Digitized by tine Internet Arcliive

in 2010 witli funding from

CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Researcli Libraries in Illinois

http://www.archive.org/details/illinoisappellat217illi

•^UND

JUL3J1SG3

528 - 21926

UAiilA P. BARNilS,

Piled Feb. 17, 1917.

217I.A. 638

Appellant,

V3

APPEAL FROLS

CIRCUIT COUliT, COOK COUlITYo

MARY C. B^iliiliiii et al..

Appellees •

,Ml. JUoTiaa L'cDOlTALD rtI2LIVKrii?,D THj2 OPIJJICIT OP TH3 COURT. Appellant (complainant below), filed a bill for an accounting against appellee (defendant lielow), uho was the ad^Tiinistratrix of the estate of Erastus A, Barnes, her deceased husband, brother of the complainant, for certain moneys and securitieo claimed to have been intrusted by complainant to him for investment and safekeeping • After the issues were formed, the cause v;as referred to a naster in chancery for hearing, with directions to state his con- clusions of law and fact. At the close of coirplaincnt's testimony before the raaster, defendant moved the court to dismiss complainant's bill for want of equity, which notion was also referred to the raaster. In his report based solely on the coiRplainatit 's testimony, the iHastcr reconmended to the court that defendant bo required to account to the complainant in accordance v;ith the prayer of her bill; pursuant to which the court overruled defendant's Eiotion to dismiss the bill. By stipulation of the parties, all further proceedings v;ero had before the court, at the conclusion of which the court dismissed the complainant's bill for v;ant of equity. This appeal brings up for revie\7 the final order of dismissal.

193

»2»

Frora en exoBiination of the plttiadinga exnd tho chiiractcr <':ind c:xt€nt of the teotiwony board "bcSoro the cnurt, it p-ppej'cro that the cauiso. proceeded to a full hcfir- in^r both on tho prolirninary quootion involving coinplainJtnt's right to an accranting and on tho accc-ntini?: "bctxjQcn the parties o.b well. Undor ■well-cot tied principles of chancery practice, in certain cases tha court r^hould in tho first inotance, hcer only ouch evidence aa is necessary to deter- mine whether or not nn accounting chould he had. But there are v?ell-roco£^ni2ed excepticna to that rule, au stated in Henderson* s Chanct^ry Practice, sec, 2^j'5: "Zhere items are numerous, the teatiroony ciueritionribie, tho account complica- ted, the superior advr^ntMinie of a general rcfer.'rnce, with directionB to tho jnaator to sta,tft specially cuch matters ao either party ray require, or rrtiich he may deem neceaa;iry, will readily be perccjived.'* Tho r-.corvl diocloaos that this is a cace of th,>.'.t ohoa^actor, rind therofors the niattcr was properly referred to th<~i rn;a3tcr in th^ first inotancc, T/ith diroctionn to report hio conclucionc hoth of law nnd fc.ct which, if ho f -Tiind there should he an accounting, required hin to ctato the account.

She hearing evidently did not proceed "beforQ tho court on tho theory of a preliminary hearing, for tho court h'sard tostimony on itons of account . Ile.d the case proceeded "before the mnritor, so that opccific cbjcctiona and oiiccptiona taken to the rc:i3t'?r*3 report mi;::;ht have been presented for review, we should not no~j be ccllcl upon to exp-nine tho voluminous record boforo uo, covering oomc 10,000 pa^cs, nnd thereby asauino a burdon that should have been iiuposed upon the EKiSter.

2:n Pcnnirr'-^.n v. Pin kg. 170 111. App, 284, the cmrt in passing upon a lil:c aitu.-tion, held, p. 205:

1 9^j-

-3-

"In ordor to ciocisrtr-in tvhcthor this docree is? ri;:ht, Y.'Q KUit otate practically a book account- bctvrecn tho owner and the tMiider, andp-r^a .upon a rcafSG of dctaila ond itenin . In our oSinicn, this detail work flhoiild not havo bacn iiorforrnod by t}iG chrincellor, and a reviciY of the rc;r,za of evidcn.ce the i.-iiforo caiinot Lo caot u,oo:i thia court in tlils vin.y , Tho court Bho^ild have ue.at the cr.Jsc to a luiiatGr, vvitli dirr^ction;; lo tz^.LZQ and roi)or.''t tho evidence, and to ntato ejid r^<port en account 'bctV7cm tha T>;.vrtiey and then upon ohjcction DJid cxcoi^tion, particular itcma vrould he onen to invcstirjation, end :'^'e v?nuld not l.>o required to cxarninc the faco of the \vhole account."

To the Qium effect ore: Pntt en v. pMttfin. 75 111. 446;

E2:?55h V. lUhbQ, 105 111. 533; l.-Jaly v. St. Patriclg»a

Cn.thollc £hurch, 97 Jll. 19, Nor can this be dono by

stipulation of the parties or othet-wise. I^Qgnj v. I'aC^xll^

75 111. 190 and c.^neo th*:)rQ citod,

Put appclle"' ar^uea tlxat cor.ipliiinant, in scelsins to avail hornelf of certain allG£:ed forcreries, did not corr.G into equity with cIgbh hands, and hcnco tho court properly , disraisrted the bill for v:r-.nt of ccuity on that (ground alone.

'■^■io hav(a no '<nn.y nf dct origin in'-x Upon what particular j-.];round tha bill 'waa dianxssed; but, aaourains that tho court was ..luotifi'-id in finding that proof to cotablish certaih itev^n consisted, i?ia aliened, of forged docunonts, still uj*'^^-^^^*^'® point i3 not well taJ:c-n»

7^hpre tt cauBQ of action has its t,Ti^.in in Ini-tuity, a couct of chancery will not lend its aid to a complain inri* party, bceauce *He v?ho conou into eriiiity Euut cons with clervn hands." But where tho iniquity doers not fjo to the right of action itcolf but affccto only the troof of c-vrtein ,, itor-3 incidentraiy connected thcrcvith, thf^ i-ulc cannot be extended to preclude the coisplainin/; party froni obtaining; the relief aoufjht as to other items 7?hich the evidence clearly

?^

-4-

6liO'/2a to "oe untainted v;ith uuch" iniquity, nnod^-.'ln v. Hunt, 3 Verg. (Term.) 124; .^^hav^y t» li^lV-;. 48 0. C. A. (U. G.') 4a, 1^3 Tod. 331; roarUe- y, Jj^coV^, 60 111. App. fiVl; vnl^tf Icld V. Gr.o3.'";n.;,)n. 9G 111. App . 180; • i:-c}m v. J.'itzgle^^ 117 111. .'.p:>, 342, affirmod, 217 ill. 30; ■ rUty of C}acn/fo V. -^tock YGTila Co.. 1G4 111. 224.

In thin viey/ of th'; cuata, ii; "bscoraoa necoa«ary to reverij<i tiio dviOr»3o and rer^and iiio cauoe, \';iUi directions to re-rofer the uane to a ciaatcr to resurj-c the iiearins wiiorc the court erroneously took it u?*

If', in the interest of econojr^y it ia dcaired to tiitlidrp.'si the record filed in this court to uac tho evidence thersin contained in the hearixxi^ to bo liad before tha laastcr, the pjiTtiea nay do ao. ,

inaoinucjTi jxa the^hefixini, proceeded "before the chancellor by stipulation of tUo p.!rtic2, the coats of thio appeal vrill-be ta:^-od, one-half to the ooj'aplcinant f>.nd one- half to the defendant, us ad:ainistratri;c etc.; the latter to "be paid in due course of a.dKi in i strati on.

,i'ho decree of the Circuit Oou:-t v/ili bo rcveroed and the .c&uso roaajidcd for further proceedings not inconsistent with tho vie^i3 lioreinabove expresaed.

V

120 - 28374

SABUn BUSVAK, Tru«t«« in Bunk- ruptcy «r £s4«te of th« CAIU^XK CITY rAf5V0B Fir-niTim?: cc, »

▼».

ISAAC FIUH, '^m. L, FISH JinmiilTUpE C0,» « corp,#. ©to,, liOItHI^ KHA

App«Ilqiisa.

/

Oy COCK COUSTY,

V I. A. 64

Oifi-

Plaintiff breui^ht »r> notion on the oa»0 cimrginR tb» d«f«nd«ntB «»ntisir«d intc « oonspirncy to defraud the nnr-in^ r»ylor furniture f^o., bankrupt, and lt» credltora. At tixe con- olusion of plaintiff* e o««« th« court inatruoted the Jury to find for the d«f (sndant*. Judf^wont wia entered upon thia Yerdict •nd plaintiff liaa appeal eti to thie court.

99 «tre not dispoaed to a^:r«9 ivifch tha oontontion that the deoiartttion fails to atate a cauue of action \>y o»it- ting to all eg* that clnima of creditrra had been filadl ai«i at* lowad in tha bankrupt oourt. icKoy ▼. mitn» di>b IM , 46©, did not involva th« nmandsent of June 26, I91c, sec. 47 a ,, vi-rsg additional poivera to truateea aa followa: ?i.ay are •T«^ated »ith all the rlghta, ref^^ediaa and powera of a judfr««Bt creditor hclding an execution duly returned unaatiaf led,* This hna beer c

gltaai trustee tlie ri^rhti and rtMsefUea cf « creditor nrred with > proeeaa ao that the inadequacy of aaaeta and allowance ©f claiwt are ImsMAterial T*h*»To th«» action l» one which the bankrupt itaelf might have maintained. Vn re lit tabu rj^;-T'ig fc'uddy ^.oal Co. et al , , 216 y<fd. 703; KeisinKton en Bankruptcy. (JJnd ed,). aec». 1731 and 1732. \,

W« iiold tbMt the trial court oorreotly inatructed for the defondanta for th9 reason tixftt |;lAintlff*s proof failed to au})* ]^«rt thff ohaiigaa of tba daolaratioa, TUa daolnration charged tnat the defendanttt, Kraus j%nd Kloud, w>3>re th« officers ani direators of tha Parlor Furniture ns^t.; taat ticiey fraudulently sold to laaao ?iab and the 1, Fish l\trniture <io. large asMjunts of meroiiandiise for an inadequHte consideration, for the purpose of bringing; about the in- aclvecey of the larlar Turnltura company and defraudini; its credi- tors; tiiet thereby the tnvlor Furtiitura Co«p«riy lost aoney and be- •aae insolvent and wae adjudged bankrupt, by reason d^ereof the eoia* paoy and its oreditors lost lar^e sur« of j&oney* to-«it, ;Uoo,ncO: that in pureunnoe of %ii^ ccui»piracy to mreok the larlor furniture Company and acquire its assets (tnU busineas fcr a ssiall ftnd in- adequate oontaideration. Fish aoquired its business and property at m trustee's sale for hisiself smd the otiser defeu Jants fcr a oonsid- eratloa of $3C«000 below Its real value; and that Kraus and Kloud participated in said aots as eo-ecnapirators witii defm-. Giants J^lsh and the iP'iah furniture Cc.

?he evidence tended to show that leaae yieh o«ned or acted for the r. ^ish !?umiture ?'c.» peratln^ stores selling furniture; th«t the Oftr^^n City farlor 1?umitu»« Or, was owned or eontrclled by the defendants >^reus ^nA Kloud nn^ oonducted a busi- ness of «tanuf«oturlng and upholstering furniture at its factory plant. There is no evidenoe that either eosapany or its officers were ooanected in any way with the other ooapany. for a period extending ever two years preceding the filings of the petition of bankruptcy* tu« larlor Furniture Co. ecld to the L. Pish ?urriiture Co, fiiereiiattdise* smmttxmma witi.eut any di«oount and soa«)ti«ies with a dlsoouat ranging froia ten to forty per cent f rca tne list price* ^ It wae aleo shown tiiat Ji'ish frequently advanced aoney to the yarlor l^imiture "o. prior to the receipt of wercnandiee* The evidence

furthtty t«nd* tc shovn that this was thtt uaual and ou«to»ary prao* tioe cf Ui« lArlcr Furniture Cc, not only with the fiaii mnUtura Cc, but also with other concerntt; Uiat virtually the eiuie dieoouots were »«d« during uJla i^eriod viUx th9 Twelfth utreet titcre* l.« Kiem, U9l Kleia. and %h9 aeneral Furniture ctA&pany* vmioh 4U-« other eteree in Chica^so dealing in furniture. It io uim ar^Ottro %)a».l theee oon- eerns aIiio ftdvanoed eoney to the iarlor Furniture OospAity prior to the receipt of serohf^uaiee in order to help th«it eoibpauy aaeet its pay roll or s:uroJri»8e »upi.<lie« neoesaary tc oanuf^cture furniture. 4^hil@ tiiee QTidenoe ahowa that s&les were »ade to Fieh at large di«oounte and in eoae inetanoee at a net figure lower than the ooat of ftutnufacture, yet there is an iil}»snoe of proof that eueh prices were »vibi»t»»ti£j.lly if nny lo^er %Y,&,n the »nrket value of the goods at the %Ui0. of th<? tsalai. The evld^noe «toee ehov that It i» the praotioe in the furniture bualneea fer t^^ie ^&anufaetur«r to ^nive l«.rg« diaecuntu from tue list prioea in caakinn iiales to dealers. It dcos not appear that Fiaii in this respect nas treated in any different w»,y from other dealers* or received any teraui to«tt«r than thoae usually aoocrdod hy the larlor Furniture Coa* pany to its oustooiere. "he evidence indicat«>s Umt the tranj*ao« tiona between :?iah imd ^he officers of the iarlor Furniture Cc. prior to the bankruptcy were consistent with good faith and fair dealing and certainly fall ^lihort of proving the existence of any* thing frau'l^tlent and illegal.

rialntiff further introduoed evidwrioe teniiinf- to siicw that b«!fore the bankruj^t sale ?iah imd n secret underatan iing and •greesBtftt with Kraua and Kloud, that he. Fish, vould atteeapt to ob- tain the assets of the iarlor i^umiture Company at the sale fcr a lew price and they '»oulct thereafter oni^y on the business, There •eens to Itave been opro»iti©n on the part of swae of the creditors to )Krau0 acctuiring any i^art of the bankrupt stock or having anyti

to do witJti the now buoineoo. It in oiiown thut Krau« and Kloud gftTO Pish oono ^3»{a:o ud tuolr coutributioa towardo tn« puroii*oo at tuo truotee'u «aXt. *fh«i ^ale «rao at publio auotlon to Uxo uinh^iti and boot bidder fcr oaah and was ^aado by tao truotoe, kuonaoic* to tho X., Fish ?umituro Co. for |^1C«100« vhlela sale «aa appiroirod by tb« U. 3« Dlatrlot Court, crsdltors w«r« prossnt and utomtn of tA«s bid* Coo of ih«m testified that h« h»d exa^lA'^d tJOtS aot»stB «ith th0 Ylfif of utakin^ a uld; thnt he bid i@lO»000 whloU he rogerdod as a hLg.h bid, s^nd that ho «as of th« opinion that this «ma all ths property «as worth, ?h«ro «ras evidenos tonding to show that ?lsh attenptod to influisnos the bidding but txisre is u faa.lur« of ovl* dsuos to shot; &uat taa j^rioa pujkd by hlia «as igro^sly liiads<iuat«. Ths sale tAs uudtiir Uie juriud;kOti.on at Uitt U. ii. X)ifltriic):t Court and has boon approved by it; this would sests^ to bar any question iu this eeurt as to itu I'Hirneas. do long as ths sale was fairly coaduoted» how can it b(» of any legal concern to the creditors that Fish In part repretiented Kraua and KloudV' fs ss« noti>iuii esore in Uie above ©Ircuasatanoos tiisui a deslrs by creditors tc prev«t5t i-raus froa oon- tlnulng In busineaa und the suoceasful effort on the part of Fish aa4 Krftua tv continue to tsanufacture furniture, "^^'hia cannot be aude tha baola of Uie claias hers ao««rt«d by ths plaintiff,

T^ldenoe <smib Introduced touehinK certain flr#s of tha larlor ^mlturs no, and adJuBt/retits prior to the bankruptey, and also ocnoemlng oertain tranitaetiona bet«stn It and one I. itaroua, but we find nothing eiiateYsr in the reoit&l of these tran^saotions oonneoting m any way X'lah or the ]., ?ish Furniturs Co. with them.

our oonolueion txcsa the record is UiUt tiiere is an utter failure of tividenoe establiiuiinij, any fraudulent or illegal conduot on tho part of the defendants* Isati^a Fis^ and ths L. Fish Fu rn 1 ture Cottpany . '

The gls«t of plaintiff *s olaia is the oonuuct of Fish

in (iiooi>«rat4&a ^X%h KrcMAa and Kloud. tht: proof Jaavjing f«lX«d «b i«

fftll.

iroot of Gonauot vijuioii Aigiit ij;i.ve rise lo ;dai»jpiolon is not auffioient to e»t«ibli»JEi oimrgew of a oonapiraoy to oou^it fraud or &»y otU«r illogal oiot.

?« iiOld tlist title conclusion of Vtm trial court ««» correct nnd th* Judi^ment itt aff lr^«d«

Holdom Rnd Dever, JJ,, concur.

221 - ;i5477

JOITK ??A13H,

Appellant,

CmCAOC CITY bUiI/^AY / )

LIKKB. \

AFP*

AIFIIAI mOV OIRCtJI- COURT 0? COOK COUKTY.

217I.A. 64

'r;^

sasLiyBRRD Tim opikioh of thk couht,

J-lBintlff brnu^h^i Huit to recoTer cojopematttion for per»onal injurl«» »n**g'Kl to hi»v« been a&U9«ci by tii« negliireno* of the def widantB. Upon trial the jury returned a verdict naisesoing his da»<ai;<?o at Pldb nnd .jud^^At^nt uraa entered lor tuin ancunt. lifcintifr ia no*, oatlefied v^rith taia *md ie n«re making for a reversal ,

Plaintiff brought hie euit «a a oosison law aotion on the case, Rlleginf^ that th-* aocident was caused l»y Uie unsafe ccnaltion cf ».ho p^-ving between defendanta* street car tracjca; general ieeue «»e pleaded, ''pon the trlnl it developed fros the evidence that at th*? time of 'hf accioi'^nt* Vny 4, 1916, plaintiff r»nd hie ecsployer, the Illinois J^alleable Iron Co., ^ere under the ^orttsien'a comp**n»atlon Act, that plaintiff waa injured shile cnga^ied in the line of hia Juty ae such employee. «na had re- ceived froj» hia €saployer ooaipensRllcn in acoordance vith the proviaione of the act. There waa no evidence aa ^.o any eleo* tion of the dafendmnta not to bt) under the operation of the Act. A atreet railway company ia oovarad by the coatpenaation Act and, in the abaenoe of evidence to the contrary, ?»ill be preauxaed tp be operating under it. Chicago ?yj3, Co, v. Indaatrial Board of jminoia, 276 III. lliJ, The record thua preaenta the caaa of an employer paying ooMp«n8ation to an eaployee, under the ¥orkaan*a

Cemponwktlon Aei» buoauee of an Injury eauasd by other partita

mhe Are b1«o und«r ti*« aei.

?iii« Identical situation was ivraaonted to Wiin court

in tiic C'vB« «f jjia^o^., ittk* xni jj tra t.o r , v, Chica^:c r^y 3 . ;;o., ^5X63,

petition for certiorari" denied February it, T9i20. opinion filitd (October *i7, l^iM^J s<f uier« iiela ifuit unaer the pro»

vialona of auction 6 ana tiio firat part of ecction iiS of the Goa-

p«n»«tion act, plaintiff mm not •ntitli&d to eaaintnin uin action*

The reuacna and daoisions supporting this conc'iuaion ar« given in

that o}:inion and «• tihall not repeat %hfm,

riaiatiff fiiould not be aided by rmy aeeujnptlon tJoat the defendant* were net under the CojKp«n»atien Act, fcr the reaeone stated In the recent opinion of tiii» court in c«Brign ■?. C. C. It/. Co», 2S167, filed T)ec«isb«P 8. T919.

llaintiff contends th«t tiie COsapenssation Act iias no *fr;li':at on ;in iile caae for the re.«ieon that the auit «ae coeuDenottd not imder the act, but ee an notion at coja&on law; that defendants pleaded only the general ibsue* and tliat unleaa the Cosponeation Act i» esade an issue exj^reaely by the pleadings, j^laintiff may proceed as at eoffiit&oa law wholly aj^art froo; any of uie previsions of the Coffipeneation Aot, We do not atj,reu with this contention. In the O'Brien case »u;);>rft w« held that aection 0 of ihe Cofupensa* ti«» Act «as designed as a substitute for all previous ri«;^tt of aetien of employees covered by the act and Uuit Uie riK,iita of •& injured auiplcyee against a negligent third party are conditioned upon section 29. fe are of t^e opinion that this ciust b*' true even where the pleadings fmke ne mention of the COMpen!;»ation Act. othetvi»e its purpose mignt be defeated by intentional suitters of for». The operation of the act oannot be avoided by merely calling a suit for coGspmisation for injuries by any special naae*

We understand the Supreae court to hold that the Coyn* peneation Act eay be invoked as a defense without pleadinis it and

thnt i% in .^Tfllls'bla undar tua g:«i<6ra; is!»u«, yon ,i$ici:i^ti v. <"AVn l-ro/juots Ca., ^74 111, 80»,

pljsilntlff -jffliO n«t 'sntlt? .34 fc,* rrt^iiyar '.*ijai«»t tlia aaf «tidfl»fe<i io thi0 action ,

Jt lw»8 b«#n saany t.l©«8 it<^.d th€*.t .->li»iara tia* plaintiff ia not «ntitXed t© P<*cover ixff hi-tt Tfxo ri^A. *o hftv* £; v.*i'<14«t »«t aoide b«»e«iua« it 1» leas thr.r; ho clnlsia, f|X^2l ^' Ci i cnf.o ny« £0.. 200 1X1, ApF* ^06# ^<3vi eii6«e thwtvkn aittm,

7h« defaju1sjnt» atat© tJictiP t?ilXlai;neK« tt fay th«

amoUKHr triol , >».^nc« th« ,1u4(g®ent is afftr!3«4«

Koldoffl and ?)ever, jj., concur.

246 « a5SC3

tlU.lAy . jr., ALBTM^ K.

v^

CARC1.IP1? mnm, vA?riT.BA bu33e, CAHn.iKv- BAHT'ri.a, carcxih^ bakt'si

rx€-c>jtrix of #.0 ";8t?ite of 'V'mxAJ)

i^iA^iJitiUJ iiAifi'fcit..:^, iv^i-A^'-^ or,t\i/i.

)

) jowy^T OT o<«ac ooinrrf.

^l^' ^.A. 6^0

3

mLlVERRO ?HB 0PIJ410K OF tUF. COURT.

Cite^lAlnanta flX«d thair bill stsexlni. tc tiAV« the l&at will and teatftisftnt cf conr«A imrt«ls declared void on tnn ground that »t the time of lie execution the teatntor waa aentBlly in- cci»p«tent to isn.k«! « will, lipcn « henrtni? b*»fcre a jury an in» •tructed verdict -m.^ rendered flniUn/fs that the if.- videnoe

«»8 the Ittfflt will and teete-^ent of Coumd B»rt«fl»» und a decree ima aocordinf:ly entered orderini.-; the bill diaaiesed for went of e4;}uity. ^uie appeal aesike the reverea} of thi» a^^oree.

The will ia dated April li, 191^. rue uncAiiiputed teetiiuiony aiiav^.t^At, Bart&le lor y«2ar« prier tc 191;>S vum an ao- tive and capable oao; he «ma a far^-cr una Moquired eeveral farsxe; h© dlvii)ed oertain far«» betweei* tw. ct i-JLa uona and retiring in I'J' '2 fKJ.'ii active »ork jurciiAaeBcl a -.cjae ir. thf; villaij.* of o- eelle, tttrenty-tiiree aiilee from Chicagc, in tfi« fall of 1»13 he eold hia farm and hie he. and went tc 1 iv** wiUx a acn

n*>ar Jel«tlne« !'• remained tliere until the apriog of 19H&, when he euffcred a j-uralytic atrolre, dying in the eu«a;5<'r of Uiat year,

3y the will t«9etator*e ■property vaa bequeataed to

hiu wlf* for her lile* certaiii aitaa g€ fflonvy w«rtt I'^iya to Ml graindohil iilr«n, inoluJlnti th« cc^ipl^inanto, and Itigaoies to two daughtttrs t>n6 a aon. The will reolt<»d tUt»t prcviidlon hud Al«'««idy be«n fliRde for hia &thnv two nona. The r8»idu« wiia bequeathed to the chliaren of his dau^^iter vin» nod tc his 9cns and dttUjghtere. CojuplAinnnts produced as a ^jiritneas fT, :itarei£« Who undertcoic to give hia opinion that Bartela was suffering fro» i«- fialred ss«ntal faoultiea for « iJcrlod of twc »*nd one.hnlf years prior to April 26» 1915, ^Akln^ it isRpoasibl* for him to have }mA tetsta»e«tnry oai aoity durlnj^ «.hi» | «riod, ?hi» would inoludo the date of the execution of the »ill. Tho trial oourt stniok out this opinion t<?»tuiony and we think properly. Dr. jlarok beoaaa acquainted with Bartele in X9c& but did not attend hiia profession- ally until lUli>. i/uring that period he aa^ hisa oocaaionally and in 1W13 notioed an iiui,edi.2b«nt nnd lAesitanoy of apef»Qh and a para* lytitt condition of sn uru. A number of wiinedaea »ontraaict this stttt^iuent »a to the impedlaient in speech und paralyeia. The doc- tor said that ^/hen he called prof esuicnally in April* 19X5, he found artels in a stupor and suffering froas a he^aorrhage of the brain and that h<? had a degree of arterio-sel ffroala. He based his opinion :i8 to the saenti^l incaiaoity of ftrt«»l9 in 1913 iRrgoly upon thft condition of the arteries in 1915, This iiardly comports with out understanding of tnia disease, and we hare sons doubt; however, it developed that *>r. atarok was basio^j his opinion partly upon the {jiietory of the case given to hia by aaepbers of the fas4#'y,

"ilk

In view ^!" • l3 fact the court i>rcperly atruisk out his teatiaony,

•' AU8ti.n V, Austin, 26t III, a99, the court aaid: "It has never been iield in taia vtate that the testhaon.v of doc tore upon the subject of ibcntal caiacity i» entiiled to any (greater \ireigh1 than tiiat of iHymen who are a.ein of fcood cciuiion sense and J|uci*-;»ient,* See also Martin v, ijeatty, 264 ill, 615.

?lllii«3 T>u8ao al»o anJ<»rtco/r t© »xprt>«» hl» opinion on th« ttanity of Cartel a ©t th« dAtc of tiio vill, but ti»i» «nA« re- fuaed fey the court* The rvile la timt non-oxpert ^yitn«!)S^(»« knowing and having opportunity for ob»»rvin<j tij« aftntal conUtipn of a teotfttor li&y t.iv^ »n opinion o.a tc tin^ acujidneaa or otherwiao of his i^ind, but only .»fter A%H\,xati, f''ict» ui-an .vnich tiila opinion is based, and the Wttit^iit of auon an opinion Oifii tuids upon the faott stated. Cole, ail ▼. .karffl,t^ftl I » 265 i3 ) , 35e;, ivr, ijuase atated no aucii fr«.ct»; uk' Sii.:. ly save that whon his taliced witii hiist in April » 1315, ho, ttu' vvit.n<»88, "eouia not mtke it out," nnd that th^f.re WB8 "» vf*vy sisavktd diff ffrence In hia physical condition" ».nd riia "f^ee riij not eeejpj to fee exactly the saese," Theoe faota of cour»« furnish no renl baals for arriTir.g ot an opinion aa ta rriontal on- pecltv.

Thffl te*sttiae«y of th# ••sfltn«»8S q,-aindeX ^■■m» nl»o r«fua«d fcr th« swse r«»8cn, i:e ai^-piy s?»y9 of BartcJa, v*hOBi ho saw In

Jly,1913. «Ke ant there Tike a pmr* ^lo :5id not know BtiythlnK. I «6>toi.»>d iuL'i . 'i^e Icok^'d healthy and strong,*

1>r. pRVis, teatifyin^ »« ar* «xi:ert in n«:rvcuB and isentRl diae»»«», ^h^m a& nis opinion tr;»t under oertain oonditiona » p&ti«nt wouXd an of unaound fitind for <t i,»ericd cf two y^ra i-rior to 14 paralytic strokw, uut tuia opinion would ojaf^nge if it wii» ai.owri tnat th« patient during tule period vma attontiing to his bu©ine«», MftJfing re» <R8t«te a«al» and »»leii at yftattonable jr^^icoa,

The l»w ^•r«8Mme8 that a t«8tatcr at Ui«* tis-e- of ex«- euting a will is of sound zcind »nd esf^iftory, f«nd tni» preauaption ebtHina until it ifj ^hown oth«rwi9« by r preTonder»nc« of eTid«nc«, yJGkem ▼. VRldcn, i-liJO ill, 56. Kver if the ouanoellor nad pansdtted the «videno» of coraplninanta* witneaiaeo tc atand, this would hAV« fallen far ehori cf ti.<- qunn tugs of proof nooeaaasry tc overcoaft the

pr«mnption in fuvor of Ui« will.

Th« ittiiiiifeat preponderanoc of eYid«riC« oi^owa that tiM tewtRtcr mv cf ttcund Mind at th« ti»« of the ejt«cution of l^* will . Thi» ccndition «»• ahovn by th« tcetimony of two ftLt«atin»; witneae«». tii« iswytM' wiio drew tiie will, and ten o^i.er witneaiteii whc ^cro buaineaa ftc ruaintaricca or neighbors of artels at the tiaw th« v/ill wnt wade, it ttripcmn^ that abcut thta tlae he carried on hie buai- cete in hia uaual able Jsnrm^r, ttmt shortly before the 'ifill v«« »adi« h« oold Jiiii farw; m;^ <;cnJucte4 the 4ettl iiiiioelf, obtaining * good price for it, ^liiortly tliereaftcr ae aeld his aoaie in '^oselle. ob- tairjint, a 4fooa price for tain, and o«jlouXate<i tu« ocet of varicua artiolee that he puroUaaedl; i^e did hia shopj ijaii unaa^iated. sold egii;« in Ci«ioaieo, mni did juany ou^er Uiiiiga* all inaieatinif^ a foan of Qor;:.0.1 qun.lif icationxi to traiji»act uxa u&^^al bu^in«»9*

Upon Gonsideration of «1} th^ cYiaence, ir.cludiDg that whicU was v^trioken, a Jjuot deorere waid (<ut4^red wiiicn io affir^^ed.

AFfflBMED.

Bel das and Dever, Jj.* concur.

■■''^^,

246 - ;i&503

CAROLlBTt HULKSXi'ATILBA MmfSts CAHOLIHF BA«tHl3>..CAHM.IIf?5 BAJfe^aai] Bx«eutrix of the 1>«t '4111 and T«»»ti«ftent of COHRAO SmI^B-S, 4«-

App«lle««. '^"-

; Ai-i^EAL WIOK CIRCUIT coimt

Of COOK COUUTY,

?hi« la »n appeal ffos a die>or«« dia:;ii»»iniK ocmplain- ant»» bill for want of equity.

By the bill ooKplainanta aou^iat to iia.ye the laat will and testaaent of Conrad li«rt«l» declared null aud void on the ground that »t tiie %!&« of ita exeoutioo tlae t^etator vaa ttentally Incoapetent to oaite a will. At t^a tine of hia death Bart el a owtied aia ixoue in tlie village of Hoeelle. iMiage County, niinoia* £y the will tiiia waa devieed to uia «ife» Caroline, abo waa glYen a life estate in all other property, r^eal, pereonal or »^lxed, the resaalnder to b© divided aaong certain of hia neire,

ye are of tiie opinion that tiile oaee involvea a free- hold. If the will should be set aaida, the deviae of the real eatata in Hoeelle to the wife of thfl teeiator f»ila» and the heira would take title eubject tc the dower and homeatead of the widow. Alec other real eetate referred to in the will would paeo to the h«ire« inoludin<B two of the testator's acne, Werraan and Bail, for i^OM no sr-eoial provieion ie made in the will. Also the powar given by the will to Caroline liartels to sell and convey all real estate ef ffhioh the testator nij^ould be aeisad at the time of his

d«ftib would )>• void.

Thin court ims no Juriadlction of oa8«a invclTiisg a freehold, (i«c. b (a« fmendedj of *An ao% to ^atiibliabi Appellate Courts,* io foroe July 1, lti^7. li&der 4uob oiroussotttnoee it is our duty to order tiUa trauiif «rred to the Huptmut court; seo, 102, Clmp, 110,

The clerk of Uiis oourt is therefore dlreoted to trcmetfiit the traneorlpt and all fllee tiierein, together «itli tbe order of tranaf (sr. to the clerk of the ^uprwste oourt,

HoldOtt and Berer, JJ,, ccncur.

M» • 255^3

fiiAM A. mown* )

CKlCiWJO k thtimtU ^IBTARD

COOK COUWTY.

2l?I.A. 640^

»SJ.XVKREB THI 0]?I1II0» 0? TKI? CDimT.

f«ndftnt j&«t. with «n ftocident r9».iltini^ in th« lotsa of hl» l«ft Kta »nd fr««ture of tij« bonea of vii« f«et* i!« broufc,Jrit suit , and upon trial had a verdict for #10#&00, judj^ant. was entered, froa »jUch defendant ai^j^ealii. The deolaratioa oonuieted of •eTen ovunta i>ut tu« oaee was autoiuitted to U«e Jury on t^« •ixth and eevenUi ocunte only. In view cf our oouolusion it ia urmeceeeary to disoues the uiepo^^^-^c^o <^^ ^^ first five aounte. ?h« eounts aulu^ltt^id charge tuat the defendant had violated tha federal safety Applianoe Aot in uslne a car en a hif^hway cf interdtate oo«»aroa without hnvinfe- auch oar equipisd with autciaatle ccuplera ocuplinn toy itapaot and which oould be uncoupled without the neeeeeity of saen going between the eara.

"'Kffend^int'e railroad ia twenty-eight ssilee long, runnini^ between Taylorvllle »nd Coapro, Illinois, aad oonneote with a nuisber of other railroad* along its length, on the mom- ing of f,©|; teeaber 16, 191S, the freight train in queetioo left teylorrille and arrived at pawnee atation. The crew undertook to awitoh about eeYentean »ore oari* fxom t^ie eterage traoka Uiere, M ae to add these lq luvsit train. The engine was detacued frcja tae train, ^ttaoiiecl to uie ours en tiio i>torfige tracic, and the orew proceeded to out out the desired oara. in "kicking*

omtB th« «ngiii« pudiiett tnon wMl« the t>rak«f»ftn usuAlXy rid«« at th« end or »ld« of thtt oftr n^xt to th.« onf! v^hloh i« to t>t kicked, di»eonnecta the ccupl ln|{ and Aignnle to the firngine^sr, vho slows or etopa the engine, leeivlnjM; the uncoupled a»v to run under its j»oaentu».

1?rcfi the irrtdenoe b«fore It. the jury could rrcperXy belleire thAt in the int^tsint oaee th« engine »a« pueiUni; eix oare tewards the «reet. Th«^ end oar wae an Illinois i^dland Q^r vhioh was tc be Jtloked down the traok. The oar next to it >mis an llll* nols Central aax*, it was j^lalntiff's iiuty to unooujple these at the yrop9t tl«e« H<» waa tvorklng on the north side of the train »a that h« oculd uigual the ftn«|ln«er* »^o la^s ou Ut&.t ^ide. Ilaiu* tiff first atteittpted to m&k^ the uncouplin^i by riding en the !&ld* land car with his foot in the stirrup a^nd whsn the oars were fflOTing 6:«v« tihe ^n^^inet^r the "stop" signal « at th soiG&e time pull* ing tlie coupling l@Y«r extending te the north side of the Illinois Central car« This failed to uncouple for the reason that th» oirokin ueuMlly eonn«ctlng the lever rod 'tlth the pin was SBlaeln^, There was no lever on u^at ^ide of the ^^Idland oar. The train >9as then st0];ped and ilaintlff jret upon the end of tlis Jllinoia c<%«tral ear ualng a ladder on that oar at the point inhere the unoDupling WIS to be aade* th«re was ne euoh ladder en the midland oar* and but a three-inon a^Mio* upon jjthloh h^ eould stand* while on the Xllinois» c<»»traX oar he had ti^ree ox' loor foot, ?he cars then began to acre anxii |;<Xaintiff ijave the «n^it\ii0t the *'stop<* signal so KS to i»a.;:e tne kick and reaoiied uown with i^s hand to pull the pin of the Illinois Central oar» but as no chain was attaciu<sd to it he eculd not get h. Id of it. He Uierefere reached over to the oprosite coupling pin on the i^idland oar and pulled it ana the isldland oar was kicked (Sown the traok. After the kiok had been «ade and the lidland car hnd gone about a car's length, the mtgine

irltu tb« OAr« aMR« to n Budd«n stop osuain^^ a Jolt, throwing plaintiff frca his plao* and undttr th« mintfoltt of tLm Illinois Central cwr, nth^rtihy h« rto«iv»d tht iii4uri<*8 in i|U«i*tion, The Illinois Central car ran about six foot after plaintiff fall,

^fandant ftsearta that plaintiff was guilty of con- tributory ncgliK«»nQa which bar* a reoovery. '^a sic not sso conclude. It WBO plaintiff »» duty to unoourl** the c«r». Bein*?: pratrented by the defeetiva oouplini? davloa, he iima called upon to exeroiaa bia jud^tmt quickly aa to ^rhat ahould be done. It vma proper for the Jury to deter.%ine wheti^er or not he exeroised reaitcnable Judgaent in the leutter. Aa «a» irnid by i^r, Juatioa Caldwell in a diijsanting cpiniOB in im»»on v. {j)iic&feO. ^. 2. £ ^, ii;jj,. Co., 114 l?ed, 870:

"Ttia stnridard of care required ff ihe braJteaAn la the bra^eoan's standard of oar«, and net, tue iaeal ^t^tndard of uurc of a Ju(%e re^o&xng in ^ecurAly ana cc^f^rt in an uphultf tared ci^air in hiu ohaatbosre,**

The only other thing auf^-geeted by the defendant wnioh

plaintiff flight have done, «as to stop the train and oli«b over or

under it or go aroiwid it tc tua oth^r side tmd uee the ooupling

lever on the 'idland car, Thia would have delayed the sork. aleb

aiade it difficult if not ijRpoaaibla for the plaintiff to jjlve the

engineer the i?rcper sifcnale; furthermore, there is no proof in the

record that the lenrer on the >; inland oar waa in proper order. Tha

plaintiff did nothing under th« oiro\iffl»tanc©» and aaergenoy of tba

oituaticn which requires ua to »et aside the conclusion of the

Jury aa to txia conduct. AiJwoot identioal conduct on the part of

train employees has basn ueld not tc b(« contributory negligence in

a lartfa mt£>ber of oaaoa. Aaong tueia are Hut ton, Adt^jr, v, £, ^ K.,

X« ^* ii« isSL«» 1^^ ^1« ^^' '^'^i ShiSMSjL ii» 1- k k' ilX« ii£» ^' hvevn, 229 U. a. 317; ?:i chela v. Ctieoapeajta & o. U^^ C£,, ItfS Ped, ^12; rx)net.^an v. BKlthBore 4 h, Y. H^. Co., i6& J^ed, b6»; Tagt^art ^' ?^«^PUbUe iron ^ titeel Co.. 141 Fed. »10; Baltij^ore a^ Ohio a. ^.

k» ii£.» ^» '»via« 14» Fed. ISl; ii^raon v. K&rttMMK»<irn |i^«Co.. 137 Io»«i, I3j J3rit4y v. ^, £♦. ^. 1-, ^ £. n. ^, Co., 206 Uc ,

«tid £»ny other* •

9« «re of thft opinion that the Anftctiv and broken coupler w»a the prcxiaj*t« c»ufi« cf tfae pl«i«tlff«« injury. The iBore oonvinoin^ «vid(»noe vupvorta plaintiff *e testisiony that he vas thrown Crom the car 1»y the sudden J«rk, due to the quick stepping of the engine nnd carsi, s^nd not pulled off hy ofttehing his glove or finger in the eoupler of the I'laiRnd car. It would ^e illogical to say thot th« sudden stop of the «°ngine «as the prcxioiate cause &f tno a.ccid«nt. Such a sto]> was a necessary part of the oi^eration of kicking th« oars* and ^as no siore the prexi»ate cause tuan the fuot ti^t defendant tvas operating en* gines and oars on a railroad* The proximate cause «r»o the de* fective coupler whidh s&oved plaintiff to pl»o« hiaself where the ordinury operation of kicking oars resulted in the aooident. This Tlew is supported by the oases above cited and also by Curran v. Chicago :^hort ;,ine T^y. Co . , 198 III. App, 154 (c«rtio- rari denied by Suprease Couyt); i-mrhc ▼, icinn^eapclis ^ Ot, i^, Jijr, Co,» 121 Kinn. 326; yrie n, Co. v, ^Oiite, 187 ?f*d, 556; York "». IS.' lg«io« 1. jg.. £ 1. n^. ii£.» e€ A^'k, 244. Cases holding to the contrary are concerned with different fftots. in i^tp-ylne v, cbioano k 0^1^'"%, Hjyer ^'•>??.C<>> 3Bt? Ill* 449» It «as held that the proxi» siate cause of plaintiff's injuries «ms the derailakent sf the lo- ooBBCtlfe engaged in kicking oars. That is not true of the ease before us, The defective ooupler was the oauee producing the ae* oldeut wituout the interrention of any new ana independent cause,

we see no reuoon to dioturb >.he Judt^^ent, and it is Sbf firmed,

Ifcldon and Bever, J J., concur.

274 - 2553S

\ Appellee,

▼ s. \

COkJAWY, inc., » cd^rporation, Ai\pGllant

I*-*!. fROK mrnKM^AL COUBT OF CHICACO.

217I.A. 641

I'R. ]mBSI!>IHa Jli^TICE MCSURSLY :31SIIVERBD TiD? OI-IKIOK OF TKK COURT.

m tiieir sbstracta and brief a, botli counsel ixave failed to obeerve the statute wiiiob requires tnat cases in tr.is court be entitled as they irere in the trial court. The correct title is giren eboye.

Plaintiff, Lecendre, brought suit claiming |180.32 for attorney's fei^^s. Defendant aays that $76 would be fair and reascnBble. The Jury returned a verrtict for #126 and froa the judpjaent for this amount defendant appeals.

The points presented in defense fre technical. The action ims eriginslly comnenced ar.Blnst the "Bankers Coramercial Corporation" and process was returned "TTot served,* The proper name of the defendant was then learned and an order was entered changing the name to read *Bankers-Conuaercial Security Company, Inc." Alias aufiiibODS was issued and served on txte defendant .which entered its general appearance and contested the suit on its merits. There was no error in tnis. oUCh an cu&endment is proper, Redlowski ''* Gyoeefeld &■. Hoc Co., 19a 111. App. 5ii4 .

It is next said tuat the services were perfcrmed by o partner- ship of iThioh plaintiff was m sicaber, hence he cannot bring this suit aloac. Under such circunstanocs the burden of proving the ex-

l«teno« of M pRJftnerthip «n» upon tint dtfendftnt, aeslth v« KniK^t, 71 111, 148; 5 3tcfn«9 tmd Addlmrton* ill. »tntut», p. 48cl, and ca!»«6 tb«r« oltftd. It unm not ff«>v«n that tho B«rvla«« w«rtt l»«rfcr®«!d fey a |sartner«hlp , ?her« Ia no pr^auKiptlon of tii« «x- iat«!no« cf a p«trtn«r«hip from %h» ust of tho fira name. Rrbinson ^* |i^a|R,ftyi,tj^i ^B III. 4<i3, ¥ibe oorr«apend«nce l>«twoon Uio partloo coBJiiitituteB tiUe ««is:B0«l«cit^c(»t by tkxe defend&nt of an Isdobtednaoa fcr tilt e)«rvioot rendttrttd, tu the idBiutltf al&ne.

Kcgardlao* of any testimony oonoorr.lng the «whedule of cuargea of tbe coaaaeroial Law League, there waa »uffici«nt evl* dwnee aa to the reascnableneaa of plaintiff* e ounrges. The evi- dence ehowed tiiat th« olai» eent by defendant to plaintiff for ool' leotloD waa ?^Si9e3,17. Plaintiff mrote isany lettera to the aebtor which resulted in a aettl^stent between the defemdRnt an4 the debtor,

we e«e no reason to disturb the Judgment, ttnd it la afflrased,

AffXnuCD*

HoldciQ and Bever, JJ,, concur ,

2SS - asMi

/ J

KARTRA ZJUrrARA, / )

) 0f CfX?K no?m7Y.

t^*- ^ 217I.A. 641

MR, l^UKSXniKO JUSTICE feoauHKLY B2I.IVWI1D THIS CtlBIOH 0? ?HK COUKT.

ilikintiff brcuijht auit allescffcng tiiftt whiXa «iapXoy«d by iii« cl«fe«da«fc Wfte received j^rtgrsomii iujuxitsd and w»» tiiwj under 9ixti»«ii years of ««• ««* worked at n certain di»neerous» »nd unprotect** ttftOhln<!i or loo» for weaving fi«ii rj«t(»» in violtttion of the Ciiild ijtbor Act of 1903, upon trial she 4i«U a verdict and judf.Tsent for #»,0C0, Defendant ftskn that Uiie jud^c^ent be re- verted*

there i^ coneldernbXe argvusent c-ncerninfi the age of the plaintiff, but thie was properly aub^sitted tc the jury and we cannot say fro» the record that ahe could not h»Te been under eixteen years of age at the tijae of the accident.

It !• unneee Jiary to narrate or cowBent upon the facto for Uie r&aeon tnat we are of the opinion that for error* upon the trial the Jud^ent muat be rerreraed and the oauee re»

iBanded*

we are inclined tc eustain def«aidaut'e point that the plaintiff purposely got before tiio Jury the fact that an ineuranae company ««• intereoted in the defenae. llaintiff ♦» «ottna«l rvidiently underetood the dang«r of t/*i» and attempted to hate the jury apprised of thio fact witiiout openly dcing eo. It is unnecessary to repeat the extensive eaanBlnntioo txn^i, cclloquy between the parties; It wae clearly the desire of plaintiff's

opuns*} to cbtain An ndYantai;* frow th« jury** knowl odgtt of th* interott of the inaurftno* oo«pany» and this d«ajLr« oYvreame his ditcr«tlon. To p»ra|^hrft0tt «(kat traa sftid in VoCftrthy v. aprlag Vikll«y Co»l Co., 238 111, 473» It i» as strnngs ns it is uafor- tun«t« Uukt this fcict should have bssn elieitsd through »«re In- itdTertenos. q,u«stions and state£}ents wsrs "wall adaptad to in- dicate atroni^ly to the Jury tiiat th« appellant «aa insuirsd asalnat liability fof aooldants of Uiia oharaotar* and that the party which vould have tc raapcnd for any jud^pient idiich night ba rendarad was

tha *«..*.« Insuranoa Co:apany. Eviianoa of tuia chnraotar waa

net ooffipetant, ****^* Th« only affaat it oould ki&r«s would be to cenvay an l»p roper impraasion to tha jury,"

A physioian tastifyinc on bahalf of tha plaintiff was handad sons X*ray plataa vhieh purported to show tha condi- tion of plaintiff «s hand and wrist. ?he «ltn9sa axarained than before tha jury and t«stified as to what lass shown by thaw. They ware marked for idantlf ioatlon and plaintiff* a oounsal proaiaad to introduos SYidanoa that thasa wars corraot x*ray photographs of the plaintiffs hand and wrist; however, this oonnection was net nada. Another wltnasa alao teatifiad aa to oendiUona predioatad upon tha ahowlng of thaae plates, in tha abaenoa of any eridanoa tending to oonntKtt thasa plates with tha plaintiff, suon taatii&ony wau inadtuissibla. Irart of it was striekan oat, but this would not ra^ova fro» tha jury tha i^f praaaion inada bv tha witnesses who told what was snovn on tha platea. For the error in thia respect there »uat be another trial ,

It waa also error to permit the physio, tan testifying for tha plaintiff to tell the jury that plaintiff's hand grip had bean leasanad or loot tc a certain degree. Under the oir«

ouuatancca of %t,is onu«, w« are of the opinion tmit tiiia .?&• not an objsotlvo •ytdpton, 7h«r« wer« alao anawors by the pbyaiolant whloh terjfied to invade tlie j>roylno« of the jury.

It waa feiao error to inatruot tbe 4^*7 that in ast««uing dttSBUk|;«« thoy should inolud* plaintiff* a loss of ti»« durioi! h«r lainority. ;iuoh an in<3tructlon itian unUer sirsilar olr* ouQstanoos been held erroneouu in £, £, n^^, C£« ▼. .iohftcfcr, lax ni. App. 3M; £, ]i. Xli. J2£. V. Ji£Od£. ^6 IJl. AFP. 375; Bogga *'• l2i2Si £• Sila 52.«» i^^ *i^- ^^i'' ^'^^t Orr v, vvahlfgld !4fg. Co., 179 III. Ai>p, «i55; ^Aia. Car gc . t. jiil^l , ;.i^6 ill, ii*i7. Instruc- tion Z'if i9 rig£itly aubjeot to crltiuiais. we cannot apfroYe of inatruotione to the Jury conditioned on plaintiff proving "her case a* Alleged in the tuaended eeccnd ocunt of hex seooud amended deolarfttion."* ?hii» aeans nothing tc the Jury.

Gth«*r errors occurred xmioh will probably not be re- peated upon a eeoond trif^l,

^or the yeaaons above indicated the judipunit It revereed and the cauee reisanded.

R1VRR31D Aim Km^AlITSSD.

Koldoffi and Dever, J J,, concur.

292 - 25550

SARAB £, t£(k, )

\ Appellant, )

Al^«ll««.

11 A ] I A

U

'}£AL FROJt THK MUBlCltAt COUftT OF CHICAGO,

217I.A. 641

3

S*ft. iRESimRC JUSTICf ll«3URJ3.Y

iJSLXvr^sa) ths orimoB of rm coubt.

Plaintiff brought auit clwlrainfr that d«fendRnt had oolleoted certain it«»38 of r^snt for h«r, but had appropriated then. Upon trial th« Jui^ returned a ▼©rdict for th« dafemd- ant upon whioh Judf»«nt vma «mter«d, from which plaintiff ap- {eala.

The qu«ationa are solely of fact, Piva it^ss of rant ara involvad; the firat three are %5a.&() oolleoted from H, J^ark, ^15 from uiee i^arah, $66 froM Uiu» Merriclt. Defendant admittttd that he laade theae ooll@otiona but testified tiist he turned theta over to plaintiff « part of the >ark rent being in the fors of a aoney order frott Uisa lark. I'laintiff denies that d#fondant paid h^r these it«^a, although she admits the receipt froAi defen«.]ant of the lark money order at that tixae, ^e at- tempted an explanation of this which could hardly have impressed the Jury, In view of all the o I rcuia stances, including plain- tiff *s Adnission of reoeiTini; at thla time the money ord<»r, and the opportunity of the Jury to see both witnesses, we cannot aay that the Jury was not Justified in holding with the defendant on this point.

The next item was the Buokwater rent. $65, Defendant donles that he ever oollected this, liitfs story is contradicted by

m Ifre, S«nd«troa, a Q«r«tnk«r for the plaintiff, wUc testified th»t she hAd oolleoted the Bviokwater rent, and on Koveraher 4, 191^^, hftd paid it over to the defendant, support is given to her etory by the teetisiony of her hueh&nd and her ten year old son. We think, hewerer, that the teetiiaony of these two »itn<seaee was oonaiderably shaken on cros»-ttxa£iination. the defendant denied this ooourrenoe and testified that h« vme not in the city upon the day to which Mrs, sandstroB and the other witnesses testified. Here was a direct conflict in the testiiaony. We are unable to tell from the record which party was telling the truth, under such clrouSietanoes we must leave it to the Jury and abide by Its Judgment.

The l»et it«si in dispute is the Vanderkelln rent, $65, Defendant ad?ilts that he collected this. He testified that soate titte before he had erronecualy thoufiht o^nother tenant had paid seme rent aaountin^! to ^65, nnd under thia raiataken inpression he paid that amount to plaintiff; that upon dlQcovering his sslstake he retained the Vanderkelln col lection to reisiburss himself and attei^pted tc oolleot the other rent but did not succeed and left it for plaintiff to collect after he ceased tt^ act for her. thers is no contradiction of this explanation, altiiough in ari^uisent It Is terfiied unreasonable, we do not think it necessarily unbellsTable, and If the Jury thought best to glre It credence we do not find sufficient grounds for holding this watt ij»proper.

OpoB the whole record we find notnlng waich would Justify this court in holding that the verdict was manifestly against the weight of the evidence, and isust rest upon the superior opportunities ef the Jury to pass upon questions of credibility.

?or the reasons above indicated the Judpsent Is affirmed,

AFTimtH,

Koldom and I5ever, JJ.. concur.

.•i'

30d • aS568

Aliaillg AJ^TIiOKY,

Ai^pellMat,

\

\ /

LYIUN A. FUHBIEOK et al.» /

I)*f«nd«ntf .

/

t). I. JAKJ^FTt 0nd JOHI! |insT, Adttiinistyators of tti« |latot«

of n.5.FR V, DtJyP. '^ec^Jaftd, ntoeiv«r, ■, /

Appeal eea.

A-

\

/

OF COOX COUIITY.

17 I. A. 6^^^

xrarivT!?^ ?H^ ori^ioir oy thi? court,

A|r}.oll4^r.t, Ainolie Antaonyp ha« appealed trtm tta order «utered in a foreclosure prooeeding approving a receiver's report and the payi»ent by Ui'jB of $1C,537.60 tojjary r. .A*»rwln, the eomplainnntt on account ol a defici'^noy decree.

On February iiA, 1016, tiiie bill was filed to fore* elojBe a truet deed executed by Lyoan a. Turboolc to eeoura notes •ggrefcating $25,0:0, Thla truet deed «aa subject to a prior one securing bonds of |11C,{7CC. Personal service wna >i&d on the mortgagor, and after proper notice KlMer !)« IXiff i»as apj ointed receiver nf the preasiijes. R^fereneews had to a nnster in chancery, who reported reocouiKniding a deor«f> in nocordfinoe ifltfa the prayer of the bill. On January 2C, 1917, the decree was entered which found that by the truet dend the rente, issues Mud profits froct the rufnl estate were conveyed as security for the payment of the anount found due by the decree; that the grantor waived all right to the poaseesion of and inccae fron the pretuisee after d«?f»ult, ana ponding foreclosure proceedings* and until the period of rede.ption exj^ired, ana consented that a

receiver siifrht be appointed 8,0 collect. thf» rente, etc., und make repeire p.nd pHy ^on(«r»l texet And epeolnl aaeeesmente. The de* oree wlec provided fcr the wntrv of » defiei^mey decree in oaee the rrealeee did not eell for a aufflolent eum to pey the in- debtedneae. Ob 9«brii»»y 24, 1917, the KeetAr'a rey ort of eele distribution ««« filed re{;ortin« a defioleney of 111 •042.86, and upon the aauec day »n order wee entered approving thie report, ithich reaited tiiat ^orbeoii;, the siorteHi^or, h«d no r^Ml or per* eonsl property out of vhioh eaid aefioienoy could be eatiefied; that ooaplainant was entitled to « lien on the rents for the aesount of euch defloimicy eutd was ^iven a li«a thereon for the full wount of a-jid deficiency until the exrlretion of the period of redetaptien. It was further ord< red Uiat the net rente then la thf» henda of Uie receiver be paid to the cemplain«nt to be applied en aaid deficiency, and the reoei/er wae continued in poesesaion with the eaise po^ere ea before and ordered thereafter to pay ocaaiplainnRt cut of the net income n sufficienct ou» to satisfy the defioi<*ncy with interest thereon,

there ws no appeal frc» the aforesaid decree or orders,

on January 16, I91fc, the appellant filed an ap- pearance and a petition stating that she was the owner of the «|uity of redes-ption under a deed fro® >\irbeoi: dated riovensber 2C, 1V16, and recorded januar>- 20, li^l7.

On January 29, 191(^, the receiver filed an account, showing receipts «nd diabursex^tents and tlie payi««it of |7,500 to the ofMKplainant to apply on her deficienoy decree.

On January 27, 1919, the receiver filed his final account, showing a net balanoe of |2,8S5.f)C which had been paid to cosBplninant on her deficiency decree. Vn the same date obj co- tiona were filed by the appellant, Anthony, which cane up for a

hMuring on February 1C» 1919, At whieh date they were OYerruled, the final aocount of the receiver Mrproved and the recelTcr dis- charged. The ap^i^l before us i;^ rroei taiis order.

Appellant raiaed vnrioue queetione tcuching the propriety of the order appointing the receiver, th'? nil elation* in the bill of coESflnint, flndlnf^g in the deoree an i othnr mat- ter« Included in orders entered prior to T«»hru«ry ic, l-ao. These ciueatione are not properly before u», aa this appaal brings up only the order arp<wled fro» and eo mxch of th«» record In- ▼olved in that order. ?ynig;^*th v. niguth, 250 111, iil4.

A decree of foreclosure ie final and aettlee all questions between the Biort|?afee ani tb?^ cwr o^ th? equity of redemptim, Tfirby ▼. I^nnle, 14; Til, a69, ?h« order which fixed the nisiount of a deficiency decrei!* and made it a lien on tne rente is h final and appealable order ana cannot be put in ieaue ^y »PF**!ln« froxa the oruer approving the distribution of the funds of the receiver, 'ds^IX ^» ISlUL* ^^^"^ ^^^« *^'i • ^^^'* 0^'^oy '''« UlEiSJi* ^^® 111. App. 61, A purchaser j^'^ndentft lite frcm a mortf^ragor ia in tlie same pcaiticn as m gx'antor ma is bcund by all the orders entered therein. Kerr is v. He, 152 m . 190; Torrence v. ahedd. 302 XU . 498,

Obj^^etion was made tc th#» receiver* a payraent of ^221 .21 for t»xes. Th*- court fctind that this vme asie on Septem- ber 20, 1916, for the general taxes of the year 191 f), "^hlch wers a lien at thd tlae of the appointment of th» receiver an<) paid prior to th« entry of the decree of foreoloeure and a proper ex- penditure, fe epprove of th|«. The trust deed provided that Buoh taxes sJiould be paid; furths^rwore it appears thjftt the mrrt- cagor consented to this, aiailar pay»ents were upheld in At*ood "*• yno^lBon. 91 III, App, iifiSj B'Yd v, Magill , 100 HI, Apr, 316,

Objection was next aade to the ex^^endlture by the

reo«iTor of the mm of ^3,3CC for interest en the firtt »«rtg«ge. The ocurt found that tint o*n«r of the equity of rf^derapticn bad directed the receiver in writing to pay this int^j^reet, and with hie ocnaent an order eae entered ¥OTeaber 29, 1916« (iir<*oting tJae receiver tc mi^ke thla pasrsont tc nToid threat ^red foreoloeure of the firet nortgage. Ho ohieotlon wae mn6«t to thia order nor ap- peal taken frcK It. App<*llar!t cannot now queetlon ito "validity, yiret rrtjrnal linr^ 7. Til . 3tefll Cc . . 174 111. 14(:; ^?9arlon ▼. YcnEqulet, 169 111, App. 3,

Appellant alno objfote tc tne pavaent bv the reoeiTer of aoneye in hia handa on neocunt of th« defioi«ney liecree. The propriety of tticae payments io not before ui9. Tiie order direotinc th« reGsivoT to jpnv the deficiency deereo waa finnl and appealable, and no appeal hftving been taJc«n we < nnnot consider its TPiiJity tapon an appeal from an order approving t.he report of tiie reeeiver of hiJj costpliftnce with that order, Henry v, ■^'clf ,^ 187 IJl, App, 129.

The propriety of « paw.ent by th« receiver upon a de» ficl<^ncy decree, under siiailar oiroumatonoee rnt? «^ith 1iy>* prc- Tioiono in the truat deed, haa been upheld in many casea, fjol-iaepyi ^* ??*ythcl eiaae, 217 111. 108j Prueeing ▼, j-an caster, 254 111, 462. See opinion, vvith onaea citPd, of thit* ocurt filijd l/arch ir., 1919, in Ccntincritnl /»nd COfeg^groial ^, & ^, Bank v, I^even, 24<iili}, The provieione of the instant truat deed touoalng the oonveyanoe of rente aa aecarity are Vi-rtually identical «/ith thfi proviaiona of the truat deeda invclvad in theae oa.aaa, in whloh like ordera wera appzov&d.

ye find no error in the order of the Chancellor, and it i» affirmed.

APMRKtm.

HoldoBo and T)ever, J J,, concur.

348 • 25606

AWRA LA3?nm.

"»■•

CHICAGO HAII"?AY!J r^ftlTh^ )

and CfflCAOO ClfY Sr\n-tAY J

couPAiiBr. / )

Ap/«»ll«««. }

Appolle

/

/

)aj

COOK COUNTY.

217 I-A. 641

■r

MH. 1RH3ID1H0 JUiiTIOK IWSUJtHXY DStlVBRSD T«B 01115 lOK OF THB CCUBT,

k'Xtiinlitf elt^iM» to bave reoeivvd injuries in aa aoeid«nt while a pma»«mg«r on one of th« street cKra of tne Chicago City Railway. iiMie brougiit ^uit for ooiapeneation and upon trial the Jury returned a vordiot f intilng the defendanta "not euilty* and Judipsent nae eo entered. ?rcA this plnintiff appeals.

aeuthport «iY«?nuff runs north and aoutii in CbiosKO, It has two lines of stre^ '. car tracks with a terminus near Clark street. At tidls terrainus ia k orcss-over switch. The car in question rar? on the *!ast or north-hound track, stopped, and then aoved southsard on the orcsa»oT««r ^vitoh to th*; «»est or south-bound track. ?he front trucks took the switch in ths regular way, the oar at the ti«e goin*^ about three ana a half Ailes an hour. The rear truoJcs did not take the switch hut kept en the north-hauna track, oausio^ ths east side of the oar toward the rear tc collide with the nortxiwest corner of a oar of the Chicago Kail ways Company which «ao on the north-bcund track, ilaintiff tms a passenger on the suuth-hcund oar, sit- ting upon the west eide at about the center. The glass in ths

three rear windows on the eaet side of this car was broken and the upri|t:ht between the second and tiUrd windows waa

b«nt, Thtt oonduoter und « polio* officer who «»• en the our aiui« inquiries of th« j:n»B«n|$«r8 to Atio«rtaln oho wtna injured. Tb« only person vho olalsei} to h«iv« b««n injured wtk« n l!^ra. Mt«b« berg* who wiia seated on thi& eaut aide of ti:^* OAr at the point of the oollittion. Four witneeties testified tiiia im» the only pAsaenger «iio reoelved injuries in the &ooident. >l«intiff was eccccivenied by her husband end theirs is the only testimony tending to suppoi^t plaintiff's dl»l« »« to Xh« ooourrenoe. ?hey teetified that the oollision knocked down the box vhioh is on the Nrest side end in the center of th« onr nn^ ccntnin^ the neaia of the street; thet * pioc« of boRri or »50uldlni»; ^inderneath the our rack struck plftin* tiff on the heed. It ««• jositively denied by witnesses that anything wee broken nt the point described by the pluintiff and her husbond. The Jury evidently was of tbe opinion that plaint iff failed to proT* her theory of the occurrence and we cannot ssiy thio conclusion was a^anifeetly contrary to tint pre? ondemrice of the evidence.

It «rae uiaiMiiiX ti.^nt tue injuriles received resulted in deafness. :irlaintiff, hc^fever, failed to show by sufiioient evidence timt the deafness cr fracture of the ««r druous was caused by nny injury received at the tisiis of the accident in qu<2:stion.

It ims not necessary to state all the evidence in detail. ?ho Jury caw the «ri :ne»»es and was in a better position to dfttensine their credibility than are we, whatever irregularity «ay have occurred upon the trial ore not of sufficient importance to Justify a reveraal and a new trial, which in all probability would result in no different verdict. iVe do not see how it is possible for plaintiff to riake out a case of liability against the defendants; h^rioe the Judf^t^nt is afflxu>ed»

Holdott and Dover* 4J,» concur •

366 - 25<IS|6

0

icAjr^Aii CITY mom & vj^uvhatufim )

C0«» a cor;orii^tlon» / )

App«llant, / )

\

▼ 9.

n.mM L, Amisa

Aii-sAi mm umicifM. court

OF QUICAQQ,

2

I.A. 642'

sm. rRRSiDiHo JUSTICE MoaimxLt jm.rfwm nm oi-ihiou m mr. court.

naintiff broucrJtit «uit for » balano* olaimed to b« due for seoda aoldi and cl^llverad to tha dofeniant <»ho filad « clala of aat-off , Wpon trial by tna court ihm plaintiff tma allowed #4463.65 and th« d«f«ni}ant $5659.09 on hia aat-off and Judi^ant waa entarad agnln«t tha plaintiff for the diffarenca* $1105.44. froise which plaintiff iaaa appaalad.

TUa oourt allowed aubstantlAlly the aaount of plaintiff* a olai« aliown in ita atataaaeiit. The real ootttrcTeray conoerna dafendaut'a aa twoff.

Flaiutiff ^^ii a uariufaotur«y* at vfiliion^ Ax9(anaaa, of box aliooka, called by nnmt wltneuaea "knooi:«^d oown boxea." uaed in ahlpf ing poultry and otiier ooo&odltlea. Tiia defendant vaa en^atged in the produce dealers* aupply bueines^ in Chicago, aupplyin^^ shippers of dreeeed poultry, butter and eg(t;« In varioua parte of the lYnlted Statea vith boxca in vixiuh to ahip their proauot. tiefandaat would eontraet with a factory for a definite nufiiber of oarloada of box shooka and tnen eell to the produce dealere. The greater part of aueh boxee /tuld be shipped in oara direct from the s^anufaoturer tc th« ooneutter« althou^ de* fenciant esiaintalned warehouaea in Ohicafio and other citiea. ilaintiff eott»ti»ee eold direct to produce deal era. On June 9, 101&, tiie parties entered into a written contract for fifty

earloada of poultry \>ox shocks* attXlv«ri«« to be load* by tlaln* tiff within t«Q iiftya frmt %iw rfte«lpt cf orders ftttd sooner if possible, 7h« period of ths oontmot wss until June X, 3917 «

IHifon<i«nt a«ys tjusrt ^«fts % sub8«qu«nt verbal con- traet oat ling for tb« delivery of ton additional oarloads of boxss on tiis smh« tsrais and oonrUtiona as stHtsd in th* vrlttsn eontraot* sxospt %h»% the |>ric« was to be on» dollar p«r thous- and lets,

Tlis def«»r3dtant olains ho is sntltlsd to aot-off diusftftw suffsrsd by rsason of th» fallurs of tli« plaintiff to •bip oars nfitMn th^ t«n days prcvidsd by tu« eontraot* t^ms floapelling dofonaant, in order to fill i^ls contraets* to pur- ohMSS boxes in Una opsn siarket at a t^igiteer prios; tiiKt timers is *iso Ous undsr tiis writts^i oo»trnot iaXx cars and on thtt vsrbal oontraot four oars* fhs total as^ount of aet-off oluuasd was #737^.1^.

Ilalntiff denies ths existence of thf& raie^ed oral «o«tri!not for ten additional cars. Tkia rests upon a ocnrsrsa- tion between tx^e defenduant and a Mr. Cullosi alio represented the plaintiff, Tlieir testimony differs »s to what -ms said but tbs fadt is net isiportant, for th© trial court reduced tiie aasiount of def«adant*s olain by about $:^*OCC« approxi^^ately the lose QlRiaed on the alleged Terbal oontrnot, nafendant assigns no oross er- rors.

T^e substantial controversy oonoems ielay in ths slkipstents oalled for by the written contract of June 9th. Irlain- tiff does not contest %h9 fact of delays i^iut asserts t^iey «rer« not cauaed by any Udglic.floce on its part and were covered by the oontingenoies specified in the contract* naisiely« "strikes* fires* floods atiil oUier causes beycnd tu« control of either or both par* ties." Plaintiff olaias this includes shortage of labor* and that it eas one of the eauses of the delays in shipments, There

WIS 0vl<l«no« tending to aixom thnt 9hil« th«r« m&y hav« b««n m ■iiertftfie in what i« o*l1 <»^4 eemsxoti ItihoTt ether Itiborers o -uld 1»« procured to do thwir vvorit; ».l»o the lettftre written iuring tbe alleged ehcrt«g« of labor give other reauon^i for the delay, prinaip&lly the <Uffloalty in finding luaber* and tnat plaintiff was crowded with orders.

Car eucrtatfe was cl»i.(^.'ed. jeiaintiff^s plant is oa th« line of tlitt J. L, C. & ji;. H. ti,; the vice prt»aident ofrlf^m- tiff, uv, Viltton, is the president of this railroad* there is eridenoe tending to show there was an fttaple nuw^her of oars avail. able at Wilson, Arkansas, during the period in question, Thurs is also «Ti4enoe that defendant had the Frisco railrcad deliver cars lor unm in nie ship.-^ionts and these care were ajppx'OFS'l'^^^ttii by vr, Wilson for other enterprises; that defendant also arratsgcd to bare other cars set on th«» eidlng for lending and to prccurs teaiias for hauj Ing, but pX«intlff refused tc lo»d tiie oars, olaiio- ing It ■fma too much trouble; althougii defendant jsade proTisions for cars and hauling^the plaintiff's general manager said this would not be of any uas because plaintiff could not lead than* It is alec eaid that plaintiff was prevented froa aaking deliveries because en lioveiaber 7» l'i^l6, a fire occurred at a luttber yard o«med by Mr. wilaon at ArBorel, txJLrty^firs railes tvat& ine villai^e of Wilson, and plaintiff «aa depending on this yard for its raw inaterial, whioA .ms destroyed. It ap» pears, ticarerer, that at the date of the fire plaintiff i^d orders froa: the def endantwhich w^re acre tl^an two Kionths eld and if it had ord«>red the raw «!katerial as it received the orders fro« defendSAt it vreuld hare had nearly enough material to fill them; plaintiff ordered none of the »at<>rial froa Ancorsl until its supply at Wilson was «ichau«tetl«

^ we are of the opinion that plaintiff failed in its

kttttsapt to «txoua« Its dtXays toy re«»on of Ui« oontin^vnoi** '•• f<»rv*d to and Uittt «U4X« tiiviio Uti£i|t>« JCiiay Iimto uff <(;ct«d th« aituAtlon aowttwhat, the \ind«r lyings; and aubottuitial aauit* was that it «aa attanpting tc fill aeve orders tiuut tiio oAjrAClty of Its mill would Justify, It i«s anid tJr*at durin«( tJUls period ti:^s aaarkst was rising and flnlntift was abX« to sell its goods at tltis WMTkst price for jsore than its ct^ntraut prioe with t)i« defendant and tisat tits seore profitable orders ^«re filled.

The record sui^ports tJie defersdant's testisaony as to th« i}ui»1»er of oars deliv«>r#d under the oontraot of June 9th •ad plaintiff *s argument on this point is not oonTincing* Both parties treat «j<i the word •oarloads* ajj oarlTjg in the eontraot as ffieaning tlxe ordinary railroad oars* and as this seaninK has not been ;<eretofore questioned by tixe parties, ic i» ti!0 late now to claia any uncertainty in ti^at resp«rot,

Shortly after A»akinig the contraot defendant began sending plaintiff orders* Tke ahii^ents bein^j delayed* the de* fendant wrote repeatedly presenting the neocauity tc l^re Oieae shipments in order to fill uia ccntraots. This was followed by aetioe that defendant would be eoapell cd to pureiiaoe upon the Bsariiet to fill his contracts. and after the t«i days provided for in the oontraot with plaintiff had expired defendant cancelled the order and purohased the boxes on the amtkitt and iausedlntely charged plaintiff with the difference nnd mailed it a debit is«»©rand\*B, In the inatf<noes where dsfeniant did not buy until sottetine after the tea day period* it \tn» nhprnx that the parties at the r«K|uest of the plaintiff had postponed the deliveries and therefore the »arket prices were governed by the &arket price at the ti;ae to which the deliveriea w«re pcetioned, defendant tos-

tifisd as to the starket price, upon whioh he was a oc«petent

viinese, having ba«n in tii^ls bu»in««a »«T«nte«o ya«ra« buying «nd

ohaxtSttd ugAinat plaintiff yi^vis to its advanta|£«, b«ing l9aa than th« £3ark«t prio«. Th« is««ii»ur« of da^mg^s ia th« diff«r«no« b«- tw««n the oontraot pric« »iid th« aotunl coat of th« goodt ^«r« auch ocat is IfFSs than th« ECArktt vttlu«».

TiiC eorr«otj3e«8 of the r««p^tiv« «iaount» du« saoh other ttd fcund by tii« oourt ia qu6i»tico«d, but no partioulam of allegod inaoouraay aro p]r«i««nt«d« i^o oaoaot und«rtAic« to oiuingo the oojaputtttion of tr^e trial court upoiJ tlie ictti^crai «stHte&^ent that it in not undorotood by one of xhn partiott.

7btt qu«£iticfiB irivclved are entxrolir %h06» of fi^ct and we are satisfied that tn« trial Juii^je gave the conflicting tTilenoe careful attention and consideration and we eee no reaeon tc dieai^ree t7lth his oonolueion. The Judft&ent i& th^rs* fore affinseA,

KcldOB and never ,» JJ.» ccnour.

Appall l»Bt,

lyppellfey.

AJPFAL mem VmiCtTM. QVWPt or CHICAGO.

mtitrnm the ci^xwic?? o? tkk cout??,

!ll«intlff o1.«kl«i<^ thnt 'thil« stis wma n ;7u«3t of th« d«f«n<i8nti» in ti/«ir hot«l »<»»• of her clothing <tnd oth«r personal property to tft« "value of $840 w«re stolen from htnv roost; that as lnak«ep«r« dttf^idKatti wsro lJL»t>l« and alsu w«!r« guilty of ueglX- gttnc« In failing,: to taka prop'ar precautions in trot«oting plain- tiff** beloni^inus.

Xfpon trial by t.Le court jud^^A«nt was x^ntsrtd In faTor of tho d«f«ndAnts« fro» wbioh plBlmtiff hi^a app^l«c5,

Yb« d«f«n<1«nt Lily c«»d«r"b0rts ^<»r t « rooming house at 6r^ ^^st ^ftlton 5l»c«, Chioaijc, Tlalntl^f occupied a rooa on the third floor At ru a$r««d r^'ioo of ^3.76 • w*«k, irpcn tii«ss fnott def»ndiants eannot \t« held llftblft as lnnlc««pcrs, Ilnintiff «a» » m«rs lod«<»r and th« kssFors could only te© h*>ld tc th« us© of or- dinary o«r# in r«lntion to th*» property of the plaintiff l*ft in her room during her absonee* Clifford v, .staff crd, 145 Ul, App. Si47, and oaa»tt thar«in citadj also Gre^ v, ")rey,el Aras^ F,o t «|_ , 146 III, App. 604.

It is oarnostl/ urgsd ttiat dsfsnoant Lily csderborg «»• osgli^snt* The building was a tixrse story und bases^isnt and ia the basttsant or lobby is a desk or ooiuiter, Mear tuis, on the wall, is a box with |>igeonhole« used for »iail and Hmyn of the rcoas. llOBie of the rocmers leave their k«ys in tiila box when tn«y go out.

others t«.k« th«lr keya -liti. tixea, ;]ttin%lff» ufon th« Morning in ({Uttation, l«ft htiT k«y In the box. Vlioa sh* r«turn«d in th« Aven* ing 9he did not find Ut« ic«y th«rr«* but on going up to her reo» found the key on tho out»id« cf taa room door luid tho door ulightly open. upon entoring alte found vh« reoa in di0ord«r nnd disoov* •red certain pernonal belontixnge were aieaing. mx«t notified fecre . Cederborg and elxortly after that the police officers were notified. £^re, Cederborg teetifi«d that in the woriiing vixen ahe went upetaira to make the beda ahe saw tl^e key to rlaintiff *a roon on the out* tide of the door and thought that plaintiff wee in the roo/i» and did not pay any aore attention to it.

Th^ trial aourt oorrectly found that this did not oon- atitute aotlonwble negllgipnce. llpintlff left the Hey in the box dotmataira at her own rieTk and defendant*a explanation a» to Mhy 8h« did net enter plaintiff ♦a rcos-i la reaacnable*

Complaint la K«.dQ of Inaotlon on the part of vra« Cederborg in notifying the police offioere «nd in attcxaptiaK to recover the property, but even if tLis ssnduct :sight be called negiii^eat, it had no eonn^etiou ttrlth the loss in the first ln« stance* which ia the thing of which ocsplaint is fdHde.

The findln«i of the court w«a proper *nd i* affiraod.

Boldoa and *>«v?»r, JJ,, ooncur.

406 • 25669

I

^t

i/-

A U

7

y

V^"**

) K^^%KL Vmm TTOE mrBXCXPAL COURT

0? CHICAOO.

A]|p«ll

217 I«A. 649

-^

xm^vrmym -^vr oi-isiok of tm. rMv^->'^,

1>«f»n(i»nt by this iipp««l aaka th« rovarsal of a judi^ent agaiaat hlA of $278,69. Ilalntiff** olaia «a« en thre« proalvaory notes ^iven in ytkXt pay»«nt for a at.u<l«baker automo- bile* and also on a ohsok wiiloh the dcf t^naiant tiad glvsn in pay* raent of Ui« notes but had subssquently ordered payiuent stopped.

Defendont aoved for a continuance to procure the testimony of an absent witn<%S8. jtio diligence 'sras si^own in at- tempting to procure tinia witness or t\i% testitcony and the action sas properly denied.

The offer of proof of oortain Matters by Uie defend- ant contained sueh that was InooMpetent and «ao rightly excluded.

The oontroTersy centers arcund allsfred defects in the car which defendant bcught of plaintiff which defendant as- serts cons ti tuts a breach of the ^^rranty sade by plaintiff at the tine of the sale. The contract between the parties* which is said to contain tlie warranty, was intrrduoed in STidenco but no suggestion as to its contents appears in the abstract, ifith the failure to present to u» the contract of the parties, we are wholly unabl« to deteri:ai.ne their xoutual obligfiitxons. ao for as it is £aado to «{].ear in tui!4 ocurt. the JudtiSient ims consistent with and Justified by the contract.

W« art not shown aufficlent grounds for a reversal, and th« Jud^ent will b« affirmed.

BoldCMH and tf'vmr, jy,, oonour.

449 • iii^7<A

7m. imn%f:\ov rnr?. stat«

BLAA, \

\ A|>p»lf««,

f

A

irlU-lAM K«2siG»X

\ Apff«llRnt,

/ -^7^

AJ^I'^AI y^m IIUfJIClJ'AL COUKT OP CMICAOO,

217 I.A. 642"^

Angfflft Bl«ft fiX^a u oe»i^pX£ilnt stating that on t^ftreh 5C'# 1915, «ii« wa» delivered of a awnlw ohlld* in tli<t city of cni» cago; tlxAt a2i« wna ti>e» Hnd at ill i» »n unaarri«d irosion And tJUat th.e def«r»d«tnt, ililliass Kriaon, la tn« fauisr of staid ouild. Upon triNl by ta«^ ccurt t,Aa def^ndaiit waa found guilty lina «&• ordervd to pmy 9&&0 for tr.e •uyport &fid «ducation of txie c>;xia. DCfendmoi asks that thin Jud^«nt be r«7er»ed«

It itt urK«rd iaat t£i.« fictding of Ui<s tri»l uourt ia it£«Lin8t the pr«rond«rnnc« cf th« eviienot. w« Ar« not inoliecd to tii>;r«e with lhi» contention* ?h«t th« d«f«nl49tnt <«a« mtiAat* with th« ecAptttinftnt w«» testified to toy both tli« piatrtiea; tft«y a^x^9: »a to tho dat«, August «i4» Idle, Coiiaplninant te^stifisd that «h« hiid ol0o bftan lntiDe»t^ »ith dafsnJant on August 17, so that aa ^<o Vats essential faot ther« la no l«sportant cc^nfl lot m tho toatifliony. .Ihortly thsr«aft@r the daf an iant wsnt abroad aa a ffiecisber cf the A«ieri.oan FXF«ditionary Foroe and wrote laany Lst* ters tc the ocjuplnintJiirit; in all of these he adisits frsely hia paternity of her unborn ohila nd writ^;^ «ith solicitude occoem- iag the ocffipLaAUMjnt and the oomiac iBfant,

?he child was horn on Maroh 3o, IV/IJ. It ia argued froei the faot the onild was born aiiortly over seven stonths after

tho purtiea w«r« Intijsatt and Its appe&rancA at tk« tJUM« of birth im« norrsAl* t.tM.t the defer3Ji«-nt le net the fHthar, Coa:i laioant t«»tified to lifting a heavy object 'srhioh aa.i«t«d anr to b««ca« t)iok, CLna lutt birtli fcllouad. 7lt« dcotor ^xo attended cojuplainant taatlfied that it waa impossible to t«ll frcH» tj(i« appaara^wa of the new born baua whethar tba period of i^ natation was seven or mere jBontha, This evidence does not nei^Htive the ]^»ternity of tue de- fendant,

B«fendR?it produced three other young men who testi* fled they had been intlmitte v^ith coapl^«iinant in tae sumf;><^r and fall of 191». "'heip testlKony was oat«|j,orioally denied by the oos<i>laln«mt. We fl»ce no ccnfidiW»oe in th« atfttj'i.enta of thwaa witneeaea* wiiose ©otlvt evidently '^^^ae to nid their fri«?nd» the defendant,

Vm teold tiiat th(? f lndic« of the court was justifia4 upon the reoord, and the judjissent will be affinssod.

Koldt'B and ::;i«ver, J J,, ccncur.

456 - 35710

Y8,

SAMUEL UnRSTJm?!?!/,

Appell«nt,

'■^Ch VXWir.lI'Al. COURT 0? CKICAOO,

217I.A. 642~

Tmtiymtn mt ofiwio!? of ?mx court.

On JuXy 26, lWXy« oouiplaint whs fXltsd oaurging th« d«-> ffindaat ^ith Indttottnt «>x>)09ur« sin'i &<ii3<^rting that th« offsnv* oo» aurrc4 on Ui« *4i5 day of July, a,::j, 191..,* Hotlort to qunih was

2aiid« And cverraiea ae^a def«ina«i:it tried &n4 i'cand i^uilty and fined forty aollar*^.

D«fcf t*rii«i»rjt aj-x&ala; cois.5;lain.^uiit acf^y not ftj,-p 6«r in tliis ccurt.

The sioticn tc quwih uhculd heve been r1 loved «nU the error in thla r«gftrd aay tee pr«efnt«>d to this ocurt. The cok- pl&int <3o68 not definitrty stait^: %h^ iut ' of the offense. In J_e££l£_ V . WeigjB , leP ni. Apr, 50B, aft^r ooneldemtien of a large nusibf'r of cnaes, it ?/«?» > i?*ld thet »n infoiwation is fat»ny d«ff.ctive whiob fs«il« to uhow upon Its f«o© that th*" effenee ch«r^(»d ffti» coroaitted within the stetutory p»^ricd of llsjltRtlon* and thia no twith« tending no cbjcoiion tme releed in tne low«r court and a jlen of i^ullty «nt(*red. To the easie effact are: rwople v. ilcUher^, a5i) 111. 604; ieorle v. 'tfeinatein, a5:> III, 530; Preyer Y, ieci-I^, i7ti Xli, &»C'; ti*i;>pk-in v, iJB£iJt^. ^4 ill. &Cl; Garriaoo ▼ i;££j^jK, a? .111. 96; '^fC'y'le v. j.-okeop, lln ill, Arp, 3:i5; iocrple y, 'fagrncr, 172 ill. /.-pp. ^*

For thie reason the jUiiiiSiirin t is rcYeraed «nd the cauee retiiui'led.

HKV2iK3E35 Airo RIKAHIXRX). Holdoa »nd "Dover, JJ,, concur.

'VIOj)

477 - >i57»S

HOHTIi 'LECfflUC OOfeiAJJY corporatjion

.•v.iAi./ii, /'r.vJij &.(,ti;.A ; ij- Ai. '..u-URT VS.

». JOHFaOH

\ /App*llnnt, y

fevtted electrical vifork for th« d«fen<S«int »t nn jtK3?««<i ri"io« of #100, wiiich h»4 not l>«en ralJ, T/pon trial tiie court p«re»iptorily ln«truot«<} the Jury tc find for plaintiff. ;:moh a T«rdiot was rvturtiffd aaiiossing th« damages Mi |1iO€ and juii(p3«nt was entered thereon, from ^flxich defendant appoale.

Tlie evi'.ii.enc«? tends to eiioi t-u.i i. an c-vi.-i..t;f.r, 1917, the president of Uice ; liiintiff campftny AiJ&de a ve<rb«i.i contract with defendant* a sen to inutall seven wall ligiits in a buildirig nuffiber VAZ^ i^est Huron street belonging to tae defendant at an agreed price of tlOO; that the son was auti..orized by the d«ffend- ODt to Tinke this oontraot and it was approved by tue a«fenaant. There 1» ccnsiderntole controversy as to whether the isrork was pros>erly done, but >sre are inclined to hold that the prejon/ierancs of the evidence t»how8 theit the work covered by the contract was properly installed. There ia eviience tending to ahow that an inspection »adi« about a year after its oorapletion disoloued one or two oinor defiolenoies whieb coulJ be supplied in a few ttlnutes. Certain witnesses testified that no lights were turned •B aftet the work was installed and it, i» argued tnis deaonstrstes

that the work «av impropfirly don«. It «pp(»ars tiiat tti* l,disuQ Cosp«iny would not supply ei«>otrloity until » deposit of approxi* n*t«l]r $200 h«td been samAtt nnd th« dvfttndstnt would net sftnuf thia, neither would he pay th« bill of th« flnlntiff until the lighte had been turned on. JtAntfeetly until the current ^tma suvrlied th«re cculd be no illiminHtion. ?hat tiila i»aa the real crux of the oontroveray ia »hown by the teetltaony of the d«f en<.jlfint hlraeelf . He stated in Anewer to queatlont» by tne court ttrnt the pipes vere «lh«re they were wanted «ufid that if the StUocn COKpany hsd fur- nished current he would have been oalluf ied ^itli the wcrlt Jicne by the plaintiff* eina tii&% any coibpluiut he iiiiit^tit i^v^ an to the •vork »«» entirely due to the t@fud&l of the Kdiacn COMpariy to supply tiie current.

The pendency of ». suit in the circuit ccurt bruuiUit by the defendnnt at^Tainst the plt&intiff, arising out cf the inetulla- tlon of thia ."ork, 1b anid to cr^natitute « defense to th«: instant suit, nnd that the stutute requires the consul idation of all de- amnds aK^inst each party in onses ooicr^enced before a Justice of tlie peace. This stAtute hn» no appl lent ion t n suit ooio^enced in a erurt cf record/ 'fard t. The lecyle, 77 ni, App, 522,

Complaint ie icade cf the action of tht* court in re- fuaing tc issue an attachas^nt for a l^t , Toualey, Chief ^ectri- cian of the City, who it <raa claiaaed would testify that no cer- tificate aj-jj. roving txila work Jriad been ieaued. J.ir. Toualey hiss- self made no inspeotion* so tuat his teatlMOuy in this rei^ard would not have been oojiipetent, iiowever, an inspector frcia the

ity 1 €Otrioian*8 office api enred and gave his testlaony as to conditxcns, }^e testified tc an inspcctjion on January 14. 191v, when he fourul thnt the •,',ixknp nn(,5 oondult were in gccd ccnuition

and in»U-i iv.i m m vvotk -iKni iir.c ii.ftnrier; that tJiS only tiiir.f; out of order was one ground wire broken and one link fuae s.iissing; that

one belt vould make thin r.^^o^i* n« also t«0tifi<i(} as to the »b- ••no« of a tlniA olcok nn<l a owltoh. but th<>yr9 id no evidence that thaae were Includad in tne originnl uonttraot; witneitaas t«»tifi«U t}.«t trio lights -wuld burn in tUe ocndltior. than ax- iating.

Other errors uycj. u.c x.viif.1 are iSii^uS--- -'^- ''lit *e do not daaa any of ti^e^ to L>t« of aufficietit Importance to require a reversal, rue eoiierttial Sitota ure aOu^itted by the j/leaain4i;« and the testiiiiony of defendant, there Xa no queation but that the lights ivere inatulled and $ltiO mm the agreed price. The evidence ifrcvea iimt the work was done in a eubetantlal and workmanlike manner. Defendant hii^aiself ad^dts thia and, as above noted, tci*tified t)iat the only tning of wuicii h*» hnd any com- plaint ¥iaa the failure of the Kdison cowpany to furnieh current,

t?nder auah c iro.i(aiit.v.noea there "wae nothing to sub- iflit to Uie ,1urv and it was not «rrr>>* f^or- rv., rcurt tc instruot

or the »1k"V(!» r^v-.- •!r?i.'=i t>.n ,'u'ii:»«nt ia affirisued, HoldoEi an i Dever, J J . , ooiiuur.

4e« - a5757

A

{

) AilKAJ. 9R0« kUWIGli'AL COURT )

5 217I.A. 643"^

?hl« i3 ftti Mpp.*al frcsa « Judfxu'nt of pH ca j. ja t •Bt^red uton « vordiot of a Jury in i* trinl afU«re4n plaintiff •cuiftot to recc/er upcn a pjrc'«i»i»cry noto iiated July SB, 1916, foi' $l«oe5 «Ju« sixty (iay© {>ftcr (J»te to th<? ar<i«f ?f pXRln- tiff anU alined by th« 4«f andante*

J\»dg»u«nt by cc«f«!B»loi» undo? poi»«r of attorney in %hiR note #&» ent«rr«dl bat vr^cMtedi and (iaf «M!t<iAnt» given X«av« to AfpcAY and d«f«nd* ^ub«»oqu«nUy upon triiil b9for« a Jury « Tordiot watt roturried fiudinf;. tiie ia^ues H|^ain«t U;c plaintiff* A new trial was aliow«d m%a a s«coml trial l^d« and <^Kain a verdict returned a^uia^t U;e plaintiff* Jud«<;!aeiit was ptjterod tuer«fcn und plaintiff h»0 apj;'e«,lea tii^jrefrc.-M to this i;eurt«

'^he only questions invelyod nrn those of ff*ct. By tn« intrcauction of the note plaintiff aado a ^riaa ff-oie enoo ani'l it dftvclvod upon the defendants to establish th«ir olttiA that the noto who executtsi and del ivtrod »clely for tho (MieoMBiodation of Ui« plaintiff Hn<i «}ithout oon«ideration*

nal»)tiff l9 a dentist snd aaya h« firot t&*% ilc fondiint .^ttsotein in tho sprints of 1916 ^vh9n he oallod upon plaintiff for profaooioial avrvicea; tlxat, ti:koy diaouaaed a

propOditlcn to purelins* t«n aorttft of X^nd in l.eriU» for . ^«^^ w«

each to take flv« ixorst; :Tufii«teln paid i.lftintiff ;^^1»&0C to

oevar laia i»Ui9.r« of tiia iron ttftot Ion »nd reeeivttd a r«eeipt

dated J\ine ;^6, 1916, by «iUoh plaintiff ajsread to procure a

deed within sixty daya er refund tha aonay; that aona tiisa in

July, 1916, plaintiff received a ooiaKrunioation frcas Florida of-

ferin« on additional ten aores at a lo*»r price and wfter dia-

ouaeioR h« and ;/,u&atein decided tc eubnit an offer of about

$ii,OCO for tiiia. 2s;utiij«i«ifi did not hav<4 the aucney to pay for

hie one-'iialf internet in the adiiticnal ten aoree nnd inforK&ed

plaintiff that if the deeds and abstimot were affint to one of

tbe banica ir. C^iea^o with a uXg/U dr^ft H&taoii.«sd fur the oj^cunt

lue* iitia fiiOttey would be raady at U«at tiuue; Ui^it plaintiff told

^iMifieteia axiixu an offer ooulU not be loade beouuae plaintiff did

not want Vxtt land and if tue {uo»e.r ><fiie not r^ady Miii«n tiie eiglxt

draft appeared It \?culd Jeopnrdiae the teu ftorea already tcai=:jat

and paid for, and he (Ud not know ::uaetein financially veil

«Q0U4Kl^ tc tknk« tiie riak; that 2u«et«in «uai give abeclute aa-

curity that Ue would carry out his part of the contract «hen the

deeda arrived at tfie batik; 'us.gt^ln »aid h« woulA ^ive plaintiff

a Judt^ent note signed by hiseielf nni a wealthy woatan ^osa plain- ed tiff knewj/that a^jreewent plaintiff took the note in queation

and ordered the papera aent up from Florida; that when they ar- rived plaintiff notified 2;uis»tain but waa told tivat h« did not hav« the money, s»lth the result timt plaintiff h«d to pay for Zus>»tein*8 gihara, mho infcr^t^ed plaintiff tliat h« could ixala the note flun aeeurity; t-hat a receipt waa dictated, »i.g}^ed by plain- tiff and given to i^uiuatein, euioti eaa dated AUtiuet 16, 1916, nnd recited the receipt froM jbUAteteio of @1,&C'0 and the note in queetlon, and tliat iih«n Uie note thould be paid tixe prooet^da.

vlth th« dl^ftCO* aliould oon«tltut« p«iy»si«nt In full for t«n lutret of land Ixi Klorld* and plaintiff would ex«oute a deed thvftor, Plaintiff** a«Qr«itary uorrobcrate* t,h« stcry of Wie receipt, . laxntiff paid Urxe si(vl)>t draft i» August, 1^16, and aequired title tci cue proparty. He aaya lie: re^^»tedly dv^aanded payment of thw aQt« and tendered a d«e4 to Zauf«t«iiii foi- ten aores of tha proparty mid that he wati ready te deliver suoh a deed upon pay* sent of the note,

^U9seteln*e etory tends tc 9ao« that «Tiille he was Veinff treated profeeeicnally by plaintiff, plaintiff ««• en- deavoring to in ,tu«e hiai to invt?3t in Florida Icinde axid on June ii6th hf? did «ake an invtatssent of |t#5oo for five ficr«» of land ae t«»tifiPd te toy the plaintiff; that after he liad issade thie inveetoient plaintiff continued in hla attempt to have «5ujsatelD aake other puroliaeea l»ut£!ii«aa tcld that defendant had already gone ae far as iie oould ^nd tfould na^ks no further inveetsent in IPlorida; that when he flatly refud«::d to invent in any nd.Utional land plaintiff aeked hiai to elgn tue note in iueation with an indoraeaent oxi it ao tuat plaintiff oould g(«t the additional ten aeree of land in the vie iuity of the iterGm firet imroiuieed* pro&iiaing Zustittmin "eoote eort of profit out of it" for this ac« coeix^odtttion; thnt l^unaeteiii responded that he did not know who» to get ae en indoraer and plaintiff sui{g«»ted that he get the defentJant Katie ^yolf, another patient of hie and a friend of ^u«a«tein; t>iat plaintiff ae&ured hi» that nothing tsrould toe done with the note toeonuae h» ocuia dispose of the property before the note iiiiintured; th<f$ note in question wAt given with that under e tan ding; tiiat the defendHnta received nothing for signing the note nnd ^uAsetein did not »t thKt tirao or at any other tl»e

agree to Join with the plaintiff in the purohaae of any s^ore

property In FXorldla; miu tuaw neiU«<$r at tui< vxe,je of alenlng tU9 note ncr at any ouxer ti&e did u« ae« cr rooeive t^« rooeipt n^iich piMintlff oliiitas to Janve giv«n i^lia on AUi^cuttt 16th. 'Tiiet9 wao Also t<^0tljflony tenaint? to oho» ti^t si^ortly ztJTter Aut^ust ^i6tkx defendnnt ZuiaatAln* in company 'ivith c. G, lawbaugh* an attorney, and John J, Hyan callttd upon pl^^intiff in his tttio9 und dttasndad the deed for th«? fiva Rcrea puroiiaaea by 2usi»t®in, and that i Iain- tiff did net deliver it imt prcmined in » fev naya h«i would ha-?* it; tii«t Rt thiB tira© fluintiff a»i<3 notning about any reeaipt of Att|?u»t Iftth, '/Aimn'i.ein i« corroborated in thia t©»tlnony by T.airt>augh and other wltnesioao «n;i oircusatp-ncea,

:'hBr« h».v? been two trials of thia ors« in miich the varinnt stcriea cf the parties hi%ve been submitted and eonaidered* and the Jory in esach trial uae arrived at the ci^nclueion that the greatnr wei|(ht of the eviJence aupported the vereion of the defend- ants. The oreaii'ility of txi« »itn«f»ae« ie virtually iiie eola Batter to be deter^iiined, sma the Jury vitii its opportunity of seeinf: the tvitnceees upon the etnnd is ffiucn better qualified to pass upon this timn ie a ccurt cf review* There i» notjijiing in- h^^rently ifspceeible or iatprcbtble in ^uissteio^e version of the trantaeticn and h« ia aupprrted by apparently disinterested wit- nesses v}heae stories nrr eonaistent with each other and the cir- cti^atrinces, while a justifiable doubt «rAS raised ns to raany tar- ticulnrs of plaintiff* a t^otimony. However, it is not necessary for thia court to d«t»?r'.ine definitely <8rhich of the parties is telling iiif! truth, re nre called upon to detersaine only 'whethmv the conclusion of the Jury was ssanifestly agains^t the weight of the evidence. It would unduly extend Uiis opinion to narrate the nany details whicn isii^ht pruperly have persuaded the Jury

tc its conoluslon, UaTlng tht«e in «ind* togetiif^r with all uie oircuH5»timc«8 iriTTolted. we or^ unwbl ' to 9»y thnt th« jury cleerly «ft» in th« wrcng*

ar« find no fltdcquate r«tt8on for di^iturblng th« JudpsK^nt an;} it io affirs)«d*

hclclon and i>«v«r« JJ.« ccncvxr.

50^ - 25769

\

\

AppelXea,

\

▼ •.

CTaCAOt RAILWAYS CJ and CHlCACC CITY R CC^J-JAf

Apj^ • antiJ . )

\/

/ /

000^ '■""''""".

f»3

217 I.A. 643

iitsiDiKc; ju^itiCE iioauKBxy

DfcLiVEKED tJi?. OirI>UOS Oif THE CCUUT,

llair.tiff 'orcugiii. «.,..., tc »r soever ccc^ponoation fcr pfiracnsil irjurlt>8 allegea to have been received tiircujii^ th«f negli- gence of the def etiviiinta in operating a street oar, r];cn trial aiim had B venUot and Judijsant for $-1,000, which cief«n.i«nt3 af.ek to hftve revera^d,

The acci.icnt hpippened ot w^out 7:4S ;>, .s., on ? ay 5, 1917, near thff int«r(iection of 3cuth T edzie nvenm? »nd vest Twelfth otreet, in C2»ionKC» > 'Jdzic avenue i:i n nortn and iiouth street in- ters ect^d by ''v»eVfth street svhich mn^ eaat nnd west, ?.*iero are two .'lete of street car tr«cli» on eac- atr««t, cuthtocund care on >- cd;'<ie run en th« wei^t tr«ok, northbound on t'nf> east trnck; »«at- bc'und on Tweifth rui; on tuK ncrta trsck and efjetb'.'urid an the acuUi trtick. Be^innin^ at nuout the east orosa-^vaJk on 'Swnltth street a curved track run;2 frciu the wcetbouna ztuok in h ac/utu9*eet«rly di- rection connectinji rtitiv Ui* southbound traci. on Kedzie. iimnliff wn« 3truc;>; by a cwr wiioh after ccKiin^j. '«eot on 1'welfth street wae "cundine tLia curve tc go eruth on redzie. ?hi« street interaec- ..xon vme in a ti;icKly populated neighborhood,

:inintiff testified tnat on ti.« -ntv ci ..up. accident -iuc, in c.:; v"n7 vfith her aix vnar old boy, left her .cift« in Austin

tc visit h»r moiht^r who r®»ld»d on twe ea«t ai e of ] ud^ie Juat south of Twelltii 9tr««t; tli«.t to reach this point aiie n'de en cne of aef cr.'iant8< 9tr«et cars souti: tc rweXfth, ::hia car atopi-«<i on Wt« nortii aide of Xw«ll'iii street tc alxow p^oaengert tc uliiiht* Jlaintlff «iti:x ^^r boy aXii^^i.tea and croaaed 07«r to tja« «outi:veflt oornf?r; tz;c street* wer« quite crowded and it vm» d»rk or dusk; before orcssin^; to the eaat side of Kedaie sliO looked to th« north to locate tha &cutii.bcund cnr froto tsrhich shtt had Just nliiK^hted; the sctw it ot^ndlng and pec pic hotwdin^ it, and ouppcaiTig tiiat ai«« imd plenty of tiixe to crcaa aue took Jaer child by tiie h»nd and !it«rt«d oaat or tats croojs-.»nllc, ih«'n «htt waa struck by a car which iwaa ooiainn; arcund the cur-re; she wttfi not w«ll acqu«intod with tli» turninir and eurting of the cara at that point; hisd lcc:<«<} fcr a northbound car but ^nm none and did not »«e the owr ooalng arcund tue curve; there viise a lot of uciaea tnere includin($ the nciae of stre- 1 oara. but ahf could not distznfruiah nny ^.articulfir one.

Def euuautd j^rcduced only on« '^itneau who clQlaed to hava aaan ti;a occurranca; ha teatifiod that thi« plaintiff was going fron the eaat to tLt vveat iiido of th« ^troffit at the tiute aha waa <3truok. ! ia atat«rr>t>nt waa oonaidarably waaken«;d by avi* danofi aho ying conduct of doubtful pro|>rit5ty in connection with the caaa. Thfi t^jatiiacny cf the (actcrjr.a!) »ud otucr ^^itneaaea on beiialf rf th<? defcndanta doaa not necaaaarily conflict with Um eaaantial parte of jlaintiff'a atcry. Upon thie rftcord wa cannot •ay that tlie Jury w»3 not Justified la acc»pt*ng plaintiff* a varaicD cf th*? cccurr«iice»

It ia ar«uad by defendants trnd aupj; ; rted by aauy citnticns that plslntiff wao guilty of contributory neg)i>T«nca, Cpiniona in othar ouaea are not of i,:reat aaaiatanoa aa the cir«

ouititttano«n differ in eaeh c»a«. It cannot be aftid «» » «att«r of law that jlwlntiff'i conduct «r»8 negllfenoe ocntributing to tJa« ftooident.

Under the oircur;at»nc0», miere \.n« plaintiff with ft child in cer care wito at n corner with whloh 3fcc «>«» net fa^^iliAT. in the duttk, i».rttid crowds of p«cj5le and vorioua nciats i»nd «▼!- dently iBttefflpting tc guard ag<«iRot da«««r frc»r; »tr««t cnra, tii« Jury ocul d r^opffrly find thnt i«h«?n ah© 9tart«?d on zhe oroeo-walk tt.nd CROC ints:; ttie jiRth cf a c»r ooaing un«xp«ct.«uly arcuad the eurv* ahe vaa not guilty of cantritutory n«gli/^«no«»

We are cf tii« Oficieu timt the Jury ?rcperly fcufid tii© defendaiita ijuilty of tna negli<i©nc« ou»rii:ed, Under ihv. cir- cae?.9tanc«a we do not aee iipw tu« £»otorssi»n could havt! fsAled to oO- aerve tha plaintiff and CiUld in time to avoid tii* acoidant if he hfitd bean atnintairiini; « p5-<^f.*jr lock cut, Tiia B>ctcr::.an testified that h«? «iid not aea her at all until »fter the accident. Tha Jury cculd ri»-rhtly conclude thftt liis failure to obaierva jlaintiff ««• oauaed by hia npgligfnt conduct.

It ia civilised tbrtt th** diwja/Lr«»a rtre ©xO'Paaivt, ?h«r« «•• avldenoe tanding to »he^ that r^laintlff waa injurwd andbrui«»d on many parta of h<^r body; oh« hnd a larga lusccf n th« back of h«r he«d; --^nS' in thfi hoarital t^vc wef^ka, tiien tak»n to her JiiiOther'a, whrre ahe rer Rin©d abcut five •meka onri *!raa unabl/j to v/alk all that tiaaj left leg haa a large *dant*» in it; before th« accident al»« did all her hcuaeworjc xncluaint^ launderinji, stcrubbing and ql easing, but dince Uien haa been unable tc stand any ex«rticn. The phyaicAan -^ho treated her testified thKt ^he waa auff ering frca ahook and atill suffered froia pal|,it; tion of the heart and an enlarged nnd oongeated uterua; that $UiQ would be a rwaaonabla

t9t for nl8 aervioAB. The euKOunt of U^e awttrd cMiy l>« ^U4^* fts th« trial Judige •«^iitti to nnt* saIU, bat. w« do not tuink it c«n be reaooimltly called excessive « ?o error » ure a«- eit^nod ■■■^itL r«ap#<jt to rulinga on ericisrso© . r ljR«tructicn8,

For the r«ftso»0 «iljcve indiowtetl th« ju-l^xse^nt is affir^sttd*

He Idea &ri<3 D«fV«r, J J,, ccncwr.

160 • S&414

\ / ) a»«0K TO amiiciitfiL coimt

/ ) OP CHICAGO.

217 I.A. 643'^

Tliio Is an appoiil by dttfcndsnt froa a Jud^A«flt of th« Junlcipttl court of Chicago in favor of ih» plaintiff for the

v. \

mm of #67,60.

In H «tat«»ent of olnla tbe plaintiff alleged:

"Trmt hitt eluim io for tlie ▼»lu« of a Taupa ^olf

Searf^ amounting tc one Hundred Dollara. '^iiat the aaid I^ter H. iQOk :.}ivlaion Ko. 5i)»4 of tl^e Brotuerliood of rooo- notive ii^ginisra t^itja l.&mrenoe r. Giliuore aa ita ir««ident, iueld a .4inoe on Ajt'^^^ '^d* Xi;»lii«, at 7l!ti:i ittreet and Union nymm«it Chiosi^c, to «ri:Aicju mi lA^i&iA&Xiiu of i^l .uo ^ oouple waa oj:iurge4. Tii^t j[^I%intiff puronaa«a a tici;«»t of Hdeiiisaion to oaid danoa «lAich tlckot included wardrobe service, }rlaintiff furtuer alleges tjxat on ^aid date iii^e attended oaid danoe and dexosited a Taux^^e v^^clf ioarf aue wore, togeUi^r witii otx^er clothing with tk«i attendeuit iu oharge of th^ wardrobe and received a ah^ok to preeent ^ien siae returned for aaee. Tiiat «he did present tne eaid clieok, but the snid ^ttendcuit failed and refused to return said ctoarf . t'tMt ime ki&d de^vanaed of aald def entrant tJi;o.t he return and deliver up sMild aoarf, wx;iob defendant has failed tc do.**

It ie aaserted for the defendant that the above

•tat«sent does not eet forth a cauae of action, ^« are inclined

to a«cree with this contention. The 9tateis«nt aays that the r«ter

!?. J«ck T^ivieion Kc, a»4 of the ST-otherhood of t.oooiaotiva i^ngi-

Deera with ?a«renoe **. (!il£iore a» its T resident held a danoa on

April 23, l&lti, tftc. This ie not an as^^ertion that the defendant.

Oiljsore, again»t who» the suit was brou^t by pl«iintlff, oporateA

the dance, nor that lie received or autiuariaed anyone tc reeeiva

for hin the aharge »ade for oh4iOlcing the garment which the ^lain*

tiff alleged had not baen returned to her. the allegation is that

the Brotherhood of Loeoaotiva Bngiaeera with Oilawre aa ita preai*

dont operated %ii« d»i)o«. ?hi» •tAt«B«nt if tru* would not r*rid«r Cllaor* liablff for tb« loss of tb« g»r»»nt, zt is not alleged that tbe (S«f o^ndant op«r«t<Dd the iAnoe either «« a prlnolpal. a partner, or otherwise* fhfi record dioee not diaoloee that a etatccient of olaiei wao filed by the plaintiff wi^iioii »et forth tiiat ahe had a la* (Pftl ol«i£s A£c»inat the defendant. It doea not appear in the »tat«a«Eit that uay oontraetual relationship existed H^etweeii the plaintiff and defendant. The plain purport of %he atatee&ent ia that the Brother- hood of Loocjaotiva J£ngineera with lawrenoa T. QiXttore aa its president iA<siX(X Uie dtunoa*

the statement of olaiat is inauffioient to aupport a Jud(i;»cnt against the defendant.

m the ©«tae of l.yona v, ?:«nt«r. 28S III. 336, Um

Supreffiot uourt said}

**A statitment of elalm in actions of the fourth olaas in the ^'unicipnl court, waich does not atatQ a cause of notion, dees not r«^quire an isniiiwer frosi the d^f rndont, and if a ^^dg* B«nt by d«>fa>tlt is rendered upon isuch a statenont, it may be rtversed arul suoh a et«t«e:i«nt of itself oannot suatain a judg- ment.*

?h« Stat extent of olaiw did not reasonably inform the defendant of t)ie natura of the oaae he was called upon to defend, Co the face cf the atatisment the defendant was net re- quired to jsake any defense to th« action breu^^ht against hiia. Lyon a v. KQoter, '4X0 111, App, 7fc, ?he defendant was net

oharged wita a breacfi of a contract nor with the cosmissioa of a tort,

fh» judgRient of the imnicipal court will be reTeraed and judgment of ni|, capiat entered here.

RKV H!) JUIX51iW|!T OF

Bij. ^ n.'m*

MoSurely, T, j,, and Moldoa, J,, concur.

c

ri^O Smii

166 • 35423

0/ ^'BWIPfi*

C. FiKEftB,

V / ) OF CHirAftO.

COKyAmr,"^ oortorttticn.

217 I.A» 643

Tlx« plaintiff reoover^d « ^uotP^Hftb in «he iunlol- P«l court ngulnst the defendant for tiiie auea of #H57.46 and the d«f*n~*f>ft brings the onae to taia ocurt by »pp««l fcr revidw*

Thf» suit ymm b»tt«d uj^on a octitraot <r<hicii provided fcr Ui« »»le by defendant to plaintiff of » s ccnd-hond lftth« fcr the »xm of $l,4rr, i?our hundrtd doUHj** was rnid by the plftintiff tc defendunt nt ♦>.« tlta* the contract *»» entered Intc* ar.d it was o^x^^d that the balance ?m» to h^ paid by slfiiht draft aftftinst the bill ef lndim>;, rymli-vnTy of the laths W»0 to b« mnde f . o. b. Chics^o. 3cia« days ftft«r the exsoution of tutu ccntr&ct ths jlnlntiff dirsoted d»f enrtwnt to ahip ths latJiC tc plnlntiff at Cincinnati, which defendant did, but plaintiff refusiftd tc RCCKyt it. The defendsnt tbereuj;oc »ent th« naohio«ry to Chicft£;c* where it was ecld for |.I,4l<(, the sftae sua th«t plnintiff M£re«d to pwy ior it.

The dofendant by "a&y cf aet-off insiats thnt it was eenpelli'ed to and dia expend the sua of vl42.S4 in frei(;;ht charges* cMirtage, oleanin«<« repairs, etc., in sendinf; the lathe to end froas Cincinnati and putting it in frcper conditioxj for oale in

Chioiigc ,

i'lftintiff brought auit for the recover v of the ^400 poid by hiia on the o ntraet. The court allowed defendant

id I

on it0 claita of aet»off th« auun of ^142,54 and Judg;n«nt »»• en* tortd in ttkroT of tho ylivlntiff for that aum of SkJ67,46, being the bttlnnce of th« $400 iirt4o('i th« o«?urt h^ld im» duo i lain tiff by dcfondftnt.

The defendanc aloo olAi»<;d that in ndditlon tc Uie txpenHOB incurred by it* it was antii.l*7«d to receive fron plain- tiff a furti^er 'a\m of $^80 on the ti..eor.v Umt defendant sm» entitled to reoovor of plaintiff aiu pex oent of ttie imrottaoe price of tha latae, ti^at ouffi being tn.e usual and cuetomary com* iQlssxcn iind r^^ueonable o^iarge in cUUcagc for the re«eaX« of •econd-hand aaaoninery.

"Pov the plelntiff it ie ineieted ti*«t he waa not responeible to defendant for camsiieaion on Uxi» reosale cf the lathe and that tiie true m^tasure of daisagee ohargeable against plaintiff for the br^aoh of the oontraot, aside Troa the daus- agee for freight chaTr.ee, eto., rme the difference between the price 9hioh plaintiff aKr«»ed to pay for the lathe and ita oarket yrloe at the time it was reacld in Chicago, nnd thnt, in that th«^ evidence olio^e that the lathe «aa sold for preoisely tbe eane aus the plaintiff agreed to pay for it, th« plaintiff cannot he held for any lo»a incurred by the defendant «xoe;:t to rcMun crate it for itu freight charges, etc.

i-arasrapha 1 and d. of aeotion 64 of the unifona

Salea Act proTidee aa fclloww;

*(l) lihere the buyer wrontfully ncglecto or re- fueea to accept «nd pay for the gccda, the seller rrjay t^axntam an action against hist for damagea for ncn-acceptance.

(a) The meaaure of daa)i\ge» is the eBtia&ted loos directly and naturally reeulting, in the ordinitry ccuree of events, from th«? buyer's breach of contract,"

It is adKitted tiiat the lathe was acid in the Chl-

o«co »ftriiet for preciaely 'he saae sua v>*iich the plaintiff

agreed to pay for it, Assuning that the defendant in exocuting

Ui« contruktit uitli tJ&« pluintiff ««• act lag iatav<tly ae ftn af^ent

for ihtt owner* Ui«i' ^ucutjuon uria«a v^«Ui«r xt, J.ti ct^iitlttd to

r«ccv«v $2A0 by w»y of coiMsiiseioa whiab tlie «vid«tiCtt tihovs

%«8 tii« u«ual. ftsount imld in, the Ciiloagc caar^et to iitjents on

the re*3al« of aeocndohand oAclxinory. Tbtt oridenoe shcwo tLat

the defendant wao not In fact, iand it »t no time aii8u»<£;d to ba.

agent for the plaintiff. It may b« quite true that the eoaiffiiw-

«ion loas u: tjae defenaant «ae the reouXt of plaintiff* a br^^aoh

of the Qontraot, but our attention has not been directed to any

quoted authority which holde, mid the etatute/does net pro-ifide, tiiat th«

buyer of good» mt^y b# held leis«lly r^9j;on»iblo for thia kind of loes. If the defendant vmu in faot the owner of the goods, it would be entitled to recover only the difference between the con- tract price and ti.e jsarket price* Bag! ey v, Findlay . 82 ill. 524.

Vn the cttee of Iv'-och v. dohagar^* so, ^5111, (not yet reported) Vuim court* &)^.(;^u.ing thrcu^ih l^r. Justice i-.cldoiB eaid:

«»Th« oontroverey ariaee Ui on the liability of de- fendant for lasiagee to plaintiff arising froaj defendant' » fnilure to lake ti^e lii^^ousine bcdy and Victuria top at ttie prioee ftgrei»d U}^on, The real question reate in the i^eatsur* of dafflagea. if any, ilaintiff ia entitled to recover under the law*

It is adxaitted that the prioea fixed for Uie Vic- toria top and liraouBine body are atnndard ^ricea, and de- fendant oontimds thiit r<8 tiiere ia no difference between the contract vrIu*? «ind the marJket value of the liiaouelne body and Victoria top, plaintiff has not auff •sred any daoiaKe recover- able in »n action at l»w.

llaintifl' ocntenda that the (scoda were oonteaiplated to be b vHj^ht frcw » trsanufacturer from whoia he v»ould receive a OOBi&iaaion in the asacunt of the jud*5»ent, and that aa defendant failed to tnk« and pay for the liaottslne body fmd Victoria top ftoocrding to hie agrecttx^nt, thia ooiaiBisaion ia the neaaure of hia dajBaf!e» for defendant* a brench of hia contract , It ia stipulated tt^t unleea s;la^int.iff is (7ntitl<9d to a coauiiiaaion froB defendant, und«r the agreeoient, of 2C per cent on $2400 for the liisieuaine body and |400 for the Victoria top, jlaln- tiff ia not entitled to recover anything in tuia eauee.**

Kotwithatunuine the eameat contention of defendant in Ita re^ly brief, it le our opinion tiiat. the gaoh case ia di- rectly in point.

^^ ^^ ^^^ ^X OR BO, Buprit, the flift»»uire of dMm&^9» <t{};lio«ble wh«r« a purahae«r of goods Ym» oo:»mltt(>4 a breaen of a con tract of sala ia stated »• follewa:

••Fimt. 7h»t the vender way atora tham for the von- d««, giva hlsi rtotioe that he haa done «o, anci then recover tha full contract irlca;

3eoondi. He tnay keep the ^ocds and recover tha «x£aaa of the contruct price over and above Uie aarket price of the gooda at the time and i-laae of dellv^try; and

Tiilrd. He 4iay, u|;on notice tc the vendee, prooeed to sail the ^rocda to the beat advantage and recover frusa tha vendee the lose if taey f«ul to briu$^ tae contract ^rice."

It ia insittted Uiat in the preasat eaae Uie defend- ant has elected to look for ito xm^e6^ under the third {.aragrapb above quoted, '."ven so, under the auti:iOrity of the Hagley ease, aa stated in that paragraph, it vaa defendant's privilege to sell the lathe to the ^eat advantage and to recov^^r fro» the {ilaintiff tha loss if it failed to brin«:^ tha contract prica. ?ha natural inf i^rence is that if the gooda did bring the contract price, than loss did not result frcis tlxe breach of the contract. The evidenoa shows that tha lath* when sold in f! .ioago did net fall to bring the contract price.

.^a assufiie that the defen<iant, the se}l<9r of tha lathe, «a» in fact its owner. Defendant insists tnat it is in tha business of celling maciiinery. Counsel for defendant say: " Vi^i&t iti it, then, that the appellant has sold which tkim lawyer lijiewise uelisv it is servioe* • tii»e, energy and endeavor. That m>B what vaa sold in tiiis oaaa." w de not so understand it. Tha defendant waa not engni'^ed in selling n service. The brcaoii of the contract w&a the rsault of a failure on the part of the plaintiff to aooept a ooaaacdity or thln«? that the defendant had agreed to sell and deliver to plaintiff, this contract wliich was breached in no sense required the perfe^sance of a service by defendant for the plaintiff.

brjioup

31*

It la our opinion that dMaMtmt auoii a* are ol»ia«d by the defendant are not Hllowable (siUxex under tiie Gosmon law or Ui« quottd atntutet; tmit the oaae is in fact, »ft stated in U-ie KacJb case, one cf dann^ua atn»qu<» liUuria» and that cnran if It b« ccnoadad tl^mt defendant Ims »u«tained loss as all«(;«d by r«a»on cf the fall* ure cf thtt plaintiff to coatply with Ui« t^rma of th« eontraot, tht loaa la on« vhloh cannot und«r the law b« eharged to the plaintiff. If the defendant aoted aa ai^ent in tii« re*aale of the Iftthe at Chicago* ita fair oosislaeien la chnrg«ablo againat the owner. If it did not aot aa such agent but re*»cld the lathe ae owner thereof, it in only perr^itted to charge the plaintiff »rlth the actual loaa eusttiined by It aa the result of the breach of the oontraet; and thia loaa la the Uffer^noe between the oontraet prloe end the ps'loe at ishloh the lathe «aa t»old and aueh reaaonable expenaea as were Inourred by defenoant in ita re^aale.

The ^udi^eut of the iitmloipal court will therefore be afflnsed.

Kosyreiy, l\ .T,, nnd iicldcs, ;r., ccncur.

) APiTAJ. won CIRCUIT COURT

]

(

?XIZABETH HOGOUGH, Adaniniattl^trix )

of the EiJtPte of KICIIAT-X K.fiu;..UCH, j

\ ▼«. /

/ ) OP COOK C01JT?TY.

OniHAaO AfTD 'S^ST^TI IIT^IAHA RAIL- )

ROAD COKPAJnr, a oorpax^tion« )

Appellant, j ,

\/ 217I.A. 644^

KR. JU3TICF DKViai .vKLIVERKD THF OflKION OF THE COUTJT,

A judg3D8«»Bt 'WtB i»nter«d in th« circuit eourt of Cook County agslnst the defen<iAnt, Chioago and Weatern indiami Hail* road Company, a corporation, in a suit brouf'ht by thtt administra- trix of the estate of Jtloiiael icGough, deceased.

?he evidence adi»ltted on tiue trial Si^owa thnt plain- tiff *8 Intestate wau attaaulted and killed by wne luichelletti, who at the time «raa in the employ of the defen<iRnt a» a watciuaen along its right of way. The oaee was tried before a jury which rendered a Terdict In favcr of the plaintiff for the eum of $5000. Judg- ment vae entered thereon and the defendant seeks by thi» appeal to rtsvcrse the judgmfnt.

It la Insisted for the defendant thet the Judgment should be rev<*reed for the rpseon tnnt the record contains no proof thet the assault on plaintiff *8 intestate was ccamitted while the defendant's servant viohelletti was engaged in the furtherance of defendant's busineas.

on BeceiBber 7, 1917, plaintiff's Intestif^te was employed by the City of Chicago as a police patrolraan. Deceased's body »a» found about two o'clock in the moming of that day lying near the center of Wallace street, about 150 feet nortn of blet street; at the same tlae there was discovered a auall cart which contained a quarter ton of coal stunv^ng in -irallace atreet near the corner of

81st street, tilohelletti, d^'fendant's w^tcluBAn, was crr^ployed on

the rlp^ht of ay of defen^iant south of 83rd street, The deoec*8ed B«t Uichelletl about two e'olook in the morrlniFr of the day in question as h©, Michel letti, wos pushing a eart loaded with coal along Wallace street. I^ioheletti shot and killed deceased as deceased attempted to place hijn under arrest.

At the cloi-e of plaintiff's case the defendant aOTed the court to ln»truct the Jury tc return a verdict for the defendant. This motion was denied and the o»se went to the Jury on the plaintiff's evidence alone.

On th€ fnota of the case as shown by the eridencs introduced on behalf of plaintiff, the defendant cannot be held liable for th? death of deceased; the aduiitted facts in the ease shoir that kioholletti's act 'iras not oosuDltted within tixe scope of his emplojOJQeut or in the rurtheranoe of his isc^ployer's business. There can be no doubt about tlie legal principles applicable to the esse, ^xere a servant cozsmits an unlawful and unauthorised act beyond th^^ scope of uia eiuployiaent and without any direction ao to do, or knowledce tiiereof on the part of his employer, such em- ployer cannot bp hold liable in daiiiages for injurii»8 resulting from such unlawful and unauthorised conduct on the part of the emrloyee. The authorities in support of this* principle are nu- aiercue. There is. ao contended by counsel for plaintiff, a line of suthcritiea tc the eff'^ct that where an act oomplalnrd of is not the act of a servant alone, but involves bIso the conduct of thf^ employer in eraploying and retaining in his tsmploy a raan whom the eoployer knew, cr in the exercise of reasonable care snould have known, would be llitely to comiult vicious and wrrngful acts, that the employer thereby becomes a party to the aot oonplained of and will bs held liable therefor, 'westfcrn >^tcne Co , v. whal en , l&l 111, 472; it in said that this principle is invocable in oases

where an act complained cf i« committed bv a servant outside the Boepf cf his .?jrployTer3t.

In th« cn»e cf 1, C_, P. n, Co. v. rin£, 179 Jll. 91, relied upon hy plnintiff, s trespasser on a ratlroad train was injured by the wrontlf^il ^ct of a hrfke.nta.fi «»h© wilfully dragft;ed the treepaseer from a xcoving train. TniQ caae is eaaily dietin- gulshable frcia the case ut bar, in the K in^ caae the act mt coai- laitted ejhile the servant v^as eaj] loyed cu tiie train within tne scope of hl8 authority, xt it» true tiiat the; cviaexjue Cleared that the braksaaan was not direccea or authorized tc wilfully and iiruentior.- ally injure the plaintiff, but the wrongful act wae cccciitted while the aervant v/ae engag^^d in ahd about the bueinees and v?ori cf the master. In the present case the only rtlrticnship w.icL the *vi- dence «ho /s t.ii«t the act cowplBined of bcre to th«» defendnnt or its buBineais was that it was ccBaaitted by one of Ita e'-sployec. It w«s not the r«-:8ult, of en Ptte-^mpt on thp part ef '.'ichellettl to protect, by e ?;iTful trrspass or cthf^r^iee, the property cf Ms ^.'rployer. The Rct vas coiBfir.itt«»d en » public street. Def enviant'a railroad trache near the rl^'cc whore decee-'t'^^a body was found are el planted and it io rdKittpd that deceased met his death while p.ttecjpting to place >. ichellettl under arresti: presuutably for stealing the ooal which was found in the cart.

The eviaencc tended to shoe that l.ichelletti ji^rier tc the ticjri cf !'.he sheeting had a refutation for being quarrel acne; that he had displayed a gun at numerous tir.fts durlnf the ccuroe cf his 'TToric for defendant, and one witness testified that he. htd cecn Klchell etti taie the defendant's ooal rn other occaeirns. But whatever klohellettl 's reputntion cr his true chor»cter may have been, the defendant was no more responsible for the death of de- ceased than if it had occurred while Viohellettl was in the act of coimnitting a burglary upon the preKiaea cf e privsto* citizen.

In the o»a« of johanaon v. Tne -?il 1 Iwm johntBton

I^rtntln}.; Coi'r'finv, 263 111. 2i6, the iiupreaie court 8»id:

"Outside the accpe of hl» eDployiaent Uic ecrTant is as muoh a stranger to nis mnster as any txiiru person, fuid an pct of thp aervrnt not done in thf: execution of s<.=rvxceB lor which he ^ms enfaged cannot bt regarded aa the act of the rrootffr, Tf th<^ servant steps Rsitle froia hia aiuater's lust- ness for some purpose "ivliolly disconnected with his fiwr.pioyaasnt, t>!* r*»lntion of Ktsetfr ond servant is auapended.. Tlir. act of the servant durin^^ such interval is not to he charged to his Rinst^r. TJiisj ':ioctrlne ia esstablished by subtstnritlsl 1 v all of the autuorities,*

In the crise of j! eel an v , Cv^f^Kenhfiifu, 210 ill, App , 1, the court osld;

"TViat in order tn renlce a nmster liable in tort for the acts of his serrant, it inust he made to app'^ar that the

tprvarjt at th?* tine cT thf allj>rp-d tortious act wn9 acting within tho Bcrtpe of his eraplcynent is elementary and needs no cit^, tion of autLorlty,"

The evidence ahows th»t the wrontrful ^ct 'imt cost- mitted '?rViile both the dcceeeed and licLielletti were off the ripht- of-^my of defendant, Michellewtl wss rjct in the performeioe of any duty iaaposed upon hias by nio effiployiuent for defendant; on ths contrary, he "fee apparently engefed in » crir- inel act when de- ceased attespted to pi see him under arrest.

It would be eict ending the rule verv for indeed to hold, under fncts eucb ps exist in the preisent caae, that an eia- ployer ie lip.bl' fcr "sTronKful acts of f>n employee wholly discon- nected fros the cervices vViioV. the flsfpployee is enga^fed to per- forsi, nnd tills lis or rven in « c&ae "fcere the employer has n^p- ligently employed en Inccmrctent or vlctcus persrn.

The judr^Bent cf the Circuit court will be reversed with 0 finding cf fpct,

RirVlRSKD WITH A yiKDIKG OF 9ACT.

180 - 25435 ynn^TUO Of Sf/^Ct .

•'/c: find na an ultimate fr^ct in thie cace that Jk'lchellettl, d«f«mdftnt»t «»;ploy««, <iid net aaaault nnd kill deoeaaed while he, >^ioh«llettl, ivas f^ngs^ed in the course of his eaaployroent for d^feni»nt or in furtherance of de- f«ndant*s buslneas.

224 - 25481

TH^ fAlli^ a oorj oration »

Appellee,

v..

iff cnuiKGO,

A^p^tiykat,

217 I A, 6-44^

K?,, JUiJTICf DKVigR D25I.1Vj?»:E3 TKB OHKIOW Oy TJfS COURT.

?iii» i» an undef^ad«d avp'^M TroEt a Judji^ent of ldsk« ^unicxpnl aourt in fHVor of th« plaintiff.

Suit wft» brought hy th« plointlff agalnBt the de- fendont* ctiarl«8 "downing, and vro. Churl «8 nowning, to re- eover th«? auA; of ^55,60, being a bRl««oo du«, r0 nlTeg«d» on « Mile of oertciln ^-rticles of household furniture. The evidence tihoitm that the i;oode were purohHeed by < re. ciuirlee T)o«ming on the inetfclltaent jrlen and t>iat ahe g»ve a otottel wortgaKe thereon tc eeoure tite paynent thereof.

It was alle^,ed in u^e atateta^int of olaiia tnat the gooaa oonetibuted faa:>4.ly exj^eneee unaer jeotxon 15, ohap. 66, Reyieed dtatutee of xllinoii», for puyxaent of ,«r*icn tiusjoand »nd wife are liable jointly and severally*

Oharlee Doirnins teetif l»?d t/mt he ^ma the i»ueband of Kre, Charlee T>owning, who died April U, 191b; that prxer to her death hie wife had no independent meana of hvfX own,

fhv goo da* When puro>iased w«re -hnrgftd tc the account of Ciiarlee Dovnin^^ and l?re, Charlee Downing, and by a receipt Introduced in evidence it appears that they were delivered to Ho. 6S1& Saerald avenue, the JiCffie of Charlee ■'iowninti; and hie wifej this receipt bearo the algns^ture of J'rs. Charlee r»owning. Tlie record shows that a pap«r tm» handed to Chitrles T>cwnini; on ths witness atand and he mis asked tne question, "Za that the signature

Ai'i

of your wlfo?'* and ho anoworod. "Ko sir." ]le maa further aaked* ■Do you know your ?^ife'» aiKnaturo*?* and ho anewored* "Vos," It doea not apfoar frotn th« reccrd isrhat pnv«r was har.ded to the wit* ncoa; it .%l^ht be nsstijusod that it was the reoeipt In queoticu, but it dcea «o'. so Appsar,

CtMTltfB T^owning»» testlwony is, «I nev«r reooivod any floods or the furniture in question frcK ih^ ffliir to ay knc/ledKO. I dc not know if ©y v/lfo did," , It ^wa not legHlly neeeesary that Charles rjowning should havo kno*0. edite of the recp-ipt of the goods at hie ].om«, Th» rooelpt in f^vidonce .v<i8 sosie proof of the faot that the goods srsrs dsliversd at r.o, 6&I5 i;itterald »venue> Dcwn* ing^s hoise, and iJls t^stisaoiiy that he ner^r reoeived the Koods to his knctfXedgs was under the curoui»»tiiinoea unifiipr«ssiv«.

It iu i»uown by Downing' s t@sti£&ony i.hat he sold Kost of hie furniture a short time after his wife's death. The stI* deno^ for the plaintiff ie not as ^trcn^^ as it i&igut be. but if it b« true* ee asi$«rted« tirtat the goods were delivered at rx^wn- ing*s hoE&e and were there riieeipted for by ills «rife, the property becsfise a faij.ily expense and under the statute Charles Downing was liable therefor.

The judf^ent of the b^unioipal oourt la afflraaed.

;c3urely, I, J., and Koldos. J., conour.

249 - 235fi7

'\Vpp«ii««.

▼••

JB£iSK »IFGA,

App

■' \^

COOK now"^v.

217 loA. 644

3

til© ^lnint.ifr brou^.i^it euit in tJU© Circuit court of Cook County t.0 r«tocver clasanfjies for »n nilegftd tr@tt}:ttfta jvuIcu »)!• olaiMS ocourr«d &:&y <il.« IWX7. A Judj|Ea»$nt foir ^&00 «r4»3 cnter«d on

?h^ first count of th« dtfelaraticn ^llet;t« that the <t»f «nd«nt^ Aooompaniad by ^ police off iC93r, torck@ into ond enterod a living ap«»jptji50nt occupl«<l by \Aiik%Vk%\tt \ th«% in i^o cioing <!•• fenc»nt £i»d(i> » gr<@«t noise unci disturbance; timt he acouaewl the plaintiff cf sorieue wrongdoing «nd thut U@ fcroibly entered tier bedrcoK, «hile ehe WKa Ui««!r« undressed* under a pretsnee of look* ing fcr a leek in ifRter pip«3; but in reality fi r tho purpose of hUBiill!*tinfi her »iid in^urini^ hor reputation, ?li« second count differs frcffi the? first only in a failure to a^aJke any reference to the polioe officer, ?ht» third oount iu the aaaie «a the first except Uirit it fni.la to allege thAt the defendant oUaziged the pX&lntlff «ith wrcnr.doing.

fiie defenattnl filijd :i '^i<&^ or tii« genera) iaaue, and steoiel pleas, one of mic^ i»et Icrti* tjiitil tu« defenv.Ant was itgent for the owner of the buiidinij in *uioii plaintiff's flat eae looeted; tuat as sucu aftcrit he negotiated « leose f-sr the ppert- ment In question between the owner ftni plftintiff, under which lease plaintiff isms HutUorized to occupy the prefitiees ns lessee fron August 1, lyiC, to July 31, 1917; th&t plaintiff went Into possssuion under this lease.

The l«A»e eo»fca.lnftd» aetoni^ etiittr prcvialonn, vh« following:

*t« allow tiie pnriy cf tiic first ja.tt fre« aoosas tu the iiX^ilamB £i«ir«t}y Iftaa^d for uie y.>urpoa« of exftr^ning cr exiiibiting tljk® aim«, er fco mak« needful rei.Air6 tc, or altttrtttiooa of Mild pr«»i«««, ti^ou M»id fimi party ttstxy act fit to aAk«;

•Tne le»s«e hereby exjreealy »«iiroa all riii<.t or rli^h-ts to any not.ic« cr dfti^And utiaer stny wLuvUt^i of thia BtidT,..} reU'tive to forcibiti etitr.y ana detainer, or iindiord ftnd tpnft.nt 'xnv? ai-ireea tii»', t]-.o le»ttor, iii* agent or ati»igAJi amy b«gin suit for r>o99e©»lon or rent without notioe or <!•• jBUiBd* And notxoe of eleotion to tQX,Ain&%e thi» i«ai»e , or iu>tlo« of uny election h«'reand«r is a©r«by wxiireawly -»»i"?«d,*

?h« plaintiff testified that the A«t ffri'Xtknt , rc- «o»p»nledi by r police officer forcibly broxe into her etpartoent on the aiet d»y of lay, 1957; that nc rent had be'^n j#tid for the uee ef the preaivi«!a for tl\»t Bscntli; %im% »ffc«r the tw© la^n had. entered the aiN»rt^)ent timt police officisr went tc her b^drcous and inquired, ""^ere i» that mm that waa in here*"* that the cf fleer aloe Bteted, "There ie a leak, there la a leaiv nnd the jpluiaber muot find itj* tiiat at t;-.i9 ti^e iUnif:e, the defendant, srae at^jnA- ing about lb feet away in a roo£s openiajK cff the bedrooe.,

Ihe pltein'tiif in oir«ot €xm>ktmt ou taatified »«

follove:

•<i, Jiad there be<*n a leak'? A, ?rever . (; , ui»a a pluiiiber ever been up Uiero to look for leuks^

A. ^«¥8, }'■■» had the week before because it was as old builrtinf? Rnd all the plpea wsie untinr the flcor an^i they were exposed and they «ere leaking,, tuey were all leaking,"

The tetstisony cf plnintlff, her auaband, »nd another

witnesB ie tc the effeot th?*t the look in the cuter dear of the

aparttsent ym.9 fcrolbly broVen nt the ti*® the defenlant and the

officer entered the preKieee. r^inira, the defendant, t^etlfied

that he had never eeen the plaintiff except on the oocaeion when

ahe el^rned the leese on July i^^. 1916; fimt on f^ay ^1, 1917, snd

l»«fcre that .late he had oewplainte from other termnte ebout the

plutcbine in the buildin^i;; that he went into u^e a^artutent "under

the l<liaenocn i'lHt and found the is«tor running oontlnuouffly; t'a% rl«ic« was flcsod«<i, pl«it«rlMg part mny dcwn;* th»t on vny ai, 1917, h« wt^nt to the building ©nd found a plusiber there; tvMt h* w«nt intc the flat bcilotr th« plaintiff •» and found tiiat tiio wat«r WAS riinning very freely frcas the fl»t Above; that he went to the baek dcur of plaintiff 'a npttrtssent ftnd rapped tnereon; ttukt there wae no resjrcnee and thet he ^lidn't he«r »ny eoveesent inaide of the Rpartuent; that he weut to thm frowt doer and rwjped but re- ceived nc reaponae; ttMt ue t^^en weniL 1.0 txie pci ico etAtion &cd procuj*ed »r. officer who went -siUi txic plambcr u the r.daonecii flat; ti^ut the defenMUftnt etayed Jin tue fltit toeloe end »t no tine entared pluiintlff ♦» apartsent; tnat he gav« nc authority of amy kinrt to thfi officer to finter plsiutiff 'a «pjsriiai»nt »nd that ae did net know he was jgoini^ to «nter it; that h« anC the plwiber both r«pj,ed on ti;e bscic door »nd wnre unptl «■ to ftuxn ndelaaion to plain- tiff »e apertwent,

<n cro»8-exaedn«ticB the defendant atat .»d tiiAt he exjlaln^-c th« oonUticn of tiil >;• aa ^hey wore tc Lute police lieutenHnt, w.iO eent an officer baci arith Lim to the building; ihiikt whatever icetruotiona the officer had received h«td been ob- tained fro& the lie'.^tenant.

(^Idwell* tivo pluttilue*', t«i»tif>'iag 011 beiJi^ilf of de- fejQOanL* e^at«id Ui»i ih^rc -vo.** it. i^ak xu ti*© «a««r i;;ip4;u» in piti^in- titt^a apttrtt^'CJit prior to i a.^ *il8t; tustt ih« water *a» running all the wiy to th« firet floor; that i.hia oonoitiwn uud insted ior tsore than a wei^ end liad eHUived plaster xn^ to fall; that L.9 ^ot Lc the yremlees at fe o'oloek in the Momiag for the yurpoae of repairing the pipes; Umt he knocked on the door of plaintiff's ni:artitent and tiould get ae reply arid tiiat he oaiiad stmt^ral li&ea. This wit- neee testified tnat h« could a^jar ituz&eone nalkiUfi in the aparta^ent, but could K«t 00 resiOHiie to hie calling or knocking at the door.

H* also teatififtd Uxiit. at wis vltii the offic«r virl^ft.i h«« the of- fxoer. finally bra^e iato tJtie flat i»ut. u.&t &ii»i« -^a net i&n« until the off icttjr imd kn<»o>.«d on Ui« d«*or a£(d ;^d o&Xled cut that h« <»a^ an affioar antji daalred to ^Hin a<JUiiJL salon to the presuisas. Luoy JJ«w»o:H, wiiO cecupitKi tx*« ay-arti^^wnt uncer U*at O0Cwr"-t«d toy tw« , laiatlfr, t-^atif iisti »» to Una Iwaii-inis; of «atar« •down tij.rc.u<cu aur flat frois tae flat Aiiove;" tuat uue iiad infcnasd tha plaintiff of taia ecnditlca and iaad toid her tUat the tli-jobar liad been tt*cra t»«fore and tlaat plaintiff saiii ijue; «fould lat his in the next tisa*. :,h« further Bt«t«d, "I know the plue^ber and I heard hi» jge up tc th« '(jUionson flat an«J Anoek. ?ii«f la«k continuad for ».bcut a week. I c»13«d up ^.:r. i}iitga»» cffioa *^Yax*y day.'* tSblH witnesa also testified txiat at the tiaa the officer a»4 the plwfilier entered the ai;a4rtii^e&t oocufied by ^he plaintiff* the da* fenoant was in the witaess* apavtaeut; u*At ufter the doer in plaintiff's ajartaient vy&s cpoued, tjue pluaaber Jimut in and stopped the leaJt s*na the officer wexjt away, a ^xtii^sis niio iived iu the aj.artuent ahcve that occupied by vu« pihinbiff tcatlfieu Umt he heard the polica officer Jknook on th« doer; that he "saw the plusber after they had gotten into the flat."

On the ^ole evidenee we thinJc the ^udjipjent of the trial court should be reversed. Only on* witness, the plaintiff, herself, ^ho 8e«i>» to be coutradicted In alaost every pp-rtieular toy 6evf?ral witn«aa«». testified that Bln^a, the defen.iant, wis la the flat at the tl»e the alleged trespass ^4ua ooassltted. ?h« evidence la overwhelming that Blnga's presence in the building %t the time was due to the defective condition of the »ater pipes, which ouused water to flow oontinuoualy frcsb the apart- aant ocoupied by the plaintiff down through tixtt bullhlng oausing aericus dat&age to ths property «^ioh it was the business of the defendant to protect. The ter&a of tne leasa gave defendant m

tc^ltAl ri«lit tc fsfiter tiie pTm&iutv for the purrest ct ssAklng r«» Pftlrs» and w« think the «rid«nr{c«» uliow* wltjiout question that th»t Tmo hl« 8cl« purpcoo at the buildlni!; on ?.^»y SI, 1917, The dttnial by plaintiff of th» fact that th« pipe* w»r« lealtlne: In h«r flftt is not aupj^erted by th« pr0po«d«rat}o« of tu« »vi4enoe» idiioh siTiOwii tk^T. the i;) Jtiiibfir had att«mpt«d on at'veral ocea»ion« to «<ain Cucoesii tt the- fl«>.t tor th« purj^o6« of timkirtg r«peir« waich would protoot th« property ond th« tAnnnta tjr}»rein. The ouilding «»• ooncededly an cid an* and the plaintiff flatly contradicted harself «ith ref«reno« to whether thor« w«re in fact any ie&k» in the water pip«a in tiis apartiiicnt ceoupi«'i oy ix9r, c.n direct •«a;»inat*on she Tirst stated t^iMt th^re never had l>«an any leaks in the water pipe* in her aparttsent ana in .nnawur *«t3 the next qveetion put to her after 9he had Tinde this 3t»t<r:<3nt she aff irssed that •*it was* an eld building s*nd all the pipee wae under the floor and the^ were escpoaed and they wars leading, they were all leaVinR,**

The erii^enoe sho^e thnt th*? tjeffindant snA ethers had »ede reaeon»fcl« ef forte to f:?»ln access to plaintiff »e apart- ttont without br«»a)cing; in tbe door. Under th«) oirovusistancee suown by th# record an «r.ergeney existed which called upon the defendant to act prc&ptly. uo far as the actual oonduot of def eftdant is ecncerned* even if this tcetimony of plaintiff be true* his only »et ws.o to utand in u coam r>djoinin^ that in wr^ioh the pleintiff w»e at tne- tir^e iha officer talked *ith her. 'There ie tcuoh r<^ascn to vioubt th« truth of the etory of the plaintiff oonoemin;^ her ecnvereation wit'u the police officer.

on th« wholi? evidence we are convinced tiuit the de- fendant neither intended tc, nor that he did. coiaoit any trespass sucli fts in charged in plaintiff's declaration, defendant had a lejt^al right to ent<*r the pre»si»es to laake repairs and in eo doing

b« i<{»4 a furth<gr rl^tht to use as smoii fores as rtaa rsftsonHbly neoeenary to gain nooe»s tJUtrsto, .^brx ▼, i2£JC2£» **' III. IB^i.

7ij® e(Vi.^<ftn«« do«a not. snow that any ill feeling •x- iatfd bctwevK t\\e ylalntlff and defendftnt, wnd thers wm no reteison, •o f«r »a the «»Tl4«^noe »ho^«s, i^y ths di«f«ndnnt 9houli wish, tc Ittpess any UT>n(?e#«»ttr/ h'^rdehlp 'spon her. There csm b« no dloubt about the ^«f»!«cti^« c^nditlcn of the «r«t*r ptp«?s In fa«?r »V'«t't{3«nt, and Dhe >ind an opportunity, if ahf aew f.lt to «x»rcl«« lt.» tc al- lo^r ths plujTibsr an 4 th» poJio* cfflosr tc «n6«r the apf*rt4;;«T»t without oo«p«lllns tbeis to do an fr.rcibly, ^?e think the deftn-iant aotcd In goor) fRlth» witbcut Kallc«» and ^Ith rvaaenable pru46no« in tb* exerois'? of a ri^ht Ys^trved und«r ti,*!: l«!^s«. ilgtor v» Pay, i'sS ni. App. ;:i4S .

"li* Jadg!it»«nt ol' Cue uj.rcuxt court will be revr.^raed with « flnUidis ol' fdcts.

Ifeaursly. r, J,, and Jjcldom, j., concur.

f*^'"."

?IKT!ltTC Olf FACTS,

V« find »« an ultirantw faot in th«? oii»« thirt th« da- fondant, J««i£)e TUn^o, did not «mt«r th« liYlng «ir<»i^tja#nt ocoupitd by th« plaintiff «nd that h« .lid not eft«s»it the aott and trespftssoa alleg«d atialnst hir In th« plaintiff's d«cl»r«tion.

277 « 25636 / ) / " X^

y I / '■'^

I -iy

\ )/ MI^'AJ ^OK imriCT^Ay, COURT

^ /)

Appellant,/ }

Oy CK Iff AGO,

217 I.A. 64

The defendant laeka by uil« appeal tc reverse a JudgK«tit for $500 and coats of suit entared agbicMt nia xn the Municipal court of Chic»^c.

?ho plaiutlff on Januajry 5C> I9l'j^ brought a re- plevin suit against Uie defendant to obtalo poasesslon cf a stock certificate for five sliares of the oa;f,ital atcok cf the Stato Coflii£4«rcial ^ liavings Bank which plaintiff alleged the de- fenflant en October a, 1915^, xrrongfully took «nd detained fro» i;4ci.

The certificate wae not obtained froEj defendant under the v#rit and the action proceeded as an action in trover for the value of the property all<»ged to h»ve been wronnfully detained by him. The case •m.u tried by thf; court without a Jury, and defen.lant was found guilty of having aialiaioualy, eto«* converted the certificate of ^vcu^j. to uis own uae and plaintiff's daina/<;e8 vere assessed at tue. aum of |&00«

It seene to be conceded txjit ono Joseph Biatta obtaineu the certificate of atock fro» defeniant by fraudulently delivering; to hl« in payment thc*refor a ^ottulesa check. There is soae testi£aony in the record >«^ioh if believed &t^nt warriint a conclusion that the plaintiff was not a bona >ide hcldier of the certlfioata, but th^re ia other evidence, which tiie trial Judge evidentl'/ did belL^vo, tc the effr-ct tlint the plaintiff received

the certificate without any notice of the fraud which had teen imposed upon the defendant. The evidence touciiing this question was for the trial Jtidge^ and we cannot say that his conclusion thereon was erroneous.

Some time after the plaintiff received the certifi- cate of stock from Biatta he called at the State Commercial & Savings Bank, of which the defendant was at the time president, and inquired of defendant concerning the value of the stock , The defendant asserting that plaintiff had no right or title to the certificate took possession of it and refused to return it to the plaintiff.

It i8 insisted for the defendant that the record contains no evidence of the value of the certificate of stock, the alleged conversion of which constituted a basis for the ac- tion. There is, however, some evidence in the record, aside from what appeared upon tne face of tue certificate, touching the w?lue of the stock. An attorney for plaintiff testified that the de- fendant had told him about three months before the present cause of action arose that the stock was worth $150 a share.

It has i.-een held thnt as against a wrongdoer the face value of the stock may be taken as a proper measure of dam- age* for its wrongful conversion. Earth v. Union national Bank, 67 111. App. 132. But vhatever the law of this question may be, we are inclined to the view that there is some evidence in the record which otherwise tends to prove the value of the stock. The defendant, at one time president of the bank, '^m.s placed upon the witness stand by plaintiff and interrogated as to his knowl- edge of the value of the stock. His testimony in this particular was not impressive; he denied having any knowledge as to the value of the stock and he was unable to state whether it had any value at the time the suit was brought. Under the circumstances

:ic:.Ai:

i'^'i^ o.

ll

.•in 7 a 00

no

iT SO/St

■;)^3

J jiji;iv

we are unable to eay that the court wne In error ue to ita oonclu* •lone ocnoeming the value of the etcoic.

The defenJttnt, ee the reeult of the fraud Isaposed Upon hJjB» Tcluntarily p«rt<?d with the oertifloete of atook. He •»« fit to accept in pajment therefor a oliieak which aubaequently eas found to be worthleaa. V.e oculd, had he seen fit to taJce oertain i.rtJoautierii8» have prevented the ligposltion of the fraud, ae the result of which Biatta procured >ioe8<^eaion of the oertifi* eate and, according to U^e t«ttti<sony of plaintiff, thereafter transferred it to an innocent holder.

The iu>Xej»m\t of the i«.unicipal court wil ; ha affirmed.

lic^ureiy, i, w,» and Loldcm, j,, concur.

A

af5 - 2&5&3

C. A, tOFGRSK.

|lPP«1 Instil

■>^ (.J

Cf CHICACO.

217 I.A. 644

L4

O

If ft. J unties xs^m 'imxymm ?eb eiimoK of rmt ccimr,

A Jud^ent by uonfosaion ««0 entered in the Kunlolpal eourt of CtilCMgo oh Al-ril 15» 191 ««, agj^inat Ui« d«fetidttnta for #7o9,8l. ^?«y 10» X919, ao order w»a entered of record in tlie oauee opening the Jjudipent nnA per;:£itting the defendants to file affidivvite of m^rita %i the ataL<?^^nt of clni« upon whJloh the Judi»«>nt w»a entered. Affi<i«iYita of sprite were filed by both defeckdmnta. ,

Upon « he»rln«ei; of the leauee the trial oowrt on Uey 16, 1919, found -^thnt «t the late of the rendition of Jud^^ent by eonf«*e9lon in tnie eauee tbere was due fro» the de» feadas)t«»i:;. k, yullentiw and C, a, j,ofgren, to the plaintiff tfie euja of ^even Hundred J'lne end ei/lOO Doll»re.* The ^eoord eho<je toMX, the Juii^jiient wa» entered upon a Judi^ent note dated June a, I'ai^ii, &nd ^xgned by aoUx defendants ub fi&akere; in«t the defe»dEint!» delivered to plaintiff a oert^in v!»ter ri.^hts ocntre.ot cf the orlRndo Cftnel end Heeervcir Co»jJ«ny ae security for tiifl pnyaienT. cf the note.

The defendant Lofgren's affidavit of /sprite eeta forth thet on imrch , 1917, plaintiff eaked T.pfgren to pny the note, &t ^iioh tlse he, defend«if>t, seid thet he vtts villinn and wm^Ay to pay the note provided plaintiff would return the con- trAot; that ileintiff did not In fwot return the ocntract to de- fendant .

livafci'tlr^

'ih<6 ilmtfmiismt v&lli«otia*a a.tfi(i»yrit of icerit* «&• nU>0tiU)ti«illy Uie scukv as ^.of gren*^ exoctpt uiut it <sa» furtii«r •ilX«ge<i therein tli»t on one oo.aslon plaintiff bad requeatcd this defondftrtt to «xeoutc «n aasli^miient of th« «rttt«r rii^its ccn* tract and Uiat plaintiff sal'l tjiat ^f Ue, V»ll«ntin, ^youl'l aa»iii9i tho oentraot to hila, he, plaintiff, woulcl t>« able to atll It and that hff wculd canoal the note In question and also enotr^er r.ote #iioh the aff i<lnt hud executed and ivould pay the affiant any aur* plus ariein^ tTos& the aal« of %he contract; that at UU» ti«e the affiant executed the said aaal^niRent, and that the plaintiff said that the note upon ^^hioh Jjud^csent in the present oaae vrae entered «a» ]paid.

The eridenoe tendii to prove tixat both defendants were j^akers of tus note in (lu^ation »nd ttrnt at the tijate of its exeoution and delivery a oontraot for two water ri»^:hta was deliv* ured to tiae plaintiff. Vallentia tostifi«<i tluit about two y^fars after tue delivery of txte note tXi« plaintiff saia to hi::v: 'vou msike that a^i^igniaent end if l etc anything.: witi« UMt oontraot and sell that contract, i will aettle that aoocant und pay you the diff erenoe t.h&% th«^ oontraot calls for fitore tiian th« note;** tiiAt h«:, Vallentin, Uien assign <sJ the contract to pl&intiff. The oontraot ixad to do with a certain irrigation souesie in Colorado is which Vallentin was interested. He gave it as hi^) reocllecticu that the winter rifjits, contract wea pvt up »9 collnteral security for tfio jja aent of the note, tofgren testified t-hat h«? algned the note in question and that Bhenstro» delivered to \'ttiientln a cheek for $500; that the contract ^i^as put up hy hiiis, Lcfj^rcn, and that Vallentin signed the note ti» the result of plaintiff's atateaont that he desired t»c si^ymtures to the note.

Dr, Hh«netro«», tue plaintiff, testified tl;at the water righta oontraot, suae y<^rs prior to the trial, was delivered by

him Rt the request of d«f«nda;itB tc a Vx , Johnscn and thnt h«« plaintiff, n«Tar knew what beo&n« of it th«r«aftBr, aithowgh he eupro9«d It had been aent to Colorado; that he neTer eel 4 the ocntract nor had »Ter made any «oney out of It. ;:e lonied the teatiiacny of both lofjcren and Vallentin »o far aa It related to sllefi©d 0tatv»aer:t» wade \>y txio witnoas. ir, Johnson, an attorney who reoeived the contraot fros p^laintlff, te»tifi«d that the oon- tract had heen turned over to him by Hehnstross; Uiat the "Canal C0B:p»ny*s" buaineee and affairs were placed in the hands of a receiver who sold the oocipany's projerty rights to pay certain reoeivor*u certificates; tlaai. the coutraot held by Uie plaintiff was, with other contracts, cut out by foreclosure; that nothing ■«as ever realised en the contract, and U^nt it had no vnlue.

