
® jury and reaulted in » finding and judgment sgeinst the defendant
in the sum of $2,471.00, to reverse which this apoesl is preseeuted,
fhe first point urged by defendant is thet the bresaeh of
the condition in the policy sgsinet the property being ineumbered by
a chattel mortgage bure the plaintiffs’ right te recever. Pisaintiffes
ooneede that under the law, a provision that the inaurance company
shall not be iinble for leas or damage to rersoenel property while
inoumbered by a ohettel mortgage, is velid. Pisintiffs, however,
contend thet the langusge of the Chieage beard Steanderd Contents form,
which we have cuoted, negatives the printed language in the bedy of
the policy. This form states that "the term CONTENTS as used in
this policy shell (except aq otherwise excluded) include * * * the
insured's interest in personel property of others when the insured's
interest in such personal property is not otherwise insured." It is
the law of Tilinoie that an ambiguous insurence contract is te be
sonstrued most strongly against the insurer. fhe rule, however,
applies only in cases where rengonsbly intelligent sen rill honestly
differ as to its meanings If » policy of insurance is susceptible of
two interpretations, that one will be adopted which is most favorable
to the insured in order to indemaify him for the lows whieh he has
sustained. "The rule thet ambiguous language is to be construed moet
stpongly egainst the insurer dees not authorize a perversion of
language or the exercise of inventive powers for the purpose of
ereating on ambiguity where none exists." (Grosse v. Kabghts of Yonor,
) a
tomdone tnemtoibai as beartetet toixteld eid? to sina barre Loreber odd
ttre W gudscrtgo Uiitwetas ddie wont Bikyredo .eredte ‘aa ofty
‘ef af eresy owt %5 wre? 2 ovres of beonednee bas begormoo arn ou
a0” Jesttieas; bre wont nietreo yeq of ban Weed tao ba0% Loxebet
edt at mtefs to trewednde ttedd betst ettidndety bees cee Yeu
efiiahasted feniese taeeghyt tot beder bas ound tad to trved “Keq hota ai
bwreves brow xIeftado edt Siidw beretive yodt evel anit ‘at no beend
tiokyte Hvow edt exdted belt? sow osso ont ‘yal Leg soantivent edt @
tuabaeteb ed? teninge frenghyt bre gatbast ‘sah botiuest has aut ® ry
sbetunseete br Levege etitt doldw eaxever of "OA Be" te, mvs at ak
to dosed 64% fad} ef tasbasteb yl begaw tatog terit ot? ate
yo beredswert yuxted ytrecotg ons tentign Yo2LLoq ‘ode ak caer a
ottitndert jtevetet of tigi: ‘atthtainl ed? etad Oymyetom ‘Yoiskdo ».
yahoos Sonetuet? od? tad? moletvery » ywal ade robo dnd? ebdomoo ane “hy
‘OLEAW YStec ots Lanoeteq of egamad to abel fot ‘otdadl od oe tags"
“(xerewod yertidelels © bitev et e2arni ton ‘Tetdeae. r w pies alas
wore uitobiiod beshans? bined egnoddd od? 20 Sgaupant edt todd Bastnes.
“6 Ybor sat At speupgael botaltq sdt eovisngen ‘besaup “pvad oe : olie
“ghee Ba OTHTTOO ret odd” sed wotate mtot aiat alee ce
adt * * * shufont (bebutoxs eelwzedio ee tqooxs) Linde yoLlog ‘eld
ethetwent edt meme stedie to vitieone ‘Esaoeteg at deoretat e exvent
dh #t *iBeredal Shdetsdto tom ab visocons Linosreg dave ak Yeox
Gd St at Hertnoo sonetdent avoug idan ap teat ‘elomitit Yo i i tag!
\nevewed elit Sat eetueat odd taaknge Ugnorie feo FS THE)
qltesiod Like nex bib kttoodd yidexownen ered eonso ‘at ‘ino. avis Bis
to eféiieeeeve 2) Senetvent te ‘yoiloq 4 tt -yutdioen ‘etl o¢ ig oe ee ae
eidaravet teow at aolde S8eqohs od Like dio #idd “Satna on
‘ded Ud Hird ‘aids Gtb UH did Criidial of setae at saan
teos ‘Bettends ‘od ot of Sgeujtat bucuglima ‘halt ‘shox oat
Yo edoansc ‘edd ‘Zot wrtdvoy Ovidneval Yo osterexe ogeugast
m +¥ Suess)" *seitebne faon oxede pons hisoxe
Lod fag
|
S
254 Ill. 80, G6.) Flaintiff insists thet the rider abrogates the
teres of the volicy sith reference te inevabrances, and that den
gequently st the time of the less there wae no Vielstien of the terms
ef the policy. fhe chattel mortgage cleuse in the poliey specifically
provides that the company shell net be liable fer isse or damage to
property incumbered by ® chattel mortgsge “unless otherwise provided
by agreement in writing sdded hereto." Hoe sgreement in writing
was added to the policy, uniese the ‘eontents form* is to be construed
98 sueh added agreement. it will be observed that the lenpuace of
the contents form upen whioh plaintiffs rely as ebrogsting the termes
ef the polley with reference to incusbrancea, defines “*“sontents® as
including, unlees ctherwise excluded, the insured's interest in
personal property of others, Hence, the insured's interest in the
personal property of others is not within the coverage of the policy
if "otherwise excluded" by the terms of the policy. in our view,
there wea no aabiguity in the language of the poliey. “¢ sre ef the
opinion that there waa no agreement in writing extending ceveraze to
the personalty in the premises while ineumbered by the chattel sertgoze.
Therefore, plaintiffs could not recever,
The second point argued by defendant is thet the less com
plained of occurred while the haserd wes inoreased by means within
the control or knowledge of the plaintiffs, and is exeluded from
eovernge. A clause in the polisy provides thet unless otherwise
provided by agreement in writing added thereto, the company shell not
be ilable for loss or damage “while the hazard is increased by any
means within the control er knowledge of the insured." The raid on
the stili seeurred on Janusry 13, 1939, at which time Charlies 4. Vito,
one of the plaintiffa, waa arrested, The still cessed opersting on
thet day and wes removed from the premises. The fire ccourred on
Jamary 29, 1939. Therefore, at the time of the fire there was no
ineoreased hezerd because of the operation ef the etill. However,
s
od? netagetds tebix add? Set etelend Yitendali (2.868 .08 .Li1 bat
~ae0 tnd? bas seooaer dared of sonerster dew Yottog off $8 eaeee
eared adf to aeigaleivy on enn wrod seol sar é salt odt te yLirewbes
Uiaost kvace Yediog wade ok neuate onsyd tom Lettedo oat .goties edt to
ot eg9mnh go seod tot oidell of ton Linde Ulaqmed oft tuft aohivet
habivety saiwraite seoiau" eany2%08 iettedo s yf boxedawont Yor ty
geitioy ad taemeerge of *“,efered bebbe gattinw wt snomporge Ye
heuttaden oe ot at “wxot etaetaoo® odd eoetiu sVolfog ete OF Bebb ww
te saammast ede tadt bovroede ed Libw #1 “shtissivorye bebe dove ‘ee
Autet Oy padteyotss ca Ver « sttitaisls donde’ foaw fttot efretaoo ode
ea “atuopnoo* neatteb ‘yeeonrdnuoal of vondtofér Attw yotted sd? Yo
» » fd teeretad gt benseat odd bebuLoxe eelwtedte eeslae yyalbutont
Mat as teorstes e'howens ost sonn9k eredto to Yixbcory fktoeted
Wisog Pad To syareveo ont AaLas.tv ton et aredto to reer, LatrowTeq
awety two mi »ynttog ods to antes od? yd “hebsloxe oe brradto™ ¥2
ait to sie oF -YoLtos eds to epeuyaad od mi lug tems on tiew ones
ot age tevee gusbmedxe galtien at fnensergs on mew otedt seit wokntno
-agageton Lortnde edt ys boredawont oka aeetmong ad? ‘at Uetiindereg “tae
, ye +rovo001 ton ‘bluod ettitatalg (exetecenr
iene 3 mit todd et tasbaoted y va ouyes “tndog bdosen GHP Oe
pone ane ow ye boesoroni ase bemeed edd old te hornebs-to béabade
mort Debuloxe et bas sertatatele ‘add to epbelwoad to Lovthes eat
opiwiodto peeiay tet eobsvony eller odd nl sayhio A \ahateroo
fon Linde woqmop edt votsreds bebhe uaitize al thomberge Yo honirorg
Wn ee Reenstons wf buased edt olide® agnnat to eeol ‘cot SLUHRE og
_ eo Dhar oot sbowwent! edt Yo egbelwoad to latinos edt ttdtty anon
nth? 6H eedeed® omte do dite ‘te ees 8s wea’ to bertueds Liidd ode
AG BALIoTIGe beaseo iLtte ot sbotesrzs gow att lease’ ‘oitt te ono
Me beriues oni? a? | anoeinong ods mort bovewes ‘a6 Bian “Yb Hans
on see oxndt ontt ode te amie oat te sororeredt “Reed (82 etitimet
atevewol . litte eng te soktoreno ont te ened emo
MOR ae he aa
Tt . a4 5 .
Al oe ae } Kerr Ss PR Baath yay er a we ey
SRE) EERE RIOR inthe NA here hind an yakiaoee
oa a
&
defendent infers thet there wee sn ineressed hurard at the time of
the fire dwe to the facet that Vite, after being released en bend
from the County Jail, continued to visit the oremiees until the time
of the fire. Gefendent insists that sll the cireumstances in evidence
in cennecticn with the operation of the still end the setivities ef
Vito, show thet there one a moral hazard at the time of the fire.
fe are of the opinion that the fact thet Vito wie charged with a
erime would not in itself be sufficient to establish thet the hasard
was inerensed at the time cf the fire, particulserly when there wes
another insured, nemeély Yiliiom 4. katt, whose reputstion eas not
questioned. Under this point defendant also maintsins tht the
hazard wae inerensed by the fact thet the tavern wes being operated
without s license. it opersted under = license in 1938. p> te the
time of the fire the cleintiffs hed not presured » license far 1979,
ve are unable to agree with the eontention of defendant thet the
failure te preture « license ineresaed the havard.
Fer the reasons stated, the judgment of the Municipsl Court
ef Chicago is reversed and judguent ie entered here for coste for
the defendant and agsinst plaintiffe.
REVERSES AND JUDUNENT HERE FoR costs
FOR DEFUMOANT. ANO- AGAINST PLAINTIFFS,
DENTS E, SULLIVAR, Ped. AND HEGEL, J. CONCUR,
(10 (08 ttt
to omit od? te tronad beesoront an seu one trae arelad smabankeb —
hnod no besseler paind reste soe teat took ond of opb ons? anit,
bal? eff (2800 senteory adt thety ot denn ipaue otis Ven ead, monk.
abaebive mi eabnstemuntto ons kia ance agetent suabasted, pordh ot te.
Yo esitivitos add bare Sitte oat to foktereqe ong atin ‘fedtoensos at .
“eh? edt to omks oat? tn bussed Seven # gen orndt teat, wosle. ORY,
« iitin begrade sew of2¥ gait fost edt ten? medatqo, odd. %o.9ns 98.
‘Peesed edt tast dat igetes ot tnoterttwe "7 Mpeth al ton Biuow omize,
aoe oted? sede Ure Luot tang et one tq omke ade te bosesreat saw,
“tem ene robs «Fuqex fed steed ok wanbl La Vibanm gbotumad redone,
edd dod ne tetaben oats ‘dnabaoteb taiog eidd reba ,heaghtaesp, —
beteteqo gated enw avevst ont todd tos? odd yi bewserent aew beezed.
edt ot qu 880k a sensott a “reba botereqe tt ypemeedt 2 duedtte
-OP0L tot senvotl « Dorwoors ‘to bad etiienialg odt enti att Ro mkt
outs test smcbast ob te not tavtcoo edt Atty setpe, at aidany 9290, ra
“sbusted off Boanoxont oamvods 6 otunone ot omuihAo —
eased Iagtotaull od¢ To taoes but ot sdosate % Cac a wt
HE LHL Y
“get steoo xot ored bers tne et _ Saempiyh | Age, a mutuarenequal -.
“ sattaoatedg Provera 9:3 0 ot
eredo not ahuB THENOGUL Cua GuaRaVEA
ine etre TORIAGS Ghd: TUACEsIEe AGE! OL Hommene es bankasa
anteivond’ #6 Levit ode
= sola “ 0m Gi ona geet ot ELIE 8 HNAG
sunnte Pebde BELILIS Bs Ey Sots eed bowheeng {
rasa ey neek at esatwnx’ of ;
vc doxtnne ede Wavy Uieom
y b zy Ke LU ee
we t
be ‘ i 4 ve ‘ge § P Re. ¥ = Mines Gp Py ae ty rere) sitte: ont
ek i ” F . ‘a
. en gis
i ,h OR we ers Yo £2 eoate te kode “ott bode a val ;
oo me ' "
i ,eeeimeng of? gt? SST GReS ae ‘Wen ab Pane
y 1* . sh ts
q z sue fe s | 7 Ad H over wredt pnee ad Cait
~ i oe =e : i
+ - 4 oy Sge ~ BiG 4 selon r yt
i i + ™
*~
. 5, =
aa * =
: -.
41140
BARI“ VE¥ESKOCIL DOLAIS, Asetignse-a,
ANDREW DOLAJS,
i x APPEAL FRGE
Ve
RUNICIPAL COURT
formerly known e9 LOUD NAME
LITHUANIAN BUILDING AND LOAN |
ASSOCIATION, ;
Appeliant. yy 0 5 J.A- 4 9 g
MR. JUSTICE BURKE DELIVERED THE CPINION OF THE COURT.
GF CHICAGO
Mec Mca Me Sect! Mi igs esa agra re ria” “Hn Meee
oa ix
ACL TIES Sey o
On September 4, 1956, Andrew Doleje filed his amended state-
ment of elaim in the Municipal dourt of Chiesge. He sileged that on
becenber 1, 1931, he wae in possession of certain personal property of
the fair and reasonable market value of $3,600; that on cr about that
Gate the defendant wrongfully selzed the property and converted the same
to ite own use; that he demanded the return thereof and that defendant
failed and refused te comply. in an affidavit of merite the defendant
Genied the allegations. The trial reeulted in a verdict finding the
issues ageinst the defendant and assessing the plaintiff's damages in
the sum of $800. while a motion for a new trial was pending, an acsign-
ment by the then plaintiff to Marie Vyskoell Poleje ef ali of plain-
tiff's right, title and interest in the cause of action, verdict or
Judgment, rendered or to be rendered, was filed. The court overruled
the wotion for a new trial, entered judgment on the verdict and ordered
that all subsequent proceedings be carried on in the name of the
escignee. An appesl followed end thie court in an opinion filed Mareh
16, 1938, in case Ho. 39643, (Abst. 204 Ill. App. 608) reversed the
judgment and remanéed the esuse for a new trial. After the cause was
redocketed the defendant filed a eounter elaim in the sum of $154.95,
grounded on a judgment for costs rendered in thie eourt when the sauce
wae remended. In the anewer to the counter claim the assignee saecarted
that the defendant was not entitled to a judgment ageinet her. Gn
Setober 9, 1939, the aseignes filed a second amended statement of claim,
(
HOARY JASSSA f
ae
THUOO JAGLOL AUN [
{ sAPITTALIDOVAA BAO & OMECITUR
aw { aU0J aa avond
USAOTSY FO | GHA ONIGEI Va ae
Oy Te, ae _
‘Ben ATO Qos or LPR scarce nin, tg nn ee |
-THUOG UMT WO WOIHIGO SHT CAMAVI 2 BANUE ZOLTAUL | AM. okt “a
-stets Sebnome afd bell efeled works ,USOL «> sedwetqes nO” ae ,
Ho Yadd Koyslia ol .egaotdd Yo Psd Leghorn edt Ass. |
to yreqory Ienoeteg wtatreo to nofesestog mt aaw ot LCCL yf tedmpoed
tad? tuoda to no tad? 005,80 Yo euLev totam oidencasss das aketede
ense edt SARS Se Nk AAD OR .
taabiisted ont stiven ‘to Tivehitte ie at eunenensnaiinan
ent gathatt totimev ont Sotivved Lattt ett nen Botned
‘at coganah o'Tittataly edt yatwaoees bas fassav2D wi? ‘tentegs newent
-ngtaes ae \gaitmeg anv Late? won a tt modton 8 eftite 50096 Te kwiredt
~aialg to Lis to abeled LLooteyY siuaM of Yrtintelg asd? edt yoUnen
1g tatbrev mottos to eums0 edt af taoxetat Bas ofttd dyin atyate
beluexsvo taweo of? .beLtt asw ,Senobaet of of 10 botwhaor sPaembat :
berebie has toLbisy oft ‘no tremghut betethe ,tate? weds 402 wolted edt
ot Yo oman outt at mo bekwvina of ayatdesoory #neupesdue Iie Bai ml
foweM belt? molntqo ma nt Ixyoo afd? ban Sowollot Laeqqs mA .oomgli a j
edt bewwves (600 .qgA .ffT b@S ,tadA) ,Sh00S 0% onan ab 880 aL 4
eew eawso edt teftA ,ieltt wes @ aot eaves ods bonaamen han ae
82.0019 to owe ort at mato setawoo « belli tuabaeted edt f
euieo off aedw tuivee ald? at Serohmer etacvo tot tasmpiwt ano
hetmoas congteas od? mtalo tetaves edt ot tewens od? al .
fis i
nO ort tantage saomhut « of beiritm ton ad w taabentan
ahs
2
which was substentially the sawe ae the one previcusly filec. in an
affidavit of merits the defendent joined issue. The couse wee tried be-
fore the court and a jury ané resulted in a verdict for the plaiatiff
en both the second amended statement of claim and the counter claim, and
damages were eegessed in the sum of $2,500. vefendant moved for « new
trial, for a judgment non obstante
@1l1 of which motions were overruleé; ané judgment was scnterea on the
verecicts, and in arrest of judgment,
verdict, to reverse which this appoesl is prosecuted. Yor convenience,
we will refer to the plaintiff aa Merle and te the assignor as Andrew.
The aseignor, Andrew,and the assignee, Merle, are husband and wife.
The firet eriticiem leveled at the Juégment iz thet Marie,
2a asgignee and owner of s non-negotiable chose in action, did not in
her pleadings on ozth, allege that she is the aetual bona fide owner
of the chose in section, and @id not om oath eet forth how and when she
aequireé title. The record shows thet at the time the assignment was
offered in evidences, the sttorney for the defendant ennounced to the
court that he had no objection to ita admission. It was thereupon ad-
mitted se en exhibit. As defendent 4id not make the point in the trial
court, it may not urge it here.
Prior to the retrial of the case, plaintiff endeavored, by a
motion in thie sourt, to proeure the originsl exhibite received in evi-
dence in the firct trial. Defendant, in counter suggestions, pointed
out that the Judgment for costes, rendered in this court, was umpeid. we
@enied the motion for leave to withdraw the exhibite. Thereupon pisin-
tiff procured certified copies of the exhibits. These copies were re-
ceived in evidence on the second trial. The second point now urged by
defendant is thet the court erred in admitting the certified copies of
the exhibits. We have examined the copies and the originale and find
that the coples are exact photosteatic copies of the originsis. further-
more, the exhibits tend to prove matters about whieh there is little,
if any, dispute. Defendant haa not chown it suffered any hara by the
datroduction of the certified copies, rather than the originale.
7 “Ae eee
dC a aaerd
Bie a
COLL
aa ak .beLlt ¢Lawolvew: ene edt aa tain edt wiiontuedadua ‘daw abt iste
~od Beis? aaw saves ad -oveed Sontol tashasteh ent atixen Yo eivabh tha
Titintalg ac? wi toktney a at derkmex tds gut, s Ama Poe ot ont
bus atic setnwes ext bas malo Ye Shanetade Dabaoan Dianen ods ded mo
Worl 6 TO Sovom fasdxotel 002.8) Yo mus Sat at Sonsdase oun Bepemed
staomgout to Suomi at baa ofethotey etantade gon tnemytut 6 Tot fateh
od? me boxetno pew Sasmgbut bas tSsLwrievo exew anotton dette Yo Lia
s20netnevaoo %0% defuownotg at Lueqqe atdd dott onwevex of ,toLbuey
omrttah pa somatane pat of hap atvall on Sidtntala edt of, ween Lihy 6
,etiv Sra Dasdami ots ,olveM ,comphese oft Das.wethad 4* : :
witet Jeid af Jaommbul ett so SeLevel matottiaa serkt oft tsa
at tom Ath ,woitns at escco oldattogen-non a to tonwo Bae ,
sonwe abt> snod Leudea on? at ode tadd egeiia .fitac Ao
“Mie nate ban vod inod tee dee ae Yon BLD Ane ymoktes Ab, 9nddo 4 ad
iia foquetedT .etididze. sit vexbdety of gross. 1, aakton ad? betaob
~o1 ovew natgoo ened? .sttdiexe oct 20 pelcop Destttyen. hewn = ake
Wd beg woo tatog buoper. oft stakes bacoee oft no. cenebtne, ah boviee
to aelqon heLiituws edd galdtiahe at owe tusoo ey, seats
batt bus eiautstve oud? Bua wekgen ed? bontnane grad. oi |
~wodtufi .slaataiw edt Yo, ustgee ottei cfeda Yoaxe 98 neta bee
" OAPULE ob onodt? Motdw duods pxsztes, evo of Deer attdtiina
edt yd mrad yas Sesetion tf avode fon ane as sored
The third point advanesd by defendant is that plaintiff failed
te prove the allegation of conversion by a preponderence of the evidence.
Pefendant sleo weinteine that the court erreG in denying ite motion for
a directed verdict. Defendant then statee that the measure of damages
in an action for wrongful conversion of personal property is the value
of such property at the time of the conversion, and that the damages
allowed by the jury are excessive. Fineliy, defendsent argues that plein-
tiff failed to establiegh the necessary elements of ageney to bind the
@efendant corporation. Ag all of these points involve a consideration
of the evidence, we will consider them together.
Plaintiff does not challenge the atatement that the allega-
tion of conversion must be establisheé by « preponderence af the evi-
Gence, and insiste thet there was ample evidence to show a conversion,
ae charged. Plaintiff also concedes thet the measure of damages ia the
value of the property at the time of the conversion, but insists thet
the evidence as te damages supporte the verdict. flaintiff alse asserte
that she established the necessary slemente of agency to bind the de-
fendant.
in 1925 Andrew traded a farm in Michigan for the real estate
and improvemente located at 2301-5 West 2ond Place, Chieage, consieting
of a two etory brick building. At that time the property was subject
to a first mortgege, owned by defendant, in the sum of 57,000, which
Andrew agreed to pay. He paid about §3,000 on the mortgage. the de-
fendant foreclosed the mortgege. The period of redemption expired in
December, 1951, at which time the defendant took possession of the prope
erty. The first floor of the premises wae divided inte two steres, cne
of which had been occupied as a butcher shop and the other as a saloon.
The second floor was used as a dance hall, In December, 1951, at the
time defendant took possession of the real estate, the personalty which
is the subjeet matter of the action, was in the premises. This property
consisted of such furniture and equipment as is ususlly contained in
; . ath Mew A
bollat tlenialg tad? al Sahay te} wi Svonovba tabog bait oat - a :
.sompbive edt to enmpuobsogeny a yd notesevnce to mottagelta edt a .
30% meitom at aatyaed a Serge Paveo ost? vad’ attediiem gala taal et
aegeusnd Io ervecom od? Gadd getate apd? saadasted sPoLdaey Detoonte.¢
outey eid at Yaeqong Lsnonieq to melastevnos Lut gaor sot 0bt0s Ae.mb
- Segamed edt Jade Sap lokaxovace edt Xe ome oxtt ta regong down, 29
~ataig tas? vougza taabaeted ,yilealy -Sviaovoxs ots yuNh odd. vd Perko
odd bald oF Yousye to atnomelo Yigaseven od? datidates. of be |
sostaxehience a evioval sinieg oad? to tie aA ,ne ae Si
-todiegos mort tobtencg sity ow. womaive -
sdeekbo, oat dads Snsmetate ext wanes tate ton noob Witatele
_ ntve edt to eoaguedacgety « 9 fateo od Jom pam
Hotere moo © vost os ooanstve odgun naw ened? te69.afatant Dae of
ond af egaush Yo euvecen ds fact apheonce ents I4entals...
Stadt atetant gud , Golereyacs ad? to omAt edt Je yixagong pi to
arenes oats BWitatalt .tolssey edt etroqgwe aegamsd Of 2m, 990 ive.
_o7@® edt Bats of comege be Sheen Same ARNE -
oo30. ten. gamt ra shan
= otates tae% osft 0% angtdesn at wet « ‘pehext woubaa aces ak a
- yadtuzanee sogeold? ,eoald baSS teow F-108S ta hetanek atm ames
‘a
pe
Sgr ee pegualhpionyic gr divearsyer oy, os
_7eb od? .ogenitom edd ao 000.5) tuede blag off. AF MT
| ad bextoxs Holtquebas te hotieq edT ,egagtiom edt be aeloezor .
014 odd to molenegneg Hoot taainated edt gauss dotdy ta, RL,
_en0 ered s out etat bohty2 new nontneng edt to wool ; apt,
.sgoias 4 08 adie edt dun gode sadotad 9 as Desewnee od. Pe
ast $a LL srodanoed at 9find eomah 4 98 bit 0
4
saloons, teher shops snd dence halis. there is evidence which tenés
to show thet in the month of December, 133], the defendant, by ite ser-
vante, put a leck on the doors of the building, and thet because of such
action, Andrew was unable toe remove the fizturee. Testimony vse intre-
dyeed that in the yeare 1952, 1935 ané 1855 the defendant leased the
premises and chattels to various parties. The proof also showe that var
fous demands and attempts were made by Andrew to procure the chattela.
There was competent evidence in the record which warranted the jury in
finding that Andrew had a right to the possession cf the chattels; thet
they were wrongfully converted by the positive and tortious cenduct of
defendant; that demand wae made for the return of the chattels, which
wee not complied with. Fiaintiff preved her cage substeantisliy as Laid
in her second amended statement of claim. We have aleo considered the
point, urged by defendant, that plaintiff failed te eetablieh that the
persons with whom Andrew dealt in the tranesetion, had a right to act as
egents for the defendent. The record shows that during the trial, counsel
for the respective parties stipulated that certain persons during certain
periode were officers of the defendant corporstion. ve are convineed
that this stipulation and the evidence in the case established the ageney
of the various persons mentioned in the testimony. Such testimony WAR,
therefore, edmissible for the purpose of binding the defendant.
Finally, we are called upon to determine whether the damages
are excessive. In the previous trial, on eubstantially the same testi-
mony, the Jury awarded ©6060. We have carefully considered all of the tes-
timony an@ are of the opinion that the damages are excessive, snd that
the judgment should not exceed $1,500. Therefore, if within 10 days from
the filing of thie opinion plaintiff will file in this court a remittitur
of $1,000, the judgment agsinst defendant will be affirmed for @1, 6500;
otherwise, it will be reversed and the cause remanded to the Municipsl
Goun$ of Gaisage for 8 Rev TrhAke sos acer aryTRKED FOR $1,000 UPON
HRBEL, J, and REMITTITUR OF $1,000; OTHERYISE
DENIS KE, SULLIVAN, P.J., CONCUR, SULOMENT AZVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED.
eines doidw enaadive of erodt -aliai soaeb pnd syots teddtud yancofsa
-toe sti yi .tnahnoted od? ,{50L ,xodmeoed te denon eft mb Peat wede OF |
done te onnaved tady dae ,gabhtied eft Yo atoed od? mo tool a tvg etney
-ortel aov yaouttaeT .eotwdxlt od? ovemet Of aldanw aéw WeabhA notion —
eft Searst tnabneted edt 86@L baa ESC Sher swaey ot ak vee Deouh
wtav tad? eworle ola toon en? agtinog ewobuy of eLetter dae coateety
-Alettaco ett exwogta of werbiA ys eban ovew atquocts bas admamed bed
tat yatettade od? to actessnaeg od? of siiyhe a bad worhmA Pact (peibhiith
te fouhuos avottivet bas ovitlnog ede qd betaevios Vintner orew Yond
dotde ,alettads ed? Yo mutes ed? 40T obam bow Baamed Sant” {tnabne ted |
Shel aa ylfalinatedwa eaao tod Bevery Yiidaterd sittw Dektgnde Yed baw
aft Beuwhinaos coals evad eV sabato Yo saomotate babrans aobe Hitt
od? tad? datidates of beftst Yittntel tadt ,Yashietes yt heyy tnkde
ae Yon of Sifgli 2 had Holtocanett att ak ¢faed worhah wat détw aeeten
Leanveo ,fetut of? gatwd tal? mworie Bross eat? stanbantes wt i tile
ftatses galt amoeteq mledteo tad? betatuqttn settuse avi oad ton
Seenivnes ota 6 6.mOltetOgTOD tnednoted ent to oxeettto exew wbebiey
"a cau dk “edad Ue Ac ana a
aaaw YWouttas? dows .yroultned edt al Beaoctinen encaweq awoltay ede Yo
Linadaoted of gnkbald Ye ovoqug ot det oldteatnbs |
neyameh edt todvedw eatsreted dit aeqy betine oxa oe ore
~tioe¢ oma of ULlattnetadse ao Lelit ausokve tg eft nt oox9 ott
-so? odv to Lis besebénaeo yListetmd evad ov ‘iin ale We p
"ged Bas ovdnssoxe oun acgened edt dade matatge itd to! out Hes
mow? ayab OL atsviw 22 ,orekotedt (9003 .£5 beooxs ton bivode ough
cutiotiuer 8 duce aids at off? Like Yittntale aekatgo ald? %0 3 = £t 0:
1008.48 sot beanctita of Liv gashaeted tontans taomptut, of (08
AHOHAMIN BEUAD GHA
41147
HOMER D, MOCANN,
Appellee, nl iaicinis
ma: GG
Ve
OF SHICGAGS.
r he fh is
A. 498
WA, JUSTICE SURKE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
THE BOOSSTGCOK TYPE RITTER
a @Gorporstion,
Appellant.
Defendant is engewed in the business of manufacturing and
aeliing typevriters. On July 1, 1934, plaintiff wrxs hired by defendant
as a typerriter saleaman under « written agreement. The territery
in which he was permitted te solicit buginesa rea known a2 the loop
district ef Ghieage. in the fell of thot year he waa transferred te
the west side section of Chiengo. He was then shifted to the nerth-
weat side of Uhieage, and then te the north side of Chicege. in
October, 1936, he was given a new contract, which permitted him te
solicit buainess in the area west of the river between ‘sshingten end
26th streets, whioh the parties e211 the west side territery. The
contract provided for the payment of 2 sslary of °95.99 «a week and
& Commission of 16%, on typerriters sold, "ssid commigsion to be
oredited end paid in eccordance with the rules of the company. The
employee hereby scknowledges thet he hae seen and rend the rules of
the Company now in effeét." The rules promilgeted for the guidance
of galeemen read, in part, as follows: ‘Ordere. 1. ‘Yeguler form
of order * * * to be used by anleemen and signed by customer in every
instance. 5. Ali saies orders mst be approved by the Waneger. 6.
then » concern of good financial standing issues ite gen purchase
order forma, this purchase order will be sufficient, but salesmen
should obtain the regular signed order in duplicate te confirm any
purchase order when customer does not hawe proper eredit reting.
7. Ali original orders must be signed in ink or indelible penoil.
Contracts. 3. Contracts providing for futere delivertes are not
Considered as orders, ond will noi be pheeed Wo the credit of selesman
A.
}
if
Volts
«HAO WG ARMOR
, 9eLlegg’
| v
<OOGTAS To MATIN RSYT NoOoTecOoW BHT
iolsareqros
wf 1 Sere a es Ucn phetanpon nos oe
_ neve ART YO WOTHITO Ser @MRtvraeY wetee SDITeNT “ik
bie yuitetestanem te seemteud edé al Bogeyne ef tratstsd © ~~ mio’ nave
dantreted yd bertd cow Weltminte .eOl .f ylwt 20 .exetbrweqyt gatifer
yrofirtet of tamepotge neteirw « Toby nomesioe ‘Tedtrveeyt © es
qool edt o¢ mront eew eoontend thokloe of bettiwrey enw arf dotde ak
of Serretenert sew ed teey ton? to Lfet odt ot .ogeerdd to fobrvers
<ftvon sdf of bedtide edt esw SH .ogneidd Yo avttoee adie teow —
ai ,ogeoid0 Yo ohiw dtzom ed? o¢ aod? bas .ogrols0 to obin teen
ot mid bedélimreq dotdw ,#0etTiaes wen ¢ aovly new of SEL .teeosoo
tee sotyntdns! asevied tevit off to teow sete eft m2 apsaieud thotios —
. et oetetarrat edie foow edt Lise wentrag odd dotdw yeteorte Adas a
bas Seen 2 GO.38t Yo Ytaing s to sremyad oi? tot bablvexs Fonréhes
06 Of nolectonoo bise® {blow wrettiwaqyt ing (RON Hoteulmacs 4
‘ed? .vieemes ed¢ to ealet oft ative somebteode at biog bis betthero e
Yo aelut off beer haa nese end od tadt eaybaivonins yWored osyoigns —
sonsbluy odd tot betegiomety salve eft *,Pbette wit wont Wrngnod writ
wtet tafage? .f setehrG" rewellet ea Pune ad shoot meme oLne te
yiervs al temotev® yd bseygle has nomesine yt beau of ot? * shee: sree
2 .tepedal ont Yo bovetgas od tems ‘etebzo seins Ltn eB ie soonmitant — :
soadotug ava ett esveut yatharte Latonantt boos Yo ‘ueencs 2 wont |
meemelen td a tuogoty tue ad Litw xabre sendotmt eidt qouvot sobre
yte mrataes ot eteotsqud at “pero beagte salegst edt aiatdo Diuote
epithtor thar OGRE Smad fa aveb Tesoteve msdn w8bro | sand 7 ae
a
on the books af the Jampany. The orders follew #2 sé@parate parte of
the transaction shich are placed te the credit ef the esleswan. Sut
An ¢ase the selesman should lesve our empley, or accept « transfer to
enother branch, he will have no further interest in any centrect, and
no Gommissien wlil be psynble en orders slaced by the customer and
aeeepted by us after he hee severed his connection, even theugh said
contrect may have been originated or @lesed by hia." Starting with
Getober, 1936, plaintiff begen calling on 211 prospestive customers
in his territory. In the course of hia duties, he called on Mr, Seeil B,
Thomas, «ho vas the buyer in the purchasing department of Sears Reebuck
& Gompeny. He suceeeded in seliing 56 typerriters to Seara Roebuck 4
Sempany in February, 1937, and 25 additional typewriters to the game
eerporstion in March or “pril, 1937. He was paid « commission en
these 75 typerriters at the rate of 10% on the sale orice. He again
ealled on Mr. Thomas shout the middle of June, 1937, snd endesvored
te 9e€11 190 more typerriters. Flaintiff left on his yaeetion on
June 18, 1957, snd returned on July 6, 1937. At that time Jseeb &.
Thrasher, who w2e then Ghisage sales manager, informed plaintiff that
he waa going te reduce him to the ststus of s junior salesman,in which
capacity he would be paid a anlary and no scemmission. Fisintiff
declined te continue sa © salesman under the proposed change. He
mainteined thet he was entitled te a commission ef 19% on the sale
of an additional 100 typewriters te Sears Roebuck 2 Jompany end on
the eale of typewriters to three other parties. He filed a atatement
of Claim in the Municipal Court ef Chiesgo on January 9, 1939, and
therein claimed the gum of 9670.30 on the besia of 199 typewriters
whioh he sverred he was instruments] in selling to ears Seebuck &
Company at a price of 96,702.00. He also claiged a comission of
$112.50 on the basis of 10 typewriters, which he slleged he aeld to
the Cruver inmufscturing Company, plus 911.28 as a balance due him
for heving sold two typewriters to the Outlook invelope Company, and
a belence of 95.67% on the basis of 1 typewriter, which he averred he
sold to George F. MoKiernan, or » tote] eum of $799.65. An affidavit
=
: TS iD
te efisq stersqse ge wolist exebto ed? .Yyiaqmoed edz to weet oat 7. 5
twa .toweetes odd Yo thbote edt of beenlg ore dolde nokéonenexd ent
o¢ toteaert « tespos wo yyolque twe evesi bivods semeelee eas sero at
bas ,toettmes yre ai taexetal reddtws om oved Iliw ed «soners wastens
bas remetewe aff y beoaiq gtehte ae, eldayag ed Liv aeleetesoo on
bice mypiedt aswe stoltoomned aid bersvee end et tects eu yd betqooos
ditiw galtrete "mid yd beagle to betentyixe meed evau we toertaeo
atomotaue evitesqeerq Llse ao patLino aeyod Nrdtatalg ORL os
| Ltoed .w me belies ed ,settuh aid to sexven ode at sNtetirtet etd ®
doudsefi etxe? to snes? teqel amdendorug ont at wewal ade 6 a cme aenel,
& Zeudeo4 atase of ered dxweqyt 08 gaiifees ad hebesoeus ou RO airs gcd A
ome od? of etodirweqy? innolttibhs @8 han sTORE apa e ¥ pl ynaqued |
m9 molesimeoe « biog now olf vers Linge to sora at 5 cata
atage of .20htq slow edt so ROL to eres ons ts axed tzwoqyt ay. ha A
beteveshao bao ,TEeL ,oaul te exbhia edt suede Semon? . fe belize
_ MO mokteosy eld ao ted Thagmels sered £ewOgys, orem OOK Shee, 98.
3 dooot omit ted? tA TERE ae vob mo beniuter pepe 7h.
teat Yrigndala bemratas sTegenen notes oyseido medt ace o cM ard ,
dolde ai yaamerineg rolest e to sutets odt of abd soubor of yaton svn od
Weadntesi ode elomgo 3e bre wralee w htag od ee pe. Yioegee,
on .spaede besogots edt ‘mabey competes « 4. ea oumténoe of Dentioeb
vise ont m0 ROL to aolesinmes 2 of f bosshene aw cl 4, Gade pre an
pte bas wreamod s doudeosi ereae ot srodterogy? 004 fenehethbha ga, Re.
smomet ate 8 bodit oH seoltseg redo soudt gt, sertipcee to os as :
bas weees a@ iaunet no ogeonst te txwod 4 qiotaum pete ieee ae ‘ q
“anegdtesayt ool te sterd ot nd ‘os.0r8s 2 te ‘i via fe ms
% foudeoi staee ot yastiee a Lotnonurrtent som ou ae be berzeva oa dodde
te soigetmmoe a begisio oats #. Roce Ab a % an ay eodva # #8 vanced
of aioe, or begelia of Mote bes dip tap )
fy CURE wen ie fk:
OR ROO, ¥
nue <yasqne? soles doolt
_ eat bosreve
eco: © ~~ a >
3
of merits fiied by the defencent denied that the plaintiff was entitled
to recover. 4 triai vefore the court and « jury resulted in «
verdict agsinst the defendant for $724.13, The defemient moved for «
judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to eath separste item, and in
the alternative for = new trial. The court sustsined the action as
to the saie to the Gruver Eemufscturing Company. fl«intiff thereupon
remitted the eum of 797.05, and judgment was entered on the oslanse
of the verdict smounting to 9627.06. This sppeal followed.
At this time there are three iteme in dismte on exch of
which plaintiff claims thet he is entitled te « eomnissicn of 10%
of the sale price. It is unnecessary to consider the claia fer
commission on the 14 tyyperriters sold to the Cruver Manufsoturing
Gompany in the latter part of Sovember, 1936, as plsintiff remitted
the sum of $97.05, representing the commission on this transaction,
and no Gress ®rrera nre sasigned, because of the action of the court
in directing 5 verdict sgninat plaintiff as to that item. The three
items now in dispute on which pleintiff claims he is entitled to a
Commission ere (1) the 2 typewriters sold to Outlook Imvelepe Company
in the latter part of February, 1927; (2) 1 typewriter sold to
George F. MeKiernan in the early part of Moreh, 1937, and (3) 100
typewriters sold te Sears Roebuck 4 Gompany on July 6, 1937. It is
conceded thet plaintiff eeld the typewriters to the Outlook tnvelove
Company and George F. MeKiernan, These typewriters vere aold on a
barter beaia. Defendant asinteains that at the time these s2les were
being considered, plaintiff submitted the barter propositions te its
Chieage ssles waneger, who appreved the sales on a berter basis on
the Condition that plaintiff would agree to » commission of only 5%
instead of the ueual 10%, and thet plaintiff «greed te the reduced
Conmiasion. in the trial plaintiff denied that there wis any agreement
whereby he agreed to waive the 10% commission. He wee paid on a
basie of 5% commission. The jury sllowed him sn additionel 5%
‘8
Helene aew Mittal oft tadd helmed taehiteted ott yo boltt atizen Yo
* af Betivoor rut ® bite tryed Od¢ orcted Inka? ’— stevoce: of
# tot devon tawhasteb on? .EL.0¢0¢ tot tuebacteb ed? sendege tolbrov
hk bite wack otyaeees dese of ae POLDTOV odd Ratbastailtieton taemab:
aa nettem ed? henteteue tryed SAT islet wan « tot ovitnmzed le odd
nogworedd WIMECL .yreqmod gatewtontintay reritd od? of Olea ddd of
sonsted sit mo heregme cow tompoyt bak .20.%0% to mye Bae eerie
Ben6Liot Laogqn etait’ .80, "808 02 ‘pathicinn’ tebbxbvii"te
te dove a6 otuqedh mt amest cords ttn Oxeitt Gate akae ta') °°”
ROL te aoteeionoe » of bettisne ef ef godt amtalo ‘Ytasnhelg dolde
“G6t mheLo sat teblanco of yedaseotane of #t .bolaq éloe bas te
‘gadtutestunsd revirrd edt of blow aretitesiye bt bd? no Holedlmnon
bodeimen Weerlalg on .BREL yxsdwevod Yo oxdq thtFaL oad AL “waeanee
\Woisoeanert sidt no nolssion@ sdt patinendsqid (80.98e Yo mye sat
fuiio0 wh? Yo modtoe edd Yo oaycoed homgteed ors stores enero on ‘bas
cord? of? mort tot of ws TtLtalealg Foalage solbrev « gal
god belttene ef od eutato Yertatel¢ nolie do etuqatd ab Wed anseh
yreqmed syoievnd dooltuo of Bioe erotitwoqyd & odd (1) 61s doteedmmoo
of Bion xetiewsuye f° (#) (WEL yytadtded to dad doddae ede ak
GOL (3) bun ,T86L doen to freq Utes edt ad medteiol X eprosD
of a: steer .e Lephndnngigbpeenoapele tre srr ol
eueLoraY veoltud od? of exetixweqy? odd Blow Yitalalg tod¢ bedsonon
# M0 biee orev aretlrwery? sxed? anced iow +t bytes han ye
stow e@ien onedd wale ocd te tet aaletalem dxsbaeted — selaed weteee
ath ef etottieogota tetted et heetindue Tintatsde ebtediis iC i
we eleed thtted & mo eelew silt beverqys olw , tap, ri 4 sot he aa
&8 yao to noteeinzes @ et ootye bivow ‘thdtmdely todd | oiechnes alt
beouber oat of bootye Vestmtesy toile Bue ROL tawreie popes, wl
menoorye Wis enw Sted? tet baimeb Yridadatg Inter itd at aoLealecos
Staal call Renemgeguaatewnnly sty sa Te
rt ee. toa gal - igs
Mat ke nace ute
sopiok ares): ag ‘hbee
4
Gommission, which omounted to %5,52 on the sale of 1 typerriter te
George F. MoKiernsan, end 911,725 on the 2 typewriters sold te the
Gutleok Envelope Company, or ® total of 916.88. JUlexrly, the right te
the comission on these two itess presented « ouestion ss to the
eredibility of the witnesses, which the jury resolved in favor ef
plaintiff, and we would mot be justified in disturbing the verdict in
that respect.
The chief controversy centers about the asle ef the 196
typewriters to Sears Roebuck & Company on July 6, 1927. The net sale
price wee 6,1023,00, which, if plaintiff's position is correat, would
entitle him te a commission of 9610.96 on this transaction, G¢fendent
argues thet the court erred in failing to direct « verdict in its
faver and in failing to enter « judgment non obgtante verediots,
Plaintiff insists thet the record sresents « ourely factual situstion
whieh hes been decided by the jury. in passing on « motion for a
judgment non obatante veredicto om to direct a verdict we sre not
permitted to weigh the evidence. If there ie in the record any evidence
from which, the jury could, witheut seting umreessonsbly in the eye
of the ise, find thet the materiel sverments of the stetement of claim
have been proved, a verdict may not be directed, nor should the court
enter 2 judgment pon gbstante veredictgo. It is our duty to view the
testimony in the most favorable light from the plaintiff's standpoint,
Having these rules in mind, we turn to 4 considerstion of the evidence,
Plaintiff testified that he oalled on Mr. Thomas, the buyer for Sears
Roebuck & Company, sbout the middle of June, 1937, snd selicited
another order of 19 typewriters; thet Thomas anid “I vould get an
order for 109 machines to be delivered in July, not before July. As
to why he could not give me s written order before July ist, he asid
there was another appropriation or something, they couldn't buy any
more - they couldn't take acceptance or any more machines until that
month. I don't know the reason for it but I had to ageept hie word
>
of retiweey? I to elen eft mo 88.30 of bedtayoma Hote .colpasmmeo
oft ot Kiew svotinenayt & o8% mo BR. LLG dae ,menxettod 6% wateep
od tig it of? .yLeZ® 488,808 Yo Untet = to .yusoned MoLeraX sooltuo
odd of sr toktwoud # betaorety mand b owt, 00nd, Ae motnelnnge edt
Yo toveT mi beviowst yrut edt Moldy .aogaentiv adt Xe YeALtdibexo
at fotbrov edt yatdwisth mi bestiveut od tom -divow ow hag .trisabedg
a
Of ed? Yo else ot tuede eratmee Yetovorsaoen Yeldg.edT. |
elee ton od? . FECL .B yLot ao yunqmed & Aoueoh B1H98 of eTOtimweqyt
diver ,feertos sf moltieoy @!Pisnale YL Moldy .O080E,9) sew sotre
saxbaetes sAoltesener? ciat mo O840L0) te aotesiuman s of wid oLehene
eft tt sakbuev © feotth of gablied mt boxne gruoe edt todd eougee
| satathouee etustede som faomybut * seene of patite? at bas rover
aoltentte Lnvtest Yotuy & mtneneng brpoen odd Pod? atesent Yrssmtess
“2 tet aolvon » ae yetteone at .Yewt ait yd Debsnab mesg wad dotde
tON 9tr Gy gOEDTOW s fooTLh of Mo Qsotherev simatede en ¢Imemgbut
conehivs Yr Beéded edt mt ot ered? TE .poashive edt dgtoy of hetesmneq
(Gye bet HE Yeanentomy yatton dwodtsy dive Yrut edt folie moxt
mings to tusmeeete sf? 26 efvemreve Ieltecam One. tat add gent ont 20
trod ed Divode ton. ,hevootsh ed tom yen goLhrey #,.beverg sped eyod
edt welv of ytub two ef $1 sgtashoney atastade gon tempat « xodae
strleghante BYR ttnleky sae mowt tiyhl elderovet, trom ed? mt yromttecs —
.constive sit to molterebtexoo © ef mzut er ybaim ab eeiot oeadt gatvel —
atest ot Tey oMt ,exmodT .vM mo Reine ed todd Holtisaos Thtsntels —
| petRoLLee Bite , WEL .omyt Yo aLdbla ont dugda ..yanamad & Aoudook
as toy biver I" Biee aemod? ted? yetoddameqys COL to mete xedfons —
‘ef .ULvt Stoted fon \Uivl mt DoToNALed og of semtdoen QOL ser xabre
“bike oa (tefl yfet ‘eroted xento nett ive «om syty tom bigoo of yin of i
Ste Yad Fabreed godt saanatinns: so -aoltateronay#,Foeraes, 195-290" ;
thd Lttny een rdoce oxem qs to Sonedenes. oded Tahivoo Yed? ~ even
bio sid tenes of hed £ dud st not neneen, BRET: * fk ete een
wie
5
for 4t. i teld him I was going on my veestion and I would see him
after I oame oe=ck from ay veGation.*® ‘“itneas further testified that
the supervisor in the district assigned to him «2s Mr. Herelid luhn,
who was his imeediate superier; tht Ur. Thrasher wss the Chiesgze
gales manager; that he (plinintiff) eslled on Thrasher on June 17, 1937;
that he teid Thresher that he hed an order for 100 machines from
Seeres Roebuek 4 Company; thet he saked Thrasher for vermiasion to
go om hig vaeation commencing on Fridey, June 18, 1937, instead of
Saturday; that Thrasher answered, “That is fine, line;" that defendant
paid him 975.060, being one week's ssiery due June 19, 1927, and tre
weeks in advance covering the veeation period up te and ineluding
July 3, 1937; thet Independence Ssy fell on + Sunday and was celebrated
on the following dsy, ond thet, therefore, he did not come baek te
work until Tuesdsy, July @, 1927; thet when he returned to rork
Thrasher told him he ess going te chenge his eoentract «nd put him te
‘werE’as 2 junior esleeman on = straight saisry bxsis without commission;
that he (plsintiff) informed Thrasher thet he had » commission coming
for 196 machines *hich he had sold to Sears Hoebuek 4 Sompany, and
that he, the witness, refused to accept the change in hia terms of
employment; and thet Thresher then caused to be delivered to him a
check for $25.00, less « deduction of 25 dents for social security tax,
Witness further testified that on the same morning, he clesred out
hie desk and left. le stated thet he arrived at defendant's office
on the morning of July 6, 1937, at 9 o'cleck; that Thrasher was
‘awfully busy” and “it was rather late «hen I got to talk to him.*
Geoil &. Thomas testified that in June and July, 1927, he was the
buyer for Sesrs Roebuck é Gompany, and thet the order for the 100
typewriters wes handed to the salesman. Mr. Thrasher testified for
defendant thet st his, (»itneas's) request, plaintiff came to his
office; thet he saw plaintiff about June 18, 1937; thet plaintiff was
going on his vseation; thet he informed plaintiff that he was maki ng
® Ohange and thet he wished plaintiff to work sa & junior srlesman on
3
ais oon bloow I bas moitosay ye mo gaion saw f aid diet 1. dh tab
dem? healtistess soditaet agomtie “.soitadey yw mort Aoed mee 2 aecke
eit Dior .tM aon mat o@ boagdasa soluteth odd nk sontvsoque ont
og59iae e47 gow tedectAT .ch Sods gxrodteque e¢etheams ais enw ow
pTECL 43S scowl mo Tadeeta? wo beliao (iisatedq). od todd peepee estan
#ozt eenigoam OOL tet tebto an bad of tadd tedeandt Slot wit tee
of aeiveinte, tot tedeard? betes ed dads jyreqmod 4 doudeghl ered!
to hastens ,TSEL .8L saul Yohei go gahonenmes mobtacny’ sid ao og
tasbueted ted¢ “yoo ,onkt ef stadt’ ,berevesa tedeeta? todd yyebendet’
owe dae ,TECL CL eawk eub yreles efdoor ono gated .00.85) etd blag
askbuloat bas 9% qu belteq nedfapey 963 yaizeves: eenevba! at sseew’
betetdsise easy bas YehouS a so Lhet yet sonebaaqebal tent 4VSGL 4b yhwt:
ot sins Gu00 tom DEb pol yorohexedd dod? bno.4 yah gadwodlorottme:
‘Mtow of Leatuter of Aodn todd jTECS ,D Yswh «ysbeosT Lleaw tow
et mid tur baa tontis00 etd eyaedo of gatos any ed mad Dhot redenrat:
jHoiaatneeo sueddiw sierd yrelen ddytorze & ae Aawesion teseuh oc Caeinae
gilimoo soteatemeg 2 hed od todd wondecrat bemvotad (Ytstekelg) ed Gade
bar .yeqmed 8 Sowdeo!l ates of Dien bad od doidy eenisoay OL tot
to smrat etd at egmong edt sqeoce Of daewter ,seomtle dt ged ad?
s mid of hoxeviieh ed of besueo mod? tedeavdt tad? Saw genemyolqme ©
ated Yitunee Isteqn to? efmeD 28, Ye sodsouheh amet 400A mgr aoede”
tuo borselo ed ,yitatom Sans edt oo test Dektisees tedtmt peensei
“ pokthe e'taabsstah tn bevinas od todd betate ol .thek bas teehwhd
(ey emanate tet qaldetote © te qTECL 8 ehwt Tho gihewnet nie ao!”
"mid of dist et tog I sede tel aadies gow th% bose aud yi
edt per of ,TECS viol han enwh at dodt dedtsteod! anmodh 6 Lkoeo —
OOL edt tol xobto oMt, todd dae ,yaeqned 4 Aoudeoh axeee god coy:
rot beLtiseos redeetA? «xh. .cameoise edt og hebant ecw eretieweeyt
eit of caro Yitatalg ,taoupex (etmenatie) etd to dare sanders) —
asw Ystakelg todt UCL 82 saub,twods, Meddakssq wee dd godt qeosttO”
guitem ape od Stadt Yrigatesg bamsotad od pede qaortennv abd ns pateg”
no nameeine totavt * a9 Aton of Wintel berets od todd bas ‘egando # ”
on
ith Ae iy MAP 3 ite bance
6
@ atraight salary with no commission; thet he wae changing the
position of plaintiff beeswuse plaintiff wse not axking enough soles;
that he next saw plaintiff on July @, 1337, »t which time plsintiff
declined to accept the position of junior sslesmnn. He further
heckh tied thet sleintiff then resigned, clesned out his desk end
left the prewises,
At the time plaintiff enlied on Mr. Thomas of Seara Aoebuck
& Gompany, the lstter did not place any order. Thomas informed
plaintiff that he could not give him «= written order before July ist,
ag there wae ne apprepriation for such purchases. The written
instructions to the salesmen, which were binding on plaintiff, atate
that contracts for future deliveries are not considered ss orders and
"will not be placed to the credit of the salesman on the books ef the
Company.” These instructions further specify thet neo comalesion will
be payable on orders placed by the customer and »accented after the
salesman has severed his connestion with the comonny. The evidence
shows thst Geare Reebuck 6 Jompany did clisce an order with the
defendant for 109 typewriters on July 6, 1937. The instructions to
aslesmen contemplates that orders shell be ‘nken on forms furnished
by defendant ond that all sales orders must be approved by the
wanager, ond alee provides thet when e concern of good finsncial
atending issues its own purchase order forms, such purchsse order
will be sufficient. The reoerd shows thet Sears Reebuck 4 Company
aeliverec « written order to defendant on July 6, 1977. There wes
not then, snd is mot now, any qhestion as to the geod financial stand=
ing of Gears Aoebuek & Company, There ws not then, nor is there now,
any question as te the approval ef the sale by the “s#anager” of
defendant. It is obvious thet defendant wos anxious at all times te
-8@11 its product to Sears Reebuck & Company. The sale of the 190
typewriters, according to the testimony of plaintiff, was solicited
by him before he left on hia veestion. The sale took place in his
territory, and if he was still in the employ of the defendant, he
would be entitled to the commission of $610.20. According to the
_... beatimony of plaintiff he was in the employ of defendant on
r)
od? gatgacdo gew Od tect yrokeniomes ea dtiw yradee tdyserzece
jeeiee davene gttten tom apy tittatede seunged, tRitaiade te ne 2ead0g
Tiitniciq emit dotdw te , VOL .o Yo ao. Tidakedq eee teomed tedt
reddit eh .nonselee totau, te soktisog edt sqecos of \bamtiowk
bee dash sin sue baneole ,beayleet sed? ttdgnsadg take bebtiseod
os 9 paeateetq edd tet
doudegh ateee te eamed? .4% Ag Mehta tritalele emse Odd tae > cee
bemretat assod? .1ehte wa eoelg toa bth rottas Od? .yeqmgd &
sisi Vink wroted 1ahto nettiw « mid ova tom biuoo ot tode? Yodtmtaty
| Astsive adl sesnedotug dove tat aeltadsqetqgqn of asm oront em
etete ,tiltateda ao gathaid exoy dolde ,aenaelen edd of anettownéent
han p1ebto es berebsecod fom O7A eakxoviced ouutut wh etperines’ tome
ed? Io Bicod ei? ao Anawetas odd to shbeve ef? of heoadg) ed) tan ihtee
Lite noigetames of tons Viooge watt? ssoltounteas ewed? %,yancmen:
od? Tothse hetqsoos has temotewo edt WW. beoadg exshre no eldeysq ed!
ue sowsbiye od? sXunumee ad? dttw solsQoanee ai ROTOVeS eed nanentne”
(ont? itty t9bu0 ae Opadg BLD yasqued: + doudgon erento tailtawone?
ef goltovttent od? «VSL 8 Unb so axetinwoyt (00k moto amabaeren®
bedetatut emtot co mete: e¢ Linde etebte salt eotniquesnon aemesins
ads yd beverage Od tevm exebto eelae die tedt dan dnabaeheb yey
iatonant? hoog Ye a749409 # aoe todt aehiverq cele hae yueganams
tebte cendotu Sou yamtod Tobro SacdommG Ave ets eememh gadbaatay
yam 4 Aoudegh e190 ted? suote broger od? .tqetektiwe ohdtien
acw ened? VEEL 48 Yuh ao sasdnoteh of nebre aatthmemhereveteby
basta Intonsml? hoo sd? at a8 seksneap NA qron feu eb big «ods Pom
wom Stod¢ ai tom .cedt ton, eam. otadt swiaqued & domdeot exes® To gah!
to “xepenain® ody yi eLan edt to Semenann: St ad emmnbtenay me
ot aomte Ife ta. anode, esw inshagteb tad? avedvde dh th. ao 4
OO ont Yo elem of], a yneqned, me loudeot. erce® of Souborg ett tae :
— betiotlon een «tiitnialg te wenktanh ede) of pasbuooom 4 ¥ oh
eld a soedg igot alee sat mottooay ohne ah ecomane ce
of ‘tasbaeteb edt to wiaae, edt, m2 Lidte cow odo Ricbae 9x conkaeee ©
‘odd of yatbroood 06.0194 To moteetumon adt of beltitae ed iver —
7
July 6, 1937. Fisintiff insists that he eas paid » sslery until Juiy
19, 1937, and that, therefore, he was in the employ of defendant
until July 10, 1937. it is undisputed, however, thet on the morning of
Tuesday, July 6, 1337, pisintiff cessed te be « aaleamen for defendant.
At that time he was offered = pesition as junior salesman on 2
different basis. He declined to accept the position. Thereupon he
sent to his desk in defendant's office and removed hia effeots therefrom
and left the premises, The relationship of employer end employee
recuires the consent of both parties. Therefore, it is manifest thst
plaintiff was not in the empley of the defendsnt from the time on the
morning of July 6, 1937, when he resigned by refusing to accept the
new position offered to him. According to the instructions to salesmen,
whioh vere binding on plaintiff, he is not entitied to be credited
with the commission unless the order for the 10° typewriters +as placed
by Sears Agebuck & Company before plaintiff severed his connection
with defendsnt. fhe record shows that the order by #e2rs ®ebuck &
Gompany was placed on July 6, 1937, and thet plaintiff severed his
connection with defendant on the morning of July 6, 1937. Henee, there
ie nothing in the record to eatablish that the order for the tyrerriters
was plseed prior to the time thet plaintiff resigned.
lefendant urges that the court erred in giving to the jury
instruction Enown as Wo. 3, reading as follows:
“The jury sre further instructed by the court thst if you
believe from the evidence thet plaintiff developed the order for the
aale of 100 typewriters te Seara Aoebuck & Gompany by the defendant
and thet said gale was the fruit ef plaintiff's efforts, he is
entitled te resover the cowmlasion on enid s.le."
This instruction ignored the defendant's written instructions te
salesmen thet they aust obtein a written order in order te be entitled
to s Commission, and that a eslesman who lesves the empley of defendant
is net entitled to commissions on orders thereafter placed, even
though he ras ingtrumental in originally soliciting such orders, This
inatruction was cleorly erroneous. Instruction No. 4 rende:
| Miger pa are further instructed by the court that if you
find from the evidence the sole of typewriters were made aa alleged
¥
viet iktaw ytalee ao biog naw ad toads stated Thtalely . TECL » one
tanhasteh to qolame oto Al age Of yoxolerod? yteadd oae aY894,, 904
to gaintom od? mo teat .tevewod ,betugetbaw wf) #2, . .TECL aOh Yyt ittay
etarhasts® ret aewmacies # ed of Bagche tisaielg ,VERL .& ylwt stabeau?
& to ceweokee tolmut ex mattiseg « herelte any od. amit godt tA
od mogauered? .toitivog sit tqecoe of beailoeh aft, .etsad fnstettsp
morieredt apse sid bevomet bad gollto at¢ashasteh at dash atd of tasw
veveloe trie veyolams to Gidanotieios odT momen SAREE Nee
teit teetines ef Fi ,ereTored? sseltceq dtod Xe, sapanee 0g 4 aor
ed? mo Omkt edd wort taahaeteh edt te yolqme ode at ton san ZihQmtate f
Bids dqeoer OF aniaiter YW beagdeoe od aedu,,YECL 9. vwh to gatazon —
~temeoing ot exoktouttent om of yathuooea mid o? hasekta. goktingg wen |
hetihere od of Sefetdas tom ei of yTRitakaudg ao. pasbasd, pron. doddy bi
beoala anv eretieweqye 0OL edt tot Tedxe edt aneiiu aotastmmeo pdt Atte
— moktoanaso sid bereves Yttaloiq exoted. waged & towdpel azees, ys |
“$ Movtivor oxeek YE TebeD att tadt wmode. brooeT oMT,, .tashaated Athy
sid baxeves Viitalelg tedt bas , VEL 4b xd ao bangla ann Yaagmod
erodé jeomei .TECL .9 ULWL Yo yalazom oMd mo tanhaoler Attn mostoonnce
exatawsed od tot tedxe edt tadt debidates of breoat adt at yakdton at
| sbergtest tiitaiade dott omds ode of. ott, Reedy asu .
wet ‘edt of gittvig a1 Sorte ¢euon edt Gadd wey ty daghagtO
tarot ao gatboes Sool 98mnemt aphtnyyzeas
. yee pH inv odd ar bexeteves wiemehene’ ted sadfoat Stecta po) a
ri of setvorye Be lining 0 | te ye od rages proen OOF te, Mee
ine fo aedvedang odd xeyooes of beitiine
of naottowrvent nettine etfnehaeteh ft barony! coktourgent eid
beletine ad of tabto ai wabto aptiiex a akatde saum pear elk |
‘eid? .evabto dove gattielion ini iy ob b Antusmutant2an.e 4 si r :
yabsor > so sotvourtemt. tins re Modtounsans
“way LE teit Pad wat.
begets | es sbem orey. oredizesay 0.8
in the complaint in sesordence with the terms of the emcloyment
agreement of plaintiff, he is entitled to recover,"
Thia inetruction should not hare been given. “‘*e have repeatedly
neié that the court should not give « peremptory instruction to find
for the plaintiff if the jury shawid find thet he had proved his case
a@ sileged in the declarstion, ond further, thet it is the duty of
the court to define the issues to the jury without referring them to
the pleadings to secerteain whot they are." (Bernier v. Jilinoig
Sentral A. BR. Go., 296 Til. 464, 472.) The first inetruction offered
by the plaintiff reads;
*fThe court instructs the jury thst if you believe from
the evidenee plaintiff was in the employ of the defendsnt on
rig 6, 1937, the day that the written order of Sears Roebuck
for 100 typewriters from the defendant was delivered,
dy is entitled to recover."
In the trial court there was no objection to the giving of this
instruction. do objection thereto is voiced in this court. Apparently,
the defendant recogniced that the instruction stated the issue te be
decided as to the 100 typewriters,
For the ressons stated the judgment of the Municinal Court
ef Chicago is reverged and the ouuse remanded sith directions to enter
® partial judgment on the verdict for the pleintiff end agsinst the
defendant in the sum of $16.88, (based on the sales of typesriters to
the Gutleck Envelope Sompany and George Ff. WoKiernsn) and for a new
trial in accordance with the views herein expressed 2s to the claim
for commigsions on the sale of the 109 typewriters by the defenident to
Sears Roebuck 4 Comonny.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
DENIZ EB. SULLIVAN, Pod. AND HEBEL, J. CONCH.
8 ?
daomyoigns edt to earet edt Atte soitebYovon nt teiniqhoo io
*.Tevooet of Selatine ai of attltatela te tmemosTys
eUbstanqer ovod one nov ky ased ved ton bivede Hottourzeqs esa,
belt ot notrowttens Yrotquereq 8 ovig toa bivede, txu00 ot sas bled
‘ gas0 eid bevotg had ed tndt batt biuode wut ont. be “Yitatesg, od? rod
to ytub ed? at ti tend toda? bas sokternLoab add fe beyelia. as
ot mode yalrrotor todd kw vrut edt of souend oat, oadreb ¢ ot two0e ad?
aioghisl . v xokaxeg) "one yond $o4te aistrooes ot wgathnedy oe.
bertette ‘wodsour gent text? oat (at ban efit oe eQ0 oF ofl Lazgaes |
. a tebeor Wetntalg odt ,
sort evetied WON ti tat oy ond _ctoustan
_» fe daadasted ot to yolqme eat at ourfen fue Saaiakve'
doudscA atasi to trebto mettinw ont fade yah “ 3i*
_ .ebsrevileh gew tauchnereh of? met? etotiqwedyt
eee ba Sd Aas,
~ gldt to gatviy ‘ont of noteosise om aay oxo? ¢ twee Lety?. ons A.
eesmoragch afruee eid? at bootov ot otetedd potsootde | on. mmo dtonretaas,
ef ot sweet ont borate noktourteai ede ted? - bestmyoner sashae
_seretiewocy OOF at of em ebdoeb
#ro0 feqlotau oat te smoaybut ont betate enpeacx « ods yet, toss eenan®
roane of enottoortb atte bebanner coup of? bap besrover pA, sugesa?,, te,
i ee
ont chem ban YWitatele edt rot tozbrev oat fo tnompbut Lattreg Po
ot etesizweqys to safer edt a9 bensd) 198.888 to mre ont at tnadaeted
wens vot hae (anata Eiow f 237090, bas vanced fered yt
mut | od? oF as Doseorcxe atorod eveiy brig Mans
? a eyes 0
errr. wri ‘eaumaKan rou, om cxeAaVaA twit banerne medipurdten.s eda
- RUOWOD uh sepmnenpiperipsangysrcs sino paGl
ee, ae ae oy eu “a bh? BA. 486 5 ke ARES O # OF
a ea ey Bete BLS Ce RR Sees a8 holsiiaa on as
ADRK CORTE AES hans"
aes ee why ey
ian ween praknersees te elkn Oa DONeE ie ‘ant "ht Lue
bi Livstniew ob datacenters, oan of Sao
Seite ikl at eee aR i wy Pee GLUE AS GO ors >) SEM, oh poyysnat % :
40795
WILLIAM J, SARURERG AED & £OaGE BR.
$4 oo ere as trustes umier the
JOR SABDBERG,
and ippellant, :
THE TRYC?T COMPANY oF CHIGAM, ac.
Gonservater of the =atate or
Charles .. “ondberg, Ineene,
BR. JUSTICE HEBRL DELIVERED THE OPIRIOR OF TAH SQUAT.
fhe plaintiffe filed their bill of complaint in “Chancery
in which they prayed thet they be confirmed ae trustees for certain
¥eal estate owned by Charles A. Sandberg, incompetent, hich ssid
Peal estate had been devised to the s2id insane: person by his
father, Hele John “andberg, ty his last will and testament, dated
Warch 23, 1914, from the fourth paragraph of which the following
appesrat
"Fourth: I hereby bequeath to wy insane son, Charles a
my entire » es on Carl and Yelle Street,
Nos. 1+ cnyl rip —— my song “illiam end
George Trustees @f fund, The said Trustes to serve
without eae or charge or other feee ta be
charged without consent of the heirs."
and the said plaintiffs further prayed for leave te enter into
& eerteain lease with ‘ol Kegen for 2 period of twenty-five years
at graduated rental of from $1,500 te $1,750 per yenr. Anawers
were filed by the defendent John &. Sandberg, who ia the heir
of s2id insane person and the duly appointed Cusrdian ad Litem
for sald Charles A. Sandberg, incompetent. On March 16, 1939,
a decree wee entered in the Circuit Court in favor of the plain-
tiff wherein the court found the issues for the plaintiffs and
confirmed the pleintiffe as trustecs of the rents, issues and
profits of the real estate so devised to and owned by Charles
A. Sandberg, incompetent. The deoree further provided that. The
| fi :
‘Qeb A.TECOS
qrectent'ai tuassqioe 20: 5046 xtead"DoiET avestah ig Gat ign
atatrae xo? sootunt aa bomttaen od yedt tat hoyore Yad d iol ae
poy es iv Le - Rar ‘ .*
ws he mar * a Peed
OL REY SE HOE (oF aotet
¢ 3% a] ‘a.
seteg 2
‘baste!
’ we eee
‘@tak tote of evesl set beytte teat oteventsneatne’eh sits 46
| auney ovltaysaone TO bolted a YE Mego fo” Mote’ eoess mteewee bo
etewesh .tagy teq O20, 12 o¢ 008 ,f¢ mort Yo fetaen ‘nétalibary te ,
‘thad ef et osin eatedhae® «8 mol tambaore oe Mesiueccpala ,
goths be anthrou0 betatercs yuh add bas agers, see yi?»
e880L (Of dered ao .Saetoquegnt “agtodban’ A epdeosto yy cot
wala ot WO sane 9, Soe L pot ualighsapmoduvanag tk
bas eoumed prin out oa 2
netzads yd heawo ba ot é nt rb caren . )
ent tact bobvorg rit seneed _— moonk ,gredha.
A ale
9
Trust Gompany of Chieage, a3 eormervater of the =state of Charles
&* Gandberg, inecupetent, be authorized to preeaure and enter inte
& lessee with said Gol Keren for a period of twenty-five years
at the e246 sbeve mentioned figure, and the conservator turn over
the rente, izseues snd profite thereof as received te these plaine
tiffs, sc trustees.
Tne decreas further provided that the court retain juris-
Gigtion of this eause to appreve the lease and aduinister the trust
eatate. On April 1, 1039, John ‘. “andberg, individually, and as
Guardian 24 Lites for “harles 4. ‘andberg, incozpetent, perfeoted
his appesl by filime hie notice of arpenl praying an anpcesal to the
appellate fourt of Tllinois, Firet District; subsequent thereto
on petition and motion of the plaintiffe, the court, on the lith
day of April 1939, after the said notice of append bad been filed,
over the objection of s2id John 5. ‘andberg, removed the e244 John
Zz. Jandherg as Guardian ad litem and avpcinted one |, %. Linenath
an guardien in his pleee and stead, te whieh order John |. Sandberg
Maly objeeted and excepted.
The defendant John =. ‘andberc contends that the Oireuit
Court had no jurisdiction te enter the order of Agril 11, 1939,
removing John {. Sandberg as guardian s@ Litem and apoointing
&, &. Labonati in his places, and that the court was without juris-
diotion te enter the order in the eause after a notiee of appeal
hed been filed in the lower court, as provided for by etotute.
This prevision appeare in Ch. 110, Par. 200, See. 76, af the
Practice Act (T11. Rev. State. 1939) in the second srovision
of the Act, wh@e® it is provided:
"(3) an shall be deemed verfected shen the sotice
ef peal shall be filed in _ lower court. After being
feoted he ivanee hae etional. *
This geurt in the oase of vecumeniaal Receiver, Plaintiff
Lrror ath ieee LE ‘oe ae OE BOS iti. Apr. 534
penned. upon a : ae simile in ani to that in the inetant
nefrat? to oteduk gat to xed evra0o0 as ssneots re ca teat
ocak tote haw euumerq of beskrondie od t9+0 unt th
a TOY settvegibantiige Sakekg a elk Yossie Nik Died agtw intel
tevo stud soterueanos edt has ,@xsglt beaoktmem eveds ioe edd ts
~tlelq esedt of Beviooes se teoteds afftenq bas neveet qitaee edd
- saeodsett a6 rd
~atzut ato fuo aut vas Sobvery nae eougeb ft ;
gout? ect tofelntahe bas secel ed¢ evotqds of onuse edad to oilkcit
oe bao ,yifawbivthat yaredhae’ .% aot ,O60L ,f Linqh a0 .odetae
betouttog ,tuePequecnt ,gredhmch .4 asttadd 20% geeks be antitand
ed? e¢ kesqus as sabyerq Leogar te enkton nid grtier yd deeqas afd |
otoxedt trowpendse gtokutat! texk™ gekout£Sl Ro duved efelieggh:
AGLI anit oo .xwoo edt ,orttdotele adt 20 sodton hap mokkhteg MO:
,BoLRt goed bad keoqqa > ekton bine ent ments ,GUCk Atego ye
alol bios asl? Dovones .yredbust .é adeb bee to mottoetse: elt seve -
Lennsidd 1 one Detatoqge Bas gees be asthiawh a9 gupdbast «K |
gistihac® +0 mfok tebre soide of ,baote bas cocky aid at aaa
tiuert’ ej test sbactaes + allel | et bah real
(EEL «IL Lis@h Yo eohae ech nba of woke wis
gatintonge hao geset be nabeery ba yrodhast tb gaty
“abet de nes sy Sl Hal “i
Esoqqe Yo sodden cette saune ext at Tobeo ect rota 4% nodtolb ! 7
saturede yt 10% bobkvort as ,exuod evel ent at both aved Bad |
edt te sav 008 098 .256 OLE 0 ab oxsecas moletvers ats? at
Et
cotabvore bacco ect ad A@eer rated vert +142) tos sotsonrs
Ese te re 4 i re
Uobivore of a fou _
‘eotton edt mosis bodoe? (2)
,esiton tusdtiw he ad)
vutate ss vmrioan! é
BSB.ngA LET b08 ehren®
PSS ee oe
3
ease, where the trial court removed a receiver, the plaintiff
in error, and spoointed the defendant in errer ae receiver, upon
the siving end apppevel of « bend, te set in his olsee. The
appeliate Court in thst case said
*fhe eritiesl question in the case is whether on
duly 3, 1915, when the instant care was instituted
in the liuniedps1 Court, the olaintiff in error was
entitled to eue os receiver. The finsl deoree, in
the case in which plaintiff in error was receiver,
waa entered in the Circuit Court om April 3, 1915.
An aupeal sae taken from that deeres te this eourt
on May @, 1915, and the apnesl bond filed in the
Gireuit Court on Kay 6, 1915, On dune 5, 1915, 2
month after the appesl wae perfected, the Cireuit
Gourt entered ite order providing for the resevel
of the receiver upon the approval and filing of «
G42,000 bond by the defendant in error. That bond
was approved on duly 14, 1915, and filed on July
17, 1915. It follows, therefore, thet the sppeal
froa the final deoree in the Oireuit Seurt to this
@ourt had been rerfected before the order of the
certece Sourt for the removel1 of the receiver wes
entered,
Yhe rule of lew thet applies is thet preying for and per-
feoting an epoe@ek during the pendency of a motion to veoste the
judgment waives the «otion and deprives the trial court of juris-
Aiction to enter any order thereon, and the apseal is teerofere
from a final judgement notwithstending the pendency of such motion.
Uetoy v. Acme Printing Co., 27 fli. 276.
the pleintiffe revly to defendant's contention that the
direuit Court hod no juriadietion te enter the order of Aprib 11,
1939, removing John =. Sandberg as guardian a] Litem and appoint-
ing &. 4. Libonati im his place by stating that the court eithin
thirty daye froa the entry of the decree in question entered this
order,and under the statute it was within the period allowed the
court to asend or otherwise enter such order within the thirty day
limit after the entry of the judgment or decree, This, however,
ie not an suswer to the question that by the service of notice of
u
ttitaiele off ,tevieost « bevomet Sxwoo Lett? edt etesda ated
sornss stevieoet an tevae al ¢xehanted oat betadogge bas torre at
edt .eecia ald al tee ot rhaod = To Lovenygs ae gnives ont?
tbhog ooe0 tact ak tru02 stellaqqe
ao tested af geno et? at Bhs
hoteti tout Pedro tu atant ner Pate eel Fy ta
sew Wrre ? i oe
ai ywexoeh Lenk? on? oS Sovaleee es “be
etevieoet see toTTe a he Thitniels doidw pRes Bopal weer"
saleL a {ttqA mo dayod shonrko oft ak ver *
tuves aidt eetoeh tat aoxt aeded .
# to Q
baod teiT .tette af thebas teh bar
— oer amd pies Be #t
2B St Bi
ait? 6@ tywo0 tiwensd oct
ad? to tebte oct ate ara
dee tevieoe: off Yo [overex oft
“oq bus tot satyory tad? ak pebigan toslt wal 20 elim od? 5 as
ait stsocy of colton = to youshaeg eit gabsub Lepege. cs, gatos?
~aitut Yo teoo Lett? edt sevitqeh bae goltes edt eeylex sasmyhut
etotetedt ef Iesqqe ott ban .ao9med? tebte yas tetas of modteth
eaMprisiocr® Wesel. oe SAO Ra el ees
Rl Rcsanennenynapeitanee
"\ead ath netenstace attachasteb of yiges aTtitatela ea?
ff ditqé to tehte ent totes oF mabveddatin on bat Renee sepahel
~tatoqqe bas getht £o arkbumm os gsedhast .3 alot yatvouns ,@bCL
aidtke sxvoo oss tarld gakteds yo soaig etd at ttanadtd M62 pad
elcit bexedne aottesup at eateeh edt to yxeme ads meek eysh Beata
ode dowalla Dobvey ett atetie poet shinee mr ann Neen
Yab Ystint edd atddew wobto fos resi satoresiio x0 ba ros
tevewad quid sont <0 faves et to vitae Wit een Plat
%o sotton to pabvnns 1 one fh se sane, nodtaeup edt of To Pak
. ; > {
a ee a) ee Oe > year
a
appeal by the defendent an sppecl wae cerfected, ond the statute
whieh we hare cuoted provides that ne appesl shall be dismiesed
without moties, and no step other then that by which the apoeel
is oerfected shell be deemed jurisdictionz1. e are of the opinion
that under the provigion of the etstute cuoted, the acneal was
perfected, but the plaintiffs still ures thet the order in question
was entered before 2 eupersedens bond was sicned by the defendant
and approved by the court. “hile it is true that in order te step
operation of the judement er deeree 5 suversedens must be sranted
and bond signed, #till that does not affect 2 deeree shers an
appeal hae been taken, ac wee done in the instent esge. This is
set out by the provisics of Par. 206, Jee. 82, th. 110 of the
Civil Practice Act, where it ie orovided, in part:
"an appeal te the Appellate or Supreme Court ghail
operate ae & supersedeas only if and when the appeliant,
ine weasensbae aupent 96 secure tke alverse party.
So, under the foots in this oaze it ic apparent thet an sppecal
was taken but no supercedess wos granted until the eourt ordered
that « supersedess be eranted usem the exceution by the det endant
of a bond, which wee after the date when the order in mueetion was
entered. An appesl may be availed of even though « supersedes
may not be granted, and if that is so it would seem that the comrt
would be without jurisdiction to remove the oarties who sre apreal-
ing, woon the motion ef one of the adverse parties. In doing so
the court would be depriving the party litigant of the right to
appeal, ae provided for by law, and since the appesl was pending
the court erred in entertaining the «otion to remove the defendant
John ©, ‘andberg ae Guardian ad Litem of Sharles 4. Jandberg, pon
ropes mentig.,
The defendant contends that the Circuit Court hed no juris-
@ietion to consider the complaint filed by the pleintiffe or grant
4
etutats edd has ibetortens omer Levens ae tashaereb asta we Eseqes
beeatmess ad {Sede Laeqge on tet sebivere hesaun evel ow dotete
Levene ett dodite yt sone nods texdto qete on hae colton fuosittw
soiniqe edt te exe of Snaektotbertt homosh af ILera hotest req of
cow Emsage osit ,betoup efutste edt to aetetvosc, ett weha tad
noltosus mh unbee at tact opt. f1tte atti¢ntale ent ted. gbetootred
fushcetes edt yd Seante saw bod oxobeersque « exoted bovetae caw
qota of seid at tad? omst at of eLhdi stiw0o ett YS dovercae bas
betueny ef fem enebeetecte a oenveh zo Menstwt edt Yo. mobteteqo
ae etoile voused = footts toa aveh sant L4tse ydamain hod has
ak adcit oso fustent oxi af ongh now nn .aeta ased ned Lasqqn -
add 20 OLE AO {8B sbOP BOE stat te nokebvorg add! ys tuo tor 3
“sung at ceanaap samahgprsinae thay: & |
sdieiot Lenges nA"
Sexebre t1uoo eft [ttn fetmets wow nesdentequm ea tud aedet asw
tasbas eb et? yS aottwoere of¢ moqy hetnsty od saehemtoqam e tadt
csv woltwemp ct sehio sat sete etah out Tete exw dodde yhaed s bo
ssoheateque o mayo? move to Sefkeve ad yom Loeque a4 .hevetae
@imeo edt fect? ames Sivow tl of af tett Bt fan ,hetacm od toa yan
~{eeqqs et ow nettro edt Svoeee Gi mottethattut guodtie ad diver
08 gaieh al .eetitaq eetevhs od? to sae to mottom edt moqu agit
OF tigit edt to taagttls yturq att gatvinged od bine tee edt
~ gabhaog cov Seoqqe edt somite tas yeal ys tet bebiverq as ,feoqge
taabacteh edt evessr Ot aottan elt yuintatrotas ak dexto treo edt
gon aaea ‘A PNR Rehm ADAMI os ediceahd
“Atitw} om Sex Sev00 tiwongO ene fest obastaes tmakuoted ed? |.
ruaneIAPUNINMNN iS aa ton ;
6 eodins 2 vies wit qi tate sehianey emf of ceveme ae heal “ad F
5
the relief prayed for, and urges that it ie essential in the
creation of a teetamentary trust thet the teststor adequately
indieate by the terms of his will his intention te oreste euch a
trust by using leneunce sufficient te sever the legsl from the
equitable estete, and with such certainty ae to identify the
beneficiaries of the property owt of which the trust is to take
effect.
