ae Digitized by the Internet Archive
. Foy in 2010 with funding from | .
CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois
FEB ‘61
BOUND... ccevcrer cree neae Rea
pone nens
39118
CALVIN FRANKS,
Appellee,
VE,
OF COOK COUNTY.
INTSRLINE FREIGHT COMPARY,
a Corporation,
Appellant,
ee ee ee ee
290 1.A.597'
NR, PRESIDING JUSTICE MATCHETT
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
In an action for personal injuries, upon trial by jury,
@ verdict for plaintiff was returned with damages assessed at
$17,500. The court required a rewittitur of $7500, overruled de-
| fendant's motion for a new trial as well as « motion made py it in
arrest of judgment, and entered judgwent in favor of plaintiff and
against defendant for the sum of $10,000, to reverse which the de-
fendant appeals.
It is contended that the court erred in denying a motion of
defendant at the close of all the evidence for a directed verdict
in fefendant's favor, in wiving at plaintiff's request erroneous
instructions, end in allowing counsel for plaintiff in his argument
to the jury to read certain statutes of the State of Ohio, and in
denying defendant's motion for a new tial, After considering the
evidence, being of the opinion that an inetruction in defendant's
favor should have been given, it will not be necessary to consider
other points, although one of the instructions which directed a
verdict for plaintiff was clearly erroneous in that it failed to
include as an essential element that, in order to recover, plaine
tiff was required to prove the exercise of due care for his own
safety, |
The accident in which plaintiff was severely injured oc-
curred February 13, 1931, im Ohie on U. S, Highway Ne. 20, at a
point where the highway passes on the east side of a farm owned
and occupied by plaintiff, Speaking generally, the highway wae
BLLCE
‘eamamt wayaag
139 9 L.£9 ~~
ony i i A
.YUAGOO THOLEAY x aerate
NS ez. : x 10 0 a —— ub iiepabte i g
seo ase 3 TEUL QmIaTeNad . AM Fol Aa a
“BAVOO HOLNIGO SHY CeARVI LR ay
vomit <d bedad ftoqu ,eoitepal ienosteq rot abbeus ie at
fd beeesces’ aogemeh dtiv hewtdey aew Vhdabe te tot tolbrey 8 |
-9b bolwzteve 00a ‘to twtissiuer’ « bectuges druoD oat 002, ve
mi th wa obas Hold om @ as Liew as lated wed @ rot adhd on a’ toshoet
bits vrigniete to 16¥6't nea taowy bet hetod ae dons Fs fasmybat ‘to teorte
9b ond ‘dotuin, eateyat ot ,Q00, OL} te suse oats tot dam bae' ‘toh tomtage
Nea | eles wee
ty hig
« Dey ee,
" ‘to Mots ou ® ‘gaiyoos al beurs dxg09, sat batt bobs $1100 el a
teinwer hodiosthb & tot somebive ‘eit Ls to esofs ‘ont ts txabcitly
“auosmorte Jeouser aiachirtan te anh ss ‘stove a! dashastep 1 - AG
ont ‘phbeoniamed nesta tatit ion 8 0% obs on: a' rake
! tanbao tab mt aottoursent ae desi ‘Hod nkgo oat to sated {pone
sebbanco ot (aasasosa od tom tabw rt toy by aoed oved bLvola 4
8 botaerth dio katy enottourdaai ould ‘to oo dquontt te satndog
at bestia? cr ast at avoonorrs ihre to saw vitsube tg bois
ania lg tevoos ot sehto ak staid ‘tpn Le tabgineaas, fie ae
horwe mat s to. aye teas a secon Goats ws fia
aaw yawsly la sid eccaneiiig gabieog® 3 -titeats ian
paved with a concrete pavement 20 feet in width. However, at this
particular point, tor a distance of about 500 feet ia front of
plaintiff's farm the highway was left open and unpaved for the
reason that the soll constituted a swamp or bog, which settled down
in such a way that the concrete surlace could not safely be put
upon it as the pavement was constructed, Dynamite was used te
blew out the soft, swaupy soil and clay and some crushed stone was
used to fill the road in. Plaintiff knew of the manner ef cone
struction of this piece of road beeause he worked on the job while
the highway was in process of construction.
On the morning in question Edward Nelson, an agent and
euployee of the defendant, at about nine o'clock, was driving a
truck of defendant north on this highway; he hed as a helper Gus
ible an weekapes ef defendant. The truck was about 15 feet
long with a cab in the front of it. At the rear of the truck was
attached a trailer about 24 feet long and 6 feet wide. ‘The truck
itself had no compartment suitable for carrying merehandise and
did not carry any, However, merchandise was carried in the trailer
which was attached to the truck by a sort of fifth wheel, The
bottom of the trailer was about 24 feet from the ground; its top
was about 8 or 10 feet from the ground, and it earried mercuandise
to an amount which gave it a weight of about 9 or 10 tons. When
the truck and trailer came to the end of the concrete pavement the
driver proceeded to cross this unpaved portion of the road, About
75 or 100 feet off the pavement the truck and the trailer stuck,
The driver put on the power in an attempt to extrivate the truck
and the trailer running them backward and forward; he was unable
to move the vehicles; farmers in the neighborhood came to his
assistance; the farmers helped by pushing, but this did not
result in moving the vehicles, Among these farmers was the Plaine
tiff; Nelson asked him if he had a tractor and he replied in the
be ; &
ae : fe get
aint te sseveqou .Acbkw ai jee? OS snemevag etetonog # sitiw beveg
‘ko tqort ii soot 008 Juoig to evavtaib se £0t ,Iatoq taivoiitaq
siit rot hevagen bide aegqo Tiel enw yawigid edd aze't @! Thidaletg
awob belitea stasdair ,god te quewe 2 beduditedos fiow aay ‘tad “aoages
Fug ad wie has ton bine Bos ‘ttue etetemdo ont #6 yaw os dowe ak
ot bees 26% od imam ~batovitaaso asw daemeveq ood ta Si awoqu
naw onote bodewto emox bas wate pas fiow vasa: ,ttoe eas duo wold
é ~ma9, ‘to 19 UIA ails bi wend, Vetsalels th bao oad Aten ot men
eiisio aot ais 20 hessnx oat oxuaced beet to eoeig whsis. ‘Lo moktoswisa
+o igosgate aoa ta. Begoote ae eaw sania at ond
pa tages ue ,Hoeled biowhi foitgeup, af yatorom-edt m2.
‘s satvinp asw stool’ ones THOS te «ttehas Teh. andl te
Bi) tegsen & as bed od ieewsges aise so ditom ne. * sina
see) ‘at tueds aew Hourd otf .taebnsteb ‘ro obtotene. ru
gay aoyad oaks ‘to te0x eed GA .2L to dott oft ai deo. a dtiw aot
Aourt edt .obly test & bas guot tot SS duods tsiiert # betestis
baa, Sa ibassoten Balyitzo, rot eListive taemeraques., om, bed, tine
witert eit ai balxzes Rev Ma sbacsiongen (LeVOWRH, Yas UIIe. 198 Ray
oat “efosaie, se bit te ites 6 nd sat, out, ssaecortte, sew dota
euibnadocen beityae th bas. -bawory ode mott feet OL <9: 0 tele. Oey :
_ teuW amod OL to @ tuode to ciydow s bk veg Sols sawomue ;
; oils toece rag, sterome, A a t9, bee eal ot omas totier if;
soda -bsoy out to aokyaeg hovaqau | aicd eaoxe od bebssoe tg
doula weLlerd odd bas dowxd ot dnemeved out the. feet, oor, 10,29) ae
wound eda stayitize oF tquedta om at toweg sat ap. due xoyizh.oMt
eideas asw ed ;btewret bas piewieed meds gakoaset ee: oat baw mae
eld of emo boostodsigten edd gh exeunet jaetotdey oct vom of
(ton bib ali dad .gatsang, Ys bogies etowre't eait 780 wtatese Tek
~ate lg 9nd aew Bxouta? Qaeud toms «petotidey, sss amt annie eo
edd ct Dobiqer 04 bas apvoett a exon Tmt beaiew a ihe
3
attivestine, Nelson then hired him to bring his tractor and sssist
in extricating the truck and trailer, Plaintiiffr eot his tractor
and brought it to the scene of the accident. It was a Fordson;
the front wheels were 2+ feet high, the rear wheels 4 feet high
and equipped with lugs; the driver sat on a seat betvreen the rear
wheels, between 6 and 10 inches forward from the back of the
heels, Plaintiff brought the tractor with twe chains, each about
7 feet long, one somewhat heavier than the other, Plaintiff drove
his tractor to the front of the truck and by means of the chains
the rear end of the tractor was attached to the front end of the
truck; the power of the tractor as well as of the truck was ap-
plied in an attempt to move the vehicles forward; the lugs on
plaintiff's tractor wheels spun a little, dug up some dirt, and
then held sufficiently to stall the tractor's engine; after several
unavailing attespts to pull the vehicles forward it was decided to
try to pull them out from the rear, and Nelson, who had attached
the chains at the frent, unfast ned them; plaintiff drove the
tractor to the back end of the trailer; Nelson carried at least
one of the chains; plaintiff backed up hia tractor to the south
end of the trailer; Edward Nelson took the small chain, crawled
under the back end of the traller, took the heavy chain and fastened
it, connecting the rear axle of the trailer whith the draw bar of
the tractor; there wes about 4 or 5 feet between the rear end of
the tractor ani the rear of the trailer; Edward Nelson then went
around the west side of his trailer and in a minute or so got into
the cab of the truck; plaintiff then began to pull, putting the
tractor in low gear, pulling backwards toward the south; when the
trailer was moved a little more than 3 feet, suddenly and without
any warning, the trailer moved backward and up onto the tractor,
jamming plaintiff against the steering wheel of the tractor, Plsin-
tiff says, "The steering wheel broke to pieces and had me pinned
&
/ $etaea’ nna’ codeert aie gatad of als bork asud noetek povbtnerrttts
totoatt. sid ton Yiitateal€ .xeLiert bas xoutd ost gottwodusas’ ak
;nozSiel a eew $I ytiebions en? To sHete oft oF 41 Viguend Hae
agi gost b aleadw «teo4 oft git tegt 42 otew ofoodr uot t ont
west eit meavted ¢aee a no tae Tovixh ete sequl Bt iw be ct Paipe’ Bink
eat ‘to ded odd tort beawre't weiont Of bite ® aborted 2 Leenw
$wods Hoss ,@alato owl ddiw xotoat? act sigeord Thivntal ye feos
evoth gridniart stesito eft cect tofvesd feriwesien sao gaol tee? ¥
atkasto odd to enesnt yd bag Xours enh te’ fuox't on of roteaed eka
edt te bas taort et of tetoctte sew dovoat® ond ‘to baw weet ont
+@2 esw doutd sAf ‘to as flew es teteate eft To tewoq ent jaouts
mo agui edt ;btewrct asloldevy wld avem ot Tymetia ne ah hekiq : Hn
boe , utd emoe Gu ab ,eLttit s anqa elssnw totoand af Trivateste a
ietevsa totte jenigny e'rotosrs edt Liste et yldms tottus boost west |
ot beblooh esw ti btewret eofoider on? Ling ot atqiedie giliieveny
“besoette Kad one noe let hte rset odd sox? Gwe med? Sieg ot yet
gf evortb Ttitaielg jsedd bet teetar ,Fnott eee de ecthads odd |
‘dasel ta belv1sd sod toll ;veLiatd end to Bate dowd odd os wonedet |
déyoa “94d of todoavd eid cow bedodd trkintele ;entaro edt ‘te eno
bofwars ,tutetlo flowin oft doot moa fol berwhS ;refietd ont To hte
bemdebt bas alsds yvecd ods X60d jxbLtetd odd to Hao toed ead oeehay
to ud weth sa? ‘dhtw collets odd to ofes x607 Od¢ yattoonage jot ae i
‘to bio taet odf moowded teot 8 to b tuods saw oredd 4 rtoteats ods
Snow wend aos Lot Niewbit ke thay odd lo tees oud HoeowotoRNs eat
etat fog ov to efwita ea at tne teller? @fd to obts toew got Baweite
edd guldtuq ,ifwq of magad nec Tiaemialg plowtt oft to dse) ene ne
aid wesw poduoe ort Stawer abrevdoad Yaiting \wasy wot Mt todonst wie
suoiidiw baa YLasbhue tee? 2 amd otom oftskis hevenaawxetiest =
(todvstt ond odo qu bas braided boven toLiend eat yamtoraw yao A
-ct#EG .uodests ost Yo Lowi gniteete’ eds Penings Titatete snciaed ue
bookiq ba ben bas asoaty or er paiteede ext" ‘ . i
4
against the steering wheel post across my abdomen." He says he
had no warning; that “when the trailer pinned me the rear of the
trailer was right up on about the center of the tov of the driving
wheelsof the tractor, Then somebody hollered to pull ahead. The
trailer pulled ahead probably two or three inches, enough to let me
out, and I got out between the right wheel of the trastor and the
differential.”
Mereer, a meighbor of plaintiff, says that after plaintiff
was caught he (Mercer) jumped on the running board and motioned
Edward Nelson, who was then in the cab, to move forward, There is
evidence tending to shew that at the rear end of the trailer the
£111 on the road was about level,
The facts are practically undisputed with the exception that
defendant gave evidence tending to show that the clutch on its en-
gine was not working but was in a state of disrepair, It argues
that the power which pushed the trailer back on the tractor was
therefore not put in motion by it, The evidence was conflicting on
this point and ie settled against the contention of defendant by
the verdict of the jury.
There remains for consideration the question of whether,
coneeding that defendant's engine eontributed a part of the power
which brought about the accident, the use of this power was negli-
gent, or whether the exercise of it by defendant's driver was in a
negligent way, We have not been able to accept the theory of nég-
ligence suggested in plaintiff's brief, which is that the driver
of defendant's truck suddenly caused the power of the truck to be
applied in a negligent way and was thus gailty of negligence which
brought about the injury to plaintiff, We do not doubt the driver
of the truck applied the power, It was not necessary to prove that
fact by eye-witnesses, The driver died before the trial, We do
not have the benefit of his narration of this occurrence, but the
e
polayae oH. * pnemebds Ym eeoted seve Loomw gritéeta ont Yanteye
edd ‘te tweet oid om doankg toler? edt new” tedt ;poatotew om bad
guiviab eat te god ead .to cetneg ext twede-ao qe tilgit sew tellasé
ent .beedse [ing of Sereliled ybedeaow ned?” ,toteetd: ent toatecde
om tol of oyepme ,eetonl ceed? to ows yidedet¢ beede beling cotiart
add hme xoveand et to Leedwe sight es) neowsed to ton I baw josie
*idaheneusenas
wadan tedte sasid ayse ,ttisaiaiq “to redigiem a ,t9e9Tew
beneisen bas breed yatanut edt 20 beget (reeTeH) of teeung ion .
. eb eted? <brawret evom 6s ,deo edd ak wead aew on juve tow buswaa
ond teotietd eit to bis test add ta tart wore ot Snkbuet eo ssbevs if
(fever tveda saw haoe oat Go CLER-
sect notiqgoke sas ctiw betwqe thay ylisotteate exe atont eff ae
m9 oti ao dodule odd Sent wola of gakbaed eonebive oveg tasbastob
- popgte $1 srisqetedS ‘to otete ce ak sew'tud paiinor ton naw onty
aaw togosit eat ao Hoed telietd edd besteng dokdw veweq odd dass
ao gaiteritwes saw sonehive eff (si yo motfom at tuq fon eto tered?
eI Sushaoted To woldinetavs eat tentays Soktter at bas datoq abs?
! Umit, edt to dokbuey emt
toddeuw to neisesnp osd noltetebteses tel aakamet ered § > 50
“ewog eid le trey # Aetudixtace eatgas ef taebaeteb tart pttbeonos ia
-Ligen anw sowoe eins to saw ent ,oaebises ed tueda sdguoetd: alo Bete rs
a ab eow rovixh e dabaotob yt 29 cedotsxe edd cedtedwing: snag
agom to Ytoow? ed? tus0—n of Oida’ med somevad OW jyawetnagh igen
“evinh ead darldoead sc bee ptoltd et Vide ale whe bodaegaue eonends
od of xovtt eff to veweq ont hoanet -ylaebbua | downs et daabao tebe
riodcw epsoghigen to ytitis eudh saw bas yew tnegligen « ak bebtace
Tophth oot ddwoh fom ob oF ,Pettimletqoos wasted ade. tueds tegnoxd
gedd syotg of Yrseegoos ton aew a: | .tewoq exit bol Loge Aourt edt te ol
pb eV wiedtd ent oteted bebh sevkth odT. .,eessentin-oys seh atae® . j ”
atl Sut yeomoTsHCO: aid? to soldetten aibthy RovbeRoagd: “on — he
physical facts were such that the jury could infer that he reversed
and acplied the power, ‘The real question is, Was tais asplication
of the power legal negligence causing the injury? Jt will be ree
membered that before the tractor vas brought all tne power of dee
fendant's engine had been applied in attempts to move the truck
and trailer forward, and afterward to move it backward, in both
eases without avail, ‘hen the tractor arrived it was connected
with the truek, and the power of both spplied in an endesvor to
pull the truek and trailer out in a forward direction, slso without
avail. It was then decided to atienupt to move the truck and trailer
in a backward direction. Under the circumstances there vas no way
in which the driver could make an exact computation as to the amount
of power it would be necessary to apply. All the power of the truck
and tractor had been found insufficient to wove the vehicles in a
forward direction, The driver, in so far as the evidence discloses,
had every reason to think that all thé power oi! both would be needed
to move the same load from the rear, although the evidence shows
that the road was somewhat better filled toward the rear of the
vehicles than at the front. The power of both truck and tractor was,
as it turned out, more than sufficient te move the vehicles backe-
ward, but the driver had no better weatis of knowing this than had
the plaintiff, The truck and trailer were stuck, The amount of
power necessary to extricate them could uot be definitely detersined
by anybody. As a matter of fact, it tock ihe power of two highway
trucks to pull the vehicles out backward ai'ter the accident, We
hold that the facts tend to show an unfortunate accident without
legal negligence on the part of anybody.
Plaintiif has eited a number of cases where it is claimed
that under circumstances somewhat similar defendants were held
liable, All are, we think, distinguishable, In Kosinski v,
Kosinski, 118 Comn. 701, 172 Atl, 924, it appeared that the plaintifr
a
benrever Oa decd ve'tat Kitved Cait sud Pact aie “otew efodt Lao layile
sotacttqgn étid eaW [ek nbriecng edt ait “adWoq dif befigds baa
ape et Dita bt Nek elk ite Vlas ee EPS
seb Yo XeWOn edt fie édguotd aaw <etoet? eas ototed saad Kexeduam
dowrt oi o¥on 02" etaasitth af Setiqds nest Bed Salgde e'fachael
- AGed nk Soeewidkd £2 ovéw od Buawredte bas “"puswret ‘aeLtows i |
ete RL
betoonmes eaw ti bevicre todserd ony cod Lieve vata hiv Roaso
6d toveobiie’ ae inf Betfeqe idole “to reweg emt bas’ (vowed +
7 an
suorddte ealo ,soLtoertth Bravie! « ni two potted 53) fourd © is owe
we bibnct With sbi 'tele Wie Sa Ved & SU ae are?’ eve
pew bir Wnw ebce owns timetty oa Yeontt \Wltobssh heewaced oo
tayome sft of ae oltsteames tomxe mm biam Bluse dovith oc ate a
aourd suit to Howoq ond [iA Jelege of Ytesaoaan of pivew
bmi aecokvey od ovo of snbtofttudad Batol nbed hed Tosser i
~sonoleth oonebive sit” as tet oe st ,tevieb eat” wmolts contd heat? ihe
poboon sd bitkow HeUH' re"'~sowoq Oud TE Yuk’ SWRA) OG) donne” Quove a
gwote sokbbive ous” dywotsin pete osit ison bool omen pee ie
wits "Yomtnst ody weawod SOLLET wedded Falleendd’ aby aor aa saa
saw toleet? bus Aeutd Adod to seweg ect = .¢nott pendiae hh as olaoy’ eee
wiodd aateiddy ad avowed dadto! Pina ‘hwdd evom , + je bément 02 ee
pad nad wad gctwou"tS eusda tod ded om bat ‘ith 5 da ‘gid an. ay
ub ea, the ea
“to Five off toute exow “adtiets bas dowtd itt sMitlalads Ty hoe
beake testo “yledtak'tss ad fou blues ‘pio odaciadxe 08 sseesee a edeug” ‘f
‘ ' toying
comiisid wwd "te ‘xdWoe Sit 'Hodd (2° 908T NS bien 6 ea Tybodyan YE
o¥ ,énedtoos ots veda ‘buswitsed duo ebtelisy ‘out’ es : ee | ae
drosit bw sub toe egonuttotan i ‘Wide jlenmed Lies oid todd bod
rene He ae eee “bh nal
5 Meta " . 9 a % .
Sehiti'to UE Ft erouw Rens” to |
peer wed atnahuotob ee ewe !
ny ae ». ee
OO oe Sredtalet T conte winks Ow we fis “eld
eke Le a os
Yredaie Lg ons add iid nn Oe ‘pee. Bh ere nae as (Bit! ss
unaided had pushed defendant's automobile out of the garage. De-
fendant suddenly reversed the power, without notice, causing the
car to move backward, injuring plaintiff, Defendant was held li-
able. In Blaxexore v. Stevens, 188 Ark, 755, 67 8S. ¥. (2d) 733,
the automobile of defendant was stalled in a soft, muddy place,
and plaintiff's intestate with the assistance of others and with
the use of the power of the car were cooperating in extrivating
it, when defendant, without warning, cut the steering wheel to
the left, changing the course of the car and thus bringing about
the injury of plaintiff's intestate, The judgment for plaintiff
was affirmed. In Saliba v, Saliba, 178 Ark. 250, 11 3. W. (2a)
774, defendant's automobile was stuck in a diteh. Plaintiff and
others, upon invitation, zot behind the car in an attempt to push
it out; the car was moved to the top of the ditch, then suddenly
lurched and moved backward, Plaintiff put his hands against the
giasa of the back window to hold it and his wrists were cut. The
negligence alleged and proved was that defendant suddenly reversed
and applied the power to the car, causing it to move backward,
In the instant case the vehicles moved in the direction
that both plaintiff and defendant expected they would be moved and
intended and planned to move them, There was a willful and wanton
count which was properly withdrawn, because there was no evidence
whatsoever tending to support it. We hold there was no legal neg-
ligence disclosed by this record. Moreover, if we could find neg-
ligence in it, it would be negligence in which both plaintifr and
defendant participated, The occurrence was most unfortunate, but
negligence within the meaning of the law dees not appear, We hold
as a matter of law there was no eviderice fron which the jury could
reasonably return a verdict for plaintiff, Defendant's request for
en instruction in its favor should have been granted. The judgment of
the trial court is therefore reversed.
REVERSED,
O'Connor and MeSurely, JJ., concur,
ho
gon ingot on ssw stedt blo oW ath thogque ot, iil wii nih
but ot tage ave © bisa were’ af8 aA me
we Samat, 9 abe a aces rigltror
e60 «paetag old to tee aLidomotue e'dnshae'teh bestang bad, bob tens
\. se) giteasao , gotten duverttin ,wewoq ed@ beetevet qinobbua tashast
‘sti $f98 eaw taatoeted ,Tiistaleic goteutal. ,di1awlosd eves: at ta
(Ev (HB) WH ce VO GSaY satrA BEL. page < m8. setde
(s6ele Thbwa”, Hoa ’a ok beLleta dew. i mabasteb Ye lesdcdome aus ant
dtiw bie arecito to soaste tess exit Aviw edadged ak oe! Vidtais fa bate
antveoitixe at gaitarsqoos osew inp edt te Tewog eat. ‘Lo. ideale i |
ot teeiiw gattedse ect tue ,gaiitvew twodtiw vtosbpe tab apdw gtk | » |
twods gaigaird amit das too od to. opawen ott galyasio ,tteL ede .
Tidsiely wt taomabyt esl .ptasabia a'Ytinale le Yor yrwiadedt
(oo) VW 68 LL 4OO8 .aeA OVI pedi te’. ov eth few al sbouat The oar
pre Trataiest \dedth no ok douta waw offdowotwa of taabaetab. att) |
© few of tetiedts me ab teo se babceod doy ,aodted Drak aoc pamento
einshbhwe west ,sodkn ond to gee ods of bovom ese ceo. ost, quod
ot testsye ebaed etx tuq Tidaigit brane’: boven: bus: hestexus :
eaT .$yo exswaselrw eld base t2 blow ot wenn aead otis te. emats .
heerever yinebbus snabacteb sent ser'bercrg bas Segot lo eomph igen a
broriosd oven of $2 gubéaso. te sit of xewog ort behing baa
HotIeouth ont nb bovom eetoisiev ext. oeen Finetent edd) ak dav \ ms
him boven sw bluow yous hotooqxe dusbsoteh baa Tittaisle shen had
Kotiew bas Lvtiliw e ear eneat stesid @vom Od: darn yes i
(i
y
ay
¥
we
=90a Dott bince ow té ,xevoetold sbhtooet atns yd bon otomth,
biod oF .taeqqe ton soot wel ost bo githasou ae shsithw es soit
sre ¢tut otc cotdw uott somebive om sew pond wal to t9ttem 4
yaoupet a inahistes ,iitaielgy wt dolorev s avever yldamo
39341 & ) f
MARGARET FISCHER et al.,
Appellants,
APPYg FROM - SI CIPAL cou
vs.
OF CHICAGO,
290 1.A.597~
WR, PRESIDING JUSTICE MATCHETT
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
JOHN A. HOLAPIRD et al.,
Appellees,
ee ee ee
The plaintiffs, owners of certain first mortgage bonds of
the Michigan-Chestnut Building Corporation, on August 16, 1935,
brought suit in the Municipal court of Chicago, against the de-
fendants upon a written guaranty executed on November 15, 1927,
Their amended statement of claim, filed January 6, 1936, averred
that plaintiffs were the owners of 41 of the 969 bonds executed
by the Michigan Chestnut Building Corporation, which were secured
by deed of trust executed on the same date, conveying to the Bank
of America, as trustee, and its successor in trust, a certain
Leageneda to secure the payment of the bonds together with in-
terest coupons attached thereto, the provision of the bonds and
the trust deed was that in case of delault the trustee might upon
request accelerate the payment thereof; that default had been made
and the trustee had declared the bonds immediately due and payable.