The eridenoe abunilantly ahova tlmt th«< note was exe- cuted by the defend<«nts as makers; that it has not been paid and that the collateral security given to secure its ptyesent was vorth* lese, shile there i» n direct contradiction in the evidence as to certain conversations b«t«reen the parties, there is sufficient evidence in the record to wnrrant t}i«» f in Unij and Judicftent of th« triel court. The evidence sstisfsctcrily shows that the contract which was held as security for the payesent of the note was delivered to Johnson at the request of the defendants.

The judgment of the trial court iu r.ot crrcnecua and it will therefore be affirmed,

lioii^urely, I, J,, and Uoldoffi, J., concur.

570 - 2MS0

COOK CCUSYY.

217 I.A. 645

^ R. JUSTSCB SSmm Dlt.IVSfiED THIS OflBIOK 0? ?HK COURT,

T)ftfi»»dAnt ttpp«iil8 ttem a Jud^};n«nt of the f^uperlor court «nt«freci in tr^vov of the plaintiff for th« aim of $40^,

1l9i« first count of th« d«cl«r«tion fi3.«d in th« ettus« Dillegoa Uiat dtfttndant /tfo cttr«l««aly »hot and dl»oharged a leaded rifl« Uuit li« "then and tl^«re shot tuid wounded the plaintiff while driving on Addieon atreet« aa af oreaaid.** the seoond* third and fourtii ocunte u^k»r£» thnt >i«rhile plaintiff ««0 driving in an autcisotiile en Addieon etreet in uioagc the def«ada»t in Tiol&tion of certain ordintmoed of the City of Chicaico ftjiot "a rifle loaded wita'^. |.owder im<i bullete in euoh i£>ann<'r thnt h«! dhot and wounded the plaintiff,*

Xt is ineiated on b«»lmlf of the defendant that the evi'.lenoe intr-trduced on the trial w»» net auffioiant to warrant the verdict and Jud^ent agnlnet hiio. The evi^enee siiowe that the j/laintiff about 6:3C e'clccic in the ffvening of 'ay 5, 1'*»16, 'ivaa drivinr an autcssebile w<*et on the north >jide of Addiaoa •treet» an e«»t and vest atreet. in the City of nhioago. Mtkimn he euddenly felt a pain and disoovered that he had been a;.iot. The defendant, T>ledel*e, reaidenoe wae located on the aouth «iide of Addiacn street, about 150 feet east of the point «her« the plaintiff «aa AliOt, Two witnoaaea testified that at or about the tiae plaintiff was shot taey aaw tjue defendant in an allej at the rear of hia reaidenoe with a rifle in his hands. One of the witneases. Mrs, Nelaon, teatified that she was in

h«r hca« which tMiii •ltuAt«d 25 f««t fr&sat tii»K of d«f on^lant**,

^on 9ii« h«ar4 » vhot; that L!h<» locked ^ut ftnd nav niedftl "ooat

in hl« Allay gAt« wKh a rifle in hie hnn(jl9«" ?h« %it»%\.mony of

Mlsa ivROh la subatftntinlly the mus« as that givan by Kra.l^alaoo.

D«f«ndant» when en the vitneaa at^nd, ndUoittod that

fkbout th«t tina plftlntiff »aa injurad h«, def^n.lMnt, waa in tita

alley (uud he a«iidt

**X (got the rifle and acsse bird ahot, and put the bird ahot 8i-4«il in th© rifle; by that t,im^ Uie rat wue i^,on«, X »aot out tne back e,ate and ^aikad to uy n^it^nhot* ^ barn and atood fiv@ ox ten ^ainutes, (g-fixt.i.xH;, f cr tht^ rat. Ihe rat then atucii ^.ia i:iead cut under tjc;e atructure Knd X 4hoi at ixim with tite acattered uhct. 2 txien waliced bnak tc my yard and lookod over and aaw two aut..i^.obile8« and then two £$en c£u&e ^alJcing acrcuQ tti«5 prairie arid up to th* fence on the weajt side cf ay let, back of ssy houae* I had my rifle in fay nand, •: ne of the sen anid, 'You **het a ajson,* I aaya, 'You arc^ craay. i uculd aot ahoot a i&m\ v?ith scattered ahot.' ;..catti?xed «i.ot ia lit- tle bit of aiiajt, about as big as a pini.ead,"

The eridence offered on b<?half of the plaintiff, «ould, if taken by Itaelf, euthorixe %ht v«»rdlet a^ainat the defendant evea t^^cu^h no one ea« the def<?n^lant fire hia rifl «^ in auoh man* ner aa would cauae the injury to plaintiff. The evidence, how- ever, introdueed en beiialf of the defendant preponderate* ao overiffhelElni^ly over plnintiff a theory of the eaae that the Ju(.i|ii£^nt of the trial court isuat be reveraed.

Clix witneaeea teatifying fof ths de reliant aay that

at th« tij^A^ plaintiff waa aji:iOt two boya ridini^ on blayclea and

armed witja riflea were aeeo shooting at autcj^abxiea paaaing on

Addiacn atre>at. It iic« ithown that defendant waa not one of the

two boyti* lisabeth lioff^^an teatified aa followa:

"About 6:30 in the evening of ^ay 5, I«il6. i aav two boya on wheel* suocting at autoa on Addiaon avenue. They had been ahoc'tin^ around there fcr several daya btfcre* and then that unmn evenlaif, ^/aa Juat oomiog frc.-^ tnc houac and going do m to th« oomer, when I aeen two beya en «^eela, i%nd two automobilea eonlng fro« eaat going weat, and thoae two boya were beliind thea and I heard a ahot, and then I h«ard a aoreaai eaa then at the comer of Central * arit avenue and

ai$:iai 1i

AddiBon. I mm.9 gox^kfi up to the auu»aobJiltt» to «•€> wuo It vaui, but they leapt going, ' .uc^y titocd fcr a Ictig tlj&e uj. At tiia oor««r and then fflOY«d uvrtty, ;iie boy a tiicn rode w«»t on Ad- dieon av«nue«"

'llsabath 2'jevnra testified th»t »h« saw the t«c boys riding on blo.vi3l«8 on Addiann RV«nu«; tlj^t tL«y had rit^l«s and W9t9 shooting at automobile tir«t and hnd bacn 90 •0£»i$«d for About t«yo hours; Uvat '"thay were riding up and dotvn, »»d nhttn «n «utc££obilfl enrae p«»t tl>»y would •hoot," '^r>n n«k«d if th« boya hud hit anythinii aba Rn»w«r«d, *I onl ' h«»f»rd ^^n tha l»dla9 aoreau^ad,* Sophi* 00)ith*« t«9tiraony la aubitsmtlttlli y th« SHaie, 3ha aftid* "They war* tiirin^ at th» tlr«s, uit tha back of ru« tiMRObilaa, ttfjd 4*11 of a »u<2d«n I ii^ard a wor^an aorean: in or;e of tha Hutciaobilca; than thaaa boya ran «Feat on Addison street.** Thla wltn«aa alec m.id that m^e aftw nn ttutoisobile at»p after tha boya had run W4»at on Addlsson stre'ist Hnd hud aa@n "thtta exurry a boy put of Umt autajsciObilQ." ClHra Le«itndo^«3kl «nd har huabtind also testified that th^y aaw the boya shooting at automobiles about 6:30 o*olook on Uin avaning in queation« 7hs taati»ony of l^atoir Graff waii^ to tii« amis.e off«ot. Ml of tiie vitnaaaaa ^;o toatifiad for dafandant livad in tha louaediata Tloinlty *hrr« the shootinig took plaoe and their taaticsony as it app^ra in tha abatraot la poaitiva and unqualif iad that at or about tha tima tha plaintiff «ra» Injurad tha ttvo boya wf shoot* ln£ at tha tlrae of passing autosiebil aa.

}fCllQa officers who tallced with dafwdnnt aii-ortly after ih« shoe ting taatifiad tliat h«?« dafanOant* danlad shoot* log plalBtiff and that h« aaid he had baan shooting at a rat In the yard; that ha "shot scattered ahot* and not a bullet; that after thia conversation they «ent into defendant's hoaa «Ai«ra they found two boxes of oartrldges, cne of aoatt@rad shot and the other of leaden bullets; uaat aeveral oartrldges w«rs ffilssiog froffl the box of bullets.

Tbt rttoord oontain* no potitlv* or direct •Ti<i«nc« that the d«fcniliu:t injur«d the plaintiff. 7h« six wltnesaea who testified for the defeiK^Ant -m^rtf, uc for «• th<i record etiowe, disinterestedl* and their t<r<8ti£aony ie of eo poaitiYO a oliMracter na to le^ave no doul>t that the injuriee plr^lntiff eustained <nrere net cauaed \>y HSi^ aot <!f th« defendant* but by the unlawful oouduot of the two boy* wUc, the evicienoe ttii^owa* were at the ti^e the llhce^tins tock plaoe endeavoring tc explode tires of paeaing au- toaiol>ilea by ahootin^ at tuex. The fact that at altcut thie tiae the defendant happened to b<£ ahooting at a rat in the alley haok of hie hoffio ie perhi>.i^ii» an unusual oirooiaQtHnce, but, under evidence ac £itrong arid aatiefaotory as that introduced ivr um def«^ndant it »uat be held to be a mere coincidence*

The Judjipsent of the Superior court will therefore be reveraed i4fith » finding of fitot.

REVl^RllSn: ■ffiril A FIKjIKG 0? FACt.

1^03urely» ) , J,, (snd iCcldoo. J,, eancur.

370 - 256ao jfURIIKO OF yACY.

W« tin^ as an uitim»t« fact in the e»fe tJaat th« d«« fcftdAnt was not guilty ©f ay;y unlawful or ne£;llfcCBt act which eauaad tlie injury to plaintiff.

S79 - ii*o6Z9

UAX..i(.lCKW

COCK CCUKtY.

217 I.A. eA5^

I?n. JU.JTIC2? DKVT^R UKriVBRlfD THE 0FII?10« OF THK COU»!?.

This ia »Ti nppesl frrja nr. cr(!«r of th* 3up'»rlOT court directing?; a reoeiVf^r tc "pny t<* 'fj-x ^•iok<»l , oorar-lBlnppt, th« auai cf f?10M,82 i?ith lnt<»rffst th*r»»cn In full pai-m^nt of * defini^^ncy du« yickel on certftin notes m)d a. truat J/j-^d **oreol Oaed in tbe o«us«» and i.c pay a balance cf ^Bl&^M in %h^ hunda of tii« receiver to l'«tition«<^r, appellant here,

yMtCii 29, 11*17, tn« co*il«in««nt fil^d » bill to ff reolose a truat de«d upon re»l estate in Chicago , a receiver wfts appuintwd tc collect th^ rent* »nd profit* of tix« property, wiio tiurlne hi» Pdnjiiii at ration collecteil n tot«l sum of §49*7, 30,

But one principal question is in cantrovesriy b«tw««a the parti ro, nnd that ie whether the Chf^^rs duller -rre<3 in ordering th« receiver to apply a purt of a halfince cf th* rent* And profits in iiia haridi in paynent cf n d«fiol«ncy which ««■ deor«<«d[ to h« due COO); lainant* The not* and truot deod forpclosert v«re executed by ChArlea p. fituert and re«rl I. atunrt, his wife, miile the hill waa pending Charles T), 3tu«rt M^d, atiiart nn<\ hl» ^ife h. 1 d title to the property in queotlcn as joint tennnta; the tl^e of Charles T), Stuart. Uierefcre, vft«T.ed in learl I, ;;tuari upon his death. The trust deed foreoloded was »uhj eet tc a prior aortf,;age of $9,0(0, the cause was referred tc a master , who reported his findings and ccnclusiona to the court.

It appears fro« the report of the eriister anu the de* oree of the court that i'earl h, atuart had failed to pay interest

on her ind«bt«dn*sa tc comylainant and Uunt ue. In order to pro- teot tild lien, had b««n goM]^«ll*d to pny aon«y dut en tlie first mortgage* Aa well aa tmxea, special aaaaaamftntjd and ethor in* dabtftdneaa which constituted liens againat the vret.ti.«att. The property «as aold under the decree and a deficiency decree vas entered in favor of the ccaplainant. A sihort time before 'he expiration of the equity of redei^aption period I earl ^. 3tuart aoeigned to defendant frhatever rights siis h^^d to the rents and profits issuing out of the property in the hands of the receiver; she did not, however, oonvc^y her equity in the prefsiaee to his.

The trust deed whioii wae forecloaed conveyed to a nained trustee, fcr the purpoa* of aeourln^ perfcra.»noe 6f the covenants in th£ deed, real eetate vhich ams d<ssorihad. "to- gether MxUk all reutd, isj^viin^, rrc^;;! and profits of said precoi* sea," otc. th& trust deed alsc provided tnat the grantors therein auauld pay the principal indeotedneas which the deed was iiiv9/i to secure, all taxes, assessis^^nte, etc., and it con- tained the covenants uaua.l in truat dee^da of lixe character. It prcvirted in case of defjtult for foreclosure «nd the grantors waived *all right (o the poasesaion of and incoaf froa said pre!&i««e, porjillng such foreclosure prceeedinga, and until the period of redemption frost any sale hereunder «»xpirea, and a^^rees that upon filing of any bill to ferecToee ts.ia truat detd a re- ceiver ahall and Riey at once b« appointed tc take peaeeaaicn or charge of said preiaisss and oollnot euch income, nnd th& aame, l«ss receivership expenditures, inelurling repairs, insurance prsiaiuffiS, taxtts, aasasarsents and his ooasttiselon, to pay to the person r^ntitled tc the deed under the certificate of aale, or in reduction of rede-i^ption money if aaid premises be redeeiied."

Ite question i» raised touching the legality of the decree, nor the order appointing the receiver to collect the

rents and profits, The dscree, nfiiia. wrs ccnfirRfttery of th« i£e9tsr*8 report, found that th« assignor of the r«nts to de- fendajit, >earl y, Stuart, had failed to pay liitertst en tUo In- debtednooa du« by her under a firat nort^^age and tliat «he had net paid tnxes vn the pre&l»ea for the year 1917 and 1916; that she aler? liad failed to pay a special aesessatent due t^.erecn. A few day* before the equity of redaj^rtien owned by 1 earl jr. atitari hsd exrlrod. she aavigned whateyer Interest she had in the rents in the hnnds of the receiver tu petitioner and he riled a peti* tion aokmt.; tnat the rents in Um juiux'Xn of ttxe reosiver be turned over to uia. We are unable to see any %erit in petitioner's clalt£. 7ht x^entB and proi*its iasuing cut ox' the property wer« pledfced under the trust deed to secure the pay«ent of the iu- debtedntiss. The petilion^r ie not ^n the position of a purchaser of a cei^rtificate of &nle under a decree; he is merely the assignaa of ??hatftver part of the rents soil e<s ted by the receiver became tha property of tlic aeaignor, the owner of the «<|uity of redaraption, 'he defendant stands preoiaflly in the pl»ee of Pearl I, Stuart, fho owned tha equity of redemption in the premises at the tiiae tha asai«J3r.ent was aiade. Ae such omer, under the- expreas terius of thr trust deed she hi»id no right to the possession of any part of the rents and profits in the hands of ti»e receiver until the de* rioienoy decrei! wuieu uHd been cuti^red against her had bean sat* isfied, The cvMsplainant as againtit the o«/ner of the equity of redaaiption crher assignee had a clear ritsht to t^iO .'cuo^ of the rents in the hands of the receiver aa would satisfy the defi- eienoy decree, »nd this is &11 tnat was awarded %o Uiu.

In the oase of ochaeppi v, jjartholoHiae, iil7 III, lo6, relied on by petitioner, a question as to the right to the poiisesa- ion of certain rents in the handa of a receiver arose between the owner of the equity of redeaption and the purchaser of the property

9'jritji''

und«r Ui« d«or««. 7be o^;ap)Minftnt in tne ouuae wns th« purutxAseV fund ha aougjkit to obtain poaaeaslon of rentti in the r«oeivar*9 hiinda After « dcfloleney decrnn ii»d been eatlnfied out of the rents, in that o«ee, a« in this, the original maicers of the notes and jaert^stnge were alae the owners of the equity of re- dfln«tion and w'^re p«;rsona1,ly liable for the debt, and, as stated In the esse of 5>tev»ne v. pearspn, 2f2 111, App. ii'<i,, the rents and profits were prop^^rly «i>plleri to satisfy the deficiency de- cree Mgainst them. In the rr^o^nt oase the owner cf the equity of r«derr:ption, Jearl P, Stuart, w»b the fflftk«r of the T,ote the payjBfnt of which w?»s secured by the execution of the trust deed. The indel:tedne«» cr^nteii by th** notf waa net j^^rstirely oatlsflsd by a ?al© cf the j-rcperty Tin<<«»r th^ drcr<»e. She was, there- fore, j-«r8cn«»lly liable for the deficiency, in pny»*nt of wtiioh the recK^lver applied a jiart of the rents in his hands,

m the esse cf cowell v. Gnntzi^, I7t5 IIJ. App, 482, the ocurt said:

*Ttif facts in the ct^ee at ber i^et^e to Uiatinguisb it from such cases cited a© bear upon the preoias caesticn Irvrlved. In the case at bar, Rfrell ^nt, the o«ner of the equity of r©de;:.iPtion, expreasly ass^itied and agreed to pay the fsncuwbrwnces upon the real estate, and h«, »» well as the KsExers of th<? notes, arc shown Ic bp Intfclvent,"

Holding »s we do that the aeslgnee of the rents has no better title thereto than hla assignor, who was the cmier of the equity cf redessption and personelly bound to pay the full amount ef the Indebteflness cr«««.«<l bv the note which wae secured by the foreclosed trust deed, we are constrained to held that the defentiant was equitably entitled to reoeifs only so »uch of ths rents in the hands of the receiver as rs* aained after the payment in full of the deficiency.

In sui.|>ort of his contention that toeoauss ooKplain- ant aads no elaijs to the rents and profits in hia bill the court could not award then to hiat in payment of the deficiency tive

Ottv^s of Longl «y V. ^11 jc, 171 m. Ai>p. 419; Wickctt v. Hoating», 209 ID, App. i*06, nn<5 strygng v, icuraon, »upm, »r« relied upan by oouna«l for petitioners, 'ho »n?if>r% that, thif**? enses -jT« ld»nt*< cal In princirle with th« present «r««, ^ffi do net think Bo, AS we understand th« d«cr<»9 in thl« tnatt th« oofp/plRlnnnt did not r«- oeivs «ny of th* r^tnta «n4 profits in th» hands of the rec«ivsr fts purotiassr at ths forecloaur* »«1?5. Th« only Rcney ordered paid tc the eoisiplHinant was the assount .me under the d«ficienoy decree una the balmace was ordered to be turned over to j.smmrta. Tiie trust deed provided tii»t rent» in the joseeeaion of the re- OPiyer should be paid to the o^mer of the certifioete of sele. Thie provieion lioes net ntsrof/ftte othRr pro^ielone In the trust dPf d which ft !"d(K;ed the rentJ^ to ®eeure thf; puymmt of the exort- jKRpe lnrie>)tednoe9, Th*^ court hnd aa'pl* power tinder the proTlelont Cf the ^runt dp<*^ to pryly rents to th** paysii*nt of th<& naiount due under the deficiency decree,

Fven if the trust deed oenf<»rred no express authority fcr the aprointaient of e, reoelrer tn collect the rente, •? court of equity under fnots such »» eielsit in the present case »»ould hnvs power to effort! this relief to oompl»ln«»nt , ytrst Vfttional p^^nk "** 111, at eel CO., 174 111. 149.

Ks«pl»p in ff'ind tliat thle 1« nn appeal froff an order distributing rent© in the hands cf the receiver and that no ajv'«l was prayed i roia orders appointing the receiver and aiirp roving hie aooount and report, it is our opinion that the supple: en tnl bill was sufficient to authorise the order appealed from, The com- plainant does not take the rents and profits awarded to hi« as holder of the oertifioate of purehsse; his ripht thereto results f the deficiency decree in his favor and not otherwise.

The order of the superior court is aff iraed*

AFFtaUBd,

M»««

tfrrt«i;--' t»i

• K'

tt)

401 * 1^5662

FlRDYUAlfD ^AH0WZC2.

\ Api:el]f«»,

Ap Wl 1 HT) t ,

U < 0 O J

A3I-KAJ. FRCK CIBCl-I? COURT 0? COOK COUNTY,

2 ][ r ' "^ '^ <* 4 ^

Tii« plainiiff reooTer«u h ^uati;]Bent agMlnat defend* •»t in the . juit court of Cook County for tue sua of ^5»&0C and defe/idunt seeks to reverae Uiia Judgiaerit by ttppeol to tbi« court.

rh« d^laratlon ccn si sting of twc countg emerged that plaintiff sustainsd injuriss while in the -ajsploy of defend- ant in tae 'oork of storing and lifting large rolls of paperi that tiAiile sc ««3ployed thft defendftnt, through ita 9erT»"t», negligently eaused n roll of pjiper to fall nj^ainst plnintiff; that plaintiff at the tiRie of the acoident tms included >fithin the prov laions of tile ^or]osiHn*tt Conpenaatien Aot in force July 1,. 191d» i^nd tlutt defendant prior to the accident had filed notice of its election net to proTide or pay compensation in Hcoordance "^ith the provi- Biona ef the act. The declaration nlao nlleged iiiat defendant nemligantly failed to provide plaintiff witi. a safe place in which to work and oeisili gently/ find knowingly eoiployed certain in- competent and unskillful serv8nt<^^ to e^ssist plaintiff in the work of moving and lifting large rolls of paper; that as a re- sult of the alleged negligence on the part of defendant the said ■erYants inconpetently, unaklllfully, suddenly and neglif^>ently caused a large roll of p»p«r to fall on plaintiff, whereby he «a« injured, ^lef er.^iant filed a pl«)n of the general issue.

The defendant publishes a ally newspaper in Chi-

•«g«; it opcratei* a printing plant wiUt power dirJlv«n nnohintrx* and prior to tha dat« of tha aociilant it iukd elected net to pay cooipimaittion undar tba tforka ca * a Cojapenaatlon Act, on Saptwabar 1» 1916, plaintiff with cartain of daf endant* a flsatployeoa ware en- gaged in tik« vtotk of atoring large and heavy roHa of paper in a baa^^ent, iwliioh had been rented by defendant for that purpose ; thia baaof^ent waa in the vicinity of d«9fendarii*a publifahific plant* but waa not eonneeted therewith. The roll a of ps} «r were lowered into tue baacnent throu^^h a trr%p door in the sidewalk and were then tak«n, one at a tic<ie, on a hand^tnick to a Y;luoe in the baaasent wh<^re they were to be stored.

Plaintiff, a laborer, 9bc had been in the defendant* a «aploy for six yeara, on the day of the accident ^waa atsinting other mmi in the unloadint^ and ^siovini; of tii^. rolls of paper, setae of wiiioh vrere 54 inohea and others 74 utcuea in Icsn^fth, ilaintiff in UiQ abaenoe cf the forooan aaaetijsea acted aa a *atraw boas.* ?he plaintiff tme on*i of a g&ng of four sien. The niusnor of doing the work and the circuni»tsu)oea attendint^ the accident were about as followBs

"Ifhen the roll of p6p«r w»a tajsers to the pierce where it ^»9 to be atood on end* tne end of the roll at the end of the truck v»cul4 roat upon the floor. ?h« truok weuld be eteadied by the trucker and two of the other aen in the gang wculd then pi woe under toe ^n J of tht? roll which «till ramaiaed upon the truck a atick nbout four fe<?t long« A rsan would then tieae either &r-A of tisia stick, th* third wan ii-ould get in front of the roll, and by th-sir unit<*d pffcrte th« roll ^ould be hciated into place ac ttint it ceoupiffd an upright position. At the tise cf the »lle«r«d accident 75 inch rolls were being placed in poeition under the sidewalk at acssie distance fron the »i4ewelk hoist. Th# four leen above nriEaed had been working in th(9 Bmos gang all day on the 3rd of i^eptefuber and h»d i laced in poaitien doc or 8CC rolla in the aenner described. About five o'clock in the; afternoon one of these rolla «»a being plaocL in position in n ap^^ce acre confined tnan u«uaX, there bning on cn# side of the space in question a pillar, of «>hicn t'^ere i?ere a nuaiber in tun biiae;r<ent, and on the oUictr side other rolls which had already ueeu placed, bkebitia and John 2e»eoki were lifting tiie roll by ineana of tiie stick »nd the plaintiff fac- ing theffi was assiutxn^ in this pruces^ witu iUs hands upon the upper edge of the roil, when the roll was raised about five feet frca the floor, Zenaeki and .ikebitia could not pull

Xcngor upon the stick tc Bdvantaeft l&«cnus« of the poiiitioa In wixloJa th«».r w«ire >;l»o«<i, Tu«y therefore drci-jftd the stick, Tfitkeiiing Mround In front to aaaltt th« plttintiff in nclding the roll and pu»hing It into plnoe. Ab they did this tiis |!l«intiff utt^rsd »n «xcl«j.'.ati< n nn& felt » pain In the re- ticu of itie ab;}OK-en, Tie rfM.Rimsd in t!;0 sftfrirj pCHition sup- porting the roll, however, until the thrs© spn puar^ed it into |lsc« ir5 ftn upright pcaitlcn. ylwintiff then stejjed to one oia* ijind sftt down ufcn « roll of paper «hile thfH other tnree isen, including the truck er, placed the roffi«inder of the lond* l^elng frofii 2 to 5 rolls,**

The evidenoe introduced on tue triftl tends te prove that the plaintiff sustained « double inernla as a ecu sequence of tbe ftcoideiit.

It ia our opinion th&h the evinenoe does not aho« ttoat the pldistiff received injuries «rhile engui^ed in an extra hassrdotts e^tiplo^eot, ?he 'br^setaent etiicii h»<i '£)een rented by de* fendwnt to store the rolls cf psper was not tUreotly ccnr^ected vitn its publin^ing plant, 30 far as the evidenoe si4»ws, no »&.» cixin«ty was used in the Isasecaent tiud the work wliioh the plain* tiff «As engaged in cannot be said to have been in any sense extra iinsardous; he and his oo-ep>ployees were ett^m^ed in amoving fhe rolls of pnper upoa a truck and stm-.ding thea upon end in the b»seffi«nt. ?his tvork required the use of no laaohinery nor any exoettiortal skill. The l»borinir work was of a cotsHjon kind aii had no sp^oiai elements of danger connected with it* It is true that the defendant op«rat«d a large publisning plant where jeaa- ohinery was esaplo/ed, out this plant and th& vfork iionn therein was not iu any way oonneoted witi;> the servxce plaintiff was ren- dering for the defendAJnt at tiie liam of th« aooident.

in tiie case of EsrertHjl v, Citv of J^eion, 476 ill,

167, the court said:

**hn ottployer who ia en^ni^ed in an extra hasardous occupation and who hints izsade no election to c<mii? under the T?ork«en»B Coapensntion Act cannot be onsspeiied tc pay ceapen- sation under said act to <^nv employee injured in An occupation not de^^ed extra hasardous un^ier said act simply because ouch eaplcyer is el»o engRf:ed in an extra haxnrdous e?siplcysient and la which said euiployee is not entSB^^d.**

:*1

j>w->

IB givinn; fiertaln Instructicna %t th^ Jury «t the

request of th« plaintiff the ocurt t»ld th« 4^^^^ thvit it «a» not

l^«rc:lseiM« fcr thr d«f*nd«rt te .«j«t t»p th# eo^rjr^on Ib.^ d«fen8«i

th« of th«f aaeumpticn of/ylBli» f*f th« ri«ffllg«no« of a fallow 9«rY»nt

or the orntributory n«iglif?«nc« of plaintiff. In this «re Diinic tho

eeurt erred. 7h9 (i«fenj<int Jb«d «l«cti»d not to be bound by tk«

CompenMitlcn Act, and liad ih« «vl t«»oco Sivovn, ns ire think It did

not* tiuit th« j^lalntlff at the ti£9« h<» r«o«l7«d l^ia injuri«8 was

«(n^a4;,6d in an <extr« Uasarcious eatpleyei«iit for d«f«naaf)t, t^i«a« de»

fon«e» under paragraph A of i^ootloa 3 of tn« Aot ^ould not bo

allevabXe tc th« def«ndant*

In the eao« of BJonaaw •?, loduatrlttl CWMiioglon, ZB9

mi. 49, th« aupremw court aaid:

"It i» posaihl* that f3PS3« prartia of tSia Tfork of ■proading: comont in road oonatruotion or r«j «ir any bo extra h.'*2ardou«, «uc;i «» prejnrinja; *»nd fflix.lnij th« ff)fft<»riHl tc be •pread upon the read, but tiio def «niant in error'* (emrloyoe) e«p1cvnwit and datieo did not requlr** him to «n«»/je in or ociae in ocnttiot witji thia kind of -vcrk, Fi» sole i^nip^oya^snt -was to pxkXl the flont over the am^i^nt nf t«r it had be«m p?nc«d on the roadway, this wro not extra hnaardous within the tui^mning of the statute, (tnd beosuMMi ^en^ oth-^r <«ftplcye«e tsay hnve been ♦ng»45:o<i in 80«e otU^fT j art of tho work nnat waa extra haaard- oua would not change tl«« oharaoter of th<? def'sndant hn er* ror*8 ensplcyfiaant or brinu hi« wlti*in Um prcvluAona of the Work^&ecn's Coaipeneation Aot,**

And 8o it may b(% said here, the plaintiff's ecle e»-> ploy&ent was te aid la the placing of t.iie rolls of paper in a»- tigned plaoes in tne basement. This vork was not extra hasardous vitixin the aeaiiioi^ of txie statute.

In the cose of Cotsyton ▼. industrial c:oaia.i<»8ion, 268 ni • 41, it was held timt a board of eaucation in taainuiining a aohool building «as not engH^ed in a haaardous occupation under paragraph 8 of section 3 of ti;e compensation Aot,

9e are of the opinion that the point wade tiiat the record lUscloses a yarianoe between the allegations of the decla- ration and the proof ia good. The declaration charges that be-

oimsc of tU« nei£li.(^«uc<i of the a«feuaant in nttsll^«ntly providinc

lneoiBpot«nt wad unoklllfuX aBrrmnta ttmi in fMXlini^ to furnish

plaintiff witia a «afo plae* tti «ork» and u^at tis^rou^h titia n«i{li*

e«ac« of certain sarvanta of the d«f«ndant, etc., a lArge roll

of paper fell againat the plaintiff Injurinii hi«. ?he teatiisaony

of the plaintiff and other witneesea aatisfAutorily ehowa that

the roll cf paper did not fall upon hissi and that hia injurxea

were not -^.ue to that cause. In teatifying the plaintiff aaid:

«lhile we were lifting, »cai«how t!io»e two fellowa on the eide let thff roll down and it v^tis tec hard for is« and I felt th« pain at th* eaaae tisse and started holT ering and they graV^bed the roll and stood it up, when they drorred the ■tick on the floor 1 held the roll in the ia«antls»e ^nd before they turned around l eaufrht the roll p.nd »tcod it up, »*-♦♦ I held it all the ti«e I tried to put tiTie roll of paper up, but these twc fellows stood it up. I felt n pain right in the lower part of the abdosven on tou- tjldes, Aft«»r tne roll ef paper was up I felt full of pain mnd I walked .lo^m two steps and sat down on a roll of paper,**

The evidence it try clearly shows that the plaintiff

ms eoapelled unexi^eotedly to suprort a '-weight vdvioh m^s jrobably

beyond his i}i.rength. At all events tue evidenee is altrnt that the

roll did not fall and strilte against him in «uOti etanner as to

cause the injury. Lake street .Klevated By. Co. v, ohaw, 'dQ:& 111,

NO appearance has been filed in tiiia court for the ap« p^l I ee .

?e do not daesi it neeessary «t ti.ia tine tc in licate •ny opinion as to whether the def!*ndi*nt waa or ^n.B not guilty of any negligence which proxlemtely contributed to cause the accident. The authorities are unanimous that a party plaintiff cannot re> cover a judgment upon a cause ef action not <»tated in the deolara*

tion.

The Judgnent of the Circuit court will be reversed and

the cause resianded*

]|«ifttrely, i. J., and Uuldo«i« ^^, ooticur.

■> <X9^

411 - 26672

App/llant, )

cnA}?ftra Brim,

(ppellee. )

/

■1 ^,

\

ATVYM. -fmm MUKlCIl^AL COURT 0? CKICAOC.

2l

}^ y i\ «

4 51

fcR. JU3T1CS DJSVSR T;36HV2Ma) TUB OJIKIOK 0? IfHI COU«?,

Thin i4 ttii ajti «'3l froa An order of the Luraoipal ccurt audtaining ft iimnutTer to a petition iiXed to vacute ft Judi^ment mud dlaealvaing the petition.

A Jud^^^asent vme entered in the cause in fmycr cf the def©yi'l»nt on a clnia of reccupmpnt or aet-off fcr trie- sua of $1,000. The plftlntlff eought by hie petition to faftte tuie judfiD«»nt voo«ted. The petition wft« dieralaaed bv the trim ccurt ■M)re than SO d«ya nfter the .1udi^:ffl«;nt wne entered.

T/« «re of opinion th»iit th*» ccurt errer! in sustain- ing the de- urrer to the plBlntlff'e rptition to vwcntP the Judg- fluent. By filing the dm:Airr*fr to the petition the defendant nd- otitted the truth cf th« atRtesB^nte th«rein, ?hw auit was hegun tjy the filing of « statement of olaia in whioh plnintlff ftl* lefjed ti.at the defendftnt had, under a written contract, purchased Biilk of jjlftintiff of Uie value of $4ye,fiC; tiiat thereafter de- fendftnt had paid $100 on tiJ.s inueDtedneaa, leaving ft net sum due plaintiff of ^3ii>tt,6C, The defendant •» olaia was to the effect that the $1QQ payuent constituted parent in full of the account, and in addition to tiil« that the quality of the silk ehipped to defendant was so poor that defendant had been injured and damaged in hie Ellk bueiness tc the extent of :&2C' 0. The petition to vacRte the Judrasent entered in f fiver of th« defendant set up in

•ub8tano« that aftftr d«f»nd«int had rofuaed tc p«y more tima tlco of the auai du« pluintiff, h«, jfl«infelff» In ?«bru«ry, ltfl7, re- tainftd an attomay of ^haaton* Illinois* tc oolleot tha l>nlanaa du«; that thitt attorney a^ployad a Chicago attorney tc bring th« siult which «aa bft^un aii;ain8t defendant on i^ebruary ZZ, lwI7: tiiat on iaroh 19, lldli^, a Chioa^tu attorney filed an affidavit of jcoail- Ing of notice of withdrawal of tixe attorney of record for plaintiff in the otiuee; that on l^aroh 21, 191i^, 1 laintiff not bein^; represented in court, tue case «ae tried by the ouurt «rithcut a Jury &.nd an ex perte jud^^nt for $10C0 waa entered in favcr of the defendant on hie counter elaim; t^uett plaintiff first bc^oatte aware of the Judgtaent agminet hiw on U«y 29, 1919,

The p«?tition to vttc«tr the Judftraent is toe lengthy to incoric3r»ta in this opinion, but it cuay be stated that if the etatemente therein contain(;>tl are true, then an injuatiee haa been done the plaintiff, it appeare froin tne petition that the plain- tiff had a meritorious olaltu a^Ainst tiie defendant am that the deferniant ftaa nc valid oounter-claixa againet the plaintiff. It appears also by the petition that the plaintiff had no J£ncv7led£« that the irn'atcn attorney Jiiad employed a Chicago attorney to rep- resent hits in tiie cause, and as a consequence hv>, the plaintiff, had no ienowledjse or notice or the withdrawal of the attorney n^o assussed to r«^pr#«ftnt hia. The petition shows that tlie plaintiff is m feraer; that ha is nnd (tlmiya has been a resident of Dul-age Crunty, Illinois; that he operates a fans owned by liis father and ti^it he was inexperienced in any business except that of fars^ing. It ia allc-^iftd in aubatnnce t'int the plaintiff had no know] ede* of either the apF«>ar»nce In the oause of f, c, Ferguson, the Chicago attorney, as his attorney or the subaequ<&nt rithdrawal of ?ergusoa as sueh, and that the plaintiff had no knowled«;e of the Jud«a>ent

, lli^taifsr^

a£2sa

■ sit

entered mgainot aim until ha ims served with a writ of exeouticn

en tiitt Jud|j9«nt by the aneriff of iTula^e County* and that h« tcck pro£apt steps thfireaft^r to bxtve the Judgment vacated. The Jud^ent in the cause w«w entered after the withdrawn! of the Chicago attorney. The notioe as shovn in the reoord does not oppetir to have been ad- dressed and m«iled to plelntlff, nor does it appear to bear the aigneture cf the s*ttcrney who »9suBsj«»d tc aot for the plaintiff in the cause, »ore than 50 days having elapeed between the date ct the Judf'sjent and the filing of the yetitl n to voontfl the order, the case is one wiicre the order should be vacated if it oan be held that the petition set forth grounds for vacating the order ^hloh vould be sufficient tc oause the sas^e tc be vnct?tted by a bill 1» equity under section 41 of the Kunicipal nourt Act.

In the case of Foote v* Liesj'aint 87 HI. -^ts, the court said:

*',^e und^rstarid the rule to be well settled that where a jud^ent had been obtained by fraud* acoiaent or otistaice, courts of equity h^ve Juriedlction tc grant a new trial at lav, or otnerwise r«?li«!ve aguinat the Judi^saent unless tr.e 3;arty aiSiainat whofii a Jud<?^<"nt haa been rendered ia guilty of negli- gence,

:ye are of opinion tiiat the allognticna in coxaplaln- »nt»s bill nre suffiaient if they are true, una thttir truth was ad-titted by den^urrer, to {authorize a decree awarding a nev trial in the action at law."

Th^re onn be no doubt that the judf^ent in tlie instant case was entered as the result of aooident or laiatake. Th« plain- tiff, situated as he teas, senwjs to have used r<Misonable dlll{?>ence to press and to protect his suit against the defendant, "^he Judg- ment was not the rnsuXt of any negli^;;enoe on his part. As said in the case cf vmlker v. l.ret8ing,.er, 46 ill. dc2;

"If it a|:i. euru ti;Lat the Judguent oos&plamed of is unjust and taat the party In good faith has used or endeavcrod to Cttiploy tx;e a>eans {^iven him by tiie law to assert his ri^; ts, and has been active and vigj,lHnt in his efiart» tc xuaice his de- fense, and is still prevented frc^ pre sent inn, a i&erlterious de- fense, equity will f$rant a new trial at law,*

tf'ifiii.'i

It ^ill not be n«o«a»ary to dlacues oth«r questions prcs«ntft<l toy counsel fcr the plaintiff.

The order of thtt it.unloipAl oourt la r«V(trs«d with direotioni» to allow the motion to vacate tint jud(£i«nt.

0;. ^

Ri ■ No,

keSurvly, X, j., and Holdoiu, J.« ooncur.

4«C - .^ft7&l

^a, \

ApjjelXe©» / J

)

) C? CHICAGO,

yRA!?>! 0 • BOSiTKJ^AUH «nja GEOKOE )

2l7 I.A. 64 5

^

R. juaTicK TOnnm !>.'»i..ivTm'gi) Tim ojpikio!? of th"?? com??.

hi Si! ia ein appflHsil fro« « Ju<igi«»nt of the Municipal court cf Chicago in fnve<r of th« plAintiff for thr^ 8u;fl of $ii93, ':)«fen(l«nt» aifpe»l,

Tbe »t.At(£2!r ent of clalat flXttd by tats plaintiff al- leged tiiBt h6 had been ensployci^d by d«fenJ»nt» as an lc« i£aouin« ex>«otcr to ereot iu'id install a c«rt«in reftlgeration plant and to repair a c«rtalu <»x,nvt plant for tu« 4efenuantd. it Jia di.cwn by t£i.« i:l eadinga filea i» txie cciut»e una ti«e (evidence asi...itted tlukt tii« plttintiff wast maployed by defoniiatits en »i.at vae knovn as a "tine and aait>«rl»l'' contract.

2t wa« alleged in an affidavit of Aierita filed by dafenaa»ts Uxat plaintiff performed ttie work required cf iaixa xinder th<? ocntract »o mt skillfully Uxat defendants ««r« oooa* ttioned t)i&reby serioue loss and dama^te.

The oaaa wa» tri«»d by thw court ^ithoiit a jury.

plaintiff testified tiiat he wia an loe jw-Hcriina erector of 55 y«=«»r9 exy e^rlence; that under tae ocntraet defend- ants were required to fumian all the jasiturial ana Uo, jlaintiff, was to perform* all tti« necea»i»ry work required ir. cr-sctlng and instil lin^ an ice i^:^Ci»ine,

The actual centres «::r«y t^&tween tue parties tc the suit is as td tlie r&amier in >vjjloh plaintiff perfcr»cd the work.

And th« detersiinetion of this question nna, ^-e think, a question ©f fnct which cculd b#0t be diet»rKiln»jl by th<j tri«l jul^e. 'y^*o twid ftXJ ©jrportunity to 80<? antl hear Ui» witneseea, Tlier* Is m direot contrstiiotion hh to the laanner in •«»r»ich tue dftfcniarit j erfcnaed tht work required of ia.im und^r %h.^ ocntr&ut. It it^ conceded U^uatt tb.« ioe t&aoi'iilnef w^iciii tins tc oe inssuaied lin tho i,lmi.t by tlie plaintiff. And certain pipes ounn^^otions therewlUi, w«re def«>ctlv« aftt«r the plaintiff h«d intiajested tc defendants thftt xie n^d fin- ished tii« work, With reference tc certain leaks the yAnintlff testified:

'♦Aft«pr the mnohine «m.s put in I'r, L»«giiur»t tested It ml the rccuffl»t of ': r, T/int«r. I was th«re whf?n the mtio/iine was beinff, tPBted, Th'^re are a few lervirs, tii'^re is nl ■mya in an old iiiftohine. "^'he lenks «ere just in t>;e joints v«ii«r« the pipes were rut back,**

''e WR6 «al:ed the qupstlon: "row f».rter you (jot titeat pipes intc the tanks thev ^^orJred &M rl|rht?*» H« answered, "vea, sir, *"*•■«* There is rjothinjg: wroni? «ith Uie pipes «¥Yer since I tested tiiea before tuey went up,"

The leaks referred tc by plaintiff w«re repalra4 by him. It is asserted that other leaks th6refift<*r deveicped, but tiie trial court >»»» apparently of the cpitiion that sue.) leaks ware not unusual and tliat tbey were not oausad by uuakillful wcrk on the part of plaintiff, tlaintlff testified:

"It was Uie fault of the isaouina; I saw that hia

Botor would not turn the Rjaciiine over becnuse it wna the fault cf the Dnci.ine, ""he sjachine ^ould not turr. it. ever becnuae it was net ^uilt right.*'* It was ri^jht in the vftlve, "i-xHt valve wns put In by Kr, i»)v:ii.urat at rapakcneta,"

Witnesses for the defendantis nlso testified that a valve in tiiS f^AOhine was too long. There ia force in the conten- tion that the plwintiff did not hold htcsself out to be an expert ioa machine meohanio and that h*» did net ft^,ree to repair defect*

•xiatint; in the woehlne itself, tt was hia -utv unser the con-

tmct te «>rect «,ndi inat»ll the esnohlne arjiilch hod b«#n delJLv«r«d to the plRintiff by a »Rnuf»oturor, ??li«'tn«r th«? plaintiff did In f«»ct te.Ttovm th« work in a reaacnKiily aiclllful a^ftnnnr, cr «h«ther th<» cts^fectn in the nnohine and lt» pipe oonnoetions i»«r« due to any n&gligence or X^Oa of itkill on itia- part were queationt) for tii« trial Judijie* ana miiln tiiere jbi» axxcne. eYl» deuce in eupport of tn« aluit^is of the d€fendant8, we ura net prej-ared to ai*.,y uiat tbe ocacjlusionsi o: Ui,e trial oourt oi* tr*e ecntrowrted qu»ation» w«r« erToneoua,

It it undoubtedly true timt if It coula b« said that the evidence shoved that dai8fi«;« did result to defendant trcxi a l«o3c of eferill Bx\d care on th*^ p«rt of t;hft p3«intiff, defendant* g uld recover any lose sviainined by t<ie;. thereby ae againat thn atoount c1»in«d to be du^ the plaintiff; but this cl»ifi3?>d rirJtit is rradiopitBd in t3.« j:r<^»«?rvt ouee upon the »e- •vusption that the eviderjce shewed that the idaintiff Jiii in fact perforu* the work An im unskillful Eumm^r, "'hie qucetion of foot vrae reeolved againet the contervtion of defendartte by the trial court,

The judt^ent of the iuuicipal oourt will Uidrefore be aff inaed,

!l«3urely, i.J,, wnd Holdom, J,# concur.

/

/ \

611 - 25772

1 f

acBDC^ A. HAliSAY a» Adn^niatrati of th« srstiite of joi'.r: v, corhah, Doeoaofd,

Appelloo,

TO.

/

CHICAO& KAlLv?AY8 COMPA^iY, CfZCAOO )

CITY HAII, ,iAY COiUrAHY, CALU#t ft )

SOUTH CHlCi^O RAILWAY CUJOriKY cund )

THS ^OUTitisHll ^JTHBIST RAIJ.*^ COja'AKY. )

oporatlag un^or th« niu&e iknd stylo )

of cMiLMo o\ii\¥^z hv^mi )

'%,.,f,t0'

:-<^ //7 U-'"\,^

Al>KAL tntOH CIROUIT COURT OP COOK COUHTY.

7 T.A. 646

jiB« juiitiCR rmrm DKi.iVBasB thi oipisiok of tire cnm»T.

The dofondunt Appeal e from « judjiaBent of ^1,000 onterod by tins Circuit court of Cook County in favor of tho plain- tiff.

In a doolnration oonolotlng of two ocunto it is ohargod that tho defor.danto so nogllgontly and carelooaly isan- •ffod and oontrelled a oortaln atroet car that the plaintiff thereby euetained injuries wiiioh resulted in his death and that defendants negligently failed to give a reasonable and timely warning to plaintiff of ths approao^ of the street car and that it also failod to use reasonable precaution to avoid a colli* sion with decedent , The declaration in eacii count alleged that deeedent at the tiaie of the accident was in the exercise of due and proper oare for his own safety.

The evidence intrcduced on the trial aho^ve that the aeoi *ent h»pp«r»ed about one o'clock on the morning of Octo- ber 15, 1916, at or near the intersection of 37th street and nalated street in tho city of Chioage. Kal »ted atreet is a north and south street and 37th street runs east nnd west. A Jog oxiBtB in 37th Btreet *tt Uiin intersection, that part of 37th street extending west of Hnl jted street being a short die-

tance nortu of Its extension east of lialstod otroet. llalntlff*a Intoatata was struok by a southbound ear on Halstsd strsst as hs, dsesassd* was crossing that etrsst on his way to his hoes, Ths •nly othsr Ystiiols on th.« strsst at or nsar the tisxi of ths aooi- dent was a strsst ear bound north en Halsted strsst. Ths «Tidsno« is undisputsd that th« stre#t car was lifsfhted and that its head* lll^it WAS burning.

One Shannon, a poUowKian fcr ths city of "niongc. In testifying for th« plaintiff said that hs saw dsosassd struck by th« strsst oar; that dsosassd at th« tias was walking; oast to ths sast sids of Malstsd strsst; that "whsn the nan was in ths osntsr of ths tracJc ths ear was 15 fast away frota hi*;* that ths 9mt was running about 10 or Hi siiles an hour; that he, ths wit- ness, did not hsar any noiss or warning of any kind, "bsoauss I was not paying any attention;* that when ths car stopped after ths aocidsnt its front end was about 15 feet i'rosi where ths body

i«y.

rtns Crowley, a police officer, testified tiiat he was standing at ths north«ist oomer of Hftlsteii and 37th streets talking: with Shannon at the time of the aocidsnt; that the weather was clear and tlie street 4ry; that he saw dsosBosd as he fell to the strset after the oar struoV him, thla wltnsss testified that he did not retasraber hearing any bell or gong at and just before ths tlas dsoeased was struck; that "after the body atruok tXis northbound traok it lay about 20 feet north of ths curb lins cf 37th strset."

James Barrett, wi>o testified for the plaintiff, said that he met deoeussd at 11:50 o'olook on the night of the acci- dent at 3tith street lund Union «v«nue; that he and dsosassd went to a chop susy restaurant at 3&th and iialated streets and rs- sained there until 12:30 o'clock; th»t thereafter the witness

and d«eeR8«d walked south on Halattd straet to 37th atr««t; that it waa the Intantlon of tha wltneaa to taJce a atraet car i.oi&e; that whan tbay arrlYod at ;'^7th imd Kalatad »tr««ta he aald to daoaaaaU* <*^a will wult here and I will tftkc the oar hera.* Ha aXao testified that "{ioruimi imA i were sUtnujing about 1^ the center between the west oar rail and the west ourb atone lina on the west aide of halated, and about five or six feet north, di* reotly in front of th« center of the drug store;" t>iat h«, the witness, then moved north in order to get upon tliO apfroHohiag street car; that he got upon th«7 oar about 5(; or 60 feet north of ^ere he and Cortsan had been standing; thnt h*" found the ear wall lighted nn(\ that "there was plenty of light on the street at this plaoe; that was the last time I saw ffCmmn alive, when I left him. Aa X walked towards the oar 1 beli«-ve it waa slow ing down,* The oar stcfped almost lisaeaiately after this wit- neas f:ct upon it. !^e g^c-l off the oar and went around its rear to the east side of the ittreet. fhere be saw a crowd oolleeted about the body of a laan lying on the northbound traoica. He tes- tified. "X did not know fkt the tisse mho %h« aaan \«ae; I oould not gat a very good l^ojc. 1 hud to look over their ue»d8,*»« could see pretty wall up and down the street. Th€>re was electric lights. You could see pretty well for :.wo or three blocics.** The witness also aiaid that he and CorHtan had been standing for ' 1ft minutes at 27th and }>alsted streets waiting for a southbound oar and that Qorrtan, idien he attea^Fted to cross F.alsted street, ««a on his way hoisae.

It ia our opinion th»t the evilenef faile to show either that the plaintiff was in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety at or Just before the timts the accident hap* pened, or thnt t.he defendant ♦a servants hftd been guilty of any negligenoa which proxir^ately oontributed to cause the injuries

ham

■ I •ftil

wJ^eh toroufght about ih« d«»t:. of Ctors^anin, Thore can ba no doubt tr<m %h9 «vid«»Ro« that daoaaaed could hn-ve sean the approaching •outlibound car htid la« wada any effort to dc ao, Tia« weather Wit cl««r« tho ettreet well lighted, nnd the witneenes ai^ree that abjc^te could be ee«»n for n di^tnnoe of two or thre? blocks. That the oar waa Roing alowly or «t a modernte rate of apeed le ehomi by the testimony of all the \9ltnea«ea in the caaa and by tue fact that Barrett, deoeaaed^iB friend, get upcn the rear *md of the ear JIuat before the deoeaeed was rtnaok. It ia impoaslble fron the evidence to give any r&aaon n^y* under the eircu^satanoes which exiated at the time the accidiint hitprened, deo^^aaed 9hould have a topped in front of a ear a© plainly vlaible to him aa waa the ear which atrook hlu. The atre«t and aldewalka were praotioally deserted at the tiana* There «raa no oonfuaion of Tehieles or pe- destriana at the Intf raection, tmC it xa perfectly cl«iar frott all the eviiienoe in the case that Uie accident «rcul.d not have hap* pened had the plaintiff exerciaed any reaacnable oar<& fcr hia o^an safety. While the evidence ahoes tliat ther^ ia a Jog in 27th street at its interaeetion -^^Ith Halsted atreet, this fnct in no i»y interfred irlth deoeaaed'a view of the apFrcaciiing aouthbcund car OS Halated atreet. l^eceaaed'a body was found about 2t feet north of the north orosaxwlk on Halated atreet.

It ie urged by oounael fcr appellee that the facts and oirou»atanoea of the oasa indio»te that deoeaoed wna led to believe that the oar «aa about to ocaae tc a atop, Aaaurrlnfi; this to b« true, and Barrett*a testimony shows that the oar did o«as to a atop and that It had alO';ved down at the tlae he got upon its rear end, if deoeaaed in f:^.ot 6xp«:eted the car to atop, than or- dinary prudence would have retiuired hi» to wait until be oould luive oroaaed in front of it in a«if ety.

There ia no proof in the record froa wiiieh it can

AS

reasonably be lnf<»rr»d thnt the <!cf«n(Siint*8 a«rvR> is who ?r«r« ep«ratlnig the oAr in question were guilty of nny neglltJienoo which oontrlbutffd to aau»« the aooldent. The «itne»a(»a are agreed that the ear was moving. a» It approached the ocmer. %t a moderate rate of apeed • from it to 15 aalles an hour. Certain of the wltneaaea testified that they did not hear a i$cng rung at the time, but other wltneaaea, including the aotonskan* are pcditive that the gong was rting. ?he testimony of some of the "^Itn^aaee on taise r4uc»tion ia uncertain and It auounts, at taotit, to atat<^ rsenta that the »ritn^aaei3 did not rei»e«»bcr any ringing of the gong, ycur witnesses, inclu.ling the iaotoraan on the oar, tes- tified thnt th« gong was rung, one Austin teatifled that hla attention mie attracted by the loud sounding of the gong, 3uoh eTidence as there ia on the 9ubj<^ct tende tc show tinkt the taotor- wan did everytJiing poaalble to stop th« car nfter deoeftsed «t- teapted tc cross the traolca in front of it, Wltneaaea teatifled that Gorman was on the west side of Halsted street «h«n the oar was 2C to 2t feet away and that he suddenly atarted to oroaa the street walking f^st In an easterly direotion,

in the ease of Roberta, Adiar,, v. £. C. R^. Co . , 26^ 111., 2Zb, the oourt said:

"The evidence, in the lit^ht aoet f?wcr«bl6 tc the plaintiff, witn all the inf <?rejiccs tuat could be l««itiiKat«ly drawn frossa it, did not tend to prove »ny f»iilt or nef:leot on tiie part of the defendant or the exercise of ordinary care on the part of Uoiitii {%h& deceased. ) « .« * * The evidence raiaed no iseue of f«ct proper to be aubjsaittedi to a Jury, and the court «»rred in not directing the verdict,*

1*0 prinolple of law la raore flrosly supported by authority than the one whioh declares that at eosiaion law one as* eumea all risks that arise frora his own oontrlburcty neglifi;enoe and tJiat wh»re such negligence proitiajatel v contributes to oausa an Injury there can be no recovery therefor, even aiFiainat a de- fendant f-uilty of negligenoe oontributin^ to cause an aooident.

K'

In tlie c«»e of i^elcu v. ^. C. U/^ Co., Jiofi 111, ^p, 161 • a case luuou atrcnger uvea its f«ot« xn favor of tl;« plaintiff ttuua i» the present citee. the- court said:

"^fvidently enc exp^o^ed the eastbound car to stop at the southeast corn>^r of Aberdeen and 63rd streets tc take en the two woaen who stood there in the -jtrcfst <it that cor- ner.*** The teetlKony tenda tc prove that th* c»r w»s, at ths tiae, travalinifj fast and that no bell was sounded or signal irivon nt or nf?ar the cro sting,***

•♦7h<» eriilenoe tends tc »how tfcn t the t roxixaote cause of her Injury was not th*^ n»»gl ifrence of the df»fffn(l»nt but rather that of hs^rself ,»**« ahe sany have expected the de- fenJant to stop the oar at th« corner, but there la iio rule of law which requires « street railway c«J5p»nj! to stop its car» »% all points upon a sii^rnal to take on pnaaen^ftrs; and it followj* that, the failure to »top for 5 rcaf 'i^ctive pn^aengors who tsRv be stf<r;ding nt th^ street corner dcrs not of itself vrove ftoticnable n<sg1ii;enos» '■■f^&t?)rmm v, U,^ ^^^^n, 5''^'* ^£ Baltlr>ore, 96 Atl , 355; 'iifinchell v. tt'!^ T, -^^t, ry, ■':o.t 9C

The cttsca in favor of the contention of the defend- ants are tco nuj&erous «ir«n tc cite in this opinion. There can ba no possible doubt on th« eviuence ti^at the deoeassd knew, or by the slightest effort could iia^e known, of the approach of the car.

In l^lenta v. G. C. Hy, Cc,, aB4 ill, 246. it ^s held that the failure to ring a bell or *^;ive warning of the approach ei a street car could not be held to b« the proximate cause of an Injury resulting froie a collision ^ere it sppeared that a person Injured had notio* of the approach of the car.

It is our orinion that the evidence foils to disci cse

any actionable neKllK«noe on the T^nrt of the defenianto and that

doooassd was at and just b«!pfore the time of the accident guilty of

ccntribiitory neglipencs which contributed to cause the accident.

The juditsient of the trlsl court was for the sues ©f #1,00, De-

oeased at the ti»e of his death was 40 years old. The ajsount of

the Terdiet is so satall as to lead u» to bwlieve ta«t the Jury

wore ijapressed with a substantial failure on the part of plaintiff

tc Boake out » csise «n titling uim to a recovery.

The Jud&ment of the Circuit court will Uicrefore bo reversed, with a finding of facts.

RJSVKR;ilia) S'lTK A '/llValtHi OF FACTS. Moduroly,! ,J.,and Koldosi.f,, concur.

linA)

«»*b

Ot««»T»

Ml • 28778 FIJT-DIKO C? ?ACT3.

W« find »• ultl&Ate facts in tha oa«9 that the d«eMiB«d waa not in the exeroio* of ordinary cart for hlo ovn »af«ty Mt tue time h« roceived t^o injuries roaulting in i:iis 4aatiu» and tuat tia« defencLant «ma not guilty of any nejillgenca

wijiloki prcxji£»at«ly oontributed to cau«»e UiO aooidont in question.

V'

174 - ^5429

R£IIfKB Cd^ COIO'ASY, a oorp^tion.)

X-/ , )

L.>\

Appojflaiit,

) Aij'iJtt. vmm umicuAL court

J OF CRICAOO,

;l

217 I.A. 646

V'R, JUSTICI? HOLTWK T?KI.IV?5R!fI> TKl O^IRXOir 01? IHX COURT.

l^lAintiff r«cioY«r«d a Judi$tai4?nt fcr #149 .da ciisainst defeniUuit on tii© finclin^^ of the trial Judge and (i«f«miant brings the record h»r« for r«vi«« ftnd a»ka « rttveraal.

It aj^'j^MMkrid fro£g the proofs that |»lttintiff dollv«r«d GOAl to tzitt value of $499^96 at a nt»t ouildin^ At 7ifti«th »tr««t and liabHiftu aT«gnu«, C/Uo»iiC# «ftUioii wa« C6udua>«d upon tha prwuilaea. Tb« title to the propmx^y i» aaid tc b«> in d«f«i«dftrit« ocnv«y«d to hisb by one l^atUiew Stein, ?iie ooa-1 uma ordered by stein. nTne gave ft oiaeo^ to plaintiff on account in tJt;e 8us:< of |.2C0 i^ttioh was elgn«d» "!e. Stein« trustee**

There «ma ^videnoe fro» whioii the triAl Judge ai^ilit

reasonably reaeh the oonalu«ion tiiat in the transaction steia

wae Noting »» a«;exit for defentSft-nt. it ia in evidenee that stein

was around the building i^ere th<^ eoikl tw»e delivered* apparently

in cliMTF^e, cclleoting rent» #to. Defendant «a» likewise ae«n at

the building, (in the claia another payment of $1&0 «rae j)<ad«*

leaving due the aeount of the jud|<;ment in ttxe reoord.

The defenaea arc that defendant id not order the

coal; that the building: iKfaere it ^ma delivered ia not hiaj that he

iiolda the nakftd tii;X» fcr oonv#>ni«nce only and therefore io not

liable to plaintiff for the coal delivered to and ooneowed at

eaeh building and that plaintiff failed to prove tii»t Stein «ik«

agent for d»r«n<iAnt In tJue triJt^nuaotlon,

^tt tiiink that iron all Uie envlrcning ciTOu&»t»no«s In eTldencft tne court ttight properly find tliat Stein was tha agent of def«ndant botiiwhen he orderad and when he reoeiTad tha ooal in Queation, or at Icaot that def anjant knoivln(!fly pera>ittad Stein to hold hletsalf out »» hia ng«=)nt. Treat v, Smith, 15d 111. App. 562.

fa hardly aae how th«» court could h9?<» ccme tc »ny diffarant conoluaion th«n it Ai'\ from the «»vl^anc©. ^urtharsiora, th** difficulty hpra pr*?aent©d, if any there be, le of defendant** own or action «nd the r«mady in 'Within hia own ^aap; h© asay coa- penaate hiaarlf frosB the property whiou he holda, if it ia not in fact hia, before delivering or oonveying the sajsae tc whomsoever it Aay rightfully belong.

We aee no renaon to uitdturb the record, and tha judgment of irhe Municipal court is affirai«d.

teouuraly, l\ j., and Davar. j., concur.

X

2B2 A 25510

1.

HAtlOKAt IUCPsT Ajm %XiCm )

CO,, fo* use of J;ATH;nA|[' )

THABIMn p'\, n corpora Wion, )

A.J. r. AOUat jtc C'O^, /*> oo rpc w t Ion , l^psllnnt.

AjIrtAa. 7B0W iiUNinilAL COURT OP CHICAOO.

tT». J!J3T1C1? ^TIIVW T»7?7 IV1?R11> Tim

217 I. .A. 646

3

On a trial bffore th« ccurt and Jury plaintiff had Judf-arnt en th« ▼erdiet fcr $110C# and defendftnt npp<!fftli] r»nd in* ■ lata tjtiftt th-s jud}.»erit aiiould b« reversed*

W« tidnk plnlntiff 'd i^rcofft substantially uupport i.t« iRSt Du^Rnded 8tKt<»&<^nt of claim. At leat»t tnere is tie tuch VKriRnce b«t«reen tti,«e cialu and tb« prcofs ^iveri in ita »up];^ort Aft would Juallfy th« granting of a new tri»l on Umt grcund as the whol9 aituation wias laid bare by i.L« teatietony.

Th« orifoinsl contract waa adctitmlbl« in ••?vi ionca «• a part of the jre» .g^ateo ahowin^ how th« partiaa oa«e tc- eether, thair relntlona, Ui«$lr actions and doings under tha eri(<lnal oontraot anU thdr oubaaquent conduct in rt»l«tion to the aubjeot-aitttar of th*» contract. However, d^fornlnnt in its affidavit of Bi«»rita avidanoad a most Intollif^ent undarstanding ©f the real olaio of plaintiff '?hen it denied thJiit plaintiff aold to it or that it agreed or proaiaad '*to purohaae cf the plBintiif en Dec&xber i*i, liiHa, f^* «i5Ci grcaa of elautio silk hair neta or :;h«t it pronisad to pi»y taa plakntifr therefor tha auut of ^4,40 per groas.* It vma xn taiti p»rticulHr deal be- tween the parties, at tiiat particular tlxaa, that plaintiff pre* Tailed, thp defense of defendant thereto being overooae.

It seaffis tiiat the Xfttlonctl TrAdlnK Cc«spHny suc> oeed«c! tc t,r*o buelnci* of the Batlori«l Xaport and K:xport Co., witl) whloh defendant oada the orii^inul contrAqt, »nd upon the trlnl plaintiff by leave of court amended the insert} tc confors to exietinf: conUitlcne. To thle aetioo of the court defendant atakee violent protect. How this ohangc oould in eny m&nn^t af- feet defcndnnt^e defense cr s&iniekise plaintiff*8 proofs, we are unable to fnthom. Suoh an assendnent cculd be a>«de at any tii&e, a» it wae only a matter of form. It might have been changed before the trinl, during the trial, or at its conclusion ,

That plaintiff had bresched its contract of April e» 19ie, in several particulara there 1» no tloubt. It failed to deliver the elaetio silk hwir neta at the tiia« agreed and they were not wrapped in tissue paper as provided by the oontraot. However, dt^femlant paid for all tho nets ^hicU were delivered tinder said contract prior to Deceiabfsr lii, 191H, ^^rhon it ordered 25C l^rose of elaetio ttilk hair net a at a price ag^rre^atin^ the aiBOunt of th«$ Jjua^cint. Theee nete were delivered by plaintiff and received by defgnannt on tite ii4th day of Deoeisber, 1^*^16. This itt the contract en «;hioh plaintiff baaed it» rii^'it to re- cover, and we tliinlc rightfully ao,

defendant received the 250 gross of hair nets and retained them aixty days, v^hen it atttuspted to rescind the trane- aetion. This att^uspt to rescind cajsf^ too Intte. it further ap- pears tiiRt plaintiff drew a draft upon defendant for fllOG, the anount of th<s> shipasent, which it did not pay, altnougn it there- after proMi»e<l to do so.

T)efendant, on the aseuisption that the action is brought for ix&ir nets delivered under the contract of April 6, 1918, argues for reversal that there oould be no recovery be- eause- plaintiff fail«;d to allege and prove that it had oojaplied

with all the proTlBione of the oontrsot upon lt« pArt. and iismt if both RTo In default nplth<«»r C9n naintAln an »otion for th« breach agalnot the other.

There are two fallaolea in thi» proposition. The first iB that the action was not under th«? contract cf April 6, 1916, but under an ^xpr9B» wfrreereent, resting in parol, of ne- eember IS, I91f^, The Intter contract Rnd delivery thTeunder w^re proven.

However, while he who breaches a contract cannot maintain an notion for daEaa^':e8 for a br<$aoh thereof by the ether party, nerertVielcBe an action t&ny be tsaintained under «uoh breached contract for the contract price of «i;ooa8 notually de- livered and received. This question has been li^iaaed upon oy tiiia court in CQnaa!ser« Mutual cil Coaipanvf v, -vestc-rn }etrcleuiB Company, general nursber 25368, in an opinion filed January <id, 192C, not yet rsrorted.

we think defendant comes within thft reascning in jHerb ey v, feoff at, 151 111, 84, because at tnc tiajt; it souKht to rescind it wse in defniilt in not hnving puid for the nets delir- ered under the order of April la, 1916, without retT«rd to what- ever rights it night have had to maintain an action for a breach of the April e, 19lfe, contract.

The judt'.ffient of the Municipal court doea juutioe under the law between tUi!> purtiea, and it is affimed.

Kcaurely, P. J., and Bever, J., concur.

262 - 25520

?L0P;-1TC1 M. EV.^ITT rmd HALUm HOZJ}£N« Trustees under the Las Will and Testauient of kargiaret A. Mitchell, deceased* and f FLOKETJCE M. EVEIJITT individuajly. Appellees, i

f

Y8,

AHKA :?. GOUGH et al. On Appf'al of ANKA K. GCUOK: by nOCKFORD TRU :T CO., a corj^ration, hfir guardian a_d litc^, aijil nocr70RD TRUST CO., a ocrporflTioi|i Conserrator of AIxNA E. QOUGH, an insane person, AppepLants,

,^

7

AlPEAL J^OM CIP.CUIT COU?^ OV COOK COUNTY,

17 I.A. 646

¥R. JtlSTICT? HOLBOH TiET.IVSR^D TH« Ol^INIOK 07 THS COURT.

Complainants* bill is prircarily for a construction of the trust clauses of the will of Margaret A. Mitoliell, de> oeased.

Testatrix made a will wnioh was dulv probated, in whleh She appointed the i'eroliants Loan and Tx^ist Company of Chicago trustee of the trust thereby created, later by a codicil, which was also adiiiitted to probate, ratifying the will but vary- ing the sane by appointing her daughter, Florence h, Sveritt. and her attorney, waiter 3. liolden, trustees in place of the t.ierchants Loan and Trust Company. The immediate beneficiaries under the will were testatrix' two daughters, Anna t^, Gough and Florence K, Sreritt. Florence V, i?Teritt divorced hpr huebnnd and became thereby, under the terajs of her mother's will, vested with title to an equal one-hnlf of her loother's estate; so the other half only of the estate is now held in trust, the present beneficiary being the daughter Anna B. Gough, who has been adjudged insane and the Rookford Trust Co, has been appointed conservator of her estate. Anna £. gou^x has a son, «filliax£i Kills Gou^, ■■ati.o is ?^^l80

ffientally deranged. Florence IS, Xreritt has thrae minor children* the defendanta Alfred Lawrence Everitt, Jr., William Kllie jiveritt end Elisabeth :i^eritt.

TJJider the terms of the trust. If either of the daughters diea without issue her share goes to the survivor or to the heirs of such survivor.

The bill prayed for a construction of said will -

I'lrst - AS to whether said trustees under the codicil have the same authority, duties, etn,, as were by the original will ^.iven to the trustee tlierein naii^ed;

Second * as to whether, under the terras of said will and codicil, the trustees have autuorlty to pay out directly to Anna K, Gough or on her behalf the necessary costs, in their dis* oretion, of her maintenance and comfort, or whether they should pay such costs from the entire net income of the trust estate, in- cluding the acouzBulated securities on hand, to the Rookford Trust Coiapany as her conservator.

Third •> If the court should determine that under a proper construction of said will and codicil the trustees are authorised, in their discretion and to prevent waste, to pay out of said trust funds directly to said Anna E. Oough or on her behalf such amount as may be necessary for her maintenance and to retain and invest the balance tnereof , then whether the surplus retained by said trustees, including the securities on hand, shall become a part of the principal of said trust fund.

The cause was heard by the chancellor on bill, answers of the respective defendants and replications to such answers, and a decree entered substantially as prayed for. From the decree en- tered the conservator, the Kockford Trust Co^^pftny, brings the record here seeking a reversal and asking this court to decide that the in-

come and the BccucnilRticna of such inoom* on hand should be paid

directly to it aa oonservator of said Anna K. Cough, an insane

not person, and to hold that the oonserTator le/an assignee by opera- tion of law and therefore the trustee! are not warranted in retain- ing the earnings of the trust fund and declining to pay the saae to such conservator, and to decide that the securities noi9 in the hante of the trustees, *^nd olao such surplus of cash aa has been with- held by the trustees, be paid and delivered to it as conservator.

We think It la clear that the trust cr*'fited by the testatrix for her daughters was such as ia known in law as a spendthrift trust, and that this clearly appp^ars in paragraph 9 of the will, which reads:

"For the rurrose of prct*»cting n?y said t^atftf from waste or my dauifhtera frcm debts, or any oblig?>tiona cfhich . they, or either of them may iciprovidently incur, I hereby authorize snd f^pov^or »y said trustee, and its auccesaor or succeasora in office, to withhold any or all of the inccnie of my said estate held by them, and retain the aarrie in tiieir aole poaaeasion and control for such tijB«? aa they may ieem for the best interest of said estate, and said daughters, or either of them; or in case of any attempt to establish a lien upon, or claim to their income, or the income of either of them, by any crc?ditor, receiver or assignee, either voluntary or by operation of law, my aaiu trustee, and its auccesaor or successors to the trust, are hereby autaorizcd and directed to retain all of uaid inccae, vvuxch aould otherwise come to such daugiiter, and to invest ttie aajae, and re-invest, and make it a part of tJie principal sum frotu .sfhich said income is derived to be acid with said principal suai and to bt^ disposed of as part of the same, and in tnc manner as herein provided."

It seeras clear from this clause that it was the in- tention of the testatrix to create, in the strictest sense of the law, o, spendthrift trust, 3o far as the present cestui que trustant is concerned, her iiaprovident and dissolute habits, disclosed by the testimony in the record, evidence the wisdom of the testatrix in putting the interests of her unfortunate daughter in so firm a trust that while she could not Intrench upon the- principal, the income thereof was in art terms md with much care providea to be applied to her cooifortable maintenance md care during her natural life.

to not/

J J

I&ragrapii 9 of the will apeaka for itself and is its own interpreter. TLcre i» noticing ambiguous in the langtiage used to express the intent evidently desired. The intention of the testatrix, to be ascertained by the court, is the oardinal prinoi- pie in the construction of her frill and the trust clause above quoted. Courts will give effect to the intention ns exjresaed in the words used by testators. It was held in Qe^aer v, Ke a singer, 206 111, 57, that whi^re the Tords used by a testator hnTR a settled legal meaning, the intention exjreased by sue; words must be f;iYen effect; and figaln in lUlle v. Teel, 245 ibid 483, it was held that the testator^s Intention must be ascertained from the words employed by hljE in the light of the situation and the attending circumstances, and that if by such means the intention beoomes clear the court jaay disregard fhlae words cf description or reatriot the application of words, but cannot change words of plain meaning and substilute therefor something else.

The intention of the testatrix in regard to the trust created by her will ia 9o clearly expressed that there is no need of other eonstruotion than to apply to the words used their ordi- nary and accepted iseaning; such is the context of the trust provi- sion th^t it becomes unnecessary to •liminate words or to add any- thing thereto in order to arrivs at the intention of the testatrix in this regard so definitely expressed.

The fset remains that the interpretr-tion of the trust clause of the will is not eerirusly contested. The whole contest seems to gother arounrt thf clnim of the Rockfcrd Trust Co. aa con- servator of the estate of Anna K. Gough, insane, to itself receive and disburse all of the inoorae from the trust estate belonging to its insane ward, together witli all the accumulations of such income in the hands of the trustees; the ohanoellor holding m the decree

that an administration of tkie income of the trust fund by the con- servator was unnecessary and wasteful, and that therefore the trustees have the power and authority to decline to pay any of the earnings of said trust fund to the conservator; the decree also found that the conservator ia an assignee by operation of low, and that upon that ground the trustees were warranted in declining to pay the income of the trust fund to the conservator; and it was further decreed that any part of the Income of the trust fund whiob has been held by the trustee should become a part of the prinoipal of the trust fund, provided tiiat if an etaergency arose requiring the uae of xr.ore money for the support of xuic insane ward than the current Income could produce, that such trustees t&i^ht in their discretion resort to sucii securities or the surj.lua caau on ii«nd and expend the saBie for the use, care and bexiefit of aaxd insane ward.

To ua it would appear tixat In tVxls regard the rights of the insane sard were by the decree abundantly, car fully and Judiciously conserved and that the intention of the testatrix was made manifest by the previsions of such decree, Bin<\ t'aat the con- servator cculd add nothing tc the protection of its insane ft&rd by being permitted to handle her funds. The interposition of the con- servator in thia regard would be plainly superfluoua, A court of equity will not enforce a strict legal right '«yhere no good purpose Is to be subserved thereby, and will not require the payment of money to any trustee in order to enable auoh trustee to retain, siinply for uls own benefit, comiiilaslons, fees or costs, Cotterell V. Co en , 246 III, 410; l£oore v. B rwn denburg , -i46 ibid ^32; Ieo;ple, use, ^t_c. V. Abbott, 105 111. 588,

The record sho^u that Anna K, Cough Is in «ane and is In the state institution for the insane at ivlgin; that her wants

^d

'J I

h&VB been supplied, by the trustees of her laother'a will evidently in aucii aiaple way tnat no one is complaining. It ie feTl to understand what good purpose could be aubsenred by allowing the income of th^ ward to filter through the hnndfi of her ccriserva- tor; it is not appar'?nt that any advantage would in any way accrue to the ward by so doing. As regards the surplus income, after paying for the wnrd's support and all of her neoasaities, becoming!: part of the principal of the trust fund, no feasible ob- jection is apparent to us. '"hn tr-.istee3 may, when in thoir dis- cretion necessary, intrench upon the cnvitnl for the support of the ward whenever the income proves inauffioient for that purpose; and in so far as the final distribution of the capital of said tiruat fund is concerned, it will go to ihp same pu.rtif»3 under the provision of the will whether the income is paid to th<» conserva- tor or retained by the trustees; therefore there is no cogent reason why the conservator shovild tnke froai the trustees any •ujTplus incojue to hold for inveataent, oa the only p^arpose of so doing that we oan discern would be to increase unnecessarily the cost of adainistraticn of such trust fund. auch unneceasary expenses the law discourages.

We see no reason to disturb the decree of tne Circuit court as it dops justice between the parties and protecta tne rif^hta of everyon«» concerned; therefore the decree is affirmed.

AP7IHKIO,

KcSurely. T.J,, and Dever, J., concur.

271 - 26529 / / / / /

^ /

BFAYTSt m.KCTRIC COW STRUCT 1 08 )

COMtASY, « corpomtlon, )

Appellee, )

J0H1? CKiy?ITHS k iSOK CCIi?:pi(l?rT, )

» ccrpoTation, )

Appellant, )

I /

AIIKAL yROH MUHICII-AL COURT OT CWICAGO.

21? T. A. 647'/

ItR, JUiiTICE HOLIWii DiSLlVSRED THS. Oi^lKlDK OF TRx- UOU'^,

A Ju<lg^«nt against defendant for |1987«94 was en- tered on tn€ finalnt; of the trial Jud^e to wuoa the oauae was aubaiitted, and defendant seeks a rttTcreal by this app<>al,

T)efendant Is engaged In txii? buainese of 'greeting buildings in Chloago. In txie early part of 1^15 it had a con- trnct as general contractor for the erection of section 6 of the Boston store building at f adiscn and Utatt; atreets. Chicago. Tlaintlff*s business is that of electrioiao« ^s its nams Im- plies, and April 17, iyi5, it <«ntored into a contract under seal with def en iant to inataU all the electrical wiring for section ;0 of said Boston store building in aooordanoe «*ith the general contract which defendant had for the construction of section 6, The electric wiring contract contained the follov- ing provision:

*that no new work of any description dene on the preiulses, or any work of any kind whatsoeTer* shall be oonsidered as extra, or a charge in excess of the aavount n' rein agreed to be pnid, unless m ^^rcper estimate in wrxuing ci Uie same be- fore its oOEuoiencecfient ;aih«II nov« been sub!;jitt(*d and agreed to. and signed by said aronit^'Cts and said party of the first part," (^aid first party being defendant.)

7hi? dispute relates to a $1 dCO item for extras

under the contract. The difference between that Iteu. and the

nsjount of the judgnent, vis, 55487,94, is admitted by defendant

to b<? due plaintiff and it insists T,hat the jud^^'jErnt in tiie

»"•»«<" 4n»i court should h«v*» b>-Rn for that suir nnd no more.

All the eleetrieal wiring «ra» oov«red by th« con- tract of April 17, 1915, in wpeciflo and unj(ulatakabl« teross. T'laiBtiff Sfiekik to avoid tula oondltion, oontanding that certain ol^uaea of that contract ware elimintaad by a verbal aeraetBant and the letter of inarch ^5, 191&, and that tixla letter and the contract under seal fona in tJ^iemselvaa the contract b<i»tween the parties for the electrical work. Zt waa aaid that these eliminated olAUses were so marked in the contract, but if auoh was the fact the contract in evidence doea not prove it, nor hi>s suck ccnten> tion been substantiated by any ether satisfactory evidence, and an exattiinntion of the contract in the record fails to disclose any such lanrklng or jneffloranduw. The letter of March 23, 1915, was written sere than three wee^a before the contract ^sras exe- cuted and before the price at which plaintiff was willing to enter into the contract had been agreed upon. This letter la nothing more than part of negctiations ^hieh preceded the laaking of thf» contract, upon wx..ich the minds of the parties for the first tijne met. As a matter of law all contemporaneous writings and verbal understandingjB are i&ertsed into tlie contract as ulti- jsately entered into and executed by the parties, Winneshiek mace, Co. v, .i?ol agrafe, 53 ill. 516.

It is quite pi in from tala letter that the suojeot>

■atter of the contract was being discussed and the letter Is an

evidence of one form of such diecussion. There is no i^ention of

estimate of cost or suggestion regarding suor:. cost. It reada:

•In locking over the alterations on th# present switchboard, it ae«iwi8 to ua that dome of the electricians have the wrong idfti of ?3hat ia required in oonn'^'Ction with the additions tc this swltohbonrd. The new generator wnlch is bfl'ing moved froao the present Oiamplain Building tc the engine room vcill be connected on to the old panel, marked 'A' on ae- cofflppnying sketch, vrhich ia the same panel that controls the escalators in th''' buiiaing. The only new panels on this switchboard will be the two east ones marked *new* on the ac- conpanylng sketch, i^lsesa let us know how nuoh difrerence this will BAke in your figures, and oblige.**

Here follows sketch marked "A."

J.

l,:oreoT«r, nc reply ««• vrev Aad« to that lettar* althoufi^li tht written contract soon followed. Certainly there la no deteruil nation of coat or au^estion of it in tniw letter, and we oannot eee how it can be hela to fom any part of the contract ultimately entered into. #e therefore hold that thia letter is no pnrt of the contract, tout that the rlghte of the parti eo isuet be aeaeured under the contract which they finally entered into April 17, 1915.

It la not neoeeeary for us to datermine in thla eaae whether or not a contract in writing may be altered, voried or chenged by parol, for the reneen that the att^pt of plaintiff to prove such al titration has utterly failed. It ia not a question of secret intention on the port of defendant and what its inten- tion might be is of no iapcrtanoe, as the rights of both parties under the oontraot rest in its interpretation,

plaintiff argues that if the letter of }.<aroh 23, 1015, is eliminated i'ro£u the contract between tne parties, the fur- nishing of labor and material for the loO K. 'ii» gvnerator was an extra and that there was an agreement aside from the contract of April 17, 1915, to pay plaintiff ^150C therefor.

It is in eTidenoe tliat plaintiff in its negotiatiooi for the contrect fixed its price first at $30,000 and Uuit several efforts were ia»de to induce defendant to let the contract at that figure. On the other hwnd, defendant aet these requests with the contention that the figure was too high, and ultisiately the ooao tract price of $27,500 was agreed upon, riaintiff has failed to Maintain or prove any independent agreement by parol or otherwise as an addenda to the contract of April 17, 19ir>. for the 100 K,S, generator, ivery material pe mt regarding this contention is raet and denied by defenoant. jp^irthenaore, a sealed executory contract eannot be altered, chajiged, varied or nodified by a parol agreet&ent.

-Tul sr

Such iB the rulf of the coeision law, whieh has l3»»n followed in tills atnte by an unbroken line of deeisions, Al aohvia •r v. Schiff, 164 Jll. iJ98.

It iH not contended that th« conditions rcK^rdinK extras In tue oontraot wero ooaplled with; no ostisiHte was road* in writing or eubesitted or a/greed to or signed by the nrcbitects or defendant, plaintiff's co:ai/l.ianc« with tnee« prel ix^^inariss eras ca»«mtinX before any «ork dons by It can be de&'sed an extra. HOT i» there anything In the record showing a waiver by defendant of perfonaenee of these oonditions. The trial court thtarefore erred in refusing to hold the propositions of law tendered by defendant nun^bered ), 4, b and 6.

■?or the reasons above Indicated the judj-vaent of the litunlo Ipal court in reversed with n finiinj? of ft»ots nnd judj^raent in this court for plaintiff for $487,94, the costs here und below to be taxed against plaintiff.

FACta AMD JUD01i?:H'? Hm&,

Kcsurely, i . J., and Bever, J,, concur.

271 - 26529 FIMDilQ 0* ?ACT3.

The court I'liids aj> Ui« ultianate facta %.h»X the alleged extra work sued for, nmountinii; to uue ousa of ^$1500* vae included *n tlx^ written contrftct of April 17, 1915, between the partiea, and x.hat there waa no other contract betvreen tiiea in rel atlon thereto.

aiV - .•:S57a ^

\

.'t Corp., \ Appfill««*

-J

/-z

Lx'-y

C? CIUOACK-'.

■ -fi v*"- ■

647

.?^

'K, Jii.,.r^'

.,;,; IVKKK:- '^•

tills ii an ftppeRl by dftf «ina«nt frofe a Jud/.u3«nt »fc«in»t it for 44'Ab ©ntferod upon Utie trerdict cT a Jury,

Tii»a con trov fray im tiAiw ca»« iiinfet* upon a <ii»put« bKtxs?©fiji the pisrt,ieB »a 4c swaetiier certain yar ..-i cf a«?t»J l«th »ijcttl <i ht tfi.id for Qt U'ifr r.Mte oi* 2fc «X' 1;. .,/4 c.©;.t» a y&rc[« T5«f«ndiintB hf)7« paid plnlntiff for 8ai<J ssetnl Ifth at int.- rub* of 10 .V'4 c»Rt.», wUiCi^ It «cc«pt«d» but no* ^u«b for the uif» f rer.ce brtw««n th^ Rijjount pnid at 1.0 »/4 c«r<tii ft yord nnd IS centa ft ywrU,

2t HppcAra frc'B dc-f «ruS»nta* «ffld«.vit of K'ritcrlout

defense tr^Rt Uiey had oontrsct'crf for thtf wotal Inth tit'n th«

Amt^ricon T,u?tf <»r T riws CcuBparjy at the r;»t« cf ir .5/4 cRr,t» M

ywrd; t).,Ht on roY»;>tj«fr 24 » Tfn6, braing «ub»«qufi»t to ."'Hnufiry ly.

1916, th^ d?it«» «?f tnei orcter, plftintiff, js3 V-arty ot ti;* firat

part, csitf^red into a written ocn%r«tct -sxta th«3 Asijerican Luxf«?r

. risJB Cofiiip»n.v oh j;arty of tr.^' st-ijond jmrt, ic 4;aoix is uontMnttd

ti/t fcllov/ii% ;::rtiTisico:

*;^ow Uier»for«, in conaiderRtior. ef one cicllar ['Hi «nd otii«r Hcco and vnluMble ocris»ivi«r8tion»# *« ti;«» p«rty of iiie tirai /nrt ao^t* ui-xieDy »iiree tc i^nii ac«8 ft3*jaai« «n.i con- tract to fill 5i>«d tjarry out ti*e t. raa of wh« TJirioua {-rdera for tjxpttndftii asijtwl, fii«d witii una nov» uj/cn u«« bccxe of Uie pArty oX i.i.i«? aeccna j:tjrt, v/uiCi. crdaro nt^ tc i>« fUi«d by tii.« i-nrty af ti*': fivet i.art i.t<.rMi.\.ly .uiw «f J'ii^if n-^iy, t.-.^- aiUd first party ttcreuy agr«t&int tc iriisur* «n<> |,ro'wect ^orty of th« Stfoond part frem all «t«uin«r cf aotiona, u&au«a of ftction.

3uita, clHiffia or dttnanda arlaln^ from any breach of contrKCt relating to the fillinf; of eucn orders,"

It app«»ra thnt %i\<^ aAti^riol d*}»crib9d in the atPte- ttent of cl'Aim aa T-«t«l lath is* ^1 m known «a exrnmied rj<?-tRT; ti^.at »t tn« date of tii^ contract bftftien the :riflm Oo^nY.nny ani th« plaintiff iht: order |-ivcn by def eruSwnti? tc thv Triom Cor.pany hud been filed 'srltji «nd steed on tn«» bcfkd of tho IriuEs Coa?pRny wholly unfilled; tsj»t nbout the Itth of .ecej(»b«;r, iyi6, the Iriam CojapRny by its lfttt<=jr, the criginul of ^-uich !» in tiie fcoseasien of defendants, notified plaintiff that said order received froiB the defendant a lor the 6, CO aquarir? yt-ird* of wetal Inth had been t»i(ei. in January. I'^iC, and v?na still un- filled; that on iiececber 26. 1S16, tne def t-ndants cr<i c^red the plaintiff tc deliver said :j:etBl lt*th in I'ulf iliownt ct asiid crder, fia undertaken by pinintlff in the eontruct Kfor<*»*id; ttimt 8«iid 6, ceo y.nrda of p-jetal l^^th at tho jriee of IC 6/A cento «c ueliv- ♦^red, plu» two other it»n;>» jsentioned in plakntiffa atatement of olaiM under dMt«» of : «'Cft<'<';b?*r 4 »nd ■ eceaiber 7, 1916, ag^rreKate J:682.43; tnat sbcut ^«rc:; lt>, 1917, defrn.Jants jnid said sua to ylsiintiff, which it received,

rsefendanta furt.h<«r clolfrt th»t an accord «nd s^ntdo- fncticn ftrcec frcj the fnct ti-.tit n dispute br»twe«n th*rii»elve« and i^ljiintiff existed ^vticm the cnccit for $6^2,43 *»» aent to plftlntiff, ftccoEspanicd by » nc't<e wtnting that it was fcr the •ttpunt iiue tc jlwintiff in acccrdance -sith def liniianta' ocntract with thA iriaa Ooxripauy, notwithstiinding shxcii aotificHtion of the terms upon mUoh b&IA p»>'saent was tendered ).l«.intiff accej^ted the saae end una r.ev«tr returred or offered to return i5>ucii puywcnt or any part th<treof .

0th »« defenses are eet forth iwhlch or* not ijjjportant in the oenclusions at which we have arrived.

]t ia not aericusly contended by plaintiff that tii« order in oontroiyffray who not givon to nn*i r4ecept«d by the iriam Ccapnny »t th© rnte of 10 3/4 conto a ynrd. However, it doe»8 appear thnt « oooplicntion nroae b?'t»ir«en thwi frcja the fnot timt in the list as crlKin^llv furnished by the :;rien Ooay-any to plaintiff tne crder of dsfendftnts ditj net mppeftr; nnd it io tli« eontentifin of plaintiff th^t In n ecnversfttlon >?lt!i cno of defend- •nto over the Irnft dietanco t^l afnonf froa- Milwaukee to Ohicfteo ttoty (r»ve an indejjendent and direct order for 6,:C0 yarde of leetal l»tli »t the price of lb cerita per square yard and that thia order wae tii« order filled. Ijut def eni^inta ;ieny this tele* phone order. Tiiere were aowe «egor.iations betwesf: tuc pRrtiea »nd it vat made known to defendants %ii&% their order :ii net appear upon tiie iriea Ccaapany list furniahed j-laintifi'. tU though th« exlat«noe of the order -^fk^ isuaae^uently by the irietzi CiMp&ny ffinde known to plaintiff, aa thereafter adciitted.

It ia our conclusion thax tiie plnintiff hoe not •u»tain<?d, by thrtt pr«5pcnderance of the eviiit^snce «rhioh the law re<4uire9. it»* cont«nir.ion tiuit defendamte ^ave hh independent order cv«r vhe long distano® tel«rhone for 0,000 y/»rda of wetal Ifttyj rtt th*" i^rio*^ of 18 ORnte » y^r-t, »a t©3tifi»fd tc by plain- tiff's rreftident, although', thnt otRte-'ient waa c»,t«?|f:oricRny de- nied bv the defendant with who.- auch preeldcnt ol airbed he had the convereatien, A atateivcnt by en-; party flatly contradicted toy anotlier, eaoii of whom is eqwJlly credible, ijoea not constitute a preponderance of eviuexice either way. >.ae Btfit©Eient eiaiply dffaetfl tile other, l«nvinK tiie proof on jiuch point in h negative condition. Before it was entxiled to recover, it vyoa inou.i.bent upon plaintiff tc a»intain, by a preponderance of the jiroof en that point. it» eontention that an inde; endent order for isetal l^itii at Ifi cents a yard waa Jtiven. 1 eaalee v. Olaas, 61 ill. y4.

and A Icn^; lina of deoioloas m tiils atAt4» grcundcd taerecn.

I>«feri<i«.nt0 w«re entitles to in»ci:« ir. ti^eir own bc- h«lf as R d«f«5n8« to this action the etipuXation of the aontract betw««n the Jrlaa Coiopany and plaintiff, by whici it asaoiaed to fill nil order* for setRl latJa taicen toy the 1 riftm roapsmy ap- P»arinK upon ita bocica nt tii* 4nte of tii** contract, v^^king o-?«r all of tliR irittBi Cojffipnnv a «)i«tfil J.'tth bu.iinflOB and .'»Kr€"inK to fUl P" 1 its bccK<?!l crdera, "'he fsuct t.hM,t t/.e irism Coapany did net netft dcf«ndant»« ordfsr upon th^ list <"rif^;inally furnished flointiff, in no way detracted frcu; th.« tfiraa cf thr> contract Uxat it would fil) iRll ordere apft.aring upon tue becks cf the iriaa Co»p»ny# wi^«m in fact tiie ©rder cf defendants was UTscn the frisw Cottp»fly*a bookii, Tiiis proviaicn ol the ccntrAot defendanta h»d a right to invoice in w.eir defenae, ^ .ebj ter v. :'i*i- inj^, 176 illl. 14i-, Bffirttlng 7i ill, App, ids'*; DeaM t. ^/ftlker, 1(j7 ill. i>4< ,

Wa think th« el«i«*ents cf accord and as tiaf action are prueent in thia CH»e. At thft- tija*? ciefendRnte sent tns*ir checic for #68^., 4 3 to rl®i"*i^' . it. A'^iii claiming that tii^re w«3 due it $1117,43. ThfJ nature of Uie Siwpute wh8 knowri to botn of the parties at th** time plaintiff contended that it vma ent-itled to b*) paid for the 6, COO yi*rd0 of saetal luih nt 18 cents a y«rd, Sr- fend»nt9 on th^ir jrflirt oontf^nrUnji' that th^r« ima only due lO lV4 centa a yard under ita ocntraot ■lii.h th** j risfo Coaipany, *hioh plain- tiff had R»9iwn»d r»nrt a,<?repd ic fill fit th«» ocntract price, Iv. the letter tranijsilttinii the* riicek to jlHintiff d^feniwrsts -itoted tiiat thff c.nwttk for $6^:^,4^ waa fox tuc «uount d\Xf for aetal Inta fur- nlrrned hu j. er contract with tiic i rias* Co»ipany, in sruiCi. it enclosed a l«?tter frees t&e iri«a co&ipAny of date ft)bv\it\ry 6, li>17, to defend- ants, and in coaificnting thereon anid, "in >*hicii they jaift tiie reevonisibility to you,*

The disrputw ^^mo not only plainly ny^vntnnt froa the

let,L r trail ami t ting the o^sok, but. had '*'"'^'i ^ con« cf ecntcntion

between th«»- r-^srties frr •«c.t.? tiie? jr«»vlou3 th«T«tc, Thia check

«;Aa in good fRith serst tc TlPintlff and r^si^f^tiff «ocept*f(i it

vlth full kno*'l pdpo cf the cUaru**' ?^n'< ^-^^ bomi ^If^^'g ^'f t,h«> olnla

cf dcf en!l«rit«, tt kr.«w wpon whnt prwiriaea thi^- clf»ia ^aa bas«d Jmd

had full knowledg* of tho exietence of tae Grd«9r of deferidants xlth

the :riam CotapanY at 10 3/4 cents ft yf>,rd, whicu it hwd aaauifl^sd to

fill, ftnd with .mch knowl«»d{;e it aGC«?pt<;4 tiii? check «hich was paid.

■•.nd tic offer was ever tf..er«af ter stade bi>efcre »uit »h« co>sii?-encod to

put the p«»rtiee in gtatu. cjuo by retuniiog the at^ount paid bv de- >

f»Tiaar,ti> In gccd ftith onri in th*- honest brti«!f tnat all they ow«d

pli^-lntiff ^r\& th* «mcunt cf 3uch check, in Janoj^ v, ''ern^^, ^87 ill,

26?, thj» ncurt eay:

*Th« pB7mf?nt of « part, only, cf n debt which io due ar>:i tise ar.ount of which is certain -vill not satisfy the whol* debt, but >?h<-re th<r-rp in n <11 *rutc in «co.A fniti. p.h to the aescunt -fue, a pa.vmf^nt by th« '!i»l'tor cf the nsi 'unt -ndSiitted to b# ^ue, in fulT ^jpttl wi«{nt, if Rccf»pted bv thf cr«?<iltcr, is a PRti«fAetion of hi« claim, (cstrHn tgr tr. -..cc ti , 1^1 111,

f ren Soyff ne., iallS id, i?44; 3no^ V. c r I ^^ an pinker, 'd2(: id, "^ ToTTl Wre~T»!Ct that thf @*^t1YV'Ffpnt \-«?i'9 .■•"■-ri(P cf' the wrong bneis or.t}jat th»» d^f "SfHlflnta in error received in the set- tifement., am«"''it0 considerably 1 ^^as than thoy 'sfore ontitl'»dl to, a^d the lne>. cf infor-nsnticn aa to the legHl rulf-a k-hiob aliculd govern aetricwento, are n<-s: auffici<»r.t r<?a»on8 for dlareRnrd- ui;. tj *•« aettl^ttent nade Yith full knowledge cf t'lu^- fscta,"

,;« arc of ti*6 opinion tz.M d«fftndant» hav«* a ri^.nt to euccttrd Oil tiie two i-rcpo ^Iticna ubovft i>tated, t.h»t th« claifiied indepenriii^nt order (^t th«« rate of m centa a yard ^as net auotained liy A preponderance cf the evidence; that all def*»M4ant» in fact owed wa» the aeount of their chccic accepted by plaintiff -f/ith full knowieilge of the Jiaputa. which in law worked an accord and antlef action btween tne parti «•; therefore tiie jud^iwfnt of the Jriunlcipal court is rovereed and a ju6t^,i»«nt of nil^ ca^ iat and for

coat. i. entered in thl. court. j,^^^^ ,^^ JUDCifc^^JIT i,? JUL .'-o ,« ., r „„^ yx^vf^v. J. concur. CAIIAT ABD J?OH ('.*03Ta.'"^

::>

\( ^ U ol O^

Ap; ell ant, )

App«llee». )

--^^ ■ A. 647

tfR. JUSTICK KCLBOUi DBl.lV?!3i2£3) THE Oi'iHIOK 0? THK CCUHT.

■ntwiT.nai.;«n(Ung the Validity of fcsur orders entered

by th<» ... "tup; ilor ie diecueeed In the briefs of counsel, we shftll

Ignore «n of tuf'ai except t}i« one froit. which tiif? api enl i»

jrcjsecutfld am r*fcited in the eppeal bond.

The order aj-veftled frojs dlreci.fri tiic r*»c«i/er to

ipay to trie oimere of the equity of redesiption the balance of

flBcneya its hie hand* ariainir frora the rents) of the mortf^aKOd

prer^ieea »».cuntinff. to the 9\m fit #21fi,68. Thf* receiver «»s

oriKinsUy appointed without notice to ^.n-^i ol tne parties in

intrrest wnd on motion aucn order was Tscated.

uiiii order ^ma oXearly right, tivis caae is ocno

troliea 03, '.uyreoht v. Iguhlke, Z'^b 111. Ibb, in v«jxicu an order

va» entered ftpjcinting a receiver and was eub»equently vac?»tod,

as in the case J>t bar, smd it was held that the rent* that ae-

cuisulwted while the iJtsproper appcintarient continued belongied to

the owner of the equltv of redeaption. The ^ai6,6e ordered paid

was rente which ftccu.-aulftted during continuance cf the lap roper

incuisbenoy of the rftoel-rer, n% in the r?uprecht case, euy ra , in

i^hloh tl^e court aaid:

•ThlB b'-inp true, the pl^iintlff in error wae en- titled to receive Bwld rents, i8(5ue» nrp; ytroflta, aa hi/.airiBt the defcn.ikirit in errcr, unlewe hp could r®»oh thera throuijh a receiver. This hn attiwjpted tc do, but by reason of a de- fect in the Tle«dinf:8 th«? appcintivfmt of the receiver was

icnproperly r-.fi.de «\n,] the m roint'r.'nf. rma vflrtfttwd and set

naide by th* Apr«llt»t«> oovurt, Tb» y««tlT«r, undtr an ordmr of court, obtained thi» poeiatftlon of th« pv9v.i9m9 from th« plAlntiff in «»rrcr, z^nd uron hio appalntaeat toeing 8«t aaid« nnd vacatml wtt «•• oc r«ii9on why *th« poaa«»«ion of the pr«!tti< ••0 ehould not hAV« beers restored tc the plaintiff in error, eind the ranto, iawuea an;i profit* arising frora the prei*i*e» oollf^cted by the rt^ceiver, Xeea taa reoeiver'a Is, itia>ate expense* during tii© period intervening b(!?tween iiie appoint- fiient antl the i*nnul&ent tiioreuf . turned over by the receiver to tJUe |>l»intiff in error. Had tuo poseeeeion of »»id preMiiaee not been taicen fros tix^ pleiintiff in error by tiie receiver under the order af %i^^ oourt uhe would iinve re- oeiveu eiiii4 ruiiia, inau^a unci profi.t«« ana hu it eubee* quently ai,]. ear fed Ui© r«(C«j.ver ^ae iibprcperly aiypninted and i]i.e vae removed* we do not UUnk %u(s aefen^juuit in error can ttVRil himaelf of auch »px.cint;-.ent to de^ rive the plaintiff in error of the u^^e of eaid pT^^itsatt durxng the ti^e eaid reoci-«< «r wtt» l«aprci-;erl,y in tt^e j-'Oaaesaion of aaid pre^-iuea, but think that the receiver durintf, ttxtxt period <auat be ii^id to have retainmi the poeseesion of said pr6..i.^e« fcr ihc> uue and benefit of the plwintiff in error,**

In the Kuy>recbJ| cftse gtipra. it waa urged that by the

truat deed a specific iien upon the rente, etc.* waa created*

Buoh la the arguwient In th« instant eaae. on tuia point the

ocurt aaid:

"If it be conceded the "rirp truat daed eraated auoh lien, we think tl;«t lien could only be enforoad, aa

aifRinat the j^laintiff in error, ^?;..o ri»>» in poeaeaeion of the preisiaea, in ff«vor of th« defendant in error through a receiver, i»r.d aa the receiver cnuaed tcs be appointed ««e Mie Isifrcperly appointed, the dPfti?n;Sa«t in error oannot, by reaaefn of such illegal apyointj^ient, nve.il hiajself of auch receiveraiiip to enforce ngairtat tho pJnintiff in error, -sfifio h»\d boen illct^ally deprived of the poaaeeaioa of »uxi jpr«?u.ii«eu, jiiid li<S)n. 1 Jcn«»w en ■ i;rt4.a,i,G», aec* 670,"

3c, under the evidence in tuis record, re^ctrdleaa of u;e fact

of Whether or not the renta were pXetifced by eitiier the firat

or second truat deed, the ov^nera of tae equity of redect^Ft>io&

are entitled to receive tham, not«it:.at0nciing it s&i^^t have

bees otherwiaa iuad a receiver been lawfully appointed,

The order appealed freai la affinaed,

AFFIRMKD.

;^e3urely, J. J,, and Dever, .*., ocnour.

954 • 26614

A.I pal !<!)«•

jcsr.^H u, ?oi)r>.

AlPKAT, TOOK mJHICIlTAJ, Comt OP CHICAGO.

AppflXant/ )

2l 7 I. A. '^4 7V

tha aUatraot pr«i»entti (iiiu^ixt for thi« court* a oon* •ld«r&ti.oii or review. Am hna b«ttu Xi«Id by UJLti unu the aupre^a ecurt in innua>«rable ttaass, tho abstraot 14 Uxe pi eii4ing of tii« parti«0 and froti it AU»t «P'P<^1> uurficicrnt to aupirOTt th« errors asaign^sd on tt,« r«eora for reveracil.

7h« abfitrAot fMila to Inform us of the nature of tim clmin in auit; in Uii« re^ar4 ia th« following: "S-S Tj»t« of filing an4 at^t^sient of ol^stia.** This la extrasc^ly unenlighten- in^g, Aud 'ttiiile deferiiUmt haa filed a aupplesssntal abstrsQt of reoord* no reference ia made In it to plAlntiff 'a ^ttatoticvnt of clRifii. wor auoh f«il«re to brini?: to the att«ntion of this

eourt the cnture of the oIaIa in oontrovoray, the Jud^^ment of the l<uiii($ip«l ocurt nuat be affirmed*

fe hnve* hci«reTer« ootwithat^naing the ooQdition of the abstract* exa£»ia@d the tranacript of the record, but diaocver ao u^eritorioua reason t<;«croln fcr reveraini, the ju<ijj;Eie£it and It la oooaequeotly affiriaed*

feoo'uroly. J-, J,» and T)eve», J,, concur.

A ■ U ■

M5 . 25623 / 1 / [ ) ' \ J

)/ '■ ^•' If'AQC,

1- AIICII3 dTSlLt /

Appfllftnt. ^4

y

L./ 2l7 I.A. 647

r

jn the trlni court plaintiff kind a verdict and judfUKent for $600 ?»g«lnst defendant and defsiniant is h«r« by «pptt«l •tt»j(lng A revi«nv of ti:4e rscor 3 nnd a reversal cf tue Judgnent,

fJae action lu for dJu&agcii for violation of a vrltttn a£r«ess<»Dt ocl lateral tc a Ittastt froia oafendant to plaintiff of pra^ieen 51&& west Caicatfo avenue, Cuicngo. fron October lb, I9ia» to uctcber 14, 19:i, , In Uie a^reeaent de« fendant ocvenantetd tii^at iri consiieratlon of the above Mentioned leaee he «cuia not ront or lease any other atorea in the b.^lid- Ing at 3150-SX60 "/eat Chicago raverme for the purjoee of uaing the 9afiB« for a reetaurant exclusively.

Slaintiff entered upon rcsaeasion of said prer^^lses under hio leaae and th«irein oonciucted a lunohrr.oa and restau- rant. It Is alleged that defendant broached the ooTermnt in •aid aereei6<f»t by renting «*nd l««asing p^esr^iaea 315& vest ciii- eago avenue to oiovanetti Brothers for reutaurant purposes; that the lesttses, wlti;^ the kno^l^dj^e and ccniient of d«f«ndant, entered upon the de^ileed pre';.ides and op nad and operated therein a cafe and restaurant, so advertising^ the sane tc the public and designating it aa a *'Cafc and Italian Kiicueu;* ti>at defenoant subsequfirntly rented a certain other torticn of t-.^e preu.iees, known as fictfo&ll 'iorth Y^nilzk^ avenue, f c r tne purpose of uiiing

the IMMI0 «• a oaf« and reataurnnt in ocnn»otion wltu tn« v««t&u~ rant if«hioh olovantttti BrotUitrs wer« Uiion oonduotlng under their pricr !««••; that th& last aient.ion«d prei; iistta v«re aouneot«d with the ton&w by Aeons of doorwaya nnd Awiugin^ doori* »o tOMt entranoc txom ooti to the otu«r ooula li« «taaiXy Ci».d9i txiat tx^ls latter leaalng wai» al^o contrary to th« a^raeeadnt betwnan dc* fandant amj ;>laintiff; that Uiti ooiitir>aai>o« of the huainvaa ct Giovanattl Brothars aa oonduotad on Ui« pre»i(»o« aforesaid r«* suit ad in ir»parB.ble Injury to plaintiff; that diver* of ita outteaara who thereto for* were tront to deal ^ith plaintiff foraaelc it and de-alt with 'nlovanetti l^ro there; that ijuoh trade wae thereby Icat to plaintiff » deprecifltln'^ ti « rental T^alue of the prefAiee, etc,

nef«ir}*3«,nt by his affidavit of ac.erita diid not deny the breuoh of the ai;Te«Kent ayerred in plaintiff 'a atnteaent of olalK, but denied that the bueinesa of OiOTanetti Hrotaers me •iaillar tc tJiat of plaintiff, because the Ititter dealt principally with ivhat is known aa '*autciuobile traden" bein^- peraoae who ^>,o to tii« aaid cafe In autca^obilea for a>.»»l», Miilltt the Uueineas of plaintiff is prinoipally wiU* the trantsient »n«i neiguberiiood trade; that the ayticlea of food nolu by Glovanetti Brot/^era wt?re entirely different frwe* thoee add by plaintiff; ti^at at the tiae plaintiff entered into the lease with defendant, Ciovanetti Brothers trere oonduotin«: a reetaurant and cafe on the jrrejfjiueB; that they had engai^ed in tmcU busineaa froiK the 26th of July, 1915, an<l that the acta oonplained of by plaintiff were aljsiply the enlar^esent and extenaion of ctavanottl rctiiera' then ex- isting business*

Th« efrflct of the s«oni def^^nse la tc au ai, '-i.e

br«»oh of th« A({r«asient in sacking « lease of ptimp-iB^a adjacent to ihoaff l«iitted by plaintiff for rests ur«i.t rurpoaftD,

th» otUer def«n«(i arises ui on the cont«ir4tion ti^at the business of UiovjEtnatti Brot^i^ora taras not in oojiip<»titi<»n witi^ that of plaintiff.

It appears €hat Giovanetti Brotuera befora inai^itig the new lease ccnducted a saloon vriii. a bar 5(y f^^t lcn|{ in a roos «iC by 60 feet* with a oigar oounter 5 feet in length at th© front cf the sal' on, X^o Bvukll tables oppceite th« bar H»d twelve tables in the b«ci< raoo of th.«> saloon. Besides liquor th^ only food iispijnsed was spaghetti, sandwiches and scup served ftos& h sfsall kitchenette opposite the bar arid in this sacse roots with it. The food was usually eat««n at th<s bor by th« ouatoaers. This was the existinir^ condition t»* fA.e %im« defendant ijmde the lense and a^^ree* went with plaintiff. After the ootapl ©tion of tiie iaiproverx.ents on -..he pr#fliiees l»>3t leaded to nioiranetti Brothers a lars:9 sign was

isplayed on the K«tt«ie avenu*- frcol, reading, •Venetian Cafe, Italian Kitouen;* tnrenty»fiv« additional table«» #ere put in, aooO£U]&odAti£M$ &c people; i^ienus for table d*riOte and a* la oarte Qontaineo a list of all tue viaiide derved iiod the prices tuerecf, v/nich rttngad fro«a 35 cents upwerd, il8intiff»s restaurant aoooaao dated apprcxli»«t«sly 47 pecjle at one tixae. He served stake, chops, lobisters, short cruers, 'to. Before Giovanetti Brothers ci."rrjed their new pli»ce plaintiff's patrons during; the busv hours had to stand and await their turn xc be aerted, but after the "Venetian ^afe and Italien Kitchen** opened there was a i^reat falling off in his tmde.

The <«Bicunt of the Judgment is not qu^jstioned, but defendant contends that plaintiff has no rijsbt of action for de- fendant's breach of the aijreeE.ent awde as colJateral tc Tlaii;-

tiff *e l«a»«.

We think it cl«mr ttMt, Uim purjotfa of the Ai^rverssent

WHO tc aa»VLr« plaintiff Against oc petition in th« adjacent

buildxnga owned by defendant; we furtaer Uiknk it plain tuat tiie

oew leasini^- to oiovanetti Brotkere and tj&& uonetruotion of an ad*

Jncent builuxng on Kedsie aveartue, widLoh ««,» intended tc be and in

fact was uaed ae one place of buaineeii* axid U^t buaineee tiie

reataurnnt. busln«aa. «aa in oontiraTention cf ta^ ccv(»osnt in ti^e

agreement not to do ao, Univf^raity £lub v. neaeon, ^65 ilJ , ii57.

affirming tuia court in tr.cj aaesf; caee res^^o'rted iu Ibi^ ill. Apj,..

4B4, ia v«ry Ciucn -in point, tije :>upreM.e court there anid;

"By oevenartinf? wltV. flaintiff in error rict to rent any cti:er atv-^re in thin building, iurlnff th« ter^vj of jlaintiff in error* » lease, to any tenant jjsnkinf; a 8p«»cialty of tiie oale of i<»«trl8, the def»?n:iant in «rror »o» uied an oUlijintion wiioto vculd not be diachATis^ed by aiaiply inserting in ibc* contract ^•-Itfe the eecond ten?>nt a Go?enant tnn^t such tenftnt sii< uld not BJftke a specialty of th*' sale of j^earla. It waa iT»ou;'iVent on it t© do a)or*!' tiian to iruiert tiiia j-ircvi«ion in tr.*^ Jt^aae," ) itohcock V. nntjiGri^, 2i: : . C, A, ti' ,

tiJl* caae ia wucii atrcnser for tiio piuxntiff taan ^** ^* /^sj^.o.'Ri^ aaae auf^ra for tae piai.ntiff tt^^tre. In t..ia case tnere waa not only no inl;it^ition wut im aotuul conjent to Uie donductini^ of n tsuainoaa contrury to defdruUiutM covenant in Ijiis aisreement witr* plaintiff, it is cifear trot.\ lu^ ^.tidenoe tixat ehat OiOTanetti Bro there were Uoint^ at Ua« titae defenaant en- tered into the leaee with jjlniatiff in conn«otion with their aaloon in th» eame bulldlnj^, «aa eerving a lunoLecn of a vary Xijtbt chnrecter, conaiwting principally of apagbettl, aandwicuea and eoup, wiiiob could in no wov bft regarded aa feed a<»rved in a reatfturant; it waa fcod oerTred in « ealoon in cenjiinotion ritii tlie do:iiin»nt buaineea th<»re ecnducted of liapenalng s^sninly liciuld refr«8h«pnt of a r-.ore or leaa intexieatlnd; cit&r«ct«r, ':jmt <3c*- fen(]iani deaiirnedly broke ita agreesai^nt not to leave any part of

tv-'J^r-'*

said pra«ii»es for « r«9Uturant vjiien it Idasad to cloviui«iti Brothere, la patent frtus the proofs.

'/« do not find any material arrora in prooadure* and the racord dlaoloeing no r«a9oa Juatlfying a r«Ter»al of the Jud4i;Bent of the Junicipal ccurt, it la afflrssed.

}^o5ur«ly. , ."., and T'ovar, ,T«, ccucur.

elaorr:?

All^T'M, mOU CIHClJl? COWf ) Cy COOK CCUIfTY,

ZWd • 26653

/

cnicMQ cmr mnur jfio , , )

/ ^^"^A. 648

this i» an ttppijal by (i«fen4<4nt fro^e a Jucii^«nt of ^6»C!00 »g&in»t it in a »\Ut by plaintiff for personal injurl«», •nter«(J uj»on Ui«9 verdict of a jury,

Tti« e«ae iti on^^ of pi^w^^euger £Ui4 o^rrlcr* plAin* tiff being a paosfsrjsis^r uton U.«j »tr«etciMr of def«nd«ijt at tii« tiai* of tji© ooGurranc** coiaplainwd of.

The CHuae i roQ««ded to trial undtr th« •«ooa4 count of th«! decieration, ^icl^, after atatini; ti^iat plaintiff «•• a p«8»«ng«r and averring that th« duty of diefondant «»» to carry her a«f«ly, •^itc., proceeded to farther av*r tiio failure to pcrforsi suoh duty, und t::^At vhile plaintiff wit'.', all due oare and dllifv«?nce on h^ part «r»8 i»j th^> ?«ct of aliprhting froa »«id oar« defendant by and thrcufi:!: ite aenrant earQle^aly and nagli* g«yntly then and th^sre cloaed the doer of aald oar upon the clothing of plaintiff* «r<our«ly ca toning and holdin«7 the MM* bet««en aaia door ana iiaid oar* thereby tnen and tner« throwing plaintiff tc ami upon the street, by sseana whereof ah* euffered violent injuries to iier head, left ana, ].«ft leg, etc.

The evidenoe vf&9 in smiury conflJiot* and }.iaintiff aeoured her verdiot partly on the euppoaedly true evidenoe of t«o ^yv vitneaaea of tiie ocourrance, «h« htkA before Urie tris^l mada to the defendant ocopany writteii 3tot»?onta at variance in

nfti«ylail afty«ot0 witlx th«8lr testiiaony ftl th« trial. \n thi» condition of the proofs tuc 1»« requires ftcournoy of iroc«dur«. irronftcuij) ruling* on evldcnc* and fmulty inetruotiona to tht Jury vtfhere there ia euoh a aharp conflict in the proofii will b« auffioient to c»ll for tt rvversal of tu« Judiifflfmt obtained.

'a^ first wit»««8 for plaintiff wiia tl3.« motonr.an of the car frcr -hioii plttlntiff f«ll In nl l^'/itlng, who waa not ftt the tiKe of tho trim in the employ of tiie cftBsp«»ny, He sad** at about th«j tiwe of the acaidont, « writtan atatef-ent to da- fvndant in r<»4^ard thereto and ha had also conferred with defend- ant's lawyer about the aocideut* ^i-ving hia omlly inforuu»tion cancernin^^ tii& aaue. i.ia tt^stiii^ouy in in many aaaentinl partiou- lore ccntradictory of hia written aiatsi^ent and Uiis oral inforsa- tion. This aurj^risa to defendant* a ocunsel laade it neccsoary for hiffi to i!^iuu6di»t,€:Xy witlidraw as the attcrn<;y fox- def«na«r>t. and en- trust th« furtiier trial of the c»uae to fai» ttseistutit.

The KOtoraan in hi» signed atet^&cnt of tiie aooitient stade to c[«:ffendRnt states} that he was on th>' car j^oing, scuth on CoBiiiiSroial avenue; that he f^o^ a bell to stop at 99th street and did so; that th« platform was crowded; that t^vo wonan were ready to get off the oar; that ha op<^ned the door «nd on«f vsrosan got off and iJie other followed; that a laaa stepped to tha doer; that as the second lady was getting off h« got two be-lls to atart the car; that en lockini{ out he saw a lady lying or tiie strei^t and not knowing what was w^ang, went tc the door; t^^at the l.'^dy iiaid he had olosed the door on her s^irt* uat thut the dcor wasn't £[^oved; tiiat the sum olosest tixe door &ti£lit have 8te|.:ped ^u her druss or it had caught in seme uriknown pli^oe.

(;n the trial tJtiis actor.-an ttbiiri'-.i tuht an ..laintiff

was in the aot of alii^htini; he attcei^^.^'V«(u >vu <. ; v Vis-vjic/uia

door, VLicr. closed about six or eight inches «nd cau^t^t her skirt

•o flroay Umt hn oouia oloii* it no furfciier; iiittt »li» t«ii to

th« tttr««t And iiiAt im JticJceti tii« »kirt out frc£i und«r the door

witii iili» foot, after «Jii.eii h9 got off ana aaoijteu rl^^intiff to

her feet,

An«th«r wJltn«ao for FX«lntiff« All so an eye »Atnet»

of th0 Rccldent* ^Adtt before the trittl a written at<&t.«ciu«nt to tte

defendcint. In «nioh h« stated that At the time of the aooident

he urns on tnc^ ftowt platfora of tiie o«r, 'srhioh tmd »topj;«d At

the cro»a-v/«*lk to Xet off paaae«ger»j thAt he diitl not notice any

injury to plaintiff tout that she dropred hfr «ye-gla»9«» and thty

were broken, in an»w«r to th» question, Tell In vcur own »»ay

LCi-m the ftecident happened,* he etated:

* After the lady fell I tried to neu ^^^el' up, and ehe told lete to let her alone, and ahe got, eore* It seened as If her ekirt wont uviaer the dcor, «nd «» *ifie eiejjj-ed off ene »llpj>ed; iid not fall heavy and «al)cod awiy; »o«se other 'vomun with l^er. kotct.:iiti aii not glo^e the door, and it fi^l^^ht nave bee£i Uie ^xnd Um', Ulew uor dresa under the- door, iitie wae memn »nd »ouXd not let ai:y^.]io toucu her. ^tree% waa wet at tkke tl%«. The onr did not luove 'ehilu miitu a«ta getting off and »hti Tffta tne l(i^t;»t to i^<&t off » "rom what I eaw of her aotiona, ahe wna not i:vurt at h11, nnd i do not tl;ink Her dr&ss w«io torn. She wfto so ugly at>cut it, that everyone wo tri<<rd tu help her up let her alone, on ^ocount of her abuee."

F.e furtJt:«r atated that plaintiff wrse to ulm&e for

the aoci lent to b«r. Upon tn« ivitneea ata»4 tuie witneas gave

evidence ccntradietlng every asaterial fact appearin<? in hit

aiMSli«4 etate^ent to defendant.

At the time of th« accident plaintiff was aoooaspaniikl by A woiaan friend who pr«oeded hor to the street, wh«re ahe alighted in safety.

Befendant argui-a fcr revaraal Uiat ite idotion to direct a verdict at the cloiiie of plaintiff's proofs anould h«>ve bean given, error in ti;«, court*e rulini^a on the evidanoe and in ite inatruetiona to the Jury, and that the <lB»«K«e are excessive.

The oouft Jii net err in iftnyinij def endsvufa cctxon for an Instructed vertiict, ofl^ether the «;vid«rc« auvportmi th« n«filig<imc« chfirfted in th« d«ol«ir«.ti: n, that jllraintiff' « clothing wa0««hilo »h« iMfc» Blightlniic froK the CJtr, aecuir«ly oftught ^nA held between th« door and th« oar, inTaXv«a questions of fact »hioh« under At>x>ropri6t<» inatruotlone, ahould hav« been aubiritted to the Jury,

A4 tiiere iiuat t>e a new triui. ^c will not attet^pt to paea upon tjti« weigtxt of tuQ «:vi./cr:ue «r ti.*; creiiibilitv of tiie witnesses teatifying*

It is obYloua th<i5. the par;;oat: ci til] o .^ .ntv pi wxntiff to teatify thut ishe w»» • oluirity 'leuguiB co5r-;-:ltt®«iwo3s«kn ^*ncI «a» attending to her dutiea •» aucii en tii« liay of ia«« acciaent, mi9 to Iciproperly influence the Jury in ix«v favor, 'he nature cf her dvttiea, whether oharitable or not, ^ould not ten*! to serve the puryoae ©f elucidating'; any of th« quffstione submitted for the Jury»8 solution aa to th«i" oanner of th<s ooourrence of the «icci 3ent to plaintiff, or Ra to def t'n;Jant'» rea} onsibil ity thrtrcsfcr. In another trial it would tee well fcr couj-mjoI tc refrain frcir. this line cf exae>ination of their client,

Allosrin^f the »«diiaal asen to teatify re^»rdin« aute- Jective aytaptoiaa of plaintiff « a'h»o aa tc her condition at timea retaote fro^i t^e ti^e of Uie trial, and ti^e iei;ivlng of opiniona baaed on tne opiniooa of oi.hera. conatitutfi;d error (^md i»hould not have been t>er»itte(i« Vheae erro ra will not, how«^ver, we pre* aune« ooour on another trial, Gondcn v. ;^ct«oenfeld, iil4 111, H'dQ; Jjrona V. G. r, ny, Co,, 258 ibid 76; orienke v. .^ae, ;i34 ibid 664; Shau^'hneaay v, I ol t, 236 ibid 466,

nr, Adacia waa exaa.ined out of order, and h.»fore iHin-

tiff wnm interrogated, aa he wiahed to leays th« oit?. ■>,^^ »..ud of hla t'-ettmony waa sdrjitted on a pronlaa to au^-l'^^-'it it by other

•Tld«i)0«* This put 4ttf«)iClAnt At a diaftd van toga in oroas cx«uiiinlng

Jii«, on ttnot2i«» triftl d«feud»nt (fill be aiile to prevent m rocur- r«no« of UiiB diffloulty by not oonsentinK to the factor's d«i;ar- tur« frcBJ t>ic city before tii«> ccnoluBion of the trial,

Th«r<» »r^ ttvTora In the Inatructicnii, >c, 2 una«rteeic t« «aui8«Twt<!! th« elesi»nt9 vrhioh the Jury sjhould co«i*l4«r In d«?t«r- mit.lng th© pr«v^nd«ranc« of the eviaenoa, but os4itt«d all r^^f prone* to bins, fftlmeoB, osndor or int«lli^?©nce of tiie wi^nej^eo »• tifey «ay have U,pr«8iser.l tht jufy frc»> th«ir aj;p««r«noe upon th« witness stand, Tn« element of personal vx«w of Uie vitnssass nnd th« ooncluaiona of the Jury therefrojs in entirely osiitted. hile ths element of conduct smd deas^aiior whilo testifying ia n?f erred to in title Inatruotion* it la virtually «^utra,li»ed by tne require.aent ttftt aucii «u»t »ppeflir froaa tiie evivietioe, ignoring the obaervstion of such ^itneeees by the Jury, Zaaalar v, jtcoj-lea G»o ,1. . f C.Co. 204 III, App. 290; C. I', T. Co. V. Hftiapyir, i>*iB ill. Me.

By insitruotion 5 the Jury w»» inatructeo tf,&t '•the feots auot-be decided bv the Jur/ fro© the teatisiony whicu it re- ceived In OT-en court," thua ell&inating.thc ytmry eawentlalreQuire- ttent that it find the facts with rcfftrenoe to the instructions of th« oourt upon the law of the ciise, The frsota tjould not be deeldsd without applying thereto the l«w as given by the court. yaxwel ;i v. g. »■ t, I, >U -. Co., Ur. ni. ApF, X5ej X-. C. at. R. K. Co, v. y-^srers, XB6 111, 246. This inetruction was tantasiount to li- oensing the Jury tc Ignore Uie inatruotionti of tiis court in its deterttlrmtioo of ti;ie facts,

in in^truotion 6 tii« Jury wcr« e-cao x-uui, cr.. on car- riers of persons are required tc do aii t-mt hueian care, vigi- lance and foreeight oan reaeonably do, oun>i$i»tent with the oharaoter and Mode of eonveynnoe adopteii and the practical prceeoution of the

buiiln«sa, tc frrront Rcaid«nt» to ptt39«ngera rLdinfr, utcn tneir care. A better at»t«sient is thnt it i» th« dut" of a oarr.r^cn o»irri«r tc do all that hwRn enr», vli^ilanoe arid fcreisight can r*»»on«b1y do, oco3i»tent with the oU??r«cter and jacd« cf ccn- veyunc* adopted and the vi^^otical operation cf ite rawd, r««Moti- ably to guerd ugninat accia<»nts. Ho^aa v» Chicago ]{ya . £o , , aiif ill . App, 660.

:.^.y xnatructico I the Jury «ma told tl^u* . In d«» %ftr»ining ttie su^ount of daau^oa plaintiff ^a^ antitlttd to ra* ooY«r. if nny, it iuad the rigiit tc and attould take iutc ccn- aidaratlen all tn^d facts ajrid circu£OtanG«a aa ; irovad by th« tvid«Re« befcre it. ?hi» instruction nl^ould have ocnfiofiid th« jury to auo}> faot« ond circuastHncffa as bora U} on tiae qu«ation of daw«ge», ^hia for/'^ of instruction «»» ccnt.ti? ned in I , (', R. P. Co. T. ionmion, 2.a HI, 42j lata ir. ra^ir. '^^ V, C. Co.. 156 in. ATP. 67fi; LfVitan v. r, C, J^y. Co.. Ji03 Ibid 441,

Tha aisount of the dai»ag«a awardad in oritlcisad aa beinp; ameaaiY*. This asay b«! obv^iatad on a new trial*

The evi'i«nce aewes tc »u»tnin the oontantion of da- fondant tn«t «fter Hriaang frcm the roadbed where aiifi" falliplaio* tiff wae a&le tc aaljf a«^ay fro^a the aoane of x.hf» accident without aoMiotanoa; that t^he tocJt unother car ana ^ont to ii^r, slabeter'a offica» walkxnij; u^ txi,e iitaj.ru to ii*e seocnd ilcor; tuat tue ;>octor did not than find any fractures or di«siocation9* nor was any ^uch found on a later exajciination. After Idtuvinit; the t)ootur*w office ahe went by etreetoar to 61st streRt ac^d cottage urcve riveuue. thnra tranwferring to another car, nnd rode to Galuaet avenue. I'rom there ehe wanked two blocks to her huime and up three fligfita ef stalra without aaaietnnoa. Ttn^ next day the reactor diacoverad

scn« diaocloraticns on th« left aru). sld9 etna l^f. a week ]ater h« «Hd« niictja<?r a»li » about thr«« calls in nil ->■ but did little for her. ?iiia :oocto]r*0 cpiaion wetf tiiAt Ux« «xt«ni of plain- tiff's injury waa a laceration of ti:.« tlit^^uetf &r bruising with eubeequent iaflataioatlon* There in, ^.owever* ;suoh' evidence cf •ubJ<iotive 0y(;:>ptoffie.

The evidence dieoloeee taat plaintiff was a l»rt$«^, fleahy vo&an; th»t she had given birth %c three children rmd tliat »YiG had verlooae veine in b»th le^s fi^r wt;iloh ahe wore rubber • toOfinga for yeitre; tnnt ishe bttri uterine trouble v-rior to the accident, 5*1 ao liver trouble, for raioh ehe wae treated for acre than two yc-j»rs; thnt ahe h«d also «u<stnin«d prior to tJie aecident a sprain CRuued by fs»lllng on her rir-'it side,

FroE these ff»Qts it is, cl-*«r that the phytsiioal di»»« bill ilea fre«» which plaintiff euff^rod at th* tiai«s of the trial «^r« Ifsrenly due to eiiuaee other XluHti tue aooident Id 3uit and aid not wholly reoult irmiu euoh aouident,

A oar<c<fuJL exaei;>imittlun of Uie record ocnvinces ua ihot defotiaant hat not been given a faxr tr^ial in t^.X^i cuae under the law of tn« land, for f«hioh rca^son^ und for tuc ^any errors in procedure in this opii.ion indioRoed. Uic jud4sia«nt of the Clreul'- court te reversed and the c?«uae io re»at»ded for a new trial.

jL'^^oSurely, ".J,, concurs iv. the conclusion, and '^ever, J,, concur a.

4ai • 2S<8a

▼».

CITY VOTCR TRAHUXT COVI-Afy. ft oorporfttlon*

AppcMant.

OP CKICAOO.

217 I^A. 648

■^

Thla la an appcuT frcai a Jutl.^iawnt for $iV0 entered upon Uip finding of tv.c court in nn ction for p^raon«l injuri««» and def ♦»>-;^^-»'-it app«»l£.

lAintiff*a Pord aotor ieliv^ry oar oata^i into col- liaioa wita a :..c tor bu» of defendant, injuring the car. Th« dooioion cf Uxe o£ts« r«iita in the ticlution of two propotiltiona • ^ft« plftiRtiff in titio oxerciae of du« oaro at tae ticie of tiie ool- liaieo, or did ouon colliaiou ri»aalt froiu Uie nef-liuence charged against dofondantv

The efi'.lftnoe dovelopa tiiat the '^ord car in cclliolon wmm lieina driven by a minor ninetaan years of n^e. ot limited ex- perience a» "s drivar. The l^ord oar «ra» at the time of tn# ooTili» ■ ion being uaeri for the delivery of periodical e »n<l ajagaainee. One Dickeracn, tm etaployee of plaintiff, aat in the fr^nt seat beaide the driver. It ie quite ccnclvislvely de-tonstrat^Jd by the evidence t^iai the driver «ct<»d oarel coaly; that he wae not ob- eervini: the vetjioleo in hie pathway, but eat engaged in conver- •atlon with !)iokeroon, »nd that neither of thea waa on the lookout for obatructiona in tac rath of the Ford, ^^hile the driver t stifled tiiat he turned out of the »tre«=t car traoka b^- oause a street oar i«aa behind hisa, he> iu contradicted by several witneeeea on thiis j,oint who t^etiiieu that no oar waa on the

street b'^hind th« T^ord car either at the tima of or Jii»w«dla6tly pr«o«din<(:t the ftcclJitint. ?urth«r£sor«, it 1b in QTidenctt tiiot tli« 7ord c«r vmn being driven ffitkt imd thut nlck^reon had oavitioned the driver to go el over. The driver and nickeroon were »o ab- sorbed in converoAtlon tlmt neither of thero »a» the notor bo* of defendant until the collision occurred. At the tiiae of the HGoident the «ctor bue in oollision vylth plaintiff's j^ord oar w»B engAged in the transportation of oripvl^d chil iren from the Sp«ldini£ eohocl tc tueir atoyerskl homes and was prooeedin^^ with due care; tx*ere is no eviaenoe fro;^ miioh. a. uoncluaion ccin be reached Uiat it was beinf driven in st careless or n«jO i* «nt tsi&n- aer,

We think it is fairly clear froat the evidence UiBt car

the Ford/ran into the aaotor bue and that the motor bue did not

run Into the TonJ car, Vo «»nnii.l«f ]laintiff to recover it be- hooves hisi to est»bli»h by a fair prts' onderanoe of the cvii/cnoe that defendftrit was guilty of tne n^jgligeoce charged, that such negl licence wna the proximate cauae of the cclll^ion, and, further- flsore, that tlrie driver of plaintiff's oar was in the exeroiae of ordinHry care in its operation at th« tijse of and inuied lately preceding the accident. Hooper v. Adaaaa Bacprtsii Go., ^89 111, 169,

:?rca8 the f^cts in thia r««ord it is our ocnolusion that plaintiff's driver tma not, at th^ time of and losRed lately precedinti the aocident, in the exerai :>• of due or of ordinary care in his driving of the Ford car, that aucii Ivnk of care was the itsmediate oaui»e of the accident, and that defendant was not guilty of any of the acta of negligence charged anfainet it.

'-'or these reaaoott tiie jud^ceBi^nt of the l^unic ipal oourt Is rev«ra< ' ith a finding of facts,

HEVRRSTBD ■"^'■~'' ■-INr:lKG OF a'ACTS, j;csurely,l,j,,and ^ever,j,, concur.

iaalBiij

421 - 26662 FIKBING OF FACTa,

7h<& court finds as ulticartte fnots in tula case that At the time of tiie oollialos betw««it) pli%in%iff*a Ford delivery Oflir and the scoter buu of defendant, the driver cf rlnintJLff«e 7ord delivery car wao not in the exercise of du** or ordinary oare la driving euch car; that tii«H collision between i;X»intiff»e T'ord car ftn<3 defencUtnt* a aiotor tiXiu was aololy cnuiied tnreufch the fault of plaintiff 'a driver and that defendant was not KUilty cf any of the acta cf negligence ciifrp- < -^frfinet it in plaintiff 'a 0t?»t®i?snnt of clRlm,

440 - 25701

\ / ; /

t3T CHIC/UJO.

J.*.y-S J. Y^lXtf tr.ecutcri \ of :^«tatc of T?||[3e ;\, )""j|i3on, ) deceased* \ / i ^ m ^ m .^'^

Appellnn

W... i 2 17-' I. A. 64

im, auiiTiOB huldom OELivKagi) thk oiijuicif of ?h« court,

Tiiia i» nn urjaeic^narta si^jptjal, "'he action is .re» ■plfnyin fcT numctrouo ar%icl.e« of personal property, Xlalntiff sucee^ed in pnrt, and by this »pp<»«l aste* t.til3 court to r©« t1«w the reacrd ana tc a'farc; htr the rwnainlng ei^rtlcles to ^hleh i«h«» failed to ftstaMlsh h«r claim in t'afi trial oourt.

'•f9 find » ToluwtnouB abstract »,nd « sorsewhat con- fusing terief confront InfT uq,

?hc articT^^a in dispute rrnre eOT}t«ln«d In a build- ing: cPiliSd The Llnoeln Hosrltal, to the poasession of which building:, pl?»lntlff aaya. the "Vltapthio Roepitel ?knd Sanitary Assooiaticnwhad the right. There se^tae to have been some i>ar- gftining on th-"! part of plaintiff looking to an aoquialtion of the hospital property, but in aoae vmy tna negotiations proved abortive ft;id the property went elaewhore.

llalntlff contends that, all of the articles claiaed by her in the repl 'fin proceeding »ers bou^t and paid for with her own aoney. However, upon a cartful review ol the evidence as abstracted, we think the trial Judge aigut reasonably find, as he did, that the title to part of said artloles was right- fully In plaintiff, and that she neither owned nor was entitled

to possession of the remnining articles,

5e eee no reason tc iietnrb the Jud<a««nt of the !H'unloipal Court and it Is therefore nffinaed,

AFl?IRM3a>. lio8urely,i-.j., and Dever, j., concur.

lioi

>Ctt

^;»roic

lOVttiS - ' ?■♦

1>«>U»

475 • 25734 / / .'' | . ^' N^

a oorpoxmtloo.

Appall AD

O?" CHICAGO.

\y 217I.A. 848^

kS, JUiiTICJt HOIDOII MLlVimm) TKl OI>IIIIO» OF THI COyRf ,

I'm* G&»« lnv6Xvtte « conf«»alon of Judgaent upon ii aot«» wiUi warrant of attornoy tc coofe»t» Jude^ci'^mt attAOhed* 1» the ouaa of |i&COa cU»t84 Doo«Kiiber «£« 1918, upou olxlcli Jud^);»<Mit »»• •ntered for tne oatouat of tJao not« with, i^lo for K,t'^om«y*a foes.

nefend«nt tiKtroaf t«r j»:iov«d th^ court to a«t ftaido tho Jud^ont auid oupportod ^io saotion wlt<:. »» aff IdRvit tt-Vfimng th&t b« «nter«<l into » oontraot with plaintiff in subetenoo tc Uuy froa it a peddler 'B rvsuto, known in plaintiff ♦» buainooa a« aouto «C*» «l«o on» iiomo and vm^on, for tho oim of #JiCO, on oondition ti^mt A contraot «ttO alined by thm parti«a by whieh plointiff would ftficroe tc e«ll to defendant amiiiaiKO of all kinds* All boiled Ivua* And all loin rolls that dttftmiinnt »«]r r«quirt tc supply ixi% trad* for ten yeora frota tha data ef the oontraot at th» markat prloa pravailiBft in Ctiioago at tho data of purohaaa* laos one-half c«nt par pound* payaant tli<israfor to be o»8h tUt? day following dalivasry of gooda to daf«ndant« ;;undaya and legal nolidaya ax- eapted; and furuior, Ui-at no aa»i«m&«nt or aalo of vha routa or wagoa aiiould ba aada vitJMut u^a oonaant of plaintiff in writing* and rurtiior reciting that to aaoura i^roffi|»t coaplianoe with tlia tor«ii« and ooatlitiona of th* cuntraot defendant ahould deposit with

plaintiff a note for :|&oo, dated Daaenber • lfiil8, a^tourad

by an aaaignaant of a oartain contraot aada the 9th day of nay, 1916, betvaan John and xouiaa Koler and George and lAry ^troner.

^r^ >

Q ' IsIuJ.

to !>« forf«lb«d «• liquidRio^d aaK«tg«» and net »» « ponnlty in oast d«fen<lant ab^uld fftll to oomply -/itto aaoh cmd All th« tenoa and oonditiono of Xhei nar^mi^nX^ and plaintiff «aa givon powor and authority to ooll tiio aoeurity witii or vitistout notieo.

It «a» th«A »Vftrr«d that dofendant dopoaitod «lth plaintiff ^im.t purported %& bs a noto for ^dQO; that it did not roooive u oo^:y tti^raof f%nd doea not tcnow tjoia oontonta of tua •ana; that tha nota» •«laiil« purporting upon ita f^ioa to be pay* able upon a oartain day, la in roality payabla and dua only upon tha vli^lntion or br«aoh of the oontraot by dafandaut, and that tha nota ia dua and payable only if daf an^ant small braaoh or violate tha contract,, i^nd than only for th<» »s:icunt of dtaoa^aa auistainad by tha plaintiff.

It ia further avarrad that on TjecoE^b^r 5» 1916, d«-> fandant proeaadad to oarry out tha tarina of tha eon tra^ot and did purchaaa, in aooord^nca with it a taraa« all th^ fiauaai^tat ^iasta, ate., requirad to aupply hia trada, but that plaintiff did not eoaply with its ai^raar^ent to sal?, tha aa»a to him at tha csarkat prioa in Chloa^^o leaa ona-hiaf a oant par pound, but that IjUBtdi- at aly aftar tha axaoution of %i&* oon tract plaintiff did taka ad* vanta^a of dafauJuant by virtua of aaid oontraet and did charga hlB prieaa graatly in axoaaa of tiia pravalling i&arket prioa throu£iu>ut tha antira pariod of hia dealing a with it, nnd as an inetunoa cf auoh axoeaaiTa charges raoltaa that plaintiff did sail dafanaant ainoad hara at 21 oanta par r<3^*nd, tfht?n tha fiiarJcnt prioa th«T«of was 18 oanta, eitlng a nunbar of otliar instanoas atoara plaintiff vlolatad Ito agraamant and did not sail at tha Bsarkat prioa but ehargad mora tiuin tha saarkat prioa; and that In further riolation of tha a(tra<^ant plaintiff sant aalaoman into dafandant*s rcuta in an af fort to all;sinftte hia from tha routa, ato.; t^^t by raascn of auoh braaoh daf an dan t suff^rad daoaga ax^

inn k.

•a

thftt ther« is no tiling du« on tiae not«.

Upon thin nffidavlt tha court au»taln«(l defendant** Motion «nd «Miter«d nn erd«r ▼sicatlng th« JurtipBwt, '^leroupon d«fend«nt aovpd to diasiaa tb» suit, which »otion the court granted and diwRi«»#d th» «uit Rt plaintiffs costs and «rd«rcd tbo property l.cTl»d uTsoo re1»»aed and retumad to d«f«nJlant, froftj which ordar plaintiff praved an appi»«l to this court, wlch mkm allo«?ad on tha filing of IS Tsend in tha sum of #1500,

?h« diie»l98«l cf th« cult and tli« jud^pa^nt for ooata agalnat plaintiff wera contrary to prnoticc and tha law governing sueh oaaaa. The court alght. In the ox«rol«e of 11a judicial dlaoratXon, iiwve opened tno judK«*tat wad lat the defendant In to plead to the aerlta and allCNOd tue ,1ud^:;)a«int to at^nd aa a^curlty to $iwalt tixe final determination of the oaae upon its idorita. Should ttuoh defanea prove auucaaaful. ther4 1» Uie tii£i«; to set aalda the judf^ent; If unauooeaoful , all the erdera «ntered en Ui« mo- tion of defendant ahould be vacated and the Judfjaent allowed to atand aa orlglnaUy entered.

To try the merit a of « c»»a upon an affidavit haa at leaat the i^erlt of novelty In ;}udlei») procedure, naintiff i'tad a ocnatltutional rl«:ht to a trial of >il9 oauae in open court and with the aid cf a Jury, if he etada ouch a dealre wanlfeat in ao- ccrd wit;* the provlaiona of the l^unlolpill Court Act. counsel for plaintiff, «dio wrltea a very auort arguwent, waa Juatified in ob» serving at the ccnoluaicn of hlis arguttent, that "It would be Idla folly to take up the time of thla loncrable Court An arKuin*? that laauea cannot be tried In ocurt& of law on aff idavlta.** With thia w« quite ai$rae.

Counael raiaaa another point wnxca we will aettle for the guidance of the oourt in a retrial of the ouuae; It la that i^^ere a note and oontraot are in conflict, the note will govern »•

b«ing th« prinolpal ol>llg«tlon, Hunt«r v. CloTk, 164 111. Ift6,

Th« ^u<i(pB9nt of thtt Kunicli&I court i» reverted aind the oau«« iw rtiaan4«d tc thitt court for further proooedlnss eon« slstent vitb the viewe herein ex^reetis'd.

i^oSureXy, I, jr., and t)eTer, J.« concur.

.a

493 - 25754

SATKAI,

4 ]^l/RCK,

ding; as

1».

App»lla<uC«,

OF CKICAOO,

217 I.A. 648

5

feJ», JUSTICE lit?lB<^ TffiMVUtFD Tim CTtVXO^ 01? ?HK 0Oin'<T.

tiila ia im &ppe«l ttam « Ju(i>s9b«ai of ^34,07 on* t«red «i(;;&la«% plskintitt , <sa & %TiiKl befar« Ui« court, on de* f«QcUmt*ii cl&Juft of ttttt-ofJT.

xXftxutiff'tt olaiat wa* for ^^00, aud in tti«^ ccurt*« finding tnx4 «aa allowed aa a cretUt aj^aijiaii dcf «ndan&*a counter- olala, »o uiat tja« feorita of ^Xain^iff^a claia ar« not iuvcXved in tni» appeal,

?hi» it» « oa»« of the touxtii claoM und ia therefore. at r«p«at&«ily <iftld b^^ tiatt court, whut the eyX ionoo i>:i»kea it; tl:i«rofor« we Rr<9 not ccncernftd with taolsuiil call ties regarding th« plttadiaga argued by plaintiff.

Tha plaintiff* ar« arcbltecta and Iwd a ccntraot

witii dftfanJant to draw jplana and ajecif io^tiena for n >>ull41ag

and to »uj"?rintond Ita oonj»truotlcn« iayiienta tc oontractora

w^^r» to if uada up(>n tae o<sriif ict^{^t«» of tke arouiteota, whiah

and included certifying »a to -aoik uom? and tUs ajioount au^/to oe paid

Defendant filed tnree claius of aetooff, mioU w«r« on action atriokea, waeraupon dafandant filted an awendad atatassent of »et»off • tne fourth in tu« aeriea Uf^on mcIuLo^ the par tiea pro« oaaded to trial, thim mia for daAagaa elaiaed to arise out of a breaoii by plaintiff* of the ooutraot between lh9 partiea in euit.

all«cing tlint th« r.iaintiffa ajfr<*»d b,y their ccntrftot to pr«jj»r« pl«ns and apecif loation* fcr an^ to rap *r intend the ocn«truotio« of « isftohintt shop bullrting ftt th« noj-thwict eorh^r of .'alnut atr«»t and rtOtlejp boulevard, Ohie«t;oj that plnintiffa n«<iiaot«a end wholly failed to aupcrintenend th« conetrtiotiou of the build- ing and that In ccn»equ«noc Ui«r4>of inferior ©aterial Hnd faulty and poor wcriosanahip were viaeti in oonatructioo and that ae a furtiiier oonaeo.'a(mo<» t.h<»r«of imh balldinc. ym» X«ft in & faulty and unf inl»h«d condition; that the foundation walla were poorly and iiaprop^rly conetruottrd* ec that In vet weather vftter voapad throu^'h th« f<;und»tion trails; that ti«id foundation ^mllv wor* tec narrow* ceu fling tha brlok iiirork to project more than four in«he«; that tba contra plTlurs vare out cf rlaoe asere than ttr«lft inohot and that 8«^v«rftl docr» in the tu II ding ««re of euci: poor i»at(«rial thot they rmrtt falling ftpiert; that rlaintiff foil*>d ta rrejpftrly «u5'*»rvi»a paiwrntu <*«<* th* Vfericwa ecntraotors ao thay luMI by their contract agreed to do in the ocurse of th«» construotloo of the Imil'ilnf;* vhrreby various ecntraotora in the course of the ccnetruotion of the building* and particularly one Kirwin, vera OTerpaid, eo that theee contraotort, and particularly Kirwin, failed and refuoed to Gom^plet# their fmrk in aecurd with their eeveral contraota* Xenvini^ the building and ite constructxon in an unfiniehed ocnditicn, ao that by reuaon thereof defendant ma forced to pay out I119G.46 aoecrding to the aix ite^iie therein 9c>t forth* and also oliiiaiag the ^uja of ^&vC ao daiii&,ge» reaoltintr from plain* tiffs* neglect of duty in allo^inie: a faulty construction cf the foundation vails of the building;.

In its Jjudipaant the court allowed two of the i testa abST* referred to in the »et»off - one of tb^,*i.f for exonvating and hauling out dirt frow the baser^ent, and the ether, $109.60, for

iko*

flllirig in boiler rooai, cindere* and bricking up fiertt; th«tii two itetas ttgi^nti^at* «;6d4.07» fr<ub wiiieix im.it dttducted toe anount of plaintiff** oIftia« l^aviajg ti:ie UBOuut for whioi:^ the court gavo JuUiiDi^nt.

An esouBinatinn of th« toaiixony suiitAin*. in our •pinion 6t l«»«t» th« two itosa above op self led whici:i th« court ttllowedl »jr*in8t pimntiffo «o « prcpor »«t-off , in this regard w« «r« Inclined to the opinion thAt tlao dAttUga w»a ainimiz&A to {l«in- tiffo' adva«sta^«, Ao a typioal evidence of tii« tsHnner in wUioh jilalntiffo n«glect«ri their duty in super lnt«Kdtinc the er^^otion of tJi« buildlnir *«<! In seaklag oortlficateo tc oontrnctcra for work done* w« quote th« follc^'lng l«nter cf plaintiffs «o the con- tractor rtrwio:

"J? of. C, I, AsAeroon iiaijdiau.

xiay nth, 1917, tr, Gii»», T, Kirwin:

•.«^*»y »**»*»♦* -^ +*-n-io ivtV''? finally l«t tiie exofj'/n^.irjfr oontraot, Aiid tiie filling in of ciad«re# oj: ttie Anderacn buildini^. «* ^« ha>ire r<'5poate.i3y re^u^jted you to f xniah /our contract, ^^nd, you baro prcotitied tii.« <^vn%^,r a. nvo&bur of tijx.«:;^ to do so, but you bavo not ^npt your promiaes, and it lo no^< nearly six faontiio tfirico you, und^r your contrstct, ^ere to ccj5xa.cte ytur woric,

30 rtceivad four bid* froas oxottvatin<g oontractcro.** ?Uf Ij-igiioat bid for |7&0,C0. from T, l.;, '&hite *;: oti^i^^ny, Knd th« lotoat bid frois rr, n»«aoitti, for .t^33(),v'( .. We l«t tUo v^oi-ik tc liiai, a.-i5 Le »tcrt«d tho acrk thie taorsiing,

'fo think you ou^iat to tHk« soirae int!»r«at irt tri« work that you cortractod tc cc^plwto, Rnd net run *>«rRy frcj.. t.n« job. without paying-* vour aatarial asen. ?ou kiar^m been ovarpaid on tlris Job i9nd you 3i9rojre»oj.tsd thin^iB, Ycu tcld Ke that ail tha laateriaX man had bo^n pnid, and that there ?»aa only about Saoc.CO %-crtli of »orJ. Irft. Cn tbp atrengit-r. of th«8c misrapro- aontr^ticna -^e gave you cortlficatss, and you cnll«ct€d o« the Cirrtificaiea, far in exoeco of ■ ii«.t mis ccmlnj-j tc ycu.

Havinj; a rayutnttion for beiaK l.cn'sot and fair'"' «• thinlc we ouiiht to bear frett ycu, nr.il you cug»-..t tc at l^^aot eJfAOW aosaa interest in the '»ork. If you loot on the job it certainly wwa not out fault,

"iti truat that you will ooasa in and eottle up t^ia Job ianediately,***

Thla ia a oonfeaaion of negligent oonduot and lao:ic of proper aup^rwiaion of defendant** building on the pari of plain* tiff* wbloh waa a violation of tb«s expreao terma of the oontraot between then.

It is urged for fQT«r»«X that the el&i» cf aet-off is for wol4t)uidtit«d d»£i»»i<:«o «tnd timt therefore there couXd be o» Jttd0B«t}t In f«ivor of 4«f«ndisT}t; thMt ivhll<» auoh 4aj.-j»ge8 laJleht btt reocupffd Mind th« olala of plaintiff* tbftr«l»y itofefited* ihcrr* oould l»e no Indtp^ndttnt judjiicent in dafcnvdsnt's fiivcr,

^« do net think* in tho first plao«. Umt th« 4iMum«l ••t off veT9 ktnllquiaiAt«d in tiielr natare* broautj* the suaount «a« <NMlly Asoort&inaUitf and did tiot rest in ^eti^iat^s or uion opinion oviaonoo* The 4t«toa aexe for aat^ri&la liocesoarily furnisiiOd and fo«» worit and labor i^-Jde n&oo»aary .0 b<? &iippli<^d to the buiJding on account of Uie negllg^int aroiii tecturftX suptrvissicn of plain* t iff IB, Jheiy ar« d{«ft!ft#;«tii growing iwjasdifttely out cf Uif ccntraot «nd »r©, vmder -ssrell settled legal principles, subjisct, of cyuntwi- elnijtt.

It «»B not »eoeoe»ry to procurt opinion <*videno« to •otfttollah the oounter-olftlB, In ':-'<ii»\.f-rn Ccfil _^ j;iniR|^ f-o . ▼. Jgerv<;l|_, ai*i Til, Apy-, 21J>, this oetirt h«l i that dowanrie fex work nnd Inbor r^^^fGS'ra^^^St ^/iR^rfJ, ffrxSw scld and doli'yerod, nanay, «ic,, aro aucfc aa may to» oat off in an action ex ocMtrnctu whether the:-' sjrloe cut nf the Bwbjeet«Ksntt»r of the ccntraot in oult or not; and in zel* ▼. atafford, gB4 111. 6lo» it wna h«rld thot un- li(;uidat«d dft.'B»g«o (frowinj^ cvt of t(if» contrmct in ault rmy b«» set off in the sHJBe motion; and it >>tiis :&h«sr<!t to«ld that the rule that a claiot for unli(|uidated di»i^R|^e» aannot Xx* a&t off in at< action for rent under a Iipshc appliat only when the daKiafoe 9cu^%ht tc be re- ooured grow out of a atatter htiivin^; no relntioa to the ocntraot eued oa, so that, e¥an admitting the contention, ^hich -an do not* that the «e%<»off in tiile oaee is for unliquidated datr^a^ea, hy parity of reasoning in aela v. staff orci, aup ra » such daraagea growing out

i'^-,1 .rti*

ef ttic cantrooi in »uit wRy proporly b« th» »ubj«ct of not-aff,

Tii« Judgnmit of tjtit Municipal caurt is rithout errcr aod i» '^heret'orw affirmed.

Mc^Jurely, I, j,. and never, J,, concur.

SJOOI X* lIlD^UiaT »nd /'

OF CliXCAOO.

21^--^ "■:. 649

m, JtJSTIGX «C1..!X5W t35El.IVJmKD WIS OFIWIOH 01? ?HF- OOUFtt.

?hl» Rfpewl i» undefended. It nu-m^ra traa the Veoora tnot defendant endorii«d « note dated Ootolter \, 1917» jMiyabXe ninety daye after date, to t^e order of plaintiff for $'d&0, the Biiicer of the note being User F« Lindquist, who f*il«?d to pay it when due* ae likewisie did the defendant. Upon a trial before the ocurt tiit^re ««a Juugaent a^amet de* fendant for #27^* prinolpal and interest then due upon the note, of thie jud^ent defendant eeeka our review.

Defendant in hie affidavit of »erita aet up aa def eneee that there tme nothing due on the note; thAt there ««• no ooneideration givwi to him therefor; that he m« a lioeneed atterrioy and that he «ae enitoged ae euoh to perforaa certain eervioea for plaintiff and otheroj that they agreed to pay hl« for euoh eervioea* before the saturlty of the note In ault, t»lOO, and that plaintiff proailaed to advance the au« of $250 if defendant vould endoraa plaintiff ^a note, and plaintiff aXao •graed that defendant should be liabli^ on the note only if he failed to pay the eane out of the $31uo fee when the eame ahould "be paid, and that euoh fee had not been paid.

Ho attaopt wae made to prove tiie firet two de- feneee. The third defenee renting in parol wae unavailable aa auoh beoauee it atte&pted by an oral projfiiee to vary and olu^nge

\

u

«stv «•

-»fe QV.

th« %i»Tv\9 of tlie not« and to vnry th« liability of d«f«nd«ni lander the law at an endorser thereof.

