Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series

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