The statement set up verbatim the written guaranty, in and by which
the defendants jointly and neverally guaranteed the payment of the
Sinde ond coupons as if the guaranty had been made upon each of
said bonds and coupons; that defendants agreed that they might be
joined in any action against the Wiehigan Chestnut Building Corpora-
tion, and recovery might be had against them in such action or in
any separate action; that the guaranty in its benefits should inure
to each holder of the bonds and coupons; that in event of fore-
closure of the deed of trust aud of deficiency they guaranteed to
pay forthwith the deficiency; that in case Greenebaum Sons Invest-
Loo 8
(pda lee oun tan
« at th al
Ma
-
u
av :
ae
all te aaTLAIO A ie re
“ve a. A, r 0, es. os sipadaiiia
te absod “egngt tom sent abotreo ¥e' STAY ce'ttidgike Le ent ond =
,ChCL ,8L dawguA ko. ‘ pelaacomied gathited P viedo ica wodocany tet oi
ob exit Gemisge ,oges lsd te duveo Lsetotault eat of rte teiguond
-VEQL, ,8L todmovelt ao betvoexe yYthetesy oetiiow & nous ‘bith oe
bertrsys ,880L ,d Yrownel belft ,mtaio ‘te tnometese’ Sesnonia atext
(petueexs ehaod 22 ecte to Lh to svenwe opt orem wtb ioutale teil’
borhan exow Aoidw ,aoitetecrod uLbLing duataod® ning tole La vate ee
ined of OF YXtYovaco ,eteb omea oni? wo bedvooxe Sound to boob ye
ptadteo » , tert af xexzeeoowe ati ban setemcd as ab item 26 y
wai btw tesiegod abuod 04d To snomyen ond exkone of BKoriobReE
bie ebnod edt ‘te moleivotg sat ,oteusde bosoetes enocuee teoree ne
aoge diptm sodautd oii tivated te send at SoH eew pooh tewtd om, ie
“ebem meot bel dinwtebh tact ;Tootedd taeiyeq Olt sate Leon daasps
.eidayeg bite aus (isdatbonat shaod en? heretosb hat bedeund ost nia
dota yd Bite ab orient: mode daw. ate atsedrey ‘gh tee toon dete’ ott”
ont. ‘to treancug..out beosinsany witexoven ban er
to desé agus sham ioed bes yenewbug 6At 4h a anonue
ad tiyim yedt tad¢ bootas etasbaw Tob sards vakequed lak ‘sab igsiot
aetOGtod guLdled swadmadoomey digkM GAt Joatsye noktos pie mt I oa tot t
ak so ttottes deve at aeostt Cottage ype tagim yrevoost bas
oumnd. biwons af ttoaed edt qi Yuerany: eds tent “neki:
ie ts “setot ‘to tasve "a ‘eid yamoguae bua sbaod ut 9
os Scntneenins youd youslolteb ‘te bre tare ‘te bo bus ‘to
sb it
~teoval anol mcadonset® cero at dead yas ; yous wk i
mant company should, as it was authorized to do, purchase any de-
faulted bonds or coupons and subordinate the same to outstaniing
bonds and coupons, said action should not release the makers of
the guaranty; that the agreement should bind the successors and
assigns of the respective parties, and all of the benefits of
the agreement and the right to enforee the provisions thereof
against the parties ol the first part should inure te the trustee,
and te ¢ach and every holder of the bends or coupons; that the
executed original of the agreement sieuld be deposited with the
Greenebaum Sens Investment Company for the use and benefit of all
of said parties, The instrument was under seal,
Defendants answered, denying liability upon the guaranty,
upon the ground that under a condition subsequent they were re-
leased from liability. By paragraph 6 of their answer they asserted
that the suit could mot be maintained because there was another and
prior action pending between the same parties for the same cause,
“in that on March 31, 1934, Central Republic Trust Company, as
successor trustee under the trust deed securing the bonds of the
Plaintiffs by virtue of the powers granted to it by the trust deed
and the guaranty herein sued upon, brought an action in the Cireuit
court of Cook county, ease No. 34 C 4253, and caused to be issued
out of that court and delivered to the Sheriff of Cook county, Illi-
nois, on or about March 31, 1934, a summens vequiring each of the
defendants herein named as defendants to appear and defend against
the complaint filed by the said Central Republie Yrust Company, as
Successor Trustee, which said complaint sought to éniorece, on behalf
of all the bondholders, including plaintiffs herein, the guaranty
herein sued upon, as will more fully appear from an exawination of
the records and proceedings on iile in said cause in said court;
that by virtue of the provisions of the saia trust deed and the
guaranty herein sued upon, said Central Republic Trust Company,
She A
hs Pe Te
-@h (me erado tug .ob ot besitedius pew $2 ae +b Lyoste Xascnee aed
gutisstedve of amag ot stentbtodse bas anogiree a0 ebaod betiset
20 Btoxem e9 sanotex Joa bined agites base ,enoquoo bina ahaod
‘hme Btoeee0owe oid baid biveds sapemerye wsty sand ;Vdaetary salt
‘Lo ied Phoned. gat To Lie ‘bas ao litng eviteouees edd to sayisas
testends atloizivetg edd eoto'ine of Faylr edd bas snsmestys eat
sesautt ent ot ound bivese treq ferit exit ‘to selizeg edd tentogs
PR PH: PI. 38 MPAA 955, 19 san Loa tere hae apm, of. bem ‘ me
ort Adiw beybeoqed od biveia snomsetya, eat Yo Lentgis 0, besuogee 2%
iia to dtiened bate sau anid tot Ysts quod dacme sora ‘enat | Buadoumond i
wins teh) sew sacowtent edt _ noditeg btge 20 ? ane
aha saqu Ytitideks gatycoh ,henewane weamhue teC. dive <i
(OT Slow Youd Imevpeadsea aotiihage « tebas teat Aemwoty ont a
bedzeses. “ocd tawace tied? to 8 dgetyetag va ye ELidett max? deer
bas tedtorm.aew exeid ceueced hoaleiatea ed tog dinoe thea ho i oll ‘
198699. paw@a eas tot asitieq emee edt soewted gatbaeg mises gees rg
as .yasumod teuel obiduged Sextaed SCL .fE coxeM a Fi e :
esis, 29 absos @ud gaixuoes Deed Seuxd ais xabau sega? rosessoue
«heob Faucd ont yd 32 ot hotaety atoweg vis to eudaty yd evttente
finer iQ ait ot aolioe wm duguotd segs hess ahetod Fe bergeet tect
eet, ae Ob bender bam PEER O Me OE aene MS hire ee he ll
| mBLLI ,ytawow Aood To Thinesdti ods od ber seytsob eae. bc4 EO, eo i
ead Lo dose ailtiupe yt. ehcsermabilina “bOR ht sigrunit | toe dr net
tagiags bae'teb bas ta0ggs, od Seraboe THD ae bome “ease tf one)
as ,~aequed dagtl oiidugen Led a9p Dhpe., amt w, get? } eae ahaa a
Meded ao ,svretad of Shun, — bles so tat sent ‘eee
ee es
|
2,
ae
ond. ban, book atten pian, pn. alec at. 20.m ere
'
* os
Suecessor Trustee in said suit, is acting on behalf of the plain-
tiffs herein among otners; that service of suumone was iad in
said prior action upon the defendant, Jerome P. Bowes, Jr., on
the 14th day of Aprii, 1934, and that said suit is stili pending
and undisposed of,"
Pursuant to the practice of the Municipal court as pro-
vided in Rules 159 and 160 of that court, the defendant filed a
metion asking the trial court to determine the merits of the
abatement pleaded in advance of the trial, Their motion was sup-
ported by an affidavit setting up the material facts, and plain-
tiffs filed a counter affidavit which disclosed that no issue of
fact was presented, The plaintiffs’ suit in the Municipal court
was begun August 16, 1935, It appeared the suit of the Successor-
Trustee in behalf of plaintiffs was filed Marek 31, 1934, November
9, 1936, the Kkunicipal court, upon consideration of facts disclosed
by these affidavits, found the filing ef the suit by the Successor-
Trustee on Wareh 31, 1954, being case No, 34 © 4253 in the Circuit
court of Cook county, the issuing of summons to the Sheriff, the
service of summons on one oi the defendants that the suit in the
Circuit court was still pending and had not been disposed of, and
that the action thus brought by the Successor-Trustee was “another
action vending between the parties to this cause involving the same
claim and subject matter as that involved in this cause, and that
by reason of the pendency of said action this eause cannot be
maintained,” and ordered that the suit of plaintiffs be dismissed,
From that order the plaintiffs have prosecuted this appeal,
The issues arising on this reeord are similar to those con-
sidered in Goldman et al. v, Holabird ot aé, General number 39203,
in which an opinion was filed Mareh 15, 1937. ‘the plaintiffs there,
as here, were owners of certain bonds of the ldichigan Chestnut
Building Corporation of which defendants were guaraitors.. The de-
&
~finig o1¢ Zo BMeded ao gaijoe si , dine bise of seteutl toneeo ne
ind bet oe¥ BHonoum Lo seivaes Jord parol gHoow aioted @ttbe’
£0 ale ssewoG .% emote ,simhim'teb ane snag aoiton toliy stew’
miei {ite at tive Slee tosh pms PECL ,fhagk te “eb NOD osit
*, to beroqaibas baa’
“OCT 8 #tv0o degielaul sat ‘Le epitoatea ans od toevetel |
i beth? tuba teh acy ,oxwoo dedd to O8L hae CAL antul nk hebir
ous oe etivew ext entateteb of tuweo tated ead yuidten méivem =
“que sev ceiton tents leit? ot to somavba al bebsoiq: tesna toda sy)
+@haig base ,etost leisotsam sad ad gattieos givabitie te qebetteg | “
to evael oa jaid beaotoath Kokaw ¢ivebiYte: wtawOS! a port artis? Mg
f1wo9 dagiotawh oid ck tive 'eTtigutscq OMT sotaseerg dav gost
aToseguoue- ad to tiws edd bowecqqe dl .2beL , ad taigua muged aor ae
sedagveu BC ,i& cote Dekt? saw atti¢ataly te tladced ab ‘sobaue?*
bsaoloaih etoat to sottenehbeaoe soqi yotveo Legiolaul ont beer! e
roanecose ond ed tive eat to gulikt odd dawe? ,adbraberte suede ys
tions cis ob SESD O43 ok easo gaked MEL fe doteM m0 setauat” ,
eed , kittede edd of antowan ‘to aalwoad eas ~Ytaues 2000 Te twee” = |
ed? ah déua Odd Jen? evusbse ted OAs “bo ene mo endamus 16 -sotvied” i if
bas lo honounhd sved gon hed ban Babbieg Lihte sew suited tidesie”
sed¢one” sev coteuxt-tovsc00we ont yd Piyword eudd melsee edt eae? 2
nies oft gaiviovai seveo ett of eohizag edt mocwted Saibdoy sobtes” un
tadd bre joeneo else sk devioval sade en teddem doe) due ‘bas mete"
ed toanse odsmn etdg mektos Slee ‘to Yourbaed ods 6 iui ye
-boaaianib ed etiivaielg to dine suit cud Setobi0 bus * bon heviat ant’ 4
| wisegqe aisle bosuoaeorq eved eTtivuisiq exit tebe teat” = ; r a
-oo eens of welhals eta Buoset okhae ito aa ciao ius ‘eat. - owe Mh
PGS we daw Leto nen -
\\
4
ferse of the prior actiom pending in the Circuit court was there
interposed by a paragraph of defendantes' answer, which upon motion
of plaintiffs was stricken, We held (citing Leonard v. Bye, 361
Ill. 185, and Schneider v, Smith, 271 I11. App. 414) that the court
erred in striking this paragraph of the anawer,and reversed and
remanded the cause for that reason, The facts which were made to
appear by the affidavits in suppert of and in epposition te the
motion of defendants in the Municipal court sare substantially the
game as those set up in the Circuit court in the paragraph of de-
fendenté' answer which we held the court erred in striking, The
@ecision in that ease is, therefore, controlling upon this appeal,
It is contended by the plaintiffs here as it was contended
by the olaintiffs there, that to permit the interposition of this
defense deprived plaintiffs of their right to concurrent or cumu-
lative remedies, and Brikson v, Ward, 266 111, 259; Rohrer v,
Deatherage, 336 Ill. 450; Wolkenstein v. Slonim, 355 Ill, 306,
were there, as here, relied upon, The opinion, however, pointed
out that these cases do not involve any question of abatement and
have no application upon this appeal,
It was urged there, as hers, that the trust deed did not
authorize the trustee to bring any suit to enforee the guaranty,
and that the action comuenced by him was therefore not binding on
the bondholders and therefore could not be pleaded in abatement of
& suit by the bondholders on the guaranty, We held end now hold,
however, that the authority to bring sueh action was conferred upon
the trustee by the terms of the written guaranty irrescective of
any of the provisions of the trust deed, The plaintiffs here,
however, make the further contention that the provision in the
guaranty purporting to vest the right to sue thereon in the
trustee isineffectual, and cite authorities which it is claimed
se
&
*
et BAD Shee
@rosts Bow Fomes thugtko edt otk gab bate notes xolte ont ‘te senst
ee hoaw te ditw sewed 'etucbaotep te dqatgeteg 8 xd “henocrstat
Lae OME bra0081 gait te box o¥ .nexoitts aew ‘etultniate to
deuon od tedd (20) .aek .LLI Ie Sting .v tent oaloe ‘pas ,86L . {fT
Ame boateves hos tewene sft ‘to dqatgetag abet “patainge nk ‘betzs
ot obast oxen dio bein etoo't att 98807 tatt ret seueo afd bebaamet
ii Bay ty
eit os old teowco a bie RO Piece ak ‘ativan frte oa ud taecas
ste
eal Uletdnets due eta toe isqiotasit ert ab sinahnotes to aottom
“9b ‘to Hgsxgetsc auld at txuoe étwoxto ot ‘ab gas toe ‘onan “gn ome
eat apatiires at bexxe tayo oid bros ow dotaw ‘iinet Vagneb ast
| git are ta ‘
-tascas ates noge ust fLoxt nes ,o1eter ott a oeao tacts ar “nOLetve roe
pee ene Gaye ~"
bobussace. Cd tf es estos atiitaisle oct ww beben tnes 8 +t 3 ae
se al ere Bs Hee Baw
ete te neisieoctesnt oad + hares of fast .er0iid emiiatate ent ve
$e Lo pas « i
: ssm80 to “Sherr sso mt0 ot bight niedt te ettitaiste hevinash 98 R9 ne tab yagttnt
3 eigen aks . aay
aL Reso ; 988 tat das “bse. sepatsd bas \eelbouee heat
if be 2 ye HEE ge
808 tit eas vainela_.v mietenpdLoW 088 LEE 88 | ;
& Som et a ¥ gatan?r
botaiow stevewoul sRoindao oot 0a bet len ered BE for, orev
; Wy Ah “i Ve Beith te Fa seny Te a : /
bus trenasede te odtesup yeu bvioval ton of seras evens 28. Pt Hie
.Lseqes airy ‘sai noltact logs ae oved:
) “Fox bib beab pouty ‘oil fasts eusd 86 ae hes ae Oe eS yo nes a
etataus ends ‘eero'tne of ‘give eer “yale pes eateutd exit ie f “Seigat
a6 gutbaid ton eiptoredd caw ub we heoas isco noiten ® ae itt te
a rt
% Rive RAK
to susme sede wk bobseia od Sos ‘bises ozotereud "hae wrod
kn ee
bios! bree ba ‘bios ow einen ould a0 asi Leckoet outs ve tise
oq ‘Wersetae pron wolses « sous "galcd of Wiroigus dak ts $s bio
A svidasreavth years meta kee ous to amtod oa Us ® estaurd ost
red etittatatg out bees sand oult te exote trong add te yas 4
Ag ore eat gist dl
“eit a netatvorg sit tad ottanties ‘ta ae
PONENT at Bae rece V4 Pi 4 We, een ne. = oe 2 a Rati hE ree TR: ionoe ar:
out at auawexs oe ot rendre one teoy of galtroqiwd ¥
ba HAS Like ig aeore, (athe: 5%
bemtsto - rt so tae wottiroigua otto haus faut
ol e080) ge IS. RR A RO dy Drea meen Cento
a.
hold that only the legal holder and owner of the bonds may bring
suit thereon. Fitkin v, Century Gil Co., 16 F. (2d) 22, anda
number of cases from other jurisdictions are cited te this point,
In Illinois Surety Co. v, Munro, 289 Ill. 570, cur Supreme court
said:
"A cuarantor may impese any terms or conditions in his
guaranty which he may choose and will only be liable to the
holder aceording to the terms of the agreement, *
In Corpus Juris, vol, 213, p. 279, the law is stated to
be that:
"The offerer has a right to prescribe in his offer any
conditions as to time, place, quantity, mode of acceptance, or o
other matters which it may please him to insert in, and make a
part thereot',"
Other cases announcing the sane rule are burke v. Burke,
259 Ill, 262; Martin v, Sparrow, 253 111. App. 482; and Moore v.
Hahn, 274 111. App. 125, in the opinion in the Goldman case we
pointed out that under section 44 of the Civil Practice act the
jJoinder of legal snd equitable actions (as in the Circuit court
suit) was permissible, and the brief for plaintiffs in the present
cage seems to concede that this is true, They contend, hovever,
that the complaint by the Successor Trustee in the Cireuit court
did not effectively join the two causes of action because of the
provision of section 33 (2) of the Civil Practice act, which pro-
vides that separate causes of action shall be stated in separate
counts, and by reason of Rule 11 of the Supreme court which in
substance provides that wnen legal and eguitable actions sre
Joined they may be pleaded in distinet counts marked "separate
action at law" and "separate action in chancery." The action at
law on the guaranty agreement and the foreelesure action in the
Circuit court are not so pleaded in separate counts nor are they
so marked, Plaintiffs therefore coiitend that the actions are not
effeetive, and that the entire preceeding should be considerea &s
a
ening you ebacd ott to tomwe Bae tobled LegeL odt-ying tad? bled
abae,.,SS (b8) .9-OL...93 08
etatog alist of Antio ete anoltiokbeinut tedto mott eenes Yo todmna
Games emstqeG tio ,ON8 .Lf1 O68 , gtepé av 9d fi at
etd ak oF aiden a acenot ) ay eeogat yan pepe ypesi (2 sek ue
end oF Sidelf ed yino Ifiw bas @aoose yam od co net
: * dgomeet|s odd ‘te aaret .edt ot set bee me
ot hetere ef wal agit, MS sq 4818. Lov) ettab mpexed al, ice
en foh weg tad. oe he ae
Mile weTte ais at edigosetq of tayta © med, GAT? ccc ong
9 TO ,8oustqesos te ehom ,ysit anup F M3 aa a anoidt 40:
oe Bian Aan_.at feined Oh mis Gaede Yaeh sale arets
; 4, ‘tos
antut 7 exited ota efux sun eit aateavenna avaeo 29030 hae 7
“x stool baw {88h sgh .LLT 208 mersag® oY alte 2808 tii aa
ioe if +) *
“ow 9as0 gawd Loi eat at Aobat qo edt «i aot a0 “144i ae 1
oui ta polteoxt inven ono te be Raddoed: “9b aw iead beet seed: es
phen dinenlé oat ad as) neolsen ‘ettas hope kins , kaye t Yo xabalot he
dnasoxg eats ‘ad etiidale tg fot teLis ecit baa ‘eidleatureg "saw (dium My.
“ teveroa. baeda0a yeont 0nd ‘a has ssid ‘ehoomoe of omen eee ‘i ae
txuon tivorio oat sd eosanet “ros sosowe oni w sie tonoe oat tectt h
aid ‘to sanacod nolies te agauss wnt esis abot ylavivostte sen 828.
io ag galtenies
~ox4 fio i tos solioset hae pate te (@) ee wottooa to noieivona
io Avot nay watiae gilt Meme te nse
ei steaes aa babase ‘ed fiatie saites sid Bootie ssetaqse oe rob .° ;
‘at Aotiw txwoo oun gut ead to Li eis to noaeo% ‘we bas ! yw Bg i)
ome | anol ten octet tupa ime ‘Loget nea tent vebivorg pls 8 ad a oe
steneyea” besten atavoo “Youtieds at bosseta od yew s eneid boa on ob re
te dito oti ™ siceeo neta: ‘al ‘aad ‘eienaqee” bas “wal de a0. se ie
eas ak nottoe erusotoexdt auit it bie oheootgs ‘Ytharesa testy add ae
yet ete rom aban r Poddgee ‘a Vite ti 2 don ete peuoo “FE
ton ome aed ‘add 900) Kawtado 0s thereat sivbvake.
ne seo Biddad “gakbsedere’ eis ond Yai :
NS a
=
an action to foreclose the mortgage, As already stated, the suit
in the Circuit court was begun Mareh 31, 1934, Rule 121 in the
particular form relied on by plaintiffs was not adopted until June
8, 1935, The rule was, therefore, not applicable to that action
even if it is conceded that a question of compliance with forms of
pleading cowld be considered as material under the circumstances
here appearing. It is true that independent of Rule 11, section
33 (2) of the Civil Practice act, which was in foree when the
trustee's suit was filed, directe that separate causes of action
shall be stated in separate counts, and that the SuecessoreTrustee's
action brought in the Circuit court did not comply with this diree-
tion. The mere form of the pleading is not, we hold, material.
. Plaintiffs finally contend that the suit in the Cireuit
court could not be pleaded in abatement of their action because it
has not been diligently prosecuted. It is true that the summons in
this case was not served on all the defendants, and it also appears
in this record, as it did not appear in the Goldman case, that the
Michigan Chestnut Building Corporation became a party to involuntary
proceedings in the United States District Court under section 773
of the Bankruptey act, and that that court issued an order restrain-
ing actions against the Building corporation or its srepdnks.
Service upon the defendants is not necessary to the validity of a
defense of prior suit pending, as will appear from an examination
ef section 48 of the Civil Practice act and Municipal court rule
159, he order of the United States District court does not pur-
port to restrain any action against defendants on their guaranty
agreement, and the decisions of the Federal courts are to the
effect that such an order if made would not have been effective,
in Re Nine North Church Street, Inc., 82 Fed. (2a) 186; In Re
Diversey Building Corporation 36 Fed. (24) 456, In the Goldman
case we said:
8
tive oc ,botete ybsetla BA .oaeadtom, sat. seoLoetot of notion. ns
ont Mk Lf fu DERL . It doteM aged aaw tuwon tiuotdd end at
oat Litnu betgebe ton eaw attit¢aisig yt ao bakiet «tot 18Lunttnag
toktes tadt of eldsokicqe tos ,steteteds ,sewr ote edt. ,é@L ,8 |
to asxot Atiw courifgmoo lo noldeeup s taut bobeomoo at 2 Th n8ve
apoiademuotio sad tehbnu saitetem ga beteblemos od bLsioo aaibss lq
aoitose ,{f eisf to tashasqebat tact evtd of $1 sgalzeoaqs oxed
sit nedw sot? at sew siotdw ,toe eo tigetd Livkd ed ‘to (8) BE
settee Td seauaa etersaea ect etoetib ,bellt aew thwe at osdautd
a ‘oatantl toasssoue ent ten? hos satasoe oteionen ah botste od. Lied
eae
ne
~oewth ‘wide deiw ylqmon doa bis gues diwonsd ext sah teiguosd ok
-fsitesem ,blod ow sou ai yatheeta ont to aro? oven oat “mole -
ie) Te]
dinotto ous ot thus ot todd busduco (Liant?t sYtiéalelt
“eb easvesed toites tiet to temedads al ‘pebadtq ed toa biioe ‘tuwos
at eommue eft tact ours at #1 -beduvseord vidapg itis sed ‘ton a
BtH9 Gas on.ts +t Bete atneh se Tob ed iis ete) bovrss sou eaw. ‘eane ‘aids
edt todd ,sene mabsad out al tasqqe ton bth ¢£ ee ,btooet elslt at
WatanvLoval os Vteq 8 omanedt no tdetoc%od path Lint suatessdd negtio tM
ary nottooe msi div0d joiz¢ed@ setete bottal’ oat at aguibosoota
-tiettast tebi0 a6 hevent ¢usco dadd tard hae foe YotqurAnsd ott ‘to
verreqose aa <0 agi sexoqros path £t vk ent teaknas ancitos gat
a se etibi lev est ot vraaeaoes post ei stupbadte ry noas ‘eoivrea
mokdockoann om. ine mae qae Litw ee ,gntbueq tive xoltq Yo eenetob
aint éxvoo fagioltach bas soe ontiaats Livid oxid to 8a aatitoee “to
“tug toa aacd stares sateeetel andate bodta iid to robto oii | 188
erastewg thosid mg ataehce ted Seategn nottos its nantes ot sr0q
eat oF ote atanoe faxebet oat ‘LO anciaioed eae bas Sosweerae
sevites tts seed eved tom biuow obest th rebto nie “soe tasit # teats
ba
"aad £0 ua nl “ah (at sbe® oB
"The purpose of the rule wuieh prevents the maintenatce of
two suite upon the same cause of action is that a defendant may
not be vexed by many actions, That reason is certainly present
in this case, There is also the additional reason that equality
may prevail as between the many holders of these bonds whose rights
under the terms of the guaranty are equal. From the equitable
standpoint there seems to be many reasons why the successor
trustee by a suit at law in behalf of all these bondholders may
protect and provide for the rights of all the parties with a
great degree of certainty and expedition and with fairness and
justice to all concerned, These reasons were held to be con-
trolling in Leonard v, Bye, The plaintiffs assert that the
parties are not the same because only one of the defendants has
peen served with process in the suit by the successor trustee,
Before the adoption of the Civil Practice act a suit was pending
for the purpose of a piea of a prior suit pending when the summons
was issued and placed in the hands of the sheriif. Poliaek v,
Kinman, 176 Ill. App. 361. By the terms of the Civil Practice
act, sec, 5, a civil action is begun when summons is issued, In
the successor trustee's suit the summons was duly issued and de-
livered to the sheriff for service and one of the defendants was
actually served, Service of summons was not, however, essential
to the validity of the plea. Taylor v. Southern Ry. Co., 6 F.
Supp. 259."