Ghen e@ come to consider the Fourth Paracresh ef the last
will and testament of Beis John Sandberg, deceased, we find the
will providee that the testator conveyed to his income son, Charles
A. Gandberg, his entire proserty om Carl and Yelle ‘treet, Nos,
1-7 Carl Street, in Chiesge, and then provides that the testator's
eons William and George are to be the trustees of the income which
ie received from tie building and lend in mestion.
While it is true thet this provision dees not set forth in
mach detail the purposes of this provision, it is apparent thet
the testator wished that his insane son shoul’ fecsive the property
in question and thet the funds derive? from this property vere to be
used for the benefit of this son, and that this fund waste be
administered by hie sone whe are named trustess of this fund.
The comtt, in the consiferastion of thie question, provided
by the decres which was entered that the Trust Cowpany of Chicage,
a8 conservater of the Ustate of Charles 4- Sandberg, incompetent,
and ae sueh the owner of the fee, preeeed to vroeure the proper
authorization to enter into and execute a lease with Gol Kegen upon
the aforessid rental terms provided for by this proposed lease. The
proposed lease provides that $1500 per year is to be said for the
first five years; $1560 per year for the second five years;
$1620 per year for the third five years; $1680 per year for the
‘fourth five years, and $1760 per year for the last five years, and
it mast be considered that by the entry of the decree the court
approved ef the terse of this lease, for it is further provided
a
ed? ak Inldméese at th ter? eegus bac ysot deysxq rehlon edt
‘elotaupebs Totedest oft dactt sowtt Yrodmematend 2 to Makbeeso
a flow otesus of nottuetat aid Litw ald to amzed éd¢ yd otsotbal
od? wovt fogof ea? toven of tastotttus egausanl gatew yd tound
eet ythtasbs of en yrutcdnen dou déiw han yetston eftiattupe
eat of at tuarst exit dolsis to two yeeeqong aa? te aw
tent on? to deetgrie4 détwot edt rehtenoo of emo ow andl
oa? batt ow ,beneeosh ygxodhuct adol afek te dmomntret ban Lihw
aeLxesfd soe surath aitt of boyevaoo xotsteed edt tale esbtvorg the
nol ,teerse fier bas S209 mo ytseqonq otktae abd redbase «:
stxotsteed af? gait aebtvera edt han yoseoidd ak .#eoxt8 Saad hes :
foie omoont ox? 10 sosdeind oat of of oxs oprob0 bas mabLItW onde
ge eteekenane sb bak ban pabbLtid os woth bevigoox et
Pe eT AW TINT, oad nnd ab $b otbath
tad gacxeces et #2 yuodatvors ald? to eeeeqnim, alt, Leth dow
yiroqory eft? evionet Ofind= gos ensnnd eid todt Dodade weteateot edt
od ot stew YtmNqone AlAs mex? Sevined about edt tact bas aoddoaup, ah
| od otanw bavt efad eae bua aon sidt Yo thtoned edt gek boaw
bebivove yedteoup sist to eitaxetinace aft ak atte off...
Get
gSRHOLMO TO YRequE? gauet sett sad? honetae eew soln eomosh oxtt yd
shantecmonnt eBtadbask +A sefraid te tated edt 30 qetevreRsCD a8 .
ISGeTG ee eTuBOTG OF homnoTe yet ad? to Teawe ed? down ee bas
tog BO2OX Lof Attu sosel s etuoume hae ossh TOfae of aoisentrodtus
ai? .sansi henogqneq ridt yt wet Sebiveng aunet Lotaen Btesorete ont
‘elt mot Bie ed of ak toy req OORL? ted? eebhveta exael honogorg
jetasy evit haeoes edt sot xany teq G8ELR jexany evs? fond?
aif rot resy Taq CGRME poTaSy erst Oadit enter eeoy meq OGOLS
tev ea eonach ot 26 atom wt x6 tate berabtenco foun #4
hoSivenq sodtayt of th tot ,oaeet ald? to swret ont to bo
bist =) a nil
8
that the Trust Company of Chiesro as conservater of the Tetate
of Ghorles 4. “sndberg, incempetent, upon receipt of the said
rentale ia to turn over the fund te Villian J. Sandberg and
George |. fandberg, ae truetece under the last vill snd testament
ef Nels John Sandberg, deceased. .
it was the intention of the teetator in the execution of
thie lest will and testement to srevide a fund te be used for
the benefit of Charles A. Sandberg, incompetent, and that, in a
meauure, is indicated by the fact thet the two sons whe are to
act in the distribution of the fund are not to receive any pay
or remuneration for their services.
The general rule is that the words "trust" and tructees, *
are effective in creating a trust but are not necesenry. If the
will by ite terme es s whole shows = ourposs of creating a trust,
though no special words are used, it is sufficient, md if it
Clearly 2ppears from the terme of the decument that it was the ine
tention of the testator to create a trust for 2 lawful purpose ané
for the management of the estate, such purrose will be approved by
the courts,
One of the esses cited in suppert of this contention is
Wimbugh v. Himbush, 2535 111. 407, where the “upreme Court held
that even though the first paragranh of a will, standing alone,
vests the widow with an absolute fee., yet if « subsequent para-_
graph clearly shows that the testator's intention waa to creste
trust estate for the benefit of the widow and hie children, inolud-
ing those of a former wife, the will should be construed as cresting
such trust estate and not as giving the widow an absolute fee.
When we consider the findings of the court upon the
character of the improvement, we find this:
Pa ci Serre
in the character of the neighborhood, and DS as S watidine
eaid premisss has become an * undesirable type of
build » and that the physiesl croperty itself is in 2
etageil sd? To totevieenEn as Ogegld? To yRnguod south oat, tent
bisa odt Yo tqtoonx aequ ,tuodequooas .ytedban’ «A. nefnadg. te
bas giedhas® .. wohl ot deat od? rove atut ot ah skatans
snametaat has Litw. tert et rohan egegeny?, as, .gxedhant, A opsee®
-heacooed ,gredbast aol sek to
to aottuoexs edt al twetetaat act to agdtawtat odd ogy FT pogo. 4
<0% Beas od of hawt 2 ebivete of tmomateod han LItw taglohd?
$ af ,tedt bas ,taeteqmeos: ,pxedhaat .A aolxasd, to. thtened edt
Of 1s. ents Gaon ont oA? toad ton old yt Rotsekbal at yoummene
Yeo Ys evisest of ton oe hawt edt to aoltudiatath odt at toe
saeotvxon thet ret soltenemuet te
Negeiibiatl shi Rieceith Aibmensiith Gilt a stl tials a tos
odt 21. .yteneccen fog are ted taunt & gadteekn ak oydtoette ote |
steuxt © gaissoup to gnogung 4 anode efedty.o ea -emget athiyd ifaw
~i orf new th tod? taonwoeb edt Te eures adit most axseqqs yLte—sa
has seoatug Iutwol s 10% teund 6 etegte of xetetaet oft ko acstaet
xd bevoiggs od Liiw seoqzug hcatinatteaniiaeiatiemaii inte
te @s2ened anttureo edt
ad poreenenan ante, to, ameateiette cenendethdrattiinandiie
bled t1y02 emerges: dt oxede ,TOb LL] 685 ,Gamdmks «v doudetl
| sbaoksqgtthaats itis 2 to dootpeneg #eXlt od Mywad? weve tadt
9 etsatD of sev goktaodal s'xetetas? ed? tact auntie yineedtodqesy
wbulont ,fothitde aid bao wohky adé to shtead edt not otetog dnarnt
Btiseote Ba Dewrtzanoe of DLuode Like act ,ettw tome? 2 Yo eeedt yak
80% etarhonds as wobkn od? omiven 08 toa, hae eteges sewed dgwe
edt woqu @tv00 90% to aanttath, ott: wantiinrg tents on
@ilapidated and run down condition now cecupied by 2 elsss
of tenants who are unable to pay substantial rents, hos
become unproductive, ond the net inoose has diminiahed
rapidly; that the grees income for the year ending
= as 1938, amounted to $1,395, and the net income
Thenthe court, as we have slresdy indiested in thie opinion,
found the rental to be received for esch of the years during the
continuance of the term to be fair and reasonoble and to the best
interest of the estate of Charles 4. Sondberg, incompetent. It
is to be noted that in the deorse the sourt retained jurisdicticn
for the purpose of administering the aforessid trust estate.
| Under the circumstances as they spoear from this record,
the court did not err in entering the deerece in cuecstion.
| Other sucstions have beém reised, but se do not consider
them important, and for the recsonus stated, the deoree is effirmed
in psrt and reversed in port.
| DECREE AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVEASED
ik PART,
DENIS &. SULLIVAN, FP. J, SONCUHS
BURKE, J. SPECIALLY GONCUR?ING:
I agree that the dec me should be affirmed. I om of
the opinion, however, that ‘he chancellor hed the right to remove
the person then scting os cusrdian ag litem and te appoint a
suceés<or gusrdion ad jitem in his etend. Furthermore, the chine
e@llor could act until the supersedess bond ws filed. It will
be remembered alse that the notice of appeal does not (and, of
course, could not) assign error ac te the removal of the quardien.
Aposrently, there was no eppeal from the order removing the guar-
dian, Henee, the former gusrdien ad Litem io in no position to
aesign or argue any errors here. The caces he relics em sre under
the former practies. Then the prosecution of an oppeal{ ar dis-
tinewiehed from a writ of errer) wos dependent on the approvel
of a bond within the time limited, Then the ease was in the
same position as if a supersedesas hed been granted. Under the old
practice where the litigant sued out a writ of errer, he was not
ny eave sltmetedse ratnaone th ~~ BA ot ‘oan aceatiaa ow etneme?s %
jae ban oe om? tot tasi a oe |
esorat gog ad? Dow ‘aon ft Et seer
stoleiqo eidd al heteothal ydsetLe eves ow ae tu00 atm
edt gaitzh ateoy edt te dose rot bovieogs od ot Letaon oxtt nawor
toed edit of has oLdsnoncor bus thet od of ated eult 20
#t tantogpeest satedhan® oA h sodpamp te otetee edt 2 te és ote ras
ehtoest elt? sort ‘xoocge Wd? an seonstamuorio oat xebal ae
-soLteeup ai ootgob ot yatrotas at wee tom bib stv edt
wibbenes ton ob ow ts jbonkes mbod oved anol doom he ne. ine
pomra rte ed ‘setoet exit weerees exorcot at tot bas _gtnette
t
Quensvan GMa T4:% KI GRMATTHA amfoga
act? woek a see r tixosén
ane osteo content a
‘paon0o Zs mavrague . a
a tc TEI
to se I .bemr£tte od hives sassadueanauma
ever: of ddgix oft hest telfeamedo af) ted? ,tovevod folate ont
s tatenge of Dus gotEt he nelhiewg on saksec melt mcoregieds =
nando od? yeromvedtuyt .haote ald Mb mestt ba wtekbtawy teeeboONe
ot moktiveg om mi af gyeel be mekhucery tome? eft Jove ankt’
noha eta ne netfot sa eeren ef? seted SOTte Yt euptD TO mytoRe : ‘
~atd ss )ieaqgs ae to woltuonegue ond ment” eeamnbessehentil
Lsvergqa of ae teohmeqnb wat genie ante et boniete
: weld mk oa ean et? med sbeskues outs ale wat sasiay tng 2
i Mo 9a, si sbasaens coed toot acmdentega (bs aotstood enn
§
required te file 4 bond unless he agught a supersedeas. Under
the writ of error practice where no supersedeas was granted, the
t¥isl court could enforce ite deorse or judgment. Wow, however,
under Yeotion 74 of the Civil Praetics Act, orders, judemente and
g@eerees in civil enses that were formerly reviewable by writ of
error or appeel, are subjeet te review by actice of appeal. “uch
review is dGeeignated an appesl and senstitutes « continuation
of the preceeding in the eourt below. “uch seped under the
Savil Practice Act oresents te the reviewing court dl iseues
which formerly were presented by appeal sand writ of error. in
eeneidering cases that are cited snd which arese under the old
Practice Aet, these distinctions must be kept in ming. Until a
supersedeae bond is filed, the trial eourt hase 2 right on a proper
showing, within the term, to yvaeate or modify ite orders, jutcuente
end decrees. “ven if we consider the point as properly reised, the
record docs aot show that the chanceller abused hie diseretion,
The decree provided that the Cirouit Court retain jurisdiction te
approve the lease and to administer the trust estate. Therefore,
an any event, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court over the sub-
ject matter and the parties, continued,
|
tebe ,eeehbeeiaqum « tiswon ec ene Lear haos 8 oft o? better yk
ant iotaony saw eacbseroque om erase eestor sores Xo P8sw edt
yTovewoed yo .tevambwt xo eer0eb ott eototae Bivoo fuweh Ketxt
ban etanenhat gevehre .toA epitoet’ itv? edt to $¥ soises® sebaw
to Huw ys Sidevatvor yfzomrot ota tad seeso Live at avergoh
fing” Losezs to goktes yd eetvet of tootdue esa »Lesaqs 50 s0Tte
coktemtt109 ¢ setuthtanos has Leoqqe ae botamytesh ef wolves
edd tebey beaqe dow® .woled trace edt ah gatbesectq edt to
sesnet Sb trwos yatwolver ed? ef atavantg oA soktontl Ltved
ai sorte % thre hae Lesque yt betapagrq ose ylreertot doldw
“¢ Ekta bats at ted od comm excttocttedd ecedt. #94 eoktorst
ataexarst .wrebro eft ytihon 10 efsoev, pf yuwmet edt abdtte yyakwosip
odt ,bemter yireqore wa tekoy odd cehtemoo ew tf govt ,meotoeh has
smottennesh eld beauds toffeonado edt tect woe tom a90b droves
of sottothatw atetet ¢=u09 tivosk® wat Sort bebsvorg, ome AF
toWred? .oteteo toast sat votetatubs of bas easel edd dverqqe
“due aitt cove #109 tiuorsd ect to cotvetbelsut oii \ytiove yao ah
sound tio seodteaa ¢ ott bne wiendees ost
; Tey at
4 - ‘ ‘ ne f a 2 e as a
ee tk oe a “7 ned
ws i ees eh a age
ie coin “oe Se 7
Tiron peaiielsatiey
Elta toqeya
" ——s ee a
oF gehen alta:
¥ Pi eee abr we po awe”
BI. a oe REAR.
-
oY
>
2
VEE oitce qeaeenne il es ta
mati iaraate Ps
40804
REAL PACKING ¢O., a
¥ ji ger | crncuir counr
REO PACKING GO., a v7,
he = COOK GOUNTY.
efendante-iopellants. )
305 1.A.499°
WR. JUITIGE HEBEL DELIVERED THR CPINION OF THE COURT,
This wae an aetion in ecuity in the “irowit Court of Sook
Sounty by the Seal Paoking Company, 2 corporation, against the
Reo Packing Company, 2 corporation, and =. %. Peezulp, its
President, seeking to enjoin certain ellered acts of trade-mark
and trade name infringement snd of clleged unfsir business com-
petition and for an accounting of the alleged dameces and profite
arising thersfrom. The ease was heard by 2 sacter in chaneery to
whom the cause was referred by the court, whe found for the plain-
tiff. Objections to his report were filed, overruled and stood as
exceptions, and the trie] court upheld the Master «nd entered a
decree as preyed for in the complaint, from which decree the
defendants have perfected this appeal.
The facts ss they appear in the record are that the
plaintiff, Real Packing Company, is an Illinois corporation, en~
gaged in ‘the manufacture and sale of frankfurtere and other meat
produets throughout Chieagze and ite suburbs. The defendants are
Reo Packing Company, om Illincis ‘orporation, sisilarly en-
gaged, and i. ©. Peesulp, ite President. Both companies spend
large suws in advertising, and in some places, such as ‘outh
Chieage, Chicago Heights and Rosehill, are competitors. There is
& brief outline of the historic background of the two companies,
and from the briefs it appears that about the year 1920, the
Real tsusage Company (not the plaintiff here) was eorgenized by
© 4.09 GUABQAT Jaan
4 “Pn ron tered
TAUOD TIVOATO ken ae bugs
.¥2HGOD X00 ah ae
ios of2 Blescks 2 tare
“een i T 20g = JIumotoash al wohro%
.TAQ0 @NT TO HOLMES BT CUNNVELEN ae wORTeY eo
1002 %o sue thors? edt at ystuoe af nobtos we cow wRdt ONO
ett tenione ,aektetegred « veamquod yaks Lani ote yt yeimie®
att ,qfuwonl .o © fee yookteroqres © uteqmed sebteet OOK
Exeaesloxs Yo etos benoLie akeswee Ktotae of gattest ygebteses
moo csentesd ttetan begetie to bee taomenaivtat omen obext bas
: a¢iteng Sas eoxoush tegelic edt to yattawaves me ret bas aokehted
Of yxeoande ct rsteam & Yd breed eew conn ox? waortoxér? yatatts
-chelq sdf re? bavot odw ,fewoo ot ys hortetet abe senso et MaKe
ae boote bas balurteve ,heltt ovew ¢eoqet afd of anoktsetd® sxthd
S hetetas bao tetest ad? blotqu trues eked ett has yecokéqeens
edt steed selcw sort ,tatelemoo Sat at tot Seyste ae S6togb |
semierener sieined eae
edt teat orn brocot ext at reeqqa yodt an atest od?
~9 ,ioltercgtoo sloaiifl as ad gynaqned puldoe’ Looi pens 7
“teem todte dae etestwtalaett to eLse has otutpctumen ont vat boumy nd
ots etarhastoh oft .adurdim att bas egaotd? tworlyuonds _oveutora: |
28 Wsaltcte sMoiteregqro asleallil ae a¥tequod yabsnet ook
baoqe sefaccnoo dtol .tashteort at ,qlumoct .2 .# bas sbogap
dtve! ae dose seeds onoe at hae yguiettrevhe at ann pte
ef ox? .exovdtequoe exe qLitdeno” ban atdytel egeoidd saneotdo fa
seelaeqnos owt eit to bavotydoed otxotats ot? to coatewe te! x
XS Sesinegto sew (oxed Itétatelg edt tea) yaaqm
various meat dealers, one of whom wae '. ©. Poezulp, one of the
defendants here, who was for many years ite president, a member
ef its Beard of Directors, and alse the eperater of a =rivate
meat route distributing ites preducts. It resistered az s trade=
mark or trade came with the “eeretary of “tate of Tllinosis «
certain device, genefalliy deceribed as a shibld, which shield
wes composed of the various letters making up the werds "Real
Brand, ®e21 Sausage Co." It geld its preducts in various types
of boxes or conteiners, one of which, except for the neme used on
it, wae sprerently very similar to a container subsequently used
by the plaintiff and introduced in evidence at the trial as an
exhibit.
‘bout the year 1932, Neel Sausage Company went into
bankruptey and certain of its assets were sold to the heel Packing
Company, the plaintiff in the present preceedings. Fellowing this
bankruptey and sale, '. ©. Poegulp was ne lenger sasseelated with
it or its successor but contimied te operate a orivete meat route
as he had been doing for about twenty years, selling his products
in similer boxes with vermillion printing with the words *Real ond
Tasty," smd hie own initials "3. 5. FP." H. ©. Peezulp toatified
that about May 1937 he turned over his own saucage business te Neo
Packing Compony, the other defendant in these proceedings, which
he hod previously organized and in which he had a eontrelling ine
terest; that the lettere"R, E, 0," stood for Retailers’ ‘oudhity
Orgenization, and ite trade-mark was 2lso registered with the
Seeretary of State of TLlineie and contsined the words "Retallers*
Equity Organization, Keo Packing “o." In the letter part of
1936 and the early months of 1937, the defendant used «2 box or
@ohteiner which was introduced in evidenoe at the trial a¢ an
exhibit.
The subjeet of this controversy is whether there was
an imitetion of the bex that wos used by the plaintiff as a eon-
é€ nates e
edt to emo «iismoet «2 -K ane mone to eno yorelsob tem exolzey.
tovnem s ,tapbivetq eth Gtasy yasm s6% Bae Qriw yoxest egacbasted
otevixy 9 to sedetege edt onte bas qotofooRet. to brsod att Yo
-obet? © es Sexgtaiges $2 .atowbotg aft galtupittalh eguot toom
& ehontiit to Stet? Yo, yxateroe’ edd dtdw omen chart xo Axem,
‘Poids dotde .bi6ide » on beddxoeed yLLeteaeg ,sotveb atstres
Loph” abcow oul? qu qubise sxottel avoltsy edt to benoquen sow
esq! awoltov ai stowberc sti dice #1 %.00 sgeaus® feof ,bacth
ao beew ous acid 0% dgnexe qAsite Se coo aaxeakabens ab eeuee SE"
boas yltaoursedua semtetaco 8 of talimtn yrov YLtaoteqqs saw th
as ns Latnt ext te senohhes i besintil tad Teheialy a
otal tasw WiegHOD eysauc® eof itt st Nile aad
gutdoet foo! ot of bloe ovew stones att to aketveo Sas yotqeaase
aid# gakwotlet .eyathosoor tmoeety et at Yehtatete oft aYettaqute®
detw betokooses veymol om saw qiwncot .o .t ,eofte bas yotqurdasd
efyot teem ofevite © etoreqe of boualtace tod xossovous aff xo #2
stoybots ald gatifes ,eresy ysaeu? fuods tot gatos wood bax of as
bas Look" abres edt dttu gattater seititerey dtiw sexed xeftnte at
beltitae? qivecot .0 .E "64 .D 1m afskeial wo sin Bae «fear
ool of caeateud eyeauca awe elit owe beamed od VEOr ysl dueda Bade |
Holds yegatbeovore sosdt at tuchaoteb reiito odf gytequo? yatdost
ah yitffertaos © béd od doide at the bemtdent ) yfawotvene bat od
yitihint ‘exelioted cat boote “6.x .ktetedbet SAY eddy ‘Yodous?
enid sittw bexetetzex eats anv trea-obort atk baw nodeeniangi®
taroftotel® ehrow edt Boatednoo bas elendtst 26 BEANE 20° hago il
to t1aq totder ont at ,00 patdeds ‘Oot wotansnagtd qhiel
xe x04 » Sonu Gushacted adi Yter Yo Wittieal With Wat's Week
aa on teité ont 0 ee |
sew otedt rodtedu ad yerovortace sithe e' to e udinen
ate 6 an ttisatela sid yd Seow axe ‘a ie tt 26 10
Lae
NN a nated
Edy for its food producte, ond it appears thet in November,
1936, plaintiff's atterneys wrote to the Reo Poeking Company to
desist using the trade-mark end trade name of "Heel" and the
design on the packing boxes, The kee then advised the plaintifr
that it had two months’ sueply of bozes on hand and that it
would not imitate the lobel, trade-mark, design anc form af ad
vertising being weed by the sisintiff. ubeecuently, on
Deoember 19th end 24th similar letters were sent to Neo by the
plaintiff, in which the attention of the defendant, Seq Packing
Company, wae Gailed to the use by the defendant of the tradeq
mark and trade mame "Heal" ond the design on the pecking boxes
that were used by the plaintiff in this action. On Secember 7,
1937, these proceedings were inctituted by the plaintiff, which
squcht an injunction and en agcounting of profits and damages.
Ae we have already indicated, the matter wis heard by @ master
in chancery, and the trie] court upheld the report of the master
and entered the deeree from which this appeal wie taken.
a% the hearings before the master considerable testimony
was taken. The testimony relating to the histerie backeround of
the twe companise in set forth above and will not be further
reviewed here. The testimony relating to subsequent eventr is
reviewed here, net with reference to ite oréer of presentation,
but with reference to the ehronolocies1 secuenee of the events
thereby reloted,
The court in @te decree perpetually enjoined the defend-
ants from the use of the words “Aeal Prehkkfurters® and “Neal Pack-
ing Company," apparently upon the basie premise, which the defent-
ante state they will subsecuently show is contrary te the suthori~
ties, that the plaintiff hed seoured some sort of an exclusive
Tight to the use of the deseriptive word “Neal,” and the defend-
ante ote in support of their theory the ease of Candee, Swan & 6
t 8o., Gh £11, 439. The plaintiff, Deere & Co.,
«tedmevol ai terit etmeqes ti bas ,etouhotq heot atk ret mre
of yaegae) gattos® o88 eat oo 8foEw syerrords e'etioeteley Ober
edt Bae *f2e%* to omen obexst bas teemoberd off nabew telasb
ttitaisig eft heekvbs sed¥ ool eff .euxed gitkdeey of? wo mytdod
“$i ted? Bas Bowl de sexed to Ylgewe Yaditdom Gwe Hat et Dare
hs to aret bas agleeb Qtrem-oBery ,fedel Ge etethnt tom Bivow
wo ,vitdeuroete® .ttitelel edt yo been gated yateltcey
ef? yd o0% of teen oeew exottel coftate As88 hae AOL tedmeved
qitizes’ ook ,tichmeteb off to aolttast$e edt deidw al yttidatelq
aohor? oft %6 tuohaeted ext yo oaw Site OF Belfae caw yemeqted
nexed gutfooq off no mpteed edt fae *Xe08* quam obers fan gran
sv Todmeae’ a0 cotton eitr at Tthtalele of? qW Bean ovew ted?
doide ,ttitatalg edt yd betwtitent orew egakbeooong ooodd (TEL
-— skezemad bas eshte, To yattavetes ae ban mottéautat as tiywon
<efecn 2 yd Brood cow sedtem ose pbetackémt phootis eved ew aA
retanm edt Yo trogen oy biorgar tried Fadxe wait baw (eeeomario: wt
| ee? eaw Iveqas sid? doide moxt eoxpebh one npc”
qoomstnad eldoxebleaos tates odd exetod eagiitced eft os
to bauorgiood efroralit edt of quitelex yroukfoee off .aoded ucw
tedttyt od tom {fiw bas eveds dfto? tee af welmeqmed owe ant
af ctaeve tromendsa of gatiefex yrombteod ont erent hewelvet
woltetiexers to tebre ett of semeretor Hitiw fom joted hewstvex
atteve od? to soaeues ramiennncen dear tbareresnets ries «8
abaotch edt heatotae ylierteqreq ented dtd ak ¢tw0s oMt
_ adoeT L205" Ane “eretavtdaert L268" wbrow et? to cow od? werd eas
| ebavted edt doidw yostuory otsed off moat qtaeteqqe *,yanqued gat
stradtys od? of yrettnod af wede ¢fdaswndedue Lkw qedt ereteontas
ovteuLoxe no 26 txow ome boxunee Soil Tei tatete ed? dete yaert
-treteh oft hire ", feet brow airhtarmanaathemndieteeaaten tied sin
GA sen? ,oghaen Yo onse exit yuoedt ehostt to toque ab. rhe |
| 100 & wbHe savyertunteardt _ er |
, Ad eet ae FR me
4
hed for some sighteen yerrs, manufactured and sold piows which it
had stenciled on the handles “Seere & Ce." in a cireuler line,
with "Soeline, Illinois*® stenciled undernest in a straicht line.
It had also <dvertised ite plows by cireular, eatsalecue, ete.
for many yesare a6 the "Noline Plow". At the tricsl the court
entered = decree finding fer the pleintfffs end that the plain-
tiffs were entitled to the exclusive use, 26 5 tra’e-wark, in
the menufacture and ssle of plows, of the words "Moline Flo#,*
together with other choracters oni ficurss whieh the court held
were used by the plaintiff in ite business.
The Supreme Court in its opinien written by ur. Justice
Breese, reversed the deere: dissolving the injunction and dis-
missing the suit, and in epesking of the right to uze words,
marks or other devices, the court interpreting the words toat were
used, said:
"There is, obviously, no good reason why one pereon
should have any better risht to use them then another.
They mey be used by many different persone, at the same
time, in their brands, marke or labels on their respecte
tive goods, with perfect truth and fairness. They
signify nothing, when fairly interpreted, by which any
dealer ina similar article would be defrouded. "
and the defend=nte upon thie general cusetion site the case of
Bolancer v. Peterson, 136 Z11. °15.
The plaintiff's reply to the eontention of the defendants
de that defendants’ arrument is apparently besed upon the theory
that if defendants ean cloak themselves with the subterfuge of 2
phrase known ee *deseriptive words," they will be free to engage
in any and all acte of imitation and unfair competition and ploin-
tiff ie without a remedy to protect itself from the unfair practice
of these defendants. And further ensvering call this Court's
attention te the position aveumed by the defendants =«« being con-
tray to the authorities applicable to the ease at bar, for under
the law and under the facte the plaintiff has the right to have its
Rome and label protected from the imitation snd unfsir competition
t2 doidy ewolq hiow has borutostuman s8E69¥ : meataabs 9208 10% best
aeakl setworke sat ".00 & exoo." eelbacd oft ao betigaste bast
soalf tgterte « st “teoatebay dolionots “elomtitl ,eatlew® Athy
2ots woioLst ae statuette WW awolg att heatszovhs ests bod tL
txuoo odt Lettt edt th "wold ent Lou", adf, ee atesy Yam TOR
watsiq adt ted? bas avid oatata edt rot gaibalt sezoeh = beresas.
al ,iton-phes? s es vow ovieulors of? of betgtinp pxem axrts
"wot onttou" abzow edt Yo ,anolg to. sive bas oxstoctuntam eat
btext tuoo od toictu sonst? ba axetosteddo xasite Atty xedteges.
seeentand stk at Yttatelg edt ys booy oxom,
ookteste oak vd nettive motatgo eek, ak trwoo emerge’ eff uy
-ot has aotsoawtat ed? yatviocath oorvet ot, QONTRTES.ghONtRE:
“ebre oem ot tiigit ext to yaticeqa As bas «ttun edt satenta, .
exes tit abxow ode gatterqretat ‘trw09 edt membre
cut Poke pe BK thhow ghee
mosxeq eno seaset hoc
etadions mesit | ean of
= oe yay tees ph ph 8
8 PE ,
erptiw
nal "T beburetiob bLuow “eiottxe fe sat telawb .4 oy)
Yo e220 ) ett otts nol tuewp fsxoapy aid soqu ataohasteh ad? has
| USAT PRE .noameted o¥ zanmatos .
atachasteh edt to wektaetace edt of yiqor a Itttatsla OMT 60 yyy
et
yreed? edt moqu boned yltneteqqs ek tuemugts ‘ntaohaetoh ted ak
8 to envttesdue od? dtiw eevicemed? Asolo. nso atushastod, tt tastt
eyegae of coxt od Liiw yed? ",abroy eyitgtose" aa mwocd exon.
wnisiq bas setttteqnoo thotesr baw, soiteting Ye etes iia bas yan ab
soltoang hota ode mort ‘sess toeterg oF enim te et tthe.
| atte? etd? £520 paksowsas eal’ IMRAN Sane 28: 1
-a00 gited as Penne edt x bomumes porn in
ohm TOT .tad t2 ease ed? of eldsotiage eat pat, oyna
7 b
4 i ee
ete “evn ot tity ix esi? t sect tasete edd atost ot xohas fas, wa ade :
nottiteques theta hes not¢etimt ot moxt betootorg naka, ome.
8
of these defendanta, and cites the ease of O'Cedar ¢
. Eveege Co., 259 111. Ape, 306, where this court salar
“ioreever, even if the words could sroperly be con-
sidered ag so Severiptive, that faet would net justify
the deceptive use by others of the words, or similar ones,
in unfeir tredé competition were | m— in the ainds of
ea would result. DeLeon: _ ys ©
. Siz, o., 297 11)
mm cotarer or merchant has area se, word of phrase in
such & wey thet it bas become identified’ with hie business
and the ertieles of hie mamfacture, another will not be
permittes to use the eame «ark, word or phrase so ae to
lead purghacers to believe they are buying the goode of
the former. This rule seplies even though the word, same
. OF phrese under which the reputation of the gerehant or
mamufscturer has been seculred is * * * merely deserintive
of the ¢huracter or cuslity ef the articles * * *. The
euestion is one of common honesty, and the courts require
the observance of such 2 stondard ae will protect the bus-
inesa, the m:rket and the reputetion of 2 desler sgsinst
#11 acte which tend te deceive the public inte bhelievang that
the goods of another sre his goods snd to pzss them off ss
eueh, A merely deveriptive term * * * my have become so
agc@eiated with s partioular kind of gceds or the product
of a partioqular menufacturer in such 2 way thet nerely
ae the werd te en srtiele of the same kind would
to a Bisrepresentation as to the origin of the
artiole.?*
end it appeess from the suggestion offered by the ols ineite that
the defendants concede thet the same "Real frankfurtere" ic ueed
to denote the partioular fronkurters of thie complainant; and
that the defendants further concede thet plaintiff his used the
neme “Resl" continuously for a period of sore thon nineteen yeare
to identify its products, and that this neme has become so attached
to the goods of the plaintiff that when the name “Reel” is applied
the goods are identified as the produets of the plaintiff, and that
the defendants further concede the follewing to be true in their
answer to the pleintiffs
"(8) That by reason o ence and ad treat
ee or tue plaineis? an 4 in ites Sends tenteaes
weet ity of said ‘teal Prankfurters’ abe a hy
corset same have become known in the
commun 7 ba dh sand that said pre s has sequlred a
“7 That said Ds gp oe. is known to the public and
to the buyers and consumers thersef, by the namec &
4
BE .v «ie? xshe?'O to enen off cette has jatmebaeteb ebeds to
{Sioa tos aide oxerw O88 wceqd WIT CRS ed
fInecots Hinop sbter ef? tt aeve
£ ton b tant todd ,avttgh 08 &5 So
ok MeO, ean eae:
23 simta edt st cglewtace oxeds Siler goat? sietay
Lit Yes
} ougoed eeetet ie tf tt ?
35 shoos ate zo Sarat Ses tie
Hee pone fra Oe, Sree eee
eke.
‘ ta
g an
Pere py rr ae
| #8 Die. met? ease of . shoos ahd 9 boo, ds
oF airy? ‘or
Si Sntind wh npc salen eel ames ake
bear ak “statiutanext Lepf* omar oft tert theomoo ateebasted ext
bas jdmentnfonoo eid? to exstriidanyt enkvettred oct esomed ot
ont bons an T2%mtaly tat pbeomep vertu etaehpered edt tart?
Stxoy Meetonia madt eros to holteq # tot yLawounlsaoo | ‘Loos oma
besonte 08 anooed and eana eid? tnt? bas qateubong ott ytktaokt of
Redfaqa sf "Leak" oman sat made Sait tritatele edt to aboog ait of
tatt ban .Yttatala ert? to atouboty edt ae bettteaeht exe shoog edt
tidy ab said od oF getwat tor est eboonen xedeun etasharreh edt
| by ter ef met ok than Sen taf
genes Sdt NC qtenre? mammnaee bee Sy
sont Imzonaoay Lode “ 5 tae ent we 4
. be
8
‘heal FPrankfurters’ and 'Senl daysarea', and by the
plaintiff's oon preper containers isbels, trademark
ané tra°(@ Bame as atown by 'oxhib Ay At hareto attached, *
G@ that if would seem, in = mearurs, that the defendants have
admitted the use by the sisintiff ef the worde thet are the sub
—"* of thie controversy, ani further, in the case of Intermstions)
nfs Christian Agen. v. ¥o us
, 194 Ti. 184, the court woon «a like question said:
‘mine 4t ie true thet generle torme or mere decserintive
werde are the common property of the public and net ordi~
marily susceptible of appropriation by on individual, that
feet will not prevent the iseuine of an injunction to re~
etvain the use of such terme and words at the suit of one
whe hae already adopted them, where the evidence shows = fraud~
wlent desicn and thet the public will be misled. *
fhe Court's attention hes been ealled to the opinion ef
the ‘heen Seurt in the ease of The
246 Till. 416, wherein the gourt
sporeved an hatansihen to restrain the defendsnt from using the
name "The Hew Mount Hope Cemetery Acsociation," the exme infring-
ing upon the name of "The Hount Hope Cemetery Aecoeistion.” And
in the ease of Aute v. Silverstein, ot al., 211 111.
App, 436, thie eourt held the name suto Parts and Sales Company
to constitute unfair competition to the oomplainent Auto Parts
Soupany, although both names are purely deseriptive, There the
court said:
"chile names whieh are aenaske terms or werely decerip~
tive are the comuon ag ll ty of = publie, and a private
red, neverthelsss,
property lmemat ¢ there
the courte will grent Senked ses «thy & name of thie kind has
been sdooted under SS remstanses whieh wake it apperr that
peal fel! publi , Rea * en name taisSes ene sh 2ea-
We gather from the eutherities thet hove been submitted
_ the rule ie that generic terme or deseriptive words are the
common property of the public. Nevertheless, where the generic
teams or descriptive words are used and are adepted to mislead
the genaved publie ond euch eppears from the evidence, the court
bon acegeeue’ {sof bas hep dy =~ OF
* ,bordostts ofeted A sheen: ee ae 7 ers has one
eved efuebaeted ed? fad? ,o1wecom # at _gmnen bivow te sete e
-due ett ex suit ebvor salt to TrheaLaly oor YS vow sit bettiabs
thine calteoup sARf © nog tuv0d este WOE «LIT 20 stuns atbencito
evivgirose orem to numet obxeneg teil? eins? at tt WERE
~ibte fon bas " eit Io YereqotTe ente
ie ne ‘gel sia ooue }
-et 0¢ moltonuti phony peeed J at
eno to ohve tes obtow eaxed tots Yo ens aivrte
_-eowa's ean ean ot curt ae Seana near ae
Yo mpkateo OAS of belie aved eal ROLIAEtE een eMT”
-Y sOth yIpshae? ego8 tayo eat to pen oat ub seu0d
txyoe vit whotede {aL LT abt |
edt gatey mort harbavteb ext akextoon of cektoaupad me
eee
-galrtal emcee sd? ",coltsiocasé yxeteme eqoll tavoll xe et oniem
bad * .noltaioore® qrotemb? ogek tape eff" To cent oft noqn gals
E13 E18 ..f0 te ,ghedorev (20 .v_yapmen> feet ots to eeno edt ab’
Yaaques cefe® ae eited otyh omer alt Bfad Steed etdt {88h vqad ~
artes otwh ttealaleuoe etd of aekthieques thmtay otethtaned of —
ott escent .evitgtibesh yfexug otr cemen dted deweritia ,yanqnod: ©
* thles toyed
oF
hogy on?
teid teseqe Of stan dois
tetebh adv
~888 ot oe" neren a ousa
.
? vounme
idiinitin' ot onsite oanluapmniodl a >
bseleta of betcebs ere bas hoa exe sion onitadnoneh 30 meet
i a atl ee A , ie = , ly a.
7
would be juctified in entering om order restreining the defendant
in © proper eace from using the verde thet sre genercsi in eharaeter
ana uget for the purpose of deceiving the cublic.
There is a further esee thet hes « bearing ween the cues-
tion before this court, and that is the eave of Royel “aking
pamy v. Npymond, 70 Fea. 276. The sourt in sffirming
the order enjoining the defendant from using the sord *keyal*
aeid:
"fhe word ‘Seyal' is act deseriptive of baking
SS fatioute the seigin of the cvede’ mas by this oem
Pleinant.* a
Ans when se come to consider the authorities, as well ae the
character of the words used, we are of the opinion that the court
a4é not err in entering the deeres, shere it wo2 for the purscese
ef protecting the eal Packing Sompany from imitation and wilful
acte of unfair competition by these defendants. The cueetion
is largely dependant upon the purrcese for wich these vords were
used.
It is the contention of the defendents that in the case
st bar the defendants had in good faith irgerocably sbandoned the
use of the ssusage container known as Plaintiff's “xhihit *8*
long before suit wae brought and had been distributing ite products
exciucively in ite green and white cherry brand box,
. Evidence wae offered by the defendents to the effect that
this exhibit wae used only in connection with the sale of sausages
from sometime in the latter pert of 1936 wp until May, 1037, shen
the green and white cherry brand box came out, which abondonment
oceurfed approxiaetely six months before these proceedings vere
instituted in Secember 1937. However, it appears from the evidence
of the plaistirf that notcithstanding this promise the dofend=nts
continued te sell frenkfurterse umier the simulated label + Pisintir?
tenibit 8 There is evidence thet after May, 1937 the defendants
%
+?
Y
cachauteh alt yuinkecines teed a yatuntes ab taltheuy-ed binen
retontmip at Lorene, ore tet aheow ad? galey mett ease xeqotad a at
tide et? guivdeosh to eteqred eit tot teen ban
“wen orf coow patted © agit dextf oneo gocituwt 6 ad oMedT >|
gutued isye? to soem ent gh tedf bia .fio0g eit? exoted most
guletitte st dxvon eff .8V .de® OT shaved .¥ yang mebwed
ee en tae teres woe to eer te
aha cern mms cabhawe WY “a thiee |
a SG re a
Se
“oa es Lew es pools sredttun ons rabianeo ot “en08 oo sate he
7 tiuce eds tadt molatqo oP cosy soe ci ee a
eeoqrem ent? Tot aew th oxorte ooxeeb eutt 96 inode vie fom BBB
Ss eneart ga a Serer
futite bas moftagims mont wg200 sabtoet seen elt pate Poston 7
he hee O ig fi
wottaey edt setnshasted searit vs okt dtoqnon istaw 0 oer
a a 7
_ Soe abtOr weod? sot sot ovocun oA? noqy #uaaegoh
rS Wee Gee br hd
* 4
St oe
eee ont at teat etarhao Ys on 0. wottas?a00 ‘eds a na
Livtoee ote seRcos oF
edt heaebanda Udesovewt2 tint booy a bast ataebmete® he Berd te
(Oa eee Sie 2 “naga ryan }
*G" Phdirixd etttidatels ee awond xeatatnes enseuse = oy
eh. PMR
eiuases ats , ettetietele sont bet ben semen see oe ” we
«kod bawgd yrreds. thee: bas meer y path at 4 “davtectoxe
‘taslt foevte ei of stuehaoed ent wd Soxeht6. caw opm eT oad
copsauce Yo afm outs ede sobsonaueo at eine beau aoe thatsne adds
sorte «NORE yak Stow aw BERL Re xm TOAEaL gut at autzeson nor?
taounehaeds sioise ,tve oman 206 bnend rxedo oft bax seery edt
otsw anakhoaperq orodt exoted attacm ate os chia BA
ecasblve et wort eteeqen ¢i {torewoH ‘EAE endnote Bouton
aterbasteb eff seimorg eidt emis pushes ptt
matueun sundown: ‘acapeen nee sepa ov ;
| me eR i ra "i Ne igh. iy 1
8
sold » cheaper erate of frankfurtere under the imitation l«bel
of the plaintiff, There is alee evidenes that in Novewber and
Geoember, 1037 a witness sae fronkfurtere being selé in the retail
steres unter the imitation label of the siaintiff, and the witners
tectified that he saw at the Keo Packing Somoany shout SC bexes
already oacked on top of the raeke in the ceeler; thet these
frenkfurters were 15 eonts = pound, while the better erads was
19 cents 2 pound, and there is slso the edwiseion by the defend-
ante that on or about November 27, 1937, the “co Packing Compmy
wae uging the plaintiff's isbel.
These orececdings were instituted on Vesember 7, 1937
to enjoin the defendants froze further acts of unfelr competition,
and there ie evidense thet subsesuently én February 25, 1958
the imitation label of the slaintiff wa» sean in retail etores.
The defendant, 7. ©. Poesulp, testified that they ceased using
the box about the end of March, 1928, beosuse sie atterney hed
made an agreement “ith the <ttorney for the plaintiff to that
effect.
So, when we consider 111 the evidence that his been
prevented by both sides it sppesrs that the question is 3 gone
troverted one and that thers was eufficlient evidence tc justify
the court in entering the decree in cuestion.
There wae evidence as to whether or not the omer Neal
ang Neo were confusing. That also was 2 cuestion of fact, to~
gether with the question as to how the mail was treated when
it we aledirected to the defendants. Taking the case 4 in
all the evidences upon which the court passed woe eufficient te
sustain the decree upen that cuestion.
The plaintiff euggeste with somewhat surprise as to the
Gefendants' contention, which is raised for the first tise in
thie court, thet the evidence. disclose: an abandonment of
plaintiff's label, end calls thie Court's attention te the fact
s
Indo aokisting od? xoiay etettiftiaes: Yo shoxg neqeatto # Bion.
hae wedwovel ad tudt eoaehive oela ai etecT ,»tiigatala.ed? to.
fietet et ag Sica gated ste¢twtiser? woe eseatin # VEUL ytodmpoel
eneatiw od? bac .thi¢nielg edd to fodsl ontgatiat ait rebas eoxote
norad 08 gueds yreqmed yaidoad cok sit ta wom od fadt badtetres
ace oberg tetied edt oLiiw ybaveq « ataso BL stew ese¢uutdactt
~basteh eft yd molesiobe ed? onla ai etod? bae ,bawoq & ataep OL.
Yaeques ap aan iepeh Ares ye ory estas
Tedal efttitakala gdé yale aoe |
iSneyednantahenapanararyesissnie
soltiteqnoo rictav % edoe roMfet mont atashmoteb eft mtotas oF
bees 2 yrauedet mb yléasupendun’ todd pomebsve ad erect bak
seotote Itctox ai ase caw Yttimtala edt to Ledet sosbatint oat
paiew bonnee yostt tad hoktidnres .qfueoot .o 6H yemehawteb ont”
bad youtotte ein sauened ,BEOL ,dovall Yo bus edt tows xoe bith”
- tedt of Yeitabale edt tot yemsorte edd dite taemedtge as ohaw
toute
mood an ¢adt somoblve ed# Lie cabiamoo Ow Aedes yo
~t0o s ef aclteesn et salt exooas #4 sobke tod ys besaooerg
Viiteut of somsbive taplolttva sew otedt tett bas eno botcevort
| ssottoeup at ecteab od? gaisetas at tice silt
{soi semen odd toa x0 ueddestn of an coneblve usw oxsit
~ot ,foct te actteexp « aw Osis tact ~gatawtace otew oom has
uote boteaxd ‘naw Linn add Wad ob on wakeup ele tka “
"at fb basco sift gab? .esaehasted dé of bedvorkbadn sew tf
ra taokolt twa sew Bemsac #auce eat tote soqu eoneblve odd is
1 al oats text? edi ‘ot Ibentien ek Uoiity nb
ory oie vaca eneues
toy ott of ndttne ste ethene
=9
that there is no evidence in the reeord upen thet ouestion,
The answer to thet is, the defendents did state in their briefs
that there «as an abendonpent, which is in effeet an admission
that they had been usigg the plaintiff's label, so that as se
gather fros the record, the defendants seck te avoid the deeree
that wae entered in this ease by the statesent that they really
had abandoned the use of the isbel. However, there is evidence
that the defendants continued te use it. That is even admitted
by the defendant !. %. Poesulp, and under the clroumstances there
is no ceecasion to further enewer that succestion, exeept te point
to the record.
Under the cireumstances the plaintiff is entitled to an
ageounting of profits and damages, if any, arising ovt of the
imitation of its label by the defendants, and it was for the
court te determine the question from the facts, whieh it ¢1d and
@irected that an accounting of profits and damages be taken, and
nothing has been called fo our attention which would justify a
reversal of the deerse upon that ground,
For the reasons stated in the opinion the deeree is
affiraed.
DRORSE APYIARED,
DEMIS E. SULLIVAN, P. J.
BURKE, J, CONCUR,
c
oe
-eoLinenp eat soqu bzooes edt ai eoaehtve on ef ened? tart
Stelud theré af vieta b&b stashastoh edt ot todd of reweme OogT
agieeinks ms footte at st deide ytmegnobasds az sew onsd?. dadt
os an tet oe ,fedal otihi¢aiaig add pete aoed bast yods dads
serceh ad¢ Shove of xeon etashaeted ed? ,brov0t odd most, ceding
eliset yedt tot tapmetete ect yd eneo eine Gh botetae saw test
egaebive ef etedt qteverol .fodel edt te eey edt henehgade bes
_bedtinks seve ad ted? 12h caw of bowaltace atanbastsh ot tad?
otedt egonetrame tio ede tehmy Ang .qiuapol -? .% sacheotod odd yd
talog of tyeoxs ,neltesyuwe tert reweaes xedttwt et agtasooe on af
: | _ baeget edt of
tte its hate tein obi 1a: ttahibe. nie innditeaiiaasedt debit —)
ext to tuo gatalee vse 2d ~aoasush has ethteng to sekimvooss =
_ ait? 20% asw #8 hae yetzshapreb edt yd indal aff Yo aoktottme
hae Dth $2 sioiste gutect est mort sotteaup ody eatureted of s1u90
hoe ,etet od segemab has afdterg to galtaumoos ae tailt bedvorkh
ehbayoxg tadt cequ eexoob ed? to Lgatevet
rkeenentehenhsoomryctneipersapegieirysoie ie ?
Ps . s Sst oF oy Coty ee
oTRRAEITA SEIKO e oted? ta® hes ome bePUNPORT
}
aee -
rat & Beat eazy nm
cay Meiite Soaps Geese ye ete tts iy
westesin dedt pond soteub cute ty teslo
ary yee F VE Gee Hie eat : Ks
decsagsselbnccrersioe don veto ‘ethartet
1S SOARES euaebive aut Yan st nie :
} madera gee ethene? whee Gees | A lidht ah
41070
PUOPLE OF THE STATE cr
ay wee BAL FROM
v. BONICIfAL COURT
GLARENCE WALEGA,
OF GUICAGG
Appellant. } 3 O 5 1A. 5 00
Ma, JUSTICES HEBEL DELIVERS THE OPINION OF THS COURT.
Thies appeal by the defendant is from a Judgment of guilty in
a@ oriminal action, wherein on June 29, 1939, an information wae filed
in the office of the clerk of the Municipal Court of the City of Chicage,
signed by one, Arthur Carcher, and tried by the court, jury having been
waived, in the Municipal Court of Chicago. By the judgment, the defend-
ant wae sentenced to the House of Gorreection for ane year and to pay a
fine of one ($1.00) Dollar.
The trial of the defendant was on an information filed in the
offiee of the clerk of the Municipal Court of Ghicago, end cigned and
eworn to by one, Arthur Caraher. fhie information charged that the de-
fendent on the 25ré day of June, 1988, at the City of Ohicage, did un-
lawfully, knowingly, and wilfully encourage one William Heed, a maie
person under the age of eighteen years of age, to-wit, sixteen years,
to become =o Gelinguent child, and did then and there, unlawfully *** do
acts which directly produced ©** and which tended to render the said
Williem Heed to be or become « delinquent child, in that he, the said
Glarence Waiker, did then and there expose his person to the said Willian
Reed contrary to the form of the dtatute.
in congidering this appeal, the evidence that was heard by the
trial court is not in the record, so that we will assume that there was
evidence to justify the Court's action pwvided there wae « sufficient
criminal charge to justify the court in entering the judgement in question.
The defendant did not object on the trial of this action te
a
the information as to form or subetance until on the 2n4 éay of October,
1830. He then moved the court to expunge the order and Judgment entered
“de
fer to state sey Go “nacor
COSAT Coe Yahi eo
stage SMT Yo MOIMZGO aur 1 Saag Bia Jigs K ADTRAN, fl
mt esting te saragout 8 mou of tuabso red odd Yi Laoqaa afd? .
both? aw wetdoauo nt Gn .@6CL 08 vault so aletode itn ma
10980100 to yee | edt to srusod iagtotoun sd? to Alo od? 20 epttio edt at
nosd gnived yur, .tavon edd y¢ Betut bas yaadtetad dis ono yt hongis
~ietob od? .taembul, od? yf .ogeetd? to Fawod Lagtotaut gait at heview
4 vag oF Dae waey suo 102 maktoont9d to env eat oF Sonaetaan.sew tan
hee oon oo $A, 100-58) ote 29 emt
et? at belt wostancetat a8 no aes tanbaotes, adt to dated od?
bas bomgls dno ,ogeatd? to tye) Aaqtnseum edt .e, Azete eft, 2egesrre
~ob edt gad? hegrasto wot ansoTut MAT. upclaed NATTA 1900. S OF, t0We
~fis BLb ,ogeoldd to yILO ect ta .QHCL ony to yab Sass odd so taabuo?
S180y mootxle ,tiv-oF ogo to staey mestdgte Yo e5s edt mphaw apemq
ob *#+ _Livtwalas ,eted? bas aed? 4b bas ,bitde saeupatied & emooed of
blen si? a9haex of bedued doirw das *¢° heouborg Ysoerth doddy atos
dies ont yed tad? at Dido Panupatish 9 engous te of oF Beem mabcctw
antLitv biaa edd ef soateq aid enoqee oted? bac mad? BLb ,wedls¥ eonetel0
-osutate Off Yo muah edt of yeoutaey Seok
on? Yd Buned asw tad? oonshive edt ,feeqes etd? giitredtenco at
exw execs Sat omvaas Iitw ow tai? os .dnooe ott at ton at toe Latut
tnelottive a asw owed? bebiverg mottos a'tayed edd ytivaul, ot sonsbive
Hokteewp mi themyhul on? gattetne at twos edd yittaul of oytede Lent
of wolves aidé to Labtd adt ae tootde ton Sth taabanted edt
tated °% (ah teh ct 0 Lita somata st Of os male
bowen smompout, Sas sale adi ogaune of Puce adi devon aed? ol .
“isnt vy
2
in the exnee on the 59th dsy of June, 1939, for the folicwing reosons;
Ameng other objections he complains thet the sompisint states
no chuse of action or offense against the peovle of the State of Iliinois,
and further that under the statutes of the ftate of Lliinois, the sots
Gonstituting the criae of delinquency sre especialiy defined, and that
the court wes without jurisdiction in the sbeve mentionéd satter te enter
the sentenes impossd on the defendant. This motion of the defendant res
denied, so thet the question arises as te the sufficieney of the inform-
tion in thet it fsils te shsrge a crime in the langusge and terms of
the statute, and that the court wie in error when it entered the judgment.
Under the statutes in question it is necessary thet there be a
Charge that the defendsnt wrongfuliy and unlawfully contributed te
eenditions that rendered the child delincuent, in thet the defendant did
then and there take and expose his person in the manner of the complaint.
One of the cases of thie court thet has passed upon a like
question is the case of the Per he State of 1111 ve Sobert
Salince, 1686 Ill. App. 215, in which this court said "the judgment is
sought to be reversed upon Aassignsents thot error was Committed by the
court in overruling the motion of the defondant to quash the infermation,
and sliso the motion in arrest ef judgment." fhe court further ssid that
Robert Wallace, on February 28, 1933, ae cherged in the eomplzint did
“unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly encourage, aid, cause, abet and
econnive at the delinquency of one Dorethy Nechenbuseh, * minor
female child under the «ge of 1@ years, to-wit, 16 years,"
The Gourt further says:
*that portion of the information ending with the words, ‘16 yeors',
charges a orime in the language of the statute. The remeining
portion should be regerded as surpluange. In our opinion "the nature
of the cffense*, «s set forth, ‘may be easily understoed,' and
section 6 of division It of the Griminsl Code applies.*
In addition to the case just quoted, there has been called te
the attention of this court, the case of People v. Jogeph Hamilton, 283
Tll. App. 641, and in this case the court held that the information
ae
jatoerst gatwollot ody ot ,GS6L ,emvl to yah AeRe od? ao enno ont at d
eetata tatelqgsoo sft Sadi anlaiques ad eneltosido tedte gaoms
etionlill to sta28 ent % elgoeq oat tanloys sagetto 10 aoltes to Sageo oa
estos ent eetootiil Yo ete?% ed? Yo sotutsts ods rebaw eae sodeaet. pag.
tedt bas ,baaltah TWisioege ate vousumat.obé to quite exit galtutlioaaco
zetne oF rotiam ‘bSabt shen: ovode ed? al motsotbettut tuedtin sew trwoo ont
sur tasbasted sdf to moitom BldT ,¢ashavted eM? mo boedymt sonotaes odd
~omrotal od? Yo yotetelYiwa off of as aselts adktatup @HF dei? on .botmed
to sexed hat egengoel e62 af entre & ogredo oF BEhaY #F teak ae ROLE
wtiémghut edt? beregas tf aodw torre wt sew xvod oie toilY DHA VetnTase ode
‘pod rsd? tad? Yraeedoom at $f nodtediny AE sotutnte one peagte
“ob bedutiteymos Ulwtwalow tied Yotutyaote ia at aie epiedo
Bib tuchasted ed? tad? mi ,toaounekieh Lite oad Hereower Yee ‘BHosPthave
stuielqmoo edt to teanem edt mt moeteq ald snoqke hue etet orodd halt dodd
eaiI © cogw Deensy abd tedt trveo wldf Yo aetiee ete Yo ano
tuedol .7 eionbiil to stot8 od? de sigest edt to denn Sis at HOLT
el dmeepbut oft’ blew drvod aldt dotdw WE SLE Sued nt eek epattae
edt yf hottinnod axe totre todd etmemrgisor aoe beatevet ed ‘er sitgver
soltawrotal ed} deeup of taehastsh sit th mottos ede gakivtrive if Priee
tod? blee chéfuut fraos Sa? “.ereegbot To Peete wt Reltdom oid Sele Baw
bab pungnel edt wt sfeveneayh 28 qne aisles ht
ape sam 2 ‘nottamretnt ‘edt Yo Holt#
ahd ee fee mee Bad ‘wibe’ ar civ bobrrge 46 Biol
Bae tcbgovarobe, veces! Stat te Pda hast
63 belie used bet onstt (bbtoup taut” ‘geet ont of mokdfhns are"
res iothinell Agesol +v v sldeed 36 easd bad \ttu0d hdd tO Motinst th eMt
| nobtamtotal * ont? yong bled ‘Fruod od3 @eh0° ‘eiat ar bak , he oA XIE
, iitoy- oameteina t Raok oF eA soktemnn'utt at
a wehte ef syawoxp. of fuireo aff devon west a weal ‘
3
eharge was in the langusge of the Statute. The inforuation there charged
that the defendant
"414 unlewfully, knowingly and wilfuliy encourage Audrey end Shirley
Virieh, a female person under the age of 18 years, to-wit, 8 years
end & yeare of age te be or to become « delinquent child and did
then and there unlewfully, Knowingly and wilfully do aete whieh di-
reetiy produced, promoted and contributed to cemditions whieh tended
to render said A y and dhirley Ulrich te be or to become a delin-
quent ehild in thet he, the acid Joseph Hemilten did take indecent
Liberties with the seid Audrey and Shirley Virich in hie eandy store
loeated st 3504 Wabancia and cause the said Audrey end Shirley v1-
Pich te comeit indecent and lascivious acts, contrary to the form
ef the statute...”
further in ite opinion, the court said thet
“the information is sufficient which etates the offense in the terms
and lenguage of the Statute creating the offense, or se plainly that
the nature of the offense may be eagiiy underzteod. :
236 Til. 1S; 8b Ve ee 160 Til. 682
TL. 604; gener Til. 623;
O2 T1l. 162; ¥F Ve LB6 ill. App. #17. ori tion
wes substan the 1 of the statute and ontivey “puffi-
pgp te notify the defendant of the neture of the offense with which
he wos charged."
Under the previsiona of the Stetute, provided for in Far. 104,
sec. 2, entitled *Oriminal Code," Suith-Hurd Rev. Stat. 1865, end es-
peclally from the previsiong that
“Any person who ehal] knowingly or wilfully cause and or eneourage any
male under the me eg ef seventeen (17) years or any female under the
age of eighteen Ry: years te be or to become a delinquent child as
defined in seetion one (1) *** shall be guilty of the e¢rime of con-
tributing to the delinqueney of ehildren,..."
especially when it ie provided in par. 105, see. i,
‘or inducing or seneutoatig the use of vile, obseene, vulgar, adie
or indecent im any public plece or about any ecehool houge;
er is guilty of | eae ar or iaselvious conduct. *
The defendant ealis the court's attention to the fact that thie
information dees not specifieally charge or aliege any offense which
would come within Ghapter 58, Seetion 100, of the Tliinoins State Bar
Association Statute, Gnith-Hurd, Chapter 25, Seetion 104, and that the
informetion chergee that he exposed his pergon te said Willism Reed,
which set would not necessarily be « eriminal offense in the absence of
additional elroumstaneces not elieged in the information. However, while
there is no suthority of a court of last resort in this state, having
passed on a like question, in the ease of People v. Krats, 200 Nich. 334,
: s
bogusio ouedt agiionotnt aft .edutate of Le syamgaat, oid at aaw eguade
tneinateal edt —
ini bas youbea ageiseome ~yLintiiv hae Boyer eng
rue 2 Panos bead Sf to ope Py hoe1rMg 6 Bea ee
baa Silde taow pS pean .
soho dole aaott AED sae sae het 8 os
Bai "|
mak, snowed oF ey 10 6 oa’ be mone: sop ia bed :
__apsoebal Les be at doen yt mns’D <bean. gat t ;
7 Pie Ans edt oaves dna
oat OF Yrotiaco ,atoa swottlowal ban
i a a E |
| pyr lerhng phe hy fo igunet Rae
ERT” S08 Wit O82 we lgest «¥ mitgnae test:
. is ott fit oer 89 by SS = <n
nok et ¥;
itive wae ri etutates ed? te ep
deity Adiv eanettoc eff to eargan sft To
aa 2 amaned St ae of of
Od ne seats te “piiing 84
sega diod: om gatswiiat
. of 008, fn pe oe ee te ye rt
onstors caved ‘Ieates™ yexvoado ,eiiv pogo ie
oa Ute | Sirois i sai od aM,
a Sy t's aaa ie acne br
atdt gad? sost edt ot mebteathe eee: ask? ‘aiteo snatapted ai, , wat
dokide onne?to vw sce rveie lentes ton auth ektamnst
iinet malty Bian of mpnang ate, Renee, asthenia.
Ye, senends ori? at anette Laghukw «of yisuasnenen, Rem Afuen. Sam: AMM,
oLhehe ctsvevoll .nottanmnpint ol? nt pegetin ton sopantanuotte Lanotsihha
yatvad .etete eld? at drones teak to duce o to yetredtue on af exodt —
285 .loLM OUS \ETeRA .v igeod To onae odd ni yroktaawp eatt 4 Ao ang
4
| the court in ifs opinion said:
“The well aettleé end generally Known significance of the phrase
‘Endecent and ebecene expocure of the person’ ia the exhibition of
these private parte of the person whieh inetinetive modesty, human
@ecency or netursl self-reepect requires ehali be customarily kept
Govered in the psreeence of others.
The evidence not heaving been preserved in the record before
thie sourt, we will presume that there was sufflelent evidence to
justify the court in entering the Judgment. se believe thet upon the
recora before this court, the court did not err in finding the de-
fendant guilty ond fixing the punishnent.
fer the reasons stated, the judgment is affirmed.
AFP IAMED.
DENTS K. MULLIVAR, ¥.J., and
BURKE, J, GORCUR,
avigerony eae Leste uae
—e hae @GL fate eed Mistedtia “Qe famzut_e’ bait tine dog
joe piptelreng ede aot
ite a@ Ulestyoes Jiate ache nowneg
tin ena > Ie Be Cl tepis
as a Epeny's Yate fit) WG Cer} evaiare Se aye ott cates Oh visas
ER SPREE, £20.5 id Eh ean ug ae wal ct aay, (Sa2 saptiisD. 56, iu "
m beh cad Ye Wiley of Links +8 OFF gale naeese id
srontanndele te yomempeh led at ot BELA ies
i moe ,80 «eg at bebe af 6h ceil atanell
YORU ,7Aey yooeosds saiey te Ste eG? way igen ot natal | hee
PRR Seat ENS aA ee 80ice OSG Yee id Wy supplant i ‘?
" SGT BEEF LuGas Se Seinoys ee) “7 She ad? a 1
eiae Fees " st off of Baltwatie = Pienw ot? ah how ome ee maauatih
daidw ouxetts wa eualin xo Cr ae LALLA SMES eee ROG? sodden
anh wate afondirk ef? ta . Oot aateeed 5 8 “alt gesta skatty, ati, Ae ;
ata cast See yet ae iipant Ps madars { peat ca ” aii! |
mala
Se a ee alt a
”
a
a
Ey,
&
i
4
.
a%
<
on
~_
a
tai
yo
=
2 *
oe
ta
ay
ative <eovere .smoisewint. o¢ ah Sakae v7 toa ere a"
piutved .ecats als a4 ¢comen fond We Peco & Bo eieeteos 3
Qe oth Ch peed ot efoest te. seep on? ot ae epernee nae ts
in . may
aay & wan
41209
FRED KRERPER,
Fleintiff - Appellee, SRLOGUTORY APPEAL
Ve
é SUPERIOR COURT
STEEL De "olson, his Sui te, hie RAs Be as £ 4 =
J, ESKER, “9 Trusate Undey’ the ribet £—" )
Seed “ecorded as j i
WELG N. VIERUP, A
Wo. 535812, Sup@rior Odur® of Sool
Sounty, Illinois, and "Uarsows GHEE RS
defendants, :
On Appesl of HARNY CONEN, 1) 5 T AA 5 0 1
Defendant - Appellent.
Ree@hvey! in dau ge COOK COUNTY.
WR. JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE GPISION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal by the defendant from an interlecutery order
entered on January 35, 1940, on plaintiff's verified petition filed
in a suit te fereciose 1 junior trust deed and sking for the
appointment of « receiver for the premises described in the plaintiff's
complaint. to this petition, defendant, Harry Sehen, the owner of the
equity of redeastion filed » verified snawer. From all allegations
in the compleint, it appesrs that the pkaintiff is the owner of «
junior mortgsge securing an indebtedness in the principsl sum of
Fourteen Thousend Five Hundred ($14,500.00) Dellars, the unpaid
belance of which is in the sum of Thirteen Theusend Hine Hunired
(813,900.06) Dellars and became entirely due on November 1, 1931. when
plaintiff filed hia compiaint to foreciese the mortgege in this oase,
interest hed secerued on said principal balance to the extent of Eleven
Thousand Vive Hundred Fifty and 78/100 (911,560.78) Dollars, thus
aggregating a total indebtedness of Tventy Five Thousend Four Hundred
Fifty and 78/100 ($25,450.78) Dollars. A first mortg=ge enoumbering
the premises had been foreclosed and a deeree of foreclesure and ssle
was @ntered by the court, pursuant to which ssle wna hed on Getober
25, 1938, for Trenty One Thousand($21,000.00) Dollars. on Octeber 25,
1939, plaintiff redeemed from asid sale end paid the Master in Chancery
who made the sale the sum of Twenty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty
LARitd LAOTUDOIRR TRL pa pe Lhegaa = tremble |
eTRUCO FHT FO SOLINIVO FHP OLARVIISG AAS AOTTAUG .Aw
tebre yrofwoolretal as mort tasbastob edt yd Laeqgs az ei aldT
belit aoktiteq beltirev e'ttitaisle no .OROL 4a A eset fe a oe |
adt xot yatter hue beeh taut? tolaut #« seoleetet of tive wn al
e'ttitniealg edt ai beditoesb eoalnery eat tot revieoer ® 6 temtntogge
ed? to temwo od? ,aedod pri tashaeteb etoltiteq eld? of stataiques me
enoltegelic Ife motl .tewene belticew « DoLit soltqmeber To velupe ‘
a to tenwo edt ef Ytiemdedq edt sont exeoqgs th «taielqnoo edt at
Yo swe Laqtoning edt at pesubeddebat an gatnwoes speytuon tolmt |
bieqns od? yetelio@d (00,008,518) bethaui evlt banevodT asetrs0t ug
berhnsi oal8 basevodT aeesttisT Yo me out at et dolde to eoaeled |
nedv .L2@L .f sedmevel mo orb yletitae emeosd hae ataiied (00,008,828)
goene eld? al egegtrom edd evelostet of tatelqmeo aid belit YWivatele
nevelS to tastes ed? of oomeled Leqtonizq biee ao bewroon Dau deorseat
aud? ,etel lod (a¥.088,£48) oor\st bas VET bor hawlt ‘sent basavott |
bethast tvel baeavont evi Yaewt to arsnbeddsbat Lotoe F attrgoraat 4 |
gatrodmuone oyegitom test A setatiod (87,080,289) ont\er word ¥
else baa oxeneloerot to setoeh « bae beroloorot need bod noatnorg oat a’
Tedese0 mo bed aoe Gioe doide of taayetug atxu0o ods w borotno en i .
8S Tedet00 nO wetel io (00.000, £88) busexod't on Vineet tot seer “ a |
yreonsd of wetesk edt binq bas else bles sett ‘bemseber Mitabe. re. .
XSELE hothawll emt darewodT tuck Yemen Yo mun ont sian eft bem ode
rae, et eet eG
$5
2
@ix and 40/100 (924,966.40) Sellars, and reeeived « eertifieste of
redemptione
By his foreclosure, pisintiff seeks in addition te ether
relief to add the wonies expended for reiempticn te the mortgace
indebtedness, the subject of this fereclosure croceedings, whieh sakes
a total indebtedness of Fifty Thousand four Hundred Seventeen end
18/100 ($50,417.18) Yollars.
Qytua B. Glsen and fthel 0. Gleon were makers of both
mortgszes and conveyed the premises in 12239 te = Trustee te secure
the payments of smounte due under the mortgsces, and, theresfter, did
not appe»r in the ehein of title.
Harry Gehen, the defendant, accuired title on Jecember &,
1939, forty dgys ofter the owners right te redeem from the sale under
the first mortg2ge foreclosure had expired,
Gn Jdanuery 12, 1946, pleintiff applied to the aourt fer
the appointment of = Heeeiver based upon his verified petition in
Conjunction with the complaint. The 15 amoenth wratatomy persue ef
redemption fmm the sale provided for in the deeree in/orier foreclosure
Casé) wea te @xpire on Janunry 25, 1940, and the 4eceiver in possession
of the premises by virtue of the prior precesdings wes entitled te
retain possesgion until thet time. Plaintiff's motion was continued
until thot time, »t which time the defendant, without previously giving
notice to the plaintiff, filed an Anewer to plaintiff's petition, ne
Anewer heving ut that time been filed to the complaint.
Plaintiff's verified petition sllezes among other things
thst Cyrus 5. Olson and %thel 9. Olsen, mekera of the trust deed and
mortgsge are insolvent and without personel means to pay or satisfy
the indebtednese due plaintiff; thet they sre no honger the owners of
the equity of redeaption and do not reside on the premisea; thet Harry
- Cohen is the present owner and does not reside on the premises and
thet petitioner does not have any knowledge of his present wheresbouts.
j
eee.
to ofeolti#res s bevieoet bao ,eteliod (08,386,689) OGL\Od bas xts
wedte of moltthhn af efeoe Yxitnkelq ,orwealoero? att |
saegttom adt of noltqashet tot behaeque asigos odd bbs. of rekior
bias ea ail
salem doide .agniheetotg eso lester asng ‘te soodue eds qwennbotdebat
regoe! Saat
. baw meetniaves botbawtt wo basexout we to eerie
‘Mette
ted to steasm exey moaio .f aan han aeeeeneaall
| etuoes “of coteust @ of @80L at roatnons oat beyoraon bas-ansenéon
bib ,revteered? ,has ,sogegttom od? tohnw oub stavome Yo ataonysg edt
gadese te atado out aL teeqge 17 |
a8 “zagaseed ao eiste bexdupoe penebasted odd .a9de0 eral
4 eoher ¢ ? vad reais
rebay siee od? mort m ° pages epsery. rents Ps eftoh g60Ed
sboxiqre bad srumeoLooxo soak me cr
¢ ott betiags triad Opes ek. ‘Wreumsl 7
02 HO? oF. sa: ala ® bd %6 vo iniovee |
snemtadoags odd |
3 al nottt?eq bell Liev aid moqu bered revisosr oat to “ he
ef Ay
_ te doizeg Kzotutote dines ei os? - stadnignos ode A tiv Noe |
52 Poet ay 20
oxunalnage? sain wd soxoeb odd. at rot bebivorg else ea? ma notsa .
solsespeog af teyicoon edt bas 008k 228 ere to ezigx® of esw geRae 4
yOwR tanga tee a
ot peistine Ben egasberoong rots ont re eutttv ¥ ecaheore, mt to
haunt tao eew soltom etrtatatess pense toda itoaw sokenseeog
ce, aes joey 4
, paaves Mauotvens tuod3ie ,faabaetob | edt outs fonde % omit me
% Sh es rou AL
of on .tptthtog e'Ytitatede ot TeweaA as pest sMuitabade oat Ly dors
: Bake ft Sestak adg
stateiguoe exit oF beset mond eats todd Ce
"agent redo gsioms nexpiis moneates berpaxev orts btmbai
hae besd eure? ost Yo. arstom sconlo e Lesa ban noes0 «8 os our ’
_ Metter to you of Rae OR Lenoetes tuodste pas ses rs cent ote ®
te
iblatbemnite tnovena , ons re poh So ova? : i wood
atta
cme? suet YeneeT to kum ont ean ef? Sham agi
Yee
3
On Jamary 25, 1949, the defendent, Harry Gahen, by leave
of court, filed his Ans®er to aaid Petition, which denied thet there
wag due plaintiff the sum of Twenty Five Thousend four Hundred Fifty
-gnd 78/100 (225,450.78) Gollears, on said junior trust deed sought to
be foreclosed; thet said trust deed ond notes were delivered to one,
Gustave 6. Anderson, in consideration fer soney due him for erecting
the bailding on oremises deserived in the comeleint for Cyrus 8. Oleen;
that subsequentiy, Olsen defaulted in payment of notes and entered
into an agreement «ith inderson whereby Cison snd his wife would
convey premises to Anderson, in tonsiderstion whereof, Anderson
would ecanoel the trust deed and netes sought to be foreclosed herein;
that pursuant to the agreement, Syrus 5. Clason snd Ethel Oleen conveyed
the premises to Gustave Anderson on Merch 29, 1929, which deed was
recerded as document No. 10324193, snd #78 in full psyment snd satis-
faction of indebtedness ani notes and trust deed representing same and
thet thereby the lien of the trust deed became Oxtinguished and merged
with the fee of premises; that by reason of eid merger there is
nothing due to plaintiff under seid trust deed and notes; that pleintiff
is barréd from asintsining the present setion to foreclose said trust
deed.
The answer of the defentient simite thet on Geteber 75, 1933,
pleintiff onid Master Lantry Twenty Four Thousand Hine Hundred Sixty
Six and 60/190 (924,966.40) Dollnrs, and that eid Moater issued a
oertificate of redemption, and the defendant denies that plaintiff is
entitled to recover Trenty Four Thougand Hine Hundred Sixty Gix and
40/100 (824,966.40) Dollars, as an sdvaneement under ssid trust deed
and deniea thet there is due plaintiff the ewm of Fifty Thousend Four
Hundred seventeen and 16/100 (980,417.18) Dollers, or that the trust
deed is a lien on the property deseribed.
It further sppeare from the Ansver thet the premises sre on
the northwest cerner of Wellington and Central avenues, Chiesge, and
are improved with «= three story brick building, sontaining 18 epartments
1
eveei yO ,utedod yrteH ,imabasteb edd ,ODCL ,.8f yreunsl a0
oredt fodt Belwod dofde yitodtited bias of trans etd hott Hdod Ye
(tlt detbav# xv0't dacawedT ovEt yemewt Yo mum odd Yrttatétd Ode way
of f¥yuoe Seed teurt xoftiut Siew mo yeraltew (8¥.0eseee) oos\er
.2ne of Detevifeh orew edfon baa boob teir't Bree vide ibeeoloeror we
yrttoere ee? mid owt yaree tet sotterabtanoo nt ,wowrehas | .D ovatau®
jneald 8 eytyl ‘tot gateLqmon eae nt bedisoush avaimete to gukbitud’
herefme bas asten to taamyeq ah besiusteb weald .yltwoupendue ”
Biuver sti wld betd noelo ydersde moerebal Htiw tadmestys an
Hoershet ,toorsdy cottersbieneo mi ,towxebmA of seakmety Yovnde
yetered bevofeoret od of Heguoe eeton bite bawb tun odd Keio blues
hayevaes moelO Led¢i has aoelO .& evry? {tunmverge ens OF Yaswatu todd
new bet siotaw RHEL (es dora We inoweanil ovlitelO BY ebetaorg oat
-gitee bus tueeyet LIvt ot aor bee ROLeCCOL Lod troateh be bentoows
tne ones gaktaceerqet besh Ywirrt bas woson Bits peenbeddsbal to wore
boprem bee betetigattx® omroed besb tourer oi? Yo att 6xt \qoorodt |
al erodt cogrten Biss Ye Homner yo hit Yavetmorg Yb bot Si
Witnioly tert pesto baw Deeb tems bis tober Whittate os Sub gid
saute bine See ooret oF doktor snoeorg ute hecymrenysi aonge
7:4
"pees ae rades00 no dndlt ettwhs “tasdavhen ong 0 soe eet. ~~
YFKE bothawK ease bacawedT two yInsKT yxtaal rete, peep to
__,# houead rotepl hive tadt, bay getatied (0b,BOS PSF). OF, paw, A
et ttitntels tedt esined tashasteb eft bas .«mossqmede ‘Yo ptaptsaexap
bar xi0 yext® berbavl sath baxeyodT xu0% yenoo? xeve0er. of nee
besb teut? Blew xebav sneaspnsybe ae an, gegalion, (0d 388 .d83) :
xuol baspuod? yet 2o mua edt Y2ImtaLe, awh a oxot et Laspetid .
teuxt edt todd to. .ereslod (8ho45,068), Pan \et Aae a MootnevEe bos :
4
and 3 stores ané thet the monthiy income derived therfrom is
approximately $700.00 te 800.90 per month, or §10,2590.90 per year;
that the improvesents are spproximately 12 yesre old and thet the
entire property hes the fair oceh market value of Fifty Thousand
(260,095.00) Doilara.
The contentions of the defendant sré thet the burden of
showing the necessity for the sepeintment of » reeeiver is on the
plaintiff, and tht pisintiff has not eusteined that burden either
by the Complaint or vetition er by testimony. Plaintiff's anawer
te these contentions is thet 4 court of chancery will sppeint a
receiver on considerstion ef sll the equities in the case in order te
preserve the oroperty in ite custedy fer whichever of the parties
will ultimately prove te be entitled thereto.
it sould sppenr from the answer of the defendant thet he
contends plaintiff's mortgage is invelid beosuse it is merged with
the titley and further that slsintiff's redemption is void. This,
of course, is 2 question which is the issue to be determined by the
eourt on a final hesring. fhe question which we are concerned
with is whether the court wes in errer in sppeinting a receiver where
it appeara from the statewents whieh are contained in the setition
and Gompleint end the answer of the defendant smd net being in
possession of the premises, there is an issue of fact te be determined
by the Court ahd apply the law os it wiil eentrol upon « question ef
like charscter.
It would seem thet the defendant would have no standing in
court upon the question that we heve before ua for the resson that
the court has not yet determined whether there was a merger of the
title; and, therefore, there wee 2 gitustion thet the court ws
ebliged to take into consideration in the sppointment of the Seceiver
in question. Under the eireumatances the court was justified in
appointing « receiver until the ouestione which were raised by the
&
ek ‘mort ted? bavinab mor £ Vatzon edt nds tae ecrote a baer
izeey 19C 00.008,0£2 te ,fitmem 16q 00,0088 of 00. ,00r8 “Ustiusxorace
_ Od todd dae bho exaey EL ¥ Usdastrovags one edaomevorgae: oa ‘tads
Ee
basevodtt erst to eudev fodtem Aeco thst edt aod “yarecora ‘exten
| saxaLioa (00,000,088)
te asbrsd ods tedt exe * ¢nabaeted oat ‘te suotinstaoe oar Peps
ont mo al rov Looe s to tnemtatoggs edt tot Wiaeeoen ond sabwods
redtts asbuud sadt hoaietese ton end ‘iltntedg that bus 1Witatate
TewEMe a'tttvalels sWneniaet vd 10 nottiteg te “tabaigned ond Ww
Vi Yer ee
a talogqge iitw yreonedo ‘te true a ted ei ano Ltneinee onedd ot
mass
ot xebto al seso edt ai nate tues on? She te noktershience no xovisoer
Degas he a
getdung ont Yo revedoldn xot vos avo ats ab reget edt evreseng
reat 7 a ‘Bee
soterad? beititae " oe over, yiee .
ae a a> ee mL poh die ‘wy
ed tedt tanbastob ad? te rowan ants ‘moxt rasqga blues oF \
wad Patar? Ya wre Prelit
dtiw bogtom a ti oaunoed biLevms at Spagtton rMideatalg abae > ca
aelat ebiov ek nol tgnsbex a'titintetg sade Se ,
edt Ww beninxeteh ed of exvwat odd at sosie nokta eup ut ek sonny mieiat 4
| peaxvenge ote oe doldw notteawy oat opatrond doakt A oe 1 ef |
etedy tevieosr « gaidaiogge at torre af eew éruoo ed? todfedw ef Ath |
Kotti¢se eft at baniuines ore doldw ktnesetessa edt matt etesgas ti
at yeled ton bas dushboeted off to Tewsas eft Das takelqmeo bar
benisreteh od et fect to cumal ar af ered .neatmnng ot to Molessaang
‘Ye nedtessp » aoqe Loxinoe Lise ti en wed adt ylqqe bis txuee eh yo
wt gaibentea oa svad bigow ¢uabastab edd todt more phew #°) ooo.
todt moaret eif¢ tot ex oreted eved ov ted? modtnoup ad? aoqu twee
ost te taytes s sew ered? todtedw benimreteb tex tom eed tives sat
ear true sat fedt solseuthe anew onesie, oroteredt bas gekeee
xevievs!! en? to cenatahenes att at ankterenndnne aft GME of, Neatise
&
iseue sare determined and = decree upon the question ie entered. 4
recciver ahould be appointed if it is msde to spresr tast there is
@ necessity to preserve the property for such sarties as shall be
entitled te the benefit. Bank v. Gog@, 79 L1i. 397,303.
