(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

fts?is«isas^^ 



Digitized by tine Internet Archive 

in 2010 witii funding from 

CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Researcii Libraries in Illinois 



http://www.archive.org/details/illinoisappellat307illi 



77^^ 



FEB 9 '6\ 



B0UT5C 



"v^^ -Y^ 




ST..TE OF ILLINOIS 

APPELLATE COURT 

FOURTH DISTRICT 

IvIAY TERI,i, A. D. 19^-0 






DEC 3 1940 



J. B. ViflLLI^vIS, 
Plain 



T. J. MOSS T 
De 




-llppellan 



.JTY, . 

Appellee / 




CLERK OF TM« APPELLATI COU«T 

fouRTH District or-- Illinois 

"AGENDA NO. 8 

' ■■ ^ 

Court "'^ 
lair County, 
Illinois 



STONE, P. J. 

Appellant (hereinafter designated as Plaintiff) pro- 
secutes his appeal to this Court from an adverse verdict and 
judgment rendered in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, in 
which plaintiff sought damages for injury to his personal pro- 
perty by reason of a fire alleged to have been communicated by 
sparks from a st m engine, the property of appellee, (l^erein- 
after designated as defendants). 

The plaintiff leased and operated a farm immediately 
adjacent to the edge of defendant's property, v/here said defen- 
dant operated a tie yard. Tliis vras located near the city limits 
of East St. Louis, in Sl. Clair county. To haul the ties about 
the yard, defendant had constructed a narrow gauge railroad track, 
on which it operated tram cars loaded with ties and pushed by a 
"v.inky" en.?,ine. 

On plaintiff's farm was situated a barn. The distance 
from this barn to defendant's railroad track was controverted, 
the plcuintiff's witnesses stating that there was a road betvireen 
the railroad and the barn just v/ide enough for a wagon to pass 
through, while a witness testifying for defendant said it was 
about forty feet from the barn to the center of the track. 

The evidence disclosed that there was a fire which 
consumed plaintiff's barn and a quantity of hay, corn and farm 
implements stored therein. Plaintiff's wife and daughter, and 
Mrs. Addie Mae Brooks, a friend, who was visiting plaintiff's 
home the duy of the fire testified that they saw sparks and fire 
fly from the smokestack and that shortly thereafter grass and 



trash around the t)c>rn were burning £nd the bc.rn caught fire and 
was consumed. The v/itness, Mrs. Brooks testified there, was noth- 
ing on the smokestack of the engine. 

The testimony of the engineer, v;ho testified for the 
defendant was in substance that as he approached the curve, near 
the bcrn, ho shut off the steam and the trams and the engine 
coasted around the curve and passed the barn; that the engine 
did not throw out sparks, and on this particular occasion did 
not throv; out sparks as it approached the barn of the plaintiff. 
He also testified that the engine was equipped v/ith three anti- 
spark devices, viz., diagram, sheet screen netting and petticoat 
pipe, which v/ere regularly inspected. The engineer further testi- 
fied that on the morning in question there v/as a fire under a 
washing kettle betv/ecn plaintiff's house and the barn, a distance 
of about twenty-five feet from said barn. 

The cause was tried before a jury, which found the de- 
fendant not guilty. Plaintiff made a motion for a nev/ trial, 
which was denied. Counsel for the plaintiff in their brief 
filed in this court, contends that the verdict and the judgment 
of the lower court is contrary to the law and agL.inst the mani- 
fest weight of the evidence; that the trial court erred in ad- 
mitting certain evidence on behalf of defendant over objection 
of plaintiff, and that the trial court erred in refusing to give 
certain instructions to the jury offered by plaintiff and marked 
"refused" by the court. 

The question of whether the fire was ignited by the 
engine was a question of fact for the jury, and the jury decided 
such question in the negative. The triers of fact evidently 
took into consideration the physical condition of the defendant's 
tie yard and the engineers testimony with reference to the spark 
arresting device and his further testimony that the engine did 
not throw out any sparks or fire as it approached and passed the 
barn. Where there is a contrariety of evidence and the testi- 
mony by a fair and reasonable intendment will authorize a ver- 
dict, even though it may be supported by a lesser number of wit- 
nesses, a court of review will not set it aside. Carney v. Sheevy 
295 111. 78, at 83; Roth v. Flack, 224 111. App. 396, at 399. 



Where a fclr question of fact is raised by the proof this Court 
has consistt^ntly held that the jury's finding will not be set 
aside as against the manifest v;oir;ht of the evidence. Summers 
V. Hendricks, 300 111. App. ^98; Rich v. Albrecht, 300 111. App. 
493; Jones v. Esenbcrg, 299 111. App. 551; Gregory v. Merriam, 
294 111. App. 483; Rembke v. Bieser, 298 111. App. 136, at I46; 
Greenfield v. Terminal R. R. Co., 298 111. ^pp . 147, at 153. 

This court is of the opinion that the verdict of the 
jury was not contrary to the mt.nifest weight of the evidence. 

It is contended by the plaintiff that the court erred 
in the admission in evidence of defendant's Exlatbit 1, which 
purpo2»ted to be a rough sketch or plat of the physicial objects 
mentioned in the testimony. The v/itn^ss Tebby, who drew it and 
who identified it, testified that it was approximately correct 
as to me£-surements but was not drawn to scale. This sketch was 
a mode adopted by the witn^^ss for lod.ting and giving the rela- 
tive situation of the vt.rious places about which he and the other 
witnesses were called upon to testify, ^nd which it did not pro- 
fess to be mathmatically accurate, it provided m^.ttur of descrip- 
tion v;hich v/as proper for the jury to consider in connection 
with the other testimony. It was not error to admit the plat in 
evidence. Brown vs. Galtsburg Pressed Brick Co. 32 111. 648, op. 

653. 

Even if such plat weru tc;Chnically inadmissible, we 
are unt.blu to see that its consideration by the jury could have 
wrought any prejudice to the defendant, certainly none that would 
justify a reversal. The People of the State of Illinois v. Steve 
Jo,roz^.k, 366 111. 507, op. 516; Harlan Gritton v. Illinois Tract- 
ion, Inc. 247 111. App. 395, op 403; Edith S. Sweney v. north- 
western Mutual Life Ins. 251 111. App. 1, op. 31; Ethul McClary 
V. Grand Lodge Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen, 282 111. x^pp. 77. 

Plaintiff complains of the courts L.ction in refusing 
to givu two instructions requested by him which in substance ad- 
visud the jury that if thuy bulieved from a prupondurance of the 
evidence that there v/as a fire communicated to plaintiff's pro- 
perty by a spe.rk from defendant's engine, then the feet th^.t 
such fire v/.-S so communicated to plaintiff's property from de- 
fendant '^ engine should be t>..ken as full prima f:.cie evidence 



to chi-r.rc the dt-fondMit with nogligcnco which must be rebutted 
by tho dufendent. 

It hc.s beun repuL.todly hold by eur court thet instruct- 
ions containinf^ udji.Gtivi..s emphasizing .'Lny duty, object or feet, 
ere improper, ..s being celculetod to coni'use the jury. Ilolly 
vs. Chic. -go Repid Trensit Company, 365 111. I64; Tvter vs. Syoon- 
cr 305 111. 19o; Leiserowitz vs. ?e,-^erty, 135 111. App. 609. 

In both of these instructions the v/ord "full" is used, 
the pleintiff evidently heving in mind the language of the stat- 
ute, with reference to fires caused by locomotives of railroads. 
Chapter llA.,Per. 96, 111., Rev. Stats., 1939, provides, "That in 
all actions ag^.inst any person or incorporated comp^^ny for the 
recovery of dam.-ges on account of any injury to any property, 
whether red or person>,l, occ.sioned by fire communis. ted by 
any locomotive engine v/hile upon or pt.ssing w-long any r...ilroad 
in this state, the fact that such fire v/as so coramunicatud shall 
be taken as full prima fc.cie evidenco to ch.-rge with negligence 
the corporation or persons ■^>i^v+-,^ + * 'phore is no evidence that 
defendant owned or oper...ted t. r.ilroad, under the general re.il- 
road laws of the State of Illinois. 

It has been held that Section 12, „rticle 11, of the 
Constitution of Illinois, which provides that "railv/ays hereto- 
fore constructed or thi.t may be constructed in this State, are 
hereby decl;.-r^i.d public highv/ays <„nd sh^.H be free to all persons 
for the transportation of their persons and property thereon, 
under such regulations cs mr.y be prescribed by law," refers to 
railroads cor.structed for public as contra distinguished from 
private use, - to railroads constructed and used as common car- 
riers, and net to such structures built by individuals on their 
ovm lands, and to subserve their individual and private interests. 
Koelle vs. Knecht 99 111. 396. li. necess..rily follows thct the 
"regulations prescribed by law," such c.s those in the R_ilroad 
and V/arehouses Act, have no application to c, priv^.te r.-..ilroad 
such c.s that operated by the defendant merely as an incident to 
the business of creosoting ties. This court is of the opinion 
tha.t the tri^l court conmiittcd nc error in refusing to give these 
tv/G instructions, which are almost identical. 



V/e find rxG ruversible error in this record und the 
judgment of the lower court v/ill be (affirmed. 



r 



,<sr^' 



0.^ 



STATE OF ILLINOIS 

APPELLATE COURT 

FOURTH DISTRICT 

iYlAY TERi^I 

A. D. 1940 



iKu 



5~ 



TEEIvI NO. 14 



J. B. WILL 




ff-Appell 



COMPANY, 
Defendant -App ell 




OG!,2ii1940 

CLERK OF 1 KE APr'SUi.AlE C'.VU?*! 

FOURTH DiSTRICT O? iL'.!N'i!fe 

AGENDA NOo 8 

the 
Court of 
Clair County 



STONE, P. J. 

Appellant (hereinafter designated as Plaintiff) 
prosecutes his appeal to this Court from an adverse verdict 
and judgment rendered in the Circuit Court of St, Clair County, 
in which plaintiff sought danages for injury to his personal 
property hy reason of a fire alleged to have heen communicated 
by sparks from a steam engine, the property of appellee, (here- 
inafter designated as defendants). 

The plaintiff leased and operated a farm immediate- 
ly adjacent to the edge of defendant's property, where said de- 
fendant operated a tie yard. This was located near the city 
limits of East St. Louis, in St. Clair County. To haul the 
ties about the yard, defendant had constructed a narrow gauge 
railroad track, on which it operated tram cars loaded with ties 
and pushed by a "dinky" engine. 

On plaintiff's farm v/as situated a barn. The dis- 
tance from this barn to defendant's railroad track was contro- 
verted, the plaintiff's vatnesses stating that there was a road 
betv/een the railroad ond the barn just vd.de enough for a wagon 
to pass through, v/hile a v/itness testifying for defendant said 
it was about forty feet from the barn to the center of the track. 
The evidence disclosed that there was a fire which 
consvuaed plaintiff's barn and a quantity of hay, corn and farm 
implements stored therein. Plaintiff's wife and daughter, and 
Mrs. Addie Mae Brooks, a friend, who was visiting plaintiff's 



1. 



home the day of the fire testified that they saw sparks and 
fire fly from the smokestack and that shortly thereafter grass 
and trash around the barn were burning and the barn caught fire 
a'-id was consumed. The v/itness, Mrs. Brooks testified there was 
nothing on the smokestack of the engine 

The testimony of the engineer, who testified for the 
lofendant was in substance that as he approached the curve, near 
tne barn, he shut off the steam and the trams and the engine 
coasted around the curve and passed the barn; that the engine 
did not throw out sparks, and on this particular occasion did 
not throw out sparks as it approached the barn of the plaintiff. 
He also testified that the engine was equipped v.dth three anti- 
spark devices, viz., diagram, sheet screen netting end petticoat 
pipe, v/hich were regularly inspected. The engineer further tes- 
tified that on the morning in question there was a fire under a 
v/ashing kettle between plaintiff's house and the barn, a distance 
of about twenty-fivej feet from said barn. 

The cause was tried before a jury, which found the 
defendant not guilty. Plaintiff made a motion for a new trial, 
which was denied. Counsel for the plaintiff in their brief 
filed in this court, contends that the verdict and the judgment 
of the lower court is contrary to the lav; and against the mani- 
fest v/eight of the evidence; that the trial court erred in ad- 
mitting certain evidence on behalf of defendant over objection 
of plaintiff, and that the trial court erred in refusing to give 
certain instructions to the jury offered by plaintiff and marked 
"refused" by the court. 

Counsel for defendant directs the attention of this 
court, hov/ever, to the fact that the errors assigned in the motion 
for new trial are not set forth in the abstract. The abstract 
filed by plaintiff raerely contains v/hat amounts to a notation to 
the effect that such motion was made, but does not set out the 
substance of such notion. In the absence of such errors assigned 
in the motion, being incorporated in the abstract, the defendant 
insists that there is nothing for review nov; before this Court, 
and request affirmance of the judgment of the trial court, for 
failure to file a sufficient abstract as required by the rules of 

2. 



this court. 

The ahstract is the pleading of the parties in a 
•?ov.rt of review and v/hatever is sought to be reviev/ed nust be 
C'-.tained in that pleading. People vs. Paul 167 111. App. , 557; 
.;,; .'Govern v. City of Chicago 202 111. App. 139. It has frequent- 
'■•f been held by the courts of this State that, where a motion 
"jr nev/ trial is filed, only such errors as are specified in 
3uch motion may bo urged in this court on appeal ((.Trahcm vs. 
Dressen 292 111. App., 15, 23, 24; Gunderson vs. First National 
Bank of Chicago, 296 111. App. Ill, 113) and v/here such motion 
is not set out in the abstract vidiich is filed on appeal, none 
of the matters sought to be presented in the instant case are 
properly before this court for review by the court on appeal. 
Janeway vs. Burton SOI 111. 78; McGovern vs. Citj'- of Chicago 
202 111. App. 139, 144, 145; Retaj vs. Providers Life Assur. Co., 
221 111. App. 459, 486, Meyers vs. City of Belleville, 304 111. 
App. 633, In the instant case the errors assigned in the motion 
for new trial are not sot out in the abstract, rnd this court 
has no way of knov/ing the contents of the notion for new trial, 
without an examination of tae transcript of record. In such 
event the court vail not examine the transcript of record for the 
purpose of finding cause for reversal. Gage vs. City of Chicago, 
211 111. 109, 112; Meyers vs. City of Belleville, 304 111. App. 
633. 

The plaintiff seeks a reversal and reman dment of 
this cause, and apparently relies chiefly on matters pertaining 
to the weight of the evidence, error in refusing to give certain 
instructions requested by plaintiff and error in admitting cer- 
tain evidence over the objection of plaintiff. Under the author- 
ities hereinabove referred to and in viev/ of the issue raised 
by defendant, this court is not in a position to disregard the 
rules of practice with reference to necessity for abstracting 
matters contained in the motion for new trial and pass on the 
questions not properly before us. 

The judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Clair 
County will, therefore, be affirmed. 

AITIPJVIED. 
3. 




415X2 

JACOB V01IDRA8KK, et^*3Ux / I ) 

L J— \ ./ T ISTIRLOCUTOW APJ'KAL FROM 

J ^ ) SUPERIOR COUBT, 

BQIKAJIS ZALE, • a1., ) 

HR. JUSTICE KATCHSTT DELIVEREB TKE GPIBIOR OF THS COimf, 

This l8 an Appeal t>7 defendants from tvo ordere« one of 
Aiagiiet S2, 1$40, whleh enjoined defendant! fron treepaeelns en plain- 
tiffs' presltee, and tbe other of August 24, denying the notion of 
defendants to vaeate the injunction. The injunction wac interlocutory 
and for the purpose of preserving the etatue . The tactions were heard 
on the Terified hill, a verified aaendnent to it and verified ansvere 
of defendants to the bill and the amendment. 

Tbe faots appearing from the pleadings, disregarding laere 
eonoluslons, appear to be that plaintiffs hold title by warranty deed 
to premises knoim as OlSl-as ^, i«entworth avenue In the City of 
Chicago. The rear of these premises is improved by a warehouse four 
stories high, and the land in front of the varehouse is vacant, Ad- 
Joining these premises on the north is a lot Improved by a gas station 
idileh is operated by defendants, Bernard and Mandel Yale, Prior to 
Hovember 1, 1^39, a rin^t-of-vay across the vacant part of plalQ- 
tiffs* premises was leased to Kr. Adler, who then operated the gas 
•tation and «d&o paid plaintiffs 126 pnr month for the privilege of 
permitting customers and Adler to drive across tbe premises, in other 
words, to use the same in obtainini^ aeoees to and egress from the gas 
station, Adler* s lease has expired. Defendants, who succeed Adler 
at the gas station, nevertheless, continued to use the preielses of 
plaintiffs as a driveway without permission or lease and without paying 
•os^ensation. Notice to discontinue these treapassea has been given 
by plaintiffs but has been disregarded not only by the Xales but by 
other defendants who upon the M*der of the Yales persist in using the 
land for the purpose of delivering supplies to defendants. Defend- 



\ 



;a )•• 



/-.v 






•0 C 



.V 






^ VOtVZtO ailT OkkaJiviJ iOZT^ITV .JIN 

xA«d v%ti •aoiiom mUS . nutmi^ Mfl yilTiiMmq le MoquKi adl tol Ami 
ivwia* j^«itit<»T bn» tt oi tm9mbB^tm 69ltjhc«v a «iXl<r AailiiaY tdt no 

.inMdteMU Mlt Afl« XXitf •<& ol •toAftflvlAfc to 

»t»» ^.'!£.'>^&^«nualJ& «»8alA»«X<x •fit fliatl aai<iA9qq« aleAl MfT 

99^ \C'ivi»*zt»%' ^«r »lit$ ftXod •tli#fU«iq tjidt s^ o^ %t»qq« ,«pax <uj.9iioo 

t« x^iv ««i9 nt suAttVA /l#ii«wl««« .« 6S~XSXd a« owMuf aAaiaanq ot 

T£jci 9«tf0f(«'tAw a t<^ ftavcrtqsi ai •••iaianq MMfiT to <uin ailT .•aaeXjO 

>!^f\ .tfiui0«ir ai MaMiirMtf mtt to tiiovt ni Aooi odl Imm .itsKI aaXiofa 

itf«ie e«% X <0 Soyo^(^ toX A «i iflioji orft ao aoal«ovq MOffiT j^XnXot 

t>d ^ol't't .^Xev: I»Sifl«»< A(i!« MAfntoe «alAAftn«toA %4 &ot««oqe aX ^IxNr 

•>nXAiq t& tn.»q 7aa»at oill aaovoA tJiV'te-^itBli a ^9^^l iX tMtaovoH 

tA9 a^l^ Awr^fx^iaAO nsif^ oifv ,<iaXM .iiM otf l^oaAoX aav ntmlmmiq 'attit 

to ««oXliri'£i^ afOr 'sot dtaom loq 0^ attXYaXAXq AXaq oifw Iwa aoit A9a 

•il«<i ill ,a98l«!a<ic^ ftett aaoiOA ovXtft o9 loXftA Aoa atMratfaiio ifil9#liBi[oq 

Ai aff:^ ao^l «»9^^« ftn« ei aaoooo i^aialmidn ai oauaa %di 9»u o9 «aM<w 

•r^XI)' ^^wtsuaa 9ibi ««t{uid09t»C[ .bo^lqxa aad «aA«X a*i«Ii^ ,iioX9a19 

a««Xa?«Tq otitf sau o4 ^Atmllaoo «aaaXaiff'X«ira«i ,aoXlAl^ 9»% •dit t» 

\Aq tt^tiSiw Jhaa »iia*J to aoiaaXartaq tts^iJm y^Mmtrt s ?js etll^aiaXq 

ROVt^S^ ao»<f aajI *«»«A^ar%t 9a«»d7 aswlfflooaXB ci »9ifoit .jreoXtfaafioq^o 

Kd ;ftKl ^•imX «it x<^ %tne Ota bmb%»'s,«%wlb naotf aaif iTiitf attltiiXAXq xd 

di y^tnu at Jiltitiq aolAl asis to 'toftrni aii? aoqa odw ataaAaotofi vailto 

-I»n<»t9^ .ajrnA&aotdb of a^XXjqva snlTaviXoA to nraoqrxuq aiGT «xot Anal 



•«- 

•atfl have al«o plAoed on %h» l&nd owned bjr plaintiffs largs taakt 
vhich th»y use for storing oil, ete. 

Th« amendment to the bill allege* that plaintiffs have an4 
will eentlnue to suffer Irreparable injury unless «n injunction leituet 
ae prayed. 

Briefs have been filed in this oourt and the eause vac 
argued orally. In arguoent the title of plaintiift and the treepaesee 
by defendants end their customers were adaitted. Defendants said they 
wei^ willing to pay a reasonable tuaount for the use of the prealsee 
but had not been able to agree with plaintiffs as to what a reasonable 
sua would be. The answer also avers Isohe s and estoppel as a defense \ 
beeause, as It is said, suit was not brought for nine sonthe after the 
beginning of the treepaesee. Thez>e is no teerit to this contention. 
gm—go teaehin<gtonlan Howe v. Ghioago . 157 111. 414, 

It has been argued the oourt vais without Jurisdiotlon be» 
•ause plaintiffs have a remedy at law by way of ejectment or forcible 
detainer. A suit of either kind, it is apparent, would not provide a 
complete and adequate reaedy. The trespasses of defendants are 
oontinulng in their nature and n^atever the law may have been in the 
past it is ROW settled that b:>e spaa ses of a continuing nature in order 
to avoid a aultlpliclty of suits will be enjoined by a court of 
equity. Oragg v. Levlneot^. 838 111. 69; 0*DQnnell v, ue&rln*; . 291 111. 
878 and faylor v. Pearee . 17t 111. 14$. It was within the discretion 
of the oourt to hold matters in statu quo until a hearing could be had 
vpQn the serlte. Nestor Johnson Mfg. Co . v. c>oldblatt . 571 111. 670. 
The orders appealed fx*oa will be affirmed. 

ArriKMEu, 

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



ntiiahi aiiitsX «l^i^nt«l^ xd fc««irwo tumX 9iU op b^wklq, osXa fnrAtf •fii* 

, £le jifiiiAf » -vol •«!} x*^ lEftlifw 
i^ne » ttaiuXq 9mat «»]st«iX^ 4:i:i^ «ufjr 09 90««i)ii»a» Ail? 

'^&Bla.9%>i a4? to •«<) cAtf tol ^lurocse oi^AiMMUKrs a v^q et SMiiXXlw inmi 

^jhOm 9t B« siminiAlq titlv »«i^« o^ 9i4j» oantf tita h»A iuff 

^^■i.^i^^i r. ^s^qo^r^a SiOA »»ritoi isasr* o»Xji rtwao* ftCtX .Mf AXttow AIM 

-^ ' XA^X^ik »siiiii»i& a^lft lot tA^ttotd toa a«ir ^Xcm ,1>/a9 li ^i aA ,»8Ki«9«r 

.M4^ .XXI tax .jMSJUia •'' ywii ^Mfi^mi^'J^^iiSJ^ 

.i-^i^.>!s!i- r-iui iaeastm umm t%e99 lit Amnyt* ««acr tuui 31 

'^«>i«* to \au ^ wfti i» "iPwrnvi,, a »VMi at^l^JlJtAlq «ftJt«t 

l>Xjf<Mf ,?r'r-rT£ 716 al *1 ^hlUi 19^1* to ?t?.T3 A ,%WIIa39A 

ry-s» »^tmb^9Ti^t .- nJ «ffi . .x&«iU»9 a.^' . .iMo 9$9lq^a* 

ttfi^^i ^&iufsttf^ffi « t« attaaa^ctf tfaitf h9isi»» won «l «ri t%»q 

ia; .rr.uui:- ,* v.i ' ttf Jl'XiM' •SIMM t# t^Xo^iqiJfXwft a !»#«»▼* «^ 

: «x4t; . ^*x ,xxi eti »,a2a62i .T 3MMl ^^ «^« 

ibAr. ;£ f^irtAf^i ^ iiffMt< '.X a<t9tlft.« £>Xoi$ o^ Inaea aiit t6 

.AnrtittA atf JXtw manX Jk%lAmm^ aiel^^ adT 



/ 



41163 

KAHLOIJ D. MILLFJB, doing feu 8 In© ss &e / ) 

Merchant @ Curx^ncy '^.xohaage, / ) |^ 

atAtES Fl|tLITX ^)*©"-4HJAltAI«T¥ Cj^AKX, I / ) APPUIt FIOK 

BEIflESKP'^^, COSlkOf^^IlPA^ tRAVEL BaREAO, ) GlKCUIf COUBf, 

inc., ffl/pM tlilGHT', Jt>imJ,'.s;5CB , ISC, -a. ) 

©KICAOO l^d MAM/rACtyRIRS MAfTCMAL B^?JK ) 

or ©ETKCpf , ) 

^ b "7 T \ ?*^4-'^ 

AWEIUeA*! EXPOBf LIKES, INC.. and t/t«ItE3 ^P* X*i-l«/!i/OT: 

gfATEs riUELify ANis mmkwn coKFAjii, ) 

AppellftntB. ) 

KR. jpaasiuiM ^usfics o'ccnmoh x^:Li\fKRE» tm> opimiojs or tfts cuuEf . 

Bj' this «p;>fi«l th« Aaerlean K:iqport Lin»9, Inc., end United 
St«it«8 fidelity anfi auarwity Oonpany eeek to reverse a d»ore« wtiereby 
It van ord«r«d th&t plaintiff r«oovier from defendant, Central J^ation&l 
Sunk in ChicAgo, #1S83.@2 and further ordered that the cost of the 
suit be taxed agalnet defendants, AAerioan E:itport Lines, Ine. , United 
States yifiellty and Ouarenty Coiapany ana £»11 Leidlch, Ino. 

fbe undisputed facts are that March 10, 1938, defendant, 
Sail Leidioh, Inc., of Detroit, Michigan, arew its oheok for 11223,92 
payable. to the order of defendant, Aaerioan .Export Lines, Ine., on the 
Manafacturere National iiank of uetrolt, Hae check was delivered to 
^?, A, Henning, as general agent of the payee, American i xport Lines, 
Inc. He endorsed the cheek: "Fay to the order of Journeys, Ine, 
American Ssiport Lines, i. A, Henning, ci. A, " bat did not get the 
■oney on the eheok until eoiBe eight or ten days later Khen it vas paid 
to hlK by Journistys, Journeys endorsed the eheek to ^e Cosaopolltan 
Travel Service and afterward it was eashed by plaintiff. Miller, who 
was running a eurrenoy exchange business. Me deposited it in his bank, 
the Central national Sank in Ohioago, the cheek ir^ae paid in due course 
and he was given credit by the bank, .^tftei^ard the payee, Ajserlean 



;■ ; :» 



HA i-jsi-jiai 



ri::, /yt* ^^'^XP:\K 



MA 

3 

f 
'J 



imJ&iT9l:»l: 



-X. 



^8i^ .A.l Td8„,„_ 



&nr. , 



.fjSWOO XMf to «aXSI«JO ^HT «*'FSVia:'Ki auaKOO't; 3DItwiJI» iiaiw':^ 
6«*liiU J^ji^ ,.OftI ,B«nlJ ^xoqx^ nm^MiWftfe MfiT Ia*«r^ •!!«# *• 

«iij 10 »9ca «£» ?«fcf A*««f«o rt»ii:Mtfl few* «e.SS81^ ,«j|&al4[0 rtl itettft 
-ii; ,.9flJ .SMlJ #a«q»2 fi««lirMBA t9Snmt»»Tf£> t*tiiMa$* t^x&^ 96 tiuB 
. 'T .nitlM^S liaS fiffa t«»«l»©3 X»**i*i»8 ABA T!MtX»«ii''? 9«r«#« 
,?.'«; .-.'vt PC ,?,jSf;l ,01 Ham*** »«il* •» 9f«*l! *»#irqpiil>au «str 

. ,,s»«»r ,»*ftijr #««wpR* ftfioi*f««A ,#ii*iwi«t#j& t© <«#J6TO <M» «*.»Wi&^»^ 

.:..-- ,fxas^«»1* 1:0 n^ttftr, yfii off t^* 8*«W>i?si ■^s.tft &«ii^n?» dH .v./ 
9fW rtr#i #o« .bl& »*« •■ ,g|lUi3a!i*H , , ■ .♦niJ t-jo, .. -■-;'-<■■ 

«atlio<lo»»o0 ffftf o* iC9»ii9 wit* &««'$«6«<l »x9tnm% .a^mtmX^ t* «t5« <?»f 

,sl««tf aid «i ;ri h««tm«<f9h •» .•vMiittMr •snMtox* t«a«^'aH9 a Tjialnnn'% nm 



") 



"2" 

Export Llne««, Inc. , advised the bank tfent H«anlng had no ftathorll;y to 
endorse the check and Hhm bftnk ehargsd filler's iteeount with th« 
stffiount of th« elieck. Afterward Hlll«r brought tMs suit. 

Counsel for d«f«n4&nte says: *?he A««rie&n ^lEport Llnee, 
d«f«nd«int, iB engaged 1b the ^einese of operating & line of steaa- 
ashlpB between certain porte of the world for the tranaportatlon of 
pa«M»agere and freight and in oozinection with its said hueinees asaln- 
talned an office in the City of Chicago, i^hleh offioe, on Mareh 10, 
I93S, and prior thereto, was in charge of defendant, J, h, Henning, aa 
H^nBraX paeeen^r agent. Mr. Henning had authority to polielt paesea- 
gor hu«iae«!8 for the cosp&ny, aad ali^o authority to reoeive cheeke and 
eurreuey and neney orders la payment of reservations. He had authority 
to give the company '« receipt* for these eheoke or money order e. He 
lesued the tlofeets in Chleago and signed them. *** *; that "Hennlng 
had no authority to endorse oheoks sade payable to hie employer. * 
there is in evldenoe a letter written hy the employer to Kenning dated 
April e©, 1977, in which Mennlng was told that any cheeks he received 
must he forwarded to his easployer In J«ew lork. 

The evidence further shows that at the time Hennlni^ endorsed 
the eheek to Journeys the latter «as in financial difficulty and about 
eight or ten days thereafter, when Journeys was in funds Manning re- 
ceived il,000 in cash, a cheek for 4160.50 and a draft for 1^. 
HvnnlBg took the si, ODD in cash and the eheok for fldO.60 and bought 
aa A»erloan 'i*xpre«« draft payable to defendant, Amerlean Export Lines 
and forwarded th« draft to It In Mew Ifork City. Hennlnig advleed his 
eaployer, the Aserloan Export Lines, th^t he was sending this Aserloan 
Kxp-rees draft In payment of tickets for Mr. and Mrs. l>«wlis l»ennett. 
The evidence shows that soae tlse prior he had iMon paid for the 
Bennett tickets but had failed to turn the noney In to the oonpany. He 
never reported to his eiaployer that he had received the ^^1223, 02 freit 

LeldlGh, Inc. In payaent of tlekets which he sold to Keydel and Huff. 
Afterward Hennlng's records were examined and a shortage of »6,S00,©6 
found. 



-s- 

03 xJlittilsxiA oti t'»ti i|nJiWi«K tMMt Umaa mii b—trbM ,.oaI ««»aXJ tfq}:^ 
«41 iiitvi }Auof>o« s'?«Xljtj« btffiMirfo Iflmtf wjt iunAil»4Ml» vilr ^««0te« 

,»»altS l*ieoqx''i: fta!)iii»«»A m^* i«tA« «;a]iAc««lAl> tot X»«i»h»0 

*nx.*& ««»0Xa»i( i>i«tf »:ri ifliw Aol#»Muio« ill Bam ta^t*x\ bnjt »7«^m»«M( 
,01 ffoxj^M so ,««Xlto iioi4tf ««;tMiiiD to x^iO mUT Ni •oilto am btaJMi 

Ana aiOS^-li «;■! <0&'-i -r.;. v,^Xt«49tf« OfX« 1»^«< ' -i rc^^.ti t^itf 'tVl «ftn«litiMr -(•§ 
9H .««t«iln«> ^•OOA 7« •Me»{|» Mid^ lot %int99*% «'Tir«<pK>« Mit •vl^ «t 

'■■d 8^»«i&« ia« »«itf klvi mMw ■»utMa»n i9im nt ,T&«X «Sfi Xl«^ 
.it^xnl v«jt ml nmxml^m miH 9i MHunrx*! mi ttm 

" ^^a 4...V, s, ..oitlJU^ X«idtt«eXt Hi smt 9<»t«*X Ml# at«ffiMoI. 99 ioti* «£li 

. ^i %e\ sttnii m Aam &^.iOlH^ %Qt Ji*«4«t a ^tiaao nX eeo»X^ twfkwm 
~ :..,:.. w« ^«U (^.O^X-' ikmX if9«llB ftH* AlUl d»M Ml OOQ«Xiii «lU JtoOt 3|ltllUl«lf 

sXfi hmX'9hm mXBtih^ ^\Jli^ ttiHt w«Si Ai 91 «r #t««ft «tft t9»n»^t%€\ htm 

ne&l'imi^ »iM9 ^Xj?«m ftiur Ad 9«fl» ,a«Miii ^Tftqid a«»i'so»A nucy .tstoltp* 

•^4'aans^ »lv9a .--^'a.^ &n« .mM <x«t wlwteXf %m tnwmm^ at ftjuvfr tttt«wi9tii 

9M 19:% ItiiKi 0«»^ jiu»« Mt ^«Xt|i| «raUl9 MMft #iuC;^ •«<Mi» ««0«AXv» Bdff 

»U •i(su»^ut$4» «dir o;^ ^1 ^^Mi^MB «e^ tvitx9 wi Jb»Xi«l I^ai« ttKf nt^Mlt tt^tOMA 

mint S;«.S5^?£# tt^ i»9Vlft»«^ l!j»4 «4 ^iui^ if^ft^t^tB^ «M «^ X>»#to<r»*z 't^iras 

,li«l/ot 



-3- 

D«f«nd&nt«^ contend the 6Tld«ttoe eSiowa Hftrinlng had no mutiior- 
Ity to «nd©rB« th« ohoek for #1823.98 which he r^oelved froa L«ldleh, 
lae. «.ad thej;«for« no r«eoT«ry ean l3« b&d In tim InetA^nt e&8« and 
§23 of th« Negotiable Inetruoent Lav, obAp. 98, 111. a«tr. Stats, 1939 
i« olted. Thfit s^eetlon provides: *'/here a elgn&tur* Is forgod or 
afi.d« without authority. It la wholly Inopor&tlve, s.nd no right to re- 
tain the lnetruai«nt or to glvfi a dlsohargo thereof, or to «nfore« 
payment thereof agalnet any perty thereto, e&n be aequlred through or 
under such signature, unleee the party against iMhoffi It i« sought to 
enforce sueh right ia preeludod froa setting up the authority or want 
of authority. * 

'^ere le oonelderable arguneat in the briefs and a imnber 
of authorities cited and dieeueeed as to iirhethnr 'mnning had luRplled 
authority to endorse the eh«ok eoneidering the oMsthod in which he 
conducted the Seines* of the Anerioan Export Lines. But we think it 
iR uaneeettff&ry to pass on thlo question for ve are of opinion that 
whethf'r Eenning had euefa authority ie not eontrolling beoause the un- 
disputed evidence is that Henning sent to defendant, his employer, 
#1160.50 of the soney he roeelved from the cheok in c|uestion and 
obTiouely defeMant to that extent was not damaged by Henning*s en- 
dors«»ent and cashing of ti:M» oheok. The aieount the Export Lines re- 
ceived vas %$>3,42 less than the amount it should have received fro® 
Honning but there is no suggestion that the Judg»ent for plaintiff 
should be reduced. In these eircusistanees th« Judgtaent of the Oireuit 
court of Co^ eounty is affirtaed. 

Matchett, J., and HoSurely, J., eonour. 



Aba «i«9 fiUi#*Rl ctjit ei ft«ti •tf aho x«inr«»«« oa m-Mtt^mit Juui ,s«I 
tft«i ,«9Afe ,V9fi «iil ,t« »4|«rio ,v«J 99^mmt9Bl •Xtfsi#o8*if Mil !• 6Sf 

~»i «9 #j^f CNR bnn ««irl;fjB««qAiiX t'C^^'^ «^ '< ,yjf Jhi«Mf9iM rMhtf^Jhr «ft«a 

TO ilfurtit* i>«titfp'Mi D^ a«» t<:>tf«^i»rll ittsq T'a *Miiq|« to#x<»ttf l«c«ta4 

>A,'iqA[j; Acif saiiMKiii «x««t«dw dl «Jt A«««M«jUb Ima initio t»ltilPajSlii 10 
;ri.\&'a »<»iiii<il« t« »ti» »w ««t AQitftMit •iHt at MAq. At i;iuntAAAAiar •! 

- f itfa MiJAAAtf HfliiiAICtAAA #«« «i %iimMim ifAM AaH ialft«»8 t«HCt«iAl 
bBA AAltAAViP Ai al»*tf> 9<(1 tSOXt AATiAAAl Mf tAMW Allt ^ 0^ .00111 

~<3«i « * ^lumtS vf hi^^tfttaoA twa timt InAtfxA tMff et tflAA«At«Jk i(i«i)«lvtf8 

•:^t ««JIJU Ja^^JCt; «^ flMNMUi 9J9(t i4{AAfl» «Cit tA 1|AiAA» teA lAANfAAVAA 

fflcya"^. &«»V-jr9««ri ftVAit J^XVftlfft #1 tAJNMOl Adtt AAltt AAAl .^.S^f AAV MViAA 

t^rJ^ftjtitT^ «lol #{l«B:sibtf| AlSt lAdt AAJUr««t3PM OA 9t *%9ti$ $US >gi— lit 

•A«ffi«titt« »£ Itl/IIIOA 3U»Ai^ t« l^OWKO 



.'Si^oir&d «.V ,tt<mf84N^ fym» ,.^' «7ir»e<MrdK 



41174 






MIGMAWL J»mAmM,,^9% »1,, 



mmrm tdMmts, 



%pell&n 




TWM. mm 

COOK CO«»tI, 



MR. FMlSIISliia JySflOK O'^OKSOE BKLIViaS© THE 0I»I»I0« Of TMi: GOSIT, 

By this app«&l Dorothy ^bctrwln* « Judgaent creflltar of this 
aortg&gora, »e«ke to reverft« « d«cr«« of foreeloeur®. 

I>«098ib«r 3» 193S, plaintiff filed Its eompl&int to foreoloii« 
the lien of a trust d«ed given to secure an liidi9bt«dne«8 of #56, 000, 
Tb« Raaleys th« sortgagors, and others, w«r» e&d* p&rtl»» defendant 
and January 13* 1939, plaintiff filed its amended eonplaiat making a 
aunlMir of Judgs«nt cr^dltore, ineluding Borothy si^rvin» partial d«<> 
fendant, she on October 28, 1937, having eeoured a Judgment for 
ll4SS.a3 against the sKtrtgagore. July 13, 1935, the nortga^ors heiag 
in default, asaigned the rente to plaintiff, the nortg&gee, and It 
operated the property oolleoting the renti», making repairs, paying 
taxes, ete. from that tine» Hie ^^tanleye, the mortgagorfi, filed their 
anever to the oosqplaint in vhieh it wae alleged that for a long time 
prior to the bringing of the foreoloeure suit the rente had been ae- 
8igaed to plaintiff and on information and belief the ^^aaleye averred 
that the rent colleoted by plaintiff froa the property was laftore than 
eufficient to pay the interest and taxee now olained by plaintiff to 
be due, and more than the aaount with whleh the aortgagore had been 
eredited. tome months afterward defendant, Dorothy Sherwln, filed 
her seaended answer. 

Jime 12, 1939, Mrs. Shervln served notice on counsel that 
ahe iirould ask leave to five an intervening petition on behalf of the 
Chieano Title & trust Qoispany, a« trustee, that it etand ae a eroes 
ooi^laint and for rule on all parties to anever *aM for other jrelief 



*vix* 



• .ii,X^w'u'a« ^<«IVW 



r R? .A.T Vi)f^ '^*^^- 



.a. 



jetA£uss»t»J& ••JtJT#(| «£)<«fi 91 •« ,«««ci|« li«4t «a'Xf»SJt9t%oa «£& 9iftX*ali lufT 
« jIfiliUua ^alAXqaioo bftfinMM e<l i^»Xit 11ltai«Xq tQSQX ,SX X%*tM»l0 koM 
«^ •AXfudtei «isitri«tf& \ai«n^ §iiX>«X»Mi ,»n»drXJbMa ^nvoi^i lo ««tfawi 

:<inl(fd aioi^Alf^QB «mI^ ,ft&tX ,&X yX«v <i«l«l»|^m4« «iS^ J«iliAB« (Ml.OJU^Xi 

liitdt b^ll^ tBto:^»^tt^iXim «Q[t ««^*Xfu»i« Mf ,«nltf Iwiif mral ,0^9 ,«»Xi»^ 

»ij3JU gnol A tot d^i»d^ l^i»SftlX4 •*« tX £ial4w la ;ral«ii|^eo itdl? e;r ie«raaa 

«•« i^»^ iu&ii ^iQ«a »a^ tlum «iim«Xft«>qiol «£U lo laXsai'xsf oxi^ o;;r '^dX'sui 

iMmtwi «%«Xai& siAi IsiXftcf JliAJt i««X;r&ie^£»tiil a» bM tttt&lml^ o« AiiMmiXtA 

f>»«K-i ^Mti MtQitBJiiittom 949 A»X&^ ASlw iu.U9BA 9&t mA43 mow hd^ ^9$lk t4 

lAdS X««nif«d no •oXtoa jSNirtM «iinfltd:<^ ••<^ ,<t$GX ,8X Mwlb 
«eU to ti«^if«{ Ao iioiflt(»q SiAintv'xvliil n« vrJtt el «v*ftX M«m AXvoor ^li* 
asoao « «4 Mj»;r» li ^adl ,«9l«tfnil t» ,XAd<|««0 tMtnl A «XfiT 09A)ii49 
1;«IX»i t9Ai& 10I &n«* aowtMB ol •oi.tfVAq XX4 no ciXif*! tel hut ialMlqgMm 



-3- 

prayed for in eaiS petltlcn, " &nd th&% defendant^ I'orothy ^hervia, 
would ask for & rul« upon plaintiff to fll» an account of all rents 
oolleete^, ooploe of whioh wtro said to be attachod to th« notieo but 
they ar# aot in th« rooord, June 14 counnel for Dorothy Stetnrin served 
notiee thAt she would ask laave to file an a««nded aasver, copy of 
which Y&» aaid to b* attached to th® notice but it is aot in the 
rooord and June 16 an order was «nt«rtd giving her such leave. The 
tffiieadad answer was filed in «rhieh, a»6^ other things, it va.m alleged 
oa information and belief thst plaintiff, the aortgagee, had eolleeted 
the rents froa the property in question for a auaber of years; that if 
the rents were properly applied the indebtedness sought to be fore» 
elosed would be paid, 

fhe ease was inferred to a oaster la ohanoery who took tho 
evidence, made up hie report and found the nort^agors had aseigned th« 
reate to plaintiff, who went into possession, collected ^9 rents and 
aade disbursements in the c^eration of the preeises; that l>orothy 
Sherwia had obtained a Judgment in the Muaioipal oourt against the 
mortgafcors, as above stated; that she deoanded an accounting of the 
rente and pursuant to defendant's request, plaintiff produced doo- 
usente showiag reeeipts and disbursements in connection with the 
operation of the property; that tSiese doou%ente were objected to be- 
cause they were not the best evidence, the master excluded them and 
the recommendation was that a rule be entered directing plaintiff to 
file an aeoount of the reoeipts and disbursements and that if it 
failed to do so the bill be dlaaiesed. 

Krs. Sherwin filed objections to the report ia that the 
WMt^Vt (I) failed to find that the evidence showed the aoiount due 
plaititiff Mks less than tile anount it had eolleeted in i^nts in 
operating th^ preiaises, (2) that the master erred in failing to state 
the amount and (3) the master erred ia finding from the evidence that 
there was still a saaXl sua due plaintiff. 

Plaintiff also filed objeetions to the siaeter'fi report, (1) 
fhftt the {ftaeter erred in finding it was i»poesible to «ttate the amount 



«tti»nt XXa ^'a ^a«i«*M| a* •11% oJ YtitftlAX^ »«'^« •Itn A lot i«« >i«4w 

•vnM fitiw^sffi x^armo? %«t tmuufoo J^I •im^ ^Moom adt at toti trtM t<Mlt 

•if4 fii i^»a «1 71 fiifif •«XfOfi •<ar •I fr«f«iktf« |M( ol £tl«« %MM sLaltbi 

tM •«w«s»i i:i9fis %%A ii/U^l:^^ bvxtt^n* saw 9*1^0 om HI mm% kam ft^Momt 

bm%9tlM ««v jt/ «nj^i4« "vo^a I^<mia ,tffticfw Mi i>»Xil •«» imttmrn b*!batmm 

tx 9^»it ;w«i»»t to '%Mr«i« » not iB«Xf«««ii^ ttt xtt^^wt^ tM awtt ■#ii»t mH 

^iii4i »ar iiXtfoir A»»oXt 

bmA ctmrt «dt i^^««XX6» ,fl«Xft*#««*9 •lux f««f« c^ir ^tlxiBiikXqt «t utat^ 

X0tv%0^ yMf i*Mitmm.ti Mil ttt a«Xt«7«^ ad:^ nX t90«MM«iNrtXA «Mk 

•(if ^»«iX4i»a »'w«d Xs^ttlJiiff to al tm9ms^i » AMlJittfo 3kMii nlwMid 

-««l» i&*«i«b«^% tXifnlAl^ «««««^m; «i'9«Ai^«1:«* o9 ta«M«i<'4 AtSJi cfotK 
«tf« £i^Xiy ii«Xto«n{«4»« at »in««t«»iuitf«Xi& ft** «#4|X»»«ir iMS^^^^ts fttuMMl 

9X IX #«i? IKCM iijr«(i«iMiuMliiXfr A>fl» fttqittO*^ *tf} to t«JM>««Ji on ^Xll 

.2}M«iB«xi> »d ixxtf AiCjr «« «tb «i i^«xx«t 

i»^ t&as at tnUMt^t 9m •$ *ii*Xf»»t<'« ft^XXl aX'#<i«if^ .tniM 
««£» ^nijottft 9tfl l>««roKlt ••JMkftXr* 943 imi&S iMiit •# Jb»Xl«t {i'> «<v«itsa« 

•^««B et snXXXja^ ai Inrt^s i«t»Mi Mtf t*(ft (&) ,«MJHn»««$ «asr '^tsat*^^ 
isuMi tf&nwM'fm M& iMndt taZSmt'i at l!)9^» •x»9t«» veff {41 Aft« i^misc^i^ fkitC;^ 

«1rtX#nisX<s !»fA MM XIiMHl « XXi»« »AV 9^®r{;r 
(X) «<f'Xo<:irs f^*^e#«««> <Ml9 9^ ui«iJr»«C<'« <>«XI1 oalit tlX^risXjfti'i 



-3- 

du« from the H&nl(»^« to pI&iRtlff and (2) that th« aastcr erred in 
re©08Pi«R<Slng; that & rul« "be eat«r«& directing it to file aa account of 
r«o«lpte and €isbur««i^®nts made in tfe« 9p«ration of the preal8«s. The 
obje<$tioa« w^rt ©verrul«4 and they were ord«re5 to et&nS &e exemptions, 
fhe ehanetller ovtrnilefi Mrs. Sh«rwlii*8 exception*, gtjst&laed th« ex- 
eeptions of plaintiff and January 22, 1^40, tnt«r«d a d©«r«« of f©r»- 
Qloeur« la wMek It was found th«r« was '^7Qf51S»92 da« from ths 
Hanleyn, tbat all other llent ai^&lnst th« pramlees w«r» tubordlnate to 
plaintiff's lien and it was cUiortad that unless th« asiount found due 
wa« paid tfitliiii!! thrae day* tba property he sold, tl» jvr©e««ds applied 
and If thera *mi a d«flcieney tha siaatar report tha deficleney. If 
ther« K<?ra a eurplue he should aleo report suo^i surplue and hold it 
Aubjaot to th© farther ordar of the oourt, 

MrB. Sfeerwln objected to the antry of ^a daer«« and th« 
next day» January £3, 1940, filed her not lea of appeal in waich ah« 
<i£>«0if less her groiuida for appeal, soma of vMeh are that plaintiff 
ahould have bean required to render an aeoount of the rente oolleoted; 
that "fhe Matter has found from the plaintiff •« evidence, "♦ that it had 
colleeted laort than ijS5,000 for rents frois tl^ property and she eaye 
the entire indabtednese "has been wiped out by the oollectien of the 
rents vhieh plaintiff hae received from the preaitesj* that the deoret 
be reversed '•vlth directions that the trial court find the accounting 
sa follow* »". Then follow a number of itema which purport to ahow the 
amount due plaintiff, ^68,693,39 and *a« agalniit the foz»efolng credit, 
should be given &b follows:". Then follow five items aggregating 
t69,661,17, idileh purport to show the rents collected by plaintiff 
froa the premlaes and aslte that "a nev decree be entered **** * and 
*give full credit for the above and foregoing rents" and that there 
be no allowance sade for plaintiff's eolioltora' feee. 

A« we understand the record, plaintiff's poeltlon l« that 

it hae given credit for the net avount of rent* received from the 

preialees leaving the amount due a« found by the decree, fhe Hanleye, 



Hi h9Vt9 fn^AAm «# tiil (ft) !bnA "itttnUUi o» txtXAAM •!<# adllNii 
•iff ^A^tms'iq 'ittt te ff9t9»%tieio M^ at ftJ^M 9tn%XP9'%ud%tit hnA tftil^^t 

e &Xi><d &nai auXqrcufi £<0i)8 tie^^m ••!• ibijf«i(v 9d'%iitq!taa m frfn tn»itS 

ttltiRiAXq erM^ «<iA if»Xftw ie m»im .rii<i9<¥ft i0*t tAniid^ ntttd; 9Aiii»«^fli 

«rf;j to a©l*e«iX£«*e »jcfcf t^ 9k© Aim|1w *»»«^ s^xi" ^i^ff^aJ^^Snl r«Jt»e« «»ifj 

^ilh'si'tti :i^fil«^«m<»t *il9 9«tiri«SA ««* hna. ftS,99ft,IWt «ltltalAr<; Mt^ ^niieMA 
Tjtfl^Jft'^jtigif^a ni».n9l W9i\ voXXolt fl^lJ* ,*stw<ill<»l tA «»tXs «tf 6Xif«ift 

«fJ9 meTfl aevl«or-i -....-.. .... .w,....i4fl J*rt 3..„ .:.. ........... a»vls aiiit Ji 



-4- 

tbM moft^ftgors, aade rg objeetlon to tia decree Ati4 do not Appeal. Mrs. 
Shervjln, baviifig alleged In her anewer ttiat plaintiff had eolleeted 
rente suffielent to wipe out the Indebtednests due under the sortgage« 
the Isurden was on her to prove thle Allegation, ( feouciinot v, ^^int^r^ 
190 111, 394, ) She aede no such proof but sought to thro« the burden 
on plaintiff and to oharge pl&intlff with the asount of r^nts) eolleeted 
without «my deduotlon that pl&intlff night he entitled to cm eeoount 
of the operation of the building, aaklag repairs, etc. 

is.e think the ehaneeller was Karrsnted in overruling s're, 
Sberwln's exoeptlone to the master* s report and entering the deoree. 
If there It a surplus after the »«le of the property , th© chancellor 
©an av&rd such surplus to Mrs. shenirln or to aay other person entitled 
thereto, 

tke deeree of the Supes^or court of Cook eouaty It affirmed, 

Matehett.J., and Ko^urely, J,., ooRcur, 



£«^o*iXe« iiAti tti»iijt»i4| #»itf ifiMftiuK <i«d Hi Ih^tlia 9(iJ:v»{$ tAiwMM 

Ri*!tnv6 <Mft v«%x&» o:^ t^iv** tad ^«>4»n<4 ^^» «« «*«• MBt (JMMl .1X1 0$/ 



411S5 



3^5^1:5^236' 

ME. PHESIJ>l|a J1?snCE 0»a©»»OB BELIVSaSB tHE OPlitlOH' OF fSK aOBltf. 



»• 



ASMS SCBKSIsJsnASE,^ SASH /) 
CGMFAHX, ft c|>rpora|Mni ), 



J^laintlff , the lessor, brought an ftOtlen of fopelble d«- 
tainstr against defendant, hie tenant, to recover poeseetioa of propartif 
oover«a by tb« Iftase. There was a trial befor« the oourt without a 
Jury, & finding aa^ Judgment In plaintiff's favor and defendant 
appeal e« 

Plaintiff hass aove€ to diaralss the appeal on the ground that 
th© notice of appeal was not filed within five days after the rendition 
of the judgtBent nor within five days after defendant's sotion to 
vfecate the judgaent was denied, as re<iuired hy |18, ch, 67, 111, Hev, 
State. 1939. 

The record dlseloses that the notiee of appeal vae served 
105 days after the entry of the Judgment for poeeeesion and @6 daya 
after the denial of defendant's notion to vacate tine Judgment. 

A forcihle detainer action le a special statutory proceeding 
•aoBsary la Ite nature and in derogation of the common law, ^^entworth 
V, i:' ^ &nfestone . 233 111, ifepp, 4Qj Qity of Cbica^o v. The Jhicairo teaia~ 
gfaig Lines. Ine . . 388 111, 309. 

fJM appeal not having been taken within tlxe tiae Halted in 
§18 of the Forelble Detainer Act, it mu«t be dismissed, y^entvfor^i v, 
^ankstone . S35 111, App. 4Sj Oholston v. Terrell . 292 111, App. 192 
(10 iS,£. End, 8«® ). 

Matchett, J,, and MeSurely, J., concur. 



ra 






,(=$» 



o^ «eJ?r^ « * »iiAdfltt)»j!> i9ttM »x*6 wit aliSStm ion fiitta^^fttft adV 1« 

«X«A Hd boM, aei9«»««<it -sot «aMi;^«i «i« U yi«a« •<» i««?t» at«ft aoX 

S«il>»»wwq rt«>^«Jf«»« lAlMtt « «i aoito« ic*jiljit9J^ •XtfX»t«l 4 
^t'^py/,-r^g.»- '^»l fiOMioe 94^ >e iiol^«8««»» «1 te« vrutMi ttx oi \umum 

.eoe «xja sss . .— f -■•■i*"^ ffl^ij t 

9X .^qA .XXI S€3 ,ii*32it .^ H0^tX»4P ««♦ .««* .XXX e«i .•aayaAi^ 

• i ftM ,A«s .sr.x OX) 



41206 ^0^'' 



JESSE L. LAi^ER, 



/ ) APPEAL 



#''' I / ) ^.*^ 3U?pI0a C#HT, 
L. B, MOfOaS, *., #1^1 / /" 

MR. P#:5IDINa JUBTICH: O'CONNOR 0ELIV?;MD the GPXnion^ THE GOUHT. 

Plaintiff brought an action against defendant to recover 
A«Mi(es for pesrsonal injuries elalmed to have b««n Ruetalnad hj him on 
aeeount of the negllgenee of one of defendant* is agents: in driving an 
&utomot>ile. There was a jury trial, a verdict and Judgment In plain- 
tiff** favor for ^1S50, and defendant appeals. 

The record disolosee that ahout two o'eloetc on the afternoon 
of April 3, 1957, plaintiff, who wae then about S7 yeare old and had 
been esployed for eo«e tine ap chief claim exauslner for the Lusbersens 
Mutual Casualty Company, went to defendant's place of business located 
at Sheridan road and Lawrence avenue, Chicago, to 8«e about buying an 
automobile, ^llllaa H. Beeker, who was then about 36 yeare old, one 
of defendant's eaployees, took plaintiff in an autonobile to demon- 
strate the working of the aake of car vliioh plaintiff was oonteaplating 
purohtiSing. 

i^laintlff'e theory of the case is that he was sitting on the 
seat at the right hand of Becker who was driving the automobile at 
about 30 miles on hour, south in Broadway, and when they had gone a 
block to the next cross street, Beeker applied his brakes, the ear 
stopped suddenly and plaintiff wae thrown against the windshield, in- 
juring his head and shoulder. 

On the othsr side, defendant's theory is that as the auto- 
fflobile approached the first cross street, it wae going about 3 nllee 
an hour and o&m to a gentle stop; that ^plaintiff was sitting off 
iMaanoe and fell against the windshield, and that there was a very 
slight injury, if any. * 



,99ll» 



> Ml, 



BBS .i>.i 



Jl'ON .8 .J 



00 isii .t»3ttU% n9«< ^ J^i»«X«iS SSlltftfil lAAftVIC^q 1«1 ■»,$»««£ 

■.myitiel ban 9cth%9y .« .JjesIi/ l*url a ««v snsrfT .9iicioBetiMi 

'^ASi &«» ^X« a^usx TS 9mdM ttitdS b«v o^w ,tliliilAXq . t« 

'\ ^i^tM tUOdA «M Otf ,»9JlOldO «-»O.Jl'„ «9n9'3VSJ tOM &ft01t flA&ilfUfS ^A 

M ' . ' ~ itiocfa j|«i& noir od^tf ,«i»;a»*fi .H ami:" Jua 



.«, .J .». ..- > 



>/ JrliJS O A W'Jc^V 



l>j»4 x<^''^' ""'^'^ ^f ^xfMb&tn^ Bl iiSstt>« iiued sm •«Xla OS ^ootfA 
ii;r ^aejt.H ^fi^ i»io«e ,76»n$« aacrto ;irx»B 9d» o9 jCooXcf 

.■r^iiT!?!)^)/^ m^oTrfJ ^.«i.' ^'il^«l*Xq fen* tXfftft&CW A»qqd9« 

.TdJ&Xiforie ba» h»td Mid fff i^u I 

s»Xlai C tttotf?* -?;f*fr>-:i «isv tl ,999^7a aso^s ^Ja'iil »rf3r Jb«£{Oi&<n :v'o« 

tlo arrJ*- ^^tfnlAX^j" *jm» ;<iotfa BlSa»^ a 9t mum Am iiKMf fl« 

X^*v { \7 bna «l>X»ijeCiLbnlw ad? J'«aL«|Mi XXnt bam tHuUM 

** .xa« li «x'XtflAl ^dilXa 



1 
-a- 

1%i« two s«n idio were in the «utoaobil« teftlfled^ plain- 
tiff's testiaiony tending to support hi* theory of the ease while the 
teetiffiony of the driver of the ear, Beoker, tapported defendant* e 
theory of the e«.8e* There wae also « dispute In the eTldenee as to 
wiiether the brake t of the automobile were in good eo edition. 

Defendant oontends the verdict is against the aanifest 
weight of the evldenee, should be set acide and the Judgmaent revereed. 
we have eoneidered the testiaooy of the two vitni^eses on this question 
and are of opinion we would not be warranted in disturbing the verdict 
in plaintiff's favor* approved as it wae by the trial Judge, on the 
ground that the verdiot is against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

rtefend&nt further contends the judgment 1« exoessive; that 
plaintiff suffered little or no injuries and was only laid up about 
three days. 

The aecident happened between two and tiiree o'clock on the 
afternoon of April 3, which was Baturday. Plaintiff's evidence i»- to 
tiw effect that after he was thrown against the windshield he became 
nauseated - that he was dased; that Becker, the driver, a few minutes 
&fter the oar stopped asked him how he felt; that he replied he was 
dizey and stunned; that they then drove around a block or two and then 
plaintiff took the wheel and drove a short distanee to the gas 
station, the place from ^ioh they had started; that he sat down on 
the front buaper five or ten minutes, then got in his own car which he 
had parked nearby and started to his home in EJvanston. He drove over 
to the Loyols elevated station, about two ailes from plaintiff's place 
of business, stayed there awhile but feeling ill he left hie car, got 
Into a Yellow Cab and was driven to hie hoa&e in Fvanston tabout two 
adles]; that "I lay down aidiile feeling the sane way." That Dr. weies 
<uuMi to see hia later on Saturday afternoon and prescribed heat to the 
shoulder, ice bag to the head, and a sedative, nembutolo The doctor 
•aae Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, taped his right shoulder and told him 
to stay at hose and lie down; that he returned to work on Thursday 
Bwrning following the accident, "il^everal times after that I came down 



-nAAl<i tti9l1lt99it ^ll6o»ci ujn «dS nl 9%m»i Mfw ftMi 9w$ mtt 
<^d7 '»IliSw Mas 9£il lo vio^At *l£i itcq^um 9t jj^lba*^ xn^mlS9t s*tli# 

riM-iti$n. 'iusiz^&is «J toa btucnr «rw ftOifiXqp) to rx* A«« 

» a^»t Xj»i'i5 -*-i7 x<i %M\i »1 9* *«v<wqq« ♦'t,ov«t a'ttXtfilJiI^I ol 

idl to ttt^'mt fi|«tlfusH cirts $«iiiA9« •! tolbi9V •if^ tfaxU ^airoaiB 

^iit*9xt ii yasa^bvt «fi7 siNs^noo t«iitiiit yoAtastv'i 

'• Mef TiBO taw ftfiA a^iitft"^ "" '" ^""^tf/ *?M«tti;« tti^'MAXq 

-v.. ^# 9tf%M l>a» »w^ ffftsv^Mf J5«ff*qq«r( fatt&loQA fttft 
.a&/;T» B'ttlf(|Jt«Xf «^(4ftiji9A«J ««ir xtoX4w ,S IlnqA. to iio««nc«9t« 
d ht^ldibttiii Mrtt fsftlAiSa «rwenu(t •«« Ad n»at« >«ii> iTostt* ttdt 

finsH iiti-i- 7vT*' n^jjf^r ^fhd;^ StuU ih^aatfiu tOA %taiJ!> 

Mc -i-N^c.. ; ^'Stfojcts b&A xmdf ti»£ittf mvi\ •0«X« atl* ,iioi7«9« 

«'^ fCfltfsf?? Tsn ffffj Bijf «X »os fi»fl» t*9$mtm <t9i 10 AvXt i«qmMf JTeont •<«* 

i^AijsXi^ ecnt »9Xi ljs,i» U9$Av»Stt ftXo^oJ a^ •# 

V, ^tASl ntil ;rt»X Atf Xli ;|nlX»»t ^W »lldii» mi9tif J^ftt^^Tis ,«<»*iii9{i«r to 

ox;r 't&odiij ac;r«Aiivl nl Miotf mJiA 9t «i«vj*t!> s«h Jyaui cTaO vaIXsIl js ofoi 

fiai?-. ,"!.; ?.Adl ".y.jw »««• 9119 ifliXdst •Xlifwa mroA v^ CXa 

9d9 oi i»i^ &9iiJt%on»'^i% §nm noem^^t^. y^ini i.«)»l mid mb o^ mi«« 

^«»;re«l!> fjtft .loJjucfmen ,9ViJBf)^8 b fena »&.««ri adif oJ 3«d »oX (i9M;tf<ute 

■lit fi-i <%ii sXii l^»q«^ «\A/ ' Xft^flo)* «i«&atf€ i»0iA» 

XiiiX>«'ltff!t : b9(liyi^r 3 MBOCt ^« yikt9 0$ 

«ve£ «flMio ^ ■ 'i93tM 9msli Xjii«t«c'' ..tfl«)6X90« 9tit j^fiwoXXot ^nirtoa 



-3- 

lAt« and left the offle« early, I lo^t altogether the total of ten 
days, inolttdlng part daye;** that for a few weeke he had an extremely 
•ore haek, blinding headaohee and hie right shoulder wae eore; that 
afterward he went to see t^ doctor a nuisher of times. The doctor 
gare him eoae heat treatments for the shoulder; that he had a had 
ae«ld*nt in October, 19.34, "The principal injury was a oruahiag injury 
to my left side near the hack hone, about elx or eight ribe were 
crushed. There ws« injury to ay right shoulder end to ay head;" that 
he vae making iSCO a xonth; that he eair Br, Weiss eeyeral weeks after 
the accident. 

fir. Wei as testified he say plaintiff April 3, exaalned hia; 
that the subJectiTe syaptoas "^vere nausea, he oonplained of diKriuess, 
hasineee, severe headacne, pain la the right shoulder and right chest." 
That the objective findings were moderate shook, fast pulse, "profuse 
poisplria^, large horootoma on the right forehead, tendernasa over the 
right shoulder, and the upper right chest* * "That his diagnosis vas 
^'cerebral oonoussion and sprain of the right shoulder and the auseles 
of the neck and right aide;" that he prescribed heat for tie shoulder, 
an ice pack for the head and a sedative; that he aftertourd saw plain- 
tiff a number of times at plaintiff's home and at l^e doctor's office 
when he *gave him aaesage and diathermy to the right shoulder;* that 
he examined the plaintiff two veeks before the trial i^ioh began 
f^ond&y, 'iJeptember 11, 1939 [two and one-half years after the accident], 
and "detected evidence of crepitation in the shoulder joint, a 
eraekling sensation imparted to the ear through the stethoscope" and 
eave as hie opinion that the injury received mlf^t or could cause 
plaintiff's condition; that in his opinion plaintiff's present con- 
dition iras permanent "Because there is apparently damage to the 
structures of the shoulder joint" and taiat plaintiff paid him #100 in 
August, 1953, 

l^n a consideration of all the evidence in the record ve 
are of opinion we vould not be warranted in dieturblng the verdict on 



{ 

-<• 

a»S te L»Tt»9 mil •r«if»i3|09 Xi« fi^et T .T£^t»« iMltlo "ixi^ tt»X Am MTaX 

X*$Blrtl fiHtmmtt m «*? rswt«it J iiiof lonl'tq mat' .Mftl ,nnMl«t«6 si #ii»fel»o< 
'»'£<»-? ««ria »!i^l9 ie y.la #tf6tf* «Mio4f <»«tf Mif *UMWi vM* #%«r Y« ^t 

vatfloriq* «MiXi;c; ^Ttiil ,i:oo/(t •9^jin«co» 9T9v njf^ll^t^ »Tl/e»t<fo Mil fMfT 
WAV tlfioft^^ft Hill IflNcflr *" ,l»M$e >ffj|i<x t«4(9i vxtf And ^^^lueOtt tri^t 

^juiy *l%«&I«eti« :f^i«% Mfs o^ t«^«^iiiifr 6«s «9»»««« mid 0tm$* ^ iiMftr 
A«S«d Haltbi £»iif Mt »^ol^ «3f«M»v owt "rurfiiAlci »i{# *«aiiRa9t» «f 

in»fel90» 4J{? <t«rti» triift IXftrf-waa IWiJ» ow*3 tSGtX ,IX 'x«'^ii*^<?»8 «t<aM4M 

biiA *»qQomw»^» Hit ^uvtttt «2Jt« «& i)^ lt»#<<x«qpi aol;f«8fi»8 ^iliidAntd 

•stxaa &Xiioo <:eo tfxi^ic J^»vi909i Tn^lal fMiS tuAf ttuJMlqo »iiC 8« •««i 

•fltoo »n«N«*t<| «*rtl»nlal^ aoiitiqo did si 9<fllt }A«i}l»iic9 »*VtMa£*X<i 

ti 00X9 jsi^ i»iAC[ nititiMi^ 9»m tms. *'9ni9{. t9bLmd» turn to s«ru^9a*nrt 

«ee«i ,t«ii|pfA 

•w Jbrte9»ii •ult Ai i»oti«&iv« 9d# XX« to iieX#«ie£i4aea « noqU 
no YoXdveT ed^ sultf'xtf^ftlft si tftnttvisv wd #mf ftlirow •« nolniqo to »x» 



tba ground thiit the d&zBaget &s8«e«ed wer« exeetalT*. 

fhc Aefsndunt eontende *Ther« was eerloue «rror in the 
court* e rullngc «,» to BH»dle«l evidence, * The doctor wee asked to ex- 
plain "eerebral ooncuseloa. ' There were «o»e ohjeotlone Imek and 
forth and the witness's answer strloken out. 

further conplaint is nade to the testimony of the dootor, 
that he found there was a oreaklng of plaintiff's shoulder and the 
doctor gave his opinion that the injury mli^t or eould cause plaintiff's 
condition. The errors. If any, were clearly not rerersibly erroneous. 

Defendant further contends the court erred in giving an 
instruction at plaintiff '« request. The instruction told the Jury that 
if they found in plaintiff's favor that he had sustained injuries ae 
alleged in his eoaplalnt and, as a direct cause thereof, "he «fas un- 
able for a period of tiae to work or engage in his usual occupation, 
then the fact that his employt^r continued to pay his his wages or 
salax^ during such period is not to be considered by you in assessing 
the plaintiff's damages, if any, because the gratuitous payaent la 
such Glrounstanoes" would not preclude i^oovery. It is said the in- 
struction wfts erroneous beeause "it assumes that there were gratuitous 
payments, and though the man was off work only three days the Jury 
froB the language of the instruction night assume that they could 
aateee daAages for a long period of tlae while the plaintiff was ua- 
aU.e to perform his full duties, though he may have been on the Job 
and receiving full pay. * 

We think the giving of the instruction does not warrant a 
reversal. a'Brien v, Chicago city Ry. Co .. 308 111, 244; iioobler v. 
Voelpel . 246 111, App. 69. In the O'Brien case the court said: "Ho 
injustice is done to a person negligently injuring another in re- 
quiring him to pay the txaXl aiaouat of damages for which he Is legally 
liable without deduction for compensation which the injured person may 

reeeive from another source «hieh has no connection with the negligence," 
«i&ether that source Is a claim for cosqpensation against his employer, 



rtM ^iTiai fll ftO^^XV ^liieo MtH SftlKi^flOO itAlf^lfft 9aAb««l«S 

fad; xiiti mU £>Xetf ooitotratiiiil tttff ,im*iipw^ •*YliltniMl^ #« AoltotrxJaoi 

-as 4*«r •i^" «la(rz»ri^ aoana toaiUb « a« ,M« tiiiaicpiett tid oi i^aXIa 

,ffoi#A(iii8»o Xsjsatf a 14 Ri a^aufHi ^e ^ev a* 9mlt to fmltna a nol ailtfii 

•xo att8*» *iii »i^A t*(l od^ fr«Millfi9a «tAto^)QP>* *•<<( 9«^ ^Aat acC)^ iMtfiT 

,.iiiii«aeft« /li M>x "^ l^39alii«a«o a«r «t ^en ai AolitfKS tf»Mi igiiircvft t'i«X«a 

»i itaaarcAq air«#ii^jBiqi «(lif aatfao9<f .^c&a 11 ,a«9aUcJ[> a*ni^i»i«Iq aiCr 

>al w^ hiMk ml tt .t«*v»«*« aJHiXowv^ tott ttSmon * tftmstumtHt^ tl9lm 

^<.t9S.liam%^ wr<an0 mimii facJt awuMmJi ii* aaauMNKf aafaawnnta aanrr fial^ainf* 

t^j^t ^i* 9X»^ avxttf ^ifiQ Hvowr I'Tte »«v iu» ad# IQM*!^ Aiw ,t9iia«%»q 

i>luoo tMlif 9«tf aatiaaa 4>/^»i» n6i)re0t9aai aii» l4» v^muanMl ttt mhvI 

del «^^ AC f!fM»ef «TAC( ^c aid if^oti^ ,aaXttij^ Hut »Jtii mxwim*^ 9t aitfa 
•▼ ISliiitf ^<^ -^^ «^^ .. ^* -.T^^ r ^r*" TlMllff •^MMLIS .iMT«v«« 

oiS* t.l>£s« 9'sw»» aiJtf MM «fiil«at»» mi9 liX .«» ^tfesik ,UX MS ,Iil««>iff 

-an Mi «(»iito»A ini:<!&«iisl xitf^BaalXsaJi «iNr«»«i s att aa^l) al aoX;r«ut0i 
iXlAfai ai ad 4lsXifv -x^i aagaaM* ^ r«if«B«i XX«1 aeiiar \mti et utM fiol^lup 

,a9na|M^Iia«t 9tii lUtt^ sudl9txt»o oa a^d ifolAr mruiea VMtfMUi ooncl avZa««n 
^•x^XoX^iiBft aid ^aaJUs* jftOl^«afi»<iBNM»^i*l «!«£• a ai aotvoa t«tft iarf9«rfv 



-s- 

A policy of Insurance agalnest fteoia«nt«, a llf« lasuraaea pollejr, & 
b«R«f It froa A fraternal organization or a gift frossi a friend. " 

Koreov<>rt we think the anount plaintiff received for the 
three or ten days he did not work le trlTlal and ought not to vork a 
reversal. 

The Judgment of the Superior court of Cook county i« 
affirmed, 

Matehwtt, J,, and Ke Surely, J,, concur. 



fi t%«^ ei ton 9if8ff« imm iMtvttf nt ifnrev ttui btb «K «ic4A «•» ite »»titr 



411S1 

rOQfE BSOTBEHS dlU^ AMD Ki^IIl 



IUPLEYOO& wmn 

Corpofation, 




ffJM FROM 

or CHXCAdo. 



'1 



1^ X«rL« 1^ O i 

KH. JUSTICE Me&&R£JJC SSLIVEHIID TH£ CPIITIOK OF THE COUHt. 

Defendant apptalt froa an adYerse Judgmant of |1755.^ 
•nt«r»d upon a ▼«rdlot direeted ^y the court, 

Plidntlff** ctat«««nt of elala alleged the sale by It to 
defendant of a nuaber of "«'ora gear reducers oonplete with no tore;" 
that these were shipped to defendant; that the total amount of the 
«hlp«ent« for -t^loh defendant has failed to pay the plaintiff aoiounts 
to ^1755. 40, Defendant filed an amended affldaTit of defense, and 
oounterelain for dainages; the oourt on motion fitxMiok the oounterelalm 
of defendant and the ease went to trial. Tbe Jud^e ruled that defend- 
ant must first proceed with its eiridenee. No evldenee was offered bj 
plaintiff, and at the close of the evidenee offered hy defendant a 
percaptory instruction was given to the Jury to find for plaintiff for 
the amount olalaed and Judgment was entered against defendant. 

Stated briefly the affidavit of defense and oounterelala 
alleged that defendant purchased froa plaintiff a saaple motor and 
gear reducer for a specif lo purpose which was aade known to the plain- 
tiff; that the laotor and reducer wez^e required *to pull SO gage ma- 
terial ;" that the saatple purchased performed this work but that there- 
after, with the exception of two of the twenty-four motors and gear 
reduoers purchased by defendant, to equal the Scrapie, they did not 
operate or perform the work as the sai^le had done; th&t plaintiff was 
notified of the failure of these units to wor^ properly and, at the 
request of plaintiff, fourteen of there were returned by defendant to 
plaintiff; that certain of the machines in which these units had been 
installed were sold by defendant at a greatly reduced price by reason 
of these defects; that representatlTee of plaintiff saw the units in 



4 ^ 

T8S.A.I ti)8^v> 









as j£ ]^<J exj^fi 903 09]|»XXa k1«Xo to 9a«MMrjtl« ■*tll9aJLfti<~> 

«ja«r»»« ttl*at»lq fttftf va^ ot ft«lL»l »«4 tJi«te»l»fe iitoJUfv tot atflfsol^ 
mlMl9^9teiB09 9^ 3tatni» a^iiom so 9«moo Mtf {••^Muib tol aiaXo^vtruroe 

sntkbamTL^ Xi Im»i«11o ftojiaybiv* silt to ««eX9 Mft t« AfiA «ttXtajUiq 

.:»inA;>a«l»£ 7«iUab« Ui^mnm mav }flMq|ft«t Ana AwRlAXe tnmnam ttM 

tmuk tttiom •XqBst m WltnlMlsi mtt^ AMaiienctfq 9aAi««t«ft /Mir J»«8«il« 
-ulAXq fliitfir Of OMoajC (ftfiMUi »«w ii9X4w •••qYifq aitiooqt « lol loeiAMt «Mi 

>«i» •gas 08 XXtfq o/* li«^ifpn «^9w %9^th9% teti vo/im lutt fAdJT xttXt 
--fn'Msiit ta^ tadi H^ttm •itH A«»xot^»cx tmuntmuui •X^mm Mfif imMi *;X«inc«# 

iE«»9 Jl<i« ««•/«« 'Ufol-xta*w9 oii» te owf lo neliq,*ox9 tU il/lw ttofta 

9«w ttltalaSq StkOi \mi9b b^tuA mlq/mm «fir a« 3Ci«w tiU K««1<t«qi to •$M%9qi§ 

Qi tnaJbnmt^b xnf bnatul»% «a«iw «««(1# ^o n^pttuo'i t\'U.imJL»l^ to tttmipvt 

fiOMf bjid «JXiiu »M9di daXxiv nX aiMiilaAflf aitir lo flXAltAO ;^ju& iltXtoXAXq 

flotssi x<f ooXiq £>»ou£»a XXljirs^ « 9a iaMba^^Bb xiS ftXot •^•tr b9llMtMttl 

ai tiftttu ttxU wM tlttalMlfi Tie 9Wit»iu999n^9% tutt \m$99\9b —9di !• 



operflitlon »nd «daltt«d they ware not aeeording to thm 8«a^l«, Th« 
eoanterclals oontaln«d An Itcalzad etateaent of dasAges olalsed by dt» 
fondant on aoeount of the fallux^ of th» units purehaeed to opera to 
properly. 

Plaintiff argttos that the eourt properly struek this counter- 
elaia aa it did not fully and specifioally allege ultisate faote and 
the iteae of deflMLge. Inapeetlon of the oounterelaia does not support 
this eharge aa the itene elaimed are fully and epeclfloally itemised. 

Plaintiff eaye the theory of the counterclaia was inoon- 
Bieteet vrith the theory of the etateaent of defenee. There is no 
merit in thie. The counterclaim adopts the allegations contained in 
the at&teaent of defense and there is no inooneisteney betveen the 
denial of the aaount elaiaed to be due and the olaia of damages ao- 
eruing to defendant beoauae of the iaperfect units subsequently deliver 
ed to defendant. It was error to etrike the oounterelaia. 

Defendant eoBq;>lains of the action of the trial eourt in 
requiring it to prooeed first with its evidence. Plaintiff introduced 
no evidence. A defendant ia properly required to introduoe its evi- 
dence first when a priaa faoie ease for the plaintiff has been 
established. Santa Rosa-yalleJo Tanning Co . v, Kronauer. 220 111, App, 
2Z€» Here the plaintiff's statement of claim alleged the purehase and 
delivery by it to defendant of units at the prices specified in the 
etateaent, with an affidavit that the total aaount due for these 
•hipacnts was il756,40, The affidavit of defense aerely denies that 
tti»r9 is due plaintiff this aaount but does not deny the purchase, 
shipaents or prices, Sootion 40 of the Praotioe act (eh&p, 110) j»e- 
QUires that "every answer and subsequent pleading shall contain an 
explieit adaieeion or denial of each allegation of the pleading to 
which it relates." Under the^e pleadings plaintiff established a 
priaa faoie ease and the burden then was upon defendant to establish 
an affiraative defense. 

Plaintiff says defendant did not return any of these units 
said to be iaperfect. The evidence, however, shows that these were 



,^ Jft9fll«ti!0« »nolt*9*iXB 9iS$ ^lifohm mtMltrtnttm9» mOf •sidir al $lt9m 

•.•^i» t« ^H^^At fS «lji:i ftjIX m^A •tf «# [^•JVIaXS tfltf»«Hi Mf^ !• r«l0«ft 

?ti Tiijoo XfliT? «** to nolt«ii •111 to t!il«ropR09 9flatotl«di 
: .lilxrr^al Ttl«ni«f<i ,«9o«jfeiy« t»l t^l«t ta^lt ftMMxrr^ of 91 ^i\i.-\i.upvi 
-ivn «;ri ftoeixntfal <»9 hviivp^t xt^»f?fnc[ bI tfiuuBM!r*l«5 ii .•0jt«6lt9 en 
«*»«f aa.fi[ tHitfrijil^r •#!# i©t «»B0 •lest ««J!^«I m tmstn t^tt'i •»n«f> 

<Ni«tli»rt&fi «fJ* *«9«XX« ffil«l9 1© *«,..„.. , ,. .5 Wl9 otaM .fteS 

♦?*» «X »«Xlit99qa a«sX^q tat tm mUtttss to 9aAl(«i«1l«ft «9 #J t<^ X'tflwrlXaA 

9a«/<^ tot »e£ 9nii»aA Xa9o9 Mi;^^ H^t ftfmAl'Wm om Mi4 ^inna^^fskT* 

tMt %^tn9t>i tt'S^im »»n«t«i^ t<$ VlVA^Xtts ii^ .0^.8<9TXf ttttv sfAMKiiift 

^fti,:<,;iT>tM% unit ^«& r<»iR «»e6 fiKf 9lrsro«* Aliff ttlt/iiiiiq »»6 ti »t«^ 

n (0X1 «q)«»N») *tw» sf*.!?9?^tt •<» to <^ aol9»»3 .fttf9it<t to O^woitqlrfii 

iii» rtt»ta99 i£jkM tnm»pm'6*sM bsm xmntm vtvt^* #«d# ttntap 

c^ ^flXii«9X^ iMff to «toXd^«n|«X£a ffOAo to XiiiMOJb *io noXftvin^* }XeXX<ix» 

« £^«iiaXX^ja#«o ttJ^tRfjiifnj oiaiAuftOfef o**!!;^ «lt«&AB " ,««9«X9t tt ti»t£hr 

ff»jlifi»#tt9 ei^ fnjk6ftot«A «i«^ mm <v«f(^ flftlVtM •«<f;r Aim #tA9 oXo^il «iilit(| 

.(5»tn»tsfe wlJjurjXttA ff« 
'^X«tar «•»;« t® t«A jritftf^t ^«Mt M6 JnAJSfi»t*tfi «xa« ttXtaX*!^ 
9t9tr oaojtff >A^# oworfa (toiif9<sfed[ «o«»o6Xv« sdT .1 ooitttiTKl ocf ot 6l«« 



-5- 

d«liv«»r«d to the oumuf&oturer of tk«m a« r»qaeat«d by plaintiff. 

There w«re & nuaber of questions of faet whiob should h&ve 
1»eon Bubaltt«d to the jux>7 for Setoralnatioa. defendant eoaeodec 
that aoiM of the unite worked according to the eaieple hut there were 
queetione of faet eoneernlng other units as to whether they worlned 
according to eMq;>le and whether this caused expense and danage to 
defendant, and whether they were returned by defendant. Defendant 
had a right to accept the units which worked and to reject those 
which did not work, with ensuing damages. 

Many technical points are raised concerning the pleadings 
and eenpetency of evidence upon which it is anneceBsary to eoament. 
The controlling controverted points relate to the facts, which should 
be aubaitted to a Jury, 

The Judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded 
for a new trial, 

RETKRSK0 AND H£MAiIO£&, 
O'Connor, P,J., and Matehett,J,, concur. 



ol •!«»«» *ju o^mMix* JkMittM alKI i!»^t«rtv Aba tiicRMi o^ :^B««»m 

»<»o£(l SB^lvm ot ham k^tvsm d»l^ %it»jg !!»<t» t«o»Mi «r tif«ii « A«tf 

aSAiJ^AoXq «d.l rmJta*iiniao» k^^ian on* »$ilio<| Xooliutoot xomM 
,^8a«K#» 04 ti««»»ooAa« •! H itoJUfMr »o^ oohoIiIto to pMoiToQaoo *«« 
iiivotjfii floMxr «i99QMt oflbr 04 ^Mlin otiUoq Aotio'ToiitAOO aniii««tM»o ttfr 

•rii/t « 01 Ao^flatfiW otf 

diJM««eoi oaMfts «(i? i»fi;» posiov^i »>'i(i$t^i^n3 9t 9««aqgbjrt oiA 

^Imlit VOA A tot 



41191 

FMMH J. HAilT, ^ ) 

App^lUttt*/- ) 

y. \ / j 

JOSEPH S, DU|CAN, J.— ^ ) 








MR. jnSTIcI MtSDRCL^ arXITKRE!) THE OPlMIpl' p|- ,iB|^ -^OWBlX, . ^ ^^ 

Plaintiff va« «»ployed by defendant af> tticrnt&rf for «««• 
t«n yt&rs; the emplojnBent t«r<slnat«»<i In Septeisber, 1939; plaintiff 
then brought this euit seeking to recover »41,133,46 &e ftdditiOB«l 
compensation for eervlees rendered by him alleged to be outside the 
scope of hie duties under his contract of esployaent. i'lalntiff*s 
second anended oosplaint upon aotlon of defendant was dismissed; 
plaintiff asked leare to file an amendment to his second amended com- 
plaint, which motion vas denied. He s^peals from these orders. 

The motion to dismiss asserted that the serrlees rendered by 
plaintiff vere within the scope of his employment; that there was no 
express or implied promise by defendant to pay plaintiff any extra 
oompeneation and that the claim Is barred by the statute of limi- 
tations. 

In 1927, defendant advertised in the Chicago Tribune for a 
"Secretary; " information was requested as %o experience, references and 
salary expected; the advertisement further stated - ''Young man who has 
some knowledge of bookkeeping and stenography and, preferably, had some 
experience In the buying and selling of bonds and stocks. ** Plaintiff 
replied to this, writing a letter, stating that he had been employed 
for fourteen years as secretary to a Mr, Hend who dealt largely in 
securities, trading constantly, taking profits and making changes In 
his list. Plaintiff further stated in his letter that he had devised 
a record system which had received favorable comments from banks, 
brokers and bond men; that he executed all trades that Mr, l^end made, 
looking after his Interests and dividend payments, his correspondence 
Mid banking, and performed "other secretarial duties too numerous to 






.V 

^V P o '" '"^ ***** 

-MOO bftM^Mia &iic»o«« iix( o* 3ttmmhB»mm nm «X11 'iilAlq 

flsoxelqne aid to ^qoM •i(;r niiOlv ntw ItlfjilAlq 

-iisXX to «»l^iii»^a ftdi ^ brz'UMf sX »iiiXi» mdf imOf boM iioX9A«ii»qMo 

•BfloliAsr 
« lol 9f{»tfiiT oiAoXdD ecCt »i 5i»8j^«i«v£mi tiuAiifitsA ,tSQX «I 

IllJiti^al t * .a^ac^n tn» tAaoir to ipiXXXiM JMa anlxiftf •<& aX oOfioXioqpco 

I'^^ol ita« fiO«er ^Aij »«£ »»iff 9iilf«^« ,m«^#oX a anX^TXiw ,tXc(t o* JboXXqoi 

nl xX^i^aikX «Xjii«& oifir ba«- d* Ttaloto«» aA s^saax «o«#t«ot lOt 

fiX asi^OAxio :tflXXsiQ bOM «^Xtci, .<^nl^s9 ,YXyiu»9ttfi09 IMSXi^sitf ^a*ltl%u099 

bmlt9b baM «» " t»#»»X tXif Hi b9*mi* <i«iU<ti/l ttXJftXAX*! ,99 LI aXif 

,»3(ii«<f (SI01I «Tf>?i»ia)oo sXcTAYOYJct l»«vXooin bmA Avtfttf m9ti»x* Mooon s 

«ftft«a X»ji«H .tM ;raif^ toftjnt XXa J&»^&«ox» Mf ifjBiiy ;/!c«« finod 6a« n^ttvtd 

BOti9bttoq<afni€iiQ sXif ,atffl<MtxJ<>4 ^fi«MTXJ& bam ■^aov^trtX tXrt t«fti» SfiXaCooX 

etf Afci'>'«^cn^ OQ9 •»XtuA XAXnAfo^ooa twdt&* bmtnolLfq bnm ,gaXjfff«tf l>fl« 



M 



-2- 

m«ntion here. * To this defendant replied »aylng that the ^experience 
70tt hAve had eeess to be very muoh In line with the «Fork X have la 
■Ind for you. * 

An interviev followed in which pl&lntlff again detailed hie 
work as ateletant to Mr. i^nd. Defendant stated thet if he essployed 
plaintiff he would e;iqpeet plaintiff to study reports of financial 
»ervicee, call defendant* • attention to any reeommendation that ap- 
peared therein concerning securities and to assist defendant in making 
his selection of eeeurities. Defendant then proposed to pay plaintiff 
$75 a week for his serTicee, to which plaintiff replied that he hoped 
he night be entitled to aore in the future if hie work was satis- 
factory. 

Plaintiff's complaint iteiaizes four services perforned by 
hlo for defendant which plaintiff claims were extra or additional 
eerrioes to those covered by the terms of his employaent* The first 
item is the preparation of inooae tax returnn for defendant and his 
wife. I*raetleally all of the Information necessary for the prepar- 
ation of these Incone tax returns would be found in the accounts which 
plaintiff was required to keep. The tax returns would be taken froai 
these accounts and would require the usi^ml aecretarlal work. 

Plaintiff claims he was entitled to additional coapensation 
for his services in connection with the Andes Copper Mining securities; 
that while defendant was away a broker urged plaintiff to cable de- 
fendant to sell at a certain figure all the debentures of this 
company; that plaintiff had special and confidential information as to 
the value of these debentures and did not advise defendant to make 
such sale; that thereafter they were converted into stock which was 
•old at a profit of over ::$16,000 for defendant. Plaintiff claims 
ISOOO as additional compensation for such service s. 

Another Sea of service for which plaintiff claims additional 
compensation Is the giving by plaintiff to defendant of information 
concerning the value of securities in the Tax Becurlty Corporation 
whereby defendant recovered a substantial amount in settlement. Plain- 



•«fl«iift43i«* wit 3»xa ^i\if A»iiq«tt ^fl«Afi*t«b 9idt oT * .nM( ttoltam 
Ai wall J Jnow ttdf ii^lv •sill aJt ilowc xiwf td otf •«•#• Aai! •rmd 0OX 

* .tfox lot balm 

lAjaixAfil'K lot b;}«<i<{«^ %ftti7« 9* t1tl#ai«i<t.te«v« ia«ow «d MLlinlmlti 

fy',^ ■■ r -"! tUiit&iq liattim at .••oi'mat •ill tot I«»w « at| 

'lit ti 9iititn •at mi «nmt ot b9lttta9 atf ids^m Mf 

jUutoltlAiiua ao a«x:^x* ti^atf mJUXo ^ll#ai«Xq tl«X<fw #n«liii»l«i^ lot bXxI 

— <a - .r ,^a»ffxoX<|«r9 aid to aona? aiU- fd J^MaToo aaoHi oi a«oiv*taa 

<^.. .«.- inM&n^lmSi tel afncnfa^ xal aaooni to iioX>«<s«qnq aftf al ««ti 

-<i*q«nq •<£} let xt^uiao^M iioil«notia aftt to XXja %XX«oilo«<c^ .aliv 

a»Hi^ atoueoBA •dS nt btiuct 94 Miiew *niut»% xj»t avoaiil aaatit to roUm 

Kfnn<^ neiif&# acF bXvow amuJan xaf axf? .qoadi at Aa^itfpa^ aaw tt IJ^alAiq 

.jifo-f XAi<XAta«ofta XAsau aift aiilupan AXjmw *«« ata»oo«A aaaiU 

ri >^i 3 Aae*><|feio a XAHoXtfi&^A at l^aXtliTna ««« ad aiaiAXo t^ltfnimX^ 

.iHsMm^ IRlfilM 'xaq<{oO aaltaA mtt9 dtiv nol^oaAiioa ni aaolvxaa alif ft 

-atfe »X«faa 09 lti9RJtAX<: J^iiu •xajfoit«r a t«wA aav jToAJ^nataA aXXiiw JTi&dtf 

^iUv' lo a9au:rffatfayb axi* XXa a^irjiit alntnoo a ^a XXaa at tOAfcaat 

r rials Airsotfli Xaltnaftltfioa i&AA lAioaqa bmd ttl^AlaXq StuO ;iflA<poo 

?<i.»,sii ;.r ii^AbtkH^rab —IrbM. ton bth ba» •9%ufa9d9b aaaiit to »uXav tLS 

•jsk ileXrtw iiJMMfft etai ft**t»v«c© »«iaw x»*I* •xatlAaiwfcr iasH ;aXaa dona 

aasXaXo ttWnlaX'J ,ittAbti9\9b lot OOC,8X5^ 'xav© to tXto^q a ^a Moa 

•aaoXvtaa ifaua lot fioX}Aan9i;«toa XAaoXtlAXtA aa 00091 

Iw^oUii>i;i» ^/stulo VttittlAlq UttlOm «x«t oolYiaB to ai«dt nadSToJiA 

noiiAtn&lnl lo JoAfiflataA o^ '; if Vf 8«lvl8 «tf* "^ floX*Aanaq«i©o 

Xtijoaa xAt •!» fll aaliri'swoaB to auXar adt soXirsaono* 

-isX ^naX^taa nl tntioaiA Xaitf nA^adua « ^a^aTooan taAftii»tai& Xdfa^aiiw 



-5- 

tlff elAlM an additional eovp«n«atlon of $5000 for this sarvlee. 

Plaintiff n«xt all«gae ha laarnad that bankxniptcy pro- 
oeedlngff w^era panding againpt th« !>^cLellan storae Coispany, a dalawarc 
corporation; that after making dillgant ecareh plaintiff eoneludad 
that the oarkat yaltte of the stock vae far belov its Intrinsic value. 
Plaintiff thareupon persuaded defendant to purchase aome of the stock 
of this oonpany and fros this purchasa realised a large profit. IMaln- 
tiff elalns 126,136.46 as additional compeneation. 

1*^ are of the opinion that all of these serTlces war* vlthin 
the scope of plaintiff's e^ploynent. He vae required to keep accounts 
of all bonds, stocks and seeurities owned or acquired bjr defendant or 
his wife; also to perfora all clerical work in connection with the 
purehaaa and sale of all bonds and stocks. It vas part of plaintiff's 
duties to call defendant's attention to information appearing in the 
financial reports relating to securities. In the letter inAiieh plain- 
tiff wrote in answer to defendant's advertieeaent, plaintiff related 
In detail the character of his services to Mr. Hend, his foraer em- 
ployer. These describe ti»i activities of Mr. Hand with reference to 
securities, and plaintiff set forth his familiarity with these 
activities; that in addition to keeping the account of Mr. Hend'«! 
securities he executed all trades in thf^se securities. It is con- 
vincingly shown in the letter by plaintiff to defendant and In the 
conversation between the parties as to the duties and terms of e«- 
plo/mant, that all of the matters for which additional compensation Is 
sought were fully covered and included in plaintiff's duties. 

Plaintiff cites eases where it has been held that where 
extra services are performed entirely without the sphere of the 
service for which the contract was made, the law will la^ly an agree- 
ment for extra compensation. In Wathison v. h, Y, C. & H. H. Co .. 
76 N.X. S, 89, an employee's duties required him to Inspect engines and 

run them in oases of emergencies; he was requested to and did run a 
switch engine four or five times each day for about sixteen months; h« 



.•eitv<x«3 aid:} tnt 0D0«$ to mom^mHtlf^ tmHtSithbA tm aciftXe tli« 

Jtde^Tft Ml* to «!>•• (M«ii»«i»sr <M^ *»6fiiiv«t«i> iNibAMHttcr iie<finna(C^ t*kl<ral«fl 
-niAl^'i .fltovq ^fMl A INisXiMrr <i«Miito'iiKl ftijfll aront fin* xMNpo* tli^ )o 

•xo $tMbti*1^ xif lHnliip»M TO bMoiP m^lt ttvMt bum %i»^m «al«o<f XXa te 

*l¥ «ioJtd^Of»naoo ni Jiiov XMHtn^it llm inrol^aq oi e«X« tatlv iltf 

j^ jfii^^ to t««9 •fttr ti ,Bi9vt9 Imm ate«tf XXa to #Xa« Imijs t9«iioiiiq 

ft su. ^iie»9v|cr* ir«ltaart«t0i •! ff«x;rn«ry« **»«jiAiS9t»i^ CI«» et aaifidk 

fAXo ^oitht ni*$fl Mf> nX .••il^i^itooa of iiaX9«X*t at<so^9^ Xftioiouiit 

^><^lAl»a ttJt#iii«X«[ ,ta»f!i«iil*K«T&» •'tiM&itoltN^ Of voirtAA ni oto^w tttt 

..r..,ne>t 9itf ,b«i<A ,<x$f o9 tooXirtt* aid t* laloavatfo a^E^ XlafaA ni 

^tfi^ iSitvi haum .fH to aaltflTltoo mit odMoooi^ Modf .taxoX^ 

;^7 diln xiltMt£l9fA'i *lei tttxet too ttitalAXa i«iA « a ait Itimoa 

«'&n«M .^ to tisooooo »tt$ ifili$003( of noltfUUbo al t»A* t««j^lir|»oa 

«^ooo aX tl ••ailinoooa oaod* al aoitji<tt XXo 6o9»oo«o otf aaltXtueoa 

»A3 Hi 1mm tiwiaotiA o* ttitoXoiit t«( tottoX otf«r ai awo^fa xl'^fiteeitf 

•H»» to awiojr Aao ioltvA orft Ot oi aolt«a4i Mt iroo»r»otf itol^ovtavnoo 

Bi f}o/.taado<|soo XoAoitlffro rioldw tot ataJ'tftai Mt to JTXa #a/i'1 ,t#io«tofq 

.ioltJfA a'ttltfeXoXq flX »ofioXoai jbao ftv^avoo titXi/t o^«w 4^i(:i»o« 

«r<sailii!r i»ai tlwi noo«r ojui #1 oiioefo ««)«oo aafla '^tltniel^ 

ofl^ to »9.*A<q9 «rf;» fimrflrtv tX«>itXJ«» .ftO»*«ott« ;»a/^^#« atfito 

••»9'%M (U xis^aJt XX1%« VAX ailt «#&«<» ti(w 3««^;irooo inl9 tiainiw tot oolmioa 

» «9i?., t§ - '^ »- .0 fX .w .V notlitfjifj aX ,aoi;$'Aafra^3io« tnix» tot ti«o« 

&fljB a«ai^/ia i^Oa^anl ot olif JE^on^Xs^at »t>XtatA a*90toX<2pib iw «66 •S.I.M 91* 

« tiin Bis &aM ei b9t*9Up9i BKnr ot! saaianas'^t «#ao aI »oitl flitft 

arf xuatnim fiastfxl*? ;to«Kifi8 tot t** rfoae aoasljif ovlt i '.ni3«© lioJivra 



-4- 

^rought nxxXt for «xtra oottpena«tion for the additional servlooe of 
running tho svlteh onglna and obtained Judgaont in tMe trial court; 
this >ra0 revArtiod upon appoal and the court well statvid the prlnelple 
eentrolllag. After noting that the law would iflqply an agreeaent for 
extra eoBpen9ation« the opinion saye, "fhle rule is based upon the 
probability that for suoh service there vas an Intention on the part 
of the master to pay extra eo»;>ensation, upon which the aervsnt night 
rely. But this rule aust be oautlously applied* and the servlee aust 
be eo far outside of the sphere of the eaployiaent as to indicate a 
probable Intention on the part of the master to allow extra 8oap«n- 
satlon therefor. If the question be one of doubt« the x*iffht to extra 
eo^pensation should rest only v^pon an express a^creenent. A.ny other 
rule of law would introduce dangerous uncertainty and Instability 
Into all contracts of service." Thle was followed in Murray v, John 
O glfflthg & Sofi . 98 N.X.S, 673, where it was said that proof of a new 
agreenent to pay extra eoapensation was essential; that *To hold other- 
wise would be to require enployers to have spec if leal ly enuoMrated and 
definitely catalogued, at the time of the hiring, every sli^le service 
the proposed eaploye might be called upon to perfonn, lest ingenuity 
oould subsequently differentiate between eervicea, eo &e to create 
additional liabilities. " To the saoe effect are Voorhe<?9 v, ryecutors 
O f Woodhul l. 33 K.J.L, 494, and Robine tl^e v. ifubbard Coal ■inin^ Co . . 
68 w. Va. 614, 519. 

It is undoubtedly true, as stated by plaintiff's oounsel, 
that thu motion to dlBaiss admits the truth of all allegations in the 
complaint whioh are well pleaded, but this admits only the faots 
stated in the ooaplalnt to be true and does not admit that the plain- 
tiff is entitled to recover. Whale n v . Twin 9^ty Berge ^ 'Jravel Co . 
280 111. App, 696, 610. 

Plaintiff claims extra eoapensation for sejrvlees rendered 
over a period of ten years, during which time he reeeived his regular 
salary and made no claim of any kind that he was entitled to any f urtNr 
ooi^nsatlon. In Levi v. Reld. 91 111. App. 430, plaintiff sought 



oi ija9««d*ij»e tut lilqpU kluf^ vAl #44 ttidS sai^oa tat)A .jMiiiiovltnat 
9tli ao nolinmHal bm ««w •v»«GI •9iT«9« (tout 'sel ilAcur ftfXiXff^tforq 

■■ >i>g^vi»a ti!f iMta ^fe^/iX^qt^ %A*((eijFtM9 wj $9ium «ltn ntdf iu& ,tJ(m 

-aaqpH»o jitr»tfx» vplJU s^ 193 ''mm mei/t "io t'Vim, 9^ aa a^litftnl »X(r«4<n<i 

4>^^ •lli9«9f^4 «i»lt4V» fiA lUMiar ti^o ,}it'l £iii«^ ««l7A9ll*qp^ 

xftll^Mihal bSA %tiilAin*9av uu9i%»^fiAA 9i>uX>eitat tXuow v«X lo tXini 

fli^ftV .7 !L»'a«yy -K jiX d«weXXol: •«# aXfld '••oUntM t« •^•<a<i^ooo IXiS o;ra| 

•^«£(;^o blosi et" tma ;i«X^09««» saw nci^juin^f^^o 0<x^x9 y/k o} if^asMftivf^ 
btii h930<xmuMOi x^aeXtiotitiA •vail t^ »\»%olisgaim n^tuptn i^$ 94 blyov —Iw 
«»jhr'ft»a 9JLq/nlm %%9r9 ^f^iilti mitt 1<» vit$ 9tti ia ^imtt^oljiiiko %L*itMX'ipi^ 

»9«»<xo ed a» sm ^%»air%»9 aptvitad iiSAlta»tmt%lJb xLtamupBrnduM &ttnt9 

. :x^ ^*a:« .*v .« ee 

f^c^ nt 9iiomm»llA XXjt lo dttni »d;t BitmbA atXiss«X& e^ atlten 9dt t$0ii 

a^OAt s M^ ^ao 9;X«^ Bldt ttti ,J^4»&AeXq XX»)F via OfiiAnt ialAlfftmrn 

t&lq »& t»ji3 titthm ifw 9 9^ htM mni •< Pt $tUjilqfieo (uiiT «1 J^iAit§ 

♦^ ^dea ,<i<i4i .ixi P9S 
fc9n«»i>.'i»^ <8ftt»XviLfMi ^ot floX94«ii9\iuoo »%is.9 9ml»l9 tt^^nXAX*^ 
titXi/iet sX£i C>»vXoo»i 9ii ««Xtf iioX«b> tttiMOY n!i»} Ito ftoitoq x isvo 

tfi^uos -iiiJaXjsXqt ,0?^^ ,<m«i ,iXi XS .&^»tJC .r XvJ fli .a6lt«««*«M« 



•xtra eoBpen nation above hl« salary for alloged «xtra \f&rk In the 
eYealnge and on ^Sundays; en appeal the Judgment In hie turor was re- 
verced, the eeurt sayli^ pl&lntlff did not hlmeelf regard hie enployer 
aa under any oontraet liability, ae *ehovn by hie conduet in keeping a 
eeeret account and leaking vto mention of it to his eaployer until hie 
eaploysent was ended.* In Hose ▼. Hardin . 79 M.X. 64, it was held that 
tdiere services are rendered by one in the enploy of the p«reea for 
whom they vere rendered "the law implies that the serriocs were 
rendered under the contract of eaployaent* unless the contrary be 
shown, and this iaplication is aueh stronger if the services are of 
the same character as thoee efflbraced in the contract." Other casee to 
the same effect aire Cooper v. Brooklyn Trust Co. . 96 H.X.u. 56 and 
Heldeman v. Bolger . 6& 111. App. 658. 

In apvash v, Raereon . 3S Cal. App. 13, cited by plaintiff, 
the facts are quite different from those in the ease at bar. There 
there VM no relation of eie^ployAr and employee between the parties; 
plaintiff agreed to furnish the deceased with room and board; aftez*- 
ward becoming helpless, plaintiff did the work of a nurse for the de- 
ceased. It was held that the nursing services were entirely outeide 
1^ original contract. 

I>laintiff argues that he should have been allowed to file 
his amendment to his second waended complaint. The aaendment suggested 
was that plaintiff "informed" defendant he expected compensation for 
his alleged extra services. It tBiiould be noted that neither in the 
original oooqplaint nor in the first amended complaint, «fas there any 
allegation that plaintiff had "intimated" or '^informed" defendant of 
any expectation of additional cosqpensation. The proposed amenteent was 
elearly in conflict with the allegations eet out in the previous com- 
plaints. The court did not abuse his discretion in denying this 
motion. Rubin v. Chi<»a^o Title & Trust Go . . 249 111. App. 4d6, 489, 

We are also of the opinion the statute of limitations was a 
good defense. Plaintiff was employed for an indefinite period at a 
weekly salary and plaintiff had a claim against defendant for this at 



•^n dAv t^iTAl iir( 111 firmas^t, ttc!^ 2A»qqf« no \ttx»S>mt^ no ftrui vv^^* 

lii U^fUT t^tto^Qo* *^ «^ ^i )o noi^rrwf ea lyiljini ftff« tntfeoeui tvttfva 

«n[4W aftur^rxAH Mftt Yiauft ««lJ^i kjlC «iif#* iv«t»A/»«it •*r«MF tft<(<^ «Mlii)b< 
•ff ^trttnei^ nilst «««Xati «tfiMrcoI<9D«» !• t9«itftoo «uft rc«ftnit &frt9l^fli9i 

;?>^^{)>43 t^iQ * ^t^mtttn^ %Ai Hi !>«»«stfji* moiI9 «s •xvtomiifo mum Mfir 
f>n.ft dd ..■:.ll,^ M . . ^a ytiffiT iTt JUtooig ,▼ a»q»>0 vim ^o«ll« «■«• «& 

.868 ^%%k ,ltX aa «2fl£e& '^ iifMigifci>>f 

T'isi^iAj wi^ a««w#Mr ««toX4«» hum •v^y^al^it lo noi^aXrv oa zwn vfdt 
^«9'%A ;finM«cf IMM cNMrt ifiri%f l^»«»ft«fi sift i^ifnrvlt ot J^««iq^ tItlffflAXq 
^» »f$J^ not ^tinff a !« ]H«w •dt fiib mtatalq ,ttii8XqXM< ^XsroQad bnMw 

«?o«n;»fte9 XaniTsi'io «iff 

b^s^9^1iim 9n»aaietBmt milt Aatalq^^ bt^&numi nM ot itttabntma alK 

;t»t ttOit«ea«<^9«> &»9««q2« fti^ Snabnmti^ ^'bampunni* TtldrtfX«Xq f Aiia^ «4W 

<»tai> *,b«m©lni* no *htasmtt«t^ BmA nttBlMiq fmxSf iieJ(;r«s«XXa 

•fiso, «3^iaiv«it«; »j|it Nl }»t ir*@ «it9l#«9«IX« t^^ ithr teli^tfoo HI tX'OAXo 

t& ntdt lot ?f}ji£in«t«ft #ani«ii» JiX&io s AaiI tti#Bi«Xq[ ^« t%*XM xXJft«V 



4- 

th« «nd of vaeh i««lc. 11i« statute of limitations be^trin« to ran froa 
tlw tl«« a eMt»* of aotien aesrues. Ra^t^ v. Ch«oa»n . ;?48 III, App, 12, 
Aad ,?^ i yRlg If. .'^ttllf.la&n i-ftlaog C«jp C^ , , 166 111, 161, 

All of th* Alltged «xtx<^(!i service e hj plaintiff, «xe*pt 
possibly one it«m, vttrm render«4 sore thttn five yso^rs prior to Qotebor 
SO, 1939, tho &tk%» of th« filing of 1^ original oosplaint, «nd h«ne« 
art) 'barred by the five-year statute of liraitatlonc. 

Wo have not noted all of the oany oases oited by iadustrioita 
eottfisel for plaintiff, «e have given the af firtt&tlY« reaeona for our 
eonclusion that the orders of the trial ooart were proper and the 
•otion to disales should 1m sttst4iLined, 

yf O'Connor, P.J,, and Matehett, J,, oonour. 



»'.;v.i. ..»«.,..- •,- -'^Jla 94MMO \mm. •lit 1« Xia ,*#tf>*^ ^en aw«f^ « 

^tmaiAtttn ntf JbXviuis ifi«iXb •# eetton 



? 



41201 
PKTEK BAIJI, 



^p«ll&nt 



▼. 



aU¥ A. RXCHA)iD0p and « 
CimMIHas, &« Ree«lver« of 
Chleago Hallways Cofspaay 
Corporation, M HAHVSY 
FLKMINa and «;0*«D E. s: 
RceolTers of GlfLoagQ Ci 
y«ijr Coapany, 
Btr««t Hallway 
rations, doing 
GHICAOO SURFAC 




oopftoy, Gorpo- 
■Inotii a« 

Limes, ^^^ 

Appelffeg. 




rftOM 



.aioR cluR!|, I 



loox mm 




.„,^ 



I 



T A c^' Q Q 
A i= ii ® ^ O O* 



MR. JUSTICE iieStlRELT &ILI?i:RED THE OPIMIOR OF IBE COimT. 

Plaintiff brought suit to r«eoY«r daaago* for Injuries r«- 

oolved while atteaptlng to board a ttreat ear operated by defendants; 

for 
tiw Terdlet wae/dtfendants and plaintiff appeals. 

The aoeldent occurred at the Interi^eotlons of Division and 
Halsted streets In Chicago; plaintiff had alighted froa a north bound 
Haleted street ear which stopped some distance south of Division 
street; he walked north on Itie east side of Halsted and when he 
reaohed Division he sav a west bound Division street oar approaching 
100 to 120 feet east of Halsted; when he reached thtP south curb of 
Division the ear was 40 feet away; as he easie to the east bound street 
oar track the west bound oar passed his and oame to stop at its 
regular stopping plaoe at the northeast comer of the two streets, 
with its rear end opposite plaintiff. 

In the oooplalnt it was charged that defendants negligently 
operated the street oar "in that they failed to give the plaintiff an 
opportunity to safely board the said electric street oar. ** 

Plaintiff testified that he went around the rear end of the 
street car and, while it was standing still, put his left hand on the 
grab handle at the rear of the platform, hie right foot on the step, 
and as he started to lift his left foot from the ground the oar 
started, causing hin to fall; he testified that when he was in this 



lonu 



.1. 



.i«(j.V|H 



H-:im feA»'=i«lA \( 













r r*i .a.. 






to <sfit<c i&uos A<i;^ A«il»A»^ 4^ nn£i« ;et«9al«{l ta #•«• faal Gil 9i 001 

r-e^'itx :^ »>><>' 9»99 •At ot 9m»9 «if •» ;ipnr.A #99t Oj^ tav iwo aiiif fl«l«ltrl(I 

8 1/1 ^i^A q99% o9 acAO ftna fltJt^ M«aa4{ too tejicKf ;}a«v «<!it 3(o««t# 'Xao 

««;f«»4^sre ow^ «>if;r to •samtea ^asaffttOA ai& ^a avfil^ ^iq^^a iitlus*t 

.tti;fAlji.X<t atiaaiiqo i^na lAvt 9Sl <&lw 

titn«9JtX-39>fl a^«a&n4»ta5 t»ii$ ott^^^o iJtv il fniaiqsoa miSS nt 

».: -i-t^r-fir-T <||^ ti<rt% 0$ b'»ll»'i Tt»<Jt Jaif* til" laa faauft ad^ Jba#«i»qo 

' .taa ;f 9a^7« ol«tf eaXe dlaa ndi Ma<»cf tXat«a ot t^ifttft*te<|>q[o 

9ttf to Ana ia»^ arfjT hnmnn taum ad tMit fraitltaasr t^tisiltill 

•At no Aoiaii ^^tal aid tif<T ,XXi^i 3|f9lJ&rui9^« aav tt allifw ,6ita i«o Yaartta 

,<ia}t ad^ iia ^Tool tifsit aXif ,«^ottaXq aiU to naan bAs t» •IhuMd tf«vi 

•XAS lilt Amiovi ad* «vxt 9oat ;rt»X aid #tiX o« Mi#iM^a aif aa Ana 

aidt ai aaw ad aadw ;rAd# l^aiti^aa^ ad UXat o^ atia. Bniftwao «Jba^^ta9a 



-1- 

posltion on the gat th« oonduotor vae looking at hln, although he did 
not hear or tee the conductor ring the bell. 

A vitness, Andrew Linake, testified for plaintiff that he 
eould not B«»e over the street ear and did not }Ltus^ what happened on 
the other side of the street ear; th&t vhen he heard the eereeeh of 
the wheels the oar had stopp«d and plaintiff vas lying in front of the 
•top sign on the northeast eomer. 

Clara werhel testified for defendants that she was on the 
platform near the entrance door; that when the oar started theare was 
nobodjr on the step or going on the step; th&t after the oar started 
and had gene sons distance soneone ran ajround fron the back part of 
the oar and held onto the ear but was not standing on the step; that 
he rolled off in the street; that the signal was ianediately given to 
the motorman and the car stopped. 

The notorman did not see plaintiff atteaspting to board the 
ear. The conduotor testified he was standing on the rear platform; 
that when the ear reached Hals ted it eaaw to a stop on the east side 
of Hal 6 ted where a lady and a man got on; he gave the signal to pro- 
eeed; after the oar had gone about a oar length he saw plaintiff grab 
hold of the rear grab rail on the rear of the car and try to swing 
himself over to the step, but he let go and fell over on his hands and 
knees; he cane over from around the back of the oar; he was not ther« 
at the time the street ear started; at the time plaintiff attea^ted to 
take hold of the ear it was going about 10 miles an hour. 

Walter Wax>d was a passenger sitting on the long seat at the 
rear of the ear, facing north. He testified that vhen the ear reached 
the east side of Halsted it stopped and two passengers got on - a lady 
and a man; then the ear started; that when the rear end of the street 
ear was about at the east orossing of Halsted, he heard the emergency 
bell and saw a hand or hands trying to grab hold of the center bar of 

the platform. 

The greater weight of the evidence tends to disprove any 
nogllgenoe on the part of defendants. Qn the contrary, it shows 



hlb Mt tt^nw^lii (ffid Sa ^Htto9S ajivf i99oaba99 Ml^ nM9 wO me aoKivd^ 

«d :}^i tttfalMlq 'Wt i&«itif«»^ ,«<li«|J ^wtbaA ,as»it91w A 
no &«o«<iqAd iaOM uKMSa ^cm MA i^a« tM.» t9<ritm «ctf K«ve «•« ifoii hlsi99 
lo xia*«tcoa «d^ b%»^ «il fiftflv iTAill I'MO imnH ndi Ip tl^la ntifio %d$ 
«itf to ^n^Yt Hi w^l%l t««f llJl}iii«l(| bail ^•'vcrotft i*d i^fi nrf^ eX»9dw m9 

•i$:f ao ««tr •<!« ta^t ninM!bti9\%b tot £>»ill;fA«f IttTrsQc^ *iaIO 
utor •*t«)4' £»»»•««#« i«« mA* mnttw imAi ^10t^b ••iMitat «itt tK«ii irxot^Alg 
fc»f's«;r» <xj»o eift f«rt£ tAcia til«fa Alt' "« 8"!^ "x* <l*t* Mf* >o tl^^tom 

7«j(U \ii&t9 9Sit AO anlbOA^O l<M <M(V )f«< ^^0 ^Utt OJat J>X«Xf l>fl« lAO «0 

oi ia«vi« YX»<r«XA«aMBi tikw Lait^Xa »i(* t»tit it99t9% tH at tto A»1X9% •A 

,Aoqq<tfi aa9 viCir Ba« tuun^9om ^tii 
&iX2 o't^oQ OS ^aJ4i;«^7« ttltJiiJsXq ton #oa AJL5 OMun^t^m ti{? 

;«nct^iiiX'} xs*"! «rf2 no i(iai^«A<r« •«« •({ Aoitlltof loSoyAnQft atfT ttJi^ 

Ajfrlii t»«« 9dst ««. qo#a a d< tmmo ii Ht^^lMH A^dMurx nuio vU aofliw 9»d9 

-oneq oil Xftasi« •♦it} ov^i «ii ;iM toi a«» « i^«« t**X a rxoitw t»t#aXAH to 

crjs<x$ ttX#iiij^4 Msm 14 jt»sfl«X ifM* « iuvdm mva% 64it luie mU tof t« ;t«f o 

^nlwft D^ xti Jbiia TAO MSr to itt^i «49 ae XiA<s (f«ti t«i»% ftdt to lkX«i( 

^»;^ ^M,a.>Ad >ic ao 't«ve XX^t iMM 9» 7oX oa }««( «C7»7» on^ ot *iwr*i MmMlA 

»'T».^ $ais «<«.«( fui ;%Bo «£fir to m»«4 oiltf tnuo^jc soit t9vc ofuui oitf s«osa3( 

n^ / ::n':«/3-, tti#t(XAX4 0«X? «C(^ i« U^sri^^lt "iHQ tn^f^* 9tiS 9mtt •<& tA 

,iuoH n« BoXi« OX tkfedn salQ^ n^rw 91 i4io ^t to &Xeii oatoH 

•111 tJ^ SA9n aaoX 049 no lAmit •8:9«iio««ai| «.•«« frxaW 'xttfl**^' 

ftfttiAAet "s^c ^itf 4|«£Sk lii^y l^«ilX#«9? oH «jilicoa ;piX0At ^nuio 9jbU t^ xiao^ 

X^aX s a^ tio^sanAq owl boin l^qq&lo tl k.%StkX*li t& ft&Xa !««• mtt 

loontlc fi£ll to 1>A0 *i»9% Mil aa^vi Is^l ;lMl-Ml« tmn 041 jiotfl }««* a Aim 

il»a6»3^<»«i9 orfi iriAodl •!{ ^AoIbXaU to j^Umoi^i tumn *AS s& liretfa e«w a«o 

to iJbd i^iitdo »dl to j&Xoil «r«TS ol snXvxl oi^aad ao btmd n was i>aa XXotf 

jnotlAX<{ ofit 
PI4 OY&aslOli)! Ol ntaitt OOBOAIVO 4i4l to litalow tolAOim Olrfl 

BvroilA II (XrxAilnoo odi aO ,«lit«6iioto£ to fnoq ndS mm mmam^I^mm 



ole*rl7 thAt pl&lntlff undertook to board th« etrvat ear after It was 
In aotlon. 

Th« appealing plaintiff doe« not ai^ue that the verdict ie 
contrary to the weight of the evidence hut hie brief ie confined ez* 
eluelvely to erltielesie of instructions given on bahalf of defendants. 
It vas eald to be erroneous and prejudicial to receive 30 Inetruotione 
given at the request of defendants as against 9 given at the request 
of plaintiff, We do not approve the giving of a large number of in- 
etruetlone, eepeeially in a ease like the present one trhere the lesuee 
vez^ slaple. However, it has been held in a number of eases %h&% 
although a needless number of instructions are given, that fact alone 
will not be ground for reversal if the inetruotlone are correct. 
Oareon. Plrle. Soott 4 Co. v, Chicago Rye. Co .. 309 111. 346, 362 j 
Daubach v. Drake Hotel Co .. 243 111, App. 298, 305 and Chicago City Ry . 
Co . V. aendueky . 198 111, 400, where the ruling of the trial court 
restricting the number of int^truotions was held to be error, the court 
saying any rule which would authorise the refusal of an inatruotion 
otherwise proper to be given, on the ground alone that as many In- 
structions as the rule allowed had been given, could not be defended, 

uith much skill the brief for plaintiff oriticizeB most of 
the instructions given at the request of defendants and defendants* 
brief attempts to answer. To attempt to analyse and determine all the 
points made in this respeot would be merely an exercise in logomachy. 

Most of the points made have been made in similar personal 
injury easoi and wo do not find that any of them, standing alone, oon> 
stitute reversible error, exeopt, possibly, instruction Ko. 13, which 
in effect told the jury there was a city ordinance making it unlawful 
for any person to board or alight from a street ear while it was in 
motion, and that If the Jury believe plaintiff was doing this he can 
not recover. The mere fact that plaintiff was violating an ordinance 

at the time he was injured will not bar his right to recover unless 
the unlawful act proximately contributed to the accident, Rueeell v. 



,n%Jtitm Hi 

«! JelMi^v *cf9 imiS •tfas* ton ••eft ttitnlaX^ ]9fiiXji«qi|» iiff 

\iif #s avrt% « ir«c/ii^;t$^ «» fti(t«i««l*6 1» ^9«upM (Mir tA if«vlji 

■ni to 'xftdnm «9t«X ^ ^o ^isfvi:^ 4M& •v««|ci» fen ah ^t-, A^liatmlq lo 

.?9«<nc9 •an •ii»U<»in;l9ai »^ li Xaciwvvv 'X0l ftn«««8 W ton XtJb0 
;aft6 ,d^ an •* -fty llf'olitf^ .♦ ,yO ^ tt^os ,»4^4< iitifi;^ 

. Y^ t^/:- a^fUM^ teA SO. ,^i;;^ .qQ& .XXX Bil^t , . oU J»»»H tHaTa .t jj^MilS 
^nvoo XaJK^ 9119 \n st«iitn fldr «v«l» ,00^ .lit CeX . TCCtMftwac .T .(gO 

-ft^ t0«« «« ^^iMtt «mXj» Amw«9i «U fie «a»v<I} Mf o9 *i9q99fi ••lw<i«(i#« 
Jb«i9ra»^i»ii oci toA feltmo «jum% seed i^juf A«i«0lX« •Iirt tif^ «« «itel9ojy«r» 
-^0 tmem a«siGi;ritt» tll«ftMi«r 'tot 1»i^ mM IM» tl»vw tfttw 

vX<loaffi«]»&X nl ifi«.S9%«3te «» HXMimi iS bXwm fm^m vi^f mi «^«''- "-'^toq 
Anoa/t»; lA/Jais oi ftiMue f(9«€f •v«il •Ajw n^oloq edS le ^A^lf 

w^s «d «Xd« B^oft aiv t1Xf»i^*Xs| tfraJXtttf Turt Mit lut J^Aidl Asut «nel#«lR 

•OfUuUJHo £IB ;gflX^AXotv ««» tti^rcrXaX^ fftidf tMit si^Mi 9tR .'ssvooet foil 

•••Xfw t^TooAT o7 fitmXv ftiif nuuf ^ofl XXXv birulal •mm 9A •mXt Mil 9m 



-4- 

Blchar<aeon « 302 111, App, 689, 698 anfi Ler^tto v. Dirge tor General . 
2KNI 111, 948, *sd oany other oases« Qn the other hand. It hft« been 
lield that violation of an ordlnanee designed to proaote safety is 
negll(Senee per se . Flynn v, Chieaje:o City ny. Co . . a^; 111, 460, 480, 
Here the evldenee showed that plaintiff attempted to board the ear 
after it was la notion, «hleh oaused tiut aoeident. This being true, 
there was no negligenee on the part of defendants and hence plaintiff 
oould not recover, regardless of the existence of any erdlnanoe. Under 
these oirowBstanees, giving of the instruction will not necessitate 
a reversal. 

The verdict is supported by the greater weight of the 
evidence and vas not produced by any irregularities or errors in the 
instructions given, but solely upon the facts as developed by the 
witnesses. 

The judgsient leafflrsied, 

JITDOMElfT AFriHN&P, 
O'Connor, P.tf, , and Matehett, J,, ooncur. 



«iffl*'^»^ l<^yf>i,<i " irttiHTIfti^'^ *** *— "-^ «<il dOB ,j 

n»«d vjui ti tftiuuf «i«iff e silt ad .t<Miio i«f9« yiMi km» «AM^ ^X 90S 

f^.ij isr 9 104^0 <«o •oiJii^4.u^«-r3i I'M X^ frffOtflMn;^ #«a a«w Jmmi uon^^iYo 
Mi;! tsJ lMiq»X«Y«6 sc '"" ' ^ * ro^a xJ»Xpp •* -' . -«vXjj •i(Oit<»irtlK«i 



41213 

UAm f. mvtf, ct al., 

nu-AOE or fovm pHOsfiscT, vt a1. - ) 

^ > I ^ 

VILLAaE O^MOOUt ?R#5PECT, « f ) # ^JOX C^UI^T 






GHSlgSTIA|' p. KIS»E4«f aX. ) 30» 1»A» 2oO 

Appellees. ) 

MR, jt;stice MosimELr delivered the opiniom or thk cotmt. 



Th« Village of Mount Prospect appeale from an order striking 
Its oross-ooiq>lalnt whioh it had filed in a suit brought by Mary f. 
Howie for an acsountlng of aoneye alleged to have been collected on 
oertain cpeeial aeseeementB. 

Eer conplalnt asked that an aocounting be nade as to the 
■peoial a«setea»nte and the iseuanoe of special assessaent bonds. It 
alleged that beginning with 1937 and annually thereafter the Viii&ge 
of Mount Prospect collected a large sua of money in special assesstaents 
whioh it was ite duty to segregate and use in payment of certain bonds 
at Maturity. An answer mus filed denying in general the allegations 
of the eosplaint, 

lliereafter* the Village of Mount Prospeet filed its croes- 
eoBplaint making Christian D. Busse, village treasurer, and ei^ht 
other persons alleged to be sux^ties on his bond, parties to its cross- 
ooiqplaint. It was charged that Buese, as village treasurer during the 
years that the special assessaents were in collection, had misapplied 
these collections and that the sureties on his bond were liable and 
^erefoz^ had an interest in the final deterraination of the proceeding. 
The parties named as erose->defendants aoved to dismiss this crose- 
eonqplaint or in the alterniitive to make the allegations more definite 
and certain. The action to dismiss was allowed. No request to aaend 









51S;X* 






1 


. r* t» «jai«oii ,\ tMM 


^ 


'y 


'•\ •■' 


'\ 






.im i9 ,fa^V<>>^^ TMUgJii MO attAOJif 






88 S .A.I vO« 






,?JS'-IO'^ -^Jf^ "i«> MV ' 



>iti tJExmmm amfavu .jw 



i9flra8»«a« X»ltt»<|t to •onAtr»«l Mif bum •taMn««««« Iiiiooqa 

«?iiiXIlV •!» •x»tft«*^9f£r xlXaiawt* ^iw VSeX rf^Xw 9nXiifilt«tf #**r A»s«XXa 

a^fi<Mi»9«a»ia Iiii9«H(t nl ^MMt to sfi« «1%«X « AotfooXXoo ^vo^tieiY tAir^ to 

ahnwi niA»%f^t^ te iTnositA^ si •«» &aj» otj^o^oa o9 ^(lufi ntl »av »i iloii&r 

^rtol*jes»XXA «wi> X«a!»ii%|l ffl :f|iili(e«l> ftoXit sow iov«n« oA ,x*X*ttf**« ** 

,tatmlqfM9 iuSi to 
^««e^o earx 6»Ilt fooqso^i »buo*? to a^jtXXXV mOi «'xoittAoawir 

tfdgXs &«« ,«jrxw»iie»'xJ *sj»XXXv .ooaufi .a nolJoXtilO anijljui S^AloXqaeo 

ne i9;fi 09 t»l}^u»q ^htnai nlA no ooXtoavt od o^ i^ofoXXa onoonoq loxUTo 

MSr S«X^Mb -soTtiiaaoaJ oa«XXXv •« .ooatfa tmAS ftoyuuie ■«« *I «;riil*Xqemo 

ilXqqosls &Aii ,ii«x;rooXXo9 nX irxow o^TiiMioaoooA X*iooqa odl 9«i<9 oi«ot 

btiA •I4iktl vtw Jbftotf oXiC 80 aoX;ro^tfa iti iiUa bns aneXI&aXXoo oaMft 

,Ufil*oooortq orfl to noX*«iiX«<i»o6 X«aXt oi» nX Jao^otuX tvn bmd ovoto^orf* 

-»co^9 aXif^ nBlf&titb &t Aovoa ai^jiA&fiotoi&Hiaoao •« Aoiuui aoXInuRq oifT 

«}XnXt»A oaoffl 8noX*i»saXX« tuit o:te« o» ovxyfto-ao^la «itt flX -so IjjXbX^oo 

ftnovft ot faoiipot oK .6owoXXa a«w aalsaXJ^ Qi noX^oai orfT ,fll«#iioo Ami 



-2- 

was Bad* and the ero8i»eoiBplalnant appoals to this court. 

The opposing eoansel properly say tho burden is on the oross- 
eofl^l&lnant to show la this eourt that tho order appealed from ¥»^b 
erroneous, fhe brief of erog#->eo»plainant sakes no such showing. 
Oross-eoaplainant in this court adnlte that the eon^lalnt "is not as 
<u>^;>lete or as perfect as it oould be« ** and asks this court to give 
leave to anend the eross<-complaint. No suggestion is presented as to 
tlie character of the aoendatent proposed. 

while section 24 of the Praetioe act provides that defend- 
ants urtie are interested in any controversy nay be made parties defend- 
ant so as to determine any liability, yet we do not think this 
authorises the practice of brin^^ in sureties over a period of years, 
•mmeneing in this ease with 19S7, thus ouabering the record. 

Moreover, the action to strike the orose-complaint asserted, 
among other thing^s, that the oross-ooaplaint was multifarious as 
Joining distinct and separate causes of action; that it did not ooc^ly 
vith section 38 of the Practice act, vhioh requires every eounterolaia 
to be pleaded with the sane particularity as a complaint and complete 
in itself. Section US requires that eaeh eounterol&im must be 
separately pleaded, and section 36 requires that whenever ti:w counter- 
claim is founded upon a written inetzniment, a copy thereof must be 
attached to the pleadings unless the pleader shall sake an affidavit 
stating faots that such instrument is not acoessible to him. The 
os^s«-complaint does not contain a plain and concise statement of tiae 
pleader's oomplaint but merely makes the general allegation that an 
accounting will determine the liability of eaeh of the sureties. In 
Biany other respeets the cross-complaint was insufficient and the 
motion to strike was proper and it is affirmed. 

APriRMED. 
0*Connor, P.iT. , and Matehett, J,, concur. 



*t»««o »A9 A« Si AttMud tiiit ^8 t;it»<icn(4 X<Miii»»e ini«o<iq« trfT 

»«w men J^»l«»qq« tv^^o «M tmii i'wve •Uii al w«if8 «9 ^oMiAlqp** 

ot ia !^tn»9tt%4 %l nol^99m**** ^ •iraXAX^Mt»««»<}'3ri> wit ktt9a» 9t VWA91 

■ •■ ■ •tVO't'^. afQS '$^iL2titi-^ ' t-lS^ IQ *S I14I170«N| 9JLld* 

-icUr jiMiiiff ion ox; ^y «•% ,llJ:Xiii«Xi x#a ««iJrx»l«ib 9$ •« et ^ha 
. -xMQ^n 9jitf 3ffiiMr»in> «tii(t «Vsei d^riv mao alil^ oi 3aJ:oam»«c 

1(X^et3 ton &1& 9t }t^dt tA^i^OA \e a«stf»o »f«aa<7t« i&AA ^ealttiik i^HinX^i 

mtihlinf»tRU99 X'Hff9 •9i.tsip9^ AatO'.i ,9d« •iiil'sjrv't Mf^r to dG noisTsM tLTlw 

<>:f'^r>«< <' fvn^^t taijftlqmoo a aa %t ttAl>t9t$*tM<i Mwa «dtf ifflw AtAAalq; «f q# 

m mlttXcnft^ittfoo ^smis tAdtt «Artiiff»n SC iroi/»»s •liaati Hi 

-?c JQMB to«i»if* ttr^o * ,*aitHW(rtt»«J ft««ffinw a iroqw A»6n««l •! iilJUt* 

JtvsMlta fla »/«« iXaiis iafeA*X<c ©xtl 8«aX«itf a^ilta»Xq »jW oiT BsirfaAJl* 

' ,miti 03 aX«(£8«»ooa jToa tJt 9awiiifii»itl dov taA$ »i»jil BAi^^A'^* 

^£?>'9#a^a «slaoo9 Ma Klalq: a isiafnoa fon «««& tfriaX<i»oo-«8<rxa 

t^a:g8XXa Xjn9n«|l aifif a^Iaat tXrs«>« tfucf SRlASqmeo a*n:afita»Xq 

.a#l#<rx&tt 9dj» 10 ^9aa to t^lXlcfaiX aifiT •i!iat«^»J& XXlw unltntieeM 

arf^ £ifA * ntti«i tttmni aaw JBXeIc?«©©-»««wo ^itt a#o»<i«*'? tsiWo tftJM 

•Jbamrtitta 9X #1 &i»a t9qenii lAV aitiiia o^ noX^Ott 



41234 



ELIZABETH Slj|lC8£Ra, miofimmaer ^ 

Tru*te<! to #karle« A. Jte«pke, t 

and SEORGK f, SlT^WARI^ | 

i £ Appellee •,& 



CLAajENCE Di MATTE-SCir, umtB te. 
macs:, LOUXI H. MAC4 AnC^^CAtiiEHlifE 
KACK. I If. 

I 9 i - A|)p«ll«JBl 



APPEAL /mOM J 




.f -i 



*/^*A\A o u 



MR, JU3|IC£ MeSUHELT DEUVEHO «^E OPIBIOS Or THE COUSf . 

Defendants appeal from a foreeloeure decree and orders of 
court denying motlone to vacate the decree; the record purports to 
■how that tlm decree was entered by stipulation of the partlee. De- 
fendante attack the decree In this courts arguing that a consent decree 
Is not strictly a Judicial decree; that a decree by consent without 
any evidence le always error; that no proof was taiien and the stlpu- 
latlon upon vhleh the decree vae entered nuet appear fully In the deorte 
Itself, 

Plaintiffs filed a coaplalnt to foreclose a mortgage a&de by 
Clarence 0. Hattcson to secur« hie five promissory notes of ii4000 
each; answers of the various defendants were filed; there was ap- 
parently discussion between the parties and June 22, 1939, they ap- 
peered before Judge Fisher of the Circuit court, where In an extended 
ooUoquy between the court and counsel representing all of the parties, 
the court dictated In substance the following: That It was stipu- 
lated between the parties that the eourt should enter a decree of 
•ale In both eases Cthe other oase Is Mulllns. ct a ;)L v, 9edinan. et 
al.. Ho. 41226, Opinion filed this day} eoae tlae In October, but If 
before ttie sale the partlee should settle their differences the court 
would modify the decree In any form that the partlee might stipulate; 
that If, befoxoe October 1, defendant Maok should deposit In Mull Ins v. 
9ea«an . #4000 and in the present case a deed to the property Involved, 
and should plaintiffs refuse to accept this, a motion to yaoate the 
Aeeree would be allowed as a matter of course, the partlee then 



rtitasAiiji 



e bam 






P^c>#A,TTO 



7W »»V V ^. .i ■■-ikf 



SftiyMlt9t» £iA ei 131%%:^ «t«u»« tiJf«*a9 4«C> "N^ 'XMlllll tiftirli «rxot«tf Jl^vMHHl 

,seX;r°xjM[ ^^ ^® "t^^ Sif<id^ii»»«iic;«% I««ftif«« Jwift ^«itM»* •iff otmtW xvjM»i:XiMi 

"^i^rs ««ii« 9X <r»fCT ;3favQX£ftt Mit oaw«if»di«i ai i^«^A^»ib #'s««« art! 

t« »«^o«« « %e9A* dlu«tf{» t^Mo* pdtf #«tftf tBltVAq «it #»«wfwl AatfAX 

y^.imffM .▼ M 1^ mum a^ ••*« «**»• «w»i ••«»• «<*•* «'^ •-'^ 

tl S0i .•iWotfeO «it wAt M«t tt** *iJSt h^in a^icUti^ ««aSU .o» «.^ 

^•xii«9 wie »«en<»%9m& 7l«df •J[t;r«» J»Xtf«A •«i#'%«q «uf;r «£«» 9>itf tnottttf 

Jiilvqif ta^tm ••tt%mq tdt tmOi wxsl xtiA at ••^s«ft lit fli*e« Aliraw 

V loyal %t*t9qo%.q. Mff otf &««A « mao iftMrxq wft ni bmm 00014 .fUMdNit 

Mf» A^AtfAT o$ aettvm m ,tl/U }q«ooA o^ MUlrc alliltalAXq J^lifAifi itaA 

ttndS •ulttAq, •df .Aaatfoo to t^timn a aa AavoXXa atf blaem AttAAft 



-2- 

•tAndlng before ftie eourt la the s&aie position as they tlwn stood, 
with the right to hftve « full Attd eonplete heftring but should Mr. Haek 
fall to aake the deposit of 14000 and the deed, th« tsotlon to Taectte 
the deeree will be overruled and the deoree will follow in the 
oz^lnary and ueual way. 

Mr. £in»ex>maa, acting for plaintiffs, stated that this was 
agreeable to hie clients. Mr. Haek( who was acting for the defendants 
and himself, was asked whe^er the parties present had all of the 
authority necessary "to enter Into the stipulation to be binding on 
all parties in interest,** to i^ieh Mr. Mack replied, "Absolutely." 
The parties also agreed as to the length of tiae for the proposed 
settlement and, to the question whether October 1 should be the Halt, 
Mr, Mack replied In the affirmative. Mr. Sternberg, whom the record 
desoribes ae attorney for defendants, also acquiesced in this agree- 
aent. The court auggested that written copies of the aex^enent be 
given to each of the parties and the attorneys expressed the opinion 
tSiat it would not be necessary to have the respective signatures of 
the parties to the agreeiMnt. 

Pursuant to this stipulation a deoree was filed June 24, 
which recites it was entered "pursuant to a certain stipulation" 
between the parties, all of whom appeared in open court by their 
respective attorneys, tefendant Mack appearing pro , ae . The deoree 
also recites that the court was ''acting pureuant to the stipulation 
entered into between all parties, after due notice to all parties 
entitled thereto, including all of the parties to the action and 
their attorneys heretofore specified herein. " Def«»ndants aade 
K>tions to vacate the decree, which the stipulation indicates were to 
be Bade so that the eourt would retain Jurisdiction. 

The necessary funds and the deed which the stipulation 
provided should be deposited by October 1, 1939, were not deposited 
and additional tiae for this purpose was granted. Deoeaber lb, 1939, 
the eourt entered an oz'der overruling the notions of defendants to 
vacate the decree. This order refers to the stipulation entered into 



.\«ir JLiifliar !«« t«uifliftito 
«»iVftft««ll»ft ttltf ncol ^JtlM «jnr ilfw «:]to.^ .i»M«»iX9 Riif of •MmrnvtiiB 

■ .YX«t»X©»^>* ,5»ilq«n iM» ."rit iteliftf o* • ,t««w«#«l m ■•ii«s«q IXa 

' 9*9^9nq 'mH ito^ iMJt^ 1« dtlfi»X «(f^ of «a A*«iY9« 09£m 99lttaq MuSt 

■ i^ii mii 9«r fiXtfOd* X t«itfot8d t«^Mfkr iroitt»tfp «d# oct ,&/But >iifts«X^#»t 

-•«4^fl tid9 <ii t5ttt»»f»X(rp«« o«X« «ii#iiaftff*t«& toy \9a\Gttm •« ••clXto««A 

to ftsniftAfiaio evi.is9q«»t wU s^atf At X«tMii»9«fl »tf ton ftXno^* ;ri *«J(# 

,tnw»9*¥t9,ik ««fir ot t^itiaq nit 

'irci - -. .J» (iij«9i»o » 9i taMttm-xtn^ &4»ft»tff« a«ir tt ti9ti9tn dotttti 

limit %d ftuo9 amtfo nt bfn»»m» «o<<v to XX* ,a«lMAq oitr fi«««rtMr 

9<ne«& *flT ,«ft yxq ^nl<ta«-^<$« tamit ftuAnt^tilt «atMne9^« 9vXtf9«<2Krz 

■^^lft9q ilM oS <f>»X;refi »irl> •«»^t^ «a9l#^j»q XX« noowtsd o*«l &*nt»9Rft 

feaa fl«lir©ia !«»«» ©t 99l9tsiq 90$ t© XX* snlfiirXoal ,6^»79cf;f ftii/;ri:rfl9 

ftfWui a9^er*e>ii«t«C *> ,aJt9H9A 6»itl9ftq« v^etoTc^Ai! ttKiiottiK tXo(fir 

,ti9JtSGrtb9tiu\ nl&fnt btuav ^troo 9tiS t&Af 99 •&•» atf 

tt9it»litqt99 9Sit A9tA^ fi99h »At Sua aAfitft Y'ts«»»o«ii Mff 

6o*l»oqsi> toit »i«v ,ec«X ,X ^stfotoO ttf fe«»#l«Ofl[»l> OCT fiXtrorfa Afodlrofca 

,1 ,ex t9«ftB«09<2 .l^»tii4nta <K«^ Mo^xrq siriJT xot «Mi9^ X*flOiiriJM»« *«• 

<»» s^iMJbflottft to anoX^cin Oiff ^iiXXmisvo t«Mo ni» ftrzstfl* fiifoo »xfir 

tfsl J!r9ir«fn(» efliX7AXu.iX9« ac{f 5» ■•xstft'x •s»5iio •X/IT .»vxoflilk aiit •r*e«T 



•3- 

iB open court on June SS, 1939, by a11 p*rti«i to thle oauai« by tnhelr 
r«cpeotlve duly authorized counsel, Including defondaat MAOk. fb« 
ord«r referred to and recited the OAln provisione of the stipulation. 

January 12, 1940, defendants nade another notion to vacate 
the decree, Mr. Mack then stating for the first tine that if he had 
Hndentood the clear legal effect of the stipulation be would not have 
been a party to it. the court ruled that the parties were held by 
the terms of the stipulation and denied the notion. 

^"* *»yitnan ▼. Hhodee , 334 111. 137, 143, it was sought to 
set aside a decree which the record showed was entered by agreeoMnt of 
the parties. The court held that a decree so entered by consent can 
not be reviewed by «^peal or writ of enwr, citing Paine ▼, Poughty . 
261 111. 396, and Gal way ▼. Oalway . 231 111. S17, It can only )»» set 
aside by an original bill in the nature of a bill of review. Hohenadel 
V, Steele , £3? 111. 229, and Hungarian Benevolent Soc iety v. Aid 
a<)oiety . 883 111. 99. 

It is not neoeHMu*y that the decree recite the stipulation. 
If the stipulation appears in the record no recitals in the decree 
are necessary. Crow v, Harrison . 248 111. 462, 466. In »ohulftr v. 
Hoitan . 166 111. 369, 383, it was held tdiere a decree recites that it 
is by consent It will be presuned that It is upon sufficient evidence. 
Moreover no special findings are now required. ( §64 Practice act, 
oh. 110, 111. Bev. Stats. 1939.) 

Cases oited by defendants are not controlling. Patterson 
V, Northern Trust Co . .236 111. 601, nerely holds that a decree must 
show it ic a consent decree but it does not hold that the stipulation 
must be incorporated in the decree. Krieger v. Kriefser . 221 111. 479, 
holds that a decree not showing any consent can be shown by other 
evidence to be pursuant to a stipulation. 

Pefendants say a consent decree is nothing but a contract 
and therefore govex*ned by the law of contracts, but the case they 
cite in support says, *h consent decree partakes of the nature of 



wff .ifwW t««ft«*l«fc ^filftif^CMit ,I»«ii«»» A«al*t«i(» lai x^«* •▼l#o»q?i*« 
9jxs9«v &i netftaa %m&wi$i nittm «*ft«^it«1»t> ,0*<?I ,81 TUMMMt 

rrw fia: , m .1X1 ISS . yiatf^ .v mirLiO fta» ,WR ,XXI XB« 

M^ ■■ 'i^J'-'S'k ,/2 -igyg Biw ,«8K .XXI ^»S .t>Xt»»^> .tr 

.«« .XXI eas ,i2il22B 

•▼ ^aXtKCeg rtl .aw ,W» ,iXI »*« «SSi£!Salf •* ISE^ .f^»ii«»^«« tnA 

,tf j-'(^.t *«^i©»i 9»^o«6 B »^«ij«v' fef«d »aw #1 ,S«f. »<8d45 .XXI »X ^ aatHttR 

i^m;M^m9m^ ,*#« .trr ..^jf ,»•!» 
,,j,iu ; AO'tlftoo Jot: .-^ ... j';:*6'a»t«& V' *»tl9 »»««;'-'' 

lo »no.f *!yn fliitf ^0 9i9iieii^x«(7 a«fTtd«ft *il*SoOo A* ,tx«9 *1«v:?:qtf« «l «rt^Xo 



-4- 

tooth A oontrRCt and » d»or««« ■ Aaerlcmn tax Prednott C9 ,, v. Bjj^aney 
Smith d Co .. 238 111. App, 181, 158, 

Oth«r suggestions a&ds hj dsfsnAstnts &re without asrlt. Ilm 
Aser«« and the orders of the trial oeurt are affirasd. 

O'Connor, F.J., and Katebstt, J., eonour. 



,881 ,XaX .qttA ,XiI «5^ ^ 'S^JLHUKS. 



41825 



R. I. DAVIS, 8ttoee«der ^jr I^oaAll 

LEBOY A. iAFlH, &a #oee«sor ./ 

fru«t«e, ;^t ftl.* if j^ 

/ # App«ll«t«, 




▼. 



/ 



SSSNAN Mii ^I^S ¥. HACK 




/) CIRCUIT COUI 



i\ 



U^^' A^u«*F- > SOin.A. MO 



f. JUSTICE KoSURELY SF.LIVERKB THE OFIUIOH OP THE COUaT. 

D«feRd«atf hj this «i>r«al m6k. the r^revBttl of « d«er«* end 
various orders entered in a foreolofure proceeding; the ooisplaint to 
foreclose was filed Januair 8* 1937, hy H, I. Davis alleging that 
Charles Sedaan, one of the defendants, was indebted in the principal 
suis of 420,000 and executed four notes for 16000 each secured by a 
trust deed conveying real estate as security; that plaintiff was the 
legal holder of one of the promissory notes on which there was then 
due 11000 with interest. Answers were filed by defendants. 

Subsequently Logan L. Mullins, as reeeiver of Hunboldt Bond 
and Mortgage Cospany, was substituted for R. I. Pavis; also, an 
affidavit was filed stating that Cbarles A. Koepke, the trustee in 
the trust deed had died October 6, 1931, and Leroy A. Oarr as suceee* 
■or trustee was mbstituted in his stead. The decree sought to be 
reversed was entered ijecember 16, 1939, nearly thirteen years after 
the complaint was filed. 

In the Beantiae various phases of the litigation have been 
before the courts. Davis v, Setogn, 256 111, App, (abst. } 607, 
certiorari denied by the Supreme court; Chicago Title &■ Trust Co . v. 
Mack, 862 111. App, (abet.) 632, affirmed by the Supreme court In M7 
111. 430. 

The cause was referred to a master in chancery who took 
evidence and filed his report. From this point the oaee is in most 
reepeets a eompanion ease to aundberg. et al . v. Matteson. et a3^ . . 
Mo. 41224, in which an opinion has been filed by us this day. what 
we have said in that ease is applicable to the instant ease. 



■9 X^ 



OJ^^.ii. 



Jl h 



wff Mv lli*ai«Iq *»rtt \x9litJ9nn «« v^aiTp* Xa«i 9iilx«v«»o !>••& »•!«? 

' ■ ,.-.;. r-iv"^' ," . to^ ^»;ru?l*a<fii'- "^•^- <*,fsaJioft bum 

d4>u3 sa 'YiM^ .A xtnthl bait «Xeei td rrAtfefed j|^*lb ftatf ft9«ft taint 9d9 
«Mir <9t JfiB»«>» »eno«ft •ffT ,b»^9 - • - '^fttutltttfM taw ••taint loa 
L^tla rt»»^ R««t^ixit ^XiAtfl «^,«X »o.^ tW«»o«<1 ftrxatisa tav |>at^av»i[ 

.b«Xit aav tfiXaX<|W»d mt 

iii^ »>^ lijij >i«i.) Sii.jii* i J. ».nj» j.i' »-^ '^ ,'i"x«v #aX9naMi Mit al 

r^,..« /..:,.., ^ ..„.& ^x£i ggy ,ii«i^i*£ .▼ alrag .attaeo ailt aitolatf 

.* ' ^:yoo MB«^(iir8 9dt >etf A^wil^' *'"** <.t«<J«) .Q^r^ .'^'^"^ "^ftS ,Jto«K 

.08* .XXI 

. .^ ^laoflAJfo al 19 tain a et ft«Ttal«i aav ••«»• MfT 

«^^.„ ..^ aX 9aA« aflt falcq alMt novK ,tioq<n aiit AaXil bna aoaadbXYt 

. . Xa ta .weagttaM .v . X» ta ,aiatf&airfe at aaaa aomaqaea a ataaqiaai 

4U. ,t«ft aXJit ati Yrf AaXXl naatf »*ri nolalqo m il»tA0 al ,MISi» .el 

«9aap taataoi adt ot aXtfaolXqqff aX aaaa tadt al Maa 9fd mr 



-8- 

June 15, 1939, the ea»« ODine on for argunMsnt on the maeter's 
report, vhleh w&« fsvoral>l« to pl&lntiffa, and objsotlont. the oourt 
Indicated that he voald oTorrule all the objjeetiona and exeeptions. 

June 2f, 1939, the following occurred, as In the i^undberg 
eaee referred to. The court stated that It le stipulated between the 
parties herein as follows: "That the oourt enter decrees of sale in 
both eases" (referring to >iullins. Pt &1 . v, "Redman, et al . and 
Sundberg« et , al . ▼. MattesoOs at aU . settlnf the date of sale sosetiae 
after the reopening of court in the Septeaber term. It was then 
■uggested to laalce the date October 1, which was agreed to. The oourt 
also stated that a motion to vacate should be entered in each case and 
that if before the date of sale the parties should settle their dif- 
ferences the court would aodify the decree as the parties night 
stipulate. It was also agreed that should the plaintiffs refuse to 
accept a deposit of 44000 by Kr. M&ok before October 1, and a deed to 
the property involved in the trundberg case in full settleaent of the 
indebtedness involved in the two oases, the aotione to vacate would be 
allowed. Should Mr. Kaek fail to aake this deposit and deed, the 
aotion to vacate the decrees will be overruled. In answer to an In- 
quizMT by plaintiffs' attorney as to whether there was present all the 
authority necessary to enter into the stipulation so as to be binding 
en all parties in both oases, Mr, Mack replied •Absolutely," This 
was also acquiesced in by Mr. Sternberg, described as attorney for 
defendants. 

The decree, which was entered June SS, 1939, recites that it 
was entered pursuant to the stipulation between the parties in the in- 
stant ease, naming them, "all of whom have appeared in open court by 
their respective attorneys, * and Louis w. Mack, who appeared pro se : 
that after hearing artKuaMnts on the objections to the master's report 
the oourt overruled the same and approved the report. The rest of the 
deoree is in the usual fora* 

Mr. Mack failed to stake the deposits with the court as 
provided for in the stipulation, and December 15, 1939, the oourt en- 



-fc- 

-1X1) '^tmit aX»;«» Aiooht a«Xt^t«q ttf^ via* t« •«*» ft4^ m€>t«d tX #«£l^ 

»!$} Ic ;fji«a«l9jr«ft XXut nX «««d JwifrffffnfT fidt nX J^sviovni ^i9«|flni«i Ml^ 
»€r Mvnw ii<f«ojBPr e^ ^oo^Xfon wH «ftMUia <Mt •ctir «i hv9l0v»J •a»fift«^tf«JtoX 

~fll GA o«r tvki^fts Ai .JisXvTXwe 94 XXiw ii#«rs»»ft «flt 9^AO»v out tmtt om 
iiftit Sl» Sa99c>m, »fi» tn^af ruOmiv «t »« xmrrti^^ Stti}ffX«Xq v^ ^iXup 

«ij|t «■ ,x^»iul9mtiA* Imllfivs MaH .t^ «««»«a itf«d ftX a«XJhMUt XXn ao 

•fiX •££;} fiX ««>X4<Ksq «[ri< «ttffv^9<X iidX^«XtfqX7a i^ o^ tOAtfamuq Artttfe* sow 
\^ &^ h&tAttqqjB. 9ii^ ,:tfoaM ,i^ ntaoJ. htm * «at«>ffn«<^tJi •vX9o»iit*il -nXftx!? 

^iin9l lAV9tf ««tr nX »X •«iva9& 
•>n» ^i»e9 •il2 «Ci$<SX «di %9^m»»9& bOA ^ti«ii3»lu<iif% 9A^ »i 'xot baJ&Xvo^g 



-5- 

t«reA an ord«r overruling dftfendiintft' motlost to TAeAtA tb« deer«« aad 
in th« order reoited tbat *the for«ji[olng reeital of events free luid 
Including June Z2, 1932, to and ineludlng the date* of this order i« 
true and correet and le her«by adopted ae the findings of thie eourt. ** 
The oirder furth««r reel tea that the denial of l^e motion to vacate "vas 
pursuant to the aforesaid stipulation." It is estatolislied heyond 
dispute that the decree of foreclosure entered June 2S, 1339, was 
entered with the consent of all the defendants, 

i>efendant8 question the right of Mis« R. I. P&via to ooiimenee 
the foreclosure, hut she testified that she held the note, Ho. 3, for 
the benefit of Humboldt t^tate Bank. The execution of the note and 
morte*e9 and the default ver« admitted by defendant Sedaan. the trust 
deed authorized the institution of the foreclosure suit by taae legal 
holder of the note, and Charles A. Koepke trustee. Joined &e co- 
plaintiff. Kazvinas v. Wright . 286 111, App. 554, 559, 

IHne brief of defendants contains a lengthy stateuent of 
certain transactions involving the Louisville Fuel Co. , the Keystone 
Trust & Savings Bank and other parties. Hone of these transactions 
Is gerwane to the sole decisive question presented, namely, Was the 
decree entered pursuant to a binding stipulation of the parties? The 
reoord clearly ehows that this was so. In Bgndberf^y <st al . v, 
Matteson. et al .. No, 41284, in an opinion filed this day, wb have 
held that thie stipulation vas binding and the decree entered was 
val id, 

«here a dteez^e recites that it is entered pursuant to a 
stipulation it will be presused that such ooneent was given. Sohuler 
V. Hog^n . 168 111. 369, 983, It has been held that a decree entered 
by oonsient cannot be reviewed by appeal or *^rit of error, Bergatan v, 
Hhodf s . 334 111. 137# 143, It is not neoeseary that the decree recite 
the stipulation if it appears in the reoord, Crov v, Harrison . 248 
111, 462, 466, 

»e have repeatedly said, quoting from "toll v. Oottlieb . 306 
0.8, 160, 172, *lt is Just as important that there should be a place 



^X IS- .- ,., „ _ 3»fif! 9di Tisxibuleiii toM ot ,«WI ,S9f mb^ SniJ^tflsni 

-^ ,lt«i 61*iM<}l« aiU o^ tUMimioq, 

• ° ' '• tti Sawtaoo (Mil /lif/'.- hA^-^^no 

-«» «ji £>»Aiot ,^9*«i*ri -tiMfO 6nji ,«»Jo« M& to liiAIoif 

,e^^ ,^^^ .qviA .III d8S . Jxlali'^^ .V eam;s£}I atl^«Jt*Iq 

Ic Ja»85!5;r •- "^^'•- iflA^nttt* to tsl-id ^xfi" 

a^'"^*»t' Iiv»2ii© itrXoroi aaolJoAsftJwtJ Al«t<x«s 

nriOi;roA««jtt<sl #»»/: uS*o Aha Maa^i asAivA^t A tairxT 

»«W ... ^*n9«rxq notSn ■ >e »j«? oJ ^njtanAjt aJ. 

«tfT t«i»Xt^i. i?AX«q/ ^«ini-lliq Ao^»^«o 98<i9*fi 

•^ 'i^JL <^ i»^ iliaolo Moon 

" lit floXniqi ,*Sai* ,ov? .. Xji »o .noaojryi^H 

<«^9«-na f»9toftl> «c{^ l>a« s^tbat^i ^p.^ ««itAlifqita ciiU ^«jilt MMi 

3«»vir ;rn99aoo d^ovw tmt hmismmtiii ocf Xliv tfi aoi^«Xiiqi^« 
u^-i^iu^ es'iw*;* A *j»it;r hi*A ffOft^f - ,r,ft5 ,€dC .XXI 88X ,£_ 

.V rt^^j.it'xoi •'xomo lo ^iTw ic Xa»q<ii* \4 hsneBlvi »d jroitaAo ^nosnoo frt^ 

/-^- .i;xi. 



to ^nd fts that th«r« should h« a place to hagln lltlg&tlon. '* 

For the reasons above ct&ted and alao etatcd in Sundber^ . 
et &1 . V. Matteson. et al . , No, 412P.4, the decree and ordere c^pealed 
from are affirmed. 

©•Connor, P.J., and Matehett, J,, conctuf. 



♦j3!A2Sli . av^odfft HaonA**i •di 10'°. 




APFEAL,#ll©liJ 

»|f?fTCI#i| COURT, 
GmC&HQ, 




41177 

UALfm E. 
A Corporat 



JOBAHUA 



KR. JTJSTICE MATCHKTT DELIVERED THE OPIHIOK or Tiff: COURT. 

This eult MLS begun August 15, 1957, by & eotife salon of 
Judgment Ki&loh plaintiff caused to be set aside on its own notion on 
October 6. Thereafter plaintiff filed an aaended statement of olaia 
and defendant an affidavit of merits vlth denaad for Jury, tendering 
the fee, and the cause was placed on the Jury calendar. 

Septeaber X9, 1939, the ease case on for trial in the 
absence of defendant and her attorney. Judgnent for $391.30 vas en- 
tered on the finding of the court. September 22, defendant moved to 
vacate the Judgnent. The action was supported by an affidavit of 
attorney for defendant, showing that he was aisled as to the tine the 
ease was to be tried and also facts «hieh it is elaisMd showed a 
defense upon the nerits. when the notion cane up for hearing on 
Movenber 13, 1939, the parties entered into a verbal stipulation that 
the hearing should be "solely upon the pleadings and exhibits, for an 
adjudication upon the validity and sufficiency of plaintiff's olala 
as set forth in said Aaended Btatenent of Claim and upon the validity 
and sufficiency of defendant's defense as set forth in her said 
Defense, said affidavit and exhibits, in the sane nanner and to every 
extent and purpose as if no Judgnent had been obtained ex parte &s 
afore ew id, " 

The pleadings were subnitted to the court with exhibits 
•onsisting of Kidiibit 1, a contract of conditional Rale to tdiieh the 
note at the tine of execution had been attached; ^exhibit Z, a pro- 
posal and guaranty for sale of a stoker which was the eon8ider«tion 
of the note; ai^ Exhibit 3, a copy of schedule of receivablen showing 
the assignment of the note and account to plaintiff. Upon considering 






VTH* 






U^S «^^*-i. « O.^Ci 



?MiIX»9qA 



^ I .HXTlMjp ASSiUlOV 



ao aolSota mro <^#1 no i»J&liii» ■:'-■' l o ii}fii«Xq ifslaw rnec^iM/t 

^ttiU>r, * r-t'i lol ftflAS«£) ^ti? •SJfimi lo 91v»MtlA ha irfi4i£ii»l»ft bam 

»d:} Hi X«ii9 rutt no »auid ••«« wfiT ,C<58X ,4)1 ii«4liMMr^<l 
-«• a«« 0S,Xes3 <Ko^ tjioftBAul .t«me)^«A ltd Mm imMtm^tttb \9 vftiimMr* 

to }lv«J&ltl« fiA xtf 6«HcKt4ini •«« noltfMt f«rr •i«*aal»irt •iti^ •jTasat 

f>9!«c;$9 j&4fiilsX« tl It li&iAi a^CMit esXjc Ada &*l<t9 •(! el saw mao 

no ^i«K^«»d itol qnu <mba» aoitom Ml;)' a««(W ,«fi^Mi tcft jioqv •«a9l»& 

7ii4^ noli^AXiiqij^s XA4ft«!»v a olni i^cn«lM) ••xl'iAq ttifir ,«S«X ,SX lAtfavfoil 

OA 107 ,«^i<ri^« iMui •sfijLftA«X<i wft neqir ti^oXoA" MT J^Xnorfa snlm^ff •iff 

&lal9 •*lll;rAiAX<i Ift xaaAloitlva i^iui xitbilMt tM uoqju nottM9ltu{JUi 

xiibllMr Am floqttf JBtiifi alAlD lo I'ttMMiTAtf^. &«&fi«sA JblAV ol jU^oI t»a ta 

Maa •29fi Ri illtol twm AA AaiiAtAA A^laAAiiAtAft lo XMitt-toitlini bum 

v,'x«'«vj» ot^ boa intmrnm AUAa Aiif nl «3^i<^iiixA ia* SirttbtVtM Maa «ABflA%Aa 

•J> »<fuM x ft J^AnlAltfA a*A^ &Ail f»mii§bol em \1 aa •Aoqr)Utf<l &■« fii9;rxA 

" .Maia^oIa 

«il;r filAlifir at sIab XAitoill&tfiOA lA tAAicfnoA a (X IMJUfxl le yii9«iAnoA 

-•tytVi A t^ tid^liflKS t5AfiBA;riA AAAtf AaiI fioi}iro«x9 to •Ail »A$ t» AfOfl 

j;0Xd'A^9&2e£;00 Od:t »»Y doXriw 'XA:tfOtA a Iq AlAt tot Y^fiAtAtfl AAA JjMAq 
aAlwOlitt a«XcfaTX909r{ to AXjfdttJlfMl lO \CIOA A ,S iTltfliXxI JbfIA (AtMl odlT tA 

;|RiiAM8flOo floqU .ItXlnlAXq oS lanoooA JtoA otoM wit to ;raAitaaXAaA Atff 



1\ 



th« pleadings and thesa exblblte, tha court found that th« prealsfory 
aota detached from th« conditional sales eontraet waa a negotiable 
Inetranent; that thtt conditions of the oondltlonel sales oontrttct and 
proposal and guaranty of which the promissory note was a part did not 
affeot the n<^fot lability of the note, whleh In the hands of a third 
party vaa not subject to any defense arising from the contract, nor 
from the proposal and guaranty; that Exhibit S (the schedule of 
receivables under whleh plaintiff received and held the promlesory 
note) did not affect the negotiability of the note nor the position of 
plaintiff as a holder for value krlthout notice; that defendant vas 
without recourse as against plaintiff and the rights for plaintiff 
for z^eovery upon the note absolute. The court, therefore, found as 
a Batter of lav that the defense Interposed to the stateoent of 
elala vaa Insufficient In lav and sustained the Judgment for ?3@1.30 
previously entex^d. From this Judipsent defendant appeals. 

The matter was eubsiitted upon the pleadings and the ex- 
hibits. The court found, as a matter of law, that the defense vas In- 
sufficient and sustained the Judgment as entered. The pleadings of 
the defendant (and they vere verified) all asserted that plaintiff, as 
a matter of fact, had notice of the defenses to the note. The plead- 
ings of defendant shov that the oonnlderatlon for the execution oftbe 
note vas a stoker, and ^at It vas entirely vorthlees. Assuming 
these things to be true and that plaintiff purchased vlth knovledge, 
plaintiff vas not entitled to recover as a matter of lav. If plain- 
tiff took the note vlth notice as defendant alleged, he vas not a 
holder In due course. Section 52, ch. 98, 111. Rev. Stat*. 19S9, 

For the error In holding as a matter of lav under the plead- 
ings and exhibits that defendant vas liable, the Judgment vlll be 
reversed and the cause remanded for another trial, 

REVKRSeC AMS REMAM DSP . 
@*(!oanor, P,J., and Mo Surely, J., concur. 