As stated in the beginning the issues afon this appeal were
practically decided in the Goldman case. For the reasons siated
in that opinion, as also for the reasons herein stated, the
judgement of the trial court is affirmed,
AFFIRMED,
O'Connor and MeSurely, JJ,, concur,
— a
ny
Ay
ny se
‘te etme tatea ote wtaevety dotiow eivt ed to eeoqtug gaiT*
yau duahaoteh a dadd ¢f soltes to eaueo amme ect moqu.edine owt
tAeaeta Ylaistta0 et nownet Zed? eamottos ynam yd bexev ed ton
Yyiiieupe dads movser Leaoisinba aad ovle ad oxeal..,eaeo effdimt
atiyiz evolilw ebacd eaetd ‘to srébiod yaem ed neowied ea Lisvetq yam
eldstiupe ect sort .faupe ote Ytaareug esd to aomed edt tebaw
‘ocevooge ant yaw waosset yasm ed of emeen orent tatogbnste
Ye atebloribaod seo Lie to tiaded ak wel teodive s yd eetewtd
@ Stiw asttase sit [fe to efdgiu alt tot oo Sas toetota
bow eseriiat ddiw fae soliibeqne bas yiciedses to sotged-
“wide o¢ of BLsi etew enonsst seect ,hemteomoo Ila o@. otteut
esd jadd txeeace atiiiaialg edi, .oyd .¥ Mianoed |
‘gen etnebto teh eff To 6n0 Bh, ena eeuseed emes ant Jou ote aot
eoteuts tosesoona eld 43 iva o8t al ageooty cidiw herrea |
gaihweg wew diva « fos 80 sexe hap | i Be, — sit exoted
axommve eit agsw & sine & te aslq & sRogmwE |
‘9 tee Sf, ° eet s to the Be a3 nk bovalg bas bowsat ‘asw
goitoetd Livid eat to amzed asd, ow KLE O0L +
I ,Seueer 7 oar ae assiw ate te vio 4 <2 .088
~@b bre beuea aew anoumue tgo2e900UR ue ond
Rew atnebis Teh i" Te oe Bas eoivres eer hy soe eit ot bewevit
laisasaas Pet yom ae aeW enone
open ®p ROR oqque
erew daagqes ekee niin. aouesl oud. shea eng. ok botede ah a droge
bosada amoeeet oud tol .oaee casblow edt ak pebloeb eiteoltoana
‘te spivaed.. oath isutoa
ging? vad 0 ses repngpers ot
j
wns betete alexed anoeset eft 10) cate ee pRolaigo: taddemd!
_. . wboark ke et f2u0o Lebrd od tor tondgiiedt
TEMA TULA . iS ae 4 F F Sie? S Pdi. ae gris eM
taaieans a tee
eo ar ea
,
a ee en
Ra er Oe Pe vy hy
pi xe ih sansa aN gan iy U8, aks ail de
Fl Na Sh acscaaeai PR naa, La, OW
i. ‘aaa ee
39351
PEOPLE OF THE BTATE GF ILLINOIS
ex rel, JOHN S, RUSCH,
Petitioner,
APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT
VS
i OF COOK COUNTY.
)
990 T.A. 597°
MR, PRESIDING JUSTICE MATCHETT
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
VIOLA WOJCIK and MURCEDES TUTTLE,
Respondents,
This is an appeal by respondents from a judgment of the
County court ef Cook county, finding that they were guilty of
contempt, The proceeding against them was brougnt under section
13, chapter 46, of the Revised statutes (See Ill, State Bar
States., 1935, p. 1499.) The proceeding was begun August 3, 1935,
through the filing of a petition by Ruseh, chief clerk of the
Blection board, which charged that respondents and Bonnie Horton
and John H, Ny one ae and acting as judges and clerks of
election, “did fraudulently and unlawfully make a false canvass
and return of the votes cast in said precinct at said election;
that said respondents, while serving and acting as judges and
clerks oi said election in said precinct, were guilty of corrupt
and fraudulent conduct and practice in the duty of said respond-
ents as judges and clerks of said election,” The petition
averred that petitioner was advised and believed that the miseon-
dust and misbehavior of respondents constituted a eriminal offense
or offenses against the People of the State of Illinois and also a
contenpt or contempts of the court. Leave was given to file the
petition end it was ordered that respondeiits show cause why they
should not be punished for such contempt, the order directed that
they should give bond in the penal sum of $2500, or in default
thereof be committed to jail, or until they should give bail as
required, and that a writ of attachment issue to the sheriit,
Pa
18808
- sTMNOO 4000 Lal cP i 5 sp se
isos 4 exoroaits saad anton And’
: pelea moqeed abpAnire
ten BY eC fi aT Cee ty
0 Cw PRON ME eR RNS ORE wig Fae at
@! 2S Bia oe Ms eae at CBS, ey be Seige wt
i var)
nTwO Add worsen pote : eal HS yar Nora
“este te dmoageut, a monk ainebnegasx w Sanita ae i Ma
“— wily et6w would tess, Bat badt tae, taco” ‘to Sesion Ysa |
“no itooe rebsui tiiguoxd aaw mods tontasa sathssoorg ext. ileal
en re ere: 08) fotuinds bealven edt to bb xodaasio 4b
(8eUL ,f tavgud iumged acw pitbeesote ont (leat .@ (800k, atate
aid to site lo teito ,foem yd aoiiideg e to gakift exe cghorsis
sotto ¢lanel bas etaebnoqeot dedd, asian sokan ois ,bieod sotioe £8
to, eitela bor gagbuh as ant tae has Bo BAO, oH aso’ bas
geavono oels't 6 exes YLigtwe Lo baw vitae tohuert £fh" etotdoe Le
;nedtoete bise ts ¢omioerg bles ai teeo aetov edt to ater bas
b itis eeoagbat as guitos bac galvites eLfidw ,stnebaoqeset dian teds
dqwrtoe to yilisy even ,toatoerg bisa al agitoete. bles 9. axxo Lo
=baogaet biee ‘to wiub ect af eoiteatq bae towbnoo tueLubuett bas
moititeq eat "“,acitoole biee to adtols bas geghut ae edie
-tooata est tedd bevelled bes beeivba aaw tenoltilieg Jads bettevs—
eane’tto Laaiaino =» beotuditaaeo ataebuogset ‘to tolyededala has sous
& eels baa etomilit to adess adt to elqos% ot tentegs aeanetio to
edt elit o¢ sevie eaw sveol staves ont to adqmetnos to dames a00
yout yelw eaveo wore atnohnogast fact borebto asw ti bar aoltiteg
tact betootlh tebro ed? .tqmedmoo dowa rot bedetawg ed son bivoste
ftua'teh at to ,0008$ to mue Lensq ont at baod evlg biwexde yedd-
as Ltad evin biuode youd Litas 20 ,that of hedtimmon sd tooted?
sYilvese ont ot weal tnomioetis ‘to thaw » ted? bar boriupet
December 11, 1935, the court on motion of the attorneys for the
petitioner ordered the sheriff to endorse a return on these writs
of attachment. Respondents appeared specislly end made a niotion
to quash the writs which was denied. The cause was heard upon
the rule to show cause thereteofore entered, the evidelce taken in
open court, and the motion of attormey for the election commission-
ers that the rule to show cause should be made absolute, and the
counter motion of the attorney for rescondents that they should
be discharged. The court found that it had juzisdiction of the
subject matter and the parties; "That a primary election was held
in ‘the City of Chicago, County of Cook and State of Illinois, on
the 10th day of April, 1934, for judges of the Municipal court
of Chicago and for all of the county, precinct or district, state
ang United States officers whese el.ecticn at that time was pro-
vided by law; that at said eclection in the 48th Precinct of the
27th Ward in said City of Chicago, County of Cook and State of
Illinois, said respondents Mercedes z, Tuttle and Viola R. Wojcik,
respectively served as jucges of election; and that said judges,
namely, Mercedes &, Tuttle and Viola R, Wojeik and each of them
were by virtue of their offices officers of this County Court of
Cook Gounty in the State of Illinois,
"That at and during said election said Mercedes E, Tuttle
and Viola R. Wojcik and each of them wilfully and fraudulently
marked, altered, and changed and permitted others to mark, alter
and change 120 primary Democratic candidates' ballots and 19 pri-~
mary Republican candidates’ ballots voted in said precinct. at
aforesaid cleation;
"That at and during said election said Mercedes }. Tuttle
and Viola R. Wojcik and each of them willfully and knowingly
signed, made, published and delivered false returns of aforesaid
OF ey. oa
ia ~
ont tot ayemioste ous to meltou ne, SaHop oats BERL «th zoduonot
ahbaw esas 10 see wter & setobie of Trbtede ssi ‘perobr0 tenotd ited
soften a ebem bas -yl Lekota berasqqa eeunheenalt rtnomioe ste to
noge peeves Baw eaLeDn extt obo laps aBY flo tiie atten ext asap. ot
ak steaipt oo: nobive ould chores oxvoedably ‘ediies vrozla oF eLut exit
anole: dettee'ts euit or eickcor ta ‘to coltom edt dae eves seq@o
eit Belz tuLoads shen ed bisosie. ease wouls ‘oF eLut arid er aTe
bisoue b shied dacis ataebnocset sot Kertpesa, ens to fold om totasoo
aud ‘to “stolsonbagsat, dart a8 sont bawot jrwoo oxtt .bogtarseth 9
ated usw mpheeete Meanie © dant” jsettaeg anld, _ be xetien _ tootsua,
0 @hoad Li ‘to edog2 baw 4000 to yenued, 9 PRL To 0, ViatP. end ah, ;
two Apgtodna ons te sonbut rot be OL vibtaa " wb, ft OL ox.
etate ‘voiniald beta) fonisera PY get Neaedl ig Be. x0 Dae mee pe
ont
~ora aew omy sects ta nottea.in saoaw exooltte entes®, bot ist ifn
PS ea
oud te soniooxa 0d ond i ak $99 fo han, as Haus, ays a betiy
‘to otore bats 1000 te weawod open ts te uth, pies, fe baa, ATS,
Kioto. ae aioty baw eLteut +f Bebsored, aisebsogaen, dise «etont Let.
.asabut bisa sav Gate isottoe te ‘to wegont, ae , beytes, ‘Xfev dtngepes,
meal to sore baa Ato tow 1 StotV baw oitint »& sebeortel, dome,
ba! trwad (Wave), eis be _ateoitio seoltto ties to opttiv, yd ote”, y
sptoaiiil to stad, ond af, ytaued, xooy., K
otdiut a ; meboorek piss ‘nottoet bigs gotta bag te, tagt” . baxnawe
vitae Labware t baa yitetw mont ‘to done Pcs: ALotoW, A, eLohV ion .
“adie . Stan ot nxosita bevstorg bas hegaaso baa, fete? fe, sbedtam
“tq er hie. atolied 'aasabionao ottastooued. Xtembe OBL sana .b %,
ts Stoatonag bioe ak hotev tol ted ‘podab Lbaso Aagot Ldsqeh yea
r 2% yale 20 fais bo. aE * ae , SOT :
oveut i aedeorelt bia aedtoote bee ‘gules we fast ead i
etgntwors bas ‘PAMutELaW mous 9 1 te neat ae Lihiagel ee ;
“bhosexote ‘ke earuget ea tat aoxarsseh Ree AUP IA ENE Sena
election, knowing the same to be false, namely, wrongfully, unlaw-
fully and knowingly counted the said 120 primary Democratie candi-
dates' ballots and the said 19 primery Kepublican candidates!
ballots as erased amd altered and reported as the official count
of the said ballots the totalsarrived at by including in said
tally and count the said erased and altered ballots, which said
gount Was xnown to said respondents to be false.
"That the respondents, Mercedes EH, Tuttle and Vicla R,
Wojcik, and each of them, by reason of the foregoing were and are
and each ot them was and is guilty of misconduct and misbehavior
as oliicers ol the dilute at Geax County, Illinois,"
The further finding was that respondents were present in
court; that they had failed to purge themselves of the contempt so
found; that the rule against them was made absolute; that they
should be adjudged guilty and committed to the county jeil of Cook
county jor a term of one year, "there to remain charged with con-
tempt by reason of having willfully and fraudulently marked,
altered, and changed and permitted others to mark, alter and
change ballots voted in said precinct at aforessid election ag
heretofore found by the court,"
Respondents contend in the first place that a yotion made
by them to quash the writs of attachment should have been suse
tained as being in violation of Article 6 of the Billi of Rights
and because tne writs, although directed to the sheriff of Cook
county, were in fact served by private investigators specially
employed for that purpese, Respondents point out that no return
Was made upon the warrants until some months after the issue thereof,
when by order of the court the sheriff made a return under date of
December 11, 1955, Respondents say, citing authorities, thet a writ
directed to one officer cannot be served by another, The seme con-
tention was made by a respondent under similar circumstances in
oy
owe fie i Lu'ty nocw vLome a oalat og ot onne eld aniwonl! aera
“Louse oigsto omed ‘yasming: OS £ pies ent hetucie Usabwoat & bans itwt
tastantbass amok Loss, a4 ureuiiq ef bias ouit bas asoiied ‘Vaotab
snuos {stoi tto ual as hedroqet bas pores fa bis becare as ‘stoLiad
bise ‘at antbutont a ‘te bevints ated ot badd adetiods, ‘bisa ais “to
bigs sols satoLied boxed is ban beaste bles grit sousoo hae ‘yliet
oe! atol¥ bos errs: “a seboorell “ataebaoguet rr deat"
one ‘baw stew ‘atogozo? adt to noaset yd esi to dose bas vttotow
tolvasieds be bas toubsooata to ut itus at ‘bas aew mas te done bite
ree " atoai £1 «a0 “xbod Ta\gemu00 exis to aeeoeiie e a2
:
4 &
dua Mahe eee
ab tnon9ty ozeT aduobaogeet asia id aanbatt dearer eat
push a) Fe igi erie
oe rb 309 ast ‘to aerioauedd oatua ‘ob belia® ‘bad eons t ane Ce
i i GRR 2 iy
yoni test _jetuLoada eba asw masts “teakege out oxit Sault bawo?
Stade 8 eth §) S38
£000 * to tat ‘yiaueo oat ot be $4 tamoo ‘baa Wiles bosiutbs ed Sivoude
«ttoo adiw he ginasis nbsne ot eende® (199% ono e ‘axed e “x02 eames
ts sbetzen vide fubuaet bese eiiwt teh gat vast ‘te soaaot Ww dense
3 baw redLe item ot aresio besrtareg bas begassio bas. * bene ke
; as soi $00 is bieaszots te fontoora ‘biee at hetov ‘akortnd t egneto
» twos outs “vd bewot sxe
i, WE
ebam aotigg 2 told esaiq taxi? sad ad bewsno ateohiocaat
~aun need aved binose tnommios tis to ediaw act aeeup 9d" modi” ya
“atsata to nar ond to a ato liwa ‘te Bolts toiy at guted an bonted
%009 to Tt bresia oui od boveon ks Mguosls Le od taw end ei? ~~
‘(Lia booas exotesideovat osavieq w hevion good ut stow . cea
exude ont saxt tuo intog azapbuogeed "Seog haus” tot ‘perce Lqme
stosteds eyeet ‘edd 16tte eddnom emoe Litny efastisw sit ogi ‘gba aaw
to an tebas muses 8 oben adenosine acd S1H00 out to webz bro wl | ‘note
¢hiw s saute ,ots izoctus até to ee eae steer Ws toduooed
toe emne ost ster ona yo heveee oe oneness Te9 Ytte "va ae “hogootis
Silt secastenvotio eelimte xobsu daobnogaet & aren ity
Rusen v, Matthiesen, No. 38551, 286 111. App., 615. We there
said:
"There was no substantial error in overruling tae respon-
dent Mathhiesen's motion to quash the service of the writ of at-
tachment upon nim because of his contention that it was not served
by the sheriff. As a judge of election he was an officer of the
court and since he appeared and presented his detense he has no
grounds for complaint."
The same rule is applicable here,
It is contended in the next place that the proceedings
against respondents should have been dismissed because of laches
in the prosecution of the same, The alleged contenpt was committed
at the primary election held April 10, 1934, The petition against
respondents was filed August 3, 1935. There was therefore a delay
ef 16 months in the institution of the proceedings, fhe hearing
ef the evidence was commenced Marsh 23, 1936, end final judgment
in the proceeding was not entered until May 1, 1936, In support
of this contention respondents cite a number of eases where lackes
has been held to be a good defense in vroceedings by way of cer-
tiorari or mandamus. Cases cited are Blake v, lindbiom, 225 Ill.
555; People v, Burdette, 285 111. 48; Hudson v. Owens, 170 Ill.
App. 288, and Rawson v; Rawson, 35 Lil. App. 505. Rawson v, Rewson
is the only case cited which concerns a judgment for contempt, but
the decision reversing the judguent in that ease was not based on
the ground of laches, Respondents do not suggest that any positive
statute of limitations bars this prosecution, ‘The statutory Limi-e
tation in cases of misdemeanor has been applied in cases of criminal
contempt, Besitie v. People, 35 Il], App. 651, But this proceeding
has been held net te be of the same nature as a criminal contempt,
Peovle vy, Ketwas, 365 111. 336, We hold the prosecution here is
net barred by laches,
While this is true, the period of time wich has @lapsed
since the acte complainégof has an important bearing on the cone
“‘Saodd BW CLS Laqk .£ET 888” (1888s Loma |
efogest ond gntivrzevo nt torre fattaetadse on waw 6teat
«ta ‘te Jitw edd ‘to auivioa ont gasp of goltou g' apuet ida!
— bevies son saw Ti Fase noktastnica Win ‘to savaged min nog '¢
‘to teoitto a6 eew of aoifoets ‘ta sybul, 8 2A. Mtitede ont a
(Sed on senm'teh etd Senvimead bas Sc ‘en eonte ike”
" dato Leatao fot. sah
ea ast y P28 efdaodiqas | at. Ast. asus
agaihesoore, ie. en ible: tied odd af bobgetaoo gi of ;
Mesos! To enuaned beceinath seed oved bivode atapheovsay tentage
botjimmoo saw tquataes begelie eat ong edt, tq gotiugouetg eft at
santage nolttieg eff 20S Of tiagA bled nottog ta yrentyg age ta
Wied s erotesots ean exoed 080 \ sawguA beLtt ge etasbaoqees
PTE S.. eambhoegeny. ott te nektet ttemh was ab mate Oh Fe
Mie and!
tseambot lant bao 888E ,€8 sound Reonpmmes vay encobive edt Ye
_ Pogue a ,Q0eL .f yall Litay hoxetm som naw gatboooorg ttt a
aecpel ers.siv anaso bs tedmumt 4 & thy spam eugytes, Moline aes | eld
Eye tae to
~ta0 Te yew yd ngnibeoootg af pcb on Mab: Node Me Fg
ene deat
1gewed RAGA ee
dud... TGu9t goo Tot Said: & a8%99 009 pretepetadionory yiao ett at
mo beac dS Jom cay cane tacd mk tnasyoyl, edd gatszoyes molategh eat
evitiaodg . ee tang Seoeane ton Ob (Btoebscgeed seeded $9 bawo 8, ME
~init yxotutedea atl ,molituoosorg aady etad anoiiadt tat £ oto piutete —
fenimizo to maseo at beliaqge aged gaat enti a Hees. at meaeRS
jek wv oisisok «tame! nee
“atten seo Zagse aay gutan mmo 39 off A806 ma ms
antbegnong sit tu 20 Wd »f11 28 elaos
af sted cgktyosserg ey plod oF -O88 ptt] 806, .geueoe
Re OH ce acer 9 seeans torschabpe
| ¥ gpriene vat A Aad oy ale 19 ‘petseg, oat, Os de AEE SM scons Nace
-a9>, 940, no, aakteod tnadzogad as. ged Tongatetgnen.edop. ort gomte
trolling question in the case, which is whether the judgment of the
court is based upon evidence so clear and convincing in iis nature
as to justify the finding that respondents were guilty as charged.
Respondents argue that the judgment order does not set forth facts
constituting the offense with sufficient particularity and certainty
to show that the judgment order was justificd, and they cite authori-
ties in cases for a direet contempt committed in the immediate pres-
ence of the court wnich hoid that the order must contain a recital
of all essential facts. This proceeding, however, is siatutory and
net one as at common law for a contempt committed in the immediate
presence of the court, This proceeding is statutory and the evi-g
dencé bearing upon the guilt and innocense of respondents is pre-
served by a biil of exceptions, Similar orders in similar cases
have been held to be sulficient, and as petitioner points out, no
objection was made in the trial court to the sufficiency of the
Judgment order, People v, Greenseit, 277 Ill. App. 479; People ex
rel, Vv. Souwartg, 264 ill, App. 38.
Ags already stated, the controlling question in this record
as we view it, is whether the finding and judgment of the eccurt ig
sustained by evidence sufficiently clear and convincing te justify
the finding of guilty, While the proceeding is not for wm oirense
whieh is distinctly criminal in its nature, and it is not neces-
sary to establish the guilt of respondents beyond all reasonable
doubt, it has been Held that in such a case the petitioner is ree
quired to produce "most convincing evidence of the truth of the
charge." . People ex rel, v. Hotwas, 275 111. App. 406. ‘This is
more particularly true when a judgment so severe as this is entered.
The effeot of the judgment is to deprive resporidente of their libe
erty and humiliate them te an extreme degree, and such punisiuent.
is not to be inflicted upon uncertain and doubtful evidence,
The facts in this case would appear to be tuat a primar’
CC
ott ‘to tuomabut, quit tadtedw ai sotdw yonse ost ab aotteoup gubt font
etutean esi ai goloutvacs bus teolo oa gunehive mnogu beesd ak duyoo
hosted a6 Yoling ectew etnobaogeet teise gnlpal'r ont, athdelad ot Ba
asoet i¢ao't tea toa a90h sabre Fovara bal asda tasdd uate, stuebuogeeh
qinkad 190 bas UWiteiwotireg too.ko2'twe adi. wane't'to . ‘ads ‘patiuditenoo
«itodius otin youd baw , bel tisent esw tobto doismabart ond tadt wode ot
-aerq otelbosmt edt ak boss inca Yquednos fools s tot asses ai wots
lattes: s disiaos sana sebio ont tadt bLod doldw dxuoo St Yo eo.se
bog Ytotuiass ck ,vevevos .gatbsovorg aid” ledoct tetdnsece tha “te
gdabbomil odd Hf bead Lmaon tqustncs A Tot wel aoimios #4 en one Fon
““atve ea? baa erodwtete at auibowsorg eis! -Stue0 ‘eld “to saueaote
word ei ‘eéaepaogest “fo ‘Saasbouak ‘had Peete ‘oad Qu jaktnsd soneb
gouso wlimle ‘wt ‘a@vebto taliaia i gtd diene ‘<0 tata’ ‘a ‘“ potion
ae isa dooareenieas’ ae ae Rvecarsnaee od ad btod wood vad
renee ee Gh fil ¥¥e prey er -r0bt0 ‘dammit
| “OC vag tt ben ‘ oe ah
brooex aids As Aoldweup ‘gab LLoxsinos aay sbovets ‘vbaoris “eA “iro
et tuyoo silt ‘to tiembut bus ‘gutbar't odd ‘wasedw'ek 8f Were ‘ow: ‘as
tthe ant oF: anhodivaee ‘baw Yaolo yLénete lt Yee eousbive yd fontodous
' wantg'tio ie tot ‘ton ai yatbosoorg galt otinw Oe Lay ‘te! aah 4 ons :
‘ waévon You 82 gt Bic joxudem add at Ledtui'ts Yi¥oud¥eds ei do fo Faw
sivenoasot LLe baoyed ‘ad nahaounot te FL tug’ ‘ond tet fades ‘os i
“Yon wt telols t¥eq ott! seau''s tose’ ne Yods Wid dod bad oY edo
SiO "kd BSbxd wad “to eouebive antohitvaice oom" souborg ‘of ‘bowtup i
sal pies sont » tee ati r
at aia’ .a0n TGA ‘at are,
tae si 5 Howe foe ooTgeb amuse ms 08 sibs ‘bias’
‘Soltebive tvitdues baa nletveoay nom qw betot teal ie oe pe Sh
ei + ke oie ngitks
* egananl Et e @ taut od od ‘ee qas Ela pene! me oye adoat
election was held om April 10, 1934, in Chicago, Cook county,
Illinois, and that the respondents acted as judges of election at
such primary election as held in the 4&th precinet of the 27th
ward of the city of Chicago, The clerks of election were Bonnie
Horten end John H. Dona, The judges were Mercedes &. Tuttle,
Viola R. Wojcik, and Emily Thompson, All were charged and a rule
entered against them, Emily Thompson and John Dona died pending
the proceedings and their evidence was not available upon the
triel. Bonnie Horton was tried but found not guilty upen subetar
tially the vine evitdene upon which the respondents were eonvicted.
The trial Judge expressed the opinion that Bonnie Horton could not
be held because she was only a clerk and presumably because her
duties as clerk differed from the duties imposed upon the other
respondents by the facet that they were judges. In substance the
petitioner as against resvondents relies upon the evidence of
Howard A, Rounds, a handwriting exvert, whose qualifications were
admitted by respondents, and whose experience extends over 25 years.
Rounds testified in substarce that he had examined the ballots at
the rooms of the election commissioners in the City Hall on Getober
12, 1935; that he found 129 ballots on which, in his opinion,
there was evidence of “short venciling" in favor of 2 candidates
on the Demseratic ticket and 1 candidate on the Republican ticket.
Photostatic copies of these ballots have been incorporated in the
record for our inspeetion. ‘The markings upon the ballotsare ent
such as in our opinion would be obvious to one not an expert upon
examination, The evidence of the exert is not, however, contra-
dicted by other expert evidende, The evidence shows without cone
tradiction that respondents were not guilty of making these crosses
upon the ballots, concerning which the expert testified, Wach of
them, tor the purpose of determining this question, was asked to
¢’
eee Le a
,etsues feo" ‘ogeoiny “nut beer OL thea 10 bod caw tot tes fs.
ts aoitsots to ce aba ae bodes esasbaogast ould tert baw “atontiit
wast oad ae toatoorg Agen edt af blow ee ‘nob fos fs visalzg pity
j Stamet ozew noltoais Ye “ade fo oat Jogao £10 ‘to veto ould hy
, onset i aobsotei Tew aogbat ‘ost ee au auto bas “nose
yk GR Batt
e Luts 3 bas beptade ‘oust fA “sttoe exe vt ba bre whtotow a eloi¥
i & ea: RR £3
gabbana ‘beth snot rutel bas ‘Monquost ‘Ltt “moat tentoye betes ne
gd bi sie
exis nog elds thera tox acw eoneb ive ‘xisdt baa aantbosoore ost
Pe Te i bald ae a ARS AG Swat ots)
“‘sateden eau wiles ‘fen bainot tud deint naw ‘aottol Shanek fobtt
: Se ow
ibeteivace ‘etew atuebaoqaer ‘oat da bin nogu eoasbive. one at vitett
iw i @olyy ewe % a
ton biueo ‘aottok oLanod tacit Hobadge ‘ont bovoanans eabul abet edt
ag Mae ee
to 6h 4 Sdased Udemomeng bre “Hx fo rs ime aay ote ‘seunaed bios od
as Rares
read o auld Bogs bocomnt eo biub “ont ont bors Tttb fro. ‘es aelsub
Rg a eh. rest
oad Ssnetedve ut eeubut oxew yor ‘tests dost ont vw etoebaogsor
i AE heh Pe G ly
Ng eonsh ive exit ‘meee eelier ‘wénebaccees temtegs es romoit ie
(pare
exov enotsee it Ceup oh ode etre ‘say iawbaad re “absivol a :
ve Be .