Defendant argtiea for re>7ereal that under the !ie» gotlable Znetri4nent» aet there nuet be proof of a presentation Of the note to the maker and a notice of its dishonor tc ths endoreer. (neither of which vms done) and cites Yucker v, Mueller, 2i97 III, &51, in support of thin eontention.

The diffioulty here ia* however, that sucli a dsf«ais« is not cpen to defendant tidien made in ti.ii} court for the first tiae, his defenses are cirouascribed vitiiin those set up in his affidavit of jnerita, wiaoh is his pleading*

It i» admitted that defendant reoeived Uie a&ount payable under the ter^is of the note, so that as between the defendant Hetaus, and the maker of the note, lindquiot, the note was given as an aoocjiamodation to T^eaaus, As no iudffb^mt was taken anainst Lind^ulat, his liability is not invclved in this appeal.

t%ie Judgn^nt of the >v^unioipal court i» right and is affirmed.

AyflllKKD,

ke&urely, I, J,, and liever* J,, concur.

••a»'

/

^ ^- / V

V9.

tHS Si^Krms .-'XmsTt ccspas?!

»8S

:24«73

/

2l 7

I.A. 649

^

l»y ihfi trlAl, oourt la two c»»<i9, '^ifhlch ^ •tlpul^tion of t^ partite '»«re trlcdi t«ci?ti«irg although n*>lth«r %)m pi(f-il«ti tjictrerle HAP th« i«aiie« tli«r«ln *<rf*ir« iclt^nUciil* Both sultii wtre in «i«»iicy^8it* In OI96 caiH$ fojcayihe Br«tt* Conpgfijr, iii corpor&tioi&a •1MI4 tiHi ^imkera Hurts ty C«n^«n/ t^rMJ l^ojpold ^. $sen»oh upon a bond siv«a for tb* frilthfuX |p«rfors«»noe of » bwiiding conirftct, oBterods ia%o l»«rt«««n the plutntiff corporutlon »»4 »ai4 lAOpoldi J. ]f«Bseh. Xa Ui« oth«r e«).at« Leoitold J, ISen»eh »u«a 7or»yi^tt Broa* '^o^pAMy for ni»i:^> GXali6«d tc be )^« hie tui<!ter e«v«r»X Ibuildlng contraots tBtored leto lH»t«r4»^>n th^^ p«a>ile», one of «)'Xeh vrne th* ii»JMi aOBtrtbOi InvoXvftil in th« tsuit of Jforcythn Bros* Coii^i[>]iy v, l.f«a«o)ii «ad tli« •^urotjT Coi&pimy.

Tho eontruot w^.loh ihe surety gu^^antood «w« im4« \wtqtt«ii t)u» partio? en tl&e XXth 4. y of Hov< mb«r, 1910. Benaoh as con* tr«ct«r »i«r»«d with ?foy«yU» Broo. Cowpany ae ownor, tb- t ho, >^a«oli.

•8»

vould provide all i)i« mit^rlftln iws ptrfwm sll th« mork "for tlw oon»truetioii of pXpiin 7>nd s^clnforexiid cionorev« work, tiX«, vmllfi, pXHt4 Wring iuid nieeciXInneooii work r« qui red : or a n«v fneierj Wilding *i Hrirvey, lilinoie, a* «aho«a on th« drawings and ;eaerili«(l in Uuir sp«i£ifi cation* pr«pnr«d l»y Orefi«inftn 9t Pro»ic&tt«r« ftnicineerft, and v. K, i:^^^!*!^^^* erchitfeot, « « «

the contri&ot further proYi^eil that tiw ^ork jih<!M)il4 h9 don* unler tiw» direction of- th« onginooro, thai their <s«8iiilon oa to Urn oonot ruction of Uio dr&trlnga «tn<t opociflCfAtiona eiaiotild toe finul, that they would fumioh »u.dn a4dition.ai drs^^inipi and epoeifi c^tioAB »o should bn n<«c«»»ofy, t>mt in on f)^r r^s tho ewM v«ro e<n»i8t«ct with tho intent of Ui# ori^in»X drawiago ond •pecif ie<^tien6. tiio contn^ctoi woal^ otiiftforot to riin 4 abida by th«B; thsit no edter^^ition ohouid \m ta&xi^ in U^ work «x«ept upon iho oritton or^&r of tho fini^inoera; that th« oaotmeter wnuld provide t^ttfficient f&«ilitloa for inr.pestioa by the/&; thnt ho would rcnov« «ithin tw^niyofour hour a Okftor oritton nstlo)?!, issitoriol conciftnn«a by thou; that ho wt^uXd tnjLko doon all poriiona of tho work ooAdoanod by thaa ho failing to co«g>ly with tho wpoeificationo «nd drawinga upon vritt«a notiee;; that upon th«lr cortifieatoa thnt tho ooniraetor hmi f«;il«d to porfom tmy fH^ronmsnt, tho ownor, af tor throo d«gr» written n'^tieo, nl</^t hnm the onf,in<t@ra oortlfy thoro WHO auffieiont aground to t^rnuLnnte tho oaploymtsnt of tht oontrM^ctor. stBd sijii^t tako poi^ooaaion of thr preniaoa mnd aai«ri&l thereon, for the purpoao of oonplntinf? the work} tli»t the contract -^r ohould net bo entitled to rec«iv« any furtJwr puyaaint until thp work ahruld bo wrioXly fini^lied, «4;!0n, if there waa any oxooaa oTor tho aatotoit poid and expenao incurred \^ the oi«nor, it shmild bo paid to tho oontrfActor, hut if the exponao ejtoooded tho unpaid btnlaneo, auoh oxoeac. should >» paid by the Grtntr&etor; that Ui'^ snginoora

«c*

•houldi sudit And certify th« lusount )m«S their eertlfiontee eheuld be concXuaiT* na tiMi partieiii that Iha work «&» to \m oM^letcd not l«t«r thf^n lyfjoeiabor l'"i, X^lCj thnt the owner imt««<i tn provld* all l»XK?r and! isntttrial «»»«ntl?a to Qon|»Utlng th» work not in-

«Xud«4 In Uw cfflntr»ot, ihu.% he alo«ai iicr««>«4 to pay th© oontrnoter for thlo work and iRiit«»rial th" r^im of |23,000, ©xclUBlve of fir«% floor Blab, »nl;/ on ^^« et>rt if lcut«» of th« architect 8, 98i!§ »• th« worfc progstuttafitl, e«»rttfio?i^t«ii tt> he ias»u«4 imsaithXy ^t«f««n th« lit tm^ lot* rt^ye of the le&nth for work don» for pr«v4eu» saenth, thnt no i5ei*tlficat«B givco or pftyjwiit »ad«, except th« final e«»rtififlRt«* or p»yffirnt, phouid W oncluoi'w orid^nce of lYw p»r« fontimot of the {}fMiJ,r«ict. ^'ither in wholfl er in part, and bo poy- SNOAt should b«r connXder^-d fi,» rm iicoffpttvnoe of <J«f««ti"f« work or iiiii^r«:^r isfttttrial.

Ibio contTftOt «i i!i att't<oh9<l to the bo»rl sued on« v^ileh rocitod the BUiklng tltorcof .-.m& di«tt«d th^t t^« eoidition of its eMi«f'ti<»a *iB stioh, th&t if the principul »haU indemify iko oVligoe fiHiiiiiiiet nny l9r»^^ or deJBftC« dirsotly arising >>y .tv.miitm of tlt« foiliire of tho principta to faithfully i?erfor»i ««iid e««tr«at, Ummr tlito obllgfttion uhsfcli >i Tfoid, otherwtBK* *-o r!?w&ln in full

thf tterffit^mi**: f,r ^...ch f^- vfclch ahj^ll be ^4 con.tltlon precsd^nt to

knjf ri hi Af rt-. r.f>v^ y.y h.^f'«>ftn » « « etC

B«Be of theoc oondltioas! prcc^ttcist rx^ th^t vriiton aotieo of the prinoipnX*8 d«f»ult and pcrtieulur fncte sid th« date thoroof ohall bo given by regiot«red m»il j^roaeptly, th^Ht th« obligoo shall f'^ithfully persons d11 th« tera$», covenant o ftnd eonditiono of »tt<ii contract on tho i5»ri of tM' oblige** to tea performed, that tho plana and epeciflc^AViona 8Rntion«rd in ttaid eontrttct nre not In ^^ny rectpoct a«f6otivfi, and ;ir« and ^t all tinoH will b« kept &d«<}u«»to for the coaplete perforinanoo of wuch oonvraet.

:>ti*b.

'u'VU r'-'-'t , t>f f-v*^*i. . ,L--.i^l^-^:

«4*

?er!?yth« Br«>». Compcumy i»ftBlf;n«d fur br«ii(i|»«ei ©f thi» 1»(m4i Uvf^t l#n«(rh follind t<» <ti» t>s» work or furnish mute^rial enll«d f«r n<^e»/'*"lng io the ttrrm «>f tb« e«»iitni«t, th«t In «« fwkr an th* m^rk wft» <$pnc» lh« 4jld «9( t3««8|piy with tb» ternn of tl>« contract or t>pe'*tfic«ftto«» or %M ^isvctions of ibe f:n^iB«ep«, that h« ustd iwtt^^rlaXw ■**'». I fih wr* vJ^fflXy ^r.fBctlvt fea<! Ir5»til«qeatc , lbs. I s^s «. reHuXt of xh^m^ fcrer'f.hf'n, t^f^ ooluwRs;, girders, 'Pallfe «»iif?. roof 9f t^ »trtt«5b«r<» f-'-fi iprertt^rf, i««.r« unfit ffr the ptiX|$o&« najR«d in tlur •9fitri<i«t, tif.fct J.iirg*' »Uir.© Of suoni^y ha?s ^ff» •ijfjss.n<i»<i \ty .th* pXikia* tiff in *it^M^tiriu '.o <;«»i9(pA*te tJfes) bt».i3tiing*, eacS th=-4t„ ^ r«>anon •f ».>>e d-fffet© P!tnti9f(^4, tKo |iA^i»t.tff suffered «. X««b of *Ua« dtff«ff^fc©» l^tw^^^n tJ***- wftittt of »i^Xili Btru-stur® U8 t'« susit *fe9 i«ft by Sl^fie(C!h whf*»j hi.^ work waa rtb«4flaa®d sui ekt^-v^ani^, fcn4 tii« Y&Xito •f tli« atrueturt* -» ^h» !«i;^w* wt^uid hs^m >>««»7i if rrr©ct*d it* «Geor<l«i4l*

Ti^urthrtr i^\m^ waa .laiwlfiiHid ^y rt^-naa of t^ lc«»'. of Um ug« «»f th«' 'butX4i«£., ^Al it wi?,s alltg«d thj? t pajro^Sta hAi %««r iittd* lit soo«i ftlth, (iMB-."'»^itlB;.S te ^-22,000,, b«t th^t itet js^trttcttir^ wae wortli fsfr J^ss ihftH the a»«-smt p«i«i 53«e«vii»« of vis^:- 4*; feet a ?«!ntloa«<l, aad tJi'.' I tjfefct;' p-syfifrei gihrjuH 1b« r«»tfl:"«s-J t? tfe«* ■j-xfnt of !|l&,fC€,

It wma sXefli tt.ll«&^d th^-t tfc4 i^Xaict iff «a Itsi purt «ei^li«d with itlX tbff i?rcTiP^^t«>n« aiad rs^uir^ttttnta af xIsq coatrsot

A &iljp«jilatijim «Uich ]^rovi4<i4 for i» cenri^Xidf^iiOfi 9f tluiMr fittdAB %Ig^ {>ravld«a t^.>t U»« 4«f9nS«<nta «i»^r tl^ir «ep«F«i« yXec^fi of., ail debit aJ-i^wl* >.«»*; t-itis j^'i^ht to intr^xtttc? "all .ief;m»«» tfe??.t th^jr »*-jf RAINS An «i&id lault, the «£»• «» if all :?rff|>«r pX^s^s te $*j-iilt tfc'T istr9<luetioA 9f »ue>j 4af»R»<j8 b»4 l>ean flXad * « • •

ly .'mather stiyuir.tion it r©6 agrtftd that tlB» eult ehtuXd Tst trt»d ^i&f^v rs Jury, thf t t>» cXt&iKit of Lt?opoXd J« }^«ii««h

•*•

■^frafFi

,i./i3 i~.

•♦»

•5*

TB. Foraythtt Bros. CongDimy on^ the elaiatt of ^orsythn BriM. CoiHp«ny V8. Benkftr* -lursty Compinny «nd I«090lii J. V'cntfoh «h<$ui,(i r« oub> mltt«d to th« ?0i-l Jury, and th^^t ihs enurt »VintiX4 eubnlt fMj^arftt* f«raiii of verdict t® Vf.« jury, »o fivft It wi^t detcr«in« whether »ald kcaaoh wmr entitled to rveover d;snia9»» us ugAlnst ?orayth» Br««, C(»m»{my or tdfictber ,^9r»ythtt Bro». Compsn/ was entitled t^^ d^riik^a upon th<? btmd of Iml^^mnity, and ih l th@ c^tirt iihcuid, upon r«c#-lviiie tJie verdict, *;nter Ju<%j«fent ir. finnforwity therewith if *under th« Xtm th« p«rty in whoet' f^vor the verdiot is r«t<u*n«d io eRiiiX«d to th«

At the enncluaion of t%^i tnt evllitnoo RtotiOiio imro imdo by *.fn^ of ihc^ def«nlRntu for instructions in tfeeir bohsXf, tmd a written instruction to Xht^t «;ffeot mm t«ndf:<r«d« whieta ivao d^niod, Certnin ngrted inalructlons ■9mr9 th-n ^ivr^n to the JIury, in whioh the can»oiid^ lion of the two eusmtt wa« oxpl^dnovi, isnd tho Jury waa told thnt it ohotuld dotoriBliio fr^n th(^ <}Widc»a«t whsUvt^r I«o|^old J« lbRn»oh waiiis entitl&d to recover ;l«inag^8 «»« to Torisytho Broa. CoflQ>fuiy, »**thpr Fornytho Broa. CoB$)any wfsa «ntitX«d to rooovrr daKaigao •goiast Leopold J, ?« ntich, «nd wbetljer or not thn fankoro i»«r»ty <^oap«iy w*o ii«M« for d«nAg««^ if any^ fror the naiure of I^ei^old J, MoBoeh to fully perform hit* eoair»ot, di%t«d MowiRbcr 11, 19XC,

The oo«rt at the «»,,u«»»t of Foroytho Broo, Cojupnny

ABd over th« objoetifm of the Surety Congpfjiiy furthor iafttruotod

th« Jury »»« followoi

*And if you find f^-oTR tho «vi4enco after a^Xyinc th© in true t ion 0 of \'r» c :urt ««» hor«fin at«te<5, thet Toraytho Brothore Com. Kjoy Haw paid to .oopold J, ^noali «or» than ho in f-nt.ili«sd to, th<?n It in y ur luty to return » vr -iicv in frtv-r of ^oraythe ! roth{?rs Cea^pany and agKioBt X*<3pold J ♦ )iwnae.h and th« Bankcra .Surety CMQiiuiy. ».a»»«soln^.c ii« df^in>:<(j«i« thsrfifor tho uaoMnt thct you wjv.y fin 1, If ftny, oroythe Proth^ra Cowpany hawe paid to JLoc^oid JT, {^stntjch in I'xceao of tha ajR-Hint of the fv.ir a»d renoonaWo Viiluo of tho Kot«rialB fur- niehod, and ti« work performad toy aaiti lionaah under aaid eaatraci of ''oveasbar li- IplO." -

• 6«

You aro ino%ruct«i/<i x}\<*X any Aatotmt y^u any fifli4« if .'^ny, Leopold J*. I^nnaeh io indcbtt'^'! to Foroythe BroUiers Coapt^ny for th<= i^ilurc to uub0tfintix<ily eonqesXy -.irith th« contr. cl, d<iU^d KovcK&ar 11, 19ir, in furnl»hln|5!; »tttftrli.l» aod ]M>rfersiiaK work, you ahouXd find {:i like uwount iu <lu« to for»yU»« Broth* rn Comp uny from tu Pi.nJwuro -surety Cotapmaym'*

ttm Jury r«?tumed ih« fftllewlnR Ter^ilci:

"se, th« Jury, find the iaiiu«f» in favor of Voreythe ?jxoyver» Caa^if^nj urid n^iln^i j^opoldl^ Ii»M««h imd the Bankor» -Surety Cntsfntmy and As^oae the «iaim^ft» »t thct mum of ^lO.OOO.OO*"

A not i cm for m n«?v( trial >« u ^vM-ae by the 4^f« ndwxits, whioh Uw c>^urt, tiiX'tor r- c«ivirm tlia report of an oxport oo tfas aerito of the eti60, oyotrruXod apoo iho plaintiff resslttinjl ^&«CO0. Hhis plaln« tiff did and the court thereupon «nt«ro(l Judgwont on th^ vcrdiot ogHinst thr <irf :a4fint oontri^eior oad hio avtroty for |r5,Oro, Tho eourt aI»o «ntereu Ju^gsont a^jMlnttt lioaook for cogte in the suit of Monaoli ▼• Fornytho Broa. ''Onpnny*

¥h« 'ittroiy Coapony ocmtcndn thwt the motion by It for o dir»ct6dt irerdiot ahould =.&v« bo«n gmaied, Ixfoimaio ths uncontr«!> diot^d fividttnoo ohonNid t>i»t tho plMOM aad •pooifiot'tiena mim dofcetive and wholly or in p^vrt cn^aodi th<e aefcteis oonplikined of lN>o&u»e Forsythe Broo* CoM^«ny faiXt^d io ooa^ly with %h» conditions proGOdoat th&t fifld^ of thi» tkIuo of tho nerk ln»t«ill«d ohm Id \m poid on certif lotitOM of tho archito «t;beoattKO notiooo «ero not Itivoa eo rottttired by tho bond; iseoMtso aatorlol fOuaigoo noro aado ia Hm eentrnct without th« aon««nt nf the auroty. 1% oloo oloiao th&t in my eaoo tho judjgc^nt aust Im roTtrrood boooaoo of orroncouA in»truotiono given by th« c«^urt at th«? re truest of faroytiko Broo. Coa^iuay.

?rOB> tho ovidsnoe it Kpp«arn thnt bofore the foratkl ox«oution or th« eontr«ot of ?<f>v«nA>«fr 11th the coatr* etor *ntorod upon hill work, that U»e noBthfl-r was unfovoreble, nnd th?t tho

*7m

work 4iiA not prnoBcd aaiiafuotorlly, and th^^t fron iiMf^ to tint, 99mtii^tm\>le frloiitm devitlopttd bet«««n Uw pbrti«a. Their diff«rerie«i», however, irtir* not »eriou» enough Vo prevent the iftAking of oUier ooncraoit of thn ttfijR« n«iur« iMttwt&n the a, #i|iii wfto dont on J»»nu«ry I7th, January ^Jlat cmd SI»roh 3:^d, 1911, «• bond \^iia given for thooo nddltioniil c^tr cia,

cm yobruKiry X4th th« prinoipidl ond Guroiy ©groed with tho ovnor that the %im within yiiih^ii « elAltt fflghi bo br''^Kh^ on »Qcount of default »houi,<l b« «xten<ied. About '^n\>rufi.iy uSrd, the ouroty ftt^reod with Foruyth^ Brof}« CoRvoiny thut tf« ^ond iibould roaain 1» effect uts if nc cnnt rove r»y hitd r>riMin. ^n Februiwry 2Sth, an (*i.:r««'iiK^n t wo reached bRtwcsn >'orayth» Broa« Cofft'a»y «*<• liOBoeli th«i in or4«r to enaun? the anfety of the ^;uiXdin;^, wftd th&t iill iof^-cte, whothor proviouely !a$ntion«d or «» thoy sh'^wlA bo foimd, would be tttlton c«rc of to th« oo»ij>l«t» awtiaf ctlon of the o«i«?r, i,h0 it^um of *lC*,fJCr eh-xild bo h«id bftck ;^t of the tetol of tiMB conirnct for a porlod of tbrfe isaathu nftor tiuffieiont iooto had bo«n »mx« to !3Mti<»fy tho mmor as to tht Btron^^tli of the bulXdingo, ttn-i nf\»^r th«»i» teute «]iow«d thft ^iiaildinii^s to hatw th» proper otreasth. Tho <$ur«ty w^a not notified of thoca ahangos in tba oentraot* >4ork which h»A hmun »tai>p«d by tha sOBtraotor ym,» thon raausaed*

C» FobruAry lOth stxid April tith at:rtifioalao of tho angiaoera for paymonta under th« dlfforont eontrextto w«r« da* llvarad to tkm contr»Rtor. Tboae oertifiostas wart; proaoAtad to I'oroytha Broa. Coaniany «tod p&ymtmX dei»uide4, whioh w»s refuaad. On ifaiy 3rd the oontr&ctor notlfiad tki« owner tluit by re^^non at tlialr failurti to pt^y xhtwt- oubo oortifi«d "♦ * • for loora th«» ton (10) daye ttftar A>.id cum of monay baeoMi dita na and waa laMoBdad fro» you by i» » ♦ •• he elected to abandon the work

'HP

-8*

;rovldc:d for toy Um> coutracta. On Itejf ftih, th« »MB«r ac:knowI«4i^d reo«ipi of i)M»»« neriiecu, ;>n<i replied thf.i if th« eertifiOKtos luul lM«n iHi^UAd for Ui«»« ais'^tjntv, it ctusi h»v« be^n throui^h «m ov«r» al^ht, that N) cXuim for 43,COC f<9v a«Qhnni<»* li«n had h««n aa4« ASftlnoi tb€ Ijuililnfc', .md th a un4«»r th* ft<?r««iiiBnt of f^ytrunry 2», X911, by Tfnt^9a t>f "adBlttcd dt>ft«otti lA thr building «» {»r« entitlodi to hold * * * thm sum of $3,000 to eovor iho «ork necoevary to rtattfy tho d«f«eia {>arto«nt Riid Ut« sun of $10.00C to 1»« isitMiold by thi» Qonpuny and to bo in th^^ nniuro of an indcimity bon4 to eovf^r nay d«feotft «^ich might bia fatm-i to b« prooont in i)»» roof ami othor f»»(rt» »f th» bttlldinij.*' The i'^tt^r ar.Kt, *ln u^i%» of y^ir >>avinff a<?rv«4 u» thoit^o notiot«a of obmi'lfmi^nnt "«« still wouXd bo ploaood to h«iv» y?>u co«siil«9tfc' the work." the contr»ctor thon ouod the oivnor; t>ie o^n&t took poo«oo»ion, compleittd Um; work osd l»t«r suod the oontrActor and his siurcty*

itech ovidonoe vrau sulMnittod to tte jury tending to sua* tain tho i^opootivct contentiono of the pArtien »u to eontrovortod is«ue)» t>f f&.e%, 2t ia unnooenaary to diucuaa lh«»o in deii^il. Xt id <:4mitt«!^ by aXI thni the build in;; an oonatruoted «»« in mt»j rospoottf in a, vory dofootivo condition. fh«' <:<mtraotor odadta that t2i@iio dofectt} in part iwre sl««? to laf^rctivo 'irorkXB«nahip« He elniffio th'it oth«r d^focto w:ro cuuaod by the uiifinii^od otato Of tk« building, aon* to d«fo<?ta in t.h« plans and apeeif iceitiona, oth«;r6 to dofoete in the footinga and fcKindationa with whioh ho ■■4 nothing to do, an J »till otht=r8 boenuoe eortoin laproper ttsta were rO'iuirfid to Vx? j'.ia-ie by the ow»©r, and further %ht*t tho enicinoora ir*nd inap^otora lapraporly p»ss "Od o^rtain work*

th* appolloc ovaxer .-irflntenfiH th>.l «11 iiie -Jpfecta v»v9 4tto to Uitt fi;uii; of tip contr ctor, %h.i v * 'y theoo

•ft'vtcro were ^uiaaattost to the Jury on conflicting fivii neo and

•9*

its Tervilct should bft edncrlu»lve. Tht> r«o«rd, h^wer^r, >iardly •ttsi?,tinB fchi» eontontimi eepfc cially le t« nlMlned d«f*«<:ta in Uui pluni^* 4ltnett3«o for th« oontri^ctor !• stifled %o def<»eta UmwIo. I* win* shewn Ui«t theue ««]*« dri%v«n l»y «ni! ineem of the owner aofid ii«r« KpproTed by its «*rc>Ut«ct, 'u^io, prior to t^r.n tt?^,w».6 wlthyyti experience In pltinning or conatrucvln^;: this kinri of build- ing. In sliition to ths contractor** cji*n t«-5tltR©ny »n ardhitect of l»rg« •xp«rl«nc» tc»tlfi»4, pointing out the ;^«rtlcwl»rB in whi h th«R« pXwia ««» d«f«ctiv», and givimc «p«olfle r(!a»onB ^y Um Uef^ete in th« pXnnw wixjld Ciuii<M! thic aefe<oiB eoR^lainad »f. Hft to^'tifie^i th^it Ui^ roda vero not so deaignod ua to t<»r8iiin»t« in tile ooacrete girders, th«it the plana did not provids fer ths rodsii renting on im/thing, thrst vho at«<^l in emry girder ».nd erary bsiBB was svorstrsssed «Rd that the slas of the atsel tm.6. giri^rs ir«a i^ro}M»r* "there is lnoufflci«nt nUtaX in cvary slah, ertry b€«« and ey^ry girdor carrying the nKia roof.*

Thisi 'iMTiaonco is not contradicted, tout, on the contrary, ia in »ois« r«aj>oeto corro\>or<»t««t lny tho teatimony af the e-sner** (irehiiest mid .tne of ito engineers. It i« trus, aui «ppsli«© pointi* flut, th»t xn fiXl t;t«j o-^ntr^^wrwles prior to I'm trinl l^nsoh never 'rntionevt t)u^l th« piima ant (ip'^oif ieatlone mi iesiga wsm iitf«etiv«« but thia hf MB Xittls »t«lght in vltm of the preof thit l^nscii did not know ateout th«»« dftf^cta ut thif<t tiJiftS,

Hor ia th«i faet («« apji^Xlae cont«»nda) tlU't X^m coh" XV ctor AalMd no instruction:! to X'na Jury on thie point, of Mi«;ht in Tie* of Uie litipulfiition to the effoot th .t all d4!feus«a should be ccnteilwrod aa pleaded, Tho t^vldei^oa ahowtd thia dcifenae w^** in th« o?*«e nnd it watt noe«bS«ry for t>w «»««r to flwct it. € think Uw contention of th< .surety Conpun;/ that the uncontr.dirt'* ' rvH^.v,^

€0 provf^f. the plena nnd apecifieiUons

>«»

« JrAftAT

-le*

fwr« dcfrctive. And thut thf?!»e flcfectii In part caused tl» defect* In th« bttlXdiniS for whloh An.imigiiB \mris nIXo««rr} aunt be sueiulned.

Th« Xlikbllit/ of a surety «a «l bond for the fsiithful p«rforsaa«c of » bailding oontrAct is in Uw: n»tur« of «. liability on ctn Insuriinoe ccnlriict, wnd is xo b« liber wily cfinatrtM»d in fHYor of the inaurod. th« atrlct rulen *hieh wpply in fuvor ^f (in accoj»BOdatie»n surety, do not obtain. Leahctr v« U« a. yj.'jgXity ck G/. «-mblty C>o«. ?339 Zll. 502. But *)!*ere a con<1itioR precedent to rocoTory on the bimd olearXy hunnot bcf«ti oonplicrd with, the oblige* Moy Bot reooTor. Leoher t. U. s^> yid.>'lity k C^»Uftlty Co.. Bagrs; ^«|^.m lu.bfe Co. ¥, ,'--'^trni'< .i.;vjf nyiity Co.. 161 111. App , 693; Brovm ▼ • Bttooftchuaotto Bonding Co.. 17«^ Xll. App. 503 j Ftjco y. Fidelity & j3<?pot>it Co., lOS ?«<!• 436; Sf>tlonal urety Co. v. Lon^. 128 7«d. MI7.

The provioiMi %0 to the piano eoid specific tiona yins ex* presoly BAde ouch o condition preoedent. other ccmdititms pr«(;(«(i«>nt were aloo not p«rforiBett by tht? obligee. It io not proved that notioe of th« alloge'I defaults of tlm ctrntrtd'tor woro served tm th© ^urot^ »'C required by the eontmct, raid it ie msdr to eppear thnt oi&tcrlsl chwng©** in ihr nriirinal contract v*«r« «ad« by the a/-r€«m«nt of Februnry ?.5th, 1911, without notice to or consent of the nur^ty. A »@t«ri(&l civange in the ci'm tract of ^ aur«ty or i?u«.rantor of « buildiniEi; eantr»ct to tho prejaUO'i; of such our»ty or j.unrftntor «ith(MAt hi» consent, reXeaueo hi« and j>r#^ventM a rocoTory '>n the auroty coniiifcct. yinnoy v. Condon, 86 111. 78; City of Chio^.go ^» Agaew. 264 111. :?8a; McCnrtne/ v. '{idavay, IfO 111. 1?0; Cttnn in(«ch«i» v. j^fonn. 23 IXi. f>2.

For the renseos lndic«.tsd on th /^vi.irrcc in thin record there ena be no recowry agranet. ^v.. , „^, ^^^^. ,„^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^

•^■^•'t

ItfV

OTJQ Iti

Uo;

Ul

bn.

• IX*

the 4u4«Mi»t Miat htt V9trev9&0 It m»y \m ftud<»(l thnt the court ligr that inevructioo f;iv«a as h«r«iBt>«forB a«t forth* took froa th« Jury t^v«ry ofitntroYArtftci ']u«iatioii of fttct »(» f^tr t»i> ti^ •pecltiX 'iQtao&9» of tb«! ^mxntjr «n»ir«i «ioiieexKi«id» «t»« th<ir@f&rc)

Of this Ju«lgneni .

Ab tO'lh« 4tt%n»nt r«r viftfendfint entered in th* wiit of MsAAch V. ?ox'i»yth<^ Bro** CoH^nny, we find no vcrcilct of ilu» Jury reaponiiiiv« to tin ldeu«6. In & ^uit at X&» trie4 b«for» a Jury, »u<fe M ¥( r4iot is nfi(3«a4««,ry to auetaiit a. 4u4|;»tat, but even if uxid^ veraiot mA Im :a returned., the inetrueiiCNa ^.ivea toy V^ c'-'urt to Xm affect th-t under tJjft- i>.!tt«r c-f febru&ry dSth, ?©r»ythe Bros* GoKpsa/ h«4 tits ri^t, "Aa it Blotter of i&ir** tn withhold the »ub« ©f ;!1C^C<?0 and *3,000 fro« «»y «iw>?JDt duo ^ttftch untiX th« t«»t9 Mtd r«{>alra ««!f:« »ftd« in ftfsoordsoieo wit^ •aid l«tter« oxpresK^d, 1a our opluion* au «rroaeatt» otnatraetion •f tbi»t l»tt«r» wl-.le^i «»o.;3l4 r^ctuirv «. revoraal of th<ut JitdgB»Ali aX«o«

for th« ree^ttOtt* inriiosted, ttw Jur.4:i:v,;>i^.. v.iil be r^-vt; :**»;■-■ ; and the 0(&u«i«» Jf««s»tiBd.

KSV^SSD AID m?|l>SO?r»*

Barnes and Gridley, JJ,, concur.

IJJOnO': ,

0 bnn aamaS

4t • 34M9

vs.

CMIC^O ^-rtaSATaf Cn5^A3fJ

earner, an*! thu sn-: ' t

HAli.*AV Q^-^M?AiirV 9S»t.. ■ r

Ums &4USA aii<l »%yX« 0/ >::2iXc.u;iC

A M ^ ../7

il7 I.A. 649

3

) Bwr9T i«

ettp«rtor e©ur%.

Cook Cour.tir.

hac^ l»e<^n ^fiUMetl ih^oi^gh injuries^i uu»tiR,iB»«& by hifti rsjs^' ft reisult «f t}.^ R^tiXigenM of Ui«r <ler«{k«i^«at^ oti Um Srd d«k/ &r ^ovtii^Wr*

ecuB|»isri.y f«te»«»eM$d <»s4 otmtrisIIOiT a eirrt»»io street r&iltit^./, *x«

R>«due, In i*»e City of f^hlc^iiS©, -^ewii;? «f f-nf^U feii^ BimW «r Xiilfifti^^ w4 ik^l it, thrmigf^* H« eervaoat »,»<&« eij^eratift^ « ««*-

4iti»«>Vio-A la tsftid t**,Adfc« »f <^jtv.r«m«3ta3it*s r-$lX^f^, nn^ that th« <teo(i4ttat ««L0 «la« i^rlirlati, a.11 dkUicasiobil^ la u «9«tr«ri^ direction

titet «<k<9h ttf tha ci«iftia(UuE}t» to acurtXcsa]^, n4BsXi4s«atl/ •te., ran, <ir«t«, flHM!i«4l«4 ai»<l ctcmtroll«d ^h«t »aid ctir stud th« •«id •ttVoiMliUo, tbiit tta«r«by the sU'ect car cJ0XU'4«d with tb» ftttt«aM»biie drlwn by tiw <l«feB<!i6aV Uttrtin, t.h«rr«by injur las

■^;lvii>.

'«MB(«Jlt\S

•s*

I>litlntiff*« d«co4«nt so Xh-^X 1m died «n thu 9Ui d«ijr of S^O'Wii^bcr,

tll« d«f9nd?iAt8 filled pI«:2B of ih« gtintit a1 1b8U«, and Ui« d9f(!»ndi:dtii Krvrtla lil«d » apeolal pX«fi, den/ifjug ««attrBhip Mitf floairol of thv fatt«nobil«*

Upon tJM trliil i»X«intlff off«t*«d proof t«ndiiig t« miH&in th» aXXe:Jfttioni8 of h«r d«clar*tioii« At tlws cIowj of lior •▼idf^noe the ecurt d«nl*"i u roiuoot of plaintiff tkat tlae ^o given her lo prociuo^ th« physielnn fs-oa tho hoapitol to ppo¥« the enuoo of d€sUi» tajil th«n gRTe % p4rr«a|^t«ry inotniotloo to fiad th« isau^a for th« !:?«f "Udjtftt.

Th« principal errors a^<»«l4En«d snd argiMid «re timt th« ooart exolttded propor and c<5fla©«t«nit cvidenoo offered en Ts>«h»Xf of tho pl«lntlff; thut it mrrvd in dir? oting « Tordlet ia fcKver •f the diufendj&Bta, «nd ihi.t it &lHii}«d ita di&eroUen In rofuelng to allow plaintiff en opportunity to prcdtooo th« pHy»l(;inn an « vitnoos*

fte ohBll f&rot con»i jer tho evldcn«* «xoXu«i«d* A, witneoiii 10^6 called %y plaintiff, vho aiatod ibstt ho ftttw dofendiuit lli«rtin on tho d«y ©f th» Iniuooi and hoard hi» teotlfy* So w»o th«n &8k«d is^th«r ho, Hmrtin, 9n.iA tmythiae^ os to tte oimorohip «nd op«r&tl(m of the atttonoblle on th« night in <%uo8tioa* Tho oeurt Biustftinod tho objec'tlon, KtotlfltU "Tho stwnogrftpnie rtport is tht Vi«t proftf." Th© wltne-^o wrs tbon ogtiin ««l»d «liot ho, Mnrtln, »nld abrvt th« nutojcoMle th»t al(;ht, if anything, »>»Ottt the big (fttttOMObilft* An objoetion to thio qufotion hy tbo 4of«adaAt «eo ouati&iaerl. Ht ««o thon aated, *Dld Sr. Hairtin eoy irtio v&o r^mnia^ tho tiutoaobilo that nif^itt* An ol»jooti<m ^y Aofond«iat was sttotAlnod to thlti^ quootion. Ha «u» farthor ooloid, •»id Ur, Martin ooy who drow the big aia<diitto that aifi^tT** An •^oetion \.o tltlo quoation by def«nl«at vao aIoo onotoiiied ao

t>i:

«3-

"vas ftD obj«etion to ilm furilior queutlon, "Whet (ftd Mr. Mf.rtttt any abcut tfeft » utewjelsllLw, if nny*hingT*

fh* ih»«ry, «359«sr«aily» on which thl» *Tt**l«nw ^^» ff*.rludi««? "by U»c rtftwrt •»««, ib?<t the offioiiiX 3r»|>«?^ i»f tli«

C«>faro4jj»tjS!Srt, 388 111. 43ja, It >>tae i*fi®n li»l<l ^y th» 'iupreaw C-twrt,

'rardlet Af th* 9«r<i»«r»is juTy n»r tlw la'Tueft tat the? ^«r«n»r «r« e(b«l0till»l<? in <»iri<J«n«j*^ In civil aults id s>r©ire or liapre^w Xia* 1»iliiy* i?« think, tH*' nOlnif^ «f t>^ e»<ftpt *^w prr«n#fm», an*

«rltn««iA ^wB <|ii«»tion64, ««J?« ? i^lsiti1»l« rm dwol«»>i»'<^tilflns >>y hl»

«eit.iii4«t hla ©will int^^reat, lJ^fffn4*»4Bt «5lft4»» %hnt th» arvf^Vt If

«tt tuiuiit, too, t}i« o^uH in tli« «x<^rei»« 9f a snund diftci^tion «sh«ulrt hftWi j»s?P»1itt«il tlif plulniiff tip* t-^ produae th« «tt«ndloj? phyelisian t«^ pr«^v« th?* otrfiM35»t.-?n€»* nn'5 «RUse ©f i«o«4*»nt's 4«ath« Tl»» j^lfiintlff utiftXRjtt***? tn «pt»i>llf)j tttta 'by nscMRS of tJh« Teydlot «f the f^©riiner*» JttJTf imA th« rraord wf Uae in<]|tMi»tt, t»oth »f vrtiieh w»r«» properly «»«clw4erl 'by the ocurt, tQMni t}a« r«nt»fi>ii for iiino t<i p'rodn^ th« p!!!>«iels«t w»^» nift>i«^ the apart Intiiaatttd thjtt the 3P«."..»©n for d^iinyi»(^ it im», that havSas h9sij»<! th* t«9tiKAiiy of te#irtiB, vho ^m» «»«ll«d ss s wlti5«f3s by pl<iintiff, tho tsowrt w«b of tlie Oj^lnion tii»t t^/? «lee#«ij4«Kl toiRd a^t tiit«(; «rdi«<i*y cpx©. Tht» c|mrt e^tidj "If the «»»• •t^B sub* ■itted now, witlvflmt May proof by the 4«f«iidft(nt, I tr««ld hjiirtt to Mt the venilot ft»idMi, If th*» jury rttuvsed a vftrdiot of guiity,* Yho court aloo «x|»r«so«d the opinion Ui«t there «&» nothing for th« Jury to baoo d&«»«*» upon booABoo thoro wi^s no proof of tho

life •xfivctaaej of Xim dBoeiuMid* ' pparentXy for %ii%tm r«a.»4in« tile oourv denied thu v^^mfX for tint to proditee Urn eor«it«r*o pliyoioieii, cloorly Vm ef»urt*«> ruling w&a l»ei.««4 on on es^roitoovo theory of the io^w ftpjplioubio • It woo not noooooory Uufct thoro •IsotiXA }m »x%y pr»of of tb« life «3q^ot»Boy of tlw doeooood, tho ovidenoo having ahonn t)i(»>t )m ioft o widov ttn4 minor ehiidbron 4o9^A40Dt oa hi» for support. The ta1»Xos» thou«;b »4ittioBible, «»re net iiidi^oasii)»l« • Cfilyqri v. it>fi,riii£fi«id IrllSfel ii2*» ^** liX. S90.

Moreover, under tho fnoto, ttoe <|tao»tioii of the itogllconoo of tho d«f»iiilont«i, OS veXl ae the doe«d«nt*& o»re for hie ovn oofotjr •ere for the Jury, the o»i«pt hod no right to iahe the oaoo froii the Jury hoo.^3e he helioved defentfant Martin* » to^tis^my en thot poiftt oo ttgoimoi othor eon|K»toni ovidenee t«ndlii«r to prow th«it tho docoused «m« ia iiie omeroioo of duo oare*

ApiMilloo oXoiao thoro io no proof thitt tho injuries •oourred in the «»loi« of IXXinoie or thnt do&th r«»uXtod ffon the injuries «u«t»inod. I^roof of th«»« foete %«»o prohohXy ROoo««*iry. $oX^^ t. IZiSJt. '^^ li^.. »«3j C«.r^in v. aprjnirftoXd Lf^t, Co.. ^5 ZXl* XiS. J^or a,ttght «0 «»n 4et«r«iuo the exeXudod OTidonco might h&vo 8«ippXi««i thio proof.

yor the orrore indieotcd the Judgmiit io rovorood ond tho oftitoo roaonded.

Bameo and OridXey, JJ., c

onour*

rr^ sr-rrc ■

, IM>4"

126 • 249«5

App«ll*«,

JOHH OAHALIUti •! al.\

On Appeal «f JOm^ GAl^i.IUl>,

.1-' i/niv^.*WK», /

Ai»t|ellar|#

/O'^'^U

/

17 I.A. 649

'i

i^p«al froa

Vttnleipal Court

€ta th«? 19th day of Jun«, 1917, the app«ll«e, «« plain* tiff, eonfeeaadi Judgneitt afalnst appallant iji ttui J^lanicipal Court of ChiO{«go. Thi« Judgawat waa confeasc^d by rirtue of a yamir containdd in a note for ih« aun of $500, pajrable to baarer on dewmd, and aiisned by appellant aa laalBor tharaef.

On October It, 19ia, an order waa entered, vaoatlng and aettlng naide thia judgnent and glTlng defendants leave to plead, On HriTsffiber first ihftrfifeftar, on reotion of pUiintlff^ entered October 23rd, the order of nct«»b<^r 19, 1918, waa aet aaide and the ssotion to T-iCi«.te the .judgment by oonfeaaion <») Juno 19, 1917, araa denied. Thia appeal foliaaod.

The R;Otion to aet aaide the judgmont vua aupported by the affidavit of defendant John r>r raliua, fdio at ate a therein, in aubatanoe, thet the notot was delivered to John tlekoah, tf> be held by hlffl in eocrow for the faithful perfonwnoe by defendoata of a certain oon tract, made between dnfendimta and one Poleyn, for th« exohaag* of certain real estate; that Folojpn failed to earry out the oontr^ict, and thr t affiant therevqpon deiaanded the rotiurn of the note, whidi v^a not done, and that tharenf tor, for the purpoe<? of defrauding defendanta, the said note waa

delivered to the plaintiff, i)h«rlook, ««io took it with notioe

ets^Ss

, »v

■::r i^.t^x

htt^O'

sir

•»»

•f affiant* 3 rishis and f«r Uit putposc of dafmuding bin.

A C9py Off the coniraot ia attach«<l to th« affidavit. Zt apfeara to haTa been axacutad January 22, X917, and tands to oorrobornte the etatefsanta containad in defe^ndant** ^.ffidaTit* Thia affidavit of dafendant %y «ay of excualng hie d«lay in making a Botion to eat saide Xfye Judgment, aaye thf^t after an execution which is(;ued Upon the judgment wan aarred upon affiant, he con* aulted an ttomey, who infoxmad hiis that the Judgnent wae Taoated, and thi>t affiant had no notic«f that t)ie judgaent «ae unantiafied until June 1\ 19X3; th^tt on June 26th, he a.'^s informed hy aaid attorney that he would have to ^ay the note, and that in the sonth •f Auguat thereafter, ha en^loyed another attorney in the amtter*

Sefendante alee pressented the affidavit of aaid other attorney ^ieh aetn up that itRfsediately after euch eqpXaynent, he filed a bill in the Circuit Oourt of Cook County, and obtained a prelininary injunction agnlJiBt the enforcement of the judgisent, that thia injunction wai dieaolved on the SGth day of Septeaiber, 1U8, and the bill of eoaiplaint diamiaiiied on October 7, 19X8 • It aXao ippaara fro* the affidavits that the defendant ie imable to read or write or cenverao *in the ^^Berioan language*.

Counter affidavits were received by the court tending to Bhow that on the J3rd d«sy of Auguat, 1917, the defendMita filed their achedulee elaining exeiqption againet the judgment; that on the 16th fimj of Auguat, 1917, In purauanco of notice by the defendnnta, the partiee appeared in the Itunioipal (^otirt and argued a action to viicata and aet it aside; that the court on^ly denied the Botion, but before any order wae entered, eaid notion wae withdrt^vn; that on June 11, 19ia, ap «l.lant« having eold their property, agreed wlt^ their grantee that they would pay the Judgment, and th^i the notice thnt defends at would sip ear and

no ..

«?■•■

a* ««.(

^■->41 t

• 3»

aak to have th» Jud^annt 8«t a»ld« on the :aat of Ootol>«r, 1918, «(v« served upon a|>pell«e at ble hone, contrary to the rules of the l^unlclpfkl Court*

the appellee argues the def^ndAiite were gviltj of sueh

up, Xeohes »» to preclude the openin^T/iaif the Judgnent. He urges that

the setting aside of a defniilt lo vithla the aaund discretion of

the cfwrt, end that irtiere the affidavits of the partlea «re flat*

ly eonir«^d,lotory, the court may give eredence to one rather thnn

to the ether, And that «h«n this I0 done, such action o»nnot ho

aosleaod a» error, citing with other cases Hartford U^U amd

^ccldeat Ins« t:e..v> Roeeljer. 196 111. a!77,

thi» augr he the rule as to default a toten upon due 8«rTloe hut tra do not uaderatond that It la the rule applleahlo eliore a notion is nade to sot aeide a Judgasent entered hy eon* fosBlon* In such cr^ee the gennrnl rtae Is that If a nerltorlouo defense Is shown hy the affidavit of nerlts the ;)udgnent Is the exerolso of a sottnd discretion should he opened. Lalto ▼> Cook, 15 111. 553 J HaawMsaen v. tiialth, 88 111, Apj.. 334 j atate Bank of Clifton T. Parkhurst. i?'5 111. App. 101 1 Hailladay v. Under* wood. 75 111. App. 97; Blake v. State "^ank, 178 111. 182; Yennua V. Carr. 130 111. App. 311; Maatln v. lUchardgon. 134 111. App. 366, Upon sucda. a notion, generally, we un:!eratand counter affidavits ought net to be reoi^ivod or considered, m think the affldavlte In this caae showed a merltorloue defense and that ths d«fend(snts were entitled to a trial of the Issues,

For the reiKSons indicated, the Judgment will be reversed «ad the cause resanded.

Barnes and Orldley, JJ,. concur.

^»

»»

13S - 25004

IJ^WXS S. GlLPISJ,

JPlalntiff^in iSrror,

■i

i

::«fea^pnt in Mrror.

2.17 I. A. 64 9^

Krror to i:iiniclpfii Ourt

•f Ohie^jgo.

In thlB c. Be th« pininliff sued for th« return of SIOC paid by hln to the rtefend^mt as part of hl» tuition foea for the y9'>Ar I9I8. The ntat^mont of clain 9.Xle(^9 that plaintiff hoaring in whnt cle.a!s th« aoho*^l ifn& r?»te<l, ctecided ml to tnke the c->ur*« imd BO inforiosd df^fendant, and aalced d«fendRnt to r<'tum tho $1C0, whidi defendant refuac^d to do, and that plaintiff did nnt ntt^nd the Bch ol or any of ito aavBionB.

H« affidaTit of merits wa» filed, Tho cume was tri^d 1b what is knoora in the t^unicipal c; urt rb *Th« Snail Claims Court". In that court it seosw that no pleadings by the detfendaAt iB required* Tho cwrt found tho defendant "fJuilty, as cltarged in the Btaiosient of clftim*, and aosOBBOd plrxintiff^B dasmsoB at •#60 in tort*. Uotione for now trial and in arroBt of Judgmnt •»r« nedB by plaintiff and overruloi, whereupon jud^a^nt wno onto rod*

By this writ of error plaintiff aeeks to rcteroo this

inJft^'Tial.ofJili^n,; that the cc.^^^^^ hare found for hl|,

• propoaitiono of iRw were Bubialtted to

the rulings r.f t>w

evidunoe . the v.

c-urt on the *id«lBHion or exclueien of

rgu«nt Of plaintiff in error ie t

o tJje effect

..BiKC

that the finding «urtd Judenent &m s^^ainst tiic preponiernnce of the ovldenoe. ))ut, «re r«gr«t to any, the rr^cord ef the trial court presented for our Inopection precludeo a oon&ldpratlon "by urn of thi» alleged error on the noritti. The oertificate of the trliitl Judge ia attached to what purport* to he "A correct •tnUnent of all the facte «««•». But It is «*pparent from an exBiBuLntttion of it tlifit this ia not tme. On tho contrary, it appear* to he in part a Btater-wnt of cnntrodictory testimony of the witnesses, and in part of contradictory claims p»de by the reapcctlve pnrtieB with respect to laatters of fact, wlth<xit say finding by the cnurt ua to which i» true.

The judgment was entered RoTerr.bcr f>, 1910. r^ Januarjr 6, XW9, plaintiff in error pretmnted "A stateisRnt of the pro- eeedinga for aignuture" of tho trial judge, which the trial jttdc« refused to sign. T>ie supposed statemt-nt of f^icte wac then Bade In the presence nf counsel, the trial judge saying *Uy rsoollnction ns to the substance ot the oTidonoe as given bofore a» is Hu follows:** It »uet be iipporent th/t on sutiih a record it is isijr oslbls for this oourt to weigh th« e-ridt^ncs. achuJB^cher '*• CJtsnsy. 1^2 1X1. App. 37; Seehaussn jgehrs k Co. y. lifter stats 8, k I. CO.. 150 111. App. 179.

Ths Municipal Court ACt (Hurd*o RsYi8ed>tatut«« 1917« Chap. 37, Sec. 23, p. 900) requires that the record presented for our review sholi be either a correct stotewent of facts or a stenographic r«*port of itie trial and proceedings had. This record is neither, -e will, however, add thutt we have examined the record that is b^sfore us, and tn: t if we c^^uld re^rard the saas oQ eoiq;>lyittg with the law «*» w^^tid be reniuired to affim the judgaent on the merits.

A^FlHaHD.

Barnes and aridley, J. J., concur.

I

207 • 25003

1

Appftid from

I } MMiioipal Court

ft corporution, J ) of Chltt«<!0«

Ap^llfint. )

on 7 T.A. 650

Ma. i';«!31DXK0 JtI5I3

Plaintiff below, wJio is app«Xl«« i»*-'r«t, vur<». the /f^nUHiit in th« ^unioipal Court of Chicafi© for th« sua of $40, «diiioh blK oiatcKcnt «f olaia ftUc^ged to be thi^ fair v«.lue of CI het and aa ovsreoat whleh plaintiff la ft with dAfendUmt ««• a balUe for hire, snd which it nogHg^-ntly per»itt«d te b« lost. Th« «?iWB MTMa tried by the court, w)»tch found for tha plfiintiff in tha sun of $34*50, and entered Judgiaent on tha finding.

It io first urged tit t the evid*?noe sihows defendant waa raert^ly a (sratuitious bailee, the ref are liable only for grass nagligenoa of which t)x«re was no pro'^f • ao to thia point tlie evidenoe shaws th^t at the tint in quoiition plaintiff nant to the plac« of buainasa of dwfendsjnt nt whiah a dance was eenducted, thrt he paid an adniaaien fmer of fifty oenta, than took hio h t an«i coat to the C' eok ro ^« and l<>ft theic there, reoeiTiag & ticket Mading "DreajslAnd tard no1»e Chaek, Kn. »8:(*, that after dfmeing he presented hia chaak, but the hat and coat eould not be found.

Ha testified th,-wt he hod danoed there before, and th»t only one j^ayneint was mr;^de which included erarythiag. A witnaaa for ri(»fendant testified thet a aapar&te charge waa nada for

f>:

:t.aoo :"•.

>a»

wardrobe. It doea not ttpp<»Ar, howt-nr, thAt amy 4mvmM ««• nrftde on pXftlntiff t>ier«for. fotsibly If ouch wrb tli« fact «nd th« cnnt »hft h<*% had b«ci< found, the <Ji»fen4«nt woulA h»vc dcauunded .^mtl rec«>iv«i the ueuaX charge. X; citii«r case »• t>{ink the court. wat» Juatif ie i in fintllng defendf«it wae ft bcdlft« for hire .

it is next urgsd that th!t?r« is no pr(»p«r proof la the rocord &a to iho d«,aag«». the plaintiff testified thet he purehaaed the coat a'bout a month prior to its loss from H. 1. Rethachild, *«nd th* t he paid therefor the sum of 135, that he purchased the hwt in '-^uewtion froa one Fellchenfeld , a hatter, flH& the d&y tive anelstlee was signed and paid #6.00 for it, that he had worn the ciothea only a. few tiaMie*

It la gt^nertdly true aa appelJ^ant contend©, that the ■tasure of dajaages for the Xoaa or convt^raion of goods. Is the fair aarket valiw of the tane cit Um Urn of Dte loss or conversion trith Intereet thereon, But this rule la not atrictly applied to •lathing and hcuaeheld goodi> which have heen «em and used for the reaaoa that theee vlll not usually sell aa secont^hand goods fer wh«t they are rervlly ^rorth. Head y« Beoklenl)erg. 116 111, App. 580.

it appears froa a part «f the r«^oerd which has not been abstracted that the plaintiff *a evidanoe »8 to the prioe paid for these goods wns cerrobomtc;* \>y receipts tn^kan ^t the time the fureh.'xsea eere aade,

ie think the evidence wr^n admiaalble and justified the finding of the court.

fhe Judgment will be afriraad.

Barnes and Gridley, JJ., concur.

i£»

m

a&i49

laOQU dsimm.

▼•,

VILLI A^ NAUtSBD^

App«lX«e^

Appft»X from VUnioipal Court

'217 I A. 65

»LXVSHKD THE OPISIOJi 0? 7\\Z CCUHT.

.^

The plaintiff in ihie oase su«d dp.f^t\dant ftpp«lX«nt fdr damttjEjesi by r«at5on of injuries auatained by her ©n Uie iird day of July, 1316, «hll« riding in Kn autc^wobile of defendant, which fiuton^obile w; s h^in^ driven by d??f on 'Want's «>iauff«wup,

Th« lie fend 'Hi set up ns a speolAl ri.sf«no« tht>t h« did not control thn autoiedbile sit the; tisM in quest ion. T^e cnn* wao tried by the court without » Jury. Defendcint i»»d« & sftion for a finding In his behalf which woe d«niod and Judgnent w b •niered on tho finding for pl&intiff.

It is not disputed thnt plaintiff wuv: riding in d»f«ndf4fit*» Rtttpmoblle f\% th*5 tirRe In nu«»tlea, nor t>iat she •RB ttJtn injured by rof son nf th« nof^ligofico of the driver. It la urged th»t the driver wt*» not then aetlng vlthia the scope of hie ereploynent, and thnt defendant, thersfoi'«, ia not lieble for his noi^ligenoe.

The ovirtence shows defpndunt employed the chftuffeur wliose nane wt<8 Mukis to Jrivt? the eutoniobile and pAid hin for sueh eerviees thi> »u)b of $35 per nonl^, with bonrd nnd lodging, •ad th«);t Adttkls had been oo en^loynd by def«!nflHat for about two montba Iwsed lately preceding tru> accident. The defendimt had oecaalonally prior to this time, let the HUtomobile for aerviee

• 8*

in conveying neraone to mnA fr«m funerals and Adukis »»,t th«M tlMtB droT«? it. The evi<J«nce •how* th«t ©n «t Xcast «m« occrtnton defend/mt ncROB^wiiedi Adukia upon "i trip of this kind.

Cn the duty in fjweatlftn plaintiff attended a funpr»X IMKT Siipitcenth »nd Union otrevtB* in Chiongo, and After th« •ervioe nt t*ie dhurcth located n«ar there decide j to go to thi eonetery, ^hich wkb nutoido the elty limits. Jhe Inqulrttd of tho undertaker aUnut f; convoyenoo, and ho pointed '^ut tn her the »uto»obil© of d«f<='ndant. Hth other fri«nd8 ohe nppropched the driY«r AduJcie, who ajcre^d to c»rry tl*e p.-'^rtiey to and fro« the comotery for th« aum of flR, ^ut no money wiaks pftld at th«t tiao.

the eri ience for >l<5ff!ndJEtnt iend?!d to show th^^t on the woming cf tise dwy in qunntlon, one Adolph Butkla, who wh» In the lirery busineaa, calXed up defendant and r.okod hlw to a«nd OYor hiu mjchlno, wnich defendf^nt ther^fifter sent by Adukls* Butkia tt that tiraw told defendant Yv wae j:;olng to » funeral with one Kptootis, who ^f.a tV«e ttndf^rtakar in charge. The ^utoiaoMl* wn» lato in nr riving at th« pliftoe of T^tkia, nnd Butkia told thi driver to ti$k» It homo. Butkls «»,ya that he Jjtiow nothing wore ahctat it* 4dukls« however, rf«naitM»d nt the »trtt«t corner, near the churdfc about five or ten minutau, wh<!n KfttontiB requeated hln to hrin^ thi car in fr«rit of Uie church. K&tootis then brought p»rti»8, In- eludln^} plaintiff, to the nutomohilo, and plaintiff r>.skad Adukia if ha eoiild drive. Up. r«tplieii th»t he c^uld, but he a&ya that nothing vac said about laouey nnd no prlca a^^^read m« '^dukls did not aee ar eoorunlcttte with t*i« def^mdant f'^ore ih.- time ha left rlf frnd&nt *8 pltice until after tha eeeldent.

It i», of oourae, elai»»ntnry to aay thj.t in o.-v.r to render the Ri-<ator llahle for th^ tortious act of hie aervant it rauHt b« proved ttwit th« servant wfis at the tlww of tha allaeid

'%ii. ^.i'-

ttd^r

tortious act, acting within the aeope vf hie eiepXoyiiMnt, Xb

fftlumnyn T. The afUXlww Johnston irintlng gA.> 263 III. 836,

%h» iiupnriM Court fleclnrcd the i«w j»ppli cubic? axt foXIown:

•Tlw? general ruX« is thnt « party injured by the rmgligencc f»f anotVn;r, jwiat Miek hie rexBedy agmlnst the person who Cf«uaf>fJ the Injury, sinc«» 8UQh person i» p.lonw liable. To thla general rule the ouiipt of inr4«t<3r &nd iff rvftnt i« an exception, ^nd th* negligono« of the yervunt while • oting \9lthin the aeope of hi* es^loyiTRni, i» iirputable to tbo ■fi8t«r, but to bring a C'js* within this ©;t caption It is neo«s ury to show t>uit the r«*l otlon "f R&eter ?)n<i sftrvitnt oxiwta between the pereflji wt fwult nn4 thfl ono ii^ij^ht to b« ch»^rge<2 for the rr» •ult of thr- j'TOng, jsni the rol^tlon imot exist at the tlBic en-l in reispect to th*? particular tranirss.etion •^ut of vKlch th<? injury arose •*

fho dcjfendwnt rgues th#xt he Is not liikble under the faeta of this Gt^m ls«o»a8« he did not give express 4ii«Atlona to Aduklfl to nmke the trip In question. e la not think this w*.8 neoeesATy. If the? chauffeur wass &cting withir. th* general line of his einplesrment without departure thcrefroK, defendant wouldl be liable,

vfe think, under th<» evidence, th«t if the trlsl bad been by jury, it wmxld h«ve lieen for th<? jury to spy whether such direction might not renaonsbly be lisplled frott ti« cir- oujnst;<noee In evl<lenee « The finding of tlte court is entitled te the m&am weight lurre ms th«' verdict of a jury. l>te finding is not fegainot the pr<»p on fin ranee of the evi(lpnce, and the judgaeat will be sffirasd.

Barnes emd Or idle y, JJ«, cMcur.

Its • 29437

/ i

) V 7^

(y/

/ A|»peXI«nt«

Appeal froa

Municipal Court of Chie^a.

'217 I.A. 650

Tbt atenographio raport filed by appollaat in this cauna hn« baen atrialoeii by ard«r af this eourt.

AppalXa« has aatda a notion thfit this ordar b» »at aaida iritiiah oust be denied.

the arr«nra aaoignad an the raoard ar« all baaed an tha stanagraphie report v^ioh haa baan atrie)fi»n. Ho arrora ara aaaigned on tha eaamanlna record. Tha Judipnmt will thartfora be nffirmd.

AFFIJUi^*

Bamaa and Oridlay, jrj., eeneur*

'iX

4V

/-

•7 • 24945

7^ A / f y

I W, F/IUDaY, Mninlatristtttrft of

FlAlntlff^ia ^rror. J Xrror to jr»« / ) Clreult Coixrt,

tHIlk rAiiCAQO nk%hVAti» C(mmY, ) cook Crnrnty.

0. oorpor«i:tion, K^JU^Y A,M.aX^^, \

jam B. ROArai, «HAS, c/ AmiT, j

WAUJM55? ffKCKKAK, l^eiljiftD A, BOSB?, ; ^ H

MARHiacii Tu RiiJt fttt/^-. c, -.^itn'itoa::;, O u) i-^ T A A '^ A ' ^ DiTfttndttnto In ^rror.^ J) « X«rl« \} kJ \J

';hia la a Oftso for cQaq(>«na«iory dasaado^ for the <ienth of iilh«l»in« iii«x««t90k. J t the ea.o«o <»f pXaintiffa* tYl'^noo ilM oovrt dlreet«)ti h v«ir4Jlot for <i9f«n4aDt«i, t>«ao proa^^ntiag a« the laoin <iiu««tlon hora «iin«ih«r th-ro v&s) any ovidonoo tending to tiipport i&ny of tho couoto of tho Atolojr&tion.

3iio wik% % |»a»e«nser oa a oat, controlX<;d «t Xoaot in p»ri by ito ^:ht«««o H«jU»»y» Cawpony, itnd shortly of tor Xooiriiig it v&o found X/in® in an unconeoiouo stat«, partly on tho tr-wok of tho oor, blooding froas o grftoh obfrut two ineJioo iong oY«r tlio oooiyotAl region of tlso akull tttm loft to riffht juot boiow tho uppor port of the ««.r, Tro» th« Injury thuo roooived «*o diod Utio BOXt dr«y*

All tba cotmto of tlie doelaration ^ro prodiontod upon MglisoBoe in otarting tlio ear £tad eanoint^ it to »oir« forvord liMn th» docofvaod van in tlio sact of RliirMini; t>^orafrom ohoroby •IM OAO hitrloci a^Kiaot tkio oar ^d upon vhe ntmot, rooeitrlne injuriott froa i^iieh oh«! diod the noxt day» tho firot count ollogint ihot tho oar woo ao otortod vith'^ut ktiOwlae rhothor oho had oliehtod from tho enr a«d bofore she had aiifi^iod, the ooeond alloging thnt it «>(ka oo oturtod with<nit giTiag hor a«|ple iia* to alight, and t>M» thi*d, that it voa oo eturted vith<)ut giving

•a*

h«r a ]f«««0Mik1iX« opportunity to aXi^t*

Vfeil* ad viin««« «aw the ACtUfJi ooourrnncw m do not think it can ^ iu^tiy said that the oircu»»tan«es to stifled to hftd no t«Bd«ney to siupport aay ooiaat of Urn d»8Xar<?tlon.

Th« «Yid«na«t iri&eaitd tli«it d«o«a»«d loft a a<ntth ^owid iMfttom aTonne ear «t 90t)i atreat at tho itaaaX etopping plaoo just north of th« Xattar otroots that tho vltnooe Carolina ^mdt had «tlighio<} at tho u»m pl&txi* from anothor aouth bound ear and «a» otanding ut xhn aorthoeot oornar of tho lnt«f raeotioa waiting for tMT dautfhtor vdian a car following th« <s&t th» huA left nana alonii, «t«!ip|M»d eod pasaad on; Xhnt ivi»i h'» aoan ad tho lattor okt nmonmd «« ah« »a« deooaoad lying «m har httek nhont %t fe«t north of liiCth otreat vith one am on the oi^ traek; that i«h« oent to her and with the help of oi tmn aa^iatad or took har to tho aide* valk: that Wtmn tkbnu% 1&( feet north of 30th atreet, walking eouth on lh« oaet aide of ifoatern avenuo the witnoao 'Sittumtm aav a v«nun near ^i^ere ^^oeaaed lay, lo ojcintg: at her m» he thmtght, and vhen h^ ^ot opposite thairi aaw deeefttied lying in the etreet. Re eaid a a^uth hound ear then etood notionleeis witn ite rear in 3Cth aireet* "iiftiile th« ua two isritneaeaa varied in detaila, one olaivin^ the daeeaeed lay vith har he»,d to the north and the ether that h«>r head mn.9 to the e 4it)i, sod e<«oh up arently elaia* lag to bfi the first to reach th«* body, »nd one ^laivin^ a oar •toed BOtionleaa at acth street end the other thnt the car had pansod en, yet th^ queiition on the r^otioa to tiireet • rerdiei •nlled tterely for d<*teminetion of whether any pari of tte teetiamny, dbether eentradiot«ry or not, had a ienAeaey to enpport any onunt of the doelaration.

«?■ tt'fk*

•ni

• j^

HhB %»»%im»»3r of h^lh wiintswitt t«n«Jw<l io shev that dcostiiMt} fro« bar pe»itlon wlUt rf^fnrmno^ tn li^ »tr«et, oar tr*ek, with rmw &r!3 on it. cottIr<( aot haw l^ila th<»r« l»«fer« a »auth bound Oftr had pa^tMd, «l&e her htb «r0ul4 h«v« b«on ertislied; unA thm t«<@il»«ny of CftrelitM ^radt wu^ ih»% ntie saw d«««tt««d In thnt position lR«ffi«d lately eSUir th« pautaing of » zonth ^ouad Mr. It «jl^«»r«d %hh% 4.tt<i9i&—A left th0 i>«&r cioor of « nouth bftund car thtit h; d stopped ot th« r«:gul»r pli;e« en th» north aide ef Snth istrcet »ad thi!!tt her hody waiji lying nertx uliere she left it* There w«e alee te6tlii»nx tending t^ ebow thut tb^re vtre no other irehldee ne«,r ^t thni tltns ner pertiens, ttx<;e^pt on« er two nho tmjf he eee<ninted f«>r n.e ihm p^reeae ^ho Appreaehed deeeawed lin^dlateXy after the e&i* froK wiileh aim htkd aXlghted h«d pae»ed, thae t«ndlng to eilmlniite Ute poKKilbllity ef h^r hsTlntc heea threen to the etreet otherwise xtiim V 9casm Ylolsnee eennt^oted «»lth her leaving

the e«r. The n&tare of the lnjuz7, toe, tended to show thftt it

her frrm/bmin^ thrown violin tXy to tb^ grmtnc) rather th^n Merely

frea clipping and fHllla^: ^^ it ^tU't eh« rtnn olear from the enr. Th« cridcrnce further tended to ehow thfti the eoaduetor n^le wtiltlag for de«e»Bed to alight and idiea t'trinsr, \he elgnel to 8t»,rt w;;e etendlng hMOk In th9 ear eone dieteaee froet ite rear la a petition uafaT'^rftble for d^terstlning with oerteiaty whether the deeor «i:e4 hod In faet ooiaplctftly allEHted frtm the e^r before the etmT «t«i>rted agMla* }tene« wo tHlnh ttMtre w^a «t leaat »oi» evldnoee tending to evi -^ert the foh^rge of negllger^ee in atartln^ ^^ «»r wlthmit %B»«da« whether deeeweed ha<l alighted therefrens and before ahe had In fact all^htel, and that therefore the Tvrdlict waa la^roperly dljreoted t»e to the Chioago Hallw««ys Company.

Aa to the othfirr defendi^nts th«ro wae a opeeiail plea

yjmipm^ trpivii

tsrf

\

49 *d)

• 4-

Aftnyiat^ UMir o«n«>r«m9, eontrol or naginf«W)Bt of the tcir, &• i» whieh no proof w'-ts addtte^d, turid plulaiiff «a« not relieved froa ih« burden of vmkia^ auch proof singly beonua* th«rff itcia »» liiviliter fllod to th« rvpXloation. Adding « laiiicllltor 1« not <mly « saore ««tter of form (20 ^ney. of ^^]l. 4i Fr* Sfl3{ fJiiXoapJu V. .pith. 2<> III. 473; Kleaeo v. ilntlw£, 8S Id. 468) but lu ■mairttd by ^olag to trinl «ith(^ut it. (H^igon ?»p#.r £o. y« Bgtbt B^. ill*i» HHjfe* i^«. ^*^ Il^» W&.) Konoe th« ,1udgB»nt that thoy f^r, hene^ «ith-*it d«y «i:-3 proper.

iiio tAX tiw> iB^orteat for Another trial it. say hf. Rif.ld ihfit the ooron(^r*» r«rdiet wa» properly excluded, (Syiegel'o !• Z- £»• ▼• Xndtfetriig Coa., 288 111, 423) and oloo th» testiiMmy tkat tlui ooncluctor wrs looking north at the tlies tlio oiur rottdiod Z'^^i street, tbe eondaeter*3 position and oondttot Hi th»*t tiJBftwere not r piirt of the rog gootiwa.

^he Judgffont wili sccerdtOiTly be rey^roed ond the

AS

ootiee roasknded/to the Chicftg^o Hailvstye Cos^^jty with t^oeto ogninvt t?ie iBtttr, an*^ fflrwed pjs to the othsr flefrndi^nto

in error.

CHICAGO 1U 11 V PAWt, Al»

Satchett, P. J., ond Grldley, J, coneur.

TUOl

124 *

jPiftintlff in mroT,

PAUL T. wruco*. /

SNBfendiUit in lirrot.

T

I I /

/■

/

1/

Irrer to

ifsitnlclpal Ceuri

of ChiMlgO.

17 I.A. 651/

KR. JUSTICE BAians 2itummiiii vm opiniok o» th» Cf^nnT,

I^lftiniiff In fivrvit obtaln«di ju:^n««nt by eonfesslon "-^r 140 «nd eoota, being one month* s rent of $36 dut under « ioaM eontttitiing pcnrar of attorney to enter suoh Jtt<)gaeat, «n4 $15 s^ttozn«y*o feee for entsrlng up the fiAW • Upon defcnd»nt*o filing «n .^fidftTlt otAting that prior to Iniititution of tho suit he tend4»r«d the |S5 due und'?r the leaee and the! plttlntiff in error refused te receive the anMo, 9g\<& renewing the tender in court, he w».e give*. Xenve to defend, the judgment t'^ stand »« aecurity, tmd the nf fldairit K.a on affidavit of awrite*

The Terdiot was in the followlaf^ f nrst:

*lMi, the Jury, find thut tit the date of the rendition of the Judgment by eimfeaclon in ihia cnuoe, there wfea due fron th« defendant, to the pleiniiff, the auw of Twenty flTe Dollere (f26,^o).«»

The court overruled plaintiff in error* a rrotion for a

n«w trl»l and ©ntf^red the following Jud^giBent;

•Thie o;iuee o<»ing rm for further prooeedlnga herein, it ie crn aide red by the court that final Jttdgiaent be entered on the vcrliet hf^rein and that the Judf^jneni rend«sred herein :)>r'>in&t the dcfend«tat by confeaaien be and the aame is hereby redu(»td to tlio aun of $25, for wJUch ajnount atiid Judgment ia oonfitiaed and ordered to stand in full force tmd effect na the Judgaent of this cxjrt as of the date of rendition thereof, that the plaintiff take nothing by this ault una titat r\Q ooata be t >»id herein, it appearing t'^ the court that no ooata have accrued to elti«!r pfirty to tkia Oi^uae.**

i)n-

»■;/>

•a*

PXalntlff in error aaks that tlw j^^'tfl"*"^ ^ rerersed and tta.« o«ua« r«flinnd«(t with directions to eonmet th« judcntnt hy conflrmln^^ the original Judgment "by eonfeettion, rimt'»nding Uuit the Terdiet watt in eubots-noe <m« for the plaintiff.

Under the jiXeadinge the only issuable fact was lAiether defendiaoit in error made a proper tender of the ,%26 conceded to be due before institution of ths suit. I'hough not in proper fom the Tsrdiet indicetes that the Jury found that issue in f«Tor of the dafendsiit, and the JudigMtnt c«m forms to that e(»- struetiffiR. The tender being uept goad plaintiff iras not entitled to oosta, (feenr^'e v. Chaldeok. 78 111. 429) and tender being aade before suit there wma no oocasien for exe reising the wHrnmt •f attorney, an?? eon«eriu«ntly no ri^t to recover fees therefor.

The expression usod in Tarious decisions, eited by plaintiff in error, that *if th«! defense is successful, the Judgasnt f»lls, if otherwise the Judginsnt is to be enforced," is applicable to «« entirely different state of facts, where for Instanoe the issues ti,re such that the original JuAg^^nt arust either stand or fall in its entirsty. that is net the case hero vhore plaintiff in error was entitled to a ptirt of t.he Judgnent, na»ely, for an amount admitted to be due, but to nothing more in Tiew of the sucoesafttl plea of tender. If d»fend«nt had failed en that issue then unquestionably the Jud^1})a»nt idiifwld hATO been cenf irawd. B-^t hsTing succeeded It was clear thet plaintiff wan not entitled to the full judgmsnt of $4C nor to costs in the ceo. As *ns said in hy(m ▼. Beilvin. 2 Oilm. 629, an authority frequently referred to in c ssf? of thi» cduiracter, •the court nay set aside the Judgment wholly, or partifilly, and upon teraa."

b»R

:«la«i»:»v

i(s»t^-

hm.'.

■r^7,f

,'V

• 3-

te plaintiff in error It is u»«lee:' to rwvf^rs* it «ad VBwan4 Um cnttM iMreXy to eorxwet infon&slitleo in ibii v«rdiet •ad Judc«»nt th'Ht will in nowiae ohcaign the reiruXt*

Matohett, ^. J., ond Gridley, J. concur.

(S

IS2 • 3500X

a IBK KATT^R Of IKS P^TITIOW

car Minr w, c. kklboi, ARrrciiTJcu. Af SUIT 0? mni'^'tmA wm&m.

oaazsTiMA issm^oH,

▼s.

^/}ffy

mmr «• c. mhofm,.

V

Api» Ilee ,

Appeal from

County Court, Cook County.

uApfClAMlt.

WRm jifiiTiCB BA«i& DiarvsaKD tm opikiok of tkr c^mT.

217 I.A. 651

^

Thla appeaX Is fmn a (JMmiaX of ths pfttition of Mary Kelaon for dieolsiireit and«r tho XneoXvent Debtors* AOt* 8iM watt hold 111 ouatody toy virtue of o writ of ^« sa« isstMd «A a JudsHMnt obtninod »galn«t bor in a suit for alionatlag th« affection* of tho husband of Christina Bonson.

It is first urgod that the JudgpHsnt wnt Told bceauso tiM doeXaratloa m^a not f IXo '- until the fifth toni aftor tho suit was Instituted. But tho court having jurisdiction of tho defendant obA the 8ubj«ct jsatter. Its judgMBat did not boecae Told f ro» nero error In procedure • Kor oon Uie judgaont bo attaolced collaterally en the ground of 9Tt9r, A citation of outhorltiea on these olffmenttiry propositions Is umteceeaftry. Jtesldoa the record dleeloBOS that tho Irregularity was waived by defend«jtnt*s appoarine: and Joining In Issue, and also stlpulntlng to Uie relnstatensnt of tho suit when throe yenre later It wuei dlsmloued for wont of prosecution*

The Bsain tueatlon is whether Bailee was tlw» gist Of the actlMi. The court held it was sad nled defendant's Bkotlon to Introduce extrttneoos evidenoe .

Petitioner's evidence consisted of the ownten lav record of the eult showing the declaration In one count, the plea '>f genernl Is^ue and the verdict of •'nuilty*.

•2m

*^]int tt«f«ndisiit, c(vntrivian »it4 .vroagfulX/f «ic)KedXy« mi4 nulitisiouely Intanding to injur* plciintiff and <i6{iriv« hot of ths auppori, oomfort, oecifttjir t^a coneortiitai of said Siia C. Bvaaon, did wrongfulXy, wllfulXy and amXiciounljr dceiroy aund ali«n»t« fron plaintiff tlM ftff«otion« of h«r t^id hu«btjn4, Um »aid piaiatiff in no wise coaMntin^ thereto, sad hua wroai^fully, wickedly, wilfully snd awlioiouttly ei«UMd, iniuetd cmd «niie«d 9«id Kile '':* Benson, the huabsnd of pis in tiff, is sspAriits hiaiaelf frtm h«r, siisrsby plaintiff has bs«» dsprlY*'?* «iQ*

lOMrilMr «atlie« is ih« Ki»t ttf a elTil 49tcti»n may 1M 4l!|>*ffHiJi«d mIoiis frwn «n iaap«otlon of th« r«^oerd of thst action, (Jsrnborg v, fe^i^. 199 111, 284; Fisbsl ▼. Kuttnauor. 147 111* App. 627} puriiewlarly from the ttllegtitiOBS ttT tbo doolsratlon (^«opls t, Efe&ly. 12d Zll« 9), «Bd tbs judipwat •^*^ yea Judicstf, of thiit <|uosiiOR sad theroforo not op«n to fttt&ek by t)» introduction of estrone ouv evid«ne«* {Jombor|tVT« £&&* WPg**^ Hero the deel&rstion ttllefsd tltJi>.t d«f«ndttBt with vrtneful, wilful and JBtOticious iat«int to injure %lt» plaintiff sad deprlYe her of the support, oonf ort, society and conuortiaai of hor husband did wron^/ully cto. alionate from h«r tho affections of hor huabaad oio. and oa that isauo tho vordiot waa •guilty*.

As th« torm "atallQe**, as uaod in tlMt Insolvent Debtors* Aot, ^pliee to thrt elaoo of wrooKs inflicted with an evil intent, doalKn or purpose and implies that the guilty party Waa actuated by ia^roper or dishonost aotlTos InTOlTlng tho in- tentional pcrpotrution of an injury or wrong upon oaother, (Joraberi^ ▼, Mix, aupra; yjrst Kationul Bank of Flora ▼• Burtettt. 101 111. ;&91; Kitson v. ?(-^Tweli. l^l id. 3^7) m think, there caa bo BO doubt froa such al legist ions and tha a&ture of the oeaoo of aetiea thnt aklioe »a» the giat of It*

t tf iV

muiiv:fs'*{inr

tt»ii

(rue.

^•x*d.

'rr iff? '

nm.9 V-

• 5*

tlhil* in aoBt of the eaM« d«oid«d in this »tMtw Involving detemiintitioa of this ctuoii»tion th* intont to <l«fruad •nd (k»c«iT« wan the biMin of tho otion, and none «n.o a ouit to vtaomr for »li«nraion of Afflictions, yet in oih«r juris- diction» ii htxtt iKfOn hold that sftlioo !■ an ««s«ntiAl tlosent of audi «m action, (•foetXiUc* ▼. toatXsico. :i't Ciiio 3t. «8l5 Siojger Y. Mannix. 6a liebr* aX; QoroaMLni ▼» anawllo. 2X4 Kaaa, 492j BoLand v. >^t«nl«y. aS ^xrk. 562) and i^t. . L. p. 1466, it la laid dovn aa a gonorol rule, ntoere tho re ia no oloa»nt of sc^iuetlon or ):tdult«ry, "that n defendt^nt in an action for ali«Bt}tion of nffeotlona la not llabl# unleao ho aeiod aalieiottaly or from limtropor KOtivoa iH^lying malice in la»«"

<it/« do not tl-iink the court err«d In holdiag tlmt ■alioo waa the iclat eV XYw action, anO In refusing to reoelTO orldenoo axtranooua to the rocord.

Hat Che tt, P. J., and Oridley, J, concur.

•«•

;^aw.

153 - 95029

AppelX««

TB,

A^9«m1 froai Cireait Court Off Cook County,

217 I.A. 651

t. JUStXCIi BitfUIBQ mUVSHSB TH CJPISIOB 07 THS COUIlt.

3

A]>|Mili«6 SttAd «ppt llaat for wage 8 before m. 4uatle« of the p«cioe, frmk m Suagimnt in his f»vor 4«f«ndeiiit iM^yoalod to th« Cireuii Court i^ro tho ttanm vao tri«d «tt>)<?ut » jury mnd Judgwrnt ftgaln r«n(ltro(S ftgnlast di«f«n<34»tt, vhioh ho oooks to roToroo*

7roB plaintiff's otm evidDnee it app^oro thnt thoy entoro4 into « eonlmct of pnrtnorohip, cund th&t it oemtinueii for o«v«r»l ■tenths, ottoh draviag fron the proceeds of the buolnooo on acooiuit, pl«lntlff tho 8iBc;ufit of ^a37«7I, ond (l«f<^nd«at th« kamunt of $57.25, iho tot&l ttxeeoding the profits of tho business. Pluiatiff withdrew fresi the hueinoss, claistlJis (SafeadiiAt w»s in defauXt in respect to the perfonssnoe of oertein t«nis of the pistrtnerehip ngreeioent amd did not produce nm omtdh w<)rk a^ he did a«id did net do other things whleh he eaqneoted hin to do qur « partner, and brought suit on the theory th&t he oould reoovsr the Tolue of his serTloes &.e wages. It is plsin from t^te rery atHtenent of these ftujts, thnt being ad* nittedly partners, suoh • suit would not lie. That is elesentary. If plaintiff has any reinedy It is in equity. But it is not a case that csa be ««nt bask for a transfer on the theory that plain- tiff isisc«Ei«iTed his renody, the suit harisig been begun in the justi<ie*e cfmrt. Aooor Singly Use JudgSMint will be reversed.

M4tchett, P, J,, and Oridley, J. concur.

'jo-fitHi.

/ / /

177 • 2609^

AitxRic/or imtii k aramxTY cowfmr/ 2l'/'TA f^ K H^

a corpor»Uon,' I |*^ X fi XexT.. \J fj JL

AppMllc*

A|>p««l frMi T9. 1 / J ttuniolp&l Court

o» ;>i»p«ai ©f ^U3H1^, cor

\ ,^p« Hants.

Thin appeal is from a jud^wnt for pX&lntlff In a r«pXcvln auit for pommtnsion of an a>it<u&oblI«i iRortgiic«<J to plaintiff t»y def^ndi^nt Uush B. Cospur to 8«eur«» th« letter's notv* for '#<>67.37, whicli was p»»t dtts and unpaid,

tha evidenee toncts to ahow fipp«i:X8nts* Jj^int pesawssion •f tbe property, ft proi^er demand on then therefor, and Appftllef^'a right t« pQ«ii(«0sion thereof under tho tenw of the aortgage md the oircmMt^moee in evidence!, unless the note ao ne cured vas reid for ultra virejs. ns argel by eppellAnta. The e vide note further discloses, end it wa$s undisputed, that ais.id note represents a loan by appellee to the lyro l^uuipoant Company, with which auah B. Cooper appears to b» in e<»ru irsy connected.

Appellee *e charter authorised it tc purchase &ni sell bonds and s<4»rtgageu but prohibited its dealing in the business of loaning money. Possession of the mortgageti property 9&b soui^t for the purpose of enforcing:: the grartgege. But as the trans;.: ctien in i&aking tlie 1o«r was ultre vires and void, the mortgage oould not, under th^ doctrine 1st id down in Celume t etc. Pock Co. T. Conldine. 373 III. 518, be enforced. •Ho action can be maintained upon the unlaeful centra ct, and in suoh ouses, if the courts Citm afford $My remedy, it cannot be done by affiraing

•2*

or enforclnc: the o«ntrn>ot but In aoMt other annner,** (Central Tranapor tuition Co. v. Pullman Fal&o« CfiT Co.. 139 V* li, 24; Morth Avenue Buil4in^ h 3.Q-in Awan. Y. Hu'Nir. 270 Id. 75; CAlujjet, rjtc. artQli Co. v. Ccnkllng. auftm,) la the Copkling case it mi8 hold thut »» the corporation )md no |>o«or to msk» • loan the trust 4e<»'ds H:iv<«n to oeeuro it vero «ni« nf orcible • fr^ think tht? deoieiot: in that cane la »,pplif^bl« to the facto in thlo. Accordingly the Ju%r<»nt will he wwroed.

Matchett, }ft J,, and Gridley, J, concur.

-2.-

X«7#B

9HmeR

, alt ■

Iffi - 2S071

ABHARAK ttSfSUtr,

rm*

^p«Iltt

©RMR, » corporation

Apiffillant.

)

/ \

Appeal frOBi ) Vonieipnl C^urt ftf Chlo»gf>.

217 I.A. 651

■f

I. JmSTICl? BAI«f3 KSLXVTJflRS TIP? fWIStCfS OF TUB C^imt .

Ap.>ellAnt Is a fraternal ben«f ioial aodety «iid was sued by »pp«ll«e the 1»«n«fiei»ry naawd in a Ixtnefit oertifioat« iasuad }»y aeid aoeiety upon the life of ap •ll«e*e vife aa a ■saber thereof. Tha only quaatien ia aa to th« extent of liability, appellant claiming that the beneficiary waa entitled to only -IIOO and cpi.ielleo thtt he wpt entitled to $SOC, leaa the aR?unt to which aesigneoa of tlio oertifieate were entitled. The finding and Judgmnt of the court were in accordance with appellee *» theory.

Stated ehron©10fl;lc«aiy the naterinl undiaputed facte are aa fttllova: D«ee;AHed*e undated appliONtion for ffiemnherahip in the loca-l order w<ia apprOTod by the grand aadical exaniner Aiigttat 16, 1916. ihe «as initiated in the local lodge of the •rder ^ptember 10, 1916. Her certificate of aaniberahip waa i8«(ued from the grand lodge September 15, 1916, and ahe wkb deeltred » beneficiary aamber in the loeal lodge by ita pre aidant Ueptenber 24, 1916, i>hc died Ssfareh 10, 1917.

Prior to August 2S, 191^, the beneficiary certifieatea contained a prorlaian in accordance ^ith a preTieua lav of the order thst if the aeniber died within one year fre« the date of approral of her application lAd aadieal oertifioate the beneficiary would be entitled to only JlCtJ, C5n that data a

-.y. I

\/r j»'i »*-. !

9i •!■ ■ -i.

Aiiilli'i.*^ iiiv>iii'ii-

•8.

ef>aT«Btlon 6f the ord«r r*i)«al«d that luw, and XhR r««0luticni froTldod Uint nuoh m^al »hcMld Innre to tli«t benttflt of only thoee medlNrrtt *Tfho wlXl &ffillai« with th« ortii«r iift«r Attg\ast 2'<A, 1916 •* thirr«» hftd b#«n written Into «jn4 then •rastd fr«B the o«!rtlf loat'V of mo8>b«r«hlp i»Bued to dcQ««>A«d the lijtitntioti proiicrihed bjr xuoh luw* Flaintlff »tnd th« seorfttary of th« Ittoal i0df« t^Atlfied thnt the e«rtifieai« bnzw «uoh erftsarw idMn it tr»» lasttftd. Their tesitiaMmy watt not dir«Gtly eontrft* dlQtftd. Th« court' a finding vmn in ft<scord.-*nce with th*ir • vldTiO* ptiid w*> find nothing in the r«<5«rd thpt ^fRrrunt* eltvut^mg it.

That the ecrtif ioute waa iet/Uod with ouoh era»ur« la eon8iflt«>nt with th« fact thrit it was not itt«u«d until «urter Au^tt '<?.2» 10I€, «nd ftft«r 4«o«HB«a was* inititttod aa a iwsbar. The gri^nd Recrotftt-y ©f thw order, d«f«nd«uat*e only wilnasa, t<F«tifl€d thai he and tne grand nedical wxaainer noted tofaiher •n epplior tlona and tht^t when a tartifieata wfiia ap^re-vwd Isa not If lad the aeeretaary of Uw looal lod^e that th« cnndidata waa appra^d Mind mi^ht he initiated, and that it wa» u(»i until ha get a report from the lodge of the initiation thnt the policy or Mmhor&hip o« irtifiaato waa ianued. ^ith no ether ovidaneo ro- latin^; to the aaVje ct of uff iliu.tion we think it osknnet ho aaid from the e'/idon<« in thla rcnord that a weiehor ia regartfoi^ ^a affiliated with the orn^r until alio ie initiated into t>« local lod|:«; for until then oha ie not oven entitled to a oertlfieata of Bieahership Qot^ithatf^iding the approval of the applloi^tion* The judgnent will bo affirned.

A$7XRJIBD*

Matchett. P. J.. «»d Oridley, j, concur.

r.vXfr Tf-^rfM^o

liit^.^S*

rot-'N^ii

.ixr

S04 • atoso

i

/ 0'^ t(^

iW B. SHATf

App«ll«f ,

r

of Chla«||0

21 '^' ^,A."6 52

Tte qvMstlon b«r« la ma to th« Xla1»illty ef thm appellant rallroftd etmpmny tor tkw tmIuc of iftrtioXaa nissiag fTMi • l»«ix th«ii It r«c«iT«d in !)etroit und transported t« <aUL«*ge, %iiMr« cm pr«»«nt«ti(m of its 4htck the r«f or it do* live rod the 1)0X to on txprc: amui for d«llv«rj to plAlntlff .

Sbe evidoaot io undlsputod that iA«n the 1>ox «•« tuiten from d«fend«uit*a 1»H|i:ga|$« ro^« in Cbioo«o » ^oard «r boards <m ona aid« of it, thougli not broken through, voro cruahad r SAVad in and th»t tha root of tht boards wara nailad down. Tte aTidanea further ahova that plaintiff aant the ^ex to d«fattdi3nt*s dapet In Dcttreit by an oxpraaaaaB, and that aha aftarwnrda, tha naxt day, aav it the ra, pointed it Ottt to dafandnat*a bagi^aga mm and reoaivod <tefandiiat*a ottaek therefor. She taatified that at that tim It stood on and •Md did not look any different than when it left tlui houao. ]>efendent offered no «Tidenea contradictory of these facta, but urges that in the abaenee of proof as to how long the box vas in the poaatselen of tho Zietroit 03q»reasaeii and the eore takon of it in tha aMrantixM Vvrfore delirery by hi» to tlM defendtmt, no preftusiption oan be indulgod that the lose

•ft*

•e«arr«d mfXmr maeh d«)Iiv«ry. It in trvm the bur dun ^f prp^if r«»i«d upon thtt plaintiff with resrpvct to thttw laattera, «nd viriils plaintiff *8 vYidenee as sforvsaid mi to th« oondltlon •f the box of tor deXiT«ry to dofeadPAt n^io sontuftuit mttgor, yot uneontr^diotod oo think it nedo ft prl»a f«olo choo that Um box was d«liT«!!r«d to df^fferndsmt In th« bhwb condition in vhieh it 3L«ft )3er jiiooootiaion. la this r«npoct it diff«ro froa tbt CAMS elt)»d by d^fftcdtrnt with r«ep«ot to the burd«n of proof, th« I&v of wbl<dt io naX quoetionod. T)i« jud^swnt vill bo eTflmtd*

lUtchett, P, J,, wad Oridley, J, concur.

4»£ ■

S13 ^ 2508^

OUSTAVE DALLUy,

T8,

Appellee,

\

Appeal from

Clrouit Cotirt,

VISCESZO CHIARA et al.,

On Appeal of VINCENZO } Cook County.

CHIARA and JlROMEB H. BASSY, } ^ ^ -^

Appellant.. ) 2 1 7 LA. 6 5 2 '^

MR. JUSTICE BAKKBS DELIVERED THE jOPINION OF THE COURT.

This appeal is "by two of eereral defendants against whom tlao Judgment appealed from waa rendered*

It is first contended that the motion for a new trial was erroneously overruled. But that question is not preserved for review, there being no assignment of error to that effect. (Drake Machine Works v, Brossman. 135 111, App« 209, 225.) li» therefore cannot consider the specific contentions which call for determining the weight of the evidehce, namely, those re- lating to the claim of plaintiff's contributory negligence, defendants » want of negligence, the ownership of the instru- mentality causing the injury, and the agency of the person operating it.

Hor was there a special plea putting the fact of ownership in issue. No questions of fact argued, therefore, are preserved for review.

As to law points: As there was evidence tending to establish each material element of the cause of action, the court properly denief3 defendants' motion for an instructed verdict. It is urged that the court erred in refusing an instruction. But the abstract does not contain the instructions that were given, hence under our rules we will not go to the record to find idiat they were, as is necessary to determine the point. Consequently the Judgment will be affirmed,

AFFIRMED* Matchett. P. J., and Qridley. j.. concur.

:»«xi<ik

(Ofill 'jrv\

if nl:^- :xa f. S :ifih it. '*" ot I ;r; r. ■: 7

-i."s*aal

. rj J li k'v J

■1^ enxnr.

,cr:'

.x.as'xji'i

j;.^

J \i4U-

243 • ZbiaO

SPOTS, / )

App«ftX rr«m

\ ) Circuit 'l<nitX

AMtCiS J. O^RKAK, BHlUff ^ }

•f th* Mimiitlipiil Cmrt / ) of Cook County.

.ppexa./ ) 217 I. A. 652^

Ml, JtJiTXCS >AaVI8 BRLIVKHKD TWE <»IK1CS 0» THS CarRT.

itipfiets aouth, ftpp«lliint, olAlRlng title by bill of •«!• frott on4<! H. F. H&rimui to fMirsanal pn>p«rtjr I«Tied «i as hit ^ th* bailiff of the Sfuaiaip*! Court of Chie(«|g9 under » jud^nont of thMt etmrt Bifeiinet him, brmtght thlo r»pl«vli! ouit ollogiiifi tlMt tho property woat unjustly (ietaiaed from h«r. Isouo was talton om<5 ih« Jury's -veraict was fir 4«foiidnat.

7ho property corvfd by thit bill of sale and oo loTiod •a «on»iot04 of pool tables and outfit, barber ohaira, eeah reg* itttero and all other fumiturQ, noodei and chtittels t.X 3347 iieet Xadioen etreet, Chie^o, the e<piipneot of a pool ronm and barber •h<9 eonduQted »t thmt place by eaid Hartman, who at the time of •aid sale had Tarietto erodfetore including the emcutien ereditor*

There buing no ^eetlen about the application of the Bulk Salee Aot, paaced in 1913, to »uc^ a nale (X.aSalle Cpern Houee Ce, V. I«al^alle .MmioeaMint Co., S99 111. 194) and the record disolooing no attempt «n the part of the vendee to comply with its provieione vith reepect to demmndiag a liat of the Tennor'a creditors and SiTiaC the re<|uir«d notice to them of the propoeed purehaee, eueh eale was to id under the ^tntute ;;.» to the Ten dor* n crv^itore, and, tliouipi it refused eo to do, the court for thttt reneon mii^t woll kave directed the Terdiet given by the Jury* In thle Tiew of the •aao mo diecuetiion of otiMr point e is aeemssary.

AfVXftWD* BattfMit. P. jr., ond Qridley, j, concur.

844 - 2&121

A»p^ll^^,

H* PlOWAit ft @^8« /

/S/

.y

} Sftmloiyal Court

j of cmoaeo,

i 217 I.A. 652'^

Beth pHT%l9ti to this ttetion tMtro oimioffed In tho i^aoral ooiMl0Bl<»s buiii|ioo» in Ghie<i09, On Aupiot 6, 19X3, pXiiintiff (appolloe) ooXd dtttcndimX («j?poXXant) a. onrXoAd of poaehoo for delivtr/ to C* H. ^l«n«r Coapony, AJkroii« Ohio, Mn<l tAXogri^hed Uw order to lilo o^punt 0. ^v, laoott, Mftrriooa, Ark., vdio or th»t day Xoftded « oatr witli froota po&dioo, tho ear l)o»riag InitloXo sad tiua(toer ?HL X&2^. Tho Boxt doy 8««tt roo«>iv«^d » wiro from pXaintlff to doXivor ViXL onr 366 to 1^ Wlonor Coapany oad roportod tho Xattor o&r 3jiiti*Xa sutd jawiaMir to dofondaat mo thooe of tho ««r on routo. But ao ear 366 had ftXroat^ hoen o«ad 2eott diverted ear 18'43, ond Xater wired pXaliatlff of the ft^et* slener CoMpaay not haYlan Veen notified of the ^ia»^e looked for ear 366, end it net arriTln£;, cesmunleMted the fact to deffi>ndi)int, and the latter in turn to pXointiff, who did not report the eorreet oar auMher to defendenv until ahout AUfuet 16 or 17, Bein« notified hy the railroad eeopony of the arrival of ear 1923 at AJoron, en Ao^ruot 16, wiener Coaqpany on the eaae day inepeeted Ite content o Rnd f<%nd the pe«»che» to >« over-ripe <4id partially deeayed. In thnt eendition iener Consmny oontcrnJied th«t they eruld net ho oold in Akron, ead a» Pittehurch vae the nettroet s^Xhc^ in «hi<ito eny diepoeltlon e«»uXd ho nuado of theii, iTiener Coa^any diverted tho

•MM i« t]M 8a1«« S«»rflii Coi^puny, » Mnrtotin^ «8«ney af Pltt»1nirgh« vhlah sold ihftw for $37S«7i^» Mnd nft«r divduotln^ fr«l|^t, •xprtssAi^, icing and cheorgvfi amouaiina to |241«90 r«?aittttct ih« balnnea of #j)4*ftft i« the Wiener Coa;p«ay« t.tli»T deducting $4*4C froi» aaid iMklaaM «)(i«]i»r Coiqi»Miy renittftd xim rttmnlndor, j^30«4S, to d«f«adiwt, K^o in tujm t«nd(i7«d th^it Kuncmnt io pXnlntlff, frt^ili^ b« raftts«d to Ktttet|»t«

fifhii* tlM OYidenoe tftnds to show that plekintlff did ttot infons d^fMad^^t of th« nuaibei* of Um aubstltutod «aar until iift«r it h«d ^«tn dl'WtJPted to PittsUuriEh yet wa think Ui&t fact ift iinn»t«rrial if dafundaat ncTcrtheloaa liiiMBepted ih« p«HRh«8 in Um cQa<iitlon they «er» «htn re.tsivod at hkron^ "hio. ihilo Viener Conpnax thttn in«|ttir«d of the d^Ii'rerlng oarrier und did R«i l«i»m frwt «iieai and nher9 ear l&^ii eioni, it nov«rih«iea» •x«rei8«d o'lqnernhip itnd doainion over th« <i«r and ds^li with tht •nam for t)u> aeeount of fifft^nAimX,, mid ihAt r^otion wste not roptidiatod by th«» Xiktter* Defendant cf«e)c« ^ustificf^tifm th«;e«of on %tm testinony of it« prosidont thn^t by eootoa it «tt» tfnti eoaiiigno«*8 ri^t »o to do vhen he does not Imow tthcre or frcai Ami %3m foaotaao eoae* ll« did not pr«t«ad to icnow bow univ^ro^i or gcn«r&l Mr«ui the; oust on und did not think it cbitiined in largo l^laoos* j^lckintlff introduce' d ^yldenco thui no ouch coo ton •xiotod, and KB do uot think df.)r«nd»;nt*a proof «*,.% Muffident ia aaiftblltth nuch n eudton ma the law reco^nlM>o. In th« aboaaco tboii^of and of any other procf to Justify iiitnnr Company* a approprlfition of th« pe&ehoe on tmy other theory than aaeeptttaao, wo think the oonrt wna wurranted in fiadinj^ from the cvidcneo th^t defendant throu^ Wioner Ceaq^Ajiy Koeeptod tha fo»Gh«i«

But d«f©ndiint i^aid fr«iaht to th« aiaoinit ^t ^l««4f»*

•3»

flAintiff Aid aot prey* the •ztft lUHnmt of fy«ii{|it to ^kran^

«• )ur ahouia htL-m dona. ^% ah«ili ft«»un« from ih« toXit«ry

paid pro»f of thtt fciaount^hftt it «rao what plaintiff waa ireqinir«<i to

pejr for doXi v«rjr. atoiio plAlntiff t©«tifi«<l, iwu d«f«n<!Uint*«

prawiilont d«ni«d, that the pfratshAO woro to h« detliv^rod f •o.b.

Hc«rrioon, Ark., pl^^^lntiff *» plofidina i« pwidlentod on a difforeat

th«<>ry, (iaiegin^, es it does, doliwry Ht Akron, Chio. iJ«fiiiidaat*o

OTidoneo io in oonferaiity with pl9dniitT*» piiftttdine on that aahjoot.

Tboro i» nothing ia th« anturo of tho tranoaction f*r thl^ oTidonot

that Jttstifioo my eih^r inf^renmr thioi that pi&intiff wms to p«y

froi«ht to tho point of fSeliwry, mA that h« aid not ooiif«r titio

until atioh delivory iMSd i»«e«ptimQe«

Tho a»<>unt of poa«hca d©llver«d w&e 3OT huohoXo. Tho prioe a^^reod upon w»o SI ,25 p«r hui»heX« tho nm? nt duo on tho contract, ther«ror«, turn |4»6.a» Xooo 18X0.40 poid l»y dofendant for Umj tronoporttttion, Xei^vin^t »» dtto «nd pttywbXo to pX^intiff Attfiuot 16, X9i^, $ii77,8{i, mA *it ti la tiiso *ith at&tutory intoroot tho •urn of $Ma.30, for whioh Judgmnt wiXi bo ont«rea hero.

Mo pforpooitiena of i«w;i«?r« aul9»itted to the court • m hoTO •o woaa, thoirofore, of koowiitij idi&t apeoific nOoa «f Xdw tho court «ppXi»d to ii» oYldsneii, im do not think th«t thuro ^a roToraiblo orror ia th« odu]rt*i» ruXiago oxoopt &u to the iuxsaat of tho Judg* ■oat. Aoc«rdin«ly it »iXX ht, r«Tera«d imd judgMsnt «ntor«(f horo for oppoXXoe in tho sua of 53fi0,3C.

liotohott, P. jr., and GridXoy, j,, oonaar.

•cia ilk/

-It

:f9^'i^s*^

^:»iMiA

Z4A • asxn

FXKOXSO 07 If ACS,

m find iUi^% ttppalUa, ^9x*0e 2.*. ifor^S, eeXd !(• Plaraty k Umn»t tik^j^lXixnt, fo? a^Xlv^r^r nt 4k?<xa, Ohio, ^C^? ^uub^Xs of ft«.tiM»« »i $X.a9 f»er ^aah«X, eai'i !l«IlTnr«<l the ttnae at ib^}t point, pttr»uaiit io ti^p«lX»xit*ft 4&r«oti<mn» t^ its tsmt^i^ia* C« a* Wj|,oA«7 Cea^i^tiiy, <3n4 that »pp«li«>jit tiirou^h Ita sHi^ oon- diilMo a«ii«pto<l sai'i aoHvoy;^ ^mX pal'i th« fr$li;;ln ther&<m of ^31d«40« tmd tiiixt th« bj^JLanci: of who tiuroh^^^* p'^i«« Xemn aald frttighi «^a& at Ut^ tisas of «».ij:2 AOQ<!ptanc^ luo £snd piiy.<i1sl« to appallOA aad h»8 not t»o«a t€ma93r«4 or y%id, ^afi th»% ihord is

276 • 3S1«3

OORSCn A. TlAl^rf, A4ainl8tr«t<»>.

of the tetnte >f VULLI41I 9ALT1S] WOOiki , d« oe aB« d|

Appall 4

Tt.

Ap^u„t. ^17 I. A. 652

App«»l froa

3«q» trior Gnurt 9f

Cook Countjr.

Tho principal aoelgnneBt of error relied upon in this oaM la thttt tho eourt errod la refuolng to in^^truct the jury at the cloee of nil the eTidenoe In the enso to find a; pollani net guilty. Thla raieeo the ciueation «>)tther or not th« evid* tne« tended to establish the oausar of motion to r«60T<»r for the death of appellee's decedent, wbieh happened under the follov* ing eirounetnnceei

The deo«a«ied, a boy ten yesre eld, together with a younger brotlwr, olinbed a ladder at the ernd «f an elr-vated Bviteh traok naintained by defendant on its pyenisaa, walked along the eusae &bout &0 feet to , and Junped into, a bin etmfitruoted in thie trestle-work niiioh was nearly full of sand that had been duaped therein from a railroad oar «m the trnek abere it. Th« t<9 of Ui9 bin «f>>s about 30 to 39 feet and the botton ab^Mt 8 feet from the ^^round. In the bottoai of the bin was a slide or deer t>iat was opened by a bar frtm the outside ae as to let the eand run out* The undisputed eridenoe, • whioh eeene reasonably probable, - is that the boy found the elide open, jumped into the bin, slid down the sand through the opening;, and that a ▼olnae of Sfutdf oapable front its eonsistenoy of being thus disturbed fron its repose, inraediately flowed down upon XXX and sMithered hia. The grounds being unfenoed iveve aooessible froa

n. ^CXX

•Mm

tbt •tre«t« MRd the eTtdeniM dlBclOMB that the hin»» the um to which thty wm put, and annd orv«rf loving th«ir top or running out froa tha botton oofjdd bo o«en fron sn ftdjolalng pubXlo oiroot, and th«t tho childr«n of th« n«ig|iborhood frequently entered the grottnd» from the street and nlayod on sand they found underneath the structure or in the bino, and slid dowi the sand in the bins thrm;ii;h the aperture as afore nald* This aperture w^s abmit IB Indaee tt<)uare. the bins sere divided Into eo»p<s.rtnints, whleh iMld ab^ut 2 earlOAds ea<ih, snd vere so oonstruoted as to fnirm a sort of Chute so that the »and would slide through the openlne to the ground or Into wt^gons, a» the ease might be. Neither said slide nor t':e bin wa.a locked or otherwise guarded, s« as in prevent the chlldr<sn fron using the e&nd bins as aforear^id.

yroa the oTldenee thus reeited there enn be no questl«a that the place was in faot attrci^etlve «m4 enticing to ohildren of tsnder years. That is demonstrated by the fact that they frequent* ly went there to play, a fi^ct known to defendant, for Its agents undertook to ehase the o)»lldren awuy, but took no other precautions. 9«ad in any form is known to be attract Ive to children, probably on account of its mobility. They InstlnctlTely like to handle it, •9fr themselTes with it, and otherwise set It In mt^tlon, and particularly to slile down slopes of sand. Defendiint nlfl^t anticipate thiit from their natural instinct such a altu»tion would be most tempting to children own if defendant had no knowledge of the fact that the ohildren ^r^ acoustomsd to go there and play in the send.

this Is not, ns contended by defendant, a ease where

the attrnetire thing was diseoTerable f»nly after the place was

the reached. Sor wa^ ladder the attractive thing in the ease at

bar. It was mtrely a laeans of rendering the attractive thing

.A9U W.

no I

4U

•s-

•oocesi'blc, and had sueh rttc.4y nenns of aomtta to tho dMsgorottt or attr»ottTe thln^ not boi^n loft op«n for use, tho chm vouXd prosont ti different aspset*

Kor las this h oamt of geitiii£ late and pluylas in an •apty bin. It w^o the conbin»tien of the Sfund in tlie bin» affording teo^ting facilities for gratifying th«ir preponoitioa and Inatincte, which they «siw from the etroeft, that Allured tho ohil'iren. So aoeing it tViey did not need to re? eli it before being infltMncsd by ito enticernents. Bnd the ladder been remtpred or the loor in the bottora of the bin kept closed or locked probably no injury from > oing to tho bin oould havo boon anticipated. But upon the f-^cte as aboire stated, shioh in Um Bain are undisputed, the oourt oould not protperly direct a verdict for d«^fendi!int, and the Jury was Justified in finding that the deeoaeed was attracted or allured from the public 8tre<»t, where bo had a rigfht to be, by Use thing or in»trua«ntfaity that eattsed his death, and that it w&s within the ciite>;ory of attr^otivo nuisanoes; and wh^^ther or not suoh preslsos were attri^etiTO to children was a question t» the Jury, (utellery t. Cioero litreot Ry. Co., 243 111. 2«0,)

Xa yplltttt ▼. I. c, n. n, Co.. ^ae ill, fton, the con- troTerted question w: s whrthcr th« defendwit was guilty of nogligenoo in lenYing a push-»C5r standin;; unlocked at a plaeo where ehildren going to play with it would h« liable to be struck by passing trains? or drawn under thea, defendant knowing or hoTing rer>snnable op >ortunity to know that ehildren werw in the habit of goinf^ there to plc^y and push %h9 push*e»r. In thmt OMse the cnvirt held thnt the

*oharge of negligenee ^igaineit the defendant would rest <na the fi^ict that the childish Instincts af children would natur lly attract then to play

««

>iCJ

-e,^

• <lll3£' ^ 58ir>3»

•^ ^^:

-a«^ • -y. tK t^f,t'

9iiJ

ii»drtq

with the puah-car, M*iioh might bring thens into ocmtaot with neitna of dnngsr to which tha dfcf ndnnt •xyoaed th*M by not locking or fastening the puoh-o&r«*

¥h« court oaid:

"Whoro the owner creator upon hie prt»mia»a z>. d«ng«ro<i8 thing vttich from Ito naitare has a tend«noy to attract idilldren, «^r) fron ohlldieh instlncte Cvr« drawn into danger, th(^ Xaw requires! »uch r«aBOniiblf' pnoautlono fic the cirounaot.incee j/lieit of to prevent then from playing with the thing or to protect the« fr»» injury while playing with it.* (p, 511)

ihat WI18 there oald we think la applicable to the fuote In this

eajM* Whether the bin a« conetrueted, together with the? Hand,

eenetltuted suoh an attractive and dangeroue thing, and defendant

took reaeonable precautions to prerent children fram playing in

and tiiround it, were queations for the Jury, and ^e find no

sufficient grioindl for dlcturbim^ their Cflneluslon.

The eontentlcm Uint the only oount on which the easa Mint to the Jury did not state n o«%tta« of action la, we think, without foree* Ita defects, such aa they weire, were cured by Terdlet.

Bar d« we think the ift@orlbed conditions und< r whlah decedent caaie to his death Ineonslstent with the lav of physios, aa eont«:^nded by appellant, the evidence showing that froM daiap- nes» or other Oeusee the Material In the bia eaked« 30 thirst at tiMta it was not perfectly jsoblle.

Kor eaa we aay that the evidenoe ref^uired the Jury to find thr^t thr proxisate oause of the injury was the moTeiwnt of the deceased In the bin. If the attraetlre and dnngerous thing was, as the eridence discloses, a conbin^^tlon of the aand with the structure in #iioh It was placed and it was allowed to re* iB»in ungut^rded agi^inst the r>Vvlldr<9n*8 fr«ttin£7 to It and playing la it, then this last content ion falls of its o«i wtight.

•t>

iltJ'J

•I -

do t > «>.t iiC'

•5.

tUQiile rmterenc^ io wm1« In app«Ilnnt*b bri«r to th» refusal of t>M» ourt to give certain instructitme ihff pointe ere not argued, nor leee the abstract contain thn giTen in*- structlone. Under eueh conditions, ^n has beori frequently held, the points are not properly presented for consider At Ion*

1* think the Judsraent, therefore, naist be e^fflnaed.

Matchett, P.J,, and Gridley, J. concur.

,Cn

,^^s^'• . ,>.:«XM-iO i>rr ,. , fwx^iAM.

14X . asfao

AassCY, e 4orpo nation, /

v»;

«nd JACOB Kuorses^, /

Kimlolpal Court

of Cniesgo,

sitAftmm m ths caw

.217 I.A. 653^

this !■ an »pp«al from n Jud^^ni of th« }&u)iol|^«l Court •T Chl«8«9, «fntttr«<i January 10, 19XS, ftgulnst t>w plain- tiff for coftts* The c#use was triod without a ivLty and «t ite concluBion of the hearing ok ooid day th« court f o nd tho iftftttoii in faynr of snid threo def^^ndanto.

Th« cauije w.sa origin*aiy onmmne^d by plaifitiff on ^9hruary 5, 1917, «8 one of th<!? first els-BS in ftoeiUi|)ftit« n^Rainst TrBXik Oppenhejiwr, <5Ping bu»ino©» a« tho rpi>«nhe Iwer AdT«rtieinj^ >^ncy. In platntiff'e si6jt«f«ent of elai», Terified l>y of^idr^Yit, it is alleged in nubotimoe that the ol«iiB it fmr |1882.oe. for a4T»rti»ing furniahcd Cppenheiner at hie rtquest nnd insiortod hy plaintiff in the £antt«o City Journal, Louiovillo Courier Journal Mttl ^t. Louis JPost MopAtoh nevspapers in ttoo Month of KoTBKber, a91«. On Februury 10, 1917, en plaint if f»» Botion, the court or(i«r«d th»t ell rccorde, piipsrc en<J proceed^ inge in t)ie o^use be oaended by s»kin^ the Rtld three Mandelt, the Mtndel »«nuf»etarin8 Co., a cojporatlon; caiiengo l^rrotyp* Co., a corporation, ani the Uandel Uerper&tion, a corp«r«tiOB, MiipagURsckisiBUi ee*defendante; t^d on e^vid dKy plaintiff filed an aaended etateaent of olaim, verified by affidarit, alleging that ita elala »»« for said aaotjot for etiid aarertisine fumiehed by plaintiff to all "f th? ilefendanta at t>>eir requeot, <»n Pebruaiy 24, 1917, all of » ift nrw defenlanta entered a joint appe^rsnae

^jcxxxxxxftxk

Midi filed ms affldftvit of nerlta, tworn to by Loulo fiiMidel, in vhleh 9&Qh denied Joint lin^ility with any other dofendroit, and eaeh and aix denied th^i plaintiff had ever furnieh^d any one ef then vith a»id ad-vertlslAe er that any of then bad ewr requeeteA pXaintiff eo to do. On t^areh 1« 3191?, on plaint Iff *8 reoiion, the euit vu.ui dioMiaaed au te ftrunk. Cppanheiia&r, and on Voveartier 1% 191^» on plaintiff* 0 notifln, the euit vae dismieeed ae to all the other defendanta. exeopt U;kO three !£iUidelB«

The eauae vae tried upon an 9.|j:reed atauiiwnt of facta, •uppleroonted by aoaa oral teatiaMMsy. vvom th« lengUty a^^reed •tateawnt and fron the oral teetinony« «« glean the following:

T>ie defendanta, Manuel li»tndQl a^^ Louie y^mdel (here* inafter referred to n» the two K^adela), on Oetolwr 20, 1916, eere reaideata of Chieago and eo^partnera In buainess. They anaufactured and aeld e^jjaeraa and photographic auppliea under the, partaerahip auae of t^nieago ferrotype Co*; and they alae naau- faotured and aold phonographa under the partnerahip naaie of Maadel Maauf^icturini^ Co, K^itenaiire adYertislng In all kinda of publiobtiona hatd a dieted in Xfoi developoHtnt of their buaineae, whieki adTffrtlaing had be«n plaoed for th^^n exclualvely by Kaator k 3oaa Advertialng -o. They h<^ aaeota a^xtregating about $1,3CC,000, Mid ware <teaireu6 of re»finanelng their bualneat; &ad ae curing; additional ontpit^l. K.n«tor & iiOBa Co. offered a plan for inoor* porAting ttielr bueineao »nd introduced them to frank Cppenheiaar a« a brolcer Khe would undertaisa te aell utock in the prppeaed eorporaiimi, and represented hln ao an experienced hrnk^r and one fully able to carry out any contract he night toike. ?».e lying upon aaid repreaentatleaa, the two liaadela, on Oetol^er 2r, 1916, in good falUi entered into a written ooatraet with atiid Oppeahoimr. At thia tia» Oppcaheiaer had offieeo in the iZcCermiok build lag, Ghioago, enployed laany aaaietaata, and waa there engt^ed in

«'f-

XlA

■'*.9»f^^X^-'W*

'^. -y-f ^vni^

«>»

%a*iiM«« AS the Oppon^MT IxM) r Adv«rtl»ing Agency, but the tn* Sfkadelt 41d net then know that ftuld Opi^nhftlntr ««tii •agi««di In %b» «.dTertlsific ftg*a«y bualnoss. By thfi t«rn!.« of atiid eonttmet the two Itendelji egrted tluit th«y would oygsniM within thirty days a oorj^or; tion with a o^pitflOL atoek of $X,500,00C, of whiidi atook part ahnuid b« prtfarrwd and pmr% eoanaon atook; ihnt •ftor tim oi^unlsfttlon of th« oorporatlon thoy w^ul<i trcmafer to it the «ntir« aar^atu, including good will, of thoir p^otogmyh and phmaograph buainaaaoa, tharatofora conductad und«r anid partnerahip najnaa; that (^penhaxarr ah(mld haw the: "aola «ad axcluBlw* potnr and authority*, for a period of flira months fraM the data aeid oorporatlon ahculd V« organised, "to a«ll all the prtfarrad stoek of the pr<qpoaad corporation at pur*, and the tw* Vaadala would traiiafftr to the ]>uroh«aora at p«r one i^iara of •aaaaon atook for ev@i*y two aharea of the preferred etoek pureh&aed; that they would pay Oprxinhoimer "fifteen per Oi^nt. of the cielling priot* of auid preferred atook aa scon aa fall pajnaent for each ahare ahould be received hy the»{ and that, in addition to aaid "15 per cent oowRlaoiona* they wauld aeaign t» C^penh«iiw»r one ahare of eoamion atook for oTcry eif^t aharen of pzwferred atook a« aold by hi»« In eonaid« ration of th» Above proatinea of the t«« Mandela, Oppenhelna r agreed that "before Deeeir^ber 2&, 1916 he will expend the au» of $35,00C in advertiaing in public#xtiQna the aale of the preferred stock of aaid corporstion", unleaa all of oaid preferred otoek ehould be aold before December 10, 1916, at a leaa expemlitttre for advert Ising.

Within :&C Any fros the date «f aaid contract the ivtt MaBdala, an Bevombwr 8, 1916, o&uaed to be organised under the Iowa of the utate of Delaware the "Handel Gorporation*, with a cfipital atook of |l,300,noe, conaijJting of 130,000

-ff * <*»n ? if -^ -* ^rr <^:^ .V- *1 f *'■

f- ." , c <■ ■ rs'

Oi,. ■'

r r

-•v;;'^.^i'

',)' *|;»lAjf;??^

iml-f*ir

I .■!i^yf\^. •': ■".''

•* ^ar^l

rwlf

, •■ i'X' s ;■ ■• •Ts^fT" av A '<'> ■ •■' *'^' " ''-'

•har««a ^^ which iCD^COO 0her«» tr»r« of pr^f^rmA stock and to, 000 aihfii.r«8 mr9 of comeo» atottk. Tlut iwe Mimd«l« and J»oeb llaaid«l iNirc ih« ineorporai«r» and th« first dirmetora of thU eorporation, wad the fact th«t tho ciefen^iimt, Jncob J(a]id«l« lM««in« ao »»aoclot»<i with thl« corpor^ttlon 1» Apparently his sola oonnectldn with thi« caum. Od HetoiBber XI, 191*r, \.fm two )««md«Xe eauMd %o ha fully orgftoictd under tlMt lAva of the i^tato of Xllinoio th« corporation, *Chie«go forrotypo Co.*« trnd on tho oanw date alao onuaed to bo fully organlwd under eo^id lawa of Illinoia tlio eer* porc^ticm, '*?;'nadel t^eauf -xctttring Co,** And, afterwarda, tho two Jtondela tranaf«rr«d tho ttntlre aaaota and bualnaaa of thoir partner* ahlp, Chioa^o Varrotyps Co., to the now corporation of that naaa, and also tranaforrod th« entire aaaoia and buaineaa of their partnorahlp, Sandel tt»nuf «)eturing Co,, to tho now corporation of that naow. f^ubaaquently all of the laettod atook of those two Illinoia Corpor»tiona waa tranaferred to the D«:>law»re CMq^any, tho *Knadel Uoxpor&tion**, and It beoana the "fholdin^;* coap»)ny. Tho two new Illinoia oorporati«ia continued to do the reapeetlTO buainoaaoa fonaarly done by the partnership, and had their principal offioea At the comer of Laflin and C<^gn»» streets, Chlcn^o. The two ttoadela were offloerc of both Illinoia oorporatlona and of tho Delaware corporation* Tho principal offic« of the "Mandol Corporation" waa in Delaware. It nerer hsd an offioo in Illinoia, noTtr w»a lioenaed to do buaineaa In Illiiioia, and noTer did any bueinoaa in Illinoia, exoept th»t solid tat ioma mr* aukde in Illinoia of persona nnd the publle generally to buy aharoa of ito Oitpital atook*

iihortly aiLfter tho centruet of October 20, 1915, waa exeouted, the two Sendela adviaed OppenheLBwr In writinif of tho nature imA Taltw of their partnership buaineas, and

Oppenheiner with hia assletants drafted all advertising atattor

«^*

<i «i«Mk«>i»«(

«MU8i}<< l>.

, (i,i.tim*t*

bXftxf" *!.

£ab4l«SE'

aqlani

•i39ni»»tf

.^>iw)i «v.

«ii

This vaark v«a dcsui by p«ra«n» «aq»1.07«d and paid Vy Opp«nh*iMir* The 8tt.ti«r w».« Umn ttu)»diii«d io th« twe H^endela end, with nmm sliil^t ehAai^ii, ifcpprov«d l>y U^w. Opr^nheiiMtr th*ii ftniftred order* in nuaeroua nevsp&pitr* toid publico ti<ma throughout the United i>tiit*e, »«Iected by hiat* for the lne«rtioa in oaid pnb* lieittlcms of th» odvertlelng imtter, the tvo Hmadols baTing nothing to So vlth the eoleetittfto of the publications. Cn Sove bor d, 1916, the plaintiff, ->• C Beekvith ^^peoiel Agency, a Kew York Coxporatiwi, Authorised to do busineee in XXlineia, «&• engaged in the bueineos of "pArohasing advertising space froa nevspapers and periodicnXe, tund resellinf suid space to sudi persons, firces or o<»'porfttions as might doaire aass'*, and for a long tine prior ty^reto had been doing business with C'ppenheimr and "hed extended credit to hia frcns tiasi to tins.'* On said laist ■Mrntisned date Oppenheiner gaw plaintiff fi^ orders, signed by hin, on certain foriw partly in printing snd partly in typewriting, directing plaintiff to eaus« to \m inserted, in the three news* papers Mentioned in plaintlff*s statenent of claia, certain enoloeed advert issiaents of the Kandel Corporation, whioh odTertisesasnts lisi been coapiXed by Oppenheiner and Uie oe^pilatiwis ap<>JroTed by the two l«i^(teXs as Hforeseid. ihereafter, en NOTcafber a, X916, plain* tiff forwarded scdLd advertiaeaents to SAid. nemipspers, together with the written orders of plaintiff, dirKOtlng Sf^id aewspapors to insert in certain editi<^ns nim^d the enclosed "matter of the knndel Corporation**, end to eharge plaintiff therefor pX certain nsaed rates. Th^'reafter said newsp8|M*rs insert^^d the adYSTtisensnts in said editions and (barged the priee therefor to plaintiff, nnd thereafter plaintiff paid said newspapers the tot&l eua of |il, 003.08 therefor. Yhe two kandsls had nothing to do with the plscii^l •f the orders by Oppenheiaer with plaintiff or by plaintiff

*,rr'if "nrr-fi'-'' t-tarSi* b*««itrS| fd* ^? iit''site J.9 Slaa 9^

li^M .til -ll ^tl

•6m

with taid B«v«paf>9rc3 and they Had n« knowledg* «f %hm ttirwm of Opp<fnhel»eT's otmirtLOt with plaintiff, or of the faot th&t any orders for «tiivcrtlainfS "«n plaeed with plaintiff, until doaaad for payaont therefor waa nadt of then) by plaintiff. Cto Do comber X, 19X6, plaintiff dovMuaded of Opponhtt inor paywmt for oald advertiaoMOBto, vAiich denmd w«ui rofuoed, Oppcmholoior otatlng ho «»» unable t*^ then pay eaoto and ronuoisting an oxtoaoion of 90 daya, Thio roqunot for an oxtonaioa plaintiff refuaed. On XK^oeaiber 2A, 1916, Opp«nh«l«er cr>Xled a nootlng of his ere^itoro, coa^rioifig Tnrlouo nowup«i|»«ro nnd agonoioa with when ho had plaood adTertlaing, and at aald Bicting Oppaahoiaer^o aald contract of Ootoher SO, 1916, «t;lth the two ]»sandola w«« piweonted. Until said necting plaintiff had no kaowlodKo of auoh contsmot or of tho torao tboroof . /vt this tiao Cppanhoiaer had not oxpend«d 339,000 la advertising, no ho had ai^reod with the two Kimdolo to do hy Sceoi^or 2&, 1916. At tills tiao, also, o^rts^in stooh in tho *'Urn6tiX eor- poratiott* had boon sold hy tho two Kaadelo, through ttm personal offorts of Cp-senheinor, to Yarioue i-s^iraowo who had ooon adiror- tlsoaonts in aswep^oro aad who had eomnuniontod with tho two )iendols; and Hm two Mandolo had paid f^ppenliolsior all eaami 3» i<mo dtt(» him upon tho Si&iloo of said stock, ir^ ocoordanco with tho to: Of oald 00Btr»ct of Cotohor 20, 1916 •

-9-

•?•

UK. JtJ;.TlCF, OHXilfUiY JS^^^mB TR?« CaPlKlOM OF TU^ C.or.m*

It 1» c(Mitend&'d bjT omtna«l f»r Appellnnt thnt th* trial eourt trred in entering Judlaavat in favor of ttae d«fendaiitii. eottnael urfl* ihrnt WttnueX tfeadel and Lotiia M<&ndel, f^t least, art liable to pXaintiff for th« sutt of iii.ia82.08. Th« ftrgiOMnt i», as we ttndcrstimd It, thAt. by virtut of ths contmcst of Oetob«r ZO, 19X6, Oppftnh«in«r was simply am a^nt of a^d two IbandaXs attd as euoh as«rrt in ih« due eourse of his OEqpXoynRnt c<mtmct«d with plaintiff for the publishing of a^id ndve rtisoawnts; thntt. «liiX« plaintiff extended credit to f)pp«nhoii*»r far said «dT«rtiss«sii%s «Bider thf« IJ9>2«8Si«9i thtft It «r<a dvtaXlng with Oppeahel)nir as a princlp!%l, when plaiBtiff fin»^XXy Xaamsd Qt th« existono^^ sf said eontrnot and of the acts d«as under said contract it had the ri£bt ta treat Oppenhctla^r ae rngmiX, and tiie tvro l^ixndeXs as ths undlecXesod principals, and aaake th« Xattsr pay lor the amount Of said advert isesents} and thnt, wliiXs toy snid eonirs^t ef October HO, X9X6, it is provided that Oppenh«ln<i-r should hlasolf expend .^59,000 in advertising of vbififti the advert isesmnts in question were s p»rt, otiXl, this is a seoret agreesent betsosn Oppe:iheifser nnd Um two Kr^ndoXs and plaintiff is not bound by the provisi«i*

«e eamtst CMsrss with the contenticm or the nr^nuasat* Under the f^ots diseXosed we do not think Oppenheiasr was aa agsnt sf the two KnndeXe in c«ntr>^ctiag for the r^dvertisemnts in question. He had an sxelusive contmct with them to seJJL jitook la the liimdsX Corporation on a cossBissim basis, and evldentXy one of tha flwving ooneiderntioas on ths jpart of the tv^:^ T^ndeXs in giving hia suoh exclusive oontraet who, that within a period of about two Bonths Oppenhsiaer, hisiaeXf, was to oxpend ths stos of 1^50,000 in advartise»ente, of whidh the udvertisesMinls in question wore a part. Wc think Oppenhsiner is to b« eonsidorodl

..'•i&

£«j

■m

^«'»I»8i^CW

.1 ri^' ;

brmn

':. •.rr^•^iX^

•0»

as «n iAd«j»<»naf»iit eontrootor r&ther xh^n im cigent for the two H«iiid«l« in contrrictlng for said adTvrtlBfinents. Tttrths naer*, plaintiff gav* credit ••lely to Oppenhclaer for the eoate, and it «aa OBly afiar plalotiff ascertained that Oppanhelnar would not or oould not pt>y the affc^unt ha had oontractad to pay it that it aought to heXd tb« two Mandala thftrafor. Indeed, the eTidenaa disoloaact that u.a early ae Oeoeniber ^A^ 19If^, plaintiff had knoiA* edfo of rsp^Bheiaer haing In enbarraaaad cirounatanoee financially, and of the proTlaiena of tha oantrrot of r^otolMr ZO^ 1016, tetwaan OppanheinBr and the two lifindele, and y»t, i«>3<a than a month thereafter, plaintiff began the proaant stetion a^^pinat g>pi>anhe l^r ta recover the «,nr;r>unt of the ajtivertleing* and made affidavit that flppenheinar was the debtor.

The JudgaMint of the Winlciptisl (-'^irt la j'^ffirujed.

Matchett, P. J., and B»nje8, J. oincur.

•8* ibLiX (u urn

.-KiiaoAT." . ■vij\^ h:. .;^»ny*.«a..

pjk«ll.«o, / ) App«aX fro«

l&miolpftX Coturt OSCAR J. faWBIttll, ^ I •' ^bleoso.

tli^*' 217T,A. 6 53

SfiKtlMnrr O? rm CASIS. this i» »n iipp«»l fro« » judgaftnt f»r |7,»eO M«»iii«t C5»««4r J. yrl«dmsn, defendant, rendered 5ept«ieb«r 10, 19XS, in fftYor of Kdvurd C Waller, Sr., plaintiff, toy th« l^unioipHl Cdurt of Chioago, in a q&m trlod iMforo the court with- out a jurjr*

Tht action la ono of th« firet claoo in aoauapoit. ooneenoodl Kay 27, 19X5. Pl»intiff*t mooad aaendod otatoaont of olaia, filed Kay 7, 1«17, oontaino<3 two olaiino or counts. In tht flrat it io allogod in aubcttaneo that plaint! rr*ei oln^iic is "for mmoy had and rocciTed" ^ dt n nd^mt for plaintiff's uoo in tho oum of |ilc«0003 thMt dGf«nd«nt roceived fr«n ono J** ^« Co})B the qualtter* ly rente of $2,500 eaoh, due fi^d payable by Cohn a» a tenant of eertiDln prendLooo in the Pullman Building in Chicago, being ti)0 in* otallmtnta of rent due on Augaot 1, 11^14, STovewber 1, 1914, February 1« 1914, and Key 1, 191B; that prior to tho c<»ll»otion of »al4 rente the defendant and Xdoard C. Valler, Jr., (eon of plaintiff), to irtion said inatallTsonto of rent ivere payable ty said tenant, had agreed for a valuable eonai deration to turn orer eaid rent* as paid to tho plaintiff, whid& when paid belonged to tho plain* tiff; thut eaid inetallaeate of rents «Mre paid by eaid Cohn to d«fe^nd«at on or ab'^ut \hn reepeetire dates that the saato b«eaae Ave and th^ d<^^f<^ndaat rr^«iired the eann for the uoo of the plain- tiff; and th»t by ref^eon whereof on, to*wit; Itey 1, 191S, the defendant beeeiM ind<*bted to the plaintiff in eaid sun of $10,000, and being eo indebted proadtted to pay plaintiff said n^m, ete. Tho oooond olaiis nr count is in subetanoo a oount for sMney had and

r

•">

rttc«lTe3, tmd reoitea in 3« tail eertftln ai;rt><»miittB made %y tlM portico • In bl» «ffljUiYit of wtrlta th« <lefen«l«iit Aid not doiqr that h« hmt Individuaiy rcffflred 1J» laut thr««^ InntKlXci^ntfl of r««t, >mt It Is (9l5.«»g«(i that tto« first ia«talli»^nt of :l2,ft0r, due ^^st i, iOlA, *tra» eolieoted Riid paid to K. C, Ww.Xler, Jr., and t!ii» d'^ffindrnt Jointly*; »nd it i» furliwr sU^-f^od, intgr fili», that yl&intiff In July, 10X4, for » go»d oonaider>.tion, nnaiy ms3t9«!4L witn fJvfcndunt to r«l«H»e hi» frfwi any liability on oiiid inati:lii^mt3 of xvni.

the followiHi^ facto in aubotanot wure dlscloB^d \»y tho ovldenotf: in a«ptoaftar, 1915, plDintiff *«ii» tho o«or«tary and tr«fti»ur«r of th« Sootery J^uildinis» ehi«i|?o. riolntiff'a oon, SdvnrA C. «»Xlor, Jr., and dofendnat wore jointly iatPr»»te"^ in v^riouo onterpria^o a» pitrtners. They Jointly ovmod o^rtain l«».««o, nnenc otharo ihtt ao«c«ll«d *FulIn(in IftRBoa", »nd tho *SiMio ^ouei loaoo's and thay Jointly ownod a h*lf in throat in * fee known «e tho 'IaIm Ml«3hig»a Build ing'^. About 'aepteiB>;<»r iii, 1915, <i<^f«ndjmt «nd Voller, Jr. BOlioitod ef pli?.intiff a lo»n of iiO.OW;, jt/iA offored to aoeuro tlM lo«a V Aoeiiptving to him oertuin r«tiita ooninf d%« fr(m J. «. Cobn, vho wait & ts^nunt of d<9f«nd»mt end t^llev^ Jr, in the Fullaon Buildiiag, ChiQ?Hto, under &. Xqroo wtiich iprovid^d for tha ptaynant •mnxiAlXy of ^10,000, In qu«rt«rly Inotallrp^ntv-j of ^a,ftr:0 oaeh, pttyoblo on tho firot dwya of ^'eloruniry, May, Attguot ond Rorowber la oaoh yoojr. Fluintiff toli tJicm th»t it w a not convoniont for him to loon to thoa :i»10,000 at tho tlaai, but said thf<t ho vould oxiond to both of ttaeic his credit »t tho Com Stxchnngo Bonk, Ctaioago, for $10,000, by guorantof^ine hia aon*a noteo in&tefidi of tht joint notoa tof d««f«nd&nt and said aon* Plaintiff atated At tl-io tim that hio reason for this vncs thnt he did not wont to lie put in the poaition of being eonsidr^rftd no |(uaran ten ring their tiffep<?nt **nterprloe», aonw of which he thought ••ere bound to

4rf,V . :■■' :■ i>. '''■ n' :\'.*'''V

■J ij,-.&

•3«

g« under*. This «rrang«neni miH sutlsfaotor/ to 4«f»»4«iit and

Vallcr, Jr,, and it «i$4 further uf^mod that plaintiff "would

•xi«n<S hi* credit alenj; until he got th« oKmo/ fros 'John for

the noV*«** In accordfuneo with »e.id surr'ACOMiat defendiaat aad

WadXor, Jr. d«tlivRred to plaintiff a lettor, elnned hy eboh of

thenif »8 feIlow»:

•Soptoiibor X&, XtXS.

Vir, Sdviird C VAlXer* '^e have a tenimt in the Puliauii Building niUMd J. #. Cohn, « « idM pays us a VUBtol of $3, $00 every thrve itontho, n«3ttbp«;inaent helng M Bovosiber let, and «« ho n? with O4^<roe to pay ovi^r to y«tt ICr. Cohn*a rent upon that dr^te nad each oue^roedine rent dey until the oi-x^dit you Imve «dveneod uo of 410, CO is fully paid, <un'J «e h«r«\)y ^e^rantoo th« proupt pay- Meat of a<<id rent, said credit beiag in fom of guarantoe •f tiM» (2) notes of Edvnrd C. tailor, 3r,^ to th^ Com i£xohoae« i^'^tioaal lionk of five Ihoviveund dollt^re (|6,00C)

Furs»uant to the ar ran goaent WaXl«r,lr, oxeeutod his tvo proelsi>«ry notoo oa^ for IS^OOO, one dated SeptoMhor Ifi, 19X3» and the ether daie<i Cetob«r I, 1915, «^aeh falling due on Vebruary 2, 19X4, mai plaintiff wrote hio none oh tho haek of each of OKid aotea helow a printed forat of i^uaruaty, v^ere^y ho gu»rante<?!d[ the payment of the aiui« at attturity or at any tiaa theresifter, and the anouni of the notoo w»ao re^jeivod froa eaid Cora Sxehaage Bank hy d«fend£Uftt and YaXlor, Jr.

On iioptooiiMir »7, X9X3, d^feadsat aad Waller, Jr. eaeh oxeoutfid their Joint note due in eix ninths f'^r f7,!VO0, payahle to the order of thenseXvoo aad by thoa oeveraXXy endorsed and deXivorodi to the Hntional Hf^nk of the HepubXie at <^i0Aga, fhio note wfeo guarantor a by one a. 0. Broker, a br other- in- 1»» of 4ofoad«at, aaU ;i«fend;.int aad ffaXler, it, received %h» anmmt thereof, Beoker*o gut^eaty wao in the form of a ccHntlnuing gttareaty ohereby he hoXd hiaooXf liable for all oredits i^^ieh •miA latieaal ^^ank of the Bepublle might extend to dofend«eit in «a aflSRunt aot to excoed $7,500, On said net*! there wro ouhoo*

IMl,

bivr

'>hmt •!

i9H td4

iX-.-

9^*1^ >

«!•/

ST" *1

••? frfff ;

•f»<uc'irt«<!

-'» ^»^.

'Of

HtffV

II nil I

r : i A.

quattily pttid lh<s sum of tl,(^0O» and nn K^reh 37» X9X4, defendant

and WaXler, Jr« cradh excreutod a. nen 9o d^y note for $6000 to oaid

1>aAk» Cn June 35, 1914) this not* w»« ronewsd for another 90

Att/s and at its maturity, SieptairiMr 33, X914, wks protcstod for na«*

payasnt* Becker as gutjrentor afterwards paid the amount ef SAid

note to said btmk. ahr>ut retob«r d, X9X4*

Or Movttisbftr 5, X0X5, d«>fondant and ffaXXcr, Jr., ia

aoeordnnoe with the urrtinssPiaBnt of Ucptewber IS, X9X3, paid to

pialatiff th<? firnt ln»tuliii»nt ot ^2,500 recelvod from eaid Colm

for rent du« Hoir'^nber I, X913, but upon their request plaintiff paid

baok to tHea said anount "by two tdneeks, one of $X,^iOO« dated

levera^r 20, X93.3, and the other of $X,000, dated Jaaut^iry X4, X9X4«

At the rOBpeotlTe times these oh<pclc» «er<>< delivered the defendant

sad ^eXler, Jr. each slewed stnd deXlv«r«d to plaintiff the foXlow*

ing Xcttcra:

"HOTonhor SO, X9X3.

lir. KdwBTd c, tsllcr. On the X@th of .jept«^mber Xaat m gu^^ranteed to pay ov<:?r to you the rant fecorwlng «nd<3r lewif*e «f J. ;, Cohn, a«i(>untlng to 3X0,000 a ye«*,r, * • payaVXe ^2,b00 Bvery three (3; reontha, thp first ona b«c<H«!finf3; due «n fioyerber Xst Xsttst* -m gave ycu our c^eek in cenforaulty with that fejretjiaont on Ih" 5th of this norith, <;« hereby niqueai thftt y'«i rf:tum to tt» ^X,5nr of said amount, wMoli iw a^sre© to r«^p«y on or before the ftth day of ychruary naxt,**

•January X4, X0X4. Mr. I4«nrd C. WaXler.

On the 30th fl.,y of JbiovtKiaber Xaat yf^u haring given tt« your check for ^X, 50" «« re<i[ue»ted in the foregoing letter of likn date, we now erk yf?u to return to us the halanoe in y ur hands of th« $2,500 retxri-red froa us lay eheok on the 5th df«y of ^loreniber last. « yierftby acliXtowXe<||it receipt tf said balance by your check tw r>ur order of this date for |X,Oce, For susd in conni^Jc ration of the ahov(» we hereby agroe and bind ourseXTcB to pay you on or before the first di-^ of Kuy aoxt, the suw of 12,500 in at<Mition to the |2, bCO to he peici to you by um on that d«y due under the J. s, Cohn leniwe, t\w amount of said pay?.^nt due y-u h'Ksy let next b< in^ $5,000.*

Cn feterttary 2, X9X4, the dwy of the Maturity ^ the two

neWs signed by faXler, Jr. and ag, rt^g^nlng $10,000, WaXXer, Jr.

signed a now note for HO.OCO, due June 2, X9X4, and plaintiff

- ifr^

' f .:ttr hy

"ITW'T

•xt«n4«d his crfvdlt by tndorslng hie guftranty oa the not« elMllar

to that «a eald two notes, and n^tld n«« not« me.» dclivvrod to Uui

Cenai Ixolumg* Bcuak. On Xmy d, 1914, .leff^ndtsnt ffi>ndi «»ll*r, jrr.

Ofich Fi^Tied (ia<i 4rXtY«>r9d to plaintiff th« following Iolt«rs

•Ktigr 6, 1914 • Kr* :£dwiiM C. Wmlier.

Heforrln.^ tc our l«tt«r to you of ^«ptes>ber ICth,

Xf)i;5» In ^hich *« ''groed t<? turn ov*;r tf» you the quarto rly r«nt8 IwscoBias due from J. .-, Ceim, *■ * 'in KevtrnWr l»t, 191^, F«^%ruHry Ipt, 191 -!, «&y Xnt, 191:, find '.tt(iWfit lot. 1914, to oeeur« y^u fro» leoe In guar%nt«i^lnig the notoo 9f f* G. ■JFialler, Xr., n»o'..xjitifJ45 to 'XC.OOO dlnc-vantei by hi« la th^ Cam 'SxchMigo Sotlenul Bimk, mnA rheroaa, b&1<& ii«t$»fi la i*«l<l corn f:xch«riire Ktatioaal B»nJc hftv« "been renewrid by ycur «ndor»eR«*nt on tJ»iT ocuffo wid tho est id qii»rt«rly r«nt« of r.'f)V*^ri.^>^r l»t, ?^bi*u;\ry 1st ^jsti Uay l,»t rtfomtmald you have allovr^'l uh to Ui:;« othe rwloo th»n la p«ylag th« Cam ^xchaim* Retloai'il ?tjalt»

iJow thla le to csrtlfy thai we tooreby ae»«« to turn ovor to you Xivs q-a^.vrt«?rly rent ft of ?3,50f/ esirJh. of August iHt, 1914, ITrtveis.bffy l8t, 1914, F«?bnt&ry let, 191S, and Miny l&t, 191&, H» thoy ar« paid by tho a^'ild J. f. Cohn to ooourft y«u for y««r »ndojr««»»nl of c'^i'i ;;• C. i'pllor** not»» &mn«nt- lag to ^10,000 on hie r«jno^*{il of the scuso tn thi; Corn fTChan^ K'^-tiooal })^.n)t. trnf^ wo hereby ^unrtmto^r to ycu the prompt p«^.<»nt of «i:.ld J, . Cehn of hla rvnt» bo coining duo fe« »*fore*i*l4.*

ifh*"-n th« ^I'^.OWP noto noturod on Juno S, 1914, Vi>,ll«r, Jr. •Igafd r> n«r not*' for the ntuh^ nmrrunt, dee Octobop r?, 1914, and plt'latlf* cxt«!nt}ed bis credit by «nd«niing tberoen «. olnilii^y' guoranty, and tbo n«v nota won dt^livored to odd Corn Sxobaago Bank*

During ^Tuly, 1914, (ltffe!>ndant and fellar, Jr. deuldod to din«olv« tboljr sianaoTahlp relatione, '^n Jaly :!4, 1914, tbey aaoli eicnod e aMnnoraaduse i^rltton In pen^sll i^lisroin it v«a asrcfd, tntoy mia. that thiir paTtaerahlp should be dlocolvod, that »»ller,Jr, »hculd ««ioign hla lnt«r««it In th« fuliisaa ltJ^»es to vtrtodama, "tba lattor to oollaot tho ronta froa Auguot 1, 1914", and th^t IhriadiMMi should aaoign hlo lata root In the Sano Souai l«a(*a to Wallar, Jr* frier to ih« ol^Qiiif af tha MnnaraaduR tha inotellMBnt ef rant 9t I29C0, duo frcHi laid Cola on August I, 1914, h&d baen oollootod la adfanoa by dofendoat, mad croditod to Cohn and oharffsd to defaadaat an the yartnorahiy books. ^h« womoreandua agrsomftnt of dissolution

,44 ax

•A9

WB» not concuBumtiod »t the tins, nnd it war net uatlX CctolN^r 1,

1914, ihttt the final and foxvaX agr««a»nt ef dltsoluiien wkh

• xficuted by iiefmdmX jsnd Waliftr, Jr., aitliAttgh said final ft«ra«* Mint w«^a 4»Ud July :}1, 1914. Zn nnid f iaatl ftCf««iMmt It is «*<'*^**^» ialdSX &to» ^^"^*^ W»li«y. Ir. had assalgnad an4 tranaferrad Vo dc fondant all his int«r«at In the IPullwaan leAaaa; that fallar, /»• «ov«nanted thr^t none of ths rontss of aoid leaaaa w«« subjaot to »ny fladflt «r«atad liy hin, "exe-npting imy pl4»(Sf« whidh istiy bava \>a«n ertatod prior to th« d»to hereof T>y the parties hereto jointly* j and thnt tho pnrtioo to thf* afirtrotwnt '*«ill rvnain jointly liablo Ml aoeount of any liabilities inourrad on m* before July 31, 1914*« na rogarda aaid lomaaa.

Cfek October 2, 1914, tho |1C,000 not« in the Corn XxcdunfO bank mtarod, and on th«it d^y plaintiff paid the bank $3,60C, and a haw note for $7,tOQ, duo January 15, 191S, mm executed by ffallor, Jr*, gU£irantoed by plaintiff in Uie otdM nnnner oa the fora»r note, •ad delivered to the bank* On J^ntt^ry 1», ItflS, a new note, dtto Juno Ifi, 1915, for the emne a»<>unt, oinilarly @x«cut«rd and guturantood, «ae delivered to the b«nk* Ihie note w«s extended to October 14,

1915, by the execution of a new note by Waller, jr^*, alMil^ly Cttaranteed by plaintiff, and Again ejctended Ijqt » new note, dvo April 14, 1916, eimilfirly executed and suarsuite^d, f^lalntiff paid thia laet note on Xptil 1^^, 1916, by dolirering hie check for $7,S0€ to the bonk*

On Cotober 15, 1914, plaintiff by letter nade it deaand •f defendant for tho firet |2ftCC, due on the Cohn leaee .vueuet 1, 1914t on I^OTonber IS, 1914, he nade enother written dcsaad of defend><dait for ^AOOO, for the rents lide Anguat let and PovendMir lot •n aald leaeo} on robru ry 4, 1916, h& nade another written doMMd for the three Inatttllnents of rent due^ and en kay ?>, 191%,

•i" litm

4iU;

btmm^h

•f»

•noiher vrlttfin d«BMMl<l fttr $10, COO for th« f«ur liiBtalliwiitA of rent tUae • PX»intlff rsctlTed no ooncy froai 4ef«iidMit in r«apttnM t« tteM lottert and OR Ua/ 37, 19X5, oo»i!it»n««d tl» preMnt suit. Defvndtoit on iho triti^l Adnitt#d that «ft«r thm dllii^elutlon of hi» pertn«rahlp with Vullor, Jr., ho (d«f«nd^t) indirl dually reoelTod tht thre« inaifainento of rent on tho Cohn lemiko, ACgvo/^ating 17^500, and dit« end paya^Xi; reap«otively on anvenber 1, 1914, and Folnrttfiry 1, and May 1, 191»«

On ttao trial th« d«;f«ndeot aou^iht to oatabliah tho faet that in July, 191i, plaintiff ToflMdly agroed to roloaaa defendant fron his obllgetiona « « cTldonood ^y th« lottora of ;>«pteT«i^r 19, 1013 and May 6, 1914* It a^tpeara thc^t aonotiiMi during th9 month of July, 1914, and bnforo tht diasolution of the p&rtner^lp axistln^.: btttiffoen d«fond«mt rmd Wallor, Jr., e conter^nm «aa hn4 in th^ of^'ic© of plaintiff, h% which f>l«intiff, SalJ^r, Jr., defendant tmA Baeker ware praaont, for the |>urpo»« of determining «di«t>ier or not it wtiu adYiaable for defendant »n'\ ffallar, yvm, to aall thair into re at in the building, Vnown a» th<^ Lake ifiiehigan Building, to & purehfseer ftbtj^ined through plaintiff's sffojrta. Tha tastijaony of dnfondant »nd hia brother* in*l»««, Booker, vaa ta tht of faet that at thia oonforanea plaintiff a«irofd to rolofiBa defendant fro« hia a»id obli(i!:^3itlon8 in oonai dar&tlon that Backper vould r«lefta« Waller, Jr. fron hie liability to hiai (Becker) hy roaaoB of the $6000 nota, gu^rfoitaad by Becke'r, then in th« K«tional Bank af tha Republia and falling duo ikiptember as, 1914, Both plaintiff and Valler, Jr. too ti fled in nubatanoo thnt aueh a proposition «ao Made but thet plaintiff reftiaed to aeoeda to it, and far the r«aaon stated by plaintiff »t th t tl»a, »e teatlfiod by him, that ha "had aeourlty for the 110,000, * • and wouldn't think •f giving it wp." Waller, Jr. teetifiod: •!&>. Baokar aakad ay

-o .-;r« n'f.' f-! . V ■i-'>»ifi*n»

. . t

?, 1;

x«

-••

fatlMir if he wmtld p».y th« Cera Sxdhfmgt B«itt if Stoker p»id ihm not* to th« other benk. Thi» ^^JLler, or* r^tuned to consider*

• « He etftte'l hie iiid«btediie»e mia « Intiger (usouist end he hed eeoority**

The «videnee further diacXeeed that during; the «}«rly part of 191C), fttiler, Jr* «ent throu|^ hfinKruptey. I»l«iiitiff teetifiod: <*Ae eeoo «.» he went through bnnkruptoy, my htmk chXIqA tear thnt iRon«y «snd X went and paid the note.** fl&iiitiff further testified th&t '^aXlmr, Jr* never p«id hin any sun f>n th« note whieli he hed euarnnt«e^d, that Waller, Jr. did not h^ve m^y money, thet plaintiff *juat eued Oscar heoeuee he w^« ^ttin«; v^at heltrnfed %% ■»*, »nd that plaintiff ^oonsidnred frimAnma v«ie the sen that owed as b«<eauae he «ras getting; liuit wiyB oontreeted to be deliTored to ■••*

At the eonolueien of the hei^lng, the triaX oowrt found th£^^t the first instnllaeat of rent en the Coha leaee for $2A00, due Aitcuet 1, 1914, had be<in paid te the deffradant and taller, Jr., ne eopnrtnere, before the diaeoXation of the pnrtnerehio, loid that na recovery eould be had for said in8tnXl»<tnt in th« preennt notion, but as te the three inst»llBii«nts of rent due rcspectiveXy ^oTember 1, 1914, and Tebruarjr 1, and May 1, 1915, aggr^giiUng I750C, the eourt found the issues far the plaintiff* And the crurt Made a finding of fact, at pXaintiff'a request, th.-4t plaintiff "never relenaed his rlffhte te Uie four ctuurterXy rentals of |S,5cr eaeh

• « in question herein**

•d-

Oift

.>*€ *>^"

Jr«k« Mil HA flife

•9-

1% Id fir»^ ooniffiided by enunsel for iief<tn4]mt thr^t ih« flndlBcv of Um eoort Uint pXi^lntlff did not rvXtftM dcftndimt is a«ii!:^lnst th« v<ti{:ht •t the «TldoaM, vti h»Te enrofuXly eoosidttrcd ilie confllotlng •vidi^ne* k««rii)«: on tills point but iur« unnbls to ssj tknt the finding is nanif^stly ngainst the weij^t -3f th« evidenoo*

It is n«xt e<»nti»nd«d %)m% the Uttsr of Kay 6« 1«14, constituted «n squlti^bls &ceijF:iiiBent which cr Stated nn squitsbls lisa or pX9(3cs, i#iii^ in only 0nf9roeis.bl« in » court of o^ity* mnd that, there feni, ths Municipal Court mtk» with<nit Jurisdiotien. iS* e^nnot «gr«« with ths eonolttsisn. This is m aotion for noBoy hnd and rs* oeiTsd. Za Hif^iwty CowM|lyK_ion«^rg y, BfonBdm:tqf>. 253 111. 164, 174, it is saldt "The (action of att^un^slt, under th« ooR»en cr'unts for Bonsy had snvl r««!«lv«d, is tm ^.ppropriats r<^iie<^y to enfere«« tht • qui table ebligtation arising from the reo? ipt of money by emt person vhieh belongs to ajiothnr end which in ecfuity and justice shmtld bo returned. « • Th^ right to reeoTer is gonemsd by prineiplsa sf e^ity Although the notion is «kt law. the j^ction is «iftintsin«ble la six o«sos idle re one person has reeettvd money or itt equivalent under suoh circuatstimoss that In equity snd good oonseienee ho ought not to retsin it 9nd irdxich ex oe^iuo et T>on_Q b<»long8 to another** (8ee, His©, /\a,Xen v. a tenner. 74 Ul. 110, I21j yjrct gat. BanJf ▼• Otttton. 173 111. 638. 627.) In Sraiiter v. ).RUgfalin. ^.36 III. 36R, 273, quoting fron 16 eye. A\ It is SAid: "^here oonpenet^tion in aoaey will afford a p»»rty couplets and efficient relief the law is usutdly ttdoiuate fsr that purpoee, end plaintiff will be relegated thereto if the legal reneciy is unin^HSded. Thus, general aasu^pait or the CMMBSn eounta hnvine «^t an eHXly date been adapted to the onforoemcnt of equitable dewenda on c^.uitable basis of eosipensAtion, ■ust be reaertsd to where arailable. This is true evea slwro

JTanZftt

.i>o& fre«0i«

Ik '.- Vt) f

olO»

plsJLiitifr olftlne « upeeifio fund, 9r n pAvt of a ayscific fuKtf, rhicb 4(tf'.m(ifxnt has r»»a«i»»4, pjr^THttf! n« fwrth«^r nqulty ifxllmtii.* In ihv T^v^.9fn% Oftac, we think thnt th« l«)»tt«r of Hay 6, 1914, tm€ iiM letter 9f yi«7t«»mbflr Hi^ 191^}, tihould >i« o<>natru<sd tog«)th«r, aad l^oth in th« ll^t of tb« aurroitndlug oirQUii«td»o«« mnA tbe etj»at» which th« ptu^tioa had in view «t tho timia of ths tr«na«otiea»« Cleajrly it was ss^s^i^d toy both defends t end «?;ili«r, Jr. that the la* •tiilla«nts ef rsat in <)ue&tiiim should bt turned over te pXmlatiff ahsn pnid toy Coha te e««ar« 2»lftintiff fer lonaini; hl9 credit %» defendeat «iiad Wiiller, Jr., toy «ui»rante«}ln€ the $1C,C0€ note, «A)i«h toy the a«Qttieeentte ef &X1 parties «>as exeottted toy Veller, Jr* alone. Sheee inetuJllBente of r«nt were definite and fixed mmm of neney end were si^iveifie tvuxiis due and payable at <SAfiaiio future d«tii». ^iMa these iaetalljeerits were paid toy Ceha th(r »im«y to^^lengei in etfttity and £ood ctsnacienm to plaintiff. The flrot lR«%t«»llsvemt of ^^2500 was duo August 1, 1914. Th»t atais wt>.is pi»id toy Ceha prior to that date sad went into th?> {)f>.rtner»hlp funds before d«fendir»nt iwnd taller, Sr, hai dioBolved th«ir ptirtnerifhip. *5e think tlw trtul ofiurt wfc» right ia holding that t>iio p)*rti(JttlHr inotallavnt oould not ^m rooovered in the prose-at p.t»tion for isoney Yxttik tmd reoelv»^» ogatnot defendant oloao. As to the other three iaatfaimrnto. aegregating $ymo, it »p|»earo that the ssMce v»rn p»id Atoout the reop^Gtivc 4s^tff» U^t they wsre 4|w, to the def«B4ont 4ao««, and ftfttr the p«rtner«hip had toe*n £ie»olv«d, *vvd Uiftt toy thfi dlanoXutien airrecswtnt !js<»€(ut$d toy i^«fe»d««it and v&ller, jr. sutosequeat inatnllMeato af rent dae fron Ceha were to toe oelleeted toy defendtjnt. «*e t' ink thnt xmder the faeto of thio enma plaintiff ia entiUed to reoovetr of defenrtfMit la this motion the ogitregato awownt of o^id three inetallBteats »9 p*ad d«*f9nd«nt toy Cot«, and that it waa not neeoee^ury for plaintiff to Joia Waller, Jr. ce a party defcadtsat ia the RCtioa 6s urged toy tefen<iant*s erjaeel. The

«dl-

Ul^ il.'li •

ttJa*ai-*,iJ:*:Jt. ar.:^J ;-.i«

•II-

MMity v^^a r^cfflTed 8«l«ly hy <lttf«ndsnt. tn equity and neod een- ■ el«no« it ^loaf«() to plmintiff >iwi iefoii<!«nt ntight not tP re- t&ln it.