,'xGii»le:e-iq adS 3tnii bAU9\ ^'ttfCMl ^di «»tldliti« •••AS knm aytlAatlq: •Mt 

9JUIUli&n9fi » 9M^ f9A1ltB99 ••lm» Utt9t9ttimi9 nAS BO«ll lMidCi9*#*B •$9a 

Sis &»i«oi ,^iie1:«<S&dt ,tiv«« •Iff .•;^tfXo»tf« •»«(( MfT i«Kt; Tt»v«(»«^ '(•t 

to jrn<u4»djit«$ «e£tf •* thtnt^tft^tit ««ft9't»A Mii fa^ v«X )o lo^f^Mi « 

gg r«r .. ^ 4.^1^ ^j fr^niB^aira hrt» wj»X nt 9n«X»lttiniBi asw «Xa£» 

-* • w^ -. jfil^tt^Xq nnU MO^ »«rtl<atflr» aav n^TtMi «£? 

/>i »«Hr> 4l«rs$'=';>>^ 9{{t fjMfy «;f*l to it«ll«a a •» tbniH^ ttu»» •it ,%tl4lA 

"to ^^i&«,3Xq «ff .&CK«tR9 aa tttfrn^vi •M 69fil«9«ini £ita tft«XaitlM 

«4 ,l%ftftilieXt{ >»^ i«tYa««« XIs {h^nt^m VfM \9tA9 hna) fnmhH^9% W^ 

-hRifi^ «if? .j^oft •>i>ie9' til t«aa9it»I> «iir le aolVoo h^A ^^^mX \m Hm^ttM a 

l^l»£{9!»A .^nf^I^l^aov t^*%-2^ff« **^ ^^ iiU^ bttn ^t»3i€>S9 » »Mr a^M 
^<9:«i&«r»fOjRi tf:iri\# ^•axxfo'ctr^ ltl?fll«Xq YfiiiLr &fta t»(rr» «(f (»t »aiil^ •aaidtt 
~«X^Xij tl ,ira,X 1© •«»»»«« A a* •xwro#*i «# baXtiSTiia *oif aav ttifnlAl^ 

•^&>7X ,itMf& ,n^ .XXX «09 .lia «tS nelfoa? .aatiroo atwd fft nt«JIXoif 
-:>£'» Iq »^ «x»6mi visX to i9ttmm • a« yxX^Xod «i «i«ma •lU td^^ 

•t! XXIw iomf^Siul ^AS «aXtfaiX «j»v #fiAiWM)aft MmOf •9l^t^» bOM tUfU 



41188 I 



^pp«llee. 



INSFI^TIOH r'i|i(^Rg/lKC., a 




AVrSAt. fBOK / 



CI7A|/C0pT 



Corporation aM &F.€^&L PORD, / ) / OF JHICi 
I ' ii^pftll&tttii. "■ ) 



#ft. JUSTICE MATCHKfT DELIVERSI) THE a?IKI(jg OK fRp "f^JO^. €^ A t ^ 

&ef«ndant appoale from a Jttdgsent In th« ana of #1526.60, 
entered against bin jointly vlth the Inspiration Plaeare, Inc., a 
corporation, on the finding of the court. Plaintiff hae filed a oroRe<» 
appeal ax^guing that hie total elain of 12118. (K) should have been 
allo^red and asking thi« court to enter Judgment for that amount in his 
favor. 

Plaintiff* e elain was for services said to have been rendered 
by hia for the corporation from Kay 21, 1937, to March 15, 1939, and 
142 for petty eaeh said to have been advanoed for the corporation at 
its request. 

The defendant corporation had a gold mine located at Bowie, 
Arizona, and plaintiff vent there to act as superintendent of it. 
Plaintiff had been theretofore eaployed by Ford in his Chicago business, 
and Ford admits that in a letter written by him to plaintiff on Deeember 
11, 1Q37, in order to induce plaintiff to continue in the service of 
the corporation, he guaranteed sums then and thereafter to beooae due 
to plaintiff for his services. The defense interposed was that Ford 
In later letters (one of January ^, 195S, which is defendant's Exhibit 
7 and another of May 16, 19S8, which is defendant's Exhibit 8) revoked 
and cancelled this guaranty. 

The evidence as to the amount due from the corporation to 
plaintiff li conflicting. There was evidence tending to show that in 
the month of September, Id.'iliB, plaintiff was notified and accepted a 
cut in hie salary (which th«>retofore was $250 per month) to #1^, There 
was also evidence tending to show hie employment ended on January 15, 



88XI> 



,y 



X:ts;E:i voe. 



. , n: l'r:^t^n7.Vi/, 3D it: 



loitjwiqsni Wit dityr xittttol aid tsRlA^A ftOT*»*i!« 
R9AQr ararf ftXiMMic ' le nlste tAf<i9 ftitt fmdf sAitonui X«»iq» 

b/ta . t ritriiiM ef^fn^l ,f<^ t*1'? WW'* rtOlfBirKfi©* •UJ 'ioi ki.i icti 

vi ,;- >,w :,x -wi,i-. ..* . iJf Vtliaimtq •oeJbAl »t t^JHo «i ,T»5eX 4XX 

Melt j«ri* kW ft«iio<ri«*«^ ar«*'v^?, *,<f ,!i»olvni»» tlrf "*ot Vli#ini«X<t o* 
•<fiifat*^ 8*Jfl*&«9t«& «1 rfoXii.. , -- , . ri>*un^.z -5© uno) M»tt«X n^t»t mi 

A ib»*qw»oj» A«ii A«Xtt^o« ■«* 1:tXtrfX«X«i »8l5eX ,t*rfB!»lq»8 to xl^noff til* 



-2- 

1939, lnet««d of March IS, 1939, as ol&im«a» The trial judg« s&v the 
wltn«88«e. We cannot say his finding as to the amount due plaintiff 
Is against the manifest preponderance of the evidence. ?or that 
reason ve auiy not enter a Judgaent here for the larger sun plaintiff 

ftKkS. 

for the sa»e rsaaen we think, the Judfpetent against Ford may 
not he reversed. It Is true, as Ford contends, that hie guaranty was 
In Its nature a continuing guaranty which could be revoXed at any tine 
on notice. American aod English Inoy. of Law, vol. 14, 8nd ed. , 
p. IISO; Maaerow v, Hat*l Lead Oo . . 206 111, 626; R&pp v. Phoenix Ins . 
Co.. 113 111. 390; Coluahla araphophone Co . v. Nle rte arth . 201 111, App, 
397, Ford testified he wrote the letters revoking his guaranty, put 
then In staaped envelopes and stalled theis to plaintiff at Bowie, 
Arizona. Plaintiff Just as positively testified he never received 
these letters or either of them, ford admits Exhibit t4o, 3 of the 
letters offered In evidence Is only a oopy. Ford does not produce any 
definite reply by plaintiff to either letter, and In an extended cor- 
respondence which continued up to the time that plaintiff quit work 
there Is not a letter written by ford to plaintiff which would In- 
dicate the guaranty had been revoked. On the contrary, in many of 
these lettere Ford remitted money to plaintiff, and In one of thea 
told plaintiff he he needed aoney *to Jack me up" (meaning Ford), 

The trial Judge eald that the subsequent letters were In- 
cons If! tent with the theory the guaranty had been revoked, and we think 
so too. In the course of the trial evidence wae given by plaintiff's 
attozmey to the effect that the letter narked ?i:xhlbit No, 8 had never 
been in his popseeslon, although he said he might have seen It when 
plaintiff's deposition was taken. Defendant cites vrlght v, Buchanan . 
287 111. 463, to the point that evidence thus given will be closely 
scrutinised and is entitled to little weight, miat Is the law which 

we assume the trial court followed, w© find no reversible error in thi 
record, and the Judgisent will be affirmed, 

\ j\3mmMt ArriRMKD, 

O'^naor- *• -*-* MoSurely.J.. concur. 



;t^jf te'^ ,88iif!*)i>iv» 9rf» la •ftn««»tRO<rncr Y»»lZnMi Mir r»«Jbi9» ai 

l:ti^0liiX^ «m . 'iit tot »%ti iumt^u^ m i*#«i» t^m %*» *w iio«»»y 

> fS^ • .^ ^n^ii '■■■ ."■" 30S ., 0Q 6i><tJ iUaJi .V SCIKiall tO»il •< 

S»vi«3'^ <t9ir8ft wi i!9»iti;rs»f %l9irttlB9q tut #•#! ltl^ai«X4 «Miosl*tA 

^ojubo^q jrasf: atftot ... «i400 « ^Xuo «i wNiAl^Xir^ aX Aantal^ ai«^i^«X 

xQfi &9&n93x» a* ml bna. «i<»^f »! %md$l9 et l^iiTfii-AXq T<f t^qvn ^ttM^t^th 

'VOof ^ijtfp iclXjraXAX^ i&^ 0Biii mbf mf ^ JHMUiXtmM MpJUiw mtfbaoq»9% 

-at bSMo^ siQldHi tliiai^fi ot j^tat ttf a*!ftjt%v t04S»t » ton tl «rs»cfir 

^ ;;■-/<; r>i « ■^.'tjis^ jnoo »(fit ftp .&»a(«v«^ n«t^ fijid ^(UMMJrs <m*^ •^»»Xib 

i^o ««io ill btisk .1:li;|RX%X^ 9^ l«««a l>«t^Xaiaii Jbice'V ^itk^jTaX nwil^ 

.("^a' -Sir? l.T **!?;) "qft IMtf l«*t ft**" \:,MlMi d«&«iftR *^ m{ ttifnleXq AXot 

-4 ^;, ai»;ti9 }aiJRJNiJ»l«Q <,a'*.'>U»i 9S^ /u»X^X%««|#ft •*t'21;rrriAXq 

^X»«oXe $Kf IXiv s[fi»yX:il 9t«i> •on»l»Xv« 9iim $i3t0% wit oS ,da» .IXX 7€^ 

d«|jEfv wa£ Qd? ai ifj&iK - j»It#iX »« 6«tXtX9nft ai A«m i^*aXaX9«nie« 

wJ* «i lo-x^* •Xcfi»a*YiWi ofl Anlt « ? .ft«*eIXat »<ftt»«» XaXt^ trfr •«»■« «w 

..&cfi<xi:1^^s otf XXXtf atfms^ul mlt bnm ,Mo«Hn 
.OSHIil'VIA T«r«U(«<!ll^ 



4X108 ^^^, 



FiOPi^ OF m% 2Tti& ' 



cF 1U.180IB,/ M mmn to 

/ 1 I r^ ^ 

Oefend/nt jjn grToif, I >|\ ^ 

MuiixoiFAi. oomt 



ROBERT ALr&M, 




Of CHICAGO. 



Flftlntif f in Error, ) QA*^TA r-fc^-*"^ 



07I.A.241 

MH. FRKSiaiHO JUSIiOK HEBEL OELIVaHiiD TH« OFlJilOli OF THS OOURf, 
This on.sB wss Consolidated by leave of Court for tli« 
purpose of a hearing with thr«« other esses in t»hieh writs of 
error had b«en Issued to the .yiunielpa,! Court of Chioago. All of 
the oaees »er« heard on the '%B.am evidenoe %nA in th« s'*me pro- 
oeeding in %h9 Uunioipsl ^ourt. The brief «ind abstract of record 
la this case is being aonsi.i<°>red \3iy this court as the brief and 
ebstraot of reoord in each of the other oases. The ooneolidi^ted 
BUAbers in this court are fios* 41103, 41108, 41109 nnd 41110, In 
esse Mo. 41103, sntiiled ieople v. Thom^is iiurphy, the defendant, 
Thomne Murpby, hf»ving died since the appeal ♦'js ti^ken, an order 
has heretofore been entered by this court, on action of attorneys 
for Thoa*»8 &hirphy suggesting his death, abating the writ of error, 

the for« of fiction is n criainsl prosecution by the 
people of the State of Uilnois, plaintiff, ▼, nobcrt Allen, 
defendant, in the Municipal Court of Ohlci^go, upon sn inforawtion 
filed. The defendent was eh«r{£«d la the information thnt he "did 
then nnd there unlawfully and ??ilfully keep n room on the premises 
located at 34 So. Halsted St., in the City of OhiOf>go, County of 
Cook, state of Illinois, for the purpose of recording r»nd registering 
bote and wagers on the speed of s beast, to-wit; « horse in 
▼iolation of Paragraph 336, Chapter 38, Mith-Hurds' Illinois 
HOTised Statute 1931, *■ The defendant w«« arraigned nnd entered a 
plea of not guilty, and h, trial wse had by a Jury, which Jtiry m<^dB 
* finding of guilty in manner and for« as charged in the InforMation. 
A Judgseat was entered by the court on the yferdiet adjudging the 
defendant guilty of the criminal offense in the language of the 



•oxx^ 



Ih^ .A.l ^08 






,x«m'i ai tii 



r« mmoar .v •XqeM bftXtituft ,eOiX» .oil •»«« 
T , d2ft ftmiiii i^^lfr aoilvjtd «f<i|«uM ■fnwf T 

•i^fe ftiif 90i#»»3giv« V^xm mmma.t vol 
<a? <u aviii^ fro «• »i ««l#o*i to mtQt fti< 

.'7 7 iiciointiM tilt Ai ^taotfloloft 
^:?£fo ««« #iUivto9tft& A(t¥ «fc«iXi1: 

. .._ .-..,. . .- i« *- ?.~ «.-- >^,. . .»-£.♦ T-.-i- ^ni^tttill %o ^ .* 



2 

oharg* oontaine^ in the iaforantion, »nd the dlef«n(iAnt wae 6ent«ao«ci 

to pay a fltM of i400» and ooets taxed at ^^SO; and the judgmant 

ooatalaed $t further order th^t the fixw he paid ia O'^sh or li^bor in 

the ilcatse of Oorreotloh until the fine and eosts were paid or worked 

out at the rate of $laSO per day for eaoh day's «ork or the defendant 

discharged according to law* ^n exeoutlon was ordered to Issue 

against the defendant for the fine nnd oosts and he -anti ordered 

ooosaitted to the Houae of Oorreotion of the Glty of Chicago. It w«9 

further ordered that an execution iasue ng»3inat the defendant for 

the anount of the fine and ooate and the mlttlisus i^^a «)t»yed fifteen 

days and the defendant given elxty daye to file a bill of exceptlone* 

The plendln^^s in the ease are th» Inforrs^tlon and the pl<^a of not 

guilty* 

The defendant urges ths»t the information attempting to 

oharge the 3ti»,tutory offense under " An .«ct to ^^ohlblt Book->tt$< Icing 

and Pool-MUlng* Approved ilsiy 31, 1887, L. It87, p, 95", and 

OBlttlng to allege the phrase "with any book, inetruraent, or device", 

charges no offense under the I'^ws of the Gt<ite of lilinois, and that 

the Judgment and oonvlotlon rendered upon eueh infornatlon In void 

for vant of Jurisdiction of the subject matter, and the Judgment 

should be reversed and the defendant discharged* In the case at 

bar it Is contended that the inforamtlon falls to charge Any crime 

known to the laws of the State of Illinois, and particularly to 

charge niqr crime under" An Mt to prohibit book-mftklng and pool* 

selling, approved Uay 31, 1887, L. 1887, p. 96" (.ih. 38, r.ec, 336, 

111. Rev« 8tat« 1933, Mnte Bar Assn. M.) upon which this prosecution 

Is based* The provisions of the stc^tute lnsof^;r as it is necessary 

to quote the language of the act provides "That arqr person who keeps 

aiV room, • • * with ai^jr book, instruawnt or device for the purpose 

of reoording or registering bets or ss-^gers, or of gelling pools, or 

any person who records or registers bets or ^sgers, or sells pools 

upon the result of any trl^l or contest of skill, speed or power 

of endurance of man or beast * • • shall be ixjinish»ible by imprisonment 



ia^h 




« 


al tsfO/X -icj ill 


•0 iij 




^iT9« Y« &im 


•IS* 


ad'oo 


T iwttas'J *fe »'' / 






ftiTKHi 






fc»T9t 






e <>" ' ' 












,Pw- 







^S9O0 i ' - •ell « xttq 4# 

(fir i^:.xo. i^4^«v): e t>9ai»ta99 

jr^a Oo«ii to •»«% tlf $M tif 

^* 'idt %ot ia»bm^l9^ 9(1$ tmnt»:im 
ToC 1« ••i/oiH •if# «# lntttlmmo9 

■'" '^'- sttoe boM Mtn •tf/ lo tauoae •dt 

tti9m^i »tit JbAA «7^tjr«o i««t(d[('c Hli %& aoifPl!tmltv\^ to #nii? tot 

> f»i?# <a «t«|i«^*«UI» ^i» •di btui b9s^*r9it mt biiwtltt 

fy^.'jr: «# sXijii «.)i3 ; n,jk tfds tntUt bmbantai^ mi. #i te^ 

t j" ^i^^AwoirtfiQ Jb«« ^^ioati^i Ito •*»#« Mljr to wmisL tutf et ctronji 

^#^-»sotq vl^t ff»i;5tr iw^tf (.M •0«eA Tsii siTs^ ^^fii ^trntS •▼vfi liXXl 

TntseatsoBif ti fi 9B i?tft««i a;ri»*K#« •ri* t© ttaoJtttivoics ft^T ♦JN»*jsd »i 

sqftsi ori« tte«n»« tn* #«lt*.»»fci^otq t»« »ii» to •gattsfl'^' ^ * ^t^mQ o* 

- ' ->fq ®ri^ tot r&^l^mb to *ai«iit*«rti %m«mwi t«« rf*^« »-o«t v*" 

... ^..Xooq »niii»» t© «* ,»t«?j(«i« to Bind aiiiT9*»Jt^»t to unilbtooitt to 

aXooq »ii«c to »at»3i»^ t© ni^d »r^t»l^9% v« e^aoot oif« floetw? fBft 

»»8oq to I>&»<|« «XilJi« to *B»*ffoo t« l«lti vy» to *Xi»«t oil* «•«« 

*n?>B'iUjfiitc«jt te* alcfKrfalftiiioi »^ Xlads * ♦ * #aeod to we^* 'to oooi^txifwo to 



s 

In the County J-?ll for « period not loiter thsn one (1) fe«sr, ot by 

fine not exoeeding #?,,000 or both. ProTlded, however, that the 

provisions of this Aot shall not a|>ply to the actual enclosure of 

fair or r%oe traok »8aooi?^tiona thtt are laoorpor- ted lender the 

Xaw« of this state, during the aetuml time of the meetings of sTiid 

aeaocif^tions, or within twenty-four hours before say suoh aaeetings*** 

The defendant •« theory ie thst the Information in the esse 

St bKr atteaipts to charge an offense under the i.et, but fnila to 

obarge » statutory crime because of the oalsgion fron the Inforaatloa 

of aa essential eieaent oontsined in statutory definition of the 

orioac, to-wlt; •**lth »ny book, instrument or device," It is further 

eontei»led th>ft, the inforrantion failing to charge «ny crime, the 

oourt had no ;]uri3diction of the subject isiitter, and hnvlng no 

jurlsdlotloo of the subject nstt«r, the Judgaent of conviction is 

void, and should be reversed and the defendant discharged* Defendant 

eites in support of this contention. People v. Sowrd. 370 111, liO, 

wherein the oourt said: 

"lio rule of Ikw is better settled than th^^t nn indictment 
or Information must charge ail ttie eieajents of the offense. As 
we id m People v, Sheldon, %22 m, 70: »An indictment or 
Information charging an offense defined by statute should be as 
descriptive of the offense ->s is the inaguage of the statute and 
should allege every substantial eleisent of the offense ^9 defined 
by tae statute.* The Inforss-ition here, r^it to that teat, does 
not charge the defendant »rlth any offense known to the law.W 

Oefe&dsnt suggests that the phrase ootltted from the inforaa- 
tlon In the case at heat was contained in the statute deflidhj^ the 
crime, and th^^t the oatlsslon of this iduraae rendered the inforisatloa 
void, because without it there «raa no oriiss charged. 

On the other hand, fro« the brief filed by the People, It 
is contended that the Inforisatlon is not fatally defective and void 
iMloauae of a failure to set forth the phrnse 'with any book. Instrument 
or device." it la fuorther contended that the Inforaintlon sufficiently 
charges n orlse, and that even If the information was defective In 
forn, defendant should have taken advantage of this before the trial. 



c 

J:'«*>|voT'? *rf#*tf T0 f'OC,*?v %nit»(lf9jc^ $aM •ail 
. "i-ri' ci^iff* ixutx>* 9it Qi xJ^rr- ^os iXurfa f«^ aiift to &ii«l«lv(m 

ttNF ,#c '^bfiji ••a«tte 841 •HTM!* 9t ui^tftm^ x»d iM 

aA Htu «TM»«n #M^du« tilt to aoitoib^ttigl oa bivl ft ltn 

iiwijnivtfoo " " ' t •dJf ^rnitttm tot^cfua •!!» to ooitoibalTirt 

»'- - ^-^'^ tdtf |bA« ]Mi«ii0v*i tt bluof' *" *bioT 

, ._..._■ y.^^ _^ .,»•.,,=. ^^vr, -jd^ to tTIOsifv,-., ..* .«»tiO 



I «<»»' ««7t S>0^«iiso •i^-iSi.. ^t t9Jii »#«ft^iM'* ^iiiftii«ite(i 

»i ms \Q DSIXt l«lt<f aift flN»tt ^liiuul T»l(#0 »l£t ilO- 
T*«0l «i(dO(f ta« rft^v" »ei«t<t<T •lit tftn^t t«« o* a«0li''^ « to «««0»«* 

'iiS^CTftiOlttSB i)Oi#«Stirotlli »U* ♦I'rf* 60l!ll»#l!O« «»<#«»t «i #1 ••••IV»t «0 
tti 9vttei^f>b 6fm Boit«rtot«i 9tft tl ««▼» #ptf# fc<t<8 ^MilV * ••8t«*0 



4 

In support of these oooteat lotus » the People olte 3ojB«ottyeg.lth v. 

lerry. 146 M'>8s» a03, 15 ei« E. 484* In ntoich it is sug^jested that the 

identioiil question now before this oourt was presented. In th.^t 

ense the oouplalnt ffilled to allege that the appAratue* books or 

other devices referred to, '»ere fitted or intended for the m»rpo«e 

of registering beta, and the court there r,siid; 

••It w«a not neoessft rjr to desoribe the aethod or manner 
of registering bets or selling p ols, or the partieul??r oontests 
ehioh were saade the subject of gaabllng, the dpfend^^nt -na 
sufficiently informed of the ohsrge aj^^tinat him, although the 
indictiaent did not go into Siinute detail." 

And ftirther, in Coa.t'onv^'^lth ▼• Qlancy. 154 Itnss* 128, 37 8, I, IDOl, 

the court held th^t e complaint iriiioh only t%ll8g"s the registering of 

bets is sufficient. In ieoole ▼. aesBaler. 345 111, 373, oelled to 

our attention, the Supreae Court in construing the statute prohibiting 

teook-fflfiking, said that the exception stating that the set shall not 

apply to the iiotuel enoloaures of fair or rsee-traek as^ioolAtiona 

lawfully Inoorporated end in oper<!tion need not be negatived in an 

inforamtion charging the offense, as the exception or proviso has to 

do only with oireuAstanoea under whioh the 90t itself does not apply 

sad hn« nothing to do with the description of the offense. 

Fiaintiff ?iirgues thst, whereas, the New Tork Courts in 
eoBAtruing its statute on book-aanking maiintaln that the exception must 
be pleaded in the infora-tion or else it is fstally defective »nd can 
be attaoked by a action in arrest of Judgment, and thst, therefore, 
the »0w York decisions cited by defendant in this action are not 
applicaole in Illinois under the interpretation of the statute in 
the case of People v. SeiSMler. aupra* 

Upon consideration of the question involved, we have iMfore 
us 38 suggested by defendaat two offenses; first, "that any person 
^o keeps any room, • • • with any book, instrument or device for the 
purpose of reoording or registering bets or ragers, or of selling 
pools, • • •• and second "or any person who records or registers bets 
09 wsgers, or sells pools upon the r&eiilt of eny trial or contest of 
sklU, speed or power of endurfsnce of mnn or be«3t • • *.» Defendant 



k 

'*iii »dil0«9t o» ^f - «.- in #Mi «j«a iH* 

- Qi 

Id 5ni??!t?ir:'»? ^f*,i ,. . ,u>qo tt iMi l}X»4 Hx/oo sdl 

:^ •^ JStifiStH *^ •^a»ioJt'tlii«» al a^Mf 

^.iJ-tjlftfl 9^ #<5« ft»»ffl nf>i.*<^9qQ at baa ttfismoqxofUil xllaHmg^l 

foe. »"«* ffoil^©f• ftin* Hi 3 <»«li »rfi^ 

■ . i-iia;?-rto« to X«i7t 'ipsss ^o tXirt*-? »dt ttoqu «ldo4 tiX^e io »pf-'ijr« -jo 
tn*i>n<>>tftC "*^ * * t9<««o tq oac to •oomiatba* \o sovoq yo l>«oqti ^XXiio 



5 

•ugge»t« thf?t undet the first offense, because the words '•with 
any book, instruaeat or device" whb osltted, no oh^^rge of violation 
of this statute la aaAe, and th^t, therefore, the court erred In 
entering judgment on the verdict of the Jjury. However, when we eoae 
to eonslder the seoond provision o%Iled to our attention In language 
49 nbove stated It vould sees that the defendant h»9 violated the 
statute If he recorded or registered bets or w^>ger8, or sold poola 
upon the result of nny tTl«il or oonteet of skill, epeed or power ©f 
eadurnnee of mBn or benet* %eB we consider further that the 
evidenoe th.-st »?» pre««ented tc the court snd ^ury *»8 oaitted fr©« 
the record and hne not beaa preserved by defenl%nt, we have the 
right to aseu«e that there '<s evidence offered th.^t justified the 
verdict of guilty end the punlshaent as provided for in the judgment 
entered by the court, e feel th^t under the olrouaiat:<«aoe8 as we 
have theas before us, the offense v^s charged within the language 
of the statute nnd the defendant v<%d notified of the oharg* 
sufficiently to be able to pre»»cnt hie defense, and for the Jury, 
to understand the offense nnd for the court to imss judgment upon 
the verdict. ( People v, ^Qa.tldson. S41 ill, 369). 

Iia X'eoPle v, Cohen. 303 111, b -T, the Supreae Court in 
part said: 



M • « 



* great niceties and strictness ©f ple^'dlng should 
only be countenanced and supported f^hen it la 4[T>.ciarent thnt 
defendant aay he surprised on the tri<=!l, or un??bie to meet the 
charge or make orepisratlon for his defense for *^ nt of greater 
oertojinty or oarticularity," 

Wa •^-Tf- of the opinion thrt the court did not prr in 

eateriag a judgoent oa the verdict of guilty that »s!8 returned by 

the jury. It Is further contended by the defendant that the 

jttdgaent *?»s void in that the court ordered as part of the judgment 

that the fine and costs be worked out la default of payment; but, 

it would seea froa the Orininal ^ode. See. 391, oh. 38, 111, ^«v, 

Stat, 1939, State Bnr Assn. Kd,, that any person convicted in a 

court of record of any nisdemeanor under the Orialnal Oode aay be 



I 

, tiiAto tvtn Bdt Mtaitf iadi mtfnu9 

^bf>)filmQ nmm ''•9ir9b tm #fl«urrtitni «ifootf X/ut 

«£o: -ra a^iHf ib»7»#at%»i to tmln»99x 9d \i »iu$»tm 

^r- 'xm-o--' TO , XW* !• ir9»>«ot> Tv <if:f llot:f« 

Tftbitneo t« ffftrf 0iitf»9d t« amm 'io soii."Yi/tka» 

Mid tirifoft ifdt oi b9itt^ ' (ft «ttfl»biT« 

Y<^ Jb»Tvas'9T9 rmind toa 8^,d hac broot %Ai 

ttlMbrfaillllO •!!# feflJt tt/i(/s to »»iM»T 

4s-^*va»t»r «iif tfltt«^«YC| o4 9lin 94 •-; x^^ '^ioi^'^tim 
« ^1. »# #<iu*e sif^ Tot hai^ »»ir»tto »4t Jtoe#»Tftf)au p» 
.'PdS »XII £^£ .flff^^Uflf^ *v 9Jjt^^) .toiMav «£f« 

o>.^* ^v--,i ^rr» 9^ «iSatM2£ «v pJQO '* fiT 

b9tt«q b#(uuuif^)Kjio<» Mi Xiao 

• 9dS A> tew. 9cJ Yi^ffi tiTnl)ii»t«Jt> 

... Lpt-t9t> 

--. J99 tilt *8rf* «ff£fti''-^ »ll* ' 

tB9mythul i Wove*-. #fl9»8ittrt 

td »t9ob bcu tail «ift #iuCt 

..XI «8S .cfo «X^ ^ (liAitf) «i{# a«Tt •••• bXaow *l 

b9t9t^ftioo coflTftq V* **<l^ . '^' «8Sex •»«?' 

(tXaltO 9di r9bau %oaM9m9b9tf xfi» to feroost t© truoo 



6 

required to i^erk. out ouch fine and ooats at the r^te of fl.% pat 
day. (People v. Heraan. 248 111. App. 94; people v, Carey. 345 
111, App. 100, ) 

Froa % sonsiderstlon of the record in this o«8«« «« 
Are of the opinion thnt there ia no error in this record that would 
justify SI reveraal and aooordingly the judgment is affir«ed« 

Diais E. mnivkH, J. sPiciALjuY ooKOir iii»a: 

I agree with the oonolusion, but not with sll that ie s?»id» 



41109 

PKOPiS: OF THE ST AT a ilS' lhl\ 

Oefei^nnt In 'Kfrox, 

T. 

EX.LI3 amEEilSI-RO, 

Plaintiff in Error 




MUMIGII'JkL OOUBT 

or OHiCAQo. 



307 I.A. 241 



m, mmiDim jmtioE, mmh miin:MQ tm ofikioh of the ooui^. 

UsYing ooasidered this o^«e under oon9olid<^t«d oas« 
Mo* 41108, th« osHes haying been he?»rd on the s«ae eTiJenc« ^nd 
in the saae proceeding in the iiunioipal Court* ».nd oonaolidp.ted 
bjr lestve of court for the ourpose of hearing In this court, the 
opinion that ^e h&Te filed in o^ae No* 41108 supplies and controls 
in this oase« 

Aoeordingly the judgoent of the trial court is affira»d, 

AFriRMEQ, 



mnm, j. ocmours 

mUlS E. 9UI4>1VAS, a* SPSOlAiLY OONOUri^lia A3 18 41108: 

I agree with the oonclusion, but not with all thnt is 8%id. 






i 




I 
iP^U *A.I iro8 

, HT to 8 it. oiioieiKn .«t 

i £it< s«on9Pil7<^ MRt H irfff no Mask A'lttf ^iT«il 8««i}« i2f# «80XX> •oft 
<»(ft ^tttt0c eiAi di littin-titi )« fteoqvtfq vd^ <xot rtuoe 'to ovaaI x<f 

»Oftisd tirft ai 

i.' ■'■•■•-■* jy • i> J - 
oLX^fc &£ ;r'c^7 iiji ffiiw ton *U0 «ffOlatfXMI«* ftlftf ^X« »0T8£ I 



41U0 

PEOPtE CF tliB St ATE Of li Ll»0l3., 
.Defendant fill isrr 




JOHii JUUkmUAf ' '^^ ) 

'307I.A. 241' 

MR. pRisisiua jusTiai mmt minmm thi opisiok or thi ooimt, 

H^vini; considered this o^ae uiKl^r oonsolid^ted saae 
Id* 41108, the Onses having been het^rd on the ^ae evilenoe nnd 
in the Bna» prooesding in the iiunioipal Court, nod eon@olid7it@d 
by leave of oourt for the purpose of hearing in this oovrt, the 
opinion that n(6 have filed in case lio. 41108 applies and oontrols 
Itt this OAse* 

*»ooordingly the ;}udg&ent of the tri-^l court is afflnMd,* 

mmtt, J, oomma 

DmiC E. 3CI.I.IVAJI, J. Si^-EOlAtl-Y OOSOURUlBa AS IH 41108: 

I agree vitb the oonolusion, but not Hth all th?^t is saidt 



OIIi> 



tf?^700 




, p^8lOfH44l 10 11TAT2 SUIT 1 









,ioxa-- .ii "JUJalf.I'i 



Jjfliif »an9M •,'•'* «»»' 911* 
•i(t ti^!ms> nidi al 



,l>4MB%lt 






:80XXI^ »i &A u^I ■ UODfX YUai;^. .;' ,t ,KA¥iaJ08 .1 3I11IC 



4Ui7 

i Of T«I .?f ATI jOfc' I|i.jpOIS, / I 



?EOi»i£ Of T«I .?-f ATJi .Ok' lli-ioiS, / 1 



V* 




ORittii^Ai. aoui^T 



appe.i^nt, ) ^„ ,^ ^. =^00{» OmfU ^ 



This l9 an ftppeaX by th« defendant to revtprac An order of 
the Crlalnftl i^ourt of Oook Oounty sustaining the State's amended 
aotion to dismiss a written action filed by defendant in the nature 
of 8 writ of error ooraa nobis provided for by seotlon 73 of the 
Praetioe AGt« 

The defendant was indicted snd oonrieted of laroeny of 
property of the v?iiue of tl30«00 in the erimin&I Oourt of Cook County* 
The f?»ot8 stated in defendant *8 naended motion in the nature of 
a writ of error op ma nobtg appear to toe that when the defendant 
wfts arraigned on the indicttaent before the Honor<!ible Miohael !>• 
HoKinley^ chief Justice of the criminal court* it Apt>eiBring that 
he r-~8 vholly without funds to employ a lawyer, Biajamin 0, Boohrpoh, 
the publio defender of Cook County wss «ppointed to represent him; 
and thnt, thereafter, one, Morris H, 3?oh9, represented to the 
defendant that he was an ftsaistniit publio defender, and the defendant, 
believing that he was the attorney sppolnted and seleeted by the 
oourt to represent him «nd hnving full feith and oonfideaoe in a-iid 
Morris H« a^ohs made n full nnd true statement of the facts in 
eonneetien with the eh&rge against hia, and relied i»holly upon snid 
tforris H, Snohs to present »11 and any of his leg**! defenses to the 
crime with which he ttss oharged and to otrefully preprire and present 
his defease upon the trial of the cause. It further %ppe»?8 from 
the facts stated in the ^^ritten motion that the defendant had never 
been arrested, hsd had no eirperienoe in courts of law, aal had 
no knowledge of legsl prooerlure} thftt he had no knowledge of the 
difference and distinction between the erlmes of petty l«roeny and 



Till* 



i*^ A 



C" * 



fOB 



^sasiii9<fcih 



:,n 



^AMSm MJHAHO 



'^ 






iiit 






T o3 n 



sfiiniMtma x9iu»oQ XM»p %• t%u^ iMialsC tilt 
si rtk\ i MlHaBi, StBUSA taitt to tlXM a t« 

mt ai fluid >fi^.r- «:*ii Hi fe«9M#fl «#ORt ttfP 

'At o«ifw *«i .: x©«» to ttxm « 

«) MTfljioO fodO to tftba*)*!} OlXcTtKl •!<# 

-.s^- ■>n..! fii" , ..'-'■■■■ ianitklet^M lu •#» •d t»Ai iaAba9rt.%t 

* ^ott^ti^ao*' '^^ "flat il«t jKftirfuf ba» mid tMBftm^r oi t»ut» 
i't^pt -ftili ,.. .^:9io#8 o<«^ t«t'- LSjA If- •bnm sifOJtS •« •ItvoM 

• „^.:,|^«j't«,i, ir.g«»i 8iri 1© ypitt bam ISji ia9»9Vi mi 9dofB •« mltttB 

7: til- 9t>»«[«io xXijtftw«o o# fcn« *>«i|t«rio enw »if £folihr i(#lw •aivo 

Bott rxR»c!Ci«^ xMi^tA $1 ••»»?«» 9rf* to ipif* -rf* o®<?t/ •«fl»t«l» •a 

ttrv?i& het* inrhn^^^t ndi imAt aoitom tt**tlr ■ ^-^^-tfi •#•*! •At 

i eiijwir »»ir#»«f Aol#oai^Qi£> fcfl« »«at»»ttib 



8 

grand IsTtteny or of the <ilff*r«aee in the punlshsteat proTided for 
th« respeotlve orines; th«t he h?4<i no linoi?l9dg« ns to the raiuia 
of the teXephon« o«<ble r.hleh he vnn ehftrged vith stealing. It 1« 
further ^.lleiied tha^t defendant did net %t anjr time 5iuthori?e smid 
Morris H* S«<^0 either to represent hi« ma his nttomey or to 
waive in jury or enter s teehnioal plea of not guilty or to stinuXate 
to Any e-ridenee on his behalf; th t Morris U» inohs is not the 
puhlic defex»ler of Cook Ooxiaty* th^^t he ^m.B not »» assistftnt puhlio 
defender of Ooolc Oounty« ?nd th^t he h%d %t no tise heen appointed 
ms assistant public defender* It further uppenrs th»t ast soon ee 
th« defendant wes brou^^t into the oourtroo« of Judge ^»ilii%a J. 
Lindaay for trial on April 6» 1939, the sf»id tfiorris H« S%ehs wns 
the fir*t to address the Oourt stating "teohnionl i>1aa of not guilty, 
jtiry i^aived, stipulate as to eTiclenee," It further appe?»r8 th^st 
Morris 'tU Jaohs stirml^ted th^t the Tnlue of the property alleged 
to hare been talcen hy the defendant tas $30, whereas, in truth, it 
is alleged that the Tslue of unid property, new, vas §5*00, and 
that, hut for the negligenoe and iaproper and un?^uthorieed conduct 
of Morris fi. Baehs in stipulating to the vslue of the said property, 
there wovuLd have been no ©vidence before the Court upon which a 
finding could be bnaed fixing the v^^lue of the property tnken; and 
that the errors of faot as charged occurred without any negligence 
on the part of the defendant, and that he was thereby deprived of 
a substantial defense which he could have amde at his trial* 

The aaended «otion in the nature of a strit of error 
coraa^ qobie ima supported by the «ffid«?vit of the defend?»nt, Charles 
Purk!^, who Bwore to the fnets oontained in the motion, and by the 
affidavit of iinrry Frits, manager of the telei^one department of 
the .;rayb'»r Electric Oempftsy, Inc., who made oath that the Graybar 
£l80trie Company *«a engaged in the «t=^nuf^oture ss^nd sale of electric 
goods and equipment, including telephone onble, and that from 
affiant's experienoe the retail prioe of twenty-five feet of the 
oable described in the indictment r?*a twenty cents per foot, f, o* b, 
Ohieagft* 



/ 



t 

9;J."ii/ " ■' Cr^oiarfot* It x*#«t !• xi-ifi « •▼!*• 

' rtlAdfta Bid Me •M[»tiiT» XQ' o^ 

^ ,-„^^.. .^. . ,- -.., ...... ...^.iOtti •«% ...<i2»i> •!(# 

««^ iiiKf>" ,' 'iTTcdi Mnii •** «te8X «6 XitqA «• imlti t«i\ x*^batJi 

.*0£it)«00 ft^aiTori^iTiT i#;^iX7?*ff ^rf# "TO^ twtf ,ii)4^ 

to bo^vi «#iuil>a*tsl> •!!# lo ^ ao 

to te9mttmiBt nacikf9l9S 9tii to toa«flAff , ^Tii>H to fiY«i>itt« 

TucTx^'X^^ aii^ tHAt diao th/^s oclw «»OffI ^^pnsqmh^ oXi^ooXH tM^^to qj(# 

0iT^i>»l9 \9 9l^e tan 9%ut9ii1ani^i oO &titP9£% 

•tf ««> .t ,Jioot tsq 8*n«o x*«*** •*** JaAuJcitiii ault tti b9atx999t •XcfAO 



fli* state fll«d an am«ad«d Kotion to dlsalas v^leh, 
after «Lrguaeat« h«fc,rd, w9m ovi^rruled loy the Oourt, aad the st«.t« ras 
thereupon dlreoted to tinsiier the !<tj»ended aotioa. ?h« ^Hate filed 
Its a&8?'er in vhioh none of the materl»tl alleg-^tions Qontmln«d in 
d«fendRiBt*8 action were denied, ^hen the omuse of)«e on for he ring^ 
on the fflotion and «» never thereto* the state's sttomey msde an 
Qttkl motion for leave to withdr?tw its answer* mnd the Oourt there- 
upon 3,llo«ed the state to withdraw its answer and sustained the 
3tate*e aisended aotion to diaaiss which had been previously denied* 
The Court thereupon entered an order denying the defendant's aaended 
ototloa filsd under seotion 72 of the Praotiee Act* 

The defendant oontends th-^t the oourt erred in sustaining 

the asMiBled action of the plaintiff to disaiss the defendant's aaended 

petition in the n»turs of a writ of error oor%a nobis and in denying 

defendant's said aaended action. The purpose of the notion in the 

nature of a writ of error ooraa nobis is defined by our SMprmam 

Oourt in the oase of reoole ▼. ctoqIcs. 336 111. 386* 380* »!&erein 

the oourt stated in part as follows} 

"Errors of fsot which may be availed of on h «rrit of error oor^-^fj 
nobis or under gpotion 89 of our Prnctiee aot include duress* fr«ttd 
«nd excusable aistake. * • • The writ of error ooraa nobis, or a 
notion under our statute* is an sppropri?ite reaedy in oriainal 
as well ^9 civil cases. 3uoh a «rit lies to set aside n 
oonviction obtained by duress or fr«!!^ud* or nhere by soae exeusftble 
aist^ke or ignoranoe of the aocuac'd* nnd without negligence on 
his part* he has been deprived of a defense which he cxiuld h«ve 
used at his trial and which if known to the court would h«ve 
prevented « ooaviotion* • • • The sufficiency of the motion which 
is reg?5rded as a deolnnation in a writ of error coryi^m M^ij., or a 
action under the statute* must be r«iiised by deamrrer, plea of 
ftttll^ est errat^i^ . by motion to disaiss* by plendini; sp€>cial 
Batter in oonfesslon and avoidance* or by making an ia-sue of 
fact by traversing the deolarfttion." 

The defendant states th«3t the outstanding; fact in the esse 

is that iMOause a lawyer* without any investigation or prep^iration 

of the oase for trinl* stipulated that the value of Sb feet of 

telephone oable was |30 whegi* in truth ^nd in f^ot* the value was 

IS.OO* the defendant was wrongfully convicted of larceny and 
sentenced to the penitentiary for an indeterainate tera of froa one 
to ten years; and th^t the true vslue of the property w«s a full 
and ooaplete defense to the crime of laroei^ rs charged* 



/' 



iri: hm.X»tii{>^ 9ii'iiiim»^iJi i»it.*4jm.' »M t« (MM* 'KDiidr iii.xtw«A« eti 



,V!U4iVi*,»>-A.'B ill ia»-tT. 



fi&f 



to Siiiii-A Xi-. 



MC'Xar - i^ir.t^<K o«T iK>i#o» I^UtfmM •*•###• 
oitf'j.vT ; s[\i Yq &¥ ««ite«« <c«tei> bi1i\ aaittm 

• JlL^SQ ftcioo X9tv« )« IJhtff e. lo »stf^«a 

^bau re Ml^bim 
9Xtf««&ex« btui 

Itvit «# iXav aii 

"ql to fl!^'-:»«iii 



ft^itxta^Qi^^Q: TO itoi^«^i:;»«0VAl fan ttHnAtin «%«^«X « «*4fs|MMl ^«tf# ft J: 

@ttw 9aXBV i)tf^ ^tnnt «i £«« <i#«a4r n£ ««iuff> Cfi| ft/nr 9Xd«kO iMPlkKli»# 
feifan %a9&%t!£ to &«#oiir«i«>9 i(XXi;t^«x«« .«>#« ia»ba»%1idi ti^ «|OQ«S;^ 

, tB<»o'3^^X to (WX«EO trn^ »t «»A«%ai> 9#ay;«iiMi Afiii 



3oum«i for the defendant urge th»t the aeeistant Ri^lio 
Defender, that appeared for the defendant '^t the trial as defendant's 
attorney, did not preperXy present the defense th^it shontld h»ve 
beea urged on behalf of defend^^nt, snd thet by re^ieon of his AetioB 
the defendant was deprived of the defense that the v^^lue of the 
property that *5?8 inrolTed In the charge of larceny was i»t fSO»00, 
Temt wftB as * fact worth only tS.OO, and th'st, therefore, by his 
failure to urge the question, the defenditnt s^s found guilty of 
larceny of property of t2ie vnlue of |30»0O And punished by being 
iaoareerated in the penitenti<)ry for suoh act* The faet is, 
h0'«e-<irer« thnt the office of Public aefender is provided for by 
Statute in Chapter 34, seesf 163-^ to 163-j, incluslTe, Illinois 
Sevieed St^^tutes, 1939, nnd the act provided for the appointi&ent of 
sseistants to such Public efender* ^en this assistant Appeared 
before the Oourt it does not sppear th'^t 9t Any time during the 
course of the trial nn objeotion wns oade by defendant to his 
serving n<s counsel* It is the rule th^t in order to t«ike «idv;iatag« 
of facts oonpiiiaed of, objeotion niust be xnde to the oourt eo tbat 
the court ooiild pass upon the items complained of. '^e must remember 
thst in order that advantage be taken of nny acts that appeared 
at the trial, the act complained of must b? ffl»de known to the court* 

The Oourt in the ease of People v. Crooks. 3^6 111, a60, 
held th?it fraud on the part of the opposing p»rty or his counsel 
tliat prevents one fri» aeiking his defense is such nn error of fact 
«i8 can be availed of on writ of error ppr»^m nobi^ or under the 
statute aforesaid* The writ of error eoysm nobis, or a motion under 
said statute, is an Appropri»ite remedy in oriminnl o^iaes -^s well es 
in civil onses* The court further held that suoh n writ lies to set 
aside a oonvlotion obtained by duress or frsud, or where by seme 
excusable mistake or ignorance of the sooused, and withottt negligence 
on his p'lrt, he has been deprived of a defense which he could have 
used at his tri^l and which if known to the court would have prevented 
a conviction* The fscts, Jiowever, -is stated in the petition filed 
by the defendant, were kiuwn to the Court* 



'^ 



wpH feX'^f^rf8 .tM*:^ ftjattwh »njr »n9«<»ib^ tXitWOiflf ton blfc ^TM^O^^'* 

,,vi *^t>fi f»iiT •?0j' n»wi Ti>l x^.'i#fl»#Jfl»q •At al b»taf9tPoat 

f^ Toi t9tt9<ynf %t T^ftoft'i t© Mitto •dt $r,dt ««»T»»otf 

tierrlll! ,»vijiaXoni «f^W oy '^-cx ••«•• «^K f%1mmi\^ mi •tuiAtB 

lo Jil*es;taio.'f:/« nttS l©^ Mblvoir; Jo«« d<f> JMl<8 «tCiX «»«fVt^t(!^ ft»«Xvftff 

ft,,„.^- ,, i^af^fifi^tmn ml^ «»(!» ,»«ijif«^«k oiXtfti*t Atn tat (i#a«t«l«»it 

3;; f ? Th? «jr<^f ©t T»l>if© ... . , ,-wi; 9rf* «i tl •Xe»mfoo »« aairco* 
iHiit m tfifor* '» • * •^«« »ti *«*«s «t»l#o«>t*o «*• btiUUkm^ »*o«t to 

T9<3f»«*»*t i^a« .,^ ib*aX«i<p«04» -on^a-i^ til J ">•;/ s>SP' bXlDOO tft/oO ^j1* 

- .) looO orff 
X: rif no httt'ti tnit Worf 

»jjj •j»fe«t/ Td ^. ^tfffl ffi>toft tmi > to *0XX«ir« »cJ a«o o^* 

labflij aoX*oe r to .tXOon gty-^pg -rcwrt:* ^0 *lT» tuVt *blB9tt0t» mtutAiB 

#ot ©* aolX «-n? f« d»ifti tMdi Wftrf T-^rtrttft :rT«rt»«» osil .fltOft^o XXvlo 0I 

oaoo Y^ t^fttffr %« «6i^<r¥t to eeo^ft) V^ l»«Mt|iiMo nol#»it<M»0 a Olli»« 

•O0»sXXa«uf tmAttx ban ,b*«u«>oji 9if# t© ooMt^ON^i «• oMs^ol* sirfsoaiwo 

«v«£( J&lwo© *<l rfolJlw »»h«7oj:> s to ft»vX«©ob aoorf tMT otf «#t^«| »lrf «» 

taJttiivotci o**!! feXtfO* *xoo« »ll# o# awoai 11 rfolAr ft«* X«l«# tin t« *o«o 

bftXil llollX#9q Otf* Hi &Otji»0 W* ,H»T»irort ,»*OBt «i!l •flciJtilvfloo * 

,;^xtfoC ftrtJ o# Ovoicf ot»« ,^fl«ifcfloti* oilt T* 



The other au^eetion that ««eaa to be urged hy the 

defendant Is the fact ^iit the assistant public defender h«id stlpu- 

Iftted to the ^«lue of 38 fe«t of telephone o»ble n.s being f30«00, 

and that no evidenoe wnn offered on behalf of defendant that would 

indicate otherwise j but it does appear th«t the issue of v«4lue wsg 

before the court snd thfit defendant by his attorney offered in 

evidenoe the witms3, J^aea J. Cunningbna, and ne testified that he 

fixed the vilue before the Juetice of the peaee %t the preliminary 

he«^ring of thie satter nt |8.&0« It is suggested by oounael for 

the State that no doubt defendant's oounsel had a ^etifiable reason 

for a99U!Bi% th»t in view of the f?.ot thnt witness Ounninf^a had 

previously fixed the vseIus of the property at |8«50 that the triml 

oourt would* if he were in doubt »s to the value, resolve th«t 

doubt in favor of the defendant, nad on the other hand it seeas th^t 

the oourt was oonvinoed that the value of the property was |30,00« 

^nd BO, in oonsidering these ff'.ots, the (luestion was squarely before 

the court. In Gould v, vataon. 80 111, App, ^48, 347, this court saidj 

"It is apparent from these authorities thnt the fj^ot upon which 
the error is prediosjted, in order to HV^il under this writ, must 
be aatter not p»»rt of the issues tried by the court, but aoraethlng 
sliuade. aiiioh, if presented to the court ^t the tirlal, would 
have absolutely precluded the judgaent is rendered, und not a f^sot 
merely bearing upon the issues adjudged, however eoncluaive it 
might have been of such issues. It is et le^st questiooBble if 
the scope of the writ it oc^imon Ihw, and hence of the motion, 
which is here n substitute for it, is not limited by well 
esti^bliahed practice to such oases ss are enuaer'^ted in the text 
and decisions above quoted* Hut it is in any event cuite clear 
that it h558 never h*td, in the prsictice of the conmon l';'^, a scope 
wide enough to reach any error of fact, whioh ?'^s eabT«!eed in 
the conclusion of the court upon the issues of f?»ot 'adjudged, 
whether «*rror in p'-^^sing upon f lOts submitted or an erroneous con- 
clusion, becfiuse certain f«50ts, whioh would have been conclusive 
of tiie issues, were not presented. ** 

This decision w%s b<ised upon an a«tion whioh was in the nature of 

a writ of error ooTfta nobis, snd in determining the question now 

involved, we believe it to be conclusive on the question we have here. 

If the defendant wished to appeal from the deeision of the oourt, 

of course, he could have t^^ken the action to the appeals oourt and 

have the court pass upon the Question a^s to whether the evidenoe 

justified the judgment entered by the court. No objections were I 

made - he seeks to overcome the force of the conclusion resided 



•tit xd fc»««A> 9^ ma ••»•• tmdf Mreltav^H^^t tsclio mtit 

at h«TAltto tM^«^^« «i<^ ¥» #0jilM9t«t #i«iii# ten #«&00 •rf;r iio'i»4 
"id HiA* f^lttsnt 9r hsx ^aufrriiyiiftitirO .V eiNB«rl> «9«fii^lv 9(ii 99a9ktw9 

xol lt^9(fif9e y:<i h<*ts*^im ml tl •OQ«#l i* %9t$itm nidi to 'SiatrmmM 

n<K^i'i?t Hiaemiuai <$ h«4 i99aam9 a'$ni^bJa»\t t4ii9Jb o« #«tf# BiMt» tli 

bi&d aRO^lamyU atoatiw iJ'At $9«\ rndt t* ««iT «i t«if# 9il«u«a« ««1 

1m4t 9rl9»91 t9^uiJKV »tft ft^ «« tilTMl* Ai Ct^w M 11 ,Ai«»« #«JMW 

,'^-.<^ 94tti t^ioqotq ^^r^r lo ft^'XtiT 9iif *»Mt liWKilfflw* •«» tViraO 9dt 
tbl'^t tTu'09 9i/tfl^ «T#- .|q« •Ail rm a#<[^..q fr .V Mayfl III vtiufoe «tft 

i;<j-r;T . . *> •<(# 

vt '?*■*. m mi - 

bi lihiiliMiir 

'■t 



» ^ - ' ' anoo »rf# 

»oa aiaJt.t»9tt^ &Ai ^iatgn^99b ai USA? 'm«ct le ti««r « 

ti^ii mrmti »v aoli99up s&i mo wwIhuSmbloo 9q ot *i fliy«IXiKl 9n ^bsvloviii 

«#t<ioo 9ai Jo ti<il9it^9ii mti» uofi Immqqm «# bn^Jtm tnaidu^tat 9tit II 

bae, ttsfoo sXosqqr: 9iU o$ ttoiSoti 9sit at^i^i 9va4 tltMP 9tli «t»iMQMMl !• 

mOtt9hlV9 9A4 Ift^MSte Ql »» fStCaiteaup a£(# «M»«.0 lt«jMif tltif&9 9ttt »iv»d 

I tttt^r 9aQlt9»t,tSt> oH .^itfrne 04$ X«' b9x9$a9 *m9mibi^ mat f>ditjt»eu( 



by tti« oourt by queatloniag the facts tbst *er« heard oa the trial* 

It app^ftrs froa the raooTd '->& vm fiiid it that th« quest iona b«fore 

the oourt below were thnt the evidence did tiot justify the verdiot 

rwth^r than thst there ^ihb « eonoealment of fs^ets through fr?»tid or 

subterfuge. 

There was ^ilso >« further Question oftlled to our attention 

by the states Attorney, and that is thnt the defendant is free on 

parole and for that reneon, being on |»arole, that defend'^nt «r»iYed 

hie right to this Appeal. Kowever, we are not inclined to agree 

with the contention of eounael. It does n.pp&nje thait defendant ie 

OB parole, and th^tt hie release froa the penitent i<^.ry is oondltional* 

The conviotion is still in foroe 9M governed by the statute, vhieh 

is chapter 38, seo* 807, 111* Rev* St., 1933, which re%da in p^irt 

»s follows; 

" • " "and, provided, further that all prisoners ^nd wnrda so 
testpor»rily released upo ; parole, sh-ivll, st all tiaea, until 
the receipt of their finsl disch^j^ixe, be considered in the 
legal custody of the officers of ti^e DepsTtment of Public 'clf^re, 
sBdl shall, during the s id time, be considered ^q remaining 
under oomriotion for the crime or offense of which they vere 
convicted =5nd sentenced or comtnitted ??nd subject to be taken 
at any time r^ithin the enoloanre of such penitentiary* reform- 
atory sind institution herein mentioned, • • ••• 

This contention was oalled to our «)ittention by the state's 
Attorney by motion to dismiss the appeal, ii^ioh oiotion «r^s denied, 
but leave given to file »n additional brief, in view of the f»ot 
that we have passed on the merits, it will not be necess^^ry to pass 
OB this question ns asked by the state. 

lor the rei^aons we have indio»^ted, the order that was 
entered by the court dismissing the written motion thst 9r»=)8 filed by 
def«?nd«iBt in the nature of n writ of error cori^m nobis Is affirmed, 

mmXS, 3, AMD SULLIVAN, J« OOliCUR* 



■■..;•» ^ »*i..j x'-'i"- --a •f*:'« ^^ «*««fciT» aft/ ifAilt »xo« froln^ ^voo •*!* 
-Ti> s.u.»-sl d'>^9^ti# Bivnt >o «feiMifti«»oaoa « •«'.» 9tiuii #£iltf amU t3<lt 7 

r-xtiKi ixi St mlU «TG8 •9i>» «8$ v»tcM4o el 



•JMunEnia el ffidoa i ^T0^ f©'»» ^o ^l"^^ * ie «zurff« s<i^ 44; t*«feo«t»fc 







41184 

F40PL& or 1 

QLADYS WIT 



I IMOlSj/ex ^el. ) ApySAX. rsoM 
ell#». M ) J" ORlMlHAt OOURT 

) aooK oeusfY. 

*'^'"*^ 307 I. A. 243' 

J4H. JUSflOK SURICE DittlVSliiO THi OPIMIOS OF THE OOURt. 

OH July IS* 1939, Oladyt Wltteniseyer Of^ore to a o«i]^ int 
before s Foliee Magistri^ts ^it OAk I<swa« Cook Oounty* Illlaoitf and 
tberein charged th^^t the defendanta Qharlea i. ^itohell, iras the 
father of n fea«le ohild whioh «he :lelivered on sifty 6, 1939. 
Defendant utia apprehended* He was granted a change of renue fr«a 
the Folloe Magistrate to a Juatloe of the ?eaee> The letter heard 
the testimony offered by the respeotlre parties and found that the 
ohild «aa bom to the prosecutrix and thnt th«?re w^e probable cauee 
to believe thnt the def«;ndant waa the father. The Juatioe of the 
Peaee required defencUmt to give bi»il in the sua of i2»000 to answer 
the charge in the Oriainal Court of Oook; County. In the Criainal 
Oourt a jury was waived and the cause was submitted to the ootirt. 
At the oonoluBion of the trial the oourt found that the defendant 
was the father of the child, A motion for a new trial vma overniled. 
The oourt entered judgment on the finding, which required defendant 
to pay the prosecutrix the sua of ?ll, 100.00 aa follows: 1300.00 
in equal quarterly installments for the first year after the date 
of the birth of the child, and the sua of llOO yearly for nine ye'^rs 
succeeding the first ye-^r, also in quarterly installments. The 
defendant furnished rs bond with surety, conditioned thit he would 
pay the $1,100,00 as required by the judgaent order. He then filed 
this appeal for the purpose of reversing the judgment. Oefendsnt's 
theory of the case is that "the teetiosony of the asother uncorroborated 
by other testiajony or by surrounding clrouasstanoes is not sufficient 
to convict where the defendant at all tiaes denied any ?»ot of inter- 
course with the mother, or that he wr.a in aagr way responsible for 
the birth of the child," the theory of the prosecutrix, we stated 



h9lU 



( •Xiii K9' 



•P.^g .A.I Tuf^ 






b 



\ . 

«ax tXwi. .0 



•9&UIIO sXtfJWfo? 



yat t»Ai btu ^ittuo—9Vi wis 



lAo 



9£t to •oitaii^ 9<t'i •wai 






n9fb mLi tsAi •r^llwiS ot 

r/oO 
i aoXtij;/leixoo 

,w%»if\ *fljU» «wi ^XiH»x OOX* i© *ij ' ' vis la tf^tXcl »»ii lo 

s»;tiS£t)fl»laC .*o«B3but •** 8aX«t»T«t 1*? stotjttKj »dJ 19\ Xxn>^^ ,i! eliC# 

iTBOXoXltue too ai ••ona^aatuiOTio jjnXt^^ucvTys t" "^^ '^omltB^t ibASo X^ 
--,. - xa» tBia»b •WBi':" ■ • :' "- '■'*-' "t •'tttdw *oiv«oo o* 



3 

in d»f«nd«.nt»g brief, i« "tteat the erldenoe addiuOftd at the trial is 

•uffioiaat for oonTiotion*** 

Th« first oritioisa levslsd nt the judgHtent is that the 
testiittoiqr of thP mother -unt unoorroborifited. Th« seooad point urgeA 
is th?<t the judgaent is not supported \>j the evidence. The preseau- 
trix replies th t her teatiaiony wns oorroboT'^ted nnd that the 
judgjseat is supported X>y the evidence. These two points Imrolve % 
eonsider&tion of the testimony* In order to better vnder8t*i&d the 
Oftse* we have as tw fully re^.d the transoript of the testiisonjr. Before 
diseusfsing the testiaK^ay* it is timely for us to nn.y thet* prooeedings 
la bnstardy, being oivil in their n^^ture, the rules of evidenoe 
th t govern in oivil crises spply* and the paternity of ti ohild mm.f 
be proved by & prepondernnoe of evidenoe alone nnd need not be 
established beyond % reasonable doubt* ^here the evidenoe is oon- 
flioting, the issue -^s to whether the defendant is the fnther of the 
bastard ohild is a question of fact. Likewise, the oredibiilty of 
tht witnesses, the wei^t to be given their testimony, the opportun- 
ities for interoourse, the durnttioa of the period of gestation, the 
const paoy of prosecutrix* a 'loouantion, are sll ontters whioh are 
properly left to the Jury, or to the trial judge t^en a jury is waived* 

In 8uam«rising the testimony, we note th*>t aindys witten- 
a»yer, the proseoutrix, testified th't in June, 1938, she wfts living 
with an older slater at South :<eloit, Illinois; that the sister was 
•arried; th«t she, the witness, wps then 23 ye»).rs of age; that she 
answered an advert iseawnt for a housekeeper, whioh appeared in a 
Ohie^go newspaper; th?%t she wrote to defendfint, who lived at 3618 
Cook Avenue, Oak tawn, Illinois; th«t defendant replied to her letter 
and asked for a picture, whieb she sent to him; that defendant drove 
to South fieloit on June 4th or 5th, 1938; th-t she aoooapanied hia 
in his automobils which he drove to his hosBS in Oak Lawa; th«t he 
told her she would have to take ©are of a "pair of twins thnt were 
two and a half years old at the tiae and do the housework"; that i*en 



6 
^- 9f>cnbir» »i« tBtit* «i ,l»i»tf ttUttmbift^t at 

*'«a«jt#«iinaae vol ^a»l«i1tl:cr« 

'^'■' -.i<M>«« '^ («7itwHiir •«« 7«d»0M •ill )o tnoaitnttt 

■■■■Tf-.tf tti-iv fR«flilara»# tnA t it ftlqm xiit 

"^^«^- ii tlit7« »l .tMnittAt adt to aol^AittiwiQO 

,.<.v^.„..* .'^^^ » --^ ^£Mi» ti ft ^ypmtt9»t m* T^tfs»u9aib 

^•ruti^B rindt Ml liYlo ^i9tf .tbTalttAtf ai 
^'.■: ' o^;^ tMo^ «Y'£«c|s ••«.«!« liwla al avrr«s s dt 

< iK>i fiiMi^ B ti i^Xiifei l)Y«#«jid 
^d^l«« »d/ ««««»t«fi« •/<# 

, :rl#«#»« , tt9f'j 9ff? 1. ffl a««Ti(0»tS#ai tO\ ••i*l 

ntT^^ ST- *xiTlue»ao!iq to ti»ii.«$«aoo 

,X^u/t ftrirf ©# Hoi xXi*70Tq 

-'^J ,9/t. i*/^lt8»t »ifl?f??rt>'%!f9^^ ndt «VOX«B 

ji al &0««»c|qei jfoirfir ,T«e;»a:tf*«0od » icol ;hi«aio«itt«Tl3« on l>OTO««ajR 

^JM im 59Y1X orfw . ^totw tAt fArft iTtqeqtwfts o^^eXifO 

xnHal «ori o# fc'siXcf*^ Inislbflfltofc itiA9 jciiMiilXX ,aw«a ati!0 .ftofl-f^vA jiooO 

*vo7h *a«ba»t9fc tod» ifljirf o# tats «f« ' 'io« fea« 

«lrf fe»ii 1* j95«X «rf*fi no iJ. o^ 

»il ni fltootf titf ot »▼ot^ oif dx>ldv 9ll^<mQiun siij al 

•tsv f»A$ msil^t to tJf' •««« •3t«* ot OTArf Wi' -sd Mo# 

00^ #*rf# j»jfTt©iT»ttfod «ii* Ob btut mii adt t» Wo ti%»9\ baa out 



3 

«h« ftfrlved mt hia hoB^ she learned th't he had f@>u7 ohildx'ea; 
thf^t there waa an 18 7«ar old hey* Ohsrlee Jr*« $&d a 16 yt^nx old 
boy, ?Mliia«i tb t In addition to the four ohildrea In the house were 
a voMiQ netted iSrs* ^^enm Otirhaa and her 9 ye;<f7 old datighter; th-^t on 
the prealaea vas » houae which he hnd sade into two apartgieata; 
tli?«t tenants were livii^ upstairs; th«t the presiaea ooouoied by 
the 5 Mitohella, the 3 Darh«aa i*ind aladya conaisted of n aun poreb, 
a living Tooa, a dining roosc a bedrooa and a kiteben; that one of 
the two elder boya slept in the baeeaient and the other one slept ob 
the aun porch; that the twins alept in 2 eriba in the bedrooa; that 
Gladys also slept in the bedrooa; th- 1 defendant naa « railroad «an, 
sjad that hia hours of esployaent Tf^ried; th^'t defendant also alept 
in the bedrooA "unless the older boys were up*; tb-t if the t«ro 
older boys were up, he slept on the davenport; that she nrrired there 
on a Sunday and thr^t ttra. uurh^tM and her d^suighter left on the follow- 
ing Tbaasd^^y; th^t defendant told Mrs, uurhaa tb».t aiadlys was his 
oouain who vms there on a Tie it and th»t he ^n* going to aak Gladys 
to stay; tb^t iiira. Ourhnm said her aunt was aiok and she left on 
Thursday; that on the Journey by «utofflobile from ^outh t>eloit to 
his boas defendant stopped out by the nirport and »ade an isproper 
suggestion to her; tb'?t after arriving in the vioinity of Chiongo 
he •drove around the oity a while. He didn't know whether to take 
ae out to his hoae on account of th<^t woaan beix^ there**; that Gladys 
and defendant arrived at the latter* s hoae about midnight; that ehe 
slei^t on the day bed on the por«h; th^t the firat tiae she had inter- 
oouxae with hia was on iriday, the day after Mrs, Durhaa and her 
dau^ter left, which she fixed at about the 10th or 11th of June, 1938; 
that the fict of intaroourae took pl«»oe in the bedroom ?»herc the twins 
alept; th-'t she also had iateromirae on the follcring evening and 
thereafter three or four tiMs a week until the firat part of 
Septeaber, 1938; th-^t her last menst ration before the baby was on 
July 4. 1938; th»it the first part of September she found out th«t 
she was pregnant, th; t she had been aiok to her atoaaeh and disrsiy; 






., .,.,. 4«... .. -. ,.. , v>— .'*« r?»»x W ii« B!»if 9rr*if# ^jtil* 

Ts>r( rirtr.> aiu-.:.. ...._ ,..:„., bwmna Bimom M 

yi. .. wirhr »«yoi( A SAW n^nimtiq •At 

JEsoji otr. •dt «BXXftf<o#iifct e Aifl 

#q«Iii afcd x9hlo 9^s •At 

■.■r\km9 •M tmdi itfOYoq aut •¥# 

/ :iBu»Yi}«tf 9At Bl tq«X« a«X« 9Xb»iQ 

nmmxolqmB to a«uei( aiM t»dt Mtut 

r»Mo adt tvalAtf* aooxtad «<(# si 

'iicfir a« tq»lm 9A «qir •(•v ex^d ftlo 

^ Imh ■MilittA: .tidt t'^.d* ten xjmttiu/r^ » no 

if ;X9A et aoifvaHB''* 



to »flo Jj' 
no tqalz anc - 

r^*X «».t< 

no iTtftX »#« 
laooiKjiEi iftR ♦fo.ffli? bft* t\ 



»ifi #4i#t it^j|^«ftt» jf.'oJi 't»i^*i6i »Af tm bvtkrjji ttt»ba^,9b baa 

^19 fat iMSJl •A9 imU titlt wJt tr^At id^o^: uiH ao b9A -fflb •At «o I4«it 

%sd ka& imAruU ^»xu %»srj» \^b 9Ai ^^»bitl mm mmm mid At tit tixu99 

««iw^ »t" uootbftd Bdt at •»«!« aow* »»t».'o»'x»t«l to #€»»' an* S"«M# 

n« «i«r« xtf«<f •«* wot-sd flolfsttsotMi tSFi •a^ti i^iili jafGi ,«stf«»lq«i! 



4 

th?»t sht t&ilL«d to the lady up»tair«j th?>t "tne 1^.^ upstairs told 
■e" ; tbnt 9h» then t<ilk;«d to defendant sbout her pregnancy, %nd 
that he, defewinnt "said it k^h a li«"; th^t X^ter she had a further 
oonTersitlon with hia about her p>regnanoy« and th t "he s«nt at 
hoae about the '^Stb of September and told ae it ^^iss ^ lie, hut he 
heat se up before thnt"; thnt she iirent baok to her sister's hMie at 
South Beloit; th- 1 whea defendant hired her he ^^^reed to pay her 
wages of $S«00 a week; thnt durlxag the oeriod th-^t she »«3 uporking 
for defendant she did not reoeive any salary; that she was hone ^^ith 
her sister two d^ys, aad th'»t her sister sent her b^flk; th-^t she 
c^ae h-^ok to the Uitohell hoae, and thnt «hen she returned to his 
hoae, his «if« w<>a there; th<^t she ng^in talked to hia about her 
pregnancy and told hia thnt he would have to help her out; th'^t he 
said **it wasn't his and. he l!!>ughed at m»'* ; th^^t he sent her bnok hoae; 
that she returned to South k^eloit; th-?t she oaae b?^ok to Ohioago in 
SoTeaber, 1938, and worked for f> family on the south side; th^t 
three sonths before the baby wns born, she irent to the Jefferson 
Fark Hospital in Chioago for the purpose of prenatal ontB; th'^t she 
agreed to do work suoh as sorubbing and cashing in order to pay for 
the hospital and nedieal oh^rges; th-^^t defendant did not onll on her 
while she was in the hospital, and that a feKile ohild was born on 
Hay 3, 1939* On oresa'«xamin»tion she stnted th?»t she wns not a 
oarried weoan, but th<>t when defendant oalltd on her nt Bouth seloit 
she told hia tht she had been aarried to a sailor; she denied that 
she wrote a letter to defend?;nt in which she ^t^^id she had taken a 
picture "for Just that occasion*^ she then identified a letter dnted 
June 1, 1938, as the one she t^rote to defend«<nt; th»t the oldest 
b«ar Charles slept in the basement; th-^t villiaa, the 16 year old boy, 
slept on the sun porch on an aray cot; she denied th^jt she ''t «iny 
time slept with vllliaa, and stated th'^t he slept on the aray oot 
and she slept on the day bed on the sun porch* she testified further. 
Oh ores S'-exarainat ion, that irtiile she -vrma sleeping on the day bed 



blot 9XiBt% 
fUtiv 

Oil tM«eli^ 



ci^ \eii.n.t% 






' d#l« aoi#i«aT«Taf# 

: UoXeu tf#tM)8 
•41$ to ••!«» 



9dr 



tXiK 9iri»99T ;fO0 i>lb »rf« ||l«l»a9)96 %9\ 



'd^ 



91 ^V ftitf ftftf^tf 






^4 iMta aid ^*aa49f 1^" Ikiifa 

- ^t fc«fli;u;taT %Au ttidt 

■cw? ;;ai!'icv" r>ii4t «8S6X ,T9<ta»TeM 

^'xolacr Bd#ao« ••ttff 

TsrTO at 'S^alA^tiifj ^4I^ s^ai '.ir/Tc>i* an 4wr8 Jll^C^ v>f' 9# l)991Q|« 

-od adt r* - ->rfa •i4il« 

^ «:if$fMiats£) aadv t».At tuti ^furnqm b^lxzaB 

■^.yr- ; ^w** wv ^diTtJBtt aa^cf J!}«d 9da f»At mid tXo# 94* 

» n9A»i b»A 9d» Mas 9dt deittw ni faiiliMtte)^ "' -r'^^fl « •^oxv tttfc 

^A^ ' t9##«E fl £)9i1tiM9J>i ii»d;i «««« fncia*^© „ sj/J; T<ril' ti-suioiQ 

J8»bIo »d;t i,dA ifambnuX^b oi ^otn «4fe- ^no *d* m %- , am/t 

«totf Mo tan ^laifiXllU ifAiitam— t tqSjIt aslTiiilU titcf 

tffJ' ^"^ ddF dinal) «d9 (^o» x»tM «« «o • uo 94f no #q9Xii 

»oo xsT? 9d# no tqola 9d »^tft bo#«#B btiA «iutlXXl< d^i« fqaia 9«iir 

,f«.rf.4-nf^ b«>ill*j.-«»;? »jl£ •dpTO'i nx/i edt no Jb9<f t-^^ M* co tijaXa tds fcoa 

!0 saiQs«>X» »K* s4« *iirf* » .»lili'4»li»sx»-e»oto jio 



is At ..-.*. 



9 

and wllliiia w%s eleepi&g on th« «tr«y oot« defend^tat attespted to 
eooKS Into b«d with h«r« but tb«'t elae teXd hla th«.t v^illlsa w%8 
sleeping there nnd thnX he "should have more eense, «> a^n of his 
^ge**; thnt he th^& ««nt bnok to the hotise. She «<!« then ^siced 
queatlons in tan iittempt to lapeaoh her on the basis of Ansirers given 
at the henring before the Justloe of the Peace. She testified that 
''we told her [Mrs* Durhiuil thnt I vas a eousin so es to have the 
respeot of the ooisaajnity out the e. Mo one tr^w th^t I had h»d the 
baby until 1 went bsiok there %fter the bnby xtns born*. She denied 
that she did ai^thing improper with reapeot to either of the t«o 
older boys* She ^dsitted th-^t she ati^t have put her ara around 
the neok of either of the boys as «. friendly gesture, and tb<it 
defendant *bairled se out once beo^use I b^s kidding with the oldest 
bey« I T'as heloing him out with his studies aiui I w%3 sitting on 
his knee one day and he bawled a« out for it," 3he fvirther testified 
on oroBs-exnmination that she wished to ohange her testisony on 
direct exaaination to the effect that defendant had not visited her 
at the hospital. She testified th^t he visited her onoe when she 
w&s working in the hospital laundry; th<?t he did not give her any 
money. She was also asked questions purporting to show th*^t in 
the preliminary hearing she testified he had visited her at the 
hospital two or three times* She answered thnt she understood that 
he had visited the hospital several times but thnt she ssw him only 
onoe; th^t she was informed th»t he had oome there on other oocaaions 
and thpt it is a Tvle of the hospital that no inforajfttion is given 
out ♦•when you work for your delivery" | that n% the tiiae the b»*by 
waa born she did not give any name at the hosoital; that the b»by 
wms then t«ken to the vTradle, an infj^nt asylum in f-vistnston, Illinois, 
where she gave ?» fiotitious name for the f^ither of the child; thmt 
"we were told th«^t ??e did not have to name the father"; that at 
the hospital she f^^s not asked to name the father of the child; th%t 
the job of the hospital and the doetora is to deliver the child, and 
that they do not o&re who the father of the child is; th«t while she 



• 

eiii \o o-"^ B j»«fl»* »To« s-^' _ ? dj tar 9%9iii yBiqs«Xi(^ 

li?9Xt K' aBlf^^ i,ir) »*ft .^z^^.*' *fl^ <># ia^c :fjft- AA^il.t "*rf #«itf i"*-.. 

•<j# b/id bsii . oM * .^liiKftt^Aoe silt lo te«<i»*t 

fet>ln»5- 't.rf'" ,*jrf-->'-' *Ait iOf<f tti^m t Hittu ft^ 

th xqmt :^JtiC#t(t« bib •i» SnAi 

act VtP' MlK «fixr tiS, jMlialM tJtw I «XO(^ 

hmtyit- a? jTvo Ml btti:^K«} »tf tea t<^ •»• «Muf tlrf 

'odie o;^ 8fiitxo<sxifri M9iS%«ux> b«fSr >\;tfl#a 

nut Hi rUi t»tfJtr bitH ml £>«mtfe*# Mb 8iiit«i»cf x^U(ia«lI«Tq «<!? 

Xiao mifi v^e sde ^''^ iuti 8Mi# Xst«v»e X«»lc«e£f silt b»ftutr bmA tH 

rill i»4tfo ao •T»ift tt»o« b' 'it bfim%Q\ui <&'•■*' iitft tisif# ;»ono 

u»vi^ Bl ttoitoimi.o\nt oa iotii ijitiqmoA tuki t« sXi/t « ml il t'*d$ bat. 

tar^cf sc(;r #«jf} |X«tiq»«ii »dt }« aaitfi tM «rl^ #oa blt> t<f« aT«tf lii'^ 

««ieaXiXI «co*Mr*T? fll Kwl^e*' ^Jfjetiti ha »«XI>«irO »rf.* o* a»i»# tf»d# »«* 

* t jfeXlrfD 9tit 1© -xdrit^l «rf# «ot m*a »a«ifi*' ^^ •rf» •T»ifw 

fg! isKdt i**t9dt?'J Silif •nail •» tva^ #«« bit »i tii IiXo* •tw »«« 

to rt»rf*rtY »rft •■ii«r o* fesia* ton b>^^ »«t« XaJ^ltraoil <»rf* 

, t , ' o^oi) od* ban XiiJlceo/I «f# lo tfot •^^ 



6 

worked *tt the Mitchell hog* ahe urent Into Ohiosgo n ocfuple of %l«9» 
to ylalt « gifX friend; th^t sho did not go into Chioage while 
Hra« Dxxrhs* was at the house; th«(t after going to Ohlosgo she 
Arrived hoae ^t 10 or 11 o*eloek in the evening* luod thnt ahe did 
not eome in as late aa 2 or 3 in the aorning* She testified further 
tli&t alie had piotures tnlnen \3\it not for the purpose of sending m 
pioture to defendant; also th<<!t 9he told hi« thnt she hmd soasie 
pictures taken t&x nn ^oooaaion just like this"* She denied thnt 
she hftd intercourse with any one other than defendnnt; admitted that 
while she w«ts ^t the iiitohell hoM she beoaae acquainted with a boy 
in the neighborhood by the mime of tou alters but that she was not 
going with hia; th >t sooetimes the iditohell boys, ^altes ^nd herself 
pluyed gaises ^t the ititohell hoaie« or in niters *b simter's home la 
the nei^borhood; also that she visited r iverview Perk in oompany 
with Walters and others* 

Antoinette ThosMa, or>lled laj the people* testified that she 
lived in ft house r>bout ^5 feet from the Mittrtiell house; that she 
lived there since ^nj, 1913; tbtit she saw defendant <*bring this girl**; 
that she saw defendant and the girl go shopoing "or some plaoe**; th<)t 
sho did not see (iladys eoaing or going from the aitchell hoae with 
anyone else; th- 1 Gladys w».s s "very good watoh girl". Urs* lUchard 
Idffiuk, called by the People, testified that at the time she testified 
she lived about a blook aw<iy from the Mitohells; that formerly she 
was a tenant of the defendrint and rented the upstairs flat froa 
January 1st to September Ist* 1933; that while she lived at the 
lilt^oXl hoHM she washed in the basement; that she was then asked* 
"are there simepiiig quarters downatnirs?" Rttd she answered* "there 
wasn't tidiien I moved but they have made up two rooms down there sines 
while I was living there"; ^i. «it»ile you lived there do you personally 
know ^o slept in the baseaMnt of the Mitohell home?" A, "Tea, sir.** 
itoe then stated that she did not know Gladys, the prosecutrix, 
••last ye?»r"; th^t she met Gladys when she came back ^this ye%r«. 



r^ 



fci 




t»tf»l 


iivri 3i: 


» ^nlLr:^ 


' >0 »•€ 



••tM 

ioalv'Q IX zo CX i< insioti barinu 

t9.tit tmiamb t/<y ••»!!■» »:it.f <f*«t rioie'-;^oc" its tot tt9AM$ ••ttf#oiq 

^cf r <« ««oxl XXftd5^iM 9d^ t» •!«« M^n ftXldW 

^OA » - -»i^ 3 i. .'4 to aa^a MCI x<f toorfTotfdslta tifl ni 

1l9«t»£r biBo «c*tX;$ « <v<. i^r-j .ii)« 3i(^ 8«cci#«iiO« #^^# {alii lilXv Sflios 



xai 



< Xt^X «t«^ »M3i» 9<X»l(^ i>9TiX 

Vif,tton rxhr.il tM Ion bt6 •rf« 



sfji^ ««ofC Xlftife^lli 91(1 so 

•<fo XA«a««ot Jrdi jtXX»**lM WC# M? 'VlX »rf8 

9d.t r» fc»viX »tfe •Xl*r rfa»*q8r «* IbX ^Taiinat 

•tMf" ^8t»r»ii« 8118 MA «rsTX4il«««r«l> 8Y»#icjtur 8^1<r**ia »^s<(l v^" 

•©file trtaift flwob 8modi o«# qu •fc«B •Vf^A Vi^ iud !»•▼«• I «8rfw I'najs? 

tXIuifOC ?T»rf* fcwiX «ox •Xli» vii »»w I aXiifar 

!8moii XX»4o#XU ftiff lo »ji8a!8ej<d »^^ al lq8X8 •<fir vojiM 

,ifl5*if08«<rtq »ri* •rxfesXL wofli #00 blD •dn UAt b9it*m amU* •m 



7 

9h« WR9 tli«n ««lc«<i, *but you dldn^t see her ^.t ^ny tiae vfhen 
mrked nt Mitchell's nt fill?" and she a»uaw«r«d, ''Yes, this 9umm«T 
I did, I fl!4w her every dny", the co\art then asked, '*i^en did she 
eo<ae to nork this euioBer, itad&ffl, in 19397** The witness answered, 
"1 believe it was in August*** She further testified th«^t her best 
re9oXl«^otion was th't aindys worked in the uitohell hone in August 
"of this ye'ir, 1339**, and th<;t n% that tine the witness lived 
upstairs* On oross-exaiaination she was asked if she knew how Miss 
i^ittenoeyer caoe to OfMW baok in August « 1939* ehe answered, "well, 
%11 1 know is that he went after her and brought her there"; that 
i^e SAW hia bring her there; th>%t he brought her there first on a 
Standsy and that she spent the day there* She was then asked if she 
would be surprised to know that the warrant was 9«orn out on July 15, 
1939. i^he replied that she did not know axqrthing about th%t« She 
was then asked, "But you are positive she caffle b^ok there and worked 
one aH>nth in August?** nod she replied, •*! say she caoe baek this 
suouoer and I thought it was August"* She al o reasserted that 
Mr* Mitohell broi^ght her baok* She further testified th^^t Olndys 
had a suit oaae when she oaae bnok* Isabel imeedin, oalled by the 
People, testified thit she lived olese to the Mitohell home and th^t 
she did not see her (prosecutrix) come to or go froa the Mitohell 
home with men. sirs. Thomas nallace testified that she lived in 
rreeport, Xilinois, and was a sister of Gladys, snd th^t she was 
taking oare of aiadys's baby. The defense then recalled Gladys to 
the stand for further eross-examinntion. 3he was asked questions of 
an i«pe«^ohing nature in an endeavor to show that on the preliminary 
hearing before the Justioe of the Peaoe she had testified that she 
went out with a boy named Lou, On the trial she stated that she did 
•o, but thit Lou* 8 sister was always present* She further testified 
th?tt after the bsby was born and while the baby was in the Cradle at 
Svanston, she oame out and asked «itohell for support for the ohild* 
She was then asked, "Is thnt the Inst time thvt you were out there?" 



ii 



T 

9ife bit n»Kir« ^tirsiMi B9^t *—■' -IT . " v^*> TW» M^ ir«« I •♦ib t 

film** ^tsit'nwtiaM Mifi «<i(i:(i ^^ttcriMfv^ ai li^Mf ovoo ot •■«« i:«YM>ao^-»^ 
^«vjci^ {"•lafiid xma. iii^iiQXii £«« i«ii talt* tUfhK ftK l^/)4^ el «oaal I XX« 
« ao #atit 97»t^^ ¥«tf ^frc^^'ova «fi i}'iitf# itn9ilS r94 8«itcf Aid was *dm 

»i(e .tJi^^^ ^uo<I« ^iiityi^ ««£U Ion bi^ u(« ta/ii bBUn^t tfl^ .eCttX 

^•^riio^ bap ftnotit jlft.«tf weut'O »ito 9Tills#q •if i/ot '^*' ti!»ia« a»tit ■•« 

sidiT ilo«d iHi!*!!) tbt fe« l*" ,i>»iX^m »il9 i^it ,iA ni tUa^m mo 

»fi^ V0 ^•il»9 «aij><»«iic X»<l«0l .j(»>»if aKx>9 nam am^ •tise #li#e i^ iyma 

t'^tit bo* mmoA ilti&*lii mm &i sm^lt ti^rii ma t Hi t>»Zlit««# ««iQo*<{ 

iimdoiiH nfl$ aM»tt «» to aS sstoo i%txty9mt9r9i) nmd mmm ima bib mdm 

al bikvki 3A9 imAi b'>>mt99i t^ «tedX ««tJI *a9m A$l9 •nod 

frf « «49 #?»i<* bus ,ftbJiXC l« t»#el» n msTK b«? «8io<ilXXI ,*Toq«9lrt 

o* «x6*^fe hsXXilow a»rf# tt(ia»)«t ftdt .xc*«d e*tT&«lO to •!«© •galimt 

I0 mtimlim*up b&i^-'^ aew mitB, ,uoi9mlak*y!*''mmQtt> t^dtrt^ vol lMi«y« Bdt 

XtsaittXl6t% 9Ai ao /«d# wodf o* To»*»toi» aju ni mxuim anido«»^«l ca 

ads #£;if^ iimXTittm^i l>«d Mt ooav^ •dif to m^iimui ^df rx«rt9H ^aliTAOd 

bXb mdm *«d* Uat^n td* IjiXt^ »d* aO .^i t>«ii«a to«» ^ iJ*^« #««#«•• 

t9Xtl^eo$ x»d*TOt 9de •tdCftttq ot««l* •*« !f«#8l« 8»tfoa i»df tud ^00 

,bX4do »d* 10** f%o<{%if» ntot XI»d»*l« ^aioit !»«« *W0 •mmm mdm ♦aottn-y 
• Y9i*d? »tfO <wi»w iiox *rjf# tp^l ,l>tdw «w» ••« •!« 



8 

and she aiuiii«r«d, "ke« h« o^am In to «f girl friend* s and got me 
thea« bag and baggage*" 

The defend»nt, who la 40 ye«.rs oldf testified in his own 
behalf th«t he was purchasing the property where they llvedj thst 
he had been t»ioe married j th-'t he ^^9 dl^oreed frona his first wife 
when the two older boys were two or three yenrs old; thnt about 8 
years before the trial, he remarried; th^jt twins «^ere born of the 
second marriage; that the twins* "aother is « nerrous sort of wora^n 
and the children got on her nerves and she just wnlks off snd sifter 
she is gone a while, she settles down and oomea bmok. She h»s 
ooae bnok on several occaaions"; th >t she (his ?rife) -^^3 in the home 
"one tise when Miss ^ittenoteyer wsis there staying**; th^t he is % 
railroad switchman for the B&ata >e end works different shifts; th%t 
he is on the extra board and works whenever hours are aivailiible; 
th^t Jirs, wurtiwi worked there three wrecks; th??t he had sn adver- 
tiseaent in the paper for a housekeeper to take oare of the four 
children; that prosecutrix answered by letter; that he« defendant. 
In turn replied to her letter; that he drove to Bouth Belolt and had 
an interview with prosecutrix on July 5, 1938; that after a eonferenoe 
he retained her; that she (Gladys) told hia thnt she was aaarried and 
that her husband wfts in the Navy; that the statement thnt her husband 
was la the navy wss repeated in the presence of others after they 
arrived at his hofl»e. He denied that he told any one that aiadye 
was his cousin, or th?it he heard any one say thnt she wis his cousin. 
He further testified thnt Gladys ea«e there en June 6, 1938, and 
iirs. iiHjrhafli left on June 13, 1938; thi<tt in the presence of Mrs* 
Ourhaa and the boys he frequently reprlm*»nded 'Jladya for her conduct 
with respect to th© boys; that Gladys would sit on Charles Junior's 
lap and put her ara» around hia; that be cautioned her to stay away 
from the boys; thrtt Gladys remained there froa June a, 1938, te 
Septeaber 18, 1938; that the e^use of her leaving w»a misconduct 
with the boys; that he saw faalliarlty between Oh^rlea Junior and 



V 



I 

T»^''- imB Yte »3{£«ir ^Hiit »£(« hnr^ nftrxsx t»i9( no #0^ ii«TbXido »iff Jbii« 
ftntf •<{€ .JBLiicf SMioo hffv nvob ••Xt#9» •ite «»Iiiiv f^ aaos a-' *<*• 

:" "^{x*t» (»T»rff f^w t»x''«!--'^»^'Ti* «»i]K a»dm tmit •oo" 

-«»v£^«! «« ft«if »#j *'*<{♦ j»3l««i»" f»»<«ft <»t»!f» bWltoy ««lA(iri> .BtM J^tf* 

isAii bne^ fiola^ {f#0e<B #t t»vmb urn tntSS ;t9#i«i Yftif e» b»iXo«T aicut al 

httf t>»i*rxm wmv Mf» #«i«> ciif JbX«t (e%bRl«) siit #/^4# |vbtf baorla^M •d 

XBtit T«»i« »it«ili'« t(& •»«»#•*« **# tfi b»tA*gM •«« T^^'r. o/fj al uiv 

«t^«X& #«>ll# «ao YBA *!•# ti( >t9tfl b9iR»t M{ ,«Bor^ &9v1tt« 

•aiftj^o tttd •■frw fttf« ir^if# t»<'' *>« tBC'^ b«r«!r; "^rf f<^^f(# to «al8uo0 aid Cffw 

turn «ai^l «S aairi; ao 9Y»(i# wmm )»t' ' £«11biir«»^ t9d#tii^ •fl 

♦ vsttf 1« »&tf»»Miq atf^ at ttidt ; « - «iujfiU ao *t«X a^dtuu .ctl* 

f-toiJitfl e»iY«dO ad fit JsiXuoir «tbAXO indi \»j!o4 9dt mi irHqft dfln 
■^A Ys#» &t titd bwtoitmo *d ff^dt jitid bauotit »«ts 'xad #uq bius q«X 

-« saXvfittX Y«l td •mu«9 »dt indt i9S£l «aX xndm^iq^Q 
fciMi tolmii a^X-j^fO a!>»w#9tf t*l»«*^'*««'* »*« *^ *^^* jitxotf «!♦ ''♦^ 



s 

Gladys 13 or 14 tiaes* and on eao^ oeorislon he reprlaaaded her, the 
ffiiaoonduot oonslnted of her sitting on Charles's Imp, He stated 
t^it he also s^w Ulndjra lie on the bed alongside of the younger boy, 
Wllliaat, and put her am around hla. He further testified th^t he 
did not at any tiae have interoourse with the proeeoutrix and that 
he did not know that he wae charged with being the fnther of her 
ohild irntil June, 1339; thnt in June, 1939« he wae asleep and that 
shs walked in and woke hin up «tad asked hia to go "downtown mnd 
sign adoption papers for her baby, that is the first tiise the bnby 
was aentioned;** th'^t he told her he had nothing to do with the bnby; 
that "she o rried on like she did on the witness stand and I went 
baok to sleep and she left"; that he did not go to her and bring 
her to his house in June, 1933, and did not bring her there in the 
year 1939; that he visited her at the hospital four tiaes and paid 
her aoney on eaeh ooeaaion on aooount of her salary; thnt when he 
▼isited her at the hospital she did not aoouse hia of being the 
f-ither of her child. He denied that he •^t nrsf tiae atteopted to 
eliab into bed with the pro3eoutrix« He further testified th^^t the 
boys slept in the basetaent **a lot of the sumoer, 1933, •* He was 
askedf *How about 1938?" and he answered, "Here is a reoeipt froa 
the oeaent oMft miio finished the ^alls in the b.^^seaent, d^ted Ootober 
19, lass," He also teatifled th t he s^w Gladys hugging and kissing 
Charles Junior, and that he saw the ^aae oonduot by Gladys as to 
the younger boy '^illlaa; that she frequently i?ent into Ohioago in 
the evening and did not return until 2 or 3 o*olook in the aorning; 
that in the morning at breakfast in the prssenee of the boys, she 
narrated her experiences of the night before; that he reprimanded 
her for so doing and told hsr to desist; th«5t he firat knew that 
IMI was aooused of being the father of the child r»bout the aiddle of 
June, 1939; thst while she worked for hia, she asked for adv^ineea of 
oash in order to go into town* idiioh he gave to her; that he agreed 
to pay her f7,00 a week* on cross-exaaination/was asked whether. 



&i fHiAt 2M»iti»9«^ TMtY&xt «ll •etiH bOHO-K* «tB YOtf tv«r &BUI «tBAiiilt 

;r-^ift iMi^ xiT;ri;e»94otz9 Ail^ tffiw •e«{ic«'r»#fli •▼«< Milt put $» torn Jbld 

i!;«(f to ^■Mfr.^ »ti9 ^i«n rf»4;.»r fr9^Ts49 tmr •< t«f{# nonM ton hik M( 

;^««<ft IKIA q«»i8#< B£w Mf «tMX ««fl«rl ai #?tf# |tS«i ,Mtfl. Xlfffu ftiliM 

txif. .f^A^awftfc" *|^ 0!^ Miff tlOi^it thn qu mtn «t«« b^M ai *MfXim #tft 

.tn*>« I bn^ r dt fM bib Mi« •sTlI Ao btl^t « •<{•* tmg9 

':^att^ (vf^ T9 9 9M ^o »lb »d tuift {"#li»l iff a A«« «r»ttlB »# <o«ctf 

^ f# a I ft^onf tatf ^^jivrf «aa Md hte .tSbX ^•au\ at ««tfOiff tjri o# turf 

1^ Stjif* siNKif Tfn)'^ X<»tl^»oll •*(» *« T*rf l»»i|«lv •!( indf jeWl 1tff«t 

<«rf {r#if9 tf^tif ixt*li^* t»if to tau<^t»«e «• aci«A»*« £C»«« ao x*ho«! tdtf 

ii*d$ ivTjtftd lo ttlli «««i«»9«k tdM !)lh »4E» X«i9M**i( Aif^ ^c «*d l>»#ittit 

s-^ri #<?!»»•« « •! VYAK* «b««ei#eaft •!{ te«« »T8tti #«;•«« f»«B* ,b»iM 

^ii>«ti^jr bffiK ^fllTtn&tf st^AXD «(i« iif P#if b9k\kf%9t 9»i» •» "•tSOX «tX 

Oit •« etb«XC YVf HMbiiAO mia<^^ Mf ««* ^d tnAi ba* ,toiajar& «*XlMlO 

ftl cf^mtaXi otnt tR<N» tXta«i^9i:1( «<(« i»M {vniliiw t«<f ti>t|flti«x Mt 

i^niifsett sif* Hi 3loolo*« 8 «© " Xito» «t»**»* *•« »il> !>«» gftlii«7» 9At 

•d[« «eto^ stft to 9cm**a9Xq •if at #««):)C»*ittf Is i^ittfm «il# iri #sif* 

' t^r ^^«i fmll: 9ff tRif* }t6l»9b o1 f4 kloi foaR ^iob «»« Yot «»<! 

|>«ftYBA »tf *»rf* jtsd •* •»«» Aii rfolAr »«»•* i^JTfll ©8 ©* «»*t© al rf»«o 
,Y»d»«4« *•«»» imwWltB«l««x»-««#fp ' '*^ * dO»?t tail t««f •♦ 



io 

irtiea h« liiy«d n. housefeeepey, he «i»ilway8 asked for a pictur«. He 

nnawered th».t he never requested a picture from any glrl» He 

d«ni«d thst he requested her to aend hi« n. picture ©f herself; that 

on the oooaslooe he Tialted her In the hospital he gave her sooe 

ironey; th t he had not given her any aoney froa the tiite ehe left 

his hoe^ on epteabir 18» 1938* until he visited her In the hoepitftl 

iB the spring of 1939; th-^.t when she left his bofflo he gave her 

$10»3&; th'it she left her sister's address as her wsiling «4dre8a; 

tlint he did not sail her any ntoney; that he did not have «iny «on«y 

to spare. On further cro89-~exa»in!^tion sis to whether he hid nsked 

her to send him a pioture he ensvered, <♦! don't recall i>tsking for 

hior picture". He was «sked« '*^ould you say you did not ask for her 

pioture?" He said, "ilo, sir". He finally st-ted th-^t he wt-e pretty 

sure he did not i^sk for her picture. He n.lao denied that he he«>t 

her. He stated that after ai«dys left his hoiae in ^epteaber, 1338, 

she oame haok in ootober, 1938, and asked for her wages; thnt he 

told her he did not have mxoh to spare, >ii»i th t he then g«ve her 

ta»00; that the last tiae he sa^ Qladys at the hospital w^s U^rdh B3, 

1339, ftod that he saw her in the reception room; th^.t he did not 

notice «nythlng unusual about her appesranoe. He further testified 

thi't after the tiae in June when she emme to his hone and ta^lked 

About the ^^doption papers, she oame b^ok agjxin the Imtter part of 

June, 1939. He finally answered thet aiadya oc^ae b^iok about the 34th 

or 35th of June, 1939, snd « stayed until the 15th of July*. He 

further stated that utoen she returned in 1939 she stayed atwrnt h*lf 

a month. 

Hens Durhsa te«tifled th-'t she wss employed toy the defendant 

as a housekeeper; th^t she had given notice th t because of the 

illness of her sister she had to leave; that aiadys arrived at the 

home on June 5, 1938; th^t she, the witness;, left the Mitchell hoae 

on June 13th; th t ai^idys told her that she jr?j8 a cousin of Mr. 

Mitohell; that the aorning after the arrival of Gladys she saw Gladys 

put her arms around Charles Junior, and th^t she also si^w her sit on 



* r 
*• •""' • :: )B. -i on-na 9a a^iip 

{ 9£U3 A»lt9 jfdlt iSfi^I to Sa^^QB «Xitf ^U 

l>^if;r {X<M«* Xoi* ^9d llffm #011 JbJtJb ftil ./ ^<. 

tot ^i * ...»TO*hrt ^^;1 *'ii;-*C.X- •» ».lif bifm Oi ^9ti 

• «7£froi toa bllb 9ti 0'til* 

V At b9t»S9 »H ,T»ri 

t . «<x9doioO Hi Jio 

i»i1 mutt J-t^i adt *i*il# jOt ♦'•-. 

if:; ,, 

iMB« MwfC •X4 at Mue riuik al ml^ •tit ftfiM ' 

•4# «i , nottqcbn •tii iuotiit 

iio»d 9«u»G tij/i^r : as xXXaj-. * ."^aul 

/iJ«cfB b^x'"^* ^« *^^^ <I'^ lMlJB'!Ur#«n •!(• II9tfir #ajf# Jb»tiijhi ic»dtTx/l 

9rf* t« b9vtTi^ %\bnlli tt-Ai ;*v#«t et fc*tf •<<« T9#«iB «©d to •••nill 

eeK'f lX«i!©#llt ®<f!f n»I ,»»«ff*tw 9^9 ,«f« ffiff jSKfiX ,3 9msh xro »«0li 

,^K te unum * e*»w ♦!!» fflilf T«rf I>Xo# »ti&«XD #«f» jif#£X •fli^. fl© 

ao #i» v*if 9ft» veX^ ftrfat #iii(f te« ,i«lfitr% *»X««KO hnuoicii Miiifl yiijI #tiq 



u 

Sbarles Junior's iapi th^t she amw like oonduot ljetwe#n aiadys afld 
i^ililsm Mitchell; that oa the ni^t of Jii«« 10, li5S, aiadya left 
h^one at aisout 9 P«tf« and did not r«?turn until 1 or 3 o*oloo)t in 
the Bornlng. Bhe «l18o tdstified th^^t Uladya snid she w'-ts smrrled 
to ft sailor* 3he ftirther testified th-t she, the witneaa, wna paid 
#6.00 a veeli %nd thnt she wme paid eaoh week. Ohsrles !>• ^tehell, 
Jr. testified that he was «» senior in hi^ s^ool; thnt he saw 
aiadys the ttornlag after hex arrlr^l «t their hoae «nd th?»t on th«,t 
Aorning she eat on hie lap, nnd %hn% she kissed him good-bye as he 
was going to sohool; th-'tt llKc oeeurrenoes took plaoe ?%bout 50 times, 
and that she oondueted herself in like m^^nner as to silllnaj thnt 
she frequently went to Chlo^^^i;:© 'ifter supper in the evening and 
did not ooa» hoae until after aidnight; th^?t she kept ooapany with 
% boy na^d tou; th«>t Qt the breakfast table she freouently re- 
counted her experieneea of the previous evening, nnd thst his f-^ther 
framed her th^t they were not interested in fter experiences and to 
desist* Wllll»ai Mitchell testified in n simll'^r vein to his brother, 
aXadys testified on rebuttal thnt her »el^t at the tloie she worked 
for the defendK^nt was 1^ pounds and thnt at the tloe be siaw her at 
the hospital her wel^t wss 185 pounds; th-^t *hen he asw her at the 
hospital it -ff^B in the day tl«e and th-^t the room w-^a i^rell lighted* 
The defendj^nt, by his counsel, read Into the record excerpts froa 
a transcript of the record at the preliminary hearing, these 
exeerpts were introduced for the purpose of lape^^ohln^ the prosecutrix, 

i^fendant Insists th?tt the testimony of Gladys is not 
worthy of credence. He s-'sys her teRtlaony Is inconsistent as to 
the oioture* 9he testified that she sent hl« a picture In response 
to his request* He testified th-»t he did not re<tuest the picture. 
However, on orosa—exemlnatlon, -.^s to theplcture, he ^hb evasive. 
He said he aouid not any th.^t he did not ask for the picture and 
flnelly tht "he w?«s pretty sure" that he did not ask for the picture. 
Defendant challenges Gladys* s testimony th?*t she had intercourse 



11 

^« nXt ^ iqMi t*TOiiTtft VSlTlllfO 

.i bih imM Jt*H a fvocm tm wm^d 

,ii#jj[«}9^i iMT »'«« •<(* #«>tft ftflK J[»*W M 00«9| 

ufiOii <J3|ii< tfi tolirftt « •«« (Uf #ni{# b»ill#««# .tl 

Irvit«« tM tunii Balaton •Ai sttoXt 

.^i< :^^it»v t9;tl« o^itolirfO of tufim xttn'^uvif^\ #<ft 

jf^jt" b|« falfXn tiftut tmett mtet* toa bJth 

nlT^«J •iff to 'i'J^'nsiTTTxa T»lf fe^MtifM 

M T7^trrl toB •*»» Y«rif f if f »<Mf fe8irr«« 

. i^^itileOf XlMfoflli UriiXlt •f8lft«l> 

jLj ■».., .■ ^,>,j.^ xM i-'dt X«*tiprf«t «• ft9i'tlf««* »\b«XO 
— *• "'-* * ♦■>d* l»Ci* «tfc«w«B? O^X w fa«6R*l«^ 9d9 %<tt\ 

;ft^l!U<KJ S6X «<«v tftliOW VIM IJltlqSOlC •tff 

/-,,,,. ;ji.^ **— •■ -^v-- *t<tff fce# »»if t^«*"' *** «^ «** *^ Xaf !«!••<! 

«c0«(r««nt Hi sttffoio f* «iir #fl»8 a^ t«itf |JiiXtX#«»* wf- t»XMJi>lq •At 

,9vi»«nr» «#w 9d ,*tj;rf»lcr«dv ,rtaifJwX»«E»-H»oao no ,T*r««cK 

hax* ♦-r»»»ic? «»«tf wl il»* foil fcXi> »ri »'iif V» ♦•« ^Xm«« »' '^ 

^dfiffoi* 9rff ^at 3l«jR *•« bift •< #*rf» ''««wi» Vtttq Aim •*• t«^ tiX«aXl 

•rtwMt^fat fe«rf «!• f*rff tnc«l*8«f aU^i^XO 8»sit»XX«iIo fflri:ii«l:«G 



13 

with hlffi cor&menoiag about June 10, 1938, nndi oontinulng until th« 
enrly part of September, 1938. iJefendinnt nttsoks her testicsoBgr oon- 
oernlng her friendship with Lou A«lteT8, DefeiKiHnt points out that 
ahe gave the najm of n flotltious persofi ns the father of her ohlld 
i^ea the child was plaoed la the Grmdle, and that at the time the 
bfthy was Dorn she did not naae the fnther. ile m%lnt»lne that mt9» 
Edene., a witness for the i^eople, testified that she did o^t know 
aiadys during the f«nv 1938, contrary to the testistony of Gladys 
that she first oMit her in the spring of 1939. He also e^lls «^ttentlon 
to ^hnt he tffras are eontradietions in the testisaony of aiai^s thst 
the boys were sft««plng in the bnsement during the summer of 1338 
and to T'Arlous other alleged oontradiotlons. The reoord does not 
show th^t OlRdys st<ited th»t she talked to Mrs* Edeam in 1938* She 
did testify th3t »t the time she beoase pregnant she talked to the 
woamn who lived upstairs. Mrs. Ideas did not live upstairs at th^^^t 
tine* She did not move into the uitohell house until January, 1939, 
One of the contentions of defendant is that the proseoutrix lied when 
she 8<sid th^t one of the Mitchell boys slept in the b^^sement* Mrs. 
£de»a testified that the two older boys slept In the bnaeiaent while 
tfbe was living In the house. She fxirther testified th' t during her 
ten&ney, there uere no sleeping quarters In the bsseaent, but th'^t 
two rooms were oonstruoted there while she was living there. It 
will be noted that la the early p«irt of June, 1938, the Mitchell 
flat WHS occupied by the twins, the two older Mitchell boys, isars. 
Durham and her daughter, the defendant and the prosecutrix. The 
spurt aent consisted of a living room, a dining room, « bed room, a 
kitehen and a sun pereh. Olsdys did testify that she told defendant 
that she WAS mfirried to a sailor and th*~^t such statement was not 
the truth* on direet examination she testified that defendant did 
not oall on her in the hospital. On oros<5-examlnation, however, 
she admitted that he did cell on her. However, there are importsnt 
oireumstanees that tend to corroborate her testimony. She testified 
that after she left the Mitchell ^4ome in September, 1938, oa the 



-aott Xfi<»»>Ue7i-4 fif t ■■ ' "s^fm^itiiU ,Hm «vt(f«»^»u to irmj \lsun* 

• «X4 ?><(f.i lb t «l(f •»«« $1» bib tt4« ITHKl Mn HtfMf 

-9rf^ ?:^ o«jfX9tf aifi; »tr«efl««t« <Mi«<H^ Ms Mill sd^ #« t^ill X^tinttt hlk 

,r.><. .. .v. ^,^ ijjtJb Mi*Ni .rut ««vi«#a9u Z>«TiX a^ jBMsov 

,. .. «^ .... . .^..Mk ilWKk$kik tt «tiii •van i»A ^it o^a ««•!# 

19^ ^ai'x^) ; >d^ bPttltm^t "iUkfiuX »tffi ••aiiroil t^t at, i^irii tAw adt 

.aiio#iil »4* »«Kei «»«(tfli lo #««^ \Xia« •4# «i *»il* Jb»#»o Mf Xil» 

• s-ui *8lotf XXWoiia tsfcXo •»# Sii* ,»«!«» stf* id Miq«9*« asw *»Xt 

Si£7 •xixti/o»«o«q td;^ Jbfi« Inttto'^lis^^d^ «T»til|i0jtli xii bat* m»ii%jQ 

M ^QOt bod J5 ««coi s^lnXii s ,*o«t ^iviX » to ^stftisooo $U9mtr9%0 

iasijcatab 6X0* 94« f-^rf* tJl*ft»* 61fc »yA«1^ .tiatoq a»rs i»,h«« «»ifo#l4 

;ro0 •jotk' to»&»^j&t« i(»i/« tsi^Lt bat YoXiJse * »t bnlfi^ mem Siis #^# 

,iov«w^ ♦flOi#Afli«usx«-se«i» 00 mlAiit^tmii til* «1 "xatt xio Xiso *o« 

Jflft^xoqai W« MSitt »tsv»»«Jl .ltd M 1^«» *^^ «* *««** to«##l«i:*r •<* 

f:^ni*«»* aii& .^«»X»«s* «»d •jrj'j«4«XT#» ^ l^«t ♦iMlt •••«*>««'tt»*i« 



13 

urging of h«r sister sh« returned for ^. Any or t*© %bout a moath 
Isiter, nt which tiws the then »lf« of the defend'^at ♦^-^s In th« hosM* 
Defendant also testified thnt his wife had returned nnA wbm %% hoae 
"it the tiflie iXadya oane there In the f«)Il of 1938* then the 
defendant visited her at the hospit**! in asreh, J.9S9, which ^r»» 
gbout alx weeks before she ieli-rered the bpby, he «t»ted th«it he 
did not knew th?^t ehe w«8 pregnent, Thle statement seriously refleot* 
on hla oredltollity. He *n» the father of four children. It would 
be rather remarkable if he fnlled to note the ebsnged nhyslc^i 
««,ppe«ranoe of Gladys nX a tiae she «r*?a in an Advanced state of 
pregnanoy* He o-^lled on her at the hospital and oust have known 
^y she mr^a there* lie testified thr>t he did not know th?^t he was 
charged with being the fnther of the child until »beut the middle 
of June. 1939^ at i^loh tloe Gladys bair^d into his home while he 
was sleeping and ^^sked hia to sign adoption papers for the bisby* 
However, He testified that Gladys returned to his hoae ?iround the 
24tb or asth of June, 1939, and remained there until July IS, 1939* 
His testiiReny in this respect corrobor<$tes the tr-stiiaony of Mrs* 
Sdbsms, who lived on the seoond floor of the ultohell house froa 
January to September, 1939, 2he stated th^t defendant brought 
Gladys to his home in 1939. She jdIso testified that when Cladys 
came bftok there In 1939, she worked one month, v^e have i^lso con* 
sldered the testimony of the vrlous T'ltnesses concerning the 
tactions of aladys with respeot to Charles Junior luid -William Hitehell. 
It l3 remarkable thnt the defendant, %fter reprltanndlng iiledys time 
finA tim %g9in, nevertheless permitted her to reauiia there until 
the latter part of September, 1936, and agsin for two weeks In the 
summer of 1939, after the baby w^is born. The two boys testified 
that they were oontlnuolly objecting to her attentions, The f^ot 
that she remained there for 3-1/2 months speaks strongly In behalf 
of the truth of her testimony. It will also be observed th«it 
although the defendant paid Mrs, Durham every week, according to 



u 

'^{ff avdir ••E9i t» Ila'!^ •f{7 Ai ^tntii m/^o cfiiiiXC salt Atfi #« 
fcitfov SI .iU'itl^.cfo Tij«% to ttttf^»% nat ttiiv cB .t^iXie(ii^«TO tiff «• 

SHr rri #4Mr i>it ^ 9^At h^lit1—t •» ••Ktt^t «jnr •dEe fAr 

!»iinX!& V;-? issQfi^ Litiia Itil^ tMl# t« fAte\ »ff# saJbttd iftiw Je>«HT'"(^ 

•ff aXidv 9B«ii ain &#<iX hmgttui ^ypAlXi 9mli d»ldm S» ,eefX ,aa»i )• 

«*^{rmci f»rfir Tel nT^t^*'.? fToJ;#9ol)« flsXtt e' •i'f t>*i»K l»a» -;^X4tt*Ia v^mr 

c f baum^^ %moA air! ot b««mr#«i «ti>«iX0 #«»4^ b*ill#«*# af «<xav«irdlf 

•^^K^'i ««iX ti^'l il!f»ii mtitit h9Hil-99X ham ,tt9X «afl9L ta ittss to ilt^S 

.?>T£r to t<<o>*^^«F*'^ *<^^ «»^«Tdtf9-TTO0 j^eaets^ niAt ttl t9o«l#a«# alff 

»9it aa^Qif XXada^i:- '^ tooH bfloaas •Ai tio b9ri£ otfv aCataifeS 

t.(fr^f«ntrf #npfeflatah . . ^.?#»a «*S •8991 ^''^••^<f*^ o* Ti««'f''ti 

etiijsIJ' itarfw i»dt b<9nktfi*$ a?!" *i» .tSueX ill awoif airf o* exfcs^XD 

•>aao a«i.«> arjtrf air .if^nae fwie ba:tfT6'<r «^ «es6X ni araif^ dHand aaiAa 

©ift ^ilaraoribo a««a»!itlr » r'f r «dt to tae«i)^»»^ ♦rf^ barsfcir 

*iX»dti^srXi ttf»lXXXiif fc«« iroXmrt. aaXi^ r>flqjiflt if^lw avhftXC lo tittoMtO'- 

&a>jtf BXl^i^XO gfflXlMiPMliqiME tatl* ,*fli«fe«ial»fc ©At* ##rf* aXcTurjfTMRaT al #1 

litKif 9T»fi^ iiijR»«if otf tad fc«#rial««» asaiari^ravaif «ffi<t||e «!# ban 

■■?.(it tii siaaw o»rt^ tol BXji?<« Mi« «iSeeX ,ta«f»9f«rwi 1« #«««? «a*#«X arf# 

lvartl*B«* »Xod ©«* ««IT .««orf a«ir t«f®<* •^^ T»*%«r «96ex lo »a«ai»» 

tofll »jfT ,»«ol#e»*tJii T«if o* 3fli#o»tcro xU^p^tssktnon »»ta» x«^<*" *^J<* 

IXMatf «i XA»"»if*» ei*a<*« ^Ataam sVX-© «1 arari* <»«iiXitta<i aifa tfidt 

ipat foavtuado atf oaXa XXiw tl .vio«l*««* i»if ^o rf»t«* »rf» *» 

o* •ERi)bTe'5©JS ,sla«? t*^''* ssBrfTutl ,«tM hl*q jr«afcfl»l«»t) ©iff i^xrtJrftXr 



14 

his own testifsony* hB did. not pn.y ali^dys exempt in dribs nnd 6xmb»» 
i^e left the Mitohell home in &ptei&&er, 1933, nni hs hud her 
.%ddr«a8, yet he did not give her nny further p^^ysents on her a^ltiTf 
until she w?s in the hospit;?! In the spring of IdZB, nnd although 
he did not see fit to mail her any pnrt of the b^ilnnoe he oired her, 
he visited her in the hospital ^ile she was in »m ndT&noed state 
of pregnancy, iifter the baby was born she OT^lled on him. 3he 
then charged hin with being the father of her child. She de{>arted, 
but returned toward the end of June and res^Ained in his home niaout 
two veeks* At the tiaM he alleged Ql&dys to rea^in in his hoae for 
two weeks, he knew, according to his own testimony, th-^t she «;^.s 
Recusing hi« of being th*? f-^ther of her bs.by. The fnot that he 
received her into his hosMi sfter he knew she was accusing hin of 
being the f. Either of her baby lends strong supt^ort to her testimony, 
Aooording to his testimony she left his hone on July 15, 1339, It 
is worthy of taention th t this is the day when she went before the 
Magistrate and swore to the ooffipleint on which the warrant for his 
ftfrest w»s issued* 

This Cf^ee w-^s tried before an able nnd experienced Judge, 
who hnd an opportunity to see and he«)r th* witnesses and to observe 
their deseaaor* -^e are satisfied th.^^t the testimony of the prosecu- 
trix hfts been corroborated by credible testimony and by significant 
cirouostanoesA The trl^l judge believed the testinoiqr of the 
defendant, ^e are of the opinion th t the record shows that the 
People proved \sf a preponderance of the evidence th>»t defendant is 
the father of Uladys Witteiraeyer*s baby. 

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Oriainal 
Court of ^ook County is nffiraied* 



jvoamm ati'irmso. 



SSSEl., P.J. 0OH0UR3, and 

OXMIS E, SULLXVAU, J. DIH3£titS, 



u&<if!tb ItmP- «cf- 






^XPOtfti' 



:fl(!; r»ii •▼ill #o« bih •(! #«t ^mviM^^ 

Iff at Instated ^lit ffi «i»r fttft Xltoi; 

fYntsf Yii i«B of it\ ••■ #oa bib 9d 

nl tftdi bt^laitr dtf 

t ^Jtttf if^iw mid bm^iMdo cfdt 
■:■' but •df JbtAvot baoniitftY #trtf 

.on ai/f o#r 

T(n#e «ba«i t^^^ ' > "Sittiin'i ndi ^i*d 



-w.-sasi.iTc: ftiifdr to too*!***- 



' ~ " 4,»9oaMtmmsftxl» 
.--battinb 



n'^f. xv» '?»Ji;,' lo A'vi. 



.^tfAd' ••t»x* 



♦ U"'*'; 



.>''.^M;;aut 



4iS04 

fORIST FRISERVE W hh S3 



A. FABKIIi iaU,E% 







p.ii.nt. )3 07 I. A. 243 



z. 



il®. JUSTICE BOHJCI QStlVIRED THE OFIHIOS OF THI OOCRT. 

On OotolMr 6, 1938, plnintiff filed » oomplaint In ohonoery 
In the c;i70ult Court of Cook County and therffin »ll«ge(l th^t it wn» 
seized «nd po8«e8<ied of oertain real eat^te, ooiraionly known and 
described as the aoutheaat corner of Avenue J tnd 'inat llSth street, 
Chicago; th'^t on April 1« 1939, defendant and plaintiff eigned nnd 
delivered ^ T^ritten sealed inetmment wherelqr plaintiff proaieed 
to convey asld land by wnrranty deed to the defendant on the payaent 
by the latter of the suflt of Sl&,38b,74 in installaMnta; thftt the 
Agreeaent provides that the tiai of payment shall be of the essence 
thereof; thst the defend'>»nt f»tiled to make pnynEtents as stipulated 
in the oontr»ot; thmt on Bepteaber 15, 1936, plaintiff gAve notice 
of intention to forfeit the contract; that on October 13, 1936, plain- 
tiff laade a declarntlon of forfeiture; that the oontr»ot is r cloud 
upon plRintiff»8 title, and prayed that the contract be deoli^red 
BttU and void and thnt the paynents ai»de thereunder be deol<)red 
forfeited to plaintiff; that the oontrniot be declared a cloud upon 
the title and thnt the cloud be renoved by « decree of the court, 
Defend«nt filed an answer and a eounterolai«, Tht» counterclaim and 
anended oounterelAiB «««re stricken. Defendant then filed n second 
amended counterolaiffl. In this opinion *« «riil apenk of the Forest 
Preserve Real istate Oorporation as plaintiff, and A. Parkin Miller, 
Count erelalEftAttt, ^9 defendant* It appears thst on January 9, 1337, 
defendant served a notice on the plaintiff that ^because of your 
said wrongful acts I ahall regard -^aid contract as rescinded and no 
longer bii^in^ upon either of the parties thereto. I further notify 
you thnt the undersigned has in response of your demand for possessiea 



.i 



^f^ ^ ^ . ^ ^ S \ \ V^.^a^<liit «A 



^^<^ ^.IT08^ 




'— '• •*««! Ql ♦T»ftte,dX$ lo aim til* lo «»*#*! »/!» xd 

... 4... tM(«»tq»S 09 #<til# ;^o«<s#ifoo od# mi 

, X-. ^ ^ , - .w..,. , ... Jiitt i^«4»Y^}aeo mdt tt9\rot ot aoltaniaX lo 

, ..-. >. tr ^Yfnoe •it* ^ffi(# ;»%i/<i«T:rMil lo aoi#ntjiX»clb • ob** Hi* 

tQtixt&0t> •at *«tfi boxMtq tn* «oX#i* •'llila.tiiiq noqii 

. .h 9d ««£uiici«Y«ctt <>&«p e^aoMXJiq oif* ^aK* Imm Mot 2)1I« XXiin 

J? now {>M»lo * £)«T*io«b OCT »o»Tr»floo »dt #»!» {llilni«Xq oH b»*i»l»ol 

« T JOO 9(1* lo OOTOOJb » \iS b«TOC«X »4 I^JJOXO Otft ^«i& JbAtf oXti* »Mi 

o-T^^nuoo aiiff «iBiJiXBitoinuo9 « baa 7tt»cii« ifa boXXl tRttfeffOloQ 

hr. eXil flOflt tn'^hntttoCi •niufol's^fe «?•« iali*XoT9fatroo !>•£«•»• 

TOH od* la :U»«M{« XlJtw 09 noiaicro alsii al .aiaXotatfaaoo i^olxiOKo 

,i»XJ;is^ fflKvffi .A Iwre ,lll#aiiiX9 oa iioi**««oqtoC «/«»»3 Xaow (nrxooorH 

,?<: , nunis}» no intti u%/i9«fq» . i»im*ft m «#0««ii0XoY9#ax;oo 

tuQX ^^ a«Mii90tf«« #JWlt lli*ni«Xq od* oo •eUon « boncoo *ii4iJbiiioloft 

m ba» l»«feiilo»ot «« ^otsf^tioo Wf»e fc"i*a*« XIi»«lu I »♦•« Xfltaes*** M.«b 

Xti^oii t^iltwl I .o*«T»i£* «si*TJMi od* lo t»i!*io moqv BOiJtaier ««yK*^ 

ii»l8c*saoq tol haemmt tkox lo o«ioq«»t nl AMI b««sXo««A«ir orf* #«Mt «ox 



2 

of tli« preaisfta* abaadoned the ssmb and has placed the saa* ftt yeuT 
dls^aal* And the undersigned hereby surrenders all olalm to the 
possession of the said pxsmlaes*** Defendant in his counterol^isi 
prays for ^ judgiaent for the aggregate of the psyaents on the ooatraot 
of |:ll,833«O0. On Ootoher 5, 1939, the oourt entered a decree 
striking the seoond ^^jsended oounterolnis and denying leave to file 
a third aawnded oounterclRia. the deoret: i^lso found th^t the 
aatsrial allegations of the oomplaint were not denied by the answer 
and directed that the oontraot betre^n the parties be reaoved as « 
oloud on the title, and that Judgment be entered against defendant 
for costs* Oefendnnt prosecutes this appeal for the purpose of 
reviewing the decree* 

The first point urged by the defendant is th«t hsving 
received sll the pAyments ^hen the oontrsot was in arrears fs^ad 
having during the course of ten years* dealing between the T«.rties 
never indicated thitt it would insist upon the strict tera» of said 
contract and having thereby lulled defendant Into » sense of 
seourity, plaintiff oould not resort to the strict terms of the 
s»id contract without giving defendant notice, nnd allowing s<i 
ressonsble tiae within which defendant oould protect hiiaself from 
the fortreiture. The seoond point ndvc^noed is th^it after pmyoent 
of 111,832*00 in installment 8 pa^id over a period of six ye^rs on 
a oontraot originally for ;|11,650 and inorensed by the vendor 
malting iaprovenents to 4^16,385* 75," « sixteen d?iy notice of intention 
to forfeit unless |4,440»69 principal and |1,394,»16 interest ?^ere 
paid, was so uare»8onable ^is to be in law no notice at all*** The 
final point presented by defendant is ths^t the plaintiff having 
repudiated the contract and reposaeased itself of the real estnte, 
the defendant by serving notice upon plaintiff of its election to 
reeoind effected » rescission of said eontr*»ct, and is entitled to 
recover the sums of money paid by defendniit upon seid contract* 
As these points are relsted one to the other, we will consider 
then together. Under the contract of June 16, 1936, defendant agreed 



s 

lit! u'l {rnc(lut«%«(i *««»»ia»Tn hiait^Btii Jo aplum—moq 

»Xit o^ t»rjK?sX ^fi(l;ta«i^ to« ■l.«X9t«ihEUfoo f>ate«tf &*<>«•• •dt ^uXttxtB 

•dt #1?^^ t>m/ol: obXjh otnoab •<£!* .jMiKle^tt^iiifoo bthaiMW tniAt m 

Tftveae mrft t^ 6«l««b #•« <»t»w *«X«XQMftB mU to aael^JisalXA X«iTttf«« 

;Siiv-^n --«;, B4 r«<w.i7 wi> mU X* b»l««r #iii«q *»«il «|1T 
hirr •T^»'tt*f at Mm ^oeitlao© Mf» a»#» •tnvMXMi »dt IX* tarXMAt 

.„ .,..,..... ^..-.. ;Ja.sJb««l«i; fosXXJBX X****®^* 8«iTA<i Jba« tMirtaott 

Arfi >« sanr»;r jT^oXv^Tk *<f7 «^ n»»»T ^«Mi i>Xi;o« tlJLtnt^iii ^x*iti*0»9 

i^'oJLl» bBB «#9Xi^oii ^an£<a*^ftb aftXrX^ djue«Urx« jTMT^n^o bXj»«^ 

^■'LxiUA #o»«o%4 J»X»ott #a«i&0»l*i» doi^ a^4$tm mit •Uie^M0»»9X 

\»0\^ tr-Ai ax ia»»ii!JVX>* teX««| fcneoM «mII ♦«wjwrii»Tot eil» 

?jo r£e»x xX« 1© fcoX«m « «srn> Ai«<T »tamllfit»mi al 00«se6«XX| !• 

»«ce»v nrft tif &»«f.*lto«i 6fl« 0«d,XJa ««t xi^««X8X«Q #««1^©« * 

^si*is©#sX lo •»X#on xjiIj «»«#xXa » •^^T.dSS.iSXS •# •»««»*ro««3»X S0l3(«i 

*-x(»» $B»t»9mi »X,W«,XI !«« X*<»i«a«i «i>»0*^,*# a«»Xs« *X»ltot o* 

•tff ."XXa t& »«Xt»a o« ^bX «i '^ »* a »Xti«oo«ii»T«tf «• «»«w «^iME 

gflXTsrf tti*ol«X<| »ri* t&At Hi tiuifeaotan t"^ fedJ-aasMil tatoq X««Xt 

,»t/'«#6*s le*»t »iif toy 'tX^atX fe«M»»««o«»^ tmm f9mia»9 WH brntBibuv^ 

o* f)»X;ri:3'fl^ uX *ffl*t ,yf>«T*«o© 6X*« lt« aoltraio»»t « fentft^lt* l>nXoa»t 

taljlaao© XXXn •* ttarf#« a^^ «* ©Ott fc»if<?X»9: am^ «t«X<M[ •»»4t aX 
l)aaT9« *ii*fcflat»fe ,SSex ,ax aawL to #©aT*«oo orf* fbaU ,T«iI*a8«* ■•<** 



s 

to pay toy ttee y®''! estate the sub of *11,S50.00, He ^>?%s to pay 
$Sf633«3S OB t)i« day of the signing of the eeittxaot and |^33«0O oa 
Mareh 16, 1337, %KUi 1^33,00 OB the 16th d?.y of eaeh and evexy aoBth 
thereafter until the entire sua was fully paid, plue interest. It 

»a,8 provided th»t: 

«In O'se of the failure of the agid party of the seoond 
part CiMillerl to -'Bslice any of the pnymentB, or any part thereof, 
or perfora any of the oovenanta hereof on his part hereby made 
and entered into, this contract ah??!! at the option of the party 
of the firat part [plaintiff! be forfeited and detersined, «tnd 
the party of the second part [Jdillerl shall forfeit all oayaents 
nude by hia on this contraet, and euch payaenta sh'ill he retained 
hjr the '^^id p?*rty of the first part Cplaintlffl in full aatia- 
f«otion '^nd as liquid??ted d*iai?vge4 by it migtsined, snd in such 
event the party of the first pnrt shall hive the rij^t to re- 
enter aiui talc* posaesfsion of the prenises ?!fores'rid. * • * 
that titte of payment ah^ll be of the esaenoe of this oontrfjot*** 

It appears that on or before April 1, 1339, defendant hsd fallen la 

arrears in aaklng the oonthly insti^ll.-sent pnymenta and was in 

default under the terae of the contrsotj th -t on or about ipril 1« 

1333, the contract of June 16, 1926, was oanoelled by muttt!!>l consent 

and a ne^ oontrnct executed; th»t sKjnthly payment a under the new 

eontraot *ere reduoed from ?:•:? 35,00 a month to 3100,00 w month, to 

be paid in seventy sucoessive asonthly payments eoasmenoing on my 1, 

1939; thfit ooaa«noing in ^pril, 1933, defendant paid regularly under 

the oontraot until June 6, 1931, and auide no payment s theres-^fter 

except one payaent on AprH 37, 1933, of 163,89, fhere were no other 

fkayesente made by defendant in 1933, 1933, 1934, 1935 ttt 1936, and he 

never tendered or offered to make aior payasents under the contraot 

after April 37, 1932. It further appears th^t on September 15, 1938, 

plaintiff served defendant with s notice of its intention to forfeit, 

the last paragrei^ of which re?tds: 

"You are further notified ths^t the undersigned has at 
all tiiMs been re\dy, able rand willing to perfo*a its part of 
SHid Contract, nnd thft the undersigned is now and will be, up 
to and including October 1, 1936, re^dy, able and willing to 
perfora the vendor's pert of the contract,* 

It also appears that on October 13, 1936, plaintiff served defendant 
with a deelarsition of forfeiture, and that ^en the notice of inten- 
tion to deolaxe ferfeittire under the contract was served upon 
defsndant, he did not complain about the length of tia» given hia to 



• 

Atom r^w bam i»ti9 lo x*b m^i «<$} «e 00*?I^S$ &a« ^rrsi «9i 4o«aM 
tl •tsft'Sd^ffi tt«^X^ «M4Bq \lXtf) ft«« J&tf% •i:i»ii« •!!# XiiiUf ii9rtRmx^A$ 

fcfi,. , - *- 

-f "■■dt ttf 

-191 tanf 

ni /i»XXi«'t bi^^tf taf>tM*'i9b «8£6X ,X XItqA tiEtil^gt «o a« #r«r irtA^qqA fl 

-ua 'Ail J 'f»fcff<5 j>#i' \- ' '^osB f*ift it>s*ifO»3r% iDinrtira* w*« • fiir« 

. ^tt$no» . L a? flffloft - ■ - ^^^^ fc«©tfb»f srrtw #OJ<iT#ff«« 

'■> 9ta9m\mq xi-"^^' 5^i^«»«MHrti x^iy^r** ai blm( 94 

°s!?r^0Lr '^iT-iU;. •■■--: :i- l'Bttfia«^'*& «t9ti «Xi«T^ al ^l«tt««««KI tutlt )8(Bt£ 

-?^r^i«»Y«Ktf «^««t«v o« ^t^t^^B* teii «j[e6X «8 «Kiit» xiMir ft»4sicttfo» •at 

•d bmm •«K6i «• esf^x «MltX ,stfri «iie«x «t »iiste«t«Kl> Xtf •bm 9$am%m 

temttaott idi r9hau t#«^t«Q >M» »3(Ai «t >e%»%to T« ft»tttte«r virirM 

,9reX ,8X tftrfwwtftf*? ISC 4^-tf* Mwwi^qit '^srflTwl tl .SSfiX ^TC Xa«qA ifttlft 

:nbi^9t Aoimm tp tf9«iiM>^E«(? ^haX 9At 

#« afff rn:r'.l«iti»i)ia(u fed* •»<?!/?• hf-niJ^orr ■?*?ift^j;!«t •%• jwjV" 

•I wUMiw fc«< •Xc )4iiib</leBX tflii oiJ 

li2jil«tt«t«b iMirtdc Iti^^JUXq ,#€0X t^l x«<i«»i»0 ao i^t •««aq(}« oftXn H 
'a9ial tc •t>i#osc adt a«rf« tf«il# Ixt* tW-oitX^twl 'k® «olt«aAX0«b * iltXw 

c* ffiXd flftrXa Ml^ to it#9n»X •il* *i«cf« ai/ilqemo *oa ^il>, •d ,#it«l>««5;^ 



4 

protect )il«a«lf« the ooaplaint 8ho«^« that he mAe no objections «t 

the tlaw the aotioe of iEdtentlon to declare a forfeiture was aer-red 

on him, or tt sny other tl«e prior t© the 90tu»I deolarntlon of the 

forfeiture. The e^aplalnt nlso ahowe th^t between the time the 

notice of the intention to declare n forfeiture waa served upon hla 

and. the tlB» the declaration of forfeiture ^ae served upon hla, no 

payoeate were sitde or tendered; that defendant neither offered nor 

tendered any payaent xmder the oonty?»ot fro« the tltse the aotioe of 

Intention to declare » forfeiture wss aerved upon hl« up to %ad 

Including the tine of hie filing hie eeoond aatended oounterolalB« or 

for that ostter up to the preeent tlae. In L^,xm ▼, Hedenberg. 3?7 

111. 3^, the court s^ld: 

"If «» oontTHOt cftlls for suooeasive jjots, flrstt by one 
party und then by the oth«»T, there la no breach by one If the 
precedent act hae not been performed by the other. • * • Even 
thwg^gh there were force In the argument of counsel th'^t defeni«»nte 
in error by their notion had suspended or postponed temporarily 
the right to insist upon a forfeiture, the giving of the definite 
and specific notice of April 13, 1914, of defendants In error's 
intention to declare the forfeiture Airnlshed the proper b^^ela for 
theireafter forfeiting the oontr»ots« Moneon v. rirwgdon. 159 111. 
®^» ^^taon V, nh^te. 15S Id, 364* Counsel for plaintiff In error 
further srgiie th'^t the result of the decrees Is th^^t s court of 
equity Is lending Its »ld to enforce the forfeiture of the ilOOO 
e«irneait money. Undoubtedly, under the T^uthorltles, eculty will 
not dcolftre or enforce n forfeiture where It is hnrsh or Inerjult- 
«tblc to do so, ( Tarr v. atearaan . 364 111. 110, and cited onj^es*) 
but oil the authorities recognise th«t competent pnrtles »sy sake 
jj contTROt «8 to penalties nnd forfeitures, *\nd th^t courts of 
equity, sa ^foll as courts of l?iw, will rpoognlre th© rlf^ta of 
the parties aa to such penalties or forfeitures. H(»re n court of 
equity Is not enforcing n forfeiture. The decrees simply hold 
that the defendants in error rightly declnred « forfeiture under 
the oontr'^cta." 

In the Instant case, the power of the court Is not being used to en- 
foroe a forfeiture. Rather, the Ohaneelior declared, in effeot, that 
the defeiKlnnt could not recover the payments he had aade because the 
plsintif f rightly declared e forfeiture. The position tn^en by 
defendant la that the plaintiff having repudiated the contract and 
repos!3essed Itself of the real estate, defendant had a right to 
rescind the contract, .^e are of the opinion that plaintiff had the 

right to forfeit the contract* It follows th»t the defendant has no 

right to recover the payments made under the oontr«ct, 

lor the reasons stated, the decree of the Circuit Oourt 
of Oook County Is affirmed. KOREE affirbbd. 

HEBEL, P.J, OOHQUHS ^nd DKHIS S. SUI.i.X?AM, J. DISBEKTS. 



mid i 97i/*l«tTto't « 9iitiotib &t aoitttitaA •at to ftoiloa 



■ -J I 'i' 



K^fj 



1 • {iff^ r( ». ■ 









>«[• •# i^fttf SB'^^OI ton ei 



i 9tii al 

• diijii»li«i'!t .« •oxo\ 









41354 

ABpejlantJ' If 
Defendant. (#8po#lent8), ^ 1/ )l OOOX OGUMTY. 

id. JUSTICE auRKf i^LiviRED Tiffi oi'iiixofi or tm ootiRf . 

Ob Mssiroli 30, 1939, Quy V. l>ehaian, Msxry KXlnk«, Jose;^ *. 
Murpliy aad Lewis A, Dryer filed » two oount complaint in the Superior 
Court ©f ^ook Uounty a^jninet Jsiaee A, Hannah, Arohie walker, E. L, 
Obrietopher and Jewel Tes Oo., Ino« The first ooxmt sverred th'st on 
oeoeaber 15, 1938, Q\xj V. Lehavrn was driving his automobile in n 
northerly direction upon Ashland Avenue »t or near eat 36th Street 
in Chicago, and th*^t the other plaintiffs i?ere oooupmnts of the 
autoaobile; th-^t all of thea were in the exercise of ordinary osre 
for their own safety and for the safety of the rtutoERobile; and thst 
because of warious acts of negligence on the p&rt of defendants the 
autoaobile w&a dsaaged and plaintiffs suffered injuries* The second 
ewtnt oharged the defendants with wilful and wanton aisoonduot. 
Issue v»d joined, i^efore the trial tvegnn, plaintiffs disaissed the 
•ase as to the defendants Jewel Tea Co., Inc., snd E* L. Christopher, 
sad also withdrew the second count. The trial lusted a week* At 
the olose of the plaintiffs* case and agnin at the close of all the 
ewidenee, the court denied the action of defendants for a directed 
▼erdiot. Ibe jury returned four verdicts ea<flx finding the defendants 
guilty nnd assessing damages for Guy V. Lehaan in the sua of ^6,500, 
for tlarry Kllnke in the sua of ISO, for l>ouis A, oryer in the sua of 
$8,000 snd for Joseph ^^. Uurphy in the sua of f500. On the day the 
verdicts were returned the court entered judgment thereon. In due 
timet the defendants filed four ootions for judgment notwithstanding 
the verdicts, one for et^oh sepnrate plnintiff. Defendants also filed 
a aotion to set aside the verdiots ?!nd to E')«nt a new trial. The 
oourt entered an or Aer denying defendants* aotion for judgment not- 






.i/il^iU^ 



n 

ttS .A.I TO 8' 






%. 



.= . ,-•--■ -^.i.i.. • ,■ ■,.. . ,..:-.:■ ' ♦"-' ,,:...:;. ioo& Yo truoQ 

00 idt bWfiitTfi ia.u<a» t»tll ad? •ftfti ,,^. ... ^aw^l traft T«i<(io#tXTX(0 

t-^^ft^ (i$m t9.9'^ iM^a xe *f^ fnm»*^ iMAlth^A. aaqu aoii^tnXb x£Y«4#toa 

'^ii;? ^.! "Jo 9fioIc •«(? ^* oi^s- ' tllJflisiq ,»d» \o Mo<fo •4# 

ltoiito»vi£ « vet 9iMafm9t9h lo aoltoa adjt t^tasfi itn ima»lbt9» 

to mtf •A* nX t^xrO •* alwoJ «ot , al eiitlXa x^^nft rdi 

dUi tftf 4ii*.t - . lo fflus f»ii# . -'9Bat» tot tmn 000,8S 



3 

withstanding the ▼erdiets as to all plaintiffs mxd overmled the 
aotlon of d«fend«nt8 fox n new trinl as to oryer, ^irphy and Itllnkc, 
th« court granted « new trial as to the clnla of el^lntlff Guy ?. 
itthamn. The latt«x filed « p«tltioa for !©!?▼« to aoreai froa th« 
order gr&ntlng the new trl;;!, vhloh ?r« allowed* 

The Instant petition Is filed under a prorlslon of Section 
77 of the Cim Prsotlee Act, (*ar» 301, Ch, HO, 111, ««▼• Stat. 
1939) whloh re^Aai '*An order F^runtlng ? xxew $rlal shall be deeaed 
to he a final order, hut no «ippei^l iaay be taken therefrootf except 
on leave t^ranted by the reviewing court, or by a ^udge thereof In 
▼sorption within thirty dnya after the entry of the order, on motion 
and notloe to adveree parties* *• The provision is designed to 
prosftote justioe and to |»event n verdict w?rr«inted by the record 
and justified by the evldlenoc, from being set nslde and lost to the 
party who *?58 fairly entitled thereto, ^nd euch litigi>.&t forced to 
undergo the hasard of another trial with the further Incidents of 
4elay and expense* ( aettaw v. Ret ^; 11 Hardnr^^re Mutual rire Ins* Co, 
385 111. App. 394.) 

In order to determine whether th»fre wiss in abuse of dis- 
cretion In the fi^rsntlng of the new trial, ve have carefully read 
the testifflorqr of the witnesses* On December 15, 193B, plaintiff was 
eaiployed as a linotype operator «t Ooldbl^tt Brothers printing plant 
located flit Pershing Ro»d and >^'oloott Street, Ohloago, ^i«i Lewis Dryer, 
nntry Klinke and Jos{»ph Murphy were also employed in the nntas plant 
as linotype operators* Their hours of work were from 6 P. il, to 
3:30 A, a, they sill lived on the north aide of Chicago* Lehm-^^n 
owned » two door 1^3 Ohevrolet Coach* r^lnlntlff md his three 
fellow workers were returning home from work shortly after Sj30 a.m. 
Plaintiff was driving and Oryer w^is sitting alongside of hla In the 
front se&t* Klinke sat on the rear sest behind plaintiff and Mur^y 
sat on the rear sejat behind Oryer«, Ashland Avenue is a north and 
south highway in Ohioago, Between 39th snd 35th Streets, the east 



«<CJ b^l^rr%9^n^ bus wVtttali 



•d# WCXt iixf»<i-^ Ot »T«' 



sMo &\*' :«i>A»i tfel^ (SCei 
Taoo jf|aiw»iT»t ttf^^r t^ b^tABT^ •▼R9X no 






9£(^ O^ ^feOi ui'. 



#-#« '^X«<il iNH 






oOTlt 91t»w %\Qm t« «ityr 



, fci .qwA .1X1 «tS 
* TStxo nl 
:mit<i«iin ^^^ aX i3oii*lc« 



id iia«! i\lialtUi •ifO'^^c *«X«jtt»i<0 if:«tl Toob okt m JbMnro 






i^fft p f It. if' 



i!<i 



: 9^1X2 ,*M99 tao'tX 
bald9fi #fs«8 %«M til' ao #«• 



s 

aM west streets do not run throtJgh, but stop ^t the weat side of 
Ashland Av«mie. The eollieion out of »hloh the ^.ction arote ooetsrred 
on Ashland Avenue Juat oppoeite where 36th Str**et Interseota froa 
tke west* At thnt point Ashland Avei^e is 70 feet wide fTo« curb 
to curb, with an unusuml subdivision of traffic i»nes» fhe sp^oe 
between the vest curb and safety island for aovsthbound e»,rs «.t S6th 
Street is 35 feet, all of which 8x)Aoe ie for southbound trsffio* 
fhe safety island is 6 feet ^ide, then there is % spsoe of ?:. feet 
between the island and the southbound street o&r tr«elcB. The 4 
trneks ocoupy a spaoe of 15 feet 4 inohes, inoluding the space 
between the north &itd south street e»r innes. fhen there is a space 
of 13 feet o inches between the northbound traeics %nd the east curb* 
At the tine '^shland Avenue w«^3 widened by the city, the street ear 
tracks ^ere not moved to the center of the street* As a conaeouenoe, 
the southbound traffic in th t area has more lanes and nore freedoa 
of aoveaent than the tu>rthbound traffic. Plaintiff drove the ear 
east on Pershing Hoad to A.8hland Avenue, wehre he turned north* on 
AebXand Avenue he drove into the space between the curb and the 
northbound street <m.x trncics* when he turned into .^shland Avenue 
there was no traff io abead of hia, but when he ^ssed 38th Street 
he observed a truck in the car tracks proceeding north about half 
a block ahead of hie. At tb^t tiae plaintiff was driving between 
30 and 35 Biles per hour and the truck was traveling betureen 15 and 
18 alles per hour. The truck continued in the oar traeko and Lehman 
continued to drive between the curb and the o^r tracks, and when he 
wsa within 30 feet of the xm^a of the truck, i*iieh wss a eoabined 
tractor and trailer, the trailer being approximately 31 feet in 
length and the tractor part aisout 11 feet in length, he atmnded his 
horn and flashed his lights fron dim to bright and back to di« again 
as he was about to pass the truck* As he re-^ohed immediately beside 
the tractor, the truck turned to the right and struck LchMsn's auto- 
■obile on the left side. The blow caused daaiage beginning at the 



I 

t« tMi ^8«« tnii t» efifiu iuo ^a^jfj^xnti tun fva «* %i9*xtn #••« Jboui 

Qftiie Hiat) ttXvi* /«•$ OT ajt •#a9vA lMi«Xii»A loioc ir^;^ i\ .i^Mar wC# 

.ojtliRtJ l-iTSJOcirCtfwo* To'i ei •e«ji'« ^oi^iw *o Xi* ♦♦•at d5 al tfs»it9 
2^9!- ®'xi9ij:{f 0ftd)- ,»fei» ^••t a »i bael^t x^oI^b MT 

IS! fssife hnuQ^Atiitie »A$ bam btmlKt 9tif a»9mf94 
ifif^Lj^ n T .ft deal » #»•) fii )o aoAqs « tVC»»o mM»m%$, 

f r:9 #9»%#s Oifs^ «X^'<» "^ ' ( ' v«*fi*tiv 848^ »£ia*v«ii btialfi»& 9mli •At H 
,*><^n»up»t£too ''^ ~ <t<»i»^#8 •<fj to X9tife •Ai q$ berom i^a 9mif MJlpeti 

i ot^'^t^ 1^7 X u/?ii dvdit »«d «tSJ ^ i(# fli o^tl«it tauotiiituoe 9At 

odtisa bwrut «cf 9%A9v; «avA»v»l t0»iii*4 e# t«0'^' , sajtn«v«<i «o 4^aji« 

l8»v^ d#8£ b9««J*<; e<( avifv fud ^aM te bjiMlJt ftm«i:^ on atnt 9fAt 
IJUd Ji«cfa Atxoit 8alJ>»»to«^ (|jl*«t^ 'X e «ftt a: 3l«tfSf , Jt barxfatfe M( 

•d iisifc» l>n« ,t;<o«T# w© •At baa, dT»o 9f<^ a^sNs^iri OTitfe ol l»«iuii^no8 

ibttaielttoo « t^v itoi^ «MojErzt ariJ^ to ?Jt»«i «^ io l«»t OS alAit«i •«« 

Hi t»»1f XS YX«*«a»ixo«qq« snlo^ flltfxf »dJ ,i:oXii»t# jbOA t«#»««t« 

eid ^9fc^utt8 »rf ,ri*s«»-t ni #»»t XX #«»*« i'tmi TO#e«t# »dl l«« iJ»8a*X 

ais^M mlb oi i&mi btw iA^ltd of aOb aoTt 9^4»XX •iA b»A9mn ban axod 

»fcie«d xl9ffilh9Bimt b9(UiB9X oif aA t3fOin^ •At eafiq ott. tiUM^m w» •il «« 

-otM« ••uftjadoa jJOirtJa fca^i *dsli »<l* o* t«in(»f ioirt^ nAt ,toltM»«* »<i* 



4 

left front ufaeel, then the rear part of tbe left front feader, 
then the left door, including breaking the handle, »nd the left 
rear fender w»s hndljr eruuahed aoA the wheel das^'ged* The oar wBnX 
out of oontrol and over the eurh end into the eorner of n fence at 
the northeast corner of whnt would have been 36th Street hud the 
street continued through nt the eaet aide of Ashland Avenue. The 
point of oontaet of the truek and the automobile w«« nlntoet at 
the center of a driTre^my opposite 36th street. A pl^t receiyed la 
evidence shoiira th^t the space eciet of the ourh on ^shl^nd Avenue 
opposite to where 36th $tr«»et interaeote with Aahl^ind Avenue on 
the west, rune for a distitnoe of perhaps 150 feet fro« the building 
line to ft "dead end" aad is in^rked "unpAved", The aap doea not 
indicate whether thia is rt public or a private atreet. there are 
two railroad awitoh traoka in thia apace, one on the north side 
and the ot|t«r on the south side. Bet7!«en the awitoh tr%oka is a 
space* which from a i>botograph received in evidence, la used for 
the purpoae of parking trucks* m aaauae tht aose of theae trucks 
also haul freight to and from the railroad onx9 spotted on aucdx 
traoks* There ia n drivewAj which gives Access fro« ^ahland Avenue 
to this unpaved den^d end apnoe, t^ioh driveway extends in an easterly 
direction froa A^shland Avenue, aitneas Klinke marked 9. photogrsT* 
which ahows that the point of oontaot of the truck and autoaobile 
was opposite the center of the driveway. Thia point Is about 35 
feet froa the oorner of the fence where plaintiff's autosaobile 
finally stopped. Lehaftn, Murphy and Klinke 8t«»ted thnt no signal 
of an Intention to turn was given from the truck. The iap»iot 
fractured the right knee of tehamn, breaJtlng the patella Into 
several pieoes so that a one half inch 3ep®ri«itlon of the knee cap 
could be felt before the operrstion to his knee. The oper-^tioh, 
under anaesthesia, was perforated by an orthopedic surgeon <st the 
Oounty Hospital, by cutting open the knee about 7 inohes, i^ich 
disclosed that the upper half of the patella wa« in one piece, then 



jrt»I •iSjr ban ,«iJ^«il »d* $iil;d«i»Yd ?>aiJ>ui«ni ,iooft #t»X »rft fl*rf# 

^anw %M9 MfT «JN»3»B«i» Xa»»if«r 9if;t tns bmtiturto t^b^itf t#nr y«£«»1 Trtt 

^« »oa»t « iro r«erto« M^ i^^jrl Ntip tf<iirt» f>ds rvro bam l&tfatfo \tt tac 

9iiS fcoitf ^^<>»t^@ d^dS iXtuHi t^vniS frXocRr ftifw To TDOitoo t9fintftton 9dt 

at b«yi»9«t ta>L , -i*>t*^ j(^« atfl««oqo ti^irrliil^ « to itlnoo ttfl 

•cfB9v-A bjittitftrA no d%(/^ sifif ^e #a<(« 9«e<7« •rft fKi(# ttwoifi •oasfcXr* 

mo •«0»vA bfwXjfsA 4fiir ytoffe^siTAi ti»<nr»e d&Bt •icMhr •# •#Zaorqo 

'^^ibllfjd «ri* «wrtt #»»t OeX •<!<■! ?Ofl«*iilf « to^ sflirr ,*8fti» •if^ 

'^ofl «•e^ qflm mfff »*'b9^*qaa*' bnut^m mi hmm '*lm» bunb* « of tfiiX 

eta M:*t(t «#»»«t'« »/Rrlx4( « *co eXXc^nq « iti siift rtnitmift ^t^olbat 

•£>Xe tfJTTVis •<{j^-lt« «fi« ,»e««[t aX^tf ni «3i»i^it^ if*^iw« fentovXXnT o«r# 

' «X e3tt««# da»tXv« «(tt A^o^^tttS ••Din dtaetB •<(# no v«4IN »tft <>a« 

n^ami »tttti %• ttttoe tiAit *enn9i^ ^ar t<ii.tsuzi - -< »cft 

doua BO &a»to(i» tT»« 6*o«XX-«'T odt aott iMir o3 Jttaisti luiA o»X« 

»xm»rA tMunXifa.^ «o*tt vaftdOA ««vX^ ifi»iki(?p t)"^*^i^ * *^ •tMT •a^fOAYt 

tX-f9ta«* Oil ai eiifla^vs r^Bifovivb ifex^ «a^<t«a t'.ov tM«6 fetTMttrx/ aXift ^9 

ii<s»rw9$etiii « f»ti{rc«e> ajIfrXXIi «r9aiis9^N .»tm(»^^ bsaXtfaA iMtl 0dlt<»«5X6 

»Xi#©««*i/« fcajj i9i/T# •ri* Iro <h>*'*floo Tro iaJttm trf* #*irf* awode ifolrf« 

"'" *yr©tfa «X *»iSoa aiMl . t'MM'iTSt* ^^^ to tflttfeo lirf* •tXtoqqo •«» 

:J» Off #«uf^ fe##/'ta 9:ittil% brtf xtiaffsU ^nmrnA*! •^•qqot8 xllamli 

#o«erei »rtT .iotrr* <»4*^ fcs^ ■ « ' cj aw fltw* o* noltn^tat «« to 

olffJ *iX«^!f»c »»1* ^fftiiMMc « i to aoit* tttyitx •a* b^ruioftt 

f #!« 9>^» «!* to ffoi*!ert,«««y*r iteci tX«rt ftno b *rrf* oa saoftXq Isi9r9it 

iSi&JL&.rtnqo offT ,«*«af ttttA e* m»i#fYoqo 9rfr tTotorf #X»t »cf felooo 

8<{9 tff aion^fOM eXlHM;o<f#i[o flu» ^ tfttticotttq e>tv «AX«M(#a««it« talsui 

itoiifw ,B»iionl T fijotfm •«» »tft c«qo Vlltftio ^tf «XiifXqteH X^AiioO 

naift ,oo«Xq tno iti »f'=^ »XXa^«<r ^^^ to tXsff %tqqi/ •tft tiuf# ib*a«Xe«Xlt 



6 

thertt i7«^3 m oa« half laoh se^r«tlon with th« lower httif being In 
several fragments* The soft tlaaue wns aewed together ftnd hes^-vy 
ailk put ??round the broken bones, feour oonths I'ster x-rny« showed 
thnt the frmgaents were held together by fibrous tissue snd not 
bony heeling* whieh condition is permfrnent. ht the time of the 
trial, plaintiff* 8 right kaee was three ousrters of an Ineh larger 
than his left* hie right thi^ ^nnM saaller th&n hie left* he had 
a 35 degree lees bendin^i^ in his right knee and a 30 percent pernanent 
disability. Me liaped and suffered pain* pmrtioularly in oold 
i»eather* and could not do his work as before* which work reouired 
that he sit with his legs uxuier a linotype m^ohine on n ohnir 2-\fZ 
inohes lower than a normal ohair. Plaintiff also sustained a out 
in the forehead in whioh 7 sutures !f?ere t^^ken* and a out under the 
ehin whic^ required 3 stitohes. He remained in the hosplt^^l froB 
Oeeeaber 15* 1938* to Jamiary 33* 193d* during whioh time his 
ri^t leg was in a oast* and after his return home he was in bed 
for about 10 days. Ue was up with the aid of a orutoh for a week 
and used a oane for the following three months. He returned to 
wrok on February 6* 1939* At the tiae of the accident* his earnings 
were S61.00 per week. He had been working <<s % linotype oper«itor 
for over 30 years* «nd was then 43 yenrs of sge. The testimony of 
plaintiff w??9 oorroborAted by two of the occupants of the automobile* 
Murphy »nd Klinke. The other oo--upiyBit* Dryer* had no recollection of 
tho occurrence, as he ws rendered unoonsoious and rem?)ii»d in th'^t 
condition for soae tiiM. The defendant Archie va;^ker testified 
that he was an auto meohanio and th"it he was testing the truck on 
tho street after having msde sinor repairs; that he drove as far as 
Oaaon Avenue and 39th Street* and that laaedii^tely before the 
occurrence he was driving the truck northw)$rd on Ashland i^venue in 
the northbound street oar tracks* with the left wheels at the left 
rail and the ri^t wheels overlapping the other rssil. He stated that 
he intended to turn to the ri^^ht* or east* in order to drive the 



ffi i^tmf M»A r«>v^i •lit tiitif con^Mil^'^lfeat tlnti ntut « anr mm» 

f>»»eii» «Y^t'-x «r»#jt£ tttitiftw TtmA^ »«*iiaer fl!«j«inr »tft i>xti/oT8 #jtKr a(Xi« 

«^$ lo ^1# »ri: . . ■9a-tw>-^i^ ml aoi»lhn«n ii»lifir «gaiX«*d tB«tf 

T«?^^I atefil «(^ t© ai3ir«i?uT> •on At ^<^ »mi3i fstskt^ »*'i\italnJuci ^Inlrt 

ri^.a 9if «»t»l Sid OMsii T«Xi««« flonr i||iiii' iMgM^ '^^ «#t»I «iil ajRfftf 

Moo Ai y[lrplunitrm ,i«ie<i te«»tttM Imi« JbvqiKil ^U .t'liititoaU^ 

?\l-(? iri<!»£f9 !• no «ftl(lf^M^ n<!tt«i«(li « TUtev ii^aI old iitDi ^|« •!( tj»if# 

i9^\r n Y0) 4(t>;fi^« .« f« i^l» Sft^ d/iw 4» S4Nr ttil ••Y«l} OX t«Mf« Ml 
•» M»£rrrtf!r«7 •!? ,^>f«n«Mf! i»«(Yif;f ^at^Qllo^ erft tot «a«e « b«»ii !«• 

t© fp9<i»lSn^t <MIT .^SM" *• S»«*t £* ««» tSW JiUliB «ttTJi»t 08 «•▼© left 



6 

truck Into the spuoe between the railroad tr meka opposite 36ta Str««t, 
a« «t«ited that when he got within 50 feet of where he intended to 
turn, he applied the hrakee find lit the direct lon«x lli^t, whioh 
wse on the ri^t portion of the cowl above the headlight. He first 
SAW the glare of the lights of the »utoaobile ehen they were ri^t 
at hia truok and the oar passed on after it etruek his truck, went 
out of control and hit a fence. He a^is© atr«ted th'^t before the 
oceurrenoe he turned hia vheels to the right »ttoout 1-1/3 feet "to 
warn anybody* • He snid he did not see wh<tt ps^trt of the auteaeblle 
case in contact with his truck and thnt after the iapaot he sat 
quiet until he saw no one moving in the automobile* i^en realising 
someone might be hiurt, he went over to the autofflobile. He further 
testified th'-it the truok was a tractor and sei&i«tr!<iiler, about 33 
feet over all, th^t the trailer was about 10 feet high and the 
tractor cab 8 feet hlghj thfft the width between the wheels of the 
cab was 7 feet 6 inches; th:^t the liheels on the tr^i^iler were dual, 
which added an additional 8 to 10 inches on each aide, so thnt the 
space between the wheels in the rear wn.a about ^ inches aore than 
in front as the front wheels were on a line with the inside dual 
tires; that the body of the trailer overlapped each wheel about 4 
inches; th<^t the front fenders were about 6 inches wide, directly 
over the wheels, and that the headlights were between the fender and 
the T'ldiator. He ststed that he did not have a atirror or anything 
else on the cab whioh would show what was coaing froa the rear on the 
right, and thnt the directional arrow showed only on the front and 
baok of the signal and not on the side» He said he turned the 'siheeia 
to the right as a warning to ai^ eporoachlng vehicles* He also 
testified th<t there were stoplights on the b^ck of the tractor whioh 
autotnatioally went on when he applied the brakes; that the space where 
kia was going to park the truck was clear and th jt he could have 
turned on a 90 degroe aagla, Jaaies M* Jacobs testified for the 
defendants that he was a ehauffexsr for Jaaes ^, Hsnnah, one of the 



oi fttttaittitol 9jf •TMn lo fMii 06 utatlv ton ad n^tfv #«iit bwtttB •U 

mim( «#a.^ii i:«n»i»o«%ib •At tti Imm m^tmM m(# iuHi^Mn •d ^utat 

t9tX\ tas •tKisiUtffttf v>at »irod« ivoo cif^ %• noiifiroq tH^v Ai!* a« mam 

ttii^it ST»ff ^9^4 a«if« •llfin»0tiiM ntU If mtOfiXi. odit to otnis •<!# «r«» 

- ;' ' ^:futt tilt 3fOcr¥#i» ^i *r«*1:j> tie A#«eiMT t»» »tf# !«« ifunt Bid #il 

%d# 9irc'V9Cf t;r(f l»s#»t^» oti» «|i ••MM% » ttii haft lottam^ \c tu» 

»ii^<9«e#: -> ;H«<7 ^<»<^«r A«o ^««y jbil> •<} ftiAt •R •"^^^to^fpim uttna 

if^i^ ^t( iofrrn\t 9tf# *i9f^tt tt^f baft H^axf slfi d»l9 t^Hfotf ai tMMM 

■^tnllcift ftBtt'n ^fflMtmof'ssn 9Ht nt -^trtm »n» on wm% •d litmi t»iuo 

■iHitfw'i 9i{ .9Xl<foa$«ttr« «if3r «9 «•▼» *»•» •!( «*«ei« ttf M^la «(ro«whi 

Off? 9m«r rfaiff ##9« Oi ^crcKf.3 »tw <c«idtl«Tl «wl.f **i» %££« tfcvo tf«t 
^ift ^» »I©*rf« ^t ii4»«*r#^»tf if»t>lir »rf# JTi^ifff Sfl^lif taat 8 <Mft •Mj*««ir» 

^ tm>^M tmi^ibt iKMB9 b^fs^mltvro tml»'t* <^» to lfe»«tf •At iisAt ;b»xI# 

r«?^ t«»fc«»^ w<* «»«Nf#»d •»•* •#if||ill)r«ji 9M ifdt bum ,aX««£Nr Wl* tew 

^alff^tsA "CO T«7Ti« I* mma Hm bin »if tsd;^ b»tmim ^R »<3E(»^iill»(»T «ttf^ 

d;ir «o iB'W »rft (BOT't SfJ^iMHtrei «j*» **** »«<lil &I«©« tfoi^ ef«o •<» a© •©!• 

fcfij? tfltotT «tf# M» tin© fMWfOlfa *««f«t Xiicdl9o<»Tli^ »rit #«ili^ 6o* ^til^tx 

^X»»if* »Jff 1M»W# trf *!«• «H t*fci« »rf* «« fo« a«« X^iisie »rt# to jf*«^ 

dvlAm rottmitf 9fi* to rfoMf »d!f ao »trfsiX<r©*» ^** WBil^ #»if# l^»nx#»9t 

-srfTT ftauqe Brf* t«rft j»«*Birf ttii b9UKm» •'i «•*•» «» *«•* ^llMitmofaM 

tv»rf Mwoo »(£ J'-rf* Itoft TrtsXo 9fm lietnt ndt :i%m «# »«*«i8 •«• •* 

•Kt tot bOitii^Btt «tfOO«t .12 OMMb vOlgOA »rCS«A Ot O AO ktMtMt 



7 

d«f«miant«| thnt he * a worfclng on the shift starting at 3s9© k» W»« 
ftad th«t at the tlise of the mcoident he ^^'s standing st the door of 
a garage* the north side ©f which g«Tage w»» located on the erfSt 
side of Aehland Avenue, about 100 feet south of the unpaged sDaee; 
that there were two entrances to the gs^rage, the south entrsnee 
being -ibout 175 feet fro« the plaoe of the ceiiieion and the nortli 
entrance 135 feet away. He stated that the sutonobile n^n right 
ftXongside the truck iihen he firat saw it^ and that when it got to 
the front end of the truok it averred nnd saashed into the corner 
of the fence and that h« ren right down to the o»r; that when he 
first saw the truok the headlights and direct ionul •Igaal were lit* 
On oroe8*exAain.^tion« this witness stated that he was in the north 
doorway; that when he firat saw the truck it was ahout 15 feet north- 
west of hia and th!»t the ether autonohile was exaotly opposite it, 
about 6 feet in bnck of the truck; th^t when the truok passed him 
It waa going B miles an hour and v^b slowing down as it went by him; 
that the truok stopped when it was && or 60 feet froa the driveway; 
that he could not see what was taking place between the left side 
«f the automobile and the right side of the truok, qnd th<;t he could 
not see nftat came in oontaot with what* Kr^nk ciohner, introduoed 
by defend:ant8, stated that he was a chauffeur for James ^* Hannah, 
working on the aame shift starting at 3:00 A. a«; th^t he parked 
his automobile on the west side of ^hland Awenue 9.bout 50 feet 
south of the north door of the garage and crossed the street from 
west to east; th%t he let the truok go by him in the northbound 
rail of the street oar tracks; that he saw a ear ooalng fr^i the 
south in the northbound rail and ran to ^et en the sidewalk; thitt 
the oar continued in the northbound r^^ii until within a few feet 
of the trailer, then swerwed to the right between the curb and 
the traotor and past the tractor Into a fenoe at the corner; that 
he did not see the truok and the nutoaobile come together nt gll; 
that he ran down iamedi^itely and then vent to get help; thnt he 



T 
,^M .A M:^ $« '^Wtnt* ftltim •tiJ a<i i|oJtl<9r«i» 9nm ng t»dit (»»i fH1't> 

#««• <iM(t ao, bmf99%i mam tnj^mM'g d»lchr \« ft^it iftt«fx Adt ««q|«sit)i m 

i99«a« t9TM.Qittj Ail* to dtsro* t»i^ o<U #ink(« ««(W«tA teuIilftA 1« •bt% 

«eix«-z^a« 4t£M»* ft£Ct «*^$««#^ i»4^ at s9MI«;T#a« owtf tnov •T«d[# r«fltt 

•t t«^ ^1 a^Off tMiii kMs ^fi w^a fext'i «ci a»«f«r alaurr^ «iit lilintfa 

9ti aius^- tMdi it»^ im$ 9* nfJt tiski^ o*^ •fl[ t4id# Mm ammI Mt \o 

rit^cofl tidi ai MJm.md i«iit &»»«#• «ttfta#l» aidt «i{oi t«ni«iiieiNi«io«o aO 

miti intimm sfoinij^ «<ti:r «•#» tAilt ;j{om9 sUt t« jftN»<r nl t««t • t«ftf« 

: v;:;w»Tl«fe ftj(f.t ffld'tt #t»«t OS) «« 8itt •»«' #i ««4«^ lMMp|»4li t»ati 1i$ t»At 
»Jbia ^sl melt ntUKei^ ^^.^Xa 9«lat'«' ••«« #«*» ••« >on £>I&oo »<( #«4t 

bims^^mi&nJt ,«x9«tf<i»^ Xo^rg .txiiw ^l« tttAtiMw «i mmni tsA» «•« Son 

tjUmsmH « ei!«B?«^ lol rtt9VtimM» a mem •d t«if# ttmmtm ^mtnobaBtmii ifff 

P9t%m\ »n ^^<&t i«y .A (>0t€ tB jiRitTjtti! ttiiiit mia« Aift no ^aaitrmt 

-'■^mi m tinoiiM »jM(9rA ttmiMI t« S»lll« t«*»r M» «« •JUMOMittf» «lif 

>£<.%^ tftitrte »4i b»»K«-tc< Jboff tq|liic0i9 «ltt t« 7ool> tfttofl a<tt to tftuo* 

ntfoKiftvoA u{« fiJl 0i<i xd m itA»tt »£it t«i •d 0ftl^ (tfuo ot t«Mr 

sidt fBo^ sflisH>t> xi»» «« w««, •*! tiMtt jiijfft«i# «»o t»»iftB atfcr 1« Xi«T 

tiuKt {:(jU«r9^i« ftUt no f».% o# OB^ isa» li^r baimttAfum «ii^ at Atuoei 

&fl« «*ti/o ®rit «»«vt»tf ttf|ii*K «rft of i>*int«w« ««i!t ,t»iiir«t «iit to 
t .ci jteft't©© ftif;^ #A •Ba»t a otci Tot»«Tt M(t t»m Aba ««t^«* ad* 
jIXe »» fif&m^i «*d» •Xicfoaotxi'^ »4[t Jmus jfourt »clt »»e tos kit w£ 



8 

•»w the stopli^t Hnd 9ign9>«JL light on the trmlXer« Upon eross- 
exaalnation, this witness stated that when he vas half imy aeroas 
th« street, h« saw the truok 300 to 400 f««t airay; th^^t he oontinued 
to ^alk in a nora&l way and let the truek go h/ in front of hia; 
th«t when he resohed the northbound rnil the truelt ^ns stopped 75 
feet away froa hia; thnt h« looked at the truok as it ^as staiKiiog 
in the northbound rail; that he then »?lked east and looked north* 
not while he was standing in the traok, but while he wna st«knding on 
the sidewalk; that he iisAlked over to the sidevalk before he looked 
north; th^t he saw the truak down n% the corner opposite 36th Street; 
that when he looked north the »utoaobile iras at a northwest angle 
from hi« »bout 15 to 30 feet »nd in the northbound tr%ok; that in 
the aenntitae the truok vna still standing at the oorn^^r ^ind after 
the automobile got up to the tmiler it ewerred to the right and 
oontinued in a northerly dlreotion past the truok, nybe 5 feet froa 
the trailer, »nl trtten it iMissed the trailer it irent on an nngle 
toward the sidewalk; th'it he did not he^r nny or^sh; tlitt he did 
Bet see the direotional light when the truok pessed hia but e^m it 
for the first tiae after he repohed the sidewalk* 

The trial court in denying the motions for judgaents not- 
withstanding the verdiet, and in denying the aotioa for a now trial 
ne to all of the plaintiffs, except Lehman, neoessarily recognized 
that the plaintiffs, including Lehaan, hnd established by a pr^" 
ponder ajnee of the evidence th^t the defend«ints were guilty of 
negllgenoo, as charged in the eoaplaint. This itiling also makes 
it plain thnt the trial oourt wtsi satisfied that no errors had been 
oooaittod in the trial. It is apparent froa the record that the 
reason why the court gmnted the action for a new trial as to JLehaan 
was thrit he felt the verdict was against the »anifest weight of 
the evidence on the question of contributory negligence* The complaint 
charged defemlants with having failed to comply with the reouiresaents 
•f Sootions 66, 66 and 67 of the uniform act regulating traffic on 



• 

,...i. fX ban t'vT X«wioa « at iiam %t 

df &«c<-ni r hitttodAttoa ftlff b«if««^t ftd fl*ll« if^di 

^atbRfi ■" Mt^ooI orf $mHf iMld mo'ft xtmM Hiii 

t*vo hirflie* •!! ifdt j<XP-r«fctr *rf# 

jj»?>t*g rf#85 »#ttoc"C T-trwo <>*'* ♦• if^«^ l9ini m!t mm* 9fi , n 

' 9l^* tr^tff%o0 r *di dttoa b^iocl •A «»dw fditt 

t j<»K7t ftnuocTi^^'rnft «if^ al ha» r%^ Off o# SI fuocfr alif nott 

»«>n* hj«- T«if«!tot> »rfJ 'tBt* iXi#» ft"-^ iftrt* tri* «BlM«i»a M# 

' of l>«irT9ini «1 Y«Xi»Tf M* ct qu tea •Xitfoftotui 9at 

...lb ftrf *£»-. ; • ♦«« hi '•* jiX«w»fei« •/» I>Y«vo» 

aid ft»? i#i>«rcXb tfit tftt torn 

-toil <«tn«K%Jbt/t To^ •«ol»o» «rf* sftlV^fc ttX ttuo* Ijit# trft 

tot «0i#or. xfiftb 111 fciin ,#©ll>t»v »«f* aflilyi-.:fBrftiir 

J[)»t2«:?^o«i XXi««<»B«o«ft ^nnairftJ *qi»x» ,»tll*nl«Xc? •xft !• XX« e# M 

- i: ¥.f bwifMlldnit ^a/md9Jl ^Ihuloat ^^lttitttUi^ •di irdt 

-x-r,. vJli h nd* itdt %oa9tlr^ •di to ooJietebfloq 

f ;? 3M»XXu» •Iflt ^ «i b»a««A> tJi ,»o«#8lX8Wi 

9dt UdS btoost •rft Wtt in^tr ft \£MHi •dt ttl bmfttmoo 

a-nrndiki 9t zm InHt w»« -tim ^i^i a*#«w*a>itfoo •dt trfw iio««»i 

to tH^k*^ t9^\tam ftji-' ;?f/> f^iln^ •di #X«*- •» 

«#fl»R«Tiffpet *di dtlM, tXqii<w» oi^ beXlflt attlr^tf if*lw itfl^bflst^b bsuiisxfD 
ao ditt*tJ si»tf«Xci8»it t9n wtcMsa Mt to T» fcffis »* ,i» Mfiit^ea to 



hl^w»ya, (F^T, 163, 163 and 164, Oh, db^U^, 111. Rev, 3tmt. 13S9) 
which rend: 

"SB. in,) So person shall turn » vehicle from h direct 
course upon a highvr^y unless ^nd until such moTeaent o'^m be 
«Bd« with rensoneble safety «id then only after giving n oienrly 
^fudlhle signal by aouniing the horn if Any pedestrian aifly be 
affected by such movemeut or «fter giving an ap?5ropri-«tte signal 
in the ajanner hereinafter provided in the event »ny other 
vehicle a^y be affected by such aoveaent* 

(b) A signal of intention to turn right or left shall 
be given during not lesa th«n the l^st 100 feet traveled by 
the vehicle before turning* 

(o) Uo person ah^ll stop or suddenly decrease the speed 
of a vehicle without first giving nn « ;riropriste signal in the 
msnner provided herein to the driver of any vehicle isesediately 
in the ieesT when there is opportunity to give such signnl* 

66* The sigiMls herein reouired shsll be (^iven either 
by-menns of the hnnd nnd ^vm or by ** aignftl laap or signal device, 
but when >* vehicle is so constructed or loaded th»t n hnnd nnd 
arm signtl s?ould not be visible both to the front nnd rear of such 
vehicle then ^?ld signnls must be given by such « inmp or d(?vice» 

67, All signels herein reouired given by hnnd land arai 
shall be given froai the left aide of the vehicle in the following 
annner And such sign/ils sh^ll indiosts as foUors: 1, l>eft turn - 
hand <4nd nrm extended horisont^^lly, 2* Ri^t turn - H^nd and 
«BrB extended upw'iird or atoved with « sweeping isotion froa the resr 
to the front, 3, ^top or deoresse speed - Hand and sr« extended 
dewnwardU <* 

i« agree with the contention of plaintiff thj?t the testimony in 

behalf of the defendants ?«daltted either of the following fnets: 

(1) th^t defendant VaXlter came up to the place of the contact, turned, 

stepped and listened, ind then lit his direetionftl light, or (3) th«»t 

he lit the directional li^t within SO feet before he turned, end 

not 100 feet »m required by statute. As the court, in effect, found 

th«t the defeadjuats were guilty of the negligence charged and thst 

such negligence was the proxi«sate cause of the injuries, the only 

question is whether Uhsmn wss guilty of oontritaitory negligence, 

According to the evidence, the truck was proceeding north in the 

street c?*r tracks. The truck driver did not see the nutoaebile 

before the tiae he ssw the flash of the lights. Just before the 

l«p«tot took plsce. There is no evidence tht the plainflff was 

driving at a high rste of speed, in f«ct, it is clear th«t he ^na 

driving at a re^sonnble rate of speed. He was driving In the space 

between the street c^r tracks and the curb, and he had n right to 

•xpeet th t if the truck h^ a to be turned to the east that sn 



B 
itmi •^?»«» .79^ .JUI ,&\4>^(i .47 «*&C IMUI sax «?;»X ^xfn^) ^9ymti^m 

\ 

i .1. '" Ur- . ) 

Yc' ■ ■ , , /i«vij| ttd 

LAarf B \q 
'ct! YtaaMi 

'dJ ai 

■^<' ■ 



.<« 






tit 



jjb; Ti ifut to lX«l(«rf 

. • . , :v-rf 

, c'-'jc, ',»■.' ■-' -'?-^,( i x»Aa9\mt tMAi (X) 

^. 'I. sUlm tiijiii lwti99%lt •ai ttl •* 

.^«-^ . ■^■■'^'- ",ri h9%iup9% Be f9\ OOX ^oa 

\lu^ ., ,. ^ ..^,, . .... .w ...,«- .,; .--„^-- ..- „ . i^cuiv^Xsmi ifoi/c 

e •••■■- t'^lt^'^i^I- *»?':t ^ rf* '»?>rt»Mvit on si *t-^ , yoo* ^os^aai 



10 

appropriate signal would be giv«n. tKsfeadsnta srgu* th?*t it w«!S 
tlie duty of litlteis^a to pass the truok on the left* It is odious 
from tlie unv^iusl subdivision of the traffic lunes, nnd the faot that 
the auteachile ws.b proceeding north in the l5ine between the street 
ear traoka and the curb* th t it v>ould be unresaon^ble to expect 
plaintiff to p!»98 to the left of the truok, nor would it be reasonable 
to argiie th'^t I^chaMA oould have expeoted the truok to suddenly turn 
rig^t from the street osr tr<«oke to oross n spaoe of about 13 feet* 
the question of oontributory negligence is one nhioh is preeminently 
for the oonsider^tion of the jury* we do not believe th^t »ny one 
oan reasonably as^iail the verdiot on the ground that it is exeeesivft 
The injuries «ere serious und are of n pernnnent nature, and we 
are eatisfied th»t the sua of $6.500, which the jury swarded, is 
not unreasonable* '^e are of the opinion that the action of the 
trial oourt in setting ^side the judgtoent wtas n clear abuse of 
dleoretion. Therefore, the order of the Superior Oourt of Oook 
County setting aside the judgment nnd awarding a new trial, is 
reversed, and judgment is entered here upon the verdiot in favor 
of the plaintiff, Guy V* Lehman and against the defendants, J^mes 
^» Hannah snd Arohie mlker, in the sum of $6,500, plus interest 
at the rate of 5^ per annum from lebruary 7, 1940, In aocord^noe 
with the provisions of Section 3, Chapter 74, 111* Rev, Stat. 1939* 

OEQ£a ii£VKii3£d AID jvmmsx mRZ* , 

nSKt, P.J. Alio 0ESI3 £* iULtlV/a, J. CCJCUR. 