There ig » further question which should be considered, it
having been wade by the defendant, thet there «oe utterly no proof
made as te the value of the property, and that the complsint and
petition mace no sadecunte statement of its valve, end thet the court
took no evidence, refusing an offer of defendant's sounsel te de so.
Of course, the defendant in his anewer admitted thet the plaintiff
invested in the redemption of the premises, waAich would indicate
that he has 2 substantial interest in the subject sastter of this
iitig tion, and if the defendant desired to offer testimony upon
the question of the finencial interest which the oleaintiff hed in
this forecleaure proceeding, he could have offered evidence by
Onlling witnesses te the stand for the ourpese of testifying and if
this was refused he could have offered ta prove the fnets whieh he
believed the witnesses would have proven by their testimony. ‘This
the defendant did not do, and as the court in the case of Steveng
ve Heyman, 62 [1i. Avp. 5349, stated in its apinian:
"A mere atatement of an offer te prove is not anything i
which # court is cslied upen to act. The witnesses should be
Galled and questioned, or documentary evidence produced."
ami agein in the oase of Strong v._ am, 261 111. App. 802, the
court quoted from onse entitled Qhicage City Ay. So. v. Yarrell,
O06 Ill. 318, upon = like question, where the court ssid:
“Appeliant, in feet, offered no evidence upon the matter. Ho
witness was put on the stand; no question was asked. Nothing
was done ¢xcept s meré conversation or talk hed between counsel
* * * and the court. Such procedure as thet does not amount to
an offer of evidence, and the remerks of the court did not amount
to 4 refusal to admit evidence. * * * If anpeliant desired to
make the contention it now mpkes, it should have at lesst put a
witness upon the stand end proceeded far enough that the question
relating to the point it is now said it ess desired to offer
evidence upon wns resched, end then put the question and sliew
the court to rule upon it, and then offer what wae expected te
be proved by the witness, if he was not allowed to answer the
question asked,“
a?
A .derstes @f multetyp of? moxe sewesb o hay bemtmre¥es oth ‘buedt
GL ex0de todd. teoqqe of whee OL HE TE betttogys oe biwclte’ devebed
ad Liste es eeltrey dove tot yPreroTq edd evecare OF YWiestoon 2
208, TOS VASE OF \GhAD .v Amel Toro dtol Porky eitened ont oF bakelebs"
th ,betebienoo ed biveds doise noltequp redteut » 6k exedT ° *
tooty Of YLxetty awe erode todd ,tnebmotod odd ys oben mOed yatvad
bas Maek@men ef? todd daw ,ydtororg odd to sotey bt of be bam”
fxvoe dt tadt dae yeulev est te dmenotere edowpode of obaw Holtideg
108 of of Leemueo ettaabavted to rete &* yadeutor .senddive’ da eos"
ttitedale ed¢ tedt bateimbs 1o0eaa eid ni saahaoteb edd sexd00 to”
eteothal biwow deids ,eedimetq Od¢ Lo aottamebet ole at bodadedi”
sidt Yo tetsom tospdes sit at sewteens LeLénodediia d est ad’ tad”
oq Wonttse? totte of berégeb daabaetob edt TE ‘haa (add giett ”
ai hed Yiktakety ont doldw feetettt Leteacalt sat To Holtesup odd
Nd Gegebtve betetto sved Bivoo ed ,galbedeord srasotostot aiad
TL hus griytéteoe to evoqtuy edf tet Rante edt of ddonodtiw Yakiice
od doide wtust edt ovoty of beretto dvail blue od Beedter exw aide ”
eid? .yuomttasy tiled? YS mevory ovad Biuow weavontiw Sf bevetted””
agersis Sere ent mi Ixvod ost wo bad gob Won Seb debited edd
: Hoimkeo eff at betete LORE Vqek ELT nd iw
at of Ser "sees ans Sadan at tees Sette
deavh lee yhete . | _—
ont 808 sams ‘<ananeuunaianandll Vamorte Y¢ bebe’ wad RE Wkeys Bae
liornsS .v .90 28 yOED opeotdo DeLittwe seco mort Bevel Piued
thkes tues ent exhite lottesih abt 8 Hociy (Ake 2 308
erate sar nstaeney se insets. Sil estricbes |
ae Fase kr Rat
at SaaS ata Peer La
S ty tesel te ovad bivetia $2 , “ “a . ..
galvesap edt eat dasene tet bebs , as
tetto of bexieed naw Gt oite'see att gt PST si: wall
wolle brs aolteeusp edt tuq med? bus 1008 SOOPER ose
srs asm te Sg SE oe
tovans of borelis ton sew ae
: Sk, eis
6
From this record as ee heve examined it the court did net
refuse te hear evidence from * witness on the stand rendy to teatify.
The defendant contends thet the court utterly fallied toe take eny
evidence whetever on the contention, but sven refused to do so, and
based ite order fer sprointing a reseiver on the seorn comelsint and
petition only, and thet such action =e¢ sontrery te isy.
Ag we have sirvesdy indicsted the cuestion presented te
thie court is « question of sergerj that being « seestion which will
have to be determined by the court on the hearing, we sre nat of the
opinion that the triel court erred in appointing « reoeiver of the
property in question.
The question which remains te be determined is whether the
court in entering on order sopeinting « reeeiver without any testimony
whatever abused its discretion. In one of the ¢zses oslled to our
attention by the olaintiff, Schack v. Mokey, 87 Il]. Appe 480, this
court seid:
"an application for the appointment of 2 receiver is sddreased
te the sound judicial discretion of the court, taking into seeount
ali the circumstances of the ozse, and, if exercised, is for the
purpose of ting the ends of justice and of protesting the
rights of ail the parties interested in the controversy and the
subject matter * * *.#
and again this court said in Hodougell So. v. Hooda, 347 Ill. App. 170,
"The primary purpose of the atetute is to permit « review of
the exercise of the discretion ledged in the chaneeller with the
purpose of dete whether the interlocutery order probably
wae necessary to tain the gtotug quo and preserve the eovitable
rights of the parties."
Under the fnotes as they are alleged in the plaintiff's com
plaint and petition for the appointment of a receiver and the defendant's
anewer, we believe that the court wes fully justified in appointing
® reo@iver and did not abuse its diseretion in making auch aspointwent.
For the reasons stated the order of the Court is affirmed,
AFFIRMED.
DENIS Hy, GULLIVAN, Ped. AND BURKK, J, CONCIA,
fom bth etu9o ed? tt beatmexe oved ow ee buooMT sidt mort il
oUtitee? of ydsor toate oat mo wetndiv # wert Gomehivd aden od Oatt ex
“) he eile oF Holler YLvetty truer odd Fidt oBindinoe Yainde¥ep Sar
bas joe ob OF Deavtor move Gin (aokiwotdes oilt ito tovesdie WeiTehive
| «weal of yrorfmod vay wetton doce tadt bat (Yino aoktiteq
OF Dotusdere Wettesus Md Seteosbat Yhotrls evad de wa”! 6oL'>H
Lite olde soktieds n ‘yaited Wnad ftegien Yo dontueuy dk Cudde itite
‘BHF ‘to tom Ota OW gumteeed ond na Pruoe Sad Yo BenidYeded ed oe dha
frente sdaquongrbelemnoyeemindnaper ‘vated Lelut Sd? tide Woinide
| sholtecuy at Yeteqon
od? “edtedw et hontwreteh od of entanex dolitw doléeoup edt °°
Woultasd ys tiodttw Yowteoot » guitaitoae robes na githtodus al Pxued
Ho ot Bette wens wie te bxo AI Jadttotoelh e¥t Beauté Yovwdede
aide apt se tir Fe eto *¥ seta <thdtntele ot We ote
2 eeinvi mid
SL, SOS rt SFR.
Pe mg ony in a ase * te ot Somat toreeus S ipteuset bee
" | Oe gaipsen bot 30 908,
~moe » eittsdatedg oa at £ egokte one vont ene etoct ge :
PSere cp we rites Sune |”
sttnabaet sb ont has revisost a Yo “tnotatogse | odd Pe. notes katie
Le” ROU hea ROS
gatintoaqs at bottisent ue pee PR , pus get hare
! -trentakoaan owe , | a
PUBLISHED IN ABSTRACT
People of the statd of flinos, 2 Plaintiff i v.
James ae Defendant in oe
&
f Gen. No, 9999 ae} % () 5 a
Mr. Justice Furton delivered the opinion of the
court.
The grand jury of Champaign County returned an
indictment against James D. Flynn on April 12, 1939,
for malfeasance in office. The indictment consists of
nine counts. The first count charges that the defend-
ant, during all of the time between the 1st day of Jan-
uary, 1938, and the 15th day of February, 1939, was the
duly elected, qualified and acting Mayor of the City of
Champaign, in Champaign County, Illinois, and that
during all of said time he did wilfully, intentionally
and unlawfully fail and omit to perform his official
duty as Mayor of the said City of Champaign, in that
he did, then and there, wilfully and intentionally fail,
neglect and omit to use any sincere effort or to make
any sincere endeavor or attempt whatever to stop gam-
ing and the keeping of common gaming houses in said
City of Champaign, which said gaming was then and
there in progress and which said common gaming
houses were then and there being kept and operated in
said City of Champaign, in violation of the laws of the
State of Illinois. And so the grand jurors charged
that the defendant ‘‘is guilty of a palpable omission
of his official duty.’’
The second count is the same as the first count, ex-
cept it charges failure to make ‘‘any effort’’ to stop the
keeping of houses of ill fame.
The third count is the same as the first count, except
it charges a failure to make ‘‘any effort’’ to stop the
setting up of lotteries for money.
The fourth count is like the first count, except it
charges that it was the duty of the defendant to make
a sincere effort to stop gaming and the keeping of com-
mon gaming houses in the City of Champaign, and it
does not add the charge that he ‘‘is guilty of a palpable
omission of official duty.’’
The fifth count is like the second count, except it
charges that it was the duty of the defendant to make
a sincere effort and endeavor and attempt to stop the
keeping and maintaining of houses of ill fame, and it
a" T
ee
vg 00 30 ij poping aes"
pie ‘broteb odt fail! eszinto iames taht
od hale
» geiictang” rdermod oh tad pio,
it tavoxo os
edenret os
ToarraiaA wt dane
iy
oe hodirtot tae: cuit te Tih, hada od ace eg
WSGt St ling, ito i at die
fo etdbaitals Adattedsibae sg
161 TOS HY orf? shan wtbeaeutenit i dal Nags a Ale :
oifanw. SCL crue y Yo tab a ill Hint PERL onl
te NaNY sd) is pol holitnn }
tadt bern saiowilf? etenod eaiecmd pi Soe
vitebitootnt \2iittlive DB a .
» friofo eid arnold ob tae bow lint y % be
tedt wi jugingmiad) to ti) fin« oft Yo %
diet Henoitestai, bun witeliw,
odeht of narrate oaecre tan,
a pe ly ot rpvasmcter squanatdesrvea am
hiee
ban aed! saw ad
iti heteroo hae trod aried rot has
sali To awa tort tow Or al ton tih |
hegtada «Toit bunre oe fed. 810 ait 9p ofa
nofzeion ofdeqley # % "Hie a to Hrate:
il a ae
“74 shaves teiPrort) ea f tei os Bae
bigae:-4 Lc ar san panties Pt ey Nige ; tne .
Seren xey 08 ah ned!
odt qote of | itdfie « ign Tet
pipes 103 2 {
4 pi gi desoy terri rind nite
oAnt ob da
Fe te aa
vs gorghay
nel BRM *E
aif} gate ott
ti Bice iat |
Page 2 Gen. No. 9222
charges that the defendant then and there ‘‘wilfully,
knowingly, intentionally, palpably and unlawfully’”
failed and omitted to perform his official duty as Mayor
in that he wilfully, knowingly and intentionally failed,
neglected and omitted to make any sincere effort or
endeavor or attempt to stop the keeping and maintain-
ing of houses of ill fame, ete.
The sixth count is like the third count, except it
charges that it was the duty of the defendant to make
a sincere effort and endeavor to stop the setting up
and promotion of lotteries for money, and that the
defendant ‘‘wilfully, knowingly, intentionally, palpably
and unlawfully’’ failed and omitted to perform his offi-
cial duty in that he failed, neglected and omitted to
make any sincere effort to stop the setting up and pro-
motion of lotteries for money.
The seventh count is like the fourth count, except
that it pleads an ordinance of the city of Champaign,
which provides that the Mayor ‘‘shall have the general
supervision and control of the police,’’ and charges
that ‘‘it then and there became and was the duty of
the said James D. Flynn, under said ordinance and
under the laws, to make a sincere effort and endeavor
and attempt to stop gaming and the keeping of gaming
houses in the said city of Champaign.
The eighth count is like the fifth count, except it
pleads an ordinance of the city of Champaign, which
provides that the Mavor ‘‘shall have the general super-
vision of the police’’ and charges that ‘‘it then and
there became and was the duty of the said James D.
Flynn, under said ordinance and under the law, to
make a sincere effort and endeavor and attempt to stop
the keeping and maintaining of houses of ill fame in
the City of Champaign.’’
The ninth count is like the sixth count, except it
pleads an ordinance of the City of Champaign, which
provides that the mayor ‘‘shall have the general super-
vision and control of the police,’’ and it charges that
“9t then and there became and was the duty of the said
James D. Flynn, under said ordinance and under the
law, to make a sincere effort and endeavor and attempt
to stop the setting up and promotion of lotteries for
money in the City of Champaign.’’
Three of these counts—the first, fourth and
seventh—are based on the failure of the defendant to
stop gaming and the keeping of common gaming
houses in the City of Champaign. Three of the counts
—the second, fifth and eighth—are based on the failure
fetus.
aeoh hattior bun hotoolaon paliad of at cteb thea
>
econ oi wep & eet,
clin tity" arith feels rem Feaberstoh onli tit sg
‘“alstwalac bite. vito tee wpitiites h Petrol.
10 FGY AER taietherwid- Heros rebate
stint lakodmajad bin cinatrone roo tnitt at
To. drofis saseni# von etam of batlie bar | Twioolgsir
-frip vias bas male ink od? gots oF jqarste 70 soresbns’
ato ore If Yo eesrod to 7
ti Niowx9 Aruroo frid? of} “oil ai depo dSnia a
clit af jrebeaeh edt 0 cub add enue Ht fenll Ai
qe yanlter odd goly of tovsohne baa tote ATOR A
oO) led Enaaon vot satatiof WW avitoaneriey bivt
ehstisey iy ifetontestai etiniwand ieliwilie toaboolsh
Ty sito ted 3? bottian bax hola -
ovveg Brae cfr spit: we od? qos st teoits oe ee
wuruis TOP aafrstiol nas
tours Jotron daa aay adits odil et troy didevea adT
drgiscetad? ‘to ytin sit to ohmuniie WA abaaley Mt teat
erate, odi oved Hada’ toyn wilt tadt dale
eowteia bin "oot sift Yo: feaidos Bee
Yo viuh ad} aew Bas amend eed) Boe t+ oe
Dre ocaniine hies -sbow welt 0 seo bles
rovkahoo hea Aw Rp evesie es eden of oe ee
mirthtiee Wo tntqoadt ole haw yale aS PTY bits
ura tae to ‘Gio Hine odd oF agesodl *
li Niort fotos ath odf oth ef famey Hifyio My
toilw atotayeead to eile ot) To somanibre ae
~“iaque levers aft vad fade royale oh}
het deaf? ti ded? aeprads ban 7 aaion aft to.
(T wontel bine ad? to ytah od! anor Bae i
oY wel sd) ssbeu bea gonieitvo fies mere lS
ute of tame hire tovagban bie ote moat eat
of one en Se A
ti fqvexe Jnnon titel oa al et
sider cruienyosmil) Yh et odd Ea ae
TH (rrocros lb ovad Kade yevens 50 toy
Hy: i) eunveilo 4 ben “ookleat, aft 9e fotiies Baa
bigs as: Yo vtwh ot enw Bne : stottt fon
ott geheu hee oni’ bine
iqenst ts Dan Tove bere deo ie arosntie
101 eaivatiol Te avizonrey Furnas re port
Ses dtr’ Jew +a eins aeortd > ta en
oF teehnotab off Wn Senttet will ——. ie
ule comes Te pec of? fine
sino silt ta onde
eroflet sift nb Deane Rane 79 ‘fei
Page 3 Gen No. 9222
to stop the keeping of houses of ill fame in Champaign.
And three of the counts—the third, sixth and ninth—
are based on the failure to stop the setting up and
promotion of lotteries for money in the City of Cham-
paign.
Seven of the counts—the first, fourth, fifth, sixth,
seventh, eighth and ninth—charge a failure to make
any ‘‘sincere effort’’ to stop gaming, etc., and two
counts—the second and third—charge a failure to
make ‘‘any effort’’ to stop the keeping of houses of
ill fame, ete.
Three of the counts—the first, second and third—
charge that the defendant ‘‘wilfully, intentionally and
unlawfully’? failed to perform his official duty as
Mayor, and six of the counts—the fourth, fifth, sixth,
seventh, eighth and ninth—charge that the defendant
‘wilfully, knowingly, intentionally, palpably and un-
lawfully’’ failed to perform his duty as Mayor.
The defendant in error filed a motion to quash the
indictment and each and every count thereof. After
argument the Circuit Court of Champaign County al-
lowed the motion, entered an order quashing the indict-
ment and discharged the defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error contends that the indictment
is sufficient to charge the defendant in error with pal-
pable omission of duty and asks that the judgment of
the trial court be reversed and the case remanded for
trial.
The defendant in error insists that the order of the
Circuit court was correct and sets forth many reasons
why the indictment is insufficient. In our view of the
case it is only necessary to consider the second ground
urged in his brief as follows:
““The indictment is defective because it does not
apprise the defendant of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him with sufficient particularity
to enable him to prepare his defense and to plead
conviction or acquittal in bar of a subsequent prose-
cution.”’
The charge in the indictment in this case is based
upon the violation of Par. 449, Chapter 38, Ill. Rev.
Statutes, 1937, State Bar Assn. Ed., which reads as
follows:
‘‘Hivery person holding any public office (whether
state, county or municipal), trust or employment,
who shall be guilty of any palpable omission of duty,
or who shall be guilty of diverting any public money
from the use or purpose for which it may have been
S880 of na & baa
“aaiodiiers d9 if eoat (7 lo eatuod Yo gaigosd oft gol at
~~ hoa dixie batt ott-—ehawon ant to seat Bok
fina cfu etition att qate of wiofiet adi noe faked oe
-andi loves) pidtoni codon ot aePottol To wethomrong
ATQ LR
fiieis Ula uliagtol {tall sd f—ehqaon ant 16, Ireyod
elaine of ptuliad) ¢ easedo—-fentli heca ctitgio pilaavog
ove bie »ats fits may Wola ot “rofte si4agis yar
oo otulin’ B iretadio— -rintt fee feiieae ot—atades
te asantd to Bigs: ox ot ote at “haRo quia” oder
lo eorat 18
~-hrilt Dos Barsoe Jol odt—elitns ofl To saidT
bas vilenosinatai . ri lfiwe? tonbaatoh oil dual sytede
oan Gab Litsiie aid aciotiaq ot Bbatiat "alia
vitcia ae Gwiel sd}—ziniues edt to 2m Bae giogalt
, wabaetsh of} Jud) ogredo—dicke Biva Hidgie devas
on bor videqisg eliguotigoht hantwomt Selly ilige?
0764 an tsb ant arte of botist “¢tiotwal
ai} deeop of colloat a belt roi af fasbooish off
“tA .tnete) touna vteve bre dona bag doeastoibal
ie yttio? sgieqmatO to MuoD testi) ad ieomonaa
ota ad} quitesnp vabto ie heels aottons edt hewol
sore ii tdnbasteh edt hogrothokih Site inoo
teumoibnt oft belt abastron tect ef Rep ca
“Laing (Giw ror at Jonbadted od? ouande OF
to trommbut ot jidt edea bee vioh to haan
16| bobnamet sase od} bas bower ott fos faint out
ou} to who add tadt ataiaai torts pt hmbeotab oat
sionsot yi Wo ates bas toeriod aay Pilea Sued)
vi lo woly ito nl davtetteval at Jasetothal adh. yier
{lod ag tetyd wif it
torr aah. 17 oeanaoed neitoatos et tuommbeifat ofl? |
eld So necro bow conten att lo tashuoleb adh saaqe
‘tivelimeiireg itsisiioa Atte oid daalita cotigemona -
heslq of ine oxatoh stg oreqeny of atta aldsus al
Oud tootpadiia £ te tad a¢ ist tinpos 29 noitoivade .
"* noite |
feead ai seme 2idt sh ein odf at egtads ofD
ree ALY 2S vy ged Ae 2 to goiteloie edt:
wh Bhauy datdin face ts tai VEL,
itive) goifie oily tae sanibiod RTO cme
danervolgers 1S tart | Gagtoisiont to vinwoo etata -
dob lo adteiow aWeqine une to valing od Mads one:
couour siidang Yne gebnarih to witli od Made oul 10:
dood oval taxon ti doula tot paequig 40 san edd a
focorge Caones oft wl. o pe ic ee
Page 4 Gen No. 9222
appropriated, or set apart by or under authority of
law, or who shall be guilty of contracting directly or
indirectly, for the expenditure of a greater sum or
amount of money than may have been, at the time of
making the contracts, appropriated or set apart by
law or authorized by law to be contracted for or ex-
pended upon the subject matter of the contracts, or
who shall be guilty of wilful and corrupt oppression,
malfeasance or partiality, where no special provision
shall have been made for the punishment thereof,
shall be fined not exceeding $10,000.00, and may be
removed from his office, trust or employment.’’
The plaintiff in error suggests the section of the
Statute which provides than an indictment in the lan-
euage of the Statute creating the offense or so plainly
that the nature of the offense may be easily understood
by the jury is sufficiently correct. III. Rev. Statutes,
1937, Chap. 38, Par. 716.
The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States provides that the accused has the right
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusa-
tion against him.
Section Nine of Article Two, of the Constitution of
the State of Illinois provides that the accused has the
right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation
against him.
In many cases in Illinois, it has been held that such
constitutional provisions mean that sufficient facts
must be set out in the indictment or information to
enable the defendant to prepare his defense and to
avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protec-
tion against further prosecution for the same offense.
This appears to be a necessary requirement even
though the indictment or information was set out in the
specific language of the Statute.
In the case of People v. Green, 368 Til. 242, the in-
formation charges that the defendant did ‘‘drive a
vehicle upon a public highway of this State situated
within the limits of the City of Chicago—with a wilful
and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or
property’’, ete. The basis for the indictment was the
violation of See. 48, Par. 323, Chapter 121, of the State
Bar Ed. of Rev. Statutes, 1935, which provided:
“‘Any person who drives any vehicle with a wilful
or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or
property is guilty of reckless driving.’’
The Supreme Court held the information insufficient
and void and said:
SEEO WK aot: b onal
“j de cult re niece 1 el Vahey ai ton 16 Dalairaaniqn
10 717 > aE bi oa imeaiitt, 1) Tada cdwevo val
ey noire 30 ss org 8 Yi oviffilaesn ofl an} elie that
- won oft jo stamh oved vent ned -vottoie 4%) Jotomnes
T tunye joe 0 Bolultgesqg® Aloatines edi patina
“eg e +44 pada aie of of wal vt Bostredins aw wal
to =tonation of Yo oattndr tosidoe ov magi hebiteq
smisnotgqe tqutios fun (ylifw te viltig od Bade ode
itotared tf faigurts oy orate ilest tBIy 79 soaaanyt any
oars tromidatnay att tot obser taet agnd Ilade
coin bie OO000008 oniideske ton healt of Hades
lroamelqnre oo jain! .otffe if eros? hoveuray
dt To gettaoes “orl ptoeghes worms ot Sitetatg aft
“Cit sth of temtoiby: an cad? aoht wore doidw atrintt
oh trent he wo seo Ty anf anthers ely} nye: art to Sones
> fwokay hurr vitese of wart airs ty ot te exean ant dail
valitnie crf J” toorros vftroteiiiia ef inp ot ve
OTT su BE eral ECE
ME le rotlititae) off ot tosmhronk digie eat
be sit on) aod Doonoon oft lath shiver setae kate
coor sill Te serie fae srnbin edt oe hoaroter sd bf
mid fentenk mort
to qniigtttend’) aff % ov'h ofettr A de ait ois
ott sort busines Of) Wal soho atemlth te ante eal
‘citseroon ut Ve ene fan onte oa? heamtoh of piers
atid fantig ht
fora toilt Kind toed emt 1 2idotlil pt enens te a
atoet jminiive tad maom Kero tai aN Ianoitn tiation
ot coftatrotat 1a tnomieihar ad? at tno Wee od Seam
oO! bin oentsleh sit eirqaay of tiehnsteh odital fie
wore tot Intlinpos 16 adotistvis and to i fk be
senatio omes oft) oeitvisaow qedtnt pecttinge i
move Jnometigow, ramen a sd of eiasqee
oll ti tne joe Bev ptobhanretet 10 Saremef aia ont
slitetS od to onewanal &
fad! Sho TT BAS eee shoes Qa eres SAP AP
Kaveh” bth Jaahwetat sa¥ tard} ania Gers
Detattis otntd eit Yo TRH if antag &-
lntlitw a dliv—onastif to ¥ilQ odt Io atiottl ou} perl
To stowed to yieter at sor vregotaih gotanw few
aft anw Inosbothat off th aaad edt tn ad
iat® oft to [ST rota See at Be P40 aoiteloly,
th shiver doniw 200 sotetwe voll to Ai +a
nile o dliw olstfay yan aevith otw nong yaa
1 enoataiy Yo “toes odf 40h Hapnsreh Rolnew Te
“ertvinh seabfoor te viftire a seit
dieair offitias 2iTF Enon namey litt aif Blad rod seearque 40T
s bisa baa biog bar
Page 5 Gen. No. 9222
“The information in the present case did not al-
lege a single fact and there was nothing in it from
which the defendant could tell definitely, or even
guess, what acts he may have been charged with. It
might have been driving while intoxicated, or run-
ning through a stoplight, or driving at an excessive
speed or without brakes, lights or horn; he may have
been driving on the wrong side of the road or on the
sidewalk, or without keeping proper lookout for
children, or any one of dozens of things which might
constitute wilful and wanton disregard for the safety
of persons or property. Neither does it specify
where the offense took place, as it might have been
on any street or highway in the whole of Chicago,
and it might have taken place on any date within
eighteen months prior to the filing of the informa-
tion. All that appears in this information is that in
the opinion of the person who wrote it and the per-
son who signed it, the defendant had been guilty of
driving a vehicle with wilful and wanton disregard
for the safety of persons or property. It thus fails
to meet either of the two basic requirements of an
information. It does not give defendant enough in-
formation to prepare his defense and it is not suffi-
ciently definite to be of any value as a bar to further
prosecution.’”’
In People v. Brown, 336 Til. 257, an information
charged that the defendant ‘‘did wilfully and unlaw-
fully practice a system or method of treating human
ailments without the use of drugs or medicine and
without operative surgery, without a valid existing
license so to do’’. The information was couched in the
language of the Statute. The Court quoted and
adopted the following rule: ‘‘As the rule is sometimes
stated, the allegation must descend far enough into
particulars and be certain enough in its frame of words
to give the respondent reasonable notice of what will
be produced against him at the trial,’? and further
“The general rule is that it is sufficient to state the
offense in the language of the Statute, but this rule
applies only where the Statute sufficiently defines the
crime. Where the Statute creating the offense does
not describe the act or acts which compose it, they must
be specifically averred in the indictment or informa-
tion.’’ Many other Illinois cases have announced and
adopted this rule. People v. Barnes, 314 Ill. 140.
People v. West, 137 Ml. 189.
Sle oY a é ona
[x tom Lib cece law often! rodmariotne ott!
wort di ut qeition asw srodt bis ton? skagen Supl
nove vo siotinitef flot Blroo tanfvteteh edt dota at
th die bow auh geod ved. van al atin dale agora
“tit 10 .bolasixetat elite secvith ed saved tatgien
s7iHeaeze ty Peet “th 40 gins a dyed) pice
orn cacy ot pirtord te witail atau hrorttew so booge
ail! aoe baer alt to able gueaw edtna piivich eed
wh tnodeol vagor1g poigoodt tnodtie to gilewebm
i Syfoy doidw euniitt to arosoh to ne gas to arhlids
Vinge aft 104 Draueeth oo ita bee fallie Statin
Wines ti 200 redlivt octreqers “no anomie Ws
oot ovest tdyign ti ex 998k dout venotto of} oxaifer
Pe]
¢
]
Gonsoid® Yo sfodw oft cf qevidtaid 40 toavie Yam Rot
rlive stab yes me sosf seated eval tifaiet 4 fare
-arciotdé ult Yo yrilf odt of some edtaom mostdyia
nm tadt et nottenriotn aidt ai axesage fad) FA nett
“Taq otf] Dee ti slenw otue gowtee off To goinigo odd
ly ying wed het danbre'tebh oft Jf fereia oda foe
‘omgtwil: notiee how [ollie dite sbitioy 8 grtnnh
eet wd) $) ovfreaera ye anogieg le gteler adt rot
no Wo “ttenetinpay gland ov! aft lo codtig toot ot
-i1i eure fanbaaton 497f jon x00b Hl .noltenrrmotai
Sere low =f 1) few osnetoh eat ener, of donede0t
tolturl ol ved 6 a outer yaa to sd of-atiniteh qiteeis
** noidnogens
Kolacatolnl mg 16S JT 868 aemovl 9 alos
-welom fia vilvilive Bib** tacboetob ot jad) boxtads
antcud goiteevt te bevtenr 1 mstevea ® eoifeaig elit
hie anivibem to sgorb Yo oan odt toodtiop ateorlia
utiletze hilev » ttodtiv’ wiogine svdaiaqe toodite
oft af bodovos aaw cottunmota sdf ob af oe
fine hatoup tise 2df .siutnte oift To
eomitaaros ai alod oft eA selo1 aetwhllol of
ost denon tl hiraoaaly leon aoilewelin ot batate:
sbrow te orrny'l eti mi denon cists ed baw i
live tedw ‘io asiton sidenoaser toshaoqeet sdivayig ot
vedi boo “teitt edt ie gait tesisge besaborg pd
silt ofits of tepioitva of 36 Thutt at alot Dereon ofl”
ofup elt tit olntet od? To emucal adit ab eanehe
oft esctluly (ftusiofine etutel? od? aroder vido asiiqgs
sooh senatio off yothgero etieht® edt sradW soir
tao vol) .ti seocmion dotiiw ation 10 don ad? odivoaeb tom
-sartoisi 70 tnoartoibat edt ni Geneve ullaaitinadga od
brea hoesstromnenk over exaco atomtlil tadto goal ‘ured
Off f1 LIR sonst oy alqoo lefes aidt hetqoha
02) 1 TED sent 9 shaost
Page 6 Gen No. 9222
The indictment in this case does not allege any
knowledge on the part of the defendant in error. There
is no Charge in any of the counts of the indictment
designating or setting out where the said law violations.
occurred, when they took place or the persons or places
conducting the said violations of the Statute.
We cannot conceive how a defendant could possibly
prepare a defense to such blanket charges covering a
period from January Ist 1988 to the 15th of February,
1939. The prostitution, the lotteries and the gambiing
complained of might have been conducted by various
people at various locations and at various times, all
of which were unknown to the defendant in error.
In our judgment the indictment does not give the
defendant enough information to prepare his defense
and it is not sufficiently definite to be of any value as
a bar to further prosecution. The Circuit Court cor-
rectly allowed the motion to quash and the judgment
is affirmed.
Affirmed.
<Q i4 (A-19598—14)
i : “+
. eo \
; We
SES ww oO 1 a ¥ neat
ye sgolia tow eso gees ahi) i dispriniba: sat”
s19iT sotto ut imebnoteb ail} tu drag eilf io:
heonaisibut ot To eianos of) to re At os tad ow |
amoiisiely wal hing edt esate foo wuitiiioz io pailamgieab
aoouig 10 ROstay ods vo eoalg doot qedy nade barica
“titanate on) To atfoitalor bisa oil! auitonbaeo
‘teva hla jesiaoleh « wod svicomes fonuay oW
i githievoo esyfads Jowlanlt dose of sateleh 4 oteqetd
pene: io AIGE off of OCCT Jet qinnael sport horeg
SHH idoxay orl} fae soltotin! od? .cottdideorg of Ober
cotta? vd Detsabmos food otad hfigion Yo bssielqunie
ily 2emit evotrey tn hae scoltesel dsoltay de slqueq
gs, “Totto al tasbuotah of! o) aweskay sta9F isidvr to
' &f) ovig tod each trouttoihal gif) diroarghag ¢
“senate ait otnqery of aolfnanoial Apion 5
“es onlay vite “lo od of olitiinh yitnsiofion tom at 4 ban
109 dre) Tue edT OU nooROIg sodinet of ind eB
Jnoninbaj, of} bor gt ad sotom od? bewol's vliner
at ver eae
a > shan. ie “ it 4s ae
*: at =
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tussday, the 6th day of “February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty, within
sf
and for the Second District eee gtatd of tiyinese:
2 %
Present -- The Hon. FRED G. vOLFS, Pr ceiling Jus ices 4
Hon. BLAINE HURFUAN, Jugtite %
Hl 2 se hy
Hon. FRANKLIN, R DOVE , Jugtice
susTys L. sor SON, cagey Aine TA p?- 9
2. 6 é f- -
eo) U @ oP as @ A @ O 1 as
E. Jk vELTEA, Sheriff
Bu
34
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On AP Z
the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's Office of said
Court, in the words and figures following, viz:
ey 4
Ra \
iy ~ seen \
si | 5
$ LA “i; :
# Th ge _- = oh
e ef iS Ei
cs a | *
Ee Ri. é
4 comanit g
mH :
% R
AN.
ae
Mu. at
*y,
a i ae
>, Ae
be ee ae me
Medea ott
Mer mower va nereener einen
(THUOD ATALIAL UA; ONT 0 wage ama’ *
yab 20 ‘edt sinatis ca sata te pLed oe
Pe yieurds
Gen. No. 9509 Ag. No. 7
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
FEBRUARY TERM, 1940
Laure M. Russell,
(Plaintiff) Appellee Appeal fron County Court
VS. of Peoria County, Illinois
New York Lifes’ Insurance Company,
a corporation,
(Defendant) Appellant.
WOLFE, P.d.
On March 15, 1926 and July 29, 1926, the New York Life Insurance
Company issued two policies cf insurance to the plaintiff. Each
poliey contained a total and permanent disability clause as follows:
"Disability shall be considered total whenever the insured is so
disabled by bodily injury or disease that he is wholly prevented
from performing any work, from following any occupation, or from
engaging in any business for remuneration or profit.” On September
12, 1938, the plaintiff, Laura M. Russell, plsintiff-appellee,
instituted a proceeding against the New York Life Insurance Company,
the appeliant, in which she calimed that she was totally, permanently,
continuously and wholly disabled and prevented from performing any
work or engaging in any occupation for compensation. The defendant
filed its answer and set forth the disability provisiocus of the
policies and denied liability, claiming that the plaintiff was not
totally disabled, as required by the policy of insurance. The cause
was tried before a jury resulting in a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff for $516.00. Judgment was rendered on the verdict, and the
New York Life Insurance Company perfected an appeal to this Court.
The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that while
she was endeavoring to hang wall paper in her home, she was standing
on a board which was placed across a writing desk, and that she fell
off of the board and hurt her back, The testimony further was that
as a result of such fall, whenever she tried to work, she had pains
T .olf sah Pa as a! 208 0M .m00
BHT AL
SLOMLLAL 40 THIOO TTALINIIA
TOIATSIA AMmoowe
OAQL MEET YHAUHAET -
: feresi .M.
tay00 Thawed wort Ls sOGqA eeLieqas GanErEs)
etontiiIl ,yiavod stroet to «&V
} 3 : ‘vasqmod eonetwent ett AxoY welt
-tnelfoaga (sashteteg) " :
7 bo td |
sonersenl eth xT0Y well edt eOSOL Wes vine bus oser a dors a0 ve | .
| doad »tiidatelg edd o¢ sonetyant to eolotiog ow? besaat vasga0 |
‘tawoLLo? aa oaneto Wilidests taensiteq bas ‘Istod s bentsdnoo voLlog >
oa al bewiest edd Teventosiw istos beteblanos od Ltede Wilidaal” Fe
betuevesg vilosw et of tasit oapoath x0 ‘Vurtat ‘qLbbod ye boldea tb
mort te) lok 2qveoe yas aniwollot most glsxow as salunorteg mort
a redme 3qo0 nO 6", tiienq to no ktetenuse's ret aaomtend Vis ab satgagire
seLleqqn-Tidateig J dda M steel (Tiitatele eit BERL St
iseie? eonstuedt etl tov well oid Jantags gotbessorg 5 bedusttent
Uéronamteg tlistos Sw ema test domitas ede lo Lat ak tusLleqgs «al
yas gatorrotted no tt oualoer has beldaats low hus vawousttaee
Tashaerteb ont Hold sedeqmoo tot noiteqsrooe as at goigsgne 0 atow
ould to anotetvorg wWilldsels eid détot des bas itswells ast SeLit hi
don enw ‘Wltalplg ont edd grimtslo «WilldsLt botneb bas aeioltog
mine. ext so oneawant 10 yolilog eit td berlupet aa ‘doldaeks Uladod
eis to tovst af toibtey Py at gatdivecs vat 8 exoted boli asw
eid Das atathuey end a0 bovebner aaw taomg but 00.3.8 no? ‘wibtutetg
«1109 aids ot heqas as bedootteg Yateqss09 soassvent ona shor wo
a “‘eLiaw dade wode: ot gntbaes eonebive Beoubortat vibentasg oot? ae ™
gatbnode asw eile somod tout at reqaq Sew gus og aubsovsebae. os be
ffet ode todd bas alae eete bw s geoT08 orale aewuioti braod 8 so
“hs Mel eN ae)
ads eew sodas womitesd edt load sot tt bas Srnod eult Mt te 2: ¢
ie bi caf Wid oF
4)
aS
We “anteg bad od Sl os bolas ede “tev:
in
and tohrew up her food; that she had to remain on a diet of fruit
juives, soup and liquid; that she was unable to do, and had not
been able to do any work of any kind; that she had beencdntinuously
prevented from doing any work since her accident. Doctor C. A.
Cox testified that he had examined the plaintiff; thet she had
tenderness across her back and in his opinion, she was totally
disabled from doing any work. Doctor FE. Cc. Burhans wes called as
& witness and his testimony is similar to that of Doctor Cox, To
rebut this evidence that the plaintiff was totally disabled from
doing work, the defendant called numerous witnesses, some of them
next door neighbors of the plaintiff, who testified that they
observed the plaintiff doing the work around the house since the
accident; that she did part of her own ironing; that she would sweep
off her steps and sweep the living room; that the plaintiff had stated
to one witness, "That if she was not able to cet any disability from
the insurance Company, that she would like to set a job in a restaur-
ant as a waitress,” Witnesses further testified that they had seen
the plaintiff hanging up clothes, cerry clothes, hendling boxes, driv-
ing the car, carrying the rakes and shovels in the yard around the
ia?)
house, pick beans in the garden, and climb through the garden fence,
Urner witnesses testified that they had seen the plaintiff drive
her car, dance, eat fried fish, potatoes, vegetables and everything
else that any one in normal health could eat.
This Court had occasion in the case of Sibley vs. Travelers’
insurance Company, 275 Ill. App. 323 and Buffo vs. Metropolitan
Life Insucance Company, 277 Ill. App. 366, to interpret the language
used in insurance policies of this kind. We there held that the
language is not ambiguous and that before a person covl.d recover
under such policies they must show that their disability was such
that they were wholly prevented from performing any work of following
any occupation. The Apnellate Court of the Fourth District in the
case of Wayckoff vs. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in 302
App. at Page 241 held, that when 2 woman had had tuberculosis for
three months and the doctor had reported thet the disease was arrested;
and that he had permitted the plaintiff to do light housework, under
na
tistt to teiIS s mo aiamet ot bad ‘oe veds ;500t ted ww wets bas
ton bad bas. ,0b of siden aaw ofa stadt ; bkuptl bas qe. yawndet
Yievonuntinhoneed bed ene tant ;habt yas to ‘row ye ob ot olds need
-A .0 toteod .#mebtoos rent sone sow. yme gntob mort begnevetg —
bad ede terft ;Ititeisiq edt Deninexe Bend orl sat betttteset xod
vilates esw ede .molatgo eid at Bae Aosd ted asotos seecrebned
es belies sew enedtud .9 .f tosvood .avow yas galob mort beldrals
“of 2x00 totoog To tedt o¢ asliste alt crontseee eid bas eeont tw ss.
mort beldsalbh Vilstet asw Tiidtnialq edt tect eonebive eli tudor.
meds ‘to gros ,zeerentiw exons belise tasbaeteb ont + Mes Beit ;
yout teat heltitess odw stitatsle eat to evedéaten to0b oar
eit gonte eayodt edt bnvers Arow edt antob rikIiatslq ont ‘ heveena ;
qeewa SLscow ede tef¢ :antnort nwo tod to treq BES eae ‘torte itaobtoos” '
bedave had Ytitelsle adt ¢edt gmoor getvit ett qeewa bus eqote wert ‘Te
| mort ytilidssth yas ten ot elds toa saw offs tt totter conead tw eno. oof
~matgeot s at dof s teg ot outs bilrow ede toads etaaqnod comvawent end (
908 bel yedt tant beltivees neddau nennend iW ” enon’ Lew s ae tae \
“vith R0xod got lbosd ~esitolo yrrse mutate ery antsaad vibimtalg ond
oft havoxe Suet edt at efevodea bas Roxen ett galyrzso (189 od ant
scone nebrsy edd dosrondt dutio bas .n0hr85 ont rt arsed om « sair0H
| eviab ttlintela edt noon bast yods saat bekttonos ‘aseeentiw song?
galls cove hos aeldstegev ,zeotatog felt bois? $80 one «720 sd
-teo Sivoo dt Lead Lento at eno yas tasé “enle
‘atelevetT “ev Yeldie to easo edt mt solasooo bed t109 abet iy 4
ned tloqorteM ~2V ott han ese «QqA + LT. ays eYus quo sons sunt
in ottceameaed eit setazodat ot ,Q0E .qqA .LIT Yrs come quo eons vctfmeck otht :
odd teat blor eredd an «bhatt ekdt 10 setottog sonatas at boow
tevoces Bfroo noateq 8 o1oted todd bas attoug.tdns fon at ceseupaal
dowe aaw uilidestb sctodts tsad wore tou vont aekoLiog dove webau
satwol to? %o tow coy sabrrotieg mort bosnevert Lob otew yedt tad
at nk to.trta td deasr0% oxi t0 dewod ‘eda ttocca oft sso ktnqueoo yas
SOE at yaa qo sons tuenI orb and Llogorsett ey ‘Tostoyst ty. onae
ot etaolvotedut bast bad anow a “todd teat ‘bios LAS» fis enst de sah why
te oe
Gdoteorts eaw sesee Lb od seis petmoger Sadi sooo edt ‘hon ‘esto oetdt A
apes
PR Carbs She tay tit Psi pe W'S, ar.) a vi
Guhtasis erpwieied dtakt, ok Uh Molde tue can Gee shad dae
os
the terms of a similar policy, she could not recover.
We are fully aware that it is a rule of law that after a jury
hag decided a question of fact, that great weight should be given
it, both by the trial conrt and a court of review, but where the
verdict of a jury is manifestly wgainst the weight of the evidence,
it is the duty of the reviewing court to set the same aside. In
the present case we are of the opinion that the verdict of the
Jury was manifestly against the weight of the evidence, therefore,
the judgment must be set aside. The usual practice in such cases
would be for this Court to reverse and remand the case. Both the
appellant and the appellee, in their printed brief, have requested
this court, that in case this judgement was reversed, not to remand
the case, but enter an order of reversal and terminate the litiga-
tion. Therefore, pursusnt to the request of appellant and appellee,
the judsment of the trial court will be reversed and the remanding
order will be omitted.
Judement Reverded.
—
Ok f fi 1 Weg ? DAA
-tevoost ton blyuoo ede ,yotlog sasLimte s to amsed ont
Yui s tette ¢add wel to ofvt s et gf dedt exswe yilvh eqs eo)
nevis ed Sivoda ddatew deem dedt .tont lo solteeup s hebLoeb fad
ei¢ ezedw dud .wetver to dusoo s has tumoo Leint edt yi aitod avt
,sonebive edt to ddstew edt taaisgw yiveetinem a! yuwt, s to dolbrev
gi ,.ebtes omsa edt tea o¢ duvoo gntweives edt to ydab ond eb gt
edt to totbrev edd taxt noimiqo edd to ete ew easo tnonenq alt —
iat diab -,eoneblve edd to diptew edt Jantsys yideotiasm esw yt
eeeso tove al eoltesiq lavas efT .ebtem dee od teom toemphyt edt
eit ddod .e2so eft Saauet das eazeves of F100 alc} rot ed Hilwow
heteeuper evead ,tetid betaing atedt af ,selflequs oft brs staslleqeas
basmet od ton ,beatovet asw daemphol add case af tadt mon Bist
regltil edt edenimrot bae Leartoves to tebto, as tetas ond OREO, oid
eqs Stone bos tasilegqs to teesper edt o¢ tneveavg ,ototetad?,. stokt
~ geiboenert edt bus bearevet of Lilw éuvoo isint edt to teampby) ent
bogttino ed LL bw. uabxo
ow oi ut ¥thentate ett
bebtoves trea biub .. - ‘20 on9 nee
“reli dat pointe. eas A? goRst low ioe wees
venta ili ecew sd? tees
Av ktaqweee yw
Ate eay av *ateva¥ to. ones f
a ;
bast aaiw ew gach Pade a a ae ee 5 &P yh A ra -
* t7
. J > he
adnmes Deed chee wae tn wale os arid
ey Vette eR CRT ORs OP te eee Oe ee en en ge ot eee Se ES Ae be liek Cae 1 ale
STATE OF ILLINOIS, lee
SECOND DISTRICT J a I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
____________in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-.
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73947) cZS3m7
oN “5 ¢ i ‘ee ee ny h a so
6 Ww . ; a :
fe pea Ae ALY LD 9 Ur etee mee Ree pte archi Clee heated ~ . ras
aw wi Jrb0) er aly to se oamn i
, é otal 06 ogeadt let bag inal ian: iy ‘tyson heads
Cate Bab Hirata >rods ee ae do di >
(VAs
ag ag
pie h: AS i
CUTTY
~~
“4c eussiue™
=
a
ve
PUM eta sn
Vy
Re 1t Remembered chat peer
2
2
Ae De 1940, certain ccodhnce werg had and ‘ord re made and
entered of record byy said Cburt amdeie which is the followings,
viz: : : |
In the Appellate Court of Illinois,
Second District.
Liay Tort, As De 1940,
Lawra Russell, )
Plaintiff-sppeliee,
Appeal from
Whe } Sounty Court}
) Peoria County,
Hew York Life Insurance ) Tllinoiss
Company, a corporation )
Defendant-Appellant. }
IN RE
The concluding part of the opinion filed in this case is,
“The usual practice in such cases would be for this Court to
reverse and remand the oases, Hoth the appellant and appellee,
in their printed brief, have requested this Court, that in case
this judemont was reversed, not to remand the case, but enter an
order of reversal and terminate the litigetion. Therefore, pur-
suant to the request of appellant and appellee, the jJudenont of
the trial court will be reversed and the remanding order will
be omitted.
In the petition for rehearing the appellee quotes the latter
part of our opinion and now urges that this statement be given
further consideration by this Court, that this Court has misunder-
stood the languace used by the appellee in their brief. Om Pace 17,
of the brief of appellee we find the following: ‘The verdict in
this case is only for $516.00, ‘The case took threo days to try.
Purther expense and additional time is recuired of both partics
by virtue of this appesl, If this case is reversed and remanded
for enother trinl further anata, wasted effort and delay will
result to both parties, The defendants in their brief in the
vOLOMELET Yo Suie0 otaLteqat eat
» dokotald hitoovi?
@OhOL 10 4A goo? yelt
*eoLloqgettteatats”
dit inn RAE ih: nth salah nn Wu ibes delimedtaiak bak
OF deOD ahd xO? e¢ bivow sono dove at eotdoarg Leumur o ie
eo Llogan: tie tomlieqqs edt Atok ease ode bamot bus | NM on
ess at dads wo) abit bodasoper evad ,obud todning shodt al
mH reine gud qoano odd Dueme1 of ton ,Soetever eow Socormabart el
-Iyd ,oTcTeteAT ,.roktenzthe edt edanionss’ UR Shi il 2 xi
to dnombet edt .oelfoqqa ban taatteqga ‘to tuexpex odd of thane
tedeal eit Rotoup eeLfeqra edt yabusetet wot molttteg ot at
nevis of trenmedats alae taxtg seni won bas solatqo t90 valk
| wtobnwals asd dumod abit gadd ytumod eldt yet molteredtanos tod:
ant enet 20 stebud ttodd ak voLtouge edit wd boo onamnal ont |
ait SokStov eat” enmtwolto® ott Batt ow eolloggs to totad 9
e¥td of ayeb cord Yoot ease af? .00.df28 or ino t on
_Selreon ‘ated Se oliver nk wt tease ban SHOE
concluding paragraph state, * * * "Defendant respectfully re-
quests that this Court reverse the judgment of the trial court
without remand. We therefore join with the defendant in its
request that thie case be reversed outright or affirmed. The
defendant company argues at some length about the weicht of
the evidences, and while this is umecessary in view of its
request stated above, we will cive the Court our views of the
question, although st111 Join in such request."
It seems to us that the attornoy for the appellee sould
not have expressed in the English language more clearly a
request of this Court that if the case was reversed, not to
remand it.
The potition for a rehearing is hereby denied,
(Sioned) Fred G. Wolfe
(Signed a ae
(Signed)
(Endorsed on the back as follows:
FILED Jun 5 1940 Tustus L. Johnson Clerk Appsllate Court-
Second Dist.)
~onellutteeqent éaabasren” *.¢ * -odate daaraarag gatbutonee
Sumo Latn? ot 20 tuomaae, oft cosover tum atdt tas ataoup
ath at drabsoted edt sidtn atot esoreteds oN ,daacex duodttw
od? bomrktin 10 diytttye Seorover ed ompo atdt tact seeuper
“to tiatew edit tueds Jégcol enon te weugte yoequoe ¢uebcoteh
agi to welv at ~aasspoemu at aldt oLfdw has ,sonobive et
ott Yo awolty wo dago0 ed’ ovly Like ow ,oveds botata teenpet
",dmenpex dom al alot Liisde dowodtie ,tolteonu
biveo eediogas oat wor yoonntts 6a ad att omen #7 |
p wisiole oton epamant datinnt ett ak toenesqxo Giad gon
of doi! ,boatevor asw ogn0 ote 12 tal EAE
/ ) Saw
ott histor
-botned ywerod ef galusodet g got nottiteg oft
heals wD DORE [DemBERB)s 6 sen yttotteooo wate
_wtu709 gakerspealyonting neherenntonh BRL 2 awh GLTT
i's tyingpn 9 oy (PBR, bapeee
abitabielie bh et
ine 8S ooloennye Leet ane
Shit ieee, Save aK eriget
Ps) i Roy + Se nie mk
paibeinghgecnyarrapingin'
>
.&
beeper: Lut See mete
vw Tit aw t Seep pr if)
Ae Re. OY. RP Raley eka ark
: VAC ight a ee Me Ba ai
goth FO eM NA RE ne ame oy ey am
y yA Ae aerial lh eae
0 Bee abu w ra
PLLA A Aaya
att iad MEY R hia pay
Lai Se Pkkb' aeropeery ste unt
opie of
Woe yy? ‘Kepay pe sah
alae vee
emg
me Bh,
Cen a DS Shee Bait
evita sro a pra
AT A THERM OF THE APPHLLAT COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the a day of a in
the year of our Lord one aioe nine Pes and forty,
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On MAY 15 194(
the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's Office of
said Court, in the words and figures following, viz:
Re rae | * f ¥Y i Wai ee i'd . 2 i» i vo Oe ie
~ at oat 0 veb Peay a
‘Oe Oo wa LA O20
Asn € Yin hs
Si
Me : Pagal: | rm ‘sty-08
4) Rane n't roe hea Band Ri .
aris "S0ntI0 aviget “ond
va Ti ae eats Pate me 4 ‘¥ bea
. ceiy: 38 pare oti tt ba 8
PrN 4 ; fe ea
GEN. NO. 9535 AGENDA NO. 27
IN THEY APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT
FEBRUARY TERM, A.D. 1940.
JOHN HOHNER, et al.,
Appellants,
APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT
LASALLE COUNTY.
VS.
AMERICAN SILICA CORPORATION, )
et al., J
ee rt et et ee ee er ee
Appellees.
HUFFMAN - J.
Appellee Beatty and appellants were interested in enterprises
which owned and produced crude sand in LaSalle county. Beatty and
some of his associates conceived the idea of bringing together into
one organization all of the crude sand pits ih said county. Pursuant
to such plan, Beatty employed one Nye Johnson to procure from the
various owners of crude sand pits in said county, options to purchase
their property. During the year 1927, Johnson went about among the
owners ef crude sand pits in that county, of whom appellants were a
part, and in furtherance of the plan of Beatty as above indicated,
procured from such owners options for the purchase of their property.
It appears that appellants and the other owners understood the plan
of Beatty to bring these pits under one organization.
In the following year, 1928, Beatty in consummating the above
plan, caused to be organized the American Silica Corporation, under
the laws of Deleware. The corporation was duly licensed to transact
“SS ,OW ACWHDA
RES A OA ee EE AIO AEE ER RR Re
-SIOMLLIL TO THUOO HTALINGTA MET MT
PoLHTard qmoore
cOLCL CA MINT THAUSEET
; ols te S008
aa | ; adnellogga |
| FAVOD TIVORIO MONE TATTTA
eXTVU0O HLIAGALT
) Apart 1
° seelleqqs
wee ya
: -_ sambeacentie at. Dedperncas erew ssvishtodin $158 swine: sebiea
ty , bas qitsei .yiayoo elfetet al base sbi Seowboug bas, Donne 4
| oat teddegod guigaiid to sebt edt bevieosoo eetsloosas als
taesenut -Yiewoo bhse di atiq base ebyro edt to Ils “nee
Pear odt Mott eivsotq o¢ moeadel exyll emo. beyolqme ystach isle |
tS ‘ ‘da ndiecies ot anoitigo ,ytouoo fine af etiq base ebyioe to atenwo
Ua attedt to eeanotua ont tot sshd atemwo ee, pais
| “sua Sootetebay ateawo tedto eft bas edaalieqes salt ex
i: , gad _ftottestnagie emo tebay atiq eaedt gala ot
‘ovods ost giitsmvence mf qttsed eBROL yts98y aniwolfot ef
Fe iecmcl emo kteregro0 sollte ssotsems oft bestasgio. od ot. p
business in the State of Illinois. “The main office was in Chicago
Soon after the organization of the corporation, the Board of Directors
met in Chicago, when Beatty was elected President. At a later day
a vesolution was adopted to amend the certificate of incorporation to
ehange the capital stock from one hundred shares of no par value, to
65,000 shares, of which 5,000 shares were to be preferred stock having
@ par value of $100 per share, and 60,000 shares to be common stock
having no par value; and further, that the common shares micht be
issued by the corporaticn for services rendered and that the same
should be deemed fully paid stock and not liable to assessment.
At a subsequent meeting of the Board of Directors, Beatty pre-
sented the proposal of Nye Johnson offering to transfer to the corpora-
tion the options he had taken on the crude sand pits in LaSalle county,
among which were those forming the basis of appellants' claims. The
proposal was based upon the consideration that for said options Johnson
was to receive 43,327 shares of common stock, 400 shares of preferred
stoek, and $10,000 in cash. This proposal was accepted and the
options duly assigned to the corporation. It then beeam¥e necessary
that the corporation float a $1,000,000 bond issue in order to pay
for the property covered by the options.
It appears that the 43,327 shares of common stock which constituted
a part of the consideration to Johnson, were not issued in his name;
and that 19,998 shares of such stock were issued to Beatty and the
bianaes balance to othsr persons,
The new venture did not prove to be a financial suecess and the
corporation went bankrupt. At the time of such bankruptcy, appellant
Hohner had {1750 still due him, A. D. Perry {now deceased) had
$11,387.50 due him, Fred Scherer (now deceased) had $2841.62 due hin,
and Nels Fruland had $8801.84 due him; all upon the purchase price
for their sand pits as fixed in the option agreements taken by Johnson.
Re
:
i eopsoldd ai eaw eoltto atem efT .etonti{l to etste edt ot
- BtOtoeTEC To Husod odd ,aol¢atoqros edt to moltsalnsgro edt wosta a
if ‘yah todsi a tA .toeblaeT? betoelo esw yttsed ‘nedw’ ‘essen ata
‘ of soltiatogioent to efsolitiies edt Baome oF aotqoha sew soltuLo pin i a
ot ,evlsv taq on ‘to setatn Beibovd eno mott foove fatiqzo odd
‘ gaotvad dasota betretetq ed oF exew sovrede 000,2 fokitw To. ,aetsda. 000,
. aoote sommes ed of setae 000,00 bas etare teq 0016 -te- bens
¥ | @¢ ddptm aerate nommoo ont tent ,roditavt bas ‘goulay tag” on
. , omge ett test Soe hetebaor aeotvrea. «ot doltsiogtos oft yd Ba
} r twemgecrae Qt olfell tom bus xoota bieq yLivt bemeab"éd bE
song Yttsel yetotoeTH Yo uscd ods to Yaldeom tieupeedwe shi sh
ve sstoq7T0o eft of setanett of gairetto aovadot exit To Lseoqoxy aati, a
v Uiiwon effeSed al etle hese obyto es no neded Sed od enottgoredde
ed? .omtelo tatastfeqgs. to staed ert matmrot enolé vee sei sind
"emg anottao bine tot tedé colsotebtenco ont ‘ody ‘bound new & ' wtih ”
- bexsereta to adtede OO\ ,deote nommoo to wsuede TSE EA ‘evievet o
‘ a oft Sar betggoss evaw Iseoqot¢ sta? sidso al 000 (048
. - putieoen egrsoed nodt tI “saoktsroqzo9 edd of bedgtaes ¥
ae {sq ot rehto at eveat Haod 000,000(1$ 3 Waokt aanrieniende. 4
deed aasge enotiqe 6d Yd Beterod: asl rot
ih bosuttsaaos doidw foots nomuioe To nemala YSE (EN edd Pauls - ‘auseags ¥T | '
gomex ald af beveel ton exew ,moealot oF aoiéstebiende | édt to's a.
( ‘oat bas ysdned of betaat even woods Move to woxada Hee (els di
; y : THES {or ot ; (i sanoateg tsilto of: vousked pH
tt
‘a c aun ttecn paren tr ‘flota to omit eft FA’ \ tewriued | nee
bad Sand ain 4 bins a Buses ub re xvas
This suit resulted, wherein appellants seek to recover their
claims on the ground that their properties upon which Johnson took
the options, were grossly overvalued and that in consequence, the
stock issued therefor, of which Beatty received 19,998 shares, could
not be considered as fully paid; and that the act of the cornoration
in issuing such stock and paying the $10,000 cash for the options,
wes fraudulent and in violation of the rishts cf appellants as ere-
ditors of the Ameridan Silica Corporation. The bill asked for an
accounting to determine the correct value of the stock, and alleged
that the stock and cash granted to Johnsen for the options on the
sand pits was of a much greater value than the options were worth.
Appellants claim to be creditors cf the corporation within the
contemplation of the trust fund theory, Appellees contend that the
capital stock of the corporation was in no way the basis of any
credit extended to it by appellants, or that appellants placed any
reliance upon its capital structure; and that appellants’ conveyances
of their sand pits to the corporation were mace pursuant to the options
they hed given to Johnson as Beatty's agent, which appellants allege
contained a fictitious, excessive and fraudulent value.
The alleged axcessive and fictitious valuations placed by
appellants upon their properties consiituted the consideration the
corporation was to pay therefor, and no doubt served as a basis upon
which it paid dohnson. Appellants urge that since such valuations
were excessive and fictitious, the act of the corporation in granting
the consideration to Johnson, was a fraud upon them as creditors of
the corporation.
It is urged by appellees that a trust in favor of creditors of
a corporation will net be enforced against stockholders in the manner
appellants now seek to do, when the creditors had full knowledge of
the arrangement urged as the ground for their recovery. Appellees
36
ve | 8 i 5 a a ee 7. r a hee Oe) 49a: wy TRA
yi ? t : J Mee r
rie
“teal ‘tovose1 of xfeoe adiefleqas aferedw hehe ‘eid —
(8 afoot iodide Ho titw meee eelttteqote “hens waltd bmiomy ite ono note
Ne “orlt {BorespEHAOS rit “sait' bas Bewfavtevo * Yileto-ts ‘srow ,entottqo
ue Bliop ,sovere 500, CL hevicoot yta0d rofrie to toterord? sie i
: solvetedres oft to top edt tadd ban {BLeey vilv? as vengeance
i wanofdqo off vot dado 000,0L8 ot pntynd Sue Aoota Howe
4 -ord ae adept forces to dédy tt edd Yo hotitefotv AE Bie diet
: Te ig tO% Bowes LLG SH? .aotserorrod polttd imditrom! oft to"
. be ‘begelts Bra woody eid "Yo elev toptroo end entimretes of yen eh
4 ‘ ald ao emoktqo ett sot moanlet ot Betmary daso bre aoote pipe
Hino oxow atobtgs of meiit outa cotherg’ iéimt # %8 enw rete
a ice ets nidt¢iw nékdetogroo eit Yo duod there ‘od oy attato adits!
% eae tedF Brestiiod woot teqca ” “Neaodid Bunt Cert ede Youneninn
“sete to ‘etoile orld Yew on Mt sow no bfRtOnted ‘oHe 26 seote
Yis bossiq atanllequs felt vo pedanileyds yodd: whannvietin
Ms asoNayevios tatieffeqas tet? Bae pinitetan phases
Satan ont of tadteteg “oben srew rolktorderos oft Ov al
«SREY ealinttecie deity “treme wNytieeM ob nodiudot “ woviks
: . “ii io 8° Vedter Fie tdbpert Bas’ Svtdesoxs © eudtit tote #5
tua anne anoltauley ecenvousane wind Soespaveetut deapasccserh
ies
is etotibers es mod’ Avaya brert s asw bepnoviand ‘oe nt
Pe nb ox int, signs ea po wnt thd gfidy crek? “byes ig ee Sais phi? 28 see? PB ppel par me
nis chal dere a sets lentes ee
2 ; " wer.
7 " Pi oma “9 7 i + Mee, if
further urge that the trust fund theory is intended for the benefit
of bona fide creditors of a corporation who have extended credit
thereto in reliance upon itsprofessed capital, and has no application
to persons who associate themselves with a promoter and a promotion
scheme such as we find in this case.
We have set cut the theory cof appellants and appellees with
respect to this case. The cause was heard on stipulation of the
parties, and the trial cmurt dismissed the bill for want of equity.
Appellants bring th®& appeal urging for reversal, the ground above
indicated,
The briefs of the parties are comprehensive upon their respective
theories of the case. We see no good purpose to be served by a dis-
cussion or review of the authorities Where cited. The question here
to be determined is whether the trial court was correct in accepting
appellee's theory of the case.
It appears that appellants kmew of Beatty's plan to bring the
sand pits together under one control and ownership, as was done, when
they executed their options to Johuson. Appellants aver that such
options were grossly excessive, and fictitious values placed upon their
property. When the plan was consummated and the corporation paid
Johnson for the options, appellants claim that such payment was in ex-
cess of the value of their properties, and therefore a fraud upon them,
and that the stock which was issued to Beatty from that paid to Johnson
was without consideration, and that Beatty should be held iiable for
the then value theredf.
It is stipulated that $1,250,000 was paid by the corporation to
the various persons interested in the sand pits (including appellants)
and based upon the prices as fixed in the options. Courts cannot ménd
a bargain because it proves to be improvident or unfortunate. It
appears in this case that if appellants were injured, they were the
Leo
_thbexp Dedcatee catadl ines aotvereqs00 ry » 20. sapeaaene. wis
‘mottsetiqas on ma bas. ,fegtqse boanetoxqeds ogy eoneifes ab 0%
| , Revomng B bas xedomorg a dtiw aevieumoda evatoouas o-tw. ae :
' onso aldd at bait ow ae, dome 2
edd to. noltsluqtse 0. ppanat eaw e889 oT .0889 6 aus wre to: i
‘sthupe, Xo doew wot Lits oid deeatweld dumpo ietat eds One .
evoda hayorg eft ,ledasver to} galauo Laeqqe aes eatid eta
want neh: alae
| ovtioeguer «tedd soqy pihiiciammaae ers nedpuide utd to etotrd aks
-alb » Yd bovtee ed of eaoqiwy boog om eea oN ,9839 sis Io @ me
hn axed aolgaoup edT ,fotto etedw eolttinoddus edd to wetves. 20. m sh
gattqesos of dpentoo asw duvoo Iainé odd todtedw at beukaretob tad
P 49850 eft To Yuosas B' ee Leg
? eas aalsd of selq a'ydtset to weod ataatlleggs sels exseaes, fe
| _ ede v9n0b ssw es ,gideteawo bas lorinoe exo reba tedtegod atte
_ fous tadd tevs adoalieggs . PR od eaoltgo nos bosveexe x
vi atows soqe becelq seutav evottitol? bas .eviaaeoxs yleaorg, orew ano
| ~—- bksq soijexoqioe edd bas bedamaenoe asw alg oft nodW. +¥
a =xe si esw Jacmeg Move Jedd misto agustlequs, yanoligo ond tom s ac
.. ae fogs bust » ergieveid bus ,asidregouq tledy i BO. oulsy Sap, 8 |
" aniol o¢ blag dads most, yodoed ot Demmat aaw dotdw zoote, odd ge
mot eidsit bled ed bisosgde Witaph jadd bas. Ble ak a an
Yate
Di ial iit eit an hbo apw .260c0enuEe. said boda hs ms
oy"
" ileqas auibulont) “fia base, add. ab nation seal wom
a
r,, a“ 3 sotaastaha 10 dnepzrosent of 98, care’ tn
»
arbiters of their own injuries. A bad bargain cannot be turned into
a good one by a subsecguent lawsuit.
We are of the opinion that the trial court properly dismissed
the bill for want of equity. The decree is therefore affirmed.
Deeree affirmed.
me abi owtereit af sey: t
) ad. te a: )
erie Bags sie bun, suie Lkeatus 22) Tees or) ton, avy
pis % sbemmttte combed rater Gh oh ie WER; 1GRNe BENE OF
ortige te dead ddd ogy, honadatnhe hao siete ni
Pps, Lege epi se dina woe aplenty Aes Mie meal
i ie WAN Gol Satan "
Orltowgeat aie), sos cl ialdadieainaats OLn. menennenindy
sate 2) ph, powten od af emg booH pa OR ae, gripe:
ort oolvserp pel ghetio anes note tnnddan ed Sig m ES
paltquecs xl, ssecton aaw dusee Latet ong stodmeda wk &
n - | Bhi sess ot, 90
MP Rates. ot aeke a vena Ags pray BALE RR MY hy ee
sate nok oy. ae .aceewG Pom Ronde nh, ‘phans Saal yt by st *
Site 4esy wav adael Logg POR THeS anager aw h Ty
Slaus gw Seooig sendav sooddiitary dow a yaneoe, ingen. ©
bing. aaliacoqine od? Lew, hotameiee ppmntens i‘
POO stl. aa, Sheuay Hy Couw dads lade Oita Linge PRP 08%
seit; aoe Sanh a amekprieds Ryu, gs Ge4O mE, AO NOR
paaaiet, of dtag tadt meth yatwOe) a9. OoNma. en amr
03 eidall tfed wd 2 urate ldo dase, A
i ‘ 1 wv
ee Ny | Wie [ rf Phan
G2 adltntmy7o8, oht. wes hte any, ONO g Gey LF: ine
Rede hf oats. seedy Sina fh iiss an, ace, Bae
Dake tonsa acres -qaeefaiey wt n2 Remar 0.0m
(AE tne enatae ae a eR ea sam. iy watt,
me our, wed, tad, eee, vee age
STATE OF ILLINOIS, he
SECOND DISTRICT J ; I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred andthe ——————————
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73947) QEBe07
el Ee pal
ide,
ve wi i tae olla oil? Sod
Vi secs of tosradt bed ina by
40422
HATTIE GABL,
Ve
FRANK GABL and ANNA
Intervening Petitioner$,
APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT,
ANNA FUNK, | COOK COUNTY,
Appellee,
Ve oa
i 0m 305 1.4. 620
Appellant.
UR, PRESIDING JUSTICE SULLIVAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
The only question originally involved in this proceeding was
whether Frank Gabl or his wife, Hattie Gabl, was the owner of two
first mortgage notes for $1,700 and $2,000, respectively, and two
separate trust deeds securing same, said securities having been
received by Frank Gabl as part of his share of his mother's estate,
Hattie Gabl had not been living with her husband at the time he
received these securities or for some time prior thereto, After
same were delivered to him she returned to live with him as his
wife, but left him again some time thereafter, The then attorney for
both Frank and Hattie Gabl, who is the attorney for appellant, Hattie
Gabl, on this appeal, instituted separate actions in her name on
May 31, 1935, to foreclose the aforesaid trust deeds, In each of
the foreclosure suits Frank Gabl filed an intervening petition,
which alleged inter alia that the note and trust deed involved
therein belonged to him and were wrongfully withheld from him by
his wife, Hattie Gabl filed sworn answers to the intervening peti-
tions, in which she alleged substantially that she acquired the
securities involved as the result of a contract entered into between
herself and her husband, Both cases were referred to a master on
the issues formed by the intervening petitions and the answers
sit
\ IAD MITTAH
a
. AMMA bas IGA) AMATI
eStonolitved gatnevrstal
,THUOD TIVOALO MOMY JAMTIA
+¥UO9 2000 ss AMMA
“08d A. C08 ys
| | a tek mie
.THUOD SET TO WOIUIGO HRT GAAIVIIS HAVLLIVG AOTTAUL DUTGIEMAT AM
gsw gatbessorg eldd at beviovatt Vilsntgizo motsaesp vino ext ase 3
ont to seawe edt usw cided elséall Otte at x0 ded alas wostedw
owt bas .ylovisoeqaet 000,88 bas OO%,1$ 10% eeton egsgdtom fentt
stoed poived 2elitupoes bisa .omsa gntiwoee eboob vest of stagee
ataseo e'zenjou eli to o1ade eld to dusq es [ded anett xd bovtooet
od emits eft ts buedessl ted dtiw gatvil seed ton bad ided eliisH
seftA ,otsereds toluq emit omoe tot to eelsianoee eaedt bevisoet
aid es abi div ovil of benwies ede mtd ef betsvileb oxew omse
toi Yertosts aedd fT ,1ettsetedt omit emoe nisye mid Stoel sud oLbw
citteH imalleqqe sot yentodde od et onw .{dsd eftteH bas Ansett diod
mo oman ted ak enoltos steisqee bedudisvent .Lseqqs elds 19 cided
to dose mI .ebeob geyad blseerots edt exofocr0t ot ,teer te YsM
etotviveq yalaeviedat ae belt? Ided Anes et ive ousaoLoer02 odd
beviovist besb tawt bas oson odd tad gile sodas bepoLts soba |
yd mic mort Sleddtiy yLlv'tgnow etew bos mtd ot beganied ntoredd ‘eae.
=iieg gataevrosat eit of 2 LewELs stow Selit Idad elds othe eld :
: oni} bettupos ede tant YLlattnsdedue begelis ede doldw at enott
noeut od otal boredae soautaod 8 to dLseet axis ae boviovnt aetiumes
is a0 | ced aam & ot boxzete7 otow adeno dod boda tod as | 2 ened
a
thereto. On March 27, 1937, by leave of court, Hattie Gabl filed a
verified amendment to her enswer theretofore filed in each of the
foreclosure proceedings, in which amendment without deleting or with-
drawing any of the allegations of her original answer she averred that
the notes and trust deeds were delivered to her as a gift by her husband,
Thus her sworn answers as amended presented two inconsistent (not
alternative) versions of the manner in which she acquired title to
the notes and trust deeds from her husband. Thereafter Frank Gabl by
a written assignment sold, transferred and assigned to his sister,
Anna Funk, "his title, right and interest" in all of his personal
property, including and specifying the aforesaid notes and trust deeds
and two additional notes. Gabl died July 4, 1937, and, his death
having been suggested, Anna Funk under her assignment was substituted
as intervening petitioner in his place and stead, After a full hearing
the master filed his report finding that the assignment of Anna Funk
was valid and further finding the issues in favor of the intervening
petitioner, A decree was entered in accordance with the findings and
_ recommendations of the master, Hattie Gabl appeals from this decree,
assigning as error that said deeree is contrary to the law and the
evidence,
Anna Funk, the appellee, heretofore, filed a motion “to affirm
the decree of the court below" because of the failure of appellant to
furnish an abstract of the record "sufficient to show the errors
relied upon by said appellant, as required by the rules in that
behalf." This motion was reserved to hearing, The affidavit filed by
the attorney for appellee in support of said motion avers "that he has
examined the transeript of the record therein on file in this court,
and, has examined the document filed herein as an abstract ef that
record, and that he knows the contents thereof; that the said document
purporting to be an abstract of the record does not contain any abstract
of the pleadings in said cause, or any abstract of the master's report,
or any abstract of the objections filed to the master's report, or
any abstract of the decree rendered in said cause, or any abstract
afa
gs beftt Idad etiiel — to eveol yd ,VECL .VS dows a0 .otoetedy
edd to dose at belit exoteseredd tewens ted ot taombaoms betitiev
-—ijiw ro untteleh tuodiiw inembaeme doidw at 12gaiboeso1q ounnitianblt
gadt bevievs ede iswene Ientgtxo ted to emoltisgotie edt to yas patwarb
isdemd xo yd Stig 2 ac tem o¢ bor]eviteb stew abeeb tanis has eovom ext
son) dnegatenoont ows besdmeceug boinems es etewele miowa tedl axel
ot elvis betiwpos ede doliw at rommem edt to emoterev (ovisenredia
yd Idsi aAnsvT tedtsotedT .basdemi ted moxt abseb tenis bas aston veh
yiotele eld of bemgtezs bas bexrtetenstt ,bloe Jmemigtees neds baw s
fenozteg etd to Ile mt *Seeretnl bas ddgtit ,olsitt eld” AawT aoa
aboob tautt bas aeton bisact0ts edt gatyitoege bas snibsloud gi regotd
diseb aid ,bos ,YECL .> yl beth Ided .eoton Isnots bbs ous ine
betisisvedue esw Jnomaglees vedi soba das tisha ebodacague nved gatvad
saizsed [fvt s testa .beete bas eoalg etd at rnold it q yatnovresat as
~ aw
Anwt seok to dnomagtces eft sadt gatbal? sroqet abd belt ‘regesm odd
‘San Jars
gniaeviesat adi to tovst al eoxeet add gatbat? sont ut bas biLav eoW
bas egatbakt odd débw eeasbioc0s at betesas eaw eo1s0b A tools tteq
ns iG os.
,ostoeb elds ‘gott elseqqs Idad obtd all . toda cm extd to enols sbrienuooe7 i"
edt Bris wal edd od Yisetsn0o st sensed bise Jats TOTIS 28 , aalagtees:
‘mattis oJ” sottom s beL{it .e1otosesed qoolleqas axis art ‘sam é ia
ot tnalfeqqs ‘to omilst ddd to sausced “woled dayoo afd to sers0b oat
etot16 add wore of tastolitwe" baooex oni to toasteds aa deta
Jad? mt eetwaz odd ya bottupet as ataetloqqs ‘bise Ce aoa ‘boifor pre
yd bell Sivebivis ‘eal -gatused of beviezer 2aw notion “endT # tasted
asd ed tadt™ atevs sioljom bisa to dzoqaire at eslieqgs ‘02 veni0sds ott
«tusoo efdy at ellt mo ateseds budse1 ond Yo sqtroanst) exis bontuaxe
tad} 10 tostdeds as es ateted belt? taeanoob ‘oid boatasxe aad bas
tmemss0b bisa odt tad ademnall edaesaoo ‘eoxid awed! od tacit bas “brooer, ‘iets
GLUGs.
+ Bat, ice Tipe xt ad
to droge atresean edt of belt? enott ootdo eds t0 Joateds VWs 10
Wk elit
gosateds Yas 10 .daliso ‘bise af Soxokuox pS... bay be fpr Mes ay Te B anor
j=
of any documentary evidence offered in said cause; and, that said
document omits part of the transeript of the oral testimony given
in said cause, and states in altered form the transcript of other
oral testimony given in said cause. Affiant further states that said
document purporting to be an abstract of the record in said cause is
wholly insufficient to present the issues in said cause intelligently
to any mind, i
The attorney for the appellant filed written objections to the
allowance of appellee's motion, which stated inter alia “that the
affidavit attached to said motion, contains allegations which are
far fetched and are without merit, and are made as excuses offered to
harass the attorney for the appellant and to confuse the minds of
the Honorable Judges of the Appellate Court; that the very purpose
of the present practice act on which are based the Rules of the
Appellate Court, adopted on April 15, 1937, are to limit long, useless
and expensive procedure, followed by large printers bills in briefs
and abstracts, and to limit the discussion to novel state of facts,
or decide only material questions and issues, or decide new or un-
settled questions of practice. Under Rule 1 of the Rules of the
Appellate Court the attorney for the appellee could have been dili-
gent, not indolent, and could have directed the Clerk of The Circuit
Court of Cook County, I1l., to prepare a praecipe of additional parts
of the record, for his own special use, which he failed to do,"
Examination of the abstract filed by appellant discloses, as
averred in the affidavit filed in support of appellee's motion, that
‘the pleadings and the decree have not been abstracted at ali and that
the master's report and the objections filed thereto have not been
fairly and fully abstracted,
Rule 6 of the Rules of Practice of the Appellate court provides,
in part, as follows:
"In all cases, the party prosecuting an appeal in the Appellate
Court shall furnish a complete abstract of the record, referring to
-{-
biee jady ,bus jeenso bilse al berstto eonebive yisdnemwoob Yip Jo
sevty Yaoulsees Loxe allt to Jylucdnatd oid “lo dxaq atime dneaueob
‘qedjo to tqitoeaaxd odd mot bovetEd nt eotate bus coarse bkae pt
bisa gods sedate testa? dmtYVA Jeuweo Blea at moviy yoomtizes Ler0
2 cesso bise af biose eff to tostteés as ed ‘ot ogattsoqug. taguurpob
Visuegtitorat eeuso bise ni aexeat ond tnoeeaq of daotolt went, vi lodw
1: _ Mahe, bot Yeu. cad
eds of anoitseide aejitaw belk? sualieqgs ext sot yourosds, edt... -
. edi Sed” gifs tejot bette dotiw’ yciotsom peahdounegnenelnia: |
ets doldiw amottsyelis entatnod notion bisa ot bedostis, tiveblits
od betstto asavoxe es obam Ot4 bas qtivem Jwodidtw e1g pus bedotet 18%
to ebutm od} sen'tnoo o¢ Bite smeLlsqae edt. ‘tok yertotss edd aasted
oxoqiig YIOV edt SaAd puwOd edslLeqqA.edd to eeghut, etdggpeah ont
edd ‘to eel edt poesd ers dotde ao tog eoitosig duoaorg -oilt to
“eeolees ygaol timer Ot exe (VERE Qee: AtigA:ne bedqobs 4Isw0d, salleqas |
atelud ai alfid axestmiuq egisl Yd bewollet ,embesong evianeqce bas
; 808 16 etste Isved of Moteevsath eft FtmtL of baw. artoantads bas
"neat to wen obtood +o Yeeweet bus anotteeup. Latseten ae, ebtoeb 10
edt to eefut eddy to £ sleet teball « seativoe7g to enotizenp helitoa
AEEED tded evad Bives SoLteqqe edd +02 Years edd tooo edalleqgA
3 kyoto ei to AreLD eit botooiltb eva biveo bus aolobat soa .t03 |
edaog Landidtobs 16 $q2d081q) 8 teqong of g.L4I a¥taw0d 2909 Yo Faso)
"sob of Beiter st Aodiiw yeew Eendoqe exo. abil wo? .bs090% ei? 20
2s aseolod ts tnslleqgs yd beLit Pestieds oi 30 nedIscimar -
dads piolton e'sslfeqqs Yo troqqwe, mi: boLed Sivebitts edd wb & b ove
“Fats bus Ifs sé bevostteds aeed Yor evad serpeb edd bas agnbooolg edt
peed Jon ovat dfetent rarer heap 2a ord bas txoget 2\astesm eds ,
4 W907 Sal pier Alert en in
Eriniel Fuses aioe a eri} ‘to ‘Sotsoatt to eelud edt 0 , a2 pig, '
E eit awoenl syd sali Sate ot
"etal feqga edd at Leeqas ‘ae’ ston ph Rg
oo Ot gatwreten ,bicoet edit “ae
tx 42 oe Bie at arreerl auld te
a Ny ; Pe Pate, B lf remap ae
At weve, Pat +P of pees 4
‘ J ave DY, ea) Sia *o v we
. ‘ : r®?
> pce Me: - iy)
€
bk wen wees te dang .