And we 40 not think thi^t thero is M^y iwrit in tho furthsr conttintion of eounisiol for d«f«n4»Bt tliat the a«tv«raX r«n«Tfe>ls of the sot«i in tho Corn SxohMigo Bimk, oxtendinc; ttio iljM of th« pnynont thrr«of, opsrnt«d to r«X«ii*«o l^frnd^mt fro« lllo Xii^bilit^' to p»y ovHT to plaintiff tho aisoimt of sftid litot throe inot'^llaento of rent r«eeiire<t by dof0nd>4it fx><»m Colin* Vor do wo think thirt the refusal of tho trial onurt to »dfl4t in evideneo. at dof^niiint^o roq\j«»t, ti» bankruptoy achedulAO of Waller, Jr» oonntitutod roTeraihle error, nn urgod,

Tho Judenwnt of tho l^mioipsl Cmrt io afflnwd*

Matchett, P. J., and Baines, J. concur.

..';'js

. fuonf'

i^rriBa bne.

.iSodoiail

lee - 2B042

a oerporftijlon.

\

\

i

»pcXlaatt

App«ll«««

Appenl frftn JMmloipal Court of Chlemgo.

7T A f' '-v '

.„ 3

On JuB« 29, 19X8, plaintiff maed defcrndtuit in the Itaiicipal Court of Chicago to reooTttr tho oua of $160 on a guarnnty >?ritt«n %x tbe d^^fendi^t <m April 11, 191C, on a piqpor ohowlng thivt mi April B, 1915, ttavro «ao a balanw of 916C, tm a running aooount for groasrioB, due plaintiff froa one If. Wisher* the guaranty ia written insnediately tMtlev the figure B on a;^id paper ehowing eaid balanoe and is aa followa: *4/11/L6. Chgo* Xll« X heroli^ guarantee alooYO aoot. to bo paid by ae, Friday, A/lZ/lB, Alex. 9euereieen.* The defenoo «<to thnt aaid guartmty «ao without eenoideration. the <^1ioo vaa tried before the court without & Jury. At the ooncluaion of plaintiff's oTldenee defendant* t» attorney nsOTOd for a finding for the defendant, which motion was ^rantod, coad the enurt entered a finding and Judgment againet t)» plaintiff, and thio appeal followed. Bo appearance has been entered here by the appellee (defendant) and m have not been favored with a brief and argunoat in his behalf.

Plaintiff's evidence diaoloaed in subetanoe the following facta} Plaintiff had been aelllng groceries from tint to tine to M. Wisher nho c<m*.ucted a retail store. M. Fiehor had boon drafted into thR United Utates Aray and had left his store in chorge of his aother tmd hie brother, IX, t'iaher. After M. Fisher's departure his brother, M. S^iaher, hnd aade eertaia

«•«

. -/.'hi'

*B*

pc4rs»nt« to plaintiff f re^tuoing; eaid aoenunt to $160. On April 11, 1910, a ■lOAsnan of plaintiff found tb« defendimt in posBceoioa •f tho Htor«, find the iRtter whb a1>out to oonduet an auction sale •f all chattela and fixture* therein. The salaaiMUi infomed tfefendnnt that U. Flsh«r owed plaintiff said balance of #160 and that the aiBount muat be paid before the aale took place. The defendftnt consulted his attorney end aftervarda proposed to said •alet^maa that he would ptty !^0 iansediately and an addititmal $80 after the sale wue ande provided nothing was dcme by plaintiff to prevent the sale. The snlefsioisii then telephoned Mr. Hoss, credit Ban of plaintiff, and Hess tallnd with defendant over the telephona, aa4 refused dsfendimt's offer, iihortly thereafter Kr. B«ath, an attorney for plaintiff, had a conr«raation with defendant over the telepy^one and infornwd hin that, even if he (defendant) had, as elaiaed, a bill of sale for the property, euch sale w».o in violation •f the *Bulk Bales law", and that if d««fendimt did not pay plain- tiff's claia of $160, or nrrange for its settleiK'nt at a future time, plaintiff would IsiB^ediately levy an attachaient on the goods in the store. A few ninutes later deft^ndant wrote out the guaranty above mentioned end delivered it to said saleamMS and plaintiff's oredit turn and attorney were advised innediately of that fact. And the ovidenoe tended to show that plaintiff, relying on siiid guaranty of the defendant, forrjbort bringing any proceedings by attachmnt or otherwise to enllect said balanee of ^160 due it as aforesaid. The lefendejtt did not pay- to plaintiff said balance or any part thereof, on April 12, 1918, or on any eubsequeat day, arid the saae was not received by plaintiff from any one, and plaintiff coamsenoed this aotien. In Mulholl?md v, Bartlett, 74 Til, S8, 63, it is

C-ai.

<.i»L9t^

I/O *.t<)-

•aid: *to Bake forbearanee a good oonsldftrntiea, thers nuat 1m a well founded claln In Inv or «<;ttity forborne, or there nuet be a coBQ>romiBe of a doubtful rl^t." In IgcKlnley v, Wstkine. 13 111. 140, 145, It ie said; *la order to support the pronlse there oiuet be auoh a clain as to lay a reaeonable ground for the defendant** naklng the pronlse, and than it is iwoaterial en which side t\'^ right may ultiasately prove to be."

Under the facts aa disclosed froB the STidence, and under the l&w, ve ti^inlc thai the court erred in finding, on defendant's motion, at the eloae of plaintiff's OTidence, the ieaues for the defendant. Plaintiff's evidenoe clearly tended to shew that plaintiff had a well founded elaia against M. 7isher in the auia of ^60, whieh plaintiff oould probably ha-ve oollected by ifioaediately taking appropriate proosedinga; that defendant was desirous of not hering the eonteii;>lated auction sale of the goods in the store interfered with by any legal proceed ings; that, in eonsideration of plaintiff not cooraencing any inanediatc proceed- ings to enforce its claim against U, Ifisher by attschjuent on said goods or otherwise, defendant signed the guaranty in question; •ad that, in ooneideration of said guaranty and in reliance thet^on, plaintiff forebore bringing any proceedings isanediately.

for the reasons indicated the Judgaent of the Ifuaioipal Court is reyersed and the cause resuarided.

Uatchett, P. J., and Barnes, J* concur.

Mf iaxitL"

, y^uiibJi'^

'VO ^

ii/0;

Mii

174 - 2B0&0 / / X y

«Ziu.ZAlt D* JQHHUOK,

App«ad fr(kai

▼«• / J Ciro«ilt Court,

Cook County. nUVX C, PATtlH, / J .

*A9p«Xl«d:iit. ' O -a X /4 j*^ M

217 I.A. 65a

MR. JU^TZCS OnXDUST JKUVt^aSD Ties ePXKZ0H 09 TKI CrTjRT.

This 1^ OB appoaX from » Judgaini of |57ft ««ain»t 7r«nk C, i»iiiton, def^ndoat, *nlar«<l by th« Clrooit Court of Cook County, in an ootl'^a of trover*

Th« «uit was eomaftROcd on April 18, 1916 • X>lolBtiff*o tfoolorotion oh«»rBOd defondottt «i1^ tho eonvomion, on Auguat 9., Itld of 30 Interoot coupon notos of $12*5r^ os^oh, ten of which voro due Oetober 10, 1915, ton duo April 10, 1014, and ton duo Oetobor 10, 1914, wnd 6.11 >oins port of ton mortgogo bond*, •oourod by truot doed upon 09rt»ia proMlooa in ^t* Lf^ulo, Mloaouri, v^tieh oold bonds vmro for tho prineipal sum of $&00 onch of the Caixton XnYOOtnont Cowpony of 3t, l^euio, and of which coupono tdelntiff tmo on tho day of tho convoralon thoroof ontltlod to poooosolon* The defendant filod a ploa of not guilty .

After ft full hearing, during whloh plaintiff ond ono 3. J, latson teatifiod for plaintiff, and defendant and two witaoaaoa toatifiod on behalf of defendant, tho jury retumod a ▼erdict, on nctob«r 3&, 191S, finding tl» defendant guilty and e»808uing plaintiff* a dtuaagoa at j>375, upon which verdict the judgaent a;nttolod froti wao entered*

the Mate rial facta a& discloaod fren plaintiff*o OTidenoo are in aubetunoe &a followa: Qk July 1^, 1913, dofeadont aad oaid tataon, a loan broter, {through whoa

mU

tef«iAaat TunA px«vi«u«ly ii«gotlate<S Beveml loano up'^n collateral) •»I1«4 OB plaintiff f«r tbe purpoto of obtaining ft loan fron hi« tf 15000 upon their Joint und seTeraX note seoured by eollateral. They e*«h eiipMd the note for #5000 and plaintiff paid »t the tiao, •n aconunt of aald Xoan, #3000 by two ch«olc8, one cheek payable to then Jointly and the other enaller check payable to ffat«<xi alene at Patten* B ree|tieat* They prencnted aa oollMteral ton $&CC bonda of said Caxton InTeeta»nt Oe«ipimy, represented to be flret nortgac* bends. JBsich of ORiid bonda had aeBioaimual interest ooupoaa attatduid thereto, the flrat coupon bein^ due October IC, 1913, and the other ooupona being payable •fr^ aix aiontha thereafter until the outturity of the bond. Plaintiff At the tliao did not loan the full aaount of ■aid note, atating th»t he eimted an opportunity to inveaticate the •rtrenetli of the eollateral. Upon inTesiigatien he found that •aiA b<mda were only a aeoond lien em the preadaea mi& he nUie no further ad-vanoea on aaid note . During the nonth of August, 1913, Patten infomad plaintiff he had an opportunity to eell aaid ten bonda for oaah, nhereby the lean eoold be liiuidated, and r^queated that plains- tiff return a&id b<m4a to hin upon hia trust receipt. After eoaw negetisttiono with Fatten tmA tf|i4aeii, plnintiff reoelTod a truat reoeipt aigned by JPatten, and plaintiff deliT«^red oald b«Eida t« Vaiaen and Vataon d<?livez«d tkiem to Patten. Turthor negotintiona followed but the \mmn waa not paid or tli* b«&da returned to plaintiff* In June, 1914« plaintiff coBsafmeed auit in the £»ttperior Court of Cook Coimty to reoover the poaaeeaion of said b«ndJi. In MaTOh, 1915, this auit waa about to be oalled for trial. I^atten and his attorney, AbrahoB, net plaintiff in the •ourt Iftouae and thsy h«i a conTcraatim, the re auit of «dtldh W9M tliat PattSB dolivc^red to plaintiff ten bond» of onid Caxtsn Inwestaent Company and plaintiff disttisaed aaid suit. AfV^r oaiA dinasaal, and while the parties were In the oorridsr adjoining

•£:•

^ttfr.

•^*r*nv

■'tfT

-i»

th« court roas, plaintiff ex&jsincd the tends mof cert full/, found thf>^.t th« thMifl inter«st ooupons on •aoh ef th«», for th« intervot due October 10, 1913, April 10, 1914, Midi Cetober yo, 1914, katf becm dipped off. P«tt«n Bftld thnt iw )ma ueed t]a« dipped ooupone, bad collected aene interet^^t (but not the f «ae Tdae) ms sosmi of theis, and hfui disposed of tbe others "in » trede," Plaintiff Wien said tliRt If the fa«e VRlue of the cmapans wse not immediately paid to hint he would re-isstate the oaee whleh had Just he«n dis«issed. fatten pronls«4 to pay plaintiff the amount of the coupons within a f«v days and plaintiff, relying on the proi&ise, male no attcnpt to re»inetate the ease and the "tern finally slipped by*" iSttbse^ently, for«eXo8ure proeeediags were eea»en«#4 ia li>t* l>oixle on the first mortgage and the bonds in qiuestion were fottnd to be seaat security for plaintiff* e loan, and plaintiff had n further eonv^rsii^tlon with Patten, Plaintiff testified: "He told tm at that time that hm had dealt in eone eoupons after these three had becos» due, • that is, the fl<!:Hit>onB due in April, 1915, • and that theee were being paid in full. I later f<^und eut that that was being done, tmd that the coupons, except the ones due in October, 1910, were paid in full." rieintiff introduced ae further

evidence as to the market ydue of the coupons at the time of iheiy conTerRion. Patten nerer paid plaintiff any money on the thirty coupons in <^esti9n. Plaintiff did nat at any tine bring suit on the ^&0C0 not^, but on April IS, 1916, O'msBenoRd the preeent aetiam.

Patten* s testimony was at Tarianoe with plaintiff's •ad «atson»s testimony in omay material particulars, but aftar • oarefttl examination of all the evidBnoe we caaaat sey that the Tordict is naaifeatly against the weight of the evidence as here oeataaded by counsel for fatten. And we eannat agree

riJ

5vAg

AS

^4*

with eoun»el*a sftceind Qont«ntlon that, ttn4«r the faets in «Tltf«n««, plftlntiff had n0 rlfiht to Kalntr.in tvo-nr for th« rjonvrtrslon of the aonpons in 'tueation.

Coua««I for ^attsn further oflntands thnt XTne T«rdiet ind JudfjBwnt i.re exoessl-r*. <^c think there Is merit in thl» contention. I" r^tttrRJB V, Kt^ith. 57 111. 4ftl, 4fi3, it wrs <l«oi4©<J that "tho proper Bs«<^»ur« of 4&mek0i» in sn aetion of trover 1» the ourront m,rk«t v»lufe of th« property uX thu timt of the e^Y^raioa, with iAteroBt from that tinn on til tho trial;* and th« coiirt in th/it CRoe rocogniaed ao «x caption to the rule •where the proijerty con- verted happene to be etocka.* This rule hae been feilo^red ia eub8«c;uent c&sos. (Jepewfty v, gurtop. ''^OX XIX, 78, 60; Robineon ^' Alexsmder. 141 111. App. 192, 194; iuchv»;itterB v. aprinyer. 236 111* S7I, ^7S.) ^ie »ee no ^ood reaaon ^y the snj»e rule should not opply where the prf»|>^isrty c?mrert«d hesppene t<» be bond coupons » Tho eTldence nhows that the bonds in r^uestien ire re plaoed with plaintiff as eollaternl »««ettrity for a debt in July, 1015; that in A«gust, 1'13, they vere taken avoy by def<»ad«iat under a trust reoeift •nd were net returned until M»roh, 191?^; and that in the noantine defendant had used and converted to his own use 30 coupons each of the f««e TiftlTie of SlS.BO, t€n tin* In October, 191J, ten due In April, 1914, BWi ton duo In October , 1914. Had theoe bwiio not been talwn away fro» plaintiff under said trust reseipt but ha^l renained in his hiytids het would have been entitled, hs pledge, to eoileot all of eaid ooupons and «ipply «4uivteirBr proooeds were realimd thereon to the payment, pre tanto, of ewid cJe^t. ( Joile t Iron 3t >^toel Co. t. ;oioto ^ire Brick Co.. 02 111, S48; Peftcook ^* £iiiiii£». ^47 111. 467, 471.) And we think VB^66V tho fa«ia in OTtdenoe that the respectiTO d&ies of the imeturity of said coupons should be oonaidered ae the tlan of their oonveraion by

c

iiisa

ijUj&'

r

,.^«llU ^: 0000 fl^lw

dwfvadaiit* Bttt tha only tf>»iiiMmy in Um rectrd Vfer« «« «• to th« Market value of sstid ooupons Ht OfULd 4(^t«s vna that given b/ the defendant* whioh ««» to the effer^t that tbey «er« ««rih in the niirlDBt only About 5o eente <m the doXlwr. ^aftiiley •a ahoire shown, plelntiff testified that he had "foond out* that e«rt»in eoupone due In >«pril, 1915, huA Iwen po.id in full, ha Introduocd no definite te^tiaMHiy to th«^t effect, nor any teetlmeny «« to the aiftrleet valuo of the eou^cna in iiuention at their reapeetifo d»toa of auBturity. ^e tJkiink, theref^ve, th»t the Juxy «»a not w(a'r«nted in i^tuminc » Tordlet on tne beeia of t)-« fAoa ralue wf aaid ooupene, but that the ▼er4iet shoijild haye been tor cnie»half of their fnoe value, ^lua interest at the legiuL r^te from the date of their reap«etiT«« auiituritieB up to the tlaw of the tri&l, Of^tober 23, 1910. 'ien of the eoiiTerteU coupons matured on October 10, 19X3, or aubntentl&lly five yectira prior to the tri»l{ ton aeatured aix aicmtha lot«r and ten aatur4?d one ye^r later. One-luilf of the f ooo value of all of aaid coupons aaiounts to 187 .IM?, aad the interest from the reapectiT<;s dates of £>aturity of said coupons, at rnie^holf of their face value, to the d&te of ttw trisil, ve have figured aaountB to $4S«20, or a tot«»l sun of f239.70. the JuUgBKnt was for #575, and this ahculd be reduced by the eun of |145,3C, Zf plain* tiff will file » realttitur in said sum of $145.»c, the Jadgaeat will be affimed for ^289.70, othervviee it will be reversed and the eattse ronanded.

Matohett, P. J,, and Bamee, J, concur.

H'^'.y

■)!i.':'taA

201 - 25077

jr. RAACX,

T«.

iqpp«ll«e.

WILLIAM ?. UAKLOll,

'v-,<-^

ApxNial frOB Muniolpal Court of Chicago.

217 I.A. 653'

■R. JU;iII©!J QHID3UT DaiVS^EP THS OMSlOB 0? TBS CWHT.

On December 6, 1916, plaintiff cORCT.«ne«d an ftotion of the 4th class, in contract, in the Mtmloipal Co«irt of C.hioag« aiKlLliiat the dfefendant, ^illiaK F. Hnnlon. Plaintiff's cl«iB, a* alleged in his 3tttt«]nsnt of olaia:;, ia "for a balanoo cluo on (ui account otatecl on or about KoTember 1, 1916, for the suit of H21,76«. Defendant in his affidarlt of iMrita donlod 'that on Mov«B5b«r 1, 1916, he accounted with plaintiff and agreed to pay the aun of 5431,75.'* The eaao wae tried before the court without a Jury, resulting in the court finding the iosues against the defendant and acii^^seing plaintiff's donagee at sftid amount, and entering Judgment on the finding against the defendant.

JPlaintiff testified in substnnee Uiat ha h»d heen in the painting businoss for oiany years; that in the yeer 1916, and for soveral years prior thereto, he had done work for defendant at the letter's request; that several tiaec during the sunmer of 1916, hs presented to def&nd»nt an itaniaed statensnt showing a b^ilanoo due him trtm def«nd«mt of 496.75; that defendant did not dispute the stateaent but sc^id it was *all ri/^t", and thn.t ha would pay it as sonn aa he could; that juet prior to the hoA.<inning of this suit plaintiff told dafendant that ha would not wait longer for paynent and sug,<eBtc(d bringing this action, «^.ereupon defendant said thnt

rr

iOK

C *

MO

"^"ififiii

11 J rjsm

•ail jCtflv sf?<'

If plaintiff su«4 he "would ha-vc to wait two yaars tvnyhov,* ^ftall i'. '?olf, I! *lineo6 c»\lled by plaintiff, toatified in aub- tttanee that in Ueptember, 1S16, i^Xaiatiff a«k«d the witneaa to R08iat hlK in collecting said balance from defendant; that the witneso wrote defendant, enclnslne a atatesMmt ehoving eaid baluioe due; and that eubaequentXy dcifondant telephened the vitnese and said that ttie ''account wan all right and ehould have be<^n paid long neo*' Another witneea for plaintiff, v?ixiiaa J. Curtie, eolleotion taanager for a fine of attorneys, t«^Btified in subetenee thet in the latter part of nctob«r, 1916, the claiai agninat defendant wr.e put in hi a hande for collection by l?>iil M* Wolf; that about the end of October 1916 the defemdent called upon «hB witness in the Xatter*8 effioe; that the witneea ahowed defendent a detailed stateateat of the stcoount ah owing a bnlenne due plaintiff of f406*7&; th»t defendant eaid that the statement wns correct, thnt h<» was sorry he h^rt been unabie to pay the account hb y^t, th t he daaired to be allownd to pay it in inatallaenta, that on Koveiaber 1, X916, iitfenciant paid .^f> on account, fmd thi^t tsincc tiaid date no further piqnnsnts had bteea ■ado. The defendant wae the only witneou called in his behalf* He testified that &l the tiR« he called on th^ witness Curtis ho told the Xatter that the work done by pXaintiff woe of inferior quality and that he disvutod the corz^ctnesa of the biXX. He denied that Curtis showed hlsi any statoawnt ut the tiise or that ha proadsed to pay the account* He, hn^^ie'ver, adnitted that he had receiTed statorventa fron plaintiff showing the balance of the account to be '^495.7&.

VS think that by a eXear prepondernnce of the OTidenoe the plaintiff proved that he w«8 entitXed to a findiag and Jadsasint on the i«»ue of an account stated in the sus of

•3-

#421.7% nfter allowin.?: cjwrtit f«r the f75 paid by defend?mt. (2 Gwenl. on 8v., part IV. »ie. 126; ae.i,a3,£ t. IklJfesXl, f^ 111, App. 17, 36; Kln^ ▼. Kaha. 157 111. App. 251, 252.)

AooordlnRly, the Judgnvst of the Municipal Cciurt it afflriaed.

Matchettjr^ P. J., and Barnes, J. concur.

11

-^t/or: , «mj»fl l>fi©

Appffllaat

T.

OF CHICAGO.

217 I.A. 654

IIP. JUFTICF OFTr^tET DmT?Pi:i5 THE <^?T>nOH OF TI?T (J'^UT>T.

Flaintlff &\i«<S. d«fendao<i in attsohffient on the grcund of n«a-r««ild«noe, upcti s jttig»«ct for ^90 alleged t'^ fe^iV* baen reooT«r«<i »ialiiRt d«f6nd-jp.t on MDrch £2, iGlS, in tby «ttnioip?.i (?curt cf the City of Kew Tork for the Ecreu^ of Vachstt^n, tUath 4istti^;t. H&rl* B«resfii?k irae 9WMi«&«d a* garni Ph&e. The dufer. i^nt tnt-sred his app«a»imce by ?.n attorney. Tfed g-imlsfc** an3»«r«d ali^^ittlng cplng tb« i«f»rid=*nt the pub cf *48.18, %n-i ^'-he v^-jis crd^r^i to yij tblp otoney tc the ilsrV of ih« ccurt . ?h« did >to ^nd **» ilsoh&rged ftc ^'^irnl^hee. ?""rr> o««4t? f t isd « ;9titlofi or interpleader cleiialng he «a0 exit It ltd to the fund.

On Hoveafcer 89, 1918, the 09vi«e q»mb on for trial before the oourt ^Ithcut a jury. ?is'<ntlff off«Ted in svlaenoe «bat

pur^ortsd to te * trsn©orl:'^t of tta judg^frent sued upon. The dcouauiB^ wft«5 not i roperly osrtlfled hy th* -jUrk of ©&ld ^funlclpal Court of tfce City of N*w York, «tad plaintiff obtained leate tc withdraw and did withir*** the doou«!«r.t, ^eii the furth-cr h«E.rlrig of the a&uee wft« ocr.tiQu«d to Oes«»t«r IJ, 1B16, On thl» date the hearing ^Hf repuned s.nd pleifttiff cf fared the *»?««« iO!3u«ent ^hl^h he had before offered. It appeared thiit «»&l i oierk'e certificate h&d heen altered by striking cut cert^^in «ordl« »ita writing in oertain ether woris in lieu thereof. Sc new c«irtlfic!at« b%i b^en wade ty a&i i olerk nor h4d the eeew been ne^ly &ttft«tea,. On objaotion i: eiag m&.dv tfce court refused to a4«it the dO'Suieent Vr eirideaea. ^o evlienoe wee offered tc rove thit t;« alteration In the o^rtlfloate h-id i.e-eii Kiide by said olerK. The court found th* i--:-U'!« a^sinet the .i-.««4«rf .Ho«,^,i»^d th« att&^?l;tt«nt, or-lsrsd t1=«t the 3lerk of the

2.

Ifunlc;!; -ill Court of ChlCRgo r^y cv^r to thst attdntty /yr th« d«fend&nt tbe sun cf ai:on«y deposited with «ial;} olerk by the gaml«h««, and «nt«rei JudgBsent *^aiRBt tbe jl-ilntiff fcr oo-t*. Plaintiff aipealed.

It ie b«r« cfOi:t«rid©iS ty ocunsel for rl»l«tlff that th« oourt should havt aa^ittad th« doauasent in «vMenc« fcr the r«aRcn that the ccurt should have pre«»tt»ed tb&t e«li aXterstion «ai* m&i9 fcy tbe clerk of the »urd«i:al Court of tfc« City of ?r«w York. ▼• osstaot agree *<> thie. The ^^ue«tion ?-ben an i by «h<)« the alteration *a» ftade was* &n« of faot. (CatUn. ^0'^>^ ££• ▼• t»lfyd. 180 111. 398, ^^i Cill^tt V. gweat . 1 Cilrs. 475, 43S.) Iisd th? court, *ho eaw the doouaent both f efcre srii eft»t th« ^Iter^tlCB, evi-iently deolded this que&tlon cf fact fsg«ile*t the rlelctlff stv,! ih^m t® cothlng in the rs.r?ord ls>fors ut tsndlng to ehcw th^t hi- ae-:;i<"!loB «a« erroneous.

And the order of th« cjcurt th'^it th* til^rk ray to defend'ttjst'e attorney tne »oney, w) J 3b th« ^^srnishee fe&a isp- .lt«d with the oierk and ^hiah she aa^ittisd .•'&'=- due s-nd o«lng from. h«r to the defendant, le not one of whlot plaintiff, tmier the cirouKet&noee, hsts ^y right to ooirvI'^Is*

The judgment of the Wunlcipal Court is afflraed.

Kaitchett, P. J., snd Bsjm«e# J.> con^^ur.

440 • %/kli^ ^ '

mxm LiisscH,

\ "

▼»•

lUtORe fRATlilllXTT

\

fHlL a^OSLLOR, 4oln( lm«in«»i as Thorn tea A Ch&ao«llor,

\ A|>tt#l.I«ntB

\

Appellee.

/

17 I.A. 654

AL mcK

COCK aCUlTTY,

-;^

A. fSieBXfiXKO JUSTIC' tROHSCV dellTered the oplniea •f the eeurt*

The Slaeenle Fmternitjr Tenple Aeeeoletion wee organic* e4 in 139G aa an Ililnoie oerporatlftn t%t petruniary profit. It eonstrueted and maintained a large of flee bulldlne; la the City •f Otlo&tfOt Vnewn ae the >iaeonle temple. In 19C!3 t^ C^euRty Tr«m«ttrer of kJoJc county • olalning that the general taxen of the yaaenie Temple property for 19C1, aaouatine to 0flA,77C«17 had not h«en paid* threatened to eell the property at a tax sale iialeae tJ^y v«re paid. The general superintendent of the huild* Ing, one Wllliaaa, elalaed he had void the taxes In queetlon* and he produeed a tax reet>lpt purportlnc to he sisned by the County Treasurer, and aeknowl edging receipt of th<^ taxes. That efflolal elalned the reo^^lpt «as a forgery* There irae auoh publlolty gi^en the i^tatter in the public press. The board of dlreeters •f th« As»oolAtloa made mi Investigation, paseed a resolution

t« the 0ff«et tlMkt t}M t*x«» h«o been p»ia rnia im4 eeyie* •f it publiftlittd in th« u«iT«pa9«r«,

Thornton an<i Ciumoollor, irh»m w« ohidl o«ll ilio OlAiaaBto* w«r« t«aant« of Ihm AOM)Ql«tion in tho ilAOonio T«^l« mnA «et«d ao its Aitorn«/», At th« <tir«otion of oao of th^ effio«re of tho Aoeoolation, tb«>' fll«d « MIX to r#oti'ftin th« County tr«*»ur«r fyoa colling th« yroj^orty and o1»t«in«»d a tonpomiy injunction, ^rilliuui «und oth«ro woro indietod, ttk« ol»rs«o boing; ooaopiraej to d«frAUd tho ti^wBkXy, and forgory, Aftor the taJcini; of toottaoii/ in tho injunotion ouit had Won h«gun htforo th<t l^afttor, th<^^ oourt dlrootod that it h« sttoj>«nd«d, ponding the di«p««ition of tho oriMiaal eaooo. Williaao vao found guilt/ in tho Crin* inal Ctourt and tho tax roe«<ipt in quostion «ao Uc^olarod a forgoyjr, A Sr* JUtoh, an of^ieor and dirootor of tho Aosooia* tion» and Oao Mallon, a hookkoopor and aneistani noorotaz^ of tho Aoooeiation, t«6tlfiod for tho Stato in tho Qriuinal Oourt* that th» taxoB had noror boon jpunid hjr the Aooociation and tho ontrloo in the book* of th« Ao^ociation to the oon* traxy voro fietitiouo and fraudulent* Qj^on thio diooloouro, whiflh vao tho opponito of all prorieno rei»ro»entatieno wnich had boon aado to thon, tho elalMaato adrisod th«* Aooooiation to yajr tho taacoo nad diomiao tho injuaotioa ^roooodingo.

Tho Olaiaanto aetod ao attorney* fer tN» Aaooeia- tion in tho injuaotion ouit and aloo rojir^^oentod Williamo in tho orlMinal yroooodingo. In this ooanootion tlM»y eiriployod othor attorney* mad inourred oaiponsot, in miyaont of vhiok thoy uood their oon monoy, all of whi^ thry aSogo w&s done at the rOQueot and direotlon of th'> Aooociatien, Hot boing able to oeeuro paya^at for thrir aorrioes or roinburoonent

]?...:-• ^■,

for thmir cash oatXays for •jq»«ii8««, the elftlaants began an notion at law acaifiat tho AaBoelatioa and o«rtain of ito offieoro and dircol^ors for that purpooo. 7hll« that action was pondinijc, ono Laaoh, b etookholdor of tho Aosecia- tien, filed the hill in th@ i)rooe«din«a at har, seeking to vlnd up the Aaeo oiatioix* e affaire, Tho olaimanto were not •ado parties to that euit. An anever Wft» filed by thoao who vore defendant* » In which the aubjeot-aatter of the euit was not eonteotsd, and on July 14, 1914, a deoree wao ent«>red, in whioh it was d«oreed that the atte«ptod ineorpc ration of tho ASRooistion was without autiiority af law and raid and by reason thf^reof the Assooiation wafl, in oentemplatlon of lew, a partaershit and was not then and n^rtr had b(^en & corpora* tion} **that until the appoiatnant of the rooeirer herein, there wao not any person in law entitled to enforoe tho pay* «ont of the rentals of said tenants, * * * end that th«r« was no person authorised te Enanage eaid large building (the iiuasonio Temple) or to »«*» 1-^aseo of epaoe therein.* Tho deoroo de- olared the partnership whioh exiotod between the shareholders in the Association, terminated an^ ended and ordered that the proooede of the partnership bus in ee» and property be distributed ae«»rding to the ruleo and praetioc* in equity. The receiver w«.s direoted to oonTert all property of the Assooiation inta eash anc meke prop<*r distribution anonfi the sliarehclders, after |»ayiBK the oasts and expenses of the oeaTersion and tjko roooiTor* ship and the ooets ancii. ohargee incident to earing for, operating and adaULniR taring the partnership prop«»rty, "and all the low* fttl debts of said Aaaaoiation." Sy an order entered July 34, 1914, ol&isiants were gifon loawe to file their claim for #15,6C4.90 ia this proeaeding against the aosots in the hands of the reoeiver, Baid olaija was aooordingly filed. The order allowing it to ba

Din-

»ni>(««

• *fi \

■i<)'iilt»»9aii ^/ii

fiX*4 ftroTldM that th« reopiT«r or any PArtjf Ml^ht fil* ebj<>otione. Th« rcotlfffr did so. 7h« !••»•• mad* up 1»y ih« «l*i«i and the r«c«Wflir*» o%iJ«otlen» thvj-ote, «4»r« r«f«rr«d to a Master. Th« aaitats of the A««oei«i.tlon wer« di»tribut«d •ac««»pt th« »um of #80,000, which th* r««»iT«r «a« dir«ot«d to retaia, ponding the dispoaition of thia claim. Tho Maotor rooMORondod that a deoroe %o «nt«r«d in favor of thf> alaia* ants for tho stut of $6,34i«$9, nado up of oo«o of the itosui vhi<di vo shall rof«r te as tho oxponso itome of th» elalaanto and ho roooamondod that th« tiLain for tho remaining oxponso itOMO and also for $ft«C«0& for th«F s^rvioAS rendered by the •laimoftto ho not allowed, A dooroo woo ontorod in aooord with the findingo and rooemnondationo of the Master fron which tho tlaiauMits hftTO porfeetod this appeal. The ree<('iTor has filed oro80*orrors ia this oourt, oentendlng that o«»rtain of thm •xpoitoo i teats allowed should not hoTO hoon allowed, and that, as to that, the deeroe is erroneous.

The opaoo oooupiod hy thA (daiioanto in the Masonio Tenple, WHS oonored by two leasee, on« of which eontainod what is referred to Igr th« parties as a *ridor* Kgr the iofwo of whiek, tho Assooiatioa employed tho elalTsedito *ao ito eeunsolloro and attomoyo* for the term of tho loaoo, whieh was ten years, affrooins to pay foroueh sorYioos at the rate of idCiO per year and the alainanto agreed to furnish the Aseeoiatioa * legal adTiee and serrlee ia till matters in whioh »&id lessor (Aoeo elation) is peroenally interested and aeo4s legal oouasol." This lease dosorihod the losoer ao tho "Maooaie Fraternity AosO elation, a oorporation, organised ittder and by wirtue of the laws of the i^tato of Ullnols." Tho Mooter dieallewed the olaia of $S,000 for the local ••rriooo of the olalaaato on the ground that tho proTleieno

■xvtfmt

*■■ ■ , .

«|rMf# f»r

Ola-

,ftifo»jf«ira»

I a. 7 J .i3««i/(.*»

..,&dtt«JU.

*iiX&^i

• 5*

•f th« rid«r r«ferr*d to v«r« turMiA •nou^:h to ooT«r ••nriect la oonteBt«d legal prooe«4ia«« irremp^otlv* pf th^ir flmgni- tud« find liiport»RO«» Indluding tauch ^mrriofta as art inrolirtd httr«* 7h» r«eelTtr eont«nde thai thla ruling wan oorraett iMid fttrthfti* that It siiould li« suBiaiacd on the grouad that It «a« aat vlihla th« ••09« •f th« aathoritjr «f th«^ Board vf Mreotara of the Asseoiatioa te oH«r£« it vlth I lability for attomo/** f««s or noaojra oucpoadod for the defonoo of iheir nanac^r WUliaao in th« Crininal Courts or in other ««rd» that the apeoial agreemoat whiA the olalffiaato oontend they had with the Aoao elation ooTcrin^ their fe«?a for eor* Tiooo in defending Villiaao vae ultra yirea and therefore ▼old.

Tke deoroe of the Girouit Co art In thie fuit» ' oatf^red Jul/ 14, 1914, from whioh no «pp<^al hao been taken* la hlndiag oa ail the parties to thie J3iubao(|uent proooediag ioToXvlnK the oiaiM of Thornton mwA She^noellor. Beferenoo has hooa MUide to th<» torn* of that d«*oreo, hjr whleh it h&o boon d«tormlned an^ dedarod that the Aoeoeiation io not and aever «»• a legal oorporatlon »nd all ite leaoee, inelud* iag thoee to whlo^i th<o olelBuuito were partiet were null and void and of no of foot and it ie dear that the eaao ie trao of the rider r^tnrrni to« That being the eaoe, the qaeetlon *' w^tra Yiree hao no apiilioation to the facte preoented. 2a oar opinion the effioere of the Aoeeaiatien, aotlag ao th« agonto of the ahareholdere, (treating the Aeaooiatioa ao a partnerahip) wore entirely within th« eoopo of their authority, ia providiag for the legal oerTloee in oonneatlea with both the lajunotion ottit whioh they Inetltutod and with tlie dofenoo of thoir aanagor Villiaao in the Criminal c^ourt.

f^rli- tit

tov

Th« r«oftr4 •hov« t)mt oa S5*pt«mbcr 2(11, 1908, aVeut • Moath ftfi«r t^iis tax aatter aro*** and sfitr th« olalaaats had dOB« oonftl<i«>rabil« «exic and had laourrad ••«« axpcnee* both la tha mat tar af the injunoiion luit anti th« orlainal oaaa» iha 8a*eall«d board of dlr^eiora of the Aaooolation paoi^ed a roaolutlon* apiMUrently prepmrad bjr th« olaimaBte at the dirootlon of aona of the offloara af %iv> Aaeoolation, In and bjr vhi^ the preatd^nt and ooeratarjr vara "authorisod and dlraotad to emplo/ aacdi aaaaK aa th«y aa/ doam naoaaoary to naiatainaUid iajunctlon proeecdlng and to proTont a aeeond yajraant mt th» aaid taxao, and to protect and daftad the aald Villlama a«aiaat aald indiotmanto, to eeipla/ oouaa^l and aay aad aaparaona whe maty ^« aaaaaaaiy to dafand or tO'aarlat la Maintaining, proaeoutlng aad defending the ^aaoale Fratar* nit/ Taopla Aaaodatioa aad tha aald WlXllaiaa la all af aald aattara and to audit aad pajr all reaaonabXa bille: for ex* panaac thita iaourrad.* It is our opinion froa all the erl* danoa In the raoorA that thla reaolutlon waa paaaad by tha duly authorlsad off 1 earn aad aganta of tha Aaoaolatloa eon* atltutlag the ao»ealled board of dir^^otorta, for tha purpoaa of e»nf Inaing what had already bean done with raferanoa to tha aattaro oorerad by tha resolution as wall aa authorising what alght ba dona In the futura. The OTldenoe submitted bty the dlalaaata le to the affect that thla resolution aaa praparad at the dlraotion of Mr. Harrla, Tloa»praaldant af tha Aaaoolatlon, who was eotlag la the absaaoe of tha preaident Mr. Goralay* and that in the oonversatloaa had with hln on this subject tha a^playawat af olaiaants waa referred ta. Harris denies this but wa find his entira taatloiony so salf-oontradictory aad ae In oaafllat with hla own admitted acts and ?rrittaa statanants, aa to ba wholly

h«« ft**

Wlti

»Am.

Atm^m fl i. ,&S Y*tf^i.;: wniC* lnu»<»Y ttrty

4 if#Xw

iWti«

luitrustirorthor* Furthnrmer* the olalBuuitt subaitted tvstijMcqr of oenYersatlons with Qomlcy subecquent to the adoption of the resolution referrod to in which the fto to bo p«ld olaia* onto w&o dioousood and alno teetimony to the offeot that laior vhon olaioiants «or« ondoavoring to haro their elala for •orriooo and oxp«m«o» paid, the «attor wae t|io oubjeot of furthor oon-r^rsations with Cormloy in whioh ho statod that tho ohargoo of olaimants for fees and expenoes ought to bo paid and h* was surprisod at th€ attitude of eomo of the mo»» bora of the board who were opposing it. This teetlauMRjr is sot eontradiotod*

Th«» record further shows that whilo the tax litiglii* tioB ineluding the orialnsl oase, was pending and elaioMiBts wore acting as directed, in representing the Aseociatloa and Williaas, thtqr said they aust hsTO some money,* th&t they eeuld not finanee the litigation, whereupon Gormloy gaYO elaimants the ohedk of the Assooiation for $150C whieh ht said was all the au>iiey the Assooiation eould spare aj that time and he also gave them two notes for $2500 oadh signed by Williams and hineolf which Ooralay said the Association would take up at naturity. The elaiaaats diaoountod thest notes but they were not taken up at a^tiu'ity, either by the sMkors or tho Asso elation and consequently doimaats were obliged to p«y thea. Mr. Thornton testified that at the tiao Ooraloy gaTo hia these notes ho said he wanted to icnow if he was to understand that "this is collateral to the undertaking that the Assooiation has entered into with us by that resolution" and he answered "all right** This is not denied in the reoord.

4|917#ii

%t«IMf

Hrwn if v« w«r« %• «onald«r th« •••called riA«r ft Tftli4 ca^ \(indiB« afr«en«nt, w« are of th# opinion thiat ihoro vaa nev^r an;^ thought in th^ aiacsa of mny of th« parties involved, that it vaa intondcd to or did oover midh •«rvioos aa tH«r ^al»aata rondo r«d in %hf oaooo Krowing out of thlo tax fraud. Tlioao sorvio«o boooJOMi noeoaoary ty reaaon of the «ri«inal actn ooBmittod b/ individualo vho woro aonboro of the Board of iJlreotore and truoted ttoployoeo of th« Aoaocifttion itooXf ana the aAvioo given and oerviooa readcrod by dlai«anta w^r*' baood upon repreoentfttioaa amA* to th«»a lay offioora of thi«! Ae: eolation «hioh wore vholly faXftO, but wer? Holievod by olaimanto to b«> trao. That the l>ir«otora of th<» Aocoolatlont did not th«tHeolV(^B ooneidor the proviaionfi of the* ridor a« oovering th«; eervieee rendered by olaijaanto in aueh an extraordinary eltuatlon, ie proven eoaelutiivelyt in our opinion, by the foot th»t at no tiaa did any of then avoa •aontion the provisione of the rider, let alone advaneo th9 contention that th« aervioes!! and eharges la queetioa wrre covered by it* t crass, ^e are not ia^ressod by the teetinony of JSodaukn to the effect that h« "ttnderatood there «%a a l(»ase in foroe vhich covered the feo« Of Thornton and Chanoeller** He adoitted he nffrtfT epoke to Olaiauuita about it and further that he itsid never aeon the leaao in question* "Aotiona speak louder than words. * If the effionra and directors of the Assoeiatioa understood that the proviaiene of the rider were suohas to Inolude the aervioes rendered by Ql»ijBants involved hc^re, it Is hard to uadt^retanA wV they n^ftft mentioned that fact or dieouaaed it with olaiai* ants, although at l«>ast eone of the tostiaony of th*" latter to the eff«»ot that the question of th«>ir foeo wae dlreussod with oertaia offioers of the Aasoelatlon, stands in the reeord

): b «!.£;■:.'> -ftf.'. ^il t-^h teroy-i r,'

rA«

■ l^^lv

Bl« 4i

-rTf»(^ i^'t

•9«

without o»ntrsdi«tion« and furth«r wlgr tHfty did n«i pl««4 it In the aotion At law breueht $K9kinB% thm )tar ttlaioumts an4 whgr it was ii«Y«r a«?ntlen«<i wren ia this litigatioa tmtiX after th« hwarings w«r» begun b«f«r« ths liiastwr* It is in no wsjr r«ferre4 to in th« ohjeotlons filed h/ ths rsosiTwr ts tho oI«i» as fll«d by th« (daimiats.

It is urgsd that elaisumts should not b« alXowsd thsir fsBS as einij»«!d heoeUBS tb« directors {Misised t.he r«i Itttion autlTiorisiag th« offis«rs to <nKS>ley isouaesl s»d *ts ««plsjr such m«an» as theiy may deem nece&eary*-SH^ to protsot anu defend th* said willians,'* in the oriminsl oase, rsiy* ing upsa bad adYies siv<»t th«tt bjr olaimaats to ths of foot thftt in th6ir opinion if 'a^illiaise should b^ found guilty •f forging thft tax rooeipt in question, «it would praotiealljr put an ond to svory offort that mii^ht bo i8ad« to suetain tho inJuBotioa*; and farther that th#y wore not sure but that thc^ dooieion in tlte erlfflinal oase might "in offoot* *• y^» adjudioatiji in tho iajunotion pr«o«edln«s. In our opinion thst advioo was entirely sound. The outooao of tho litigation was prooisoly in aoosra wiin lt« cf oourso logslly^ the deolslon in the erl»i.B^J.aase could net be oon* sidered res adJudida^fi la the injunetion suit. But without i^aeBtioa, if filliaas was fouad iruiltjr in tht^ erlmlnal ease upon oonTinoiiag OTidence, *ln of foot* the daoision ia that trial would dispose of the whole awtter** as it ultimately did do.

Turning now to the siqMttso itens whieh wers aat allowed. In supporting their dsim Titomton and Chaaaollor Sttbaitted testimony to the effeot that the f orasr had t«I4 Xarris early in the oourso of the litigation that in a

Tlwe*

hetljr •osteated «••• it Is often neoeasiury %o inour •X9«a>«« «n tto« laonant iind ai^lag whsthffr h« ««uU1m» ftvalXsble for eonoult«tien and if not th*y w*nt«4 to know to vtea thoy w«ro to look* in aaswor to vhieh ho ooid, ^Tollov th<» dlroo* tiono of Coptain Willians. Tho Coptoln knovo «ll«lMiut this troneaotion im4 ho io about the only oao who actuolXy took part in tho jpa^naoni of tho nonciy. Follow his divootiono, oau irhatevor i» oastntiaX to the trifti of tho oaao in tlio vojr of fuade tho A^aaoolotion will proTido,* Hiurria df>nloa this oenroraotion. iFo h&To prorioualy roftrroil to tho weight to wMeh his toatimony la entitled, Aaioag theao oxpenao itowi w<?re mobo paid to oortoin perKona who did ittToati«;atine and puhlioity work And »obm of th«n legal «ork,« CloTOlond, (hAinott, Baldwia and akor* All theao jaon wore employed at the roqaoat and dir«»otion of Williaaa, who later appeara to h&YO approT-d of tho work the^ wore doing,* at I'^aet in the caao of aoiae of thorn. Another oxpenoo itoa* inTolYod the payaent of $50 to Lord k Thoamo who were empljoyed tc get oertain artioleo into the newapapera. As we haTO prerlouol/ pointed out thie tax ooandal reaulte4 in a great deal of newapaper publioity,« muoh of it refleot* ing unfaYoratoljr on the Aoaooiatioa and ite offioora and in the Tiew of the oaoe entertained hjr olainanta, aa a r(>ealt of the repr^aentationa aade hy their eli^nta, th«x)r endeaTored to bring about the publisation of wfeiat they bolioYod to be the truth about the auntter. Another expenao itea whioh waa not allowed, IttTolTed tho pa^aent of |600 to Mr. Trude, a eelobrated erinlonLl lawyer of sany yearo praetiee at the Ghioage Bar, It appears from the reoord that ho was ea» ployed entirely in an advioory capaoity and «as f»t expected to take an aotivo part in the trial of th« eriainal oaae.

•<,)JC*

«*>on«'j''?' f'!f

•9 biMf!*?>fjsr-

«fl;-to'.tr

.■^-riiil

IMBOtf.

6 ©ICO 1^310

'^nf&t: x^i

^H'.":

trjrf# t

itfUfi!:-

-II-

At tM« U«« to« hftd retired frn» actlTe pratetioe. Tki«i(» it MBoh Ai««u««ioii In th* brl«f fil«d 1»y the reoeivcr in this eeurt «» to whethnr th<?ii« «rxp«RS« itnas r«pre»«nt«<l tb« reasosftbX* and eustOflMury ohargfts for tit« attrvie^e alXcavA to 1mt« boon roaderod* ond aXeo a« to the pr«pri<»t/ of allow- ins itoiao for tho oo-eallod publloity and inTORtlgating work and a* to whether tho irork involTod vf^o of any r<^al Yaluo. Goao tint in fieoonbor 1908, tho oiaiaanto oubodttod a list of th«ir oxponoo iteao to tho A«(»oeiation. It appoara fro« tho toetinony of Mr« Chanooller that this vas deno in roa- ponoo to a ro<iuo»t from tho AMMOlatioa for a otatomont of *tho dicfbttrocBonta", ThiK liot or etatfawat Inoludod all tho oxponoo it«M, net allowod, to vhioh «o Ikito rof(>rrod» All the itons woro ohookod OTOr by th« offlct^ro of tho Aaaaedation. At no timo waa any obJf»etion nado by tho A800<datioa or aqy of ito offlo'^ro to any of thoee itono up to tho tiiae of th<» filing of the ploao in the aotieo at lav inotituted by tho alaimuit«« whioh ploaa voro filod in Cotobor 19 C7. That boiag tho oituatlon tho elaimaata aado out a j^J^gSL ^^^^ <^»» (^* to all ito»o ineXudod ia tho •tatOM^^nt aa subnittod, vhctn thoy pat tho otatowicnt in ovidonoo* J^moa Y. Univeroi ty Hoaoaroh Eactonaion, Ifi? Hi. App. 138} £S£2£L ▼* ^oheonf. old. 97 111. App, 477, In our ©pinion that yyiifta faoio daeo ao to thoao oxpoaao it4nui «a« net aatorially altorod or woakonod by tho oroaa-oacaainatioa of olaiauiat*a vitnooaoa and the rocoiYor put in no toatinony at all te M»«t it and for that r«aaon all the itona rof^rri^o to should hav* boon albivod, acsrot^atias 9l,sa8,t0. In eontooting this •lain tho r«>ceiT«r ia roproaontinc ao eao but tlM Aaaooiation and ito aharoheldoro. Tho righto of eroditoro aro not itt- VolTOd horo In any W9:y»

*i

»mm% tU, •Mtb

ijKf/ tftmta

t

Tlftere is » furthvr •xpmn&9 it«» oI&i«^'d by Thoitiiom «nd aimnottller, vhi^ i» Bad* up cf An«t;h«r p*jr* went ^f l&OO t« Mr. Trud* In I>«o«mb«r X9CS* after the atAtc* mat h«r*t«f«r« r«ferr«»d te vaa Bul9aitt«d to th« Aasocslatioa Iqr its el»iM«iits. It wui* tlmretof, oat i.B0ltt4aA in ttet •tattnantc nar vaa it iaolttdad V ^^^ elalouuita in tha luill Qf fartioulara filad hy them in th» aotion at law ar ia tli» ol&ia fila4 \^ tliam in thi* atiit. 1% ift olainad t|»t thia vaa tlarou^h ««»• areraigtet. That Mr» Trada vaa baiag amplayad in eannaotien with %h» ariaiiBRl ea«a, tha AaaodLatiea through ita offio«>ra, wall knaw. nc «Tld<>na« waa aff<*rad hy tha raeaiTar ^aastianiag it* i^ajrmr>nt or tha Kaad faith af the eilainantt* Wa find im wammt in thfl raaard for thft oontention of th« r«o«ivar that Mr, Truda ««a not cnpla/«d to rnn^mr suoh aa<«ioiana» aa ha might gifo in aa adTiaor/ oapaoity ia eonnaotian with tha orimiaal oaoa, httt oolaly haaauaa he v;aa tha at to rnejr far Tha ahiea^Ea Tribuaa aad far tha purpose of tbue aaeurini; hie iafluanoa witli that nawapapar ia th« aattar of gattiag faYorahla puhlioity. Ia our opiaian thio itan ahouXd also imrm baan allowed* Thio io an a<|ui table preoeeding in which th« Aecoeiation and ita oharaholdara are being given the ri^^ht to wind up their bttaiaeaA and go out of axistenee at an Aeeooiatioa, it bains provided in the decre« that bf^fare thia ic done the KeeeiTer pay all 'lawful debta" af the Aaea elation. Bat thia itan should be al0w«d without iat«rast» iaaamuc^ as it was net iB«auded in th« bill of parti oulara aa filad by alaiMMita ia the aetiaa at law n»T ia their olaia aa originally filed ia the suit at bar. Interest should ba allowed oa the other expanse iteaa acgrasating $1,388 and also oa tha elaia far faaa amounting to |S»cco, at th« rate of & p9r a<mt par

•& J»

.-»4JX!iy:

tini, iti-HtJt ai»4| 4 :# »««•« v.^^ J

■^«

■■«!'.

•13* mwmm tr^m Wthrtmry 1* 1903 » the <iat« from vhloh th« Jta.tt*r

For th« reiiaon* «• Imt* alrendy dl»«u«se<t v« arc 0f the opinion that the ttxpftnso ItMui all«w«<l V^y tht ¥a»t«r and inelttdad iu tlw 4eor9« of th« triol (30urt« w«r« proper* l;f allowed*

The d«oroo of tho Olreuit Court* ffnt<ire<i en May S3, 1918 « awarded th« clainaato th« eum of $6, 341. 69 with iat«r«ot at th« rato of 5 por o»nt per miBttm frors Juljr 16« 1917, the ciato of tho MaBt«r*» r««j»ort« It was orronooua in failing to award than, thc^ further »u»a of 1 6, 288 with iatoroot at thKi rate of 6 per o^nt p«r annun froM February X« 1903 asuMl&0€ without ixit^rrost. Inotoad of awarding a total turn of |6,612,49 to olaimante, th« d«oro« of Uajr 3St 1918 should havo awardod th«m a total ous of |18,188«80, Tho deoroe of thf> Circuit Court io th«>i-«fore aodifiod to that oxtont a«<l, ao oo modifiod, io affirmod,

fAiUR, jr. «M Q^tseamm, j, con our*

448 • 34«C4

yr«4 B« Cttf • ]>«9mMMd»

QUCAOO BAILWAYI OG. , •t/al*

A^pffllfUit;

•^ / / y? y

dOCK OOtSlTI*

217 I-A. 654

3

ttoi 4«iitb of )amr lotvbftiMl* aLll«fi«(l to laEeiV« li«^««ii 9fit»6ft4 ^ t^ B«^i3r9«t«i of ii«feBdtf>ii%«* e«»nraai« isi ep«raUac oft« of ii« •ATS* %% tt r«>ftiiJl% of iil»l(a^ it <»liiaft4 wii3k lua nttUMObilo in vi}i4db th« dioooatoci iia« ridiiMl ao • yMimm^ior* lafliotiMm ilw Uijtirloo vhl-ih oftao«4 ih^ 4t«atli« ?!» pXaiatiff Mi« #«rf«t'l«4 tiiis «9p«ttl ff«n * iti4|p»4»n1r rofMrToroiS V t«i« 4«f «a4«itl in tHo trlftl oourt following th«> v«r^»i of & jury r«n«ii»g the ioouoo for th««.

In otti^port of titft opiMMa tiio pliantiff «mit4ii4»» «»««§ • tiior ihiB«», th»t tlio vvrdiot *ia oontyairar te th« «ri4«'»i90** X^ OMOt bo AMir* t]^ism tamt tM*fer« thio oourt would \m «ttjrraj)to4 ill tfinturbing it, Bof«r« o JucUP"«at own bo r«vor««4 by thlo o«urt« «• aiMit b« of Xlsm opiaioa tiMii it io ocntfory to tb« Mkalftei voigiit of th« ovidoaoo or oloiirljr o^oiaot tiio woighi •f tbo on4«a«o. £mu ▼• m^mm H MV-q ^^ftjiroyd (T9«Ri»isy.t i?t ill. Aj?j>. 9U6} .fill i Ai.ftt i^t q<^i '». i|^j^|tr^ff^i i»^ iii. aasi

mmm <!^%i JUm^JJ&m. ▼• msA* «<* II^* *»*• «^i« tiw r#aor« 4i»ales«» «}«Mr]» ^onfiiot in il^ tettioMingr «ii imhmi point* • fir«»«i A o«jr»faX r«iidliig of It «• lur* tf tH* opinion Uukt It ottcuMt 1»« iuii<i tttafc ih« v«ir<U«t of th* ^MX^t 1 inline tho ^o» foodanto not gttiltyt lo &ges.nffit the laumlf »t tj'tsi^.ht of the cvi(li«ne«»

t% vvtiid sorvo no uooful pun^ooo to t«kc up Ibo oviawnoo in wnjr dotail but it «xil l»« tttffioiont for tlM fwrpooeo of thio opinieo to tt»t« that tno ovi4«aioo t«iid*4 to ohoii thot tiko <i«-o»««o4t Ce« «a4 omo Jolwoon vcrro I'itilias in II ooYoti i^ov-eiij^or «»utote!iol»iio» vitis o liawuoine bo^y, no S«ooo»««x>e« oocaiiorine tbn T9mv oont* in th^^ front ooni »<oro two ot^r wtn, Vr«(»4 «nd Wfti«el«« '^^ lottor woo Atif^ inc« Ylio nutoonliilo «no l»eia« 43tttmn ooutli nlons Vinownneo VmmA in th** l^itjr of Chiou^, «}>out 9s30 o'qIoc^ on tHe ov«n* |«(l of i^voaii»or 3&« 191&, It ^«i» « 4njrt(, yainjr nigltt Vut tritiwut fog or adot. no eenn of the witn«ioo90 for tim plnia* tiff t«»tifi«<i, onci nwtcMOlijllo or otro^t enr licfeto ooul4 W ooen for « diottmo^ of oevoml blookn* ^h»n tbo outo* nobilo r*nolio« 9itJEi ntroot, viiiide& orooood Vlnoonnoo lloni nt right nncioot n turn «no mA« to thm oaot« YlM ron4mar in Vinotmn^o l^nA vne i>nTo4 to n wi4tli of alMlut 8S foot** Yo the «fttt of thio ronkdwo^ w&r« th« t«o tmoko of tlio etr«ot rnllway o^orntoA 1»> %tm a«f«ndanto« thia right of wtgr oon* oioto4 of roiXe thn4 tioo witltOut otreot iNiT«nont. till rurth«r to tho onot of the etro«t otir trnntco, voo n r&llro«4 jriftht or wtgr oont«inin« four or fivo tro^o of tho HotAi Zo* inai anlIron4« Tho roilron4 orooolng «nn ?lnKdcod ond tif%« otroot onr yi<:ht of wtgr wno i»«vo<l vitn granito Vioolui oppoeito tho 9flth otroot int9)roootien natdi for « foo foot bo/ond tho

tn9»*

•3*

•vidftiKKi 1« in dijrrat •c«iifli«ii •n (hie p«i«t« It i« su^ «• i« unajToiif th» Jusgr In f iwHag iJhfti 1» a*klag Um %im« fi«a viitMiift#« mmi into 9fttJbi kirv^i tiii» <irif«r of Uui iitttoM»¥ii* 4itf wit k999 to ilft» rl^iiit •t t%t» (}«At«r of ill* intomootiOM Intt oat Aorost os » 41«c«»«itl.t In » RevilHMMit«f«» Ijr <tir<»oticMi» f ro . ViiiMiitt** i^s4 iAto 9l^ih •tjr««i« Hit* {««•••« t^r th» ^tolattff t««tifi«»4 ihftt the «(tt08i«%ilo 9ro««#4«4 cTwir tlM: d*f«n<k«nts* troiiio m% ft »9«e4 of fiv* •r six ittil«6 »m fesBurt tritil* vitiEift«e«e for thm il«f«iidtifit» gaTu th)i^ ttpT^»4 Aft fifi««n or tirwfitjr iili«e »» Iii0t»r« IMT^ro %lte ftutoiieMio «l«t«3p«4 th« n»rthlH»tai4 »tr««t okt trft«de, iM iiit«r«urlMHn wur oooUiais north «olXitf«d wiih it« i4tii »ii^ fere« a« to pmotiOHll/ 4«tsM0iio)i Mun MtiomoHilo iMiii tJturtv th* «r««a»M|o to tli* iH»]rt]» %r«jroiul tli* $&th otr^^t yooiliragr »»(i oroftowOk nud iawMHilotttXjr ««ot of tko troi^* killing boik C^o strut Johnwoii* tlM» aotersAOM t«wtiri«Nl Jio ItMi li««n yuaoiaf his oisLr »lM»ut fiftot^it mIImi «u!t hour »iMt oo )Mi a}^9rott0iMi4 Ui&o intovoootion ho ro4ii«o4 tho oyooAiAicJilljirt ^iii« over th<? orooovRik ot 9Sth otroct m% o op*«« of okout %«olv« iaiiofi an hour* Tb« tti^d»]t<QO lOaovo th»t tlsw oor «»• a lojrcio* h<»«V3r» iMtorttrkost okt* woiigkiag 44 toao,« «Vout tfottklo tk* «oi4£kt of tko ortiiaaifjr otr*«t raiiw*/ oor** vMcAiWMlo ooniKi4«rttkl« noioo oo it fiiuieo^ over thn tr»oko* fko itotort»im «ou«44»d ir)ii»tlo oisnaJlo twioo» tk« firot koiioig o rocttiotlOB oroottlac ois»sd m. klook or two oouth of 99th vtrootf tM^ th# otluir l^oing tm •mttrfumitv olff^n^i J«uit koforo tk« oolliffioM* fho 9&th otroet ereosiAg was tho only oao •ipor 4of«iwiaAi*o troOko for ooToroi klocAco oitkor ony* ntnooo«o tcr the ?»Taiatiff t»ctifi«»e thtit tho hoiuUU&ht

•^v

:^:.t^\ri.

r*mtA io Ui«» oonijraiqr «»(< ih rr is twrthtft %9»%iMmnjt Vy wiiii««Mi» f«r Ui« j^kintiff «• w«XI as f«r tto* A«f«ndufitai» UmI th» 3L4«kit» frMi wlikln U»e mr ir«r« visil»l« for » t^aitiuiac ef 4C0 f««rt« «r trnm, Tlu« qax> <9ontinti«<t north f«r «)M»ui « bl«<^ «ft«r ik« 'a«lli«(l«n« €»• of ItM' vitn tt;«o toixUfiod tiiAt Jttot «t %iio iisu!' of ih«* o9i:ii»io« or i— oin' lAt«l/ «fi«r« IM IpsMsdnl « sound l:itc« «m oxiiiooioii luidor ilM oar« tt »si9«^iir« fxtw oth«r t»«tittOfQr Ut»t thio w«.« ooaooil ligr o 1>r«mkiiiff of tl»»^ ooayreooodi Al;r ofparaVus* 4ftor UkO ii«oi4«iii th« ttoioywui diftoovorotil tlMii iho *ljr wtte gono irnii h« tta«o ho4 to Idjring; tH«< OftX- to o oieii^ liiy iOH^ttiie of ttie rev(ftroo« TM« •oc'iHi to aq90'jm% for the 4iiit«iiiioo It tr»TOlo<i «ft«r tho ool* lioiott. IfAUgXo on^ l>»«4 tootifioti that timjf lovorod tlio vlA^owo of tim nmr oyj^oito th« frent 04Mit« 4)^t to«foro omIiw iac t&« turn* oad looko4 nortli &ni£ oouth Iwt o«» ^> ligbto •I* o&ro Mt« h«ftir4 »» neino* i;au«l#» i»iN> woo drlTln^E tut sviio* moloilo, 1m4 liv«4 in tlM vioi«it|r for oono tlno «ad wao TOXjr fonili«r vit]^» this oroooint* Tho oietoswiQ ieotlfiod tiioi lio flrot Gotiowl tiio wtttoittObilo vhois It w«» alioat two bXocdeo mmgf, %h» om* lMin« ot atb>>ut 96tii otroet* aii(2 tiie o«tO«oli&l« «t tith staroot* Th<>r» vao «i»ot)uHr outwnoMlo following l»ohiii4» At olMiitt tMo if>«lRt ho *«%ut off tlMr yovor ftnd «»o ciTing « litUo Air » * » to o»io<ic U9 th# o^ooA** 1^ fiurtlior tootififtd ttoftt tbff ftiitOMOliilo Who on th« iroot «14e of Vinoonnoo Hi0o4 iui4 ii1s«»a th^:' front ond of thM otroot oojr trnm Alxo«tt at tJio iMiari «rooow6iXk at fSth otre«t« *tlMi «Litte«ot»i3lo oamo rlglit ny to tho 90int »a4 aa4« a kind of oJmry turn rt«;iit in Um traoko in front of tb« aar$ tlmt tha «itttOiaol»ilo wut ooning It or 80 ttllo)^ an hour oad nn^ this turn vlton the onr van •iMttt nil foot mnsr***

#(fo^?---.lX :fwr itv*-

iknti i^ MMM «•• trtt« 0f Fr«ed» «!h« ««» am «Mpl«)rfHi ^f

i» llwir «&••»• In £i&« ajdgttOMint to ih« Jtfoar oottanel tor

tit* 4«f«invftiita ref«rr^el te tih<'»c fiictii iuai4 mwmm^^Hk m$i9m Xhmm^ la rmttrtiians *<> t^ preWiM* ini«r«et timt thfts*

tb» pXmintift r»ooT#r la this «MMr« ana h« al»e poiiitad out thftt thtt lOLftiatiff lta4 »«v«»r bx>«u^t «a^ suit agftiast Il«ia4;l« who wealii b« li«l»l« if tit* aota&cScRt mik« <MMAaft«l li;/ kl» a«gli* «•««• lugm tiiat iJhf^ raal i«»tt« inv«»Iv«4 in %)&« trial af iiblci oaaa vaa tha qmattiaa wliathtrr tJia aooia««at wa« ^ue^d Har tfo» a<i«Xi«»ft«t af tM 4«fRisi4tti«t» ex ^augla and tliat Iw waa tttrrwforct pmhmhXj i»t#r««t«d in liavlng It avtaliXivliad that it «»>a %h« fonkar and not tii« latt«r» fmi* atejaotiaa waa lntar]»a»a4 to %i»» la«r»du«tioit af th^ ovidaao* r«ff>rra4 ta. «« fiad no abjtotiaii ndt«d in th» ntmm U tkia argi»» MNttt af <9dujiH«l aaw «aM4>lain4?d of* «a ar« df itia d|»lBle»» tadvarar* tteat Um atlddaoa is ^aetidii tmn adaiiacliaa and aiftd that th» aripMffMt ivaa «iitlr«ljr lagitinata, jOSSHMMBHiiJIl

It itt AliO a(»at«ad««i tkat %j!w oeurt «rr«d in ad» aiiiia« dofoadanta* IxhiMt I ia «irld«n3« aad Is attfttaiaia« Hm oliJ«<rlien af th« defaadiiata t« plaiatlff'a isaOdbit 8* £af eadaaui* iCxMftit 1 waa a i»hitagra»ai takaa freoi a ^aiat in 9Sth atraat Jatt aatt 9f tha aoett laliiad traidia aad alMiwad th« ^Xaakins av«r tb« railroad er«a«in« ^nA tlw yiava* aaitt oTor tJiK^ otro^^t a^r Iraoko and th» Vinooanoa BaaA pava*

4t

*tmi Hi-xf^ •»f^*'*ftfl*

.?<^ i.tfi^ •«',': tstv^T-i.-

wMit btt/smi* ttm pli^intitt «oat«tt<l« that it ^^ivcrs « f«la« Lm^renmioa of tlu* oon.AUooit at tlMr Int^rMiotlon ^ut In wliAt wH|r it not poistftd out* v« luiv* louniaftd it with oftjr* MUl It Hat cv«>y a^j^aaraaoft «f b«lii« all tHat mvLtih a» «»• MMt alwald ^« Plain tiff •« Kjchlblt 8« «a« a plaotoipra^li •f thtt wr««^a«a of tli# aut«c«fOliil«t of f<i^r«a« aa oouasal •tai«4* for thi» j^itri^oaa of fixing tHa iooaticta of th« auto* aoMlo aftor tSie a««&<l«at« fMa i^tetO|{ra;^h wk* prtkpvtl^ 03»» oil«do4 V«oau«o 1% ^tfrnrlit m9p*mr» fro« tJM «irld<»o« tluftt It «ae takan af ttfr th«: wrooiumo 1mm& )mh»» i&«Ta<d aovaral foot 9mA tli»r»for«, it did net a^tow t£i« looatian of %h» ^r^cSiLA^tt lMi«diataljr aftctx %h^ «ia<Kl4«>At,

Ovar iplaintiff'a objeotion, th« d^faadaato iatro* <M004 ia «vid«»not an ordlnanoa of tlM? Cit/ of C^ea^jo* ro» ^ttirint thtf drivor of aay vohicl^t i» tuziRiafi oora^ro to tha ioftt to faoo tcf tiv!> right of tlu? orator of thm iataroootloa •f tkMi two otiro«ta« thi» oourt aloo savo %1m ja«y a» iaetruo* tiot) r«eiti.niji; t)%« ^reviviona of thXo ordiaftno<?t in w^Uoh Uto 4«ur3r w«r«« told tlaat if thc^ Haliovad tliat %3m failuro of Om drivor of tb^ autonalnllo to vam^ty ftth %im preriaip^u of tlio ortiiaaaoe (if timf feuivi froa %hm ovide-fiQe that hm did oo fail) «ao %h^ «ol« jproxiaato o«aao of tJ&« *a<Ada]it» tlHNi tii#ir toy* diot ohould b* for tfoe d«f««»danta* Xim «ourt furtiiar told tho Jayy^, ia t&« aa«o iaatruotloa* tlwtt If iho d«ooaood* la tlut «i«rQleo of ordSaavsr oara oouXd la^ira jMr«v«aiad %)im driT* laf of tho autoraoMla ia vlolatioa of %h<: ordin»noa, and too faiiad to oxaroiao ordiaaty oay« la tiiat )»«lialf aad ouoii failuro ^roxiJaatoljr ooatributod to oauii<« th« aa<&d«mt, ihea lilaiatiff oottld aot raootrer ov*a If tti« 4ttry fouad Utat tita dofoadaato ««r« ao«lit^-oat. tm adaiooioa cf tho erdiaaaoa la ofidcnoa laad tha siviaf of thio iaatruBtioa ar» 8ll»««d

'■■■J'.-JI

•• tTr«rii. th9 or4in9iXkm was «l«ftrly ii4»i««i¥l«, not tt9*a Um itodtfty UMt lta« o««li««»a<* •€ nmv^km, if any, «»ul< W UiFtti«4 t« the 4««MMl«4, Tkut i«s»08 Uu Uwoiy thftt it «k« •iri4«tt«« whi^ th« aef«ni«iit« tancl ft rii^ht t» hetir* th« juiry

«on»id#r in |^fts»la« ttpeit Ui« <iu«»tifiii of «Kbeth«r tim vmfvm MMi v«« guilty •f ii#ffli|{«ne«* Tl»»r« 1« » »r«t^m^»Xion 9f lam that «T«X7 p'fX'lion will perfoiM ih* tfuty »iiJol«i«4 upon tiUi Igr !.«»• ana an^lotpatloii af lilft sM»slie«iio* in failing lA thai r«^r4 ia fM»t a «luljr «hle>^ th« law iM^»ii«^« u^^aii •tin^ra* llliiX« thift yraaunptioa i« i»% 9i»it«ltt»iva» It ii» pr*p«fl* ta W «o»ftid«x-<>4 on th» i|u«»«tio» of «liittJM»r tiia tf^faa^anUi laav* b»«ii

guilty of n«^ug*»M. fj^mmH^f ^r* i^&,3lJsaLiLj&»iMoi

Timatiaa ai.> aftS in, 1&4; Miy^ ▼• Mmm ^\%i '"^f ^9.«» !•« HI. jkpp* S7C» T]M> in«imotlaR tdse waa «iroi>«r aa it <!•«# ni>t in anyr ^igr ¥lelat« tto rul.« UiRi tiMi s«^li<igaii«i •f ih<? driver »f avvldai* i« wot ta 1»« iaput*^ ia a p%«e4Nig«r» Tb* ineiruation Imb na t^iing wh»t<$Tar ta 4a with %}» ftuwiicwi •f iayntatf iiaclicaa««. It hm raljr t*lX« tuo 4ux<ar tliat if iha •rAiftHiiMt waa viol»t«4 mM ihe> Juxy i» cf tho «]pi«iiaa tliat •u<^ vioitktion watt ti»«' i»ol« praxiaat* ^u»« af ilsia injuxyt thaa tlie itlalniiff oanaot, r«aav^r, whi titk ia aaaifaatXy oer* raat* for in that oa*a th« d«f«aMiaat« «»ul«l aat hava lMr«i guilty af iwy iiagiig«aQ« yr xiaMtaly eauaiag th« injuxgr*

App. Chigaaa tormm Qo.. 2ia Xliy^e;;, ]|y tliff latter part af t^

itt»tra<!iitiaa thm ^uyy w»» told tlaat ttaci plaintiff mul4 nat

fmfvte if i)iM» Ai»aMiaa<i «a» guilty of wegiigirAM pyoxittataly

Mutributia^ t» oauaa hi* in4uri«i«» i^i^ i» alsa ol early

Mrratt. £]j^ t. ^komm ait^ i^jf> Jo^. 86C liu 4eoj nanta t.

giiiett^a aity »y. Oi>«» 2a4 III, 24«. aoffplalat laa* aleo Imw

?? ,?i',:r!^ T.'5 «■*

•nrf'

mad* of liMi itiTlns of inxt uotlon $!•• 1S» in which ttie Juxy VAN t«3id %taa% r«ft«oaiibI« •r ordinAXj <mr» «r» r#^ttire4t •f iMitb th» notormftii and tn» « oiMi««a »» tltwjr tk»prmm(tiim4 ite «r«BBinc in i|»««tiMi «tn<t ilMt if Uwjr 1»«li«Tff4 frcn Om •«!• d«A«» thftt ^\h th# 4«te«ft«'>i luntf tli« JMtonmMi fail«6 t« ineoxw olM miflli «Mr« Mid w«T« gttUtjr tf n^am^enrnt ih«n t)w pl«iR» tiff oottifl nttt r«<}ov«r, f«r if t](i# d«>MMMi«^ )dai)»«if fftllfiA i» 9Ai»r 9i9m diM oMin, tl»»rt ooulA iM a« r*itmY9ry •▼•« tiioucli %i»0 ix«t«raufca mis aliMa iMHsXinviit* tM» inetruotiea in no wi^ liaklt»<S %h9 4ur> t« a oenviiieratioti «f tfa^ nosXigfUiM of Uw •idt«ra«n «Xoii«« Hethiiii vaa mUA i» (lift &«»trtt«iioii that wottltf i»iurrftiit tlMT Juiy i« b«li«viti6 tiuitt of i>t« irariouft oeiv •f m«i|ii#«l«« olioiiiMlt that of %h» MO|«na«A waft th« oaXy oim io iHf tideon iato oonei a <" ration V th«si,

Th« ikuXy oth#r point ajnguod hgr th« plaintiff in tmr hriof is oao to tht «ff«9t that th» trial oourt orroa in t»«r^ttiii|{ oounaoX fvnr dof#»4Miits to auteit a ataton«nt« yurportific to V* oi^^od }a^ om» \^aig;» to th^ oeurt on tho ^M»«rinc of th» uetioa for a ii«v trial for th« purp^oo •f haviiais th« oeurt oo«|Hir« CraAm** oif(satttr« on that sttttoirtmt with «aoth#r all<^#d oifiaatur* of Ma to a» affi4«tvit which tho plaintiff had aulmitiosi in support of h«r taotioa for a «•» trial* In thv affiUaTit Ofraic aatttrtod that ho had n«T«r aado or aicnod auah a otat«moot aa %lm Aofoadianto had In th^^lr yoacorflea. Craig had t^siifiieid in aaothar eaao, gtPvlMg out Of thia «ooiu«>nt, and th« plaintiff oxpoot^d hi» to t«»tify in h«r h«)utlf in thin atk—t \x»% h» old not nppaara ith^roupon oounsal for d«fonda«tv ngroad that the oiridono* no «av« ia tho othar oaoa ifti«ht he r<?^d to th« Jwjry ia th« triul of thio onao and ooonaol for th** plaintiffo* in apparoat eonai^er*

:(fi JEft

•iioiK of thin ottiio«»ftloQ en tilt p«rt 9f mvmu^X f«r U» 4nf9n4»m%», BtlpuXated ttwt Crttig hii4 iii|pi*«l a wtatiMrat t6 wi inT«BtijRikt«r for ttM d«ftt»€i«mto, in whiolri ho ei^d ho kio«r4 tbo tirhlo%Xo of ihl6 oor whon it w«»a noar 99%)k otroot* TMo oiotONwnt woo mkM roo<l ie the Juzgr* WImb tlM plaintiff oa th* kOArin^ of ili« aaotion for a now trial* la ouyftort of oudt Motion offerod %hm of ria«iirit of Oraic tJftat ho tm^A n«r«r autbdio ouoh a o tat moon t to o« invootlgator for tho 4fit0n4ma%Bt it was ontiroly propor for cNnimooi to oviboitt tho otatOAont In quootion to the sourt for a oo«<» purifton of tho oinnatturoo* Thort «aa ho no orror la thia ao ooatoaiod hg tho plalatlff* hy roaoon of the foot that tlMi otatootoBt had not hoon Iatro4tt0o4 In ovi*ji«»ii(»« or Ito oxooutloa proTon* hooftttoo upon tho trial thotto 8Mtt<^ro heoa»t« unno<>«et»ii.rjr hgr roaaoa of tho plai»tiff'o otipulsticEx.

It ai»s>oaro that Johnooa* aha vao aloo klll«<ti la thlo aOffii4oat« hre^ht ouit agaiaot aortaJLa of tho dofoniUuita in thlo oult la tho cir«tlt Churt of Kjfthkakoo Oouaty aai roouvt^rod a Jtt<%Boat, i^ioh hao ho«Na affiraMid la tho Appollata Oourt for tho Znd x;lotrlot» 800 111* A9p« M* noiatlff «ak«o a poiat ia hor hriof to tho of foot that tho 4ofoa6aat« la thlo suit aro ootOfigHoa h]r tho voirttlot la tho Jehaaoi^ JSML* trvm ooatootlaf tholr llahllity* Thlo Qtto»tloa ia aot w— forrofi to ia th« arflMaont of oouaool aa4 ohaul4 tborc^fora ho dlo«ao4 to hafo haon vaivod. MovoTor. tho polat lo aot vail takoa* Tho plaintiff in tho oaoo at bar «ao not a Fortjr la the 9%imr oaoo and tho aaiMi ie truo of ooato of tho dofoadlaata InTolTod horo, irurthox^toro It an^aro froca iho rooortf t)mt tho aotoratan and tvo or thro«« ot^«r vltnoooeo* aho t ctlfl«d for tho dofoadaata la tho oaoo at bar, did aot

*Si' ^Wi fi«r^

tftdo mriX

%9»XXfy^ in thtt ^nhmmtk JUft. Ih# AitUrmnm in plsintlf f» is Um tiMI «a«e» WA« inj^rttint i» tH« imlivr •f poatlU* mwm trilmUry »«ells«n<»« for in th* Iftliayif «»• it «»• tiMHOi lliftt tlM 4eo««*«d r««ia«d itt ti»« oountiy naa ««ii Mt in mdt ««jr fwniUftr vlt^ ilM> •«•!» tf thu aodia«nt> vhil« in Um #»•• at bar it i« fthAva ttiat C»« di4 liv* i» th« Tialnitr •f tli» «ro»ttin« in qtt«»ii(!ai nk4 mm» ttry raniliar with it* •ttvrowidinis**

9»ir th« r»«L«tta» giv«n th« ^udipMnti «f tlui Ai9»*ri«r 0«urt i« AffiiraiAd*

lAthCH^ J« AHA ••«KiKlB€ll» #« OOIOBIU

1.1*

499 - 24843

CCtfl^Ainr, a oorporatloR, H^iLLXAM LXXULXCH. et al /

^< A I

f I

Ai'FSAL "WKm

CIHCUIt 30UHT,

2l7 I.A. 6541'

IfR. fRISSXDXHO JUgTXC^' TKQIIMV ««XiTer«<l the opinion •f th« «ourt«

this w«e « ohaneery »uit Igr whioJa X\m ooapXainant Mught to for*Qlo»« a HMehimle'o li«a. Th« bill all«ge4 that William LiadXieh was the ewnf^r whon th« building oentraets war* aad<> and that Anna l£alt« iuui pttrohatad tb« property from hiia and that Hanry Jahnoan was the oarpantar oontraetor, Jehneon filad an answer and eroao patitlon allaging that ha itnta Xb» oarpantar oontraetor and had boon ataplpyad ais ouoh by the then owner Liedlioh to ftamish labor and aiateriala for, and to ouperintend the ereetion of, the bttildinga in queotion and that there was due him on hie oontraot. the euai of IX932.M for whieh he elaiaed a lion. In her answer Aima Salts, denied that any sun van due Jehaaon. Settlonont vaa made with the •rigiaaX eoaplaimmt, Anderson & Lind Manufaoturing Coa^any and the oause proeaeded to a Iwaring before a Mao tor, on the •rose petition of Johnson and the answer of Anna Malts* the Kastdr found the is sues for Johnson and reoosaMftdoQ that he bo

&*£i^$ • <JE>

a«»w£u«

•a*

giVim « Xl«n for th* aaount tf hi« elala with iatvrcst ajBOuat* inc in all to ^1409.97 and a deofee «m« «nter«d ao«erdiiM|lj frea which Anna Malts has perfected ttaia appeal.

Appellee eentende that the abetraet filed \fy the appellant falls to eoiopl/ with the rules of thie oeurt and that th« decree ef the i^lreuit Oouri should be affirme4 for failure ef appellant to ioake and fUe a proper abstraot. thv abetraet is not all that it should be but we deen it euf* fitient for the piurpsses of this appeal.

IX is also wntend«d in behalf ef appellee that the issues raised in the suit at bar were InTolved in an aetien formerly had in the Nfunicdpal :ourt ef Chioa^:* and that the decision sf the oeurt in that case, from whioAi no appeal was taksn, detertnlned thes<? iseues ag&lnst the contentions now being urgei b|^ appellant; that both parties here ware parties to the Munloipal Court action and that therefore appellant is estopped by the rerdiet in that action frSfK again litigating those isBues in thie suit. As to this contention it is eafficient to say that the interests of the appellant and appellee in this euit, were net adTsrse in the juluniolpal Court «sss ref«»rred to. The tuestion of estoppel by Terdiet can only be raised by ens yarty against another where the issue in question has been iarolTed and detemined in a preTious case in which those yarties w<»re adwersaries. (jrouwene t* Ucuwens. 222 111. 22S; fffffigg^-^r ▼• ^«asi^h, 244 111. 402.

In seeking a reT«»rPal of the decree awarding Johnson the lien daisied ^^y hia, the main contention aads %ar appellant is that the s^Tenifeet weiight ef the evidence is that Johnson was not a con tractor on the work in question

••t».'<W-i t!**T'* Tt©"--**^

» 1i

Jnqirjl'

♦*!♦

■>3^

ftn4 that h« thor^fttr* viui net «ntitX«4 to a Beeh«nia*« litn against it.

lehnson t^^stified that hm va« a oaripent<»r eoatraeter and had kmim Lledlioh a>>out fira /«ar«: that Li«dli«h vaa tha owaar ef tha praailses in quaetien aonBieting of thraa lota en aaeh 9f vhioh a tvo atory flat VuildiBc had h<9ii •raotodfO Johneon*ii olaln hain^ for work 4on« on thaaa build* lags; that ha had the plaiw for the huildiagt praparod for which the arehiteot had aharged hia $60, whioh anount had «at l»o«n paid; that Liadlicrh ord»rt«>d hi» to naka thf> plaiM} that the vitnasR had the aurv^y nada for which ha paid fSS and otill ovod $17} that ha nado all the oentrmota. Tha witaaoa wae aakad vhethar there wao any oontraot let for tha oarpanter voric and he anawarod. "Ko, I did that." Tha vitneae further taetified that ha had ahargo of all the vork done on the haildin^po from the ti»a ha aat the f ranee in Vahruary* until August 4; that Liadlioh saw the plane for the huildinge; that he eav Liedlioh tao or thraa tijaaa a weak during the prognose of the work *aoatXy in the evening and after quitting tisMi*; that he worked on tha bulldinga oyer/ day frtts February to August; that he employed earpeatera and painters on the buildiaga by the hour; that the witneac put ia 879 hourt' on theea buildloga hisuialf» hie eharge being 75 oenta par hour making the eharge for hie work #664.24; that ho paid one Magaason #402 for 575 hours work* one Peterson $83.20 for 416 houre, one cisoa $44.40 for 63i heura, one Carlson #8S.40 for 32 houra, one Wensel #103.60 for 148 hours, one Poterooa #39.70 for 71 hours, one Helaon |97.2C for 139 hours, one JohnaOH |25«90 for 27 hours, one Helson #48.80 for 70 hours, •no Saokaasa $8C.10f®r 28i haurs, one Biu^a |1«.80 far 24 httfra.

im.

nd taw

v«tf ^«B

•4«

one LaaAgardit |17*B0 tcr 24 btura, one Holoon $ai«60 for lltti^ hours, anothor Kolooa $7t«40 for 112 houro, moiking o total of |1082«S0 whioh the wltneee had paid #ut for verk done ti^ ORrpentort «nd itaintoro; that ho paid one Fieher» another painter #40; that he fumlcthed ooae lu»* iNir aaountlng to j^lO and naile amounting to $14,50 and yaiat amounting to $2«S5} th«t he preeured the serTiee piyea for two of th«ae bulldlnga froa the aae Con^aigr for whioh he wee charged |X5 eaoh. The witneaa «aa atked haw »iteh he had reo^^lTOd from i«ledlleh on aoeewat ef his work and the money he had paid out and he answered "Kot a penny* • He tee ti find that he had reoplTod $686«24 at different tlaee froa the prooeede of loans that were ■ade on these lots hy -Z, \ ttltehell & Oo« and t>kat there was a halanee due him for his labor and materials fur* nished and monc^ expended in the earn of #X322«06. It was agreed that Liedlioh was the owner of reoerd, of the property during th«' time Johnson worked en the buildings. Cn eroGS-eanuai nation Johnson testified that Liedlioh purchased the lots from C.^ 0. MitObell it Co.; that no oash was paid for the lots but Liedlieh gara a seoond Bwrtgaga on then; that Johnson arranged the dea^S that he did not take Liedli(^ out to see the property; that he did net know whether Liedlieh orer saw the property; that sometiaies Liedlioh*o business was "playing plane and soaa* times he said he was a painter and so forth, • his real busi« ■••• I don't know»* I knew he tended bar"; that Liedlieh left the matter of letting the oontraote wltb him; that he showed Liedlieh the plans nany times; that he first took up with Liedlioh the matter of putting up theee buildings for him, in January. He was asked where thmt teak plaee

•»•

'?«• ,«t»«d

i.<ji*** IN

fe*iati

Ui«««

<•*« *:;■

■'ijHr

•*%iwm momKfiaft smii "*t*i y,-

■43>r» «i-

:iri»

mnA h» mU4 1m o«uld m»t r«i«aiter» it w** iu»t at hln ta»a« nor at th» ««l»»ii«<» *I think v« met In town, /on ••«, mnA w wan together In thn nvwning and no en, nnti took in ahnm aiMl an en«; that h« wnat to llitnhcll & Oo. and get the 9ur» ohaan prion n th« iote and Liadlieh waa ewt with kia at that tint; that h» dn«« net knew whether Liedliah ewer (mne eat te the Imildinsa to »oo hew they wer«< progreaeing; that Lio4» link agreed to |>a/ hiw kgr the hour (70 oente per hour) for all the work he did ea the buildinga* th# wiineoe waa aakod *ABtf Mr* X*iedli<^ wna to pay yoatnand he anaw«red« *foll it «a« going to k« paid,* He van then a»k«d, "Veil who wao going to pay yout* Hn4 h» answerea "Veil, if the loan did net ro«iAk» you oo«i 1 ha4 to get the money out of hia or «alt for it** The witn«oe mia aaked further, *Will yo<A atate dofiaitoXy ko« you oxpeotod to get paid for ytiur earpenter workT* awl ho anewered, "Well, you oo«, X wao ipiing to do the boot, id nus it the boot way I know how and get oXong the beat ««ty Z kttov how.*

After the petitioner Johaoon eon^udod >iio teatiaoagr* th« defendant Malts introdneed the two apflioationo for loamn en the loto, one ooToring one lot and th# other oovering the other two loto, both aoplioationa being eigned *'Villiaa I*iedli(di by Henj^ Johneon*, and aleo two oontraetor*e otato* Monio to Kitoholl & Co., who node the loana, both otatooiontn being oignod and ofwom to by Johnoon. Theoo latter otato* i«nto road in part, *the following are the nnaeo of all p^rtieo having oontraeto or ettb»eoatraGto for opeoifio per* tiona of the work or for aaterialo entered into the ooii* otruetion thereof and of the aaouat dno and to beoono duo oaok, and e • » the itoeui nontionod include all l.%bor and Material required to oompXete oaid building aeoerdikg to

•»«}.

^f!f'?:fi *«v w:w .l|«J

plaas and i)9«aifi«ntiens.* Following this ■tftt«»aent th««« 4ittOiarant0 sontalaflrd a list of aa*»» of oontttiotorB, what thtlr eontmots v<^r« f9T aatf the anountB %h«> caai»<i far mn4 it raatf in part:

Hanry Johaaea Oayjiantar.

» » « » »

8aar> ^ohnaaii iPaiotini^*

• • * * • laai^ Jaiasaan

Oanmit wark eraalia4 •tone oamani VUliatt Liadlieh U«R^*

•Tahnaan admit t«4 ai^piing tois naaut to all tlMaa daoumaBta butt d«nia4 that h« M4 algoad Lia411oh*e tunaa to tht tva apylloatien* far laana. tha wltn«'ae tantlfied ha had a«T«r aakad Liadlloh for any mentor. Johnaon farthAr taotiflad tiiat alwut Aua»>t 4, ha aad Liadliah a^r* arraatad aa a oharga •t attaining monmy bjr falsa 9r*tff»fta», at the iaatanaa of ana l!:ahii, a la»y«^r throagh viMMt thay had nagotiatad •« ootid isort* gagaa on tha preporty in quatti^n and that aft«r that Liadlioh veuid haYtt nothing ta do with hitt.

Lieaiioh tevtifiod far th« defendant* that during tha tiso in <|ttastiaa ha vaa a hartandar; that in th« aalaaii vlMira ha aaa aarking Johnaon *tald »a ha gat ao«a huaiaoaa fa ma to da * » * ha aaye I »hauid aign mvMm yaiMirra, And I tcld hlii I doa*t want ta gat in any troubla Itaaansa I nrntwr vaa in any troubla b«far« • * • and ha »aya thera was no trauVla at all and in oaao ve gat arraot«d I woultfa*t l^ in thAr^ fira ainutaa*} that ha waatad the" witneoo to aign tha papara "9^ Im aoald a tart an tha bulldinga to work*; that he signad hit nama. and follevlag

;^Tie!

aaai&j

%flA

-7-

thlB h« •e»«tlai«ii miw Jo)uuien twice a «««k and iioxA«tiaMBa not for • aenth; that h» n«fr oav th« buildliico in qu«a« ilea} tliat tha owner of the ImlldliMi* vwa Johnaoa; that ha aignad mimt papara at the offiea of th« Immymr ILahn; that Jehnaoa promiaed to pa/ hla $89 for olgaiiMI the papera; that ha noTcr saw any Wilding plana} that ha r^oeivad aoaa hllla and tttm«4 than OTer te Johnaoa} that Johnaon did all tha talking on tha oeeaalon of the aavaral Tlelta to £ahn*a affi aa; that ha was n«r0r a painter or a tuaaoa and nmrmr told Joirmaen he w&at that he triad to read the po^ara ha aignad hut Jahnaon put hie hand over then and told hla it wao no tiling to hin,* "it juat awaaa I ana atart an the Vuildinga*} that Johnaon navar aakad him to pay far the work he did; that he owaad no real eatate and nerer did ao far aa he knew; that Johnson aoTor told hin he waa tha owner of the prooert/ in quae lion. On aroaa-examlaation Liedlicdi wae ahown aoae tru9t deodawhioh be admit tad aigaiag aad taatifled that at tha time ha aignad th«a ha did not know tha lata had been deeded to hiai and did not know that the doauacnte he waa signing ware truat daeda and that is wlay ha aakad Johnaon what they wf^re and "he Juet told ma that X ahall aign my naae ao ha oould atart on the buildinga, ao he «aa aake aaaay"} that he never waa in ftahn*a offiae exaept vhaa Johnson waa with hia; that when he ree«iTed a hill fraa tha RaTenaweod Stair Shop ha oallad *^ohaaoa up and he aaaa dawn the next dajr and he aeked Johaaoa *Vhat ^r he aant tha hill OTar to a»,* aad he said it awiet he a odetaka that he In^d paid it; that he reoelTod a nuahar of bllla and turned thea all OTor to Jolmsoa} that he oould read l^liab a little hut *flAt plain enough*; that he oould have read the papera he signed if aoaaana "explained it to ma*. The vitnear waa asked wlwther

«ii# V^^oaiw Y«% A&# mJtii

u V^ta.

:u4

ijas tt%lt

•8*

h« littd r«Of>iT«»d « (i««d to thi'(it« three l9t« and li« as»wer«d, "Vhat i« thjeit» & <t««d«? Be if^»tifl«d further that he elgmed •one papers ici Kahn'e effioe Wt tiiat he 4e#» »s«»t kmw w>tat they vere aa<t dees not re*e«1i«r wtether i&e «ae toXi vhat th^ were er iriiether th«y wer<» explained te hlttj that after he vae arretted and Imiled out ho eiipned a paper in ZAim*9 office ia the preeenoe of one Q^mmtt^Tt and reeeiTed #300; that Johnson never paid him the #26 he proniised tt; that he would have ne« thing to du vith Johneon an4 refue^^d to talk to him after thejr had heen arreot^d^

^e Wolinelqr testified the^t he vns m VuiXding con* traoter; thet he started to work on the thr«« huildin^s in ^ttestion July 18 and eontinued for about six weeks mn<S. that outside of hiauielf and his men no ethers were working; en the httildings during that time; that seae time in May the witness was at the buildings and saw uTohnson there and asked hi« what he was doing ther« and Johnson replied, "Why* I an the omter •f these buildings.* to wMeh the witness remarked, "It is funny •• I was sent by Ur, Malts to finish up the buildings,** and that Johnson then said, *]fe, ytu are not going te finish these buildii^s while £ aa the ei^-ner," fhis^ witneso said he saw these buildings sercral times a week between May and July and saw no MMm working on thea; that he paid $10€ te three men whs we-r*- oarpenters ef Jolnsem; thst he was es^lejred ts finish the buildings by Malts who paid him I18C0 t9r his work; that when he started to work on the buildings in July they were in the same eoadition the^ w#r«! in when he first saw them in May.

Oas Kitehie, a shorthand reporter, testified from his notes ef the tf^stiaonjr taken at the trial ef another oas«

'^'^^i

fS JbptB h9.i99^X*

"•Hdi- ii?* SIT

larclTliut thetse Wlldincs, In whleh J<»biuioii vat m wltn«««} tiMt JchaMo th< r» t«aiift«d t^itet h« ««• tht gfftier*! ocntrttet^r on tMe verk; that upon V>«1Q(K «ftkeo vho h« had his ooatraot vitli, te aiiiev&]r«<l "I diunH hav* a^y^ o«ntraot * » * I took «ur« of it • * * at thr r«qu«fit of Uo^lioh,* «• had tho Wildlnc tog«th»jr,« w« owtiMd it tog«»tbi«r*} tlaiai tH« vitii<p«o ««« thmn aak<<«d» "3o that j^ou w^ri* not a oontraoter?" and ho aR«««rod, *»©»,

Tli«r« ir<!>r« l»troduo«d In OTideae* too orsiero oii^od Igr Liodlieh dirootini; llitah«ll & Oe« to pay out th«? i^rooofrda •f hio loaaa with tht^a on Johiioon*o ordffro*

lahn testified that hfr first not Johnoeii in tho lattor paJit of 1^, who told hi» that ho iiad throo building* imd«-r eoRistruotion on «hi«^ ii«* wantod »o»o oooond Mortcac* loans; that he looked up ih« f^ropofty and told him h« «euld mako tho loaito; that whoa Joloioon oamo to oiga tho applloation for iho loaav he wr)&t«« ""i^illism Li«dlioh Vy '^U Johneon*| that ho a^od John»en iri^ Z4.odli(d^ wun and ho r«pliod» *lt is agr Wilding Imt Lledlioh is i^ d^ynqr » • • th«r« aro aono Judg* MoiitB against loo"; that Johnoon brout^ht Liedlioh to oxoouto tho trust dood and notos} that no work vao dono on the baild- ingo frost th<< ti«M> the witn««9S aaw them during; tho first wook in Juljr until tolinaigr bogan hio work on thont that ono of tho QOtAfj dome duo in July and wao not yaid and ho aakad Jehnoon about it and ho eaid to ttait a fow (lays, that l.i«dliah van in Utai'&pOTt doing scom painting; that oarljr In August hf> told Johnson ho would tako th« buildings off <iis hanaa proTid«d ho would nako a ronsonablo {tropooition; that Jehnoon said first ho wanted llGOO to doliiror titlo and lator agrood ic tako $1,00© and said h* would bring Uodlioh in tho noxt day and ho ask&a tho

vmi

'(f^. ,

ijVCt^l^ S1l'''.l'-iO «'

irn^ aj

-10.

wita«s» to haT« a ehttdk r<^«kdtjr dirftVB to hie (Johnson**) ortfor; that it iNOttld ^« All right to hav* it drawn to Liodltoh and hm Mttld hare th« latt^^r andorc* it; that ha had hath LiadXlc^ and Jahnaon arraeted for ohtaiaing aon<^ "ky falsa prati»nK«e; that Jahnaen always B]^k« af tho buildings as "agr buildiaga* and said h« n«adad mona/ and so wantad to maica th» laanaj that whan Liedlioh was brought in by Johnson ha aekad hi« if ha was tha Mr« XJLadliah that vOitnnon had spokcan to him about with referanoa to tH« buildlnir* and Liadliidi said ha waa; that ha waa in and out of th<? roo« whan Lladlifdi warn algaimiE tha papara and da«a not knew v^ethar hr ret^^ thfiaj that ha %i:ik Liedlieh** aokm>wi,adB«ant; that aft^x* ha had Jahnaan anu Liadlieh arrive t d he vas instrusi^ntal in gattinc tha latter out on bail and then preoarod a da«d of th« thraa lots from Lladlidh to th« vitaees; that Liadlieh yut no priooa an tha bulldlngoj that Liodlioli was rnpre&efnied by ax-aldavaan Sohaaffar; that ha proetised Liadli<di ha would kcap him out •f an> troubla that might arisa; that ha told I4adli<di hM would gira him ft hundr^ d dollars a daad for aaoh ob« af tha buildings and h« eaid ha would te M9,

J^ohnson denied that h« told Liadlioh ha would pay htm #39 to sign the pap«ra aa t«etif lad by him; that ha did anything to prarant Liadlieh from raadiag tha papars ha ted aigaad} that Volinslqr did any work on tha buildings bafore August; that lue told walinsky that h«? waa tha owa«r af tha buildings; that ha told Kmhn he ovnad the buildings ar titat Lisdlieh was his dynuny.

John testifiad that ha did not know whether there were any Judgmanta against him. Caa liamill« « lawyer, testified ha had rapraaeatad Jolmaan in savaral suits brought agniinst

ttmet*i'

■ tuiiu^

.^tt«fii4<^W

flTjilKiitAiu<f

't■t^t^?r1^t.

I9W 9-t«ri* lariJsriwr wor

"iiT*

hiM %> materlaX a«A mn4 th<^ rwoord gimmw thi^ v«nt to Ju<lig* ■«ott«

Ca« InsimX V«X««a, « c»r9«nt«^r, «a<l on* AiMir«v Bclnttn, a paiiitftr, traUficd they did vork on thee* Vulldings Ml tfi^plvy^ira of «rehn»(»ii« during Jtm« and Juljr «uftd th*t duriag that tinMi JMbvdy •la* ««• workinii therv exoapt an old ia«i and two tr tlira« bays wbe wera warklan; far Jahaaea,

Va «jr«' al tk# opinian that %h«- e^islfast walght af tha aTldffiiaa i» RUflii aa ta aatabliaJa tlia faat t)tt% Johnaaii liad no aantraot af a^ klrut en tha proportjr invalvad and Iwa »a rights ataatftTar uader tha M«ehaala*a Z*iaa ctatuia at a "aoatraotar** la lyjBKalf taatiflaa to na aonti-aot axoayt aa aral aKraanant uttdax' aJfiioh Liadlloii was to pay him 76 aent» an haur for hie iina* but th« t9ftti«MiB)r, ia aar apin» la»» alaarly aatabllahe« that th«T« ana na »uah a4ir««a«nt« Sa daaa aat taatif> thai Liadllali prani««d ta pay hla ai^r amtuntB he puald aut an ather aentraeta and yat ha «aya km paid aat •rttr #1.000 in that a«gr« It at^^aa aiaar ttet Jahnaan had na oantraot «hai«Tar with Liadliah hat tlMt ha vantad to buy and iiKprova th»ea lata ao a baaiaaao vantura af hia a«ai} that th«r« fc^ri^ jud^manta autatandiac againai Ikia, aa h» pi dead out an icnaraot hartandar ha knaw and gat him ta taka tha titla and axeouta aartgAj^s hy vitioh ha x^oad the mnnt^ with whioh ta mrmmt tha huildlaga] that tha Arre«t af <)ofaiiaaa «ind hia *d»iMagr* at tha laat«na« af Cah» brauisht eatt^ra to a oriaio and theg» fall oat and tha *duwagr* «^ held the raaard titla, aiffn<^d a daad ta tha dafandaat Malta, Vhataf ar ethar righto John«att nay hava in tha pr«mi«*o, it «e«w olaar ha hae noaa whatoTer ao

'^.,iAti>'

i^«il4«rmiko» of ilM •vi<i«ae« i» %hm\ h0 Aid. aoi V««r ilw r«X*» tloii »f «efitr«oior t« Li«dllo)u In t^lt aotioa Johttsoa M^tk* U inwk# an vquitAUe ri«iit or»ated Iv »t«ittfca wul %• •«««•«< IM nuet "tiring himtflT ol«i»rly within its tuma. In our opinion IM tttt«)jrly f«ile4 in thio md hi* j»«titicii oHOMla bftiro ¥oob diftiaito«4*

Tli« aooroo of tim <U.roy.it Q^mtX i»1I1, tkK^i'«forft»

TAYLCR, J. AND O'CONNOR CON£UR.

t&'Xt

««1*

>aT»v^-»-v «'

n?-:'.): ^J'MT'^n »0 CT'TA ,T. ,H3JYAT

MX * 848es

AP£>«Xl*««

CHICAGO STttKlT RAlLVi CXiU^AIY, optrmting M aoinc

1/

•i/i

ttiita.

AFFKAL yRCH

OXROCrtT (30t2Ht»

oocK oetnmr.

217 I. A. 655

•piaien ef th« oeuri,

TMb 1« a «uit for 9«r»enia injuries whlen th« plaintiff al]l«g«>« be rro^l'red «• » r«euAt of th« a«cIifi«n«M» •f th« i«9l«y««ia of ill* dcfcndemi* la oparstiac one of their oars, Thv ioaues ««>rft oulmittod to a jary and a T«r(U ot was raturaeci in faTor of the plaintiff « follow lag w>ii^i a 4«dc>B«*n^ «oo ent^rad in hie favor for th« oun of $X«OCO« fBQra wiiloh tho <tof«a^aai« baT« porf«eio4 tMt appeal*

Tho ooQurronoo in quootlon happoaed on Uujr 7»

1916 alaout fiT« o*Qlo<dt in th<» afternoon. It vaa \Kt9tA

dajrliglit. The defentiaate operate a doulsle tra<^ otroet

oar line, north and eouUai on OtXUm* arove aToau* and

amiher double traole otroot ear li»o» oaat and went on

79th otreet in %h^ City of OHlQiigo* a load of atoel

1»eami» dt feet in length, hrok*? devn oo ao to IbIoqOc the

oeuthtoound oaro on C^ottago Uroire avcnuo and the vootbouad

•are on 79th otreet oM ooao tijoo later the vroekago vao pulled

OYor lato the woot roadoay on Oottage Grove)

<-aTeattO and far

•asttch north to oltmr th* north orototnUlk oa 79th Ktr««t« Aft«r it w&m ihu» remoTAd, th<r north oiii4 tf tli» oteol boojao r«»t«4 on th« ground olo»o to the ourb on tiM voot oi4o of Oott«4{0 OroY« arenuo ond the oeuth ond of tlio lionno rvotod on tho r«tmr truok of tho vi^Eon whloh had broken do«n, Tho plaintiff vno injurod while ho and two helporo wore ongngod in roioing th« north end of the beoAo oo at to penait itm roplnaing of th^^ front truok of tho wagon nndor thiw, Thio wao being done by means of J«i«oko oporatod by the two helj^oro, •«• of whoa vao on the woet eido of the loaA and the other on the oaot side of the load, when they had raised tho boAMo within an inoh or eo of tho height r«<|uired to per- Mit eliding the front wa«on truok tinder theat, tho plaintiff vao holding the front wkgon trucdc and wheels in poeition for that pnrpooo. Ho did thio by holding on to the wagnn tongue, whioh was $ tr 9 feot long* about in the ttiddlo. Bo m»tt standing on tho oaot sido of the ti,nguo« faoing west with hie b«ok to tho oouthbo;md tracdc on c^ottago arowo avenue. A southbound oar eano along ond the north end Of the polo o&flui in oontaot with the oar a few inohen in front •f the rear dashboardf the pole projeoting through into tho platform spaeo from 8 to 4 foot* Tho forward motion of tho oar owung the polo around, knowing the plaintiff de«nR end inflioting the injuries ooaplainod of.

In our opinion the Tordiet for the plaintiff is against the oanifeet vei^tht of the evidenoe.

The plaintiff teetifieti that ae he hatd the polo whioh was attaohed to th^ front wa^son trudie it was pointing

•1»

tewdird the north«»st{ that h* 414 not »•« tA« tmx «&mlnc until it »truok the poX«{ th«t be looked north f ««« if « oar Vtt0 eoalnc, four or five nlnutc* t>«fojr« tb« aooi4ont; tlttt h« dl>iiiii*t look After that b«eftu«o Im had to ptQ/r ott«ii» tion to what h« wtkB doirig; that 1m> had lM»*n working thoro about half an haur and h* did not know vh«ther any oaro TmA paoeoci during that ti«ui| that ho |»al<l no attention «hat«T4^r to tho earn} that the poia aano in cwntaot vith th« oido •f th« oar ukd ooarapod along thfi sido to the book maA than wont in tho roar Tcotibulo doerai that ho hoard im iNtlX ring} that tho ear wont ahout a oar*longth aft«r it hit tho poXas tkat th<^re aaa onough re«n hotwoon th« oida of the wagon (tho load ho was working on) and th<r Rtraot •ar tracdc for another wagon; that ho wao ahaut to badk tho front of tho truok in ttn^or tho Xoai and ao ho was M« iag 00 « tho polo was tamed northoaot Jnot a lltilo. Cno Kroppi, tho heXpor who wao working on the oast nid^ of tlur Xaad* testified that the poXo of the wagon otruofc in tibs front end of tho oar and oerapod all the wajr bae^ to the hade door; that he didn't eoa th9 ear ooaing before the aooident or hear any beXX; that the fir*t tiae he oav the oar «aa when it hit the poXo; thnt ho wsa pa/ing no attention to tha oar beeattsa ho tme pajriag attention to his ^forki that ho van •tooping ower, aa theiy all v<»ro« wfaiXo thogr were at work; that th« oar ran about XG foot after the poXo went through tho bank doer; that the oar was abaut • foot awajr from hia aa it paasod; thot he had net been payijm( anjr attention to any Of the oare a« ha wao pajring attention to his work. <^s« Hanoo, the other hoXpor who wao working en ttie wast side af tho Xea4, testified that tho oar aano aXeng without ringing mnj bell; tbat at the tiae of tho »oeident ha was atanding

•«-

I nmiw

.^^t (XX>

•4.

on hla fe«t leekiac »^ ^^ v*>^ ^^ *<»* (tolass tlMtt the «%r««t

e»r rnxiA th* 9«l« «um tog«th«r *wh«n h» (j^lalntiff) turned th« front wh»«It arouoil.'' The plsintiff*« eo«« iteil LarBon. «»• etttimi en ili<< veet of « elntfle wa^b* Just nerth of ihm ]»I««« «h«r« tbe plAintJLff mnd hi«t helper* v«r« verlclAis. Re v»t! faeiiifi •eutb fta4 i^Ki^iiag the v9rk. He t<^*iifie4 thftt tbt eiMoe between iHe e^et el4(s of th« leatf »ad tlaie eeutli* beuBd ear trmok was nearly wi(l« eaeugla to permit another wmon to paoo} t^t th# 9»1« i^fto peintixt«; In towsirde the oar and aaae in oontaot with it Juet \m^ of th« firont door, o«nrApiiig elOAf the aido anti «itohiii« in the rmiur ond; that hie fftth<?r was etoepiiHt vrer the pole aa he wae haoicing th« tniift inid«$r{ nsv»t he di<ia*t BOiio<? the oar before it atruedc the polo; that hitt father wae in the aot of pueiiiac the polo and wheeXa of the front truest under the load at th^ tine of the aooideat} thai the poie didn't etriko th« front part of the ear Tory hard» not hard enough for one to hear it; that hie father waa within aheut 6 foot of the oar; that as hie father ati»ed hooido the poio ho oouid ieok north aXoag th« oido of th« vai^n oa whi«3h the witnnee vae oittimg an(i eoo the otroet oar if it waa oesilns.

Tor the defendanto, one Slliott* a paooenser on the ear, tf stifio4 that ho waa etandins la th«» riNur Toetihiilo •f the oair on the eaat eido, fa<^Lag wontt that the firat thiaf ho know about the aooidont wes wh»n the polo atruedc the roar door of the oar, oo«inc into the plaifom opaoo hetwooh the d«or and the Jaath, about St foot; that the oar was solaic Tory oloV;« probfthl/ about fiTO or oix silee an hoiur« and etoppod about • or d feet after the pole etruck it; that the load of iron wcio d or a feet mmy froa th<^ oido of th«* oar and that

!lfi

;>■«»»■

h« heard no nstsff 9r mny soiiiid ^f •arft|»lii«( )>«»for« tiM» ]^1« ctrudc int« the apa** ha katf d«tteri1&«4. On« 9rtiiff« aneth^r p«S£4tns«s'* «ma alao atentilr;^ en tlif! r«ar plntform. Ha te»ti« fiftd that as the oaY n«ar«<l' the 79th atrwfft lai^^ra^atioa ha leokctd out «a<t aaw th« plaintiff noTing th<» pola "and ha thought naybe ha pull th« pola OT«r whan tha tmr yaaa iQr hut h« pulled it tae aoan, 1 itw«ft>« «itd tha pola vent right through tha ear in tha r*9mr im4, and th^ oar atopi^ad ahaui S faat tntui hlM*; that th« ««r waa going sugrba four or fivo mll«r« an hour, and T^ry alow] that he aaw the plaintiff pull* ing t)Mi polft tewarda th« oar and th«> polo owoo in ooniaot vith tha rffar end of th/» ear firat; that the «itn«as was otaJid« ing 8 or 3 foot froM wh^ro tha pole «NNna through} that ho heard no noiea of thp polo touching the oaj> h«for« it struck at the nmur end and easMf^ through.

0»o l^urker* a not monger hey ahout aixtoen years of •go* waa « tanking in the parkway on th^ vest aide of Oottago erova wanHUM vatohiag the plaintiff and hie helpora work ao ho vao waiting for a eouthhouad oajr* He troiified that he omt the plaintiff working thi^ tongue or pole attaohed to the two front whoolfit that the nnotormaa was ringing luia hell ao the ear eoAO up) that th« plaintiff aoved toward th^^ oar aa it paooad hi» and the tongue got eaught in tho rear doer* whioh wao the firot part of the oar the tongue hit} that aa the front yart of th«> Q»r paoeod the plaintiff the tongne woo S or 8 feet n»«y fron the oar and tras net uored over toward the oar until the rear end oaise along* wh«fn the plaintiff pulled It over toward the oar* whi^ waa stowing slowly at that time* gelim about 3 feet after the pole atruok; that he first notioed the oar when it wao ahout half a hlo«it away; that he oould hootV

'iiUj^iii^ »r« .

%3m nolle* of it oojaing thtn «i4 tho MoMnuui «»• ringing ni» b«Il, TtMi ototorman, HathflUMgr, tentifiod Huat he began to »Iov up alMut 190 foot north of the 79th oiroot oroco* vallt 00 »• to otop his oaar at that otro^ti that «o ho •#• proaehod tho ylaoA vhoro th« plaintiff «a« working the n««ro«t part of %hf wagon was 4 or 5 foot avajr from tho path of th<^ oar; that no part of th^ wagon was olooor to the ear than 4 foot at th« timo the front ond paoeod >/» th# mr thon going ahout fivo ail«*B mn hour; thnt a nowmt lator ho hoard tho oraoh ctxtd 1»rot««cht hi« oar \» a otop in abottt 10 foot; that ho hoard no noioo of any ooraping of anyti-iliig agalBot thff oar and fo md no marks or ooratoboo angr* whero along the oido of th« oar exeopt at tho roal^ doors* Tlv» oonduetor* Fatt^roon. tffotificd that aa tho oar «mbo to the T^th St root intoroootion ho wao looking through tho oido wlndowo to coo if th«rr« w«ro aiqr paoftong«ro to got oa| that ho oaw tho plaintiff whon h« waa 80 or 3C foot away snd at tiuit timo h« mtM worleing with tho tonguo of tJho waggon with tho 9nd of tho tonguo 4 or ft foot oway frooi the hodjr of tho aar( that the oar wao t)Mn going alow, sMLking a atop; that Jvwt ao thiP baok «nd owao to tho plaintiff h« ^ullod tho wagon tongtto toward tho <Mur and hit the ha ok of thcr vootihulo tqr th« gralB haxkdlo whid& was th«< first part of th« oar to ho strudk; that tho di«t«tnoo from tb0 w«ot oido of the oar to tho noarost point of tho load a« io otood th^re was 7 or 8 feot*

Zt would ••em fron tho OTidon(N> of tho plalatiff*o witaooBoo* alono, thfiit ho and his holpors woro working at thoir task without pajriog any attoation whatowor to paosiag ttroot eara and that* ao hio holporo got tho load to a point whfiro ho oottld moto th^ front whoola or tmok, under tho otool hoama, tho plaintiff laogan this operation and in doing

-7-

M» aM»T«4 th» wntfon toai^fi orvr Into tkt putli of tlM> strooi (MT without looking to 80« w^totiior m oar vao ayproootaiag ond oo ho did oo, h» iM^kod the exul of the polo dirootly into th« oojr* Xa oiur opinion the noidlfoot woiitht of tho ovid^noo lo tti tho «ffoot thftt the polo dl^ not ooao la oontoot with th«i oldo of the mr oad tb^n »9rwt»«t alone to ilMt ro«r Tostltmlo* oo plomtiff^o wltaooeoo teotlflod* \mX thot li first ow»e 1» eoatnot with the oar dljrootly in front of the T'^jkr dnohboord and at tho point nhoro it ^aoood throogh into tho plotfoxw opae«. A photogroph of th« cor it in tho rooord and it 8iM»«o no norko Indiofttinc that the polo ttuM in oentaot with th@ oido of ifm o^vr auad oorapod alonf[» aa thB plaintiff eont«ad«>u« Plaintiff* « oeunfiol oall our attontion to a ciork ftloac th«» <ldo of thf^ oar, plainly vielhlo in the photographt oonten'Jing th»t this la tho stark which wao MiLdo hjr tlM» pole no it aer«p«d 'xloiig thm «ar* Tho aarlc in qu^otioa im a porfootl/ otraight lin^ sMd one vhioh oould not poooihljf h« »ado in »tt<di a natmoTt

Tho «vid«?nao in tho roeord el^arljr ostablithoo further* that ao tho mr appro aohod thC' oeoao of th* aooident t^ro wan 4 or & fof<t of doaranoo hotwoca tho polo and all porto of tho plaintiff* « v-aKon, sad tho woot oido of the our and aftor the front of tho oar* »OTinc olovly ao it va« nonins to a oiop at tho intoraootion, htid poaood th« plaintiff* )m dellb«ratOX7 pulled tho polo oiror into the oar and thus oauood the ao«Adoat. Vflffligoneo oannot bo imputod to tho mntiinati in thio ea«o booauso ho did not otop tho oar bofore ri^a chine tho plaintiff and hio saon, o^wn, undor all the» oiroumot^noeo appoariag to hint ao ho ai^proaohod tho«« there weo amTH than onou«h room to onablo hi« to pao hy without oomins in >;»»•

«ff

i

ittot vith th« plaintiff or ftnjr ip»rt of th« wo^^on, Thft 9«rll •f tlM plAlntiff at no tiMo Iiomao apsMuront to th» notomaa «n<i did not arioo until tho notomoii b«,4 iM^osodi boyond tho point «h«ro tho plaintiff was »t work, Tlio oTi4«no<' fnilo to ootablisli any noipLljEonoo on tin* part of th*? motoituui* C^ffftgf, ^Jf^^e^ X^:«fC<ite,<?o,A ▼• M2S^* 206 111. 61&; ^ff^ ^* £ttat&!iX* ^^^ ^^^* Aji>£** ^7^* it if! oqually el<r>»r tlmt th« solo oa«oo of ttao ao«ld«nt ^raa th4» noaXiconoo of the plaintiff in noriaf t)to polo OT«r, tritbout pajrini; «njr attention what* OT«r to his eurroundingo.

For th<^ roaoono otatod* %h» Jttdfl^ont of tlue Oirouit Court iH rov^^rood wit ^ a finding oftfiot*

mmsmMSi with a wivbibq of fact*

nVDiXd 0^' FACf t

v* find ao an u&:ilwtto faot that the dof«nd«nt*o ••rvanto w<«r«> not guiltjr of any nogligoneo in operating the fttroot oajr In quootion* ^no that tho injury of the plaintiff «ao broui^ht a^ut solely isgr Me own nogHgonoo*

TAYXtOftg J, AVI} 0*CUffHM, J. aOlCSIR,

Kf

ip

• 24713

\

CiaOAGe CITY JUl COkPASYi

App<»llttnt.

./I

y

--1

APVKAL rROM

217 I.A. 655

?^

im, JUSTIGR O^CCSMOB «eliT«r«d th« opinion

•f th« (seui't* \

FlKlntiff brought iiuit a«&in«t def«nci«nt to rooGTor <MttMI«« for poroonal injur! «•• Tli»r« vm» a ver* diot iind Ju4g»ont In h#r fftTor for |10,CC0. to r«Toro« whioh ApftmAtmt preo««ato« this nppoftl.

Tho rooord dioolooeo that nboat 8:45 o*olook on tiio sToniag of Jwmo 19, 1915, plaintiff, a womui about thirtyflTo yoaro old, a« oho nmo alvout to erooo th« north or woetlMund otroot oor track of dcfondant •oapangr in 79th otroot, at or near th* intorooetion of aoldaaith aTenuo, in Chloago, wao otruok by a otroot oar running oaot en the north tra^ and oororoly and fonwaontl/ injured. Defendant oporatoo a double line of otroot et&ra in 79th otroot, vhioh rono oaot and woot* Plaintiff llYed on Indiana aTonuo aboat a blodk oeuth of 79th otrcet. On the evening of the aeoident oho left hor taoaa vith her little girl, then about nine yoaro old, intending to wialk to a store on iialot«<d street near 79th otrectt* Indiana avenue ie thrt>f* blooko east •f State otroot and State otroot io a mile OAOt of

-^.^ }:-.*<:, <'^i'

•a*

Hftlttecl 8tr««t. TlM^ «»lJc«d nortti en ladiajui avvau* t» Ttth «tr«et mni %ti.f>n «»lk»d wiHit en tli« aeuih Bi4* ef thttt •tr»«t to Kemai AT«nu« vhfrt thej^ «r««»*d OTcr !• Um» north »14« 9t 79 th etr««t, ana then 9ro0«»d*d ««et •Wut t«o hXttOlEii to Goldsaith «T«nu«» which waft • north Mid south atrvAt* Ooldsaith AT«nu« vae net out threugli »a th« south aide of ?9th «tr«ct. On the north oido It was flll(!»d with dohrio froa oxeoTatioao nwdo ia 79th otrtot, vhloh VRO holnit deno In oonnootion with the woric of oXoya* ting tho imilrood tr«oko whl<9h oroe»od 79th 8tr«et rutmlag aortH «nd oouih Juet woot of OolAoalth oTOimo. At thot tlmo « douhI« leTd railroad Yiaduot was boiag huilt aerooa 79th 8tr««t* One level was used hy one railroad eowyany^ and the upper lerel hy another railroad oempmBQt, Sov«Rt/o nintb etreet wae boing oxoaTotod and extended under the ▼iaduot in a ouhway, Tho depreaaioa of 79th street hi^aa about a blOQk wast of the railroad ri^sht of way whieh was freaa one hundred to two hundred feet wide, and extended wider the railroad right of wajf to about one and one* half bleoko oast of the right of way. the surfaoe of 79th street under the railroad traoks wjhs depreei^ed about six feet* Tho Aejpreseion of the street ineluded th^ road* way and stdew»lk spaee as well* S«p|iorting the railroad struoture was a row of posts in the oenter of 79th etreet maning oast and woet. The work of depressing 79th street JhmI boon under wsy^ soom two or three aonthe before tho aeoiaent. At the tiiM of the aeoideat and for a woeli or two prior « the aouth or eastbouad street oar traok ran torn up from a poiat west of the subway* abovit Lowe aYenuo, to a poiat oast of the subway* about Faraoll OT-aaaa* iMar* ing that tiaa both oast and wostbouad ears operated orer that portion of the street on the north or wostbouad traok*

T*»<»«etr«?.

'.fi^

WiMB an •iL«tlieafi4 «»r imum to m point about Looo aT«nuo, it eroooed oYor to th« north or wootbouixt iraok and pro* •oedoa on that trm«A: oaotvard until it r«««lio4 ttao •»< •f the ftittfflo tracks whon it ai^axa arofimoa ovor to tho south or oaotbounU iraok and continued on ito «a^. (^p» pooito uolda^idth avonuo aerooe the otroot o^r traoic planks or tiaboro w«»r« laid Isngthwiso mking a orudo forosoing liico tho plaak eroooins of a oouatry read OTor a railroad tz^ok, ^outh of th« traidc was a t«mp<^nuqr otruo* turo ooKowhat liko a mittlo shoot loading southward aeross the road. About opi>esito this oa the south side of tho otroet was an aro light, and en the north cide of 79th street near tho vost side of Goldsmith sTonue was an or^ dinary otreet «as light* Zt had rained th« aftomeen of the aeoideat and for soaetisio during tha avoaing so that the iground was miA4|r« C^ account of obst ructions one could not pass farther wast on the north sidewalk space than Goldsmith avonuo. When the plaintiff and her daa^htor reached this obstruction they turned south to eross 79th street. Her daughter was a step or two in front of her« and as plai.ntlft was about to step on the north rail, she was struck by an eastbeund ear and severely injured. She wee render«d uaconeeious for about three 4ays and was con* fined to tho Snglewoed Ucspital for about three nontkn. She Sttstained a fracture of the right fcsair which r«<tsulted in a shortening of the leg of about two and one-half inohee. There were bruises and euts wn her right kmee ana both ankles, which resulted in loss of motion to the knee and anklee. Both ankles were soTorelj injured. Several ribs were fraotuired and dieplaeed,. Three or four teeth were kne^ed out. At that time oho wao etbo-^t tMrty-five

<.:- *■ ' > -. ; ■. ■♦ -^ ■

' '^il**f ■'■■■ \f /T" '

iu»#<rao.'

jr<Mur« old ana «elght«dl «b«ut on* himdrod and thlrtjr*fiY« 9«ttad»t «wi in good Iwalth and the «eih«r of tve ohildr«ti, about Bine and el«rv«B yoars eld rcsp«otiY«l/« About a yoar aft«r loaviim tho hoopital aba vaa abla to sot around ftO«o vith tho aid of orutohoe, and at tb« time of th« trial, wbioh aaa about tbroo yoara after tho Injuriot, oho vaa abXo to vaUc with the aid af o»o oruteh and oomo other aafiiotanoo,

i}«f«Rdant dooo not argue that it «aa not negligent and wakeo ao eoaiplaint to thm e^iring or refuoai of i no true* tiona, nor to tho aawunt of the Terdiet* But it io etronu* oualjr inaiot«d that th« evidmee ahovo that plaintiff «aa guilty of ooatributerar negXigenee, The evidnnee tends to show that plaintiff waa otrudk by the northoaat oorner of the etreet ear; that the oar aae otopped ao ooon ao poeoiblo} that plaintiff vao lying a«ar the r«ar truako of the cttr and Juot north ftf tho north rail; that the oar vae in front of a barber ohep vhioh aso oixty*eight feet eaot of tho east Qurb of Goldnnith a^oauo. It io defendant* o theory that oinoe the undisputed OTidenoa ahova the headlight a f th* oar wao lit and the interior of the ear illuminated, plain* tiff oould have aeon the oar approaehing if ohe had boon paying attention «ore readily than the BMStorman oould hare aeen her, and in theaa airouMotanoeo the finding of the iuxj that the motansaa vaa not in the exeroioo of ordinary aaro, but that the plaintiff «aa, io net oastainnd by the OTid<fne«.

Plaintiff testified that she did not knov that there wao but one street CMir traok at tho plaee in queo* tion; that aha had boon over 79th street about a week prior to the aooidant} that aa aha turned to orooo the etreet oar

..vf.-n*>.

4r lif« M'TaAx

^ll/kii

%m«k sh* leolc«(i to th« mtaMt «n4 Ui the W9% two or thr«« tl»»K, but »er« parti ttva«ri)r t« th« 9u»t t^r ill* r««««a iiMUt atMi fuppOKAd t)i«it «»> e»r that ««uld %• •B the aertJBi trftCAc would aotui frosa tl»» •»«% imi «ft» th« euvtoa; tteAt th* 4ia not o«e %h» otroot ear until it into but • fov f««t froa )»ar«li«i» it «»« too into, fintro it ooiM ovitionoo ton4ULAS to nmw ttattt tfao plftitkH aaokinc tiM X^mpcruTjt ooroooing «or« not slimjro ot tiio sa»o plooo; ttet tbojr m'T* #0 molowiLlljr ohiftod* I'lnlntiff intro* tfuood o ptaotogrftpli tokkoii o <U|r or «o »ft«r tbo iiooiaoiit* tliat «lM»wi th* plaii^ oroosini; ««• iKurrioatiod b/ timboro oxton4iag ottot e^nd woot aMisr th« iiorth oufIi lino of tlato otroot 9MA %hA% tho poo««|g« iMgr •Xmn^ t^ tmrih oido* mile »s»oo« woo aloo 'barrioodod* oo tlMt o»« ooald not IMUio boyoad aoldamith oYoawt tmd oo.ad not «rooo tli« tjr»ok« s^itB««»oo woro i^roduood \]f plmini.it t who tooti* fiod t^i tlie Oftot ojid ««ot %ojrrioodo vliioh otwtruotod tim wigr aorooo Ham trmtk «&o not thoto ot tlio tia* of tlBm »ooldoiit« thoro io » dicputo no to tke opood ot vhieti tlio oor vos tr«voli«i«:« fitii<te»fro for tho }>l«iiitiff ooti* ttotod it at item twotttjT to thirty »il»o pwt hour* vhllo ori^MOooo for dofendont o«id ih« oor woo tntvolins oix or o«v#n miloo |>or hour. Flointiff aloo tootifio4 that Jttoi bofero tho aooidout oho h«rard a rwiVIiae noioo but thought it iwB a riUlk*ood traia paaoiag OYor th# Tiadaet* and that okio did not oxpoot a otroo^t oar to nm oaot oa tho Berth traok, fh^r«> «ao ai«o aowi ooafliot in tho ovidottoo a» to whother tho pl&oo vao Yory dark ot tho tioto in ^uootion or whotbor it wao fairlgr ««il ii«;htod. Tho ovidoneo aloo ohovod that oouth of 79th otroot» ahout

**

4 w^Lki^

80th str««t, ther- vfts a railroad ymrl^ vhora ain«iiii«rabl« tvltohinK va« done iie<arl/ all Urn tine. The otra*! ear •t %hn tlM* was nat oarrylnft paiscngera but vao baing ta.K«n to the l»ara» a« the nan wiTt through with their day* a work* The oonduetor and titie motonsan ware on th« oar at their aoeuotomed plaoaa and etandlng bar the motor* win «B0 another Mctersum who ima off dutgr at that tima. The two motonoan toatifiad that the oar wao traT«linc alMut alx or a«Ten nilee par hour; tliat thajr did not aae ttea plaintiff unt>.l the wta alMut ten faei from %h» oajr, although they were looking ahaad{ that the taotanan •topped the oar ao «oon at it oould l»e dana*

Va think it would »9rf no uaaful purpooa to dlteuaa in detail the evideaoa of the oevaral oaeurrenoa vitn^eeeo who taatified. la hoTe earafulljr soneidered all the evidenoe in the record. Tha place of tb» ^^ocidant «aa an axtramaly dMisdr<»«> «no when all af the attattdaat airouBiatanooa are eeneidared. Tha grotmd wat vat and antddy. It vaa atara or laaa dark at the tina. There ia ao»a awldenae that tended to ahow that plaintiff's Titv to tha vaet vaa obotrueted hy ottae paata or other Material under tha iiartli olde af the sulnngr. The ear «aa arunning on the wrong tra<^ vhioh vaa known to the aMitaraaa hut unknown to the plaintiff. Tha plaee wao MM railroad traoks and railroad jrardo where loooaotiroa were frequently noTing* and ia thaee eiravoaataneaa wo dWttMt oaj that the finding of th« jury that plaintiff waa in the ejtareioa of ordinary eare for her own eafet/ ia agalaat the nanifeet weight of the eridenoe.

■' ^ vtir

■A

.7.

It i» contended that t)9« «eurt •rr*A in tta* adaisaioii of •▼id«ne« rvlating to %,h» »p«ed of tti« c«r; thttt th« •xo«seiT« ftp^c-d of th« our was tho prlnoipal fnot on vhloh plaintiff olaino th« d«f«iidAitt ««» aoi^li* fMt| that th«rft »«« « siMiry dloputo in tho ftTldnnoo ea thlo aubj^ot and, th«ir«tfor«, th» rttXiag of the oourt •JboviXd haTtK been aoearAt*. On thlo point, tho oecuurr* •noo vitnoos, Mioo OoTort, tnetif ieA»*^. Bow faot? A* Xt w«« rimnlnc; •• foot • «« far »b I oould ooo, fast or iluia thoy aro ouppoaod to. (4, VhatT A* Iteotor tliaa X OTor aooa tttoB go, Mr, Kolioo. Objoet to that and Movc to otrilco out t)» aaover* Obj motion ov«rruXod«* Tilt objootlen waa that the wlta«f^£ had t«atiflod that oho did not BOO th« ear aatll tl!u» aoold<»nt happftned* and ilwroforo, oho ksov nothing about tlio o»ood. flor tosti- aoiiy io not oloar* £ho vno aftorwardo asked thia ^uoe* tlon, *ii» Bid jrou boo th« oajr paoolng? A« Toa»* 8I10 further tOBtlfled that oho did not aeo th« ear uatlX plaintiff wao strucdc, whon oho heard hor oeroan* Tboro vao aoso eyidonee that iondod to ohev tkSBt plaintiff woo drag4|«d ooBio dlatanco aft«r boing otruolc. io think tho OTid*nc« »aB oowpotoat* Q. C. ^sr. Oo« ▼• Buytdy. 210 Xll. 30 « lie r do we think thi»r« vao any orror in tkiO rtdlng nado in rof«>ronoo to tho tootimony of tho witnoaooo 0*fionnoXX and Horono^ C*JDonnoll tostifiod that ho waa otandlng on tho twrth aido of 79th otroot Juet wost of OoldBMith aTORttOt that ho wao thlrty^throo ycaro old and kad flTO y#arB oxporionoo as a looomotlTO firotean but vaa aotiag aa a watoteaa at the tltoo. Ho had liTod la ahloai,;* about olx yearo. Ho tnotif iod that he oav tho gar ao it fr«B uAdor tho Tladuet and that *lt wao running a«

t**,:

• ••'

fast »• it oould ruB.* This was atriak«n out and h» eaid h* wft« not able to JttdK* Xhm »p«e4 9t tli« our, Afterwarda h« ffald hit b«»t jafign«nt ««• that the eajr was running •iMut tvanty nil9« i>«r hour. Tlio witii«»os iiioroiio te«tifi«<i *ttwr« OWBO yry foot*. Counsol for dofondont aoT«4 to otriko thio out on th« srouad that it roferred to ee.re aod not to the parti oular oar in ^uootion. flu» Mition wa«. OTorruled and th(p frltneae ooatittuios oaid that oho hoard tho ehild oeroaa and *th« grinding of th« oaro • of tho brako ae thojr w^ro trying to stop tho oar«* Aftorw»rdo» Boar th« ca.oao of plaintiff *8 oaoo, oouasol for dofondaat noTed to striko out the tootlnoiiQr of this witness as t* iho opood of the ear in Tiew of tho orooo-exfuainatiea as to whore Bkm firet saw the oar* thio was agreed to and her testiaon/ striokon. Couaael hero say that this did not euro the rrror for tlw reasoa that the Jurors vould got tho impression that ears ottetonariiy ran rapidly at that point, fhon the witnesses teetiaony is oensiderod in its entirety we think it el ear the jury would under* otand the witness sMMuit the osr in Queetion.

Complaint ie also made that the court admitted improper ovid«noe affootiag the question of damageo; that although this evidenoo was afterwards stritdcen out tho error wao not eurod. Ao wo underetmnd ooiiasel, his pool* tlon is that although h« aakes no oomplaint that the dam- ages assossod are greater than tho injuries warranted, yet the jury migJut hoTo fixed them at a leen oum if i»- yropor ovidOBoe on thio point had not been adduood. Tho ondenoe ooaiplaiaod of ia the testimony of Dr. Jehnstono that plaintiff had a emtaraot on her oyo and th^ re was n»

fir 5';, is: , , ,--jdj} S'2---:^.

*«i itt9«lJI*4»rf «*».:?■;•?.■ ... •

•it»b»/ ciUf&iK xtvt '?-"?.if •'« 'V^ltti^ixt Mil at

©, •ftMf i«n bur • '-T«f

•r. ;»R« »xm iMi i^v ;i«lXsi ^^^

•videno« thftt thl» raeult«d ia any va/ fro« t,]etft Injarlca •tw rvoi^lfed. J^r. JolaiatAa* had exa«in«d plaintiff the <Ugr 1»«for« the trial for th* purpaa* of t««tifjrliig* Ra «at t»aln« iatarrogated by oeunaal far plaintiff aa to vhat he found frea hi a axaaai nation, and aft«r detailing a number of lnjuri«a and vhnt objootivo aynptoaM ho found, oounaol for plaintiff aaid, *0o ahoad iteetor, what olaoy A« X thii^ I h»TO ooTorod that. Tim re vao a oataraot, by th« wajr, of th« loft oy«* S4. Sow aueh ahertoning, iDoetor, vaa tliore, if any, in tho right log, «to«* It apponra that thero waa no Quoatien aaJced about tho oatar* aet, but tho i)ootor montlonod it oaavially. Tho oaraitna* tion iJBcaodiatoly eontinued oonoerning injuries Buetainod aa a r«>sult of the aodldont. to notion vao madp to atriko it out uatll aftonrardo at th« oloso of tho plaint if f*o onao, than it «ao atriolcon out en stetion of defendant by agroenont of plaintiff. In thi^ao eiroumat^noeo «e oannot aay that any aoriouo error «aa ooazaitted.

Oeiq^laint io aloe nado that tho t«0 dootoro who tcotifioA on behalf of plaintiff aa to irhat th«ty found upon oxar&ination «er<^ ponsitied to iaqiroperljr testify %9 nmnir oubJeetiTo oynptoma, (repeoially in ref«reaoe to th# otiffttoaa of thM! knee and of the anklee, and that tho mOYO* went of the knoo and ankloo wm to a groat oxtont tutder the oontroX of plaintiff and, therefore, tho eYid«>neo vao improper. J», Mather took ohargo of plaintiff *o oaao about a nenth after the aooident. Ho teetifii&d that aha had bean praotioally under hi a oare oTor oineos that he aaw her dailjr at the hoapitalt that he oallod en her for a aoath or to* after ehe left the hoopital and aa» her ooeaoioaalljr down

ndi

,timiii'i~

%t9tfU^Mt

• •t

ga ^'.

.^ ISIt 4.t ^V-

1 «i«vt %el»

♦%» *t^.

t<***.

■ t»« i5tt.

iiL.I,i

.-i>a»»l Mtm

-lip .4#

^iiQi'. i»HS fT-ml ^4ls U«S?ie

to th« %imm •€ %h« iriftl, m t«fttiflttd tlmi »th» k«i«« i« ¥>Jr«otloAlly aakyl4»ft4Hl or »tiff«n«<i. Tliero i» oaly ftlM»ui tmmmwighth or •»•• fourth of motion loft in tho loftfMi*! tiwt h« ii,ttrilmt«4 thle to the *oei4«ntt oa^ that tteo -foIttniArjr heuboIoo offoetlnff tho ftnJklo auro sot und'^r tho (wntJpoX of the pstlont »o oo to render the ojnvtMUi •ubJeotlTO. fir, «rehiiotoiio*« tooiitKonjr la rofor«iioo to the limitotloa of laotion in the kne« oiKi oiikloe imo stthot»iiti«lljr the 8«»o* IS» 1mA not, hovever, tr'^mtoA yltilatiff hut hftil ounde »a •aaminatl.ea onljr the tMgr ho* fero the trial for the pur^tooe of to»tlfyliig. Ho teoti- flo4 that thfO rlsht kaeo vm oe otlffonoa that It loot it» fuaotlonnont hy iioY4Hi*olghtho: ttmt he oeiftoii OTer the Joint with ORO httnA and the aioao with the other and liar plajrlns it fordhly foimd that he eoaltf not mo-ve it ■lore than ono*oighth of ita nonoRl aiohllityt tlmt the yatient eeulei net roalat the ssotien, that theri^ «aa a ihitdconiaf of the hone ever the kn^o, aa4 the honjr etrue* tureo w»r« awolXen, Me aleo testified to o«^rtnia pelTle 4l80rdero« ¥hla «»a Hi.ft«rw»rd» otriokea out hy oeneent of the partieo. In thlK oonneetion plaintiff toetified that she had no uaaaual diffimaty in ehlidhirths that before the aeoident ohe had heon regular in every «ajr hat oineo the aeeideat ahe had oeaaad to aMaatmato and Imd Moro or loao pain, 9e thinh the mymptmm teetified to hy the two dootoro were not aubJeotiTO. Oreinke r, C. C. Ry^ Qy.> SM 111. 6«4. Sor do wo think thrre

waa aajr error in th« teatimony of Dr, Johnatoao in re« foroaat to the ooecyx.

During the oxaaiaation of plaintiff after aha had deaorihad the diffioultioo in hor kneo md anklea.

hmr mt^nnml ««.ll»di »tt«ntion to t>h< fftot thai «« iih« nrnt in t)u» witness ahair the t««^s (»f •»» foot turnftd ini»&rit, ftnu ^ took hold of h«r foot and att«Mpio4 to ofaov how far oho oould bond it. vh«ii plaintiff laado an outox^, csounool f9r dofondant objeot^id to tho domonotmtioii in tho pr»o«aoe %t tho Jury. The oeujrt said. *flMi ohjootion laad* hjf oooaool to tho l6«t doflftonotration is ouotain«d» and the jury axo to diorogaard it and tho outoi^ nado lb/ tho witneoo. and thoy aro not in aisy auuinor to oonoidor it. CoKoidor thai ao net havicig heon «ad« at all. JUioalmoo your mindo of it gotttlOMin. S» not oosoidor it*** Afterwardo oounool for dofondant ffiOTod to vithdmv tho Jtury and oontinuo tho oaoo. It io aaid although the oourt ouotaiaed tho ehjeotien and told th« jttvy to diorogard vhat had takon plaoo, tho orrtr oao TM»t ourod. Of oouroo, striking out $Mprt»pmt oiridonoo aftojr it io adsiittoc! dooo not alyayo ouro tho orror. Bui ia tho inotani oaao af t«r tho adaoniiioa of iho ooari wo think tho ddsoiia trail on had but liitlo woight with th« jury* and ainoo the arguatont io that thu <»nly yrojadioial offset of it vao tho influonee it uijiht hHTo en tho Jury in fixing tho aaeunt of tho Yordiei, and uinm no ooaaflaint is SMde that tho dontagoe aro oxeoeoiYO for tho injuri^o Ottstainod, the orror» if aayt would not warnuni a roT«roal •f tho Jad^Eftoni. CoMplaint io also made of tho notion of tho trial Judge during tho trial} that h^ ohonod Igr his attitude and hie rulings on tho evidenoo that ho awro or lens foTored the ]plaintiff*s side of tho oaoo. Oeaiplaint is also «iado to tho eonduei of oounsol for tho plaintiff. 10 hare eurofully oensidored thoeo matters and aro Qlf)ar that whatoTor error th*ro vae in this regard did net aor* iousl/ offAot tho dofondaai*

"S

•is* Th* iuigmmat of th« ltuy«ri«r omatt tf Oo^

MmMnmm

TnOMUCK. i>.J« mB4 fATLOB, J. CCSCOB

)f9CC

'ur«0

S97 • S4750

XAUBA X. jamjouMp

▼•«

OKZaAOO 4 VIST Ti

'i.

J ob,

ftU?BRIC« GOUHT,

App»ll»nt.

217 I.A. 655

MR. JUfiTIOK ©•Ce»SOB deliT«r«d th« opinion •f the oouri*

PlAintiff \>rought eult Agminnt A«t>noant to r«eftT«r dMUi««« for p«r»on«l injaries. TiWi e vab a Ter- Aiot and Jtt4«A«nt in har fa to r for $l,ccfO to r^Toraa vhioh dafandant proaaoutea tMs appeal.

Vran the aYidonoc it appaara that dafanc&nt Oji^aratad a double track street railaajr in Chioa^* and adjaoant auburba, the aaat tarmlnua of vMdti vaa in Itake atraet at Auatin avenue, Eaatbound oara ran on the aouth traok to Auatin aTenue. and in oakins the return trip weot erosaed to th^^ north track hj aeana of & ewitoh or croae-oTer; that about four o*olook in the aftemooa •f January 22 » 1915, plaintiff who «aa a teaoher of Frenoh in the Austin lligh i^aheaX, boarded a atraet oar at Auatin aTanuaj that she ttaod on the ba^ platfom •f the oar, vhioh waa of the yay^aa-you* enter type, waiting for the eonduetor; that the oar then started up an ita return trip, oroesed oyer to the north or weatboand traek, and in doing bo there vaa a Tiftlant •viag 9r Jerk of the rear end af the aar whiedt threv

plAlittiff to th« ground and th« huaarua of h«r right «x» «a» fr« oturod. ii)M also reo«lTe<& oth«r injuries but •• ih«.r« is tw ttonplaint thnr the Tordiot is aze««8iY0» it will bo vmaoe«so«ry to further Montion thoai.

JPlftintiff*s thoery vas thstwhilo sho vas st«n4» ing OR tlM )»&ok platform, vith all due oaro and onution for her own oaftty, th« street ear passed orer tho switch •r oross*eTor witn aa unusual lurch or swing which throw her off tho oar. On the othor hand, dof«adAnt*8 position Is that tho oar paseod OTor the switoh in tho oustoMary sMMior without anjr undue Jerk sua that plaintiff was thrown off the ear by reason of her e»n negligence. There had boon oonsiderable snow durias the da/ ausd there is soaio eTidence thai it was snowing llfflitly at %h^ tine plaintiff boarded the ear. Plaintiff and four other witnesses testi- fied in substanoe that the ear pasKOd OTor the switoh at a high rate of spooA and with a Tiolent luroh or Jerk whieh throw plaintiff to the ground* The motonnan, the oonduotdr, and two other passengers testified for defend* ant that the oar pao««ed OYer the switch onto the westbound traok in the usual manner and that there was no unusual or violent luroh or Jerk.

We think it would serro no useful purpoee to anal/BO the teotlmony of the witnesses in detail as to tlieir ooworal positions on the ear, or ether matters that might add to or detract from the wei^rht to be given their testimony. This, of ooureo, is primarily a question f«r the Jury, but wo hawe oarefully oonsidered all of tho ovidenoe in the record and are uaahle to any that the

isxa^

'.iH.

\iAn.a

•i/*6(BJ, ■

^9m

fiaAiSg ttf the jttxy that d«feadant was n«glie«nt ia th« opvratioa of th* Mur luid that plaintiff vaa net guilty •f eentrlbutory n^gllgeno* but ««• la th« «x«reiBft af 4u« eaiii axi<t aautioa far h«r own oafaty, I0 agalnot tha n«nlfa«t val^ht af th^ «»vld«no«* In th^«» airouastfinooo thn jadcHwnt oanaot b« disturbad*

Dafandaat nttxt urgaa that slaoe tha daolaratiaa 9n which the aaaa want to trial aoasiotad of three oouata, and ainee tha jury returnad, by diraetion af th« eaurt, two ▼ardioto of not guilty, one ae ta th« flret eauat and the •thar ao to th« third oouatt tlwta verdloto oparatad aa an aaqulttal aa th« aaaond oouat* tha only ranalalng aaa, beoausa it waa th« nama la aubotaneo aa tha first and third oeuata. Svan if it b« oonoaded that tha thraa oeonto w*Ttt in aubetano* tho aaiaa, wa think tho oen<:a.tt8lOB af Aafmidant would not fallow. The two direotcsd Yftrdlcta w«ra rotumad on Motion 9t %h» def^aaant. Th« jury w«ra giwan no opi^rtunity ta paae on th«t queatioa whather aithar of thaea two oounto w«r« auatalned by the arldcnoe. Tha oeurt aheuld not hara dlractad tha taw wardlota of net guilty. Tha proper praotiea waa to Inatruot tha Jury ta dlaragard thaaa two oeuata if for any r<»a8on thigr wara to ba alialaatad* Sao, 71, ah.llO, H.S, Tha only quaatioa aubaittad to tho jury for thoir ooaaldaration waa whethar tha plaintiff had mada out har oaaa, aa oat up in tha aaaond oount. On this point the jury found for tho plain* tiff^ Thera wao no judgsant enterad on tha two rardiota af net guilty. The only Judgnant that waa ante red wao aa tha Tardlct ia farar af plaintiff. Of oouroa in th^ea airauMataneao, tha two vardleta would not be rao judicata •f tha aatter In oontroTeray.,

*rf> . 9fv>MJt%

aeti

mtfrr V

,fc<v;

, '^^ l*J>i'i

-4« AiMther p«int mmde ••«ib t« t>« tbat th« dcclar** tl^n originally oonsleted of f«ur oouata mnd that none of the four eounto aontained any allegatlono of the lnjurl«« ouetalned hy plaintiff oxoopt the fourth and eiaoo that osunt «»• otrlAoa out boforo the trial there was no alle- gation of any injurleo recelTed and, therefore, the deolara* tlen le Ineuffiolent to support the Judgment. Thle Is a alsapprehenelon. In neither of the count* were there sueh allegations, but felloviog the fourth ther« are allegations of the nature of the injuries sustained by plaintiff and of the expenses Incurred by reason thereof, together with the ad dsflwma and to vhloh eaeh of the oeunts refer. These allegatlas are sesDsen to all iwunts. L, s. a? M. s. R. So. ^* ^£!lSM* ^^ ^^* MO* ^ Chltty en Pleading, 413.

/ Xt le further TgaHi that the eourt erred In r«*

fusing defendsnts Instruetlons Uos, 8, 10, 16 and 19* The

eighth Inetruotlon seo^ht to tell the jury that If thegr

bellered from the erldenee there was a jar or jerk of the

ear due to the neoessaxy swing In paaeing OTor the svltoh

or to the condition of the traeka by reason of the presenoe

of snow on the rails, whloh defendant eould not aroid ^

the exerelse of ordinary oare, then the rerdlot should be

for the defendant. Ve think that part of the instruotlon

which referred to the jar or jerk wee sufficiently oorered

1^ other Inetruetlons. There was not, however, any In*

•tructien given to the jury eovering the question of snow

on th»: rails. Xt had snowed oenslderably In the afternoon

•f the day the aeoident happened, and the naotorman teetifled

that there was a couple of inches of snow on the rails* *q,.

Vhen there is snow on the rails, from your experience a* a

.ai»3te.

iMT .itt«JK|[iftift «

uv-

,& ,1

ii^n • . ■ .J- litis ii,;;.' Sit

aOii^:. 'iiiiV-!

J.jr

■ji'i ttiu-il. ^siLc

-5-

Wtffmwmtm, Imrw you not toed vheth»r tl»t h«« any effect on tho slidin£[ of th« vh««l» In going around a awiteh or ovar a aroaa*OTar at th« wheala turned? A. Too, it pullr a llttla iMirdar tlian uaual wkan thera la onow on the rail, «i« Th^ allp mora? A« It alipa more, yaa.* This le all th« CTldcnoa an tiiia point. It alll be notieed Umt th« witnoRO vaa not aakad and ha did not tantify that th<? snow on the rails tffaotad tha mOToment of tht oar in ^uaotion. In fact th« witnaao teatifiod that thaaar erooaad orer tha oviteh In tha uaual nimnnar and that thnra w&a no anusa»l jerk ar luroh of tha oar. That a being no oTidanoa aa which ta baoa the in»truotiea« it waa jproparly refuaad* Inotruetion fio. 10 mui to tha effaot that if the Jury found from tha avidenoa that tha r^^ar platfom waa an imaafa plaoa for a paaoaaear to bo whan tha e«T paaead OTor tha owl t eh and if tha plaintiff knew this, ehe waa bound to use euoh «ar« as would pr^rent auch iajttry to her froa tha ordinary awitohiag af the ear« and if ehe failed to axareiaa auoh aara and waa injured Iqr nmBon of her failure ao to da« oka aould not r^eoTer. wa thiak thia instruction is not clear and nightt therefore, adelead the jury. MoweTor, the aub- etanoe af this inetruotion waa oovered by giren inetruotlona, Mo. 8. 10, IS and 13. Hafuead inctruotien Bo. 16 eoT^rad tha aubjeot of anow on thir traok and what wa have aaid in reference to refused instruotion Ko. • is sufficient. In* struotioa Ko, 19 waa mi abetraot propoaition of law, and it iMia been held that it is net error to r<*fuaa euoh an in- struction eren If it oorreetly etataa thp law. S. & A, H.R. J28jl ▼• City of lontlae. 169 111. 155. Upon a consideration •f tha entire reoerd and af the instruotioaa glTon we think

•i»V!

sh*

vu »l y

i:

-.^*

•^iii ,.fl«?iyr£o.rcJ»:

cwhi .««» )rt«r«

the d«f«ndaat tms )«d a fair trial, the is&uss ver* iiimi»l« «jia ol«i>»rly ua4er«tood, and th«»r« was no 0ul»atan* ti«l Qonfllot in the evid«R««, exeftpt on on« point » Tist whether the oar s*Y« an imuottal Ittreh or Jerk.

TlM judgment of the Superior court of Cook Oeuaty is afflmed«

THCUBOI, P.J. and TAYLGS^, J, concur.

,TOr:i3;)j^

409 •84762

BARBAB4 Qiuynr,

lAlU) BAKIVO OOBf,

APfKAL ntOK

CIHCUIT COURT,

COCK COliSTY.

^ 1 *■ i o /\ • v) *3

HR. jrUiJTlCl? O'GCNIIOK delirer** the opinion •f th*^> eourt,

Plaintiff 'breup:ht suit «gainftt Avt^nd^nt to r«e»T«r tfaoutgoo for personal Injurioo. Thtrt was a Tordiot andi Judsjaoni in li«r favor for $2&0C, to r«vor«o vhioh d«^fcadant proseoutoo thle app«al.

It appears from the reeord that plaintiff, a WOMMB ateut forty-seven years old, at th» ti»e of the aeeldcnt, ooadueted a hotel and restaurant on Qetta^i* GroTo avanua near 39th stroet in Chieaga* l>efeadant was aaga^ed la the Imkar/ buaiaesf! and ttsed el^^otrlo trueks nith box bodies for the purpose of deliverinc goods to its eustoaters. Yhe truek laTolTod in the in* staa't oase vas of this tyi)e. The foroat part of it inctluding the driver's s««t was enelesed with doors aadl glass windows at the sides, and th*^ front of suoh enclosure was lilcewise of glass extending from tha roof of t^to iru^ to within about two feet of the floor. Tha rns trance to plaintiff's restaurant was on the east side of Gottaso GroTo aToaua between two oast and west streets. Ca the day of the accident.