01 






■^ifl?. SiSl, 






iSjflKM^OtT 'i(foaio#V£ •tit 

.^ao to floi^sacrp SilT 



4ij^ T:c ii^i^efl M# *«d* aoi"^ " '* ^ - . i^MJOsistrrmf tea 

■> - .■>..,-.. ^.-.f'» - ••-- "jjafta,,..,,. ■••'■- ♦-.00 IslT* 



,u ,K;;7Xaa!JE .3 3It!lii Cil^ 



41396 




WJHIOUM, COURT 



307I.A. 244 

tm. JOSf ICE SURO DElIfErllO TttS ISiOS OF THE OOUHf, 
On Septeaib«T 7, 1979, ahQrl«9 M. Uphsa filed s atnteacnt 
of olaia In the Uunlelpal Sourt of Chlo«tgo against Siimuel Kerr and 
Olalre ii, Kejrr end therein averred th«it in June, 1933, he sres s 
lieensed real estate broker and wee suthorised hy defendant to 
obtain a purohaaer for eert^in real eetnte loo^ted at Altgeld 
Street snd H^rlea Avenue, Ohie^go, for the sum of ^15,000j that 
defendant proaslsed to p«]r plfiintiff n oomaission, if the l^^tter 
sucoeeded, in aooord^.noe with the rntes prescribed by the Ohio^go 
Real Estate B^ord; th^t plaintiff obtt^ined Oh^rles 3, Hireeh n.9 « 
purohaeer at » prioo of #15,000, who w^e and is ready, willing and 
able to purohase at suoh prioe, and thv<t thereby plnlntiff eaaaed 
the sun of ^50* Olaire M« Kerr vae not served with prooese and 
did not &pp0ar« In nn affidavit of defense (^fendisnt admitted thnt 
he authorised the plaintiff to obtain n purohiiser for the real estnte 
for the SUM of $15,000, and th-^t he prooiaed to pay a ooatiBission in 
aooordanoe with the rules of the Ohiongo Real ^atnte Board; thj»t 
suoh authorisation wns given on June 37, 1939; th-t suoh authorisation 
gave plaintiff the exolxjsive ri^t to find g purchaser for such 
property for a period of two weeks only, or until July 11, 1939; th«t 
plaintiff did not within suoh period procure a purohnser; that 
on July li, 1339, the nuthorization expired; tht defendant did not 
renew the authorisation and dl4 not at any time thereafter eaploy 
plaintiff as hie broker; denied thr=t pursuant to the authorisrstlon 
plaintiff obtained one Charles 5, Rirsoh as the purchaser, and th»t 
Charles 3. Hiraoh mns then, or at the time of the filing of the 
affidavit of defense, rewdy, willing ajid able to purohase the renl 
estate at the price of $15,000, and denied that plaintiff had earned 



#5U 



~\^s: .'a. I 70 R 



k ft 

\ 



.tfAlfvU . 



ipcjlelAuX 9tf» at mtMit 1« 

»<{ b9«J190lI 

: .jiijw- ' • , t^ii *o "-"^ --''' »* 

ioa hlb taBbtt9\9b t'tli jfc»Tiqx» noUf^^irotitaa MAi »«««X .XX xluJ. no 
X0Xq«« t«irt«9i<»rf* ««Xt Vif #9 #ofl MI» fcfl« aoliM^trodtuM mAi »«b»t 

*«ri? ba« .r^mpdoxu^ %ilt •« at>«XH ,6 ••XttrfO Mo toMHnJcIo tti#flX«Xo 

X.», oil* o^.riox., ... .Xd« t^. inXXXi^ .^b^-W .•"•^•^ ^* tXwbXnr 
b«OTAO „,^ ^r^-*.i.i. *.rfi ft«ifl»r iKw »00e.dXI^ 10 »oi«q »*i* *« •*«^»» 



avs Mid 



3 

any oooiaisaion. the oau«e rn^ tried before the court without a 
Jury sad resulted in a finding nnd judgment for plaintiff RWi 
Agalaat defendmnt in the wm ©f |7iQ# to reverse «liioh this appeal 
l8 proeeouted. Plaintiff « theory of the caae i« that "he was 
authorised by defemiaat to sell oert«in real eet«te owned hy 
defendant for US, 000, and th^t having procured n purohaeer who 
wee ready, willing and «tole to buy at defendnnt's price prior to 
refua«l of defendant to sell st such price, he has therefore esraed 
the ooBMiesione agreed to he p*iid,» The theory of defendant ie that 
the authorisation '♦terainated by express li«it*^tion on July 11; that 
if it extended beyond July 11, it wae terminnted by the deolsn^tion 
t© the plaintiff by the defendant on August 9 or ftvguet 14, that 
the defendant would not sell the property for -515,000; and that the 
plaintiff is barred froB recovery by hie breach of faith in with- 
holding fioa the defendant info rant ion about the 1360 Kroger lewae,* 

The first point urged }sy defendant a» a ground for reversal 
le that "the promise of an owner of real estate to pay a broker a 
ooamlsslon for negotiating a 9f«le of the real estate ia merely an 
offer of a reward, where no consideration is paid for the promise, 
and the owner hag the right to withdraw the offer at any time before 
the broker has done thnt for which he was to have been paid without 




yiJ^ 



making hiaselfL 1 table- tctKenaroke r • " rne ( gBfend«jn $^doee not 

lenge thi« etnteaent, but asserts thnt a real eatnte broker 
employed to mske a sale of land, who, prior to revocntion of his 
^uthori7*ition, procures a purohpiser at the price fixed by the owner, 
who is ready, willing and able to take a conveyance and pay the 
ptirchaae prioe, hRS ef^rned the compensation agreed to be paid. There* 
fore, there is no axibstantial dispute between the parties as to 
the law of the case, we «igree with the contention of plaintiff that 
in a case tried without a ijury, the findings of the court upon 
the evidence are oonolusive of the facts unless there is error of 
law in the proceedings, or unices the findings are so manifestly 



n 

-^ittxmlt^9h »<nr t<J b»*«alfc a ,XX xXbI fc«6T»tf §•*••#*• ti tl 

^i^tf* ,#X t»y;^i.t^. i£o : .•.fi^r.i j^sfc nAt %g 11i*fli/fXq e 

•ii# imAi bftR j tie«ew itol t*^«l*^ »«** -tiw *«« ^J-u' ">t!»l^ •Ai 

iise-x^Vft* Tol biW0t» «< a« ^fli^»«»t«fc t* twifio *nl*fr tutit O^T 

« xmAe'sA M ^itq «# •#«#•• IM^n lo iJWtf© nf^ to 99tmot<i bAS" tnAi si 
fla xlfnmi mi »*«i U-«b « ^eitetfo^w ISft aoletiMBOO 

tttoAfM'S bt*m «»»d 9Tjaff * **r tsOirfW T»t #*ri«^ •ttofc »<?<f twCotcf »if# 

loa i»»«l»C~^ ^^"hTt' -,t««ot<? «?»"-«» -»W«iIJ|X»««lrf 8«i2f«« 

• id t« «oi^«»«T»t ©)^ t:oi««? «o<<*^ ,b««X t« »X*e « *Jf«B o» b«VoXqK» 

,"t»«iird M(^ ttf l>»xXt »»2'8Q ♦«!# ;»"«» K^istti ' sUtuootq ^aottf^tnoAtun 

mAii Xf^ A«« •©flex»Vflo»- J8 •olAiJ o;f fti.;r' r-ns' ^tUiit ,x^«»' ■■^ O^" 

ao<r« trwoo »rft %o «jyiX6fllt •«# »T3t<'t « ittoAttn bklr§ •»*r 
t« t«Tt» «t •»•«!? eiP«»Xn*r «*«pt •At tQ »iri«xr£on^d ft-rj? »ofl»l>lTr- 




s 

ftgalost th« weight »iid ppepondersnee of tbe evidesioe th-tt the revl«ir- 
ing court 'my say th'^t they are the result of paasioa, pxejudlee or 
alatRke, aTatlot atrget aarehouae So . t, St. Louis. Alton » T^rre 
Haute Hallroad Oo . . 132 111. App. 405. Oefendsnt Insiets th^itt the 
Judjpient i» agi^lnet the m^.nlfest vei^t of the evidence* In order 
to pass on this point* *e hare carefully reid the testimony sis it 
appears in the transcript* 

Plaintiff ie a licensed re^l estate broker in Ohioago* 
Defendant is tbe auinager of the real eat??^te department of the 
ChiOHgo '^LTlslon of the 3ooony Vacuum oil Uoapany, with an office 
»t 59 £ntat Van euren Street* Ghloage. Defendant nnd his brother* 
wllllfta D. Kerr* a Chicago lawyer* owned a 50 foot lot at Harlea 
Avenue and A^tgeld Street* Chicago* on vhioh there was a teaporary 
structure occupied by s real estate broker. The title w^g in the 
n»«e of defendant. Plaintiff testified th^^tt In the early part of 
Mny* 1933* he oslled on defendjptnt; thnt he told defendant th»t he 
(plaintiff) might be «ble to find n. purchaser for tbe property; 
that defendant told him the property wns for sale and thnt the price 
was #16*000; thrtt he called on defend'^nt at his office three or 
four dt^ys later and told hia (defendant) thr^t he had a buyer vho 
had looked at the property and »as willing to sake an offer of .^8*500; 
that defendant at-^ted th^st he would wait until 8oaiebo<!^ offered hla 
$15*000; that about a week thereafter witness sar defendant again 
and stated th?)t his prospect owned a 80 foot piece of real estate on 
Jjelaont Average and was willing to convey this piece of resl estate to 
defendant and pay $9*000 In addition; that defendant st^^ted he would 
give the proposition consideration and asked witness to return the 
following week; that the following week witness returned* at which 
tlaa defendant inforaed hia that he had looked at the Belaont Avenue 
property and investigated the v^lue* and thst such property was worth 
about S3*aoo* which* added to the #9*000* would »tike the offer for 
his (defendant's) property 111*000; that defend*?nt told witness he 



5 

«Cf, toX toot Od ^ £^911? o «t«x««^ o^tjjwiiip • «tt«i11 .0 ttftiXXitt 

le rti»q ^T«« «fll* ai #^iii £>oitii««i m#Qii»iSi .taat3»t«t& )• flMUi 

Hln«^;«T« ftiit <Mt i»£sa«-»/R -' bail v»^ •i^A ftci #d3|i« C)):i|is^ - ' 
•tti^ »4t ;t«il^ luif %iM» to) tftv x;r'X»c{<i«q (irt} mXA blot tnmbMBlBb fi^as 

B9 •#e«>«ei lsi%t ^o »»9iq tool Oa » bmnrn ♦••^AOtq tiil i^JU .■-- . -•■ ti:,; 
o* 9igt99 Xpm %o «B«i<? »iifi# x»v«»o •* jjniiiiw au^w ^nn wmnrA tao«Xt^u^^^ 

»ii# fl'K/iJ'tw 0$ cAMtiv ii«R^»« 6«A aol*«^:«4>iMioa ii€>i tlaMqotq fUt •visi 

tfolrir *« ^fmtt^jtun ttiBiitiv i®»w sciwoXXot •*!* t»Mt jJlttw saiwoXXo^ 

9<;a9VA ^flosiXvsi Bdt t* frnfoeX Jt>«4 fteC ttui^ «U(i bmmolal #a^a«t»l» moi^ 

itoY t»llo »4t »3i«« Wjwwr ,000,61 AiW o* fc«Wfc^« ^attbt ^0OQ,S# timrfA 



4 

vft« goiag to wait until he got a $1&,000 offer; tb^^t four or five 
dayt later iritae«8 agala talked to defcrtidaat at tho lattor"® office 
%nd told hie tli t tb« prospeotire buyer with whos he had beeo 
negotiating wms no loager interested, hut th^t he, (witneaa) had 
otet a brokeT by the name of X<e7oy Hirseh* with whoa he dleoussed 
the proT>erty, and that Hireeh adght be interested in rmrehaslBg 
for 115,000; that he irna ^^orking in oooperation with Hirsoh to get 
the purohaaer to ochm up to his priee; th-t deff>ad9nt ttated he 
would not haek down on an offer of ^5,000; thut on June 37, 1339, 
Leroy Hirsoh, a broker, and witness exiled on defendant at the 
latter* 9 offioe and witness introduced Hirsoh as & ooopermting 
broker; th^t Hirsoh told def<?ndant thnt the buyer he had w^s working 
en the denl, and th^^t he w^^s, he thought, very close to « deal; that 
should & deal be oade he wanted to kBow when possession oould be 
deliwered; that defendant iimediately telepAtoned his brother, 
^lllii^ai l>. Kerr, stnd stated th-^t his brother had advised hia that 
it wns neoessaxy to give the oeoupaat of the real estate offioe on 
the preaisea 30 days notice to waoate; th-^t Kirsoh asked whether his 
purchaser could take the property subject to taxes; th'^^t plaintiff 
stated to Hirsoh th^tt he beliewed th^t any savings to be ef footed 
should accrue to defendant; that Uirsoh then stated to defendant that 
he wanted aaturanoe th»t defendant would sell for $15,000 "when our 
buyer is ready"; that defendant s^id, "Mr. Dphaa [plaintiff 1 has had 
an exolusiwe on this property and I will be glad to extend it and 
give you plenty of tiao"} that defendant stnted that he was going on 
his wication and that **if wo were re»dy while ho was away on his 
▼noation to close the deal, we should contact his brother, who is 
aad was an attorney, who would handle the details of the de«»l anyv^ay 
even if he [defendantl were in town"; that before witness and Leroy 
Rlrsch left, witnese stated thmt he w«?nted it understood thnt if he 
was suecessful ia produoing a purchaser he wevilA reoeiwe the regular 
Real Estate Board r'jte of ooamtission; thst defendnnt inquired irtiat 



i^ Qt dviKxin Atiff ttolif^%*qooo ai sniiiow m«^ 94 fait {000«€X)» «•! 

•tf bmg»tt fa'sim^'imb i At {w^iiv eid •# qw two* ot YSBJutotiRT mAt 

^tmi «7^ «i«ii/l> tta t*A^ ; latto iE<i «• itvftfc jiftntf #o#i AXii«« 

ViktMtt^^^n ti «ei 4*8«i.'* i:#ai svMtiv ban aeltlo a*x*#tffi 

feftw *i ^®*it« »t *«ii •* iXlw X km* xnwtf^vi airf* no •▼ittfXftzs lu 

Bi odiff »««4*e»d Kid #»»#aoo jiXirodc •v^Xdiftb ftil^ •a«Xo ot ftol^sdrr 
tJ^-^iai !«•* •^ ^o ali**»fe ai*^ »XJm«cl lilMm o4w «x**rte^»Ji «« •«* hM» 

»i! ^1 *«rft b09tm»tmfs tt h^tam tif ^erf* fUn ««ftiitl« ,naX dositiH 
^«X»sftt mat •▼l«o«iE i»Xi»««r Ml «»ii«JfOTU!Kf K »fli»«*«rt^ «1 Xirtsa^aotm •«« 



th« eommiseloa i»ouId be« and th^-t witness teld hl» 6%; %h^X defendant 
then stated th t he »(ranted It understood he would not be llsble foy 
two eonralsslone, one to l.«T9y Hireeh nnd one to witness j th-^t witness 
tben told defendant thnt he need not worry aboist thnt, and thst he 
need only look to witness in the pnyisent of comnis^lon; th^^t :!»bout 
three weeks after Juiw 37, 1333, Leroy Kirsoh to^oS witness th!>it 
his buyer mnv Just about reidy to sign a oontraet and that (fitness 
telephoned defendant's offiee and »«»s told by his secretary thJ*t 
defendant w»iis on his vaestion; thst the aeoretffry suggested ths»t 
he teleidtone to Ulliaa Kerrj thnt witness telephoned ^illina tferr, 
who st-^ted that he knew the witness nnd knew of the pending negotis* 
tlons; th' t witness told Kerr th<>t >*it looked like within the next 
two ox three days we will be rei?>.dy to eign a oontr^^ot snd close the 
detsl*; thftt Kerr stated "when you ^re ready, if you will • phone ise 
I will be glad to aeet with you"; th^^t three dsys thereafter witness 
stated %hH% he wi^s rendy to have s meeting in order to disouss the 
■eohanios of closing the deal; th?«t sn appointaent wi*8 asde for 
the following afternoon i^t 2 o*olook, which appointaient w^.s kept by 
leroy Hirsoh «ind witness with illiaa Kerr at the letter's office; 
th«t **we told hia thnt while w« did not hnwe n. oheek in our pockets 
at the tlse, th^t we felt quite certain that in the next day or so 
we would be ready to tender hia a signed contract" J that Kerr stated 
)*that wns all right, he was ready whenever ^e were"; th-i^t they 
discussed whether to draft a regular real estate contract or an 
escrow agreement; th«t Williaa lerr stated thnt was immaterial, that 
considerable title work had to be done, and that "if I see that yott 
really aean business and you have 11,000 to put up, I -js-iil orooeed 
with the title work, and by th?^t tiae aqr brother will be back fron 
his ▼acation«i that in fact after hawing reoelwed the telephone call 
from witness the day before, he had wired his brother and loo^ited 
hin in California and found that his brother *oiJld be back the early 
part of the following week; that defendant Saauel Kerr got b»ok 



i 

TOt »ici><il ^ i'-iii i;i 4w •il l>do^et«&>£tu 4; ti( #jsift !>•(«#• a»iftf 

*d iiiAi ham ^Sfiii rtvoxr ioa. t**a t»fc M«|- a«j{# 

itjgK^B ■■>ih&i&oiiii.* ^Q iamk-^f^ 9di ai i»&&uJ^^{ <,i4 i«oX x^o i^*M 

*Aii^ ««»4;jjc^ M0-<r 4o«'xiii x«T»a 4"^' "■- •«tft t«yit« •^••v ••ttf# 

#«ili x%.x4^£io9e 6x1: x^ ^^^ »^» ^f^ MlVto s*3Ajj:-af^i'*S) JD«ia«{lq«I»# 

•£(# »»«Ia teft tf^OAiificr ^i. c>;i ^ xxitr a« ax^ »9xx(# to tmt 

vr> K^ *. e^, 4ti»mtai0^eim deuAw «a(«oX&*o & i.^ aooJiTttln saIvoXXoI aiUT 
, .u H*%»ttAi ^i tA Ti»3 m^illl niL?> eenfitXv fca/^ £l08tiK X0^*4 

Yfff* #Atf;^ **•*'»?» •* T»T9W«<V X^«9T til* Mf «^^^^ ^^ MW StjWl** 
*J84* .lAlltt^MlX MW: *Krf* *t«*4^» VC»1 »«l;XXi* ypilf ^*«f»t«f»l» V0%9n» 

vox tudt ••« I It" tmAi bitt^ ,a(H t>i«fi iftov tti^ii^ •Xtfje2«M«n«» 

l>9»oov«, XX4|f X t^ f*/q e . Btftflisi^ flKa« xXi«M 

««tt :^»a4 erf i-JUw ^mi^oxcf va a#i^ ^'^^ t<5; M^i *^Tq9 tX*** •<# ifripr 

iXso aaorfi;©is.? »»ii l!jwX®e»i ac^i^^ t»n» *OirX Hi #«it* j^aoX^^oirr ci4 

|^«#«&«X Iw* isiC#©»rf Mri ^OTiif biul M .ii-soltKf x«f »<» •••fl*i« «ort 

Y. r "d# aI»Atf arf l>X«o« TartJoitf eld UAt busail tM» «liwotiX«C aX mlA 

jf9«<f #«3 ««X Xti«MiS JuTisboaleb *iMl* jrfft* jjflXwoXXol ext* 1« *»«« 



froa hi« vacation on Monday » August 7, i939j t'imt wltnosa telephoaed 
hlB and told him tlist "ife were re*Mly to olose the des^l"; thfit h« 
mas very Iwsy th-^t day aod stiggested thst witness call the follewlag 
day; th'^t the follo»lng d«^y, Tu«8day, August 8, I.9S9, witness tels- 
l^aaed dfifsndnnt* «ho strtted th»t bs wasn't sure whether or not he 
iras going through with the de%l; th t witness asked hi«, ''Why not", 
asd defendant said he understood there v^e a Eroger lease m^de oa 
the property* and thi^t if th'$t was a f&ot he did not icnow whether 
he was going to aake the deal; th.^t "fitness suggested thftt they 
have luneh the next day, And th^^t the parties had luneh the next day, 
which was Wednesday, August 3, 1.939; th't witness told defendant 
that there was a Kroger lease signed, calling for a building to he 
erected on the property and the pmysient of a rental of t350 ^r 
month; thnt witness told hia th t "sey buyer ^na rendy, wining and 
shle to oensuanate the deal in aocordianoe with our agreettsnt and 
to pay <3J*sh for the property in the suoi of *15,000''; that defendant 
said he did m»t know whether he would sell, tht^t he wanted to give 
it SOBS tlu>ught ami suggested thot if he did not call the witness 
between then C^ednesdi^yl and the following Monday, that witness 
should call hia; thst on the following Uonday, August 14, 1939, he 
telephoned defendant and that the latter told hla he was definitely 
not going to sell for $15,000; that on August 17, 19S9, LeRoy 
Hirsoh, Charles Mirsch and witness called on defendant «M tendered 
a real estate eontraot signed by Charles Hirsoh, owning for the 
parohase of the property for the sua of ^15,000; that he tendered 
11,000 in o&ah as a down i^ayaent until the title oould be exaffiined 
and the deed passed; that defendant deo lined to receive the deposit 
or the oontraot and stated, *! have told you I was not interested 
la selling for tl5,0OO,« t»eroy Hirsoh, called by plaintiff, testified 
that he was a real estate broker, and, in substance, corroborated 
plaintiff's testimony. He further testified th'st he told defendant 
•the plans and th: t will take time, will yov. give us, or wiU you 



.y.i vo^..,.: "te^UJiw ^ .♦ • ,..„, ^, ^ ^^sf* ^WMl x^*V •«« 

,•*«« ^t , :. 9$i9efk^ . iiuft* M& diim li^uotdi ^nio^B tm 

%»is Oc !fa9a\mq 9d$ baf VxKotq •!(# oo >»#••«• 

Dos 8«iliiw ,t*>*^ 'X*^ t*" * f** ni*^ i>-to* as»c;rjlw j 4* ifUaom 

lM» tti9a*9T^f'- lue Attr ~ l»9h 9At •tAamtmao^ ot •i4» 

$aMtM9\«>3b t»At {•f:ro,sit; to ««« »rij iji ^#!t«q«9q ftfil tot dotno x»q^ ot 

•▼I3 0i b9taf 9» td t«tf^«ff!v V0at ioa bib M bJUf 

»89R^lfr sit* £Xcf l^lft it«^i)«ss^ ^OM tsi^^uosii «•«• #i 

•rf ,6' «X<*J^«v ^l^0lio1 9af oo t(»4t imlA Hm9 bluo4» 

XXt^Slni U«# t»##«X •( -aix taBbatil9b i>«ao4«i«i«t 

b9^9ba9t Ni» ttt*>t4i^t9!b act baliiso MMliw £ta^ (fecxili aaXuilQ ^4MY4a 
•at loTt ^IXXjio .tfOttTlK »»iT«tfC x^ i^«W3i» tiMzdao^ ««*»» laait ^ 

i>«aici«x« ftd fciifoe •litt •At S^tmt iam^^ avot :? aa 4b«o ai QOQ*X& 

jri»oq»& aji* ari©© tfljjjbaal ?|j miit btui 

lja*ftMa#fli *on c ,Jt>»*ii4 q» »ri^ 1^ 

6a^«TO«J©ir*co«» ,«Gaa^'^ ...» ait #^4* 

tti»ba9y.%h fcIo# arf #«il* I)«m3fcii x^iLixul aii .x^iosi-asj c'IIWhIaX* 

uo-? Ut*f ire ,a« avl^ i«>t i^lli^ ••■i* wt«* -tXlw * li* XMxa aiuiq •<#■ 



T 

assure us you will acll for 116,000 within a reasonable ti»e so X 
oan work out the balaaoe of this de&l"; that he (defendmnt) s»id 
Mr* Ui^aat had an «xolusiv« for ooow tisse ptiat aad th^t he voiild 
givo hiffl tioe to ^oxiL on it| thet witness said, "Vm not interested 
in «ny exclusive, X juat want your word, ?ad if you will shake h^nds 
with Mr, U^am thnt you will deliver for *15,000, thrt is all X wunt, 
«ad Mr* Ui&aa fteked him about the eoaaaission"; that witness and 
plaintiff both assured his there would be only one eoamission* 
OhiMrlea S. Hiraoh, oalled by plaintiff, testified th^t he w%a an 
attorney nind a brother of l«eRoy Hirsoh, the eooper«)ting broker. His 
testiaioi^ tended to oorrobor>>te the testimony of plaintiff «ind 
l«Roy Hirseh as to the conversation and ooourrence sit the tiae the 
oontraot and oheok nere rejeoted on August 16, 1939. witness also 
testified to fnots showing that he vns ready, willing %nd able to 
oonsuomate the deal for the sua of :fl5,000* 

Xn behsilf of defcndnnt, fired J3reitling, n re$l estate 
broker in Ohioago, testified th->t he knew pls^intiff »nd defendant; 
th'jt in the latter part of July, 1939, he had a oonwersation with 
plaintiff ooncerning the deal; th^^t plaintiff then told witness that 
"they were getting pretty olose to a deal"; thnt witness said he 
understood "your exelvsire expired", »nd that plaintiff answered, 
**Tes, but th t didn*t oonoern him, he w%s prooeeding with his nego" 
tia^tions nevertheless," '^illi'^s I>. Kerr, testifying for defendant, 
stated that he talked to plaintiff about the deal on Honday, July 24, 
1939, on iihioh day plaintiff called witness on the telei^one and 
stated that he had called defendant, whose office had referred witness 
to him; that plaintiff said to witness, "I have an exclusive on the 
property at Harlem and Altgeld &venue*j that witness interrupted 
plaintiff and told hia th' t his understanding was that any "exclusive 
option or oemitaent you aay have had on th^it property has expired*; 
that plaintiff stated, "That's true, but nevertheless X am working 
on » deal on the lot"; that sritnees then stated that with th?»t under- 



It 

t 

.{;t «Pifeft} .-IM fit km 
»tf* fid 9Tl«ui»X» «J» •▼ ' 

'..ii ^ti. **rft M..*. ««rf* ««««ti. *««^* ;^*«x .^^ «« x««t 



t 

Btaading h« would talk to plslntiff; th^^t plnlntiff then told witness 
that ho wna vorklBg on h de*il tbrit h« hop«d to bring to a bend the 
latter p«rt of the week nnd th;?t he wanted to get in touch irlth 
defende^nt; th^t witness told hia defend^int was on the P«!^eifle ^os^t; 
that he« witness • Infomed defendant that plaintiff hid something 
In prospeot and would ascertain where defendant could he reaohed 
the letter p«.rt of the week; th»t on ttondiay, July 3I» 1939« plaintiff 
o««e to witness's office, aooomp?^nled by l>eroy Hirsoh, who wms 
introduoed to witness; that Hiretfh or plaintiff stated th-^t they were 
working on <% drntH for the purohAse of the property $ind expected to 
hawe a contract signed the following day; th-^t they ttere oonoerned 
nbout the possession and asked if ^ oanoellation notioe oould be 
sent to the tenant; that witness said he would not feel Justified 
in Is^nilng a caneellatlon notice until he knew there w^e % contract 
that was sstlsfactory to defendant j th t witness had succeeded in 
oontaGting his brother, the defendant, and «^s inforned th t he was 
leaving l/»» iUBigeles for Chios go tht day; th>t Hirsoh stated th^t he 
had talked with defendant to the effect that the purchase price of 
$18,000 would be paid 50^ in onsh snd 50'> secured by a relstively 
short term aortg«igej that defendant had told Hirsoh that he thought 
th» arrsngeneat oould be worked out; th^t witness replied that there 
were n nunaber of questions regarding the tine factor in the oontrtctj 
that he, ?rltness, did not believe anything oould be accomplished by 
dleouBsing detaile of terse until there ^s an agreemnt, and th?t 
he» witness, wag not authorised to approve anything, th t he -^ns not 
disposed to say anything until defendant's return; that plaintiff 
and Hlre^ asked hla whether there should be n contract or eaerow 
agreement; th^Pt he, witness, stated that he had not thought particu- 
larly sbout th't, but that "If there is n meeting of the «lnd«, or 
an agreement and a purch^'ser has put up a thousand dollars or there- 
aboute, the rest wlU be a matter of clet«ll«; that plaintiff or 
Hlreoh said th t Hlrsch's brother, ? lawyer, ^s preparing n oontr^jct; 



%T9M^ #£4^ h^llqvt i<««ii#iw J flUt i^tfo bnihat^ met bJbto^ tami9g»MTX9 nidf 

^ JbadtiXipiooo.'' m i>lu0» S«i«l#tA« weXXod tan Mi^ ,«)»«ii#Xv ,i»ff tutft 

;^*df l>nA «#ji«iB«i»f^ oi^ oi^ •«»(# Xitnxf Mn«# to »Xije^«l> ^iri«»u««lib 

*oa »»^ nd *di «8aiit#^|(i« •»«««!«« 9t bi^^ffM^m ton »*w «e»«ii#i<« ^md 

«ot»ett 7» t9«tttfA«o « M bJimdM •^»di tfrHtftiffr niff l^Mtn ilH»aTlH ba» 

»a»lttaq, fd^oAt taa bMd •d t< d» I^«^k#« ,a»iff»i« «f»if i^di i#ii«tt*ets« 

«« «»baiiB tri^ to dal#»M( « «l w^ilt \i* tmdt tad ,#»!!# tuo«f« x^*l 

'^tmdi to eteXXob JtOMffoilt o «» t»(|f OJRir To«MCo«iar « ^<t» *tinu»9t'g* a« 

«« ni*fli»iq *«<# i*UB*9b to x^s^am « »cf lltn #»9t wH* ,0#tfOrf* 

;*0«T#Jk>*> « anl^«««1M| •«« «ii9t»iii « ,TO«fd«J t^HOsitlH #*!!* bX9» rfO««lH 



9 

that they (plaintiff and t^Roy Hirsoh) exp«eted the oontrsot would 
be eonplet^d and eigoAd th« following d»y; tbnt witness stilted th^t 
h« «xpeet«d to i3« in his offioo &11 the following day »nd that if 
t)i«y wftated to talk to him they oould do so; that he had a aonreraatioi 
with plaintiff on »Tlday, August 4, 1939, at whioh tiae plaintiff 
tolephoned witness th^t Charles s. Kirsoh, the lawyer, had been ill 
mnd thi^it the oontraet had net been signed on August 1, 1939; th^t 
there had been sose other delnys* and that ^^itneas stated thf^t his 
understanding w&s th^^t his brother, defendant, would be bnok the 
•ad of that week »nd wmad be in his office the following Honday, 
Otfendant testified in his own behalf and st^^ted that plaintiff 
first eontaoted hla on H»x9^ 38, 1939; th'it plaintiff subaltted 
▼i>rious offers for the property, whloh 'lere rejected; that on June 37, 
1939, plaintiff and teRoy Hirsoh came to his of floe; th t HirsiA 
asked witnses what he w?>.s asking for the property and witness stnted 
116,000; thi^t witness also stated he would pay ^ oommission; th^t 
at that tine witness did not know whether Hirsoh v^g nn inventor, a 
aenagcr or a contraotor or rei^l estate broker; that he was then 
asked whether he would be trilling to take one half or^eh; th;t witness 
said, *thi8 will all be over within ninety days, all be built 
probnbly, and it looks to &» like it night be workable"; that 
witness called his brother, a lawyer, isho stnted "It might be workabl^ 
that Hirsoh stated "we will have to have sooie tine to work this out**; 
that he ii^uired how oaoh tiow w>^s wanted and stmted th^t he hnd a 
;|ot of brokers working on the property and that he had submitted 
it to people; that he told about offers that had been made; that 
plaintiff and Hirsoh answered that they wanted ten days or two 
weeks, and that witness replied he would give them two weeks; that 
wltxusss left Ohioajgo on his v?%oation on July 14, 1939, and returned 
on Monday, August 7, 1939; th t plaintiff tele?*oned him th^t 
s&orning and s^id "he would like to t^et together with me to talk 



f 

^i :' 'dS bap •; oUtrt ? tii til ^ oi l)»i»*qx» Md 

t^i:*«l*ln •Hi* ii»i*r #« ,©«ei , t'i tio tiltoinlq il#itr 

*.?<Jar P)»ir,^iR fl»»d foti Ritrf fD^fT.r t# tea 

fMtttlsshts ttitfllMie *'.if* "? rfl»itA¥ at Mitt f99Mfaot t»Xi\ 

,T6 'MIjI* k ;e)»*«9it i*"**-' •^ **'* ■^*^t<> tyolTPT 

ri«8Tli! »• lif jtoltto Bifi ot 9K«*» xft»«-riH xtifitJi Nu tll*ilsXc: ,ficei 

7 «rto^c<!>tmi «« ftitir ifee?lM t»if3F«ifir irdaM" #«A hit «B*ailr 

A firf* Jlww &i s. ,. ..i »vniil <>* *ve<l ill* ••• *»»#*« d^xtn tPdf 

b9/ittaidu9 bmd mi *«<** ba^ xitmo^ •df no ^BiiTav »793irxdr t<i t«| 

j.^.rtt i<ib«» «»•€! bmd tsfli stfttto #»«tf« &Xo# wrf *''?f# jwlqc^g Of #1 

ont «a e^b «•* t>«#ii«« xi»<* *^''^** b ^ f l WMf w ff»wrlH haw rtlt«i«Xq 

j«i« ;«i«*!f •wd' «»il* «vX3 feXww 9ti fc^XXo*!* 9i»)wr^ itr »prf# tims ,e::ff*»w 

,t'-rf:t i5td ^*?^J-»lftT•X•^ ltl*?fl.''rt? jfMI j«tex ♦f ♦•tr- 



10 

about thl« proposed sale, sad 1 »uppo«ed it *»« what Mr, Hirseh had 
beea in to see «« about aad th»T« }md been » tentative appoint meat 
fflsde to go to ay brother's offioo the next dny at 10:30 in the 
morning to discuss the terse" $ that vitncse replied thmt he had 
talked to his brother the day before and th t his brother had net 
nentioned anything About r tentative appoint aent, that he ;ju8t got 
bnok to wrt and th^t he had oth«r incmiries on the property; that 
plaintiff said he »©uid like to get the omtter settled; that witness 
informed plaintiff th^.t »«yovtr two weeks were up before I went on iqr 
T'O^cation nnd I didn't know what you were doing until I heard fro« 
ttf brother. He wired ae a night letter and told aae n^at was going 
on« nnd I snid there will be no ^ppointaent tomorrow fflorning"* 
Witness further testified th'ot he told plaintiff th-^t he went hoae 
the night before and took papers with him nnd made eewersl p«ges 
of pencil o^loulationsa and thnt he wss trying to figure out whether 
he would be better off to sell the property for oash at 115,000, or 
to build on a Kroger lense at ^360 » month, or to build 4 muoh more 
expensive type of building for a l^rge eonoern oompartible to Kroger; 
tbftt plaintiff said he would oome out to witness's house the^t night; 
tbat vitnese replied thnt he did not see what good thnt would do, »nd 
that plaintiff then proposed having lunoh the following day, Wednesday, 
iugust 9, 1339; that they had lunoh on th t day, and that witness 
stated he did not like the faot thf»t plaintiff had oonoe?»led from 
him that there was a 1350 lease from Kroger; that finally plaintiff 
wanted to know what defendant was going to do; that defendant said 
he would not sell for '!;15,000; thst witness aaid, »I will tell you 
this, ns soon as 1 know what I am going to do *5bout this property, 
X will let you know the first thing, along with other brokers who 
are working on this deal**; that toy August 15, 1939, witness "had so 
many inquiries about this thing, I said to my brother, • • • we've 
got to make up our mimis what we are going to do here and do something, 
toeoause 1 am pestered with this thing**; thst on August 16, 1339, he 



&(it ni OSiCy.^ a ^di •oiilte k*t»4#ot^ ^ o.f 09 ot iifcMi 

tog 9c!&; <ew^0xotj^v J^v^AlistAWir r- iiiafi» t^l^txfls bmxotfm^m 

♦ "ii*M^i«« wonoBo* *a»«Mi»<fq« «« art iXlw «t»«l* W«» I tm» ««• 

fcajs ,ofc l>j;«jj» **!*? if^ff«« ^«'«*» '•©e ^«« ^^* •'^ ^^^* fe^iXqM •••fl*lv t»nf 

,X«iS«M*«» tt^fc »»i:iiinXXo1 •^J ^mml ^Ited l>«»»©«f^ «»<f* «i#iii«Xq Stetii 

«»afl*l« #«^t he* ,t«^ $ tit aa dooitl ifwl X»<** *^'** i^^SI ,e tsiifitfA 

»oirt ik»X*i»afio& ittsd ^1ll^«Jli»X<| i'Ul* ta^ «tt ©jUX t©« *XI» «rf b9tfif 

»X*^««o«<» «'*^^ *^^«»*^* <"* *^ tBioi «« X tm^ *««^ i «* *<>«• ®* ^^^'^^ 

e4« •t«i*itl ?«i«o **!» a««Xi» •w»i«t# »««i^ wi^ ••^^ "•X #«X -Uiw I 

«• ft«d« •«*tt*i* *i«ei *«X #Mi»»X xcf *eil* 5«X«»fc aXil^ ^to* •«« 



u 

suoceedftd in getting plaintiff o» the telephone; that he then told 
plaintiff that he and his brother had decided to sell for 135,000, 
and thnt he had nlread^ refused an offer of -'17,500 for the prooerty,'< 

fhere is ao dispute th?*t plaintiff w«8 ««uthorleed by- 
defendant to aell the renl estate for the sua of 115, OOn and that 
defendant agreed t© pay plaintiff s broker's ootonisslon of 5*, ox 
|7&0« According to plaintiff •« version, on June 37, 1939, defendant 
asld he imuld give plaintiff » resson^^ble tlae, Defendant, hoi^ever, 
Bi!«lntaln9 th^t teHey Hlrsoh, In the preaeaoe of plaintiff, i^sked 
defendant to be allowed ten days or t«o veeks within whloh to procure 
A purehaser, and that defendant acceded by granting tvo weeks* 
IMfendant deolares that this period expired on July 11, 1939* It 
Is oonoeded that n purchaser wtis net produced by that dnte. Plaintiff 
and Hlrsoh next spoke to wllllasi «^. Kerr, an ^^ttorney snd n brother 
of defendant. There ia r^ sharp oonfllot between the testlisony of 
plaintiff aod Hlrsoh nnd th t of wllllaB 0. Kerr as to naterlal 
pnrts of this conversation. Mr, Kbtt did co»s&unicate i?lth his brother 
who w^s oa the Paelflo co^^st, and apparently informed hlai of the 
▼Islt and proposal of plaintiff and Hlrach. ilnlntiff, (jsooordlng 
to the testimony Introduced in his behalf) telephoned defendant oa 
August 7, 1939, the day defendant returned from his vaoatlon, and 
told defendant that he and his people were ready to olose the deal, 
nso, according to plaintiff's contention defendant told plaintiff 
oa August 7, 1939, th't he w?»8 very busy and that plaintiff shwild 
eall him the next day. Plaintiff ulao maintains th«t he ©ailed 
defendant the next day and wt-s inforawd that defendant hs^d not 
determined whether or not to «:© through with the deal. Plaintiff 
further maintains that at their iuM»heon engageiaent the following day 
the deal wae thoroughly dlsoueaed and defendant stated he did not 
know whether or not he would sell, that he i??anted to give It further 
thought, lad asked plaintiff to call hla the following aonday. If 
plaintiff did not hear from hla previous to th«t time, and that when 



xi 






~t Oflt •! sYtdT 

>'»C! ,!Hr.lJ ^le^ftnoS'it*^ « llifill«Xq •▼ij bXvow »rf bX*« 
9/w*6- idif ttiAttm ti'^ to ii\at a9t httpllM wT o» taelMstftft 

b»Otffc««q Jofl B" ' t«»rr u.: JfiAt b9b9»nco «i 

•M AMNr^rod t«lX^ff08 (f'tfrift #> ti arvrfT •tfliti^altl) !« 

'>f*oimjmLOO btt xrtiJl «tll ••»i#ii«iftrnoo •iilt to •ixe^ 

*djt Jo airf rdSYolfll xltaiftx^qqa bmm «t««oe oitles^ ttf^ «a tJnr •*! 

SalfM090>!^) ttll^RXfTl'l «xf«t«tiK twre ttilnX«X9 lo Xflsoq^vq bnm iUlr 

mc ^ l»MMd<:t»X9t i'Mtti^ti ata at fc*oii^Ttfal Xaoai^ft*;^ 9tif oi 

.1 «»ri» 9soX(» d ;o»q ulrf br 'I tBKba9lt9b JbXo# 

feXwori- ^frf TI9T t^w »rf , '>?! »V «• 

toe li-^ ^n.*it«»li>t iMki LJWBtoTtoi ^'■■»« •xf* *it«l»fl»l«b 

iea bib 9d ibt#j*' ^l9b itf!« l>»iiBii9«ii> tX<{:guo'X9itt »»> X«9fc aif^ 

>9ii*tiit #X •vis o* x>^jc^^ «il #4ul# «XX<i« M0OW «d #ofl to i:erijf»rfw woajf 

' ? ,T8*ffo» yil»©XX0% »rf# Hi* it»o ©# ni#«l«Xq bmtBM bcm ^iO^iMiit 
t> K ::J bttr^ ^•mlt ti'Mi o* mjuoH«vt mid not! x*»d #oa i>ifc \Jitul»lq 






ititiffteTf 



13 

plaintiff onlXsd d«fttndant tht folloirlng Monday, defendant stated 
h.9 had deolded not to sell for #I5«om'), The testimony of defendant 
».a to the oonTeraation after defendant's return from his ▼'<c»tion, 
ie at V iriance with the testiiaosy of plaintiff. He did eay* however, 
thnt on Tuesday he took v:^>rious doeuaents home with him in order to 
caleulste us to whether to mnke the deal. Defendant amintalas thst 
the case jmn tried and pre<»ented to the 06urt on the theory thst 
plaintiff relied on the tender of the eftrneet otoney and the eontrmot 
on August 17 1 1939, for proof of h«».ving procured s pureh«««er. m 
hsTe exatained the pleadings Rnd the teatiisony, %iKi do not agree with 
this contention. Both pnrtiea agree that the principal o%nnot reToke 
the egeney efter the broker has procured a. purchaser able, ready 
and willix^ to buy. (Purgttt ▼• einra^nk. 319 111, App. 28* ) 
IQiere $in owner of real estate eaploya n broker to sell it for him« 
there is a proaiee on the part of the owner to pay the broker for 
his servioes wfaenerer the broker produoea a prospective purchaser 
ready, willing and able to buy* hen the broker has furnished a 
j^ospeotive b\iyer who is ready, willing and able to buy on the teraa 
and conditions proposed, the contract ia executed as far as the 
broker is concerned, ( Glatt & Frioe ▼, AdaJts ^ 336 111, App, 331), 
rrom these authorities it will be seen th«t if plaintiff procured a 
purohfteer h^q waa ready, willing s?nd stble to buy on the teras stated, 
he e'^rned his commission. *e are of the opinion thst there is ample 
evidence in the record to warrant the finding of the court th?»t in 
the fore part of August, 1939, the plaintiff procured a purohj^ser 
who was irea(3^, willing and »ible to buy for the sum of ^15,000 in 
o«8h, i^i(& nn9 the purohnae price demanded by defendant. It is true 
thst at the tia» the formal written contract and the i|l,000 deposit 
were tendered to plaintiff, the right of plaintiff to act as a broker 
in the sale of the property had been terminated. However, there is 
ftompsteat testimony that plaintiff procured a purch'^aer wte wes 
ready, willing and sble to buy on the terms stated, prior to the 



i 



,> V . iff r^y* ffTi*#*' '*'i* aoiiAftx»vaoo eiU ©^ sm 

Mfoi'^'7 iMems9 lMqtfU!t*tt( Aii9 t<r.d» ••lES^ wmAtWHat a^oH *m&itfi»im^» nidi 

^U vol »i XiMi et ttt]|»r^ • c^^lcjce wr»#»« JU«« 1« 'x«n(o on •vMM 

f» b»duia%i^l «a4 TftM«%«l «4« fl•l£^ •V^<i •# •X<^ ibM BR^XXiv «Kb»*l 
a»i»rf jmC* «0 twi ** «Xdi! lae<i» anlXXiv «^te«»t «X ©^ xfttwd •▼i^QOqeoiq 

*(XSS * . k9&i ..f i ^ A •▼ Hrlti t ffifilir^ .bMitftoaoo aX ta;ftoid 
s fe»wj>«?M liX^filisiP 11 *•»!« fuftaa «tf XXiw ti a»X3rX«oi^t«« ®«wl* awfl 

»Xqil« fti ^9rf* #^^ ft«laX<!0 •ri# X© •!* a* •«<a«tin«»« aid tufltfl* ©d 
al *«il* #^j«o art* 19 snXiwXl arft aM«««w ©1^ btoetx «di ai aaaatolTa 

ak OCO.ex? t© WW fiiC* wft iM •* »W« bau. aMXXlw ^x^at »4w» ©da 

mnt «1 n ♦*fl&fi«»lai> ttf iM^*«^ •oi'm ©ttt^Mtt^ •««* »»»» M©XA» ,il«a© 

tiaa(|©& 000«X^ »<!# Inw *©»t*a«© irt**iT» JEm«®1: »{i;r a«X^ adt #» #««U 

laiowf * «js t9P ot t^ltoii^Xq 1© *i«ait •Ai ,ni*/Ti»Xq ©t l>»T©ba»# tx©*! 

»J ©icarf* «T«T*t©lf .*©^««i«xa# aeiwf 6«il.t«x«ei©^«* «<<* >« •^«'« •^» ** 

Rs» •Ar ^aafldouaq « JNmii«oT!? ItXtnt^X*? imit taa«i*«»* tfla*©q«©© 



18 

fltetloB of d«f«a4r!int la teriain?*tlng tbe agsney. It Is plain that 
th« action of plaintiff In tendering « oontrjiot %ad >% deif^sit^ ««,« 
done only as a atcp in oont«»pI?^tion of an exi>eeted law suit, and 
did not r^dd ot detract tr&m his right to n ocuxa&isslon* Th« trial 
court beard the witneaccc ^nd had an ©pn-ortunlty t© observe them, 
After n csreful oonaiderstion of the eridenee submitted, we are 
of the opinion th t the findings of the trial judge sre not agslnet 
the manifest weight of the evidence* 

Defendant further maintains that if the relstionehip 
of prtnoipsO. and agent wna not otherwise terainnted before iuguat 17, 
1939, plaintiff forfeited all ri^t to a co^lssion by withholding 
from the defendant knowledge of the increase in the t^aount of the 
Kroger rent* this point wa« not put in issue in the trial. It is 
not isentioned in defendant* s affidavit of defense, M^verthelees, 
we are of the opinion th^it the record does not show th^^t plaintiff 
failed to keep defendant informed as to the terms of the proposed 
deal, or th»t plaintiff was derelict in his duty as h broker. 

For the reasons stnsted, the judgatent of the Municipal 
Oourt of Ohioago is affiraed* 

JODilMSST AFFISMID, 

HSBEi,, P.J, ASH mum E. Bimiiyrm, j, oouotiR, 



,i>>'ici 



u 

itiui^*^. lo a.;* Jo-' •<(# 

tt0 Xiao •a^b 
-,:'it TO bin- toa bib 






..,,i. ,. ^^l mtatnUi «fimi 

^l•iI<,.•: itiiTt «ta«i T*g<rxX 
i^ oAlaiito •<# to TM 9m 



.jtiaxB 



41327 

WUI.IAM U 0*aoitM£X.iu|, as He, 



ABRAHAM JAO 
On Appeal 




AppCllnat* 




Ai^rEiiL FHOM 



vUROUIf OOURf 



) OOOK OCOSTT. 

307 I.A. 245 

MR. JUSTlOi; OkiMS. D£LI?2nI0 THE OPlBlOfi Of fHS OOliRT. 

On July It ld3S, Abr«hA« Ji^coba, Shales J^^oobs, Saapson 
Jaeobfl >ind E:ii«i Jr^oobs, being xndebtei in the sua of tS*000« 
executed And delivered their promissory note for enid eu«« due 6 
years after dnte, with interest at the r'^te of 6:4 per !annuK until 
laaturity, and -^t the r te of 7)t per Annum after iiaturity, and on 
tfeM ft»«e drite« to seoure the pAyoent of the note, they executed, 
aoknowledged »nd delivered n trust deed on the real estate known 
as 6140 north Kenneth Avenue, Miles Center, Oook Oounty, Illinois, 
«hioh premises were improved by a two story and bsseawnt briek flat 
building* On April 33, lt^34, ««illiam I, 0*OonneXl, as Receiver 
of the Linooln Trust * Savings Bank, filed a oompiaint in chancery 
in the Cirouit Qourt of Cook County for the purpose of foreclosing 
the lien of the trust deed. On August 8, 1334, ?rank P. Meoinn, 
an attorney, filed the general appe?^ranoe of Abraham Jaoobs, Shalem 
Jttooba, .^ampson Jaoobs and Klla Jaoobs and also filed an answer* On 
November 32, 1934, on motion of plaintiff, Frank r. Roeder was 
appointed receiver of the premises* He duly qualified as such 
receiver and took possession. A decree of sale aas entered. Pursuant 
to auoh decree the property ras sold by a Haste r in Ch^neery on 
December 33, 1935, to William L. O'Oonneli, as Receiver of the 
Linooln Trust » Savings Bank, the mortgagee. On J'lnuary 6, 1936, a 
decree ^na entered confirming the soeolal ooffiaissioner*® report of 
sale and distribution. Thereafter, on April 18, 1936, the court 
entered an order directing Abraham Jacobs to pay the receiver as 






I '-^ .4'"^.". 



t«»(icA (td 



M-^ .Ik, I TO J:' 



. out «aiu« {-x&attlflsoTq ii«4tf Jb^iftrULtt) JDcu Jb9ifiio»x9 

»t*iit«J , fttutam 

XT»on-4© ni ^ai>' ,3*0,"?^ &^iiuv^ ^ Itjuz'i al^Oiiia til* to 

^ie9lP9rot iB 9tii.^\^^i, -jui lot t<^ii80 a(«e3 to ttwoO tiu9tiO »a$ ttl 

,iiiax-oJf •) Jffl . n«i> #«/tf<x^ Bri* lo a9il •AS 

Wili^rtg ,»cfoo*l> Kfiir ^-..■. ic -■^ou-.i >^:,«j j.:-i-'B9» M;^ built ^imi'X9tta ue 

aO ,tmfna^ an b9ii\ 99l* fi^ft «cf»oAli sill ba» Mtee«W flo«q*A«i «Mfoe«!ti 

ifoi/s 8?» l)«ilil/!.vp tiut Alt *B99tm9Tiq 9at 1« Y9vi«oe<x ^#nioq^« 

9ifit to X9rJL^9ff msi ,Xi»ixa«e*0 .a willXi* od* «d£ei ,Cr isdaMftQ 

.« .esci ,8 t"i«Mn«=t «0 •»«»«8*'»«« »<** «ate«8 «aiilv<$€ 4 ttnt al90atl 

to i«oq®i 8»a9noie»JUB«a© X«if''» i' ^d$ ^Xantitooo b«t«#fl» «ev •»tM>*' 

t'StJo^ «t{* ,acSX »8X X*t« -- ,.;*tii»if»ilf .flol#<»cfl»#«lfc 2ia« •X«« 



2 

rent for th« tise aad ocoupaaoy of the first apartaient, the sues of 
112,00 per w>nth. Ue continued to reside on the rsremi^es *nd 
eottoiled with the order to psy 31?.<'>0 « aontb rent. On April ft3, 
1937, the statutory period of redeaption haring expired, a Master's 
deed ie3.9 iesaed to Qharles J. Albers» auoces^or to ^illi!^« L. 
O*0onn«ll, a» receiver of the l.ii»oln Trust &■ S^Tings B?ink. on 
May 18, 1937, the soiloitor for plaintiff aerired notice on Fi^nk 
P. MoCilnn, solicitor for defenl^nta, th-^t on May 30, 1937, he would 
ftppear before the Chancellor to whoa the o^se ai assigned, and 
present the firat and final report and account of Fr«5^nk F. K©eder, 
Receiver, and aak th^t the s^ae be stsproved nnd the receiver dis- 
charged* On June 4, 1937, brank f, '<^o«der. Receiver, filed his firat 
nod final report and account, iFhich showed receipts of t437«00 and 
diabursementa of |47S«77, leaving a cnah biilance to the credit of 
the estate of ^31»23« The receiver also reported to th$ court that 
on May 1, 1937, he surrendered the possession of the premiaea to 
the grantee of the master's deed* On June 4, 1937, the court entered 
an order approving the report and account, allowing the receiver 
tli« balflnce of '21.23 for hia services, and diaohsrging the receiver. 
On October 10, 1939, Abrah<3a Jncoba filed a verified petition and 
motion in the n-itur^ of n. writ of ^rror cor'? a nobis . The petition 
recited inter aj ^ ia thrt "during the tenure of 8«id Fr«nlt r, Hoeder 
ss receiver, on totrit: August 18, 1936, in hia o:apscity »s receiver 
of s^id prenisea did eaiploy one Leo Karowskl to aprny and othenvise 
ctaeaio^lly treat said preaiaea for the purpose of exterminating 
inaaets ai^ vermin infesting said premises; tte'^t during the course 
of their effiploya»»nt and while cheaio».lly tre^jting said premises, 
and as ts direct »nd proxlaste result of the negligence of skid teo 
Kftrewakl and hia employee, one Larry Cooper, an explosion occurred 
and fire resulted nAiioh caused your petitioner to become seriously 
burned, shocked and permanently disabled; * • • that notiirithstanding 
the fact th'-t the hereinabove stated accident to your petitioner 



lO RJUi '5IJ5 tStJ^*.-,?- ■";:" Jr-itlt 9Ai \o XOiiJi'qtJOQ.i; ri/JW HOU 9iXt lol Mtl 

Mb «!&s4j;«i»«c tuit a» *t>k9m 0S hi»uni.ttt^*o •!! .fC^itMi tint OO.SXI 






:>9ftb 



i.L 



■■n^l 



ii^ ^aXToxqq« tai'To an 

co^ 5S.i'.;; to ButiPind •ili 

aMi^i9«dA ,0S6I ,0X fdotoO «0 

;jrn»# *»tf# ^txat' icAt j^il^ t&tal k9it09t 

> XoX^.^B9 tib asaia )• 

' Tot »9$iJi6i9tJ: bir illMOiMBiti 

;»ftt!il«d 3iiX7«9tai atmtvr tUB Bt—maX 

,8»8i»«»Tq Jbina ytttttn^t l^JU>tiJ.v■rl•^ sXlrfw bus Jfla«!XO-t<l»» rt»di Yo 

•94 Jblia lo wnet^il^&a »tl9 lo #Xtni«Y •««mbXxo7^;( baa toarrl bAit 
batriiooo nolaoXqita axt ^x^qnmQ xvs 






Y9aoi#i#9Q titox ^^ ^^' 



^^yoeTAaX^-SJa^i sU;r t^AS i^Mt M[# 



3 

occurred durisg the tenure of the -^Id rrank F, *%9der, as receiirer, 
and noti?ithst??ndlng the f"Ot tbat the a?!ld trwnk F, Hoeder, receiver, 
bad notloe and knowXedgo of said aeeldeRt, the B^Xd ^r^nk »• Hoeder 
did» t^ith intent to oonoe.**! froit the court the herein described 
n«gXiii^nt laot, fraudulently sad wilftdly, ^olly f^il to account 
and report a^id oocurrenee to this honorable court, »nd, in 
pursunnce of said wilful conoeftlaent, did wholly f«ii to ^^ooouat 
for the expenditure of money involved in the employ sent of the 
aaid Leo Krirowaki in regard to the e^^.id exteruiin^ttion work contracted 
for, either in the verified report and aeooxmt or liet of vouchers; 
and as a result of sucAi fraudulent oonoealisent the court w^s kept 
in ignorance of s^ld aooident and as a result of said fraudulent 
conoeal8»nt, this court did approve said report and sooount snd 
entered an order disch<^rging said J?r%nk *, Hoeder m receiver on 
Jmi» 4, 1937, to the detriment of your petitioner; • • • th^t on 
Juae 8, 1337, your petitioner did file a oo»plflint in Inv in the 
Oirouit Court of Cook County entitled J^ooba vs* Hoeder, et @1*, Ho* 
370 7046, setting forth in necessary detail the sets of negligence 
on the part of said defendant; that on April 30, 1338, an ?-!aended 
ooapl*iint vns filed in anid action; th">t the nmii Chas. U ^^Ibers, 
Heeeiver of the Linooln Trust & Savings Bank, vma dismissed as party 
defendant oh January 31, 1939, and th?^t sppearmnee snd nnswers 
wi>r« filed on behslf of the other defenJ?^nts in 9*ld law s^iit." The 
petition prayed th^it the order of the court approving the first and 
final account of Frank F» Boeder, as receiver, and the order die- 
oharging the receiver, tje vacated, and th t "this cause be oon- 
aolid«ited with the case of Jaoobs vs. Boeder, et »1,, iSo» 370 7046, 
wttdL »to?it six issues be tried in this c^use lui sn action in the nature 
•f a bill of equity to adjust the rights of the parties hereto"; 
that any judgment rendered against JT&nk F, Hoeder be made a lien 
upon the preaiises, and th»-t a rule be entered against Frank F. Boeder 
to show opiuse why he should not be held in oonteapt for failure to 



8 

T•^ (oiT'Cv JUXK6 le •^iHiXiroa:! lurji •eitoK But 

J ' ' * fiT«Xcifca/»t> «#©i< #n#.»JXa«ii 

- . ~ . . :•'.^fftt^r«*^lcr 

•■ ?«»;.' *i:i •^■■rtri.' ■ , ;■■■'•'•« itdS T<ft 

--"•'■ ' ' ■ 9AJ v.. IT iB«.-o.i»ijj e»j feijft 

.,„, >>■-• * ' +>'*«*- ;f«hi«>i" W«e !;« •ooi^Toflii tfl 

^rt ...... :^ fci& ttuc» mtdf ^ttiwglMftoBoc 

fto ;T©flol*l»»': i;» V .^thb'9iit ot «TStX ,♦ tdSlrti 

, ,._ : ,1 ._ , ► fr^Ijffrto X** to Sns^ tluotfO 

ts.V. - ,'^'- i. «■'« XHq- -'■•»« *o *<«? »^* *• 

y;^':- f*^'(.;rte?,ft? «•-■»' «^rt*^ ^riJar^r•-.; aXoo«lJ[ td* to ^eWtoeil 

«ir- '■.*?• jaj*ekfli"*- .'(•rf ad ft*Xlt •«•• 

-•Ife TSi •«« ,T»irX«©»< •« »t»l»«o>f^ .^ jtoisf't to Muooe« SMaVt 

,»>0t Ot« .oa ,.X« *« ,T»Jt»»oJt ••T ■^•let te »»Ko «/fi if#lw l>*#i<6iXoa 
aw^isir •ii# ai nntt^ tAf Mi ft«l«l »«* »«»«ei XX« jTcif^ JWb 

aiiti « »£)«» »«/ T»b«o« •% in««^ ttttfia^iJ* l»«TO»«»t #ff9«Bs*«t t«* ^«^^ 

o# •4»Xl^t tot ti|»!«JfldO at hl%A 94 foa ftXuorfB •rf trf* mi/so vorfs #t 



4 

present n fuii, true, aoourste 'snd eosoletc^ report and fjocount in 
his appiie«tlon for disoharge f>a receiver. On October 14, 1939, 
Charles H, ^iXbers, ae KeceiYcr for the i inooin Trust k Savings Bank, 
filed a i?ritten aotion to strike the petition and action of Abrahaji 
Jacobs. On December 26, 1939, the court entered an order striking 
froa the files the petition and tootion of Abr%ha« J'foobs, to 
reverse which this appeal is proseouted. 

The first two points urged by petitioner Jacobs are that 
(1) a motion in the nature of a vnrit of error oorsa nobis may be 
broui^t to oorreot errors of f«iot ooaaitted in n court of record 
within five years after rendition of final Judgrwint, «nd {2) thst 
failure to give proper notice of proceedings is an error of fact 
not appearing on the face of the record sufficient to sustain & 
motion in the asture of a writ of error oorna nob if , Plaintiff does 
not challenge the law as nnnounoed in these two points* the third 
point ixreseated is th t "the relfitionship of Attorney and client 
between Frank ?• uoulnn and Abraham Jacobs, had terrainnted on 
January 8, 1^6, so thnt service of notice upon l^lTHnk P. MoOlnn on 
Ustf 18, 1937, was not binding upon Abraham Jacobs." Under this point 
petitioner argues thst an the entry of the deficiency decree the 
relationship of ^^ttorney and cJSLient ceased to exist. He ^ilso argues 
that the relationship of nttorney and client terminated at the expir- 
ation of the period of redemption* It will be observed that the 
notice of the presentation of the final account and report was served 
on attorney Frank P. McGinn 3& days after the expiration of the 
statutory period of redemption. It la difficult to lay down a 
general rule ns to when the r«»l8tion8hip of attorney and client ceases* 
Det«rainstlon of this question depends upon the facts and elrcuastfinces 
of each case. It may be said that the relationship tprainstes when 
the object for which the attorney was employed has been acoofflplished, 
Petitioner was required to tnke notice of the law of this state th^t 
It is the duty of the receiver to surrender possession at the explra- 



,3La;^ ^'Ui-i^'^' i' ifttflnrT aXeonJUA «ilir tot tavx^ony ai' «8t»ctiA ,a ettXTAtfO 

»#ifi«T(fA l«) aoltoa tar. aoiti^^a »a$ Miiir^t of aoXImi afttfltw « JbttiiX 

^ni3fi:ici« 79Me AC ixrxv^lJi'* ttifod vilt ,tXi;i •'SS s*ci«*o(iO so ••^•041 

tJMtt ity bn» ^ittf^nloMi iMiil to amitiba^^ TVftn •tsby •▼Xt alAiln 

#OAt t<> TOT<x» III* ft-t •;g0ii>»da€>'tq[ tc •oi^en Y«g[««o ovJt) ct aixuii«t 

« i!l«;iir<.^ 0.^ faeioittiie M<}o<^t Sftf t« •o«tt a«if no aaXX)»»qQA foa 

h\ttit !W}t *ed^nia<;< <dmi tm^sii ai b^ftmumsna tut mrI •Ai «a^ftXI«4o lofl 

a0 mtlJuaM • . lUxflX'i uec^u —t*on to ^J(m»« t/idi oa «£MSei «8 xicffua«l 
tRi&n mlttt tftbnTI "•sdosnil. mtdjstidik astqu nfitbnid toa »»« «▼££! ,8X vi*^ 

K«tfiirL« «>irX& »H «Jaix» of Ms«*o #fi«iJ» im» lairMffi" !• qtitefloXfi^Xitv 

•0^ f^ift fe«i!vr{98(5o »K iliv fi Moltqm»iM% to i^olYsq odf to aolim 

bwvm»m «/;«' fY9c»? bBt» $ttv9W>» IkaX^ Mf^ to eoi#«l«o»etq 44^ to ooifoa 

9f(* to aoit^sJtqx^ »rf* t»*t« «\4*l> *S atU^u . i Jte«t1 tMiTo«t« «o 

« n«o^ t«X of flooittib tl d^J •soJt<;i»«b»^ to iboi-xoq x^ofufAto 

»a»M<Mi taaJIXo Hr^ir x*^toi$jt to aX^aoif»X9T M? iiwiw of 9A oXir* X«t«ii«SSi 

••QiMtfWBtfrcio bae tt«>«t Mf floqii a£ct»q»fe ooif^otn^ «i<(f to aolfaniATOfaO 

aoffv «of«si«iK9f qiKaaoif«X«t oilf f«4(f ltXj«« <ki x<a fX .oeao Jleso to 

,b«rioJiq»o9©« n»«d ewi iMxoXopo oisn x«a«»**« »*** doidw %ot foot^o Mf 

f «tff 9f ''f» BiiSf \(f w«X tdf to ©oifoa »ar»f «^ feotJti/pst fmr toaoifXf»H 

-«?xiqit» oiff f« «oi«»o»eo<f t8J5«»«ii/« of frl9»9% »*tf to t#w& odf f i ,tX 



& 

tlon of t|ie period of 2-edttflp«i«n. The interest of the defendsjat 
In th© lltlg tion eontimjed throughout the redemption period aM 
until the receiver should scoount* Petitioner -nna interested in 
seeing to the appliortion of net rents and in tlmlalng ft»y surplus 
whioh might reaiain. As n tenant he was also interested in the 
terAination of hia tenenay under the F>eoeirer, whioh oovild not 
oontinue beyond the period of redetaption. It is % atntter of oonaon 
knowled^ thv^t the prmotioe in the eourta of this oounty s&netions 
the serving of notloe of the applloation for the approval of 

^''^ receivers' current and final «icoount8« on the ii^ttorneys of reoord* 
The interest of the ollent in the aubjeet matter does not end i^ith 
the entry of the deoree or the oonfirmntion of the ^nle, \nxt it 
eontlnues until the receiver has been disch^^rged. It is interesting 
to note also th^t the petition filed herein does not ssy that 
Mr* tteaina* the i^'ttorney, fftiled to nlviee hia (petitioner) th<>^t 
notice had been served, it is rem^.rk^tble th»t although petitioner 
knsw or should have known th^t under the usual course of procedure 
the final report and account of the receiver would be presented 
shortly nfter Ueroh 33« 1937« when the period of redeaption would 
expire, he nevertheless took no fiction to have the ofder (of June 4, 
1337), «ipprovlng the socount, set aside until October 10, 1939. 

finslly, petitioner insists th'it •'the fraudulent oonoe^l- 
«ent of pertinent fi^ots by the receiver appointed by the court, in 
his account aad report concerning property entrusted to hia, is en 
error of fact not appejsxing of record within the meaning of 3eo. 72; 
that the trial court being ft court of equity h»d the power to vac«t# 
the order entered in reii«nce of fraudulent repre sent -jt ions of »n 
offlo«r of court, and should heve vacated said order %nd granted the 
relief prayed for". It id U be noted th^t the petition does not 

'-^ directly oh»»!rge th*^t the receiver Boeder had notice or knowledge of 
the accident. The petition does nssert th?=>t "notwlthst^Jidlng the 
ffjct the hereinabove stated accident to your petitioner occurred 



i 

• a&im f at Si .ooi »*..>- -. ... ^vitttq tHi ha9\a6 avaltc** 

l9 i^ro" ^''^^t <x«t aol^r>t»iXqn«) %dt te •oltoo to 8irirt»« mAt 
«i?iro»«« ):» «\... ., •£(# ire ^t^Rumt>* ImxtX lm» tn*xtim 'Bx^t^l—t 

Siiv J&flft ^(Mt 8»etfc T»#;reA t99^au* *tit mJt tii»Xlt> •Ai to ia*fint *4T 

mlt^fti . r a!««d »»!( t»Tl«o*T •<* li^aif 8«tmi^aoe 

t ^j»e #«fl e»«ri^ «X«TMf bmllt aaMttt^tj Miff tf:tf» MXn •»i>ii o& 

t«.ti^ <t»n9itJt#*<T) Miff MlTf)* 0» i^ftiii^'t t^pUtKO^.t^ •(!} tO^iVOll .Vil 

;<<tft»e9vq M blifc^ T«iri«oo^ M# %« tttfro«o« l>a« tit«q«t JUitit otft 

i^Xve^ itQitvi»*s>«it %• b^%m *A$ atrn^ «V€GX «sr Aot«» %^fk» x^t'miS* 

«l» «fljBrf» Id) Vftitilco ffift v'^s'fil ot ffOiirt»« o« iCooiT «eoX»{ttt«v»a «d «»tl(|iro 

»£mi «®1 Ttttfotoo XJt^a^ a&jl8« t#« «taiM»ooii •«» ^oirotcf^ia «(f<tX 

•X «< . !c>> tti^ittbamt\ •At* »*«» ftleitiii itHeiJi**! »tXX»ttX' 

, :m«« ftrf* t« M^iiici^^jj "jtvisiMMt «fl# ttf ato«t #flOflitiftkj to #«•» 

a9 »i tBlrf 0» ft»t«U«SMJ« t<<"t*««'«'C[ ^iA'SMUM* t»0^^« IWA tflu«00« tltf 

{St •»«« to 's/atmm »4^ «irf*^ Atoat^ t« a«iic««Qt« #<»« »oift to «ot«o 

•t^OffT o* »«wo^ »rir bAif t*-l»^'* "*o *«ao« ^ >y!Ci8rf tftfOO XJlt^ »«l* #«rf# 

«« to »fiai#«v*a»«(«*t^»t t«»Xi»lw«ft to oofljiiisMc ui b9t9ta» 'x»b^6 »Ai 

srft b^tiifi-^ji ban ritbxo ttp-ti fcstfaftiiv 9tM i>Xi^ifi» feB« »#ti»oft to iM^ltto 

tnu #?M5fe «©ltjr*«»q orf* #«JJ# *o*ofl «<* XX*f #1 •"«0t l»Ot'?'tq ^oilot 

' td *»fc»iwo«J< TO «»I*oa fe.«rf T<ii>»o^ «»Vl»0«t ♦«# #<»(*# »j1tiMf« tX^8fi«> 

erf* ^ii>««#«rf#lw#o« *Rdt tttiBM oool) flOl*ii'»'' orft ,ia»bt09B •A* 

b^ttmoe rm^lilim tuot «* tfloWooft feof^le »r«<l««lo*od «rf* #«^ 



6 

during the tenure of the said Frank f» noeder, ^ss r««elTer, ?»nd 
iu>twlthst^nding the fs^et thst the said rrank i\ feeder, reoelYer, 
had ootloe and knowledge of smld aocldent. the 3».ld Fri^nk f. Roedex 
dldf with intent to oonoeal from ,th© eourt the herein deserlhed 
negligent act, fraudulently and wilfully, wholly fsil to sooo\jnt 
and report said ooourreaoe to this honor^^ble oourt^« This jjuBoxints 
to mn inference th^t the reoelver did have notice or knowledke of 
the stoeldent. the petition, however, is silent as to when or in 
wh&t aaniusr the reeelwer acquired knowledge of the 9>ooident, nor 
le there any allegntion in the petition, or elsewhere in the reoord, 
th«t the reoeirer failed to use due onre in the selection of leo 
JC^rowekl for the c!ork of exteriBin»tiRg vermin from the building, or 
th»t the latter and his helper were not skilled, experienced and 
fit persons to perform th 2t partloulsr work, >ve nre of the opinion 
that the petition does not set forth vHlid ground for relief under 
Section 73 of the Clwll Practice Act* For the reasons stated, the 
order of the airoult Court of Oook Ooimty entered ]:)eoeaber 26, 1939, 
Is affirmed* 



H£B£L, F.J. aoiiiOURS, and 

D£^1S £. SUitlVAM, J. D193EliT% 



t»< N'p <^fft ,#r to tt3|ft«ivM]( feRf» ••tiott Imd 

ten ««ft»l»l#M tift !• ^^i>**imcn^ f^mAiti»» «*vl**»i »M^ vttauMi ttUbt 

16 «;psi.&Iia«f »At mat J ntmtw t5«lt«ttl»»»«x» \o ttev •««# tot tJi9m<A»iM. 

aeXei:-^© «fii tc w»» •?*' .*«0'^ - ^ - ^trw t^ti$ nsntoti^cf •/ «ad«t«« tit 

....-.-. Y^(j j^ygflf^ Isli^ • ,, ;M..i ftrn #•« »»'!!?; flcil*i*»«r •!!# t»if 

^•u> 4' ■*»:-./> e^ffOt:*'*'? «wf# tttt *»»* ♦fl>itft«lt^i iJvIO »rf# to St «ol»oo8 

,«■■■■ t 

J&«fintitt(9 It 






41363 




1. « jl • ,4s-- "i O 
m, JUSTIOE HUHKI DEtim-vSO THE OFX«iO» Of TBI OCUWT. 

On October 7, 1939, plslntiff filed her ooaplf^lnt la the 

Superior wourt of Oook County «nd therein represented that the 

parties w«r« ae^rried on July 38, 1938, th-t she oondueted herself 

8,8 a go<wl nnd dutiful wife; th-^t on M roh 3, 1939, without sny 

provoofttlon or ;Justifior!tlon, def^ndmnt sh^sndoned her; that ahe 

lived aepar^ite and npart from him without any fHult on her part; 

and she prsyed for an Aooountlng, for teapornry alimony, for ^n 

Injunction and for aeparnte ;iialntennnoe. On October 9, 1939, 

the oourt granted h teaporary Injunction. On October 20, 1939, 

the oourt granted m further injunction* These orders were granted 

without prevloue notice to the defendant and the glrlng of ft bond 

wae excused. After the issuance of the Injunctions, the defendant 

filed a motion to strike the oomplalnt, v-^onte the orders for 

the writs of Injunction nnd to dissolve the Injunotlons. The court 

did not eonply with the reQueat of the defendant for «n l-noedlste 

disposition of the ssotlon and defendant appealed froia the Inter* 

looutory orders granting the temporary Injunctions, Our opinion, 

reported la orossaian ▼• Orosaaan. 304 111. App, 507, filed April 10, 

1940, agreed ii?lth the defendant that pl«?lntlff did not make a 

showing sufficient to warrant the oh:nincellor In granting the 

Injunctions without notice, nnd thnt she mlso failed to auUce s. 

showing sufficient to Authorise the chancellor to excuse the giving 

of a bond, ?se decided, however, th^t the motion did not raise aay 

point that the injunctlonal orders rrere Improperly Issued without 

notice, nor thrst the oourt lotproperly waived the living of » bond* 

we held th-^.t the defendant having waived the points th«t the 

Injunctions were Improperly issued without notice and without bond. 






BJ^S.AXTOe 



\mA^,fqjk 




tnueO 3lo«0 to .^ . ii»qi/5 

tl9&i t-i^ X-^fi no l>«iTX«B •Tdw ssX/iflq 

^i^. -di ;»'^ i Jtub ban teas * •« 

•{f . ' i^ixrt "to aoi#f«»oTeT<; 

n^^ tot .t't , itltrriiooM njR Tot l^«'![ji«q octa Ima 

, o^^oO no .»on«m9*fli fli »t0XM(*0 tot &a« Aoitonutni 

,*: 1 xtjtT'. #Ti/eo trf* 

bao<^ 9tit of 901 toa tuoiTOKi iu«diiif 

7ot sic»l oo »di oiii^B o# aoitoa h fc«>Xit 

jfTiaoo o/fT •esoi#^>flwti.i ^a,; ovLiie^lp ot ban AOltOiX0t<ii to •*ittr •dt 

»#i*i:fcM»l fl« tot ittHitaBlint «ri+ ApM oii* Jl*l« xJ^qaoo toa bib 

oT^inl «iU m«tl b9l!f^ct.K tastnsi'^i on» aoit«m »At to ooi#/»b«iyJ> 

,jaoiiii<70 «mO mVtot&omii^al yr^jftmm^f •Ai 'sftltattr^ ut9ib%a f^ofuttol 

,01 iiT^A ivsin ,Toe .oqA •xii >of: .AiMffcoTtJ •▼ wmyg:^v m fc«*toq»t 

« 93i«8t tm bit WlittULq *«Jlt ^ontatto* 9^9 aU^ bootg* ,0#«I 

ed# sattaaTg ai ToIl9oa«rfo »ri:» *aafx»w o* $a»loiVtuM saiwoifa 

»*«« ot boIl»t ool* »ri« *prf* fefl' «««i#««J #i/o/(*iw tfloi^oni/tfll 

gnivxM ftc(# •wuoxd ot ToXX«»ofli«ifo »!(# osirroslfuii oi ^naioittvo aalvorfu 

xae •Bi«<T tctt bib aotSom 9di if Hi »ir»ir»»K>d «fe*felooA off .Jbiiotf « to 

tuodil^ b9uBtit \lt9qo'tximt *x«w etofcto iJ&ttol&ttaulai. 9df tudi taXoq. 

•bflocf f to 30i"ri>. »rf# boTliJ* x^'»<lo'<?«^ *TCtf©o «rf# *«rf* too «oel#oa 

,bflOc' SuoAitv bfljB »t>i*oa *uo/J*iw bowiai tXtocoiqieX »«o» Baott^tualai 



8 

oould not b« t^ard to object on aueh grounds. On May iO, 1940, 
(lifter our jswndate wia fil«d) defendant wa* granted Xe^ve to file 
an naended motion to TaOftte the injunctional orders, Thie amended 
sotlon urgea* for the first time, the point* that the injunctions 
were improperly iesued without notloe and that the giving of m 
l»OBd vas improperly exoused. On the same day the eourt entered 
an order that the amended motion to iraoate and aet aside the 
injunotlonal orders* he diemlased, aM th^t tb» relief therein 
requested he denied, to reverse i^ieh thia appeal la prosecuted* 

this appeal again r^.ise* the two points niiieh were urged 
in the previous appeal and which we deolded aiveraely to the 
defendant* ive then ruled that he waived these points hy his failure 
to ralae them in his motion. By the amended motion he does raise 
the two points. However, it is obvious th?it having waived the 
points, he cannot no*- raise them. Our view is that the previous 
opinion disposed of the two points thnt are urged in the instant 
appeal. Prior to filing her brief, plaintiff filed a motion to 
dismiss the appeal. One of the grounds asserted therein is that 
our previous or>inion determined that the defendant had skived the 
questions now presented by this appeal. We took this motion with 
the oase. 

Having read the abstraets and brief s« we are now of the 
opinion th-it the motion to dismiss the appeal should be allowed* 
Beeause of the views expressed, the appeal is dismissed at 
defendant's costs. 



APl'SikL 0ISMX3SK0. 



HEBEL, F.J. QOUmnB, aAd 

mum £. BULllVhti^ J. DISSENTS* 



,oi«X ^01 xfiH . <^ 49{J9 tso ivm^do of bx»9tl dtf toa hJusoo 

b9l>n'' . 9altQaalaM ^t mtBOKr , iom b^hautui am 

fe«qi<xi/ m^t di>ld'¥ tiaio^ &v3 »At mmi<Kj aJL»f^ If^q* w^lA'i 

•T{/XX«>'t »iif xtf »#fiXcc «%ai4# l>ftvX#« iMt >cJU l>«luil Gttdt CM •rit«t>a9%i^ 
»«X^1i sii^h •/( aftX^OE frttfcnMut •£(# fi •A0Xtf«ii tXii flX antiif •fcidi «t 

•iMutTinr^ •/{# #.«!& ¥x "<»x*' fiio .w^i/^ dftXtfV mem timatip tif ««#rXo<; 

0i fteiicff ^ i^vXlt tfttiHeitt ^tJii^ rtnl BoXXit oiT ioX«% «i«at^ 

»i(i# fc»Ti?^> JbAri #aj»*iR»Y9i:- ?£3,. i.'.'Af :;9£;i!^'/..??sM, av«aX^» •woXwmwi tim 
il#X» a»Xi*j« »X4* iooJ »^ .ie»^-- »ld;t t^ ^»#o»•»•rcI iwu «a«X^»«i9 



4U14 
A oorporntlon« 



eiiee. 



fkXIh KORSHAf, . - 

HARRIS, LtP^ ..■ 

LTD., 







^1- 

Appellants 




3. 



*^07I.A. 246 

ilR. JOSTIOE m»l& E., StaLlVAU iii:UV:>a&0 fai OPIfilOM OF TH£ CO?i^. 

Pls-intiff Harrlng-Hall-K^rrin Safe 0©«pRny, « oorpor^tlon, 
brought suit ^^ninmt ^nxil KtfTBhak, Leater Korsh^k^ OsTld aar?i«« 
ItlpaaA Harria* doing isuelness »« Chiomgo state Pawners l.ti«, to 
reoover the tMdftaoe ef 1300 whleh pl^^lntlff alleges is due it on 
the puroheee price of » safe epld »nd delivered by plaintiff to 
defentl?mt«« k trial wae had in the Hunloipal Court rhloh resulted 
la a finding and Judgment being entered in f&Tor of plaintiff for 
l^lMOf nnd ooste ag^^inst the defendante en their oounter-clai«y froa 
whloh finding and judgaaent defendanta bring this nppf^nl* 

Ve question is raised on the pleadings* 

The evidence shows th«<-.t the defendants -^^^nted to purohnse 
n. net? a fe and called at the plmoe of business of the plaintiff} 
that lefendiinte eeleeted one of the s^>f«8 whioh w-^s l(>ter -delivered 
to them nnA s contri^ct was entered into between the p»rtif»a; thst 
the price of the 8?»f« was |400 and defendmnts paid floo and were 
alliNred n ersdit of 100 on an old safe which they tr-^ned in at the 
tioie of purchase vhioh ^h» equivM^ient to #300, for vhieb they 
rt^caived er«dlt» t^nd that the balance then reamining due 'ms $200, 
for the payaaent of whioh suit t:«is instituted* 

It further appears fro« the evidence that after the safe 
was received by defendants they rer^uested th*«t pl'^lntiff t?»ke the 
a^ffe baok as it -I'^n too henvy for their use; thst plaintiff 
refused to take the safe back Rnd defendante continued to uae the 
s*fe and vfere atiil using it up to the tine of the trial* 



/ 






TOqVOO • 






oi ,«!»#u e «aiMi0 i«i*j^ «*i«t«H SMqi«l 

aetli «tti«l9>^«»^ao» tivdtf no Bta0tB9it^ •A4 $9mJiM^a •ta«o baa «<MK^ 

Witttieiq tidi JM*/ tlwf* tot XT«»li ©0# t/^ <0«tf ttiiO 

"»i s(i o# b^ttoiiTnoo •#A«ta«l$t) tan iaiwl «t«« »*.i a a J oi bnmxil^x 



3 

Jie question of iaw is Involved in tt»i« Oise, but it la 
sently on« of faot* 

la»saiuoii aa defendfiats bou^t the mte, paid part ©f tte« 
purohaae pTic«, neoepted the s^fe ??hen (iciivered snd h«ive not 
returned It to plaintiff «nd no fr^ud is alleged or prov«(^we think 
the trial cot^rt ^-a juBtified in entering jodgaent in favor of 
plaintiff for fSOO, fA%h costs «fT?*in8t ci«f«nd5?»ts» 

ror the rer^aons herein given the jwlgaent of the 
Munioipnl Court ia affir»ed, 

mmmm affirmed. 



Hi 



»rf# t 



( ^R. 



jialii^ sw^sTo- 



«^'^ 



vA^i^ 



k« ttoit»»up oM 

. iidotuq 

r tuft fljt fc9ni#«Jlt •** $%iJOO l»Jiti 9di 

'JtOt.iML W^ toil 



4X3X9 

AMHA KOVAS* 



a oorpor»tion. 




¥IGIPAL COURf 

OF CHIOAGO, 



Ma. JUSTIGK mUlB t, B\}lhUA» DS-tlTimQ THE OHMIOM Of THf COURt, 
~ This a«it wsa brougbt \)f Anna Korae on an ln3ur>ino« 

policy l8»u«d toy Modern Mutual Insuranoe Oospstny on the life of 
Pster Kovae who later died on ueptesber 37, 1336, in «tiieh policy 
Anna Kova* was namd as beneficiary. The polioy was for 11,000 
and plaintiff alleges th t defendant refuses to pay sane. 

The defense intt^rpoaed to the suit ««ia th?)t the polioy 
lapsed because of non-pay aent of preaiuas and that the polioy ras 
not in force at the tiae of the death of i^eter Kovae; that pl<nin- 
tiff had assigned her interest in the polioy and has no further 
interest therein; th^t the polioy had been issued through ais- 
state eats fraudulently aade by the insured in order to obtain said 
polioy, and that the «axiiauA aaount to be paid on said polioy is 
for §330. 

Plaintiff filed an affldr.vit for a suaraary judgment under 
Fuftle 111 of the Uivil Praotioe Aot of the Muoieipal Uourt. 

Interrogatories were filed with plaintiff's claia* 
ijefendfint*8 answer thereto stated that If there w«i8 anything due 
it was for only 330, but that they had a defense regr-.rding said 
olaia, but it doea not state ahat oonatituted such defense. The 
defense as it appears in the record before ua is not sufficient, 
and that which does appear oonsists of mere oonolusions* 

From a review of the record before us, w« think the trial 
court was Justified in finding for the plaintiff in the sua of !r3?0 
and ooats. Therefore, the judgment of the iiunioipal Court is 
hereby affiraed. Jujomkst AfrimiEB. 

ttKBKi., F.J. Alio BUaiC£« J. OOKCUR. 



«SAV01 AllA 

'T??*!!^ iXXiWil m^cou 

," •• • TOQ10« « 



Vh.<' .A.T TOP. 



V 

3 



<ttii*^ ari^ to •iii# •dt im •««ot fli foa 

r^iitrssJ on ftftif i^" xoiX<»i ^fnt^tai tm( 6«as^»B« b«if ttl# 

•OCCI Ml 

^fcfltf #fl9K5ji>«t X*««»w« 5 tt« l)»Xit ttitai«jW 

»$%ssoti Lstitv^jMuU »tii to JOA wliMiS. U'fiD •AM lo iii •!»« 

•».a^ iin,tjf?xnp e'"^ vi%d$ \i $eA3 »•#•#• o^atad? «»«t«« ••#o«l«i«t«C 

irft 5irtilJTrT^»^ tiwietaiv s^ f>»(J x»^* #«l» tjjrf ,06*^ %ia<i xo\ ••« #1 

Hit ,fttiH^t%h ifdJHTB fc«#«ftl*»iif>© *«*r •i»t» ten ••Ob tl ta^ »«l«lo 

,#ni«jjt9mffft tea •! »ii •»«!»£* tTooa^ •«* al »i/!»ct<l« tl mm •ma9\mli 

*«nolB;.<lofloc •««• to «t£iti<t«e TAaqqr «ftot) doiiiw f»dt bam 

lalxi 9At Hal fit t^ ,a« 9xo\9di bY«o«? »ili to «»iv9t « BCWll 

TSS to «tf« «<1* ei tt l^nlfilq erf* Tot ualfcnll al tsnii^airt ajia trtmo 

ei t-xtfoO XaciolflwM •dt to ^fitataftwt »il* ,wotnailI .ataoo bnA 

.a^M^iTiA fiiMuaoi -D-rrnt^ x<i.f«i 



41164 



IN 2KS MTTSR OF THE ESTATE OF 
ELIZABETH PLUMffiR, DEC|Am« 



WALTER PUMt 




llan^^ 




CHARLES PLUmiER, 



APES, 




OM CIRCUIT COURT, 



\ 30? I.A. 37 



Appellee, 
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE FRIEND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 

Salter Plumraer, hereinafter referred to as contestant, 
appeals from an order of the Circuit court admitting to probate 
a document purporting to he the last will and testament of his 
mother, Elizabeth Plumiuer, deceased. 

The will T/as executed June 6, 1939, Elizabeth Plummer, 
the testatrix, died June 24, 1939, following a severe illness 
attended by various complications. Dr. Joseph 3odaro of Forest 
Paric, attended her May 21, 1931, and testified that when he was 
introduced to her she did not respond and was reluctant to talk 
to him or explain her complaints. Upon exand-ning her, he found 
a cancer of the uterus and a diseased liver. She was very 
emaciated and the physician described her as the "thinnest patient 
I had ever seen," all "skin and bones." Her principal ailment was 
an acute diabetic condition. The physician suggested insulin treat- 
ments and a nurse, and based upon reasonable raedlcal certainty it 
was his opinion that she would live from one to six weeks. He 
said that the diabetic condition in which he found Mrs. Plucamer 
would affect the mind and put the patient in a state of coma or 
near coma, that "as one reaches the state of coma, it affects the 
mind. They can do things that they don't know they are doing. 
Their state of mind is cloudy and they cannot think clearly* A 
person in the condition I found iiirs. Plummer * * * was not in condi- 
tion to transact business. I saw her the next time Jxine 12, 1939, 



V'- 



'iO . .JIT -^O i=ETTAM SHI HI 



:yui2.-L\ 



jlflUOO TIUDfllO }|DH' 

atacfoiq oct snlo^^letfcB ^iiwo ;J'lu'o^lO wli to isfeio od aiorrl eXaoqqii 

,£»9ss»0dib ^loi^igiJlH ri;t0(fflslIM ^ledtom 
^'i&emur-i jflcJ-sdjssiXS .^^*I ^d emsl, h»:fjjoez© aaw Iliw srfT 

E29flXIl ©"sev&a f, 3«XwoIXol ,^£^X ^♦S enx/i; b»J:f) jXiiSsi^aod- ari;t 

j-aoio^ lo oi^IjoB riqesoX .iC ,2X5O±J^v:.0iXqHJ00 aiiioltav ^<f f>»Jbxi9:t;^a 

asw 9ii fiexiw ^fisrid- bslllJ-ESJ- l)nj3 ^XC^X ,XS xo^ i®^ fj©i)n©.tcfB ^jiia'i 

atXad" o:f cl'iijsd'oj:;X9i esw bits bnoqzoi :ton MJ5) aria larf o:t fc»ai/boT^fil 

finwol 9il ^lerf gflJLnXEjiixe iioqU .s^nisXqaioo te/{ aiaXqxs 10 mM oi 

X19V e«w sriB .TSviX fisasealJb 2 baB &sji9iu eti:i lo iftonBO b 

cfiieXd^sq iaaaalri^t'* (Ml;f a« iGii £)Sdl'joss>6 nBioXax^iq SiiJ^ Mjb Jb&;t«XOflffle 

asw JxiOffiXli. Xfiq±onliq 10H ".aenod fons ni^fs" XXjB ",fi9©a isv© f)sd I 

»J-B©il niXiianl beiaeig^ve iLsioie-^iq arlT .noliibnoo oWsdislI) aiuos hb 

cM "^^Jfila^tiso XsolfeSffl ftXdjBJKoss©^ atiqiti fisaj&d fens ^»8iim s feaa a^aea 

©H ,a3(savf zia o^ erio raoil ©viX bSjutm «ria cffiiicf noiisiqo a Iff ffs* 

i^aaitt/X'? ,aiM fixtuol ari rloiriw rtX noiJUbrtoo ol;i^atf«lf) ©lii ;ta£{:J blsa 

10 Gffioo lo o^feifa .?, Ill ^•n©i;JBq arid' J-iiq bna batm mit doslls Blffow 

«5ffl aiaells di ^ainoo lo ©dada ©dd aexloisai ®ao sjej** darid ^bsjoo isen 

♦ Siilol) sifi -^SiW WQ£tj£ d-«no£) t®J*^ *«rf^ t^aldi ob xtiso ■s:9ifT .fjniat 

A »-^Ixs©Xo slnifli Jonnso x©-fi^ ^«« Y^XJoXo fei 5nlja lo sdsds iXeriT 

-ibnoo nl ioa a«w * * * iSAjiBt/Xl te^M boo .'^IJ ni noeisq 

^^£^X ^SX emsJ. eaild dxan erid i©ri we lemiewJ crosa.aijid od aoli 



-2- 

at her home. They had gotten a nurse. She was propped up in 

bed. It seemed more difficult for her to breathe, I got no 

response to my questions in any sensible way. Her condition was 

worse, I saw her again on Jane l6th. Her condition mis worse 

and she was in a semi -comatose condition. From the condition that 

I found Mrs. Plummer in on Llay 21, 1939* and on Jime 12, 1939* she 

was in no condition to have executed a will on June 6, 1939* and 

be of sound and disposing mind," 

vVhen the will was executed the testatrix had becoHifi so 

ill that because of her diabetic condition she was unable to see. 

The will was drawn and executed under circumstances described by 

Sylvia Barker, one of the attesting witnesses, as follows: 

**! talked with her (the testatrix) and Charlie (the 
proponent of the Tadll, who is named as executor therein, one of 
her sons) the same day. At 2,00 P.M, of the same day, Charlie 
and I were present when I got in there. Mrs, Plumper was 
mumbling and mumbling, and talking about money and everything; 
that Walter. less and George (her other children) had money 
borrowed out, and sta was saying she asked about the money and 
every tiling between the two of them, and then they were talking 
about money they had, and the different amounts, and then Charlie 
told his mother * * * to make out a will, and he told her tliat 
she was to leave five hundred to Walter and George, and the rest 
to himself. Vie stayed there a few minutes and went back to my 
home, •*«•■»* l;li0n I got there Charlie said, 'How are you going to 
write it?* I said 'Charlie, I don't know how she wants one thing,' 
'Now', I said, 'your mother ought to get another lawyer.' and he 
Jumped up and he called Siegler (attorney for proponent; and he 
told I£r, Siegler that the will had to be drawn up right away, that 
his mother was going to die any minute. He was at my house and I 
was going to typewrite it, * * ■»■ Charlie talked to Mr, Siegler on 
the phone, and he took notes while talking there, and he told me. 
'You want to take down on the typewriter what he liad taken from Mr, 
Siegler on the telephone, I never spoke to Kj, :iegler on the 
telephone in my life, 

"", After the will was written up, you took it back to 
Mr, Plummer's house, did you? A, Ko, I did not, Charlie did, 
I W8,s with Ciiarlie, j?e went into the room and she signed it, * * •» 

"Q, \f(ho asked Mrs, Plximmer to sign the will? 

"A, Charlie did. As we were going into Mrs. Plumraer's 
house, prior to signing the will, when we got out of the car, 
Charlie said, 'If Walter is around, just change the subject about 
the will, because Walter is trying to get a deed from my mother 
and I got to get her name on the will.' 'She is going to leave 
$500 to Walter and George and all the rest to me.' He said 'Vvhy, 
it would be a crime for her to die without a will,' Charlie put 
the pen in her hands. At the time Charlie asked her to sign tlie 
will, Mrs. Plum-aer drew back and did not want to sign it and 



eaiow 8i.;w nol;tibfi05 i»M .rii^^I ©mfl. no nla^B larf was I .98 tow 

Jj^fcf noljibijoo 9^3^ ffloi'? ,0Oi:Mftflo's) •&oieiioo-Jtxa9& a £Lt e&w ©ile fexvs 

aria t^C^I tSl ®cu;,'t. no fena t^c^i »IS x^iU no ai. laaawiSi .aoM fuxijol I 

I>ns t?£^I »u oii^L no IlJfcw s be^uoexo sYi&fi oi flOj:;tl5ao» on nl saw 

".Jbnloi ^nlBoqalb ^fi bnuOB lo dd 

oe ^tioosq b£jl xlid^ajss^ m.^ b9^uo9X& asw IXlw 9xl;f a&iL^i 

.9se o;f elcfjQji/i bsw exls ixoiJJtbxxoo ai;tedaJtb iftrf lo ttausped iati:i 111 

y,d i>9(ilioa9b EBOcaizmjoiIo tabau b»iuosx.d baa amatb bbw ILiyj wH 

:3woIIo'i Es ,e©aB9n3'iw 3fil;t8«d^;f« eri^ lo ©no ^isaf-xsfi aIvXx'- 

lo ffi-"-- , -^- . -. o .• K-.rt.-i-. ;:. f (•,'•■' ^r ''>■-• ..r;i -^o inanoqoiq 

©Hi .... ij (znoa *i9ri 



^eei . Ijsft Ov 



w .V * ,amofl[ 
'. .■ ■ ' , »?:?! sii-r*'^ 

....',. , ". .'wo/j* 

I baa .:• 

no lei- . . /J oJ .•. r 

,'r^-: • >a1« no jJ' o;? ;)..:-. ' 

,ii>'iXl xffl at eaoxlq&loi 

,biJ!> sJtXiBrfO .. .A ViTox ^Xb ^^^KOf: a'-xftajsu;!^ .ill 

# * * .d-i ^eaajta eii£ isi^c ^oo-i oi^J o^nl d-n»w *'/ ,QtLiBdO xU±w sjbw I 

?IIlw 9di naia o^ 'isfa«»I<I ,biH beies off- ."'" 

,rrao edi to isio Jo^\ ow nsrfw ,lliw = oJ loiiq ^e&liorf 

;ti;oda ■ ' ..' ' .' . -•■is ^x -i .' ^blsa ^ll"- 

»VS©i OJ ^iUC^' ai (TJLs: • '..;.i.XW CJi^. t -.,-.-.- 

,XflK/* J^iss sH '.sia oJ tesT sniJ- IIb 
;J;j-- ■ " .10 •♦Iliw S C^i;OIlJ■ilW ©ib oj 7.!/.' -lo r -rj,.;-!:) -r-, tc ^^.Li.ij:v .'i 

e Qi -xdd biDalas eiliarfD ©loi:^ srij ;JA .sbruari lerf ni: nsq «d:t 

bfls ii jB2l8 o:i rfflsw *ofi bJJfe baja 2ioacf w»'ifa aeffliwX*! ,ai^ ,XXxw 



-3- 

Charlie said, 'Oh. ma, come on,* Then Mrs, Davles (the nurse, 
■ifho v/as another attesting witness ) and Charlie propped her up in 
bed, Charlie put something under the will and held it up, and 
Helen spelled out the letters, Then when it was over, she said 
that the 'E' had been left out and the 'l ' was not crossed and 
Helen then put them in there, Charlie and Lirs, Davie s held her 
up from the bed. One was on one side and one on the other. Her 
condition was dreadful. I thought she would die any minute. She 
was all eaiaciated. She was like a bag of bones. There was 
nothing to her. She did not respond to questions or tilings that 
were said, ;Vhen Charlie said I got the will ready, she drew back 
and did not want to sign it. Then Charlie said. Oh, ma, and then 
they pulled her up and Charlie put ii, under her. ^s- * « i^lien they 
propped her up and signed the will, I don't think she ioiev-; what 
she was doing, I don't think she realized everything that was 
going on, I did not have any other conversation with her. She was 
mixed what was paid up all around and the money she used, And 
Charlie was prompting her and telling her, I talked very little 
to irs. Plumaer. Charlie was in and out prompting her. She said 
she intended to make me executor, and I said, 'wo, I wo\ild not do 
lt,» •5'^ * * She kept on saying what money she had and what money 
Walter and Tessie owed. It was unintelligible, I noticed the 
way she kept mumbling over and over. She certainly was not straight 
in her mind about it, because she did not know v.hether they had 
paid it back or not. She kept mumbling all the time and repeating 
over and over about her money they had, ^i^alter, George and 
Tessie, 

"The Court: Did Mrs, Plummer ask you to sign the will 
as a v.ltness? A, No, 

"Did she ask Mrs, Davie s? A, No, 

"I typewrote the will •«■•«-«• not from my own knowledge, 
but was given to me by Charlie Plummer," 

The other attesting witriess, Helen Davies, was the nurse 

on duty. The salient portions of her testimony relating to the 

execution of the will are: 

•♦Q, Did you believe her to be of sound mind and dis- 
posing memory at the time she signed that Instrument? 

"A, She knew she was making a will. 

"Q, Did you believe at the time she put her name down 
there she was of sound and disposing mind and memory? 

"A, I would not know any other answer but how I expect 
she knew she was signing the will, 8he told me it v/as her vdll, 
•«■ « * on the day the 7d.ll was signed Mrs, Plummer -\sfas very sick, 
she was emaciated, repeatedly sick to her stomach and in a general 
bad condition, 

'♦Mr. Guerine: Q, What was her mental condition aid 
how did she act? 

"A. She was confused and worried and expressed her 
worry in words to me. She was afraid somebody was going to steal 
her money. She said that to me. She was unable to tell the 
difference between a one dollar bill and a five dollar bill. 
She would whisper to me and ask me to help her take care of 
her money. wh,en I v.ent into the room, Gnarlie would stop 



c 



■J 

.A 

cf 



iae. ';> ba& 

j: .no sutos 

Jbi ... o;t 

oJj ^ r. exiH 



.0 . .A VaesxiiJxv; ,■ .. j 
^®§i)eIwoii:.i jWg Tiffl lao-il joui * **' * . 

odj o^ 3fli:;tfile>'i \pi(ml^&&i led j5o gfxoiiJ^ioq d'ltidJtIjee orfT ,xitib no 

• IIlw a sfiiJteia saw srie '«ftrc2( oilD .A" 
.iI4:w laa esw ji so Mo" -■" . ." ' ■ ^^ " .^- • - : '- -on:;. :>,., 

lii'XSG©^ ji 111 5ns ri0jSiS©^8 '.ui; u.^ /'L..a. x,.Li>;..; );;;.■',.•.■■., .. ■■■ Sim 

.0 bRCf 
iiis aoltiUiaco SjB^^&mi s«)ri esw ^isi . .'crai'iexrO .rtM" 

♦ Xlld i^XIoI) evi"! fi b£i» ilXd ijaXiob sno c nye jffcf ©oxia-jellUb 
*io 91B0 »i[&;J •!©£[ qlad o^ ©m aiaa iiflfi eia o& -neqEixliir. fcXi/ow sri8 



•4<» 

talking. They would not talk in front of me. On the day the 
will was signed she was confused all the time, every day, &he 
mumbled at times. 

"Q, Isn't it a fact Mrs. DaVies, that she drew back 
and acted as if she did not want to sign it? A. I don't knew. 
It could be interpreted that way. She was confused and worried 
about everytMng, * -sJ- * Charlie j)ut the will underneath her and 
put the pen in her hand. Either I or Siiarlie spelled the letters 
and told her what to write. I spelled them out, if I remember 
correctly. After the will was signed, Charlie swore me to secrecy 
and not to tell anybody, *- * ■«• On the day the will was signed, 
I did not hear h^r discuss business and carry on a rational con- 
versation. She was in a daze part of the time," 

Both Sylvia Barker and Helen Davie s had subscribed as 
attesting witnesses fco the will. The attestation clause is in 
the regular statutory form, and includes the statement that at the 
time of the execution of the will the witnesses believed the 
testatrix to be of sound and disposing mind and memory. Upon 
trial in the Circuit court, however. Miss Barker entirely repudiated 
her opinion and gave her reasons therefor, as hereinbefore set forth, 
and Mrs, Davies, while testifying that she believed Mrs, Plummer 
knew she was executing a will, stated that Mrs, Plummer was seriously 
ill, hazy ami confused, and at best her testimony indicates that she 
entertaii^d considerable doubt as to the testamentary capacity of 
the testatrix. 

There is substantially no dispute in the evidence. Mrs, 
Plummer was desperately ill and in the last stages of diabetes, 
besides other organic complications. Her attending physician 
was of the 6pinion, from examinations made shortly before and after 
the execution of the will, that the diabetic condition in which he 
found her had affected her mind, that she was in a state of coma, 
or near coma, that her mind was cloudy and hazy, and that she was 
not competent to transact business or to execute a will on June 6. 

Where the attestation clause of a will is in due form 
and the will bears the genuine signature of the testatrix and the 
subscribing witnesses, it is prima facie evidence of the due execu- 
tion of the will, ( Brelie v. Wilke,. 373 111. 4-O9,) But this prima 
facie evidence may be overcome by the testimony of witnesses. In 
this proceeding the attesting witnesses themselves rebutted the 






adi^ i& Saiii JsiBa&i&iB tdi a&bultisiX ban ^mtciJ. t'ie<^^«^« tAlBie^i exU 
coqU *Y^oaii«i ^n£ f^iiJtm :^l&o%£lb bna imsiou lo 9tf at xltiainei 

'^X3x;ol'X4>8 aaw t^amvlH. .s'xM. ;ta^ Jl>9#a#8 ,XXXir & saXJ^ito^x* saw a^ wsroC 
oxie t&ii:^ e&;ta9li»il x^^^^^s^^ 13^ S^9ti ;r& £>ixa ,t)&«iii'iaoo mte x^&d «XX1 

ta&^9dfiii» 1© aass^a ^3«-E 9^^ ai bos Hi xXa^jsieqesb esw lenmiyX^ 
xisXoiavi'5 8^JtiBfl»*^-a laH ,»jBel*«slXq«WJ) tjijiisa^o 7»tf:*o a9bXe»<f 

9d sioMv til aoiitikaot) 2>li&<i&lh &£lt &qsU ,XXXir wiS lo sxoHvobxq sit^ 

^Bffioo lo ®j^^« B £lL SiJw e«fi8 d^srlJ^ ^balm lod fi»;>»olls bjsxf isri biusol 

s^isef »de ijitii boB ^xa,>Mi ba& xbvcl6 aj8w b£.tBi rt©il ii^i ,fiffiOo i«9xi 10 

•<) fyetifl ao XXlw a »iU9»x& oi %& eeaoiej^ ^93«aji'i^ oi ta&ioqmi^: :"'" 

miol ewb nl al XXXw & lo 9ex;>5Xo aoli&ie.&^:^& ^i siadB.' 

Sidc^ bruj xltiASae;} «ri* lo sii/^snaia snlxmaj orli ?,is»mJ XXiw «it teis 

-jyooxe afc-b acti lo ©oaebiYP -■''••'- -'«■■ -I ;ti ^a^aesn^Jtw snXciXioadi/a 

ril .eeaesn^tXv-rf- lo y^iomlifjJ '*tiJ x^ ©kooisvo ad ^m. ©ouw.;j.v - •..^;^-^'i 
aricT be*;^x;a9i csvXoaatail^ aiaaan^riw 8fliJae^;tfl aciJ- sxiXbeeooiq zldi 



-5- 

priiaa facie case. There was other competent evidence indicating 
that trs. ilumuier was apvroaeliing a state of coma, that her mind 
was clouded and hazy and that she had no clear conception of the 
disposition of her property. The record does not indicate that 
the will was read to her and it is clear that she did not and could 
not read it herself, iritnesses for proponent testified generally 
to the effect that they had known her for many years, had seen her 
twenty or thirty days before the will was executed, and that she 
appeared to be of sound mind. But none of these vjitnesses had seen 
her at or about June 6, after she had become permanently confined 
to bed, iihile it is true that wliere a v^ltness who has subscribed 
to a will, stating in the attestation clause all the facts required 
for a proper attesting of the will, testifies on the hearing to a 
contrary state of facts, his or her testimony should be closely 
scrutinized} nevertheless, the evidence in this case relative to the 
circumstances xmder which the will was made, and the physical and 
mental condition of the testatrix, overv/helmingly demonstrates that 
she was physically and mentally unable to make a will. In fact, 
it appears from the evidence that the instrument was prepared under 
the direction of proponent, who was named as executor in the will 
and the principal beneficiary thereunder. He procured the witnesses 
and requested them to sign as attesting witnesses, under circmof- 
stances indicating that it was his will rather than hers. 

Section 2 (chap. 14-8, 111. Rev. Stats, 1939) on Viills, 
provides that before a will is entitled to probate four things must 
occur, namely: the will must be in v/riting and signed by the testator 
or testatrix, or by some one under her direction; it must be 
attested by Xiwo or laore credible witnesses; two witnesses must 
prove that they saw the testatrix sign the will in their presence, 
or that she acknowledged the same to be her act and deed} and that 
two or more witnesses must swear that they believed the testatrix 
to be of sound mind and memory at the time of the signing. The last 
reqixirement is entirely absent in this proceeding. Neither of the 
attesting witnesses was of the opinion that the testatrix was of 



&tii lo xioli(id£)noo IobIo oa. bsd »na ^juI;^ &«« XbasI bijji b»l>jjcl8 esw 

;ti3ii^ &;ts£ii:l>£il ion a^ob bioooi adT •x^'^^^o^'i 'i^ "io aoi,^J:«oq«lJ!) 

wlvoo Iuijs ^0£c hkb enin i^i i&slo sX ^t Ima iQd oi bsQi sm XIlw 9di 

\Ll^i&ii9^ bsl'ilie&i c^jxaaoqon^ 'XOl 8eea«a;tl'; .IXeai^a 41 ibssT ^on 

aria ii&d^ bn& ^beiuoexa cis,? IIi« Qii;t oiolod exai> x^'i-W;^ 10 X^^s*-^ 

as9a bad &9&gaa:^lw eaad^ lo eaoa ;luE .JbaliB basjoz lo dd o;t bsie^qqa 

oeallfioo x-I^JtisjCMatiftq «aoo©<f b^ aria i^i'ia ^d ©offL ix/otfc no ia nexl 

bsK^xioadx/e aad Oiiw &A9cit^ a aiwiw d^jsftJ aju%J al i^i •IM'T ,b©rf oi 

beilifpei tioxl »rfi Jtla esif^slo xioi^«JB»:fi« ftftf ill snicfecte ,IXiw s o>t 

XlesoXo Qcf J)XjJOife xjcioijilicj to airf ,8;to«l lo wia:ta X^anJ^aoo 

xdi oi &7]:i&l&i dSiso &Mi &i: eoriaJbxva 9££^ ^eesXsit^'zeTon (besialii/noB 

bfia XBOl^xxiq dii;t bti& ^obsa asw XXlw aii^ Aolttir lebruj sBoaaiztoLOilo 

inAi eoi&tiknotssQb xl-^aixlett^f'i&'vo ^xli^^Ai&^i odi lo «ol;tlbnoo lBia9a 

,J-&^j: 111 ,111^1 -a &j{bk oJ aldBSW ^llaiLi9si ixia xlifioXaXf^ aJ8W ©rie 

n»£iiir beijB^dnq 3«ar ;ta«iitt;i^a«l axiw cfsri? 0t>xx.>f>iV9 adi moil a-XBeqqis ctl 

XXiw sftcf ill 'locti/cax© es b©iatsfl a.6W o*iw ^crnscoqoiq lo nolctosiifc 9di 

89a29n;tiw srf;t 5*»iiroo'iq 9H .nsbm/eierid- x^^JS-toXlsnscf Xsqlaoliq axfcf bnB 

-iOiiQiizj ■ifbnsj ^asaasnJ-Xw §flLt:fa9:^;t«5 sij naia o;J asii^t i>©d'e»jjp©n bfua 

,aiod aadi' ied:^iii XXlw sld asm ^ ^sd^ S^U'^^-i^bal aeoxx&;rs 

tSXUHS no i^i^l .aiscTo ... toicToor. 

d^2i«ff BaoXdd" iwol sJjMfoTcq o^ b»Lilin» ei XXJtw s ©nol»€f ^sfli eebXvoiq 

•lo^tiftjasd- erii" \<S bacsis bm^ ^Idliw flX ©a ^tBjym XXlw •ty stXaiuan ^-mooo 

iid ^fajjij! j.i: (rtoli'oeijtb %»d tebaxi sxio agios X"^ "^0 ^xlii&ia?^S 10 

^fiifflo; assaend-i ^.da8en;Jlw ©Xcfibsio ©lOiB 10 owj \d b&is9S:i& 

^•aisBsaq -sXadct «! XXiw 9dS ngia xii^ad^asJ- add^ wiaa x^dJ *ijxii svoiq 

^M;t bos (bddb bCA ids led seT oi etsuiz edi bsabsXwoasIofi gytla J'AfU 10 

xJ:i3'B;t89d' srl;*^ bsvslXecf x©dit iisjcW tui9W8 iaxaa aaaaerctlw ©loai 10 ofni 

iTBBl arIT .sntnalft exU- lo Qmli ©xtt Is x^oawm fins bnixa bowoa lo sd ocf 

sdJ^ lo i9fi3^l9K .snlIj©&5oiq aid* ni insatfi; xlsiXc^its al Jneaisilxrp*! 

lo eew xiiiB^s&i sd* *firi;r jcrolniqo ©xi:f lo asw eeaasnJJt-* ^alizei^a 



sound aind and memory when she made the vdll, and imder all the 

circiamstances of this case we think it was error for the Circuit 

court to admit it to probate. Therefore, the order of the Circuit 

court is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to 

enter an order denying the admission to probate of the alleged 

will* 

ORDER REVERSED AND CAUSE RSMMDEB 
WITH DIREC'xlONS. 

Scanlan and Sullivan, JJ», concur «, 



( 

fi»8©II& 8f<:t lo ei*fiC(<nq of rtolaslafea ©At Sfllt^-^sfc isfcio xib i9ia9 



41175 



ALEX W. SCmJLIZ (PlainMff «"^^ 
and counter defendant^elow),_^i.<^ 

fppellantr^*^ 



FROM SUPERIOR COURT^ 



SADIE K. SCHULT2 (Defindant 

and counterclaimant below), , rv vx «^ -*- . 

Appellee. ) 307 I. A. 3 78 

MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE FRIEND DELIVERED THE OPINION OP THE COURT. 



Z. 



Plaintiff, Alex W. Schultz, filed a bill for divorce 
against his wife, Sa4]L9 K. Schultz, charging specifically several 
acts of cruelty. Defendant thereupon filed a counterclaim for 
separate maintenance, also charging cruelty, and alleging that 
plaintiff had left her April 20, I938, without any cause, ground 
or provocation, refusing to return and cohabit with her, although 
requested to do so. A full hearing was had before the chancellor, 
resulting in the dismissal of plaintiff's bill and the entry of a 
decree in favor of defendant, awarding her custody of a minor 
daughter born of said marriage and $31 a week for separate maintenance, 
as well as attorneys' fees and costs of the proceeding. 

The Schultzes were married in June, I9I9, and resided 
together from that time until April 20, 1938, except for a short 
period of separation in I925. For some time prior to the final 
separation they occupied separate living quarters under the same roof 
and did not cohabit as husband and wife, Mr, Schultz was engaged in 
the scrap iron business, and his older daughter, Esther, who was I9 
years of age at the time of the trial, was employed et his place of 
business. The younger daughter, lliriam, ^o was I6 years of age at 
the time of the trial, attended school. 

The specific acts of cruelty charged by plaintiff are 
alleged to have occurred Kay 15, 1937, July 18, 1937, and April 29, 
1938, Plaintiff testified that on the first of these dates defendant 
struck him on the head with both hands, from which he sustained 







.V 



<:\in^ 









.lOTOo am '10 uoiBno am asHavijsa oiaiir? ioiietre omaieaM.ai 

©oiovifc not Ilicf s bslil ,s;tIi;fIoa .S xsiA ^lllJ-niBl*! 

lo'i ffil^IoisJ-iu/oc jg bslil noqj:/9i8xl;t d^aabnslQG ."^d-Isino 1o etoB 

biu/oig ^sajjfio x^s iiJ^oildiw ^8£9I %^ IlnqA lerf i^lol beri llliflialq 

xlSifo/iJI^ ^lori rtti.v Jicfjsiloa bets aisiisi oi ^lzij\9i ^nol:t«jovoiq io 

^■ioll&oni5jdo diW 0'iot9€f barf 2bw axiliBorf Iljal A .oa ob o^ bs^aex/pen 

ii lo \ijfl9 Qdi bas Ilicf e'lli^t/Ufilq lo iBEElmalb Qdi al snWIuasi 

loalsi A lo x^o:f2jjo nari aislbiBWB ,*xJBbn0lsb lo lovsl ni »saosb 

^Qomsnsctniam s-j^js-usqee nol 3C9»w s I£$ bnjs ssslmsfii blss lo mod isitxlaifab 

.axubaeooiq arfi lo aizQo bas e©»l ' exontoid^s ea XI»w ea 

izods & "lol J^qsoxs ^SC^X ,0S XiiqA XJWrar aiaXcJ' J'eri^J jnoil isrfd'saoct 

Xsail »ftt oJ- loliq satlcf mbos •zo'^r .l^S^X al noti&t&qez lo bolisq 

Icoi SirB08 9di isbiUf Bie^n&up aniviX s;tBiaqoa bsXqi/ooo x©^ nolia'i&qBZ 

ai basjasao aisvf st^Xi/iioo .iM .slXw brtxs bascfauil a^ ^icfsrloo ij^on bib boa 

^I asw odw ^•terid'aa ^^ei^girsb isbXo zM bne, ^Bednlcifcf noil qsioa Qdi 

lo soaXq aid d^s bfi^ol^^® aaw ^Xslid" odJ lo 9i&U 9Ai fs 9^& lo arteax 

*a 9SA lo eisex 6l asw odw ^ffialnlM ^rts^fdgi/ab isaxuiox •jdT .aaenlai/cf 

.Xoorioa fcsmsd^^fi tlcli^ edi lo Mticf ori^t 

BIB lll;?nlslq xd beaiiailo X-X^irio '^o zSoa olllooqa oriT 

t?S XX-xqA baB ^'^ts^l ,8X xJ^X, ,^£?X ^^X "^flM bsiiijooo stsxI oi bsjeXXa 

d-xiabfidleb as^sb oasdct lo ^J-aill »di no cfail;? beniizeS lllc^nXjBX'I .8£?X 

beniaJ^aija ed doislv taoil ^BbOMd d&od ditr bBSd 9di ao mid ^osniz 



-2- 

bruises. Dp, Billow, the family physician, offered corroborating 
testimony for this act of cruelty, testifying that when he was 
called in May, 1937* ^s. Schultz was very nervous and sick in bed 
and from the conversation and iiistory it appeared that Mrs, Schultz, 
in a moment of hysteria, had wanted to comiiait suicide and exert 
violence against her husband. He said that iir, Schultz 's head was 
a "little bit scratched," and that he administered morphine by 
hypodermic to quiet Mrs. Schultz, and continued to administer 
sedatives for several days thereafter until the parties stopped 
calling him. 

Ben Friedman, another witness called on behalf of plain- 
tiff, had known the parties for upward of twenty-five years, and 
had, together with his wife, visited their home many times. Friedman 
testified that Mrs. Schultz indulged in a great deal of argument with 
her husband and that he had a conversation with her about their domes- 
tic affairs in SoUth flaven, Michigan, in July, 1937. IVhile there, he 
noticed a mark on Mr, Schultz »s forehead, and upon inquiry was told 
by Mr, Schultz that his wife had struck him. 

Ben Schiffiaan, another witness, testified that he was not 
well acquainted with Mrs, Schultz, but had known her husband for about 
ten yearsj that in March, 1938, he visited schultz •s place of business 
and as he entered the office he heard an argument attended by consid- 
erable "hollering and talking real loudj" that as he was about to 
leave the office lirs, Schultz raised both hands and struck her husband 
in the face, Sam Schultz, plaintiff's brother, testified generally 
that Mr, Schultz was a good husband, but that his wife did not treat 
him well J that March 2^, 1938, she came into Schultz 's place of busi- 
ness and asked for some money and refused to leave "until she got the 
money," and struck him over the headj that several weeks later in 
April, 1938, Mrs, Schultz came to the shop and agaiiasked for money, 
requesting $200, When Mr. Schiatz told her that he did not have it 
she "grabbed a piece of iron off the floor and hit bim on the 



jtfijt^o'iocfoi'ioo ij9i9llo jitiSiolexriq ^IJbaal v£i ^woIIlH .iQ .eealJtnd 

fc«cf nl iiola Jbnjs aiJovisxi \z»v ajsw si-Xxirioe ,8*tM t^'k^^X »X«M nl Jbellso 

;ti&xo iuiM QhloJLUc jJum^o o:* b^insn b&d ^slisiexfi "^o iaetaoa a at 

eisn bsBd s*&iltui&ci ,<xM issid bt.^t 9M .iuiddaiirf nexi ^salasfi sonelolv 

Xd siiixiqtoffl b»i»*e±i3XBifc>B eri Jsild^ bns " ,i>eilo^fli08 ^icf 9liyll" a 

%9i!c.jL£iiah& od^ b8»j3tni;tfloo bos ^xiIJ^doi:. .aiM ;^oli;p cKf olmieboq^ 

«fflXr( anlllao 
-nlsXq lo "iJC^flrieo' no b&ll:iii azeaiin lostioaa ^OBmbelT^ xiofi 

bas ,axtv0x ©vi'i'-X^Jxiaw;^ lo biAvqu lol eel^fisq ad;^ XTwon:if bsti ^11l:i 
Afiobsli^ .B9ad:.t xn^u 9aod ilesii b»itBi\ ^^IJtv eM ciiiyt iQdie-^oi ^b&d 

•^eeisiob ileicicT iuods led dJhf aoli .ziavnoo b bAd ed iAdi baa baadeud i9d 

9d t©isxi* allift' .^£f>?X jXlxfL xiJL ,aB8liIols£ ,a©vali iliiiaa al siIsJIb oW 

blo;^ eaw X'^'J^pol aoqss basi ^b&«idsi(ft t*s.ilJino<. ,'M no ^ibbl a bool;foa 

•£Ltxi a[oiJ-iJ2 bar! dllw aJUi i&di xtluditii .nU x<^ 
;fon ajsw ad iciii belli^J-sei ,d8 9n;ti:v7 tadiotia ^a»at\tld9& a«E 
itso<S£> ^o'i bami&sid led astoasL b&d iud ^^i Lsmiv'r: .siM xiilw £)9d'iXi£j;;pos Il9w 

-bianoy ^{d bsbnscfio ia»tsjs^is. ab bTsaoff sd solllo Bdi bsi9iaQ ari ea fcrw 
oi iisoda 8 aw »il sis i&di " {bvol £&ei aaJbllflJ baz anXiellorl*' ©Idfiie 

•^XXjsion&s bsitHsBi ^leil^oicf 2 • 'i11;tnlBXq ^s^XioloS m&S, .©oal sxlit a1 

;tj39i:;f d-oa bJtb @liv» ci:xi d'«^ ctircf ^bimdaisd boos s esv sd^XifxIOf. ,iU tsdi 

"taisd lo eosXq e»sjrX«rioa ofnl siSeo ©jfe *8£?X ^^S dniail iadi jXXsfw alW 

sdi ;Jos 9xia Xld^nju*' evsel oi ba&ul&i baa -XBOoa esuoe tcol bestes brus eeaa 

a± leial 22{90w IB19V92 c^srfd^ jbssxi ^i "I9V0 atrf afoxnd-a bna "^xsncun 

^xsaoa lol beafaaxtfiSB bne qoda odi of aiaso scflKtico .eiM »8£?X ^XliqA 

cTX svari ;ton bib srf ;tsri«t terl bXoc^ &ilmo'd .iM natft/ .00S$ snl^taex/pai 

efW no 014 jJtxi bus 'looll edi tlo noii lo »oelq « bedcfB^" wie 



shouXder; that his shoulder was bruioedj that when he turned to 
call the police she walked out, and practically ran away,** 

Sn behalf of defendant and in support of her charges of 
cruelty under the cross bill, Al J, Schultz testified that he had 
appeared in court under subpoena; that he was a cousin of plaintiff, 
and had been engaged in business with him from I927 to 193^> and 
from 1932 until 19 381 that from his observation Mrs, Schultz did not 
treat her husband "any different than any wife treats her husband. 
He had an awful bad temper. I never saw an exiilbition of Ms temper 
at any of my visits at his "acme, but saw it once at the shop," He 
had seen Mrs, Schultz in the shop on only one occasion, in March, 
1938» 23a9 parties were still living together at the time, Mrs, 
Schultz cacie in and asked for $200, The witness testified that Mr, 
Schultz "got hot and hit her and she fell doT.m, Abe Altman grabbed 
him and pulled iilm away from her. She picked herself up and walked 
away. She did not hit him on that occasion, I never saw her in the 
shop again at any time.'* 

It appeared from evidence adduced upon the hearing that 
Mr, Schultz was on very friendly terms >vith a Mrs. Ross, mother of 
three children, who was separated from her husband, Mrs. Gussie 
Goldstein, called on behalf of defendant, testified that she had 
known the Schultzes for about ten years, had visited at their home 
and had met them at social functions and at sunaner resorts on several 
occasions, and that Mrs, Schultz had always treated her husband with 
consideration. She said that the last time she saw Mr. Schultz was 
in 1938, in South Haven; that he had a woman in his car and when the 
v;itness inquired what had become of his family he said he had filed 
a bill for divorce J that in Jxay, 1939, she saw Mr, Schultz sitting 
on a bench on the pier with another woman, "with their heads to- 
gether," 

The older daughter, Bsther, likewise appeared in court in 
response to a subpoena. With reference to the occasion in May, 1937, 
she testified that her father and mother had had an argument, and 



"♦^EBwa iia'i xLL^oHsjsi^ bn& ,Jje;o ib93Li«w ©ila eoJtioq 9ii$ XX«o 

, b&ii ed :?eri;J £>elll;;tes* s;?JUrtfdc' ,^ XA ^HXcf saoto aiW i&bms %ii9uio 

^1'i.tialaiq to flXsuoo s es* ad ;tail:? jansoqcfx/s labav )ziioo aX fi9^*qq« 

l)a3 «Q£9X o^ '^S^X j^rtl isJr: ailv at^nlztsd aX i>©SJ83a» j£i»««f bad bas 

ion bib SuXJcrlol .si^' floiifiT^©«cfo aij^ aoTil *sfld- 58££X lii&» 'i£?X «>i:l 

isqfflsJ eld lo nol:?^ldiri3cs as wae i»t«is I ,i»q«»^ i^*<f XjrtWA na 6B<i ^a 

©H ",qQri8 adi in »oao it wse iud ^&moi sJtd *« ejlelv x» ^® X;n« i^« 

^tloxsM al ,iioleiS03o aao v.Xiio ao qorie exij fll. sjfXlicf od •R'sdl «»•« bad 

,aiM .sssilJ srI* Js tsdiTsat*^ SsilviX Xli^e ©Tcaw a^lt'SMi 9dS •8£?X 

♦ iM 3-fidd- ijollicfesd' az^nih^ tdl ,00S$ rtol bsAza baa al swao s^I^fxioS 

feeccfaos aeajd^Xi. stfA .iwot IX9l orfa Imkb lad i'in fciia ioA Jog" s^Xwdofi 

csoLXjsw Imx£ qjj tlezitnL fteaiolq ariS •latl moi.'i xsma alii b&lLuq. bn« aM 

9di a± 'isri '«rs8 -lekVftfi I .aolacooo J-^cio «o talsi SXd ^Qti bib edS ,xswa 

** ^&ajti xfis i» jals3« €[cida 

lo ^stfic^oH <«aor: ,aiJi a dil<i eaaec^ XXf)a«l^jr xi^^ «o 8j3w s;Hwnoa .nia 

siesBO .aiK ,fcnR<fejad lad liroi* baJjsisqsa ejwr ofiw ,nei£iXliiQ esiri* 

fiari aria ^TiidJ^ ft«i11^8ecr ^&tvtbm'i»b "ie llsuied no fisXXao 4al.»*al)XoO 

siEori ilsdd' ^jj b^itzkv bad ^&iJi9% iS9i Samifi io1 ^^siX^«ioc sdct fiwoaat 

Xfiisrve* HO sd'ieesT: leoiawa J^« fcns aiiol:to£ifil Islooa cfjs joadd^ Jsiai bad bxia 

!*Jtv brwSaud ibA b9i?>9ii av^wXa b&d ailMioii .eoiii ;t«di ijfijs ,anoi3^o»o 

a»w aJXi;rioC .^ w«a ftde ©aii:f d'^.'sl «d;f ^jsxtt blae oria ,aqli r.t9bl»noo 

ftil^ asdw bna ^ao aid njt Hjsasow a bad sid ;tj8d;^ ^a&vuM. siisioz, zJt ,8£,^X fU 

J^sXil bBd Bii blBE 8d ^Ilesl aid lo oaoftwf bad ;J-ai*i»f 6©xU/i?nl aaeruJli.? 

^altils. sctXioloa .iM w^ae aria ,^£?I tXXwTi a1 Jad* t©9iovlb lol Xlitf « 

^o* abssd 'it&iii d^lw» tcaeow i©d:to«s d^irf ^&lq ad* a© denad a iio 

".lad^aa 

jcLt ^t'iiroo al boxeeqqa aal-ff^oiiX ,ie;i;r?.^. ^T:>jdsiJdi) 'i-bXt> ©ifi 
Cc:«?X ,xaM.nl noiaaoQo sdJ- o:r eoxisaslei MtV .axiaoqdJ/a a oif asaoqeei 
bna ^Sa^BU^iB as b&ti bad ledicwa brta led^al aed ^adi bsltmei ©da 



t-.c. 



that her mother became hysterical and fell to the floor. Dr. 
Billovf was called and administered sedatives to quiet her. She 
testified that she had never seen her mother strike Mr, Schultz 
nor had she seen any bruises on her father at any time. She said 
that the parties got along fairly well together, except for 
occasional arguments such as occur in many households. She said 
that for about a year prior to the separation her father and mother 
were not on speaking terms, but living in the same house and 
occupying different rooms, "Father did not make an effort to speak 
to her, but she on fifteen or more occasions made efforts to speak 
to him, liis response was to leave him alone," She then related 
her observations with reference to Mr, Schult2*s relationship with 
Mrs, Ross. The witness had first met Mrs. Ross at a card party, 
and later saw her at South Haven, where she occupied a cottage 
several miles from that of her mother's. She testified that Mrs, 
Ross was in South Haven from July, 1937, until September of that 
year, and produced three letters written by Mrs, Ross to her father, 
dated respectively July 29, I938, August 5* 1938* and August 12, 
1938, All these letters are of an endearing and intimate character 
and indicate a close relationship between the parties. In one of 
them she says that when evening comes she gets "so lonesome that I 
just don't know what to do with myself, I do hope that maybe you 
will be able to came here & stay for a few days, that v/ould be 
wonderful. * * * I will be waiting for your call Sat, so until 
then I remain your Nettie," In the second letter she says that "1 
found your letter and believe me I was overjoyed. * * •»• Do not forget 
that I shall wait for you Saturday night. Your Nettie." In the 
third letter she again acknowledges receipt of a letter from Mr, 
Schultz, and says that she is glad that she 'phoned him yesterday, 
because she was very restless and felt much better after she had 
talked to him. "You inquire if I would care to stay here another 
week. I do not know what to say, because while it is indeed 
extremely hot, I can not enjoy my stay here because I am very 



9d'd t'sfiii «^9JUf|> e^ 99vlij^&B bai^ialsilM'^i ba» beXXao caw wqIIIS 

^iSsidoc, .<%M &ttii& %®M<m I9£i it9e(3 asvea i>£;i3[ axle J'jb£{;^ teXll^tesd' 

bJt^ 6£[c .M;!^ YiDUB, ;t« asifiiijBl levA ao im&lvid ^i» a&e$ ^z bi^. roa 

'iBciiom. baa i&di&l iwi xxoJutsusqds st^ pi 'xoliq •iA9X ^ iSJ9ti& tol i&Ai 

baa eztff^ii ssioss edi al golvlX ;fxffif ^cm'ieJ^ jatiU^qe ao <^on 9i9w 

ila»qu oi iiQVi.9 n& &:iim ioa bib iBdiBV^ ,&tg»9'i $ts»i»Vtlb ^X\qi;a9o 

aissqa o;J- aiijo'lle ebasu zaoleaooo ©noja 10 aaei-lil jso erfa :fx/cf ,xsxl od" 

iJd^tflXsi asm ex: , oaoXs atxl 9v*j©I o^ asw ©exioqasn aJtH .alri oi 

AiJtM tildznoXialoi a^ siiSjuip'o .'£M cKf s>afl879l9i jl^lw saoXcfiSVisscfo isxl 

,X*ij»q Jj'irii , :^ tsu i«'si;l b»d EsoxufXw ©xfi' .asofi .etS 

o^aj.^c: £i iioxqiioi/o ;^ii8i 0164^ ^iievdH iiiJtf^& ia tmi was iQial baa 

»&iM :}hii^ bsl.1li&9& Afi^ ,a*vL8iiiq» t9d. lo ;^AfI^ noil soXXn Xjsiavss 

^£ild^ lo lecfiae^qdci Xl;txu» tV^^X t^^XirX, iaoil aatv&R rii««a aX aaw «aofl 

^i»sli&'i 18XJ cKt aaoH .erjiJ xcf Hs;t;Miw gi9;fd'sX ©eu^y beox/Jboiq baa ^taex 

^SX ;taiiswA fcaa %2i'^S. ^c ifajjgx;-. ,8£?X ,^S \lisl T^evicToeqsei beiJsb 

'3[a;}'OBXSfio 9;t«al;tnX baa ■^liaebaB as 1@ aru ^iniiel 9ZBdi llA .8£^X 

lo &iis^ xxl •e&lJ'XAq exid' neo«;^ecr q^MssiQti alBz saoXo 4 ed'soXJbnX fuifi 

I ;}&iii eaoeeinoX ou" ecfsg ^Aa qqooo ^ala&VB xi&ilw ^fisfi^ 9\Ae &i& asdi 

JSfo-% 9<i%Ba. i&dJ eqafi p^ X .Hes-^ Mtv ob Qi S&dv vromf i^aob i&tii 

9<f tluow ctj^d' ^%x^b w»l ^ aol x^;t8 A »784 imbpo od^ sXcIb ed XXXv 

XXv^otf OS ,;^Ba XXs© iflo^ '■loi'i aisld'XBW sef XXXw I * * * .iiAi9i«iow 

I" i&di exfiB wle rt3;t;f9X f)aoo«8 &di al »*.»Xiti»H tiJox aXj3ia©i X aadi 

iei^'xol ion oQ •» * * .^sxctis'^'^o asw I sw svsXXocf baa neiiBl luox bsmol 

mii al ",elid-»M oxroY .J-jlaXix -^jG^w^^ati *»o\; aol d:i£w XXafIa I istiit 

,iJJ ifloil i9;J-^9X B to ^qlsasn a»§l»sXvvQ!^3j8 otsaa ©de iqH^L biXilS 

f)jari siie -xsJla lecfd-ecf n'ox^m :fX©l baa saoIJ^ssi xi*^^ ajsur ©ria azisaoBd 

leiiioaa eiari xft^a o;t eiao blifgrn X IX ^xUrpriX aeX" ^laXd oJ- fcsatXjs^ 

£}9®£>nl sX ;}-l eXXjdw •siisoetf ,xa8 ocf ^Aifw woml ioa ob I .;f9«w 



-5- 

much lonesome for you. However, we will see about that when you 
come out here whether I am to stay here or go home," 

Esther Schultz further testified that she visited the 
cottage of Mrs, Ross in the summer of 1937* and later had a conver- 
sation with her father. She told her father that she had asked Mrs, 
Ross to leave him alone, to ^ifaich Mrs. Boss replied, "I am sorry, 
you better go to your father and talk to him, DonH come and talk 
to me," She said that in the course of this conversation her father 
said that Esther "could not dictate his friends to him," and that h» 
ims "old enough to choose his friends for himself, and * * * to do 
whatever he pleases," She further said that she had talked to him 
at other times about Mrs. Rdss, and that he always made the same 
reply. Esther also testified that during this period she had 
occasion to hesj? from Mrs. Ross, who telephoned to the home of 
Mrs. Schultz on two occasions and asked for Mr. Schultz. Esther's 
testimony was generally to the effect that she loved both her father 
and mother and did everything possible to promote harmony between 
them; that Mr. Schultz was a good husband and father, and that Mrs. 
Schultz treated him with consideration. 

After the separation Mr. Schultz took an apartment in the 
same building where Mrs. Ross lived and Esther testified that she 
frequently saw his automobile parked in front of the house. 

The younger daughter, Miriam, who was attending high 
school at the time of the trial, said that she had never seen her 
mother "raise a hand to strike father," and that although her father 
swore at her mother, she had never seen him strike her. 

Earl Schultz, plaintiff's nephew, testified that he was 
employed at iiis uncle's office in the summer of I937 and until 
September, 1938; that he knew Nettle Ross, and had seen her in the 
place of business in his uncle's company. He had also talked to 
her on the telephone on several occasions and conveyed messages 
from her to Mr. Schultz, and mailed letters from him addressed 
to Mrs, Ross, 

After a full hearing the chancellor was of the opinion 



^'isii TjB^a oc)^ ais I a«Ii^»£lw eied ;tJEro otffloo 

artj t'SJiiiiy oxic ^^^iiiJ aelllte&i loiiiijft s^tXttrioG ladJ-eE 

«8i^ teslas t&d esiz iadi ledial taA blai tiS, ,ivU&1 n&si ditti aotia& 
^Xiioe ma I" ^feellqoa aaoH ,8"iM tlotdm o:t ^»aol& aid sT*eI o^ «EOfl 

isxi^jal i9fl nol;tj3ai9vnoo a Jul;? lo da-nroo 9il;t al isM bl&z ftil8 ".•m at 

ari j-xsd^t fens "^ffllri o;f aba&iil airf 9i»tf©Jtfe :tOfl fcliroo" leifctaS ^jari;J blsa 

ol) od^ ^ *■' ^* fens ^IXeeittid lol efinel-xl a hi seooilo od^ riajrona Jblo" &£» 

iiLtrl oi bgjfisJ- bsrf sxlc dsdd blsa lexid-iJJl ©xic ".awiselq ad lavs^axiw 

OAse Slid Gbma Q\smls 9d isdi bci& ^SBiiH. .e^ ^aoda &emli iQiiio iB 

b«jtl Siia boiieq alrld ■gnl'wb S&cii bellt^taet oal& lexttaS ^xLqBi 

lo 9iuorf o£{d^ od bsaonqQlBi odw ^esoH .eiM jbooiI i&t>ii oi aolasooo 

s'lsrW'sa .siluiiDc .aJt lol ijeias imjs enolesooo ami no s^XttrioS ,enM 

lexfctfil led rfc'ocf bsvol sxla dsrid d09ll» ©xtt od Yllsieises e«ir \noatis»i 

neswdscf xfloatifirf ed^ononq oJ sicfieaoq aclxidxi^v^ ^Xf) Iwib Tsxf^oiB baa 

.eiU c^BXicf bns ^'xexldsl baa bOAdassii iiooa b saw xifliuLoQ •iH J'fiiU' (insil^ 

.noJtdi^isfeiafloo liJtw atil bBis^ii s.ilsjdoSi 
Bdi nt jneffidiiiqB a& iood sJ-Iurioc .iM noJtdBTsqsa orW leJ-lA 

dria S&di bsllti^ei i9tiia& bms bsvjcl aaoH .ertU sneriw §nJtbI-tucf exsse 

,»20on' 8il* lo j-noil n± &©j(ifiq 9Lldoaoiu& zhi wsa X-C;ffl6x;p»il 

d&M ^IbaeiiB a aw oriw ^maltlM ^iBitl:^us.b ie%nsio\ adT 

•red nsea tceven bad ©de darid bijsa tlisi'id Qdi lo 9iaid sdd *jb Xoodoa 

i^fiw ^1: "isri dsx/oddXfi iacii ba» "^isddBl aallida o;t baad a eaXai" isdJ-oin 

,ieri aaLt-cta ailri nsee lavefl bjad ©da ^isdd^offi leii is s^OfV^ 

ajEwr t>d *BJCW bsllicTaeJ- ^wsdqen e'llldnXaXq ^^ilisAoS, Xisg 

Xidau bnB ^£?X lo isfinauB ©dd nl soxllo a'sloruj aid dii bexoXqmo 

tdi at led aesa bed boB ^eaoH ©io*©"^ wwxjf ad dsrid ;8£W t^edosd-qaa 

at i)©3iXsd oaXa bjsd ©H .'^sqaoo a'aXoau zhi nt easnlajjcf lo ©osXq 

asasaeess bs^evnoo bii& exxolaaooo Xaaevse no ©aodqeXed" ©dd co i9d 

beaasibbs tsUul moil aiaJ-^sX beXJLam boB ^s.iLudoci .-iM o* led a»^l 

«e8oH .aiM 0^ 
flolrciqo ot'J lo asw loXIsoxiario ©dd" ^tt&ed XXj/1 b lOd'lA 



that the complaint was not sustained by the evidence and said: 
"I believe that she has had more trouble with him than h© has 
with her, and when he says he has been a dutiful husband - I am 
inclined to think that you don't get to be a dutiful husband by 
carrying on an affair with another married, woman isdth three child- 
ren, and that seems pretty well established by the evidence. * * * 
I think he has made out a case of separate maintenance, I believe 
$31 a week would be a proper order for support, * "'^ * You may 
present a decree. * -^ * For the benefit of the record we are basing 
the finding on a $65 a week drawing account. Two Hundred eighty- 
five dollars attorney's fees and costs of this proceeding. * * *,« 

As ground for reversal it is urged that the decree for 
separate maintenance is not supported by the evidence; that separate 
maintenance, being a statutory remedy, the defendant must prove that 
she is without fault, and that the court erred in disadssing plain- 
tiff's complaint. While it is fairly clear that the parties were 
Incompatible and had frequent arguments over matters which are not 
related to the charges of cruelty, it is undisputed that Mr. Schultz 
left his wife's home without any explanation and after having apparent- 
ly planned to leave for some time in advance. Nothing occurred April 
20, 1938, or immediately prior thereto, to justify his lec^ving. It is 
evident that many of the altercations described by the witnesses 
resulted from his relationship with Mrs. Rossj that Mrs. Schultz knew 
all about this affair and rightfully resented it. The chancellor who 
heard the evidence was in a better position to ;Judge of the credi- 
bility of the witnesses who testified for the respective pai'ties 
affecting the charges of cruelty and misconduct, and after a careful 
examination of the record we are not disposed to disturb his finding. 

Plaintiff ccsaplains as to the allowance made for alimony and 
support of the yoimger child. The chancellor based tills on an income 
of $65 a week. The allowance of attorneys' fees is not questioned. 
The record shows that according to plaintiff's own testimonj'- he drew 
approximately $60 a week, and sometimes as much as ijJlOO, from the 



8&£i 9ii .nutuiJ- jiLtii ilctiiw @J[«(ju'oi^ t^iom bAii sad »4& ^atU •▼dllscf X" 
KS T - fcaedEWri Jj;»lJt.*jjb & a^wi zad pt. s^sa ©ri tiedn bam ^lorl xttlw 

* * « .&»iioi?l;vd eO^ \(i betUlldBiBe XX®w Y^'^eiq ais&tfs ^fitW bn* ^a©i 

svsjiisd I ,»aasa©^itJ:sffl s^Ja^sqee lo seao « ;i^«o 55iB« earl sd ilnirf-t I 

^ijsfli iJoY '^ ■■-■ '^ ^iroqsiuu lol loJbio z&qoiq^ a 9d bluovi jlsaw a I^$ 

SnlajKcf 9^8 9w Jbioot-1 &xl^ lo Jllsxiferf ©lU 10^ ■«• * « .ftetc^Jb a ^tneeeiq 

"Xijdilo bsiJEnei/E ovr'X .orufooDfi sclweoij ia&a & ^b^ « no jjcibnll 9di 

"»* * *'' .aaii'^soo'iQL eidj lo ed'soo bne ea*! z'x^o-'^^i* uiaLIoL svil 

iaild- 9Voiq i&sm iae.bii&l9b s^ ^''ci>«flisi \iot isijii& a sniad jSOxxshs^oLbw 

-«±isXq s«ic3iffi2ix) ai Mi'ie d"i»oo s>ilj iati;ji ba& ^ilsjul cfworiJiw ei axle 

SIS* asiiisq sui^t ^tto;t iaoIo xSiIhI s^i il eXlrf*.' .^niauLqawo 2*!llXd- 

ioa 9008 fiOiiiw a'le^^aa levo z;ia&mu:^'ia itsBupmifi bad bas eldli Bqmxial 

siXiaaoS .Oil jJjbjcU ^fe>;JjLKaaUacxji/ eX ;}x ^x^Xex/io lo aegiario stUf o;J Dsd^iaXoi 

►,l-fleisqq« galvjsd isd-ls bn& iioiisa»lqxib "Sfia cTttori^Jtw Mso/f a'elX-ff .rid c^lsX 

XX^qA jjeiTji/eoo gflXd^oH ,»aflBv£>« aX i^XiiJ^ emoe lol ©vhsX o;J bennsXq yX 

2i cH .SJttvEsX sXri xti^i'^tfL o^ ^9SQn9i'J vUuq --{Xs^aXiWiicaaX 10 ^8£?X ,QS 

ven2[ icJXiXdbci .i^ ^adi {q&hB- ,»tM sUlw q,l£l&swli aIsi aXd jooil bec^Xii/aei 

odw TioXXsatfiBxia »^' ,ctX bs^nfie&i vXIulJdaXi inos iXall« sXri;t iuoda IL& 

«Jt6©i3 etiS lo eabx/t ocf aoXcriaoq 'idsisd s nX saw «9i»mvd •ri^f Maad 

saXctiisq ©▼X^ovqaai ©xiit 10I i)ftllXd^a©;J orfw edesiwid^Xw sfW lo \it,lld 

XirlsTfiO £ "i»^ls fejns ,^©i/fcflOseXffl ijjt.-j ^^tXei/io lo asgisrlo ©d^ §fli;toellB 

.snXMXl aid tirmS'sXd o<f beeoqaXe ;toa ^^is ear b^ooa^ »ri* lo aoX^anXmaxs 

baa Xfl<MCiXiS 'lol »iifiai socswoXXb bxH oi sa ausXaXqeJOO llXJ-flXeXSl 

ssioofiX nu ao aXxld' !>»««&' soXXeooBilo ©dT .liXXdo assarix/oii 9d^ lo i^oqque 

,53a0i,taexip ion eX esel Uxen^o^d^a lo esiuwoXXa «riX ..alaaw £ ^^$ lo 

w»lf) ed %«offiX;fas# £E?ro 8«llX;tflXAXq o5^ gnXlJioc^oe i&d:f 3wada fjioosx «yri[T 

•dj ffioal jOOX^ 2B dojjia es a©inX:leiao8 baa ^iemt & Od$>iX»^j8«XxoiqQB 



) 

-7- 

corporation of vvMch he was a half owner. In addition to that bs 
was paid his daily expenses, such as meals and incidental expenses, 
and was provided with an automobile for his private use. Ths business 
operated by plaintiff and his brother deals in waste material in vshich 
daily purchases are made of approximately $200 to $300, The sales of 
the company run frcaa $4,000 to $10,000 a month, making an aniaial turn- 
over of about $100,000, The plant on w4iich the business is operated 
is owned by the corpora tion^ and consists of two buildings. Defendant, 
on the other hand, has no inccme whatsoever and is entirely dependent 
upon plaintiff for support and maintenance. She has reached an age in 
life w^hen there is no reasonable expectation that she can go out and 
earn any money. H©r inability to perform any work except household 
duties loft her entirely dependent upon the amount awarded by the court. 

Defendant was clearly living separate and apart frcm her 
husband at the time of jEhe trial and the chancellor found that it was 
without fault on her part. He was also of opinion that plaintiff's 
complaint was not proved, 'ie find no convincing reason for dis- 
turbing the findings of the chancellor and the decree should be 
affirmed. It is so ordered, 

DSCRSE APFIIU5;SD, 
Scanlan and Sullivan, JJ,, concur* 



nd :^Bdi <yt rsotilbb» al ,v»{wo TlIar b usm sxi rioJUfv lo ooi^Aio^pWd 

Lj^^iS ^jdirio<n £ 30C,(U$ ei 000^^. moil asn xnjiq^aoo eiict 

i;@jiS'! aetaiaxfoT 93i;f ii»Jkxiiv oo #ii«Xq 9d1 •000,901$ itroia lo novo 

,i£u£iael9v« «8SiJi6lJU^cr over lo aisZai^os ixm lOoii sioqioo 9jit \d boowo «1 

ill d^fi a& i »d «f{C •Ma«fi*;;£Ltasi bfin ^loqqsn rtol ItlJniiiXq iK>qi; 

JbfiLB itto OA fi ' -^i aolisioeqxe •Idaao<«fti oa el s'XftiiJ nadw f>711 

£>I©ji*ftx;orI J . :nfi anolisq o:- xlllldanJt rre-i^ .xaaoffl v^b ai&B 

.i'lzroo aa;f \<i b^JjuaWjo ^xHiot^ &jiS cioqu iaobat>q$'t xl»il;^a9 iwi Hoi B^liub 

em Si :ix'S[^ ^.>£u:ol ■z.allaosuisi^ $ilt teu IaIic^ »i{lt lo MsJUf 9tiJ iz ha&4uuA 

«»Uli^nJUIq ^ ,iiAfi lotf ao ^Ixffil ;tjjoriilw 

-816 ^©1 imti^^'i ^iU.uitn\o'^ or. i>i'ii'" . '/--Totq ;fOfl 3bw ;fiilaXq«oo 

9rf i>X«orI?i ©stsfefe ©f' oXXstMiiuio »:iw lo aaxxifcull silJ ytldii/^ 

,b^tBbio o« «1 ^I ,Jb«irxXllB 



41215 

JACK SCHOMAH, 

Appellee, 



MARY DAUSCH, a widow 
et al*. 

Defendants 



ON APPEAL QF ISADORE WOLF, 
Appellant. 




FROM SUPERIOR COURT, 
;00K CQI 



'^^7 T.A. 3^g 



MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE FRIEND DELIVERED THE OPINION OP THE COURT. 

In 1933 Chicago Title & Trust Company filed a bill to 
foreclose a first mortgage, naming as defendants the owner of the 
equity, Isadore iolf, judgment creditor, and others. While that 
suit was pending Jack ochuman, plaintiff herein, filed a bill to 
foreclose a second mortgage on the same property, also naming as 
defendants the owner of the equity, Isadore Wolf, the Judgment 
creditor and other necessary parties, V/olf thereupon filed a 
motion to strike the second mortgage foreclosure complaint, upon 
the theory that it would cast a hardship upon him and other parties 
to the suit to incur the additional expense of defending two 
proceedings, that the two proceedings constituted a multiplicity 
of suits, and that the second complaint was filed for the purpose 
of harassing him and other defendants. The chancellor denied 
the motion. Wolf elected to stand by his motion and was defaulted 
and subseciuently a decree of foreclosure was entered against him 
and others. Wolf appeals from the ruling of the court and contends 
that under par. 172, sec. 48, p. 2420 of chap. 110 (1939 111. Rev. 
Stats.) the court should have dismissed the bill because of a prior 
suit pending. 