Mae Dee get Wivehksuaa™ pn Tan“ Epge O
eee
the pages of the record by numerals on the margin, Where the record
contains the evidence it shall be condensed in narrative form in
the abstract so as to present clearly and concisely its substance,
The abstract shall be preceded by a complete index, alphabetically
arranged, indicating the nature of each exhibit and the page where
it may be found, and giving the names of the witnesses and the
pages of the direct, cross and redirect examination, The abstract
must be sufficient te present fully every error relied upon, and
it will be taken to be accurate and sufficient for a full under-
standing ef the questions presented for decision unless the opposite
party shall file a further abstract, making necessary corrections or
additions, Such further abstract say be filed if the original
abstract is incomplete or inaccurate in any substantial part,”
(Italies ours,)
The abstract filed herein was not merely incomplete and
inaccurate as to some substantial part of the record but was incomplete
as to every substantial portion thereof,
The appellant completely failed to abstract the essential
portions of the record proper in clear violation of Rule 6, ‘The
purported abstract did not make a sufficient presentation of either
the issues in the case or the errors relied upon for reversal. in
discussing the failure of appellant to file a complete abstract in
Staude et al, v. Schumacher et » 187 I11. 187, the court said
at pe 183:
"The rules of this court require the party bringing a cause
into this court to furnish a complete abstract or abridgment of the
record, properly indexed, - such an abstract as will fuliy present
every error and exception relied upon, and sufficient for the
examination and determination of the case without an examination
of the written record, In the case of Gibler v, City of Mattoon,
167 I11. 18, we said (p. 22): ‘It is the duty of parties bringing
eases here for review to prepare and file complete abstracts of
the record in accordance with the rules, and such abstracts as we
can safely rely upon, It is not our duty to perform this work of
counsel, which, in detail, as to them is inconsiderable, but when
imposed upon us is, in the aggregate, extremely burdensome,'
"The deeree must be affirmed for want of complete abstract, ***"
in Hickox v. City of Springfield, 208 I11, 28, the court said
at pe 293
"Rule 14 of this court requires the party appealing to furnish
such an abstract of the record as will fully present every error and
exception relied on, and sufficient for the examination and determination
of the case without any examination of the written record, Where a
manifest attempt has been made to comply with this rule and the abstract
is merely defective, it will be accepted by the court as sufficiently
presenting the matters in issue, but if the opposing party is not satis-
fied with such abstract he may file an additional one and have the
cost of the same taxed to the party filing the principal abstract,
if the court Se fina. determine that the additional abstract was
necessary, This right of the opposing counsel, however, has never been
construed to justify the filing of an abstract which does not pretend
~~
bosses ent stestl alpen edd co elsiosmm yd bigoes ais to 2egsq. edt.
ony ae'y ae pally gn BE Pre ads. yop . Soe
2onsvedue ait yloalonos aselo Jneactg of 2 os
Yileottedatgis eta saat soelanes 8 bebsoe : ed I : Swe a
etedw egsq sit tididgxe dose To pe ,b9gnts Tis —
; pideds ed!" paid cainano Jo07dbe thy cm pao ed Yeu tk
98 ot 280% 292 ;
“Kan seopebelfoe some Sila oe te
an xotis Yiove YLlwt tnesenq trefork
or em s 10% tneioltinve bas stawoos ed of sodas od ti lw ti:
ejlaeqqo elt eselay soletoeh «ot potnszetq wnotteep eft to yntbaste
to emoivosticn Yiseecoon gallaw gtosateds reddit « eft Thais Vinee ; .
fantatso ens tk BbeLtt ed yeu Sosateds todsiwt dove
fans lolteaseryPn.ch manee 2 SOLON AS toes
has: eteiqnonih ~Lonen ted 2aw ktotew bertt dostteds eat
etolquesmt caw ted biebet oft Yo Sisq Lattaayéde ‘emda of as etauossnt ;
‘toorsdtt motitoy Esitastedue ‘yrove oF oa
Iettacees oid tostdeds of beftet yLetelquod taslieqqa oxi? en
ai? .3 efi to notteloiv asels nt t9eqo1q ‘proses ond Yo ‘enottt0q
aontle Yo doitvavaseeny tnoltotTtse s salen tom bib tostteds bedsoqupg
ai .iserevet tot cogs Dohler ators ont to e289 ‘edd int ‘aewent edt a
at gostdeds evelquco s SILT of pains” ‘to erat be? eat yateeuoet® é
bise dios ed? .fSI .IfT Yer
san Be o3 08
eenso 8 pitsated y sid otthpet taueo ettd Yo 2elut adre |
eit to tasmgbinds 10 goatteda etolquoo.s Me kota: 0s auvoo elds ofab
broost
‘mat tfbw es tositeds oa dove - 9b TSGord » |
tot quetatiies brs ,noqu belles “TOTTS YIsyo
yaad doiFeag To By ip iver. sef, enna”
D atositads 9 2.8 8 «9. fs >
ow 2s avosideds Jesqago sth tort ont ag te eonsbhiooes ak «1 odd
Sie Ne ceca Rag y Pia oe
',emoznehiusd ylewettxe .otagotgys Sd3 mk yet &u mogu “boeoqmt ©
WHE sdepictte eselgueo to Jjasw 10% bomzitie ed Janm eentoeb GE Livaly eas
bise dauseo exit e8S LI Sos SBasiane exis
| ecoowterta “Lani gia ts
detowt e¢ gatisegqs Wsg edd sertupes tives, 2
bag tovts yasve dneeetq Vilut IfLfw 4 Coote y fire eds ae " dowe
ery bas noivsnimexs ent sot joetolitwe bas .no betionmn 5 me
S&S etemw .biroost metiiuw edt to gp ap ay Eh Maggies peg to
dostteds aft bas elu aids dtiw eckn of shone F eve-wa he, pean
viinetoliiwe es duos edd yd. heen Bevo :
~eitse som eh: dy Hogs guikeogqo eit rete ria Si
edt ovad bas emo Ianoltstbbs as oltt Yam oi eas dove ry +9
aaw sJostied Lenotstbbs edt ssclt Ltatis, 9109 Se mn
aobd" savas oS TEE0uaR erounwes Sufsoqqo end to daast aid Neteeeooes
=
to comply with rule 14, and thereby compel the other party to do
what the appellant or plaintiff in error should have done, Ladighe
"fhe judgment of the court below must be affirmed for want
ef a complete abstract."
Appellee's motion was timely, having been filed on November
28, 1938, and it should be considered as of that date, Since we
reserved our decision on appellee's motion, she was compelled to
file an additional abstract in order to protect her rights in her
endeaver te sustain the decree, The additional abstract must
therefore be eliminated from consideration in our determination of
the question presented by appellee's motion, W are impelled at
this time to allow appellee's motion to affirm the deeree because
the abstract filed by appellant did not even pretend te comply
with Rule 6, hereinbefore set forth.
We have, however, notwithstanding that appellant's original
and reply briefs are well nigh unintelligible, patiently and care=
fully read them with as much understanding as they would afford
and are of opinion thet there is no substantial error in the
decree,
The decree of the Circuit court is affirmed for want of
a complete abstract.
DECREE AFFIRMED,
Friend and Seanlan, JJ., concur,
ob ot Yt asthe belt Sepia —itbehhe hak AE else hv
wee Ventob ov: ed bivede tow mt nk wiiimtalg to daalleqge
‘tmay et Dowzhts of denn woled Pnu00 edi t0°4 % edt”
n toons p S8elguae » 20
roduevoll wo betty need gattved cvtemts 2aw mo tt oo e ootogea
‘ow oonts soteb tadd ‘to es berebtemoo ed btivoite $f bas 5 48ERE 85
of beLLoqmoo caw ede yaoktom etevifoqas no note toeb WO bevaozer i
aca
wed mt addyi«c red sostomq of rebt0 at soaxteds Tenons Reba: ap-oLtt
tesa dgoetdeds Ienoltibbs ef? ,setseb of% nisteve of covanlen
to soltenbwieteb two mi aolteteblenoo mort bevenimile ef ese tersds
ts befleqmt ers ® ,noliow we eelleqqs yd besaeesiq HOkYeowp eis
eareoed eetosbh offs mritis of moltsdom eteelileqqsa wolls oF omits elit
Ylqmod ot brode¢ move ton Lb tnelQeqqe yd boLkt toandeds edd
dds02 toe etotedstowed .d) eft uititw is
Lisakgite a'tnéiieqge tals gatbustedsiwion ,revewed ,evei i - ord
‘motsd hms Yldneiteq yeidialilotniay dgta Llew ets etotad yiger bits ‘i
DStotts Hivow yet es gathacterebat. Home ea tlw meld dion YLLit
———~ so
Ee: Pm Feat
ot mi torre Isittastedua on et etodt todd aolniqo'teleus bas
“ag * mh Bs sit eg ‘etal "
‘kote at. Fivee ets e091 ti
10 tan s0% semtiten: ek sn09 ftuont9 ot 20 eoxoeb ody
Sore ee Ee yee
; | bd anor __steataae aaa
§ + Anes = ‘ ; : t © J TOSSDZ BAT Bs eo ; te
<OQQMMATOWA Mmoma fot (SS 1G) Bhew ow 8k LET Yor
pI Gas cha 7 Magen . og woke: % wel ote cones |
: : , ae wp & Al bietes be
fi re y Py eLelys ws Vim tae
swonios qth ye
' ieee , Ao ; : : Puke M seg £4 eat
Pad 6314 iy i re
. Lae, any ~ ¥
A a nhc ae sola
eS ef wa
f oc) asa tspen. tango, ghey en pbs
le ~ 7 4 A REE y 4 nile rg awd eds cs) DS done
BELA Peso he ms “Tt? ¥ m ne & et TOURS 3
- ; = ; A PAZ a. Sd RES
pre, Mars J , 5G Mog ioe “Yiea fomisiw ered eat ‘to
Sgt MOOG Basel pgaee’ a duakitien
y # »
rh ASS gett gal bee e tq :
wil ae BGs 5 sone ig ie belt -
é 4 one y ett Q a . 2 bt ie wer Sie od war * f CURE pare] su? te teas otk ye ee
mole hobs ott sate eaioneten Re “td bite dae ody Tf
Me ar uate hae
" vE % : a 2 * , + ye
[ue ra v' Mi 9 OS OF BAAS OC te Siig ww oe :
BS 7 isi aaal fix: Ts. ay + io = at it . oe
re
a es 4 ‘ng ren, ee
Sooke ee w EP SE 2h od TeRe e205 mer 2,
rp ay
j
40517
ALLEN INDUSTRIES, Inc.
a corporation, fs
Ve
G
AMERICAN HAIR & FELT
a corporation, avaliiee. : 205 1.A. 621
MR, PRESIDING JUSTICE SULLIVAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
This action was brought by plaintiff, Allen Industries, Inc.,
against defendant, American Hair & Felt Company, to recover damages
for breach of an oral contract alleged to have been made in November,
1935, for the sale by defendant to plaintiff of 3,750,000 pounds of
felting hair, approximately 25% of which was to be delivered in each
of the four quarters of 1936. With its answer defendant asserted a
counterclaim for the invoiced price of divers shipments of hair made
by it to plaintiff, In its reply to the counterclaim plaintiff
admitted its indebtedness to defendant for the amount claimed therein
but alleged as the reason for the nonpayment of same defendant's
liability for breach of the contract pleaded in the complaint, After
a trial by the court without a jury the issues were found in favor of
defendant both on its counterclaim and on plaintiff's complaint.
Damages of $25,945.53 (including interest) assessed against plaintiff
on the counterclaim were paid by it in open court, Judgment was
entered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff on the latter's
complaint and the amendment thereto. This appeal seeks to reverse
that judgment,
Plaintiff's complaint as originally filed alleged substantially
that an oral agreement between the parties was entered into by their
respective presidents, Allen and Wilde, on November 5, 1935, under the
terms of which plaintiff agreed to purchase and defendant agreed te
sell 3,000,000 pounds of cattle hair and 750,000 pounds of calf hair
To <A. I 208.
-TAU09 BHT TO warurdo aHT Cagividad HAVILLIUG cornet % SATO, a
7
or:
ig ay
..onl ,eeiwebbal mellA .tthictsiq yd sdywoxd esw mottos ait
gogatieh tevedet oF .yusquiod Siet S thsi ngoltoma .Joisbrtetob ‘Pertteys
_todusvoll mk obam aved svad of begells sourinod Iéto Hs ‘to dosed sor
to ebmtog 000,08,€ to Ithinlelq of Fuaiddteh Yd \efss ens “m6 ~RERL |
dose nt Borovited od of zaw dotiw Yo Ws yLevautxouggs (ithd ‘gattLor
s bofrezes Jotehbusteb rewens edt ctiw deer to atesievp ettot only to”
obam tte to atnomgise exevib to eottq bestovat edt ‘mot misLoretenes
Viisntelq mtsfovednpoo eft oF Ylqer efi at .xtbatsfq ‘oo St yd |
siotedd demtelo susous eft sot inabasteb of azenboddebut att best limbs
atinsbaeteh suse to taémysqnon edd tot Moesex ond es bogolis Jud
sedth .taialquoo od mt bebselq toettaos edd to dosed tot yiLidetl ©
‘to tovs? ai bavot o1ew eotaal edd yw s iwodsiw dumoo odd yd Ista 5
stnisiqueo e'tiitnielg mo bus misloresaves etl mo diod tnohse te.
Titiately tentegs beeaseas (Jeotedmt gettbylonk) RUE, USE ‘to"heganed
aew tnomgist .Jmoo mego at ii yd bisq sisew mislorsinavoo edi mo
ataodtel elt mo Yitsiately tentsys bus Jasbasieb to tovst at berstas
eatevex of exoee Lseqqs eitT ,otorsds Jnombacus arts bas Jatsiqaoo
-Jnemghy,, tadt
yllsitnstedue boygelis beitt yifenigizo es duteiqmoo e'Titiateli ve
tied} yd ojnk berstne saw eoliasq edd noewied taomeeigs exo aa Sad
eid wehbe CL .¢ todmevoll mo ,ebliW bus mollA ,etmebleoiq ovidooqeor
ot Beotgs dasbasteb bus sasdowg ot beotas Vittalalg slo Law to amrxod
aisd iiss to eboyog 000,0¢3 bas tied elites to ebmyog 000,000, iioe
ed
for delivery in 1936, 750,000 pounds of cattle hair and 187,000 pounds
of calf hair “to be ascribed to, and as near as might be delivered in"
each quarter of 1936; that a price of 6-1/2 cents a pound was thereupon
agreed to for the hair ascribed to the first quarter and that "the
price of the hair to be delivered during the succeeding quarters of
the year 1936 should be such/as was thereafter agreed to between the
plaintiff and the said defendant;" that the hair aseribed to the first
quarter was delivered and paid for; that plaintiff and defendant agreed
on April 28, 1936, that the price for the 937,000 pounds of hair
ascribable to the second quarter should be 7-1/2 cents a pound and that
said hair was delivered and paid for at the agreed price; that August
26, 1936, plaintiff and defendant agreed "that the price of the hair
aseribable to the third and fourth quarters of the year 1936 should be
7-1/2 cents per pound," end that the hair aseribable to the third
quarter was delivered; that on November 24, 1936, defendant refused to
deliver the hair "ascribed to the fourth quarter" and thereby breached
its contract; that plaintiff was obliged to purchase the amount of
hair ascribable to the fourth quarter in the open market at a price
of 5 cents a pound in excess of the price of 7-1/2 cents a pound
stipulated by the parties im the agreement of August 26, 1936, and
that by reason thereof plaintiff was damaged to the extent of $50,000;
that an unpaid balance of $24,140 remained owing by plaintiff to
defendant for hair delivered by it, which was aseribable to the third
quarters; and that plaintiff offered to allow this amount as a set-off
to the damages claimed by it.
Defendant filed a verified answer which denied the agreements
alleged in the complaint to have been entered into by the parties on
November 5, 1935, and on August 26, 1936, but admitted that an oral
agreement was entered inte in November, 1935, under the terms of
which defendant was to ship 937,000 pounds of hair to plaintiff at 4
price of 6-1/2 cents a pound during the first quarter of 1936 and
that that quantity of hate wes delivered by defendant to plaintiff
and paid for by the latter at the agreed price. The answer then
i
1
Se
ehawog 060,SSL bus tad elitso to abmuoq 000,073 ,ofeL at yrovilob tot
“at berevifoh od togim as twsen es bus ,ot bediioas od of" lad iso to
aequeteds asw baweq a admeo S\f-d to sottq s tadd 2OEOL to todtawp dose
ens" tact bus tettasp getit eid oF bodiiozs sie el ‘to? oF boorgs
to etstisup gikbessose edt guiaub ste) sage ed of chad als to soliq
eit asowted of Heorys ted isetSlt saw aa \doue ed biwere Of CL ts0y odd
teat? odds ot bedtises ated add tadd “yiaehnoteb bise aret bas Viitatate
beotgs Sasbsotoh bas Witnlkelg todd prot bisq haa Kéusvifeb esw sodisip
akad to ebswog 000,SEC edt x02 sotaq odd teddy ECL 8S Liq mo
ted bas bowoq s etneo S\f-S ed Bilrvode sefisup baoose et of eldedizoas
sauguA tads yeotuq beorgs odd ts tol bisq bie beteviles ew atsd bise
tied exit to ootig eft tat" beows Insinetes bas Ttiatelq .dfeL ,dS
ad biwode d€CL assy os to eredisup diuwot bas bitdd odd os SLdsdbbes
butdd et of Sidsdiises than odd Fadt baie ” (bowed 19q edtieo S\L-T
ot beartet tasbueteb WECL .S “tedmovol Ho tadd ~boteviloh daw “ted tsklp
bedoserd ydereds bas "“ieduswp déiv0e? edj ot bedirses" “the ‘eid teviteb
\to-dmwons sft cestlormq of bogtido asw Tittntslq tadd ptoetiaos eft
eokig s ts Joxtam neqo ot at tetasmp adiwoY edd oF sEdsditees shar
Basog s atmos S\I-$ to ootug efit to eesexe mi Bawoq s esieo % To
bus ,d€OL ,OS damywa to Inemoergs odd Ml eeldtsq ond Yd boteLugtte
1000, 00% to tnedxe sit ot begsush eaw Ititatsl¢ tosteny morsss Yd ‘Farid
ot Thbvalsig W antwo bentsust OAL, 4S$ Yo eonslsd bisdav os sds
builds, ot od oldsdireas asw doldw .st yd bevevifeb. tisd tot Seebao'toh
“tte-ver s es tavosts ald wolls ot borwtto Titintslg tad bas ytestesp
| ght yd Demkslo eeganish Sao OF
sieeiiiensistibieanitinee ates: heen
no eeitusq ext yd ofak berets nosd oval of Iutalqmoo pou
{exo as tasld bettimbs tud ,OfCL .dS senguA mo bas ,2£@l Qi xedmeven —
te amrod ont rohats ,RECL _xsdawvoll «i oth bovodit ‘ew tuomoorgs
2 $@ Viltatelq of tts to ebmwog 000, TER Gite oF esi Susbiisteh’ dokdw
_ Aas ORL to setseHp seth? edd gabsub finsiog 8 adues S\I+9 to estiy
“Yibialelq of tnsbasted yd: botevhtes -eaw shad “to “ysbsiiasly sand Fads
| fiscis t8wens eT .99kaq beotys et te xettal ‘edd! yd “et Bled bas
a! 4 yi
wee
“j=
averred that the oral agreement alleged to have been entered into by
the parties on November 5, 1935, did not create a valid and binding
contract because by its very terms the price of the hair was left open
to be later agreed upon between the parties; that on April 28, 1936,
the parties entered into a written agreement with respect to the sale
of hair by defendant to plaintiff for the second three months of 1936,
said written agreement setting forth the quantity, quality, price and
terms of delivery; and that on July 22, 1936, the parties entered into
a written agreement with respect to a sale of hair for the third three
months of 1936, which specified the quantity, quality, price and terms
of delivery. The answer included a plea of the Statute of Frauds,
Defendant filed with its answer a counterclaim for $24,140, the
amount which plaintiff's complaint admitted to be due and owing, The
counterclaim pleaded the written agreement of July 22, 1936, relating to
the hair sold for delivery during the third three months of 1936 and
averred that all the deliveries for that quarter had been completed and
that invoices for some of the shipments totalling $24,140 had net been
paid, Plaintiff filed a verified answer to the counterclaim, which in
substanee restated and realleged the averments of its complaint.
This was the state of the pleadings when the case went to trial.
after Sidney J. Allen, president of plaintiff company, testified that the
alleged oral contract of November 5, 1935, which was made in Pennsylvania
and to be performed in Michigan, provided for the delivery of hair for the
entire year 1936, defendant, upon leave granted, filed an amendment to
its answer, in which it pleaded the Statute of Frauds of each of said
states
after the close of all the evidence plaintiff over defendant's
objection obtained leave to file and did file an amendment to its
complaint, This amendment deleted from the eriginal complaint the
allegation that the parties agreed orally on August 26, 1936, "that
the price of the hair ascribable to the third and fourth quarters of
the year 1936 should be 7-1/2¢ per pound" and substituted therefor an
niet haa
Yi aiak beistae mesd evad ot bagslis Jasmeotgs Isto elt Jedd Dortevs
gaibatd bas bilsy » otaeqo som bib .tCCL 4¢ tedmevoll ao astizsq edd
nogo Stel asw its alt to sokiq oft emied yxev ati Yd sanaped tosiss09
ePEOL OS Liags mo dat yeotizsq edt asewied aogy boetys tessl od ot
else edt od toogaer sdtw Jnsmestgs a8SF.L & oink boreine seiiisq ont
,8E2L fo asidmom cowit bnossa edd rt0% hidatale ot tusbasteb yd shed to
bas eotig pwilsup qyiitnsup edd dixol gatitee Jneuseigs nodiiu hise
ott hetedas asitiaq adit eOEGL SS yLul so tant bas yyrevileb to amid
eouls buldd edt rot ttad to elas s of, toogest Ad iw Iaemestgs aeddiuw s
agried hae eottg .Yillsnp ywitiasup edd belitoega dois ,Q€CL Yo edtnom
_ sbbuSTL To etutes® eds 0 selq a bobuloat towens ef? ..ytevileb ‘to
offs OPT. bS¢ Tol mislorejaves 9 iswens adi djiw bell) tasbasied oda
eit ,gatwo bas sub sd of betdinbs intalquoo attitiately dotdw tawoms
ot gatialer .6Ql ,SS yinl to snemeotgs aetiti edi behselq mislotesmuoo
bas %6L to adiaom eowis dutdd edt gantwh ysovileb so% Sloe azbart ord
bus betelquoo ased bad sedieup tad? sot eeksevileb edt Lis jad? berievs
stati of dnew eaco ot mode egatbselq ond to etete odd aow etd.
sit tadd bekitiees ,yisqmes Tiilalelq to dmebleeiq .meLlA «l yomble vests
sinsvivennel at ebsu ecw dotdw .gc@l .@ todusvoll to Joatjmo9 Isto begeiis —
id tor ated Io yxevilob odd toi Sebtvosg gosatdoll mt bemrotzeq od ot bas
ot Saombaems as belii ,bedaety oveel moqu ,tasbaeied ,0¢@L rssy ottins
bisa Ye dose te abustl to siuisia edt bebsolq ji doidw at .sowens att
stetstea
(S@tinshneted teovo Titdatsiq sonebive efi Ils %é@ eaofo es wsStALo ©
eth o¢ tnembiema 8 SLLt BLb bris eL22 of oveel betitasdomotsoetde
et taksiqmoo Lactgito edd mort betefob Ixembnems eld? .tmtaiqmos
| tadd" .O2CL 8S Fees no UListo beers wetiase edd add mottegetic
to etetussp dicot bas betes ont oF eldsdbuoes «thes oft! 0 sohaq oxld
ie retorted besusivedwe bas “brw0q 19q. ee
af ve ? & rad rig bo wit wall “wT hag i.
f
|
tne
averment that in the alleged oral contract of November 5, 1935, the
parties agreed that the price of hair for the last three quarters of
1936 "should be the average price paid by the defendant to tanners
for hair of such kind and guality plus 1¢ per pound." Defendant's
motion to strike the amendment to the complaint having been denied it
filed a verified answer denying the allegations of said amendment and
also pleaded the Statute of Frauds to the complaint as amended,
Plaintiff's theory as stated in its brief is "that the proofs
established a contract by defendant to sell to plaintiff 3,756,000
pounds of hair, substantially one-fourth to be delivered in each of
the four quarters of the year 1936, at a price of 1¢ in excess of
the price paid by defendant to tanners for such hair; that the contract
could have been fully performed within the space of one year from the
time it was made; that defendant repudiated the contract in respect
of the guantity allocahle to the fourth quarter and that plaintiff was
obliged to buy on the open market such quantity at prices about 4¢
over that determined by the contract."
Defendant's theory is that no contract or agreement was made
in respect to the fourth quarter of 1936, which is the only period in
controversy, and that the oral agreement alleged by plaintiff to have
been entered into in November, 1935, if made, was void under the
Statute of Frauds,
The primary question presented for our determination is
whether the finding of the trial court that there was no contract or
agreement made by the parties in respect to the fourth quarter of
1936 was manifestly against the weight of the evidence.
Plaintiff is a manufacturer of hair products - chiefly felt
for various uses, Its plant is located in Detroit. Defendant,
whose headquarters are in Chicago, is one of the largest dealers in
hair, as well as a manufacturer of hair products which are competitive
with those of plaintiff. On May 5, 1933, plaintiff by its written
order made its first purchase of felting hair from defendant for
he
ods .€£0L ,@ r]8edmevoll ‘te tostinoo Isto beygel{s eft at stadt dnemteva
to etstisup eewls teal eff rot «tad to cottg sit Jatt peorgs eo wide
arenosd of tusbretsb efit yd btaq sotuq epsievs Sit od bivorle™ dEQI™ -
‘etinnbaoted " tneq req 4f ently yifenp bas bretd dove Yo thaih aor ©
tt belaoh ased gatvad intslqmoo edt od staombnoms eff altate of moltom ©)
bas drembaents Skse to enolisgolia eds gatyaeb sowens beltivev » beflY -
‘ bebaemes es tnisiques elt of ebustt to esutate ent beobsslq o8fe *o
etoorg odd tetls® at teitd ati at bedste az yroeiy a YtitmislT 6s) | loo
000,089, Tiidatelg of fez of tushastod yd Jouttnon # boileldesao
to dose at hberevileb ed oF diwot-ono yllstinsdedue ,tiel to ehayog »
to eeeoxe nt of to eolig s ds ,86OL isey odd to etedigup swo? addi.
fositaos eft tadd yttat dova rol avomisy o¢ smsbnsted yd bieq spbag edt %o
exit mot xs8y eo Yo cosqe edt atddviw beurolisy yLint need sved bls09
jooqzor ait toartnoo odd bedsthbuqet Insbusteb sudd yebsm asw tt ombh.
aew Tikintelg ted dus tofiswp ddim0t oft. ot aldsoolis ytkinanp jontd Boo
§4 guods esolig Js Yituerp dove Joadsem aeqo ont mo yud od begtide, |
" dosttnos add yd benimioteb talt wove).
ebsw ssw insmesiga 10 Jeaainos on dadt ab yrosd? altasbaste@)ooy) sons
at bolteg yLao edd et dotdw ,6€Ci te sotuaup sidiwol sid of goegest ab.
eved of Ttiinisly yd begeils tmomecigs Ieqo end Jedd bas yyatevomtaes,.
ent tobas Bblov asw ,sbam TL 4tcQl ,tsdmevell ai ojmi be1stme aeed
_ sche eh _
aL tolisnimrwish wo sol bednesosg penaine VIABLE OMT) Howe ttas |
-. %@ teatiace on eaw otend Jeit tae Lela add to gubbati edd, rel
— Yo wedisup déwoct edd .od dooqeot mk 2etiseqg esd yd ebem Inemeorgs,.
do Oo ‘oo @Qtebive edd Yo ddgtow edd dentegs Vidaotinan eaw OgeL, >
thot ylielio - atouborg tied to temdoeiumam¢ at iia tate. 2eree
etasbaoteG .tlowol atbesscel at taslq efZ
at aveleeh deegist odd to eno et ,ogsoidd at ots — aap.
evisijegaes ete doidw atowboug ited Yo qeitostumsm 6 as :
Paks a4 eT
mettiow att yd Tibtaialg fl Yella0.. Tabs! ¢.20 ee Se
© Ot dmébnoted: moet thes: gibt Lo2 sanmanimntanesensinn alt
Len oan ewottay . 3 ge
nd gg
it Whey REG
See
delivery during the year 1934. On November 22, 1934, again by its
written order, plaintiff purchased from defendant 3,000,000 pounds of
hair (subsequently raised to 4,000,000 pounds) at 3=3/4 cents per
pound, to be delivered in “approximately equal monthly shipments
between January 1, 1935, and December 31, 1935," The defendant was
behind in its deliveries under the contract covering 1935 and by
written agreement of the parties on October 10, 1935, the time for the
delivery of the hair mecessary to complete the contract for that year
was extended so that defendant might "make shipment as soon as possible
after January 1." All of the hair covered by the contract for 1935
was shipped by the end of February, 1936. Apprehending that the supply
of hair would not be sufficient te meet the demand in 1936, a meeting
of a number of the leading hair dealers and manufacturers of hair
products was called and held at the Bellevue Stratford Hotel in
Philadelphia on November 18, 1935, to discuss the raw material outlook
for the coming year, the probable needs of the manufacturers and the
means of supplying same, At such meeting plaintiff was represented by
its President, Sidney J. Allen, Defendant was represented by its
president, Theodore Wilde, and by the Chairman of its Board, V. Ae
Wallin, There were also in attendanee Victor Hemphill, President of
Hemphill & Company, a dealer, J. J. Densten, President of Densten Hair
& Felt Company, a dealer as well as a manufacturer, and Theodore
Horwieh, Secretary of the General Felt Products Company of Chicago,
The concerns represented at the meeting were the principal users and
suppliers of hair in this country. All those who participated in the
Philadelphia conference testified in this cause except Hemphill, whe
died shortly before the trial.
Concerning what transpired at the Philadelphia meeting, Allen,
plaintiff's president, testified that Mr. Wilde said "the consumption
of hair was increasing beyond the production of the hair and it would
be to the interest of the individuals to collectively get together and
buy our hair together through one particular group, and also to regulate
the amount of hair each of the manufacturers would consume during the
i
_Bth yd cisas gAc@L QSS tedmovyol m0. .ACCL asey edt gatamb yxrovblob
to sbhaog 000,000,£ Jnabacieh moitt beesdowg Tiliately «tebie aetdtaw
toq atmoo d\EmE Ja (ebaoq 000,000,+ of beetar yLinexpesdue) «hed
_ etuoomgise yidinom Laspe \Llotamixorggs" at betevileb sd od ,haweg
asu Jachasleb ofl ".RCQL gif aedmeocd das .RéQi .f Yasuaal aoewsed
yd bas {cL gatisvoo tositaes edd tohaw eohievileb edt at balsied
edt tot emis odd .XECl ,0L redote0 mo aetsasq end to duemsergs metiiaw
xeey tadt 1c tosiinos edd edelquos ot Yisaacoem tiad edt to yrevileb
eldiueog as tooz ae tasugice elem" Idgim dJasbaeteh tadd os behnedxe asw
- REGL sot Josiimeo edd yd berevoo tied old te SLA ".L yusunsl, sedis
Viqque eid tadi gubbaederqqA .0€eL ,ytesidel te bus edd yd boqaile een
gaittoom 6 ,o£@L at baameb edd toom of gnotoLtise ed goa bluow atad 20
thed 6 atemdosiuasm bas etefseb ated gatbses exis Yo sedarm « to
sk Seto bioltaure ouvellod ott te bied bas belles esw ztouborg
Mooliwo Latuedem wet ond eamoath of ,tECL ,8L sedmevell mo shiglebsikdi
edd bite e1owostuaen oft to abven eldsdowg edd .tesy gtiimoo edt wet
yd betmoeciqet eaw Lilsatisiq gotioom dome GA yoase gatylqque to ensen
avi yd bedmezouge: saw Jnabasied nella ,l yombia ytaebizeil est
»A o¥ gbusodi est to mssrttedd ext yd bas yobikW exeboerll qtneblaerq
_ %o dnebttaerl .lisdqmel rosoLV oonebnetss at cele etew. ered? »smkifeW
ateH meyeneU to tashiaerd .setens™ .L .b ytelsob 2 yynequiod: # Li iqmel
erobosd! bas ,tewiostuasm s es Liew es tolseb sq Yisqmod dist 2
-ogsid0 lo YasamoD esoubord ¢isl Lavemed eit to yustowst ,dotwioll
bus sxsesy Lagiontiq add erew gniteam ely da betasessge1r entoomeo tall
eis ai betsqiokiasq ow cvond ILA .yrdanoo ebdt nt tind to esebiqqae
ow ,iildqme gqesxe eases abit mt beliivess saaeasinoo: sliqlebalidd as
. fisiet edd stoted ys ide beth
eisILs qpmtioon siigishsLis% ed .se bertqenext fadw. gatareombde oo)
aoliqnuanos eds” bise ebLil .ci dads betiitessd yiasblesig: e'nitombety
pinow dt bes shail edd Yo mottomborg eat hnoysd: gatesstonbecw thath‘to
bis sorigegod Jog yLovissolloa of alsubivibat oft to. seeratat edd of od
et aliget of ovis ‘bas .quorg tslnotizaq eno dauould sediezod ated, Saasthas f ;
ads sabib emenoo bizow aistmsostuasm edd to dose tlead to Javoms eat raat ;
abn
following year3;* that Wilde and Densten stated how much hair they
would needs that these amounts were compared with the production
enticipated for the following year; that Wilde and Horwich said that
they would pare down their production for the following year ana that
he [Allen] stated that he would do likewise; that he said plaintiff
would be content with approximately 6,000,000 pounds; that Wilde said
that his company would undertake to deliver 3,000,000 pounds of brown
cattle hair and 750,000 pounds of calf hair to plaintiff; that
Hemphill said that his company would furnish 1,000,000 pounds of cattle
hair and 500,000 pounds of goat hair; that Densten said that his company
would furnish 1,000,000 pounds of hair, giving plaintiff approximately
6,000,000 pounds; that “they would furnish, sell us, sell our company
that amount of hair **## the price to be determined quarterly, 1l¢ per
pound differential above that which they paid the tanners, l¢ average
price, which they paid the tannerss" that “ir, Horwich of the General
Felt Company and myself said that we would like to have determined the
exact price of the hair;" and that he [Allen] asked "what the price of
hair would be for the first quarter;" that "Mr, Wilde said that the
price to the tanner at that time was 5-1/2¢ a pound *** the price to
us would be for the first guarter 6-1/2¢;" and that ii. Wilde stated
that “they would give us 3,000,000 of brown medium and short brown
cattle hair and 750,000 pounds of calf hair *** all domestic cattle
hair,"
Theodore Horwich testified in plaintiff's behalf that he said
at the Philadelphia meeting that his company would use less hair in
1936; that he stated that his company would get along with 4,000,000
pounds; that Hemphill said "that he would sell them 1,000,000 pounds”
and Wilde said "that he would sell them 3,000,000 pounds;" that "the
same people said they would sell Allen a quantity of hair to be deliv-
ere@ in 1936," but that he did not recall what the quantity was; that
“the price was to be 1¢ a pound above their cost *** the same basis
as it was sold to us;" that Wilde, Densten and Hemphill said that
“the prices were to be determined quarterly;" and that the price for the
yeuid alani dos wod botase nevenst bris ObIL tacit irae sae
sols oubo'xq ant ad tw Hotsqutoo orew ‘adawoaie seeds teh ‘pboon BLvow
tacts hoa dotwtoi bas ehilW todd Yasey yatwoltoy oily ‘se8 bed oqteliie
fads pas” ‘"189Y gakwoltot elt 16% molkdouborq ttedt owob oxsq bivow edd
itsntoly Hrbe orf Jats yortwooltl ob biwow ert Sars bodade’ CeoLTA) ext
bise ebLtW sand pebmuog 000,000,3 Yistamtxouqya ity tmotnos ed bitiow
‘nwotd ‘to ebatroq 000,000,6 tevlfeb of ealadrobaw bivow ysquod aff Yai
efttas to ebavoq 000, 000,f dekeist bivow yitsqmoo etd gadt bree Dibiqueh
qusquoo elit todd Bise cotecod Salt yxrisd tedg Yo ebmvoq 000,008 bas ‘that!
‘yfotsmtxorq¢s Yittniely yalviy ythetl ‘to ebawog 000,000, f deta? bidtéw
‘tsqmoe wo ifea ,ey Ifoe ydeiaurt bisow vert” text) “yebarog 000,000,d
neq $f yyltotxenp berttmeseh od of eotaq ont ** chad To Savoms ‘Sart?
egstovs 4f qetonmst edt bteq yeild dokdw Sart oveds Lsttnererres Bittiog
” fasenep edd to dobwrol .w gals "yetonnat edt ‘bheq yer? wot (eotty
add betimreyob oval o¢ caltf bluow ow tat bise Woeyit bas -Ymsqmod L671
to sofa srt yar" powxes [wolf] anf Jarld hots "ytten adt “td worty Fouxs
odd dad bisa obLIW .we Studd “ptedcewy erkt eft tor ed blvow teri
ot eotug ont 44 bavog 3 9S\I~? ecw ould duit ts ‘romiad off OF entity
bovete obL by! vail tadd brs *yys\I-d vestawp ger? off dot od Bitow by
gword duode bas mrtbew awoud to 000,000,¢ en evily Bitow yons" Yards
eldsso oLteoumob ots wee pt art iso ebonreg 000, 08} bite When otdsao
, : ea ae. te eet owse ..6 ie ale
btee of talt tiated etirtintet¢ at beftrsxesy dobro etobos
“af tte eel ocw bivow Yasquoo ett Fant geibteont stitgfobatind od?’ Hs
- 000,000,) Mttw gnols toy bivow Yasquod etd tel} bodsxe on Furld YOFer
"abaog 000,000,f mold ILee bivow od sant” bied Lrivqmen tadd qepnieg
< ers" deilt "pBbawoy CO0,000,¢ ‘Mond Choa bibow otf Pate bree obit bes
-¥ifob ef ot «had Yo YWttmanp’ s aeITA Ifoe bitiow Yodd bkae elqooq™
eed He
Sart yeew Yitnenp and sac’ Llkoor som bib od sans Jue IEE wie
- gtesd omse oid **® teov wherld evodts batiog 8 AL bo OF Baw odtag edd”
~ Gedd Biss Eteiqaet baa’ Hevancd .obLiw dads’ "een ot broe"eew d28e
aid cob ootyq oft Fant bas "yyLteycatp Bomtureyed ed of Siow eovtag’ eds” E
Ps
"first quarter was to be 6-1/2¢."
Wilde, testifying in defsndant's behalf, denied thet he agreed
orally with Allen that defendant would sell to plaintiff 3,750,000
pounds of hair, one quarter of which was to be delivered in each of
the four quarters of 1936 and that the price of such hair for the last
three quarters of 1936 was to be 1 cent over the average price paid
by the defendant to tanners for hair of such kind and quality. He
testified that Allen reguested an agreement of that kind but that he
told him he would not make such a commitment; that he would, however,
agree to sell the 937,000 pounds of hair, which Allen requested for
the first quarter, at 6~1/2 cents a pound. He further testified that
he told Allen, "The American Hair & Felt Company would make every
endeavor to supply their customers, including Allen Industries and
General Felt, their requirements, but unless they received enough hair
for their own requirements as well as for all of their customers in-
cluding Allen Industries and General Felt they could not sell any
quentities except what we promised to give them verbally for the first
three months of 1936 and the balance we still owed Allen Industries on
the 1935 contract *** I said that any further quantities and prices
would have to be set on or after the lst of April, the lst of July,
and lst of October of 1936,”
John J. Densten, President of the Densten Felt & Hair Company,
testified that he attended the conference in Philadelphia; that "the
conversation went on as to what the possible requirements might be for
the parties there for their manufacturing purposes for the year 1936
#*#* and each one submitted an estimate of what their possible require-
ments would be;" thet Allen said “he would require approximately six
and a half million pounds of hair, brown hair;" that "it was estimated
that the production for 1936, considering inventories, that the avail-
able supply would be less in 1936 than it was in 19353; and everybody
agreed under the circumstances to be satisfied with a lesser amount for
1936 than they had in 1935; and that was agreed upon “ as to price,
of course we could only be approximate, and very indefinite; however
te.
" .aS\l-0 ed ot esw tettsup texkt".
boos od teddy beineb ,Maded a'insbneted at gatyitéess ,obi ti ie
000,029, € Thivatelg of Liee bisow tashbasteb datt moll dity yLLieto,
‘te tose tit benevifeb ed ot asw doldw to isdasyp eno ,ttei to abmyog
desl od to2 thad dowe te cokiq ert dadt bas d€CL Io exstasnp awe? end:
_bleq epiiq egstevs edg seve snvo [ od of a2sw Of€QL to atedseup souls
9H stiieup bus Dabl dose to the wot etemned ot tasbactoh eit yt
orl tadd dud batt dodt Yo Jnsmperge aa beteeupet nelfs todd boltiveed
tevewod ,binew on tadt yinemt tomo a sieve onlem ton hivow od ath bLot
“fot betesgpet nella sletdw ,risd to ebmsrog 000,EQ odd Llee od songs
test Detttsaet wedduwt oh .bawog @ atseo S\l-0d ga queduavp dent? odd
eve eoleut biuow Yieqmod diel # tla nsobroms sf" yoeltA bLos ied
here eobtvaubal oeLla gatbulont ,etemodeuo thet ylqqim ot soveshee
sted davone havieoot yes crolsus dud .etnemottuper thet ytLlet Lorened,
ik atometens ttorit to Lis tet es flew ea atuomextepes nwo nied} tod
ns £fee tom Sivoo yet tlek Letoned dns estudenbal molfa grtbrio
terkt edt aot yilediev medd evig o¢ beetmorg ow tadw tqecxe e2otitinsyp
so askiiewhnl molli hewo Litte ew eonsisd edd bos O€CL Yo asitaom could
zesiig base eobtiinenp reddit yas tadd bise I + goettaoo Eel ald,
«vist to tal edd ,LinqA to del odt redts 10 mo soe ed. of evant bivow
an beet cibrcaeed _ *.8ERL to s9de500 to def bas
eVasqaod tis 4 dLef motane@ orld to tmobleott guetamed .% mick («5
edd" tert ysbiqlebsltdd mt sonetstnos edd bobmotts of tait bettizeed
tot ed digi admomoutupet eldieacq sit dsdw of 2s no drew motdserevaco
del teey ord tol eozoqing guiwiostunes thedd sol sxeds eeltiag odd.
~otinpet eldteaog utedt tady 20 stsmites as beddiudne sno dose bin Ht
xe VLotaulxotgqs ectupet bisew ed” bies aoLid teddy “yod -binoy edmom
bedsmives eaw 42" decd "yxbad awond ¢ttad Yo abavog woblLtn Uedis bas
~Ltsva edd tsdd qeotzodnovat satxeblenog ECL sot mobtouborg edt tad
‘Nbodyzeve bas {CCL at eew JL mend VECL mt azel od bivoy yiqque olds
Tot fcuons menek s tte bettattse ad od acomedamwonko edt toh boerys A
song et ig at ge howngs ten Pant Geis (ERK at bat that ‘nats AEN,
aevewod jottuttobat yrev has ,sdamtxongs ed yLno bLto0" tb
=
there was a definite price set for the first three months of the year;*
that "we said we would supply him [Allen] with a million pounds of
cattle hair and two hundred and twenty-five thousand pounds of goat
hair *** we said that the price would be 6-1/2¢ for the first three
months of the year, for 25% of that quantity upon the cattle hair
and 5-3/4¢ on the goat hair, for 25% of that quantity;* that he did
not hear any conversation as to the quantity of hair that defendant
would endeavor to furnish te plaintiff during 1936; that he heard
nothing said between Allen and Wilde as to price "excepting general
econversation;" that “prices were not being fixed for anything except
the first quarter; thet he furnished plaintiff with hair during the
first three months of 1926 - "25% of what we sold him for the year"
at a price of "6-1/2¢ for the cattle hair and 5-3/4¢ for the goat hair;"
that his company did not sell or deliver to plaintiff any hair after the
first three months; and that "we set our prices for the second quarter
but he [Allen] would not agree to it *** we just did not ship,*
On examination by the trial judge Densten testified that “while
he, Wilde and the others were present - future requirements had been
talked about —- something was said by Wilde or Allen concerning the
price of the hair being based upon a differential of 1¢ over that paid
us to the tanners;" that that was said "at the time they were trying to
figure out what the price would be at the beginning of the year and it
was agreed that a legitimate price for the other manufacturers to pay,
if they were not buying @irectly from the tanner, would be 1¢ per
pound differential as between what any of us paid the tanner and the
f.0.b. price Detroits;" that "Allen paid them 1¢ over the tanner's price
that existed in January of 19363" that the differential of 1 cent "was
bearing on the whole year;" that “what was said was that we would go
along on that basis for the first three months of the year and any
price situation or anything else that came up during the first quarter
would be readjusted at the beginning of another quarter."
V. A. Wallin, who attended the meeting in Philadelphia and whe
was at that time the Chairman of the Board of Directors of defendant,
*:as9y ot to edinom eons gertt odd rol toe eoluq odliakieh « 2av_ etedt
to ebowog solilia s djiv [mella] mid ylqqua Dinow ew biea ew" sadt
eos te ebavog baseuods svli-yiaont bas boxdand ows bas ated elttas
seus vextt edt 162 4S\I-9 ed biyow soliq odd todd bisa ow tt ahead
tied ofitao edt moqu Widasup dads to EB vot ,1s0y edd to addnom
bib ed tadt “yystiasmp tend to HLS sot gthed teog odd mo h\E-2 hae
jnabusted dads chad to yivaaup edd od a9 mobisexevao yas ts0d soa
bused ed tals (Ol gniawh Wiliahelq of debawt od s0vscbas \bivew
_Lstenes gatsqeoxe" soiiqg of ae ob Mi bas asl{A meowted bise antdion
_tqeoxe yaticdtyis tol dexti gated Jom e1ew acoltag" tant "pools cetevaeg
edit yatwh tle ditw Vivgatele berdetow? ad tant yrotuanp sextt edd
“assy ond sot aitd bloa ow tadw to RES" - O£CL Yo edtaom coms tert
"“itisd gsog oft sot RA\E+% bas tlsd slttao odd rot h$\L<0" Yo cokig 2 ts
eit tetis tied yas Titintalg of revileb 10 LLee tom bib ymsquen etd tadd
- tedaeup brosee odd 10% esptsq avo tee ow" dedd bas tadimom eouds, fount
~* qiriea son bib dant ow # Ft ot eouge tom bivow [meLlA] ed dad
oLidw" Jedd hoktivees astencG eybut elas ent yS gotisnimexe 20...
seed bai sinemsiivpes simiwl - Jnesetq sre aaedio eld bag ebith..ed
ets guknteomes mellé to saLiW yd bkee aawogaidtomog ~ duods bewiat
bteq tady tove Qi to LatinsteltLb s moqs beasd gated tian. edd, to sokag
od gatyat evew yeds emit edd Je" Hise eaw Jedd, tadt,."qerennst edt otpag
ti bas asey sj Yo giinniged edd te ed Sinow going oft seciw duo emmylt
a¥8d. OF etotwioelscsm reise eds rot eolig etamisizel stadt beergs. sew
otteq QL ed bivow ytennss edd mort yLtoetkh gaiyud ton erew yedd. tL
ei? Sos toansd ont bisq ev le yas tadw acowted ea Laliaetelttb bayog
oelig ataemies ot seve af med} Sisq melLa"® tad? “eeLorted eelrq .d.os%
ecu" jaeo L to Lsiineieltib edt dads "ZdEeL to yrsmmel al begelxe. dads
03 Sleow ew Janis aew bise eaw, dedw" tedd "yrsey eLodw, exit a0, yaktasd
Ws fins wey. end Yo esidgom Contd darth ent sot atead.tedd mo, smote
tesierp text ede gatwh qu emo dadt safe. gatdsyns 10 aoltentte, cotxg
ou fonene sooMw ed temp: Tesddoms: Re saben ined: sh oshwsans beamed, Nee
erty, Ans, abd Lobaltad at. amit opm, aid. dehastte of, MEM ad Ais 9: ees,
<tusiaeteb 20 erotocstd to bisod) add. 20 aamutedy. ocd omit tod tee /
-9-
testified "that lr. Wilde said that he could not guarantee a large
quantity or any quantity for the year 1936, he had his own mills
te supply, that he had other customers to take care of and declined
to promise the definite large quantity that lr. Allen wanted to
secure from him;" and that “as soon as they began talking price I
said to them, 'now, I am not concerned in the price. I am not con-
cerned in quantities. I won't sit in with you on this price
situation because I don't know anything about it! **# and these
buyers and sellers went into a corner of the room and diseussed
prices *** I was not a party to that discussion and don't know
what the prices were,"
_ As heretofore stated defendant was not able to complete the
shipments required under the 1935 contract until the end of February,
1936. Defendant then began to make shipments of the 937,000 pounds
of hair it agreed to furnish plaintiff for the first quarter of
1936. Shortly thereafter difficulties arose regarding the slowess
of deliveries and the grade of hair delivered. As a result Allen
came to Chicago April 28, 1936, and a meeting was held at defendant's
office, at which were present Allen, ‘ilde and Thomas H. Jones,
Manager of the Hair Division of defendant, At this meeting samples
of hair were examined and the grade of hair to be delivered in the
remaining shipments for the first three months of 1936 agreed upon,
At that time an agreement was also entered into between the parties
for the sale of 937,000 pounds of hair to plaintiff at a price of
7m1/2 cents a pound for the second three months of 1936. The exact
terms of this agreement were specified in the following letter of
April 28, 1936, from defendant to plaintiff and plaintiff's reply
thereto of April 29, 1936:
‘Nir, Sidney J. Allen, President,
Allen Industries, Inc.,
Detroit, Michigan.
Dear Mr, Allens
—
sptat s sosnsisny ton blues ed todd btse obit cu sats" beltisesd
effim nwo atd bad oci ,okeL assy ont 0% vtidasyp Yas ‘0 va tinaup
bentiseb bas to s1s9 exet of exomosanvo toddo bad edi gaits chaque a
oF bosdusw mera ~tH tant xd idasup egisl ey batted ont grote | “8
t ooiaq gabiled asyed ‘vost es mooe es" sant has ® embsi mot ousooe
“noo gon me I .eotaa oid at benreones fon 8 I wou! ues os ‘bisa
~ gobaq ‘eid? so YOY ‘détw at jte + now 4 «aod bau at “Sexson
“‘peodd bas #** 132 Juods gatddyas wom 3'a0b I eeusoed oti aus te
ie Jeaa
pba kb bas moor sit to temt09 8 ‘otat duow ‘wrelloe bas around
n ; Beis i TOY LOD
woint $* 0b bas moleasoe tb dats og 4 Wang | D ton usw I ela - asobag
. | * o10w gt edt serw
to eitnos vous Seah?
oxtt steLfqmoo of efds ton esw tusbneteb bodade stotod ood 2A A
fo" to S5h0q eRe
eYiskidel to bas edt Tbe sosism0o zeel exit sobaw boxtuper etnomy tts
abnvog 000,t6e edt to adem bie ‘isa of aszod meats Sasbasted beet
. FINA AST
~ 0° ‘aed1ayp tert? odd 10t Titimts tq debount or beonge vt tad 20
zeenwol2 edt satbtego7 e201 sets vol 2ib aod tsoteds visoxi2 eer
e 3 yi oki seaclarane 00
“hetti tiueet s eA. wy NY had Yo obaxg ods peed eolreviteb to
ohbike es
a'dnebrietsh ¥s bled esw gaits ent 8 bas eer oe Liaga ‘oso tio ot euso
tidemos ~ Jyouds belles
| ‘eenot .H estodl bas obit? ith tnezs1q erow io ktw ts Past ll
‘“Serquise Satvosm elds $A .dnsbacteb to motetvic abs edd to tegesall
aa} nt borevileb sd od tad to 2. rs) exis “has tbenthexe tor ‘chad to
: fogs bestys oFeL {6 edtnom ould enti aad 10% eon it gabntanos
. ‘eelsisq edt neewled odnt boredae oeis asd jnomoorgs fis omits “fadt YA.
to Bolaq sp ts titéntstq od tha to “ebawoq “000,5€ 20 ‘olae adi 01
Foaxs edT .SfCL to addnom sends ‘baosee ould 102 bawoq 8 adaeo vay
; a Gad 2
“ing gad¥eL gatwollo? end at betitooge eew tnomsengs eld ‘to ae oN
Piet etinatals bas HErabaly od ‘tasbaotes wont et os fiaga
i te vi Rg Eat itaen
seer 388, Liaga to otetendt
rte i
admebteort peer At youbte e'
rans . 5 "ES eh 2a aaie : Lg
_ phasheeté ide
wileitpad add. gs esac op ot ad, bi wow
sella ull ts00
As > ‘ at ' > ai ae
oe Be Ts MOAB es: AA roe ne : A ** <£ x
¥ . ay
% ~
2 . 4 ai * _ : . see Peo tuth & oe o fs
tasheoteb to e198e2" i. 20: tect BAF. 20 ASW. BG? wg. Baia oS ta agH pe
.
—10-=
As arranged when you were here teday, we are to book
you for:
750,000 Lbs. Hair
1875000 937,000 lbs,
To be shipped during the second
quarter of this year, We
still owe you on account of
Hair which should have been
Shipped you in the first quarter epee "
999
What we sold you of Foreign Hair
todsy and what we are reserving
for you of that kind aggregate Bane lbs.
97,000
The prices to apply are as follows:
We are to ship you at once — 160,0004 Foreign Hair
To be shipped from time
to time — 300,000% Domestic "
deetecct 6 1/2¢ 1b.
(To complete shipments for the first quarter)
On the 340,000 lbs, Foreign which we are
to ship you at the rate of one carload of
Foreign to two carloads Domestic - and
On the 597,000 lbs, Domestic 7 1/2¢ 1b,
f,o.b,. cars Detroit in full carload lots.
If for any reason we cannot complete shipments by the end
of the second quarter, we are to ship the balance as soon as
possible thereafter,
Please acknowledge,
Yours very truly,
Smerican Hair "2 Felt Company,"
“American Hair & Felt Co,
Chicago, Ill.
Gentlemen:
We are in receipt of your letter of the 28th and wish to
advise that everything in your letter corresponds with if, Allen's
understanding except the Domestic Hair is to be all Brown Cattle
and samples are to be submitted to us for approval,
Yours very truly,
Allen Industries, Inc,"
On July 2, 1936, Allen wrote Wilde the following letter:
“ir, Te Wilde,
American Hair’ and Felt Company,
Chicago, Illinois,
Dear Teds
We are very much interested in knowing what your intentions
are in regard to the hair situation for the third quarter.
We are desirous of getting settled on this item at your
earliest possible convenience,
With kindest regards, I am
Very truly yours,
Sidney J. allen, Pranidenn.®
~or-
wood oF Sta ow evebos ested s19" way cectw mere tes ek
J asta" “gto? BOY
ube. 2d 000,09
e20L 000,562 cove 000,%8L. nat
anosen! edi anid: be ¢ ed of
é Is9% 2 °
to tmoos Mo Moy owe
© O2daie id. ; at Ooo etabsp ake, ettden Koy begga ine
| 48a e
ed tok
“sew ot 238 ex cs “sheen ot nonbet a ext
tls agletot 2000, edo ta woy Gide od eu oe
f eee Ye tee esate
odd é : . |
A tat? odd aot tela: Ignaes of)
ows
QED ASAD ous ny stizomed .2df) OOS” exiy a0
adel beoltso petal ak oy psig oe axes : rer
yn
aelia tira yload yrsy emey. ? beg wis base saltevileb Te
",ynaqmod dit 3 tisH saotremA ) ;
ha Sh «4 ‘ : Pt ah G Sait Gay
400 st01 4 atsH =the Meer
Ke ~ COLQELTs ,ogsstas
. $emetsasd
od datw bas d3@S edt to s9ettel «oy to Rood ah erp ee fe
ataei La ~t diiw ebmoqesties tetjel sey at tadt oulvbs
- @Ljted awoxd IIe od of el thal Diseamod stiz “patbrstetobay
pAavezage to% au 08 eters od oy ots ante -_
wiry POL Tis wet ,
YIev 2mv0Y }
*, onl atlibebadt MOITAs: Le 2ebaxvog Goo, \E? To alee eas tot
rretiel. tidicki cs edd obLkW otouw moLLA wees yin a® 6 l-*
: : » abit) 4D sak”
“ussased Frog ban atsH ssolremA
na tol se valombLIT, yogabiio
wEOL . oS Lies Pebehs 1200
enolinejut moy Jarw gatwornl al bejeensdah:doum ysev. ete ol i .
stediesp batds od rz0t wantentin tisdods ot) ‘ otagen sb:
is gL a Jot
u0y ta mest atid mo belites gatiies to avotkeeb ore r*
.9octe Levies oLdteeoq “feutiaao
ma I ,ebisyot aN ase ‘ wih
ss ayoy yYiniw tev 2 a
8 trai toad Por) vege ~b yvanbie en ate Wee Ag Jey A a
~Lle
Pursuant to this letter a conference was arranged in Chicago
On July 22, 1936, between Allen and Wilde, the result of which was
recorded in the following correspondence between the parties:
"July 22, 1936.
Mr, Sidmey J, Allen, President,
Allen industries, Ine,
Detroit, liichigan.
Dear Mr, Allens
As per our conversation in this office today, we have booked
your order for
750,000 lbs, Cattle Hair
and
187,000 " Galf Hair
Total aoe
23.22 909 i ;'
to be shipped to you in the third quarter of 1936 at a price of
7 1/2¢ per Ib.
f,0.b, cars Detroit, in full ecarload lots,
We still owe you
294,406 lbs. Domestic Hair
and
107,317 ibs. Foreign Hair
which is the balance due on contract made with you as per our
letter of April 28, 1936.
It is further understood that if for any reason we cannot
complete shipments by the end of the third quarter of the above
Fe bern quantities, we will ship the balance as soon as possible
ereafter,.
Will you please acknowledge this letter?
Very truly yours,
fT. Wilde
President
American Hair & Felt Company,”
"July 23, 1936.
Mr, T, Wilde,
American Hair and Felt Company,
Chicago, Illinois,
Dear Teds
Thanks very kindly for the courtesies extended to me yesterday.
We wish to confirm your letter of the twenty-second, and accord-
ing to the writers understanding the 750,000. pounds of cattle hair is
to be brown domestic hair,
With kindest personal regards, I am
Very yours
Sidney J. Alien,
President,"
In August, 1936, plaintiff made a series of complaints regard=
ing shipments of foreign hair and as a result of said complaints Wilde
conferred with Allen at the latter's office in Detroit on August 26,
mi t~
ogsoldd ab begasiis. acy eoaoietaoo 6 setdel aldd of Jdaauerwi
aaw doidw Yo Lwaer old yobliv bas nels mogutod WAG OL: 458 “tint wo
*santeu0d ‘edd moows ed eanohnoqeet 09 antwolto2 “eas ak bebrose
RECESS VN wl ey Shit he oP we
“etaob bean a cual sian ;
ar ets 1 fe pie tl i
ny te rire ayant
bexlood oF ey e¥sbos soltto atds at ‘noid abtounes ‘mo teq 2A
-_— T9bIO WOY
ais Resin add. 900, 087»: Ts OF aeolhrq eff
: 4 “000 ae 2% Ae ane ed ata bas
’ ‘Istot
to sotiq s te: ace 0 ‘tedtaup \b ‘ak poy ot beqaide ed ot
4 oi seq. vv en Atecmart fete oe Dg [HRS ot)
| gatoLe fog wagheg at 8189 46.07%
bs ort a are k ELhieosi
tik ats 2 omod. oak! 00m HS wed TAs Gy 3 OJ ys G*hG ai’
Sia at , eet Or ‘4 ae ot
“"atett madeno™ sagt Y£eqYOL fort ALAS week
Brg! 28 int be ein toenarenes edt al doltcdw
b prarsie = ah et
gee S7 elgtes oy
somniso ew Mozset yas tot tL sas boos e1sbaw ‘qos at JI |
evods edd Io t0estenp Beh 8 od to bag add yd adacmgide etefqnoo
pent: #8 M008 Bs 19g. se arg tde [itv ow ,zoksisasyp seine
ftetteL aids pean am easodg BOX ELLA:
2 Woy of Il. ope 49INS
taobiaea tres Joe
, ieee. sieh. % tis asoliems
LODE as OB) BH
on, La “ake a ists i, they wf guise yvove: Faas es lyba
ye crys LPR ORR ii} S¢@oRO Selo ta cee
; ¢ ad © ‘oto Oh LEea Te
atasqne) ¢ieT bas atsh
4 8 gogsoldd
tbeT 120d
& GS wiley wn
oCabrotaet. on ad akuates 4 we wallet edd — ‘yibata ‘coy alent
ein
~baco0s bas ,baosee-ysnews ent to r9edseL apoyomek od ‘dalw
at shed efits to ebnuoq. 00,0 wv ond arohay ated iq
«ttad olteomob od
Kus se eee
aus et 19q tae
7h a ara tier. gia ic
«had PRS | Re OES ae pel wisn
‘iiueblaowt
wee Bo apogee t
rnd 5 pre Sf stl to ine B “ae thidakeLa qOERL» (iawn Wikdeed
ebLiW etatalquos bles Yo diveet s esvbete phic: stone? Yo adnemetsie: -
ltd ae
_Aciemnus a0 Stokied Ma eesete b'sedial Gat da aati Mtde boxe
saith
1936. As will be hereafter shown this Detroit meeting of August 26,
1936, furnished in large measure the basis of plaintiff's original
' complaint,
There is a direct conflict in the testimony as to what actually
eccurred and as to what was said by those present at the meeting in
Philadeiphia in November, 1935. The testimony of Allen is contradicted
in all material respects by the testimony of Wilde. Allen stated that
he and Wilde entered into an oral agreement at said meeting that defend
ant would furnish plaintiff 3,750,000 pounds of hair during the year
1936, 937,000 pounds of which would be aseribable to each quarter of
said year at a price of 6-1/2 cents a pound for the first quarter, the
price for the succeeding quarters to be "the average price paid by
defendant to tanners for hair of such kind or quality plus l¢ per
pound," On the other hand Wilde testified that the extent of his oral
agreement with Allen at the Philadelphia meeting was that defendant
would deliver to plaintiff 937,000 pounds of hair during the first
quarter of 1936 at 6-1/2 cents a pound,
In substantiation of his claim that the price fixed by the
parties in the alleged oral agreement for the year 1936 was one cent
per pound above the average price paid by defendant to tanners for
the last three quarters of the year Allen testified that on the
occasion of his conference with Wilde on April 28, 1936, in defend-
ant's office, "I asked Mr, Wilde what the price of hair would be for
the second quarter. Mr, Wilde called in somebody from the bookkeeping
department, and in front of me, asked them what the average price was
that they were paying at that time from the tanners, The bookkeeper =
his name I do not know — stated they were paying six and one-half
cents per pound. Mr, Wilde in turn gave us a price of seven and one=
half cents per pound, Ala our second quarter," He testified further
that at the conference between himself and Wilde on July 22, 1936,
when the contract was made for the sale of hair by defendant to
plaintiff for the third quarter of 1936, "I again inquired the price
on it for the third quarter, Mr, Wilde stated there had been no
gr
OS denguA to gattecat thorded atid mworle wettseted ed Ittw eh .dEeL
Tenrytro ettrtiibsta to athad edt otiesen Sgtal al bedelowt .ocOL
as pone oo SS tabalquos
vlisutos talw of ex ymomitesd eds mt sotf{tmoo Joetth s et sxedT
ak gaticon odd ts tnseorq seodd yd bhek ew Sasa, ot ‘bs bas. ‘beasns90
hesotbertnos at mel Yo ynomtteed edl ,RECL ,todmevoll at ‘aldgtobalba
tedd botete mollis ,ebLIW to ynomtsees edd yd adooqaoy Istrodan its at
bastes tadd gaticen bise ts treme stys Texo ws ofat berotae ebLEW bre on
qs9y adt gntawhb tked To ahawog 000, 0eF LE ‘VWhintsle detnut bivow jas
to wedtaup dose ow eldaditoas sd Siuew elo bebe, to abnauog 900, TER eoeet
edd ,todterp text? exit tot berg 's oa S\L2 to acing s ts s0y bisa
yd bteq eotig ogsi9sve ontd™ Od ot arsdsatip ‘pitbsecoue, edd. “10% ‘estig ig
neq Qf anlg Wilitp to Sabi Mode 26 ERAd tot etomusd of dnsbasteb
Isto eld to saedxe odd tant Saktivesd obLiW Baad redto edt 20 , amcvoq
witues wo meh woe tad eet et moti
insbastes tant est yuttoom stiqlebattt’ ony Ys aolth dite saomeorys
gextt odd gatiyb ited to ebmyoq 000,\Ee Tubtnbalet eACed A Bow |
a © \batiog 6 ‘2ditso “S\1-8 Ja Seer"
ects + bexlt eolaq ong tad mislo eld to motteittaatedue ‘at
tases sno aaw O€CL assy sit ‘10% “Inomeerys Leeo bogelis edd at's 2olsuisg
; eee }
sot etonist of Jasbmetob yd biaq eobiq egsieve ot eveds bayog 19q -
od} xo tadd heltivess meIfA teey eft Yo atetiseyp could tgesl ent
-basteb at ,d€0L°¢8S Linq mo ‘ebLIW dtlw esmetstmoo ald Yo molesose
toi ed bivow xtari ‘to eotig ont tadw obit ,aM doves I” ceokYie ‘a! ide
gutqeodaood oft moxt ybodemoze at beliao ebiLiw .«M .testenp Badose ‘eld
asw solu ogstevs ond sary merit boales yom to dmowt at bas ,tdemsaeqeb
~ woqeeblood ed? Jetennst ‘edd mort omtd dat ta gatyeq orew Yods tas
“"Uleti-one brs he yotysg ors. Yeds Dotste’ = weint gon ob 1 omen att
“eno bis mevee to soizq s ew evsy amd at ebfit tx | -Bitiog ‘oq eines
tedtuvt beltitesd of " notte prone stb To bastog 416q edneo tLed
22ERL SS yLnt mo obLtW tres Tozmtit neowsed sonotetnoo edd ds Sant
os a al el ti
mtr ex? bottypa, Fiche iv eel 20, tet teup a sina
any
oe ao
change in the tannery price, and the price would be seven and one-
half cents to me for the third quarter,"
Wilde, testifying in reference to the conversation between
himself and Allen on April 28, 1936, stated that he did not "call in
anyone and ask them what the price wes - what prices were being paid
to tanners; that no one came in and told him in that conference that
the price being paid to tanners was 6-1/2¢," but that he did agree
with Allen at that conference that the price for the second quarter
would be 7-1/2 cents. He also testified that in the conference with
Allen on July 22, 1936, which culminated in the contract to furnish
plaintiff with hair for the third quarter, he discussed with Allen
"the hair situation in general, the acute shortage of hair, also
further sale to him of 937,000 pounds of cattle and calf hair ata
fixed price of 7-1/2¢;" that he did not tell Allen on that occasion
“that there had been no change in the price to tanners and the price
would be 7-1/2¢;" that "I only told him the price was 7-1/2¢ per pound
#%% I did not tell him that the price to the tanners was 6~1/2¢,"
and that Allen did not inquire “what the price to the tanners was."
the testimony of Densten and Horwich corroborated that of Allen
to some extent as to the general trend of the conversation at the Philae
“Sen aawtina, both in respect to the agreement made there being for
the year 1936 and in respect to the price to be charged for the hair
for the last three quarters of that year. However, Densten, Horwich
and Wallin all testified that they did not know what actual agreement
was reached between Allen and Wilde,
In view of the sharp conflict in the testimony of the witnesses,
the documentary evidence in the record unquestionably became a decisive
factor with the trial court in its consideration and determination of
the factual issues presented, “Where there is such a direct conflict
in the oral testimony, documentary evidence, like the correspondence
between the parties, becomes of paramount importance. Such evidence,
if pertinent, is controlling, since it is the best evidence and in
every way more satisfactory and convincing than the recollection of
fe
ono bits nevet od blow colug ert brie eokry Yxemtsd ery at ogeadto
|< Wieden Brbett! ott oT bal OF ete wait
neewied noltsatevmes edd ot eonetetot at yrivittess ,obii-
mt Iiso” ton bib ef Sadd Hotsde jOCEL 8S Lereh mo HeLLA bits tLoemtd
bilaq ynted e1sw eooltg daw = esw eta odd tart mond Hes bas ohoyie’
ters eonerstuos gard nt miei blot hrs mt omso: one on dadd petentad oF
eetgs bib ed said dud ",4S\I-d cow etennad of Biag gated eotre edt
tedinsp noose edt tot sotay erlt tasit coneteteoo tadt ts nella st tw
d¢iw eonsrs'tioo ont at todd belttteed cels eH ,etmeo S\L-S ed bivow
delawt of tostinos oft at betaninaivo dotiw ,dFeL (8S yink no. noLfA
meifA pttw beeevoelb ed ,tetaisup Satis oft rot thea déiw Titinlaly
eels ,tisd to egsitode otvos ony ieteney at cottenyie then ede
& ts tied“tiso bus olitso to abanog 006, YEO to mkt oF else veddant
- Holesooo sald mo meLLA ILot dom bkb of Fade ".yS\L- Yo sdtaq HeREY
soixq ent bas eremist of eoliq end at egnatio on aeed bal sxot tant"
bawsog seg. yS\f-) eaw ootsq ont mi blos yLno I” tant * pys\t-" ed BLivow ,
" ac\l-d eaw etenasd oft of opkag end test hd les Jon babe eee
" aBw euenmst odd of opluq odd Sarl” ottvpnivtom bth weLfa teds bas
moll Yo Jad? betsiodorres Molwiol bis asfeno€ to yombseed eft ols se
“SLitd edt te mols sersvnos eid to bread Letenog ent ot en tHetxovemoe OF)
101 grted oterly obsi tnemestgs oft ot tooqeeT mt Atod qunth oo bla
atsd edt 16% beyissio od. of sotag edd of Sooqeot HE bas Of CI «zsEy eto
dolwiok tetened yrevowoll ,xs0ey Sard Yo aisdisyp ooult seal Sad YO?
antes Istdoc tarw wort ton bib yes Sekt bekitsesd’ Lis attrew bas
-ObLiv. bas meLlA moowded betiosex ptt
essazentinv edt to yiomttest edt at sot£tacd quate efy to welv ar! § 6
evieiosb s omased yldsnotseeupar bioce eft mb soebive Yisdnomoeb ent
to moltenterreses bas nottetobrenes eft at’ sauoe) Labat eilé i$ tW 40808
tolLuios Joowkh & dove al every erode - bodneuedg. cemmed Lenton, Cae
estebmoqsertoo oft ettl .oonshlve yrataommoob ymomttbed Lewd ons mt |
LosHohive iiss enced xoqmt Yanekmnag 2o eeueded \uolieg eet meewted’
‘ah bus Sonobive 220d odd 2t. 9k somte yumbltontace et tanning a
to apivoedloves edt add gintoritviwos. fie enuin te
-1l4=
witnesses as to conversations which occurred more than two years
before." Toppan v, licLaughlin, 120 Fed, 705,
Subsequent to the meeting in Philadelphia in November, 1935,
Plaintiff or Allen forwarded fifteen letters to Wilde or defendant con-
cerning hair purchased by plaintiff from defendant for delivery in
1936 and in not a single one of them is there any reference made to
the oral agreement claimed by plaintiff to have been entered into with
defendant covering the purchase and sale of hair for the entire year
1936. Neither was any reference to a contract covering the year 1936
contained in any of the eleven letters in the record from Wilde or
defendant to Allen or plaintiff, Even in the letter written by Allen
to Wilde on November 25, 1936, which marked the break in the relations
between the parties, there is not even a suggestion of an agreement
covering the entire year. The following passage is found in this letter:
_. “On August 26th, you visited our office and explicitly stated
that due to market conditions you could not reduce the price of hair
for the last quarter and would contimuie on the same basis of price
whieh you were then furnishing us, namely, 7-1/2 per pound,
"Does it seem possible to you that we would wait until the
last month of the last quarter of the year to determine a price for
the last quarter shipments,"
The foregoing language indicates that plaintiff placed its dependence
for its supply of hair for the last quarter of 1936 at 7-1/2 cents per
pound upon the asserted agreement of August 26, 1936, rather than upon
the alleged oral agreement for a year, which it now contends was entered
into by the parties at the meeting in Philadelphia in November, 1935.
Wilde's reply of November 27, 1936, to Allen's letter of November 25,
1936, is in part as follows:
"Under no circumstances have I ever gone on record to assure
you hair for the last quarter of 1936 and stipulated a price at which
the hair would be delivered to yeu, It is entirely out of the question
that, as you state, on August 26th I would have been in a position to
quote you a price that would be effective on or after October lst,
Conditions at that time certainly did not warrant us in setting a
price so far ahead."
There certainly is nothing in the language used by Wilde in this letter
to indicate that defendant felt that it was burdened with a contract
to deliver hair to plaintiff during the last quarter of 1936, .
eh l~
etssy ows sisdi stem heaiyooo doldw amolisarevacs oF 2s esazontiw
-CON «bot OSL —utlduyslol .v meqgel".exoted
atECL ytedmevel at sidqlobslidd af gatseou edt of Jaoxpoadsa
~a109 ‘Sushusteb tw ebLiv ot ersttel need T£2 bobiawaot.aellA so Tiliatelq
ah yrovileb sol gashbastob moxt Midatelq yd Deasdoiwg usd gotazes
ot ehsm gonetetet Ys overly et mods to sao sigate = tom at bus Ogel |
diiw otnt bewstne mood eved of Tiltaisiq yd bemtslo Jaemestgs Leto, ont
asey olde off stot tled te sise bas seadoug oid gulteveo tasbueted
d€CL aw9y oid gatroveo sostinos « of somotetet yas ecw todtieli gel
$0 ShbLIV mort brooet edd at etesttel mevelo edd to yas at. bentssaoo
nell yd mettiuw setseL odd at nev ,Yitiatele to sella od Jasbueted
ettoldslot, eds at Asexd oft bexagm doltdw ,OECL tS r0odmevell ao ebLiW, ot
tmemeaags ms to moltasague s neve Jom ek otedd ,2oltisq odd soswted
srottel aids nt bowot el ogheanq guniwollet eT use y ertvas. ede. gaitnovos
—betste Yittotiqxe bas eoltte ao bedlaiv soy ,dd0S senguA 20"» 0» am
ated to sofsq ent soubor tom blues woy enotsibnos Joaxam of oub F
eolyg to zlesd omse ont mo siumtinoo bivow bug redasup. Big Bs §
the ~buseg isq S\i-f Y ereares Bes gaidataiwt mods a ag uoy dotiw
tt Shoe tee Bibby sae
iadk' Ehtiee than hive Oe Gat Ge ot Ce mee 32 200g" !
a a or Sn edd to dinom gest
" admomgtsia bdo 4 gasl ont
sonobasqed att beoslq Viinkslq tedd eodsobnt gaunt autogomot ott
fh4, iii
704. adage s\L-5 ts deeL ‘to sod tay jeak exit sot atadl to ‘vague, dd 92
noay asdé todd st deed 2s damgush to tnensorgs bodtecee od? ou
beisine esw _ebastsies won i doledw e188y 8 102 smomsorgs Lax0 peyote ead
_sREQL .x8duovolt at ‘shiglobat tat at gatdoou odd te eelizeq odd yd ovat
ats xodmovell to westel atmo | og seet, x¥s teduevoll ‘to uger ‘etebLiw
a rewollo? aa o1sq at et ee
ger Lee ne Ry x a
ewes os haneen £10 oxtog 1eve = cm aounataucecis on tobat™
poiew ts sptaq s betsiugita bus ofl to astasuy test rere gf ee aba ery
“ getseen poles Bow! to gwo ylertins ei SI wey oF MT ape So
ieog 5 at need eved binew I otasa MOY ag qtscd
mien an asdoso0 tssis 10 no sytioelte od oo ee Boo ie MF. etoup
) @ gttéver nt sy tostisew tom 62) yisttetrem emtd
eat bees Ist o2 soliq
mis wip
naidel ebdd a biti x boas ‘opasgaal ‘odd at ‘gah ont ‘at os Phe - ~ad
doandaos a tthe benobud 2sw at ads tlot jnalleotes Sas ‘od ao bbe
fy ie Oyuline
eee 3 to bv ionrs de feat od hail ‘walsh ‘ot ot bes dita
wo i Sie Fas area ye ie syle a eed
~k5~
Wilde's letter to Allen of April 28, 1936, and Allen's reply
thereto, heretofore set forth, constituted a written contract between
the parties whereby defendant was to furnish plaintiff with hair for
the second quarter of 1936, It will be noted that this contract was
complete in itself as to quantity, quality, price and terms of shipment
and that the language used in Wilde's letter imports a contract of sale
as of the date of this letter. There is no reference in either of the
letters as to an oral agreement covering the year 1936.
It will also be noted that in Allen's letter to Wilde of July
2, 1936, he stated that “we are very much interested in knowing what
your intentions are in regard to the hair situation for the third
quarter, We are desirous of getting settled on this item at your
earliest convenience." There is nothing in this letter to indicate
that there was an oral agreement for the year 1936, which would, of
course, include the third quarter thereof, Nothing was said in this
letter as to price, If defendant was already obligated to furnish
the Allen Company with hair for the third quarter on the eosteplus
basis as plaintiff now claims, why the anxiety to get the hair
situation "settled" for that quarter?
Wilde and Allen, as already shown, did enter into a written
contract by their respective letters of July 22, 1936, and July 23,
1936, under the terms of which defendant agreed to furnish plaintiff
with hair during the third quarter of the year, This contract was
also complete as to quantity, quality, price and terms of shipment,
It is significant that no reference was made in the correspondence
constituting this contract to an oral agreement between the parties
fer a year's supply of hair, Wilde's letter to Allen stating the terms
of this contract does refer however to "contract made with you as per
our letter of April 28, 1936," in connection with uncompleted deliveries
of hair due in the previous quarter,
One of the essential elements of any enforceable contract of
sale is that of price. It will be recalled that plaintiff's present
theory as set forth in the amendment filed to its complaint at the
_—_
Yigqeot e'mollaA bas ,cé@L ,.8S LingA to oeLlé of stestoL atobLlW: eo on’ by
ssewsed tositnoo nosjsilaw s, betupgitenoo: .dd102 te2z s1ototemed ,oteredd |
102 tied déiw Vitinislq dedewt of esw tusbaoted ydetedw. sekitsq edt
gen toautaeg ald gadt betom od LLiw FT .WERL Rov reduep baover’ add!
tnemqicie Yo emnet bas etm wWhilesp .ititasup of ep DLestt at: etelqmos>
elez te tasadaeo » atzoqut tedsel e'ebLiN mt bees opsiycel edits tetht, baw
ait to gedthe at eoneretex og ai oied? ,sejtel eld? to edab eds. teas
yw 05)» @€QL ats0y edd gaizeves taemeemya Lato as ob an arettel.
Vinh, te ebLivi of redtel e'aeLlA at dads betom ed eels LLiw tly .o6 ef
sactw. gatwornl mb bodeoustat doum yuev ons ew" gadd bedete en ECL QSoo
puidt edd 10k soitestte tte edt of bisget at ers enotiactat apoy
oy ds metk etdd so beltice gutiseg lo epogkeeb ous SW «4 TedtaNp’
edsotbat of retvoL atid at yaiddom at ovedil. ",sogenovaco se ebineds:
to ,bLvow doddy ,O€CL wey ond 202 deomeotgs Leto as eew etedd daddor
eidd ob bige caw gusidoH ,Yooreii? sedseup batty only ebsLont .eeses
atau of besagiido ybserls caw Jasbasteb I. “stozag 0d, ea soavoL.”
eulqegeoo” od mo tesianp bids edz’ sot tad sldtw ‘wisquod nod : moLth ad
“abet odd Joy of Wetxne edd ‘wir qeueLo wom T2tatate e0etend.
fied taup toad 10% “bettie” molds ite |
Heddiaw s oat reine bib yawode ybserls en “noth bas obiis ra
“es yin hots yoEer gSS yLut to eteddel ovisoogeet ‘ates ah “ii
| Tiniaterg da tntit’ of Bebtas txabaoteb dotdw ‘to emsed edt sobs “eet
7°" daw Yoawsnos alAT “s18ey eis to aod 1aup ‘babdd odd anttuib stad adtw . . ‘
sdnemqtda to amid bas soba wits wt biasup ot es ‘sd aqua nn “ons
‘ peaabhioge six0d ond nt obsm eaw eohetstet on badd inet tal a a
gelsiisq edt meowied tneacetgs [sto as of dosaimoo abe} ‘gatd ree
ured sc galtete nails, od, tedtel a’ ebEbi..ahed. 20 iin ener
oq 26 NOY Hit sham foemsmoo" of revewad aetoa aeeb soaxdmon et te
petieviled bedetquocai ati moltosames mb. "4Rc0h. «8 Lwed 20 xotdal mio: sieve
, tod tsyp avoivoig oft ‘at E oxb hed gh
“96° Sosddnoo eldssordtae ys to edaomels Lotdascee etd 30 exo y Sg gh —" |
duseexg eivitiabate tatld boliaces od iLbw “HS .eotaq 20 aint sineieee a
a
(iitteielg of Sham fovileb of
edit ts inielquos. ath of beLit smemhacms add at détot Joe 8s Yroeds be
-l6=
@lose of all the evidence is that the price stipulated in the oral
agreement alleged to have been entered into between the parties at
the Philadelphia meeting in November, 1935, was one cent a pound over
the average price paid by the defendant to tanners for hair aseribable
te the last three quarters of the year 1936. Allen's testimony was in
conformity to this theory. In this connection it is pertinent to
examine prior pleadings filed by plaintiff in this cause. In its
original complaint it alleged that a price of 6-1/2 cents a pound was
agreed to for the hair ascribable to the first quarter and that “the
price of the hair to be delivered the succeeding quarters of the year
1936 should be such sum as was thereafter agreed to between the plain-
tiff and the said defendant;" and that “on August 26, 1936, plaintiff
and defendant agreed that the price of the hair aseribable to the third
and fourth quarters of the year 1936 should be 7-1/2 cents per pound,"
These allegations as to the manner in which the price was to be deter-
mined and as to the agreement of August 26, 1936, fixing the price at
7-1/2 cents for the third and fourth quarters were realleged in plain-~
tiff's verified answer filed herein to defendant's counterclaim, The
same allegations were also made ima sworn answer filed by plaintiff in
a suit brought against it by defendant in Delaware to recover on the
same claim asserted in the counterclain,
In the face of the written agreement of the parties of July 22,
1936, covering the third quarter, plaintiff was, of course, forced to
abandon the position taken in its original complaint that a price of
7-1/2 eents a pound for the third and fourth quarters was agreed to on
August 26, 1936. Notwithstanding plaintiff's cost-plus theory as to
price set forth in the amendment to its complaint and the statement in
its brief that it is on that theory it relies, strange to say, said
amendment also contains the allegation that “on August 26, 1936,
defendant stated to plaintiff that the price of the hair aseribable to
the fourth quarter of the year 1936 would be 7-1/2 cents per pound."