:o^«i .:.■■::,&■

-2-

vhieb •oourr«<i about nine o^olook in XhM aeming, plaintiff vaf vatehing for an nilk-imcen which was !• delirar milk aad traaM to a store aoreas the straet from and ollghtljr south of h«r restaurant. Aloac«ide the wast ovurb of Otttage aroTO aToauo was aa eleetrlo tm ok balancing to dofandant* It had 1»a«ii standing thera abaut ten loinutoe whan plaintiff started to walk aoroos C^tta^e Grove ava* 8u« to paroliaao soaa sraaia at a atora 9t auirkot on tha wast side of Ciattaga Oroya avanue aad juet south of whera defendant's al«Qtrio truck stood. A« i^laintiff was ahoui to pass in front of the tmak it startod up without warn* ing, st«u«k plaintiff And throw her to the i^round soToralj injuring her,

Plaintiff *o theorjr of the oa»e was tliai as sha prooei?dfld to the store aa the wast side af the street and was ahout & step or two from the truek, th« drirer of the trudc suddenly and without waimlng started up, swung the front and of the truck out into the straet and strudk her. Dafonda»t*fi eonteation ie that plaintiff was walking aoross the straat without glTing an^ parti oular attention to whera she was goiag andwalked into the aiddla or aide af the truok Just as it was starting. This is tha only point of dispute in the oasa. "Sim OTideaee shows that it was a bright morning and that the? re were ao stra<?t ears or other wahioles in the stre« t other than tha ons in question} that the elrotrie truo^ hod be««i standing about ten miautaa befora the aooidi^nt happened. Some witneasee toctified that the truok h^d been standing a laager time, but the driver testified ths t he had stopped th«'ra to deliver ao«e bakery goods and that the truok had boeastanding ten alnutee, Tha

•*l-

nwaid.

■■eft* ii*-*.W •.:; .

•a*

un4iKfttt«d •vidi»n0« also ie t^iat th« drireir did not glT* uay vurnitm that h* vas about to start th« trudk} that tt^on otartinc ho swung out Into the otroot to got awgr froia th« 9uth lnt«ndinis to oontinuo south; that just as he svttiHs out and had gone a foot or two the oollisioa ooeurred. Vltnosses for jplaintlff teetlfiod that when sho ymm a\30ut a stop or two froa th« truck it ouddenX/ started up without any vsamin^, swung out frota the ourbc and plaintiff was otaruok ^ th« front whoel which passod •Tor her* Witn«'8(^«» for the defendant testified to sub» staatiaily the eano of foot exoopt that plaintiff walked into about the middle of the oast side of the truck and that the hind wheel passed OTer her,

]>ofeadant oontends that the evidenoe fails t« shew any neglltjenee on its i^art* hut that it does olearl/ show that plaintiff was guilty of negligence which, ooa* trihutod to the injuries sustained by her.

These questions are generally questions of fact for the jury and only beoome one of law when reaeonablo Minds, upon a ooasideration of the evidenoe, wOwdd reach the oonelusion that plaintiff was injured as a result in whole or in part of her own ne^;ligenoe, Ua(jie<r the facts in the ifltstant ease, we think it o&nnot be said that all reasonable ainds woald reach this oonolusion. The truck had been stamdiag at least tsn minutes; th« drirer was not »9t«n by plaintiff; she was walking on a dlreet lino aeross the street which would bring her a short distanee la front of the otanding truck. The truck was startod witi^iout any warning. It made no noise. It was swung out into the street froa the ourb. In these eirouauitanoos

.:'^ J

•4.

«• thiak it «ouX«t b« ft i!ittii£«rouB rule t» hold that th« trudc Qould b* atairtcd in this aumacr without incurring liability fl>r BMy injury oconsiioned a* a r«fiult of tuoh eonduot. Vft think th« question «a» a jproper one for VttlMitftien to the Jury.

It is a«zt oent«ndad that th« oeurt arrad in r«fu»iag to gire inetruotions Hoa, 21, 22 and 24 ra» queated hy dafctndnjit* XnBtruetlon 21 eow^ht to tell the Jury that **oantribu to ry nagligenoa as used in th< aa in* straatione moanst tiagligende ok the part of the plaintiff whiaioontrl>»uted to the aocicient and the plaintiff** reeultine injuriee, if any. The failure t€» use one* a aenaee to dircoTer dangers which would be aacertained by eudh use of thea ae tis exercise of ordinary care dewmds is negligenoe,** We think this inetruotion was wrong, Thc^re is an implioation that plaintiff was neg* ttgent, and it la ttiaXeading in this reepeet, MereoTer, it is abstract in fer^ and it has been held that it is ssTer error to refuse such an instrueticn. G. & A. R. R. Op. T. i'ontino. 169 ill. 155. Furtheraore, we think the jury were fully instruoted on the quecstion of ne|g;ligenoe. The defendant* by inetruotion 22, requer-ted the oourt to inatruot the Jury that the drirer of a Tehiele is under so greater obligation to look out for a»< protect pedes* trians in the street than pedestrians are to look out for and protect thowielTes; that it is the duty of pe4* eatrians under such circuastanoes to keep a loek*Ottt for moTing Tehides and to exercise ear« to arold th«B« and that If the jury belieyed fren the OTidenoe that plaintiff failed in r^eerd to either of those duties.

•Hfc

U> •i.ftl.P

.•1

.!«

•5-

and Kaoh failure oonttibut«d to the aeoident no racOTazy Muld b« had, <^% think this instruotioa waa propt^rly r«fua«dl, Th* truok vas an eneloaad en«. It bud >>e«n ■taadinc at th« street eurb for «»■• tlma and tha driyar af it knew ha waa going to atart uy and hla «hano«B •f aaalng th« plaintiff were euparlor to thf" cnanoaa af plaintiff oaeing hia* Mo reevar, «a think it would nat ba of any aaeistanoa to tha jury in arriving at a prop<»r da* aiolon of the oaaa but that it would tand to oonfuca. Xnatructlon 84 waa aa follo^^a; "You ara Inotruotad tha t if you ballera fraa the oridance that th« driver of dafendajit*! autooioliile did not knew of tihe pr«a«noe of plaintiff near hia aaQhin« bafora the aooid<tnt« there ean be no raoovary in this oaaa, and you aiuat find defandant not guilty.* Of oouraa, this inetruotion waa wrong. The driver eould not eleae hie etyaa and blindly atart up. Ha auKt one due oara. The inotruetion waa proparly refused.

The iaauaa in this oaaa were alalia, eaaily under* ateo4» and thert' waa no diopliie in the evidence exaapt aa to the one point, Ve think the Jury, aa a whole, were fully Instruoted and understood the altuatlon. The defend&nt has had a fair trial, and the judgsaent of the Circuit Gaurt ia, therefore, affi rated.

AinnLRMEI).

tmm&(m, P.J. and TAYL&«, J. eonour.

Y^ #»«!»♦«»

•J'^^

^^fMgiftmfi"

tM* <i^^

••fftKrr^

i»<i*^i

418 - Ul'f^

p»ll»«.

Ayifli

APPFAL VHOK

CaRCUIT COURT,

C(:<jC gcuhty.

217I.A. 655^

MR. JUSTXCS O'OOmrOR dttllT«r«d th« opinion of tlw Murt.

Plaintiff brought suit «|painflt d«f«n(iant to recovor «la]««ig«« for i?#r»oiiaL injuries auttalnca by h«r la fsllliiC oa a atairwaj Inading froa the first floor into the baaament af def fltnd&nt * a stara. Thare was a findlnf and 4v<Mpaant in har farar for ^1500.00 ta T*^fiv%% vhi (^ aafondant preoaeutas thlo appeal.

7ha raaord diselof^eo that qti Saturday aft«trBoottf Jykvoaabaar llth, 1916, plaintiff want to d«faHidant*a ratail store in Ghioaga to do aeias ahoppini;. As sha was valking daan thR stairway leading titm\ \\» first or main floor into tha baaamant, ^he fall and smatainad an oblique fraotur« of tha left tibia. She aas gi ran firat aid at tha store, and vao afterwards talcen to the Hanratia Hospital where she re* Bained for a nunbar af weeks. She naoesaarily suffered a gr«at deal af pain and waa moayaoitated for aeveral onntba, but ainoa wa kave reaehed the eonoltt»ian that the juci^eat aust be aet aside beoausa there is no liability, it will be unnecessary for ua to oonsideer further tht> nature of the in* juriaa suffered.

-2«

TIM deolaratloB wfiloh eoMlstvd of on« oount» av«rr«a that t)m dafttnd&xit n«glig«»atly p«mltt«d the stairtmy to b« Ana rmmin in a dangorouo eoaditioa itt \hA\ tho od^oo of the troikAo ir<"ro ooTercd with aoua otrlpo running; herison* toll/; tl^iAt soToraa of theo* ^tripo protrudod upward frOH th« tr«a4» and that ooTor*! of tho trttft4o vero »o vo«k that when a poraon atoppod ott thorn "the^r vould olnk or aac, th«r«* V oaualng th« aa4« «ftot«l Btrip« to protnido up idghor than OTor* oattoiag ahoppora and othara to stuBliXo and fall} that thia oondltion vaa known, or tgr the exoreiae of ordinary oaro, should haTO hoon kmovn to viofondants that plaintiff, whilo ah« vaa in the oxorolao of all du« oaro and oaution for her own saf«tjr, tripped on tho metal etrlp an4 vaa injured* Both partieft «o«a to agree that the gist of the notion vaa that plaintiff trlpyod beoauao one or aiore of the treads sunk or sagged when she oteppod on than and thereby oauaed tho BWtal strip or Booiac *to protrmdo up higher than e«or«* In ondeaTorlng to sustain the allegation of notioe to defend* aat of the defeetiYO oonditien of the etairs, plaintiff pro* dtteod Mrs. A. A. Carlson who testified that she had known plaintiff about ooven jroaro; that plaintiff worked for the witness's husband as bookkeeper and stenographor) that whoa the witness sailed at her husband* a plaee of business she usually Tisited with plaintiff; that she had used the stair* teay in question thirty or forty tines a year for a nuabor of years; that about a week before the aeeident the witness la dosoondlng tho same stairway notioed the brass nosing* along the treads and that they extendea upward about oao* quarter to one* half an Inoh above the tread; that also oh* notiood when she stepped on on* of the treads near the top •f the atairvay her weight "aeened to oause the stop t*

fk^kxity

iftH )«#p.

■n*f d ffgkx

•3«

sink a lltti* and the braaa rada protrud«d than aare vhara agr waigbt waa*{ tliat aha thought it pratrudad abaut ona* qoartar tu on«*half an Inoh; that thara vara fiTa »r aix atapa balaw tha ane tha atappad on in tha aaaa aondltlan; that tha tr««dia aaeaad to be locaa and aould glva with har walght aa aha atapp&d an than and that aaaaad ta eauaa tha braaa rad ta yretruda upvarA aara than narmalljr; that aha ha.d atuoihled thare a nuahar af tiaea hafor<»; that sha had a habit af etuahlinc a great daal and that It had b«eoaa rather a Joke at har hoa«; that eh* apaka to plaintiff about her axparlanoe after plaintiff* a injiirar; that aliartXjr after plaintiff «aa injured. In raapenaa to a talaphana aall« the Tltneaa eaaa damatavn and aa related plaintiff.

Plaintiff testified that vhan aha got throagh with her wark on Saturdajr afternaoa, about one o*dLo(ie» aha want to defendant's atpra to make soaa pur^taeae and for that purpoae «aa using tha atainngr to go to the baaanent} that about four or flTO atepa froa the top aha eau^ht her right heal aa the braae raA or noaing} that this *thraw i^ left leg Wkdk In under aa» aad then ngr right lag that had boon oaught aart of righted Itaelf and want down a oeupla more atepa and then haXd"; that her right lag wae then perfectly straight and held on anather braaa nosing ao that aha aould not gat her left leg out aad that It "juat erushad right over ana ^t the ather steps. ** 8ha then teetlfled, «Aa Z eamedown the atay I fait a apringinesa • to ane of the atepa. It was tha fourth or fifth atay fraa the tap, 1 know that I felt agr hael eatohiag on the braar rad» and that la what tripped aa« The braaa rod atu<de up* X should iaaglna, from a quarter to a half an inoh"; that she worm a pair of ehaes with Cuban haela; that they were not aa high as Traneii hecla, bat were Just a

»«(i)f !>^

•4*

m«4itt» h««l. Slw wf m t»ll«r«4 suit, tnn4 th« skirt was not nsrrsVf about two luid ono*hslf jraxde «7oun4 tho iMttoa; that she romalned on the stairs a ooneicterablo tim« aft«r tho lajurj and s rao of <i«fendajat*s osaployos took hor up« stairs to tho oMdloal room vhttm sho was glTon aid by a BurcooB «ft<i others. On eross-oxaalnation she said that thfTP! was no oao with her» and that ther« wer« no othor yorsoiis on the stairs oxoojit a lady who was ooming aotni tho stepft behind hor} that nh« had a miff, in whidi she had a book, under hor left mrm, and that sho night hare had a little paper "htt^ of nuts in her hand, but she did net re»» ember; that lahi^ had uned that stairway about a half<»d&soa or a ^son times prior to the aooidont; that she had aoTor had any troubl<» before on this stairway, bat that ehe had notioed th« braoe rode or nosings; that while she vfts on the stairway waiting for aseietanoo, sho noticed th«^so brass nosings were extended up about ono»half an indh above the trgmio, *X Just looked around and saw tliat it was tho brmse red, saw there was nothing but the brass rod there that 1 oould haro trippod on* • • • When I stepped on this particular tromd I felt a springiness. The brasr stuck up so that 1 oiught mgr hool in it, Th« brass sprmog up when I steppoa en tlM) tro«i4. » » » There was a sensation of opring, the brass would go up higher,*

Sofendaat produeed six witnesses, Starr, Vakofield, Crawford, ?«ppor, ffovpart, •md doottooh, Starr teetifiod that ho was purohasiag agent and building, svqperintendent for defondamt; that ho was familiar with the stairway; that ho hosrd of tho aooideat to plaintiff shortly after it oocurred; that ho knew th«< condition of the stairway at the time of tho

{«j,.-aa

"r * OUiiHtM

■•■(^i :>^

vi«i4tt<i^ i* 19

itiiXt

trial* April 2t« 19ld« and that it w*a %h« ««»« aa on th« Atty of th« Real dent; tivskX h» h»A li««n ao^loytA in th« bmi« poeitlea sino« 1918. Wak«fi«ldi also testified that h« vma a bull dine; »up«rint«ndaat for d«f«ndAnt« anci tJaat h« laarnetl oiT tli« aQoidcnt ta i^laintiff within a day or two after it happanftd; that hie <tttti«'e v^r* to oc« that this at»ir«ajr was k^pt in r«pair and tc aako angr naocssary rapairs if it «aa faulty; that he obsarTed th« ecnditien of thi? stairvay in I>«o«a1»ar» 1918 » ^and that ainof^ that time ha Iai4 oean it an m aTara«a of onoa a day; tlwt air. Starr or himself w^rvt th« proper parties ta authorisa and direst any n«««sBary rapairs from and prior to the aooidsat to the tlaa of th« trial, and that during that period ha bad giT«n no direotient?. for ro* fair* on this stairway of any kind; that if any diraoilons wars giTOB "by either Ur, 8tarr or hiateelf, thay would be giTon to Mr. Pepper. th<? csarpenter* or the latter* a asalstaat* ifr« Corbiftt; that if any work waa actually done » it would bo dona by Mr. Xowpart or Mr. JPepper; that he knc^w there Juiiti been no sepal ro nadc en t)ie stairway froa Seoenber, 1919, the tista of the aeoideat. until the diay af the trial; t)«at he e»utilne4 an inspected the stairway a day or two after the aooident, and that the stairway waa of steel oon8truotlon«nade of steel angle irons rf>sting on iron stringers with a steel plate for the read and marble risers; that on the tread is laid interloekiag hard rubber tile; that to proteot the front of this tile ia a brass BOaing whioh is fastened to th<» angle iron fracie Itself; that the tread was eleren or twelre inohes wide and that the nosing is sarewed or baited to th«!' et<>!el fraae of the sAnirway to kaep It fron aoTlng and that it is raie^^d up hi^i^h eneugli aa that when the tile is laid on th<!^ tread the eurfaae of it is oven with the top of the nosing; that the stairway was four

feci •l«T«n inohes wid», and that th« rubliar mm»9 up to th« no Mine but do«« not r««i on top of it; ttaot thore ojro lioad fwilo on oaoh sido of ih« otainrojr running fron toy to bottoa; that ho aatt4o ooMO aoaauroments of th« otainrigr on tlv^ 4«jr bo t«»tlfi«d and that the groatoot hoi^iht to wMcAi tho aooiog oxt«ntfod atoore the troad w&o tliroo* thirty* ooooBdo of an i«ah} that the ru\}1>or tilo on tho troad vao throe oightho of an iaidai thidc; that thore w«»ro fiftooa oteps la the etairvajr, Crawford t' etified that he waa eon* neoted vitn the "fipooiaX Service ijotall" of defenUant} tt»t oa the day of the aooident ho who notified of it aii»d that ho went to th«> atalrway and found plaintiff oittias on tho fifth or oljcth otop froz.^ the top{ that ho aokod her how oho eano to bo injured tinA oho said that sIm tripped oa thF hraoe rod and foil; that she could net stand «y and that he then sent for tho ■#di<wl ehalr and took her to the nedleal rooai, and then ho oxaaiaed the stairway; that ho went froa top to Votto»» aad tried the troado and no a* ingo to soo if thore was anything otidking out; that ho found none of the treads or noeiags stioklng up* eiad that Poppor aad Movpart aado the «xanlaatloa with him; that oaob of thasi oaumiaed the steirway ia the presenoe of each other; that i'eppor was the "boss carpenter* » aad Newport the naohla* ist; that this exajainatioa was oMde within threo«quartoro •f an hour after tho aooident; that he walked up aad down the stairs hut did not make any akoasur omen to; that he otart* od from tho top and tried eaoh tread going down» "putting «y full weight, juapiag a little to try to find if there was any sprlag, but I found none in aay of tho otopo,* Ha did not know positively whether any ohaai^s hsd booa auido ia tho stairway, but that he examined it the day ho testified

~t -;♦' v^TO*

T.'W5 'X'

		>«1
■«(	aini««;- '	*rfi
	.'a^^ie^f	0/ fia

S^*t^ 9-

^r^vt*©** '-t qo.'-

iJ'iivi?

n

tii

'»s.

;t*

, V>*^^^

-7-

aad it ••em«(t to be In tli« mum oondition a« it was when the •XAiaiaatien whb aaad« on t}>« d«y of the ftooideat. i'tpjkmr testis fiod that he wr-.m the feresMUi e&rpenter of defend&nt at the tlae of the aoeidentt that h« r^mesaherett th« accident and that he »a« the atairway that afternoon ahout three* thirljr o*elO(dc with Kewpart ana Sravfordj that he examined it froii toy to hottoM, starting on the firet otepc feeling it with hie hand; that th«r(^ was nothing there that a pereoii would trip on; that the nosing was three«tHirty*80oond8 of an in«3i higher than the tread; that th^rf" was iw change in the etair* wajT from that day down to the dajp of the trial; that he again •xaminod the otairway on the dttj^ be testified and that Howpart and Crawford wer« again with him; that \h»y tried the tread* and found them in the mubo oondition as at the time of the aooldent; that the nosing protruded throe*t>tirtjr«>seoonde of an ineh ahOTO the rubher; that th«> top of the tread is hard rubber; that under the tread ie a Mo, 10 steel plate; that it is iie* possible to awTo the plate without moving the nosing; that the steel plate oould not bf- retaoved without first reiB«-ring the nosing; that he oxa^yiined the" stairway as to the sinking, springing* or sagging sensation undeir his feet; that thf-re was none either at ths tiae of thr accident or on the day ho ti'stified. On «ross«oaamination he teetified t>u»t the ooadi* tion of the stairway was praetioally the same on the day of the trial as it was on the day of the aooldent; that the noo* ing was a piooo of solid brass and that it was in^eeeiblo for it to giye under the weight of a hoaTy person; t^t the rubber was a hard matting glued on the steel plate. James Rewpart tertified that he was a m&ehiBist and iron worker for defendant and had held that position for about oi^iiht

yenrs; that h« Iwaxdi of th* aooideat en th« dagr it happensd; that he eaw the 0tair»t%y about t)urett*qttart«r« of an hour aftorwartfo vlth i'eppor and Crawford; that h« valked up and down it fron top to botioa mor« than ono« or tvleo and found no thins the B»tt«r with its that tho noaln^ts were tight and that the rubhor was tight; that on th« digr ho t«^ntifi«d ho a^in oxaadlaed it with Crawford and i'eppetr and found it i» tho f)ane oondition aa in 19X5; that ho know of hie own knowl« ed^o tJh^re had boen no work done on the stairway oinoc the tise of the aoeident; that ho tf^utod the treads to ooo if th«^r^ was any spring « end that there wae none; that ho woighoA one hundred and eighty pounda; that he walked up and down tht? etepo and junped on Ikum and they would net giTO at all; that it wao iaposeible to nowe the troaA without noTing the nooing ao th0y w^re faotonod together* Goottooh teatifiod that ho vm» an ardhiteot in the ostpley of a fim •f arohitects that ooHotruetod this stairway and tlwt ho wao in oharK* of su«h oonstruotien; that he looked OT^^r tho stainray oa the mortting of th<^ day he t«^stified, but that he did not need to do oo ae he waa already faatlllar with it; that the atalrs were oonstruotod of (Must iron and steel and the eo*oallod rubber tilo and the brass or bronao nosing; that the rubber tile ia three* eighths of an in eh thidc, inter- locking, and ooatontod oolidly into the steel plato; that the brass nosing* the steel plato, and tho rubber tile make one solid aiass; that the nosing and stool plato were rigidly bolted together; that aetion in one would result in motion in the other; that the wor4 "rubbor*tile* as applied to the oorering on the troad is raally a alaaoaer as there is praet- ioally no rubber in it; that it has no elasticity and in

•e-

*d9

'4t.i

walkirm oyer It it will not f~lT«; that t)irr« is no •laetldtjr, gire, apriagt or »«« at all. Ho &l«o toetifiad In dfttail as t« tlio Method of conatruotion of %he entire atairwajr- Cu oroaa* •xaadLnation ho oaid that th^r«!> was a slight Tariatlon in the oloYBtlon of th«» noaiago ahoYO the rubber tile and that in ■oat plaeea it whw praetioally fluah; that on careful oxanina* tion he found hat the ■aylmai »aa threo^thlrt^^eeoonde of an inohj that th<* odgo of this nosing waa not sharp hut was round or aaooth} that h« was familiar with yajriouo typoo of otairwajpii in uoo in oinllar hail dingo s ^^^ this type vaa ttood a great d<p-al and that he knew of none better} tlmt in hio opinion it was a first eluiso stairway.

OouBBol for dofoK^ABt first eofttends that th«> ooart should have sustained its motion for a di rioted wordiet at the oloeo of all of the OTidf^noe. Vc oanaot agroo with this contention. The gist of plaintiff's oaao was that she was injured by r^^asen of the faot that she tripped beceauss oao of the troads of the stairway sunk or sagged wh«tn sho stepped on it and thereby oauaed one of the aotal strips to pro* trude upward|r and the evidence produced by hor tended to sustain this ohareo. In passing on a eeotion for a directed Tordict the question of the proponderanee of th« ovidenoe does not arise at all» but the oourt oust subnit the oaso to the Jury oT«i if he is of the opinion that in oaso a Yordiot is roturnod for plaintiff it ^nrould have to be sot aside as against the manifest woight of the sTidenee. x^ibby. i^oKeill * Ubby ▼, Oook, 822 111. 206. While the eourt properly

denied a isotion for a directed rerdicrt wo think error was ooanittod in refuoing to grant a now trial for the r«>asoa that the werdiot is against the Manifest woight of the oridenoo. It is unfortunato that plaintiff was eo soToroly injured

9S A.

■^f

liiivotx :<ir

JJ'ilK

•ttff«:r«d grc>at p«lA* but «« think the OT«rvh«lmliic weight of the evidenae is that »h« «a» net lajureu by reaeon ef the tre*4 of th« etep ojr eteye elnklng er eagsing when «he etep« yed on it oaueiag the aetel neelng to protrude upward. lo point is Blade that th« stairwigr wae defectively (»B&tructe>d« It appears frov the evidence without oonts^dlctloa that it was oonotrueted in a suhetantlal manner; that there wa* M twins or give to It whloh would eause the brass aoslns to extend or protrude upward* for the steel plate, thn rubber tile, Mid the neelng were all eolidly fastened together* Vo repairs wer« made on the etairwc^ frcm the tlate ef the aooident until the day ef th« trial, nere than two yeare afterwards. An ejcaatiaatlon was maAi^ by three pereens about forty* five minutes after the aeeldent and nothing wrong was dlsooTered with any of the steps. Counsel for plaintiff aays that the witness iHarr testified that If any work had aotualXy been done it would have been by £*«pp«r, Oorbett, or {{ewpart, IM that C^rbett did not testify. It is true that Corbeti did not testify but the t*«tiaoay is that the work would actually be done hy Pepper or ITewpart, end not by r^rbett. Counsel :or plaintiff also eontende that the evid'^nee n)mwB the bolt« and serews that held the framework together w«»re all on the undf^rside of the stairway but that no one testified that an iaspeetion had been nade ef ttw underside and it »i|;ht be that soae, and th(> Inf erenoe is that some, repairs olgiht have been nade b;y soacMno under* neath th«^ stairway. We think th« reeord will not warrant any sucih inf erenee. CouaneX also aays that it appears froa the reoord that *Ur, John G. Shedd is President of iarshall Field & CoMpany (Md Kersey Ooates Reed is Baeretary, and neither of these gentleaen appeared to testify", ete«

-.)!:«

idi tm

■tiii

Witfi«e!;'«a did wuM ttlX ttf th« j^nrmcnB 1^.0 nade anyrvpairt^ Mi<a «• think th« arguncat tm «ntlral/ witleiottt nerii,

W« ar« octt»trai»«d to helid that th« Tcrdlat is acainnt th(» iaaaif«iit waight af the eyidAnoe, ami th« judsmant will, th^trafore, b« ]*«T«r»atf with a fintfin^ of faot.

Wa find as an ultinata faot tiiat defendant vaa nat guilty of tb« naglig«ttoo ohangad in tieia daolaratlon.

twmatia, F.J. and TAYLOK, J. Con our.

OP CHZOAOO*

i

^^6

im. JUSTICE ©•OCirscai d«llT« •d the opinion of th« oourt*

Plaintiff brought suit a^lnot dftfondant to roooTor |X96*54. Th«re was h finding and judgment In faTor of plaintiff for tho amount of hlo «lalm, to re- ▼orao whloh dofondant proBO".tttos thlo appeal.

Plaintiff 'a elalm trns for eandy, confeotionory, and ooda fountain auppllos whloh he A aimed to have sold aad deXirered to defendant. He further olalmad that there wae an aooouat etated between hlju ana defendent In yebriiarjr^ X918i that at that tlae It vae mutually ai^reed that the asount due fro» defendant to plaintiff wae <rl7S*&4s that afterwards, r'^aroh 10, 1913, defendant paid |1C«0G, leaTlBC the Mtount due for w^iioh eult waa brought. It appear* tvm the evidence that plaintiff, after he elaiaed to have delivered the (^ode to defendant, wae adjudged a bankrupt, aad aaoag hie aasate aeheduled a olala against "Adlnamle Bro*.*t that this Included the olaln against defendant; that afterwards the trustee In bankruptqy sold this aooouat to a partjT wha In tara aold it to plaintiff. On orosa* •Musiaatloa plaintiff testified that he iiad Myer sent

•8- (i«f«ndant aqy bill 0r •tiit«aeat; that plaintiff bad au^i A«fendant 1b the Uutilolpal Court In Mar oh, 1913. for this •aae aeeeunt. H« furth«r t««tifiad that he had tve Adlnaaia aeoouatt, aiia agalsflt John Adlnaais and the other a^^alnot Adlnaaift Brother*; tliat Adlaanie Broth«r«, eonsiotin4( of tha defandant, John* and his brother JPeto, were in buoineat at 3i5C W. Horth avmiuo, and that John, th« defendant, aaa in huoiaooe at 3218 f. Xorth avenua; that ho had reor^ived l^ajacat la full from tho partnerohip and gaTO a written ro* leaeo April 30, 1912, John X«amhroa testified that he waa vorkiag for plaintiff in 1913 ajt hlo etoro en Harriooa atroet; that in Hareh of that year defendant oaao to plaintiff** store aad paid IIO.OO and aaid that ho would JWF nora in a few iajro. Charlee JKLapporth teatiflad that defendant had rented a Btora from him at 32ia V« 3lorth aT<mu* in 1909 and 1910 and that defendant signed the leaaa« JDofendant testified that in 1900 ha waa in buaineasi with his brother Pete at 3160 W. Xorth araaua, under the nan* of Adiaaaia Brothers; that thay afterwards aavad to 3218 W. North aTonue, and that later ha oold out to hia brother and another; that he did not take an actlT* part in the business; that his brother Pete ran the \)usineas; that he never bought goods fraa plaintiff; that the only goods plaintiff ever deliver* •4 WAS to Adlnaais Brothers; that defendant h^^d norer been 1b business at either of the plaooa menticned aa a menber of the flm; that he had reoeipted for aaaa goods that wt^re dellTered; that plaintiff did not ask hin for any aoiicgr and that he did not pay tho llO.OC.

Thert! la a sharp oonfllot in the eviaoneo, and at the (tloee of the trial, the Srlal Judge waa moved t» Mjr that ha thought both plaiaUff and dofeadaat wore •rooked and that he waa eompalled to deoide betwoan th«s«

3 k nii

•3«

Bb found f«r th« plaintiff. Whila there arc <ti tor span oi«s ia plaintiff** twatlmeny, y«t upon a ooaaidAraiion of all th« ovidene* wo oannot oay that the trial judg«*c finding in favor of plaintiff wao agninot tho oumifoot weight of tho OYidene«!. H« was in a nueh hotter poeitien to nndsrotand and detonoino th<» facto of th* oaoo froa the appoaraneo of the wltnooooo on the etnnd than wo aro. no oontontion is mado that plaintiff** elain hao at any time he»n paid. ]>of«nd^nt» taewoTer« oontendo that the ouit ioharrod hjr the Statute of Liuiitatioso forthe reaaoa that in the prior ouit in ]iar<di» I913« hreug;ht to rooowor en the ooaie aeoount* tho atatoawnt of elalM there aade and rerified hy plaintiff alleged that the last itm staking up the total of #160,54 was inourrod Ma^r 2, 1910, If this were true, of oourse, it would he barred Igr the fiTe*/ear i'tatuto of Liaitationo, hut ia the instant i^sase the t«stiaony of plaintiff and anotht^r witn^o ie that a payment of llO.CO was sutde ia iiarcth, 191S. Thie, of oouroo, ie not ia harateay with tho prior statessent of elain filed, hut so far as the reoerd ohews, the «itn<^s8 was not ai^ed to explain this ■attor. MoreoTor, at the dose of tho eTidenoe, defendant asked a finding in his favor on three epeeified grounde, hut did not sontiea the Statute of LisU tat ions. While it aight net have heen nooossary for him to have done do to oavo the point, yet we oannot say that the finding of the eourt that a paynont of $10.00 was node ia 1918 is against the aaia« fest weight of the evidenoe.

It is next contonded that thc' release given hy defendant to the partnership is s release of plaintiff* s olaisu The release is as follows| "I^ the undersigned W. J, BoBOkoo* aoknowledge that Z reooivod from faaagtotis

iv<' i •: 'J . o ^ ■

a* Adljuuaift mix Xhm <l«>btti Auc me tf th* partnership b«tv««n hlasslf and hie brother* «n4 X taereligr r«X«^«8« and satisfy all ao««ttats batwaan ur« and \»y th'^sa pra««ntn ell aaeoanta batir««n aa and jPansfiatia 6, Adiaaiiis ar« full^ paid.* This «aa aignadt by dafandant* I91iilft it is trua that the r«laa«« •f •nm Jolat-obliffor reltmsae all obligors, yat «hrr' tha ralaa»a is swbiguoua aridanee may ba rooaiTod and it slMttld ahould ba oonataruad tha saaa as Ofory iastroaant* visi to oanry out thf^ intention of tho parti«^s. We think it sOLear thai th« releaso, to sa/ tlie least* is swbiguous, aad tha eTidenoe vaa propf>rXy admitted that this release «aa of the partnership aeoount* and not af the aooount of the defendant. CMff*?tfffft,,n # ▼• hSSISSiS&» ** il^* *^^i MULSS

▼• Msxi* ^®^ ^^^* ''^i^* ^3^'*

In view of all these eireuastanoes «e feel that «o «o xld not be Justified in distiirbine; th^ Judpsmtof the Bunieipal Court, and it is* thf>refore» affirmed.

AfVXBIiSD. TBQHSOM» P.J. Rtt^ tAYhm, J. eonear.

S kSiAt.

498^- 24847

HOTKL. SHEaiMAS CCMPANY, a oorporfttion,

QUStAV J. I.AKOIGC,

n

APPEAL TRClt

MUHiaiPlLCCajRT

OF CHICAGO,

217 I.A. 656

^

la. JtTSTZC" O'COimOR deliT«reci th« opinion of the oourt.

Plaintiff brought ault agaiost defendant to recover $242.03 for iuDtel and rtttaurant aooonusodatlons furniehed to defen<iant and one Johnson, at the special request of defendant. There vas a finding and judgment in faTor of plaintiff for the amount of its daia, to rererss vhioh defendant prosecutes this appeal.

Tha evidenop shows that defendant and one B. S, Johnson v< re guests of the plaintiff hotel ooraipany and that Johnson worked for defendant; that defendant had agreed to pa^ir some of his hotel bills and had paid |111.14. The eyidenee is net el ear as to how much of plaintiff's Qlaia is for aeoonBodatiOBs furnished to defendant and Johnson separately, but counealifer defendant eays that $181«04 af the amount sued for vas incurred by Johnson, This would leara ^60.99 of the dlaira due from defendant for hlB personal aocommoAations if plaintiff *s elaia is sustained.

Plaintiff oontenae that the steaographie report

VMi^f-

•2.

should b« etriokan from the reoord for the reason that def«ndant was girsn le«T* to file a bill of except ions, and that in place of doing so he filed a stenegraphio report. There is no merit in this point. The terms, statement, stonographio report, and bill of exoeptions as mentioned in Sec. 81 of the Practice Act. se^i to be used in the same sense^ Wurlitaer Co. t. Dickins-n. 247 111. 27.

On the trial of the cause plaintiff produced witnesses who testified that defendant told employees of pleintifr to cliarge Johnson* a account to hia; that he would pay it; that plaintiff had demanded payment a numb<»r of times and that statements had been regularly sent defendant •r9ry aonth shewing the amount of plaintiff's claim. The employees who kept the books also testified. Plsintlff had installed a looseleaf ledger system and a witness testified tliat the entries in the ledger were correct} that they were sutde tinder his supervision. The abotraot then is as follows: "Mr. Levinson, Now I offer this ledger account in OTidence. Mr. Biossat* I object. The Court. Let it go in for what it is worth." The ledger leaf was then admitted in evidence. Counsel for defendant now say that the ledger leaf was inadmissible as not being a book of original entry. No such objection was made on the trial. If such objection had been there made, it could hare been readily obrlated by offering in OTidence the books or original entry wuieh the witness testified he had with hia. The point new made %ras net brought to the attention of the trial judge and cannot be urged here for the first time. The purpose of making an objection is to bring to the mind of the ca^rt the point made so that he oan jhiso

- ^ :-AJ M(# ni

.O&ltCO

; ■ .-to: y, ,, - x*ii® * :x^««*

.^•xu- . . . ■■■om

.iXMfte^

ttp«a it int«lXlg«ntly. As was said in goffsgn. etc, t. Barry. 56 111. App. 587, "It is not permiseibXs to so fraaic an objeotion that It will serro to eaTC an exception for the action of a oourt of reviev, and yet ooneeal the real eoaplaint frcm the trial oourt." See also First Natl. Bank of Hayward r. gerry. et aJL . 195 HI. App. 613. I>eff°n(laQt is net sow in a position to urge that the leflger leaf vas iaadatissible beoause it was not a book of original entry.

Sefenclant further argues that the judgment is wrung for the reason that eren If defendant did promise, as testified to by witnesses for plaintiff, that he would ya|i Johnson* s hotel bills, this promiise was within the Statute of Frauds as it was not in writing; that the promise of defendant to psy Johnson's billwas made after the bill was inourred and, therefore, it was not an original undertaking « that the oredlt for Johnson's bill was not extended to defendant. ¥• haTe •ssmined the ab« straot carefully and nowhere is the point made or otob •uggented, that the Statute of Frauds was interposed as a defense. No mention of the statute was made in the affi- dayit of merits. This ie admitted by oounselfor defenuant, but he says that sinoe plaintiff in its statenent of olaim alleged indebtedness due from defendant on aeoount of aa<K)m- B^datious furnished hla and Johnson at defendant's request, which was denied in the affidarit of merits, that the d9m fendant oould not properly aet up the defense of the Statute of frauds because plaintiff's statement of olaim alleged an original undertaking*

If plaintiff's statement ef olaim wms upon the

«<-

OV S I o

^IJ£

i '.„' '■''

•i^'>#!

<««J

Tijnk-ijgii'

,»»«*i ;<»i9

twl •«»'

»*«*/...

tj^tiiimi

»«« at;

theory of «in originftl undertaking and if the aTideno* tended to shov that it we net an eriginal undertaking, butat ooet It vae only a preatiee to p«y the de\>t of Jehneon valoh hwd heen already Inourred, objection ehould h&Te been made on the trial, riz: that there wat a Tarlanea between the etatement of claiB and the proof, but nothing ef that kind vaa erea euggeeted to the trial judge. Ve knew of no praotiea that permits a defendant to take ad« Tantage of the l^tatute of /zaude unlese such defense is set up in the trial court, and sinee suoh defease was net suggested, the point eauinet be miade here for the first time.

Upon a oonsideration ef the entire reoord it appears that defeadent and Johnson, wta« was in some sianner «89l«yed by defendant, were given eredit by th(% hotel; they were guests there. There is suffielent STldenoe to warrant the finding ef the oourt that the bill was correct and unpaid. 7he Judgment ef th« Muniolpal Oourt will, there- fore, be affirmed.

AM-nmam*

THOfSCSf, P.J. and TAXLQK.J. oonour.

J^iOii-

->-

"Cwc;; .it ottB ►

374 - 2472^ A06U&T &ALjkjKAB,

Appellant*

untm BRXSSCol

m/sal fhoi

CmOUlT COURT,

ooGC cnJUTr.

•11^. )

217 loA. 6 56

%

MR. JUSTIOK TAYLOK d«liT«re<i th« opinion 0f the 00 art.

On Hovember 1, 1916, the plaintiff, Atxguet lialdukas, filed in thffi C&rouit Court of Cook Count/ a narr and eoatnoTlt together with an affldaTit and a judgment note in the sum of $1453* 00, Judgttont wao entered thereon for |13d7«60, together with $25.00 attorney** fee*.

On NOTemher 13, 19X6, upon motion and petitioa •f the defendant an order wao ent<^red glTing the defendant the right to ploaA to the pladntiff** declaration and pro* Tiding thai the judgment \»y ooafeeaion should etaad as eeourity.

On Horeaber 81, 1916, the defendant filed a plea of |>a/»ent netting up that on KoTember 9, 1914, 1^253.00, whieh wao endorsed on the note, had been paid susd that on i>eoember 1&, 1914, the defeadsnt had paid the plaintiff the sua of ^1239.00 in full satisfaotion of everything elaiaed in the aedaratiOB, On April 27, 1917, the deff-ndant filed a Bill of i»artleulars. C^ May S, 1917, there was a jury

,x: i'^uftt

trial ui<l a Terdiet flaAiac th« i»Btt»« for th« plaintiff and aanasning his danages at |iS87.60. dtt1i«a<iu«litly, a ■ation for a «•« trial tm« grraated, and oa Jusa S4, 1918, after a taoond Jury trial .'a v«rdiot vaa raadarad finding tha iBeu«8 for the defendant. Upon that. Judgment «at an* tared, and thie appeal taken.

A nualDar of people liTiag la a Lithuanian aalgh* ^)orhooA in Ctsdoega, being deeiroue, in the euBKner of 1913, •f eoiabliehiag a new pari eh ehureh, undertook to obtain a pieoe of £ round for that purpoea. Aooordiagly, a eertaia 19 lots w<!re bought and put in the iftoaa af the Catholie Bishop of Chioago. fart af the cost of tha ground was oW tained by oolleotione from those who lived in the aev par* ioh« Prior to the pureluatse for i^huroh purpeoeo, the plain* tiff, Saldukas, and one Baroa, hud inreeted a eertaia amount in those partioular lots, and, in order to make th«« whole, two prottiesory notes w^rn made, one to the plaintiff for #1463, C^, and aiioih«^r to Saros for the aiao^^nt whioh he bad inTeeted. Those notes were both signed by the defendant. It is a fair inferenoe from the evidenoa that the defeadaat signed the t«o notes with the under standing, at least as far as he and the people of the parish w^re eoncemed, that he was ta be paid ba^ out of the parioh fuada. Zt is tha teetimoay of the defendant that at that tine the title ta the real estate was not in the idiuroh and as a resiult the nates ha< to bo aade by hisi instead of by the ohureh. It is slso the testiawny of the defendant, that the note ta the plaintiff, although aade on Saptsnbar 6, 1914, was dated August 15, 1914, that being the date up to whioh interest had been fignrad. It is admitted that the dofeaciant did

»;>.;**■»■

-3-

9«y th« i>liftintiff th« sua of #253,0C, vhloh pa;yn«at «m« •iHlorfi«4 on th« n«t« itt«lf , and th« balano* new olaiKOd Iqr the plaintiff is the mtm •f lieoo.OO and interest. Tlie defendant olaias that he su1is«quently paid the note in full.

Th« theory of the defendant, vhioh hie evidenee t«Bd8 to support, i« that on or a1>out February 9, 1916, the plaintiff oalled on hia at hie plaoe of reeiaeace, statinit that he needed soa« aoney in order to finish a l»uilding in whioh h<» was int^rt^sted and aekftd for soao* thing on his note; that the defendant told hia there was net Buffioient parish funds on hand; that the plaintiff then suggested that the def fondant pay him as am oh as ho then had of parish funds and dr«» aheoke for difff^rent dates in the future for the balance, whioh oheeke the d^^fendant should use as soon as there sas sufficient parish funds to pay then; that aeeordingly soron blank oheoks of different dates and amounts were ultimately ■nde out, all of which were endorsed on the back ky the plaintiff; that ho gave the ^leintiff $330.00 in enoli, for which he retained two of thecheeks, that two of the other cheeks the plaintiff took with hia and one of the cheeks, being for #500.00, the defendant retained as mi of foot to a note of $500.00 which the plaintiff owed hia for that amount which he bad loaned the plaintiff about the time the church property was bought; thet the signature on the check of 1500.00 was givon as a receipt to the defend- ant for the payment of the note for #500.00, which note ho turned over at that time to the plaintiff; that at the tian of the settlement the plaintiff told hia, the defendant.

A If l» Ail.- ■" *«»*•»« >-M. J.-.i,- >

r^y; .-i*', Hi,' i *

(^

.^jiXi; :;^ vo c-rf^iKZ

•4.

that h« htk& l»st in* $1463.00 ia»l:

The rridence of thv plaintiff is »ub«tmntially t« th* followias offeet: That la March. 1914, «h*n th« ohuroh property vaa Isoimsht th« defentaant loanad hlja IftOC.OO to 1»o ttaod in tho purohase of the property and that ho gaTO tho dofondant hla noto for that anount; that «uhaoqu«ntly in July, 1914, h<» sold oortaln propcirty vMoh ho ovnod and paid the dofottdant tho aforooald 960C.OO neto; that aft«rvardo, about NOTf^her 7, 1914, ho and the defendant bought a oor* tain pioeo of roal oat&to in partnerahip and «h»rtly after* wards undertook the erect ion of a flat building on the pro- mi aes; that about that tiate ho loaned the defendant $30C,C0; ilBni la order to ooapletc the building on the real oetato thoy Jointly owned thoy, together, borrowed #2, 000* CO froa a bank and gaTC a siortgago on the real estate in question; that the> aoe4od |1,0(K}«00 {oere in order to eoaplote the building; that th« defenciant roonamended borrowing the |1,OCO.OO from one Agatha Gailue; that accordingly eho loaned thoa $1,C00«00, but at that time no note waa giren her tht^refer althev^h he ild subsequently giro her a Judg* Mont note for that anount; that 8)«rtly afterwards, in 1915, the defmsdani told hin that kte would haTO to dissolTS his copartnership with the plaintiff; that the defendant told hln he would pay the debt to Agatha aailus; that at tho tiae of the dissolution of thopartnership the defenuant pwod hiA $1400.00; that in settloaent of the copartnership the defoadaat executed a quit elaim deed of the property

to tho plaintiff; that abc?ut that tlM, February 9, 1915,

that they undertook to aeke a sottlomenty the defendant stated

that as he had promised to p»y tho |1,CC0.C0 note to Agatha

.^.

• i»^'o«; '<X

'»-c;^!

>s '? /i *■ J 6,M i ' J i f . ;, i f: i.ii

■« Ls?>«u •« r.if.,:

IB.VI

(rw V ;S«"<i':>

•. ••» •'.'.>■ > »<>,«v

;??»•* /-J ,5-. •., ■;•- » >1«-

i\' 'i •« ^'i * ♦ r! .

/^v»..', fi

^li-

tfrUeoiA a'

-5-

QailttS h» would oonsider thttt oredlt«d en th« baXano* •f iXtOO.OO of th« tI4S3,00 n0t«, leaTlnff 9nlj ISOO.CO (lu»{ that h« than ranuect«<i th« plaintiff to ttiga him immw ob th« Wok af aertala blank ehaokss thnt h«, th« plaintiff, at th«t tin« ticaad ••T«ral blank eh«ekii on th« bade} that thojr oestKia«d no othor aritinc; that thv oheokii reaaiaad la th« choediE book} that on that oe aoioa the defondant de« llYorad to him only two af th* ohooko, ona datad Fabmarjr 9, 1919, for |3 00«00» and the other datad Yabruary 10, 1915, for |S9.t)0; that th« 1300.00 ohaok giT<m hJla aaa f(tr a loan af #300*00 which h«!' hnd nado tho d«f<*ndi»i3t aoaa tisa b«for« and th« $&9.00 oho<dc imo for iatcraat on th« prinelpal no to; that ha, tho plaintiff, paid tho latTOot on tha A^tha Qailua noto for oix montho; that aama timo aftarwardo h« aakod th# d«'fea<2ant if h« vaa galac to siTO hiu tho noacgr ta par Agatha Qailuo and that the dafandaat aald, "You oigned tha not« X ata net going to pay**; that th«' Agatha Oalluo aot« far 11000,00 ahieh waa pojrablo in two yoare fran data waa made out and ^irmn to tho defend- ant on Febn&ar/ 9, 191S. Hie explaaatioa ^t aigaiag hlo aasa oa the baoko of the efaedko i» that tho dafoadaat told hia to OBdoraa thea and then ao money aana in to the pari oh funde ha, the d«*fendaat, would drwv on it to pay the Agatha Oallut aot«, Zt io th<> tentinany of the plaiatiff that the defendant still ovaa Agatha Oailue the amount of tho gailtto note and that th<«r« renaiae due a balanoe of |8C0.^.

the aubotantlal quoatioa ia the eaaoe i» whether the balanoe of $iaoo«00, being fart of the origiaal aoto for 11453,00 wao paid hjr the defendant* The teotiaeajr of tho flaiatiff and that of the defeadaat ia vary aaeh in oaafliot.

lo ift^

;«

;'*AjAq pjt sinioj?

•hrwlt^ij

«Sat> r

^MA vf

p&riiloul«Tl/ «■ to what tranepired at th« a«ftting in February, 191&. The plaintiff elaima that on t^mt oooasion he reoeived a oh«elc tor |300,00 which was for an eld and suparate loan of that amount, and n. oho die for $59«00 for interest on the prinolpal noto, aftd th« proaiso of tho defendant that ho would poy the Agatha (rallus note of ^1000,00, leaving the sum of $200.00 still duo tho plaintiff. Tlw defendant elaima that at th«* time of tho alleged settlement ho gaTO tho plaintiff I380.00 in cash and two oheeko, together with 1900,00 the plaintiff owed hlas for a loan, all of whioh taken together settled in full tho balanoe of IISCO.OO. The elaira of the defendant that the note was paid in full is in part corroborated by the testiiaony of Hogiot* Zottbris, Sklader and WaslOTas, all of whoa testified tlmt they had heard the plaintiff state that the note in qjuestion was paid. If the Jury boliOTOd the testi- mony of the defendant oa<i the witneosoo Just mentioned, til* re was aaqple eridence to support their Terdiet. There are some diseropaaoies in the testimony of the defenUent but they are not saeh as necessarily to aff eot tho truth of his story. On the other hand, in the plaintiff's testiiBony there are some obTious diseropanoios whleh oooa to be quite serious. Wo are not justified, howoTer, in sotting them forth hero, the evidenoe inTolved being eo Tolumiaous. We haTO ozamla«°d the evidenoe and the olabor- ato brief of oounBol for the plai.ntiff with caro • tho defendaat*a brief being praetieally negligible • ain<i haTO eomo to th«« oonolusion that the judgcaent must stand.

«r;

It Is oontcnded lagr the plaintiff that a eertala •tatoipent fmd9 l9jr the trial judffa In the orees^exaialnatioit •f the defendant waa error* That statement,* "De you aean te tell lae he ie trying to tell eoau^thlag that is net true?* • was improper and should net hare he en made. The reoard dees not skew, hsweTer« that any ehjeetien or notion was made, and ttnd(?r theee oirouauitaikaes, bearing in alnd tl»t there was asq^le e-ridenoe tending to prof payment, we are ef the opinion that the error does not Justify a roTorsal.

It is further oen tended that the fifth Inst rue* tien whloh was glTen for the d«fen«iattt was erroneous. That instruction referrad to the endorseffi«nt upon the note and also to the endorsem(>nt ef the plaintiff's name upon the alleged eheoks, and intimated that they were'priaaa facie OTidenoe that euoh sums ae are shown hy said endorsement and eheoks wore applied as payment upon the note*} that* therefore, the burden was upon the plaintiff to si»»w ether* wise. That inetruotion was not entirely accurate but ia ▼iev ef the OTidenoe which was actually introduced in sup- port of the defendant's dais of payment, we do not feel justified ia coasidcring the inetruotion ^ven ac sufficient ground for a reversal. The same reason applies to the objeo- tion made by the plaintiff to the sixth instruotion given for the defendant. Further, we are of the opinion that in* struetion nxmber three, which was given for the plaintiff, sufficiently informed the Jury that, as the evidence showed that the note was in the posses eion of the plaintiff at the time of the trial, the preBu>t>ptioB was that it hed oet b«>ea paid, it, therefore, became the obligation of the defendant to put ia evidence to overcome that preeumptioa, and as a

•1 ■■>.!■

ln«:. irrj")

'.'MttWW-

iur oi

ct

r««iiit Bftde It uimccvasarj for th« court to glTO iMotruotlon number tuo for the Aofeadant, which wtbt refuso4.

A ninabor of othffr oent«ntioas taavo bo«ii a«d« en 1»«h«Xf of the jplointiff; we r^aTo examinecl th^m oil luad have oonoUtded that they are ineufficdent to justify • reToroal* Tho Judgoont io, therefore, affirtaed,

Avwimsu^

THOMSON. P.J, AND TAYLOR, J. CONCUR.

I'M jlif-3?1

■<%» itvbtfioaw

xra.

• flUOtlOO .1. ,HOJYAT CITIA .L.I ,ZOSifDET

439 • 84792

JAItm f, ilSfiOP, Administrator of } tta* ••i«t4*f Uaxio ilAchao«k,

\ App«ll e« ,

\ JAV OfOPIOAI, ^.

•11 ant.

s— -/

A1»J»!SAL faCK

COCC COUSTX.

7

217 I.A. 656^

KR. JUSTICS 7An»0K dollTered th« oplnioa of th«

eourt.

Tho plaintiff, Jaraes ?. Blsho{>, ttdnlnlatrator of tho «8tat« of Umrr Uaoliaook, deeoaood, brought ault uador tb« at»tut« against tho d«f«ad«at, John Copioan, elalaing thai the latter ovIhk to bis neglis«BO« in drlviac <ui auto* aeliilo ran into and killed Mary ttachftook, tho d«o«ao«d. Hm oattoo Wfto tried before a Jury. Th#re waa a rordlot and Judipaoat foi |70p.00 and an appoaX bar the dofondant.

On the cv«nlm of April 24, 1915, about 7}30 P*M, thv d«f«nuaat and fire oonpanlono were travel inc in a Hanbler auotnoblle, south on Blue island avc^nu** bo* tween 18th and 19th streeto in the city of C»iioa«o. 18th and 19th streets run east and w««i» amA Blue Island aventtO northeaeterly and oouthiroeterly. At a point between ftO and 75 feet north of the northwest oerner of 19th street and Blue Island avenue, the autoiaoblle, driven by the da* fondant strudic Marj Maohaaak and Icilled her. It is the theory of the plaintiff that Kary Kaa^iaeek • who at the tine was nine years and two aonths old • was standing with

00r,qav4

a pla/mit«, Umry Kopta, on th« aidt^^valk on the t««t slda •f Blu« Island aT«ni« is front af Basaa%aini*« e to ra, ahieJa was th« third ator« north frma th* northv«et oarner 9f IV th straat and Blua lel^md avanuo* waiting for a southbound strs«t ear, whioh was standing th«r« taking on passengars, to start up snd ga on so that thej sdLght sarsss 9rtr f tha •ast sida of Blua Island araaua; that as soon as the straai «ar got out 9f the ««gr» going south, Mary Maahawdc stappsd lata tha strset and was praetioally instantly run 9r9r and killed hy defendant's autosnobile; that no horn was soundoQ or signal girsn; that the autamsbile did not haTS its lighta on and was trareling from 25 ta 30 miles an hour. On the at her hand it is the theory •f the da* faadant that the daeaasad rant froa the sidewalk on the east sida af Blue Island aToaua, towards RaeenlMi««*s stars •n the wast aide of Blue Island avenua; that ehe ran in a northnreeterly direction, paasing behind a northbound street ear and then directly in front sf tha southbound autouiobila vlisn it was not more thnn 2 to 15 fast frosi h«r; t>tat tha autoTBobile was not going faster than froa 0 to IC ailes aa hour; that she was running after her oonpaaioa, Uary Kepta, who waa four fast ahaad of har; that tha defendant aa aooa as possible turned his maehina to the aast.applied the foot and aaargancQT brakes, aad stepped within four to six feet*

Th« witnesses, VillipOTitoh, who at the ti»e af the disaster was on the east sida af the street} Vayra, who was in fxaat af ltoeenbaua*s about tea feet from the twa ohildraa; Antina ^loraoiA;, who was going towards Rosenbaum's, and who says she was about five fast away frosi the deeaasad, sa near that ehe oould reaeh out andtouoh her; tfary Eapt«»

in* iMHa3»«alon of th« 4eo*as«<i, w)n«^ Imwyrmr^ w&c then enXy Bin* jreaxn of ag«; a»ri« Bil«k, vho w^e st&adiac on th« •Idvvalk about thr«« •fp* hmtk of %h9 de<MWUi«d; Uar/ Bil«]c vho v»« ataading just lM«k of the d«e«»et4 at th« tiaa la quattioai aXX t^^Btified tlwt th* d«oea»«d l«ft th« •idevalk from la froat ef Hosanbaua**; that flh» star tod aast aoros* ih« 0tr*«t and «a« at ono*» upon l«*Tinc tb^ ourb and «at« ting into t^ stra«t» ttru<dt by tiie defendant* s autooabila.

On th* athsr haad th* tvalva witnaas**, who wera aallad by tha dafandant, vhio/i inolud^s th'>' eoouiMnta of %h9 autofflobila, tretified t^t th* deoeaeed uadartook to •TO OS the St root from ttaa oaot t» th« vo; t; that sha «*at bohiad a northbound straet oar and diractly in front ef tha aut«u>biia. CN!}uni>«*l for tha dofend@>nt argues that thora ara oertain diroropanoiao in tha te^tiaanor of the vitn«<ssos for tha plaintiff} ono diserapanoar partalning to the aboaneo or prii»*nw of a polioanua at tha tins of tha aeoident, hu/A awithar partaining to vhat vao dona with tha body of tha •lailA iamadiatal/ aftor the di easier oeourred, ano that th«y «aat d0)ibt tt]>ou muoh of tha OTid«nci« for tha plaintiff.

In aadt a oaao aa this, vhare thc^rr aro so aanjr witnoflooo and two opposing sots of faot aro taotifiod to wa faoi that tha Jury was in a far batter poaitiea to Judga tha trustworthiaass and eradibiiity of the vitneoses than wo aro* Of ooarso, if tha ^wey baliared tha witnessas for tha flaintiff, and judging by thair rordioi it may bo aasuBOd thoy did, and, farthsr, boliared that th« defend* aat*o witn«^esas wars onworthy of boliof, thair Tordiot was proper, aad as wa do not find, from tho roeord, aa it appoara horo, that it was against tha oanifast woight of

•4.

th« •Tid'-noef ^« feel bound to let it st«nd.

At to the di«c««se4 lifting; ia th« •ix«rel«« of ordinary o«r«; In Anull^ ▼. Chicago Oreat afeetern H. H. Co. ( Oon. Ho, 24655) vo onid: "A minor lo ehftrgod vlth tho oxoroloo of ouota oaro «o» ronsonmbl/ oonoldorod* h« olwuld ueo, huTlnc la nlnd both hie ««• «nd hit mOBt«l and g>l:Ky«ioiil eopAolt/, «Bd ttao olroumBtnnooo of the oooo.* Siting, Hoiawum ▼. ginnajfo. WO 111. IWj {;;,, H, I, #, ?, ^, i^. <?o,^ y, mMSt» i^* ^^i- •J^} ?t G, Hy. Go, ▼. liiSSa. W« ill. «82.

Conoidorittg tho iamatarity of umxy Maohnook, vhe» at th« time oho vao killed^ wao but a llttlo OTor 9 yearo of agoj that, aooordinc to tho orldcnee of tbo plaintiff, oho otood and waited with her ooapanioa, on thff oidovalk, until a otroot oar going oouth had gotton out of thn vajr and thon otoppod fro» the mxxh into the otroot to oroeo OTor and vao alneot instantly otru«k and run OTor Iby the dofendant** autoiaolsilo, which the evldenoe of tho plaintiff ton<;is to flhow wao going from twontyofiwo to thirty alios an hour; wo aro of tho opinion that tho jury wao Juotiflod in finA* ing that eho vao not guilty of oentributory nogligenoo in undortakiag to orooo ao oho did, ana, further, wo aro of tho oj^inion that th«y wero Justified in finding tho defend* ant wao guilty of nogligonoo,

finding no orror in tho reoord tho iytdgnmnt In affirmod,

nvxmifti

THOMSON, P.J. AND O'CONNOR, J • CONCUR.

3i -JtCl

i 1691 mw ,A«

39

*i.- :ttmlA

•HITO!! . , .flOmiOO'O aWA .I.«i ,M03M0HT

O0|- 84844

Ap9«ll4^e,

CO. «nd GSICAGO CITT / BAXLWAJT CO., doing bu«y !»••« as CKICAOO SUHF^fCB

ciacuiT cscimT,

OOOe COUVTY.

/7

Aj^ftllants. )

217 I.A. 657

1

XR, jrUStlOS TAYLOR d«liYcred th« opinion of

th«' eeurt*

Olftiaing that he had h««n foreibly ejcoted from one of th« defendant** otroet oart, the plaintiff hrought suit for pereonal injuries, and on Hay 25, 1918, recover- •4 a Judgnent la the bum of $25CC*oo. yrem that judgment thle appeal is teicen. The deoHaratlon eontains three eounta: The flret oouat mrmru that the plaintiff hoarded the atraet oar and beeame a paaeeager for hire; tlria t It ««• the duty of the defendisint to treat hln as a pas monger ; that while he, with all due oare, ««« riding upon the ear, the defen^^aat, through Its serrants. In violation of their duty, assaulted and violently otruok hla and with feroe and violence threw him off the oar, serlouely injuring him.

The oeooad ^unt Is euhstantlal^ the- eamo, save It avers that the plaintiff hoarded a street onr and that th« defend cmt in disri^ard of Its duty, throu^fh its ser* Taat, the oondueter, aseaultfid and violently etruek hla aad with great foroe threw him off, whrreby he «»s injured.

•2-

Th« third «oimt ATcrs i&at h« bearded a oar 9t the defendant** and while In the exeroise of care and riding upon eaid ear* in disregard of hie duty* the oon* ductor upon th« ear abused hiai and wantonly and nalieioue* ly aosaulted and TiolentXy struck and beat him and with great foree and vielenoe wantonly and nalioiously t>irew tJte plaintiff off the oar and injured him.

The defendant plead«d the general issue and also a speeial plea. The epeeial plea set up that the plain- tiff got upon the oar and tendered to the oonduotor a trans* t«r Blip; that th«? ecaciducttor upon acoeptin^; it informed the plaintiff that it waa not good for the payment of hie fare; that hie rights under the transfer had expired some two hours ago; th»t he then demanded of the plaintiff the usual oash fare; that the plaintiff refused to pay sMd insisted upon riding on the tz>anefer slip; that after the conductor had roduoeted the plaintifi to got off the oar and the latter had refused, th« oonducter siolliter manuB ireposuit. and using no laore foree th^m was necessary ejected the plain* tiff from the ear doing him no damage.

To the latter speeial plea, the plaintiff replied that the trannfor slip which he tendered to the conduotor had heen giTon to him upon the payment of a oash fare to the defendant and that it purporjfcod en ite faoe to be good for the payment of faro upon that oar; timt the transfer slip was not late and was not tendered two hours after the time it was given for. The plaintiff further replied deny- ing that the oonduetor used no mere foree than was necessary to ojoot him from the ear and arerrod that the omduetor used more foroe than was noeeasaxy, and thereby did him

aUT

i^7 .r:

^ ! ;;:.'!?; .':■

«fii

0i

-3-

Tl»« plaintiff, John Ooldstcin* who»« Imrk^ was in Vorth ]}alcota n«ar ihtt CaaaAlan bordftr, but who was la Chloaet OB Imslnese* a man alaout 47 ysars of ags, on Aug* ust 18* 1914, In tha aft<»z>noon, after tiranoaeting sews 1»ttslasse with aarsen, Pirls & iS«ott*s wholesals houvs, iBSay^lsd one of th« d«f«nciants* oars on Madison strsei, >»«tw««n Franklin and Markst stroots* going vast. Ks paid his fars and got a traasfor. His intention was to go to HOT South Halsted stro«t. Ths oonduetor of tho Madison straet oar told Ma the transfer would entitlo dim to bo transporto4 on th«i Halstod stroet line fron where it intersoots Madison stroet. Tho oonduetor also told hia where to stand to take the Halsteu street oar* He got off at Halsted street and went oTer to the northwest eomer of Halsted and liadison streets preparatory to taking a oar south on Halstod street. Ho waited about fire or ton Min* tttes until a oar oano and then got on and handed his trans* for to the eonduotor. The transfer slip was submitted in oTidenM and, it is ooneoded* w»uld entitle the plaintiff to b« transported on thjst car. The dofenttant elaios, howoTor, that th« transfer slip whioh was submitted ia evidence was not the one i^ioh the plaintiff tendered to the oonduotor bat was a dif f «rroat one and InTalid bee>^use tso lata.

Tho attorney for ttit» plaintiff testified that the plaintiff garo hla the partioular transfer Blip, ehiort- ly after the oocurreaoe and that he kept it in his wault. Tho plaintiff, aleo, testified thst he gave thp transfer slip to the attorn^, and there is no erid enoe going to

i'ef w-^ .4«# 9dt mid h- iu

-^ Jon flACll ^is« ttOMi xsr ■ i'iu

■■ :>ia:i:.i-

■how in vhAt wmy the plaintiff aight haT« ««eur«4 that transfvy other than in tha m«JuieT ttfttad*

The •vi<Jene<? of the plaintiff is that at eeon ma he hni hoardad tha Hale ted etraat oar and giran his tranafar slip to tha aunduotor tha latter oaid, "Whara dldyou plok vqp that tranofar; ^h^r* did yon pi ok it up;" that ho told hla ha had just get it within ten or fiftean miautao froK< tha tis'.dison street car eonductor;that he hsd paid that eonduotor a niokel and hi&d reoeiyed the trane* far and hmim told to take that partiottlar «tr on Bala tad atreat; that the emductor en the Hisleted street aar then said; *Ve don*t use suoh tranofera". and ^rti it baek to hia nnd further said: "You will have to pay your fart if you «fant to go."; that he offered the oori* dttotor e Canadian five doUar laill ond said he was vill* ing to pay ten eents for its exohange, but that the oon* duetor said it would oost hia fifty oenta axehange for changing the Canadian aoa<^} that they had some further dispute; that meanwhile the oar was going oa; that the oonduotor asked hia if he was going to pay hi«' fare; that he anaweradt *How oan X pay ay fare. I haTen*t got no snail ehange*; that the otmduotor asked hia to pay hia fifty oents; that ie for t0ia ext^baago; that he eaid 1M vould not psy that auoh hut he said ha vould pay ton oents and fiTO oenta for the fara; that he had paid one fart already; that the oonduotor than took hold of hla and thrav hia off the enr; that when he t»OArded the ear he VAS aaoag the first; that when he threw hia off ha d008n*t reraeahar if he opened the rod that was hetweea klm and thr oonduotor; that he helieves he did.

;xo*oi.'t>floo tAO ^««'f

b^tmleSi

*CAt9td^

-6«

ftett •Tld«^ne« of ott« aoldist«ia, a ■•1««mui» vh» Vftft at«a41ng out in front of a star* whioh was th« ••ooad door Borth at the northvoot oonor of Halstad and Madioon strottta, ir to th« off act that botwaon 4 {00 an4 4}80 ?.]l» Auguat IS, 1914, he notlsad the conductor grab the plaia* tiff with both haada aad throw hia aff the oar; that at the tixM th« oar vaa la notloa; that a« th«^ ataa aaa Ijlag tharn craaaiaf; th« oar v«nt oa and no effort waa aada to •top; that ha took th(» numbar of the oar aad nadc! a aai** tion of it OB a poatal oard; that h» halpad piek th« plaia- tiff up, who at the tiraa vaa in a aaai^oonaoiotte eendition; that Halatad otraot at thii^t poiat vaa pared with granite bio oka; that the rear and of the Hale tad a treat oat, whea it oajite to a atop, waa about ten or fifteen feet to the north of whore he waa standing; that after it had atarted and gone ten or fifteen f^et he aaw th«* oonduotor take the plaiatxff with bath hands and throw him aff the ear; that he oould not aay whether the oonduotor eama out beyond the raillag; that he ie sure of everything with referenoe to the oonduotor getting hold of hia and all that; that he did i»Bt ae« the oonduotor open the rail that surreunda hia and paaa out to where the i^oBangera get oa; tha t when he firat aaw the plaintiff he wae standing in front of the rail, faoing south, about S9 iaohee froa the step, and that the oonduotor waa faoing hia; that the oonduotor took hia and threw hi;a right out of the oar while it was mowing; that he threw him out with great foree.

The awideaae of Raillj, the oonduotor of the Ualeted etrof^t ear, is to the effeot that whea h» atopped at Hadieoa atreet the plaintiff boarded the ear and handed hia

t»r»'v , our,

... - ^ ».*■«*%#•

-iftiOtJ « ■■ ■->•

'U

• .-rtf mj ■li*

^tii tt9 K^i ir9%e{it bem tttttoil J(;r<nr lUlv ^Til^ulMlq «iii

• 6-

ft transfers that 1m g»T« it laiuglc to hla and t«ltf him that it was no ftood] that it was two hour* too lata; that h« told hla h« would htkX* to pay another fare and hnnded him baok the tranaferj that he then turned to eollect faraa frena eome people trt>e were on the platform and when tiM oar mme to a etep at »anra« etreets, the next etreet eouth, paseengere trere gatting oa and off; thai he then teld him he would hare to pay hio fnr% and he aaid ha wouldn't; thwt the plaintiff then oalled him a haroh nama (unprihtabla) and eaid, "X wen*t pay you and you oan*t put me off; that he then unlo<dced the bar of the railinc* took the plaintiff by the am and triad to laad him off the oar; that he started reoioting and that thon ha, the c«nduotor» started pushing him; that when ha started to push him, he, the plaintiff* got down off tha platform onto the step and then slipped and fell; that as soon as ha saw him slip and fan ha inn^diately started the oar; that he reaehad for tha hall tutnlL and rang the hell after the plaintiff was off the ear* He further testified that the transfer vhieh was offered in eridenoe is net tha one that the plaintiff i^mnded to him; that tha transfer which was offered to him was punched at two a*eledK; in the after- noon, whereas the one in evidenoe is puaahed at fire e*clodie; that if the transfer • which was put in evide^noe • had been handed to him he would have aoeepted it*

The evidenoe of the plaintiff is that as a result sf baing thrown off the oar he suffered a hernia and that his health was greatly ixapaired.

The oauae waa triad before a ivaj and a verdiot rendered for the plaintiff in the •m of I2SOO.0C, and

rfti) ^ .-"ilMtUni A

7 ttt^mt^^tM^^ tiiiieati lu«m 9A Aid kl^i

, .T«

■/At ftnw <«*#• r.

v dS lM»d aid

-7-

Jttdgment «nter«d th«r«oii«

Zt 10 eontended by the <}«frai<t«iit that th« T*rdlet !• oentr«ry to th* lav «ad th« CTldffnof!^; th&t the plaintiff was not ao««pt«d a« a pmur.itngffr en th« Halctad »tra«t ear; ilMt Inaanuch as avary oount of th» d«e0.aratlan was baaed upan tha ttxistanea af tha ralationvhip of paaeangar and oarri«r it wae B«aaa«ary for th^ jilaintiff « in ardor to ro» aoTor» to proTo the oxiot^noo of that rolationship. 7ha following eaaaa ar« citodt 9^ A B, !♦ R. H« COy ▼, Jcnning^. l»0 III. App. 478; Oetaaiill t, I.C, R, O9.. 186 111, App. I24j Kulpineiof t. aaatpaaXI . 146 111, A^p. 842, fe ara of tha opinion, howoTOTf that the ovidenee is oonoiotc^nt vith the dealaratioaj thAt it proToo that ilM plaintiff baaaao a paat^engor on tha Halo tod Btraot oar and that it euf ficientljr Bupporto tha ▼ordict. It in ahown by the evid«no« of tha plaintiff that ho paid his faro on the Madleon otroet oar and had reoelTOd a tranofor olip, whloh ama a printed aanarandun announoing •n the part of the defenoant that it would imjrrjr hin on one •f ita oaro going eouth en Halotod etraot. Vrom that, it follows, that when the plaintiff bos^rded tho Halotod at roe t «ar, a few niautoo after he had left tha Kadloon etroot oar» ho boeaaio at oaoo • eren If he w^re not a paaeangar during the ahart tlna ha atoad at th<» oomer of Halotod and Madieon atrooto • a pasf^ engar with tha written ofld«»noe of his con- traot in hio pooi^aeoioa, and that ho wao entitled to ba earrled ao a pao!' angar aooording to the terma of the trwae« for olip which ho tendered to the conductor. Tha refuaal by theoonduotor of the tranofor slip vao too late; the de- fendant had already bound itoelf, when the plaintiff paid his full fare on the Kadison street ear* Ae far ao tha plaintiff wao oonoomod, the eontraot wao fully exooutod,

» Jlite,'-. „'.

ii: 3i!3 'i4 '%

but th«r« rvMainMl tli« uii«x*eutt4 obligation of tb« 4«fond^ •at, that la, to earvy him south oa th« Halitod «tre«>t ear. Ko mmm not trosyaoolng whan lio boardod the* Halstod atroet Mur; nor waa It noooaaary for the oonduotor to porfozm ajogr OTort aota boforo th« relationship of paeF«ng«>r »nd onrrlor eouia ecme into oxlatonoo. Sli«}<^»utlfiUP4UfX||««x»|^p:K«x«i(s KxpuumjsffK

7ho forogolng atatoaent of tho lav la not In conflict with -yod^ ▼, 1, A> N. H. B, Co.. 274 III. 201, and tho oaooa thoroln el ted. It le an application of tho voll known prlnolplea of tm lav of oontraot that if, in asking a Journey, for which pajrment has boon omdct In full, one goto off, aa he la oxpeetod and entitled and inetruotod to do, and boards another ear to which he Is directed, all pursuant to the original undertaking and contract, he re« naiaa a paosengor throughout, Feldman v. Chioa^o Rys. Co. 239 111. 25

It ie, further eontf^aded by the defendant that the daaagoa are exeoaalTO. The testinoajr of the plaintiff is that prior to the alleged injury he had neror been ill and that ehortly aft#r ho wao pushiod tr thrown off the oar a hernia doTtlopod, ur. Oalbraith of Sforth Dakota, aa oxaaiaor for o<^rtain well knova life Insuranoe ooapanlca, testified that OB Augaot 14, 1914, prior to the injury la question, ho oade aa exaalnation of the plaintiff in ooaaoetion with aa application for a polio of iatfuraaoo and that ho did not fiad any OTideaee of hornim} that tho plaintiff toomod to bo in Tory good health; that subooquontly, on August 26, 1914, after the lajurjr in quoetloa hB was oonsultod by the plaintiff who ooaplained of oynptoao poeuliar to hernia; that ho oxaaiiaod hia and that be oe<»BOd to hoTO a horni* and that he adTlsod hia to got a truoo; that on Serpteabor 2, 1914. he fitted hia

III eaS.pD .a?nfl o^jjoixio .v nfitcjj 19''^ ,;

foycn- t

^;J4iJ

•9-

with a truaa. Th« d«f<?n<lant ealled i^a, M<^w«nnai and T«nn«jr and unditrtook to shov that if It vasf a hernia it was ena that had 1t>*«n ehrenio and axisted prior to the tina of tha allagad iajurjr. "^^^ ara af th« opinion after a careful asoua* ination of the evidenoe that it suffioiently ahava that the piaiatlff waa aotoaXIy ruptured h/ reaaaii af the fall, and, further, that, under the cdreunetanaen, the daauaKaa are net axeeeBiT«. IXl. steel 2o. t. Keahlniski. 1S5 ill. App. 587 j ^tohison, etc. K« ii^ Qq,^ ▼, ^•l^dsr. 50 III, App. 276,

It ia further ecntended by the defendant that an expert witnees on behalf of the plaintiff aaa allavad in anaver to a hypethatioal question to teetifjr that he had an opinions Inanmuoh, hov«»Ter. as th'o witneeo did not otata what that opinion «aa the oontention ia untanabla. The deoieien oited by eouneel, Kimbrgugh r, gMc&iso C.H, Qo.. 872 III. 71, is inapplicable bea&uee in that ease the wit* aeee mie allowed to espreee hie opinion.

It i« further contended that error was committed in the refuRal af the defendant* e inatruotien Ho. 1. Con^ aidering, hewerer, aa we do, that the plaintiff wae a paOBVAgar* and that it waa net proyen that the plaintiff aaeaulted th« conductor but, at soet, that he applied a Tile epithet ta hi« • whieh it true might go in mitigation of danajsas • there waa no juetifieation for auah and iaatruction, and it waa properly refuaed.

rxiTBiifa SO mtHoa ib tip; hi; corb 1*118! jusoiofirt is

AmaMXji.

fiMftov, ?.j, AXi> o*ooifKOE. J. oevoiii.

D

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the seventh day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred ajid nine-

teen, within and for the Second District of the./5tate of

\ ■ /

Illinois :% X

Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Pres iding ./ust ice.

\ /

Hon\ DUANE J. CARNES, Justic|*i

Hon. IDORRANCE DIBELL, Just/ce.

\ f ^

CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Cl4'rk,

CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff.

/'

217 I.A. 657

^

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on

^- ; 191^ the opinion of the Court was filed in

the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures

following-, to-wit:

Gen. No. 6755.

Walter B.. Stroud, appellee

VB Appeal from City Court Kewanee.

Maddra J. Hewlett, appellant.

Dibell, J,

Stroud is a aiaoliinist living in ICewanee. Hewle+t a].so lived in Kewanee and was about seventy five years of age wlien the dealings began which are here involved. Hewlett was the huaband of an aunt of Stroud. Hewlett wae an inventor and was working on a water supply eyetem, by which was meant the lifting of water in buildings by compressed ait. Hewlett had a patent for said system and had installed the same is several places, but he was having xau trouble with it and it was not yet a success. There was in TCewanee a building known as t>e Harrii Machine Shop, which was known to be for sale. Stroud had a partner named Connery. Hewlett proposed to Stroud that he find out at what price the machine shop could be bought and that he, Hewlett would t] en buy and pay for it and sell it to Stroud and his partner on tine, and payable at different intTvals, and that they secure the debt by a chattel mortgage. A part of Hewlett's interest in the matter was that his patterns were in said shop and also variQus manufaotiired articles which went into the system. The price wag ascertained and Hewlett bought the maohine shop and sold it to Stroud and his partner and took notes for the purchase price, payable at different times and secured by a chattel mortgage on the personal property connected with the shop. This was in Jxily 1915, and Stroud did some work for Hewlett in that shop up to December 1915. According to Stroud's testimony, Hewlett then proposed to Stroud that he get rid of Connery and go to work for Hewlett

,3dVB .oTf .aeC

.L tXIscfia JbeviX oaX^ :f-*aIW9H .sen^ws)? xii gnivll tatatdomi £ al LvortB

Bdi flerlw »3£ lb 8iJ8eY evil \ta9r9e :tuo<i£ bjbw true ©enjsrsis al

basdaud ad& eair tftf-aXweH .JbevXovni OTSil 9i£ rfolriw n^asd egaiX^ei)

gnXiiow 8JBW JbH-e loJnsvnl njs sjbw tJeXweH .t«oi*3 lo taus n-3 lo

TttfjBW I0 gnl^llX 9d& &njsem esw riolrfw, ^d tmsta^a ifXqqx/e "xsJjsw jb no

£>ij38 lol *nQtjbq fi t^ **»Xw6H .±1jb fcagaeiqmoo aj^ aanitliucf xii

a«w Off ti;<^ .aaodXq X^xsvee at amjse silt tiXIsteat tM tn£ maita^a

©isrfT .aaeoojja >e J8\i ton bjbw tl ttia tJL dtl^x olduoti »bz -gatvad

,qori8 ©nirfo^ aiTiaH 9:^ bjs owoni gnlLXiucf a eeruswa^ at a^w

JtecD^n tend"iJiq £ £)«ri i)iJO-i;f3 .ai-se lo'i scf od- nwoajl aJlW dQi4'"

taxfw *£ ;fjJO tnil arf **x{t tuor^B oi Laaoqoiq J^-^elwsH .xisnnoO

^laXwsH ,eff t£iiJ- tnjB driajjocf acf LLuoo qode anirfo-Bm ailt eoiiq

aid ta& bisoi&B o& tt XXee tius *! lol ^c^q iinfi >£x/tf xiaf* LIjjow

*«ri* Jbn£ taX^vi-^Jnl rf'naie'illX) ** aXtfjs^^q Lii^ ,aini* no isnifijsq

e'**»Xw8H lo rf'ijsq A .as^^tTom laiiAdo £ ^cf *cfsl: exit eii/oea ^{9.-.*

qo^fa Jb£jb-a ai atew anrta^ifjsq eld tadt a«w raitsm adf al taei^^tat

Silt o*nl taa^ rfolrfw asXoi^fi* taiJji'0J8!U;nsin auOtrsv oal-a Ln-s

erfcf JrfSjjocf itaivBll las baat^ii^oas ajsm aoiiq axlT .meJBYe

fcnjb iantrijsq eiri ircjs l5x;oi;fS ot j-i tXos i.n£ qorfa Qcitdo^m

80na-i+ JnaisltJ^t t-A 9lor«YjBq ♦•oiiq aa-ferioiuq axit lol as^on ioot

XJisqoiq lJsno8T»q ©xl;f no ajji^J'Toffl Xs^^JBdo js ^cf batuoae ta£

buottQ fcnjB tSXeX xXifL ni b£w alrfT .qoxla sdt dttrr tetoeaaoo

.2XeX TLStfmaoeG o* qu qorfe *J8r[:t nl t&tlwaH lol iaow amoe isifc

ot teaoqotq nai-!;t Jrf^BXwaH ,^noiBi*aa* a^budi^B oif gnXtaoooA

t*eI"weH no^ at tow 0^ og tnjs ^xennoO lo iiirt Jeg art i-jsri* ^01*8

in an effort toimprove and overcome the lifficultiea in his water supply system, and that H2-.Tlett wouli pay Stroud for hie time at the rate of eighty cents per hour, and that when the water supply system had heen made a coTmeroially practical proposition, Hewlett would give stroud a half interest therein. According to Stroud's testimony, he accepted the proposition .^.nd performed lalDor in perfecting said sys+em for a long time. Thereafter Hewlett became paralyzed and his wifee beoams insane* The wife was sent to an insane hospital. Accord- ing to Strouad's testimony, he, at Hewlett's request, -ave up his work in part and devoted himaelf very largely to taking care of Hewlett, and Hewlett rented his house to Stroud, and Stroud charged him "board and charged him for laundry and the like, £.nd charged him for personal cars and nursingo Hewlett had i: settleinent with the wif? of Stroud about board and rent and laundry, eto», and Hewlett endorsed or edits therefor so as to pay one not© and partly to pay another, and '^he notes secured by the chattel mortgage have all been paid and satisfied* Hew- lett improved in health and he and Stroud q^arrelid and Hewlett left -^he home o" Stroud. Thereafter Stroud brought this suit against Hewlett and filed a declaration, the first count of which deolarcd upon the alleged contract by which Stroud was to experiment with and perfect the water supply system and keep a record of his time, and Hewlett was to pay Stroud eighty cents per hour therefor and a: so to transfer to him « one half interest ir the patent when the system becane co'^mercially practical, and the count averred that Stroud did so work until the system became ooinne rcially practical and performed his part of said agreement, and there was a lar^re sum of money due him under said agreement, and that Hewlett had refused to pay him therefor and to transfer the half interest in the system.

aid at •eitluoil^ii bA& wooievo ta£ •voTqmio* d-xoH© 113 ixl

tf^Arf* fcnj^ ,UJOrf leq a^neo ^Jiljia "io •;^J8l erfit ta ami* airi

Xll£ ioiemcroo « Qbjsm ae'^d bsd ffi«ta'^-a X'^^WB lefsvt 9d& a9dm

tB9t9&tit \Lati s buoifa ©vlg tiuov HoIvqE ,noi*ieoqoiq lAOtfoAtq

itjpy-«d+a^E fci£8 gnifoslrreq at locfjaJ: JbdarrolTscT Litjs ttot&taoqo'iq

***l>t0W5A .XjBtiqaorf srr^anl 'rtJB tfrf i'lree 'bjbw ellir'afrfV' .en^eni dtfljeo^tf qw 9VJ3-^ ,;f8ex;p9i B»*d-eIw©H^ tJ- ',irf ".X^omij'adf^ a 'Jb«;ol*S o;^* ^rfl

*l«ra t^ttroifB'^ ot- eeaod eld tetaer ti^lTrs^ ba£ ^ttalMsYl TlO 9'zm'

■ eff:f bnz ^ttnuzL 10* mid tfrgiJiAo' fcius br&oxS mid bi%t£dio buot^B

J#9lw»H .■^ftleojjn'Jbrf.s stjso IjsnoBrteq To'i airf fceg-s^rlc trr3 ,92flX

£)njB tcKt tn^ trteo€ fuodjs tuortQ \o ?llw 9df'itirt^ Jcis.'>-:9l*t66 -fi fi"^

0**8* bb id^sieil* etlfcsto fceaicJtns Tf jJ-ialTrsH £)xijs '\ iltff & ^;tTJ^JatrsX

tsiuoaa Bstotr sri* fcxfiB trc»xf*onj8 ^JSQ ot ylifrtaq fcrijs ' ©^fon 'a^ ^i^q

-wsH .beile'ltjBa fcftjs tiaq nwtf Xfjs avsff •gagfiom lntfs£^ 9df^''-^y^-

tt9Lyr9T!- ba£ JbiiaiTjoyp JbuoTte bas arf trrie ritXasif nl b9^ro'rqal 't^t

ttua etdf > trfguoicf tsjox^^. tet^jsaiaifT .fci;oT*8 i\> smorf 'lirf'f TtitJ^

o^ w&n buorfB rfoidw ^fcT to^t^noo ijaasIXjr arft noqw Jbat^tloaE rlofxlW

q893f bnB flf9'*aY8 ^Xqqj/a 19 taw 9:*+ tf-09^tr9t -brt-s tfttw "*n9ntXi9qx*

Ytifsi9 btmr^^ >faq ot a.3w ttaXurgH fcrra ,9ntXt aXri lo Jitoost a

\l£d 910 • aiirf 0* talan^it otf oa :£ fcri^s »olaT9rf* tuod laq 8frt90

xXIaloiearwoo eTSjaoed Bwta'^ »:'!* rtsrfw tf-nataq 9rf* -iX' taBieJnX

Xl*m/ atrrow oe fcXfc tootif? ^jBxIt X>»lt«V£ *ftVob^ ft'ttrf^ fc'njs .Xa6itoa*<i

tiJBq aixf fc9mtol*itq tos Xaol*fit4<iq xCIaiol ?f-;iroo 9naci9cr mataxa a^^

raid' 9ut x^no" ^0 flttXB ©"plfiX a '' tjsw 9t9ri* "trfiB t^iremaatg* fclab IV

mill X'Sq 0* fc©ei/!t©T fcjsri **9Xw9H *- #jfrtt bn& ^tnemosisa fciaa'taJblcttC

.me-^axe »''* nl: Jeetetni IX^; rg^anai* o* tris xot9r9dt

The eeoond co'ont wae for the services renders! by Stroud to Hewlett while he was ill, as aforesaid. To this the oommon covuQts were aiied. Hewlett filed the general i-eue 3.ni a plea of set off which latter was in effect the common counts. The cause was ^ried by a jury and plaintiff had av^rliot for tl067,33 and a judgment therefor, from which Hewlett anpeals.

On the trial Stroud testified to the various matters 'before stated and Hewlett testified denying many things and especially denying t: at he hired Stroud to perfect his water supply system and agreed to pay him eighty cents per hour therefor. Hewlett \inder his plea of set off introduced evidence of various pieces of manufactured articles which had passed into the control of Stroud, and of the value thereof. It is evident that as to the conflicting testimony on questions of fact, no ground appears from which we could say that the jury should have foimd the other way, :nd indeed, tloe whole evidence considered, we think the preponderance is with the plaintiff,

Stroud kept his accoxmt of the time he spent in endeavoring to perfect the -crater supply system in a little book which he carried in his pocket and which contained no o^her accounts. He offered that in evilence and it was admitted xttk8X±X8lB^xcttB]& against objeoticn, and it is urged that this was erroneous, because this was not like a merchant's shop book wherein are kept the accounts of all customers and which are proved to be true and correct by sorsone who has settled with the merchant by said books* We deem it unnecessary to discuse the question whether this book starding alone would be admi^.sible, for that is not the situation here presented. Stroud testified that it was agreed between him and Hewlett that he should keep an account of this time, and that he kept it pursuant to that agreement; that he had several times while it was being kept, submitted it to the inspection of Hewlett; that he made each entry therein

9xfT .8;fm/eo nommoo erli to9tl9 at a«v lett^X.^oi^f ^)^<3 i^ea Jk9

5S.V80X$ lol ^oUiev- b£[l ^li*ni£Xq fcajs ^lu^ £ xd X}8li+ fjsw eBJj«e>

,»X^»q * t;t»Xw8H rfoirfw moiA tio^sied^l' Jneagiiyi.fi tfia

eiolftd oist^jBff Buol^tJBr erft o& t^lliteot buoitB Xaiildrfcf nO

YXIjBlosqes tnfi »r?fllri:f yn^m arxiYn*^) b^iltteet **eXweH.iin4 ie^-sJa

fljeteya yXqque i9isit aid toalTsq o* iJJ0i*3 toiixf 9ri.*#:I# gnixnefi

**eXw9H .lolsiorf* ix/ori asq sJnfc yifcfsia mlrf yjeq (j^^i)o»agjs fcaj?

eeoeJtq axroii^v lo sonotive JbsouJboicfai llo *9a 1o s9Lq bH lebau

\o loiiaoQ Bdi oJ.Ti fcsaa^q .bjsri doiriw BeXol*ifi,t'ei4r*o-sli;n^ 5q

Jtrufot^ on «*c>«!t I0 snol^esijp ao ynoaiJti'89* gixl^olXlao^; odi

brtisol 9v.feri feXworie ya«t erf* *JBrf* y«8 tXi/oo aw rioiriw aoil, iijasqq*

^^w jLeieJbiBnoo eenetive sLodv adt ,i)89tai t.i. ,ic«w tediq 9dt

,'xli*n^jsXq »riJ tf*iw si eoflfi:t9i:noqoiq eil:^ jfnXri*

gnltovjsetna al tciio^B erf eml* srfd^ jO rfru/ooo^ aXri ^qeaf fcx;o"i*3

■i>:«rf rfoiiJw afoocf eX*t2X « at ma^eya yXqque istjsw ©d# loelieq ot

.a^m/ooo-s aarf^o on tsatJituoo dotdv La^ taiooq, Btd at bslriAQ

Kmtf*9%itiakM.»ittm t^tttmb.6 a^w ft bas oonetivc- at t^dt bQi^llo aH

tftsjoBsoxrQ ejew eiriit *£i{* rsgiw el *i tn^^ .xX'xtosQdo rf'enl-aa*

8rr£ flisidiiw ioccf qods B*^fl«£foiein a osCXX ;tofl ajew elri^ B9iJ-^9^

p* Jcevoiq eT,£ rfoiriw ta£ •T»aio*ei;o XX^ 'io aJfljuqoOiS 9d^ i-qsat

JnjsilDieai sri* rftiv? fc»X*t8e e£d orfw 800© ;oq x^ ^oaiaoo ijoe 80i*.».«J

noi*89i;p 9ff* •aycall' ot x'^^^'^^^^onu it masfc eW .asfood Jbl^a x^

iffirft lol ,eI(flB?imfc45 ©cf iXirow •ooX<« 3nJ:;^^«;}-8 icocf Btift rsdtei^^

it t^dt b9tJt&9et LuottB *bfi^aB99r<i etarf a<?ti£uti9 9dt toa 9t

jccjs qeai bXiyoila «if isdt **8lv8K ba-a mid ae-8w^e«f AdOTs* a«f

I^nsmatis^ i-«ri* orf- ta&xjBtuq, tl fqei ari *£/f:t Jbflja, .amid- eid^tp ^nyoop*

*i Jb6if*lfficfif8 t^qs^ S«i»tf ajpw .^1 sliaw i8flri;J- IsiBvee b£d 9d tsd4

atei^di \rtae do£9 etjwn ed tsdf ;*teXw9H \o aotioeqeat srfit ot

at theolose of the day on which the work was lone, ar.d that the late and number of hours therein specified for each lay was true and correct. After the "bcok had been admitted he proceeded to testify at length ae to the truth and correctness of each item, and he eliminated therefrom a few items which he said were not spent in perfecting this water supply aystem and should not have been entered in that bcok< He had a right to use this t.-^emoranduHi made by him to refresh his reoollection as a witness, and all the evidence on that subject considered, it is clear taat no error was committed in that rsspeot.

Complaint is Made of plaintiff's instruction Hb. 1, 'Jhich told the j iiry that the burden was on the plaintiff to prove his case by the greater weight oi the evidenoe, but that it was sufficient for plaintiff to recover if the avidance in his favor preponderated only slightly. This was awkwardly worded "but it did not stand alone. By numerous instructions given for defendant the jury were told that plaintiff had to make out his oasd by a preponderance of the evidence, that if the evidace was equally 'b&.lanoed they should find against the plaintiff, and If they were unable to 3ay on which side the greater weight of the evidence was , they should find for the defendant, and it is clear that the jury could not have been misled by said instruction- No. 1. Complaint ia made of plaintiff's instructions Noa. 3 and 4, which told the jury that in order to make any settlement be- tween, defendant and plaintiff's wife binding, it must appear that the wife had authority from her husband to settle. It is con- tended that these instructions left out the proposition that even if the wife had no authority to settle at the time the settlement was made, yet if plaintiff afterwards ratified the

act of his wife it vTould then become bindi':g. There v-re several answers to this contention. Defendant presented and the Court

tAdit trf« .dnoi: b£v iao.v esif xfoixfw no ifjei- erfy to •aoXc ..: w~

^jBJb rfoie to'i JbsllJtooqa at^fdf Biuod io i3Cfnu/a Jbrt^ B^st'Bdf

srf l59**ifli£)J3 liescf fcjBif ioocf trft i^JltA .toftiioo Ijajb sutif esw

metsYP ^jlq-Ti/e 'S9^£7i Qtdt jniJoslt^q nf tneqe *0fl'da9w'J6flJ58 e'll a61i^c$IIooe7 eiff xissllST ot mid ^cf at^m iiujl)a^i6iBdia iJfifif h60 Of

.., J- .cfflf floi*CJja;*8rtl 8'llifnljel<[ lo sJbjsrc al 'triJtjsIqmoO

aid' avoicT o^f. llltaljslq ad*" rto' i'iw iBetTci/rf arf# *jarf^ t*^j; adrJbloif

'e^w ti *^xf:r ?iftf ,aoneJblve idf l6 trisiafc astjes-ta e/ht ifctf^'ia^o

etd at' ^oneti^e sdf ll^'iavooe-x b* 'lliJrxl^Iq tcol ■^heisll^ft

tstioTT Y-ci*t«sw3lwj5 eat aiil'' .x-t^^S-tlB '^Ixvo JbadjsieMoqftiii^'lOir^l

tiol aevis Bnciioutttiai Buolemirfl y9 ♦AxioIjb in«*e ':^dn tifft iCud

j-jjo s:a'£m 0* tsh l*l^nlj8lq *i>ft Jblo^f ?iaw ^iJ^t ^'^^ tfnjsfcftSx&i

aoittire '?''''+ 'f*'+<ri* ,aofi9Jbive arit 1o aon^istnoqsiq je^cT o6jeo eM

Jbnos ,111*11 ., -.:* ^enljag^' fcnjtl tlx/orfe t®^^ bBcajil^^d xitiupt b^^

. ^, ,^ ,^ i_-si. ....... -.w- ,..i-. -.-jjoda t»^* "» "■«« bc--^. s:^

xxol^ox/i^aiTi l?lj3e" Ytf i**-!^*^" "©"^ ' ' *o^ £>Ii^oo xai;^ 6di fMU _ .^:^ toe' € .BoTf afloi:*6xn?8nl e ' - . - -^-Iq lo'Wi^eni el "tftl^XqaroD .1 i'olf -ad *^8lBP^.•^-'"^? vn^ arCv o-^ iaJ6lo hi fadi ^lu^ ddt Jbl'b* dt>ld^' «i

-..,, ., . .cjXJfae o* ia^idBUd r'&d snort xtt'rod&isii'b'^ •llv ^ki ijidf aol^^Horci:^ fe/;t *x/o f^ldl Brt6l*ojj'r*anjt aia/l* '^iil^ tatw's"*

eW:^ fai'!i*i::i:~ f/l-T.:wi3*l£ l^.*Jnl- ts^j; ,efcijm bbw >n8meli-*a8

.^ itnicf e- r,.f3- i)lJ/o1» il •fW Bid Vtf' to^

tiuoQ 8xiJ InjE Jo9taMsjg, tpMtfie'^-QQ .aoltattaoo ,Bj(.dt. o* eaawen*

gave at his request instruction No. 5 ooncerning euoh settlement and iid not therein suggest that an unauthorized settlement might afterwards be ratified "by the hustand, and defendant can not be heard to complain that the court gave for pl8.intiff an instruction upon the same theory which defendant embodied in the instruction which he prepared and procured to be given. Again, if defendant conceived that the proof showed ths-t an un- authorized settlement '^ith the wife had afterwards bsen ratified by the husband, and he v/ished the effect cf that ratification jjo be presented to the jury by an instruction, he should have prepared and tendered such an instruction. Ap.ain, we are \inable to say t'lat there is any eviienoe of sjch a ratification of such a character that the Cou -t was required to submit the effect of such ratification to the iury. Ve think it entirely clear from the evidence that what was settled between ie^endaAft and Mrs* Stroud was the r^nt, boa^i, laundry, =5-r.i o*her like matters occurring at the home; that Mrs. Stroud tried to get Hewlett to wait tdll her husband got home before making the set- tlement but he insisted on goinf ahead ant asoertaining the amount lue from him on those matters and endorsing the sarne on the notes; and that the wife never attempted to discuss or settle with defendant anything perts.ining to her husband's services upon the water supply eastern or any yrork in the shop. We think it clear there was no attempt to settle the shop masters with the wife and that the settlement between the wife and defendant was not intended to cover the shop work and shouli not be con- strued to bar Stroud from a rooov-ry for those services. The court instructed the jury to allow plaintiff nothing for the alleged failure of defendant to transfer to plaintiff a half interest in said patent, for lack of evidence. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

*nsraeX*tea rious gnjtrta^ortoo 5 .oM aottouii^aX 4'S9xjp9'x. aid t£ ay^g ta9X9!'.ft9e bestiotltujutu as tjii'.& d'as^sx/a nlsiarfi' Soa LIL ta-c

a« ^1i*ftl«Iq a<5t.«V£3 ttisoQ iti^ ffjBri* nl^Xqttoo o;t ti-39ri stf ton

rxi telioofffis rf'rtjataolat rfoirfw ^loedJ sm^a arit noqi/ agtiountaal

.nsvjtg scf ot fcaauooiq Jba-3 fcat^qetc: 3ri rfplriw nol^^ou'I:^eal ed*

-cjj a* *^rt tswoda looTjq arft tad* Jbavlaonoo tnjataalai !tl ,al-63A

JballitxT rteec^ att-sTTatl-e ^js^ e^^'' ^^t dtiw tcani«X*?'se i>oslTod;^JJ.s

aoii^ofiitMi t^.-it lo i-o^l^s 9d* fiarfaiw ad Jbn* ^fin^datfd an* ^d

©v^d i>I«od8 9d ,«ol*oi/Tt9al a* ^cf Y'J^t s^* od- fcs^naaaiq 9cf ot

B7£ 9w ^.flljB^A .apitoiJitani a£ dox/e ijettsiins* ta* ^ei^qeiq

aott'BoX'm'&T £ dovB lo ioaetiv? ^n^ ai ?Tsdi^ Jjsift ^jbb o* aXcfsou

adt cMffidwe ocf teiiupai •«« l-ix/oO adt *jsdd- lato^ijsdo ^ dows lo

XXeii*rra *i iaid.t s^ ♦^iwi; ''rfit o.t noi;f«oilX*^T doua \o *09!tl'='

*<u»fcfle^e£ aeewJad fcaXt^ea ejsw J^dw *^dj aon^tiva ad* mart .1£qLo

83flX lad.to tnjB ^x'^^^-sX ,tt.eo<( ,,*fl<T td* tjsw fcuoit3 .axif fca*

*e2 od- Jbai-it £uoich8 .eiM Jjed* ja«o4 ed* *js s^^ttiifooo aiaJJ^m

-j-aa adt gnl^faai eiolacf e.-cgd tog fen-fitfax/d tad XXlxt cMjsw o* JteXwaH

sdrt- grrlnX^tTeoa^ ^njs l)«8dje Inlog no iiaifaieni ad cfjjd ta&mslt

ao QffiAB d;':f ^niaToJbiie Jcn^ »x9t&sm 9eQd:f ao mid moi^ ax/t tnuom^

aXltea lo sairoaJtf: Ot+ fca*qffi9**j6 T9V9n alXw 9d& t*d* isne ;a9*oa ad*

esoivioa a 'tn^cfeud lad o* srtjtnl.«*i9q anldd-YO'S tn^Jbxia^et* d^J^w

ataid* aW .qod9 &:!* rtl iiow ^f^3 to naa^a^ra xXqqwa lotAV adt aoqu

dtlw etattjam «ioda ad* 9X*.tae o& Jqma + tjg on a«w 3tadd" tJsaXo it

ta£tae'i9i2 bns alJNr adt aeaw*acf JnaitisX^tea adt *j8dj- bzA aliw edit

-aoo 9cf ton iXwoda tn£ aCtow qoda adt lavoo ot taJbaa^nJ: &oa a-aw

erlT .aaoivtee aeodt lol x'"'^003'^ * laotl £>w9t*3 tjad o* bwita

ad* tol anld*oii IliJaijeXq woXi-s o* ytut ad* bat^uiiant. *ti/oo

IXxd js m*nlsXq o* tslanjiti' o* *njsln9l©fc lo atwXljsl tajaXX*

.!;oaatl7e lO io£l tol ,^a8*«q ^ijsa nX i^Bat9*aX

,i)e.vtXllji atolatad* eX ifnemsJbxxt odT

STATE OF ILLINOIS, . ^

SECOND DISTRICT. ( I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFPY, Clerk of the Appellate

Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing' is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my ofSce.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the

seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this

day of in the year of our Lord one

thousand nine hundred and

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

^>*^*.

6

-"■/

/ /

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the seventh day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nine- teen, within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois : /

Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice. Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.

Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justic^ 1'7IA fi^7 CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff./

/

/ / BE IT REMEMBERED, that afierwards, to-wit: on

MAR 9 1920 the opinion of the Court was filed in

the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures

following, to-wit:

No, 67C0.

Cyclone Blow Pip© CouiXJany ,

!

Defendant In «rror: ^

) V, ) ?frit of Error To

Empire r.fanufaoturin'^ Co,, ) Winnebago county^

Plaintiff in error, )

Opinion by NIEHAUB, P. J.

Ttiii »uit wa« inistituted "by the Cyclone Blow Pip© Company, defendant in error, to r©oov©r by xubro^ation

under the proviaion© of Section 17 Paragraph B, of the

Workmen'© Compensation Aci of 1911, The fact© in thia

case are practically undisputed; the Cyclone Blow Pipe

Company previous to the present oontroveroy, had entered

into an agreejr.ent with the Empire Manufacturing Company,

plaintiff in error, to install a blow pipe ©yotem in the

plaAt of the plaintiff in error, at Rookfore, Illinoia,

Both of the parties were vorkin* under the workmen's

compensation act mentioned, p.eor?;e Lauruszka was one of

the employes of the defendant in error, and in the course

of his employment for the defendant in error, in

installing this blow pipe system, 'vas fatally injured,

A proceeding was commenced under the Workmen's

Compensation Act, in the county court of Winnebaq;o county,

and in this proceeding it vas held and determined, that

the defendant in error was liable to pay the eunount of

compensation provided for in said act, which was $1200,00;

-!•

.oova ,oH

( , YnjsqaoO tqK wo IS enoXOYO

i {

\

(

H3IW Ytf noArrlqO

. (

oT lOaTS "io i^inW ^ ,y

'T »

woXS saoIoyO ed;f y^ £>9^x/;rx^ani tjsw ii.u% %lil

aol*«SO"xcfup Y<^ Tevooei o* ^aoiTe ni *nAfcn8lef ^Y«>BQ[no^ dqi^

8ri;r lo ,5 riqjBig^t^T TI nol*oe8 lo •rtoialvoTq tri* leJbni;

niAi at etoul erfT ,1191 to ioA noIi^BeneqsooO e'nsaiiTo'^

9q,tH xoXS artoIOYO erf^ ifce^i/qulJbxH; YXX*oi;^o;Biq et* eeoso

fc»r£e;fn» Jb^ ^'^Bi9VOtinoo tfneaeTq erf* o* »x/olvaTq Y«-*<lffloO

^YaJs^is^^S 'S^liisios^uajsit eTclqaS erl;^ rf^lw ;ta©m»eTs,8 nje o;fni

erf* rrl iae^eye ©qiq woXcf < ilAttnl o* ^ttoiie rrl lll*niJ8Xq

• •lonlXXI .eaolioofl *« ^no«e ni l^l*rii*Xq erf* lo itni-i

B^neaiiort erf* iBbnu j5ni3faor eiew ael^ijsq erf* to rf*oS

lo eno s«w a](setnx/i'^ e^ioe.n •l:enoi*nein *0£ noi*j:BaeqiflOo

eBijj-oc erf* ft! f5n« ^loirre rrt *n«firteleb erf* Ito eeYOlqwe ©rf*

ni ^lotie rri *n/jfcfreleJl) erf* toI *rre3tY0XqaB elrf lo

.teijj^rri y-^-'^'*^^^ Sior !ae*eYB eqiq woXcf eirf* sfriIX£*ani

s*netaircoF erf* fbrus ^eoaeraAOo e^sw ^ni£)»eooTq A

.Y*««oo o?;jscfenn|W Tto *i:juoo ^tnuoo erf* rti , *oA rTOl*«a«eqmQ0

ituit ^bttatni^Smt bajt tlBd e«w *i ^nlbeeooTq eirf* irl tnjs

\o *nx/ojus erf* Y-i^q o* eXcfisiX nsr; loite nl tajsbatleb erf*

;00,OOSX$ ejBw rfoirfw «*0JB bise ai io\ JbsJblvoiq aoi*jiafleqmoo

-X-

and a judgment vraa entered agalnat the defendant in error for that amount, in accordance with the proviaiona of the act. The defendant in error, thereafter commenced thia euit in the circuit court of Winnebago oounty, under aaid Section 17 Paragraph B, which provldsa, that if compensation under the act ha*? been recovered againat the employer, the employer by whom the compensation has beep paid, or the peraon who has been called upon to pay the indemnity under Sections 4 and 5 of tha act, may be entitled to iniemnity from the peraon other than the employer, and be aubro»ated to the rights of the employe, to recover damagea, where the injury for which oompanaation is payable unier the act, tae caused under alroiunatanoea creating a legal liability in such peraon other than the employer, to pay damages; and the ault ia b?.8ed upon the alleged le»al liability, that the plaintiff in error failed to exercise reasonable care to furnish aaid Oeorge Lauruska with a reaaonably safe place to work, and to equip the exposed parte of the machinery in conformity with the act providing for the health safety and comfort of employes* There was a trial by jury which resulted in a verdict for $129a,60; whereupon a remittitur was entered for ^93,60, and a judgment for f 1300, 00; from thia judgment an appeal ia now prosecuted.

It was admitted on the trial of the cause "that at the time of the injury and death of the said George Lauruska the aaid Cyclone Blow Pipe Company had a policy of insurance with the United Statea Caaualty Company, a New York corporation, whereby the said United States caaualty Company

-3-

loan© ai jn-LiLne^st od) tfajstlisp^ Lenaiae b£V Jnoa^ljirt jb iaje •rfrf lo anoialvonq erf^ r{*iw nonMbroooji ni ^iauotax t^dt lol

BtA4 beontaanoo xet^Aozecit ^'xo•^^• al i'^JB^^relBJb eriT .'• -

'•• - , - jenijsjj* frenevooei nee«f ejsrf #ojb erf* •:-•'-"

•i- - ,. .:- i rt»ed sjsrl noi^jsexiaqnoo 9A& modm x€ tcoYOx-i-i.^

ifeirixf Y^ixiwa^ril arfJ Y*<1 ©* aoqu ^telXJso naetf bjmI oriw aoareq

-^itttaBtnl Qi ^eXJ^i;r^8 ^ y«« ^to* »rf* lo 8 l)frjs * BftOi*oe8

Jbe^^^oiccfua acf bna ^isYOlqaie aif^ fljsrf^ lerf^o noeneq erf^ moil

— - ■-•otr-'- of -'^ ■ ■♦jseniqiaoo rfolrfw lol V'^ r

orf^ siiMo *» C'^jsnoBjjeT «*r.'rT8xa o* J!)eXljBl aoaie nl lli*ffi«Xq

o^ ftii-B_ , _. . YXcfj8no6..-. .: - uMw jtiairxi/jsJ agioaO btsa riflaiul

.._ Ti-rri'fojsa •/!* lo a*i«q tasoqxe erf* qjtx/pe o* bajn ^^'?*

Y^e i«arf aifi^ vol snil^ivoiq to* 9dt dilff xttanolapo

Hfiiiii i^/ ,^.1;: iOa.SeSX^ aol totbr^r - J'^?!

JiO': . . :1 lol *na«jAx/(, ji JbnjB ,Oa.SP* io^ b9ieiae

, iiucfiror vof! f. ; I«eqv». --. :;xaasfci/t Bld:f ail* i^^ • ^iilalm ajiw *I .

ari* jjXaxrixj.KJ avic _ _ '{lx;];^cU arf* lo ami*

eox. volXoq m bzA. Yn«<VioO aqi^ ^oXS anoXoxO^X^t:

.■-loT we?I » «Y^«q«oO Y*-t"Ci».*- f9J/'*3 ted-inU erf J rf^-lTr

obligated itaelf to pay the loss. If any, that ohould be occasioned to the said Cuclone Blow Pipe Company by reason of the death of the aaid oeor^e Laurusz- a; and that pursu- ant to its obi i^at ions, as contained in any by laid policy or contract of insurance, the aaid United States Casualty Company paid gaid judgment on the eth day of May, 1916,* The principal point made by the plaintiff in error for re- versal of the judgment is, that the plaintiff in error ia not liable because the judgment awarded against the defendant in error for the death of George Lauruszka, its employe, was paid by the insurance company; and was not paid by the

defendant in error; that thera^*^-*- the defendant in error

A

did not suffer any injury or dan-age on account of said judgment; and therefore it had no interest in this suit, and no right to recover anything; from the plaintiff in error. The plaintiff in error also contends, that the defendant in error, carried the insurance in question under Section 30 of the workmen's compensation act referred to; and that such insurance .Tas therefore taken out for its benefit, as well as the benefit of the defendant in error; and that when insurance is taken out by the employer unier, said Section 20, the right of subrogation under Section 17 of the act does not apply, it is a sufficient answer to f^-.e latter contention to say, that the record does not sho'v, that the insurPvnce in question waa taken out by the defendant in error under Section SO referred to; Moreover that there is nothing in the language, or the wording, or purpose, of Section 30, or in the insurance therein provided, which in any way conflicts with, or abridges or qualifies the subrogation provisions of Section 17, But it clearly appears as a matter of fact, that the defendant

-3.

11 fiJs^lKSo r; enoXoi/O bi£t rtol^nooo

■ . -J r<^noltjsrptldo mil ot fas

6l xoif at tliJni. Snoiaigtul ndi'io Xjsatev

*njBtn«l£ .-errijsga i~ghijaw« *r srf^ aau^oecf hldnli toa

•re.-f^f ycT 1)1 jBq ion s*w jbna iYn-e^fflOO eoxtjsausni »rf* vcf Jblosq

»ao:f .xi-^iiijlq er nlf(jfynj8 isvooei oJ ^rfjltt on i>ttA

at iiUitaelBb' 9di tMi ^»LnBinoo osIje, loiie nl lll*al*Xq erCT

lo 08 n01*od3 ithnu nol^eei/p nl eoannmai %dt bBirxjiO ^:ioi:re

rfojje icff^ ' ©rfiolea ^ojb nol^ABfieqaxoo t'fieaialTcov' sdJ

e -lifeAfc le.iBif 8io'ieit8i'f* «jsw soajsairaal

©on ■ io ^^ilener"

'olllwa j^ si ij — i" ode ;fon «ft{>l> l>voo»tc f

aolio--: '^oitaf^JJt'

• oaei; cOqiuq to ^gnlfcTOW ©r'.

^dJlT. i.4uJ,X'Xa&c Y-'^w y^>'<* nt ifolrtw ^bel^lvotcq aleieilJ

, VX aoiSoti'Z to BnolalvoTq aolrf-a^oicfiiB arfJ BellllAx/p lo eej^fclicfjs

ifnjBDxislet drfif tadi ^tOJl\ \o r9ii.aa m ma ■Tjseqqx yXueaXo ^1 ^t'x/H

in error did not take such inauranoe unier the proviaions of Section 20; that it was taken for its own benefit, as a protection for the rlak involved in the obligations whioh it aeaumed for payment of oompenaation under the compenaatlon act. It is not diaputfld, that otherwise all the elements -nere praaant and proven which "70Uid entitle the defendant in error, to subro-^ation unisr Section 17, and to a recovery against the plaintiff ip error. ^e are of opinion that taking out the inauranoe in que at ion did not in any way deprive the defendant in error of its ri'^hta of subrogation unler aaid Section 17. It is adjf,ltted that the inauranoe company paid the jul-^nent and award whioh was made a'^ainst the defendant in error; it vas not a voluntary payment however; but one made in accordance with the terpis of the contract it had with the defendant in error, and which was foundsd on a valuable consideration, that had been paid by the defendant in error. The insurance company was legally obligated to amke the payment, and to make it for the defendant in SMBt error; and did ciake it for the defendant in error on that account* In legal effect it was the same. , ^.s if it had been made by the defendant in error, fhere is nothing in the statute, fro/;: which the reference could be reasonably drawn, that because a party ia prudent enough to insure hie risk under the coitpen- satlon act, he ahall be isprived of the ripjhta of subro- ;Tatlon provided for in Section 17; nor loae the benefit of his prudence.

%h.9 jud.2;p)ent is affirmed,

judgment affirmed -4-

•noisivoiq nu Borijsiueni Hotn» eisi toa btt Toisa. ai

ez; ^#ll8n©<f «wo mii io1 af>:)l*.. jJt tedt jOS ixOl#o©& ^0

enoi^B^lIrfo ^dt at fcevXovni i«li erfr 'ro^ aolto^toiq, a

XijB pdalwieilJc ^ce^fuqaih j-on eJt' *I .to.? rrol^jsexia^oo

aoltt^r 5 .XOXT& \i WtSaljulq 9di tnats-^* Y^evoosT^ie

aonjBttjjRni .Ti ^o ' JosSbiae Tbfntr

*artl*7'ji atjiBi aijr rfolr jnanx^u; J'.cii •^rrr.'.'r'.oo

s :$onJif>t[00o« al aLxm aao ^ucf ^aevaworf

naacf fcjsrf *ari* ^aoi^jsaatianoo aXdjBx/Iav js no hsfcntro'*

^ - ■ ' *. rn^qjsoo 8orr.^?!jartl srfT .lOiTa nJt insitat 'fcT tijsq

"1 ..-■■•■ . - '

a.it . .T(/5ja fc/' iiOTTs ixvaa nl JnjBtnalei

In^ne'iah arf* y^^ al.-«ii naetf r ■ ^ , ■ i.'.. x

doli' i&^i/;tjsJB erfj rti :?nirfj .■.^..- :r. .i

* «- >r i<j- ^n/t^ i:icfjenoe.- o eonbaalei: 6ii

rr sijjanl ; -efxrtq si \iiM\

9vlttq«l ,toa noJtjee

on ;7j: rxoiJoaS

,son< .bam:; /[, arfjf

taaitilljt fnan^'jL/Y

-^rsqjiOi.	lb it
-.1-0-;/, 'lo t:^-'-	f~ f.
cfllanaK a •'	^

STATE OF ILLINOIS. I

SECOND DISTRICT. ( *'''• I, ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court.

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

6

f^-.

u 6) (7 ;^

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the seventh day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nine- teen, within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois.% /

Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding- Justice. Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justices Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice. CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. — CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff./

I. A. 657V

\

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on

MAR 9 1920 ^^® opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit:

Ho, G716.

David C, Pfoutz, )

)

Appellee, )

va y Appeal froii, County Court

,- , _ _,^ ( Winnebaqo County

Alvin F, Riley, ' ^ •

appellant, )

0 p i n i 0 n by N I E II A U S, P. J.

^vid C, Pfoutz, the appellee oofor.enoed this suit in the ocurtn court of ''■.'innebago oounty , a3ain»t the appellant Alvin F, Riley, to reoover corfir'-lsaions which he c claimed to be due hirr, un'ier an agreement with the appellant, to the effect th: t if the appellee trot hii--. a purohu^ser for hi a farm, appellant would pay him the aun of ^400,00, There wa5 a trial by jury, and at the close of all the evirience, the oourt on luotlon of the appellee, iirected the jury to find for the appellee, and aBseea hie daraages at $400,00; and ju.1^.ent was rendered upon the verdict; and fror this judgir.ont an appeal ia prosecuted.

The appellant contenda, that the judc^ment should be reveraad for tvo reasons. First 'that the appellee practiced a fraud u"on the appellant, thich induced hipi to list hie property for sale 'vith the appellee; and that there waa evidence offered by him, but excluded by the court, to prove that issue, f^eoondly, th?.t even without the exoludAd evidence, there was enough evi ience adr itted to make it a -queation of fact for the jury, whether or not the appellee had practiced a fraud on appellant, in order

.8XV<J .0^

(

( ^•oXleqqA

truol y^tnssoO moit XaeqqA ( bv

( .^fTJsIXeqqjj

.L .^ ,3 U A IT 3 I H yrf a o i a i q 0 Jiue a.Lii' teone.oiKOo eeXXeqqa odi ^s:tuo\H .0 Mvjb(j

0 aff rioiffw 8nof«ei..wioo Tavooei oJ ,\f«XiH ,f nivXA *n«XX9qq*

(^itJBXXaqq« erf^ liSti* ^ne>ae9i;B« njs Ye^^x; Jili.sjji) orf o^ tefflijsXo

■>■ * "•eeaiforti/q a .nijf *o^ ©tXX»qqj8 «r(J ^1 tidi *o»ll8 erit o;t

,00,00#^ \o nam 9iit inlsi v:m<i fcXi/ow ^osXXoqq^ ^fjrtv'j'i Bid

9rf;t XX^ to oaoXo 8r(;f cTb baM »y:cx/(. y^ X£1t^ is f jbw aierlT

l)B*o©ii>. ^eeXXeqq^ srfj lo ttoliota no Jiuoo arf^ ^aoneMva

BdSJBiiteb ei/l aaaeo^ hna ^aaXXeqqjB eritf- toI bnil o* vax/i arl*

i^oiJbiev erf;t noqw hetietnai «£w ^na-u^fcu^ fcnjH iOC,00*§ ^«

ttoiuoeaorq gI X^aqqfi iTjs ^aa-nj^tur, Bldt norJ tna

ad fcXiro.'fe Srimmribul 9:it isdi ^efrre^noo JtnjsXXaqq* ©rlT

h3tl{;,>i . eaXXaqq^ ^ii isdi^ *eil'T .anoajsei or^ lol taaiavei

itilL oi .ilrf Jbaoi/f ai rfolrfw ^^ajeXXaqq* arf* rroru Jbx/£il £

aj8VY ©i6:U ctiBffJ^ bnij jaaXXaqqis arf* -filw aXjie lo^ x*'*9?o^<l

oi- ^;fiyoc arfJ yrf fcafcuXox© iu(S ^ntd yd fcetceHo aonaI)lVa

».t^ ;rjyorfJlw nava J^-f* ,yXJbftooen .ax/aai *J?rf* avoTq

o;t I)a^;fi.]ib4 aona.' J:va d^x/oaa aaw a'xai{;t ^aonativa b^kulox9

ion ic idriJarlw ,yn/t arf* aol Joal lo aolteeup s il eiJSis

to inluoe him to liat th<i farru with him; and therefore the court ahoulrl not have llrected a verdict, •

It ia probably suffiuient anawer to appellant*?, con- tention to aay, that tie evilence clearly ahowi*, that appellant .vao not induced by appellee to list his farn. with the appellee; and that he did not list hi a farrr, with the appellee, but positively refuijed to do so. It ia not apparent howr appellant could have been induced to do tjonethin^ which he never did.

The facta, which no doubt controlled the action of the court in direct inr a ^'erdiot, whre eptablished by the appellant's own teatirr.ony, Fe testifi'^d, that he had had a farru for sale, and had listed it rvith two different real eatata men, nan.ely Jileon and Torton; that he had a contract with Jileon by which he vrao to pay him ^400. 00 aa a ooiraiilaBion, in oaee he fotmd a purchaser, who would buy the farm for $850,00 an acre. Thia \vaa before the appellee, had appeared upon the scene. The appellee who was also in the real estate busineae, cacie out to as a the appellant at hia faro, and wanted hia to list the fariv with hiro« Appellant teatifiad that the appellee said to him; •I have a buy^r, and can brin?; hirr. do-.vn here, and T think I can sell the eighty; I 7;ould like to have it for a -.veek any way.* To -?rhich appellant replied: *No I wont do that, because I have listed It with t-vo real estate inen row - Jilaon and Horton." That, thereupon the appellee .iaid: "I have T^ot a buyer, and \Yill brin^ him around the fir at part of the week," Whereupon the appellant inquired, "Who sent you here?" And tVe appellee replied, "I was

-2-

-xtc!; .^* jr,F.xi.o^i B Of lawfinfi J-fleloilli/* xXcfjBcfoici el il

lesXXdqqje ar^i- rf^fiw anwl firi JelX o;f oeXXeqq/i ^r(S beoubai tcr

iud ^teXXt'iqA edi diX* .^ts'l elrf ^aiX *oa tit erf i'jgrid j n.*; worf ;rn«njsqqj5 *on si .*^ ,oe oL oi- Jheeirl^i yXovl^iaoq

s.'' .•''■'^" >..•-»..,.-:- ~u .-.jj2 a©6d ©vjsrf ixL^oo JnijXXeqq^

.JtiJb i6V6n

-'•' ^«rfBlXcfJ8tf86 eiiiw ^i-olfc^sv a yfaiJo»*clb rI- tiuoo

*f»a»t;.?ih ©».* ff*i>r ;^X ^i>«^»li Ijjri Jboe ,eX«(Bi tot artjal a Jbiid

* tiArf erf J-^* i/iortoK bn^ nofiill \im>nAn »n»n «J3^a« 1j»i

a^ 00*00^ wlrf ysq. o;^ bjbw erf rioixiv ipd xtobXIIt rf^iw txtsni^noXi

vad hXuow orfw ^uaB^rtoxtfcj £ brwo^ -hA objeo ni" ^noJ^Oftl-ustoo Je

»cii eiolacf aaw tlriT .©toji n« 00,098$ !col «xsl erfi

orfw BsXlexjCiB •riT .exiooe erf^ no;ix/ terxee^qB Jb^ »»8XXeqQiB

arf/.* ees o* *tfo buibo ,»B6nit.urf •tJitu^ Lb&i ericT it2 oeXa ajs*

rf^iw n:tin sjIiT iTBxX o* mXri yeta£fi btiJi ^snet «i.i ta ^touXXaqq*

:«Irf o* X>ii2s wXXBqqa ».^;f *^;f imlllJiit* *n«IX»qqA »mid

Attldi. I brtjB ,ei©rf nti'oi; atiri saXicf. nso bne ^^j^wcf a ftvarf I*

ill* oi; inoM I o^* :ti«lXq»T trtalSmqas rfoiilT/ oT ■.Y-s"^

:JiiAt't.eXX*qqto orfd" /loqyeieJcT ^;rjjrfT •.ooi-iccH Jbna noftXXL

Jo-:. "^ i»rf;f J.njtia«j» fai.-i jjrtiwf XX/w ^^/J .levjjrf js ;tt)7» tlVAd I"

^trtiijjpffi riT«XxaqqjB •ri*: noqirB^eK^" •.ofeew erf* ^o ^:cj8q

over to a nei^hbor'a house;" and then the appellant said

"Any real estate wen aend you here?" Whereupon the appellee aaid "No real estate men, "but I vma over to Charlie Johna, and he told re thie farm was for sale." Thereupon the appellant stated, to the appellee: •I dont care to get mixed up with too many real estate raen/ If you can bring me a buyer here, I will sell it," Afterwards the appellee said to the appellant "How much are you goin^ to =;ive this other real estate man;" whereupon appellant told the appellee, "two ?•■ cent;" whereupon the appellee said: "If I -^st a buyer, will you give ne the same; ■ and the appellant answered: "Yes, I will give you $4$^,$^,« It appears therefrom, to be established by appellant *s own testimony, that he did not list the property with the appellee, but that he agreed to pay the appellee a commisaion of NOO.OO if he TOt him a buyer for the farm. That the appellee did ^et a buyer who purchased the farm of the appellant is a fact not disputed. Under this state of the proof we are of opinion that the court property directed a verdict, ^e are also of opinion, that the court properly excluded the evidence of the witness Harry Jiiaon, by which the appellant aou'ijht to prove that the appellee had been at Jilson'a office prior to the time he made his contract with the appellant; and that Jiiaon told him of appellant's farm; and that it vfaa for aale; and that appellee had informed Jilson of the fact that he had a purchaser who would buy the farm> and that Jilson therevipon told him he would divide his

.< e&XXvqqjB :at>X*aqf{J! f ,i,oJ^«,j^6 rf^riwsiXsqqjB erf J nb'qtrdterfT

dtJB dojM v^ciR" jrtijIXdqqA erfif eft ttaB d©'liaq\r« •fW' •fcx.sVTiit'lA

aoqi/eisrfw • ;nBn 9&MiBe Xfl»i larfito slrf* svlj 0* Jiti't^ x/oy

»'«' ttoqtj9it>r*-w " iitfieo awq bwt* ,e»ri8qqjB' «rft lrfo1"^^n«lIeq ,^-.

.'X ;rofl . -.c..;lif.fe;r .tivo a »»ft/3lX6.i-,..;

fcdXi.^ ; ,1 e::t ''ijq d* fB5-- /;ffJ Sij€ »e6llbqqi" »rf*' rfJir

i»bntJ ' ,fc»#wqilfh ion- f - i ttte'lLbcih^' BiVt lo aaxi ^.ii

: scnaMvf \rXt»qoiq !f»i/o

totiq oomo • *fTCe lit *JB ft»»tf i-i-.ii eexie-i ijedJ^'sYOiq

•iftXXeqqis iatit httB ;|i '.5j /loqi/aidrlj noeiJ

■p

ooniKisaion of $400,00 with appellee, if he bought the purohaaer to him; and that the appellee said he would do ao. This evidence could in no way effect the binding force of the contract which the appellant aubsequently made with the appellee; nor could it in any way effect appellant's liability to the appellee under the contract; it 'vae therefore properly ruled out» The jud^.ent is - aff irrced.

Judgment affirmed.

-4-

sij o erf 11 ^esIXAqfilja ff^iw 00,00^^ lo aotf.alzmoz

bJ,uoit £t.. hlvse eoIXeqqa ftd^ if A:' '^ejsrfoi^q

'prftbnt<f tit ^oe11i» ^«w on nl ^Xx/oc Acndi.i^re ei-i- .c-

i^to^naaoG e^ij laLc;.' ©biisqqjs 9rf;t orf' "^JTiXicfaiX B*3:a£iXei(iqj8

♦ b © iiTl i" 1 't fl .7 :ie cn;r i/O

-*-

STATE OF ILLINOIS, i ^

SECOND DISTRICT. ( ''^^ I, ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court.

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof. I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of Marcli. in the the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

6

\(UU

217 I.i^- 658'

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the seventh day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nine- teen, within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois; /

Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding- Justice. Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justi| CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff.

if J"

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on MAR 9 1920 the opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit:

Gen. No. 6730,

Uyrla Rowe, Defendant in error.

v» Krror to "l7innebago.

Eva Bla-ok, st al Plaintiffs in error.

Niebaua, P* J.

In this oaee the defendant in error, Myrla Rowe, as complain- a,nt«, filed a bill in equity in the oirouit oourt of Winnebago county to bring about the partition of certain real estate situated in "^he oity of Rookford. The bill alleges that the lefeniant in err r i».nd Eva Blaok Strunk, Edith Clark and Norma Johnson, plaintiffs in error, are tenants irs con^mon each owning &. one fourth interest in the premises sought to be partitioned; und that the father of said parties Frank Rowe, has a .io'ver interest in a part of said premises. Plaintiffs in error as defendants filed their answer, admitting all the substantial facts alleged in the bill and the rights auni interests of the parties as ther in set forth* but did not admit, that the premleae were correctly desoribed. They also alleged SkI in the answer that the defendant in error, had made a proposition in writing to them ainoe the filing of the bill, to aell her Interest in the premises described in the bill, to them, and that they had accepted said reposition, and were ready and willing and able to pay to the defendant in error, the price so agreed upon whenever sufficient deeds of conveyance would be executed and delivered to them. The bill was afterguards amended, and the an- swers of the plaintiffs in error were (Allowed to stand as answers to the amended bill] a replication was then filed, and a hearing had before the court whereupon a decree was entered appointing commissioners to partition the premises. In this deocee a slight error in the description of a part of the premises was also cor- rected. The commisaioners reported, that the premises were not susceptible of division without manifest prejudice to the interests

• I. ,H ,80£d9lV

-ni^Xqmoo •■s «9iroH altxU ,ioiie ni ^ajsLno^oi srft nuao »tti& al

o^Md^nniH lo iiuoo &luoiio 9r\& al x^^^P^ ^^ lltd s Ltlfi ^m&as

§t*}ao Lji^t aiAtx^o \o aoiiittAq, 9di &uo(i.a :Qati<i at x^^voo

9dt t*d& ■•ssXiA XXlcf srfT ,bzo\:loofi \o \&io axfrt ni boSJUifta

AmioW taJ3 itJsXO dtit3 ,inwi*8 io^aia «v3 Lnus i 119 at taAlaeliQL

jnlowo ifo.as flomrnoo ai a^n^ns^ 9i£ tioiTS nt B^'i.ticii^lq ,noeniioI>

;tttaol^ltTJBq 9cr o& td-QUoe saalasTn sd^f ai ^aaio^ai dtiuol ano a

lawot j3 a«i( «a«o51 iajsi'I aal^ijsq Lla^ to T9d&*\ 9dt isd& has

e« 1011a at al^l^nX^X? .aaaiaaiq tt*9 lo ^t«q a at taaxa^ai

X£i;t'i'?jB;fed'i/a arfv-f XI« ^at^ttmbA ,raviranx ilerlir i;eXl!t a^a^ns^at

adt lo a^aaTBd'al Jbxis a^ilBlt arft baj& XXld ad;t al ta^aXXA a^o^il

aeaj^asiq 9di tJidt ^itmba ioa btb iud «i(:fio^ ^ae atiodi b& aai^isq

i9vuaB 9di at ixM. JbeseXX^ obXjb X9dt .Jba<lX7oaat x-Clsaaioo aiaw

jnltlTW at floiJflBoqoiq « et-am iijarf ,ioiaa aX ^njstna^tat arf^ Jjgrf*

at *ae78*ni leri XXae o.* »XXld arft lo gnXXil 9:f:t aoflXe mail* 9i

bad x^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ «ma.-f:t o:^ ,XXXcf 9di at JbadXioaaL aaaXaoiq ailit

aXdJB fcnjB gniXXlK brtd iffc^si aiew tn-c ,iioiJX8o^oi iXjsa Jbatf-qaoo*

aoqi/ Jbaaas^B os aoitq arft «ioi7a at tajstna^ai. arft ot ^c^q ot

Jbae tatuoaxa 9cf llyow aoa^yavnoo 'io aJbaai: taaXoiUx/a taveaarfw

-a& <!^A^ bn£> ,Jbatas«£ BbtA^iQi\A ajsir XXld ailT .aarft ot taiavlXal

aieiran^ B4 isa^ita ot tawoXX^. aiaw loiTa nl %Yi.ttataLq^ arft lo eiawe

galT^arf £ baJi ^b^Lf^. nerft a«w aoltaolXqaa « iXXlcf ijataanus arft ot

3alt.iloqq4 taistaa a«w aaical a aoquaiarfw ^tuoo arft siolarf bAd

id'^ti'i A aaaoet alrft al .aealaaiq arft noltltiaq ot aianolaelMuooc

-TOO oeXjs BA^ aaelmaiq erf:*^ to ttJiq a \o AOltqltoaat »rft al loiia

ton aiaw aaelffletq aift #«rft ,X)atToqai aTaaoleslounoo erfT .tatoai

atasiatal arft ot aoltutaiq taallaam tiiorftlv. aolalvlb \o •Xofltqaoaiia

of the parties, ani. appralaed the value of ^he same for the purpoeea of & sale; and thereupon a leoree for the sale of the premisee V7as entered, and In aooor.lanoe nith this ieoree the premiaeo were sold by the raaater at public sale for >v7550«00 to the plaintiffs in error; tiiey having made the highest Isii and beat bid therefor. The sale was confirmed by the court, and a solicitor's fee of (500. CO, for the servioea of complainant's aollcitora, was allowed and orderei to be taxed as costs in aooordanoe with the statute; and it was also ordered that the net proceeds of the sale, be distributed among the parties in interest in aooordanoe with such interests, i-a found by the .Ieoree in partition. From the latter ieoree, i* writ of error is now proaeouted.

It io contsniei, that the court should have liamiased the bill, because the answer of the plaintiffs in error contained the alle'';ation of the proposal to sell hsr interest to the plaintiffs in error, and tiiat such proposal had been accepted by them; also that the court erred in the decree iir'^cting the iistribution of the net proceeds in ordering the amount of defeniant in error's share, aa fixed by the ieoree in partition, to be paid to her, instead of the amount for which it is claimed she had agreed to aell er interest to the plaintiffa in error. It io alao insisted that the decree for the sale of the premises was erroneous, because it failed to find that Frank Rowe had a .lower interest in a part of the premieea, anl to direct that the ;3ale be made subject thereto* The allowance of a solicitor's fee to be taxed as costs, is also assigned as error. Concerning the first and second contcntiona of the plaintiffa in error it may be aaid« that there ie nothing in the record to show any agreement made by the iefendant in error for a aale of her Intersat to the plaintiffs in error, and +hia court is therefore not in position to review

eeioeX' tiif.-^ dtlw soaALioooje ai baa ^boieiao ejsw saelinoTq axfif

OO.OSdT^ ro'i bLmb oiltiuq t.a isttjant ant )(cr tlos oiow ooaiasxq a^^

toe AAtf ^ee;fsixl 9rl& Bb^atn j^tfAd ydnj- ;iOTt9 al aVUtat^lq tiidi ot

*.t;fi* ^tujoo ^d^ x^ t'9mitliiOo S3vr aX^sa arfT ..xoloierl^ i}Jtcf >«acl

e '^aaal-4iq30o to ^joo^vxae a ,00.005^1^ lo asl a'lo^loiloa

ai aitaoo a« Jbax4;t dcf ot £i»iaJbTO ban tawoXX^ ajtiw .aiotloiloe

S£(:^ ^ji'M ib anal) TO osX« e.4ir .:M in« ia^i/^js^s ea't rftlK so/t^tooooI

tti MBttt^cf mi_4 T^ttosae botudttftiib ad ««ij3a ail:f ro aijeooonq tmn

Bd^ Ycf j>xu/al a^ ^m&99T9iai. Aohb d&tf aoaAtioooA^ at tftetBiat

et 10110 "io ilTK « ,8a*ro©t iet*Al aA& axoi'^ ,aol&tt^aq ni eoioaf-.'

.1 ?*jjoaaot(j wocr

arfif Jtani-^^ooo xoiia ni •lli:diEi«. q a:Li lo lait^aou aiil oajj^Ded ,XXld

allitfaijBXq t['.& of tm9istal tarf XXaa ot XAaoqcvq ailt lo aolt«7^4»'IX<0

oaX£ imodt ^d ibeMeoo<0 osfid bsd. Xeaoc.oiqf cfdi/a d>j9n't £)h« «ioii8 aX

lo aoi&uiflxtBtt ^t ^^Xtof^rll aaioal »tit nl Jbai^a ituo^ Btii &«ii&

a'xoiia at tnsLa9lBb lo ifnttomji axft sniiatlo ai aJbaaoo^q &Btt 6df

,iaxf o^ btAQ ad ot tfiotiiii^ii at aaioaX axit y:d JbaxXl vik' «aTiscIa

oit JbtoisA bmd erfs taslxXo ai it rioXifw lo^ tauoa* a/It )o bseinat

tai'alefll oaXjB ai ;fl tioiia ni tMt^atMlq 9d) ^i #a?io#«2 <te . XXas

6BU£09d ,avoanoii8 e£w aaaiatarq Bsii lo alAa'^fft lol aaioaf sritt ^«rli

.-^T«q J3 fli d'af'idiai lawot a tad 9m on iasxl tMdi Jball ot taX^

^o^CduB at4fflr<t<if ' aX^f^ a.l^f #£ii^ toBitb oihitM ,«aaia«>iq ^

«a>a9(9 a« tam«vt ad o;f aa) ("i'lodioiXoa s to •ocijsmotl^ ariT »otai8d!t

Jbiiooaa trta (aiil edt jininteoaoO .loiia •« tan^iaa^ oe

»iad[;f t^S «i)|£a ad v«(r tl loiia at ellitaljtXq Sil;f lo aAOi;ffl9iaoo

arfl x<^ •^^^■'X" i^nanaatS'* ^^i^'* *oiia ot bro&er 9dt at "gatdioa fit

alli^aijBXq 9i^ 9t. ttiB^fftat le^I lo »XjBa s lol loii* ai taaba»i9t

VoiTa-i o* aoiit^^ Off aialeia; Txmo aJxfvt bac (li^tf at

any of the questions raised in oonnection with such an agreement; ani theee matter* are not before the court. Concerning the point made that the lower Interest of Fi-ank Rowe, ehoul:! hr.ve been taken oognizanoe of, by tne iecree lirecting a aale of the premiaes, ani the sale made aub^eot thereto, it may be saii that it is praotioally iispoeed of by the court crooeedings, as shown in ^he amendment to the transcript of the r^ oord, which has been filed by leave of court. It conclusively a-^pears from these pro- ceedings, that the fact waa brought to the attention of the court at the time of the entry of *he decree for sale, that the lower interest of Rowe would oe relinquished by himj ani it was after- wards duly relinquished, ani prior to the aale, ao that at the tiiue of the aale he had no lower interest in the property, and the sale was therefore .^roperly made free of ouch intereot. Uorsover, all the parties in interest, including the plaintiffs in error, who purchased the premises, were fully aware, that at the time tj e premises were sold that ^uoh lower interest had been properly released, and the plaintiffs in error purchased with a full knowledge of the condition of the titl« in that regard. We find no error in this part of the partition pro- ceedings. Ani there was no error in the allowance of the soli- citor's fee to be taxed as costs. The righto and interests of the parties in the premises to be partitioned had been properly set forth in the bill; und the leocse for partition finds, th« interests of the parties exactly as they are alleged in the bill. The record does not show, that any good or substantial defense was interposed by any of t e parties iefenlant in the bill. Under these circumstances a proper oase wus peesented for the allowance of a solicitor's fee; Stollard v Nycum, S4C 111. 473; Jesperson v Meoh, 213 111. 418. The fact, that there was a slight error in the description of a part of the premises, does not bar the taxing of a solicitor's fee for the complainant's

9v^xi tXyoila ,airoH irris' '^ 1o ^aat^^oi lawoJb arf^ tadi 9bam taioq

f£lt ^q aX«« Ji ^ntito97i.i aasoat ant x<^ «)o eoa^slrxsoo flai£^ neatf

tAxf# Jtljsa 9cf ^£.T ii ,o;f»7ajiif toa^dx/a otijsra aXjse axr .aaaiaaiq

tVKOda 9s tajnii-esooi . ^t0oo arl;f ycf ^o taaoqalJb x^^-'^^-'^^i^'^^l O-i^ ^^

naed a^ £foixlw ^Jbaoo " ' '^o tq,iioaa.Btt 9it oit tadata^mji a:ft ai

-OTq 9B0dt ao7) iTJuaq « \:i.eviaijIoaQo tf^I .^airoo lo av^al xcf i^aXi^t

*TJJOO axlt lo floi^nattjB adit oi trfswoicf bjsw rf'o^l erfd- tJidi .agalfcaao

lawot Bdt tsrii .aXjBe lol aaioat adt lo Ti^ne a:!^ \o amivt arid- t«

~i9tlj» a«w it tciA ;fflirf ^^cf taifsiupaiXai acf tXjjow awoH lo d'aaiatfll

adt ^A txsr'.'^ oe ,aX«a arf.t o:f noiiq i:ajs ^^aiiaix/piiiXaa x£ub atajsir

«\(;)'iaqotq tilt ai ^aaia^al lawoi; oa tsti axl aX^a atit lo ami^f

.ituaied-ni douo lo.^ail atAin ^Xi^qoiq aiolataxl:f saw aX.aa arij*

i)^i:fni£Xq erfif ^nlLuXoal ^^asia^ai ai aaittjsq axi;t XXjs ,iavoe7oU

;tj3 ^^fft aaT«w«^X-l^-^^ ai9W .aaaimaiq 9dt taaarlouiq oxfw ,toiia at

bed ^aaiatai tawoJt xloue if«rf^ tXoa aisw aaelmaaq arlif aml^ oa't

taaj3ifoix/q toiia ai alll^nijaXq ttaajsaXatc ^XiaqoTq aaad

ijidt at %Lttt 6di lo aotttLaoo an:^ :o asijaXworot XXvl « d^iw

. -oiq floiJil'ijeq arl^t to ttAq Btdi at loita Ofl Latl aW .fcusgel

-^Xoe arf^ \o BonjfHoLiJi »dS a)i loi^a oa •«« aiarlit tnA .aaaitaao

lo •tB9'X9&at tns oid-sti aifT .aitaon ais Lax^cf acT o^ •nt B*zotto

Xiiaqoiq aaacf Jb«d Jbaaoic^i^tjsq ad o:f aaalmaiq eu'^ at aai^i.aq 9d&

srf* ,«Jial^ aoi*i*i£q lo'i apooe ; :iw jXXld adJ aX rf^iol Jfaa

«XXld td^ irl tajeXXA ai^ x^^-^ *£ Yiro^sxa aelifiAq 9dt lo a^aaia^ai

aana^et £jiitajB:fedi;a to ^003 i(a£ :f«if^ .woria toa aeoi Jbioosi arlT

*XXld fdt at ^OAtna'tal: aal^ixqi a:^^ lo \aA xd l>aaoqia^nX a^w

adif Tol i}a taa a a sq a .tsw aa«o taqoiq a ufoaMamuoTto aaaxl^ lataU

. ■ ' ^ »jcuot'f V tijaXXo^? ;»•»! a'lo^XoXXot aoajtfWoXXjs

: i» ^ BJiv &". . . C-- V xioaiaqaaL

XAd &oa aeoi ,&afeii:aci4 dt;;f lo ;^a^;l ■&» lo iioii^J^^oB9L 9di at toiia

solicitor; Fread v Hoag 132 111. App. 333; especially since the error waa not pointed out in the anawera of fae plaintiffe in error, nor any defense made by them on that gro\ind. The decree ia affirmed*

efft eonie i;XI«i09qe(» ;££& .qqi •XXI £iSX a«oH v X>««it {lottotLoB

at BVttttttMlq •dt \c iievafu. arfif ai tuo b^tatoq. ioa ««w 10119

.bnuoi-^ i-s(^.* no mBcii ^cT •Jb^an •ano^o^ t^^^ '^on «ioiie

.lemii^^tA al eoToeb 9rfT

STATE OF ILLINOIS, ( ^

SECOND DISTRICT. I ^'^^ I, ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court.

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof.

do hereby certify that the foreg-oing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in

the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

6754

/

// / i X .- 1 ■■-'7 . }

If / / / ) •^ •■' 5 -^ /

K^ /

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the seventh.^day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine h]yt*idred and nine-

teen, within and for the Second District pt the State of

M

Illinois: M

Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Pres idling- Jus t ice .

■Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice

f

Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Ju/tice^ "1 r^ T A A ^ Q CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, ^lerk.

^

CUET S. AYEES, Sherl/f

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on

nif«n rv ^««« the opinion of the Court was filed in MAR 9 1920

the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit:

Gen. TIo. 6754

Georglna B, Bingham, app«llant«

V8 ApTieal from Winnebago.

Frank H, DeAri&ent, appellee.

ITiehauB, P. J,

In thin oaae Fr&,nk F. DoArment, the appallae, obtainci a Ju!!;;;rrent for the eum of |:S55.C0 ar.d coetD of QvAt a^ainat the iLroellant, Georgiina P. Bin£;>";affi, b«fcr« a juotios of the peaoa in l^ir.r.ebago Ccunty on April l£, 121S. On iiay 3r..d. 191S *hinh v/as t'le last iay for perfecting d.n ap::eal, t.-«.e husband of ap- pellant, actin't as a-'jnt in h^r bshalf, a-^pQarei before tli3 JuBtiae of th55 paaoe, anl pr'-^aentei. an a^peai l.ond in tha sum of .%615.00 with L. G. Krueter '.'.e surety, ani properly ^xeoute-L for an anpeal to the airoult court. Ho pail all tho ocate which hctd accrued to the ^uatice of tho peace; iJiii the ;justias aocepted tie appeal bond but- Jii not fcT\r;ull-y approve it, ncr determine the question cf th? eufficiency of the surety at tiiat tiir.e, but said to appellant'© huaband that thf>re .vaa nothing further j.or him to io in thr master, ani froffi this the appellant inferred, tVat the bend was ap proved; hoA'svcr several days there- after the Rustics advieed app-sllant, that hs -vouli not approve the bond b«c5au3e he considered the surety insufficient; thereupon on the "13th, day of May 1913, an aiiitional aurety w;is added to the bond, who wis satie ^aotory to t/.e J -istioo, and hcs th^n ap- proved the bond. Ther'^after the bona .laa filed in the offio© of the ol.ork of tha oirouit court, together with a, tr^.naoript of the justice's icolcet, in c.ccoriance v/ith the statutory re- QuireiRsnte, At tl-.e folXo'^/invj October T«irm 191o, of tlie circuit coot, the arpellee male a cicticn to -liairiao the appeal on the ground that appeal had not been takf^n -.vithin the SO days re- quired by the statute. The motion wae heard by the court at

.Og^cfsanlW soil I^aqqA av

• edllsqqjs ^^nojjiAea .H jin^rr^

£ IaK*js;ttfo ,»ell»qq£ 9;l;t .i-nomiAoCI ,H sln^iT ttCAO nlfl^ al

9n\+ ♦aniAyjij tluo *o ai-aoo fcrr£ 00.382^ \o mu?? srf* tot tnsmsfciit

-q*> 'ho tni.o'sijrf ©r.J ,Xj58qqB n*, gnijfoe^isq Tol v.^^t tasl erf* aj^w

eiftf siolacf tsii-eq^^.e tlXijnecf tfri nl ^ne^^s bjs ^nl ^-Oje ,*r.JsXXeq

iWv s/" iil tnoJ iii9q-i3 ajf Jte?fto<r='Tq in* .oojBfiq Rri.+ lo eoi^au^

ii6i-uo6x& x-i^'iQ^o*'? *aa ,YJt ie.t?MT}? .0 .j dtlw 00.5X6$ \o

rfo^GTr a:faoo or: J XIjb tiaq «H .^xwoo ?ti;oTlr »iicr o* l^bucjt na lol

3c*«ft.., t &^^^ ^^'['^ ;ec^eq ?>;'."^ ^-o aoitoi/j; orft ocf bauriooa l^asrf

ion ^tl ovoTiqjj i{iI^:!!iol Jon til iud Jbnocf Xjsoqqjs o- ;*• i>a;}.qeoofi

i-ij ^t^Tua Ow* lo ^oaaiollli/a -rfJ to noicfaei/p orf.+ enimnacfQJb

jnidJon ajBw ST«n'? Ijcrf* JbajBcfe^rf a'^n^XIi^q jjs ot Jst^s tucf jorsri* *j6xl*

*aj»XXdqq» arft ti^'l* moiJ bets «i9;t*jam urft ni oi? o* mxri aoi aariiJ-iul

-aia^^'t d'{At XAiavds lavanoxi ;i;avoi'4q£ s<ew Jbrtocf erft tjsrfj ,teia9l;ai

aroiQ'-.:** cfon i Tuor <?;! *jb;:* ,#ajeXX?qq« LaaiTtJS soi^RLft 9'* •i'?*1j-

fro LftitnJ (*naloi:*lu»al ^^foiLa 9rit LsistlBfroo arf 9eif«09cf tno

^aitj* a^w YtSTue L^jactitLle nj »BX6I xjhK lo t-«fc .xfJCX" sri:" ao -q^: aec'f e.f Jbn*; ,a&IjBv t ^'^^ ©* ^taoJ^o*'' a i **« a^w orfw »l5no- •oil'io %i.i al Laiti b«k Arrod at.t i^c^^joeToxIT .Jbnocf 6i1;f tavoiq

-9T Yi'^^^*"S-<» »»'* rf*£v>' aonjai-iooc/i nl ^^eifoot e'eoUBuf; erf? lo

cfiij&Tio an"* 'lo ,3X0X aioT ladorf-cO ^niroXXoT: an' J tk .etnomaTlup

arlit no X«9qqjii Bi'^i oBimct:. oi n::;£;foia js 91 am asIXaqq-a orf* ^tcroo

--: a^iijJL; OS arirf nirf^if? asalAd- naarf *on Jb^ I^isqqjs tJidt bauoTgi

at -the aarf.e term, naraaly. On October 17, 1918, ?.nd an orior «a8 entered iismiBsing the a.pcaal. Theraaftnr a opeoial July tera vran oullei and held; and a, petition was filed by appellstnt 3tt thut term praying tViat the case be redcckated, anj praying tlicit t\x& ordsr iiamisoing said oause, be vucjated bea:.u;?e an error of fi-ot had been oommitted by the court in entering the order of diamiRsa,!; a.180 praying , th».t tlie execution ?irhich h^-d been ic.oUci by the justice of tie peaoe be stayed. The petition rfccitea the r.u,ot8 ixbout the reoovery ox the jui^ifient before ths juatiao ^.^cvin-ib *:he ■x-ips'^lu.nt, a,nd t.jd nreaentation of the .;p3i-l bond, c.ad what coourred at the time of its presentation .0 ths ^uatioe; t.loo aiiegea, t;tat tho appejllant has a '^'ieri- torioue aofanee to offer ' o th.e oluia of Va'i appellee. The pe- tition aluo uilegett, tliat the oouheel for appellant, who had ohfc.rt,t5 01 her caae was not present in court, at the time t>~e i-.otion to dluBiies was heard, and La J had no previous notice to appear; and that his partner who wao present, ani participated in t'.is hoaring, had not had, at t'uG time of the hearing suf- ficient tittc to obtain the faota, to prossnt to the court on the B-.ction; anJ that therefor^", the true facte were- not preoented to the oourt at the ti.r.e of -he hearing. The court heard the petition, and lenicd it; also Vr.oated the temporary order which had previoualy been entered staying tne execution. From the order denyin^j the prayer of the petition, an appeal ia now prosecuted.

It in contended b} the appellant, that the petition in queution >.afa in legal effect, ->.motion which our statute (Section S9 of t.he S>v-jotioe Act) authoriaee aa a aubstitute for the cotrmon la;v j.rit of error coram nobis, whioh iosued to correct errors of -^ct; that thie case ie one in jvhich the corcmon law writ of 00 rait, nobia could properly have been iasuadj and that therefor-^ it ''Vu,a propar to rasort to t.te motion provided for by the statute. It ia olat*r however as a matter of law, that the faota for cor-

&nsLid'7qs ^d b9Lt^ i^a* aoti^taq & Lclb ;tX9xl taa bdlL^ao a^sw oiis^

tofcto 9''* anit«*fls ni ^iifoo 9fi* x<^ bB&titawoo neacf tjoul *o«l lo

- .... ■31. r.'' '^ t-< * ■^T

affi L-^r iloirv? aol&u09X>i a-frt **rf*. » 8nlx.«iq oaX« ;Xii8«imaii) lo

aottai^a^Beiq 6ut Jboti «ta.sXXeqc£ eci^f Sent.. iteu^

aoiJjc+nseeTq ail ^o ami* orf* ^jb Ls-nuoco tfjsxlw Jwi ... - -

- «■ ' ■.>-■-

-limr -iA 9dt .;e39ll£ obXj3 (•oi^exi^ e.

a-ft 9mX* 9ii& tM ^t'luoo ai J^nassTq toa a^w ae^o i p* eoitofl a0o2v9Tq oa i)£xl tjsxf Ln^ ,i>i«9xl b^w aaiaaiX) u tetaqto^tiJiq tnjs ,^rxsGaaq a«« odw i8a;fn£q alrf ;f^t Ln..

m fTjjoo ari* o* irteasaq ot ,b*o^1 ar'i^ ni^tdo o* salt ia~

•rfit tT£Bcl ftuoo »;1T .aiiXixsaii a.ft \o 9su .woo s

dotff^ TdJbTo x^'^^?^^"^ <'^ ' ^d^^o^v oa I« ;d'x X>dlni:^ .aoxcfi^aq

.teituoAaoiq won ex X^^qq^ njt ,aoi*£*Rrq «£{;t lo la^^iq exl^ ^aixa^b , Ai ttOtiltBq, Biit &*:it ^iaui^nq., ^La&taoo ax ^I

aonirBoo erft rro ! •^x/:^i^edi/a ^ ujb aaclTcd^uju (*oA aoXtooir^ -2 ^3

; ■' ' - • • ..^ ,

lo atoiTie rf'oeTTOc at isxji. w .aidoa atoaoo tons

■ ■ ■ . . . . i .' ■?■ .\

lo *i%vr ^aL aoinoioo exi^ ifoXilw aX aao aX aa«o aXxf«

9io!te7arit tikAt litu-. iieuabi need avj&rf X"t^»QOiq t^i/oo axtfwfl •f.^T-JO

«a*u^£;te ad* t<^ ^o^ XaXivoiq noXloa aiT^- otf ^fioasi o* leqov i

-TOO lol 8^o«'!i ai'* ^«i::f ,w«X lo la^^jua 4> a« aevewoii i^ieXo Bi *I

reatjon of '■yhiah, the writ of ooraa nobis waa itiauei at sermon law, -.vere net friota Tshioh war© iiroctly involve! In t;i8 iasuas tried ani dat^rmined by the court; but a fact a.liund«j such -a faot as for inntanoe fio infancy o' ths iefsndtint :itr;ainat whoaa » jui3n2rit waa roniered. The ocr'raon law writ of error ooraai nobia W--3 n-^v^r sxorcjised oonoernlng faoto, .vhioh thcugh not before the court, ha.i bearincr on ths oonoluBion which the court reachsi in istorminincr t-!e issue preaentad for adjudication. Estate of Gold v T7atiJon, 80 111. App. 443. In +his caae the issue which wae jetermined by the court at tl e hearing of •^•he motion to di'jnias, was the date upon which the appeal bond .vas approved. And all that appeliant't; petition amount© tors, ie a showing, t;iat Blie had evi lenoe oT faoto, which '//fre not rreacnted to tlie court at '^he tire of the hearing, which if prr^aented might have oauaed the court to rf;ach a different oonciueion en thtit iosua, nar!!«iy, that the apr«al bond was le^^illy approved within the statutory time. The evidence of all the facts averred in the petition however, ^yafc within the kno':.'led?^e of the petitioner, at +":.e time cf the hearing, and should have f been presented to +he court before the aetcrminatlon cf tne matter. The ex;)lanation0 (r.i.de in ths petition as an excuse for not presenting them to the court at that hearing are clearly insuff ioisnt. If the attorney, .Tho vTas present, anl acted in appellant's behalf, Jld not h-ive aufficisnt loxcffledgo cf the faots concernlnE her =3ide of the case, or lid not have suffisient tiirie to pr-stj-ent the evi ience at that ti.r.e, he 5hould have aa'ted the court for j'urther tia« so t":;at her side ailght hav:i bean fully heard. No requ33t lor further tic:3, or for a poatponeir.ont of the hearing appear to have bsen jTiade. Mssascsz Moreover, appellant hai t'.e legal right, after the hearing, ani after the order liamis^lng the appeal had b^en entered, at any time during

« iroff* ^6r .T^lxxelei . al lol •«

sfcfca BLCToo loaift ^0 ifittw *rjBl rrc'"'":. .re*9f:.Tf»ir B.e^ ;*rrer"-i w J

•lolorf 3-on dyarf* rfrii*v' ,o*c -w

1) . .->*'''

arf* !to ^rtit,S9r^ jdo" o/T.^" vcJ £oniflwii*e£ iBJBwr ifojtrfw exxaaJ

... 1.

no aoieuIo.T3o ^.■^©•rsftiJS « ffojs5t oi- J- -^nrjin

t&V'j Jaod X.s»»'tW.'? 's' , . .