The rule is well settled that in order to sustain the plea 

of another action pending at law or in equity it is essential that 
it shall appear not only that there is a prior action pending 



Aa^^ 










^ n ^ T "C ^^ 1^^* ( .'IJ.O. iiHOGA£I m5 JAS'i'U MO 

/xHDoo am "^o mmvio set oaHsvusia awaiH"? soitsut. owiai£afl*l .am 

at Illtf & 1)9111 -viaqooO ^2in'f 36 &lil'l: oaBolriO ££^I nl 
eil:^ lo isnwG eii;t a^nennslob afi snlitsft ,9iBs;rioia c^aill fl saolosrrol 
iadi ellcii^ ,^1Qdio ban ^loil^Jio cTaomabx/t tlXtfP stobsel ,x*-t^ps 
o;t IIlo B bsIJtl ^fliio'isxl Illd^^nlBlq ^aaawIoS aioBL snJtbneq a«w ilx/a 

ixi9ual>at ©rfc^ tl-toV'' oiob,3al ^^iJ^P® 9iii lo nerwo exi;^ a;tnsi)£tel9b 

6 belli floCiJjstsxW II0V .aelcfisq x^jseesosn lexIJo bxic loJlbsio 

noqj-' ^ctnlBlqxnoo siweolDa-xo'! o^ssd^ttoffi bxioose eri;t B^tiia oi noWom 

89l:rtBq lOiWo bns ialxi floqx; qlilabaari a is&o blxro-v :fl ;tr>ii;t >ti09iU 9ri;t 

av;J aulbflslsL lo 0£ii9qx9 LBaolillb& edt oijonl oi ctlue edi oi 

■^Jlollqlctlxfia s be^jjjWanoo eanibeeooiq owi sxIcT *iiri^ ^eaci±bo90Oiq 

©eoqauq edi 10I bslil asw ial&lqmoo bnooea edi iBdi baa ^ziitsz lo 

betsiBb lolLeoiUido 9rIT , a^Tnsbnelsb lailto bns mid axxlaeBnaxl lo 

b©;tXiJfll©b esw bnB flol;^oia alxi x^ brus^e o^ bscTosIo lIoW ,aoiioia 9di 

mid :tefllsaB baiaiae aew ©nxjsoloeio'i lo asiosb s xl^^s^fpsadwa bns 

ebns^floo bns iiuoo sdi lo snlli/i 9ii:t atoil alsgqqs lIoW .aiexl^to bnB 

.V9fl ,111 ?£?!) Oil .qado lo 0£^S .q ^b^ ,09a »S^I ,iBq isbnif ^ffixicT 

loliq B lo 9a*;6O0cf Hid Qxlct bsaalmalb ovsxi bli/orla ittxroo 9ri^ (48*8^8 

.gnlbnsq ;tli;E 

i39lq Bdj niai^iSQ oi isbio at isdi bslij9a Hew al elxri silT 

)&di Xislc^xiea89 el :H ^ilxip© nl ao wbI ^b gfilbnsq noWoa «il;toiiB lo 
anlbnoq noWoB loliq a el 9i9riJ :Jbx1J \lno ion leeqiB Ilaria il 



between substantially the saioe parties, but also that the cause 
or causes of action and the Issues Involved are substantially 
the same in the two suits. (1 Corpus Juris 6l.) The two suits 
in question were different and separate actions. One soughc the 
foreclosure of the lien of a first mortgage trust deed, whereas 
the second action was brought to foreclose the lien of an entirely 
different and separate mortgage under a separate instrument. 

Wolf's counsel argues that Schuman, complainant in the 
second suit, could have filed a cross bill in the first foreclosure 
proceeding and secured all the relief that he could hope to obtain 
by a separate suit. ?;hile this may be true counsel cites no 
authorities and we know of none ^.hich would require Schuman to 
proceed in that manner. In Torpe v. Lett.cf, 177 m. App. 288, 
the court said (p. 289): "'^tever the nature of Scid prior suit, 
we do not understand that Pretzsch could have been required to 
file a cross bill to foreclose his lien." Citing Jones on 
Mortgages, vol. 3, sec. 1445 and Mulcahev v. Strauss, 151 m. 
7°» ^^ Mulcat^ey v. St^r^uf^s^ I51 m. 70, plaintiff filed a bill 
to foreclose a mortgage to which certain of the defendants filed 
a plea alleging a prior suit pending which had made the holder 
of the mortgage/party defendant. The plea was overruled and upon 
appeal the court said (p. 83): "We are not prepared to hold, that 
the appeUee was obUged to assert her rights by such a cross bill, 
rather than by an original bill." 

None of the cases cited by defendant holds that the Junior 
mortgagee must file a cross bill when he is made party defendant to 
a first mortgage foreclosure. The cases relied upon by IVolf involved 
generally suits where there was a prior suit pending by either the 
same plaintiff or some other person in a representative capacity 
acting for plaintiff under the same cause of action. 

We are of opinion that the chancellor properly denied the 
motion to strike. The order of the Superior court is affirmed. 

ORDER AFFIRMED, 
Scanlan and Sullivan, JJ., concur,^ 



ad? :)d^ifOr. 9£lO •bjedoXJ'sa »^;£'3usqt>e Iuls dtwiBtlkb 9i^m aolizsup aX 
eji&T.mv'i ^bsnb iejaii B^B^iiiia itatJLl & lo null 9dJ To eiimoloetiol 

«$# nl iaaaXsLiattit^ ^iuumtiot indi 'i(unji'i& Itaiuros 2*lXtf(^ 
9*aimold9ioJ. izrll i^ta nl IXJtcf eeoio fi taXH «'v«ri bisroo ^ilsse . 
oijtiJdo at &iioti bluQo exl ;^t3Xi^;l 1(>1X;'»'X 9£li 11b b^iuoet baa ^rtj9900iq 

,38i. .qqA ,111 ^^i ^zii;^ .v mraefl al ^foasa tBtii al beB^trcq 

o3^ 5#T:iaip»^ need rrjsri blttos ii94Bs;?«t<l ;Jarij ftiuad^aiftfcmr ^on oft *«r 
ISO n»noX, ^iltl'^ ".nail alri »3oj:o«^«l o:r XXid eBcra « ©111 

XXXcr a fc»XXl ^ll;tftli*Xq ,0\ ,XXI I^X ,fHfff1tf« ,Y Yfrtffffrif*' «I .<3^ 

bmltl Min&inieleii 9At lo nX^^iao siohhi ott ^aAji^ioflt « •toXoeiol oi 

tsblt>d mii sfcfia 5^1 AoMn ^nltotq iixre rtoJtiq « w^t^^lla £9Xq s 

ooqxf ham feeXir-sisvo 2j8w ssXq «ri!f .^asJbnwl^fc \^TB^«a*3l^^®o •-^^ ^o 

^iaria- »5Xori o* fcaruqerrq cToB •'M «W* J (£8 •<([) feXxsa ^nifoo «» Xaeqqa 

(XXXd 3C010 s £i«ifE xcf e^riali rrsri i^teaea oii bejlXcfo eaw saXXaqqa arii^ 

*,lltd Xattlalio ca xd ruarfd' 'nitiBr 

lotcsjt 9di c^jBxfcJabXori cfjusfecelsf? x^d b^&ia 8©«ao ©xtJ 'io ©noV! 

oi ;tasf>i«>^/5ft x**""! •Jfe«« «i Q*^ ^sw**^ -^J^W eeoio a will lexoa sesjas^JToa 

l>sTXovnl lloff \d floqif fe»iX»i e««so ariT ,BTX'aoX»oiol e8as;trtcHa ^ertXl a 

««£f •zaata-l® x<* Sfili>fl»<r tfJUw lolnq & 'a«w •n«ri;f ©i*xJw z&tm. xXXsnanss 

X3^X03«2SO «irWft:tn©a«rrqot a elI no8'i«q leiSio emoa no HiJ'aJtfiXq •awe 

•noiioB lo 9£iffi8 ©Btea wiJ leijcxr lll^nXalqt td iifilS^& 

QdS bolasb tXT:9qo^q loXXeonsrio sxii^ d'jakfU' floiaslqo lo ©is 9»^ 

'' -'^HsrlYiA Bl titjov loiioqaQ ^'i 10 •s»b'sa 9tSt .wflrrfs tti* floXJoar 



1 



40514 

THE KORTHSRN TRUST COMPANY 
an Illinois corporation, 
as Trustee, et fl«, 

(Plaintiffs)/ .ippell 

V, / 



COKTIirai^TAL l|.LINOlSmTIONI 
BAI^flC AND TRU# C^I^, etc 
et al,, I ^ 

( Def endafij^ ) flppelle 





PPSAL PROM CIRCUIT CODRT 
OP COOK GOUNTt« 



A, F, GARTZ,\ JR., and HERBERT 
P. CRAKE, 

(Defendants) Appellants* 



MR, JUSTICE SCAilLAN DELIVERED THE OPIMOK OF THE COURT* 

A complaint, and amendment thereto, in equity was lirought 
by The Northern Trust Company, as trustee (Emily H, Junlcin, who was 
Emily Hutchinson Crane, the widow of Richard T, Crane, deceased, 
was subsequently joined as co-plaintiff), against the executors 
of the will of Richard T, Crane, Jr., deceased, and the trustees 
thereunder, and Florence H. Crane, the surviving widow of Richard 
T, Crane, Jr., as distributees of his estate, and Charles R, Crane, 
to enforce against them certain obligations assumed by Richard T. 
Crane, Jr., and Charles R. Crane under a contract \vith Emily Hutchinsoi 
Crane, dated December 2, 1912, to provide her with an annual income 
of $100,000 during her lifetime. The complaint as amended sought to 
enforce against defendants Kate C. Gartz, Mary C. Russell, Frances 
C, Lillie, Emily C. Chadbourne and Herbert P. Crane, sisters and 
brother of Richard T, Crane, Jr., and Charles R, Crane, and against 
A, F. Gartz, Jr., as assignee of Kate C. Gartz, certain obligations 
■svhich it is alleged the said sisters and brother had assumed toward 
Emily il. Junkin under the terms of a so-called family settlement 
agreement dated June 11, 1914, as supplemented by a trust agreement 
entered into by them with The Northern Trust Company, as trustee, 
under the same date, which was attached to and made a part of the 



M^O^ 




.YM, 






IT 

1.3 



♦YTKDOO aoOO ^0 



.A.I TO 8 [ 



.«>*e ,Y^ . aar avu mas 






.iHUoo am uo aoi^iiio : . rnrijaa itAJHAoa soiTa\JL ,hm 

sio^fwciQjca saw d^exiJUsis ^(liliJflijsXct-oo as bttalol xlin&apeaiimi bbw 

.T fcx-sfloih -ltd b&ms&&& axtoiaaalldo ai^ii»d a»£f;t ieuisaa doiolae o* 
SoaiilriJWfM X-tJ^ diJw iDjiiifioo a ^©faaa smiiO ,H boIt^O baa ^,'ll> ^sn^iiO 

■Jd^tioe, Q9baessi& S.& isileJ.^fe.Qo sdf .B^si&lill lod snJtrudb OtX)«OOI$ lo 

tsiSjUsa luZA ^»H*'iQ ,H 8»I'Xa:jeI0 fcxifl ^,'il, 4»jri6^ ,T blUUiolK lo 'loi-fcfotcf 

bttsvoi b^sa^za itM i^dioid bti& sis^aia blaa acf^ b^ssll 

J^nofflBld'ctes '^Iliasl l»«IXso-oa a lo edTts^ ^dS tebaa alsixwi ,i: Y-tJ^^ 
j:j'^Hi99.i3ii iauii n x<i ^staetateXqqira a© ^M^I ,11 onuL Jbd^fsb j^neiaiisiaB 

Qiii lo itieiq fi sLfiffl i>£iB cKt fcoxlof;:^.^* esw rfoJutvf ^^J".-?.!) ©ass sjU" iQfixiXf 



-2- 

family settlement agreement as Exhibit S, The complaint as amended 
also sought personal recovery from the said members of the Crane 
family of existing deficits between the Income actually received ^ 
by Emily H, Junkin under the various trusts in question, and the '; 
amount of her guaranteed income. The complaint as amended also 
asked that the court retain jurisdiction of all the parties to the 
action to determine the toaount of future deficits and to enforce 
the collection thereof, Charles R. Crane and the distributees of 
the estate of Richard T, Crane, Jr., deceased, filed a counterclaim 
in which they claimed thst by virtue of the family settlement agree- 
ment and related documents their four sisters and brother Herbert 
had assumed five-sevenths of the liability to liSaily H, Junkin for 
the deficits, each severally to the extent of one-seventh thereof j 
that as between the counterclaimants on the one hand, and the four 
sisters and Herbert on the other hand, the primary liability for 
five-sevenths of the liability for the deficits rested upon the 
said four sisters and Herbert (severally to the extent of 
one— seventh each), and that the counterclaimants had the right to 
compel the said sisters and Herbert to perform their respective 
obligations to Emily H, Junkin in exoneration of the liability 
which Glxarles R. Crane and Richard T, Crane, Jr., liad initially 
assumed to her. Both plaintiffs and counterclaimants claimed that 
it was not necessary, in order that the liability of the four sisters 
and Herbert be enforced, that the deficits be first paid to Mrs, 
J\inkin either by Charles R, Crane or by the distributees of the 
estate of Richard T« Crane, Jr*, deceased; that all of the parties 
in interest were before the court and the court had full jurisdic- 
tion to determine and adjudicate their respective obligations. 
Both plaintiffs and counterclaimants also claimed that the reduction 
of the guaranteed income of Mrs, Jvmkin from $100,000 to $85,000 
inured solely to the bene It of Charles R, Crane and Richard T. 
Crane, Jr., and his distributees (to the extent of one-half each) 



feevieooi \IXflj:f^OB smooni ari^ ns9w;tacf s^^ioJtlei) giiii^ajjcs lo xllmst 

Slid feru; ^nol^J-eaifp ni sizu'd awoJtTsv orf;t isfciic ni&txrX ,.} iji^liaa x*' 

•eXis &»M@^s ts iatelcimoti oiiS .»ffi&oAl l)«te;tn£>i3j:iS "^^^ ^o ^fojsoflis 

90101*19 o? I«i« ailoileiJ oy^irt lo cJ-flBOtto ^ifcJ salarte^eb oJ^ noU9B 

lo aea^j^aJti^fali a«W Mii siniiO ,H a»Ina|fO .losnorij flol;rocilloo sjftf 

OLCJsIsisiilwoo s i>»Ill ^I)9eia8&©b t.iX ^»fl»iO .T biajlolfl 1© 9i^i&e edi 

-$»iafi 3^rt*ffloIJcf»e xlJtsial edi lo 9i/3^iiv xcf J^jicU^ b^mtalo XBdi dotdw nl 

lol xttAu'"' , JtjaSi o;t -^dUIWall 9Ai lo axi^tasvse-avll fasattiaEfi bad 
ilo©*i»£(;t ajii'^v ra-sflo lo d^ns^xs sd;^ o.t xHsievsa rfoae »3t±o±l®f)' ori;l 
■jx'o*? 9/J* fcas ,bxtaiS 0«o asti ao ^fttaalBlo'iBioiJco qjW ii»®vy*©d as i'srli 

T.-^ HOqjT ba^Hsi a^loJtlsb 9di lol -^lllcfjsll 9ti:i lo ajd;txr»v©s-»yll 

'"o ;tae:fxs adi o& TiXIsisvsa) ^J'latfisH bas eie;fala tjjol bias 

o. ^^lo^x od-J bRd 3;JflBiiidloisJmK)0 arf* tfjsifcf bsiA ^idass ri;fn»vo8->eflO 

9V±jo»qa9i nleiW araolioq oi ;his(fi9K bfis aia^eia blBS edi iQqaoo 

XSlIld&ll Qdi lo £iold^£i»flox® al iilateu;;!; ,K xl-i^nS oj 3HOJt:tB3lIcfo 

XXXisl-liwl: bsii ,,il. ^sosiO ,t fcieitfolil biiB HfitfitO ,fi aeli/jriO rioiffw 

iisfCd^ beflLteXo aijftcaiXBXo't9;tcu;;oo beuB alll^niaXq riJ-oS ,nt©rf oj- bsflmeafi 

sisj^i^ lifol odi lo x^XXMciX »riJ ^firi^ "isb'io at ^X'^saasosn ^on esw ;fl 

.aii^ oi bl&q i&ill sd ad-Jtolldb &dt Jftdi ^feediioln© ad ;Ji©di!?H btia 

idi lo assi^i/diiJaXb adi x<J 10 rtjir .fr aeXladO x^ ledilB fllilnifT. 

aalJ^ijBq aitt 16 lla iaxii ibeaseo ^, ,eMi»itO ;T MsdslA lo e^sJs© 

-olbBliift J^-txJ^ *^ vtrLiroo odcf bcu^ijmb adJ ©lolsd sim *a©'ro;tni n± 

.BGold^fialXJo s^lioaqzei oiericf &;faolbi;t^xj bns 3iitaw©*ofi o^ aolS 

aol^osjb&i ©di *fid;t bexalBXo oaXs £d'njBifflLsXoT:©J'm?oo bns allXcfalsXq rid-oS 

000^^8$ OCT OOO^OOX^ noil aMaul ♦axif lo ©laooxil bsedfcteijsifg silcf lo 

.T bi.6doXH briH ©a.. , .©XiiiriO lo ^Jk'^bfled adi oJ xXaloe bn-ufni 

(d0J3© liLoXl-9flo lo iasixa sdi ot) ^e61^udil1S^tb aid bns t.iX 49n,8iO 



n 



-> 

and that the respective liabilities of the four sisters and Herbert 

sliould be enforced upon the basis of $1(X),000. Both plaintiffs 

and cross-complainants also claimed that the Jurisdiction of the 

Probate court of Cook county, in ?/hich the administration of the 

estate of Richard T, Crane, Jr., was pending, was inadequate for 

the determination and adjustment of the rights and interests of 

the several parties to the action and that therefore it was 

necessary to invoke the Jurisdiction of a court of equity for that 

purpose* 

The decree finds that each of the defendant laembers of 

the Crane family, save Kate C« Qortz and Herbert P. Crane, has fully 

discharged his or her obligation under the so-called faiaily settle— 

Dient agreement and the record shows they have abided by the decree 

entered in this cause. A, 1". Gartz, Jr., and Herbert P. Crane have 

filed a joint appeal, 

Hxe essential facts in the case are not controverted and 
in 
they are stated clearly and/sequential order in the findings of the 

court. To understand the contentions raised by appellants it is 
necessary to state the trial court's findings of fact and the 
decretal part of the decree. They are as followsj 

"I. That on October I3, I903, iUchard T, Crane, * * ♦ 
as party of the first part, and Sally Hutchinson (now Emily H« 
Junkin, one of the plaintiffs herein), party of the second part, 
made * * * a certain Marriage Settlement Agreement, in pursuance 
of TMch said * * * [Crane] gave * * * and conveyed to said * * * 
[Hutchinson] certain bonds of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe 
Railroad Company, of the par value of $115,000, bearing interest 
* * *, as and for her absolute estate and property, and in addition 
thereto assigned, transferred and conveyed to The Northern Trust 
Company, as Trustee, certain other securities therein described, 
to have, hold, manage, control and care for and collect the income 
therefrom, and to pay the net income therefrom as received to said 



ed;^ lo Hi. j;f. orfd- cfarii^ fcsoitalo oeXa ad-nanlalqiaoo-aBoio l)fls 

E*iv; ji. - '!(V ^^ fins iSoi^ojB 9di oi ael^tisq laievse eri;t 

tBdJ "jcol vlu-; 00 « lo ciol;^oi.beliisl 9sii e^ovnl o;t ^i^acasosft 

,98oqn;q 

Xilsfi Biar/ . J-iecfisfl l>ixa s^itoi) ,0 •^siS »Tjaa ,x-t-ti5*2l &aaiO arid" 

\:I±itte1 bellso-oa arJj isftfio noli^jagXIdo isii io elri bejisrioaJbb 

9910'-. j:> 9i£^d^ xcf Jbeiildij even xe4^ awojris biooer »di baa ^aMaeei^a ^atll 

,lA»qq0 ;tflio|^ a £>sXll 

-sllaqqa ^cf i>©8-tisi SiOoXiiif^iaoo 9sM bns^zisbav oT ,iiwoo 

tstfoXXol 8i3 »i3 x®^ .•«*xoeI) Qdi lo ;fiaq Ij8;Jeioef) 
* * * ^sasiO .T b^isriojtfi ^£0?i ^£1 lecfoc^oO no ;f^T .X" 

• iv Xlls^ woa) nosfljtdoiia^H xXifiS iJixa ^^xsq d'a^ll ©iid^ 'lo x^'^Jsq as 
4;tij3q i)aoo©a ©lid lo x^'Jj3<I ^(iiXe^sxl ellX-JaiuXq ad^t lo ©no ^aJLiat/l 

* * * blj^ oi £>f)X3Vfloo bOA * ♦ * ©vaj [sajs-xO] * * » felisa xfoJtdw lo 

©^ &iaM& & &:d&qo'2 ^noaXriocTA ftri:t 'to dbacd a±&iiBO [aozaJbioiuU} 

&&Qi3&at anXijssd ^OOO^clXX^ lo ©Ji/Xav itiq QdS lo ,xasqiBoO 6BOiXiaJi|j. 

.oi;i^Xi}|Da al baa ^x^i&qo^q 6n« ©;fB*8« QivlozdM isri lol 5ii« r ♦ 

d-awnX nn9ii;tioll adT ocf fcex^'WJOs Jbmi fcoa'ialEflai;^ ^benjiaaii oc^aioiid' 

^bscfXioasf) nl©trexf;f asXifXit'ose uqxUo nxccttao ^ae^ex/iT as jXasqcwO 

diQoonl 6ri;t ^odlXoo f>£ij3 tol 9a£0 ^iia Xoo^noo ^ss^fl^a ^blcd ^ev^&fi oJ* 

bixje od- bsTlQOsi tJis ooilansxic^ smoonl cTsn 9XW xa<I oJ" JE>«* ,«ofl0iati;t 



•«••»■■»• [Crane] diiring his life, and after Ms death to pay the same 
to said * -J^ * [Hutchinson] quarterly, during her life, provided she 
should survive said * « * [Crane], That * * ^ pursuant to the 
intention of said parties, as in said agreement expressed, said 
marriage was constaaaiated and The Northern Trust Company, as such 
Trustee, assumed and took control and management of said securities 
so transferred to it, as aforesaid, and paid the net income therefrom 
to * * * [Crane] during his lifetime, and since his death has paid 
the same to * * * Emily H, Junkln * « *. 

»2. That on January 8, 1912, the said Richard T, Crane 
* ■» « died, leaving * * * his widow, hia surviving, and on December 
2, 1912, the defendants Charles R, Crane and Richard T, Crane, Jr., 
sons of said party of the first part, for good and valuable consid- 
erations therein * * * set forth, entered into an agreement with 
said Siaily Hutchinson Crane * -^^ ■<'- in and by which they severally 
agreed with *4- *>- * [her] that from the net income derived frcaa said 
securities so given and transferred to her by * * * Crane, Sr., as 
aforesaid, and from said securities so transferred and delivered to 
the Northern Trust Ccaapany, as Trustee, as aforesaid, together with 
the income from 5*000 shares of the capital stock of Crane Company, 
to be by them severally (each 2500 shares thereof) transferred to 
and deposited with The Northern Trust Company as such Trustee (and 
which were thereupon issued and transferred to The Northern Trust 
Company as such Trustee), she * ■«• « should receive an annual net 
income, without any deduction whatsoever, of the aggregate sum of 
$100,000 during hor lifetime. In and by said Agreement * ^-^ * Charles 
R, Crane and Richard T. Crane, Jr., further expressly agreed v/ith 
Emily H. Crane (* * * now Emily ii. Junkin) that in case the net 

income received by The Northern Trust Company, as such Trustee, and 

and under said Agreement 
paid to her under said Marriage Settlement AgreementZof December 2, 

1912, Including the net income derived from said securities so given 

to her by * * * Crane, Sr,, as aforesaid, should in any year during 

her life fall short of said aggregate sum of $100,000, then * * * 



( c 



aria behi^ro1q ^bILL lexl ^l%ub ^\lt@7isiip [noaxilffoJ-wIl] » * * l)JtjBa o;J 

•fW al d-£Siu;e'mq *»■ * * ;J-AriT ,Leiiii*)] ^-^ * ♦ 6±i;a svlvoua blx/orie 

b-tifi ^Ssaesiqx© Jn9Bi99^« ijiaa al sjs ^-iQlJ^'iipsi bias 1o noliasial 

bX&q ajoi tU^^sb aid sonla &a/j ^sisUt;?©!!! sM ^uLvusb [en«aO] * * * o;f 

•xadffl«oeG no Ijcib ^d^lvX^ntSQ mid ^woJalw ejtri * * » aniveeX ^b&lb » » * 

-blaaoo 9ldi3i;XiQV iMii> i;OOS lol ^d'lsq iBtH sdi to xSiaq bins to aixoe 

ffcJ-Jfcw J^nwie^igij iifi o^ni b©n!>c^ue ^rlcJ^tol ^tes » ♦ » aloimlt Baoli&is 

•^Ilaisvea xerli" Aotdy; ^d bii& ul * ■»* * aajBiO xioaxxldoiifH •^Iliei blaa 

fi±ji« fflo-j*! beriieb siaooal ioa. qbIc) atoil iadi [lari] * » * ri;tX.v beeiaxi 

, tc. ,©iiBiw * ^*- " ^<f leil ocf beiiolaxixsacf bn« asvl^i oa BOtilruoBa 

W lid-xeTlIab bxsA beiielsaa^t oe sajtjiai^oea bJLaa moit boB ^bl^zoiota 

jiii:v i&di&:ioi ^blaaaiQlji sa ^e•;^eJ/7T «« ^itcu(;t<BoO izutl. aistiiioVi edt 

^XPsqmoO satiiZi to jtooJa Laiiq&o 9jAi to aBt^B 000^^ aoit sAOoai sri;^ 

ost bBiiBt&a&ti {t09i^i d9%jui& OO^S jsLo&s) xLL^i»v9s modi \cf od oJ^ 

bcLa) deiajrxT xloi/a as vi^^^oO iainl a'xsiij'aoff adS ri^flw l>s;}^l8oqei} bas 

imnl aiad;^ioK adT o^ bei'i»t9M&^ ba& bemst noqjjsierii sisw doidv 

cfan Lwioos as svloooi blx/oda * » ^ &ila ^(ded-awaT doitz aa xoiiqmoO 

lo cujre ©vrfi3a>ig36 ^iS to ^z.9VSQz)min noUossbob "vjaa iuodtJtn ^emoonJt 

ZQli&dO * * ♦ iaQm^ei:i^ bl&B \cf Jbnjs xtl .^mlietXl isri gnlrujfe 000^001$ 

rfil:*'/ I^asiSfi \X8a9iqx9 ^odSxifl ^.il. ^9fla"xO .T biJBXlolfl bos 9x;biO «fl 

Sm esU ©860 ill ctjarid- inl^sml ,11 xXl*^ woi^ « ♦ ♦) bo&iD ,11 AjXiaS 

■ « 

batiii ^QsiavrT iisi?a aB ^-'jUisqjaioO ^TauiT irxatHioll sd'S x^ bevlaoan ©mooal 

iaesaBSi^A biea lebm/ bns ' 

^S 'w4m'iOBQ to}^aaa9ex^ iaoiSidLii&<::. e^MliieM bJtsa isbnxr lari od- blsq 

asvXa oa ealilijoosa bl^e aroil bsrlisb amQal ion wfct snlfiirXoxxl ,-iX^X 

3xiii«b -xisex "VXB xx± bXiforla ^bisastols as ^,TiS ^wisnO ♦ * » ^cf ted oi 

* * * rteriJ ^O00jOOX$ lo aiua s;tsa9ia8s ^-taa lo iiodz XXbI »11X leri 



Charles R, Crane and Richard X. Crane, Jr., would, on demand, pay- 
to Emily H. Crane, or to her order, one-half of such deficiency, 

"That The Northern Trust Company thereupon accepted said 
5,000 shares of capital stock of Crane Company, as such Trustee, 
and agreed to hold the same, together with the securities so held 
by it under said Marriage Settlement ivgreement * * *, and thereupon 
one of the originals of said Agreement last mentioned was at the 
same time deposited with The liorthern Trust Company, as such Trustee, 
for the purpose of enabling it to comply with the terms thereof* 

"Said Agreement of December 2, 1912, expressly provided 
that the dividends and income derived from said 5#000 shares of 
stock The Northern Trust Company, as Trustee, should first pay its 
reasonable charges for its services in acting as Trustee under said 
Agreement and in collecting and paying over the income from said 
shares, and also its reasonable charges for acting as Trustee under 
said Marriage Settlement Agreement from the date of said Agreement 
of December 2, 1912, and for collecting and paying over the income 
to said second party pursuant to said Marriage Settlement Agreement, 
and also all taxes, assessments and governmental charges of every 
kind which might be levied, assessed or imposed at any time there«» 
after, during the life of said second party, upon the trust property 
held by said Trustee under said Agreement, and upon the trust property 
held under said Marriage Settlement Agreement, and upon said bonds of 
the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Pe Railroad Company; and shoxild pay to 
said second party quarter-yearly so long as she should live so much 
of said dividends and income as should be reqtiired to make her net 
annual income, including the net amount of income she should receive 
under said Marriage Settlement Agreement and from said Atchison * * * 
Bonds the sum of $100,000 per year, 

••That on June 11, 1914, Charles R, Crane and Richard T, 
Crane, Jr., together with defendants, Kate G. Gartz, Mary C, Russell, 
Frances C, Lillie and ESnily C, Chadbourne, their sisters, and Herbert 
P» Crane, their brother, for good considerations therein named, 
entered into an agreement commonly known and referred to by them 



-^- 

t^q ^i)xi£cisJb no ^bluon ,,'iT, ^ea.s*iO .T bifixlaiK btiB »a£i'0 »& e©IiariO 
,"y;iKxelollol; fioi/a lo lljiiii-eao ^le^io -sad ocJ to ,©nj3i0 ,11 YX-tffiS oi 
bias t'ed-QoooiB aoq*fsi9ri;f ^jnsqffloO i^ts'xS a'leciSioVi wfT ^fiifl"* 

coqj3siOili b«B ,^i- * *«^ iJasfflsaigji ;^fl&ai©I;t:f9E sSAlTijea bias n«bn0 it \d 
&di isi asw t&aolin&m izBl ;:f£t«m&©ajA fel«8 lo aXaflislio ©rfct lo eao 

.loo'i&xij EiSTidcf ©xl;}^ riJUw -^Iqmoo o-^ it snJtldaaa to seoq-urq artt nol 

to asiiidE 000,^ bias Bioit f)»vJti«fc «aconl 5ns efcushivli) acW ^srfct 

6il xzq iaill bjjjosie ,=>©d-8ir£T && ^x^mqaoO i9in'£ atodSioil eilT :ioo5s 

fcJUe i©bii« »»:fajJiT 86 gnWou ni a&oiviea a^i 'lot aosiario ©XcfanosB©! 

JblBB ooit eoosnl od;} isvo ^ni:x-«t<I ^n« SnJutodlloo nt baa ;)^naas9iiSA 

lebiixf 98CJ'8jviT ee adctD.^ lot adsiailo eltfisrioas^i cd^l osXjs £;tni3 ^sd'i&da 

;J'ii9ai9©i3A bi>2 to 9;ts6 sxlJ" aott drteiieaijjA iiieiosId-^tsS »3ali^sM iJbBe 

aHoonX sriJ lovo s^i^^Q fi«B gald-oelXoo not ban ^£,1^1 ,S ladJosoaG to 

^;txisffla©^8A iaesL&lite^ sSjbXiosM biisa oJ^ ^iXBi/siiRj x^-xjsq JonoooB f>J:*>8 o;t 

-^1379 to H9^i&£io JL&i admiiQ'VQ':^ baa s^nsffleadasB ^e&xsi lis osL:^ btm 

— eidxk^ soli x^B cfB &9eoqel lo £>0ee&aa« ^£>slv9X ecf id^tm doMtf batti 

Xi'i&^o't<i i&vii &di tioqa xX^taq brtoo&z blst to stiX sff:^ :^liab ^i9it& 

XC^Tieqoiq iatiii ad;^ noqw Sob ^^aBO^et^A feJtae ttebnjj soc^BxrnT filaa xd bled 

to sbnod &Xp.2 xioqu ban ^iaeiBo»ij^A J'nsiffieX^ct 9ii ds^lnisM bt&s tobtw bled 

oi \aq biModz bas j^iiieqiaoD baotltaf^. e^ etnaS baa sJisqoT ,nosMo;tA arid- 

dossm ot 9vXX bXi/oda aria qb s^o-I o<^ XI^^^X-'IS^^'^^'^P X^isq bnooac bl&e 

$Ba nsd sjLBffl ocf fiartlt/ps-i ad feXJi/OiiS as sisooxii bno afeaebivlfi Blsa to 

•vJtaosi bXx/oria sria smoonl to dxu/oias itaii &ri^ anifeiyXanl ««aK>oxii Xjaifxias 

* * * floslriod- V I)is8 ffitoit baa iaBs&9i^A ia9a&li:feo ejalTijsM fiisa lebasj 

,'UiQ-% loq OOO^OOX^ to SUB odi aJbooS 

.1 biidiiolH bfiB ȣU8nC ,H eel'i^jriO ^M^X ^XX eru/Ti no ;tiul!i'*' 

^XXsasj/H .0 xnsM ,sJriBO ,0 9;3'aa[ ^.acfaabnstsb diJtrt lerii-sso* ^,i"t ^ftoaaO 

o'^ecfaaH bxi« ,ati©;taia 'xiarij- ^annwodb^riO ,0 xXlflS fens olXXU .0 aooflBi'? 

^bsataa xii©ned;t ExioX^fiaoblacoo boo§ lot ^tedioid ttodi ^enstO «^ 

fflsxlj i:cf oJ bsiisten bos caioisM. xlawmoo cfnaatsOTcajB xie o;?nX boisiaB 



-6- 

as the 'Fainily Settlement Agreement, ' by the terms of which Charles 
R, Crane and Richard T. Crane, Jr., agreed each with the other, to 
buy or sell from or to such other, or- to cause or permit the said 
Crane Company to buy, each his interest in said Crane Company, and 
each of the said sisters and Herbert P. Crane, brother of Charles 
R. Crane and Richard T, Crane, Jr., therein and thereby, severally 
and not jointly, expressly agreed to pay, on demand, one-seventh of 
all money v.'hich might become due and payable under the Agreement 
of December 2, 1912, 

"In and by said Family Settlement Agreement it was further 
expressly agreed by and between the parties thereto, including Kate 
C. Gartz, Frances C. Lillie, Mary C. Russell, Emily C, Chadbourne, 
and Herbert r. Crane, that for the purpotie of facilitating the 
collection of the aforesaid payments so agreed to be made by the 
parties to said Agreement, other than Charles R. Crane and Richard 
T, Crane, Jr., * * ■» Kate C. Gartz, Frances C, Lillie, Mary C, 
Russell, Herbert P. Crane, Charles R, Crane and Richard T, Crane, 
Jr., individually, and Ciiarles R. Crane and Richard T. Crane, Jr., 
as Trustees under a Trust Agreement to be executed by them and Emily 
C. Chadbourne, together with said Emily C. Chadbourne, should execute 
an agreement with The Northern Trust Company as Trustee, which Agree- 
ment should be in the form as set out in E:diibit E attached thereto 
and thereby made a part of said Family Settlement Agreement, Said 
Agreement, so referred to as Exhibit E, as aforesaid, was thereupon 
duly executed by all of the parties to the Family Settlement Agree- 
ment and hj Charles H. Crane and Richard T. Crexie, Jr., as i'rustees 
under said Trust Agreement with Emily C, Chadbourne, and by The 
Northern Trust Company as Trustee thereunder, 3aid last mentioned 
agreement provided for the re-traiisfer of the said 5»000 shares of 
stock of Crane Company so tiieretofore deposited by them with The 
Northern Trust Company as Trustee, as provided by said Agreement 

of December 2, 1912, to Charles R. Crane and laciiard T. Crane, Jr., 



^- 

•«X*ui!0 AotAn to exsrzsd^ edJ x4 \iitsa»9t^ ;taeffidX;t^*a xlims'^* vLt mm 

oi ^is^o iuli d'jhf xioae bi>Mi^A ..aioljl baz eaaiO »R 

fcifc8 adcf ;tiflrx0q no sajff&o oj -..u jio/Wo ctows o;; lo aoit Ilea 10 -^yjd 

asI"U3il« la leil^o^cf jSoa^G .Hi d^iecfiod Jifls ans^aJti; felea ©xl,;t lo doss 

"io xfiiiovse-eiTO ,b£Ls«9r) no jX«<I ^ b&ei^» xleeeisix» ^xX^flio^ ^on bus 
;tfl»«e»^aA 8il:t ^<)i>m; ald/axiK ^«^ si-'fc »aoo9cf ;trl3l« iloiilw x&aom JLU 

9ii^ aiiXJajxIiOE'i 10 a.::oqii/q ©rid' 10I ^jbxI^ ,eiiKiC ,4 itiecftaii .fJOB 

brtaflolf: t-OB onaiO ,fl aaX^iv^iiO jruui? i^dio ,jn»aie©aj^A fcXi*a <xJ eeldasq 

^aos^O ,X brEAiielH iiHB eaenO .H seXifiilO ^9iiusrtO .i ;^i«da:^II ^XXesei/H 

^.iT. ,<ttiaiO ,T MflntoiiT tma eaja' -XisxJD ttos ^\XXaw£iiivli)j«X ,.Tpi 

xXXaS baa AmriJ' x<^ betaooxa &<f ecf Jn€>£!23iSA ;t2i/'xT a t&bast teeiGVx'X mm 

eiuo9X9 blb'ode ^^Bnivodbarlo ,0 xXX^ti Jbisa dilv isii^dsoJ' (SAax/ocrbaclO «0 

-©••X3A doldm ^sQietn'S: aa x^«<IfiK>3 i-ejrtl anBdJieU arfl xl;^Xw ^xieffltceaaA Hip 

i)i:a3 ,&a&stBBX^A ctii©J3»Xid-©€ XXXfflft^ ft Asa "^o i'Uiq^ a 9bBa \d&l&dt fcflB 
aoque^&di 83W ^biaaenoljs ss ^S :JIcfJUIxS sa o^ bomel©*! oe ,;t/t©jn9©isA 
-^©TsA c^a®fliaX:J-^9S xllas"? sdi oi t&BXSiaq, «iW 'io IXa xd boitio&x9 xLisb 
aQ»iiiftx SB ^»iL ^©nfliO ,T ij^tjadoJcil bfl« ©a«nO .ft. asXisrlC 'id £>xu ia9M 

£>9Xioi,;tn©« JasX feiaG ,i&bau&i&di ssJsjsnT aa -^casqisioS d^awTT niGdiioyL 

to a&iods 000^<J fclfia ^di to letaaBii-^i 9iC;f -rol bsbivoiq iahaeetj^a 

ailT rid^lw araxi^ xd bsilsoq^b ©'solo^sisxlJ' os "^BqatoO eastO to ioo^ts 



-f- 

respectively, 2,5^0^) shares to each, and that in lieu thereof each 
of the said parties to said Family Settlement Agreement, except the 
Seller thereunder, should deposit with The Northern Trust Company 
as such Trustee, 1,000 shares of the Crane Company stock, and that 
said Seller should deposit certain other securities therein described. 

"Charles R, Crane became the Seller and Richard T, Crane, 
Jr., became the Buyer under the so-called Family Settlement Agreement, 
and thereupon the said 5,000 shares of Crane Company stock were so 
re-transferred to Charles R, Crane and Richard T, Crane, respectively, 
2,500 shares to each, and each of said parties to said agreement, 
except Charles R, Crane, deposited with The l^orthern Xrust Company, 
as such Trustee, in accordance with the provisions of said Agreement 
hereinabove referred to as Exhibit E in said Family .lettlement Agree- 
ment mentioned, the securities so agreed to be by them respectively 
deposited, 1,000 shares of Crane Company stock, and Charles R, Crane 
* * ^^ thereupon deposited with The Northern Trust Company, as such 
Trustee, certain other securities as therein provided, 

"Said Trust Agreement herein and in said Family Settlement 
Agreement referred to as Exhibit E, as aforesaid, expressly provided 
that The Northern Trust Company, as Trustee, should keep separate 
accounts with each of the parties thereto, collect the dividends tram. 
each 1,000 shares of stock transferred by the several parties who 
should have transferred stock to The Northern Trust Company under 
said agreement, and pay from the dividends received from each 1,000 
shares one-seventh of all payments which should be miade in accordance 
with the provisions of said Agreement of December 2, I912, * * * and 
one-seventh of all moneys which Charles R, Crane and Richard T, Crane, 
Jr., covenanted by said Agreement of December 2, I9I2 to pay, * * * 
the remainder, if any, of such dividends to be paid to the respective 
parties making such deposits. That in addition thereto The Northern 
Trust Company should collect all interest which should be paid on 
the securities so deposited by Charles R. Crane, and pay tlierefrom 
one-seventh of all payments which shoxild be made in accordance with 



iloiss loeiejii x/sll nJt :^suit bos ^Aobq otf a^Taila 00^ ^S ^YlsvlJooqasi 

^z&diio&9b Rji^iojiii n&iJliwo&a lixWo oJuc^isu :it?.oq'Hj cXworIa nallfta blee 

,5^n«iss«^SA 4a9Ci8X;t;fdfc xXJusb'5 b^IIiso-ce arii isfanu isxx/S e/fj amfioecf ,.^1, 
OS S1&W oiockla x^tJtjcijeoi' «ifl»up lo ^e-Lwie 000 ^^ fol«E exic^ noqx/eiacW btiB 

^^flsqffiOv' ^atfi'i majfd^io'f 9irfT jiJ-inr ftailaoqafc ^ena-rS ,K esliiixio cTqaoxs 

^nsflideaaA bJtxic lo .uoiglvooq atlc*^ rl^jtw swisJbnooos ni: ^©«^eiii7 iiox« bb 

-S9TC3A iaemslti&i^ Xllauj'? blee al a ^MJMix^ as of £>9irr9!t«i avccfcni»nerl 

XlorlioBqasi ia9sl;i xd, etf oJ £»»»13|b o8 s9t4Ji'UK>»B 9di ^bs'ttoliaaa iaea 

staB.%0 ,H adlti^O btiB ^Aooi'c -xp^qtsso^ aosrrO to' ae'XBde 000,1 ^becflaoqsl) 

ilcjje 8^5 ^■^OttqaioD itaxfti aiBdiioVi. sriT ri-tlw £>9;)'leoqeb noqueneil;)' ♦ * ♦ 

f>oblvoiq xXaeeiqxs ^flJi^esiol^ 8jb ,a ^IdJtrixK as of bsiaslei d^flsmi-ensA 

ai^suaqss qosjl bXtiOria ^ss^aiii!! ca ^-vjntaqfflbO ^ainT fia9ff;t'ioK aifl iadi 

«oil aijiiefc-tvJtl) eif^ cJosXioo ^oie^QsiS a&tiiBq, 9{ii to rioea tUtn zirwoooa 

odw aalJ^iaq Xsrisyi-^g 9di x<J i>s'nolefiJsii xoocfa lo e»%BA& 000,X dOB9 

Tsbau x^'-^^f^'^ izirrl ai&iiiioif'. sdT oi Jlooiz boiistanBii evtad blvoiie 

OOU^X doze aoi'l fosvisosi zbasblvlb sd;^ ao-il y^q baa ^iasmB»i^B blsa 

»oasbioooB at Qbam ©cf fcXuorfs dolciw e;Jnsffn£Bq IIk lo ri^tnevse-eno eertBila 

tas *• * ••*• ,5iX!?X ,S lediBsoeG le ;Jn««89'xsA tlse lo anoialvoiq «rW ifJ^i*/ 

^ans^O ,T fcnfiifolfl faos sinsiO ,H aeXifirfO iioXriw a-^jsnoa XXb "io rid^nevsa-sno 

* ^' * ,Xs<l oJ SI^X ^S lediEsosG lo ;tn«flK)9'X8A biija x4 b9inurji&voo ,,nl> 

•vJt;;tosq8ea ©iW oi blBq scf o;t abnsblvlb doss3 lo ^-^^fi "IX ^^sfiniisaisi 9Ai 

aiedSioV. ailT otsisiltf noi^lbfea aX iedT ,a;}^XEoqeb rfcuja sixisiBa esl^fnaq 

«o biijq &tf bXx/orie doldv cfasneJnl XXs ^osXXoo bXxJOda xaaqiooO iaxraT 

MOilaieii^ XJSiq &fifl ,©xibiO ,fi aeXisdO ^sf bsd^iaoqef) os zeliHiuoea &di 

dit« 90inj3MocoB III ©bam ©d bXworia xfoidw zin9ist%sq llA to iUcsTse-sno 



said Agreement of December 2, 1912, as hereinbefore stated, and 
one-seventh of all moneys which Cha.rles R, Crane and Richard T. Crane, 
Jr., covenanted in said Agreement of December 2, I912 to pay, the 
remainder of such interest, if any, to be paid to Charles R, Crane. 
Said Trust Agreement also expressly provided that nothing therein 
contained should be construed to release Charles R, Crane and Richard 
T, Crane, Jr., in any isfay from any obligations which they have op 
have had under said Agreement of December 2, 1912, and that nothing 
therein contained shall be construed to change in any way any of the 
rights, obligations or duties of the parties to said Agreement of 
December 2, I912, to each other. That by reason thereof Charles H, 
Crane and Pdchard T, Crane, Jr., and their respective heirs, executors, 
administrators, representatives and assigns remained primarily liable, 
as between themselves and Etaily H« Junkin for any deficit which might 
thereafter arise between the income derived from said securities and 
said guaranteed annuity of $100,000, each to the extent of one-half 
thereof, 

"And the Court further finds that the Trust Agreement dated 
June 11, 1914, above and Ijq said Family Settlement Agreement referred 
to, and the securities therein mentioned and thereafter so deposited 
with The Northern Trust Company, as Trustee, as aforesaid, were in- 
tended as and in fact constituted collateral security for the several 
undertakings and agreements of the respective members of said family, 
hereinabove mentioned, by the terms of which each of the said members 
of said family agreed to pay, on demand, one-seventh of all money which 
might become due and payable under said Agreement of December 2, I9I2, 

"In and by said Family Settlement Agreement it was further 
expressly covenanted and agreed by Kate C, Gartz, Frances C, Lillie, 
Mary C. Russell, Emily C. Chadbourne and Herbert P, Crane that in 
case the dividends and income received by The Northern Trust Compahy, 
as Trustee, from the shares of stock and the securities so agreed to 
be and which were deposited with The Northern Trust Company, as 
Trustee, as aforesaid, should be insufficient to pay all moneys due 



Qco 9V3Jci \S£{^ jlolriw 2iioi::^«s-tlcio ^aii noil xsv xa4 al ,.al* ^acAii;). .S 

e.£(i^offl J&sU boB ^SI^X «S lecfissooU "lo iaiUBQtixik bias it>btw bad svad 

9iii lo Tjaa x.'jw \ws ni aaitaiiD ocT bejara^enoo ecf XIarle iM}fllA;taoo iil«i»xf:f 

lo j«9ia««i§A ilea o^ asi^-Lsq adJ^ lo Eei^ufe -lo eaoX^BSiXdo ^aJ^djii 

«A a^Xij^w ^ei&ii;! fio&iio^ X^f ^sfTT ^liotiio dosB e$ « U^X ,& isdoeotQ 

^a'ioj^jtfoaiis ^axiea sviJocqao-i xtcuU ba& ^.rt ,9iiitiO ,i fciaiioiS baa oaeaO 

^sXdjalX xXi'XA^iSi'xq. £»dAi:siiieaL eiXj|X&3s baa ssvlJ-^^rxMs^st ,c^to;tjB^iiJtalabB 

it^Xis iioM» ;riox'l«)l) ^;s oiot aJbiiiirl^ .H 1^X100 ftoa a9vX98iaad^ aeaw,tocf sb 

^^ adl^Iiiioda X)i3e ioo^l b^viisb Bootmi 9di ti»tmt9fi Mlria 'i^ilnBiiMit 

llM'-'&ao lo :>n9;)-xe) adW- oi rios® tJOO^GOIS lo x*iJi«ctt^iS b&aisx&irjj-^ blisa 

♦ 'losiwii 

csa^elsi :fao£u't.9aaA ;J«9oeX3d^92 YiJtiOis'? iiisa el ba£ svoda ^M^X ,XX sn^Ti 
teiijsixi&b Qz 'i'3i'iAei9d:i ba» bBGoliaam tti9^9di nal^ tmio^ti Bdi itaa ^oJ* 

iBievsa ©jcU' aol X'l^l'5J:/&©e Ji&taSsiloQ b^umzaoo J-aal al Ms eh bo'msi 

i'illsaal bixi& "Xq 9i&^taBa STlJ'Stagaei: «iii lor sSobbibbi^ JbtiLs z:^/il3LBii.&bmi 

aieslatea feJbj^a 9ild lo xiooe riojixiw lo airxc4 */to' x<^ x^QisoltuQiB. &vosiaal9iod 

doisiif! \fmom XX& lo x^xxev9e~sno «l>xi££Xi;b xso ^xaq oJ* boe-xga ^^cXlffijB'l iilaa lo 

•SX^X ^ii a^cfcif^aod lo ia^a&ei^A i»jU8 r2©I)£aj ©X^fix^q feo« Btib eaoosdi c)^xl§JiB 

jdlXXiJ #0 esocan^ ^»s;?^j3C ,0 «;tB:Jt Xcf £>&®%3£ fexui fieJTiBXieToo xiBEeiqx© 

xiX ^\ids flfijsiO .*J J-iQduaJi bi:<i8 O£njjc«fi>fift0 ,0 --^Xiaiil ,XXjP8eLaM .0 x'iB^ 

^XcfsqaioO d-atfii xxasrWioVI ©lil \<i b©vieo©i aererpfll bas aiwrsbivib exU seso 

€>i £)99i3a oe Si&liX'wose »di fias :rio©cta 1© zeiMa edi •oil ^e©;tajs"il as 

8B ^xoBgo©;? i^BJMi!! xiiSil;fioM e^ Xfcflw £)9d-Xsoq*£) oi«if iloixi* J!)fi6 ed 

s\Baom XXx5 XJ3<I ©^ ^rxxclolllDajKl scf JeXixorui ,fei:£8©iol5 es ^cBi&sn'S 



) 

-9- 

and payable under the Agreement of December 2, I912, then and 
in such case th;.t they, said sisters and brother of Charles R, 
and Richard T, Crane, Jr., would each pay to the *high bidder,' 
on demand, one-seventh of any sum v4iich such 'high bidder' might 
be cCTipelled to pay to The Northern Trust Company, as Trustee, 
in order that he might fully perform the terms of said AgreeB^nt 
of December 2, 1912, on his part to be performed, 

"Said Family Settlement Agreement further provided that 
thereupon such 'higher bidder' agreed to indesuiify and hold the 
'Seller' harmless from any liability under said Agreement of 
December 2, 1912, beyond the liability which the 'Seller' had under 
said Family Settlement Agreement of depositing the securities therein 
provided for and of paying the difference between the income received 
therefrom and one-seventh of all sums which might be due and payable 
under said Agreement of December 2, 1912. 

'♦By reason of the provision in said Family Settlement 
Agreement * * * Richard T, Crane, Jr., who become the buyer there- 
under, became primarily liable as between himself and Charles R* 
Crane for six-sevenths of any deficit that might arise thereafter 
under the said Agreement of December 2, 1912, and by reason of the 
other provisions in said Family Settlement Agreement * * * each 
of the other parties to said Agreement, viz., Kate C, Cartas, 
Frances C. Lillie, Etally C, Chadbourne, Mary C, Russell and 
Herbert P. Crane became primarily liable as between themselves 
and Charles R, Crane and Richard T, Crane, Jr. for five-sevenths of 
any deficit that might arise thereafter under said Agreement of December 
2, 1912, each to the extent of one-seventh of any such deficit, and 
Kate C, Gartz, Frances C. Lillie, Emily C, Chadbourne, Mary 
C, Russell, and Herbert P. Crane further became liable to 
Emily H. Junkin and to The Northern Trust Company as Trustee, 
each for one-seventh of such deficit, and also to Richard 
T. Crane, Jr., each to the extent of one-seventh of such 
deficit, and Charles R, Crane remained liable as between himself 
and his said sisters and his brother, Herbert P, Crane, for a like 



bctB a^ti^ xS^i^l «S 't«dar909C: lo faoa»9V^ »d:t nsluxxr 9ldsztvi bas 
.a aoIiadO 1« i9i!i:fo-itf fena «'x»;Jeie Was tX^^ ^ad-* •eas xiai/a nl 

cJxjQaf^^siaA Jblea lo aisie:f erf* finoliaq ^U^ tAj^im eti isdi tnbio at 
.beixraolisq scf od" d^iaq alri no ^SIQ*! ,S; -iDa'aisoea !• 
jsny Lej;xvr>';c-| lo/lii^ifl'l J-nsiw^TjA ia«a9:itt9Xi illmal bia«" 

®ri;t felotl bxus x'iifi^®^i o* Ijoi^ftja »l©5Jbi:tf ri«ilsM* riox/e notrj sioxj j 

ft»vi»o©'£ QBOoni aacid^ nssw^erf ©•n^islllfc ari^ SiiJt^«q lo Bub lol teftlvon<i 

•icfjBXsq ft/16 ©jyfe stf jrf3±;a rfoiriw bhwe lis lo illn«v»B-«Mio biiB aroileieri* 

--©leiid^ 59xwd 3fi:t acrooea oflw ,,iT. ^orc/jiD ,1 b^srieifl * ♦ * cfnaoeotgA 
,il sel'i&iiO bELB Xlaatsid fli?«wjj5«f ea ©i<fa±£ xii'^TJBfflJti^i oaeo»cf 4io£)JUJ 

BdS 1e tL0tB9i ^(J baa »i>I^X ,<: i©<?«st)0t 'io ctn^assrtaA fetna »ri:f t®b«» 

rlcse « * * Jfrsass^gA d'nftarpId'd-&C tjXIcbs'? bisa nl eaolalvoiq i9il;Jo 

^s:fX3t3 ,5 s^sH ,,Eiv ^^n9flK>9T[iA 5l£S Oit a*Wisq lerL&o otit 1o 

bos IleeauJ! ,0 -^rtaM ^©niwocfbcriO ,0 ■^XlaaE ^elXXlJ ,0 seooBO^ 

esvXsBesrfj- ns^a^Jscf as ftXcfjaXI "Z^ii^nttq «aeoed aniSiO ,«5 3hi»cfn»H 

lo 6il;trtsvea-9Vll lol .n't \9xwrO ,T Msilsifi tcs ««stO ,H adXiBcfO ban 

3&dte!&osa to J-GSEoenaA fiirss rebrm ie.tlfi«i«ri3' seilfi ;JilBlar ;J"sri:f ^islloft ^^;aa 

Siis titloileft xlotra ijnii ^o ittn»v98»©x!o "io ^n0C}x9 sdS oi xfsB© ^SX^X ^S 

XzaM. ^Ba'UsoitbBsiOi .0 -^cXiisfil ^airlXlJ ,0 asoitsi^ ^s;^^fi£> ,0 eJ-sX 

od- dX^bIX BiceJJecf -jafWiJUl scusiO ."i' ti&€tBl{ feiis ^XXsaRjirti ,0 

^secfaintr 2/3 TjxisqjaoO ^tajJiT nisjrf^fio'K srfT at fciuc nJblfioX .H x^i^ 

biMolK 0^ oaXs fcxts ^cfioilpf) Aoisz Ho £itti9V9t-&ao lot xlocs 

riojore lb ildaevss-end t<s ^fnad-xs 9di od" risas ^.tt ^acujiD .T 

tloatahi nomtsd ejs sXtfjaiX Jbsnlsmsa acraiO ,H aaXiJSffO finxj jJlollsb 

aoLfcX B lol ^sxiBiO .«i iiQdioR ^tdtHoid ilA baa ^i»i&lQ bias aid baa 



. } 

-10- 

one-seventh of such deficit; provided, that upon payment by Ka1» 
C, Qartz, Frances C, Lillie, Emily G, Chadbourne, Mary G, Russell, 
and Herbert P, Crane, or any of them, of their respective one- 
seventh portions of any such deficit to Emily H, JiinMn, or to 
Xhe Nortliern frust Company as Trustee, all liability to Charles 
R, Crane or to Richard T, Crane, Jr. on account of the one-seventh 
portion or portions of such deficit so paid, and all liability of 
Charles R. Crane and Richard T, Crane, Jr. to Mily H, Junkin or 
The northern Trust Company, as Trustee, on account of the one-seventh 
portion or portions of such deficit so paid, should be deemed to 
have been satisfied and discharged, 

"4, The Coxirt further finds that on June 2, 1922, for 
good considerations by Eaiily H, Junkin received from Charles R, 
Crane and Richard T, Crane, Jr., their obligation under the Agreement 
of December 2, 1912, to pay to Smily li. Junkin during her lifetime 
the sum therein mentioned, was reduced from the sum of $100,000, as 
therein provided, to the sum of $85,000 per annum, and in accordance 
therevdth Emily H, Junkin thereupon, on said June 2, 1922, duly 
notified The Northern Trust Company as Trustee that the said amount 
of $100,000, payable to her annually under said Agreement dated 
December 2, 1912, had been reduced by the amount of $15,000 in each 
year, one-half of which reduction, viz., $7»5^0» was "to ^e deducted 
in each year from the amount payable to her, Emily H. Junkin, from 
the income from securities deposited with said Trustee by Charles 
R, Crane and Richard T, Crane, Jr., respectivelyj and therein and 
thereby expressly authorized The Northern Trust Company, as such 
Trustee, to make said deduction from the date of said agreement 
last mentioned, from the amount which otherv/ise would be payable to 
her, anlly H. Junkin, in each year, from the income from the 
securities deposited with said Trustee by Charles R, Crane and 
Richard T, Crane, Jr., respectively, 

"And th« Court finds that in accordance with said Agreement 
of June 2, I922, the obligation of Charles R. Crane and Richard T* 



c;i 10 ^RtAtw^ .U xLis& o^ oioil&l) dtv^ \Lia to Bixoi:tfaoQ drawee 
&&^^iMiO o'^ X^illMiill IXfi ^£>«;:ttij^'xT && y^uttiiK»l> i^ibuil' tn^iitrLiM eifT 

o'J 'iii^mJi)b Bd fcXiiroils ,l;i«q e& :floilafe jiow. lo aaoiar^ioq to noiitotr 

♦H eoXofaiO aoil iiftvXeosa ol^Icirt. ,II xi^litfi x^^ eaotiaieblanoo boo^ 

u;; ^00O^a0X$ lo mra «£l;r aosl ^sDj^&s'X sjenr ^ftenoXJaea ni^i^di muz ed:t 

60«afciaooj5 Ai iifua ^laeGns loq v>Q0»c6< 1© bob »/tt oi* ^liefilvoiq xilertsyfi;^ 

XSJib ,3SCX ^5 ©nifL biija no ^aoqastiedi at^mil, .H xXlaS dthrstteAt 

^^i^ j£iaiBeoi;8A fel^s i&baa YXI^^^^ta^ tdd o;}^ oXtf^X^ ^000^00X1 Id 

xio^e ni OOO^i^X$ lo ;imtotaa 9dA x^ b&ovb^i a^aef bM ^SI^X ^^^ rxddiadod^ 

b®ioiibBb 94 o# ^X8* ,0(^^\'i^. ^.'^iiv ^stotil!S>SJb®'i ri(>Mfi lo IXiirf^smo ^icasx 

jsonl ^aliimfl .H xiJ3t£i ,%sd o;^ 9Xif/:x^ imsotm »ii^ is^nl ^r>9x Aos» al 

e»Xia£iO x4 s»:faji3'i'X hlaE ifcJJn* i>oU;so<|ffltfe B9Jtitlii;Joea moil ©aoofll SsriJ" 

o^- ©Xcf/iXii<i ©«1 £iXf/ovf 9«Jtii-i©jiJ'o tloidw ^fitfoaus miS atcnl ^ibO0«i;;tii©a ^ajj ?■ 
©itJ aapttl ©oioonl MiT lao'sl ^'ifienj ^c*® -^Lt ^aJWfiwL ,H xX-taS ^lod 
b£iii Ofiij'iO .H 2 9X'ii}£[0 x^ etii&v^ bl&a dH^a JjsilBoqef) aelct-lotfooa 

,XX»vi4-o©(jeoi ,,it^eiLBaD .T MeifoJtH 
d-noffisercsA &Xb3 xi;tJt€r &oiiBi3ioooj> ixX (I'Bfl;}' attxtt ^otfoO aild' l>xx/t." 

«T fiflBidolH has sxisiO ,H aoX'iBiiP lo colcfaaMdo ?)rJjJ- «SS<?X ,S sxixrT, lo 



-11- 

Crane, Jr. to 3adly il. Junkin tinder said Agreement of December 2, 
1912, * * «■ was reduced to a guaranteed annuity of $Q^,000 per 
annum, for one-half of which guaranteed annuity each of them re- 
mained severally liable, but that said Agreement of Jime 2, I922, 
did not affect the liability of each of tiie aisters and Herbert 
P, Crane * * * under said Family Settlement Agreement, and they, 
said sisters and brother, remained liable and are still severally 
liable each for one-seventh of any deficit in the net incc^e from 
said securities under said sum of $100,000 per annum« 

"5, The Court further finds that since June 11, 1914, 
pursuant to the provisions of said Trust Agreement so made and 
entered into with it, and hereinafter referred to as Exhibit E, 
The Northern Trust Company, as Trustee as aforesaid, has kept 
separate accounts \d.th each of the parties to said Family Settlement 
Agreement, and that until the execution of said Agreement of June 
2, 1922, hereinbefore mentioned, said accounts were kept by said 
Trustee on the basis of the several liability of each of the 
parties to said Family Settlement Agreement for one-seventh of 
any deficit which might arise under said Agreement of December 2, 
1912, That subsequent to tlxe execution of said contract of June 
2, 1922, by and between Charles R, Crane and Richard T. Crane, Jr., 
of the one part, and Emily H, Junkin, of tlie other part, said 
Trustee has properly kept said accounts upon the basis of the 
obligation of Charles R. Crane and Richard T, Crane, Jr. to pay 
or cause to be paid to Emily H, Junkin the sum of $8^000 per 
azmum, instead of $100,000 per annum, and that in accordance with 
the direction of lOmily H« Junkin to said Trustee, each of said 
parties to said Agreement of June 2, 1922, to wit, Charles R. 
Crane and Richard T, Crane, Jr., have been credited in said 
accounts, out of the income from the securities so there tofcBpe 
deposited vdth it, as aforesaid, each with the sum of $7,500 ia 
each year from the amount payable to said Emily H. Junkin from 
the income from the securities deposited with said Trustee by 



-XI- 

tsq 000^'c8$ lo xilimii[i bBeta&iBU^ a. oi fceaufcei bbw * *" ♦ ^^li>t 
«-«rt aesrii lo doas x^ijjtifsjs fcf^ed'osiexfg xfoldw lo lljaxl-oiio 5ol ^iaxmns 

JifiK^nsffi boii atSi^^sie ®<Jrf lo rIo«9 lo t^lXlcTjBlX ari;^ ^osIIb :foii bib 

^X^^ Bfla ,i-fleas9^i[3A 3'n«a»Xd';f93 xXUBa"? fclaa tebfiu ♦ » # aa^aO .^ 

xXXfiiftvee IllJ-fe ©"Xfi £»it« aXcfaiX b{inlBtB»i ^i^Soid bixs a^eJaia bias 

acyti 9iBQ»ni *»n aiCJ £xl jlollob ^it^i lo rf;fa6vea-©co 'lol rfoi&o ©X^aII 

•azcnii^ isq 000^001$ lo BOm bl&s. i&biw ael^lixrose blj&z 

^^t^l \I.l 9iml Boalz tadi abnil iBiiSiin. t'luoo siIT .^" 

bna 9f)i;ia 02 tneaosnaA izu'sT btaz lo enolaivcxq adJ oJ d'iiai^E'uuq 

^I iflcTjtdxfi es wi b^ii^tBi iB$1&ntBted baa ^Sl AHv tint beteiae 

t««ia®I;fJso xXxfflB'^ hlii& oS BS>lSi&q aitt lo dss© ri^ltr 8;tAtfooD« e;f«^Bqse 

em/t, lo iaB&BBt^f- blat lo aol3tst>WE.9 ^i Iliiast i^dS baa ^^/i&iaasiaA 

bias x<i ^qcoC aim z;fmjeox)a bise ^bstnoi^fieffi •lolsdnXfiierf ^iiSi'. -, 

sty- lo iios© lo t:tiXl<JslX Xjsi©T98 aEf;t lo alajfetf azfct no eBi&iJ'i'l 

lo ddasvsa-^no rtol Saemoe^'gk iofimsLtioS Yllma*? bl«8 oJ ealiiuq 

^'^ 'XocfBl©os^a lo iii0«©ei3A biiit isbflu •aXiB ^^aiffl jrfolflw iloXlob x^& 

«ai;T. lo ;fO£^£ioo blisa 'to noWi:fD«x6 9i1j o;t Jnei/peecTxre cJaifT .SX^I 

4.t:X ^aajEic: *T btMotn bas eixa^O ,H B^i&dO ceswd'etf Bns t<J t^S^I ^S 

bias ^d-LGq isxHJo eil^ lo' .Kl^iJLrT. .H >jXJtiaH bca ^ii&q ano aii* lo 

©il^ lo alastf 9iU aoqi; e^txifirGaoa biaa iqo^ \;Xisqo'iq aari 9»;^Bm!r 

\;.aq Qi ,iL ,«*«;• ." " tarioXH brw aasnO ,fl fidXijaxiO lo noWBalldo 

'i&q, QOQ^^B^ lo ia;/2 ^^icf aMm/' . .ILa3 M blsq «d ocf sauBO id 

ricMw ©oxiabTODOB ill cfBrid" bliii ^nauru. ; -ii.q 000^001$ lo b.s©i:fi:xil ^fflurxns 

bias lo rfos© ^asJaintl' bl^a o:t aJjisufl ,n xXlaCI lo aolSoBilb &di 

,H a©X*tsilO ^^iw at ^SS^X ,S ©ftt/T, lo ia&Btmi^h biea o^ aei;fijaq 

bXs£ Bl bsilbit'io ai&d svBfl ^.iT, ^ea&t'O .T b^LsrioiH fcfts ©«siO 

B'WiloiBisAi oa e»lcMlj;/o©a ©rf:^ aoil &moo£il siti lo *ifo tS^fl^o^^s 

rr- "^ ,^$ lo jaua sri;t riitJtw riofi© ^blfiSdiolis 86 \it diixt b&itQoq&b 

uio'ii li-blnift, .H xllss^ felaa o:^ ©Xcfs^sq iavoBUi sdi acft X3©x iloa© 

X<f »e&zini: blae li^Xw bs^lsoqsb aeXiX^woee wit «o!tl mmoxiX cd^ 



-12- 

Charles a. Crane ana Hichard T, Crane, Jr., respectively, on 

accotmt of tbBir several obligations as aforesaid. 

"Tiw.t said Trustee, since the execatlon of the said Family 
Settlement iigreement of Jxme 11, 1914, and the said Trust Agresaent 
Blade in pursuance of, has rendered quarterly statements of account 
to each of the parties to said Agreements as therein provided, and 
upon the basis aforesaid, respectively, and that prior to the 
filing of the complaint in tials cause and to the filing of the 
answers herein of the defendants, A. r, Garta, Jr. and Herhert P« 
Crane, no objection to the basis of the liability of the several 
parties to said Agreements, as shown by said accounts so rendered 
by said Trustee has ever been made by defendants. Sate C. Gartz, 
Frances C. Lillie, Mary C, Russell, Saily C. Chadbourne and Herbert 
P, Crane, or any of them. That all of said defendants last named 
are of lawful age and fully competent} that by the accounts so 
rendered to them by said Trustee they were fully advised of the 
form, method and basis of stating said accounts, and that by their 
acts and conduct said defendants last above naaed are estopped to 
claim the benefit of any reduction in the amount for i«hich they 
ar« severally liable because and by reason of the said contract 
of June 2, 1922. 

"Tue Court finds that the reasonable charges of The 
Morthem Trust Company for acting as such Trustee, as contemplated 
in and by said Agreements of October 13, 1903» December 2, 1912, 
and June 11, 1914, and the Trust Agreements pursuant thereto, vsrer© 
the siffits shown by said quarterly statements of account and by the 
account of said Trustee heretofore filed herein, to wit? Two and 
one-half per cent, per annum upon the income frcmi the securities 
deposited under and pursuant to said Marriage Settlement Agreement 
of October 13, 1903; one per cent, per annua upon the Income from 
the secxirities deposited under and pursuant to said Agreements of 
December 2, 1912, and June 11, 1914, by Kate G. Gartz, Frances C» 
Lillie, Mary G. Russell, Fjosdly C, Chadbourne, Herbert P. Crane and 



H 



^.aoaserQA HsjvlIl btat itdi htm ,M^i «XX MurX lo iixdadst^A ^nMidli^tffi 
i^a&oo&s 1« &^fi9ad^5^s \;i79tiidj?p L!»ioi}n*^ ^j>d «te »ansixsij:rq nl sbAB 

addf !:« gfilXll 9iit otf bus »airss aM^t aJt ial&Lqaoo mii lo saJLEll 

»H, J^ierfrtsH fttts ,iL ,3;fi.>43 ♦^ .; ,fii*«6xi9l»fc axl^ lo nl err Ail « new erta 

Ifiia^e Qii^ lo titilitrfill 9dJ to Rl8*<J eri^ o;r sxd^ltOQifio on ^soaaO 

lis^fl-iiO •C' ^^A'JL ^Hian&a^lvb -x^ &b)ua a^ocf iirr^ aaA os^&xnT fiiit>« x<^ 

J:>@«)eiT cfs^I s^aal»iSsl9b btaB lo Xl£ torfT .is«t£l:f l9 XOA 10 ^anuiO ."i 

OS pJasJoonB BtiS X^ i"^ if^iiBqaoo xllsJ^ 2>a« o^s UH^aX lo Aru 

adi lo b&alvfei- \XJrj^ aiiwr "isxW »e;faciT blija x^ K»iJ^ ©^ b«ioftfl»i 

nis^ Xd Sstti l!)a£. ^^isuioct>& 51se 3ixX;;j&i& lo «l&£(f fuxa Loif^eat ^anol 

e^ J^dqqoJse si/s £)dSi&i:i i>vo4fr. f&Sil elAsbnelo];) bl;>e ;foi;f>£fOo fiofi &:ftiii 

X^i doMa tol ;tix&oii6 miS al aolimtb^i xfiJ^ lo Sltoa^d »di silalo 

to&tSuQO ttA& tbdi lo a«Hs£«i x<f 5cta sacr^oecf 914&11 xXXAi»'^&'i 9%b 

•SS^X ,S easfi lo 

Sifl lo asaiado slfSoao&.Miti siJif J'ailt alaiil J^txroO exfr" 

i&«;t0Xqa8^nao sb ^od^ejrxT liox/s ta gizIl^Oj^ rrol x^t^^soC ^axnl' a'iadiioi& 

«SX^I ^S i«HCa»o»a \£0^X ,£X tedoioO lo Bia&ttssn:^^ AJUe x^ &^iJ8 ^ 

9'ie«i? ^oisidil;^ ixiiSCE'iiiq «:tflefii6&i8>* i&in:: &dS faojs ,M(?X ,IX om/X. fens 

d/if X<^ bos S/moosB lo ain8iae^«^3 xX^»^^&£^ filss x^ iiwoile 8su;8 e£f;t 

RfitllJtiifo"»2 Silt ffio-?! ©a»o«i 9C[;t ttoqv ssmacji leqf .^txiso loq IX^^-oao 

iasa'S'Hra^', &i%»ttBZ:tSeB s'i&ltt^ hliSi 0^ ia&smvki bOM t»bass fee^leoqsf) 

mo-sl ©ffioofii »d^ floqif awnnfi i«>q ,Jfi©o laqf eno t£.O^X ^^X I9«f0^o0 lo 

lo a^riiWsx'ieriS' fc-tse OJ Jcaiia-arq feos isbfor bs^jtsoqsb aoWl'ii/ose ©xfcf 

.0 s»oasn* ,x;raB£> .3 9i&3. x^ %^l9i- *ii a«wT^- ^as ^SX^X ,S ladsooda 

b£L8 ©nana ,^ ;tio<fT«H tda-iworffcatfO .0 xllfl® ^XX©tsxffl .0 VX]^ ,ftlXIW 



-1> 

Richard T, GraJae, Jr.; one per cent, per annum upon the income from 
the seciirities deposited under said Agreements by Charles R, Crane 
up to March 18, V)k4-, and thereafter two and one-half per cent, per 
annum upon the income from said securities so deposited by Charles 
R« Crane. 

"6, The Court further finds that by the terms and by 
reason of the said Agreement of June 11, 1914, hereinabove referred 
to as The Family Settlement .Agreement, and said Trust Agreement 
hereinabove and in said Family Settlement Agreement referred to as 
Exhibit E, so made with The Northern Trust Company in pursuanoe of 
said Family Settlement Agreement, as aforesaid. The Northern Trust 
Company became a Trustee for and on behalf of each of the parties 
to said agreement for the collection and application of the income 
froa said securities so deposited with it as aforesaid, and that 
it became and was the duty of The Northern Trust Company, as such 
Trustee, to collect and apply the income from said securities so 
held by it as aforesaid, and, in case of a deficiency in the income 
therefrom, to collect from the parties to said Family settlement 
Agreement any deficiency which miglit or should arise between the 
amounts for which they became and were severally liable as aforesaid, 
and their respective shares of the income received from the securities 
so deposited by them respectively, as aforesaid; that by the express 
terms both of said Family Settlement Agreement, so-called, and said 
Trust Agreement made in pursuance thereof and bearing even date 
therewith, the same were made binding upon and to inure to the 
benefit of the parties thereto and their respective heirs, executors, 
administrators and assigns, 

"7, The Court further finds that The Northern Trust 
Company accepted the trusts in and by said agreement of December 2, 
1912, and said trust agreement of June 11, 1914, imposed upon it, 
and thereafter continued to collect the income from said securities 

or the substitutes therefor so transferred to and held by it under 



u 



leq .d^aso isc 'ila/l-'-jno i>iii5 atti i9t\i9i9£ii baa ,*SCX ^Sl iionsM od^ qjj 

X<i ba& &Bn&i ssU xd ie^i a ball 'lesUisit i-wo^ arfl' ♦d" 
fca^^s^ei svodiiru£'i9it t>X?I <IX saraiL lo ^naasa'SSA feJUa arid" lo iiosjsei 

diiame&'xa^ zfsiT'xT bias ban ^iawiSBTiA tn^aBjiiti9ii xLtmr'i eiTr Ba oi 
ftfi od boiiolui Sa&sa^BVtk ;fjaeai9Xdd8S xiiioo*? blae nl Imu^ 9vocf;iaJ:e<rt9^i 
lo &a{2;:ija'U;q at -^(^atoO ^a^il anoiiitioll •ifT dttg Bi>«a oa «a dldJtdxS 

edldx<sq esi4 to doa^ 'io Ujaiietf a© bos lol sedeiiil s Mteoscf \af.q«ioO 

MBteani: 8dd lo ixoJu^roilqqB tos £toi:do:»IIo3 9iid lol ^xxemedi^a bi^e oj 

d^AiLt bixs ^blaK9io1» Sfi ;fi: ^^Jt^ be;t2£oq9b oe Be±;rJ:'UiO«»e. bliSS ooil 

xiDi^ e.& (-^cf^qiuoL; dsjcrx'x nindd^olL adT lo '^d'lrb aii;^ ijbw toe eaasfttf dl 

08 SdlJXiju&dc blss ffioil MioQfiJ: dxid viqq« boa io*lloo ei ,eed^ejncT 

«M09£i^ dd^ al \tia^l'jt1eL> a to 98>^ xtl ^hrl& ^bi^s^iol^ sj» di XP' M«ri 

d^aeffielJ-deu xXiiSG^ i^-t-i'ii t^d* 89X^i«q s«i^ «c>i:l t'o^XXod o«f ,aw'ilei«iid 

QsH ris»wded »ei:i« ^JU/odLg to &si^im rioJUfw x»^*Jtsiilsb ^ojb ^ixaB9dT[SA 

(bljisae^olB aij »Xcf£J:X xXXa'£9v«s w^tm bos •asoAcf x&£Uf licxcfw 'z«1 e;lrLUoafi 

ssld^l'xiroes exid xooil beyleoei vaotuit edi 1o eeieric dTl^oeqee? oisif^ io« 

aas'xqxd sii;^ yd ;tBri;t (blBataols as «xX»vldt>8q$9i: mdi \^ bdd'iaoqsb oa 

61ju8 boji ^beXXfio-es ^dneose^SA dnefii&Xd'J9& xXXikb'^ blee, lo rldoo' exratd^ 

»d2b nsvd aoxi^dcf b£i£ losie/id eoa;3tai«q[ al abaa ;tn8fi2£x»7S'^ dajnT 

dxld' oi Qiual oi bru» cLoqj;/ ^^ibnld &ham Bttm 9m«a edld' ^lUJiVBi^di 

,8io^jaDsx9 ^silafi svid-osqesi ilerfd Las o^tsiatfd asldisq arfct lo iXl9CL»d 

dajyai: niadd^ioii aril' ^&di ebaVi ledtiv^ itisoO 9dT »^** 
^S i&dm>oe(l 1o jra&me^i^A blue \d bna ai zSeuii 9di be^qoo&a xo^q^EOoO 
^il aoqs bBzoqisU: «M^X ^XX aoxrL lo dasares'xss ^e/Md bJt^e bixa «SI^X 
89xdl'x^o£)£ bl£3 ffiotl efioooi ^S iaalloc o^ b»ualiaoo i»dlsda9iid JboA 

lofaiir di xcf bXaxl baa oi bst^stetm^i oa ♦iolf?i9ri;» adJ-wdi^ecfira art* no 



-14- 

said Marriage Settlement Agreement and said Agreements of December 
2, 1912 and of June 11, 191''-» aii<3 p&ld the net income therefrom to 
the widow of * -Jfr * Crane, or,, quarterly, in accordance therewith, 
and that up to and until J\ane 2, 193^, the net Income so collected 
and received hy The Northern Trust Company as such Trustee from 
said securities, together ?d.th the Income from the Atchison Railroad 
bonds, was sufficient to pay in full said annuity so agreed to be 
paid to Emily H, Junkin, formerly Efeiily H. Crane * * «« 

"8. The Court further finds that by reason of the 
premises Charles R, Crane and Richard T, Crane, Jr., during his life- 
time, and the Estate of Richard 1', Crane, Jr., after his death and 
until the expiration of the period of one year from the date of 
Letters Testamentary issued to the Executors of his Will, remained 
primarily liable to Emily li. Junkin, each for one-half of vsdiatever 
deficit might arise in the amount due and payable to Emily H, Junkin 
under and by virtue of said Agreement of December 2, 1912, as modi- 
fied by said Agreement of June 2, I922, 

•'That 'oy reason of the Family Settlea^nt Agreement of 
June 11, 1914, and the Trust Agreement therein referred to and bearing 
even date thereiadth, each of the defendants, Kate C. Gartz, Frances 
C, Lillie, Mary C, Russell, Smily C. Chadbourne and Herbert P» Crane 
became severally liable to Emily H« Junkin and to The Northern Trust 
Company as Trustee, each for one-seventh of any deficit which might 
become due and payable under and by virtue of tl^ terms of said 
contract of December 2, I9I2, by and between Charles R, Crane and 
Richard T, Crane, Jr., and Emily H. Crane, now Emily H« Junkin, 
unaffected by the modification of said agreement as hetveen Charles 
R. Crane and Richard T, Crane, Jr., pursuant to said Agreement of 
June 2, 1922, 

"9« i'he Court further finds tliat by reason of the passing 
of its dividend by said Crane Company on March 15, 1932, and there- 
after and until December 15, I937, the income from said securities 



<ie<ll<ae»eG lo e^noA^&^jp. bXan imi^ iaeMs^9%:gA. ianm^lit^i:^ dgaJtaiaM ibJtas 

bsujosXIco o8 BSioviil iBa 9ii$ ^iit'<:'"t »S esuA XXJatj bas oj qx/ d'arid" Inas 
■ortl e»:f2irxT iloxrs au xaaqjaoC) cfaii^tT aisri^ioW ariT x<f bavloosi bmi 

»tf OCT i;>j»»i^s 0£ ^c<l£r£iiia &J:»e liji^l ax "^.q CKf ;taeltmj;/3 Ci>w ^zbaod 

•elH aJtd ^^ili^b ^.icL ,$i£uiC) .x b^iid:>lZ baa ea«aS ,H ftfiXajoiiO eseJbo&aq 

bni; iriJQOl^ eJul 'icKfl^ ^.iT. ^mus-xD .7 fexactdJ^^ lo e^iJ^eS eiii baa ^afflid- 

to »^dfe »i-£;^ ac^l -laex «*io to bolioq acU^ lo nol^BiJtqpce edi lliats 

n&v&$Mff lo tlB&^^JOO io1 ilod© ,fll3toJuX, ,11 x:XXBaa ocf aXcfjill >cXXTsflU:iq 

ix±3(nvXi «H xlXsak. o7 dXdi.x^^q boa ei/b ;itwosiM odi sil eaX'xa ;fii;^XflE iloll&b 

•"Iboffi as fSXQX ^f^ lecfiKe&oa lo c^ueiaoe^^lii bJu}2 lo eu^'iXyr "id ba& i9bau 

3nXii5»«r fcjas oJ- tw^iisle'i £ii:i>i»fW c^fl»fl»©is;'i ^wn'x ©xU bfte ^^X^X ^XX aiufL 
9X1A1C ,H t'l&di&il ba& rniiifodbiitiO ,l \11sbi^- ^XX&aawH .0 X'^*^ ,eiXXXJ ,0 

5X-5S lo ssii^i sta lo 8i/^*iXv \<i iioa <i«>bmJ •Xtfii^jsq boe axfb SKtoodd 

b£xs sit^aO «S aeXviaiiO ai^ei^i&^ b£i& xd ^SJt^L ^^ i^daeood lo ^ojiiiaoo 

^aMau'^ wK x-t^^^ ''■'O^ »e«siQ »H x^JLs^ bus ^*iZ ^9fi£.'iO ,'J b'iASiolf. 

eeX-iBiiO naewiJecf ea J^xieaesr^s Mjbs lo fioJ^;fi!OilXbojB sdj^ ^cf JbskioQtljsass 

,ii.(5X ,S anifX. 
3i3Xaa;3q «dcJ^ lo floaBOi xd iAdi sfmll i^iUixrl ;rai/oO adT ,(^" 
•95®ri;f l>ia;i:; «tS£^X tCX 4!lO'i«M a© "^oaqaioD ecaiD bX*a ^cf baebivxi. c.ji :.o 

esiJ^iijcfosa biaa ao-il Bsaooak 9tli tV£^i t^^ 'mdm&a^Q Itimj baa loilB 



-15- 

In the hands of The Morthern i'rust Compaisy as such, i'rustee, as 
aforesaid, together with the iiicome frcaa said bonds of the Atchison 
* * * Railroad Company, became Insuffioisnt to pay said axmulty s© 
agreed to be paid to * * * Janlly H, JimlEin, as aforesaid, in full. 
That separate accounts w«re kept by The J^orthera Trust Company, as 
sueh Trustee, as aforesaid, with each of said parties to said Trust 
Agreement of June 11, 1914-, as therein provided, which said accounts 
were rendered to each of said parties, q'oarter-yearly, and that 
thereafter deia&nd w&s jaade by The Northern Trust Company, as stkch 
Trustee, upon each of said parties, quarterly, frcao tiiae to time, for 
his or her share of such deficit in accordjmce with the duties imposed 
upon it by said Agreements. That their obligation to pay their re- 
spective shares of such deficit was from time to time fully recognised 
by each of said parties and full or partial payments were thereafter 
made by them. That on October 16, 1931* defendant, Kate G, Oart«, 
sold, assigned and transferred to the defendant. A, P', Gartz, Jr., all 
her right, title and interest, as beneficiary or otherwise, in, to or 
under said Trust Agreement of June 11, 1914, above mentioned, but 
that said assignment was made by Kate C. Oarta to .., ;'. Gaortz, Jr., 
as Trustee, and was not intended to and did not impose upon him, 
A, P. Gartz, Jr., any personal obligation to make the payments in and 
by said Family Settlement Agreement assumed by Kate C. Gartz, but that 
late G. Karta personally and the securities so deposited by her with 
The Northern Trust Company, as Trustee, remained liable and charge- 
able with her respective portion of whatever deficit may now exist 
or may fr«Ma time to time hereafter arise on account of her agreement 
to pay sueh one-seventh share of any such deficit as aforesaid, as 
In said Family settlement Agreement * * * provided, 

"The Court further finds that Saily 0. Chadbourne has like- 
wise fully recognized her obligation to pay one-seventh of any such 
deficit upon tha basis hereinbefore stated, and that by virtue thereof 
she likewise is personally liable and the securities deposited by 
her with said Trustee are chargeable with her share of such deficit. 



r 

> V ia&bae^ob sxii o4 te'xa»l&£u»^ Imu IteaaJtaaa «£»Xoe 
ijci ^j.uiyiJiiS'i: evodJi ,-*^X^I ^li mui\ lot >nsfi&MSA ^«<raX Jjlce iBbast 
^&M tioqp aaotp.r ;t<ui l»Jtb ^fiiiSi oJ b^Smeial :foa sam ba» «90^«|i7T ur 

d;^i:^ nod ttf b9^l&9(i»b oe &»id^i:ii/9»a Adi;) hoiai xXXi^uxoaioq s^XsiS .0 9;^ii^ 

j^iisffiseoig^ rtdi( lo imsoii9& ao esliA -mHuiteiMi »mi.s o^ »BsXi aonl X£ua ^o 

ej3 56iii««^olv8 es ^Xol'J?^:- -"ut; ^^oa lo oxsuiB ii^xi8V0a~©jno xiaua x^ <>^ 

,{>9l>^T0'i ^ix«M0»a8A ;ia»a»lii»<^ xXiaujT 51r>6 nl 

xloija %aA to jri*aov38->i?i \c i oct floxJ«slX<io i»xl i^dsXxiaooei xlii^ 'sJtw 

X€ b&:ilzoti&b z9iit'mo9z 9ii$ baa 9lti&Xl xll&a&&i9q at 9s,iw9^tl Bds 
^Jldlleb ifoxJB lo 9t&da lod rfiXw ^Lde^^i&do ©oj^ sioiajnT blB9 xfctiw i9ii 



-16- 

if any, as may cow exist, and of such deficit, if any, as may here- 
after from time to time during the lifetime of limily H, Junkin arise 
and become due and payable to her, 

"10, The Court further finds thtit on November 7, 1931* 
Richard T, Crane, Jr. died testate, and on January 20, 1932, his 
Will was admitted to probate in the Probate Coiirt of Cook County, 
Illinois, and Letters Testamentary were issued thereon to Cornelius 
Crane, John K» Prentice, Walter Evensen, and the Continental Illinois 
Bank and Trust Company as Executors thereof j that thereafter the 
said Walter Svensen resigned as such co-executorj that no successor 
to him as such co-executor has been appointed, and that the said 
Cornelius Crane, John K, Prentice, and said Continental Illinois 
Bank and Trust Company accepted their appointment and have since 
acted as such Executors of the ill of Richard T. Crane, Jr. 

"11« The Court further finds that on December 2, 1932, 
the deficit in the amount due to Itoily H, Juxikin under the contract 
of December 2, 1912, and said Supplemental Contract of June 2, 1922, 
with Charles R, Crane and Richard T. Crane, Jr., as aforesaid, as 
shown by the accounts rendered by The Northern Trust Company as 
Trustee, amounted to the sum of $14,262,^3 for one-half of which, 
viz., $7,137.27, a claim was filed by or by the direction of The 
Northern Trust Company, as Trustee, in the name of Eaiily H, Junkin, 
against the Estate of Richard T. Crane, Jr., in the said Probate 
Court, That thereafter and before the expiration of the period of 
administration of said estate of Richard T, Crane, Jr., * * * the 
same was paid in full, one-seventh thereof by said Executors of the 
Will of Richard T, Crane, Jr. and the remaining six-sevenths thereof 
from payments made by the other parties to said Family Settlement 
Agreement, or some of them, in accordance therewith, 

"12. The Court further finds that under and by virtue 
of said contract hereinabove referred to as the Family settlement 
Agreement * * * and the Trust Agreement bearing even date therewith, 
so made and entered into with The Northern Trust Company, as Trustee, 



htji& Qsa istii baa «Jb>»^i3ioqqi» oBt^d «A£i toiav 9x9^00 tlaua ».£ mhi oi 

sj^Qiillll liiia»al.;iaoO ifind baa ^^tltn-atH ,li adoJ» ^9a&iO ^JCtlXMrsoO 

enniXn 0yM bBL& ia^^atoq^A xtai^^ b^^qeooA xaaqiaoO izxn: baa iCiuS 

.z1 ^eaz'iO »'£ biuUviH Xo Xliw Bdi lo ztoiuoQicSL «(owa &e, bei^oa 

iOB-xinof) &ii:i iskmj aliietul ,ii xlteSi od' »xtb isiuoma ^i nl :^tol1^b Bdi 
^SS(?X ^:^ &dm1 to ioaiiaoO lASasmslqsUJii, lilaa Jbccs «SX9X «^ iddia&osa lo 

ed2 to aolixisixb (&ii^ x4 10 %€ ballJ zem BitX© a »V^.^f.X,^4' ».s±v 

ad^ lo Bio^t^09TR bt&'d x<i losietLt iU'jnsT0e«««fio ,XXxrt aX blaq &^ ©inee 
loeisiid^ Bftta»re3-xlE fiXiXril5«»i eif^t bus .rrX. ,s£us70 ,T J[)xai{Gl5l 'io XXlf 

^diJta&t&AS. ^\Qb nsvs gixlieecf i^fU&aieangA ;t8X/"iT ad;*^ Mb ♦ * * *«»o»9ft8A 



-17- 

both Emily H, Junkin, for whose benefit said contraots were mude, 
and The Northern Trust Company, as Trustee, became and were severally 
entitled to enforce the obligations in and by said agreements assumed 
by the several parties thereto, and that it thereupon became and was 
the duty of The Northern Trust Company, as Trustee, to eriforce the 
respective obligations of the parties to said respective agreements. 

"13» * ♦ * [In paragraph 13 the court makes findings in 
reference to certain proceedings in the Probate court of Cook county 
in the matter of the estate of Richard T» Crane, Jr^i 

"14, The Court further finds tlmt the jurisdiction of 
tl^ said Probate Court in the Matter of the Estate of Richard T, 
Crane, Jr., is limited and inadequate for the adjustment and enforce- 
ment of the equities of the several parties in interest herein, and 
especially to make suitable and adequate provision with respect to 
future deficits, if any, under said contract of December 2, 1912, 
and said Supplemental Agreement of June 2, 1922, as the same may 
hereafter arise; that no action has been taken in, nor order entered 
by said Probate Court in the Matter of said Petition so filed therein 
by * * * aally H« Junkin nor upon the said claim of Charles 
R. Crane, hereinabove mentioned and referred to; that the power 
and Jurisdiction of said Probate Court to establish a lien upon 
said 1,000 shares of stock of said Crane Company, which by the terms 
of the V.111 of Richard T» Crane, Jr., were bequeathed to Iferbert P« 
Crane as a director of said Crane Company, or to control or dispose 
of the same pending the determination of the liability of Herbert 
P. Crane to the Estate of said Decedent growing out of the assumption 
by him of a portion of said alleged liability to Emily H, Junkin, is 
also doubtful and inadequate for the proper determination of the 
rights of the respective parties to such controversy, and that by 
reason thereof said plaintiffs properly filed in this Court their 
said complaint, and said distributees of the Estate of said Richard 
T, Crane, Jr., properly filed tlieir counterclaim herein, for the 
purpose of having the rights and equities of the several parties 



-VI- 

^sbMHi 91911 6if>&i^Eioo l?iB8 J lleasd seoxlw ^ol ^aJtdswli, .H \ltJt& Atod 

XlLiii^v9Q Bimi htiB dOAOdcf ^Q^i^wxT as ^\aaqmoO iuinT an&diioVL tttlT bna 

b&ViSjB&B 8c^fl©£ii0eias bt&& xd bnz ed eaotiji^^lldo &di eonolne oi boimaB 

t\5j«r ha» WBBa«cf aoqusiaii )1 cfarfc? bna ,G>oia^ aelJ^isq laievsa &tli \d 

,8^n9»»e'X5a avJtJoeqaai Wjsa ©:f c»Jt;JiBq ©£Lt lo en o let b^I I cfo pvliooqnsi 

lo aol^olbnlisfl Qiii d^ioi^ rjfcitll ibsHijj^ iiuoO ariT .M" 

,i bTJ&dalH lo aj-jii-sa s*W lo lad-^t^a srIJ ni iix/oO aj-fido-rt bl&& arlcf 

-eo-iolxi9 ^xxis J'£i«!i^3j3^l>a edi 'lol e^j3irpsJb«al £ui£ £)9;fliall eJt ,.11. ^artfi^cO 

£)xii5 ^nieisMl ia&'Wiaii at asliisq Ijsisvsb »iltf lo aolilup9 tii lo iJ-nam 

o^ ;;^09qa©i rid'Jtw jrxoiaivoiq octsjjpoijs baa eldaiXuz &Ajm. oi xLL&lOQqze 

,SJ:(?I jS ledsmo^M lo d^oaiiiioo bl&Si i»bau ,xns 11 ^actioileb ©owetwl 

Xiaflt &i£iBa snJ ss «^^X «S oxutXi lo iaemeQii^A Ia;tn9fiielqqx/B blaz bna 

b9i&^a& tsbio lofl ^al xissUd" n»©d aari aoXioa on iadi {&zli& leilasisxl 

ai9i&di fealll os aolu^icTsSl I)l*ia lo iQ^titeu ©rio' fil ;^<sifoO a;t«tfoi^ fclae xcf 

eeliBdO lo oIbXo blea ssUi noqu ion atiswl ,h xllaS. * * * xd 

i&vroq adi iad;; xo& fcaiioloi ban benolia&a 9Vodanlen»iI ,aa8iO ,fl 

aoqii anJLl b /JsilcJjsetas o;f d^iijoO »iBdoi1t blss lo nolctolbalniit f>«J3 

saiei Bdi x^ doidii ^xf^a<imQO anBiO btaz lo 2(oo;t3 lo S9i&dz 000,1 blisa 

*q i'rjecfiyH ^ b»rf;ta©JLrp©cf ©rtaw ^.tcL ^ftasiO ,1 bnsxiolH lo IXIV/ arict lo 

eeoqali) lo Loiiaoo oi vto ^xosqfloO euuiO blA9 lo loioe'itb a aa aoAiO 

d'i©dasK lo x^^^^^^^l arii- lo nolijjaliHisd'eb Bdi gnlMaq aaiea eiU lo 

uolJ-qist/atsii 9ri;t lo jj:f0 ^nlvvoig iaQbeo&ll blsB lo e^fB^faS eri;t at esis'tZ . ; 

el ,ru2£m/L ,11 •^XiaEi 0^ -^etiilcfisll fceasXla b^ ol;Jnoq « lo mldxd 

sdi lo itol;tAalia:t9;t9ib idqoiq 9di toI ft^AiJpeil)jsnl £>iiB Xx;lctcf£ro£> oaXiS 

Xrf ;i^sj:iJ^ fen* ^xsievoid^xxoo xlous od" aal^naq wrWosqaei eirf:t lo aetxfai'i 

xtexl^t iJiiJoO elffct al bBllI xXieqoiq ellletnlflXq felea loaisiU noaaei 

/iiBXiolH blBa lo 9,3-j6d-aa di:^ lo saeetwcflid'all) fJlBS bsua ,d-nlsXqooo btss 

&di iGl ^aJtaiBd mlaLoieiassoo ilerU balll ^leqoiq ^,tX, ^bo&i- . 

aoliijsq Xs'x«T0E extt lo aelilixpa Rob a^rialn arict anlVBri lo ©coqixiq 



-IS- 

in interest herein properly and fully aajudicated and enforced, 

'•15. The Court further finds tiiat on December 2, V)3,7, 

the amount of the deficit payable to Emily H. Junkin under said 

j. /■'. contract of December 2, I912, and said Supplemental Agreement of 

1^' ^,June 2, 1922, TOs the sum of ii>88, 897. OKj exclusive of Attorney's 

\V fees, costs and expenses incurred by said Trustee in connection 

^"^ with the filing of said claim and the petition in the name and on 

>''^'"' behalf of Emily H. Junkin, as aforesaid, and in this proceeding, 

and exclusive of any additional compensation to said Trustee for its 

services, for one-half of which sum, together with such Attorney's 

fees, costs and additional compensation to said Trustee, Charles R» 

Crane became and is primarily liable, and for the other half of 

which the said distributees of the Estate of Richard T, Crane, Jr., 

became and are primarily liable to the extent of the assets of said 

estate so received by them, respectively, as aforesaid; that under 

and in pursuance of said Family Settlement Agreement and said Trust 

Agreement of June 11, 1914, the said distributees of the Estate of 

Richard I, Crane, Jr., became in equity liable as between themselves 

and Charles R. Crane for six-sevenths of such deficit; that the 

shares of such deficit for which defendants, Kate C, Gartz, Frances 

C. Lillie, Mary C. Russell, aaily C. Chadbourne, and Herbert P« 

Crane, respectively, became and were liable, were as follows, viz, J 

Kate C. Gartz $23,088.04 

Frances C. Lillie 2,9l6,64 

Mary C, Russell ll,791«5o 

li&ily , Glviadbourne 5» 896 ,00 

Herbert P. Crane 44,604.77 

making said total deficit the sum of ,ili88,897.01 

"That said Prances C. Lillie, Mary C. Russell and Bmlly C. 
Chadbourne have each paid theijj respective shares of said deficit in 
full, exclusive of the additional compensation to said Trustee, and 
of the legal costs and attorney's fees incurred by said Trustee, as 
hereinafter stated. 

"That the share of said deficit so due on December 2, 1937# 
and remaining unpaid, for which Kate C, Gartz was then liable, is the 



-J3X. 

a»X©ar£< ^^viaiiiax® ^0,^98,88$ lo ma eri;^ s^ ,.;^ei ,S smrl 

«d Aa« affia.1 »4^ iU iiojUriJsq aaj- fens alaX& bjjis to snHil eil;t liiU 

^;i^tb^s>io'sq &Xdi aX im^ ^bisEsio^ aa ^sUMm^ *R xHml-i lo IXsriscf 

8*1 lol 9e;t8W'i:i ia*e o^ fl©l:^defif»qij£eo I^oi^ifofca ^^is lo wlauloxs i^ 

a'XSfl'KKf^A £bi/a ittiw lej^^goj ^iis;e iioMw lo llarf-ano ^ol ,£»oJ:vi9a 

•io IXiid imUo eflj^ tol iia« ,eX€UJ;X xll-umltq, al Una ©ciBoscf erujiO 

, toxajlo In to a^^eX MfiT 'to ^••itifil'xiBtb felse sri:^ rfoiilw 

bias lo aiTsasii sxlcf 2o ia^^xB 9^ oi ©XcfoiX xIl-WflLtiq 9ib bat^ sinooatf 

nsfinif ;^«fU ;i)i*.a»io^.« e« ,\X«vxJo©qe9i ,a»al x^ 6®vl9o«T oa ©cts^ae 

c^emX biofi ba& ii;©fi^o^a>i ;rfl€Ma®X;fJe3 ^XXaw'? i>X*i2 "io oonAtsRivq at baa 

lo QisiJLS. &dJ lo aaeatfalTK^si^ i>l»« qsH ^kl^l ^n siutl lo :t«9m9eT3A 

asvlseiasd^ assw^eo a^ sld^iX x^ii/ps xU aoaseci ^.^l ^ftjuaiO .T MarfolH 

arf^ ;rjwXJ icMoilel) dsve lo axiira9v&«-.xla 7o^ o«i5iO .fl ealiari;) Ma 

asoxwi^ 4a;r-t&0 .0 e;rii^i « <i;Jaai»fsl©i) lioJtilw lol itotleb rioira lo aeiaxla 

:.slv ,2woIXol ea ©isw jfticaU 9iw bsm ma»9g ,xX»vl^d«|8»i ,«u^ 
• '■' ' .0 ©cfaX 



4 • * 



- -*..xjU j3A.IX-1"J,J 



V\«-i^o<i,-j- ., _ ,, ^q ^^, 

X0.Ve8*88^ -Jo st; _.. , it)ll9£> Xsc^o; 

al -^lonob 6Xa« lo asjToiie svlcfoeqaei cloil^f fjXaq riOB© srail saiuotibBtlO 
tan ^&Bi&ui'Il blaa at aol;taaa»qaK>o I^iol^tlbfia wtf lo ©vlsi/Xox© ^XX0l 
a-e ,eo3-8iMT blsa xc^ bB-itifoal aeel a'x9nTtat^.o bajs aJ-eoo Xssel ad:^ lo 

• £>9;ts;ta isd'l.^ni-rrnxl 
tViV-t t'^ -lotfasooG no awb oa ^Xollat bljaa lo »iBda 9cf;t ^JsrfT" 
adJ si ^©XcfBlX lied* qbw s*iaO ,0 «d-«X doMw toI ^bijsqnxr gnJtxilsaroi bns 



-19- 

of 
s\m^2'^,6S8m04 as aforesaid. That said Trustee has since collected 

from dividends received by it on the stock of Crane Company deposited 
with said Trustee by Ki.te C, Qsrtz and now held by it as provided by 
said Family Settlement ^^greeinent of June 11, 191^^* and the Trust 
Agreement of same date, hereinbefore mentioned and referred to as 
Exhibit S, the sum of -:?1S,536.!?6> which has been applied in reduction 
of the said siim of $23, 688 #04 so due from said Kate C, Gartz, leaving 
a balance of !?5*li?l«4-8 still remaining due from her as of said December 
2* 1937* in addition to her one-seventh share of the additional com- 
pensation to said Trustee and its legal costs and Attorney's fees, as 
hereinafter stated* 

«•* * * That said trustee has since collected from dividends 
received by it on the stock of Crane Company deposited with said 
Trustee by Herbert P, Crane sjad now held by it as provided by said 
Family Settlement Agreement of June 11, 1914, and the Trust Agreement 
of same date, hereinbefore mentioned and referred to as Exhibit S, 
the sum of $l8,5''36»37# which has been applied in reduction of the 
said SUB of $44,604,77, so due from Herbert P. Crane, leaving a 
balance of $26,068.20 still remaining due from him as of December 2, 
1937» for which sum, together with one-seventh of the additional 
compensation hereinafter found due and payable to The Northern Trust 
Company, as Trustee, and its legal costs and Attorney's fees, said 
plaintiffs are entitled to a decree and judgment as at law against 
defendant Herbert P. Crane, 

"16. The Court further finds that by reason of the premises 
and by reason of the deficits so accruing, as aforesaid, and by reason 
of the death of Richard T, Crane, Jr,, The Horthern Trust Company, 
as Trustee, as aforesaid, became and was obliged to perform additional 
services not contemplated by the parties thereto at the time that said 
Agreement of December 2, 1912, and said Family Settlement Agreement 
of June 11, 1914, were made and entered into, and that said Trustee 
Is entitled to additional compensation for such services, which the 
Court finds to be the sum of $3,2^0, being at tJae rate of $^00 per 



lo 

h&vlzoq»tj TjnsquioO aa-SiO lo il&oiz ariJ ao Jl ^ccf b©vio09i ^taabJtvlb laoil 

\ti i&sblvoiij «s S^l iftf Mail wo« bsi& s^«i>;0 ,0 s*«}i x^ ©©ctaxnT fcijes xWJtw 

;t3if'll «rf;? Jan/ -— ^jr ^cutt, "^q cfnaMO^TTjA ;txKM»JU'Jf »€ xXiaW^ .bi©e 

::ifiiTB©I ^SCflAiD ,0 9^.^ biiiS flWll SOf) 08 ^0,88o^£S45 lo «lf« blAB Qdi lo 

;jc{!iif?o©<i fclsa lo it» 'Wil aronl exrJi sflJtnlsctai Xlltc S-^.T'^I^^^ lo •aojftjjid m 

a>j ^28?* «. . .---^ i... - -r- / '7.^1 2:t^ bn£. sad-aifTT l»i-s« at KoiJ-eEirsq 

tbetsie *re^ljini9i9ji 
a&ni..*'^ V .u .^vj .. ..oo-,...wc -j^.x... u«xf 39j-8iri* files t&iiT * * »" 

6±8e ricfiw jbsd^iaoqsi) ^naqiacO ©nstO lo aCooc^s aiiJ' no d^l -^icf f)9VJi9oei 
6ii;e x^ bhbi-70v ^ .'^ ^'-^ •''J"«»ri wod fena 9as*D ,sr ^necf-xeH td seitairiT 

^E d-ln'MsK as oS b9ii&t^i basi JbexT61;tn»ai aiolactoXenarf ^#^«1> aoaa lo 

oc[;t lo xioiJoi/ban ni boiXcxqij aascf sbiI iiolrEw ,^?.d£^»8l$ lo »r8 »itt 

a ^xiivsel ^?5fti3iO ."i cfiiSefisR moicl &t3b os ,\\.*^^M$ lo rnvz blzs 

,^ lediaao^sG lo as jaiil lacil axrl* galfllsaim IIl;ta OS,8oO^^S£ lo ♦aoBlBcf 

..iaox^ibbe suit lo fWnavse-exio rf;Jlw noxiiJesocf ^msa rioliiw tol ,^£?I 

iteiriT aiotlfiovi sa'T oJ aJWa^Jsq bos nob bmrol i©;tlanl«a&ii floi:;Jiiaa9qmoo 

l>li>8 ^^ae'i a*\:3niot;JA Itxts s^soo XaSaJt ^31 fcos ,o»;faxrTT sb ^^naqiaoO 

cfanXBSfi wsl i'lsias&J^'L £"~j3 asiaefc s od' fieX^tiitna »13 «llXinl3Xq 

,9nj5i0 ,^ J'l^rfT'^H ;tn43i)n9l©f) 

8SMBjta»iq wJ^ lo floajs»i •?<! ,tari^ aMll isrfi^iijl J-ijjoO adT . 

lOass-x x<S ba& ^bisssiolis sjb ^aaJti/ioo^ o§ «;tioXl9£> diW lo noaflei x^ fins 

^'\cn..jqffloO J-BifTi'i' fliaddfTioIi 9dT ^.iTi ,acuiiO .T fiisjioXn lo sHaeb odi lo 

XsaoiitJtMj* ffiiol-xsq oi bssiitfo aaw fioa SttBso«(tf ^filsaeiols as 490;t8JJiT a* 

fiifis ^J3if;t ftoJUJ atl;t d^*i oJaiarW asid^TiBq aiiif -^cf fis;t«Xqias^floo ioa asotvisa 

d^nemes'iaA SaeeeaXctiea xXXias'5 bJUa baa ,ai^X tS aodiaeo&a lo iasas6i:Ak 

»©d^si;iT fil-ss ;^.3jU baa ^od-fii beisin© fioja sfeaa snsw ^-^X^I ^XX ©m/L lo 

arU" ifoidw ^ae^ivnee Aona i«l aoii a&aaqmoo XsaoJWlfififi at beX;tXins al 

t9q 001^$ 1© s^ai ©ii* ^tB.afilad tQ^S,C$ lo nwa ©fW ©cf g;^ afiaXl i-woO 



-20- 
year for the period from December 2, 1931 to June 2, 1938} that 
said Trustee was also obliged t© employ and did employ counsel to 
advise it with respect to its duties as such Trustee in connection 
with the enforcement of tiie several obligations of the several 
parties to st.id contracts during the same period, and that said 
Trustee is entitled to he compensated for the reasonable fees of 
counsel so eaployed by it for the purpose aforesaid, which the Court 
finds to be the sum of $8,500* which said additional compensation of 
said Trustee, together with its legal costs herein, amounting to the 
sum of $42,49, and Attorney's fees, as aforesaid, constitute a proper 
charge upon the trust funds so held by said Trustee as aforesaid, 

"17. The Court further finds that by reason of the premises, 
as hereinabove stated and set forth, it became and was necessary for 
said defendants, Cornelius Crane, John K« Prentice, Charles G. King, 
William R, Odell, and Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust 
Company of Cliicago, and Florence H. Crane, as distributees of the 
Estate of Richard T, Crane, Jr., and also for defendant, Charles R, 
Crane, to file herein their counterclaims against the other parties 
to said Agreement of June 11, 1914, for the purpose of determining 
their liabilities, respectively, as between themselves, in accord- 
ance with the provisions of said contracts of December 2, 1912, and 
June 11, 1914, and said Supplemental Agreement of June 2, I922, and 
that said counterclaims were properly so filed, and should be 
sustained. 

"18. The Court further finds that said distributees of 
the Estate of Richard T, Crane, Jr., are entitled to a decree herein 
directing the payment by said defendants, Kate G. Gartz, Prances C, 
Llllie, iiary C, Russell, ISmily C, Ghadbourne and Herbert P, Crane, 
respectively, of their respective shares of the existing deficit so 
far as their said shares have not heretofore been paid by them, to- 
gether with their respective one-seventh shares of all deficits which 
may hereafter, during the lifetime of Emily H, Junlcin, become due 
and payable, for the six-sevenths of which said distributees are 



o^ Iaeru;oo ^loXciia« btb &la XO-f«l£i® o^ tsgllcfo oal© ejaw eecfexriT bt&u 
aolioomwv al t-Qietnl- rfoua es «9J:;Jirb a;JJf o^ d^aeqesn dtttf it sclvfis 

fcjtaa ^8ii;t tiia ^boii^ ©hub srti jflinxA zS^isn&non bt:-,a oi a9J:iiBq 

iii/GO add- ^oJt^ ^fclsae'iols ssoqntfq &ili l(ft tfi Xtf fee^foIqEio 08 Issnxroo 

<i9qoiq B »iss:i^lSs.ttoo ^Ijise^rola as ^sasl s'tsfl'io.^^A fjjtia ,^^^,24^$ lo sora 
,bXsiSBiol£, sti QBiauii: bt&& x^ blexi oe abaul ^exrr:f ddcf aoqa 921&A0 

•iol x^«se»3®£i 23*^ ^«^ smsserf tl ^jdjfnol dee fens fedt/sita svodimxoTc^n c*; 

^3XiJal .O a«IiBjrlO ,»tii:^norc<i ^3! nrioC ,»iis*£0 airilenioO ^aiJ-nafeneleb f)iA« 

;j8xnc*l- Jbii^ iCiiisS XsflGl^i?'/! slofiiill la&neaUnoO faiia ^XlefaO ,K iHfiiXX2:¥,' 

9<fcf Tte 89©;fjJ€fi'i;tfcii:) as »»njsiO .H witsnoXv fciis ,O3soJt;i0 lo xftB^MoO 

,E e«Xics4fO »^aRfifl©l95 10I 08l« btm ^.nX ^eiwrO ,T btadtJLfl lo g^cJ-ea 

aaij'i^q la/i^o erii SBat^^s ettl.-sXs^'ad'mmo ilarfi^ jslftierf tXll o;J ,©aj3'rO 

gixXaiin®:tofe lo asoq-iiKj ttii nol ,4^I?X ,XX 9mft lo Jnsmse^Sxi fiJtsa ot 

-biocos ill ^e«vX9fiiS9ri^ naew^tstf a« |XX9vi:^o«>qa9i |a»XjlXlcffiiX iJ.9tit 

boB «SX^X ,S ledmsoeG. lo e^osuctaod fcXsa lo snotclrotq etif ciil\f sons 

baa i^^:*i^l ,S 9m.<X lo JnowseisA X£:tapaeXqqj:;e fclsa feau t*^X?X ,IX enxrX. 

Qcf fiXuorfa £)na ^&9Xil oe xlisqotJi d'xsw a«l'/"T ^fnxroo bt&z iBiii 

lo ZBiidij'di.'iSatb blst fi^sH afcnjtl loriif^Kfl ^ixiroO ®iiT .SX" 

itl9i9ii s9io«b a oct l?9X;Jl^fl9 »nB „.iXi ,»iibiO .T b^tisrfoXH lo »ifjBd"8;i sxiJ 

,0 «socs^ ^sd'^sO ,0 ©*aJi ^ad'Oifeflelyfe fclse x«f ^'nosr^aq edi gnitosllb 

,eit«r£0 ,^ tiocfnsH has ejfru;ocfl)isriC/ ,0 -^XIibS ,iXea8jrB «0 -^ctsM ^elXXU 

OS iiDll©6 g£t±,t8lx» ©rf;t loae'isna fcVlJodqasa lisri^^ lo ^xJ^ByUoeqc6i 

"Ot ^kwdi x<3 &lsq iis&ef 9i©lod^8T»ri ;ton ©vjsil seieda JjIbs xlsri:; ajs ^sl 

xloidw a;Jioil©6 Xls lo asijsda rf;tnevsa-9i50 Brl&0iiq&9t it^di dJ^lw isild'sa 

e»£> affiooecT ^nJbtouX. ,H -^Xiiaa lo eaXc^sllX 9dt gnlrarfi ^le^flsaioii x:©^ 

9'2£ ao^JudliJalb bias, rfoXiiitr lo s^aevoa'-aXa 9di 10I ^aXd^Xjeq Iuib 



-21- 

primarily liable as aforesaid, as between themselves and defendant, 
Charles H, Crane, who is liable as between himself and Steiily H, 
Junkin and The Northern Trust Company, as Trustee, for one-half of 
such deficits, but who is liable, as between himself and said dis- 
tributees for only one-seventh of such deficits. That Charles R, 
Crane is entitled to the order and decree of this court requiring 
said distributees and Kate C, Gartz, Frances C» Lillie, anily G. 
Chadbourne, Mary C, Russell, and Herbert P. Crane to pay and satisfy, 
to the extent they are respectively liable therefor, any and all 
deficits now existing or hereafter arising, other than the one-seventh 
part thereof, for which Charles R. Crane has remained liable under 
said Family Settlement Agreement and other Agreements, in exoneration 
of the liability of Charles H, Crane to iiSnlly H, Junkin under and by 
virtue of said Agreement of December 2, 1912, 

'•19. The Court finds ths.t Frances C, Lillie, Mary C, 
Russell and Ssilly C, Chadbourne have never denied their liabilities 
under the contracts hereinbefore mentioned or refused to pay their 
respective shares of the amounts due or payable to or for Emily H. 
Junkin, nor has any of them ever claimed to be entitled to any 
reduction in amo\int of their respective liabilities by reason of 
said contract of June 2, 1922, which reduced tiie amount to be paid 
to iiuily H, Junkin from $100,000 per year to $85,000 per year, nor 
prior to the beginning of this suit had there been any controversy 
between plaintiffs and Frances C. Lillie, Mary G, Hussell and Eiaily 
C, Chadbourne, except Frances C, Lillie*s objection to attorneys* 
fees of plaintiffs; that, frcaa time to time, when they were notified 
of the respective amounts due from or payable by them respectively, 
Rpances C, Lillie, Mary C, Russell and Etaily G, Chadbourne, with 
reasonable promptness, always paid the amounts due from or payable 
by them respectively, that they owe no part of said sum of $88,897.01 
of deficit due December 2, 1937 j that up to and including June 2, 
1938^ they have paid in full all sums claimed from them, except 



XLiB luisi xsia ^iQldi.Bdi elii&X.L ^lavliooqaoa ena xsri;^ Jn»cfacs oxid- o^ 

^^iisv9a-fii«o «?£Ur oaitt ^swa^o ^jjffisl'ia i^i^lsai^i 10 anlvieixs won e;floi:1:©b 

vsmu BlduXl bsulajR&'s mad sna'sO ..K aeXiadO xteJUIw aol ^loenari;^ Jt^*? 

Tjcf bfifci asl)m; xil2lxt«X .ii xXlffl^i 01 afusiO .H b»X"ib£K5 Jo xtlLtdatl tuit to 

.SX^X ^S i9«&B&»»Ct lo ^a»a©»isA fcXae to iwSrtr 

,v ^^^ ^;..uaj.^<.. ,«'-a®i«tai*( ^fi^ifct 5{f>aXl ^tjuoO ©4^ *^I** 

a9l;MXi€}^J;X xtacld faetni^Jb 'ievsja avs^ aftrurocfbijili; «u YiJt«^ ttfi-^ XX^asxrH 

Xiiis ov i)slJlia& »cf c^ bsRXisX^ lev© mmii lo >£jEj8 a ad ion ^alMvl* 

Ye'xsvpi^xxoo x^ifi aeecf ^loei^ b&ti ilUQ eXxi^ lo ^clfljalsec! ed^ o;^ loliq 

>CXla!S fine LldZESJfi ,0 x^isM ,&1IX1J .0 iioonxsi^ ifOB allldrtti^q a^mi^d 

'B\9nioov^B 0^ aoi^os^clo a^sXXXU .0 aeoBija'i'? tfqsoxs ^snii/odbjsriO ,0 

ijsllidoa 9*i©w •^fiuld- nsdw ,©ffli:t at aiaJti jbdiI ^#ari;t {ellI*«isXq lo asel 

^XXavi^oaqaea xaoilJ X<^ sXdfixaq "xo woal ^uh 8;tiiRfOjas •7l;to9qa»T: ari^ lo 

eXdaXJsq ^o CiO'il ejjb %isWQi&& srii Jblaq ax*^-^ ^aeaxtd'qfliotq ©Xdaaoassi 

X0.^^,S8<ji lo mia Llija lo ^tjjq cxa ©wo xa^'? ^«U ,x-C»vi'?»e*<I««>'J K-£i^ X<^ 

^Si oiirjrX. aai^^-i^^J^'i: ^A ^ <i^ ^^i iSi^i «S <£d(kx90,fiCl fWJ^ d^loll@£> lo 

iqeoxe ^fflSiii wo-xl b«ffi±«Xo aime XXgS XXzxl jai bljjq ©vjari x®!*^ t®^^^ 



-22- 

amount claimeij for attorneys' fees of plaintiffs and amount 
claimed for 'additional compensation' of The Northern Trust Cwapany 
for services In the matter of collecting from moabers of the Crane 
family for Emily H. Junkin sums of money not derived from the trust 
funds held by The Northern Trust Company as Trustee; that the state- 
ment of accoxint of The Northern Trust Company heretofore filed 
herein shows all shares of deficits to June, 1938, that were at any 
time due or owing from defendants, Frances C« Lillle, Mary C, 
Russell or Emily C. Chadbourne, were paid in full and that The 
Northern Trust Gompaiiy then held in account to credit of 

Frances 0, Lillie $10,622,91 

Mary C. Russell 13,4-78.39 

^; Bfljily C, Chadbourne 7,582.39 

^ '' ' ^> ^31,683.69^ 

H*^"^ "The Court finds that The Northern Trust Company has 

"b already received and taken for fees for its services in the matter 

of payments to Emily H, Junkin under the provisions of the contracts 
herein mentioned, two and one-half per cent, of the amounts received 
from interest derived from the Union Pacific Bonds and the dividends 
from Pullman Company stock held in the principal accounts, and one 
per cent, of the dividends from the Crane Company stock held in the 
several trusts of Frances C, Lillie, Mary C, Russell, Emily C, 
Chadbourne, Kate C, Gartz and Herbert P. Crane, and in addition such 
sums as were paid by Charles R. Crane, Richard T, Crane, Jr., and 
the distributees of the estate of Richard T, Crane, Jr., deceased, 
for fees, and these fees for the whole period amount to the sum of 
$34-,312,8lj that defendants, Frances C. Lillie, Mary C, Russell and 
Eraily C. Chadbourne, each has already contributed to the fees of The 
Northern Trust Company from December 2, 1919, to June 2, 19 38, th© 
sum of $5#298.5lj that Frances C, Lillie has from the beginning pro- 
tested against the payment of attorneys' fees of plaintiffs and that 
Frances C. Lillie and Mary C, Russell have from the begiimlng of this 
suit protested against paying to The Northern Trust Company Trustee's 
fees or attorneys' fees for filing op litigating claim against the 



Xns fB ©lew ctsjrfJ^ %8C?I ^«ruiT. oJ sJloltef) lo a^iiSfla IliS tworie alrsteri 
lo cfi:f3»ii:o oi ;?iti/o'jos rxl hied ti6A& yfii&qKGO fatrtf atari^ftoK 



....six.'" . i^ 

.II' . ,.:.-;ii 



zbaablvib osii bn& zbaoS olHoa*! aotnVi &di moil boyfli&b Szei^Sal sssbit 

©no fcfijB ,a;rmjoorj£ Xeqionliq arfJ nt blBii jloocta "(CxtaqaiDt) nfi«lll« aoiJ. 

Bdt at blari ^loafa tnsqiHoO »nBiO erf* aioil abasilvlb bAS to .^fneo I9q 

,D xlL^: ^XlQgaxj-n ,0 t^BjJ ,siXXJLl .0 a^ooBrrt 16 8*ftx«* Xjsnsvoa 

xioca nolJl£)bs «X ijrtisi ,9n ^ cstftsR bne stfiisO ,0 *;fsa[ ,»fliirorff)arfO 

Jaru ^.Ttt ^ajijsiO ,T M£ufi:x;- ,sit^iO .fi seXiisriO 1f<^ bieq Mew as SMra 

^beessosi) ^.nTi ^em'' . ' liafi:*!^' lo s^taisd &di to aa©J-ifdXi;tali) »il;t 

lo fflwa 9M o^ insjoa^i t-oxioq sXoriw ©di^ i6l asol; eeofUf fons ,8601 nol 

fKiJB XXsaaxja ,6 "^isM ^ellXil .0 eeoas*i^ ta;tiiBfinal»)b tiirfcf tJA.Slt^H^ 

»riT lo 39Sl edd" oif &9;^i;criiJ'flO!> xhssilz asri iiowe ^anilrocftsiiO ," tXJbaffl 

" • ^' -Ai ^>- g^jjj'^ oj- ^^x^X ,S i»cfffl©oaa 1*011 "tfiaqaioO JsxrtT niari^ioM 

-uiii ijx».i.v.,i^r'a esii moil p.&d slXXlJ .0 ZBtris'i^ *sr» {X^,8^,t$ to flotm 

(fsjtlJ^ hfl« alll;;tni:i8Xq to ae&l »EX9flio^*B lo ^nsar^oq srUf JextlBSs fiat^at* 

aXrfit lo 3fllaa±a«d odi aoil ovarf XXeasirfl ',t) t^^^S fciis slIIlJ .0 aeacfir^ 

e'se^ax/iT ^tiasqcioO ^anntC moiiiioK adT o& ^l%nq ^anlBas fteJestfoiq' *ica 

adct *aal«ajB aJtaXo axilds3±:MX ^o snlXil lol assl *s\eaio:ftB to aasl 



estate of Richard T, Crane, Jr., deceased, or for litigating contro- 
versies with the distributees of the estate of Richard T. Crane, Jr., 
deceased, or for litigating controversies with Herbert P. Crane, Kate 
C, Gartz, or A, F, Gartz, Jr., Trustee, or for any services, except 
services with reference to the property held by The Northern Trust 
Company, as Trustee, 

"20. The Court further finds that by order of this Court 
entered herein on July 1, 1938, The Northern Trust Company, as 
Trustee, was directed and ordered by the court to prepare and file 
herein its account covering the period from December 2, 1919# "to and 
including July 9, 1938, and that said account was duly prepared and 
filed by The Northern Trust Company as Trustee, pursuant to said Order, 

"21, The Court further finds that it has Jurisdiction of the 
pes and that it can control the entire trust funds so deposited with 
The Northern Trust Company, as Trustee, as hereinbefore stated, both 
the corpus of said trust funds and the income therefrom, together with 
the right to direct how the account of said Trustee shall be stated. 

"That the Court has the right to take under its control any 
of the securities that are now in the Jurisdiction of the Coxjrt, as 
aforesaid, in order to insure the payment of any existing or future 
deficits that may hereafter, at any time arise or accrue, on the basis 
hereinbefore stated, for which any of the parties hereto are now or 
shall hereafter become liable, regardless of whether personal service 
has been had herein on any of said defendants •** 

The decretal part of the decree is as follows: 

«IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, and the 
Court hereby ORDSiS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES: 

"1. That the motions heretofore filed herein to dismiss 
the complaint and amended complaint of plaintiffs and the counterclaims 
of Charles R, Crane and of Cornelius Crane, John K« Prentice, Charles 
G, King, William R, Odell and Continental Illinois National Bank and 
Trust Company of Cliicago, Trustees under the Ull of Richard T, Crane, 
Jr., Deceased, and Florence H, Crane, be and the samte are hereby denied. 



,.H ^t^x^fiiO ,:i MBflolJi lo e^fad-c* ®fli4^ "io B^^tsjdtii&tb ecli xl^Jtw aelei^v 

2A ^'^SMjiEoC j-ajinS nisyd^ioa atCX ^S^^X, ^X \XwL ao JoJtoieri i>ei9;^a9 
©111 j&.nii ©isqcnq ©j- .tti^oo ad* xcf bo%»bio btm beioniXb aaw ^o^tfairiT 

ba& £?3'iBq©iq XiJ^f> a*w itwoooB f)±s8 d^jwio bus ^St^I ,^ \;lj:;Ti snlbifloaX 

mii to aGlitUjtJt^jJi &sAd tl imli abatt lettiiut cfixfoO adT ,XS" 

xtJ-Jtw b&d^lgoqsi) oe afcm/'i izwi^ eit:ta9 exlcf Xoi;tfloo n«o il i&d;^ ba& pprs, 

ild-ocf ^b9^uiB »iot&fisU^^9Li gx3 ^^B^ajjiT sb ^TtflisqawO izvr'S! aiodiioV, adT 

■:^:tiw iQii^f-eso^ ^mo'itsittgli oaooal otii bas abatfl izsrii bls^z lo &sjq,ioo sili 

,5©^sJs ©0" XXmia e5©;t3x;iT jbXsa lo Jiuroooe edJ- '.70x1 c^o&■llb of ctxlsin srii 

8s ^J^TCoO attt "lo neWoXijeltJ^t ^'f*^ «-t won o'SBJ'srict es-WXiwose atl^ lo 

9X5j;Jirl 10 aal^-fEjtx© x^s lo d'aear^aq eiict^ stuuxiJ: oij ■x&b'o aX ^fiXiigeiols 

aia;:;cf orU no ^stsioois 10 esl-m: ftjsttld- "^oa c^« ^na^J-lfiOiari \sm tsiit Bd-Xollsf) 

10 wofl 91S oj-sisjl a&Xc^'JLsq aiif lo xas jdLoliiw 10I ^^©d'sd'a ©lolecffiXsneif 

ooiT'ioa Iiuioa*i9<.!: -isri^odw lo 8a©Xf>iBS©i ,®X<f.'.3iX fitaooscf is>;fl«9'2fiMl XXaile 

" « 8d"JCtJ3Jbjn8lsi) bXBZ lo ^tne uo nXensd bad nsecf aaxi 
jswoIXol 8ii aX seioeb ©xtf lo 4^iBq X/3^©no9£) ©ilX 

sricf fens ^aasHOtia gvia G:i{)auT,(iA tOaHscmo ano^aijaHT ai ti'» 

eaXMaXi) 0:* nXeiad b&llt ©aolooonari eaoXdoffl oxit ctjexil ,X** 

8ffiifiXo79d-xw;oo 9fi;r Zjixb el"Lt:tiiXjBXq lo iatalqsmo bobnem& bcm ^nXfiXqasoo 9&)! 

mliBdO ^eoX^naoq «.X xxriot ^©xisiO auXXen-ioO lo bxia extfiiD ,fi asXisriO lo 

£>xis iCasa iMtoU&l^x aloaXXXI LQinealiaoO Ma XXebO ,fl fiuslXXXW ,axiX;i ,0 

,3xusi0 ,T bii-jlolH lo XXXB edcf isbflu eseJ-axnT ^oasoXxlO lo icxiaqwoO izisif 

♦£)»Xn9£> Tjtfs'iQXi eas ofliae arid" fcxie ©cT ^srusnO ♦H aoxisioX^ ba& ^JbeeBeosG t.rtL 



-24- 

^a. That the guarterly accounts received in evidence here- 
tofore rendered and stated by The Horthern Trust Company, as Trustew, 
as aforesaid, to the several defendants with respect to the incoaae 
received from the seciirities held hy said Trustee, and the application 
of said income, as provided by the several agreements hereinbefore men- 
tioned and referred to, be and the same are hereby approved. 

•♦3, That all objections to the account heretofore filed 
herein by The iJorthern Trust Company as Trustee, be and the same are 
hereby overruled and said account be and the same is hereby approved, 

"4, That said Trustee continue to keep separate accounts 
with the defendants to said complaint, other than the Executors of 
the Will of Richard T, Crane, Jr. and A. ?, Gartz, Jr., upon the basis 
hereinbefore stated and approved, with respect to the income frcaa the 
securities so held by it as aforesaid, including the income from said 
Atchison bonds, subsequent to December 2, 1937# and to collect and 
pay over such income to Emily H, Junkin quarterly, as in said Agreement 
of December 2, 1912 provided, to the extent and amount and at the rate 
of $85,000 per annum, during her lifetime, and at the same rate for 
the portion of any year hereafter, beginning with December 2, 1937* 
prior to her deathj statements of account to be rendered quarterly to 
each of the parties defendant herein, their legal representatives 
or assigns* 

"?• 'fii&t said Trustee continue to charge against defendants, 
Kate C, Gartz, Frances C, Lillie, Mary C. Russell, Emily G. Chadbourne, 
Herbert P. Crane, Charles R. Crane and said Cornelius Crane, John K» 
Prentice, Charles G, King, Ullliam H* Odell and Continental Illinois 
national Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, Trustees under the Will of 
Richard T, Crane, Jr., Deceased, and Florence H« Crane, distributees of 
the Estate of said Richard T. Crane, Jr., or their respective heirs, 
legal representatives or assigns, the several one-seventh shares of any 
deficit which may exist on any December 2nd of any year for which such 
defendants are hereinbefore found liable; tliat Charles R. Crane and 
said distributees of the Estate of Richard T, Crane, Jr. each be 
credited by said Trustee upon their primary liability, respectively. 



-eioil eojooijivB at b9Tl&oei a^flAroooa xlio^itur^ sxli ;tjaril' .S" 

notiBfiUqqa esii bax ^eact8x;aT bJj&& -^di bl&il aeliliiioeB edi sioil bevlsosi 
.oevo'xqqs x^^^'Z^^ ^"^^^ ^i)^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ®cf «c>^ JbeiisliPi baa boiioli 

,|jevorttiq3 x<2f&isri ejt sosb extt fciw d«l ^atoopa Jbiaa tois teliriievo xd&i&^ 

bi^Q JEB01I ofiiconl 3dj 3£Lti>JuIoni ^/biii^ee-xole sb ;tJt xd bled oe 8eJti^l7Xf09s 
If bas d'oeXioo oi biaus »^£?X ^S n©dx(»oe<l od^ JaajjpMcfjje ^afcaocT ao&ldoik 

9ii?i Qdi diC ii>CLe iuco^ae £>jaa ia&ixB sdi oi ^b^btvoiq ^^l ,£ iecim»o&(l to 
10I ©^tjs'i oasse ad^ rfjs Iwa jSfltx;^©!!! i^ti i^lnjtib ^mma& -joq 000,^8$ lo 

oi xliQ^iasjp bBiBbiiai swf ixi iauooo^ lo zi£i&ia.&iJi3s. \diB»b asri o:i lotiq 
aevlcf&ctnsesiqei IsjeX iXentd- ^itisiepi Ji3j&c£[el9-b asl^toaq ©iW" "io £toj&© 

Ij ,8;^fxefea©lei) isxttx^aa 6g'ii:'.xio oj 'jsjutiaoo &9izut* bXa^t iail^ 

^Qa-wodbsilO .0 \l]M'l ^IXeeaj/H ,0 \iaU. ^pHlll ,0 asoiisi^: ^^sd-aaO ,0 9ia^ 

»1 iidol ^oa&iO 8ir±X9flioO j&l*a tfoa ©oaiO .£ sj?XiijiiD tStui:;?, ,1 SiQdioU 

aXoaXXII UiamXitioO ba& XXabO ♦« auiiXXir^ ,saXX ,0 aeXxsiiO ^eoiitneiSL 

lo XXi-' »di- i^jixw a©©;f8ifiT ^o^oidO lo xf^Aq.mQ^ iiiril boA :Aa»& iBaoliaU 

o s.sB:fvdl%i^lb ,9flfl%0 ♦H soxxoTtpX"? fwjs ^^sssosC j,it ^ertsiO .T fiiLSjdolH 

^atXed srlJop(i&»i iXedcf 10 ,,iL ^eofiiO ,'£ biBdol'd bias, lo BtBisS. wii 

■%a& lo as'iBfia jdWrievsa-siao Xs'ievea add' »eaaX£8« ^o savX^ji^nsaoaqen XjaasX 

dovs rioXrfs: 10I xasic V^ ^o ^^^^^ T;edffl©09<I '^os iao ,^8Xx© Xfita iJcJtdw ^XoXIqIj 

ba& arcBiC, ,H 3©X'L340..;l^advf jeXdaJtX fcowol. .^lolsdalsiad ei» siaafiaelsi; 

$d doa© ♦•il ^eaariO •'): MBriolH lo ©^ta^JeS 9dt lo asscfi/di'id-aXJE) f)X«a 

4 ':i ^vWosqasn ^xillid&lL \iBsnJ:iq ilsdi rtoqw ©©cfaxraT bl&& xd bs^Xbeio 



each for one-half of any such deficit, with the several amounts 
paid by such other defendants last above named, or received by said 
Trustee as dividends or income from sectirities by them deposited with 
or held by said Trustee from time to time, as provided by said Family 
Settlement Agreement and said Trust Agreement of June 11, 1914, That 
said Trustee in its accounts so to be hereafter rendered, charge 
said distributees of the Estate of said Richard T. Crane, Jr. and 
Charles R. Crane, respectively, with one-seventh of any deficit 
which may exist on December 2nd of any year from and after the 
date hereof, on the basis of the net income of $85>000 per annum, 
so guaranteed by Charles R, Crane and Richard T, Crane, Jr., sever- 
ally, one-half by each, under and in accordance with said Agreement 
of June 2, 1922, and that said Trustee in its said accounts charge 
Kate C, Gartz, Frances C. Lillie, Mary C. Russell, Emily C. Chadbourne 
and Herbert P» Crane each with one-seventh of any such deficit on the 
basis of the net income of $100,000 per annum, so guaranteed by 
Charles R, Crane and Richard T, Crane, Jr., severally, one-half by 
each, under and in accordance with said Agreement of December 2, 1912. 

"That defendants, Kate C, Gartz and Herbert P. Crane, pay 
to The Northern Trust Company, as Trustee, their respective portions 
of said deficit of $88,897.01, as hereinbefore determined, not here- 
tofore paid by them, or received by The Northern Trust Company as 
Trustee from the dividends from said shares of stock of said Crane 
Company so deposited by them respectively as aforesaid, and that 
said defendants, Kate C, Gartz, Frances C. Lillie, Mary C. 
Russell, Emily C. Chadbourne and Herbert P. Crane, agjdi 
itdSsassbadOB^ from and after the date of the entry of this 
decree, pay, each to the extent of one-seventh thereof, any 
and all future deficits in satisfaction and discharge of their 
respective liabilities to said distributees of the estate of Richard 
T, Crane, Jr., to Charles R. Crane, to aaily II. Junkin, and to The 
Northern Trust Company, as Trustee, and in exoneration of the lia- 
bility of said distributees and of Charles R, Crane to Emily H, 



bias \«f bsnirl*3o&i lo ,i)©mj3« evotfi; isisl ad-fLshrtslafc -xsAio tiotta xtf ftlaq 

AJl«f Jbectisoq^ib ES«uti^ X<^ 8»j:d'±iif3s« noil etstoonl to Qbaebtvlh s& e»d^ajnX 

XlbaaflL btiiB xtf b©Jb±v<«q ea ^sal^ oct satjtj flwrtl ©scfairriC bias ^d" blorf 10 

;f£iI7 .M^I «XI eosX 'lo ;^a9ias»nsA itax/iT £>i:&s bos j-ndoeftiqsA tnsasXj^sa 

saiBjrfo ^b9^9fcc3i isd^lLsartsfi sd o:t oa ecffufooo« e^i al e©;taml! bl&B 

bna ♦iL ^saanO .T bissiotfi bl&a lo ©^jecfsa acfct lo B99iudliiQlb fclse 

«i£f^ is^tl)? fcfljs Qoril X69\ xw'i lo fiifl^ ledJB&asQ no ;f8ix«» tsa doJxIw 

^fflcmtc loq 000^^6$ lo £«Joocl iea &d;J lo alesrf 9£l;t flo ^loeieil 8;tsl) 

"•isv-sa j.iTi <en3iO .T biadoia boA aosrtO ,H «»ltisc!0 x<f fcsoo'nsiBX/S oz 

I'ntsesiaA blsa xtlisr eaxisJbiooofij fli bOB lebau ,riaa» \{f lXsrf-9xio ^xLIr 

egoedo s^awoooe fcl*}8 sd-i at Qe:tzinS blat tstii bna ^SS^I ^S easil lo 

ei£^ no :tXoils5 rioira ^js lo d^tifevsa-eoo xtl^iwr dfl»» anaiD ,<! d^isdioE fcna 

Tfcf I>s0^n5i&u3 oa ^flUJiiiia ntsq; ODO^OOX^ lo Btaooiit :f«fl ©CW" lo aieatf 

-r "Lgii-sno ,YXXB*r9V9e ^.iX ^axieitO ,T biarioiJI Ma ensrtO ,H eeXiBflO 

^ ^.- «,- i^dsaeoisQ lo jnsasoiiSA bjtss rWlw soaaeferooojs xiJt fciis lefiiuf ^jrfose 

-©lari ioa ,l59n±an:!KJ-t»5 siol8cfitl6*i0ii bb 4X0,^^6^08$ lo iXoilsb fciaa lo 

80 xasqaioO J-ai/aT anaitfnoi'l »xCC \cf bevlssei no ,ffltri* -^tf blsq enolo;^ 

afUBiO bisa lo ioo;te lo zsitids files aoil eJbneJblvJi) arf;t aro^l se^ai/aT 

d"iarl:t bofl ^biszetola as yXsvicfosqa*^ aartt -^ foeiiaoqs* oe xnsqiaoO 

• x^-sM ^oliXlJ ,0 ZQoa&i'^ ^slisO .0 sijsS ,«;tn3fen3»l9b Msz 

Idbet t^n^lO •'i ^isdlsK biiB saaiiW^tfJbJSilO .0 xXifflS ,XX©3EirJT 

sJblJ- lo X'J^J^ ^* "3:0 ^•sb arf* i<2;flB fena aro-xl j »faMLi i Jta3 Htfc 

^iiie ,lo©i8ri:f rf:fn9fV9a~eiio lo ;tns>^x9 attt a? iJdjb© 4Xb<I t®®"^^®^ 

^i©xy lo Q^i3doe.tb hOB aotii>stsili.<iZ til zitottBb oiuitsl XXjs baa 

biadoiri 10 e:^ziee Qd& lo E9«d-xrcfli;fai& bisa o;^ aeXd'iXldfliX svWosqaerr 

eidT o^ bxis ^xilato/t .H \lls& o* ,9nBiO .H e&Xrt/iriO o:l- ,.iT. ,9frsiO .T 

-fiiX sxW- lo noi;rjsi9nox9 at baa ^es^amT es ^Xfi^qxaoO :faxrtT ii*t«tl;l-ioK 

,H xXliBS of ©fiBiO ,H aeXiBflO lo bris Boe^tiJcfiictaJtb blsa lo \^llt<S 



Junkin and to The Northern Trust Company, as Trustee, for or on 

accoimt of such deficits to the extent of five-sevenths thereof, 
determined as hereinbefore provided, and that, to the extent of the 
value of the assets of the estate of Hichard T, Crane, Jr. received 
by them, respectively, the said distributees pay to Emily H. Junkin, 
or to The northern Trust Company as Trustee, in exoneration of the 
liability of Charles H, Crane therefor, six-sevenths of said deficit 
of $88,897.01, or so much thereof as is not paid by defendants Kate 
C. Gartz and Herbert P. Crane, or either of them, (Frances C, Lillie, 
Mary G, Russell, and Etaily C. Chadbourne having heretofore paid their 
respective portions of said deficit), and that, to the extent of the 
value of the assets of the estate of Richard T, Crane, Jr. received 
by them, respectively, said distributees further pay to the extent 
of six-sevenths thereof any and all future deficits. The foregoing 
language in Par, 5» shall not be construed to constitute a money 
judgment against Kate C. Gartz, 

«'6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED That said 
sum of $3,250.00, so hereinbefore found to be due to The Northern 
Trust Company, as Trustee, for additional compensation for its services 
as' such Trustee for the period from Dec^nber 2, 19 31 to June 2, 1938, 
together with its Attorney's fees in the amount of $8500 for the ser- 
vices of its counsel from December 2, 1931* to the date of entry of 
this decree, together with its legal costs and expenses to the date 
of entry of this decree, amounting to the total sum of $11, 792 •4-9* 
be charged by said Trustee in its said account to be rendered to said 
several defendants, one-seventh to each of said defendants, Kate C. 
Gartz, Frances G, Lillie, Mary C. Russell, Emily C. Chadbourne, and 
Herbert P. Crane j one-seventh thereof to be charged to said distributees 
to the extent of the value of the assets of the estate of Richard T* 
Crane, Jr. received by them, respectively, and one-seventh thereof 
to defendant, Charles R, Crane, 

♦7. IT IS FURTHiSR ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, and the 
Court hereby ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES, That said plaintiffs have 
judgment as at law against defendant, Herbert P. Crane, for the sum 



no 'xo lol ^9©v£WiT es ,TCiJBfffflOt3 :^tu^T niaifi'ioW wHT or* Ff^^ aljfawX 
^^xos'xsiai;^ ajtiJ'X4.©ve«i—6v.L^ xo wiit?j.<.3i iu:;v oj cv»i.:-;j».'xyiJ iivi-s^ to ;f£Uioooe 

bwYlB^si «iT» ^^a&iO •!' JbxBtislH lo etitsis^ &at to s^*$&.q Mi;^ 1o duXev 
j.aliaarl. .H x-CifliS o^ ^«q 899^JWii5«ll) bits ad;^ ^xl&wii09q69ni ^amii x^ 

^bA 8,iaiiba9lL»b ^cf &iaq ^ou 9X ea 1;o«i«d^ lioi/a 0£ ^ ^I0«V^t86$ lo 

%X9£ii blaq, &icy>i^ri0£i :^alVAd 9a%u»4batdO .0 xXii3£ JtMss «IIea«J4fi .0 xibH 

suij- lo *ise<tx& aifU or ^dxixij- JbxLs ^(^loilfjf) JbJtea lo eaoWioq •▼iiooqesi 

^£V^^o$n .tw ,aip«xQ «a ftrudolK lo Wac^e* esit lo ajl^sf^ «e4(|^ 1q exrX«v 

iti&ixs mi oi x&q iad^tu/1 «9•;fJM^'xcf3JLb £>li«e «>(-£eviirodqa»i .^oaid^ X^^ 

■^£il.Q%&%0'i 8*E ♦3drX«ildl) o«aK^jol Ila btiA xasi Xo^n^di {u-i^a^vsc-xis lo 

Y-^jiSOffl » ©cJ'i^lctaaoo oJ' JL>«*f^aaoo 0«' .;J'o« Iljsuia ,~cj ^rcssi at eisuimsl 

fcjU:a ^1.^:1 aca>::jifa aJiA osoauufi ,aiiiR;«fijio imcxauz ai w .d" 

(ii9d[;^^oVi ^dl: o.t eiij) wi oi hsatol &%ot»<iss,]:9%ui od «OCi.Q^S«£$ lo miss 

eaoJtvass a;Ji lol a©j:;)i«axi««iBo» iAaoW±J3l>j8 aolt ^soJ-fiJiraT an ^viaqooO c^awiT 

«<B^^X^^ an&L oi XC^X «S i^^iwedCI «9il boXt^q (uLi %ot &9;^e«iT doti/aea 

-^i&z 9di 10I 00<iS$ lo itwoms, 9di aX es»l a'^^sflrio+^A aitX ri^iw idrid-sgio^ 

lo i5'i;fa« "Jto ©;^6f) 9it^ «kJ tXt^X ,S -xsttoeosCI ooi'St^ Xaaxuroo a;tl lo d&olv 

(!)i&b adcT oJ^ a»aasqxa baa sj^aoo XsssX a^i sUriyt iBcli&^oi ^»&'io3b ahii 

^^-^.^^^XX^ to sauB laioi &di oj ^l&aasoaui ^^^to^b aXsiS lo x'iia<» lo 

bL-^ei oj tjeisbixoi scf oi iaifoooQ bl&e a#i xtl eeiatrtS: bXa» x4 bib^imlo 06 

• &i&yL ^^i£U^&1iib bl&H lo diin9 OS jf^tney^^-^aao ^s^a^^^Liieleb X£'X$>T9d 

bix& ^QiVTSiQ^b&siQ .0 X:^iaia ^XXsaawH »0 '^jij&M ^©XXXJUI «0 aijpjBtiM??, »5uJl«£i 

%9&iu<ilii&Sib fcXca oJ' Jbes-uado »a' oi los'i^iid^ dd-nevee-emo J9ii*ir£0 .-^J i"i9«iieH 

,T b^idoXri to fi^JBifas ^di lo euaaea sriJ lo ajt/X^iV aaet;^ lo Jfisd-xs ed;t oi 

la^^edi £lia»v9a--Ba9 biiM> ^%lB^Xio&qaoi ^sa&di ^cf bt/xlQa^i ,1%, ,«a»iO 

,Qti&tO ,S 8»XiBdp ,Jii«Jfea»lof> oJ 

Qdi £)£Ui ^caaiiDaa -Gia a;a{K«JUiA ^oaaaaHo aaEi'su^ ai yx ,\" 

iffi-a 9d* 10I ^anjsiO .i ;fi©cf^9H ^crnBf>n9l©5 ieals'^a ital iz eb J-noasbrrt 



-27- 

of $27,752,84, together with interest on $26,068,20 thereof from 
December 2, 19 37 to date of payment, and that plaintiffs have 
execution therefor, 

"8, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED MD DBCRE3D That 
unless the respective shares of any existing deficit, computed as 
hereinbefore stated, of said defendants, or any of them, as of 
Dec^Bber 2nd, in the year 1937# or any year thereafter, or upon the 
death of Emily n, Junkin, be paid to or received by said Trustee 
out of dividends or interest, within sixty days after written notice, 
tram, said Trustee of the amount of such deficit, said Trustee, or 
any party in interest under this decree, be and hereby is authorized 
to apply to this court for further instructions and directions with 
respect to the enforcement of the findings of the court herein with 
respect to the control of said trust funds for the purpose of satisfy- 
ing the obligations of said defendants, or any of them, with respect 
to such deficits. 

"9. IT IS PDRTHER 0RD13RED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED Tha,t this 
Court retain Jurisdiction of all the parties to this cause of which 
it now has jurisdiction, as aforesaid, and of the status of all the 
parties to and the subject matter of this cause, for the purpose of 
providing further, if necessary, for the execution of this decree 
and the enforcement of the respective liabilities of the parties hereto 
and of determining the amount of future deficits, if any, and for the 
pxirpose of further directing or providing for the payment thereof by 
the respective parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, 
administrators, legal representatives, successors or assigns, iirfio are 
hereby or may hereafter be found liable therefor, 

•*10, Any application made under the provisions of para- 
graphs 8 and 9 above may be made by summary petition of the party 
making such application upon such notice to the remaining parties 
hereto as the court may from time to time direct, 

"11, That The Northern Trust Company be authorized to apply 
to this Court from time to time hereafter for instruction and advice in 
the performance of its duties as such Trustee and that any of the 



•Tfifi zlllial&Siq JsilJ" Me ^^naanciiq lo ©d-aJb oct \£,9I ^S lectewoeQ 

^lolsaed^ aol;}ifOdxe 
;^a££T OiiS/lOSO OWA (IKOaUWIA ^GKiffllGflO flaHTflU? 81 TI •8" 
c:& bBiisqsaoo ^:^i.t>l1&b sai;tslx« xpa "^ aeifiiis »Tl:f9»qs8i 9di aeelm; 
^o r;B ,ia©x{J^ lo \n« 10 ,a^nis£«isl»5 JblBE 1o ^bsi'acfE siolsdnisneiri 

^ J^ax^Tff it>iaa ^^JJtoJtleJb ilwre lo cfmraias srid^ lo sectexjiT Jblee ibotcI 

dii^f jxtoisii ;tijtfoj> ejticf lo a-^tbtifi &tii to ;Ji2«a[8Oioln0 odJ (xi ^oeqesi 

~Xlsi;l3a Io eaoq*ii;q adi nol sfeturt cftinit ftJUa lo ioi^floo erW oj joaqesi 

iof>q&&'i iU Ian ^E&di lo ^^sas to ^eiaBba&lsb btAt to saoiiasHdo edi vil 

.ailoUsi) rioua oo 

Bhu ^am: cmanosa om oaoouicA ^oasao^o HSHikr? ai ti .q" 

sisMa to QHU&o Sildi oi asl^isq ^i llm lo iiol^tolbslii/t aJb»;^e^ d^WoO 

dcU^ XXg Io aui&;tz Bdi lo to« ,i^Xaasrs«lB sa ^aoliotbaliui k&d woa i± 

";o <iaoqTi;q axi^ lol ^sawBO eiffct lo iBStaoL ""SoQlduTi »ri;J hoB oS BQlitaq 

:v9ioa& ald^f lo aolivo9X9 ©rid- lol j'^iesaeoan 11 tieri^-ufl snlbJtvoiq 

o:^si8fI 8dJti"iBq arlcf lo aelillld&ll ©yictoeqesn oitJ lo iaoimoiotae 9iii btm 

sri^ lol fwia ^'^jiua li ,8i-lollof) oitr^i/i lo insjom& «ricf snlnlmisclol; lo ba& 

Xd loQ^ojd^ ^tneffl^ijq ®ii^ lol ^Xblvoiq to gnJE^fosilf) laitfii/l lo asoqiuq 

^aiojjuasxs ^ertlsrl ©vlcfosqasn it&di btiB oi&iwi selii&q, eyijoeqasi 3di 

■-■■'-■ --'■■• ^ ^ - ^ ritosaooox/e ^sevJfcd^is^tfidasaqsa Xaael ^sioctfild^BlixlabA 

,iol9ier{J^ eXdail fcxitrol scf isd-leeieri x&ia io "^cTsisri 
.....; ..w ....^^v-lvoiq aitt i9f>£U/ ©bsin noWKOilqqa TftJA .OI** 

Yd-i?,q oiict lo rtoi^Wsq ximssm^ \d obem ©cf icaffl ©Tocfa i? bnjB 8 eriq^ttg 

:^' • - n :-- :• -»^i/>i ©rfd- od- ©olcton dosjH aoqu noWsolIqqB dossz gnlJisfli 

,:tcsilb ©iflJt;t ocf 9jaJt:J fiffitol x^^ ^itsoo edi aa oieieri 

^Iqqs oJ :g. f:ioiI,tiiis ©«f ^aqiaoO ^au^ aiBdiioVi «dT itadT .11" 

ill eolv,. . ..... aoicfoiiTcfaal itol nechlsftied eadi oj aold^ moil J^-uroO etd:i oS 

odd- lo xn& iiuU bim &eizisi7 dtrrp. "=- o«^+^-. ^::f.t ^o ooxxamiolisq ari:r 



-28- 

parties to this cause be likewise authorized to apply to this Court 
from time to time for instruction and advice as to their respective 
rights, liabilities or duties by reason of any of the matters herein 
mentioned or referred to, not herein and hereby adjudicated and 
determined; and the Court expressly reserves for future determination 
the question of the rights of said Executors of the Will of Richard 
T. Crane, Jr, and defendant, Herbert P. Crane, respectively, -with 
respect to the disposition of said 1,000 shares of the coiaaion stock 
of Crane Comp^my bequeathed by Richard T, Crane, Jr. to Herbert F, 
Crane, and by said Executors withheld from distribution in accordance 
with the Order of the Probate Court of said Cook County, in the 
Matter of the Estate of Richard X, Crane, Jr., with leave to either 
of said parties to apply to this Court for further order with 
respect thereto. •* 

TikB following is plaintiffs' theory of the cases "As to 
the distributees of the Estate of Richard T, Crane, Jr., and Charles 
R, Crane, plaintiffs' theory of the case was that while they re- 
mained severally liable, each for one-half of the deficits in Mrs. 
Junkin's income. The northern Trust Company as trustee had the right 
to collect from the various members of the family the amount of the 
various deficits in ISSally H. Junkin's inccaie for which they had 
respectively assumed liability under the family settlement agreement 
in the complaint and above referred to; that not only had Richard 
T. Crane, Jr., and Charles R. Crane assumed a personal liability to 
Snily H. Junkin for the amount of said deficits, but that under the 
so-called family settlement agreement, and related documents, the 
four sisters and brother of Richard T, Crane, Jr., and Charles R. 
Crane had assumed a personal liability for their respective one- 
seventh shares of such deficits, and that both Emily H. Junkin, 
and The Northern Trust Company, as trustee, liad the right, as third 
party beneficiary under said agreement, to enforce the liability of 
said four sisters and brother which they had thus assumed in their 
contracts with each other, and with their brothers Richard 1\ Crane, 
Jr., and Charles R. Crane. Plaintiffs further claimed thot the 



-82- 

iioUimle:rm&3b &'Wits^ 10I asirisaea t-tEseiqxo :f'jj;oO ©tU boo ibenlins^el) 
b'isiiii^l'H 1Q Hi?/ ©rW Tto eT£O^AfO®xS liiae lo «;;tii3l'i erict lo aoJ::ta9j:;p &di 

ifocs^c; nbaa-nof) '>.":' 'to ?*s*r':rffi 000,1 fciea '10 aotiXioqatb 9dS <^i tosqesi 

,q, i-istfii5i . ^^ . x><iajIoiH x<J fef^cf&oijpdcf ^OGqmoO ©iija'iO lo 

sousfJ'sosos £r.i aoicii/dit^taifi fsoil 5Xadii.>i:w QioissoBxSL Llta x<l ^«*> ^snaiO 

Sffct rU ,T{^fiUreO MooG Msfe lo iisscO ^&dQi'^ t>di lo lebtO &tii xlJlw 

1911*19 0* ©vael ild-iw 4.1L ^©fiiJiO .T bxsriolF lo e;*s;^aa ad;t lo toiiaU 

tiit^ iQbno itnii^ol lOl d"i«roO «JiI;f oJ "^Iqqe o* 3eWi«q JbiaE lo 

",oJ8"jori;t ^seqesi 

o& eA" 89G«o srio lo X'^oQiH »altliiiiBlq eJt suJtwoIIol SyrfT 

asIiadO bOB ^,i1 ,aiL5'iC .'i biBAclR lo sjjs^aa eriJ' lo ZBOiuxiliizlb 9dt 

-©'i Y^d:? Gliriw izdi a,uw ssiso ©xf^f lo x*!®^*^^ »alllJfli:Blq ,©nciO ,fl 

.c"iM lil ai'ioilsfe ©il;J lo IXiSXt-ono lOl riocs ^elrfsll xl-^-^i^vea fcenlsm 

ftd;t lo j-fOJOiBa ai-W- x^lfflBl s/li lo eisdtaojB swoItsv srfi flwil :toelloo od^ 

barl "^oitt riolrfw tol sffioonl c. » ai^iiJuL .K xIjLkS nl sJloilefc atfoiisv 

Jneaiee^B ^aeexBlS^ae xlt&tBl ^Ai i&biw ^llld&ll b»«tiraejB xl&7liooq,z9i 

btadolfi bisd xSno ioa ;f Bricf^ joJ" 6»«t«t»l©i evoda bus ialalqmoo 9tii al 

V..' \::}ill(iall IjsnoEisq £5 fismuaaa ^xsi .".tAd'O baa ,,iX ^aaeiO .T 

mli iQhcas 4'BJCtt ifjtftf jed'lsilsi) bt&& "io ^o&oaa «d;:^ tot nJbifU/I. ,H xXiaiS 

^ilcf ,Ed-R©CttfOo£t bst'atsi ba& ,t»*fls«R?©l5iB rffl«ffl9l;ttf«iB '^Xlrttel bellBO-oa 

iiBXtO boa »,'l!t .srfd'oid' bns sied-sia ix;ol 

-©Ao svli^o«q89i liyiiJ lol xjilivi»jtl iwwoaieq & beiawsea bBri sxuaO 

^Hblforli «H -^iXicei ii;tocf ;Jfiri;f Jbxis ^8;tlo±l©fc rioxra lo asisxla rlinevee 

fc'ixxiJ £3 ^v'il§ii suf^t f)Bil »fe»*; .: ^^iiBqjBoO ;te:' iCJioM »xlT boB 

.10 x^^lXXdslX ari;J ©ololn^ oJ\Juaiiujsiaa blsa •xoJbxiL' ■^•liXallsuscT x^is«I 

^orLj'iC ,T fexBfiolfi a-ifttf^oitf ii«iii* il:f>^ &siA\iQdio' iio&Q diiv aio&riaoo 



-29- 

reduction in I^aily H, Junkin's guaranteed income from $100,000 to 
$85,000 inured solely to the benefit of Richard T. Crane, Jr., and 
Charles K, Crane and that the liabilities of the four sisters and 
brother should therefore be determined upon the basis of a guaranteed 
Inccfflie to Emily H, Jurikin of $100,000, and not upon the basis of a 
guaranteed income of $85,000 upon the basis of which the liability 
of Richard T. Crane, Jr., and Charles R. Crane van to be determined^ 
Plaintiffs further claimed that A, F. Gartz, Jr., as assignee of 
Kate C. GaPtz, was obligated for Kate C, Gartz* share of the deficits," 

The following is the counter claimants' theory of the case: 
"The counterclaimants, Charles R« Crane and the distributees of the 
estate of Richard T, Crane, Jr., deceased, claimed that while Charles 
R, Crane and Richard T, Crane, Jr., had assumed a personal liability 
to Emily H. Junkin for any deficit in the amount of her guaranteed 
income - each for one-half thereof - nevertheless under and by virtue 
of the family settlement agreement and related documents Richard T, 
Crane, Jr, (and to the extent of the value of the assets of his estate 
received by them, the distributees of his estate) were obligated, as 
between Richard T, Crane, Jr., and Charles R, Crane, for six-sevenths 
of the entire amount of such deficits, and also that as between Charles 
R, Crane and Richard T. Crane, Jr, (and the distributees of his estate) 
on the one hand, and their four sisters and brother on the other hand, 
said four sisters and brother had assumed five-sevenths of the lia- 
bility for such deficits (each severally to the extent of one-seventh 
thereof), Counterclaimants further claimed that therefore, as between 
them on the one hand and their four sisters and brother on the other 
hand, the primary liability for five-sevenths of the liability for 
said deficits rested upon the four sisters and brother (severally to 
the extent of one-seventh each), and that they had the right to compel 
the said four sisters and brother to perform their respective obli- 
gations to Emily H. Junkin in exoneration of the liability which 
Charles R. Crane and Richard T, Crane, Jr., had initially assumed to 
the said Emily H, Junkin. Both plaintiffs and counterc laimants 



oJ- 000,001$ moil &m>ont b9&ia.a%s^n^ &*aUjm1 ,H \Iliifi nl aolioubei 

baa ^»l1 ^enaiO ,T b^ariolH ^o jllsnstf sflj oJ^ xX»Ioa boiuni. 000,^84; 

bti& aa«:tt;ia lifol axW lo asJUMIldfiil »i1^ infli baa 9asid .H esIriBilO 

b(iB:^sie.itiirg R lo alasd oxIJ^ aoqu beatjm&iob scf ©lolsiari;? fclxioria nodioii 

js lo aiaiitf sxi;* aoqk- cfon fjas , 000^001$ lo aJLAaxsT. .H xl-ti>^ «>^ saoanJt 

■SjJilJfctfsJtl »ri^ floJtiiiv lo ;iaarf «fW no<\xi 000,^8$ lo eiaoonl b€>9Saai&is^ 

tbdahtnei ob &q oj sav* artsiO ,H aelisilO bus ^.iL ^©neiD .T btJ&doXR lo 

o 

''.a;fioi:*;.i> ativ 'lc> 3-i«*io '^i-r£;jll> .0 • j .* "lol beisiglldo 8f>w ,scfisO ,0 eiaJ 

:9aj30 9£C;J lo xio»^ *?.^niJiali3iD'i9;tiu/oo •xicf ai aaJwoIIol ©xiT 
mW lo fieft^jucfiiialft sii;f bas aiiijnO ,fi ssIisxlO ^c^nsalalonsiniroo eriT" 

X^iXWfiil Xafloaisq ^3 fcsmaaeaB bsri ,,t'0 ^eoB^O .T biadolR ba& »nfliO ,fl 

I)9©*iiiSi3J:/^ lexl lo ctitntuaa «d;> fli ilolt&b xfl« lol oiJtax/T, ,H xlJtxaS ocJ- 

'jujiiv xrf .&aj3 i9imsj c.a9lc>rid-i»v«n - losisif;^ lX£r[-»r(o lol rio.s» - emooni 

.? bt»tiotii eia9msdv.ob f)a;t»I©i haa cTaeBiaeias i&eMSBlii9& xllmat 9iii lo 

BC^.=i;te9 elxf lo aot-dsas »rfcf lo sm/Xbv e/U lo d^n»Jx9 mIc^ o;^ bus) *nT. ^ansaO 

2e ,i>sli5a-tirfc> Slew i^Aize sJbtl lo a»»Jx/cfirr^2xb 9x{;J ^mittW x«f bevleosi 

3ilitn»v9a-xXa lol ,eiu8i0 ,H e^Xi^anO bii& ,,il, ,8fiJBaO «T McxfoXH aQfSfni&d 

aitlikMO n©e¥/;j9Gf a a ;t>arid^ oaXe btiA ^ailvfi^b doas lo insjoms »iXinQ edi lo 

(si'BCfed eiri lo a©e^i/cfXi;teXI) ed^ biia) ,iL ^aoAiO .T frXBiioXrt i»njs enaiO ,H 

^bxi^ri narito eri;t ao laiiioic! bua aae^taia iwol ilsdf ba& ,bxiad ©no ©ri;t no 

-axX »iit lo exl;fitsv©3-.9vll betsut^&a bad •iswi-Jo-id bos aie^ala luol b.tsa 

rs'ja&vea-aao lo ;fjni®;txo &di Ovt \IXbi0V©s rioo&) ec^iollsl) doxsa lo't i^cMIid 

osvvai-Q a*: ,©iolsi©ii;t ii^t baffllBXo leil^iul Ed'njanXsXo'isJ'fliJoD .(loaieitt 

i&ftfo sii:t xio lerid^oicf baa siai'sia li/ol 'iieKf;t bna basd ®no ©xl^ no flI0rf:^ 

lol ■^iJtlidalX Bdi lo aiWnsvee-evll -^tol x*^-^-ti<JBjtX x^JS^^'wi ^^ ^bciad 

oi YlXiaisYsa) i&diotd baa easc^elc: itjol ®di aoqu b&ia@i silol'iiib blae 

LSfCiimo oJ oilgxi 9di b&d -^sxld^ iodi ba& ^(iIobs licJnsvee-aao lo ;Jfl©J-x9 ©ad' 

-IXao evi:J-oeq?.9i iledi awolieq oc^ isrWoicf bna ansc^ale luol bX^a exld- 

doidyf xjlllii&ll 9di lo noic'-r-ronoxc nl aMiusl, .H x-Ci^ oJ" anolJ-jsa 

0* bsfiiwssis xJ^XeXiXcU bBx ^> ^ .' biaflolH bna ©xubiO .H asXiflilO 

sXoTi&cfmfoo bjiiB alliJ£tJ:f :; Xq ji;t og »nl^£u;L .H YXXffl^I bXas adi 



-30- 

[italics ours] claimed tiiat it was aot necessary in order that 
the liability of the four sisters and brother be enforced that 
the deficits be first paid to Emily H. Junkin either by Charles 
R, Crane or by the distributees of the estate of Richard T, Crane, 
Jr., deceased; that all of the parties in interest having been 
brought before the court in this action the court had full juris- 
diction to determine and adjudicate their respective obligations 
herein. Both plaint iffs and counterclaimants [italics ours] claimed 
that the reduction in the guaranteed income of Emily H. Jtmkin from 
$100,000 to $85,000 inured solely to the benefit of Charles R. Crane 
and Richard T« Crane, Jr., and his distributees (to the extent of 
one-half each) and that the respective liabilities of the four 
sisters and brother should be enforced upon the basis of a guaranteed 
income of the full sum of $100,000, Both plaintiffs and cross 
complainants [italics ours] also claimed that the jurisdiction of 
the Probate Court of Cook County in which the administration of 
the estate of Richard T, Crane, Jr., was pending at the time of the 
filing of the complaint, was inadequate for the determination and 
adjustment of the rights and interests of the several parties to 
this action, and that, therefore, it became and was hecessary to 
invoke the jurisdiction of a court of equity for that purpose, •♦ 
Til© appellants state their defense as follows: 
"(1) No personal obligation is imposed upon any members 
of the Crane family, other than Charles R, Crane and Richard T» 
Crane, Jr., to pay any deficits occurring in the annuity funds for 
Saiily H, Junkin under either 

"(a) the agreement of June 2, 1912 * * *j 

"(b) the agreement of June 11, 1914 * * *; 

*'(c) the addendum to said agreement of June 11, 1914, or 
Exhibit •£• referred to in said agreement; or 

"(d) the agreement of June 2, 1922, * * * by which the 
annuity for Etaily H, Junkin was reduced to $85^000} 

"(2) that, by the execution of the addendum * * * the 



♦«ri^ 'i»b'xo at xisaasoan d"oc 8«w J-l ;>sil;J beoLtsIo faixfo eoiX^i] 

-aiTaat XXjLrl £)Bii ;^iJ/oo sifJ hoXc^ob eiricf «X ito/joo add- sioled id^oid 

aisoJt^sgXXdo ©vX;t39qi;9i i^etij oiBoXi>j;ft^J^ ^J^s anXnTEe^t^el) o;f ixoXioXJb 

feeoisXs [a wo aoXXacfl] BjTfffiHitfflgT^^fltiop ftffij sT-U.^fq/iXg/^ga .uleion 

ea&iQ ^R saXi^O lo ill&n&d mi& oi xXsXoa bsnwnX 000,^8* o^ OOO^OOXii; 

lo SaB^X9 sitii o;^) aea^iicJXi;taib a hi ba& ^,iT» tSJiaaO .T biasioXil baa 

iwo'i ©it? lo 8©lctjtXxdi»XX «vX;tO9q20i act}- ^t-ejlt fjoe (riosa lXi»ri-€«io 

jbaeiii/iiiii/^ a lo il^&d otio aoqu bs^ioTina »d l>Xj^ori2 rtaiUoid £)xlb a^sJsle 

aaots; p bm^ &%mal^lci diQ^. .000,00X$ lo opa XXxil arii lo eaoorxi 

lo aoUolbalTssl mii idiit i»»c£ialo oaX* [aruw) aoXXsit] a^cuaaXsXqffloo 

lo sLoli&'iiHliiifsbJs, »tii doJLiim al x^auoO aCooO lo iiuoO 9&B4<yt^ &di 

ddJ- lo e&ilJ' eiU ;}.<( soXMoq a^w «.iv» ^^asiO .T b^iMjAoiSi to eiaitB &i$ 

Ms £ioliaaJja'i»i9b ^ii lol dC^.(Urp8£>AaX a^w ^rfnljaXqisoo ad;^ lo ^iilXil 

o^ asi^'isq Xjrtsv©a a£i;t lo a^esisJ'ftl bm ed-djli sd* lo d-flsacJ-siJti^^ 

oi xiJ3«2609d a»w £>n£, saji^o&d it ^9*tol©isiri^ ^Jadd" bn^s ^xloiu^o6 aixIJ- 

".©aocTi/q j-sd^ nol '^;fixip© lo d^ii/ao a lo HoX^toJt&eXiL't srLt 9:j{ovni; 

tawoXXol 2i:i 9sn@l3^ tlacLS Qinis ^iOHlLwiqR sdT 

cj^ydiioiji Y^OM uoqw bseoqaU: ?i± oolcJsslXdo i»a/o^i9q oH (X)" 

#T ii-Xisdolfi bOA aoBiO ,a 39Xi«/iO istadi^ i^dio ^xlXa&l 9aai0 mli lo 
•xol ^bojfl xiXssmni mii aJk, ^^trwooo ^ii.QX'i^b xf*^ X&<1 oi ^.iL ^acusiO 

imlil& iBbau utiktf/T, ,H ^XiiaS 
j«- * * sx^X tS; ai^JiT, lo iaomoen^B. adJ (s)" 
.* * ^ ^iqi ^XX &ruj% lo c^ii9He*»i:iB ed:^ (cf)" 
10 tM^X ,XI aoi/I, lo J'waiaf.sass ^Xbs od' saubasbbB odi (0)" 

10 ;[;^££effli&©^ii JbX^a al ©;}• i)sii9l9i '3' ;JxdXxix3 
arict doXffiff ^td * «- * ,£S^X ^S em/Xr lo cf£t©ia©&ias atU- (fj)" 

{000,564; o* £)soub9i asw /UUtmL ♦H x-t-ts^ ^ol X^lnxmfi 
edi ♦ * * iBv£i£tft|iib& »dd^ lo a&tiiso&x.® etii \<i ^is^i (S)" 



^ .) 