It will be noted that in this allegation the alleged agreement of
August 26, 1936, purported to fix the price for the fourth quarter only
dete edd at baisingiie epizcg odd Jadt et ennebive, edt [is to saelo
ga eeiding ond meswied odmt besetae meed evad of, begeLie jasmoougs
fevo bawog 8 tmeo ene eaw gtCOl ,teduoveKl al yattoom aldqlobalidd, edt
eldsdizoas siad tol exenmss of Jasbaeleb oft yd bisq eolig sgetevs, ons
si gow Ysomidess ea'ne{la oO rs9y silt to aresisup eordd test edd,ot
os daenidieg al di moisosonnoo aids al «y¥soedd aids ef) yy tmxcitaeo
eth al ,seuso elds of Tittmlaiq yd befLlt eaaldselq solig ombmaxe
asw boveg s agaeo S\i-d to eotig 8 dadd bogetis di tatelqmoo Leatgizo
edt" Joli bas sodisup Jatii edi ot eldedisoas ated old spt ot beeigs
zesy edd Io eusiisup gaibesvove edt betevileb od ot, ated edd to, sobaq
-aiaiq edt meewted of deetgs ied isetedd sew ae mwa. cove of binode OfOL
Tidaielg ECL oS Jaugud mo”. tends das "gtaahastoh bise,edd, bas. 231d
bitdd ssid ot eldedtrees «iad edd 20, e0h1q.0dd, tadt, boosge dasbaeteb.bas
*, basog seq atseo S\~} ed blwode O€0L saey-edt to exedtanp ddqwot,bas
-t9s9b ed o¢ 2sw cotig edd doidw at remasm edd of es emotisgetis. exedT
Se eekig odd gukxl? (OC@l ,OS teugua to dmemoeetgs edt otves bus beats
-catslq.mi pogeliset etew exsdtenp ddawot bas butdd eid 10d edaggs S\L-S
eff ,mislouetavoo atiushasteb of mtetod Selit sewans belitzey alttis
at Titdalslq yd bolit r9ewens aiowe sk) ebsm eels otow enoldsgolis,emse |
odd me tovoosa of exswaled mk dnshneted xd di deakege Jdguond dive a
| alaforesaues edt mt botueves miele, ‘ouae
83 Vint to: acisuag edgy te jnsmeergs nediitw edt te eost- edd al . 0) of
‘os beotol ,gawes to ,asw Ttivnislq <redusup brlds ond gabieves seer
to eaftg s ¢sdd Joisiquoo Lentyito ett at aedet solsheoq edd mobasds
ao of bestgs esw eistisup diavot bas biids edd to®: bawog s ‘adapocS\Ls¥
o¢ es Ytosds aniq-teos 2'ttLinisig pathastedtindol sd¢Ql 4d tempud
Mb taemesate edd bas Jatsiquoo ed tot tnembaons odd mb ld tot. d02 soohtq
—bkse yyse od ogaette yeetior si yuoeds gett mo et th-tadtotetud edt
- qG@L (28 dengud mo" tend modtayelle, odd .emtetnos cele daembaoms
ot ofdsditees ited end to eotiq odtotedt Thidetele of. botste vashsiotob |
" batiog 19q atmos S\i-} od bLuow prinpantetir an eon
Yo Jnsmeotgs Bogelie odd mottsyella eldd at daddt boven od ite st
vino xed 1sup dérs0d sid 10% eokzg ont abd of Hotacquiq Y8EeL 4aSus angi
-l7=
and not fer the third and fourth quarters es alleged in the original
complaint. It should also be remenbered that Allen in his letter to
Wilde of November 25, 1936, stated that Wilde had agreed on the
occasion of the meeting on Aygust 26, 1936, to furnish plaintiff with
hair for the fourth quarter at 7-1/2 cents a pound, Plaintiff urges
that the several theories as to price advaneed by it in its various
pleadings are reconcilable in that on the occasions when the price
was fixed it was determined on the basis of the price paid by defendant
to the tanners, This argument is refuted by the documentary evidence
in the record, as well as by the admission contained in the allegation
in plaintiff's earlier pleadings that the price of the hair for the
last three quarters should be such sum as the parties agreed upon,
Plaintiff's original price theory made absolutely no reference to
tannery prices or average tannery prices paid by defendant,
While the price theory advanced by plaintiff in its earlier
pleadings did not conclude it from thereafter advancing another and
entirely different theory as to this essential element of the alleged
oral agreement, the allegetions heretofore pointed out in such prior
~ pleadings may be considered as admissions affecting the eredibility
of Allen, whe was the only representative of plaintiff who was familiar ©
with the facts and who it must be presumed related the facts to the
attorneys who prepared said pleadings,as well as the answer filed in
the Delaware case, Such sworn admissions alone are sufficient to
cast suspicion on the merits of plaintiff's claim. In Joyce v. Humbird,
78 Fed. (2d) 336 (C.C.A. 7th), in passing upon admissions against
interest made in a sworn answer, the court said at p. 389:
"ate appellants! sworn answer contained the following
allegations
"'Said Humbird represented to defendant that Clearwater
Timber Company owned in excess of four billion feet of timber,
more than 50% of which was white pine of good quslity.'
"It is quite inconceivable that appellants, when seeking
to avoid the possibility of a large money judgment by charging
fraud as a defense, should assert in their pleadings that the false
representation was that ‘more than 50% of the Paes was white
pine! w hen dn feck. § seid, representation was that 60% to 75% of the
vi
Isntgtvo aft at begefis es eredistp dtwot bas brbdd et sot Son brs ©
ot tettel etd at mefIA tad? beredutemor od bels Diwode SI ,takelqmoo’”
eff mo boetys ber ohLiw dand bodate ,OERL . US tedmevoll to SbLAV-
ddiw ttttntsiq detrat of ,O€eL OS FergyA mo gatioom sit Io Molesod0~
goyw Titvntelt .bavog s edmeo S\f-f ds redatayp Aduwot eld ‘tot “tad”
auottsy edt mt or yd beortsvbs eotaq of es eeftroed? Istevee rif Vane”
eottq orld most enotesooo ond ao tadt nt efdsLtonose1 ets egnibselg”
nabasteb yd btaq soitq orld Yo efead ond mo bonintedod esw-tt ‘bext? eaw”
sonsbive Yisimemmoob ey yd betrter ef Smomigts ekdT \erénned ‘edd OF”
noltegelis eft mt bontedmes moteaiabs oft yd es Llow ea .brode1 ons ‘nh |
edd 10% thet odd to eotuq edd tadt egutbselq tetiase e"ttivatslg ‘mt
tog hoergs esivusq edd es mz deve od bivore exedtswp Soadt test” :
of somete'tor om yYLodmfoeds obsm Yroeds eotiq Lantgiio e*Tittdislt”
.tnsbisteb yd bisq seotiq ytonmsd ogsievs to sestiq Yrennsy n fe
gotiase edt at Ytitatsf¢ yd beonmevbe yroedd sottq on eLtdy- © ana”
bus todvons ymionevbs 19d tse1ed? mort tr sbyfonoo ton bird eghthséiq™
hogelis ond to tnomefo fsttmeves eidd of es yroeds tereTtts Yfsrttas
toliq dove at Seo bedntoy stotodsiert embtisyelia edd titemsetys ‘Leto’
vdtitdtbero eff yntioctts tmoteatmbs 24 Betebtenos ed Yam agatbselg?
rstitms? esw orfw Ytttniela ‘to evitsdneesiqges yao edt eaw odw’ (HelLé to”
add of etost end Setsior bomsesta od tenm Ff odfw Sits “atost odd “WPI¥®
at Beftr iewens oft eh ffow ee gyntbselq bisa botsqdiq ofr efent0dts
" of Smetoltive ors sndls endtedtmbs miewe dowd , deo “S1awSldaead~
butdmi .v Soyol aI mkelo c'Ytitntalq ‘to es tiem edf mo Hokofqeve F229"
dentsye etotestmbs nogtt giteesq at (asf .ald.0)°O8E (bey bet By
106 .¢ 3s bise funop end towers “rows 's valewnbvindpuivel
pb nn niongese exit eect Tewens seep ctectgin <0 ee
. 5 | SG:R2 BRAF tao agets
seterteath ‘tadt Peerage betaee tidus
bas! 30 dest noLiitd ior ct pavacsonges, baz pod
| ' .yitisup,boog to entq et ie. 2a Astee , oto BOQ msds ts org
aes sn ut SEs RAT SEHR ARE a hme
seled edd outs ey sah uA. rie Raa ozo 9a sit ‘eon wold adnedonger™
ofy..29, RE5, 8,
Jao aS > dik OP AMS
|
<
1B
"Tt is possible but most unlikely that counsel, in ascer=-
taining the fraudulent representations made by Humbird upon which
he was to base the fraud charge, misunderstood Joyce and the
misrepresentation was 60% to 755 of white pine instead of 50%
as stated in the answer. It is also possible, but we think quite
unlikely, that such pleading when sworn to by Joyce was by him not
understood, On the other hand, the court might well assume that
counsel who drew Bt rrp pleadings obtained his facts from his
clients; that the clients, when they signed their answers and counter=
claims and under oath asserted the truth of the statesents therein
appearing, were in fact speaking the truth, and that the testimony
subsequently given by said clients was at variance with the facts,"
We are impelled te hold that the trial court properly found the
issues in favor of defendant and that no adequate reason has been shown
why the judgment should be disturbed,
We also think that the alleged oral agreement, upon which plain=- ©
tiff relies, could not have been completely performed, according to
its terms, within one year from the making thereof and that it is
therefore void under the Statute of Frauds of Michigan, the state
wherein it was to be performed,
In the view we take of this case we deem it unnecessary to
discuss the other points urged,
For the reasons stated herein the judgment of the Circuit
court is affirmed,
JUDGHENT AFFIRMED,
Friend and Scanlan, JJ., concur,
ale
~T20838 at Leeauoo tac3 extilon sJeom iud 9 200.2
» io haw snow betdann <ttdawi “¢ obak eats site ii cor Snolshuewt pa Sgt ‘gatatsy
es. Lana a a a a
anids ow tud ,oldteeog oq oefs a! al a aie 9 OOF it serene das
ae i Prk yao isos. edt ion @ ant Js, ehaeiageet
~nesaioo bas pee rage tee ay renting eds Late co ae t
ee ee
saton% ot giv consiisay ts asw edmello yd newbs etl nobpaouie
edt bawsot yLaeqouq davoo fatit edd tadt blond of Belleqmt ox ef 8 )
amore epee soaser staupebs on tod hae tusbaoteb ‘to wove im weuest
, bedwteth od bisode trempbut) sat wiw
-sielg sold coqs ~Juemeetgs Late bogells odd Jadt anidy eeis oF) 4°
of yatbsosos gbomtotaeg yLetelqmos seed eval ton bineo (welfisd ttt
8k th tedd bas tootedd yates eft mort tsey sao mididiw yemrot eck
stata. ond nagidobt 20 ahyerl 2a-edutsts ald mreemnasien |
OF Yiseeeoseuus setumnehepaneniedet on aaitanemeas deeh .
ro 9 MO, SERRE AES ee RR
_Sissoto edd 10 preload od atoved begase emcee nd PON os bre
fatwa. e Oia PY rote bah a AMR.
tuptcealehe en fottettecay ed Yan aii”
tohuq TSH: Fee beet PELE
SCEMEITHA THEMOTUL
| to PEs avis Lia etd eew ode GSLEA "ho *
ios sonsssas o9O805, 98K, dang Supe
3 & 4 f PL S2xe berger oy eventotss
bane erawalsd ‘edd *
rgeot x mew ie ‘TTisnielo ta er izem tay ae Rees y Diy enre dew ;
(AER ROP OTE ChS7P°CheR CY
obax Feetegas
*
£
*»
=
=
Pe
5 a
Mato rrowe” Tatnal leaqys ere"
tmehs gnetts
SAMA SVs Avge Sri Tze | haat”
vupone eat aid (hk BEROS “rah?
; eer tee Be to ie’ 4 wig ote.
yu pen £ FRA % e ha Pile ih AG Ap see: es : af thm YA ASE oes a asda ek aot
Rite tain ES sien Dat ei Bh tsicemni ‘o eh hl babes at wat blurs ae
peewee Gee Fai ¢ Cee Ly ania fe eee BEvoce | ‘pena tab 6 @n boar é Ce
nae Deter Soar a eels Las ae wkd ae | rout d BE 43 eo aw ‘totiarnenety st od
Tie oy Ae. ws VG Bett ou Bat? et i mie Tat shew Me
” . hha a vem, pes
fs river) eek
40912
HENNING EB, JOHNSON,
Appel
Ve
a scars hace paehes undef ;
Trust No. fang 2s : i, OPRR Lt
ROYAL IND MNITY oPuPANY, a Mor pora cit
et al. : ag
APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT
COURT, COOK COUNTY,
ON APPEAL ag CHICAGO CITY BANK & TRUST
COMPANY, a corporation, as trustee
pl.
under Trust we 3 0 BS ae 6 Pd 1
MR, PRESIDING JUSTICE SULLIVAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Plaintiff, Henning EZ. Johnson, filed his complaint against
the Chicago City Bank & Trust Company, as trustee, and others, as
defendants, for the foreclosure of a receiver's certificate, which
had been issued to him in a prior proceeding for the partial fore-
closure of a trust deed prosecuted for the benefit of the holder of
subordinated bonds and interest coupons. The trial in the instant
case resulted in a decree of foreclosure in favor of plaintiff,
from which the Chicago City Bank & Trust Company has perfected this
appeal. No point has been raised on the pleadings which consist of
the complaint of Henning E. Johnson and the answer of the Chicago
City Bank & Trust Company, as trustee,
On June 15, 1928, Wollenberger & Co., a corporation, made
a loan of $200,000 to one Henry and Elizabeth Lutz, evidenced by
a bond issue of 460 bonds of various denominations, maturing con-
secutively over a period of ten years, The bonds, which were sold
to the public, bore interest at the rate of 6% per annum, payable
semi-annually, and were secured by a trust deed conveying to John
J. Rahlf, an officer of Wollenberger & Co., as trustee, the property
involved in this proceeding, which consists of two lots located at
the southeast corner of South Chicago and Stony Island avenues and
an wor pn. | 4
«XTMUOD_AQ09_.2809 4
7am 4 moe ea
pe EY saab agra ae
.THVOO MET Yo WoTHTIG Bar Caemiviuma savin ave corevet- alse
ferikegs Sntafqmos etd boltt .noensdiot .¥ gating Sitatete?
238 ee rexito bus ,oodenit es aWaaqod ‘$enr? 8 Mase ‘ysto" ogaotdd ‘ead
dotdw ,stsottisazes e'roviovet a tO ouolsexo? oxtd ‘jot \ednsbae'teb
1a@A29 Sas negos tb
~etot fait ray eid 10T gathesoved sobaq 8 at att of Reger rig nood bed
mth 4 Sy at
to aebLord edt to Stiened edt t0T bedvoezo7q beeb ders 3. 0 erreoLe
a oo 4 "EOD
tmasent odd ot istxt edT .emoquoo Jeetednt bus hieud bovactoenitie
7
,Tiitataly to tovet at emeoLseto?t to setseb s at betiueot 9269
eidd betsootieg earl Yasqmod senrT & ing —. qyeetet odd Sh orgy Hy 5 9
to getanoo doidw agntbselq edt ao beetes need eas tnteq om .iseqqs
ogsotdd edd lo towane ord bas moamiot .& gatanel to tatelqmoo ont
osteuis #8 ,yusqmol tentl % Ans& yILto
ebam ,fotsiatoqioo s ,.00 & tegredmetfow ,8SCL ,.ef ent 20
yd beonobive ,udul diedssili bas yuneH emo oF 000.0089 To nisol 3
“noo giliuiam ,etotisaimonel exotisv to ebsod 0d) to exest baod
bLoe etew Hoidw ,ebnod snT serssy mod to botieq s 8v0 tlovituoee ?
efdsysq ,uitinns 19q Rd to etst sit ts deorstnt oxod eoiidsq exit ot
suiot ot yatysvacs beeb semis 5 yd betwoee siew bas (Vilaunne~tnee
Wieqorq oft ,sotents a6 4.00 d tegtodmellow ‘to wsoltio as tidied %
ts bedeccl esol ows to ateltenoo doldw aakboooong elds at bevLovat
| ats genneve busleal yaot® bas egsetid diguoe to somrroo 2 Yasaiivos ‘ents ;
if A a L !
hae
a=
79th street, Chicago, The premises are improved with two buildings,
one a two-story brick and concrete restaurant building containing three
public dining rooms and three private dining rooms and the other a one-
story brick and terra cotta gasoline and automobile service station,
On July 1, 1929, the mortgagors defaulted in the payment of a
balanee of $1,000 due on interest coupons Series 2, and on January 1,
1930, defaulted in the payment of the entire amount due on interest
coupons Series 3, aggregating $6,000,
On May 17, 1930, Wollenberger & Co., which had acquired the un-
paid interest coupons of Series 2 and 3 aggregating $7,000, filed its
bill of complaint in the Superior court of Cook county, as case
No, 518012, for the express purpose of foreclosing the lien of the
trust deed for the balance due on interest coupons Series 2 and 3, sub-
ject to the continuing lien of the same trust deed as security for the
payment of the remaining unmatured indebtedness evidenced by the
principal bonds and by interest coupons Series 4 to 10, both inclusive,
This bill of complaint was joined in by Rahlf, the trustee, as a
cocomplainant, for the sole and exclusive benefit of Wollenberger &
Co. as the owner of the defaulted interest coupons.
On May 20, 1930, an order was entered in that proceeding upon
the application of Wollenberger & Co, and Rahif, as trustee, appointing
a receiver to collect the rents, issues and profits from the premises
for the benefit of Wollenberger & Co,
Subsequent to the institution of that subordinate foreclosure
proceeding, Wollenberger & Co, acquired interest coupons Series Nos,
4 and 5, which had respectively matured on July 1, 1930, and on January
1, 1931, and acquired principal bonds Nos, 1 to 10, both inclusive,
aggregating $10,000, which matured on July 1, 1930, and subordinated
these interest coupons and principal bonds to the continuing lien of
the trust deed as security for the payment of the remaining unmatured
indebtedness of $190,000 evidenced by principal bonds Nos. 11 to 460,
both inclusive, and interest coupons Series 6 to 10, both inclusive,
On August 26, 1930, Rahlf wrote a letter to Optner, the receiver
afm
eegatiliod owt ditw bevovent ets esetmerg eft .ogsoldd ,sesie Fri
esmls griintetaco yttbited gusuistees eferomco bas Aotid yr0se-ows 8) Sto
~ono s tecito edd bas emoot gniath egaviig eed bas emoot gaint oliduq
wsottst2 eotviea efidomosus bas entioass sttoo srtet has Aotid ysote
& to tnemysg oft at Sofiusteb eTOa ens 308, eds eset at vet a0 ean
.t Yisunst ao bas .§ asiue® enioq0o Jaeregat 0 eub 009448 10 sons.ad
teorstat no eb Jasons otttn ox to ‘saomyes enid at ‘bedLuateb eR
. -000,0% galdngotgags .€ eeired enoquon
-ay oft boulupos bed do tetw 0D 2 togusdaeliow ,0¢el..fL ysell.a0
adi beLtt ,000,\# galsayougas & bas § aettes, to estoqivoo bs aa 15 oisg
9289 a9 ,¥iavos Aopd Io saves rolteqia oui jabasyidos: Yo LLbd
edd to aetl edi gateoloe102 to ozog ig geomgxo oui tot , aSLOBIE oH
~due sf bas S eelred emoquoo georetat a0 oub eonsLad exis. x02 beeb Jauts
eddy tot yituvoee as beeb Jews mse oig 20 mont gabuntdu0s auld 4 soot
eid yd beonebive aeenbotdobat bord annus antotenst odd to ) imearysa
-oviteufont fitod ,OL ot + eolroé emoqusoo deoredat vd bes abated . Legtontsg
Sval meed bas
® 88 eoetamrt ody vthisA vd ak beatot ‘Baw tatsiqueo to {Ltd bo?
# toytodnslion 20 stoned eviexLoxe bas exoe ‘odd to? _inantaguooes
J TO 10 rer
» 8110909 seoredat bed Lusteb odd to ‘teawo exdg as 00
sey a ©
wy sf G : Pz
ogy gutbessorg teds al beissae caw aebt0 ag 2089 408 Vail 10
tolow
gatintoggs yootents as ‘titaa bas "+00 s ‘toprodast Lov to ‘matiuvl lege eet
aecktoa oF Saares
eee inong avid mort ‘ed tion bas aeueet ‘(adaot ‘odd doelioo og aevicoe1 8
itd
09 2 wegredaeLiot 20 oPtened edt 10%
a , ep a!
emeoloetot etantbrodse tads to ‘aetiutiselh oxi bd ‘daou aE 7
ser .8f 9 pies:
gto i foe
~
20 aelxse anoquoo sesiesat bextupes “100 & 30
rout ito bas 0g OL “ yint no ‘borusd amt “sid oogeos bad. Ganda “e bas +
esviewLont dtod .0L o¢ a 80H ebaod Iaqtoatag bentupos Theta lERE a
hé 27s 1307338
betanthtodue bas °,0¢ CL J Lit 0 “porate dotsiw | (1000, 058 } gaitas
to mefl ystuniinoo edd o¢ ebsod Aagtontsg bus ‘enous pn a
Sf fiw Esten
boruid sanw gutnitsmes ed} to snomysg ‘edd 102 Wiwose “ed “Soak” ieee
088 of is ‘doll ebaod Leqtontag we ‘beonobive 000, aRt8 10 edeabe
Heocig alas nf beviowak
sevtauton! titod 4 os 6 cotrea estoquoo ‘deosedat on ae =
TIATHO pret weieer a
aovteoex “ont - Tons gO ot xottel s etomw et OERE as “temguh a0
-3-
who had been appointed in the partial foreclosure proceeding, direct-
ing him to enter into a contract with the plaintiff herein for remodel=-
ing of the main building on the property in question, Rahlf agreed in
his letter to purchase the receiver's certificates issued in payment
of the work and further agreed that if such certificates were not
issued, he would pay for the work himself and would indemnify the
receiver against any liability.
On October 7, 1930, an order was entered in that case on the
petition of Optner, as receiver, authorizing him to expend $3,300 as
the cost of the proposed alterations and remodeling which ineluded the
installation of a dance floor and a new orchestra pit. This order also
authorized Optner to issue receiver*s certificates not to exceed the
sum of $3,300 in payment of the work and provided that the certificates
were to be a first and prior lien upon the rents and income to be
received by him as receiver from the property in question and were to
be paid out of the rents and income when the same should be received
by him as receiver for and during a period of two years from the date
of the order,
On October 29, 1930, Optner issued to Johnson, the plaintiff
herein, a receiver's certificate in the sum of $3,300 in the form
designated in a subsequent order entered on the same day, The certifi-
cate provided, inter alia, that it was issued in accordance with the
order of October 7th and that it was a first and prior lien on the
rents and income received by the receiver, superior to the rights of
all parties in the junior proceeding identified as ease No. 518012
and also to the righitsof all parties in case No, 518341. Case No.
518341, which is not involved in any way in this appeal, was a chancery
proceeding for the foreclosure of a chattel mortgage on certain personal
property located on the premises,
_ On July 7, 1931, a decree was entered in that proceeding (case
No. 518012) providing for the partial foreclosure of the trust deed
as security for the subordinated principal bonds and interest coupons
which had been acquired by Wollenberger & Co,, and for the costs of
the proceeding, and directed a sale of the premises for the benefit
<=
mfoorlth ,.gntbesoo1g emeoloe10? fsttisq edt at bedntoqgs need bed odw”
{eboms1 tol mtered ttidatelg edd détw gosida0o s oft tedme oF mid gat’
at beotgs tide .motteoup at ydteqorq add mo gnibfiud atam edd ‘to gat
jneaysq tit boweet eetsoltiztes e'tevisce? eds seaiomg of ‘wetter etd”
Jon oxew setsoltisies dove tt tad} beexgs teddavt bas Aiow end to —
cull eergm tiga apy mays pmenage toe sot ¥Ysq Sivow eff ,beveei
VOUS attidett wid! seitieys Yov tober”
edt mo saso tadd at betesns eaw tebte da ,0€CL AY déaddde wee’ «8s
as 006,68 bneqxe of mtd yutstrodius yrevieber 2s (tedtyO Yo nots tieg ”
edit bobilont dotdw yattobomed bus enokveredis beeoqory ‘erty bed behead oud
vais tebto atdT .ttq stdeedoto wen s bas soolt eoush 3 to dolds.
edd boooxe of Yom eodeoktivxes ef tsvisce, skeet of nontqO es trontus bre ee ry
otsoktities edd tats Sebivetq bua Arow eft to Smemtyaq mt OC Fa nant"
od of omoont bas adnot ed? moqu moll totaq Bite tett2 8 ed ot stow
ot etow bias motteonp mi YWaeqorq odd mou? wevisoot 23 att yd Beviesse b
bevisce1 et bivode emse sit cistiw emoont bite “adnet ait to tuo bist ed”
etsb et mot? etsy ows to bekrog B woes bee 0 wan, es intel Yd
Roomicd dic
Vlsataly edd ywoandol of bewae! wendqd .OLRE ,eS adored HO
mro% edd ot 00€,$ to me edd alt eteslitdies a'xévieses s | ‘atereit
-itisa99 edZ .ysb omse oft mo bet]edae teb10 tastrpexdse 8 at ‘Betama teed
ed dttw ebusbroces at beweet eaw dk dalld” alia sedat be!
add ao moll ‘solaq bus tealt s eaw 3 dadd bas agy ‘tedoy's0 Yo xebx0 ,
to eddgia odd oF srolisque ,r9evieost edt yd bevisoox ‘eucont ‘bas @dnor
SIUSIQ soll Seso as bolttiaeb! yatbesoow rolivt edf Mt Bel¥2sq Ls
-olf e269 .LNOLE olf caso ak eoltisg Its ‘to wityix ons of UETe bus
preonads s esw lsoqqs elds ak Ysw yas at bevioval Yom at dotiw <tacOre ©
soe 18 atas09 mo easys tom Lest sco & to otimotooxe? ont tot Yabbevoong
"© leeatneag ody sto be¥aool yiisqord
vaso) gatbossorg dadd al boredas eaw Soudeb » lel ,Y yLet a0 no onedd
besb dauat sdd Yo o1maoLoetot Takia ait wor Yatbiverg (8108. ott”
enoquos seszetat bas ebsiod teqtoniag bed entb brodie * ally ‘aot aoe
to Btkoo orf tet bos 2 db a -aaemaeIOM se borinpos “meet batt Hoty ee
Slotted ent tod eoetsorg ent Yo else s bedoottd baw jplvesioce a.
sili
of Wollenberger & Co,
On August 5, 1931, the premises were sold for $20,000 at a
bigter'ts sale held pursuant to the decree, leaving a deficiency due
Wollenberger & Co, of $16,591.26. The master's sale was approved
on August 25, 1931.
During the pendency of this partial foreclosure proceeding
principal bonds Nos. 11 to 20, both inclusive, and interest coupons
Series 6, which matured on July 1, 1931, went into default, Robert
H, Wollenberger, as successor trustee (Rahlf having resigned), there—
upon elected to declare the balance of the principal indebtedness of
$190,000 secured by the trust deed due and payable and on October 22,
1931,/ filed his bill of complaint in the Superior court of Cook county
as case No, 545437 for the complete foreclosure of the lien of the
trust deed for the benefit of the holders of principal bonds Nos. ll
to 460, both inclusive, and interest coupons Series 6, together with
accrued intereste
On November 27, 1931, the successor trustee, as the represen
tative of the holders of the unsubordinated bonds and interest
coupons, in order to preserve the income from the property for their
benefit, procured the entry of an order in the junior proceeding
(case No, 518012) extending the receivership to the complete senior
foreclosure proceeding,
On May 13, 1936, a decree of foreclosure was entered in the
latter proceeding (ease No. 545437), pursuant to wrich a master's
sale was held on June 30, 1937. The sale was subsequently confirmed
and a master's certificate of sale was issued to one Harold Cc, Bull.
On October 1, 1938, after the expiration of the statutory
period of redemption from the master's sale in Superior court case
No, 545437, a master's deed was issued to one William E, Fisher as
assignee of Harold C. Bull, and thereafter a deed in trust was
executed by William E, Fisher conveying title to the property in
question to the present owner, the defendant, Chicago City Bank &
Frat Company as trustee under its [rust No. 2524.
On March 24, 1939, plaintiff filed his complaint in this
0D & t8s'redaefLo¥ to
s ts 000,0S¢ 10% bloe exew esataong oft (ICOr .e tesa co |
eubh Yousiolteh «a gaiveel ,eetoed edd ot Jaswaeiwy bled ofse Mraifen
bevorggs saw aloe e*uetesm off .d8, 102, d18 to .o0 B teproting Low
LERL US teirgwa’ tro
gatbessoug awmaoLloenol Isitxs¢ ehait to Yonobaeg eff gatawt ©
enoquoo gesrstnt bus ,eviesfont diod .O& of If .eo% abmod Isqtoataq
dusdof ,tiusteb ojnt smow 4lfe@L «i yint.no beavtem dotdw .o eetste2
ores ,(bengiess gatval tidsh) seseyut toeecoome as ,xegtédiHeliow Vx
Yo egenbetdedat Isqtontxq effd te edasiad of} emedoeb od besosts soqu
(_S8 medoteO no bas eldsysq bus exh besh sents edd yd bewdee “000, 00L3
Yiawos Aoo2 to suwoe setisqs8 off’ at tabelqhds to LLfd eke bortt\. ter
edt te aeil oft to emsolosezot etolquod eds TOT SESCH? soll e285 ts
If ,e0 ebsed Isqioutag ‘to eisbLoiliods to tktened eds 102 "bosb savas
_dtiw redtegod .@ eolie® enoques seotetil ‘bis jevtewLont dtod fod# ‘os
| "gteorsdnt wore
miozeigen Os as ,sedesw toseeoous odd .LFeL (Ns edmevoN nO ~
deexstat bus absod bodsntbioduess edt to exebiod wit to dh
tien tol yisqorg say sort smoont odd oviseerg of TSbto mt ,emoquos
giiibesoorg totaut edd mt tebto as Yo Yxfne ett bewe0s frienod
‘soince stolqmoo edt ot qideteviesey ont gutboetxe (st0bre’ ot eeao)
. ! aeapenngnen tree
auld at boretud ecw exeoLootc? to eerseb # ,a¢el Vet yaw ad “°°
eitetesm 6 dobiw ot tnsweting 4 (YEREAS Lon eeno) atbseporg x6vdal
bomiltaoo.yLtmexpeedse eaw else ef? ECL (0 ‘sant no bie ft eaw old
-Llpd 40 Blows eno of bemeet eow Lae 10 es aditidreo @+xBseki 8 Bad
“oyuotatada ods 10 moissriqxe edt a0dts (Seer YL tedo}s0 ao ak
-9as9 Sasoo soltaqua at efse etrstesm odd mort moltquebex ‘to bolioq
as telell ,Z motif eno of bewaat gew boob e'adtecm 8 \YERAe , ot
aaw Jeuid mt boob s ted tected? bis yliv@ .o bLowsH Yo songtees
at Wtoqotq oft o¢ eLttd yniyewnod terelt .z ms tL TEV vd betuosxe
| Anisd YILO ogsotdd \insbnoteb edd yremo Sidacig dt dt web hReds
ASRS voll Sent! att wha estent es asqnod denct , :
Pane
D Siem ak 4k Raed wen Gr Oy eal A BP ae ae gijtipeaeers ont
j=
ease
nad been issued to him in the junior foreclosure proceeding of the
alleging that he is the owner ef a receiver's certificate which
subordinated bonds; that the issuance of the certificate had been
authorized by Rahlf, the first mortgage trustee, by the letter hereto-~
fore referred to from Rahlf to Optner, the receiver in said proceeding;
that there is a balance of $1,800 due him on said certificate, to-
gether with interest at 6% per annum from October 29, 1930; that the
title of the defendant, Chicago City bank & Trust Company, which was
derived through the foreclosure sale held pursuant to the decree
entered in the subsequent complete foreclosure of the unsubordinated
bonds, is subject to the lien of the receiver's certificate; and that
plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable allowance for his attorneys’ fees,
The complaint concluded with a prayer for an accounting, the appoint-—
ment of a receiver, a sale of the property in question in satisfaction
of the amount found to be due plaintiff and a deficiency judgment.
The defendant, Chicago City Bank & Trust Company, as trustee,
filed an answer denying that the receiver's certificate was a lien on
either the rents accruing from or on the fee title to the property
involved, and alleged in detail the facts hereinbefore set forth
concerning the subsequent complete foreclosure of the unsubordinated
bonds after the receiver's certificate had been issued in the partial
foreclosure proceeding, the entry of the decree in the complete fore-
Closure proceeding, the sale held pursuant thereto and the issuance
of the master's deed upon the expiration of the period of redemption.
fhe answer also denied that Rahlf as trustee had authority in the junior
foreclosure proceeding to bind the holders of the unsubordinated and
unmatured bonds and prayed for the entry of a decree dismissing plain-~
tiff's complaint for want of equity.
Since substantially all the material facts alleged in the
complaint, except the authority of Rahlf as trustee to bind the holders
| of the unsubordinated bonds in the junior foreclosure proceeding,
were admitted to be true, and since for the purpose of the trial all
the material facts alleged in the answer were also admitted to be
true by reason of plaintiff's failure to reply te same, the contro=
~we
dotdw etsoliiviss e'revisoes s to remwo edd at od sand gntgelfs waco
ei} Yo guthesvorg suvsoLoetolt vobnwt odd ot mid oF beyatl aooed beri
need fal stsottitres aff Yo consent ond tad pabnod bot ankbrodue
-otsied tettel off yd ,o6dei« oysgdrom Fert? ons «Uidel yd beatuontius |
tgathbessoug bise ai teviese: oft ,teniqd ot dsl mot? of berTested ‘ex0t
-of ,stsottivtes biox ao mhf en» 008,10 Yo oonaled ser eredd tact
dt dsdd {OECL .@S sodoso0 mort awans Tq HO Fa Veotsdat Wvtw aenjes
ean Moti Ynsgmod tena 9 ABE YEO ogsotdd Yaebacteb add Io wiyts
eetosd oft of trsmetwe bf ofse otweofosrct ont igwo ws Bevited
bed stitbrodsean ons te: etzeoLoo at) etelqmos Jmenperdse edd ak betet a9
“tals bas pssoltidsecs. a! rovEeoex oid To atl ond. menenase 46baed /
Beet Jeyentesds eid 40? SonsWolls oldsmdeset & 08 helsisne et “Vibvatela j
~tuioggs eit .gntinsosss ag 102 Teystq odd iw ‘bobpLougs dtitsdqmog exit
fottostetica ak nettaenp nt wrecotg sfld to sise a 4teviese1 s to.Jnem ’
Gaemgbst YoreLektob's hae Tidntels exb ed od bayok iasoms, og Yo
qoodenis es gyasqued danri 3 wns@ yO ogsotdd .daabaeteb edT, .
” te nell s esw steotthi-icoe es) vewleoer ond Jedd gabyoeb, tewens ns belt?
yreqetg add oF efit o@% ont no 10 mott galwices amet eds rods t»
ddr? toe orvetodatorsf etos? old Lieteb ab begelis bas ,bevlow!
betanthioduens els to sissofLoero® stelquos, tmenpeadye odd malateons:
fatineq edd nt bevest néod bad es c0Rtiines alseviosen odd gedte wba
-s10% etelqmos edd at oetoeb oid To YIsae aud yuutbeqoorg emuseses'
eomaueel odd has ofotedd tadvemg bfAd olga add «gatbgoperq ogols
sHokdqmsber to botieq edd to aotyethqxe ond mequ boob g'toteam edi 0
colnst edt at ytrodidhes bed sogewrd as tiklei tedd beinea oals sowemg
~ Rs bodantbrodwemw og Yo erebLod eid bald oF yakberooug steels)
ienassidhesmanteed sored 8 to yadae edt a9 boysaq bas shad betty amy
ad st > axydbepe te: due yorstatelquos. hires
“tt mt begelis atest Ishvotsm end Lis Ulstinedadue eomke | : ay
eteblod ert bate of eeteuis as Tits l to Yibuodyuw oud dq90Xs, Je! ib. OS
Lis Lakes ont 20 ezoqzamg onid wot combo bus qewad od of, Badd bos view |
ed of bostimbs cela oxow rowan edd at fogetis, atest tiskaei on ody |
soulsoo edt ,omse of YLgex ot sulist e'titsiats£ te moese: ui ont |
bn
versy resolved itself purely into a question of law,
No evidence was offered. by plaintiff other than his intro-
duction of documentary evidenee, which consisted of the letter of
Rahlf to Optner, the remodelling contract, a certified copy of the
order directing the issuance of the receiver's certificate, a certi-
fied copy of the order approving the form of the receiver's ecertifie
eate, a certified copy of the order extending the receivership from
the partial foreclosure proceeding to the complete foreclosure pro-
ceeding, the recciver's certificate itself, showing an unpaid balanee
of principal due thereon of $1,800, and a certified copy of a plan
of reorganization. The letter of Rahlf to Optner was received in
evidence over the specific objection of defendant that plaintiff
had not attempted to prove Nahlif's authority in the junior foreclosure
proceeding to bind the holders of the unsubordiated and unmatured bonds,
No evidence was offered by the defendant,
The decree found that plaintiff's receiver's certifieate is
a first and prior lien upon the title and upon the rents and income to
be derived from the real estate described in said certificate paramount
to the rights of all parties to this cause and further found that the
title of the defendant, Chicago City Bank & Trust Company, as trustee,
to the property in question and its right to rents and income from
same is subject and subordinate to the lien of the plaintiff as the
holder of the receiver's certificate and directed that unless the sum
of $2,935 with interest thereon was paid to plaintiff by defendant
within thirty days, plaintiff's lien should be enforced, either by
the appointment of a receiver to collect the rents and income until
a sufficient amount was realized to pay the amount found to be due
plaintiff, or by the sale of the real estate in satisfaction thereof
or by both the appointment of a receiver and a sale of the property.
Defendant's first contention is that e court of chancery has
no authority to direct the sale of real estate, the title to which has
been acquired from the grantee of a master's deed issued in a proceed-
ing for the complete foreclosure of o first mortgage, to satisfy a
owal te sotsgeup s oat yLomw, Lees ne sh a
~otlai ald sasds sonido tihiatsl ve howtto eaw somebive eM |
to teiseL eid to botetemoo dotdw .sonebive ‘Vustasmuoob to aottenb ’
adi to yao heliiires 2 ,Jestimoo ysttLLebouers edd .tentqo of titer”
~iine9,.8 ,eisoliivies g'teviesox sad to eonasee t ont gnivostth t6b76"
-titisiso e'aavieses oft to gro? edt gaitverggs tebt0 “a 48 xqoo bolt —
mout gidesevieos: edt giatbaotxe xobso anid 0 yqoo beltittes ‘8 oss
-o1g oxpeoloenot sdeLqmoo ens ot yatisevorg ereoloe101 Isttasq edt
censisd bisqa oa gatwoie ,ileest edsolttid 109 a! xevioost ods qgaibsed
aelq 8% Ygoo beliids09 9 bas .OOB—l# to nootedd exh Iaqtoatiq “Yo
ak bevievet eav romigd of Usa to tetteL ef? .mottaxtnayr081 Yo |
“Wudntele tadt tasbusteb Ye aottostde otttoege ould ovo sonsbive ‘
omeoLos10? soluit eld mi yilvodive 2" tLdsi evorq of } bedquesta 3 ton bail
.2baod bemismnus bas hsdatbrodueny ould je atobLod ong batd oo unttbseootg F
sinabaeted ety xd boxetio aow ‘eonsbive ‘on
it aiign beets 'zevkooet e'Titiatale tacts bauro? ‘ser.0b -_—
oF emognt bas etme ond aoqy bus efdtd ont sogus usb wing baa dent »
Jnuometsq etgotitizes bisa af bedisesh et giae set ‘nid nov’ ‘bovited od
ccd fauld Dawe said bas cause abst? of eoltzeq Lis to addyit efit of
coosanis 28 .Yisquod geutl % Ausd ysl ogsoLsdo xinabaeted ot “to ett oft td
Movl omoonl bas edmot of digits ett bas nokyeeup at cece ext ot
odd.24 Mijatelg edt Yo mel edt of stantbrodie be sootdua & ek omse
me ot. agelan Jolt bedoertp pnts statis 60 a" aoviove 2 ods te ‘webLod
gasbneteh yd Tittatslq of bteq asw mootedd deorodat tty Rese to
Nd aodtie gbeototae ed bivorde nent s"ddatala sewed yoabs aldtiw
_ titan euosnt bas einer ost seltoo ot tevtooot 8 Yo pamibatecks wit
oub of of Bawot avons edt Yoq of hestiset_ aa wf dawons $aototise s
tooteds aoliostalise nt etadee Ise eal to olee edd ue 10 <Titintelg
Tp Mekae «!
_ eWaegota edt to else s bre rovieoss Fs ‘Yo tasmiatogys ait sitod wees to
acnay S7m Gye €
ead, xpos. to tues 9 tad 2h motdnedaes $ext? atta
ee Ue va ante”
eed doftw.od eLttt ot? .otatae Leen to else edt ‘foortb of whundtu 0
ou £47
~hesserg.a mt bevset, beeb. etiedesa s 0 costa sul J mort betinpos sed
“@ Ytatise of popayt tom Gert? cei chueeteiiaeamh aati ade 10%,
“Ty Sie,
pa,
balance due the holder of a receiver's certificate issued in a prior
proceeding to foreclose a junior incumbrance.
As a general rule the rights of holders of vested superior
liens cannot be subordinated without the consent of the holders of |
such liens for the purpose of enabling a receiver to acquire funds |
with which to manage and operate private property for the benefit
of junior interests. In the recent case of Cody Trust Company v,
Hotel Clayton Company, 293 ill. App. 1, a receiver had been cpoeduved
in a partial foreclosure proceeding brought by the Cody Trust Company,
individually and as trustee, for its exclusive benefit as the holder
of certain subordinated interest coupons secured by a trust deed on
real estate improved with a hotel, Subsequently the Chicago Title &
Trust Company, as successor trustee to the Cody Trust Company, filed
its complaint on behalf of the holders of all unsubordinated bonds
and interest coupons for the complete foreclosure of the same trust
deed and procured the entry of an order extending the receivership
to the latter case. Prior to the extension of the receivership the
receiver had incurred obligations in his management of the hotel for
supplies, wages and merchandise, The ereditors filed petitions in
both proceedings, praying for the issuance of receiver certificates,
whieh would constitute superior liens on the real estate prior to
that of all other persons, including the lien of all of the first
mortgage bondholders, Upon the application of the creditors and
ever the objection of the successor trustee, the court entered an
order in both cases directing the issuance of certificates to the
erediters payable six months after date and further directing "that
the certificates should constitute a lien on the premises and the
rents thereof and any funds realized from the sale thereof prior to
the lien of all persons claiming any lien on the premises," In
that case the court said at pp. 15, 16, 17 and 18:
"It is proposed by the petitioners that by the process of
collecting the income, rents and profits of the premises by the
receiver to pay the subordinated demands of the Cody Trust Company,
—j- ”
y Lovor uaeeer
tolug o ai boreal ofsolitiis9 a'tevisoet.s to teblod edt eub consled
-eonsidmyont tote, s eaefosiol ot gatbessorg
toireque beyeev to eioblod to atdgia edd sini Isteneg 2.84
_ 20 gueblosd odd to dnoenos edt suoddin betamibiodue od tonne emehl
ebant estusas of sevioset # yaifdane to eeoquK eiy s0% zaeil done.
| titoned odd tot yJaeqouq odeving etsitege bas ggsiam- ot doliuw dg be, ;
- oY Xagqupd taut bed 20 eas supaes ed al. sedeoiedak wolnut to
betatous seed bax revisor: # of .qgh .LLT 60S vaeqme) nojysl) Leste
eYasqued tayxt yhoo edt yd tdquond aahpecomg, emyaclocte? Lettteq.s Mh
teblad edd es stoned ovianloxe edt tol ,sovewtd es hue ylleubivibat
10 heeb Suara 8 \d bousoea enoquoo taotesat betenthiodve ataises to
* els iT ogsoldo ent yisaeupeadva Lesod s ditw bevorgmt staseo, Fm
beLlt ,yssquod Jewt yoo edt of esdauts Toagesoue as aasqmod damat
ebaod bovanthrodvens Ifs to exeblod exit to Wasted 410 dakelquos 2th
jeutd omse ody to entizeloeto% etelqmos oft 19% enoquoo teeretnt bana |
qidetevieses edd yathuotxe ishi0 as te ytiae end bewwoo1g, ban boob —
_ edt qidaxevisoe: sss, 20 solenetxe edt ot tobxt.. 269 r9stal add, of
tot Logos ody To Jneuegsnsm aid at enolisgifide beriwent had sevieoer
(At amolitieg belt aro¢ébors eft — , catbassdotem bas aepeH .aellqque
s2etaoltijiss teviccst to eomamael edd so? gatysaq seaatheooorg, dod
ot solag etates {sot edt mo emetl toiseque. edetivenos bLsow sods
tamtt edd te Lis to me, edt witbeloni yanoaseg reise Lis to dasit -
haa atotber ex} to setseoliqgs edd sogu | -srobledbaed as3ivom
He bereine Jwos silt ,ssteniy toasesoue edd to aolspsido oft asvo
ead of eegsoiitineo to seasheet ost gatsoorth 2@aso dtod at ie
Sant" gaivcotth sedjwt bas otab t9dts addom xba. aldayeq exosthers
edt baa aeaimorg od go nett « stutttanos biwods eetanttisaes, ent
oF sokiq lootsds oLse of} mou beskiget aba yas bas Looted edaon
| Gi ",eeelmoig edd co nell yas galmtelo eneereq Sfa.to molt edd
281 bas SL, OL _tl, raateernontiataenpanaies al
ie aeeoorg odd yd Jat, eremottiteg ag ad ud j | 7
“"" eitt yd eoalmetg odd Yo at Htowg bas «! 7 foe.
sranequo® vagal ¥S00 edd to ebasueh betentbrodye prc ovat!
<o=
the claims of the petitioners for services, material, and money
furnished for the operation of the hotel, are superior to the
original lien of the trust deed in favor of the bondholders and
their claims should be made a lien on the premises, by means of
receiver's certificates, paramount to the lien of the bondholders,
"As a general rule, the fixed legal right of a mortgagee
cannot be impaired by any equities subsequently arising against
the objection of the mortgagee. In the case of Kneeland v. American
L & Trust Co,, 136 U. 8. 89, 34 L. Ed. 379, it was said: ‘It is
the exception and not the rule, that such priority of liens can be
displaced. Ye emphasize this fact of the sacredness of contract
liens, for the reason that there seems to be a growing idea that the
chancellor, in the exercise of his equitable powers, has unlimited
diseretion in this matter of the displacement of vested liens,!' The
general rule is not controlling in cases of railroad mortgages. A
moy Sgagee gf a railroad gocepha the lien of his mortgage with the
understanding and condition that the necessary expenses of the operation
ef the railroad by a receiver may by a court of equity, within prescribed
limits, be given a preference as unsecured claims over the lien of his
mortgage. It has been stated that this is the most extreme exercise
of power ever ventured upon by a court of equity. High on Receivers,
4th ed., sec, 398, *#
"In the case at bar, the effect and result of the orders making
the receiver's eertificates a first lien on the mortgaged premises is
to compel the first lien holders to pay for the attempted collection
or satisfaction of the subordinated or second lien of the Cody Trust
Company. in any case, assuming that it is a valid exercise of juris-
diction by a court of equity, the question of making receiver's
certificates a first lien superior to prior vested liens, is purely
an equitable one, and to be determined upon just and equitable
principles, as the circumstances of the case shall warrant, As pointed
out in the case of Fleming v, Anderson, supra [220 Ill. App. 570], it
may be done im receiverships of industrial corporations when it is made
very clear to the court that it is for the best interests of all parties
that the power be exercised in order to preserve the corporate property
or the franchise of the corporation, In the ease of Vv, Hote
190 Ill, 311, it is held that e receiver's expenses for running a hotel.
would not be made a paramount lien upon the mortgaged hotel, superior
to the rights of the holder of a master's deed under a foreclosure sale,
whe was not a party to the receivership suit, which involved only the
equity of redemption. (Thomse en, 196 Wis, 581, 219 N. We 439.)
fhe bondholders were entitled to their day in court and to contest the
validity of the order giving the receiver's certificates priority over
the trust deed. Merean e Trust : 3S 291
Fed, 462; Bibl Co opi
161 Minn, 360, 201 i. W. ane
The reluctance of courts to impair the security of vested liens
is well illustrated in Hooper v. Central Trust Co,, 81 Md. 559, where
the court said at pp. 591 and 593:
“When the property of private corporations or of individuals
has been placed in the hands of a receiver, all expenses for safe
keeping and preservation are properly payable out of the income,
if there be any, or if there be none, then out of the proceeds of
the corpus of the estate when sold, But this necessary power by no
means includes authority in such instances to allow the creation of
liens through the medium of receivers' certificates which will take
priority over existing antecedent liens. ‘Extensive as are the powers
of Courts of Equity, they do not authorize a chancellor to thus impair
the force of solemn obligations and destroy vested rights. Instead of
displacing mortgages and other liens upon the property of private
Se
Yernom bas pabeien ,eooiviee tot eusmolsiteg ey to emtafo: edt
edt of tokuseque sts ,fetarl edt to moltsreqo ods rot berdetaw
bas etebledbaod adit to “ove ai beoh seuxd edt to aetf Lanktyirzo
to assem yd ,esalmerc oft ao gett s sham od bliyode amtslo tledt
»erebhbLodbaed esi} to meti edd od tnwomsisq .2etsoliis ites ae xevieoe:
eeagsaiton s to idyit iagek bexkt eft ,olux Letoneg s 2A"
‘Seateas gutetis yiineupsadue "208% pe "yas yd bexisqut sd sJonmso
asoltee) 7 baalepad 20 sa) seagsygiiom ait to noktoetdo. ent
&
ESI* shies esw Ft ,O9E .ba oo RE 06 me oU EL
ed aso amel{l to yriaoiag dome sent els ton S9xe
tostinoo to asenbetose os to rote wry eid ati ye -beosliqetb
etit gasid gobl gaiwouy o od of eusee etods Jedd mossot of} tot .enokl
betinifas ead ,etewoq sidasinps etd to satotexe ody at ,tolloonatio
ent ',emett betasv to dasmeosiqahbh odd to 19s¢am eins ob wolyemoe tbh
a on dy ogup? senda to eeeso at gatiformoo jon et olvt Isteste3
sols sieqo no ak he Aeomtapoone Fav pelt Pie yeast we te stad Tisha
hediiozeig abd tw Coden to dues & asvieoet # hHeorlist
ait be mail ar antsts SE nara sonotote1g Snovss 2 ‘ea tmbt
eeioisxs emotixe Jeou edd al eidd dad} betede seed esd 9
eetsvisosh no dg ti inl to Juvoo as oe — aouvate ar aswog To
wow {BCE , poe qubeodts
wie aishio edd to Jiyzex iis togite eld yisd de eam eddenl" +
et coulimetg begsystom edt ao met serlt s eivaoritie8 a'gevioost ous
soljostios betquetia ed 10% ysq of st)ebled smell dgenkt ner Leqawo os
gesal ybod end to melf baoose 10 betanthiodue odd to noltosletiss 4
~eliut ie eelotexe bifisvy s ei ti Jat goimwece yoeso Yas sl os yasquod
a'asvisoor gnidsm to moksesup et sLsipe to sie: 2 xd molsolb
ylowgq ai genell boteev sotaq of sotasque noll dartt s eetaslitsaes
sided tsps bas test moqs bentareteb ed ot bag ,eno eldstinpe as
bod sdrasay.thade enas:edd cbovesquasenees Lacmaavad Rantanenien
soy ee eqqA .fiT OSS] gygpe eS to ees0 odd at duo
Bed at tL. modw.emotssiocx0es. isis to seviesst at enob od’ yan
veliis¢d [Is to eseotetmi sesd eft r0t = yoda a J10S = ot tgelo YTev
wsqgotq statoqice sds eviezetg of tebro at bealowexe..od sewog vedd: —
Me pe 4,,. aso oft al Pinner «angle A ed eeldonst?t ols rd
3 gatos Tel aeaseqza a'tevicoet ¢ a wg SE. ;
xelasans fesod bogsysiom odds pe ee metl Jnvometsq s 9 chan‘ 18 ian buon
eolza pes olsetc}.a stobaum, beab a's 8.20 sebied edt
an ° get fei doLdw — q yervixeot edt o8 ‘ait 8 wey aa gry
ot oll, g 5 veh ; Nga Eas
seh FesFaoo of has gees ak ¥
7 Wxobs5 petgosetinae - yevkooet borat aapels
TWitae er
anott bodeov to YS taoee ‘ods chogat ‘os ‘e109 10 10 seaaionion ert es
Sa.0 OD oe. Shi. ER ret au
evesiw £8 bM I6 a2). dauxT Iexdue9 .v rea00k aot be tpg on Liew ak
ples bas Ie seq to bse 3 J2u00 oa
Shab eben’ to to gre lSateruee ‘etaving *t0 wWrsgors ‘edt aes"
Otse wil eeenegxe Iie ,seviseeet s to ebaed edt wt beoslq aeed-esci
eonoont eft to tuo eldsysq bei | ots noid avaeeoag bas gat no
‘to absesoig edd..lo swo, aod 4s 90 mosh Bh 10! omaken
- ¥ sow Ri cayitennd aids tue oe medw otstee yo eat augres oa
© soliseto sds) wo os “peometent four. etd. YS Luonisus: 8218 SH
ovet iliw doldw aefsoltitics 'erevisoe: ‘to mite edt dguouls enott
eteweg ened o%s 2s ovienedxa! ,aesebl tnebe: janet tevoe yt
utequl euds of tolloonasio. s cramegt me Jom) ng
to pasteat .eidgia betzey As bss
\ “seawhiy Yo ¥Saeqetq eds aoqs beet “19s
-9=
corporetions and natural persons, it is the duty of Courts to uyhold
and enforce then againat all subsequent encumbrances.' Farmers' ho.
and Trust Co, v. Grape Creek Coal Co,, 50 Fed, Rep. 4813 S. C. 16
L. Re A. 603, ***® It would be exceedingly dangerous to concede to a
Court of Equity the power to displace, in favor of receivers' certifi-
cates, subsisting liens on the property of private corporatiens, or of
individuals. No mortgage lien would ever be secure if it were liable
to be postponed to subsequent obligations created by a receiver,"
In Hanna v. State Trust Co., 70 Fed. 2, the court in discussing
this question said at pp. 5, 7 and 8:
"The precise question in this case is whether a court of chancery
which has appointed a receiver for an insolvent private corporation in
a foreclosure suit brought by a second mortgagee may, against the
objection of the first mortgagee, authorize its receiver to issue
receiver's eertificates to raise money to carry on the business of the
insolvent corporation and to improve its lands, and make such certifi-
cates a first and paramount lien upon the lands covered by the first
wortgage. So far as we are advised, the power to do this has been
denied in every case in which the question has arisen, ***
"In this ease, the company being insolvent, and its property
mortgaged for more than it was worth, there was no way of raising money
to set the receiver up in business, except by the court giving its
obligations, in the form of receiver's certificates, and making them
a paramount lien on all the property of the corporation, by displacing
the appellants' prior liens thereon. As commonly happens in cases of
this character, the receiver, the insolvent corporation, and the junior
mortgagee united in urging the court to arm its receiver with the
desired powers, They ran no risk in so doing. The corporation was
insolvent, and a foreclosure of the prior mortgage would leave the
junior mortgagee without any security; so that it had nothing to lose,.
and everything to gain, in experiments to enhance the value of the
mortgaged property, so long as the cost of those experiments are made a
prior lien thereon. The effect of the proceeding was to burden the
prior mortgagee with the whole cost of the expenditures and experiments
made fer the betterment of the property on the petition, and for the
benefit of the insolvent corporation and the junior mortgagee. bdiatad
"If junior lien ereditors of an insolvent private corporation
could do what has been attempted in this case, every private corporation
operating a sawaill, gristmill, wine, factory, hotel, elevator, irri-
gating ditches, or carrying on any other business pursuit, would speedily
seek the protection of a chancery court and those courts would soon be
condueting the business of all the insolvent private corporations in the
country, If it were once settled that a chancery court, through a
receiver appointed on the petition of a junior mortgagee, could carry
on the business of such insolvent corporation at the risk and expense of
those holding the first or prior liens on the property of the corporation,
such liens would have little or no value.*
It will be recalled that Rahlf, the original trustee under the
trust deed, who was one of the complainants in the suit for the partial
foreclosure of the trust deed, authorized the issuance of plaintiff's
certificate for the cost of the aferesaid remodeling during the |
prosecution of the junior subordinated proceeding, Inasmuch as Rahif,
the ecocomplainant, with Wollenberger & Company, of which he was an
bLoreu ot ag 180%) jo ylub oft et tt ,enorteq Lawitsn, bas, scokian
' ,e2oonetdanone fase pon tire ike parinns most & os
2? wo gle «avi bet Oe ; as ae a
8 oF ebeenes oF avoisgaah Yiae ox od biuow 2: Oc
' Etitaeo ‘arevieoet To tevseil o yeosige th of tewog a eat vilipt fe 3 rs
to 10 ,anoitaneqioos etsving Te yursqota Ae ast any a zedB9
eldstl etow $i tf emose od teve binow meif egsydi0om off, wz Laubbythat
a «tevisoe4s a xa bedseto enott agiido yaaa ot benogseog
‘ é Baad
| h-s spe ee |”)
patsesoath at dumoo edd .S bot OY qo dein oats .¥ autialt at
£8 baw § .t aq da bisa aoltacup aids
yiesmerio to dusoo « tediendw ai eeap aids mt aoldaoup eatoorg ‘ot ;
al goitateqios etaving dnevioenl as 1017 seyhneen ® besdutoggs earl.
ons Jesiiage .Yan segagsuc theta. yoe axd Sctavend gia
aueet oF ssvieoet avi ost
edit to azontesd edd so Ytias oF
-Itiviss dove evan bos ,2zhnal et Saoans ot bis mold stogi109 pee
#axtt odd yd betevoo abusi edt fae oil tapomatag bus veil?» eetao
meed ead elds ob of towod ent aivhs e1a ow an net of JegaRe ton
##*® .noetae aac solsacip els dotdw at eeed Yreve al mane
Yuseqoug edt bas ,tnesvlozat ed Ynaqmon sity .948o go ar”
Yonom giletsi to Ys on esw siT9 dtrow acw tf neat etom tot bese,
ett gaivig tases eds yd dqeoxs q2aeniend ot qu Boom len eid tee ot
maxis bua ,aedsoliidies a'tevieost to oot sit mi yedoltsyiido
gutcaigelb yd Hold s10g709 sit to ysreqeuq edt Lis oo mell Jauousiag s
to scedo mi ameqqed yinommos BA .nostedy wos ach ‘0 einalleqgs ods
aol} edd. bos ,woltaetoqies gusvieant erit Gieoconten edd
edt adiwousvieost atl ms at dapoo rye he nk beg Le» Tom
asw oolisioqies off .gaieb oz at xelr on nat yodt
esij ovael bisow opsgésom toliq edd to simeolost0? »s has © oani
<eovol ot ysidvon ban Jit cadt oe yydlivose ys Jwordstw to Low
edy to enlsv eit sontarine oer ml ytteg oF 3 ‘@ hrs
a ebam 8%s eimemttegxs seeds 209 O88 ,Wisegetg Sysitom
| “esid sebuud o¢ eaw gukbesoomq edt to ¢ ec oeteni ab on
a bis zoustibneqxe edt to sgeoo efor ect Ad tw
nebtiteq aft no ysteqetq eit “to dmeut te yo
2 gh ound telaut edi bas BOLI STOG 199 tnoviowat oat Yo a
Som ew a -
; notte16y 109 etavixug dnovloagt ‘ Font a ne
neifstogrea elsviaug Yieve ,.92s0. 2 Lr. “31 bedguads ood reed a
vwiist yrotavels glejod ,yiosest
oa yas oe
yilssege bluew ,tineimq eeembend IN TIO gaivs3
ed geee bivow ejaweo saodd bus Ry ivszad ae * stouq edt sees
ed at anolisiogios stsviaq sneviogs + Ifa to.ee gattou bao
8 ous ,Jivoo yisenedo 2 ads beisier eomo ot # Py m0
Ytiso bluoo ,scegsgitem i0claul, 6 to moigiveg edd mo bedateqga isviese1
3s Siena a. dott eds ta ee jasvioeat pom ead d edt ao
~Ai0kistogi0. o Yuisqot ot Ms pout tolig aatbhled seeds
‘ eulsv on 36 e siheal ovad bLsow aceti dove
ae wv Eos Se
edt atobous sstemtd pein gi ond Mate sass beLtéoon od ithe #1
| pia mol bia gabqoed
e'tibiatatg to oonauaet arid ponirodsue eboob deumd et w 99%
edt gataub gutieboner biases xi to $20v sid 10's
pei z ows anekt
qtded as domoasnt “.gatbesooxg. botauthvedse: rota, anid 40 10 Ror ey
HH. Yigal? | ee 36.68 0
fis tow ot oda 0 qyraqued # seyredaaitoll
oO att ry oan tet Be,
~LO=
officer, was acting in that proceeding solely for the benefit of
Wollenberger & Company as the holder of the subordinated bonds and
interest coupons, he could not be held to have had authority therein
to bind the holders of the unsubordinated bonds and interest coupons
on the theory that they were guasi parties by representation. (Cody
Trust Company v, Hotel Clayton Company, : 2. rh
ve Lamar Land & Canal Co. et al., 40 Ore. arg 64 Pac. 212; Raht,
Executor et al. v. Attrill et al., 106 N. ¥. 423, 13 Ne BE, 282.)
The trial court in the instant case not only disregarded the
> ES
tatehe EViDES pane
limitation of the order entered in the partial foreclosure proceeding
authorizing the issuance of the receiver's certificate, but xz also
disregarded the provisions of the certificate itself when it decreed
the certificate to be a first lien on the property in question, The
order entered on October 7, 1930, in the junior proceeding, directing
the issuance otf tea certificates, provided that the proposed certifi-
cates “shall and are hereby made a first and prior lien upon the rents,
issues, income and profits hereafter received by the receiver from the
premises and chattels described in the complainant's bill of complaint
filed in the above entitled cause," That order also provided "that
the said Receiver pay the Certificates of Evidence of Indebtedness
issued pursuant hereto from and out of the rents, issues, income and
profits to be derived from the aforesaid premises and chattels when
the same shall be and may be received by seid receiver for and during
a period of two years from the date hereof," The language of the order,
being clear, plain and understandable, was not open to construction.
#he order definitely determined that the certificate should be a lien
on the rents only and that it wes payable by the receiver from rents
received by him during a period of two years commencing with the date
of the entry of said order,
In view of the fact that the certificate itself recites that
it was issued under and by virtue of the authority granted to the
receiver by the order of October 7, 1930, and states that it "is by
virtue of the terms of said order a first and prior lien upon the
“Ol
to ¢Lioned elt a0% yLeloz antheesorg tends of gatios um > ovieen ea
bas abmod bodanthuedue edt Yo asbhLod edt e6 wisqHod. & xoatodae Lot,
aieweds yiivoisue bad evad of bled od son biuoo od _asoysres feovstnt be
amoqued-Jaeeretat bos absod dbevantbaedsanwy ead to erehLod vers baud os
ybed) Hols stnezeiqo7 xd eottisq gap otew yous todd rood ond 0
dos epotye® qemiled rama cuiague® sodyald LoteH .y wagamod desc
aisiall ¢S{S .o98T 40 ,£88 .o70 OF ,-4af2 09 fonad 2 bool somal ox
(S88 5% sM EL —fS* a¥ CR REN Td.
od Sebtogotetd vino ton easo Snetemk exid ak Suwoo Latut ef? do
gittboove7q ouweolos tol isifisq eds at beterne tebi0 orld to notés3 tube
7
oais ak dud ,odsollitiwo at revieset ent to sonsvaet ext -gatsiuediue
it Be tim
beotoeb Jt merw Weett esaolitdres esd to emote vor ould bebuagometb
ed? ,moitesnsp at ysreqong ons fe a gant 8 ed ot etsortivaen eld
puttoorth ,gatbosoong toltsut eit mk OE et: & zedot 90 10 Deasdate ite
~£ivie0 beeogorq sit Sst bebivetg eeoteoltiuso Saat To sonauea et
,etnet eit moqu met tofm bas: gantt 8 obsut vdexort ems bun Lace" “asda
ods mort tevieos: oft yd bevieses. astteoned ai Hoxg bua , enon 20 o
duke las to [Lid ettnsntsiqmos sxlt a bedtuszeb eLevzstto een ot warms 4
duels" bebivoug coals tebxo sagt * bexiso belsténs evods ‘ont mt
aeonboddebak ‘to sousbivi te aedap2tboxdd axis wag sovtooalt a
bas emoont eomuet eets1e% said to tuo one mon? ovened treme berece
‘ery Lestaco bas ese lung biskoteis edd. mort bevited od od ed
aa 2 Y TAKEO
yakib bina tol tevicoor blux yd beviovet od Yam bas 2d ‘Siaiie’ omse ort)
ifeatoup ont Meee
etabto srlz to egsugisl off * toores! oa exit ator’? “exsey on? to botueg 5
Nols ovasenop of meqo tom aaw eldsbastessbaur bas akaky apne qahet.
Mekl Bed bivode eseofitixes orld eed bontasede Let bat tss ebro oat
AGM. RTHLL
admet mort ‘teviooet edt vd oldayeg aw th add bats vino penen, eds =
stab eels 3 tw gatonomios aisey owd ‘to botteg s sata oats 1d boviser:
é acter Hees Sepes
srebx0 bisz to ysiae eds to
evtet the eee ner sOrS
a eet loor Uosdt sdeottti 200 ‘ould dats dont ‘ods to aoe Pi
a vatan habit
ox os boduary ‘w buodue oid te oudbv vd fhe soba ‘henent eaw tL
F meen. te teesh apis “be ene endl
x ak” $1 testd eedste bas Acer, J redei20 to <obe0 ent Aho
: Wakais aed rh eh ARIE. J
ed? moqu nott woking hus seul? = cebus bind ‘to eartes exit poe ell
-Lle
rents, issues, income and profits received by the receiver from the
premises and chattels on the above described premises," it is difficult
to understand the theory upon which the trial court in its deeree not
only revived the expired lien of plaintiff's certificate upon the rents
/ accruing from the property, but enlarged its scope by declaring said
certificate to be a paramount lien upen the property itself to the
detriment and displacement of defendant's interest as the holder of
the fee title acquired through the subsequent complete foreclosure,
which had been prosecuted for the sole benefit of the prior vested
lienholders. As already shown plaintiff's certificate was not nor did
it purport to be a lien on the title to the property in question but
was only a lien on the rents to be colleeted during the receivership
in the junior foreclosure proceeding.
If plaintiff's certificate possesses the superior qualities
which it is now claimed to have, he should have asserted his right to
participate in the proceeds of the sale, amounting to $20,000, under
the subordinate foreclosure decree, This sale was had in August, 1931.
Sinee the order under which the certificate was issued explicitly made
it a lien only upon the rents and provided for its payment by the
receiver out of rents collected by him during the period of two years,
it seems strange that, after the extension of the receivership, plain-
tiff utterly disregarded the receivership proceeding out of which he
might have expected to be paid. fhe receivership was never insolvent,
yet plaintiff did not see fit to assert his claim for the balance due
en his certificate against the receiver at any time, |
Plaintiff received payments on his certificate until the order
extending the receivership was entered November 27, 1931, but he did
nothing thereafter to enforee the lien of said certificate or to
collect the balance now claimed to be due thereon until he instituted
this proceeding on March 24, 1939. We are also at a loss to understand
why plaintiff did not attempt to participate in the proceeds of the
sale held in the complete foreclosure proceeding if his certificate
had the enduring priority now claimed for it instead of now attempting
re
=t-
eat mort teviooet old yd beviese: etiioiqg bas emoont caquens ner
timoltitb ak it ",86a.lmomq bedixsesb eveds eff mo eledtado bas ‘woe huortg
tom set9eb atk ot duoo Latsd edd dotsw toga yvtoesdls ont busderebay ‘os
etdex odd moqu odsottlijxes e'itisntala te etl besigqxd edd ‘bovivet ‘ao.
bise gaekisfoob yd eqooa ast begrsiae dud .xdaeqorq odd moxt grlwroos
ede di tieest ysteqow edt aoqu not jeusometsq s od of ‘odaottitzes
%o tebfodt edt es Feorstat efteabusteb to Sremesarqé tb bas "gitemtaden
.StHeoL90702 ‘oselquod tnesipoedve eld Myuoridt Sextupss eft2 98% dis
bevesy toitq ot ‘to sfieded slog sit tet peduosdorg aang ‘bart doiaw
bib ton Jom esw eteolitiazeo e'ttidatslg oworle vbserls a. -atebLodaotl
dud mottesup ak ytieqo1q edt of oldtt edd mo meti s ed ot droqusg dt
qiderovisoes ons gatiub bodoeifoo ed of ednet edt mo metl s ylao ‘asm
. -antbeosorg eaiuolsexot - aoLast ‘ond at
okd tlasip toktequa edd Reazensoq efacbittzes atistatata <I <a
of defatx etd botieaes evad bluode od .svad of -bamtels, yor ‘et 32 Hokdw
“gobaw .000,08% od gatvavoms ,elsa sii ‘to abesso1q ‘od? ak ‘odaghoss req
“LEeL eengua ai bai ecw bise etd? .ee1esb bizecloot0t Sh dulhuedion yf
ban vstoitaxe beseet aaw staolttireo ext dite zbhos tebi0 edt eoata
~~ estt vd daomysq ett sot bebivory bas eduex od aoqu vine aeit s 2
e2tsey ows to botied edd gutib mid vd bosostloo ainet to dso revisor
~otsiq .qidereviess: edt te Hobeaedxe edt rotts dads conette Ameen dt
od siotsw ‘to’ sso gatbossoxg qidaxevisos1 exis hekiameaeh: yl103 ju Yas
wi 4 epee
ik "ine a
i 5> rr pa Mi
ataevloent TOVER Law gidaievisset ent »bisq ed ot bedoogxe x ovad
{ee eit
-™ eonelad bend q0% misio aid duse2s od i oee ton bib vidiabate ioe
~outd yas” te sevie007 ads deatsss etsolitvzea abt a0
rebx0 ouit itsaus ed solitizeo aid mo adaomysq boviooot “pbthtasa Ac at
“bib ed dud fees 23S todusvoli berstas asw “qhietevisser exis pn
ob os 10 etsolttsre. bisa x0 wet ont sero os “xefteosonis sattdd on
ledubidnak of Lipaw apevenh aah a.nd _bameke wien oumekad GMa
busderebas of ezol s ts oats 1s oF REL ds dori no salboovosg elsld
5 OLY Sah
oxi to abosoorg odd al ‘etagtolizog os ‘quests on bkb “Vildatate ‘iw
Pe has gi ont We he & ot
ef soiiitzes etd 2th saibeooorg euolooze? eveiqnoo ‘ent ry ied elas
arsquetss wont re bastent a me? 2 beatae wort Wtu0t7g * gubouhne add bad
Lojee
\
iat to umaar ally, te yrs Ze
-12=
te attack the title received by the defendant, Chicago City Bank &
Trust Company, from the grantee in the master's deed issued as a
result of the sale held in the complete senior foreclosure proceeding,
In our opinion plaintiff's claim is entirely lacking in merit.
Other points urged have been considered but in the view we take
of this case we deem it unnecessary to discuss them,
For the reasons stated herein the decree of the Circuit court
is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to dismiss
plaintiff's complaint for want of equity,
DECREE REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED
WITH DIRECTIONS,
Friend and Scanlan, JJ., concur,
id
~
AP @
dtes 9 aan wo
is Mis
esata
ta le ie.
_saatbessorg ousmoloe702 solnea osexquos ods al ee § oat ta Soe
- wd pov t efXleowm bus eno &
‘sSnabaoted ed Xd bevtesot sists Sa , oF
OSC Tien ef QL at? se BO rpm Le % ‘
eS ee Demeet, bead eliedesm ed ak oednaty eds mort <vaaguo)
ty
tivem at pablosl vieukins at absio ‘a’Yubdatalg rat
ated: on weay ody fb sud herebleaoo wood oval bogus adaiog tesdt
ees
Meelis. aid i sationeorn wucaloot oteiance
wank tquetin west to Dowd i
ru88
aT
»
ttuonto elt. 20 eunnch.adt abound botata
wert, ;
wavests aasoe bb ot {isezooemnw ok
aOR. serene, Se feears ae Sea
gts te¢et; al? post gas
». spy
, “ 4 ane ‘
i Fas. Saye it “En 4 of ad ay OT got a *
to trmmeaa lees Bak SaphtedeD
ws DOT las en wa)
nome
x
at
& eis a i v 22.2942 0x PSARE 4a a*? BH) te 34 Hx,
3 : sandktl iin 4 + ,
of hal $5 ere S6¥Yan pisen wl -@¥au OF boatate wee at a
PRG ~SO5,089 Ot yaldavoms, ely i ‘lo shessoxg oxttt ad, esaghe
ECL. gltag ai bot 2 ae elu 807904 gtwael seit chanical
ee = ; perth wR
ELV Er he Takw re bs ‘ V bo oe PY Lv "18g ih.7 g totw TOL ae add ¢
a af - ee
| my yd yen af ot bebivewg hus adver ods soqs ¢Lno wohl
Fy & Ht é vrs » i Ty ey Pers) aa nt :
3 el > me: | 4 ‘ ea &! jal » wie gaits! 4 4 jth Jos Lied BIT to ine a 5:
nats ¥ ‘ wear fic * z 4 y
hleiq gtRie«rheses + molaneine aft tatts etatd opaemda i
5, Maan 16 see galbbeunedy Gimaxzevinost eit be beogete th ‘haod
areteys waas SOV Gg. & at ee Stier fees ¥; he > Mo
| naw ghietee bude ehh ‘er od of betougus wwaat
Be Gora fad ms tO2 tials aie fepeas gh ey hos bas Be
Ot ghalo ake feenen od $28 600 dem Bab vi oataky .
cals Yas ts teviooed ad? Senkuge est ties .
is Pas — "| ae ee en eS aes oe i
TRG gH! Aisne eteatiivaes id so sheomese bevicoot Tish
bib ad toed ire a Ie 2 f
ern te 2 bela Weare VW i * Os eRe ? $ hinnewkooet od
ae Se hi Bile: Shee sound re “ is
Oe HS seoliisaee shee oe wees. wid SOs ae ot Os 3.
bed Heistais an Litre monrena enh wi od Cem bets Wat. sone led ody
2 baiay o. >
dnatenpied of eeel« to owls ota Dac «PEUL oi od ro wy
yes es Praag ey >
wit ‘to sboososn gait mt otagt LokP tag. oe dyeedia. 3
a eeign hang ae
ae a Pe,
et i. ae
40712
ARLOUINE PRICE,
Appellee,
ve APPEAL FROM CYRCUIT COURT,
COOK COUNTY.
305 1.4.622
MR. JUSTICE FRIEND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
YELLOW CAB COMPAMY,
a corporation, §
Appellant.
4 ) j
iF )
)
)
)
Arlouine Price, plaintiff, while riding as a passenger
for hire in one of defendant's taxicabs with two other women,
was injured when the cab ran into the concrete foundation of an
electric light post at the entrance to St. Luke's Hospital, in
Chicago. She brought suit of trespass on the case. Trial by
jury resulted in a verdict of $#0,000 in her favor, of which
$10,000 was remitted and judgment was entered for $30,000,
Defendant appealed.
Miss Price was a trained nurse, who had at various times
served at St. Luke's Hospital. At the time of the accident, which
occurred August 27, 1936, she was 36 years of age. Plaintiff
with two other women entered the taxicab at the entrance of St. Luke's
Hospital on Michigan avenue. The cab proceeded westward through the
gates of the hospital, and when it reached within ten feet of the
conerete post in the center of Michigan boulevard, a little to the
south of the hospital entrance, it either stopped or slowed down.
The driver was apparently locking north watching southbound traffic,
and as he turned south the cab collided with the concrete post in
the center of the boulevard. The three passengers were thrown from
their seats. Two of them sustained only minor bruises, but plaintiff
claims to have been throw in such a manner that when the cab
stopped she was found seated on the floor with her knees pressed
against her chest. Apparently there was no damage to the cab,
TAUOO TIVOMTD MORT
| »YTHUOO 2009
Sso ALeos.
«TAU00 GUT YO KOTMILO GHT GUAEVIGSG CUaIM HOLLAyL AM &
fegnezesq s es patht: obidw ,Titintalq .sottt ‘énivéfiad ae,
qitontow vodteo ‘ows iHtby edsotxst e'inebacteb to eno ak ertd 102
is to nots abaso etetonoo slit ojat mst dso edt nedw bemwtat eaw
at ,IsviqeoH e'oaiml .t& of sonstisae edt ta teog dig ht otttoele .
yd isitT .o229 oft mo eesqeotsd to time tdgword ef@ ,ogsokdd
foldw to .tovet tod mt 000,00 to golbrev « at betiveot yt
000,06 tot betedne eaw tnompbut, bus bettiaot esw 000, 018
bolseqqs tashasted
seats asolisv ts har onw ,oemum beantatt s esw solat eel
doldw .inebioos edd to omty edt JA ,LatiqeoH e'sdul .J& ts beviee
Titsnaisl<d ,egs to etaey of eaw otfe ,O€CL ,\S senguA botiv990 7
ateant .3& To eonsttn9 adt te dsolxst ont beretne memow teddo ows diiw
eit dyvouls bicwieew bebsssetg dss ofT .ounsve asgidoll no {a3 tqroli
eis to Jest ned atnitiw besioset Jf now bas .istiqeod ent “to 2oga3
edt of eftsif s ~5taveLliod asagidoll to redmeo edt nk taoq ed oros09
,awob bewole ro beqqote adstie +2 yeosetsme Lettqeod edt to dtnoe
~oltiest baweddtuoe antdotew ditom gottdool elénetsqqa asw soviet edt
mkt t2oq etetonos oft Atiw bebLifoo dso edd dtitoe bonus end as Sais
worl aworwit erew exogmoaesq could eft .bisveluod edd ‘to tedaeo odd
Vitats£e ted ,2eainid tomim yino portisdene modt to owl .adsee ated
dso edd aecw taxis ronsism 9 dose at nwoult mood vad of embsto
bezeerq eoent orl sidtw rool? ent mo betsse bao? esw ade Beqgote
dso odd of egsmeb on esw saods visnorsqgs steedo beget
mee
which backed up immediately inte the driveway of the hospital.
Plaintiff was taken into the examining room in a wheel chair, and
after an examination was put to bed. The examination on admission
shows contusions and abrasions te both knees, possible fracture of
left patella, a bruise on the left forehead, a cub on the right
upper lip, bruises on both elbows, the left knee and the left hip.
She was placed in charge of Dr. Hansen, a member of the staff, who
looked after patients of the Yellow Cab Co. at the hospital.