<etaey 3 weve pba txe one Laoexe ea oc baw <staobaoge st t #¥. taba
te etotiad "as poabuoxs Pe od tact os anSoden a bottitess ‘shovel
cr a ar
tesoroo ‘so fia yelo odd ‘nt wreiotes Lamas noitoe ts ode to ins
j ehdive ya Ayahadoage
‘po kadgo eld at «sho ket ae » atolias ens paws? ‘on test ;seeL .St
Gt: Bhi ae Ty " eee .
establhaes g to rows me "gut Ltonog Peoria” te oooehive on, ei: .
i dos se hehe Os ie an a9)
tetoté nest séugee esi: so sist ibuso £ hae foxolt oltato ned ost ‘m0
Sot tdeee: C8 vxae
ald ne beisroctoont ‘aged eves atoLied seort to eo2goo otteteotont
poe ek: 4 g 6 juan
ton ows stoLiod od aogk agntsizen ot stot too qn ue xot ‘brooes
} ; Siig ae ‘ear ae" yihe
noqy dt9qxe ae Fox 9a ot anoivdo oc bisow nolateo x80 at ae rose
pug Wier. a % ‘kt Dit ae ' eeypansio
“ort e00 .ssvewor | som eb tregee eatt to soaobive “oat “Molteakeaxe F
: ae se RR Abdi Bd Be ae
“08 duesitiw awore aouobive ext “eprebive drocxe xeto ¥. conta
Se a a ee TRE PERS A EP Bike
aeecoro ener? putin ‘te thes toa etow adaohnoqeet ‘test soktothaxt
. se , Ne ia SRS ietsd, Sahel Yaee
to. dealt “bortioaet sree ‘ont Ho bl ymtortes noo vatotind odd NOOK
ae ; S etek SATO Me ee RA ea, He. URE: aa ws
ot poriae naw woitaoup mr pa carr to onogTae edt tet eo ht
Tae ee a Ce Wi. So RY. THR Eas fy Li Ges WR ~ eiad aah: wes ee ts Bese hd
give a specimen of her writing by making marks in the form of
erosses and each of them did so. They also positiv#ly denied
that they had made any marks upon the ballots or had changed them
in any way. io evidence was produced at the hearing tending to
show that any actual change or changes in the ballots were made
by them or either one of them, The record also shows that these
women have excellent reputations in the community in which they
reside, The charge of the petition, therefore, to the effedt
that they personally willfully and fraudulently marked, altered
and changed the ballots is disproved beyond all reasonable doubt,
The petitioner, however, argues, as we understand him, that it
does appear from the evidence that someone other than these two
altered and changed the ballots; that this was done by permission
of respondents or by their acquiescence; that they were therefore
guilty of misbehavior as officials in this and in counting the
ballots thus altered and changed. There is no direct evidence of
such knowledge or acquiescence on the part of these respondents,
but the petitioner says, “How this ‘short penciling’ could have
occurred must surely have come within the knowledge of the
judges, and the court was correct in holding them responSiple,"
The facts in the reeerd in our opinion do not justify this state-
ment, Respondents gave evidence tending to show diligent atten-
tion 60 their duties as judges of election at the time in question,
The uncontradicted evidence also shows that ether persons were
present, all of whom were charged with the same duty and all of
whom had the opportunity to see any improper conduct with reference
to the ballots. There were present Mrs. Thompson and lir, Dona,
both of whom are dead, There were also present, ag the evidence
shows, watchers for the various parties in interest. ‘Ihe evidence
also shows that watchers for the Better Government Association
were present. None of these possible witnesses were called to
‘te atot of mi eltem goliem we galt dew ted to nemtosge a ovis
| hetnes vtevitieor oats vent 208 (bts meat ‘to dese bas peeeose
met bagoeds bed to avoifed edt ogy aston eae oben bos edit tact
ot gatth ood gilicod sete ts beoubowg aa eoaebivs gi “vaw von ud
ohem etew efoliad edt at aeaneaty, to egnsso Leutos Dae sass vosie
geedd tess avods cata brpsst edt melt to ono todthe 30 mont ww
basis dokcw of Yt Lasoo esi} as saotist ages 19 LLvexe eves somew
@eetto edt of +r ototeds sold tiog ant to sgzaso. oat sobleer
_betetia ,boltem ying ivbuert dae yiivtiliw yiisnosteg yeas te fi
bana eldsaoeset ifs daoyed bevotqath ef etolled exit begnatio. bas
of tend . utd baetexopbay ow as, ,seugta , toveworl steaoly tteq oat i
owt sped? add tedio oncomos tart sopebtye odd mort racque a9) ib
eutesiniin ‘oe sitop ear eke tend jatolled ead, —Sogaasio baie boxstte,
erotetens oxew yedd sasit depmeong epee thesis yd to %9 a¢nebe: 88" t to
edt giiinues at bas eins at afsloltte as olvasedeta 29 yet a0,
to sesebtve doorlh om et etent kegsedo bas bexetia abeis. atolisd
_ APAMPDAQTAAT pnesdd To txag out no goAeoeetmpoe to eybs twoud owe
eved bivoo ‘anitioneg dxoda' etod woll" ,eyee xenoksiseq ost tut
9 To eghe Lwomt ect abddiw eaoo eved (lowe cavum ber 8990
* 26 Ffpgeos mont aaibfod at doetrea eer gtueoo oft pas, .aoabet
~otate aiid ylivent, fom ob, tetnige re at broses em wt agoat eat
wtedte. topgilih words of gathned eosbhive svea esaphaesnge “i trom
swoitaexp ak emit edt te aoltoe ls to, avgbst aa setinh aiodt 9b soit
_ ereW Bioeteg teddto cect awesin oa le sonebive bosoibert nooaw oat J
to ifs has ytub ompe estt dsiw, begresio stew sorw to fhe, _taeseta
oo se %9 tex ag tw toubaos togot quit vile se oF ys iaudtogae oxig, boat ( mos
_ sBMOT nih bate “soegeroct? souk tneeatg onow gree atotiad nt, ot '
sonebive est us . tnoaezg, oasis stow etest .beeb exe. most. to sid od
, “apasbive ost -teototal ok agistag awoiaey ext wot, etosiotew aves
no tteiooaua dusmrevod totted edd sot ezedotaw toms aworls oels
<6 } Fs ala one i
ot betes etew idensenetw Sakae jesad te énon soneeeta otew
evidence of any improper conduct on the part ol these respondents.
The evidence also shows that during a part of the time investigs-
tors tor the Board of Election Commissioners were present and were
there at the request of Mrs, Tuttle; taey also were not called as
witnesses,
The respondents testified and their testimony is reasone
ably consistent and uncontradicted, It is to the effect that they
were present at the opening of the polis at six o'clock a. m, on
the morning of the primary; that the ballots were opened about
five minutes before six o'clock in the presence of watchers from
the Election Commissioners' office; that the ballots were placed
on a table where they remained in view of the watchers and the
poll officials; that the election was conducted in a proper and
orderly manner; that at the beginning of the primary the ballot
box, when opened, was eupty; that Mrs, Thompson, one of the of-
ficials, was suffering from an illness from whieh she has since
died; that Dona, one of the clerks, who has also died since the
primary, was decrepit with impaired vision which rendered him un-
fit and unable to perform his duties; that the voting throughout
the day proceeded without any ocaurrence which would justify
criticism of respondents; that the polling place closed at five
o'clock p. m.; that a recess was then taken that the officials
might eat, they having worked all day without eating; that Mra,
Tuttle had possession of the key to the ballot box, which was
attached to a string about her neek; that she unlocked the ballot
box in the presence of watchers and authorized officials, removed
the ballots therefrom and placed them on a table in full view of
all persons present; that Mrs. Thompeon and Miss Horton were seatdd
at one end of the table: Mir, Dons and respondents at the other end;
that the canvass proceeded until lirs, Thompson collapsed and was
y
8
i ees
7 ei
Ladupbaggass anos to disq ede we toubaeo egoramt Yue, to eonebive
regiteeral emis ont to deen & gait tacts awocs, oats ‘eonobive ostt
c19W bus saoaenrg, stew avenoies Laud mottos sit te, breeél oat tot _Stod
ae. beilso toa otow oets yeas seltowt eee to Spares, ould, te etens
| ; tg ,aseeont iw
~HOABOT. i. yaouttaes atest bite bot rideoe adnebaoges: edt
youd gard tog ite aut of af bs _ gbotetbart soos as ta0gatenoo, vite
MO MM of aiooto' 0 xe ta aliog ot to ant ne qo. oat ta taeaetq orow
duodes boseqe otew avoliad ont tens : orang ous te gat errom ous
ont execodew to someaetq oat at vids: eal aie oroted ao dust ovit
beoalg ot]¥ stolid oats Jandd te! to ‘exomotas tame) Noh toe 8 ae
Caan
‘ eat bas atedasew asd to wetv bes oatoaen yea erociw oldes ae E Md
hoa seqoxq.s ai bedoubaco saw fot $00 19 oat fast ietatoitto flog
Se? tn Ne K
toiled edt yroming els to astaniged: ods ta jade _} te sotea ‘xebre
«to oid to bie eMoaquodt ete jadi ixtqus asw sbomego
Saake ag ode dolnw mort aaoatts Be, aoett gatretiva paw ‘peadass
eat sorta he th, oats atl oiiw seine £9 pat, to ono “amet tas, ybe2s
mus abst botobaey Ao kaw Soke iv botisqut with ttqetooh paw ayeemixa
tuodguoris gaitoy od}, tect jasliuh ela srrotieg od ofdaou bas i
Ptitaut bivow doicdw eons ciue99 yaa twodtiw hobeooorg wb ‘ods
ovit oe beaolo gon lg gat LLog oait saat aroha? ‘ko ) me dott tao
efetoitia edt tans sored 09.08 aew eRe0et s tant ry a! pose
ar tadt jaaltae tuord kw yeb Ife bodtow patved xed tas tiga
saw soldw ,xod tolled esi ou A Sil edt to notaesaacg ge pe octeut
tolfed edt bexlogtas ede dads javen od tyede gaksee s of ‘esootte
bevouot ,aleloit'te Aoairodive bas etodosaw te, soneeong ¢ exis at xod
Fo welv Lint mt efdet @ ao agit boon La bag se orosit atotind » ond
absace etow motto goke bee noe qunostt ata tant tnenerg euoeteg ‘fs
a,
rbee resto, edd te etavbnogeet bine amet, «TM youlitad ex? to bu em te
aow bam hengetioo aoaqugal .o1M tins Aoboaver sett wt te
unable to continue; that irs, Tuttle then went to the ald of Mra,
Thompson; that the condition of Mrs. Thompson became apparentiy
critical, and such as to cause fear that she was dying; that her
husband was called by ‘phone and Mrs. Thompson was carried by
the lady cfficials to the rear of the premises; that during this
time Mr, Dena guarded the ballots, telling the ladies to attend
to Eres, Thompson; that thereafter lirs, Thompson apparently re-
vived and again attempted to perform her duties as an election
official; that respondent Tuttle then telephoned to the Election
Commissioners, telling them of the situation and asking assist-
anes; and was told that she and other officials should continue
to function; that respondentsand other cfficials then again ate
tempted to perform their duties; that respondent Wojcik was
obliged to act as clerk because the impaired vision of Mr, Dona
@isqualified iim from acting; that she continued to do so until
she became hysterical; her own testimony is that the tallies looked
"Like posts" and that she called out she could not tally further,
Mrs, Thttle then said she would have to tell the Kleection Commnie«}
sioners “all about it, because three Democrats can't handle it."
lire, Tuttle then went to the drug store, accompanied by one of
two Better Government Association watchers who were in the polling
place; Mrs, Tuttle told the commissioners, "You have got to do
something, We cannot cope with them," They said they would send a
squad over, Later three men came from the Election Commissioners’
office; the spokesman of the three asked Mrs, Tuttle in a rude way
if she wanted them to weep on her shoulder, She asked him if they
couldn't take the books, ballots, etc., down town and finish the
count; he said, “Mrs. Tuttle, if you were the only one left you
would have to carry on; there is no provision in the Blection Law
that permits me to take one thing." “And I said, "It will take
4
Wn Te blo odd od Yagw nod? eLsdut, eM tend rouatdsoa of etdenu.
‘Ysiaereqge HRGQed Moeguoct .ath ta Molstbags edt test, joonquodtl. ep
tod deds jgniyb saw ate iad? eet ava, ot as doue bas ,legtitzo.
yo bolttseo asy moaquod? ,2tk bate paogg' yd beifso ssw, basdawd., .
eidt antiuh tedd ;eselkentg ext ‘to ta0t eft of eletolTto vbel ont.
bostie of eothel oct gaillet ,etoliad eat hebzeny eaoG, «el emit
et YAtnereqgs soequos? .exM tefteqtedt tadt :hoaquod? .axk ot.
sotivets se ag asiiuh tod mxotiog of hotquotia aiege, bas bevity,,.
noitge tS ot of bemodgelad, medt altiut tashaeqast, test ifotoltto.
~tainas gaives bus noitestie ot to med? gatited,eteaoteatmmed..
esskiaoo bisode sfalot¥io teste bas ede. tedd bLod sew, bus ;e0ms.,
wo ateya, sect efetoitio redo, bas ataghaoqees. tedt ;motgeaut of. —
". gaw ato oW snebnogee: tas? jaettub ahest agotueg of, bed gues.
snot .xM To moiety bextoqut oct eausood wxeLo ge, tos, of boatide. .
fizay oa ob of bountinos ose dads jynttoe wort mse Betttloupets .
betool aaitiet ont, tedt ot ‘Ystomt teed awe tes ; deoixoteys emoe d- ods...
tess? Yiiet) fom bfuoo eile tuo belles erste tend, pee! “ateog ollt"
~einmod solitoe th out Llot ot eved bivow. ede, Bier sos. ofteat .asit we
* $k olhasd,t'na9 atexoousd eer) paugoed ,tt tuods Lis* | atenote..
to ono yd, bstaeqmoooe s°tode sfiladen eds of tno ne sid eLtawt eri
asitiog edt ai stow odw aresdodew okt tax BA tae site vod rotted, Ovi...
ie ob of tog oved, so¥” siieiminee’ ont bLot ofsteT. .exll, i9aeLa:
& base bivow yout hiss, vost, "ad? dtiw egos. tonago oF, _sambstenon
'atonolasianed sotiool® ods mpzt ameo, nom cords toted, . st0v9 baupa,:
yew ohwt s at efitul .ows bodas oetsd edd to aguaetoge exig jooktto.
youd, te wd Pewee o08 .ohivode xed mo, qoow. of most, hosmay,enie Th,
ord ietatt bos swot awed ,.9t9 ,stolled ,ehood edt. exad, ti abiyop..
(HOw, Stef, 90, yao, edt pxow voy, th, ,oLtdut, atk" ,biee on, sdmwos
we. ao 409 13, ont nt sosetvorg om, et otedt, LR BRAD od evel hay
sdet iitw ¢3', dies thas’. "mates, nee eaet gt. om, eittureg, fastt
1c
all night.' He said, 'I don't care if it takes you a week,' and
I said, ‘All right, we will do the best we know how, and if there
is any trouble about it, it is your fault.' He said, ‘0. K,
sister’ and went out." As a matter of fact, the tasks of these
eleetion officials ware not completed until 1:30 p, m. of the
following day. The trial Judge was right when he said, “It was
absolutely inhuman to ask them to do it,"
These respondents are women of good reputation, There is
no evidence that either of them changed any ballot, On the con-«
trary there is positive proof which shows beyond all reasonable
doubt that they did net do any such thing, The trial Judge ex-
préessly exonerated them from any intentional wrong doing in the
counting of the ballots, Yhe finding of guilt as to them rests
entirely upon the epinion of the expert as to the fact that some
of the ballots were "short penciled," coupled with the unquestioned
facet that respondents could not explain when or by whom the ballots
were changed, The investigation upon this point was by no means
complete when the number of witnesses whe were present is consid-
ered. This finding of guilt as to these respondents is net sup-
ported by evidence which should convince a court of their euilt.
The judgments as te both respondents will therefore be reversed and
the cause remanded,
REVERSED AND REMANDED,
O'Connor and McSurely, JJ,, concur,
OL
dae! rleew # wey egies s2.t2 even taoh I! ,bier of. .ddighm tte
exexlt 21 bas, ,wod wont ew fuod est ob Litw ow ,fouts LtA' ,btne. I
ot 0! abise of ',tivet tuoy at 72,34 suoda siduort yn at
saoid to exend odd ,foet to totiam eos “two taow bas, ‘rodala
_. edt to. ,¢ 08:4 Litas batolqmoo Jon etew alato tito Mottoate
Rew tI" ,btee od ade tégix aay oghet iain? es? ved gatwoLto?
ay ' Mate ob oF meds anes ot sa a iotuloeda.
at stedt eo bea tyges boog 10, Apatow ets, esnepaocet dope ae ee
Hoo ould m0 .toLsad ys begnesde mont to xoddto dest souebive. om
eidenosset Lf buoyed avons doddy Yoowg oyisteod ef otedd yrest
pee egbst faints eat .gaidt dove yne ob ton BEB vost tect sdyob
20d a4 yatob gaotw, Lenotteodat yas, most most be detenpgoxe, vLouera ¢
adeet moss of as tiiva to gatbait ett . gatotiad, ost 9 anitases
emoa tedt, togt edt of 20 stax ext To soksigo, exit, nogs wiastige
benoltasngous, ont, ativ belguoo ", botionsg, Stoda" erew tpt ten. a60 2°.
atoliad sat mosey yd to nodw ateigxe ton bluop stashaods t tant dog?
BigOM Of yd aew datog aisd soqu noliegitaeval eat wdonmeste J dl
~bianoo ak sussetq stew ow aouasatin to todmun ead nie si, ete Lqnige
~qua fon ait adoobuoqast gaecdd of ae sim Yo gakbatt. fl Yo ool
Per Aw
ce DRM YAP | RRR a R ig Ae geno ;
Bercct Cia oxenuven Sh By wihenbigy Hy oo 2 oo a aw ORO: ba
Baia dined econo precy Rina
eS seers, “f «gree Ea
e by Zi i felis vila *
REE RANE: BRD. RU ARO RG ae Dr Wiebe Si Bee i, hae aa
toe Ga wt Fi ah havo
fi . *
‘ (ORE oy Meee ef 1 oes :
eS RM Ae) prod G i Luo " :
ee a ae din: AOR ee sp POE
Tae NAS ye |
59314
CHICAGO TITLE AND TRUST COMPANY, )
Trustee, etc., ) i
Appellee,
APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT
vs )
‘ } COURT OF COOK coUNTY.
GEORGE PLACZKIBWICZ et al., )
Defendants.
On Appeal of WALTER PLASH, y
Appellant, 9 O [A 5 9 8
MR, JUSTICE MeSURELY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
This is a fereclosure proceeding in which a decree was
entered finding that Walter Plash, a defendant, was the owner and
holder of certain bonds aggregating $3100, with interest coupons
atiached, but decreeing that they are subordinate to the lien of
all the other unpaid bonds, with interest; Walter Plash appéals
from that part of the decree wnaich holds that these bonds should
be subordinate and asks that they be heid to be on a parity with
the bonds of the plaintiff and all the other bonds secured by the
trust deed,
January 15, 1926, George Placzkiewiez executed his 53
bonds totalling $25,000, secured by trust deed conveying the
presiises therein deseribed; the bonds bore interest at 6% per
annum and matured at different dates, the last of them maturing
January 15, 1933; bonds Nos, 1 to 8 aggregating $4000 were paid
at their respective maturities and canceled,
On or about January 15, 1933, when the loan matured
Placzkiewicgz solicited the bondholders for an extension of time
within whieh to pay the principal and fer a reduction of interest
from 6% to 3%; the master found that at this time he made repre-
sentations to the bondholders that the balance oi the nantioiine
debt then due was $18,000; in reliance on these representations
the owners of a majority oi the bonds executed written agreenenta
‘¢
$15 08.
~YHAWOO TQUAT CUA LITIY ODA THO
4s9%@ ,eeceut?
b
ae ae ‘ MMe sh es ifedqa? 26550 £56 prkeee
PLUDAIO MOWEL GARTIA '
ee RN fie 2) f egg A Or She Fi |
.YTHUOD 4000 HO TAVOD
: gee we _ofe f> SPTWETINOAat ‘eaROLD
; ag dnenatte sng 8
\ en, : | ‘ HAI ArTgAN 2 % Eaogeh | 10,
BOS AT OCR © vsmuatbeaa
Sie aGY 2.5,
HD Sh dea BS
»UHU00, BHT 1O MOTNIGO ERY CHARVIIC YUEAUROM @OITEU . AM
Wee ee yay i arth
aaw setosb @ ‘ota at gat bseoorg exueoLoatot 8 og abt
Leon €s Spee woes
bun teawo ould nav tombe red & tae £4 sod isw tant nsenrtamatell betes ae e
atioquoo eas adie , d0re4 gat tepotsan waked pre ine be wb Lot
to ake atid oe odsatbrodus ats qed duit ‘gakooxoen ont ‘bolomtee.
a esque thas LT wt iat iteow tat thw eas bLequ ged pen ‘Tis
bison none onout fauit ‘ebLox iotaw awtees oud ‘Ye Haag faut mort
“de itw ‘qiiasa s wo od at ‘bLou bi yous “fod eas | Recwrd stondbrodun of,
ould i horus "¢ absod weno ed Lhe ban slenern tg Bbaed ro
: | sh tv 8 ay a, SThhe
58 ate beduosxe solwoiinoat eun000 osee aL _yeaueeat
aid aakyevaeo boob ‘fewss ve betus9e 4000, ase gabttados abaod
| 194 &e ta taetesat orod abies oat ibodbaonsh atexouts poainorg.