-31- 

other mesibers of the Crane family did not assume or become bound 
by the terms of said agreement of June 11, 1914-, except for the 
limited purposes specifically set forth in said addendum and 
Exhibit *E«j the limited purposes specified in said addendum, 
which are germane to the issues, being as follows; 

"(a) Being stockholders of the Crane Company, they 
agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of the agree- 
ment of June 11, 1914, so far as said agreement affected the 
Crane Company or themselves, as stockholders; 

"(b) that they, in compliance with the terms of Article 
XI of said agreement of June 11, 1914, will execute and per- 
form the agreement contained in Exhibit •£»; 

"(3) that the sole obligations, which are germane to 
the issues here involved, imposed upon the other members of the 
Crane family under the provisions of Exhibit 'S', are to cause to 
be transferred and delivered to The Northern Trust Compare, as 
Trustee, 1,000 shares of stock of the Crane Company, to be held by 
said Trustee during the lifetime of Emily H* Junkin, subject to the 
following provisions: 

"(a) Prom the dividends thereon and the income from other 
securities, the annuity payments provided for Emily H« Crane 
under the terms of the agreement of December 2, 1912, were to 
be made; 

"(b) One-seventh of the suia necessary to make the said 
annuity payments to be taken from the dividends received from 
each 1,000 shares of the stock transferred and delivered to 
the Trustee; 

"(c) To pay over any excess dividends not required for 
said purposes to the person who deposited said 1,000 shares 
of stock; 

**(d) The Trustee, upon the death of Eteily H, Junkin, to 
re transfer and redeliver the said 1,000 shares of stock to the 
person so depositing them; 



Mil' 

baa msbamkbJi bJU« iiX iiiio'l ^es xXXsdllJtosqa ft^Eoqiiuq b9;lJt«iX 

■%&ii'^ tVi^qaow soaaO ejCi- lo E"X9£>Xoitiioo;>8 saleS (a)" 

Va^9»X(aiij{©x>ja a* ^fij«vX»eaai«i* 10 xnja<pioO ©ftsiL; 
^loljiu^k "xo 6iaa'3iJ «^ iWxw •oasXXqooo at ,x«^ ^«^ (tf)" 
•^tSKi b^A QiiiO'^'XB XXiw ^AX^X ^XX easfl lo ,;JnaE{9«i»A bX^a to IX 
i*K' ^^idJ^etxS jBtJ; bQatfi:t£Soo istaaoBTSu 9£ii ssrzol 

*,... .,. J1& ^»a» ^Idiiixa lo afloij-ivo-xq arid- laiya; xThaal OfUsiO 

i ^-^cusqiaoO ^aifiX xnerid'noii aril' oS £>9»it©vJtX9fe fiucta fe©it«laafi'x;t «K:f 

v- * ...c*4 0cf oj 4>jix-SQ*30^ »fli4"S0 add- 'io at^od-e lo aoitiJxlB 000,1 ^jMKfsjrjfi: 

sanoXaXvoiq ?iiiJ;v/oIIol 
•xexicfo raoil aiaoanX ac[;f ban aosi&dS siba&hXvXb sxlcf aoi'i (,&)" 

omi%^ .H xXiaii •xol teMvooq stfixaan6»q X^twmjfi Siid- ,8©X^iij;;s>»a 
cj- s"'i£aj ,.:ii;PI ^S 'sfco'fiiDijeC lo ;?x.isia©9igia arii to ecrx©^ atii le'basj 

;fi>£>M! scf 
iixaas a^i saLfna, o^ -^xjsaeeoeu jaws aflJ lo xi^0©v8a<-enO (oS)" 
.rio'it ^8Tl:i>o^&^ ^ba&bi^fiJ> o*iJ aoxt asaicu sci oi aiaofs^Aq xtXmu\& 
oi baiQvllob ba& bBi'i&lzaaiii irfooJa asli tt^ aeiaii^ OOO^X 49jb» 

lot be'xlup&i :ioa efimo&iVytfc aeaax* y^a -ssvo x^q oT (:>)" 

l^OQi's to 
cd- ,flJ:;£iaiL .II ^XXb^ to riJ^sf) sd* isoqw ^QQiawtf nM Cjb)" 
9xi^ OCT 2fooj«3 to asiarie OOO^i fclsn arfi^ levJ^efa©^ fina it^tsxia^ctai 

ijaatti- aflXcfXsoqst oe aoai&q. 



-32- 

••(4) that the following provision of the agreement of 
June 11, 1914, Article XI, 

«•«* * * therefore the said Kate C, Gartz, Frances C, 
Lillle, Mary C, Russell, aaily C. Chadbourue and Herbert P. 
Crane do severally agree to pay, on demand, one-seventh of 
all money which may be due and payable under said agreement 
of December 2, 1912, » 
is liiaited and controlled by a subsequent provision of said agreement 
(Article XI): 

"* Should the dividends and income received by said The 
Northern Trust Company, as Trustee, from the aforesaid 6,000 
shares of stock and the $173,000 face value of First Mortgage 
5-1/2% Bonds * * * be insufficient to pay all moneys which are 
due and payable under said agreement of December 2, 1912> the 
brother and sisters [the other members of the Crane family] 
of the parties hereto [Charles R, Crane and Richard T, Crane, 
Jr.] severally agree that they will each pay to the "high 
bidder" [Richard T, Crane, Jr. 3, on demand, one-seventh of any 
sum which the "high bidder'' may be compelled to pay to the said 
The Northern Tmst Company, in order that he may fully perform 
the terms of said agreement of December 2, 1912.'; 
that said provisions were merely an expression of an intent on the part 
of Ciiarles R, -Crane and Richard T, Crane, Jr« that the other members 
of the Crane family should assent thereto, but that the other members 
of the Crane family did not assent thereto in the limited obligations 
which they assiiaed under the addendum and Exhibit »Eo ' If, hovrever, 
said provisions were Imposed upon the other members of the Crane 
faoiily by the addendum and Exhibit »E, » it was a secondary liability 
upon them, conditioned upon the »hlgh bidder's* being first compelled 
to pay to The Northern I'rust Company, as Trustee, any deficits 
occurring in the annuityj that, until the 'high bidder* was compelled 
to pay said deficits to the Trustee, the secondary liability of the 
other members of the Crane family did not arise; 



'.to ::.;.*=.!•-. fi^isi* aii^ 'it" iioxaivoiq "viiiwoXiol sri^ i^afU (4^)" 

to jf{j££9Vos-aao ^JbriASSfi* /lo ^x*^ *»^ *»ei:s« XXX*-V3vaa ob ©oaaO 
;^n9iie9i£S'^ bl&e. i^bsea dXcfcx^ ^jc^ ^^ ^ X^^ /loXdv/ X'^'^'a XX« 

..i.^ .. -w iiv-..,-i v^...^ o;i.^w,^u^.i-.: ^ ^cf fceXXoi^aoo £>na i)©iXisLtX eJt 

7 (XX 6loliiA) 

ssagcJ"!© ' ^aiX^ lo atrXav east OOO^i^^X^ 9dt Jbxut 2loo;fa lo asiLaria 

8TS 4oJ:;*!r sTjdHoa XX« ijaq od ;i^ii»lolllJuaiii »ci * * * eI)iSQii $S\X-^ 

^di ^'AL^l ,S 'xaitoe&iHl lo ii£M»9^M btBZ 'i9bais ^Ifi&xan baa &ub 

liiaiii" esd!;t ocJ- x^t iiass XXiir x«iW ;fjBiU 0»ia«i xXXB*xev^e ^.xL 
blr.& 9di o;i -z&a ^ pi j&6 >^£, eqao3 ocf v.^ •'rtsbbJtrf xlgld" ail^ xJoiriwatfa 

<i @ii^ £10 iaiBisil su lo ^oiwes^oqAs an xXt^iita »i«w (moXeirv^oiq &X*i8 iadi 

ea&daen lorl^o srfd^ ;JflxI^ »i1 ^oa&iO »t bi&dolfi boB anstO* ,fi seXisriO lo 

a^ejcfatftffl ■sMd'o aii^ d'isiicf ci'ifcf ^oia^torfi^ ia&aaa bSMW.» xXXfflfil ©aeiO adJ- lo 

;iiol:t«SXX«fo ^©^Iffiil orf:^ iil o^Btmit ^a&nza ^oa bib %ltMal »a&iO odi lo 

^le-TStvofi ,11 ' ia* ;tXdMjt£ fef:* Jtt»feii»£»£>a fMi^iJ iHibaa bemrn^B %9di xloiriw 

eoetC 6Ai lo eisdissai lefJcfo ari^t aoqst i>»eoqcU; si«w anoteivoTtq fclea 

usXXsjjffloa *a«2jil ijntecf 'e'lenljld ii^M* sriS^ aoqs^ £)90.oii*li)no3 ^iaeif;^ noqu 

BcMoXloi) x«^ ^oscTajJ^' as ^TjiiBqiaoO ^ajarid' n^QfWao?4 aiiiX o:!^ xs«I o* 

&&XX3«jiKoo a^Tir »^ef>fcXcf ilsiii' edcf Xic^ai; ,i^ai!Ur ix^Xmn* eri* «X gixliiwooo 

Ssd;^- lo XitXXldaXX x^^A^i^ioo^ii 9Ai ^a^Seui'i: 9&i ©cT 8;tXoil®f> bl&u \&q oi 

l&&liii Soa btb xliM&l ©HB-xO «£W lo zi9fim»m isilio 



-3> 

"(5) that the 'high bidder* alone, after being compelled 
to pay said deficit to the Trustee - if there be a secondary lia- 
bility - coald bring a cause of action against the other meiabers of 
the Crane family, but, since the pleadings contain no allegation 
and the record is silent as to whether or not the »high bidder* has 
made any deficit payments into tiie annuity fund, the prerequisite 
for his bringing a cause of action against the other members of the 
Crane family does not exist; and, under no circumstances, could the 
Trustee, aaily H, Junlcin, or Charles R, Crane and Richard T, Crane, 
Jr., jointly, bring a cause of action against the other members of 
the Crane family, as to the annuity deficits; 

"(6) that if a secondary liability is imposed, the limit 
of the other members of the Crane family is one-seventh of any sum 
which the 'high bidder* may be compelled to pay on account of the 
annuity deficits; that, imder the provisions of the last paragraph 
of Article XI of the agreement of June 11, 1914-, the maximum personal 
liability of the 'high bidder* (Richard T, Crane, Jr.) was to pay 
six-sevenths of any deficit occurring in the annuity fund, and that 
the secondary liability, if any, of the other members of the Crane 
family to the 'high bidder' was limited each to a one-seventh of 
six-sevenths of such annuity deficits; that, since the agreement 
between Charles R. Crane, Aichard T, Crane, Jr. and Emily H, Junkin, 
dated June 2, 1922, reduced tlxe annuity from $100,000 to $85,000, 
the personal liability of the »high bidder* from Jxine 2, 1922, was 
six-sevenths of any deficits which might arise, on the basis of an 
$85>000 annuity; and that from June 2, 1922, if any secondary lia- 
bility is imposed upon the other members of the Crane family, it is 
limited to a one-seventh each of six-sevenths of any deficit arising 
in the $85,000 annuity fund, conditioned upon the 'high bidder's* 
first being compelled to pay such deficit to the Trustee, for the 
reason that the agreement of June 2, 1922, specifically reduced 
the obligation of the 'high bidder* under the terms of the agree- 
ment of December 2, 1912, to contribute to any annuity deficits 



-€£- 
boll&qsKio gnZscf ^9&1b ^eaola 'i .rrx;.: xlalrf* odS fatii C^)" 

"All xisibcioo®& z »cf ©'isrid 'tx - eec?sifiT Sil^ «xt ;tIoll&fe btsz XB<1 o:t 

HolJiiasXIa on aJtAi-noo eanJtfeasXq 9tiS ddtilft ^JjircT ^xlJtosl enj«nO <d^ 
Bjiifi 'lei/iijttf djiiil' arfi ^on 10 isritrsilw oj as i^wsIJta si M0001 sifct baa 

afJB tfi« "^o jl;tn©v»B-effo ai xXMsl atijinO add- lo ei9<l£i©ffl lorido sxld lo 

QiU lo :tfii;oa3fi no -^q oi bellsqmco dd Xisci »*i;sbbltf rigXri* arid riolrfw 

' ^xl;t lo anoXetvoiq 6ri^ i«>£>mf ,d-Arfd {sdloXlsb x^lx/nna 

i.iaoo*ioci :2i;iti.t::i,;ii siid ,>X^X ^XX 4ta«I. lo :tn9iii*»9aai» srfd lo DC ©XoJtdlA lo 

'^.^q oJ- aaw (,iL ^exusTO ,T MarioXH) ^lebJblfif ifsiil' oric^ lo \^tlli<iBll 

d^ :ild !>£u ^biOrl x^litftfia 9f{:t fil gitlrrurdoo dlollab yym lo erWn&voe-xXa 

srus^O ©/Id lo a^fttffflSffl t&rfdo sild- lo ,"*c«i« 11 ^x^lXlcffiiX -^laJbnoosa ©ild 

lo iiinov98«-ano & od^ riowa bodlJalX eaw *i»fofclrf riglri' arfcf od xXlmel 

dneaaeigs aticf sonla ^daild jsd^lollDb xdlXKins dots* lo addasvea-xla 

^.-.a^iiixfi; ,H xXliaH bns .iTi tftCLsriC ,t bitsxIolH ,911610 ,fl 8«Xibi10 flsswdocf 

^000^^8$ oi OGO^OOX* cord -^cdlittift/j arid bQOLbat ^SS^X ^S ectut b9d«b 

oow ,SS?X ,S anift ooil 'itebbld rislrl* ©jIcT lo -^dlXldsiX Xanoeieq «rid 

Lii-; lo Elascf erfd no ^salus J-jeIsIk rfolrfw adlollob -^cms lo aifdxisvea-xie 

-J3il x'^sJ^noosk \nB 11 %2SCX <i§ smrt. boiI iisrid bxis jY^i^wniiB 000,^8$ 

al ;?! ,xXlm«l ©xmiO &di lo aiydatsat i»rido 9xf:f noqw bs^.oqEi al x^JtXld 

giilsl-XB i-lftll^b x^& lo Bjc{#i«sv«fe-xl8 lo rfo«© ildTTSvea-Qco s od- bsdimlX 

♦a'lebbld" ilgM' odd aoqi:/ b».'toldlbn6o ^bmrl xtttnaisi 000^^8$ ed& nt. 

edi io\ ^escttifriT edi oS ilon&h dmm ^&q oS beXIsqaoo '^l&d d-aiH 

be^:^lo-i \II..salll:;^o-:; ^SSPX ,S 9Jfi3ft lo ;ffl:»flE>e'tii8 sd^ dsrid noasei 

-.o^-. ..u ^.....v .....^ ...-^..^ • -Dbbld ifc ^ii' erTtf lo noldsglXdo 9£» 

eJio-t^.-i-* Y^lJi/nniL. ^^cua at ©J-wcfiid-noo ocf ^ .jl:,- ^:i n^daioosC; lo cfnsa 



-34- 

arising on aix $Q'-j,QQQ ariiiuity rather than on a $100,000 annuity," 

Tlae agreement of June 11, 19 14-, between Charles R» Crane 
and Hichard T, Crane, Jr., with the "consent" or "addendum" thereto 
signed by all the other members of the Crane family constitutes, 
in our judgment, a family settlement agreement. By the will of 
Richard 1, Crane, Sr», certain provisions were made for his widow, 
in addition to the provisions made for her by the ante-nuptial 
agreement. It is a reasonable inference, from the record, that 
the provisions made in the will were not satisfactory to her, and 
Charles R. Crane and Richard T, Crane, Jr., who were made the 
residuary legatees of their father's estate, entered into the con- 
tract with her of December 2, 1912, by the terms of which the 
wido?; received substantially more than the ante-nuptial agreement 
and her husband's will provided for her, in consideration of which 
she accepted the provisions of the will in her behalf and 
ratified the marriage settlement agreement. As appears from 
the agreement of June 11, 1914, differences arose between 
Charles R, Crane and Richard T, Crane, Jr., "as to the true 
interpretation of the provisions of said 8111, and as to the future 
conduct of the affairs of the Crane Company," and of the Crane Valve 
Company, which differences had been, and if not adjusted would con- 
tinue to be, detrimental to the conduct of the business, "and pre- 
judicial to the interests of all stockholders therein," and 
it was believed that the best interests of both said corporations 
and of the stoclcholders therein required that either Charles R, or 
Richard T,, Jr., should dispose of his interest in the stock of 
both said corporations. The other members of the family were sub- 
stantial stockholders of the Crane Company auid Charles R, and Richard 
T,, Jr., considered that their consent was necessary for the con- 
summation of the plan urtiich they, Charles R. and Richard T., Jr., 
had agreed upon for the purchase by the Company of the interest of 
one or the other of them. It also seems clear that the other members 
of the family concluded that, in view of the situation, they were in 



"♦X^JtuooB aoo,OQX$ fi HO n^i i»sitai x^JtJKcuuB 000,1:8$ ru no j^lzlru 

Qisifuii **msbasiib&** 10 "iaeaiioa" eii;t Aflw ,.iT, ,«cu8i0 ,T bi&^oiA baa 
^^9isjm&aoo xllStnl miAiO stU lo snadiofta lexi;*'© 9iiit Lis \di AsnaJta 

,Kfoi3iw aid lol 9i>i3£: ©aw aaoluivoiq al«;f^»© ,,it ^^naiO ,1 tij^otR 

&ix« ,'i9^ o«/^ \iQ^9j»l2X;^i$3 Soa dasw XXinir e4;i' al sb^u axsoJt&Ivoiq «i:t 

acid^ At'^m &'£8w odw ,.i(> ^euxfinO ,'£ bTMSioXH baa ^obiO .H salijufa- 

-noo ®rtd^ o:^ixl 6sno^n» ,©d'fi^ae c»ieri,t»l riiedc^ lo ase^ajol x^airfcJta^i 

atW iloijilw lo aar©^ ssii \(i ,SX^X ,2 r£9da»o*a lo taxf lUlw ;toBa;t 

^aaatt^sijii ls,liqu£i'^a;iiUi sai aadJ 9%«a \XXald'nB;r tsdtfa bsvi&ssi woblw 

lisirlw lo uox;t«'r£i>l««o» rU ,iafl «ol 6»l»±ve^ XXlur n^bnadeud. *i9d boA 

ha& IXiidecf 'Dxi ni lilw add- ^o arualslvoiq sd^ ijaJ-qeoos eda 

B101* sojadqqa a A .;fxx»oosi8£ ^as«»Xd^*08 •aaJti'UUH afl;^ bi^tttiB1 

aawtisa aaoiB af>oad^**i"UI) ,>X?X ,XX oci/L lo ^naffl^siSB 9tii 

D-urcfijl adiif o^ as ba^ ,XXJtS2 JbX.3« 1© aaoieXvoiq 9fi;t^ lo noi^jBts^qnecfnl 

PvIsV enjaiO slUt lo fjiiti «*,X4i^fl»0 aoaiD ftGta- lo enXalXa ftcl^ lo foubaoo 

-aoo bSsfw bsissslbs ioa 11 bBJn ,fl9«<J bud »»sa9i9/^tU> liotriw ^XJC^'JfiroO 

-eoq ijns*^ ,aeaflXef«f a»Si lo j£>j:/baoo «l;t o* li&ia^mlii&b ,od oi ©JiHl;^ 

fiofi "^aisisiicr etsJaXoriisoire XXa lo e;Je&'i9j£Lt eu'Ii o,? XaXolfcx/fc 

enolJ^sioqiao fciae iido<a lo sJ^a^isJcl cfaa4 ©ild^ ^I^Bfii* f>9VoiXQd asw 11 

rto .H esXisilO asflJie dsiiJ Jba^iJUMSi ai.9i9d} sicfcXofijfood-e ada^ lo i^B 

lo iooj^e aiL? rxX ^tasis^ni aid lo ©eoqaXfc hlsjotis ,,iX. ,.2 biadotn 

'-diss S19W "<(;Xiinfil sdcr lo txscmea 'iedio edx ^anoWanoqioo bXaa diod 

• iBdoUi fjBCfe .H aeXisriO bu& xosqaoO emanO ad^ lo aiofeXodifooi^a lisi^asita 

•GO© ©ji^ 10I \itiSQ&ooa Sisw :tn«8£K>:> xisrf^ d"3ii^ fo^ieMaaoo j.iL ,«T 

^vill. ,,1 bi&iltiXil baa .H esXioxiO ^-^Ofi^ lioXm nsXq addr lo iiolw£!S3U/8 

lo cfasiectfli sytif lo ijasqiBoO ari;^ ^^d ©aadoiuq €tfU rtal floqJE; fesfinsB b&d 

aieetcisfli isxic^o esU isdi ^xisXa efi»©« oeXB cM ,Kerict lo aori;}-© sr(j 10 9110 

jDut ei«w x^ri^ ,£iolJ-BX/;Jla edi lo wolv ni ^iadi bebnloaoo xlXntsl suld^ lo 



-35- 

a position to demand of Chsirles R. and Richard T,, Jr,, a share 
of the father's estate, ?/}iich by the terms of his will was given 
to Charles R. and Richard T,, Jr, It also seens clear that the 
latter were willing to grant the demand, provided that their brother 
and sisters would share the burden of the agreement of December 2, 
1912, wherein Charles R, and Richard 1',, Jr., had guaranteed to 
the stepsBother a net income of $100,000per year so long as she should 
live. In the agreement of Jtme 11, 1914-, Charles R, and Richard T,, 
Jr., after stating that differences had arisen between them as to 
the true interpretation of the provisions of their father *s will and 
as to the future conduct of the affairs of the Crane Company, recite* 
"'whereas, the parties hereto desire that a part of the property which 
comprised the estate of Richard T, Crane, Senior, shall be set aside 

to create certain charitable funds, and further desir e that the 

Blasters and brother of the parti e s hereto sha ll each receive _some ol' ,_ ^ 
pjtie stock of the Crane Company formerly owned by Richa rd T^ Crane, 
SerJ.or f notwithstand ing t he fact that none of said stock yiB.s devised 
to said s isters^ and brother * ^* *,«» The agreement next refers to 
the contract of December 2, I9I2, and recites: "V/hereas, all cliild-. 
ren of said Richard T. Crane, deceased, desire that the burdens of 
said agreement of December 2, I912, should be borne by all children 
of Richard T, Crane, deceased, who receive any share In his estate, 
and by their heirs and personal representatives « * *," i-rticle II 
provides: "l^ithin Thirty days after the terms and foi'm of the bonds 
and mortgage or ti^ust deed hereinafter provided for shall have been 
agreed upon, and Herbert P, Crane, Kate C, Gartz, Mary C. Russell, 
Frances C, Lillle and Emily C, Ghadbourne (who together with the 
parties hereto are the sole surviving children of Richard T. Crane, 
deceased) shall have executed their several consents to tiie terms 
of this contract, in the form hereto attached, each of the parties 
hereto shall," etc. Article X?II provides: "This agreement, when 
carried into effect, shall operate as a complejre settlement of all 
the aforesaid differences between the parties hereto, and as a 



wi^ ,fBri;t iftsls eisoee oalis *I .*tt ,,T fci&xiolH hoc «fl aaXTiailO o;J 

rioi/iw ■^;J'n&qo^q[ fuii 1© ;tidi{ s lAfli s^ieofc o^si^ii fieJt**i»q aii^ ,8a»a«di*" 

. As^iy^fc-ziap :^ao^.- Jbiae lo «g on ;^giij .^Sfl l gff| iBi;fi..-^^^..^:tQii ^lolneb 

to aa^Siirtf siU iesii ?»ii!!*b ti>»es»Of*fc ^lOfisiD .T b'md&jpl blsz 1q aei 

II 9lol;t'iA «,* * * 8«»viw'fiJfl»«9'iq**[ Xaeoe^.»q fisaa £Ttcri "rrtsri^t \d bn& 

&bxiod 8ii^ lo aruol J:*aB aana^ e^ ^f>^lB txsb ^;tiiiir iii..^ :g©l»ivo'rq 

neecf evBfl iXsrie lol iiobXvcnrq i©;riaaX»^»«f b»9b ieo^j^ 10 s^R:&iiom baa 

&iii iltXVi rtferiJasOvJ cdw) SBrwotibBSiO .0 vxiaid fcxua ©XXIiJ •*> aeoflxi''! 
^OKB^O ,T fcttexloXE %o aoifblMo gaXvivii/s eXos »££^ orra ocfB'UiXi Ba±;ti0q 

aer&'i ^ihieaiseisa aMT" jasMvoiq IIVX sXoid-TiA ,^1^0 ",XXflrf8 oc^«i©ri 
XXfi lo ia<^Bi&liie& ©^.eXqaoo a sa ^iateqq XXaxla ^ctoelle o;tn± £)»Xi[ii30 



-36- 

release by each of all claims which he may have against the other, 
and shall also operate as a release and discharge by each of the 
persons who signs the consent attached hereto of all claims which 
he or she may hare, or may have asserted against the parties hereto, 
or either one of them, in any manner whatsoever, arising because or 
out of the Estate of said testator, or out of any agreements or 
negotiations heretofore had as to the distribution of the estate of 
said testator, or as to the setting apart by the parties hereto of 
shares of stock of the Crane Company to the several parties signing 
such consentj and sliall also operate as a full release and discharge 
to the Crane Company of any claims and demands which either of the 
parties hereto, or any of the persons signing said consent, may have, 
or may at any time have asserted, growing, or arising out of the 
failure of any of said parties to secure the right at any time in 
the past to subscribe for, purchase or receive, any stock of the 
Crane Company; and the parties who have executed the consent attached 
hereto severally agree that they accept the stock allotted to them in 
Article X hereof in full satisfaction of any claim, legal, eqtiitable 
or moral, which they have up to the date hereof to stock of the Crane 
Company, and each of said parties agrees that he or she will, upon 
the execution of this agreement, execute and deliver to the Crane 
Company a release which shall be in the form as set out in Exhibit H 
which is attached hereto. •♦ 

Article I provides that the executors of the estate of 
Richard T, Crane, Sr., shall immediately transfer and deliver to 
The Northern Trust Company, as trustee under the agreement of December 
2, 1912, 2,500 shares of "Estate Stock," to be held by said trustee 
in lieu of the 2,500 shares of Crane stock previously transferred to 
it by Charles R, Crane, The article also sets forth the amount of 
Crane Company stock which will be held as "Estate Stock" when the 
transfers therein specified shall have been made, amounting to 55^217 
shares, and, in addition thereto, the 5>000 shares standing in the 

name of The Northern Trust Company as trustee under the contract of 
December 2, I9I2, It appears from Article III of the agreement that 



^i9xW"o &ni texilB^B &Y&d xom ad xioiriw smtalo 11b lo tioas \di •taelBi 

eiU "^o [Lo^o x<i s^i^ozlb bOB ss^elei a s£ oiBiaqo ozla ll&dt baa 

d9lii\^ aiotelo lis lo oo'sia^i j&aclDi&;tcfj» ;^nd&fioo sd^ enala odw anoeneq 

fO^s'Zdri ££>i;^iBq eiii ;^e£tJ:B^fi l)9;t<xe2eB oyo^ xj^ "^o ^syaii \&m. Btis 10 9x1 

lo scfiKj^as ®ff;f lo aoid^jJcflnitBll) odi o;t aa baxi snolod-sieri enoid'BWoasn 

lo o3&i9d aaldiaq a/i^ \4 iisqa galJ'd'aa siri;^ at lia 10 ^T:o;tB;ta9d' blaa 

a£tjU5a±8 GSlJ-isq iBisvoa 9x1.^ Oct xoBqiKJO •n£iO 9di lo iooj-a lo zeiGiiz 

B^izdo&tb ba& e&aeXei IIi/l b sb o^Btaqo ocXb Xlsiis boB \ta96aoo douz 

9di lo i@xitJ:e sioisi</i ebnaaiBb bOB bmlLbIo "^a lo ^nsqinoO easiO »xid' oi 

^ovBti XBBL ^ineaxioo blisa gninsla axtoaieq aili lo ^jQii '^o ^oJ^aiaxI 8 9jt;tiaq 

etxict lo iao ^Iztis 10 ^g/ilwois ,b9di88ss dvjui 9ial:t xhjb eta xbib 10 

at 98ili xa» itk ^Tisli sxict »ruro9e oct 2 9l;tiBci btsz lo ^^^ "^^^ dii/IlBl 

Ota lo ioo^a x^*> ^avlso^i io saxMioowq ^aol ecflrroadua at iaaq ©rict 

bariOBCtd^i; ;tn98JLioo oxict beivoexB oybxI oxlw saX^tOBq 9xltf baz jxasqaoO exiaiO 

iijt iasxid^ oi b&Jiolla aloois exld^ ctqoooB xaxi^ ^sxli aa^s^ xXIfi^^vsa o;t 919x1 

oldailupQ ^Xsgal ^siialo xjclb lo aoliOBleti&e llssi al losioxl X aloWiA 

axiBiO 9iU lo ii)o;t8 o;t looieii scfal) 9d;t oJ qu 9YBd xȣii xlolxlw ,Isioffl 10 

xxoqij ^Iliw sxis no od i.sxi»t zearxsB aeiJ-isq blaa lo xlofis hna ^yxiBqinoO 

ftxiBiO sxld- o;t iB-vtlsb baa eiuoexa ^ctridxaoe^SB zhli lo aol;Ji;o9X9 sxIJ- 

H ilaldxS. al ctjjo ;t92 ajs xnol 9fl;t nl 9cf Ilaxie xlolxlw sasslsi s x^sqinoO 

^toieiad h&dosfiB ai xlolxlw 

lo Bi&i&9 9(rii lo eaati/osx9 oxW i&ci:i aablvoiq I aloictiA 

o:t levlXsJb bxiB igIehbio xX9^3i£>®x£aal IliuiK ^,-i ^yasiO ,T bnBXfolH 

lecffflsooa lo J-naasensB ^di isbass aaJ-ax/iJ- as ,x^*8qiao0 cteiriT niexfcJioW ariT 

se;taxfi;t bliia \di blod atf o^ "^jfooJ-S s^tB^tsE" lo esiaxla OO'^^S ^SX^I ^S 

o^ fc9'ii©laxiBi;t XJ^axfoiveiq aLoocta sxibiO lo aatsxla OO^^S sdi lo usXX ni 

lo dTUxoms exi;t xij-xol a;t©8 oaXs ©Xoid-is ailT .axxfinO ,H aaXiaxlO \d it 

©xfct Gsriw "lioocta ©d^BCtaS" bb bXaxi sd XXiw xiolxlw ifooJ-e ^wj^qmoO ©£LbiO 

^X£^^Icl at sxtl;txu;oiaB ^s&Bflt aaad avari XXcrfa ballioeqa xilsiaxlit 8i9lansn^ 

0i£~t at gxilbxiad'a ssiBila 000,^ aff;t ^oiQiedi aolilbbB al ,bxi8 ^asiBxla 

lo d'os'S^xioo axict ieb£W eaiaxfii- as x^^QMO^ S&sstlI xiisxlctioH ©xiT lo sibbxi 
iadi J'nsfliss^B axl;t lo III aXoWoA xaoil aae&qqti H .SX^X ^S i9din90©a 



-37- 

there was a credit of $741,030,57 on accouait of an impaid dividend 

of eighteen per cent on "Estate Stock" standing on the books of the 

Crane Company to the credit of the estate of Richard T. Crane, de- 

of the same, 
ceased, and the said article provides for the distribution/ Article 

X provides that the "Estate Stock" which shall remain after all of 
the transfers thereof therein provided for, for charitable and other 
purposes therein described, " shall be divide d i, nto five eoual por- 
tions fo r th e equal benefit of the four sisters and one brotlier of ,,, 
;the parties hereto, and said portions sh^ll be tr^ynsferred and 
delivered in the manner provided in Article XI hereof." (I t all c s 
ours.) In Article XI appears the following: "* * ■»• inasmuch as said 
agreement was made for the protection and benefit of the Bstate of 
Ric hard T. Crane, decea s ed, and Kate C. GartZf Frances C. Lillie, 
Mary C. Russell, aaily C. Chadbourne and H erb ert P« Crane ^ the sisters 
a, nd brother of th e p arties her eto are no w about to receive considerable 
portions of t hat est a te, therefo re, the said Kate C« Gartz, Frances 
C. Lil lie, Mary C^ Russell , aiaily C« Chadbourne and Herbert P. Crane 
do severally agree to pay on demand one~seventh of all money which 
may be due and payable under said agreement of D ecembe r 2y 1912." 
(Italics ours.) Article XII provides: "For Five years after the 
date when the Crane Company purchases the interest of 'the seller* 
as hereinabove provided, all stock of the Crane Company which is 
owned, or the voting power of which is controlled, by the parties 
hereto, or by the persons signing the consent attached to this con- 
tract, shall be voted at all elections of directors of the Crane 
Ccaapany in favor of such persons for directors of said company as 
shall be joamed by the 'high bidder, • provided that he shall so long 
survive and remain the holder of a majority of the total stock of said 
Crane Company which may from time to time be issued and outstanding," 
Article XIX provides! " Each of the s ever al agre e ments herein co ntained 
is dependent upon each of the other s , an d is to be bi , ndji.ng only in case 
this entire agreement is carried out ." (Italics ours.) Imsiediately 
following the signatxires of Charles R. Crane and Richard T. Crane, Jr., 



bnsfcivli) bl&qasj n^i io JxJjooos no ^(^•QCQ^X^V* ^o J-jtbaia a 8«ir omd^ 
•dd' lo ejiood eriv-f no anjti)m>j£ '♦jiooJt; ajBCtsS" no cfnso leq naMxi^Ig lo 

Io Ilis lotls nlnmei IIbxIs rioixlw '•a[oo;tS »^A;^8a" 9ii:^ iBii& z^btvoiq X 

'tsri;to bos el^BitVLMio lol ,iol b9i>lvoiq iiis'isiid^ lo»'i©/ic^ ais^BxisTcJ wU 

-■^Qg Xax/r;9 evXl ociul befcJ kVljt) g p" Hari^ " ^betilionBb ale'i&cii eeeoqoi/q 

|>l4e , c!/i -g^jiiiueiii xl * * **• JsriiiTOliol qiU eiA«qqa IX ©XoWiA nl (.e-uro 

'■^rrrr -■ r-p— " -"- " " nr" "r- l^(^n■^if^ iTti—ii T Mmfrm 

•Id^iebig^xos s vl3osi oJ :}i;p<fB yon six: oieaq^ 8»l#g^ aAT l y flritffllirf f^M 

eoonai'-i .aJ«Ls5 .5 oij^:^ tins, e^^ ^sioleaaii;^ ^e;tfl;^£9 ^aui;^ Io aawMwg 

©ffct is^Ijs siJi©TC svi^i tioT' :a»6ivo!iq IIX •XoX;tnA (.anfio aoiXB^^X) 

♦nslloa 8£W» Io ;J29i9;^nl exli aezj&doatfq •^;£t8qiBoO aaaiO sri* aaiJw •J-jbA 

el iloiriw xnsq^aoO ©CLanO ^i ^o atooJa XXa ^fcafciroiq evo^^nisiaci es 

aslw-iaq 9if;J^ ^d ^fcsIXonJ-floo ei: dolxlw Io i»wf(»q ^ifU^ov swir 10 ,i>acwo 

-noo bMc^ o^f nadcic^d-js ^neaxioo srb' snloaXs aacs'isq arfd' %cf 10 ^oiei9d 

exsjanO sxld^ Io 8go;J08iiI) Io aifioiJof»Xd XIs ;ta bs^pv scf Xleiia ,d'06n;}' 

SB \i'i*iqffioo blsa Io eaoooaoXl) rxo^ axtoE*sq iiwra Io aovsl al TCnaqmoO 

anol 02 llsiU &£i i&Ai fi^JbXvooq \i»bbl4 /i3±d« ©rW xd fcsauui ed Ilsria 

i)isa Io jiooia l&ioi ©riw Io xctX^otfiflf b Io lobXori ari;^ olBast bn& o-vixnus 

**,aniLE>xi6;tad-jJo feas bsjursBJ: ad emJtJ o.t SfiLt;^ iao^l x&a ii»Jbtfw x^«*eoO snsnO 

,„ l)9flXfij'nQ0 cX&^arl a^^nsifi09?j i ^ Xj^y ay^g ,e f(^ Io ijgjsp " sa»bivoiq XIX 9I0I-.+TA 

y;^Kf> p/; Y if^a 's\aibaM 8cf o;t 8± bsi& .f&i&^ io osH Io rio ^s aoQis ia&ba99»b aX 

XlQ^tBlbsianil Carufo zoUail) " r ^^° bslii&Q at iasmt>9iJks> o f±ias zMi 

^.it «©nBnO ,T brmdoJtH bos exiciiO .H e&I'iJWiO Io ZB-Ufi&a^la ©rUf gaX.-'OXIol 



. -) ) 
-38- 
to the agreement appears the following j 

"In consideration of the benefits which will be received 
by us under the terms of the foregoing agreement between Charles 
R, Crane and Richard T, Crane, Junior, dated June eleventh, 1914, 
and of the provisions contained in said agreement affecting us, 
we, the undersigned, being children of Richard i'. Crane, deceased, 
and stockholders in the Crane Company, do severally hereby agree, 
each with the other, and with the said Charles R, Crane and iiichard 
T, Crane, Junior, to all the terms and conditions of said agreement, 
so far as the same affect the Crane Ctsapany, or ourselves; and we 
do further severally agree that the Crane Company may purchase the 
stock of 'the seller' and may purchase the assets and business of 
the Crane Valve Company in the manner, for the price, and upon the 
terms, and may pay for the same in the manner, in said agreement 
set forthj and that the Board of Directors of the Crane Company 
shall be selected, and by-laws adopted, as provided in said agree- 
ment; and that as stockholders of said Crane company, we will vote 
all stock owned and controlled by us in such way as to give effect 
to all the terms and conditions of said agreement and will specifi- 
cally perform the terms of Article XII of said agreement, and we 
jseverally agree that we will each of us, in compliance with the 
terms of Article XI of said agreement, execute and perform the agree- 
ment of which Exhibit E, wliich is hereto attached, is a copy; and 
the undersigned, ESmlly Crane Ghadbourne, agrees that she will, in 
compliance with the provisions of Article XI of said agreement, 
execute and perform the agreement of which Exhibit F is a copy; and 
we all agree that we will, in compliance with the terms of Article 
XVXI of said agreement, execute the instrument of which Exhibit H 
is a copy, 

"This agreement shall be binding upon and enure to the 
benefit of the parties hereto, and their respective heirs, executors, 
administrators, personal representatives and assigns, 

«IN llTiiESS MiEREOF we have hereunto set our Hands and 



^■^I^I ,ii;ta9vel© Oiu;L be;i&b ^•lOjtxiif'O ,oao*xO ,T ijaarfolH baa ensnO ,H 

^eu scJiJ^oelljii ia@mse^& bJtaa rtl Lenlfid^fioo snoleJtvoiq autf^ lo JkLc 

,fe*aB©0£i) ^sxusiO .T bi^-xJoifi lo nciMlxIo snl«c( ^bosx^laiBbmi &di ,ew 

J>asriol/r BriB siibiD .H esXifiXlO bias ©rf^ d:jhf haa ^isd&o sxiJ^ rfi-iw ifOB© 

^ctn©Jii9©ia.v> f)lisa lo snolcMJMioo bae, tsnei 9di LIb oi ^zolsml ^atusiO ,T 

«ir ims xBsrl&Biifo 10 ,>cnBq[iBoO wia^:) aiW' ;}'oella ©cbs ari;t as isl oa 

0£i5^ eaBilo-xyq ^aa >cfiJ«qmoC ©asiO ©xU ^sil;)' eanjs Yllaieygg is^'isj^ ofc 

lo 2asKiai;«f fcnij aitoea/B arf^ seBXistDq Xjmb tifie *ieLl9E 9r(d-» lo 3foo;ta 

af{i noqir bos ^©oJtiq s/l;J 10I ^lenniim ©Af fl± xflsqaoO srvIsY ©xusnO odi 

:iii6m&e'i^& bt&a, al ^iBtmam strict el 9st»« ©rf^ nol xaq xbdi bna ^aarrst 

YiiaqsaoO ©iflHnO arid" lo a'xo;tosi±a lo bisoa ©rid' :fii£f;J' boB (ii;tiol Jos 

-3©ias bifia nl b©blvoT:q eb ,b»d'qobj8 awal-^cf bxjjs ,b9d"o©I©8 ©cf Ilsris 

9:fov IIlw ©w ,vtsqinoC efiaiO bt&z lo ei©blad2Coo;Ja bb ;}-srf:t bna ;cJ'n9fl: 

;J^3©11b ©vjtg o;J as x^w £J©«a nl air Y«^ l>allo'x:ffloo bos Lgixwo aiood-a IIb 

-iliosqa IIJw fens JfiSiaoaTSis f>iB8 lo anoWlbnoo bris affli©;r ©rfd^ IIb oJ- 

9Kt btm ^iaoziest^B hlMz lo IIX ©loiJi:.. lo aun©^ wfJ fij^ol'isq \Il&o 

»ri;t- xf^Iw ©oaBJtiqooo at ,21; lo iIob© IIlw ©w tsslS ©©18** Y„IJ^?av-"g^ 

-9613B Off* izraoli©q bns ©inrsxs jd^nemosiaB bim lo IX ©Isl^iA lo zsvxsi 

boB ixqoo £ el ^bsdofl;f;tB oiez9ii «1 jiloliliv ^S iltiiiixZ rfolxlw lo d-nsxra 

flj. t^Lliw ©rie :tBfid' zss^ga ^ennxrodbaxfO ©flatO xltaSL jbaxialaiebni/ ©rU^ 

^dneffise^gs btst lo H ©lolii lo anolairvoiq ©itt itJIw ©ooBlIqiBOO 

bxLs ix<ioo 3 Ejt "5 ^J^ld'lrixS iiolrfw lo tn&mBOi^B ©ii;t aaolisq bfia 9:tx/09X9 

sloiJ^ i lo ai£is;t a/l;t iiiiw ©oiisIXqiaoo xiJt ^IIJw ©w ^terii e&l^& IL& ©w 

H ;rj;(fMx:S rfoiriw lo Jneaujictanl ©rLt ectifosx© ^ia&taBOtZB blse lo IIVX 

♦Xqoo B ai 
©rli o^ ©•ajos bjOB noqir snlbnlcf ©d IXbiIb (tneassijB alriT" 
^aiod-tioQx© ^enisil ©vid^oeqaen ilsd$ ba& ^o;t9ioxt a©l:}'iBq ©itf lo d-Ilsnscf 
.enSlaaB bne sovWaiJrtsaQriqoi lanosiSKi jaiocfB^ctslnimbB 
fjoffl efifLsH 1JJ0 i&z octiiif9i9£i svaxl ow •?oaf®}M aaailTB! stl* 



-1 

-39- 

Seals this Eleventh day of June, A, D, 1914, 

"Kate G. Gartz (Seal) 

'•Frances C, Lillie (Seal) 

"Mary C. Russell (Seal) 

"^illy Crane Chadbourne (Seal) 

"Herbert P, Crane (Seal)" (Italics ours.) 

Upon the same date all of the parties executed the trust 
agreement referred to as Exhibit S, and the appellants contend that 
the "addendua" to the agreement of June 11, 1914, and Exhibit E 
control the obligations of the members of the Crane family other 
than Charles H, and Richard T., Jr, The agreement signed by Charles 
K, and iiichard T., Jr., and the so-called •♦adaendum" or "consent," 
in our judgaexit, are parts of oi^ agreement, which has been called 
"tt^ Family Settlement Agreement.'* As well stated by counsel for 
appellees: "* * * whereas it is perfectly apparent from the terms 
of said agreement, as above indicated, that it was one between all 
the members of the Crane family for the purpose not only of provid- 
ing for the control and management of said Crane Coiapany by the 
so-called ♦high bidder' and of settling the differences between the 
two brothers with respect thereto, but also for the purpose of 
settling the differences between the two brothers and their other 
brother and sisters arising out of rights or claims, 'legal, 
equitable or moral, ' which the latter had asserted with respect to 
the provisions of their father's Will, and with respect to some 
share of the 'Estate Stock' held by the estate of their said father, 
Richard T, Crane, Sr,, as well as for the express purpose of carrying 
out the expressed desire of qXI th e criildren of said R ichard I. Crane , 
Sy .y that the burdens of said Agreement of December 2, 1912, should 
be borne by all children of Richard T, Crane, deceased, who might 
receive any share of his estate. Said agreement expressly provided 
for the division of such part of the 'Estate Stock' as should remain 
after the transfer of certain portions thereof as in said agreement 
specified, into five equal parts for the equal benefit of the other 
members of the fojnily in the manner provided in Article XI of said 
agreement, and, as above stated, that they accepted the stock so 

/' 
/ 



iassT^ etU boii.f09X9 esjtiiijq »ffJ lo lis ©J^sB ©flxse sd;)' noqU 
ixoii baoiaoo zSaall&qciii srfcT baa ,3 ;tidli.[jc3 ss oJ- Bsaislan cfns-aissia^ 

•ioil:to xXlsiBt ©msnO siW lo atsctewa &dt lo exxoiJisail^^o »i!cf Io-i;tnoo 

** ^Sii&Qaott*' 'to "narJbaaljbx)" boIlBO-oa edi fiiia ^.ili ,,T b-xailelil 6«c ,H 

l>9XIeo fi6©<f aari dohibif ^iaeiasvii^Q Bao lo 2;ti»q 9^s ^cfnwaatot "xtfo nX 

lol Xsenxroo x<^ bsi^sJ-g XX ew zA ".trxoaesriak ^rnsfflssXid-sa xXlitta'^i ari;^" 

aiais^f ad^ «oil Jrtoisqqfi xX^o»li©q «X *X eae'Mrfw ^*■ * *« laedXXoqq* 

IXfi n&&nisiS ano asw ^X d-scfct ^betsaibat ©vocfs cja ^JiI9flI»»'ssB JbJLa* lo 

-bivcriq lo ^^jXho ;ton eeoqiirq ed^j" lOl xXXmal ©xixjiO etii la Bt9daea 9Ai 

eiri:t xd xuBCiLiOO aasiO bJb&s lo ?iieaisi;jsni5a bn& Loiiaoo aciJ- nol gnX 

orlcf «e9(?/;;e«f asonoisllXi) eri;t 3nXXJ";t»8 lo fens •le&JbXd rigXri* Jb©XX3S>-08 

lo eaoqiuq SilJ lol OEXe d"ir«f ^od'enarfd- Josqast fl[JX»r aiodd'oncf owJ- 

lexlcTo iXeiid- bns axsrl^oitf cw^ srtf neewJ-scf aoonsiellXb 9d& gnXXcfJ^ea 

^XsgeX' ,8ailfiXo io &iA:glt lo d^eo anlaXts ai^cftXa bos isri^o-ref 

o^ cfosqaei /I;tXw tsinsaae £>axi lactdsX sxtf xfoXriw * ,Xfi'xoffi «io »Xd[flitup» 

acioa ow JosqsBi itJlw Jins ^JCIli e'lsrlcfBl ilsri^ lo snoXaXvoiq arfi 

^rrexld-fil blsz itBdi lo ©Jsd-as arf^ xcf f^Xari »i09;ta »;fs*aa» arii- lo ©aaris 

JiaX-^iiBO lo ©eoq'iiAi eaoaqjc© 9tii lol as XXevr es ,,18 4»nsn0 4'i &'XJ3r£oXfl 

^ euBiO ^T fi^y^aXH J^Xjss ^o g9i£)Xixfo 9xl;t XXa. lo ©ilsaL bo'ezeiqx9 e*i;J :^iro 

bXj/oa'a ^SII^X ^S lodmeosa lo :fn©iB90i8A i>Xi58 lo sns&nxM ©£f;t ^&xi* ,.58 

JiigXa Qffw ,f»©2j3©o©I) ^sflBiD »1 biBiIoXH 1© n9ii?XXfIo XXii xd ©nnocf ©cf 

bBblvoiq "^clagsiqx© iasmB9i^Q btsQ ,0i-Sjiae elrf lo ©asrie x«b ©vlsoei 

al&ai9i blsjodz ajs »i[ooici 9iB&aSi* Bdi lo i^rraq ffojxa lo nolaXvUb ©itt lol 

c>-K9flx©©T:a.<i biija al as loe'iexl;? axjoXJ-noq uXB^'neo lo islanfi^^ ©xIcT iscfls 

larfd-o QiiS lo iXlsuQCf Xfii/p© ©ild^ 10I 'diiBq lB£ip9 &wlt a&al ,£)eXlXo©qa 

bXsa lo IX ©XbXtrii', al bsLXvoiq iBitaem. 9di ni \XXiasl arifJ- lo zneefmsm 

oa jEooJ-a add" csJ^qsooB x*^^ Jjsrii ^bsd'iaJ'a evodz es ^Jdxus ,d^fl»ia©©i3« 



-1 

-40- 

allotted to them in full satisfaction of any claims which they (all 
of said children except said Charles R. Crane and Richard T, Crane, 
Jr.) might have or might have asserted, arising out of the failure 
of any of the last named parties to secure the right at any time in 
the past to subscribe for, purchase or receive any stock of the Crane 
Company, Furthermore, Article I of said Family Settlement Agreement 
expressly provides that the executors of the estate of Richard T. 
Crane, Sr,, shall immediately transfer and deliver to The Northern 
Trust Company^ as Trustee under said Agreement of December 2, 1912, 
2,>0C shares of »Estate Stock,' to be held by said Trustee in lieu of 
the 2,500 shares of Crane stock previously transferred to it by Charles 
R. Crane; and sets forth the amount of Crane Company stock which will 
be held as 'Estate Stock' when the transfers thereof therein specified 
shall have been made, amounting to 55#217 shares, and, in addition 
thereto, the 5»000 shares standing in the name of The Northern Trust 
Company as Trustee under said contract of December 2, I9I2, It also 
appears by Article III of said agreement that there was still a credit 
of $741,030,57 on account of an unpaid dividend of l8% on 'Estate 
Stock' staMing on the books of Crane Company to the credit of the 
estate of Richard T. Crane, deceased, the distribution of which is 
therein provided for." Exhibit E (Article I) provides that each of 
the members of the Crane family siiall transfer and delivei? to IhiS 
Northern Trust Company, as Trustee, certain securities, which are to 
be held by the trustee during the life of Mrs, Junkin, subject to the 
following terms and conditions: 

"Paragraph (a). Second parties and third party agree that 
froDa the dividends and income derived from said 6,000 shares of stock 
and $195*000 face value of bonds there shall be made the payments 
provided for in Paragraph 2 of said agreement of December 2, 1912, and 
all other payments, if any, which Charles R, Crane and Richard T. Crane, 
Junior, covenanted in said agreement of December 2, I9I2, to make, and 
that one-seventh of the sum necessary to make said payments shall be 
taken from the dividends received from each 1,000 shares of stock 



IIjb) x»JdJ iloldw saiaio tris !• noJtd-Oislal j ae IXirt: at moAi oi b&SSollB 
ortirlliil SiiJ to *<fo gitJtalTca ^fis^-iftBBjB ©TBri ;^xl§lffl ao •Tad id^tm (.,i1 

s3.i^iii(M »riT o^ i»viiab b/is ifrlfi. <9iJ TjXd^tAifcSMil: IXaffiB ^,t3 ^silbiO 

^S^Jifl ^^ t&^iiiQoeQL lo ifiQia»©*j:3^. bJt&s lobmr 9©:f8xn? as ^\:cisqflioO itexriT 

lo xr©ll ill ds^ajEfsT bl&n ycf feXarf axf oc^ »,a£oalC^^'. ©d'sd'sa* lo aoisifa 00<;,S 

eoXTsriO x<f ;ti otf 6a"^nt0l£ii8Tt;r yXfttwDtr^iq jiooda erisiO lo sa'i.'srie OO'^^S exlct 

XXiw xloXiiw s{ooJ3 \n«qiHoC art^iC lo ;tntfOflis 0ri;t rfcfiol 8;f9e forte jsn/snO .JI 

fo9l'3:l09qe nis^sxict 1oai9£it «i«l8ftjr5d' »rW oBtiw 'ifooJE 9;ffl^ea» es fcXeil ad 

aoicfifofojs ill ,Jbfls ^aaiarfe V-tS^^(J o^ ^atfmsoiati ^obam n©ecf svarl XXerfa 

tfaj£fiT fl^attfioll fiafP lo ematt srij nl solbneJ'e aeiajla 000,^ ^>(ii ^o^siadt 

obXb ^I .Sl^i ^S istffltswjat 1© ctositnos Iil3« toJbmf »»*a*rrt. a,e '^flsqiBoO 

iibeic J3 IXiJa esvr stedi iadi iat>Bi^Bt^& ftlKalo III ololiiA X6 aissqqjs 

aJ-jud-sS* no «6l lo £»rrsl>lvjti> ftlaqm; iS£ lo iaL'oot>s no Tt!«0£OtX*'?$ "io 

sdi lo ctxJ39io arid- oc? AcniisqiaoO extjBiO lo ai^occf orfi no gnlhne^a 'ifoodS 

ei risirfw lo aotissdliiHlb mi:i ,fceefiac©fc ^snstO ,^i fciariolH lo »d^s;Ja9 

lo ilose* ;tBri;J esbivoiq (I •XslJ-aA) S cticfitfxa ",to1 boJbXvoiq flioiexi:^ 

•41 0* «§yi:X9fo ims i&lena«i IXaxis xXliaal eaeiD erfi lo aiecffflSia adcf 

od- SIB rioJtilv? ^89i;^l'soo9a ixlR^*£ad ^©s^ao'iT as ^x^^^ckT' d-aimT criari^'ioM 

jjflJ oj ctoa^cfwe ,xjx2£flifl. .aiM lo aliX ©d;t gjalnjufe 60^ej<f'xJ erW X^f foXsrI ed 

zzaolSlbtxoo bne p.mtei snlwoXXol 

iBtii ss-xsc "^d^iBq hilii^ £»fis S9±:fizq fonooec: ,Cb) rfqs^isjs^js*!" 

^oo-te lo asiada 000,6 Slua «di1 b&vli^b ©eioofii biue abnsfolviB srid^ inonl 

s:;t.a©fS^Bq ed;t ©feam 9rf XXaria ei9iii aJbiiiocf lo ©i;X;3V 90b1 00(}4^^X$ ba^ 

boB .^~L<^1 »:i; io«fia©j>fea lo ;tneiiaosi3s bX^a lo £. riqsisjsiail iii: lol !»efoXvoiq 

^Qo&iQ .T Jb'jfijiDXE £>£is 9aatO ,£ eaXiJJxlO floXrfw ^^hb 11 ^ad-nearjsq i»rito XXs 

b«B 4©ai6ffi o;J- »'.>X^X ^S necfiasosC lo d-flHMaesngB Alaa ni b»^nfln»TO» ^lotnul 

©cf XXBila a;Jii©imj;j3q oXjsa e^a oJ' -^iBaaeosn isu/a ©.ff;t lo xidrisvee-sflo ^Ari;J 

2ioo.ta lo a©i6iia QQO^l 4o&9 xaoil bevloosi sfonefcivlfo ari* moil ns^ts^t 



-41- 

transferred and delivered to said The Korthern Trust Company, as aboTO 
set out, and one-seventli of the sum necessary to make said payments 
shall be taken from the interest collected from the bonds transferred 
and delivered to the said The Northern Trust Company, as above set out# 

"Paragraph (b). Said The Northern Trust Company shall keep 
separate accounts with each of second parties, and shall collect the 
dividends received from each 1,000 shares of stock transferred by each 
of second parties who shall have transferred stock herexmder, and shall 
pay from the dividends received from each 1,000 shares, one-seventh of 
all payments which sha . ll be ma de in accorda nce wj[,th Par,aK raph 2 of said 
agr eement of Beceiaber ?, 191gj and one-seventh of all moneys which 
Charles R. Crane and Richard T. Crane, Junior, covenanted by said agree- 
ment of December 2, 1912, to pay, and said The Northern Trust Company 
shall pay the remainder of said dividends, if any there shall be, to 
the person who deposited said 1,000 shares of stock. In addition thereto 
said The Northern Trust Company shall collect all interest which may be 
paid on said $195,000 face value of bonds, and shall pay therefrom one- 
seventh of all payments which shall be made in accordance with Paragraph 
2 of said agreement of December 2, 1912, and one-seventh of all moneys 
which Charles R. Crane and Richard T« Crane, Junior, covenanted in said 
agreenent of December 2, 1912, to pay. And said The Morthern Trust 
Company shall pay the remainder of such interest, if any there shall be, 
to said Charles R, Crane, 

"Paragraph (c). In the event that any of said second parties 
shall die prior to the death of EaXly Hutchinson Junkin, said The 
Northern Trust Company shall pay to the executors, administrators and 
assigns of the person who shall so have died, all moneys which would 
have been paid to such person had he or she not died, 

"Paragraph (d). Upon the death of the said Emily Hutchinson 
Junkin, said The Northern Trust Company, as Trustee, shall transfer and 
deliver to each of second parties, and in the event of the death of any 
of second parties then to their executors, administrators and assigns, 
the stock or bonds so transferred and delivered by them to the said 



fidT^dlsiiU^i^ filmed fioAi buoiI bd^fselX^o ^BSieJ-nX 9tii saoit a»-^;t Bd iljuiz 
tiuo ^»a ©vorfy 2i5 ^^^^ojsqffioO ^sviT aiQiHio/: ari^ fcJLsa &ri^ oj- bsiovlIeJti baa 

9fi[^ ^cellos Ilisxis boM ^esl^J^iaq buooea to iiofle diix sJ'iuiqooa sJ^A-Xfiqea 
dose xtf b&ziQt&aR'xJ iie(xJ3 "io ssueile OOO^X Aoj^o mo'tl beTlsoot 2l)n»f)ivlb 

lo iljxieva3-9.«o i^ae-x^iia OOU,X xioss) acyi'i bPvXeoei sbat^blvib sxf^ ao^l xaq 

bXaft lo £ Aftfe- x^^g^ y iijj:g eauft{3?a::6a. nl s>Ixafli, »tf XXbiI^ flp^vf e&;ta»iitv;Aq XX£ 

xioXriw a^enoia XXs lo i;i^iievoa-aa« Ma ^i^^PX ^S ladypoe^ lo iaeas&^TiB 

-ssi^fi £>^£ Xi^ bsins^vv^Q ^'zqXpjoI ^9nB%0 «X J»itfii^JtH bau^ moBiO ,H eoX^AxiO 

■<fa»qiaoO ^s*f'il' a'seriij^aoK adT bi;ia fine ,XBq o;^ ^^.X^X »S istfaKJoeQ lo iaem 

o'J H&4 IXods B%9ti;i V^ IX ^abnet^ivXt bXio£ lo xebai^aei edi x&q XXade 

oSBi&ai aol^iiJibB al ♦Jioocfe lo t^nsixit OOO^X btjis becfXeoqob oifw noaisq ori^ 

.'Cf -^afi: ilsJLff'w ^a^Ts^fli XX« cl^oslloo XXiiria xciiq«oO ^ajJiT niexId^ioVI oxiT bXaa 

-yiio isoils^ati^J xaq XXafla bne ,abaoa lo &sjI&v eosl OOOji^^X^ blse no bXjsq 

jdqjsaas'iij'i iiiiv* sswiBbnoo&a al bLoso. sq XXaria xfsJLrlw e;?n8«ncijq XXfi lo rii^nsvaa 

3Tj9flO£i lla to tiias»-VBB-Qao baa %SX^X ,S ladaiaosa lo ^fl»ffl9©i3s bXjse lo $, 

d-sw-sS aiQtiiiOH »rix feX^a bixA .\aq oi «SX^X ,S asdffleo9Ci lo iasaes^^n 
^9<i XXj>Gt« ©lasdJ" xna 11 ^iasieial tioisz lo i&bnXainBi sxW ^J^q Ilarie •\yusqffloO 

,3iui9^0 ,il bbXi^sH:) bXtiSi oi 
BBJt&iAq bfloo«e bXjje lo xas c^axW ;Jxxsve etid^ al .(o) fiqa iisis1'« 

SffT bXi58 ^nJbkiifL xsoanXdodx/H xXlt^ lo diaeb Biii oi loliq eib IXj*x-le 

baa tioi&i:^f:lcil&ibs ^aioJ^irosxs &tii o^ ^^ Xlada ^oaqaioO iztrfU ai&diioyi 

bliJG^ dolMM c^snoffl XX a ^b&Xb ©Vjarf oa XXatla oriw noeioq oitJ lo snaiaaB 

,b9ib ion sdz -xo exl bad ooaieq xt9Xia oc^ biisq n&scf ovari 

noenj:c(o;?jufli xXiiaS bXfie 9di 1© it^asb arid- noqU ,(1)) dqjsiajs^s^" 

foiXjB lolecBTd- XXi^-ria ^ssJaxJiI as ^x«-sqfioD i^suiT aioil^iow 9xiT bi.^;8 ^oXaimjl 

■^ns lo iUa&b &t^ lo ^novs ©d;t al bns ^asld^ijaq bcooee Ip riose o^ isvXXeb 

^EXXgXEas bxis 8io^ai;taXjaXia5s ^a^oiwaexe ilsri^ od^ iieric^ aeX^txeq bnooss lo 

bXsa srtf od ta&cii x«f fcpieviXsb bxis boiielBosT:^ oe zbaod tro sloocfa ari^ 



^ 



-4^ 

!Hie Jforthern Trust Company, as Trustee, as hereinabove set out,* 
(Italics ours.) 

Paragraph 2 of the agreement of December 2, 1912, between Charles 
R. and Richard T,, Jr., and the widow of Richard T. Crane, deceased, 
provides for the payment, quarterly, of so much of the dividends 
and income of certain securities as is necessary to make her net 
annual income, including the net amount of income which she shall 
receive from the marriage settlement agreement and the Atchison 
bonds, the sum of $100,000, Each of the parties to the trust agree- 
ment (Exhibit S) authorized tlie trustee to pay his or her one-seventh 
of all payments which were to be made in accordance with said 
Paragraph 2 to Mrs, J uhkiQ . This trust agreement did not modify 
the personal obligation assumed by each of the members of the Crane 
family to pay one-seventh of any deficit which might arise. At the 
time of the signing of the trust agreement, all of the parties un- 
doubtedly expected that the income from the securities so deposited 
with the Trust Company, together with the income from the Atchison 
bonds which had been given to Krs, Junkin by the terms of the 
ante-nuptial agreement, would be amply sufficient to provide for 
the payment of the guaranteed income of $100,000 # The record shows 
that the Crane Company paid a dividend of eighteen per cent in one 
year, and it was not until it passed its dividend on March 15, 1932, 
that a deficit arose. This is not the first law suit that was bojrn 
of the great depression. Three of the Crane children. Prances C, 
Lillie, Mary G, Russell and Qaily C, Ciiadbourne, have each paid 
their respective shares of the deficit in full, and they are not 
parties to tois appeal. The complaint as amended alleges that 
"since the execution of said Trust i^greement of June 11, 1914, 
plaintiff [The Northern Trust Company], as such Trustee, has 
rendered to each of the parties thereto separate statements of 
account, as provided thereby, showing the income received by plaintiff 
from said securities, and the application thereof, and, since the 
same arose as aforesaid, showing the amount of the current deficits 



i^BtiiQ aoXlail) 

8ji>xi9£>i:vli) sid^ lo dosm o& lo ^^i&;f']:«jj|> ^J'iianipisq &d:i im>1 ao&Jtvoiq 
cl'dxc iQXi &:Aim. &i xiimzBit&a si aa u&XStvJo^u al»t'iBti lo emooal ba» 

aoBliiois. 9di baa :txieiB99'X^ iix^m>liif>B B^ti'itm »iii moi'l vvtstoei 

-e>8'xs& ;}F&spii edi oi aeJ:;t%jgq atis lo iIo«H ,00u^O0X$ lo avz saiS ^sJbnou 

iiunbvea-^xiQ %s& io elii \sq oct &«i6$jit Bii;i b»&Xioti:iua iU. iXdldx^) iaom 

bJbiQ diJOK aosinbiooos sit 9ii>»M 9d %>i &%S!v jEiolfiw alnMn(3q 1X4 lo 

>[lii>offl J on bib ia^t»9i^ i&uii elril' . uX^fqiifL .a«M oj ii xiqstraatsl 

sofiaO Stftr lo 2'xd<l£jdffi ad;^ lo doa£> -^d Ciotw&iis aaJbc^sj^Ioo J4i<aoarc3q odd 

mU iA ,s«i*ij3 ^xi^liH dialdnt JxoXl»i> -sbcijs lo xUnsvea-ano Xfq o^ \Xjtoal 

-ru; aaX;^isq wW lo XXa ,in9JB9©ias ;^ai;i^ Gdi lo gflXflsXa «il:^ lo ami;* 

b»^luoq&h o8 eftl^/^X'xx/oos »fl;^ aiq^I asoouni &d^ iutti bBioaqpsM xSJi^iduob 

ao^Moik mU moil QisDoal oiU ditm i&iii6:g^oi ^-^^aBqaoO ^ei^iT odJ' d;iiMf 

&ii lo aaneJ' Bdi \d aJbiouT. .siii at jo&vis iia»cf i)«ri rfoi/iw sbcocf 

lol si)xvoiq oJ i&&lul't1ii& xXqaiB 9c( £)Xj;qw ^^nsttose'x^ii XAX>tqij;fl-»9;tni& 

ewQiie b'ioofit acfT «0O0^00Ii: lo esioonl bQ9iaii'Uiiri sd^ 19 ias>Bi%iiq sxiJ 

9no al ^a90 asq assJiisis lo baoblvlb a bXsq x;a^qm^C ea^iO ed;^ ;t&£l.t 

^^it^X fCX doi&M no l3in9l)lvl^ s^X |}0«ejsq il Llicus Jou saw ^i: baa ^iio&\ 

mod Hijw c^BTli ilssz wbX J^aiXl dxlcf d'oa si eXrlT ,oeoi.;j ;tioXloi) « &&dJ 

.0 e»ofliS*i^ ^asifoXXfio enaiQ edi lo a^TriT ,riolce»Ti;qs£! ^a«t8 ed^ lo 

£>X»q xio>:i£> ®vmi « 9s£t.'xjuoaJi»&i.iO .0 xJUi^ baa XXea&irH tO '^goaM «eiJ:Xi;<I 

ctoa s-xs x^^ ^i^ ,XXjj1 ai (J-Xoils-b sedui lo esijads *vl;to9qa©i il€»ii;*- 

tsdi HQ^^llB bBbti.&tm sa ^otsiqaeoo odT ,Xiseqq« ali ;J od^ aeLtisq 

^M?X ^XX ©ruu^, lo ;i^asffi£t»is.l iauzT bi&^ lo aoXcTjt/osx© ©lU oonXa" 

a«ii ^9o;rEm'i: iioxfe 3« ^C-^fLsqiaoO ^axiiT ni^diioVi sxfl] llXcfnXaXq 

lo Hiiea&Jniz 9i^isq9z oi^nsdi seliisqi &d:S lo iIoh® oi bei&J&iadi 

llX;Jr£JtsXq "^cf JbavXeooi ea»»xiX ad^ snlvfoifa ,4X<^©i9ilt feeJilvotcq e& ^j^jauoooa 

&di Qoalz ^bOB ^loQiedi nold'sdlXqqiS 9di bas ^z9l^ltssi)9ii bl&& moil 

a^ioXlel) onsiitro ari;^ lo ^^flwcMaa &dS jysXworia ^blecaiola Sd »8oas «8fi8 



and the amount due from them, respectively, on account thereof, 
and has made demand upon each of them for lairaediate payment 
thereof. Each of the said parties has heretofore recognized his 
or her liability for their respective shares of such deficits as 
provided hy said 'Family Settlement Agreement, » and the said 
parties hy their acts have construed the said agreement to obligate 
them to pay their proportionate shares of such deficit quarterly 
as the same arises,*' Tlie testimony shows that in accordance with 
the provisions of the trust agreement (Exhibit 1), separate accounts 
were kept by the trustee, and statements were rendered to each member 
of the family, quarterly, down to the time of the filing of the 
instant complaint, a period of nearly twen ty-three year § . It appears 
that these statements were rendered by The Northern Trust Company, 
"as Trustee for Emily H, Junkin, under an agreement dated December 2, 
1912, between Charles P, Crane and Richard T, Crane, Jr., and under 
a supplemental agreement dated June 11, 1914, between those parties 
and Herbert P, Crane, Kate C. Gartz, Mary C. Russell and Emily C. 
Chadbourne, covering the quarter year ending June 2, I938, *^ * * to 
each of tlie members of the family, that is, the parties interested^ 
and statements substantially in the same form were rendered from 
June 2, 1922, down to date," From and after Jtme 2, I922, the date 
of the agreement between Charles R. and Richard T«, Jr., with Mrs. 
Junkin, by which her guaranteed income was reduced frcaa $100,000 
to $85,000 per year, the statements were rendered in accordance with 
the written orders of Mrs, Junkin to the Trust Company and showed 
the basis upon v/hich the same were made, and that Charles R, and 
Richard T,, Jr., were being charged on the basis of $85,000 and the 
other members of the family were being charged on the basis of 
$100,000 per year, and no objection was ever made by any of the 
members of the family to the statements as rendered, Herbert P, 
called upon Harold H, Rockwell, trust officer and vice president 
of The Northern Trust Company, in reference to the deficits that 
had accrued, but made no objections to any of the statements rendered 
to him by the trustee, nor did he deny his liability as shown by said 



,lo: .^ifl:)- jiay?ioooa ao ^\lo\-t'c-yji.ii'i ^saudi nail eub J-njuojoa wO" ba^ 
jdCCaq »)&tb9mil t.o noqjj knjBasb eJiisBi tad bxxs 

ea aiioiloi) riai/a lo eaiade evl^oaqeei -xladJ lol x^lIWall tod 10 

«^asXXuo CKt crxidiB€)®:xss i>i;«« ad^ bexn^anps evjui a;f9s lisd^ X^f esi^iaq 

Aii^ 6QasibiQ0D& al «t«£U awojdft \aosili&e;i miS ",%e9.1is dose «dii as 
:iisuiQo^& 9:^£a&q»8 ^(@ ;^jtcflxtx;3I) ^n9iaa9%a3 ^axn^ fucfi lo ejaolai^oiq edi 

8T[3aqq.«, J-I .ai:aeY 4?t;iiio;r~Y;jiiewi vlTCffff. !• »ftli8<jr a ^;tnl»Iqaioo :fa.%ital 

^: iQdaiiJDafll J>©;JaJb J^; . xsi* i»bsuj ^jCLbtoA. ,H xXj^pfli 10I aatsinl ««" 

^Qliiaq oa©ri;' (. .^1 <^11 mB\ b9iiib iastKOBf^a Leif^ 

• v xllma biifi Ll^mL'fi .0 x^i^ ^s^n^Q ,0 v^jsJi ^9aa%0.,i tiQdi&Ji baa 

tijAt^sio^xU eai;;trL0q tiU «si: ^ IJwk'I eilt lo eiscfaeffi bc^ lo iio«e 

jBO'tl li^^ebosi &>-xdw fiTco'l 9tt^« d£fi Ai xllBlitiiii'iiisis s:^a9U9iaiz tms 

9iBh ©rW ftSS^X ^'I ©xaA. is^tls f>fl« laorrt "♦•4aJ& oc; rwoli ^SS^I ,2 ntwl 

,&xk£ 4:Mw ^.it, ^.T &rL&4:^i^ tofi .H eaXo^O ae9w^»di Sasmeei'^B edi lo 

OOO^OOX^ laotl ^doifbdi sfiw «ciC9£ii; £>9e;^fifiaBi;3 i^d d9ld« \di ^at^rwT, 

iiJ-iw ©ofljabwooB al b^i^ba^i ai.9v ttlraess&i&iz sdd" <iis(»x "i®^ 000,^8$ o^ 

bswodls ba& "f^fi^qsiOyi ^ftx/ia' ad^ oct aJUavT, ^ziM lo an8l>io ns^titXiv Qdi 

baz «H BeX'LaiiO ^jact^ Uia «^l)aa s^sw eoac ed^ doMti aoqu elajBCf ail;t 

ed;^ ba» 000,^8$ lo st&&d bs^iodo snlscf aiew ,,iL ,,T f>axjxloifl 

lo elaacf ©xl;t no bsj-ailt- ax^-tscf piaw xXXmel ad^ lo aiedmam. -i^dio 

&dS lo xflA \fi ^baa aevo cbw i2oX;t9$t^ci 0x1 bofi ^lasx ^dq 000«OpX$ 

,-i iiti&c: , '9T9f>ii9n 8 3 8j«©ciod'BC>'a axU" od '^XibkI add- lo aiedmea 

ia&blB&iq tic^iv : lllo i^isij ,XX9wafoofi .11 £»Xoi«H ixoqj;/ JbeXXao 

d'sd^ «^loXleI> fiiij go &oasi9loi al ^xasqatoO izwij niexiifioM axlT lo 

£)97&£ii9^ e^faestd^js^te ac£;t lo ob&m tu4 ^besjtoos bad 

blsB xtf flworie as x^XXicf^lI aM XAoi) s/i l2iL loi. ^&9i&ini ariJ^ x<f iaJW o4^ 



statements. A, F, Gartz, Jr., made no objection to the amoimt of 
the deficits shown by th© statements to be due from Kate G, Gartz, 
and after the closing of the estate of Richard X., Jr., a, ?♦ Gartz 
wrote the trustee a letter, received by the latter on January 24, 
1933* reading: "Bnclosed you will pleaiie find & check to your 
ord:r for $2852.^1, being the amount of deficit on Mrs. JunMn's 
trust due from Kate G. Gtrtz," (Italics ours.) On September 24, 
1935# Gartz paid to the trustee the sum of $10,000 and received from 
the trustee the following receipt: "Received the sum of J510,000 from 
A, F. Gartz, Jr., Trustee for Kate C, Gartz to apply on deficit in 
her share of the payment due Bmily H. Junkin under the terms of 
agreement dated June 11, 1914." (Italics ours.) On January 29, 
1936, Gartz paid to the trustee the sum of $20,830,48, and received 
from the trustee "a release running to A, P. Gartz, Jr., Irustee 
for Kate C, Gartz on account of the deficit of Mrs. Gartz in her 
contribution to the annuity fund of Emily H. Junkin in the sum of 
$20,830.48." Until the filing of their answers neither of the 
appellants l^d made any objection to the form of the trustee's 
statements or to the amounts shown by the statements to be due from 
time to time on account of the existing deficits. The trial court, 
in his opinion, commented upon the practice followed by the trustee 
and the parties to the trust, and held that they knew "what the 
trustee was doing, how the trustee was stating the accountj and their 
own actions put a stamp of approval on the conduct of the trustee," 
It is clear that the present contention of the appellants is an 
afterthought and that over a period of many years all of the parties 
recognized that the trustee was keeping its accounts correctly. The 
appellants are now estopped from claiming that the trustee kept its 
accounts incorrectly. 

The trial court held that Kate C. Gartz, Frances C, Lillie, 
Emily C. Ciiadbourne, Mary C, Russell and Herbert P. Crane were each 
liable to plaintiffs to the extent of one-seventh of the deficit. 
We affirm the court's ruling in that regard. 



( < 



^■^S \i:iijr[£,^j ao le-Jisl «d:J x<f berleoei ^nej-cfsl a esizifi^ ©rid- ©cfoaw 
ijyox 0^ Jlowio & bnll »aselq IXlw uox fesaoloua" janlfcsM: t££?-i 

^AS •»tfffl©;tq9a nO (.aox/o eolla^tl) ".a^n.^O ,0 ots.^ jhoiI exrb J^guiJ- 

motl fosvleoei ftna 000,01$ to fttis ©xl* ©«ifgin:t arii oi* bl&q ziiaO ,^£<?I 

ffioil 000,01$ lo mm eiiS beviooeH" t^qisoei anJtwoiiol ©/icf 9»;t8i/i;t erf;t 

fix ;r2:oi:l9b no xlqcin oi s^itsd ,0 eisA io1 ©«t«i/iT ,,iL ,s:t'i.et) ."^ .A 

lo afiPi©;f arid- isbnju fi JSffl^T^ .H YllBtr! 9S}b iaear^si oiii lo ©iBria ^©ri 

,^ Xi>^i*fiJ3l aG (♦E'LUo ao±Ija;M) ".-M^I ^11 «m/t h©;^ijb ;ta©ms©ia« 

i^9Vi»o©i bflij ,B^,0£8,0S$ lo ima 9tii »9ittni ©rlJ oi bleq sti^O ,^£^1 

oectaifiT ,,tL ^tii^iBd .*? ,r o;J s^lmu/i ©zseXeTL «" 9©;f8i;ad aiid ooil 

i9d nl s;fi;50 ,atM lo c^lollsb ©rii lo cJ-mroooe no s^isO ,0 ©cfa]? nol 

lo ffitfe sri;^ n2 nlstm/'C ,K x^JtatS lo feaul -^^Jtianna 9il;t at nolSssdltiaoo 

edi lo leriitlen ei©w8ni5 liari^ lo anllll ad[;t Il^nU •♦.84^,0£8,OS$ 

E»©9d-ei;i;t ©rid lo flnol ec{3 o^ aolSosldo yfi& »bfi« bed Ed'xisIIsqqa 

soil 9xrb c»(i oj edn©£i©d^ed^8 arij x<^ oworis iiasiooB ©ri:t oJ- lo ed-nsjusd-fid^e 

^iiuoo Icilii oiIT ,e;f±oils'b s^lcfalx© ©rid lo ^nxroDos no ©aW od- ©mid 

99iHvn;i arid" x<^ bewollol ©oldoaiq arid- floqjt; bsd^n^iaaioo ^flolnlqo airi al 

adi d^ariw" wsraf x^rid d-Kri^f bisri bflB ^it^mS ©rid^ oJ esl^nsq ©rid- bos 

ilsrid- biiB jd^nxrooos ©rid" snldscta eaw ©©iajmd- ©rid^ wori ^snlob ssw ©©d^airid 

»».©9;tajiii ©rid^ lo iovbuoo srid no iBYOiqqa lo qais^s a ixrq axioid-ds nwo 

ru al adxisllsqqji ©rid- lo nold-nsd-noo dceaeiq srid- d-jsrid- i6©Io al d-I 

asld^isq ©rid^ lo IIb eiasx xnBffl lo bolieq £ ibvo ^&di bna driguorictisd-ljc 

sxlT ,xId-03inoo sjhxujonoa ad^i a^tlqesil eaw ©©i-axjrtd" ©rid iiirid- b8sJbasose<x 

ad"! Jq&i 9©d-eind ©rid iadt gniialjelo iooil baqqodae won ©is ziaBLl9qqB 

'^ .Xl^osiiooflj: simtooaa 

^sillJtJ .0 e9onjBi"4 ,sd^nx;ii .0 9d^e2 d-jsri;^ bleri drttroo Isiiid ©riT 

riojs© &i»w ©rtanO ,? d"i9Cfi9H bxis IIsaaiiH ,0 xiiili ^©mxjoribaciO .0 x-tJLiaS 

• ;t±oJtl9b ©rid- lo xid-nsvee-siio lo ::^aQ&xe arW od- allid-alslq od q1<Sb11 

■I 
.bisasn d-jarfd ui. anilxn a'd-u/oo ©xli mnllls ©W 



— 4-5^ 

But the appellants contend that, in any event, since the 
liability of Charles R« and Richard T,, Jr., in reference to the 
annuity was reduced by the agreement of June 2, 1922, from ^100,000 
to $85>000 the agreement of Jxme 11, 1914-, could not impose on the 
other members of the Crane family a liability as to the annuity 
deficits greater than the "high bidder" could be compelled to payi 
that after June 2, 1922, the "high bidder," Richard T* Crane, Jr., 
could not be compelled to contribute to a deficit existing on any 
basis other than $8^,000 per annum, and therefore $8^,000 per annum 
was the basis for calculation of the annual deficits so far as the 
other members of the Crane family were concernedj that the trustee, 
in continuing to charge the other members of the Crane family with 
one-seventh of the amount which would have been required to pay the 
widow on the basis of an annual income of $100,000, failed to give 
proper effect to the reduction in the annuity fund as provided for by 
the agreement of June 2, 1922, At first blush there would seem to 
be e.iUity in this contention, but a careful consideration of the 
question involved convinces us that there is no merit in it. The 
agreement of December 2, 191^, constituted an obligation which inured 
to the benefit of Emily H, Junkin, and the obligation of each member 
of the Crane family under the family settlement agreement of June 11, 
1914, was a several and not a joint obligation. The agreement of 
June 11, 1914, signed by Charles R, Crane and Richard T, Crane, Jr., 
recites: (^Irticle II) "V/ithin thirty days after the terms and form 
of the bonds and mortgage or trust deed hereinafter provided for shall 
have been agreed upon, and Herbert P. Crane, Kate C. Gartz, Mary C, 
Russell, Frances C. Lillie and Emily C, Chadbourne (who together with 
the parties hereto are the sole surviving cliildren of Richard T« 
Crane, deceased) shall have executed their several consents to the 
terms of this contract, in the form hereto attached * * *," Article 
XI recites: "•»«• * * therefore, the said Kate C, Gartz, PYances C, 
Lillie, Mary C, Russell, Emily C. Chadbourne and Herbert P« Crane 

'^^ severally agree to pay on demand one-seventh of all money which 
may be due and payable vinder said agreement of December 2, 1912* " 



srii Qi BQ£iBt9le'x al ^.iT. ,,T btsdolh ba& *H eeXisrCO lo x^^jtlldsli 

OCX) ^0 or* aoi'i ^SS^X ,i oniaT, lo J-ndaif^s^Sa odJ- x<^ baowbs^ a»5w x^tionna 

adct no sacKiiBi ^on blaoo jM?! ,11 wxul, lo ia&sBBexiB arid^ OOO^^Scfi oct 

>j:fiKaas add- oJ eb x-^jtildsiX « x-t-tmel aaa'xO eilcf lo anodmsjn ^tariJ-o 

•%^, no '^IdaJbta -Jtvlloh b oi sivdliiao'j o;i belloqaioo ©d d^on bluoc 

trntui^ i»q 0OOfC:8<i^ sioltYiad^t boA ^ttsmtB leq 000,(|8$ ai&d:r ledd-o alejsd 

dficf 8£ i£l oe iiilollfjb IsuanA 9di lo aolialssolBO niol dajscf eriJ' asw 

^aeizvLi &di i^i ibQnioonoo 91V0 xlJutuat ttcuii^ 9di lo aiddJatftiii ied;to 

rUfiw xlixoi^l ooiJiO 9x1;;^ lo ai^dm^a i&dio mt egisxio oj anlxfiili-noo ni 

©rii^ X*^ 0^ bsiii;p9i flssd svad bXi/ow xloXiIw ;J'm;offl3 «fW- lo ri^fl»v9e-©no 

•tJls ocf £)oXjtiil «OOC^OGX$ lo emoonX latfcuiH an lo aXaad 9tii no vrotXw 

X«f ool beblyoaq ae l>xu;l ^'l-txam^ axW ill aolioubBi odi ocf Joell© "xaqoiq 

o^ JB&9C bJuo'Sf ei©jQ;t rlewXd i-eiXl J-A «£Si^X ,S sxitfL lo itnemeeisB adcJ 

ari;}^ lo aoli &i9blza<is Xj/Isojbo b j«d ,noX;ta&;Jaoo sXiW nX \:tJUrpe »d 

9d.1 ,ii. al JXiijw 0£i aX eisiW ^ari;^ au asonXvrioo £»9vXovnX noXd^eswp 

l>»ni/nX rioXjdw xxoXJcsaXIdo an boisjilisaoo ,^X^X »S isdffloo»(l ip ;txi»ai9enas 

nodateia doss lo noXJ-ssXXdo edj baa ^^aJbSsuiT, .H \XXfflii lo ^Xlened ©rid- od 

^IX 9XUJT. lo dnsHo^nsa dnsaeXdd'sa xXi^usl Bdi i^bau xlttml ©rusiO arid lo 

lo dndfiiodigB 9£i!r .noXJ^isUdo tixiol b don Ms X^ievee « 8b« ^M^X 

4,it ,9X1*;' . xaiioXii joxlb osaa^O ,fi ewXiedO xd bangXa ,-^X^X ,XX atwl, 

aiol ba.& eM'xii^ exid iBiln ay,ab x^^-tdd nXxldX;" (II sXoid^A) jaodXoei 

IXori?. 10I hsblyotq nedlexxieisii boefc demd 10 ©^a^dioai fcxis aftnod sxld lo 

.0 x^tsM ^sdiAjO ,0 »dB^ ^©itaiO «*i dnsdiell bxiis ,xioqx; bosigs n©«d ever! 

xl^Xvr ^efLdogod oxiw) ba-urodborlO .0 xXI^ ^>^u elXXXJ .0 ^Boacfi ^lleaetsF. 

#T bi&£ioin. lo neibXlfio giiXvlvix/a ©Xoa arid eifi odeian asXdrtaq »xld 

oiid od adfleanoo ItfTcevye aXsxfd beiuoexB a^Bd LL&dz (I>sas90»fc ^©xusiO 

sXoidi ■'. ' '^ hexiojtsdd^ ©deneil miol sxid ni ^dOBUdnoo aixld lo aarasd 

.0 ;^3yi.ii'i- ^c;;ji60 .0 &;^j6jI Mae exid ^©:iol©i©xld * * *" t&eiloei IX 

Siir.-;-'' ^" -"- .r" - jbxjs axixuodbsriO ,0 X-Lta- t^^i®'-'-"' ' ^"J-'-'^ ^olJIiJ 

xloXxiiw xaxioxa IXs lo xidnev9a-eco bxtsasb ao x«1 ©^ ueasa ij jIX^vigv^a of; 
"^SX^X ,S 'lediasosQ lo daaaroeiSB £)X-o8 isfunj;/ aXdaxJ8<l *>"«? sub »d xjmi 



—4-6-' 

Article XVII recite St •'* * * and tinB parties who have executed 
the consent attached hereto severally agree that they accept the 
stock allotted to them in Article X * * *," !I!he so-called consent 
agreement contains the following; "* * * we, the undersigned, 
being children of Richard T, Crane, deceased, and stockholders 
in the Crane Company, do severally hereby agree, each with the 
other, and with the said Charles R, Crane and Richard 1'. Crane, 
Junior, to all the terms and conditions of said agreement, so far 
as the same affect the Crane Company, or ourselves * * '*." In 
several other places in the "consent" agreement the words "sawerally 
agree" are used. In the trust agreement of June 11, 191'^# 15ie 
Northern Trust Company is directed to keep separate accounts with 
each of the parties and to pay from the dividends received from each 
1,000 shares of stock transferred by each to the trustee one-seventh 
of all payments to Mrs. Ju^ikin which shall be made in accordance 
with paragraph 2 of the agreement of December 2, 1912, The reduc- 
tion in the amount of the guaranteed income to $85,000 by the con- 
tract of June 2, 1922, did not affect the obligations of the other 
members of the Crane family under the family settlement agreement, 
Charles R, Crane and Richard T, Crane, Jr., in order to secure the 
agreement of June 2, 1922, were obliged to release Mrs, Junkin 
from certain obligations and undertakings assumed by her in the 
contract of December 2, I912, Any member of the family might, 
for a consideration satisfactory to Mrs, Junkin, release himself 
or herself in whole or in part, of the obligation imposed by the 
family settlement. As we have heretofore shown, the appellants 
for many years construed the agreement in question to obligate 
them to pay, quarterly, to Mrs, Junkin their proportionate shares 
of any deficit. It would work a grave injustice to The Northern 
Trust Company, as Trustee, if the instant contention of appellants 
were sustained. 

Several other contentions are argued by appellants in 
their brief, but it would undxily lengthen this already long opinion 
to analyze and comment upon the same. Suffice it to say that 



K^ 



IwiifO&xQ iiVAd Qf^ir a«j:^rtj&(| <Mt^ fioa * • *" ;ao^2oe'i IIVX eloWiA 

Bt^JblodalooJ^B Jiiua ,i>©a£»oejb ,©iiiiiO ,f fciarfoifl 1o nsifclirio ^nlerf 

^sf£snO ,'i' l/Tiiftel:^ J&n^ ofto^O .h 8aX*x>uI0 fclsa sii^ sMhf ban ^loiiio 
1&1 oc ^5ijear99«x8« Mae *lo saoi^lJ3no» &aa eara»^ «ri:t IIjb o:f ^ioIm;L 

«sriS 4-M^I ,Xi sm/t. lo .tii©ffi&9^S« t«ifi^ exii ol .beau ©ifi "sftiga 

ii560 flB&il Jb©vleo«^ Bbnehlvtb sd:J Btoil xeq ©;> fcna 8«±;Jifiq eri;J lo rioaa 

tLia&'vefS'-mio eQ^i&sn:^ ed* o7 do*© x^ feftaTLslacus^^t j[oo^e *io 8«fTGiiB 000,1 

BOORbiooiia at &bHm 94 Ilatle j^eJirfw ^ij,^jiii;jT. f 8*iSi^ o^ aJitoancBq lis lo 

-of;I)»a «ii5; »i:.l^l ^^I i©dfl»»e<i lo ;^fl®B»©i8.5 9ti;i to S xtqeTaeisq xlcfl"« 

isil^o ©iid^ lo BisoiJjfeiaiJt'^o ^>^^ SofiJIii *©fi felJb ^SS^I ^S aflJLfV lo i-oaxt 
•^jttMsso'ZSis ^asndl^^es N^Iiia^l sii^ loEvusr xXlfitgl •xiisiO 9£i:t ']:o gaodjeiefii 

rxiilaffli .e'scit saaeXs'x o^ feeglXcfo ©-seKr ,SS<?X ^S »nwt. lo cfrtoaeeiisij 

wiiJ at isii '^d bs»a;*(8.".A ESixt»gc5'i€!l)fl» bas taolifsulldo ntaii^o raoil 

^Iri^J:© ijXiausl mii lo rjd^iiiis/s ^f^A .SI^X ,S lecfiraoeCf 1© ^©ai^noo 

tl^ussiiil ©BiSsXei ,0i3ifiif"^ ,arrM o;t •\;'s:o<t:>slalitja aeiisinbleaoo b "lol 

ad* -^d b&aoqmi noiiaalldo axfo' lo ,^isq nJt 10 sXorfw nl IXseieri no 

eJajsIXaqqs edd ^xsvsroiSs ©loloc^ft'xad ©Vsiri sw a A ♦d'fi8i«9X:J'^9B x-f-tts^'i 

e^taglXcfo oc^ aotjtQup al *asaa©i3j9 0xl;t bea'sisaoo ertssx \njBxa lol 

aeiiifia sd-acoltioqoiq ^imdt iilxfltr/Ti .a'scM o^ ,^Xis;t'2s£;p ^^t^q o^ fflsriif 

n'i©£W"iotl attr o^ aolissilail -s-^sita « i'xew fiXxrov.- il ^Stafisb ^Jf^tfi lo 

ed-i3WbXX»^qe lo aoUnaiaao :ttis&&ni ari;^ IJ: ^o»d-stxji'i ss ,-\c«aq;a(oO ^3XfiT 

aoXuxgo s«oX "^feaeiXiS aliicJ- n0ii*^i»X xXi^rfeofl bXaow it iud ^jBiid ilod:^ 
i'airi[d'^B2' od Jl ©oXllxiti ,9ffl«8 arii noqw d'nscaaoo ba^ esxl&ti^ oi 



-47- 

we fiM no merit In any of them. 

Since the appeal was taken to this court Charles R. 
Crane died and Central iianover Bank & irttst Cempany and 
Lawrason Riggs, Jr., as executors of the last will and 
testament of Charles R, Crane, deceased^ were siabstituted 
as appellees, 

Tha di. cr«e of the Circuit court of Cook county is 
affirmed, 

DSCRIS AFFIRMED. 

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



,m(tdi 1o ^& at ili»a. oa ball 9m 
«t99ll9qqs 8B 

... i^t.i aaKc:'^ 



40824 



DR. T, E» HARDY, 

Appellant 



ALBERT J. HORAN, 
of the Municipal 
Chicago, 

Appellp 




PBAL FROM MUKICIPAL 

AGO, 



307 I.A. 380 






MR, JUSTICE SCAHLAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 

T, E* Hardy sued Albert J. Horan, Bailiff of the Municipal 
court of Chicago, for damages. In a trial of the cause v/ithout a 
jury the court found the issues against plaintiff and entered judgment 
in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appeals. 

Plaintiff's statement of claim alleges that on February 
3, 1938, judgment was entered in his favor against the Kessler Motor 
& Engineering Corporation for $4,885.4-6, in the Superior court of 
Cook county} that on the same date a virit of execution was placed 
in the hands of the sheriff, and "that thereby and from that time 
plaintiff procured and at all times since had a lien upon all of 
the personal property of said judgment debtor, 2, That notvdth- 
standing said lien, the defendant did levy at two separate times 
executions upon personal property of said judgment debtor and did 
sell said property at execution sale as follows: Vifrit * * * levied 
March 11, I938, and sale, March 22, I938 for $300 to M. Klass of 
the following property: * * « [Here follows a description of the 
personal property,] Utit * * * levied March 22, 19 38, and sale 
April 1, 1938 to A. Rice for $211 of the following property: * * * 
[Here follows a description of the personal property,] The proceeds 
of each of said sales satisfied the claims of the judgment creditor 
in each of said executions which was the Illinois Malleable Iron 

Company, 3* That said property was delivered by defendant to the 
aforesaid respective purchasers, 4^ That the property thus sold 
was greatly in excess of the amounts bid therefor, and that said 
sales, and delivery resulted in depriving plaintiff of his rights in 









" ■.qlvlaul 



( 

f 

.1 TflaaiA 



.sIseqqA IJliaXRl'i •;tas5n9loJb lo noval nl 

XiBiTicfe'? ao d-ftfld- eaasIlB ailalo lo ctflSiasd-e^e a » llld-fll,oI*i 

'lodoM asXaaoiX 9tii ;}BalB^6 lor&l alri nl bBiQia» &s9i iaeap^bisl t8£^I ^c 

lo iisioo loki&qsj'd ©lit iol ^^-^,^88,H 'lol aoltaioq^oO aalisanlaxia A 

fesoislq asw flo±:tJ:;osx9 lo ctinv a &&nb ©fiiee oiit ao isdi {X^asioo J[ooO 

aaJW osdcj^ ffloil ban xdei&di ^^jiid^" bxuj ^llJtaerijB acW lo afjnsri offct nl 

lo XXa aoqp a&tl a barf scale e«M«ld XIb i& bOB bvrujooiq llld'alaXq 

wWlw;^ofi iedT ,S .lod^dsfc d^n£»ia8l)ift fcliis lo x^^^QO^q l&aozi&q edi 

eaolJ s^jsisqee uwJ^ ;t£ -^voX bl£> d-o^Jbaeleo arLf ^xialX Jblae snlJbflBCte 

bib baa lo^d&b JiXQa^btfl blii^ lo TjcfieqoTcq Xaiiob *iaq noqif ariold-xroox© 

bslvsiX * * * j^l-aW :8woIXol aa eX*'.8 aolAvo9X9 ia X^ieqoiq bias llaz 

lo aasia •!£ oi 00£? rtol 8t;?X ^SS dooaM ^©XflS bos tS^^X ,XI iioiAM 

©lid- lo aolJ-qlnoeof) a swoXXol siaH] * ♦ ♦ s-^d-isqoiq gnlwoIXol eiW- 

sXivB i>fljs ^St^X tSii riDasM &©lV9X • * ♦ it'm C,x*'i»qonq XBTtoaiaq 

* # * JXi-xeqoiq anlwoXXol firii lo XXS$ lol ©oifl ,A o^ 8£^X ,1 Xi^qA 

e&esooiq sdT [ .■^^l^eqoTxi lesioan^ Biii lo noWqiioeeb s awoIXol enaH] 

io;^xli9io ^xxsflsaijift ^^ "io boI^Xo erid- bBllalc^sa esX^e bise lo rioss lo 

noiX ©XcJssXXbM alortlXXI erIJ- ajiiw uColxlw enoWiroax© bLsa lo jdoea nl 

8d;t o;f :frL3fcnels5 x^ fcsievlXeb 3«w x^isqoiq bisa J-iiflT .£ .XflJSQfflo^ 

l)Xoa ai;ri;J Xi^ieqoiq adi d-JsiiT ^-^ •aiaesrio'UKi evlcfoeqaan blazeiota 

blGB i&sa bti& ^loJ&iedi bid eimjoms odi lo sasoxs al xli»^^ ««"'■ 

nl ectiiglT: slrl lo lllJffllsXq srclvliqof) nl b&tSjja&i xtsvlLob ba& ^gbIbb 



«»2w 

and lien upon the above described personal property? by virtue of 
which he has suffered a loss and injury to the extent of the value 
of the property, namely $990, for which damages be brings this suit,* 

The following facts are undisputed? On February 14, 1936* 
Illinois Malleable Iron Company leased the premises at 7720-7722 South 
Racine avenue to Kessler Motor & Engineering Corporation, !Ehe lease 
was in writing and expired February 28, 1938. On Pebrxiary 2 or 3, 
1938* a judgment by confession upon a promissory note was entered in 
the Superior court in favor of plaintiff and against Kessler Motor & 
Engineering Corporation in the sum of -$4,885«4-6, The record of the 
Judgment introduced omits the promissory note, or a copy of the same* 
The date of the note is not shown. On February 3# 1938, an execution 
was delivered by plaintiff's attorney to the sheriff of Jook county. 
On February 25, 1938, a distress warrant was sex*ved on Kessler Motor 
& aigineering Corporation by the Illinois Malleable Iron Company and 
possession was taken of certain personal property of the Kessler Cor- 
poration, On February 26, 19 38, distress proceedings were commenced 
in the Municipal court by said landlord against said tenant. On March 
5> 1938, forcible entry and detainer proceedings were coniiaenced by 
said landlord against said tenant. On March 11, 1938, a Judgment was 
entered in favor of the landlord in the distress suit, execution was 
delivered to defendant. Bailiff of the Municipal court, and personal 
property of the tenant was seized and levied on by defendant. On 
March 15> 1938* a Judgment for possession and rent was entered in 
favor of the landlord and against the tenant, and on March 17, 1938^ 
exeuution was delivered to defendant. On March 22, 19 38* a sale was 
held by defendant under the distress for rent execution; also certain 
personal property of the tenant was seized and a levy made under the 
forcible detainer execution. On April 1, I938, a sale was held by 
defendant under the forcible detainer execution. On April 20, I938, 
defendant was notified for the first time of the existence of plains- 
tiff »s execution. The instant suit was filed on April 30, 19 38, On 
Kay 3, 1938, the sheriff made the following return on plaintiff's 
execution, "No Property Found and IIo Part Satisfied** 



lo exjjiiv \j r-i,.-;- •d.iUM.'i Iimoaisq f>©dJtioe»fa ©votfa ©ii;t noqjj n»ll baa 
sjjXbv 9ri»t Tto oxiooxs 9ilcl- o;r ■y:ij;/t«^ ^"« 8«oI s bsisllus asri ad xlolilw 

*ijj;;o£ S5i'?'i-CEV\ . v.^xae-itj eA)^ beesdl XiiuqmoO noil ©ItfoellsM t,i.QallLl 

xci bs'io^Jn© ajBW scJ'oxi -^lossliaoiq « aoc[ju noiaaslnoo \cf (titaiagbx/t « *8£^I 

& lo^Joii isleasa: Useless baa llliaialq to ta^s.1 ai i-utoo lolteqs/d, 9tii 

6d^ lo L'loosi sxfx .c^l.^SS^N- iO flora 9ri^ al ixolj-s^oqtoO aniisenlsna 

»®(Bse ©jfW lo xqoo ^^ ion x'^oasimotq ^Af ziijoo b&ouboiial faBrngbal 

aoi.uvt>exQ Its ^S^^i ^i x'^^'^'^^^''^ nO ♦nafoila^^taa ai s;ton ©rid" to 9iBh b££T 

♦^d-mroo 2loo^ lo Lllieria o/Id^ at xdJ^io^j^fi e'liJtJ'nJtalq xtf bdisvilsb saw 

icJoM isIaaeX no bev eti Sisw ctaaiiisw ass^d-alb fi <8t?I t<S ■^ijsificf©'? nO 

bOB xa^qmo'O noil elcf^sellB^Si elonlXII erW '^jcf irol^sfioq'XoO gniieejalgii? ^ 

-aoC islassa adJ" lo x^-xs^qoiq laaozi^ alsii^o lo ti»^^ 8«w flolRseeaoq 

toensjsmoo eisw ai)ii£I;eeooic[ eeeiJalb ,8£^I ^^ X'^^^^^^'^' iiO ,noJ:;tiBioq 

doi»M uO ,;tiiBnsKt Bisa ^anli^sjs b-xoIbnaX Mae ■v:d ;tiwoc lBqlDli«;4 841;^ al 

^€f bsonaiUHoo siew aafilbsocotq 79X118:? eb fioB t^Jfl© sldl^o;©'! ^8£?I ^^ 

8SW d-flsagbj^t » t8£^X t-^ rioiaM nO ,d-nacej bX.%s izatai^A brtoXbnsI fclse 

8j5W ao±SsJOiiX& ^:ilssB eaa^ctsib eBoCd" nl bioIbfisX Bdi lo 'lovsl al bsisctns 

Xa«o2i0q ba& ^^xt^: IniT* &di lo 11XI1b6 ^Jfl»bn«l»b oJ" oeievJtlsb 

aO ,;fnisbK©l»b Y«f ao i)©ivoI bfla i>9sl9e auw :>nafl«cf BtH lo ijd^'isqo'iq 

xtt beisJns Cjsw :tn»n biia noleSeaeo^ Ttol S^neistsbi-i, « t8£9X t':!X SoibIJ 

^8£^X ^^X xIo'xbM no bxie ^^ia&aei odt ^^al&^B bna b^oXbiwX ©rfd lo 'x«Viil 

8SW ©Xb8 & t8£?X ,ks j^iaM flO .iflsbuelab oct b©i«>vlX&b aew noi:tj:/09x© 

al&iiQo oaXu ^noi^txroox© J^aei loil aeeiSzlb sxJ3' lebmr ;J'iiflb£f*>lob "^cf blsii 

&di lobtsB ©bjBffl x^»X s biXM i)9si92 asw cfflflne;t Qd:S lo x'^SQEO'swi Xafloei©q 

^tJ bXad aaw eXsa a »8£^X ^X XXiqA aO .noi^x/saxs i©ni£^b ©Xdloiol 

^Qt^l »0S XliqA no .iioi;two9x& lenls^sb ©Xtfloiol »rft isbnxr ^azba^'i&b 

-rtleXq lo ^xls^Jelx© SilJ' lb ©a±J ;taiXl eAi lol I>ellJt;tQC sbtt laal»n©l9b 

nO ,8£^X tO£ Xi'iqA no baXll tm SUsz ias^aal sdlH .nolctjtjosx© b»111;J 

3«lli;fnlBXq &0 aixsi&Bi gnJtvrolXol ©irtt ©b*a lll-iarfa &siS »6£?X t£ -^bM 



fbB contentloa of defendant, in the trial court, and lasre, 
is that plaintiff lost the lien of his execution by falling to use 
diligence in enforcing it, and the trial court was evidently of the 
opinion tlxat the facts sustained the contention, fhat a creditor 
aay lose the lien of his execution by failing to use diligence in 
enforcing it la clear. In Preeaan on Executions (3d Ed,), Vol, 2, 
see, 206, the author states t 

'*By the statute of 13 Elizabeth, c, p, executions taken out 
with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditorsji or oiaiers, are, 
as against the persons sought to be hindered, delayed, or defrauded, 
utterly void. The operation of this statute upon the lien of execu- 
tions has been the subject of very frequent judicial decisions, and 
of occasional judicial dissension. According to a very considerable 
preponderance of the authorities, no actual intent to hinder, delay, 
er defraud any one need be shown. Ifhat was the intent is a conclusion 
to be drawn frtna the acts or words of the plaintiff in execution. If 
what he did or acquiesced in was of a character to hinder, delay or 
defraud other creditors of the defendant, his attempted use of the 
writ is, in conteiaplation of law, fraudulent, and hence no lien or 
other advantage can result therefrom as against such other creditors, 
nor even against innocent encumbrancers and purchasers. 

"An execution and its lien may be avoided by such conduct 
on the part of the plaintiff as shows an improper use of his writ, 
though the motives influencing such conduct, instead of being fraudu- 
lent, were grounded in kindness and charity toward the defendant, 
and free from the slightest design to injure others. The only proper 
use of an execution is to enforce the collection of a debt, and to 
enforce it with a considerable degree of diligence. To employ it for 
other objects is inconsistent with its nature, and such a perversion 
from its legitimate purposes as brings upon it the penalty prescribed 
by the statute of Elizabeth, The plaintiff in execution may desire 
to allow the defendant tijae in which to make payment, and yet may 

wish to save himself froa all hazard arising from his delay to enforce 
the collection of his judgment. He is likely, therefore, to take out 



,9-x^ bam ^t*moc l^il'xs «tli ol ^^xaAM%itib Jo noUa»iti»9 aiIX 

smt od g«ill«*i t<J «oi.*»oajC9 eM 7o i»il act? ieol tll*nl*Iq ^bAT al 
ccy lo xX^fl»fi-iv« a^w ^taio© XaIi;;^ «<!* &n» ^;ti sali>io'lis& xtt eansallib 

^5 , "'" . '.' '- ' aoJt^tjawftxa Oft a«a»9<a^ al ,ib»Ic al ;ti anloioln* 

«*&&«K9 to aetl »ti;i axiqsj ^ai&^z *XsiS to acl^s^^qn bOS ,f>lov xl^iosiu 
kit& ^\i'js&ltilti&b laltblbal iame^s^ vt0v to ^s&t(^3 tadS n»9d zati aaoti 

'SB ^.taXdi^ ^'zehnJbd o^ <x9^oji«xja(i9 a la s#« fii b9ez9lupoa 10 bib. eycf ;ta£f«r 

•30 r(s>±X oa sonsd bets ^ta»XMslsim't% ^wal lo aoi^^Alqflts^tisoo al ^^BX H'&t 

tttiBuadvnvq baa it»oniB,'niesu9a9 iasaosml Sunl.i\^a jcx»V9 ixm 

f^tiv' fiJUl lo &>£!.' aaq«%q£!i an. awBdz atu VlMsk&M atH Yo SiMq BtLt ao 
'^bssi^^ 2»i«>€f lo bBBStMt ^iDu!bswis> xioua jjOicaeivl'tBl cdvLjoo: stLi ii^mjii 

i6<ioiq xlno eJS .^c'miiii^ ^^sjsIeiI oj ja^iM»h S^Bvatigll* t^ ant »sll teft 

c^ baa ^i^ob s, lo nolioaljiot! «£lif essoins o:t el oaJatsMMKn bb lo !>aji 

iol it ^^aif&m m .ddifssMli) lo «9<zs^ aXtfaafiMaflots b i1:Mv #J: ^tnolixa 

JbaKdrt^as^q -^Xisaasq aiUf it nofii a^olictf &a 8M««^i«f •jTaffl^flseX e^l aw*tl 

fMLta»l> TAK £SoJtisnwL»aX \1Ual£lJi 9/St •jf^MfasliX lo f>it:iaie «i# x<f 

te;>j]i cfsf^ ba& ^tamr^ui eaUm oi doii^ al tmH iassbael^b adJ- noLIu oi 

aonoln© oi ^sXab al<l aroil m^i'f b%»s.sii lis c»Vi IXsaial^.^ or«a c;t rfal«r 
;tao ©2^35 oS ^910'ijoimii ^\l3:All el &B. ,iams;^bsii iXd lo aolioslloo arij 



execution with a view to binding defendant's property, but with no 
intent to make any iiamediate levy or sale. In other words, he 
seeks to convert an execution into a mere mortgage. This the law 
does not tolerate, !;vhenever it can be shown that the object of the 
writ was merely to obtain better security for the debt, it is 
fraudulent as against subsequent purchasers or encximbrancers, and 
outaranked by subsequent executions. Rarely has this object been 
proclaimed by the plaintiff in execution. It is inferable from 
express direction to an officer not to proceed with a le-ry or a sale, 
or from any language or course of conduct from which vhe conclusion 
may fairly be drawn that the plaintiff did not intend to make his 
writ immediately productive, but rather to secure the advantage of a 
lien on the property of the defendant," In support of his statements 
of the law the author cites a number of cases, including Sweetser v. 
Matsony 153 HI* 5^t 582, and Everingham v. M ational City Bankj 124 
111. 527, 536. I 

Plaintiff was a stockholder in the Kessler Motor & Engineer- 
ing Corporation and his attorney "took care of the records and 
minutes of the company" from the time that plaintiff bought the 
stock. Plaintiff's attorney knew that the Kessler company was in 
financial trouble and that the plant was closed. He testified that 
after securing the confession of Judgment he took the writ to the 
execution window of the sheriff's office* that he attached to the 
writ, by a paper clip, a separate piece of paper upon which was 
written the address of the defendant in the suit; that he handed 
the writ to the clerk behind the window and the clerk asked him 
if he wanted it returned nullft bona or if he wanted a lien served, 
and he told the clerk that he v/anted it made a lien and to be servedj 
that he also told the execution clerk that he had been informed that 
the landlord who owned the building had placed a padlock on the doors 
of the plant and that so far as he knew there was nobody at the plant; 
that the clerk told him the fee would be $2,60 and he paid that anount 

and got a receipt for itj that he gave the sheriff no other instruc- 
tions in reference to the writ; that he first learned that the land- 



on dSIxf ;yu<i ^\:^i&qoi^ &*^a&ba&1^b Ribald oi welv a riJ±w aoliuo9X9 

«d ^aiiow zeiiio al ,plh?e 10 xv&l 9iBlbBai^ Asm. oi iasial 

v&L Bt^ sttHS .dsas^ioffi oial aoiiuooxe na tieynoo o;i lij^sos 

baa ^erxdoaj^icfaiJ^nd 10 e^ezesioiuq iaBVp&ziuB iEtila^B k& in&ljjbts»i^ 

fl©9cf ;fo8(;€fo aJtrict eaxi xJ"»^«H .snoWiroeacs ixxexrpsecfxfa '^cf JbsaLxsxJ-wo 

£60^1 QltiBiBlnl tJL Jl .GoiJwosxoflX lllini&Xq edi Xfi bsatlalooiq 

^siB8 a 10 Tjrs-i ;5 d:Mw beeoo'iq ocT ;Jofi i&oillo n3 o^ aolioBiJtb sseiqxs 

noisx/Ionoo 9x1^ xloMw aoi'i ^3ijfinoo lo ©e-uioo 10 B'^asmaal v« aoil 10 

elfi o^Lsfli oj hnsdrii: joa f>ll> 'llltal&lq ari? j-arid- rwBif> 9<f x^'^-^'^1^ \a« 

jb lo ag«;}^njsirji>3 oriJ- sTjJosa o^ iSfWai 3ijcf ,9vI:c^ot/i>o^q XJt»^fil69£anLt ctl^w 

ed^itsaisd- sd-e aixl lo :^ioqqx/e «I •'.;t£ufen»'i9l> aric^ lo x^i«qoiq «ri;f no jotsil 

.■»v a ;. ?;B/|&.9V?fe 3XiJ:i:!«Iox4l ,8*830 lo ^adJBwn s zscJlo lOrfdiiA ojeI;^ w.qI edi lo 

*si ^j&sa^ljLi^. 4XJl«i»ai3»lg *>«« %S8^ *8d^ .-"I C - M 

ban sbroo9i 9sii lo stij-^o ioo;^*' ^eciod^^s alii Ms nojtd snoq-xoO gnl 
ad;^ d-i^xrocf lilctxiLsIq *Bilf smli BtU jaoil "xoaqmoo edJ^ I0 sBiualta 

d-fiiXJ- i)9lli;t2S>^ sli ,£)»aoIo £jsw jfriBlq wU" ^erii^ baa Bldvoii lalonsflll 

acW o^ cM'iw stfld^ :{ooJ eri d-fis&igfci/t "io aojtseelnoo arfJ anlawosa •ie;t'iB 

©d^ o^ beflo&iis 9d d^ivrid •eoltlo s'lll-iads eri.J lo wobniw nol:?ifoax9 

asw xioMw noqii ^aqaq lo soslq e^finaqse s ^qiXo leqsq s ^"^ ^^liw 

fesfcrtBXl 9ri ;taj^ i;^t«r2 -^ niiJ&n9l9J& «ri^ I0 aesofeb* erfcf ix»^*lTW 

0iri £i«2C'j^ ;£i»Xo «ri;? M^ woJ^nlw Bdi balsi&d iisXo eri;t o^ ilm etti 

,fievis8 flsiX fi bad'flBW sri li 10 g^-xorf aXXjXff ban*xjj;tsi cfi fcfiJTLsw eri 11 

" ^)9V'r9e ©d od' ba& aell & sI^js* Jl bBinavi ©d ^sdct iisXo srW blo^ sii bas 

j&d;} bBBniolni. aesd bud ari i&dj al-isXo aolis^oexB sdi IpXoJ^ obXb atl ^sdi 

siooJb sdcf flo 2iooXI>Bq b beo^Xq Jbari S'^liiiXitfd eild^ l)9xi5«ro odw bioXtflfiX aftf 

i^^flBXq erid' is x^o<^o" aaw eisd^t wsmi eri as •£«!; oe ^sfW baa iaalq, »dt to 

icisorsi ip->di bljsq ^r' ^"- ■•' '">'^.^ -^cf bSJsovt est "''+ "'v-^' ^z"^-" iIzbLo. adct ^ad* 

-fedeX edi iBd;t baatssl izilt sd SsdJi \ilTfj ad* o* ©ofisielei ai srtokit 



-5- 

lord had made levies on the property of the Kessler Motor & 
Engineering Corporation after the levies had been madej tluit he 
had knowri Dr. Hardy for five years before that timej that he did 
not know the name of the man at the sheriff's office to whom he 
haYe the writ; that he doubted very much if he v/ould be able to 
identify himj that he had had occasion to place other writs with 
the sheriff before the one in questionj "Q. * * * i say you told 
the sheriff to serve the writ? A, Of course, I did not tell him* 
He asked me if I wanted it served and I said, 'Yesj'" that he knew 
at the time that there was no one at the plant of the Kessler company 
to receive service of the writj that the address he wrote on the paper 
attached to the writ was the address of the corporationj that he did 
not know what officer of the corporation to serve and did not give 
the deputy sheriff the name of any officer to serve j that he told the 
deputy sheriff that he did not know who was the president of the 
corporation. 

The original writ was introduced in evidence. It had a 
large capital "C" endorsed on it. It did not have attached to it, 
by a paper clip, a separate piece of paper upon which was written 
the address of the defendant in the suit. No address appears on the 
writ, Edward McCarthy testified that he was execution clerk at the 
sheriff's office and had occupied that position for eleven years. 
The witness, after he was shown a photostatic copy of the writ with 
the return thereon, testified that the large capital "C* on the writ 
meant that it was a case writ, that is, a writ to be kept in the files 
for ninety days xmless the attorney came in and signed an order blank 
to return it to the file; that a case writ "constitutes a nulla bona 
return at the end of ninety days;" that the writ in question with 
the return thereon constituted a nulla bona return and the return 
was put on at the end of ninety days, "at the time of the expiration 
of the writ}" "Q, This is a case writ, isn't it, Mr. McCarthy? A. 
That is a case writ;" that a writ is called a case writ ^here the 

attorney really does not want it served. The witness was then shown 
the original writ and after examining it testified that it is a case 



& toi^Mi ««ls««2 «rl;r to x^tiiqo'iq Bdi no a&l^r^l »bsa bui biol 

bib exi i&iii jwbIj :istii ^tolacJ exssTj ©vil lol x^i^ .-iC rworat 5«jri 
8d Boriw o;t sollto a» 'tillage stii in aaat «d;f lo sttsn 9rict wooal :ton 

ffcrlw 8^iiw 'xanJ-o soslq at noire^ooo bmi beiL «1 cfsxt? jiaiii x'i-t^fl®^-t 

isXoi ifox x-a I * * '^ ,9** \tiol3eQtsp etl ono ejiJ- siolecf llJtrrerie srlcf 

♦ail^ II©5 ion bib I ,&Kij;«)s "iO ,A «';ti:aw ari^ flvi«e o;^ lliien'a ©xtT 

iranal sal ^ari^J "»4aoY» ,61*^8 I fcoa bsvjsa il bscfnaw I 12 ©la bttjiae »H 

XOflqaoo isX&as^ aci;}^ lo Sa&lq acf^ J-ij 9no on e^w eisdi^ ;tBii^ eol^ Bdi :tB 

i9q&q edJ' no s^oiw erf aaaibbo arf;^ d-siicT j^tiiw ariO lo ©olvisa ovloo©i o^ 

arig ioa bib ba» svise oj aoii»noqioo 9di lo leolllo cfsriw ytotnL ion 

©jEi^ fclOv^ €» iatiS i«vtc9a ocT i»oJ:ll© XPs ^o ®»sf< o*t* lllisiie v;Juqob »di 

edS to iabbi&'st'iq arlj esw oc&ir woasi d^oa tlft ««f ;ffiil<f lll^ieriB i5;txjq»b 

,aol!tii^oqios 

& b&£i J-I .©oflsbiv© xii beoisboxial. em ;fliw Lsnlgiio eilT 

^31 oi bexiSiiJi^E £3VBii -Jon bib il .ti: no beeiobrt© "0" IbH^bo ss^aI 

nsJ^^liTT ajfiw iloxil'rv flGqi/ leqsq lo 9t)»lq ei&iBqoa a %qtLo neqaq e \di 

€ul:r 0o £t»f«.qA sa9ib/>£ oH ,iiif& ecii Ml txisfiDel«i» 9:1^ lo as^ibbfi Bdi 

hH ;ta it^fsXo flol;tx;o6x© asw »£( t^dS bsilloE&it \4;^rLoDoK MetfM ,^±tw 

«aTfi«x aevsis lol aoiJi^isoq ;tfl£l;f jbelqi^oso bari toa ©olllo e'llJiierie 

i{;tXw jliw s^o' lo "^oa sttiB^&eio^q & tareM» a«w aif i9i1& ^zBtiiiv »rfT 

cMTff sdj flo "0" iBifiqso asiBl aet^ ioAi beiliizsi ^ao^t&di blisj^bx 9d) 

«sl±l &d:i al iqBjL ad o$ tiiv b «sX i^Bdi ^ii'vn e&AO jq ssw il tB£L:i iti&9a 

liasld iBbio BA b»BsJ:& ba& ai oa&o x&a-m&ie 9d.^ ssslru; S'\[£b x^^^-^ ^^'i 

SJ104 £fJifyffi « Q&iisiliaxioo^ iiTxf saas a i^odi {©111 e/l.t oJ Si a-usSe'i oi 

siil'H aoii&Qup ax ii-m m^ i^i "je^sb x^^-ttLi lo iiiis srt^ J^» a-wi^i 

ELissi 01 Bfi;i bXLs niy^oi axtocf a^ f jyn * baJuJ-i^anoo noe^sild" ntisiBi arid" 

floid^fiiiqx^ exI;J lo ei&iu edi :fB" ^sxe6 YJanija '^o ba» sdi i& no itsq asw 

4 A YtjxitieOoi^ .la ^il i*sizi ^iiim sa^o s al eJxfT .p" «'{^J;iw sd;^ lo 

mii sasrl^ ^It/? ssr.o a balXso eX ^liw b iadi ^^iSinr aaso 3 el iadH 

nsFOjie naric^ asvr aa9f;Mw sxiT .bsviae ;tl ;tasw c^on aao£> xXXsdTt x^n-xoicf* 
98fi0 s sX ^X jTiiri^ bellXcTasd" c^i ^aiaiisL^e i&ita ba& ii-va Xsnlglio e/Id- 



writ; that he generally has the attorney put the address on the face 
of the executioni that sometimes the attorneys bring in a slip of 
paper with the address on it hut that he generally takes the slip 
off and writes the address on the larit. The following then occurred 8 
"Q, Now, if that writ were to be taken with directions for actual 
service at 7720 South Racine Avenue, would the fee be $2,60? A» Ho, 
it couldn't be, Q, Couldn't be, that is right, isn't it? A, Yes. 
Q, But in the case of a case writ, the writ which is merely to be 
held for ninety days until it expires, that fee would be $2,60 as 
indicated on the writ? A, Right." The witness further testified 
that if the writ was placed for service the fee including mileage 
would approximate $3,50» 3?he writ itself and the sheriff's receipt for 
fees both show that $2.60 was paid when the writ was delivered to the 
sheriff. There is nothing in the record that would warrant an infer~ 
ence that the sheriff acted dishonestly in the matter of chis writ. 

Plaintiff was a stockholder in the Kessler Corporation and 
was able to secure from that corporation the judgment note in question. 
Plaintiff's attorney took care of the corporate books and minutes of 
that corporation, yet, upon the witness stand he attempted to convey 
the impression that he was not sure of the address of the plant of the 
corporation. He testified that he did not know the address of the 
president of the corporationi that he did not know what property the 
corporation had in its plant and that he did not know the location of 
any chattels that belonged to the corporation. He admitted, however, 
that he told the execution clerk that the landlord had paalocked the 
premises, and it is evident that he then knew the corporation had 
defaulted in the payment of the Fobi^Bxy rent. As a la.vyer he knew 
that the landlord had the right to distrain for rent, yet, after he 
placed the writ in the hands of the sheriff he never inquired of that 
official as to the execution of the writ. Defendant's affidavit of 
defense alleges that plaintiff "had at all times knov^ledge of levy 
of the distress warrant and the levy of execution by this defendant, 
but did not take any steps to make his \wit of execution a lien upon 
the personal property in question," Plaintiff filed no reply to these 



»oal SiW no zz^ibbB odi &ssq, xsaiotfe 9di end \IXfii6n93 eri Ja/W (i^liw 

(jlla £«l:t aaaftoCt ■'jXiBisass ©M cfsd^ *if«f J^t «o ae»rtfc.bB ©rf* xi*±w -xeqaq 

jaeniwooo a^di s«iwoIXo^ siflP .^It^ orf* no tt^^ibbB Qri;t se^itw fens llo 

XaiXJoB rtcl eiiolJDsiiJb if:tiw «s>Ij3.t ccf o;f sts)w ^inw t&tiA 11 ^wCET ♦P" 

^oK «A ?Od.S$ ©tf 0©^ 9rid^ &Xxrow 4 9iJ5tt©vA »xiii)iafl ri;)^wo8 OS^^i ^8 eoXviee 

,2ST ,A fti j'najfc t-txigi*! el tsff* ^©d J'ubJj/oO «p ,«>cf ^•nbli/oo c^l 

©tf oJ ^lo-reE si dolrfw *1t» ©ilcf ^^tliw ©eso a lo ©eeo «rirf^ lit ;J^i;ff .p 

■is O^.SJ^ ecf bijjcjw o«1 d'srW ,c9ilqx© :fl Xltiuf e^Bb "^i^atn 10I Mfiri 

f>9i1;J::?5 9^ i9rf;rr:ifl easncHw arfT ".dfriglfi .A V;fliw 9tLi tto bBtBolbtil 

e^i-aelim ^IbuXoai. 9«1 9tdt solVToa nol &dojsXGT bjsw ^liw e-r[,t 11 ;fBiId- 

lol iglGosi e»ll±t©xlc ©rf;t ous lX9e;fl :Miw ©rfT .0^.£$ ©^Anlxoirq^ bJJtGW 

9i& oS 6©i©vlXs>6 8;^jw ^Itvr sili fl«i!w blsq sarar 0^,S$ ^sri;t woilr. ri:)ocf aesl 

-'iolal as ^rJafifiwr biwow :t.GriJ^ biooo^ 9£i^ at 3fiiit*on el ©'xsrCP .lllieria 

.tliw Elitt la ii*iiB!s Qiii nl ti^^wKorfi^lb i)©;tofl lllnsjde odi iaUi ©on© 

fcjaa aoi^ Aioqio'O isXaasvi ©xW nl *xsMori3ioo;ta b &is\i lll;tnlfiX^ 

,nol;taejjp xil ©ton inemgbsjl salct no lit sTroqioo d'sriS Biotl b^sio^'Z oJ ©Xds sbw 

lo eQ^imtm bn& &iioo<S ei^iioqnoi) ©riJ" lo ©ibo 3loo:f X^Jn^'^o^^fi e'lll^nlaXI 

Xcvaot) oi beiqeiBiiB sri baz^z m&ni^tfi 9f{;J noqw ^tf»X ,n©lc^«1oq1o^ i&iii 

3;cJuJ lo cfiisXq ©rid" lo es.f)ibb& ©rf^f lo ©rare J'on 8r,w sil *axI;J nolaaaiqiai 9tit 

Brief lo sa^TiJbfejs ©rid wonsi jon fclfi sri tailt belllda©^ ©H .nolj-sioq^oo 

©d^ '^t©qt>rtq tacfsr wonsl ion bl6 srf ;f sfW jnoli^anoq^o© ©rii lo ;tn9f>l3©iq 

lo noldsooX Bdi wojfi2£ :ton bib «crf iisd;^ fone dneXq ztl nl bad noUsnoqioo 

,a9v©w0i-I ,&©,tiflatfeB sH .nold'&'xoqrtotj ©jiJ od fesanoX^cf ;f8/id eX©:?:tfirio x^is 

©rii &©:rf&oIfeflq i-jB££ feioXrtfieX «il:t :f£srfi si^eXo noli^wosx© ©lit JbXo;t ©ri tflxict 

iJBil nold^sioqioo 9ff* W9H^ n©xl? 9il ijsri;? ;fr!9fclT© ssl d"! ban tBeeiasiq 

wecof Sri rr0tv7fiX b sA , ^n©^ X**i'^'*«^»'* <*rf* "^o *n©mX»Q «irf^ «-t 6©*Xu'sl©£) 

©fi iscfla ,.t8fx tdn©i ^ol £ilftn::f8±!5 0;^ trfaii fiyai barf MoXi-nsI Bd& SmU 

tssl} lo fe©il^pjil rrevsfl ©d llli^xie add lo a&nar! ©ri* at d'lTw s/lJ' boosXq 

lo i^ivsfclllB E«d-as6ri©l©u .JItj? Bxi^ lo uoWjiroax© ©lid- od- as Isit/Jflto 

xreL lo 9§fc©fwon::tf aecil;f Sis ;ts barf" llidni^Xq ieild a©asXXjB ftanelsl) 

,d'iiJ8i)£ifi'l©fc slfSd" xd aold-ixoax© lo Vf^I ©At bn.& dnsi'ifiw sasiielfc adi* lo 

noqx; nslX s n©ld^ jjosx© lo iltv elxl ejlaoi od- aqoJa yp& ©afsd^ ^on &1& *jyd 

&s&ii:} od irXqai on bsXll lli:»nlBX<I ".nolJasx/p nl Vi»<i"oi? Xsnoaisq ©rid 



-7- 

allegations* On Febriiary 25 the landlord seized certain property of 
the corporation, and proceedings in forcible detainer and distress for 
rent were instituted against it. On March 11, 19 38, the bailiff took 
possession of certain personal property of the corporation. On March 
22, 1938, another levy was made by the bailiff. Two sales of tim per- 
sonal property of the corporation were held by the bailiff. We must 
presume that the property was sold pursuant to the notice and adver- 
tising that the law requires, yet, during all this time plaintiff did 
no tiling to enforce his Judgment, The Bailiff, a disinterested party, 
had no reason to hinder plaintiff in the assertion of his rights, and 
had no knowledge of plaintiff's claim until April 20, I938, which was 
almost one month after the first sale, and nineteen days after the 
second. By April 20 the sales had been consummated and there was 
nothing that the Bailiff could do to aid plaintiff in enforcing his 
rights. There is much force in the contention of the Bailiff that 
plaintiff or his attorney must have known of the steps taken by the 
landlord to enforce its lien. There is also force in the contention 
that plaintiff and his attorney knew where the corporation property 
T/as to be found, yet took no steps to levy on it. Plaintiff's attorney 
testified that he did not tell the sheriff to make a levy but only to 
make his writ a lien and serve it, 

le are satisfied that under the evidence in the case and the 
law, the trial court was justified in finding for defendant. 

In this court the appellant. Dr. T# E# Hardy, and Herman 
l^epnan, as assignee of said appellant, have filed a motion, supported 
by an affidavit, for the entry of an order that Herman V»'epman be sub- 
stituted in the cause for the appellant and that all orders and judg- 
ments hereafter entered herein be in the name and behalf of or against 
said Herman IVepman in lieu of Dr. T, E, Hardy, the original plaintiff 
and appellant. The motion v/as allowed. 

The judpaent of the Municipal court of Chicago is affirmed, 

JUDGMMT AFFIRMED, 
Friend, P, J,, and Sullivan, J,, concur* 



'lol esood'eJLt bttu idflii^dJb eXcTioiol xU £s^£>d«90i({ baa ^aot;i Bi^qroo ^t 

riO'iaM aO ,aoU a'loqioo Q£^ to xJi&q,oici Xanoeieq iil&:}if>o lo rtoieasaeoq 

d^sxTB ©51? ,t1Xllsd Stfij -^cf bXtfi ea»w aolij2,noq*io9 ad* lo -x^iftqooq X«ao8 

"'levhB ba» acX^oa sriJ^ p* ^J^flsweiifq fiXoe ejsw -^T^qotq attt i&Ai eaujasiq 

-iii) lliJjttJtfiXq aaX^ Qidt XX? salijol! ,d^9r^ ^2®«ij[/p9'S w*X Bcii cfarf* jaXaX^ 

^Ajj'xsq f)®;fas>-x»tcJ:«JU) « ^mXiAS sttTC ,in©fl!s£)«t, eXil eoiolcs oJ ^xiixWoa 

jsoft ^actiisi'x aid to aol)i&fia& otii nX ttlJat&lq rjofiinJUi oi ao&&9i an bad. 

a aw jdoJtxfw *8t^X »0R XJtagA XXJni; aiXsXa r-'llX^nXaXCi lo 9^bBlmowi on bad 

advt asile i\Bh sm&^&ala oiifi'^oX^fe ^eil*?; suli- iei\B iitacm ®tio daomXa 

8£w oidxicT baa b'&ismmszaQt) aswi b»d 8»X£8 $di OS XXiqA x^ •£inoD9e 

Bid anlo'ioln© iiX nicToliaXfi fcJbs o;^ ob bluoo "ilXXlBa &tli iadi aniriJoix 

iz£i;S lliXisa 9di lo noXJaejnoo etH al 9t>io1 dona et eieriT .e^trlsii 

sil;f Xd n«aU;? aqe;fa ariJ lo rxworoi eyad i&sm x»nioJ^;^B eld 10 lll^t n la J q 

a.QjJa9inoo sidi as. ©5^ol oaXjs si avedX .aelX eil eotolize oT fc-xoXJbnjsX 

XJ^eqoiq ixol^srxoqriod 9di sit»riw wsrof x^k'*©^*^ eld fum ItWol^Xq i»tii 

:o£iiQ3:$B i^VilSal&l^. , -■ J ■^fYe-^ ^"^ aqsd^fi on ^oo;t ^t©^ ^bfliiol »d o:f aaw 

Od vXqo iiid v^'sX a oi.^,iu o.' TUiBSiA &AS XX© J ioa bib ©d i&iii belllizei 

«.tl dT-ise bci£ A»1X £ itlrnr elfl esLsfii 

» --^ojsJbflslofc aol sfiiX^XI aX bsilt^eiil, <-..-•« .xifoo lei . 
iir>.ui-,.ix x;i3jB ^-vibisll *S ^T .-^ ,:^ajsXXsqqa »/*■* ^"'^'■••r' «lry n 
6»;tioqqu8 ^©l^foat B jjsXII -■". . ,JAi«XX9qq« hL... .:• ,;3xi5l38ii ■.-.■ ,-i-^^eW 
-dxfe ©d xxsaqeA' miffiisH 4^eiU -^siJio xia 1q xt^^^ ^ "^^"^ ^iXyablllJi a& \d 
--l^bisl buB ai£>cio Lis i^aii ban ^oaXXe^q* arid" lol ©aiiBO sd^ aX Jb«dtj:rt-X*« 
^snlB3« 10 'io "iXsiisd Icuifi fMfflsn add^ nl ©d aXs'i^d ijsisJao asi^lji^iad ai:fl©ffl 
TilinifiXci Lcail^Xio &cii ^^bidll ,3 .T .iQ lo wslX nl xismq^.; iisiaisH Miie 

..Ci9woXX« 36W nolw+oai adjp .^tflJBlXDqqs ,bci& 
.ijQjanillB el osco.WO ^o iJttoo Xsqlolnx/M ©xtt lo ^ns/asJbif't ©di 

. . ■, .jyi 

^luoaoo ,.Xi ^iiBVlIXifE bnfi ,,!» . i ,Jbxt9li'? 



40841 

mMA HILL, 

Appellee, 



MUNICIPAL COURT 



KEVv YORK LIFE IKSORAM J j ) OF CHICAGO. 

COMFAHY, a corpora ticfe^ iO _ « ^ ^ _- 

Appellant. - ' 3 7 I . A. 3 8 1 

MR, JUSTICE 3CANLAK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 

Plaintiff, beneficiary in a policy issued by defendant, 
sued to recover tb© additional double indemnity benefits of $3,000 
on the life of William J, Kropacek, her brother. The policy was 
in force at the time of death and defendant paid its face value, 
$3,000. A Jury returned p. verdict finding the issues for plaintiff 
and assessing her damages at i?3*175» Defendant appeals from a 
Judgment entered upon the verdict. 

The double indemnity clause of the policy provided: 
"The double indemnity * * ■«• shall be payable upon receipt 
of due proof that the death of the Insured resulted dirsctly and 
Independently of all other causes from bodily injury effected 
solely through external, violent and accidental means * -^ *, 

"Double Indemnity shall not be payable if the Insured's 
death resulted from self-destruction, vjhether sane or insane * * ■»•; 
or directly or Indirectly, from infirmity of mind or body, from 
illness or disease * -^^ *," 

The insured died on December 27, 1937* of "a crushing 
injury to the head" as the result of a "fall" or "jump" from an 
archway window on the third floor of the Peoples Hospital to the 
sidewalk below. The hospital is located on Germak road and 
Archer avenue, Chicago. In plaintiff's statement of claim it is 
alleged: 'K)n or about December 27, 1937, while said policy was 
in full force and effect, said insured received personal injuries 
through external, violent and accidental means, to-wit: by accidental 
fall three stories from a fire-escape to the gro\ind," Defendant's 






,JJIH Aum 



188 .A.I YOfi ^ '' ■"'^•^■'- 



%■^- 



1.J 

d-qleasi flog* 9X<l«Xi&ci ©<( ILmsLs. * * * xtJyaieljni ©X<liJo£> ftin)" 

bsis xi^i-sf^^lii 6ac^X*ia6*i beij^eaX sk^M" lo iid-afrjb edi ^jsilcf looiq axfJb lo 
bstfoaVie ■^•tutfi't ^Jtbcwf moil a»8i/6© isitJo XXjs lo xi^^sfefli&q©l)iai: 
,* ^'*- * axi*jaffi l&ia?>blooii baa ^n&XoXv ^X*£i;'i»;ix© lisijoiiij X-C^-tos 
e'&s-x£;e£2l tsij^ 11 •Xti^fixaa «>«f Jon IX^^ne Y^iasr@i)iil 9Xfif&GG** 

*'.*** •asoaXi^ 10 aaoaXXX 

fis aoil "qffli.'t*' '10 "XXsl" s lo ilii&Bi 8fLJ SB "f>s»ri sdJ e:^ xiulal 

mii oj XaJiqsoH g©Xqo»'i eiH "io looXl fc^X^^ *fi5 no wofcnXw x^wdoifi 

bits baot ilaiBieO |io foeJ-aooX ^X l&itqaod eilT ,?/oX®cf jiiiSwefeXa 

eX iX fflXjaXo lo Jnsmed-Bd'a a * 'J:^X^aXBXq joI «os«»Xfi[D ,9i»a©VjB isrioriA 

ssw \oXXcKi blQQ ©XXiiw «^c^X «?S ^»cfEi0oe<2 isio<i& iq aO" ib&^ellB 

tel-uslnl l&aoszeq, lisvXso®^ bs'w&a.l. blm ,;to©ll9 bxia soiol XXxjI nX 

:3;Jn9£>XooB xtS tihf-oi ^anseia X#iJia[®l)Xao.s M« ^iialoiv ,ij5ni9;('x9 rf^XJOid.^ 

e ' cfnafcasleG ♦'.bnijo-sa aiiJ- o;J sqfioae-siXl b mo'il asXiod'a sstri;} XXsl 



answer to the foregoing, in its pleading, is as follows: "The 
defendant denies that said death was the result of external, 
violent and accidental means and in particular denies that said 
death was the result of an accidental fall from a fire-escape and 
avers that said death resulted from self-destruction while said 
insured was sane or insane and, hence, was not a death within the 
meaning of the double indemnity provisions of said policy or contract 
upon which the plaintiff sues," After verdict plaintiff vras allowed 
to amend her pleading by striking the words "by accidental fall three 
stories froca a fire-escape to the ground," and to insert in plaee 
thereof the words "by accidontal death immediately caused and 
resulting from a crushed head accidentally received and suffered 
and not self-inflicted while sane or insane," 

Plaintiff introduced the policy and a stipulation that 
the immediate cause of the death of Mlliam J, Kropacek was "a 
crushing injury to the head," and rested. Defendant's evidence is, 
in substance, as follows: 

P. G, Francis testified that he was the head of the 
passenger traffic department of the Hock Island Railroad and that 
the deceased had been working in his department since 1921; that 
in December, 1937* he sent the deceased to Omaha on business for 
the company; that the deceased was taken ill there and was unable 
to stay the number of days necessary to do his work; that on the 
evening of December 23, 1937, he went to the home of the deceased 
and talked with the latter, who was then in bedj that he "sat down 
by the bedside and talked a little bit" with Kropacek "about his 
trip to Omahaj" that Kropacek told him that "he Ixad been taken ill 
in Omaha., had consulted a doctor and that he felt so miawrable or 
ill that he decided it was best to come back to Gtiicago," and 
that he returned to Chicago on the morning of the 22d; that he 
questioned Kropacek "about the nature of his illness and apparently 

his stomach was upset and his nerves, and one thing and another, 
but he told me that he had something on his mind that had bothered 



-2-. 

©dT*' jewoIXo'i za ai ^gnlbBalq a;}'^ nl ^galogeiol ©ri^ ocJ- iswenc 

^Ififltfid-xs lo .tIx/E«>'x *£i^ a aw il;tB»l) bljse (tisil;?' nettasb ;tflBbn&l©b 

J[»^&2 ^i-BiiJ a&JlaeL 'sjiluvJ^n^ ai. baa taAsm ls&a9bttiOM ba& ia9loty 

im& 5»qjaoe3~»^Il & saoil ILol l&3ne>blt)0B ne. lo ilusBt edt 8bw rC;tB»l) 

filjss elMw rtol:toi/rGr8 eft-lies iaoil bsd-Xi/asn ri;tj3»b blsa tiad* airrs 

sdo nlii^Ji^ iljijeB iS Son asw ^©cneii ^boA wissnl to anse ejsw b^raszaX 

d^OJBO^faoo iG -^oiloq biee lo enoialvoiq x^Jtiuiebni eltfxA^b 9ri;f to gainaeiff 

i>«woXIs 8J3W ITti^tnifiXq iolbi&v 'X^&lA "«a©x»« mctnlalq: sri* liojtilw xioqx; 

©©laJ- IX.^l Xt5;tii96i£>oe \tf»' ahiow sjid" sclailnd'e yd grfiboslq isri bnsias o;f 

soBXq at Si9zat oJ bn^ "^fem/oTa ©xid^ at oq.<i389-9i±l a ooTtTt Q9X.10&B 

b£i£ bm-.ij&o -i^Ia^sibaflCiU xW-serb iBttt^btooB x^*' aMovr 9ri* lo©i9ri;t 

b»^sllx/2 biX6 bevisudi •^XlB^iiefcloos 6.«j9rf bsi/Iaijts a moil gnlcMx/Eei 

".©nQeni 10 Btuis ©Xlriw bacfolIlxil-lISB J-on fans 

^£d& ttotJ filisqtSSi j8 bfi£; "^olXoq mlt b&mrbonSnl YlJt^^nlsX*! 

a" am ieosqota .1. iaalXXlW lo df&eb ©/£* lo 9ai;0O ©.tsXbSiamJt edi 
^ti ©oxiobivo a'^aJfexrelsG .bs^aei baa " ^ba^d •«£* oit^ VfJ^^t^i anJtclex/io 

:8woIXol ajs ^eoHBitadJja xii 

9x!d' lo JbfiQil «d4- eew &d cJsxl;^ bsllid" so;)' aioxrai''! .0 .^ 

i&iis hoB i&jsoiXifii! bflaXeX Xooff •xIcJ' *io d'nsffitiaqeb oillsoitf isgcdaajsq 

;tj3«cii {L^^l sonls c^a^isd-isq^b aixi nX -^aMiaw n9S»cf barf bssusoeft ©xl^ 

•lol aasnXaxjil xto rji^iaO o^ b©SBe&©b Qti:^ J-itsa sxl ,^£^X ^iscfmoosQ xil 

eld&ats 3BW bjifi sidxid' XXI nsiuid" efiw b©8jsesob dxlt d'sa'cf jxissqaioo ©rid- 

aft? no ;f.3il^ {3*1057 aJbrf g& oJ" Y'Jfisess-''' 8%s^ "5:© lacfoim ©xW xb&z o^ 

6»a3@ot»i5 ©ri;t lo satoxf eti* od" cTiisvr aff ^\f^Z t££ itedaieosG lo gxilinevs 

mjob d-jse" 9xi cTiidcf jbetf nl n&di asvr oiiw ,'!i:«J:ti3X 9tl& fttlw bssiXsd" bOB 

aid J-irods" jL&ojsqoi}! ffiiw ";Mcf ©XIJIX s ftsjiXaut bns sblabsd aii;t -^d 

XXI xi92L^ need fc^x] ©xl" ;J-iax{^ ia.M bXod" aieoeqoTS S.^S "jaxlsmO <kJ- qttd- 

10 eLd.iWmilm oa ;fXsl ©il ^sriJ- ba& lod-oob iS be^J'Iireaoa bjsri ^BdBsaQ ai 

bxiB ""^oasoixlO oj- jlojscf ©moo ocf ;t89Ci asw il b&blo»b ftxl itexlJ' XXi 

sd ^&di ji>SS fiJiW lo sxilniOffi 9x1* rto os^dMO o;t ben-icct©'! 9d iBdi 

^isxiJ-oxis bxis saXxU ©xio bas tsevisxi exxi bxiii jt»«'-. 
&oT:9xl;rod b^ ii^i bnim zM no sxilxWoinoe fcaxi 9x1 ii^n^ am i uao vii .i.- 



him a great deal and he could not sleep and I asked him what it 
was. He said he could not tell me nor anybody, I asked him if it 
was something in connection with the work at the office and he 
said, »Ko, nothing like thatj something personal;*" that he said 
to Kropacek, "Well, if you won't tell me about it, can you talk 
to your brother or sister or your mother?" that Kropacek said, 
"No, it is something I can't talk to anybody about;" that h© 
then asked him what his religion was, and he said he was a Catholic, 
"so I advised him that if he couldn't talk to any members of his 
family or me, to send for his priest and have him come over and have 
a talk with him," to which Kropacek answered, "k¥ell, that's an idea;" 
that he began to give. Kropacek some advice "about taking care of 
himself, keeping in bed, and keeping warm and eating lightly," and 
so forth, and he said he would; that Kropacek said he "had something 
on his mind that affected his well-being so to speak, so he could 
not sleep and he was worried;" that "after the conversation drifted 
around I said, 'You keep in bed and keep warm and eat lightly and 
you ought to be able to get through this and come back to the office 
next Monday, * And he said, 'No, I will never be back, • I thought 
that was just an idea due to his condition and so I tried to cheer 
him out of that and he said, 'No, I am through,' I said, 'Ivhy do 
you think that?* 'l^ell, » he said, 'my ticker' - and he tapped his 
heart," 

Dr, Roland P,MacKay testified that he specialized in 
diseases of the nervous system; that he graduated from the University 
of Toronto Medical School in 192? and interned at the Henry Ford 
Hospital from 19^5 to 1926; that he "was a fellow in neurology in 
the Mayo Clinic from I926 to I929;" that he came to Chicago in I929 
and associated with Dr, George IV, Hill; that he spent one year in 
post graduate work in Germany in I932 to 1933; that he was a member 
of the American Neurological Association and was certified as a 
specialist in neurological and psychiatric diseases by the 
Psychiatric Board of the American Neurological Association, that 



j-1 tsidw tsM MM[s« I iam q»»la. ioa bluoo sd baa l&&iy is^ei^ & eilA 

il 1i fltiri h9Ais,& I .T5&©cf>tflis 10X1 9iit Xle^ ioa ali/oo d£E l>i:fia ©H .asv 

fld fell* ©olllo QAi iA 3(now srict iWiw sxolio^smoQ al gnM^eruoa saw 

biss ail cTatW' »• jljajaositieq 3ni;il;J»ao3 jlad;? »2iJtI ^oiiiJofl ^oa' ,5ias 

aflB^ vox i^^ x^i- iu&4B ea XX«* .Maow ik)x 11 ,II«*" ^iLeoaqo-CS. at 

^ollorivt sO s SAW 9ti bi«a oil fane ,8aw noXgiloi airi iariw aiii bsatejs aetfct 

64 ±f* ')o siscfiHaa x^^ oi AIsS i^a^lstoo ati 11 isM seld b»etrii& I oa" 

9VBSl ttiA fsvo «s»o mirf sved Ma ;Sa»i'iq alxl lol owes o;^ <90 io xllosl 

to 9*xs3 a^ilita-^ iJi/cx^s" edlT&B eiBoa iesaqoiX .9V±s oi nssed «xl ^aii^J^ 

bfl£ *\xljd^il 3ii±:fB€* £)«« jm«w ^ixlmswal him ,fe«tf «Jt galqsai ^lidaisXxl 

SflJbrtJsffloa f)srf" ©rl 6Jtti<i jI»ofi(io"sl isjU iblsnn Bd bX&9 »A bas ,il;tno1 oe 

bleoo »fi Of. 4>L39ce e>J oa sGlsd-IIow eM be^solla ^iid^ I«ilia aid ao 

bs&lt'd) HO ic^f- a tev/j OS ©x-fct rE9;riij'' &&ti:i **{b»liim aaw •ri Jaxie qeole ioa 

bas xlid^tl :fB9 bas is%&i q,99^ baB b@xi ai qeei XfoY' ^blB& I bstuoiB 

:t£i8x;ori:J I * .ai©scf jKf rrerdQ XX±w I ^o?l' ^btse &d bah * ,\&baoU cTxen 

Tssrio OCT I)9ii:t I oe bnsn aoti^tbaoo std oi Mb a@ll ru :iBUl aew ;t3ri^ 

ob -vf*'' t^J^^s I ♦.liawoiiii OS I ,o'd» ,bise etri baa i»d^ I0 iuo mid 

Rill bBqqaS sri fens - 'laofolir ^» ^Jbliia &ri \XX»^;» »Yd-<idi aialrlo wx 

" . J oasxi 

Mo*^ "%«nsH arf;t ^« bQwieSul fins ^SfX xsi Xaodoa Liolood oiacnoT lo 

fll xsoXo^efi fll W0XI9I J8 8«sf" ad izd3 idS^X o;r ^:3^X moil XBiiqaoH 

^^I 111 osfiolffO o^ effldc sii l^ijctt "i^S^X o;t d£?X ao^l oinlXO o^sM sxi^ 

ol ^aex sao ;tn9qe sil iadi (XXIH .W »3ioa{) ,'ia ditu b&tBl9oaB& ba& 

i9da»m » asw sd t^d:} \Li^l oi S£^X al ■%£i&m.sD al aiiiow »*i»x;&«is cf«oq 

fi S£ fcslllcrieo asw fuia noWslooegA XaolsoIO'XjjeH n^olieiaA 9di lo 

stfl;^ X«^ £9aj6©elJ3 QliSshioxs.q. baa XsoisoXoiwon al isllsl^eqa 

^liiij ^riOl^r,xooG8A Xgo 130X01;''='^' rf.-olisffiA ©if;:^ lo feiBoS olncfislrfOYal 



he was "senior In neurology at St. Luke's Hospital" and an 
associate professor at the University of Illinoisj that on 3ujaday 
December 27 [26], 1937, the day before the death of Kropacek, he 
was called as a physician to the Kropacek home about two o'clock 
p«m, and found Kropacek in bed in the front room upstsdrsj that 
he made an examination of him at that time, and that present during 
the examination were two or three brothers of Kropacek, "perhaps 
a sister, and I think his mother j" that after he had talked with 
Kropacek for a few minutes, "or tried to," he "carried out a 
neurological examination on him, that is, a pliysical examination 
with special reference to any disturbance of his nervous system;" 
that lie examined "all those fiinctions of the body that the nervous 
system carries out, such as pupillary reactions, the presence or 
absence of muscular power in various parts of the body, presence 
or absence of various reflexes that are normally found, and the 
existence of normal or abnormal sensations anywhere in the body;" 

that he examined the patient's mental condition; "Q, Itfhat did 

•s 

you observe as to Mr, Kropacek condition as a result of his 

examination? A. T.hen I saw him he was in a very acute stage of 
agitated depression. He was restrained with difficulty. He wanted 
to get up out of bed all the time. He was very agitated suid restless,, 
wringing his hands and crying, bemoaning his fate, and stating there 
was no hope for him and that no matter what might be done for him, 
he was finished," The doctor further testified that he explained 
the condition of the patient to his family "and pointed out he was 
in danger of suicide because of his depressed mental condition, * ■» * 
Because of my opinion as to his condition I prescribed * * * that 

he should be taken to the psychopathic hospital where he could be 

had 

protected from himself," Upon recross-examination, after the doctor/ 

stated that he did not make out a physician's affidavit for admission 
to the psychopathic hospital, he asked to be allowed to state his 
reasons why he had not made out such an affidavit, but upon objection 
by plaintiff's counsel he Viras not allowed to do so. 



(1. — «fk«. 

CIS haz "liijlq&oh e'sjlija ,^a iA x^oloiuea al lolnee" bsw eel 

oiT 42fs»«qoi/I lo iiiadii ^i ariolscf i^sb edi ^^1^1 ,[52] '?S iscfmeosa 

3iooIo»o owzT d'JCTocfs aaioxl ai»osqo"i2 e^ij o:^ nj6lo±a\;rfq a es bsHao zew 

;)^tidS jctlBJ^aqiJ atooi ino*tl &iii al bed al 3f8osqoi2 biwol bae ,jn«q 

2nJtru/l) ia»9i9iq i«£l3^ bxiij ,©ai;f ;^a£W ia oltL lo flolcfsnliasx© «b Qhsm srf 

eqsifisq* ,2£so&qortX lo sisfJ^ortcf s&ruiit to ow;t eiew noiJ-BXilfflax* Sjd;t 

^'^'■' ';e3(XjR^ ijsd ed iB&i& i&di ^\i»d3oa eJtri ainlriJ- I pub ^tsJ-aia s 

A. Jx/o £>&liiBO" 9il •'^oi faeJti? lo" ^B«;funiiin wsl b lol ateosqoiX 

floiJ^jsniiaaxe Xj5filaT{;riq a ^et iadS ^mld no aoliaalsiexs Isolsoloouon 

''t2iS';texa ai/ovisn aJil lo eo/xaarfajj^telir; xhb o^ ©OiaoTislatt laloeqe liiJbf 

8XJ0V19XI 9iiit ^iad;^ -tftod Siid- lo anolisifiirtt eaoxtt Ilis" bentmsxs &d iMi 

TO ©oxiOBsnq 9i{^ ,afloWoA©i xis-tl-tqi'q 8h x1o;;;8 ^:ivo aoliiso ms^axa 

©onsasiq ^-^fcocf orW lo ad^nsq si/oiosv xil lewoq 'UiLuo&ua lo Qonsads 

«dJ^ bci£ ^bxiisol xXlsBnoa 91b iBd:i 8»x»Il9i es/oti&f lo oonsedB tco 

" j-^jJboa 9iiJ^ r;I c .;orli¥xn.o anoint eanos Isenmida -xo IjsiBion lo eonoJ-aixs 

bib i&ii ,. ;iioi:^lX)no3 Xb;^^©^ E';Jxs»J:;t3q diW fcsulaisxs eri :^Bri;t 

a« 

aJtxI lo JXuasa a a« xwicflbHOo jle^sqoTX ,iM o^ a a svasscfo l/ov; 

lo ogiiJ^ft :;Jx*f)i5 x^®'^ ^ ol asw exf alii wbs I asitft: ,A ^aoliaalsttsx» 

Jbsixxfiw 9H .x^Xuolllife iWlw b&alJsiiQei esw ©E .aoleasnqeb bei^ad-Jtaja 

^^s&li69i bas beia^t'^z ^isv cxiw &H .afislj -^-iid- Ila b«>tf lo iuo qw ;t»a od- 

Bted^i ;^UBia baa ^oj.sl aixf jfllnaomscf ^^nJtxio bns eboari slri snisnlOT 

(isiui lol enoi) scf idi^lsL iatbi i»i3sm on :fiul;t ba& old lol eqod on esv 

beal&lqxe ©xl ;fi5di bsJtlld^KS^f ladiJajjl 'lo^ooo odT ".bsilalnll 8bw ed 

ssvir ed ixfo b9;}nloq bos" xliunMl aiii o;t tnoiutaq ^di lo aold-lbnoo sxfcf 

* * * ,aoliJtbaoo l&ioAm bsees'xqsb alii lo ^ajs&o^d oblolvz lo issflsb xil 

i&il b&cd'xoeeiq I noJ:;tJtl;noo eixl o^ 8« aolalqo -^ lo •sJiraoAS 

•cf bJjuoo 9x1 oiedw Xsiiq,zod ^Idi nqodvr^&q adi oJ^ aesis;! ed blxroxls ad 

b£d 

\jo;toob Qdt i9d"lfl ,noJt;t*saijaii3x»-«e€mi>»i noqU ".IXsaBilxi jbioiI boJ-oej^oiq 

aolaalsib& lol cf±v.sbi:'llB a'nalolEXdq a ^tx/o 92lBat cTaii Jbib eri J-adi beJad^e 

aid scfsJa oi bewoIXa ©d at Jbsjiaa ©ri ^lijiitxqaoil oldJ-aqoxlo-^aq ©xtt oi 

noicfoe^do noqu iucl ^^:ilvs,bt11^ as doua Suo sbsim ioa bad exl xdw anosaei 

,oE ob oi bewoIlB d'oix aaw ml Issnwoo 8»lll:>^flislq \d 



-5- 

Joseph Kropacek, a brother of the deceased, testified 
that at the time of the death of the deceased he lived at 3135 
Normal avenue, where the ■Bitness also lived} that William was 
thirty-one years of age, single, and a C&tholioj that he had feeen 
ailing for several years; that his sight and hearing were good} that 
he was about five feet, eleven inches in height and weighed about 
160 pounds, %, IKbat did you observe as to his mental condition 
nr -^ -> just prior to his death. A, Well, he went to Omaha, I 
noticed it after he came bacfe from Omaha;" that after he came back 
"*I couldnH observe much of ai^thing;" that he told the vdtness 
"he had been overworked and was awfully nervous and could not sleep 
nightsi that 'he hadn't slept for about a week or twoj" that the 
last time he saw his brother alive was Sunday afternoon at tJfci© 
Peoples Hospit^al; that V/illiam had not been in any institution 
for mental disorders; that the doctor suggested that ftilliam be 
taken to "Kercyville Sanitarium," "Q, Kow, what was this coidition 
you observed that caused you to call in Dp, MacKay and Dr. Gilbert? 
A, Dr, Gilbert suggested Br, MacKay, He didn't kno%' what was 
wrong at the time. * « * q, * « * li^t happened on that night 
t24th]? A, Well, he did ask me for a gun. That is vih&t he 
asked for, Q, Yes, A. But, if he had any intentions of using 
it, he Itad it himself, Q, Yes, How, did you have to use restraint 
on him during this Sunday to qiiiet him down? A, ".ell, he tried 
t© run oul, of the house several times and I called my brother-in-law 
from across the street to take him back in the house. I did mention 
that at the Peoples Hospital, thet he will try to run out of the 
place, and told theru to watch him," Upon cross-examination by 
plaintiff's counsel the witness testified that at the time that 
William asked for a gun he had the gun himself in his drainer and 
he had the key in his pocket; that on that same day the witness 
left the house and was gone for two hours, during which time William 
was alone in the house; that in the house there was also a rifle 
that Mlliam used when he went hunting; that the witness did not 



SAW ffisHIl'/ i^ii \t^lX ozl& 8B»siihi &sLi &iBth ^^uaava IjunoSi 

i-&di lboo2 di** SJSl<z£ftil ftftA ;fi^i3 nJLA isdi {irL&eri I^i^v:^^. lol sxiilJU 

;t»ocfa fesulaisw Jaxa ;fjrf3l#ri ttl 3«ris>nl n»veX« ^i»6l eYll i'woda aiwr ed 

flOiJlMoo ls*naE nM ot as isTi^acfo irox hlb tatHi , " ,:'.baiso<i Q6l 

, ususO cKf ia9v Oil ^llB-f. . . '^a»i5 bM oj lox-isi >*aiil 

jiSjBC o*:^3i; 9ti Tsctis tfiilJ" •* ^irfaffiv,' ci^-il iioicf mlso ©ri i»#l» ^i b 4.^0x5^0:1 

tiZ9(s$t^ 9£$ bl&i «r{ fzd^ " ijiaidt^a to i£siaa •▼*r»stfo i*abluoo I" 

isojtji^os &M^ 3. sum &Bi^vt ^woS ,p" ^ ,aaiXiiiihiz2 •XIlinjoieM" oi jsaiU^ 
83';? ^asSw Voces ^'ctfeii) »H ,tB3!o«^ .'^^ B'>) ^'^vwe cJ-iddi 

S^xlEif "^c aix»X;tne*^at ^oa bad iuL 11 ^iu^ .' .«©! ,y ,tol fe«3U« 

criila^-t^ei ©Si/ o;J sv-if rov Mi) ,w61l .atY ., /ilfteaLttl ^i bati 9d ^il 

ht»ti:f »!ii ^IXs> , nob alii iahsp oi x^bauZ eJUtd aatrwJb «JU1 ao 

w«X--iti~neifj««cf "^ fisXIsc I ^xta ?SiKl^ Xa^evsa ©axfal adi lo iuo tun 9i 

xioXifteig blh I .©Eworf aftJ ; saM ^m ..Qiie ndt ■ao^os mcnl 

Mi lo Sbo asit 6i t^$ XIlw «f( *BrW ^Xjaiiq^oH aelfiof?*? siW ;ta ^aiW 

Xii Jstoi3^aa±SL3X9«-2co"to aoqtT ".aiil iloJuvr oi nftx-. 'Xte ,99AXq 

;tBri;t w&li- ^liS ^& iadt MllX;te©^ aewicMw ©rixl Xesuufoo a » ll±;txUL»Xq 

bits rx9«rs^ eixi nX llssalil ac^ airfif Sjari »fl atf^ a lol iisaJaiJ aisiXXl* 

eaofliXw ©rf* xnib oatee JacCf flo (fflffd jifeaffoq aXri nX xoal ©iiJf beai ari 

fitailXlW ©Elr* iioX£lijr sittiirfe ^silfori wd^ lol «ao3 a aw i>its ©sxfori 9ii:t *1»X 

shrill is 68Xfi «aw »rt&£f^ dtiforf eriJ tU *sitJ^ tesx/od a^ nl oaoXjs bbw 

Joa bib nioail^ fiOi iB&i x-^aHmal iasw ad xiariw feeei* «aiiXXW iati;^ 



think much of the statement made by ixis brother regarding a gtua, 
as he figured trmt if IVilliam wanted the gun he could have got 
it iiiiiiseir and could have used it at any tiae he wanted it; that 
William "had a priest" on the Thursday afternoon before he diedj 
that the witness did not notice anything unusual "about his head" 
on December 26ji that Vsilliam was satisfied to be at the hospital, 
that he called them up about seven o'clock and said "we should not 
worry, tliat Ive iiad two nurses, two blonde nurses taking care of 
him." 