Plaintiff complained of many pains and aches and specialists
on the staff were called in for examinations in an effort to diagnose
and determine the extent of her injuries, Among these specialists
were Dr. Bdwin W. Ryerson, an orthopedic physician, Dr, Frank Brawley,
a specialist on the eye, Dr, George W. Hall, a neurologist, and
others, Numerous X-ray pictures were taken by Dr. BE, L. Jenkinson,
the roentgenologist of st. Luke's Hospital, and remedial measures
were adopted to take care of the superficial bruises. Among plain-
tiff's early complaints was an injury to her neck, X-ray pictures
were taken and she was treated for this injury. After some five or
six weeks she left the hospital on October 8, 1936, and mumerous
witnesses testified that she walked out at the end of her treatment
without any indication of a limp. It was conceded on oral argument
that her minor injuries, cuts and bruises, had disappeared at the
time she left the hospital in October, 1936. It subsequently
developed, however, that an injury to the left sacroiliac joint was
the one upon which greatest emphasis was laid upon the trial, and
voluminous testimony was received with reference to the nature and
extent thereof,
After plaintiff left the hospital the first time she returned
to the place where she resided in Chicago, and while there applied
home remedies, such as a heating pad on her head and neck, hot showers,
and sodium for an upset stomach, ‘After she had been home for about
two weeks she called Dr. W, J. Jeffries, who had never treated her
aoe
eLstiqeod sdji to yswoviab edd otnt yLedatbemmt qu beaosd doldw
bas ,itedo Loodw s at moot gthabnase ext odat nevet eaw ttidatslt
noleetmbs oo molientusxe eiT ,bed oF Jmq eew on dor a fia reS'ts
to omsosTt eldteeoq .2sem! dtod of anoleatds ‘feta anohemtae9 aworle
Seigtt oid = mo 2 ebsodetet ttel ants £10 coheed 6 ‘yslfotag Piel
~Gid Stel edt bas peat Stel odd ,ewodLe dtod ao eon ond Gk teqqu
odw _Tkate ecit to -teduom 6 qieensh .1 to ogtasio ot beoslq sew oie
-Lattqaod sit de .0D ded wolls¥ ent to atnetteq 10ste bexool
etetLatoocge bos eeos bas entay yism te Sentslquos VLidataLld
— eeorgelh of Jiolle as at enolsanimexe tot ak hollss eiow Tiete, edd s0
asatfelooge seeds gnona .aeliuint ted to taedxe odd entumedeb bas
eVeiverf dnetl .tG .aoloteyig olbeqedtue as yaoetsyfi .W atwhi .10 exow
bas weigolorion s lal. eyxced , a .eye odd mo Setlatoegn s
wioanbinst .4 2. yd aekad stow gous obg Yer-X anotomdl,. «erode
soummsom Lalbeney bas ,fatiqaoll.2'esd te 19 detgolonegiases ait
~misiq goomA .esetsad Istottisque efit to siso edad ot betqobs oxew
aeuwolg Yst~X .2oen red ot Ywhal ne esw adatelauog yiaso e'2tht
10 Ovit omoe roth <Kuuhab elds a0? bodaesd, eaw erie: has: aeslst one
esoromin das ECL .8 tedod00 no Lattqeos arid, ¢20L ede, loom ate
| ¢asstects tod to bas edd ts tuo beallew ede dat botitiees esezomhitw
Snomugis fat0 ne bebsomeo asw di ,qmil s te solssoibat yas duoddtw
ais 32 hetscqusadh bar yeseluad bas edo yeetwtab conte tod dart
Viineupsadue JI ,O€OL gtsdos00 at Letkqeon est diel one ombs
asw gato, satliorese diel edd of Yutat as dacid ,tevewod 4begeLeveb
bas .labay edd coq bial sew stasdque taetsoug siotdn sous eno exit
bis even elt of eoneistet Adby beviesex cow ynomitaed) Spee
bonmustex eile ents tans add iaitapialie oad dot sitvntale Bet my hot
betiqqs etedt eftdw bas ,ogsoldd ai bebleex arta, axodn soake oid 9
«2T9worle Jod .xoon bus bse ted oo beg gattsed « as sieve. <eohbonet emod
duods 103 omod seed bad eda tedts \.dosmote deeqn ne toh mthor bas
gol betsets toven bad ow .eetrttol .b WH 20 beliso erfe exoow ows ; M
Rot: fedah
=Je |
before, She went out for meals, and testified that shesufffered
from dizziness and pain and had some difficulty in controlling her
legs, which “kept jerking". On one of Dr. Jeffries' visits, Dr,
Hansen also hanpemed te call om her. He had no knowledge that Dr.
Jeffries had been consulted, The two physicians suggested that
she return to the hospital, The clinical history of the hospital,
prepared by an interne, indicates that the patient returned with
the same complaints she had on her previous visit, namely, nausea,
eccasional vomiting, headache, dizzy spells and diarrhea, On the
second visit she also complained of pain in the back and severe
itching in her left foot and leg. Various types of treatment were
applied, including ice bag, infra-red lamp, alcohol rubs, and medicine
for extreme restlessness, She left the hospital on December 22, fairly
comfortable and considerably improved,
Plaintiff entered the hospital for the third time in May, 1937,
and remained some three or four weeks, She entered the hospital with a
limp on her left side, and complained of pains in her back, Laboratory
tests were made and traction was applied on her hip. The hospital
records indicate that although she was quite uncomfortable because of
the traction weights, she rested more easily as time elapsed, slept
better, but still complained of pain in her back.
Beeause of some thickening in the sacroiliac joint, as shown
by X-rays, it was important to ascertain whether or not plaintiff
“nha ever had any infective diseases which might produce a thickening
of the joint. By agreement of counsel the records of another stay
in St. Luke's Hospital, in February, 1931, were introduced in evidence,
They show that she then suffered from incipient pulmonary tuberculosis
and hypothyroidism. The records further show that she had a fever
for two years, running to approximately 100° every afternoon, a white
blood count of 15,000 for a year, as against a normal of 9,000, that
she had had blood and gray matter in the sputum, repeated attacks
of “flu", complicated with pleurisy, diarrhea from four to five years,
night sweats for a period of six months, repeated nasal hemorrhage,
“a.
poteTYiwe ode gadd bokitvees bus ,elssm tot Jvo fmow of@ ,otoTed
mod yatfforinos mt ysLvolt2th smoe bad bas ateq bas eeentssth mort
.ot yettety ‘eotrttet .a0 to emo m0 ."gabluot dqoxu” Motdw eget
0 Feild ogbelwont of bad oH xed mo Ifed of bonoqqant eels neensH
falid Beteoggile ensloteydq owd ea .bodLvenoo moot bed eolrrret
~tottavod ond Yo Yrotetd Iectntfo edt .Letiqeod edd of muster bile
ddiw bentite1 imekteq edt tet ebdsotbat yonredmt ma yt bersqezq
,scenen .Yiomsa .ttetv’ evotverq wert ao bad este atatetquos omse ont
of 0 sedtisth bas alfeqe ysxtb .edosbsed git lmdv Ienotesooo
eevee bis doad odd at ats¢ to bektslqmos ols ede dtetv baodee
“ptew Jnemssstd to eeqys avolicY .gol bus doot Stel tod Mt gatiieds
‘eritotben bas ,adu1 Ionfools Gul borsrtat .ysd est gatbulont ebotlaqqs
_Lttst ,SS Yedmeced ho LevEqeod edd Hol of® VaeenctoLdze1 ombudxe 702
-bevorqat yYidetebtenos bas olds totes
eVEQL gysll al emtd Srtdd odd aot Isttqeod edd beredae Mitatety ~° ”*
a dite Iedtqeor oft bevetas ed@ .exoow wot 10 ced emoa Bentamer bas
yuessiedel ,iosd toil ai entsq to besttsfqmos bas oble Her tod mo qinks
" {etigeod ont qin tec mo bekiags esw moltostd Bas obam ovew adeed
Yo sevsced efdetxotmosay eFtup aaw eee Hyworldis dan? et¢solsat ebiboe7
tqele ,beeqelo ould 26 yIkese exon beteor ora w2tiytow mottos ais
wdoed tod at ats¢ Yo bentetqnos Ithve dad, de¥¥ed
awode es ,tntot ostltorsse eit mi ydinexobds* emoe Yo ocussed
Yiitntste tom to ‘teddosw ntadreses oF Fredroqmt eaw tt eyet-X 4
aninexoldt s eowborg difgla Hotdy eeenoath evEtootat yas pad tove bad
ysie tetldons ‘to abtese1 ond Leenves to tiemeotgs YE .tatot edd to
.sonabive rit beowborwnt erew I€el .yisiade't at lod hqaoH e' ead 92" at )
eteoluoreds VisHonlvy tnetgtont mort boretiwe medi odé Jedd woe Yen
“‘wevet s bad ed@ Sadd wore tedden? eBreost edt vim thbowetsoqyd bas
otidw s toonreds t3 yIeve “O00 ‘yet sutxomqqs ot gatant (etsoy ows ais
gadt .000(@ to Tsuton s Jentsgs 22 .t88y 8 tot ‘000.28 to sabes boold
ailosdts botseqet ymusduqe edd mt tedfak xorg bas boold baif ‘bast eife
.azsey Ovit oF awot mot? serrtskD ~yetsbery dtiw bedsdbrqmoo "eI Yo
tin mtlmimeawnaA OP aman treme cee nites webhee Gem Butea o wee ates te a
= J
"i
J
4
whan
cough, general body aches, gastro-intestinal upsets, soreness across
the chest, and shortness of breath, Examination of her stool showed
some streptococcus, and a basal metabolism examination at that time
showed hypothyroidism to an alarming extent. Defendant argues that
these multiple ailments in 1931 indicate infection which might have
accounted for the thickening in the sacroiliac joints. Plaintiff, on
the other hand, insists that she had recovered from these ailments,
and during the years imuediately preceding the injury was completely
recovered so that she was able to play tennis, ride horseback and
indulge in other forms of exercise,
some of the specialists who were called in to attend plaintiff
to administer to her complaints were unable to diagnose them as serious
ailments, She complained of double vision, but Dr. Brawley, an eye
specialist, whe was senior attending eye surgeon at St. Luke's Hospital,
found no injury to the eye, no double vision and nothing except ordinary
refractive errors which age brings on and glasses correct. Dr. George
W. Hall, senior neurologist and physchiatrist at St. Luke's Hospital,
made an examination, but kept no notes and had no recollection of his
attendance on plaintiff, Dr. Edwin W,. Ryerson had her in his care in
October, 1936, and examined her carefully. She made complaints of her
abdomen, but he could find no basis therefor, He did find that there
was no rigidity of the muscles of the spine, as commonly found after
injury or disease in the spinal column, Her knee and hip joints were
free and movable, and he concluded that there was no definite injury
to either the knee or the hip. Upon his examination of the X-rays
he was unable to find any signs of injury to the sacroiliac joint.
There was no muscle spasticity in the back. She returned to him for
examination the following year, and his conclusions were the same,
In December, 1937, plaintiff saw Dr. Chaloupka, who referred
her to Dr, Daniel H. Leventhal, Dr. Chaloupka was not called as a
witness, but Dr. Leventhal, who examined her thoroughly, testified upon
the hearing. Dr, Leventhal is an orthopedic surgeon and assistant
professor in that branch of medicine at the University of Illinois
po
BzoIve enzonetoe ,etioequ isatisstal-owesg ,2o0l0s yYbod Istemeg .dgeo
bewode Loote tod to moktantusxD sitaeid to 22emdtorle, bas ,seedo eds
outs tedt go molvenineme metlodatjem [eesd s bas ,epooesetqeus2 eape
sadt eengis ¢asbaoted .Jinetxs gatmrels as ot mibloruiteqyl bewoda
oved tdgin dotdw molsoetat otsotbat L60f mt atusmils sigtsiiumogens
no ,Ytbimiel’ .eéatet ostLtetose ead at gatnedoidd edt set betayoons
qatusulte eaodt mort bowsvosen Dect esle taedt edetent ,baad sodto.edt
iledelquoo aaw Yuhat edt gatbooorg Wotstbeumt exsey end. yatawb bas
_ bae dosdsezod obta ,ekaned yslq of olde 2aw. ode Jedd oe botevooet
,eetonexo Yo amzot teddo mt. egisbut
tiltsaleiq Bastta o¢ at befiso exew odw asetiatooqs. eds Io Sme8y Lnodoe
avoiiea es medt szongsib od sidany stew stutel(quon aed) od todetatabs: ot
eye os ,yelwetd .10 ted wwotelv elduob te bonisiqaoo ed@: ,etasalisa
eisdigeoH etouml .34 ds moegiwe sy® galbnedte 10lmee caw odw qdetistooge
vyisatbio tqooxe gnidton bas nolety eidmob om 4sys edt oF yusjat om bawet
@gtoeD .1@ .toonrrom eezesly bas mo agniad oye soldw exose ovitosrtet
eistiqeoH a'saml .t& te teiuisidoaywic bas te ltgoLoiven soimes 4lish,.V
aid to sokteelleset on bad bas sevon on tqed tud ynottentaexe os, ebsm
nt e1s9 aid ai tod Sad sogtoyl .W atwhd «wd ., Wiitaielq.no eonsbpedss
sod to adnislqmos sban off ._¥Lintorso ted beotmexe bas ,d@l qxedoteo
etedt isd bait S£b of .xoletedt etead om batt, bison on. dud. .aomobds
watts bavot _Lnommes es yoatge exit To eeloesm edd YoY Rbbgtz:om eew
-etew etuitot qic bas ees teoH amwloo Leniqe edd mi eeasekb 10 yuttat
ywwial etiniieb en esw evens Jedd bebuLones of bas ,yeldsvom bus sett
«&XeI-K edt to selisainexe abd moql., ,qhd ond no: spa ont todd to od
state, salltemose edd ot yuwbal to eagte yas batt ot efdenm esw. ost
Moh mid of Senses ed& ,#osd ost at ys totieeqe: eloeum om esy etedt
ee
bearstet ostw emiquoLasio «Md wae tiiiatelq 4JEeL ,zedmepeG logy hes mi jl
8 85, belles Sou esw slquolai® .xG. ,Ledimeved. .H Lotead om od aed ’
noqu botitiees .(idgwotods ter bentusxe onw .Laritneved xd ted qanentiw '
tasdetees bes soogwe oibegodiio as et Leddasvel sf eutiseegpienaidl :
“ghontil to YWlarevial! est) ts, entotbem ‘to donend, tart xt, com
Pa eee Pe saps
aed
and attending orthopedic surgeon at Michael Reese and Cook county
hespitals, His examination was thorough and was reduced to writing,
The conclusion reached by him was that plaintiff was suffering from
hysteria or was malingering. A subsequent examination of plaintiff
was made by Dr, Paul 5. tlagmuson, a specialist in bone surgery, who
was on the faculty of Northwestern University end attending surgeon
at Passavant Hospital. He was called as a witness on behalf of plain-
tiff and was the only one of the several specialists who found an
injury to the sacroiliac joint and attributed the arthritis of which
plaintiff complained to the injury. Dr. Magnuson said that where
infectious disease caused joint inflammation, that usually is general
in character, and not localized, and that, "if she had any infection
in her system back in 1931, that was going to affect her joints, it
would have affected them before 1936." He also said that the condition
could be cured by a fusion or bone-welding operation, which, if success=
ful, would free the plaintiff from pain and eliminate the limp which she
acquired in walking. At the conclusion of his testimony, the court
requested the jury to withdraw from the court room, and out of its
presence made the following statement: "The Court: The jury being
out, do either of you want this woman to walk across the room?"
Defendant's counsel replied that he would like to have Dr. Magnuson
see her walk, and she accordingly walked up and down in the court room,
The jury was then recalled, and Mr. Ryan, counsel for plaintiff, then
said: "I would like to ask the doctor a question, In the light of
what has occurred," Dr, Magnuson resumed the stand in the presence
of the jury and plaintiff's counsel continued: "Dr. Magnuson, at
the request of court or counsel, the plaintiff walked from where she
is sitting over to the bench and back twice, in your presence and
under your observation, Is that correct? A. That is right. Q.
Have you any comments to make on it, Doctor, that would enlighten the
jury, as to whether that walk is assumed or not, or natural under the
circumstances? A, It looks to me, ir, Ryan, in this form, as though
it was exaggerated and assumed,"
~~
Yaw i009 bas 920ef LeadotM ta moog the ‘stheqoddto gatbiedse faa”
-gaks iow ot beoubex ecw bas diguoxodd acw nottantmsxe att’ “ eladiqeort
m0? patte ‘we 2aw Vitatelq fads eaw ated yd bedosst Abteutonos SH?”
Yidabsle ‘Yo wold antmsxe Snoupeadue A .gebvopatten eaw 40 aixedeyH”
oxi sVr9s wa entod at deLLstoogs “. qaoasgall .& inet , ott yd obea Baw
noog ue patbasdts bas vi levovint arosaowitisoit t0 ‘ysttost ext ‘no aBw’
~atalq to YUsded no aneativ s te beliss sev ot Istiqeetl diavaeest $e
18 basso’ ost adetiotosge Tetevee elt to ano ylno edt esw bos Ttbd
dotdw to attiuditis edt hetudtads has satel ostitoxssd ed?" oF YaNERE
oteriw gait bise noe uagall xd wtal edd of bontslgmod trHntate
Leteney et Vitesen tact word sums tnt jnkot beessd asdelb thotsootat
noktoo tnd wis, bat ode 1 cad bas opti 8 sont ‘bus ,totostsds at
Fa: eeiaiol tod tootts of sates ‘eaw at ; at aad ‘meted ret aE
motthbaos edd tald bise oals ok ™ det on Ne edocs oval Bie
~eg009ue ub aisha lott steqo sabblow-enod 0 ‘not vt ‘s yd Bows od hives
ene doddw ant, od staatatlc bas abeg mort Yivathiq ond 8éet bidow’ [ht
tuusoo ons <yaouts es ald ‘te aotexLoneo odd $k Ot tae is sbiilipel
edt 20 Ju bas ,Moot ‘Jauoo ‘edt “mo wathdd bw “od eu! edt beteonpet
ated yaut, eiT sduw0d ont” idmemed st “yatioLlot etd oben eoreterq
i "mmo eds e20tos aALaw m3 resto ahay Saw" boy ‘%6 nertte: ob tivo
“speuurg ai Wl ved ot etl Line ta el potiqer Teenvos at tnsbaeted
KOO sos ects at awob bas ‘qu bediew Yyatbroob0 exe bas Lis alt ats
eats sTiivatele 10% Leemuoo isl cit Bes ebotfade' netty eaw eat est
to deg hl exit al soLseoup 8 ‘tos o0b ‘odd wes of bart Brvow' I’ tke
someaetg ‘edd al "beads ont bomueor mowigall e " bexttiono ean tertw
ts sto nsnrgal 70" tbeumt3aos Leen erYibiately bes ‘eit ‘edt “to
ere eros wort boilisu ‘‘ifiniole ‘eats ‘@Leeives | “to daut09 “to geevper eiis
peat somseerg “IO at ‘eoobwd oor bis domed edd of teve gatitte ‘et
0 digit al tadt “A “Gioortos ‘Fails et *- adherend “quOY Tebrus
edt nodighlas bLuow dass Rocce dt do Satan “od ajnemmoo Yas voy oval
‘edd tebas Lautan 70 vor 10 ‘boawees et araw gait reddertw od 28 ‘ea
signed as amHOR etd at a al on od ailook 4? 2 caaSdipdiyetts —
4 er ‘iis badavbanaee’ a2 i
Pas |
~one
Of course, oll tide evidence, ehich ix quite yolmiacus end
oueaples seme 1,200 gages of the record, was sumaltesd te the gery.
TS paszed upon the conclusions of or, Leventhal with referemee te
hysteria er silingering, upon the testieomy of ie, Trewley, Dr.
Ryereon, Dr, Hameem end others,
The eale points presented as grows for reveral arc thet the
aendfest weight of the evidenes is against damages im the augaxt of
GP gS, teat the verdict is excessive, thet 16 was produced by passion
ami prajudies, coused by donenstrations of soving ond byxteria made
the damage, “@ have carefully examined the reveri, which ia replete with
-snedlansts, ite caasteaals amped abe wee in the hospital on
tres taents sidhltty a# WGLL &s the cetaihed evicenee of the various
mesice] witnesses who testified on the hearing. ‘Kile 1% eppours te
ws that plaintiff’ unqiostionebly sustained sewers injorivs in the
aveldsnt, we have reached the senclusion that the uonifert weight ef
the ovidemee iz ageinst damages im the aswumt fer whieh judgaent was
entered, “hide we realize tlt it fe diffieuls te fix the specific
ancunt of damsges sustained by plaintiff, we believe that a further
realttiiter of 025,000 would ofairly represent compensation fer
injaries sustained by her. Therefore, if pleiniify will file in thds
eoart within thirty days hor consent to « further rewittitur ef (15,000,
Sudgment will be entered bere in her fever Por $15,000; otiwridac, the
jeégeent wLLl be reversed smi cause regended to the Cireait court «ith
dircetiens te retry the eeuse om the sole isstte of the question of
ee Le)
oiuoe : oe ABD a eee 3s
PLAINTIPY UPQh See Tee oF B aloes O50 BEING
PILeD I HIE COURT IN YSIRTY GAYS BY PL Les
: CAUSE ReaD 2
» OTANANIS9 Jadu SED ARD
anauls couRe peor sugtrons to AETRY GAUGES Of
bale LosgE OF eas GOESTEAN GF muna
Sullivan, P. 34, oud Geamlan, J,, concur,
qi
$3 ouitto gu thites ts or
fas sumakandey winp at folie yoanebive abi? Lls geqnwes 20. .
Fee lb of inst on gewors td 20 eaneg, Oe. Samsonite
ad omaviner Mite Ladtorved ow Ve ampianteswe adi seqe bereag 91
ree i nae 1 10 Woomlsens oot ogy yubregalion go abe ow
RS ete MOR A, gamemeNEE
| Rid aads oh Leosovon at bawony a4 Hetaraene atatog lee at valty Pi
Me Satna wl GL somamab Saatoye at coandsve adi Yo Ieytow Sas'hts
aotsast wi Bavaibong act $2 ditt yovincoane 6& tolbuww ait Jui? hg OE
stun abragoyt bas gadsdon Yo aametexdenonad yO Beas etorg tea
‘eth its AW an 8 Cerne aR sae
tide etabiges v2 sMetide gitover oly Lonbaae il
i’ bit tata tar ae’ obi Yabiing alt 0 ener
__ So iin at tea shine gah a
id ak aobwhat oneras |
2e diighow gactbnes ods va ae
nov dmmityhet dptde oat tauews Ody HL ogi
sneer cat ML te LT big
ee ee ee ee ey hectbecy at y os
wane ie W eseatiacotael athena techy Lee.
oenias ta Pepe te 326 ? 2 ay
’ fe eyiet et ae + ig 82 aie, Bef 7: s mote
ad & h ees wt ey vga SA
dan . ’ Le ts Gi gta 5 i @ *e bd ou BAGO he 9 cs
Saget p
8 ,bouraae bits i 8
40736
FANNIE G, ANDERSON,
Appeflee,
fROM SUPERIOR COURT,
* COOK COUNTY.
Ve
THE TRUST COMPANY OM CHICAGO,
@ corporation,
Appellant.
305 1.4.623
MR, JUSTICE FRIEND DELIVERED THE CPINION GF THE COURT,
September 23, 1925, plaintiff entered into written articles
of agreement with H. 0. Stone & Co. for the purchase of a subdivided
lot in Cook county for which she undertook to pay the sum of $1,200
in installments of $13 each month, Payments of principal made to
H. O. Stone & Co., up to August 30, 1929, in addition to monthly
interest payments on the balance remaining due from time to time,
as well as the payment of all assessments and real estate taxes in
accordance with the terms of her agreement, reduced the purchase
price to a balance of $453.
May 5, 1929, Stone & Co. assigned the contract to Chicago
Trust Company as trustee under a so-called declaration of trust,
together with other contracts for the purchase of subdivided lots,
for the benefit of certain bondholders and for the uses therein
specified, Under this declaration of trust it was provided, among
other things, that the trustee would hold for the benefit of all
beneficiaries, of whom plaintiff was one, certain real estate which
the trustee agreed to manage and operate as a going liquidating real
estate business, and in which the trustee was designated to be the
legal and beneficial owmer in fee simple. The trust agreement provie
ded that any contract purchaser might obtain a deed from the trustee
upon complying with all the terms of his contract, and that all
collections under the contracts should be made by the trustee,
Subsequently, the Central Republic Bank & Trust Co, succeeded,
aE Tor
aH
seh a
«THUGD MOTANGUE MoME IARI
#XTHUO9 HOGD.
, ODADTHO Q YuAqMoo TeUat SHT
25 AI d0g ¢ mH ere
THUG BET 76 UGIMIGO AAT GEHAVLISG QUAIAT BOITSUL . aM
aeloives nottiww ont beredms Vivatslq <Rset 8 redaodqe8_ ay ae
bobivibdye s to segdouwg arid <0 0d & emote 8 4H dw saomoengs i
008,.£2 to me elt ysq of foot rebsus ode tio tw 20% ywaweo x00 at ton,
of obsm Isqtonizaq 6 at nemysd itnom slose eae Yo etaemiist eat pe
yidinom ot stolstbba at ,@SQL .0€ JemywA of qs pry 2 enod oO rae
,ouid ot emtd mort exh patatemet oonsisd edd m0 adnenyeg deomgat
ak ecxsd otatae fs01 bas adneme2oees Lis Yo dmeuysg aid 2s Ifew as _
exaniouwg only beoubet .tnemeotgs ten ‘to eared only ag tw eodsbtoo0s _
Rate xo eonsiad sod eotig. .
ogsotdo ot soandaoo ead bengicas 20D 2 enose .@SOl .¢ ysl tesleune
ana 0 molistsloeb Deifss-oa @ tebay eojenis as Yisqmod) Jewil _
wetol bebivibdwa to easdomug eft tot atoautsaog edge sid tw wodtegot
“gtotedd seen odd rot bas asebledbaed aisjise to iiiensd ond t0%
gioms ,bebtvorq esw ti teuit to moltersieob elds reba beliteosga
fis to sioened oft 10% blod bluow est]anss edi Jad, eognttsls tedto
dotdw edsteo Lse1 mtagzes ,eno 2ew Yttatalg mortw to ,aobistoktened
feet gatisbluptt gatos s as sigieqo bas system of bootgs cotenis edd
eds od of botangizebh esw ostensd ont doldy mt bas eceeniend etsseo —
~tvorg tnsmeoigs Jewitt eff ,olgmts est at oso feloftiened bas {sgel
seteuxt oft mort beeb s alsido Jagka aoe adouig sosidaos Nats dedld beb
Ile Sadt bas ,tobttaoo etd to amit oxy fis sit.bw satytqmos aogs wt
cotesit edd yd obam od piwode eshauthes edd soba waist” .
sbsheeosna .0D dautl & Amsd ollduqeh Ievwined edd .y¥ltnenpezdue
ae
by consolidation, to all the rights, obligations and duties of the
Chicago Trust Company, and a legal decree entered in the consolidation
proceeding provided that “any company into which the trustee may be
merged shall be the successor trustee under this indenture, without the
execution of any paper." In order to determine the extent of its powers
relative to the contracts imeluded in the trust, the Central Republic —
Bank secured an order or decree of court vesting it with power to demand
and receive payments on contracts, modify the terms thereof and to
employ agents to perform these various duties, and the decree at the
same time approved an agreement between the Central Hepublic Bank as
trustee and Chicago Title & Trust Co, whereby the latter was engaged
as the agent of the former to perform these duties,
‘December 29, 1933, the present defendant, Trust Company of
Chicago, acquired title to the lot in question by quitclaim deed from
the Central Hepublic Bank, and on the same day, by an instrument in
writing, accepted appointment as successor trustee and acquired the
rights, powers and duties which had inured to its predecessor. January
1, 1934, defendant entered into a contract with Chicago Realty Finance
Company, engaging it as agent with power to demand and receive all pay~
ments of principal and interest due under the pledged contracts, in-
cluding plaintiff's, to serve notices of forfeiture, institute suits
in the name of the Trust Company of Chicago, to enforce and collect
payments under the contracts, and to reinstate, alter or modify them;
and defendant secured the court's confirmation as to its right under
the trust to enter into that agreement with Chicago Realty Finance
Company, After plaintiff had made the substantial payments heretofore
enumerated to H, 0. Stone & Go. she continued to make payments to
Chicago Title & Trust Company, as agent for the Central Republic Bank,
and to Chicago Realty Finance Co., as agent for the Trust Company of
Chicago, as successor in trust. From January 1, 1934, to and ineluding
February 18, 1937, plaintiff made payments regularly to Chicago Realty
Finanee Company, reducing the contract balance to $299.16. After
edi to estind bus enmoltisagiide ,atdyii end Ife of ,nokssbiLozenos yd
motisbiloanes edd ak beretme serpeb Iegol s bis ,Yyasqmod sJemtT ogsoltdd
ed yau eotenuis eid dolsiw ofnt yisqseo yis” Jedd bebivoig yiibessozg
eid suoddiw ,ewiaebat atdt i9bas eedesit tozzssoue oxid od, {fais begrem
erowog ast to daedxe. edd entuieded et tebto al * teqsq Wis to mottuoexe
oliduqeh.LetineD edt taut edd at bobugoqtt etositnoo edt os vibelenasicl
Bresieh of rswoq diiw wi guatieev yasoo to aerseb 10 tebto SS. boar
ot bus toereds eatet old Yttbon .etoetsa0d no etaonysq evisoot bas
eis ta cotoeh eit bas ,esiipb avolisv eacd) miolieg ot adnogs yolqmase
8a _ oLidaqes isaao9 edd seswied Smemesigs as bevoigges amt onse
bosapas. asw tetdel edt ydereciw .0D Fenal’ # els2T ogs0 td bas sstenit
~2eisuh exert mrotseq. ot Yomtot ent to dogs bit es
Yo. yasqmed geut ,Jnabasteb Joe ord ‘edd OL (OS edinbset OO!
moxt beeb mislod tip <a Hots eesp sit $oF odd od est2 ‘bevtthipon ° cogenidd
at dnomisant as yd ,Ysb ‘emse ‘odd ad bos’ (giasd otidayet Lown? edt
‘exis bethupos bas ) bus setautt coceeooue as suomatoyds Bedysood yatetaw
Yashash storzvoeborq att of beast bed dotdw estyn’ ‘bas etowoq (edrfats
eonenti yisel ossoid® détw dosidiios a osaik betedns dnebasted MEOL gL
~taq Lis eviscet has baameb of rewoq dibw ‘duoge es Sf gatgegts Cymaqmoo
oak eedoatta09 beybelq edd tebaw eth teete3nt Bas fagkonitq Yo etmom
ad ise odud treat (suit Leto? to avotion eviee of .a'vittmtst gibbelo
$eeLLoo bas eoroine of ,ogsoidd to waged ger? ody to oman eitt at.
qmectd Vitbos x0 media wodetenter of bas .edostimos ony tebe edhemysg —
sobor ‘tigbs ati od 2a mottamitinos eToued Sat pedsoe drtabxoteb bas
sonsntt uilsos ogsoLdd détw tnomeetgs ‘Sed? otnk reine oF sen ons.
exoloy ones adnoansd letinetedua eid obaii bat ‘Yiteatard ‘rerta © ’ WatsqateD
os adnemysg ‘edem of bemmisaoo ecte +09 B aitose Ah i oF ‘bod stemuse
7 east okidugesi Lexiusd edd sot dnege 2s ,Yasqmod tase Ss efytt ‘ogsbtdo me!
Yo Yuaquied Yawxt edd tot Ydogs as 4109 ednantt Ysisefoasdtdd Sy bas
gatbulont bus of ohker ef Visuast Mort stent at ‘soedecdse es” er
ytisel ogsotdd of ‘<icabased adneays¢ Sham Littinketd eet” “6L Yt 3 rue
“aesta hers od obasfed testtaos odd gittoubor | ei eons
wa a titneny ee cask,
-3-
February 18, 1937, she made payments direct to defendant,
In the fall of 1935, while plaintiff was making payments to
Chicago Realty Finance Company, Fred Adams, its vice-president,
suggested that if she would pay up her contract in full, he would
waive the interest and give her a deed. She was unable to do this,
however, and Adams then told her that if she would continue to make
her monthly payments, a deed would ultimately issue, Accordingly,
from April 7, 1937, to January 26, 1938, plaintiff continued to make
payments direct to the Trust Company of Chicago, defendant, and July
10, 1938, she tendered to defendant the unpaid balanee due on her con-
tract and demanded a deed. Defendant refused to make the conveyance,
it having developed that it had previously conveyed the property to
one Bruno Drake, and thereupon plaintiff filed suit August 24, 1938, to
recover all the payments made by her to H. G. Stone & Co, and the
various assignees. firial by the court without a jury resulted in a
finding and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $3,049, from which
defendant appeals,
As the principal ground for reversal it is urged that the
assignment of a contract for the sale of land does not impose a personal
liability upon the assignee in the absence of an express agreement to
assume the obligation, especially where the assignment is for security.
Numerous cases are cited by defendant in support of this proposition,
but in mone of them do we find a situation where the assignee has
promised to carry out the contract or where, as here, the property
has been conveyed so that the contract could not be carried out, When
on May 5, 1929, Stone & Company assigned plaintiff's contract to Chicago
Trust Company, as trustee, the written assignment which was contained in
the so-called declaration of trust recited that H. 0. Stone & Co, “does
hereby convey, grant, bargain, sell, assign, transfer and deliver unto
Chicago Trust Company, as trustee, all the following contracts," listing
plaintiff's agreement, "to have and to hold said contracts unto said
trustee and to its successors for the benefit of the bondholders and
for the uses of the trusts hereinafter stated." One of the articles of
6, | “See
,dashaotob of sootth avmenysq obat énfe (SECL (OL ytdwidet
ot ataonysq guide asw YitdatsLq elise (zeel To Lot eit at
imoblesuqeookv att gemebA bow yrisqmod consnt't wise ogsotdio
biyow ef .Lint af toswmoo vert qu yeq binow effe I said bet eoyye
yeitit ob ot eldau saw ef@ Boob » sail oviy bas sesretnt edd Svitew
aan eeny Tee sted blot stedd eatebA bus tevewos
.. gXigmihras08 ovat yledamttly biivow boob s (etmentyatt’ Ulittnon “ted
ovent'od bermisdnoo Yiksthelq .BECL ,WS Yratinsd oF VEL .F Clack mort
Vint, bas yiasbaoteh ,oyadkfd Yo yusqaod Jest ott of toerbh’ avmemyeq
—09 ted mo eub eomsisd bieqay edd tuabas'teb of betobmed ene .8¢ ef LOL
ot ysxeqorg odd beysvace YLewokverq bet Ft tads boqoteveb yatvad dt
of BERL gAS denguA tive beLIt Tiidatsl¢ moqwevedd hue jest ond eno
edit bas .0D 2 emote ,O .H od rest yd obam Bdmoneq edt Lie Aevode7
& mt bediness yt o Juoddiw gawoo end yo Late? .esengtees euolttsv
doldw govt .Q60,@ to mua edt mt haere Poesben eA Bas gathat?
sh toRL ade porsaet bat As | -seLéged \gaabaeten
otit dado begay af SL Ieavever cot Savory Leqtontiy edd eas ©
Ignoeteg s seoqat Jon 2scb biel to else dd tot ddersaed oto snomityldes
od dnomesujs seorqxe ms to coneeds end al osagtees edd Hoqn yittdsir
Vttwvese 10t ef ineomagiess oft otefw YI Latosqeo woidegifee odF omtieds
wtetiveqonq elit Ye Stoqque ak Insbastob yd betto wis deass “edoroslm
aad semplees edt exody mobvestie s batt ow ob meds toendd nF Sid
Ydreqoug odd yeted as yowodw 10 doothmes eds tuo Ytud oF bos bmoty
nodk». dua bekrieo ed Jom Bivoo towns odd tad 08 Bexeviiod ‘nded Wed
ogzoldd ot Josttnop e'ItNately beagiaes yasqmod & exnote (eseL ke yet no
ai besistaoe eaw dotiw jnomnyiees neddine odd eotenst es ymsqmod Fart
Reob” 00 & ened «0 sii Yield Gedloe teira Te nobtetsLocb beLtsdet
ota seviteh bas setensey wigtees .ifez yribegted \inety Yvs
gattetl ",edosuinop yatwollo? eft ffs’ peodenat da’ Yemgqnod’
- bisa ofan atoatiaos bise Dioif et bas eved oF” | ‘Phomworye tna
has evehlosbaod edd to tiiened elf rt eroaesoon ascent a;
to selolsus odd to enO ",betste rodtsmtored etantt edd to eee ent «
sani
the trust provided that the trustee should possess, manage and ope,
the lands and ecntracts as a going, licuideating real estate business
"it being intended hereby that the trustee shall be deemed to be the
legal anc beneficial owner in fee simple; that any contract purchaser
may obtain a deed from the trustee upon complying with all the terms
ef their contract; and that all collections on the contracts should be
made by the trustee." This we think was an undertaking by the Chicago
Trust Company, as the first suecessor to H, G, Stone & Co, to carry out
. the contract and to deal with plaintiff, among others, in accordance
with the undertaking of the original vendor,
When Central Republic Bank next appeared in the chain as
successor in title it assumed like responsibilities and duties toward
the trust property and plaintiff, and in order to determine the extent
of its powers relative to the various purchase contracts it secured a
decree of court providing that it had the power to demand and receive
payments on the contracts, modify the terms thereof, and to employ
agents to perform these various duties; and pursuant to this deeree
it employed Chicago Title & Trust Co. as its agent, who received from
Plaintiff payments on account of her purchase agreement,
Subsequently, in December, 1933, the present defendant, frust
Company of Chicago, acquired title to the lot covered by plaintiff's
contract, through a quitelaim deed from Central Republic Bank & Trust
Company, and thereafter appointed Chicago Realty Finanee Company as
its agent under an agreement which authorized the latter to receive
payments of principal and interest under the pledged contracts, to
serve notice of forfeiture, reinstate, alter and modify the agreement;
and substantial payments were wade by plaintiff to the Chicago Realty
Finance Company pursuant to this arrangement. The record also discloses
that a court order authorized and approved the appointment of Chicago
Realty Finance Co, by the present defendants. |
Thus, these various assignees undertook to carry out plaintiff's
original contract, and payments were made by her and accepted by them
from time to time, Consequently, when she had reduced the principal
vo
9¢0 bas egansm ,eeeeeog bluode esteutd od} dads bebtverg senxd edd.
seentaud etateo Iset antishivupii ,gnitog « es efosataoo bas ebasi ent
add ed of bemeed ed tisda eeteurs est tard ydoted bebotat gated +1”
geasdoumg tostiaes yas tads yelqmie ast at rsawo istoktened bas Isgel.
emiet edd Ife div eatyiquoe mogy eotenis edt moxt beeb s uatatdoysm —
ed bisrede atosadaoo edd mo anoitosiiog Iis jaid bas ;Jostén00 ated to.
ogsoldd edt yd gnloigtxehay as asw aatdd ow ald? ",oedentd edt yd ebam:
tuo Yt129 ot .09 A emos’ .0 .H of Tosnesone dealt odd es qyanqmdd dest?
seiahiesos ai ,aredito gaoms ,itisatelq déiw feeb of buns doatinoo eds.
-tobasv Lentgixo alt to gubledtobew anit lt be |
ee Missio edt al beweqqs cxsn dast oliduqeh Latiacd aedl - teex3
busawos eeidub bas eoltilidianeqesst eAbt bemvades th eftiz saknbianibi :
jaeixe ond omteieteb at t9br0 ak base .Yitintsiq bas yreqorq tem eddo
& beissea Jk atoeiimoo eesdowd evoitey edd of svitsie1 exewoy ati to.
svtecet bas busmeb ot sewoq end bad tt decid aatbivorg dames to estosb»
— -YoLgmo oF Sys glossed emred odd YUthom ,atostimoo edd no atmenysq”
- eemesb aids of dnswewy bus yeelsinb ewolisv esedd muotweg of edneys ©
moxt beviesst ow ,tmegs afi es .0D Jeiurl & eldtT ogsoicd heyolque tt
_ ,ttlemsetgs sesdowwg xed to srwooes mo stmomyag Thitaiel¢ «
teust gdusbieted Jaenetg ond yfECL ,tedmeoed mt ,Ylimempeadye | ids!
-e'Ytivatelq yd bexeves tof odd of eLttd boriypos ,ogsoidd. anal
seuti 2 Ane oLiduqeh Lewaed mort beob misled iup s dasowld: .tostém0n:))
as Yasqmed eomanth yLeei ogssidd betatoqys tettsereds bas yynsqemod |
eviesss of tetitel edt bestuedins doldw tuemectgs as teban ‘dnogs 2dr:
of ,gtoattaos begbelq edd ssbaw Jeotsdmt bas Laqtontaq to etmomysq
qaomeetgs odd YiLbom bus iedLs ,etstenter .eust etx to eokiog evibe
-YtiseeA ogsotdd edt o¢ Viiimisiq yd ebam or)ew etusmyeq {etinadedve bas
zeeeioath eals bieset edt .dnomegcetis eidd of tnssemg yasquod esasalt
ogeoidd. te. ituontatedye edd beveuqqs bas bextroriue r9ebte tues s tedd ©
| _,2tusbaeteb Igezemq ont w 40d corgalt ytisol —
e'tiidnisiq gyo yriso of dood s9bay scengtees exotisy seed yemiT: iol)
wand yd bedqerss bas 19% Yd cham oxow edmouyeq bas ytostimos:Lentghio:)
Isqtontsg off beovbe: bad ede asdw «viimespoenod:. omts ied emit morte: |
-5=
to $299.16, and tendered the balance to defendant, she was entitled
to a deed and the only reason assigned for the refusal of defendant
to deliver a deed, aside from the legal ground heretofore stated,
was that the property had previously been conveyed te Drake, To hold
under the circumstances of this case, that the various assignees,
including the present defendant, had not expressly assumed the
liability of carrying out the agreement of H. 0, Stone & Co., would
be a denial of justice, since defendant's predecessors in title are
no longer in existence, Defendant argues that it is not liable for
the payments made to H, 0. Stome & Co., tne Chicago Trust Co., and
the Central Republic Bank & Trust Company, and that it can be made to
respond only for the payments made by plaintiff directly to defendant
and its agent, the Chicago Realty Finance Company. We think this
argument overlooks the inference that may fairly be drawn from the
evidence that it had assumed the contract and was bound to carry out
its provisions when plaintiff had tendered the small balance remaining
due. (MeGill v. Baker, 266 Pac, 138, 147 Wash. 394; Brady v, Fowler,
45 Cal, App. 592, 188 Pac. 3203 Davidson v, Baker Fuel 0i1 Burner Go,,
16 La. App. 339, 134 Southern 103.)
The Illinois decisions, Lunt v cheider, 285 Ill, 589, and
Forthman v, Deters, 206 Ill. 159, and others cited by defendant merely
held that an assignee dees not become liable on an executory contract
unless by his agreement he assumes such liability. None of these
cases, however, rested on a state of facts where an assumption of the
agreement could be fairly presumed, ‘The chain of circumstances in
the case at bar clearly indicate an assumption of the undertaking by
each of the assignees, including defendant, and distinguish this case
from the decisions cited and discussed by defendant. Moreover, the
Central Republie Bank and the Trust Company of Chicago both had decrees
entered, providing that they had the power to enforce all the provi-
sions of plaintiff's contract, and having had a court determination
of their power they proceeded to colleet the money due on the con-
tract from plaintiff.
=t-.
belsisne aaw ona ytusbaoted ef sanalad odd borebned dra .OL,0RSe oF,
dasbusteb to Ineitor odd uct benylecs moeaeg ino, edt. bug beeb 8 9d)
betate eroted over bavoty Lagel oid moti ebias yhoo s teviteb of
bod of .exsaG oF deysvneo need ylevetveug bad yiaegomg edd dads) asm
yecongizes avolisv odd dudd .saco etdd Yo eeonstammorto od sobay,
bivow 4.00 2 snot@ .0 , to dmompetgs ond tuo yatywiss to yiltdelt,
ots eidky ak erovesoohotg e'snabnsteh eomte ,eotdent to Letned « od
ot eldsif gon et dL tans eewgts dashneted — ,soneteixe ai segcol osm
bas 4.09 sawsl ogsotdd sett: q000 \eaod2 40 6H ot, shan adaesyed sit
od obsm od ass gi dads bas etasgan 9 gant! & Xasd oblduqed Letdaed eit
dnshus'teb of Yitoetlb Tikialsiq yd ebsm edaemyaq eid xo? Yine baogeet
edd movl ower od YLutst y¥sm Jterid eonstetat edt edoolrevo dnemegis -
d¥o Yt1s9 oJ bassod esw bas tostiaoo edt bomuezs bad JL dads eomebive
suinkanot oonsiad {lame edd berebned bad Yit{atele nedw agohatverg. ath
_aXo{W0% svivbard {ACE aes VOL (BEL .o68 00S usmle oF ALLO), 006
<A AaRERE LIA AOS OR Sen 4OSE .98F OSL GEER -gaa ofa Bt
G8OL mresityoe HEL) REG «CG vad OL
bins .Q82 Lf 6s saniitasansadihehinlaeancitaiale stomtiti, est
yisrem ¢aabusted yd bodko ekecite bus {Ctl sfL1 008 ,agsted .v.nemitget
dostinoo yroduoexe as mo eideil emoned Jon reob conztses Aas Jedd. blod
eaedt Yo enol .yelitdell dove eemmaes on tmougotas eld yd e3aelan
eft to notiquwaes as etentw edost to etete a mo botget .ievowod.,.ce2eo
nt eeotetenmorte 10 ctero od? bomen yltish od: bivoo, Jaemecxys
od girbisdrebas oft to notiqhwees me steothbmh ylaselo usd. ds ezsp, ods
beso ehid detsyaisetb bua .tubbasteb agntbuLonh ,eeenglees ent. to, doze
aeetoeh bari Avod ogooLdl to Yasqmod tant end hue anes, eilduqel Lewaed
~ive1g eid [is estotas of sewog' silt bach yods sent satbivoug, ,bemetae—
gottantassteb tas s bad gitved bus ,toswaop e"Yttetelg to anole
mcioo ent. no omb yoncm edit son Liew ob babesoene WU, SAN ae
—b—
During the period of thirteen years from the signing of the
agreement in 1925, until 1938, ere had been no forfeiture of the
agreement, but on the contrary revresentations had been made te
Plaintiff by the successive assignees or their agents that upon
completion thereof a deed would issue, and these representations
were made to plaintiff from time to time as she made payments to the
various assignees, The amount of the judgment is not questioned,
but it embraces payments of principal, interest, special assessments
and general taxes over a period of many years. Various other points
are raised, which have no besring, however, on the conclusions reached,
Plaintiff's additional abstract supplies evidence from the record
showing the asswuption of plaintiff's contract by the various assignees,
This documentary evidence was not shown in the original abstract,
although it was extremely important to a proper determination of this
cause, Therefore plaintiff should be reimbursed for the expense of
preparing and filing her additional sbstract and the cost thereof
is accordingly texed against defendant. For the reasons given
we think the court properly entered judgment in favor of plaintiff.
The judgment is affirmed,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED,
Sullivan, ». J,, and Seanlan, J,, coneur,.
edi Yo yatteyta edt novt otsey née tatdt Yo bolteq ef satta
ad} To outt istrot om need barf overt (Fe Litny tse at saomseige
of obaw caved bad enolistmovenyon yrertmoy ont me tud Inemeotgs
oxi} of etasmeee oben ote es omtd of eats mort Yitntelg of Sbam etow
| (bonelyaenp ton et gmemybet eff to tnwome edT j2oengteea evotisy
etiomesses Istooge ,tesvednt (Leqtenttc to avaeayeq eedaidue 3f Sud
aiihoy sertso enodtsV .etacy tum to botteq 6 tove vexed Letéiies Sins
bedysen anolesfonos eft 0 ,tovewod .gititsed on evad dotiw boates bre
biscot adt mort eonshive eeliagse fontfeds Ianoteibbs e'tiursdieft °
.acematens evolisy edd yd gostinon e'Yttintele to soltquuee ests ptitwelfe
stosteds Ientyivo odd at awode don saw sonebive yredmenvoob 2 hit
aidd Ye aoltsatureted teqorq @ of tnadsoqut YLouezsxe gow $k iMtgtion fs
“fo eansqxe oj sot doauvdntor od blvoie Yitvataly ovotenedt leardd
snennen Sie AENEAN oar
| Mabsately Yo sot a tment Setanta a ant
accoresen 2! ico
CAMAITIA THEROTUL rh alantsee
| BRISA 0M. hands $o%
og Ree Qa & -nalneod — 7. = (nev itres
maises of teomeotge aid Yd, apedae
EOE yTOVOWVOH.«2OeeH
wai: Eithah od Ritfod, Tecra ge
otha gtaeedo tad ads esate
. . ck ,doens ings old, Se, dome
ohebaclat cn Beenwouth bur ded to eandetonh aig genlt-
weites Fle Wy had (ud ag See in +2 i 1 Bi Sain gas gzlaine has Lexcaad
"EVR 6: ite # é enter” oat ht! ain x cats ae getlhlyoug ,boradae
> — - Laid, ’ , " ay es
asee wh? ne cub. went eld poodles of bebeooore: Yeti meg a
, i : er es ex, 4
; Renae aati
x
Thitekels aga dna
toumtaon &PVitietaly, to eoote
40965
ALFRED JOHNSON, g
Appellee }
Ve )
EDWARD BALMES,
Appel ~ ) 805 7A, 623
MR, JUSTICE FRIEND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
Plaintiff, Alfred Johnson, brought suit against Edward Balmes,
defendant, for damages to his automobile resulting from a collision
with defendant's milk truck on plaintiff's premises, Balmes filed a
counterclaim for damages to his vehicle, and for milk spilled and
eggs broken as the result of the collision, The suit was originally
tried before a justice of the peace, pursuant to a jury waiver by both
parties, resulting in findings and judgment in favor of plaintiff for
$112.60 and the dismissal of defendant's counterclaim, An appeal
was taken to the county court. A trial de novo without a jury again
resulted in judgment for plaintiff of $112.60 and costs, and the
dismissal of defendant's counterclaim, This appeal by defendant
followed,
The essential facts disclose that the collision occurred in
the foremoon on October 20, 1937, in the Village of Glen View, where
plaintiff then resided, From a plat introduced in evidence, it appears
that Johnson's residence was situated to the south of a highway and
was accessible through a private driveway, approximately 100 feet in
length, leading in a southerly direction toward the residence, This
driveway was about ten feet in width for the first thirty or forty
feet, and then swung toward the west in a circular direction along
plaintiff's residence, around an “island” situated in front of the
residence, back in an easterly direction to a garage, and then
straight along the opposite side of the island in a straight line
gga AT a08:
+ THUOD ater 10 HOTHITO WHT Gaaiviia ¢
s2emls& biswh Janieys Jive idguoud caveate bextta atime i ote
moletiics s mort gatilueer eltdemotue ald ot segsmab. 102 qiuebaetob
«@ beltleeuled ,eeatuetg e'Tiiinislg so Aow1d Altm a'tasbaeleb di tw
bas beiLiqa alts sot bas ,eLlotioy ei of zogameb sot mtsLoredmy
Ylsatgtzo esw dive sd? ,aotetifes edi Yo tiveet odd ao sdexd.auay
sitod yd review yuit s of dasvamg .99seq edt to soltaul.s.etoted beta
tol Tisvatsiq Yo gover si taomybol bas egatbuti at gatiiveet ,eoliisq
Iseqas tA. .mkolorotawoo 2'tasbaeled to Leaetmeld odd bas 0d,Sf58
aisas yu, 8 Jveddiv eves sb Ieird A. .Jiyes yimvoo,edd ot aeled eaw
edd bas ,2d209 bas 00,SIL$ te Titintal tot daomphul at betiyaes
tasbneteb yd Iseqqs atid? ,misloredsusoo 2a'tusbusteb to Isealtmetb
-bewolLoi
ai bexiose motetifos odd Jadd seoloetbh efost Latinoaze edt...
etodw .weiV mel) to egslilv ody mi ,JECL ,OS asdoso0 mo moogrezot: edt
aiseqgs Sk ,9omebive at besubottat tef[q 2 moTt ,bebheot mend Tiliatelq
bas Yswdgid s to divoe sdt of betsutle esw eonsbleext e'moansot dads
ak geet OOL ylevsmixoids ,Yewevirh stsving s dywoult eldtesesos asw
aidT ,eonebleet oft hbiswos motioerth yiteddwoe so at gatbsel ,digael
yi0e2 to ytabds terit edd aot débiw at test met dvods esw ysweviib
gnols molsoo1th isivotlo s ak teow edd biawos gauwe aodt bas ,test
edd to imoitt at betsautie “baslei" as bavois ,sonehlzet a'ttisakslg
nedt bas ,egsisg s of molsoerth yLuetese ms at assd ,soneblee1
entl tdgisite s mt baslel edt to ble etteoggo edd gnols tdgteie
1 roa
wa ” spasms. J it
(? Hare © oF
.
a ae i i I i ee
—2ee
where it connected with the driveway leading in from the main highway.
Balmes, who was engaged in the business of selling milk, butter
and eggs, had been making deliveries at plaintiff's home for about
four years. On the morning in question, after having delivered milk
to plaintiff's residence, he was driving his Dodge delivery truck around
the curve in a northeasterly direction toward the main highway, at a
rate of speed described as 5 to 6 miles an hour, and collided with
plaintiff's Pontiac automobile, which was then being driven by plain-
tiff from the highway toward his residence at approximately 15 miles
an hour. The collision occurred at a curve where the driveway widens
to approximately 16 feet. The view of both parties was obstructed
at the curve by some dense shrubbery which made it impossible for
either driver to see the other until immediately preceding the impact.
Plaintiff contends, and both courts evidently found as a matter of
‘fact, that defendant was negligent in failing to follow the law of
the road and keep to the right, and thet this act of negligence was
the proximate cause of the damage which plaintiff sustained; that
defendant, although an invitee, was bound to exercise reasonable care
while on plaintiff's driveway, and is liable in damages for his failure
so to do; and that plaintiff exercised the ordinary and reasonable care
which the law required,
The several grounds for reversal all relate to questions of
fact involving the relative negligence of the parties and their
exercise of ordinary care in driving around the curve where the
collision occurred. Defendant argues that the finding of the court
is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence; that plaintiff
Pe eae ae ld
was not in the exercise of ordinary cares that in permitting the
shrubbery and trees at the curve of the driveway to obscure vision
raises a presumption of negligence and a want of due care; and that
the plaintiff was further negligent in not posting a sign or giving
instructions te persons using the driveway. All these contentions
resolve themselves into questions of fact which the trial court was
——
-Yswigid aism sit mort at gutbsel ysweviib edd ditw besoenmoo Jt erect
aedind .Alim puilise Yo ezontend edt at begsgno acw odw ,2omish
guods 101 smo 2'Tilintelqg ds eettevileb gatdem reget. bad ,2339 bos
alta botevileh gaived sedis .colseeup ah, gointom exit x0 -8189Y wot
Sawots dowd yievileh egbeG eld gatvind esw ed .songpinon e'22intalg
8. $8 qYeuigic atsn edd biawos mols oertkb ylisteseds son pat evs exit
diiw beblifoo bas ,iwod as colle & of & as bedtiseeb eae to She
-ttisiq yd meviib gated aedd esw dotdw Salideundien ‘oabinot ‘2 'Tibiatsla
golim (1 yLlovemixoiwggs Ja eonebiacy eis bucwod Yswigld edd mort Titt
esobty Ysweviah eds etedw evine s ds beumpose soietiios ed] .avoi as
detoutiade esw asitisg died to woiv od ,o92 Ol Yletemixouggs ot
wot eldtesoqat Jt ebam doldw yteddwula came smog Yd eviws eddits
-tosqmi enj gaotbese.q YLotatbeumt Livay redvo edd cee of -1evich tedtte
to teissm 6 a8 bayel yitaebive adasoo died bas ,ehastaoo Tiltmisl
to wei edd woilfot of gatliet at jasgilyea sew Jasbasteb Jadd ytost
saw oonegifgen to tos etdy Jent bas yidgit edd oF geod bus Seon sit
tad pbontsigne Tiidalalg dotdw egamsbh edd Yo sams edambeony sertt
stso sidasozss1 seloisxe ot bayod zaw ,sedivai ne dgvonsis .Jusbietsb
sivlist aid 103 aegameh at eidetl ef bus ,yawoviah a! ttidntisly ao eLtdw
exso oldsnoases bas yisatbte edt beatorexe Tittatslq stadt bas borgir
te uniteen os etelet Iie [sexever 202, abmowy Latsver effi) %
nied3 bas aoldisg ect To sonegilgen eviteles ens gntvloval sost
edt ouelw eyino edt Sauers gatvish ab oso Yusnlbid to Sz Lotexé
tugs. edd to gatbalt edi gedd At OE AR
uk i
eet SAYs# titde wn tnt 2o'TRD ein sihe? “%6 obterexe ond nt Son" ea
eaiabe emoade of Yeweylib edd to evavo edd ta aeeid bas Yueddsuls
tedd bas jo1s9 exb to Jasw s bas conegiigzen to motiquyzeiq @ s9gkst
Buivig yo agie s gutieoq Jom. at dmegiigen seddumlodsw Ditinield ‘edd
anoijaesaoo.sgeds JIA Yswevith edt gates emoated of enoitouiseat
eaw diwoo Leiad offs doldw gost to anolijeeup otnt esvisameds eviozet _
-
in a better position to determine than an appellate tribunal, Defend-
ant hed been making deliveries to plaintiff's residence for four years,
and must have been fully cognizant with the typography of the driveway
and the danger presented by the shrubbery at the curve where the
accident occurred, The ultimate and determining question in the case
is whether defendant was negligent in failing to keep to the right
as he was leaving the circular portion of the driveway. The driveway
at the point of impact was sixteen feet wide, which would have given
defendant ample room to swing to the right and thus avert the
collision. The trial judge who heard and had an opportunity to
observe the witnesses was evidently of the opinion that defendant's
negligence in failing to keep to the right was the preximate cause
of the collision. The evidence adduced by the respective parties on
this question is conflicting and we would not be justified in dis-
turbing the finding of the trial judge and holding that it was
contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. The judgment
should be affirmed, It is so ordered,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED,
Sullivan, P. J., and Seanlan, J., concur,
sbasted .Lammdist etsLloqgs ns sad emtwrstsb of molttacq retted s at”
.sisey thiol wt consbicer a tibiatalq of astusviteb gablem nosd bad FAs”
yawovbab ens t6 yigetg0qys ott dtw tnsstagoo YLint oeed eva Sénm bas
“edd enestw ovis ont Js Yroddwuia edd yd Bednseoty togitab Sad bas”
easo odd at moisesup gniatnveseh bas efemttin ad? \betivooo Fnebross
OO teigks ontt ot qeaxt of sab tts? at siogkigea aaw Snsbroreb rerttotw et”
vswevixb edt stewevitb at to molsvoq teLuotts’ sid gntvbef edw ed Bs
nevis oved bivow dotdw ,sbiw toot modtxte esw foaqmi to shbeg odz°38"
edt Fxove esdd bas Seybe odd OF Smbwe 69 moot Of{ins” JnsbuSted"
"9g Yiniwoqge me bail bite Desed om eget Lobad oar” wdbebrtos"
eeiiss Staittxong ond baw tists Sd} Od Yoon oF Santhed’ Ht SbaegtTgel’
mo edtsxaq svivooqsor ott ye beoubil ebuobrve eit” Shokart tas” olde"
Lakh mt petttient of fon” Bitwow ow bits jntfobitwod” et motttonp "Bie
© gow $2 dead yakblod brs ogbut Iatat edt Yo pabbaly Say gukdei
ipenmmn i car eh oft Yo ditgkew deettnan edt od YrswheS
~ \bevebte"oe et YT Vbomrtiie So Bitola’
> a, be “= TE neki ols Xe wees etembwory ett
PLAS Hicadocsey siivuwe oF bowed gar .estived. aa cgoaedtigig de
Sit iaw aie gk. weed, gk eel Seton ite qiaitnbbe? nite Lee" (ne }
#196 oiduaueset faa Yreedowe a) Seeloueme Yidtadala dads bos geereRak
boaisgen wal ved? spade |
4A BuOgeRaNp OF olalen Iie Jaqureet wl. alae gareren eet. ay *
To Oieepilgen evieglos eet gece Toya peed
iow opine es, dooerte, patvied alc emo reeiiiite 62 Rowmce
0 ee OF ES seksi oats dyad seen ce: Tee byr kes aReren gad wetatites
Miiatadg. deat joonmh tye: ost > dp edg dow: teh: att ge Vesa OL i
AT 4RECF Geng Ahot Re pee ae weet hiea te oF terete aris: mn all i
Cate. Die gta oh to, dian «date eomey hiawn te amb qemeouy ie. panes
gukviy uo gale «.gaitecq somuad dmegdigen: cade naw Retake ait il
usohidiwiace.oguit,£La eehrh ode -yabers aaerz0g | re eso 24 ones tak
iow euwee, fata acid rh heb cout Te snolteowp ogee. aeyloamnts
40996
PREDERICK L. REGNERY, ;
Appell
ve
CHRIS-CRAFT BOAT SA. Ine’ eas ae
& corporation, and JOM P, ¥
Appellees, a O5 L.A. 628 4
WR, JUSTICE FRIEND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE CGURT.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Cireuit court sustaining
defendants’ motion to strike the amended complaint and dismissing the
cause, Briefly stated, the amended complaint alleged that in January,
1938, plaintiff purchased from John P, Rodi and Chris-Craft Boat Sales,
Inc., a yacht, known as “Hawk II," and paid therefor the sum of
$10,270; that subsequently defendants delivered a bill of sale to
plaintiff and the yacht was shipped from its place of manufacture te
Keith Boat Yards, in Chicago, and was there received about April 1,
1938; that on the date of its arrival plaintiff and Redi, who was
president of the Chris-Craft Boat Seles, Inc., took the yacht on a
trial run into Leke Michigan, during which there developed certain
= COOK COUNTY,
ee
vibrations, caused by improper adjustment of the engines, whereupon
Rodi agreed on behalf of defendants to make the necessary repairs and
adjustments; that pursuant to this agreement plaintiff delivered the
yacht to defendants April 2, 1938, it being agreed that they would
exercise due care and caution to safeguard the yacht while it was in
their possession, and return it in good condition; that from April 2
to April 5s 1938, the yacht was moored in the basin on the north side
of liavy pier in Chicago, and while in possession and control of defend-
ants, and due to their negligence and failure to exercise due and
proper care therefor, the yacht suffered considerable damage during
the night of April 5th and 6th, by striking her port side against the
dock and pier to which she was tied; that a portion of the dock gave
way, causing the yacht to swing about and strike her starboard side
BS8O AT 208°
| sTAVOD ART FO HOTUTGO ANT cumivnasa canta —
pabatipéiin taweo diupalo edt to webio me movk alsoqgs Tiisatsli
ods gulgetmelb bus Jatsiqmes hebaems edd oltide of aotiom ‘adaabao2eb,
eVislaal at gady begotia Jntelquop bebacms edd ,bedate Yiielii .saKoo
.26108 tod stex-elwS bus tbo ,F adol mort deeasdouwg I2tiatele .BEel
20 nwa odd totexedd btaq bas, "4IL Awall” 20 cwoml gtdoay s ..00T,
ot eise Io Litd s bewvileb atasbuctoh yLsnoupoedne tat, :ONS.OL¢,-
od oulsetunan Yo cng aft mor boqutde aw Sdosy edd, daa, WtIatale.
vi Lingé juode beviocex sted ecw bus ,ogentdd at .ebrs¥ Jeo dj toil,
eow anv ,tbet bas tMtintsiq Levinas edt Yo eteb edt wo dadd 48EeL
& M0 Siosy edt Hood 4, onl ,eelad deol Stard-elat) ed? to JnoblLacag
alsties beqeleveh oped doldw gntuvh ynsyidolM exad ovmt aut Letat ,
Hoqueted ,ecitgne od} to Jnssdestia reqomgmt yd beews ,enottsidhy |
bas exisqet Yiseseoen ofy slam of edmabme'tob to Iiended mo beorgs Lbof
ed} boteviled tTitiatelq dnemeetgs elds of taamauwg Jandy yetnemtentbs
binow Yous tend boowgs gated st SER 48 LimqA sinshacted ot ssivsy
ak eaw JE olicw ddosy edt biswyelse of soliues bus ets9 ob eelotexs
S LhigA movi Jedd yaotsibnoo boog at Jt mwmiert bus .aolasossog therlt
ebte dixon edd ao Atead oft at betoom esw Sdosy end 4BERL .2 LkigA of
~basieb to Lowlnes bus moleesesog al eLidw bus ,ogsoldd at selg vail 0
bas exh eatonexe of emiist bas esnegiigen thedd of enh bus ,etns
gulwh syamsb oldsiebienos beretiwe diosy odd ,tetetedd e192 isqoTg
edt seniegs ebte Jroq ied gubitie yd itd bas ddz Liagh to tdgin edt
evag doob add to noktseq s sald ybokt aaw ede dotdw ot t9ky bas toob
obte bisodtsde tod exltise bas twods gatwe of tony edd gateuso yyew ;
=
against the dock and pier, with resultant damage to her hull, top-
sides, tail shafts, propellers wad engines,
Defendants! assign the following ground in suppert of their
motion to strike the amended complaint: "That plaintiff, in para-
graph 9 of his amended complaint concludes that defendants were negli-
gent in handling plaintiff$s yacht, but failed to state specifically
the manner in which they were negligent."
The principal question presented is whether plaintiff's amended
complaint sufficiently states a cause of action in bailment for damage
to his yacht. This raises the query whether in an action in bailment
it is necessary for the bailor to plead specific acts of negligence on
the part of the bailee. As a general rule, where goods delivered to a
bailee are returned in a damaged condition, or not returned at all, the
law presumes negligence on the bailee's part, unless he shows that the
loss did not result from his negligence, In the recent case of Lederer,
£. way Te 346 Ill. 140, suit was brought against a bailee for
the loss of several cases of whisky, and in discussing the generally
accepted rule of law applicable to cases of this kind, the court said
(p. 145): “Where a bailor proves that he has stored goods in good
condition with a bailee and they are returned to him damaged or not
returned at all, the law presumes negligence on the part of the bailee
unless he shows that the loss did not result from his negligence,"
The court pointed out as the reason supporting this rule that the
bailor had no access to the warehouse and was not in position to know
what caused the fire, "The whisky was deposited with (the bailee) in
good condition and was damaged while in its possession. This proof
made a prima facie case under the first and second counts of the
declaration,"
In Miles_v, International Hotel Co,, 289 Ill. 320, the guest
of a hotel brought suit for damage sustained to personal property left
with the innkeeper under a bailment, and in discussing the liability
of the defendant, the court said (pp. 327, 328): "The weight of modern
authority holds the rule to be that where the bailor has shown that
-qov [isi tad of sgamsh dastiveot diiw ,19iq bas xAsob olt Jeatsaa
-sonkgae bas ereifegorg ,ettade Lhst —
tied to sxoqqwe at bavotg gaiwolfot acid mghaes *etaebitetsd
-stsq mi ,Titdntelq tact" sdatsiquos bebuoms ond sakbite of sottom
-iigen sxsw etmebmoteb tedi eebulonoo dattelqoo behasms etd lo 8 dqetg
Yksotitoegs sdate of baltst sud .ddtosy a@titiniel gatidnad at tug
* tuegifgen erow yous dotdw at s9emaism ent
bebuoms e'ttiiateslq tedtedw ak bedneeetq stotteenrp Isqtontaq sit
egasisb tol dnaltsd at nottos to eavas s eotste: Yitmeloltiwe tnisiquos
juemiied mt nofttes as at tertenw Yreup edt esetes ataT .ddosy att ot
no sonegifgen to efos okttosqe Baelq ot aoltad edd 10% Yrseescem et #2
(8 of betevtfob ebooy oveiw .olvt Lotendy a eA “Joeltsd ond Yo Pueq dt
edd gic ds bemtkten tax‘10 ytotftbnos begamsb s nt béawist eas’ oof tise
edd Sac ewode of sector yiusq stoolted ont ao sondytfyen temesay Wal
saiphel to e850 taove7 edi mI yeoneghigen etd movt ¢ifeor Fon bib wed
tot oelisd = tentegs frguord esw ting ,ORI EIT On | y
ylfeteney off gntzevoeth nt bus ~yletiw to ebeso Leteved’ Weitadl ale
bise Pundd ons bot! ete Yo eeesd of eldasklets wal to elirt beqeods
boog at eboog botose ead ed tailt eovorq Toltsd = exer” ¥(ear Jy)
gon to bogsmsh otk! of bemrmtor ote Yort bus volted 2 it iw Hots EbnoD
eelied ert to S1sq otit no srisghlgon vembeoty Wal ety cits Ys beta éx
" eonegifgen etd movt titeoy ton bib eeof ert teddy eworle of duosity
ert Saft ofnr elit gnttroqque moesor ont 2s tuo ‘betntoy fawos Sit
wort of no 'tteoq mt tom zew bits sevodorew odd of veces of bail YOLPse
at (eeLtad ext) dttw betteoqed esw Ylettw sd!” lorry brif Beviiso’ Fkdw
tootg eid? .mofeeseeoq eft at eltnw begamsb asw bra sotttbnos body
© sti To etatvos babose Bais texlt oft + bine ease va egniclgh obs
j ow t eqorsy
Jeong ond (O8f .fIT 08S .,09 fetel Ienotypntosat iv be
Fisk (ri dna, WF RL hell? Se AS, Str Ana
Wiltdstl eit giteawoeth ar bus (tiomitsd # robes seqeodunt i Hitw
axobom ‘to daigtew edt” 4(88E .YSt .¢q¢) Btee tus ‘eat insbaoteb edi %o
godt ewate ead softed ett evara ¢edt ed of sfur ent aphad wih tiiiahhiale’s. sal
—3e
the goods were received in good condition by the bailee and were not
returned to the bailor on demand the bailor has made out a prima
facie case of negligence against the bailee, and the bailee must
show that the loss or damage was caused without his fault."
In Schaefer v, Safety Deposit Co,, 281 Ill. 43, plaintiff
sued for the loss of money left in a safety box which was in the
exclusive possession and control of defendant, The court pointed
out the circumstances and said that there appeared no reason to
depart from the ordinary rule that, "where a bailee receives property
and fails to return it the presumption arises that the loss was due
to his negligence, and the law imposes upon him the burden of showing
that he exereised the degree of care required by the nature of the
bailment. * To call upon the plaintiff, under such circumstances,
to prove some specific act of negligence by which her money was lost,
and which she must necessarily prove by defendant's employees, would
impose upon her a practically impossible burden.” Other cases to the
same effect, cited in plaintiff's brief, are More v, Fisher, 245 Ill. Appe
567, and MicCurrie lumber Co,, 178 Ill, App. 617.
The allegations of the amended complaint fall logically
within the authorities cited. It is alleged that in accordance with
the agreement between plaintiff and defendants, the plaintiff "*#**
delivered said yacht to the said John P, Rodi and Chris-Craft Boat
Sales, Inc., for the purpose of making the repairs and adjustments
agreed upon; that it was also further understood and agreed ***
that the said Rodi and Chris-—Craft Boat Sales, Inc., would exercise
due care and caution to safeguard the said yacht while in their
possession; and that while the yacht was in the possession and control
of #** Rodi and Chris-Craft Boat Sales, Inc., for the purpose of
making the repairs and adjustments agreed upon, damage resulted,"
Defendants seck to avoid the legal effect of the presumption
east upon them by arguing that the amended complaint fails to allege
that the yacht was delivered inte the exclusive possession of the
~ing=
Yor etew bug ooltsd oft yd mottthaod Boog at bovieoe1 ores aboog eit
| eamtuq s two ebem ead tofted edt basmeb mo tolled edd of Ph ae
tem ceftad odd bid ,eoltsd eft sentags sonegifaen to seso etost
*.$iue% etd Siorsiw beeiiso sew egamsh 160 eeol add sald wosie
qitvitter¢ ,€h .L1T 18s 4.90 fteoged ytotas .v sefeadoe at
edi} nt eaw Hotty xod Wetse s At dteL yedom Yo keol edd ‘rot bore
betnteg swe eff ,Jasbustsh to Loxtnos bas ‘notesoeeoq ae ae
ot mouset om beie9qqs steady Isis bise bas ra a BS eds tuo
wreqouy zeviese: eslied s etesdw* qt att elu1 ytentbxo edt moxt “gusqeb
eub eaw eeof ond tadd esetis motsquwesxq edd tt awe of éftst bas
githwore to mobusd ott mid meq eeeoqmt wal edd bas ,eomogtigen aid of
eit ‘to Surtan edt yd boxtwpe S129 Yo somgdh edd boatowexe ed tart
esoustemmorto dove xebni eYtlsnisiq edt moqu “tts of He ie sromt bed
“deol aaw Yonom ted Hoty Yd somegtigen to dos otitooge emoe ae,
SS Biyew ,eesyolqme e'jnsbaeteh yd evo7g ylitseesoon denm ede do 01 Fg
edd OF congo redt0O ",aebtd ofdtesoqmt yllsoltostq a nah leigh
QA SLET RAS” .zenedy .v iON Sis (tottt MaBalstg at t bebe ee +
eVlO wag IIT 8h ys 3 au):
““rtsotgol List talslqmos bebroms oxi to ‘anotdagsite. ont ~ bs
Hidtw Sonsbtocss at dad? Begefis ef I .bstto etd trodtus exit mg
sete S4tonbate edd (edmsbasted pas Vibiatalg Abowded saomestgs edt
tso08 FistO-elwid bas thom of fitiol Bisa edt os tos blee ‘bosevitos
étnomenths ins exteqet Odd gablam Yo seoqumg ait ‘ro 12a roles
wei! Doowys Sus boosersbay teddww? oafs eaw Jt Fatt jatogs ‘beers
sdtotexe bivow ,.oat ,eeled taoa stexd-alado Bas ‘Bho bisa edt ‘fadd
ated} at Siti dooy Btee ont buawgetice of moliuss bas oxso ob
Lottaco bas coleesesoy ony ‘ni esw Ydoay ond eltdw add bas ‘mote eozeog
to eeoqivg edd tol ,.omI ,aels2 ¢sod Jiei-eltidd bas ‘thot #40
#, bey tueet eyumah .noqd boeign ednembeitha ‘bu ‘extagen edd gabien
gotdqueaerg et “to tootte Isyel ead biovs of does staabasted rete os
“egeiié of eftat sntalqmos bebnoms edt ‘Yat galogte oe ese.
ots to aotezeceog ovtentoxe “edd brags haionnaphe aon °: 2003 <3,
ore ae of epee pee btod <i tress oa
po
bailees, but the allegations hereinbefore set forth clearly rebut
this contention; no other reasonable meaning can be taken from the
averments of the amended complaint,
It is also argued that “where it affirmatively appears from
the complaint that plaintiff has knowledge concerning the cause of
the damage to goods delivered to defendant and returned to plaintiff
in a damaged condition, no cause of action is stated unless the neg-
ligence of the defendant is specifically alleged in the complaint."
Plaintiff does allege general negligence, and presumably that is as
much as he is required to allege under the law and circumstances of
this case. It is averred that he delivered the yacht te defendants
as bailees;that it was tied to their pier and damaged because of the
force of wind and sea, which caused the yacht to swing around and
strike the side of the dock, Presumably plaintiff had no specifie
knowledge as to the cause of the loss, but only as to the resulting
damege, Under the authorities the presumption of negligence arises
and the burden is cast upon defendants to show that they were not
negligent. Such a showing could only be made upon a hearing of the
issues,
Lastly, it is argued that defendants are exempted from
liability because the damage was due to violence or natural causes,
It seems to us, however, that since defendants were engaged in the
business of the sale and repair of watercraft, and presumably knew
the perils which may befall a yacht improperly anchored or tied, they
may well be guilty of negligence, where the yacht is subjected to
damage by reason of natural causes such as wind, tide or heavy sea,
unless they can show by competent evidence that they were not negligent.
We think the court erred in sustaining defendants' motion to
strike and in dismissing the amended complaint, The order of the Circuit
court is therefore reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to
everrule defendants' motion to strike, and for such other proceedings
as are consistent with the views herein expressed,
ORDER REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED WITH
DIRECTIONS,
Sulliven, P. J., and Seanlan, J., concur,
=>
judet ylisefo déaot gee s1totednteied anolisgetis ond Jud seolisd |
edd moxt meaat ed ass yatasem oldanoesst tedto on paolsastaoo. elds:
-tnlsiqnos Sebsems oft to ednomtevs:
mort exseqys ylevitsmtitts ft stew" tadd bougts oale at sIe* © elon
to caus ott gninreonos eybolwomt aad Tikintelq Jess Intelquoo edd»
titintsiq of beriuwde+ Sus tashaoted of Beteviled aboog od ejamsb ext
-yon oft seelnn betad: ef aolton to oehed of ymOldtbnoe begsmsh) s mk:
" jntslquoo odd ot bogelis yfLeolttoeqa et tmabsaeteb edto lo someght>
es ef istt yidemmeotq bas ,Soregifgen Lavemeg ogdile seob Titimteld
Yo seonstemvotio bas wal ent tebow ogelis’ os bealwped eh of ee) Homm) —
efitehre'teh of tdosy edt berevifeb ed tals berzevs ef ¢T o., cagd Bid
eit ‘to eensoed bogsaed bas’ welg tlodd oF bstd eow td Satlsygoel ind es
bas bavots satwa of tifosy edt beruss dotiw .sea bas briw to ecm?
aittooqe on bad Yitetslg ydemweert ,A00b off to obre odd ealtxte’
' guttiueor edt ot es Yio tind .ee0F oft Yo senad eifd ot us egdelwoml
aéelis oconeytigen to soltqameeiq end eetdbvedive oid u9sba °.epemsh
ton o1ew yor Jad worl of ednsbuoteb ogy Jeso ot Mebund ‘edi ‘bis
oe 2 ee ee stteghigon
(2. BOCEE .¥ ofeSoM Rgmesie
MOT! betqmoxs ots hatte hith thie lediklloadh
,aanso Leiden to sonofokvy od sub eaw eysmsb “end Ganaood ys LOEdeLE
orl? at bDeyagns etew adnebsoteh conta vais ytovewed yas oF ameoe GT
ween! (Ldamizotg bas ,ttatotetew to akiqée bes ofe2 oft to exonténd
yous bel! xo boroddas YLteqorqmt Iiday se Lieted yam Aobdw elireq odd
ot botvotdwe ef selosy ond exrotiw jeonsgtigen 10 yiiduy edi Llow yam
1892 Yveed to ebtt ,batw es dove eoaiss Leyiait 16 moezoe' yo Syamad
.tnogilgen ton Siew yous Jadd ednontvs Fmoveqmed ya Weide’ nso Yod? eeeka
od moisom ‘etnsbnetsb yntatstere nk Bere tahoo" of ankits ow!’ eoanog
fivort est to abso enT tutelquod bebaoms offd® gateetbire tb at boss wide
od enotsostth At tw bobusmet eciso ond bas Deetever ouotered ef doo
agntbessorg teiso dove tot bab ,eatate Os moltom’ vei
al '
»b IgGxe8. or Fasaniee '
Brirer tain eet Ne ie --+ 2 YG remy nated a
set oD ot “qfisEaboe bas. my
41026
a
PAUL C. LOEBER,
Appellant,
UR. JUSTICE FRIEND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
Defendant appeals from an order of the Municipal court denying
his motion to vacate a default judgment for $1,337.47 and costs,
entered in favor of the several plaintiffs as surviving partners
of the firm of Resenthal, Hamill & Wormser,
Suit was brought on a promissory note executed by defendant
February 27, 1932. Summons issued April 20, 1939, the return
thereon reciting that defendant had been personally served,
Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant
on April 28, 1939. More than two months later defendant, pursuant
to notice, filed his verified petition to vacate the judgment,
wherein he set forth at length what purported to be a meritorious
defense to the note, denied that service had been had upon him,
prayed that the judgment be vacated, that he be granted leave to
file his appearance and defense and heard concerning his rights in
the premises, The court denied the petition and defendant has taken
an appeal,
Aside from the contention that he had a meritorious defense,
the sole ground urged for reversal is that “a judgment obtained by
means of a false return by an officer, without notice to defendant,
will be set aside by a court of equity, where it is shown that the
judgment is inequitable and unjust."
It is argued that defendant was entitled to all the relief
at
4 -
STs
eOOADIHO TO TAUOD Peres
.v
{iw sibearhtoog 82 anil aed 2 a
“DSB =EL.AO. Ble stephen rincsy asd er bee |
.TAYOO EY YO WoTHIT BHT aarti cua aorsent a
nines Oe bebs
satened dusoo Lagtotmvil ers to gem. as mn siaaii soitiditilis: bpd! os
| steoo bas YW. TEC Le 102 Jnompbuit, Jiueteb # etaoay, od aetvom ehd"
avers seq gcivivase es aliidntelg Lerevea ost to ovat at, beretne
steamy 3 Iitusk ,Ladtneeel to nha
inabasteb a bejusexe ston Ytosetmorg a me ddgvomd aw wine ah we ant
smdez ody .CECL .0S Liaqa beweel anouma .SEQL YS. VisvideT .
.bevisa Vikance t9q seed bad jnabaeteb tasty gatsiioor. sostedt —
dasbasted tentegs bus eltitaisiq te tovst at betetae saw doompbe
Jasweriy yJasbasteb todal agiaom owt amd? egoM .RECL y8S LtaqA m0
, qtuomgbut odd etsoav of agli tie belitsey aid beLllt s99ttom of |
exoitos tiem 8 ed od bottoqung Jady diame te cit202, Jee ed ateredw. |
«ald soqu basi ased batt eotyiee Jai) betueh ,eton ed} oF sanetob..
et evsel botnets ed ad Jaci sbstsosv ed inemgbut edt tat boyetq.
at edtigic abd acitae0neo bused bas seste'tob bus, mannan Bist Ltt 7m
melas ead Jasbaoteb bas nolsiveq ext be inob Jump2 oft aaaainan “ery
eanisteb avobios brou 8 bat ea , tacit parvennan edt mre 5 anti. +
xd benitsitdo snomybu, 8” fade et Leereves tol bogaw banozg. oLos ee WF
cinsbaoteb os eotson 2 wodd.tW aT90d2I0. os Yd sustet cele? s. to 2nsom
ods tad aworla al tt onotin sWiispe to tivo 6 yd obtes toe od Lite
| | ©, Zeirtott bas SIdedttpent ef Yaempbut
aebfet edt Le of belttine enw ‘tashasteb: tedt bevgis et #1. vbliat
*, i
7 ae
2m
in the Municipal court that he would have been entitled to had he
filed a complaint in equity, and that the Municipal court had juris-
diction under section 21 of the Municipal Court Act (chap. 37, par.