gaitwten igntit ‘to vat oid go rast th te heiwitem ats: Fevepetes
Pesianet geEe wet
— ereaw lyn a 8 of £ ,eou ebciod (66eL ed paouant
ie Lowen hos agic¢icuten evitosaeot sheds ,. oe
betvtem seol sat aonw BbeL at wiestel aeqde ro a ‘ove? a
omit to MolensIxe am tot awed Lonbiod eult botloifoa noiweidaostt
geotesnt to aoltoubsx # tot bre ‘Pictontty eat wa ot alo Lelw abdtiw
~otge% ebau on omit eidt ta tadd powe't xojeam est pRE ov we sont
ageytiom est ‘io sonstad out axis ereb Loubnod out ot anolts? ase
anoltedaeaerqet oasis a0 omni fo ak ;000,848 asw oub neat tdeb
aicemerge netsdsuw botuoexe abnod exis ‘to ctixotem a to ateawo oo
assenting to these preposals and for a time some of them received
interest at 3%; others received nothing, so that in Novenber,
1935, this foreclosure proceeding was commenced, Walter Plash
filed his answer asserting that he was the legal owner and holder
of bonds ageregating #3100,
At the hearing before the master Plash, the son of de-
fendant Placzkiewiez, appeared by counsel and introdueed in evi~
dence bonds Nos. 14, 20, 21, 50 and 61, ageregating $3100, uncan-
celed, and asserted that he owned them; however, he, by his cotne-
sel, agreed that the master might find that the lien of bonds Nos,
14 sand 21, aggregating $600, should be subordinated to the lien of
all the other bonds, and the master found accordingly, and found
that bonds Nos, 20, 50 and 51, aggregating $2500, belonged to
Plash and were on a parity with the other bonds,
Some time thereafter a petition was filed by the bondhold-
ers' protective committee, alleging that all the bonds held by
Plash had been paid by the maker, his father, and should be marked
paid and canceled; a re-relerence was had to the master and evi-
dence as to these bonds was heard, In brief, it was developed
that Plash Lived at home with his father until about the j'ali of
1934, paying no board; that he was employed on a delivery route
by a dairy company. Placzkiewiez, the father, procured the bonds
in question, uncanceled, from the holders, but both Plash and his
father testified that in se doing the father was acting as agent
for the son. ‘Their testimony is vague and contradictory in many
details, Plash knew that his father, when he was seeking an ex-
tension, furnished a statement to the bondholders that the amount
of the unpaid mortgage was $18,000; he knew that several of the
bondholders, relying upon this representation, executed agreements
extending the payment of the principal and to accept 3% interest
a =
fds &
hevieos. mend to eixoe sutd « rot has aleacnsrg oaesd of pattneges
tadasvoll ni tect oe ,gukdten bovieoos exodto ;RE ta Yeorodnt
eof ted LeW bee ttsaar09 ase yothosootg eiueofostot s kris {Beer
£86 Losi brie apie fagel od exw od tacit, ant taeene towers atid beLit
- ,00£88 paltegetass anand te
2 4b ‘Yo noe out elt tedeen eit supted. ‘pubiaen’S. aac ee
whee “ped boowh ort nt Bate tansures ud bertseqqs ,solweindzes [FT sashast
~asoms ,QOLSY gaitegotgne) , £0 bre 08 £8 ,O8 uhh: eoR ebnod: eoneh
=abes add xd sad ecgghal ae paced nouns ost tant Bortenas bas boleo
-aoil abaod to ao hf acid tedt ‘back tga rotesa ‘ont ted ‘henrge fos
MER Beees ok. *
20 apt oat ot Sedantbrodue og Sivasia «0008 ‘aaltanetsae 8 ban Me
> SS dit 4
bawot baw lgatiroses bauo’t xotoas outs bas seband ‘xodit'o baie i
: i om eee Bae”
ov bagnossd (00886 anttegorase a baw 8 108 aot abnod tart
; AS O Bis } BY ie
-abaod sods yong ighe utined ® xo orew bas den £4
-bfoabmos ous tw bot? aan note iteg a aestest0 ef ae at aot
2 vd Biss abnod ons ‘tte tacts aniye ite ‘e0t¢ Lnmoe bas Pa indy
Sexxan od pipette ban peep te ean texte om a 3 Fen gf a ie Pe <i
~ive bos a ane “ ban or cout tez~91 a ibe tones am bing
ie gaa
beqoteve enw st teins nl sree ‘aew sbuod ° “ot a2 ooneb
we i 3 Re ¥ Se -
to Liat oud i woss Abt rosea’ est sithw ‘ood he ie if daord dade
, pirat ;
eau0x wt vite 6 Ke bevorque ane est jest ibusod ‘os abe be eer
ee es, Ra aetiiiae en TUG RE
abnod ous bexuootq sweater oust ssolwebinos £4 seneqaoe : se ud
Spee CAG ca iment
ein bas ton £4 ited aud ered iod ould ‘sor’ -bo Leoaeo.au Ho tteeup
hs OLE wy ou ie oh Pi a
tnege a8 gattes aa ‘sositat ous ‘aathob oa at test be tries? toriget
P a pe Mel eo eR Ue u
yan at qiodo Load ao9 ‘bas owe ek ‘womiteas stoa? sttoe osit ‘a
hr leap tos Ai Lee eesS
i gabions enw od ‘oan ‘sreUds ata sass wort sas LE pon cy no
: i 9 gas Ve oe ieee wehst give
Sawoms odd fants e406 Losthaod cit oo taenedsde * bese hoes not enot
RRRE, ei, bead Oe © i. samen’:
edt te faroves touts wort ont :000, 88 eur eecdzon tan eit to
ad eps a owe: et Ree beet wee
a noneet ye, detuooxe raokts! sesatge? absid souit ylot ,erehlosbaod
ued LANs 8 KR Be wan pany oooh
one" odd baetxe
: , Peete tad RE ‘tqe008, ef, bee ieqonlta . Bad bs ety Pigs are sis
inetead of 6%. Witnesses testified that Placzkiewies said he
had bought up $3000 worth of these bonds although they were not
canceled, ‘these facts, together with other details, eonvinved the
master, who heard the witnesses testify, that the bends waich
Plash claimed to own had in fact been paid by Flaczkiewics, the
mortgagor, and found that they should be marked paid and canceled
and their lien extinguiched,
Placgkiewicz and Plash filed objections tc the report which
were argued as exceptions beleorg the chaneslior, Placzkiewicz had
testified that his son had said, in subsiaice, te pay the ether
bonduolders first - that he would be “the last one you pay. Pay
the rest of them and you pay me with what is going to be left,”
The chancellor was evidently impressed by this testimony and suse
tained exceptions to the master's report and found that Plash was
the owner and holder of the bonds in question, but that he had evie
denced an intention te subordinate them, together with sil unpaid
interest coupons, and it was decreed that all of the bonds which
Flash owed should be subordinated to the outstanding bonds,
in this court Plash argues that there was no consideration
for the alleged subordination by Plash of his bonds to all other
outstanding bonds, We de not think it necessary to decide thie
question for we are of the opinion that the master in his supple-
mental report properly found that the bonds Nos. 14, 20, 21, 80 and
51, aggregating $3100, had been bousht by Plaezkiewics, the morte
geger, irom various bondholders and he thereby became the owner and
holder of them, with interest coupons; that for the purpose oi con-
venience Placskiewiez transferred them to Plash, bis son, but that
Plash acquired no greater right or interest in them than Paaczkie-
wiez nad; the master found that the lien of these bonds and interest
coupons” on the real estate involved was canceled and extinguished,
£
Nah
6. hiss solwoiizoa ld text beititeos sezeont iW he to _peotant
# ou axew yous phos Le Bhnog seed 20 Leribe 90086 AM, dlguod bed
end heomtvaos sPitases neds sit iw xsiitegot atont ues? re agree
; , Heder ebuod writ teas sYtitass aoecens tr ext based | osdw Mhds sa
ent anivetdnealt ee bleqg aeed sox't al bes are hd bealato apa it
Bs Soe niles
beloonige bas Say bewzsm ed biuosde yous deren fh awe bao teased tom
abode Lugathoce nett aleis aus
ag katw troaes ads 98 anciteetde boit? Seal hes " golwatisoest ; ee
bad sotwotisoal’ tod Leonia oat az6 ted anos goose as douse omy
me nesito ons eq od spoussedue wd bio Sot m8 aoe dats bolitéect
; wet eG oy $s10 taal aus” of ssa “ fast ~ ferit sxebioibns
® tes 6d o¢ gatog | al tasty sit kw om wa sox bas pais Bah toes oe
“a8 bas (nom seed abst ee boseorgul wtuabive aaw teiLtoousite oct
aewW tan £4 tant bawo? bas troget 0 a! redeem ane of _aaolsqooxe beatas
~tve bast oa saad sud mol ieonp ak absod oat to xobiod has oawo out
Riegel fis ad dw xoritonos 2 Mans etentirodua a noianeeat aa. bqoned
* ee
ni tio befw abnod eat te iis and boetoes aew a bas “yanoqune ih taoresal
ebctod gatbnogetwe suid od boteatbrodua od biuede bowre ast
eh Dede bavinte
noltereblenco on anW ones seats by ot sonal desi suo9 asst hae Wh
Spee
sedto Ife ot ebnod ats to sao re xe nol teatbrodus beaotta or hy
ats eblogh ot crsaaeoed ti aetats ton ab ach abated anubasdasue
mole se abd re to teem oat sect aoistgo ey 10 - oe ‘tot | Moitueup
has 02 ,fS , 08 ht nol ser eas iy cgi bawol te gora frog & sssaom
; L573 ie
#7 om ext a0 Iwo fixes {4 ws tig wod used bac 100484 galtegorase +B
aan te awe nit onnood ytoreds a bre exeh Laub nos auetiay ; wor 0883
Guts ce
“foo ‘te se ogtg ont rot dass jeuogaeo: Seow eat ashe sas ~~? —
tact tus. . 708 eit .iiae £5 et moi bowtetoawst } noimetisents rg ome
~oitzoast want oat Ps teonesid x0 tgs wesnong oe ‘bexiupos seals
teers dtd bao absod eueaty 0 a0 tt ‘oxit ‘test bawot tetas pein =. oh
.Doide ugatts bas be eonee aw y boviovid ; otares or miter ; i
if ,
Plaintiff in its brief asks this court that the degree be
reversed and that this court enter «a decree in accordance with the
findings of the master in his supplemental report. Upen orai
argument counsel stated that it was immaterial to plaintiff
whether this be done or the decree affirmed, evidently thinking
that it made no practical difference to plaintiff whether the
bonds claimed by Plash be canceled or subordinated te the lien
of the other bonds, Under these circumstances, and tor the
reasons indicated, the decree is affirmed,
AFYIRMED,
Matchett, P. J., and O'Gennor, J., concur,
«
eel AEG BORO E MLS he Ritiseed wewyncy i a Ry iemahy'a
ob Oud Sadt Putos cbt? aden Soked ooh ab Wadd
er, Sree ‘o Wan Riise EPI Pee ae ie MBER d Ry
eis sid eousbrovos ut ooxoed a todas Fauoo eb 4 pores
Gy POUR AN Re 4 ae eS YH hae tie RY A — me — wee e%, ‘
fare sogl .duoqet Let ao Iqque ‘eae ott te "dpabbudt
MK aes She Inet ,eheeos poregs ty Dw Gale sai Pim aie
¥tivatalq of kwixo tame saw +f tadé ‘bebo fsenveo 18
OSM BERN H 6 URIS 4
at wed THek ws Bem ewe oF & de
gabadabis visuebive bout Ita setosh sit to omoh sd abet fe adnass
wn ey See Mab COMM RPS oH DAB we gay ee at Dias %
eit tedto.siw Vitale tq of sonore Tih tautveatq os Guim Ti bas
gt? eer § nel bap ed Die
melt exlt of betanibrodua t6 beLlevuss ot destt
SRA NR GR MTT Pid aeelsoetde Doli? dealt bee ante inanet
; ey tot bas aeons demerits onset tobaU ,ebnod wedto ont te
aati soiwetizen ts Qi ceetite Cee oie tag oe aa cae ‘i magia ote w
. ; shout The at setosh salt
Helo oe Veg oh aes Ow mh y Bid ds dona sae al sane: belthaned
Bir cewar | bei Ne wane
Dita sees wee eee Week aale* ot Beiew ee. ‘piano rere srepsodnang’
© 2 hay aol oy 3eon al Fane Mae Se yee
stanton ..b , S16 bas og
woth cb BRS cnont shed” phe es bonesudid whi ruth aa “ead foaaite ont
POE Nig
say tae tt tang? suas bay shoget a aedeem out as nant ioogme heated
Ph Bs aes HEE A "e
“em Sa OH SRT’ feu smobteins tk abtiatl salt % pobkes be, ron auld
hivenw £2e Hp 2% ction, we P <mate ats ht 10d oo jah tee ee Ma Bio mtb
7 3 if al i aan Fame |
ae kite ehride pet oe tie 2 amait bowiens wee tn ham wae eget fos
edie yaline it ae Par ee no tanh oti os hsres.ientt hea ae Lt
yer FR n eye” Rea Mee
HOLFSAOLE cee OS MR BR TWAT Ry Na sins taues ate a
, ius i Alo, he tt wee Ba ei
aeaihe Ate oe abe ake Be dent ot nad Randxodes begs ahd
Gane whe wk os WeRitee Mee eS * eases at af hye ate até a
: Ae ti i
we) LORS RR e Sho hate
Pete: AE ag LR UR cite ae ¥
Se eae Rg aS iat calpads ER eG ose sen toads cr] Sh
WE. Shity BROS one pioout aaa sh Rit sith Louib.108 awedeny: r't. |
Pita Oar! 1B he
ie eo Bee wae Cee as qe wnigsn@ vawrea dik sardinia Fit de a ‘
‘ an F or (RED
gust fee ane Kiet gia MR gt alent boven toad saleonoass ‘ognie icww
Pil Wek ead
oiavghd gasd sowie ik twat ie tater cota “ga her tape: » Mae ES
- eg tage ha
PHOT EME Hae wh te ears “te meee so duke haces Ischia ‘etd Licqote-wetl
ie Resi 3 ce oo
obiotit Legit taxes haw docootne ew r herdowe eevee iowt slaved oxi uhae
a dieicteor
~
39327
MARY BLAGAY,
Appellee,
APPEAL FROK SUPERIOR COURT
v5.
OF COOK COUNTY,
QGITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal
Corporation,
ee ee
Appellant. Z
2901.4A.598
MR, JUSTICE MeSURELY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
An automobile in which plaintiff was riding with her
husband was struck by a fire department truck of defendant; she
brought suit and had judgment for $1500, from which defendant ap-
peals,
The accident happened April 14, 1935, at 6:50 p, m, at
the intersection of Western boulevard and Archer avenue in Chicago;
Western boulevard runs north and south and is intersected by Archer
avenue, which runs southwesterly; the automobile in which plaintiff
was riding was driven southwesterly in Archer avenue; when it came
to Western boulevard it stopped at the northeast corner, waiting
for the green traffie light; when the light turned green the auto-
mobile started across the boulevard at about five miles an hour and
was within three feet of the western curb line of Western boulevard
when it was struck by defendant's north bound truck, throwing plain-
tiff out of the car and injiving her,
The truek was a supply truck, used at the time in hauling
dirt for fixing a garden for the fire department; it was empty and
Was returning north on Western boulevard to the equipment shop;
when the red light went against Western boulevard traffie ten or
twelve north bound cars on Western avenue stopped at the south side
of Archer, but defendant's truck swung to the left and went sround
them on the left side of the safety island and on across Archer,
through the red light, while the traffic was moving in Archer with
tse
{ 0A RG
rae eto Lisqga
ame SO1sTave MORY UAWIIA re
arty a00D 0
faqiotag’’s ,ODAOTHDS 46 YTD
,totsatoysod
tinal fle ¢gA
“BBE ET OCS ee el ten oe ea
),2aYOO SHY XO. MOLMIGE GET aEAIvIaRa XOMMUGOM HITE ae”
sed o¢iw yoibis asw Veldateta so baw ak eitdonotua on
Cie a
ede ;taabasteb ‘to aout taemttegeb ont? s ud Mews as basdasust
~qe tnehae ted to teiw ssott't ~CRLIE tot soeagbut bed base tlue Joguord
rr
fren Ot Fe,
ta ,M@ .@ 08:8 tea abeL ave Liaqa hauparnet saben ont
jogscisd at exaeve teslotA bas btaveluod areteeW to aoltosatetal sat
todotA yd botoostetai of bas ddyoe bas Aiton sant buevetvod aretasW
Viliatele dokiw ak eLtdomotue ont ;yltedeowddvos anus cio atv ,ui0 ve
geen ¢l oscw jeuneve tedetA ai yireteewituoe mevixh naw gathit saw
puisiew ,tecres tasesdtiron edt ta begqote th beavalued aretee® ot
-~otue edt neetg bomtut togil ont sodw ;oeiy hl of ttetd meetg odd tot
bos twod om eolim evi tuods ta brevelwod ent evaonos hetirate oLidom
bievelyed axeseoW to sali div ateteow edt ‘to test serdt nidtiw sew
-atelq yatwouls ,xostt bavod strom e'snebaetes yd doutta eew ¢2 nostw
tod gatrihad bus x29 esd to suo Tite
gtthined mt emi¢ edd te boas dowd ylaque # eew vouxd edt |
bas ytqme aew tk jdoomstsqeh oti? odd tot mebteg gatxlt tot stb
:qorle tneagiups et ot bievelwod aredeoW ne dtros gaiituser saw
to ast oftlerd brevelwéd oretaoW tentage toew ddgtl bot ext aexw
pbhis cduon oct ts beqqode oumeve axreteeW no sie9 bawod adton eviews
basots taow bas Stel ess o¢ gavwe aowtd a'snsbae'teb tud ,tedotA To
Tete agotoe m0 baa bas lak ytetee edt To ebie Stel esi no: moatt a
tidw todetA ab gaivom eaw olttaxt ext eLisw ,tigil bow ent aguonds
the green light; there was evidence that the driver of the truck
was intoxicated at the time,
Mr, Blagay, plaintiff's husband, who was driving the auto-
mobile, could not see the fire truck because of a large Buick cer
traveling on Archer just south of him which shut off his view;
when the Buick car reached the center of Western it made a left
turn, to the south, and immediately thereaiter the truck struck
the automobile in which plaintiff was riding.
The evidence shows that the truck in question was not
being operated at the time in any governmental capacity. It was a
supply truck used at the time in hauling dirt in making a reek
garden, it was obviously used in a ministerial capacity. The
automobile involved in Johretgnv, City of Chicago, 255 Ill. 494,
wae used at the time of the accident by employees of the City in
conveying books from one library to another. It was neld that
this was plainly a ministerial duty and the City was liable,
Other eases involving similar facts in which the defendant city
wae held liable sre Devine v, City of Chicago, 213 I11. App. 299,
Schmidt v, City of Chicago, 284 I11, App. 570, Wasilevitsky vy.
City of Chicago, 280 I11. App. 531, and Hanrahan v. City of Chicago,
289 Ili, 400, Im the light of these decisions and the circumstances
in the instant case, defendant must be held liable,
Plaintiff aleo asserted that even if defendant was at the
time operating the truck in a governmental capacity it would be
lieble under the statute relating to the liability for injuries
caused by the operation of motor vehicles by members of municipal
fire departments while engaged in the performance of their duties,
approved July 7, 1931. Chap, 24, par, 987(1), L11,.State Bar State,
1935. The major part of defendant's brief ana argument makes the
contention that this statute is unconstitutional and void, The
Civil Practice act (chap. 110, par, 203) requires that all cases
&
Ws oh
toch, ody ‘to xevixb ent Stadt sonebive saw etedt ;tighl seta a
4 is , etamnkd on te besagtmetak Cr aa
-otue oy gulivink saw one), baedamd g' tritateLe veuaedl oth
tao dolvtt egtel a to saggoed Aowtd | aed out eee ton bie " oLtsom
mene BG)
ye
sweiv alc Tro ¢wiie dokidw mtd to idtuoe ‘baat roots 19, gabiovent
whet 2 obs at ony 36 OW %o ted aes ‘esis boxonex tas ‘ae bull edt sosw
‘aownta marek eat ‘wes teoedi yleca thonms bas acghbrch ent ot aed
ee ““galbix saw Taliniale deldw ab otidenstia edt
ton aayv colteeup ot aoutt addy sacd jawode eoaebtve, ail,
a sew dl: .ystosgao fatosmrrevey yaa at, emks.odt te. hoteteqo,anied.
woot e gitiesm at die yotived at emit od ta, hoew Aownt yigquey.
eal .y¥slosqeo Isiretatoia » oi beew ylewolvdo eaw #1 .mebtage
,h@b £11 882 joges ol at bavfoval etidosdotue
‘ak ytlO 62 to aoegolqus yd Saebisog ent to eaté ant) ta bean) sew,
ject bied sew #2. ,tettens) of yisxdiL eno aot? ateood, gatgeraosy
{SLda2L eaw YO ost bac youd: talredetute m yintaty ese. elds,
Ntio tushneteb edd siodsiw ot atest soiimtea gaivioval asaas seis0-
, C8 . ak . fT S48 yopeo dtd be : rod ate. ofdatl bled nam,
ax edativeties® ,O%e .qgA ft 288 meno AB
seoustesuetio od bis enote loeb, sasds to tdgil edt al. 44908, wtfl @6S.
' .tideiL bled ad taum ¢arbao'ted ,seeo dastaat ond ab,
ent te aaw tuabastebh If seve padt bodeeeee cede Thigmiel’ ».. yy)»
od bivow #2 ytloeqan Ladaonmtevey « at Aovrt edt pattetege omtt
evtiwiyat tot yrtitidals ot o¢ gabte lor otutete edt neobry eldatl
faqiotoum ‘to etodmaa yd seloicdey. notom Yo natsersqo, dt Yd heaueg,
aoktub ‘wield to somenne'taeg est 2 Hogegan ottse edapadsegeh ont,
Moats We ototA L172 ( (LVS Vung [OE sae «MOL yh qi hoveraar
gid wekaw Chommyte bas loitd etashasteb te treq tober ot Rb OL
$a {biov' bes Ledoltdthtenooms wh etutate abit tent molinetgee =
‘genase fie tal? eortuget (C08 yasq0Lh .qada) des ealtontt Livi ’ te
3
involving the validity of a statute whould be appealed to the
Supreme court, and ii it be taken to the Appellate court the party
taking the appeal will be held to have waived the constitutional
question. the People v. Lawson, 351 Ili. 507, 509. We therefore
shall not attempt to pass upon the constitutionality of the act in
question.
Defendant questions the sufficiency of the statutory notice
of the accident and injuries filed with the City, saying that the
plaintiif?y failed to prove that she resided at the addreres given in
the notice, The point is without merit, It was sufficiently
proved that she resided at tne address of her husband given in
the notice,
The judgment is affirmed,
AFFIRMED,
Matehett, P. J., and O'Connor, J., concur,
: '&
“ht oe Wo Wiston 66 twain Resa a "to WENA il ‘atc
we edt ¢xs0o etalfocga etd ot aexed ‘ad st "T.' ‘bas “demos émor que
" fanolt st t¥anos éu# beview eved of Bled ea Lindl facos ‘oue gatdet
‘Stoteriat ow 80a We" /i4T 182 jmeawed . oot edt «sai
ont Wid
ws ‘08 ‘edd “to Nall bast halls exis ilonyi aq
Pes Ms CSS EPR R Re tag oes & acne “tae se Soil i aotdeuup
eoitod ‘qrodudsts ‘ent “to yonstoi tive ry eitoltes dp ‘Bitadled? oe
oct ‘fant guiyse ,ysid out “ddiw hott ‘gekeut di ‘bas idabi oad Sak .
nk tai vig saothbe od¢ a boblact sxe tan svoxq of beltet itsatele
°°" Vepnottotttde sew GT jdivom tuodsiw of fatoq’ edt “Jeotson sas
laaieoel Leman ‘ta 0 aoabo x3 te Bobiadt sia Fads ‘bovedg
Mat “eblanees see Ke wv wk beng “samalyty sat Keroro
eo haeciere £2 seeeltoswi wd: (ues
peLeea dt wae yekd » Se ane ies
oo dmies bet owt cee at peeled fede pete tow, aoane. Hao etay,
LA REE SRNR, ORR, laa tL, Didi et, sat
oc Rl SN is
whet Be woh. oe wuae cue Mra. (AED ca tithe’ wih OR » aay bil, Ze, 0th.
See br ae ey rt Rae ier Gb iia mia doe Pitty a. aan as iii we sie Ye «keke 5 wh hh WER
bots bios ef tee dopo tab opees, Peeases pe ah,
gow fhabaetet 22 eaey Awl edie ee. ee
i ion. Pub: se ma eunt: Ape emi eR: PR BMS aR geek cuwento mee Se
eweuvek coe Chahta ds at a Qaeew ia edema yolum eldphs
Cie bedaees ee eMwRS NU owe: Leconte aed dt. Mi em dane RL aE Rh
ne
#
y
~
<
tx
x
aa
i
&
=
Ss
me r Bs Noite Oiticad es Ha ti) so eatiay ely yy, dbp oh hy Sea , Ce
WERE Me OHO AER QV hh VRE BA ghee: eo ery: ts nga, cha ermine
hae
iva tien? 0 aint oft O22 gays Do kD, oe Bee
st Dene ee ean AOR
vat waked Poort’ 2 tose Qh era tiy De haa eRe aM ul ohhh Hah ie
pone Oke: Samle wads ey roe nyrmang YON / alemcoy haem saldann’, sane
EE Tg RA Gh thee fag near sie oay cann na ea ine ES CARED eRe thse 5 ah FeO EI. aa
39383
THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, a banking
corporation, as Trustee under the Last
Will and Testament and Codicils thereto
of JOST# HAWBURGER, formerly JOSIE
L, STBIN, Deceased,
)
)
;
Appellse, )
APP#AL FROM SUPERIOR
VS,
COURT OF COOK COUNTY.
ALADAR HAWBURGER, SIGMUND LAWTON,
HAROLD BE, LIESBENSTHIN, FLORENCE L,
HICKNAN, CHARLES SHARPLESS HICKIAN,
RICHARD S, LAWTON, ANN LAWION, a minor,
WALTER LAWTON, MARY LOUISE LIEBENSTEIN,
HAROLD E, LIEBENSTEIN, Jr., a minor,
LESTER E, FRANKENTHAL, MICHAEL REESE
HOSPITAL, a Corporation, THE JEWISH
CHARITIES OF CHICAGO, a Corporation,
BERTHA 0. MAYER, JENNIE WAYER, and
person or persons not in being,
Defendants.
FLORENCS L. HICKMAN and CHARLES
SHARPLESS HICKMAN,
Appellants,
MR, JUSTICS MeSURELY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THe COURT,
fhe Northern Trust Company as Trustee, plaintiff, filed
its bill asking leave to resign as trustee of a $LO0C ,0CCO trust
created by the first codicil to the last will of Josie L. Stein,
deceased; defendants Florence L, Hickman and her son, Charles
Sharpless Hickman, filed what is designated as a counterclaim,
asking for a construction ef the will in certain respects here-
after noted; plaintiff moved to strike this counterclaim, assert.
ing among other reasons that it had been filed prematurely; the
chancellor sustained this motion, and irs, Hickman and her son
Charles, defendants, appeal from this order,
Plaintiff alleged that on April $0, 1935, Josie Hamburger,
formerly Josie L. Stein, departed this Life, leaving a last will
and testament and two codicils thereto; the complaint summarizes
the contents of the will ana ecodicils and asks that the court
SBERE
giidesd @ (YMAIMOO T2UNT ARZHTAON BRT
vesd ond sshaw getentT es , aoliatogte
efetedd afiothol baa snaustes?. bare Loew
RR Sh pom t: ,AEQAVUEMAH AIEOU to
Ee: ' y baawoeet> earl
.204f9¢Gh
MOLSMGUG MOT LANTSA
+
“98¥
(
a
«XYTKUOO.. MOOD ZO: TAVOD. - raed i 2 + ¥Qnaee Git Lee
,SOTVAL GHUMOTa ,AROAURWAN AACAJA
wi SOMEAOIN . MINTS UNE TE 2% GiORAB
,HAMAOTN BARIGHARS BUIAAHO , KAMDIOTH
jsoukm « ,HOTWAR HMA : * GHAHDIA
*MIRTEMSEHIT BRlvOr ot van HOTWAI A@TIAY
ptomia s,s , POSTAMSERTS .e GaORAn
seen IM ,JAHTHEMMAR ,B METSEI
He lwet ;mobteroared & ,daATIGBOR
10 List 0qx09 a ,QDADIBD €O aury
: oo: tae set af tes ane (HaYAM™ a Lae a,
fe om agrees Pies soaze
Bec.A.1L0e
; « re oe § bess
pepercu baie Fapereng en a ‘Ramat
ae (WAI I BBR TIAAHS
aiunthouss pipes
.eauoo sk? so aorurdo SH? qunuvtint Yarnveen ‘ep Itaut a”
bedit ,ttizuielg ,setewr? ex yanquod tewtT ozedttol eat
gents 000,C0L@ 3 to setauts sa — of eveol yattas Lid ett
.ttet@ .t ofeot ‘to LLiw seal edt of Lhothoe tertt sid yd beteeto
aeitesD ,goe ten boe meodolh .d eonet ort atnabas'teh ;benseoeb
abe Lote mires g# as Seotengiasb ait tarw belit Santo th sxelquede
-9194 etoeqaet olaiteo mi Iffw edt to aoiteutseanoo & tot antiaa
-trsesn ,misLototnvos aids existe of bevom ttitniel jboton tet ts
edt :vforwdamexq beLit oeod bad $2 seit anomaet tedto gnome ant
toe ‘ter bas neamoth et bas ,mottom etat bemtateve toLfeonsde
stebro ald? mort Leues stash ted ,seitesO
tog tudmal eieot ,g8@L ,08 Liaqa mo sadt bogelia TtitnieLlt
Iftw teal ew gnivaet ,stit eknt bottaqob ,nieté@ .f elaot Lrowre?
poxitsimwe ¢aielqaoo oft j;otetett alioiboo ows his trametast ‘bas
txu0o edd Jadt sass bag aliotbes bae iftw ort to etmedaoo ost
appoint a guardian ad litem for certain minors; that the resigna-
tion of the trustee be accepted, its accounts approved and it be
discharged as trustee; that an order be entered appointing a
successor-trustee, and plaintiff be allowed reasonable compensae
tion for its services. ‘the appealing defendants argue that the
complaint set forth plaintiff's interpretation of the will, and in
their countcrolaim allege a construction different from that
placed upon it by plaintiff, Examination of the complaint does
hot support this claim, ‘The complaint merely swumarizes the con-
tents of the will and codicils without any interpretation of any
of the provisions,
The testatrix, Josie Stein, before her marriage to Aladar
Hamburger, executed on June 30, 1951, her last will and testament;
after directing that her just debts and funeral expenses be paid
she made specific bequests totaling $52,700, and provided for the
distribution of her jewelry; by section 4 oi the will she provided
that if Plorence L. Hickman, the testatrix's sister, should survive
her (which event occurred) she was to receive from the residue of
the estate $30,000; if Florenee Hickman should die prior to the
death of testatrix, her son Charles Sharpless Hickwan should have
the net income of a trust fund of $30,000; two other bequests of
$3000 each were made te two cousins,
Mareh 8, 1932, Jose Stein exeouted a codicil to her will
in which she eliminated a bequest to the Chicago Home for Jewish
Orphans and added a bequest of $1000 to the Institute of Religion;
she alse gare $100,000 to The Northern Trust Company in trust,
conditioned upon her contemplated marriage with Aladar Hamburger,
in which event the trustee should pay the net income from the
trust fund of $100,000 to him for life, provided that et the time
of the testatrix's death he should be living and married te her,
dtu
ith
~emgiset edd dadd ;etonin niedreo ‘m0't mesit 4s ae teaaig s Sutoas
ed th bas bhévotcca edavooes eft pes einen ed cosas oat to aot?