Defendant offered in evidence certain photographs of the 
Peoples Hospital, These photographs and certain other evidence show 
that the hospital is a four-story building that faces north on 
Cermak road, or 22d street; that on the third floor is a corridor 
■which opens out onto a porch thai; covers the entire east end of 
the buildingj thet the porch is about eight feet in vvidth and has 
a floor of corrugated or rough steel "with notches in itj " tiiat it 
has a fire escape at the south end and an archway window at the north 
end; that the bottom ledge of the archway window is three feet, three 
or four inches, from the floor of the porch; that the concrete block 
wMch forms the bottom of the archway window ledge is fourteen inches 
across; that the distance from the bottom of the archway window to 
the sidewalk below is thirty feet, two inches; and that the width 
of the sidewalk directly opposite the archway window, on the 22d 
street or Cei'mak road side, is sixteen feet, four or five inches, 

A police officer who reapondod to a call a few minutes 
after seven o'clock in the morning, testified, i nter alia , that he 
observed the condition of the sidewalk upon his arrival at the scene 
of the death and found that the sidewalk had been washed off with 
water at a point opposite the window opening and he saw there some 
dark red stains which were not all washed off; that the distance 
between the point where he observed the blood and the wall of the 
building v/as about fourteen feet; that the body of the deceased 
had been removed from the sidewalk before the witness arrived; that 



^ifsj;^ a snlDiasei isrWoid alii x«f sjSflffl Jneateiai'a eiJi xo cloxob alaLcl;t 

;foa svfid blaoo ©r( uui dilcf boc^riBW jsusllllh' 11 *fii1d- fcsitnjll act 8b 

d^firfd- t;)-! fisiflujw ad nOLtJ -i^n J;:- Jl fteaw sv.ail fcXwoo &ij» lIseiHlii #1 

ih^sJj !)xl siolsd noonnsd'l.'3 Xfi^EluriT &£lt no "^adiiq b fieri'* mslXIlW 

"f)B©xi alri d^uocffi" Ifiu-exouj -^liitxPA eol^foa ioa bib aasniflw 9di t&tt) 

^l&iiJizod &di ;tB scf oS bel1atiQ& zjs« a&tlLti-: taiL^ \h^ i«dj&30«a am 

ioa blvoiia ew** fclbc Me lioolo'o nevsa ?i/od;5 qi^ atsrW" JjsIIeo •£( d-fiili 

lo 91B0 sisl:^sd^ casixin sbnolu owj ^Eeaiiuxi owcf bsd »ri ;tiiil* ,XTtow 

'•.ffllil 

9di to ariqaigoc^oxlq i^lBC^^so sortsblvo ak betBtto ;tnsbfl«l»t): 

woiic donsblvs iQffd-o n±jBJ"ieo mfi 2rfq;siso^<3iiq ««9fiS «Ia.;tlqaoii aelqos*! 

no iLtion e&ojsl if5Jii 'ialblttit xioiz-'tsjo'i e al le^tiqsoii atl;f i'ijriJ 

•lobliic ilrfd- Qdi no (tiariJ^ t^»©*cra bi:.S 10 ,£301 iLmw^O 

lo iioa J239 s'xxjns ericf ei»voo Ja/ict tioioq b oja© ;fx;o exisqo dohla 

aari bfxa ild-filw nl ;}s&1 cfrfgla d^wocfs ai iloioq «rf^ itsifcf {gxLtAXJbtw eri^ 

^1 iBiii **{i]: al zed^ioa tLUrl^** l&9&« xlgiroi to beiR-^iJiioo lo leoll c 

iicf'iofi ©ifct cfa wof)£tlw XBWii&iJ8 hb bii« bas diaos ntH is sq&ose 91II b- aad 

eeidi ^isel ©«irict el ^iobalv: '(jswdois arid" lo safcdl aotio4 &Ai iadHi {bOB 

2iooIcf siteaonoo edJ- d'axf;^ jrioioq srict lo 100II atiJ- mortl ^aadoiii 'xwol 10 

asfioal aoBiiuol &1 B^hel woficlw \Bwri0i3 srW- ^o aioc^J'otf ©rict aiciol rioMw 

oi woMiw x^vidoiz Bdi lo atod^^tod sitt inonl oowjsjftglfe 9ri;J c^flitt" izboiob 

rid-fclv: ari;^ ;fi'ni;t fifLs {ssrionl o^fJ ^Jeal y**i1^^ bI wolsd 3lXsw»bla Qdi 

feSS srici- no ^vrofenlw -^iswxloia sxlJ e^leoqqo x^^®'*^b ailawsfela atlc^ I.0 

.aarionl 9vil 10 tiJol ^is&'i no»*xl8 si ,»fcl8 buoi aiairiftO no *©»^b 

Bscti/iilia W9l B IX.?.o s oi Mtaeiiedi orfw •sool'ilo aolXocr A 

Sri i&di ^alXiB %^iat xb®ltliz»S ^snla'iofit srii nl :^ooXo'o ii»vse ned-lii 

sneoa srid" :t3 X3Vl'xr:« aid rroffi? afXjiinrsbla oxi;? lo nolilDnoo erid" Sevneecfo 

xfjlw llo £)8ri2sw neecf b&d iIXBwefcis srii d-i;ri:t ismrol bna Ai.^Bb sdi lo 

©ffioa 6'iSidi was eri Mb sitl^i^q© vrobnlw eri::f ©sMaoqqo ^tifxltjq a is i»*aw 

•©aajJalii eri;? ;fsri:f jllo berisjsw XXb :J"on «iow liolriw enlacfa ben atnsfc 

axid^ lo XIsw ei£3 fttts fcooXcf ©ri^ bevt&ado «ri e-iaeiw ^nioq saU xx^mrlod 

bsasjsoeJb ©ri:t lo xiiod odi i&di \iBBll asefiirct StsodR sjbw SJxl£)Jli/d 

^axict (£>9vl'iiB aaafi:tlw Bdi enoled iXswebls 3^3- iaonl bovoasen csed f).3ri 



-7- 

tiie janitor of the hospital showed him where he found the body, 
it was "where this water was lying." 

The superintendent of nurses ft the hospital, Jean Adams, 
testified that she resided at the hospital? that she admitted 
Kropacek to the hospitalj that his brother Joseph brought him therej 
that William was assigned to room 304 on the third floor, ■RMch room 
is in the middle of the hospitalj that she talked v/ith the patient 
at the time of his admissioni that she thought he looked ^ust like 
any other patient; that after the patient asked her, "Would it be 
any trouble to get a priest for him,** she got a priest for him 
during the afternoon; that the priest left and later in the evening 
she had a talk with Kropacek in his bedroom and ordered an enema for 
him; that after he had been given the enema he felt better and was 
quite cheerful, but stated that he did not think that he was going 
to sleep tliat night, and after supper she "ordered a sedative for 
him by doctor's orders. He got two allonal tablets;" that Kropacek 
"had a quiet evening, " as far as she knew; that she heard him say 
over the telephone that he liked the nurses and that they were 
nice to him; that she saw him last about 10:30 o'clock at night; 
that she sav/ him next on the morning of December 27, at which time 
he was dead; that she observed Ms head was all smashed in. Upon 
cross-examination the v.ltness testified tliat there was a fire escape 
on the porch and that the words "Fire Escape" appeared on the door 
leading to the porch; that the brother of the deceased requested 
that he be assigned general duty; thi.t there were t\¥0 or three 
toilets on the third floor, one directly opposite the patient'* 
room; that there was one window in the patient's room and she 
thought that it was shut at all times. 

The houseman of the hospital, Peter Krolikowski, testified 
that about seven o'clock Monday morning, December 27, 1937, the wit- 
ness, after hearing "hollering, " 'tan outside and looked on the 
walk and seen the patient lying there;" that at the east end of the 
hospital on the tliird floor there is a porch; "that after you step 



fjej-iimfcs srie d^drid- ^iBdlqeorf siii in beblBet erie d-srW beilldaed- 

leisilcf mtrf d^s^o'xcf rfqeaot isrij-ortrf sli! JariJ ^lij^lqeori #x£d od aleoBqoTX 

ioooi rfolrfv? 4'rooll b-iidi ailiit no ■^0C aooi od bsiiglagB «aw mBlIIlW i&di 

J-naWcq; eild' rl^ir; JbeaCIsd' arts :}&di ^a^lqeori erl? io oliiblin srid- ni. ei 

93{i:i isjL'^; boiool 9ri diisi/o£fd' sttfc dfirii jnolE&lxHbA etd lo ©did erid dB 

»rf J"! Mxro? " ,i»ri 50:^3 « duald-sq firid iTBils tarid jdneld-aq neri^o xaa 

ffilxl ibl de^iiq s dog aria "^iaJtrf lol daeliq b des od ©IcfifOTcd xsa 

sxiinerr© 9f» nJ: isd-aJt ban fJ.9L d'eeliq 8d;t ^cfid jnoonioc^ls sxIj gnloi/b 

.3'> aawn© ns boisbio Sttc nooitbed" aJtri at >fooBq<«X xldlw allsd a bad aria 

asw bxiiS 'i!5dd'e<f +I0I f<ri aoert© ©rid nsirJtjj n©»cf b«ri ari nedljii ^arid' (flitri 

snJtog gjBW ©ri d'srid ^Ltlrid don bib sri dadd- bed^ade dxrcf ^Ixjlioario edlijp 

10I ©vidafcss 3 ^9ieMo" »x!8 teqqifr. aa ,drialn djarid' qssic od 

jiL90Bqo'i:>i tMii " fEdsXcf.sj* IfsrtoIXs awd doj, . 'lodoob x^f aLtri 

■^8 ffilri bosaff sila d"^* piQttii ©xle .inins^ve delxrp s bza"' 

©t9w "^ilt d -;jt!rf ftiiti Dssiinn ©rfd ba::^!! a£i c^axJd axioxlqeled Bdt lavo 

^dri^ixi ds 3f30lo»o 0£tOI dJffdtTjB ^esX alri was aria ^arid- loiri od^ eola 

sEid xioirfw d" iasoSC lo sixlniom edct «o d-xon aid was aric dsrid 

n<yqO .ill bsria.Sice II j5 sisw bsarl sirf beviaecfo acta doxid jbaab asw ari 

aqsaaa f?iil b zssen arfftdd d-yld- bsllJtdaed aeaadJtw exTd aoLiBataaxs-azoio 

100b arid no bsisdqqfi "eqBOa'a ©ilt" atiow ex£d"i«xid toa jtloaoq arid no 

b9da9JLfp€>i beSisaoab axld- Io laxldoicf arid- d^^Brid iriaioq BdS oi ^^albBoi 

■asirfd 10 mti 9iaw s'larfd ^■■.d^b Xa-i^jM^l ba«8ise.s 9cf sri daxld 

••i^ixsldsq srfd ©dlsoqqo tXJoeiXb '-^lo ^7.00X1 bii:j 10 Edeliod 

oiCa bxiB aft? 01 a^dna^dsq ©xTd ni wobn±w &a© aj5W s>i&xid darid latooi 

.aaatid' II.o ia diiria asw dl dsxld dri^woild- 

LsilliZQ^ ^Jbiafl'oiiBLiloxi 'isd?? ,Xsdlq3oxl eiii Io flsaa«i/ori 91IT 

-Ji? &di %^£?X eVS isdiaeoea ^anin'-oa -^sbncB 2£oolo»o aevsa dx/otf^ darid 

3itt no b93fooX bna efcXedi/o na* "^aiiliallori" aaJtiaari aedlia ^aesn 

9rid "io bns icsa aifl' d-fi ifarid-^iauexld aalxX ^rteldaq ©riJ n»©e boa alXaw 

qeda tsox ladita fBA:i» jrioaoq tarid looXl biMi arid no iB^f ±qe<D>ri 



-8- 

out on the porch and turn to your left you wal^ right over toward 
22d street and come to a ledge or archwayj*«that the distance from 
the door to the archway was fifteen feet, eight inches; that the 
distance from the porch floor to the bottom of the window ledge is 
three feet, tvifo inches, and the distance across that vdndow ledge is 
one foot, three inches; that "the distance straight down according to 
my measurements was thirty feet, one inchj " that the distance from the 
side of the wall of the hospital to the curb is sixteen feet, five 
inches; that when he saw the body of the deceased it was "laying on 
the walk. It was fourteen feet two inches north of the hospital. It 
was about in the center of the archwayj" that when he reached the body 
he saw that the deceased "had on a night gown" that "was pulled all 
the way up to his neck. He was all exposed," and the head was facing 
west; that the witness measured the distance from the body to the curb 
and found it was two feet, two inches; that there was no water on the 
sidewalk vvhen he picked the patient up and the pavememb was dry; that 
after they brought the body of the patient into the hospital the wit- 
ness washed that part of the sidewalk where he had foimd the body. 

Defendant contends: "Under the terms of the double indemnity 
clause which provides that the defendant shall not be liable for death 
resulting from 'self-destruction, whether sane or insane,' the law is 
well established in Illinois that the defendant is not liable if the 
insured died flPoa self-destruction either as the intentional act of a 
sane person or the act of an insane person motivated by some insane 
impulse or totally unconscious of the nature and character of his act. 
Under such a clause the degree of sanity or insanity does not preclude 
the defense of self-destruction," This statement of the law does not 
seem to be disputed by plaintiff. In any event, it correctly states 
the law of this State, 

Defendant strenuously contends that under the facts of the 
case the only reasonable hypothesis is that the insured, whether he 

was sane or insane, came to his death by self-destruction, and that 
the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict for defendant 



-3- 
Iiajswod- oevo id^l'i Jilsvf sjox ;^1©X iiso\ o4 aini tiOB Afyioq &di no :fuo 
fflo^l «ocaiEi:b stii i&di*'{\£!mioiiB 10 ©a^oX a oi emoo Jbiia ieQ'ii& JbSS 

21: djfcsl wotuijb? ail^ lo aioctd^oQ sxl^ o^ looll riottoq ericf tsofi soxuaielb 
el e^jbel woJbclw ^Bfii tzcioe ©orui^wxb silct bout ^aadoni oifi ^&ee1 »©ari;t 

sdi molt ^oojiiislb tfiM ^fiaii;^ ^ idocl eao ,*»©! ^niri^ asw z;taesi9'WZBQm xm 

®vil ^d^»dl xiefi^xia «1 tfiifo sit' oJ Xfi^^iqsorf ©d^ 'to XXbw 8xi;f lo 9bla 

no sixJr^sX*' esw ^1 b9^»6osb od^ ^o Aftod ©dd' wa» 9d nsxfw ^fixi;^ {eedonl 

^I <,l^iilqe.0d esLi Jo siiioti tadont omi ie9l as^iisjol a&w il .jUsir 9di 

XJE>ocf 9ii^ featfasfti snI nsriw tf-arict "ixswaoifi sdi lo 'i«ta©o «ci^ ni ^tjjocfa e«r 

XXfi i>eXXit;q sow*' istii ''xswog ;f£ls-tfi « isio bMtl* btaaaoeb 9tli issii wbb ed 

S£U:9£l ejsw l)£a£( ©xi;} hem '>«£>d«oqxs XXa saw ©H t3Lo9a ttd oi qv XJ^"' 9di 

d-xssti 9di o^ xbod od'J noil ^tsisiAiJi 9d;i Jboix/aaaoi ec*ii;tJ:w edi iadi i^faaw 

atij itii i©*JiW on Si&w ©i^Qdi' i&di ttaffonl ow;f «;(ft«l qw* saw ^X bm;ol 5n« 

d-^^ {li'sii esw iosnevsq s£(:l' ^ob qj7 ineJL:i&q sdi b&Tiolq ad xietciw ^UiiiwdblB 

-^iw add" XdJlqao£i srUt oinl isi^jliisq sfW lo x^ocf Biii ^il^ifQad x«ri;^ a^J-ls 

•Aibod SMi;t bfljjol ijjBx! ad ©aarfw iXswdbXa 9di lo cfiaq ^tsri;^ fcerieiiff aaen 

, riitiaolial aXdifO-b ©ji:l lo aiaisJ^ ftr';J isbfiU" J8f>«9;tixo» iajsba&lsQ 

dis9b lol ^Idiill 9d &oa XXsii?. i£LibnB'i9L ecW ^actt asbJtvoiq jdaixiw ©exrsXo 

eX WfiX sdi '^anjjaiiX 10 aose ^scfctQiiw tnoX;J^si/i^aeJb-'5J[9e* aoil s^i-t^JJ^ssi 

©jdd^ IX eXcfflXX ioa sX ^a^bneleb aricJ- isidi eXonXXXI aX Jb©iiaXXcf*^8e XXew 

B lo ^OB XsnoX;tixd;txiX ori:^ 8b iOi{^i« nol^oi/ic^Befo-lXea a»^ fceXb baissaal 

9xii38nX emoa tjcJ bsd-BVXd'Oia noeiaq sasaxiX cb to c^od. &d:i 10 noansq aasa 

,J"OB aXri lo loio^i&do biiB oind-isn Qdi lo swoXoaiaooiii/ xXIs:fod' 10 saXwqaiX 

©bxjXoeaq ion aeob xJ'-itfl^^eaX "xo ^^Xis&a lo &9i^ob 9dt sajjsXo & xioiia -labnU 

Cfon 89oi> vfsX arid^ lo d'nsatad'B^a aXriT ".noXd'ox/i.tasb-lXse lo eaneleb erW 

aed'si'a x^i^J^oiio^ ^1 ^;ta0V9 x^b nl .llXioXf.Xq xd bsissq&lb ©cf o;t lasea 

,9J-3ia aXxJJ^ lo wjsX ©ri;t 
SiicJ" lo ad"Oial Qdi isiniXi j.ciij cioxisJ^aoo •\ii.diJo;ri;f'-iJ-a iaabtist^Q. 1 
en larid-Qilw ^bsiKSfii &di iadi aX aXasjtlJ'oqvxl oldfixiosssi 'ilao odi saao 

J-iSfli bfls ^ttoXitoxT'iiaob-lXee xcf ri^fisb sXri ocf siaso ^©flisaisX 10 oaaa ass^ 
^xisbnsleJb 10I doXb'isv s J'osiXb oct snlXlal nX bsii© ^ixioo XsXiJ- Qd& 



■'■) 
-9- 

at the close of all tlie evidence, I'^hile this contention is 
strenuously and ably argued, we are satisfied th£.t it Is our duty 
under the le.w to hold against it, "A motion to instruct the jury- 
to find for the defendant is in the nature of a demurrer to the 
evidence, and that 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 v;eighed, 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 a t that wh ich is favorable to aPTjellant^ , 
Yess V. Yess. 2$^ 111, 414; McCune v. Reynolds ^ 238 id. I885 Llovd 
V. Rush. 273 id. 439," ( Hunter v. Troup . 315 111. 293, 296, 297, 
Italics ours.) See, a^-so, Mahan v, Richardson ^ 284 111, App. 493, 
49 5 J Tho mason v. Chicago Motor Coach Go .y 292 111, App, 104, 110 j 
Wole ver v. Curtiss Candy Co ., 293 111, 586, 597. In the light of 
this rule of law, we are satisfied tliat it is our duty to hold that 
the trial court did not comrtit reversible error in refusing to 
instruct the jury to find for defendant at the close of all the 
evidence , 

Defendant contends that, in any event, the verdict of the 
jury is manifestly against the weight of the evidence and therefore 

the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for a new trial, 

a 
This contention, in our judgment, is clear ly^merl tor ious one. As 

this case will probably be tried again we refrain from analyzing 

and commenting upon the facts and circumstances in evidence. Counsel 

for plaintiff, in support of their argument that Kropacek's death 

was accidental and that the verdict of the jury is not manifestly 

against the weight of the evidence, contend, in this court, that 

the predominating factor in producing the insured's death was 

probably the two allonal tablets that the nurse gave Kropacek, 



eJt iSoiiJfl-eJiioc' sid-i" siJiifv .soasjbivo sd;}- Xljs lo ©solo t^di ia 

X^sib 1*^0 «i; a iatiit b&i.'ieti&i sis aw ^fiajjs'us \ld& ba& \lQUOi:a&iis. 

y^'iSj'l Bxii joxi'iiteni oi^ aoiJofli A" ,ii vtaxUasi* Mod o:f waX arfct isjanjj 

ajJJ^ od -istui/tTob s lo ©iffJ-sjxi ailct £Lt aj; J-aaiinslsft ari;^ aol Mil o;t 

8;fl xii ^oJ i)9TXi)iK9b OS ©O0e£»lv» eild Jjsd^ si •JLui jsxicf nos ^aon^biva 

si<Jsaoe.sdTi: 11^ ^Sht awfefsjccf ^llMnisXq eiU oi sldBiov&X isom ^o©qe« 

^ovfil fiJt vljpciJa ;t£.©ia ao*i5,J dcf ietmi ^ifloilaiofi^ joial'iB a^oasislal 

■^CiocTol&srtitaQo IJ-; t>£ije ,.69xlj,±©w Jo« ai saasbivo exlT .lHJnl.ftX*; end' lo 

oijaoxifp 9d5 ,b9d^o©t®'5^ ®«^ iaxao Beou&iimfozlo •s;io;tBa«Xqxe io oonsbiv© 

'^I'xiBl ©eao&±vs tjob ai eisiii^ laiUsdw el aoi^oa dows rto bsd^aaeeiq 

•d;^ g/ilwelvei nl .iioi;r/i*i«X&«J!) 55»lll^xil«X.i »sii ©vo'iq o:t aal£>n9;J 

ad#^ dulsw ion ot> ©v.' sfcsH ai d-flljaXqaoo doldw lo cJ'iJ/oo edi lo noXi^os 

.feXi2i»l t88X .bl Se« .aialQii-vrsa .t aflcSoy |*X> .XXI ^)5fi , BieY .▼ aeeY 

.S:es »^^ ,£^ .XII Hi ,cm-x1 .V ^g;^fiiJlI) ".^-f^ .Dl £^£ .deifH .v 

tf.e-^ .qqA .1X1 ^:i »fip|^lft4ft^ ■▼ IWteM tOe-f« ,8»a (.sixfo soXXjs:^! 

tOXX ,4^0X .qqA .1X1 f^es> ^. Ql do^oO in:>«iy «l f\f f-tdO .v noyaffl odl i^^^^ 

lo *d9iJ[ ©Alt al .Y?c t^S^ •■tXI C^ ,. qO Yi?m;0 saXcf-ujS ,v wtsXoW 

:}&ti:i blod aJ x^i/fc lira 2i ;JX J-Bd;t £jeXlal3iia sib sw ,waX lo aXtri aj:d;t 

oi siJlej/le'i jai rsoine aXdieisvei ihJMoo ioa bib :iziioo L&Xii sdi 

9dt Hi? lo ©solo odj ^n: ia»i>a6l?b lol ball oi xiul sd& iossiizal 

. soiaeibXvs 

BdS lo i^olbi@v ari.j- ^iiisv© x^s al ,d-ad;r afweJ-HQO iaebaQleQ 

Qiol&iadi boB »Dafibtr9 ado lo Jd^iaw add" ijanlesfi x-t^ss^iXaam el x^^t 

,XKlr£;J waa a lol notiosg. z'ia^bsislsb jalTjaaJb ai bsite iisjoo Xalict^ od:t 

aA .©no BSJotioi liOi2.'^ltze>lo ai ^d^aaiHslJiiit '^*' ^-t »nol;tneJnoo eMT 

gfllsyljsna sjoil £sl&rt.1»i ©w oljesB fcsvlii acf -^Xcfsdoiq XXlw aaso aidcf 

Xd8is&e9 .asinslilvs nl s®9afi;tac2f/sil9 bns tins,! &£ut aoqir salJ^nsiomoo £)nB 

dd-fisf) a»2lsosqox;i ;tsild^ ^tnsaiagias alsjdW lo Jioqqira al ,lllJiilaXq lol 

XX^eallnaffi J^oxi al xi^t 8^^ "^o ;tolbi9V ed$ ^&di bD.& l&iasblooB eew 

i&rid ^d-ii/oo alAt nl ^ba&:i£i09 ^soxi©i)lvs> axtf lo ;tri3i0w 9ri;J' d'aalBaB 

8GVF ri;^&eb s, * balneal, odi galox/boiq nl no:tojol ^ali Aatmobstq ddi 

,5isosqo'xX »vsa 9cix<'xi eiii taili- BieS.ti&i l&aollB cmi sdi yXdecfoiq 



-10- 

Plaintiff argues that "there is no evidence that the insured ever 
took Allonal or any like drug before, and we submit that the purpose 
and the initial effect thereof was to induce sleep, but that under 
the influence of this drug, he not having taken the ssjne before, 
that the further effect of the same would be to impair the normal 
functions of the insured's brain and muscle impulses, so that he 
could not concentrate enoiigh to comaiit suicide wiiich could reason- 
ably have been the predominating factor that the insured's death 
was accidental, and could reasonably have brought about a misstep, 
misadventure or accident resulting in insured's death, as found by 
the jury and sustained by the court." Plaintiff further argues that 
" t^e br ain lmpiU.se Sj and the muscle Impulses of the Insured were 
i nterrupted, and that the ins\ired could have functioned by 'sub-con- 
scious mind,' due to the effects of this drug, both before and 
imraediately leading up to the acts and occurrence of his death," 
The only evidence in respect to the allonal tablets is the testimony 
of the head nurse, Jean Adams, that after Kropacek had told her that 
he did not think he was going to go to sleep that night she, "by 
his doctor's orders," ordered as a sedative for him two allonal 
tablets. Plaintiff's able counsel thought so little of this evidence 
when it was given that he did not cross-examine the witness in refer- 
ence to the allonal tablets. There is not a word of evidence in the 
record that tends to support plaintiff's argument as to the nature 
and effect of these tablets. In plaintiff's brief, couixsel, in 
support of the argument that we would have a right to conclude that 
the cause of the death of the insured was due to the taking of the 
allonal tablets, have not hesitated to go outside of the record. If 
the two allonal tablets could have had the effect on the deceased that 
plaintiff now argues, there was a proper wey to show that fact* 

The judgment of the Municipal court of Chicago is reversed 
and the cause is remanded. 

JUDCaSSNT REVERSED MD CAUSi REMANDED, 
Friend, P, J,, and Sullivan, J,, concur. 



-01- 

*«oq;*Ojg aiW i'*d:f ;tijstf08 ©^ fine ^snolod girib ©3(11 x^xs 10 l&nolLX aloo^ 
xel>xiu cfadd^ J^isd ,qs»ia »oi;£)nx od^ esw to^'i&dS iosl^e l&tilnX uLi 6n« 

Isffiion »xlj aisqfliJt o^ »d £>Xx;ow ©a^e sii-t *io itoslle lediifft sdi i»dS 

wi imi OS ^eaalaqiaJ: •laaiJia ba& alBtd a'fceiusnl o^c^ lo enold-onu'i 

iii ssb .:«fe©niiexxi sri;t ^jaiic^ locfojsl ^ali oaXmobQiq ©fW neecf evad -^IcTb 

^q&ci'aaJbai s J|'xrocf« ^xi^oief Bv&d ^XdBaozaei bluoo ba6 ^l&iaQbloo9 zem 

XCf basjol Hi- ^iiir^ob 'bonweat a.1 :^Xilua»i ia&blooB 10 ©ixf^nevJbaaim 

Si&d:} E^jj^ajB laxiJiul i'llJiii'SiI*! ".J-ix/oo ©ilc^ x<^ bsala«tax/8 bxie x'U^t »rfJ 

-rioo-djjs' -^cf fcoaoljcxxwl svaii blnoo b9iUB,al odi i»di baa ^po iqi!jip:!ta t 
baa ©lolsd d:iod ,3X/Tb mldi lo ECtoel1» »dit o;t »ub » ^bnJtiu ax/ojoa 

\,}.iK>^.£iet)i 9di aJt «^dX«fja;? XisaoIIjs ad* jjS J^seqaei xil •oaetlve xXao arlT 

isd:^ la^ blo^ !>&(( i^osqcil i^ila isdi ^taabk xmel ^»&iua b&ed sdi lo 

Xd" ^fiile J4$^n iBfl:^ q»&l8 o;t 0$ oi ^loj ssw dil sinldi ioa btb ed 

Isaolls cmi nixi 'xol 9rti>ibst8. « e« beiatio "^a-xef^io £i'io;toot eJbd 

soaeblYS zldi lo »X^*1I oa id^^vodi Isaosfoo ©Ida 8»lll;fnlaI<J ««*eX<is;t 

-i&lQi aX aa&nJJtw srfJ- Qolfltftx^-eaino ioa bib ad d'^;f novis sbw :tX fl«riw 

awtt £tl soneblvo lo biaw s ;tQH al ©iftxil ,ed'»Xtfjs;J X&aoXXs «ri;t o;^ ©oxis 

9ii/d"i5Xi sil;!^ 0.J 8s d-naat/aifl a'lliO^nl;?!:; d-ioqc[i/e o;t &b(Mi isdi biooBi 

£11 ^Xemwoo ^lotid c; ' lli^aifii _ *si9lds.i esexU' lo ioclls bwi 

iBiii &bislocio^ oi jrlgjti a avsa f)Xx/ovir »«r i^ii iasaas^is &di lo ;^•Ioqqi;ra 

S)di to snljia;^ siSd- o;J^ oub gaw i>e'u;;aiai «il:f lo tii&Bb &di lo ©si/so sxW 

tl ♦fciooert sirii- lo eiiiad^iro og oJ fos^tfl^iaeri ^oa svad ,a^oItfs^ XjsnoXXjB 

ttBdi b9&&eosb 9di ao *t>«»ll» sdi |)ari ©tjbxI bljuoo ui&ldai leaolla owi sdi 

»i9»\ iBdi wox:. ; isqo-iq 5 asw ©lea^t ,a9trsotJS VfOfi lliJflJtflXq 

l)98iev9"i 8l oSiioJtriO lo iissoo iBqlolmsU ^di lo c^nsaisfctf^ ©rfT 

4,69£iaBia9i a J: ©aijso sii^J ba& 

tiisonoo ^,X, ^a&vllliso boB ^t1 ,1 ^ba&l'fi 



40855 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 
ex rel, Oscar Nelson, as Aa4i-tj^r 
of Public Accovuits of the^iS^al 
of Illinois, 






APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT 
OF COOK COUNTY* 



f C 



7 I. 



,\ 



UNION STATE BANK OF SOUTH CtlCAGO 
et al. ' I I 



JULIUS F, SMIETANKiki^as Trustee, 
(Intervening Petitioner) 

Appellee, 

▼• 

CHARLES H. ALBERS, Receiver of 
the Union State Bank of South 
Chicago, (Respondent) 

Appellant. 



MR, JUSTICE SCANLAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OP THE COURT, 

A liquidation suit of the Union State Bank of South 
Chicago was pending in the Circuit court of Cook county. An inter- 
vening petition was filed in said suit by Julius P, Smietanka, as 
trustee under three certain trust deeds, which petition asked the 
court to direct Charles H. Albers, receiver of said bank, to pay 
to said petitioner certain moneys claimed to be due the petitioner 
for court costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and master's fees incurred 
or expended by the petitioner as plaintiff in the foreclosures of the 
three trust deeds, which secure three series of notes, a portion of 
each series being oT;ned or held by said receiver. The receiver filed 
an answer denying that the petitioner was entitled to payment from 
the assets of the bank. After hearing evidence the trial covirt on 
March 28, 1939* entered an order directing the receiver to pay the 
amounts asked for by the petitioner. The order further provided 
that the receiver, upon the payment of said amounts, "shall be and 
he is subrogated to the rights and privileges of the said Julius F, 
Smietanka, as trustee, plaintiff, acquired by him under the 



^^80^ 



THUG. 




^kxjn-i liiui-i-v-i V 



,. . .voo aooo '^0 



'?»^ .A.IT€ 



ij '40 >J j^XIxUOO-. 




'3^ 

xe 

lo 



0040110 HTUOa -^O MAS aTATB MOIMXI 
*i \ \ .la *• 






.V 



diuoS, lo 



*^aBlI»qqA 



jl^fjwo lo atCidG 9i&i& WitsiU 9ii^ lo cfitre aoliabXispi.! h 
"iQial bA ,xiaitoo iooO lo J^xuod ^ixroilO eid^ nl sfllfccaq asw ogsoJUlO 

edi b&ii&G aal^^lieti liolriv. ,ab»»b isj>i%t ai&iiQO ©©Ttrii lefcnxj e9izsjii 

T{;;iii oi ^jlnficf blaa lo i&vleo9i ^aisdlA ,M eeliBxiO iVQitb od^ cJ^'H/oo 

iofloi:^Jtd"©q ©ffd" oi/i »tf oi fceiaiialo ex»fiOia al&iieo -xQaolili^q 4>Jta« W 

£)9iuijoai; ad9l s*i&;tsfijn tois ee&l 'ax&n^o^cfB ^sesnsqxs ^a^eoo ;tix;oo 701 

sxld^ lo Bsujsoloeaol ©ii;t nl llic^aieXq sb iBno^li&q_ ed) x^ jbel)oeqx9 -lo 

lo aojid'ioq 4 ,ia9:foii lo ri&liBs. ^eucLJ o^;;foi>a rfoMw ^abs&b- iivi^ eaixid 

bslil leviooei eriT .a©vJt;dc9i I>1«« ifrf bled no bsaj^o %sU»di eeJtaea xlaae 

40011 iliiear^q o4 b»l;ilia@ am %Bnolii$9q, •Jdi i^cU ^aXxfisb aewsog cge 

no iiuoo Latii 9di »paviolv9 '^alrusd i&^JJi. .sQxfid edi lo e^eaSA esii 

edi -^.sq oj- leviaoei 3d) jnla^s-'Ui) aeLio £u bs'i©dxi» %'^i<^l xQ^ dpisM. 

bBblyo'iq iBdittjl "ssbio eifl .isaoJtctWaq sxi;t x^f *iol bsataB aioisoma 

baa sd IlBila" ^Bjouoats blsc lo insia^sq ^df ao^ss. ^T&fleoQi sdi Ssdi 

.1 eulLvl, bXsa 9di lo aegoLtvliiq b£U atxiali ; ficJ^ o;t becTjaaoidx/a ai sri 

•tf;^ labxuj s&lix xd bsxU/pps tlli^ixisXq ^e«;t«iiT:^ as ^»^aaiQ^ 



1 



-2* 

respective decrees entered in said cases, to a first and prior lien 
for such advances for said legal services, costs, and Master's fees." 
The receiver of the bank appeals from the order. 

The verified intervening petition recites: 

"1. That the Union State Bank of South Chicago, an Illinois 
banJdLng corporation, suspended business on September l8, 1931* and 
because thereof the above entitled suit was started and Prank M. McKey 
was duly appointed Receiver of the assets of said bank. 

**2. That said bank negotiated from time to time loans 
secured by mortgages on real estate and the borrowers conveyed their 
equities in the form of a trust deed to Julius F, omletanka. Trustee, 
the petitioner herein, and Courtney R, Merrill, Successor in Trustj 
that the indebtedness was evidenced by a single note for the amount 
thereof or a series of notes i^vith interest coupons attached; that 
in the course of business such notes were sold to persons desiring 
to make real estate loan investments, 

'*3* That among such loans so negotiated by s&id bank 

were the following; 

"A. John Sinila and Alexandra Sinila, his wife on 
the 27th day of November, I928, for the sum of 
$17*000,00, evidenced by eight (8) principal promissory 
notes and secured by a trust deed on the property known 
as 9800 Escanaba Avenue, and legally described as: 
[Here follows legal description] 

"B, Wellington B, Mitchell and Mary Mitchell, his 

wife, on the 25th day of Ii.arch, I925, for the sum 

of $6500,00 evidenced by seven (7) principal promissory 

notes and secured by a trust deed on the property known 

as 9710 Avenue J and legally described as: 

[Here follows legal description] 

"C. George Starcevich on the iBth day of September, 
1929, for the sum of $4500,00 evidenced by two (2) 
principal promissory notes and secured by a trust 
deed on the property known as 10400 Avenue N and 
legally described as: 
[Here follows legal description] 

'*4. That there came into the possession of the said 

Prank M, McKey, as such Receiver, as part of the assets of said defunct 

bank, of the notes described in the foregoing paragraph, the following: 



aell loliq baa iaiil a oi ^s&i^t blue, til beisins ae&ioab svWoeqast 

,a»bfo odd- ■0^1 sXaeqqB %DB<i srid^ lo idvi^o -x rirfT 

elonlXII HB jOssoiixiO Aiuoci lo ixuafi ©^Ji;t8 noJtnU sd) S&tHH .1" 

fins %,Lt.9J^ ^,Bl ted£ie;tqs& no eeealsxrcf feefuieqaire ^xzol^tBioqioo ^alslnfld 

^9^M .3£ :ia&'fl baz bsii^iB. ssvr ;tli/B bslStiae dvoa'fi oxf;} loeisfi;^ eaj/BoecT 

.^LiiBCf blasi lo eiseajs ftc{;t lo leviooafi £>e^ai:oqqfi x-l^^^ saw 

&a&ol etali o:i^ waii nonl be&t^lio^^a Xn«cf bJbBS d'fiflT .^^ 

ileM i>&X'3vaoo siomoiiod edi baa 9iaii.B Ib9i ao B9%aiiiioaL \d boiuoee 

^tmoMs etUf 10I st^ott. elaxzls £ x^f £>99xx9blv9 BBW 8csxiJb8^<f8bnl eii:t tadi 

iotiS ',b&Ao&ti& aaoqxjoo itaeiditn^ dilA' mioa lo bbIisz & %o losisxi^ 

sol^lsob ancsi^q oct bloz enevv eecfon iloije aetxitiBlfd la •eijjoo 9£ii al 

»zin»mt&eTat oboS 9^&it&B Laei B^&a oi 
j£aj3£f bJLmu x^ b&iatio^sa oa qdlboI sioiss ^ooob issil 

taolwollol exi^t eae<» 
no ©liw aJtii ,sl±fl±^ Bibnsxf. ,A" 

'' r, Tci-'f- f-r-T;:' -^y.": .^-.'.i'-T . •-. '^W;t 

flwo.;_ ,- ^ . - . _ .. .. ^, . ^n 

. , Ui»8Q6 Xsgf-, 3 

etit ,.rXex<o:^i:*: vt^M baa IL^i'.oiVl ,^ n't^tilU?>^ .3" 

r; 'I ,£101 ^sliw 

\^02eJLi\- '''' n^-;' . .'!■ lo 



;8fi 



-o 



Liioij'^x'ioa&i la^fci uiiffoXIol e-iSii] 



^isGfiasctqo.'ii lo »0" 

(fi) ow^ x'J f- ' t?Sc>l 

bxis li '■: .^ z& nv/ornl \ 'i 

[ixoi:*qln389b lafc. . 

bl&t tid& to floiaaseaoq 9sii oial sumo saerij i^sriT .-l^*' 

Sosmlob bJtee lo acteaajs ©ri* lo i^iBq zb ^aavlsosfl rloi/a ss ,x«3oM .M JioBi^ 

tgnlwoIXol edi ^rlqa-iSfliaq sisiossiol ©xi:J nl betflioeefc sej-on srfcf lo ^jJxiscf 



-3- 

"John Slnila $7000.00 

"Wellington B. Mitchell 3000.00 

"George Starcevich 1400,00 

•'5» Because of the default in the payment of said notes, 

the said Frank M. McKey, Receiver, made a request upon your petitioner, 

as such Trustee so designated in said trust deeds, to file foreclosure 

proceedings in each instance, purs\iant to the powers vested in said 

Trustee by the terms of said Trust Indentures, and accordingly petitioner 

hired cotuasel to proceed in accordance with such direction, and suits 

were started and entitled as follows: 

"» Julius F, Smietanka, Trustee vs. 
John Sihllai, et al.. Circuit court 
case numbered B-23906O5 

"•Julius F, Smietanka, Trustee vs, 
Wellington B, iiitchell, et al,. 
Circuit Court case numbered B-235663J 

"•Julius F, Smietanka, Trustee vs. 
George Starcevich, et al.. Circuit 
Court case numbered B-238341. • 

"6, That said proceedings terminated in a decree and pursuant 
to the provisions thereof on the respective days of sale by the Masters 
in Chancery to whom said causes were referred, there being no cash offers 
at said sales, Julius P. Smietanka bid the amount of the indebtedness 
due and owing to him as such plaintiff Trustee, 

"7, That reports of sale submitted by the Masters in 
Chancery were in each instance approved by the Court and certificates 
of sale were issued by said Masters of the properties so sold to the 
said Julius F. Smietanka, Trustee. 

"8, Petitioner further represents that in order to bring 
this litigation and to pursue it to a conclusion, it became necessary 
for him as such Trustee to hire counsel, to advance costs and obligate 
himself for Piaster 's fees and charges, none of which have been paid 
to him. 

"9» That during the pendency of the receivership proceedings 
a ciiange of Receivers was effected from time to time and lately Charles 
H. Albers is acting as such Receiver of the said Union State Bank of 
South Chicago; that the said Receiver was well-acquainted with the 



eiiszoLo&iol oLlI oi ^Bbeeb 'Jtznii 'oiae. eit b©u*nal2sfc oc &»^«x;iT iloifa zb 
blBB al bsd-eav eiswoq eri;t cKt ^nafc'Biirq ^ftaaaiani d»fl© aJt agnlbesooiq 

e^J^toe ferns 4noK>' i? rfoi^-a ri^lw ©©jasMoosfl nl fis^orrq o* I«em;oo tsiltf 

tawollol as l)©X:fl^no baa bei-L&:jz fnmi 
.sv ee^JaiJiT , n-ri.; Jaiae ,^ arllx-rT.'" 

,EV e©^£j-'-r*' ensUsjcletaiE ,^ ewilwX,'" 

^.Ifi J , .^li .6 lew 

cJ-JUiO'iiO ^. 

•.i-^£^ - - 

tiQiz&M ed^ \(i slee lo sxsfc ©vWotsqasT; »i4^ no lOf&t&rH anolaivcmq ©cW o^ 

eaexib©J-tfe5ni arW lo ;txufojDi.G 9^ bid sskiBietaS- ,■? zutlvl ,B©Isa fclije ^c 

.»»$2£rTU: l^l^itl^q tiitun 8a flLLd ocf ^±wo baa 9XJb 
al ai^izAll »d^ x<i !)©;?;? lB»Au8 •JBftS T» e:f'ioqf?i texfT .^' 
ee^tsoilW^eo fens itaoO &di ■^jtf fervonqqa »0£iB;tani xlo«» «i eiaw x^so^jwl^ 
exi* oj blot 08 a©i;Ja»qoaq ajfl;^ lo ai^^taBii olsa x^f fiex/aai ©lew oIbb lo 

X'lssasosc aaieosd cM ^aolzitloaoo js ocf ctl exf£'iijq oi bns^ nol^sgWlI eirf;^ 

8;tfiSi:Ido Ms steoo ooobvOa o;^ ,X©amfos ^iM ci oecfeiral xiocra c« aid io1 

blBq naed ©vsii iloldw 'to enoa ^a^griBrio b«i5 200! s«rL©3"SBM lol llezmld 

egixibssooiq qlriaievleosi »ri;:r lo xo^®^*"! ^^^ i&al'wb im'l': . 
aeXi/BXlO xle eadJ moil b0;fo»ll» aew eisvleoen 10 e^niiijo « 

lo :to«S &i*ci w uoliiU Li^a ©fW lo isvisosfl Jloi/a aa snicfo* a J: aiedlA .H 
9rf;t xld-Jtw Jbed-nlBi/pOja-IIwr bbw levl^oefl fiJtaa srfct d-sil:t josBOliiO diuoZ 



steps being taken in said foreclosxiresand from time to time informed 
by this petitioner of progress being made, 

"10, That statements of the services performed and dis- 
bursements made incident to said litigation as aforesaid have been 
submitted to the said Receiver on several occasions since October 8, 
1937* with no specific objection to either of them, copies of vAiich 
are hereto att&ched and made a part hereof, 

"II, That said charges, with the exception of those m»4e 
for Trustee's fees, have been approved upon proper presentation to 
the Court, 

^•12, That the petitioner himself did not perform any of 
the legal services, but iiireci counsel therefor and is obliged to pay 
the same; that such are fair, reasonable and the ordinary fees 
customarily recognized in Chicago as fair and reasonable for like 
services performed, 

"I3, Th&t likewise the charges made for the fees of the 
Trustee are fair and reasonable and the customary charges made for 
services similarly performed as outlined herein and otherwise rendered 
without specifying the same in detail. 

"14. Petitioner further alleges that there is due him as 

such Trustee plaintiff in said cases the follov/ing amounts: 

"Smietanka vs. Sinila - $1770.90 
"Smietanka vs. Mitchell - o54.l5 
"Smietanka vs, ;Jtarcevich - ^23, 51 

as of the dates mentioned in the attached statements, reference to 

each is hereby made for particulars of the services rendered, 

"Iherefore, petitioner prays judgment that the said Charles 

H, Albers, Receiver of Union State Bank of South Chicago, pay unto the 

petitioner the respective amounts herein set forthj that said Receiver 

be ordered to make answer within a short day to be fixed by tlie Court, 

and such other and further relief as to the Cotirt may seem meet." 

Attached to the petition were statements that the costs, cash 

advances, attorneys' fees and master's fees expended or incurred by 



t&ssLiolal esULi ocf &mli aoil 'onjiZ9'WHols>B%o1 blui al a^Usi ^alad eqeit 

,9bim siiied se^ojoiq lo iBaoiiii&q ztdi \d 
-sib fiOB Dsjtt^o'ii&q aeoiviae mj "to &:ta&eieiBii J-fiilT ,01" 

^8 ledo^^oO 9d£Lt8 aiiolascoo X»i»T©a ao levlsoeH fcljsa sdt oJ b9d';tlaicfx;2 
rioliiw lo aoiqoo jissri;^ lo isxl^l* o;f noWo^tcfo olll^^qa on ri^Jtw t^£?I 

.lo^naxf i^utfi » ab«a bxia b&do^an oi9i9d 9i» 
fklflB »eodj ^o £toi;JqeGX© sxi;^ ii;r±w ^BSjiBdo Mitt iMci^ *11" 

(Xt col-tB^neE^nq leqonq aoqi; fcevoaqqe iisdd ©v«ri ,«•«! a'eaJ^Eoal lol 

..tTtfoO ©iiJ' 
lo -^HB fliiolrtsq :ton bib Ylsaalii tsnolJid'eq ed^ ^bxIT ,£1-' 
\aq oi ba^tldio &1 ^>a» lo'i&aexi^ Issfuroo Bdrtlxi ;f&d ^seolvaee la^9l wdi 
a»9l X'^AixJ:r>'xo 9£{;t baa &LdMaoua9'% ^iIaI tti^ xl9j;;fi iadi ^diosa sil^ 

.bsanolisq eeolriee 

lol ebaxa ee., >iao:r8i;D @di bas elcfsnosae^ tos nlal 9'sa ee^euiT 

bsisbaen eaiwisdjo uxijs al^ieii b^ailtsso 8s Jbsinoli^q xluollnia aeoXvi^a 

«IiB^ei> al eioea »xl;t gixlxliosqe ivoAStir 

8a Mid ex;f3 al oiBdi ie^J asjaXXja leri^iwl rL9aoLilis'i .-M" 

}e;}fi£;oiiui dUl^roXIol ori;)' 8««s9 bl&B JLt IllJ^olfiXq ••d'cx/'xT dovz 

0(;\G^^X'v - BXirtie .ZT e3ta«#»ia8" 

c^X.-f^^a - XX9££oolil .cr £tAto#«lvBl« 

!<!•£-'' - iiolvsonsi^b ,ev satejeislmS'" 

oj ooasislte^ ^eciasiai^j 0^8 JberiosJcfs &Ai al fcenolonsiii nsjab srid' lo efi 

.beisJbnei a»olVTr0e 4Ml^ lo »ri«IlfOl^isq lol ebsjsc ijcfeneri el rioBS 

aftiiiiiiv I)±j38 sii;t i&di iaens^biil fXBici iGtiolitieq ,©iol»i®riK" 

9dS p:iasj -^uq ^O||69l40 ii;fjJoa lo ^j3.aS. •%fdd'3 aoixiU lo levldoafi ^eiodXA .H 

aevleo95I fclija ^siicf jriJ-nol ^«a aleieri e^trxjjoios »Tl^&»q8oi 9d:t isaolitidq 

^.i'.zinc, c,f{) -^d bQxl'i 9cf oi Xfi5 *tori2 jR nlrid^lw lewsas ©alam o^ beasbio ©d 

.-30CJ raesa x^^ d^itroO 9xl;f ocf ea IslXsn i©ri:t*2ifl bos leiiio rioirs briB 

riaao ^3*300 eriij d-sri;t ed^noraec^B^a ©taw nolJlcfoq sriJ' oj b©xIofidd"A 

Xd bB'vmoLil io bsbiiogx© eesl e'ls^asm bna 8©&1 ' ax®ittio J^d« ^eeoru5Vb« 



-5- 

the trustee in each case are as follows: Smletar ika^ Trustee v. Slnlla 
et al.. $1,770.90; Smletanltaj Trustee v. Mitchell^, $354, l^j Smletanka ^ 
Trustee v. Starcevlch et al .j $523,51* 

The verified answer of the respondent states, inter alia: 
"This respondent alleges on information and belief that 
none of his predecessors in office ever employed the firm of 
Smietanka, Conlon and Kaaus to file the foreclosure suits as set out 
in said intervening petition and denies that he, as receiver of the 
Union State Bank of South Chicago, ever employed said firm of 
Smietanka, Conlon and Knaus to file the said foreclosure suits and 
avers that said Julius F. Smietanka caused proceedings to be instituted 
v/ithout advising this respondent of so doing and said respondent neither 
admits nor derJLes that any notice of the filing of said proceedings 
and any demand for the filing of said proceedings was given or was 
made upon his predecessors in office and calls for strict proof of 
any notice or of any demand, * * ^'^- Avers that he at no time authorized 
Julius F, SMetanka, as trustee, to institute the aforesaid foreclosure 
proceedings, that said Julius F, Smietanka instituted said proceedings 
by virtue of the powers granted to said Julius P. Smietanka in the 
respective Trust Deeds; that under the terms of said Trust Deeds the 
charges of the attorneys for said trustee became a lien on the real 
estate foreclosed and that said firm of Smietanka, Conlon and Knaus, 
under the terms of the respective trust deeds are obligated to look 
to the real estate conveyed by said trust deeds for their security 
for their fees, as attorneys for said trustee," 

Union State 3ank of South Chicago was closed in September, 1931, 
by the auditor of public accounts of the State of Illinois, Frank 
M, McKey was appointed receiver of the bank and as such receiver he 
had in his possession the following: A total of $7000 of mortgage 
notes signed by John Sinila and his wife, which notes v/ere part of 
an issue of $17,000 secured by a trust deed to Julius F, SmJetanka, 
as trustee, conveying certain real property. A total of $3,000 of 
mortgage notes signed^JSrellihgton B. Mitchell and his wife, which 



^jsric^ l2J:l9cf biiA aoiii amioltii no eeasllfl cfndfuioqad'x aJtilT" 

lo ffl-xll efW b?»xoXqiae lovo soillo at atoes^osboiq eJUI ^v^ ^Ai.ofl 

^jjo ^s£ SH s^lxje s>tss&oio9>io\ ttdi sill o;:f axxa&S baa aolaoO ^a^oMiali^ 

9tii lo levieoei 8b ^axl cfadJ" aelnef) bsisi aoliliBq ^alxiov^sial btaz at 

lo ail'l blAE I>exoIqjfl» levd ^ogeotriO diuoii lo slflBJI «i'sct2 nolnlJ 

has eJtvG eix/eolosiol ^i^a »iii 9X11 oct eiXAnX 6nB noInoO ^ATkiB^sloB 

bs;}^i.'^i:^sni ecf oj e3£(i£>090ciq &»p.jjfiO is^a&^s±d(& •*? ejjlXirL btse itAdd' eievs 

ledcfidn ;^£id£>noqs9i bijse bna i^iob oa lo iaabaoqeei ztdt 'gat&tvba iuoriit'« 

e'gnibseocn.q^ bl^& lo ^atS.11 odi lo sol^on %aA i&d) aeixtsf) ion s^iaibB 

2SW 10 xi€>vi3 B£nr e8nJ:f)&»i>o'iq blae lo ^nllil 9il;t lol baamsb xan btm 

lo looiq icitis lol -.IIco bna aoillo xil eio?,a«o»Jbonq slrf noqu Bbata. 

.i&tiod:isj& cttLi;^ on Ja sd J^siict snevA * * ♦ .fcoBaiBl) xob lo io aoid^on "via 

£0?,olt)eiol btsaeioti^ mii e^^uitiBtil o-^ ^osifasizi s« ,ii2lrtB;f©±xa& ,■? ei/XIx/L 

u ..Il;sst)oaq i)ijse ba;tJji:;}x:fGfil isoUsAisliaci .''I eutlsj'l btst iuAi ^esnlbssooiq 

add- ai ^dOQidn^^ .'f aiflliiX. blsa oi bQ:faBi^ aiswoq 9il;t lo Qutitv xd 

edi abesG cJ-awil feJbsa lo efine;t arid' Tsfecjj iadi \&bsaQ. izmT evWoaqaoi 

Ib»i »£r:f no xxexX s eniso.'^cf sed^airt;^ iblse lol ax©*^^®^^* ©xtt lo aesisxfo 

^a^fJaflX bats aoXnoO ,ii>ia6;t©lm£ lo BnXl btai t&AS boB l)»2oXo»iol ei&ieB 

iIooX o^ boiaTitSdo «!*i£ si>d9b is.ini eyic^oeq^ai an;:^ lo variBi »di T&biw 

XiliisoBSi itsdi nol zb9^h i&inf btsa ^cf bex-v^oo ©Jaitas X«9i ail* ocf 

♦',«©d^axi'i;t l)J:«a lol axeartoJd^s bjs ^assl ntedi nol 

4l£;?X ^ledms^tqse ni bsaolo aav osfiolriO AiuoZ lo sinfla »;ffl;ta aoJtnU 

iloiitf .fiiofixIXI lo •iai'o adi lo airu/osos ollo'x«j lo lo^tXbJJs 9x1* xd 

ari iovl9094 ilojiia 8i5 fene afnacf ©xiJ" lo isvleo©^ 68;tnloqq« asw '^e3:oM •){ 

ssBS^ibfli lo OOO^ii; lo X6*Ov+ A ;sn±woXXol edi nolsaaeaoq zld at b&d. 

"to iiBq on«w aeJon liold^ ^sUtw aXxi baa oltaiQ adoZ xd bsnais ao^on 

^s^BiQtaa .71 &ulLul o& baeb ijamd- b x<i bsiucsa 000, ^X$ lo exfeai a& 

lo 000, £$ lo Ij3*oJ a ,x^^9qoiq Xaa-i xUs;fiso ^itx^^AOO ^&9izuti 8£ 

iioJtiiw ^elJ:* etd ba& XXerio^lM ,d no^gxtlXxIs^fc^iiS^B se^on si&^iiosss. 



-6- 

notds were part of an issue of $6,500 seciired by trust deed to Julius 
F, Smietanka, as trustee, conveying certain real property, A total of 
$1,400 of mortgage notes signed by George Starcevich, which notes 
were part of an issue of ;H,500 secured by trust deed to Julius F, 
Smietanka, as trustee, conveying certain real property, Ur, Smietanka 
was an organizer of the bank and at the time it went into recelversiiip 
he was an officer and director of it. Defaults were made in the pay- 
ment of some of the notes of the above issues and Smietanka, as trustee, 
caused the three foreclosure suits in question to bs commenced, Ryan, 
Condon & Livingston, who were also attorneys for the receiver of the 
bank, filed the said suits for the trustee. During the pendency of 
the foreclosure suits Ryan, Condon & Livingston v/ithdrew as attorneys 
for the trustee and the firm of Bmietanka, Conlon & Knaus (of which 
firm Smietanka is senior member) were substituted as attorneys for the 
trustee. Sometime after the suits were filed McKey resigned as receiver 
of the bank and William L, O'Connell was appointed as successor receiver. 
Thereafter O'Connell died and Charles H, Albers was appointed receiver 
of the bank, and Is still acting as such, Smietanka, Conlon and Knaus 
performed practically all of the work in the foreclosure suits, A 
decree of foreclosure and sale was entered in each of the cases. Fore- 
closure sales were held in each case and Smietanka, as trustee, bid for 

the property in each case and it was struck off to him, xo cash was 

due 
paid at the sales but the indebtednesses / him, as trustee under the 

terms of the trust deeds, were applied on the bids. The sales were 

approved and master's certificates of sale were issued to Smietanka, 

as trustee, and he now holds title to each of the properties for the 

benefit of the owners of the notes so-cured by the trust deeds. In each 

decree of foreclosure and sale the court found that there was due to 

the intervenor, as trustee, certain sums for attorneys* fees, court 

costs, stenographer's fees, master's fees and commissioner's expenses, 

and that all of the said sums constituted additional indebtedness under 

the terms and provisions of the trust deed foreclosed. After the 



,% atttls/l o& b@9b tBUii x6 ije'ixjcee OQ''^^H "io eiraaJ: aa 1o iiaq, ©uaw 

qixi 81 9vl9 0-^*1 o^fll ;tfl9# J"! sxBiJ orf;t ;^r5 baa xnsd eii^ lo isslttajTCO xi« eaw 

aissni S£ «j33£cii9:fdxfic: limj assj^st ^-Toda 9tii 1o &&ioti &(ii lo aooe lo ^taaia 

^iiflxfl .5»ofi9Cttaoa ©d oJ^ noldasxfp sil tilsja eii/asolostrol »©af^^ arid- beais&o 

eili to asvlr^oei srfct lol s>f©m:o:^;tj» oala eiow oriir ^ao^agaivlJ ui jxofinoO 

lo ^an^bnsq da? anl-tuO ,»»3^sx>i;f exl^ lol aStuu blBZ Qdi bsXll ,3£a8d 

a^^niorfd"s BB .Tei5xi.Jlv, no;j83iilviJ ^ aobaoO ^asx^ ailiJi s'LweoXoaio'i exiit 

iioM«' lo) susaA JL noXno^ ^s3i£iBi9lmii^ lo £11:1 Qdi baji »»i2Uii adi no'i 

ipvisosi S3 f)©n3i8&i X©3oM boXil ©lew a^lWE atf;^ rie^la waJtd'eaioc; .ssd-ei/'i;^ 

.levleoDi losaeocue sb fesd-itioqqa eiwr XlsnnoO'O «J ai«JLLIJ:W £iixa ataBCf qsU to 

isvlsosi f>e;fnioqqjB 8«w Er%e«tXA ^ isfiX-iAiia Juu i)aU) IXoxinoO'O i»;tl«e«MlI 

ei/jsii^ briB noXnoO ^fi:irl£;^»iia3 ^dtai^ es snil::to£ IIX?« cJt bas ^^a<i exlJ' lo 

A .eJ-lx/e sioeoioo'Tol «d;i iii st^tow ©fW lo IXs ^jXXsojttDeiq hemiotieq 

-.'-•. .39330 ©£id" lo dsuB al baittias saw 9lj>e biia 9%tre<?Iosiol lo eoioob 

io1 bid ^stifiuii SB ^sitoad^sijtfS ba& saso ifoae jeu ^X»ii sisw asXaa siwepXo 

^ J6BW lisBO oH .QLtri ©^ llo iLoisi:i& asw iJ-X ba& 9««a risa® al ^ci^Taqoiq art* 

^ilJ* isbmr 9o;r8Xf^;f z& ^&M \}zt&B&ab9idibat &di iad adX^a 9Jii ia bl&q 

i^mr asXse orfi ,al>ld eil;^ ixo JbeiXqqa 6a»w ^E5»eb d'ajii;t add' lo asaiet 

^e^aai&laQ oi b&v&at Biam eXse lo ta,Bt&ot1Xinso Si'nei&sm baa bsvo^qqa 

9di not B&Li*ioqoiq srtt lo jtioso od" aXitl*!' &blod vrafi »il fens ^ss^taunJ^ es 

tlOB': .. 'oeQb issjii ©rii' xd fceix/a^a ae^ton. ©jtij lo ettsxxwo ©xW lo. itllsnad 

o:}- 9JUb af.w «isii;;f d^arf* fcmiOl d'xcoo sdt ©Xbb lm£ eruieoXosiol lo sstoeb 

tTtfoa ,e9el 'e'^gexiioJc^fi lol amsz alRi^st ^iStsi&sn^ 8£ ^ioa©vi9;fai edi 

^asBirsqx© e'^sdolEelfijatoo fcna aesl s'led'essa ^asel e'lisrlqa^goneJ-a ^ed'aoo 

labm; tsBtdboid&bat l&tioli tbb& beitsili&aQO sau/a filaa edi lo IXs cfarLt fcns 

Bdt ned-lA ,59EoXoi«ol besi) ;Jam* BsLt lo aaoXsivoiq Mb affied^ »di 



•%7- 

decrees were entered Smietanka, as trustee, took possession of the 
properties in question, is still in possession of them, and, through 
his agents, is collecting the rents and profits. 

Mr. Smletanka testified that he had conversations with 
Mr, McKey shortly after the suspension of the bank and that "he said 
that he had a number of the bonds and notes in default and wanted to 
institute foreclosure proceedings and would like me as Trustee to 
co-operate in all of these matters and I agreed to do so, I told him 
that it was to my interest to assist in liquidation of the assets of 
the bank, because I was a cllroctor and an organizer of it, and one of 
the officers. * ♦ * Mr, Conlon [attorney for petitioner]: Did you have 
any other conversation with reference as to who was to be the attorney 
for Mr, McKey in the foreclosure proceedings? The Witness: Yes, 
lUr, Conlon: What was that conversation. » * « The Witness (continuing)* 
The substance of it was that I was to go along with the general counsel 
of the Receiver, * * * Ryan, Condon & Livingston were the general counsel 
for the Receiver. I did not have any conversation with Mr, fccKey with 
reference to who would advance the court costs and pay the attorneys' 
fees for these particular foreclosures, except that Ryan, Condon & 
Livingston were to be paid on a per diem basis out of the assets of the 
bank. I was never paid by the Receiver of the bank or by anyone else 
for the services rendered in these foreclosure proceedings. * * * The 
conversations were then had with the officers, or v/ith the attorneys, 
Ryan, Condon & Livingston, that I would be indemnified against any 
costs or damages, * » * That was about the beginning of the foreclosure 
proceedings. I was given these assurances by Mr, Burke of the firm of 
Ryan, Condon <k Livingston, After the work progressed to a certain 
point, Mr, Burke came to see me and said that they could not go along 
with these foreclosures, and that I, as Trustee was in a more favorable 
position to bring them to a conclusion. After the foreclosures were 
completed, I as Trustee took possession of these properties, and I am 
still in possession and through agents, collecting the rents and profits, 
I then went down to see Mr, Keenan [deputy receiver] and had a talk with 



*^ 



^ wo . . Ob M be«aa» I >«.'- "'«- '-* ^» "'^ "* sl«a.^.o 

,0 e» .... .« lo ,...a«.« HB ftn. .0*0-,.. e .» I »-«« .^^^ »'^ 

'(aniJjniifiioo) ebshjiw sni • 

,.t«i.««. e<« Xa, ^« =*-= *™- «** •»"-*^ ^^'' °'"' °* ^"""''^ 
* „0W>0. .noyfl *«rf» *^"« .»™=«Xo«.cl .sX»,««q -eri* .ol «el 

..„„.o»B erf. d.^ - .--mo «<* ..«. »^ "^ "- «»i.....v«oo 
^ ,^UZ. ..n^^'^l .<. "<- I *«-* .»''^^^" * «ON«0 .<«XH 

^oxs o. *oa M.00 ,e^ .srf* *.b. .n. ^ e« o. .«.o o.«,a .^ ..n.o, 
ffifl I bHB ^asWieqoiq eaericf lo noi.Bseaoq ao 

* .hi rrafWMiX tM OSS Od ITHOb ^tHOW USA J i 



him about the payment of these accounts - Master's fees, costs advanced, 
and attorney's fees, I had prepared statements of accounts In each 
case and sent them to the Receiver, Six or seven months after the 
statements were sent, I had a conversation v/ith ivir. Keenan, and he 
said he would let me know later. Two or three months later, I pressed 
for a settlement of the account, Mr, Keenan then told me that they 
were willing to pay the accounts provided that we were able to - - 
Mr, Horan [attorney for appellant]: Object. That is a discussion in 
the nature of settlement. The Court: I will reserve ruling at this 
time. He may answer to the reservation. The 7dtness (continuing): 
JSp, Keenan suggested that he did not think we had obtained a good 
title, and I as Trustee did not have authority to convey a good title 
by sale, v/e discussed the propriety of my action and the result of 
our conversation was that if v/e conformed with their ideas regarding 
title that they would be willint-. to pay the account. Mr. Moranj I ask 
that that be stricken. The Court: It may stand, subject to your motion 
to strike. The Witness: The language of the conversation was this, 'If 
you will show us that the Title and Trust Company will guarantee the 
title in you, we will pay this account, or recommend its payment, ' I 
then took a typical case that we handled in the office, and applied 
for guaranty policy and I told Mr. Keenan that the Title and Trust 
Company, after it had made its examination was ready to guarantee the 
title providing we brought in a deed of conveyance to the pxirchaser. 
It developed in a subsequent conversation that the three cases in this 
intervening petition were registered in the office of the Registrar 
of Titles, and I advised Mr, Keenan that the authorities in that office 
would not pass on the title unless I as trustee was ready to make 
conveyance to some prospective purchaser. In subsequent conversations, 
Mr, Keenan insisted that he would do nothing about the account unless 
I proceeded to organize the bondholders into a trust along the lines 
he had in mind. I told him tiiat I was sure that the title I hold was 
one that I can deliver and will be guaranteed by the Title and Trust 
Company. No objections have ever been made to the title I acquired 



f 

i>9Ea©iq I ^necfsl ad^noai ©oruit -xo owl .iftCtBl noLvi eat ;t9l blx/ow srf bJtsE 

Yerij ijsiiit ©m MoJ cibcJ asass^x .oM .d'fliuooos 9fW Jo taoki&lii^z » *i&t 

" - oi elda sisw 9w ^iiri^ Jbebivoiq iiaisoooB aifcf xaq ©^ ^villllw eisw 

fli aoJieejj'oali) iS ai ^arfT ,ctoet,€fO t'inaliftqqe "xol ^©cioJJ^a] xiaioH .rtM 

eiri;t d'e aiiiljji ev^eas'i II±w I :^iuaO eril ,tn9m^lii9& lo 0ii;;tan ©xlJ" 

£>oo8 e benlBiiio bmi sw 2{r(lil;t ioa bib •d cfa/Ci fteicosa^^a uanss? .<x]lf 

©I:tW boog s x^^sioo o;f ^S-iiorl^JxiB svari ;Jofl btb 9©^bjjiT ea I dna 4©IJ-J::f 

lo ;*Ii;89's Qiid bxia aoXitoa ^^fa lo x^^-t'^l^'KI •'^ b»e&uoilb 9".' .aleft V^ 

SfliMsg?^i r-isfc?: ilsrl^ rWiw bsa^olnoo »«f 11 &Bdi saw aoJr^fi8T©V£too rriro 

.JruiOiJttii &iLi xaq oi ,-J^allllir ed bXx;ow x^i ;tarfJ •I;tl:f 

aoliom. li/ox od ^oa^cfjua ^/joa^ta xjsai d^I ::t'ixfoO edi .nsjCoJtt^* ed ^aifd^ dTail,J 

II' ^eixW^ aaw aoli&e'ieyaoo 9iii lo esjsi/j^asl arfT cssec^ln ©xiT .sjilic^e oJ^ 

9ili os^tflaoBX/ai Xliw xaaq^aoO #airi:T has aDll: stU fadi ex/ woris Iliw Jt/ox 

I '.J-fldOYaq ail baemsooei 10 ^iauoijOJi alrW x^q IXlw 9w ^x/o^ n± olilS 

bsllqqa bna ^eolllo 91W nl bs>lba&ci &n ie^ £>cs9 laoiopc^ fl jfoo:)- nsrfcf 

^EifiT boB 9L$1T Qtii S&di nacies^i .if^ dlod^ I bna xolloq xiOBiBtr^ 10I 

9ili" saJxiaosx/S oJ X^sei bbw flold'snjtiasxd ad"! sfcaia ftari il 'zeils ^icnjaqmoO 

.iSBsdoai/q ©xid" o;t eoctaxsvnoo lo bssb b al iii%tiGi6 &w snibJtvoiq ©Icfld' 

»Jfc£W fll aeaso ©sixid- Bdi ii^di aolct^canaTfioo ;JH©i;p»arfira a nl baqolevsb JI 

la^aigeH silct lo ©olllo 9di al bei&iil^ei »i©?f aolilieq ^gnlneyiBiai 

»o,tllo i&iH al &6liliQtL}£SB ^&t i&sii &Ba<s)»'A ,iM bszlybs I faxia ,«9WJ:T lo 

93LBffl o^ x^BSi aaw esd^aJWT aa I aeoliia 9l;tl* &Ai ao zseq toa bLisOri; 

^zaoli BZiQ-vaoo ia&a^Qzdisz al .iwarioai/q vrlio'^q^^oiq 9oo« oi sonarsvnoo 

easlmj :txiuoooa erict ^i/ocfa sxLtxtJon ob bXwow ^ iodi bstfcisai nanssll .rrSt 

seaJtl eri;t gnola d-ax/i^ a oial ansbloflbaotf eji^ eslxiagio of bobesooiq I 

»aw bloxl I Blili edt &i^S e'wa eaw I ^J-acW" a±ri blot I .bfllm nl barf exl 

isiTzT ba& »Lil'2 &£li -^d bee^tnaiajjs ed IIlw bna isvllAb naO' I iBdt sno 

beilx/poa I eliti 9ri* oct obam nedcf isv© svari anolcfost^fo oW .-^jaaqinoO 



-9- 

by my bid at the foreclosure sale, except by Mr. Keenan and Mr, 
Schmidt [Keenan 's assistant], and their objection was that I was 
not willing to call in a lot of contending bondholders and seek 
to do something which already was accomplished, namely, a good 
title set in myself as Trustee. I offered to turn over possession 
of the building involved to them so that they might collect the 
rents and apply them on account of tlie money that they had advanced 
and would advance. And in each of these cases involved in this 
petition demand was made upon me, or request, by Mr, McKey, to start 
foreclosure, Mr, Moran: At this time I renew my motion to strike 
Mr, Smletanka's testimony on the ground that all conversations 
related by Mr, Smietanka were in the nature of a compromise and were 
held for the purpose of settling this matter. As a second ground, 
Mr, Smietanka 's testimony should be stricken for the reason that it 
goes beyond the scope of the petition. The Court: I now rule that 
that evidence is competent, and it may stand," 

Harvey J, Keenan, called as a witness on behalf of the 
respondent, testified that he was a deputy receiver of the bank, 
appointed in 1934-J that he was familiar with the records of the bank 
and that they do not indicate that Smietanka, Gonlon & Knaus were 
ever appointed attorneys to act for llr, 0»Gonnell, receiver; that he 
(Keenan) never authorized that law firm to perform any services on 
behalf of the receiver of the bank; that he never employed that firm 
to represent the receiver in the three cases in questionj that he 
never agreed, on behalf of the receiver of the bank, to pay Mr. 
Smietanka any fees for services performed In the said suits. The 
witness further testified that the three foreclosure suits were first 
brought to his attention in December, I936. The witness was further 
examined, as follows* "Mr, Conlonx Mr. Keenan, as Deputy Receiver, 
after the firm of Smietanka, Gonlon & Knaus substituted, did you 
have any conversation with Mr. Smietanka with reference to the fees 
and matters claimed in this petition? Mr, Moran: I object to that. 
The Court: Objection overruled. The v/itness: Yes, sir, Mr, Gonlon: 



• oi bOM wuftiui .iM \d iqeoxQ «aXi»c dii/aolo^iol 9x1;} ia bid ^ta X<^ 

BAV'/ I iod^ 8isw xioi;^09tcfo iJ^Giii;^ baa ^lioBitilB&a 8*flAa««X] ^bJtocfoS 

:2l»»?. isan si&bloiibnod ^nlbaeiaov lo ;foX « aX ILho oi salXIIw ;ton 

xioisaeeeoq isvo ri'^i-j ocf oeieTio I .ssJ^s-tfiT gs llsaxtn tit ^ee el;fl;t 

ad^ ^oeXIoo iii-^lsa x^^ in^^ oe iaorlcf o;^ bevXovni anlbXlxjd 9ri;J ^o 

beoaavbji bBsl ^&rU i.&iii '^snoia 9tii lo iavo^OA no modi ^Iqqs baa ztaei 

aXii^ Ki bevXovrit aesso 989x1 J lo xiose al bak .©ansvba bluoyr baa 

Jiiiiti oj 4 . . ^d^adx/pei to ^&a aoqis Bbmn auw bojiuieb aotii.i9q 

«il%s& o^ noiJojai y^ wenD'o: X 9ffil;f eiil;^ ^A taaioU «'xM .9wcoXo9iol 

918W bas 9(;;JtfiK>i^Moo iS. lo Q-mi oa oiH al 9iem a:iiaaiBjja3 ,1)1 \d beisLei 

^toi'oas iiaooes ., ^^^m SiJUU iiall:iiez lo saoqrujq odi lot bJL&ti 

it &ad:^ ao^.^o1 adi 'lol imkoXi^s 9ci tXf^ouIe y/ioeUiitE&i 8*B2{aA^9la& ,riH 

iMi:^ eSssi wou I ijitjo'j onl ,aoi:il;t&q od:i lo ©qgoe Bdi bao\9(i seos 

*'.|]iiU;^8 \&ai iJL bOR ,liie;t9qiaK)9 ^X ^aaebive iadi 

^aiasGf 8iri;t lo i9vico9i x^^^sJb £ 8«w aii ;fa£[cf bellX^tagJ' ^^n9bnoq89n 

sioBcf 9xi;j^ lo ebiodei «ii^ xf;t^ t^fiiXlfluel zsstf »A iadS,{^^l at be;tixloq<j[ii 

979W auza^ :& xxoXnoO ^aakiaieXmSi :}sidi 9,tsoXbnl ton ob \axf;^ iBdi ba& 

fid ^j&fiW ti«vi90&a |Xl9naoO»G «ij([ lol Isub oi axentcoJ^^tiG b€>ctnloqqB aeve 

£(e «»olv^8a \f^ JinoliQq oJ- oail waX^«ri^ besX-sori^tir^ i&v9xi (xi«x»e;i) 

anil iadi. b&xoS-^saff^ leysxi aci 4^/5x1^ jjIxuBCf ^di.lo rvylet-et 9dt lo llflxlsd 

9d iadi 5xiaXJ««j/p al Eftaao SBidi 9dA al levXer-s-i 9ii;r ;^xi9a9iq9i oi 

,%Ax£.q o^ ,akiafl[ adi lo ^svleogn erlj- lo Xiaded ao ^bSB^^^B 197911 

&il'r .s;tlifs bJbse »d^ al b9fiiioli9q 89017*198 ^tol 8991 y^B siiaAi9ta& 

^eiil ©'X9W ad'Jjje Qiu^aloiSi'wX &&idi Bd:t i&di b9t11:^69:t i0d;^'u/i. ae9xx^iw 

lerlj^rxifl sm sBoaila exiT *d£^X ^igctawpea al apliaQiia &ld oi cfxlgx/oicf 

^a©vl909E x^*«l®CI &B ,£L6iiss:Ji «'xM tnoIitoO »%W lawoXX;©! ^B ^bealmaxe 

uox X>lb ^bQitsilizdusi exxaoS A aoXnoO ^ailxia^sJtfflS lo anXl 9xl;t teits 

e«©l m.U oi soneisloi dilm j):3ia&i9liaB ,tSI dd-Iw aolcffiaievfloo ipr^A .9vsri 

.*axtt OCT ;Jo^t<Jo ^ maioM .nH ?££oX^i;toq 3Xd;J ni b9fflXjsXp ii9iiBa bais 
ifloXnoO tin ,iia t89Y :ea©nil.» 9i;iT .{)9Xxxi'i9vo jjo-cd^ostdO iiiuoO 9dT 



-10- 

Isn't it a fact that in that conversation you stated to Mr, Smietanka 
that you had no objection to advancing these sums for the fees and 
costs, provided the liquidation trusts were set up in a manner that 
was acceptable to you? Mr, Moran: I object to that. These conver- 
sations had between Mr, Smietanka and Mr, Keenan were had for the 
purpose of couproiiiising this matter. Mr, Keenan has no power himself 
to pass on whether the Receiver of the Union State Bank of South 
Chicago will pay the fees requested. The power to pass on whether 
they shall be paid lies in the Auditor of Public Accomits of the State 
of Illinois, The Court: I will reserve ruling on that question. He 
may answer subject to the reservation. The Witness: Yes, sir." 
The witness further testified: "The Receiver of the Union State Bank 
of South Chicago is not the holder of the total indebtedness out- 
staniding in the Sinila issue. He owns $6,100 out of a total issue of 
$16,000. In the Kitchen issue, the total Indebtedness is $6,5'00, 
and the Receiver of the Union State Bank holds the sum of $3,000, In 
the Starcevich issue the total indebtedness is $4,100, and the 
Receiver of the Union atate Bank holds $1,400," 

It was stipulated between the parties that "Charles H, Albers, 
as Receiver of the Union State Bank of South Chicago, or his prede- 
cessor in office made certain expenditures or advances for court 
costs, stenographer fees, subpoenas, and photostatic copies, in the 
cases of Smietanka v,,. Mitchell,, Sn^etanka v. Starcevich , and Smletjanka 

Ko evidence was introduced to show that Mr, Burke, connected 
with the firm of Ryan, Condon 6. Livingston, had any authority to bind 
the receiver of the bank to indemnify the petitioner against any 
costs or damages he might sustain in the foreclosure proceedings. 
The rights and liabilities of a trustee under a trust deed are deter- 
mined by the instrxament creating the trust. The trust deeds foreclosed 
were not introduced. In the instant case there can be no Inference 
indulged in that there was any provision in the trust deeds that woiild 
charge a holder of one of the notes secured by the trust deed with 



bikz seel ma lol &mss, 9ae£[^ 3xxiaa^vb« o^ aoii^tos^tfo on b^ uo\ isdi 

exl;^ lol iiiiti sMfsw aaxisft^ .t.'j I>iis a^MiQlai:, ,tA asmiSed Jb«ri enolctds 

llBEMln 'io\ioq Oil a«ii oaase.i ,iM .iBiiaa atiH snJtalaoiqawo lo •aoqix;q 

xl;^jj'od lo 3ta^£I 9tc^8 uoioU orla lo •ssvlesan ail^ i«iftf»riw no aEaq od^ 

■xori^Jsav.' no £e«»q oj aawoq ©iiT ,£i8oa«jjpe'i aasl: arid" tJsq IIlw osesiriO 

«K •aold'as^p ;t«A^ xio gitUj/n •videst Iliw I :;^iloO eriT .alonllll lo 

",5ie ^asY laaanJ^ltt siIT .noi^avoead^ »ri;t oJ :to9{,diffl fvaan \asa 

jioBti Biaii' aolaU eiLi lo leyi^oefl sclT" tbdllJt^ae;^ lediisjJ. ezeniJbf eriT 

-jiio <£89nb&;td.)£)ixi la^oi extj lo loMod exl;^ jota el osaoMO ri^tirati lo 

lo sjuaex ii^J^o*) j^i lo iuo 00X^6$ aawo oH .©Jtraal alinifc; priJ- xij; gnXfinB^e 

,00(i,^* aX taaab©;^d3iiflX Xij^fo:^ eitr ^awesi XXaria^XM «« fli .00O,c»X$ 

JoX tOOO^i^ lo ^L8 9iiJ ei)Xoxi ^oBd 9ii^o aoitjU prU lo levlooeH. 9ri^ Jbna 

©jia^ >ii.s ^JOX,-^<i' ex ez»nb9i<i9bal l^ioi BtU 9it«.al AolveoiBiS, ejAi 

",Ou*^i* Bi5iQ<l j-ia»ix 9i9iii a»kaV ^*cU lo 'ievl;*>09H 

^aiecfXft .H asX-w^iO" 4^«fi^ a^XJasq ©/i;^ nassrcJ^etf fce^iiXirqX^a a*:* il 

-•^©iq Bill rto ^oitiDiiiO siijsoii lo ^jsa ecJa^a flolfiU »cii lo levX&oeiT as 

;tiJjoo 'xol t6pru5vi>3 10 ao*sfif:tlcti3Qx© nls^uea BbBsi »t>irt1o at lo«8©o 

Bdi 111 ^eoiqos ol^sizojoe'ci ban ^aAosoqcfjue ^£9«1 lexiqArtgofisd e ^eieoc 

baiQQiiaoo ^bmiuS. >rxM ct'jexld' woila o^ b&tnboijat saw eonsiilve oH 

bnicf oct X* i^a'iJ^iJtt Vis b&d ,iio^a3jaiyiJ. iv ao&floO ^ns^ff lo arall sdJ xlJlw 

xn£ iaalBaa 'i^aoUlioq. indi X^tmsi9hnt od^ la&d »xW Ic isvlaosi oitJ- 

,33flxb&©ooiq ©•maoXas'jol ©cpt nX flXaJ^aus d^riaiai dri asg'swj*^ tio s:fcoo 

-'zod^s^ aia bs&b iauii b isbau e^i^jtiii & lo eetitltdAtt bOQ e&ii^ii 9ril' 

J!)9aoX30iol &b6@b fjitni sriT «:^axfaj- erlJ anid^jaeio ;^a»aurt;t6nX edi xeJ bsnXia 

aoxisislai on ecf mio STiail^J skjbo d^xua^aflX @jd'i al .bBOtsbotiat ioa 9i&fi 

bSjum iedi zb99b i&ssii efii aX xioXeXvoiq xm a^w ei^iH i&di al b&SiSMbat 

AitH bBBb i&uii 9iii xti beiuo&z seion &£iA lo sno lo teblod. b ©gaaxlo 



-11- 

all the costs and expenses of a foreclosure suit* 

Appellant strenuously contends that the trustee has a lien 
on each of the foreclosed properties for the costs and expenses of 
the suits and that he must look to said property for the payment 
of his liensj that the order entered in the instant case is highly 
inequitable and without Justification under the law. We agree with 
this contention. The trustee is an able lawyer and has had years 
of experience in the practice of his profession. He was an organizer, 
officer and director of the bank and was familiar with the rule that 
he who deals with a receiver of a bank does so with knowledge of the 
fact tiiat the receiver is limited in the scope of his authority. Under 
the facts it would be idle to argue that the trustee made a binding 
contract with the receiver to be paid for the costs and expenses sus- 
tained in the foreclosure proceedings. Mr, Smietanka testified that 
he never talked with the receiver in reference to who would pay the 
court costs and the attorneys' fees for the foreclosure proceedings. 
Certainly no binding contract vms shown by the statement of the trustee 
that Mr, Burke, connected with the firm of Ryan, Condon & Livingston, 
told him that he, the trustee, would be indemnified against any costs 
or damages in the proceedings. Mr, Smietanlca testified that he told 
the receiver "that it was to my interest to as :1st in liouidatlon of 
the assets of the bank, because I was a director and an organizer 
of it, and one of the ofricers," The costs, attorneys' fees and 
expenses allowed a trustee in a foreclosure proceeding decree are 
paid to the trustee from the incorae or proceeds of the sale of the 
properties involved in the foreclosure proceedings if sufficient money 
is available to pay the same. The trustee In the instant case followed 
the usual procedure and the decrees in the foreclosure proceedings 
fully protected his rights. As trustee he is now in possession of 
the properties and collecting the rents and profits. There was no 
showing made tliat the properties will not pay the trustee what is 
due him under the decrees. The bank receiver is interested only in 
a part of the notes foreclosed in each proceeding^ Yet, under the . 



tSlisB eisjsQlo^iol z lo 2«en»qx0 bna ajEOo eiU lis 

iiell J6 EBii ssjaifi:^ wii ie£i abneiaoo \£&uomv9itH tfnallsqqA 

lo 3&«n»qx9 bxi£ 8#aoo arfd' nol esl^f-ieqo'rq ij»aQlo»rrol srW lo rio«e no 

JflOTnc^ adj lol -^dieqoiq bl&B o3 iool :tejaffl wi cfarf;? bxiB Ed'lx/a erfj 

xLA^tii ai easo :taBd"snJ. »/fJ n± beisJrr© isMo isrfj J^jsrl;f lanaJtl alri lo 

lii^lw ©©ngB Qf ,wsl ©riif lofcni; nolens oil Warf{; :ivoti&i:ir baa Bl6B&lisp9al 

etaex bsd. ejar! bas t&x^^Hl aids £uj el 99iztni^ siiT .nol^tne^aoo ElilJ 

^TK.?;jtrf33io a& j:uw sH 4aol8S9lo'xq alxf lo eol^oaiq &rf^ al «oneli9qx9 lo 

^Act^ slr'i ©rfc? rCflw rDslllfliBl sew faoB 7Li£<f 9f(:t lo TO^oeiib bnjB isolllo 

9«W" lo 9sl>9lwo£D( rtfl^T Ofi aeof) Jktsti e lo nrvlsoett « dSJtv el«»fc od?/ 9x1 

isbnU ^y^Jtiodtttz alrf lo sqoos sri^t al b»itatl si levloop^rr »rf;* tBii:f ^obI 

jiiifenld s ©6jB« se&zvii @ii:t isdi •trgia wJ^ aU&l »<f blxrow d"! ad'osl sdt 

"Biiz 8e8x:oqx6 bxia eitaos eitt lol blac wf o^ levlsasrr erfcf ri:tlw :fo«i:J^ftoo 

tsriiJ bsilxies^ BJiaBJalae ,*dl .asxtl6s9oo^q ©•n/eolomol 9ili nl bsnljeJ' 

9i£)- -^aq 5JD:iow orfw o:?' ©onsTslei nl i&vlncei eitf ric^lw bsjilBtf •K»V9n exl 

,B-%atb9e9cvi 9insr lo^-o*^ 9ti& tol aesl *K%9nio;iya 9dt bas a^eoo cfijjoo 

•sJei/Trf ©i0 lo troE' ;t '^cf mroria SB?? *»jf«iTiCK5 giflbnlcf on ''<;Jjx1b;^190 

^flc^tsaclvlJ & aofmo'J ,asYH lo is'ill erid- dStn b&ifoeimoo ,«fiij5 ,^ iJsrW 

eteoo "^ytB :f8fi±B3a bfllllnasbnl eo' bltfoff ^(^€:tasrx^ sdi ^9ti isdS ffllri blo^ 

bXocf eri ;f'3iid^ b9lll;?8»;f aiCm^sline ,iM .agfllbossoiq oxl;*^ nl cdsassfe no 

lo aoltiibluptl nl ^aissa o& iz9'Z9itil Y''^ ©^ nzn il tadt" '«>vl9oei 9di 

!»slns5io na f>ng •iocto9nib b saw I ©feirsoecf ^stasd ©rW lo aJseae 9rtf 

bna S09l *8X»niocf:t8 jBCI'soo eriT *,ei90l?lo e'rfd^ lo «no baa xJt lo 

eis seiosb anibesooiq anxxeoloo'ic'l £ ril 9B^ex;n;^ s bewoIXa eesjteqx* 

arid" lo 9lBE sdj- lo abaeocnq to ©uooal aricf moil es^a.vrKf 9xi:^ oi blaq 

Xsnofli ;fn9lollljtre 11 83xilb99i»OT:q 9iraoIo9iol sjrf* nl bsvlovnl 89l;^rreqo'tq 

bevrollol 9880 S-jxacfsnl 9if;f al QetzwtS ©rlT .fttusa 9x(J x^q oJ^ ©ItfallBva el 

8gnlb99oo*iq siijeolosiol eiid- nl asaiosb 9riJ- baa srtJubsooiq lassttu edi 

lo nol?38Egoq nl won al 9x1 9eiasjii sA ,s;J^xl3l'i -^M ba^osifOTiq X-CIi/1 

on sssw snsifi .ai'llonq bns a^nsrt oxO- snl«to&IXoo bns aeWTsqonq exit 

81 cfsxlw secfat'it ©rid- x«<I ;ton IIlw 89l:ti9qoTq 9xlt tadS ©fiaai snlrroxla 

nl xXno beiaeieial. al i9vl909i 2insd sxlT ,89»no9b 9di iBbati alxl 9x:rb 

9Xl;t i9bnxf ^isY .^s^^Qft^x^"!*! xloss nl bdsolosiol aed^on 9ili lo iiAq a 



-12- 



order entered In this case, the bank receiver is ordered to pay 
the total attorneys' fees and expenses of the trustee out of the 
assets of the bank that belong to the depositors and creditors of 
the bank, the receiver to be subrogated to the rights and privileges 
of the trustee under the foreclosure decrees. The order in this 
case allows the trustee $1,200 for attorneys' fees in the Sinila 
foreclosure, .$450 for attorneys' fees in the Kitchell foreclosure, 
and $300 for attorneys' fees in the Starcevich foreclosure. No 
good reason has been shown why the trustee should not abide by the 
usual procedure. As we read the record the petition amounted to an 
effort by the trustee to accelerate the payment of his attorneys' 
fees and the expenses of the trustee, the receiver to advance to 
the trustee the amounts in question and take chances of possible 
reimbursement in the future. The receiver was fully justified in 
refusing to pay the claim of the petitioner. 

The order of the Circuit court of Cook county entered March 
28, 1939* is reversed, 

ORDSR ENTERED MARCH 28, 1939, RKVSRSED. 



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



-SI- 



Xaq oj bftisb'Lo el lovto^ei 3(aaGf 9di «3ft«8 alrfJ at bazeine iBbio 

Mi'j lo ism QQiesjii axlJ lo asensqxe bna ssel '8X»n^o:J;tB lB;to^ ail^ 

^o ''.•loiibBiQ bOB &ioili€>q&b 9tii o3 sooXdd iMi sfn^tf exit lo ^i93^a 

esssIlvJt'xc £»flB aJiiali sxli ocf be^tisaoicfjja ed ocf ievl90»ti 9ri^ ^sload eilcf 

elitJ al let'io eilT ,86S^o«b eax/aoXoa^ol arid" isfiaiJ 9»ctax;'i;J eri,t lo 

Blhtt'o odi al asel •s'^j&moid's tol 0OS,I^ 9aiKtn^ exU ewolla eaao 

^©ai:;aolo9io'l Ilexto^lii sriJ nl seal 's^anaoJJs lol OqK ^oiueoloeiol 

. icaoloeiol xlDlveoija;^ . 9ii;t al aeel ♦E\9nno:Jd'B lol 00£$ bna 

tdi x<i Qiitd& ioa blxioils S9i?.uii adi \^ xtwcuie used e&d noaaei l)oos 

ofi O.J beitasjoma aolilooq, sriJ bnoo 'i ©d;t bz»z aw a A .©ru/fisooiq lajjai;; 

»8\£)nioj;t« eiil lo ;fa«oi^q snU* •^aisleooa ocf esJ-airi:^ sri^ x<J ^tiolle 

0^ £Cic(jBTl>A o^ levleosi adS ^e9i&sni eiH lo asexxsqxe ©riJ bos seal 

elcflaaoq lo aBoa&do «]to^ £>£i« noi^tasup xxl HimjoiB& Bdi 99;}asiii 9di 

blX beXltSziil ^IJjjI astf i©v±9o.>i atfl .9iw;tjtfl «ri;J nl Jnemeaoirdailen 

.•x9fiolji:J^eq ed& lo ffllslo 9x1^ x«Q ©^ j^i-ta''^®^ 
do'ia^ bs'ia^tno ^J-mioc iooO 1© iiwcc; JrijuoalO «xl^ lo lebio mIT 

.fesa-xeT^Tt aJt »^£?I ,8S 

,ix;onoo ,,1. ^ar.vlllijo baa t. . ^ba9i'2'5 



40992 

JOSEPH E, MERRION, 
(Plaintiff and Couqlter-Defer^ant>! 

AppeMee/ 1 

^'■ 

V. I/- 



I APP^liFROM MUNICIPAL 



l,Q0tiRT oK»aa@«66» 

JOSEPH ALTMAN et bit", \ lU 1 

(Defendants and Counterclaiioants) - *^'^TT A OQ^ 

Appellants. V - i.rla O O ^ 

MR. JUSTICE SCANLAK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 

Joseph E, Merrion, appellee, obtained a judgment by con- 
fession against Joseph Altman and Adella C. Altman, his wife^ 
appellants, for $607.50 upon a Judgment note for $500 signed by- 
appellants and payable to appellee. The amount of the Judgment 
included interest and attorney's fees. Appellants filed a verified 
petition praying that the Judgment be vacated and set aside, that 
they be given leave to offer their defense to the claim, and that 
they be allowed to file a counterclaim. An order was entered that 
the Judgment be opened, that defendant be allowed to make defense 
to the claim, that the Judgment stand as security, and that defend- 
ant be given leave to file a counterclaim, plaintiff to answer the 
same. After a trial by the court final Judgment was entered con- 
firming the Judgment entered by confession. Defendants and 
counterclaimants have appealed. 

Appellants* verified amended defense sets up: 
"1, That they are not indebted to plaintiff upon th^ note 
upon which Judgment was entered herein* 

'*2:« That said Judgment is upon a note executed by them for 
$500 and delivered to plaintiff under the circumstances hereinafter 
set forth, 

"3. That during the months of April, May and June, 1937, 
plaintiff was a real estate broker and engaged in business as such 
in the City of Chicago, Illinois, and that as such real estate 
broker he communicated with defendants and informed them that If 






V V . • j-isiipjjoO boa 'ilIJ\alflXS[) 






[fl ;te IIAUTJA H<1S80L 



,T;iUoo am:' ^o Koiiiiqo sht aaflsvijac siajwaos aoiraut .am 

~fioo X'2t d-flsffls^iit 3 bealfiido ^»»£Lsiqq& ^ttoiiieU ,S ilqeaoL 

^stJbfir cM (Ils£kMA .0 isXIstiA baa eumilA. i^eeoL ^sai^iSfi aolsesl 

Insfligfij?!; ©ff;* lo ^t/uooais aril' , »«II pqqK oj' elcfs-vreq bCB ziaaSSoqqa 

beVitiev b . sill 2;tncIl3qqA .c&sl t^x^aioiSa fine feerre^ni bebwloni 

ifidi jSblsB Jae femj f>e;t.QO«v »d iawai^bul adi iadi gnixeiq xioid^lctsq 

^£sxi^ bos jffllttio 9fi.t ©J- sartsl^b iJ:*c[;t nallo cxt ©Tael navis ©^ "^erW 

cf^^ bensd-ns ai5w isd-io oA .laialo^ectiuioo b ©111 ocf bswoll/s ecf xedi 

sanslsb ©jfsia of ts^oXIjj sd ^txLsbnslob J-^ri* ^b»n»qo ecf J-xisasbx/t ©ri^ 

-linelsb ^fidiJ bxic ^-^Jitxjoeg &a bxta^ta ctnoiKgbjjj, oxW iodi ^mlalo arlJ oJ" 

©rid- iswaxtB od- lll^taislq ^iclsloasci-iiwoo ij slil oi evaBi asvla ecf cJ-na 

-ixoo bsieias asw cfceiaabi/t Isnll iisjoo ofi* yd lalrttf jb i©;tlA .MBae 

bits 8:fasbfi9leG .noieaslfloo Yd b©'X9;tJie Jnsiaafoift oxfd' gnlmall 

•boX&©qq£ eviad s^nAJOlfilois.^njJoo 
iqx; 8^«« Mtaelob bebn&oiB bsllliev 's^xtBlIeqqA 
©d"Ofl ^Ai aoq_u lli^niijlq oi bs^tcfsbnl cfoa sib x&di^ isdl! ,1" 

♦alsisxi beiscfas saw d'aarngbJit rioixtw aoqts 
«»1 iBWl;t xcf bQCtxrosx© sioci & aoqv al crn©iasbjjt bt&s ix^T ,&♦' 
Itsd-ljsni^iejrf asons^feau/oaJto edi 'tobms tllialRlq o:} b&i@vLleb bstB 00^$ 

,ild-nol d-ee 

t'ft?! ^®flifT» bxia x^ ,IlT:qA lo exl;tncjffl ©ilcJ^ gfliowb J-jBiiT •£" 

rioxiB as eaenlsuGf fit beaasix© bos a©*[oi<J ©d-iiJaB Xb©-! s saw lll^xilislq 

©d-«d-89 Xfl©i xloxre sa ;tfiricf bna ^^lofilXII »og»olriO lo yilO ©ri^ rii 

11 iBiii iasitt bsarsolnl bxiB a;^risbn©l9b ri;tlw bsisolmflaoioo ©x! is^oid 



they were interested in purchasing the real estate located at 
1415-1419 East 67th Street, Chicago, Illinois, that he could obtain 
the same from the owner thereof at a very low price, and that if 
they would authorize him to do so, he would obtain the very best 
price possible at which they could purchase said property from the 
said owner; that defendants, relying upon plaintiff to obtain for 
them the said real estate at the very lowest price, authorized and 
directed plaintiff to negotiate for the purchase of said property by 
them, at the lowest net price to defendants; thcit it tten and there 
became the duty of plaintiff to get the said real estate for defend- 
ants at the lowest price at which it could be obtained, 

M, That after defendants authorized and directed plaintiff 
to negotiate for the purchase of said real estate, as aforesaigl, 
plaintiff informed defendants that the very best price for which 
the said real estate could be obtained was $11,500, and defendants 
relying upon plaintiff and the representations made by him, and 
believing the said representations to be true, then and there agreed 
to purchase the said real estate and to pay $11,500 therefor, 

"5» ^fhat in order to pay said purchase price, defendants 
procured a mortgage loan in the sum of $6,000, the proceeds of which 
were applied to the payment of said purchase price, and defendants 
paid the further sum of $5,000 in cash and delivered to plaintiff 
the note sued upon herein in payment of the balance of $500, 

"6, That the said representations made by plaintiff were 
false and untrue, and plaintiff fraudulently and with intent to make 
a secret profit at the expense of defendants, informed defendants 
that the best price for which said real estate could be obtained was 
$11,500, whereas plaintiff then and there Imew that the said real 
estate could be obtained for much less than the sum of $11,500, and 
at the cost as hereinafter set forth, 

"7* That by reason of the false representations and the 
fraudulent conduct of plaintiff in that behalf, defendants did not 
know that the said real estate could be obtained for less than 



-.Si- 
:i& bsiaool eiaise laei 8xi^ ^leaxiora/q al beizoioiaX •!•« Xf^ 

li: ytaiW b«B ^©ot'xq vrol x^®v b Ja lo«i©ri;t leano niJJ moil mibb, qsH 

^p.ecf \t&v '^di aii^ido bIi>ow orl ,Gg ob oi mlii 9Siioxlix;s bluovi xerfct 

3xi:t laoil At^ieqoiq btnz ezxMio'wq blsjoo xȣii rfolriw is sIcflsBoq soliq 

lol niaJ-cfo oi VllialBlCi aoqis arilxlsi tS^nabxis'^ob fziii fiaawo Jbixja 

Jbixe 5©s±^oittj;;j5 ^ssxiq ^aswol x'lov ©jcI;^ d^js ©d'acfes Ib©i Lisa sri:t jaeri^ 

T£Gf x^"9<ioi<I i»XJSfi 10 aefirioiuq miS lol aj'slvloasn oj" 'lllii-niBXq b9toextb 

9*isdi b£u& [otO 3t i -^^do \zia&bne'l9b oi sioJi'xq imi ^e^woX wii is ^saodi 

-i>n9l»£> Tol ©c^ad-as Iii«a tisa orW ie^ oi IXlifllsXq lo yiiilD edi ftousdcf 

,i>©itX6ctdo €>cf hix/oo iX ri»ld,w je eoiiq ^eewoX odi ia ziaa 

^J^Xses'iol^ as ^9^is;J-ao X-boi hL>in lo e&jsd&'Si/q atW io1 Bialio'A9a oS 

iloXriv; lol ©aliq i&B<i •y;i©v 9xU i'aCtiJ 8;tiiii£>a»l95 bemiolnX 'l'ii,tni:fiXq 

zia&bt\9l»b Sma ^00^^1X4' s^w b^alaii^ »cf bXx/oo 9^ja;^ad Xfidi £>X^& sii:^ 

£uxR «£iXki xd &b&BSi &aolia&a9s&iq»% mii baa Ill^oi^Xq aoqxr axiXxXarc 

I)9srtSB »U9XI;^ boii a9d:i ^&sjt^ ©cf od^ ejaoXd^/iCtaeasiqai fci^a ®rf^ jnXvslXsd 

• loloioiU 00<i«XX$ X'<»q <xt £uxB e^fiJ'se JLb9i £>X»e 9d;:^ •eoxioai/q o;t 

&iaBba9lL&b ^soX1g sasflotmq J^Xfis xjs<1 o^ 19^10 nX ^sriT •^'' 

jcIoXjCLw lo al)39ooiq orfi ^000,d$ lo sua ati^ aX naoX ©3«a;*^iom js beiijooiq 

e.$a£.bne1&b ba& ^©oiiq eQaddzaq, bXae lo ;t«*BRC*Q[ ®rid' at fsaXXqqa eiwr 

llXd"iiXBXq od" beisvXXob £)mj xIsbo ni OOO^^J^ lo msH i&di'Wl &di bXaq 

• 00^$ lo eoxiJsXflcr 9di lo ia^eriRq, al alfdi&d aoqss bens eioa ed^t 

eim llX;^HXfiXq xd Qbsm scoXiAta^a^iq^i l)Xaa edi iBil^ td" 

e^ata oi J^neJ-flX d&lvr bns xX^neXifb/JiJil llXJ'aXaXq l>nB ^^sntasj bna ©aXal 

ad-xisfaa^leb boaraolnX ^a;fnabii»leX> lo scnsqx© 9ri;f lij iXloiq, \t©iose b 

bjsw fcsnied^cfo ed bluoo 9izH& Sbbi bim lieXxlff 10I eoXiq i99d »di i&di 

S^Qi bt>^ exIJ isji:i wsnal otedi bns aedi llX^tnlBlq esarsQdw ^OO'^^XX* 

fciTs ^OO^^XX^' lo kPjs «rfj noxl* aasX rioi»a iQil hpalQtdo ecf bXaoo scfjsctae 

,dii&1 ^©a Tsd^lfiXiXaierl es ;t3O0 Bdi && 
edi bii,.. ciioi^,,^,yix,^^x^~j. »r,lj»l &di lo aoas&a ijcf i^ariT •V 
d^on £)Xi» Bctfiisliiisleb tlXi&fleef ?ad;t nX llX^tnXsXq lo isnbaoo ia»Lubu&:x1 
OBdi aasX 10I beat&ido od bltjoo ed'fi;t29 Xbsi fcXea sxld' ir^i wona£ 



$11,500 and that plaintiff was actually paying less than $11,500 
to obtain the said real estate for defendants; that several months 
after the said deal was consununated and defendants purchased the 
said property, they discovered the facts relative to the cost of 
obtaining said real estate, and informed plaintiff that they would 
not pay the note for $500 held by him, being the note sued upon 
herein, and demanded that he account to them for the amount which 
he obtained from defendants by reason of the misrepresentations and 
fraud practiced upon them as hereinbefore set forth. 

"8, That plaintiff had in fact obtained the said real estate 
for $9,000 and plaintiff received for himself, the sum of $2,000 in 
addition to the note sued upon herein in the sum of $500, being the 
difference between the cost price of $11,500 represented to and paid 
by defendants, and the said sum of $9,000 paid for said real estate, 

•♦9, That plaintiff is entitled to credits in the total sum 
of $820,49 for taxes paid and allowed, title ciiarges, and other 
expenses paid by him in obtaining the said real estate for defendants 
and consumuiating the purchase thereof by defendants; that after 
crediting the plaintiff with the said sum of $820,4-9, plaintiff is 
indebted to defendants in the balance of $1,679*51 for which defend- 
ants demand a counter-claim against plaintiff; that $500 of the said 
sum of $1,679.51 is represented by the note sued upon herein in the 
sum of $500: that by reason of the fraudulent conduct of plaintiff 
in connection with the said deal, plaintiff has forfeited and is not 
entitled to any credits as real estate commissions or otherwise, in 
connection with the purchase of said real estate, 

"10, That the said note sued upon herein was fraudulently 
obtained by plaintiff from defendants and is void and without consid- 
eration, and defendants are not indebted to plaintiff upon said 

other 
note or in any^^sum whatsoever," 

Appellants' amended counterclaim sets up that "defendants 

clsln that plaintiff is indebted to them in the sum of $1,179,51 



00c, IX« a»f^* ^»i9X iaix-sQ \ll(M:io& aem "ilWots/.q iui^ baa 00^^11$ 

lo ;Jaoo 9ii^ o;? evlislei b^^obI ariJ bo-xsvooaJti* x^rW ,X*aeqoaq bl&a 

bLuQW j9£i:i^ ^^^ TiXiaXBiq bmnolal boA ^»i&:ta.« La^i bl&s ^lali^do 

aoqjj h&ue «^on sdi sfljtscf ,fiUul y<f Waii OOl^iJi lol &;ton eii^ -^sq :tciii 

iioiiiw ;txujoirU} »il;t lo't smdJ oi Sauosoe, Ml ^&dd' bohasmBb baa ^aleiQtl 

boM ssioli &ias&&iq9t£ilaL ^tli lo fto«a«i x^ zitiabaetsb moil baalaido etl 

.riitol :}&a ©nolsclaifswl a« amsii aoqis bBQlio&iq buail 

9iBt2Q lnQi bLiis B£ii- bealaido ioat at bad lliJalAXq iMtH .8" 

aX OOO^isUjs 10 mtsz esU t'lXaactl/i lol b*vlf.&»i l^lialBlq, bOA 000,^^ io1 

9di liiaXod ^00^ t- lo m/a e^ at aXei^d aoq^ bexrs etoa ^di oi aolilbb& 

bisq bos oi o^inQas-xqmi 00$^XX5' lo •oJtsq d'aoo adj- asvw^ecf ©oneaallXJti 

,»i»ii& l£i$i bl&s aol bJUq 000 «^$ lo auz blaz edi bae ^aiaaba&lQb \(i 

mu& l&ioi edi at ailbQio od b»lilia& ei 'niialMlq isdl ,^" 

i&dio ba& ^sdsisxlo 9liti ^bvaolLs ba& bJLsq aex«^ aol ^^.Oi^C^^ lo 

ectxifibaeleb iffl e«t£^e» Xi^^i bXiss odJ ^hiX&ido at tatd xd btaq &9saeqx9 

%9:^ta i&di {ztasbnsteb x<f loeriexi^ 9fi&do'wq, edi ^ati j&s^m9noo bas 

aX titiat&lq ,^-^.OSS^ lo tenz biBis &xI;J xicfXw I'iXaaij&Xq 9dJi s^XJlbeio 

-5n©l»l) rioXiiw lol X^,^^d,X$ Ip. »9fl«XB<;f wfJ uX aixtfifaaslsf) o^ b^idebat 

bXse 0cUr lo 00^$ isdi (llX;taXfiXq i^ata^n atalo'^xeifusoo » bOAOiib Bta& 

9di at ateiBd aoqts beu& eioa odi xd bo^nsasiqe^ sX I»i.^^dtX«^ lo uu/a 

llXdnXiiXq lo ioubaoo ia^lisbu&lt edi lo flo8«©» x<i i&di tOO^* lo msa 

ioa aX ba& bQit&'iio'i esri llXc^flXjsXq ^Xseb 1jXjb€ Bdi dil^ aotiooaaoo at 

at ,98Xwn©ii;to no eaotcttmsaoo eisizs. I&q^ u& scfXi>eto xot« ©^ fcsXJXitne 

• d^TBCfss Xsdi bXjse lo sssjaoix/q 94;^ i^Xw jaoXJoennoo 

Xlio.QlubUBi1 8jaw nXeisxl aoqx/ bsxxg eioxi btau sdi i&dT ,0i* 

-bXanoo iuoditv bijB bXov eX baa GidAbaal&b a/oil llXctnXsXq x*^ b&at&ido 

l>Xjee noqx; llXcfoXaXq at bsidebat ioa eie aiaaba^li^b ban ^aoti&i9 

ledio 
♦^,T9V908cfBiiw smu^(/a& at io eioa 

ziOBbaelBb" tsdi qv aioa ieXsXqisJtujoo bobnams ^ nia&lleq^^i. 

X^«9^X,l4i lo ame. edi at modi oi beidabat aX titiat&lq i&di fflXelo 



for monies jtraudtenlantly obtained by plaintiff from defendants under 
the follov^ing circvmstances:" Then follow a nximber of paragraphs 
which are the same as paragraphs three to nine, inclusive, of 
appellants* amended defense. The "defendants pray Judgment against 
plaintiff for $1,179.51 and costs." Appellee's verified reply to 
the counterclaim states, inter alia , that "plaintiff states the fact 
to be at no time has plaintiff ever asserted to defendants or to any 
of defendants' agents that plaintiff or plaintiff's agents might, 
could or ¥/ould obtain the property in question or any other property 
placed in plaintiff's hands for sale at the 'best possible price' or 
•the lowest possible price' or used any equivalent expression vvith 
reference to so benefiting a buyer as against the interest of plain- 
tiff's principal, the seller; * * « that defendants signed and 
delivered the note sued upon and upon which judgment was heretofore 
rendered as part of the purchase price of a certain real estate sal* 
and transfer, in which plaintiff represented the seller and that said 
note was retained by plaintiff as part of plaintiff's real estate 
brokerage fee and commission to which he was and is entitled*" 

Appellants contend that appellee was their agent in the pur- 
chase of the real estate and that he was guilty of a breach of his duty 
to themj that the judgment is contrary to the evidence, and that the 
court erred in confirming the judgment by confession and in failing 
to give judgment for appellants upon their counterclaim, 

Augusta Walsh, who owned the real estate in question, had 
incumbered it with a trust deed to secure her note for $10,000, The 
holder of the note had a judgment by confession entered thereon and 
also instituted foreclosure proceedings. Mrs. Walsh wrote the follow- 
ing letter to her attorney, De Haant 

"Chicago, Illinois 
February 13, 1937 



"Messrs, Frisch & De Haan 
134- N, LaSalle Street 
Chicago, Illinois 

" Attention Mr. De Haan 

"In re: Property located at 1415-17-19 
E. 67th Street 



sxiqi^iS-a'i^'.q lo 'iedmuii a woIXol nodi " xRBoaaiasmoiJLo ^IwoIIol sxict 

■^/i' a;ti3iafefis'ii: i) oO^ i)otfi«-as isve lll^ta^Blc aari anjt;^ aa ** ecf oJ 

10 igoliq eldiB^oq ^efttf' ejiiJ^ ta eXda lol ei^£U»d «'111:^ali3lq ai J&eoAlq 

ri,^i'A- noi.aes'Eqxs ..tnslav JLupe xoa i)«EW lo 'eoiiq eXrfXasoq .jBevyoI edi* 

-^aXiilq lo JesieJni: enJ ctsHlsSfi bb a©"v^<f « ^X^Hftn*^ oi o;t eortaadl»i 

i>na poiigi.-. ziaabii&'ic-n.. iBdi * * ^^ (lelXse &£ii ^X«QXonXiq e'llW 

•lolo.jd'X&xI 8BW c^aaaiaLrt doXxiw aoqij Jbcu xxoqjJ b«xrc •^oct Mf^ i)eaevlX9b 

•JLug d^toias Xbsi nX&;tieo ^ lo &9ltq, »8Arioruuq »£i;t lo Ji«q sa teiel^xon 

9d-;B^89 Xafttt e. •'illa-iilaXq lo iv.6^ za llXJuXfXq ^«' ijoiLt^ctea afiw sS^qsn 

'\b9ima^ 3X £>nB saw erl riolxiw oJ^ xx^ieeiir^oo &xxfi del 9:^aimloid 

'•■li.-.i vai ai ia^''ds il9Sii km eelXeq^a tadd kcv^iaoo a;fru3XX»qqA 

\y,ijb «irl lo rfoj8»iQ e lo Y^Iii/a ««w ©«L c3%{»d" feois »i*t-89 Xae'i atfj "io ©aAdo 

.«aJ i«nJ b«6 ^^anafexva 9xld 04 X'^^ija^^noo ai ^n»inai>x<t odi i^u^ {omii oi 

aalXlsl aJt iuxjs isoXeeslxioo x<f ^itsigabiBi. ed^ aalmuiloios ax l)*ii9 Jijjoo 

.fltifiXoi.'^^J'iiijoo oied^ 'Xioqjj a^aaXXaqqi* -lol ^n9ta3i.;xrt -'^' '^ 

l>s£i ^noX^eeup nX 9;j^6;^e9 X&&? oii;^ b«awo oxiw ^xtsX^i!* a^^s^x/SXiA 

«£iX .00O^0X$ riol sctoa isri sotroee o^ ki^eb i^uii a ditv^ il b9i9<i^oal 

ba£i ao@i&d^ bBieia^ noXeaeltnoo x^ cfastaafcfit « ^ati »ioa edi lo lefeXoii 

-woXXol od& ej-Qiw flaXaV/ ,aill .aanlbaeooiq suraoXosaol ba;tist^iJ^al oaXa 

bXogXXXX ^ogaoiriO" 
W^^-X ,£X '^iBXficfs'^ 

n£^ . ■ ■. - ■ ■■ 

^L&^h ed .iM floX;tne;t;tA " 
^I-^X-^XAX ;)•£ £)6^sooX x^ieqonq te^ nl" 



^7 dear Mr. De Haan: 

"Supplementing our conversation, you may consider this 
your authority to contact the Receiver of the Woodlawn Trust & 
Savings Bank vdth the understanding that I will deliver title 
to him upon a cancellation of the first mortgage indebtedness 
now against the property. You are also authorized to contact 
Mr. J. -. Merrion of J, S, i-errion & Coii^pany vdth the definite 
under sLandinfe, that &iiy services rendered by him are to be 
without costs to myself, for the purpose of securing a 
cancellation of the first mortgage indebtedness in consideration 
of a conveyance of the property," 

Although appellee testified, over the objection of appellants, 

that before the above letter was written, he had a talk with a son of 

Mrs, Vi'alsh, at which time the son stated that he wanted to get 

appellee authority from his mother "to work on the deal and whatever 

money was made, we would get for working out this deal, and he got 

me a letter of authority to work on the deal in February, 1937#" 

he admitted that the letter of February 13 was the sole sour-ce of 

authority to act for Mrs, Walsh, Appellee was a real estate broker 

and advertised properties for sale. Appellant Joseph Altman, at 

the time in question, was a public high school teacher for the city 

of Chicago, He had some money to invest and seeing certain 

advertisements of appellee he called at the latter 's office and 

talked with one Corbett, employed as a salesman by appellee, in 

regard to purchasing real estate. Altman testified that he inquired 

about apartment buildings and several were shown him by Corbett, but 

that he did not care to buy any of them; that Corbett then told 

Altman that he had some stores that could be bought at a bargain 

price, and described the premises, which proved to be the Walsh 

property; that Corbett stated that the property would be available 

in about ten days, that he knew the owner and he felt he could get 

a good buy on the property; that Altman told Corbett to go out and 

do the best he could, that he wanted to get a good deal on the 

property, the best possible; that Corbett then said he would go out 

and get the best deal for Altman that he could; that he knew the 

property was all right; "that he knew these people and that we could 

make a good deal and that he could get a good deal for me and get 



^ 






4 2jii;?ll»qcj3 to noWootrfo •9|1:^ 10V0 ,B»lli^e»^ •ellBqqn rfgxrori^I/« 
lo ffoa ditfi 2£I5d^ b fexiri srf ^aeiSttn tew i^Sfsl ereda eriJ eiotstf J«dt 

isvsd'axiw ferns Isefe erf^ /ro ilrcm oi** tsuiioia eld boiI x^JtioriJciB pollsqqs 

"t^c^JC ,Xi*5iaiCfe'^ nl lijsb wit no jfiow o:f x^iaorf^^jy* lo TwJ-jteX a mn 

to BOrTSsm. el08 SfiJ amy £1 x'^iiwi^f*'? to Tdcfcfol »d;f d'arict ft©>t^ii2l!)B eri 

^«rfo'xd dJ-dd^ae Xbst: « ajsir «s»IIa^A •iicl«ir ,al?* not ^ob oi x^tiiorid^UB 

*3 ,a6£Bd"IA ffqeaoL ^tiusXIsqqA .slse lot !r»J:Ji9qoiq bBBtiie^rbs fens 

Xc^lo firfiit lot i&iio^9i leodtiR rigM oiXoirq a tsvr ^noi^aeiio nX «Bit^ oxtt 

ittB&i90 3flXo»a fine *e?>vfii c5^ x^^o® fusoM barf »n .ogaolrfO to 

btui aollto 8*Ta:}^;t«X 0d;t ts issXXfjo ari ssXXeqqa to zia&aBSil:ii9vbB 

rtl,s»IX©qqj3 x€ a&^elna a as b^xolq ?ra ^Jd^ecfioO ©no fIcfXw bsalXai 

fionlwpfli ftd ;t-5if^ bsXtiias^ asaiJXA .s^^tae Xsei anla&rioTuq o* bisgdi 

is^ ^c^Joo'ioO x<J i^ttxl mrorfe 9im lat»r9u bas agnlbXiird ^nsjEtiaqa iaode 

bloi nadUl' d-itDdioO ^sricf {asrlcf to x^^ x^Jcf o^ sxso ;ton bXfi eri itadi 

cl^STScf a :ta ;trisx/0£f «wf bXaoo SmiS 26'XoJ2 araoa beri &d ^arfd- nancfXA 

rieX«W »£fc^ sd" oi bfevoiq dolii';f ,e68Jbr??»'iq ©rfif bscflioasb biiis jSOXnq 

eXdaXXsva ®cf bXfiow x^ioqoiq axil d^^wii)- bn&B^ts ^^©cfioO *Bri:f tx^iaqoiq 

cl-9§ bXiroo od ilsl 9d bna nexiwo erid^ wdmi sri d^srid' ^8xsb ne& fimdB at 

feCEB iiso 03 oJ- J-d^sdioO 6X0;* tiBBSilA jfirf^ ;x#i»qoiq ©rW no xJjni boog a 

©rid xio iBBb booa s d-eg o;t b&iasw ©ri ^arid^ ,bXx;oo sxi ised 9di ob 

iix> OS biMow Qd bl&e a9di SiedioO tadi jsXdiaeoq ited siU ^x^'i^qoi? 

arid- weaai ad darid- jbXjjoo 9x1 daxld^ xxsadXA lot lB9it tZ9d sdi *eB bas 

bXtroo 9n tadi baa eXqoeq •eodS wexii «ri iedi** \:fc':\ I'i Lis aaw \;d"%eqoiq 

i9^ ba& en not Xaob boo^. b deg bXxfoo ©ri tar ftb boog a stLsjb 



the best deal possible;" that Altman asked Corbett how much the 
property would cost and Corbett stated that there was a mortgage 
on it for $10,000, "that it would take $11,000 or so in order to 
put the deal across," that Altaian vvould have to make a down payment 
of $5#00Q, and Corbett would iiave "no trouble about arranging for the 
balance of approximately ;^6,000j" that Altman told Corbett that the 
figure sounded satisfactory to him and for Corbett to go ahead. 
Altman further testified that he had several conversations v/ith 
Corbett concerning the deal; that in the first conversation, in April 
or May, 1937* Corbett stated that he could get the property for about 
$11,000, and that he would try to get it for that amount; that when 
Altman called again several days later Corbett stated to him that he 
could not get the property for $11,000 and that he would have to have 
$11,500; that several other people were trying to buy the property 
at ^11,000; tixat he (Corbett) was dealing with a lady by the name of 
Mrs. Walsh, TB^o was selling the property, Altman further testified 
that he did not know the property was incumbered and that a deal was 
necessary in order to clear the title; ths.t Corbett "did not mention 
at any time, anything about clearing the title or what it would cost," 
Altman finally agreed to pay $11,500 for the property and he and his 
wife signed a contract, Altman received a copy of the contract but 
turned it over to appellee. It does not appear to have been intro- 
duced in evidence. Appellants paid $5,000 in cash to appellee and 
gave hiiX the judgment note in question, for if>500, which was made 
payable to the order of appellee. In aduition, appellee appears to 
have obtained a loan of $6,000 for appellants, wiiich was secured by 
their trust deed on the property in question. Appellee obtained the 
proceeds of this loan, /i.l1anan testified that he supposed, from his 
dealings with Corbett, that Mrs, Walsh was getting the $11,500 fop 
her property, Mrs, Walsh received nothing in the transaction. She 
appears to have quitclaimed the property, but to whom is not clear 
from the record. The Walsh mortgage was at the time the property of 
the Woodlawn Trust & Savings Bank, which was then in receivership. 



saj^aJ-iQH ft SAW ©loitJ ;tj65it}' Lsc^flia ^its<J^oO ^lti* (fsoo fcltfow x^neqorrq 
:i o2 10 000,11 i; ^aiW ,000, 01^; lol JX flo 

9iii not sialsfiBiis ^ikxTb ©Xcfx/c iveii bXt'o^if cfdscfioO ficui .,000,^$ lo 

edi ;JaciJ d'cfscfioO bio:} asmJX.- - .xi.^ "iOaO^M- tX«>J««lxoiqq6 lo eooBlBcf 

*£>B®xijB 03 oJ ;fie4^o'3 10^ bna blM W xifiSo^lMliiit kobtw^M eoxrall 

fUlif exioi.Jiiai»"raoo lattev^a fcaxi «ri *&d;> fcollJt^sd;} isxWix;! naffl^tlA 

iiiq., fiJt ^aoiJ-.vaisvxioo iaiXt 9^) ai tatii flj»»6 wi:f ^Inioanoo ^cfetfaoO 

Jirocfii -iol x^ieqoaq BdJ ^»8 I)Xifoo i^ri S&tii o^Aia J-J-^diou ,\£?I ,x*^ "^^ 

a«tn -^fsdai {imifma )»sii lot iX is^i oi xii hlueni od iatiS baa ,000,L£4: 

9x1 iMi alii oi bsi&^it cti^dioO i9i&l 9.\Bb Iaii9v»e nia;}8 bsllao aamilA 

eTjBxl c;J »v«d bluon ari ^;6il;J i>fli* 000,114; 10I Vieqoiq ©ri;f uog ;^oa bjjjoo 

lo siOiia stfi^ x^ \I?&I JB xUlv soIXaci) atam (.iieiioD) «ri ;tiS(U i000,II$ &a 

b9l1tiB&i zosUiul OBOStlA •x^ieqoiq wi^ saillas saw oriw ,rialflyi ,8<df 

esnr Xbs^ s 4'AtU bOM bei^Utaisoal saw xi-tnaqoiq s{l;t voa^ ion bib eif c^jEul;t 

aoliaem ioa bib" Hb^i.o'j iasii i9lili 9tii laeXo oi" n!^bio nl ynssBaoan 

•',;t2oo IjXwow ;J-X iii£i»j 10 »Xd^lJ sri^t gaiiiieXo ttiodB loXxlJxna ,9ni:o -v^fiB i-a 

eiri i)na arl ija«i -^Jiaqonq Bdi rrol 0O^^XX$ x««i oJ^ b^9t$A xXXsnll xteffitXA 

d^wd d^osainoo ericf lo x<loo ^ jQdVi805»n amitlA ,4v&iiciOZ> a bonsXs »llw 

-oid-nX nsfecf evful 0.1^ •issqqjs ioa ^QOb il .*«XXeqqfi ©;t rtevo iX beja^tcr* 

fcna 99XX9qqjfi o;^ rlc. c rii 000,"c$ i)ljiq a;^nj5iX®qqA .•ojofifelve ftX Jb&aaJb 

9i,affl aj5W doh. ^ , :xol ,colJaetfri al eioa ^neaab^t ^^^ ^^-trf •▼^S 

oJ- aisaqqe ^©Xleqqa ^aioXilbbii al .ssXXeqqs lo *Lebio ssii oc oXcfaxsq 

Xd b&ixjo&a eaw doXdM ,e;^aaXX9qq« ^ol 000,d$ lo ouoX xj benX^j^tdo ovbiI 

9dJi bealaiao ssXIsqqA ,aoli&ms^ al x;}i9q,oiq, ed;} no b9^b izss-a ilodi 

aid xao'il ,l)9aoqqj-'a ©ri t»di beXlJUJ-esJ joBOitXA ./isoX elrid' lo ebsesonq 

riol 00'5,XX^ 9iW afUc^dsa asw daXaW .«iM ;^siij ^ti9410^ dJ-lvr aaaXXasfe 

QfiS .floiutoaexu»'xJ 9di a± aoXri^oa bavXsoet xiaXs'.v .aiH , x^*iQqoaq ^ori 

xsoXo d^oa zl JBortw oJ ^x;d ,x^i9qo'iq odt beml&loiltsp ®v«ff o;t aiseqqa 

lo "^^tisqoTtq »di QiaXt 9d) ia &am e^^^i'iom rieXs.v ©ri'I .fjiooei sxtt jcao-il 

•qJtflai8vl909T; jni a&di aaw xioxilw ,af«a^ aaclvaii A izsnl am&lbooil ©rtf 



-7- 

On June 6, 1937# appellee offered to pay the receiver of the Bank 
$9#000 1^1 full settlement of the Walsh mortgage ixOte. The receiver 
accepted the offer on June 21, 1937, and on June 24, 1937* a court 
order was entered approving th.e settlement made by the receiver. 
The Altman deal was consummated in July, 1937> in the escrow department 
of the Chicago Title and Trust Gonpany. Save that she wrote the letter 
of February 13> Mrs, Walsh, "due to her advanced age and the precarious 
condition of her health," took no part personally in the transaction in 
question. She did not receive any money from the proceeds of the sale, 
nor did she pay any money in the transaction. Attorney De Haan testi- 
fied that it was Ills understanding that appellee "had someone who was 
interested in the purchase of this property," 

Appellee states his theory as follows: "Plaintiff's theory is 
that he was the broker for the owner of the property in question; that 
he had her authority to sell ssid realty to defendants, but that if 
he did not have such authority it would not constitute him agent for 
defendants; that neither plaintiff nor his agent told defendants that 
$11,500 was the best price for which the owner would sail or that 
defendants could procure the property at a bargain price; but that even 
if such statements had been made they were not actionable and defendants 
had no right to rely upon them; and that any profit realized by plain- 
tiff in the transaction came from the owner and is of no legal concern 
to defendants," Appellee sought to prove by the testimony of Corbett 
that the latter did not make any statements to Altman that would cause 
Altman to believe that appellee was acting for the Altmans in the 
transaction; but when the entire testimony of Corbett is considered in 
the light of the testimony of Altman and certain undisputed mountain 
peaks in the case, it is plain that the testimony of Corbett did not 
successfully rebut the testimony of Altman in reference to the 
transaction. Corbett conceded that he pretended to be carrying on 
negotiations between the Altmans and the owners of the property in 
reference to the price; that he told Altman to make a written offer 
and he "would submit it to the owners;" that he never submitted any of 



J :; ; . _ . ^ i-Jj^.- no ban ,.. <.I- smiL no lellc Bdi b^iqeoos 

.'iSvlsoPT: 9rf. 73-'^.!:*j'^ iilvoiqci's fcsaeJne asw rrsfcio 

I 

in&ssii&qob wt . . . t:;J3rTTr;=:rfo9 kbw iBsb rtsBCfXA exTT 

i9jj£)I edi ^o-m Oile Jsri* t . . . aqno? iefj-^ lilT ojaoIriO •ri;t lo 

asjoLiijOBiq «rf;t !>«« »5b hpf>aiaivf>», Tf-rf o ./tsIsW ,eiM ,£I x'!^Bincr9'T lo 

fli floixtO/i .:.. \ :.tX:t^9ff isrf lo nol:tlMoo 

^sIjbs Sttd:}' lo Bf)9©oc' oil x»noja Tjna evloo'-^n :ton Mb 9xf8 ,nol;teejjp 

-IJeoJ iiiifiii oC vGiri . .'ieid' exii nl v«noflt y^B \Bq 9tiz btb ion 

SBW oifw sfloeac .^allaqqs :tsr{J snlfj x; alri ajsw ^Jt iaAS ftsJtl 

lo 02atloii/q »AS tit b&ie.Bi9iat 

si yiodj voliol ae, ^io»f{i ajtil asctsi?. ©sIIdqcA 

li -yi^J^iS'/oiq sn3^ lo •i0n<7o bM lol leiloid' siW eaw Qri ^Rtii 

^aioBbii \iLii9^ Bias Tlea 6^ ■^:tliorf;ti:j3 lerl fcjsrl erf 

„ lol . aggs iaii[ ^ssiJLi&aoo ioa bluow :t± Y^iiorf*l;e daue aVerf' ;J'ort b±f) ari 

/ J JxiBfinslsb M-oJ ^fis;:; "Islq terl:tl©n :tsri!t j?.:tnBbn«5l9b 

.) Il68 bluav Tienwo airfif ilolri'. lol sctiq tssd sdi b'.'W 00^ ^ II 4i 

\ a&v9 ;i6sio oiiq nlaai^ \:}'i:9qoiq Qiii snxroo^q tlv&a s^tnsbnolsb 

a^^xiabnelab acus 9l<Saaolio& itxi oism x&dS sbasi a&ed bad zin9m>&s&B rfora 11 

-nlslq x^ besllsei J-lloiq \nB isih bcis im^xf^t aoqv "^Iferc ot id^tt on bad 

: i-:wo srfcf fltoil araao ixoWojsfinsl^ sffi" nl lllct 

•Jsd'io'j 'lo -\^io^ljas>i enH \(S &voiq o^ dd:^sJos selleqqA ",E:tnsbn;9l9b o^ 

dsuso bXxiow isili riBsailk oJ Qiaeaisi&:^i xd» 93l«m ion bib rcd^cfel 9rf:t :fmiJ 

add" al ^aaasilA edi lol aflld^ofi bbw ©©II»qqs :^.ftrf:t ©veiled o^ n&BCtlk 

at beioblanc odiot) lo xnoaitizoi entSsiB tdi rt#ifw ;fx;cr {nol:toBBfiBi;t 

atA:}auosa bos!-^.i.z£Dass alsii90 baa obioSSA lo t»oiSlt6©J 6di lo drfall «fld^ 

ion " ^ ' - lo xo^omtisBi sxii ctarfcf nislq al :fi: t^eso ©rid- nl e^ssq 

i.<i.j vK. oyua^slei ol xLBad-IA lo' vioffi-t*a©^ «^* d-ucfsi ^Ilifles^soi/s 

no sax-\jiix3o od o:t bebnsctsiq exi ;tBdS babsonoo ;f;t9cfioO ,nold-OBan«^;t 

ni. ■^d^isqoiq sxld^ lo erteawo exli^ bas aiiBinJ^IA eitf nisswJ-scf enolctsl^ogsn 

idllo aeiiti^ b BiL&m oi a&cai^lA bloi 9d i&di i^ttrq Bdi o:t eonsiolen 

lo xns beSitsadua asvsn sri d-sriJ- ♦'^aienwo 9rf;f o;t *1 :itmdfss bltscm^ srf bne 



-3- 

the offers made by Altmaii, to Mrs, Walsh, and that he never saw 
Mrs, Vsalsh, Corbett concealed from Altman the fact that the holder 
of the '.^'alsh mortgage would release i-:Irs, ^'alsh from her indebtedness 
upon t.ie note upon receiving $9>t>00. It is clear that the Altmans, 
in paying the money and notes, thought that they were buying the 
property from irs, Walsh and that she was receiving the purchase 
price. It will be noted that appellee, in his answer to the counter- 
claim, states: "Said note was retained by plain-ciff as part of 
plaintiff's real estate brokerage fee and commission to which he was 
and is entitled," Under the facts of this case appellee could not 
charge iirs, V.alsh for brokerage fees and commission, nor could he 
reasonably ctj^arge the Altmans a brokerage fee unless he was acting as 
their agent in the transaction. 

It is sufficient to say, in regard to the law of this case, 
that when we find, as we do, that appellee was the agent of the Altmans 
in the purchase of the real estate and that he was guilty of a breach 
of his duty to them, the law is settled. In Sals bury v. Aare, I83 111. 
505, the plaintiff fiirnished the defendant with $12,480 to be applied 
to the purchase of certain lands from the owners thereof. The defendant 
applied only v5,640 toward the purchases and appropriated the difference 
to himself. The plaintiff contended that the defendant undertook to buy 
the land for him as his agent and that the defendant deceived iiim by 
making hit: believe that he paid $12,480, whereas he paid only $6,640 
therefor, i'he defendant contended that he in no way acted as agent 
for the plaintiff. The Supreme court said that the determination of 
the case depended upon the relation which existed between the plain- 
tiff and the defendant, and further said (pp. ^'10-i>12): 

"It cannot be said that, in making these piirchases, Ware acted 
as agent for Ingraham and Thompson, the owners of the property. The 
theory, tiiat he was acting as agent for the vendors, is negatived by 
hj.s contention, that he was himself the owner of the property, and 
was selling it ms his own property to the appellant. If he owned the 
property liimself, or had been given options for the purchase of it 



-6- 

WBE i&ven &£i JiiiAj biiii ^^al^iA ,ei^ oJ ,xi6iii;tIA -^d 9£,.aja anollo eitt 

idJ^Iorl Bsii :iBdi ittAl edi a&aKilA moil bsLsBoaoo iisdio^ ,dsiLaf! .aoll 

eaen6ed'cfdJt>n2 loA moil ti&lsV ,a%A ezatl&i bSMO* dSAS^ioa; daljiW Bdi lo 

tensfld^lA «rW ^J3ii;t asslo el d^I .OoO^^i^ 3flivleo»n noqxi »ioa Bdi aoqu 

esU 3nlx^<^ d^ov x^^^^ ^^^ iji:^isodi ^seioa £>afi xenooi exii axxl^aq ol 

^B&doisjq 9di ^atvtso^i e^w eds iiuii bas d&l&a ,aiji. saotl \iieciotq 

lo i-mq, as I'ilJ^nlBlq ^cf benia^si eaw »*on M«i" :eed^BJ-e ^mlalo 

e£w 9/1 lioMw oct aolaalitsJBOO ban sol a^aesfoid scfsJ'as iQsrc a'lllvfnlfilq 

wO« Mx;oo e*XX(Kqq3 caoo airiJ lo aifoisl axf:^ i©£»£rtl '\b9litia.9 el £uis 

•d ItlL'Od loa (flolosinnioo Jbos aeel •sfiissloicf lox iiel^^ .aiS es^iulo 

sfi B^ljOti aavr sxl zaeSsw set e^^^isiloid js anaauflA edi esiiiio xldsnoaxidi 

.aoliosaxxBi^t srfi al ias^B ilddi 

,eaao elriJ lo w:3l scl^ 0.J bia^'^i ^-t t^e ocf ;tn9lolllx;a al ^I 

za&sEiLA edi lo ctnegi^ &di a£W osllsqqa ;far{d^ ^ob ow eb ^bnll ew rtsxiw ^Acl.t 

doBOid 3 lo xjllx;§ ajiiw ail iiidi bciB 9isiito Xa»i adit lo eejsdoijiq 9xl;t al 

.111 £8l ^ s'lafe' .V YOUdsIflS al ,£)eIJJe8 al w«jI sriJ ^at^il^ oi x^ub &id lo 

I)9llqqs B<i o^ 08-^,2I«ti ri;tlw ^flsbaelsb edi bedziaii/l lllifllslq ed^ \^0^ 

JnfiJbinslaf) sxfT ,lo9isii;t Eisnwo efW aioil zba&l al&iiso lo •a^doauq eirii oi 

»oxi959lllD 9ili 5e;fBliqoiqq*s £>iib aee^irio'si/q axi^ Lajswo;^ O^^o^i X-^o f)©llqqa 

XUcT oJ- iootielinx; Jrusbnelat) 9di i&d:i bp>ba9inoo lllJ^fllalq erfT .llgaialjd oi 

Xd sslii bsvl809l> ia&baQleb »di t^i:^ boM int^ga aid 8« isld lol baal tU 

Q^^^'^^^ xl^o blsq 9d BBeiexiw ,U8^«^I$ blaq id ^edi erellsd iold s^l^sm 

iaei^a as b9;foB x^^ o« J^^i »d d'iiri^ fcftfins^tnoo ;tnBi)n9l96 fidT .rxol9*ied;t 

lo flol;JBfllim9:^9£) add- ^ari^f filsa Jiuoo gmenqi/S edT .lllJnlalq adi' lol 

-nljelq &di a&svisd bed-alXG doirfw nolisIeT: sdi aoqu bebasq,Qb saso 9fld^ 

:(Sr$-OI^ .(iq) blsa isd^tiul Jmib ^icuibaeleb 9di fmjt 111* 

fiei^oB 91^"^ ^aeziidoiuq, etedi siililcxa nl ^iBdi blsa ed ioxmso ;tl'' 

©dT .x^iOQOil sd;t lo atenwo edi ^noaqsaodT bas o&dBi^I lol iaeja aa 

Xd fe9V±;tfia9n al ^aaobnsv 9d;f lol d'xissa aa solisa «aw ed^arW ,Xio9dd 

bxiB 4X^i9C[oi<I »dd lo lAoiro add- iXeaiald aaw ed i&di ^noiingcfnoo e-trl 

edt besvffo ed II .JxialXeqqs sdJ- oj^ x*i»<50i5 ^wo slri «« ^1 snill 92 esw 

cfl lo eaarioiijq «dd- lol anolitqo novlg n99d bed io ^llsamlri x^iSQOiq 



— 9» 

by the owners, he oertainly was not acting as the agent of such 

owners in making the sales, 

"He never told Salsbury, the appellant, nor did the appellant 
ever know until shortly before the present bill was filed, that the 
appellee, V/are, claimed to own the property, or to be selling it as 
his own property, or that he had, or claimed to have, any interest 
of any kind in it. 

" The evid ence s hows, that Salsbury dealt v/ith ^re as his 
his agent, or in such ^, way that a trust relationsMp existed between . 
them. Vifare had no right to take advantage of tha t rel a tionship to 
make a pro f it for himself, v/hich properly belonged t o Salsbury , The 
position, which he occupied towards Salsbiiry, was one of trust and 
confidence, and, inasmuch as trust and confidence were placed in him 
by Salsbxiry, he could not take advantage thereof to the injury of 
Salsbury, 

"The law upon this subject is well settled. In equity, an 
agent is disabled from dealing in the matter of his agency on his 
own account. The agency being established, the agent will be 
compelled to transfer the benefit of his contract to his principsi, 
even though he may swear that he purchased oa his own accoiint. It 
makes no difference that such agent is a mere volunteer; if he pro- 
fesses to act not for himself but for another, he has trust and con- 
placed 
fidence/ln him. The rule applies as well to an agent, who becomes 

such by volunteering, as to one who is made such by appointment. If 
confidence is reposed, it must be faithfully acted upon and preserved 
from any intermixture of imposition. The party relied upon must see, 
that he meets fairly and squarely the responsibility of his position, 
and does not take any advantage, either for his own gain, or to the 
injury of the person whcaa he represents. If a party employs an agent 
to make a purchase of land, he is entitled to all the skill, ability 
and industry of such agent to make the purchase on the best terms tlat 
can be had, and is entitled to the property at the price the agent 
pays. The agent cannot avail himself of any advantage his position 



doiie. 'io cfnegi:; oriJ ac anlctofi jon ajsw yXaiiiiiBO trf ^Mtxiwo arW X<* 

• 861.36 Q£i:i s^^JbLiSia nJ: eisriwo 
d'n«II©qq£ erft blf) ion td-asllsqq^ 9£[i ,x*"fdaJt*<- £>-to;^ leven sH" 

eri • Iltj c^xreeeiq adJ- aio^ecf \l^ioiiz IlJ-nxf woiat neve 

inillDE ^ ;d-'i©qoiq ©xi^T xiwo o;t J!)effllBlo ^ensW ,09lleqq« 

,;J1 fll ban xn» lo 

bne :t8i;iJ '10 oao asw ^xi^cjeiaci afeiswoJ^ bslqx/ooo sri xfolriw ,xioX:^lBoq 

ijil al bsoalq soiwv 90ne£>llfloy ^ns ieasid bb dossasaal ,!uib tftOfl&Jbllnoo 

lo \;ijjtnx Slid- oi^ loanaciJ' &;iBiaayb& QAai .^oa bluoo ed ^X"^^^^^^ X^ 

t2 Ham. Qiiii at ^IXjssJb noil beXcfiseib el Jnega 

^ Jjaqiofiiiq aid oi d^oand^noo exri lo ^tl'tsnecf sdi lelarteiJ- oJ^ bsXXsqxaoo 

il ,S:woooa xiwo aixl r*o bsaurioiirq sri ;Jari;t isevrE x*« ®JCl riauori^ nsv© 

-O'lq ©/ sJ^iiuXov 9i9fii 8 el ctnegB rfojje ;tJ3ri^ eoaon»llib on ssjfam 

-inoo baa ^cu'iJ asxl 9ri ^-xexl^^oxiA not iisd IXseaJtri nol ion ioc ot asaaet 

fisoBXg 
aefiiooscf oiisr ,cfii©3B as oi XXew e« aslXqqfi sX^'i »riT .cLtri fli\9on9bll 

IX ,iaQmiatoq^q_s %d done ebam ai odw eiio oi as ^inlissixsuXov xcf dowe 

bevneaenq bna noqi; beJ-oa x-CJ^-'j'^^-to^ scT iex/ra il ^b&aoqat el ©onsbllnoo 

^998 i&usa floqxi bsXXsn xirtaq ariT .aoliiaoqiaX lo sijjixlcneifli ly^ flioni 

^noiiX^oq aXd to x>^-tXXcfiafloqa©n edi \l&iSiSjpe bae. \liJL&l aisdfli sd iadi 

9di oj '10 jaiss •cwo aid io*! isdiis ^eaBinavba y^a safai ioxi asob bxis 

inegB xis a^oXqiaa xinsq a 11 .ainaaonqsi eri laodw noaneq adi lo X'l^tfll 

XiXXXds tXXXifa sdi XXb oi beXiXiae aX ©d ^bnsX lo ©BBdonifli s ©aUfli oi 

iHli efii'isi iafHi >ui^ no ©ajarioouq sdi ©afBffl oi inega dowa lo xniaxrbnX baa 

inegs ©dJ ^-— ;^ sdi is x**i9Q:o'i<I ©•rf^ o^ b©XiXifl9 bX baa ^bad &d aso 

noli r ocr aid BT'jiia&vbB Y^ii lo IXeajaXxl XXisva ioiinao inega edT .a^fiq 



-10- 

may give liim to speculate to the injury of his principal; all the 
profits and advantages gained in the transaction belong to the 
principal . ( Casey v, Casey. 14 111. 112j Derjiis v. McCaee. 32 id, 
429 J Cottom V. Holllday. 59 id. 176 j Conant v. Riseborough. I39 id. 
383; Helberg v. liichol ^ 149 id, 249,)" (Italics ours.) The court 
held that t.he defendant was required to account to the plaintiff for 
the difference, amounting to $5*840, retained by the defendant. See, 
also, the late case of Lerk v. McCabe. 349 111. 348, where the court 
said (pp. 360, 361): 

"The relation of principal and agent is one of trust and con- 
fidence, and where such confidence is reposed and such relation exists 
it must be faithfully acted upon and preserved from any intermixture 
of imposition. The rule is the same no matter how large or how small 
the commission paid may be or whether the agent is a mere volunteer 
at a nominal consideration. ( Perry v. Engelj 296 111. 54-9.) -t^ agent 
acting for the purchaser of land, whether by appointment or as a volun- 
teer, must see that he meets fairly and squarely the responsibility of 
his position and does not take any advantage, either for his own gain 
or to the injury of the person whom he represents. (Sal sbury v. Warq , . 
183 111. '?0^») The rule is well established in equity that the relation 
existing between principal and agent for the purchase or Scile of 
property is a fiduciary one, and the agent in the exercise of good 
faith is bound to keep his principal informed on all matters that may 
come to his knowledge pertaining to the subject matter of the agency. 
( Reiger v. Brandt^ 329 111, 21.) An agent must not put himself, during 
the continuance of his agency, in a position adverse to that of Ms 
principal. To the latter belongs the exercise of all the skill, ability 
and industry of the agent. If a party employs an agent to make a pur- 
chase of land he is entitled to all the skill, ability and industry of 
such agent to make the purchase on the best terms that can be had. 
(Cottom V. Holliday . 59 111, I76.) An agent cannot deal for his own 
advantage vdth the things purchased for his principal, or become a 
seller or buyer of them, because of his confidential relation and his 



-01- 
gi lj" llfi (XaqloflJt'iq zld lo x'^'t«i ©f^^ <a^ »*eli»»»qa o^ Aid •▼Ij xam 

.^Jt ^i ^aa-sOou .v aXfiitoG {SIX ,1X1 « >T«a&& ^v tot^D ) , L&Qloalia 

Jaxioo 9flT (.aotfo 80lXfi5I) "C.^>i ,i>l ^-M ^ .v aiatfX»H |£8£ 

lol llij-xil«lq 9rltf oJ ^iiwoosfi oJ- haiXnpvi eaw ^^iubadlsft »il:f ;f«Af Wad 
,902 .;tiisf>xi9lob 9ili x*^ bealaiBi ^0-{»8,$$ OJ^ SflXJruKMa* ^90^©l^1:llJo axlJ" 
;}TC«oi3 e£i;t eiaxlw ,c>t .1X1 ^ ■(•daOaM .▼ M^ ^J to ©sao «teX 9iiJ »08Xa 

t(Xdt ,0d£ .qq) Mjs« 

-noo ba& ihvii lo ©no al i£i&-%& bsLe, XAqloni^q To noId-flXsa aiEE" 

e^2ix9 £iox;f6Xei ifojjs £ka« 59eoqoi &l doxiebl'moo lioirc Aiaflw £ui£ (Saaetfill 

sitictxifinf-jnl \:xifi «oi1 i)ftv'x©8»iq tjoa floqw be;fo« xXXx/lriilal »<f isirar .tl 

lEaffia woii lo sgiuX wod 'is;);ti)fl en mcm dil^ el ©Xxn exlT .aol;t±aoqffil lo 

i%Qim.Lov 9'i©iii £ 2i ia9^^ sfU^ ititi^acfw lo •«( \am fiisq aolaeliamoo ©ilJ 

d^nsgs £iy. (,^"J^^ .XXI d^S. ^ J,fa^^M ^v Yiie'i ) .nol^BisMenoo Xanlaion £ ^s 

owXov a ss io ^aexaiaXoqqs \6 tosHQdm ^ba&L lo afttarioii/q ^Ai lol sxilctOB 

lo x^J'I't^^^-^a^oqedi Bdi xXd^Bii'pe foos xI'^Ia^ ui^oa sif j-aii^ «*a ;fitxia ^%B9i 

£ilii^ flwo aXii lol leri^l© 40aaurfli8Vfc« x^js »3(B:^ *oh afiOft bru nolcfXaoq alfl 

itilllt 1^ y-^^riffgrap.^ ,a;tn©2oiqei sxl Modw flckaisq tii lo xi^t^l eti^ o) lo 

xioloftXsT; eiitf Jsitt x;f±x;p© nl f)»jl«lXdB;f&» XXaw eX •lui «wlT (.?o;^ ,1X1 £8X 

Ic sX .8 10 safiilsijjq arict lol ia&^n tau& X«qlonliq aeewiscf snii^aixs 

l>oo3 lo 9Sxonex» ed^ al ine^& Q£ii ban «aao "^iJsXowfill » ll xj-isqotq 

-^siu S^:} Bteiis&m XXs ao bsirxolnX XAqionliq elil qs^A oi bnnod el diial 

.^oiiese »di lo i-diS&m ^oet^wa eri;^ ocr guinlB^iaq ©gbsXwonaf eXri o;J e«oo 

8jttlix;fa tlXeaflLtxi iuq ioa iQism. ia&:ga nA (,XS .XXI ^££ .;tJbnetg .v ^ssjIbF. ) 

ciid lo ;f.'3£[J o.^ &zi&vbM nolilaoq s al ^-xoa^^s alri lo ^oa&Latiaoo 9dS 

XJ-i-lxaa ,IXiie ®flj XXb lo ©alfn&xe etlt 8SfloXt»cf iBcfifal srlcJ^ oT .XsqionXiq 

-lijq ja oiLsfli o;t in&-$& aa e"^oXqffi» \;t'iBq b II .c^r^osa sif;!' lo xi*8t/bnl ba& 

lo '^icTauiJCl fcoa x^-t-^Xda ,XX±ifa sdi XX* o;t boX;Ji3-£ie al ori 5jcuaX lo ©qsjcIo 

• 5fixl 9cf n£9 i0d;t aucrxdcf ;ta«<f emf^ ixo eaaitoixTq ttdd' isatfin oi itie^s efoi/s 

xiwo Elri 101 Xs9b :tonxiBO d-neae oA (.d'fX ,XXI ^$ . vafelXXoH .v ao^^oD ) 

a smooscf io ,XBqloflliq alri tol fieaedoixfq asnlxl^ cri^ ditv e^siaavba 

eld bas aoUalei Xslctnobilnoo aid lo eawaoed ,Bi9d* lo i?>xisd to isXXea 



-11- 

duty to disclose to his principal every fact, cireumstance or 
advantage in relation to the purchase which may come to his iaiGwl- 
edge, ( frlcDonald v. P'itlxLan. 1 Gilm. 269 j ci^tronr. v. Lord^ 107 111, 
25.) /Ji agent cannot directly or indrectly acquire an interest in 
his principal's business without the principal's consent freely 
given and with full knowledge of every matter ioiov/n to the agent 
v,*iich might in any way affect the principal's interest, and it is 
of no consequence that no fraud was intended or that no advantage 
v;as derived by the agent, ( Fox v. oimonS ji 25I 111. 31^.)" i^any 
othor cases to the same effect might be cited, but the rule is too 
well settled to require further citations. 

Under the facts of this case, as we find them, and the 
settled law bearing upon the facts, it is plain that the judgment 
for ^607,50 entered in the trial court against the Altmans, 
appellants, must be reversed. 

As to the counterclaim of the Altmans: Appellee, counter- 
defendant, received from the Altmans ;i>ll,^00. The Altmans frankly 
concede that they must do equity by appellee and they admit tliat 
he is entitled, in addition &o the $9,000 that was paid to the 
receiver, to credit for certain items amounting to $8l2»99> laaking 
the total amount of credits conceded to be due appellee $9*8l2,99» 
There are two items that appellee claims he is also entitled to in 
any event, viz,, $6o, that he spent in advertising the property 
"before Mr, Altman came into the picture," and $75^ » which he claims 
he owes an attorney for services in securing the release of the Walsb 
note and the juagment thereon. Appellee did not testify that he paid 
the attorney !^75^ for the services. .;e are of the opinion that 
appellants should allow appellee something for the services, but 
$750 is an excessive amount. In our judgment $375 would be a reason- 
able fee for the services and that amount is allowed, There is no 
good reason why appellants should be charged for the advertising 
item. As the claim df appellee for the $500 note has been disallowed 
by our judgment, the amo\uit of that note should be deducted from the 



"LI- 

•iO t)-^i.^.^: c.L.ij-j-i.LL^ jj Uiix \,-itivt; l_;vixoii.x'i<.i ^Xii OJ od oio.'; xi.1 OJ \:iub 
-L^oct^ &M oJ eaof x^^ rfoM-v seiirioii/q arid o:t ac'~-^-- nJt oaai^iiflVJba 

xL^eit toBzaoo e*£sqtoaliq adi Jflod^Jfcw eresnlex/d *8»rsqJtoni^q aM 

d^as-^ii iuIJ od iiwon^i i9;t;Jsffl -^^ove lo sjAelwofoT IIx;l itJlw Bna nevis 

8± jfl bafi t^asidinl a»l5qloni'rq srfct iosVU \aw ^Cf^ n^ WglJi riolrfw 

dSsd"CiJ8vbs on i&dt -ro Ssbnecfni ssw bxra^l on ijariJ sonsjjpaenoo o^a lo 

XnjB^. "(.<il^ .III I<|x. ^e.QOi xdo .V xo'^) .^xiasa sxfif tcf beVlieb asw 

cod" cix ©Xi;':: . <J ,ue:^io &q ^daiti ^oalls exaiis eilJ oi eesiio loxIJo 

Qxid- btiti ,aad;t bail 9w es ,9a£o alri^ lo actOisl sxl^ lebal 
&a»isi^.jts\, &tiS d^srid" nlslq si it ^ziosli &iii noqjj jal-x^aecf wbI beX^iat 

.{•aaasvsi scf J-eioa ,aJasXXeqq« 

-is^iiwoo ^©oXXsqqA :ariGiid"XA siW 'to inXiiXoia^^atfoo sdt oi a A 

XXaindrrl cxiafisJlA &riT .OO'^^XX^ aitsitJ'XA dx£J jnoil bevleosi 4Jat-.£;n&l9b 

J-sri:t ;t±aibB ^sxli bns oaXXoqqa xd x^JtJWp* o^ iasm x^^^ ^^di obedaoo 

^)dd o:' foiaq sjsw J'aiSct OOC,^ 9di oJ nol^lLbB nl ,b©Xd'±;tn» al oil 

3/il:yjScr ,%'i?,Sl8$ at -gatn^mmim ata»il al&iti&o io1 .tlbs'xo o^ ,i«vl909i 

.^?.SI8^?$ ©sXXeqqti ai/b bH 63^ bsbeonoo fti-^e^d lo fxiwoam l&ioi edi 

at ot b©Xd"iJns osXb aX sri eielsXo ftoXXsqqa i&AJ siaed-X atii qib eifixrt' 

vj^ioqoiq arid' artlslj^ievb« ni imsqa sd ^atit ^0^$ ,»slv ^^navs tjiub 

earlfiXs oil xloixiw ^0^7<i; bia '\9iu/^bXq srfi o;tnl aoso naau^XA ,iM anoled" 

xfeXjB* sifcf lo aaseXsi ^di igixi'mosa nX seoXvTcse lol x^H'io^J'b hb aawo axi 

bXsq 9xi ;t£d;t x^lutae^t oon bib eaXXdqqA .aoeiail;^ iaecsbx/t a/l^ baa ed'oa 

J^atli noXnXqo sdcf lo dna aV." .easlv^toa exl^ mol O^'J*^ x^^'io^^J^ ©jdi 

:ti;d ^aaolvisa srf^ nol gnXxi^taaios eeXXaqqB woXXfi bXt/oxis e^xiijXXeqqB 

-floefiS'x ,15 scf bXx/ow <J\c^ ^tneiaabirt "iJ^o nl .ismossiB evXeasoxe as eX 0^'s'$ 

Oil eX Bi&dT tbsvollB sX imsomB :fBdi bns aooXviea axW lol sal sXdfi 

gnXaXd-iovba axlit lol bB-gt&do ed ^Xuoda a^oeXXsqqjB ■'?ilr xioesaa boog 

bsvjoXXfiaXb aaad 8fifl a^fon 00^$ axi;f lol eaXXeqqs lb aXaXo artf eA ,me;tX 

sricT Hionl b9;tOi;beb ad bXwoxIa eJ-ort cfsxf^ lo irwotoo, etii ^ineta^bul isjo x<^ 



-12- 

total amount received by appellee from appellants, leaving the 

net amount that he received from appellants $11,000, The total 

amount of credits to which appellee is entitled is $10,187,99, 

which deducted from $11,000 leaves $812,01, and appellants are 

entitled to Judgment for that amount upon their counterclaim. 

The judgment of the Municipal court of Chicago of ip607»50 

in favor of Joseph E. Merrion, appellee, plaintiff in the court 

below, and against Joseph itltman and Adella C, Altman, appellants, 

defendants in the court below, is reversed; and Judgment is 

entered here in favor of Joseph cltaaan and Adella C, Altman, 

appellants, upon the counterclaim, and against Joseph £, Merrion, 

appellee, in the sum of $812,01, 

JUDGMENT REVERSED; AND JUDGMENT HERE IN 
FAVOR OF APPELLANTS (COUNTERCLAIMANTS) 
AND AGAINST APPELLEE (COUNTER-DEFENDANT) 
IN THE SUM OF $812,01, 

Friend, P. J,, concurs, 

John J, Sullivan, J,, took no part in the decision of this case. 



9*iB «*jiBlI©qqB b£t8 ,I0,SI8$ esiraeX 000^X1$ asoiJ betossb^b rioJLciar 

0<J*^O^^i 'J» os^»±iiJ lo c^owGo XftqIoLauM art;* lo :taBm&bvl ftriT 

;J'mGo sjirft Hi YltJ^iiiBSHi ^»»L£mq,:i ^aottteU «g rffdeo"t lo lovnl ni 

^3i?naIX0qqfi ^namilk .0 slieM fans luatttlA riqeeot ianlasfi baa ^wolsd 

si iiasiasi^^ift baa \b»fanBV9i el ^wolscf ittseo biU ni Qiasbaeteb 

^nMSSilh .0 ail9bA ba^ cuuKtlA ifqdBoL lo lovsl al qibA bsteiae 

• I0.SI8$ lo oore »i!;t jEtl ^edllftqqA 

(1- - ^ . iA 

• XOt-aXiL/<«f "^J iitiv/«H ''Uii'j. HI 

.auyofloo ^,L .'I ^ba&ti% 
,»aso airi;t lo aoxaxoef) ari;t ni: d"i59q o« aloo* ^,L ^xtJSVilXf/cJ .^ ndot 



4-1116 

IN RE ESTATE if? !AC|LLIAM 
HABG£Ii£, Deolased, 




MYRA HAEGELE DRIi.^v, 

Objector sJid Apieli^nt, 



V. 



MARTHA IIAEGELE, 

Executrix and Appellee, 




) IfPPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COUfif 

) 

) / I OF COpK COUNTY* 



307 I.A. 38^ 



MR. JUSTICE SCAi^Al>I DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

William H. Haegele died on July 9, 1931. By a will (date 
of the same not shown in the record) he left his entire estate in 
equal parts to his widow, Martha Haegele, and Myra Haegele Driever, 
a daughter by his first wife. They were named Joint executrices 
and qualified as such in the Probate court of Cook county, but 
later the daughter resigned by leave of court. Martha Haegele, 
executrix (appellee), filed an inventory certifying that no real 
estate nor personal property belonging to the deceased had come to 
her hands, possession or knowledge. Myra Haegele Driever (appellant) 
filed exceptions to the inventory, in v.hich she charged, inter ali a, 
that deceased ovmed, at the time of his death, 3#443 of the 12,000 
shares of the capital stock of the Haegele Ice Company, a corpor- 
ation. In the Probate court the trial judge found that Haegele was 
the owner of the said 3,443 shares at the time of his death and 
ordered the executrix to file a supplemental inventory charging 
herself with said shares. The executrix prayed an appeal to the 
Circuit court, where, upon a trial de novo^ the trial judge found 
that Haegele was not the owner of the said shares at the time of 
his death and ordered that all exceptions of Myra Haegele Driever 
to the inventory of the executrix be overruled and denied. Judgment 
for costs for $21,50 was entered against the objector (appellant). 



dm* 

i C. , , \ 

JHUtJO TniOHIC!) MOOT JAa<i<l|« (\ t \ \ 

' ( • 1 * ,Tr^TT;ia sjaosAH ahim 






( 

( .eelloqqa bna .. 