376, Illinois State Bar Stats. 1939, p. 1062), after the expiration
of thirty days to vecate and set aside the judgment and afford
defendant a hearing on the merits,
The difficulty with the argument advanced is that the
petition makes no showing that the judgment was obtained without
notice to defendant, or that it was inequitable or unjust. The
allegation as to lack of service is stated as a legal conclusion,
No facts are set forth tending to support it. It is not alleged
that defendant did not have knowledge of the service reported by the
bailiff on his return, nor when defendant first learned of the
pendency of the suit or the entry of the judgment, or that defendant
exercised due diligenee, either before or after the judgment was
entered, Defendant merely sets forth the bare conclusion that he
was not served, but the bailiff's return shows personal service upon
him, Furthermore, plaintiffs' ccunsel say in their brief that
defendant had knowledge of the suit following the beiliff's visit,
“because we have a letter signed by defendant requesting a continuance
before the judgment was entered," They offer in their brief to preduce
the letter in evidence under section 92d, par. 216, of the Practice
Aet (I11. State Bar Stats. 1939, chap. 110), but we do not think it
necessary to permit the introduction of this letter. The law is well
settled that the right of a court of equity or of the Municipal court,
under section 21 of the act, to set aside a judgment obtained on the
basis of an alleged false return of the sheriff ends after the tern,
unless the false return has been procured by the fraud of the plaintiff.
The ease of Travelers Insurance Co. v, Wagner, 279 I11. App. 13, is
precisely in point. In that proceeding judgment was entered February
16, 1934. April 6 of that year defendant filed a petition to vacate
the judgment pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Practice act,
which gave the trial court the same power to grant equitable relief
—o-
ed bad of boliiine ased sved blyow en tadd duwoo Isqtotaul edd at
well, bad Javoo Leqtoiaw edd Jadt bas ,Yinpe at Jatsiqmos s belli |
stag ,VE .qado) ¢oA dawod Laqtotaul esd to IS mottose rebaw notietb
moltatiqxe edd 109th ,(SO0L .¢.4QERL sated® aM ofa48 atom .O¥C.
biolis bas jmsughst edd sbles doa bas otsosy of eyeb Chat te
-etizem odd m0 gatrsed 2 Jnsbieteb
edt tat el beonevbs snemug1s odd détw ytluolitts eT
tuodttw benisstdo eaw Snomgbut odd tadd gatwors’ on eoxlsm nots tieq
oi? .daujaw to eldsdtupent eaw dt tact 10 ytnebsieted of eotvor
-toltenionos Lagel s 26 bejatea ef sotviee to Aosl of as notdagolls
begetis toa at tI .th sseqqua of gathaed dixol fei oxé Esod¥ ot 4
acid Yd bedtoqgen eotvxsa esd to egbeiwomlevet ton bth tashasieh tadd
‘edt to bemiesl dertt Jashaeteb nedw ten ,auviei eld mo 22 tsd
tasbaeteb add so inemyhut ot Lo Yutme edd 40 tive edt Yo Yomebaeg
asw Jnsmgbul edd sedis wovetoled sedite eeonogilth euh bezetotexe
ot tad motexfonoo ousd eli disok eter yLovem tashasted ,betetae
mnogu sotvise Laneatsq ewode mutet e*litiied alt sud gbovies. oa, eau
sadd tetrad sted at yse Leensoo Jatibiatels .etomrests aT Lo
etietv e'TTified edd galvollot Jive edd to egbelwocl bad Jnsbaete
sousuntines s gatveerper Jnsbnsteb yd bemgke tessel » eved ew sexia09d"
souborq OF ‘tsi rled? ak wt yed? “,beredae esw Matomphal ads ereted
eoitosti end To .olS .2eq 4bS@ aoktose sebay, comehtve at retteL edt
St Ankdd ton ob ow dmd _(OLL sqaro 4CECk.setete uf etste, .£11) tos
Iiew at wel off ,xettel elds to, notdoubostat edd dimzsq ot (Kisegeven:
,ttvoo Leqtotavl edt to 1 ytiwps te: dases s to tigtr edd tedt bolttos —
odd do bontatdo sacmybut @ ebies tec ot ,3o8.,edd to IS Moldoee tehe
,ut9d eS testis ebae Tiliede edd to amie: se{st bogelis a to Stage z
Liivatelg edd to bust ond yd Dowmsorg teed eed amid on oeler ext aselay
eL ff .qqa .ffT O§S 4 asaps ov 12: : to 2200 gat i
YsANTO Boredae cow Inemybwt gatisssong tert al...datog at. Mostoest, ae
otsosv ot mottiteq’s beLt? insbmeted -zs0ey Jedd 20 8 Lixga. oe GE 9 |
eos soltosti Livio edd to amofetvomg edd ot Jneyesg Amomgbyl, ects
Teller eldstiups dusty of towog Ouse ant t109 Sabyt og gyse setae oe
-3-
with respect to judgments as is given the Municipal court by section
21 of the Municipal Court Act. The prayer of the petition was
granted and the judgment was vacated, Thereafter the case was
dismissed for want of prosecution and an appeal was taken, The
petition in that case, among other ground for relief, alleged that
the sheriff's return did not show correctly the date on which summons
was served, The court held that the petition was not sufficient, and
said that “parties are bound by the sheriff's return after the term
is ended in which Judgment is entered unless a false return has been
procured by the fraud of plaintiff."
In the case at bar the question of the meritorious defense
was not im issue. Petitioner merely stood upon his legal rights and
contended that the court did not have jurisdiction over him. lieither
in this ease nor in Travelers Ins, Co, v, Wagner, supra, was there
any showing that defendant was not guilty of negligence or laches,
and therefore the conclusion reached in the latter decision is
applicable to the case at bar,
In the leading ease of Chapman v, The North American Life
Insg Co., 292 i111. 179, defendant, after the expiration of the term
sought to prove that the sheriff's return did not state the facts,
The court refused to entertain the petition, and said (p, 187):
"In this State, before judgment is taken the sheriff's return can be
contradicted when a false return is taken advantage of by a plea in
abatement, or, more properly speaking, by a plea to the jurisdiction
of the court of the person of the defendant. (Sibert v. Thorp, 77
Ill. 43.) All the cases will be readily distinguished that have been
cited to us on the question of a sheriff's return, by noting that
after judgment has been rendered, and after the term has ended in
which judgment was rendered, the sheriff's return is conclusive as
between the parties and cannot be taken advantage of by error coram
nobis unless such false return has been procured by the fraud of the
plaintiff."
Under the established rule in equity the court may afford
~€=
Noiteod yd tuveo Isqtotanit eft ‘nevig at és etmemabet of ‘tooqeet g.bw
sew nolsiveq oft to s9ysitq ofl TOA Fu0D Laqto bud odd 10 fs
asw eeso odd tettcoterT .botdosv caw tmomgbut edd bus botasts
ewr ,nciled cow Iseqqs os Sis motfyosgorq Yo Jasw tot bene hme tb
Jats begeLis ,YekLox tot bivory reddo groms .e2so fait ak nots tteq
enomme doldw ao etsh sdt yitootres wore ton bib mud o% e'tttrede ‘ont
bus (dnetokitwe ton esw motsiteq aft tend bed twos onl .bevree 2aw
trod ond rodte nuwtor @MYttrede ont yd Bawod o1s eolsasq” Jedd diss.
seed esd muster eelst s ezelas betetas at tnemyhu t dotdw at bebas et
. waibtiatel@ Yo buaxt add yo bomoorg
aneteb eioidostrom edt to motseeup edd asd ts oeso old al
heh abMg te Lagek Ett Abts Boeae Uitte Mbotiieen [éeedd ah Ses een.
aoddtet © jabs “rave ented evel ton bIb*daeo edt 3 ats botnetaoo
i? at ton ‘ease abit at
eeedeal 40 sonegtigen to ySIiwy ton ‘gaw ‘dtabaoteb tant sabwode we
et métetoob “xettal edt ‘ni bedddéx dokeulados edd |
i stad Ya iio il 63 Skdadttane
; rT . omek
to 8289 gufdest edd ol” ‘
pits? odf Yo mottertgxe ot edt .ddahasteb (OU .Ltt Seo od
Jeon? od oFsde tort bLb mwier eMYttrerde ‘ods tas evorg ot tet
yied¢
s(YBI .q) bise bins ,notttveq ei} Histréine of beavies fayoo dT
‘ed mio aunton a Yttrerle exit nodst eX dusmibut’ exoed yedete ebid mI"
ab slg 8 YS 20 oystuevhs aeslsy ut made Safe « Hstin DeYoLbsitmos
+HOo sti
mottotbe Mp ont ox sele-s yd (gabilseqe YLreqoiq orem , 10 ,tnemededs
WY eae wy saber) sthebasttod edt to aoe16q exit to Fus0s onld 10
“peed oved tafld deiietingnttath yLrbset ‘od? Lhe" ‘geass ods ITA t. & ia
“Galt ghbton {yd ,amtex aMtiirede s to aotseoup ent mo a od ‘bedto
mLD6bie eel ares! of} TOP bas’ BO rbbinet Hoe’ Lar sadagnul zed
eg ovienlomos et nutdor ett tivede Sit beapenagetnvlperg: sto ksiw
imaiearmshasiiivin aepneycl sro rieeerc tetera sé Let foie oi At
protis Yen Fanos srg ytinps = ‘elt bedalidetas odd tap .
site
ood enn
relief in a proper case against a judgment at law, but it must first
appear that the party complaining has not been guilty of negligence or
laches, and that he has been prevented from interposing a defense
through accident, fraud or mistake, without fault or blame on his part
(Higgins v. Bullock, 73 Ill. 205; Qwens v. Renstead, 22 Ill. 161;
Stasel v, The American Home Security Corporat 362 Ill. 350), and
the same rule is applicable to petitions filed under section 21 of the
Municipal Court Act,
Moreover, under the well established rule in this and other
jurisdictions, the return of service by a sworn officer will not be
lightly set aside on the basis of the oath of the one who is alleged
to have been served, The proper method of hearing petitions under
batten 21 of the Municipal Court Act, where an attack is made upon
the service of the bailiff, is to furnish supporting affidavnts of the
op 221 Til, Lal;
shi V,. Ame an Linseed Co
circumstances, (Domitsk:
White Oak Coal Co, v, Beck, 176 I11. App. 36.) This rule nas been
repeatedly approved in this State in proceedings of this nature since
59 Ill. 315.
We are of opinion that because of the failure of petitioner
‘the early case of Brown v
“to allege facts in his petition entitling him to relief, as well as his
failure to offer supporting affidavits, the petition was properly
denied, and the order of the Municipal court is affirmed,
ORDER AFFIRMED,
Sullivan, P. J., and Scanlan, J,, concur,
he
Fatrt sen FY tud evel ts Sremghet s teatsys cess teqe1g s mt “teller
to sonsgtfysit to yiling assed Jom esd gntmtsiquos yiasq edd teds ta0qqe
eenstob 3 gtttaoqtednt mort betasveiq med esd od tedt bas yeedosl
Suisq elt! mo omefd ro siost dwordiw .exadete to bert yiaebloos Agwotiit
“qter .1TT es yBas: a: ey «ff €§ esr: ano
Bus ,(OtG .IfT Sdf ,goti srog yoo vi. 8D |
edd Yo [8 nottsee tobaty Slit snot tiec os eldsoltiqgs et oLwt omee ons
(tod Jawod Leqiolasl
neiito bas @hits - éiwt berletidsteo flow od tebe (teveotoM- °° © -
ed joa iLiw teokite msowe 2 yd eslvree ‘to miter edt ,ekolvolberwt
Bégofis et ow eno ont to dtso eft To eleed ond mo ebbee dee yLtdgtl
"geben anclitiey gatised to boston toqorg oT . bovree need evatlos
hogs oben at woetts me otorw (toa tavod Ieqtotnuit end “to IS wotseee
edd Yo ativenrtis: re detawt ot ak enemys epee & eoiverse edt
Up Warrass (90 Be aX
nsed tad oli eid? (88 Jqqa VEIT dyE Y
conte emisn elds to ‘Saukoaseny at otet® eldy mt bevetaqs Yibetsoqor
oa VRE LET QR. omit Lv eprom Yo eaeo YLise ext
fonolsd iter to etwitst oft to sensoed dart nofatqo to ote ofl) otscil
eli vs [Tow ts \2eifex oy mb gakTt Hine HoLtitey elif ni edosY egeEia"od
yLiscory ecw motttyeq ext 2d Evab fs Yabsrogque ‘toYTo of euwEliet
oe oe bomrttts 2b Putes sms eter teeta. Mg
~ Cun MA mae ; petty Dedethesmes
.Wwortoo > nt a grt
2 TE ay ~ to James ort to
ad’ Titw goeee aed ITs Coe siit
yr hTOn > ve MENISs a htedts 6 LO aoliteep eas ao ms oF hedto
e ig 23 bexvbheet need aoe Fateaghul 7s
2 oS Setohiet ese dusmphel cdetdw
ih aulitey at heoeted Wh
iG S8INSSId aeO0 eaul meyer Geet Hose sealan =i : i
‘ ' : : i ‘i hay. ie
he se ye y =n OF digas A plete Pee Ris ak » % a nm ‘ “ah 46
Biclic Yas Javed ao ywinpa af eiws beste tigelad ett t okatt
40501
ISORA McHULTY, 4 ye %
Appellee, i io i %
ve ws 4) APPEAL pra suriron COURT,
LEWIS A. REINERT and | -_ y “COOK COUNTY.
ROBERT CLARKE, doing Prasiites aes
as the ALEXANDRIA HOTEL, )
Appellants, )
7 \
305 I1.A- 625
MR. JUSTICE SCANLAN DELIVERED ThE OPINION OF THE COURT,
An action in tort for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff
while a passenger in a passenger elevator of defendants in the
Alexandria hotel, in Chicago. A jury returned e verdict finding
defendantSguilty and assessing plaintiff's damages at $7,500.
Defendants appeal.
Defendants contend: "The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur raises
only a presumption or inference of negligence which vanishes entirely
when any evidence appears to the contrary. Any such presumption was
clearly rebutted in the case at bar and the trial court should have
directed a verdict for the defendants at the close of all the evidence,"
"A motion to instruct the jury to find for the defendant is in
the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, and the rule is that the
evidence so demurred to, in its aspect most favorable to the plaintiff,
together with all reasonable inferences arising therefrom, must be
taken most strongly in favor of the plaintiff. The evidence is not
weighed, and all contradictory evidence or explanatory circumstances _
must be rejected, The question presented on such motion is whether
there is any evidence fairly tending to prove the plaintiff's
declaration. In reviewing the action of the court of which complaint
is made we do not weigh the evidence, = we can look only at that
which is favorable to appellant [plaintiff]. Yess v, Yess, 255 Ill.
414; licCune v. Reynolds, 288 id, 188; Lloyd v. Rush, 273 id, 489,"
.TAUOD roriave a | eatin.
jfiition ‘oooh! «Ia ass
“6S9 Al 208
.T8vd0 MT TO MOTUTIO THT CHARY LI WAtHADe sorter, eed
y Poe ee h
‘ vue d Rotel ty
qtitate la yd beistine esiatat Isnoateq s0T1 endian mottos DAs, »fodeil
exit at atnzbneteh to todjsvele tegmeessq = mt teyptesasg, « ©Lidw »)
petbat? totbuer s bonmwiet yuh A .ogsotdd at .fotod skrbusxeLir >:
_ 008, 3% Js doesn a'Titiaislg galeseees bas YiLingetnebneteb «+
_. sfeeqqs adasbasted.—
eoetst suit tunol segt eon to aun out” ibastaos asnabnoted |
vLertise ore tisv do tele sonsyitsen To. ecetsint 10 soliquyseig ‘Mallee
esw sokiquvestq dove YA .Yistimoo edd of saseqqs somobive, Yas, mosw 9:')
evad bivode tayoo Istid edd bas isd ts s289 odd at botiudet yLluselo
,sonebive ert Lis to ezolo edt ts edusbucteb edd 10% sotbrev.s betpextb» ©
at at dnsbasteb odd rol hati of. yust add touttemh.ot mottom A") ox lict
oid tant at elu ast bas ,sonvbive eid of reTuMeb Lovemian edd iid
gi itiaiele edd of eldsitevsl Jeom tooqes est at ,ot betumeb o2 somebive —
ed Jem ,movtoveds yatelis eeonoistat oldsmoeset Lia satin yedteged (ix
gom ak eomebive eff .titinielq edd to rovet mt yLgmorte Jeom modest
_ eeoastemoilo ytodanslqxe 10 eonebive viotolbsatnoo Ifs bas bedghow ‘
| -nadgesdw et cottom dove mo betnezeg aotteoup ed? .botooter ed dem
ae'ttivnialq edd everq ot gathnesd yiattst eonsbive ys et srett
tnisiquos doldw to Javon eft to motvosieds gutweitvet aI .mottsisloob-
tant te vino fool aso ew ~ ,oonebive edt dgtew tom ob ow ebam ak
-ffE @8S .ges¥ .v ese¥Y .[2titatelq] saslieqqs o¢ efdstovet ef doidw
08) ,bt ETS estan .v byoll 7O8L .bt 88S ,ebLomyed .v enyOoM ¢ hh
eed
(Hunter v, Troup, 315 Ill. 293,.296, 297.) See, also, Mahan ¥,
c son, 284 Ill. App. 493, 495; Thomason v, Chicaso Motor Coach
Co., 292 Iil. App, 104, 110; Wolever v, Curtiss Candy So,, 293 Tl,
App. 586, 597.
In support of their contention defendants do not cite any
passenger elevator cases,
"There is no employment where the law demands a higher degree
of care and diligence than in the construction and operation of
passenger elevators. Their operation is necessarily to some extent
dangerous, The control of the operator is absolute and the passenger
is helpless as far as self-preservation is concerned, Powerful
agencies of locomotion are employed while often the speed of travel
is swift and the height attained is perilous, Therefore, the highest
degree of human care and foresight is required of those engaged in
either the construction or operation of passenger elevators and they
are responsible for the slightest negligence." (Webb's The Law of
Passenger and Freight Elevators (2d ed.), p. 7)
In the reports of the Appellate courts and the Supreme court of
this State many passenger elevator cases may be found,
In Hertford Deposit Co, v, Sollitt, 172 I11., 222, the court
said (p. 225): “Persons operating elevators are carriers of passengers,
and the same rules applicable to other carriers of passengers are
applicable to those operating elevators for raising and lowering
persons from one floor to another in buildings. It is a duty of
such carriers of passengers to use extraordinary care in and about
the operation of such elevators, so as to prevent injury to persons
instruction in this ease, in alleging that the plaintiff was in the
elevator for the purpose of being carried from one floor to another,
and that the elevator, owing to its negligent and faulty construction
age
oN gists .oels .9@ (.RS .0S ,CS .LIT ULE ,quor? .v sedaul)
desoD xotoM ogsoidd .v mogsmod? ,UCh ,ceh .qgA LIT 8S ,mosbaadoti
-ffI ECS .aQd whos selva) .v seveloW yOil ,POl »qqA sft SOS qaed
a NRR BBE waa
Yis etio tom ob etnsbaeteb Molinesnes ttedd Io Jtoqque al
4aeaso totavelo aepnoeeeg
eeigebh terigin s abnsmeb wal end oterw sremyolquye om eb etoni"
ta nots steqo bas nottous3 anos ony mi malt eonegiftb bas e189 to
tnetxe emoe of yltiseesson eat molteseqo aledT man A. <epsoaenq
4oynedacq oft fbns ofsloads et 19ssieqe edd to Lotsmop sdT. ,arorsgaab
isttewod ,homreomos el nolisvieeetg-ilee as ist es aeolqied at
Lovets 20 besqe edd sodto elidw hoyolque ets solttomesol to .eelansgs
seorigid ort ,etoteoted? ,evoliteq al bentatis Jtdgted edt bas.tttweat
at begeagno seonls to bettypet at ddgleotol bus o7a9 semi pRepeesyed.
yodt bra atotsvels tegnseesq to sottsteqo to moltsoussanes eli tedtte
towel ad? etddey) ",oanegiigon Jaeddatla odd so? eldienoqaet/exs —
— Ga 0G glade BS) ertotsvela. ddgleti bag togneaagt
Yo #anop emsique eds baa sdivos etelleqqs edt to, eiaogen edd a1.
sbavot ed Ysu 2e%s9 to¢avele sogmecesg Yast, oats. ands
gos edd 4SSS tT SYS gid ti fos .v soo Sheoned bueiizel af
_2togmeeesq to etstiiso ois atodsvels gatsiea1sgo.amoete% +(2SS. »q) bise
| (@%s egegmscasg to ereisiso seddo of oldsoiiqgs eelus emse.eds bas
goinovel hue gaieler tot eiotsveis yatisieqo ceeds of eldsoilggs
to yiub eal di ,egathitod ai redseas of 100lt.em0, mort amozi9q
tuods bas at siso yisatbiositxe sev ot exegaoeasq to eteiiieo dove
-Btoateq of ystal tneverq of as o@ 2t0ssvele move to moliateqo. edt
‘edt mi asw Yiivaisly ess tad gaigelis at ,eese eLdt. chieeienta
ostedtons oF, 109 ft. tr beptacat be bmage: gated to. :; SOT, cine sad
_ gsoltounsenoo yYIust bas inogtigen atk ot aatwe etosevele | ond ‘tadd aus
-3-
or to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the servants in
operating the same, fell, and caused an injury to the plaintiff,
stated a correct proposition of law, and stated a liability for
causes alleged by the counts of this declaration.” (Italics ours.)
In Springer v, Ford, 189 Ill. 430, the court said (pp. 434,
435, 436):
"At the close of the plaintiff's testimony, and again at the
close of all the testimony, the defendant moved the court to instruct
the jury to find the defendant not guilty, which the court declined
to do, and the action of the court in that behalf has been assigned
as error,
"The law is well settled that persons operating elevators in
buildings for the purpose of carrying persons from one story to
another are common carriers of passengers, [Citing cases,] * * *
"The operators of such elevators, upon the grounds of public
policy, are required to exercise the highest degree of care and
G@iligence, The lives and safety of a large number of human beings
are entrusted to their care, and the law requires them to use extra-
ordinary diligence in and about the operation of such elevators to
prevent injury to passengers being carried therein, * * *
“When a passenger is injured by reason of the giving way of
some portion of the wachinery or appliances by which the elevator is
operated, the presumption of negligence from such breaking, unexplain-
ed, arises. In New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad
Blumenthal, 160 I11. 40, we say on page 43: ‘The happening of an
accident to a passenger during the course of his transportation raises
a presumption that the carrier has been negligent. The burden of
rebutting this presumption rests upon the carrier, Undoubtedly,
the law requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant has been
negligent. But where the plaintiff is a passenger, a prima facie
case of negligence is made out by showing the happening of the accident,
af<
ai ajusvice eft to Jisq odd mo eaenmeaoleiss bas eonegilyen edd 6t “10
itiwatelq odd ot yuijat as Seasss bas Lier couse ath gnbtonsgo
xot YLildell » hetsde bus wel to nod teoqom soet1Od":
(.ewo eotigtl). ‘widhterwiosb etdd to wasdy edd Yo begells deetso
ePE* .qq) biae duwoo edt .O€s LIT en cbse a1_sentiag 2 “A
ES 96 | TOU SY gCQER CRED
edt ts atege bas ,yomtszed e'ttidaltelq est Yo edory odd Far
fouisent of ives end Hevea Jachroteb oft pymomivaedy olf Ils to o2ofo
henkloeb tumoo eit dotdw yLtes ton jnehneteb end bar ot yt ent
bangtees aoed eit Mined taint sues wit to mbLYeR ett hid ob! bs
eypuaws sid . jaws ae act’ on ea
at exotevele yuktereqo andeteg tadd HetItee’ crow at wer" edn
sed Tpxede. end hott enon sbq iiyizes Ww saddehy SA ade Aghib Fibs
+ * # (,e0es0 gmit2O) seteymdens@ Yo etottrso ndadoo 618 TeddOts
otidng to ehavory enid woqu {etosavete dome To etédexdqd odie”
agaied misuusi Yo tedaw eguel ae Yo Ysetse bed acviL edt eonsyifth
-ctixe seu ot mej aoutuper wal ox? Bie otso tory ox betewrind Ors
of 2xatsvele dove to aottereqo edt guods bets nf bdiiegtith yrantbx0
# & ® \ittewdds botrrs> gitted sropnsblts oo Yabba dover
to Yow gatvig edd to moeses yd bouwtah- et 4 ,
ek totevelo ont Holdv yd eoonetiqgs -to enti Wis ce neletby Ve
ula ntnanckanminntianee seer ottcmectg oft |, boverego
1. 40% y eteY wort nt aceite (bo
te to yaknoqqad ont ns atbheSeatarlartaht “VIET OBL (Lacidmonuct
eorter molded soqenetd ele to setwed off yntaib topnozesq 2 0} dmobtoos
Ps ia P= 2, ‘; ye Le
“Ro mebund ont tne ttyon nbed" tant Yottle ltt Yad Rebate oxe cs
atesd asd tnohasteb odd tails Weald aarti
eiosk ambrg 2 etoynecena. 6 eh Y2idnhelq edd ‘otodw sha Jdmogttyen
»tnebioos add ‘Yo ‘gaitmoqdad ‘eit: reteset aCe ‘dud onait Ws "Wonegttgen ‘gytiagt :
sioaeo gabed. te na Th OCT 102, sotevese
r?
f
Se Deas RRR A ae SS SWB ee avi.
at guatwe 4 sotaveto ‘exit: “pauld OAs ae
a
if the injury to a passenger is caused by apparatus wholly under the
control of the cerrier and furnished and applied by it, a presumption
ef negligence on its part is raised.’ And in Hartford Deposit Co. Vv.
Sollitt, supra, it is said (p. 225): 'The fact of the falling of
the elevator is evidence tending to show want of care in its manage=-
ment by the operetor or its servants, or thet the same was out of
repair or faultily constructed.'" (Italics ours.)
In Steiskel v, Field & Co,, 238 Ill. 92, the court said (p.
98): “This court has held (Hartford Deposit Co. v. Sollitt, 172 Ill.
222, and Springer v. Ford, supra,) that a person operating a passenger
elevator under the circumstances under which the elevator in question
was being operated at the time of the accident is a carrier of persons
and bound to exercise a high degree of care in transporting passengers,
and that the fact that the elevator fells when persons ere be carried
thereon is evidence that the elevator was mismanaged or was out of
repair or of faulty constructicn," (Italics ours.) See, also,
Chicago Exchange Building Co, v, Nelson, 197 Ill. 334, 339; Beidler
v. Branshaw, 200 Ill, 425, 429.
} It follows from the aforesaid decisions that “the fact of the
aang of the elevator is evidence tending to show want of care in its
Management by the operator or its servants, or that the same was out
of repair or faultily constructed,"
Plaintiff lived at Waukesha, Wisconsin, The accident happened
on the afternoon of May 3, 1936. She boarded the elevator on the
fourth floor of the hotel with her daughter, Wary Melulty; her daughter's
friend, Frank Bucci; her son, William McNulty; her husband, Joseph
Melulty; her sister, Mrs, J. Bvans; and Robert Schram, < minor child,
Two guests in the hotel were also in the elevator, John Cullen was the
operator of the elevator. He was a candy maker by trade and at the
time of the trial had been employed for eight months as a candy maker,
When he started working at the Alexandria hotel in March, 1936, as an
elevator operator it was his first experience in operating an elevator,
whe
G, -
eit isha Yllodw emaiusyqs Yd beaxzso.al t9gnssasg & ot wuupat ext
noljiquvverg s ,.tLi Yd Soiiqge bas bedztawt bas, r9ls789 ed to Lorsac
-V .92 theoged Saotirs at baa ',beetet et tisq eit go sonepiizes, 20
YoLAS
te sctiiss ogt 20 goat sdk? : (SS aq) biee ef th Sees prces elo
is ns
o¢) Biase duos edd SC /LLT. 96S quatfublahtu® desates® a B at 2a
-LIT SVE gtttilod.v ape ttmoned pritagl) blad cad due ets +(89
awegdezesq s yattsieqo moersg s Sarit (,eTque .bio% .v seamiqs das bas 5 «S85
notseenp at totsvele edt dotdw. tebas eeouste ead tebay totevele
enoersq to tetriso 6 af Sasbioes ed} to omit ods. te Beterege weted ey
categasetsq yattroqanstd at ors to eoaged, dghd 3. sie ot bes aie
corte 202 (.emo aotistl) | ae
Beihied 2Che ePEC «LIT TOL eget:
stale 884 Boh al EE, 008 auasenexd .¥
ody to tost ‘edt* salt enctetoeb Algsetots edy mor) ayetie? At geste. :
edt mtoxss Yo daw wode of yathaed egnoptye gt rotevele at te
‘Sue-asw omse ad: tads to- eeanarnes adi to toterogo silt yd J fee tans
=ttiial qa oS betosrtenes Witt ust. to ,haea eae"
benegqad. dnebtoos edt ,atenooeti ada eave a; beret PS caret -be
edd: no totsyele edt bebusod.eda, »9€CL. «f.NaM 29 goomtetts edt m0
eesigued rod (ys Liliek Yas _ tedsgaeb, sed Atty, Letod ers to rool dsauot
figozot ,hasdaud tol yyslelioM malfity soe text itoou Aaa beet
obLido. sorte. 2: ,mastab dapdek; Sap. AnavA, oh, RM a teresy. sad ty Lao
edt enw aeflvd stot ..t0¢svele ent ak exis exon Legod Fd ct aes ee
edi de. brie. sbstd yd ream Xhqse.@ cay OF ..»tetayale edt Yo « on
steism Ybaso 6 es addaon digte 10% Resca lame, 90d Pee oe wont te ents
as es CL «foul nt Lodo sitbasxeLA odd Js yutduow bedtate od med
stotevele ne guktsreqo nt sonetreqxe gettt eld aew dt ‘rot stego cats
je
Sometime after the accident = date not fixed - he was employed by
defendants in the hotel as a "bell hop." Plaintiff and her party
intended to leave the elevator on the first, or lobby floor, and one
of the party requested Cullen to let them off at that floor. All of
the passengers desired to alight at that floor, From the time that
plaintiff got on the elevator until it struck the bottom of the shaft
in the basement it did not stop, although persons desired to get on
the elevator at the third floor, and Cullen admitted that he “had room
for a couple more or so,“ The great preponderance of the evidence
shows that after Cullen released the control at the fourth flodr the
elevator descended with rapidly increasing force until it hit the
bottom of the shaft, One of plaintiff's witnesses testified that it
hit the bottom with "a terrific crash," Another testified that it was
like “hitting up against a cement wall," "a very hard blow," that
"jarred" the witness, Another testified that when it hit the bottom
it seemed to her that they “were going through the floor," Another
testified that “we struck the bottom very hard, * * * When the elevator
hit the bottom it just felt like something had pushed my head and neck
down to my feet." One of plaintiff's witnesses testified that as the
elevater was descending Cullen "switehed the control back into reverse
and it had no effect, It increased in momentum at the same time, * * *
The control seemed to shift a little bit, as he moved it into reverse,
and then he moved it back into high, and as he moved it back into reverse
it had no effect." Another witness for plaintiff testified that as they
were descending she saw the elevator operator "shake" the lever, but
“the car just shook us and the car just kept going faster and faster
and faster until we landed," Another witness for plaintiff testified
that as the elevator reached the third floor there was a passenger waiting
there to get on and Cullen tried to stop the elevator; that “he shifted
the control lever on the elevator, and we just continued, The elevator
man moved the lever horizontally, * * * The elevator just continued to
drop on; it did not stop. * * * It was at the third floor where he
Yd beyolque caw of ~ bextt ton etsh ~ Yaobtoos edd tosis wit omod
vWisq tod bos ttitdislt “.qod Ifed” s es Levor odd st ednsbasteb
Sito bie ,s00ft yddol so ,textt edt mo totsvels sits oveel od bebuesat
30 ££ ,xo0lt dort $s Yo medd Jol of meLlnd betaenpet Wrsq eild ‘to
~ pant omtd ond moxvt > roolt stadt Fe Sogtis ot Borkesb arosmoaesq is
Stare ert to modtod ent Hontte +f Ltimy toFsvelé edt mo sos vikiatslg
mo toy of bottesb emoertoq Aguorti« Tove Jor pie tt tremeesd ey mt
moor bast of fads bedtimbs molind brs -yabolt pitdy edt ts sosavele ods
‘eonebive sdf to eererebnoqetq tnéTg oT “Joe 40 orem elquoo s 202
edt bolt d#uwo0t edd ts Lowaoo off beesefet mefiwd toF%s ‘ats awoste
end tint ¢t Itdnw sovot gntesoront biqet dd bw bebneszeb ros svele
$f Fendt belttteot eoeeonsiw a'titiaislq To en0 Pada edd Yo mos dod
gow $F dads belthieed teddomA “ dears olthtred 5” dd tw wossod auld ‘gad
dedd "wold basil yrov s” "flew toms p fentoa qe pita La oo EL
uotod edd Yi ¢t mentw Garth betthvaed woalvenh” vaseadiw ody bow
aeddortt “, tool? edd dgvoTty yutos crew” youd tally Hed oF” bonoee Jt
totsvelo edt ae * * * , bast yrev mosfod edt tourte ‘ow add portt tdee:
woon bus baed yr bedenq bad gatdvouoe ott sot veut st wodtod odd hd
edt es fart boftiveed eezeontin e'Yitdalslg to ead doe w oy swob
‘eeievet otat aosd Lortaos et Berlod we” meLtud gatbueoeeb eew naiaveLe “
x 44% (omits ome edt ts auSctomom mt bedsevsmt +I footie ot bart $2 bas
qSetever oft St bevom ad es ,ttd ofFFEE a Jttde od beuses Lorsa0o onl?
earevedt odnt toad Jt bevom od es bas gid ofmt Xosd JE boven ed aout bas
yous as Feit beltitess Trtseisl> t0t eeond lw eiitoca "Soothe on bast $2
gud ,t9vel edd “odede” totsteqo sotavete ext | mse octe gatbaeseoh oxen
sotast bas tetest uittog sqex tent aso eit bus ew foodie tant ‘cao ona"
belitvess Titintsiq tot eeendiw “usditona * bebast ow isenrd notes? ‘bus
aittew tegtoresd 6 aaw ered to00lt bxtdd ext beroset rod svele exit es #1 aa
bottite of” Jedd protevels exit gose ot betas mol ind bas ao toy of
tty OP
at
sotavele off beratinos tavt ow bus etotsvele odd 0 xovel Lontnos ents
- a
2 ech pepaty
of bouutiaes sent totevele edit * # % <r Yebmeatiod aovel ‘edd fp Bent oe a .
ed exedw w0O0Olt butds oft ta aw JI” awl Bei e” bed “bib 32 Pe
=b=
tried to operate the elevator. The elevator just made a shuddering
motion and continued to lower;" that the speed increased on the way
down until it stopped at the bottom, Cullen, testifying for defendant,
stated that plaintiff and her party got on the elevator at the fifth
floor; that as the elevator left the fifth floor it started up gradually
and increased its speed a certain amount; thet it could be stepped in
three or four feet; thet he did not touch the control lever until the
elevator was three or four feet above the lobby floor and that the
elevator could be stopped at that floor in that distance; that when he
broke the contact the car slackened somewhat and the brakes held; that
the power was not off entirely until the car went into the basements
that when the elevator got to the bottom "the car stopped on the
bumpers. There was a very slight jar and I attempted to raise the car
again and found that my support was broken and I couldn't raise the
car and sc I opened my doors and let the passengers out, * * * I went
around to get the car in operation, with the engineer;" that he came
down and assisted by “the other bell boy" they moved "the cable back
over onto the groove in the drum, * * * We had a rod there to pry the
cable back over into that groove and the circuit had to be made at that
time;" that the engineer held in the circuit breaker "and I was in the
ear at the throttle at the lever there;" that when the cable was forced
back in the groove the car started up again; that it took “about five
or ten minutes, not much longer," to restore the service, The following
question was put to the witness: "Q. On this particular occasion, when
you pulled this lever over did it break the contact? A. Well, it must
have, because I could not operate the car. * * * I suppose the brake
aid not hold exactly tight enough te stop the car." The witness further
testified that the governor regulates the safety dogs; that he understood
how this was done "to a certain extent,” He further testified:
"] imagine it is a mechanical brake on there and when you throw your
power off the brake holds, That's all I ean figure out. That is when
I pull the lever to the center, The contact with the motor, that runs
the motor, should have broken, and when that breaks it cuts off the
ellin
guttebbusie s obsm teut totavelo eft .tosjevelo edd sisisqo of boku’
Yow act mo beesotomt besqe edt tadt “prewel od bomntdned baw mobtom
vinsbastteb rot galyiiveed .iteL ind .modsed sid te beqgode 3h Lbtadr avo
AsIII eff ta t0otsvelo edt mo Foy YIisq Ted hoe Tiktmteig gadd botese
Yileubery qu. bettste ¢L soolt ditt? odd tief sodevels enjv-es tends qgadolt
nt beqqote od bluoo tk ¢add yieuromb aistcbe = beegm etl beeseront fas
art LIttay vovel Loijmes odd rouet Jom Sib od Jadd ysost amet wo seuly
edt tadt bus toolt yddel end evods, oot mol to souls asw rovevelse
ed neorlw Sst yesonedelh Stadt ai tocol? sand ts beqqote ed biweo tostavele
$sd3 gbLed acaland ot bas tenwemoe benenlosie «a0. sit Fostaod eds exord
Wiomeesd ort ojnt dnew uso od (itn yLertias ito tom esw sewoq eng
ony mo beqqgota is9 eft" motvod onit 0} Jog wos avelo ens ror: Fads
“ao odd oetex o¢ hodqmedts I bits ast dfigile yrov s. 2awiewdT \,ensqad
ond eetet '*ablvoo I fms mexond esw duoqque wr dent bawot bas ntaes
taow I * * * ,tue etogmecesq odd tel bas avoob yr boneqo) lL. 08 bas 1b9
emsd of tedd *;1sentgno edt détw ,wotss vege at tee ent Joy od bamoira
wosd efdso eis” bevam yordt "you Lied sonido. oat” VG beteteas bas awob
eed gros ewes bot s ber oy toe .muth eid: mt eyoo'rg: eit otno tevo
seit Ja sham ed ot bad tinorts oft bas evoe1g tadd otal swevd aosd eLdso
ois ak asw I bua" xoxksomd timorio eft mt bied s9semigas. edd tads * poms
Heotet esw sidso edi serw Jandy “yporedd revel aft 3s elttouds eddoterass
* @vit. jwods" stoo# Ji sadd prkags qn beduste zho odd evoorg ont ah’ albad
gxiwolfot edT .sotvise oft erotesa of ",togaol dom som yeotiulmastetS —
medw yuolesooo isiwoldisg eidt nO .9". seeent iw edt, os duq ean noljaesnp
tem tL yileW .A Vdostnoo edd aseid 2 bib seve tovel ettit bef Lag 0%
sdstd edd seoqqua L * * * +is20dd etareqe jon blueo I exused syed
teijwm? sesntiwied? "yxso edt gota pd davon dig ido yitosne! bloga: dom BLD ,
bootasebamr ed isdd pegod yYolwe edd eeteingot womrev6g ens Jans: belitiees —
sbeltisesd aed¢ul lev ie colo" dnedxe: ftisdaee 8 of". snob caw etdd)wod ;
Woy wouls soy medwi bas stedt mo extend) tantnadoee acetdtonatgenton?
sew ei gadt ,iMe siwglt oso I ifs attad? .ebLod otterd adi
edt’ Te" cewel't Feeney innate! Lea’ halieicina hind Rameau
i
ant Jens _rotex sd sitiw testes ori, .tedmeo! cult ot woveL a tg 2 ; .
on J
motor and puts this brake into operation, It did on this particular
ececasion, ‘he brake held. That's what slowed the car dow. That's
what allowed your ear to settle, The motor kept on going because
there was no power on the motor. As I said before, there is a mechanical
brake on there that will hold when the motor is shut off, When the
contact isn't broken the brake doesn't hold and the car keeps on going.
On this particular occasion it must have broken the contact because I
couldn't operate the car, The car did not stop. I suppose the brake
did not hold tight enough to stop the car, It did not hold tight
enough to stop the car to a dead stop, The power was off the motor
when i threw the switch off. The brake held to a certain extent. It
allowed the car to drift, to settle, That is not a bad drift. The
.¢ar just settled slowly." Cullen, also testified that the elevator,
besides being equipped with the regular control lever, was equipped with
a baby switch, and that when that switeh was pulled it would cut the
line, cut off the power, and set the brake; that when he started work
at the hotel the engineer of the hotel told him how to operate the car
and how to operate the baby switch; that when the engineer used the
baby switch 1t stopped the car; that said switch is located right under
the main control, but that he did not work the baby switch at the time
of the accident because he knew that if he used it it would throw the
power completely off and the elevator “would probably be stuck between
the floors and have to get an engineer" to put the elevator in service
again. After carefully considering all of the evidence bearing upon
the accident we have reached the conclusion that the jury would be
fully justified in finding from the evidence want of care in the manage-
ment of the elevator by the operator, that the elevator was out of
repair, and that both of said causes contributed to bring about the
accident, Im our judgment no honest, intelligent jury could have found
a verdict in favor of defendants under the fects and circumstances in
evidence,
Defendants contend that the court erred in giving to the jury
=
isivotiteq ales so bth JI ,motisieqo ojnt exsad atds adud bas tedom
g'tad? .awob ta ond bewole sandw a'tadT -bLed exstd eT «ttobe 5990
eeusood gitos mo Sqeai sotom edT .elitez ot 189 Woy bewolts d adw
Isotnaroom s at ouedd or0ted bise I eA .tosom odd mo tewog om eaw “eed?
ed} ned .tt0 tue ef totom edd merw blod Lliw gadt onedd a0 “galaad
.3nLog fio eqeewd iso edd bas blord #'peo0b salsad ext?’ ‘nedload 3! iat “Fosdioo
“Z eaysood toetnoo ed meitord evad Jami Ft nokeso0e oe beife no
exaid eft Seoqqne I .qode tom bib tes odT ~ .
| digit biod You beb I. 2ad edd Gose oF Hywons pry voenareeere
~ godom edd Yio eaw iSWoq 6tT .qode Babb s oF isd ody ote Ot AgHOlte
$I \Gmbsx0 mistress 3 ot Biod oxlerd ed? *Y10' dot twe “Gad wettiF°T Aeliw
od? .ttiub bad s tom at tadt eltted of (2tixb 6d°28d effd bowotis
~ qtotavers of} tiny hottisesd owls ymertud “", ylwote befttea Sent tse.
dtiw Beqaispe esw ,tSvel Iornes telygoy ont atiw boggtups yatod esblesd
edd tuo Diuow Fr belting eaw dottwe Fads mostw Fadi Bag dottwe Ydad's
— Htow besasde on nedw sods pooled ot toe bas jrowog Gilt to §gno {oaks
aa5 oct etareqo ot worl mii blot Levod eit to teemtyad” oad Leseit” oti te
ef} Boe teomtsne offt meodw tadt yifotiwe Ydsed ad} odetsqo OF Wor bis
teba tight bessool et tothwa bise tadt yubo oft boqqose Ft Hot bwe dad
emtt off ts dodiwe yded ont Stow ton SED ont dart tue Townes absat eis
“git would bivow tt $F bean ed TE tacid worl on eestsoed Fnobtoos add to
neswied douse od Yidsdorq bivow" aodsvefe ort bus Tro Yleselquive “wioq
‘eotvree at tovsverfo ot Sie ot “toentgite ds fey ot Svert bas e4dert Bhs
fogs yntised sonobive eft “to ffs giftebietoo YItietss eTK’ Hekge
od bivow yust ‘eft FAHY motevismoy sit perfoset ovad ow tHebivod bas
~ogsnst ert at e139 to tasw eonebive ert mott yatbatt Ar beltEyent: ~Lint
Yo duo ecw todsvelo Ord Fant protereyo seit yd aotsvels Say Yo Inom
edd Fuods gatid of hotnditincd weetiso’ bkee to ated soctd Bis pristjor
bret eve binoo Yaut Jeogtilotat \tebrtod om taemghut “to nt “taebisos
nt eoonstemorto bus etost sit tehnw ednsbnoted te tevet dt Yotbuev s
-... i etwas heh She g' Sos eines qalenedasht oe
‘7 Gee _
; ,
j
.
~~
plaintiff's instruction muber 6, which reads: "(6) The court ine
structs the jury that if you believe from the evidence in this case,
that the plaintiff on or about the 3rd day of May, 1936, was rightfully
in an elevator in the possession of and operated by the defendants and
situated in the Alexandria Hotel, for the purpose of being carried
thereby from one of the upper floors of said building to the ground
floor thereof; and if you further believe from the evidence that while
the plaintiff was so in such elevator, and in the exercise of reasonable
and ordinary care fer her own safety, said elevator fell in the shaft
of said elevator and violently struck against the bottom of said shaft;
and if you further believe from the evidence that the plaintiff was
thereby injured as charged in the complaint, then the burden would be
upon the defendants to prove by the evidence, that the defendants could
of care, consistent with the practical prosecution of their business
and the mode of conveyance adopted." (Italics ours.) Defendants
complain of that part of the instruction that we have italicized, We
find no merit in the contention,
In Blgin, Aurora & Southern Traction Co, v,. Wilson, 217 I11.
47, the court said (pp. 51, 52): "The appellant company is a common
carrier of passengers for hire, The appellee became a passenger on
one of its cars. The rule of liability is that applicable to the
relation of carrier and passenger, Proof that the appellee was a
passenger, thet the car in which she was riding collided with another
car and that she was injured, no negligence appearing on her part,
made a prima facie case of negligent failure on the part of the
appellant to discharge the duty it owed to her, and entitled her to
recover damages for the injuries sustained by her unless the appellant
company, by proof, should acquit itself of the presumption (that
collision was in some way oecasioned by its failure to discharge its
duty as_a public carrier to the appellee, as its passenger, [Citing
cases.) * * # The doctrine to be deduced from the above cases is,
—-
-af tayoo edT (6)" sebdsex dotdw,,.d.19dmn sottowitent: e'titiatelqe
,9389 alst at sonsbhive edi mort svelfed woy if Jade yinh sds .etonite
ylintidgit asw ,OQl ,¥sM to yab bag, odd suode 10 no. Yiidakelqveds sadd»
bas etashuoleb edd yi bedexeqo bas to aglaserzeog odd at totevels emt:
beliiss sailed to esoqmwg edd s01 ,leogoK sitbasxels sdiunt betestha’
bovotg edi of guthitud blag to esoolt seqqu edt heoemo méxt yderedd»
olirw Jedi eoushive ody mett eveiied sedsat soy tL bie jRosteds Loslt
idauoase% to eatotexe eis at bus ,todavels dove ob os daw Titiniel¢ edFo
ttede od ak Iket totavele bise ,Welss mwo 19d tot stes-ytadtbio bas”
jtsde biee Io modsod sit dentags Aoutte yidnelotv bus wotavele Hise”
— BtnsbaoteG (,avo eollsdl) “.petnobs sogeyevapo Yo shom ex) bie’
oF. ,besteliett oved ow Jadd nottonttent edd te: daaged afd! to mbelqmeo ©
aa? beus t990!3 snoltnetaes old ak tbrem on Salt ©
OB, A pttelZ ar’ be Yaisel
sommoo. 2 el Yasquoo daslleqqe oAT* -2(S8 nis 9d). Dag "S109 ed GYR!
No T9gmeeesq s emsood selleqqs sal <,ethd t0t exrogmocesg “td toledo ©
oe-edd of efdsotiq¢s tant et WFELtdsti to efva onl \petse att te onoo%
ig sew sollLeqgs edd tadt toorl yregnseesq. bets tolense ‘te acttdfet /—
reddons dtiw bebtifeo snthia zew one dotdw mt neo sat tart qTeynoagsg
eJteq ‘ted no gntiesygs sonegiigen on ybowtict esw vede dedd: fete mes! ‘a
ont to tusq eft mo: erskha®, dneziigen to sese gtost ented 8 obaatt
od tor helitine bua ,1ed oF howo St Wash edd egrsdoeth of tnslleqds >.
ele tod yd bentstave eetwak edd rod eeysisd tevosen 1
-9
that when one becomes a passenger on a car of a common carrier to be
transported from one station on its line to another, and has paid a
consideration therefor, the contract on the part of the carrier is to
provide safe and sound cars, track and necessary appliances to carry
the passenger to his or her destination without injury. Where such
@ passenger is injured by a collision, proof of the relation of
passenger and carrier, of the collision and the injury, if no contri-
buting negligence on the part of the passenger appears, makes a prima
facie case for the resulting damages, and casts upon the common carrier
the omis of proving that the injury resulted from inevitable accident
or from some cause against which human prudence and foresight could
not have provided," (Italics ours.) See, also, Chicago City Ry, Co.
Vv. Carroll, 206 Ill. 318, 331, 332, where an instruction like the
instant one was approved, in Styburski v, Riverview Park Co., 298
Ill. App. 1 (decided by this division of the court), Mr. Justice
Sullivan cites numerous cases bearing upon the doctrine of res ipsa
loguitur, and holds that in an action by a patron of an aerial ride
at an amusement park for injuries sustained when a cable broke, where
there was no intimation that the plaintiff was at fault, and a prima
facie case of negligence having been established by the facts of the
eceurrence and the injury to plaintiff, under the doctrine of res
ipsa loguitur, the burden of proof was upon defendant to show that
the accident was without its fault, and that the question whether
the prima facie case of negligence was overcome by defendant's evi~=
dence was one of fact for the jury. A petition for leave to appeal
from our judgment was denied by the Supreme court (ib. xvi).
In support of their contention that the italicized portion
of the instruction was erroneous defendants cite, as "the leading
ease in this State," Bollenbach v, Bloomenthal, 341 I11. 539.
That case has no bearing upon the instant contention. There, plain=-
tiff sued defendants, dentists, for alleged malpractice. The plain-
tiff tried the case upon the theory that the doctrine of res ipsa
loguitur applied in such a case, The court said (pp. 542 & 546):
ot,
ed. ot telaise momen « to 169 6 90 Teyneeesad § eemeoed eno nernw dadd,
s bisg eel bus ,tesdtens of entl adi ao nolistie eno mort betiogansat
ot ai soitiso edt to gusq eid no Sostsnoo edd ,teleteds molte1eblenog
yriso of segneilqgs Yisageoem bas Aostt ,eteo Savor bus gies ebiverq
dove eued .yrtat duodsiw cotsentiesb ted to aid ot tegaeaeag, ont,
to solialer et to leowg ywoletiioe s yd bewlal at togmeaesq &
~lijsoo on tL ,yuwial eid bas motatiloe edd to gtetitiss bus negnosesq
- pmbxo s sess .21seqgs tegmesesc add to dusq end mo somegtigon antind
oltis. nowmoo ord ogy edese bus ,2egeuah gaitiveos odd c0% saso gioad
+20, «MA NI2O onso jlo oats .o08 (amo » sobtatt). ",bebivesc svad tom
ot eat! mottouweant me omer SEE _LhE 816 ricmerenegicayer
eottast a tea edt 10 mobeivih ebdé - bobtoeb) 6 qgh aE
sek 2e7 to eniiioob ods moqs aniised aceso auoromin eetto asvitine
_ebia Lettes as to sotteq s yd moites me at dadd abled bus .aubtypel
eter ,exord eldso s medw benteseve eotwuiat. tot Ameq dnomeame os te
ited a fos ,tinet te cow Vibindely edd Jedd notsamtiak om saw oredt
ody Yo edoat odd Yd herletidatesaood gatvad eonegtigen to,.ease etos>
- BEG To ontitooh edt tobay ,Tiidnisiq et yietat edd bas eometiwoso,
said wore of Jnsbaoled moqu Raw lord Lo nebrud ocd ._mut lol sack
todsesw cotteenp elt teit baw ytine? att Ives in een Jnebloos ens,
ive 2linabasteh yd emeoveve asw eonegitger ‘te caso gtoat smiag ent —
Iseqas od ovsel 101 moittteg A .vmwh edd ae? Joe? lo.eno eawepneh
-(tvz ,dt) davon emenque odd yd botmeb 2aw dInemghul avo mort
metiieq hestotisst ond tacit solineinos. ated todseqque ab. 6 oo. ig
Uaibosl oft” es etic etnshaeteb evoonorie esw moitouaedt edd to
| REC LIT OSS .Lgelinomools wv dosdnollos ".etei8 eldt Aha |
ime ~oted? = ,nolinasiaoo dastamt ont ee ae ont tant 2BaD A
titel ofl ,eattosiqiam begells tot yedebineb |
(Aa? & Ob .ce) Rhee depes eat teas « dene wb Aeltets’
~10=
"The case proceeded to trial on the theory that the facts were suffi-
ecient to invoke the doctrine of re
the judgment the Appellate Court has sustained the application of
that doctrine. Defendants seriously contend that the doctrine of
res ipsa loguitur is not applicable in this case, and our decision
Will rest upon the determination of this ome question. * * * Wo
case has been cited where the doctrine of res ipsa loguitur has been
applied by this court as an aid to recovery in a malpractice suit,®
and the court held that the trial court erred in giving an instruction
directing the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loguitur and in
allowing plaintiff's attorney to argue it before the jury. Defendants
also cite Barnes v, Danville Street Ry, Co., 235 Ill. 566, and call
attention to the fact that the following instruction was there held to
be erroneous (p. 572): “'The court instructs the jury that the
happening of an accident to the car and proof that an injury to a
passenger resulted therefrom during the course of his transportation,
and proof that at the time of the accident, and just prior thereto,
the passenger was himself in the exercise of due care and caution for
his own safety, raises a presumption that the carrier has been negli-
gent. The burden of rebutting this presumption rests upon the carrier,.'"
In the Barnes case the injury to the passenger was caused by a collision
between a street car belonging to the defendant, in which the plaintiff,
a passenger, was riding, and the locomotive of a steam railroad owned
and operated by a different company. Under the facts of that case the
instruction passed ujon by the Supreme court was clearly erroneous,
The Barnes case, under its facts, does not apply to the instant case,
Defendants contend that "the damage awarded by the jury is
excessive and manifestly is the result of passion, prejudice or mis=
conception," In this conneetion defendants contend that counsel for
plaintiff was guilty of conduct that tended to create prejudice and
passion in the minds of the jury and caused them to bring in a highly
excessive verdict. Plaintiff's witness Dr. Scheele, who was her
s
«itive o1ew efost edt Ist Yreeds edt mo Istad of bobesso1g 9289. paiT™
gataitits at bus .sudippel segt ger to. satitoeb ent splovat of smote
to notisotiqas ait beatasewe esd tivo ot aLleqga exit Saou bul, eds
to ‘entatoob ont tsdt banedaco qlevotres atasbasted - eatzd 905 dads
moietoeb wo bas .0259 2 key ak si{dsoliqgs Jon af wéilivol seat sex
of * * * ,motseenp emo eidt to noljsaimteyeb only mogy, peer. Lttw
ased eal milepol sect sox to satisoob adj etodw beste need aed 9289
# tive sels oatqion 8 aii yrevepes ot bis GS 2s vie elds 3.8 bettags
- Moljouttent as yatvia at bette Jeu09 Ista edt tad? bled t1woo edt bus
mt bas aytivvol seat xex to entitoob ond 0 moti sotiqas, anit gattoorts
edasbre?ot <YuwL edt ototed tL engts os Yeuiosds atitdatela gatwolis
: pe a
Iiso bas ,2de .LLI RS 202 KH teem oLitvaad .v aenzal eft oats
"er
ot bio pole asw solvosisent yatwolfot edt Jedd Jost edd of molinests
edt Jedd cust exit ed owid ent duos efT'" 2(SYR »G) exosmonte od
s of cwbat iva) Saslt too1g bas 189 oes of dnebtoos Ais 0. _ grutnegg act
sod ad roqaraxd eld to semyop sds gatwb morietedy. Setiveot Tepmezesq
- eit deuie ihe
~otetedt tolzq deut bus ,tjaebioos ed} to smtt edd ta dst Ioomg bas
tot motives bas e1so exb to setorsxe eit at ILeemtd esw tognoaaag edt
"= Eigen need esi telaiso edt tect Noli quseotg & acetet avstolse wo eis
"t cetizso add mnogu edeot moidquumaciq ebdy gaiituder to aebind sd ,daeg
aeiniiine 8 Yd beavso asw tegmeszsgq exit os. Yusha sid es geoaes end at
cYiitatel¢ st dotdw at ,tashasteb edd of gatgaoled rs teotse. s goewted
benwo buorltsx asst s to ovis omosoL Reed baw aBtbit ‘SeW ,Togmeegzad s
eis seso dads to etost edd tobal - Yaisqaiog jnorte?itb. Yd betatego bas
eeuoonotie Yiiselo 2aw Jaivoo ememque edd yd ao begsag,. soltoustent
29289 Jastent edd of ‘Laas Jon e90b ,atost edt ebay ,e289. aonsee orl
el ymt edt yd bebiswas egasiad ods” Janis baatngo ed righ ete” . oa
-eim x0 eotbail,o7g etohezeg ‘to 3Lugor oat at iseottnan ba, eetaasoxs
‘tot Leaduoo ‘add brist.00 ‘edasbnotsb molt oennos. elds MT woksqeoaes
bas cotbuteng etso79 ot bebues Jesit Joubnog t9 ‘tun asw Tittatelg —
“ehits 8 at gatad ot meds beasgs, bas yu, odd ‘te adrciskigpageil
ed asw ovis _eoisedod: 3G e0nd iw a'Titvatel4 .
———————— Cr
=] J—
family physician and attended her before and after the accident in
question, testified that he had signed a certain document shown him
by defendants' counsel. Ne was then cross-examined at length in refer=
enee to the statements made in the document, When the cross-examination
of the doctor was concluded the following occurred: “lir. Spencer
{attorney for plaintiff]: You may offer it now and I won't object to
it. Mr. Farrell [attorney for defendants]: No, I will proceed in an
orderly fashion and put it in evidence, Mr. Spencers Will you put in
the rest of this that you tore off before you handed it to the witness?
Mr. Farrell: I object to the comment there. Hir, Spencer: Something
that occurred in the presence of the jury. Mr, Farrell: Justa
minute. I object to the comment and ask the jury to be instructed to
disregard it. The Court: That statement that somebody tore something
off, nothing in that. Mr. Spencer: It occurred right in the presence
of the jury. Mr, Farrell: I object to that. Mr. Spencer: The court
asked me if anything occurred, Nr, Burkhalter [attorney for defend
ants]: You are an experienced lawyer and should not do that. Mr,
Spencer: You say that is not the truth? Mr. Burkhalter: You are too
experienced to try to do that before the jury. The Courts That has
not been effered in evidence, Mr, Spencer: All right. lr. Burkhalter:
It is unbecoming to you. Mr, Spencer: I am not asking counsel to
approve my conduct, your Honor." The original document is ineorperated
in the record and it shows that the top part of the document has been
torn off. What that part contaimed the record does not show, Mr.
Spencer stated that counsel for defendants tore off a part of the
document in the presence of the jury. It will be noted that the
counsel for defendants did not deny that such was the fact, but pro-
ceeded to lecture Mr, Spencer and to accuse him of unbecoming conduct.
If counsel for defendants did not tear off part of the document in
the presenee of the jury the statement of Mr, Spencer would injure
plaintiff instead of defendants, The reasonable conclusion to pe
-t
ai jmebtoos eld sedis bas etoted qed bebrotis bus astoteydd we
abel mwode taemo0b atetz99 8 benste baci of Jadd belttizes tobteenp.
~19t0% st dt gaol ts boaimaxe-ze070 neds zew SH .foeawoo 'etasbaetoh yd
toljanimexs-e2o15 edt ged J menitioob oalt gt ebsm efnemetate Co of eon,
qeonegs .t" rberivo90 gatwollot edt bebulones. asw tet ped ould to.
ot tosido 7'mow a bas wor va qsitlo Ysa wot i[itdvateta 302 weriel,
ne ot beesorg iitw I ou s[agacbasteb rot youtoits] fforisl mM 4st
mi tuq woy Ifty rresmega, + ,somebive at $f tuq bas moldgst NEzeb 39,
Tesoatiw odd of 31 bebsesl voy etoted tte etod woy tadd. etdd to. teem, oi
SALAS emok ¢aeoneg? , 7M .erestt tueumoo edt ot toeide I silezzsT mh
tunel tewt :ilerrst 1 ovust suit to egneze1g ody at, beraus90. 4 at
ot betouisant ed of yuh ort Axes has tnoumeo edt ot footde I ,eyuntm.
asibsis entoe ono vbodemor tedd jneued ste tad? it1009. ont 3h. basgotel
sonszemg edd at teats beriso00 JI :re9eq® . x ose Gt gatddon .It0_
Fuwoo edt steoneq? .tM .tadt of Jootdo I. sffoutet , aM .yauh ody. Rie
~busteb x07 youtotts] tedisdiwe .tM ,betmoe gated uu on bees.
-2M_ »tedld ob tom bivode bas seywel beometzegxe as.c1s wel sLedas.
oof 9s wo inet Lerhime <i Sultwad oct Jon. et datlt Xee woY. 4 zeomeq8,
ead tad? stxyod oct .xuwt edd oxoted fadd ob of vst of, beomenzegxe.
stodieddeyd al .telgis ILA jiaeomeq® ,M ,eomaebive ak bexerze, need ton,
_... 0¢ Lesnwoo gables ton ms I Til oT. HOY OF, Samet ie st, 4%,
bed sxogsoont al jaeuso0b fenigize edt " 1950, wOY 97 ubaR9. oy
eed eat tnemuoo0b edd to #tsq qos odd Sends. swore ot bas Pt0ge7 | at 2 eal
pM, Woda ten s90b bipoe7 eds bentetaes txeq. tect, tale...» eget.
dt Yo dusg s Tio estoy edusbasted. tot Lezanoo teds botate, reomege.
_» Sid tadt betea.od Lfty $I ,¥uwt edt 20 sonsgemg ead ak Inomroob,
~o1g jd gost edt 2sw dome Jadd, Yaob, ton bib etasbuoten IPR, foeawec
TonPe*, palmosedan To mid seusoa ot bas isomeqe, ,1i emteel oF. bebeao,
__ dh teomoob ext te dasq Tie teed ton bib sdnabasreb tot, Sozpsoo 31
omniat BListow teoneq2 iM to snenptads set. Nau. als to. somezeng exit
8d oF molenfonoo eldsnegset ot | 2tnabaeteb ¥. haptant ‘Nibatslq
Mi? 2 he READY: ah 3 as Sa Lita ee: hale .. ot ot Wogey aviaagexe
abet
~1l2=
drawn from the record is that the upper part of the document was
tern eff by defendants' a the presenee of the jury. If
there was nothing material upon the part torn off, counsel for defend-
ants could have ended the matter, to the advantage of defendants, by
offering to attach to the document the part torn off, when they intro-
dueed it. They did not see fit to follew such a procedure,
Were the damages assessed by the jury excessive, as defendants
contend? Evidence for plaintiff tends to prove the following facts:
Plaintiff, prior to the accident, had a small wnbilical hernia,
described as the size of the end of her thumb, or the size of a small
Wisconsin hickory nut. This condition had existed since 1931. Between
1931 amd the time of the accident the hernia had not increased in size,
it did not cause plaintiff any pain or suffering, and she was not in
any way disabled by it. Sometime after the accident the hernia became
aggravated and enlarged and in September, 1936, it was three inches in
diameter, and, still later, the size of an orange. Physicians testify-
ing for plaintiff testified that an operation would ordinarily remedy
such a condition but that plaintiff was a diabetic and an operation
would not be advisable unless the hernia became strangulated, They
further testified that if the hernia continued to get larger it could
not be held in place. During the two years between the accident and
the trisl plaintiff suffered great pain, While an abdominal support
gives her a measure of relief, as soon as the support is taken off
the hernia begins to protrude and has to be pushed back inte place
before the support can be placed in position, Prior to the accident
plaintiff was in good health, save for the diabetes, and was able to
do the housework for a family of four. Sinee the accident she is
unable to do any but certain light household duties, Defendants contend
that the eceident did not cause any aggravation of the hernia, and that
"the medical evidence" clearly establishes that the hernia as it now
exists was not caused by the accident. We think the jury were justi-
Viva in finding from the evidence that the accident caused the
aggravation, Plaintiff's son testified that when the elevator
{-
esw Saenmwoob os To Jisq t8qqn eit sad et Dbrovex ety Bott aa
_ ML .yush edd to oonseeng add at Loemoo, *ednebueteb Vi 29, 203
_sbaeted tot Leases «Tho mrad ot9q odd moqs fairesan yotdsdos eam oredts
__ Xd gadmabneteh to sgainevbe ony oF ,x0}Fam edd bebae evar blw09 eins
~omat Yedd mody ,~Yio arot freq edd Jaemupob orld of dondts ot Baltetio
sewbesorg 2 dowe wolfot of 31% 992, you bip yen, oot beoub
etnahaeted es sPytgucane yuh, ot yd beensaas eegamsb onlt 908
tagost pabvolior exit evo oF ebuey Vttatssa tot eonsbiva thaedaos 199
_.. sphaxed Lgobttdau Lame 9, bad, _foboes odd of tpbag ,Yittabels
Liga a to exte edd x0 ,ciauld wed to Sue aiid 20 ents odd 26 bedizoeeh
neows of feel ponte beta txe Basel nolj Lbaes ais tee, Wtoap tet atenooe Lv
*
a
HT EES OO
seats af beesotont son bast ahatest edt $uebiooa oud te of only bas L6et
Si tom cow ore bas apatrotive to ateq yas Vibintelg eeusy. Jon Rr
ousoed shirred onlt jaebtoos orig rots emis ead tt ve boldest yaw yas
mt eedonk cond eaw Jk 206 8L ,todusdqse, at has bop taine Drs Be fa
o Eee oO
“Vitjeos enskobeysl’ » 8470 fg to ote ods qresal iLte _sbiin «188 emgtb
eas, Vepraath ze bLisow nott soqo ue add bottiseod iyats! ieurr
wokisteqo £8 baa oiiedsibh s saw vubiabelg Sadst sud ‘a023 thus & pr
i sagaege
yet bed alugustis eusced stared anid eeeLay eldsalvbs 4 ate =
Poi ohLsaque
bio tt rogzal jeg of bountss0s abersedt add u tasty betthjaed Berek rh:
LT) BRC 4
bas tuobtoos ons neond oi 21961 owt ‘eds satu sooalg ae bios 96 of toa
2iEAI r
a trogque Lantmobds ae oLtty oihad saerty bore viaa nibvatala Lata? fats edt
. a das) Sade
tte fees al Jxoqque “exit as Mooe 8s Rovcg Qo GWWESOM B a ii agre:
ta Hieest ofa
“ooela oft oad badauq of of ead ina ebuxiony of amhjed skated bers stisod a9
45h Le St
tasbtoos als ot tolst 03 20g si bovalg | od aso Sroqque contd oerere
: A & E. TREO
od olds asw bas _seotedath oxid 102, ove Roos ‘boos. at esw ‘Yibiatel
ass as aed or BOR a
at ota dnebtoos act eoate <wot to tae? 8 101 py A-od
=~ BLE Be fiG Ae eb eel fe
93.1109 atashasted otsub Slodozwed tight atss-x99 dud yaa « od eldanw
Rid & he!
vad baa qatared ei) 20 mpdievaraga vn sume Jou 2d dmebtzoe alt ae a,
won gi es stores aad Sadi eqdalidates ytsele ant ane Leotbou a
fue eeu Oo CereReng '
wiveut orew wut ois Patt ow -tnobtoos ods Yd beewes Jon esw ateltxe
t , (DOD Yin Dats age t ey bee ¥4
exit beauas tnebloos oat ay iacehhvs exis wind getbalt ak
Satavete edd matin dado bedttsacd sen atGtbdatel®® \:ceeheweenens”
-13-
struck the basement his mother went to her knees, grabbed her side,
screamed, "Oh, my God," and collapsed. Frank Bueci testified that
after the elevator struck plaintiff was in a limp position on the
floor of the elevator and that shescreamed, “Oh, my stomach;” that
she was semi-conscious as she was assisted out of the elevator. Mary
MeNulty testified that when the elevator struck the bottom her mother,
as she fell, grabbed her abdomen and cried, "Oh, dad, my God." Plain=
tiff's husband testified that after the elevator struck the bottom
plaintiff slumped completely dowm and that as he and Bucci took her
out of the elevator she appeared to be unconscious. Plaintiff testi-
fied, “Just as we struck the bottom I had a terrific pain in my
stomach; it felt to me as though something had torn in me," After
plaintiff had reached her home in Waukesha Dr. Scheele examined her,
She = then lying in bed on her back, and complained of her right
shoulder, her back, and the hernia, He examined her right shoulder
and found that it was tender and that there was a limitation of motion
of the shoulder, and he "strapped her back up." He further testified
that the hernia was practically the same size as it was previously;
that plaintiff complained some about it, but upon his examination he
could not find very much wrong, About a week after the accident he
thought the hernia was larger and strapped it with adhesive tape to
hold it in. After that time he saw plaintiff at intervals and made
examinations of the hernia from time to time, but he could not see
very much difference in the size during the year after the accident.
Several times he renewed the adhesive tape to strap up the hernia,
About six weeks after the accident he told her to have a belt made and
to put it on every day to give support to hold the hernia in, He
further testified that in March, 1938, the hernia had increased to
the size of a “decent sized orange." Blanche Wilson testified that
she fitted plaintiff to an abdominal support in September, 1936;
that she found that plaintiff had an umbilical hernia about three
inches in diameter, Dr. Adams examined plaintiff on March 9, 1937.
~i-
~eble tod beddsig ,2ceml sed of Jmow todtom eld tnemeesd ont towida at
Jedd bettiteod toowd Anstt .boeqsiloo bas "bod wr .dO” ybemeotsa
oid no mot¥beog quti s at 2aw Titintslq dounte rotavele edd tevts
fart “ydosmode ya dO" ,bemsotdeode gadi bus sodavele edt to tool't
Yisi.sodsvelo emf to Suo beteltees eaw eile as avoloanoo-2mec asw oie”
~rodtom ted motted edd aenite totsvels edd meciw ‘tent hokthiesd us iston
=aitslt ",bod wm .bsb .tO ,botts bus memobds tei boddsxy ‘Iict ane 2a
moddod ed wostde iodavele énd rette ded) bottiveed Amededed e' tte
sent dood toove bas od as tat has awob ytstelqmoo bequuta ritdatelg 5
~ideet Yibintsl1 .awoksamoouy od of botseqas eda todsvels edt to tio.
yar atk ntaq ofttired s bed I modtod ond ‘Mouade ow aa taut!” beh
rodta “,om at mrod batt gatsitomoa Mgiodt as om of Stet FE fadambde
iaéd benimaxe ofoodse (40 atlaoxtust at emo tod boddadt bait tiFhtelg:
“$ugtt tod Yo benislgiios bas ywloed ted mo bod mt garyl madd "Bow ene”
‘nobiworte ¢dgit red bemtuaxe of shirred Sd ots Hosd red (tebibold
cottem to moléstiali s edw etedt Jadd Bais tobast eaw $f gartt pavet bas”
holttveed weddast of ".qi Aosd tod beqqsase” of bas erobLuod®, eit 10
“plewoivend éaw tk en osle omse ont yllsotiostg aaw als :
ox mottantmsxe etd moqu dud .ti duods embe beritsLqmoo “Se tahitg” taitt
of Snobtbbs ead sede itsbw "Sod °pubw Hbaie QHb0 and” 20 Snes"
“oF eqait ovieedbs dit 32 beqqawe bas teyrel eew atmred edd sdynodt
ebaw bus alevietat Js Wtiatsle wea on datd todd cotta ak $2 Brod
ee8 ton bios on dud pomts OF emis mort stati ext “Yo anottantmsxe
sinsbioos edt tedts rsey etd gatas ontk and mt sonoretite down Yxbv"
salmied odd gu getde od eged evteodbs edd bowends it vomit Lexoved
bos oda fled s évad of tof bYod Ot tmobiose oft xedts eilosw Zte FHedA”
oH at sinzod’ ed} biod of sxoqque bvty of Yeb Yxove HO st Juq OF
of bessovont Bat shnuon Of SCCL Mousa Rt sacid boxtBHeed reiitart
“Gast bobitiees aveliv edonard “,eyaexo boste taeo0" b tO Oxte eit”
-sbeer yrodmesqo? mt sroqque Lomtmobds ke Ot Yiivakety bosFH) vite’
eenmty Iwodls stare Tsottrdaw na bon Tinateld aiid bawoY site dade
be
¥ go25
MERE ae! doxsié a0 Tanatele bontusxe aba call “sretemshb nt
tas a 9} Ly, ry ase peyiy ‘sy
int we: Say alt eosie gett Seka mow at eitiatelds — peeseaveces
ti:
=u
He testified that when plaintiff was lying on the teble there was an
opening beginning at the navel and extending down along the line in
the middle of the belly, so that four fingers could be placed in the
opening; that when she was standing erect a mass would gradually come
through the opening which attained the size of the docter's fist; that
plaintiff was suffering from a rupture; that when he re-examined her
on May 9, 1938, he found the protrusion had increased somewhat in size.
He also testified, in response to a hypothetical question based upon
plaintiff's evidence, that the accident was, “with reasonable medical
certainty, a sufficient cause to bring about and cause the increased
size of the hernia." Both Dr. Scheele and Dr. Adams testified that an
operation would remedy plaintiff's hernia if she were not a diabetic;
that that condition would greatly increase the hazard of an operation
to repair the hernia. Defendants' major argument is that the medical
testimony supports their position that the fact that there was no
immediate increase in the size of the rupture, as evidenced by the
examination of Dr, Scheele, shows conclusively that no relationship
existed between the subsequent increase in the size of the hernia
and the accident, Dr. iiitchell was the only expert called by defend-
ants. His testimony, at first blush, seems to support defendants!
argument. But the answer of the doctor, upon which defendants rely,
was in response to a hypothetical question based upon testimony most
favorable te defendants. The question disregarded entirely the evi-
dence introduced by plaintiff as to the great force with which the
elevator struck the basement floor and the immediate effects that
the shock had upon her, The doctor's answer is based upon the
assumption that plaintiff received no shock and did not collapse at
the time of the accident. Indeed, the question was so artfully drafted
that the doctor testified that the accident described in the question
could not have caused an aggravation of the preexisting hernia, The
jury were justified in giving but little weight to such testimony.
~~
. on
ss esw oust oldsd ond go gotyl aaw Vikinltstq sodw decd beliitess off
nt oatl odd yaols awoh gatbcedxo bus fever edd ts gatnatyed gatneqo
eg mi beoalq od bilwoo atogat? tot dadt oa ,yiled edt to elbbin edd
emoo Yilawheig Sivow azam s toe1e gntbasie eaw oda oorlw ted ~gataego
tadd ytelt a'rosood edd to esta edt bentatts dotdw guineqo edt dgwouds
sed bentosxe-ot sd stony Jad youwdqut « mort galietive aow Titiatelq
exie “i terlwemog beesotont bed molewusorq edt bawot od. BEC. .2 ysk.a0
moqu beasd molszoup Laoliedsoqyd s of eamogae7 al .,belitteed.oale eH
Lsotbem eldanozse1 dtiw” ,.aaw Jaehloos edt tadt ,comebive.2'2ttdatelg
bezsowsnk edd eexs0 bas juods salad of savso tnololtine s).ydatst100
as Seid bolitteed amebA .1@ bas eLeedo2 1G diol ",siared edt te este
joidedsib 2 gon oxow ene Yt skated 2'tiitatslg ybemer binew moltsreqo
soltaxsqo me to biexsd eld easetsat yidee1 blwow mottibnos. dads, tadt
Isotbem edd tadt ei dnommgis tofam 'adasbasted ,simied edt ttaqes,ot
| on egw otedt Jedd Foot edd edd motsteog whed3 edsogqye yaomtteot
edt yd beonebive es ,etudqua edt to ole odd mk eegeremt etsthoumt
qideseitvalet om Jat yLeviewLoncs eworle ,oloedoe. .x0, to motientmexo
shercend eid to exie oft at easotcal tmenpeedye efdnoewsed bosvetxe
~baeteb yd belles dueqxe Yeo edt 2aw ILodod tM ,10.. ,dnebieos, edt bas
‘eduabooted tueqque ot emooa. ydanid texli ta, .YWomiseet eth .sdas
ctiet adnsbaeteh doldw mnogu ,t0s9eb edt to rewens odd tua . ,Snemuyus
seom ynomitaes noqu boesd aolseoup Isotterseqyul s of esmogeot mat esw
~ive edd yleiltas bobasgometh soiveoup en .adusbhacted et eldsieve2
ons dotdw sitiw eorot teeny edt o¢ es Titiniele yd beoubousnt eoaed
tadd eagootie etskboumt edt bas soeLt duemoesd. odd adounde rotevele
efit nog beesd et sewens ettosoob, oft . sed megs, bad Aoorla, ost
ta oeqalles fom bib) bus veede om beyLoces Titintela tad? soLiqmmeas
estan Yilvisus 02 asw motteoup edd, gbeobul, .daeblooa edt to omtt odd
nolszenp olf af bediiceeb duebioos edd sadt beLtitesd totocb. eld stadt
otf ,sloted gnttetxeonq eft to moliavenggs ma beanes eves Jom. dives
_) gttombteot deme of ddgteow otsil tnd gatvig at beltiseut rey. Yaut
a a is
-1l5=
The evidence for plaintiff shows that when Dr, Scheele first examined
the patient she was in bed, lying upon her back, and in such a position
the hernia would not protrude very greatly at that time although the
hernia internally may have been aggravated. As Dr. Scheele stated,
"You would have to rupture the tissues there. It would take a certain
time for the bowels and food inside to come through and form the
hernia." Dr, Adams testified that it would be quite illogical to
infer that the accident did not aggravate plaintiff's hernia because
Dr. Seheele on the day after the occurrenee found the hernia the same
Size as he had found it a year before. Most laymen are fairly familiar
with hernias, and the jury would have been warranted, in view of all
the evidence, in finding that the accident did aggravate the hernia,
espentelly in view of the overwhelming evidence that when the elevator
struck the bottom plaintiff held her abdomen and cried, “Oh, my
stomach." Plaintiff testified, “Just as we struck the bottom I had a
terrific pain in my stomach; it felt to me as though something had
torn in me,"
Plaintiff will have an umbilieal hernia the size of a man's
fist the rest of her life. Should strangulation of the hernia occur,
such a condition would force her physician to take the great risk of
an operation in an effort to save her life. ‘hile the abdominal support
gives her relief, as soon as the support is taken off the hernia begins
to protrude, and it has to be pushed back into place before the support
can be again placed in position. Ye have carefully considered the
question as to whether the damages awarded are excessive and we are
unable to say that the amount awarded is excessive,
Defendants contend that they were prejudiced by a remark made by
the attorney for plaintiff in his closing argument. During the closing
argument of counsel for plaintiff the following occurred: "As big as
a fist, Docter Adams says - a man who is put up here in this community
as an expert - counsel says for forty-two years - is that right? = 1896 -
a man of the highest appearance =- you saw him —- couldn't be better, He
tells you that there is a mass now as big as his fist; when this lady
Re
bentuaxe garit efLeedea .10 aes vant aworle yrdtatelg 107 sonebive asf
nots teog s dove at bas elosd soci nogus caet ebod at ew ode dmettsq ods
enis dgsoris Ls emkt tadt Je Ussexy Trev ebsttorg ton bison elered ea
| ehotste efeadoe . al aA -bodavarags need evar Ysa Utsatodak stavad
aihad190 a sued bLuow $I , oredd eevee ti ond emit gart 03 -ovadi biwow woX"
$3) D* 4
ads io? bas Algusoruid ae od ebient boot nis ‘tLovod adi wot emis
‘ | B is ‘gle
7 ot IsoigoLtt ed Lap od bisow ok ‘tasts borttteed ‘emabh » td " - shared
sexaced stated e!2timtslg etaverags ton bib tasbiooa ot Gadd sot
emse exit abner end beso eonexwose ody ‘eite yeb outs 10 ‘eleesios 7d
yeere nf aig
as iL ins’ vints? 918 neayel teoll .oroted 1aey 8 2: Dawe basi oa 26 este
LC TAR 6 oy BRMLAL tae
tis to wetv at vbedastisw 90d evant bLuon vant ont estated iy foal
i edt ta ox
stirred erit ov svaT33s bib inebtoos exis ‘tadd gabbat? ‘at sooebive edt
rx Sieben oa BViJerego.
to¥.svole exis noddw dads somsbive gatntexirreve extd 10 wety at Fisstooane
» F birmas * ao oa ?
‘a atl” sboito bas aenobds tert bLos Vibvatelg 2 ossod bs yd uperge :
at Mis Staged.