"*cr ^ r-rf "tft nlri-t »tev»Vorf n ,.t ni boiiBr*

. aoiJ^r 'tnsooaq flaacf

.itrraasiq ;toii

nsetf ; *-i.'Oo ^rft

*nci-

;tfVo**tol' xsi

the October iarm, -.vhioh apparently lusted for iru.ny wcekn after tljo orisr oj." iismlBiia,! had been entered, to :rc^he a motion to set asi i* 2>.nd vacate the order, o,ni have t\\?. caac xastiKskatiol re-instatadj ani upon th&t motion aha ooull have nai© a ahc ting of all the faote» whlob shtj allsgea in hsr petition. But a;:'pel- lant net only failed tc av:*il hirrsslf of this ri.rjht, but waited until ujitBT tlie October Tsrm haJ. 6xpir«»d, :xul iox nine nscntho aft or the iiamisaai of tha a; 'peal, and ur.til anothar and special term convened, boforc; ahe filed hox pstiticn to have the oourt'e xzttmn order ciot a&ids and vacated,

'.■;e c-re of opinion that undor jhcse clrouciatanooa ths prayer of t..6 p.iti-'rion wae properly danied, anl judsmont ij affiraied.

J dg/nonl; affirmed.

-.IaQO£ iL'S »ttolflfeq terf ni eagollia wjie iloixtif ,8*o^'i an* ii«3 to. •ts'c^^q Biii'- e60^A-^^ct3i;olj:& afieiij^- labmt ^t^ti^ notaiqp ^o ien^viB'.7

STATE OF ILLINOIS, i

SECOND DiSTPaCT. \ ''''• I. ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court,

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foree:oing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof. I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Clerk of the A'pj)eU<tte Court.

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the seventh day of Octp^^er, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and^ine-

teen, within .and for the Second District of the State of / i J'

/ % #

Illinois: | ^

Present--The Hon, JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Jugiice. Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice. ^/

/

Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice#

jf> -| r- T /I /^ 5 g

CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, ClerjC ^--■" -^ - ^ « rx • \J tJ K^

CURT S.|aYERS, Sheriff

i J

J'

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on

,= .on 109Q the opinion of the Court was filed in

the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures

following, to-wit:

No. 6719

Tony Domsnioantonlo, Adrnr., ) sto., appallae, \

V8. ^Appeal from Winnebago.

Clarenoe E. Fort,

appellant*

Opinion by DIBELL,J, On <?ept3f[iber R, 1917, Cruerino Domenloantonio, six and one-half ysara oli, while croseing a public hl;:h-.my outsoie the liaita of t^ © City of ^coKford, was struck and klllei by an automobile iriven by Clarence E. Fort, Decease! left surviving bin: Ms father and riother, a brother and t-:vo aletera, Kie father >^«caRe adr'iinia-

trator cf hia estate and brought tMe suit a-:ainat rort to reoovsr for loaa to tlie r.sana of support of aaid next of kin. Plaintiff filed a declaration, and defendant

pleaded the -general isaua. There v;a9 a trial and a

verdiot for plaintiff '"or ^300. A motion for a new

trial waa granted. Upon a aecond trial plaintiff had a verdiot for ^3,000. A r.otion by defendant for a new

trial vag denied, plaintiff had judi^r/ient thereon, and defendant aispeala. Defendant argues (l) that the

declaration in inauff Loient to aui port a judgii.enti (s) that the court erred in osrtuin rulinv^a upon the adwiseion of evidence, (3) th7.t the court erred in rulings upon instruct ions; (4) that the court erred

in denying a aotlon raade by defendiint thyt the court investigate the con:iuot of the jury during the trial; and (5) that the evidence does not support a verdiot for

plaintiff

. • -1-

eiva .oK

( ,.iifiA ^olnoln-cojtneiior >-.-ioT

, ,BSXxe>;,iJ.'. . ,o:

(

( ,*aJ3XI»qq«

J ^tiol .^ eonetrrlo

.L.Jjaaia y^ nolnlqO

YBtfrfTirf ollrfjjq B gnle«05o eli.lw ^bXo bibby IXaff-eno tae

ioxnJs ajBw ^fciotiooF to ^^-tO •'^^ ''^o si-iaiiX odi slomiuo

,)iol ,3 BoneijeXO ^6 n^vlit •Xldomo^jjjB nj3 y^ t^Llli bat;

JiOT ^Brtljer* ttuB Blrf* ^ff^iroirf bnj9 »^£;fe» et.i \o io;tJ3i;f tfxen Jblce ^o iioqqjjs "io Bnjsen erf:?- o& bboX toI Tevoooa o*

4 Jbrr« Xjsii.t B t«w BierfT ,e>u89l L^idct^z: Bdi befcJBeXq

wen js xo^ no'^om A .00£:$ io'» llliat^iq ttol ^toll-icev

JL^rf Itl^nifiXq Lalri JbiiooeB b noqU .i>eJxTa'xs ^'■^^' X^ia^

wen 4 lol dftjsfcitelefc y<^ nol^OiS A ,CX)0j8$ lol *oXJbT8v ^

fcitie ^noaiBrltf tn9a:^ul Jbjs.i 11i*nJ«Xq »i)Blri»f esr iaiii

oit i£(i& (X) sairc^A ^nAi:>rrelB(T .aX««qq4i ^n^nslof

•di aoqiu •^IXiJi rtixtifteo rri l)6i"ie ;tTaoo ar{;t d-ijrfit (S)

nl te>ii9 J^uoo a-r* drrf^t (C) ^aoneJMve ^o nolsslinfc/?

ija:ti» iiiioo 9di ' ) ;«no.'*oxrt^6rfi aoqu ssnlli/i

iX-olT* trf;t sfi-t^JJi" Tti^i. ^df \o txustnoo arf* e;f,BSJt;^e evni lol *0lJbT8V JB ;f'a:oqqi;B *on aeoJb eoxteMva tdt t-adi (S) Jbajs

ili^nljsXq

The deolaratlon contained three counts. The aecond was for wilful and wanton conduct "by defendant. The court Inatruoted the jury that that count had "been with- drawn and should not he considered ^>y the jury, and that the word « leaa^arat ton " ir. the instruct ions neant only the firat and thirl counts. Those are the only counts to ^s considered by this oourt. The abstract does not aka show that defendant demurr.».:l to the ieclaration or moved in arrest of judrxTient, The aufflcienoy of the ieclaration •vaa not rais>?d in the court h'JxO'flr, and it cannot be ciuestioned for th"? first tii-e on appeal. But If that question -^ere before ua -"^e ara not oonvinoad by the dritlolsms made. The first count follows the fom approved in Chloacjo City Hy. Co. v. jannin^a, 1F^7 111, ;-74, anl in ra«ny later cases. The thtrd count charges that the accident happened in a public highway outside the limits of the Incorporated city of Rookford, and that said auto v.'aB b«ing driven there by Fort at a speed exceeding t-*^ent^,'>*five milaa per hour, and stated facts which made this a violation of the provision In Section 10 of the „otcr Vehicle Law,

At the place of the accident 15th Avenue runs er.at and west On the south side la a sldevralk, north of that a parkway in which are trolley polea, nsxt north of that a single track street car line, than a prepared way twenty-three or twenty-four feet side for vehicles, north of xhat three feet of a ■^rasa plat, and then ei-^ht fast to a feno«» At the time of the accident the father of deceased was drivinf]; a motor track eaet on aald highway. Fi» machine worked hard. Ke turned out on the north grass plat and stopped to see what waa the

-2-

exfT .Btnijoo asidd- b^atstaoo aotiBreio^b e '^

"dtlvi neerf Jbjsrf (fctx/oo t.^rf* Jj^rf* vitrC •rf* l;d#0irx;f8frl *»tf6o erfr

*^* Jbr; beioAlfirtoo scf iforr tli/orfa Jbnjs nw^xb ylno iitat:z cao. jo:a;J^crfi »rf"i rri * aolisiBAteb^

Binuoo \Lno ftd;} sis ©iorfT .ej-nxfoo txlxf^ ^.rw Jt.'iil &:ii ax« Jon 8©oJb *o,Bi^»rf* erf? .itiifoo eirf^ vcT'tiexeJbiartoo ecf o^

^9V0i-s 10 noi^^jBt^Ioaf) d:-f:f oj heii.imtij ;f/]fjB^nel.©Jh ^«rf* worf«

ncii^XJiloc: nnlDfitiiti ©rfT ,in»sf^LsJl \o ^s^eXT* nl

i''^'' •ijsftqq/s no ^OLt* ^^Tl»l >©,'f^ aol bB.aolt^pui^

3."'' tjtvnoo J-o.-- eao!t»c[ 6'i.sm qf>lii.t:ui^

nzor 8AJ, ewQXXPl (^cwoo iicni . : nm eiwlo^JIii}

• ""^ .p^nijincT, .V .oQ .yH Y.:iQ aif^icil!:^ .ni ,^»voa'i iX.

•rfJ' ©tiearuo Y^Mg-t.rf oiXc'ir^i b ni r^neqqjjrf ^^nafclpaMB 8rf;Jt^,Jtarfit

Irf^t eh/jQ rfoi.lw •;tu^l te^iicf* fcn^^awod ^atft ;*j^,ff^ »Ti^-*^-trts -t

. -iJ AXolilaV to rf;tion ,aX. '

lo rf*10n (Jx&a i«riv'^ ij!»*i9-i/ BTJ- n;i:. .igvvji'xi;^:

X^- '-—-—■• ----- --. L- ^ ., ^. a.T eXsAle A ja::>.i

« At O U 91. L U

matter, and Katttax spent perhaps tan minutes in tr^'lnfT to :''ini vhn.t waa the ir.attsr 'vlth the motor, rre lived in a house or. the south gile of that street and near there. The boy came aoroaa the street to where hi a father vae workinpr at the ff.otor. The father teatifl'id that when ha c^ot through h© cranked up the engine ani then looked eaoh way to see if anything was approaching and saw nothing coElnoj; and then got into hi 8 plaoe in the seat at the wheel on the north aide, with hia face turned east, Mike Lun^^o, who lived near by on t' e south aide of that street, was riding with plaintiff that n.ornins, and testified that he then started to ^«t in, and looked eaoh way; that the boy had started to ^0 home, and this took hin aoroae f^o his^h-vay to the south east; thpt the boy turned to the left and looked totarde hia father; that Lun<;o saw plaintiff's auto coming fror the west, and made acre effort to atop the boy, but in vain. According to the preponderance of the wvidenoe the b03? '7aa struck by the fender and knocked down, and the north front wheel of the auto paoaed over the boy* a head, Hia skull wag fractured. He iraB unoonsoious when picked up, and 'vas taken to a hospital where he died soon after*

Lungo was asked If, as the boy started to go home, he -ent across the road. Defendant objected to this, and the objection '/aa overruled, and the witness answered , "■^ea," It i3 claimed that tha question was leading.

-3-

al ao^x/Ain mt sqarfieq SctBqm smttxn hns ^^eStc ftw .rrotOM erf* -f^i*- t«>f&Mn ©f^ ■>ffT- fiill: b;f '^rtif*^

"^rije teHTj*!! #i9rf^ I'o fMe 'f.tuoi »- •■^ tdTil

»d* cttf MjIrtJ*-*© Hti d'puord& to^ erf rt»rfw &jjt(t fcsillJeeJ

•««r ^nlff^Y'*-'* ^-i" *•« o* 'T** rfoaa f>e<ool norf* f-rijs ertl^rt©

o^aJt ^0'j( xT»iT# Bit/? ;gnlaoo grtirf^on wj9b bnjs ^rtirfo-ao^q^^j:

^abtB dSxoa arfrf- no Xaarfw •d) iA ;fi8sa arfa^ rrl edal<j airf

l)«yj:X orfw (OyiTirj arfiM ti9s» batnui aojs^ air' rfJJv

ff*lw gnjttiT a£w '^-^vei^a *i3rr:f I'o efip tiiuQ» ei't no yrf ijsan

b»tt£it9 nadS •A iAiti bellltfaerf bit* ^Sftlmoiti ^^rf;t lli^rtiiilq

t8*iJ9#a Isd xo<S %^i imf^ i^jiw rfojsa Iraiooi JMia; ^rti :ra:p od"

iisoB arf^ o;f yjBwif^^irf a^it saoTOA nltf jIoo* alri* brr* ,ainOf? o^ oi

«ta««o<f bajrooX J>«« tlt9i ^di 'Oi b»arsss Yocf 9di tf^rf* j^ajse

MOil ^nimoo o*i/« a •4'iiJ-nlaIq waa opm/J tfjsrttt ;^eff^j£sl aid

-f ,"«forf erf* qo*e o;t *Tco^^a ©:^oa ntxai bas ^tfaaw srf*

&o/i©Mvw aif;r: Iko aonarrsbnoqaTq arf;^ bJf ^nifcTOO' , ^i>:v

• ari* brrjB ^^mcit h^Mtyociii baa TafcneX atf* -^^ -ioifr&t bjbv^/ vocf erf*

ik*^(o6 9fi& tevo fcaan/'q ojiwi arft^o XaariTr &ttO'x'^ tiito a

Buolo»aoonu bsp. i' , aruiont"^ ejtw XXx/a£a a' , .^

fcetb ©if aif-rf"* I/iJ'lqaoa £ o* fiaiaJ- 3iioiq nsdw

• ifii^ti ffooa ^eitiOri OS 0* Le^rt-eJa yod ©r{»i tn ,1:1 l>a;{a« ur.r o^nxil

* t>e;roa|-cfo ;t/TJBii«a')an thuor atf# aaoTOs tfiar ad

, rs' :-' i.-t aaaatlw arf;r bitfi ^bftlmxmro Bjf»r noi*oattfo Brf:r b/ria ,;pirlba»X a** noi^eai/p aftrf */*iC;f fc»«ii«Xo ^ •.fi^'^"

-<.-

and the ruling revaralbls arror. The objection waa

g«nerai only. Tha attantion of the court vo.s not

dra'vn to the prnsent olalrr. that t> e question •••'as ■

leadin?r. That i.>oint ia not rAiasd hy a general

objection. Ruidy v. McDonald, 344 111. 494;

Dunn V. People, 172 111. 583; Hilton v. Santslrian, 1?9

111. Ahj. 109. Tt is Clear frop; all the proof that

the boy .vaa r^olns; acroas the road when he waa struck,

BO that the ruling iid not injure defendant^

Plaintiff 'vaa aaked the speed of t^e auto, and an

objection by lefendant aa overruled, and he answered

■He vaa i;oin-~ -roo.i th-".rtv-f ive mil-ia an hour."

Tt is ar-Tued that the ciueetlon called -^or an ultimate fact

ani notfan opinion, ard therefore the rulln?^ .vaa

erroneouB, That ^as not the objection made, not doea the

abstract state correctly tha objection or the ruling,

Tha witness '.vas fir^-t qualified to T:ive an opinion aa to

the speed of an auto by proving the length of tip.e he had

driven an atto bafore the accident, and by obtaining

from him the statement that at the time he -.vaa able to

jud^e of the epeed of autoe, and the quenion then

oo,.plained of wa« put. The only objection n^ade

w... that the witness di 1 not see the auto till afterlt

struck the boy. in overruling, the objection the '

court adr.oni.hed the witness th..t he rcust arsvrer as of

the ti..e when he nrat aa-. the auto and not before that

ti».e. TTe fina no error in that ruling. ;.« think it

Clear fror all the proof of the sp.ed of the auto that the

-4-

tor :iot&ntti$a feffT ,^ittO lj3icifl»g

i^re b*«l*t ton «^ #fifoq i£:i . nlbA^t

.1X1 *^??\ManonoW ,v ybi'jjfi ,nolto6l(<o

9*'! ^R/ .III ?.?t ,bl(iOB<^. ,v naur^

*r :.jt moxt «MiX»- «1 ^- .ro; . .HI

tTlotnifs !»-fv? fc«©rr 9ris •hoxojb jsnioy cjbw yod •/!*

;^n.■5^nr6^e^ s^irtni t6« til ^^nltm »Ai iaAS ti

".•f ^- '^ Vl'» -TrJl,,'/J f.OO-^ 'flic- ftH«

ton »»i-,ii»i £ioUo»tf^o •••cr i^on *ii*^ S^a.iT ,«wo©no«e

0 fceol£-X«p90O

^f lis MOt1«1««Xo

jury could not fall to understand that each 'vitneaa for plai7itiff on that su>?j9Ct /as 7;iven an opinion icerely, fTihere ia nothing to ahow that any .vitneaa for plaintiff profeaa^l tc atate tre spaed es a matter of faot, peverai fitnesaea for plaintiff ware croob exaj:.ined at F.uoh len:^th as to quaetiora put tu then an i anawera t'-.srstc r.ade hy theui on the forrr.ar trial. QiDjeotlons -Jere. Buatainecl to a faw of thaae queations and coiTiplalnt ie made of these rulings. Some of theae auppoesd answera were ao frumed that they obnfirnied instead of contradiot- ing whs.t the witneaa had aworn tc or thia trial, and therefore were net impeaching que^tiona. Othsre ware elsewhere answered. Still others were iEaaterial, Perhaps one or tvo might properly ha^'e "been answered. But ?.'e find no matsrial error in theae rullnga.

The chief dafenaea relied on are that defendant v/aa not ne^li^ent; that the aooident did not happen aa plaintiff clair:.a; and that plaintiff \7aa ,^ilty of con- tributory ne^li::;enoe in prtrr..ittin?^ hi a boy to oroaa the atr-set, and therefore cannot recovar. Four witneaaea testified for plaintiff aa to the speed of the car. (^ne atatad it ae about thirty-five rr. ilea an hour, anothe,r about thirty or thirt^'-f ive ruilea an hour, a third said thirty^five kII^b an hour and riore, And the fourth a ^ood thirty- five Rjilea an hour, defendant aat at the wheel on the ri'rht si le of his car, and a Wr« Bather, a friena of defendant, vaa riding v;ith hir^ and aittlng on the north aide, and at the aide where the boy was

a.

-5-

worfa o;t 3nl.rf*on el exi&riir »:. li.' ■ biaio.y t^ci^ no ffltri* x(f e£>«.i

»'.'.■ . .unoxisv4.11 Jon fi&w sToleserf^

, ,..i -' V.I;, itssi. ^.vi-i iu. ■ *o tnp aqjBcfTe^

' : V ' j-ihJjt-; on |5«il »y d-uS

J t5 C i. J »

I T. I J. , *

■■■•■-'■- -■ '.oi.L.j J jocf« ~ ■•'*o-.-

.-^■' , ...w ^. -■ ♦•<-? add ite iAs

Hfr-> ^'■^ri K.;-,- ^inliila

^71^

hurt. He ta^tified to hia fatnlliarity with such cars,

that he obaervsd the speaiorustar on defendant 'a oar aa they rode alon^ 15th Avenue, and that it fluctuated between ten and fifteen ruilea an hour 'Within the laet two or three hundred feet prior to the injury to the boy, and that th«j oar v/as not --yorking -/ell, A garage keeper testified that defendant's oar wji,3 In bad condition at that tire, had little po'ver, could not run fast, and that he did not believe it could run twenty-five ciles an hour. ,phl9 raised a question of fact for the Jury, Bather also t^atlflsd that the oar did not run into or strike the boy, but that the boy ran into the north aide of the cur . Trie iegcription of the situation on direct and croisa exaiuination vaa iuiposeible and could not he true, unless the evidence of all the other witneseea was untrue aa to where the boy la-' when he was picked up. That part of hie te'^timony tended to discredit hia opinion of the speedy We cannot aay the jury should have believed hira and dia- oredited all the other witneaeee, or that another jury would be likely to do 30. The que^stion .thether plaintiff exeroisad due 05ira for his child's safety v^as for the jury ^ He testified he looked both ^'ays after he cranked hia car and before hs TOt into the seat, and oav/ no car coi.lng either vay. He would be likely to look, for he .vs.o on the -vron!^ alia of the road and was about to turn into the way traviled by vehicles. If defendant vas drivir^^ at the speed of thirty or thirty-five ir-ilea per hour, that would help to explain .vhy plaintiff iid not see defendant's car It has been often held in this State that parentd '^ho have

' reoqa edi Jhtv^ceeef^o (iff ^isi{^

^»L'n«v# rf*3I ^noI« •bott yerf*

ov c' atl^In n»ft*^ll tiue net n»8w*»ff

-li/tMi 9Af ot toliq H^^ borttiiiA ••icrft :to

Ts ^oft/i ,... J^iow jfort ejsr tso *rfjf i•J3rfc^

Tj8 rtoii-lMoo bj»cf *nl 8 J8W i«o e'JniJwbrtslal' turf* ielll*ee;f

nrcjs ^}»e\ atn ion hluroo ^le^oq ^LiiiL l>J6<t \emirf'

.ii/orf iTB sella eTll-'Y^^ntewJ nut tluoo *1 evelXecf *on

Cf-i;' »^i/t erf*' tol *o«l ^6 noltef ^:iBl elrf,,,

^tnl ain i6n bib "iah' tSi' iadf ' hf o«I«

i&rott 9d^ ojflrl ' ^yocT

iautt» erf* lo noltqlxoeef bXtt

/;)0 bn» eXcfleaoqutl e«v''noi^afTiinjsxe

atfXJitu 8BTr aeseeftjlwierf^o erf* IXa ^6 soneflve erf*

;^ *,erfT .-i;; hfAOicj sew s.^ 'ts' :><? erf* etteifW

^Jtetjq. tlhsnoelh a* ^©^rre? ^^OiniJfle* slrf

. /jarf Mi/orfe ionrt^o eW

irljona yjsrl? to ^eeftaer. tbeio

-rf*erfw «oi*fc60, bix/ow

• atti tot eTJBO ejjfc ti«eioT©xe

a^t * ritod" beitooX i*ee* en

xolecf bnjB

»XfiTf Terf*ie

• erf*

, xoirfev ycf b9ikrn'x& yjBW

leq eeXi.Ji evi'; .' eeqs

' -*se' *oa X»lk ITtlcfnjtBXq Yrf»<r nijsXqxe o* qXerf

ev^ri wiiiq ijeff* e*A*8 eXrf* rti bXerf xie*lo aeerf e^rf *i

to labor to sui:port their fa/uilles are not required to keep that csonatant vvatoh over their children which roay be proiJ- erly rsquirs'l of thoae -vhose rears enable thepi to employ servant a for that purpose. City of Chicago v, yajor, 18 111. 349i ^. F. ^'. P.. C. Ry. Co. v. 3ur.etead, 48 111. rri; C. & A. R, B. Co. V. .-JreroTy , 53 111. -riC; City of Chicago -'. t-eainc^, 83 Til. 204; -^avin r. City of Chicago, 07 111. CC; C. S: 4. R. R. Co. v, Lo^^^, 158 111. 631; I, C. R. R. Co. V. War-iner 13^^ 111. App. 301, On further appeal ix: the latter c?,.3e, the Supreme Court held that the trial court properly subr.i-cted to the jury the question whether the parents exeroisevi the deij^ree of care required of theK. I. C. R. R. Co. v. 7aeriner, r,29 111. 91. ''fe cannot way that the jury shoul' have ^cund this father juilty of contributory ne-^li'^Hnoe, or that another jury -^ould be likely to 50 find»

The firgt and third oounte of the declaration charged that iec easel 7v a eix and one-half years old, and that he V7a9 in the exercise of iue care, Tnatruotions r;-iven for plaintiff did not require plaintiff to prove that deceased exeroiaed due care. Defeniant contende t}iat aa plaintiff made this alle<Tat '.on he •vag bouni to prove it, and that the in^itructione which omitted that requirejcent were erroneous . A child a?^e'.l aix and one-half yeara is incapable of contribx.tory ne.^li?^ence , MoDcnald v. City of Sprinf^ Valley , SB"^ 111.^-^. C. R. R. Co. v. jernigan, 198 111. ?.97, This therefore vaa an irji;ater- lal ailegat.'on in view of the undisputed proof that the child was of that age when hrj >ms killed. It v:as not neceaeary to prove due care by the child.. Plaintiff*

-7-

cioB-JL Qt bwntup^i toa •la •iiXimal tied* a-toqqxfi ot to<SaL ,9i

'.$.n dcirfW tflbittiQ li»i* T8VQ rfp#J8V.' ?n-B*tff9« *f w

YOXqmt oi «»rf* tXcfaBffs trtAsa •eorfr tworf* Ic fcwilupis ^Xift

■ e^ssi;? . . . . , .XXI 81

i8S .XII 85 » ^ftoye-xr .v .0" . . .-

,xn: . ija .XXI y-e .

-: .X0£ .qqA .Xil.SSX : ?»ffjirt«W .v .oO . , . ) .1

^larrire. »m%d^ lo btrlispei

is4?oajB ;fiiif* TO ,»crt»jiJ:X;^n ynoJ^t/ffl^^noo to y^XXyj. aeriJ'ijl

.tail oe vi yXeiiX erf fcXiiow yii^L

Iff i^nc ^Ixlo •SAtoy tX*fC-€»rxo fcni? /ie e sv feajeeojwt- tfnit

■x-'i. .t«rvij; •nol#Oi/Tc^»rt^ ,ez/sr' eut 'to eeXot^re ftrfj^ nX Vfiw

ijosaeoet *«rf* evortq o;f illtnialq eiXx/psT ;ton hU t'^.iv-fiJ:i$Ia

. ^ c^u sub l>&&Xoitxa . atdi ©X)i:iii l.'ii-.fnifiXqL •' aaiupp'' fit&imo loitomfeinl »rf* ^iifli* Jbft«

•iJi»Y iXjBrf-eno JbnB xJLb 4^»^ rX-Wio A . ^uoetifi^ie «iew

.' i XisnoCoK . :- '^n»7iIX7iBfl ^fUO*-j«fiic*noo lo aXrfjaqjBCjnJ: t.i

'■n- ^. av ^flitqte .3jo ^;rio

•ica't»i9:aiid' Bin' . .IXT BQX ^rtirsiniei.

6»i* Jiiri;r tcKJ-t^ l>»ij;q«Xtft:/ ^ -Jty rri noJ.tf:.«s9XXfl XaJt .

9*%\ltnlaZ^ .hXirfo •'^J y,rf ©tcAo nsjt tvotrq o;J yXMSsoen

Inetruotiong only authorized a verdict .for plaintiff upon proof of the matorial allef^ationa ir the deolaration, Xhhy dii not authorize, a reoovery upon proof of a uaes not pleaded, ae Isfendant contsnia here*

The ruOtion by defendant that the court invest i-^cite the oonduot of the jury was baaed aoiely upon defendant's affidavit of a ocnvarsation ^e had with a jur^o^ian after the tris-l, A Vdxdiot cannot be Impeached h^ etaterf.anta by a jur3TOan after he has rendered hifl verdict, Wyckoff v. Chicago City Ry. Co. r,34 111. 613; Foley v. Everett, 143 111, App, 350, The p.atter '."^as of elic^ht importance, and tksL that the facts stated hy the juryrcan influenced'' the verdict reated only u;- on the opinion or rather ^ueae of tha defendant. The court properly denied that motion. We ara of opinion that tl a verdict ia aupported by the ovilence and that no prejuduoial error -vaa corrj;ilted at the trial.

The jud!5»i6nt is affimed,

-8-

- ' .xoiix xX<»«to» ■bM«tf ««*. yxi/i, B,if .10 .toiftnoo

X ,;f;fstsv3 .v ybIoti j^Xa .XXI W:'?. .pO^ ,Tf5r Y*-10 os^oi'lO jUi ^.:: ^toquil ;t -9^;fii« erfT .058 .qqA ,XX1

- t a9t> ■^Xitqottvi itiiroo arfT « :tciabnb\9h

tpiljiev Bji ;JAi-li noinlqo Xo ^xa sW

b-\j ;., ,sJxaiQD ^ijrA Tone X-8lOi^r/(;Biq on t^di ,fcn^ sonel-ive

STATE OF ILLINOIS, I ^

SECOND DISTRICT. \ ^^- I, ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court.

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the fores;oing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

e

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the seventh day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred anjT nine-^ xeen, within and for the Second District of the St'ate of Illinois : \ Present--The Hon.\jOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Ju^.tice Hon. DUANE J. CARNES , Justice. ./ Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice/

CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk^^^ i / ^eA« fiK CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff ^

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on

MAR 9 1920 the opinion of the Court was filed in

the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures

following, to-wit:

No. 6720.

William J. We«k», <(i«ir., etc., ^ Appalleo, >

V8 ) jtf^peal from Kankakee.

J

Eugene J. La Marre, Executor, )

eto., J

Appellant . )

Opinion byDIBELL. J.

Hiram L, Riohardaon diei at Kankakee, Illinois, September 28, 1916, a.'^ed seventy-three years, and hie will was adp:itted to probate. Mrs. Anne ^. Weeks broujjht

this suit In the oirouit court of Kankakee County against hia executor to recover for S'Tvlces a-s house keeper and nurse for Richardson, an i filed the oompon counts in asaurepsit. Pursuant to a rule of court, plaintiff

filed a "bill of particulars which has been preserved In the bill of exoaptiona. Therein plaintiff olalKad for

aervioes p.3 housekeeper froK October 16, 1899, to January 5, 1903 168 weeks, at $10.00 per week; for servi- ces as housekeeper and practical nurse from January 5, 1903, to September 35, 1916, 702 weeks at $15.00 per week; and also for a large aciount of furniture itemized in the bill of particulars and valued at !r458, the whole making a total of ?:1£,668.00, aj^alnst which credits were adir.itted to the amount of Si, 094. 00, making the net amount of the

.OSVd .OW

/ ^.o;*^ ^.'l.■Li.P («;{t>«W ,L ax^lIXiW ^ #93 II sqqA

( ,*njsII»qqA

.!• .JJSSiaycf noiniqO

IIlw Biff ^fTi; ,81 --vr ««»-rrit-Y*ft^'"- ■' • -'^JB ^aiCI ^3S lecfffle^qeS

^e.7lj3;c« •<(inijoO tB^leAne'^ ^o Iti/oo .fJ:uo:tio 9dt nt tlua eirf?

trr.3 iflqdsi n90orf sub aaolviss :col aevooe:t o& loiuoaxe ei.'f

nl atnuoo iioiTimoo etfcf heli'! fc cijs ^aoei>iJ9rfoiH to"! eeijjrt

I'it^trrijBlq ^t'x^oo 1o elxn « o;r itijuim'tj/i .(MaqyauBBja

fll tavTiSBeaq fx»«cf msd dol.in rraiuolfxsiq \o Hid a b%lt1

rat i)ealaIo lli^niislq ai9r»:i .artol^qeox© lo XIlcT arf^f

oJ ,ef?8I ^ai i*cfo*oO .^oil 'xeq©©i»ex/ori bjb seolviee

-Ivaes loTt i^iaew t»q 00.01$ *« ^eitew 831 CO€I ^3 x^Auaex,

^£Cei ^S '^iJsjjaisL iaotl ee^un I^oi^OA^q baji tc6qeftie«j;;oxl sjs S0o

brLS ^ieew toq 00. (^X^ ^^ aitew SOV «dI6I^c]S -xecTiae^qeB o^

lild 9d& al fcosl.n**! »ijjitlniyl lo tnsjotas •gi-fil jb ttol oel£

a •§ni:i£si aXorlw ei-f;f «83>$ tz biuLsy bas eiAlijoi^iJsq lo

b«*;finil)jB •-r»w •*lfc*TO dolr^w ^BrtJjB*!* ^00.888,81$ lo 1**0*

eri* lo ttwoms tna 9di f^lAjm ^OC.i^eO^I^ lo icujoiaa sri* od

claim $11,574.00, The oxeoutor filed a plea of non aaaunpait and a plea of the Statute of Lircitations, and issued were joined thereon. There waa a jury trial and a verdict and a jud<^Kent for plaintiff for $4,50^, Defendant appeals therefrom,

Richardson 'me a lawyer and had a home not very fitr from hie law office. He was a "bachelor, I^ira. We«ka 'ma widow, living in Canada. In October, 1899, Mra Weeks move! to Kankakee to becopie housekeeper for Richardson. She brou-^ht with her about $1,100 in liionay and a larfje amount of furniture and a aon, Willairc J, Weeks, then aonie 20 yeara of age, ^at arrangement there vvas between her and Richardson at the beginning cannot be definitely kno^-m, as both parties are dead and no writing ha a been found to explain the arran^eaenjj. There are various ciroxiinstanoes in proof tending to show thrtt ir. the early years of this arre-nsyerfient Richardson was not well to do and frequently found it iiffioult to furnish the money for the household expenssa, and tending to show that in the latter part of the stay of Mrs Weeks in his hOirr.e he had money and lands and was wotth much more than at the beginnins;, Mrs. Weeks did the housework all the reat of hla life, inoludinc^ the weekly washings, except th?.t about once in a Konth a colored woman came and did washinf^ and other household work. There was a garden. Mrs. ^eeke did the work in that (garden, including spading the soil, Richardson had a barn and kept a cow and aoroetimea more than one «

-; — \r'Xftv cfoit ©isorf ^ bfi.i bctJi isywaX fl 8.bw tiOBbrcedolB

.&T/! .loXsrioaff £ e ^r »H .©02110 WJsX aid taoil

,C2.3I ,-i&cfo;foC nl .JiixnaO nl gniviX ^rroblm ajrw taf^eT

■xot lecitvitai/crl e;nooecf ot •e:(jB;fn£7[ o* Severn 8jJ!»e"'

5a« v:»AOo ni OOX^i$ ^tfO^M-rmdid^lw td'^.u^rd 9dB ^noBbrsidolK

^siae?' .1 ?x1j8XX1W .rroe js bxiJB Btuiln'tul lo ;trci/oniB e^traX as

fiiiey'OS •mos nodi <i joa: .fti noatiJoiioJtfl J^^* i»rf n©ew#etf

fUi ' >iJb jfi tniiol YX;fn©iji&Si bflj?

. *«neqx6 hXorfesjTOfl

i^ac rr'ir.i'^ .ux: e^-in^s r n.<» woo a Jqdjf bxii} axsd

Mra. Weeks lailked the oo\y or oowa and.cleansd out the stable at least a part of t^e tir.a, Richardson waa an invilid for a number of the laat yaf.rs of his life. He had a affection of the bladder. His bed oftothing had often to be changad on that account, gorf.etiir.ea the use of a catheter '*aa neceaaary and she- brought the inatraiv;ent to his bed or couch for his use and took it a-vay. He had a I'artial paralysis of the bowels, to relieve which he often found it neceeoary to take cathar- tics. He had oo little oortrol of hii» bowela that 60i;wtiriss they ^ere discharge i while he ^-rae in his office, at other tirt.es -.Yhila he vaa on his ivay home and often ';Thil3 he '.vas lyinjy on a couch or in bed. He hr.d to be attended to like a child. iars. Weeks rer.ovad hi a clothing and furnished hir,. ^vith ^reah clothing and alac changed hie bed© clothing and ?<?i.9h3d his person and all those soiled garmenta and hia b*d clothing. These epelle would last several day a and occurred ai^ht or ten tiruea a year for ftevaral years. There was ciuoh proof of these details, a part of it coming fror. Dr. Brovrn, his attending physician. It ia entirely clear that no serving woman would be willing or be expected to render such services for the ordinary 'j»acjes of a housemaid or of a housekeeper. There waa proof of the value of such services which would justify the verdict hare rendr ered. There was aotte >;roof to the contrary and especially tendinf;; to show that when certain witneaaaa were in the hoi^ie durin-^ the last years of the life of Richardson, Mrs. Weeks, who .vas a small, frail woman.

-3-

9tii rte^Lo.btiB awoo id woo 9dt Jb*ilxa tiCesW .uiU.

f ':- ftotl>rtx;doi , iJt? t-^* "io #ijjq « Jb/!»I *« •Icf«^«

,e"TJlx (slrf to iTt^eY ^fiisi »rft \o letfrruyn * aol Mllvnl ftJ8

^ftid^oAo fct^f el: .t'-^J^J8Id■ ©rl^t ^o rTOl#o*l!t« « \C)J8rf •H

6-.^ 8»3xl*»a»oP ,tm;aoojB */5'[# no fcftjrtJBrfo acf o* fte^lo t£(i

ftrf.i tff7v«fot<!f «»ff» hntjj y:c£86a09n 6JIw lei-ftrfj-fio jb lo ecx/

oorf^ trr.s* ••tr «lrt lot rfoiroo to ^•cf elrf o* *n«.»nn:*fe/tl

-njs. «fi«ieo»a d^i b'msoli nsJTto wf rfolriw •veilei

JtA \o Ibrthoo 9L&tlI oe fxri •H .aoli"

^ecr: 8if ^Xiffw f iig*Cflrfo«lfb •7»»' vMJ «»ilt*»«oa

T*rf?o 3-fi

u rlwbi^ i.ti liff bodetntuY bn£ grririJoXo

.^iTlriJtfXo i)*€f Bli^ '?«««$ fc^XJtoa e*>orf.'

•tu J ■' J.- f'faitfooo •!>«• tYAh X^aevd^t ;fajiX JbXtfow eXXaqe

o-Av »rf.t lo loolq *j9w 6u»rfT .icHqa^iasuod £ lo ao

-ii.iyi ft-rfciC *oJtJbif lltWift -»olvie« douh

ftflfl wrriji^noo »rfj ot toot .;-;

-e-

waa in feebla health ani phyalcally unabla to render suoh 9'3rvi038 -as ai-psll^fl'a vitreflg^a lescriba?!. This

preaented a que ^t Ion of fact for the jury, and the preporiflUixaK .leranoe of tha evl.ienoe saer.s to ha with the appellee, and •ve oannot liaturb the verdict for appellee, approved by the trial judge, ev^n thou'^h, if tha verdiot on the facte had been the other Aray, and the trial judje had approval it. It icay be that euoh a verdict alao oould not be disturbed on appeal as unsupportsi by the evidftnce,

0ns witnssa for appellant testified that about Jaiiuary , 1900, Mr». Weeks told her that Richfirdaon Yas paying her s?2,5C a week. Another witness testified for appellant

that 8oni«where bet-veen 1907 and 1911 l«r«. ^eeks told her that 3he was getting fS.OO per week. Appellant oontendo

that this aetabliahee that ir 1900 Mrs. Waeka and Rioh- ardaon had a,n expreae contract for t.-^*^0 per rfeek and that sax aomewhere bet^feen 1907 and 1911 they Lad an express contract for ^5,00 per week, and that, aa no later expreaa contract -vaa proved, it rojat be asaumed that an expreaa contract to pay Mrs. ^'eek a f5,00 per week remained in force the re^t of hia life, and th-irefore there could be no iifiplisd ccrtraot und no evidence -vas a'ii-iiealble to ahow what her aarvioea were reasonably worth. The language

60 attributed to IIre« ^eeke riip;ht be construed to mean that ahe had contract* for the payment of thoaa eun.a, but they Blight be with greater propriety construed to lueeJi only that those ai;iiri3 were bein?^ paid her by Richardson, .vithout r.-.sanlng that any contract had been made between then;. This position taken by appellant ignores other evidenot.

-4-

r;(Teh.{v» eff^t Ttd eor.

,6 0.T»fj '

^olfi vrf r «j3i§ esc

A witneae testified that Richardson told hsr he had never setti'^il -/Kith Mrs. "^aeka and there had never basn any undsretanding what hs n'aa to pay har, Sevgral witnes- ses testified that they -vdre told by Riohardaon during the lust years of hi a life that he A-as ^oirr^ to, or intended to or should, i;ive Mre Richardson hie hoine and *5,000 in aoney and this ".'as aaid in euch a oonneotion as to ahow that he Keant that that property should l)e oortpensation to her for har eervioes to hi^r. and especially for her sarvloes as his nurse. There is evidence "by mors thi^n one witneaa that he expressly prorlsed Mrs. Weeks that she should have the home and ^5,000 in ce.sh at his de?«th« Ona of these promiees -vas raade during the last week of hia life, Thsre la othar evidence of sxpreeeiona by Riohardaon of hie srsat obiiiTjation to Mre. Weeks, "'a are of opinion that this justified the jury in be- lieving that there was not an express contract for ^5,00 per week in force for all the latter part of Richardson's life, Ths evi lance just recited, coupled with the fact that Richardson did not convey to lire VTeeks the hone and *5,0C0 in caeh, justified the adir.iBSion of evidence as to the value of her asrvioes.

Appellant contends that there could be no recovery except for the last five yocire of •pichardson* s life and that 1 it Taa error to permit proof of her apirvicea prior to that tii e; and it is contended that eervioeo on the one side and payr&ent on the other do not nake a running account such as prevents t'^e Statute of Liiuitationa being a bar. Appellee offered in evidence a paper

-5-

-(■: : -■- :'■ -., . ':nxqo, I9 ei-

-5-

Ir the hand-^ritlnp; of Riohardaon, which stated his aide of an account betveen them irora 1006 to 1912, and in that he not only charged her with t^e noneys )ie paid her but alao monsye paid for her to Dr, Brown and to a hospital, for t'.oney he furnished her to make four trie's to Canada, for money he paid for ^^jroceriea to her son, but ha alao charged her for boardinp; her aon, "^llllaw, four yaara at §3.00 per wsek. This ^eems to aho^-r the aooount bat.Deen tham waa not golely for wag^ia and for maney paid for 7?ar;e8, T^hen all the evilenoe ia oonijiderad, ve oonolu ie that the entire financial dealin'^g between the parties from 1899 to the ieath of Hioharviaon were open to consideration, and also that Richardson's express pror:;i8e to her to pay her $5,000 and to convey to, her the home, which was proven to be -worth ^10,000, justified the verdict and indeed, required as lar^e a verdict even if all rr.attt3rB prior to five year« before Richardson* a death had been exoluddd. Appellant offered in evidence a receipt dated

Aiitil 4, 1916, purporting" to be eicpied by Mre. Weeks, the body of which ^aid: "ReoHivsi of H. L. Richardson $■•2, 340,00 for 3«rvioe8 as housekeeper to late." Appellant contends th'^^t bscvuaa of thia receipt the vardiot for C^4,500 cannot be austalnal* This assumes that this receipt bsara the -renuine aif^ature of lira, ^aeks, Tfhen it was offered objeotlona ma made that the signature of Mrs. 'Veeka waa not x»T^oven, A janitor >vas called

by appellant, who teatifiad that It vaa her ai^nature, but afterwards he taatified that portions of the si^naF*

u. :o<; .^xtx/oouB .art* wouia o.tf aisfett*^ ~ . " •"

onro aw ^itaiftJbJIiinoo «i 80««l>lve

aJ;j--. " TJHi ••.i»t a«9r;tfacf ^J5XIiXJB♦^ -.Xfliioajiiii i u-xXJ;:'-

■ ■ aoBJbT^?!'-

rr<f j/ ' ,:" ♦ noai>'Xjedioifl jB^tolart aiAa^ '•' " ' ■

.Hj.ij: jqxt '..■«-!. ii 9o:s9riv9 at JiMZbY^o itrijuiiaq',* ,i :-,J3;.fi.c'.v.^

.i..«.. i...'_ . . - "dTiaoa/I" :' " ■'''■' "' •-'•'••■ ' ' ■ ^ - ■' •• '" ■ ifji.yu iftBXXaqc^A

• oavoaq *o~ • - --■--•" .--•' " ■■

tur« looked like bars and othsr portiona dirt not, William J. Waeka 'r*as oalled by appellant and testified that he wag familiar with his mother's aignature and that he did not know whether thia wae her ai^natura or not, Appellant put in evidence nurusroua other reoeipte purporting to be signed by Mrs. Weeks and which no doubt were genuine. The jury had a ri^ht to compare the aif^nature of th« receipt* in question with the other admittedly genuine aignaturea in eviience. Those receipt a have been certified to this court for our examination under out rule. 7e are of opinion that the etif^nature to the receipt in question so far differs fror:. the admittedly ^renuino signatures that the jury were varranted in believing that it vas not the signature of Kre. ^eeks.

The will of Richardson first directed the payment of his funeral expenses and juat debts. It then crave to •My housekeeper, Mrs. Ann Eliza Weeks, a certain note and mortgage of $1,800,00 and the interest due thereon, made by William J, Weeks and wife to me. I also give and devise to her ^300,00, which is to be in full payment of any claim which she may claim she holds against me for service 8 r-s such housekeeper .* It also provided as foll- ows: "It la ry will that my housekeeper, Mrs. Ann E. Weeks, is to occupy r!iy dwelling house free of rent until the same is sold as above and also to have my household furniture ao long as she occupies said d'.7elling.* A prej/lous provision had directed the sale of all his real estate by his executor. Mrs. Weeks remained in possession

-7-

.to; ol*ioq ^Bdio tar oTsri eAlL fceioci »nui

tx^ i>A ii^- wjjsnsia s'tad^on «ixl diX* -z&XiimAl ear »xl

,%aljja»y •lew icfifcjb on rfolrfw ba* 8;2i»»F .tiM ycT tofljple

r.ij.'i.u»z er;a o# »Ti;d'a«$iJra arf* *j3:-fj noialqo to ai-e a7^ .aliji A..i.';.r.!»r. vibajf*iuit« el^ lOT'J aielliti tx^l oa aoliiBup at

^r»<l er'.ir tsJisiii Jfil? iioeiajBriolfi lo XUw... adT

■/jBjs jiTBff.^ ■"■ ,i.i<S^fj t&ai, t<?«B aeaaaqxe XjB:tsnjj-i. Bi:i

al>«a «xxoa'£8r:;} axjt taai^e^ai e (^ £>ruB OC^OCQ^lt \o as^^TQ^a i/r« avis oaXjf ' ♦*«! oi^ allw bm. e>ia©W ,L jie^tlXlff Y^^

' ' ^ \ -.^qe&iaeiicrf rfoxia a.^ &9fily'iee

'-'.■•" "" T^ «i vvoiiJB a^ JbXoa iX. 0«i«e

.^uoo aKa a£ sertxii oa 9\uiiaiv\ -'-." bfid coXaivotq aifpitaaxq A

-7-

of that hOEiS tha rest of hsr lifs. The f 1,800,00 nota and rcort^age referred to '^r «j ir fact a tr\i3t deed V>y Williain J. 'Veeka, purportin.;^ to secure two notes gl'Tjned b^r Weeks and payable to Riohardaon, one for ^1,800 and the other for ^1,000, but the ^^1,000 note had never been aijned by ^eeks. Evidently the papere had been prepared for a $3,800 loan, and then only f>l,800 had been loaned. ,f,hi3 truet deed and these notea wer-s not found by Richardson** exeoutcr and ^vere not arr.on?; Plohfirdeon^a papers. Appellant calle;! ""eeks an ix witneaa and p.t the requeat of appellant he produced the trust 'ieed, the fa,80P note and the unsiTned H^l^OCO note. Appellant aasuoiea that Piohardaon had delivered theae papere to Mrs. ^eeks in her lifetirae. There --ism no proof to thrt effect, Appellant could have aeked Weaka whethar he paid thdii^ to Fioh?rd«on, or how they 08,i>,e into his poeee«sion. Appellant did not nake that inquiry and appellee was not a con.petent v/itnese in his o-m behalf on th?.t subject. In this state of the proof we think the presur.otion rcust be that .^eeka paid the f 1,800 to Richardson, The fact that he dii not obtain a release froir. the trustee till lon^ after Richardson's death aeer&s to us immaterial. There is no proof therefore that Riohardaon's daEtk kxbkx ta xa ixKataxtaiix delivered theae instrument a to Mrs Weeks, The ^20^ mentioned in the will taa never paid to Mrs, Teeka, and was only tend^ired at the close of plaintiff's proofs on this trial. Appellant contends that because Mrs. Weeks rsnained in the home she thereby accepted a part of the proviaiona of the

-8-

i.6a£.i»Ti. ii»6cf l:.aff 8it*qjiQ ntii ^i^n^blv . . ie^T yd ijfn^iB

.i>aaaoX a»»tf JbJsiC 006,1$ ^Ixto asff;f tn* ,n>eoX 000, S^ js rrol

« 'iToex>7^ffolfT Y<^ i^'iJ^^'^ 'on 0i»« asiton eserf^f fc/r^ t&»^ tairxi eM^

'la ;haei;p»7 aif^ d:^ boa «bbit;}-/w « bs SiJBO'^ ^ellso ^fn^AlI'dqqA

x»iw »^on '".08,X<i •rit> ,Jb•f>^ a-aind- »dt ^©o^xLo1q srf i^njsX-Xevfqje

noeitjr[ai?r p»3u/BBa *n^XI»qqA .aJoiT 000, X# hen^Jtsm/ arfJ'

• ftr-iiv t! oJ' sToqjaq aBhcit bfi&yll9b t Jitl

- Jaaj-xeH'/i ,:^o9t'.'- .?* loo^q on eaw ©leriT

»ji.o/: ;Jcn JbJtt ;tn£XXeqqA ,fto feh«»eocj elrf o^fni •olJtfC)' Y®'^*

ni sB&nrflr :fne*dqmoo « ^o« bjsw »BXX»qqx3 fcftB yTli/pnl *i;rfij^

■ ©ffrf ?o »:fjK*» •X.'fcf rrl ,^t>fi(;rf0» .+ arfrf' no-lX^rfBcf ntfO elfl

^rf* ecf fun t\oliCimM*,T.(i Brftf Aat!i& frf looaq

^ .i:.';j-CG j:a ill 9d ^arf* i-JWj^ BrfT ,rtOBi--i^rfol57 ctf 0OB\X^

. *noBttxrfoiR Tfc^ljs ^'H»X XXi* e&^tHirrt B^rf* itot") eB«el9rt

«ioir^8a,t icoaq <prt •! " . Xr2T»i'JMi»l 80 o# amBee Aixtb

JbaiBTiXtfc ;rt*txmtmmfiji «(s at Kxaaac iftSKJb B'aoe^iJstfoifl i^atf^

^:' ■ ■ "srrolffnfe "■" ' '" .. - " etntimsrtBnt acBrf*

re '' ..'u> e^;;" rrfi; ^e(j.fe©v ,rvwi .^ iiaq trBVert efifr XXiw

- ' " sloo^q ••l^l^nJtaXq \e eeoXo erf* fe

aa>' jiA i<»ui<s.;«-7 t^A©* 98X/J»0ad iBd$ BttiBtttOO ♦n/ilXaqqA

^.* 1.,. -,. -!^.. _.. .._ "^etqadwi Ycr<?'»rf^ •rfe »»©?!

-3-

will and is tharefors bound "bv all its provlslone for her

and oan only have the (^SOO which the will provided.

We are of the opinion that under the proofs herstofora recited,

her retention of the pooeeaelon Kay -.'ell be attribute!

to her faith U: Riohardeon»3 proir.lses made to her to

cause that horn* to be hsra at hig death.

On croea exaraination of a witreea for appellee appellant aou'^ht to prove by her that "^illlato J. T^eehe owed her a large auir. of rr;oney and that he had not sufficient property to pay it and that if thia ci'-iiri was allowed ha probably would be able to pay her and that therefore this wae an interest which might affect the value of her teatin.ony? • The court euatained an objection to this line of croae exaoiination, ?^e think its adrilaeion would have led to inquiries iKiaiaterial to thia oaae. In order to aooer- tain whether the witness had such inters at, it would be neceaaary to know how much property Mrs. 1?^eeke left, what debt a ahe owed and how r.any heir a at law she had to ehare in the avails of thi^ claim. We approve the ruling.

Complaint is made of instruction No, 3, ^iven for appellee, which aali that evidence of payr-ient of ifion-sy or »ifta to i-*?illiai3i J. ^eeka should not be conaid:- ered unleaa made at the request of Mrs. weeks an<l with the understanding that the aarce should apply upon her aervioes to Richardson. Appellant concedes that there ia no evidence of payment of money or njifts to Williarn J. "feeka and that belnoj ao, w2 thinV it vaa not harn-ful to arpcllant.

sit 11 f: -"Tolfcrre

rfol *rre;f err rerf

yt'Xf

tixxjiS.

olJianliiuBXS

'txsq^oi

Moreovsr we approve tha inatruot ion, Coinplalnt I3 made of appellee's iratruction ^'c. 7, a part of v/hloh v.aFj th?.t if they beiiave froru a preijonderance of the evi-lenoe th'-t the al^nature of any of the receipts in eviienca purporting to be signed by Mra, TiTeeks waB not her signature, they ehould not consider it as svi.ience of payment , It is argued that •

there was no evidenoe againat the validity of any receipt, yet the evidence above recited ahowe that we find such evidence in this record. ^e approve the ruling of tha

court uj.on the other instructions, of which coiVipiaint ia made, for re^aOTxa heretofore ap^jearlng.

The declaration charged Eugene J. La Marre aa Executor. The judgDient ia asainat "Eugene J, La «arr«. Executor," sto. Appellant contends that this is a irsreonal jVidgKant against La Ibarra and therefore it i.uat l-ie reversed, Thia could have been ocrrectisi by rLOtion in the court below. The judgitient .^ill be ao correct sd in thia court as to be ag'ainat La Marre aa Executor and to be paid in due course of adir.iniatration, Aa 30 j..odified the juda^rr.ent is

affiricad .

«

juignent raodified and affirn-ed.

-10-

.aoJt Joirtc^B

voT.qqjs er ^evos^oU

•cf oc oaftf>l7»)

: -Ci/T ftrf:?

;:> tnali

iw dierfi

lems^tft

.aolijittuli

^IJB

-Oi-

STATE OF ILLINOIS. I

SECOND DISTRICT. i" ""• I, ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court,

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foreg;oing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Ckrk of the Appellate Court.

t'tt

6735

/ / /

^/^/

r/

) rL

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the seventh day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nine- teen, within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois : \ /

/

Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding- Jusiice.

Hon. DUANE J. CARNES , Justice

Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice, CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY,

CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff.

I /

, jusiice^'^ ^-^' X /I j^ ^

4\ V I. A. 6 5

, Clerk. / v-^ ^

/

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on MAR 9 1920 the opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit:

No. 6735.

Earl R. PalMer, at al..

Plaintiff in error. >

V9. ) :]^rror to i- -iorla.

The Bull D0f5 Auto Firs )

)

Inauranoa Aasooiation, )

Ddfandant in arror. )

opinion by DIBELL, J, Earl P.. Po-insr and "George L. Lir.rer sued tie P^ull Dog Auto Fire Ineuranoe Aaaooiatlon for 1o«b of an auto by th«ft, and filed and ar fjnded several deoiaratlons, TLe cau«e na.^ triea on the laut udclaration a*; ar..3nd- ed and a plea of the general iaeue and a stipulation that all dtfenaae of law and fact might be proven und^r aaid plea. There vraa a Jury trial and a ver-

dict for plaintiff for TSOO, :^aoh side ii.ovsd for a

new trltil and a new trial .vas granted and the oauae was tried by another judge, and at the cdiftte of all the eviia- dence the oourt directed a verdiot for defendant and ouch vsrdict was rendered. Plaintiffs moved for a new

trial for the oole reason that the court erred in directing a verdict for defendant. This notion was

denied and defan.dant had jud.2i:'.ont in bar. Plaintiffs

aued out thia writ of arror to reviavr aaid judgment.

Defendant i» a voluntary asaooiation of auto o/zners wLorc it insures agjainat loae by fire, by oolliaion and by theft, ^aoh member la called a subaoriber and

-1-

.acva .ow

f

• finoi ^.-lajslosl) LmavB b^baems brm bttiil Irm ^^t\9dt \(S

-lac oli^-XBioeb J'e^X •dt ao siBlxt £>£« •eu«o e.lT

noit^jLxrqXte £ hna 6j/«ei X«a9ne^< erfa- lo asXq « Ins Jbe

aavo^q td (f.-fgim &ojs1 baa kjsL Io •ebrralttJb iX« ic^it

J! 5oTt fcevoii: 9bi.B .in£ .'OC^ lol It1:l^fi2«iq rol iolb

««w ••jc/^io fffj 1.13 ttlrTa-s^Q a£* Xai-x* w»n -s trua X^li* wea

-•JLtv* e.-f* IXe Ic ••«<9 •:<i i^ ban ^^^hi/'i r^citooM yrf b^ttt

L-:<9\hi. lol iollii 6;fo©nJt£> iiijoo mdi tonti)

woit -E iq\ b9V0B tlli^^nJiAX*! .tea:dbn$'i e«n> toltitoV rfox;«

rt! Levtce &ijjoo nc[:f istii autt^9i aXoa arltf to) Xiiltcf

• Ttl^i :' Jna;.isfcij(, h«f( *fUifca»let toe fcaLTftb

ta« noiaiXXoc ycf ,eail x<^ tftoX ^•nxj5^« •eaxfeni ii mod* tnJL i*;dilJD»du9 M t»iX«o cJ TecfiVeji £(o«7 .d'l»r{i \d

-X-

sign R very lengthy oontraot containing!; aori.e 55 paraf^rapa.

Its affairs are oonduct'Sd by an advisory oououittas of flva and by a jenaral niaraaglng officer who I3 called an

Attornsy in Faot . The applicemt la raquirad to give

the name of hi a auto, the data whan it wat» niade, it a hor^e powar and atyle and parhapa other partioulara, Durina; tVe first yaar the aaaooiatlon will insure tiO'f of t?:e list price of the oar; durin;^ the second year 66?, f j the third year nO'fi the fourth and fifth ya^re 25f; and after the oar S a five years old the associ- ation will not insure it unless passed upon by an official inspaotor, and then only for not exoeading 20f of its Hat prioe. ■^Tot every auto owner will be acaepted en a subscriber, but he must be of f^ood r.oral character, luuat be aooaptable to the Attorney in Fact and rcuat be deairied by hir. to be a suitabits person, and the Attorney in Faot u.ay oanoel a certificate whsn a subacriber beoociaei undesirable. The Attorney in

Faot luay inspect any oar for which an application is made. Each subscriber pays a p.eii.berehip fes and an

annual fee. The losses are paid by aasessKents made

fron time to tirue pro rata, according to the apiount of insurance eaoh eubacrlber carries , This aeaeasruent

ia riade to pay losses already auatained. Each

aubacriber ir.akea a mutual agreement with all othar subeorlbers, Eaoh aubaoriber withrirawln?; ia liable for ail losses acoruing before his withdaawal beooaea effective. If -a aubaoriber sella hie insured oar and

-3-

!lo 9t^&firhnoo vroulvbM as ^cf lbit>iAc:c9 vis •aljelljB ail i or{w Tooi^lo ^is««ueA Xji^cta^T « ycf jhnA av^l

«»vi^ o? fceilijpfti ai inholLciqji ©rlT . tojsT nJt venTotf^A

^08 •twBfll XXlw noti^iooBBS itrfJ st«»Y ^o'xil 8'ftf jrriajjC

•^oo«ife£ 9 At Mo ai^ay svil si ijsio f^ii t^iXs JfcnjB i^BS

lui vrf iiOi^jLT i)e»tt*«q eaeXni/ ii tttumnl Joa XXiw rtol*^

^S jjaifceeoxs Jon toI ^Xno .tarf* ba^i ^tocToftqeai X^ioillo

XiJTO/i fooo-q lo acf ffainn arf Jud" ttbtfiioacTja s a© fcatqeuoi3 Jo^"^ rri vsrraoJJA erf^f ol aXcfJs^.qaoo^ ecf iam ^nfo^rsiAo

^ iierfw- etAol^tttMD J9 laonao \'^<i rf^o*''' .ri ^tnio**i ad*

/aaio;t;fA s/fT ,stid^xl99brnj saaioo^cf 7ecfiioacfx;«

w>i*jBOi:Xqqj| n« rfoirfw gco^ t^so vn* ^^aqani ^^A,<\ ^paT

tjx; bna aat qifUiacfma.n ,s a>fjBq Tjecflxo«rfi/« rCo^arr ,9tam

•bjsm aiti»i>ms9Bh£i v^ Jbl«q sta eaaaoX «x{T .aal Xaj/iihjs

tauo^TiS »di oi ^ctttrtooo^ ^JiiJM. o»q tA)\t.f oi, »»aii i*ot!t

*naiviacaeaj8 sirfT ,aaiT3:>»o ladlioacfiiiB itojuw hosi&tjutnt lo

rfD«" .^e:TlAcrsi/8 Aft^aiXoB aaaaoX ''^% q* .tf^^ct ai

Tw.iJo XX« rf,tivt (fna.aaezsA LBJjiussi « eaofjSA xecifiioecfju-e

ti(f«ix si jicUnjiXlstiii,^ xa^fiioacfija rf0J9?l .iaiacTiioecfi/e

aemooec^ XAV«lJb/(*iir alrf aiolacf gniwico* «aaaoX XX£ aol

ina Tt«o bat«»nl aid aXXaa iatf-t»«acfi«e v "il .avXioalla

-6-

buys anoth^r^ he aay have hi» Insursiio© transferred to the new oar and have an inauranoe on auoh new oar asc»r- t&in in the aarcs ir.ar.ner above described. But befort euoh insurance of the nev? oar, (whioh ie bv a rider attached to th'S ori:^inal tiolloy,) the new auto lauat be acceptable to the Attorney Ir Fact. AsaessK.ente Were required to be paid within 30 lays after notice, ai:d if net ji&id by ne©» of th-j 4:5th day after notice the aubecriber atande cv apended, whioh of course aloo auiipends hie policy.

On December 16, lOie, plaint If fa obtainad r. policy ineurin;; their Tjuick oar for ^650. "hey sold that oar in June, 1917, and at eorr.e tiine thereafter, perhapa in that rr:0nth, piirchaaed a Chandler, An aBaeda;>;ent of ^5.87 vtaa levied upon thei;. in July 1, 1317, and they were notified thereof, Plaintiffe lived in Proeia and the Attorney in Fact lived in V'aahington, TllinolB, At about three ©•clock P. M. of August 7, ir;17, plaintiff e claisi they luaiied a letter addresaed to t>.e Attorney in Fact at Washington, Illlnoie, in whioh they incloeed a oherk for ^7,00 to pay their aasessment and to pay the fee for transfer, and they therein a.ik«d that the inauranoe be changed to a alx-oylinder Chandlar, instead of the Buiok. About aeven P. U. that day one of tti" plaint if fe left said Chan'dlar car in front of a bank building in Peoria and when he oaiae to the place about 9 P.M. the oar had been etolen and haa never ainoe been recovered. The Attorney in Fact received eaid application on Auguat 8 and appvayed

-3-

-T«o£. ^n rfoj/B .^o •onBiLf- - XAO wtn ;•/!*

tso1fe»cf ^i/fT .b,4(fiTOfc«b •▼otf« 'X»nrusai e.T.v3t pif;^ nX tst^i

.;:?.) ^lAO w#fr 8-f* to- •onxxuarri riou*

.'^^ ';4iL ^^^^l^ •d^ilo a«ea \'(f i;)i«i{ Ion \l Las ou^ji na-XisoQ \o doidm «l>4)Jbn^q«ji;8 %baaib xstfixoacrx/c ^r[#

.YoiXoq fell Bjbn6qKi/B

.za^xwdO 4 beBAtfotCiiq 4<(;raoai t&dt al mttfuifq

v^i aof^ii hfilvox aaw ^S.St^ lo ;fnsui»eebfe#

tlOfetttfl* fctll^Jon eit»»f Y«''^*i:iW ,?X^X

i^tstii M b=: y-ii tf|«Ia «lli#HlAXq ^S'XSX «T ^a^girA

^ZHl^,.\s1i ^w^ Ml •i/^' YJUi 0^ &*i4i i^Mi^fefeMfe^ :clei^ V«q

)n/}-zcraai aa^ ^jS£(^ i^«Xit« nieaail i;feii# taA

w^jJA . .iw . -xhlbsLaiO asbaiXto^xia «

LajB jyixoa^ ^.f ioAo' 41 lo ^troitl al 1^0 iaXb«JBdO

riaac^ J!>«r{ rav scids i»oj9X^ axt^t oi aauo md aed*

Ytrr: "" . ..rtTociai a.aed" aoa^a lava/i ««rf to* rteXo#a

J^aT«fe4-ija ^ixi« 8 ;fax/j.ijA no noi^aaiXqq^ tiM JbaTiaoai ^ojbI ni

It and latucd a rldar, insuring aald Chandler inoluding loss by theft for ^llie.fb, ana riail^d thts nbjoue to

plaintiffs p.nd thsy attached the ridar to the policy.

On August 8 plaintiffs mailed a notioe to the Attorney in

Fact of the theft of the oar, and that notice waa received by

thsj Attorney in Fact on August 9. The aesooiatiun

refused to pay for the loas and this suit is hrour-^>t to

recover therefor.

Counsel for each slae argue the oade as if t^e

Eiaterial cjuegtion is whether tVi© i.olicy vaA in effect on

August 7, when the Chandler was stolen. T^efen.iant

argues that this application for the traiisfer was In fact

cade out in the evening of August "7, after plaintiff knew

the car was «»tolen. There are soi';e suspicio\i.i) cirouiu—

stances connected with the application for the renewal.

It seene strange that after having failed tu pay their

a^seeeiiaent and having allowed the policy to lapse by

the terms of the contract, plaintiffs should happen to

conclude to pay the assebSjLent and have thie transfer

on the eari.e day the new car was stolen and a few hcurss

before it, . The letter which they wrote asking for the

transfer was* dated: "lEueeday afternoon, August 7, 1917,"

,phe ordinary risthod of dating a letter written by

buBlnese r..en, as these n.en were, would be sii-ply to

give the ronth, the day of the r.onth and the year.

That they should have >Nrltten out "Tuesday afternoon *

was unusual in ordinary bualnees rractloe. But the

plaintiff who wrote the letter and hifs office :^irl each

-4-

,t oj xdbii. mti;f bbtiostiM Y9rlt baA ^^titalMLfii

J vif Bolioti £ htiljsm •fil&ntMiq, 8 tBisj^ufi. aO

Vcf biyi.009% ^Jt9r *«lJ-ofT ^«;I^ bnA ^^B0 Bdi \o tt^cii &Ai lo t^M'i

.ToiJ«ioo»«jB ft if" ,9 ytiff^uk /ro itC43'T rti y^mot^y t^i

turn Bidt bnjs eecX ttdi xc)\ yjiq, oi^ Jbeeirlei

.lol^ierfi- :t«voo»x

rtc Motile !si «^7v \;oi;loq •/fi T».1;f*rf*' ei Aoi^raijp Ijsiia^JBia ^n^fnsliaCr .nelo^rn saw x&Xi>A«il3 v^f^ nedw ,*r tBkr^uP.

".(WOiJo «i/oioi^i9i/« dirtoa 6X« «*:c»ilT ^amLoiu saw ii«o »r{^

• X«wdndi ^Ai lol nol J^aoiX^q^ •fi;r d^iw bmiQ^mioo saoajs^ta tx«»ff;r ^«q us^ btaiJLMJ -^nlyimi r*t\» tadt ••^»it% amaaa il YCf »uq,iii oJ ^uxloq aiict l^awoXiit Srtiv«;i Jb.i« ^naaaaaafejs oJ ,roq.^{«rf iixaona •lliJ'nijBiq ^t^atinoo •Ai lo uniai- a:lJ xala.xs^i^r air{j avai ta^ ./^najia«aaa3 ad^ ^44 o^ a^irloaoa fiiij i rcaXoi^a a.avr ijso was %di y^ a^As ai^ ao

oirfw xat*aX arfT . ii aiotatf

"•I'X^i /^ ifau^vA ,rroorfYa;tiji Y«&a«xfifX'" :bBiMb *aiv ialaa«x^

""' na^fifxvw ta J^^^ai » i^niiato lo i>«d^»M yrianiJbao ail^

TrrovT ^aiaw a8;n asad^ ajs ^rts.n aaanlex/d

. n« dfnofti art* lo yjib ari;f ^diaQA mdi avij:

" ' x^jsijaatfT" iuo tfUtt^ •vmd LXwoda y*'^* rfjarfT

aif-1 /^ .aoltfoijiq BaaTli»:jtf yimilbto al Imuhuojj ejiw

rfc£« . .:rj aoXllo alrf i>ft>9 fitmi aKJ •9o«ir odw Itij^aijsXq

-*-

t«atifi©d it wa« laailsd about 3 P, M. , &nd that f rastjnt- •d a qu<33tlon of faot v?hioh the trial judge -vaa not at liberty to daternlne, and whioh ahould hav« been left to a jurj' if defendant ddsir-ad the benefit of ite olair. that the letter vraB written that eveniiig after plaintiffe kns-.7 the Chandler wae stolen, and therefore '«o i^ust diaregarl the auapioioue olrouristanoea referred to and must aaaur:.a that the applioation wae raalled about 3 P, I-J, th;it day. ^'e are, however, of opinion that the pciioy yaa not in force on Aufpist 7, Plaintiffs >iad no acaolute ri^ht

to have the transfer KaAe. The applioation for the tranisfer

did net oonforn: to the reciulrejients of the oontraot fur transfer, for it did not etate tVe yaar v/hsn aaid Chaidler waa ir.an-ufaotured not the oth^r details required, except to aay that it haa *ix cylindsre. The /.ttomay in Tact

had a ri^ht by t'i« oontraat to deteritiine whether the naw auto v/ae aoosp table to him. Therefore the ridar,

which -.vaa dated August 8, inuuring the Chandler, did not beooi'.e effective until the plaintiffs had been reinstated and the Attorney in Fact had deoided that the Chandlar was acc3i;table tc hin. and liad determined the amount for \7hich the cor«pany would insure the Chandler, Therefore the new

contract cculd not beoop.e effective till he elgned the rider and psrhape not until he luailed it to plainiffa, aidressed to i.eoria. There , therefore A-au no ireuranoe on thie oar at the tlr.3 it ;ras atolen. But, if the eld policy was in

force on August 7, it insured a Bulck car and that car Aaa nevsr stolen. If plaintiff ii'f^ought auit that night on

-n-

i> '. lAlri toff- tc^l i:. . i? be

Tsecf 6'r jjit rioic ^ r^isiTSu-sE) OS' ^JiacflX.

saolfTsrfJ ^ .... TQlta^. itaJ.

*OfT tr- •,':o*I ' ii-fj fTOlnlto *o .levavjod \ai.-. . ^iifc' Jj--:!^

.7 Jt.j,/j^-A no aoto** rrl •xslifi.-. n:^_'vt£r -.'T .afijB?5*T»T:c?4jfrti 'srff ''i^xi 0*

.^iMiecff 5''r:i'^r^^ f^^fi i Led

,';fL ^c si* ^'I'^lf-iP '' , ... . ^ jius

jA t;s;tj-J oidfi

■«©cf bflrf a^iij. , . ,, . . v^cacf

ijr tat I oat h«ff #©i3T al Varrt'6J^A a 'i" i>flA

'^'.+ lb»rri"f^a : ■ .xe .nirt bJ eXrfisJi.feoofi

wan . i>dt

xelix^ -s^MoelVa ft.tooad* #6n Jbliroo ifo^Unoo

i)©esc mnljBlq[ o on »qjs.'fi"!»<i in«

■fO aoiol

,..,.3 i:i: .. . -

^1-

this policy. It rcust have bean to racovar for tha Buiok oar which thsy had long sinoe sold, and to recover fC5C, whereas they hd:c« oiaici §1116. 60 ,

■oiai/i tiffs oiaim that the pciioy "*o.s iri force on th« Chandl-ir Oo-r baoauae an adjuster of daf^ndii^nt nai'ied Robinson hcLd isft a card at the office of one of the plaintiff*, daixiJ^s dunning then, for aaid aaaeaeiont of $5.87, jrhioh aaid plaintiff found in his offioe at noon of Augu*t ^. This was hereeay te^Btiu-ony as to t':« taot of

such notice heii^ left at plaintiff's office, except th^t said plaintiff testified that aot.e part of naid card v/ae in the handv/riting of robieon. It -vvafc not b-^own that

Eobfeuaon had any power to biiid 4he aasooiation. Plaintiff* in their brief q,uote fron. the alleged teati— r^ony of Robinson, but their ubetraot dose not b>o..' that any euoh vitneea testified. Perhape they are rafarr-

in^ to teatiniony given at tha fori-ier trial which 1^ not befove ue. "e decline to hunt through this record to

aee if >ve can find evidence not abatraoted* Hut vre

fail to see that a deiuand for the paynidnt of thp.t paat due aaeesaroent, if i&ade by the aeaooiaticn itoelf. Would continue the policy in force. That aeeeaaaient

wae luade to pay o-oeeee whio^ had been cuutained prior to July 1, l'J17. Tiiaintiffe were liabls to pay that

asjeeaaaent ever, if they had perrriltted the policy to be suepended by the nonpayu.ent thereof. "'hey ov/ed tt to

the aeaooiation to pay iosaaa itiOurred ivhils they were jLesCibere in ^ood atandin^ anl v.'hich they contraotr-l to

ISO it. .tivouei ot ab^d-

» 0d.3XXX$ axJsXo •'x»i t*^^ 6«e7*ilMr-

•rf:^ t»aV isdj ni«Xp «tlX^ui£Xer

!'■■ de«« &X«fa 70l i^ftff^ ^ulaasjti gAlXAri; ^blli^nX^X^

lo noo'T .-t.j »oAlilo •iff bI Jaouol li\lt(il»Lq bis« rfolrfw ^Vd.d^

iBiii awo . . gnlii^iwljnjftrf •/l* ;AA ■^•-^ '

ail nooadttfoH -X^fcsJ- i:;8«&3XX^ acli .aas'u fe^oup Ititcf Ti«vi* ai al^iJaiJii'I tjuii cob ^&sTi«<f4i YX»a: .lOanXdoH lo x^^

0* brooBi mXdt xig^/oxii ;fiXtfd oi enJLic .»!/ •voled

ow ;,. »hmi\niii3ii uni»LXvt ^ait aao •«» )I ••• w

*n« .&>-■« •8U8 *«.)' , . V 1 .' Y0XJ.O i *5.-:? ©yiii^^aoo bxu^^^

iJiAi MiJ-ai^xT .vx^vx »X yJ^X. o* .,

•i*w .zn.ijOitJt MMiox Y'^q oJ^ nol^4Xoo<JB« ti.i:

-6-

pay. Thay oould not eaoBive that liability by aelilnT; their oar and droppins; their Inauranue, which flaa ^vhat they At in fact did. The r«Klttanoe "as for thritaer. cants tiOre than said asaeaamant anri the fee* for trarafar. The Aeaooiatlon did not return the thirteen cents, "^e are of opinion that it a retention of that thirteen cdnta did not make defendant liable in thia oaae, eapaolally aa the declaration waa not framed to recover it. But further, their inauranoe remaln-^d good ao far ?3 the oorr.- pany Knew for 45 c-aya after lefendante were ratified of the aaseaauient, and if they had kept the Buick it would have bean protected by that Irauranoe till noon of the 45th day. The proof ahowei that the aliquot part of the next aaseaaicent whioh they ahould have paid to extin^uiih their liability under their agreeicent would havi been $2.66, That wab not rebutted, and defendant i&ight retain the thirteen oente to secure a part of that liability.

The judgment la therefore affirmed.

-7.

Y».'i^ , .-. . . - ... iii rjio

• *rt»o rm ~o'i raw ^on^&iX^M ,blb toal al tk

.lelE o\ ttel acf^ i)n« ^^•m«e»fi»i3 Li«« n«/l^ •tOitx

rj»»;fitffcf *Arf* lo noi#frai»i uit tfjsrC* nolftiqo lo dTa s?"

XliJsJtcf^ ,u« ^&& •; fj.dt ni eidMtl iruiba^'iet a^Lam toa bib eia^o

tutl ,il it»vo9«i at la^a&rX toa Bnm aottMXsJio»b 9At •«

iiXoow j-1 idlijH a/l^ ^qai ^^.l ya:!^ \i Jbnjs ^^najiaaaaajs etl^

a.icf ^a £toon III* aorrj8auaa2 *jB-f;J v6 be*oa;foaq creatf av^.l

•'■Oi/piX* arl* tAtif taworfa looTq a-fT .v.,ij .'ja**

v^i Muo/fa yarf^ xfol.lii ^ntoiaiiaasja tfxan ^

avisd L*j./ow i.iiij\9%f^a iiarl.t tatrti/ Y^lXlcfjsix "Stiad* dmiLrstiiixb

'.4<i « atx/oee o^ alrtao a^Biridt adit ni^^ai

,tacrt'*:ljB eTcolaia ra.ujifcx/(, arlT

STATE OF ILLINOIS, i

SECOND DISTRICT. ( '^^^ I. ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court.

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the the vear of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twentA-.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

6

C -^

/ / / / A

1/ U u n

^

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the seventh day of Oc|.ober, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred andr nine-

teen, within and for the Second District of the S^rate of Illinois: \

Present--The Hon. JOHN M, NIEHAUS, Presiding- Jia^tice,

/

Hon\ DUANE J. CARNES, Justice. /

CHRIS fpPHER C. DUFFY, Cler^ CURT S.\AYERS, Sheriff

Hon. U)ORRANCE DIBELL, Justiu

^ ^17I.A. 659^

/lU^L^^J.^ Acj^^ a^fi:^^

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on ^^^ the opinion of the Court was filed in

the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit:

Appeal from Stephanaon.

No, e750.

Roy K, Farvell,

Appell3«t,

Pearl M, Far .vail,

Appellant. )

Opinio r. "byDlEELLjJ. On October 8, 191R, Paari M, Farwell, obtainad a divorce froii. P.oy K. Farwell, in the oiroult court of Stephanaon County for axtraine and repeated cruelty. The deorse found that tha nap^-ea and a-^es of their children then were Kni-jht d. , 14 yaara; Tlanoy 1., 11 years; Lalon J., 8 ysara ; B^etay 3., y years; Charles R., 4 years. The decree found ths.t both

parties were proper and fit persons to have the care, custody, control and education of said children. Their

oars, custody, control and education was ^iven to lira, Farvell, subject to the ri~ht of Mr, Farwall to visit said chil siren at all reasonable tirr.ee, and to have therr. in his care and custody for three r.onths each year without interferenoe by Mrs. Farv/ell. Farwell vras ordered to

pay Mrs, Trarvoll ^VB.O per month for the support of said minor children till Lalon J. baoair.a 30 y^ara of a^e, but if $75,00 per aonth should exceed one-third of Far'veil's annual inooii.s, that allow-ance vaa to be reducfjd to one-third of said income. For several years thereafter Farwall lived ^ith his sister next door to

-1-

.03^3 .oW

~.~ X

.xto* Mmcl X/i©qqA \ t^

r f

^LiBytrtJsl .M IaJB6*I

iltf^rf^r Ito eef<£ tna BBmatt •dt tsaii bnucj. ettaoat drfT rfi'ocf *sii# iiciijol saioei: f . "" ,> . ^ t,/T ••iT^riO

«^' :^ 6v««£l «»Ic1m><o«41«x IX« ;fiB atxtXi rio

J .c /Jiv •s.jsh: -oi^a ftajitw.. •ft-rrf^ lol vto;fai/o baa tx^o

O.aV^ XX*wit«nr ,€aU YJiq

4 a;- iioXaJ XII J a^iblido loain

•cf 0* e/:v eun^ V ix,. ftjiooni Ltutaaa «*XX«wY«'f

0* loob *x8n ':'?j»l» Birf rf*lw ^•▼1X XXtwxjs'? x»*lfieT8r^;f

-X-

where Mrs, Farvvell lived, and he aa / the children dailey

and frequently had aowe of then: in to dinner with him* Afterwards I/re. Far^'ell and the ohildren reiaoved to Cbicago and ainoe that tiix;e Farwell has not had the chil- dren three Kionthe in any one year, and h? e had dlffiouity in ^ettin-;; theiu as the ieoree provided. In January ,

1919, Farwell Karriejd a-rain. On June HB, 1919, he

filed a petition in the circuit court of f^tephenson County asking to ho,ve the custody of Charlea and Lalon during July and Auguet of 1919, and of pet ay durin<^ Auruat, 1319, which tiiue the petition repre.aentsd was a vacation period which «voul 1 not interfere ^vith the school work of the ohildren, Mrs. r-arrell answered i.enyin^3 rarv/ell'a ri::i;ht to that relief, and aleo filed a croea petition ir. which she asked to have certain ohangae as to the aur*. to be paid for the care of the ohildren an.l also asked that the decree be so taodifiidd thr-t the ouatody of said children be award-ad entirely to her, aubjaot to the ri^ht of Farwell to vista ther^ &1U at reasonable tir.ee. Afterwards Mra. Farwell withdraw her oroae petition, except go j£ar aa it aaked a modification of the decree aa to the custody of the ohildren. Proof g were heard,

""he court found Farwell entitled to the relief he r.sked for and thb.t Mrs. Farwell '-ao not entitled to have the decree nodified aa to the ouatody of the ohildren. The prayer of her croaa petition vas therefore denied, and an order was entered giving Farwell the ouatodj'' of Ch.ariea and Lalon dxirintj July and .*uG;uat, 1^19, and of

-3-

vwil-jL a^tbittto •dt £« »A bits ^JbeviX iXewT^"^ .btM aisdtf

tsaiti ffitlip TBcrntt of cii nbcit 1o snioe fc«r( ^X*n»ifp*ll. Jbn*

aexbiirto #!■<;)• ivnis IXfc . itf abajswrre^lA

-XXtlo arC^ bJBff ton •si iXaovi^T doii^ ^/id^ »onia has o^jsoitfO

» vrsun^T, nl .hsMvoi^ sbiodi^' arfJ'e"* "otfi'if* -QalttBf at

»ai-3pjB fceitcTJBai XXewifi"? ^fiXex YJfn.ifoD c(omnmiiru»tP. 'id fnuoo itisortti wit^ nt ttolili^q £i tslll

-.GX

.fiitfcXi ■ noiitie oBlM bn£ ^^ftII•■x Lsrfif It

.BA' srfa rfoi.fr.'

TOSt ftrf, ■^ t»biA^j

XXewlA't .atlX atiJBfr^xeJlil ..9% oa ^cxabxa

^nojtitlJaq aaoic

.riaihXlrCo ft -.a^ a/f.t arfJ •▼/

^L».■

^XbwicoT fciijjbl lltroo axfr

r B/: Jbeil'iX-Oi'i aaT&at 19010 19.' lo leTfATq arfT c70;trx9 ai3\N' "xaJblo n^ JbiiJB

itub KoXis: XTBrfO

Betsy durinff Au'paet, 1919, and that Mrs Farwell turn over the custody of aaid ohlldrsn to him for that psriod of

time. Mrs. Farwell asked an allowance for aolioitor*3

fees and expensse ii: resist 1>?p; Far.vell'a petition.

That applloation waa denied. Mrs. Farwell appeals,

Tne tir^a within whioh the order tas to be carried

out has passed. The question whioh party should have

had the children in July and August, 1919, ia now a mere

acadeitiio one. Courts usually do not reviev/ oasss to

decide such questions. People Ex ^el, Wilsona.v.

Rose, 81 111, App, 387 and Kendriok v. Wendel 157 111.

App, 540 and oases there cited. Mrs Farwell, however,

contends that she is entitled to a modification of the

decree f^ivinc; her the sole custody of the children and

that she waa entitled to an allowance for solicitor's

fees and enpensss. Both sides have asked us to pass upon

the aarits , ani fne same controversy is liable to arioe

at any tiwe hereafter, and n-t therefore, conclude to paos

on all the questions.

Farwell' a petition alleged that he had requested the

custody of said children for the aupixiier of 1919 and that

Mrs. Farwell had deniei his request. It is contended

that this allegation was not sustained by aaunpetent proof

and therefore the court should have denied Farwell 'a

petition. The original decree did not apecify what

time in the year he should have the custody of the

children and he had a ricrht to ask to have that luodified

and the tiius fixed, without previously making any request

-3-

^«^' 't« ,exeX ^Uv9uh Snliufc tf»*6a

ua.'-:

>i- OW Rl A.'

.iil 7Si XaJbnC'. . . . .. -

iro •AT ..TC id-its

J-

of Mrs, Farwall, A'^ain, the court inquired during th«

hearing if Mrs. Farwell -/p.s willinT; to oomply .vit;: the

proviglonf3 of the decree, -and her solicitor anwwerad In

the ne.'^itivs. It la entirely olear froi, ths evidence

cf Urs. rarvrell and fron. the ianr^a.ge of Var ailioltor

ir argui^ant here, th-t Mrs. Far'.Tell doea not intend to

give Far-rell the custody of aaid children if ahe can avoid it,

Xhsrefora the petition -vaa ri^^^htfully ent.-irtained without

proof of a prior axpress refusal "by llvn, rarwell.

It is contended that the court adiuitted coi-isa of j-sttere 2.nd telegrarfae sent hy Farwell, without _^iving l»!ra Far veil notice to i.>roduce the original, and that this waa error. These lattera and telegrarna related to previous efforts by F.^rwell to obtain teiuporary auetody of aoice of the children purauant to the ieoree, and are only impor- tant aa they raay tend to ahow the unvillin-jneas of lira. Far veil to adlde by the decree and th?,t is sufficiently shown otherwise, Thia ie a chr.nc-sry uaee and the adrala- eion of inooiLpetent evilenoe ia not f^round for reversal if t":9 ooi'tpetent eviienoe supports the decree. It la alao ar^ju'^l that the court erred in auatainin^ objections to quastlona put hv Mrs, Tarwall'a solicitor to Far.fell aa to whether, bcfors the divorce, Mr a. Farwell an-1 he had quarrel* conoernins the "voraan litho ia now Farwell's wife, and v?hether prior to th- divorce hia wife aocuaed him of payinr^ considerable attention to aaid vfOj(ian, Thia was oxi crosa examination of Farwell and the quest iono were not pronar croaa exaralnation on anything testified )B|r to

-4-

:fl*»(I •rl* e-xo^eteiT

£/i

• aoidOd;.

mtiuoimootti \c nolm

oJ ;-

to :fli;:

-rrxnisortoo 9x*>

, .j ... . . •

79xd'4i'X6Jbi«n.

by FaBwell on direct examination. The question, If

anawered aff iriaatively, hj'd no b^arln-^ on the queation whether the present lira, T^-arv/ell ^ras a fit person to have the ouatody of aaid children while ?arw«ll was absent in hie usual m ercployaent durin<7 the day. If the character of Farwell'e wife was euoh that it wae not adviaeable to allovv these children to apend July and Aui^at in his hoii-e, that fact should have been proved directly and not ba any inference froir, v/hat Mrs. Farwell said before the divorce was obtained. The decree of divorce .vae not , baaed on an^' inpooper conduct on the part of Farwell with said woman.

It la contended that Mrs. Farwell proved without contradiction that the present wife of Farwell is a person unfit tID have any oare or custody of her children, and that therefore the couBt should have denied Farwell* a petition* Mrs. Far#rell did testify th:? t in her opinion said woman was not a fit person, but that was a state- Kent of an opinion and not of a fact, and to parmit the decision to rest on her opinion is to. make her the judge in her own case. She gave the reason why she had that opinion and it did not relate at all to the character of the woman, but waa only that said woroan had not been a BiOther herself and therefore would not be likely to know how to take care of children. It is a matter of comB^on knowledge that many women who have never been mother* have excelled In wise care for the children of others. Farwell* a employment ocoui ies certain hours in the morning and in the afternoon of each wee}S^.day« Obviously

-5-

i9dttii-fi aolSetiuf •rf* no :[>,at.iAm<S cr^ b'-c^ ^xi•'viitMi^vli\\B fret'UhttJB

V XXwivijb'7 eXirfw ntitXirfo tljae lo

s:i»^ .i^ ' I^r :' xtJojrt^rfo tdJ- II »v/ih bd^ vnfsub tat saxoLcimB

nettXlrfo eetrf* wel/js o* ©Xrfjefie!'''' :f erf* dox/« ««w

ev£rf ijXr/o-fG ^cr*^ *j3d* ^a.aorf e e tri/A tnjc yXx/L Jbntqe o*

ijid . ofr»TC*1(Tl vnj8 b ^jXtfoeilb 'Jbevoaq ntetf

«riT , jcfo sjTf: aoTovi!" ©-'J fi-rolfiff Mc© XXewttjeT ,8iM

*ojtrf)rroo lesioaqn -oxovlfc ^c eeice.*-

tfo '? '» tfvoi'i Xle.vie'^ .ei'-. . »Jbn»*«oo ex SJ

rfoetr XXtwi^T lo »liw Meat^q erfi itji^rf? noiJoifciiitfnoo

tnif ^naiJbXl/fo i»rf lo Ybo^suo to etc.. 5 tllrrtr

«: » IXBr-TcT fteiTsh evjirf Mi/orfa *«iyoo •rf;f ©lolaT©:*

"^>;t!!-e+ fc!^ xX9*T.e'=r .aiU ,noi;fi*»q

J a Bijif cwoiov M^t

^"ff boA rtc :.o lo ^naui

»^; ..t • . :; aolfit09l>

x/«if erfa ^{r(w novjsa? e-fit' »v«s' ^rfS «*Wo xnvo larf nJL

y.o tsJo^Tcarfo adJ otf IIjc Sn »*J8X«1 >dfl bih Jff httJn nolniqo

;: naed *on Jb^rf itAaiow fci,8»* *j8ri? '^Xno «£ . ;i«nOW »rf*

won:;{ oJ ^XtiiX b Caoir STOlncarf* tn* iXMiftrf iarr;fOin

noiOiTioo lo le? ,nmxbltAo lo atJio •.-;

8vj3ff anarf^Offl rttacf levan avjarf tow ^oAia tMdi ejgl'aXi'^onjf

.aiBif^'o lo xiaTl^Xlrfo trf ' JbeXXaoxs

'orf nijstTso atlqi/ooo tnajnyoXqiSa a'XrawijBT

yXajjoivrfO .\fGf ^aav^ rfoaa lo noofraa*l,B ©ri ^i Sninaoa

the ohildren, if in any home provided hy hla, n.uat bo under the oare of aoiue other perBon during those houra. That fact vrae obvloua when the deorae originally avrardei hir^. the ouatoly of the ohildren for three pionths In the year, yet no appeal «aa taker froi'. that decree on that aooount. If Mra. Farweli oonaldarad the part of the deoree unwarranted whioh eatahllehejd that Farweli waa a fit paraon to have the care and custody of the ohildren and awarded hiw.tlieir oare and custody for th»ee Eontha of each year, ahe ehould have appealed froit that part of the decree. We muat aaauKie that that finding that Far.vall -vaa a fit pereon waa duly provad in that caae, Mra, Fartall in obtaining the decree placed Farweli in a poaition where he oould legally n.arry another worr.an, and if l-lra. Farweli waa jealouo of the woman in question ahe knew aha waa affording hii'i an orportunity to r-.arry that wowan and that In that event the children would ba in the family with that wox(; n for three wontha in the year. If that poaaibility vwaa no objection to the decree then, the realization ia not nsoeaaartly an objection now. The children would really be in the cuatody of thalr father, and there ia no cor.petent proof that the eecond wife ia unfit to aaaiat, and no other change

of oircu/natanoQS ia ahown which would juatify depriving Farweli of the cuatody of hi a children a part of each year, ^e are of opinion that it waa proper for the court below to fix the achool vacation period as the tlae when Farweli ahould have the cuatody of hie ohildren, and that it leL right that he ahould have them a part of the time, and that they ahould not become entire atrangere to him. Mrs Farweli

-6-

letau tcf iBim ^Jilrf yrf betlvoiq •morf ^njB rri 11 ^neiJbllrfo erf^ itjsrfT .Biiroif soorf^t "pnljut aoBieq :cdr{^o emoa lo 9TiiO ax^jt

i6\ jXaeY •^^ nl ftrfi-nojt 99zdf lol nsTJblJtrfo arf* lo ^bo^tuo •/!* .;tnaooo« ;T«:-fit rro ssioAJb ^Jirf;t iuotI a83{£^ e«» X«eqqj3 on

id;fnj8iu^waij ©©toel; •rf;f lo ^isq ©rf^ tetefclBrtoo ilBwiflT .aaM II •J;r Bvjjil 0^ aoBieii ^.'^ /; bjet* IIbwia'? iMdt f}»(f«lX<fA^a» rfoiilvr siisc Tiei{;fj«i.1 bsttjiva ttiJi ntiJbXlrlo Vi-fit lo ^boiauo bnji 6t£o

9VMd Mijorf* 8/fe ^.i-ecY -^ob* lo arl^nom aavrfd^ lol Yto;f8x/'o l>n«

1.-

b,nu»i^-h f%ma aW .aaioat ar{^ to iz&q, i^dt saoxl JbaXJBeqq«

rvonq ^Xij£) 6JBW noaieq iMl jb bjsf XXtn^'? ^ari^ Snibnil tj^di isAt

teOi^Xq aeioab atf;t :^iilal£i(io ax Xxarii:'^ .aiU •aajso i^di at

i6d&ona yaiJBJi YXX<e;e:«I hluoo arf aiarlw nol^fXaoq « ai XXawaal

ni a.%(iow arf^t \o ex/oXisat ajiw XXaw^js'^ .atM 11 bae ^ajsitiow

oj v;tlnx/;txoqqo a« inlif pnlX>7oll« e.svr ana wani arfa^oi^ea^p

Mxraw .naTbXlrfo arf J intve l i£di ^a« njBaow tMt ^xtmx.

ariJ nl arfirtOM 9%xdi to'l n aow ^jsri* rf^lw Y-C^iO-sl ©rf^ "i »cf

ariit oiJ noi*oaj,rfo on easw ^^IXltflaaoq tsdi '■! ,i,ae^

n£ ^Xtaeeeeoea i^on ci noi;tBslXi)ai arf^ ^narf^ aeioaJb

.t acf yXX-aai JbXuow aaibitdo arfT .won nolJoatcfo

looicq iaBia^i-noo on e-I eiarf* fcna ^aarf*^! xladt lo y^o^s^^o

•SH£rfo Tail^to on Ln« ^^elaaa o^ il\au si allw tncooaa tr(^ &Mdt

gnlvlaqai? \;ll^ax/j, f^Xx/ow cfoi.'lw nwoxia «! aeonjE^etn^O'xlc lo

♦ lisav rfo«a lo ♦i^q jg natJbXifio alrf lo y^o^bi/o art* lo XXawiJBl

«oiacf *t;;oo s ';t io1 aaqoiq bjl; (J nolnl qo lo aiiJ a?'

XXavxAl iiadw mnti a:f* a« AQltaq aoi.r«ojBv Xooi'foa a.i^ xll oiT

Al Si Sjsdi bn* ^naxbiido c- Yto^ai/o •dt avAXf tXx/oxfa

^jBTl* bn» yBaiXi •di lo JrxAq js lamdi av^xl hXivofIa axf tadf td^lr

IXawiJBf aiU .al^ q$ anasn^a^s aTl^na ajiooacf ^on bluoda \edt

-3-

teat if led that the ohlldran did not want to coir.e to hltt, but they were not oalled aa wltnesaee, so that the raaaon oould be ascertained. That atatewent by Mra. Farwell ^vas mere hearsay, ani it ia not difficult for a r.-other under auoh oiroumatanoea to prejudice the children a^rainat their father.

We do not decide whether there can be oircur^atancee where a wife, aft-sr obtaining a divorce fror.i her huaband, way obtain aolioitor'a feea and expenaea in latsr'procredinge between then; about the custody of the children, but certainly where, aa ve hold here, the wife is reaiatlns the decree of t' e court without juat cauae, ahe ou^ht not to have aolioitor^a feea or expenaea to aid her in her improper refuaai to obey the decree.

The order ie affirmed, HEARD, J. took no part.

-7-

tMirf oi ejioo ot Jdjsw jfon tit a^tbiltio »rf* ^jsrf;^ b^l\ltft •«w XI»iva*T .Balk Ycf *!:•«•***• */jriT .Jbsnija^tsoejs erf bluoo

udoa*;;f*^.i/oj^^o sd aso »z9di terf^arfw »fcioei) *oit ^'^W

Y-CM ^Lfvsrfawrf led jio»^ aoaovib a grrlffi«;frfo iceifljB ^aliw j|

9^ntt>»tooiq*^»tBZ ai 8«an»cix» bn^ eeel B*ioStoiiom nlstdo

iud \neiJbXlrfo t-f* lo y(bctBuc tdt tisods afdi neewJsrf

gAi*ai«8i ^i ©llw art* ^anad Mod ev •« ,9T»dw xialJitr90

'zuo arfe ^e•^;J^o ;^exit. tuo^iitm 9Tnsot> •■^rf lo ©sioel) idi-

Tad ni .i»d J[>i« ot aeanaqx* lo seal: •'lO^iolXoe avjari

.••loet) ad;^ ^srfo 0* Ijoex/lai leqdiqail

♦JbeiailllB si leJbio edT

.Jitjsq on ioo* .1. ^CflAZK

-V-

STATE OF ILLINOIS. |

SECOND DISTRICT. ( ''''■ I, ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court,

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,

do hereby certify that the fores^oing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in

the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set mv hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth da}- of March, in the the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

6

l*GlL

f '-^

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the seventh day^,(yf October, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nine- teen, within and for the Second District of the State of

/ Illinois

Present--The Hon, JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Pres iding>' Jus tloe. Hon. DUANE J. CARNES , Justice

Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Jus t i/e . . ^-^ CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Cle;j4. ^^H ' T^"^^ )

CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff./ ^ /

21 7 T.A. -^i^y

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on WAR 9 1920 the opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit:

No, 6713

Dulosna B, Crepa, Adwlnletratrix ) of the estate of S. F. Crepe, ) iaceased, S

Defeniant in error.

)

V8 ) Error to rroQula,

Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and BtLouis Railroad Company, a Corporation,

plaintiff in error.

Opinion by HEARD, J,

This is a 3uit by Duloena B, Crepe, adxa inlet rat rix of the estate of 65, F. Crepe, deceaaed, for the "benefit of hia wldo-.Y and next of kin a^ainet the C.C.C, & St, L Ry Co. plaintiff in error, *'or recuniary iama?^ea alleged to have been austainel by them "by reason of the negli?;ent killing of S. F, Crepa by an engine of plaintiff in error at the VI Habere of Donovan,

The ajnendfld declaration to which a plea of not guilty waa filed conaiatad of four oounte. The first count charged ns;5ll!;j9nce generally , The second a violation

of a apaed ordinance. The thtrd a failure to ring a bell or blow a '.vhlatle and the fourth count alleged a dangerous hole In the Firat street oroaain?^ and that ieoeaaed caught hie foot there and wae struck before it oould be released. The suit was originally brou-^ht in the Superior court of Cook county, but the venue was changed to the circuit court of Iriquola county, where

-1-

. Siva ,ow

{ ttqeiD .f .8 ^o Biniae erfd" lo

f .Jbeejeeoet

( *

(

^Y^JsqaioD i)£OiXijsH stuodtM Lns

♦L^QHASH x(f aoJtnlqO xlicfjsi^tsinJtabjB ,eqeiO •€ isnaoXiXT ^cf Hut s b1 slrfT

lo Ji'ienarf arfi icl ,i>«BA80ftJ^ ^oqeiO ,1 .8 "io tj-^^e© »rf.t 1o

,oO yH J ^J8 A .0,0.0 »i-(^ *«nljBj^A fxli lo tf'xen i)rf£ TfOfclw ei/I

ne8cf ©vjsrf o;f fcejeXI* ee^JiouaJb viisinx/oeq lO"* ^loiis ai l^lJniJsXq

lo gnlXXlcif ^nej^iXgen erf^t lo nosjoei ^d nidrfd' Y'^ leni^iteue

e;{* &s toil* nl m^nijaXq lo snipxia njB vcf eqaiO ."i ,3

.fUBVonoa lo tjJBXXiV YJXitrs ion lo «eXq « rlolrfw oi noltfirjilOBh JbefcnenvB effT

;fni/oo *F.Tll BdT .aJntroo •ruol lo fceJeienoo teXll e^sr

aol^jBloiv js fcnroosc ©rfT • ylljsiener eoneT-JX^en £)9Sii?rfo

js snii ot eit/Xlisl js bridi tcfT .©on^niMo fceeqe jb Ic

J8 fcdTeXX« Jnwoo dituo\ ^dt bae •iiBtdv .e woXcf to XXed

'rrjB ^rriieoio Sneifa ;^^Ti7 erf* n^ ©Xorf suoiesnjst

ii extiied Xoxn^« vjew btrs aieri^ ^ool airf ^rf^ujBO Jbsa^eodi:

id-^uord x^Latii'glio a.rsw ^lus erfT •Jbee^eXei ocf £1X000

8«»( eunev erf;t ^wtf jX*«x;co iooO lo *ijjoo loXt&quS erf;t ni

9i8xlw ^xinlsoo •ioi/piil lo ^fiuoo iluoTlo 6di oS Jbegnarfo

-X-

the oaae vvaa trial resulting in a jul'^went for i3000 in favor of defendant in error, and the oauae la before this m> court on writ of error to review that judgment^

Over the objection of plaintiff in error the court permlttadproof of the number, a^ea, eex and namee of the children of deoeaeed. This evidence waa later stricken out. The adrciasion of this evidence is aaaif]jned ae error and in hie arf^iaent in this court attorney for plaintiff in error say: "The purpose of introducing this evidence vraa clearly for its effect on the Jury, and aa the proof had been put in and ^one to the jury, counsel for plaintiff below then asked the court to strike out part of it. You could not possibly cure the error. The effect on the mind of the jury could not be so easily eradicated, and having heard this proof it would be Impoe- slble for them not to consider it in arriving at their verdict. It should not have been admitted, and counsel for plaintiff below realizing the error sought to correct It by his motion. The case was close and no appeal to sympathy should have been permitted". The misleading character of this argument and the extreme triviality of the assignment is demonstrated by an inspection of the record which shove that the children (j) were four in number, Fanney Tfoney, aged 39, Raymond Crepe, aged 33, Valera, aged 30, and Minnie, aged 28,

On the trial plaintiff in error offered evidence of declarations of deceased male at various times which were ©lalmed to show a eulcidal intent. The court rejected this offer. It ma not shown that the declarations

-8-

Q0 mlcli 9tot9d fil &uu£0 erfl trie ^rottt nl ^rrfifcrtelef \o jxoyjbI

d'f^ ^o te.u roe ,«9?JS ^aecfaii/rt erf* Id looiqfceJJl.uTeq

nt T&*i8X BjBv eorrei-lve elrfT •tsa^eosf) lo irtexblirfo

•jb Jb©«fl«8is fiii oortoMve «ltf* Tto flola^lwfci: arfT .iuo

I>n/? »YXx;X. BdS fro toalte a^i lo^'i^lrrsio elj5w sonaMve airf*

I»Brtx/oo »Y'i^L *''^ oj eno5 Jbnis nl iuci rreerf li^rf looitq erl;f bjb

^•tjsq *m> »5(jtTj8 oJ Jlr/Ao e-f* .fc©3(8« rrsff* 'woliff'lf i^fttaXq aot

c '■' ."oiTe eir -XcfliBOq *on ttsj69 uoY »tt lo

-•oqml »cf Mu^ t fcT«6lI jftlvjBlf bitA ^h»tJit>it^it6

Xeaniyborjbn* ^fcaJJlatis rrfcad avjsrf *^n bXtjrtfa ^'I .Joifciev

Joeaioo oa toTcte arft ^nikM-asic woXacf Ttll*fti*Iq. tol

o^ X^eqqii on bas aaoXo aJBW aa^o arfT •noi;foai slri ycf ^1

,^b9t:ti{frtifz ^ficf ©farf bXi/orfa Yrf*'*1'nY8

'o '^j^lXalviu a.naTtjce ad* ^rTi9 tcfmsr^tJi ^l(^f Tio retosxedo

ft'rf : i nj8 t<^ l>e*«rrf*rto«ah si Jrta.Txrt^ieajB erf^

^tew ft) "fftntiXMo a'^* 'tMi e^orfe rfol^ir Jbxooai

,33 he^jB .alnnltf fcn* ^0C ba^* ^BxaX^V -■^^o ir<ma nl m*rtl«Xq Imtrt 9Ai nO ;:r stroller ^£ eft.cm ta««ae4>Jh 10 aaol^sicaXoab fc6*o»t*i **;/«>otrfT- .."r?.-t'. inhioltn 4 ♦.orfa o* bemiijX»

-s-

were acoouipaniad by any act tending to shov/ an intent to coicrTiit auiolie« Evlienoe of thia character hae uniforirily been hell Inoornpetent "by the Courta of thia state, Siebert va People 143 II. 571; areenaore ve. Aurora Brewing Co., 200 111. App. 194; '^.reenaore va Filby, S76 111. £94,

Deceased vraa struck by the train within the village limit 8 of t^e Village of Donovan, Defendant in error introduced in evidence a copy of an ordinance passed by the "tillage Council in 1901, limiting the speed of freight trains witnin the village limits to six miles per hour. There waa no newspaper Jjublished in Donovan In 1901, The Clarke certificate to the copy of the ordinance compiled with the requirements of the statute and its adH'is- sion in evidence was not error, Prairie du Rochu va. Milling Co. 348 111. 57.

It is urged that the ordinance is unjust, oppressive, discrin-inatin-; anrl a burden on interstate commerce and in violation of the pederal constitution, P,A, By. Co. vs Black -ell 244 U. S, is relied upon to support this contention. The facta in that case are so diffsront irom the facts ir this case that the decision xs not at ail in point here. It is within the undoubted province or the state legislature to amke reflations with regard to the speed of railroad trains in the neighborhood of cities and towns; with regard to the precaution to be taken in the approach of such trains to bridges, tunnels, deep cuts and sharp curves; and generally, with regard to all operation in which the lives and health of people may oe endangered, even though such regulations affect, to some

->-

oi iattai. n« Jtctim ot j^aibrte* taa ^na yd ftalnr^qinoooB ©rrew

YXonoli A^o^si^-io nidi "io »on»^JtvS .At loins flvmoo

• •i«^a arfjT ytf ^/le^oqHOorti f)lerl naecf

SnlwexS jixoix/A .st e>70Ana&T0 ;IV3 .I.:X C^X eXqoe<7 bt ^letfeiS

,*«S . diaene 9X .qqA .XXI OOS ».oO

lonie r . ;jjBvonoa lo ©j^nXXiV a^* lo B^Jlaii

Mf;f Ycf Jb0«B«q Boacatbxo tua \c yqoo « »onative nl b^^isbettcl

ttirt^xl lo Jb»eqe ^di ■^atileitl ^lOQi ai UoixuoO e^«XXIV

-eg •aXin.x4« o^,«#l«Ui BSBXIiv •('f;^ ataitfi BnlBti

as^roaod ai b9dBtlc5u<i teq^eqewva oa bjbw eiedT

aoftJSffUb^to frfJT lo yqo© a j^oilUiao aiiaXO adT

•^lnJbJS Bit bnn 9iiiiei6 Bcii lo a;fns»aTlx/pei art^ ff:ttw te^iqinoo

,«r rniooP. ut etrtnt^ .aotxe Jonajsw aonaMva ni aoie

.Ta .1X1 8^ ,00 ?>alXXiU

^avlaaa■Iqqo ^taultiu bt aon^BaiJbio arf* Mrt* t>«8V/ ai ^I ,

ta« aoTOJiffloo e^f^aTa^al no asbiud x taA j.nl.iAnl,]aiit>mih

. :9 •A.vjS nnoltutli%nox> ^jnsha-if tx^ \o aoti^iotv al

tioqcii/e oi noqu fiaiX«s ai .3 .U>f& XXew;i[o£X8 av

av7t 7ntf%bllit oa ^le t»&aQ j£x(9 ax «;foAl mdt «aoI;tna^noo

fi X- .xai^oai: •dS Jann aa-a^ aintf' al a9Q«l an?

!« vaiuvQvq £a7<^iu^l>ixu aril clrl'^rlw el dTl .ana/l tfnloq

o» ii«':^a's fij-lif anoU^ KXi/j^lelpaX ay/?Ta ari^

'^o Jbooaiocf£[;glan afl? nx aniJBT? tuoxilJis lo Jbaeqp ed^

aviji^ ar TujjDviq an ;amro;r Jbtt<B B«ltf'lo

qaeb ^•i.9iTn> ^«%7 4oyjp lo rfo«07qq£ arl7 nl

^vp^nuc qiMla i?n« B7x;o

:;tije<en bati »9yii, ptif Aoidw .ai aoi^^veqc

amo« uj- ^Jiiif'tl^e fftioX7Miu^9r j^puu d'^odi rraTe ^^aiasujstne

extent, the opsration of lnter9t?.tft corr.rr.Hrce, Such

refnilationa ars arclnantiy local In their oharactsr, and, ill tne ansenoo of oon^raasionnl ref^iationa on tne same Bubjsot, are free fron all coriBtitutional objectionn and unquest lunably valid.

In C «• A n.H. Co. y City of Carllnville 300 111. 31* in dlisousein'T an ordinance limiting the speed of freli;Ht traina to six xRllaa, the aane lirrit aa preucribed by the Doiiovan ordinance tna Court aaya: "This ordinnnoe, to b« valid,

must not, thererore, ne unreasonable. Tne preaumption,

hOTV^ver, 13 in favor of ita validity and that it is reasonable, anl it is inourobent upon appellant to point out and show affirinatively wherain auoh unreasonabelneaa conaiate, T,«ople v, creiger, 138 111. 401.

A^ain on paTS 5S5 ths court aaya: "The next queat-

ion wnioh preoents itoeif ror conoiderHtion is, doed tht» ordiimnoe in queation impose an unreaawnaola rwatriotion upon interstate coimterca and the speedy transportation of the United States luaii. We ars of tne opinion tnat

it does not. The ordin-moe was paaaed aa a police reflation lur trie pre^arvation of the safety of tne pub- lic and the protection of life and property, and vraa no Biore than a fair exeroi»e or tne police power vested in the city (citin;^ oaaea.) The ordinance do-a not undertake to

re^lats coirmiarce between the atatea or imterfere with the transportation of the mall, and amount a to but a reasonable regulation of tiiS speed of trains within tne corporate limit a of tae City, and auoh le^l elation has unlforaly been held to be valid.* There waa no »viaence tenaine:

-4-

•xxsn? It ijioci yxJ/Tttrtine ©ijb naoxj^ijjTST

xdJBiToi Jtteupntf ilvnjtXi, ...

OMVvtwQ t,' ^diione . eju»« 9r{* ^seXiu xie -•»

ti>j:i , a uuK^ritSO {iidT** :evj8« yttfoO wa; vonjBAlisTQ

J'rrioq 9,7 7nj»i.xeq;qj3 naqx; fnediajtfonx al 7i t^M ^exdAaoe^ai «e«ni»til£xxoax»tnx/ iloi/a nisiexlw -vxttvinsaxitl-a worls ^ixj; ;fi/p .i-'i^ .JLiI 8t,i »n3SJt*iT.O ,v ©iqobo' .ajeieaoo

'ttt9Uf> txbn -. T" levjst; j'li/oo 8 ft 7 dtkt. »s<v^ no nl«^A

efixB/ioo rtoi txseTx a^rraQtiq sloiav nox

riojtrriq- ~o e-xj aW .i2.fi..i .9a.Tjj»a JDeJtoi; ailt

.-sCiXic- tt »« wkiiSAq a^w monxnibio artT ,7q« ••ot J'x

to Y'e^JSi'S •"^3" "io fiQzJ^vTftsetq mi9 uvl ■aoXJjBAxr »i

on tt3?r'.^(#m »T*"i«»«f'ri Jbnx alJtl lo aoj.Jo*jroTq 9ti$ bus oX.i

Wii At^^ mrttlittSmX to ••inya 9A9 amevT^d »9ie4Msoo .^^jsXxfsin

»irtjBaPt-«»T « »i«? ,oJ ,»»fli/oaMi hows »ii4ia •x!^ 10' ii9A»^ntoq»iMT|t

Yiorcc li noi9si%tTRoi How btvi

to ahoTT -unw unreaaonablBnowe or the Donovan ordinance and we rr.uat hold it to Y>e a valid ordinance

plaintiff In error oontanda the deooasQa vra^ not etruok upon the atreet oroaain^, Thwrd -vaa eviaenoe tending to show that a shoe and heel of a shoe were found upon the oroaaing the nl-^ht of tiie aoclT.«nt, Whetn«r or not tne aooident ooourred at t/:e street croaalng ^aa a question ot faot lor tue jury upon which they muat have paaaed favor- ably to defendant In error and •»« aee no reason to inter- fere with that finding

At ttie oloae of all the eviaenoe in the uaae plaintiff in error re^uewted tiio court to inatruot the jury to find the defendant not guilty. There waa ample evi:ience upon which to subr-it the caae to the jury and to have <yiven the instruction would have "been reveraible error.

Complaint ia n.ade of tl^e court's refusal to f?;ive other of the plaintiff in errora instructiona. These instruct- ions were properly refusei aa some of their, were not baaed on the evi-lence while the aubstanoe of the others were contained in other instructions, which were given,

plaintiff in error oontenda that the evilenoe does not show that it was guilty of negli?:;ence. The evidence shows that the train in question was going at a rate of speed greatly in excess of the speed limit of t>.e ordinance* The jury found that there was negligence on the part of plaintiff in error and v7ere justified by the evidence in so doing.

It is claimed that the evidence fails to show that deceased was in the exercise of ordinary care for hie own safety, at the tire of the aooident,

-5-

pca«nti3'xo t>ii.£V Ji acf orr ji RJioA -fi^tm ew

bnacl eiew eoris £ !to ie.sif bne eone £s ;fjsh7 woas

'i7s»i/|: ■tXttaoao {tcaaJe a:iJ J^js taTErcx/ooo ;rfreMO0J8

-xovjit JbiMi*»4iq i»TJsA 7Bij» Yfii' doxriw noc2i/ ^ntxrt «"'' 'o^ tTBBl

ac i i.vt *JEqia« b4w aaedT .t^Xio^ ion tnmtn»lt9b %di

mii aevj;^ «iyjB4 0* ba^ y«J^C •'** <>* ••40 arf* JlJicfwe o* rfolrfw

,loni0 tXffiaierei rreacf svAd b X trow .ffol^Oin^t axil

lariJo ,avis,o* X«ai/la« a**ixioo a-ft to at/ja al J/tlJSlqmoO

-<rojtrx;tBnl aeeilT .anol^oxn^anX eitOTtte nt \tliatjs£q art* lo

b&6&d ioa aiaw v^di to omom fiA taaiAai t-Ctaqotq ataw • aitol

ST3W ^%»(iiqt ^3 "^o aorTA^^ecfi/a add" ©Ilrtw #onaMv» erf* no

♦ navXg ♦aaw xloXrfw 4aaoii^0irtJ'«£tt te^tg tti bent^taov

aoaativfe a*:x •aotr^^iX^ert 'io Y>Xixrs aaw *i ;rArf^ worfa &oa

ao.ltB»itp rri cit.ex$ 9cit ^fidi ewoifa

«aba&r;lt%v li;.^^ i^ il^i. i.^k^qa ailtf lo v«jaoxe nt yX^jsass tiaaqa

!^0i ^%*^1 b -an a«w aTari* *J3rf^ tjKx;ol Y^^t •dT

o^rtaJbiv iiU^Bi/i. a««»; Jbiuj "soiib fit Tttttttmlq

,-$atob iva arfJ t«rf*, fc**xilijXo Bl *I ''^^c, 0 Y^s-iix-io lo aaloiCBXa ariJ aX bb* fcaaaaoel)

,*nafcloo« a- .li arf;t ;fjs »Y*al«8

-a-

There "ifaa no eys ■vltness to the accident^

Several ••Titneaaea testified thiit deoeaaed viiaa a sober man Of oareful habits. This evl lenoe has been held when taken

In oonneotion fiith the clrouKatanoes of the orxao to warrant the jury in finding leoeaeTl ^Tae in the exercise of ordinary c\re at the time of the accident, I, C»R,r,

V, Nowioki 148 111. 29; Follell va I.C.R.R. , 209 "111. App. 81; C.B.& Q. va -"-urderaon 174 111. 495; I.C.R.R, va Prlokett, BIO in. i40.

ft is finally inaiated th?t the vardiot ia contrary to the evidence in that it ia not ahown that plaintiff in error's ne^li^jenoe was the proxiiaate cauae of the accident. The

evidence showed that plaintiff in error was ne3;ll^ent in running its train at a hi»h rate of apeed in violation of the village ordinance. It ia evi iant that if deoeaaed

and the train of plaintiff in error were both in ruction the two would not have cor.e together at the particular tij'.e, at the particular place of the accident if it h- d not been for the exoeaalve speed of the train.

There wsa evidence tending to show that deceased .vas In

the exercise of ordinary care for hie own safety, and

evidence tendln;^ to show ne'^li^enoe of plaintiff in error

at the tlire of the acolient ard it waa a question of fact

for the jury to detern;ina froir, all the facts and oirour- stance a

in evidence vhether or not auoh na-;lif?;enoe 'vaa the proxlraat*

cause of the accllent and we r^re not dlapeoad to interfere

with their findin-r •J *

The judgment of the Circuit Court ia afflriiied.

-6-

^^ciftthcofi eiif o,^ saaa^lw eye on ajBr siozlT iXAa T8do« M sfiw Jb«ei!t«o«b i^arf^ Jbdlltl^ae} UBmsBaiXv Xjb7»v«8

^nATTiSW c«^ fl8«<o erfj^ \o foaeSeiauoil. o, 9tii dttn aoittenaoo nt Tlo d(Hio<X(»x» •f{;r nl «£w taajBSoeb ^iJbnllc ttt yiift o'^^

.1X1 eCE , .H.fT.O.I B^ i£9ll0%> (Ca^v ,ixi 8*-X- . l:ioiwol[ .v 8v .fr.HwT).! ;8C* ,XII'>*7X nosietru/T av .p A.Q.O tilS- 1 (jqjL-

.0*1 ,XII OXe ^tfAot-r^.

e*'io77© ftl t%l*ff2«Xq J>9rf^ frwofte Jorr ei Ji l•iJrfc^ jti •oneMve ©rf^

arif .drraMooa orftf to mttuao stfji^njtxottq. arlit «J3W eone^iX^aa

iatf^t£:^»n sjew toTis nti tll^aijiXQ *jarf* hsf-orfa aonefaiv*

X/»eBsoej IX ;tflff;f *nehiv« si ;tl ,9<MU3nXtio ayAXXXv »rf.^

arlj itoljoai tijt ri*Off eTaw aotie ni llXctnlisXq lo aljBi* ©ri* JbftJB

,%inid iJsXtroiifijjq arf* *« larf^fa^o* einoo evxrf ;fon fcXxfOw owt

n«a(f i^ff barf #i It fttaMooji arf^ to eo^Xq xaXooi^iJiq arf^^A

.rtlAtt vrfif to taeqa avXaeeoxa a •tX sjjir b9Be9o«b iaAi woifa ot ^alhneif aorrafcivj'

fcrtjB jif*»tj8ff fW3 alff 161 «T>;r' yijBCflriio "^.0 daiotax* ad*

icrrte nl Itl^n/fiXf td a©flfa?>jtX'«?ft.-T worfe o# j-alf^rra* aonafcXra

Jti^sc-c/p js «*»' ft IXTji ^rtatiootf arft to a.ii^ tdiiM

B6oftJ8>ir.^-«i/ofio ^^fr ^tofi'i *rfj XXJi ;tjO«it artit««a*at oi ^u\, erf J itot

•JjBini la'nlfpftn rfoi/» ^ofi lo i§/fJar(w aoaebXv* ai

staliaJnl oiy feo*iaXh *c f. toal Xoo* aril to aaixao

.gnifccrlt ri^Ai.^tlv .fcaaaitt* ai fitt.«iO lii/OTtO arft to ^naoisliift eriT

STATE OF ILLINOIS, ( _

SECOND DISTRICT. \ I, ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court.

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,

do hereby certify that the foreg^oing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court m

the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of

said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the

the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Clerk of the AppellaU Court.

6

■ \/ U 0 n o\y '

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the seventh (3ay of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nine- teen, within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois: /

Present--The Hon, JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.

Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Just/ce. ^

Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Ju/t i c^ JLi X»rl«OOy CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Glerk.

CURT S. AYERS, Sheri|%.

/ ./

/'

/

/

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on MAR 9 1920 ^^^ opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit:

No. 6713

B. vanfield, >

Appellant, )

va S Appeal frort Dekalb,

B, -^einman and M. Werner, V

oo-partnera, doing ■bualneaa under J

the firm naae of Weinman & Werner, )

Appellees, )

Opinion by HEARD, J,

This -vaq a auit by B. yanfield aj^ainat B. Weinman and U. Werner to recover damagaa on account of an alleged- breach of contract by the iefendante aa partnare for the delivery of tvro bunired tona of oaat aorap iron. The

plaintiff originally filed the corrr.on counts end apeoial counts counting on the contract, and later 8or;e additional oounta, to which a plea of the -^eneral iasue was filed and a apecial plea of the atatute of fraude. leauea being

joined, the oaee went to trial, and at the cloae of the evidence for the plaintiff the defen;ianta obtained leave for and filed a plea, which -.vaa called in the record a plea in abatement denying the partnerahip, irha plaintiff ex-

cepted to perritting the ao-oalled plea in abatement to be filed.

The trial proceeded and after the arp;ujrient8 to the jury had been entered upon the Plaintiff diarilaaed the auit aa to the defendant Werner and.-*4»*Jt trial proceeded againat the defendant Weinman alone, reaultin^^ in a verdict for the defendant, Motiona for new trial and in arreat of judgment were overruled, judgment rendered on

-1-

[

exva .oM

letru; BBeniex/cf jalob ^eaentruBq-oo

( .teeXIeqqA

.L,CrHA3HYcr nolniqO

-iejelX^ njQ lo *njuooo« no 8»7}«fiUBt: ifvoostt o* aen^eW .U

atlt lot •leni'xcq 6« 0^n/:ta»l«jb ^tf^' yd' ^ojsi^noo lo do^eid

orfT ,noii qijTcs ^aso lo 8fio;f beztaud o^i lo Y^s^-t-teJo

Xj?io»qB Jbrie Bif/ix/oo noacaoo ©•(* fcetfi^. ylXflnlsliio llltnljBXq

X*nol*JtI>bjj ©i-ioa rrs^fjeX bns ,*OAiJ^rtoo erf* no ^nlJnuoo etnuoo

baa b&£i'\ baw axyEBl laxenBT »^i lo j8©Xq £ rfoirfw o* ^a^nuco

S^lBrf eei/sel •afi/Bi'^ lo e;^l/J.L';Ja erf* lo eeiq Xiiioeqa «

erfJ lo seoXo erf* &n bnJi ^Xaii* o* *new eajso eri* ,Jbenlot

lot ev^eX ta/Tia*do aJnjsJbrtelef- erf* WlSnlMlq erf* toI eoneMv©

nX ^eXq « Jb'iooe:! erf* il jbsXX^o ssv rfoJtrfw «AeXq a JbeXil bas

111*ni«Xq eriip •qXrfa'xerc*7£q erf* ^nlxnaJb *n8i-ii«*a<fa

0* *n»,'ae*j»cfjB nl jeeXq JbeXXao-oe erf* anl**iinaeq o* Jb©*qeo

.JbeXil etf

©-f* o* «*a©.Tm7::ia erf* i©*1:« hnjs hebeeooiq IrAri ©i-'T

erf* fceeeliaBlJb llX*fiij8X^ erf* noqtr fc©i©*fi© need" bjBrf tiu(,

Lateeooiq XjbIi* Jt**#.hri/» tisnieW *nj8hfieleJb ©rf* o* an tlua

Ji ai snl*Xi/a©T ^eaoXJs iuamnte^ insbn^lBb erf* *B(Tijss<B

nl fcnjB Xjsin* wen rol Bnol*oif , *nj3i->nolet erf* lol *6iXi8V

ao bdiei^nei *ne!O5fc0t ^fceXxrxievo ©tbw *rterasbi/|, lo *8e:ri:j8

the vsrdiot and plaintiff appealed to this court.

The only aa3i»nraent of error ar?ijued by appellant In his brief is that the court erred in allowing the ao-calSed plea in abatement to be filed. The plea is as follovre:

"The above narm^d iefendant B, Weinman, by jamee M, Cliff e, hia attorney, oo/;.3s an I isfenie, etc., and says thp.t the plaintiff ou^ht not to have his said action a-ainst the above nam«id iefendanta as copartners because, he aays, that th« above named iefendanta were not in partnership at the tiae alle'TSd in plaintiff's declaration and thus defenidant denies that any partnership existed as all9o:ed in plaintiff's declaration at the tinie of the trarsactions conplainea of therein." It '/vaa subscribed and aworn to by the defendant

B, Weinjofian, It has nsithsr the be?;inning, nor the con-

clusion of a ilea in abatement and is, if anything, a plea in bar under Sec. 54 of the nractice act. Even if it were error (which we do not hold) to allow the filir.'' of this plea at that stage of the case the plaintiff could not possibly have been harmed "^v it aa he dismissed the svit as to the defendant Werner and upon the merits the jury found in favor of the defendant "Weinman, with whom psrsonally plaintiff testified the contract sued upon had been made. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed^

-3-

fcalCijjo-ofi trf^f gnlwoll^ nl bam© ^ii/oo »rf;t *£rftf %l leiid elrf

:«*o^ .38lqf ftrfT ,f)&IIl ecf o:^ ^rramBitJscr* al «tlq

,b. .. . ': 8©aiJ3T, yrf jnjuanlsW .5 *ajeJb0»lst i>»aten evocf« srfT"

•rf* Jflrf^ ©Y** briB \'9t9 ^•ta9't9t baa a©;«ioo ^\^iQtt& 3^

Bri& t»aljs-r£ aotioe tiaB aid »r«r{ oi ioa ^rfguo lll^xiljftiq

^ijrf* ^e^JiB erf ^teujcoecf ftieaiiRqoo ^ !-aivsn evod'js

e;f^ i& q.tcimiBatrsq al ton e^sw BinBtneteb beousfl evocfB erf;f

^n«Jbnd^eh uudi bas •noi-^jsi^Iosb a'lti^nlAlq nl b«^6llJB smi;t

• *lll^nXi^lq ni Jb»^eII.s ea ba^alxe qlrfaien^ijaq yrus ^£x{;t csinet)

In^hnslat a.. : niowa tof hecfiioscfua 6^>v ^l ",aldz&^i^

arf;f ion ^^nlimlsacf ad^ laif^Ian m'I ^'' .rxiuoaia^ ,€

«aXq « «5nlrl^Y"£ 11 ^e| Jbnj» ^aaiaa^jBcfja nl ^elq £ to aoiaulo

aiaw ;ti II nsvl ,*04S eol^oattn- arf^ Ip ^3 .oaS xabflij lad ni

eldi 10 ^nilit 9di wollis p# ^^tXorf *0« ot ar rfoiriv) loaia

;fon Mx/00 m^nl^Iq trf# aji«p,(^d^ lo a^^^a ;r«tf# }« jealq

tljv bd} tsaaineih ad aji ^1 .Y<^ i>atfrtA^ naecf av«il ^^''^criaaoq

bnuol "rxjji 9dS ailrsa 9dt aoqu ta^ zaaiaW iaj^a%"t9b oii fl^iff

XlI^noeift;i. jiorfr rf^iw ^a^ioml©'^ tf^Jabi|ale^ erfJ lo aovjsl nl

• atiin naacf i jsrf noqi/ hetre ;to*'r:t:ioo ai^^ b9i1lt49i lllJal-«iq

-C-

STATE OF ILLINOIS, ( ,

SECOND DISTRICT. l' ^'^^ I, ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court,

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof. do hereby certify that the fores:oing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Cl^rk of the Appell-aU Court.

6 ^ -- ^

■■'"K.^

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the seventh day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nine- teen, within and for the Second District of .the State of

/ Illinois: I

{ i

Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Pres iding^'Jus t ice .

Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice -^

Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Jus

;;;^i7i.A. 659^/

CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk '

CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff,

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on

MAD Q 1Q9n ^^^ opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit:

No, 6717.

Charles W, Pease, Admlnietrator of the Estate of barren W, Pease, Deceaaed,

Plaintiff in error,

▼•

Rookford City mraotlon Company and Rookford & Interurban Rail- way Company, corporations

Defendant in eooror.

Error to winne"be<;o.

Opinion "by H E A ?. D, J. On Deoembsr 31, 1914, barren *?♦ Pease began an action on the case against appellees for personal injuries received whlls in the er^loy of the defendants throu-^h their ne^ll- 5enoe, on July 31, 1914, On February 11, 1015, he died, and hia death having been su?^sented to the court his administrator -^as substituted as plaintiff, and, on leave given, the praoipe and suRimons were amended so as to show Charles T. Peaae, adalnistrator of the estate of iSFarren W. Pease, ieoeased, as plaintiff. An amended deoraration of four counts -ma filed 4n Tfa^y 10, 1915, each count alleging the aame negligence as was charged in the original deolai^ ation. The first and third counts charged that the deceased died from causes unknown to the plaintiff, the aecond and fourth that his death was the result of the injuries received. The second count, however, contained no allegation that the deceased left a widow or next of kin . surviving him, which the fourth oount did contain such an allegatlor*.

The filing of the fourth oount was an oripjinal effort

then first begun to prosecute a new and diatinot oausft of

-1-

.o-^ft<Sennl^ o* totiS

.Viva .oK

,W nentJBW lo eJ'/j**! erf* lo ^Jbee/jeoeC ^ee^se*! ^lOTie rrl Hl^nljoll •▼

snoi *i?aoq:coo ^YnjaqmoO

^H Y^ rroirrlqO

teviootti «axij:/(,/Ti Xjenoaieqiol •••XI«qq« J'«rr2«^j3 ea^o erf* ao

-IXjyen aX»r(* rfjuoa.'f;^ aJ-ri^fineldi" trfJ lo YOJ^q*'^® •d* ntl eXlrfw

»Leit »' ^-^XTi 4 XX irtjswrrcfaf nO .WfiX ,Xfi yXi/L ao ^•o^t•^

sid ;)-xuoo erf* orf JbeJeogT^i/e nescT ^aXvjwl rf^jsel) eirf tns

evfisX no ^Jbas .lli^nijaXq bjs fc©*i/*l*ecf«« ejaw Tco*jJi*eirtiJif)JB

v.'jrfB oJ sjB oa £)obneiae eiew anonL-ai/* tnjo eqioeaq erf* ,nevjt5

• W aeicxAW lo •^«^8t erf* 1o xotJUtS^latabs ,aejB8<I .r eeXi^rfO

lo nol*«iJ9ioe£> beJbneous ccA A'ilfatnlq 9M ^fceeeeoal) ,eei3e<I

SaiaeXXA *ni/oo rfoae »8Xex »0X y*V t* belli ajBir B*nuoo Ti/ol

-a^Xosi' ijenl-glro erf* nl be^tfirfo as*' sa eoneglXsen euuBe erf*

erf* *«rf* Le^f^jerfo t*^/©© tTirf* ba* *8iil erfT ,rtol*j5

erf* ^1JtSnlfilcl erf* o* ctwoaalni/ aeei/ao notl JbelJb bee^eoeJfc

• eXii;(,«l erf* lo *Xi««>i erf* ejiw rf*«eh eirf #arf* rf*i0ol Jbn* brrooee

on Jt)en2«*noo ^leveworf ,*ni/oo Jbrrooee erfT .tevleoei

. nl:* lo *xen lo wot<iw ja *leX tea/seoe; erf* *xrf* nol*BseXX«

touB rTlJ3*noo Mb tauoo Atruc\ %dt rfolrfw ^ailrf gnivlvix/a

.«[o/*£^eIXje n£ Jiollie XjnXfilto nil sjbw *niA>o rftfiuol erf* lo jjaXXil erfT \o «Bi;jBO *orti*Bll» fcrxB w^n n B*yoeaoaq o* m/secf *8ail rterf*

action. The dafenlanta -nralVad thalr ri-^ht to otLAtt, ohoae to appear and joined lasue. Further prooeedinga ware had in the circuit court, appeals taken to the Appellate and Supreme oourte (R04 App, 130; 379 111. B13) and after remandnient to the Circuit court the first three counts were dlsmiesed and the cause tried upon the forth count and upon conclusion of plaintiff's testimony the Court instructed the jury to find the defendant not gjuilty and judgment was rendered against the plaintiff, "yhe cause is brou'^ht to this court by writ of error.

Upon the trial of the cause "Plaintiff in error read in evidence the deposition of deceased taken in the eriginal case upon stipulation of the parties and it is claimed by defendants in error that this was error. The rule in this state is that when a witness in a former action has disl his testimony in the former action is admissible in a subsequent action when >>oth actions involve the same issue betv/een the same parties or their privies' L, C. Cb. vs Cereal Co. 351 111, l.?3; Uo Intaroff vs jr\a, Co, 348 111. 93.

Upon the trial the witness Withers who «as workinf^ with Pease at tjae time he received the alleired injury testified relative to what happened at that time and durinpj his exaroination in response to the- que at ion: "Did you see Warren Pease after that?" answered, •! seen him sitting on the platform, yea, sir; he said he ojot a jolt, a shook.* Defendants attorney moved toKstrike out the answer and the oourt said! "let it be stricken out what he oaid". This action of the court is alleged ae error. The

-2-

»jf-«XXeqqA trf.t o;t nsi^^ etijeqq^ ^Siuov itirvtlc •.'(4^ nl Jbjsrf

Jbfljs (£I<^ ,1X1 e7G ;0$X ,qqA *0S) witsjott •sn9't<mB~ tas

• Snuoc 9ttcli iexf^ eriJ- iruoo itutniO 9tii ot J^tminbCAia^'i ttils

icus Sttucc tl&raiiUMrt nwcpr heinf ©cuao 9iit tap tettiaielh aTew

Las ^tituTi ioa tajuLatlab/ %tit' hnt

• aoTia lo i^law yd iii/oo Bid* o^ tci^^uoicf el nl bs^r voTTt nt Wlfntell eojy^o arf* "iv Xjsltt* erf* iioqU

^(1 hesni^uf.: fjKfl eedt^Tcq at!'*' 1:o- itol*BXiiqi*8 ispQxr'acB.^O

nl oXiJt ariT .^oiia ajur- airfrf- J'orf*' Toitit cX fc*njBfcnaTta5

iol^or, xaoiTO^ « nX flta»n;flw «. iiefdr Jr^;^ 6i ai:s^«,«i(i^

J8 ni ml(SlB9tBit>£ el ttoli^OB Isartro^ arf# tit xttosait^At ntci ielb

tumhl 9«U3e erfit evXovflX •rrol'#©jj rftcxf na/Iw noiios ia9upBe<Sue

*£i .' ' i~ (:> I '.y I 1 iXerfrf »© »eirt«q a.Mi»«- trf#' naow^ad

■ 3l>€ .of) .•rrt «Wf I'ivx^tttt > . ^ Xxlfi .oO J[jb81oO bV

r(;rXw 7jaXj*ioif »^* b;' po/iJfXtf ftri;t XaXi* arft noqU

*■ i"^!*; t ynx/f^X bn-ptsx.ua ntit Jbri^Xaoai arf eni^ 9d.i tjs ae.»e1

airi -vnxiiifb fcxTja Byali ixti^ ta f;«xxeqqjad tjcrfw oJ btX,*«X'©'X

•ee jLKTtr bta* zttattBhup -9tl» oi oaaoc^99T. nt ftoifj»ainwf,9

Lto :gntSSiB «lff iiaaa I" «hoia*nafljJ «f*«rf* te^Va aa^al «ax»*W

*,^90xfa Ji <^Xo(; a Jo^ aif Jt>X4B« a.d (Xta «««y ^jno%^4i4 .«4i

ail/ i>nj9 -xavaas arfd- /i/o 9i.tTi9»ot X^avoa yam o;t;tje a/njabaa'taO

«*> 1)1 JKB art tody is/o naioli^v a<f^i ^eX" :XXjaa ;^:»^4]^

o^fT .iconia a£ X)asaXX£ «1 /-xx/oo arTi^ ^9> ri^i^^qr jXcCt

portion of the stricken out answer v/aa not responsive to the question aeked and was properly atrioken out,

The main question here presentel la the alleged error of the oourt in iireotirT a vardiot. A iriotlon to Inatruot the jury to find for the defendant la in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, and the rule is that the testimony 80 deroxrrer to, together with all reasonable inferences arising therefrom, rnuat be taken moat strongly in favor of the plaintiff. Gei»er va Geiger R47 111, 629; Lloyd va Rush, 373 111. 489; lioCune va ^eyaolda, 208 111, 188, ifhe question preaentei on such motion ia whether there is any evi ienoe fairly teriin^ to prove the leauee involved. MoCune vb rjeynolda, eupra; ""^eaa va veso, S55 111. 414, .psatad "by this rule when \7q consider the evidence of ieceaaed, his son, Withers and Dr. Zait ve find that there ia aoice evidence fairly tending to prove the issuea involved.

It ia true that Dr Zeit testified that in basing an opinion upon the cauae of a aarooma (the immediate cause of plaintiffs death) it was necessary to do some speculation, but he alao testified that he had observed and treated sarcomas every day for the past twenty yeare and that he had made a study of it both as to its cause and effect and that It his opinion was based upon his study,' experience and f j|perir:ents made by him,

fhe judcjment of th« Circuit court will be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

-3»

M iQ i^xitiMi mtii ni 9 1 .^fi^anX^b exld^ xal Jball p4' ,'%xii|, *.i.^

eeon»ue^n^ dXcfjuion^ax XXj» tii^lw xd;{;fe30J ,o^ xeiiiiiaet oa

iSSa .i,il V>r. te'^lBD av TagJaO ,T:lX^nlj»Xqi^4^

• lil 68S »Bi)Xo«xaq> av. aawOoM jise* .X4I £V$ ^rfa^iff ay Jt)YoXJ

-x^ri^«f[w ei noitOio, dan ao beiit9s»'^q :aolH9J^ ^^T, .' •SSX

aausai. 8r((t avoiq oi ^albrta;! YX<xi«l aoaatiTa ^ajs aX axarU

,«9aY B7 »»tT iJStqiLAe ^ehXcnya^? av atu/OoU ^fcavXovni

aoaai'lva jitdt TeJb^ertqo aw narfw aXin »Xdt ^d lxaitfr«>n. .^^X^ .XXI

9xarf^ ^i3rl4^ j^n^l a?' ^ia!! .id tflja aiexl^XW Yaoa.,#i4 ^^Jbea-aaoai:^ lo

•tevXovaX aajjaai acl;^ avoiq o;^ saiJbne^ ^XiX^l aonaJbXra aiaoa ai

t6^fi(eq:9ijiilfaBi\Z 94^) JsatOQi^fia « lo aax/^o axl^ aoqa aplfxXqo

^noI^jsXxn^aqa aoio^ aJ!> c) Yi^eassan 8«w Si (di^^t ^t^iialJUlil^Xo

B&!X)X)ot£6 b9lt-&bxi taA bavieacfo b^ acf tmAi fei'^liee;f oeX« erl ifj^/rf

Yi>a^a £ »t«a l:«jd ad ^Jiui^ has atJ^ft^ Y^^*^^ ^^-^^ axU xo) Y^efe Y^eva

noiqX:j<o al.i tt tadi bitji cToaf^a truu aajMO acTl 0;^ a^ dio6 ii to

^d tbi'.tfi 9in9:ntt& .i%^ tnn oonaixaqxa *^\;£>i/;^a all ooqxi b^9ad aJiir

X .; baatevex f4 iXXw ;tii(oo iiiiotiO ai^ "io ^aamsL^I, bu't

• XAii;^ Kan ^^ jo'i it9tiC(^M% 99iMO ¥di

-C-

STATE OF ILLINOIS, I

SECOND DISTRICT. ( '"'• I, ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court,

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof. do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

6

H^6

K^

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the seventh day of .October,

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred i«hd nine-

/

teen, within and for the Second District of the i^tate of

/

Illinois: /

/

Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding J^'^stiee. Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice \ Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, JusticjfW X i X»A» V> O ^

i

\

CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Cler/.

/ CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff,

^

/

/ BE IT REMEMBERED, that gtfterwards, to-wit: on

MAR ^ 1920 ^^® opin-ion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit:

No. 672 1.

P«ople of the State of lilinola, ) Ex. Pel. A. J, Piatt, )

Appellee

ve Appeal from Whiteside

The City Counoil of the City )

) )

of Sterling and Frank Htffla - Weekfl,

Appellant*, )

bower and W, A, Weeka, ^

Opinion by H F A R D, J. Addison J. Piatt, liayor of the City of Sterling, filed in the circuit Court of Whiteside county a petition for mandaiGus in the name of the People af^ainat the City of Sterling and Frank Heflebower and '^. A. Weeks, doing buaineaa ae the Weaka Cola Company, alleging among other things "that it ia by la* the duty of the i;ayor and oommiaaionera oonatltytinp; the city council of the City of Sterling to keep the atreeta and avenues of aaid city Cv free from all obstructiona; that they have the power to do ao and it is their duty to exercise said power for the public benefit* • * * that contiguous to the vieat line of Firet Avenue and alao oontiguoua to and north of the northerly line of Wallace street is a 8P>all triangular piece of ground upon which exiata a small building uaed for an office by the Weeka Coal Company; * • that Feflebower and Weeke proceeded to erect an addition to aald building and enlarge the aane so that it now extends

-1-

.X sva .oH

•elXeqqA

^Bi>l«»*Jtrf^ ffloit I«9qqi my

( Y*10 erf;f "io iloauoO xtlO air

( (

( ,«*n«IIeqqA

«Bi«eW .A .W btts tewa<f

.L ^a H A 3 H YcT a o i n i q 0

101 noiitiaq js ^inuoo ahiaatid^ io iruo'O J2x/oi2o erf* rxl

lio ^ttO Bdi ;fBftJtJ8j?Ji BxqoB«I adi lo Bauin erf* nl aunMbaMm

^aloh ^BiaeW .A .W bciM lewocfellBH in^BrfT trta 8nZXi©*3

ierf*o "gaoms ^al'gailm «yrtaq;aoO jsXoO eiee^ adt as eeexxieucr

brra Toyaxf erf* lo y^^wb orfJ^ waX yrf bI *i *^rf*" agnJtrfjf

y*10 erf* lo Xlonuoo Y*io erf* 7!fti*y*l*Bnoo BteftoieBianoo

trt Y*io Jbjtji* lo aeuaevjs hae s^aet^B erf* qaai o* gnXXieJB lo

o* lawoq arf* evjirf yarf* ipAi iaaoiiOifxiBcSo XX« motl aail

arf* lol lewoq biae aeiotaxa o* ^tub rladf aX St bna oa ob

aaii *aaw arf* o* BjjojLfsi*noo *£rf* • * • •JllanacT oXXcfx/q

arf* lo rf*ion i»rt« o* airojujii-aoo oaXa btut auaavk iait'i lo

I'iLis^njiltt XXiBflia iQ el *aaa*a ao«XX«v lo aniX yXierf^ion

taajj ^atbltud ilsma jb ttiatxa rfolrfw noqir bnuof^ lo aoeiq

*/jrf* • • i^rtaqmoO X*oO BiaaF erf* yd aoillo na lOl

.)* ciolilbbA aa *oeie o* hefcaaootq aiaaW bne tawocfaXleH

abaaixa wort *i *«rf* os Biuaa erf* esiaXna ba* ^^cilbLiisd blsa

-X-

in and ex lata In aaid Flret avanue at the aoutheaet corner

of aald etruotura to the llstance of seven and forty-five hundredthe faet and the northeaet corner of aald building extends into First avenue to a diatance of four and nine hundredtha feet • • • and the Uayor and Coiranieeionere of the City of Sterling then and there nof^leotad and refuaed and at all timee alnoe have neglected and refuaed and now do atill negleot and rafuae to perforin their legal and atatutory duty to remove aald obatruotlon frotti said Fir at avenue in the City of Sterling and tbe aald Frank pefletoower and «. A. Weeka doing buaineBB aa The Weeke Coal Company have neglected and refuaed to remove mu^h obatruotlon to said Firat Avenue and now do neglect and refuae to remove aaid obstruction fron; aald First Avenue. *

The prayer of the petition la that the writ of mandamua be ordered by this Honorable Court directed to the aaid Frank ^eflebower and W. A, Weeke doing buaineaa under the name of ^eeka Coal Company and to the City Council of the City of Sterling, ooneiatlng at present of Addiaon J, Piatt, Mayor, jamea P, Overholdar, Royoe A, Kidder, Theodore fprought and John C, Meieter, Comitiaalonera of the City of Sterling, coiLoanding them forthwith to proceed to remove that portion of aaid building or atructure erected by aaid Frank reflebower and 'V. A, T'eeka under the naii.e of the wgeke Coal Company axtittaii entirely from and off that portion of the public atreet called First Avenue in the City of Sterling in the County of Whiteside and State of Illinois, where the aame now exists upon said Avenue,

-3-

•rl'\'*xiio\ has rxavae lo. •^tu^$lt> ^At oi BruiQin^B blAB lo

•aia bits ruo\ \o oon£f»tb jn ot BxxnavjB t^nl"^ oiat abnefxa •lonoiaeloMeO bam ioVjbM •tfit baji * * * fo\ BciibetbttuA

Jbaajjltsi bna £i»^oeX$an avjerf »«(Tt« i0(«!l;;^ XX4 ^« Jbite baex/^e^

X.aS<»^ Ylarf^ rmoltiaq o^ tfn/lAi DniS tO0LTS&a Lllia ol> won £>7ii}

tljia noit nottointado Maa avpwBi o^ Y^fJuh y^o*J^*-8«^« fca«

ifl^^T Jbijts ndi bBM sniXio^B lo yi^lO 9tit ctl aunavA ^aaiT

aiaar; srfT a£ a«e/icf ax/cT ^niob aia^lT •& »'ih i>flja aawocraX^a^

.>ii)k avoaa-x o;f Jbaajj'iart bn^a i^a^oaX^Mc avwaif YAcuioxot) X£oO

hcuK ^OttXfan Ob ifoa bnn axniavA iTtHf blJtB ot aolioirtt&^o

* .9ona%'A ;^*•xl'^ blse mor\ aol^ouxtscfQ bljoei ©voiaart q* ,iiei/lai

lo ^Xtw erf^ ;f^f(^ al ooi^i^aq ed;^ 1a :ca^;«iq axlT

oo X;6;roeTiJb ;rxuoO .aXd«zpxtoH aX({^ YC^ J^^^o^io p<S uimBbaAJi

eaanXci/d gaXot a;{aaW .A.W baA MTrocfaXla^ iaexT tljia, a/i^

Y^iO af((r ot baAr%a»qmoO XaoO aitalf. lo anaix ad;r Tftrw

10 ;raaaai4 M snl^aiaaoo ^gnXXaa^tS lo y<'->^^ ^^i to XioniroO

.A apYQfi ^labXoffievC .'T aetnjitr ,50Y«i^ ^iiJil'^ .L noaiJbJbA

aiaaoiaalJuooO ^-xa^aXaU .0 orioL iba« td^jjoxm. tiotPbAT ,iatJbX?I

. (Ojr fj^iwriiaol aiarl^r giiljbaaai^aoo ^sniXiai^ Xq ,X*iO j^J lo

TO ^iJbXXxA:r U«a Ip ooitfioq^ i^rf^ arOAax oS baaoo-xq

aiaaV^,A «ii^ iMi4 aawodaXlatj ixuai'V Jbijsa x^ Jba^oaaa aiv;fQxrci:.«

YX»ii^aa k€itttKm ^asq^ioO IaqO aiaaW 9tii lo a.a«a a;!^ latnu

i:>»XXjBo ;faai^a ^Xduq hdi to xzol^Toq ^jsxfif.lto bcm A}Oit

to Y^itfoO arf* Ai jjnlXxaJS to x'-^^ ft* a-t auapvA. iaaXt

a^aixa woa axtuaa a.1^ axadw «aXoaiXXI to •tMiB Jboe aUbta^^lxlW

^aunarA btsm noqu

-•«-

Yr&iltiho,iet ani '^eeka and the CoKirleaionere each filed their anawera to the petition and relator demurred to the

anejfer and apeolfloally to certain portlona of the anawer. On F.ay 14, 1919, the following was entered of record by the Court: "On thla day come the partlea hereto by their respective attorney a aa heretofore and the deniur* rer to certain parte of the two anawera dealgnated in deciurrera, heretofore heard and taken under advlaeaent, la now after due deliberation by the Court suatalned, to which ruling of the Court the defendant a except, whereupon the plaintiff files herein hie replioationa and the dsfendanta elect to wake no anawer or reply to the replioationa and auch replioationa are therefore taken and conaldered as admitted by the defendant*. Therefore it ia ordered by the Court that the reapondente Frank Heflebower and W, A. Weeka dAAng buaineaa under the naae of Weeks Coal Coapany be and they are hereby ouated, from the prertlaaa deaoribed in the petition, and that the petitioner do have and recover of and from the defendant e hie coat a and charges in thia behalf expended and have execution there- for, and writ of ouater ia hereby awarded," Fronr. this purported judgruent the defendants jointly appeal and although there ia no pretense of judgcient againat the City or City Council, the City Council of Sterling haa filed ita "brief in thla Court, In the order of May 14, 1919, there ia a recital of the filing of replloatione by "Plaintiff" after the suatainlng of the demurrtr, but the record filed in thla court doee not contain any

-3-

•dif^04^b*%ztin9t> ioiTjsXst Lns (ioi^lt»<i ^r(/ of •lowaaa r^^dt

Siit lo anoi^xoq AiA^tsto o^ YllAollioaq* i)n«, x«wan<s

lo iidiaJna e^w saiwoXXol Axf^ ^eX€X ^^^^l, X0'^ ^'^ .TewEaf

oi^eiari atX^iati aAi 9«too .yAb aXd^ ixO* :^UjoD exl.^ xd jtiiooea

Bi ^;ta»<a*6ivl>£ i«i}/ux a%±Bi btui biM^A hiQ\oitfd ^%'iBiiu.v.t.i

dQtd^ oi ^bealAiBUB ix^oO »dt ^cf aoiiMiBrflipti ax/I) 18^1« wqa

•di aoquBTBdf^ ^iqnoxo a^n.«b/t»)oJb ar(^ iiuoO Bd^t \o ^nlitjr,

• iaabaBXBt *di bas BaoXiMoHqBi Bid aiBitd aaXll m^nijsi ;

boM uaolisoilqpt Bdt ot ^Xqatt lo xawaoa on aiJM ot tOBlB^.

«« l>»iati««u>9 lioA aBiUi BXOlniBJit bi« Mtiotij^oXlfViX dcue

btHiBbto ftJt ;rx axo^axarfT .aj^a^ai^nalat a^^ \d bBttti^J^

tciA ia«70cfaXlaH in«T^ Bin^bno^Bttt Bdi tJ^di ^T^tfo^ i^dt ycf

X«oO aiaaW to asjuf axfit- xBbau aaaalajjcf goAAl) siaaW .A ."f^

aaaidiaiq arf> «oxl (b^cfaifo ydaxft;! a^B ifBdi bajs acf \!:a4q.^o3 '

avjBjrf Ob faoitIii»q Bdt imdt b^A ^aoltiiBq, Bdi rU, JbacfiioaaJb

bnm a^aoo tid b iOBbnBlBb Bdi morl ba* lo t»YOo»i i>fljs

•^ZBdi aotSaoBTCB avj<r[ bna f)»£naqxa tl^Bd BtiLi at\.BB-^xsdo

Bidt •not'K **»j>»l-ii«au8 ^aTarl vi xaiaijo Tio Slin baa ^XDl

.i« X<iseq>4i^ ^liaiol B'tambaB'^Bb Bd) taBiKsbal JbaJtioqxi/q

XilO BdS fufiiJt^ #aai'istut to »0aa;rasq ou bX atcadJ- dsi/odiXa

ati bBlXl *Md gnlXxa^P to Xiom/oO ^^10 adi .XZoauoO ^jTIO xc

'.CXei »♦! y«M 10 xsbao Bdt ; ,iTuoO Bidi nX laXxcf

>f<^ anolt«oilqar "io "pttXltl e»ilJ lo XtJloat jb «1 eiad#

d-utf ^ttxiifmefc e.fJ to ^«iaJt«Ja0e ad;* xailA "WiiaXsil^*

^flUk irJ:«;}rtoD J-on aaot ixsjoo Bidt nt t*Xi) jbiooai bdi

replloationa on that date. On May 9th, 1919, and prior to the ruling upon the deinurrere relator filed what he oalla pleaa to the parte of the answer to whloh the denurrar was not epeclflcally directed*

There are many thinge oontainsd in the petition for mandamus whioh are unimportant and aleo many unimportant allegations of the answer being the portions to whloh the oourt sustained the derairrer. The matters in the answer to which denairrers were not sustained and to whioh relator filed his so called pleas were simply denials of allegations of the petition. Defendants in their answer aay: "The defendants deny that said Frank Hwflebower and W. A. WeekSj proceeded tu erect the addition to said builds ing and enlarge the same so that it now extends in and exists in said First Avenue to the distance of seven and forty- five one-hundredths feet at one place and the distance of four and nine one-hundredths feet at another place*

These defendante deny that the land upon which said building or and part of the same stands, is a public Street,* whioh is a direct denial of allegations of the petition above quoted* The so-called pleas repeated these statements and say that relator will prove the allegations of the petition.