.t;iUoo aHT ^o HOii^rio son- uSsaviJEG ;iAj;iAoa siOiteux .m 

JiKf <xJ-m;oo 2iooO lo ^ix/oc; o^cdoiH siij nl xioxfg zh btllllBup baa 

las'x Oil 3is£i-J ^aix'^ljiso xiotasral ob b&Xll ^(©©XXoqqe) xiicfi/oaxs 

o;t aajoo I).aii be&^soob ariJ o:f jnlanoXecf \^i»qoT:q Xjenoeiaq ion eJatfa© 

(ctxuXXdqqfi) neveXia ©Xegftfili «iH;k .93£)sXwoa3f lo aoiaaeaeoq ^tbaM led 

x.4LXXs_-52iJni t^sgi'^o ©rfe iloldf- rtX ,xio:trtsvnl srfd^ ocf &aotiqoox3 bsXXl 

OOOtSX 9siJ lo £4>4^,t ^diaeb aid lo Sinlcf o/li cfB ,l»«nv/o beaasoeJb J-firicl 

-•joqioo £5 ^Xi^iiquioO »oI eXegeoH 9xLi lo ^ood'a iBtJlqeo srW lo aaisxla 

.ij. io^aviii ;ri«jrW bauol ©sbxft X^liJ- erid- ^t-wfoo eiadot'l etii al .nolJ'e 

fcrts dissb aid to smX^ od:! ctjs esxarfa £■►>*£ fcXjea erI;^ lo •xecwo «xW 

anlaiario x'lO'J^^vni L&iaamBlqqssi b eXil o;^ xXictL'ooxs 9jii batsbio 

Bdi oi Xssqqe a& £i&\i»iq xl'i:tif09X9 sriT .39i.3xle blBt sUtw IXsaisxl 

l>£u;ol Q^bvl latii *rJ* ^ovort 9b Lalti £ noqxj ^^lexlw ^iixroo ^Xi/oilO 

lo mali arid- jb seisiia bXjsa edi lo ttsnwo ©fl;t Joe saw eXog^sH j-axif 

isTsliG ©Xasesii aTjM lo EnoiJ^qsoxe XXs tadi beiebto baa Aiaeb eld 

iaBsas^but ,b9inefc Lhjb beXxJiigvo ©tf xliivoexo edi lo xio^^Q^^X oxI:t oi 

^CctnaXXgqqa) loioQldo edS iBalai^a fcaio^n* «sw 0^,X^$ lol E;teoo lol 



which judgment was satisfied in open coxirt by appellant and an 
order to that effect was entered. Eighteen days later appellant 
served a notice of appeal and subsequently perfected her appeal 
in this court. 

Appellant contends that the court erred in x^olding that the 
said stock did not belong to the estate of William H, Haegelej that 
the instrument introduced in evidence (hereinafter set out in full) 
is merely an appointment of an agent and a direction to him to bring 
about the transfer of the stock in the future; that since the 
principal died before the directions were executed the agency ter- 
minated, and the stock belonged to the deceased at the time of his 
death. Appellee contends that the instrument in question "is a 
direction by beneficiaries, one of whom was William H, Kaegele, to 
David S, Horwich, the trustee, transferring and vesting said 
Haegele's ice stock interest in his wife; and Secondly, in any event, 
the evidence, both oral and written conclusively shows that William 
H, Haegele, during his lifetime, divested himself of any interest 
in the stock in question to the sole benefit of his wife Martha 
Haegele," 

The material facts in the case £u:e not in dispute, William 
H. Haegele owned 3t^3 shares of stock in the Haegele Ice Company, 
On October 20, 19 30, David S, Horwich, attorney, was appointed a 
trustee by all of the stockliolders of the Haegele Ice Company, The 
instrximent creating the trusteeship is not in evidence, but Horwich 
testified that by the terms of the trust he was to liquidate the 
assets and distribute the proceeds to the stockholders and that by 
May 1, 1931# the corporation had been practically liquidated. The 
3,443 shares of stock were then in the hands of the Prudential 
Trust and Savings Bank as collateral. On May 22, I93I, approximately 
two months prior to the death of Haegele, the latter "summoned" 
Horwich to Twin Lakes, Wisconsin, where Haegele was then residing, 
and when Horwich arrived at the home of Haegele at that place he 
found there, in addition to Haegele, Henry Haegele, a brother of 



l&&qq& i&ti bsfioelioq, AjIJ-nsi/peedxre bae Issqqji lo &otioa & bsri9& 

. ■:uot> ^Xtii al 

:jfmi jals^OBli ,H m&llir^ lo ©J'b^bo oxid oj gnoXed ;toa bib aloo;ta fcliift 

(Ilifl Hi isjo iBniO'i.ttd;) Sjoasiixva ni iiDOxrfeotJ-iil JmetaniSanl 9tii 

gniicf oa iEii"i oJ n.ol:}o&ilb ^ bhjs J"n»S3 nfi to ^-ftSBSfnloqqB ns xlensai e1 

9d[:t 6 ode ;ta£fd- 49iJj:tjal »rl^ aJt :^ood;p »ri^ ^o •ie1ea&i& edJ ivo<S& 

-19 J XScioSfi sri;^ t-sctiroaxe srtsw enolJ^os-ilb 9il;t ©^ol®cf fcelfe Isqionliq 

sifl lo etali 9dJ :j& faeaaeosb aili ai f)agnoiscf stoocfa «ffi baa ^bB^aala 

, Hi** xiold-BSiTp al :}a&mai^zal »fW Jjsrl.t aI)fl©i'£ioo sftllaqqA ^tiiBeb 

o:i ^sldSeBH ,E fltslIIx.V aaw aoilw lo ano ^esJtisloilsnscf xd nol:t09T:ib 

fcJLsa 3iil^B6V bOB ^alirelBtiani ^ss^zx/ncf erl^ ,r{olwnoH ,8 Jblv/sd 

^^fneve x^tc n-t ^xlbaooBh has. lellti sld al izsioial jtoo^a »ol a'sIssSaH 

d-a9ieicl XKJ5 lo llsemifi be^ssvlb 49ailJ^©11I alxl a/tiii/lb ^©I©aesK ,H 
srId-iBM BlJtw alii to illaaed sloe i^di of aoUs^p fsi :^oo;t2 &d:f al 

** . eIS36BH 

.XJisqatoO ©dl ©lejasH sd;f rtl iao^a 10 eaiarfe c-M'*^ ^pfIwo eI©s©BH .H 

B bBialoqqB tasw \x^aioii£. ,ilolwaoH .3 £>lv«C tO£^I ,0S necfoctoO nO 

9dT ,xnBqsK)3 sol ©IsgeiiH sdi lo 8isbIOil2lso;t8 9ri;t lo LLb xd eBtesni 

dclvioH iud ^eonebJtT© al ioa el qlxfEDsJEJsicf ©itt sitlcfBSio ^nsatintanl 

sd;t sitfililxjpll oi asw eil ^Eirni- ©xiJ- lo uen^i &d3 xd ctBXl;? belllieai 

Xcf JariiJ Bxis ei95Ioxl3foo;ta edf o;t afeseooiq silj s:fccfli;telb baa s^tsae* 

sriT .i)9d'£fclirpll xIl£3Woai<5 fi9»«J 6^/1 aoi^£ioqioo ©ri* ^lE^I ^I xs^J 

iBlitnobiTil exiit lo ab&Bd sd$ al a9>di 9n©w isocfs 1© esisria £-N^»£ 

xXsc^sailxoiqqa ^Lt^l ^SS x^H nO .Xsis^sIIoo sb sLtisff aaalveS bns ;taxrrT 

"fcsnoiitfflna" isd-d^fll exl;t ,9I9J|©bE lo d:fki9b »di oJ loirrq sjtrnom om& 

tSXilfclasi «©ri;J asw ©leaSBH bt&dv ^ulanoosJ: : ,afe;:^3J nlwT o;f dolwioH 

^d ecslq isilo J-ij ©IsssbII lo omori edi tB fcsVliiB rislvynoH nsrlw fens 

lo "xsdioid B ^9l98©«H X'lflQH ^sIoassH o;^- i;iolilbt& al ^Bi9d;t bpssot 



-> 

William; Mr, and Mrs. Schnitzerj Louise Kircher, a sister of Williamj 
and the appellee, Louise Kirch.er was a sister of William and Henry, 
and Mrs, Schnitzer was a daughter of Louise, Horwich ( called as a 
witness by appellant) testified that VVilliam Haegele told him that 
"he wanted to make arrangements about the Twin Lakes property, the 
vacant lots, Q, Hhat did he say, if anything, with respect to this 
stock or his interest in the corporation? A, He said his daughter 
was getting forty thousand dollars in insurance money and she was 
amply protected. He wanted me to dra;v a document, as trustee, that 
I would be directed that that stock the bank was to return, that 
stock was to be paid to Martha Haegele." The witness then stated 
that at the direction of Haegele he drew up the following instrumentJ 

llay 22, 1931. 

"(1) David S, Horwich, trustee, is hereby directed to take 
steps at his discretion to secure from the Prudential bank, stock, 
insurance, etc., placed as security by William, Henry, and Charles 
Haegele, which deposits were made for the benefit of Haegele Ice Co, 

"(2) David S, Horwich, trustee, is hereby further directed 
to consider the common stock in the Haegele Ice Company, now in the 
name of William Ilaegele and held by the Prudential Bank, as stock 
which the bank was to return to Vi/illiam Haegele, and to place so 
far as possible the interest of William Haegele in said stock in 
the name of Martha Haegele, with Martha Haegele to have full 
authority to vote the said stock, and the securities purchased by 
David 3. Horwich, trustee, from the funds held for the payment of 
said stock shall be turned over to Martha Haegele when the stock 
at the bank shall have been returned or cancelled together with 
any monies which may be payable later on the said stock, 

"(3) David S. Horwich, trustee, is hereby directed to pay 
to viiiiam Haegele the sum of $50 •00 per month for the board and 
upkeep of Charles Haegele until all of Charles Haegele 's stock in 
the Haegele Ice Company, has been retired at the rate of $2,00 per 



{BtBill^il to i&iRlc £ (iciloiJtX e&Hjol \iBs.il£uiob «ai]C baa .m (asllliv; 

^vrmsH bun, aiBlll^ii lo i&J-fcjte « aear lexfiwJLX saJtXfoJ .ealleqqB ariJ iixu 
g SB bsXIay ) xioiwioM .saJjaoJ lo ns^^dgijsi) & nam ittls.^ lajdoQ .enM bna 
d-fixiJ mirf JbXo^f sIsaSiiR iSBlIIl"// isiii beillie&i ( JUisIIsqqfi xd aasn^lw 

airiii od itosqsers xfctlw ,yiljti;J\xuj 12 ,\ije *c[ bJtb ia^'i ,p .s^J'oI ;frtj5oav 

^»:til3ii;fif> &iii bi&B sH .A ?flolJBioqnoo 9dS at $&9i9ial alrf lo ^oo;iu 

SfiW 9xi8 hajj x&^<(0^ Boim-vjcal al Qisllob baaeaodi xitot ^ali:}e^ saw 

isdi ^&&is,u'ii an ^in^maoob £> vaib oJ am fiscfnsw oil ,Jb©*09^oiq \Iqiiu 

^adi t^aiLiQi oi aow dfUBtf •£!:)■ alooJ^e cfiiild- ;tsiU £)s;to9TlJb «cf Jbli/ow I 

i^nsawrt^fartl SiiliwoIIbl srfcT qx/ w©n£) sil ^9l9S»fiH lo aoiioBiib arW ;tfl iadt 

9:jiii;J ©^ bad-ostijo Ya»i©n ex ^«»^cif*i^ ^ilolwioll .8 bivaG (I)** 

^jioo^c 4:{nj8<f laltaebvr^ sdd^ aoil siucsa oi nolteioelfcajtri :tfl eqscfa 

8«Xij3iI0 bfiB ^x'^sH tCmllliW -^cf -^i-u/oea Sa fieoslq ^.oite ^aofLsiifaxil 

,oO eol ©IsssjoH lo ollansd ariit rtol sfc&a ?>iew ed-laoqob rioJWw ^sIsgeBH 

b9ioBilb leiHissI ^jdeisxl a ^ss^sx/ict ,xIoJ:wnoH .ii bJtvsQ (iJ)" 

«ri:^ Hi won ^^cnsqiOfeO &oI alsss^^' 9^ al 3fooJa xxomaoo &di isbtzaoo o:} 

sfooJa aa ^ia&Q LaLiaebm^i sifcf \d' bloxi J!>n« ale^ei^ iSBilliW lo 9blsii 

oa ooaXq o;}- jjita ^&I939J3II amilllVt OiJ xru/cfsit o;f a£W lUiBd 9iii Jtlolrlvr 

ni ;jfooi8 btxis, at ©I©a9i3E bsbILLVS lo i&^neial «ricf ©Icflaeoq as ib1 

LLsfi ey&d oi ©logssH BiU^Ofil^ ditn ^elesftaH srii tbM lo ©flxaa edi 

Xfi fceasrioix/q asiJ-irusfoss 9iU^ baa ^iloo^e blaa esti oiov od xiliodiUA 

lo ia&s^aq 9sii io1 bled a&xu;! axfi iaoil ^&9i^IS1i ,floiwioii ,o blvaG 

jfooos 9di nedw elda^sH sdJisM od^ levo berrux^t ©cf Ilsrfa aidfoda blaz 

dil?N i9iid©80^ bsXI'aofliiO io benrmisn nssd" ©v*ri XXsrie 3lnBCf 9£ii iA 

,3tooi^ bXB8 ©ifd no i9iBX el(iB\»q scf XJaffl xfoMw asJtnom -^a 

Xsq od boio&ilb xdoied «X ^sgiaj/id ^jrloXwioIT .3 blvaQ (£)' 

bflB biBOcf Qxli lol licffloffl n©q 00,0^$ lo msJ^ ©rid ©XgsQafi ioslIXl od^ 

ill 2lood8 a*9X939BH aeXiJBilO lo XXb llSasj eXegeBH asXiBriO lo qee^qti 

nsq 00, S$ lo od^Bi ©xid -^b bstliQi nssd aaxl ,'^J3qiooC ©ol ©XegeaH 9di 



share, and after such time, Louise B, Kircher, William Haegele and 

Henry Haegele, are to share the board and clothing and medical expense 

of said Charles Haegele, share and share alike as long as said 

Charles Haegele lives. 

"All by order of the undersigned, 

"David S, Horwich, 

Trustee, 
"William Haegele, 
"Henry Haegele, 
"Louise B. Kircher." 

The witness further testified that "upon William Haegele 's death I 

collected $23,861, which was the net amount due under the policy, and 

distributed the money to the common stockholders and delivered the 

pro rata amount due on William Haegele 's stock, pursuant to this 

letter of direction, to Martha Haegelej" that Martha Haegele never 

had the 3,443 shares of stock in her possession and that the stock 

certificates vrere still in the bank's possession. In respect to the 

shares of stock the witness further testified: "The bank had agreed 

to return the 3443 shares to William Haegele together with the stock 

that Mrs, Kirchner, a sister, had up as collateral with the Haegele 

Ice loan. They had agreed to return that collateral to the owners 

if I presented them with a certified copy of a resolution from the 

bookkeeper of the Lincoln Ice Company guaranteeing to indemnify the 

bank on the bond issue. In other words the Lincoln Ice Company were 

to be liable to the same extent as the Haegele Ice Company, the maker 

of those bonds. Q, Then did you indemnify them to that extent? 

A, I presented the certified copy of that resolution to the bank 

and gave them sixty days to return Vvilliam Haegele 's stock. Q, To 

you as trustee? A. Yes, to me as trustee, which they did not do." 

Harry [Henry] Schnitzer testified that on May 22, 1931* "we were 

called out to iwin Lakes where Mr, Haegele resided at thyt time 

because they were dividing some property up that my mother-in-law, 

iilrs. Kirchner, was interested in. ivhen we got out there we got 

finished with dividing the property and Haegele stated at that time 

that he wanted this ice stock and all proceeds to be turned over to 



r 

bae. ©IsaesII aiiiillir<v ^larionl."^ ,3 ©elwoJ ^sat^ xfoira leitls bas ^eisdz 

f).t'-'' rr^^ -t .^•.- .^r, o., rfo hrrc r;cra,f? ^wXo8©£^ 8»IrtfixfD Bli;8 to 

.aevJtl «I»s«bH es'IfsxlO 

"."IG/lC-- 

boA {\olLoa 9di lejbm; »«f) immmB *©n ©ri;t 2l-w rioJLdw ,Id8,£S$ fc?»:fo©IXoo 

9££;^ fesisvllsb b«jB sidblcuisiooiB aoBmDt> BdS ot ■^•float ©ri^ b&Sudtt&zlb 

BtdS OD ctnauertt^i ^ifooie a'ftloaeeE flellXJ:.!' no eirb instoaB stat <«q 

isvofl slagesH srf^i.oM :fflric^ ••;9l«g©i>H atfti&tf oJ- ,rtoW»©ilb lo lecfi'oX 

;^oo:t8 aiicf SadJ 5fis rioiaeeaeoq leri nl jioo^a 'lo 8»Tac(8 £M,£ «iri;t bad 

Oil* oJ- d"j9qesi nl .jaoleaesaoq R'ltafid er(J nl IXl;te ©rr»w e©^60llX;tnso 

f)©»«8« fcfiii Jta»<f 9ilT" tfesill;tae;t *i©ii;Jij:,'1 seettJ-tw sxld" Jfsoie lo asijerfe 

jioo** ««[t dd-Xw i©ri(t9BOct ©Xes^'iH HiallXW oi e»iail8 £-l>^ ©itt flixfJ©^ oJ 

Bl9%e&li ©ri;t ilcTiw leisd-BlXoo as qi/ bafi ^i»*ele s ^i©iuloil]! .«iM ^«ri;f 

«i©iwro eric)- o,t XBis^fsIIoo :f6ilcf Hrrffd'»i£ o;t fe#9'xss fieri x*-dT .nsoX sol 

•rid' aoil tiol^vloesi & "io •'cqoo bslllcfiso b rttlw areriJ^ fee^tnftBsaq I 11 

©ri;t x'i-ti'tci^^aJ: oJ ^t\i^»ta&isis^ X^sqiaoO ©ol nXooitlJ 9ri;t lo ^9q9«>l3loocf 

©is-^T •^aeqcfoO eol aloi/nlJ ©rf:^ abiow lori^o nl ,9istzi. bac€ ©fi:f no ataacf 

nsififir ©xU ^xnsqxaoO ©&I elsssaH sritf ea ^ae^fx© ©obb ®rii o* eldetl ©cT oi 

td-ne^x© J6il;t oct tisri* -^Unarobni xrox bib neklT .p .afcnocf osortJ- lo 

ifljscf ari* ocf noX^ti/IoRST: isds lo i^qo© baltl^nsD ©ifd" ftfeJ-neeaiq 

oT .p .jioocta e'©I©g»)sH lacilXlvif niiiiJsi oi- sYjsfc V^tla msri:t ©vss bus 

",ofc ;ton btb ■%&[[& rioXriw ,s»;Jei;^;t aa ©a od^ ,B©y .A ^©©cfaxn:^ sb xtox 

©i«w ©fw" ,X£^I ,S£ xsXi no ;tsricf bslliiasd- tesd'inrioti Cx^w^H] viifiH 

©BX;t citric? iB befelesn 9l«s9isH ttU ©i©dw asiiaJ aJb^:' o;t :tj:;o belXso 

eWaI-ni:-nejff3'oiH xm {tarf:^ qu ^d^'ieqoiq ©ttoa gnXoXvii) aitew x®ri^ esx/aoecf 

c^os 99? ©isri:^ Jwo ioa 9w nerft? .nl bsitasie^nl eaw ^^©nrfoilX ,8lM 

©aii;f ^firi;t ctsbecTscta ©X©89bH bas -^^^©qoiq &tii anlbivlfe ri^Xiv beriainll 

oi levo JbeniwJ ©of oi zbesooiq lis bna Aooje ©oi aJfcd:f bdd^naw ©ri i&di 



-5- 

his vdfe at that time, Martha Haegele* A document was drawn up at 
that time which I read because I believe my mother-in-law signed it 
at that time and we usually read practically everything she signed. 
He did state at that time, in fact he has stated that the insurance 
was turned over to his daughter and the only thing he had left, 
outside of the Twin Lakes property, was the stock which he wanted 
turned over to his wife, Q« I will show you Respondent's Exhibit 
No, 1, and ask you if that is a copy of the instrument that you 
mentioned? A„ Xiiat is right, Q, Did you see that signed by 
William Haegele? A. I saw it signed and I read it before it was 
signed." Appellant's counsel did not cross-examine the witness save 
to show the relationship of Louise Kircher end the Schnitzers to 
William Haegele, Mrs. Schnitzer testified that on "may 22, 1931, "my 
uncle asked us to come over to his Twin Lakes home because he was very 
anxious to divide the property that the Haegele Ice Compariy owned 
and also to make arrangements for his wife, Martha Haegele, to receive 
the money due on the stock of the Haegele Ice Company, He said that 
his daughter was getting all of his life insurance policies and he 
wanted her to get whatever money was due on the stocks of the Haegele 
Ice Company, Q, He wanted her to get them, 'i'lho doyou mean by 
'her'? A. Martha Haegele, his wife. Q. ".vhat was done? A, A 
paper was drawn up, which my husband read and my mother signed on 
May 22, 1931. Q. I show you this document. Respondent's Exhibit 
No, 1, and 1 ask you to say whether this was the paper that was 
signed? A. Yes, this is my mother's signature, » * * Mr, Matheny 
[attorney for appellant]: No cross examination," Appellant testified 
that on May 1, 1931, the 3,443 shares of stock of the Haegele Ice 
Company were "up as collateral at that time with the bank, together 
vrith his life insurance policies;" that she was the beneficiary iii 
the life insurance policies; that she knew her father owned the stock 
because it was up with the bank with the life insurance policies as 
collateral; that she did not know, personally, that the stock "was 
up with the bank," but she learned that fact after the death of 



j.€ fisfls-te vral-nt-^ejdc^oja Ajia 9V©Ju!;9C[ I 9w;>s3©cf bas^ I iiolriw Bsaii is^ 

^■n<il bad eri snJtil^ \Iflo ^d;^ feas 'is^tilai/flf) aid oJ -xsvo &»aaif;t asw 

b»;iaav ad dolriw li&o^a ©rii esw ^^j^tiaqoaq aaalsJ niw'i 9x1:^ lo ebUiuo 

;ricfi£ixS 3»^a©i>£Joqa©K xrox woile Xl^-r I .p .•llw eld ocJ levo benix;;^ 

j/ox ii^ii iasmii^tit orli lo X505 s 8-t ^a^J" "^-t ^'ox Jias fxns ,1 .oW 

t«f fcwista :f^cr ^d* i;ax ^iQ .i" •^^nalt fA ;#xfl ♦a ^benol^xiefli 

C19V 8BW eil 9&if3»«cf ^fflorf 8«I^iJ nJ*T elri oiJ lav© 9000 at uj i>«Iafi ©lo^J 

:tsd;t bl^a eH ,x^qmO «oI alQaesH edcT "io ioo^a 9riJ ao exfb xsi^oa &d;i 

9d bOB eaJuJlIoq »3xi^^'fcni b%U aJUI 1<> IJU jiiLtJ®^ saw as^trisxiiib a^;. 
sIsaaaH siW to aioo;t3 ads^ fio r^itb &m xs«o« isve^adw ^Taj, 0:) asri be^tflsw 

Xa . ,aob esw ^^sdv.^ .^ ,»liw sin <»X»3»^i afl^^i^M .A V'riad' 

no beiiai* lafL^oitt xai ba& br>ei &n*<f8i^fl \h iiolnw ^<iu maib asw uaqaq 

(tMlcixS aUneiifloqaftfl ^ia^aasoob eifW «ox woda I .9 •X€?i ^^^ "t^ 

SBW iasU -xeqeq »j^ «fiw aiifW -xQiiie^ X»a •* uox iaa I baa ,X .oK 

XiiSiidJBii .riM ♦ * * .siiiiBa-^lB s'^sxi^offi XJW ai eJoiJ ,E9li .A Yfcsnaie 

fcsniJas;? :tnjelXiKiqA «.Qoi;JBfiim»x» aso-xo o^I jr^^iiXXeqqjs lol x^ioHb] 

»oI ©X8S9AH ®ri;t lo ^ooin lo ae-isila £^*t »ii^ a^^^ x^ X^M ao jTiJil* 

i9£i;r»3o;r ^liofl^ eri* ricJiw eaUt^ cTaricf c^fi X«a9^«XXoo as qxj" ©isw Xfl«<Ii»o3 

iil Xia±3i'i9fi©«* »^^ a^'^ »^s ^^^ "iaaiolXoq sonB-maaX elXX elrf xl^Tlw 

:,'£.oda aflc^ b^nwo isHJeI 'X»ri warii «Ie *6fl^ i£;»loiXoq eoimiwexil ©IXX &di 

aB aeXoXXoq ©siSis-arExU: sllX s>di iWlw atasd s£l^ dih^ an eaw ctX eaxisosd 

eaw" ifoo;ta erf* ;J*ii^ ,xXX3«oaaeq ,iroxnI cton bib srie c^bxI:^ ilBiBis^lloc 

lo fi^tBSb sxf:^ tce^la tOBl itaxIJ- bsmssX srfe d\ifcf *' ^linzd erid" rWX-v qu 



-6- 

her father. 

1/Vhether we decide the question involved in this appeal 
solely by interpreting the instrument dated ..ay 22, 1931* or by 
interpreting that instrument in the light of the oral evidence 
as to what transpired at the time of the execution of the instru- 
ment, our decision of the question involved would be the seme, viz., 
that Uilliam Haegele at the time in question divested himself of all 
interest in the stock in question and assigned his interest in the 
stock to his wife. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the plain 
intent of Haegele, We do not deem it necessary to decide whether 
the assignment is legal or equitable in its nature, "The doctrine 
is well settled, that courts of law will recognize and protect the 

rights of the assignee of a chose in action, whether the assignment 

at 
be good^law or in equity only," ( Morris v. Cheney ^ 51 HI* 4-5l> 

454. See, also. Savage v. Gregg ^ I50 111, I6I, 168«) Other cases 
to the same effect might be cited if it were necessary. That pro- 
bate courts have equitable Jurisdiction in matters pertaining to 
the administration of estates, see the opinion of Mr, Justice Wilson 
in In r e Estate of Kinsev^ 26I 111. App. 48l, 487, where the rule 
is stated and cases are cited in support of it. 

In support of her argument that iiaegele, by the instrument 
in question, merely intended to bring about an assignment of the 
stock to appellee in the future, appellant states in her brief: 
"While the stock was SO deposited as collateral, David S. Horwich, 
the trustee for the corporation, proceeded to liquidate its assets 
and to distribute the proceeds. The pro rata portion due on the 
3443 shares deposited as collateral w as paid to Jilliam K. aaeeele 
during his life time , and after his death, the cash accruing was 
paid to Martha Haegele on the theory that the stock had been assigned 
to her by the instrument above set forth including the proceeds of 
insurance on the life of William H. Haegele payable to the corpora- 
tion," (Italics ours.) The alleged fact stated in the italicized 
part of the foregoing is not sustained by the record. Turning to 



,iȣliBl led 
lB9qqfi a,.Mi aJL b&vloval o&l^^aMip stiU^ 9bJL!>&b sir ■xar^effiV 

»oxi9iJ±vo Jjaio otii lo ;txis.J:I oxi<J al iaetawital i&cli :ial.;i»tqi»iril 

XIjs Iq llezmhi jb€^&9Vlb noldigdirp ai salii 9iiJt iB •legftfiH ataillM d-axii 

adj' ni: ,t&9i9;^xi^ aiid b&sv^l&aB baa aoti&tuf: ai 3loo^t^ »tiJ al ii9XBial 

flJtBlq 9ri;t J-^slsij o;^ 9cf foXx/OK seiwieilto bLoA ol' .©'iiiw siri oi 3foo;t8 

leriiadsn &blo&b oi xi&a&eoBa iX «£>•& ioa ob 9v« .0I»s»bK Ic ^ad.tal 

aoiiJoob 9xIT" .aiirJiiG sjx nl sXd*i^iwp» a« iB8«X el oasmrgl^sa 9di 

edt wo&io'i^ ba& 9s±n;^ooo'i IXjbuf w»X lo ed^^ufos *ari:t ,i)©Xrf^o8 XXew al 

d^nsfittialsas 9rid isrictrrir ^aoi:faB ai aaarfo « I9 »«naiaaa ertt lo a-Jrfsli 

tX<^ .XII Xc: T^V9it9ilO .V zlii <M) ",\Xao -f^ii/pe ni 10 v&l\boo^ ecf 

a98B0 lertfO (,8c>X ,X<)X .XXX O^X ^ai^aip .t •agvati ^oaXa ,9»8 .-^^ 

-o'lq ^ioiT .x-uassoea aipw J-1 1i u«oio »<i *Ji^±Ci cTxiSlla eiosfi 9d^ oi 

od^ galnljsd'ioq zi^iisa ai aoiuroJtt'alii/L •XdadXifp* aviiri atiisoo e^acf 

aoaXl?; ©oXdsx/L ,i3i lo iioiatqo oxi;t e©e ^2e;^a^«8 lo not;ts'iizltilabB •rid- 

*Xx/n erl^ ©isiiw ,X8+ »xe> .qqA .XXX Xa£ ,YPffff^4 "^^ ft^l6:^ag a^ nl nX 

.;rx lo dioqqifa ai b9tl9 •ua aesfio fjos b9igi9 al 

;^a»iamJ-Bxil end- x^i ,sX©3»JBti iati^ daamiaiJB lari lo tioqqisz al 

add lo dnectttsXeafi a& iUQ4& aittiel ©;f l>9l)fl9diU •^Xe'teia ,flo±d^a9ijp nl 

:l9li(jr i9ri nl aeiai& ia&ll9q^a ^»'utiisl @sSi al eeXXeqqs at aloode 

^dolwnoH .a JblvaO ,XBi9;tBXXoo aa ba^ Xaoqst 08 bbw aCooda 9d;t sXldW" 

ad9 es edi 9;^si>Xi;plX od fisfeeeooiq ^xjoX^leioqioo 9iU 10I sejaxf^j erid^ 

erid^ flo eub aoliioa uSa'i x^ia odX ,BJt)«90oiq 9d:i 9iudlnialb od" bw& 

BlB^BB^l Al iSBlIIX^ od LX£g E^w Xgiod-fiXXoD ejs bB^liiCQi>b aaaada f-t4£ 

3BW sitlw-xoois dsiio 8iid ^d^BoJ? zlii i9itB baji ^qsl I^vIII aid lAal-wb 

i^^.i^o-aes as9d joBri jCooda ©d^ ^^sd* xioeiid- add no 9X©ie«H Bd^iBli od biaq 

lo aJbeeooiq ©rid ^iiibi/Xani dd 10I ^ae svoda drisistt/ictaxtt ©rid^ yd aari od 

-Bioqaoo 9dd^ od ©Xda^s*! sXesejSlI ,H iaaiXXiV. lo 9III arid no ©oflisixjani 

be5ioiXfi;ti sdi al b9iBiQ &pbJ. bsggXXB adT (.aix/o aoiXB^I) ".xioid 

OCT aninoxxT .Moosi 9il5 xcf baaisd^i'?- on si '^io:;,>iol add- lo disq 



-7- 

the page of the record that appellant cites in support of the 
statement, we find that Horwich testified: "I had to pay over to 
I'dlliam Haegele two dollars per share on the 3^3 shares * * *» 
I paid that to him as a stockholder," It appears from the record, 
however, that Horwich, v.'hen he made the above statement, was referring 
to a time prior to the date of the execution of the instrument in 
question and when he, as trustee, was engaged in liquidating the 
corporation. He testified, as heretofore stated, that the corpora- 
tion was practically liquidated on May 1, 1931, that then "all the 
assets that remained were a few dollars that we were trying to 
collect on the accounts receivable," The instrument in question 
was not signed until May 22, 1931. 

The decision of a motion of appellee to dismiss this appeal 
was reserved to the hearing. The motion will be denied. 

The judgment of the Circuit court of Cook county should 
be and it is affirmed, 

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED* 

Friend, P, J,, and oulllvan, J,, concur* 



od^ lov© liSL, •I'iWe.ejt rfolwioH ;Ji9iI^ ball ew ^:tn©fix©d'Bd^8 

:-.c w*ia Ao 9iiesiii isq eifillob owJ ©legesH axallllW 

^i^'Xuov-^i sJiiJ iwui .'iBhloMoo:) -iJLri o:t d^jsricf 5JtAq I 

Sulii^lon Edw ^da©iasJ.t>»ltf *vo<ifiiJ feiW "I'QBm. ad nsii*. ,iioJtwioH ^ari;t ^ievev/od[ 

ai ^flaiafc>iJ^?.til 9iitf "io aoliii09x& aili lo e^Aft ©xld^ od- loJttq omli » oi 

adi ^i;iabXuill x ' ^uBiBin^f f.B ^sd xiedw ba& aoliBBup 

'-Bi^%oo et^ J-ariv! tfca;tj3;t- i ioIcjqmsxI e£ ^bellliaei sB .flol^tsnoqioo 

aiii ila" ataii j&dj ,it^X ,X %sM no bBiBbUt^ll xLtaotioaiq, bbw nolJ 

iiol:j!i»iip til ia9mjti&iil esriT " « 9ltf;iVi:©09i s^mrooo* eil:f no ioslloo 

,ii^L |S^ "^C^ Ilc^xxu bsoile. ion z&m 

i. .i.-t'^ti .: c aiv- .<ix^:,.uXi. Uv -^yj.i-ti!.,,. i.o ilOlctOJH 6 lo aol&lO&b SlrfT 

,Jb«ifiai5 9Cf IXJw aoi^ois afiO: .golriBWi 9di oi bavii 

. XiiU:0'. - ,- - "o •'■-Loc ;;ir'-'- '^'d" lo ^nwagbi/t •xlT 

.Ti'f.iTn.': ^. ^ •/XxJl'.L bv.^ .,1, ,'i ^.jlJSl'I^ 



41142 ^1 / I 

THE PEOPLE OF THE ^T$ OP IlLINO^ | 
ex rel, CHARLES X U&(^9m» / n 

fpellei, I I 




THE CHICAGO PARK DI^ICT| a 
Municipal Corporation, 

I fAppellanta 



APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR 
Si^^__C0.t5rt?' OF COOK CODKTY* 

307 I.A. 383'*' 



MR* JUSTICE SCANLAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT* 
The People, plaintiff, ex rel, Charles J, MacGowan, 
brought a mandamus suit against the Chicago Park District, a 
municipal corporrtion, defendant, seeking a writ of mandamus 
commanding defendant to pay to relator the sum of $500, which 
he claims is due him as the balance of his salary as superin^ 
tendent of employment of the atest Chicago Park Commissioners for 
the period from July 1, 1932, to April 30, 1933 • After a trial 
by the court judgment was entered ordering that a writ of mandamus 
issue directed to the Board of Coramissioners of the Chicago Park 
District commanding them to meet as the Board of Commissioners 
and to pass such legislation as may be necessary to provide for 
the immediate payment to relator of the sum of $500 and to do any 
and all things which may be necessary to be done to enable relator 
to be paid said sum by defendant. Defendant appeals. 

Plaintiff filed an appearance in this court and after 
defendant had filed its brief we allowed plaintiff, iy)on its motions, 
two extensions of time in which to file its brief, but it failed to 
file one. The able and experienced counsel of the relator has 
apparently abandoned the defense of the Judgment* 

The petition, in substance, alleges the creation of the 
West Chicago Park Cominissionersj the adoption of the Act relating 
to Civil Service in Park Systems and the creation of a Civil 
Service Board of the said Commissioners under said Act; the 
adoption on April 27, I927, by the said commissioners of a 
resolution appointing relator superintendent of employment of 



( I ajowijji i[o iTA^ ■ vn' ',,1 ajqoa<i hht 

( : ^ JUra^^ . no ,Idi X8 

8 8 C .A.I T 8^ .^n,^: ' '"™'-°° ^'"'"^ 

ei/cisbnsffi to d^Jtiw a gnWese ,d^nal)n»lefc ,nolJ ^loqioo laqioiaiaa 
jriolilw 4 00^$ lo flu/e sifd^ lafslQi cJ T^aq o;t iJasfciislob anlbofiaaaoo 

lol aisnoiasiiiUHoO liis'^ o^sotdO tBttH edi^ lo insarcoXqcis lo iaoba9S 

l&lii a led-lA .££^1 40£ IliqA o;t ,2£^I ,i xXi^t moil bojtisq odi 

BUMabatm lo d'Jta.v i; cteiiJ §xii*i8fcio f>ea»;ta» bbw cfnsioabjJt *ix/oo sri^ xcf 

JtOB'i osBOliiO 9di lo aionoleBlaiEtoO lo biaoS 9di oi beio&ilb 9U89.1 

ziBaol5&traiaxiO lo bie,o8. add' ea ^saia o^ ssad;i snlftiiBiutaoo ii^slncfalQ 

lol sbivoiq (xt xncfiseoen 9cf ^b® «s noldslalasi dox/e asBq od ba& 

Xa& ob oS ban 00^$ lo acre edcT lo loiAlQt oi ^tnom^sq sctBlbeisnl edcf 

lo^slen eldsns od snob scf oi yri<iaiieoea etf ^Jan doJtdw agnldd' XI« boa 

,8l£9qqs ci'iuibixeleG •insbneleb ^cf fiitjs blse blaq od od* 

•»;tls bflis Jiuoy ztdi nl ediig-rssqqjs na belli ll±;j£iiflH 

^axioiJoffi a;tl uoqxr ^lllctnlslq bewoIXe sw leiid ei^l beXll bsri cfusbaeldb 

at balisl ;ti: :fi;d tlelid ail sXll oJ dolrivf ni smjtd- lo anolanajxe ovi 

aad ao^fiXei ©xi;t lo Xeamroo b&oneii»qxo briB ©Ida ariT ,«no eXll 

tt^ixaasbjirt ^* ^o saxidleb &AS beaobtiBdA x^^^^'^^<i^ 

9At lo aolinQio edS asssXlB ^©ooad'adjja at ^aolitSeq »xlT 

:galiBlei ;toA &di lo jaold'qobij gdd lattaaoieaiitiiHoO 2fis*I osaoXdO ctasVI 

XlvXO G lo noli^e'io edi ba& atsss;fex^ Jlia*! al eolvio'd, XIvXD od' 

add idoA bXfis isbfuj aisfloXaalnBaoO blsa ©rid lo biaoS oolvnsa 

a lo Eienolaelmmoo bl^a 9dd xd ,\S^I ^^S IXiqA no noXdqoba 

lo dnscrjolqins lo dn!r:tb«3dn±i9qj:;B loi&l&i anldnXoqqa nolivlozti 



-3- 

the Board of West Chicago Park Commissioners for a period of six 
years at an annual salary of $6,000 j the assumption of the duties 
of the position by relator on April 23, 1927; the adoption of a 
resolution on June 30, 1932, by said commissioners directing the 
Civil Service Board to place in effect on July 1, 193^> a 7/age 
reduction of approximately ten per cent as to all employees except 
certain union employees whose wages had been previously reduced 
in the same proportion; that as a result of the said adoption 
relator's salary was reduced ten per cent for the period from July 
1, 1932, to I'prll 30, 1933; that the West Chicago Park Commissioners 
did not pay relator his salary as provided in the resolution 
appointing him and that on April 30, 1933* they owed him $500, 
The petition then alleges the creation of the Chicago Park District 
and Its coming into legal existence on May 1, 19 34-; alleges that 
relator requested the comLaissioners of the Chicago Park District 
to pay him the alleged balance due on his salary £ind their refusal 
to do so; alleges that as said superintendent relator was a municipal 
officer within the meaning of Section 11, Article 9, of the Illinois 

Constitution of I870, and that his salary could not be reduced during 

a 
his term of office; that he harvested and property right in the 

seme of vrftiich he was unlawfully and arbitrarily deprived by the 

unlawful act of the commissioners of West Chicago Park District; 

that the Chicago Park District has now and always had sufficient 

available funds out of which to pay relator. 

The amended answer of defendant, Chicago Park District, is 

a lengthy one, but in our view of this appeal it is only necessary 

to refer to the parts of the answer wherein laches and estoppel 

are raised. The answer alleges that relator is guilty of laches; 

that he accepted the reduced salary from July 1, 1932, to April 

30, 1933* without protest, took no action against the West Chicago 

Park Commissioners to restore the salary; permitted saidcommissioners 

to go out of existence May 1, 1934-* without making any demand on 

them or taking any action in reference to the salary; that after the 



xl8 lo toJtioq 6 lot aionolaaiauBoO iijo^ ossolrlO ^8^ lo bisoE 9di 

^•lissti orU' lo aotiqtmBfi& 9tii ^OOO^d^ lo x'^-^^e iBUnna ob is srt&ex 

£ lo aoliqobB Qdi j^S^I ^8S XliqA no io;fi8l©:i Xcf nol;fiaoq axtt lo 

©fid' ifiWosilfc ai©floJ:s3iflaBoo btus \d \tl^l ,0£ e«x/X no aoltvLoz9i 

©Sjsw s ^S^^I ,£ xXtf^ no *osll& ni »ojBlq oi biMoQ •olri»a XlrlO 

:tq:»»3C© eo©toI^a!s ^-^^ o^ bjs iJneo isq ns;i" xle^awlxoiqqjs lo aoJ:;JojaJb©T: 

beoisbei \Lzsjol.VQ^q fldstf fesff asaow eeodw af*«xoXQBr9 nolnrr fliB^'ieo 

liol;>'^qof>£ bXo& ff£ii lo cMxrest « aa i&tU ;aoJL;taoqoiq maaa edi al 

XliJi Bsoil b&Xif<i »xiJ "xol ;Jnfto leq ns;t beoifboi eair x^-^^e &'ioi&l9i 

BienoI&aliEaBDO jlia^ og-aolilO de©W eri;t i^Brid l£.£?X tO£ IJtiq/i oJ ^St^I *X 

aolixrX^ssn &fU xU &9£^tvonq e^ xii^Xisa sJUl 'io;ffiX9a X^ ^on bib 

■ ' t, ' • 

,00^^ old fcswo x^J «£.tQX **^ IXiqii no d-ttftit ijaa inlxl gxiX^Aioqqa 

^oJtiJaiG 3t*is^ oaaolrlO arid Ip xxoidseio sdi Z9^»LL& aerfd ssolitisq «xtl 

darid 8©2©XIb '^^t^X «X X^^l ^o ooxi5d-Ejbcj> XagsX oial axtlxuoo adl f>xi6 

dolidsiC aixs^ oasx>ixtO arid lo si^xiolaBiiOBoo ©rid fcsdaeijpen nodeXsi 

Xjaax/lsi T;l9rid bOB xi<iLis aJLri no axxf) noaBlAd fceaeXIa erii mlri x«<I o* 

Uqlolruim s ai^w ^ojbXs'x .iaf^baBiattecitm JoIjsc sb dfiild aejisXXfi ^oe ob od 

aXoaiXII orid lo ,? BlolitA ,XX floldssB lo ;^£ilna9aL arid nJxtdXw lOoXllo 

Sxx-tix/b fjeojjbsi otf don fcXi;foo \zsil^z alri darid iwifl »0^8X lo coldii/dlJanoO 

arid ni dri^li x-^i^QO"!^ ^a bsdaevV^Bxf »ri darid' j&oillo lo a:aed aJtri 

9si^ \<i bsYliqab x-tixaadldis bna \lliftwBLau asw sri riolriw lo aaiua 

jdolidalG 2tis*I os^oiriO d«s*' lo a^enolsaiaoaoo srid lo doa XjJlwBlnu 

dneloillwa bcri e^awXa ban won &Bd doladaJtQ aioe^ osaoiflO arid daxld' 

.sodBXei XJsq od rioXriw lo dwo ebnul elcffillsva 

ai ,doJtidE xc. .. .„ . u^BoXriO ^daaJinslsb lo newanB bebnssiB eriT 

X^saasoen xXno ai it XBsqqjs aXrid lo iSfsXv luo nX dircf jsno T^dgneX « 

Xeqqodae bwa asriofiX atsiodif iswanfi arid lo adisq ©rid od lel&i od 

iasrioaX lo x^^li/jj ai lOdsXen dsrid eegaXXa aewafljs ex£T .fiaaXea sia 

XXiqA od »S£^X ^X \JmI iaoil X'laXBa beowbei ©rid^ bedqecoa ©ri darid 

ogaolriO daoM arid danXsafi noldoB on atood ^deadoaq di/oridXw ^££^X tO£ 

aienoiEaXflaooobXjsa beddlai'isq txi^X^s ®^ siodaei od aasfloXeaXJuatoO ^iial 

no bnsmsb xns gnXafisxa diroridXw ,K?I «I xbU sanodaXx© "io .^uo o§ od 

arid i©jl6 dcri^ ixisJ^ttS ®rf* od oon^ielsn nX noldoa ^njs snXaLsd lo iasrid 



-> 

Chicago Park District came into existence on k:ay 1, 19 S-** relator 
waited until June 30, 1937# £ period of three years, before filing 
this petition, and waited until Movember 30, 1937» before he caused 
summons to be issued; alleges that the petition sets forth no 
facts excusing failure to file the petition earlier or justifying 
the delay; alleges that since the occurrences in question the ms% 
Chicago Park Commissioners ceased to exist and were superseded by 
the Chicago Park District; that payment of the money claimed v>?ould 
create confusion and disorder and disarrange public service by reason 
of delay, lapse of years and change of circumstances; that conditions 
existing in 1933 in reference to the corporate structure of the West 
Chicago Park Comniissioners have ceased to exist; that the action 
requested v;ould cause confusion in the handling of funds of the 
Chicago Park District; that no demand was made by relator upon 
defendant prior to the filing of the petition; that no facts are 
alleged showing a legal duty of defendant to perform the acts sought 
to be performed nor by whom the acts requested should be performed 
and whether such acts can be legally performed by such persons; that 
defendant lias no funds in its possession from TivMch relator can be 
legally paid; that relator voluntarily accepted the reduced salary 
during the period in question and by his action he waived his right 
to said additional amount; that the resolution of June 30, 1932, by 
the Y/est Chicago Park Commissioners requested and did not direct 
the Civil Service Board to put said wage reduction into effect; that 
relator was a member of the said Civil Service Board and its secre- 
tary; that at a meeting of the said board held on July 28, 1932, at 
which relator was present and acted as secretary, the letter from 
the commissioners and the resolution adopted by the commissioners 
requesting the wage reduction was read and the members of the said 
board, including relator, voted to enforce and put into effect the 
reduction as requested, and directed relator as superintendent of 
employment to put said policy into effect; that relator, as said 
superintendent, put said policy into effect, reducing the pay of 



^alXll sio'iscf ^iirm©^ aoirfi to ^Jtrtaof c ^^^I ,0£ mml, IJWixu be^JL^w 
on iL^iGl e^s»e aoJi^lJ'eq ftd^ iesU ti^^^LlB (£>e£reel scf oo sjuuoBVJt 

YcJ £>6£)3£73qi;e erxe^r ban izlx.9 o^ ty^z&eo e^sinoleElooaoO i-isyi o^vtxiO 

bSjJO\i b»anlBlo x&sxoBi &siS lo :r£i»iixdq ;t&di {ioliiulQ. iial «s«i>JbEO flgd^ 

os&s'z -^icf 3>olv%&k olidvq, B^a&iihS.lb bssA iBbioiiilb bas> aoleiilnoo 9;tm9^« 

&ixol2lbsivo iad^ iseoa&isiBStt>ilo to symAo baa iiBV^ lo Of.qsX (Xjslst lo 

ifteifS Btii lo &'Uiiov%49 ^iBiOfi'xo9 etii oj eonaTtelst al ££?! fll :^ti!^lx» 

aoliOB S£ii :iBdJ {i&tx& o$ be&»90 Brsti. B%&aQl&&tmtoO IibI o^jevoijld 

ttH lo abnjifi lo -^aJtSbnm odi aX aol&ulaeo BSkn^ blu&t, ^eiaex/pti 

aoqfj ixit.^lei \^ ebAm esw ba»a9b oa i^jii i^oXii&tQ iial a^x>XdO 

e'^ e^^oEl oa i^i \a0liti9q, 9di 1q gjilli'l etii oi icliq ;tru3^elȣ> 

l>9»<xolieq &(/ §JLbroii& t>&Jadi!pea s^oii siii «odw x<^ '^(>o^ bQixiotiwi o«f o^ 

;}^i3fUt laaoaitq doua x^ Jbetatol^^q XXIb89X •d aS9 «Joa xto&e aec[;t«xiw ftsw 

9Ki 1166 ^o<t£sIi9^ 4di4iAr soil ooJtsesatoq til aX Qbasfl oa ead ia&baBteb 

XtAlss, b90ub9i Hij botqBoos yJHiBirwlov •jo^«I«»i *i8ii* {btaq \LL&'g6l 

id^l^ aid btPrXsif 9si aet^oa ^Xd y,ti bn& aoX:iu9isp aX boXT.9q adi :iaX'wb 

Xfi t^t^l «0^ &aul lo aoXivloQU'i acicr iad:i {iauoam l&aoX^XbbB bXae oJ* 

ioQ-xlb joa bXJp ba» b^i^mipsi t^siioXBsXmiQO XibI os^oIciO iaeif! 9di 

iiidii {iosVie odaX aoXioabtii »saw bX$s :issq oi biaoE ©oIvtcsS XJtvlO 9di 

-flLOfe 6iX bas bi^oH solvtefc XJtviO bXan BdS to isdiasm & sen lo^eXai 

t» «^£^X «8£ xXf/X. no bl&d b'Vi><d4 bX9& enU' lo s^lie»is a ;tA J.^ixfJ' ;^ils^ 

iKo::! is;^d-©X 9ilj ^xiJad^®^»«a sa Jbe;JoB fins cfneeoiq aisw ioJ-bXsi iloixfwr 

s^enoXssiiiiiiHQo oxi^ -"^a b&^qabs aoX:iuloa9'X mii baa 3,ioaoli&3wsioo »di 

bXss 9di lo srxodi{i9ifi Bdjj: bnn baei saw nol^oxiJbs^ egBW erij- aal^esxjpoi 

ari;f cJ^oalle oJflJt iaq boM so'iola* o^ 5»Jov ,noijBl0"x axilfci-'XoxiJt ^bi40<f 

lo ;fi38£it{te;;^xiJ:-4eqjj3 s& 10^3X91 Jbectoeilf) &aB ^bo^feexfp&'s sb ixol^oj:(j^«'x 

bi^B eji jiod-aXei isd^i ^Jfaslla ocJ'nt x^i-^®*? ^•^* **■<! o^ (tnsancoXqmo 

lo xfil odi 8£iloj(fL©n ^d^osll© o;^flX xo-tXoq bX&a ^uq ^ia&baoiaXi&iii& 



all employees, including relator, ten per cent; that during the 
period from July 1, 1932, to April 30, 1933, relator certified the 
pay rolls as to correctness, as required by the provisions of the 
Civil Service Act, shovdng the salaries of all employees, including 
his salary, in the amounts so reduced, and he certified to the 
correctness of the pay rolls in said amounts, 

A number of points are made and strenuously argued by 
defendant in support of its contention that the judgment of the 
trial court should be reversed, but in oar view of this appeal it 
is only necessary to consider two of the points: (1) "The plain- 
tiff is guilty of such laches as bars Ms right to the relief 
sought." (2) "The plaintiff is estopped by his own action from 
claiming the monies alleged to be due him." These two points 
are so clearly meritorious that it is not difficult to understand 
why the relator abandoned the defense of the judgment. 

The West Chicago Park Commissioners ceased to exist on 
April 30, 1934, and on May 1, 1934, the Chicago Park District came 
into existence. On April 28, 1927, the West Chicago Park Commis- 
sioners appointed relator superintendent of employment of said 
commissioners for a period of six years, at a salary of $6,000 
per year. The Civil Service Board of the said commissioners con- 
sisted of one James, who was also a Park Commissioner and president 
of the board j one Roehler, also a Park Commissioner, and relator. 
Relator was secretary of the Civil Service Board, On June 30, 1932, 
because of the great depression and the conditions resulting there- 
from, and in the interest of economy, the commissioners of the 

Park 
V^est Chicago/ District passed a resolution requesting the said Civil 

Service Board to reduce the pay of all officers and employees ten 

per cent. On July 28, 1932, at a special meeting of the Civil 

Service Board, wliich was attended by James and relator, a resolution 

was presented to the said board reducing the pay of all officers 

and employees ten per cent, except in the case of certain union 

employees, who had had their pay previously reduced, James and 



wl5 -ioliui: iBiij (jflso a»q oBi ^la^nXsi ^aXbuLoaX ,a9exoIqci 
exi;^ belllsiBt) rro^alsi ^ti^l ,0£ llnqA o:: , " ^ ," ■■■.Lu\ aoil boii -i^ 
Qycfi^ lo a/ioleivoiq »ri(t i:tf AenJLjjpe? ba ^aa-iuyji.u o^ za elXoi x^l 
SixlLtuIoxil (S&exolqiae lis to B«i:?»Iii8 odi ^Iwoile «;}oA oolvi»c IlviO 

. i^tru/oxBs £>lfi8 nl aXIoi \b<i srfd' lo 8iexr;Jo9Tioo 

it lBsqq.6 p ".r.i •rn w©±v 'ivo nl jcrf ,beaieven »d blaoriK d^iiroo Ialrt;t 

"i.*x.:I.i oni'" ,_, lect^nloq atit lo owd^ rrofcianoo o;{ x'ifiBESosn xIao al 

l&llei aiiJ od^ iilglic sin £i«cf ae asdosl dox/a lo x^Iius al 111:^ 

BOfil iioiioii owe fcM x^^acf^o^a^ al lllixxlalq wft" (S) ♦'.d'xl3i:;og 

bsuiiti&bsw oi cfJjj'i^xTllb ion si :fi: i&di zutilioi lT.9ai xiia^Lv oe sia 

^iamsgbui Qxii lo s&nolel) oii^ benotasefs ao^slstt dnJ' x^^w 

no izixB oJ^ rj02Bfco ^leno-caaxfliHoC' :ia8*i ogBOlriO ^e«W silT 

saiijo cfD±i^6iG TLne,^ oajsoJxiO ado' ,^^I ,1 yjsM no fin* ^H?-t tO£ Llnaik 

-alaaooO iLibI ©asoiriO *e«fB adcT ,^£^1 ,8S IJtiqA nO .eon©;lElxe aJnl 

51^8 lo :fn&iaxoIqia& lo ineba^iaLiQquz lafal^l feed'nJtoqqe aisnola 

000^^$ lo -^iaIrz fi :J^3 tSiBSX rle lo iiolis-q « a©l «a9nolealfiaaoo 

-jaou E"i©xioiaEi:ffimoo biija e>rl« lo bisofi eolvieS IlvlO siiT ,XBe\ Tcaq 

;''n&fij:e:9iq £»ia aenolesJtcuiioO iLimH. & o&Xb smt odv ^eams'L sno lo fiod'ala 

«'X0^j3l»? £ttXB ^laaoisaliUEBoO 3i'XBl £ o&Ia ^isIdsoH eno ^brmocf srl;t lo 

*S£^X tO£ sfu;t nO .MaoQ soivisS IlrvlO srC^ lo ^isiiB^oeh aaw 'xo;^i3l9H 

-o'led;}' sfll^tluas'i anojtcMJbnoo atld- ijoa nolaasiqeb ;rB97S 9di lo aaxiijoscf 

0d;t lo aisnoiealjaaos ©dJ- 4X«*ojQoos lo itasis^nl ddJ xii Iihb ^uioil 

XlvlO f)±ae edd' gnld'asjjpei; floi;JxJloa9i s bsaesq d'0liJ'3±0\o3j30ld0 d"a9VJ 

n®;f as»x®-^1^® ^^^ ansolllo LLb, lo xmi edt soijfcei otf fiiaoH eoJtvnsS 

livlO odJ lo sfllcfseia Ifiloaqa a iB tS£^I ,8£ xlxfl nO ,ia9t) i&q 

noldiJloasa s ^loi&lBt bOA SMUl Tjrf befmsJ-^ta aaw dpidw ,r)'iaoa ©oZvxeb 

81901110 lis lo XJsq sdct aaioxfbat bijsotf bJbse adl;)- o;^ be^fnsasiq aaw 

noloxf al^iifio lo eeao sdS n± *q©ox9 ^;Jiiso isq ae^ t99\olqsns bOM 

ba& eeatet* .beoubsi xXsx/olvsnq x*? alwW bad bad odw laesxolqma 



-5^ 

relator voted in favor of the resolution and it was passed. The 
resolution also directed relator, as superintendent of employment, 
to put the salary reduction into effect. The minutes of this 
meeting are signed by relator as secretary and upon the ?/itness 
stand he admitted the correctness of the minutes. After the said 
special meeting relator proceeded to carry the resolution into effect 
and directed the department heads to reduce the pay of all employees 
ten per cent. Relator vias head of the Civil Service Department and 
in such capacity reduced the salaries of all persons in his depart- 
ment, including his own, ten per cent. He received and accepted 
salary checks in the reduced amount for the balance of the period 
of his appointment, viz., from July 1, 1932, to April 30, 1933. 
On each salary check was a statement to the effect that the check 
was payment in full for salary up to and including the date specified 
on the check. Relator accepted the checks in payment of his salary 
and Indorsed and cached them. In accordance with the requirements 
of the Act relating to Civil Service in Park Systems he certified 
to the correctness of the pay rolls of the Park District, which pay 
rolls included his own salary in the reduced amount. The instant 
suit was not filed until June 30, 1937^ which was three years and 
two months after the Vnest Chicago Park Commissioners had ceased to 
exist, juring the period in question relator took no legal action 
in regard to Iiis pay. It would be difficult to imagine a stronger 
case of laches and estoppel against a relator than is present in 
the instant suit, l/e have heretofore passed upon several cases 
(People ez rel. Mulvey y. City of Cliicaeo, 292 111. App, 589 J 
Anderson v. Sanitary Dist. of GhicagOf 304 111. App. 259, abstract 
opinion) in which we held that the demands made upon certain 
municipal corporations were so unconscionable in their nature that 
the issuance of the viTit of mandamus would work a grave injustice 
to the said corporations. In our opinion the instant claim is 
far more unconscionable than were the claims in the Mulvey and 

Anderson ca se s • 

The judgment of the Superior court of Cook county is reversed, 

JUDGMENT REVERSED ♦ 
Friend, P. J,, and Sullivan, J., concur* 



S£lT .J3«R83(j 8J5W ol fiui! xioiJifioKf-fi «;ij lo iovaI xii Jb»;tov UOoJBI©*! 

zldS to Qsimiim. ©r£T ,399Vis> oial tiisliittfb^i \rf«Ia2 exl^ iuq oi 
zsimSiyr ©«:»• xioqif ban \i&i9tt>®s, aa uoiiils's •^a b&n^ls 9i» siild'e»fli 

:'":'i:3 cx^ni floi;J^xjXo89i arid" X'S-SdO oif i>»6e»#«i£q aocJelei 3fll;t*©ia laldeqe 

<.s.r^oXqifi© 1L& 1o xsq &A<^ B9abo*L ©^ 8fe«s«l *H«ttcrr£«q»fe ©d;? bsd'oeiUb bus 

has fa&as:iri3(i9(l »olv*i©e Xlv.tO &tii lo ftasri asw i©.t»l®li ^iaso aeq iwd' 

-:^'seQ;o6 ejxi at aaoBieq Ila "io ealijilse «£fl bsoi/fo^i- \<flofiq*ie iloct fll 

boXi&q, &tti 1c »oaB£»<S eiUr io1 SauoiSB b^^ssb^n edt at eateedo -^o&lBa 
•££^-i <0£ X±nqA 04 ,i;£.^I ,1 xUrt. «>^ ^.sJtv ,ctn©«cralo(jqs tJtri lo 

ij;isIjs8 eld lo d^itfiitficfiQ al a:jl©©£{0 ©ifcf £©tq90d« rc^i-Blofi .afosxio ori^ no 

s;tndn»^ijup£^ erl^ if^Jrw •9a£i}<sooo<3 nl .AMt^ tedaao baa bseiobni bas 

beilld-ieo srf siie^aTffc rf^js^ xii: •oi:v^9G lirlD o^ gni^sXisi ^o>. »ri^ to 

ijsq rioM«fr jd-o±i^s±G iie^ »tl:t to elXei X»<! »^ **<> aeea;fosi'xoo siiJ o;t 

;txiBteiLt »dJ .ifiufoias beoabPt »sii nl X's^'-Ij^ ^ew© eirf fSBbviod elloi 

ban 2;^aQ\ ©s«ald' sb* rioiilw .S^i^I ^0£ entfV IX^jtw b€>IXt *oa esw dr±i;a 

oi S08JBS3 frjsri fiisnolealBiffioC i(is^ ogBulrfCV &H9ii 0tSi ^ftvtts ad^i«>xa ow^ 

aal:^os Ies©X on afoo^ 'loJ-aXsi riold-aei/p 01 bolioq sdtf sniiJUv .ctelxe 

is3i30T:t2 « enJtjBial o;f *X»ol^tlt! »cJ &Xi;ow il ,x&<i zhi o;J bisasi ni 

ul ^«9«9iq 8x nsrf;^ io*aXoit £ i&ati&^» X9qqod'et> feOB aarioBi to aaao 

8S€ao Isr£9v&8 HoqiT b^pr^jsq OTE&lod-»«i^ afvsfl *v.f ,^lire iasS&al Qdi 

•t^Bc .qqA ,XIX SPS , ^oaAOMO to Ytl3 .V '^Bvis^i .lai xg a^Xgoe'?) 

i'OjBi^fads t^^S ,qqA .XXI -^0^ ^ oasoxjIC to .j-elQ Yxs iliiis^ fV aofi^gfccA 

nlstis-o jToqif sfeaa aJbiuaaiei) oxtf ;J«ri;^ Wsif »w rioldw g1 (xioliiiqo 

3'fiil;t ©iwJ'sfl tlexf^t nl dldaftolsanooxu? oe Miew axial^s^oqioo Xsqiox£u;ffl 

®oi[?3Ut«l ©vsris £ 2£iow felCfow 8!imtiB&t{«ai lo ;Jl*i«- «ri;J to oonajt/aajt ari;^ 

ai istljeXo Jxisd-aal sdi nolnlqo luo al .anolc^Bnoqieo feijas ©iW oi 

fens YgvXXi'l add- fll aaisXo 9di &tm asdt aXdBnoloeaocjea' etoia list 

, « ©a fiS Jigsi^MA 
.^eeisvei e1 xSavoo 3I00O to ^iwoo noiioqxfS edi lo ;tii€>iag0X«t «fi^? 

^'wroxjoo <,L ^xiBVlXXi/a finB ^.t .*i ^Melil 



41290 

GEORGE J, aCHMELZP^ / /'" ) 





y APPEii|f FROH^JpflCIPAL ^ 



THOMAS J. KELLEY, / /^ / ) I X -r^^lT^ T* O /I 
A/peUagjU^''' ) QIQ^ I.A. OO'i 

MR, JUSTICE SCAJILM DSLIVERED THE OPINION OP THE COURT, 

Plaintiff filed an action of forcible detainer against 
defendant. The case was tried by the court without a Jury and 
there was a finding that defendant was g^lty of unlawfully with- 
holding from plaintiff the possession of the premises and that the 
right to the possession of the premises was in plaintiff. Defendant 
appeals from a judgment entered upon the finding. 

Defendant obtained possession of the premises tuider a 
\witten lease dated December 14, 1938, for a term of one year 
beginning January 1, 1939, and ending December 31, 1939, at a 
rental of $25 per month from January 1 to iiarch 31, and $^0 per 
month from April 1 to December 31, 1939 • Tl»» premises consist of 
certain vacant lots, and the lease provides that they were to be 
occupied by defendant for the sale of used automobiles, 

V/e do not often find an appeal so devoid of merit as the 
instant one. Defendant's counsel constantly objected to questions 
put by plaintiff's attorney, and it was difficult to obtain from 
defendant's covinsel the theory of the defense. After a cai*eful 
reading of the transcript of the evidence we find that deferidant's 
counsel made two points in support of his contention that there 
should be a finding for defendant. The first was that the written 
lease between the parties was not admissible because it violated the 
statute of frauds. There was not the slightest merit in the point 
aad it has xiot been urged in this court. The second point urged was 
that plaintiff's evidence showed that a hold-over tenancy had been 
created in favor of defendant. That point was also witliout the 



'■V, 




^81] ,A.l t^'Og ^ .^mllc^i 



. ., aoHoao 



."•rmoo SET w 5Eor?r!o srat ©inivijiia mjhaos aoiiftia .hm 

tftcijn&lt^t v''*^■^ftiaIq ni esw zmstm»%q adi ^o coleaoceoq arf* at ;td8J:i 

rreq 0^$ bae ,I£ ifon^M o^ X ^laund^ taoiTi tUaoa n»i (5fi$ lo laia»i 

lo cfaXsiioo BfisJbasiq ariT .^£^1 ,I£ n»<aar«09G ckT I IlttqA aioil j»aoxa 

e«f at &itfw x^t^f ^sait eafitvofq »««sX a«W^ fia* ^sloX .^xxasay aJtBCtaao 

,8eXJtcfo£K»d-x/f3 ^©aif lo ©Xsa «ri# -rol *tt6fi«»l9fc xcf i)«lqwooo 

ad,t as *l*X9fl[ lo fcloTefc oa Xadq^ia na fenll ii?»tlo *on o& e^v 

aacWeojjp oi fc»;to©ttfo xli^'-^^a&o Is^axroo e'iiialjnslea .aao ^nai'aiil 

ODil aLi^do 03- ;rXir!>llll& eisw #1 fcjis ^'^Ofl'itoJctd s'lll^nlalq x^ ^^f^ 

iJBlotao a i9;HA ,o«n«le6 ©rid" lo ^loaiftt «£;f laamtoo &*iaBi)aBj,9b 

a«^nAbflal9b iBfI;f 5ni:l »w doaa&jtv* ©^ lo iqii^^aBii «i.';J lo Sfl-ti>^9" 

9t»ti$ ^&dS aol^neSiiOo 8M lo Sionqaz at e^xiloq ow;r 9bMi l99JUfoo 

ao^itTif 9di ;fBilif aiw in'^t'l ?it^ nin&baotsb rtol Siitfeail a 9d blsfode 

3K£* fcstftXoXv *± esirsosn^ »Xdtasii*» ^on eAw sai^riJfq &sii a^mtf^d 98«eX 

iTnloq sdkr kl'tliBa ieaiff'sXXs »i» ^oct saw a««irfT .afeifstl lo e^jy^ta^te 

asw Jb»3itr ^tnJroq Janoodft atfiP ,#iLt;oo aJtrit fii fosarri; aestf ioo tad ^X l«ni5 

aootf feari \attfifl©^ levo-ftlod a ^iadct ftsMwarti; ooaefjJrve a»ll±;^fLtaIq^Brii 

««fct ^JifocUi-w 08X.9 aaw ;rxxloq ;r^T ,;J'iia&n9l»l) lo loval nX ba^Taais 



-2- 

slightest merit and has not been urged here. Defendant, after he 
had been served, on December 3 or 4, 1939, with a notice to vacate, 
attempted to create a hold-over tenancy by mailing to plaintiff a 
check on which he had indorsed: "Payment for rent of lot at 474-7 
W Madison St for month of January 1940," but plaintiff refused to 
accept the check and immediately returned it by registered mail to 
defendant. Defendant refused to receive the registered letter and 
it was returned by the post-office department to the sender, plain- 
tiff. In the trial court, defendant's counsel, in support of his 
argument that a hold-over tenancy had been created, made the far- 
fetched point that plaintiff had failed to tender to defendant in 
open court the check and therefore a hold-over tenancy had been 
created. Defendant in this court contends: (1) "\vhere premises 
liave been leased to a prospective tenant, who is unable to obtain 
possession by reason of a former tenant holding over after his term 
expired, the right to maintain the action vests in the new tenant 
alone," and (2) that it was "incumbent on the plaintiff to prove 
that the defendant was in actual possession of the premises at the 
time the suit was instituted," Neither of these points was urged 
or presented in the trial court and under tihe settled rule they 
cannot be raised here for the first time. We may say, however, that 
there is no merit in either point. There was no evidence that a 
lease was ever made by plaintiff to a prospective tenant. The only 
basis for point (1) is the testimony of defendant that in 1940 he 
called up the home telephone of plaintiff and plaintiff's wife told 
him that they had rented the place, in Kovember, to someone else, 
and that on December 3 or 4, 1939, plaintiff told him that he had 
rented the place to someone else. The burden of proof was on 
defendant to show that someone other than plaintiff was entitled to 
the possession of the pr emises at the time of the comme ncem ep.t of 
this action, and his testimony utterly fails in that regard. As 
plaintiff argues, even if this testimony of defendant were believed, 
and if it were assumed that plaintiff had rented the premises to 



r 

fid i&ila ^ioAbas'i.^Q .dnerf b@s^u; as)9d ^oa eaxi ban ilism. ^ee^xislle 

,9;tisOBV o;J solion ju xij-lw ,^£^1 ,-^ "xo £ iscfxasoeG no ,i)oviea xx»8cf £>i5Xl 

s l'll;lnxBlq o.?- -^alllxits x<S xoaBii»:i isvo-blori a si^si^ oi b9iqis9itA 

^■t'S^ J 5- ioL lo ^jaei riot o^naisc^s^'' ibstjioMJt bssi ari xloJUiw no Aoeti'j 

oi b9BJJl9i Itiialalq imi ** ^0^:l xiouob'^ 1o diaom 'lol iZ siOaibA^ ,W 

od" Ilsflt Jb9^»*8l8»'!£ \tf ;J1 bsnruj-it ©'i \I©;fijit>aiaMi: fins lisdxio ^rW ;^q«oo« 

-niaiq j-xsmioB 9ri;t od ineuajiaqeti »ai'i'io-;^«©<f saW x«( beavuiiQi. e««r ;tl 
aM lo iJioqciX/a al ,I»ani;oo a»Jn^n©'iaii ,d'x«oo liilmi &di al ,Vlli 

al ia-sbn^lQb oi i^fen©^ oJ^ 5911 ©1 biui til^tiX&lii iatii J^jaUtoq bswiod'ol 

nsoQ b;^ xon&nd^t leiTo-bXoii & oiol&a&cij toM iloeiio djcU i'luoa nsqo 

8»al«oiq ©lad^y" (X) : aiia-J^noo ^tijuoc aiii^ nl ^aBi)n9l»G .bad^BSty 

niBCtdo at sldsnu el odw ^,tnjs«e;t ©vi^ydqaoiq a o.:f bQinQl. nsed 0*7^ 

ini9;f al;fl •isila aavo gnlbloxi ;txi£ae;t leasnol a lo nocjaea -^d nolaasiiaoq 

ioBa&i wsn wl^ nl ed^sev tiolioz &(ii alA:^Bl»m oi Jfdsli &jii ,l>»rxlQx« 

©voiq oct lllctnliilq Siii no crnadautfOfll" aa* ^l ^ati^i (i) bmi '\3flolJi 

ail;^ ia edela^'iq siicl lo fiolssdssoq l9tiio& ul a^tf ^njsl>a»ls& »il^ iitsii 

bagaw aew actnioq, suartJ' lo lOiiJxoM ".ije^Jw^lJaal sjbw ;^li/a 9tii »ed.ii 

\Qdi elisi b&Lii9a «Lrf»J lebaa baa i%iiou Lali:i stU al baofnsaeiq ^o 

iMij ,iev9woxl 4X«8 \;sffi sfi ,©ialxl ,teTll qjH 'lol s-isxi beeljei scf jooxibo 

3 ^ficW sonsblvo on saw ©lOiil .J-nloq aani^l© ni ji'isffi on el aisxi^ 

Xlno sflT ,;tmin9;J ©viJ^oaqsciq b o;J lllJnlsIq Tjd ©baa -xsv© euw eaasl 

6^ Q^^X o-t ^i3il4^ J-nebnelob lo xaosulszei sxW al (X) *tnloq lol alaad 

bXoi ©llw <; • 111-^nlsXq boA llUnliiXq lo ©lOOiiqsXs;? s&iui adi qu bell&o 

^saX© ©nosiooE o:i ^ledisevoa al ^©osXq edi ba^nai bjad Tj^ri;^ i&iU mhi 

bM ©ri *j8il;J alii bLai IliliiiXASjn ,?£.^X ^^ -jc £ lecfmso&G no iJarfd^ bna 

no aav lootq lo ixsbxod ©itil .©eis anosiaoa o;t eo^iXq edi boiae'i 

^ b9XJ-l;|-a9 8£w lllcirnlBXq si&di ts^iHo lu ^ p f mi^ SBii) woxia oi iaabaB'l&b 

tp ctne isssflsaaRo.o Bt H lo ©ial J' ©4.^ i^ 8©alM3.'iq, syicj- lo nolaaeaa Rg aifcT 

«A ♦bisssi cf.^ nl sXlftl xli^:^^!! xaosaU&o^ eXd ba& mSjoIjob ^Mi 

^bSYdlXad 9*t9w ia&baBl^b lo "^nocil^ae;}^ alri^ 11 nsv© ^zev^is llUnifiXq 

oJ aselxasiq 8x1;^ beJ-nei b^ lll;tnlsXq ;t6xW baiowsaB ©^ew Jl 11 bn© 



-> 

someone other the.n defendant, such tenancy night he.ve coioiaenced 
at a later period than the time of the comaienceiaent of this action. 
The trial court, in view of the character of the defense, might 
well have refused to believe this testimony of defendant. His 
attempt to create a hold-over tenancy after he hr;d been served with 
a notice to vacate tends to show that he would resort to any exped- 
ient to hold possession of the premises. Point (2) is a bold con- 
tention, in vie?/ of the fact that defendant *s counsel, in the trial 
court, argued that defendant was a hold-over tenant. Furthermore, 
defendant took the stand in his own behalf and his able and adroit 
counsel failed to ask him a single question on the subject as to 
who was in possession of the premises at the time of the commence- 
ment of the suit, or at the time of the trial. As plain tllT's 
counsel argues, the manner in which this suit has been fought is 
a strong circumstance tending to show that defendant is still in 
possession. As the trial court stated, the defendant v;ould not be 
defending the suit if he were not in possession of the premises. 

The defense to plaintiff's suit has been a technical one 
from the start of the proceedings. There is no merit in this appeal 
and the Judgment of the Municipal court of Chicago is affirmed, 

JUDGMErvT AFFIRMED. 

Friend, P, J,, and Sullivan, J,, concur» 



taolioa eiult to ^^aBaeoaomLoo ejrfd- to Bal;i 9rf.t tuuD bolrisq is^aX a ^ts 

;)'iliiat ^ssae'isp s^sii lo is^neiBrfo eri;^ to wslv nl ^cfruioo XjBli;t ©ilT 

siB ,i^xx»bii<>1t9b lo xnpiaiie©* aZricf 9v»llscf o;f bsairlsi »vsr( II«w 

jcWJtw beviea a&9<f bad ari ^©i^la YWi»«3it levo-bXod a sizaio oi iqmeits 

-Koo Mocf . .aalisreiq @di to noiaasssoq blori o;)^ tfnel 

Xsind' !«1^* ill ^leerjuoo ^^isiGbaBteb iatU io&t 9di lo w»iv nl ^noid-floJ^ 

^eicusiaxyiM .ctoanftJ' rxavo-Mori b saw ;JiiBf>n?il*i L ^jsriJ- bsx/jiB ^itsioo 

^JfcoTd&fl faiiA olcfa a hi hixa tlM&d tvno a hi al bru&iE adi 3foo:t taabaeteb 

oi s& io^ldaa sdi ao noiJ-eej/p olgniE s atsi afea o;t jd»I1b'J laemioo 

-69fl«saffoo sxiJ lo eiJiJt;t Silj .Ijs eaalias'sq arid" lo izolasaeeoq al aaw orfw 

e*TtltS£tl&l<i 84 •Xal'xJ^ 9x1^ lo oaili Bdi ^b <xe ^iixfs «tii lo ;tneia 

si: itii^i/ol n&9<i p.bA tJIbs sliC^ iCslifw al i»anaa mii ^SAiraia laafUfoo 

aX llliz i.1 iaBba&t'ib &.6Sii worie o-J ^xtlbns^ abnad'smus-ilo aiioiJ-s s 

9d ;fon &Ix;o josIuisI©!) sfW ^be^a^a ^"moo Xala;!' ©ri: . oXaasBBoq 

,8 9eiB9ta £^xfvf lo fiolaseeaoq ixi ^on oiaw od 11 iJujz otL} sxilbnolab 

ano laoliJ. ^atf aiw 'llXrffilaXqf o^ ©anslsb ariT 

Xaaqctfi alrfJ iiT .ajjitlbaaooaq 9ti:} lo Jiai'a srfci atoil 

.bofflni; "ic Jiwoo X^ijlolmrM aili lo ^naasbirt aitf baa 

,(IS}mT-"Kk TTIJSIIOGUI, 

«'iu-orioo ,.T. ^flsvilXxfc; baa ,.1. .-i ,bnoli^ 



40623 



MABBL ۥ WSIDMAM. 

Plaintiff, 




LENA AKERBERG 



JOHN S. VAN LOAK, ELSIB H* 
VAx\- LOAN and IVOR JEFFREYS, 
Appellants, 



V2Idj /noM ^^aS'SRlOR COURTj 

coo^#cfujriY. 



307 I.A. 384 



O-^ 



im. JUSTICE SULLIVAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

By this appeal respondents John Van Loan, Elsie M* Van 
Loan and Ivor Jeffreys, seek to vacate an order entered upon tbs 
amended petition of Lena Akerberg, directing them to account for 
rents collected during the statutory period of redemption. Her 
petition was filed in the Superior court in this cause, which was 
a foreclosure proceeding entitled Weidemann v, Anderson, No« 573658« 

Lena Akerberg's amended petition alleged substantially that 
she was the holder of a $500 bond secured by the trust deed fore- 
closed in this cause; that on February 28, 1933, Hilton Johnson was 
appointed receiver to collect the rents and make disbursements with 
reference to the property foreclosed herein; that on ug^st 10, 1936, 
a decree was entered confirming the master's report of sale and dis- 
tribution, v.hich said decree also ordered that a deficiency Judg- 
ment for $33,253.98 be entered in favor of the plaintiff successor- 
trustee, that "the Receiver heretofore appointed in this cause be 
continued with all the rights and powers heretofore vested in and 
conferred upon him" and that "all moneys collected by and accrued 
to the said Receiver until the expiration of the statutory period of 
redemption be applied *♦* toward the payment of the deficiency;" that 
"on the first day of September, 1936, John S, Van Loan and Elsie M, 
Van Loan presented *** their sworn petition in and by which *** they 






^"irn^o Ko. 




OTA ,A "^oao 



,0flEaE33A AlfflJ 



1^8 ri .A.i TO 8 



( 



« 



{ 

acLt noqu h@i^:iae 'ivi><to its fi^aoBV o^ itfdes ^axeillet iqvI bxia ojsoJ 

Cfivr ifalrfv \ii&DiiO aldi al iiuoo loliibq^t, esii a.1 LftlJtl tiem noiSli&q 
,8'?d£'7(! toK ,aoai««f>nA ,v itoAiOftMiV 5«»IiWja9 snlboeootq; dlusoXoe'iol « 
;Jjtiri;> "?XXjBJt;''afi;?8<Ji»£; bessIlB n61;tW»q b«£u3d4BA a'sietfteafA isiieJ 

-©^ol fessf) tatf'ii enU x<^ ^c-wosa Jartocf 00^$ s *o i»blod srij aBw sde 

83v» ixoaiirioX. ao;JXta tt£?X ,8Si x^ax/icfe*^ ao i&d.i \9Z4sbo ildi al bo&olo 

xiflw s^aeiBeeiuoFotb &iUfii lids a&n^i aif:t ^deXXoo oi rtevXdO^rx tetaloqqa 

«dC^X ^OX ;lex/axr''> no iad:i {aieieii i^seoXoeiol X'^^^QO'ZQ ^^ o^ •daoisloi 

«sl£) bxia sXee lo Sioq9i e'i»;iSBai 9x{J saJtjCTiilnoo b&i&Sae ejsw es^toal) « 

-Sfjift X2iael»X'i9£) a isdi ix^iebio oeXs 991199b bijtB rtoJtxlw ^nolJ^ifCfXi:!^ 

-nLoeaecai.'E lll^jttiaXq arii lo iovjbI nX Jb»i»^a» ©d 8^.£^S^££$ lol Jnesi 

©d 95xra& eJtriJ al beJ^nloqqis siolats^sd ^»vi»o©H exf^" ;Jj8il;t 4 9»iain;t 

fiaa fll Se^asv fnole4»i«ii aiewoq ba^ s^jdaXi «1^ Xie rWXjr bauaJLiaoo 

b9tJ'io9& las \d b9i&hlloo B\^aom lla" iadi fux« "nXtl noqij boin&taoc 

lo boli?q \aojjiJ*5^2 Bdi lo aol^i«i±qx© »itt Xlifm; tovloooH fclsa oiW o;^ 

;^jsxi^ " (XSu3slaXl$b ^i lo ctriesxaq sii^ biBnot *** b»llqq& sflT aoictqfflftbsi 

• i4 eleXli iitofi iUioJ xxaV ,8 njefoL t^£^J^ ^ledJO&cTqsS lo x^ tsill 9dS ao*' 

Xadit ♦*** xiolriw \d fafifl nl noictXd^aq anows ilari^t ♦** be^naesiq OftoJ fl«V 



-2- 

stated to the court that they had acquired the equity of the 
property herein foreclosed and subsequently did redeem such 
property from the foreclosxire sale *** and because of said redemp- 
tion they asked the court for an order directing the Receiver, 
Milton Johnson, to turn over possession of said premises to them 
Immediately} " that "by virtue of said sworn petition and statement 
of facts therein contained, namely, that a redemption had been made 
by said John S, Van Loan and Elsie M, Van Loan, an order was entered 
on the aforesaid first day of September I936 *** requiring the 
Receirer to surrender iumediate possession to said John S, Van Loan 
and Elsie M. Van Loan, and directing the said Receiver to file his 
final account and report within fifteen * ♦ ♦ days, said order of 
September 1, 1936, finding as a fact from the sT/orn petition of the 
said John S« Van Loan and Elsie M« Van Loan that they had redeemed 
said property from the foreclosure sale heretofore held in connection 
with the above proceeding;" and that "in accordance with said order, 
said Receiver Milton Johnson, did on the 29th day of September, I936, 
file his final report and account for the period from March 1, 1935j 
to September 2, 1936, and did also turn over possession of said 
premises to said John S, Van Loan and Elsie M. Van Loan, by virtue 
of the order heretofore entered on the 1st day of September, 1936." 

In her amended petition Lena Akerberg further alleged that 
an examination of the records in the office of the Recorder of Deeds 
of Cook county, as well as the files in this cause, disclosed that 
on July 31* 1936, the master, pursuant to the decree of foreclosure 
and sale theretofore entered in this cause, sold the property involved 
to one Ivor Jeffreys, to whom he issued a certificate of sale on the 
same day, which certificate was recorded ugust 14, 1936; that there- 
after on May 4, I938, there was issued to Ivor Jeffreys, purchaser at 
said sale, a master's deed, which was recorded on May 5* 1938j an<i 
that said Ivor Jeffreys became the owner of said premises by virtue 

of said master's deed* 

The petition then alleged that no redemption of this 



&ii "io x^lt/pe sriJ^ JbsoliJp&ii b&ti \9di iadi invoo &iii oi bwiBi9 

douc aeafcsi bib xl^aeupeBdUii baa beeoloeiol al9i&d \ii9qaiq^ 

''q/»b9t bt&e lo &&ssRO&<i baa ^^* siAB siusolosiel act^ moil x^^ioqonq 

^T9Ti5o»iI ©rij Sfll^jooiife i9biQ OS lol i^^Jixoo aiW £>8i[ejB xsrW nolj- 

aetlJ od^ eafiiaeiQ fejtsa lo nolgeQesoq isvo xiiui oi ^aosadol aoillll 

siifiis nsacf b&ti aGt3^^mBb9i i^ ^aii.t ^xldc^s^^ ^^beni&isLoo ateiedi nioali lo 

be'ie^^ne sbw 'lebio n^ ^xisoJ nsV ,M ^Isl'd boA iuoj ruiV ,& ruioL lilee x*' 

S£[J ■^alilurei ■"'** ^i^l isdjseJ-qs?. lo x&b iaill fclBs^rtola ttri^ no 

OBOtl nB7 .o xuiol. £>lfi8 oi noi<:89aEoq e^t^UbeisBU: asbaeioj^a ocf leTlsocH 

bM 9iri oi iGVleosH bXae otii -^lioeilb bau ^aacd haV .M sIbIS ba« 

lo lebto btaz ^tx^b ♦ ♦ * n9»;t'iil nlditfi inoqBi baa ^xiooooa Xanll 

9sLi Io aotilt»q nioxa Bdi flfoil io&l a ea snl^bnll ^^^^X ^I ledae^tqaB 

Jbdn««l)ei bsxl y^^ -^^^^ msoJ nfiV t;]! elaXa bna oaoJ naV .2 xKfoL l)ijBS 

nolideoxioo ni fcl&rl ©ial*:Jei©ri oIaz ©ijjsoIoqioI srW laoil x^^s>qoaq 61«8 

^lobio JJlisa diJTfi^ .soxiabiooos aV* i&tU feiaue '•jaxilbeeooiq «vodB eri* d^tw 

t^i^^ ^i©cfo9d^q»S Io -^sjb rf:t^ ed;)^ no bib ^aoantfol, ncilH levisosH fiJtst 

^^£?I tX tioisM. ssDi'l boliaq sifct lol inuoooa ba& c^noqei iBnil eJtri eXil 

bXise 7.0 riolaeeeaoq it-vo nijui oaXs bib bos t^i.^X ^S. •ioGfai©;J^q9a o^ 

ax/J-iiv vcf jjiaoJ ncV .;* aiaXS bne xiaOil rtsV «8 xirioL bXsa oi aesliaeiq 

"•^£?X jisdmsj'qss "io "^Xib ^al 9ifi no beie^tne &io1oi&isd lobio exl^ Io 

i'jBJttt bsselXjB iariJ'ij/l giecfiaali jansJ noWi^sjq beba&si& led nl 

ebssG Io isbiooeH sriJ- Io solllo sif;^ nl zbiooei sil^ Io nolJ^BnXflujz© aa 

iadi bseoXosxb ^ssxtbo eln'J al seXll sil:^ au XXew sa ^x^nxroo jIooO Io 

eiwaoXosiol Io soio^b ericf o;J ^miX^eiifq ^isctasffi siij^ t^t^-J^ «<J^ XXalt no 

bsvlovnl x^i^QO'^Q 9ri* bXos ^ozu&o eldi al beietao eiotoioneiii eXse bns 

ad;f no sXiSS Io s^i^aoilicfieo a bexraajt 9il iooilw ocf ^ex^i^'^^T' aovl ©no o;^ 

^9iedit i^i^i t^£?X ^AX itROiW bsbioosi axrw ej'j3olll:tn©o iJoXii.v ^xab tmaz 

c^« ler.jirioiwq ^Exa^llBT* ^ovl at bBUzal ebw anoxtJ %Qi^l ^^ X«M ^o le^la 

bfiB i8£^X 4^ x^ *£0 bebtooai asw rfoMw ,b9»b ?.»ne;ta6ia b .^sXas blaa 

tviilY Y'< •-'■- t"^?aq bt-z-^ "^^ -"^nwo erld" eatijoocr sxailtTtst lovl btrss Jeri* 

abaab s'leiseM bl^a Io 
alxict Io nolcfqiasi)8i on jmi^t BessXIa xioa^ nolJ-ld-sq atiT 



■) 

property v/as ever made by John S, Van Loan and Slsle M. Van Loan 
or by any other person or persons and "that a fraud was perpetrated 
upon this honorable court by the petition of John S, and Elsie M« 
Van Loan fraudulently representing to the coixrt that they had re- 
de^ied said property from foreclosure sale heretofore held in the 
above entitled cause and that by virtue and because of said fraudu- 
lent representations to this honorable court, the order of the 1st 
day of September, 1936> was procured^" that "because and by virtue 
of the fraudulent misrepresentation that said property had been 
redeemed by John S* Van Loan and Elsie M, Van Loan, the Receiver^ 
Milton Johnson was on the 29th day of September, I936, ordered to 
turn over the sum of One Hundred Forty-Five ($145.00) Dollars, to 
said John S, and Elsie M« Van Loan and also the court was induced 
to order the balance on hand as shown by the Receiver's final report 
and account after the deduction of Receiver's fees azid attorney's 
fees in the sum of Three Hundred Fifteen ($315*00) Dollars [paid] 
on taxes delinquent against said property, which said payments were 
made after foreclosure sale and contrary to lawj" and that "no 
report and accoxint has been filed in this cause for the period from 
the 2nd day of September, I936, to the 31st day of October, 1937, 
the end of the statutory period of redemption as provided for in the 
order entered on the 10th day of August, 19 36," 

The petition concluded with the prayer that the order of 
September 1, I936, be vacated; that the Van Loans file within ten 
days their account and report for moneys collected by them from 
September 2, I936, to October 31, 1937, when the period of redemption 
expired; that the Van Loans "reimburse this estate for the benefit of 
your petitioner and other bondholders similarly situated in this 
cause, the said sum of One Hundred Forty-Five ($145»00) Dollars, 
fraudulently procured from this co\irt by order of September 1, 19365" 
that the Van Loans and Ivor Jeffreys or one or either of them "be 
directed to turn over to this honorable co\irt the sum of Three Hundred 
Fifteen ($315«00) Dollars, which this honorable court was induced to 



r 

-£- 

b»i»%^9qiBq a.^ hUM^I a J^edt" baa aaoeisq ^o nosioq iftri;to xa» x^ "lo 
*K. »i«iXH bxxB .8 iuicJt lo xioi{ri:l'»q oiCf xd ;t<urod •Itfaionoxi slif^f noqir 

•»;^*sjtv x<^ ^«£ aeif-joaef *arii "i&eocoo^ saw ,d£?X ^'rerfm^^qeS lo xs^ 

used l>B£[ x^79^e«iq l>ltf& ;ta^^ ixoJU&^^x^QcenqaaeJtw ;t£ieXjjl>£rBil ed;^ lo 

^isTledeH 9di ^ixdotl eiaV .M AlttXS bo* ix«oJ xiaT •& nriot^ xcf £>«fli&ot(n 

o^ b»5«fctio t^t^X 4i»^«o;*qe£ lo xs^ ii;t^'^ •ttf ao a«w floaoilol flOcfXlil 

o;t ^siaXXoG (00»^^X*) efl'^^'X^'xo'? &»it>dt«f «b30 1© otm •ri;t i«vo fliiCt 

b«MfMU ajsv d-^xfoo edi oaXs im» wutd oaV .M elaXH baa «S rtdo'G blse 

^noqsi JbaaJ:! e*idV±(t>oaiI 9/fJ ^tf jsyod£ cm baati no aoiuXstf edj^ labio oJ 

a*x&a'j'®'*^fi l»xtH aoel a»i«vl»o©fl lo aoi^oirbsb ©Jld' rse^le itwooos baa 

iblfiq} BOsXXoG (00«itlt$) i!t»«d'ti^ b^iboj^ seidT 1© B»a 6sfJ at aasl 

e'le^ a^Adffi^q Bise doMw (I'^^ttqeiq &!<;& ^aalAgo^ ^flPi/paXXdb eexfiJ' no 

OCT** ;t$ri# bOB '^{wsX oJ^ Yijs'Z^noc £kcui 9JuM ft'umoXoe'xol le^ls »l>fin 

mo-il bolieq 9^;^ 10I »ftjiBO aJtri;f at t&ltt aornH 8«d Jauooss line t'ioq«i 

ftVt^X t'f^<^<^^'5 ^o "t^ **J^ s*'* o^ t-^c^X ^i«cfia«Jq«a \o x^f> feo^ 9^* 

adi at, ittl bsfcivoiq ais aotSmKBh^-i 1© fcoXieq X'*o^''^«^a o^* 'io ^«* ®Jf^* 

".^t^i ^^s»SxrA lo ^sfe itfOX ftri;t «o be•t«c^^e lebio 

to i9£)^o erid^ S&di i&x^iq ©xl^ if;flw b»Jbi.'Xi»riOo flel^l:t«q Mt'I 

nsJ oliid^Jrw »XX1 axutoJ aaV sifd^ ^£ii;t (£>e;^s8sv »cf ^d^^X ^X iocria9^q8& 

awil fflari;^ x^f bs^J-osXIOD ai»««ffl ^ol inoqert bus JncoooB aierict e^fib 

xioX^qasb©5 lo froXiaq sricf aadw ,\£?X ^X£ letfoJoC o^ t^t^X ^S n©dB9;tq«S 

ajtri^ at b^i&nSts xliBltatz a-isbloAbaod t^ASo baa i®ao titieq, luex 

^axftXXoa (00,^>Xif.) »Yi'?-t^io'? b9*:basM «aO lo mvd btAs «iii ^©aXfBO 

' l^i^^ %l i9^s;tqcc; lo i9bio X'^ cftuoo ajtrfd" moil bsrtyooiq tXiffisXwfijffail 

isiixiua soiciT lo iia/a srij ,tiiroo eXdeionod 8lri;f o;f "isvo aiicJ' <*;^ i^s^oenll!) 
o;t b©o0f>aX eB«r itueo ©Xcfjaioccoxi elri:f ilolrfw tS^taXXoQ <00,^X£$) cee^lX*? 



pay on delinquent taxes as aforesaid, by virtue of the misrepresentation 
set forth in the petition of John S, Van Loan and Blsie M, Van Loan, 
heretofore referred to;" and that "upon the filing of sueh account and 
the turning over of all the aforesaid moneys, that this court might 
enter an order distributing same to the parties so entitled to same, 
among which is your petitioner," 

Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the Akerberg amended 
petition, averring that it stated "no cause of action" against them, 
that the trial court was without jurisdiction of either the subject 
matter of the petition or of said respondents, and that petitioner was 
guilty of laches a The court having denied the motion to dismiss, 
respondents elected to stand upon said motion* The order from which 
this appeal is taken directed "that John S, Van Loan and Elsie M. Van 
Loan and Ivor Jeffreys, or either of them, file with this court within 
10 days from the date of this order, their accoxint and report for moneys 
received, collected or accrued to their benefit and disbursements made 
by them for the period from the 2nd day of September, 1936# the date to 
which the Receiver, Milton Johnson, has accoionted, to the 31st day of 
October, 1937> "the end of the statutory period of redemption," 

Respondents* theory as stated in their brief is "that the 
court was without jurisdiction and that petitioner was guilty of gross 
laphes;" and that "the amended petition showed no cause of action 
against the respondents or any of them#" 

Petitioner states her theory as follows: "l/ihere all necessary 
steps have been taken to make possible the application of rents collected 
during the period of redemption, in reduction of a deficiency judgment 
the right to said rents being established by the trust deed and the 
decree, the discharge of the receiver and turning over of possession to 
redeeming defendants does not affect the right to have said rents 
applied on said deficiency. And where the order discharging the re^ 
ceiver and turning over possession was ol>tained by fraud, and without 
notice, so far as the record shows, the rights established by the decree 
remained unaffected by said order fraudulently obtained*" 

Was the order of September 1, 1936, removing the receiver 



^flsoJ fl«V ,M slalfi i>tts fliAOJ iuV .£ niloT. lo aoiii:teq, 9di al Ainol i9z 

iaxA iauoooB d9a^ lo aaiXil sri^ coqii" iaiict fjnjs ";od^ beirtslai 9io\oi9i9d 

d'dalBj ;trufOO aliiJ^ t^ii ^exsiioia blaasiols aiW lie lo levo anlnoint ad^ 

" , isMold^ W»q rt«o^ a± doJixlw saoouB 

£)9i)fiafi2B S'^^'^^'^^iA s»XaJ .cjjui-:.ct) oj jtoi;,"Oi->; 3 belli aiaaiiaoqaeH 

^fflwiJ- ;Jefli:i;8a "aoWoB 1© ©ewso oa" b©J'a;re ?i ;Jarf;t anliievs ^aol;tli»q 

;to©tdifa srid- 'lait^is le aoXJ^olbElrurt ;Ji:?oil;tiw bbw dniroo lBJti;t %iii iadi 

aew ■x«noJ;;Jlcfsq c^jsiW bnjs ^e,i£i»baoqz9i btai lo 10 noJ:;t±*8q tli lo ^ced";^** 

^88lraclb oJ nolioisL sAi b»ifl«b aalvflil i-utoo aUT .asriosX lo x^IJjifS 

iisliiw ffiool -xabio aiiX .ixol^oiH bias aoqu baBiz oi baioBl* a^adbfloq&t^ 

aal .k sleia bna asoJ nsV .8 arioL tja«l;f" bsioeilb a9^Bi 2I laeqqa 8i:iJ;t 

aJtri:t±w iiiroo aJtri^ rii^lw ©III ^iA9di lo asifctle 10 ^axeills^ tori bixa oaoJ 

a'^eaoB 10I iioqsi bas c^njjooos aleri;^ ^lei)•IO uMi lo s^afa eil;t ao'il 8">jab 01 

abfiiB 8;tn»a»3iifdeli) feu illsuBd iledi at bsifioDs no fce^oelloo ^beTlaosi 

o;t 9C^a£> exW n^i^l 4nedia©;Jqs8 lo xab ^n^ &di saoil botieq 9di nol flisri;f \(i 

lo >:&& i^sl£ ©ii:f oi ^oeitiuoooa efiri ^floexuloT, ao;fIlM ,ievl9»©fl erfd" xlolriw 

•• •nol^qaebsi lo bolisq \ioJviAi& »rW lo bus 9xl;t t^£CI tiecJodoO 

9ri;^ ^firi;t" al lelid ii«xl;t ni b©*s;fa aa xio®^ ♦ai^nsbnoqasH 

aao'xa lo xiltsj-^ cisw isxioid^l^aq d-aricT biue flolitolbelixjt ^uotiilv z&m iisioo 

xxol^OB lo »BiiBO on i;3woiia neicMJ^sq bebnsBiB ed^" ^£jci;t bcLB "^eeriyaf 

"•fit^xt;:^ lo xfu 'xo Bc^aebfloqaei 9tii iEal&:ia 

X^saasoen LLb «n«if*'" Jtwollol as -ttiooxlct lerl as;t*;fe i»aolil::iB^ 

heiosLloo BiiiQi lo noi^BolXqqs ©rid" slcfleeoq aafjsfii od liejfai rteed ev&d eqeJ-a 

dneasbjcrj, ^anslol'leb s lo aoidoiibsi ni ,xioloqffl9b©i lo bolisq 9dS anlru/b 

©xl^ bfiB bs9b lai/id ©iSd xcf beriallefada© gxilsd 8;tn»i bias at Wgli ©ild 

od noleesaeoq lo isvo ^alaiui bna isnrieoai ©xlJ lo ©jiBiloaib edi ^ssiosb 

ed-nsa bt&a avail cd dilsli erid c^oslla &ut e©ob adrifibodla* sainssbei 

«9i ©«fct sGlaisiloalb ^ebno ©ilj ©aerlw MA .x^asloHsb bias ao bellqqa 

ctjjoddlw boa ^bwail x«^ bsflladcfo aaw nolaes- aoq isvo giilnii/ct bna levlso 

a&iOBb ©xtt x«^ bsxlalltfsias adxlsli ©rid ^awoxla biooai ©fid za xsl oa ^eoldon 

".beoladdo xl^iits>lubu&i.l isbio blsa x«^ bsdoellam; benlamsi 

iQVleosT: ©ili snivoico-x ^^£^1 ^X ladacsdq^S lo rt©bio 9di saW 



and directing him to turn over the foreclosed premises to the re- 
spondents John S, Van Loan and Elsie U, Van Loan procxired by fraud? 
That fraud was perpetrated on the court to secure the entry of this 
order must not only be conceded but it is admitted on the record* 
By their motion to dismiss the amended petition of Lena Akerberg re- 
spondents admitted all the facts well pleaded therein. But they argue 
in effect that the fraud indulged in by them is not the kind or char- 
acter of fraud that may be held to vitiate the order removing the re- 
ceiver. We think that it is and thjit such order was void from the 
date af its entry# 

Just what is the situation presented? Ivor Jeffreys is an 
attorney. He was not a party to the foreclosure proceeding. He pur- 
chased the property involved for $5>000 at the foreclosure sale and 
received the master »s certificate of sale. The decree of ugust 10, 
1936, confirming the master's report of sale and distribution, ordered 
a deficiency judgment of $33,253,98 entered in favor of the plaintiff 
successor— tnis tee. The decree also ordered that the receiver, who had 
been theretofore appointed and who was in possession, continue in 
possession of the premises until the expiration of the period of redemp- 
tion and that the net income received by him from said property be 
applied to the payment of the deficiency Judgment, The receiver con- 
tinued in possession of the premises until he was ordered to turn over 
the possession of same to the Van Loans on September 1, 1936* ^Ms 
order was procured by the Van Loans by the fraudulent representation 
in their petition that they had redeemed the property from the fore- 
closure sale. Thereafter, at the expiration of the period of redemption, 
the master's deed was issued to Attorney Ivor Jeffreys, the purchaser 
at the foreclosure sale, which demonstrated conclusively that the 
property had not been redeemed by the Van Loans or any one else« The 
record discloses that Ivor Jeffreys as the attorney for the Van Loans 
procured the entry of the order of September 1, 1936^ removing the re- 
ceiver and turning the property over to the Van Loans, Upon the hearing 
on respondents' motion to dismiss the Akerberg amended petition. 



-5- 

^•s'x Bii3 ct 2fteJbBi9iq &eaolo»iol sil;t aero 1x10^ b;t add sul^oeili) fiixis 
Ti>iJ«al \;€f fceiirooiq iueoJ iisV ,■} aiaia ttia hboJ ubV ,8 tulol. a^^nsLnoqs 
eMJ 1© X'l^jns ®rf^ ®irroes 0* Jt-aroo 9rf;f no jbed'e^isqneq asw fcueil cJ-sriT 

♦fiaoos^ 9&i ao be^tlB^a el ;tt i^wcf bebsonoo scf xXno d^on cfeiBc i©5n© 

Bii:^n& Xfidi^ ivS. .iile'x&d:^ b&baelq llevi ztoa^ 9sii 11& beSihsdis BinabaoqB 

•-itexfo no fcnl3£ stl-j J^oc aJ: arftri;^ x^ ^^ ftajiwbfll fei/sil srf^ SBri;t ioBl1» at 

«snc adi SQjtvoosi nefcio 9jl;t 8^ai;tiT od" bled dcf t^WB ;tarf;f birail I0 lo^oa 

arLt fitoil fsiev «3W lafcio riawe cfiiri* bna at it ;?ari* ifxrlrf^ ©^f .asvlao 

tLA al ai;©rtllot i;ovl Vije^asestq aottsjait enj al Jja*r tfaiJl 

-liKj ©H" »ii3ifi99J>onq eioaoItDSiol ©ri^t o;> Xlteq a ^o« 8«ir ©n ,xonio;t*fl 

£ixie sXfis soJUEOlo^Tiol ariv is 000^^$ lol btrloral xifqoiq oAi b&BMdo 

^"I j^Eirgi; lo 9©i09b ssifT .sIbs lo »;J'30i1;lirts© s'la^esa ftricf b«vleoei 

ijyiyjuio ^aoljwcfjt'iijaib fcns alca lo Jnoqdi s'rrsctaMi s>Ai snJtnnllnoo ^^£^1 

lllJniBlq «Mi;t lo lovsl at bs-iatas 8^.£^S^££f lo ia9Br^bjjl xo«®-toiieb » 

bM oriw ,i©v±eo©^ edJ- ;fjari;t bsisb'xo obIs senosfe sifT ♦©e^fawii— io38©oo0« 

al Btmt^aoo ^^aol&zB&G<)(i nl ejcw orfw bae beJnloqqa Qioloieimli fteetf 

-<ja&b»i lo boJtisq &di lo aot.izilqx.9 ©ilit It&nM eseimo'xq Mtd lo noleaoeeoq 

9<f "^^tiaqorrq blue, ztfoil miri ^cf bsTisoei aajoorxi d-sfl ori:t ;tQffJ baa aoti 

wioo isvlQoea aclT .JrjWBSbiJt ToasioJtlab eri* lo Jnsaxaq ©ri^ oJ" bsHqqa 

nsvo nix/rf at bsiebio saw ©if liinxr ssaltwiq »ri^ lo nolaaaeaoq nl bsunld- 

sJifT •d^^I ^I locfMsc^qsc no »£CiSoJ £tfi7 dil^ od" attee lo iloleaoaeoq 9d;f 

HoJ:i£;fxi©a9iqdi ia&IssbOBiJ srfcf Ycf enjyoJ naV 9ri;^ -^cf betx/soiq bsw isbio 

«-oiol QjiJ- laoil -^Jiaqoiq ©lid' bsfflesfiei bisri ■^sild' ^arfit nold^ictsq ttsiVi nt 

^rAOtiqmebBn lo boilsq edi lo xioid-Bilqxe s«fd^ Js ^iB:ilB0^9cn ,©Is8 diweoIo 

leasrioTixq fri^ ,aX9ill9t *rovI t®m:oi^.^ o* bejErsal esn besb e'lo^tajeci ©iIJ- 

erid- 3ad;} xls-^tsulottoo bs^'a^d'Enoinsb xislrfw \»Xss »ii;aolDe^ol BilS ^b 

adT »93l© ano ^^job uo aJSsOtI xiJgV sdi x^ b@KB9b9i xisstf *o« bxul x^^<lo'i^. 

suboJ risV ©xld- nol xs"5''^o^^s ©rld^ aa axstllst rrovl ieri* e^eoloelb bioo»i 

-92 silcf sfilvofflsi t^£?-2C *X lecfxttoiqea lo lebio sdj" lo X'^^i^^© s^* bstisooaq 

aoiiBsrl arid- xxoqtl «8flj8oJ nsV edcf oS" ic&vo -^ctibqortq »rid 3«jtaiw:t bn» lerlso 

^nolitWeq bsbxxsiaa siecfisalA erid- aelmelb oJ^ noWoK! ^a^tnsbnoqadi no 



Attorney Jeffreys, who represented the Van Loans as well as himself 
in the trial coxirt in the instant proceeding and is the attorney for 
all the respondents on this appeal, made the following statements 
"Counsel has introduced a petition here on the part of the Van Loans to 
turn the property over to them, upon which an order was entered that 
the property be turned over to them and that the receiver be dis- 
charged, **♦ ill though I did not present that petition, I sat in the 
back part of the rooa# *** I didn't present the petition but I heard 
it» I was in courts" This statement was made despite the fact that 
the record shows that on the reverse ^ide of the order of September 1, 
1936, removing the receiver upon the Van Loan's petition of the saiae 
date, appears the name "Ivor Jeffreys" as solicitor for the Van Loans. 
This being so it is fair to assume that Attorney Jeffreys not only pre- 
pared said order but that he prepared and presented the petition upon 
which it was predicated, ^Tasn that petition was sworn to by the Van 
Loans they Imew that it was false since they had not redeemed the 
property, ^Vhen Ivor Jeffreys, their attorney, prepared and presented 
that petition, he knew that the Van Loans had not redeemed the property 
frcaa the foreclosure sale. If they had, necessarily he must have known, 
since he was the purchaser at the master's sale, and received the 
master's certificate and the money paid to redeem would have been re- 
ceived by himt 

When the petition of the Van Loans containing the sworn false 
and fraudulent allegation that they had redeemed the property was 
presented to the court, they thereby asked the court to take Juris- 
diction over them and the subject matter of their petition. Had the 
true state of facts been presented to the court the Van Loans would 
have had no place in this proceeding. They induced the court by their 
fraudulent petition to take merely colorable jurisdiction over them. 
Having done so, any order secured by them was a nullity. An order, 
judgment or decree obtained by fraud will be set aside by a court of 
equity at any time. Where, as here, tie motion to dismiss admits the 
fraud alleged in the amended petition, it is mandatory on the court to 



lI^BxcLlii &A LIB'S ajs ertaoiX ix&i edJ psjii&qe^qea odn ,6X971191' x^a^oiik 

Oj an«oJ iiaV silcf lo iiaq sjcU no ei«icl aolilieq a bsoutoitat ead XsamxoO" 

Sadi h&iBia» zenn lobia iis Attldn aoqu ^aoMii^ oi isvo x^^®<Io^<I *fW a'wi 

«al£) s<i leviaasi axiJ- i-iiri^t Iuia iaeirid' oi 'xsvo ij^noi/;^ ©cf x^i6<lo^<I arid' 

©iiJ^ fii d^sa I ^£tot3L&^q ijtdi ^aeesiq ^oa cli» I si^isodilA *** ,£)»aaBilo 

f.'ifiaci I :jrud aoiSt<^9q, otii iaoastq i*ahlb I **♦ •aetooi Qdi lo ii&q afoad 

;fiAjtCi^ ^Ofil 9^0 s;tJtq&9£> aJt^^m 8ik«r JtasMB&^-Site 8lx£T ''•;t'Xi/09 ill eaw I ^il 

^i i9d]a&iq9i^ lo lebio sri;^ lo sfcla. eaisvsi 9il;t no iadi awoxia Ikiosas suid 

eita^^Q siir lo £coxj|;^eq a*afio«I aaV &Jii sio^u uevieot^ s»c{J ^xUvoitei «d£.^I 

,8aAoJ xusV arld^ lol loilolioB as "axQillaL lovl" ftaui ©rJi 2«B©<|qjB ,0^0!) 

-eiq -"tlno jon ax*'i^*2t®^ X'^^ioctifii. ;^ailct 9mszii£, oi tlsl aJt ^1 oa sniecf eiriT 

rtoqu aol^X^sq sjH i)&^nf)e»aq £>ae beoiiqd'xq ari ^uiU iu<i HBbio btAs. b®i&q 

hbV Q£U xd oi azo\ie ej»w aoim^q. isisU a^tSU ^bBi&oIbBiq 8«w ;^Jt risiriw 

erid' I>ei!t@8b&'x ioa H&d I9iii sools ftaXel *a» it i&di ifKtiL x^i axusoJ 

-aJaeaenq iwis i>Gi«qaiq 4X»aio^>^fi "itBdJ ^tXBiVtsX, lovl neri •xd^ieqoaq 

Vieqo'xq B£ii ^^dac&sbsi ;tQa bari sxxfioJ ix^V 9ieLt ;f^ucU W9XX3{ 9ri ^aoi:;tlJ&q J'ari;t 

i^nwoniif evad izsja @A ^liii^aesofia ,|}jail x^'^^ '^^ .eX^ aoi^oXoA^ol odd «oil 

mi bevidosn bae i|»X£e <:*-xs^&iaia mii Sa i^z&Aoiuq 9di eav oxi sools 

~9i iiQOd ©vaii Dluow mesbei: o;J i>iaq x^JC^O'c wii bus 9i&ot1tii90 e^fiBsua. 

♦ffllri xcf bsvJtao 
•eXsl n^towa suit ^atata^iaoo &a&od. osV djcf;^' lo aoXil^Jt&q 9di us>rfu 

esw x;i^^9qe'Sti esJ;^ b$a:^®b9i bBti xtdi i&di aoli &•$& f.L» iaalvbu&il ba& 
-sliwt 92tfiJ od- i 11/00 QriJ bsatajs x<*®i9ri^ "'CS^td^ t;}"UJOO mli oi b9iaBze%q 

^i b:Jl ,aQtitieq "ildtii lo TQiiaai i^9ltfls^ 9ttt ba^ as&Ai idvo aolioth 

.... , 

blao-^ eneoJ nsV saii iissoa &tiJ oi bQioBUQiq casd fiioj^t !• ©d'scJ'a si/iJ^ 

itBiii *^cf dfrmoo a4;t Jbeowiwit x^^I ^yxtb9&;>Qiq ati^ fll,«OfiXq oa Jbjsri 9V«ri 

»mmii leyo col^tolbalaxrt qXcTbioXoo xXsism ooLbJ- o;f nol;tJt;t9q ;tnoJjit)jjanl 

^lafcio aA »^itlSs!a s asw xaariJ- \<l fce-a/ooe ioXjio x«-8 ,oa oaob gnivsK 

lo ^ru/oo B x^ 9tla& i9& stf Xliw baaiJ x^ b^ataiiio &eio&b 10 iaess&bvl 

eiii eitmba ?,&tMs.tb oi aotiom Oii ^siod as ^Bitni4 t^niti X^fi is x^Xwpe 

at i'woo edi ao X'^o^^basm &t it ^aotiti^q^b^baoms »iii at bBT^»Xl& bu&'il 



-7- 

vacate and set aside the order procured by fraud upon the court and 

the bondholders. In passing upon a somewhat similar situation in 

Reisman v. Gentral Mfg« Dist* Bank^ 296 111* App» 61, tiiis coxirt 

said at pp» 66 and 67s 

"It is next urged by petitioners that a Judgment or decree 
obtained by fraud will be set aside by a court of equity at any time, 
and where the motion to strike admits the fraud, it is mandatory upon 
the court to vacate and set aside the order thus procured. The 
petition herein alleges facts which constitute fraud and the authori- 
ties In this state and elsewhere have consistently approved the maxim 
that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters and is 
applicable to judgments so procured. In Kelson v, Roclcv/ell. 14 111, 
375, it was held that (p, 376) 'a fraudulent Judgment is void in 
equity as it regards the party defrauded, and cannot therefore pre- 
clude the exercise of equitable jurisdiction,* 

"In Biting V. First National Bank^ 173 111, 368, it was 
said (p, 391)* 'Vitien a Judgment has been obtained by fraud, it is 
a mere nullity, and it may be attacked on account of the fraud in 
a collateral proceeding, and equity has Jurisdiction to cancel and 
set aside such a Judgment, » 

"In Moore v. Sievers^ 336 111* 316, the court (p. 322) 
reiterated the rule as follows: 'A court of equity has always the 
power to grant relief against Judtsments and decrees obtained by 
fraud and this power will be exercised to prevent the enforcement 
of a Judgment or decree which is against conscience *■** ( Farwell 
V, Great ^.?estern Telegraph Co. y I6I 111, 522 j Siting v. First fiat> 
Ban^, 17 i 111. ^68t Atlas Nat. Bank v. More . I52 111. ^23$ iJUiSL-S. 
HUle, 267 111. 20, )« 

"In Johnson v« Waters, 111 U, Sa 640, the court gave its 
approval to this doctrine as follows: 'The most solemn transactions 
and judgments may, at the instance of the parties, be set aside or 
rendered inoperative for fraud *** The Court of Chancery is always 
open to hear complaints against it, whether comLdtted in pais or in 
or by means of Judiciail proceedings. In such casesthe court does not 
act as a court of review, nor does it inquire into any irregularities 
or errors of proceeding in another court; but it will scrutinize the 
conduct of the parties, and if it finds that they have been guilty of 
fraud in obtaining a Judgment or decree, it will deprive them of the 
benefit of it, and of any inequitable advantage which they have 
derived under it, • " 

It cannot be questioned that the decree of August 10, 193^, 
which directed the entry of the deficiency Judgment, was a final 
determination of the right of the plaintiff successor-trustee, to 
have the rents and profits which accrued from the property during the 
entire period of redemption applied toward the payment of said defi- 
ciency Judgment, This was true, even though the owners of the equity 
had actually redeemed the property* The order or September 1, 1936» 
removing the receiver and tvirning the possession of the premises over 
to the owners of the equity, did not, as respondents contend, authorize 



r 



-\- 



t^d fitOB dti «qq :f3 bias 






&1 »X ^iJiJjd'j.1 



.III . , 






r. 
ftfij 



iOi^-lw;:i'u;i £lcfi^ii;^u 



' bac 

■■■ esU 

t.j&q 



.q) fclse 



_..:.,_ ♦HI dec 

'10 iiuoo A' 






&e 



&s>. 






- - oq 
o 



<. . T.S?Jk. .^ '-^ ■ 



r(,os •III '^v^s ftoX^T^ 



•i 
o 



a;ti 9VS3 ^-u-^oo pxi:t ^0^ *3 ,U IXX ^eis^ - ' ^Jt ^^l" 

'10 oLi__; -j: odi lo saci.. ^ 

ex-^i- - - --^ ♦** _,,_ , 

at 'X . ,J-i: ;t2nis3J8 

ion afev-„ ,,...,^ — a-.. .- t - ^^ ^^«9001q I..^.^ , v, ^ ... 

BsioXiiSlwaoiii xna ojn.L ion ^vrelvsi lo Jowoo fi 3J& Aoa 

arfct ©SXfllJjJIor. rr:.,- -^ ?■ oas n- mr^ ^r.LiTir in .-■■ro 't--^ to 

©jij lo atadjf c ;..._, .,_ ._ ^ . y to i-nr^_.,. ,, . ., . _ il 

evsri X9dJ rioixiw agiiJaavjna sldBd^li/panJ: AjOfi lo bac ^;S1 lo d^llsnsd 

♦*',?!: lobois bsvtioJb 

^c;£^I ^01 d'ei.'sirA lo denodb srict ;fsd* benoijesirp ««f loonao il 

I/iCil 3 6SW ^iasmgbifl, "^Dfl©±o±lel) srfrf lo ■^•d^n© edS betosilb rioi^ 

o^ ^99t&mi-'ioaB9t>osjs lllJnJtBlq Bdi lo arisln: &di lo noid^Bnlinidd"©^ 

fad;? gni'mfi ^;tisqoiq ^tii laoil bsi/i^os xiolilw 8d"lloiq ba& Umi Bdt svxul 

«i:'i©fe bisa lo *n«arcJt'1 ^ri^l" bi&vo^t fisilqqa nolcJ^qasb©-! lo bolrtsq Biiiae 

XSlispB oiii lo eiaawo ©rid' xfaiiorfJ- nave jsxrtij- esy/ alriT .d-riftasfciirt \onelo 

t^tC-t t-t lecfajs^qoA lo nsbio ©riT .-^cSaaqdnq ari;f bOK9Bboi ^H^^^ofi b*** 

•lovo eeatosaq ejcfdf lo uolaasaeoq ©xW sniflfmiJ '^biiB asvleoei (ddi gni . 

slTiod^WA ^jbfI8if£oo s;tfl9jDn©qad'i as ^^aa bib ^-ifi-Jtirp© ©li;^ lo aisitwo arii o^ 



the Van Loans to convert the rents and profits received from the 
property to their own uses and purposes* That order could not have 
intended any such result. In our opinion, assuming that the Van Loans 
had in fact redeemed the property, the only effect of the order of 
September 1, 1936, was to supplant the receiver hy the Van Loans as 
the collecting agency of the rents, obligated Just as the receiver 
was to account for said rents to the successor-trustee for the benefit 
of all of the bondholders* 

Respondents Invoke the doctrine of lache s as a bar to the 
relief sought by the petitioner, Lena Akerberg. This doctrine has no 
application v/here the party acts diligently and within a reasonable 
time after the facts upon v/Mch the fraud is predicated have been dis- 
closed, -'Ho^vever great the lapse of time, lache s is not imputable to 
a party who had no knowledge of a Judgment against him and it is only 
required of Mm to be diligent in seeking relief after he has notice 
of it." Cutoaer v. Cumaerf 283 111. App» 220, \ie are in accord i&lth 
the finding of the trial court that the petitioner was not guilty of 
lache ^ . In any event parties who combine together, as did the re- 
spondents here, for the purpose of fraudulently procuring an order from 
the court, are precluded from relying on laches in a court of equity, 
( Measick v. Mohr , 292 111* App* 69; Greenman v- Greenmaii j, 10? Ill* 404.) 

We are impelled to hold that the trial court did not err in 
entering the order from which this appeal is taken; that said order 
directing an accounting by respondents merely enforced the rights of 
the bondholders as established by the decree of ugust 10, 1936j and 
that those rights remained unaffected by the void order of September 1, 
1936, procured as it was by the respondent attorney Ivor Jeffreys upon 
the fraudulent sworn petition of the other respondentSo 

For the reasons stated herein the order of the superior 

court is affirmed., 

0RD3R AFP'IRMED. 

Friend, P, J», and Scanlan, J*, concur :* 



QTsji ion fclxfoo lefeoo JadlT ♦aeaoq'xuq tnc ?eaw two oiisxfd^ at V^^QOi^I 

enjsoi n»V «iid .tail;* ^atmna&s ,x£olaiqo lUo , life en rfoirs x^jb befined'al 

lo 'XPhio otU 1c SoqJIg X-tno ©cW jXCtrteqoiq «rW bamosbei i^;sl nl bad 

:>-i^efl»cf «/!d^ lol eoj-c.jj'id'-noaasoajtfe otU oi aiu J saw 

«d;J od" na«3 B 2 ; SiS^SiMl "^^ ^atiJoob taii eslovni: sutaebaoqcsS 

9ld&aoa«»iX s ftJtci^tXw luu xiia&alllb das \i'i&q ^i eisiiw xiol;tsslIqqfi 

-2lJt) fl»©tf eVBi^ 5»daoli>onq 2i bust'l eAi dotdM noqu scto*l adS i9i1& eali 

at sldscfoqatl ;t(M3 «1 89j](p# j[ ,»flil:t lo eeqal ©d* ;^«©ig nevewoF" ♦beaolo 

Xino el il bHA loJul ^euaiesB ;tii4Mi8birt a lo «8Jb9lv!rojX2i on bijji oilw x^iBq « 

aoi^ton &jMi ae- TolXeu saiiieec; isl ia©s-tilb scf o^ lalii lo bsalx/pfti 

iW'Jfcw biPOoSMB xii s'lii «fe' ♦CSS «q{ . v • - • ' J^ "i© 

lo x^X-t-'-: *ofl aavr i»floiiJtcf*q arfcf JatCJ Jiaoo l6lxj od^ Jo aflibnil odd' 

-91 «ifl^ IjJ:5 h£ ^Tefld'sisoct afUafijo© Ofiv asJW-xaq *nev» tjob nl .ssiisat 

aiDil aefwo OB 3iili«fooiq \:IJiisijij&«/fl"xl 1© eejoq^ifq »jdJ *xol ^aa&xl ed^nsijijoqe 

(.-1^0^ ,XII \0X ,afif§6M5g-j»XJBMIftaa3ii -iqA ,XiI S^S , ^oM .v 3loXaee'4) 

jsl I'xe ;toa bl; l&txi &Ai ied^ ixlod oi ^sIXs^X &'i£ 9% 

lebie feiae iaiLr ^asaCa^ ax I«sqqs eJait doldvi moil isiiio eakt- aoliedriQ 

lo a^^xlali ©ri;t baorrolis® xX»i©« aiadbaoqzen x<S ani^txiuoooa njB sniioailb 

bnjB {i£^X ^OX ;te.r 9»n®&b sil^ xd berfgiXdaite© 8b eiobXoribnocf atlc^ 

jl iQcfiat iQbio blov ©jrf^ x<f bs^oellBflx; bao±Bmei eiilsli oaoxtt Sadi 

noqu aije'i'iluL -lovl x^iJ^od'ita ^aebnoqeen ©jctt -^trf bbw ;tl a* b«ii/ooiq ^d^^X 

^actnsbffoqaei fi©d*o mii lo nol;tli©q nnowa ^tixeXixbx/Bil edS 

•iol^^i-q<j:. \idi lo tiebio ©Jit nioieri bsis^e axloaBei ©rfj lo"? 

4,bQSl*X.l"" ' 'iWO'J 



41222 

HAROLD PURNELL, 4f>lnr"^usine/s 
as PDRKELL SIUCCO RSCOixIKG/JO,, 
Aj«)ell/e , 




^ ,# 



)^PE^FROM CIRCUIT COUHT, 
' cioK COUNTY. 



J.A. 885 



THOMAS JONES and ^LEN JONSS, 
AppellantSj 

MR. JUSTICE SULLIVM DELIVE&D THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

This appeal by defendants, Thomas Jones and Sllen Jones, 
seeks to reverse a decree entered December Vj, 1938, ^lich ordered 
the foreclosure of a mechanic's lien upon the complaint of plaintiff, 
Harold Purnell, doing business as the Purnell Stucco Recoating Co, 
No brief has been filed by plaintiff. 

Plaintiff's uns^^'orn complaint filed June 24, 1938, alleged 
that he is engaged in the business of recoating stucco buildingsj 
that June 11, 1936, defendants "authorized, permitted and directed" 
Vance and Gormley to order from him the necessary labor and materials 
to "dash-coat" the residence and garage of defendants at 918 Belle forte 
avenue. Oak Park, Illinois; that subsequently he submitted a v.ritten 
proposition to defendants to do the work for $175# which they orally 
accepted, and that they approved and accepted the work when it was 
completed on July 18, 1936; that when the contract was entered into 
July 11, 1936, when the work was being done, when it was completed 
on July 18, 1936, and when the complaint was filed June 24, 1938, 
defendants v/ere the owners in fee simple of the premises in question; 
and that on January 3, I938, plaintiff filed a claim for a mechanic's 
lien and that he was entitled to a decree foreclosing his lien. 

Defendants* answer denied that July 11, 1936, or at any 
other time they applied to plaintiff or authorized or permitted or 
directed Vance and Gormley to apply in their behalf to plaintiff to 
furnish the necessary labor and material alleged in the complaint; 
that plaintiff ever submitted to them any proposition in writing 
covering said work; that on July 11, I936, or at any other time they 



\ 



tisaoQ Tiiio>iio m»t. 



^itmjQO :&i^p. 



2 8 S.A.I tie 



V 



<* 






\ 



,. o... .^i. ,v, V.OIMHO HHl ^......viaa MAVIJJUE aOITEtJL .mi 

Lsisf)'io xioiilw t8£^I ,cIX i&tUaeooQ beisiae oetOQb a ©eiavei o;t aiCsea 

^lliitnifilq lo ;tni/>Iqaioo ©xU noqjj nelX a'olnariosm s lo Qiazoloetol edi 

,on nlJ iou'j:" ocoirj-L; Xl&iTiii^i swf;t ea essnlax/cf gnlol) ,XXsaiJ^ MoteH 

.'!tll;tnl«Xq x«f beltt nwd aari Relief o'4 
i)es:.;.. ^ c^'X ,-*kS ®xxx/t fislil taXalqaoo movanir e'llXd^nifllSt 

aXjil'ieJ^Bja bxue lod&l t^=iaee»o«o eftt alxl «oil -lobio o:J x»-^io»3 ^^^ eortaV 

atiolBllBE 8X^ ;tB e^fxiebiielsfa lo ssa'ias i^^ia 90fl«fcls»i 9iW ":fBOO-iIeei)" oi 

n9;tiirt,( s b©;t^ ifflcfi/a ari xX;J"n&xjp»8dJxa oiiri:f jaXoaXXXI jiia*! alaO ^sifflSYB 

yXXbio XDxfc^ rfoXiSw ,c:^X$ lol aliow ©fI:J ob o^ eJ-nafinslob oi noliXeoqoaq 

Ejsw oi nQjdfw ^^low sxW J[>e;^qso3a fans bevo^qqs \&ii iBiH bna \b9iqeoo& 

oJal b9i9ia& aixw ioaiicioo end asiivv i&di {bi^l ^8X ■'jli:/!. no bed'sXqraoo 

be;tsXqaioo ebw *i n©iiw ^anofc ^J^^icf aavr aliow eiii nexlw 4^£^I ^XX xlJ^''» 

^&i^l ^-^S eni/X, LeXil saw ;tnlaXqnoo exii nerfw hns »^£^X <8X xXi/"C no 

l£tolJ^8©i/p ni 3&2lmsiq» arict lo ©XqmXe ssl ai zietxwo &ti& ©law E^nsbnelsfc 

e * oXxiariosiH a nol xaisXo a bolil llX^^niaXq ,8£^X ^t X'isJU"s"t» ^o 'Jt&tli ba& 

«xi8XX Biri gnieoXoeiol ssiosb a ocf beXctid^no aew »d tatU baa a9ll 

Xxia ^fi 10 ^d^^X ^XX ijXxfX. ;f&£lJ^ beliieb lewaxis ' 2;^n>ibn9lsO 

10 hsiitj^&q 19 bQs.i.TQiiiV6 to l'i:i;tnij8Xq oJ bsXXqqa led:^ »Bili i&tiio 

o& lllJulaXq GcJ- ILsxied il^di al xLqq.a oi '^eXfliioD bne ©OfisV bs;fo9ilb 

t*niaXqfi£Oo »il:t csl br-geXXa Xsiis^tieai bna lotfaX -^lasasosn t>di dQlaiul 

sniJXiw aX iialJ-Xaoqo^q 'ice lasxtt o;J bsd'crxaocto^ isv« llX^jaiaXq iad:f 

X9d^ &ali isdio x^iB iz to ^^i^l *XX yXut no iari* (i^ow bias gaXisvoo 



•2- 

orally or otherwise accepted plaintiff's proposition to do tlie 
work; that at the time said contract was alleged to have been 
entered into or at the time said work v&s alleged to have been 
performed they were the owners in fee simple of the premises involved; 
that they at any time accepted the work alleged to have been performed 
by plaintiff in compliance with said contract or that they promised to 
pay $175 for this work; or that they acknowledged at any time that 
the work and material in question was furnished for them. 

The answer then averred that plaintiff did request defendant 
Thomas Jones to pay him $1759 ^^^ ^^^t such demand was made upon him 
for the first timft approximately one year after the work was done; 
that defendants refused to pay said bill; that on October 28, 1937, 
suit was instituted by plaintiff against defendants on this same claim 
before a justice of the peace in Oak Park, Illinois; and that after 
a full hearing on the merits in that action plaintiff took a nonsuit 
on November I9, 1939* because of his failure to sustain his claim. 

Plaintiff testified that "he had been acquainted vfith 
Vance and Gormley for sc»se time and had done business with them, 
and that in JvQy I936 Vance gave him an order to do the work in 
question on the premises in question and stated that he would pay for 
the work when the house was sold;** that "he did the work and that the 
reasonable price tlierefor was $175 and that he had not been paid for 
it;** and that he "knew Vance was not the owner of the premises," 

On cross-examination plaintiff stated "that he did not 
communicate in any way with Jones relative to the work until about 
a year after the work was ccaapleted, when he heard that the building 
was sold, aind then by telephone asked defendant to pay and defendant 
refused! ^ that he "had never met Jones or talked with iiim or 
corresponded with him or contacted him in any way until said last 
mentioned time; thiit he made no inquiry as to Jones; that he did 
not investigate the title to the premises and did not know i^ixether 
or not Jones waS the owner of record of the premises when the work 
was done; that he trusted Vance and Gormley * * * that he entered 
the charge on his books against Vance and Gormley j that he sent 



«e& ot> a? aoUleoqo'Ui e'llidaiaXq 6»*qsoy« - 'ro lo \XIaico 

iiB^ii iSTxsri od fcaasllo 8S9 irxow filaa mal^ eOS i>i 10 oinJt bei9in9 

mJUi mtti$i ttbata dim Jtoi3a9l> d»m $AtU 4u4 «^^I$ nJUf x«a o;^ aeaoi aAiuodT 

t^L^l tB^i a^oTectaa £» ^ac^ {Ulti bSMi XM o^r JbMus'^c'x >;fn«&a9l0i> i^tuii 
mlslv easL^s >ilii4 at> &Snabaa^9b ienJUsA ll^/cJlAXq \tf bi>issiti&iiX zmvi 4lvM 

itiszaoa n sCc^oct lliJ^xsiBlq m>2i9« Sad} al t^jtoan ttii^f iso jioXia^ii XXnt j» 
^aJtiiiXo aJjci al&izuz. o3 ^tjuIIaTl aid Ilo 9gjjmQ9d %^i^l t^l locteKWoK a» 

Tcol x^<i blstmf <d ;^iid4^ £>9;^i:^e bfut noXisQirp oX edsiifii&rzq ej0 ao aoSJaeuj;, 

9di i^ bsiM jIoow &sf4 alt ed** i&Ai "{bXoa sjqw satfod ex(^ a*(iw iCriow ft£(;^ 

lot fiiX«q aeocf ion b«^d 9d i&iti bsxB 1'^!$ ibw lol^ii^d:^ e9X*xq •Xcf^QOsaai 

*'.adsXa»'xq ed^ lo 'stsuwe td^ iQa &sv sooaV «fits3C<* «d J^aiil ibaa "{^X 

;taa JblJ& M ^&di*^ b9i$ii» VUiiaXaXq, naUwi^a»x.»-^&Qt& aO 

lU:o<fs Ztisw t'v^n 9(i4 o^ 9rlifil&t 8«ao1> xL'Xw '^«« t^s al saiiivlatsssB^t 

SaX&XXycT ftclt <tivlt bosaxf 91I isiBiiw ,i><»:rdXqi»o9 a^w iitQw fiucit ioJIa x^eni; b 

iaalxi'itsb boB x^ ^ ia^baaTL^b bKi^& 9aod%&X»i X^ iid£(^ bsm ^bloB &n^ 

ie rX;fau Xem Xf^A aX nXii Itenf-Sji^^xieo rio nXfi ilitXyr ^£)ik»<^ 9:1700 

bii/ e>i:. ,-yisU (as£col o# aa -^iXi/pnX on aX^^m a4 {t'^ilit t^mXi b&aQl)a$m 

iadj9£t«r wooal ;tQi:t bib bna aaaXat^iq acU o;^ aJUX^ eil;t &;^BSXiedVisX ^oa 

2ttifl«r pdi a9dti saaXscoiq acLt lo btgo&i lo lacvo atd^ a&i«r «0ixol> ;toa 10 

b«i»;Jn;» ad ;^£i^ ^oXcrao*) bi^ aaajsV l>s |ff| pa.;r ©d ^axl;^ («aoi 

iasa ad iBsii ix^lmio^ boB aanaV ^aoXABS aXoocT aXd ixo 9s?:£d9 ai^cr 



repeated statements of this account to Vance & Gormley in their 
names -^^^^^ that neither of the defendants was present at the tiae 
idien he had his purported talk vdth Vance relative to this werk," 

Plaintiff introduced in evidence a certified copy of a 
deed to this property from Gladys J, Marx to defendants dated June 
26, 19365 and recorded in the office of the Recorder of Deeds of 
Cook County, July 22, 1936, 

William Vance, testifying in plaintiff's behalf, stated 
that "in 1936 he was a member of Vance & Gormley, real estate 
brokers;" that "he had known Thomas Jones, one of the defendants 
for scnae timej" that "he took Jones out to view the property in 
question and afterwards sold it to him| " that "the property needed 
re stucco work and painting on the outside;" that Jones told him to 
have this ?/ork done; that he "talked with plaintiff Purnell in Jvily 
1936 and ordered the work to be done and was to be paid for when the 
house was sold;" that "the work was finished by plaintiff on July 18, 
1936," and that "Jones bought the property for resale," 

On cross-examination Vance testified that Jones told him to 
have the work done when he and Jones were at the building and at that 
time Jones had not signed the contract for the purchase of the 
property; that "under the contract Jones was to place a mortgage of 
$5,500 on the premises;" and that he "told Jones that the KiA would 
not make the loan unless some restuccoing and repainting was done;" 
that "after Jones told him to have the v/ork done Jones signed a coQf-> 
tract for the purchase of the premises, which was dated May 23, I936} 
that he "was not the owner of the premises but was the broker for 
one Marx;" that "the contract provided for a broker's commission to 
be paid by seller to Vance & Gormley *^** in the amount fixed on the 
Chicago Real Estate Board's schedule of commissions;" that Jones 
paid him $200 on the contract; that on August 1, I936, Jones paid 
him $100 more; that "on 'final settlement sheet' dated September 9, 
1936, on premises in question, defendant Jones received check for 
$643,25, brought to him by Vance as the balance of the loan of 



'xlsit? ai. x'sSmt-Ox) A aoHisV oi cffttfooas eJLcW to ^i'aesBBiaie JbocJaoqen 

"♦l-satw Eiri^ Osif evid^Blei ©DnsV rfJ^Jtw j[Xi4iJ £>©;tioq«;q aid iuarl oil neilw 

nmsl, t^iBb &&a&bc.Bl^i> oi x'l , vfcalO oionl x^iaqoiq eJbctt <Kt !)»©£) 
xO a{)?©Q "io 'i&biooeh sxU lo ©oi:' to arW nJt f)»i)iooo^ £iru %dC?X ,ds 

,ci£?I ^SS 'itXirT. ^x^fUJoO 2I00O 

£)©^"4c tllsr{»cf a»'i'ii:taJiaIq fii anlx'^a^eoJ ^soxuaV ioslIIJtW 

Hi'azhnQ'iBh 01W lo sno ,aoGoT. aMjOilT nwouiri fisri Sif" i&di "jeiojlond 

nj: x^'^®'iO*iq «i^ wsiv oJ^ ;Jiio asuxoT. aIoo;t ed" $adi '^ {Sfoli @jaoe 10I 

6©bs^4>fi x^Ti^qoiQ ©ricr" i.ixfL+ "(ial. 5Io8 efctLswieJlB Jbnjs noicfeewp 

XSmZ Sit ll&aiss^ Tilialalu dSix fceMXed^" ©ri iari:t {©nol) Jiiow ztsli ovari 

Qxlct n©iiw 10 yd oJ bjbw drLe enoi) »d oct 3ftow arii Jboisfcic boB ^i^l 

^81 x-ti^"'^' 'JO Tilaal^lq x<i £>wlalnJtl esw :i^ow 9dS** fBdi *' (bloa aaw 98uarf 

*',®XBaei 10I "^jfiaqoTtq srtt ,tri;aj;;od eaooTi'' i&di ba& "^^C^I 

;*^/aria d-^ boB ^tblissd ed^ ;tB susw seixot Sa* sxi xiedw «iiofc litrow 9il;t ©varf 

ed;^ lo seadoiiAi sitct lol ^oan^isoo iMii .' ' oa bad eextoL amict 

'10 f:§i;s*'^o« J3 eoalq o* &am zeaol &9»%iao9 &tij 'iodosi*' i&tVi {Yiiaqonq 

bSsicm AHl 9xtf iBtii aenoT. fclod''' ®ri ^aitt ba& "jaealmsnq ©riid^ no 00^ ^<^ 

" iQnob B&w anlixtlaqen Jbin;^ siiior-oi/iasi aatoz az&lcixi aaol oxli eatsia ion 

«rjoo B ben^Jte eanol. »aob jitow eriJ- ©vsd o;J atld fcXo;t eenot lecfts" ^sdcf 

4«>£^-t t£5; xbM l)sd-j3fi Bj3w dtihiti ^aeelatsiq ad:f lo ©aBdonirti adi 10I io&ii 

loX 'leatoid «fM a/^w 5x;cf aseHiisiq «d;t lo isxiaro srld' Jon aaw" #ri ;tBd;^ 

oJ- noisaiffiffioo a»n©j{oid a tol beiilvoiq d-ofirri-noo surW" ioAt "jxibM ono 

anCJ no X»9xll J-mroffla ad;^ nl *** XQlaioQ & aonaV o;f iwIXee xd fiXaq ©d 

aenoL -tjsdd^ •♦ ^Bnoifialasmoo lo alobedoa e'f)a6oa ©c^acfaS laaS ossoidO 

fclaq adflGl. ,d£^I ,1 d^ei^sxrA no d'sd;^ i;toa'SJ/ioo odJ no OCS$ a±ri blaq 

^^ ^t©da»;Jqea fcei^afc *^8etde cfneHisI^tJas Xsnl'i' no" JjeucW ^eioia 001$ lald 

tcfi Ji'oc-rfD ',-:-5Vj:30'%'r aerio"^. iasbafsteb ^aolJ wGt.'n ill E:'?;iJ:i]L!'. le"; no <^£(?X 

.... , ■ . .:...-' ©rid' ^-'i ^■rin ,!^S,£-^.1'. 



$5^500 and defendant Indorsed same and turned it over to Vance for 
delivery to Marx;" that the \^ltness ♦'did not deliver said check to 
Marx but retained $6o of this check and delivered to Earx his check 
for $583.50?'' that he and Liarx had trouble as to the amount due the 
latter; and that he "knew that Jones paid Marx an additional sua of 
$369.47 on iiarch I8, 1937, before he was able to obtain possession 
of the premises," 

During the course of Vance's testimony plaintiff identi- 
fied certain exhibits which defendants later introduced in evidence. 
The first of these exhibits was a statement sent by plaintiff to 
Vance & Gormley for $175 covering the cost of the work in question. 
Defendants' Exhibit 2 was their contract for the purchase of the 
property in which the price was fixed at $5^800, $300 of which was 
to be paid in cash and the balance by way of a loan of $5^500. 
Defendants' Exhibit 3 was the receipt given by Vance -tk Gormley to 
Jones for the -i)200 paid to Vance on the contract of purchase. This 
receipt recited that such payment was deposited on the purchase price 
of the premises "to be returned if contract of sale is not con^- 
summated in thirty days," 

The folloY/ing agreed statement as to the testimony of 
defendant Thomas Jones is quoted from the record: "He denied that 
he was the owner of the premises in question at or before the time 
the work in question was done; denied that he at any time had directed 
or authorized Vance to have the work in question done, or ever had any 
notice or knowledge that Vance had purported to have the work done for 
defendants or as their agent; denied that Vance was his agent; he 
intended to resell the place; he had been out to the place before he 
signed the contract and saw the condition of it; Vance stated that he 
would arrange for the mortgage with the FHA; at that time Vance told 
him that the PHA would require some stucco work to be done, to which 
Jones said nothing; that Vance told him he would have the work done 
but nothing was said about Jones paying for It or that it would be 
charged to Jones; that he knew the viorls. was going on and saw the same; 
that he did not at any time inquire of Vance as to how Vance had 



1' ^;w 

ioeda alri xia^i o;^^ c©isv±X&i> bOB afosdo eln^ 'io Qd$ bBnl&i&i its^ xraU. 
lo ifiwe lBcioJ:i^i£)b« as xie^A btpq zeno\< Smii wenai* ad Jaxid- boe ii9;td"Bl 

,»aneJbi:v© ui b^acboaJRi i^^isl sifnj&ibnelQf) riolriw eiJtcfMxe ai&it&t b»ll 

o# lliJfllBlq \cf ;?n©e dtTi«CHxJ-itj-E s saw ecMtfMxi^ ssori^ lo t«*ill eift 

.nolif€sffp al iiow »fW lo ;feoo 9tii soiT^voo $\I$ lol 'tsLmoO A ©oxxbV 

arf^f lo ea^ooifq srii aol J-Ofirrfxioo rclMi:t saw S i^lcfirixS ♦ 8^fl6Jtaol«G 

♦ OOl^tt:^ lo fljBOl fi lo xs« \<i tftttBlsrf sjcU baa fla«o Hi: blsq scf o* 

oi ^eJJssno"' :^' 9Qfl«V \cf <fi»v^ J-qleoerr srfcf aaw £ iirfliliS "•ai^nabnalofl 

sMT . daaa'pii/q lo Sv&^tiisoo 9Ai ao eonsV oi bt&q 00S4: ©itJ lol ssno't 

oJtiq eej3Xloix;q sdi iio b^il&oq9b ssw ^xtwtncAq riojja ^AfJ* beito^i ;tqi»o«i 

-•aos cfon «i cXfiE 1© ^S8«J^floo li b©£iij:;;J»a »cf oj-" aealMsnq ejtl;t lo 

",axsb \:lrildi at bBtaimuH 

lo xflQSLlia&i &di at 8« ^tno^mwj - Ja Jb»«is« snlwoIXol wf: 

;fjBrIcJ^ LoJifleb ©H" ibaoosi eil;f lao-rl b9iosip sX aaaoT^ aeiaoif^ Ja.o^.>l^^l9b 

oeBlS Btii Qtolod lo is axiiiesup cil asaXxDenq flult lo ismro sffcJ' e«w ari 

'^":tosiil) b&d eali "^a© ;tia erf ^/Wtt b9Xn«b iwiob asw «oid-a©jjp al i-xoir o/W- 

4 ibari n©v9 to c^nob aoi^sawp xil ^lovr •!!;* pvsri oj eoajaV b@^liodSuB to 

'*ol aaob Jiiow oiH ovarf od^ baJioqioq beri ©oxtsV ;^£jrid- ©jfeeXwacaoi •ro 8oi;toxi 

art i^tasas eixl aaw saoeV tad$ beta^b \inQ:i& itsdi aa lo aiasbadl^b 

axl eiolsrf sosXq ari;^ oi ;tx;o aescf b&ri «xl issisXq strict XXeae^ oi bsb^aecfizl 

erf i&sii jb9^£ifg eojifiV (d^X lo noXiJXisioo sad* was briB io&raaoo eftJ fceosXa 

bXo;t ©orusy esili iBd:i ie iJikM adt ia^llw enB^iiom ericf rtol e^siaa bXwow 

dolst'W oi ^eiiob od oi ^tov oostrJ-a 9fflo« aiXwp©*! blucm AMS ©iii' cfsxLt mtxi 

eriob inow edd^ ev&cl bXifov? ©ri mXii bXod^ eooisy :^aiiJ i^fiMioti bl^a esnoL 

3(S bXwov? il iMi io ii lol ^alxsq 8«nolt *^ocf« bisa saw gflirWon ^twd 

19ciii8 ©ri;t WB2 baa no sfllog aaw a£:tow ©xtJ- wexijf ©if ;t«d;J tesfloT. oi |j©8a£sxio 

b.Qiif ©oosV WQfl oJ 2s ©ansV lo onli/pflX ©fflXit "^pLa i^ ioa bib sxf i&di 



-5- ) 

procured the premises to be restuccoed nor as to who did the work 
and said that he never received any notice of any kind from the 
plaintiff of his intention to do the work or that he liad done the 
work or that he was looking to Jones for payment of the work until 
about a year after the v/ork was coiapleted, when plaintiff called hiffl 
on the telephone and asked him to pay, and he declined to pay. Ho 
knew that Vance expected to resell the premises upon the usual 
commission." 

The only question raised by the pleadings and necessary 
to be determined from the evidence was that of agency, When Vanee 
of Vance & Gormley, the real estate brokers, entered into the contract 
with plaintiff for the performance of the work Involved, did he do 
so as the authorized agent of defendants? There is no evidence in 
the record that even remotely tends to show that plaintiff relied 
upon any relationship of agency between Vance and the defendants at 
the time that he entered into the contract v/ith Vance ahd performed 
the work* 

According to plaintiff's testimony Vance, whom he knew, 
came to him, ordered the work done and said he would pay for it when 
the building was sold, Vance also testified that he ordered the work 
done and that it was to be paid for when the building was sold, 
Jones's name was not mentioned by Vance to Purnell, Plaintiff testi- 
fied tiiat he did not know Jones, had never heard of him and that he 
never had any business dealings with him. So far as plaintiff was 
concerned Jones was not in existence. Having made no investigation 
of the title to the premises he did not know whether Jones owned the 
property or had any interest in it. If he had investigated the title 
he would have fo\md that Jones was not the owner of record of this 
property when the contract was made with Vance or when the work was 
completed July 18, I936, the deed to defendants not having been 
recorded until July 26, I936. Purnell charged this Job on his books 
to Vance u Gormley and to them alone and he thereafter sent out state- 
ments to them requesting payment and to them only. He stated that he 



jttm 9iii bib om o^ &» 'ma b&oo9i}ie9i wi oi «wl)b»«1 •d^ b^ruivo-vi 

9&J matt iiflM XfUi "lo iol^oa xftn b9vl&&»i wtv^a a<{ iiasii bl&^ ^loe 

B^ eaob bad ad i»^ lo ^^«» 3«U oil o;^ noi^/ia^txiJt ajtfl lo filiaiAl^ 

9R ♦▼sti o:^ b&all09b Bik boR ,x«{i «>>? «iif^ £«>[aB ans aootlqsX©^ Qdi no 
Xjsxfaw sfU" noqjj eealaioiq arU Ilsaei ocf f>s>^o»<T-j|0 «o«aV ;fB/iJ v/efli 

'*«nola8l!aii09 
•^rtaaa-eoe/i baa saiiJtbesXq €«id^ Tjrf bsaiflTt aoJUTsawp xlto Qjri^ 

ofe »ii fcii* ^fitevioviil afiow an^ lo dOiuaswol^sq mii lol lllwXLLeXq xitJtw 

ca donsfelvo or; el oieriT ^aifflj&liaeletf) lo ija»i£ beslaoii^tWiS «1^ es oc 

b9il9i I'UJnisIq *af{^ waila o^ sJbas^ TCl«;roiB»i nevo Jadi b^ooai ©xli 

ia «;^jBai^«»lsi> 9x1;* iww bdoaV £t9»«*J»flf \:s«i93» lo qldaaolJ^Bisi ^ae ^»q^ 

J&feaKo'lioq l>djs 90iXcV dUvr ioaitnoo Bdi oicl i)9^®^flP sr' -^ r^^ :■ '^calJ eriJ' 

^#;«iiii till j«Oi;.. 4teiC;*:--)V ^^iiuallJ'tteJ" 8* llU'Aljij.H i»J 'a^il^^'l^-'^. 

oBiim il lol XAq blvov^ ari fcisa biiB ©nob ^lan 9di fc^'iebao t"^--. ~- — ^^ 

■iltvfi 31^ i)9iaX)io sJd ;JBJirf betlli&BS o&la aaoaV .fcXoa aaw ^Ibllud ©xU 

.jbXoa suw sa-i^jtlwd ariw ne^tw "jol fclaq od o^ caw ii i&di baa anofi 

"lisei lliJnXeX^ .XX^mirti o3 ©wiaV >jrf l)s«oJ::^a©iB ;Joxt axiw om&a e'esnoL 

©li d^sitJ- iiflus ssld lo fcisexi 'levsa fcsil ^sanoL wooit ctoa liXli ad iiUi$ b&ll 

83W lliJnisXq ea *i&1 oa ♦alri xl^i*f aaaiX««f) B&ml&tid \fijs 5aii icavaa 

ceiiaa-t^asvriX oa Bbam :^alv&H »?if>aBi&tfC9 al J-on aflw asxsoX. Joenneonoo 

exU b&imo senoT. i»£[:tsi*w womi ;foa bXb ext a©8lse(T:q ©xi^ oi &lSiJ Bdi lo 

oXJli s£[J b9;iii^li&svia. fcjad ati II .;M fll itBO^©;^!!! 'iCflfi b«£r 10 x^J^ieqoiq 

aJuij lo i5^oof»i lo nsxiwo •d;? ;Jon bbw esaoTi ii^i bsvol »vj6xi bluow ©il 

a aw AtGif sin fiSiiw 10 eOfltJsT jci^flw ©&.sffi aJ5W *oa*x*aoo 9tii aexiw xc^ifcqoaq 

a©»d scivBfi Jo« E;trLsJ!>nol©fc o* bsofc adcT <^^X ^SX xl^^^ 2)e;t®Iqcioo 

R2iood &lii ££0 dot £i^ fa©8i»fIo IXentu^ .^^X ^^S xJ^« XlcJou b&b^oosi 

'^QSaiB Ssso Jrxsa 'lecrliieisriJ' ojti fcfls ©xsola arari* od- baa ^almiofl i. ©oxiiiV o;t 



trusted Vance & Gormley and that he did not coaimunicate with Jones 
in any manner "until about a year after the work was completed," 

The only evidence in the record upon which plaintiff 
relied to establish the fact that Vance was the agent of Jones in 
this transaction was the testimony of Vance' that when he took Jones 
out to look at the property the latter told him to have "this work 
done." At that time Jones had not entered into the contract for 
the purchase of the property and, even after he had signed the con- 
tract of purchase, the consummation of the deal v/as contingent upon 
the acceptance by the then mortgagee of payment of the outstanding 
mortgage indebtedness in a reduced amount and the procurement by 
defendants of a FHA loan# 

It is clear from plaintiff's ov.cn testimony that he told 
Mr, Vance as the agent of Vance <£.- Gormley that he trusted Vance & 
Gormley, that he extended the credit to Vance & Gormley and that he 
looked solely to Vance & Gormley for payment. We think it was only 
as an afterthought and for some reason not apparent from the evidence 
that more than a year after the work was completed lis sought to 
impose this obligation upon defendants. In our opinion plaintiff 
failed utterly to show any liability on defendants' part. 

The decree in this cause, which awarded a sale of the 
premises in question, was entered without notice to defendants •r 
their counsel and in their absence on December 1^, 1939* sLad defend- 
ants* attorney had no knowledge of its entry until January 10, 1940, 

On March 8, 194-0, defendants presented a verified petition 

for leave to file a bill of review on the ground of "nev.'ly discovered 

evidence coupled with fraud," Said petition contained the following 

among other pertinent and material allegations; 

"And your petitioners further represent, that since the 
rendition of said decree, your petitioners have discovered new 
matter of consequence in. said cause, and particularly, that prior 
to the filing of the uaid claim for lien, the said plaintiff had 
executed and delivered to the Chicago Title & Trust Company a 
general waiver of the lien prayed for in said bill and awarded by 
said decree; that said waiver was addressed 'To all whom it may 

concern; ' that a photostatic copy of waid waiver of lien is hereto 



(7 "^ 

•'.i>cj^'»XqK©o cjsw 3i'wwr sxi^ lad'li -iAOt A ii/ocfa IX^iu/» iftxinaffl x^jb ul 

AiOfi aJUi^" 6V>5ri o^ sttd hloi i6;}i&S. 9£li %it»(iQtq &{i) i& jIooX oS tuo 

-noo 9itt baaals bsA eiL 'xsi)"!* nave ^bcu xii9qoiq Biii lo ss&doipq eiW 
ccKiii *n»snl^noo a/jw . |»<»fc &tl^ lo ooiutAcoauEx:oo 9/l:f ^sa^xfoowq lo ;tojBi;t 

♦xisoX AK £ lo zia&haetQb 

:^> doiuV tsie^ii 3d iatii •^»JUmoO -^i esi£uV lo ia^^z 9di i.& soiisV .iM 

qA ii&dS ba& xsSm'wO :& 69;l»V oj ;^XX)9:io 9di b^.ba@:tx9 dii ;t£rf;}^ ^XeXrtrzoi) 

XiMH aiw :fX :iaMif ^ .^asK^feq lol \BjjnoD Jit ©onaV o;^ xX«Xos bs>^ool 

•dfio£»Xve silt iHoil Jas'i&(iqs ioa noassi aooe lol baa ^risifoxlcfie^ls na s^s 

oi idt&o& «^i bdJeXqioad sew jliow fid^ -se^lfi -i69X £ a&di siom i&di 

llii^jpJ^Xq woinXq© luo aX , a^flfiitfisl^b noqu aoX^ iaaXXcfo sldt seoqul 

•jfiaq » aixjujMsleii no ^HL^bXI xas wode oct xXis^ttfi; ff^ri i' 

cuiJ' lo eX«a a betbimia doXdm ^qsubo eXrW nX eeio&b exlT 

•JO ad^iU3i>iX0ls>fc od" ©oXJ^oc .^ifQcLfXw b9is?;fxis a^w ^aoX^feeup al sosXinsnq 

-^rflolafc JbflA <$££X 4^X 'id«lM60sG ao eon&ecfjs iXsiU^ at fcna Xeacxroo aXoxfJ" 

♦ OK*X «.0X X'2£jJ3kjbT. XXSm; x^«« e^X lo saJjsXwocal on fjsd x««^o>^Jfl *Bias 

noXil^aq i>»XlXi»v a £>&ifja)$a©iq ad-asXtaoleJb ^0*^X i^8 xXoijsM xxO 

ii&isvooaib ^wea" lo biiuo-x^ eil;? co weXvei lo XXxcf s »XX1 o^ svaeX lOl 

SaiwoXIol ox!'^ b9sUuinoo ooX^Xd-eq £>X«v ".fJiWAtl xi;JXw beXqi/oo soflsfiXvs 

tafioi^sg&XXfi IsXie;?aw Jbiis iattaliisqi led&o sxtoaie 

wi^ esnle i&iiii ^4n**8 9'Tq«'i uexliti;/^ si9floX;tXd"9q i»oy btiA** 

W8G bsit- V 8i3noX.'' • -'OX ^^»n:r -^ lo GoX;JXftfi9'x 

toiiq, ^sd^ ^ . .i i)Gii ^ isa .aX noo lo i&Jcfcfii 

fcjwl •llX:txTi;.-lL iiXi.c siiJ ^asXX -iSl laiiiXo £>XiBe L.ii^ lo snllil sxf^ o^ 

j3 ^ffsqiEoO d-sji/nT i. ©XJXT osaoixil; oricj" o;J" xji-iisyXIsc jbcis ftsJ-xfooxs 

Xrf t' riicf £>li52 ill lol beYfiiq nsXX 3x£;t lo ^evXsw Xeieneg 

\;i.w .... . .Ijs oT* b^z&Qibb& sbw 'idvXiiW bi/i>s ^fi^rlJ- is&'iosb fiXss 

o;f»^oii sX oeXX lo levXaw fcXjBW lo Yqoo 3X:tsd-ao;toriq s cfsfli ' {ai&oaob 



-7- ) 

attached, marked Exhibit A and hereby made a part hereof, 

"And your petitioners state that they did not know ©f 
said waiver of lien and coiild not by reasonable diligence have 
known of it, so as to make use thereof in the said cause, previous 
to and at the time of the pronouncing of said decree. That your 
petitioners had never heard of the plaintiff herein at any time 
until one year after the work was completed, when plaintiff 
demanded payment of them; that several months thereafter, plain- 
tiff sued petitioners and after hearing, took a nonsuit. That 
thereafter, on January 3, I938, plaintiff filed his claim for lien 
in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, 
but that no notice thereof came to petitioners until, to-vdt, the 
25th day of January, 19 38, by opinion of the Chicago Title & Trust 
Company, That thereupon defendants served a thirty day demand 
pursuant to statute, on plaintiff to file his bill hereinj that 
prior to said Chicago Title & Trust Company opinion, petitioners 
had never had any notice of any claim for lien by plaintiff, 

"That petitioners were informed on, to-wit, Mardb, 1st, 
1940, by their attorney, that he had discovered that a waiver of 
said lien had been executed and delivered by plaintiff to the 
Chicago Title & Trust Company, And your petitioners are advised 
that the said new matter is conclusive in nature and effect upon 
the rights of the plaintiff herein," 

Exhibit "A" referred to in the petition is as follows? 

"July 29, 1936. 

"TO ALL KHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 

"Whereas, we the undersigned, Purnell Stucco Recoating 
Co., have been employed by Thomas Jones to furnish labor and 
material for stucco work for the building known as 9I8 Belleforte 
Ave*, Oak Park, 111* 

"NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW YE, That He the undersigned for 
and in consideration of One Hundred and Seventy-five and no/lOO 
Dollars, and other good and valuable considerations, the receipt 
Y/hereof is hereby acknovi'ledged, do hereby waive and release any 
and all lien, or claim or right to lien on said above described 
building and premises vinder the Statutes of the State of Illinois 
relating to Mechanics » Liens, on account of labor or materials, 
or both, furnished or which may be furnished by the undersigned 

to or on account of the said for said building or 

premises. 

"Given under hand and seal this 29th day of July 
A. D, 1936, 

"PURNELL STUCCO RECOATING CO, (Seal) 
"H. D. Piirnell (oviner) 
"Exhibit 'A*." 