“2B bal z aos tod exid dowise ow as tes " Rose YiidnbalS "sfommode
x) ye ie YsoMte ee!
bait palcld omoe daiioatd as oni od 3fot #2. iioomeds Ya ak alteq otesexet
; HES seme, 03 «2 beacat®
0 ne tt Mi Rae
a" ou & to exte end shred LeokLtdwy aa vast Lite vitiatel
dyn #2? noosa at pot oA
_gos0 alnod edt to noid signee bios 9th, toil to test exis
ea res sbi¢gse Lie
to wets tsery ont odes od sabobewig odd eoro2 bLsow sols Lbaoo P po
Manztdeat. 2th . ofa
roqque: Leninobds eid eLidy sORbL aod ovee of suotte as a malt eee is
USN Be
aniged aiared exit tho acdes at sroqque ong as noes en , <tokion tosl sevig
i LS PHMAOKe SE ea ey
sroqque ‘ould eroted eoslq oft wad bedteng od os ‘aed ok ite ¥\,.. buisoug ot
neeten Fy
auld berebLenoe vis 8% ovesi ai os at ‘henal PH ng ed
pom sobs 4. ‘eel benathe sag eet anaeh
o18 ew bas eviessoxe ets ‘bebtswa eogsish eid redéoxtw pa 2, sett nenp
sovisesoxe at pobrsws Saurome ext tests “* og eidaay
yd batt Aamo 8 vd bootbut ong otew ‘yedls “tai baoinos ‘egnabaoted iw
gatzelo ext ‘pound +tasau3%s gateols ad at mabiabely 9 youtosss ads
an 28 gid ‘BAM : beruio90 gatwoL{o? edd ‘vusatelq, 02 oaswoo 0 dears
(3 eummos abet at ove qu 2a ak om nem a - aves mab ceded! 455%
G0BL = Stayts tadd et - BTSEY ons-1301 em ‘ayse Leznuoo o dueqxe Ms 28
Sv ew
ol ‘Yedted ed finbinoo - - “ gubsl wae poy = “pitatabeus state te “edd ° Hat 8
Vbel elds modw ytekt etd es sid es won eesm s ek sto)nt tant BOY allot
-16-
stands ud without her surgical belt on, that it protrudes out like
that. hat would you take to have that thing fastened on you? Mr,
Farrell: i object to that as improper, The Court: I think any
reference - Mr, Farrell: The jury has seen the doctor, The Court:
Susteined." Defendants now complain of the remark, "What would you
take to have that thing fastened on you?" It will be noticed that
counsel for defendants cut short the court's comment on the objection,
and that the counsel at the time appeared to be objecting to counsel
for plaintiff's praise of Dr, Adams. Defendants' counsel seemed to
be setisfied with the court's ruling and made no request that the jury
should be instructed to disregerd anything that plaintiff's counsel
had stated, It further appears that in defendants! motion for a new
trial no point was made as to the language now complained of, viz.,
“What would you take to have that thing fastened on youy" Counsel for
plaintiff contends that defendants' counsel are in no position to
complain of anything that he said during the trial, as they themselves
were guilty of improper conduct upon a number of occasions during the
proceedings, The record shows that there is merit in this contention
of plaintiff's counsel, In any event, we find no force in defendant's
contention, raised here for the first time, that the remark in question
was sufficient in itself to warrant a reversal of the judgment.
fhe judgment of the Superior court of Cook county is affirmed,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Sullivan, P. J., and Friend, J., concur,
xar-
efit joo eoburteng if tettt .no $fod Isotgiwe ted svorls tw ‘qu tbaste
4a Gwoy no benetest gnidt tedd eved od “ealad voy b.isow saat stadt
Yas Mints I :dawoo ent .teqotqat es Hedi oF Fostdo I :Llorseit
1390 Sat totood edt nose esd Gurl edT tLfowtel tu < semsx0tet
wey binow tedW® golasmor odd to misfquoo won etnsbaoted © ” bontsd ewe
Sed} bedkion sd Iftw tI “"woy mo honedast gitkdd add ovad of ovat
wiolssstde "ed? no suemios“s*taneo edt trode tuo edasbstetes ‘Yor Leeauoo
[Seinios of gutvodtde sd ot Sersouge ‘omtt off 4s Eeentios odd dads bas
of Sémoce ‘Léerioo ‘etiebagted” .etiebA tt to ddtedy eftrivatsly dot
qiut odd dactd teomper on ebam has patton efduioo edd dtiw befteitsa od
forntos eftitvatsta fant gatilryis basgotath of bedouttant ‘ed Biuede
wen @ ‘ot moftont ‘edmahrsteh nt tant arseqqs tenddwt ¥r*" cbodate bad
“qisiv ¢io benksfquos wor ogsuenst od of es obem eaw SHtog od Latad
not [saatod “Tuoy no bemedsest gridd tat eve of sult Hoy bitow fant”
od motitecg on at eis Leentoo ‘aindbaeteb sasit abaesaos vitiabela
eovieemieds yedd 25 .iskis end satieb bise od tat yatityas to atstqmios
edt antish anolesooo to iedmun s moqu soubnoo steqozqmt to yitsy onew
nottnetaos etiy at dite st orerit torfd ‘awatie brovex si .aymtboesorq
etgaabneteb mf covet om batt ow \vnove Yité al ‘cecil
cotteoup it stsmo1 odd tant ,omtt tetkt edt wot erert Bedkst dol:
dmeugbut ost to Lsesoves s nstisw Ot Teeth at tne fotTiwe we eon
boom ii2s et youd aAeod to sues bningitictian smog ot ie
xO oo (na aan ek oe Beare het Ba
9 UOMOD ae ipe se) bas vk ea
3 tot? ¢ wisp
jate van ef Sigeay
oc ee voit jad Bysdneo atanbao tet
weit yountolts oy.
phos %O Joy Is
- S¥e8 ema : tOso0T 43% tY 8
O2GL ~ Boapls | | ob = agaey Geiegiteol 162 eyes Lavette. ~” epee 9 awit hoy
ey ~ Shistaegqs Seeds ut ded 3 bd pied &
bal elit aedw gJatt etd.2e std es won eeam 8 at sted Jans Boy eited Si
40511 - \
Appell w)i og & z =
) | APPEAL FROM-@INCUITCOURT,
Ve P ): ox um .
: : COGK COUNTY
GLENN EB, HOLMES, ; By rt.
&
Appellee. ( ape oS ns ee
: 305 Lae 625
MR. JUSTICE SCANLAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
Plaintiff sued in contract to recover for brokerage commissions,
Defendant filed a written motion to strike the amended complaint and
dismiss the cause upon the ground, inter alia, that the alleged cause
of action was barred by the five-year statute of limitations. The
trial court sustained the motion and dismissed the suit, Plaintiff
appesls,
The amended complaint alleges that prior to March 12, 1937,
defendant employed plaintiff, a licensed real estate broker, as
exclusive real estate broker to negotiate for the sale, sublease,
transfer, or other disposition of the interest of defendant in certain
described real property located in Chicago; "that thereupon and there-
after the said defendant * * * confirmed in writing the said employ-
ment, in words and figures as follows:
“Wareh l2th, 1927
Wr, G. 5. Kllithorpe,
"137 Merrill Avenue,
"Park Ridge, Illinois.
“Dear Sir:
"This will confirm our verbal understanding that you are to
act as exclusive broker for my interests in the property located at
numbers 22 to 36 West Lake Street, this city, and I hereby authorize
you to negotiate for the sale, sub-lease, transfer or other disposi-
tion of same, it being understood that all terms or conditions of
any negotiations are to be subject to my agreement in writing.
"Yours very truly,
"(signed) Glenn E, Holmes"
The complaint further alleges that pursuant to the said employment
“Sea wub-208-
»THUC0 SHE WO WOIMIMG SET GAATVIIAG WATMAIG AOLTSUL Ai
,enolteaimuon sgsiexord 10% 19vo98% o3 tosttaoo Pr bose vate!
bes tnisiquos bobaems edd olkute of motton med¢ta 6 belt? jnabrotted
eaus9 begetic edt tedd sile weotet _bawvory orit noqu oasiso edt aatme th
ec? jenotsetimtl Yo odutate tsey-ovlt edd yd betted 2aw notion ‘to
tivated tive oni beeatmelh bus motyom exit pentasene 3 sus Latad
oe jelsoqas
eVECL .SI dowel ot tobiq sadd ‘gepolts. ‘dutstqmoo bebnems a
es ,tetord etstee Lso1 beensotl « (Tidiatalg beyoLqne Insbaotes
esesoidue ,else etl? 10 etsidogen of ‘xelord efstes sot oviewtoxe
atsdreo at dushactoh to dactedat edt to motsteogatb rodto ‘to , .toteast
~oredd ba noquoredd tard" yoysott0 at betsool yJreqorq set bodiozen
~volgme Sise od gatd iar at bewrtiaos * # * dasbaeteb bkse odd edts
tawoLto? &s comigtt bas 0 abror nt .tuem
Yeer ats doasil"
: OCTOMTLILH .&
eeasiae 4s hesit see cebania fer"
i222 ised"
o¢ ets voy tadd yutbastertehbay Isdtev wo mittnos [Iliw aldt
te betasel ytueqo1q edd mt etesietat yu tot t6exord evienioxe as tos
estiordivus ydored I bus ,ytto eldt ,teette onal teoW Of o¢ SS
~leaogelb vesito 10 netensai easel~due eeize edd rz0t rege vas 4 ot NOY
to emoisiinoo to emisd ths tadd bootetebar cel
.gaisiow at dnemoorgs ya ot tostdwe ed enol stdo3ea Yis
etinas yisv eior"
“eemfol i sere LD (bengte )”
tmemyolgue bise edt of smntontin tedd eopoiie reds? abalone oll
we wom BeLeot
<n —" ae ns
—
Qu
Plaintiff negotiated for the disposition of defendant's interest in
the property and that as a result of his services as such broker a
eontract of sale was entered into on November 26, 1927, between
defendant and certain transferees, ete., of said interest, and there-
after on December 27, 1927, the transaction between the said parties
Was consummated. The complaint then sets up that the consideration
for the transfer of the property was 208 shares ef stock of the
Dearborn-Lake Building Corporation, which was then and there of the
market value of $250,000; that "the usual reasonable and customary
brokerage commissions for the services performed by plaintiff aforesaid,
om and about the months of November and December, 1927, was 3% computed
on. the basis of the value of the consideration of such sale, transfer
and assignment as aforesaid, of $250,000, or $7,500 commission,"
Plaintiff contends that “the writing sued upon is a written
contract and that the five-year statute of limitations has no appli~
cation," and that the ten-year statute of limitations applies,
Defendant contends: "1. The obligation of the defendant on which
recovery is sought is an implied promise to pay plaintiff the reason-
able value of his services, hence an oral contract within the statute
of limitations and barred by the lapse of five years. 2, The letter
recited in the amended complaint is merely evidence of the employment
of plaintiff by defendant but does not constitute a written contract
between them within the meaning of the statute of limitations as dise
tinguished from a written memorandum under the statute of frauds. The
cause of action on which recovery is sought is based on the employment
plus performance by the defendant which, by operation of law, entitles
plaintiff to an action for commissions, The letter is of evidentiary
value should defendant deny the employment, but the gravamen of the
action is the implied obligation."
The original complaint was filed November 23, 1937. Plaintiff's
. @ause of action as alleged in the amended complaint arose November 26,
1927. It seems plain to us that under the settled rule of law in this
Se
mt tgaoistal a'saabaoteb to aotiteoqaib edd 1r0t betaltogen Titinislq |
s teow dese es eootviee ald to Jiveot « 26 dadd bas yJxeqomg edt
noowsed ,{SOL .dS tedmevoll ao ogat beresiae esw shee, to dyazisige
~oredt bas _tasuetat bisa to ,.of9 .goeToteceet ntsttes bas tusbue'ted
acitiag bise eid aeentied Bois osetetd edt ,YSOL YS tedmesed no heendem
Mottatebtemos edt tedd qu evoe ment tatslqmes edt, \ bed semen:
edd to foote to asiade 805 asw Yueqouq edt to wanes ods 102
edt %0 erect fits madd tiw Hots Hobs nXSQ4OD gadtBI Pe ditat-nnbdine
—« Mtsmotewo bas eidenosset lavas onlt" tadt . 000,088% to exlay sexrsm
biszetots Tilinialg yd bemotiey eeotvies edd 10% eaoleatmmos egetedond
boduqmoo SE saw ,VSCL yredmesed bas todusvoll Yo edidmom edd tweds bas, mo
tSienet ,else dove to noisersblanes. od}. to eulsv oat, 30, dead. weld mo
",godeetumes 008.3% 10 000, ORS% To _blezowwts 20 ioommpiees bas
nedtiqw s ef soqu bewe gatiiaw edt" tadd ebnosaoo Titdatsld, SRG e. \
~liqgs om ean amotistink{ to otisdede xsey-evit odd teult bag. dostiaos ‘
stoliggs emoticdiatl lo sisdste isey-ned edd Jad? das ".noliso
doliw me jnsbaeteb els to molvsgiide edt .1" sebsetaoo sasbasied
(muoeset odd Yitiaisly Yaq ov setmorg botlgmt aa et dnguoe el yreveses
sistate edd aidity Josrinos Isxo a9 comed ,eootvieg, ets, to: omley. oLds
taivef ed .S ,exsey evil to saqel edt yd betisd bas emoltatimil te
Jasayotqus ond to eomebive yLoiem ef talsiquoo bebuems edd at betioor
tosiimoo asiiiaw s ststivemes Jon ee0b Jud tasbueteb yd Tiivatelq to
~8iS es anolistiimi{ to efuiste edi to gntasem edt add ivi meds seeyied
ed? ,ebvstt Yo studste eid tobae pybnetomem nett tim. pmathchedn bigness bse henkes
tnemyoiqae eds mo beasd et togsoe ef yYisvooe1 dotdw mo noltosto eawas
eelsline wal to aeitaxego yd .doltedw, dasbaetob eat been ni trem. auig —
vislinobive to at weddol oat -8a9le2.buuoo 08 apkies ss 0 RO gg .
‘ont to stoked eld ud taeayolgue es ‘yaad tase 290 , Lue entsy
ee ae wabitaghido betiqut ‘etd ‘ah mola 2s. Ke i
eriiidatelt .YeeQl' ES Todiievoll beL22 asw dmtalqnos Lemkstno oxi? i
29S xeduovoit 20s intatqmoo bebaome oat ak Rogetis as moitos to sauee ‘ 4
lquoo 7
Ig teulst? Jake
atd? mt wel to elit boltter only caer ‘tady ex of atelq emooe tT Sse er
-3~
State plaintiff's action was upon an implied contract and therefore
the five-year statute of limitations applies, The letter set forth
in the amended complaint confirms the employment of plaintiff as broker
but makes no mention of compensation, Indeed, the amended complaint
does not allege any promise by defendant, express or implied, to com-
pensate plaintiff for the latter's services as real estate broker, But
where brokers are employed te sell a piece of real estate there is an
implied obligation to pay the customary and reasonable compensation for
the services performed,
An action upon an implied contract must be brought within five
years after the cause of action accrued. (Mowatt v,. City of Chicago,
292 Ill. 578.) Im that case the court said (p. 582): "In this State
it has been held that if the action is brought upon a mere implied
undertaking the five year Statute of Limitations controls. (Knight v.
St, Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Hailwe » 141 Ill, 110; Bates
v, Ba c Co,, 230 id. 619.) This court has held that a written
contract is ene in which all of its terms are in writing; that a contract
partly in writing and partly oral is in legal effect an oral contract.
i parol evidence must be introduced to sustain the action the contract
is not in writing under this statute, (Conductors' Benefit Ass'n v,
Loomis, 142 Ill. 560.) The following authorities support same conclusion:
25 Cye. 1042; 1 Wood on Limitations, (4th ed.) sec. 57£, and cases cited;
Bishop on Contracts, secs, 197-203, incl.3; 3 Page on Law of Contracts,
(2d ed.) sec, 1500, and authorities cited; Dodd v, Board of Education,
122 Cal. 106." (See, also, Junker v, Rush, 136 I11, 179, 184.)
fhe letter in the amended complaint is undoubtedly evidence of
the transaction between the parties, but to establish his claim plaintiff
would be obliged to introduce oral testimony to prove the reasonable and
customary commission for services such as plaintiff performed, Defendant
would then have the right to introduce oral testimony to rebut that
offered by plaintiff. As stated in the Mowatt case (p. 582): "** *a
contract partly in writing and partly oral is in legal effect an oral
contract. If parol evidence must be introduced to sustain the action
=€=
stoteteds bas Josisnos beliqut fs moqu eaw solios at titiatelq asad
mtrot toe tetsel edfT .estiqas anotistiatt te otudste aaey-evlt eit
wedomd as Itidatsiqg to dasmyolque eid awitinos Jatstqmos bobnoms edd at
inisiqmos bebusms edd ,beobal ott aeseqns to sotfnem ‘on ‘eealem gid
“moo of .betiqmt 10 ecetqxe ,insbusteb yd oa kuong yas egelia son Boob
su .reslowd eteseo Leet as aeoiviee a! aedd’at eid t0t tiivatelg od senieq
as ai sxondd etedes Lest to soetq s tise of beyolque o1s aretord etertw
sot sotisemsqmoo eldenoese: bus Yiamotauo edt yeq of moti sgiido bottgnt
. beniot19q esolvied ond
evit alddiw Siguoid ed tan toantnoo botiqmt as moqu dottes ah
_,ousoid? 10 dD .v dtawoit) sbewtoos mottos to also old tefts ezs0y
otaye etdt al” :(S8% .q) bisa duwoo edt caso dant at C88 wtf Bes
botfqmt st]em a moqu ddguord ef motdosn odd “tt dadt Bred need gat th
a¥ tdgini) .efortaoo anotsstimtl to edusiesa a8 evil brad ‘eubsisd taba
dali pols {I el
netiiaw « tads bled ead duos eid? (,efd sbi des”
dostimoo 5 tad} jgattiow at e1s emtot edt to ifs dotdw ak esto et ‘Psetddoo
.toattines Isto as tost'te Isgol mt et Toxo vitasq bas gotticw ak Yftisq
toerda09 edt mottos odd atsteme od Beoubotsnt od tani eonebive “Lo1wdq- es
a¥ s'eek tttoned 'etotoubaod) wotudede ‘aidtd tobe “geubd baw" ‘at foaer
aotesfonoo emse sxoqque esti tuodins gabrolLo? edt (. ode Litt Shr ebadog
tbetto esaso bus ATS 098 (,be dis) eotottad babs mo boow f (Stor oy Bs
eetosisa09 to ‘wal fio egal € 3.Lfont «f0S=Ter .B098 8d987d 100 “Ho” “qorta ta :
sHoltsoubl to bigoa_,.v_ bboG bod to eetsizomtdua bas bas ,008r” dee (, be “bs)
CABLE (OVE .LIT O2L dew. seme outa 088) *,30F". yoo SsE
20 eonebive ylbedduobas et datelquoo bobnome edd at sexset ear””
Yiisaisiq misio eld de tidesee od tud yeetjtsq edd moowted Holtosenstd odd
bus efdanoass: edd evorg ot yaomideed: Isio eoubowdal of segensoaan ee ‘ibow
jnabusteG ,bomrotieq Ytivats[q es dowe zeolvise z0% mokea tues % teuo
tad3 jude of yoomitess Laxo soubortat ot ddgit ‘edd oved nett ‘bibow
a % % Hn (S88 «@) 9aso gtewol ost at botade 2A “Weitéatelq ° xd bexetto
;
Lato ms tostts fayet mi at ‘Isto udaeq bets ‘satdiaw at Vital {3btfa0s 4
nottos ‘eit eva ee ot Resear od Fak ekekite* A pie Bs ‘et Berne
sls
the contract is not in writing under this statute [statute of
limitations ]."
Plaintiff contends that the trial court committed reversible
error in denying him the right to amend his amended complaint. It
is conceded that the judgment of the trial court was predicated upon
the ground that the five-year statute of limitations applied. Plain-
tiff had already filed an amended complaint. He did not submit to
the trial court a second amended complaint and so far as the record
shows ne showing was made that plaintiff could have avoided the
five-year statute by alleging a different cause of action arising
out of the transaction in question, nor does plaintiff attempt to
show this court how a second amended complaint would have aided his
cause, He simply asserts that the action of the trial court wiped
out his rights. in view of the record before us, we certainly would
not be warranted in holding that the trial court committed reversible
error in denying plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint,
The judgment of the Circuit court of Cook county is
affirmed,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED,
Sullivan, P. J., and Friend, J., concur,
oh, on
a
to edut ate) etueste elit sebiw patito at tor’ ak Soatdnes: eit es
W [etoited tar
eldtersvex becdinmoe sated Iettt ert ded} ebnotnoo Yttatelt ~ —
$2 admbelquod debaems elif Daems- od diye ohd mb gabyien AL torte
soqu-bodsotbetg: aaw'tv0d Ietut ori} 10° tabighht edd Parts” bebedaed eb”
~uteld sbetiqqs:amotsatintl 16 otutase teeesevit off sds Bnlorg edt”
ot thudwe tom phd off .datelgmes Bednome ns beLtt yaetts bal trie”
groper edit es tot 2 bas tatsiqnos bebidas fadsee’s Hivos fates oat
edd beblovs svad bluco Yitintelq talt ebam esw giiwoe oH awode 7 ,
| Bete tas olson Yo saved #noteItth s yatyelic yd odutase” “4g0¢-ovlt “
ot Jqustte Yittnislq ee0d rom yubtieory at nobsssenssd edt to ate ** r
ais bebie evad bluow tnisiquwo bebaoms ‘Belosee = wed dtwoo “eked ‘worle
beqiw sunoo Lahid eit to noltes edd dadt efieads yqute SH sean
binow Yiaksi1e9 ew gat stoted Brovet odd ‘Yo wolv AI “.etdyts eld tao
eldierever botdinwos swod Labts eid tend yakbfod ak presi e a
baoose 2 elit ot evaet 10T nolvom eo Diitatalg gn
eaned ad! es cout qlis alto
ak Weuwo soed to too Shvorts eit to any 4 sivas eal
on" . 0° pomedneme *
vs : eair tie THM = jdetade aided «ebay putt bie at ger"et
en 8 aah a
aaa he te ttede ka >
ee ae ee
av poate ,on] *.O0L illeegs ‘
‘+ Bt seddeL ear
Yitvaiele wialo ahd. cs e ot ud .beliiag ety mogeted Bat tyasnetd’ ect
fave eosmbeviek oF PhO 4 i ide et” Nie
Sustes , SOCLS ttigkels 28.2 »ofyaes tet Hetee tues isihithwo
Sat sudan ot outtesad Leave eoxbowtal of dagit es ‘evaed wsdy “pain an
.{}. eae dgewok alt af bedade y as? tintelg hows bexerto 4
fat ef Late eysuaqg bate Bai ad at titre di >
wn Wens act! gbakacea ef beovboeeak of fine ooneltve eheeet ‘at 4
40616
PEOPLE ex rel, CHARLES = LEUW
& COMPANY, a © wpere?
a7 nti) f,
VILLAGE OF MI ea em 7
Municipal Corporation, |
(Defendant) Appell. fo. ‘
: es
nf OF COOK COUNTY,
CHARLES DE LEUW & COMP a ) |
Corporation, ; ) 3 0 ai As 6 26
(Relator) contin. )
MR. JUSTICE SCANLAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
Charles De Leuw & Company, a corporation (relator) filed
a suit praying for a writ of mandamus to compel the Village of
Midlothian to pay to it the amount of certain judgments in its
favor against the village, or to appropriate any surplus in the
general fund of the village, after providing for the most economical
expenses of the village, to the payment of such judgments; to require
the village authorities to levy the maximum amount of tax authorized
by law and use any surplus over reasonable expenses in paying such
judgments, or that such village authorities adopt an ordinance for
a bond issue sufficient to pay the judgments and levy taxes to pay
such bonds, After defendant filed an answer the relator filed a
motion to strike certain paragraphs eof the answer and for a judgment
in accordance with the prayer of the petition. The trial court
sustained the motion and entered a judgment commanding the village
authorities to issue such bonds, to deliver them to petitioner,
and to levy taxes for their payment. Defendant appealed directly
to the Supreme court (People v, Village of Midlothian, 370 Ill.
223), but that court held that it had no jurisdiction of the appeal,
and transferred the cause to this court,
The complaint states (1) that on January 23, 1936, plaintiff
(relator) recovered a judgment against defendant, in the Circuit éourt
#YTHUGD FOOD To
+ TAUOO SET TO HOTMITO ENT GaASVLING WAIMADE worrey a a
) Wey! nd weet
bottt (s0¢aLo7) aots10q109 B eyersqatod a wired oa ‘eotaaddo st
LBD.
_ ‘to ogsiliv eng Loquoo 08 emmsbass to Siow ‘20% sabyory tiwe a...
att at adnougbat atetis9 Yo tavous oxi tt os va ‘od “aetdtoLbik
ods at anlqwe Yas etsimqotggs og x0 .ogalliv ond “feaiegs wove
Lao tmonons deom ot tot yatbiverg rodts <ogelLty edd 10 san ree.
e1rtupet ot qednomgbut doye to el od odd hed eg A oxlt 20. BOEMOGKS ©
bes irodiiss xst to tavome sumtxem osld wvel, ot saktheniinn ‘egaLity ods
lowe gatyed ut eeamogxe eldsnoeset tevo aniquve Yas een hen ‘wat x
101 eonenibre as tqobs seitiverisus ogeliiv dove sant “0 edmougbut,
Yaq ot gexss yvol bas ednomgbut | had wa os fapte ihm oueal baod
8 beLit iotslet end owane ae belt? dushacteb restA »ebaod dove
gneomgbst s tot bas t9wenms ot to edqeigetsq aled10eo elite et soliton
sasoo Ielat off .moltitieg eld to rsys1q ond atte eonsbiecos at .
egsiliv end gathbnsamos Jmomghut e betetme bas aatten ‘edt bentstese “
eteuoliiteq of men? toviLeb od yahuod dowe eweat of eeltiuodius
Vtoorth Selseqqs Jnsbaeted tnouyeg aledd 102 eoxsd Yel ot bas iy a
140 OE qnbiiiQsbN 20 opaLLAY .¥ ofgoed) Ixwoo omoxqué exit of < ef
efseqgs offs to molvothelast on Dot tt stadt biod Jau09 tent dud (ESS hn:
st uu09 eli? oF eawao ould bortotenats bas mv ni ais
Titimislq .S£CL .fS Yrsunsl mo tadd (L) eotate sntalquos oat
diwos divorto end at sinabasteb Jantsgs Sromgbut 8 betevoses
—2—
yen for the sum of $9,621.55 and for $19.60 costs; (2) that on
March 30, 1937, it reeovered a judgment against defendant, in the
Appellate court of Illinois, First District, for $10 costs; (3) that |
in October, 1937, it recovered a judgment against defendant for $10
costs in the Supreme court of the State of Illinois; (4) that no part
ef said several judgments has been paid and that there remains due and
unpaid to relator frem defendant on the judgment $9,621.55 and interest
thereon at the rate of five per cent per annum from January 23, 1936,
and the amount of the judgments for costs, $39.60; (5) that on May
ll, 1937, relator demanded of defendant to pay the judgments recovered
in the Circuit and Appellate courts and the demand stated that unless
defendant made payment or took the necessary steps to make provision
for the payment proceedings for mandamus would be had against defendant
for its failure to perform its duty; (6) that on May 10, 1938, relator
again demanded of defendant the payment of said judgments and also the
judgment entered by the Supreme court, which demand was made in writing
and delivered to defendant at a meeting of its president and board of
trustees; (7) that relator has the right to be paid the said several
judgments by defendant and that it is the duty of defendant to make
the necessary appropriation and take the necessary steps and to perform
the necessary acts to provide the funds to pay to relator its several
judgments, with interest, as aforesaid; (8) that the total assessed
valuation of all property in the village for the year 1937 was
$590,889; that the total bonds outstanding and ever issued by the
Village were provided for by Ordinance No, 135 in the amount of
$11,000; that said ordinance was passed February 13, 1935, and by
the ordinance there were levied taxes to pay the bonds and interest
in the years 1935 to 1946, inclusive, in the several respective
amounts stated, totaling $15,675; that seid bonds, by their terms,
mature on November 1 in the years 1938 to 1948, inclusive; that
defendant has in its treasury the sums paid to it from the tax levies
for the years 1935, 1936 and 1937, applicable to the payment of the
principal of said bonds; thet defendant is authorized by law to issue
A
=~
Lood to
so tealt (S$) gateoo O¢.eL? tot bas @. 159, e3 to mue edt TOT eXsatsoo\
edi nit ,tusbonetebh Jentsys twomgbut s betevoset JE ,VECL ,0E doze
_ taslt (E) qateoo OLf 102 ytotsteld seth .@homtiiT 26 tives staltegqa
OL tot dasbacteb sentegs dnémybut » bevsveper Ft VERE .tedova0 at
dteq on dadt (4) yebenkLII te otes& ent to tooo emorqwe orlt mt aseoo
bus oud amiawot oxedd tail? bus bteq need est etnomybet forever Biss ‘to
daorodmt bra V8.£83, 0% Imemmbut od¢ ao dasbested mett tosafos of blegaw
edOL eS Yxshrsl mort minis reg taed u6q evit to ster edd-ts mootodt
Yell mo add (2) yO, REF petaoo sot etaomybut ont Yo Iawoms ‘ort bas
bereveoe: ednempbut edd yaq of Sasbueteh to beobnameb totslex aXERE aif
eeelnw Jedd betate basmeb en? bas adiwoo etalloqgA bus tivartd edd at
notetvorg exsa of eqeve ‘yessecoen ons zoos 0 Jpemyeg, sbaa Jasbasteb
Jasbaoteb tantsge bad ed binow eumsboss 0% apathosoorg Spemysq, eat 02
sotalet .B€@L ,OL Ys oo sadt (9) Ar edt mio 94 ot omits eth
ort ovis bre ednouy but bise to jnemyeg ond tusbaeted 0 gh
gattiow at ebam eew baameb sto teiw tau109 steo tau eas x bexedne —*
to bused bas dnebteong atk to sais oom s = Jasbastes - botevtieb bas
“ Eexevee bise exit blaq od of digit ont sacl wet afer tests @) _yecdess
peor Drees
extant ot tasbasteb ‘to ytub eit at ot tadt bas susbasteb a ‘seneagier,
ae’ wad. Od:
aretteq ot bas eqete yteseooon exit exes bas solJataqomuas Yiseeooon had
, SF Meats DY ;
Laxsvee edi sxo¢sior oF Ysq o¢ ebaw't aris ebivoxg of ‘edos ‘Visezooen ond
ee. rere . S
beeeones Ietod ent tosit (8) ‘qbiseet0's as aeredat iit iw setnomghut
aaw YECL xsey edd rod ogeiliv odd at wroqorg fis 0 ‘noits yf
edt yd beweat rove bas yatbasdesuo ebmed fotos odd tastt 1088 0888
‘to savoms eds ait GEL ‘+0K sonsatba0 yd tot bebivexq crew ogeiitv
Ud bas .RERL it vrswadet beeeag asw somsntb7o bise oe: ce
tasrsdai bas ebmod oni wr ‘os 2exad botver oxow omedid
toe
~ S8L
we Cy OF:
<amios ehditd Yd <abaod ‘ise Sate Packs gatistos bedade adnvoms
tals yoviawfont ,Sher ‘of ‘Beer eTsey ods art xeduovell 4 basen
eetvel xst ot mort +2 of vied eine driver pilheoian aaa Sabato
a ad
its general obligation bonds in more than a sufficient amount to
pay relator its said judgments, interest and costs; that relator
is willing to accept the general obligation bonds of defendant, that
may be legally issued, duly authorized by proper ordinance, in payment
of its seid judgments; (9) that a true copy of said judgment entered
by the Circuit court of Cook county in favor of relator and against
defendant, on January 23, 1936, as the same now appears of record in
said court and remaining in full force and effect, is attached to the
complaint and marked "Exhibit A;" (10) that attached to the complaint
and made a part thereof and marked "Exhibit B," is a copy of the
written demand made on defendant, on May 10, 1938, te pay said judg-
ments, The complaint prays for summons and that a peremptory writ of
Mandamus may be issued directing and compelling the president and
board of trustees of defendant, the village clerk and village
treasurer forthwith, or as soon as practicable, to pay to relator its
said judgments, with interest as aforesaid, or to appropriate such
surplus that may remain in the general fund of the village, after
providing for the most economical expenses of the village, out of
that fund to the payment of principal and interest of relator's said
judgments; that the president and board of trustees be required to
levy annually the maximum tax authorized by law on all texable
property within the village for the general fund and any surplus of
which, after paying out the reasonable expenses of the village, shall
be applied to the payment of interest and principal of relator's
judgments, or that ssid president and board, and defendant's other
proper officers, be required to prepare and adopt an ordinance
providing for the issuance of its general obligation bonds in suffi-
cient amount to pay relator's said judgments, with interest thereon,
and to take the necessary steps and perform the necessary acts to
make said bonds, so to be issued pursuant to waka mandate, the
legal obligations of the village, and, at said time, to levy
taxes for the payment thereof upon all the taxable property within
the village sufficient to pay the principal and interest on said
=~
ot tavoms tmetoltiwe s madd exom mk ebmod moltisyltido Is1emey att “ko
todsiex tadd yeseoo bus Jeereint .etnomybut blse ett totslet yYaq* —
tadt ,insbreteb to ebaod motisgtido Isitemeg odt sqeoos od ith tf tw et
tnemysg mt <S2stsn.tbr0 teqotq yd bestrodius ylub ~boneet yifsgel od yam
boretas tmemgbut bise to yoo onad s tend (@) cesaomg but bise att to
tealsgs bus tots lox 10 tovet at vdauros #009 to tuwoo diwottd sity wd
mt bio99% le eiseqgs won emse ent es ,OfeL .fS yassst xo eimebasien ~~
ont ot bedoadds al ,toetite bas eorot Lint “ik gaintsmes bas Siwoo bise ”
taksiqmos exit ot bedostis todd (OL) "ga tidtdxa” bexzam bas sntslqued
‘ent to yqoo s at "a tididxli" bextasm bas tosisdd tisq 2 ebem bas
~sbut bise ysq of ,8E@L ,OL ysK a0 ,dasbastob no ebam basueb Aetttat
to tiaw yr0s qmer9q 8 tedt bas emommue tot ays Sats iquoo ont .etiom oa
bas tusbtee1rg exit aati Leqaos bas gatdoorth boueat od Ua exmsbasm
epatity bus xxeLo egality ould .tasbusteb to acstertd 0 based |
att zotsLox ot ysq of goldsottossq es moe 25 TO id twas 10% counsel
dove ststiqouggs of 10 ebiseorote Bs teorednt ad bw ednompbut bios ’
i9jis ,.ogsiitv edt to bast Lateney add ot otsmoa Yan gadis extque
. toto 29gsiiiv ond to esemeqxe Lao kmeneoe ‘drom ods sot satbiverq
biog. e'toselor to yeotedat bas Isqteniag to ¢. dnemysq exit od boot arid
. ot Seatuper ed ecoteutd to bisod bas jneblaeqq eat Jans tadaomgout |
eldsxss Lis no wal Yd bestrodivs xsd mumtxam oj Younes yor
to esiqave yae bag bavt Isussey eit rot egeiitv odd mtsigw ytseqorg
{iaie .egeiity ed? io saneque eldanoeser edt tyo aatysa 193% ‘ote ;
attotelea to Lagiontig hus Jeotstat to _tmeayeg ont og beisas 6 »
tedvo. g'iashasteb has ,bisod bas Jaebleorq bisa Sastt ‘to eat ety gl
sonanibie tis tqobs has stsgetq o¢ Sostupes od qeteottio: regex
~iYiva at ebaod moltsgifdo Lsteneg ett. to sonaueet odd 10% sakbivorg
osteds, Jasietal diiw. aBigombpt bise Er aet ales veg ot tnveus nots
of aos Yiseeqven ont maotieg has aqeda yrazeeoen exis eat of bas
ed} ,9tsbasm bise of Smeveing bewget ed od oz _qebaod ping ota
evel of omit diez ge has yepallty edd to anotsapiido aes
SSD SL
aiiddtw ysasqorq eldaxsd . edd a nogu Yoozadt smoayas sii iw gente od
Tah) ike +4
_ bks2 so teetejat bas Leqioatiq odt ysq od dmetottiwe egeliiv
3
whew
bonds at their maturity, and that relator may have such further order
in the premises as justice may require,
The answer of defendant (1) admits the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 to 6, inclusive, of relater's petition; (2) as to the
allegations contained in paragraph 7 defendant, by reason of the circum
Stances existing at the present time in defendant village,denies that
it has the duty of making any appropriation to pay the judgments of
relator; (3) admits the allegations contained in paragraph 8 except that
defendant denies that it is authorized to issue its general obligation
bonds in more than an amount sufficient to pay relator its said judg-
ments; states that its present debts and obligations exeeed the con-
stitutional limits as to debts; (4) states that pursuant to an Act to
provide for the incorporation of cities and villages, approved April
10, 1872, as amended, defendant may levy, for general corporate pur-
poses, taxes not to exceed the rate of 2/3 of 1% upom the aggregate
valuation of all property within defendant village as the same was
equalized for state and county taxes for the current year; that the
assessed valuation of all property in defendant village for the year
1937 is the sum of $590,889; that 2/3 of 1% of said assessed valuation
is the sum of $3,939.26, and said latter sum is the total amount
defendant may levy for general corporate purposes; that the necessary,
reasonable and economical expenditures of defendant village exceed
said sum of $3,939.26; that the revenues obtainable by defendant from
sourees other than the said tax levy, together with the taxes obtainable
from said tax levy, have been and will be insufficient to pay the
necessary, reasonable and most economical corporate expenditures of
defendant village; (5) states thet said petition is prematurely filed
in that the petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme court of the
State of Illinois for a review of the judgment of relator was not
denied until the October, 1937, term of said court,"and under the
said Act to provide for the incorporation of cities and villages as
amended, and the first tex levy ordinance defendant could adopt subse-
quent to Ceteber, 1937, is the tax levy ordinance for the year 1938,
(
a ead
teb10 sedjiwl dese, oved yam tovsiet dsdt bas qysiwism thedt ts ebaod
_ s91upes Yom solvent. ag soaimerq edt mt
ai beatsines anoivegelis edd etimbs (1) dashaeteb te tewene off. |
. ott of ae (S) yrotsiteq.e'sogalen io yovitepiont, 4d, 0¢ L edqsigexsq
motto sit to morse Yd ,Jasbasteh J dgsapeisq at bentednoo aenolttsgelias
tess zotnob egelliv ¢ashneteb at omits Jaezetq odt.ds gatsetxo eoonste
to adaenghyt edd yaq of moldsligotqgs Yas giiiem to yiub edt esd tt
jasit tqsoxe 8 dqougateq af bemtataeo enoltsgelia edt etimbs (€) ¢totelet
sottagiide Ieremeg edt owaet o¢ bextuositus et th tedt.c0otneb tasbasteb
~gbut bise att sojslex yeq of taotoltivne Javoms as aedt stom at ebaod
_ mioo edd beeoxe anoijsgiide bus ejdeb Jassetq agi todd aotate yadaom
ot toA.a8 ot tasuewg tat eotate (A) yeddeb ot 28 attatl Isnoisndate
ftaga bevenggs ,2egsiliv bas eetito to melsstequosnt odd 10%, obLvo1g
-wq etsrogios Istensy 10k yveL Ys Jashucleb ,bobaems es _SV8L.0L
_ stagotggs ent mogw RL to £\S to stat elt beeoxe of Jom eexsd ,e9e0q
pew omse odd a5 ogsiilv tasbneteb atditw ys1egerq Lis. to soltemisv
edt dait yteey Jnetwo edd rol aexst yawoo bas. osase tol bostieups
tsey elt tol egelitv tasbasteb al YI 19qgomg {fs to moltteulsy howeeses
seltavisy beazeses bise to RL to £\S Jedd 4088, 098$ to me edd el. ECL
dauous Istod edd at awe rottal bisa bas .OS.ECa# to awe eat at
e¥tszesoon edd Jedd peozogung etsroqsos Ieteneg 101 yvel yom tasbactob
besoxs egsiliv tashnoteh to seus thnogxe Isotmonoge, bas oLdamezsot
mort Insbaeteh yd eldsatatdo gemmeves odd todt 1OS,QER,6F te mwa bhse
eldentstdo eexat alt dtin sedtegod vel xst bis2 edd masid redt9 asouwoe
edd Ysq of duetoiitwant ed iitw bus eed, evel ,xvel xsd hiss mort
Yo somitthneqxe etasoqian entmenone grea has eidguoncet eteeqsenen
beLit yLoamtauong et aottiveq bise Jsedt eetate (2). sosclitv dasbausteb
_ edt to tisoe emorgua odt.oF Leeqqs ot evsel sot aotsiteq edd tadt ot
ton 2ew. totaler te taongbut edt 20. welver.s.sot etonsLII to stat®
edd ebay bas" ,avop btee Yo med _SECL qxededo0 edt Ltiay belaob
2s eegolity bas seitto to mobtstoquoont, edd. x03 entrong at otehbbse b)
-sedse dqobs biveo iachueted esnsathio Yel. xsd teste. odds has” : bao ie
eSERE eey ont so? sonsmthie Yel xsd odd 2b gREelyxedesed! es tteup
-5-
and sursuant to said Aet said 1938 tax levy ordinance may be adopted
at any time on or before the third Tuesday in September, 19383" and
defendant prays that said petition for mandamus may be dismissed at
relator's costs.
Defendant contends: “I, It is mandatory upon the court to
grant an application for a change of venue when the petition complies
with the statutory requirements, II. Inasmuch as the question of
whether bonds shall be issued by a municipality to fund its judgment
debts is a matter within the discretion of the officials of the mani-
Cipality, the courts cannot by mandamms compel the issuance of such
bonds, III. A municipality cannot, for the purpose of funding judg-
ments against it, issue bonds in the amount of such judgments where
the aggregate of the bonds to be issued and the other indebtedness of
the municipality (exelusive of said judgments) exceed five per cent
of the assessed valuation of all the taxable property in the minici-
pality, and where such judgments are based on involuntary liabilities."
Upoem the oral argument counsel for defendant stated that it
abandoned point III because of the decision in Elmhurst Bank v. Village
of Bellwood, 372 111. 204, There the Supreme court held that an
ordinance for the issuing of bonds to pay a judgment based on a tort
Claim, or an amount agreed upon in settlement of such judgment, is
not invalid as increasing the municipality's aggregate indebtedness
beyond the constitutional limit, as the bond issue merely evidences
an already existing debt, nor is the ordinance invalid because the
provision for e tax levy to pay the bonds makes the aggregate of taxes
exceed the statutory limitation based on the property valuation, In
that decision the court also calls attention to the fact that the
statute (I11. Rev. Stat. 1937, chap. 24, art. 5, par. 65.5, as amended
in 1936) permits the funding of judgment debts by bond issuese
As to point I: The motion of plaintiff (relator) to strike
certain paragraphs of the answer and for judgment was filed June 22,
1938. Defendant concedes that on the morning of June 23, 1938, it
received notice of the motion, that it was set for hearing before
( ute
bedqobs ed Yam soneatre. vel xf SEQL hkes toArbkae ot) danuznghhas
bas"; 8EQl ,rsdmssqes at YsbsenT bridd esl} exoted ro m0 omy ys te
te boegimalh od Yom euusbasm 102 noltkteg bise tad¢ eysiq tmsbacteb
ot tavoo elt moqs ytoiebnem at JI I" sabmedinceo Jusbasted ~—
aeliqnos solitieq oft aedw oumev to giao = 101 moltseliqge as dnery
‘to moitesnp eft es dommestl .II .edmemottoper yiotadatea edd ddiw
-tmemphul, eft hawt of wWileqtotam s yi bexeet od LLade.ebnod, rediedw
~iswm ot Yo alstolito oft to modtotseth edd abdd.by cedjen o sh etdob
dgue to consueet edd Leqmoo exusbasm yd doamso esos edt). biagto
het gatbast to seequvg eft 102 ,Jonmss Wileqtotamm A ..IIL .ebaed
. otedw ataougont deve Yo jauome eft at ehoed exgal «td tentess, admea
to ezenbotdebat redto exit bas beweat od of ebaed edt: to etegersgsy ond
duog tog evi beeexe (adaemebut bise to eviewloxe) yileqipinem edt
totam edt at ytseqoza eldsxstedd [1g to seiteutsv becgoass edi, to
",eelsilidell yistovlovnt so beasd ere ataommby sows, ovedw bas .vtileg
th tans bojede gnshaeteb 10% Leeauoo Jmeuuyts Leto ott meqd,. »
saslily .v 2Jus@ Jeredgli at motatoeb edd to, eexsood II] sateq, beaobasda
as tadd bled Jusoo emesque edt otedT., “AOS .LIT SNE .boomlled Bo
$90tsqmn.boaed iaougbut 6 Yag ot abmod to gntweat ed? tol. eongathro
at .inougbst, dove Io inewoljtoz at nequ boowge tayoms as x0 ytislo
aeonbsidebai etsgotags 2'ysifegtotanm edd gttaseiont es dileval Jom
_ aeoaebive yletem eweek baod eld ge ,iiull Isaotiaiteames adj bacyod
joy Silt Sous90d, Ditayat egusathso edt 2b som .tdeb saitelxe ybsosle ae
aexcd to ofagetags odd eodam abuod off ysqg.od Yel xed. 10? sotetvorg
(al .nolteulev yJuegeg. edt ao boged nolisdimts yuosutsda odd boaoxe |
eet tect tost edt ot, aoisnedse alfso gals Janos. od, Moletoeb tedz ih
pobaems 26.42689..49g cE iedae gS .gsco JE qdade..veR fT) edwtste
_ ekemeel baod yd eideb tmomghut 20 yathawt edd ettaxeg (OCG ot
edize of (tojeler) Vitiatelg to sottom edT 31 smtog of)2h oo...
eSS ent belt? esw Jnomgbyt sot has s9wents edt 0 edgstysteq.atadroo :
cod? a: ES ont to gecbitoat edt 0. teas _89b90n09 nabactod _ ones a
‘eroted yaised. xc To? doe esw cL sadd gnetton Bc Need ns wees: ag eget
; Pa 7 Rae eral. xBY
—b=
Judge Harry H. Fisher on June 24, 1938, at 10 a.m., and that the said
motion was number seventeen on the said judge's motion call. No
written notice that defendant would apply for a change of venue from
Judge Fisher was served upon relatur or its coumsel nor was the relator
orally notified that the application would be made, When the motion
Was Called by Judge Fisher defendant presented to the court the petition
for a change of venue, Counsel for reletor then stated to the court
that he had not seen the petition and had had no notice of any kind that
it would be presented, and that he therefore objected to the granting
of the petition. The court then denied the petition fer a change of
venue, The contention of defendant that it was mandatory upon the court
to grant its application for « change of vemue because the petition
complied with the statutory requirements is without merit. See the
recent case of People v. Meyering, 352 Ill. 436, where the court held
that the statute requires notice to the opposite party of the proposed
filing of a petition for a change of venue, and where no such notice is
given the petition is properly overruled even though it alleges prejudice
of the judge and that such prejudice wes first known the day before the
filing of the petition. The court further held that the fact that the
assistant State's attormey appears and resists the petition is not a
waiver of the requirement of notice. In the instant case the affidavit
in support of the petition was subseribed and sworn to om June 23, 1938.
The trial court wes justified in assuming from certain parts of defend-
ant's answer thet it was seeking delay. Upon the oral argument in the
instant case counsel for defendant admitted that the writ of mandamus
would lie in the instant cause if defendant delayed the payment of the
relator's judgment an “unrezsonable time." Counsel further conceded
that the trial court in passing upon relator's motion was required to
pass solely upon a question of law, and that if its decision was correct
defendant was not injured by the refusal of the trial court te grant the
change of venue,
We are satisfied that there is no merit in point II. In People
ex rel. Bunge v. Downers Grove San, Dist., 281 Ill. App. 426, the court
ou [iso moljom e'oghul bise eit no seeiuevee todmum eaw mottom
| Mort egmev Io syaalo s 1Ot ylqgs bivew tuchacted samt ssiion astiiiw—
sotsie1 odd ecw tom Loeawoo esi 10 tedelot moqit bevise -vew tofelt opbst
olson eit mott ,eohsm ed Sinow aoltsotiqqs end tact bokilven yListo
noititeq ety tiwoo eid of Betasestg Sushbasteh iedelt oghiwt yd beliso daw
tqwoo oy oF Sotste nodt asosalet tot Loemwod ,entsy To egnsde = 16%
Jedd bait yas to esiven on bad bal bus moltitveq eri mose tort Bad od sails
gatitaerg sit ot bejootdo ewlstedds ef tadd bas (bedneeetq od bLitiow Ft
timoo end nogy Ytodsbaan asw ti tads Sasbaoteh to motinotnos edT -,eNitev
mottideg ot seusosd sumev To ogaato s tot MobIisotlqqe ett dusty os —
odd 908 ,tiiom tuodtiw et ettemeitnper yroswate oft tin betiqieo
bLed tuseo eld orodw .é+ LIT SRE yabteyol jv elgood ‘to asd’ dn9de7
besoyory old to ¥Sisq otlecqqo edt ot soliton eottwpet etutsta edd salt
ak eoiion dove. on etedw bas (emmev ‘Yo ogrado s 10t mottiteq sto gatfiht
otbutetq eegelis of dgwodt mevo beLwtrsvo yLreqoty ef wolt toy odd nevis
@ii oxoted ysb sid nwoml Seatt eow oothutenq dowe tarlt Mes Oghet oft “to
odd Jasid Jost odd Saft bLecl woltaht Haves off aortiteq oth to~yankty
s tom af aottiteq edd edeltcot bas etsbqqs yertotis eYedste Sante teks
Aveta 088 Stine Wriaditenk “eal Sl °°, Salada “ed “Cet DE lite" ab
-8ECL 4ES ent to oF Mtoe Sra bedtesedme daw able ttsy et to troqque ‘At
-basteb to etisq ‘nkesieo mott uctevees mk bottttebt cow talod Larey ed?
ed} at dtomygys Leto ait oc .ysleb sntiisor daw Jf Feld veweas etdas
‘ euasbasa to tia otlt Ssdd bextimbs tusbreteb Yet Leditioo badd srovelt
eds to tromysq ot Beysleb “dnsbustsb Tf eanzo dh felt "exld mt ot Biivow
bebeonco versa Ieensod ",eutt ofdstocseiw me titengbyt a’ todston
ot bertupes esw notion etrodafor moqu gnteesc at tutes sist ont tans
SoeT100 eaw'notetosh edt U2 galt bus yal to Hobveeuy s nog! WLofoe’ easy
oad Sy ‘od ues LIstat’ ent Hopernyenggancibaspery ‘abw Sisbuo'teb
me. ee. we: et LOC RLS: 4 Mier nig
a
said (pp. 429, 430): "The claim has been reduced to a final judgment,
and nothing remains to be done except to pay seme. Under the circume
stances as they exist in this case, it is the duty of the board of
trustees of appellant district te take all steps necessary to make pay-.
ment of the judgment. People v, City of Chicago, 360 Ill. 25; City of | ;
Caire v. Campbell, 116 Ill. 305, 308, 309; City of Cairo Everett,
107 Ill. 75, 78; City of Chicago v. Sansum, 87 Ill. 182; People v,_
City of Cairo, 50 I11. 154. An evasion of a duty by a public officer
or a legal tribunal, amounting to a virtual refusal to perform the
duty, warrants a writ of mandamus, and an inferior tribunal which has
sought to evade the performance of a positive official duty while con-
vened, cannot, by adjourning its meeting sine die, place itself beyond
the power of the court to compel by mandamus the performance of the
duty enjoined by law which such tribunal has undertaken to defeat by
such evasion. Loewenthal v, Pe » 192 Ill. 222, 231, 232; Board of
Supervisors v, People, 226 Ill. 576, Persons charged with the
performance of public duties can have no higher duty than the payment
of an honest debt reduced to judgment, and it is not discretionary
with amy such official whether or not he shall so do, People v, Rice,
356 Ill. 373, 377." (See, also, People v, Kelly, 361 I11. 54, 59;
Poesia ¥,. Village of Bradley, 367 I11. 301, 307.) In the instant case
counsel for defendant stated to the trial court that the village did
not want to issue funding bonds to pay relator's judgment alone, but
that it was willing to issue funding bonds to pay plaintiff and all
other debtors of the village provided relator would reduce its judgment
so thet a legal bond issue could be made which would pay all of the
debts of the village, and that the present debts of the village were
in excess of the constitutional limit as to debts. In response to a
question by the trial court counsel for defendant stated that none of
the other claims against the village had been reduced to judgment, but
that the village wanted them paid, As we have already seen, the argu-
/ ment made that the present debts of the village are in excess of the
constitutional limit as to debts, was fully answered by our ree
(
4 eaten -f-
wnemghst Lectt s of beoubet seed esd malo oft” 2(OGP .eS* .qq) Bitse
~awotio edt ashe .emse yaq of Sqooxne snob ed ot antemer guidvon bas
to bused ed to ywWwub ont at tt yoes0 etdt ab tetxe yout as eoonsde
“ysq oaem od yrse2ooen agete Lis sued of sotatels tnafieqqs to eeotentt
wAQMIED WS .Lil 00f gonsotdD Do vILO .v elgosd .tnemgbul edt to snem
qftemovE .youtsD Do ySRD 1Q0E .80E 420 .LLT DLL giLedamad ,viomksd
aMofgesd 4S8L .ILl $8 .mumemse..v osgotdd. Jo wot. ¢8Y 42 sLLT FOL
feodtto otldua s yd yiwb 2 to actesve aA .P8L 4 [L100 ported to weED
edt mto%reg of Leexton Lesduiv s ot satinwoos yismudiad Iegel-2 0
ved doidw Ienudias soltiatns bus ,awmsbhbasm to Slaw 2s adasxisew qysebd
mes eLisw Yb Letolite evtstineq 2 10 Sotemtotueq edt ebsve ot tdgnoe ©
bnoyed Lloast ooalg yeib.emie yniieoom ati gatnawotbs yd ,Joniso.q4benev
edt to sensmiotzeq eid egmsbasm yd Leqaoe of Jiwoo eds Yo tewog said
Yd dseteh o¢ nedlettobax esd Leandist dowe dobdw wal yd bentotae yub
Se. bigoS “SCS .f68 4888 .L1T Sef ,elaoed sv Iedinoweod .aolasve dove
ent Agtw beguosio emoatei .Oe .LLI OSS ,efgoed ,v etoetvregye
snoarsq odd nedd YIub tedaid on evad aso seiteb otiduq to eonsaitetzeq
& ytssolhisitosth Jon ef th bas ytaemygbut ot beoubet tdeb Jesnod ms ‘to
asoti .v egoed .ob o2 ILerle ect ton to sosifedw Letotite dove yos itty
€2 ghC -LLT 16€ gyLLol .v olgood youis yee’) "FTE gEVE uLLL ORE
eas9 Jasdaal edt of (.YOC .f0€ .[L1 Ye .velbard to esglLty sv efgoeg
bth easiliv adj stadt sasos Letts eff of botate tusbueted rot Losaued
jud ,enols Juomgbrt e'votalet ysq- od ebnod gatbar?t eveet ot Jasw ton
| fis bus Titintsig ysq ef einod gnitbawt oveek os gutlitw eaw th ted
sneughs{, ati soubkez binow todeler bebiverq egalliv et to exotdeb tedto
eit to fis Ysq biuow doldw ebsm of blwoo oueet bod Lsge0k a satitvor
etew sgsiiiv offs to ejdeb suseenq edt Jedd bus qagsiity edd to etdob
(8 OF Samogeet ml .aeddeb.ot es Jimti Leneisdutidencoo els to eaeoxs mi
‘to ston tedd beisve Insbnoleb toi Ieanves tayoo Istas edt yd motteeup
tnd qdaouybuj, of beoubos moed bad egsliiv odd temtegs eutelo wedso edt
“Hgts edd ,aoee ybset{s evad ow 2A .bieq modt bedasw egalitvieds dads
_ edd TO 229oKe at ox ogelliv edd Io eddeb dnozety ond tacit ebau J ‘6 ‘ Ne
SMRIGHG Wo Yd berewens YLint ecw ,added ot ea tinkt Iasottustteqop
lwood, supra (p. 206), where
the court stated: “The great majority of courts hold that the issuance
of bonds by a municipality for the purpose of funding its valid in-
~ tinetnnen does not increase its aggregate indebtedness within the
meaning of constitutional provisions similar to ours. (97 A.L.R. 442n.)
In Koesis v, Chicago P District, 362 Ill. 24, 35, we followed that
view and said: ‘The issuance of refunding and funding bonds does not
ereate additional indebtedness but merely evidences existing debts,
(County of Jasper v, Ballou, 103 U.S. 745; Powell v, City of Madison,
107 Ind, 106; Hotchkiss v, Marion, 12 Mont. 218; Hamilton County y,
Montpelier Savings Bank and Trust Co,, 157 Fed. 19.) The Cirevit Court
of Appeals for the seventh circuit, in the case last cited, in referring
to the constitutional provision in question, said: "The constitutional
limitation relates solely to the creation of indebtedness thereafter,
and neither authorizes repudiation, nor affects the making of terms for
payment of existing legal liabilities, The funding of such liabilities,
therefore, authorized by statute and vote, was unaffected by the limita-
tion, and the fact alone that the issue of funding bonds thereupon
exceeded that limit neither implies nor amounts to violation of the
constitutional provision.” It necessarily follows that no additional
indebtedness will be created by the refunding of the bonds and the
funding of the floating indebtedness of the superseded park districts,'*
In the instant case, defendant's verified answer stated that all revenues
from the tax levy for general corporate purposes and from other sources
have been and will be insufficient to pay the necessary, reasonable and
most economical corporate expenditures, and the trial court, in passing
upon plaintiff's (relator's) motion, had to assume that this statement
was true, and he was justified, therefore, in commanding the village
to issue the bonds in question and to deliver them to plaintiff
“er and to levy taxes for the payment of the bonds, The judgment
order recites that relator is willing to receive the bonds as payment
for its judgment, Both in the trial court and in this court the attitude
(
we
-egede (208 .q) gai sboow Slog Yo onsLLAV «waned geryrield at Sagoo
eongueal end Sadé blod adwioo to ysitejem tee1tg edi”. :begate,tdaweo edt
-ak hilav agi guitbuwt to saoqrueq edd. 16% Ysileqioiosm 2 Yd ebaod to
ent aiddiw aesabetdebal etagetggs esi eesotsal Jom esob azenhesdeb
(mS) ofl,dsA FO) .axwo oF usiimie emolgivoug ianoituitianos, to gatasem
deed SewolLot ow .2E gAS .L1T Sof qdotutetd aust onsoidd sv elesom al
tom ge0b abhaod guibavt bas gatbayte1 te eonegeet odt' tbise basiwoty
-sideb gatiatne esomebive ylesem dud ezoghetdebal Ianol¢thbs etseto
alice dbs Yo vdhD sv SieweS Wl «2.U EOL qwodlei ,vy uegesb to yiawo9)
aM Nieyoo soiitusy 7848 sino Sl ,sotusM .v agtidosol 400L-.bal YOL
duyoO ¢hwortd edT (.0i .bol TEL 4.99 dans) bus Aaed agatved t9hleqsaol
grkwigier gi gbedte tesi exzso ot at yilvorto démeves edt 102 alseqgA te
fanoiswtisesoo edT" tbhiae ,motteesp at soletvetq {anotiui iianes edd,od
.tettestenst aeenbetdebai to motsac1e edt of yLeloe 2otslex mottatimit
Tot emies io gatism odd eiostis tom, gsotiathbuqot sesisedius i9di ten bas
eeottilidets dove to gutbaw?t edT ..eelttitdstt {aged gattetxo to, Jaemysq
~atimti edt yd betostTisny esw actev bus etstate yd bexiaodins ,oioteteds
soqueteds ebmod gathbast to epeet ed todd emola toast odd bas qaots
edd Yo mottalolv of stavoms tom eokiqmh teddten dimbt tedd bebosoxe
Leaottibbs. on jadt ewollot. yituseesoom $I . "snotetvory Isnotiusitenoo
eid bas ebaod ofl) to gabbavtox od yd betsexs od Lilw eeoaboddebat
#9 atokiseib aasq bobeategwe oft to esembeddebat gnidselt edd To gathast
eunevet [is tais bedate towans beliiuev a'insbusieh 4eeso dastent edd) al
aeomos terto mort brs seaoqivy edsrogzeo [esemeg 101 yvel asd edd mort
bus oldeneeson ,Ytseesoen only Ysq od daetolYiwent ed Lliw bma mead evad
gikeesq at ,taveo fsiatt eft Dos ,2owtlbaeque edsi0eqies [eolmonose Jeon
snemetste elds Jerid ommees of bas ,moltom (e'uedalea) 2! Tiddalsiq aoqu
egsiliv adj gutinsamon af ,ouctoteds ,beiitves, esw ad bos yortd esy
Yitdatsig od aedd toviled of bus motteenp al ebaod edit |
tuemgbet edt ,ebsed odd to dnemyeq odd wot eoxad Yel of bas (a0teLot)
—dmemyagq. es abnod ed¢ evteset of gatifiw ef totalentads 2ettoet xrhbt0
Aah OD Ge shuns Lemnos S. sustnane , mi,
-9~
of the defendant was to secure what it called "reasonable time” in
which to pay the judgment. It has had reasonable time to pay it.
The judgment of the Circuit court of Cook county is
affirmed,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED,
Sullivan, P. J,, and Friend, J., concur,
ge
WE wonty efdsnoesor Bélies of sadw emoed oF ew "dnsbaetes odd to
sh yaq od end eldeitoesos bad aad ST” joetemgbut ord Yoq OF Siw
9 aby g ites sl06d ‘to Sates Fhwotto edd to’ dettigbst “edt” *°
| 8 ait te aoonbe? dehul ovepetygs oh pagoyund 208, cco a id
PD heed FEI. Wig oagpsenhopceinigh AOR | oo] a
PE BAO LIO O 4 RL, AAS dE BOL MN ar
doe mepd abot qaitoort tas, ov icieanamegaianee .
sided gadtietss soouehive Yloven ted exeuhoodednd Lieto 1 hike 93 neem
aR 2. dee oN he MUN Bo OOS <andial seme, Yo eee
SNe ellie SA teak Oh lL eed Ohhh OR
fwed skewekQ ost (.gk Oe Ti andi in led enadre meh eaael
ikem tes ak hottie Yaad deag exit af giivonto Gameem mbt fort aLoogeh Re
lanortetisssan oft? cthhat webiacy «2 moletvong, Lamoceyy Eimausy odd at
sted taounht aanahotdebs, le noldeot ot of —inken satetenmebtatamtl
WOR sumed te yoliau edd Bi) QeKis ton siiildeiaaieiibieiisuimamenern se «of
(Pobttitdell dom oe gatwurt wh. .ebtititall Jegeh ee |
ei beRL mht Yd bos ye Tin wan odor has egeteta.ee .
moquersds abroad pritewt tevenseh odt-dade aia Seah athe ati
At Te mei elole ok coche ree menbRt, woRihien chem tcl teatime
Lenstebobs.oc 3ads awoided xbiaavennacdl \Maty | atte
@tobes cheed ade UW yobkoubes: ennesunemsans ect: me
7
:
ened Listawid hadtete. cemace Solhacev: oveeendeiian ee
dedeone. tadcosmnntstes BAROTTAY edu seyuEs eseaty 0% 9 ssn matt
hay Sidguiase pyroedens sit pag ed scemmcenneliatienimadane sis
sthseay al ,Sakee Latwh edt tes .nomibneqae wtetoguad Lek '
Seems bie abt Secs emuaes Of fae yebFomle Meedadon) avvhasntedg meg im
agallie ott gathoomeon aby game terms Lenn at.
woSthhtahalge od umadt) serie daaceotéwenp ab linieeediit a
oma oe aa ebred ead he Aaamapey: scala 2 eas ra bib (nate)
Arey ns, chee att ov howws ad yabihtwoek: 8
=r! tae KY KY when ed Ls. ae bis Lae
40633 am | A
FRIEDA ROSINSKI, i
Appellee, 5
Ve
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURAI
COMPANY, a corporation, 2
Appellant. t 5 { oA. 6 2 6
ER. JUSTICE SCANLAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
SOURT OF CHICAGE: x
a et Nl el el at
This is an action under the double indemnity provision of a
life insurance policy issued by defendant on the life of Herman Piper.
Defendant paid the face amount of the policy to plaintiff but denied
that it was liable under the double liability provision of the policy.
A jury returned a verdict finding the issues against defendant and
assessing plaintiff's damages at the sum of $483.35. Defendant appeals,
The double liability provision of the policy provided that if
the insured sustained “bodily injuries, solely through external, vio-
lent and accidental means, resulting, directly and independently of all
other causes, in the death of the Insured * * * the Company will pay
in addition to any other sums due under this rolicy and subject to the
provisions of this Policy an Accidental Death Benefit equal to the face
amount of insuranee then payable at death.”
Plaintiff's theory was that the death of the insured was
caused solely by external, violent and accidental means, Defendant's
theory was that the insured's death was not caused solely through
external, violent and accidental means, directly or independently of
all other causes, but that disease and infirmities of the insured
contributed to his death.
The insured, Herman Piper, died on Warch 18, 1937, at the
County hospital, He was in a state of coma when he was brought into
the hospital.
Defendant contends: "The burden was on the plaintiff to
prove that death was the result, directly and independently ef all
other causes, of bodily injury sustained solely through external,
x4
sTAVOO BHT YO MOIMIGO THY GRARVIIMG WAIMADE sorreUt a ws
& to moletvotq ytinmebmt eldveb oft rebay seoltos mas ek ebiT
-teqld cisstcH to etkl odd no tnsbuoteb Vd boweet Wanton soasmwent ote
bolaeb jud Tilttnislq of yoifog edt to tnoms ost edt bisg Jnsbaoted |
*Yoilog odd to noletvorg YSLItdstl efdsyob edd tebe oldetI eaw st dastd
bas Jasbusteb tenteys eeweet edd gatbatt ¢otbrev & benuset yust ‘
fseqqe Sasbmeted .8E.€8h8 to mee oft ts zogsish e'ttitatslq palezozes
tk tedt bebivotg yotfog edt to moletvorq yttlidstr elduob salT
“ely qLantodxe dysiouls YLoloe .zetwtat yLtbod" bentssewe bowent eds
is to yivmehneqebat bas Vitoorts .antiIneor @2its ont madsen bas dno E
Ysq Litw yasqmod edt * * * boxwanT edt to dtsob odd at e9euisD ‘redo
eds ot tootdwe bas yotfod aids reba eb emve terito Yue of mobttbbe at —
Ost edd of Laups tioned Mdeed IstnebiooA ns YotIod aldd to anotetvorg
",diseb ts eldeysq medt consent to dawoms
ssw bewent edt to dtsob ont tert aaw Ytoeds a *tttdnte ld .
e'Insbasted ,ansom Lsdnebloos bas tmelotvy ,Lentetxe yd yleloe beauss |
fguomls ylefos beenso ton eaw disob a*bemwent eft tadd eaw Yioeds
te yitasbasqsbat 10 yLdoe1kb eecsem Isiaebtoos bas tneloty lemrotxe:
bewent odd to aottlattal bas sesselh tadt sud 29289 tedto ifs
-idseb ald ot betudtatnes
ois ts ,JECL .8L Morell mo both 2, teql4 aswieH ,bement odT
osak tdgvoud ecw ef mosw amon to ofste s at caw oH .Letiqzod wae)
- isd bqeort odd we f
et Tiliatslq eit mo enw nebind oT” sabsed¢nos tusbasted
fis to yltnebmeqebat bas ¥ltooxth .tiveot sdt esw fiteeb tens evorq
cianisdxe dguouds Yielor bentstexe yuwtat yLthed to yeeauso tedto :
——— eae
<nes
violent and accidental means, The plaintiff failed to meet this burden
which is a condition precedent to reeovery, II. Disease and infirmi-
ties of the insured contributed to his death, thereby barring recovery
by plaintiff under the terms of the policy." Upon the oral argument
counsel for defendant stated that point I was intended as a contention
that plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case that the
insured came to his death from bodily injuries sustained solely through
violent and accidental means, The brother of the insured testified that
on an average of once a week during the last year of the insured's life
he saw the insured, and that during that year the witness "saw no signs
of ill health;" that the last time the witness saw the insured was on
Mareh 16 and that at that time his condition was the same. Dr, Kearns,
the physician, surgeon and pathologist for the coroner of Cook county,
testified for plaintiff. Defendant admitted the doctor's qualifications,
The doctor testified that in March, 1937, he performed a post mortem on
the body of the insured; that "the external examination revealed a well
developed white male, 41 years of age, 5 feet 9 inches tall, and weighing
175 pounds;" that when he reflected the scalp to examine the contents of
the head, he “found no fracture of the skull, but found an extensive
hemorrhage between the outer covering of the brain and the brain, a sub=
dural hemorrhage, on both sides behind this part of the head (indicating)
and on the right side over this part of the head (indicating); in other
words, over the parieto oecipital area on both sides and the temporal
area on the right side. In addition to this, there were punctate
hemorrhages in the brain in the middle convolution of the parietal lobe
on the right side; and in the part of the brain through which the tracts,
the nerve tracts pass, the superior cerebral peduncles on both sides,
. there were also hemorrhages." The doctor further testified that from
the conditions he found in the brain he was of the opinion, based on
reasonable medical certainty, "that the changes in the brain were the
result of injury, external violence;" that, in his opinion, "these
injuries of the brain were the cause of death," The witness was net
alte
nebuid elit toom of boliet Yitvatsiq ed? .ensom Latuebltoos baa jaeLotv
~imiitat bas ceseetG II .yrevooer of tmebeve1q soldtbnoo s ekidotdw
ytevooes gatiiusd yderers ,diseb ald of petudigsuce bqument. ods to welts
tnemgits Leto edd aogl ",yollog edd to emrey ‘exit aebrus Tittatelg yd
aoljnetaos 8 es bebuedat asw I dnuiog todd botate snahneteb 702 Leznuos
Bisa
edt dadt eas9 siost sitag s duo oven ot belted. bad Masgtat Sa
dauouwis Welton beatsd ase selaubet ythed mort sitseb abd ‘ot omso panne
Jaci. bottsseed boweat ed te redtord ont +easom “Estnebtoon ‘bas duetotv
i hi us F f “
9iit e'boment ‘edt to 7a8y teal oid, sabunb oon 8 eone to egst0va 1S 10
angie on wse” eeend bw ads 789Y tonls gata acid bas sborurent ‘ont vee ori
so 8s beret exis wae enon by oats vomts Seat ents Sautt $ W utdiaed Lt t0
“Beek kage
eroting 1009 Se. ‘ten0702 oxi x02 selsoLedieg ‘aes noose “anton
ty
senoltaptttLenp e'03p0b ons bods tnbe tasbao ted © mubintadg tot bettie ed
itt Oldweh att
ft gedzom J20g r) bouxetseq, ou see, ioral at Sand bextataes tatned od
= tk ony
Ifow B beLseve1 Hott satmsxe Lantedxe auid ‘ada (bomen eds ods
poitslg tow brs atted aosfont ‘# soot zg 938 ‘Yo e728 Bb ohm ody png
Sort ere
bao “odd
ta sinodneo, exis /antaane ot qLece ond begotten et sect ‘tedd / Nabaveg Sf
ad week hf i
evienoeixe as boss ud Ltn ould ‘to oumdoat? on baoe” <baed edt
a "i me ‘le ef wire ei
-dive 6 eater’ eis Sas ntaxd edd to yubtovoo redo oad: soows egal
yg wes monet te Ste aE
(gattsotbat) bsed ed to s1aq etsy batted eobis ddod 10. ‘ sgadtrromst
_tedvo. at {(patdeotbat) bser eds to su8q adds corm obke dig tx eid m0 ‘baw
4 ‘ ‘y Yalow Py thas wee Pes
Laregued ond - bas esble ajod sto nets tajtitose ofetiag ed} ovo <2bxow f
2 SG ¥woees ay
_ S8stonnq otew onedt sets od mols tbs at 8bie Sages ‘edd 0 8918
" gL GTR RD.
odeL Asteolisg ogid to. aotdnLoyixo9 ‘elbbim ‘eld at atexd ° edt ak’ ogaittomed
5 28 LF lamas ath ¢ tS ey ‘Ste
,etostd edt do Lelir Jcmets peer eft to J1sq edit on bas bis jdgts eas m0
dratmena
szebie djod no geLonsiboq Laxdores rolreque aut) rood _tdostd evied ont
eae. ait TEP IE
, Sort. dads. berthed odd sod 900 ont " ,asgadrromedt oats Siow ores si
VG 8 Uh sew oH ta? oe) ee as
no beasd ,wotntge peggy atard odd it basso ed ‘Gaotd Ebaes )
BF LER OL od
ons stew flerd old ok poqaado oat jada® atintss 209 Igo tbent 2. og ‘
fuswotnos Sadun ped
—s sassy" \ yfrokttgo abd ah aba m4 eonsLotv Isatedxo atwital To sizer a
bY edt dan Reed Fans baa @
Jom aaw eaond bw oat | "sld20b to eense orlt orew miatd exit to aobas Mh a
vusfal yithed te, eouisy soetites:
yo et
a j=
eross-examined, We hold that plaintiff made out a prima facie case that
the insured came to his death from bodily injuries sustained solely
” ‘through external, violent and accidental means, and that the instant
contention of defendant is without merit,
4s to the second contention: Plaintiff having made out a
prima facie case that the insured came to his death from bodily injuries
“Ctigealned solely through external, violent and accidental means, the
burden was then upon defendant te show that disease and infirmities
contributed to his death. (See Nalty v, Federal Casualty Co,, 245
Ill. App. 180, 185; Rogers v, Prudential Ins. Co,, 270 Ill. App. 515,
525.) Defendant seeks to sustain its second contention by the testi-
mony of Dr. Samuel L. Schreiber, who, at the time the insured was in
the County hospital, wes a junior resident interne, He was not a
licensed physician at the time, in fact, was not licensed until about
a yeer after the death of the insured. He testified that after the
insured was brought to the hospital he made a complete examination of
the insured; that “there was a - on his head there was a bruise over
the right frontal bone;" that “my impression in the case was alcoholic
coma with alcoholic gastritis, subarachnoid hemorrhage, tentative
etiology, cither some form of injury, hypertension or aneurysm of the
head, a tentative diagnosis of ruptured aneurysm in the head * * * or
in the spinal column; passive congestion of the kidneys, and ~
.hemorrhoids;" that he "drew a Wasserman * * * and sent it to the
laboratory, and it was returned positive for syphilis * * * that
syphilis will cause such a venous thrombosis of the head, with a period
of unconsciousness, period of coma, such as this man was in." The
following then occurred: "Q, And this venous thrombosis you found,
was that sufficient to kill a man? A. I don't know what the Coroner
found at the postmortem; but syphilis will cause venous thrombosis,
I am assuming pathological entities will occur with syphilis." The
witness further testified that the conditions he found could very well
contribute to the insured's death, Upon cross-examination the witness
was asked the follewing question: "Q. Assuming you had done a
~€>.
gett ses slosh amtig s juo ebam Titiatsl¢ tant blond of -benbusxe-280%2
Yieloe bontsteve guiuabat Rea mort i$ sob ald of emso howent ‘edd
tasvent oxy t asid bas 2089801 Latnebtves bas tneLotv Lantsdxe dguould ~~
.t item suodt tw et jnsbusteb to nokinesneo
8 dno ebam - aatbvad Vibdalel4d enelonstnes heise edd ot eA .
golwial yitbod wort dit a0b abd ot omso berurest odd dads eeso eiost amiag
exit aches Ladaebboos bas taeLlotv ,Lantesxe dguouid wWelae ‘bontadaue
pots tua htt baie ‘easeath tant wore ot Jasbueteb oq world eew aeband
ag 00 iauend Laxebet .v wall se8) .déaeb ete od bedudiasaco
Ui 404 LIT OFS 4209 seal tebiasbuss wv exenod 4x8 08r +a tit
~lteed ada wd aotinetnoo bnosse ett ateteme ot aioe tashaeted (68s
mk Baw bewent exit oak’ ond ts _ortw . todtomtoe od Leumos 1 un aon
| & Feu ‘sw 9H erregact sasblest soteust fe} es tad bqaod ‘YWaued ott
tuods Ebsew beeneoks tox aaw ,tost at oaks odd ts netokeyia boeaeoti
edd r0t%s $anlt beltti ees oli -bewest exit to stood ‘eat ‘tetts 189% 2
to Hold grt basxe ef oiquoo Ps sbsit oct Lat tqeodi out ot Sdiguoxd 2aw ‘Beswaat
revo saluad | 8 2aw oxedld bess ald ao = 8 2.sw exons" decid jbowent ag
oLfodools eaw 6689 “eit at nolesonqat wa dais " yaixod Lsinoxt joie edt
| ovis suet .ogadrromed phomutostsdua settiatesg ottertoots tbe gis
edt to mayen ‘10 ‘notenst reqyd courted 0 mx0t emoa rotld be \xgotolse
| to *** boed oad mk meywene bemdque to ateongatd evivstael = bacd
cigs EF 8)
a ee Yen if etl} to aottesgien ovienag taumiLos ‘Tankge edt at
exit ot $k tnee bas * # # Hamioz asi Fr wonb” ex ads " yebtoderomed |
_ daly * * elLtciqye 10% evisteoq peruse ew ak bas etiosstodel ;
be txog s dttw basal eid to eheodmonds etorey 3 dowe easiso Iftw ebtidave
eat "ot eew som absid | es dove ,2m0o to bokzeq eezenzuotoesoons! Yo
qbauro LOY ‘eteodmonuls euonev aldd bak wg" rheraws90 nedd sabwolfo?
‘temo tod asit {afte wornl t'aob IA Suan s Libs ‘os tootettwe “tadd’ ‘Baw
, a Tay
seleodmouly avery eekiso LL eninigye ‘td ques rout 20g edd ts ‘beso
ie
on? atttriqye Ag bw two LLtw aeitiins IsotgoLorid.aq yatuuiaes ns » &
iiew yxsv bines Basot od enolt thos add Jacls ‘boltisesd madd? ‘ezond kw
agent iw eats Hold satmsxe-eeo70 aoqu atitsob e* bowen ‘edt rong
tg kart oe
8 me bait HOY yickeuse BA oo” snot assy gniwollot ‘ext benes “gaw
:
3
|
iq
wile i
skilful job, and there was blood in this fluid, you couldn't tell
from the nature of your test whether that blood came from the
laceration of the brain or whether it came from the venous thrombosis,
as you say? A, No, that is true," The witness further testified
thet he did not examine the brain; that the brain was sent to the
coroner for post mortem; that "the correctness [of the physical
finlings] * * * is determined by the postmortem findings," We have
earmfully read the entire evidence of Dr, Schreiber and we are satise
fiel that the jury and the trial court were justified in finding that
it dd not prove that “disease end infirmities" contributed to the
death of the insured, Indeed, as the witness was not a licensed
phyician at the time that he ee the insured in the County hospital,
it s somewhat surprising that plaintiffts counsel did not object te
the »pinion evidence of the doctor. It is to be noted that the
docbr admitted that the correctness of his opinion would be deter-
mind by the post mortem findings.
Under the record in this case the cuestion whether the
insued died as the result of bodily injuries sustained solely
throgh violent and accidental means was a question of fact for
the ury, and we are entirely satisfied with their findings.
The judgment of the Municipal court of Chicago is
affined,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED,
Sullran, P. J., and Friend, J., concur,
’
ffed s'ablwes yoy ,binlt etd) mk boold saw exeeis bia dot fn bate
oct mort cmao boold tadt rositedw tees qwoy to siwiadt edd of
eeisodmowlt esonev oi} mort emtes tk seddedw to ated edd te Holtete}al
beltttteed reddast eacntin onl “,ewrd at Sait pot LA> tye woyles
sig of tee2 aew atetd odd Jadd yateid edt enkusxe von Bib od Shad
Seoteuiq ent 40] eeentoeti0o edt" Jedd ygtttpm gpog sob a2
ovad of “.egathnt? metromeog edt yd bentaxetobi at i # + f
~citee sts ow das sediewloa .20 to eanebive oxksner of? Daot YL Litdes
dan gatbalt ot bebitten, e1ew duo Letrd end fae yuh edd dent bb:
ods oF bedudizines "geltturitat bus sracetbY tay evorq ton bi IE
beameotl 5 tom asw eaentiv elt 2s yboobnl showenh edd to x eb.
clot igeod yiavod ed? at Bowent edt wee ed tat smtt ent tecmske Meng"
et Joatdo ton bth Loanpoo et titintsiq tant gabe tngate Jaswomoe @ tk
. eat gost boton sd of at $I. .10t90b' end to! semebtve motinhqaedd:
~teteb od bisow colnige etd to seentpontos ert tails bettinbe doob®
ptgethal? pstsom gzog elt yd data:
ond sedtedw,nottaeup edd, egso eid ab bosses! oft tebaw «| oc!
‘Yloloe beatedeue zolmbat uLthed Ye diner ocid aaobetb béder
202 Jost to solisepp s 2aw eases [atnsitoos bas taelotv a aay
-egalbal? tedd ddiy bepedtar UWeutinovens owibas gyatiory ©
Bi ogsoidd te. tuo LegtobuMvedd: toytnsagant emt) © oo
TIMATTIA THEMOCUG . - to8 & work” or, B49 *eebied;comed
| strocieo ,.% yhasitt bas .,b°.4 \gitev Ie el -,
fix aes | Sg
,! 10
. a3 i st eitot
é eg
a ‘ bear
t 2, i hl . . P : i
faoleo me lag BNiea) 5 as 4
ps 4 ” hy & bey
toe? gadiapt sentiw
theqale ik adid ot ota ltataoo
3 ee 1)
inetteuasy gekee.fo% eff Bt lna ase
a ' a Fe
7 - a
* eanyy hy}
7 oye 7
in "
ay a 1
rank ie a ue
)
ae
ta: net
ai " pe W i TN
t
Rs wa ae ——
we ey : iw na ™ ny 7 4 ; Ue
: nn eater ct Mi, * i Hh ind ; i e's 4 ant .
im eo o ee mie: " - _ .
. a 7 i ia w 7 7 mm
i _ i : * st 7 - 7 and “i, ; a a
sf my! u 7 = :
youn ari z
es
i ie a ha nH
= :
a ney cu Bi
Ba
Sa
eget Ly
'
a) et
: 4
i |
! 7 - rn 3
j () J a4
i, a i
‘
#
bi
Us
- «f
a ,
‘
e
7
i
7) ‘
_
} n
p os
us
y
as
U 7
7
nit, Ae
a OF)
ota
le iy 7
fi
i
at ,
ee
oh ts ‘he a my D Y
o sil
te Ne - a
ANU) oP 1 ATU nN ane ORE NL
i a " i He ht oe ue ve 7 nae Fn ‘ - ;
ms Tete a iu aujl in ee ee
le a ‘ull
Lop pL
7/) Bd At Ss
: “a
0 | A, Fore
1S ey O RPO
FAT VGA VV. Gane
BIND agp EN Ok of fii
O 4 Pw £ LATS
He) fg JI (Eat, Fd a 19 OAD,
PERS Caan
ee
eee os
S2S5
es
rath
estas
Paige
Hsyt
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11