& giitatoges beuethe od tabno on gacd seesauss as heweateei®
eam quioe sidatcaget bewolle ed Tiktniata bas ,getentt-tosseoone
ent staat augte atnabne teh galleegqa exit wnat vas ats tot ao tt
ai bas ,fitw edd to aotsatetqretai e' tiitalete sito toe vahaceene
taxid sat 2° i qate arth aoksowt? aco & egsile sia fox $si09 ahesis
asob sats fqinoo ‘edd yy rtoltestuexk wMiatata. x eh aogs ‘ ba.
-foo sat soxixsmuve yietem talasqmos eat ‘sth bo, aids dxoqaxe | ton
yas to mottatetqretal yas twodtiw site iboo be, “LLiw ‘ot Yo. at ‘ei
_samotatvera odd to ;
tabela ot egeixrtan tod eteted ,ales@ ehaot reek tgatens ont » a
sdnemsdeod bas LLiw sesi tod ,fi OL ,08 oan no péduoexs pan u
bisa ed eeanegxe Letomu't bas atdeh teut tod tant? gnitoetth totte
ond tok bobivorg bas O08 886 aalisd os ateouped ettoege | obam ese
bebtvorg etla fiw edd to b moitoee yd extewot ted to notsuditdeth
ovivisa hives ,istele etxittetecd? add ,asmdeltH adoeomstest Ti tad
te subtest edt mott evisoet of saw ods (berrwon0 taeve.dotdw) zed
edd ot xofta 9th bivede semiotl eongrest. th) 7900, 08¢ etatae edt
oved bisote aaialoti aeetquem® eelteid ace tod, sxirtesteet to stash
‘to atasuped xedio owt ;000,06$ to hawt tentt 2 to emeont, tom, ost
oer ga ,eateneo owd of. ebsae19W dose 0008¢
iLiw,ted of itetboo @ baswooxe ahosG efool (SbCL 48 Koteh. op ir
digiwet tot. smoli-ogsoisd afd 08 daguped & bedeaiaite sede do tow mk
jGolyideé to atusidenl oft at Q0OLG To daouped # bebbebas enedaxd
~taustd ni yosquod tewtl. aresigred, od? 08 900, 00.L8. even ele. oan |
“(Tegusdusl tebelA stiw, egatrian botedquetage ted) aoqw. bewotstbace
_esig mort moons tom edd yoq bivese ostauty ods tmove dokaw ok
emit edt ta Jacdd bebiverq ,etLL tot mia ot 000, 0048 to bast teutt
“tod of bodrram ban gaived of bLuodsied Ateoboatxtrdetacd odd te
At the time of testatrix's death Aladar Hamburger was living
and married to her and be is atill Living,
April 22, 1933, she executed a second codicil to her will;
having married Hamburger she deseribes herself in this second ecdi-
cil as “Josie Hamburger (formerly Josie L, Stein)"; in thie codicil
she refers to the former codicil in which she created a trust fund
ef $100,000 with The Northern Trust Company as trustee, the net in-
come from this to be paid to Aladar Hamburger during his life, and
says: "It is my desire, and I hereby direct, that before any other
gifts, bequests or devises be paid under my Last Will and Testauent
ané codicil (referring to the bequest of $1,000.00 to the Insti-
tute of Religion, as provided in said Codicil), said trust fund of
One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) be first set up." She
reaffirmed her last will and the prior codicil thereto. Plaintiff
has been administering this trust fund as provided for in the codi-e
ells, and it is from this trusteeship it is seeking to resign.
In their counterclaim defendants allege that while the
testatrix left an estate in excess of $100,000, it is less than
sufficient to pay in full, in addition to this $100,000, the spe-
eifie bequests provided for in the second paragraph of the will,
and that unlese the sum of $30,000 is paid to Florence Hickman from
the $100,000 trust fund upon the death of Aladar Hamburger there is
no other souree from which said sum may be paid; the counterclaim
alleges an ambiguity in the will and asks the court to decree that
upon the death of Aladar Hamburger the trustee appointed under the
will and its codicils, or its succéessor-trustee, shall pay to
Florence LL. Hickman $30,000 prior to making other distributions
provided for in the will.
The estate is still in the Probate court, not yet completely
administered; the trust fund of $100,000 has been estabiished and
plaintiff has been acting as trustee thereof, Evidently defendants
Ch
gatvil eaw xegtudmall whelaA dieobh a'xittetast te smtt edt ta
-) sbthvit tilde al.ed bag ged od beirtam bie
jiitw tes.ot Liotboo basees # boducexo. ate, SCL, 8S. Lligd yoo:
=iboo boogearaiad al Moated. sedizeash, ofa. seytadausk belrrem gatved
fioibeoo atdd ak ;"(atete ,d ainob yfeeua0t) togcudush, ofsot". ea iio
' Bavt gamit « boetweots ofin doidw ok Llelhea tomzet edé. of): eto tez--ene |
-ai gaa edt yootesnd es yoequed susstt mredszolk oft. dtiw, 000, 004%. to
bas ,@bif als gutib tepivdasl twshela of bleg sd.o¢ sist mex? sao
qosuie yYbs stoted sedt ,foerth ydeues I pie! sexteob ya al 45" -4exee
tasneseet: bow ILtW daed ym wobaw bing od woalveb 10 ateoused ,ottig
- ehtent sald of 00,000, 14 to daouped eas of gmbaietet \ithekh dasibin
to haut ¢ewid blea ,(Ltotbod bise al bebivorg as, 4motgiioh, Testu
ess "qu tea tartt ed (00,000, 00L¢) atedlod busevert bexd au 900
Tiidsled. ,etetess Ltotboo tpitg ent bas Lidw teed 0d beatittacr
~ibeo oxi od. tet bobiverq es hawt tevtd aids auizedatatade, seed, eed
iglest of gilieoe et $4 qinsesieutd edt mort of 3h, doe, ati
ens oltow seus. egolte eganhosioh sieLerednues, thes, nl, Prfeth
gscid eaoL el ¢h 000,004 To seeoxe ai stetee op, dteL xlatagnet
“-sogR end 000, 0088 als of noitipbe at , ivr at yaq, ot damit tive
Litw ocd To digergateg bacsee exit, ot cot bebiverg ateouped, tito
mort semioih esae1relt of Steg et 000,08G Xe ave pile, eeotau tedy bas —
al ered topzudmal tepala To psweb oxi. aoqss, bew't Seutd 000, 00L9 edt
migiotetaves edt jbieg od (em aus dice sole work eoxvom sesito)om
dass eorsed ot sauop edd ailae bas Liiw est af ydtugidae as aegetio
odd ebay betutogge estauid ssid togivdmel tebdslA to uidesd odd, moqu
od Y2q Liase ,eetuutd-ronpsosua ati a6 ,eliothon ath baa, Likw
anoitutluteih wedto gstwlom of selxg 000,086 psmip ih... eonexoc®
ahbdw ond oh, Toh behivera
YeroLquoo doy, tes iain ealt: gi, Shite, at etetne, pass icy we
‘bis bedelidatas med sod 000, 00L¢, te haut taunt ont 5
utisbay ted \Ltnehivil,, .toouesd soteass, aA. ashioe sons at msc ne
= i ore
anticipate that the estate will be insufficient to pay ali the be-
quests and fear that unless they receive the $30,000 bequest out
ef the 7100,000 trust fund they may net receive this bequest, It
is apparent that the defendants are asking the court to adjudicate,
at this time, their rights to $30,000 of this trust fund at the
time in the future when Aladar Hamburger dies,
Plaintiff in its motion to strike this countefelaim sets
out that the object of the counterclaim was to determine the rights
of the Hickmans at a future date ond not their present rights, and
to decide questions depending on facts which are contingent and may
never arise, It was also shown that there was no controversy at
the present time because Aladar Hamburger was still living sndino
one was entitled to any distribution of the trust funda until his
Ay death, and no one except the defendants Py es slaim in respect
ee thereto. We are of the opinion that the court properly susteined
the motion te strike the counterclaim.
There are a number of events which might occur before the
death of Hamburger which would make any adjudication or construction
o1 the will unneeensary irs, Hickaan may never become entiticd te
receive the $30,000 bequest if both she and her son Charles die
pefore Hamburger dies, and 4f her son leaves no issue the $30,000
bequest reverts to the surviving brothers of the testatrix or
their issue.
Another eontingeney which might arise is that at the time
of the death of Hamburger the $100,000 trust fund might be come
pletely wiped out through shrinkage or otherwise, Another event
whieh might occur is that at the time of ths death of Hamburger the
Value of the estate of the testatrix might bes sufficient Peony
‘the bequests in addition to the $100 ,C0O trust funa,
)
Counsel for plaintirr also suggests that possibly, at the
Lo
ces ont LL yoq of tnototttnwnd oo friw ovedus’ oily” said ovaghe2¥'ale
“tuo fesupsd G00, 08€ ext evieser Youd Kaothy seed toot Bas etéeup
fi desupoed ett evioosx fon yom yond bait Feutt OOO, COTS site Yo
\Staolbuths of woo odd Sitves xs etnshro'teh sid Forlt’ Yoorddge et
"a9 fe baw't feud vhid “Lo 000, 08¢ of ‘baiatt stexe jooliy etne Ye
RES OO TEONY aS ES Segre tebeta iedw etvdyt 6a BY ome
afore iteaaii add oalete od nottom att nt trignsre”) °°
ndiighy Sat oniuxeton of saw misforstnwoo setf “te tootde edt sade wo
bac cehig it fnsestd tleds Jom hae oteh aediut 2 Ya wneitts tN att “Yo
; ‘Bae ‘Yaogat Ineo S48 “dl tite sfoet no saibasqeb ‘eristdeous edives ‘oo
” $e ‘yetevort deo ort Bev sted tent nwode oete baw Pr ed 70 ven
: om: bas Satvir fi tte eew Teetwdsh ‘tebsla sevased omts ‘fooedte ‘Sie
ela Lda baw't ‘faoxd oad to notdudixde ts Yan of boltidns eew sho
’ "Yoscnet ‘nt intelo CN at évnebdeted edt sqvoxe ene 2 hil sy
becitadeue agit fawoo ont Sand ‘dokatqe” dad to axe \ Serdceds t
ii sabi ute foxes kon ‘eay leecinarto ‘nots om edt
edd exc'ted tesce fiat Adinw eddeve “to tedawa is dus oem °°"
molfditddnod to ‘noltedhbutha Yiie eds biuow saa rogisdmell Yo tes
of Sotvtind eitcsod ‘sevem Yala tools th Jet Cfedeandenns £LFW
§f8 eetread Wow téif pad ‘ede atou te seledipda 00; aeg ial ty
© G00) 688 ‘extd dues tl of wovaet soe ted TE bus feels dy tinted ae atba
85 Uravedes ‘otf “to eteiieord satviveve ‘aut of Bdveved Sasuped
k 2 MM Bete LS ai Rett. FS eS Nee ia Sioa veal % .
‘gt ou
“pues ord de Yate ak éetve Fety ant do dele ‘iediiat dude ‘ation’ |
anido Od dogtm Bat deurd 006.6008 “ont wogaudack ‘te “Hteob ad,
Fis¥e ieithonk “ee fwabdte "xd ‘axuildinite Maun ¥ie bowtw ytetely
ext “oer ‘to ditaok ent to amis oft te tans ef ‘wide d Huda ighle a |
oer of fro fol tiie ba dnp ied ebbtofeed cdf Yo o¥etee Sa¥ Yo ouiey
OO at genet 005, 008 Sity oF adit Enha oie conivnd
* efd “ts Vidiadeq Youth ‘gdeoggve ‘oe te Pidnte fe
time of the death of Hamburger, there might be no one to dispute
Mre, Hickman's interpretation of the will, or if there is some
one in interest they might agree to it.
It is well established that a court will not construe a
will merely for the sake of giving advice, There must be actual
Litigation wattunie: £isdcilibventedun of a court of equity can be
sought, In 69 Corpus Juris, beginning at page 955, is an extended
discussion of this subjeet, with the conclusion that courts will
not construe a will where the object sought is to determine future
rights denending on facts whieh are contingent and may never arise,
A large number of supporting cases are cited, among them Strawn v,
Jacksonville Academy, 240 Ill, 111, where it was said: “Courts of
eguity will never entertain a suit to give a construetion to or
declare the rights of parties upen a state of facts which has not
yet arisen, nor upon a matter which is future, contingent and un-
eertain," Among the many other cases to the same effect are
Chicago fT. & Tr, Co, v. City of Waukegan, 333 111, 577, 581;
Walker v, First Trust & Savings Bank, 12 F, (2d) 896, 903;
Norton v, Woren, 206 Ky. 415 (430, 431), and Woods v, Fuller, 61
Maryland, 457, 460. Also Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, (4th ed.)
vol. 3, sec, 1157, p. 2741,
Cases cited by defendants are not applicable, A typical
case is Bender v, Bender, 292 Ill, 558, where there was an actual
controversy between three of the children of the testator and their
mother and other children, Also in Ohio Oil Co. v. Daughetse, 240
Tll,, 361, where a bill was filed to protect the interest of a re-
mainderman against the wrongful acts of a Lite tenant tending to
despoil the inheritance,
In the instant case no controversy is presented and there
is no present necessity for the determination sought by defendants
and there may never be any such necessity,
The court properly found that the counterclaim was brought
Prematurely and it was properly dismissed for that reason,
fhe order of the trial eourt is affirmed,
AFFIRMED,
Matchett, P, J., and O'Connor, J,, coneur,
eiucety ot ene on od teigin wnede eTOQis hie Hh ‘to atsob ont ‘to omit
entoe at otosii “t to itiw aa te soltssorqret at at masolo LH sat
| : oth, of setae digia yesdd daototah ak 920
& sutteces $00 fiiw taueo a teat beste iidadas tiow ek #2
fasten od tava ered? -ooivbs aatvty Yo pe bra! + ied Yotom SLi
ed ago teiupe to ‘gxwoo & te ols iaograsad ‘\etoted noltagliis
hebustxe ms ak ,688 easq te pataniged staat BuqZod Aid al. .triguoe
Lilw atxs09 ‘deus wobeu Loaoe ond Aekw tookdus etds af notanmpath b
“‘eeutat eaters teb of al Saha aie tootde eas sande Litw # ound arog Toa
-eeite teven vou oss duegntt noo ots tebien etost ao aalbnoces, atdgis
aX amet se, aupsit antows ebedte ets seaRe aatsxocqwe a paren, By de A. '
to asawo0" ibise ee a oto sw ye ¢ Pay Oss os)
to oF moitowssence 2 evig of tive B aiesrodce seven thaw uttupe
toa ean sio baiw aoa te edete & Mocs vottrag to sénigian edt ote ipeh
id bus fae gna noo orusunt es siphatw sptton & moqu tom meeize toy,
ots dostte sass ot of conee sedte oan edt promA ".nistie9.
p68 ,YVG 61 BEE gf |
B08 1308 (aS) of SL £ stant pitives © temcT cart
rey wx2Liul av eboow bas (see OBR) ate eh 208 2282
ae ugh) souehuraaitst Ytiupa B!yoremot oe LA ool wae
pad a 4 hitb soa Sts atunhan teh “ti bas
fevion as asw etedd siésiw (88 Lil — -Sebook Vv te.
tieds bas teteiees ~ ‘to metbitvio ent to oe tsi
OBS ,eetedauel ov 20 2 ££0 oiO mi coals . He tb Lido a
-et 2 to daoxetal sii Soetotg od bo Lit aew Lfitd « eueriw Bt wh
ot guibass gaenes @til # ‘to adoe Lo tgaorw ‘senlaga’ ebaien
eteds bus betnseotq oi Yatevoutaes on tas | ero io gy Rr - *,
fash bie ¢ dunn fodtsantuneted psec o'r os toe !
ont ya te a Wet tease di teed ed toyed vas ered
tdanend aw uialecetages 248 text bam 20 wegora tu Ze .
foaset tant tot besetaats citedsea Ube oi haw
wer domi tte ef dxu0g Lebxd oid te tohso eat
Lig hi hae
¥ UA oe) tS Ga we wonoupnd Pye
<taeaee ook ronment 0 ane, i an
ta seeing
“a itl
Oa
39270 if re
GORGE ¥, HARDING ané MARTIN H, f.
” +}.
)
KENNELLY, Trustees tor Consumers )
Cowpany, at
Appehlees;~ )° APPEAI, FROM MUNICIPAL COURT
WS, OF CHIGAGO,
CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal
Corperation ' h se
: Appellant. ys 9 ¢ Tay 9) 9 97
“MR, JUSTICE O'COSNOR DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
Plaintiifs brought an action against the defendant City of
Cuicago to recover $373.15, claiming taat one of their employees
had been injured November 14, 1954, in the course of his employment,
through the negligence ei defeudant City; that they bad paid the
employee compensation under the Workmen's Compensation act. De-
fendant denied liability, there was a jury trial and a verdict and
judgment in plaintiff's favor for $362,85, and the City appeals,
Defendant contends that the judgment is wrong and should be
reversed because plaintifi's failed to give notice to the det'endant
as required by par, 7, chap, 70, Ill. State Bar Stats, 1935, That
paragraph provides that any person who is about to bring a suit
against tue City for damages on account of personal injuries Shall
"within six months from the date of injury, or when the cause of
action accrued, either by himself, agent or attorney, file in the
office of the gity attorney *** and also in the office of the city
clerk a statement in writing, signed by such person, his agent or
attorney,” etc.
The only proof in the record as to the giving of such notice
is that on Novewber 26, 1954, plaintiffs' assistant secretary wrote
a letter to the City Attorney of Chicago in which it was stated that
about two o'clock of November 14, 1954, one of its eliployees was
injured by falling through an open hole in the floor of the City's
g
ONS GE
| ae, wana ouIGAAR oi, BD
4 arene rod auntie.
. er, |
TAUOD JAGIOTHUM MOR JATEIA Rai ~ qebosinced | St taanasnn nama
s ODKETRS: Wes, ' ion ell
“ keqtoiaud @ ,ODAOTHO % verre
‘Be ez e A. oy 0 es. t ead “nee
iva oe
‘to 410 éeebaeted os tesiaye aolios as tiuguotd ACARLALS,
ah.
sasyolaus aiasid, to S80 Gand gilulel .@LE°S% teveges of pat
Smomyelque aisi To snawoe out at PEEL dL todemvod hetutat Hood das
ons blag bed yous gadd jpysin iasbaaieb to Anapah span exit ey
yes
9G. .tos Hoi vaanequed at aomizel sat tebsw Ao sAannaannge eeyoiqa :
bite dathyer. 4 bap fobs yast @ nay oredt, «tdiliaall hoineh jasbagt
8 Laoqae yPLD sid bao ,3h-S08% s0t saver.a! tiisatate mk jaommbut
ed bingda bge qnotw ab tacmwbul ead decd absetaoo See nana :
fish oeteb ost. at soiton viz od bolint gttitatelg sense
tact .GoeL satate ted esas WEEE og OP» gaia, aN eta ed
sive es maka ot tuods #2 ony aoateg yos Jade aebivetg |
Lissi® esizstat isaoateq to tauesom me aegemnh sot yey, one phen
to eevee oat Rely 0, 0 Weukad ‘te. tab, ane mart. ahamcipinis Pea ‘
ond ad off akeated ds to tage teamed, oe aoriete., 3h Fe
utts edd to pottze ade “ak ‘pata bus ~~, Woaroste, xtio. ‘aaa ‘te Cie -
Cais
to snags edei neni’ ious Pci ewied wand aa8, peas ep ted a it ¥
eS i ates daa, ep cette “evomogte E
Wyse, age ra”
‘?
eeives dove 16 snababe gsit “od be _bateas si ‘fa Ttoo7mg: Ai
etour yustotess duprelass Ja¥iliatete, eh 8a, Ee oe
Rhy Ma Ns
teds bosade aay th sio buiw ak ogee daly ‘te yomrodta yee esis os woisol e
asw aoe yo Lge att ‘to ono. peeL abe Teguavel. te Aopio! o ord, guods Hi
a'yiiS salt to tool edt of efor meqo as dgworsis ponte? w Lounge
ao taits” ae "
A
A
ae
Electrical Department at 405 West Chicago avenue and that he was
removed to the Alexian brothers hospital where he was under the
eare of Dectors Wheeler and Sinclair of 1527 Fullerton avenue. The
letter further stated that “At your convenience we would like to
have an expression from you as to whether or not you are willing
to reimburse us for the cost of our medical, compensation, ete.,
and also whether or not it is feasible to pisee covers over these
holes or post a warning sign to avoid injuries in the future,*
Plaintiffs have net appeared here to defend the judgment,
Section 29 of the Workmen's Compensation act (chap. 45, Ill. State
Bar Stats. 1935) provides that where an injury for which compensa-
tion is payable by the employer under the Act was not proximately
caused by the negligence of the employer or his employees, but was
eaused under circumstanees ereating a legal liability for damages
in some person other than the employer, then the right of the en-
ployee to recover against such other person "shall be transferred
to his employer and such employer may bring legal proceedings" to
recover the damages sustained, in an amount not exceeding the age
eregate amount of compensation payable under the Act by reason of
the injury.
In Schlitz Brewing Co. v, Chicago liys, Co., 307 Ill. 322,
where a suit was brought under seetion 29 of the Workmen's Cowpensa-
tion act, against the party who was liable to plaintiff's employee,
the court said (p. 327): “we have heretofore held i, ace referred
to that it is simply the employee's right of action transferred to
the employer,”
Plaintiffs' letter addressed to the City attorney, from
which we have above quoted, was not a compliance with par, 7, chap.
70, even if it could be held to be a suificient notice to the City
Attorney, The statute requires that such notice be slso filed in
yk ee ‘
war ox sand por OLS VK ogso Ido suoW GOb ge eaprbnienins Lagittoe li
ent tebsw gaw ox oxecw Let Lonod azedd ord asine LA ast od be: ones
eA joweve’ Hotae Liu teed to ntelanbe, bas 19 LoodW eeatoot ork
ot etil binow ow op 10 Lnevacs. auoy ta" dacs betate, tecidawt rottet
Bee itay ots uoy ton to xesitorin od a6 MOY worl solepetaxe al oven
s ‘By
event rove arevoo sosiq oF oidiese’t ai ti sou to tedtesdw eats bas
",orutwt ot af astuntat bievs ot mie galauw 2 teoq zo Belod
atasaghut odg Saeted as oted svtaneus tom even atrigaielt
» ego tahun iy See THO bo. ga0n oes tot as ‘wand
eter rfl , Bs sqado ) tos no} taaceqwed 2! nomiroW ¥a “Ye es no ltese®
mee tagags Mote xo octutat nie, ovestw ssid ‘eeblvoxg taser’ reied® ase
vissantzorg, ton saw toa edt tebaw ‘xo voLaae ond ww otteysa ‘alt
new ind, s2e0yoLamo abd 10 roxoLens onis Yo sons yi tye ‘ond 3 hesuso
asyennb bag ei betdets texed & ‘palseo0 ‘Seomedomworio eb: nus honiiee
a9 ont 20 tights ould wo ahd “sroyolore euid musct ‘wontto ed smoe mt
ae borrotenend od Ltaste® nowred ‘xesise ious ‘tuulege ‘gerbes’ o says te
ot "ayatboee ora ages gated va royolgus ‘eu elk ‘ geyetque elit ot
) pen uit uatbseoxe $ on dassome ag si ,beutedewe seganch edd eve
to noasot xe tok auld ebay okieven toh taatiasiog to dicnagerd evening
Re
, \S8e at $08 an is Q
43 2?