Undoubtedly this pleadin^;^ was lari^ely informal, but when petitioner alletred that the building was in a public street (a very material allef?jation) and defendants answered denying that it was in the public street and relator reiterated his allegation and said he would prove it was in the public street it would seem as if ar iesue of fact had been formed without the neoessity of any foutter pleading.

-4-

-5x

tolrq ^ae (6X91 ^dtQ YjsM iiO ,9tMt tMdtttO •floHf^olIq*?

aAt iloidw o^ «9iH>«JB •di 10 BtiJtq, Bdt ot e«»Xq •XI«o •lia^oeail: tXI«ojt)io»40 ton asm TbxrmiBb

ia-aiTOqsiiau XfiMOi oaLc bas iajsiioqtutctu •ijs tfoidm MuroMtnaoi aotitoq, Hsii sniecf Ttweaj* •'?* lo ecoiJjBseXXjB

>ln»i \'Xqifil« eietr ej3»-Xc{ iseXXiso o« eirf LoXil ii^aXon

^8i(rsii» vLi^di it Biajul'ifJ^C .noiJ'i**^ edJ lo »noi^jB<p«XXfi

tflA x»vrocf«X1wH afrt^il fcl«« ^jjdtf y^neb eJoB^rretet »dT" :\«b

-tillj6 hi.*a oi aolitbb* 9di toeio oi h^fbooici ,0i»e*r .A .^

• ^•Xx« l>rui ai 8Jb^9;^XB uroxx cTi ^.3d;r ot •t«A« erftf •stc-eXxxv Lob sni

•^crxot has aeves lo aarts^tslh Bdi o9 aunevA ^atil bi^B at

Tio •Qiieimlb 9di btiJt aojtxq ano ^jq ;raal arfftaiinrnf-ano ari^

• •o«Xq Tari^fOfUB ^a ^aat •d&tefrbnud-^ao •nla bns ix/ol

i^ijw Aoitiw ao^u bnsl %ds iadi ^a^h a^mWL/nalal; a&arfT

*^^aa%t ,ai/Aaoa a.uaa a/f} to rraq frT« lo ^albllu^

nyfOdM nwx»i:a.«4 a.ij lo aaotiJUfimiiA lo X.airrai tfoailt s •! 'AfftdM

baji min9«»^At» Mmmdt t>ajr«aqa% aAaXv^ JbaXXJBO-o« affT .taloirp

adiT lo anoi^j5;gaXX« tii avoitq XXiw roisLvr tJidt xsb

-^ixc oin^ yXapxjiX ajfir jsnitJBbX-i eirij xlttfcSuobaU

otiOuQ. ,c 0l a«w ftttbiiucS 0ds tMdt b0.^%Jils rhtsoltti9<i aarfw

«#aalb«»t»t ta« (ooi^apaXXji X«lMit«a t^ev «} ftfti^B

ha« t*axfa olXcfuq arlr n^ bjiw ti ^si(^ ;|iiXtnat taiawbn«

avo^c^ tXjtioa atf tlju baa nol^«^aXXjB aii^ JbatJixaliBi: TO^AXea

ax/BBl n4 11 a« naaa tXuow ^l ^aai^a oiXcfx/q ad^ ai bjsw ^i

Tcadtw ' — - ^r •TlBa90tr -'** ^undti^ •■ ~ ~ .tearf barf tojal lo

.SaXbfiaXq JPx" -I-

Upon theae two queationa whether the building waa In & public street and whether the land upon whloh it etood was a part of a public atreet direct iasuea of fact were formed by the pleadings and not diapoeed of at the tix&e of the entry of the order of May 14, 1919,

It has been frequently held that it ia error to render judgment without a trial when ieaue has been ;)oined »

The order of May 14, 1919, does not follow the prayer of the petition and oontaina none of the requieitaa of a Judgment in mandamus. Appellant clalmt that where there are several defendants judgment cannot be rendered against part without disposing of the case of the others. As the case must be reversed and this question will probably not again arise we have refrained fron. dlsousslnT it^

_he cause will be revereed and remanded.

-5-

tooia it doldm aoqu Jba*X 9di itrfJerfw ta* tfati** olltfjjq ^; 10*1 lo eeutei loaTil> *a»t^e ojtXcfuq a lo ^r«q s «jbv.

9.t* *jj to t&Moquib toa ba* •soUxeXq ad* ytf £eiiTot tTew . I .: ,>X ^«M lo lAbYO adir lo "^xtff •At lo eiai;f OiT loaxtt ai *1 ;^Arf* bXfcd tX*iT»0p»TTt rr»«d aail *I xxtei «j3tf •iffllX AA^V' X«i7;f « Ixradtlw ia9aiibul x^bcr^r

«xU \o anon aaijilnoo Jbn« aoi^TXlsq 9tii lo la^jsT;;

»«i*?AC> jaaXXaqqA ^MipuMbaaai ni ,*nta^x/t a lo Bei-XeXx/peTt

;foan^ ^fitamatwi, utfajafcnalaJb X«iev9« »i,8 aaeriJ atedw ^farfcf:

lo nmsg ndi lo •^al^oqmlb inodii^ tXM<i *»nX«gj» btrBbaet aoT

• JUU &a« teatavai e<^ laim aa-ao ad^ mk •atcadle adl

L»ni«ilai av*ri ©w eaXs« nXjBja jTort ifXcfjccfoaq XXXw «toX*8©i/.r

^ti ^aXaax/oaXt moil

,i>ebfljsfliai bas. tea^aval acf XXlw aaiiip^

-5-

STATE OF ILLINOIS, I

SECOND DISTRICT. ( '''^' I, ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court,

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof.

do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Ajipellate Court in

the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Clerk of the Appelkite Court.

61^24

^ / ^

\ AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the seventh day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nine- teen, witjiin and for the Second District of/the State of Illinois : /

Present--The Hon. JOHN M, NIEHAUS, Presidij^ Justice. Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justi/e. Hon.\ DORRANCE DIBELL, CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY. CURT 4 AYERS, Sheriff!

\

— \

\

\ BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on

..r^ A "1920 the opinion of the Court was filed in

the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures

following, to-wit:

,, Jus/lceg -1 ly -^

Appeal froic renry,

No. 6734. Emma L. Brown,

Appellee,

Farmere State Bank / of Alpha, Appellant, )

Opinion by H E A R D, J,

Emraa L, Brown, appellee, filed her bill in ohanoery

in the Circuit Court of Henry County aniainat the Farmer*

State Bank of Alpha, appellant, to aet aside certain aeeignmenta

of leased executed by her tb the appellants for the rental

of certain lands in Cass County, Iowa*

Appellee claime aa the basis of her right to relief

that the aeuignDiehts were obtained by the appellant through

intimidation, coercion and nierepreeentatlons« The

appellant answered denying the charges in the bill.

The matter was referred to the Master in Chancery to take

proofs and report his findings. Proofs were taken before the

Master and on final hearing of exceptions to his report a

decree was entered finding aaon^^ other thlnfje, that about

Septentiber r!4th, 1914, oonplainant was indue «d to sign a

purported assignment of all her rli^ht, title and interest to

the three leases and the rents arisinp; froir> the landa, until

such tlrr^e as all indebtedness of her husband, contracted

prior to September 21et, 1914, should be paid: and that

at the time this purported assignment was made, the

defendant knew Mrs. Brown had no right to assign any of the

-1-

.*sva .oH

. (fnfOTS .J jBoal

( «e«XX»qqA ( ,YT«e^ aonl Ii»eqqA f . •▼

( .^nijXIeqqA ^jBrfqlA lo

.L ,a H A 3 H Yrf ii o i n 1 q 0 vtftii.iiirfo .1 ;r?ff TftK f.«xi^ jeeXXeqqa ^awonfi .J murS ftie iiiri. ^>1J j^aiTX^j;^ "^iasJoO yacneH lo ^TTyoO tfliroilO erf* ai

Ij5i f*7'. Bi-rj •ro'^ HSnfix iti..;j» ^di (jj isrf Y<^ l)©*uoex» e6t£»X lo

* «\:;fnjjoO aa^O nX «i>n«X nl*oi'*^ To

l»iX»i o^ trfgXi larl lo aiafcf arf^ b£ aiojtjsXo aaXXaq.^..

A-^uoiAi ^n«XXaqq« add* ^cT £»enX«^tfo a^ew a^ctamnsiasA •Ai tsAi

orfT •anol^a^naaaTqaiaitn Jbn« noiotaoo ^floi^atXaii^al

• XXicf axf^ nt easi«do ad;f grxX^faal) tanawaaa ^a«XXaqq«

•i£^ o^ ^laonaxfO nl iBiBBU 9di oi taiiale-z e£w lo^^jsm ailT

ad* eio^tad neisi aiaw alooi*I .agnlJbnil aX.-f Jaoqai tn* alooaq

« ^loqai airf ot aaoi^qaoxa lo s^l:t£ar{ isaXI no true la^aJsM

iifO(i* ifiAi ^»i>atdi ladito pnoia« sftl!:ni) beia;tna a«-A' aetoat

« n^la oi t90utai a«w *xtftni£Xqiiou ^^X€X ^AtK> lacfiia^qaS

oi inuiBtnl bns 9iili ^tAy.tr r^A LLm \o ^/xamnslaa* be^ioqiwq

ilinii ^%htiAi ^Ai moi'^ ^aXaXiA a^nai ad^ has aeaJsaX aaarf* %At

bfbiQjniaoo ^bnadmsjA lad \o aaartbe^cfaLnl XXji ajs a.nl* Aou%

tnAi tnji :Jbl«q acf hXvorfa ,*X€X «^aXf^ iadaa;tqa8 o* loXiiq

iiAi ,al3«fli 8«w ^naauisiaa^ ba^ioqijjq aid* •ml* ad* *«

ad* lo Yn« fl3la«4i o* iA-^ti on Jbad owoi? ,%iM wani *atttnalat

-X-

rant* froDi ona-h&lf of said l&nd*

Tha deorea further finda that at the tlma th«

aaalgniiient, latad September P4th, 1914, '*aa axaoutad, the defanlant thraatanad to brlrg ault againat complainant if aha did not algn it; that aha did not know of any notes to the defendant algnad by her huaband, except the $1,000 note dated Auguat let, 1913, and dii not underatand tha taraa of said aaalgnTiant, and believed ahe waa alining her intareat to secure the payaent of that note; that aha had little buaineae experience and felt ahe waa obliged to pay her huedand'a iebta, and received that iiTipreaaion froa tha "off ic era of tha defendant who did not make a oonipleta diaoloeure to hsr of all of the facta Involved in the tranaactlon, or show her any of the laaeea or o.ny of the notea; that the equitiea of the caae are with tha complain- ant and that ahe ia entitled to tha relief aou'^ht, and fxoiu thia decree appellant appaala.

Thd preponderance of the evidence ahowa that tha aaaigniQant in queation was not procured by int in.! elation or duraaa and that tha only threat itade wae to bring ault on her humbanda* indebtednaaa to the bank, for whioh aha waa eeourity.

The appellea heraelf teetlfied, "Mr. Johneon, aaid, I have a paper here that I want $rou to read and Mr. Linn aaid read it over carefully, and I aaid I wouldn't underatand it anyway ♦ * and I didn't read it over carefully" , "I raad the paper over part of it and I told hioi I only received half of tha rent, that it was an eatate and my aiatar ^o* half of the rent.*

-8-

oi apioa yr ' -oni ton tib •rf« t^di jjfl rrjiJ* J-on tit erfa M 000 ^X: .,..• jqeoxs \bnncl%utt lerf y:cf tja/Tglt' triJBbndl^fc •rf* trf;f i)nA;r6ii8tnij ;ron tif bnJB «ei9I «#«! #ti/^uA totAb %ion

•i{e ;f^ff;t i»;ron Ifjsrft lb SnttsixJiq trf^ eii/o»a o^ ^aaTaitnl r^d

X*i^. ot b*;itido %AV arfa tl9\ hHJs aoffaiieqxa aesatei/rf eX^tlX bsd

^ ■ ^olaaaKiaX #jart^ Jb«Ti»o»t brm ,a#<fftt 8>tA4i^tfc( lad

„„^^^itoo M 9Hmv ton btb 6sim inBba9\9b tdt lo atcaoilto'

? * nl i>«vXovnl mtojfi. •-*♦ "^-^ CI^ lo larf o;>^ sTxjtdloalfc

-.. .^ i(fxr iQ aasjeaX acf.t \c . . s.'f woifa td ^noitoaertJOT^

'^ijiX^ifloo f>{(t ilsriw stjs «aj)o arf^ lo aai^ixrp* aif;^ ^■Bt{:^ ;ea;ron

i^t't bflij ^a^if- f.rns "ValXatt arft '^+ ^Ar.tiitne ei ©rfa fJiiii ba^ taJi

.uiXJWqqa *nj3XItqq« »»T06£

sl.t j-arfrf awoxfa a»rt»*Jtvo arf.-t lo aorr^isftnoqetq «ffT

ao^;ti3l;I.si;tni ^cf bn^aoortq, ton saw aol&99up nt ttt9ia£VgXBe£

tiij9 gnlicf o^ te.a// eb*in Joaaxrf;^ yXffO arf* ;f«rf* t'na aaaitrib no

ttiU rfoiif* :co'i , Aa.«cf Bf^.t o;^ OBBrrbf-^trfafri; *fc£)nj8<f«i;rf red ao

,^(&tlii096 sJ5*r ^Jbijjja ^noaarfoL .-xM" »l)©iti*S6* lX%«nerf aeXXaqqjj eriT

.xM tnjB l)>aai oj ijo< ttiMn/ I ^*rf^ aic^rf "sreqjoq « ©varf I

i^'aJblt/ow I bl«t I bOB .yXItAa-'-iu travo *J- bj&an fciAc ftrtlj

zfeTo ti bJM% I'rtblf J ^jBvyfTjD ;fi t-ctMiBtbtnif

LLoi I fca« d-1 lo |iaq i»vo isviftq •rf^ fc«i>i I'' i ■YXXi/latxso

9;)'j3;tea na flJBv^ ti l4ifif ^trra? ad# )o tX«rf AatXaoat t^n^ I mid

".tna^ arf* Tto lX«d #of T»#ala t« *«*

Vere Brown, daughter of appellM, who wae present

at the tirce the paper wa» signed, testified that her

mother* read the first part of the paper and she said ahe had no rl^ht to olgn a-^ay the other half of the rent, it didn*t balong to her" and on cross exaalnation ahe aaid Mr, Johnson gave appellee the paper to read and that she knew appellee read soir.e of it.

Appellee knew at the time the paper was presented to her that it was an asalgnraent of all the rents and the only objection aha made to signing -^as that half the rent belonged to her aister The terws of the asalgnaent were plain. A:;pellee waa advised to read it over carefully and had ac.ple opportunity to do so if aho so ieaired. The assignitent waa for a sufficient consideration and ahe oannot now repudiate it.

We are of the opinion that the decree of the Cirouit Court should be reversed and the cause rejiuanded to the cirouit Court, with directions to the ciroui^ court to sts-te an account between the parties showing whloh portion of the ronts oolleot— ed by virtue of the aaaignrtent belong tc appellee and to decree that such portion of the rente be applied to the payment of the debts for v/hlch the rents were pledged to appellant by the aaslgntusnt of Septer;ber 34, 1914.

Revftrsed and Remanded with directions.

-3-

X9d tndt h§l\ti»ti ^hinx^iB s^-w ieq«ct 9tit •adt •At ie

Ji jiffT8:t •r{# lo iXjwi itrf^o trf* yj3Wj3 njle o;f WjlT on fcjwl

l>i£ft ftrfa aoltJiataMX% •«o-xo no bn« *T»ff o^ :^nOit<S t^tsttb

weni siia tjulf ba* bx sqjsq •i{;t ttiXXsqqji ovjij aoarriol. .-xM

.#1 Id eoioa ^e»n •»XX6qq«

; ajBW T»q«q td^ tml^'ftifl #s k^Ajf iiXX#<[qA

137 s/lcr XX« Id ;faftflinslB6ilt ii« tiiw' fi ijid^ tid

tttfix %d} \ljui iMAt a«w ;gxi.. 1 •X>«ai eifa ttolttBl60 ^Xno

-ii».imj.i6e« ©rf* li t r; la^ala tarf 0^ fcajnOIacf

'ii-^o il j-,i36T o« b9aivl)jB a^w'aaXXaq.A .ni^l... e^^v-

'/•lny^:coq;;iO aXqjUB tjui bOA t^-^^'^^'^-fiO

flc .aioltli/a jl. .la^asle fc^'

• 7jL a^«li)x/q8'X won SontiMO tffa Jbii«

^ix/oO iluo^i^ mdi lo aaioai) ar{^ ^^rf^ aolnlqo' %di lo e^xd bT

^iiuoO ilisoxio •di ot btbaMoni aaMio '%■ o>^a

tau<. Tx/oo jftuorio 9dt oi %nolto9ziL> dii'H

•^oaXXoo a,tU9i mdi to noi^-xoq doldw jniwoxfa aal^i«q arfi^ rraaWj'ad

0^ Jbnj) aaXi ' S^oXacf ;taamn3iea« arf^f \o 9atrl

ailJ o;t iuaiXqq* ftcT •ta*'t wdt lo no2d-ioq dtom fMdt aeaoaii

o* i nei 9dS doldir 7o1 8;^rfafc tneji^-aq

,#xv^x »i''u lacfnaitqa'' iuinsiae.-. ;^nAXIaqq«

..V-' iTa.- tjf: 91 "'Vfsr.

-c-

STATE OF ILLINOIS, |

SECOND DISTRICT. ( ''''" I. ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court,

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foreg:oing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

CUrk of the Appellate Court.

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the seventh day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nine- teen, within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois: „-- — ■

Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.

Hon. DUANE J. CARNES , Justice. / ^t-?^ -

Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice. \. C^ . ^^'^

\ '<^

CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk .^^ ^ \ ^ ^<^

2 1 7\T 4 f*

CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff. ^' ^ *'^» %J

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on ^'lAR y «*^" the opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit:

^Vij

^- %

''^H^v,^

Appeal from Henry

No. 6735. X

Mary A, Rlokarda, I

Appellee,

Farmers State Bank of Alpha, appellant

Opinion by HEARD, J,

Appellee Mary A. Riokards, filed her bill in chancery in the G4.rouit Court of Henry County a^ainet

the/Fariters State Bank of Alpha, alleging that appellee and A

8. Fariters Stat*

n

her aieter, 2iT.nia L. Brown, eaoh had a beneficial interest in a farw in Caaa County, Iowa; that she eonstituted her aister^e huaband, J. H. Brown, her a^ent to rent the aa&e for her; that /rithout her knowledge or consent ha had leaeaa of the^i© ianira execute 1 in the nai'-e of his wife ae leeaor; that without ajpellee's knowledge of consent Brown and hla v;ifa assigned all the right, title and interest of Ecu&a L. Brown in these leases to appellant to secure indobtednese of the Browne to appellant, and that appellant, by virtue of this assigmaent, had collected the rents belonging to appellee for these lands. . The bill prayed that appellant account to appellee for the portion of the rents belonging to appellee. Appellant answered claiming the rents by virtue of the assignnient and denying appellee* e right to an accounting.

The cause was referred to the Master in Chancery, who

-1-

>y/^^

I »>

'^Taen ^lOTti i^seqciA

, P

.aeve .ow

^aelXaqqA

• V

• LtaHAIH x<^ flolniqO

i>.i>. •8iI©:4^jB ^jrf* gn^saXXii ,jariqXA \o AtuaS. bitiiS Bzesir^V ndt

h

*eei8*.'ii XijioXl8rr»<-f « f;jBrf dos6 ^nwOTfl .J JWi.nS ^is^fsie rt>d •J9d bttuSlihaoB orfe it^di^ i-uwol ,Y*ni,'oO e»«0 rti sii^l « nX

erf ^neanoc to ^^^tU^ortil x»d iuodilfi S^i {it A rol ^abb

•"tlm eirf "io B.'isn bAS at teJi/oexe fiLajeX t^&di ^o ooaAsX fc^rf

^nasnoo 1o a3l>eXwQajj e'taXXaqq« d^uof{;fXw ^arli^ i^oaaaX an

bas Bim i.td:^tr arfcf XX« X)an$laa« alXv; aid Las txmois.

oi taAii9q(i» ot sea«aX aaad;t ai OKOXG .J amsaCS. lo ^aa-xa^ni

^j3.i^ £)ac 4^n£XXaqqis ot aaworsQ arf^ lo aaaxxba^daLnl eiuoea

JbaioaX-oo baxf ^tf^nainn^ieaA aixi^ 1o Buixlv ^cf ^^nnXXaqqjs

•At .abfljiX aatrfit lol vaXXaqq^i oi saXgnoXtd a^aa? arl:f

ad^ lol aaXXaqq« o^ #m/ooo« J-naXXaqqii isdi ta^^iq XX1<^

^n^XXaqiA .aaXXaqq« o^ ^nlTirroXacf a^naa arf,f ^o aoiSroq,

bm: inB.n-xv.iai.s afi Tto ax/Jilv ff^ a^nai ari^ gnlaiaXo JbaiawanB

.gnX^nx/oDoa fl« o^ ^i^^Xi a'aaXXaqq« saiynaL

-X-

tooka procfs and reported to the Court hia flndinje that

neither J. n. Brown or hie wife Enjoa L. 'Bro^n, had any rlafht or authority to aaaign or dispose of Appellee's ehare of the renta anl raoomic ending the entry of a iacrae in favor of appellee and directing appellant to pay appallae t480, <»ith Intereat and al^o that the eua of (?6n0, rhioh had heen depoaited in the banl. at Caabridfje pending; the tarniination of the suit be paid appellee. Dacrae ^ae entered in aacordanoe iwith the l^aatsre report and fror. thla deoree appellant appealed*

Appellant olaiiiiS as the leasee were oade in the name of Mra. Brown ao lesser, that in the abeence of notice, to appellant of appellee's interest therein prior tc the aaaigniuent appellee ia not entitled tc relief.

The assignwent in (iuaetion 'r»afi merely an aBsignii.ent of Mrs, Brown's interest in the leases and not an aeaignaient of the leases. The evidence showe that the n.aking of the laaa<i in Mra. Brown's naxce was without any authority from appeliae and that the asaigniLent was made without her knowledge or consent and without any authority whate er^ There Is no evidence in the case fror-. which any inference to tha contrary could he drawn and nothing in the record whioh would eatop appellee fron. claiming the renta. The decree was ri^^ht and ia affirrticd.

YrtJ8 h^rf ^irwonBr ,J jscma •llf» airf to frwoiS 41H .T» xed^ien

8»»eXIeq<(A Ito •eoqe^fc 10 rr^liBJs ot ^iliodiua no id^lr

• saoef M ^o y^ins erf* ^ftlfcne.Jiraooei JbnB a^net •/!* lo eajsrfe

eslle'i .: 5al*oe7l^ fcna e»XXeqqc iQ. Tpyjs^ nl

rfolrfr »OnaC lo aim eff;t |jBrf;t ouXjb bfr* ;resi8crni dd-in t08*f

•rf^ ^flltneq •^MtcfausO ^« iaicT %dt ai tttleoqtb tfd bad

•jsr esaovr .selloqqji fciaq ecf itim ^di \o aoliJialjiibt

•*■;■' p '■--■■ ■ htdt 31071 tn«'^idq»i B'xed'BJstf idt dilw Boanbiooos nl bbTtiae

•£>aX.B*qq4 ^n«XXaq4« adioeJb

•jLBn t.'l^ at BbMrn siew •••«eX ail^ te bihIbXo ^n«XX»^;A

od- '&'ol>on lo aofrMda •it* rt2 *j3rf^ jioaaaX ajtf uWifMf^U TLo

.i^ibdS tB^r^ial a'aaXXaqq^ lo i'nAXXaqq«

.laiXat 0^ t^ittiao ion al aaXXaqq« ^aa-nasi^siB

io ^taaan^iaaA 113 Y-^eiaa ajs?; noJt^aaxrp al ;fnaAnsi«B«, axlT

;tn8iatnslBa« a« j aeeJseX Bdt al i»pi9tal a'nwoiS .atcU

axf;f lo \r Bworf<4 aorrebiva ar(T •aaajseX.a4^,l0

.■noil ^(UtodtuM ^njs iuodil^' ajiw ea*n a'awoiH .aiM ni ea^aX

::.r.i: ;f. ron.tr., i.: ,i.,i -,i^v j-neain^laajs arfd" iadf bus aeXXeqq«

aoaaaaltrtl v ,'i6dT

-: 2jsXo .no^l aaXXaqqA qo. > w 4Qixfw

eaioat arfT

STATE OF ILLINOIS, I

3RCOND DISTRICT. \ ^^' I. ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court,

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Sea! thereof, do hereby certify that the foregfoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and t\\ enty.

rf.e7'k of the Appellate Court.

6?28

\

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the seventh day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hund^'d and nine- teen, within and for the Second District of the State of

I f

Illinois: g

Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Pres iding^'Jus t ice .

Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Jus t ice J^

Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Jus

CHRISTOPHER C, DUFFY, CI erf.

1 1 c e i'^

ti/. 2l7 I. A. Q^

CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff. |'

^

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on

the opinion of the Court was filed in MAR 9 1920 the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures

following, to-wit:

No. 6726. Garret Pluym,

Appellant, )

^g y Appeal froiL Jo Davie e 3

Illlnola Central Railroad | Circuit Court. Company, AppslloQ. )

Opinion by HEARD, J.

This ia an action of treapaea on the case brouafht by

appellant apjainat appellee in the Circuit Court of Jo Davlee County. The (leclarat ion oonoiata of one count, alleging the killin'^ of Plaintiff *e cattle on the railroad tracks of appellee by appellee' b engine, in June 1916 and that the cattle* got upon appellees track on acooui't of appei* lee failing to maintain a statutory fence • A jury trial \vaa had and at the cfljoae of Plaintiff** evidence the court inatructed the jury to find the defendant not guilty and a Vdrdiot of not guilty ivaa returned, A motion for new trial was overruled and judgment rendered in favor of appellee, froci which appellant appaala.

The ri'^ht of way and tract e of the appellee run ioutheaaterly from the City of E&at Dubuque in Jo Davie aa County, lilinoia. They ar^i parallel ^rith the ilieeiaaippi river which ia or the west ai.Ie of the ri^ht of -vay. The cattle in queatlon war© found dead on the ri^^ht of way about a mile southeasterly of Eaat Dubuqua, The main channel of the Miaaiaeiopl lirJa about one mile westerly

-1-

.*ii/oO ^iijoalO I tJiOrllJsH LexineO BiottllZl.

( .delleqqA ^ynjjqtioO

.L,aHA3H Ytf noiaiqO

oL lo ^luoO ^iuoiiO arf^ rti seXItqqjo JtrxiagB *n«XI»qci4

^J^naoo 0aQ to 6*Bl«froo aoi;^JB7i]Xo•^ •rfT tX^'^uoO aaJtv^Q

l>J307Xi«n tr!^ ao eifieo m^ltttntai^ \o igaiXXli •x(;r acis»XX«

to* aX6i eru/L ai ^•iit:^n» s'ft»XX«qq4 \ci ••XXftqq^ lo aiOAi^

•X»qq« lo lj-tuoo9« no io&xit s»6XX«qq£ noqx/ ^o^ »X^^ao drf^ ^j9ill

XjbIij ^^^L a. .sonol x^otuta^B s ntsiaim ot s^iXiiil 6eX

tiuoo etl^ •onetivft ft*m;fnijBl? lo eeo^o erf^ ;f« baa tistf e^ir

tas Y*XliJS Jon ;tnjcjbn»l©£ •/f;f JbnlTt o;r jxisl trfJ ttJoiflcJenl

w»fl lol aoitoa A ♦i^'»rtiiri»a aa* Yi^XIx/j ioa lo tfoiJtiiiiv £

lo lovisl ni Jbsatlnei *n»flislJX/[ l)n* btiinibvo bjbw ijdX'^f

.«Xj3aqq£ in£XXeqq« tfoiclti aioal ^a^XX^qq^

niii e«XX«'4:iJi wAt \o • J oat J JbxxjB y<<»*' ^c Irf^J^i axfT

•••iVAd oL n: eupi/cfiiG *ajB7 lo ^^10 •Ai inoxl ^Xia^a-eerfJjjoi

iqqiaaisaill arfrf dSi^n X©XX«:cjoq bijj Y»f^T ••ionXXXI ^x^aiJoO

• X-e** ^o JrfT^i;! «rf* \o ©Ma ?eaw arft to ai rfoirlw lavlt

Y«» lo ^rfjli arfJ no fcjsab Jbnuol eiew «ol#e»i/p rti eXJJ^jo erfT

fllas »r(T mtui^udifd ttJi?. lo yXia^B£«({;fuoa eXiot £ iuodM

yXtBlaav' aXin ano JirocfB aniX ^qqiaeiiaaitf adif lo Xeruijsrfo

-X-

froa the tracks* between the river and tracka there ie

low ojround whloh fas uaei by appellant as a pasture for the cattle. Thie pasture la hottoir lanl anl is rauoh lo-fer than the railroad traoke, When the Mleeiaaippi riaaa this pasture le partly subrf.erged. Thare was high .vater in the MiBdleeippl from April fith, to June 13th, the .late on which the cattle were Hilled and the high water backed up fillins * pond or iepreeaion ir appellant's pasture for a distance of about 800 feet from the rlfjht of way to about «i»ht or ten feet inaide the rljht of vray where the ground was hi::^hr3r, A fence which ma not deaoribdd in the evidence rar alon?^ the line of the ri.'j;ht of way through the y/ater.

The evidence showed that a day or two before June 13th, appellant purchased sorce cattle that had been kept in a high pasture on the opposite si'^e of the railroad trad and turned ther. Into hie pasture; that shortly therrjafter they went Irtc. ^>fe« water; swam acroeu to the railroad rl<^ht of way and were etruck by an engine and killed. At this tire the A'ater extended up to \vithin fifteen inches from the top of the post, and about twelve inches frcn. the top ^vire of the fence which was broken by ths cattle when they awam through it* The to^p wire was freshly broken> and there was hair attached to it indicating that at this particular rl»oe ths cattle forced their way over it. At this place there wa<? hoof tracks or the bank leading toward* the railroad track* The water extended in on the right of way eight or ten feet past ths fence and up on the embankiasnt, Ths action of ths court in instructing ths Jury to find ths defendant not guilty ie assigned as

-3-

tsr.oi ';-'"' "^ '■'»•■ !''T'.r -r.+ to'^ ,^ ....-+ esq tixIT .el^^iio

«36il- -..^ — ^w .•JlOJBiJ' hjEOTllj?! td^f andt

ao 6;t£l. erf^r ^rfJCI sni/L o? .dtfl li'tqA mOT^ lqqi»«lttltt trf*

i:ii/*ej3q ••tf-.ntjel-. , ^.: :1 CTOiBferrqefr to b.ioq « joiXXil ixsods: c~ v£w lo ♦rfjii erfiJ- aiotl ^ss^ 00^ tuods lo ton/s^aifc «

.-foil , 'erf^'lirf 8£W

■•>;;.'•' ^ •r-ndjli- -tui eorreMv»

■orfe <?:' a-(T

^ . ^iXXsqqi^ ,f{?CX

'J bearui bn* :lonr:t

J^^Kri^

'^w'tO id-pi'X bJtOlllBI

a. f* s.iil*'»lff*#A .bbliti

•rft v-' f .tidil earfoni

■* ttBSii' iiiSso

^^ •OJSI. JA

no qji £n/i ©on«!^ trft ;^»«q ;t»9l nt* to ♦rt^lt t-«* ^o ^^sJt' •rf^

jnl^oirx^&njt ni ;f-xvoo •di lo noI^D« •/{? • ^naaiflftfine edt

MM bea-^ttitiM Mt y^tllir^ toa irt^>tf\9b 9dt bail oS T^ul 9dt

-e-

error.

S«o. 62 of Chapter 114 of th« Ravieed Statutes of

Illinois provides: "That every railroad corporation, shall, within six Kontha after any part of its "^ine is open for use, ereot ani thereafter maintain fanoea on both sides of its road or 30 n.vich thereof as is open for uae, suitable and sufficient to pBivent cattle, horses, sheep, hogs, or other stock frorn chatting on such railroad, except at the croaainoffi of public roads and Highways, ate**

The statute does not specify the kind of fence or the Materials of which it shall be oor.posed as doew Section 3 of Chapter 54 of the Revised Statutes. It requirab tha erection of fanoes "suitable and sufficient to prevent cattl-j, horses, sheep, hogs or other stock frop. ^stting on such railroad"*

Tyuweroua rxuthoritiea have been cited by both appellant and appellee, but a careful psruaal of all these authori- ties len.onstrates that in saoh case the question as to whether the fence in que.^tlon in that case waa or was not a suitable or ;Tuffioient fence waa decided as a question of fact depen ling upon the facts of thlt particular case, whether a ^Ivan .fence la or is not a suitable and auffl- clant fence la a question of fact for the jury and it is only vthQve the evidence l^s 3uoh that all reasonable winds roust agree on tha question can the court hold as a rr^atter of law that the r^iven fence is a "suitable and sufficient fence" , Upon a aotion to instruct the jury to find the defendant not ^lilty tha evidence \tith all its

-3-

'w iitiiijijitB b»»lv%F. trf* to *XX fSqMO lo Sa .oeS ^aoitsTLOqroo baoxLlAi yfri ^/jxlT" resMvoiq •ionlXII

• i sniS- -Tlifm* »IXJ»rta

«»•£/ lol nsqo ei aj3 '!toei»rf^'(fdxnn oa to l>AOt a^i fo aeM& 4qaarfa ^6©••l0rf ^aX*:!*:) *fT6vaiq[ o* Jfralollljji bctM %L€Aii'ji: i'qaoxa ^bsi01llAt doum fto gnlJ^ar ooja ic©rf*o

."oi^e ^B'jawrfj^iH fcnfi e^JO? oi Ir^jj-., to esff^*®^^^ ' •di to aonel lo Isflli •dt Y^ii>»q[» :^c^ aecjb e*irJjs*a erfT

3 aotioa'". n^oi ioq.Tioo ad" XX^rfa ;fl rfoirfw 16 aJCi:iietf£a

ari^f uei . 9tut^t^ fcaaivaF arfif to *5 isitJijorf?) tc

*n*v8:^^ oj rneioXllxm J^ajb aXcfi=;*Jtini* saoflfit to nol i'oata

■^nit)»r, xor'' \to 10 ago/f ^qaarfa ^awtTOff ^ext^jso

."■r.MOTXljBl rfoi/a ao 4Ti*jLi.8:-v:i.: lejio naod" ovjarf e©lJiiOi<Ji/J5 at/oiaaa/'f

-iaorf^tfj ~ , Xx/taTAo n tud \aeXXatqj3 brtr

.Z' AOjee '+ *a*j8Tt»ftOittaJb aei.-^

ii u.^n ■>/• • • f-e^' y.i aorrot arf? '

* ' ' " ^naloitti/a lo ei:

"^"^' TOj:*.'.'ei/p en? no eeT^ij tsj/t

"-i.i^'-j ponat ftavls •'^^ '*jarf;f yr^X to

Yii/;, iit^ani uo r.^j.^u.Ti 03 /loqTT .•toxtat ifialolttwn

a^.

^ n ., . -. f .. . „ ,/ .

-e-

r«&Bonabl« intendment 8 niust be construed isoat favorably to the plaintiff.

Mo Cune vn Reynolds 888 111, 188. Without expreaeing any opinion upon the r-erits of ^,he caee or as to whether or not the fence In question was a "suitable etnd euffiolent fence" we are of the opinion that the Court erred in not aubmlttlng the case to the jury. The juigKcnt of the Circuit court 'till be revereed and the cauae rer.anded*

-4-

.WttaiA^q erf* o*

.891 .III ef?<; BtiiocvfH ftv enuO oil

••Bc rtoJtnlqo yh^ ^nitaeaqxs tuoASilf

& iii'-f ao.f cf adx/p vi.i eons^ erf J *on lo leffj^erfw o* ex ao

aoiixlqo %Ai \o •!« »« "•oael in%iXiiWu% toe elcf^s^iy**"

•Jbsl>rcjB>Ti»7 eax/AO erf* tn^ Jbteieve?

STATE OF ILLINOIS, (

SECOND DISTRICT. \ ^^' I. ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court.

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate (^ourt in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hci-ennto set my hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

6^/Q 1

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the seventh day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nine- . teen, within and for the Second District of the 'State of Illinois: ./^

Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Pres iding- Just ice.

Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justi.ee. Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Jus CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff.

' °^217 I.A. 6 6 of

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on t\^AR 9 1920 the opinion of the Court was filed in the- Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following-, to-wit:

Gen. No. (j~ol

Raymoni S, Frost, A^lmr* &kprellee

va Ap.oeal from ITinnehagc.

Rcokroru ic Intftxurban Rcdl^ay Co.

c:.-)y ellant. Het.ri, J.

Tliiti v»u,a «,n action aoriiu.enoed in tl-S olrcuit oourt of Winnebago County by K«,y I'roat, Public AOminintrator of t'le CcuTity of Winnebago, to rcoov-^r i&mages for loalih oJT plaintiff a inteatatie in ^jonaeqaance of j, oolliaion between an a-utorrobile in v.Lisjii biics was riiing in tae cioy of Rojkiord travsiinq- in a nortiiuriy direouion, uni itn intjrur:.un car bound "'rom ?eioit Wid., to Rookrcri, 111., traveling in a aouthsrly direction. The 0U.B6 w.-a tried upon the firat &,rl third oounta oT the ieo- laration. Tne negiigsnoe charged in nhe firot <:cunt was fchat the defenitknt by itb servants ao negli^^f^ntly, carelessly, -^.ni improperly ran, irovd aticS Managed, and controlled sail int-rurban car tpat by «.nd on aocomit of the -aid negliptenoe, oar?»le9eneaB, a^^d irr- propur coiiduot uT the iefendai.t by its asrvante, the oar ran into, ui'on, «.p.i a.orcae tne autoraobiie in vthich "".he intc-ntate waa r_.iiiig.

Tj:«3 third count; waa bused upon u.n oriinano© of the City of Rockford providing r.hat no oar oh;i,il be run ::i-t -^ grsater rat© of Q^-^ced t:,an i'iftiJsn miles an aour, an.i '-harH vras a ^enaral a»erui«nt oi nogligenoe ijimil^r to tii'^. -Cirst count.

T.;e vriai reaulted in a vardict in f-3Vor of appellee in tr'e 3Uin of Cl,5CC«00. Kccion for ne 7 trial ^as 073rrulel, ani there; .\fctd a juiM;ment oa the verdiot, an J aroeal from f s julgrrent.

T:.e plaintiff's inteatate, !*ith her husband, riding in the back tjeat of a Ford touring oar in company "/if!i one Frank Oustafson, the owner ani driver of the oar, and another gsntlsTan, waa traveling in a northerly direction on North Second Street in the

X6Va .oH .n«0 •dllaqq^ trcfnir'A ^teonl *8 ^nomxJsH

.oO ^jBwXiijH fljBdix/aod-nl >!i Jjio'ijioofl

.ifnjsXXsqqjii

sn';* to locf^njff.xitimLA oiXdu*^ »*Eoi'f ^^ ^J ^{JnuoO osjiCfdnxilW

•lidono^i/iJ hjs fi»ev»*r<cf aoiftXXXoc *. "^o aoneKpeeaou cX 9o«JesJxiX

« ni ■nnlXftVijf;!' Jbiolityfl lo x^-io ®^^''' ^^ 'j^ntLli BAfi sad n&iw. ai

#XoXpT iflort' Jbnuoc rtiic a^aiiuittni a* tax: ,noX^caTXX ^Xioiid^ioa

.noifc^iiL xliLisdi^uoc *; rii jnXXavje'i;r ,,XXI ^Ltal^coR Oo ,.aiW

-09i- •iK* ^o mtiwo'c iTliii iru tfaiil 9ii$ noou Xsxi^t e-=.w ©a^o eriT

9n':f i^^rltt sjef ^ruioo iHttl ad.^ ni X»sYJino scns^iXgea dilT .acX^^ifX

Ylisqoiqffll in." .x-l^^esXsTaiO ^\i&n^ iti^Bii oa •d'iusvise 6;tx ijcf tfnia.asl»fc

-mi t'^.s ,aa*iTaedIeTi!0 ,9oa4TtXX^9n tl*- oil:f lo ^nujooo^ ao Xn^ y<^

aat aso ar^.t ,estn«vioa a;Ji t^^ ^u-iXaalaX arfJ Zo touLnoo taqorci

Bijaid'iial ed" ciotdt, ai 9ii.domoiuji ^nt aa9io.«i Xn«> «noqi/ «o^nX

.gnitXri f4nr \o y[t to Bdt \o •ocijanlbio a^ noou I>oa*id ba^ inuoo L'lliii arIT

a^jBi T»*j3Ci3 r-. ^j:; fu; 1 90 XXixie ijco on t»ii& jnXXivoiq Xiot^^'oofl

XfsTens^ £ 83V> H^eri-^ Xrrjs ,7iJOii Ci,fi beXin aafi^li'i ajtr.S i^aaqe lo

.^m/oc ;taix^ ahit o^ i^-Xim2{> aona^XX^on xo :iti&iaieVA

ni oBlL^qqs to lovt'!; nX tfoiXi&v i ai toSluut'i Xjbiici 8iiT

taj: ,fceXi;Ticvo Bi?w LriiS ran lol noidoM .00. 005, X^ lo aioB arf*

.^narjXtrf; «? + moi^. Xosac:* Lnaj ,#oiXt»v aii.+ ao ♦n'im^Xut * ««w aia/ft

arf* iri ^gnJtixT ,Xnfi(<e.Lirf tarf rfcTin ,a*jf^»e?ai a'llXtfnXjjIq e;:T

,no8^*.+«uC Jta^*:'? ano iftlr \nMqtDoc al i-o gxrXii/ocf Lxol a lo tfjseu ioAd

ejBV ^asTcltne-g iaifton« ta^ ,%ao ada lo leTixt Xn^s aanwo 9dt

City of Pcokford, c.bout 7 o'olcck on Suriay evening, Kc-eirber 11 1917. The Rookford & Intcrurban Railway Coapany, appellant, op- erate their care over the line of the Rochfori Ci^y Traoticn Confi- pany iiong this street from a point beyond the plaoe of the aooi- •itnt to the busineae Jletriot of the City of Rockford. T'-e Inter- urcan oiura run hourly along this track, and "-he tAixxKX^xs XB«pxKjc traction oompany city oa-ra have a schedule of twelve and f j f t-son minutsa over the aurns traok. TIic street at thio point ia forty feet >.iiQ. Both 3omrH.nieu u&e tbs aaiae single track. Th? traok

. aituw.tea in ^bout tho oenter of i;hf-: street. About ore hunlred foct iouth of the point where th3 acoiJf-.ut occurred, "-he City of Rcckiord was engaged in put+-ing in a sewor on the 3aot?;ido of

..a tit-ck. Tao eewer lit oh was about three feet wide arl about nine iect deep en "ht east aide of 'he traok. A larir^o part of the ditoh hal b<=sn lilled up at the time of t" e acclient. There wae a barrioude on ' h^ end oi 'he aitoh ani rod lanterns otrxang • along ao a warning of the danger. The edp;© of the dltoh was about tl:a-ee feet fro;n the east rail of ^he car traok. ar.d lanterns were jet bctvteen the street car track ani the ditoh. The i5rt wae thrown on the aaat siie of the ditoh. There svaa no trarelin^ space for autoaioblles between the atreet car track ar)i tho ditch. Tl.s barricade waa t.Iec on the tiouth end of ths ditch. Thp auto had turned ^cro*)S the tracks to avoid the iitoh and was recro33ing t.e track to the proper aide of the street at the time of the acoiisnt.

The automobile waa struck by the left edge of the fendsr of the intt.rurban car, about t' s oenter of the west aide of the automobile. The interurban oar waa a larf?e tjrpe, about f-ixty feet in length, and vjeighed atiout forty tons, and ran some tv.'oor three oar lengths aftf?r striicing the automobile. All of tvie jjouo^nts* of tne automobile werecither killed instantly or died

-!B0'^ aoltpsiT x^* iO t*^oT:l'jafi dtiiJ- *o enlL eff:^ lovo bias ilarf:? 3*jBie

to t%aq n-^ZAl A .io*ii;J' axlJ- Ito o£i« Jaa* dJl]- *io qa»>»v, ^^A'^t *4.4o

'^rnstft ttai^^asi hai £.£{j^ Jiot tL M?^ Iq Jao^:. 94t.no jtt:;4^Qx?7.^c

•n7*til-3l i>rf* .:to^i* t^o fJiit lo ii:*i *oa» •di moil *a©l ©9.??*li^ ^AfOCts

f-xn^ «rfT - rfo tit 9.11* in« 3lyjj-iif x£0 i&oxim aa* a^wi'act .^9<i ^,19*

5aiX9v-37t on caw 9T9-1T .do*jtfc-9*fc? •'i» fiia t^M^ •di «o..^*fii"i^:*«H*

.rfotit '9£ft ta£ ioiji* 1-30 rf'99'itf-a 9x1* a99w;^©d aglicfotoo.tu^ io1 ,9o«q8

otw* 9H .<Io.+ ib 9di lo tins diyob %.dt ao o<ii^^«^F .^ijAO^^i^ed 9rfT

gfliepot09T 9^1? en* doJxi 9ri» biovs qi %3iQA%t •di 9*9^0* bf{^V{i-.X^

9d^- lo 9aiit 9fii iA t^'^^i^ 1^4^ '*9 9bt9 I9ft9«q «^i^«,o? ^9'^''

'Jo isfcixel 9tf^ \q 99^9 }l9X 9i^^ ^u' :;i3JJiit*ai «jidtt 9Xld9aio^i;<d. 9uT

»!<•* 5o iJfia #a9w tc[;f i© i»dtjcx90 e.M .;uoc^. ,1*0 a^dtuxt^ai^a^^

Y*x^ •♦tfoda 49CfXtf 97?irfjX « t^w ijeo aeoiL'asi'aX 9ilT .9Xi«fo«o*tfi9

ioo>* 9ifoa a*! tn^ »«no* x^io^ tuoa*i i>9risX9w to* ,4J2£fflX al *99l

- "^ lo XXA .9XXdoino;tjj« •lit '^Ji:3Lixit> -i^ils •fl;^3«9X^ 7#0 «9l4^

teit> no JC^^rfitf 9al fcaXXlat a9tf?X:9i9T. eilcforaa^w* ©mf ,lO7**a4>ui^09C

within a short -^ine of the acoilent. There wa-a sor^.e svl.lenco te!]ilr.f3 to fjhov/ that Gustafaon, ths driver cf th« uutc, wtu; in- toxioated and t'lr.t Isceased knew of hie coTsdition ar.d it is cl^dmed thc<t if?oeci.Bed wee ji;uilty of oortrilDutory negligcnoe in truating horaelf to the care of an ir,to/:ioated driver. There was oviienct or the part of s-;ppellee teriing to show th-t GuBtafcon vsTc-E not irtcxi oated. This cor.^roverted queati'rn of fact rrun aubnitted to the ^ury, their at + ?r.tion specifically called to it by irnti uctione, ar/d ^'.e Jury eviier.tly found in fa,vor of appelles t^srson,

It ic cls-i'/ied f'at tte verJl-^t ie net Gurported by the evilencs; that t^tpelie? hti.e fail^i to prove t';:at arpsllant w:i3 negligent ard t'.at deceaeed vsb ir '■>^e exercise of or.lini»-ry cars for h-r cv,'n safety. Deceased ^aa a paseengsr sitting in tha rear scat ^:f t\.e Fcrd autc. The rule as tc the luty of a paesengor in euoh case i'j Icid Jcwn in Pisnta vs Chicago ITity PailvTay 384 I]l. 346, and by this court in Ch&tells v I. C. R. R. C:. 310 111, App. 475. Thv- court pls-ii'ly gav© the rule to the jury in his instructions.

T .e prspcnierancs c". ths sviJsnce clsariy ahcwod that appol- lante car wr^a running at a. high rats of gpcsd in violation, cf thf^ city oriinanoe. 7rom u conaideraticn of all the eviJsnoe in the ca,ae V7e ..r* of t'e opinion that the jury wors juatlfied in finiir.g from t":-^ '?vi ienoe thl.t at and prior to f.ie ucci iont d30(?a.3? 1 Wc.3 in the exercise of ordinary oaro for her ovm oafety that appellant W!u.e guilty of ne<3lir;enoe, as alleged in the lot. and 3rd. counts of tho ieolaration and that appallanta negligenoa v/as ti;B proxinata cauae of tiie d<3ath of docoaaed.

It is olaimsl that the court erred in Vas adniijsion of avi- isnce on the qusation of hairohlp of thf. dacoasad, T":r> court ad- mitted in 'ividenoa an order cf the. county court of T7innebago county

sofreliT© 9*-.^ T«rT .fnfit tco£ od* 'to ?'r'l+ tiod* s rt.^'f+fw

rot

TC

j-'ietxv

.*cX off"^ ni fco^^cllx; a.? .90: •0.:

viiiij ■

.L bt.-

decli^ring V.o lieirahip of ieoeaaed u'^d algo adrrittel iecl'wra'&ions

of iocstioed -.10 to hop family.

?aragru,ph 140 of Ci:i;.ptar 3 RoviaeJL Statutes of Illlnoio, rroviias "that auch orders of t/io court declaring au.oh heirship, ***** shiii be deaaeJ a.r;l taken a-a criiriu fnoi© eviienoe as ouch heirship: Provided, that u.ny other le :al mode of proving euoh heirship nay be reucrtc-i to In plaos cf ?ourt ^hen the question :.-.c;.y -iriBc by any p*rty interested t..er'.in,*. Foilett V I. C. R. R. ^C& 111. App. 31; Preacctt v Aysre, 376 111 fi.45. Noliin V Ecrnee ^66 111. "15; 1*1. Strsl Co. y I. C. 39C 111 5S6. Even If thi; B,d:r.ii.5icn cf the county court orier wers error, t"' e ua,ucs cannot be reversed for tr-a-t rsuson.

It liC'.j) bc:'jn rcpecitodly hell ir thic atate that peji^ree or ti.e :;a*.ctij cf TaK^lly history aay be proven ao they were in this case by the deolarationa of a. peraon rr lt.tei by bleed or carriage to tha family to which the deoi^ration refere, provided the deolatrunt is ie&d und *-he deoiaration wua male osfore a contrb- veruy arose. DQaisey v Barnes 3G1 111. 646. In Champion v McCarthy ii38 111. 37 .vill be found ■^■■. fu^il .liacusdion o' ■'•■.h<?i authorities upon t.iia qua at ion.

?fa fini no error in the giving or r'r^fuaal of Ina+ruotiona. The 3;-u3e will bo iiffirjied.

ae eonsf iva e.iojil ^jmliq a* aii^fjs: - ♦ » ♦ »

grrlvoac ^'o ©Jbom I . J:fo i£n.. (!-9fcivoi'T tqldaiiarf rfaua

III SV5 ,aiavA v^;,^ooa©T'! iX8 .qqA .IJU^gO^ .H .H . . .o.T

ixi ... .1X1 ;3x^. .ixij aa^ apa^a V ojsxoa ..Q^s.

. ta.'-' a:'-^.*^ .[XLo^jBdqat. asoci a^ad ;M

a^^ ' • aoaiaq Jt 'lo aaoX^^iuBXoat. axl;)' y^^ MAP,.

-d7:frroo « OTotscf oI.aiB p^?/ aoX;t«'i«Xoe^ ::^ t^at &i ^ajiiJ&Xodb.

Yrf*7j?0oV V ffoiqai.sriO nl . • -^ .i..'I v y-«k-^ .qbox* jf«?fv

aeltitorft: noleei/oalt XXj^ .-

»noid-&&i.p QXxft„aoqtf 'i 10770 ofl La.l

STATE OF ILLINOIS, i

SECOND DISTRICT. ( ^'*" I. ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court.

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof.

do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in

the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Ckrk of the Appellate Court.

■.■^g^T^

,^

A

I

/ / ■ /: 0

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

/-

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the seventh jday of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hiindred and nine- teen, within and for the Second District o'f the State of Illinois:

Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding- Justice. Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Ju^ice.

Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice/il J. ( X • A« QOl CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff.

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on MAR 9 1920 ^^g opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and fig-ares following-, to-wit:

Gen. No. &76d*

Leroy Small enber^er, appellee

▼8 Appeal from Co. Ct. Psorla.

Peoria Railway Company, appellant.

Heard J.

Leroy Bmallenberger, appellee brought auit before a Juetioe of the Peace against The Peoria Baiiway Co. appellant for lamageB to hi B automobile aa *he rssult of alleged negligence of appellant. The case waa tried in the cour ty court of Peoria Covmty on appeal. Appellee obt£.ined a verdict for ^135. from whioh he remitted $iO uii the court entered ^uigment against appellant for ^ICf). damage 9 and coste from which judgment this appeal ia prosecuted.

The evidence ahovis that appellee was driving his auto on Pacific Avenue in Peoria and in at tempting to tiurn around backed partly upon tl.c street oar traok of appellant and killed his en- gine, leaving the machine standing at an angle of about 30 dec>:rees with the traok, the left hind wheel being between the rails. Bright electric headlights were burning on the auto aa was alao its tail light, but the tail light could not be seen by persona on a street oar goinc: toward town by reaoon of the position of the oar. Aopellant oiair.s he oouli not start the auto, thivt he tried to lift it across tl.e traok, then attempted to crank it but could not and that he then ran up the track upon which he saw a street car ap reaching going towards town and waved his arms, but that the oar passed him and ran into the auto, knocking off the baok wheel und the fender on the left aide and otherwise damaging t:.e machine.

The aocident occurred on a darm rainy night. The street oar which ran into the auto had rounded a curve about thirty

■ ©^jBflTjeJi. to'* tfrj3lX9qfT'« "OO yjewXljaff siioo9 sriT ifani-sg^ tOjaeS •xl;t ^o

.JnjsXXsqq*.' ^o aonsgiXgsn fcajaXI^ lo ^Xwaei ©if* sjb tXlcfomo^uA aid ot

ao x.^cajo0 iitio9*7 ^o *iuoo \f :r woo ©dt ni Jbaii* •jbw oa^o axlT

td rfoirir itioil .36XS lol *oii-i»v « tBal^&do soXiaqqA .Xjaaqq^

^jB^XXaqq^ ^anl-ej^js tnamsiu^ tar»ia9 iiuo-j arf^f fcxia Ofi^ b9itta9t

tt XjB8qq£ ain't tnsmstuj; rioiriw aoi't •♦boo fcna eaj^Musfc .601$ lol

.Isali/odao'xq

ao QfU£ aid gniviit a^w aeXIaqqiA ♦wan'it awoda eonsllva edT

taioAd InuoiA aiui oi gnX^qma^tje ni tnj3 j«iio3^ nX auasvA ollio*^

-a» aid taXXXi tn£ ^n^XIaqq^ "^o io^tcf i«o ifaaa^a o.f;t noq^ Y-£^'X<aq

aaaTsat 0& ♦uod^ ^o aXjoe as ts gaii^au^ts aaldojsn arf^ ;gniTjasX «aals

.aXXjii arft naawtad ^aiad Xaadw Laid ♦laX aiit «;{ojei^ edt dtiw

obLm 0^w~ a« o^iJ« adt no ^nlniird orsw aw^dgiXtiaad olad-osXa td'gt'iQ

caoei»q ^c^ aaaa »d ion tLuoo ii^-^tL its& ecit tud t^d^XX It^i ait

"o aoi^iaoq 9.l>"t "^o noeaai ^d owot tiiBwot jnXog ifio ;f9©'i:fe * ao

ad iad& ^o&u£, adi tieta toa LLuoc an ami^Xo ^ajsXXaqqA .tiio adt

tl :laaio ot ta^qma^-'w^ ao.-t ,Xo«iJ e. t aaoaows ?i iflXX o* Jbalit

ad doXdw aoqi/ ioisi^ adt qu a*t auiit ad ^jidt las to a bXyoo ti/d

aid tevAW ta^ nwo ^ atiAwot saiog galdo^ot qje i£0 taa^d'a £ v«a

«otu£ adt otnl ajst tn^i tnXd i;aaa.sq iJio adt t^.-lt tird «amT«

al)l8 t^aX adt no Yainal ant tnij Xaadv io£d srlt llo sniiooaof

.anldo^.- :- ■* -^at^smat aelwiadto bax-> ♦aaita ariT .tdgXn x^isr ikiaL a no XetTwooo tnoiiooa 9d1 XtrtAt tjJOcTjB •rtvo s b9tauoi tsd o^u£ ad;^ otni asz doidtf ijso

feet more than a block from t'he plaoe of the colli aion. The motorn-an teat If led that as the oar rounded the curve and approavhed the plaoe of collision it was run ring about twelve milee per hour; that he saw t:j^- auto before the collision j that tl^e headlights of th-^ street car were t -.e usual and cuatorrary kind used on that line i^ni iver" burning at tlie time; that all he could see of the auto was t' s headlights which looked as though the auto was coming up the street; that as hn aoproaohed from the curve he was looking Jown the track; that he was about ^O'.-ifeet from the auto when he saw it; that he t en reversed the power, but that the rails were slippery and he went about <50 feet aft&r he struck the auto.

It ia claimed by appellant that there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the appellant and that appellee was guilty of contributory negligence £.nd that the court should have dirsoted a verdiot for appellant. Unier the evidence in this case as disclosed by the record the question of negligence on the part of the appellant and of contributory negligence on tae part of the appellee were queetione of fact for the jury and the court did not err in refusing to dirsct a veriict.

Appellee, during the presentationof his case Ir chief, swore the court reporter as a witness and requested her to read a portion of the testimony of Thomas Vaughn, the ^notorman, taken at a former trial of thia case* . Vaughn was present at this trial and testified in person, .-.vftsrwards, when appellant was pr.-senting it a defense, Over obicctjon of appellant, thia was permitted, and part of the former testimony was read. A street oar company cannot be bouni by the admiaeiona of its motor ii.an made long after tie happening of an accident and the admifaoion of this evidence was clearly erroaaoue. Eviience was given of the value of the use of the auto during thr3 time which

orfT .aolBtlloo 9sit "io 90£iq d>f^ ffloil iooltf a a«r(l aiom S»9%,

[aoletiloo 9rit 'iio\9d 9fuji :.t w«« 9xf &AAt ixisod 799 aoXim

XtATOtBuo tcifi^ iruau ai'i eiew 1^0 tfssita nfi^ lo a^ilslXt^ed od;f #«d^

XX^ *«fft J •ml* srf^ *.3 gnXnttfcf isw tnjj tnlX *firf;t no teen i>nii

e£ te:IooX rfoiriw B^riaiXisaerf ©^ t bjsw oJ^u* ©fft "io eea bXifoo ©d

iiOfiojBOTgajE srf e.£ J^rft {^eei^e » + qjj ^nimoo tifiw o*i;j«3 erf* rfgwodi'

odi Jbaartavei aB 1^ ©rf *ja:f.t ;^1 w-ae art narfw oJjjjb arft «ot* tesl (OS 0{» *jjocf£ tn»T» ed La.c ^laqqlXe aiaw «Il«i aff;f tsti& tud ,tawoq

.0*JJJ3 ©if It aCojJitti Oil *i«t%* *^©^ lo aoaolive oa at •i9ii& tadt taalLbtinj^ ^CT tonjUIO ai' tZ 8i3W aeXIaqqji iMii triJi d-ajiXieqcje sxl^ '10 ^i^sq ar.'.t no eona^iXsea tluoda truoo 9df t£.it tn^ aona-jlXjan x'^oiudtt&aoo \o xi^Xiug ri aoasiiYa 9^i letciV ,Stt£li9nrr£ tQ\ toltiav « t*«>fosiit ev^ff eona^iXssfl ^o noi^eaup »iii biooai aiii ^d taaoXoelt aJb n#«^o a^if^f ao eoaa^lXjaa Yio^x/Gflv;taoo lo liiUi ^ruBXXapqjs 9d^ lo ;lij&q^ ad/- Ad I:ajB l^Lut ailif lol do<a^ lo ertoX^asup aiaw ••XXaqqjs odt \9 t'X^iC[ %tit »tot.Lt9Tr M toQiLt Q& 9aXau)«T at ii« ^oatll^ii'ittQO 9At^ aiova ,)airfo :i aa^so ntd lonoX/ja^naae-iq tdt -^ttlrut ,eeXiaqe!A

M bs^t o^ larf Jba^Ra&pai ba^ aeaai^iiv 4 a« te^rtaqei ^1006 sxlt

neM4.t ^aMmrofoa adit ,a£(8U'iV 8.uB0ifT ^o x^iomlfa^f nAi \o n^ttioq

Bii^ tji &a»B9%q ajBw arf^xV . *aa£0 aXd^ lo Istit- i4hzoi s i^

tcmiisqqjL aarin ^9Lijamtot\., «noai?i cii bst'MSaai bnjii-ijiii&

9i(if ^tajtiibqos to aol'toe(;cfo lavO taaaal9t> aft sai^aaaoiq a«w

A ,.t£eT B£w YAO'"^^*^^ lamiot adt lo ^i«q tn£ «X)8^J^lflioq ■««

a;fi 'o 9aotBelab£ 9dt fd Louocf Bd totmso xa^qmoo ido tasT^a

arf.t ta^ ^natlooJt ob ^o saXaaqc;£rl a>^ latf^la ^noX ai>aiB a«Jiio/oa

Bidw aoaatlv? .a/uossoiie y-^'x^oXo a-ew aoaetxve aidd lo noiaaXaJb^

rloidw ami- r2ii/L ofuJi 90.9 lo aau •d;^ "io auX^tV axl;^ ^9 govX;si

it might hs,ve t&ken to reapir it« This was incompetent &8 the oar w&B not repaired* but soli for jvink.

Tae first instruction given for appellee was not baoRd on the evidence. There io no evidence that the headlight on the street 06.r was not a proper headlight. The only evilenoe on that subject wus t.at it was the usual headlight used on that line and that it was burning. Trie oeoond instruction given for appellee w:^a erroneous. It ajauTsed facts which were controverted, The third iiistruction was erroneous in i::oluding in the rueaeure of da.j.ugea t .e v-:lue of the lous of the use ox the auto whil« it was being repaired, for the reason that the auto was not repaired. Appellants first refused instruction which was to the effect that rental value during the time of repair was not an element of damages in the case should have been riven.

For the errors indicated the cause io reversed and rerranded to the County Court of Peoria County.

*^'-t fTO t:l^tLt£9d 9di t^a 1 1 ©onstlvs on ox oiariT .•oasfclve td# ^otiol lV9 ifino arfT .tfrfsllfcaeri legoiq « toa t-sw i-ao if©pi*a

ao Laaw {frfsllisjsari Xjstfsu 9 It e^r tl tf-jsf * a3W ts9<;tfira tMf

loJ nfivt-g ttdl&our&ani fcaooae atlT .gnlniucf aisw d^i d-Ariit £ff« •oil

If^^^svoiitnoo exsw rfotrfw ei-oja^ Jbsici/ebjs jfl .auoafroave a^w aalX^qqjB

- .jjB^am arflf rtl galfci/Iorii ffi auosnoiTa bjbw noitciciJffifll taltfrf" atfT

-iiriw otus Btit ^o aajj a.iJ- lo bgoX ©rft lo oi;X^v aJt aaa'jsarjBt te

Soa e^w o*0jsi 3rf"t txsr'J aoeaeil erl* to^ ,l)ai:l-ti(jrT gnisd ««w tl

sri:^ oi B£W rfoldw aoi*CLri*«nr taaixlst &^iil ataalL^qqk •t*ri*tqBi

,navi-:i £t83ci avjsif l>Xx/0£(a aajso drt ai Q^-gsiaab xO ^oenaXe

STATE OF ILLINOIS, (

SECOND DISTRICT. I ''^" I. ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court.

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Vl-erk of the Appelkite Court.

X) (j^ ^

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COU^T ,

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the seventh day of October,

/ in the year of our Lord one thousand n/ne hundred and nine- teen, within and for the Second Dist/ict of the State of

Illinois: /

/

Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Pres iding- Jus t i ce .

Hon . DUANE J . CARNES , Justice

I Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justices -^ v*v/ T /i ^ 1

\ ^17 I. A. 661-^

% CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. \ CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on MAR 9 1920 the opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit:

t

Hen. No, 67:34

Luc&B I* Butts, Sheriff, appellee

V0 Appeal from ^eorla.

Peoria Livery Co* et al s^ppellants.

Heard, J.

In September 1S16, the Peoria Liv-ry Comoany delivered to the Alli-nce Manufacturing Company I'or repairs two automobiles. The first automobile finished was shipped to Psorla In January 1917 the bill of lading being aooompanled by a draft for ^480.35 whloh wt.B paid by ax^pellant and the automobile received by it. In February 1917, the seooDd automobile was shipped by the Alliance Manufacturing Company to itsolf at Peoria, the bill of lading being aooompanled by a draft for |<<00 a balance claimed by the Aj-liance Manufacturing Company to be Jue for work, labor and materials used and axpended in the repali of the two auto- mobiles. Thl3 draft -^he Peoria Liv°ry Company r^fAsed to pay and brought replevin suit an:alnat t e Peoria and Pekin Union Railway Company, the carrier, in t>.e oirouit court of Peoria 8«k*]C County. Thie suit was iismiased by +le plaintiff and a writ of return© habendo iaeued, but the property vwas not returned.

This suit is loon the peplevin bond given *o the sheriff in the replevin suit. A trial by jury resulted in a verdict for Plaintiff against the defendant for $1500. CO debt and ^325 .CO ^damages.

T e main point In iiisue in the case is w ether or not at the time the automobile was replevlned from the carrier the Alliance Manufacturing Company had a lien upon it for labor ard Taterlala.

The eviience shows that in September 1916, James D, Jacobus secretary and manager of the Peoria Livery Company, visited the Streator factory of tho Alliance Manufacturing Company to satisfy himself that they were able to do the work Jesired. A few days

^£Td •oH .asB

.B^aalleqq^ X£ ^9 •oO ^i9ViJ ai-xoo^

«rit o:^ fcsiavlXaf: i^nraraoO yi^vU Jtiios*? d.'f;t ,8X81 lacfmstqsS nl

eriT .8aXldo'^o:^u^ owc^ aiijsqe-x lol ^ajBqmoO 3aiii/*ouj!ti;n.fiM eoflxilXXA

VXeX x'l^'^'fJ*^ ^^ ^ItosT ot L»qqXrfs ej«w fcerfalnll •Xicforao^wje ttTll

r:C«08^$ To!^ t^jsti ^ ijcJ Jbalnj3naiooo£ j^nlsd gnltsl lo XXic/ ari^

.^i yd i:9V]:30et 9lldOBi0.tui; 9. * J:a^ tnALl^qnjt ^<S btjiq a^w doixlw

9!i\t yd fcdqqide b*jw dxicfoaio.tuje irtooaa ari* .TXeX x^-a"i<*9'' J^I

lo Xlitf arl^ ^Aiios'T i-js iXoe^fX o* Xn^dqaioO aaXai/^OJsTLuaaM eonaiJlA

iaml^Io aon^XACf js 00>i;$ lo^ (fljsit * yd fcaifljS'-ixBoooja jaxiiad ^ait*£

--oiiiA omi »dt lo ftXi^qe' t toijnaqxe la-a tsbu 9L*liBt£m tas

yjsq ot t99ii\-t Yn^q«oO <i;vXJ *iT0 9*T e.-f-^ fi^axt elifT .aeXldom

flolflU flli9*T t(T^ i}ltos'? e t ifoni^^js ^tiua nlveXosT :td3«oTd ta^

^tKmii «lT09*' 'To *n;oo f tuoilo 9df nl .laiiiiao ©ri* .'{n^qmoO xa^itjifl

lo *Jtaw JB tas J\i&nt£iq af"^ y;cf Jbaatilraall e-w itiue alrfT .Tf^nuoO

.fcan'iij:Jat ton bjsw ^i'legoxq arit ^ud ^biua.l otnadjsrf oaaotai

ni lllTerfg navla taod aivalqaci an.^ ao' ^s airiT

lo"^ ♦oitiov *i ni JbstXuaBi yiiJt; xcf X^lt* A ttius nivalqea Bdi OO.aSS^ t!xs &<i»b 00.002X? lol (fnjstaalafc artt tanijssd i:iX*flijeX^

.aasjsmjBi;, aif* t£ ion 10 tarfi' * at aueul al tnloq aXjsm ar.T

acnislXXA aff*^ lalii^c bc^t cacil LealveXqfli a«ir aXidomoti/« an'it emX;^ • aXAlTA^Air ^tiiJi SOtfjiX ao"^ tl noqu a^ll a tsti xn^qaoO ^aliutosTiuaMU a&rdoo^L .d aofflxsl* «dXex tadnatqec! ai tjicii awoda aonal Xto axlT 9cit tBitBtv «)(a£qmoO y'^^^^'I stioa^ 9sii ^o la^^rtecn tajs ^ijetaioaa

aY<fti^ itol A .Jb9liee^ 3liow »dt oJb ot eXd« aiew i^e. :t t^dt IXeemixf

thereafter Mr. Wennigcr, Prraiient of the Alliance Company, went to Peorifc, saw the automobiles and had aome oonvereatlon -vlth Mr. Jacobua oonoernine the uubjeot matter in +he Livftry ComDany'e office. Aa a reault of thig oonversation ^i;e two automobiles wero driven to the Streator factory shortly afterward*. On the trip the tranemiaeion onone of the oars was broken and it becawe neoeaaary to have it restored a-t un expense of $30.35. Thia hov;ever wae oxtra -^nd in aidition to //hat had been up to that time ooneidered by either of the parties.

Plaintiff, appellee, provel that the labor, services and materiala furnished in making the repairs originally contemplated were roaeonably worth 1650, but mriie no attempt to The-* ";hat, if any, arrangeinent had b=»en male bet wen the parties prior to naking the repairs. F. E. Dorsman, Pcoretary and Treasurer of the Alliance Manufacturing Company, thr, only one of plaintiffs witneaaes interrogated on this uubjject testified ua follows? "Q. Didn't your fusrtrry aenl -^o Pforia a man or -ren to innrect these machines -^ni to mtike a contri.ot or bargain with reference to them, before delivered up there for repairs? A. I don't know

Q. Do you kno« whether there was any contract mai'> between your company ^nd Peoria Livery Company, with reference to Ahat was to be lone upon theoe cure, and what -sag to be paid, and within what time t:ie work was to be done? A. No."

"r. Jacobus, the secretary and manager, t atified positively that he made arrant';ementB '..ith Mr. Wenniger, the "resident of the Alliance Company at their interview in -^he livery office in Peoria County to mike the repairs for '•he fixed orioe whioh he could not recollect to a cent, but stated more than once thut ^450 was hia beat racoileotion of the amovmt. Mr. Wenniger wa not called as a witness to ieny the making of a contract "or a

.iC .«fci£Wi?^l£ ^(i*Torfe t'0*OJii to*£9i*3 Sii^-^ o* aavlil em«r^f/ fi l-n£ aaioicf a^v? pt^io arft to snono noiaEimen^i:'

tciJi aeoivise ^lotf^ . l;8T0iq «seXIeqqj9 ,Tli*flljjX*I

b9tMLqm9taoo x-C£^anijlrt« »T'i«q«T srf* ^nialam al tadBla-ust aisi.

^ts<^'^ ?»orfp 0+ vtqm-^-^r on . j .028$ ditom 'fldjanrOBJiBt tiow

9^1i^nlj?X(| "to •no ^Ino oO -^iitiLsto-alua-iM eon-olX-

tawoXIc i1it0«^ (tos^tfixu Btd:f no to#£j)oi79;ffll ••a8aa;fjtw

Joe^finl 0^"^ noK lo flBm *; ^Xtos^ o* inse ^to*»^1 -tuoY ^'attd .p" 9onf»i»)A9 dtlr aiJsvi'Xici •xo to^riaoo a ••iju& of tas mtaldoam •aeili

worcl i *aoi: I • A

... w .'.....;> J.

TLUO^ iT9«»t V Jo-^i^noo y;n-a a aw •aerf.+ larf^ariw r7orn( uo>f oQ .p

OJ tJBW tjsf* 0+ »orrei9t'>T .{ttAQinoO Y'-vlJ *i*i09" , .i^qiaoo

alxl T iw #«rfw . . ,«7jjo 99Bdt aonu anoX acf

?9n0i :;; ot ejaw iiow »f^;f omX^ ^Jlitfw

'".ohTa

!to tnaf iea*! (jginnoW .lil it;f i. atoamt alijsm ai.'

nt •ol^^o Y* ni woivisi-nl liai^:* tij xn*q«oO aonaXXXA ad*

•ff rfnldv o^ Y*nwoO Jiiaoa?

ot ^oaXIooai ^on XXuoo

rioicfoaXXoosn iesd ei^ a^w OS^I

i{fno& ^. '^0 ^nX3(£(r £ a« beLlAc toa

rixed price ".ni while the Alio^noe Company at ^ho time had a bookkeeper, a Uloe. 77eath, r.fdther she, nor any of ths firma booke, bilia or sorreaponience was prolucei on ^he trial, Vr, Jaoobua ia corroborated slightly by t • c fact t'lat when the first oar waa shipped it v/ae accompanied by a draft for f48C.35 which wae t .e amount Mr. Jaoobua claima eae iue the Alliance Comp*.ny altogether. He is also corroborated by tV^e faot that Mr. Wenni^er went to Peoria in inppeot tiie care. Tre only object there oould be for so ioincv would be to figure on the price as Mr. Jacobue had eatiefied himself as to ^he ability of the Alliance people to do ■''he work.

In Le.raon v Gloe, -35 111. on page 587, it waa said: "It is true that a court or Jury is not boun 1 t© bnlisve a witness when from ail *he other evi ienoe or from the inherent improb- ability or oontradictions in -tne testimony, the court or Jury is satisfied of its falsity."

In People v Davis S69 111. on page 370 it waa said: "The general rule uiidoubtediy ia that positive tsetimony of a witness uncontri.dicted and unimpeaohed, - either by positive testimony or by clroumstaiitial eviience, cither intrinaic or extrinaio,- oannot be iisret-arded, but must control the ieoioion of a court or T^uty, (Quook Ting v Unit-^^d States. 140 U. '^. 417.) It is true the rule admits of except ions. There may b** such an inherent improbability in t'e statements of a witness es to induce the court or Jury to disregard his eviisnoe, even In the absence of any direct conflicting testimony. He may be contradicted by the facta lis atatea as sompli^tely as by direct adverse testimony, -..ni ther-: may be so many omiasions in his account of particular transactions or of his own conluot aa to discredit hia whole story. (Podolaki v Stone, 188 111. 540; ^er.nard v Curran 339 Id. 133.) But neither court nor jury can wilfully or through mere caprice iisregard t -.e tf stimony of an unimpeaohed

.a¥ .X«li* ail.t rtp t^soi/toi^' law eonstnoqoeaioc td ••''®<>^

toaellXA e:[-t 9ui a£» aal^Xo eiicfoo^L .-jM inuoa^ 9.'^ B-Sft^fioldyi

*jsd* *o^l oi;* Kd fcet-siocfonoo oeii. si sK . ♦led^sao^X-s ypj^gfflop

:tostcfo xXno »;:fT .fti^o sift *oeq«ini ni mXioq'^ ot *naw taginiieW .jii

tolTo 9j^5 rto aii/gl'i o:f scf fcXyow "^nlof oe lol , 9f tXw^o. aie^;f

orfit lo Y*-Xic}£ a.-l* o* a^^ iX9ymXj(i teilaiJ^aa tarf ai/tfoo3l. .iM a£

.iiow 9rf+ o£ p;f aXqo^q oofltptXI^

*!" :l5i£a aj3w :ti »V8e agj^q ao ♦XXI 3CS *aoXO v noBT,3J nl

aean+iir £ evpjtXnd Oit Lnwod ^on si Y'^^t "^o *3U00 a t^rirf' 9Uit ai

-cfonqml Ja»T9iinl »■'+ aoii io aoa?i ivs tarfto ddf XX-a aioi^ '^•f'^

Xi:iJt "^o itiijQo ©.'f:t- ,\^aomi;)'e3 * ^ uao Holt -til t aoo jo ^tliid^

^»^:*1»Ia1 9&X '^o betlBtt^9 ai

arlT" rti-se e^w tl OVS es-:.] no .XXI 882 alv^aa v 8Xqo9<?7iI

eeanjfXvi :nomlterf evX-^laoq i*^ i^Lsfcfwoiiu; aXwi X^Mnaji

xrtoml:fB6-f avitlaoq \io s^^^^ift - ,t»ri0d9q(EXn« i-.-. ta^olJs-a.'jr^flOOfli/

- ,oieai't:tx9 lo olfrtiTtni Tiri.trr) ,aon9i-iV9 Xj3i.tr;^^aauio;tXo ^cf to

tiuoo £ '^0 aotatoel od:^ XoTtnoo ^su« ^ytf .^t%i>ta^9%9.^ "id toaaso

9u^f el tl (.TX*> .P .U O^X .99SstB t'^SlaV v gnXT jfooup) ,x'i^i V>

taeiednl cijh doua ^kS x^m aiailT .eiioitqeoxa Ip Aj^Zint)^ oXxri d/t^

•fit Boutnl of 0 aaeatlw a \o atnstma.+jsitg s/t ni x^-tXidifldpiqini

90fl9Bcfjs »( 1^ ni nave ,aon?l iv« eiri i5iJ839'iail o* X'^t "to *li/PO

ta^oifc/ii^iiPD if- ^^ta 9H .^nomi^eprf' gni^oiX'tnpp to'^iii^ )fnj3 lo

aeTevtjs tosiii xXat'^Xqaioa a;3 aa^ja^a art a*c ^cf

Ip inuooC'f' aiil ctl anoieaimo ^nAoi oe ed !(«n ?7a, , ^nooiid'aaif

t:: "ceti ot e. ^ai/tnpo itwc aiii anoiitojBanj^TL? T^sXwoi^'M.q

V 3+3 V iJigXotpT) .^ipffa ^Xp4w. ^<l:4

tedoaBPqmifliJ i ^npral(r« aoltqjap aiftm d^uoici:^ to

witneoB. (Laraon v Gloa, 235 111. 584.)" To tr.e same effect la Kelly V Jonee 33C 111. 375.

Mr. JttoobUB* teatiffiony was unoontr&dioted«, anl it was not inherently imreaaonaljle ari ae was not impeached in any ms-nner a.ni the Jury had no right to iioragard ^lo teatimony ani should have found tuat at the time t"Te automobile was replevined the appellant wae net indebted to the Alliance Manufacturing Company for such repairs.

It io true that Jacobus was not positive aa to tho oer.t of ths oontru,ct price, but he w^,© positive that a specific price had been fixed uni if a price vvas ao fixed then plaintiff ooull not recover on a quantum meruit.

iLe cauae will therefore be reversed ani remanded for a new trial.

Niehaus, P. J. took no cart*

6i *oe^^9 »m«F- ^.^86 .1X1 868 ,boIO v no«T*>J) .eaentiw

.ave .III oes Bertot, V yXI»^ *on e^w *i t(i* txbato tbaitaoznu saw ^nomJt^esit •audooaL .iM

Lluoclf. tnjs xaomitsBt elg bijefgeitii of id-^ti oa ^tati x^u^ Wii »£f# fcenivelqsi ».3iv aXlcfowo^u* srf* •ati* Bat t* t-a^t bttuoi '{njsqmoO ^at-xuSosJua^U aon^lXIA drf+ o;J- i)»^cf»l:>ai taa Bjaw {fa^II©qqj8

.eti-aqsT (foua lol xo trrao er:.^ ot b« avliMeoq *oa a^jw awcfoo^L t^cit emi ut ^fJ

90iiq ollicaae £ *-erl;t evitiaoq a^w »rf tud ,ooJti<j io\szta6o 9^& tluQO Wl&nisiq aact bex-i' oe bj>jw Boltq £ tt fas b9XtJ aascf irjsrl

»&tu'X'ym mu&asup s no aavooei ton V9n « ao^ i:«£nj8T!©7 trtJB fcaaTevsT ed aio^s^iarf;^ XI iw ski/jso OifT

.Ji^r^ on aloo.t .1, .*? .ajj-sifeiU-

STATE OF ILLINOIS, |

SECOND DISTRICT. f '"'" I, ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court.

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof.

do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in

the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

6739

/ V./W

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the seventh d/fy of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine huni^red and nine- teen, within and for the Second District o:f/ the State of Illinois :

Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Pres idl^g- Jus t ice . / /^

/ % .

Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff.

^ 3 /

217 I.A. 66f

BE IT REMEMBERED pthat afterwards, to-wit: on

MAR 9 1920 the opinion of the Court was filed in

the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures

following-, to-wit:

^V

Gen. No. 6736

The Ccunty of Peoria ex rel

The "cople !<:c* eippellee

VB Appeal from Peoria.

Chrlf-topher H&,rrig&n, &o.

appej-iant. Heard, J.

Miohafli Harrig£^n died t^atate in Peoria County on October 6, 1911, His will was probated in the probate court of Peoria County and let'ero testamentary were i^suei to Cliristopher Har- rigan and Kate Harrigan on their personal bond without seoiirity on Feb. IG, 1913. Kate Harri'/an Jled intestate ani after her ieath Chrlatopher Harrigan aoteJ as sole executor of the estat?

On Jan. 13, 1918, tbe States Attorney of Peoria County for and on behalf of the ooxaity and for and on behalf of tv.e People of the State of Illinois filed a petition in the probate court of Peoria County, afitting up among o-^ner things that althoxigh the executor had been acting for more than five ysare he had failed to file a report or raake any accounting as executor ; that he had been guilty of waste, jfci smanat^ement and fraud uoon the court and creditors of the estate by rrfuaing to file proper inven- tories b,nd trying to conceal for the personal benefit of his sisters and himself asseta belonging to the estate; that said Christopher Harrigan aa executor had bnen guilty of negligence in not paying the costs of administration- of said estate, and compelled t'.ie clerk to employ counsel to aid him ir collecting costs due him; that said Christopher Harrigan as executor has sougl.t to secure for himself and his sisters, Kate and Maggie Harrigan, property belonging to sail estate of Michael Harri?an deceased, ani by a peals and secreting of froparty has sought to hinder, delay and defraud cceiitors of said estate and used his anpointment as executor throughout the administration of said

ssXIdqqA .o^i slqaa- odT tJuiTOa^ moi'i XjusqqA ov

i»tfo:foC no ^i^rmoO Aiioe^ ni 9*-ad^e~* ts tt a^s^^triJiE iBAdotU

sltoB^ lo *'tiJOO acfjicfoiq axf* ni i;9d-«do'rti e^w Xliw eiH .XXeX ,2

-idH asxlqo^alii^O ocf iax/eci siow ^x^tasttmtBBt ene'^^al iinjs ^;fax/oO

Ytltiioee fuodtiv baod XjsnosToq lien" no flJi^slitaH 9:fa3 Lajs njes-ti

aari t9jH£ trris •t^tas^ni l)»ii- aje-^lii:*!! at-a^ .SXOX ,8X .da*? ao

9tM&ee an't lo lotuoaxa aXos a^ La^o^ a«:3liijsH lailqottt^irrO d^£eL

to'! )j*niJoO J8lio»«i to ^tnioJ^A 88*^*8 aJ* ,8XeX ,£;X .fljsL xiC

aXqoe*' «:■'■* "io IXjsrfdd no tan tol ioc ^^m/oo 9d& \o IXjeJad no fca*

^o f^uoo B&JicSoiq 8rf+ ni a .t;tX*9q js taXll aloalXXl lo e*jB*8 arf* ^o

arft rfy/orf^Xgs tA[i& asflirfit laxi+o gnoou: q^ gni^^aa ^x&nitoO jiiio8*?

taXijsl tjiiri 9x1 aiiis^ avil a«ir[,t 97001 toI ^nltoA nescf tjg/f lotuoaxa

9ti tsdi ;To:^uo9xa 9^ ^nlfnuooos ^os aiAtn ic lioqai « aXX^ o;t

^luoc e:it no^'u tsjst\ tcia sfname^jsnjemalA ,«^a«w lo xixlu:g aesd tjui

-navni laaoiq alf^ ot aniauli ^c* a^-fi^ta aif* lo aio^ltaio tflji

eiri lo Jllaned Xjanoaisq er).* lol X^oonoo oi ^at^^i tn^ aalioi

btMB fjit:& (a^t^ifaa e.i;t o^ jnlsncXdCt stasaA IXaaoaXd Lnas aia^sXa

aona^iXgan to x^^^^^ ao'^d tj&d lotuoaxa b* flJigliijaH larfqo^alailO

tn£ ^9iJi&BB btJtB lo aoti^iiiBlataJjs lo ataoo »d& -i^atx^^ ^<^o ai

;inl^oaXXoo tI miff t i£ ot Xaam/oo ^o-'^'l^^^ of MieXo 8i:;f JbaXXaqmoo

B£d toi^iioaxa bm osr^iii-aH tadqo^aii.'^O lijw t^di {mid buL a^aoo

Bt^'gaU Ln£ Bfidf «aae:taie eid ba£ ^Xaamiil lol aijjoaa oi tA:guQB

.nur^iTTJsH XejsrfoiU lo atjB*ao 1 i-ia of gnignoXsd ^^laqoiq tfl-«ai'X'MH

p^ ^(fyroa a^jrf x^iaqov j 3ui;t?toeB Ln£ eXx^aq jb \;d In^s «Jb8aj9ao8i)

alrf tBBU Lr.B a^<B^aa t ij^n ' 0 eio^ii^sco buai'iBt tas x^LbL ^1^taid

bt.BB lo aottxi'xtBtBtaitjB 9d^ tijod^^oisit sov-fuoaxa a« ^namtnioqnii

estate f r hie o.vn ceraonal aade and not for the fulfillment of his iutieu au executor by falae o'aims of ovrierahip a.nl ha h!5.;i no appointment aaxlQ of axi exeoutor pro tejoi to defend for said estate against his neraonal claims to ptxs property in his hanis as executor; the petition charged that eaid Christopher Harrigan had been guilty of fraud upon the courti, OLf waste and mismanagement of sail estate, of uegligenoe and ii sobedieiioe of law dinl i:n3 orders of thia court, ani should toy reason thereof be removed and oof^o fit vind proper person appointed in his stead as exeoutor of said estate.

A hearing was hud upon the petition in th.e Probate Court and appellant ordered ramoved ao exeoutor and adjudged to pay the coato of the prooeeiinga, from which orier appellant appealed to the circuit court. Thereupon hearing an order wao entered finding the charges to be auatained and ordering the removal of Christopher Harrigan as exeoutor and appointing E. J. Galbraith Public Alniinistrator of Peoria County, to be administrator ie bonis non of sail estate, ani adjudging the costs of the prooeei- inga against Christopher Harrigan, from which orier he appeals.

It io claiEcd by appellant that appellee has not been shown to'oB a creditor of the estate and so has not auoh an interest in the estate ao would entitle appellee to petition for the removal of *he exeoutor. Appellant i^ estopped from urging this claim for the reason that vshen appellee attempted to prove on the ■"rlc^l that a claim of apjellee for back taxes in the sum of $4801.17 had besn allowed by the Probate Court, agaist the estate, appellants attorney objected "on -l-he grouni *hat It has nothing to do with the issues in this case; it is incompetsnt, improper and immaterial," -^vhich objection was sue+ainel by the court. It has b^en repeatedly held by the Suor^rre Court and this Court that counsel cannot lead the court into error and afterwards

tflscnXXiiii/'i erft ao) ton tas mLmm L^aoBieq wro aiA i 1 •t-sta©

iri tnji qiilBiaric 1o aoitslo ••lasl ^^ tofr/o^aiflf a^ 9%iSsib Mid lo

10^ tnjj^ot o;t met oiq Totuo«x9 om lo abisa! ^namJffloqqjs on bad

:;lrf rti ^^i^qoT'T axM o^ snl^Io i-Aaoat^q Bid teals-^B %taiae ttse

•cnQttodoe tt Laa aoadglXaoa ^o ,•*«*«» Lisa \o tfnomaj^n^meim

^oeT«''*t noajsei ^ fcljjoxfe I xu:. «i}-ix/ot> elri* Jo aiBtio eii* kaM^^aL lo

at.i nl L^&nio(ic'£. noansq rreqoitq tniiii^ 9^ob tns" '■bay6iS4 sdf

.BtJStSS tlJM fo'td.fx;69x6"'*j5'^'i5J8a*B iiuo'O atsffot*' e .:oi;f^t9i s^^ ctoqir bad 8£W gnlttJJdif A

\CJBq 0* bBfiLulbji triA tQfsjoBXB us tavomeT fcsiotio *njiil9qqa\E>«ij t»I^eq"-e dn^XIfqqjs 't•>^io rfSfd-fr .no'i"); »«gn{f:e900iq *xft ♦o abator batatas aisw istto aje gnltjsseff noquaiarfT .^luoo flaoito's. Xjivom'M 9ift snltotno tn-i baatJataua ed o* assijsrfo 9rf# gaUbnil ilttaitflflO .Z .3 a"^*"-^<><?^^ ^'"^ to:f0Oix9 a^z riui^lttiH tsMqo Ja i'f rf9 Id 9i totattaintsits B€ oi j'{j"auoO «iT03<? 'io rot £ita taint k oiXcfx/*! -taaooiq' trf;t lo'^tta^o sdt ^rrigfcut^jB £fl« ,a^£^89 fcijsa lo non 8ino::f .efjeeoqii'ei('t9£io rfjM-' fltot^ ^tie-^titaE tidqoiatk^ JanljkigjB Bgnl nworfa need ton bjsxI aelXeqqa t-arft i^rtjsiiaq'lji ^t* issmijeXo al'^fl

*«9i9:tnl as rfoue ton eiri oe Jbn.^ t*«*89 ari^'lo to*li;atfe**i ao'o*

9:::* 10^ n-tft&eq d* aellaqq^ alttfn^ titsovi a^e 4*jb*9» srf* jII

anJtsfu aotl taqqdc^ea B.i ^naXIaq'^A .to*0oax9 erftt ^o livoraai

aVoiq 0!t fcatqsna^^jE eaXI-q-^ aadw ^sdf soe>aoi arit lo^ alAlo aldt

mira' aif ;t*fti a ex £t io«d to'} aaXIaqq^ )o mlJilt a iMdt IaIi* stl^ no

eri*"t<i-l<aa .tiwoO a^irfol^'tift' \{ii' fcawoXii iiisd bid TX^^XOe*! Itb

B4»d *t *•*/<•* trtuo-^ "o" tJ?*c*C;do xanid»tjB otfljaiiliQni ,«*x»*89

'^^Tfftlta^'moonl at tl i»a«o ald;^ ni aairaal'iidi^ d&tir 9t oi :ihldtoa

Mt yd tinlja+aue bjbw mjtfoo(;do doLdm * ^tutiafrital bna^'r^qorqmt

eidt fcff;B *Tri*0 atnrTawt adtiftf fcXad iflfcetjeaqai nrj^d Bjari #1 .♦tuoo

afciJBwi- t^i5 iffis loite o*nt tftiirc ^el ^onnao Xaamxoo tadt'tiuoO

take adve-n-^age of the error* Anpellees interoat In the eatate however was not &. controverted question. It wae stated in bcth petition and answer tLat appellee had u olalm against the estate for taxes*

Upon fbe trial in ^hs Ciroait Court, at the request of arpellee f:-e court called appellant aa tl e Court's witness. It is urged that if appellee desired t e testimony of appellant he shoulJ have called him aa appeliees witness and that it was error for the court to ca.!! hiff as the court's witness* Had appellee Ciilled him aa a witness, appellee would have vouched for the truthfulness of hie teatimony ani it was vfry evident fron t'.e character of the litigation that appellant was a witness hostilti to appellee* In sit ations of this ohuraoter the suprenne court has held it permissible for the court to call and examine a witness as tu© court's -fitness. He was an officer of the court and tue court had a right aua aponte to investigate* It lii aaaigned aa error that the court improperly allowed evidence »& to the claim of Maggie Harrigan for *^he reason tha-^ this claim had bee-n allowed by tne probate court ani that such -"inal order cculi net be set t aide by this court* This eviienor! was properly admitted not for t!;e purpose of going xkvKdfc behind the adjudication of the probate court, but aa tending to show that appellant was mismanaging the estate and squandering the

funds by oonaonting to the allowance of un;Ju9t claims and hence was not a proper person to aot as executor* Other errors are assigned, which we lo net think it necessary to diacusa in ietuil.

The evidence shows that from the beginning of hia executorship appellant has been continxipusly attempting to refrain from account- ing for property which belonged to -^h:; estate of the deceased, and that he has done ail that he could to obstruct the prefer settlement of the estate and the payment of claims and costs allowed against it.

The finding of the court was right ani is affirmed.

dtod fuk t9i^ .iiot:fa^9up ijatiavoi^noo j3 ton 9£m levawod

«aaoa4'jtw d*j-%x.'. ta£ilL9qqs 6eXI«o d'li/oo s.-ft eel ^

&Afi ft t&c .iaend'^.v ^bo&lo mid teXX«o ev^ ilifoila oil

LaH *ee9a;t.' ' /oc 9di ajs cajL4 XX;so o^ j'tuoo 6i1;^ lol ttoiis

tol teifouov sv^rf Lluoi' esilaqq^ «Ba9n(f^w ij sjb nlrf £)eXXjQO oeXxsqqf

noT* ^neixve Y'i'iv aa ^lomxd'ebcl' airi ^o «asaXuW^jJi;t edit

aaenHiy » e«w tofXIeq nox^js^X^i-. o x9&0£iiido eilt

9T»rtque edcf lato^iASiio sidi to enoX;t.s ;fXe nl .eaXXaqq^s oi ^ittnod

9ttlmAX9 taz ii^ii Qi iiuoD (aXcfXaexmieq il JbXad 9£d iiuoo

srfc^ 'to le&X^^O a-a aj^' ' aean^lw «

.©*i^8Xi'6eval ocT ^^^aoq« ..fcUjb Jrig .uoo an:

i:9woXX<3 ^XieqoiqtDl tnuoo 9d:t tMtif loirii; /^X&txi al il

7sd:t ao9*9t Bd) lol aa-gtixaK aXsS-^ ^<> flUjsXo ed^r o^ •« aoxzaX)Xv3

xloi/a tad:^ i:n>v (fiuoo 3;f^doi<: ^^ XjewoXXjs assc^ t*;f ioXjbXo aid*

soaafcXve eXdT •Jtjuoo aidt \ci atx© . *8i .joo latao IjanX*!:

■ - ? T tnided Assjfx ^nlog lo eeoqiuq ~'ad-;rXm£;3 x-^^^qoiq bjbw

woda o:f gaXtnacf ejs ^uct ,^7jjoo eitiido'xc adt lo aoX^«oXLx;|^i:^

.aX'xetnrjwpa tn^ et^^as adit gnX3.i3a.^ir.alm a«» ta*lle

e: exjt^''^ *^' QOflJiwoX-;' ' snUnoeaoo ^d afcnu*

91X i.*xoiT3 laridO ."Xo.^uoe; i b«w

ijsaaaoe .i^ttngXaawS

qXdaao?;joe:' ::)il !>"-b.'

■ tfruooo^ aaXitatn uquxU^noo nasoi a^d ^a^XXeqq^

ttui »l>aajtiec.- rrf;- :-o ad-fiitaf :+i©qoiq lol jnX

.lamcX^tfaa i: i'oui^ec; loii ajsi.' ' "f

:f»ai<e3^ i)OwoX-A «:^.oc Lits ajaX-t :?

•X>emiX J gnXXaXl an'T

STATE OF ILLINOIS. I

SECOND DISTRICT. \ ^"^ I, ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court.

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the the vear of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

C/erk of the Appellate Court.

6740

^>

'■■.^-■'' \^-,i

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the seventh day^of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hund:^d and nine- teen, within and for the Second District of |me State of 111 inois :

Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Pres idingf Jus t ice

ikon. DUANE J. CARNES , Justic^

• if

Ho'^:i. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.

CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Cl^k. ^17 J- • A « 6 6 I

CURt\s. AYERS, Sheriff^*

H

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on MAR 9 1920 the opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and fig-ares following, to-wit:

No. 6740.

Floyd D. Bromlay,

Appellee, va.

Peoria T>allway Co»pany, Appellant,

Appeal froii Peoria County Clrouit Court.

0 p 1 n i 0 n by H E A R D, J.

Appellee filed a declaration oharginc^ that the defendant, appellant, necjli^ently suffered and per- mitted the appellee, while a paaaen^er on its car, to rile on the foot-board or etep of said oar; that the oar vas greatly over-oro-jyded with paneengera, and because of the oro'vded condition o f aald oar appel- lee vaa unabla to oaoure entrance therein; that the defendant collected the uaual fare; that while the appellee jsrao 90 riding and in the sxeroiae of due care and caution for his own safety, the srrvanta of defendant by reason of the audden inwreaee in speed, negligently caused the said oar to jerk, and without any si;5nal or varning from the defendant, the aaid car Jerked and threw the appellee, against a certain obstruc- tion or part of the bridge, etc., and in the aecond count, charged the ne5li':5enoe aa follows: While the defendant had notice of the unsafe and dangerous position in whicJh the appellee vas ridin?; ae a passenger, which aaid dangerous and unsafe position vaa that furnished by the

-1-

' «teIl9qqA

{ .^ruBxXeqqA

-■■^ -"—'•* "'ligTarfo noiJ-BiJ3lo6t jb fcelll •eXItqqA

"i-.i ■ ai. ceae^^x/B Yl^ne^il7?en 4Jnj3XX«qqj8 ^^natittlaJb

o* ^ijto aJ/ no TsrrroBOJBq « sXIriw ^eaXXeqq^ erfJ fc8*Jlfli

arfcr j^^-rfd- ;ijqo Mjse ^c qe;fe ao fciJBod-*ool %Ai no etlic

£>n/. ^eiesn^an-sq ff*iw Jbatroao-ieTO Y-t!f**i? ^JB^" *-so

.-X**qqxi IRQ hlRfi 1 o rrold-itaoo beJbwoio •rf* !lo ••uBoecf

^f.i irAi ;nieT9rf;f eortjs'ij'ne en/oee o;t eXcfanu siST a«X

a.-ti^ elfrfw d-x3ff;t i»ifl"t Xijx/Bx; ©rfJ' Jbe;fo»XXoo *rtBi)nel»Z)

•■x«o ewb "io 8cioi8Xe erfJ- rri hn£ gnlMi oe sjbw eiXXeqq^

lo atfrr«vi-Q ©rft ,YJslaB rrwo eirf :co'^ rroiJu^o JbnjB

-0(rx;f«do ^i£d"x^o « ;tani«s« .teXXaqqa •di f/nntlf bnM Jbeii8(;

^^nuoo Linooea erfct .ti tnjs , ..oJ-e .a^tiTcf 9t<i \o irjif-i ro nolt

taMta9l9t ecf? aXirf^ :»woXXol oa ©oatyi Ij-en •rf^J' tsjajBffo

rfoirfw ixi nolilmoq suoisgrr/il bnjc eljaaaj;/ •"''* lo aoi^on Jbarf

hi/18 ciold'n ^Tt^rr888«q e »« p^[i^il axr •eXXeqq* arf*

Bift vrf ' ft I'fH i rrt .ft ijji'.t ; ft. -to f .+ ^-i i i d'^-ao/rif i- rj - auoiasnJSi''

defendant because of the over-crowded condition of said

oar, without warning ot notice to the appellee, negllf^ent- ly^ and refikleaaly Increased the speed of said car, so as to cause the aald car to jerk, etc.

The appellant filed the Plea of the (Teneral laaue, iphe evidence ahowa that appellee was working at a factory in East Peoria, Tlllnols, and on the rooming of the accident boardsd a train of three cars consiatlrg of a rcotor passenger car and two trailers. Thle train was kro-m as the "Holt Special* and ran fror- the City of Peoria to the Village of East Peoria, crossing a "bridge referred to In the testimony as the "McKlnley" bridge or the "Illinois .^raction " bridge on Its way to East Peoria.

The accident is olairied by the appellee* to have occurred while the train ^vaa crossing the brieve on its way from Peoria to East Peoria, The evidence shows th?.t there Is a ;yrade or incline frot. the Peoria aide of the bridge up onto It, which grade la one of Af, or a raiae of four feet in -^ach hundred lineal feet. FroR. the draw of the bridge easterly there is a slight down i^rade. The testimony on behalf of appellee Tas to the effect that when \% reached the train on that morning it ma already filled and men were standing on the platforiri of the several care, and that appellee atood upon the bottom step on the left or north aide at the front end of the third oar. The train as it creased the bridge was going In an easterly direction. That aa ai^pellee sivac

-3-

-;jTte:t?iIr'6j: .spjleqiijc fnif oS •oicfon to gnirrtiw tuocitiit ,ijBO

eji3 Oh SUB lo i:.ee::'e e-^J fsej^'eaonl vlaeelidei tna .^1

^

->t 1^0 btsB erfd" aex/jso c*

YTO^ojb'^ « i» iinlittov sjbw seXisqqA cfjsrf* •woff« •orrebiv* erf^i

©i{;t lo ^rrlnioji erfcf no f^rr^ ^eloftlXIT ^alTot'T JajsH ni

j3 ^o "^crl^Btsnoo 8T£0 »9i.-f;t lo rii-8?;f m tefcajBOCf ^attiooA

a>aif nij:a* eirfT ,«ipHsa;t cw* Jbrra rr^o le^rreasjBq noJo.a

lo x^i-^ »rf^ ''io:il njBT fcnjB "Xjeloaq? tXoII* 9Ai $a nvoni

•jbiicf j9 grriatoao ^js-troa^T i-sjsa lo ejjsXXJtV %df of 4i.tQ»1

• SfclTCf "^aXnlXoU" : xaontte6f trf^ al o* fceiitli,'!^

o.' vjBKf aJi no asfcii'-f " noltosii^ •loniXXI* trf* T0_

.jBlaoel ;te-83 »V4ul o;f $e»XXeqqjB eri (ialo e.^ cTnetloojB arfT

• i-i fio ©jjbizrf erf* ^rrleaoa; t aXlrfw fcatTtfOOO *£.'!* awoia aortative . . . .: i. o. i. •■

ari* \o •bin aiioa*? arf^ aiXoni lo alsaa^; a ai »iari*

bBlfli . ""* Tto ano al afcjsis rfoirfv ^ji olno qi; ajMicr

tiit Morl .^ae^ X.eanlX botbnud r(o«e nt ;fael ti/ .aJbiiij; nwoi.' ^rlgiXe a ei aaerf;^ YXia*aisa ajfciicf trf^ ^o f*^. Joa^la 9Ai 03 XXsqqjs lo IXjedatf no xaocattaef adT

pniniom iMil& rro niai* ail^ ijerfOAai 4i narfw J-JBrf* iroltfjiXq arf;? tnnSm a^aw nam Jbofi JbaXXll ^tjsaiXjs,

i aaXXfi B1J30 XjBieTae •di lo

tna ^rto t no qa*e iBO**od

•Sfc-t'^ ila«> a>-(T .lijo ibilrf* arf* lo

x»t« aaXXaq ^ .ta^a^a as at ^rcic-

atood on the etep he faoad south or toward the car, holding onto a hand rail with hi a left hand and holding hla lunoh

in hia rif^ht. Appellee aaya that the major portion of the atap of which he vas atanding was inal ie the line of the body of the oar. The testiiiiony of appellee hiiuaelf ao to how t>.e aooident occurred wa^ that when the oar he •va3 on rsachad th9 center of the draw of the bridge the car lurched eidewaya and his head struck the upri^^ht sup- port of the aids of the draw at the center. It appears froit. the evidence that the drav» of the bridge ia "hat ia known aa a jaok-knife draw; that ia, the dra-.v is divided in the centsr and ia opened by the two aldsa raising up, each side bain^, in effect, hinged at eith-r and of the draw^ that due to thia oonatruotion there ia necessarily a break in the rails at each end of the draw and at the center and a break in the trolley wire at t"^ e center.

There ia teatiu.ony t^ndin?^ tc show that after the itotor, whio^ waa at t?-e head of the train, paaaad over the draw ao as to clear the trolley at the draw, the apsad was increased by jerks; that there were four or five jerka, aa additional power was applied, there was a sudden jerk, that jerk and swaying threw appellee aa;ain8t the upright en the bridge, Thia upright was a steel girder, and was only about one foot .''roir. the aile of the car; that ia, the oar would clear these upright ^irdare on the draw only about one foot. The cara ward about 6C feet long. ,phere ^rcsre three steps on the oar beside the vestibule floor. The bottom

.3.

.XMO mdi bxsvoi^ %o sLSstom btoB\ md ^mit wdi ao boots doi "-:';::.: lud m oiao

•[SB ©eXX«qqA ' ni

■ d dolA* \o q«^« tdi

^^19 1 aw ;Jt

:'i3 a"t-;\ iii):Q ^

8t«p wac three feet lon^ and ai^ht inohea nicle, ??heri the oar, upon which appallee -vaa injursd, ©tarted acroas the bridge, there ware three r>rsn on the bottoiu step, two on the aeoond, and tvo on the third, and eighteen or tvanty men on the platform.

The evidence -va^ conflicting?; aa to the speed of tVe oar and the lurohin?; or jerkinf^ of the oar. "here ia also testimony that there is ndoeBsarily aoir.e kerklng or lurch- ing as a ca.r paasee over the breaks in the ralla both at the enia and in the cernter of t' e draw.

Xlli Appellee .Tas in a hospital four days following hi a injury and than rertained at honie for three weeks. After that tir.e he returned to the same work he v.-aa doing prior io the injury and ccntinuad in euoh work constantly up to the tiii.e of tl^e trial, except during; the tir-.e he was in the United States Army, Hia Barnin^e at tie time of the injury were ^35,00 a week and at the tire of the trial he was earning ^31.00 a week. The injury ooourred on Ceoeiuber 31, 1917, and on May §3, 1918, appellee waa drafted into the United States Army and eent to Jefferson T^arracka, T/isaouri. He v»ae in the Aamy until Deceu.ber 14, 1918, at which tirue he 'wp-s dischari^ed. His oertifloate of diacharge showed his physical condition to be rrood at the tiii.e of such discharge* The only tii-.e appellee has ever lost from hia work on account of the injury ia the four lays he was in the hoapital ImKediately following the accident and the three weeks following when he -vaa at hoxue. The case ma tried before the Court and a jury and at

-4-

Is -. . i*; .i. ,»**-" V ^ ; J wii.: w ii fi- A <:7 x ii4J ^iiw^ wOOA. -wpxiiu wj^r- .^U^JS

, .. 10 rra. f ./+ a-'-' rro orit fcHiB '.,1)110088 8 't ?

..litoltslq bdi no ae^Ti — . aeqfi e.i' *a-- ..... t;*v •on»l)iv» »dT

o&i - - '- o jintiittst 10 gnlrfoiwl erf* l>njB

-fIoi„.- -- . _ - - . ._ ;_ _.a»o©n «I •itiit ietit ynOiTiMrn'

i.H rf-tod" f-illj"^ aJ.^ r;. B2{jB«1(f trf^f isvc SaCKJSq tJ«0 « -i - ^_,.^ . :iJb trfj ^0 i9Jnn»o trft ni Lrwj atnn aci^ gnifollot aYjat li/ol iMftsiaod js al 8^w ••XXsqqA IIIX . .. 186'..' es'Lif lol 9.aod i^ ^»^l jBtaen n»rfJ Jbaa X^J^t^ jinioi; eav.' sf itov^ ei.ijs^ srfjJ o* ^eniJLfrf^Bi erf •«!# ijsrft ttsJ'^A Yl^««ifanor- rvrrJttnoo tntjs YiiJi,tiJ; ©rf:t of loti-

ni ajcw 8;i ainJt.+ ^ ^^^sit* ».1* lo •..

9ii *io siTii^ BjftinTJs* BiH ,yoi"xA a»*«;fa ^•*lfIU erf*

»rf li'lTd- •:■:* "to e lit •rf.t ix tcxB itiom m OO.clSt? 9i»*' T^x/t-'^-^

r.c-.x.. -t>l ,S8 YJ3M ;:o ba£ ,7XeX »XS i^tfjisoea

noBifel^eL oJ d-iiee J!>nj! t*** ••*fl*8 te:MnU •r!:t oiTnl hetlstfc ^>X iBdiWoeC Xltrrt; -riUiA erll nl >ji?r eR .iii/OBBiy ,sjfo.

si-j80llX*ie .JbsptJsrfot ami* rfolrfw ^js ^8t^^.

ij3 too? ©cf o.t nolitbtrno £.aolf»" f-,bworf8 e^Tflrfot

ej?rf 9»XX»qqji Bmi* ^X, .djjiirfoBJh rfout

6 :ii/tnl trf? lo ^rrt/oooA no iTow Btrf moalt Jbo.

•rf* gnlwoCXd^ tX»*-«J^Jb»."t»«X X**lqaorf t brf BY*i

,»jiorf Brf nnrfw snlwoXXol bA9%v m»i cas ^n8i>ioo«

^4 bns Y^.j^ J8 bn* tiuoO •di aioletf i)»i«# taw aajBO eriT

-^-

the oloee of all tha ovid«no« appellant aovad the Court to direct a verllot in ite favor and offered an tXKtxuKvxtx Inatruotion to that effeot. That motion was overruled and the inetruotion refused. The oase v/a3 then ar^ed, the jury instructed and a verdict returned by the jury finding the appellant jjuilty and asaeeelng appollee'fi dar.-agea at at f 7, 000,00. Appellant ir.oved for a n^w trial and auoh rootion was arju-sd before the trial Court, The trial Court hell the verdict to be axceeaive but upon a re»'iitti- tur by appellee to *4,000.00 the trial Court overruled the motion and entered judgnient on t^e verdict a=;ain3t appel- lant for ^4, 000. 00 and coats, frofi. which judgpient a«- appeal waa perfected and the case con.se here for review.

Prior to enterinar upon the trial appellant ir-a le a motion for a continuance of the case on account of f^e abaenoa of the witneasea Dr. G, H. Raithel and I', A. Coffel ani in support of auch motion filsd therewith aworn statements of what the witnesses ^vould testify to if present in court, and appellee for the purpose of avoiding a continuance, admitted that if the witneaaaa were present in court in person they would testify as set-up in the stateitenta, and upon the trial these statements were read in evidence. One of the asaiornmenta of error ia the refusal of the Court to ^ive defendant's ^second and fourth refused inatructiona, whioh were with reference to the etateraenta of the witneaaea Dr 0, H. Raithel and M. A. Coffel whioh had been read in evidence. As this case must be reversed upon another ground we do not deem it necessary to

-.5-

xtHmnAisxtuxt am X>»ift)lo bnM tmvM\ •#! ni tottrev & iostlb

Lelwitevo flijv' aoido^a tad'? .^os^l* fndt ot noitomtBtit

^tBu^iM ae . (fsu'i^'i aoltOiniBCit 9:<J brts,

y^ij t^rt ^etbtev n tns b^totrtfani x'cut •-*

ts . er*- ' ■fi SnJiBseBajB Jb«« Yi'Iiug JnaXXtqqjB •rf* j/tlin^"^

' TjeXXtqq^ .00,000 4^

'1^7 vieeecy ^o^Mer •«!# tXerf truoQ

sXiJTi&vo ^-xisoO ip.ti^ ,000^^^. oi »eXX»qqji yd" ^ui

Xatq- soo ttiB 00,000^*^ tol ;ffi/!l

rto; trrjBXXsqq* XjJi-i oqu j»frii»Jne oJ Tcla*T

Bta6!a%$£)» aroffB ditfteiBc*' aoiioai dous \o ^toqqi/e

^iruc J.UOV e»8©»n3'iv i?; *o

^eonjsixnri Jftoo ;5 «nitlov oq:tx/q •((# toI •aXXsqqA fcnjB

taBm^^i • BBBBai ^i isdi bBtitmtA

^»fttBlaBtJ -liftist oXjjow y»rf* ao*T«q^

.s "^'^ faew©*j?Jt eBBJlvt X^it^ trf* noqujbnjs

;fneinn:oXBB« trftt )o taC t

<?e7 n*»ef 1.6x1

-a-

paaa uponjthls asalo^nrr.dnt of error.

Appellant oontenda that the ren^arka of appsllee'a oounael, during thi oourrie of the trial, hia •tatewonte in arguiuent and conduot towarda the appellee* a witneesea, were such ae to Influence and prejudice the jury and Inatanoea of euoh miaocnduct are called to our attention too nurc«rou8 to detail here. He insulted witneeeee and peraiated in making prejudioal rer.arde in his arfjunient to the Jury after object iona thereto had been eustained "by the Court, It ifl true that in nost inetanoee objection to t>o Piiaconduot of ooursel ware auatalned bv the Court, and although trial judge did every thins in his power to prevent prajudioe the appellant ir.uat have been prejudiced thereby ia evidenced by t'-te fact that the verdict of the jury 'vae for $7, 000,00 and that Appellee enteral a rer.ittiture of f.3,00C,00. Such mieoonluot of oounael cannot be tolorated in Ccurta of Justice and the quiokeat way of puttln!^ a atop to it ia to -^rant a new trial whei!*' ever it occurs.

The languagd of the Supreme Court in Biahop v, Chiaago Junction Ry. Co., 389 111. on pa^e SB, is so exactly in point that we adopt it aa our own. Re aaya: "The rule concerning the effect of mieconduot of counsel haa been stated in numerous oaaea. In the case of Appel v, Chicago City Railway Co., 3?^9 111. 561, 103 N. E. 1021, a jui<5iuent of the i»tAa lower court waa reversed for Biisoonduot of ocunael. In that case it 'vaa said:

"In a clear case, ho^tever, this court will revABse a

-6-

[ifumtji.-- , Uittt fe- ."ijjoc a.-fcr ^rtJtttxb /Xaant/oo

jS^Beejad-iv e*e8lX»qqjs arfjf afctcawo;^ ^ouJbrtoo fcn*- Jnauix/ST*

bnJ» ^tul *di Boibisl^'sq bnM aorceuX^nJt o^ ajs rfotre a:rav>

nolSn9iiJt tuo o:t beXX/io arr^ Soijtnooatm dous \o BbonM^Bal

beta aaaesntiw b^iluenl 9B .a^erf Xi^^at- dt' Bjjoisnwn 00*

ctintmiJi atrf rtl ehtJB?jai IsotbuifBtti ^liown nl fcateiai?;!

aaofiB^efri tac f* •x/n' ,J-rtaoO

0 1 ')■:->. Cfiis* rfjirorf;tXjs bna

taolfcjiriciq- naacf evji tfijjiiaqq* erfJ ftoltirt«^q ^'^•■''■siq

/j ^eT6tfTf^ aftlXs "O.OOO,'?^ rroT a^v.' Y^J^t

Xaanuoi oal* rfoirS .O'^.OOr :'Tir*iJJlma:t

JpaalolUi to Mtitaot) tit h%fKto£ot acf *onn:j»o

■*»»,-{•>' iiJ-x:^ lois JB :nfrf#;ti/q lo t^ew

.airaooo .ti lava

ni ^Z^tOiy e^fiq rto ,XXI esr , -H noltfoayl.

(Jb^d Bjiri If; i/Jbnooe rtiffiaonoo aXua

«<i[«b^D auotamutT at b^tAta

<'-oi . . -io oajBoirfo

^^"i Jt>a li;tt|:»t ^aaaijtut «

ji aaaAva'x xXi -o iJ»aXo « rrl"

judgment because of the ircpropar oonduot of ocunaal, and had revaraed judgmenta >^9cau8e of the prejuduoal Bt?.te- rtenta of oouneel even though the trial court hae auBtained c"bjeotiona to auoh ataten^enta, rebuked ooxmsel, and directed the jury to dlare^^ard the etnterr.ente, '^abaeh Railroad Co. v. Blllin?;*, niS 111. 37 (7n N. E. 3);

Chicago Union Traction Co. v. Lauth, 31G 111. 176 (74 N. E. 738). The rule in thla atata rrrust be regarded

aa settled that Biaconduot of oounael of the character mentioned i» sufficient oauae for reveraing a judgment, unleaa it can b^j aeon that it did not ren\ilt in injury to the defeated party. The que^tiona to bo determined

are thgrefor^ 'whether the improper argument was of auoh a charactsr ag was likely to prejuduoe the defendant, and if so, was the verdict 30 clearly rl't;ht that a new trial cu:;ht not to be ■granted because of auoh prejudicial arjUK^nta ?"

"In Chica^TO & Alton Railroad Co. v. Scott, 332 111. 413, 83 N. E. 938, counsel for the plaintiff indulged in inylaiunatory langua^je against t^-e railroad coapany calcu- lated to prejudice the jury. The trial court auatained the objactlone thereto. It wae held there that the auataining of the objectiora under the clrcuaat antes in that case did not excuse the error. The court there caid:

*A court owse a duty of protection to witneaaea and partiea, and eapeoially to wltneaaea, and court hearing an attorney, under the guiae of ar^nent, abuaing his privilege, •hould, either upon objection or ite own motion , check the

-7-

I -Jiii »rf* xfrxfori* fli«y» i^nrtifoxt \o Bias..

0 rtol^ojsiT aoI.iU op«ol.-(0 loioeija nernuoo 1o t^ubaoomim iJSiii it^ittBB bj,

y^jji .:rT btii it i/}Ai h©6l. *d ans il §«dXrt-j

L2lri W9fi « ifiBrf* ^rfji/T xli^mio oe *oltt»v trf^ Rjstr ^08 li ijsio/JbuLaiq rfoi/e lo »etf«o»(^ isJiifiTj »rf o^ ifoa *£fji/o

• i:i4jH noiXA A ©iJSOldO ml*

.'00 ^8< C8 ^exi^

b9ttbateL -rf? vfJ »oiJbxT|;e'f'4. '^^ b^isi

.oi^r^^-it ^ncii09{,do bcii tt^iiildc ' ^nltilAiauB

:btJio brxJi iifb s •mo i'xjxy9 k"

ni, 'jBioeqitte ban ^mtlii^aq

attorney, and not only do that, but preserva th« dignity of

thd Court by compelling obadienoe to ite order, S Knoy.

of ?>1, ijf Fl & Pr. 750. Tt la the duty of a court to xm preserve ito o.vn dignity and the reapeot due tc t^ e oourta and the adjcinistration of the lav? by not allowing un attorney, under the pretense of ar^julng the oaae, to indulr;2 In -abuse of parties or -vltneaaea* City of Salaic v, debater, 192

111. 3S3 (61 N. T. 333), The Ka power veated in the

oourt should have b«en properly uaed in thia caaa at the outaet by atoppin:5; the lin^ of ar^^r.ent upon which the attorney had entered and endeavor inr^ to renove the preju— dicea axolted by hla lan-niar^e. The oourt failed in its

duty, and the mere auatpiininf^ of objectiora traa no ade- quate remedy for th« evil done. As -^p-r. aaid b- the Supreme Court of Wiaoonaln in the caea cf Sullivan v. Collina, 107 Wla. 291 (63 N, W. 310); "The least that a aalf-reapeoting court can do under auch cirouraatancea ie to stop auch practice in the presence of the Jury, and not allow it to proceed with airriplf a perfunctory auetalning of objectlona."

In Chicago Union Traction Co. v. Lauth, aupra, it waa eaid: "The rule Isa, that althou'rh the trial court luay have

done ita full duty In ita aupervlaion of the trial and in sustaining objaotiona, a ns/v trial ahould be granted where it appeara that the abu^e of ar^juirtant has worked an injuatioe tc one of the parties, "

While it is true -that at tlraea, in olosftly ocntestei oasea, oounael may inadvertently aay that v»hich ia prejudicial.

-8-

■ ".i-^.tb 6-<.i e'^7b;>.bt.j i:jd ,Ji?cf^ Ob viiio Jon bas ^\9iiioftM

'O ^aXiie^lJiOO ^d tlUOO art*

»8i/cfj8 nl ejlxibni -j ^a "^ - ©artt^Biq erf* rsfrtu

'^ - . - 3) eac .III

rb^^ ■^xir^uv.. le- :)Ii;Orf» tXtSOO

~ '^- -' ' '"■'■' 7ui4>^u*» y;er ^eaJjjo

. • j^atrr n/r ' '' "' '*>*2ox» Beolfc

--,,., --"'■'■'^ 'jf. o^ «L.i.;.. i* ii bns ^^fub

£ ' J. *v» »f{,"t 'xot vfesata ©*JBirp

, . i... v,^ llano 06 .'•''■■ "^ •■ -^ir/oO •laeiqi/S

.. --^... iJT" i^- , , v-a) X€.: .-: ?ox ,«ftixioo

, ;:: :, r; T.vt.< r rn-r ^ . ; ' . .r • .- • n -^-rujo £^1 * 0©qeel -1 IBB

t V

SOlJO-eT -!"f^rr*: , : O .+ P

10 -ofi rtx ;"r.fs t/E -.'tn.+ t; ; .*p*007.v'; , .. ., .'

" .Etr'-' i ."t nt) ■ cfo iTOlrrTT 0'e£ClffT) •vjBrf :Mfla

.-^^ '. :^ g'frol)

e i>t oe(,cro 5nlni«*tJje

.) 5 no oJ

: _ j V i 4 - ■ •■

,IjBlOltl/t ■ ,'. ■--

ths Irfluanoe of such as, jtatament niay "generally "be over- oorue by auetainir!; objections thereto and by retraction on the part of tha offandiner counsel icad6 in cjood faith, yet whare it would appear, aw it doee here by frequent inetanoea, that oouneel has In the presence of the jury indulged in acta and etatercenta prejudicial to the righta of tha oppoaita party, and which tend to indicate that he was eeakln'^ what mawht be gained fron euch prejudice of the jury, euch r^ieoonduct will arrxunt to a mistrial of the cause, unleee it oan be aean that it did not reeiult in injury to the plaintiff Ir error. Wa cannot eo hold ka

hsre. The evi-'ienoe was confliotin'^ and the verdict return-

ei vas for a large aur.. ''Thile it la unfortunate that this

case r;.uat be rsvere-ii for the^e reHSona, yet it Is a Fiiefortune vidited upon defendant in error by his own attorney. When intelll-^dnt oouneel paraiata in oonluot which he knows may reault in .33ttin<^ aside the verdict of the jury if he eeourea one, ha is thereby diliberately taking ohancea with hia client' a rl^hta. As waa aaid in Bale ^. Chi-

cago Junction Railway Co., 359 111. 476, N. F. 808, whera prajudiolal rer-arks vrere made, object*dJi to, and objection auatained: "Thia kind of arguiuent cannot be

justified, and if willfully peraiated in •^lll justify the reveraal of a judgment even though tha court haa auatainad objections to it. It ia, of itself, suffi-

cient reaaon for granting a naw trial.

"Thile it is regrettable that thia cnaa rruat be reveraed beoauae of Improper conduct of intellicrent and

-9-

.>....,... .. .....-.., J (,cfo :^aialf<t6U9 ycf

^i-f^TJtjj* be 1 A^r> -'Tib.-reilo •rI;J "io tiMti .»** no

tciBtJi^iju^B bnh •;fo« nt btrjiLutat

»

- . f - J. . - .■ ..:^r: ■

»d bLo.i ♦;.-.. >ti J'j" .

ad" Jc'.'ja.::- /"%>;/■'- :6fln-^.f3.tRf/3 aol*o»tCfo

-«~

a"ble ocunsel yet, if court a of law are to be aources of justice, the rulg that parties litigant, rt^rdleaa of who they rt.ay he, ehall have eeoured to theti. the ori>or- tunlty to have the isguas of their casa tried hy a jury free frow the X9 prejudicial influence of iriproper conduct of counsel must be strictly enforced."

The judfjment of the Circuit Court will be reversed and the cause reniandad.

Niehaue, J., took no part.

-10-

.3t)8XJf>ia5»7 ^JnjRglifil selJxaq fetid' ^£trt 9di iB0lt9jJi

x-iCio.at to eonauXlnjt XaXoiii/tsiq itx •rt* noirl ••tl ■ . .ftwroTtnd vX*oi!t*e «cf Jeiim Xepm/oo lo ;^o^>^noo

»fz..:^ on ;{oc,t ^.f^ ,«x/i?ffffii5'

-OX-

STATE OF ILLINOIS, f ^

SECOND DISTRICT. ( ***"• I, ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court,

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the fores^oing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Clerk of the AppeU-ate Court.

6?53

■■h^-7

j/t,

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COUJ

/ Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the se/y-enth day of October,

in the year of our Lord one thousand ni^e hundred and nine- teen, within and for the Second Disti^lct of the State of Illinois: /

Present — The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, p/esiding Justice. \ Hon. DUANE J. CARNES , ,3us t i ce . Hon. DORRANCE DIBELl/ Justice.

CHRISTOPHER C. DUFJ^, Clerk. 2 1 ^ I,A« fi f? T'

% CURT S. AYERS, St^riff.

3 J

\

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on

.,.„ ^ the opinion of the Court was filed in

MAR 9 1920

the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit:

fO Mii:

Gen. No. 6753

Christina Hoffman, appellee

V8 Appeal tTom Lee.

Estate of Frank Abrogast, deod.

appellant. H^ard, J.

Chriatina Hoffman, the appellee, filed her claim in the County Court of Lee County agalnat the estate of Frank Abrogast deoeaaei, for nursing, washing, foci ani oare furniahed Minnie Abrogast wife of Frank Abrogt-st luring her last illnese and for board, food, labor anl servioes furnished Frank Abrogast both before and after his wife's death.

The claim was iisallowed in *he County Court and an appeal taken by appellee to the Circuit Court, where a jury rfndered a vrrdiot for $833, in favor of appellee. A remittitur of tl-^^0 was male an i judgment was entered against the estate for ^683 and coate, from whioh juigment this appeal was taken.

Appellant assigns as error the giving of appellee's inetruotion to the jury. There were but two inetructione given to the j-ry - one for appellee and one for appellant, and while the obe given for appellee may be teohnioally objectionable, yet when the two instructions are considered to<;;ether as a series they are to say the least not unfavorable to appellant*

It ia claimed that the judgment was not warranted by the evidence and that as appellee was a sister of Mrs* Abrogast the presumption is that the servioes were gratuitous.

The sviience in the case shows that Abro.Tast and his wife lived in a home which he owned in the City of Dixon: that they had no living children; that appellee lived almost dirnctly aoroos the street from the Ibrogast family; that Mrs. Abrogast for sor.e years before her death was afflioted with a cancer of her faca which progressed until it became very painftd, requiring

•eXIsqqjB ,a«alloH juilSttidO .83 J moi^ Xj»6q«jA av

.bo&L «^ajQsoicfA in^Tl ^o e&Mial.

arl* at mijslo isrf tslll: ,e»II«qqj8 Bd^ ^ajmtloH jBnitelixfO

tBjS^OTdA inai'^^o ©+£."t89 erf* taala'^a xtnuoO eoJ 1o iiuoO yi&auoO

aiflfiiM ijericinxj't stjso in^ i;oo!t ^jnirfe^sw ^anXartun io1 ,l:aBj»©oefc

TO? in.= eaanXXi isj^i asri gnliui: *e.3S0T<:fA ixwx'? lo allw i-aisgoirfA

rfv*od ^BJsgoicfA iaai'5 tarialnial aaolvtee Jca^ loiifjaX .Jcoo'i tbrsod

I«aqT£ a£ tne ^tjuoO ^;tru;oO e.!'^ nl towoXi^eXl a^sw mlislo sri'T

ietstn^T ^ijj^ £ 9ierfv« ,tfixioO *ii;oiXO adt oi eaXXaqq^ yd naiat

^0 iJj.+ ittimsT A .seXIaqqxs lo loval nl .S£S$ lol i'oiJbaav s

10) acf^t^es sd:^ ^anlwa^^ Jbate;fa8 ajsw ;^^^msi-.u^ 1: a.£ aljam a«w Or^Xl

• a8>fjBd- BJ3W X«9qq£ etdt ^ns^islu^ xloJLxfw moi^ ,a^aoo tn^ &Qd%

a*«eXIeciq£ %o gnjtvis odi toils 9s anjjlae^ :fn^XieqqA

nsvlTa maol&oisi^6at owt Ji/d eiew siedT 'XiiJt. "^'^ o^ noi*ointanX

eXlifw tnjB ,;)'aJ8XI©qqj3 lol sno taa aeXIaqq* io\ ano - X'^ t ^^"^ ®*

ctay ,aXd£noi;fca[;cfo yXlAoiruioa^ scf ^f^^'a aaXXaqq^i lo) navis odo arfit

aaliaa jcj bjb lexfifa oit i;>aietiafloo ai« enoi:foui;far[X ow^ arf^ aaxlv

• ^niiXIaqq£ o^ aXtfjsioVJS^cuu ^on #ajiaX ail:f x^* o^ s*^^ Y^'^'^

aci:^ Ycf ta^a^7-c,0Vf ^ofl e«v ^naffl^jj(; aii:t i^ii& tBtBlalo aX ^I

^•ii^OTCfA «biM to laiteie js a^sw aaXIaqq^s a« ^^i.-l^t Xio^ aonativa

,(kuo&luiJiTSi aiaw aaoiviaa ad* ^a.i* at oox^qaiuaaiq aa';f

aliw aXxi Ltijs tnsViOtttk &£c^S aworle ae.£o 9df at aonsXivs axfT

Xarft tarf* ;aoxia ^o \[:'xO orit nt Jbanwo arf rfoiriw amoil -a nl bs'vti

XL^O'^rtt ^bosXjj tarXX aaXIaqq« Sstii ;aaxLXXxfo jpaXviX on bad

ta£^ot<^A .aiU tjs.-f* ii^Xlausl tmasotdtl a::* moi) ^aai^a arf* aaoio«

lo naooso « rf*i» tatoXXl^a a^^w xtt^aX laif <>tolecf arc^ax anoa lol

«flliXx/Dai .LsjJat^a Yxe7 am^oed *1 XX*ni; taaaaTsoncr rfoiilw aojsl Taxf

frequent attention and dressing, and whioh gave forth very of- fensive odors; that appellee for some time before Mrs. Abrogast's death went to the Abrogaet home daily to dress and care for Mre. Abrogast and give her food ani irlnk} t^is-t each week on Monday &he did their washing. After hie wife's death Frank Abrogast remained for several months at his home ar. i while there appellee continued to cook, waah ani mend for him. No payments were shown to have been made appellee. Some time prior to his death Frank Abrogast was elected tax oolleotor for Dixon township. It was stipulated between rhe parties that Elmer Countryman, if present wouli testify t at Frank Abrogc-st, ±mXi. prior to the death of Minnie Abro -iast, told said Countryrrian that "Christina helps take care of my wife in t..e daytime. I have'nt the money to pay for a nurse, ani am going to make it all right with her when I get my tax money." That etatcment was male with reference to the claimant and was made between April 1914, -And October 5, 1914. The evidence shows that to other persons he expressed his appre- oiaticn of appsxlee'e servioes and said she would be paid there- for; that by his last will and testament he bequeathed |'150. to appellee; that luring all thie time appellee kept up T^bt own homo and attended to her own household iutiesj that luring a portion of the time before hia wife's death Abrogast gave up his work and helped in the housework ani care for hie wife; that Abrogast was poor and unable to hire a trained or practical nurse. There was no direct evidence of an express contract. The law in this state it: this olass of cases is well settled.

In Heffron v Brown, 155 111. on page 336 it wao siaid! "Where services are reniered by one aimltted Into +he family as a rela- tive, the presumption of law is that such servioes are gratui- toua, and that the parties do not contemplate the payment of wages therefor. This presumption, however, may beoveroome by

.atV 10^ a7dD tna aasti) o* ijXiAi aaiorf JajagoicfA ©:;? o* ^naw ri^jaai

tjei^nolf no iesw rlo-- ;aIniTfc tf»* t^eol sad ev-ta fcrr* ^a^gO'i^A

;fe-cgoitfA :irL6T''! Ata^L a'aliv ^iil asitlA .gairia^w iiecf;f tit arfa

asllsqo^ STarf^ slirlw f rr-b amorf alri ^£ Bdtaom X«79vaB lo^ £{^|X^«|Bfi

rrwofiCa aien ataarex'^^ ^^ •aid lol Jbnam iu^ 4a«r. iSfooo .e^j l^di/ni^'aoo

jfnjBi'^ il;t,aet olrf ot loiiq amiit aoioS .aaXIaqqA 9imta adacT ayj^..9;f

ej9w ;fl .qlderrxof ttoxid ro'i ToSoeiloo Jiat t^^oaXa a<<3W #a#8P;o/A

^fnaeatrn ^1 ,tTiJrry'i*mioO tamXI tar-t eaitfi^q an? aaawd-ad befaiyqtte

lo xfitBai. J- 70iiq JDial .tauisottfA ;ixi«7'? ^ju;^ x'i^f^^f. tistv^

trot ^usq o.-t xaaom «.-f.t tn'av^ri I .aitii^r^j^t ©. o* aX •IXw ^m lo atjso

^as I nerfiv la/f dd-itv crxlsia Xi« vti a:i(.fin o:t ^nXos '"^^ ^^^ «aaxiiA' «

erf"* r>:*^ ecfieio^at dt.tti aLjam e«tf ta^tceiats tud^ ".yanom XAif x*

.^XSi. , oo^oC taif «^I6X XliqA na^wc^sd atjewti a.^ i>a4 .^ii4nX«aXo

-aiqqji ntd i)aaaaiqxe ad eaoaaaq X9d;to oi tj^di awo^a aoiistiTa e4T

-aTorf,^ ti£q dd tXuow ada hijm ta^i aao^viaa a'8aXj:aqq« 1o iSoi^«3io

. )?X^ Jbar[;f4iax;pad arl tnatn^tsad- Juos XXXw ^ai»X aXif v.d <4f^i> .4^0!

T»(f au tq©3l aaXieqo^ arniJ' »irf»+ XXa a^iii/X *^1* t«9-^Xaqq« Oif

^nXTFi jaai^ut Lioiiaaxjon owe iBd ot bBttaatiM tn^ anoct awo

q0 av^ 2^8i^?)o<xofA if^«ai3 a'a^ivr tilrf aiolsd anXt r ail;t . lo noi;fioq a

ti^di ;»lXw niif 10^ %t»9 tas iLtov%BUOd 9d& al ^aqXail bnA adow aXxf

,aaT«»i lAottoAti\ TO ta/iX^T^ i:> aiid o^ aXcf^otf tnji looq a<dw ^a^s^oicfA

wjiX arfT .^o^T^noc aa^ioxa n^ lo aoaativa i^oaiii oa aaw Q%ai:(T

-*X)aX^;faa XXai* bI aaaico ''.o ae^Xo Bl4(f i£iX B:t^t9 Bld^ at

a»arfW" j*ij6s Djst- it 8«€ agx .1 aax ,airoai .v aoillaH cl

-aXai a €>: ^Itmu" .:q yd isaiaiflax at« ..etoXviea

-iij*at^ a- «»oivr«i'^ ... .-o aot^-^Buetftxq Bdt «f7X^

•*o #ita«||«: -Blttsc . .Miit Jbfljj ,iVO^

v:cf ^-ootevc^ff ^jBflj ,Tavavoxl ,noJ:!J'q«iwea7q aWT .xol^^iarf* taiaw

proof. The proof neoesBary to overcome the presxainrtioit may be either cf cvn express contraot, or of a oontract established by auoh facts and oiroiicietanoes as show that both parties* at the time the eervioea wore rendered, contemplated or intended pecuniary recompense other than that which arises na urally out of the family relation. (Miller v Miller, 16 111. 296.)

A contraot is express "where it conaists of words written or spoken, expressing an actual agresir.ent of the parties;" it is implied when it is cvidenoed by conduct manifesting an intention of agreement." (3 Am. A Eng. Eno. of Law, page 843.) Anderson, in his law dictionary, aaya that a contract io express "when the agreement ie formal and stated either verbally or in writing, and io implied T»hen the agreement ia matter of inference and deduction." In Ex parte Ford, 16 Q, B. Div. 307, it -vb-q said that, "whenever circumstances arise in the ordinary business of life in which, if two pBraons were ordinarily honest and careful the one of *;hem .vould mc^ke a promise to the other, it rray properjfy be inferred t>at both of them understood that such - promise was given und accepted." In Marzetti v Williams, 1 Earn. & .-Adol. 415, Lord Tenterden aaidt "T V.e only difference between an ex- press and an implied contract is in the mode of substantiating it. An expr^se contract ia proved by an actual agreement; an implied contract by circumetanoes, and the general course of dealing betv/een the parties;" In the same case Parke, J., said: "The only difference, however, between anl express and an im- plied contract, ia c.b to the mode of proof. An express contract ia proved by direct eviisnoe, an implied contract by oiroumatan- tial evidence;" and Patterson, J. said: "But the only distinction between the two species of contraots is aa to the mode of proof. Ti.s one is proved by the express words used by the parties, the other by circumstances ahowinp that the parties intended to con-

XJia not&niauosr'^ 9c^.^ ttaooisvo otf >(i«aa8oen ^ooiq silt .looiq

^« «a«i^ttAq ^.toG( fMtii woxfa- t« aoon^^aai/oT2o ibnjs afoAl doisa x<t h9t>ne&nt 10 t»t£Lqtn9iaoo jtatefcneT ataw aaoi^Ytoa artt $ait& arft tXXjBiw -on aaaiiJB doirfv isci:! a*df tarftfo aanaqaooarr ^ajBlxtuosq {.eefc. .XII 8X ,toiIiM V rrsIXitf) .ooitjBlat yXlm^l arfif 'lo 10 ttB^^ttw eJblow ?o aJaianoo ti ^la^fw" aasiqxa »i tcjsii-noo A

"jaaitiAq arfj}- *o (faanrasisij Laatoe aa sniaaeiqxa ,ns3lcqB floi;#na*«i n£ arrltasllrMm toutnoo ^d fcaonetivd al *1 rtarfw .ptoaiatffA (.&l^8 a^^q ,rfjBJ lo ^orxiT .jflS A .asA fi) ".jJ-namttdis

narfw* aaai'^yo r1 Jojsicffloo -s ;^J8^lr♦ av^a' ,x^BrTOi*oib' wVx 'airf rff ,3nJttJtiw al 10 yXX-Brfiev i»fl;tle b^iaiH tnj? iamiot ai tnemeaig-a

JtniB aoiteio!tni lo la^^rfiar ai taanwaisjs «ff:^ nsi-fir fcalXqml irfi iTajS'

oijsa a^w :tl ,TOS .via .fl .P SX .Dio*? eti^q x3 al •.floi'Jt)ubaJ5

\o mtiBatoud yctMnllxo arf^f Ti aaxia aaonjataaa/oiio isrsnsrfw" .liaifif

Xul»it«o tifua taanori YXii-enJtiio siaw anoeMq owt 11 ,rioi:rfw itf s^ff

^ifiaqoiq yji'w *X ,ierf*o »rf* o& dsimoiq a a^^jm tXxrow merf:*- lo eno

©Btraoir £ rfox/e &ac^t Loote.t9tmi marit lo rf*ocf S'fii.'i' Xjaiielfll dCf .AorA. ■^ .nifS X ^aJBetXIiW v it^asijQM nI ".fcotqsooa ijfu^ rravtg isjBW -xa ffA aeaw*a«f aoneiellll: yXno aT* tJbtJsa nafcie^not t^oJT .SXt ..+1 s«Jt**^^«**adua lo aijo« ar:t ni si tfoAitnoo JbalXqml rtjs t.r JbaiXqni a£ (^aanaa^js laufett aa ^<i buforq st &0'ST&ttoo aediqxa isA' -^ititishb lo aaii/oo laxeno-s 9d^ ttt£ ^ason^tamuoiio ^rf toei^noh' xtlrMB ,.1. «a:(i.s9 aajBO arR«a tdf rrl *;a9lti;jsq erfrf n9&'. -iBi AJB JbfuB itaiqxa tnj» atemtBd ^lavaworf ^'^ortnislltb xXno aAT* to«i^aoo aasKixa itA .looiq "^o aftocn arft o^t e ,to;8i:frtoo JbaiXq

-rr«*R.fUL;6ilo yd JoaiJtnoo fceiXqaii na .aonatit* tc&tli: \fd fcavoiq s! floi.+o«l*aU !tXfl« •ff* :fya* fJbl^a .L ,noais*#j3^ Jtni8 "itondfciya J .lootq lo aJbos aifit 09 ajB «X i^o<£i^noo lo aaloaqt^ cmt 6i{t a^BitfBd arft ,aal^itj«q arf^ ^itf ijsai; afctow aeeiqxa s'.t'-^d JSevoiq al aaoiifff -noo 0* b9bn»tat gotttsq^dt tjulf ■^oimoiiB aaona*amuotlo ^d tddfo

tract • "An agreement rrc-y b« aaii to be implied, when it is inferred from the aots or coniuot of the partiea, instead of their apoken words." The entcagement is signified by ooniuot inetrad of words. (Bixby v Moor, 51 N. H, 40«.)

In Neiah v Gannon, 196 111. liSl, it is said: "It is well settled tiiat where one person renders services to another with the aaaentand a proval of the person for whim they are r-nlered the law raises an implied promise to pay for the servioee, but wnere the family relati :n exists auch implication ices no+ arigs from the mere rendition of the services, arid in that case it will be presuiried ^hat ^he services were rendered as a gratuity on account of the mutual obligations existing between the par- ties growing out of the family relation. Such presumption is, however, rebuttad where the evidence establishes an express con- tract to pay for the aervioesiB, or where, from the facts proven, it appears that at the time the services were performed both parties understood und expeo-'-ed tVjat the party performing the services was to be compensated therefor, although no express contract to pay for ^he service is proven, in vfhich caee a con- tract will be raised, by implication of la<^i-, to pay for such services. (Miller v Miller 16 111. 396; Collar v Patterson 137 id. 403; Switzer v Koe,143 id. 577; Heffron v Brown, 155 id 3aa; Sherman v Whitesiie, 190 id. 576.) In Miller v Miller supra, on page i398 it is saidt "Fnere one rariaine with a parent or with a person standing in the relation of parent, after arriving at inajc-rity, and emains in the sanic apparent relation as when a minor, the pre sumption is that the parties do not con- template payment of wages for services. This presumption may be overthrown and -^.he reverse established by oroof of an express or implied contraat, And t e implied contract may be proven by facts and Qiroumstanoee which show that both parties, at the time

(. ,iooM V ^dxia) ••JbiQW lo^tjii^aai

II«« at tl" ;ti£s ..loa^uiO ▼ dftieJi al

.iitv T9iif0iUi OCT aeoiv-iea uioiaii aoaioq 009 •is^kt tf^a;^ b9lti9f

9t4T' ioa ae;}r aoiJ^oilqir... a^eixa xici^^Xsi x-^^o^^ " ""

il »««c teeoiivu. o aotitiua^i eism 9^^ moil

y^ijjsfAiS a e^ tsaatn^^i a^ew e&oXviat aoiuaoiq 96 Htm

-i«q a4<:t neewitacf sni^aixe eaoit^js^iXtfQ X'^u^xiffl 9iii \o txu/ooo« ao

,8i aotio,mjB^iq dou^ .aottsidr \ltaui!i. axl:f '10 tuo gniwois aei:)'

-nop eaaiaxa n^ BBdniLdsia^ &0iXdIi\ >teil«r i)e;t;fx/(ljii , d

(flovoiq iioil«*a0iliv to ,»«aoXTiati idi rol \aq, ajf toeiS

di(xS ta«rtoli«q aidn asoivaaa aii.t attX;t d^;^ ^js ^4^.^-, atJsaqqjB tl

9dt saXffi-xolTsq x^'i'^<? dd^t it^^fcf ta:^oaqxa to* ttoo^eiatou «ai#t£q

aae^qxa oix xlsijoru'^js ,iol3i8^.:t isa^-oansqitoc acf o^ ajsw aaoiYiae

-noo M aajBo rioXilT? ni .novoiu al ooiviaa a^t 10^ x^c. iJaoo

d[otfa lol it*q ot , x^oiiMoHqmi ^d ,i,a«ii£i 9(i Xltv ;fo^iif

aoaia:^+J8<I r t^XIal? {BQ^. . isXiXM) .aaoiviaa

hi eax ,awoi9 V a^i"]t!t3E . .j:i v •jesJiwa ;

vaXX^U ▼ laXX^ al (.c J8X .aLxas^^iiW v a^iexia ^Siilfi

^flSTJiq s iily »ntA'\AT aao aidxfVT" :i>X<fi- 8i2S agjaq ao ,jaiqua

i»#lrf ,*atiJt - lo noi^^j 1« iioaiaq ^ o

floijjilaa r^naijaqq* ?i.'« •'(ii'ioi; anivtiw

-(JOG ton <iL 99tiz£ aoi*ij«ua 'Ta orit ^loflim £

XAst ttoii i«uju»i \ Atti .aaoXvi- o ta^isX'Bq at«Xqm8t

•a»i«rxa ojs \o \ooi' x<i ■ o*io i .jaaevai od' La^i mroirfitiavo atf

X<f naTOtq wjeijfloo taiXqmX 30

•miif ai-ft tM 4«ait^«q iito# . aolilw %9oa£taiauQXto ttia 9iOM\

the Borvioes v?ere perfcrmed, oontemplated or Intenlel pecuniary recompenae, other than such u,b naturally ariaea out of ^^he relation cf pt-rcnt and ohild." And in Sherman v Whiteside, supra (p. 579): "In the ordinary case of Bcrvioes rendered by one -ee- 6on to another with the assent and a;proval of the person for whom they ure rendered the law raises an implied promise to pay but where the faaily relation exists the implication -oes not arise from the mere rendition of the servioe, arl the law will rather infer that it wae rendered on aocoxmt of the mutual ob- 11 cations between membera of the sarre family. In such case, an agreem'^nt to ra^y for eervicea must be established either by proof of £.n expreae contract, or of facta from whioh an inference of such an agreement will arise* Such facte must Justify the con- clusion that the partiea were dealing on the footing of contract, anl that both parties expected the services to be paid for."

In this present case the parties were not living together in the family relation and there was sufficient evidence to submit to the jury the queation of whether or not at tli.e time the ser- vicea were performed both partiea underetocd and ejopeoted that the party performing the aervioea waa to be recompensed therefor.

The jury found in favor of appellee on this question and we are net dlBposed to interfere with their finding.

T.e judgment of the circuit court is therefore affirmed.

XTJitoiJoe'- "-' ■■-'"'■ ' '

sr' -O ere:. i-i •{

10^ aoeis 'o l^voT'

-ic .

tOa^o noLfe

-rr.:- 'i^itejjt taum atOJ^l iio-

tlmdua ot sonativ

*j3^t fca*os::3?f ocfeisi.

.T0l«i9(i^ tSBaaqfflooc-

.110 9dT aJL" :{eTo.q)

3i:=i>s 9a't rftlw larf^on^a o* aoa

'.aaabnaT ei.j ya/fi^ mo/fw

.31 aiam ©xf.t aoT^ aalT* vijtns'i ■ • :'^'" talnl iarf^«i

5^0 ivi= M-'maeig* fl-a

:is XXiir ^nernaai^ja aa do;, raw aai*!*'-: ooiai^io

' toaqxa a a i tacit Jba«

t:li al

.■i:t';d tcaijl'xsq stair aaolv 3niarTolT:aq ^^tusq erf^

• i -,.-- ■, ■. ; - '7 JXifOtlc

STATE OF ILLINOIS, I ,

SECOND DISTRICT. ( ^''- I. ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court,

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

6

c

(// do cV

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Beg"un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sevenl^ day of October,

J in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nine- teen, within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois :

Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Prejiding Justice.

\ Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Jijfstice.

■': e

">iHon. DORRANCE DIBELL, ^us t ice . CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFy/ Clerk. f>-||^T/\ fifjS

CURT S. AYERS, She /iff.

\ /

\

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on

iViAR 9 1920 ^^^ opinion of the Court was filed in

the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and fig-ares

following, to-wit:

Gen. Wo. 67^6

Sherman T7, Sh:.fer, and Ray C. Ferguson, appellees.

vs Appeal from Hrnry.

William Grt-dert aril John F. Tomlinson, arpellants.

Heard, J.

December 2, ISiiJ, appellants and anpollees entered into a written contra.ot according to the terms of whioh appellants agreed to convey to appellees SCO acres of land in Saskatchewan Canada in exchange for 558 acres of land in Dallas Cour+y Iowa and other oonei derations, both farms being subject to mcr ti^age indebtedness. Apt e: La,nte failed to oarry out the orovlsions of the contract on t .sir part to oe performed and appellese brought suit to rroover the difference between the fair cash market value of the Saskutchewan lund and the contract price.

Defendants sought to set up their defense in four special pleas, setting forth that the appellees pointed out the wrong boundary lines of the Dallas County land, misrepresented the fertility and productivity of the lands, und a fifth special plea, ae' ting forth the fact that appellees had accepted a reoiasion of the contract. The appellee* filed replications to those pleas but demurrers were finally sustained to the said pleas. Appellants again sought to file three additional pleas, setting up substantially the ai*'0 matter. The court struck the pleas from the files because they were filed without leave of court and defendants sought a continuance of the case on the grounds that appellants were taken by sur^riae and were unpre- pared for trial under the state of the pleadings.

Appellants on the trial sought to introduce avid-jnoe of

8^73 .oTI .xxsD

• ■90ll9qq£ ^noeirQr9l .0 • X^ia'^H aioa^ I^sqqA av

• BitcuBlIoqqjs ^aoeatimoT .*? .1, «I:i3sH

ad'fl^IXaqiJS dotdfr )o ami^i^ 9r!t o;f ^nltioooJi tojsr&aoo aBtttTH

aBV9do&JiiBJi^ at basl lo •9io«s 008 8a9li9qqwa o^ t^vaoo oi bnoT^^a

wswol ytii/Ov) aJ3lIi?G ni £)a^X "io a9io<6 8c!a lol 93ajsdox9 al Ab^asO

o^js^^ T)ffi o;t t09ccfjL;e ^r.^sd 8ffi7«l {l;tod ,aaolt«i9i.ienoc idif;fo Laji

aaoisivoTo acf;!- ^uo ^niJ3o oi' leli^'i atii£l .9 )qk .aaaaJboifdatai

aa9l'9qqj6 tna Jb9aiio*i9q ao o^r ^^jsq tt^'t ao iojiriaoo 9d& to

rimMo list 9rf-^ fl99w.+ 9cf aofl9i9"^*it 8. f 19V00 ?i o^ &tua Sd-^uord

.•oiiq to.3t^aoo ari.t tn^ tciAl a£^9doi*i:iiiAB 9.ft lo aui^v tQirsm

Lstc^'^B ruol nt •ang'^ei; "il9rf* qu ^9a ot tif^jjoa stn^iLnalea

gnoiw 9n;t ^uo ^a^aloq a9ell9qq£ 9dt tfjaxl^ xl^iol sai;fJ-9a «B«9lq

9d& ^9^a9S9aq8ttaiiti ^ba£l ^^m/oO a^IIusQ 9n;t ^o aaaiX x^-^^^o^

XjBio9q« rfi'lll £ i a^ ,ainaX 9:lt to xiivt&outoxq ba& ^tllttiBl

A t9^qRoo« Ijid aaallaqqiA ;f£i-!t icA\ 9dt diro'l gni^t-^OB ««8Xq

•aoil^oiiq97 JbaXi't i99XXaqc.a arlT .^Cisilaoo erii lo noiaeXoai

I,i«a ai-ft oi taai^rt-axje ^xx^ni'' »iaw atrgiiufflaJb iud a«8Xq 9iiodt ot

(a«aXq Lunotittbjt %9\cii aXl) Ovt ^r(sx/0£ xxi^g^ a^xteXXgqqA .a^aXq

8/l;f jfouiifa ^lijoo Si.'T .i9t:tiiiD ar^a arl;t x^^J^^^t^J^^^dUB qu snl^ifaa

lo 8V£eX fuodtlfi I'9X21 a78w ^gct aau^osd aaXil 9di aoi^ a«aXq

arl:^ ao atiio 9f^;t lo aoa^jjaX^noo -a td'^oa Bia£ba9t9b ta^t tiuoo

-st'jiw 919W tnj3 aaiiqiua x^ aai^t ei9w a^aj3XX9qqjs ^^rfd- a^ouoas

.BT^nlt^aXq erf* ^o atjB^a 9dt lotnu latit tot Jbai^q

lo aonptlYB ao«Jtoi + ni ot ,-frfgi/oe Xjaii* 9ii:f no eJa^XXaqqA

the fraululent mlsrepreaentatione set forth In their pleae unier the general issue for the purpose of reooupmsnt, tout the court held that the eviienoe was improper and a-pelleea recovered a verdict of $750.00.

Appellants eeek a reversal of the judgment of the trial court on theae grounda:

lat* O9 the rulin?; of the court in striking the pleas of appellanta and excluding evidence of fraud and stxsiutxeKiiXJcx misrepresentations offered for the purpoae of recoupment under the general issue.

3ni. Because of the refusal of the court to aj.low a contin- uance after the striking of the pleas.

3rd. Because of instructions wrongfully given and others wrongfu ly refused.

4th. Because of other minor errors and the fact that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

Upon examination of ^he bill of exceotiona in -^hig case we find that ■':he action o-'' the court in atriking the pleas from the files, refusing leave to file special pleas and r;?f using to grant a continuance loss not appear in the bill of exceptions and therefore the rulings of the court in those respects :-re not before this court for review.