The trial court peremptorily denied defendants' petition 

for leave to file the bill of review. We think that the court 

erred in so doing. Since the defendants were not guilty of laches 

under the facts alleged in their petition, they should have been 

allowed to file their bill of review. The waiver of lien, wMch 
was set forth in and made a part of the petition and the bill of 







.V j". .' ' ' ■ ■ 





lo : fcflA" 

V _ I lo te-vlfsxr blsz 

tuo , .aa fttW" fll >8ij «2i 03 ^it lo xwonal 

i:. . , . o^h r.j-^^£ '^v. .. .rr:c ■.■.' ,;,■: oi'j :! \ L:;.* o;^ 

•i; 
— ..•.;;— < .iAfoeJb 

J.u:. ' . - . ■ m;^ 

i> no .1 'J 

.. Jxrcf 

. oi ianst&iuq 
■iaa o* Toltq 
, - ..ad n9V»n bsfl 

1© 1»Vlsw S ■ d •!{ i( ' ' ' Xd ^C•^^I 

i>63iV.0i3 ■.i:Oi iSjiU .Vi£i-.i^ - ^loTi' O830JU10 

noq« cfo; it BrituLoaoo s.1 •: ^n btsz odi ^aiH 

",«Jtft':«if lliJnii.i.; etii lo eJrisii sriJ 

.:c 'oii.0' a«i al floJixticr^q axl^t ni oi bsiislai "A" ^JttflxlatS 

tiifissaoo YAM Ti umr. jju ot" 

:or(T \(( £>9XoIqJii8 xidecf eTAtI ^.oO 

9;J-nolb. ...... .. o ; ...^.^i j,..........^ rili tol :4iow 099i;;fe lol IstiBi&a 

TOl bsnsir.iebixi; <^?£{:t oW i^sriT ^SY WJ/iJi ^2? ^fOI^»• 

OOX\ofI i'- '' ■■':■ r■':-.^vrf'~,\fi:^y '■..■it.. -w,-. - f '-i ; ; r r' -: o^f , ' -, ^ ; :-v I ;..i i v --; '< r; r rM;Tj3 

TfTU se^ ' , . .. ,1 - _ -, *^.Y 

Jbs^iTOc; ffll^slo 10 jnall LI& bxis 

«^;^v.rrT • ... _ ,.,if ^ceiiir>''' ?»!-• ■' ^r).rrnd 

^ : '^c ■ no ^ansiJ *30iii. i 

....- . 6.3^r oil- ,::. „. . 9d "^aia lfoirfw-^i^& frfc.. -,-..-- - 4,:.. . 10 

10 gnxblii/d DXiJ8 aol _ fclBE •rW lo ;liX£roopfi no 1.0 o^ 

,esRliU9T:q 

'••:IifT. lo x&b ricf^S aJifW l£»e Bus fccaji ^©fiiuf nevi-D" 
(Xiiefi) , :a wiJSFifFjq" 

ixoX;fXv8q 'aJ-rteiJiislsIi fisifxeb xXiTcoiqneiBq c^ijyoo iBln^ ©ffT 

;r'zx/a> ©At inM iriijSJ «W *w9jtvsi to XXitf dij[;f »X11 ocf evseX id 

89iloaI lo x^XXi^jj ;toxi ©isw ac^issijaol^Jb sxtt sooXa ,3flioi> 03 rtl bail© 

£i©6«f evfid bXCQcCa x«rf-^ ^xtoX^Jl^'Sf iXad;f rti fe^s^XXfi 2;«'o.sl siid^ isbmr 

ilDiriw ^uslX lo isvXiiw ariff .^sivsi lo 1114 il&Ai &XX1 o;t fcswoXXa 
lio XXXd sxf^t Mb noxJ^i^teq axi^ lo itoiaq a d6fia hub al xf;^iol c^ee a«ir 



review, was executed under seal and delivered by plaintiff to the 
Chicago Title & Trust Company on July 29, 1936» This new evi- 
dence was conclusive and constituted a complete defense to plain- 
tiff's claim. The v/aiver was general and ran "To all whom it may 
concern^" It contained no conditions or limitations. It expressly 
described the lien involved here and expressly waived it. It named 
the parties and specifically described the premises in question. It 
was under seal and acknowledged payment in full of the specific sum 
claimed in this case. This waiver furnished an absolute defense to 
any claim plaintiff might have had against the defendants or anyone 
else by reason of the performance of the work upon which the instant 
claim is based* Although the trial court erred in refusing to 
grant defendants* petition for leave to file their bill of review, 
it v/ould serve no useful purpose to remand the cause on that 
account* 

For the reasons stated herein the decree of the Circuit 
court is reversed and plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for want 
of equity* 

DECREE REVERSED, PUIKTIPF»S 
COMPLAINT DISMISSED FOR WANT OF 
EQUITY* 

Friend, P, J,, and Scanlan, J,, concur^ 



t 

-IvQ non aJtriT ♦^C?! ^?S xJ^^ no \;GsqiaoO JeifiT iS 9lilT o^soldO 

\«a c>-i moi'Iw Ilii «df* £is'* I)fis Jjarxenoa mam irnvtm &dt ,alBlo z^VilS 
Xlczoi'yy.r . .•.io:-J.z&LiSLtl IG zaaii i.bp.ot> en fs&ritQinos) il "^ii^eoaoi) 

xeaeiqjc© Ixn© fc^.'«i{ f>«rvIovnl rteiX itttf l>e<fl«ioe»b 
;tl .i&oi^ssii. LflK^iq ©^ b9^l'toa.@b \:XI«t>±lLlosqE boa EtJtJ-isq Oii;f 

'.mz dllissNis j4^ to IIvl &l $£i»etiti(.i 6»3l)@J^«a3^j^ i^cuB laea' lohtas sen 

^ '.-!R^*lEf& tKtoioadfi aj5 &ei!»iwiirt levlaw aidT .aero aldj njt toiilelo 

:^ajiiziiX bjH xioJLrivr soqts Tiim ^^ to eoOMnotrtoq wH to noeeei x^ Qzlo 

oi sfxiej-jloi aJt be^iB J"iyoo LBX's:i &rli d^vmUlk »&9fiBCf al clEaIo 

^w&lv&i l:o IXlcf ^l9tii ©Xi't o^J- •vaftl lol aold-lJoq • «;tiw£«xol9j3 ;tnaTC8 

i^jjjtt no dsiiBO eftt bii£ui6i o^f 98oq'Xjjq LUTlbbu oa vvnss bluo'^ il 

ilisoiiQ 9ti3 'to s8iDeb sirf;t jttlsiail bs^sJa aflo«r.en 9it;f lol 
iam loJ. bBaslaoilb al :tai&Lqmoo s'^THialalq bOA fcecisvsi al iTSioc 

*^lup9 "lO 



^ou^fioo ,,\. ^ixsIoiiSJcJ fen-; ,. . ^buel^^l 



STATE OF ILLINOIS 

APPELLATE COURT 

FOURTH DISTRICT 

May Term, A. D. 1940. 



Term No. 1 




JAiffiS MACHAC ana^i^SARY/lvIACHAC, ) 

/ / / ) 

/ Appellees ) 

L/ / ) 



EAST ST. LOUIS Sc INTERURBAN / 
WATER COMPANY, l ) 

) 
Appell&nt. ) 




Appeal tjiim the 



/ CircTJltl Court of 
v».-^t. Crsur County. 

S07 I.A. 540 



Dady, J. 

Plaintiffs recovered a judgnent for $476.00 and 
costs on a verdict of a jury in a tort action cgains'^,'<refendant , 
from which judgment defendant appeals. 

Plaintiffs ovmed a brick house and lot in East 
St. Louis, abutting on a public alley. In March 1938, defendant 
installed a water main in and along this alley, and in so doing 
dxig a trench about tv/onty-four inches v;ide and about five feet 
deep. The inner edge of such trench was about six and a half 
feet from the nearest wall of such house. 

The complaint charged that in digging such trench 
the defendant carelessly, negligently and improperly used and 
operated heavy pov/er machinery so close to such house that the 
operation and vibration of such machinery caused the house to 
vibrate and the walls and ceilings thereof to be cracked and 
that the reasonable cost of repairs v/as $5,000. 

By its answer the defendant acknov/ledged digging 
the trench, but denied any negligence, denied causing any in- 
juries and denied that the reasonable cost of the repairs was 
|3,000. 

The first contention of the defendant is that 
the plaintiffs did not prove by the greater weight of the evi- 
dence that the defendant v/as negligent, and that the "over- 
whelming preponderance of the evidence is in favor of the de- 
fendant on the question of any damages to this building by the 



operation of this machine." 

The trench V'.TiS dug by means of a ditching machine 
run by a gas engine. One vatness for the plaintiff testified 
that when the machine was working at the place in question it 
ran into some buried railroad ties and "the ground was shaking 
just like an earthquake"; another witness who lived across the 
alley testified that when it struck such ties it "shook the 
(his) house," that he ran outside and saw the machine stop work- 
ing and then start again and "it just shook everything around 
there"; another witness testified that at the time the machine 
struck such ties he was standing about five feet from the machine 
and "when it hit the ties it jarred the ground all around"; 
another that v/hen such machine hit the tics there was "plenty 
of vibration"; another that "when the scoops v/ould hit the ties 
the machine shook and shook the ground" and he felt the "shake" 
when he v;as about tv^enty feet from the machine; another that 
"when the machine pulled the ties out the ground would shake 
all around." The plaintiffs and a sister of one of the plain- 
tiffs testified that at the time in question they were in the 
house and felt the house shake and the dishes rattle. Ten 
employees of the defendant testified that at different times 
they were in some way connected v/ith the work in question; that 
there was no vibration at all and no railroad or other ties 
where the ditch v/as dug. 

Several v/itnesses testified that before the ditch 
v/as dug the walls and ceiling of the house v^'ere intact, but 
were cracked after such digging, the cracks appearing within 
three or four days. 

Defendant contends that it appears from certain 
photographs "there are no cracks on the wall of that building." 
yje have examined the photographs and do not find them at all 
helpful in passing from the question of v/hether or not there 
were cracks in or on the walls. 

The truth of all this testimony v/as, of course, a 
question for the jury and we cannot say that the verdict is 
manifestly against the weight of the evidence. There v.-as ample 
evidence to justify the jury in finding the defendant was 



negligent, and that the house of plaintiff v/as injured through 
such negligence. 

The next contention of defendant is that the court 
erred in the follovdng rulings: 

"Q. V/ould you say that any of these 
cracks in this house v/ere crused 
by natural settling after tv;enty 
some odd years? 

"IViR. FAElvIER: I object. That would be 
a conclusion of the vdtness and 
invades the province of the jury. 

"The Court: Objection overruled. 

To which ruling of the Court counsel 
for the defendant then and there 
excepted. 

"Q. Would you say that those cracks were 
caused by natural settling? 

"A. No. I don't think so because the 
house was there so many years and 
it v/as all right. 

"Mr. Farmer: I move to exclude that 

answer as incompetent and improper 
and being a conclusion and invading 
the province of the jury. 

"The Court: Motion denied." 

The brief of plaintiffs does not give the name of 
the v/itness being examined, and does not refer to any page of 
the abstract or record, as should be done. 

It will be noted that although the court overruled 
the objection to the first question, there was no answer, so 
there was no harm in the ruling. 

There v/as no objection to the second question. If the 
question v/as objectionable, objection should have been made 
before the v/itness replied. In our opinion the notion to 
exclude the ansv/er should have been allowed, as the question 
as to v/hat caused the cracks v/as an ultimate fact to be passed 
upon by the jury. Hov/ever, considering the v/nole record, v/e 
do not consider this sufficient to justify a reversal. (See 
Schneider v. Manning, 121 111. 376, 386, which is one of the 
cases cited by defendant.) 

The next and last complaint of defendant is that the 
court erroneously permitted plaintiffs to prove the damages by 
showing the cost of repairs, and erred in giving the jury an 



inGtruction tliat tne measure of doxiagGs was the recsortabic 
cost of tlio repairs o Only one vdtnoss testified on the sub- 
ject of dcj-iages, and his figure \'\'as the sor.ie as the amount of 
the verdict. Defendant contends that the neasure of di^nages 
is the difference in value, if any, of the property before and 
after the injury. Defendant cites Peck v. Chicago Rys. Co. , 
270 111. 34 and nany similar cases in support of his conten- 
tion. V/e do not consider any of these cases in point on the 
facts. Each of such cases v/as a condonnation case, or a case 
relating to soiae public iLiprovenent , and in no one of such cases 
does it appear that there was any charge of or proof tending to 
show negligence as in the case at bar. In the Peck case it 
was said "The declaration makes no charge of negligence or 
complaint as to the moiiner in which the improvement was made ***, 
The action of the city v/as not v<Tongful or illegal. There is 
no complaint of v.-ant of skill or unreasonable delay in the 
performance of the work." VJe believe under the pleadings and 
facts in the case at bar the measure of damages was the 
reasonable cost of the repairs necessary to restore the pro- 
perty. (McDonell vs. Ry. Co., 208 111. App. 442.) 

The court did not err in the adi..ission of evidenoe 
or in giving such instruction. 



APFIRMED. 



\F\\ 



OCT 2 8 1940 

CLERK OF THE APPELLATE COURT 
FOURTH DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 



4. 




4122t 



and CMMSTIKE RAjiMM. /J 

|f /I Ap>a^at», y *^#^ '^^'*** 

VICTOR H. W/BKECtF.. •! al./ / |Ly^ w''V--|*^^i5^l'^ik X^ 

f i^p^^«. @^07 LA. 540 

MH, FPIESISIKa JUSTICE 0»CO«»OR BKUVKRKD THK OPIUIOII OF THi: COUHT. 

ilAlntiffe, th* holders of aortlfloatoa of bonofieial Inter- 
••t In « trust, brought eult tig&inst th« trust** and trust aaaagers 
to enjoin the sala of th« trust property and for the re^tral of the 
trust aanagers. Defendants* notion to strike the eoaplalnt wss sus- 
tained, the suit dlsalssed for »rant of equity and plaintiffs appeal. 

The allegations of the eoaplalnt, as aaended, are that in 
1928 a lien of a trust deed, securing an Indebtedness of $375,000, waa 
foreclosed and the property sold under the decree to a bondholders* 
oofluslttee; that afterward there vas a plan for reorganization pur- 
suant to which the Normandy Hall Building Liquidation Trust was 
created and the Aaerieaa National iaank & Trust Coapany naaed as liqui- 
dating trustee. Gertifieates of benefloial Interest were issued to 
the forowr bondholders, plaintiffs being the owners of 1700 unite of 
a total of 372,500 units. 

The trust agreenent proTlded that the trustee should aet 
upon the direction of the three trust aanafers who were aade defend- 
ants and who had the actual aanagcawnt and control of the property} 
that they alfht direct the trustee to dispose of the property provided 
that not less than SO days* notice be given to the holders of the 
beneficial units. Th9 afprceaent further proTided that the property 
could not be sold if the holders of more than 36/i of the unite ob- 
jected to th« proposed sale. 

It was further alleged that Charles H, Albere, as receiver 
for the Bain banks, was the owner of nox<e than 36^ of the units; that 
defendant, K A. Mueller, was an eaployee of the i^tate Auditor who hed 



no? r|k 



i ft Ml It 



•▼ 




_£ '^ ._,___ .. :. i . ^nonrnM .M JioroTf 



O^G 'lil TO 8 



.imJOlt IH. '^a 4MliaiUllt .l!M 

!)i»^«A« ^atf?} ten 9t*int Mtf f«alft9« fitn f<ft««vtf ^ftni « nl ft* 

««f} to X4Vo«n Mil nel £«« Iifii»qo^ ttira<l Mf* ^c •!«• Mft Aioln« e# 

.lA»q(l« atmalAiq IMM xtiap9 lo Jtwv nol h—imBlh tl$n lU t^uUmi 

•Av ,(K}0,«5*8i to •iiMi5«ttf«&«i M imnwoM ^b%9b Sntnt m to nell » tSQX 

' •lo^iotttAotf • o^ fnn99b mttf fkaa blo» j^nmi^nq mAi ftiu BotoX^rxot 

-niiq a»ltm»l9M-gnif>9rt tot nmlq, » •mi ovotft bntMtrt9t\» lAdt ;oo«llMiOO 

-•tupll MM h9m»m tfl*^*^ tnmtt *■ dtuA XajioIIaM OMOlt^mh tli bOA 6o^«no 

93 frouoal o««w }84Ki9lAi XAls»ito0Orf to ■otooitlt^oO .OOttifX^ lOitfjftA 

to KStnu OOTX to i»<io«we oiiy »f)io«( ottifnioXq ,»io*X0tfteetf nioavot oiO 

.t^lflir 00&,STS to X*tfo« • 

torn bluo^ oolttft^ oMf ^«i0 Mbi-vtFtq t«oa«««a« »airt» oiTT 

-ftflotoft •Sum o^ov oif» notMUMi #9irx9 oovff oitt to aoltoorfA otfi aoqv 

;x''s*<4«^<i •<i' )o Xevffloe bRS; tatt^^nBamm imuS9» •dt b»A odw bam bSom 

bmbt^vxq ttt»qe^q m(9 to onoqaii* 09 oo^oiral ttt fntt Sd^tm xadi t«cft 

9sii to tt«xo&Xoii «d9 Of aovlB o«r oolfon *«t*l> OS wuU looX ^on tfAd^ 

^;Mo<IO<x<2 o^ ttktiS h9tlrtnq tod^ivt «(io«oo«9« ojfT ,9ttau Xoiaitonotf 

-do B^latf 9dt to H^ ntU oiom to oiol^Xojf 9d9 ti frXoo otf ^oji 6I1100 

.oXao ftooeqotsi ndt e^ i^ofoot 
'i9Vi«o»'X SA ,«*x«dl i 'X-xjailU »fld» JboaoXXA •xoiW'XUt tow ^I 

SAiAi laitatt iuU to Re& ifDd^ onco* to fow ta 9»i ««3UMMr fllAfi Oftf tot 
ftoil oiiir totlAif^v o^o^a oft# to ootoXqao A* nam ,^oXXotfN .A ,A ,»0«Ajiotoft 



-2- 

•up9x*vl«lon of the li<3uld«Uon of tho sain bAnkt whloh ««r« then in 
pFoe««« of liquidation; that about June 9,?., 1939, Kargarot MorrisMy 
offorod *100,000 for th« property, and upon isforaatlon and balief It 
kraa allogad that tiio va« aotlng as noainee "on behalf of certain 
l>er««ae whoee aaaee are unknown to the plaintiff.'* That the truet 
■anagere aippeed to do everything in their power to eoncumaate the sale 
**at a prioe of ^100,000 even though they had previous to that tine 
reeeived other offers for the property ranging; fro« *110,0(X) to 
llSOfOOO," which offers had nvytttr been subsitted to the owners of the 
unite although *th« Trust Managers full well knew that if the property 
were offered freely for sale aaong brokers and persons interested in 
property of suoh type, offers of more than «100,000 therefor eould 
have been readily proeured, « That the trust managers, about the time 
they reoeived the offer from Mai^raret Norriaeey, directed the trustee 
to notify the holders of the units of the proposed sale; that Mueller 
rettMHiended to Albers, the receiver, that the proposed sale be ae- 
eepted and that Albere should not file any objection to it; that 
plaintiffs, as owners of units, were notified of the proposed sale 
and being dissatisfied "sought out other purchasers** and procured an 
offer froa Lueille B, itfelff to purohase the property for :105,000 cash, 
which offer was submitted to the trustees; that thereupon Mueller 
filed with the trustee, objection to the proposed sale to fiargaret 
Morrissey, signed by Albere, the receiver, as owner of more than Sb% 
of the outstanding units and as a result the tale to Kargaret 
Morrinsey was abandoned and notioe of the propoeed sale to Lucille R. 
Violff for il09,0<X) was sent by the trustee, at the direction of the 
trust managere, to the holders of the units, but that such submission 
was "a mere sham in that the Trust Managers already knew that A. a. 
Mueller had induced Charles H. Albers to dissent from said lg.st 
mentiened sale and in that said A. a. )4uell«r did induee Charles K. 
Albers as <ieeeiver to file a written dissent from the proposed sale 
at ilOft,000 even though they had been willing and it \*af their in- 



fli fi»fi.r .. ..>i Ml* to ««l;r«t>ltffii «& lo aoitiv<t*4Pi« 

> ^'»JtXiM( itoA noltMnNvloJ mmtft fta« «i(t^jMtimq «U tot 000,001« 6«i*ll« 

^tii 19 ««i*#i«* «dfl itf tMtAm6u9 «MMf ^vvsn l^Ad •«i»lt« dwtJtt *,000|Q8j:| 
Xin^ntnti «rid li fJMtf «r«aK Xisv jUvI •n^iMUUkM t^rrf Mf#* 6%f§%ntlM »ilaa 

i>4j#o« ^olwtwitt < mm4t •tan to •natle ^•<i^$ ^^^^u^ )• Xfi9qMii 

iM»<rain9 «^ &«tfe<r«Xli tt»«(»l^i«iA ttvatv**' iwa i#l't« ftifir hV9l—9n \iuii 

>«4» Iti oJ ci«tY»«t«re w* «XX1 I'M ^X«nB4fi auMfXA tjtiU l^fui &<»^q«o 
9X«a i^MMNia^ tM tm h^ttlipa vx^m ««^JUur to a^mwo mi ««11Xtffl«X« 

,ilim a;o,£!OX« n^ik \i%itiim.<4 ^t^ , mmMmspii ^t )tX^ 4«i AlXiaui a««t <x»lte 
'ii!itll9U^i aoqv<rs9ii} :f«djr t«»«it«irx9 Mft ei k(^9lmdivm ««« i*tt« 4CtAX4v 

iftifieit^»n 9t •Xmi sd^r IXtdKrt. » njt Aha «tfXfi« 8aXi^««^a^0O BfU 'Xo 

. . i9lilnflL«, aitr oi:»» £)mM»<g«««t ^09 to •el4e«i &ae »> « iftai » »rfg aaw X4»iiai'vs4>R 

Ad^ to nol»9tnlt> 9iSS tn ^MNTatmar tl0 yf tama nmr 000»S01« "lOt ttioi' 

ua ila«f« jTArft ^Mi «a#laif «dl to aia£>X4>ii ««ir ot t4nA^aaMi tiun^ 

..^^ ..^ s*ti$ ^mt t*««?i» »«x«IMiuiA #ain(t ti» Uuii nt n«u$« tn^am •" nmt 

S*&1 blm floit tnatiuJtb t jnmilA ,k «»XiAiP A4M»M^ai &«ii iKaXX«tfM 

.H ttaXiad.0 aott&al Ai£ ^aXXav . l>X«a (#a44^ ml t>9» aXaa 2>»aol:rA»« 

nloa £>«8o<|Ofiq «<!# wontt tnaaa^fi ^^i?^4av « aXXt ol ttirXat»#l a« ariacfXA 

•^ni niaiiU «iw tl htm snXXXlw aaad Aa4 %«iii» Avmiit .^ava 000«90Xii #d 



-3- 

t«ntion to e»II the property at & lescer prio« te ^rfaret Merrltety,* 

And that tim tale to Luelll* a, wolff v«s tUcrcupoa Abandoiwd. 

^Hftt ffhortly th«r«after, tlM trust Bana^ere •utoBitted to tti« 
truntoo another of far by Margaret Horrlaaay to purohasa tha property 
for I103«000 and direo.t<sd the truttee to enter Into an agreeaent to 
•ell pureuaat to tbe offer and oaused the trustee to notify the holders 
of ualtt of the propoeed «ale "that eueh new offer wae euhoitted and 
aueh agreeaent wae oade la spite of th« faot that no further effort 
had beea aade bgr the Trustee* to secure eoaq>etltlTe bidding froai 
Lttollle R. wolff or froa any other person; • that "the Trust Managers 
are still aetlag pursuant to a seeret agreeaent with the persons for 
whoa Margaret Morrlssey is aetiag as aealnee, to deliver the property 
to sueh persons at the ^leapest prloe possible" and that Mueller ln» 
Attoed Albers, reoelver, not to file any objeetlen to the proposed sale 
for $108,000« ""niat the plaintiffs oould procure offers for said 
preaises at a price in excess of >il08,000 cash, but tlxat It would be 
Idle for thea to proeurc and subalt any further offer beoause the 
Trust Managers have secretly agreed tdth the prlnelpals of Margaret 
Morrlssey not to sell the property at all unless It Is sold te such 
principals; and that as a aatter of faet the fair eash aarlcet value of 
the property Is not less than ^ISSfOOO," 

The allegations of the aaended eeaplalnt charge defendants 
with fraud la the proposed sale of the property. In Rasliell v. Art 
Institute of ChloagQ . 304 111, Apy, 395, In passing on the suffleleney 
of allegations where the charge aade was slallar to the charge In the 
instant ease, we said: "In 10 R. 0. L. p. 419, In discussing the 
sufficiency of the allegations of fraud It Is naid: *An exoeptloaally 
hlc^ degree of oertalaty In the allegations of the bill Is required In 
those oases where the cause of action It based oa fraud'; that general 
averaents of fraud are wholly Inadequate. *In aaklng allegations of 
fraud, good pleading requires that the plaintiff should etate spe> 
olfloally the laeulpatory facte In order that they a«y carry their ovn 



r 9»ftrto*{fm of ^[••lif'noi JwicAflif*^ X* teiHo iftdf©n.B THi-i^ij 

^— ;^s m oittt -ra»tn« of »»^«!trf7 «Af ft»t»»tiA ftfut 000,80X9 tol 

*>'ii t'fi:r«wi «^ #«9nm9 «i^ bwaume 5a« i«tle oiif ctf ttuuntu^ XlM 

^-^ »-';»« BJiv t»lt«> w«fl sf»»i iTjwIf* •!«» Mteiie^Q •*» 1« fttlnu to 

Jiifl^ on #«cir 9»«t 9«er t« t^li^ nl •iMM ««!v ffl9B»nB« ifftut 

•Xm BMO<qro*XQ ♦^l 99 noi7»«tdo x>"i« •XII o;r 9ofi ,i»vl«ft«rr ,tit«tfXA J»Midb 
IHA8 fult ttftt^o int'ooi'; bivo9 w^'tXfmtmtq m[# lAdf* .000,60X1 %tl\ 

9d iftXv«w fl JT jJi# 70tf ,(«»«» 0Or),€>«XI Id M»»3C» Hi ••I'XI • #« ■••ia<M<[ 

tiCt MirjM«tf i«1(1« -tfl»ri^ntfl! ^n timian tm* vtvften^ of Sfttf^ tot •tbl 

^•tJiTXJiM t« •X£qi9ni^q ffOjt itfiM i^««rni« tfrxeM •▼•<( it»9M*M »«mT 

jfotf* otf iiica ai 91 ■•^fasr ll« »• t^»^e^ Mtr XX«t »f 96ft tMalmoK 

•i^ «»x«T 9»iH«fli JteM «ii«i *m t»jKt to i[«99<Mi A •« f«ii:r ftju saXA^iioiiit^ 

",DOe,«SXI luuir snaX tOii tl x9«t*q«nq %i& 

niRtkht!i9t9b w^tMtin 9nl&tqm99 B^amtm ftdST to »fi«ltjii|«XX« ajfT 

22L£ •' tX»jfR^tf fil .ttttqiart^f »rff lo •/•» AMe<r«tq »itt nl haanl dtl\i 

li&nsl&nrmi »i» «o l|nX««isq «* ,5«<B ,<M[A ,XXI >08 ^jf^ ^tujltnal 

9itS Ri «iri^3tJte wit at iMXtmtfi ««w •»«« •gtaifo adf •t#ffw aiioi9«a«XX« t« 

«kjri9 i[|fll8ttftrMi& Ai ,6X«^ OX nX" tMM m ,M«« 9iiii9«iii 

tXXi8ii«i#.?«ox« flA» SAU* ai fff bu*il iro nti<iit»n9tl:A a«l9 t« t»flt>laltl(fa 

fe«ntitfp<n «1 Illtf »rf9 t© »iioi9«i9XXe ari* m i!;»fiJt*3h:»o to aairsaA d^ld 

X»fa«i«9 #Mi9 t**M<tt fl« JbaaacT al floitoa t« •avao ailf m^tSir aaaaa aaM&T 

1© mtteitA^mllM 'gnitMm «!• ,»tsai»«itaiil tlXerfw «rw ftcfil to a9na«av» 

o'»;{a tAta Meojia ttl9nl4X<; «;(# tM(9 avtlufvrs i|flXft«aX(t fto«i ,Aiiait 

•we nl9ii9 tviii9 %»m %9M tuii n«Mo ei afojtt t^d#«<?X9M!l atft tXX««illo 



-4- 

oonTietion of fraud and In orter th&t the wronc-doinc »*7 th«r«»lQgr b« 
•»d« »or« •learly to appoar. • In Oleic ingon ▼. DleklBgen. ?06 111. 621, 
th« eeurt cald: *^ fanaral all«g&tlon of fraud, hovaysr strong in ex- 
preesion, is inauffiolant. The Mil should point out ai^ state the 
partleul&r faeta and oiroumstanees relied on as eonetitutinf the 
fraud, * Ho general rule ean be laid down as to vfaen it is sufficient 
to plead an ultisate faet and «^at allegations are tuffielently 
specif io, but the facts in eaeh oase must be eon«lder«d. * 

In the instant ease we think the all^atlons are elearly In- 
suffieient. It is alleged that when Margaret Morris sej offered to 
purchase the property for $100,000 and the beneficial owners were 
notified that an offer of 1105,000 had been nade b/ I^eille H. tfolff , 
Albers, the reeelTer, Mho owned sore than 25^ of the units filed ob- 
jections to the px>opoRed sale and it was abandoned, and the beneficial 
owners were then notified of the Wolff offer. Objections vere filed 
to this sale and It was abandoned because Margaret Korrlseey had of- 
fered »10d,000 and the beneficial owners of the units were notified of 
this fact, all clearly showing that the trustee and the nanagers were 
trying to get the best offer they could for the property. The al- 
legations of the eoaplaint, that offers had been made for the property 
froa other persons, ranging frost »110,000 to #120,000, are entirely 
t»o general and Insufficient. 

Moreover, it Is clear that If plaintiffs had called to the 
attention of the court that anyone would offer sore than il0d,000 for 
the property, the sale would not be eoneunauited. But there is no al- 
legation that plaintiffs did anything in this respect. 

The decree of the r>uperior court of Cook county is affiraed. 

DGCRKE AFFI»M£&. 
Natchett, J. , and MoSurely, J. , eoneur. 



,isa .111 «o& .MffmiMAiik .▼ nniliffllf • "' ' •'««••««« •* %l^u*X« no* ^Ma 

•>x« al »cnt« Y«nr»««a ,JMm'»1 t« il»i . ; =^^ >. -> X«i«a«:s a* :»1m yivoe Mtt 

•£i^ •^*#t ite« iM fiao^ j»limU 1X1«( •in ,»««ielltii«iU vX «fl«Xt««tf 

.|i«ri»M»«c» #4 »«idi •«•« 4»«« flU •#•«! ttff 9Md ,oltia««{« 

otf j»n»lto <(*ftti's«oM i9%»w^M ^•'t!* I«tf9 6»)|«XXa aX tl .ta«A9X)l«f« 

loiM t«( «ft«»ff a«Mr A«4 000,«OXt le I9tt« M «4Ui« A«X1X^oa 

-<(« J^sXit •sua mU le IIM lUUtf •'MM M«M« 01^ «n(^vX^«vi Mtf tSa^dXA 

XaXeXlwiMt »£i* i^BA ,i>MMA««tf« %»* tl *•• •!•• ^•••ftiiq utf U •iioX^««l 

5«1X1 n»c( «a«X»»«C«u •t*')t« ttX*« tdl !• ii%l\It9tt H9AS rt^w »i«aw« 

>)o hiuS x»^i'i^t»A s«t&^tn Mtm^^^t ikMMiAiuite ••« <X teui •!«■ eXrf9 •« 

l:c J aXU;reA •%»» 39Xiiy «.id t4> «*«•««• X«X»11*«*tf «i(t Aba 000«80Xv Jbn^n 

•ii«« aas4|4n4(«e 9Ai 0JU »«»«ifa^ Mif} ««iU ^iy^Hi* \Ltmmltk XXa .^aAt «i4t 

"iB in .Y^'t^qOTi!! «!:» ^vt ftlii»» \%Ai 'M119 }«Mf Mil <•! ft» 9iilT»t 

Vsaqo^ ft«r X9\ •ibJUB !!•«$ i^if •'X«ll0 }jm19 «f «i«X^«* Mlt !• aii^X^AS*! 

xX»^X7fl^ 9%m ,000,OSiX« «tf ooOtOUCI mm\ yiiXi««^ i««mi^^ ««illo io«iil 

.jrci«X»X)lw»ai tMA Ltn^a^ o«t 
94# ta hnllMQ JMd •itllfitaXqi ti «juU tA^Xe •! ^X ,^«v«rt«» 

f^usH •^OM niftllo iXtfO^i* vAO^j* S*A3 nvo« »tf9 t« a«Xio«#l« 
U 911 tl •'Mdt 4i^ JtMUjamMun* vi loa J&Xm»w •X«tt •!& «t;^iikiOrtq •I& 
.j»eqt«^ «Xitir tit ^tdi\Rm biJb •ltX:laiJtX<| 9aidl7 ii9X}«9«X 
>sntt\A «1 t^awoo iooo "So l-ViftO toJi«q»4 •d^ !• ••%»•& •rfT 



41S»7 

ROMAS iQ^rmx, 




AL FHOM 



V. . . . 

) ClftCVIT C0UK7, 

CITY OF CHICAGO, A HttileipAl ) 

Corporation, ) COOJC GOUNn, 

*pp.u«>,. , 307 I. A. 541' 

MA. tmUlDlHQ JUSTICE O'COUJIOfH DELIYjmED THE OPIKIOK Of THE COURT, 

ri«intlff brought an aotlon to r»eoTer dMutgon for perBoiuuL 
injurl«c olslamd to havo boon eustalned while he was driviiig hie 
automobile k««et oa Eatt dSth str««t, In Chicago. Th« Autonoblle ran 
into a hola la tha streat, as a result of i«hieh plaintiff was lajur«-i. 
Thora was a Jury trial, a verdict and Judgment In plaintiff's faror 
for 17000 aad defendant. City of Chieago, appeals. 

The only point sade by defendant In this court Is that 9Sth 
street, at the plaee la question '*wae part of the system of 3tate 
highways, and was atAlntalned by the ntate of Illinois; that the elty 
owed no duty to Maintain" the street and therefore Wj<|S not liable. 
The law is elear that where a street in a elty la taJLon over as a part 
of the highway 8yst«M« of the state, the oity is not liable for failure 
to keep the street In repair. Taceeott v. City of Chloago . 501 111, 
App, 322 J Live stook ^iatlonal b&nk v. rtlehardeon . 303 111, A^p, 446. 
In the Instant ease there Is no oontsntlon to the contrary but plain- 
tiff contends there Is no evidence In the record that 9&th street, at 
the time and plaee of the accident, was a Pederal Aid Houte and taken 
over by the state. The evidence shows that 96th street was a well 
traveled, busy street in Chicago, with street lights, signs, water 
mains, street ears and the customary red and green stop lights near 
the plaee of the aeoident. "This was prima facie evidence that It 
was a elty street. " Tapscott v. >;ity of Chloaito . 301 III. App, 322. 

Defendant, to maintain its eontontlon that the street at the 
time of the accident, Juae 1, 1937, had been taken over as a part of 
the Btate eystea of highways, offered In evidence two documents, each 



\. 



.*■ 






10 



'r .A.I TO 8 

.•Xs«Q^ «««««lal» t^ %0iO tituBhiftmto bam W9!^^ %0\ 

\tl9 Mil 4a(&« i«lecUUl te Wa«4> «ilV ttf b9tUatMiM mm *ma ^siMflisM 

«<»Xct«i.£ foil »«M <r!(elM«;(t im0 $••%$• ttt ^tilMnimm ot itvA m *•»« 

9t<£q 4 «« i^ro a9ji.-vjr »i t^l9 m mt tm^^et M 9%9ibit tm4M t»«Xo •! vaX Mif 

•tullml %9\ •l4mXLi9m 9i t#l9 mAi ^•im*m wSt to ••#•!« xjnrii»iif vdY t* 

.Xil X0« .oa— iiiO "lo iflXO .r it— m— t .xXm** *1 f •rft« tiU q»tu( mt 

.9*^ .4<«A .XXI eofi •fi5E&&3fl£t^ «▼ jfldf , 4«mii| ,#fffl4 fTiW t«^ ''^ 

iml^ $ad VMX^noo Mtf o3 amltnmtmo9 mm mX *tmM «i«« tmAinmi 9d$ ml 

rx^ii atie smdi b%mmm miSf ai •oiii«M?« on tx riM(9,ti^9^ai>o itxi 

flvjuBf d<a« f^tfOuH ibX4 XirsfAtt * nmv ,}»«JbXoMi Mt^r t« •a«X« Mm •>!» mSI 

xxr«^ M «4« i*««r« 4tfie jAiu mvmMm ••m9biw m(T .o^ata M(t t^i^v* 

'i»;r^'^ ,an«Xa ««9ri9iX ^tHnts dtlw ««9»oJUf& «X tfaa^ls Ytittf ,iNiX*v«ii^ 

<s«ftfl a^etsXl q9f» n*«^ ^« i^n xxmawtmrnm mAi bam nM t*«^a ,«aXJM 

7^ a^ftd^ 9eii»AXy» oiml aaJLta nm*} sixiT" ./aaliiOiM MCr to mmmlq mOM 

:u€ .^cj. jn X06 ,n^t4^ i<t y 4^ .' liaHitt '•.»««^« tfi» « •*• 

»xi7 jr« ^•d'x^a ad^r Smdt noi$ti93moo •il almftUmm os ^iambam\»a 

lo $*iMii A 9* two nmtaS mmma bad. ,TGGX ,X aiitft* «#ji«fiXoM mU t« Mil 
,«iratti8»oca^ owtf Mft«l>XT» m i>*'x«tto ,a^¥dailii to ■•^m« tlatci mOt 



•8- 

dAtftd 3«eftffilM»r 18, 1936. One is addresc^d to i^&yor Kelly of Ohicftgo, 
and ffigaed by K:m8t i>l«bersuui, "Chief Jilghvay Engln««r, AOUug Bupt, 
of Highways, ** In which it is t&id that on Dee«abar 1, 19^1, a Kap was 
••nt to Colonel Sprague, Coaaleeioner of Public ^^orke of ChloagOf 
•howing cxteniionc of "St^te Bond leetie Fioutec* in tho City of Chioago 
and that "There have been a nuaber of change • and additions to the 
Btate 5ond Issue and Federal Aid Routes sinoc that tiae. l^eoisions 
are being sent you, with this letter, shoving the present locations of 
all ^tate 3ond Issue and federal Aid Route s in the City of Chicago. 
These decisions supersede the infomation contained on the map ac- 
company ing the letter of December 1, 1931. " The other is a doouiaettt 
t^ioh purports to be signed by *F. L. Baith, Director** on what pur- 
ports to be a letter-head of the "l^epartnent of Public Works and 
Buildings - Division of Highways - ^>pringf ield, Illinois" and is as 
follows: "Federal Aid Houte No. 120 In the City of Chicago - The De- 
partment of Publio '<^orks and Buildings announces that the following 
described location is now the location of Federal Aid Route He, ISO in 
tbo City of Chioago. - Description of Route. 

'Beginning at the west limits of the City of Chicago on 96th 
Street and extending in an easterly direction along 95th street to the 
interseotion with ^outh Chioago Avenue. " 

Upon objection to the admission of these documents by counsel 
for plaintiff, the court announced that the objection would be denied 
"until such time as it may be eonneeted up," - that defendant produce 
more CYidenoe to show that the street had been taken over by the etat«. 
Xo further evidence having been produced by the eity, the documents 
were excluded. 

Counsel for defendant sayt "The legislature has plaoed the 
exclusive control and Jurisdiction over Federal Aid Routes in the 
State," and refer to pars. 292, 297 and 298, chap, IBl, 111. Hev, 
Stats. 1939. 

Par. 292 provides: "The ^stem of state highways shall ooa- 



-ft- 

ftjtv <^Atf ^ ;ici.3 ii:x ^'I iiclibe nt * ,axAvi^B to 

9St»»iA:> to t7x- 9^ m "tfiuw mmul '-•AGK *fSmt<i'' t« •ftoitffiwrxB ijflxinMfi 
ftdt 9t Msnli-' .? to i^tfeitfA • a«««r •▼•if nwfl** f«ffir ham 

to »0al?A;>«X ?«•*-' ' .i^fftX *lgit Oihi ^mri fotft ikni«tf wnM 

-o« qjw nA3 .'iv < t.viitdd noUfMrsetfsl «d!9 •A««'X*<i»« tiwisl^^fi •••ifl 

^tieiffiii9«^ it nt *t9d$o 9tfT * ,t%^i ,1 *f4mit9ml to fstt^X «(* 3iTltn«q[MrM 

-Tiwc; tfitifv ffo *io*o<»iJJ? «d9lMe .J .f* x<^ 5«if^^« Ml ot •t<xoqru/q ddlAr 

. . Ida *>^r .V«wft»ilf t« fi«i2»lYia - KTiiildXlMfi 

ynf^'oXXot iitr ?f^'l7 ^- •:,•■'■■ fta« •jfio'* •iXcTtf^ t© lfl««l««a 

til ^?X .0^ #t8t!rif; to s«i :f« wwi «1 ttolfa&oX ft«cli't«a«l> 

, t.r^in to ••idi9X'VQ««C - .eiAoi^ to t^io tirir 

f&«9 so %i- i<i4f to »9lati f»m mU t* BAlfUfifiod'' 

' .»$m»vA » » a» irfa itt»»$ .^idtiw «ai;;^o«a'X9#ftl 

X«!> B$R9it:tf9«]& •a«i!;f to nol««iMba oif^ of aol;foattfo nc^;^ 

f Mtfow iroi79«t<fo »ii9 ^^^ h^dnttonn» ttv^o laH «ttitrai»Xq «Bt 

t«t«& UtOt - '^iqju b99o9tttt99 ««r %Mm ft aa •arXf i!»«t» Xlftui^ 

^^aifi Btii xa tftYd ffftiL^ ttBMi it ad #••<«#• 94!7 S»dS woifli o;^ ••o«£>Xtf« •^oat 

9JR«^.;JUOOJ6 •£{» «t^iO nj^^ t^T &«0ff^01q[ «a«£r B^iv«d 90fi«l^lv« rcfttttlfirt OK 

..&a!!i£iXoic« rxow 
<Mff BaomXq 8^ «^ut*l9t-^fi>i 9f{T* :tM ffl«£tfiarto& net X«aiiiiOti) 

u{9 0l 99irtfoi9 JbM |««oSi9l ^fwi; aoidr»4tilftfti«i0t i>n« Xtnffroo ovXahXax* 
.v« gir ,q*i&» ,etS &«* I^S ,S«S .tnoq ot -latrf A«* •,•**»« 

.«»«X .at^ys 
Hae9 iXAiEls a^Avfii^id «»t«9^ to «s^*x« «<it^ :a«6Jhr«n<t S^ .n«^i 



-5- 

pris« the folloving roads: •♦♦ 

*(i} All hlghvaye oonstruoted, or authorized to be eon- 
•traoted, h^ the 2:tat« and Fedi»z*al goirernmente, and ttnovn as *l^eAtr*l 
AlA Boads;' •♦• 

•(10) •♦• Saeh highways shall b« knovn as * state Highways.** 

Par. 297 provides! "when roads are to be taken OY«r by 
state. 

*See. 7, The highways designated in this ^ot as @tate high- 
ways shall be taken over from the several •♦♦ oitlec, *♦• by the 15»- 
partaeat of ?ublie works and Suildings, as provided In said Aots, and 
these parts of said !?tate highways on whieh no durable hard- surf aeed 
iarprovesents have been started or eoapleted under the provisions of 
the Aetc designated in this Aet may be taken over by the Oepartnent of 
Publio !»orks and Buildings in its discretion* as rapidly as the ap- 
propriations a&do for repairs, isprevement and aaintenanoe thereof 
pemitf provided the Departaent shall firet take over the : tate Bond 
Issue >%oad8. i3efore any highway, or pert thereof, on whioh no durable 
hard-eurfaeed iapreveaents have been started or completed under thi> 
provisions of the Aots designated in this Aet, forainga portion of the 
state highway eystea, is taken over the Pepartaent of Publio Works ai^ 
Buildings shall notify in writing the eoaalssioner of highways of the 
town or road distriet, the County &up4?rintendent of Highways, or the 
aayor of the oity, or px*esident of the village, as the ease aay be, of 
its intention so to do, and of the date when it will assume the aain- 
tenanoe and oare thereof, whenever any part or portion of any high- 
way whioh is a part of the State highway systea and lies and is 
situated within the limits of any oity, *** is taken over, the oepart- 
aent of l^ublie sforts and Buildings shall have exelusive Jurisdiction 
and oontrol over only that part of suoh hi^way idiioh the state has 
eon 8 true ted, or whioh the local authority has oonstrueted and whioh has 
^en taken over by the state, and for the aaintenanoe of which the 
State is responsible.* 



SAOt ^XvcIIot ddt ttliq: 

"if of St- *t©trU«floO '.♦)" 

*»♦• «;B.&«oi; aiA 
)iw©«?' "? nx«wii^tf ii*M6 ••• (OX)* 

''•a v^&i '.Si& ^'*^ ljn'9'9%m mC^ scmI ttro a&:^u ocT i£Ail« »%mi 

Ic ftfioialTonq »(^ i^ftatr J&»t«icipo0 no h^nafM nostf tTMr •9ff*«fvon<|ai 

10 jTAdtn^ii ' <t(i<^« f<*4fil <K!f t«A t»A fti^ lli A*^i)aaXa#fi tf oA (u(t 

*qii M^ *t : •« «ii«/t<!nftsib Ktl fll •jAiJIIXtfS AHA tlhiov oXXtfirt 

10M»xi^ '^li: -^hisilam hum ycroa»v««c<^ ,anlA«r« tot ^h*m naoitAliqonq 

„^« '>'>^nu ib«r«Iq»08 to AaJittf^ n9td ifVttd 9ta9m^t9t<imi (t^oMlntra-MMl 
.. .. .., ..v.i^«r%e«( ajM^l»«tol «:^oa •!;(} Ai fr»#«n^aoib a^oA «i0 le sAoXaivonq 

btiA iAie^ AlXtftif'^ to }fl«iiKrita<{»C 4>rfl ncavo n«la9 aX ,tt*f«ta %m*iititi a^At^ 

«»a;$ to sxavdNiia lo «xfl4ieX«alvM<»a •/!# soXfX'nr AX t^lteff IXaita a^XAXXiiS 

:• ■:; , , ,i;' 1e jR»^ii»Join»qwe Y'nnroD wCf ,}»X*i}aXA &aon 10 mro# 

to ,4d taA aai&o »it} a« ,agAXXiv aiStf to 9aafiX8a^<l <xe ,tirXA *if# to tot«ar 

r.t&s: ^v^it '^stmnn XXXv fX naiSw e^*£ aitf to bna ,06 «1 oa iioX#fiMaX afi 

-/ij, o floXtTTtoq fo »•!««? tff« t»v»«aj!w .toa-tinf* otao *«» aoiuin^f 

«sl bn» t«XX ibuR ieat8t9 t«vifa^^ atfttf-fi Ajtlaf to ^i«(t ji aX doXifv t^v 

-;'t^q<9i ^;l^ (lavo AailA^ nX «*"* «t^io tdtt to atXaXX wU att^bi iMtaaiH 

sioiSGtbni'iKl avXa&Xosta swmd ll»n* a^nXfiiXluS J^ra aiiov OiXtfjarH to taoa 

i!>«>tl %$'miSi atft ifoljftf tAvtJEsXit dtotra t« 9*i«<i #Ajft tXif<3> ««vo Xofitaoo Jto« 

a^ti doXiCiw Ijoa b^t^tntWHOB a^ii i^lnoutfj^va X400X «<{# ifaiKvr io,&9Jroirt#tfioe 

»/Cl^ £li»Xiiw to aoojiflafnXMi «i!9 not Alia .aliit)^ a(f9 ttf nav« AaiTji^ aaatf 

*'.9Xirj;9iio<itan al alA^a 



And par. 2^8 provides: **h»n m. part or portion of the high- 
way •hall haw b«ea takan ovar It ahall thereafter be eon«truet«d, 
ra-aons true tad, rapalrad, laprovad and maintained }afj the Btate in 
aooordanee with the provielonc of this Act. " 

we think the two documents offei*ed hy defendant as evidence 
that 95th street had been taken oTer hy the state wer«> entirely in* 
•uffioient to show a ooa^lianee with the statute. And this too, 
even if we aeeiune the doeuaents were orifinal and not carbon oopiee, 
as oeunsel for plaintiff eontends, there is nothing in either of thea 
which shows the state intended to take over 95 th street, nor is any 
tiaa aentioned when the state 'will aasuae the Maintenance and eare" 
of the street as requiired by par. 897. Live stock Mat. Bank v, 
lliehardson . 303 111, App. 44ft, 

The Jud^ent of the Clrouit Court of Cook County is affineed, 

JUDOMKHT AfTlHMEI}, 
Matehett, J., and KeBurely, J,» eonour. 



,.59}t>irt^«i«o9 <Mf litfi riAr!« II t«T« n9:CA9 n*^ wtMti llmdm \mm 

"til \l9^iini» 'Hi xtt t»vo ri»jtotf a»«tf ImiI tiMTtft J<t89 til$ 

diJ' to lOd^riA nl ;|iilj&oii •! orttiit^ ,t&notaoo llitfliAlq tel Iooauoo m 

Xfi« •! len ,;roett8 tlst69 noYo oial 09 ftoAno^rnl •9mi* Oftl twodo ^JUht 

>7ao boji oonandtaiiui iii& ««tf08A XXiv* ol«9« vii nsxlw ^•ifioliriiMi tt«lf 

•' ^(Hftg .^<H ^oo^^ »via .t«S .-u*! ^d ftoilupo^ M ^to^^o •tU to 

.«*♦ .^qA .1X1 nmi .fi?nn«nfyi^ 
■ -a 




412m. 

V, / / / I I |:iRCjaV«o*a;HT, 

IU»£iA»if LSI BBiKS* / '*^ n^ COOK COUKTr. 

307 I.A. 541 

wt. pREgisiso jysTicR o»coM?'«&rt DiLivsafB TSK OPXSIOK or f8i eOURT. 

llov*tBlM>r 29, 195a, plMlatlff filed his verified coaplalnt 
agalntt hi« wife, th« d«f««d&nt, praying tla*t «. writ of Injunction 
l«au« Agftlnst dUiftndant »nJoinlng h«r froxa taking th« four y»ar ol^ 
son of th« p&rtl«a 'out of the state of Xlllnole a,ad out of th« 
Jurlssdlotloa of the Court* of Cook County, Illlnole* without flrnt 
9bt«inlog peralsslon of the oourt eo to do. Cn the eome d&y the 
eourt #nt«r«d ea ex parte order ae prayed for, a euaaon* lassued and 
wae earned on defendant, i^eeenher 12 following, def^ndaat hy h^r 
oounnel entered her appearanee and on Peoe»ber 19, filed her rerif led 
antwer to the complAlnt. 

Ilae »aterlal allegatleae of the complaint, co far a« it ie 
neeessary to state them here, are that the parties were huehand and 
wife living in Oook eomty, Illinoln, and had been living them nearly 
all their lives j that a son was born to thean who was four ye&rs old 
Mareh 19, 1938; that plaintiff hitd conducted hlasolf properly toward 
his wife but that she indicated she wished a divorce fros him; thnt 
for the past sixty days defendant had been in California with h^r 

rel«tivee «nd when plaintiff refused to send the child to defendant 
in California, ehe returned to Illiaole for the sole purpose of 
taking tiie child out of the Jurisdiction of Illinois and threatened 
to establifth her residence in Callfornifi or Nevada where she would 
get a divorce without legal residence, her reeldenoe being in Illinois, 
and on grounds not recognised in Illinois; that if ehe took the child 

to California or Mevada as she threatened to do, nhj^ would there seek 
the euetody of the child fr^« courts of those st^tee^; that if plain> 






■^I^^/.A.l TO 8 



i 





.3 HOT Jin 


\ 


.V 




f T^fifiiitiK^ai 



«i£ir lo Jian b/iA uieatin 10 •««#« tutt t» jrvfti* ii«l»Y(&.i «r(^ lo «!•■ 

«l# l«S) f^i« exil «0 .Aft •< M nuio9 iMl# 10 0«i««1bvO4 iiiiaJUiitfo 

&Ti« lti»tf«»l »fl««uuii« « t'xel ^o^Aiq «« niEdKo otmiiq <• mi 6oiiofa« iTitieo 

t^ Xi iamha^t^ .i^dlvoiiot Si lodsidood •90«A«t1ioA Ml AoTtoo taw 

b*tXit9r iMf Itolll «@l v<Mr«oo«ia NO tao o(tMurK»o<4q4i ^ojf Arx«rii« letoiioo 

.fiiioXqsoo odil ojT tiVfOA 

fti ;ri «A itt'i o* ,7fli&I<q^«» <N{# lo •aol}«a«IX« X«itof«a odT 

&aA IbOAtfsittC •'x«w t^iliAq •Ai JtaU ooji^noii cMl} •#«;}• o^ vsotttooMi 

xX<x«»i3 9i9i:l^ ^iv^ll flood JbAd tMMi ,«io«iIXI .t^itroo iooO al »nlvlX otlw 

5ia 91^9% itfol Aov o<fw «otf9 o^ into<f SAW ffO« o tad9 t««vXX ^lodtf XXo 

^'x wo; tXioqo%<i IXosKlil *o#Oiiteoo Auf l^X^nioXq; ^oiiir tftSSX «CX ffoioN 

7 uU ;»ixl ttoicl OOKOVXA « 6f4<Xw oifa ftofAoUbfli oite fJuU 9wf otXv oXit 

'ihA attv AiAtotlXoO Hi mood bMi »ii«C«*to^ tto^ tiTxia twAq oift lol 

7n«^&ii«1«& 6t &Xiiie odi £008 ol i^mtiitftm ItltfaiAlq arndM i»M t«rlt«Xo% 

' c stoqrttKi «Xo« 9di iftl alojslXXX «# b9avti9% •dt ^Mttnt^ilM^ ai 

y..^n-,Mnrtdi baz 9toatlll 10 &9iS9lh9l%ul odt le Su& Miflo oMl s<iX]tot 

bluoM ml9 oiedltf oJ^troif mo jiiaioliXAO al •»fio&l«o<x ton ilaXXtfotto ol 

^5>fliXXZ al sfilotf oooofiXoo^ i«rf ,»ofl»M«o^ XasoX »«0il*X» ooitovlib » ton 

r?.'.M A.-Y ;,f sr:: *f?« "If tiwEil ;»iftofr/i of iSoxXusooo^ 9tm •J&auois no Mo 

-a.i-.>.', It 5»d^ ioo9o»o ooo^ to 6, .^.*- --*•■ -v^t^io sdt to tAoir»«o 0I» 



tiff besought eait la California or Sevada h«, on account of fiR&nclAl 
eirotiiest«nc«a, would b* unabl* to go there to protect his rlghtp; that 
hft Si»4 Ro adequate r«a«djr exo«|jt in a eeurt of e<^uitjr; that plaintiff 

h*fl offered to perait defendRnt to take tfeir ehlld to Calif orala for a 
tlBlt If fih« would agr9<? to return hlsn to Coek eouaty, whieia Bh« r«- 
f«s«(3 to do» 

&«fendaat In h«r aarwer ^dsltted sk% ■u&e «Rd :^£id b^en a 
r««ild#nt of Tlllnolsj d«nl«d plaintiff had coaAuot»d hlass«lf properly 
toir«rd liftr but on the contra2>y he ^by hl< oonduot er«ated &n inoompati- 
ble> rolatlonship** isfhloh resulted la tiiwir separation. Sim adsita »h« 
hAd be«« visiting in CallforaiA for about sixty day* and J^iad returned 
to Illliifiie for th« purptoee of takltig ti&e child to Califoruia becauae 
plaintiff had failed to aead the ehlld to h»v as he had iroaieed; thi».t 
th<» child had been ill &ad aho wanted to have hist under her eare in the 
eliaate of California vhioh would be benef icl«l to hiu. Bhe denied ehe 
had threatened to eatcblisth her reeidenoe outside of Illlnoi*! and oh' 
t&ln ft divorce fro« plaintiff} that the parties on nuaeroufl oeoi^filona 
had ei^p«9& thet in ea«e of u ^'ermanent {separation they vould divide 
the oufftody of the ehlld t^Vrreen the&, a&d that che feiould be etayinf: 
In California with her mother at the latter* e home. 

Nothing' further appears to h4».ve tMten done in the caee for 
nearly a year until Koveaher 9, 1§5©, ^en an oi^der was entered by 
agre#ffleRt of both parties that the Inionotion order be sodifled no th*t 
plaintiff ehouia have cuetody of the child until Deeessber 15» 1^?28, 
vith the privilege of defendant aeeiag and vieiting the child at roaaon- 
able times, and that Peeettber 16« 1®3&» the euetody of the cnild would 
be 2;lv«n to defendant and she alght take the child to California an«l 
return fei» to :*.iver S'-'oreet, Illlaole, 'jiteer® the partiea lived May 1, 
193®, and th&t plaintiff should hj»ve the custody of the ©alld froa 
that tlffle until S-epteaber 1, 19^9; that plaintiff ehaald pay defend&nt 
|48 ^T Month for the suppiort of the oMld ieal-aoattllly while the 
ehlld w&e in California. 



Hi;fiiijiXH ^^^ it^ta^ '■-■■■■ V .uiA<^ fi fit iq»9«9 \tnm*^ 99»MP9bB t»a JbA(f Mf 
A lett &ifft«liXia;) Qi 5iifi9 •111' 9)l«i;r of ina^itiMtmb tim%*% 9t frfti^llo Aiiui 

._ .._ --._;Jfi "Wrf fit ^«/Tl&r»»l»C 

ft«di." . Sxlf tmtdM f\ MtnnC ^^ntilttlr ei»W hAd 

••ua»m( Aleraeli £lii9 viS ji^li»i 1v tff# •ko'S •lortlin I^ 

9«i£^ ii[>»i>l@f^. ; ^ttff r»d «j& tod «^ Mltfe o£& ftnea •! £«XJt»l B«il^ 1:li;fnlnX<( 

MV fli tni>^ »&fliii ciii «VMrf o^ litt^fUM ttc&i AAA Uti ii9#tf 640! AXiJls «<tl 

-^e ftK« •lofiilXI te ^ln^tto ««tt*Ai9»i t Mf <d;ail<f .. ^tta'tiBtmSt fukd 

«l>lTXi5 i!Xu<3>w %»di ii«iifjnjK^«3 il<i«na«v») 4 lo •»«• at tMtS b9»i^M AaA 

lol »ttso wt7 Ai »floB ^»«d ftVAit •# a'%»» 'st^^ :i|fllat#&<)i 

\i h«nni&9> a.«w <sftM« da flaifir-ilRWx ,^ ladTstti^aa XXt0» lanx A %ln».m 
1fsi.d3 «« ftftlli&oBi a<f <s9Mo a<»iJaAi;tAl 9#{f ;raif9 *ttlt<t»>i{ if^«<f t« t«»«<t«isa 
,^S«i «9i 'xa<fia90»a XX#fl» fillet aift lo ^md ktav^.t ItlfftliXq 

itiifow MXeis a^ 1« t^o^aud aj& ,3^.C ,8X •xatfiKradaa »»^ ftiue ,laati9 atifa 

.1 %aK fe^TlX aaiJoaq arilT «ia?k ,8iofliXI stiri mtftan 

8on() iillao 9ttt to t^oiratrd aii} ava^l J^XiiOils tlJt^^^iiil^ ;r^4i Itut (4RS9X 

*m ftXiUlr^'titftiiwi&larMi iXlM9 aiit Yo t^q^a ^Ot t&lt. fVirMi ntAg 9#>^ 

.AlaniAtiiAd iLi ajMT AllM* 



•a* 

i)«e«»l>«r 83, 1939, pl&intlff, upon notice te def^na^nt*? 

eetinfl«l, filed his Tttrlfl«d petition in vhioh he set up the i«eu&iiee 

and 
of the lajunetlon ^^the modlfieatioa of the order, &s ab«Ye staled j 

th«t the ehlld h«d been teken to Loe An^ieles hf defend&at ;i>vir«aant to 
the modified oT^r; that defeadant had refused to permit th« child to 
toe returne«li to pl&latlff in eecordanee with the agreement hetveen the 
partlee, and the prayer wa« that a rule he entered requiring her to 
chow G&uee why she should aot he punished for oontenpt of eourt for 
falling to ooaply with the sodlfled order. 

Oil the sejM day an order wee entered iidiich reoltes the filing 
©f ttie verified petition hy plaintiff, and it wae ordered that defend- 
ant show oauee by January 2, 1940, why she should not be punished 
for eonte«i.>t of eourt forftnllure to eoaqily with the modified &jt&MT, 
&«««iab«r S8, 1939, defendant's counsel filed a verified petition in 
whloh he set up that on Deoentber 22, irtaan the order requiring defend<> 
ant to show oauee was entered, he was out of the elty and sought to 
have the aatter continued through the efforts of another attorney; 
that defendant was not residing in Los Angles with her aother; that 
defendant had a good defense to the petition and wished to answer It, 
and the prayer was that the eourt enter an order extending the tlsie 
for defendant to show oauee to January 50, 1940. l^eoember M, &n 
order was entered substituting counsel for defendant. January &, 
1940, an order was entered whleh reeltes the rule entered agalnet de- 
fendant oane on to be heard; that a oertlfled eopy of the rule had 
been served on defendant; that defendant was not preeent in peri^on but 
had filed her answer whloh the court held insuffielent, and it was 
ordered that a writ of attaohaent for eonteapt issue forthi»-lth »galn«t 
defendant for her refusal to eosiply with the order '^touehlnn the 
ottstody* of the ehlld. The next dey defendant filed her verified 
petition to nodlfy the oz^r entered SDeoeaber 1£, 1336; th&t «inee 
the entry of the Injunotlonal order plaintiff had instituted a «ait 
for divoroe in the Superior court of Cook county in lidiich he prayed 



Jkmi 

ot tiMi 2|iijtYit>;>i»K i>«^94a« 9^ •Itft « }«il^ saw •svt')^^ Mil •«« .••iloAq 
t«l f'S0*« to 9 <!£)#n«fi tot £r«il8iAti<| -iti torn &X«oue(« «£to ^tfw 9»tf9 V9dt 

SOiXil Mtf ««?i«s»'r sioiibr ft«?«;fn* ojm H*in9 n« t*ft fM* •<(' ud 
"ha^rnib t M^ &4ri»iHd ft«w tt fistm ^tMfRtMln \id n9XHi9<\ h9ttl%9if inii to 

b£ ttoI9lS9% t>^ -i taXit XMRUfos 9*tnAib$i9\9it ^^^fil ,8S tMfj)t#«a 

;X9sstvii» %96S&aM T» 99*i9tTt«t »tit itjiMnuil if^MUlt*99 fttsm 9dt »v«d 

.•»«Mi« oj^ J&^i-uiij >!><«« «oi9X9«<4 tMl^ o;r •Jifi«'i»J& A««i^ • hmd fa9baitlL9b 

:i9 piiAa»}X8 t^Mo «• i»}ii« ifiMoo «A9 t«fiir 9Mni t9i%»tsi 9dt kn* 

iiA ,^ nEMfs^ft^a .Oj^SX ,<1l^ \'<3uairi>«\) ot 9mtt»9 woucft ol iToAjbisslO i^l 

,S VUMfOAt* .lOAlXial*!! 'XOt X«««i»« j<li}«^X^»<f£f« i>9°i«tn9 •«« ^i^info 

•-49£» t*ntM9fi fli^n^ta* 9lin *tii ii9$l9^ ii9lJitir i^cn»ffi* •«¥ r{ft2irxo nii «OMIX 

j&»«£f aXin ftcd^ " ) p9tt^%9« m $*di \t%*9a Mt ot ao who ^ajitA«l 

"i a9^%«q, at ta^^'^^i iosi ft«iir ttuJM9t9i> tfnl$ jfnA^dteA so 6ev*s«« ii9«cr 

•«v ?X j&AA «;fa«Xoi)l&«al M»d ^ruioo 9^11 lieXxiw ^y^NHiM %»& &»Xit frAtf 

»d:f ^itlAitu&t'' %min9 ftfii dd^Xw tXcpoQ 9$ l»9ti\9% i9d lol iaabtt9'X%b 

:„Sil_f'«^vi>- ';.■.,! h«rf<r $(|A£«»l*i& lAib Ij^fA.IKf^ ,■■ r.Mf Miff |0. *l(ftO|t«9 

liu» s.J&»;ri/tX|#ai ibM( \%t*aU-'K ..^. ..„.., ...i^iaX <M«jr lo xn$a9 •«» 



for th» ou»tody of th« ©hl'ldj tamt shortly after th« flllBii of plain- 
tiff '• suit for dlvoro« in Cook county, sh« fll«d « salt f^r 4iTore« 
la California against hi»; that sha vas willing to agrasi i&at tiM 
ousitody of the ehild night be divldad batwaea than and jir&f^iL that tba 
original inJuzHstlonal ordar ba BOdlfiad ao at to proflK»t« the b«it 
Interost of tha child, 

January 9, 1940, dafandant filed h^r varifiod &nev«r to th# 
petition for contempt in whieb aha tat up in oonsidarable detail the 
dlffleviltleft which aroea betTr?«an the parties and the oorrespondenoa 
batvean h«r eouneal in California and plaintiff '« ooaneel in Chieago. 
This an ever le eworn to by defendant U999ah»r K9, 1939, and ap/arently 
ic the anever uSiioh the court found in cuff io lent an fthown by the 
ordar entered January 8, 1-HO, It !• fro« the order of January 8, 1940, 

that defendant i^peals. 

no 
Pefendant contende that •A court of equity lriaff/jurl«dietlon 

to ckdjttdicate bet^aan hucband and wife as to the custody of their 

■inor child, i^lla tha parties maintain their aarital Ktatue;** that 

in the instant eaae the court wan wholly without Juri^«Sletlon, and 

relianoe if placed on T^mae y, ^rhoaas . 200 111, ZM, In that eaee 

it wac held that equity had no Jurlediotlon to decree the ouetody and 

control of the children of the parties except ae an incident to a 

dlvoroa suit, the court there held that neither a want of harmony 

between hueband and wife relating to the aanagesaent of their o^>ildren, 

nor the right of either to their custody, control, support or 

education involved any equitable question of an ectuitable naturt ffuoh 

as authorisee a court of equity to decree the omre and custody of 

children, as between their parents, except as provided by the divorce 

suit in case a divorce were gr*nted. 

Counsel for plaintiff eontendei th® rule arinouneed In the 

thornhf o«.ae is not controlling because in the inntant e&se be is not 

seeking the custody of the son but only tix&t the do»ieile of th« ehlld 



-^- 

-i£5 ^©1 *i,W«i « b9lt1 «rf« ,tt«»ee rot fii 9Vimtt to"! #iM» ••tilt 
vif 9^nr ^4!^»A 99 iMKlJtJtiv CAW «dit ;f«dtt ;Miii tinXAS* ultnotltMO ttl 

.bllii9 mat t« t»«^»tRj 

.v.^ ..»* «i 1'. ^v. «'^11#iilAl^ I^A «lm«tXXAO fti l«llR0M ltd Jl»«irfMr 

»A<f# *tft]»t««t Imi-Hmia 'a*Ht «1«#«1a« •»itt»<j iii* ollrfw ,l>Xido tealfl 

&«IA ,iw»i?»lft«tnttt Jydii^itf tXXttdw •*» tin*© «ii» —mo tttM!t*nl 9dS al 

i^asd »«Jtjr Jil ,*«e .iX3 0«« .uMMmfft .▼ ■JrKCdT no 6M«i<} 9l 99nAlltn 

» &i Sn^ttttat am «« #q«»*« •«{#i»q «11 t» fl«^XUl» mSt lo Xe^tneo 
tJiosKwrf "i© tmmi A iw««ti«fi f ««» fcl«rf «««tt* t«Kiteo iwft ,tl»« •MOvXft 

ti> J-tOflcqui ,Xo-3ey«9!E> ,i8;&«it»ii9 ti^dt o* i*rf*i» It© frfJSXi «« iwi 

ArtjT ffi 6«©n«o«n4 »Xin <m1* aft«»*ttcd llitolaXq f«l X««itirt>r/ 
&lXlf» «llS » ndt tfMf^ tio« t«<J «o» wf* ^« \ftftt»|y •!» -^itUv** 



rvaalA In Illinois. «e »r« umble to a^croff with tb.ie cont^Qtlon. 
0«vi>rtil at tlae ordtr* tpe«ifle&lly provided for the euptocly of the 
ehUa ana ve think tb« ost»s« ©anaot to« d[l»tiaguiah«a froa tiie Thoaa* 

OAft«. 

*» boia the e0ux't h«^ no Jurisdiction of th« subjeot matter 
of th» suit and the order a{»p«&l0d from ie r»ver««d, 

Hatoiiett^ J.y and Mo3ttr«l]r, <J. » ooneur. 



,^vi M>,^j.ta7 ami dSt^ 'y^ncve o? *Xii.ma vi»> a^ .sXoa£iXX ul «Jt«i«t 



JA«£S A. MAaUIKE, 

LUX chK-mms, ISC. 



LUX CU-AHfSlS, IRC 



▼. 







i f 



jeSiBPi MOTTLi^f doing builncss 
App«llAnt. 



> 



307I.A. 542 



MR, FRiSaiBIMCI JUSTICE 0«CO«SCa D1iLIVi:nKI) THE OPISIOS OF THE COURT, 

l$OY«mb«r 16« 1930» J&aes A. MAgulre brought &n &o%ion 
•fttlnst %h« Lojc CX«&ners, Ine., & oorporation, to r<»oover 1:^600 for 
AwuiSot on aoootant of tho olalnvd n«glig«no« of defnnd&nt in cleaning 
plaintiff** rugs vhloh MaguixHi d«liv«r«d to d«fend&nt 'eipteabor 30, 
1935. It wAi elX«god that on tho date of the dolivei^ of the ruge 
th» re&son&bl9 valuo of thoa waa $S600, and whan they ver« r«turn«d 
th« raasonabla ▼alue vaa #1X00. Qaoaaber 91, defandant filed Ita 
anavar admitting it racalvad th« ruga 6^apt»nb«r 50, 19^^S, for tha 
purpoaa of eleanlng thea, denied other ta&tters and that plaintiff was 
entitled to no dan&ge*. 3otte ordera were afterward entered and 
February 4, 1937, defendant filed ita petition praying that the order 
of the oourt theretofore entered, setting the eause for trial, be 
iraeated and that Joaeph Mottle be sada a party defendant. On the eaaa 
day an order vrae entered yaeetlng the order whleh aet the eauee for 
trial and leave waa given defendant to file its anended ^nf^Mnr within 
20 daye. Another order vae entered on the aaae day that Joeeph Mottle 
*b« Inpleaded aa a party defendant '* and that auaDRoa* iaeue aa ipro- 
vlded by $S& of the Oivll <^r&otloe aet. 

February S5, the Lux Cleanere, Ino. amended ite anever by 
alleging that Joseph Mottle, ae a natter of faet, performed the 
eerTlcee in eleanintr plaintiff*© nige, and if they were da»aged it 



seitr» 



i\-^ ' \,3 I . '«^llA-iJO XW 



•A 



( 

2.h?. .A.I TO 8 ' .*«^ii..^- 

tot 00tS4 %%T99m 09 «flol^«<r»qnteo • , .onl ,»imia»I9 m»J «!# tftaiaiJi 

vipn ufl t« Tv«v^£«& «<f^ ^ ^^ •^ •• **^ h9%ikltm %aM 91 .1591 

ftMiwtore 91M x^^i a»«lv »«« ,0@M}$ <i«v m^na le «)uIjBr <iltf«a0««9^ tilt 

•tZ fe^Xll r««6iNi'»«f> «£8 t«fmi»«€ .eOXJt %s« »wX«v •Xtf«ftO««(»t tilt 

^ua lol «aS«X «0& <i«iltt««q«i) •%tn wis JNrrlftOttt #i iiAlltiiUM iowmiji 

•«« tlia^olaXj^ tMf«r J^tt* %*i»^t!as M,m9e ftftin^B .IMilf ^iiUtXs lo •»9<|i»f 

6iM l»aT*arfi9 6ni«va«^^tii •'saw ••K«Jhi<» «M« .to^MuA Ml 9i b%ltttn» 

«d ,l£it^ <xot M«»9 (»if^ ;iflii^9«« ,Jl9<s»tf(«> nete^vfsU ahtiMo Mft to 

MUM Mf^ cfO .tttkSnatoft t^"x«t7 « *^<^ ^ ofttoM d^ifieot. t*ifjr bam h99—mf 

^ol ««tfAO oifl ?•• iloif^ •roJ^'W oi!t |(iii#oo«v Aototao •«« toftno a* fAft 

KiMiv tnivmaA I^^osmi otX oXIt o# tiioi)iiot«& oovi^ «&« otaoI Jb«A XftX«x9 

•XJtoM dqocet. t^fiiT XA^ mm* «^ nc» i^oiAtno vov toftito <totf#o«A .ix*B Ot 

oCV^ «« OlMKi •flOmUM ^4£lir hfi* "^flA&flOtOft tt*UI«l « t« frOft«oX<|Hrl MT* 

X<f tovaafl i^l ftoftnoim .«»nl ««ioffA«CS xuJ odf ,SS T«***Mf*^ 

%iii btncVi^q «^0«t to <t««»A« m mm ,oItfoM {(<;;oso^ »juf9 Tualw^lJjt 
it b%%Ammt crtow t«rt^ tl 6fUi ,ts&n ■*ttitiiX«Iq: 'saiiuoXo bI n9oift9* 



«•• hia fault. fh» next that B.pp9B.re. In tiie record is st plurle« 
vwntofts dates Jur* 17« 1937, vhleh was served oa Kottl«! Jaljr 9, 1%37. 

SotJilBg further «jL|>pe&r« until the following Mareh 5, l')&38, 
ttlteti «n order w»e entered dleaiselng tla« emit for VAnt of prosecution 
ftttd although the suit »fie dlsalaeed, no one eeented to have leiurned of 
this f«jiet« and September 20, 1933, the Imx Ole&nere, Ino. filed Iti^ 
olAln Against Mottle, In whleh It alleged It hed received the rugi 
frea Magulre end turned then over to Mottle who did the actual work 
oleanlng the ruge, and If Lux vae held liable to Magulre, Mottle 
should he required to paj Lux. 

Ite next that appear e In the reoord v&e %h&% Deeeaber S, 
1938, a etlpulfttlon between Magulre ftnd Lux Cleanere to cet aside the 
order of i^areh 3, 193&, dlemlcelng the suit for vant of proseoutlon, 
vae filed. On the ea»e day an order ime entered i«hieh reel tea the 
eauee oaae on to be heard upon tbe stipulation between ^'tai^ulre and 
Lux Cleanere, Ine., and It appearing that Joeeph Hottle had been In- 
pleaded ae an additional defen<Sant and had been ierved by proeese, that 
he wae In default for failure to file an appearanee, that the eauee 
wae dlealeeed through nleprleon of the clerk, and the aotlon was rein- 
etated. Obvlouely hot tie wan not In default, then he va«i served 
there wae no pleading In the eaee olalmlng anything from hlu, and 
when the elala agalnet hla wae afterward filed he wae not notified 
and no rule wae entered on hla to anewer the elaloi. 

A^fter the order of Deoeaber 2« relnetatlng the eauee wae 
entered, the next that appears 1« that February 3, 1939, eouneel for 
the Lux Cleanere eerved notlee on eouneel for Magulre, eup^^orted by an 
affidavit, th&t he would aide the e»tee to be put on the trial 
calendar. April 314, oouneel for plaintiff served notlee on counsel 
for the Lux Cleanere that he woulA aove the 04»urt to tet the ea^e for 
early hearing. Ihe notlee reelted that a default had been taken 
against Mottle because he had failed to appear and answer, and 4prll 
24 an order wae entered m aeoordanee with the notlee, which reoltec 



.>^u.? ». .'.>i .>'v ' ■'lis- at 9i^&i^'n%» tMiii fsMt mdf ,tliiM^ till 4Mr 

«&{>«I »& tt»tn» HAivoiiJ^t ftlU XJ£#ii» »%A«^q4 "KfffS^iet jyiilUiW 
aGilv»*«&iL(^ !• JtajKn tat 91m9i 9fit T^9*lamlh *»*ta« •«« i«Mo a* ii«xiw 
^o b%si%Mmi «v«A (»4r tHMTtiMM ^«(o 9M ^tmn^immib »«w flan Mi9 4smm^^ Aa« 

•Itf^x 9M Jb*ri999i &»^ il i>«8»XXa St dnlsht b1 ^niSf^ t%at*%» mlmle 

«/i»;t&'< ,« .;. 3>i»/f 4«w kiiJ ll AAA «eB«ri Mff 3ai«A«X« 

lii wi^l** 9 m ttir n««#«xa luvU imM rUviM^ f>««iie9««f nc^t^Ali^^a * «M;ttX 

^ndXlJUOMO'Sti ?;& .7a^ lol itU9 «d!7 SOlMiawXA «$J&«X ,fi jfTMl^ to ?«Mo 

»d} cfi^Xfttn d&liS» tt0%»imm mw vaAvo aa %/kk mum ^ilt e^ .A«XXt a«v 

Aa» »%XII1M<^ jSftfNrffiMl fi<S)XlAX«r<%Jt«t ««U HUK^'U SlUIO^C •({ «9 ll«» 4NM9 «ai«)t« 
««#«« «Jli7 ^««t^ ,*Oni^%»ft^x'^i» AA *XX1 9i VlJlliAl 'SOl $XiMiLl«A til •«« Aff 

<-^X«nc SUM ttoi^M flu^ M« «J^«iX9 ftiif to CKMiXa«;(«»X« djMf4>^ut9 *#««X«nX£ luiv 

ttiA yifitfi mtnt $$UAS\tm aainX«Xo «Mie t(U aX aiiili>A«Xq mk mw aoa^ 

&*XlX$«tfi fan mmt ^ &«Ut Stn^fm^ilm tutm mH iatila^ mimXtt »iilf ativi 

.c;i»X» »4t t.»tMMi •$ mAA «« S^tmt^am mam 9Xm on btim 

lOt Xwsfituoe ,«&SX ,e i^s»utdm% $»At aX s^M«i|qA ^TaiU ^xiim 9^ ,X>»i«f <ie 

itft ,\d A«Mr«t©siq»« t,«s"itX4is^M tot X«a«ii»»o flo 9®Xt©fl 6«nt*p s'X»i%a«J'^') xuJ «» 

lAltt ftAS no SH'i mi 0$ aaiMO mit Xaa J^Xuenir *ii ;r«^ ,#XvA2»XttA 

X*»fW4M» no MXitm h^vim ')tttinJiMl% «At XmiAi^o ,*8 XX" ^^«XA© 

tQt «»A« A£Et tmn o;r IrdJWfi »h:$ »▼<»« JDJUfOw «f i^l •^aoaaXIj £uJ arU lel 

ii*jUsi aflMKi A-ttri tiu»\mb * ^*swWr &»<IX9»il »«X3rft« •sv " i*tii XX**** 

IXiq.* i&*u .*i;»waisdi Ma ■X(»A<t<iA «>* J^«XXAt iiMd Ad »ai«80«r, ••;,).( ..u»i«. ^saXas* 

AA':f>^.T>'7 ><':^fKlMr .•AltMl ^t MA^ ^iy_Ag|^ll^. jl» JkAVAtA* AAtt lAteA «A Ml 



•8- 

thst on notion of co«ni»#l for ««g«lr« It eipp©«r»d that Mottle bad b«©a 
served vitl} ^ushjoas, h»& failed to file hie ensver, and it was ordered 
th&t he be defaulted. Titis wai olsTlouely erroneous because Mottle had 
BOt been ROtifled, eAd no rule had l^een entered upoa hiffi to answer, 

Kay 18, 1939, aa order wae entered tfhleh reeltee the eomiag 
on of tlM eauee to be heard on the oosiplalnt of M%guirft| the aiie>rer to 
the olaia of the Imx Cleaners, and the default of Mottle and "I? IS 
ommm that a fladinif of thle ooort be and it ie hereby entered 
against defendant and oounter-elaloiant, U^X CLEAMLIIS, Inoerporated, 
and againtt JOSEPH MOTfloI, oounter-defendant, and damages aeseflsed 
agalaet ealA WX QU.kmm and JOm:m MCtTLK, * for *2800, and Judgaent 
wae entered againet both. It ie hardly neoeseary to etate this wae 
wholly erroneous as against Mottle for the reasons stated. 

Jttae X6, Mottle, by his oounsel, moved the court for lesve to 
file a epeeial appe&ranoe and to vacate the orders of Deoemtoer S, 1933 
and Kay 18, 1939, and It was ordered that Mottle be given leave to 
file a epeoial appearance, and the hearing of his ototion vae set for 
July 13. On the eaate day, June 16, Mottle filed his special ap-> 
pearanee and his notion supported by affidavit. June 2^, the court 
entered an order, on notion of Mottle, vhieh finde it had Jjurisdlotlon 
of the parties, and it was ordered that the motion to set aside the 
order of Deoember 2, 1939, reinstating the cause be denied, 'fhe order 
•f dafaolt and Judgwent against Mottle was vacated and be was given 
leave to p>lead within SO days. 

July 19, Mottle filed a doouaent entitled "Plea of .defendant, 
Joseph Mottle* divided into two parts, '♦Motion* and "iinswer. " the 
■etion was again to vacate the order reinsttatlng the cause »nd the 
Judgment. The answer part of thle doeuiaent avers that Mettle had no 
knowledge of the allegations of the eompl&int, deaande striet ^roof 
and denied liability. July 27, following, on motion of plaintiff 
Kagttire, it was ordered that the plea of Mottle be etrieken. It wae 
further ordered that the Motion of plaintiff to strike Mottle's answer 
1m» d*iit«»4. 



-€- 
a««f bMi •Xt^oM iiitO h^nMttmuM tt 9%]mi^^ icat IiMAifvo to aciSTwi no f«£(f 
^•nwMo a«w fi fiita ,i^w«fid si/J •Xil o^ AaLUI Ami .hiimmuni tfftw ftfTSM 

.^•wiiijk ft# ml: ~<»9<i Jbi. fl Ikcu ,A«itl#(Mi i}«*<il fen 

te Slmy9b mO boM ,»i«ii««XO xtfi tetf !• aliiXt mH 
i>4n«:r0o ii«l<»at^;t ai 7i 5ii« wf i'utfM aidt lo ;§|Alft<in a ladl aJMJNHO 

*}s^. iair« 07 T%4i«ft«6««\ xlb%»ii *l il uite^ iM»lji%» bfn^tif •mm 

•t <rv«»X i«t t-xvo? srtf &4voa «XMa»«o 9ld \0 ,»X7##M ,tX MUiV 

Q$QX ,S tMfMoc dt A7<i9«r o^ htm •»ft«nM«q[<|B Xai»ft<|a a aXXt 

9i ava^X nsvi^ ?d «X7;;o^ taifl ftataftna a^rw ti tea ',ee«X ,SX xaM ihffa 

lot faa aavr floXsf<kw «Xil to ^nioaad a<17 feoui .•aaaraaqqfa Xalaaqa a aXll 

-qa Xaiaa^a •Hi &#Xi1 aX^tt^ «9X afiirL ^XMb aauia adf a0 .SX ^Xcrt 

it's&oo a»it tiSS aiwl .7XTal>Xtta x^ 5»9t9^^[0a jiolfoai alif I^m aMjavaaq 

floi^oilialatii bad 7i •ftfiil daldw ^aXVtoM Id fldife« na ,7a*^« na Bata^aa 

ad? a^laa #aa at aei^am ad7 7ad7 i^aniLaMa «aw j^l ftna ,aal7*saq ad^ la 

laAto •ttt »b*±a»b ad aai«ao asft ;|«ifa7aiiiant (Gfr^X «S •zadsaaa<{ la naJHo 

R»Ti|| aaw ad bn» Aalaaar taw «»Xt7oM tnnla^a ttitm-^ul bun ^Xuataft la 

.axAjb 05 nidllv ^JsaXq o? avaaX 
,$fl<:t;5n'%l<^y r ^o aaX<l* J^aX#17aa Sn«m>t€i^b a l»aXXl aXt^oM «8X xX<^^ 

'.liawaa^* 6na "aoitoW* ,af<ui^ ovt otai i^J»XviA "alYtaK d^aa«X» 

»di batk 9t»sa ad7 ^xyatanlan fbto %d9 vtaataf 9t dXasA «*v nolioa 

aa JM4 aXfta^ dad? aiava #aa«tf«fl£ aid? la ttMtt lawaaa adT .#flftN;M!''<vt 

loa«(( t9ttt9 ibtumnb .^alaXqiaaa »if? lo «AaX?AsaXXa tif? la aibaXwoad 

tli?nlaX(^ lo floifOH ae .^nlvoXXal ,T8 xXat .x'XXidaXX &aiBft§ tea 

»;«•* il ,tt*i9ttt9 9d aXtifaM lo aaXq arff tad? fta^aAw aav tt ,<«lii»aS« 

•x«v»iia 9»»X??oM »«X*t^a at lll?niaXq lo aolJaa ad? ?*d? te^aftve <iad?ijifl 



Sov«sb«p 1, following, eouneel for Maimlr* aoir«a the court 
to 0trlk« the aaswor ©f defendant f ottlo beeittis© of Intuff lei«ney, In 
th^t it Asountffd to the genoral leeue vhlch h&d b««n abolished hj th« 
QlTll Frttetlo« aet. On the «aae day an ordor wa« entered s«tting 
plaintiff** motion to starlke Hottle*« an9w for Novenbor ZX, and oa 
that day an order vas onterod denying th« «otloB« and it vae ordered 
that Hottle plead to the olaim raade against his within SO <iay8. 

i^eeoKber 8, Mottle filed hie aaever in which he denied the 
allegation* that he had reeelved the rugs to be eleaned. January 17, 
1940, tlottle filed hie petition in whioh he eet up thftt it wae agreed 
betveen the partiee that he be permitted to exanine the ruga and that 
he amde suoh exajsination and vac advised that dajBagee elaiaed by 
plaintiff againet Lux Cleanere had been settled. January 17, 1040, 
an order wae entered on notion of attorney for bottle giving him leave 
to file a eupplemental anever, and on the eame day a euppleaental 
answer vae filed ii^ieh set up tl^ settlesent between plaintiff and de- 
fendant Lux Cleanere, January ?9, 1&40, an order wae entered on 
motion of Kottle to take depositions of certain parti«6 before a 
notary, and on the soate day anotlSMr order was entered on 
•otion of attorney for plaintiff Maguire, which reoltes that it ap- 
pearing to the oourt that no notice was served on Maguir*'^ counsel 
for leave to file hie euppleaental answer, the supplemental answer 
wae ftrioken, February @, followiai;, another order wae entered 
eettinf the omtee for trial febnj&ry Id, and it was further oi^ered 
tiaat oertain partiee naeed be directed to appear before &. notary to 
take deposition* at l^e instanoe of Kottle. 

February 15, the oase was called for trial as it had there- 
tofore been set for that date, and ttm report of tiM proceedings of 
the trial dleeloaee that when the ease was called for triftl, counsel 
for itettle eaidt "we desire at this tise to present a petition for a 
ohanse of venue. Tiil COUHTi You desire to present it at t^sis tiae 
after all these hearings that you have had?" i^fter 80»e colloquy 



]»••««* tfttf it 9*dt 'm ^9* •!( dttidv jii Mim»Q ttrf ^•ilt •Xl«^ 4OMX 
,OM^x «?i rtuMMui^ .&«x»^M K9^4 b4ui •«««w«x& x^a fft«ia«ft nxfffiaM 

•▼A«X fliil »b1tX| »X»»o»I 9«1 twffvc^''* ^^ 0»ifo« 0« h9%tti% %Myf 'fbto am 
rirffl««i9X<|^SMI « Vk& •««« •rijr «« btl» ,mttl«A* X««IIMIttXinP» • *^xi ot 

•9JE? DI9A )ti9nXAXq /^»ftwt»0 ««iiit»j^9*t M(# <i« #•« xl»liiv fe«lXl Mw ii«wa«4 
fi« ^AVftiTfi* mm ttift9 A* «9HrX «99 tumtaI .tvvttivXa khJ f«»tat) 
A vnelft^ »ftl^t«a Bi^fi*? l« •ifoltiti»^i» •M»9 ot •XttM to «*iri« 

XmifUf^t s'rUirtiNMi Ji« »«r^«>» tt«w Mlt^n on fAri* fivM Mtt •$ scjhuicKi 

'x«>w*jut X«JtJt«awi^iqvt Mit «<v«fv«iM X«7iiMi»X'{^pBm aXif «XX> #1 9twm»l %•% 

jbft^ftMo 'swstffirt «Aw fi hem «4I ^iawv^^^ Xfti^t ^lo) —mmm 4Mf^ faiitfM 

^<^'i'^ii4 bdiii tX «.« Iml'vi tml b9lSmo raw mav wI9 t«X rx«tf«il^''j 

to a^iiXAvtMrtf mas to $«i04|«'% Mff l»aa ««1a& tAil* «s«) jrt« A««tf •vet*) 
Xmamoo «X4ii^a 1K0I ^XXtt9 9W ••«» »it nnuiir tMlt m*m^im*Uf LmXit 9dt 

A 19\ <l9X9i^«<l « 9jl««»^q 0$ MiXf 9l4S tm «ti«»Jb VV* '.Mm %Ut9iA t«t 

t«l# ai^ ;r« $x »ii«a«%4t V9 rsXA»J^ i<«Y stHt^o® Am .MM(4rf 1« «giMMfi 



•(tttatel for the Inx Clo«&«rc 9l»49et«4 on th« jrrmind tli«.t the notion 
for eh&ng«t ef v«aa« oasm too lat« eiBe« th« e«8e vfts tNit for trl&l 
eoot time b«fov« for February 15, Th» oourt p*nBltte4 eounsel to fila 
«i ^«tltlen fer eliAiigw of v«nu« laut denied the motion at tixe time 
•t«tlng to esuaeel for hux Clesiners to "draw »n order denying i^» ««^ 
eountiel, «#t up the rofteon that yeu know of for ^eigrlJig It,* Qn that 
d«te the oourt eatered An order, ftppareetly prepared by eauJBeeX for 
Lux Cleftnwre, In which It vae etftted *t]3k«.t th<» notion for ehnnee of 
venae h&s be^n filed for aore than thirty daye elaee the retorn &f 
suiBawna ♦** agAlnet •*• *<ottle, and there being two d«f«Bdants to the 
aetlon and eoneent to the Application haYlng not been had by «t least 
three feurtht of the p&rtlee in AoeordAnoe with ^^eotlon 9 of Chapter 
I4fi 111. f<«v. State. 1«3»», It wae ordered that pl&lntlff'e petition 
for ohange of vemte be denied. The is&es then proceeded to triAl, 
eouneel for the three parties being la ooAirt, and at th« oonoluelon 
of the erldenee judgaent for »SOC wae entered In favor of Lux 
CleaAora agalnet Mottle and he appeals. 

Counsel for Mottle contend the court erred in denying Itc 
petition for a change of venue on the ground that the reaeon stated 
in the order, vis., tii&t Mottle had not oosiplled with the provlelona 
of par. 7, ehap. 146, 111. ?lev. stAtt. 1939, w&e unwarranted beeauae 
there were only two parties at that tl»B interested In the ease. »^e 
do not atop to consider the reaeone stated in the order or the 
argttm»at made, heeause the record dleoloset the notion was not denied 
for l^at reason but for the reaeon that it had not been presented In 
apt tine. This appears frmi what we have above quoted frois th«! 
report of the prooeedln<|8 of the trial. #e thisle Vx6 »«tion for a 
ohange of venue made at the tine the cause was called for hearing 
ea»e too l&te and was properly denied, Qaplow v. 'Ji^^-low . 2bb 111, 
App. 389, 

Counsel for Mottle i!»xt ooatend the suit having been die- 



Iiti-Jj -lOlt «^ UW 9t#» *d» »<»1« •*»* —f •••• ••»«•» ^O *SIUW<* 1J»1 

MM? ^; tf ji •«»«• Witt imUs9k 9mi •umvir t« t»A«iM» '^•t (t«lfi^Hl f 
bfuft *«* ^1\J3«& %»inp •» wrn^" <M w%9iin9i^ SjrJ i«\ X«mmm0 o^t »«lt«#t 

ii>\ l#»*ttJ©fi 4<f Anjwifr'wi ^iJiii««»<i<i* %f!ine m bp%94m I'M** •<« W»* 

^ mtft etU •oftle ai^Aft «rtli^ M^ Mom ^"^ **X1) «••« mm( pMitT 
Mtt at •^MlMftt*!^ 9wt ««iMr «»«iiit ^M ««Jf#*»( •«* ttiiiWM *** •«f«Wpli 

^•«»X «» «tf Imti Xt«<»<« ^ftn liiljvvtil iWit»»ii«t« «^ •f ##f»«o» IMA «0Xf9« 
iittq^o \» « 4s»^#09 ctflw 99mUm^9» al mmWuq 94$ l« Mil ivfl »n4l 
f»*i»if«q «*t)ifiii4a4[ 2fitfi i&n«fr«ft •«« *i ,»msi ,H»$A .ir«^ ,xxx t^x 

!t«i8ifX9fi*^ «/^ :rir ^^l&* ,J%WM aX taiMT «*X#ium ••«<f^ •^ 'XA^ XM«ffM 

u»a 'U^ <5^^'.'< :. < ^.'*-.' <-.:;.•«« •«« oodi.io) $iitM*iit •«i«*«i^» •fit iM 

••XA«q«« «fi(>il» Ait t«M tMlXJl3M CIMItftXD 

Mil ^txa»it nl s^m» t*m»9 •*$ bm*9wt^ *X«foM i«l x»»s}i'i>v. 

ifloXaiV©^^ *^ Mlv *<»XJC«por ?oe JMil •Xtl^^ «t^t v«Xv t<«ftflt© •*« mi 

^^9tf«»W bsftut/ViMWMU «a« ,4f&«X «cf At 9 ,▼•« .X^ .MX •«ute «^ ^%5^ )• 

* .t>»«>3 ftii} al h«i99t»39l «lt tMi9 t« ■•17««t ««ft vX|Mi ««««r •^•tft 

9sLt %e %(9^<io •4tf J^X b9imS9 ncietA*^ Mil ^ftMvaoa o^ 4»|a im •» 

JbAiflftfe low. «i^ tteX^roa •<SI fi»«6X»iti^ >!«••% 9-rff •MtitMCi ,iiftMi |A««K|ri« 

rtl 6»ia»««<x«i 0«»tf iM luUtkf»^ ««*4w Mil i^t »w« iiq»»«»v l*i» <«ot 

)Mil mv.'X b*t«up •ro«'4 «f6A vif 9<^iSi» ««n) auM^^ifA »X4(7 .MXt If* 

« t©t «©X«o« a<» 3tti4£W »^ .X*Xit »*W S« •bcXJi»IM»om »«» ^» J^'*»fflpP 

l^^AUfi itet i^yXXM »4W •»»»» vKl «hXI m» tM *tMHB •««•▼ 1:0 fVftMto 

.XXI ««S .yyJ^i>P .V y^Xg»0 J>9itct' ^l%f&^^ »«w S«» ^IaX. ««!.., •f^f 



■Iseftd for ws^t 9f pro»«eutl©n Mare^ ?, 1938, tto* court h&a n« Juris- 
dtetloa to r«last«t« it D«e«ab«r 2, X938, nine* »«r# th«a 30 days had 
«Iap««d 8lno« tlM» dat* of <Jl#aHe8al, If th« point «»« properly 
pr«««rv«d t1ter« would b« nerlt la th« ooatention but th« srror wnt 
w«lT«d &j Gsujta«l wh<in iMi n^pwared oa noasrous ©ocaalonis Pairing tJi« 
oourt «nter order* ,^«rtielp«tlnf in th« trlAl of th« e»««, ^ j^aadetra 
^« Sfendstrs . SB© 111. App. 293, aJ^ oas«» thero el tod, 

Tfe« eTldoaeo shows th« rug« *f«r« A«llver«d by M«igulr« to 
Vm Lux Cl«&n$rs and tb« lattor, not btlng In pofltlon at th&t tl»» 
to «lo«a tl3*» a* requo«t»d by Mftgul?®* tarfuid tho» ©Ttr for tfeat 
JWPP9B9 to Hottl« vha iiftirrward did th« vork and .returned them. Th« 
»«a«ur» of daaRASt* In euoh & situation Is thA dlffftri»no« In value! of 
tfeo rugft at tlsMi tlw* thoy wer« d«llv« z^a to Lux an'l vlien tiioy w^r* 
rtRtumod to MAf«lr«, 

C©aa#el for Mottle eont«nd the ovldonoe 1« wholly ineuf- 
fleiont on this question to tuataln tfee Jud^Bont, and v« think ttm 
ooat«ntlon auet b« «u0tala<»d. Thli et«»fl to hav« b««n the viow of 
th« trial iM&m «x©®pt for the faot h* wae of opinion that slaee ^o 
•vldenee Rhowod tte« Lux aieaa^r* had paid Ha^gulr* jjSOO, thera t?a« 
at laaso dama«« to tlwit axtont. (Lux t«istlfl«^d h« paid Wagulre *500 
•to liiava «« alone.") But w tblnk this la a alaapprtheneloa. with- 
out going Into detail on the queetlos of evidence, we think It 
eloarly appears tbat there urae no evidence of the value of the rugs 
at the tl»» Maguli^ delivered thea to Lux* 

Complaint Is s»de that the evldeaoe as to what Mai^^lre paid 
for th« ruga was Inadalsslble beoause nuoh fact did not tend to prove 
^6* value of the ru^e, ^hle is not the law where food® sueh as rugs 
art bought at a fair eale, Nothini^ appearing tc ^atat su«plolon on the 
ti'®jn«ROtlon, It will be preettned that the prl«« paid Is the reasonable 
value of the goods, Cloyet v Jlaattg . 5231 til. App. 182, But In 
tho Inetant ease Magulre testified m had bought one of the rugs at 



••int»t te bma f«ft;e« $At ^11^,^1 ^K jei9tM.>^ ti9ito9W%tf to #iunr <xet JN»»tla 
Aaif *%hh oe aa«;> <»t<^ «9(ii9 ,9<ti ,<^ -r»dci#!»ftC f { «rji4ettlin <^ nelteth 

»jv# «&evt» «fl^ rtrtf n«}!r!»^>»«« «.<i9 Ri fi'vici <m(I fisfiitv rxwtjr &•▼%»* •?<{ 

IMBA 

»>^»»l9 <»n;«{f9 9«tnft<» Dmjk ,89t .^^ .III tSt ,»'ttfnb/u^ ^ 

«^4>T« Y«{f# A4»^w htim xKKi otr &(n«Ti £«A rt9v X9dt mrif ttdf $M BHVt •At 
«ff 3QRi«(f WMUI ,t«t«|ftjrt •!» iilAnw •# flQl9««li!^ 9ir.i no Jr^i^n 

.■^r-^, ...... w i^iji^ u^ fr«t%if»«> xuS) »i!i*ihf tmfts «^ •»*bi»6 ••••! #* 

»-^irt 9d$ 1[« aulsft mit td «9fi«fl&lv* Ht 9jIM «t^9 1*At ziJAVt^M xltA9^t9 

.xoJl 9t m%A9 h^nvrllitb vik»!^ mtt %tit HHn 

«^Bi"x 8 A j«o«» tftooji wtorlw v»I <»rf# ?©« »l tliit ,^%ist iHtt t© »MXav iMfJ 
9iii no fi&l«l<|fttfs ^te«D ©«■ ^ltii*c'.-}i* ijs«flfcry?oM .»l«ii •«l«t « tti 5rf"s,ix«tf <»*sa 

at J»«l .MX ,q^A .XXt X«S ^yfL^ya.al^r <i.»^gfX9 ,«BiW3l wfJT t© oBliav 



-7- 

«n auetlon &t Bot Spring* for 18350 &b9ttt nix or e«vta y<»&r«! before. 
It mis s«nt t« b« eloaavt; that b« l«ttgltt aoethtr rug in I92S or Ii^6» 
(wbleh WA« tts ye&rw b«for« the rug» w«r« d«llv«rs4 to lux for 
eleanlng) for wlileb ii« paid 1600 or «i57&j that h« bought ftnoth^r of 
th« rttf ti froB a «ollfsotor{ tliat It vt^a a used rugl that he l»du^t it 
1»«eAa»« It wa« & very fine antique rug aad h« thought he p$.ld M^ for 
It, A witne«f,who »tae fajaiXlar with th« value of iueh ragi as the 
ones In question and who iB«»eai«d qualified, called hf the Uut Cleaner e 
testified he exaalaed the r^gf after they vrif returned froia the 
eleanere and gave hie opinion ae to tbn value of the ruge at th&t 
tlae and what they would have been worth If there were not oerta^ln 
defects fihovn. Couneel for the Lux Cleaners, after analyKlnj; t^e test!- 
aony of thle witness eaye: **! disagree with appellant C^ottlel when 
he atetee that the only teetlmony In the reoord whleh relatee to the 
value of the ruge in question la the testimony of Hagulre ae to tribat 
tie paid for ^ev and t^ value after bailment ae teetlfled to by 
the expert witness, and submit th&t both the value ftt the tine the 
ra|;e were delivered to the bailee and the value at the time they were 
returned to the bailor was testified to by the witness. Marry 
Bsftgdifan, an expert.* 

We think the evldeaee does not sustain this argument. 4t 
stated, the rugs were purebased by Maguire - one at auction and 
another eeeondhand « a nuaiber of years befox^ they were sent to thi 
eleanere. They were in use during: this ]^erlod. The evidenoe as to 
the value of thea when purohaeed by Kagulre 19 wholly Insufficient, ani 
there is no evidence of their value when t^y were sent to the 
cleanere,and th<^refore the Judgment cannot be eustfiln^d. 

The JudgsMtnt of the Superior court of Cook county i@ 
reversed^ 

Matchett, J,, and Mcfiurely, J,, concur. 



%9ri mM ai &4iM«7i.j;«iik «'t«w Slav's •49 •^-•tfMir nt»0% a^s •«« 4«i4lw) 

O'j »d i^i ;j|«rs Jtoaxr a »4w 91 tMdt tuo^dtiio* « ««vl •»!>« »x$t 
-xfti w^te SXa4 3if $itiitnii(it »d i>au ^^ut t4/pt9(iA mm x^9V «. mmv tl i»«MA»»«r 

jr«ji$ «j» «)^-*e «i:il ti» •trX^T »^ •« «a AAiiii^o 8i4 •van taA §iit4UieX9 

(kii^it^d K«m ^n^fm «n«ii? ti fl^nwv ««»4 tVMl M»ov l*s£ir tmdat 6a« MBit 

" . •'C? ie4? a«iKtX«e« <s«?^ ««<9(ttiBAflj:$ xjuu t<t;9r i«i /.Mmr9«> •mrotf* KtotliMk 

-'^y '^? 9»;rBl£r: .'i&liitw &'!ea«'% «& ill iHOfllttal %Xao ftdt fJUbT ••tAtt «4 

•iff ii«lf dfiil Mm vif&ffv «4i 4^94 tf«til llMfi/a In* (SirMUtliff |<«9«ko Mil 

<S-;nt^M ,A««ftll¥ ^f %^ ^i I»ftitil3t«l »«'# ^9ll4Mf «41 0I l»ii«nj«{rt« 

fit .#rt«i:£;krs%^ tsi^il sMifiis^a <f&a «»<il; t»«fK«Aiv« 4Mtl 4fli4t ft'' 

bs;^ sKKil9»A 1« •&« » flriioS'^ T<f ^t«iulrsi»9 rsow «Sini: *41 ,^@J^.^^^ 
aci^ Ot l.iflMk «^»w Y*41 «%0\%4 9^%^*% \0 lA^atfH » «> lMUM(bll««M KMflMIA 

el »« »9iaft&iv« •cfT .£^«ii»q ai41 ||aJiu»£ Mff a<t estw ijlt^t .ttiMMKtl^ 

BAt 0)1 ts** »m«r 1(9^ «9itw. .•ju£i«f ni«^l to ««)ii«»BXv# 4a» ^l 9's.»41 
»i:4titlJisl«cr«t ««r l9n6A« tfloa$£»t «& «K9tft*Z(Utllf AaJi«e^MM«X« 



41314 



MOTOR ".ALi.3. / / I ) " 0M^ ^^ 





COOK coufifi:, 

.pp.u«.. i 307 i^A. 543* 




>m, J»RBSIDI8& JUSTICE 0*COit»OB DSLIVKR^D TH^ OPIKIOS OF THE CQUm, 
Plaintiffs "brought an e.otien in the <Ju«tiee of tb« ^eae» 
oourt, ?he juetiet «tta]Ben« r«eit«e th«it the "enuse le ^n aotioa for 
the pay»ent ©f ••* eontr^et for gAr*g« rent for #600, • The caee was 
tried September 19, 192S, before the Juatiee. On c^^epteaber £@» the 
ttourt entered Judgment ia plaintiffs* favor for 4 500, and as a part of 
the JutSfsent found there iias "due the plaintiffs froa the defendant *** 
fflCX} la an aetion of assun^sit for aonies due on & oentr^iet for gax«ge 
rent. " An appeal was taten by defendant to the Circuit eourt of Cook | 
oounty where there was a trial de novo February ^7, 1940, a finding 
and Judgment in plaintiffs* favor for «619, and defendant appeals. 

Pefendjaint contends that since the Juriedlctlon of t^e 
justice of the peace could not exceed 1800 (par. 16, oh. 79, 111, Hev. 
i^^tats. 19)39}, and on appeal to the Circuit court H&ere *the court 
finds an anount due in excess of the Jurisdiction of a Juetice of the 
peace and renders Jud^nsnt for that a»eunt, its Judgnent is void,'' end 
t^e8?«laKway Co . v, l,eaigle. et al . . 191 111, i<.pp. 6, la chleflj? r«»lled 
upon. In th&t case suit was brought before a Justice of the peace of 
t^anf«aon county on a Judgment and It seems to be assumed that the . 

Jurisdiction of the Justice at that time could not exoeed i^^OO. Keithei^ 
the amount claimed in the Justice's suasions nor the »e»ount of the 
Judgment rendered by the Justice appears. A» appeal w»,« taken t© the 
County court ^here the case was heard before t^e court ^^itheut a Jury. 
The court in its Judgment ordered the clerk to assess damages at 
IS3S.23; that plaintiff have and recover that aaauat from defendants 



^^xx»i<j^ 









/!.» 



8^3 .A.I TOe 



A/r*? 



tol ni»it»« r;3 -%.' 9')i7i>!)*' silJ^ tAxfir t»fle*a na^mut ccH^nir^ witT .^vvt^ 

■i>99 t* jf'syos yXu9iiX^ •ettT t fsutbanlL9b \4 a^Mia ajiw l^f^V^ nA ** .tfan 

i^ZJbflll: A «0^tX ,YS v^A^^^*'^ »YOfl j^ iMJn^ m •«¥ •ntdljr rxwtw xtnueo 

.8X»»a^ ara,t»i^«l»j^ e»is£ ,9X<<I %et tQ^^lt 's114:}iiXaX<i hX ^ao«|^tft JHmi 

•dy 1« (ioXjr»Xi^«X^yt *<^' MAX* tJui^ tftiift^ao9 ta«Aii9)»i>i 

.^•K .XXX ^ff ,At> .1 .n»i!|} 0C€4 ^•••^rs ^«^ £Xif99 •(Mi*q wit lo toXl||ft 

903 lo 9«Xf«M}t ii to fieXtfdld«liUiFt *^ ^0 •■•exft nX •«£ iauim* oa tftjciXl 

M^K * ,£>X9T aX ;rn»«;^tfl a^X ,tfRi/CMeui i»d$ vot tli«Mrifrift, ci^ta*^ J&iia »»A«q 

6«iX»^ tXleXilo ax ,S .«iqA .XXI XfiX ..M,,|> ,».f,A»f,?a •▼ «<?P , .U^aff, WlU 

o 96s»q od[t "to s^X^stfl )t •^etMf ;ii9croii;(l aav jTXirti «««9 #«<li al «aoqif 

•Kftri<^X»i^ .OOSiv. i>»«»ox» toe Jg»Xi?oo vwi;}^ :^«^ 7« eoXtawl fitl )f «eX:rold<iXrttft 
t»fi^ 1c fRucNBii f^ •son «0Qaeitf» s'eoXrtiJul *tf^ aJ^ itpmXitX^ $nuQmM wff 

lul « $u9Att^ 91U99 9tstf not^tf ^iui«ii aaw vaAO •!<# rsuffir tfiuo^ xfnuoQ 
im asj^Muift s«»«aA «# iH«X» •!& i^tatAKO fa««BJtot atX «X ^aioo Mtf 
•tauijbft9l»b Knt tmamm 9Mdf ^•re<»9^ ttv^ <»r«if llXfoXAXq fajr^' "" "''ISlI 



-8. 

ftitd the Judgs«nt ord«r oontlBtt0«, 'And no'w on this dAy *** edft«s 
plalatlff *** and on its action it is ordei^d by the Court t^t th* 
•us of 132,25 be and the seae ie resitted to s&id defendants oat of 
the Jadgseat heretofore rendered againet thes in thie eourt. * the 
eoort reversed the jadfsent holding that the County eourt oa appeal 
wae without jurifidletlon to render Judgment for sore than ^SOO, 
Juetioe Crelghton difteentinf. The eourt there eaid: 'Plaintiff also 
ineiete that although the original judi^sent vae rendered for &a aaount 
In exeese of the Jurisdletien of the justice of the peace, that the 
faet that the Justice of the> peaoe originally rendered his Judgpaent 
for an amount within hiP JurieAietion and beo&use the remittitur 
entered by plaintiff in the county eourt reduood the ai^ount th&t eould 
afterwai^s be eollsoted on the Judgment to an aoount for vhieh the 
Juetioe of the peaoe had Juried ietion, the question of Jurisdiction is 
finally and eonelusively settled. Zt will be ooneeded th«t if the 
asount due at the tise that the Justlee of the pe&ee rendered his 
Judfpaeat wae for an asount within his Juriodietlon, then on appeal to 
the eounty eourt, interest «^iGh aeerues after the Judgseat rendered 
by the Justiee of the ipeaee may be added to the Judipnent on appeal 
altluniMi^ It does tisiereby render the Judgsent in exoess of the asount 
of whioh the Justlee of the pcaee had Juriadiotlon; but where sueh it 
the ease, tiw record suet dlsolose such faets; but the asount for 
whieh the eounty oourt rendered Judipsent is in exoess of the amount 
for which the Justioe of the p<eaoe had Juriediotlon witti legal In- 
terest that sight have aeented on the Judcment rendered by his between 
the tise of the rendition of his Judgaent and the hearing in the 
eounty eourt, * 

«e are unable to agree with this reaeoning but thin* nr, 
Jttstioe Creij^hton was right when be said be ''dleeent^ fros the views 
herein exprsesed and fros the coneluslon arrived ot. ' In that oase, 
as stated, the UH>unt sought to be reoovered before the Justlee of 



-41- 
Mf? «A^ 91x190 Wis x^ !iim«in9 »t il aoitvm •;! «« i^iu *** 11iA^Al»i;« 

o«jU t^Unimi'i* ihjjt* (KMiff fiitoo atfS .aflifAtaali^ aetiliind t«iar«irl> 

•ifi H9mv 4«t lifiaiMts lui »# fti9m^lHii 9dt «o l>»9»tiXi;«9 «4 tMiitrtvtlji 

9dt ti «Aiit jbaAMOd* M^ llXw ti .l»»Xtfir*« %i9rl9isl9M9 bMA xHstUt 

9i l»9qqM no acMtt •nai^oi&ttiiwt liif oiiUXw #ii«#iMi im t^t «4i*f tMiqM^l 

1«*4|«« «» filOaa'^tfL 4^ O^ i^faM •< XMK ••*<Mf Mtir X9 99li9lfl 90* ftf 

YflMMM 9iii to •••ox» fti «a9«9i^tft 9^ <t«*flrK ^r»i& t*e6 n tl^imUS* 

•i 2£ft«9 »s*Ar ;ri(d it»lf9Ab9l'mt ^»A •••^q tUt t* »«it«»l ft^ d9l^ 19 

ZG\ $au9mm 9dt iini |s#e«t 4«jm «««X»«ib tftMB M»o«« «44r 4«aj«» ftiJjr 

•ai i!m»i Hfiw £ioi#9l6«iietfL Mil 9*»9H 949 to »«iJ»H«t 0ii9 iioXaw «el 

it»»v»(»« nJU( tcr *»9ftAff*« yifnitiryi »4Cf «9 i^Ajnw^A vvAft #i%X» $^i t9«%9* 

9& ai ||0X%»»£1 9tit b»9 $«9tmb»i aM 1» ti^^l&tim 9d3 lo •stJU o^^ 

e-^-^tv nii9 atnt nsa^vmlUt^ 9sd kitm 9A n9tb0 tiltX'X »mw ae^d^lm.-^ - 
»»a*i> rasa »l *.*« festrXiiMi iiel«irlo««>« ihU mmt ba» iiM»«^<SK* 



.3- 

the p«&ee And the aaount of tk« JudgKent r«ii4ter«4 bgr 1^ Ju«tle« of 

th« p#«e« do not appeAr. 

Or ftpp«ftl tr^m a jadgmcnt r«nd«r«d bjr tli« J|a»tl6« of ti&« 
p«ae« intvrefit le not to bis eoffiput«d on th« Ju<%ffi9at r«ind«r«d by th« 
JuetJlae of the p«a«« but on the tusount of plaintiff •* elaifi a&do In 
ttm Jastleo oourt. fho trial l» ^ novo . Tlnd^ll v. i'.ceKgr . 1 "cam. 
(2 111.) 13?, Tht oourt ^«r« ««ld tt^ second error rolled upon In 
t^at oaso for reveraal was 'that if th« intoreet at the rate air^ced 
en in the notee, wae allovable, then the ajBount of prinoipal end 
intereet vae over jilOO« and the Court eould not g^ive Jadgnent. * In 
holding this eontention untenable the oourt eaid: *When the aetlon 
ifae ooaaeaoed, and the Jud^aent rendered by tise Justioe, he had ua^ 
questionable Jurlsidletion of the cause. ***^ Hov, can it for a stonent 
be allowod, if no appeal had been taken, thut the justice and 
eoae table would have been treepaeeere, if an execution had been lipeued 
on the Judgnent, and the defendant* a goods taken and soldi? To ^t^te 
the eaee ic sufficient to ehov tiim unrea«»onablene«s of the proposition 
t^at the defendant by taking an appeal « and by eubeetiuent delay in 
th« Cirooit Court, until the interest had aeeu&iul&ted eo as to aiake 
the plaintiff's deiuuid exoeed 4100, each subsequent aoeuaulatlon 
should relate baok and oust the Juetloe of Juris<Sletion of a cause of 
idsdeh v<hen adjudioated he had legal cofnlsanee. The rule in ^uch 
eaees is, if an inferior court has Jurisdiction 4|b prlylne . no sub- 
sequent faet arielng In the eeee, ean d#fe«itt lt« vhen It vhs lawful 
in the inoeption. * 

In the inrtant ease, the suit vas brought to recover /^>500 - 
within the Juriedietlon of the juettlee oourt. Judgment wae entered for 
that amount and the faet that an appeal vrae tftken and a Jud^»ent en* 
tez^d for /19 BO re than the aatount olaiined doee not oust the court 
of Jjurledlction. The report of the |:rooeedlnge of the trial is not 



-8- 

*i :. -v/, g .■ ^?Fi'Afr; --: Jn?.-' -..-K'^ fiflV' ^I^' Y/f]M>)s:.«; -'fij rm* swiisq »lft 

-a«. X ,* ■ ' .* llm^Atlt .S£ii i£ *' l«iit •dT .tiUfM —ituai Mit 
'<* M^ ^ . ■«««*• &iMi»ii» «j& M«* »*t»«ir pw Mff .tvx (.xxt s) 

:r ^t'l ^O fniMK* «iltr ««lfif ,»X4laWftXX« t*V (AWTMI iMfT Ki M» 

n«X:r«A Mit t^^ii.^" :Mji* »a«oe tHtr •MmiNftmy m^Jtittmitwm wiOf ^Ibltik 
"iiv bMA «d[ ^«9ltiiiii "ftfi^ X^ »eiK!'<i >g #i fiNwqMhtfl ««it tea ,fr««aMUl«» ftmr 

r>«i;»ftl ^ftv^ &i£2 »»«ljrc<e4nt» aa II ^^fmrnMHnviS ft*»cf «nriuf fritfow eXtf»#«a*i» 
«$«»« «f ?M«»» &A« fl«tf*l •fro«| ii*fK»ft««l«A •/(# tea (tihnisiswt ««it I* 

»jf«» •* tti Iril {>«>7^Xi^tf9o« &«tf f»««K«7iii Mft Xi7fttf «rtjm»S> ttumtfH vH 

di»«r» ffX aXmy ttf? .»»«*» I09<M» X«9«X iuwi «i( i^»#.«9l6tfti^« avtfir Jifolsfir 

*^ .fi4»Xif q#»9il «££# aX 
tel &a^4i9a« 9UV Satfm^u^ .»itio» li^Xrsirt lul^ Ito 09l^oXI>aX%vt *<^ »X4Vlw 



ia %hB record «o that «• wt9 la th« ArzHl ac to liew th« 1X0 ineluSed 
In tlie Judgaent was brought about. 

Th» Jud^aent of ^9 County eoart, ae oth«r judgments*, is 

prosuKod to bo In Aeoord&ne« T?lth th« l«.w. Alloy v, MoC&fas . 14? 111. 
410. 

¥he Jttdgaont of tho Circuit court of Cook eoufity la affirtaodi. 

KAt«lM»tt, J.« oad ^eSuroly* J.» oonour. 



,£II t^i «jBii2&'. >^ X2.U£L '^^^ ^*^ ^^^^ «0o«Mo«aA Hi mT o^ fiMurattq 



41531 



T, 







iiy 







A^p.u.-.t. ) 307 I. A. 543 



MR. pmnmiuQ justici o»coaiiOH belivrkfid the o?i»ioii or f»E court. 

Fl«.intiff brought suit &g6iB«t d«f«n4&nt to recover i9Q for 

work h« hftd dOBO for defoadAnt &« « Janitor* Th« «tat«s«&t of cIaIa 

ett up th&t defendant had given plaintiff a ehoelE for the »^ dated 

M«7 29, 1931, axid signed by the "areen i-ealty Company, It further 

Harold J, '-ire en, * 

appeared that on the next day plaintiff vent to the bank on whloh it 

wae drawn but found the bank vas oloeed and therefore the eheok wa9 

not pald« During the trial of the oaee, whloh w&e before the oourt 

without a Jury, oouneel for plaintiff aeked leave to aaend the oosh- 

plaint on Its faee to oonfora with the proof. I.e., to show that 

plaintiff had earned <S90 wages aa a Janitor for the aonth of May, 1931, 

ttnA It was treated as though the amendment had actually been nade. 

The defense interposed vas, (1) that the eheek was the ob* 
ligation of the &reea Healty Co., a oorporatlon, and the eorporatlon 
was not a party to the suit, and iZ) that even If the evldenee showed 
l^t defendant Green had orally promised to pay plaintiff ^j90 for work 
done by hla in May, 1931, it was barred by the Five ifear statute of 
Llalt£iitione. 

fhe undisputed evldenee Is that the Jrsen !^>ealty Cowpany was 

incorporated Maroh 23, 1931. On the hearing counsel for plaintiff 

stated to tim court that he was suinc on the oheok signed by defendant 

(Jreen "who. I believe, le an offioer of the corporation," Xt Is un- 

not 
disputed thiiait the ooz*poratlon wfts/nade a party defo^nidant. 

On the second point plaintiff's evldenee was to the effect 

tliat clreen had orally provlsed to pay plaintiff v?0 for the work he 



13 UHOt 



A >* t»tiU(»^tik. 



'8:^5 .A.l 1>08 ' •*"•"*"* 






not 0^^ i^ft (ui)fi«1t«J^ laiil«i« tlm tit^mna VitialAl% 

mtAl» te taua^tati «£tl .nceliiul « •« tttabn»'i9b tot Miob Aail orf iiow 

£•!«£ < ^(rl ]{«»£L0 A ItifOiAiq ll«TlS ted fllA&fitloft iAdf ^U fOt 

... . .-,.. ,t bltnuB 

;it dotibi no ateJkd od^ otf tao^ WitatAlq XMJb txoii usr «£« 7«ill Aoiuioqii|« 

•«w jCvojfo 4u£t tn^trnvitit taa J^oaolo saw ;£BMr «ft Amrot tutf aw«^ •«« 

tn«oo «d# 9tc1t»<r «ir»( deiife ,*ft«fi adf to X«i<Kf 0^7 V(-t^nK! »61«q[ ton 

-aeo ftttr hn%tm of fiir«»X &•<•« tlitnlxXq tol Imrvoo ,TWt * fvodiriv 

tAtit vtS» 93 ,.#.! ttoonq ttt tffl« wiotfloo o^ oont •!! no tttiJkXq 

,1^';^/ «t*^ to dt&^m »dt tot 'xofl«sl * •« ••!•« O^t ftOAiuio brnti ttl;fAi«X<| 

.»5«« sooeT -leXlAs^oa lM»ri YnoctftaoMi tdf ils<i^*<'^ ■« k^tmtnt a«v tX i&Ao 

•^e oil? ham Koofto ftitf #Mi(f (X) «»«v b«»oqv»#aX otaotoA oilT 

col3M*i9^»9 9tU tms ^nolifo-ie^jtoo « « .oO ttXjior< 000^ oilt to floXto^XX 

liowoitt ooBoMvo <»fiy tX (!9V^ 7iU<t (^O lto« ,jrX»9 nAi &f Xl*t«q « fOA §a» 

M^ov <xet 0<3^ tli^ftXAXq \M«l f MoX««<i4| xXX««o &»f( «o«^ tC«&sotoift itMit 

to «tf09*fe toot orXt odf ttf ftot«catf nsm tl ,Xe9X ,^aH nl ulU x^ MOift 

.aaoXloyXmXJ 
■«w VM<fai<^ xf^Ji9i- ffoo^4i odt ImUT oX oomtftX^o ftotvqaXbav oifT 

ttX^fiXoiq lot loanffoo a^X^uioif 9il# aO ,Xe<?X ,SS xfo^oM JN»^«<toq^ooAX 

^n«&eftt*l> ^ Jboff^X* iToodo oil9 no buXko tov od r«j(t #<xtf06 odtf of Aotota 

~ny »1 St * ,aeil$snt!H!j%99 tdf to loa/tto ito «X ,ov»XXotf I «oxfer* ooovO 

.itfiABnatoft tt'XAQ « oftoi^ji^aw «oXf«'xeq<voo otff tjulf AofvqtXib 

t?><9'lt» 9rfl ©;f a«« oonofiXTO a'ttXJnX*X^ ^oXoti ftao6»a »f{* nO 

9d :i%ov 9as tot 001^ ttllfliaXq xa<i otf Ao«l»Ot4i tXXono bmA am*nh $»J$ 



•s- 

Ai& in ttm m»n%h of Majr, l^SX, D«foadAat e&ntenHs timt the ll&billty, 
If «ny, ttad^r this prealse would bt bax*7e£ In fiv« ye&rs, eitlng Slg, 
lA. 82if ni« R«ir. t'-ttiits. 19S0, i^hieh provides tb«t aetlone on ttn~ 
written eontrA«ts ^xpr«»9 or Isepllad &iiS all @lrll aetlons not othnr^ 
vla« provided for eh«ll be eovaiAnoed within five yei^rd next after the 
cauM of action ftocruad. The Instant e&«« was brought '^v«pte»b«r 1, 
IQSQ, aert than elfi^ht yeare after t3te olala v&« due, and the elala vaci 
therefore barred. 

The olalm. If any, agaln«t defendant ireen hfitvlng been 
barred hf the statute of Llssltatlons, the Judgment auet b« and It Is 
revereed. 

Matehett, J,. tmAWB^rnlj, J., eoneor* 



-m; ><^o 9«i«i^9JC ti^aif •ftj^ftro'tq i<>iAr ,9881 «air«f6ii .vttR .1X1 ,58 .ite 
9di ^^it9 Sum ^ttk^ «vlt bU&t<t b«OA«n»« MT XXjMs ^v) tflt^^/%4, mIw 

••V «i.%i9 »^ t.i3^> ^<*i^ ^jiw Sti£Xi> «it;r -x«^t« *% ^9 BAlfl •«•■ «Q6tX 

9t SS baii 9d 7»xi£ ;r.s. ? ,«ReX^ftfXalJ lo 44vf«j^8 fnf; xfi ^•t'vuS 



413&0 



tn R» JKSTATK or 0OFU 08ERHBID£, ) . 



WlLLIA^i OSEHHKIBS, 



V. 



« km/tRUST ') COOI OOUIiTX. 



CITT SAf lOiOL /iMkKl msrtm'^V ') COOI OOUIiTX. 

COMPAinr or CHIcacIQ, £x»eator of ) I 

s:«::r '' '"" °*"*"*" ! soti.a. 544 

App«llt«. } 
NR. PRESIDIMO JUSTICE 0»CO«SOR DELIVEKEB tm OPtWtQU Of TKK COURT, 

ftlMuarr 4, 195e« aillUiB Ob«i:^«ld« fil«d hie olala In th« 
Probatt eeurt for ^10«6d9.0«S In the mfttter of the e«t&t« of !:>or« 
Ob«rh9ld«, his deceaeod mother. April 6, 1959, tsifter hearing ^e oIaIa 
was dii&llowed and an appeal taken to the Clroult oourt of Cook eounty 
where the natter vae heard, eubetantlalljr all the evldenoe heln^ In- 
troduoed on behalf of olalaant. The olaln w&e again dlealloved and 
he i^pealc. 

The reoord dleeloeee that Uora Oberhelde owned all the 
eapltal etoek of the Qberhelde Coal Company, a corporation, and her 
three tone, the olalmant William and hie brothere Fred and Chrletlan 
vere offloere and dlreotore of the ooal oot^any and In the active 
■«nafe«eat of the buslnese. January 9, 1939, she and her three eons 
entered Into a written agreement thereby she was to execute and de* 
liver a trust agreement under the terns of whloh she would aeelgti 
all of the share of the eoal company to a trustee. The sons were to 
continue to maaac* tOie ooal business as officers and dlreotore and 
to work haxnaonlottsly together. There were to be two other directors 
of the ooal oompany wheee duties were oniefly to act as arbitrators 
In ease of any disagreement among the sone. The contract also pro- 
vided that *If the surplus and earnings of the *** Coal Company, as 
oertlfled to by a duly lleensed public accountant, shall warrant such 
aetlon, each of the second parties t the three sons] shall vote In 
favor of the declaration of quarterly dividends by the Board of 






.191;^ 



1 » SO S9JMP»J. . •'■'''•i>**^y 

•j!» fii aii«ro 9lff &«X11 flMofHMTO «AiXXiV ,S8«X ,> \iA<nttft'Y 

■ iH.[f> Adl V^Ait' •»:': i-^t ,0 Il*l<{4 .IMltMl *MI««0«ft till t#£l»ifl«tfO 

•ni $nX»4 tvnsftXT^ od^ IXa xXXjiiiaji#»tfxm ,MA*rf ••« ittHAn ttft Mtlfcr 
ftna fr^woXXMlb iilAyi mv mlml9 •<(? .l«Mii«X9 !• tXAriMt iro »••«»•%# 

•iiXA*qq« Mf 

•▼!#»« •itt nl &e« tJUMpBoo tM99 Mlt to rto^onlA Ami ti*eltto wit* 

•NO* •ru&r i»f{ biu M(a ,0S9X «^ fXJUMuii ,ifnUut Mii le iraMi«a«ibMi 

-•A bOM 9iu99%9 »i mmf vitt x^9i%9it» tfiWB«rq|« n^tititi m 9fmi bvt^Snm 

il-i^sA Mipev «{t« dolHv to «««•« 9^ ittbau #«•■•«««« f*ini « ivrlX 

" '^'Y9v anoc MfT .99);r»int a o9 ^ac^99 X««e «fl# to aruute m&T to XXa 

Aa« tto^ooalft baM tuoeitto *» «a«cl9utf Xaoo oitf osaaatt ot ewiifaoo 

•io}04n:lB laxfUo owt otf otf 9<s«iv na£l7 .•swtfiie^ iXaifoliM«iAtf Jhcow o# 

ntoiaiild'tM »A i'oa of ^Xtaxne maw ••IfifA aaoifw t<M<|M«o Xaoo aift to 

-trni oaXft ^oani^aoo ojrfT ,»jio« MiS iKie«ia #Bwiravxia«iA xna to aaao 0i 

• a ,V»* "'^" ^^oJ> •** •«<' to syilircaa Aaa «tfX<rurt ajft tl* tailf AoAIt 

'f tnaa.M. ..«xl« .Inafnuooaa olXdirq AoaflOOlX tXa* a t^ o* AoXtlfTOO 

..X afov XXarla taooa «»i/ff fti& 1 ««lf«iaq Anoooa oxif to doaa «flolfM 

to &idoH »di %4 aJftfltAlyXA xX'x<»j'£Aiir:» to AolifitiAXoaJb aitt to morat 



-8- 

Dlreotom at thjt r*tt% of at least Tw9lv» TbouHand Dollare («ia,000.00) 
la aaeh raar ««aai«aelRg January 1» 1939, ** until the death of Hre. 
Oberhelde. le addition thereto the contract provided for hack 
dividende for any preeeding year in which dlvldende of ^12,CXJ0 had 
not been deelared. 

At the sane tl»e, January §, 1929, Dora Oberheide entered 
lata a written tntat indenture with the Central Trust Coao^^any of 
Illinoii, whftreby all of the stock of the coal oompaay which belonged 
to Krs. Oberheide, vaa transferred and certificates issued to the 
Central Trust Coapany to be held by it as txHifltee,and il was jre^uired 
to^ vote the shares of stock for the election of the three eons as 
directors of the coal eonpany and after the deduction by it of its 
fees and eig>eBses, was to pay Hrs. Oberheide the dividends received 
by it froa the coal ooapany until such dividende amounted to H3,000 
in each calendar year* On the death of nrt. Oberheide the trustee 
was to distribute the shares of stock equally aaong the three sons. 
At the time of the execution of these two doousentc, Hr*. uberheide 
was about 7^ years old. 3he died January 5, 1937, at the age of 87. 

Claiautnt's theoi*y of the ease is that iaiaediately before 
ttM execution of the two doouaents, the sens, after reading the agree<> 
atnt "objected to and refused to accept that provision of the agree- 
aent respecting the payaeat of ^12,000 dividends because buglness 
condition* did act warrant it. " Thereupon it was orally agreed that 
if the dividends earned did not araount to 112,000 a f9».T Hr«* Qberhetti 
would hold in trust for the three sons the balance of the il2,000 
after deducting the aaoont of the dividende e&rned. Uyon this orid 
agreeaent being reached, the written agreeaeat waa exeeated by the 
aother and the three sons. 

On the hearing it was stipulated that the dividends de> 
elared by the ooal ooapany for the years 19Jit to 1926, both ineluelve, 
and paid by it to the Central Trust Co^any, as trustee (who in turn 
paid Krs. Oberheide), exceeded the dividends earned by ^31,767.10 



,*tn "to ^ji'^ilb »/fjr litne * ^9^91 , J tiuitriul 9iilo«««a*« <«««\ ilOAt Hi 
ft«tf 000,SUt4> to •A««l>XvJa^ it#jUfw Hi tA»X 9iilA«o«nq to« 'xo^ •J^fltftlviA 

•4 Si ? l0 fiioi?»#X6 •Iff if«1 idofii 1* tevftrfs tuct^ •t«v itt 

««««« s6n«i^XTXA d(*«a Hiuu tUM^ma* X«e«» tit^ m«nil St \4 
.«A«« tn^fd Aii7 soMUB ^iiiAMpf jtoott t« ••oatfa mdt •tudtrfMtb Qt tM 

.t8 1« «a« Mid 4^^ t^> i ,.: VUVAA^ b*i5 «lf^ »hl9 OIMT 9f ^V«U &•« 

-••nga 9d9 ^nltum i99\» «»«o« ad[^ ,afaa«ifacf> aw^ a4t la aoXiMaaxa %at 

'f^'tnn «4t to floXaXTonq taiur 9q»ao« o$ boatrtrt Jbcm oi Jba^oat^fo* #aac 

a»«n2BU!l »atf«etfit %&nnhlyrtJi (X>0«SXlf to ^atiixaq afi# sfli;raa<{t«a tatai 

ttuUt AttKSS« \|Xaio aiur ^X saq»aii«JEfT ' «7X tfita^'uiv .7oa i^Xi» aaoX^X£>a«o 

(f[t«jf'!&a«ro .«^M *u$»% 8 000, SX^ otf ^tttfovuK ^oa bib bwtA» aAaai^XTXJ^ a^l^ ti 

000, six^ %di to «afl«X«d[ aiftf aooa aaiuAt acf^T lat lacnf nl -ftXail &X«i«« 

Xa'so aXf^ aoqU ^JbaniJia a&sa&irXA ai<& to i&tsQmm tnii %fU$^atbf»b fStM 

«4jr \<i k9tuo9X9 ^m J^aaavftTga aaS'^Xiw wtf ,X>ajd[0«rx s^oXv^ yA»«aait:|a 

.snoa aatif} actl Aaa lad^cM 

-«£) »^hn^hl-9lb •iii tMAt b*t»,luq;JLS* 'aw it laX'XASii «Md[> oO 

,anrX»iyX<»ft , >s^eX Of S&9X irtaat *«W ^•t loaqoioa Xaoa 90$ ttf JbaiaXo 

n-it!? .' »»^«m» «a »v. .-^iJaaO atft ot tX irf AXaq Aoa 

ox.VdT.XS^ X<f bwiA9 a&naftXTXA aiff fra£9aax» ^ ( a&XaxfiatfO .ai» &!«( 



-5- 

«Bd willi«a, tb» son, olfiims on^-thlrd of this amount or $10, Si®. 03 
to bs das fr&m his mother's sotAts, On the oral antutsnt It was 
statsd that ths othsr tvo sons have similar elaisfi psnding for ths 
othsr ttfo^thlrds. 

Franlt l>, Huss, a lawyer praetleini; at the Chicago bar for 
»ors than 30 jrears, aallsd hy elaiaant testified he knew Mrs. 
Obex^eide in her lifstise, her familjr, and also Mr. i>. H« Mann, the 
attorney who preparod the two doounents; that he was present January 
9, whan the tvo documents were slfined; that Mr. Kann drew the eontraet 
and trust agreesBsnt! that at the aeeting there were present Krs. 
Oberheide, Mr. Mann, the three eons and •'^ophia Knoeppel, e, daughter; 
that the papers were examined; that the three sons objeoted to one 
provision of the oontraet whloh provided for annual dividends of 
112,000, and stated they would not aooept tiaat provision for the 
reason that the ooal business did not warrant suoh annual dividends} 
that Mr. Kann then stated thei>e could be no change in tbe contract be- 
eause he had devoted too aueh tise to the preparation of it and of 
the trust agreement. Thereupon :4rs. Oberheide said she irauld not ex- 
peot any dividends if aon« were eamad: 'I won't expeet ny boys to 
pay anything they do hot earn; ^ that with this understanding, the oon- 
traot was then executed. ¥t, Uvam was the only one present at the 
neeting who testified as to what was said at that time. Counsel for 
elaiaant sought to have the three sons testify but, on objeotion, they 
were held incoa^etent and thereupon oounsel for olaioant made an offer 

as to what their teetiatony would be, but no point is made in this 
court that the eourt erred in refusing to permit them to testify. 

Claimant ealled Clara Slumenhagen, a daughter of Mrs. 
Oberheide autd sister of the three brothers, who testified that Ih 
February, 1936, she was at bar mother's home in Chicago and the three 
eons were there at the time; that her brother "Chris ^ said to his 
mother: *Me eaanet pay you the dividends any longer, as the business 
does not allow it;" that the eoal business lost money in 1936 and vould 



' . tn-troF?? sir!? tc f^ltti-9ao MBI19X0 ,i(oa «idbr ,iulXXXV ftiia 

•il> <xot .V. <HXa 'fvjid moa vwit i^tfjfc tilir :( ..'.-ift 

--^ •«< *#nXf*«l? tii««»t4Xd t*' *»XX«» *»Ta«X Of. :^A;iU* oiom 
M17 '•Xa B«r« ,xXl«wt tAd ,ft«|f«tlX tttrf ffi •fti«<fsMrO 

it9iii%iMA r. out tklAmb^. htuk sAiM %wt^ nM ^atU^ «iM ^^tt^^tniti 

•no cj rtoA »ind* Halt ;fafi!t tft«iiv«ic# nn** •«i«<i4(i «^ fMl^ 

}»£n«JblTi% Xjftif'' titAinit-y 9MI &1A •■•sltMf X«o9 •lilf tmiit m^mmtn 

-•tf #9jn^ii«o iwf^r nt «i&nA.«f9 on «tf bXif«9 n«i& ^vtA^a uttrfl aiij»)< .tM tadi 

\9 iHUi ft )• mtJitinMnin^ ndi eS tmlt datm ooi B«/«v«^ Jhuf ttd: ••mm 

-o(« {Ton ftXtfOw «ito Al«« 9M»ati>40 .«iM aoqptnriMff .tawMnia ^atfil •ttf 

of ateci \' -6fkflnui« •nvir aiiMi ti t6««iftiTli^ XA« i^mq 

09 •<cfl ,iinix>nB;r«a^ t Atm tmtit ** tffuis ^40 «JbxMf^ •^fitdtttiM X»^ 

mdt 9» Srtwtf'^ iMto tit 9SV «Mai8 .1^ Ji9i»v%9 nitS •«« #»in2 

?o1 X9*it»o9 »««ij l^d^ #« Jlj|«a turn tmAM ot «a A«i^iJ^««i odm •$ttii99m 

«%»l'3^o n* ft&MB 9mmlmi9 let Xftattift»« fl»^ir»rE9if# Afui ta^^S^^^mo9a^ ht^A tnmt 
nliis "tXwMr XAMiXtaa.' »« 

•rxM te ta^rfsHiift « iHViutewnaXt «%aXO lh»XX«« toaaii/u- 

Al i»di boi*tiy«sf iMfif «a^e<tto^ Ainrfl aitCf to fttaia tea mhimviwo'^ 

afytta Its bim iv^motsi^ nt fmod n^i^diom r^d im aav vim ,iS9X «t*tam4f«^ 

alii o* htM «aiiifO» larfa^awf naif J«i» imlf ^0$ tm rr ''* ••** aiwa 

^?!9Alaiftf 9xi^ s« ,7a^oX xna aftnaJ^irlib erff not x^mi t«na«u .'«MtrMi 

JbXuov i»»» '°" ^ f^f v«rto« ;faoX aaanlatftf Xaoo itd$ $mdt ''\il weiXa ^ea aaofe 



let* aeiH» Ia 1935, ASd he tald: **Ye\x knov th« agr«aftient w« sftd* vlth 
you about th« divid«nd8»* So Both«r said, *£«8, boys, tti« dividends 
that yott p&ld a» that th© eonpany did not «»Ain3, I Aa i^lding that 
•oa«y la trust for you beys, and an I |»roalt«d you vh«ii wo is&de th«t 
truRt RgrooBont, when wo flgnod that trust *sr«ereent, I aa t?olag to 
glTo o*eh of you boys one- third &s you warkod fe«ird for It.'** Ti» 
witness further t««tlf lod iho h*d another coRV»r«Atlon »^lth har aether 
ftt tht latter* « hoiM In P«o«abor, 193S, the Friday b«f©re Chrlst**«f 
that iho was oallod t© hor mother*^ hosi® by h«r alst^r, Dora; that the 
voth^r wa« not wtll and tfaoy noodod a nureo *?© I atayod ther-« **• 
for olovon day**" that she aat vlth her »©th*r la tho teedrocw all 
alone, ■x.oth&r eald to ««, **'* 'Clar*, I aa not golRg *<» last jsuch 
longer, *''♦ I w&nt tht hou«4»hold b.pr«, ©verythlng., to b« shartd with 
the t-»o glriS. I wkfLt you to t«Ji« vhat^ver you w%nt, and ths boya 
will gat Bor* than you will aver s«t, *** Th« boys, you know tho 
dlTldandfi that thay faro «a that thay Aid not «»rn, I x«i holding that 
mentf la truat &» I pz*08Rlft«d than, and X am going to give aaoh boy 
on«- third ae thay hava worked for It, ' * 

Otto A, Oarctung oftll*d by clalstant t«*«tlflad ke was la 
th« baalnatf of "boiler asaklng and h*fttlrig;* that ha ksiaw Mrs. 
Obei^Mlda In har llfatlna and had a oonv^reatloa vlth har la Oetobar, 
192S, when ha put a htatlng darlea In her hcasa; that no one *1«© wa« 
praaant; th«t aha a*k*d hl» to alt down In her living roow, whleh ha 
did, and thay talkad about things la ganaral; that aha told hJUa aha 
and har aona had antarad Into "an agraanent on tha dlvldandc* - the 
boya wara to pay har aaoh year; that aha aekad his If the bualnasa 
wasn't doing wall and ha aald "Ye^, you should ba happy to hava 
boya that work aa hard for bualnaaa ae they do;* timt aha asldi **pA, 
If ha wera living today, would also ba jsleaaad, * -ha e&ld, *I aa 
plaaaad and happy about tha whola thin;;. ' ]<^othlni^ al0a vt.e a&ld 
about tha dividends at that tin©." »J« furthar taatlfiad that he 
epoka to Kre. Obarhalda In Fabruary 1&33, when ha waa in St. 



(R&flAHvi^ sibr (Qx^x' ^99^* t62it« n<»ii9»H •<^ *«ate»fijtTiJ& uO Svo^m awe 
ifAt# 9f?iAX«id )«fA I «i3%A» $Mi 6iJ» tfiA««n« atfir IaH^ «« aim fox tmiit 

^os 19^ diiMi aeit»i9^v9at>» %^Hm» bmH ttt teltlltal %mS$'Ui\ •SMtlv 
V i^tfD ^nvtfttf tAi'i^l Mlar ,MMIi ,iMtf««««a mt Miotf ft*nt«»taX u» t« 

XX« jM&YgH^ •.^^ ffi t«^»« it»fil ii$t* tM» •<(• #A4f *;aTi«* n«v«X« "xot 

•X«i< «fiUr l^a» t^Tfiiiw vet twafAAf Mtof of i/<rt tiura I *iiai3 flwt itftt 

«£Ct w«m{ »»T5 ««t«* •(« ♦•*♦ «*•» n»v» XXlw ifot a«rf» «o« t»a XXiv 

vi;r sAiM«tf JK« I ,<n(«» »€« i*i* liMit ^iMit 98! wviia x«br ^ufir ai«ff«6iTiJi 

,i»<l«^$v; Rl %9^ dil^ ti^itmi'%mm9« a Aaif burn •«it«tXX ii«Ji cX «M«flltiMlO 

kmt s»X» «mo ojs *jMtr \9K9a t&M «1 ♦oXvofc 3jSll««if m tMq «if ««ilw ,«S91 

ttij iioi^ «iioo^ SalvlX t*;! fii i^ol? tie «# «X^ Huk» aiiv totff tt«ra»«q 

«4a »Xd iilct ttHQ ^a«f9 tXj)n«0«a Ri »S«JLtf» fffMTji »fUtXA^ X«ii» Am thJtk 

9i<i " ^%hci-»hlflb «di3 ac imtantn^^ tm* oinl A«tt«t«E» ikMd ttnon i^ A«i« 

- '"' -%£j«a o^iii tiA^ *^\&h x^di nA ^MmUmwi «») >iM ma 3K«w fjuft ttotf 

;, ..* >ij8s * * .nre9ia»x« erf ovXa ftXu©^ tt^i^t aniwx IWW «*l W 

&!*» Raw e-^v ,u*.i3^oH ' .^IrtT 9Xortw »cl» tiffftfA xinttf fte« A«fta«Xq 



Fctereturg, florid^, Ilring near Mrs. 0bf»rbftlde*9 beai# at thut plae*; 
that the t^ire« daughtKre And th« aether vrt llTlng togeth«r; that he 
had a eoRTaraatlon vlth Mrs. Cbar^elde oii« noming- vh»n he vent in to 
bid her the tlae of day; that she said the three daughters vere at 
the halrdreesere! that she called him ^Otto;** that ah« knew hln as a 
hoy and aeked his to sit down that she wanted to talk to hln; that he 
said "'All right. Ma, what have you got on your alndt * Sfee said, *Xou 
know. Otto, the teys have an agreeaent with se, ' she said, *Laet year,* 
i^leh was 1932, *** *they paid ne really more than they earned,*** I 
ean*t see why they paid bm sore than they earned, but they did. *** 
after It Is all said and done, '**'* The laoney they Make I aa holding It 
for them. **"* They worked for It and they are entitled to It, ♦*• I am 
giving It to thes. * ' that he then said 'I think they are entitled to 
It beoause they worked for It, they woz^ed hard. *** Zou know other 
eeal eospaales have also been In the same boat, * 

There was no eross-exaalnatlon of any of these witnesses. 
This is substantially all of the material evldenee In the reeord. 

We think the evldenoe was Ineufflolent to or«at« a trust, but 
la any view of the ease we are olear ve would not be warranted In dis- 
turbing ^e finding of the eourt to the effeot that ^«»r« wa« no trust 
created. He saw the wltnesees testify, ae apparently did th« Judge of 
the Probate eourt. Both found against elalnant and what we said In 
Pelee v. Leahy > 278 III. App. 178, we think applicable here: *It has 
long been well settled that emtrte lend a very unwilling ear to 
stateuents of witnesses as to ^at dead people have sald« ** r^ee also 
In re '"<st»te of CarleQf i^. 886 III, App, 81 (afflrsed H oree,fi v, j;»t.s_o£ 
Carlson . 365 III, 482); Lea v. Folk Couot.v Coover Go .. 62 'u. S. 493; 
22 Cori»U8 Juris, p, 291; Laurence v, Laurence. 164 III. 567; JPlerke v. 
The Kljgla City Banking Co .. 366 111, 66; In re etste of Baason. 304 
111. App, 16?; Hegfclneen v. Meeglnson. 367 111, 16S. 

In Qie Moreen case our Suprene eouz^ said: '^tn an action to 



-a- 

»ii jitdJ : -xadJc« ftfii &aA tn«i^dB<Mi^ 990/9 9tii $9dt 

99 Ml ia9^ m fi9js«{ ■^iiia'i.as «ite 9bl9/in9tiii ,9'iM A$ht iieltM<s«ir««« « had 

tA 91*^ •n9$0^tmt 99niiS 9At blmt 9d% fadi ixab le 9mti 9At i9d bU 

m 99 mlA ^9tUL »d9 tufr " -----^ j^^ h9lla& 9d9 tmi$ \9%99» 9nJHlMii 9tii 

9d i9A$ ;"■■ -^ tlmt o^ .v-^^.t.-'w ^ri9 t9dt Rvoft Sin ot mXd haMm bn» xod 

uot* ^blmf 91 *t&nlB ttt^x no i9ih vot •▼«<( ttiOw ,jiM ,#il»l<i: XXA* ** M«« 

* ,ij»«^ ?i<iJ' «M«« Ml* *,M AiJtM ffii«a«rxi« fui •v*ri cxotf «dt «ottd ,wa«J 

I ^•,b9a%A9 %9at tUiM •^esi \£iM9n M Jbiiiq \Mii* *** «3MI ««v jlolAf 

•••." ..iK o-ftrv-*. ^,,,<- ;,„,,., r,« ^0ijj flAdsr 9iiom Mi Mj»q x*'** V** ••« #^«M 

jTl ^fi. ■ t.«a<^ «crr ***" »MioJb A«« M«t IXj» *i 91 «•!)« 

OS 1 *** ... - ? <rt« XmW ftiiJi tt H©1 5«l^ow XMf? •♦• ,m9dt tat 

ei ii9liiSn9 mM ytnt Aaua 1" 6i«« «Mtt Ml tadT ** .sMf^ o^ it ;9nlTia 
•x«f2:fn vrcHi! uc . Tjnrl A«Jhow \Mlt «*i tot b9An9m tWtJ ••{/••W ti 

, ^(i MMi Mf^ Ai n«Mf o*Xa •▼Mf ••liuqsoo Xj»o« 
.«9«tMuriv •>i«xf» 10 xttM to aol$«nlB«x«'-4i«ofi« en a«v rs«iiT 

•Mo»»i •dl al 99a^trn Utr9S9m 9d» le XIa xXXAi^OA^Mfra ai aXifT 

Yiftf «*ajn9 « «>;r«an» ot jraaisXt'itiafiX aAw aooai^Xva 9A3 Aaltit aW 

•>aXft si h^nmav ad ion £>X»ow av <sMaXa •«« aw aaiia 9dS %o waXv xna «X 

tmunlt (Pti a«w a-tvitf }«i(t ;ra«tl« ndif of rrvaa ai(f to fnXAnll 9ta ^l«ht»l 

t ^t bib xUnmmqf^ ba ^tiitti9t aaaaanliv 9iii w.^ .i>9im9i%9 

-*^RjMilAXa triKlm^H bast9' 9di 

: i-^« ]talJ& aw , ■■ 

« lijiAlXXIwttii tiisv 9 ba9l atfttfoa ^ai& teXttaa XXav a99ti -mol 

d«)i .bli&a aVA baaJb taChr ot aa aaaxanfiv Jo a^naaa^a^a 

• ■'.oaTioM li9«n . AXl 088 .iioaXiitO to a^a^» >•< nl 

'■ •aHftX ►III *dX .aaflyiMAvi , . ^Hbi JJt 



r«eoT«r &|r«ilnfit an sAtat^ upon an eicprese eontraet to isaXe b. t««ta> 
ttftntarsr pz^vlsloat uneentradleted t«etlaony may be rejected if not 
olaar and soavlnelsg. ( MiijJKgon v. yan '^179 if . 223 M. r. 59S, ) Halt 
court. In Laurence v. L^urtnc^ ,. 164 III, 367, w«ll taldt 'ivldanee of 
adal8«lon« aad* b^f a p«rfioa since dead eheuld b« car«fully scrutinisiid, 
and th« elreuaiet&noae under i«hleh th«y vera all«fed to have baen made 
oajpafully considered with all tiia evidedee la the eaae. ueh evldenee 
ie liable to abuse. ' The i^preiie Court of the Dnlted ^^tatet, la U«^ 
"*• ^ 9}-^ Cou nty Co pper.. , C£. , 62 W, *i, 493, ebtez^ed that *oourte of 
Justloe lend a veary unwilling ear to atate:^Dti of what dead sen heve 
f aid. » " 

Vxln rule of lav ie imrtieularly pertinent to the tei!ti»oay 
of Clara Blonenhagen and otto 0«r«tung. Clara* e teetlaony in tli^t 
•he talked to her mother la February, 19S6, and Deoember of the eame 
year, in whioh oonvereatione her sother eald ehe wac holding the 
■oaey in truet for the teye aa «he had proaised to do ^en they Rade 
the trust agreement. Thie was nore than aeren years after the ooa-> 
tract was aade and this witness further testified that the aother 
eald: "I am going to glveeBOh boy one-> third as they have worked for 
it»* which If true would only nean she wae going sose tine In the 

future to make a gift of Xh» «oney to the boys. 

The vitaees 3eretung*« testlsiony was th&t he talked to Mrs. 
Oberhelde in February, 1933, when Mrs. Uber^ielde wae holding the money 
for the boys and said: »r aai giving it to them.* '*e think this 
testimony wae irtiolly ineufflcient to establish the contention m&4e by 
the olaimaat that a trust had been established for the boys by their 
•other In 1929, 

It au»t also be borne in mind that attorney Huaie, who knew 
the parties and who was present at the tine the contract was exeouted, 
•akes no Bentlen that Mrs. Oberhelde said she would hold any exeeee 
of dividends paid to her in trust for the boys. His testimony is that 
•he said; *I won*t expect my boye to ^ay anything they do not earn.** 
9o that the testimony of ttiXtt witness can la no way be said to • 
••tablleh the creation of any kind of a trust. 

The Judgment &t Itee Cireult court of Cook county is affirmed, 
Katehett, J., and McSurely, »f . , concur, JUOOMSKT ArrilWlD. 



t& «9^9i»iv^* ihia.* ii9M ,fS»a .IXZ 4^1 tStSUSOBi «▼ MinMi Al «t«uw» 
^.»mm am*^ atr^ «^ A«9»£i« mmt uMit ifatiAr iuil»«ir ••iwMr««i»tl» ttft Aim 

-^-^.^^^ ^^ ^'51: JteM ,d9«i; ttnukritft*! jU «»Jtt«i ««l. «« A«U«> Mte 

-eeu «*id i.«*l« «n.%»t «r«v«tt iMMt •i»« »«■« «JU© .fiiumt'iii tatrxt «ftf 
^efi^oai »dt irjii{;r l^«i;ll««»» «4«iira4«% MtfiiM aisiS ham wl^mm sav tami 

tcT «^« tiald-rtvtifeo nA$ s^ll€a$%» oT #fi«Xalt*tiMUil t{Xi<Mfv mm XfmmlUvf 

^tfsmx9 «»w to#«ir«©<» 4^ Wilt •eH 9« aA««9«q »»w «#r fins n«>lti»^ «rft 
: ,:..■ :i t " .-:•.- -— :^\ t9snt at %9d oi Bl»q ^&a^^blvib 1© 



41904-41390 



CHARLES H. ALBtRS, B«««lT«r. •%; , 

App«ll«t, 



AMSRBY H. DK£S8KL, •% U. 



AIDRIV H. DPX8SIL *a4 JTJLU SCRAMZI, 

App4llMlt4« 



CoaMlldjtUd vlth 
BCRIULKD EOFVICK, •%«,, 

AXCRTV E. DHXS8TL. at ftl. 



AFPEAL FRON 

SUPERIOR COURT, 
COOI COUWTI, 



Cott*elldAt«d 



App«ll»«, 



AIPPJCV H. DRES8CL tJid JUIU SC1UUIZI, 



APPEAL PROM 

CIRCUIT COURT, 
COOK COUMTT, 



07I.A. 544 

lOU FRK8IDII0 JUBTICl 0*COniO& DCLITCHXD TEX OPINIOM OP THE COURT, 

Bj tki« apptAl Mrtala 4»f«n4Mi%t ••«li to r«vorM tvo 
At«r««« •nt«r«d La f«r««l>tur« •ultt lAiloh h«Tt b««n •on«olidat«d f 
tearlac up^a •■• ••! ♦/ iib«)rii«tt aad britffl* 

Om tf th« 0«l%s «a« to foroolof* a tm«t dted glTon by 
Aadrvw H« DrotMl oa oao-^iAlf of hit far* to ooovro aa lnd«bt«dn«8f 
|4t,000» aad tho ot^r to Movro aa iadtbt«dno«fl of |SS,000 on tho 
•thor half of tho fara« 

Cowaool for 4»f«a4aat« in ttiit eourt oaj, "Thoro la ao 
^o«tloa aado bjr thla rooord la tblt onoo upoa tho ovldoaoo, Tho 
■attor was trlod boforo Kaotor la Chaaoory, a roport by fuch Maator 
tulalaatinc la a doorot of oalo* 

'Tho quootloa horo lavolvod io ono of ploading, *^^ Thor» 
if ao allogatloa of pooooiaton or ovaorohlp or right, tltlo or inter 
oat in and to tho aoto aad ladobtodAoca in quootioa allogod to bo ar' 
forth In olthor of tho oofplaiatf," 

la ovpport of dofindnato* oonttntloa oounsal oay, *Tho on< 
quoatiOB InTolTod ia thi» prooooding it the failuro of tho ploadlagt* 



^ 



-2- 

!• .how any oim#r«hip or tltl. to to. cho.# In.aotlon. A careful 
••ratlny of the pleading., to rlt: ttv original bill of eo-plalnt u 
tho Superl.r Court oa- and tb. a..n<S#4 bill of eo.n>lalnt In tha 
Clrault Court oa.. fall uttarlj to .how aay rl«ht, title or .lal. In 
tha plaintiff agaln.t the daf.adant or any tltl. or owner.hlp of ' 
not. in que.tlon to b. In th. plaintiff.- The argua.nt ..... to be 
thnt b.oaa.. of the filUr. t. all.g. own.r.hlp of the note, and 
dtad th. d.or.e oamnot etanl although th. eTld.nc. «ay .how th. own.r- 

thlp of the not.., 

Thl. 1. all the arguiMnt In th. brltf and ao reference i. 
,ind. to any partleular allegation, of th. bill., but w. ar. l.ft to 
••aroh tha r.oord to ... wh.ther ooan.al'. arguiMat I. m^port.d aft. 
w .xaalne tba ooaplalnt.. It i. not th. duty of the court to .earc 
through ttoa record to ... if it can find .rror. in tha allegation. 
Thlc le tha work of coun^.l and the decree, apposed froa alJfht be 
nfflraed without .aying nore. However, w. haTC looked into ttie * .- 
legation, of th. coii5>lalnt. and find that .ach wa. brought by tho 
reoeiver of a bank which wa. being liquldat.d. and In aaoh copi.a of 
the note, and tru.t deed were attached to and aade a part of th- 
plamt and tha roeel^er alleged they would bo produced In open court. 
In one coaplaint it wae alleged the recaiirer wa. th. own.r and hold* 
of th. principal not. on which theni wa. a balance of 140.000 du. an 
uapald. and la the oth.r coaplaint it wa. alleged there wa. now du^ 
tha ccaplainant $38,000 on the other aortgage Indebtedne... Tbere ' 
no -rit in th. contantloa. The production of the note, by plalntlf i 
la tho two cult. wa. priaa facia cTidaaoc of ownarahl^ in plaintiff. 
HoB^ercon T. DaTlecon . 187 III. 579: Diiloa t. Bfioro. »61 III* S56: 
Eatinft. y. Weight . M« III. App. 864. Mo ob:..tlcn having b..n ral. 
U tho trial court to the wffiaiency of the pleading., it cannot b. 
argad for tha fir.t tlao in a ooart of r.Ti.w. Brandt jcn A Klnge, 
Iflc. T. forguo . Z99 III. App. 588: MHi ■ I m t^wnf^omjaxu^a^^ 



o 



-5- 

B<W>l0iI» ». 3cjtt . 899 III, A; 

fi«l«ii«7 •f th« •t«UB«zit of elftla mjj not bo ralMd for %h« first 
tlM m th« AppollAto Court. 5oe. 42 of thi» Clril Praotloo Ae'. 
IIO, par. 1«6, 111. Rot, Statu. 1M7, prOTldot: '(3) All dofe 
ploadlago, oithor In fora or oubotaAoo, not objtotod to la the ir^.. 
•ottrt, ahall b« d«oao4L to bo vmlT«d«(« To tho aaao offoot !• A«'- 
▼• iMLUAfi. »05 III. App« 178; Toaan t. Pa rk Cattle a Art. B1 U-. 
505 III. ^py. 20i: Ojjui T. TraT. Tab. Cq . . J03 Til. App. 812, 

Tho ground allogod for roTtrtal it frlvoloui and wholly 
vith^at aorlt aad It H oloarlj apparoat tho appoali w«ro proMout«.i 
■•rol/ for dolaj, 

Tiio doorooo appoalod froa aro affiraod, 

OBCAESS ArriPJOP, 
Katohott, J., and Mofluroly, J., oonour* 



?v' 



Jkffp^X\09, 






EAST 71 BT SfRSSt JuiLPl^a / 




^SSSB;;!);^;,;..?.^!!;-"^*- 



OK AFPKAL arjil?3B S*UiT 71ST 
STREET WlhDim C-CR?oaATIO^, a 
Corpora t lea. 



) 



com cmmrt. 



07 1.^. 545' 



im. PHEsiBiisa juRTiCi: o'cobsoh DitLivj:i\Ei> thf opimios or 1^1 cooaf. 

Pliiintlff brought an aetlon agAlnet defena.«at« to recover 
^Ltausk^tf for personal injuries elalned to bav» b««n «u«taln«<!! by k«r in 
•lipping Anfi falling on th« valk in the •ntr««c»«f»y l«a«lnc frorai the 
sidevalk into «, butcher shop conducted by defendant Kyprot, who wss 
the tenant of the other defendant, the IS^SS Kaet Tlet Street Balldlng 
eorporatloB, There was a Jury trial and a verdlot and Judfaw^nt In 
defeadante* favor. Afterward the court eet aside the Judgment and 
irerdiot and awarded a new trial from vMoh we have allowed the 
Bttilding Corporation to appeal. Kyproe the other defendant it not 
before ua, 

At the eonolueion of the inptruetlona the court subsitted 
two forme of verdlot to the Jury, (1) '♦i^e, the Jury, find the defend- 
ante not guilty,* and (2) •«•, the Jury, find the defendant? guilty 
and aaeese the plaintiff's daaages at the sua of DellarB. * 

TtMj r9e&T<l diseloeee that at the ooneluelon of the arguaent 
of counsel, on plaintiff's motion for a nev trial, the oourt aald: 
*As on* of the grounds for a new trial, plaintiff urged in euteetsnee 
that the eourt erred in submittlnfi to th« Jury only two forts® 9t 
verdict, one, finding both defendants guilty and aeseesraent of 

es; and seoond, to find both def«ndmnte not guilty. 

»Cb oonaider&tion of Vcifs foretsolng point, the Court ettstuins 



S«*i^ 



s^j-v^i^ivt :■: YiKi^Aff 



.V 



^ittrb 



O j|- 



', HO 



":"* jrf* scjiT Ti: jIXa^ 9dt n<f ^^IZImt htm. '^tih^mtl^ 






«fj I i 



.'■*n9T to •FTC"? ':■:-•? 

.■iiX.:^ 9)t(2 
f.T# we*.*, ' ■'■hntxrr/. *ff# 'io «5!0 a A" 



•1 •«{» 10 aelfit'f*^ 



the eoatontida A»d grants * aew trkaJL hers la selcljr on thfi forsgolag 
froui&d. " 

fiwr« la e©a«ia«r«ibl« srfOBwat la th« brl«fs as to whether 
A«f»ii^nt@ w«r« ehargftd 1b thii oo^I^int with jolat negligence er 
i«h»tlt«r, *» eouaiMil for plaintiff « »«y»: "It should be oot«d %h&% 
the l>«elaratl0n &n& Am«itd«d DtteXarfttlOfi ehmrge both dtfend&nts with 
two B0pAr&%9 and dl«tlnot llAbllltlefi. fb« oeottpast, Kypro9» le 
oluuPtoA vltb gen^rsil negllg«ne«. 7h« other, the petitioner, th« 
owRor, le ehargtid with l«ailng defective preal»os with knowledge of 
■uoh defect, ete.* Oounsel for AofenAent, the liulldlng worpor&tloa, 
SAjr th&t under the evldenee It wee entitled to a cilreoted TArdlot et 
the oloee of all tide erldenee beoause It chowed there was no Mgll* 
genee on Ite part. For the purpose of thl« decision we shall s!«9un« 
that the oauee vae properly eubnltted to the Jury, ^^en If the 
eoflQj^lalnt eharged defendants with Joint negllfi^noe, yet the Juit^ might 
find one defendant guilty and the other not guilty. Llnculat v. 
Hodges. 24d 111. 491; Qovenant Qlab of Chlcaro v. Thoapeoo . 247 111. 
App, 122; gItaXa v. Lehon . 268 111. App. 882 (afflr»ed S*.? 111. 60S); 
Pearl man ir. ». 0. Klnar Luaber Co . . 302 111, App. 190, 

It le eonoeded that v©r<31ot« i^ould have been Bubaitted to 
the Jury eo thi^t It »l|^t find either of defendant* guilty or not 
guilty and if oouneel for plaintiff was without fault in the two for»« 
of verdlet« which were Bubnitted, the motion for a new trial wae 
properly allowed. But oouneel for defendant eay that before the Jury 
retired the reoord dleeloeee that defendant** oouneel who wae trylngc 
the ease z>eque«ted the oourt to subalt additional forme of verdiotti so 
that either of defendants night be found guilty or not rullty but that 
this was objected to by oouneel for plaintiff, and therefore he cannot 
tal^e advant».«;^ of the error eon^lalnod of. Counsel for plaintiff eaye 
that when oouneel for defeTitd&nt requeeted additional form«! of venllct, 
the Jury had retired and therefore it vms too late, but we think this 
Is not boT'ne out by tb» reoord« 



.8* 

J vvi^ & »t9.a <*d />Xt;ei£t ft* $ 8x«« ii'illtffflalil i*^ XMJni** •• ,iftdf Alte 

*A9 tiMoXitt^ti »m j-K^zfife •« .••fi»$ii««ii ijntA«« tfvx» A^^iMito 
.Ktliv-d *9n i9ttf 9fll h0» irXiui rA«f>n«l*& «no Ann 

uii ^> ftatrnM^ ^t <^f ^ l^^rm. «^«* •"* «^« «fffliW 

linob .XIX «*S i)'Mr&.(lt>») <;•<} .qqA .III 893 .i | orf> ^ .▼ mJMK |8SX .q«A 

oS h^ittmtikfia n«»d syttd e:Xt;»^ «9ttlM9V taiCt MA«Mit» •! tl 

stlui Ata«Aji*tal> t9 tM(tX« IWtil ta$im ft ftUU •• 'I'uit •di 

ftwt ^fi* i»^i€»t»d *Adsr XJH9 fnabn^titb te'i X«i«ji«eB *«« .l^«woXX« tX^«M|«i[9 

l»ii«d[s ]&«« ^^MttiiMtq not iMinitoe xrf •* b^9o*liSe »»w tirff 
,TH.v.- -.i.;,,.-.„c..i.-j -sol I»i»RMeO .T« ft«nX*X^M t©vsi* •ill 1« •^«fii«ir** mU9 

l9i&1l