-aenequed a! neauitoW ods ‘te es ‘noidooe tobaw teguore eaw v tat otedw
99 Yo Lenin alttigatese ot efter. eee outy ug ent dantose ee aoae
Hilt
ih i : in
bette tet acaao\ nt bLec otetosened ovasi ow" (8 a) ‘bse “tue add
ain
et dberrelensitts mottos to drig ie a ‘wcetan ‘eslt eats ol ‘ah ot
pi aS? TAG Pi hss
Ps
5 nor expenogta veld « oxntt od } beenexhba ‘moter attest
-aesto a ae, gai sonatiquos a JOH new bat oup eyed. ‘evad ow yo hae
Hy 2g
wito out of golf om toto triae . a ed of biod od iiwoo #f ti Hove ,OF ey
ee ieee Bit i I a aaa ie ieat hee
at bast on Le od polton | sows tedd vee atutedea oft yomror ga |
LOQLA #4 Fs BAY 5 a | se Hah, i: bin’ Pid peas 24
3
the office of the City Clerk and compliance with this section of
the statute is 2 condition precedent to the right to maintain tre
suit, Minnis v, Friend, 360 Ill, 3238,
Plaintiffshsving failed to comply with the statute they
cannot maintain this suit, and the judgment of the Municipal court
ef Chicago is reversed,
JUDGMENT REVERSED,
Matéhett, »P. J., and MeSurely, J., concur,
RET RG Roa spancn D\gt &
to wetban
iw
MSI Oi Paes rer = 1 ye
ee Suet ad aye }
On aoe, CF at
Mr THAW BH oom Rote |, Ho, bus
a ee “888,45. 00g. deem Taw.
eens ons déiw ” ae
et ial fase hae Bing ees +t oe thet. pA NS AMEE Ak ELE
pak site wits. soy anne eaten ba ttus, ates a ,
eh
ing « sbite ‘ne 208 te metmaon re dmekbom tae Tae
Geet tere wrevon aoncg oF eidlese't ah 22 Poe we. naihecin ites Bicsa
eo ee ee ee ee athonenw @ Rewmg Xo que Liat
pttomabe, walt baton af Ipabstrandirsborr me 0. |
acetic ket ne pita) hye
“4 Het te is bi, a
ate okie beeen ruta i ‘eapae vet ‘sen bey A ee ae
tae
abe lowest wh ia
ab ths wus
iat set galbscoxe tox Passat ae le
Oa wees
gone Lit 0 , a. wks ue
oo area aed send egy hee ela ‘ee as om on
yk
sip dk speoeaa we ve, a . A ie pe
gol pelt once od sation sous i :
<4 e a
vA COM ae net th ty weet
39339 f ba
CLARA L. PRIEST,
Anpellee,
APPEAL FRCM SUPERIOR COURT
Ve.
OF COOK COUNTY,
MEYER KAPLAN, RAY KAPLAN and J
“CHARLES V, FALKENBERG, . ~ 9
Appellants, es 9 O Lee ep 9
ER, JUSTICE C'CONNOR DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
May 9, 1934, Clara L. Priest filed her compiaint in chancery
against the Kaplans, Valkenverg, Jackson, and a number ol insurance
compsnies, praying that the several insurance coipanies pay to her
$1589.43, being the amount oi insurance agreed upon in a fire loss
on presises owned by the Kaplans and on whieh plaintiff held a
mortgage, Falkenberg claimed the money by virtue of an assignment
of the Kaplans to him, The case was referred to a master who took
the evidence, made up his report and recommended that the money be
paid to plaintiff, A decree was entered accordingly and the Kaplans
and Falkenberg appeal,
The record discloses that the Kaplans owned an improved
piece of real estate in Chicago, and on December 15, 1926, executed
their trust deed to the Fdrewian Trust & Savings Bank to secure an
indebtedness of $4000, The trust deed and notes were owned by
plaintiff, The trust deed contained the usual provision for insur-
ing the property with the loss clause payable to the trustee for
the benefit of the holders oi the mortgage notes, There were 8
policies of insuranee, 6 of which contained the clause payable to
the trustee for the benefit of the holders of the notes, but 2 of
the pelicies did not contain this clause,
February 25, 1932, the property was destroyed by fire and
thereafter the loss was adjusted by the insurance companies, they
agreeing to pay their respective proportionate shares oi the loss
By
ezeed
“MORTAL Xt ABATD
af? LEsqus' pe
TAUOO AOLNRIVA MOAT ZANSGA Sanh ¢
aay
-YTAYCO B000 YO £8 bs i
hos MarGAx an Wada sara
Qed A1O0e8” “f Spade yee
aten toques
er ieee nm Ro
LOeae Bs eee sae ee
.T8U0D.SET %O MOIMIGO WHT CHAAVIAMG HOMMOD'O BOITEUL AM
Utsomeno al talaiqnos sed belit gaeizd .d sield ,db&eL .@ yok
sonstyeni ‘to todmua » bas’ ,noedoal’ ,gtsdmeARl \ahatqed oct” Centdga
aad of yaq seinsquoo eometwani Leteves eid ted yatyetq ,aetasqumos
aeol eilt « al soqu beetgs sonatwant to tauema edd gaiied 8b, 6aLe
a bied Yiitateiq doidy ao bas aneiqed edd yd benwo eealuotg mo
‘Soismigisen me to ovdtiv yd youom esd bomiatlo greodnedist .ogagt tom
doot ow teveem « of bext6 lex aew geno od? mld of ensfqsh edt “a
od Yenom ond tard Hobuommoost bas dtoqet ald qu sham ,sonebive ext
enelqeX edt bas ylynibtosss betetae eaw eat0eb A sTtitatele ot bleq
taegge aredasdte® a
beveztqut me bonwo earniqed edt sands séeesenth bicest ofT :
betwoexe ,0SeL ,gL rsdmened mo bite ,ogeotd® at otates inst ‘to soetg i
ms stvoee of Masi egnive? & seurT memetdt ent o¢ beob seutd atest
yd bemwe otew aston bas heob dautd aT ,Q00R§ To aasabetdobai
-aveni 19% molelvetq favey edd fomisines beeh tauxit oT sthitaisl¢
tot eetantt suit of oldeyeq sensio eeok ent xalw ysregota oid gat
8 stow otedt .aeton ogays ros asd ‘to stebLod ont te *htened ext
ot eideyeq eanatle orld henincues sioidw to 8 ,esustwemt To sstotfog
to & tud ,eetom ont to etebLod sig ‘to titeasd ody tot sotaurt ont
.anelo eild maistmos gon bkh setoiiog oxté
bow otlt yd beyotsesb eaw vrsqong eat S6CL , a8 yrewrdel ¢ ped all
yous ,eelaeguos sonstuent edt yd botauths asw srol eat red tenet
eaot est ‘to poxade sianoldteqgotg sssteieaiuiih ateds va ” sabsety 7
agreed upon, or $1598.43. The companies deciined to pay irs, Priest
for the reason that Falkenberg, an attorney, claimed that the Kape
leans on April 30, 1932, had assigned all their interest in the in-
surance “oney to him and William H. Jackson jointly, and that they
had been notiltied by Palkenberg of such claim, January 14, 1932,
which was a little more than a month before the fire, plaintiff
caused judgment to be confessed in the Municipal court of Chicago
on the notes against the Kaplans for $4290. December 5, 1932, a
petition was filed against Meyer Kaplan, in ba&kruptcy, and after-
ward the trustee in barnkruptey scld Kaplan's interest in the
property to plaintiff. June 23, 1933, the bailiff of the kunicipal
eourt sold the property under an execution issued pursuant to the
judguent of the Municipal court to plaintiff for $2000, and November
41, 1934, the bailiff exeouted a deed to her, The balance of the
judgment, which was mere than the amount of the insurance money,
is still due and unpaid,
Defendants contend that the lien of the trust deed was sate
igsiied and discharged by the issuaice of the deeds, one by the
bailiff and the other by the trustee in bankruptcy, conveying the
property to Urs, Priest, and that she could not thereafter bold a
mortgege on her own property. We think this contention cannot be
sustained. The insurance on the property was part of the security
for the payment of the debt. Fergus v. Willwarth, 117 111. 542.
The property was destroyed by fire February 25, 1932, At that time
plaintiff had reduced the amount due her on the notes to judgment
in the Municipal court but the mortgage still remained as security
for the payment. Darst v, Bates, 95 Ill. 493.
In Edgerton v, Young, 43 111, 464, it was said that a
mortgagee tiay procure a conveyanee frow the mortgegor without in-
tending to merge the lien of his mortgage; taat where a greater and
aless estate meet in the same person, a werger does not necessarily
saeitd waz Yoq of homiieeh solmeguoy ent Eh 8 0G 19 ,S0qs bootae
oqed ei galt deaiets ,ywoteita as setedmesis® Fert goeast eat tot
quai ed at seoteiai head tts beongiees bed ,88@L sc Lisrga: tio poet
Kees tact: ig, «chapel gondoal .K mel LOEW bite athe of yeivonh’ poche
seer | Se “hamekt “\ebite deus to arocniickir’ Wi Aemseen seed bast
Thigsielg ,orll ed stoted dtaom 2a mads stom olitil a asw diehile
ogsoldd ‘to Fxnos Legioliui ont AF bedsetnos od of Fnomabut boause
+ My S8OL 48 togemoed .Q8AF xot anolged oft tantege aeton eds mo
wheg ta bus .Yodtquiiied al ,Aeiged tayo taniege dettt sew nelstzeg
oo 9 fd, Ob teemedad s'nelqed pLos, ypigerdned at seteutd oft brew
Aogiotmuid oud To LWitlind esd ,LECL OS emwh ,TWivninkg oF Xizeqena
oui of jnusetug bowaet aoitvosxe pe sebau yerogete te foe, #usien -
wadinnrial, hae -«POORG, Kar Tidpatata, of, Pune, AAS tORAe BAR. 26 Semembe
Sid to sprsiad sal ter os beebh 2 betuesxe ahttied 9, sbbek oft
OM pgnAtiENh exis to dawoms off amdt prom aay sotaw .tapmydath
banidieie ear one conan NR, Mae, Aakte a
tae eaw boob taunt edi to well ont fads baetaog SA MMRAORON, 5 4 dae
Aid, 4S ato ,Bhoph gd to eanayant edd yd Degradagth bas bathed
py ens galyey soo 4 Nodgutaued at setents sad we Tost edt, pas Tiethad :
@ blod.sovtsereds toa bivoo ofa Jedd Ams .teeixt ar ot yisqete —
ed donsss Agiinsiage otis Aatds a¥ .ytaeqotg awo tod no sasgitom
_Ginsooa of3 to dusq sew yteqets aid mo eonetwent eT .pomlatane
D 22 tft Vit Mittamsi tl .v sugret voatdas ods to tnemyeq est Bi. ;
omit dud $A. RECL 2S yAantdall extt yd bogorteeh ear yizeqota oat
Snamabal of aeson e43 mo, Jad auh taxome oft Hoan Pad Wiktaieta
Witwosa a4 pantanot Live egesitom sat aia sauen. dante dens wat, At
60d ,fi1 8@ ,agdm : AMERY « sot
# fads Rise saw 3h .h6b of LE Bb omit |
nak suodtin tonsadtem ort sox't senayersos oxuoorg, tener
bos teieety # etodw deus ayngs too ald to cert Fs. ‘eaten of anthnet en |
vliteaseoed tou ‘geob cegtem @ ,foreteg smee eilt ak teom rene: senauel
se i a) ees i
ft 0 i Bie * ri a Fy gem & iy SF ep
aie
follow, “hat will depend on the intent and the interest of the
parties, and if a court perceives it is necessary to the ends ei
justice that the two estates should be kept alive, it will se
treat them." See aiso Huebsen v. Scheel, S81 Ill. 251; Hooper v.
Goldstein, 336 Ill, 125.
in Lowman vy, Low » 118 Til. 532, it was heid that although
the parties may have undertaken to discharge a mortgage upon the
uniting of the estates of the mortgagor and the mortgagee in the
latter, the mortgage will stili be upueld, in equity, when it is
for the best interest of the mortgagee, by reason of sowe interven-
ing title or incumbrance, that it should net be regarded as merged;
and in such case it will be presumed that the mortgagee must have
intended to keep the mortgage alive, when it is essential to his
security against an intervening title or ineumbrance,
In the instant case the indebtedness was not nalf paid by
the sale of the property to Mrs. Priest and it must be presumed that
she intended to keep her lien alive until her indebtedness was fully
paid, VFalkenberg and Jackson, by the assignuent of tne Kaplans of
their claim to the insurance money, could not obtain any wore intere-
est in the insurance money than the Kaplans had, Whea the assign-
ment was made, plaintiff's judgment in the Municipal court was wholly
unpaid. The insurance money was a part of her security and we think
it obvious that she was entitled to be paid in full before the
Kaplans or Falkenberg and Jaekson could have any interest in the
insurance money.
the decree of the Superior court of Cook county is affirmed,
DECREE AFFIRMED,
Matchett, P. J., and MeSurely, J., concur,
‘ay:
g
odd ‘to testedad ort Bae dmedal edt no bases tItw tenth wollet
te dbae Si¥ of Yrssescen al $2 asvioorsq ¢xu09 s ti bas ,woldaag
oda LELW NE (eed “ded Na tbbRaabbdend bbe Ce Gab GOS aR
“ee Rema ys08 LEE as root af sensionh ote ood Yassid ‘daoad
ee oe nies “ake ‘Bee eseptod
bait ur, ahi
esd aoqu Sgegitom 4 egtedosib of meieixesau over you eettueg oid
ond mt eogeadtom ons bus togeyd xm ert ‘to wodadad oud “te ‘did adil
eek en doce espe etn nadie wu “tilts “LEW Wg “Ole “SHEE
-covrotil emee ‘td toawer yt ,sogcystou sae “td Feotedat taed sat ‘tot
ibeotem as “Bebteget 9d fom bivoda +4 tadd (ooserdaue ak ‘a0 eLdsid ‘yap
evad teow segxgtrom Od Yady bemvedaq od iLiw sf oaas dove al bas
ee Le ee en eT a Pe ees
opakrdawent to offt3 gatnevietat ae fentage Witsoe
qd bieg Tiki fou wav easnbetsebni ent eseo Fnetant ont ox? mba
fact houweetq od teum $2 bas seetx4 .stM of yStaqorg ads to otae “ody
_fint eaw edshbotGobaf toad Litany evils Melt toa qeext Gd Bebootat ost
to anefqell eid to totmngleae ott Yd \nodideat baa yredmxLet tbleq:
wrodiit’ ood (ns ubeddd You ives {eel ebnbckank’ ont OF mate stedd
“aogiees oft WOM bai anntqed oNt nets Youom eonerie nd ot nt dee” |
CLiodw aew dives LeqtetieM ont at snemgbut el Ytivitaty Shem aw dasin
Aabiid ow bine” Ytitiese tell’ te tig b adw Yodo sbastuent eat’ Bieghi!
end exoted Lint at bheq 0d of belsiend aow baa seit everteo $2
ens wi seét0 em) yas eved biwoo Hoetesl bia paces er
bomt tia ed ysaued Wood Re s1m0s todte gue oat tO eonbin wage a
UMN TENA MDI LE OR Sk NS A ig an
2 BO CO - “aie ‘cman meaning idodotel
tiguedt ie Sake bist eow $2 S88 .LIT Bir ,
4 i dy Va :
HR, SS Ry e) oe \
{ ot een OP.) saubbate
ae re
ue eas ee halts wihe. ses, Peek od 0% saad s i i
39027
Ee Ce [Teddy] GEORGE, for use
of CLAUDE NEON FEDERAL COMPANY,
a corporation,
Appellee,
APPEAL FROM MUNTSIPAL
Ve
COURT OF CHICAGO.
S aN >= eo L
290 1.A. 599
MRe PRESIDING JUSTICH SULLIVAN
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURTe
FOX HEAD RESTAURANT C GIPANY,
a@ corporation,
)
)
)
)
Appellante
November 15, 1935, Claude Neon Federal Company, a cor-
poration, caused a judgment by confession for $797e27 to be
entered in the municipal court against He Ce [Teddy] George.
Execution was issued November 18, 1935, and thereafter returned
"no property found." Garnishment proceedings were instituted
December 17, 1935, and December 18, i955, the Fox Head Restaurant
Company was served with summons as garnishee. A copy of a "demand
in writing," which had been served upon George and the garnishee
December 13, 1935, and which notified the employer to pay plain-
tiff the amount of its judgment “out of moneys due, or which may
become due to &. C. [Teddy] George as wages or salary in excess
of the amount exempted, if any," was attached to and made part of
plaintiff's statement of claim. Interrogatories were filed with
said atatement of claim and on the return day, January 6,5 1956,
py leave of court additional interrogatories were filed. The gar-
nishee filed answers to such interrogatories and the matter came
on for hearing upon the motion of plaintiff for a judgment against
the garnishee on admissions claimed to be contained in its said
eau wat _mDaOuD “{epbs' :
YHATHOO, ZASETL.
ae
AAAI O TOM, MOL ARTI
sODADEHO YO THVOO
ees AVI ‘Oes
x 2omtevt ouaIenat «a
OUUIO BET
Park, Se
a YEAR D THARU AREA. CAG XOK ,
err ewig &
POLO OO
* @ TRIOS USA LE
{
mR Se We z ? ‘ub in OS
Lo ae a: 5, bs
100 2 «\ilsqatod Loxebet 09% obuaL0 «2888 a3 xednovow
ed oF TSeV@'G rot, no laaotnoe yt snompbet, a boaves eso tvax0q
ey ae ERS
sogzoed [ybbeT] .D. + ¢amtage tx09, Ingo trust on? ot bexngee.
homme tes tsetedd baa .80L , BL, rodmevell bevaat acw noltvoexK
bedusiveni eew egnibsesorg tnemietorad . ".bayot ytxeqowe on”
Srewetaet heel xoT ants ~HOCL OL sodmooe’d, bag .8ECL «VL tedmooad
briamob” # to yqoo A .eedebtrsg 2s ssomtue ald dr bovtes.aaw Ynagaod:
egsiekarreg orld Bus og toed noqs Beviee mood bal dolcw "yoattiow ak 2
‘wttlelg ysq oF royolamd etd “boPtivom dolnw bine «eel el xeduedsd
ya Moldy te .o9b Byemom to sO” dremabet ‘adi to earome OF THEE
ncouxs mi yxifed 10 coyew a8 bpt000 [Ybbot] LO 6x of oud -enobod
to dieq obam bus'od beitosdes eaw "eyha’ Yt (boxqitexs Hocerthe to
2060L 1d Yrsntes +wsb aause t est 20 bate ated 9 bel tmomedate ‘ab
~I83 ont sbolit onew ae tnodegoxtodat Innoitinba rues to oenot yl
siso roddan ets ‘baa soleosape <s00my Howe oa der nytt} oede tn bt
ie a
tantess tnomgbst s 20? thivaisig 20 us heer att, oqas ‘pubsead x03 sa
diiw beLit oxew astzotagorzedal suet YO gaon
bise agi at benteteoo od ot bemislo enoteaimbs no sedetazag ont
a “taoloarogies a j
eeelieggha; 6. 4h phates tee
stualiagga at y SAR
> aa
answers. There was a trial without a jury, resulting in the coprt
finding the issues against the garnishee and that it owed plain~
tiff $175. Judgment in that sum was entered agsinst it April 7,
1936, and the present appeal was perfected.
The garnishee in its answer to the original interrogatories
stated that «t the time of the service “of the writ issued in this
cause or since that time” it was not indebted to George and did not
have in its possession, charge or control "any moneys, chowie in
action, credits or effects owed by or due to said §. 6. [Teddy]
George," but “on the contrary debtor was indebted to the garnishee
on Dece 15, 1935, in the sum of $200 and on Dec. 3lst in the sum
of $275." In its answer to the additional interrogatories the
garnishee stated that George was its manager and that "as salary
or other renumeration" he received “on the basis of Fifty Dollars
per week, payable on drawings or otherwise;" and that between the
date of the demand in garnishment on December 13, 1935, and the
filing of its answer it paid George “One Hundred Seventy Five
Dollars as advances."
It sufficiently appears from the service of the formal
wage demand that the Claude leon Federal Company, at and prior to
the time it instituted this garnishment proceeding, treated George
as an empleyee of the Fox Head Restaurant Company and as a wage
earner who was the head of a family residing with the same and
therefore entitled to an exemption of $20 a week as provided in
sece 14 of the Gernishment act. (Ill. State Bar Stats., 1935,
che 626) However, the amounts aggregating °175 received by George
“as advances" were not paid to him as wages or salary earned within
the contemplation of the provisions of said sece 14, but es stated
in the garnishee's brief "the judgment debtor [George] having con-
trol of the fumds of the employer, without the knowledges or pere-
mission of the employer advanced himself moneys in exeess of any
=S~
tagoo of? ai gatiigovor aViwl « dtuoditw Iaics 8 asw ozeiT .,avewans
-gisiq bewo #t taeld bas eerfainteg eft taniegs aeyeelt eft anibatt
tc? LiugA si tantage betedde eew mua tast at toemydyl avn} Tih
sbetostreg acw Laeqqa tnozotq odd ban ,ocer
asitosaporsednt Lantaizo edd of ‘towans neh mk prnseapit oll a ei
akds mi bewaat gicw ost to" ootvres ei ec emis ost ea: emule pedada
FO HES hae eptOed OF Dosdohnt Jom sow tf “omtd tasld oonie To onuss
seh aswosta enyonom ye" Lontnoo to agents. +o aeenang ly Sang sot
Lypber} oO of bisa of owh to ye bormo gtostte to ae theee: (tteidos
3 esitalineny ests es betdebat essw rotdedb wantin eft go" dnl "99000
masa ond ak falg .o00 to Bam OOK} Ro mus ody Ht acer e0L 900 mp
estt macniinatapehian Sunedt thin ed of towene att al ",8NSe to
enise ba” 4 auld a ‘tegamem “adh aaw og7090 ‘pant ‘bodste eedtnbuning :
neni lod eant Yo eiead odd no” bevioces 6 "ndkdanomundt ado ‘xo
ot “ndowded dad} bad ‘“joalwreddo to “aynlwarib rs ‘ehitayae nisew’ ‘teq
PO ae a To ee ee
“evit Ytnovet borbiwt Sn0" ogvood bing oh 'rdwane adit to oat
cine ate Od ES RE MRI, Garay ERE le oa pag
heres Lamro? of) to estytoe off mort seacdeé yittnofottiod ¢t” Hse
“i ‘totte baie ta estan D fatohet moot obuald ond sadé bmameb iow i :
egtosd bednetd «gtthoovotg tromfalsrisg cist Bods treat of OMY “one
“ogaw s a Bas vasqmod tantuadeot back xo edt to woyeteme its !as
fins euse- rit détw watbied ether YW woe ons ‘ow one reritee
ot nehivo ty as deer 2 O88 “to 6 BF ee otototens
| Beer eeOdade Tat ofos@ SEET) Hoe sromfa titans, fie ME“ S¥ea
2 1 Vrowowen"C, so alo.
“ad dit of Bide fén'stew “So SiliVis Ge" 7
be dete as dud «Mf .ov bhoa Yo amdlatvorg ost to MOivAtqaod aoe Mae
09 anivart [ogxosd) toddos smomibirt sa" Teste rome tdees Std nt
“-19¢ 10 opbeLwont asd duos bw. cove Lule “odd Yo “aba? eff Yo “Lord
Yue to ageoxe ni ayonom tLoamiad boenavha zeyolqnue eg to mo teobe oN
egt0 0d ya poviooes BOL? sali ames Bat een ia
stad iw y ee yxetee sh SR AU igs:
of
salaries or other remuneration due him at any time,” and, there-
fore, no question of the statutory exemption can be involved in
this eause.e The garnishee was summoned to answer as to all of
the estate or effects of the judgment debtor in its possession
or custody ang no sound reason is advanced as to why service of
the wage demand should in any manner limit the garnishee's right
to recover on any indebtedness due from the garnishee to its employee.
After plaintiff's counsel at the outset of the hearing of
this cause asked that judgment be entered against the garnishee on
the admission in its answer to the interrogatories that it paid
George $175 after the service of the summons in garnishment upon it
and prior to the filing of its answer, lir. Benjamin Mesirow, who
is the president of the garnishee corporation as well as its attorney,
made the following statement as to the employment of George, his
Salary and the financial relations that existed between him and his
employer =
"I happen to know all the facts, and I am willing to be
sworn and to testify in furtherance of the answers given here,
if there is any question in the Court's mind as to the facts of
the overdrawal by the employe, so that at all times since his
employment by the corporation the corporation was a ereditor
instead of a debtor -- *** The employe entered our employ as
manager om November 17th, 1935. As such, he has power of dis-
position of all of the receipts of the restaurant that are
taken in; he pays all the help, including himself, his salary of
650 a week. When the garnishment summons was served, he turned
over to me all the records. I inspected the records and found
he had overdrawm his accownt. He explained to me that he had
moved from Waukegan, when he got employment here, he moved down
here and he needed some funds. He wanted to know whether that
was all right. I says, ‘on the contrary, anything you need,
Teddy, is all right with me, because I have enough confidence in
you to put the disposition of all the receipts that are taken ‘
in, the cash receipts, so I certainly trust you to that extent.