Appellants in this case contend that the refusal of the court to submit to the jury for the purpose of recoupment, certain claimel misrepresentations of fact with respect to the Dallas courity landa which induced the appellants to enter into the contract in question was error. Appellants sought to have this issue aubmltted to the jury toy evidence offered to the jury udder the general i: sue by way of recoupment. Appellants rescinded tae contract and notified appe leea before the time tor carrying out Its proviaiona that they would not perform the contract or toe

•T • i .-• f f

. i ^ "> . . 3 q ■ , .. , ■■: ^ ■ (-■ ,j "r 'jT • 0

.00.0?T$ lo ^- '■ -BV i£i:i& aiif 1o Jaw, jji.i. ^ j X^sTevaT js Mesa lAia^.'

io ejs»i.q 3;.+ s^-t^'t'T^e ni ^tuoo srli- "io rjniXuT trf* ^O'tftfai

T8±rru }ad»qi;oc97 \o esoqiuq 6 ° -"' t>a<x8t)o aaoi^JttaeestqaTalfli

.•wspI Xaaanep ?-'•' -iii^noo ^ *>j-:,Jw ;yj i iww^. arfrf Io X-sealst orf:f Io eauiioaS •^nC

.a^aXq 3i(t >o ^niiliita aiit la^lA aunjiijj atari"?^ .HVij ^ixUi;anoTW anoi^foui^ajtl Io aau-MoaS »i)lS -

.Jjaaulsi^I i/lanorrw a-ft tJ8:^J *o£l 3... 1:1* axoTia fonia lerfto lo aaujuoaa *A^k -

.9on*»l-iva a/it ^o trijiaa arft ^aal^gjai a«w #9i£riav

'»• aa«o eiii .l aaoJt^'iaoxe Io XXicf arf* ^o aoi^jsnim^xa noqlJ

«of^ a*aXcf a-^t jnWliJs nl txuoo axlJ ^o noltojB arf" ts.it baf^

aniai/lflt Jbfi« a«alq X^iosqa nLlI oi avjsaX a^^^^^^t ,adlll a/it

anoX^qaoxa Io XlXcf art ai xj&^qqs ton aaol aooex/aXtaoa m iaAT^ ot

ton e-rj* atoa 5891 ©worft ni *iuor? a.^t 'Jo B-^atLui erft aiolSTaxl^ i»rt£

*waiTaT To^ tisjoo dtdt aiotaoT a 't Io ismu^ei arft ^jsd^ Jbnatooc aa«o ulAt at ttnAlleqqk

,tn»aquoo9T ^o aaoqijjq sr.t •io'\ t*' t 9dt of tlcaduSi ot ttuoc

srfl ot toB<39»r dttYt toJil Io aaoX^^taeaaiqaiaXn latnX^X'o at-atr^o

otal iata<t o.t a^aalleciq^ at taoutal riolrlw aJbnjsX ^tiu/oo a«XX«a

9Vjari ot td^voa atoclXaqqA .loitta B,aff aoX^aairp at toAXtnoo Bdt

^TMt «^t o^ Jbaia'i'Vo aonstxvs ^d X'^i e^^ ot X)9ttX«cfx/a •J/a«X aiil:f

iaintioaai ota^XXaqqA t^aorDquooai \o Y<aw x^ aaaai X4i9a9^ a/ft taXJu/

aaXxTi«Q t^d an^t ad^ »^o)«(/ ••ai»aqq« jballiton i».i^ ^o«7taoo arlt

atf 10 ♦oBTC? ^ fc'^ "^ ."fiTolific^ ton tluov. y9n+ tj-.ff.+ anoXaivoTo a + 1 tuo

bound -thereby. Appellants iid not accept the Dallaa County lande concerning which t'.e misrepresentationB were alleged to he^ve been made. The eviienoe flaa not admissible toder +he general issue for the reason that even if there had been fraudulent miarepre- sentatione as to the land appellants were not injured thereby fcr taejy were not induced to take the lande by reason thereof. They did not take the land at all and for the purr'oaee of this oaae it nae immaterial whether or net the land was ae represented.

Appellants* objections to appelleea' inatructiona 3 and 3 are not well taken. Tiiey do not aasuir.o facta in controversy, but are merely statements of general principlea of law.

There was no error in the refusal of instruct iona offered by acpellanta. The judgment of the circuit court ie affirmed.

9UBel Xjstonsr ^«* sicTleQlmf;- Joe ajsw •oneiivs ir'T .el-rn

-oiqercaim dheiuli/£i!t rteecf Jbjsul Btedi It nox noBisei exi-

aiffJ to ft^eoaijuq T£ tn<sl •rf;}' 9i[Mi toa tit x^dT

.iroJiraeaiqeT «£ aj3Vv I«ias;fjB(ffli!ri a^w Ji asfo

^ud ,XBisvoi*aoo rti aJoJS^ o.tu/aQjs Jon ot if^'iT .aai^J IXaw Jon eijs .v;j3l 'xo saXqionliq XAaeaag lo a^aafoaJjaJa x-^aiem ea^ Jbeta^^o 8aoXJo0'xJ«ai lo Xaseul;; ^^i loiie oa s^w aiailT

STATE OF ILLINOIS, (

SECOND DISTRICT. f ''^" I. ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court,

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof.

do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in

the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the sea! of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

\ / / u / f-O

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the seventh day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred /nd nine- teen, within and for the Second District of the^;State of Illinois: £

Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Pres iding- Jids t ice .

Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice

/ Hon.] DORRANCE DIBELL, Justii

CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, C CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff

^/217I.A. 662^

7

\

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on

iViAR 9 1920 the opinion of the Court was filed in

the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures

following, to-wit:

Gen. No. 3759

Susan U&8on» appellee

va Appeal from LaS<:i.lle«

George Uason, appellant*

Heard, J.

Susan Mason, appellee file.-i a bill in the oirouit oourt of LaSalle County against her husband, George Mason the appellant, for separate maintenance, alleging that ahe was living separate and apart from her husband by reason of hie adultery and extreme and repeatei cruelty. A pellant answered denying the cliarges and a trial in t.ie Circuit Court resulted in a decree for appellee and an allowance by t.ie oourt to appellee of ^75. per month alimony from which decree this appeal is brought*

The only question raised by appellant in his brief and ar- gument is that the allowance for alimony is excessive. In deter- mining the amount of alimony to be allowed in a given case, the Court should consider the necessities of the wife, tie ability of the hufcband to pay, the amount of tiieir property and their respective incomee, and whether the accumulations of property if any, I ring their martial life were their joint production or were due solely to the efforts of the husband.

The parties were married in 1890 ar.d at that ti^e neither had any property. Met of their nnarried life was spent upon farms at various places, appellee assisting in loing all kinds of farm work.

Appellee is forty one years of age, sickly ard net able to lo any thic ; to earn a livlihood and has no property and no home.

A- pellant ia a strong healthy man and at the time of the trial was a tenant on a 340 acre farm for which he pay a ^1940 cash rent. Of this land 13 aores was hay land, 90 acres under

eaTa .oh .nso

asIXaqqis ,noawBU a^auQ

• ail^jJ moi'^ IjseqqA «v

.^njsllsqq^ ,aoa«U a^ToaO

• t. (ti^sH

tijjoo ttuorio erf.t nl Xlid s haiil aalleqqjB «ao8dtf rusax/S

.Jajsliaqq* orfcf flOdJsM ajtio.^O «Jbnaj<Jai.d: lari *anij8s.»J Y*m/oO aXX^SJsJ lo

HtjBTiaqae jniviX a^sw srfF. *JBif;f T^tnlgaX-jc «aonjenataX.8ffl od-aijsqaa toI

a'^'aid'xe tnjs x'-^-^wtas eirl !to noajsei \frf tnadaurl Tad aoil Ji-sqa ba£

tflji aas^-ai-c aif* gni^^®^ taiawan^ JnJsXXaq A .if^XawTO ieJ^eqsi bas

oaXraq<iJ8 tol saioat -s al botLuaai iiuoO iijoitO a.'J ai islii a

djjTiom aeq .2^?, lo aaXIaq..fi o* #ujoo ©..t x<^ aoaAwoXIjs ojb isn^j

.^ri^uoirf el XjseqqjB elrfc^ aaioet dohlm moil Y^omiXjB

-a* Jba^. lalicf alri nl j^.ntJbXXaq.jB i(d t9»ijs% aoiimdup ^jXno ariT

-la^at al .avieseoxa ai v;nomXX« lol aofljswoXX* &dt t^^di ai ^xiamjjg

aril «aaAo a*^-^!;! -^ ^-^ tanoX^^ ad o;}' Y^'^OioiXjs to tauomji a.l^ galalai

XtUidfl a"t ,aliw 9if:f to aaiJXaeaoan ari^ latiaaoo iiXuoria *tuoO

ilaxi^ fcn^ ^Jiaqoiq ilat t to JnoonuB a it ♦^jq o;J JbH^jcfauri axf* to

^;ti©qotq to anol^tjsXuau/ooja a/iJ laJ^arfw Jbcw ,aamoonX evX^oaqaai

ooitoi/fcoiq tctloi, ii9.-f* aiaw atJtX XjBitiujaj ilailt gnXt i. ,xnjs ti

.iia-adBurf s.it to a*iotta arft oi ^ioloa atit aiew to

aarf;tlan arit *3il* *j8 £ tjq OSSX .li iialiTjum aiaw aal^i^q arfT

noqu IrtaiB bjbw etXX baiiusir. ilarf* to *a M .x^iaqoiq ^a« l>«xf atnii X J} ^iiiot at gnX^aiaa^B aaX.aq\3 ,aaojsXq auoiajsv i-^ amxsl

• jfiow nrtJBl to ^LdM &oa t ^jc Y-t^°i8 ,as<c to ai^s^ aao yiftot oX aaXXeqqA on fcnjs t^'^^o'^ °^ *-*^^ ^'^^ toodXXvXX ii nuaa o* jjaXrf* \ti^ o^ o*

.amoil arf^ to 9!!\it arf.t ta Ins aan xt^^-^^^^-^ •saortm 4 al ^ftueX Xaq A OJ^QX$ ax'q ^^ doldn xo^ rai^t 6t.0£ 0^ £ ao tajiaQt £ a«w lAtrt iBtau aaioA 06 ^ta£i ^jb/I b^v asio-a CX trijsx aldt 10 .^nsi xfajso

cultivation and tne balance in pasture. H* had 11 horees and about i'ljSOO worth of o&ttle and ordinary farm machinery.

Taking into consideration these facts together with the well known high cost of living and the high prices of all kinds of farm produote we cannot eay that an allow&nos of f^S per month ia excessive, even though in time it might take some of the accumulations mad'; possible by appellee's years of toil*

The decjree of the circuit court is affirmed.

• Y'snlrfojsffl rniJBl yciAtiitro tu^ ^liiao ^o dtiow 003,X^ *xjodjB .isjirtm* et ttuoo ^ItfOiXo. »d* ':S<h B9ioob eiiT

STATE OF ILLINOIS, i

SECOND DISTRICT. \ *'''• I, ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court.

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Ckrk of the Appell-ate Court.

67G3

-N

(//

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COU:

Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sft'^enth day of October,

/ f in the year of our Lord one thousand r^^ne hundred and nine-

>-' teen, within and for the Second Dis.t'rict of the State of

111 inois : 'j #

Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS ^fPres iding- Justice. Hon. DUANE J. CARNES , Justice.

HonH. DORRANCE DI^ELL, Justice. 2 1 ^ T A f\ f^ ^^ CHRISTOPHER C./dUFFY, Clerk. CURT';S. AYE|tS, Sheriff.

I / ^____^__

— ■ ,X

— - -i ^

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on MAR 9 1920 the opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and fig-ares following-, to-wit:

Cen. No* 6763

Wm. L. Bel-len, appellee

va Appeal from Co. Ct. Knox»

Wesley Moras* Appellant.

Heard J.

This is a suit brought by Wm. L. Belden, appellee a landlord, against Wesley Uorae, appellant hjs tenant, for a balance claimed to be due for rent. A jury trial resulted in a Teriict for $161.10 in favor of appellet.

In his argument appellant s^ys; The only questions nateri&l in this oase are, as to what rent was to be paid by appellant to appellee for the r nt of his farm froa March 1, 1916, to March 1, 1917, and what oredits appellant is entitled to for oheoks, cash, material and labor, performed by hiia for appellee on the farm during the time he, appellant, occupied it from March Ist. 1913, incluiing the use of one room of the house on the preaisee for the four years.

Upon these cpntroverted questions of fact there was a iirect confl ct of teotimony. The Jury found in favor of plaintiff and the Judge who heard and iiaw the witnesses a proved the verdict and rendered judgment thereon and wa find no ground to interfere with their decision.

The juigment of the County Court is affirmed*

C8V8 .oM ,noO aollsqqit «aetXs(I .J .mW tXonX *#0 •oO noil X<8eqqA bv

.^oalXsqqA «aeioM ^aXeaW

« 10^ ttajusit Bid ^xiACXaqq^ ,aartolt t^-^^aW ^aaXj^sis ,l>'ioXtni3X

ai Ie^Xx/6»i X^lTj^ X'^t ^ •taai lol aut od o^ tsmijsXo aoaaX£<^

.••XXaqq« \9 lovaa^ al OX.XdX^ to^ ^oUiav £

BfloXJaejjp (j.iiv .T ja^'^a *a«XXaqq« tnafnuji^ eXif al

ifcf bisq ad o^ a«w ^adT tsdm -^^ r> ,atJ& aa^ao tldS al X-^iia^Affl

,X rfo-x^ moi'i: mT«^ alr{ lo *f' r?" aaXXaqfjjB o* JnjsXIaqqjs

fcaXti.+ ae h1 tn^iiso; .« e;fXt6«o ...... ^u« «TXQX ,X doi&U o& ,8X8X

mid x^ taraioltiaq ,ttotf4X £i£t« XjsXiatjsm «ila£0 «aioaflo tol o^

teiqjjooo .^fnjsl ''•"'-^^ ,9ff ami* axl* gnXxxft bijoI ai-fcf no aaXIaqqja 10^

.^ - >.. «« . «=,i; 8^d- jnXtuXoni ,CXQX .+8X doialZ aoil ±i

.aa«e^( :u;o^ 8d^ 70"^ aaaiasrrq »dt ao aeuorf

i^oaii^ o^. .....> .o... .0 anolJaai/p X)a*ttavoi*nQo aaarf:^ noqU

tftje UtinlJsXq to •'"■"'' aX tmro!l Y^i/fc arlT .xooal^aa* lo JoXlnoo toXfct'-'-'^ ^ "^ f^'-"'-.^* s. «a»88a*x • - ■• "^a- X.nt« ttjaari orfw ogtoL arf*

.noXaioaX lisi-ft if^Xw aaa^i^^al

STATE OF ILLINOIS, ( ^^

SECOND DISTRICT. I I. ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court,

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof.

do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate ( 'ourt in

the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of

said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the

the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Clerk of the Appellate Conrt.

y

//

(y

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixth day of April,

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hunted and

/ twenty, within and for the Second District 4f the State of

Illinois :

Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pres idi|ig Jus t i ce,

i

Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justi/e.

A

Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, Justije

ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk. \ CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff

217 I.A. 662'^

BE IT REMEMBERED, that 'aft erwards , to-wit: on . Ar li / _ :5^u the opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wi t :

Gen. No. 6711

f ELIAS MICHAZL Administrator of the rotate of FRANK MICHAEL, Deoeused;

Appellant. Appeal frotr. Circuit Court VB Y7oodfori County

PRAIRIE STATE CANNING COMPANY? a Corporation;

ApFellee.

Nieh&ua. P. J.

This ia a suit whioh was brought by the appellB.nt, Eliatj Michael as adminiotrator of the Estate of Frank Michael, deoeasel, for the benefit of the next kin tef S2.id ieceaaed, in the circuit court of Woodford ocunty, to recover darcagSD from the Prairie St:.te Canninf^ Company, Miliar JonoB, and the Bloomington Normal Railway & Light Co., who were male defenJant a therein, on account c^ the death of Frank Michael, whose death it is alleged, resulted from the negligence of said parties. There was a trial by ^ury; and at the close of the appellant's proofs, the appellc-t.nt disBJissei the caae as to the defenis.nts, Williarc Jones and the Eloomington Normal Rail'ray & Light Co. And the court thereuron on motion o' appellee, dircoted a verdict of not guilty ac to the acpe].;ee, the other defendant, and rendered a judgment on the veriiot. And an appeal is no prose- cuted from the judgment.

It z.'^^-i^^t^rt fron the evidence, tliat the Prairie State Canning ComT:iany appelle'?. herein opers^teis a canning factory at El Paao, in Woodford county; and that its business is canning sweet corn and other vegetables. In connection with thia busineaa it uees a ailo, which is situated adjacent to the canning plant.

lotaii^tatmbk JSAHOIM 8AIJ3

av

VY«A<7MCD 0;fi:JMAO 3TAT3 llfllAH*!

, 4.<J M.-CX

in

itamb worfw »x»*4;cA.fc ':jj?-xi "io fftt^afc erf? *o tm/ooo<8 no .nieTSifJ

.--*•"-'- tijae ^0 sons8lX3»rt ■ -^ ' ::il t»*Ii<3ai itagsXXja si tl

- 1 irf;^ lo auoC'- ' ;X^^t ^<^ liilt* * s^w eaaxIT

71. arit ■•* " ' JI.--W r: ... i ■.-•■.ji.iflaif: tfi.'iXI"- - i-i ,aloo:tq

.wvy MiglJ A y»ri ' " ' *-;nimooXa a:':* .iut ai^iXXiW

♦ r.-'. -■^"- " '-^--^ttt ,»&-..... :.;.;fo« no noiUi> ■- i.j j^jjoo exl-t tnA

1 *U:rro^8i; i»i.,w -.^ ^aallaqqA arf* oS* a^ x^-^^J^S *oa ^o

ifiao^tix^ 9iit moil ti^iijo

7?rriTrr«o e.* •aarrJtaiKJ 9tl *MAt f -^ ^ "rtnuco biolttooW al ^quaH X3 BssniButf (Ptf<* ."f-* ^* '-•'^*oannoo al ..-^-..JagoY laritfo trua nioo *aawa

The silo is a rounl structure, about 50 feet high and 30 feet in di&meter; and the refuse mutter resulting from the canning operation is turnei into the silo ^n.i thus converted into ail- age. The eilo on itr. outer slle, has a long slot, running up ani down the structure, in ^hich there are openings at different points to take out the silage; and k rceohanloal apparatus is ueei au a coriVeyor, to carry the silage whioh ii? put into it, through an opening and dump it in'^'o wagons whioh are uael to haul it away. The conveyor is run by electric power; an J the power is turned on, or off, by T.ean:'? of a siJitbh. which is lo- cated on the inside of the ailo. The negligence whioh is =i.l- leged in the declaration against the appellee is, thc.t the elec- tric switch wa8 not properly sa^e guarded for the protection of the persons who had oooasion to use it for t>ie pur^:ose of get- ting the sili.ge. The silage w?^a waste matter, whioh wa;^ giv- en away by the appellee to farmers, who would agree to raise sweet corn; cuid the appellee before the day on whioh the de- ceased Michael met hia death had extended a gener?.! invitation in an El Paso nev/apa.per, to al^ such farmer*?, to come and help theKuelvea to it. One of the farmers to whom the invitation applied was William Jones; and Jones hevd also received a per- sonal invitation from one of the officers of the canning oompc.ny, to take the ailage and use it. The canning company by this method, wag utilizing the waste product of its factory to in- duce farmers of the vicinity to grow the particular kini of corn whioh they were intereeted in having grown in the conduct of their business. William Jones had repeatedly lurln(y the year 1918 availeJ hiftaelf of the company's invitation to get silage; and on the day in question namely, the 13th day of

-3-

■ jatut at aolfzisqq

i X 4.: i.

•■ T . '>jdiiJt,'il' xUJUi •Xoftt snT ill te^al

ft re^ - i ez^as TAS i.j3/< x{f .<si> «iit: ^tooi XeaiiojCli ij»6^ao -.■r-,o cxJ* ,ft^»f'"i''»?'i rfowA ii.- " ■ : ■ cv.-»fl oea^ IS na at

-'-' ■- "■*■ ■■*'rTtOiT orf,t "jo c-.arrijsvi. «oi;£i

. "^ — — ...,*.,. ..-.: ,.-. -^ .-.. ;98w8lie

April of that year, aocompaniei by the ieceaaei Frank Miohael, and tvro sons, who were amali boys, again came with a wagon to get more ailivge. Miohael waa a lad, sixteen yeara oli, and for some time prior had been working for Jones luring the com- ing hours of eaoh lay; and his employment up to that time had been to aoGist Jonea in delivering milk about the town of El Paeo; but arrangements had also been made for Michael, to do genorai work for Jonea, after eoi.ool waa out and durlnr the ensuing sua- nser. When Jonea, Miohael and the two boys got to the eilo, laicuael took the pitch forrr., which Jones had brought along with ilm in the wagon, and clinibei up the eilo ladder, ?>nd entered the eilo; he turned on the pOMier at the switoh, which ate.rted the oonveyor; and when Jonea got into the ailo the conveyor was running. Jonee took the fork, which he had brour^ht .7ith hire, and pitched sil?.ge into the conveyor; Michael took another fork which was in the silo, and aaaistei Jones in hie work. A little while thereafter, one of the Jcnes' boys shouted, that the "load was full," and thereupon, Jonee climbed U'^ the ladder to the look- out, to see whether the wagon was loaded; and having ascertained that fact, he. said to Miohael: "Frank, we have got a load." Miohael, thereupon stopped pitching, and attempted to turn off the power at the switch; and in the act of turning the switch he received an electric shock which caused hie instant death.

It is appellee's contention, that Miohael was merely - trespaaaor in the silo, or at most a licensee, and that there- fore, the appellee was not in duty bound to keep its silo in a reasonably safe condition so far as Miohael was concerned. How- ever it must bo pointed out that the invitation to get silage from this ailo, which wan extended by the appellee to Jones, dii not preclude the idea, that Jonea might avail himself of assist-

-3-

-ns 81 »w orfw «a£n>» o'xt Las

:1otU :-d eiofli itsa

-a'j . '' Ljid roJiiq dini& otaoa io\

"(■at lioJM lio aiiiotl "sat :orj^'-1 :t.o\ tictt ai •oxsoL ctalaaji o& nsatf

-m/B isniijfc^: :js» loodos i«^1jb .aano^ to'i allow

uj-i ,ih-ia1 ctoitq sdf toot ImsdolM

jxi doirfw ,Miol adi io«^ «»aol .y^alacni tLiti '10^ 9lf{ nt aancl. Jb^J-aia* ^ r nl awsn itoiflw

-1I00X : a l>arfffii!Io »9cioI» ,aOv?i<»'x#nt ta« ".I'li/^ a^vr

fcan jtjs' ,-.t . ;f,, .

otlqr l>»<jqod^* .iO ,udied* ,Xa^oIJ<

.;; istjj^i, -iw-liia Sooda cit^osXa im lidviaoei

Yi' ^rf> ^ftoUnajrn^o si«aaxraq<*« aX *I

-atadT I- .^7 t .1 " to ,oXJta ©rf* ni toAHJiqmBii a

M at c' N 07 tmfoa ^itv.i at ten tun aaXlaqqj* »d*^r«iol

-woH .tmr jnn->c »J8»r X#«((olll a« 7*5'i oa noi^XtiflOO a%<e« ^Xtfisnoa^ai

ajipXi* -f ael&Mityrat •df fjuii tsio t&tnloq »d iBum t± -tava

IlJb ^»§tto\^ 97 <>eXXt(|4« •'^^ Y<' i^t^adrka ««« xfoXiiTi ,oXjt« -«ld(f ooil

-*8lr - * '■' "'-VJ8 ^rfglfli BQaoL ^ '- ^;ati: ed.t atuXoaaq *on

anoe in getting it; and if Uioh&el wb^B in the silo pureuiant to Jcnes* desire to h:.ve hia: there, for the purpose of aasiating him in gettinc^ silcge, then Uichael wa.« in the ■^ilo in further- ance of the sane object ani purpose for whioh Jones was there; and henoe he oannot be considered legally a trespaeaor, or merely a lioenBee; but his relation under these ciroumatances to the ai'pellee, would be the eame as that of Jonea himaelf» who it ie conceded was an invitee. The evidence adduced on the trial tended to show, that while Michael got intc the silo, and per- formed work of asBistance to Jones in getting silage, without any express solioitation froff. Jones, that he was working; with Jones* assent and approbation, ani that Jones apparently relied on hira to perform the services whioii hp iid; and accepted them as if they were expected from Uichael. It is not e. necess'iry element for a recovery againet the appellee, that the proof should shov.' that the relation of master and aerv.nt existed between Jones and Michael; nor that Jones expressly reque^ited Michael's aacietance; nor thrit Michael wan to get any pay for the ser- vices which he rendered; and it wa~ a question of fc.ct for the jury to determine, whether MicViaei was in the nilo at the instance of Jones, and in acoord^-noe with his wish and dsnire for Michael's asDistanoe, in the work which he was performing in getting silage. We are of opinion that the court therefore erred in taking this question of fact from the jury ani dtraoting a verdict. The Judgment ia therefore reversed and the cause remanded for, another trial.

Reversed and remanded.

-4-

ft rrrtt&er^ ni ^onc

-ihtft BtiT

-i;.'r3VdH

STATE OF ILLINOIS, I

SECOND DISTRICT. \ ^^' I. ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court.

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Sea! thereof.

do hereby certify that the foree:oing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in

the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Cle7'/c: of the Appellate Court.

t>

x^l.

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty, within and for the Second District of the State of 111 inol s : #

Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pres iding- Jus t ice . Hon. iiOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice.

Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, Justic|^2 "f T "^ c A • ^ '^ ^

ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk. CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff

/

BE IT REMEMBERED, thafxaf tejfwards , to-wit: on APR 21 192C the opinioi!«5f the Court was filed in

the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and fig-ures following-, to-wi t :

Gen. No. 6749

ABE J. DAVID, et al,

Appellants* VB Appeal from Circuit

Court: Lake County, L. ELMIR HULSE, et a.1.

Appellee 8.

Niehsrus, P. J.

In this oaee the appel Xante Abe J. Davi 1 and Abraliam P. Morris, ui-, trustees, filel a bill in equity to fore- cloee a chattel acrtgiige, vfhioh hai besn execu^.el by the appelleee, L. Elmer Hulae ani H. H. Riohardeou, to Leonard Sawvel, s,ni the Gazette Puhilishing Company of Waukejan on July I'lt, 1314. The .nortgag© was given for part of the purchase rrJ oa of the nawa- paper property iJob printing plant, anl the buainesr of the Gazette Publishing Company, sni covered the rsropsrty of that coT^r^any. The mortgage seourei an inlebtelnese of ^17000. 00, represented by 17 promieoory notes of ^1000. OC each. These notes, and the mortgage, were afterwards asf;igi!ed by Sawvel to the appellants, who brought this suit after the note© he. i beoc.iie due, and remained unpaid. The mortgage provides for the appointment of a receiver, -nd for the payment of ^5CC.CC eolicitor's fee a in caae of fore- oloBure. Aitsr the fiiinf3 of the bill, and at the terr to which the case had been brought, the parties to the r.uit entered into a stipulation concerning aonje of the matters ir controversy. The stipulation recites the fact, that J17515.67 which was the anount claimed by the appellant e to be due them, had been brought into court and deposited by the Qaz,ette Publishing Comoany, and placed in the hands oi' the clerk of the court; and that it had been agreed between the parties, to the suit, that of the amount ao

,1a t9 .aiVAQ .L lEk i av

,!£ *e »38JUH fl3MJa .J

??vw/j8 iiixnoeJ .^jtisdolH .H ,1 ii/H TamXS .J

•##as«0 arf* '^c 3g9niBucf fM. ititq dot y*'i»fTOitq leqaq

.rnjr~'T'oo tjso't lo ytTecrotr eff* tsievoo Ir^: ^x^^'I'ooO Snin'aildi/^

©1 ,OO.OOCTIj; JO aeaaiatf'cfatnl n/- ta-xjuoaa aajjtfiort: aJT

. a*on 9?arfT .do«« OO.OOOll \o eeJoa •{Tonsimoiq ?I \d

, ''tTiJii^q'T* arf* o* lavwjsa id b9ftgtB9A «tt<swT»t1. .33*3*108!

,9Mt Cirooad lad stton arfJ 7a*lx tlua aid* :?ff;^i;ci<f oriw

••v?»r>e' T^'».*aJtoqq« ari* 10'i eaiiToitq es^atiOT isqfft;

'•joitioiXoa oo.ooa^J "^o ♦/?» . . ...

:olrf« o? T.iet 9c:t ta IciJi ,XIW srff lo ^}ati . ^J'tA .aii/aolc

otn! t'^-rm*r'* *it«« !»>^:r o* aaitT .txfjiwoTCf a»acf t<rf asAO oilt

•xattjan ad;^ ^0 amoe ^ni^T^rrrf^o .Toi*^Ijiqi*B 4s

^ax/ouw ^ .iOlrf*' 'PA.('.j:aTlt *jeif* ,tr ^*.3li;qi;fa

otfft ft^'^uoid oee , ^o-l* aij j ^<j JbamlaXo

tao^ ,^flj»omoO T^aldBtidul e*tft ' «ti»OTafc txus ^txioo

.Toacf hed tt tMiit boM ittiioo tnmi tidt at

OB ittuomja 9d& lo tJ&dt t^itra edU :>iNt9d beer^g^

depoaited and in the hands of the olcrk of the oourt $14434.66 ahould be pa.ii over to appellcviitc' aolioitor for the appellants, and toe applied on 'their demi.ni upon the surrender by thew of fourteen oi" the notes eecurei by the oh^ttel mortgage; an 1 it was uloc agreed, that Jc.mea Woodms.n be appointed reoeivsr to take c;i£.rge of the buelnetss ani property of the Gazette "ubliehing Comps-ny. It was further agreed, that the remcinier o"" the mon- ey in the hcnda of the clerl: of the oourt, after payment of the xfflount Rocve Qt;.ted, to the appellante, abide the further order of the oourt. The rv^rtiea aleo c^greed in the stipulation, that the sole and only iBc^ttere to be litigated ani adjusted between them, were certain oiaime made by the defendants in the suit for oreiito againat the amount of the iniebtedneas rer'^resentei by the notes 2-ni chattel mortgage- ani these oiaims for oredita v;ere attaohed to the stipulation, ani are as follows: L. B. Grloe account for $78. a5; Earl Alden aoocunt for $376.41: The Leean Advertising Agency h-ocount for ^973. 46; Th3 Van Cleave AJvertie- ing Agency aooount for ^648.93; and the Elmer V. Orvis account for $106.80. The oourt entered an order to carry into effect the stipulation; and appointed James Woo.ljr.an receiver, who took charge of the property involved. Thereupon an amendment waa filed to the bill; and theree-fter, the cause wae referrei to a special master, to take the proofs in accordance with the stip- ulation and report the saae to the oourt with hi a ocnolusions of law ani fact. The special T.a-tsr hear! the evidence which was offered under the reffrenoe, and rae-de his rerort; ani found that the appellees were entitled tc acme o£ the credits claimed • by them, namely the account e of L.E. Grice, Leean Agency, and

^iJ

the Van Cleavs Agenoy; and the amount of the ^uignsent of E.V. OrvlB, making r. total auai of {1806.44, a.-? an offset against the Iniebteiness cjlc-intei by the appelli^nts to be lue them- thus leaving a ba-lancc of C351.40 to be p?:.ii thex out of the money in the hc.nda of the olcrk. Ob^eotions «^r i oxoeptionB "/ere filed by the 6.ppellants tc the ni«ster'3 report; they also made a action to rc-refer the cauae tc the apeciai a&ster, which was .uir.iel. Upon the he-iring Ox" the exce-^.tionp. to the master' o report, the court overruled the exceptior. a, and entered a, de- cree iri conformity "/ita the findings, except, that the court allowed i;l4.43 additional interofit to the appellu,nt8. The ;'0urt uIbo allowed i^500.00 yolioitor's fees for the aarvices of appellants' solicitor, to be paid by the appellees; also ordered that the appellees pay the costs of the suit; from this decree an appeal is rroaeouted.

The pointB made for a reversal of the decree relate entirely to matters embraced in the xaster's report and the Exhibits offered, and evidence taken by the raas-^er on the hear- ings before hl.r, . A duly authsntioatei copy of the record of theee proceedings however ',7a3 not filed as required by the statute. But inatsad thereof, the original documents, exhibits and evidence were filed. Thic practice has been repeatedly oondemxied and the rule established that under these oircumstanoea it in proper to affirm the decree Pinkerton v. Pinkerton 309 111. App. 393, Martin v. Todd 311 111. 105, Beth Hamiridrash v. Cerre- tery Assn. aOO 111. 430, Bottiglicro v. Cozzi 176 III. App. 311, Horwich Receiver v. Davis BSl 111. 500 Lewis v. Lewia 150 111. App. 354. The fact that the appellees agreed to the filing of

-3-

\ evi's.

a'^9T-»i o:

-b

fruoo

.... oiu

f. 9*yo9POT7 si Z^nam as stioaJb

"j?ffi ftff-

:.r iT-.-

»f ti/py

.re

•f ft'nnJh?*:.-

Ill

rl^ p»to»fc

((# 0# t99'Z2Ji a»«>XX9C

■ ftvf 3oasJbiva ta*

: ' -■ -CO

it

the original raoordg of prooa''"'ling loea not militate against the force cf the rule; Trustee n of Schools v. Welohey 10 Ii;.64. After ths briefs of the rosreotiv© parties had been fllei in this case, which raised the quer-tion of the affTirmenoe of the decree under tho decisions referred to, the appellante fiisd a. motion, in which they :-3lc thia court to direct the clerk to detis.oh tbe original report of the master, *nd the exhibits and eviderjoe from the trsciBcript of the record on file, and tranarriit the ^arr.e to the clerk of the oourt helow; and that appellants thereupon be given until the next term of the court to secure another transcript of the record withdrawn; and for leave to file euch transcript at the next terrr, and tc continue the oausc until next ter:?j for tha.t purpoee; this motion we took to be considered ^ith the case. We are cf orinion, that the court wouli not be justified in granting a rr.otion of thie kind. It involves a ieiay of six ironth= to enable appellants to eufply goir.ething which which war neceeocry to "he rAipplled for proper conBideratior; of the oaae at the terw at which the case was taken and which the appellant a had (?uff joient time to ?iur;ply before the ca?e war taken on the regular call of the docket. Moreover to r;rant this motion would in effect destroy the force of the established rule which ia er.pha0ized by the deoieions cited. This we do not feel at. liberty tc do; eBpeoially since a careful reading of appellant g' brief doe? not ccinvjnoe us, than an injustice has been done appellants by the decree. The notion it? therefore denied, and the decre't' affirmed.

Affirmed.

1*

f nail 9(1%*

:0i

aw

j.utotso Ji

'Off!

STATE OF ILLINOIS, 1,^

SECOND DISTRICT. ( I, ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court,

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,

do hereby certify that the foregfoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in

the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of

said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the

the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty, within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois :

Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding Jus t i ce ,

V /

Son. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice.

H^n. OSCAR E. HEARD, J.ji'stic^ 1 T T /\ CX £* O^

ARTHUR E. SNOW, Cler/.

GURU S. AYERS, Sh^^iff

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on

APR 2 1 19i ^^"^ opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wi t :

Gen. No. 6753^

JOHK 0. GYLLING,

Appellee. ▼8 Appeal from Ciroult court

Henry Ccuntiy. THE CITY OF GALVA

Arr »ii&'''it •

Ni6h£.U3. P. J.

In this 03.pe, John 0. Gylling, the apnellee, brought suit in the cirouit court of Henry oounty agalnat the appellant. City 01 Gc'.lva, to recover iama-gea to his property on Market street in the City of Galva by the oonetruotion of a looal improve- ment made by the city. The deolaration alleges, that the appellee waa the owner of five lota abutting on Market street, upon which he hai a blaokemith ehop, a rooming houee and a warehouse: ani that by making the looal ircprovetcent in question, which waa the con- struction of a street pavement ajni aiiewalke, the grade for the ceriient vralke immediately in front of the premises mentioned was out dovjn to such an extent, that the ready aaans of inf^rcss and egresB to and froir eaii premieea which he had theretofore enjoyed, waa periEanently interferred with ani destroyed; and that thereby the market value of hi^ property was diminiehed.

Under the averments of hie ieclaration, the appellee had a cause of action. Boteford v. City of Elgin 215 111. App.

598.

There waa a trial by jury, which resulted in a verdict

finding the appellant guilty, and assessing appellee's lamages at

1637.65; The appellant made a motion for a new trial, which wa«

denied, and thereupon the court rendered juigment on the verdict;

from which judgment this appeal i3 now prosecuted.

Several matters are urged by the appellant as constituting

.CHIJJYD .0 mioi, . ftalXaqqA

AV.ur TO YTID :1HT . tn^IX^q tA

triy/oTcf ,e©II*aq£ »ri3 ,}^niri'{0 .0 nrfoL ,»3*o ai^-id' rxl

^dy-ijell no ^Itoqo-xq eiri o* 6e8«m*.t rovooei ot ,jsvX^ ^o v'J-jtO

'Qvorqml IjbooX js ^o aoiJouitfanoo eil* ^fd jbvX^O to y^J^^ *rf* ^-^ *9da*e

eeXXaoq* erf^ +^rf.t .aejr^eXXja r[oi*i)T£Xo«£ 9xfT .^*Jto «t1* ^tf •t/ja taom

9x( rfoirfv noqu ,iiBit9 .^aaTi^M no 3niiti;</<« a^oX avX) lo lenwo o^l^ 8«w

t^rlt iiTJS .-eeuoxfdi^w « ta^ eauod. iaimooi a ,qfode dilmB'IoAlri a IM

-floo 9ff^ BAtt iioiiivt ^AotiUQUfi ni d'n93i»voiqmi ij^ool 9di gnli^oi ^(f

ftd^ 10^ 91j97s 9ti^ (SiXuiwttiXt loB tnam^Vd^q itaaita <« ^o noi^ouitfa

a«w bsaoi:^npm ^a'simsia acf^ ^o taoit ai ^{X•:^^ile!r.flli aiX^iW ^fasmao

tOB aaat^nl lo an«ifiisi ^I^oi 9Cit tatli ,ici»:fX9 njs tloua o& ctaob tuo

,t»xo^n6 9io\ot9i6d& Lsui 9d Aotiiv aaaXaaiq tX^aa xoi\ La^ of aaa^^so

Yff©Tr»ff+ t.r.'^ I iTis jl59Y0i*89^ ^«* ^JXw tefteliaitnX ^X^naa^miaq a<w

.tdtalaiffiit ^j8w x*'«<'Otq -'Xrf "io 9jjX*v iteiiiuB adf

aaXXaqqjB Mict ,aoX:f<ii£Xoat aXil ^o «;ta9m'tay« er{;t -xeJbaU

.aciA. .Ill CXS rii-il'7 "^o v;tiO .v iiola;to2 .noi.+ ojj **o ii&uxici ^ fcjwf

.883 toiliaT jd nt Jbec^Iueai n'oXdr; ,Y^u;^ ^d X^Xi^ « 8«w aiadT

t* aaTRjawweX e'9aXX»<?q« ^.nlaaaea* Xaa .x^XXug ^njsXXaqqji arf* gnXtnXl

a^m dolifv ^istif *9a i> 70l noX^on ^ 9J:.jffl i^iisXXaqqiS 9dT ;3d.Te8|

;*oXJt''Tav 9ff* flo Jfaawsiu^ taiatnai tiuoo artf noqir9T9il* loc .talaaJb

.ta>tuo<»aoaq won bX Xijenqjs aXrft JnemjtlJut rfoXrfw noli

aX^u^X^anoo a« ^tuXXaqqji 9dt ^tf ta^iu eijs a'X9^t£tt XaievaS

r«var«ible error. Coinrlaint is malo, beoause the oourt refuscl to ailov* tha &ppella.nt to prove by a wltnee?. that the graie of the finished ro&dway in fron of the premiseo in question waa sub- stantially the 38,189 &a the old dirt atreot ; and that the buildings and lot 3 of the appellee had no gret-ter elevation above the pa-vo- ment the.n they had over grade of the old street. It is oonoed<>d however by the appellant that the appellee had disavowed any olaim for damaj^es by reason of a change of graie in the street proper, or road way, and confined hi a svidenos to showing that the new grade of the side walk, v;hich had been oonetruoted aa a part of the improvement, »was lower on £(.n t.verage of about two feet in front of his entire property; in this state of the record the evidence offered oould not in any way effect tha real matter in oontrovcrsy, and did not have any, bearing upon the lowering of the grade of the sidewalk; the ob^ootion to this offer was there- fore properly sustained.

Appellant contends, that the ooxirt alao erred in re- fusing to give to the jury instruction No. 8, which i?) as follows: "You are instructed, that under the evidence in the case, there is nothing to warrant you in fin I that the city in oongtruoting the iaaprovement acted either negligently or oppressively." There T.'£.a no claim made by the appellee in hia declaration or otber¥7ise, that in the improvement in quaation the city acted either ne^^ligently or oppreeoively ; there io nc evidence in the record offered or adrnittei in relation to that matter; there wao no oooaaion therefore to instruot the jury on that point; and the inatruction waa properly refused.

The appellant also contends, that because, in the given inatruotiona and the forms of the verdict of the ^ury, the jury

-3-

£?fc»onoc -

, r'.^ocTq tf petite

'■■' ^.eif'J

•tit £i<tOCt

Gi's^aTCi ot'it "Jo no- : iwi)j»oi toils ini^t ari*

it tlQ erft r^f eajwi til* •^Xi«Jt*n«tf'f

oJtjsi^ rtevo t«irf y^^* ^^ ^^

/:f^r :.: 9iljt *J94* ;fni4itq<j[« erf* ^(Cf isveron

lo gcrt-rawoX 9<1^ aoiu g«l74»#- ,. avjBu ifon i;iJi> feos ♦ta'svo't^floo -tr^rif Bsv 'ifi'^tc eM:t e# ttoL:^oti^,do 9d:li ;3(lAiv/at^« aiU 1q ai;4$98 <»ii^

.t9nix:^tf'ei;« Y-^^oaroiq a:io't

TtvoXIOi •« ci cfoiilv^' ,8. ©if oot*euit#«6i y^x/,; .. . ., avlg ot s<i<t*d

■.irrf.+r.ifT.fp...., ... .... , .. ao^ ^njitiJiw o* sfli'il^Ofr •!

.fl&vUaaisj :- .,. {XJna^lXsan 'iaiiJla fca<ro« tftattwvotqmJt arft 10 nijiJ^.-iJ-ioat eld ni aaXXaqcj* •«'* id aJbjMk ni^Xo oar «««r aia/lT

f«*'''f>^^ vr' 1' >•" iv;-. M.-.ru.; -J i r: -■' v '•;•>. •■rf< f c |+ , (; ^ .. ; t '>aX;r'iaii^O

^-»w - V, -iaooi

•■17 ; c; . •'■..J , Tofn^ifjno rift >-..»-.\v

R?Vl5 »ii* .T.^ ,fif-.Vii:!

JoO oaI»- ;fii..>i

noX;foui*6njt

was advised, tlmt the appellant should "be fcianl guilty or not guilty, the ^ury mityht from thia have drawn the inference that the cutting iowr. of the grade of the eldewclk oonatituted an xinlaw- ful f~ct, end whioh subjected the 6.ppeil&.rt to a penalty. No auoh inferenoea couli huve been reaeoniibly drawn by the jury; and it ici not reasom.ble tc aceuKO, ths.t the jury would hc^'c drs,wn ouch ini'erencee. The inatruotion to ^ini the appellant either guilty or not guilty wae proper, because thiy wars the ia^ue in the oaee; anJ etn ieaue whioh was raised by the appellant's plea of not guilty filed to the deolars.tion.

Appellant also raises an objection tc an instruction given tc the jury by the court on itn owr rotion v^ith the ocnssnt of the parties, which inntruction concerned the meaeure of ds-maf^ee; and the queeticn of the amount of damajea. It is sufficient to say in reference tc thia contention that all questions relating to the matter of dcma.ses and the amount of the wame, are eliminated from ooneiders-tion here, because the appellant did not apeoify among the reasono specified iv the motion for a new trial, that the amoxait of damages fixed by the jury was not jiiatifiel by the evidence, or exoesaive. Yi^-rber v. C. & A. K'y. Co. 335 111. 5S9. All queetions raised therefore which concern the amount of daniaffes found by the jury are waived, c^nJ not properly before us for consideration.

The record ioea not disclose any reversible error, and judgment is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

-3-

tsdt aoas-xaa aw^lfe '.v t jboiI t:^7!-trn xxut ^^t* •X*'^-^^

-w*;iau n4; tdtutiSriTr^o :f^cv•9^^'3 <?-'? ''.t s^^t^ j . mot gtiitjt-uo 94t

;Yii/t ^^ ^d cm-Alt ^X(^«aoB4ei tiaeJ >:£/oq ••ooaiolai dous qH

iod*l& tflAlIsq-f** ^f"* '^'atl oj nottouzSaai trij .aeoaaTalal ^oua

.nc .tiiifg ton lo

iaj-jsfrl-

orrsfcfvo ^tC arf* x^ tauol at

,10710 eXdXeiave*.

nrf* ©s.'.'snr; .^tlonoo noil

: Jb»,Jt^ipaq& anoBjaei, art*

rd faxi^ eagjsmjoJb .!io

ovtneaoJce

':£rr aus ifttut

STATE OF ILLINOIS, I ^

SECOND DISTRICT. I I, ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court.

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof.

do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in

the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of

said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the

the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Clerk of the AfpeUate Court.

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,

Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixth day/6f April, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hun^'red and twenty, within and for the Second District pt the State of Illinois : \ /

Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pres idiffg" Jus t i ce . Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice. Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, JnsigQec^ ^ .-. -r- •

/ 217 T.A. 66

ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk. # ^ ^•

CURT S. AYERS, Sheri/f.

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on MAY?- 1920 ^^^ opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit:

771 • 3

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF

STERLING, ILLIN0I8, et al

Appellant, Appeal from the Cirouit Court of Whitoaide County.

V8.

OTTO HEIDE,

Appellee.

Hear 1, J.

Otto Heile, appellee filed a bill of complaint in olianoery in the Whiteside county Circuit Court against Charles H. Corbett, Charles H. Corbett, Trustee, three Ns,tional banks and one State bank and had a temporary injunction thereunder against all of the defendants. The First National Bank of Sterling and eao^ of tiie other def&ndante moved to dissolve the injunction. The irotione wero denied. Three defeniante prayei and were allo-Trel an appeal. Afterwards the orisr granting an appeal «as vacated, except as to the Fir at National Bank of Sterling; and the latter prosecutes thia appeal.

Appellee had brought an action in asauinpait against Cor- bett, filed a declaration ani obtainei a euwrrona. Two days after beginning that suit, Appellee- filed ^hia bill against Corbe + t, Cor- bett Trustee, and said four banks, to enjoin Corbett t-nd Corbett, Trustee, from drawing any money on deposit in any of said banl's, j.nl to enjoin aaid barks from paying any such money to Corbett or Corbett Trustee or on hie orier. The motion by the banl-. to dis- solve the injunction was baaed on tl;ree points :- (l) that said injunction violates the Federal statute, which prcvidee- "And no M,ttaohmsnt, injunction or execution, shall be issue! against such association or its property before final judgment in any suit, otion or prooeading, in any state, county or munioiral court;" (ii) that the court lid not have juri eliction of the subject matter; (j) that the bill is without equity. The asi-ignments of error cover these three points.

10 XMAa JAMCITAH T8HI'5 I« to ,3I0WiJJI ,0HIJff3T8 JOtlO sd* «ot1 XjBeqqA ,*n-3lIoqqA

.8V

,3aiTO OTTO . osIlAqqA

ai: txiijal-Jimoo ^o iitd a boLfi. aelieqq^ .dtisK o*tO

iiijsriO :tafTiJ3« *Ti>oO ftsjorio x&ciuoo aixaaJiilll erf^ ni xiooaAilo

•rrc f.TvS B-^ajs^':/ I-anoxJ^^^'TI eearf* .sai-auiT .ittadaoO .H eali^riO ^ttedioO

iLauQtedt nolioaulai yzsro'^noS a bsti Laji afa^d s*j8*'5

*o -Qjaa £>n£ gniliaJB lo in^?? l^aoitjal/i taill axiT .atn^aalel: ariJ

snoitosr arfT .noitoauQni arl^ avioaaii) o* tsvom a*a*tnexaJo larf^fo ari*

.Xi'S'iqjg nA isiroli^ stsw i-na £8x*iq a Jnjainalai- aaixfT .ijaineJb ©aaw

aoxa .tactjso^v a^v X-aeqq-t; o^ ^rtiitn^tg -rel.'to sdJ stiJWiet'tA

.i^8qq«

-loO taniJS73« :f taqfnjjsajs rtl noi;toj8 n* ^ilguoid t-sil sellaqqA

ia*l* 8^-^ owT .eaotrmuQ js t9ntjii6o La£ /loxJjUBioai; jb LaXil .t^ad

-too ,* + »cf'roO *8ftijB?9je iCid clrit Lain -jelXaqcA ,tlue ;f-ailJ gninniged

, t.f adioO ta^ ttadioO niotrra ot ^ainjed luol Li-sa In^s .aataiJiT Jtecf

,« 'nj8d tij&e to [n^ nt iiao^at no \r©rioiii yn-a ^mlwaat moil ,99;t8i/iT

10 :f.tarf7on oi \'e(iora lioua ^n^ gnlvjsq aoil a^^^jsd L t^h niotna o* ta^i

-ai- --d »/iJ \fd noi:tom dn'T .letio aU no lo ae^euiT ^:fadioO

L t-^s ) -rai'nio • osiu'i' no Laa^d b«w noi^onuQnl arf* evXoa

on inA" -tjofcivoiq ifoidw ,3*0*^*8 Ljaiatt*? an* ae;f«(Xoiv nojt:tonu^nX

c.'c ,v .Tijsjjs taueel ad ri^rlp .noituoaxa 10 noiJom/(;nX ^cfnamn'ojsJJ'-a

.Jlue Y^Ji i7r tnsBD^^IiJj; i-snil eiolad x^^^q-iq e^-t 10 noi^iJiooea^

"jtiuoo jBTioinuTi 10 '{faisoo ,a*.GjB y'IJB ni .snitsaooiq 10 aottoa

;iatt-ifli to8(;d;. 0 flolifoita iTU^ avjarl ton tit tiuoo 3a;t **tri* (S)

• Y^iupa ;fuodJ^in ai XXld aiJ* J-driJ (u) .aJcicq »tiri# ©asrf^ lavoo lona !to a^nsmnaXaaje erfl

The quection chiefly argued ia vvhether the Feisr:-! Statues referrei tc, prevent the state ccurt from grantin(t '*'^-iB injunction. The question, however, which naturally arises firat ie, doe-^ the bill on its face, stuts a case of -.vhioh equit3f haa juriediotion. Appellee h:.ving juat started an ac'-ion at Ian against Corbett, ima-iedii^teiy files a bill for an injuno'-ion against all t'ae banlis in ;7aich Corbett may have money cr. ie .csi":. , to prevent it being paid out to hirr., or on hie orier, until An- pellee gety Corbett into court in the action at la.-, ani cbtaina a trial and a judgment.

The onJ^y grounl for equitable intervention attempt© i to be aet up in the bilx ie that appellee fearu he may not be a'-^ls to obtain a aatiaf./.ction of such judgment, as he may 7et in his auit at lar;, unleaa ali defendant 'e moneya are tiea up, v»Viiie he proas- cutea thic auit. Nc >Aut^.orities r^re cited authorizing the granting of an iniunction on bucm a showing and we dc not celiev=. that a court of equity s/ould bs made an adjunct to a ocliection agency for a plaintiff who haa just begun suit. The oonsequenoes of sue"; procedure would be exoe-iingly dioastrous and would often force a defendant to an unjust aettlerrent to orevent financial ruin bs'ore the caoe v/ac tried.

There ia no possible excuse shown by the bill for tying up Vud funds of Coroett, Trustee.

To affir.T. the action of the oircui* court :'7c>u] i be in effect tg held that whenevei a creditor broucrht oui-^ in asgurr.cait against his debtor, if the debtor had 3-vei a fe'v dollars and i;-- poeited their, in a bani., whether such savings were cxemrt by lav or not, or if the debtor as trustee for another had deposited the trust funds in a bank for safe keeping in carryinc: out hi a trust, the creditor whether he hai a just oauoe of action or not, oould by injunction from a court of chancery tie up such fimis for months

*5it* esBiija xilatiit^a iioid^ .javawoti .noiJiiaup arfT .nol&omJlal

Cirri '{tiupe rfoWw "^o aa-oo ^ $J-~*a .sojal e^i no ii: oot ,ai

vyj.;i d-jB aoi^oje aj? iaifi^Je teiit g« i:v„ri saXIaqqA .noid-oiteiTx/t

.9ib no Y*nom av^l ij«n j-JacfioO r.c

rtu ,n3LiG alrf ;io lO ,3J£rf oj *i;c liea' *i trrsveic ^J

uatsttio in-: ^ aoi.-to£ gdJ- nl t^uot • tacfioO a Jag eallsq^

I |o0 ^.^ vial as. iXlcf 8£l;t ni qu ^tae acf

- feoiqid 8i/ ;;Yano asalm; (WisX t«

■^.atiruiT. isliOfltijjB ca^io si^ aaxJiTo.iJ'uje oH .^iue ald^ aetuo

.-,-.. ' ' _ ^^ - aolJoxxi/tnl rtjs lo

^pps ^oout^^ -^"O s-^ ' ; o rf'ijjoo

.:tiuB mjgad Jbuq sjui onw Hie

-L aoi . oxa atf LIjjc

-■ntvi Tol ilicf oui "id rtwoi'e auuoxa a-

.oefeuiT .rf'iaoioO io stxu;'- 3 no t *o Jiiiq^'ipti- loctiLaao « leTan*.. ^s'^le

to .

■sT'surJ •"-- 10' TO ,.tu.i

tluot; ,?on ':.>v' "':La'i6 df!j

an'^ao't! lo* sinx w aij ■.-•is. ... i. jc <i '^.c'l." ncxvoniJQni Y^

and perhppB years before final adjuiio?.tion o? his aasuwpait oaaa . In our opinion, 3uch a holding v/oull be unconecionable.

But thio bill ia exceedingly dafeotive in another reapeot. The affidavit states that the matters in the bill atatei., to be on information ani be^^lef, he believee to be true. In the bill, arrei- lee says he ia informed and believes that Corbett haa money on ieposit in tlieoe bi^nks. He does not etate the eourco of his inforjr.- ation, nor dose he file an affidavit of anyone who knows that there are moneys so on deposit. He suys he mcle investigation, ani jva« unable to find any rsai estate owned by Corbett, or any ot'isr tangi- ble asset, other than said moneys. He doe =5 not aay vhat invs;-ti- gation he made, nor whsre he niade it, nor where Corbett lives. If. Corbett livea in Wliiteside County, and does business there, he does not say that he examined the records, or that he had the ability to tsll for himself whether he owns re-^l-eetate in that ocynty. Hs doer3 not state that he inquired of any abstract company, ani does not have any affidavit made by any person in that businest, that he hao made ouch examination, and finds no reai-eatate standing in the name of Corbett. On all material matters, the bill ani Van affidavit are merely on information ani belief, or on belief v/ithcut the information.

An affidavit to a bill for an in;junotiorj which states that the matters ani things relate! in the bill are true in sub- stance and fact, except bo far as they arc stated on information and belief, but which falls to dietinguis"' botvreen !rattsrs st-ted on complainant's own knowledge ani those stated on information and belief, is defective. Christian Hospital vs. The People, 333 111. 344. Neil va. Oldach, 86 Ill.appaW, Soroth vs. Seigfried 16a 111, app.595. Knol vs. Knol 171 111. app.413, 2 High on Injiinotions,

Pec. 1567.

We are clearly of the opinion that this bill doe 3 not

state a case in equity, regardless of th» que^jtion whether or not a

-3-

.^iji. ^ i oii i'atZ9d ttus aof.tamzo'iai

'(.; iRiTu -,,,».- ^jjjg fcamto*^fTi il erf a^4;sa^«X

■-■-'' '•■:. «i;-iu(..«i ^li ' a. -.JO o ...1 :.c-'j-. dH .sia^cf ©ae.:-" • *: tlaoqttJb

._,r > r,.. ^»^„„- ^<s ^Iv^sJtmjs CIS aLl' ■=■'' -~ noji*

.-..'". ■■■'■■ *^'^

,f '-"-rsq ^iL3 '(d stjBfB ;fi'»„-^.^« \fnj8 9V*4 ton

.. ^.. ..K.all tni' , moxt^nlT^XB iouo atojra aaarf erf

, ro-f+^.T, ij9lT:e*.acn iXjs nO . t^sdtoO lo »flu^ .9rf*

- - • -- — ..- "T -^-t^'* ?n:^ eteJ^An -...: J-,..-

f' ._- sg^eXwooi (iwo, •^^osaljoXqjBoo flo

• '1 c-v-: :^v Loil _.. „l;t9iirf0 .fvltoelat «i ,laXXad

.If; :.QZ fat .*oio8 ,*ii.qqrfi.^XI 88 ,rfo*t)XO .ev XleH .#*S

. oXt.c..-;* .*XI I"PX lofjN . s: V :>>a"^ .S98.q$£

4 toff 10 lanttrfw no saXi-ije^ai ,^^ix/pa ni aajBO a a^^^a

National Bank .oan be enjoined by a state court before final judgment i6 obtained by appellee against Corbet t in the action at lav^.

The order ie reversed and remanded to the Circuit court of Wriitesiie county with directions to diasolve the in- junction and as ti.3 bill is solely for an injunction tc dismiss the bill for want of equity on its face.

~4-

ToftfiA 3n:t r!x tf^facfioD ieni^ajB sallaqq* ^cf LeaijBldo al itneinat-ut

STATE OF ILLINOIS, I

SECOND DISTRICT. i '*"■ I, ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court,

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof.

do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in

the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I hci-eunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

Clerk of the Appellate Court.

«&

AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT

Beg-un and h'eld at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixt^ day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand nii\.^ hundred and twenty, within and for the Second Dis^ict of the State of Illinois : \

Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, p/es iding- Jus t ice

Honi JOHN M. NIEHAUS / Jus t i ee .

\ Hon. t OSCAR E. HEARD, Justice^ ^ - A

217 I. A. 663^

ARTHUE E. SNOW, Clerk, CURT 3. AYERS, Sheriff

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on MAY <- lo,. ^j^g opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and fig-ures following-, to-wit:

8799 31

. V. Orvia, Appellee

V9. Appeal from Lake.

John D. Goehringer, Appellant.

^or Curiam.

This o&se was pending in the circuit court c*" U^ke County, on an appeal by iefeniant, frcnr. u julgirent fcr apv^ellee, by a ijustioe of the yec^ce . The clerk's recori, ao ab^trRCtei, ahowe thc^t either the auit or the arpaal -vas disT.is.i^ei for failure to pay c. i.ccl:et fee ir. oompliancc with some statute. The cisr'r OGuli not preserve the reasons for the -i-otion of the court, in the record kept by hitr. The ti.batrt.ot ioeB not show tho.t there is a bill of exoerticns ir t\e record. If there is a bill o' exceptions, its ccntente a,re not revealed by the &.botraot. The abetra,ct do33 not contain the showing nuide to the court, und upon which the court acted. It i9 a familiar rule, thut while a revieTfine: ccurt may exi-.T.ine the record to lind grcunde on which to affiri', it ie not required tc do so to finl a ret.son for reversing. In the an.senc of a ehoning of the proof upon which the court acted, we must aa- surae that the proof justifiel the diemissal. The abstract shows an affiiavit wae filed, but does not otate itf. oontenta. ^^e hs^ve turneJ to the record, and find that said affid£.vit does nc+ ap- pear to be include! in the bill oT exceptions. Appellefl'i brief called attention tc the defects of the abstract, anl wa-: filed eleven days before the case wac taken on cal., so that appellant had a-Tiple time to file an amenled abstract, if he lesirei.

The ;)udgir,snt is affirmed.

eevs

.^1^ r :*n('./i ,eiviO .V ."^

8jf,J "^o tiuoo tluonto ari* nl galijndq e-jw ee^o etriT

,9eIXsqqjB toJ fn^rniiiul a xot^ .^n^nelet y^ Xjeaqq*; n^ no ,Y*f"JO^

,i •t0J8i*scf* 0£ ,£ioo©T e'i-ioXo arlT . do-aaq 3ii;f 'Jo aoMsi/t £ 'i*^

»itiii.c^ io\ JL»8«irp.8lt u j-a arfif no ii.u% 3ilt -iSifiMa *^rf* eworfe

:(i9io srfT .a*ij:fx;Js stio© ttxr/ donjsllqmoo al ael ^erlooL -a \jj»q o^

a •'* rri :*'ix;oo 9il* :o noitojs erit rot enos^iai ©d;f oviatsiq ton iluoo

-t woila :ton aeoi io^zind^ arIT .mlri ^d ^qai Lioo3:i

:it6 « 8X 9T9rf;f II .Jbiooai a:-ft ni 8noi;t-<aoxa lo Hid

tOiiTtadi: S.1T ,;tc*-:i.tocija arirt 'jd Lai^avai toa ai-^ aJnatxJoo a^l

'ijoo an^ u;f aiiam galvoila an'^ nl^;fnoo d'on

/

\£.m iiijoo sniveivaT as alirfw iAAi .aiui ualllmjal « si il .iia^ois

ton . Jil'il* 0* dolrfw no atm/013 tail ot tiooai adJ anim^axa

■ CTO. -Hiavai tol iob^si jb tnil oi oe oi) o* iaiiupea

'3^ iTuoo afl* rfoiriw noqju looiq 9Lii *o gaivToria is lo

ewo.' e fojdi*ad£ erlT . XjJBaiflialfc arijf i:ai!ti:fai;t ^ooiq eri;t rf'jari* araue

evcri .TOO B;^i ait^ta Ion aaoi tud .tali'i a.sN itivjatil^ja njs

'i^^jB tijsc Tooaa ari* orf Lamujf

' .enoiicaox.' li iaJtuioai ad ot i^aq

o^itsof* ariJ tp atoaiat ^ jitna*t-8 telljso

-a imdi .0 no a'b-i^t ^ cm aa.jo orlit aiolttf Bx,-&t navala

.taiivti ,to^itad<a tatnam^ n.<$ dii't ot aioit alqa^ Jbjoxi

• tamiil^jB ai tnamaijijt ailT

STATE OF ILLINOIS, ( _

SECOND DISTRICT. ( '^^- I, ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court,

in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the fores:oing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof. I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ninth day of March, in the the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.

VUrk of the Appelkite Court.

Gen. No. 7061

October Term, A. D. 1919

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLIN'OIS Defendant in Error

EMMA BERRY, Plaintiff in Error

Error to the City Court of the City of Mattoon,

Coles Co-anty, Illinois.

GRAVES P. J.

Plaintiff in error was convicted of s6liing intoxi- cated liquor in anti-saloon territory and was sentenced to confinement in the county jail of Coles County for a period of 30 days and to pay a fine of $50.00 and the costs, and to stand committed until such fine and costs were paid. She contends the court erred in instructing the jury, and that there is no evidence of any sale by her uathin the period of eighteen months next before the indictment was returned. The instructions are not all abstracted. It is an inflexible rule which we here apply not to consider claimed errors in instructions un- less all instructions given are abstracted.

There is the positive evidence of one witness that she bought of plaintiff in error a bottle of whiskey and paid. her for it. At first the witness was uncertain as to the time when this purchase was made, but on being directed to go home and consult some data which she said would fix the time, she did so, and on resuming the witness stand testified that it was between certain def- inite dates within the statute of limitations. Plaintiff in error denied that she made the sale testified to by the Avitness. The jury heard the testimony and believed the story told by the witness and disbelieved the one told by plaintiff in error, and found her guilty. Page 1

After reading the evidence carefully we are satis- fied the verdict of the jury was correct. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Judgmeni affirmed.

Page 2

f i7I.A. 66^^

/

General No. 7068 / Agenda No. 10.

October /term, A. D. 1919

MABEL CASfEEL. Plaintiff in Error

THE SPRINGFIELD CONSOLIDATED Defendant in Error,

^rLZ^-A. 664^

Srror to'^the Circuit Court of Sangamon County. GRAV^ P. J.

This is an action in tresspass on the case to recover for damages received by plaintiff in error while a pass- enger on a car of defendant in error. The negligence charged against defendant in error was in substance that on the floor of the car at the point where plaintiff in error was forced to pass in order to alight from it there was a certain unprotected oval metal shield that projected about four inches above tjhe floor and had become so worn and smooth as to be dangerous to walk upon, and that plaintiff in error a passenger for hire on said car while preparing to alight from it with all due care and caution for her own safety, because of the said obstruc- tion and the condition thereof slipped and fell and re- ceived injuries.

At the end of all the evidence the court sustained the motion of defendant in error for a peremptory in- struction and instructed the jury to find the defendant not guilty. The jury returned the verdict directed and the Court, after denying the motion of plaintiff in error for a new trial, entered judgment in bar of plaintiff's action and against her for costs. The testimony of plaintiff in error fairly tended to support the allegations of negligence of defendant in error and at the close of the testimony offered for her the court properly denied a motion by defendant in error for a peremptory instru- ction.

Page 1 It was not until evidence had been offered on the part of defendant in error that the motion for a per- emptory instruction was allowed. Apparently something in the evidence offered by defendant in error overcame in the mind of the court the prima facie case made by the evidence offered by and on behalf of plaintiff in er- ror. In other words the court apparently weighed the testimony offered by defendant in error against that of- fered by plaintiff in error in determining that the

second motion should be allowed. It is improper on such a motion for the court to weigh the evidence, and must deny such motion if there is any evidence from which standing by itself the jury might, without doing violence in the eye of the law, find the issues for the plaintiff in error, even though on the whole evidence the court may be satisfied that a verdict for the plaintiff in error would have to be set aside as against the preponderance of the evidence. Libby, McNeil & Libby v. Cook 222 111. 206.

Defendant in error argues that even if sufficient evidence of its negligence can be found to require that issue to be submitted to the jury, still it was proper to give the instruction because plaintiff in error had not shown that she was in the exercise of due care for her own safety. The contention is without merit. Plain- tiff in error had offered evidence showing the facts and circumstances surrounding the injury from her stand- point, and it was for the jury to say whether such facts showed that sihe was in the exercise of due care for her own safety or was guilty of contributory negligence. Page 2 In giving the peremptory instruction the court er- red. The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court. Reversed and Remanded. Page 3

\

\

General No. 7092. f Agenda No. 34.

\ October Term, A. D. 1919

GEORGE J. GAY, Appella<^ t r^ T \ A 5

vs ' I T 1 c A • f> ^ 4 "

AMERICAN CASUALTY CO., Appellee.

Appeal from the C^cuit Court of Vermilion County.

GRAVES P. J.

Appellant brought this suit on an insurance policy whereby appellee undertook to indemnify appellant against loss or expense or both arising from any claim upon appellant for damages on account of bodily in- juries or death or both, accidently suffered or alleged to have been suffered by any one by reason of the owner- ship, maintenance or use of any of the automobiles en- umerated in the policy, subject to certain conditions among which is the stipulation that none of the auto- mobiles mentioned will be rented to other people than the assured or used to carry passengers for a considera- tion. A further condition of the policy provided that —

"F. If any legal proceedings, even though ground- less, be instituted against the assured to enforce a claim for damages on account of injuries or death (or both) covered by this policy, the assured shall forward to the company every summoms or other process as soon as it shall have been served upon him, whereupon the com- pany will, at its own cost, defend such legal proceedings in the name and on behalf of the assured."

In the declaration appellant set out the policy of insurance in full including the conditions above mention- ed and averred that appellant had been sued for dam- ages for accidental bodily injuries growing out of his ownership and operation of an automobile named in the policy, that judgment had been rendered against him for $700 which he had satisfied, and that his attorneys fees in that case amounted to $700, that the judgment, attorneys fees and costs in that case amounted to $2000. Pleas

Page 1 ,

were eventually filed to this narr. By one of them known as the second amended special plea appel- lee set out among other things the condition above mentioned whereby it was specified that the insui'ance policy should not cover any loss or damage resulting from the use of the automobile in question for carrying passengers for hire and that the damages sued for were sustained by the claimant when she was riding in the automobile as a passenger for hire and while appellant

was using the same as a taxi-cab as a common carrier, and concluded by the averment that by reason of the fact that the claimed (damages were sustained while the automobile was being used for a purpose prohibited by the policy appellee was not liable and concluded with a verification. The plea contained other averments not necesasry to the determination of the case in the view we take of it.

To this plea a demurrer was interposed and was heard and overruled. Appellant elected to stand by his demurrer. Appellee withdrew all pleas except the said amended second special plea and thereupon judgment was entered against appellant in bar of his action and for costs.

Much has been said by counsel for the parties in re- lation to the question of estoppal by verdict raised by averments in both the declaration and plea, but it is not necessary to determine the question so raised.

The demurrer to the plea in question admitted that the condition exempting appellee from liability under the policy if injury resulted from the use of the auto- mobile for hire and that the injury which resulted in the suit, ^'idgment, attorneys fees and costs for which appellant now

Page 2 seeks to be reimbursed occurred while the automobile in question was so being used for hire and as a common carrier. Those facts being admitted appellant has no right of action and the Circuit Court properly so held. It is no answer to say there are other averments in the plea that do not constitute a defense. All such averments can properly be disregarded as sur- plussage, but that would in no way militate against the sufficiency of that part of the plea that did set up a good defense and surplussage cannot be reached even by special demurrer. Burtiap v. White 14 111. 301, Jacobs V. Pierce 132 111. App. 547, Stover v. MiJiane 89 111. App. 537.

Appellant has argued that there are several facts that might be set up by him in reply to the plea which if proven would entitle him to recover notwithstanding the facts averred in the plea. That may be true, but such facts in order to be availed of by him must be up in a replication, they cannot be presented by demurrer.

Appellant also argues that under the policy he is entitled to be reimbursed for the expenses he has been

put to in defending the case in which judgment was rendered against him and would have been entitled to such reimbursement even if the claim was groundless. That would be true providing the claim was one that was covered by the policy. The liability of the company to pay the expenses occasioned by groundless litigation is by stipulation in the policy limited to claims which if established would be covered by the policy.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Page 3

\

/

/

General No. 7109. iVgenda No. 46.

\ October Term. A. D. 1919

\ MARIA WICKSTROM, Appellee vs /'

ROBERT R. RODMAX, Appellant,

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Vermilion County.

GRAVES P.,., / 21, -7 I. A. 664^

Daniel Wickstrom died leaving a willby "whicK he gave his entire estate to his widow, Maria Wickstrom, appellee in this case. She became administratrix with the will annexed of her husband's estate and procured the probate of the will on December 29, 1915. Some- time in 1917 she contracted to sell the real estate the title to which she had so acquired to the mother of ap- pellant. In the meantime nothing had been done in and about the administration of the estate except secur- ing the probate of the will. Appellant who is a lawyer, upon examination of the title to the real estate in ques- tion for his mother, concluded that in order to make the title good the administration of the estate should be completed, and so advised appellee. He afterwards rendered her some services in making the inventory of the personal property, giving notice to creditors and making her final report and in doing such other things as seemed necessary to make the title in appellee com- plete. The inventory showed one lot of household goods consisting of beds, bedding, dishes, cooking uten- sils, chairs, rugs, piano, bed-room furniture, etc., and $80 in money. It does not appear that the household goods were ever appraised. The inventory also showed the real estate in question. The final report sliowed under items received: —

Page 1

Household goods inventoried

Cash on hand at time of death of dec- eased $80.00

Received from sale of household goods 8.25 Total $88.25

It also showed credits to exactly the same amount and concluded with the statement — "All claims have been paid except court costs and expenses of administra- tion, these cosis will be paid by administratrix upon hearing of this report."

There is nothing in this report, or on it, to show what the Court costs were, or that there were any other expenses of administration, or if there were any such other expenses what they were for or the amount of the

same.

The proof shows that before appellant rendered any sei-vices for appellee she asked him what his charges would be and that he replied "just what the court said should be his pay." When the final report was present- ed to the County Court for approval appellant told ap- pellee his fee was $250 and filled out a check for that amount which she signed in her individual capacity and not as administratrix. This check she gave to him and he cashed it. Appellee testifies tjhat before signing the check she protested against paying that amount telling him she had been informed that $50 or $60 would be all his fees should be. This appellant denies.

This suit was begun before a justice of the peace by appellee to recover of appellant the excess paid him under protest for fees over and above what his services were reasonably worth. It was tried in the Circuit Court of Vermilion County on appeal from the justice of the peace. The jury returned a verdict for appellee for $175.00.

Page 2 Judgment was entered on the verdict.

That the charge made by appellant was excessive to the amount of the verdict is amply established by competent evidence and appellant offered no proof whatever to show that it was not excessive to that ex- tent or to justify the charge made. He first insists that the matter is res judicata^ That when the County Court approved the final report of appellee it amounted to an adjudication of the reasonableness of the fee then paid in the presence of the court, even though there is no mention of it in or on the report or in the order ap- proving it. The position is clearly untenable. In the first place the .services were rendered for the benefit of appellee personally to enable her to give a good title to property she was attempting to sell, and not for the benefit of the estate. The check with which the fee was paid was the personal check of appellee and was not the check of the administratrix of her husband's estate, nor has she ever attempted tb charge the estate with the amount paid. The receipt given for the check was made out on a blank receipt made to be used by the ad- ministrators when paying out estate funds, but it is a significant fact that the blanks left to be filled were not in fact filled, so that the receipt of page 111 of the re- cord reads: — "Reeceived of Maria Wickstrom, adminis-

tra " which amounts to no more than a receipt

to her individually. The abstract makes the receipt

read "Administrairix" but that is not a true abstract of the record. What appelleee should personally pay to appellant for the services he rendered for her was in no way brought officially

Page 3

before the County Court and was not passed upon by it nor had the County Court any business or jurisdiction to pass upon it until she should attempt to charge the fee up against the estate. Her liability to pay appellant for his services rendered in get- ting the title to the premises in question in such a shape as to make the same merchantable was as much a per- sonal obligation on her part as if some third person had been executor or administrator with the will annexed. The fact that she paid him at the same time her final report was presented to the County Court for approval, is in no way suggestive that she was treating the charge for fees as an obligation of the estate. On the con- trary in her final report she calls attention of the County Court to the fact that the court costs and the expenses of administration, which would include attorney's fees and her own commissions, were not paid,, and she there promised the court to pay the court costs, but no promise was made to pay the expenses of administration.

The question of fact as to whether appellee paid the excessive fee under protest or not was submitted to the jury by proper instructions and was practically the only issue that was submitted to the jury, and we see no rea- son for disturbing its finding. The parties sustained the relation of attorney and client, appellant being clearly the dominant factor in the combination. He owed to her absolute fairness in all of his dealings with her in the matters involved, including his obligation to charge her no more than a reasonable fee for his services, and she had a right to rely on his performing his duty to her in that regard. In litigation involving the good faith of the attorney

Page 4 in such transations the burden is on him to show perfect fairness, adequacy and equity in the tran- saction. Warner v. Flack 217 111. 303. It is not necessary for an attorney to hold up a client with a gun and by that means extort from him an unconscionable fee, in order that the client may compel him to refund ex- horbitant charges. It is sufficient if by means of his influence over the client acquired through confidential relations existing between them he is enable to still the client's objections and override his judgment and there-

by induce him to pay him money which he is not in equ- ity and good conscience entitled to receive or retain.

The action of assumpset is the appropriate remedy to enforce the equitable obligation arising from the re- ceipt of mpney by one person which belongs to another and which in equity, justice and good conscience should be returned. Dd. of He'w. Gom'rs. v. Bloomington 253 111. 164. Justices of the peace have jurisdiction to try all cases where the action of assumpset will lie. The Circuit Court did not err in refusing to dismiss this case on the motion of appellant.

One of the grounds urged by appellant as grounds for a new trial was newly discovered evidence of the probate clerk, who was present at the time the money was paid to appellant and who says he will testify that appellee made no protest. The evidence suggested was cumulative only, and was not conclusive, neither was diligence shown by appellant to have the witness there at the last trial.

What has been said disposes of all the contentions made. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed. Page 5

Judgment Affirmed.

Gen. No. 7115 kg. No. 70

October Term, A. D. 1919

NOAH ATKINS, Administrator of theifestate of Carroll Atkins, deceased, Apr

CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SPIVICE CO. a cor- poration, Appe^

Appeal from the City Couja of the City of Pana Coun-ty-OT Christian

GRAVES P. J.

217 I. A. 664

Appellant is charged with negligently causing the death of appellee's decedent by coming in contact with an arc light wire belonging to appellant in the city of Pana, Illinois. A judgment for $2500 was obtained against appellant. In view of the fact that this judg- ment must be reversed for error in instructions and the cause remanded for another tiial, we will refrain from discussing the facts.

Instructions numbered three in the series given at the request of appellee directs a verdict. In it the jury was told in substance that if appellant would in the ex- ercise of ordinary care have turned off the electricity from that wire in tjime to have avoided killing the de- ceased but negligently failed to do so, then the plaintiff was entitled to recover. It wholly ignores the question of whether appellant had knowledge or notice of the fact that the wire was broken or down. Unless appell- ant had knowledge or notice of that fact in time to turn off the electricity or otherwise protect the public, it certainly would not be negligent in not doing those things. This instruction was defective, because it dir- ects a verdict and does not contain all Page 1

the elements necessary to the plaintiff's right of recovery. SVioney v. City of Chicago 239, 111. 414; nfionigomery Coal Co. v. Barringer 218 111. 327-337; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Smiiti 208 111. 608-619; Pardridge v. Cu<ler 168 111. 504-512. In- structions that direct a verdict if erroneous are not cured by other correct instructions in the series given. !. C. R. R. Co. V. Smiih 208 111. 608-619.

The fifth instruction given at the request of ap-

pellee leaves to the jury to determine what is ,averrecl , ' .^ <4^^4Cz/-«'jr~ in tne declaration. That is also error... M is for the

court in its instructions to tell the jury what is so aver- red. A juror is not supposed to be able to take a dec- laration and accurately determine unaided by the court what its averments amount to. That is a question of- ten more or less difficult of determination even by the court.

The seventh instruction given at the instance of ap- pellee directs a verdict and is bad because it tells the jury in effect that the only thing to be done in case a wire is broken, regardless of whether it is connected with an electric circuit or not, is to turn off the electric current from some where, and if that is not done the owner of the line is negligent. What is the most effi- cient and quickest way to protect the public in case a wire is down or broken depends on whether is is charg- ed with a dangerous electric current or not and is a ques- tion of expert knowledge to be shown by evidence. It is also fatally defective because under it, if any wire is broken, whether it is charged with a dangerous current of electricity or not, and a person

Page 2

comes in contact with it and is injured the owner is liable whether the injury resulted by reason of the down wire or some other cause. Under that instruction if an uncharged wire was down and a child playing with it in the road was run over by an automobile and killed, its administrator could recover damages of the owner of the wire.

For errors in instructions the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for an- other trial.

Page 3 Reversed and Remanded.

General No. 7075.

V October Term, A. D. 1919

Minnie Simcox, a minor, by George B. Simcox, her next friend. Appellee, vs

William O'Connell, Appellant. ^

Appeal from Circuit Court, Vermilion Coyjity. - ■*•--*

ELDREDGE J.

Minnie Simcox, appellee, a girl not quite fifteen years old, recovered a judgment against William O'Con- nell, appellant, for $2,500.00 in an action of trespass on the case.

On November 11, 1918, the citizens of the City of Danville, Illinois, were celebrating the event of the sign- ing of the armistice during the late war. On the morn- ing of that date a parade of automobiles and other ve- hicles took place. E. R. Pape participated in the parade driving a covered ambulance. Immediately prior to the time of the accident in controversy, this parade was proceeding south on Vermilion Street and appellee with three other girls, Helen Dallas, Beatrice Young and Sar- ah Darnell, were sitting on the left or east running board of the ambulance. William Bryant was standin-? on the right hand or west running board of the ambu- lance holding his two year old boy who was sitting on the hood. Harrison Street in Page 1

said city runs east and west and crosses Vermilion Street at right angles. The original declaration comprises one count and char- ges that appellant, who was also driving an automobile, so carelessly, recklessly and negligentely drove and guided his said automobile at said intersection of Ver- milion and Harrison Streets and while appellee was rid- ing upon said ambulance that appellant's automobile was driven against said ambulance and appellee was crushed between them. The first additional count is substantially the same as the original declaration. The second additional count sets out Section 18 of an ordi- nance of the City of Danville which provides that all vehicles going in a northerly or southerly direction shall have the right of way over vehicles going in an easterly or westerly direction except on Main Street v/here ve- hicles going in an easterly or westerly direction shall have the right of way. This count then avers that ap- pellant, disregarding said ordinance, drove his automo-

ri7l.A. 664^

bile westerly along Harrison Street and upon the inter- section of Vermilion and Harrison Streets and careless- ly and negligently failed to give the said ambulance upon which appellee was riding the right of way at said intersection and carelessly and negligently drove and guided said automobile against said ambulance and

Page 2 crushed appellee between them. The third additional count sets out Section 8 of the same ordinance which provides that a vehicle turning into another street to the left shall pass to the right of and beyond the cen- ter of the street intersection before turning. It is then averred that appellant failed to observe said ordinance and carelessly amd negligently turned said automobile to the left before he had passed the center of said inter- section and carelessly and negligently drove and guided said automobile against said ambulance on which appel- lee was riding and crushed her between them, etc. Ap- pellant filed a plea of the general issue. The substance of the testimony of appellee, Beatrice Young and Sarah Darnell, three of the girls who were riding on the run- ning board of the ambulance, E. R. Pape, who was driving the ambulance, William Bryant, E. M. Davis, R. G. Osborne and George B. Simcox, witnesses who saw the accident, is to the effect that the ambulance was proceeding in the procession at a rate of speed not to exceed six miles per hour and was traveling south on the west side of Vermilion Street within three or four feet of the west curb thereof; that appellant was driv- ing his aautomobile in a westerly direction on Harrison Street and that when he reached the intersection of the two

Page 3 streets, instead of passing beyond the center thereof before he turned to the left or toward the south, guided his car in a southwesterly direction diag- onally across the intersection and so close to the ambu- lance that the fenders or running board on his automo- bile struck appellee, Sarah Darnell and Beatrice Young whereby appellee and Sarah Darnell were scraped or pushed off the running board of the ambulance. Bea- trice Young was not pushed off the ambulance and re- ceived no injury except a rip in her stocking. Helen Dallas was not hit hS^ the automobile. Appellee receiv- ed a fracture through the socket of the hip bone on the left side with an upward displacement of the lower fragment of the bone, a comminuted fracture of the

ramus of the pubis on the right side and also a trans- verse fracture of the lower bone of the pelvis. Ap- pellee remained in the hospital until January 12th, 1919 and until January 7th, had to lay on her back in bed vt^ith sand bags packed about her to prevent her from moving, during which time she suffered pain. The tes- timony of Mrs. William Curran, who was riding with appellant in his automobile, is to the effect that she paid no attention to the way appellant turned his auto- mobile at the intersection and that the ambulance run- ning ten or twelve miles an hour came from behind ap- pellant's automobile so close to the same that the fen- der

Page 4 of the latter brushed the girls off of the ambulance. Appellant, Lewis Ransom and Frank Towers testified to the effect that the girls were not brushed or scraped off the ambulance at all, but that Pape, when he saw ap- pellant's automobile approaching so close, turned the ambulance suddenly to the right to avoid a collision and this sudden turning of the ambulance caused the girls to fall off the running board thereof. There is thus a clear and distinct conflict in the evidence and it was the province of the jury to determine what the facts were and the apparent weight of the evidence sustains its verdict.

The only error in regard to the instructions com- plained of is the giving of the sixth on behalf of appel- lee. This instruction permits the jury to assess dam- ages for future suffering and loss of health. It is con- ceded that this instruction states a correct proposition of law ,but it is contended that there is no evidence tending to show that appellee will sustain any future suffering and loss of health. Appellee did not leave her bed until January 7th, 1919, and it was not until Jan- uary 12th, that she was able to stand on her feet. The trial of this case commenced on February 10, 1919, and appellee testified that her back and head ached as a result of the injmy, thati she is stiff, that her left foot turns

Page 5 in and she cannot make it turn out and that she d^es not sleep as well as she did before she was injured. The physician who attended her testified that the kind of fracture she received causes pain and suffering and that there are adhesions that may heal later and may

not; that in his judgment, her foot will improve, but it will take time and persistent effort on her part, also that she is still sore, undoubtedly, from her injuries. At the time of the trial, appellee had not recovered from her injuries and the objection that there was no evidence of future damages cannot be sustained. Donk Brothers Coal and Coke Company vs Thill, 228 111. 233; C. & M. El. Co. vs Ullrick, 213 111. 170.

That the injury was severe there can be no ques- tion and what the result thereof may be in the future cannot now be determined from this record. We would hesitate to hold that the damages are excessive and substitute our judgment for that of the trial court and the jury.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed. Page 6

Gen. No. 7088

h >

* / October Term, A. D. 19,19

Benjamin Eyre, Appellee

George Woryick, Appellant Appea^from CiFi5uit Court, McLean C!ounty

ELDREDGEir^ 2, 1 7 I. A. 66 5'^

In an action on the case to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of appellant, a verdict was returned awarding appellee $2,000.00 The trial court required a remittitur of $800.00 and a judgment was entered against appel- lant and in favor of appellee for the sum of $1,200.00

It is claimed by appellant that appellee is precluded from recovering damages in this action because he was guilty of contributory negligence. Appellee, at the time of the injury, was in the employ of one Jesse Barnes, one of a number of farmers who jointly owned an en- silage cutter by means of which they filled their silos helping each other in so doing by exchanging work. Ap- pellant owned a gasoline tractor engine and was em- ployed by this group of farmers to furnish the power to the ensilage cutter. On the day when appellee received his injuries, a number of these men, including appellee and his employer, Barnes, were helping to fill a

Page 1 silo on the farm of James H. Button and appellant was furnishing the power to the ensilage cutter by ".veans of his tractor engine. This power was transmitted from the engine to the cutter by means of a belt which ex- tended from the belt wheel on the engine to one on the cutter. The belt wheel on the engine may be disen- gaged from the driving shaft thereon by means of a clutch which is operated by the foot. When the lever attached to the clutch is pushed down, the belt wheel on the engine is released from the driving gear and re- mains idle while the engine continues to run. This lever has a series of notches' or teeth on one side, and, in dis- engaging the clutch from the driving shaft on the belt wheel, the lever is pushed down by the foot and may be locked in that position by pushing it to one side so that the notches or teeth therein may catch on the edge of the platform. The clutch may be again engaged with the driving shaft of the belt wheel by pushing it with the foot so that the teeth are released from the

edge of the platform. When this is done, the lever flies up again and the clutch becomes engas;ed with the driv- ing shaft of the belt wheel which immediately begins to revolve transmitting the power from the engine through the belt to the other machine. The ensilage was prepared by feeding the material to the ensilage cutter where it

Page 2 was carried between a shear plate and a series of revolving knives. Appellee was assigned to the duty of feeding the material to the cutter, and, af- ter the cutter had been in operation for some time, it was noticed that the knives were not cutting properly whereupon a signal was given to appellant to stop the power. Appellant pushed down the lever and the pow- er was stopped though the engine continued to run. The old knives were removed from the wheel of the cutter and new ones attached thereto and when the m_acliine was started again it was found that one or more of these knives were not properly adjusted, but were clicking against the shear plate. Thereupon, a signal v as given again to appellant to disengage the power from the en- gine. He again pushed down the lever attached to the clutch with his foot and attempted to lock the same in the manner heretofore described. Appellee then sought to adjust the knives in the cutter by tightening several bolts which held them in position. After tightening these bolts, he was balancing or teetering the v/heel of the cutter backward and forward to see if the k.iives would strike the shear plate. In doing this, he had one hand on one of the knives and the other on the wheel and while thus engaged the clutch lever on the engine suddenly became released and, as the engine was still running, power was immediately transmitted to

Page 3 the cutter and the knives began to revolve and cut off parts of three fingers of appellee's left hand. It is con- ceded that no signal was given to appellant to throw in the clutch and he testified that the clutch became en- gaged through no action of his. His testimony as ab- stracted in part is as follows: — "I attented to the tractor on the day in question. Nobody helped me. There is a seat on the tractor upon the platform. I was seated on my seat when the accident happened. I did nothing to set the clutch or start the belt. I could see over there most of the time. I did not do anything in any shape or form to start the belt or start the machine. It

had never started with me in any way at any time before that accident. I heard somebody holler, I sat there for a while and then went down. * * * * The rea- son I didn't stop the engine was because I had to crank it to start again. * * * * When you push the lever down, that releases the clutch. When you push it down, the clutch comes up again and then the engine runs again. There is a kind of lever that locks it. The only way" the lever can disengage itself, is the vibration of the engine. The notches on the lever catch on the edge of the platform. * * * * It never got loose before that time. It held for the time being. All I know it held it down. I didn't look at it. I Page 4

don't know whether it was completely locked or not. If it had been com- pletely locked, the grooves would have locked it tight." It is conclusively established by the proofs that when the lever was pushed down to release the clutch, it was not securely locked and that either the vibration caused by the running of the engine or some other means caus- ed the lever to be released and thus permitting the clutch to become engaged with the driving shaft of the belt wheel and the power transmitted from the belt to the cutter. Altihough appellant testified that he could not see the position of the hands of appellee, yet he knew that appellee was adjusting the knives of the cutter and it was his duty while the knives were being adjust- ed, to use reasonable care to prevent the starting of the power. We fail to see where appellee was guilty of any contributory negligence, and this was a question of fact for the jury to determine.

Appellee testified on cross examination that lie saw where the three sharp knives came around where the shear plate was. He was asked this question; "You knew it was dangerous?" to which the Court sustained an objection. He was then asked; "Do you know that was dangerous?" to which an objection was also sustain- ed. Then the following question was asked of appellee; "Could you see them approach Page 5

so close to the plate that it would cut your fingers off if they were in there?" It is difficult to determine to what the first two questions above mentioned referred to, but these questions taken in connection with the last question would indicate that counsel for appellant was seeking to ascertain if appel-

lee knew that it was dangerous for him to adjust the knives. The danger was self evident provided the knives were in motion. There was no danger to appellee of having his fingers cut off between the knives and the shear plate unless the former were revolving. Appellee was not the servant of appellant and the latter had no interest whatever in the cutter. He was simply hired by the group of farmers who owned that machine to furnish power for its operation. It was not material whether appellee knew that the adjustment of the knives was a dangerous operation or not. The more dangerous the proceeding was, the more care appellant should have exercised to prevent any power from being transmitted while the adjustment was in progress.

Appellant sought to prove by the witness Barnes that the latter did not ask Button to permit appellee to work at feeding the cutter, but that he requested him to permit appellee to work inside the silo. The trial court refused to admit this testimony and properly so. Appellee was working at the cutter and feeding the same with the

Page 6 acquiesence of everybody and appellant knew what he was doing at the time of the accident and it was wholly immaterial so far as appellant's negligence was concerned, what the conversation was between Barnes and Button. Complaints are made of other rul- ings on the admission of evidence which are without substantial merit as are also the criticisms of the in- structions. We can not say from the evidence as a mat- ter of law that the amount of the judgment is excessive for the injuries sustained.

There is no reversible error in the record and the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Page 7

/ /

General No. 7094. AggnOa No. 36.

\ October Term, A. D. 191S

WILLIAM L. JORDAN, J^pellee, lOHN M. GRIEJ^TH, Appellant.

217I.A. 665

Appeal from Cicctiit Court Vermilion County. ELDREDGE J.

Appellee, William L. Jordan, procured a verdict and judgment for the sum of $15.00 against appellant, John M. Griffith, in an action on the case for malicious prosecution. The declaration charges that the defend- ant wilfully and maliciously and without any reasonable or probable cause represented to G. Ross Wertz verb- ally and in writing that the plaintiff had been guilty of larceny of certain lumber of the value of $15.00, be- longing to said Wertz; that by reason of such repre- sentation, the said Wertz filed a complaint before a Justice of the Peace upon which a warrant was issued by virtue of which he was wrongfully and unjustly ar- rested and brought before said Justice of the Peace and compelled to give bond for his appearance, and that on February 14, 1919, the charge was dismissed and appel- lee was discharged and fully acquitted of said offense. The declaration is so defective that it is doubtful whether it would sustain a judgment, but as no question in regard to

Page 1 the sufficiency of the pleadings are pre- served or raised on this appeal, they are waived.

The evidence, briefly stated, shows that appellant was the tenant on a farm owned by Wertz and that ap- pellee was employed by appellant as a farm hand. Ap- pellee left the employ of appellant in September, 1918, and when he did so, took with him some chicken coops made out of some old boards on the place. Wertz dis- covered later that the boards were gone and procured the following affidavit to be executed by appellant: "State of Illinois, Vermilion County, ss:

Personally appeared before me, a notary public, in and for the County and State aforesaid, John M. Grif- fith, who makes affidavit that he was renter of eighty acres of land from G. Ross Wertiz, viz, W ^ of N. E. i of Section 15-22-14 during the year 1918 and that one W. L. Jordan worked for him and lived in the house located on above mentioned farm.

Affiant further states that when W. L. Jordan

moved into above premises there was numerous boards of one foot width which had been used in making bot- toms for corn cribs and that to his absolute knowledge above mentioned W. L. Jordan appropriated them to his own use and made 6 or 8 chicken coops of above 3^ by 3 feet on a side, a triangle in shape; and that on or about Sept. 20. 1918, he removed from said premises taking said coops.

Further affiant sayeth not."

There is not a scintilla of evidence that appellant aided, abetted or instigated Wertz to cause the arrest and prosecution of appellee on the charge of larceny. There is no evidence that appellant did any malicious act furthering the prosecution. The affi Page 2

davit ex- ecuted by appellant simply states facts which are not disputed. Under no construction of the same can it be held as accusing appellee of the crime of larceny.

The judgment is reversed without remanding and the Clerk is directed to enter in the judgment of this Court the following finding of facts:

"The Court finds from the evidence that appellant did not wilfully and maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause represent to G. Ross Wertz verbally and in writing that appellee had been guilty of larceny of certain lumber of the value of $15.00 belonging to said G. Ross Wertz."

Page 3

/ / (^

f

General No. 7101. i Agenda No. 39.

\ October Term, A. Di^919

JOHN HALL, Ap^llant,

vs

M. FEUER and JOHN SPEIGEL, Partners as

Feuer & Speigel, Appellees. ->, , , \ ^ f f t-^-^

Appeal from Circuit Court Sangamon County.

ELDREDGE J.

Ml /A465-

Appellant brought an action before a Justice of the Peace to recover the cost of forty dozen empty soda water bottles and twelve dozen cases for the same. An appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Sangamon County from the judgment of the Justice of the Peace and on the trial in the Circuit Court the cause was sub- mitted to the Court, who tried the same without a jury and found the issues joined in favor of appellees and entered judgment accordingly. No instructions were asked by either party and no question of law is involved on this appeal. It is claimed the value of the bottles and cases amounts to $28.10. The trial court saw and heard the witnesses and was in a much better position to determine the weight of their testimony than this court is. There is evidence tending to support his find- ing and the judgment is affirmed. Page 1

/

Gen. No. 7105 / Ag. No. 42

* October Term, A. D. 1919

%

KESPOHL-MOHRENSTECHER Co., Appellee

W. E. WILLIAMSuN, App

Appeal from Circuit Court, Adami O'l.m.ty

ELDREDGE J.

Appellee recovered a judgment for $494.45 against appeiUant in an action on the case in the Circuit Court of Adams County. The case was tried on the issues presented by the third and fifth additional counts of the declaration and the plea of general issue. Appellant was the owner of a four story building situated on the northwest corner of Fourth and Main Streets in the City of Quincy, Illinois. Appellant, at the time of the matter in controversy, was his tenant occupying the first and second floors and part of the basement of said building and conducted therein a wholesale and retail dry goods business. The Standard Oil Company, of which appellant was the local manager, occupied the third floor and the firm of Meyer, Rieighard & Higgins the fourth floor as tenants of appelLant. By the terms of the lease from appellant to appellee, the former was required to furnish steam beat for the Pagel

premises occu- pied by the latter. The boiler for this purpose was lo- cated in the basement and was under the exclusive con- trol of appellant. The steam was carried from this boiler in pipes to the raditors located in that portion of the building occupied by appellee and also to raditors located on the third and fourth floors of said building. Appellant employed a janitor or engineer who had charge of the heating apparatus). The boiler was con- nected with the city water mains by a pip© in which was located a valve and when it was necessary to put water into the boiler this valve was opened and the water from the city water mains allowed to flow into the boil- er. When a sufficient quantity of water had flowed in- to the boiler, the valve could b© closed. The raditors in the building were of the old style of construction by which it was necessary to open the pet-cocks thereon in

e.a2i 7 I.A. 66 5*^

order to allow the cold air to escape and the steam to circulate through them. When the pet-cocks on the raditors were closed the steam could not go through the raditors and consequently the latter could radiate no heat. In very cold weather appellee had been ac- customed to leave the pet-cocks on the radiators open at night so that when the steam was turned on in the morn- Page 2 ing the premises would be suitably warm when the store was opened for business. This had been the custom for several years. If this was not done, rt would take several hours in the mioming after the store was opened to suitably warm the premises. On the evening of the 23d of December, 1917, the janitor who had charge of the boiler opened the valve on the pipe connecting it with the city water main in order to place some water in the boiler. He forgot to turn off the valve and went home. The water flowed from the city main into the boiler until the latter was full when it was forced through the steam pipes into the raditors and out through the pet-cocks onto the floor of the premises occupied by appellee and also came down through the ceiling of the second floor from the floors above. The following day was the day before Christ- mas and many goods had been displayed by appellee on its counters and otlherwisie anticipating the Christmas trade. The water thus forced into the rooms occupied by appellee damaged these goods to the extent of $494.45. There is substantially no dispute as to the facts. Appeillaint introduced some testimony tending to show that no water came through the ceiling from the third floor, but the clear weight of Pages

the evidence is to the contrary. The only defense is that appellee was guilty of contributory negligence in permitting the pet- cocks on the raditors located on the first two floors oc- cupied by it to remain open and thus to permit the water to escape therefrom.

Many errors are alleged to have occured in the ad- mission and exclusion of evidence. To discuss them all would make this opinion of unnecessary length. Many of the criticisms in this regard are without merit and

others pertain to alleged errors not of sufficient iu.yort- ance to cause a reversal of the judgment.

It is claimed that before appellee can recover it must be establisiliied by proof that appellant had know- ledge that it was customary for appellee to permit the pet-cocks on the raditors to remian open at night. The witness Fortcamp testified that when the pet-cocks are open and the boiter had the usual amjount of water in it the steam as it condensed in the raditors would run back into the boiler in the form of water and this water would not be forced through the pet-cocks and that in extremely cold weather is was necessary to have the pet-cocks open and have some steam escaping there- from in order to allow circulation and get sufficient heat from the radiators. This testimony is uncontradicated and, if true, appellee was not Page 4 negligent in leaving the pet- cocks open because no harm would result therefrom if the proper amount of water was maintained in the boiler. Appellant himself t|estified that he knew the raditors could not be warmed unless the pet-cocks were open.

It is also contended that no recovery could be had for the damage caused by water flowing from the third floor through the ceiling of the second floor because the only damages claimed in the declaration were those caused by water flowing through the raditors located on that portion of the premises occupied by appellee. The evidence in regard to the water flowing through the ceiling of the second floor was admitted without object- ion that there' was any variance between the allegat- ions and the proofs, but on the contrairy appellant in- troduced evidence tending to show that no water es- caped from the raditors on the third and fourth floors.

On the trial counsel for appellee in the presence of the jury asked that the jury might be allowed to view the ceiling and walls of the premises in question to aid them in determining whether any water did, in fact, flow through said ceiling. The Court denied the re- quest, but it is insisted that it was reversible error to make it in the presence and hearng of the jury. If this re- Page 5

quest was erroneously made in the presence of the jury, appellant was not materially harmed thereby be- cause, as we have said before, the clear weight of the evidence is tb the effect that the water did come through said ceiling.

There was no reversible error in the giving or the refusing of the instructions and the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Page 6

General No. 7111. Agenda No. 48.

October Term, A, D. 1^

WALTER D. STILABOWb£ Appellee

^17 I.A. 6f?^*^

BENJAMIN F. FLETCHER, Appellant. * • "-^ \J ^9

Appeal from Circuit Court, Moultrie County. ELDREDGE J.

The jury in this case returned a verdict awarding appellee damages to the amount, of $1,000.00. A re- mitittur of $200.00 having been entered, judgment was rendered against appellant for the sum of $800.00.

The declaration consists of four counts charging in substance that appellee was the owner of an automo- bile and he, together with his wife Lena, were, on Nov- ember 10th, 1917, riding in the same driving west on a public highway west of the village of Dalton City and that while in the exercise of due care for his own safety and for the traffic on said highway, appellant, who was on the same public highway driving east in an auto- mobile, negligently, carelessly and recklessly drove said automobile so that it violently collided with great force against appellee's automobile damaging the latter and that the wife of appellee was thrown against the wind shield thereof and one of her front teeth was broken off and her face injured whereby appellee sustamed damages for

Page 1 money paid out in an effort to cure his wife of her hurt and bruises. To the declaration, ap- pellant filed a plea of the general issue.

On the night of November 10th, 1917, appellee and his wife were riding west on the highway in question. It was raining at the time and the road was wet and slippery. Appellant was a farmer living in Moultrie County two or three miles northesat of Dalton City. He had been to the City of Decatur during the day and was returning to his home on that night in his auto- mobile accompanied by his son-in-law and a neighbor- ing farmer. Near to where the accident happened there was a culvert or small bridge across the highway. Ap- pellee testified that he (appellee) was driving his auto- mobile west on the north side of the highway which was about twenty-five feet wide; that when he saw the culvert ahead, he caused his automobile to slow up and.

at the time of the accident, it was standing still on the north side of the road; that appellant's automobile ap- proached him from the west at a speed of from twenty to tw«ntyfive miles an hour, crossed the culvert and struck appellee's automobile in a head on collision; that as a result of the collision, one of the front wheels of appelee's automobile was broken, a fender was crushed, the crank case was cracked and the side of the auto- mobile was injured; that his wife was thrown against the wind shield and two or three of her Page 2

teeth were in- jured and her lips were cut and bleeding. Appellant's wife, being an incompetent witness, did not testify. The substance of the testimony of appellant, and he is corroborated by that of the two men who were with him in his automobile, is that there was a deep ditch at the south edge of the road and that after he had cross- ed the culvert, he kept on the south side of the center of the road and within eighteen inches of the edge of the ditch; that within thirty or forty feet after he had passed over the culvert, appellee's automobile which was moving rapidly westward along the center, or south of the center of the highway, ran into appellant's automobile and badly injured the same. With the ex- ception of appellee's wife, who did not testify, these four men were the only eye witnesses to the accident. Other witnesses testified on behalf of both parties in regard to the tracks made by tih© two cars in the high- way and as to statements made by appellee after the accident. While the jurors were the judges of the credibility of the witnesses, yet it is apparent that the question of where lies the preponderance of evidence is very close, and it was very important that no sub- stantial error should intervene in the trial which might prejudice the rights of either party. Page 3 The first instruction given on behalf of appellee is very lengthy, extending over a page and a half of the abstract, and after instructing the jury that, if they believe, from a preponderance! of the evidence, each particular fact averred in the declaration "then you should find for the plaintiff and assess the damages at such amount as you may find in the light of all the in- structions given in this case." The latter part of this instruction might be misleading by not requiring the jury, in assessing the damages, to be restricted to such

as are shown by the evidence. The third instruction, while it states a correct proposition of law, carries the inference that the only issue in the case was the negli- gence of appellant. It instructs the jury that it was the duty of the defendant to use and exercise ordinary care in driving his automobile over the public highway having due regard for the safety of others and, if he did not do so, he was guilty of negligence. This duty applied equally to appellee and there was evidence strongly tending to show that the collision was caused by the negligence of appellee and not by that of ap- pellant. The fourth instruction is based upon the sta- tute and concludes by stating that if the rate of speed of any motor vehicle operated in any public highway outside the limits of an incorporated city, etc., exceeds twenty-five miles per hour, such rate of speed shall be prima facie evidence that the

Page 4

person operating such motor vehicle is running at a rate of speed greater than is reasonable, etc. There was no evidence that the automobile driven by appellant exceeded a speed of twenty-five miles per hour. An instruction must be based upon the evidence and even if it attempts to set out the words of the statute, if the facts are not ap- plicable thereto, it should not be given. The seventh instruction, when read in connection with the fifth and sixth instructions, would not be so misleading as to con- stitute reversible error. The ninth instruction is on the measure of damages and includes the following, "and in addition thereto whatever sum or sums may have been shown by the evidence to have been paid out by him for medical services, care and attention to his said wife." The only evidence upon this subject is found in the answer given by appellee to a question ask- ed of him on his directs examination. Q. "You may state whether or not you have expended any money in the fixing of your wife's teeth?" A. "Yes, sir; I spent about $85.00." The rule has been many times announ- ced that, to enable a plaintiff to recover for expendi- tures for medical services, it is necessary to prove that such services were made necessary because of the in- jury inflicted by the defendant and that the fees were reasonable for the services. Schmitt vs Kurrus, 234 111. 5<fl; Amann vs Chicago Traction Co., 243 }]. 266.

Page 5

During the cross examination of appellant, counsel for appellee asked the follownng questions to wKich ob- jections were sustained, "You are in the habit of driv- ing at a pretty good speed?", "Are you not a pretty fast driver?", "How many automobile collisionis have you liad?", and again, "How many automobile ".ollisions have j'ou had?". In a case so close upon the facts, the repi- titio-n of those incompetent questions may have had a very prejudicial influence against appellant in the minds of the jury. The questions were improper and appel- lant was within his legal rights in objecting to them and although the Court sustained the objections, yet, in the minds of the jury, the inference might have been drawn that, had appellant been permitted to answer them, it would have been shown that he was a fast and reckless driver and had had other collisions ,and apparently the only object of repeatedly asking such questions was to create just such an impression in the minds of the jurors.

Other alleged errors have been argued which are unnecessary to discuss as they will probably not be re- peated on another trial. The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause remanded. Page 6

General No. 7116. /Agenda No. 51.

October Term, A. D..i919

C. B. GONES, Appellee, O

J. G. FISIIER, Appellant

Appeal from Circuit Court, Vermilion County. ELDREDGE J.

This case has been tried three times. It was origi- nally brought against appellant and two other defend- ants and on the first trial appellee recovered a judg- ment for the sum of $5,000.00. On appeal to this court that judgment was reversed and the cause remanded because no liability was shown to have existed against the other two defendants. Gones vs Illinois Printing Company, et al., 205 111. App. 5. The second trial resul- ted in a judgment in favor of appellant, the other two defendants having been dismissed out of the case. On an appeal directly to the Supreme Court that judgment was reversed and the cause remanded. Gones vs Fish- er, 286, 111. 606. The last trial resulted in a judgment against appellant in the sum of $2,000.00 to reverse v/hich this appeal is prosecuted.

After this cause was remanded on the former ap- peal to this Court, appellee amended his declaration by omitting therefrom the acts of negligence charged against the two defendants who were dismissed

Page 1 from the cause, otherwise, the present amended declar- ation is substantially the same as the original amended declaration, and consists of five counts. The negligence charged in the first count is in substance that appellant drove his automobile at a rate of speed of twenty miles an hour in the closely built up business district of the City of Danville, contrary to statute, and by reason thereof ran over and injured appellee. The second count charges that appellant drove his automobile at a greater speed than was reasonable and proper contrary to the statute. The third count charges that appellee was riding a bicycle upon one of the streets of said City and under an ordinance of said city had the right of way at the intersction with another street where he was in- jured and that appellant negligently failed to observe said ordinance. The fourth count charged that by rea- son of certain fences and buildings having been erected at said intersection, an extra hazardous condition was

,f 17I.A. 666^

created known to appellant and that the latter negli- gently drove an automobile against appellee and injured him. The fifth count charges the dangerous condition existing at the intersection of the streets in question and that appellant violated the ordinance of said City by driving his automobile at a high rate of speed. Page 2

To the declaration appellant filed two pleas, one be- ing the general issue and the other a plea of the Statu- te of Limitations. The Court sustained a demurrer to the plea of the Statute of Limitations and this action is assigned as error. When a declaration is amended simply by the omission of the names of some of the de- fendants who were originally charged as joint tort fea- sors with the remaining defendant and where the same acts of negligence are charged against the remaining defendant as were alleged in the original declaration, the action will not be barred by the two year Statute of Limitations. Ross vs Shanley, 18.5 111. 390.

It is urged by appellant that the manifest weight of the evidence shows that appellee was guilty of contri- butory negligence. North Street in the City of Danville runs east and west and Walnut Street runs north and south. At the time of the injury in January, 1915, there was being constructed a building on the southeast corner of the intersection of these two streets. For the protection of the people using the street during its construction, a fence about five or six feet high had been erected in North street ten or twelve feet north of the south curbing of said street A similar fence had been erected eaat! of the curb of Walnut Street and set about ten feet out in the street. These two Page 3

fences did not join each other at right angles, but were connected by a short fence running diagonally across the south east corner of the intersection. The evidence offered on be- half of appellee tended to show that at the time in question, he was riding north on Walnut Street on his bicycle and as he attempted to cross its intersection with North Street, appellant, who was driving his auto- mobile east on North Street at a rate of speed from fifteen to twenty-five miles an hour, ran into and injur- ed him. The evidence introduced on behalf of appellant tended to show that he was not driving his automobile faster than ten or twelve miles an hour at the time of the accident; that appellee when he reached North

Street did not proceed directly north across the inter- section, but turned east on Walnut Street and then turn- ed northeast directly in front of his automobile; that appellant attempted to avoid the collision by turning his car to the left or north, but was unable to do so. The Statute then in force provided that if any motor vehicle was operated upon any public highway where the same passes through the closely built up business portion of an incorporated city at a speed exceedini^ ten miles an hour, such rate of speed should be prima facie evidence of negligence. The manifest weight of the evidence in this case is that

Page 4

appellant was driving his automobile at the time of the accident at a gret ter rate of speed than ten miles an hour. On the other tacto, the evidence is conflicting. The questions of whether appellant was guilty of the ncgb'gence charged and whether appellee was guilty of contributory negligence, were for the jury to deternMne. Two juries to whom the facts have been submitted have found verdicts in favor of appellee and twice the presiding judge, who saw the witnesses and heard them testify, has approved of these verdicts. Under these circumstances we can not hold that the verdict is contrary to the evidence.

It is claimed that there is a variance between the allegations and the proofs in that it is alleged in the amended declaration that the collision occurred on Wal- nut Street as appellee was going north, while the proofs show that it occurred on North Street while appellee was going in a northeasterly direction. Just where ap- pellee was injured was one of the points in controver- sy, but the question of variance has not been saved for review because it was not raised on the trial. I. C. R. R. Co. vs Thompson, 210 111. 226; Lindquist vs Hodges, 248 111. 491; Swift vs Rutkowski, 182 111. 18.

Dr. Poland, a witness for appellee, testified as to the extent of the injury to appellee's ear and to the extent to which his hear

Page 5 ing had been made defective by the injury. On this direct examination, no objection was made to any part of his testimony. He was fully cross-examined by counsel for appellant and his testi- mony on the cross examination was substantially the same as that given by him on his direct examination. At the conclusion of his testimony counsel for appellant

moved to exclude all his testimony on the ground that it was based upon subjective tests, which motion was overruled. The doctor, in his testimony, testified in re- gard to many objective symptons. He stated that he found the drum, of the ear very red; that there was a severe inflamation of the middle ear; that he inflated the eustachion tube and heard the air whistle or escape through the perforation and several other facts which were all competent proof and which the Court would have had no right to exclude. Moreover, no objection was made at the time the testimony was given and the motion made at the conclusion of the testimony to ex- clude all of it should have been overruled for that rea- son. Chicago Union Traction Co., vs May, 221 111. 530.

The only error presented for our consideraation in regard to the instructions is the refusal of the Court to give the twenty-fifth instruction offered on behalf of appellant. This instruction states in substance that it is necessary for the plaintiff to establish by a Page 6

prepon- derance of the evidence that at the time and immediat- ely before the accident he was in the exercise of ordi- nary care for his own safety and if he fails to establish this fact, the jury should return a verdict finding the de- fendant not guilty. This same principle of law is an- nounced in seven other instructions given on behalf of appellant.

It is also contended that the verdict is excessive. The injury occurred in January, 1915, as a result of which appellant has suffered practically a total loss of hearing in his right ear. He was receiving $15.00 a week at the time of his injury. There was evidence tending to show that he was not physicaally able to do any work for twenty-two months thereafter and that he had expended $200.00 in payment of bills for physici- an's services. He also suffered a great deal of pain. The damages are not excessive for the injuries receiv- ed.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed. Page 7

Gen. No. 7122 f Ag. No. 57

% October Term, A. D. 1919 JAMES M. MELONE, Appellant -% ^^ -r \ ^ /^ ^

^17 l.A. 66 o

W. T. PAGE AND ANNA E. PAGE, Appellee Appeal from Circuit Court Macoupin County EI.,DREDGE J.

Appellant filed his amended bill in the court below to establish and foreclose a vendor's lien for the balance of the purchase price of Lots 7 and 8 in Block 1 of Beh- ren's addition to the city of Gillespie, Macoupin County, Illinois. Upon a hearing in the court below the bill was dismissed for want of equity.

On February 29, 1916 appellant and appellee, W. T. Page, entered into a written contract wherein after re- citing that appellant agrees to sell to Page for the sum of $3500.00 the property described, concludes with the following: "In consideration of the price mentioned for the property above described, the party of the first part further agrees to turn over all his stock of 25 shares in the Staunton Home Association of Staunton, Illinois, to the party of the second part, without any further charges cost or expense, when the party of the second part com- plies with the payment price named herein, and the party of the first

Page 1 further agrees to do all in power to make any transfers required to close the deal, and will allow

the party of the second part of the Agent, Geo. C. Ah- '

rens, thirty days time if required to get the deal closed and the amount named herein fully paid." At the time the above was executed, the property was encumbered by a mortgage to secure a loan for the principal sum of $2500.00 from the Staunton Home Association, which was a building and loan association. In compliance with the rules governing loans from such an association ap- pellant had taken out 25 shares of the stock thereof on which he had made payments for several years and which at the time in question had a cash or withdrawal value of $919.35. Pursuant to the contract of purchase appellant and his wife conveyed the said property to Anna E. Page, the wife of said W. T. Page (by direction of the latter) by warranty deed which provided that the property was conveyed subject to the mortgage held by the Staunton Home Associatioru At the time the deed was executed the 25 shares of stock were assigned

by appellant to either Anna E. Page or W. T. Page who paid to appellant $600.00 on the purchase price, took possession of the property and purchased from appellant furniture located therein of the value of $100.00. It

Page 2 appears that the whole transaction was carried on be- tween appellant's agent, Ahrens, and appellee Page. The contract was drawn up by Ahrens. acting as the agent of appellee, and Ifte principals in the contract had little or no dealings with each other. As a final payment on the contract Page dehvered to Ahrens his check for $400.00 as the balance due on the purchase price. Ahrejis at- tempted to deliver the check to appellant who refused to receive the same on the ground that in addition to the $400.00 he should, under the contract, receive the cash value of the 25 shares of stock or a check for a total of $1319.35. Appellant thereupon filed this bill to foreclose his alleged vendor's lien for the said sum of $919.35 and Page tendered in court the said sum of $400.

The contract in regard to the' assignment of the 25 shares of stock by appellant to Page is plain and unam- biguous. The proofs clearly ^how that appellants agent Ahren and Page clearly understood the contract to mean what it says, viz., that Page agreed to pay $3500.00 for the property and the stock. There is nothing in the proofs to suggest that Ahrens and Page contemplated any other agreement than that expressed in the con- tract. After Page discovered that Page 3

appellee's construction of the contract was that Page should pay to him the cash value of the shares of stock he offered to rescind the contract and reconvey the property to appellant upon the latter returning the money paid to him, which ap- pellant refused to do. The contract was drawn up by Ahren, appellant's agent, in accordance with the terms which he understood appellant had agreed to. Appel- lant personally signed the contract which expressly pro- vides that in consideration of the price mentioned for the property, appellant further agrees to turn over said stock to Page without any charge, cost or expense. The contract speaks for itself and in th© absence of any charge and proof of fraud in regard to the transaction, its plain meaning must govern the rights of the parties thereto.

The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed. Page 4

X

General No. 7132 . Ageiwf^ No. 63,

% ^

% October Term, A. D. 1919/

Joseph Schingle, Jr., Apj^Wee,

vs

M. S. and A .E. Plaut, Executors of the last

will and testament of/S. Plaut, Deceased,

Appellants. /^

Appeal from Cj,pe<nt Court, Vermilion County.

ELDPCEDGE J.

On April 29, 1916, appellee and appellants entered into a written contract by which appelleee agreed to make certain alterations and additions to a store build- ing known as No. 12 East Main Street, Danville, Illinois, for appellants. The alterations and additions were to be made in accordance with the plans, specifications and drawings prepared by Liese & Ludwick, architects, which were attached to the contract and made a part thereof. The contract provided that the work should be completed on or before August 10, 1916, time to be extended only in case of general strikes, alterations, fire or unusual action of the elements. The contract al- so provided that appellants could make such alterations deviating from the said plans, drawings and specifica- tions as they might deem proper and that said archi- tects should value or appraise such alterations and add to or deduct from the amount agreed to be paid the ex- cess or deficiency caused by such alterations. Page 1

but should any dispute arise respecting the true value of any such additional work, the same should be arbitrated by the architects whose decision would be final and binding on all parties. The following provisions also appear in the contract: "It is further agreed that in case any differ- ence in opinion should arise between said parties in re- lation to the contract, the work to be or that has been performed under it or in relation to the plans, drawings and specifications hereto annexed, the decision of Liese «£ Ludwick, the architects, shall be final and binding on all parties hereto. * * * * it is further agreed that should the contractor fail to finish the work at the time agreed upon he shall pay to or allow the owner, by way of liquidaV^d damages, the sum of $10.00 per diem for each and every day thereafter the said works shall re- main incomplete, subject to the right of arbitration above m'^^j'ioned." The specification contained the fol-

217 I. A. 66 6'

lowing provision: "TERRA COTTA— All of the front as shown to be of fresh cream full terra cotta .manu- factured by Midland Terra Cotta Co., Chicago, 111. Other similar designs by other firms may be used, if ap- proved by the architects. This must be strictly a first- class job in every respect."

Page 2 The completion of the contract by appellee was de- layed twenty-three days because, as appellee claims, the employees of the Midland Terra Cotta Company went on a strike and he was prevented from getting the terra cotta front in time to finish the work by Au- gust 10th, 1916. Appellee brought this suit to recover an alleged balance due of $294.50. This is the second appeal of this case, (Schingle vs Plaut, 212 111. App. 639) and we held on the former appeal that the words "gen- eral strike" did not include a local strike of the employ- ees of a subcontractor. Notwithstanding this, the Court permitted appellee to introduce in evidence a number of letters written by the Midland Terra Cotta Company to appellee in an attempt to prove that there was at that time a strike of the employees of that company. These letters were wholly incompetent for any purpose. The architects and appellant insisted upon appellee com- plying with his agreement to furnish the particular ter- ra cotta front mentioned in the specification and the architects assisted him in attempting to get such a front from other concerns, and because the architects attempted to assist appellee in fulfilling the terms of his contract in this regard, it is now contended by ap- pellee that by so doing, appellants waived the time lim- it clause and released appellee from the payment of the penalty for the delay. This did not constitute

Page 3 a waiver on the part of appellants. When the final es- timate of the balance due under the contract was to be made by the architects, the question in regard to the penalty for the delay and the cost of the additional al- terations made and all other matters in dispute be- teween the parties was submitted to the architects, who, after hearing both sides of the matters in con- troversy, executed a final estimate of the balance due on the contract fixing the sum at $1665.55, which amount appellants paid to appellee. No complaint is made of this estimate except as to the amount allowed therein of $230.00 deducted as the penalty for the de- lay of twenty-three days in the completion of the con- tract. This deduction appellants were entitled to un-

der the terms of their contract.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and the Clerk is directed to include in the judgment of this Court the following finding of fact: The Court finds as ultimate facts that, at the time of the completion of the contract in question, appellants owed to appellee the sum of $1665.55 and that appellants have paid that sum to appellee and that there was not at the time this suit was instituted, any sum owing from appellants to ap- pellee on account of said contract. Page 4

t

General No. 7066. •" Agenda No. 8.

J October Term, A. D. 1919

The People of the Stat^ of Illinois,

Caroline Gedwill, fPlaintiff in Error.

^

Error to the County Court of Sangamon County. OPINION BY WAGGONER, J.

On November 12, 1917, an information was filed in the county court of Sangamon county, charging the plaintiff in error with having sold intoxicating liquor in the Town of Clear Lake while the said town was anti- saloon territory. Plaintiff in error was, by a jury, found guilty on one count of the information, and judgment was entered against her for $50.00 and cost.

A reversal of the judgment is sought on the grounds that the verdict of the jury is against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that the court erred in giv- ing an instruction, for defendant in error, which ignor- ed the statute of limitations as to the offense charged in the information. We can not concur in either of these propositions.

Plaintiff in error lived in the Village of Riverton, in Clear Lake Township. Three witnesses each testifi- ed to having

Page 1 bought intoxicating liquor from her at her home in the months of October 1917 and the early part of November 1917. The President of the Village Board, three other members of the Board, and the Vil- lage Marshal each testified that on November 11, 1917, they went to her home, arrested her and seized four- teen hundred bottles of beer and four quarts of whisk- ey. Three of these witnesses, together with a justice of the peace in said village, testified that while at the police station, plaintiff in error said she was selling liquor; that she was afraid of the Government authori- ties; that if they (the village authorities) would make the fine right and return the liquor to her, she would plead guilty to the charge of seUing intoxicating liquor in anti-saloon territory.

Plaintiff in error denied in the county court having sold intoxicating liquor and having made the statements attributed to her while at the police station. She testi- fied that part of the beer belonged to a man boarding

9TieJ. "U^

f^Ur stf vox ^f"

•foi' idl Msjob

lo nv/oT bias sfirfw Mtii * to 9{e?. il

-uqbs eriJ ,»9W8 lo sanabcva 'i:

■^o ^\s(h<.\ no f. TO Irrrjoo /nji

bno^sd) svoiq taum alsi'd ariJ noiJxirmolnf sriJ ni sinuoj inBha9\sh sdt isdi * * " ' : ' h eldfirroafiST c sli n: snitnatxalnj 8Bw rid * « ♦ {jj^^

riJ* 9(li ^onia 'jrfaJ tu'iIO 'Jr. rririlrw g^iiilsMi*

not**- • '•' ', '8 lo sni(ft srii ■■ . ,.t01 ,^bM \o i&b f>«!i. nsfano avf,f( ion Lluoo vTtoj. arfj ,"* * *■

fioiJuinjeiiii 9iiJ vr{ b9T^vo"> ofiiit to boiiaq »rii isdi nadi .fti,..,.-t:,; .>li I., ^nif.-i -•.,■, 1 ,„; jxei ,2 liiqA fiio-rl aew

.Tffil .1 T^dm^'.-ja ,noit

httf, .Jaihisv ©ifi rtiBtRo?.;: ,.i,,..,ivv ,,

.bsmiftls 81 iiuoD fjshJ

Gen. No. 7084

October Term,

William P. Wheeler, a min^ by James B. Wheeler, his next friend, Appellee

. City o/LeRoy, Appellant^ ^ ^ « r\ . h> f^ {j

Appeal frora^ircuit Court of McLean County OPINION BY WAGGONER. J.

This is an action on the case instituted by appellee a boy thirteen years of age, against appellant, to re- cover damages for a personal injury alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the appellant in per- mitting one of its streets to be out of repair and in an unsafe condition, in consequence of which appellee was thrown from the top of a wagon loaded with ear corn, upon which he was riding, onto a brick pavement, and after being dragged for some distance by the wagon, one of its wheels ran over his right knee completely crushing the bone and destroying the knee joint.

There is no dispute as to the extent of the injury sustained nor claim that the judgment would be excess- ive if appellee is entitled to recover.

The points relied upon for reversal are (1) that the court should have admitted in evidence the conversation between

Page 1 appellee and his father in the presence of Dr. Tuthill, an attending physician, immediately after the injury; (2) that the court refused proper instruct- ions offered by appellant particularly with reference to the negligence of appellee and his brother who was driv- ing the team, and (3) that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence with reference to the negligence of appellant and the exercise of ordinary care by appellee.

The evidence shows that, after the accident, appellee was taken into the house of Mrs. Thompson, and that within a short time his father and Dr. Tuthill were there. Appellant offered to show, by Dr. Tuthill, that the father said to appellee, "If you had not been stand- ing up on the load of corn and cutting up, you would not have been injured," and that appellee said nothing in reply thereto.

Appellee interposed an objection to the admission

of this evidence, on the ground that it was incompetent, improper and prejudicial. The objection was sustained. Appellee had testified he was sitting on the corn with his feet on the side of the wagon bed at the time he was thrown off; that he had been throwing corn, as they came along the road, at pictures on telephone poles, and that at Mrs. Thompson's he had told his father what had happened. Appellant had offered some evidence that appellee was standing up

Page 2

and had just thrown corn at the time he fell. What appellee was doing at the time of the accident, and whether or not he was standing up on the corn was material in determing the question of ordinary care, and this statement would have been, by appellee's failure to deny it, in the nature of an admiss- ion, and should have been admittea. Hatcner v. Quincy Horse Ry. Co., 181 111. App. 30 (34). Attpr^li?rj^on-..-iili e^on».o»s8e-«iia;iii>watt)nr-T^Afber'tftte-doiCtw. camft an^ ,J*i''-^;^>l^-T»«e--fa*b«i?->afee»*-44<^^ your

iather-sayiftg ta yoPr^^-yoH^rad-fl^t-^yeiejt-on -feh«. wa^^on

Befc-iraVfe-got:*Tn*i?^i--Ottie«t;©nHa»-ttTfe-t^

ji»S<l«r»e-^ been sustained but the_«vbdene© sho«id-43eJi;$i

adrmtted for the consideration of-the^ jury.

The reason's assigned in support of appellant's mo- tion for a new trial, that relate to instructions, are that the court improperly gave instructions offered by ap- pellee; refused proper instructions and improperly modi- fied others that were offered by appellant, without in- dicating any particular instructions complained of. We can not tell from this general assignment what instruct- ions

Page 3 were objected to and the court asked to set aside the verdict on account of having given, refused or modi- fied them.

No specific instructions are named in the assign- ments of errors except one to direct a verdict for appel- lant at the close if appellee's evidence and another at the close of all the evidence, neither of which appear in the record or abstract, nor was the refusal to give either of them assigned as a reason for a new trial. Appellant, in its brief, says, "The court in our opinion should have given two instructions with reference to the care to be exercised by appellee as he approached this corner," with no reference to their number rsfg where they may

be found.

The abstract, in this case, covers one hundred and twelve pages. The statement and argument of appell- ant contains thirty-four pages, with but two references to any page in the abstract.

The instructions complained of and the facts shown by the evidence should be specifically pointed out and references made to the abstract where they may be found. This was not done and we would be justified in declining to consider the assignment of errors presented. Town of Western Mound v. Loper, 185 111. App. 60.

We have examined the abstract, however, and find that the court gave, on behalf of appellant, two instruct- ions embodying

Page 4 the same principles that are contained in those that were refused. We found no testimony to the effect that appellee, after the accident, "got up and walked into the house," nor that he told his father "all about the injury," nor that as they approached the place of the accident the "brother who was driving had the horses going in a sweeping trot." Misstatements of this kind in appellant's brief may be the reason for the ab- sence of references to the abstract.

The question of ordinary care and of negligence were both to be determined by the jury. In this case the jury were properly instructed, no evidence was ad- mitted that should not have been, and no error that would justify a reversal was committed in the exclusion of evidence. The judgment is not against the manifest weight of the evidence, but is amply supported by it, and must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Page 5

>s

,^

o

General No. 7090.

^ October Term,

SEORGE BRECK, L G^LMORE, partners u

vAaslide COMPA

1919

Agenda No. 32.

[AYS and EARL the firm name of Appellants.

COM^ AUTOMOBILE COMPANY, Appel A ppea^frojjr Circuit Court of Macon County, OPINION BY WAGGONER, J.

This suit was instituted by appellants before a justice of the peace, and on a trial thereof, had in the circuit court on appeal, a judgment was rendered in their favor for one dollar as nominal damages. Ap- pellants sued for and claim to be entitled to recover, from appellee, the purchase price of a Vitasl'ide Auto- matic Projector, $67.80, together with the lur'.her s-rn o". $'37.20 under a contract for slides to !ic used in such projector, making a total of $135.00.

On October 27, 1917, appellee signed and delivered to a salesman of appellants two orders, one bting for a pro:ector and the other for twenty-fou.: slices to be used in it.

On January 14, 1918, appellee wrote appellant to cancel the orders. The two orders were executed at the same time, and have the same effect as though vin- bodied in one. (Illinois Match Co. v. C. R. I. and P. Ry. Co. 250 111. 396.) The orders were furnished by the salesman and were signed by appellee only. No writ- ing was executed by appellants. The only evidence of any

Page 1 undertaking on their part is contained in recitals of the orders, and the only evidence of an agreement to deliver the machine and slides was such as might be implied from an acceptance of the orders by the sales- man. No time is specified for the delivery of the ma- chine or slides. Where a contract is silent as to the time for delivery, the law places a construction thereon that delivery is to be made within a reasonable time. (McKinnie v. Lane, 230 111. 544; 23 R. C. L. Pg. 1369). The only competent evidence offered in reference to the ielivery of the machine was a letter of appellee ack- nowledging its receipt on January 19, 1918, which was

llell.A. 667^

eighty-two days after the date of the order that had been given therefor. There was a delay of one hund- red and eight days in delivering the slides. Appellee immediately returned the machine by express and the slides were returned the day they were received by parcel post. No reason for the delay was Qffered by appellants, and we hold that, under the evidence, the same was unreasonable and sufficient to preclude a recovery in this case.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed, on the cross error assigned, and appellee awarded a judgment, against appellants, for cost.

Judgment Reversed.

Finding of facts: The order given appellants for a Vitaslide Automatic Projector did not specify a time in which it was to be delivered, neither did the order given for the slides specify a Page 2

time for their delivery. Seventy-nine days after giving the orders appellee re- quested their cancellation. Appellantis had a reason- able time in which to make such deliveries, and having failed so to do, are not entitled to recover. Page 3

/

J(^

General No. 7093 /Agenda No. 35

October Term, A. D. m9

ELIZA J. KINNEY, ^ppeUee

vs /

/ -9

JACOB DAVIS,

^ppellant'-^ '{ 7 J^^^ 667"^

Appeal from Circuit Q^urt of Cass County /

OPINION BY WAGGONEfe, J.

The error assigned on this record is that the court erred in overruling a motion for a new trial. Appellant assigned six reasons in support of such motion, but has argued only three of them. All errors assigned, which are not argued in the brief's filed in a case in this court, are deemed waived. (Harvester Co. v. Industrial Board 282 111 .489 (492). The first error argued is that the verdict is against the evidence. The others relate to the giving of instructions on behalf of appellee and the modification of instructions submitted by appellant.

The basis of appellant's argument, so far as it re- lates to the instructions, is two of the reasons that were assigned for a new trial. Such reasons are that the court gave improper instructions on behalf of the plain- tiff, and that the court improperly modified proper in- structions asked by defendant. In Kehl v. Abram 210 111. 218, at page 221, it is said the "contentions argued by appellant are, that there was error in the second and fourth instructions of appellee. * * * But ^q are precluded

Pagel ^

from considering them, for the reason that in appellant's written motion for a new trial in the cir- cuit court no mention was made of these instructions as ground for said motion." The court then cite the case of Hintz v. Graupner, 138 111. 158 where the trial court refused to give any of the instructions offered by either party, and gave one instruction of its own, divid- ed into sections. In this last mentioned case the court said: "The appellant cannot now before this court ques- tion the correctness of any section of the instruction so given, because, in his motion for a new trial in the court below, he did not allege the giving of any improper in- struction as a reason for granting a new trial. The on- ly grounds relating to instructions, upon which the mo-

tion for a new trial was. based, (as it is in the case at bar) were, that the court refused 'proper instructions asked for by the defendant.' Nowhere, among the rea- sons urged in support of the motion, is it stated that the court erred in giving the instruction which it did give, or any section thereof."

The only error for our consideration is that the ver- dict is against the evidence. No complaints is made that evidence was admitted that should have been ex- cluded, or excluded that sh.ould have been admitted. There is nothing in the record indicating that the jury were influenced by passion or prejuidioe. It is apparent that appellee was unfairly dealt with by appellant and his associates. It would be wrong to deprive her of the judgment

Page 2 that has been rendered in this case upon a verdict which we hold is supported by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Page3

General No. 7104. ^Agenda No. 41.

(Slctober Term, A. 0/1919 Ll'l^A WELLS, ^ellee,

2 1 T T A (^ (^ r^^

GEORGE W. PITT/[AN, Appellant. * J-»rl. nil i

Appeal from CirscuityCourt of Piatt County. OPINION BY WAGGoMr, J.

Appellee filed a petition in the county court of Piatt county, representing that appellant was a distract- ed person and by reason of unsoundness of mind incap- able of managing or caring for his property, and asking that a conservator be appointed. A trial was had in the county court, which resulted in a verdict of a jury find- ing that appellant was a feeble minded person, not cap- able of caring for his property and that a conservator should be appointed. Afterwards an order was entered setting aside the verdict of the jury and the order ap- pointing a conservator, and granting a new trial. There was incorporated in such order the following provision, "By agreement of all the parties to this cause and for the convenience of the trial judge, this cause is hereby certified to the circuit court of Piatt county, Illinois, for trial."

A transcript of the record made in the case in the county

Page 1 court was filed in the circuit court, where a trial was afterwards had, resulting in a verdict finding the issues for the appellant. The circuit court rendered , judgment on this verdict against the conservator for all cost made in the county court and that each party pay their own cost in the circuit court.

Jurisdiction, in cases of this kind, is expressly con- ferred by stiatute upon county and probate courts, and the manner of proceeding specified by the various pro- isions of Chapter 86, Kurd's Revised Statutes. Section 40, of such chapter, provides for appeals to the circuit court from any order or judgment rendered in the county court, but a trial judge of a county court as a matter of convenience to himself, either with the consent of part- ies, (one of whom is alleged to be feeble minded,) or without such consent, has no power to certify the cause to the circuit court for trial, and a certificate of that character confers no jurisdiction of the subject matter upon the circuit court.

The judgment entered in the circuit court is a null- ity and will be set aside.

Reversed.

Page 2

\

Gen. No. 7107 X Ag. No. 44

October Term, A. D^919

ARVESTA F. DOWNST Appellant

.JOHN HENRY. JANSEN, Appellee

Appeal from Girc'ait Cou t of Logan County

OPINION BY WAGGONER, J.

Appellant rented a farm, owned by her, to Joseph Stoll with whom she entered into a written ler.se expiring- February 28, 1918. Under the terms of this lease Stoll was to pay, as a, part of the rent, one-half of all corn raised on the farm delivered, free of charge, at either Beason or Chestnut lil., as appellant directed. The lease prohibited the removal or sale of any of the corn until the rent was fully paid. Stoll moved from the i?rm to Florida about March 1, 1918. In January 191S, knowing that Stoll w?s going to move, A. C. Forbe^, acting for ap- pellant requested him to deliver the rent corn and was told that he did not intend to do so. Appellee was a grain buyer at Besaon, Illinois, and knew that Stoll was the tenant of appellant. On February 25, 1918, Forbes notified appellee in writing, that he was led to believe that Stoll did not intend to deliver the rent com; that the lease provided for the payment of one-half of it,

Page 1 and that in case of sale to a^peMee without the delivery of it to appellant, she would enforce her landlord's lien against him. Forbes suggested, in this notice, that ap- pellee hold back enough for the expense of the delivery of one-half of the corn until he ascertained, from Forbes, that such delivery had been made. Stoll returned from Florida, and about June 24, 1918, began the delivery to appellee of about 1100 bushel of corn to be shipped for him. On the morning that Stoll began delivering the corn Forbes went to appelee's office and told him (ap- pellee) that the notice served in February was still in force, and anpe^ee replied that he had gotten the notice and would look out for it. On June 29, 1918, appellant caused a further notice to be served, by the sheriff, up- on appellee that the com was still undelivered; that she claimed a ilen upon it; that he (appellee) would impair such lien at his peril, and forbidding that he should ship, sell or dispose of said corn until delivery of the rent com had been made. Appellee shipped the com for Stoll, re-

217I.A. 667^

ceived the proceeds of the sale thereof, retained and now has in his possession $271.00 for the purpose of pay- ing for the delivery of the rent com. Stoll put one-half of the corn in cribs on appellant's farm. Forbes testi- fied, and appellee does not deny it, that about November 1,

1918, he went to appellee's office and said to him, "I am ready to deliver that corn and I want you to get the teams to deliver it," to which appellee replied, "I will call the teams tomorrow or tbnight." Forbes further testi- fied that he told appellee that he (Forbes) would get the teams if appellee could not get them; would furnish feed for the horses and pay for feeding the men. Appel- lee was to pay for the hauling. He tried to get men and teams, and being unable to do so, Forbes got them; had the com delivered; furnished feed for the horses; paid for feeding the men, and brings this action, in assumpsit, to recover on such agreement for the hauling of the corn to market.

Appellee claims his agreement with Forbes was to pay for the delivery of the com to the market in the event that Stoll was legally bound to pay for it. If that was the agreement, then appellee should pay for the reason that under a plain provision of the lease Stoll was legally boimd to make such delivery.

The court should have construed the provisions of the lease, and not have submitted the construction of it to the jury, as was done in the first instruction given at the request of appellant. McCormick Harvesting Ma- chine Co. V. Laster 81 111. App. 316, 321.

Under the evidence in this case of the agreement made by appellant, through her agent Forbes, with ap- pellee, as hereinbefore

Page 3

and in the bill of particulars in- dicated, and of the performance of the terms of such agreem.ent by appellant, and a failure to perform on the part of appellee, appellant would be entitled to recover and the court should have set aside the verdict and grant- ed a new trial. The judgment rendered in the trial court will be reversed, and this cause remanded.

Reversed and Cause Remanded. Page 4

Gen. No. 7110

/

Ag. No. 47

October Term, A. D. 1919 Cleo Ray Hess, Appellee

Million, Appellant

•i l.ri. {ji^'y

r

William B.

Appeal from the^vCounty Court of Pike County.

OPINION BY WAGGONER, J.

Appellee brought an action in trover against appel- lant and one Allen Johnson seeking to recover the value of wheat in the st&ck, and the straw thereunto belong- ing, consisting of an undivided one-half plus an undivid- ed one-fifth of the other half of a crop of wheat lately harvested and stacked by him. The jury returned a verdict finding Allen Johnson not guilty, the appellant, William B. Dillion, guilty, and fixing appellee's damages at $280.42. Judgment was entered on the verdict.

The evidence shows that the parents of appellee were dead, and that for a number of years he had made his home with his grandfather, William Hess, who lived on a farm, and died April 8 ,1918. Appellee claims to have been in the employ of decedent during the whole of the five years immediately preceding April 1918. The last year, the one in which the wheat was sowed, at $30.00 and the four years prior thereto at $25.00 a month.

In the year 1917, William Kingery and Albert Lane were working for William Hess, and they, together with appellee, sowed

Page 1 in wheat about seventy acres of land on his home farm and in addition thereto twenty acres on a farm owned by him called the Colvin place. All the labor, in sov'ag the land in wheat, was performed by these three employees with teams, tools and seed furnished by the decedent. On the day of the funeral, while the remains were being taken to the cemetery, and not before as shown by the evidence, appellee claim- ed an interest in the twenty acres of wheat. We are not able to determine from appellee's argument the basis of such claim. In his argument he first says it should be emphasized that he claimed to own the undi- vided one-half of the wheat as tenant and an undivided one-fifth of the other half as devisee under his grand- father's will. He then says he is entitled to recover on

the ground that his grandfather gave him the wheat, the tenant's share .irrespective of the existence or non- existence of the relation of landlord and tenant, and then that the uncontradicted statement of the grand- father, (who is dead and each statement attributed to him by appellee's witnesses is claimed to have been made with no one present but the witness and the decendent) that it was "Ray's wheat" should be regarded as a gift. The evidence does not establish a gift. Appellee, m his testimony, makes no claim of that kind, but says that he asked his grandfather how he (the grandfather) wanted him (appellee) to put the wheat in; the grand- father said he would furnish teams Page 2

and implements to put it in with, furnish the seed and appellee was to give him one-half of the wheat at the machine for rent. Ap- pellee did not put the wheat in as a tenant would do. The part taken by him in putting it in was the same as that taken in putting in the seventy acres on the other farm, namely while working for his alleged landlord at $30.00 a month. According to appellee's version of the leasing, the only thing decedent did not agree to do was to pay for the threshing. If the judgment, in this case, is affirmed it can only be on the basis that appellee has established the remarkable leasing claimed by him, by a preponderance of the evidence.

Appellee is contradicted by other witnesses in ref- erance to about all the material matters involved except the alleged conversation with the deceased grandfather when it is claimed the leasing was made. He said in cross-examination that he made no claim his grandfather was under contract to pay him $30.00 a month at the time the wheat was put in, notwithstanding that while this suit was pending ,in the county court, he filed a claim therein, under oath, against the estate of the de- cedent for five years services. Appellee called five wit- nesses to prove by them statements made by decedent. One of these witnesses testified to having said to the old gentleman, "If this weather does not warm up this wheat will not get up this fall," and he said, "this is Ray's wheat;" no further conversation about wheat was had, and

Page 3 the witness told no one of it other than his wife. Another witness testified that decedent tried to hire him to work; the witness said "Well, I can't;" dece-

dent then said, "Ray has twenty acres of wheat on the Colvin farm and will not do me much good this summer, I want to hire you." Another witness testified that he and decedent were talking about wheat, when the lat- ter volunteered the statement that this is Ray's wheat, or that field of wheat is Ray's. Another witness testi- fied that decedent told him Ray had the best looking wheat on the place. Another, that decedent said to him Ray is putting in, or sowing, twenty acres on the Colvin place. Neither of the statements, testified to by this last witness, indicated that appellee had any inter- est in the wheat.

William Kingery, called by appellant, testified that William Hess told him ,at the dinner table, when they had about finished plowing the seventy acres, to bring his tools in at night so he could begin plowing on the Colvin twenty the next morning; that appellee then ask- ed his grandfather if he was not going to let him put in the twenty acres, and his grandfather replied, "No, Ray, it is too much * * * I will let you have ten acres here south of the road. Henry Boren testified to the same conversation, had at the dinner table, and that on other occasions he heard decedent tell appellee he could not have the ground. Homer Boren testified that ap- pellee was going away to take lessons Page 4

concerning rail- road affairs, and in January 1918, while engaged in hull- ing beans at the Hess barn with his father and appellee, appellee said he did not have any wheat; did not want any and did not expect to be there at harvest time. Amerson Deam testified that he was at the Hess place in January or February after the wheat was sowed, at a time when they were mending and greasing harness; that in the presence of this witness. Lane Ligon, Hal Williams and John Cloniger, appellee said he did not have any wheat and was not going to be there to har- vest wheat, was going on the railroad. This witness was corroborated by two of the witnesses named by him as being present.

The verdict, rendered in this case, is not supported by the evidence, and should have been set aside. We find as facts, established by the evidence, that the claim of appellee to the wheat in controversy is fictitious; that he was not a tenant of William Hess; that no inter- est in the wheat was given him by William Hess; that at the time this suit was instituted he had no interest in

the wheat and cannot maintain it.

Each of the briefs filed in this case contain state- ments, as being facts for the consideration of the court, which nowhere appear in the record. Practice of this kind does not increase the confidence of courts in attor- neys who resort to it and should not be indulged in.

Judgment Reversed.

Page 5

/

/

General No. 7114. Agenda No. 50.

October Term, A. D. 1919

AUGUST GULBANAITIS, Appellee

'■ vs ■ >;

SIMON LAPINSKY, Appellant.

Appeal from Circuit Court of Montgomery County.

OPINION BY WAGGONER. J.

Appellee v/as arrested upon a warrant issued by a justice of the peace upon a charge of an assault and bat- tery, and by such justice of the peace required to give a bond for $200.00 for his (appellee's) appearance at the April term 1918 of the circuit court of Montgomery county. Appellant signed the required bond as surety. Appellee gave appellant a post-office order for $100.00, upon which appellant got that amount of money. It is the contention of appellee that the post-office order was given to indemnify appellant on account of having signed the bond, and that the money was to be returned to him at said term of circuit court. Appellant claims that he signed the bond without being secured in any way for so doing, and that two or three days after the bond was signed he cashed the post-office order at the request of appellee, and paid him $100.00 therefor. Each of the parties were corroborated in their respec- tive contentions, and a question of fact was presented

Page 1 to the jury for determination. The first instruction should not have been given, unless there is evidence in the record on which to base it, that is not shown by the defective abstract filed in this case. The abstract dis- closes no sufficient reason why the judgment of the trial court should be disturbed, and the same is affirmed. Judgment Affirirsed.

Page 2

31 7 I.A. 6 6 8^

OU''A^

Gen. No. 7118 ,^ Ag. No. 53

October Term, A. D. 1919

WILLIAM H. H. WEST, Jr., Appellant

\ y 217I.A. 668^

IRA E. D^, Appellee

Appeal from Circuit Court of Jersey County. OPINION BY WAGGONER, J.

The parties tb this suit were in partnership in the garag-e and automobile business. Their garage was call- ed The White Way Garage. A question arose i pon which they differed, the friendly relations between them ter- minated, and as a result a bill was filed, by appellant, for an accounting and settlement of the partnership affairs. Appellee answered and, arong other things, al'eged that prior to the filing of the bill an adjustment and full set- tlement of all matters relati'~g to the partnership was made; that at the time of such settlement appellant ex- ecuted and delivered to appel'ee the following writing and agreement: "Oct. 30, 1916. Know All Men by these presents that I, W .H. H. West, Jr., of Jerseyville, Jersey County, 111., will turn all my right, title and good will and every claim in The White Way Garage, at Jerseyville, 111., over to Ira C. Day and Ira C. Day is to pay all out- standing debts. W. H. H. West Jr."; that under and by virtue of this writing and agreement appellee became the sole ov/ner of all the partnership business; took the exclusive possession thereof.

Page 1

paid all outstanding debts due from the firm, and denies the right of the appellant to an accounting.

Evidence was heard for the purpose of enabling the court to determine whether or not a right to an account- ing existed. The court found that the writing and agreement above quoted was executed by appellant and by him delivered to appellee; that it constituted a full and complete settlement of the partnership matters men- tioned in the bill of complaint herein; that appellant was not entitled to an accounting, and dismissed the bill for want of equity.

The only question for consideration in this case is did appellant execute and deliver to appellee the writ- ten instrument in question. The evidence shows offers were made by the parties, one to the other, for the pur-

pose of terminating the partnership, and refused. Ap- pellee testified that on October 30, 1916, appellant came from his house to the garage with a paper in his hand on which was set down the accounts due the partnership amounting to about two hundred dollars, and said that if I would give him the bills to collect he would call it square with me. I said I would not do it; that there was too much to pay out! that I was already ahead on the expense end of the game. West then said he would take the tools his father had made and turn the whole thing over to me if I would pay outstanding bills. We went into the office with the paper. I wrote the agree- ment and he signed it. AppeUant denies that he had this conversation; denies having signed Page 2

the paper, says he was in Granite City, Illinois, and not in Jerseyville, the morning of October 30, 1916, and in this last statement is corroborated by witnesses in a position to know the fact. Appellee is wrong as to the date. The agreement was written on the paper that appellee claims appellant brought to the garage, and appellee says the paper was made out by appellant or someone he had at his house. Appellant was in possession of the books of the firm, at the time in question, and while he denies being at the garaige, he does not deny that the paper was prepared by or for him nor attempt to explain how it got into the possession of appellee. At the time the controversy arose between the parties, in reference to their business, William Bridges and Hansford Lockridge were in their employ, both of whom were cabled as witnesses. William Bridges testified he was in the garage the latter part of October 1916, one morning about 8:30 or 9 o'clock, when appellant came in with, a paper in his hand, and said he had come for a settelement; that appellee said he would settle but not on the terms appellant had asked before; that appellant said if appellee would pay all outstanding bills and lett him have he tools his father had made, for relics, he (appellant) would turn it all over to appellee and call it square; that appellee asked if he would sign a statement to that effect; that appellant replied that he would, and that appellant and appellee went into the office; that he afterwards heard appellant say he had nothing more to do with the business. Page 3

and to go to ap-

pellee for all bills; after that time appellee was the man- ager and the witness did not see appellant take any part in the affairs of the business. Hansford Lockridge tes- tified he was working for the parties at the time they dissolved; that appellant told him they had dissolved; that he helped appellant gather up tools which appellant said he wanted to k&ep because his father had made them and they were old relics;; that appellant said he had settled everything and turned the garage over to appel- lee. Charles Corzine and Charles 0. Spangler each tes- tified to having presented bills due the Standard Oil Company to appellant for payment, and were told by him that he had sold out to ap-:ellee.

In September 1916, and pricir theieto, appellant had a checking account at the Jei seyville National Bank. Appellee called as witnesses the cashier and assistant cashier of that bank, and Frank F. Loellke, general man- ager of the Jersey Mercant'le Company, each of whom testified they knev/ apperant's signature, and that it was his signature to the agreement in question.

Appellant offered in evidence, for comparison of signatures in the trial court, two hundred and eighty- seven checks given by him on and paid by The State Bank of Jerseyville, bearing dates from February 2, 1916 to September 11, 1919. His brother, sister, and a wit- ness who was not asked his occupation, testified that the signature in question was not that of appellant. It is significant that on one connected with The State Bank of Jerseyville, that had

Page 4 cashed this large number of checks, was called, by appellant, to testify in reference to the genuineness of the signature.

The evidence shows that subsequent to the latter part of October 1916, appellee ran the business formerly conducted by himself and appellant; that appellant had nothing to do with it; that appellee paid the firm indebt- edness, and that more than two years elapsed from the time the parties ceased doing business iogether until this suit was instituted.

If the appellant signed the written instrum.ent in question, it constituted a full and complete settlement of the partnership matters between the parties to this suit, the appellant was not entitled to an accounting, and his bill was properly dismissed for want of equity. Tay- lor V. Coffing, 23 111. 207; Hamilton v. Wells, 182 111. 144

(151); Clark v. Carr, 45 111. App. 469 (478).

The decree entered by the chancellor is sustained by the evidence and must be affirmed.

Decree Affirmed.

Page 5

General No. 7128. Ag^a No. 59.

October Term, A. D. 1919

ELIZABETH SPENCER, executrix^f the last will and testament of William ^' Spencer, de- ceased, Appellee,

JACKSONWLLE^ RAILWAY COMPANY \ AppeMnt.

Appeal from the Ci^cPX Court of Morgan County.

OPINION BY WAGGONER. J.

This was an action on the case brought by' Eliza- beth Spencer as executrix of the last will and testament of William S. Spencer, deceased, against the Jackson- ville Railway Company clairr.ing damages for the death of appellee's testate through the negligent operation of one of the street cars of appellant. The declaration charges that appellant was operating a street railroad on South Main Street in Jacksonville, Illinois, and that on May 5, 1918, one of its cars was driven by its servant south upon South Main Street near and over the cross- ing at the intersection of Anna Street and South Main Street; that while William S. Spencer, with due care and diligence, was crossing the track near said intersection appellant by its servant carelessly and improperly drove and managed its street car a,t an .excessive and danger- ous rate of speed; that through the negligent and im- proper conduct of appellant in that behalf the street car then and there struck the said William S. Spencer, and he was thrown to the ground and killed. Page 1

On a trial of the case, in the circuit court, a jury returned a verdict for appellee assesising her damages at $2000.00. The court overruled a motion for a new trial and rendered judgment on the verdict.

Among other errros assigned on the record, in this case, it is urged that the court erred in giving the first and second instructions asked by appellee. Such first instruction is long, involved and inartificaJly drawn. It allows appellee to recover on proof of negligence in fail- ing to stop the car. The declaration does not charge negligence generally in the operation of the car, as would have been sufficient under the authority of Chi- cago City Ry. Co. v. Jennings, 157 III. 274, 279, but limits the charge of negligence to speed of the car. This in-

21-7 I. A. ^^83

struction is therefore reversible error as it allows a recovery for negligence not charged in the declaration.

The second instruction given at the instance of ap- pellee refers the jury to the declaration to determine the negligence there charged and should have been re- fused. A similar instruction was given in the case of Wendzinski v. Madison Coal Co., 282 111. 32 and in refer- ence to such last mentioned instruction the Supreme Court said "counsel for plaintiffs, especially in this class of cases, persist in asking for an instruction of this kind although it has been criticised Page 2

and condemned and more than one judgment has been reversed because of it. * * * The fact that the instruction did not di- rect a verdict does not relieve it of its objectionable character, and the court should not have left it to the jury to determine whether the plaintiff had proved his case as alleged in the declaration." Laughlin v. Hop- kinson 292 111. 80. City of Chicago v. Sutton 136 111. App. 221, 229.

The judgment rendered in the circuit court is re- versed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Page 3

ill

(■iota

\Jo\ Zi

RESERVE BOOK

^

Uhp»

Opj

g3^g3

This reserve book is not transferable and must not be taken from the library, except when properly charged out for overnight use.

Borrower who signs this card is responsible for the book in accordance with the posted regulations.

Avoid fines and preserve the rights of others by obeying these rules.

DATE

<S//o/oJy

NAME

INAMt

W7^

. , •■ .-.,..,. ,.., . ■ tr,.j

^^i