He was overdrawn when the garnishment summons was served,
he was overdrawn at the time of the answer, he is overdrawn noW,
He has taken money in excess of his salary, and I say that the
answer must be an answer to the interrogatories. The fact Ane,
he did take money; we didn't pay him vo untarilys yah got tes
and he did it by authority, because he has complete charges
The parties then stipulated as followss
=
-sestedd «bas ", eal) yas ge mist anh mo liezommnet sere x0 ee lzelee
fk seviovnl ed s80 mottgmexe Yroludads oda 0 ‘m0 i8s9up on +9703
to Lhe o¢ ag Tower. ot Secommse aa oosis e143 been +9020 ed
noternoseog sok at totdeb trommbut, eit Yo atoe To 70 ofndu0 ond
Yo ooivres wiw of as hegaunyhs at MO869T basoa on ‘baa ‘ybotewo <0
tifa ia a" eedn ines aud $ toabe T Onset _— Ey: bivouts basso’ a en
eooyo fame agi od code keray ont mort enh seonboddebat yaa m0 aevooet od
to galreod alt ‘to toatuo ante se Loansoo a'riksmbelg ert
0. ante hnten oats yantegs pouedne od suomgbst gst besten oanae ) ain
bing ai tart solrodsgoxtesat oxtd od ‘Towers att ak ne taainbs sid
ts ig eee
$k mogss gnosis tacoy ak nose out te ootvse8, ont rofte arse opro00 3
be WORE
ww (worivel nineties at » xowune att we ‘pais one ‘of rein baa
courted gs, ate ae Lew as. ao taz0g709 vitae ene ‘0 ‘tnebioorg edt ai
ast ept090 to txomyo Las ond 98 86 suomosade antvesto2 outa obs ‘
abel ba mid neowded bess ixe salt ano taLet atone! | ang bas ‘isles
iO. haat 2 OG
: rove ium
ie a ey
ib obhatin 4 mas I bas suet pry ‘Lie ply ‘os gent 1"
gt Hovis etewane ent to sonetoddist at ytisvasd of bme “wxowe
to agost oft of as baim a'dawod eft at soitaoup Mes ak exert tt
aid conta amas” fife ts ted? o8 ,.eyotqme edd. nove eald
gotibets s aaw sel¢gazoqzos en? so liatoqzroo exit Yd teoarye fame
88 yYolgms woe hetatne eyelqu ont. *** -— segdeoh e Bo baotant
~akb te Rpt Pre ort a, rt pies A wa aodcorel £88 Prey
te ytalsa ain ,tfeamist gutbufomt «qled edd ffs ays be 5 pr i
—s
boirtetd asf 4 boven sav enemys
beyot bas abtooet salt pernouses r wabTODes | iia om o¢ tevo
bat onl tat? om of bontalgxe ofl . Ȣemos0s, mid. bat ea
‘dae bovom ef .sterd Jnonrcelqme toa od ani rong 't Mott 0
a oiaes oa ia. soi 000, Pan , pe ant le
& £0 a
Kk eonehlinos mgyone 6 ‘ mee ona | : ‘te tts oom
newest ois jait cigivoer ng fe to so ites ib ons
‘strpdxo ted of voy temas bt oa tow gad: oy Han!
mA Bsw OMourmre inoemialara, elt seacw tevo
“Won Brethyovo ef & <toudhn bate = mat ad 0 si ‘aw on
onl Sadt Ysa I bas «ytstes abd “faim ora
el Yost ont .aetxo sStagotcodat bi Praca “nas
“ett fog ont sud. ULbtas ov mist (So SW iyeKom edad bib of
vio “e@gtatle ef aiqmog sant ect. ‘ti bid of Hate
“imo tants SeWetfol ar seeasete nt hig a st ie 3
Che ie Agar wad te foxy
ov
“Yr. Simpson: Wow, of your Honer please, that is all
well and gooé@, and I believe we con stipulate, according to
counsel's statement that the books and records of the company,
regardless of whether the man drew the money or Was paid the
money, show that he received, after the date of the notic®s
$175 up to the date the answer was filed. Is that corrects
counsel -- as advances?
“Mr. Mesirows: Yes, as advanees on his salary, or eredits,
leans, whatever you want to call ite
"Mr. Simpson: That is understood, as advanees according
to the amswere We Will also stipulate that at the time of the
service of notice of garnishment upom the gernishee and at the
present time, there was and is due from the original defendant
to the garnishee a sum in exeess of that."
The principal Guestion presented for our determination is
whether, even though the indebtedness of George, the original
judgment debtor, to his employer garnishee exceeded the amount of
£175 paid to him "as advances" by the garnishee between the time
of the service of the summons in garnishment upon it and the filing
of its snswer, the payment of such advances constituted an admission
of indebtedness to the employee by said garnishee.
In Baird ve luse-Stevenson, 262 Ille Apps 547, where the
facts were almost identical with the facts here and where the same
questions were involved, this court in its opinion written by Justice
Gridley said at ppe 5488-49-50:
"The cause was tried on a stipulation of facts as follows:
"(That the books and records of the garnishee disclose that
between the service of netice of garnishment upon the garnishee and
the filing of the answer, the sum of ©530 was paid to the original
defendant [Baird] as an advance or drawing accovnt against future
commissions to be earned by him; that at the time of the service
of notice of garnishment upon the garnishee and at the present time
there was and is due from the original defendant [Baird] to the
garnishee a sum in excess of $4,000, for moneys advanced in the
past to apply against commissions earned and to be earned by said
original defendant in the employ of the garnishee.!
wee Although it is the law in this State that a judguent
ereditor can only recover from the garnishee that which the judgment
debtor could have recovered in an action of assumpsit or debt
prougat by him against the garmishee (Swope v. McClure, 239 Ill.
Appe 578, 581; Webster ve Steele, 75 Til. 544, 546); and although
it is provided in substance in section 13 of our Garnishment Act,
Cahillts Ste Che 62, pare 13, that where there is money due from
the judgment debtor to the garnishee the latter has the right to
set off the amount in the garnishment proceeding, yet, as we under-
stand it, it is also the law that the payment of money by the gar-
wet ae
~
ile eb Yedf yoeseDy tomo awey te .well ihoaqmtd cut"
of griibtocss ,steluqiia aso ew protfed I bra 500m bas Llow
ewsaqemo edd to ebtGoet bas eNdod sit tay toemetase ‘al loantos
odd bisg ssw to Yonom odd weth osm et teddedw to saefb:
#Sotton att te otab odd to3Te shevteost of sant woita coma
riosttoc tadt aI ,beLlit anw towene odd stab odd oF S958
feeontvbs aa —- Lenmos
catibovte so .ytelsa ait no eoonnvis oe yaeY “Yworkiol sro 8S &°
et {iso 8 deca MOY toved ast sanaod
cht hehoes eeesieven | Cy) .bootarsbay aft ‘tat tmoagmie + xi"
pit Ro embkt oft ta tad etalug ita oats ILiw eV 5 tewane ‘ene oF
edt te bee sedetnieg oft soqu saemiatateg to oo iven kod eoiviea
tusbaeteh Innigizo oft wort sub ei bus sow stent eomks dnones
Med aaly te @RODKS at ae 6 ices rag
at noitoniaredeb wo x07 bedmoaerg ne kt aeup fog tontug ‘ost
taitis tro oxld cogT00b 20 ansuboddebat edd guodt nove, ‘tests sete
0 dome exis bobosoxe sone tien xoye Lame ate! ot eroeden snomabut
oe “rie &
omhe ost moswied sede loreg outs we "av ousvbs ant abst hed § Lag ave
a te EP i A es he
palit ost hms dt mocat dromte Ler ps enorme oul to votyros bre x0 i
no teaimba 5 ne “bedud ttes00 esoneybs ampere Yo “rman att “tov tt %
‘smettabineas Pion ue erenbees edt i pa aot ‘to
sear Ley gees
eng ores «TDS vquA off Sas tHodsemed in eead “Vv bated xt
st a a
emea ins sredw bua ‘ered afoot ong tg Inokineb! suemte sx0w yd pao
soitast we todd tw noinbge age at étu109 ane _sbevdsrat oe
© OR ea ge: a! aye k enn
sewolfot as eb ae to ho 808 re | 2 mo holt? ebw’ oviv bed Tons dee sig
tadd sebLoaib esttatazsy oft a ot He Bo ey Pade te ict cae
bag eedaiittag oft nog tientla toreag | sd “Hoowted —
fant ite eid 02 piae's aw’ Gee? to ‘6 asia wo BE cn -gHELit sas”
oistut tantegs gavoogs gutwarh to ponsvbs [betsa) Stes.
soivtsa oft ‘to “om . > fadd pail ¥ 6d oF- hustdo-
amt? dieeery edd #5 a carta bites é
and tée
iatag to solton to’
eft o¢ [ba tad) serrate he i Taw ef bis aav oxas.
eft i heonevba mysnom 167% b aes ve 8 eona
dige ee bontsa of ot bre bens ane
3 * healer Gas SNe bapa ea? aF SOabAOtEE fanhe
bst s hia yna as
Ps sh ae
“8 we
eet ayers: girls
° eB YA
Agueds Le ‘ban, a a es whet. a
eto toonrla Lori o &L moltosa &
moxt omb Yonom ofl ered? oteasw ¢ ma . aad i tla
of deigiz edd sad tetsal edd sedmabite
-tobny OW as «dey egaihesoorg Pevensey nl ot oi Jrnuome ed Tio toa
“tay odd yd yonom to snemyaq oft todd wel edt ovale ak df ys busta
~5m
nishse to his employee judgment debtor between the time of ths
service of a summons upon him as garnishee and the filing of
his answer in the garnishment proceeding, is an admission of_
indebtedness to the employee by said garnishee. *** in wane
for wae of Hooper v. Park Fireproof Storage Goes, 222 Ilie Appe
$6, @ case decided by this division of the Appellate Court for
the first district, it appears that Hooper recovered a judgment
against Palslcy for about “150; that after an execution had been
returned unsatisfied, garnishment proceedings were commenced against
the Storage Coe on May 3, 19203; that its answer, "no funds,? was
contested; that on the trisl the evidence disclosed that Paisley
Was an employes of the garnishee at a salary or wage of $41 per
week, that after the garnishee had been served with process it
paid to Paisley (judgment debtor) 541 on May 11, 1920, and $41 on
May 18, 1920, that at the time of the sarvice of sumacns upon the
garnishee Paisley was indebted to it upon his demand note for $300,
dated Vebruary 21, 1920, which sum had been advanged to him, and
that the garnishee was the holder of the note and the entire amount
thereof Was paysble to it at the time it was served with the gar-
nishee summons. The trial court found that the garnishee was in-
debtecé to Paisley (judgment debtor) in the sum of $82, and entered
judgment in that swa egainst it. In affirming the judgment this
court, efter stating that appellent (the garnishee) relied upon
sections 13 and 24 of the Gernishment Act, Cahill's Ste, che 62,
Parse 13 and 24, said (ppe 98, 9%) s
"tWe are of the opinion that upon service of garnishment
process the garnishee had the right to adjust the eccount between
itself and the judg@aent debtor and apply the amount due Paisley for
salary on his note for $300, in conformity with these provisions of
the statutee Obergfell ve Booth, 218 Illls« Appe 492. The garnishee
did not see fit to do so, but after service of garnishment process
paid Paisley *82, and in so doing admitted an indebtedness to that
amount. Wilcus ve Things 87 Ill. 310%7.t
"In Hudson for use of Topp ve Hudson Motor Coe, 235 Ill.
Appe 391, a case decided by another division of this court, the
holdings in the Wilous and Paisley cases, supra, were followed, the
court saying (p. 394)?
"Under section 13, che 62, ef the Garnishment Act, ***
the garnishee had the right, upon service of garnishment precess,
to deduct from Hudson's salary, as it was or came due, what he
owed, but it could not refrain from adjusting the account and go
on peying his salery for years, and se simply by so doing, evade
and aveid ite statutory obligation.'"
In Burke v. Congress Hotel Coe, 280 Ille Appe 493, where
the employee judgment debtor was indebted to his employer garnishee
and without setting off the indebtedness due it from such employee
the garnishee paid him his full monthly salary after being served
with summons as garnishee, this court in its opinion written by
Justice Priend, after diseussing Baird v. Luse-Stevenson, supra,
and most of the authorities quoted and cited therein said at ppe
498-993
pad
eft lo omiy eid mogesed sdob gromkut igh a ate og eede
te Misi oxtd Dee hh ig oey oly Yo Goh PP
MO mis se Bane taomde tines “e rae tTIWe ue
er ey @ bevevoogt toqeoH tan? exseaaa ARR TD fait as a
poltuosxne oe testa dels 4086% ee, Sth oda Let snmkoee
sations © nah ach érow agnibeeoorg ¢hearta bret need bem
eaw %, about on® .towans ett dats {OSeL .& de Sig 205 Gasto?d:
ecetes, isdt beaoloath goenebive ott Lota edt a0. fate
to egaw to ¥ialee o ta sede -gatt aLo0n
kw boytse ve he c ohetin Be Ses tS te 3
ne “E sehetie ath Yau no the (aogdob tromyeut) sgeEe
eds ogy shonma S6 Bo tpred” adi ‘te. pads te tati
e008 trol stom bisemob aks Boqu tt st agdobni asw °
ines”, rie
brs etic of, peonsybe bed mre told .Oker ¥ mae
touoms Saisie 9 yon ues 768 on ould ae dé inray
~tep ons diiw bevtes saw ¢ galt. ihe : 3 a¥eg
=Nt gsw ode totes’ odd Fee Ne ‘gasoo £ og me. a Tap sa
boredne bae .88¢ to mma edt mi (totdod. jtisaatat ote ,*t
‘eine wmaakt tobe gtilexitie : seh ¢ peered te
mogu beifor (eodataisg edd) tuslleqqs oda pies sis seltitee
eS soo. ed8 G*LLINSS , 3 OA Prema itis) ent a
8108 ee aq) bise «bs bas &L sazst
, ses tw hele gag z
pinto le to soivioe Rowe desis acichins ons ‘to. ews owe
. teewted gavooos odd taujos ot sdgia edd bad sedatateg ont aadso tg
rot Yelaisl sub Jnwvounwn oft YLqges baa totdeb tmompehyf, edt bre TLoatt
tO anoliaivetg cased’ i hw yd lerotmes aes (20088 — ston eif so yrelan
getlatotag aff? 80) eqqA «ILI 8BL£8 ae eoiuiate silt
aeaootg. tnemis inieg. to; opivices os git see tom bib
teds of nsonbeddebal as bets imbs nateb Sai iy bis m fais? blag
ae aes ee AeVOL eLft VQ, qgmkitoey. ow Deroges:
a a 200 TO _x0to sonbut eG 9 8 cs <0 "weer pod a nae Cn age pans!
ate npr 288 a0 eins to mole eu ton oa ra Be o Be @ aaA
efs ,bowollol orew ,sugya ,seaso yoletad bas. i
“HE ort raaphieg
A tod tHomdelorey edd to. .88 .do.<dL.notteca tebattt"
“¢88580%q. ae: phys g +9. eeeetes Pace ais ae hae sg
OH $adW. ela Bat tt ae 2! poRbsllm
08 bine qhioses, ads 3 taphbe- ‘eas sistiez som :
sikh santa? o8 ms, te oe bas eazeey. x01
Th mtiaans8 seer
“gilt efOS., aah Rss 8 as. ‘ 90 £9:
eas eat
sedgintes xeyatqms ald od ‘poddobad ay dosdas "alin etal er
eoyolgme dove mott $ oub eaombodddbak sad tro subse und tv ‘bn
| bevioe gated tosts YteLaa ied ftir abt bet ‘bing. tht i
Se Mete ty mate eee ie ane edbsta tens, 23 hedomd
“ates idakevsst—saat .y vod bi are 5 ili ut
Ce ts Bkow ittotonty ” dae ‘in — denen 66% fon ila
VEL Gi
f , an at ra “00-68 |
= Ges
"We regard these cases as controlling. The garnishee
argues that because Burke's indebtedness to it exceeded the
amount due Burke on the date of the garnishee summons, it had
the right under the statute to set off the amount of the indebt-
edness from Burke against what it owed him, without actually
makines the adjustment contemplated by statute; that the rights of
the parties are to be determined as of that date; and that the
subsequent payment of Burke's salary for July, during the pendency
ef sult, is immateriale This position is untenable, and is not
sustained by the authorities. The statutory provision is intended
to protect a garnishee ageinst debts which may be due from the
judgment debtor, but, in order to avail itself of the statutory
provision, garnishee must make the adjustment when notified ef
the garnishment proceeding, and cannot theresfter pay to the
judgment debter the amount admitted te be due him and still rely
upon the statutory protection. Had the garnishee in the instant
ease retained or deducted the sum due Burke from the ameunt that
Burke owed it when the garnishment summons was served, it could
have availed itself of the statutory provision, but in paying
Burke his salary after answer and during the pendeney of the suit
it admitted its debt to Burke and lost the right which the
statute affords."
in the instant case the garnishee, Fox Head Restaurant
Company, clearly had the right under sec. 13 of the Garnishment
act to set off the indebtedness of George to it against such amount,
if any, due George from said garnishee, but when it paid him $175
“as advances" after it had been served with summons in garnishment
and before it had filed its answer without adjusting its demands
against him, under the established rule in this state the garnishee
admitted an indebtedness to its employee and lost its right under
the statute to assert such demands. ‘The contention of the garnishee
that it should be absolved from liability to the garnishor because
George helped himself to hie employer's funds is without merit in
view of the testimony of Mx. Mesirow, the president of end attomey
for the garnishee, that George had full authority to draw or advanee
to himeelf such funds and his conduct in so doing is just as binding
upen the Fox Head Restaurant Company, his employer, as if the ad-
vamees were paid to him by some officer of the corporation authorized
to do 5O-.
It is also contended that the trial court erred in refusing
to permit the garnishee to file a supplemental answer to plaintiff's
LSS, a
eedginren of? palilownos ae. seas oaedt beget ov
ont. bobseoxs ti og aronbetdebnt c'exzya ecteoed tertt eon
bysat $f .enomma sedatscen of3 to stab ead no oxusal eub J easoumy
~tfebat eft to Jiunome edt Tio tea 04 o¢utate od robaw £ 5
Leirtos tuoddiw .mith hewo th dadw daniage saliw& mov’ x.
Yo adtigts old tend iotuiads vd, dade, noo teemter Lbs ayy bEits
Role eotiape gh erting Nap Aactg ctu
Yoaiehtr cig MHD. @ ve) ars ayaq tek psadite
gon el bas .oldanstow ol oolstaeg, elatT »Leiretoamt ge tive
hohosint eat noletvese yxodatate ent wweli Exosit ue ond ws heck
oad mot enh od Yom doddw, added t aod
“wroduteds odd Yo Meatt Lheve of, sobto mk edi gory dnemgbut
19 beiiivon vedw daceatsulbs odd stem tana joan fone sho laivoxg
age od, yoy tedteoveds toomap. ban »gaiboooorg’ Inemlatnrey 0:
eon. Litie ona mist sud,ed of bods tmbo tquona olf}, xoddeb. fnemab:
taatent molt at senate ke ag, sad 50H wet fog Nadeau As:
‘bLuoo at eberiee ai, ecm B drrewarta.
— ek gard re ad walla
| aan
“thatwaseel boeH xe% eerie batag add ouge pers at, cy yo
tnomtiatice ef? Yo EL +008 cobaw asiy ix oud bart ‘reste ates
seein Hove sentope eho opted Yo enonbeadsbat at Ho. toa oF 498
ant a bisa Oe next etal «conte hata sbhew nto egz0e0 ub cont
dovsanta Bet ng nt anomie sity bovzee noad hadi a ‘wets Yeeonsvbs na"
sbiameb adt ister suotts tw sswaus aat. belt? ‘Dasha: ‘oro ted: bac
vedia Lnrcey ett. atedes ahs at Rooke borta Lidat ao. ett vanthest i, i
‘geben dighe adi edad ‘ieee COGS tik: age pm roche,
eorde iris, asks to ‘hot tnedans ont ‘8b heuteh ‘toue ne oo dtutags ous
eausood rode iniag eae ‘és ‘qi itigets ot bevtoads: og blued 42 ta s
al tivom tvodd iw at abiwt at eoyelgne eh ef Mounts bagheit oases
Coaendts bag 29. dayb loons off sete aM. Me NMemh iene 98? "to woby
Satsvds 10 wetd of “tirodlius Lou, bact og c09d taild soodutoceg edd. x92 ;
antibaid.as gant, at aatoh o2 gt govbaoo ald bua, abst dove tLoamis o@
-be eft tivse «reyptqme ald. ymeqmod tasteteeH beek x0'f, ong seq
bexiverins seitexoqzeo og to xrookito smos yd. om et bing ozew agokev
apr Se ee en en mae 108) 0b, 08
gxitayior mk betre ftveo Penns ws beds he haotaos aah tt.
» , OTidately of towanes Letmeoelyque a oLtt od eorielmrsg od phiabans
en
interrogatories. It is sufficient answer to this cotention to
state that at the conclusion of the hearing of this case on
Mareh 25,5 1936, the trial court indicated that its decision
would be adverse to the garnishee and it was only upon the
latter's insistence that a continuance be granted for the sole
purpese of submitting briefs that the court postponed the matter
for a week until April 1, 1936. ‘e think there was no abuse of
diseretion in the court's refusal to allow the filine of the
supplemental answere
We are of the opinion that the judgment of the munici pal
court was properly entered and it is therefore affirmed.
APP IRMED «
Friend and Seanlan, JJe, concure
Be
rd
a ee Simoashagge® cd ‘et
i i ‘aus
5 SED, Ah
a
tid. «tee es h B 9
wa aan Sages
&
si amyent
wera baby he
ies) POP MAI Be
é a & Ne
ay Bont wee. a
Pk epi as FP eh, ‘a
eb, died
Bit BE yeaa em | PRB OB # EGMS
iv ignated AN ep" cee dake Ba lel ie m
BU RAS #4) Sk ld Te AS wie Scene are a “iui 4
4 Moa ‘un
f pee WSR ROIS. 5 ay ide ‘
: : a Pa Wa Sh =! Ra 8 NG aa
ik . y
A Cgeh ay Won
Cah Sites ‘ ia Ee
« ene
Lc
is
39112
PAUL HB. OLSON et ale»
(complainants and cross
defendants below), .
Appellants,
APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR
Ve
COURT, COOK COUNTY.
WILLIAM Je BURNS et aley
(defendants and cross | 2 8) 6; I.A. 5 9 9”
complainants below) »
Appelleese
MRe PRESIDING JUSTICE SULLIVAN
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal by plaintiffs, Paul BR. Olson and Mdmund
He Swanson, and defendants, O»« Me. Zeis Lumber Company and William
T. Franklin end Albert Dykema, copartners, doing business as the
Normal Glass Company, from a decree in favor of the defendants,
William Je Burns and Margaret Re Burns, his wife, which overruled
the master's report, dismissed plaintiffs' bill of complaint and
the answers in the nature of intervening petitions of the said
Oe Me Zeis Lumber Company and William T. Franklin and Albert Dykema,
copartners, doing business as the Normal Glass Company, to foreclose
their mechmics' liens, and sustained the cross bill filed by the
said defendants, William J. Burns and Margaret R. Burns, to confirm
their title in and to the premises involved and to remove the said
mechanics' lien claims and certain other instruments as clouds upon
the title of said William J. ina Margaret R. Burns (hereinafter fer
convenience sometimes referred to as the defendants) .«
The bill of complaint was filed Merch 6, 1930, by plaintiffs‘
assignor, Olson & Swanson Construction Company, and alleged in sube
i Sth
i 1%. : : i j
HOMIE MOT TANITA °
*
eYTMIOD WOOD , TAVOD Lad covsnenbegey ae
els bn “mone t ‘MALLIIW
“CREAT OCS: ys ESS
ay eels ‘yo woenw i WAT
_ nt me trmiang)
" etmatiogga
Svan
WAVILIVG COLTSUL DULG IeIAs . Ml
eTHUOD SHT GO MOLHIGO SAT Genkvituc
stenmn pe - thd: few Sooke et
Hrambe bre moald .% Ine ,ettisaltelge yd Lesage we af etd?
MBEICEW bee Yequiod tedumnt efoN .M 10 gagnebasteh bs ¢noenaw® “
eld an eaoniaud gutob yatentiaqeo yasewyl ated LA bin wiflinessT »T
easnsbaoteh odd to rovet ai setesh 2 mort eyoquod easel) Laaroll
beLsrzevoe Moldw ,otiw ain »entul .f dexegtall bas anil .t me ifriw
bus tnislqmoo to [Ltd attiintelq beaaimalb .Jxoqet e'rsteam edt
bisa oft to emoititeg patnevirstai te exmtan oft mk etoweng of?
psmoaty dredfh hae wbisinerT .1 meLLTEY baw yuoqmo xedmunl atos »M 60
seofoorot oF «yfeqmoD asa Lamrol emt as aaontaud gkob ¢8tons isgeo
ott yd DOL? Ltd asoro oft bonteteave hae .ameltl ‘aol meloem xlest
oxiinos of ,anrw® .f dotegtal bas anu .t oe tl Liv .etnebmetob bise
bisa ett evomor ot bue boviovat eeulmetg off of bie mi ofths Fed?!
noges abyolo as stromrrtenkt rtedio tikes te9 brs amislo moht "eo inestoom
tot tod tantozed) ante «i teregteaM bas .t& maki liv bise to eltit ot
-(e¢nadneteb std en of hoxtetot aomit omoa sone Lnevnoo
ettitaisiq yd ,oeer ¢® Motel beLlt eew tninlqmoo to [Lid ‘ont
~dva mt begelisa brs ¢ycaqaod moltoutieso) noenew8 & noalO ee
ad
stance that the defendants and William A. Anderson and others,
were the owners of the vacant real estate at 3142 Lafayette avenue,
Chicago; that under a written cotract with snderson “authorized,
consented to and knowingly permitted" by said defendants, plaintiff
furnished and delivered the labor and material necessary for the
completion of the excavation, foundation and mecsonry of a bungalow
on seid real estate for the agreed price of (1,575, none of which
had been paid; that a statement of claim for mechanics! lien for
$1,540 was properly filed; and prayed that lien therefor be deereed
and enforced against such property and the improvements chereon
under the statutee
The intervening petitioners, named as defendents in the bill
of complaint, appeared and filed answers in the nature of interven-
ing petitions to foreclose their respective mechanics' liens on the
same realestate. The Zels Company's petition alleged that under a
written contract with Anderson, “with the authority, kmowledge and
permission" of William J. and Margaret Re Burns, it had furnished
lumber and building material of the value of $728.41 for the con-
struction of said bungalow, no part of which had been paid; and that
a statement of claim for lien for that amount had been properly filede
The intervening petition of Franklin and Dykema, who furnished labor
and materlal for gkazing that went into the cmstruction of the
bungalow to the amount of $125, was to the same effecte
Defendants in their answers to the bill of complaint and to
each of the intervening petitions admitted sole ownership of the real
estate upon which the bungalow had been erected, but denied that
Anderson had any interest in said reol estate, that they authorized
or knowingly permitted him to contract for the labor and materials
that went into the construction of said bungalow or that they had
any knowledge of such construction.
ia a
ll : \ Sal
caxedso bos mootebtth »A mekiliv bas atasbasteb add gad eonsite
4 eoumeve stioysial SAL6 ta atates tees sreosv oft To atomen eff otew
vbealuodiua’ moatebas sigiw dosti. aediinw s tebouw tend fogsobtd
tiitaisly sagnabne'ted hitss Vd “hestioreg yLgniwomt fre of hedaeanoo
ely xol Yuseaooon isitodant bres wodeal ant borevifob brs bests kaw?
wolapaud s to Yrtousm bits ss, ‘eecmaneria are owe me —_—
[ Tot mots. Jaginesoon so? mislo to timeedate a pest than need bas
booxesh od gotetoild meif tett Seyarg bus me etree my aa ici
no orteds -aenomovorgat edt bas Ytteqoty fous tenting hoosotns “a
wD SSO panne ‘eit ‘dele
ffid ont at atashueteh as bomen enantio oranda oT
-novtetit to exten: odd nit browanabOREY bina’ bonmeqgn «satsLomoo :
edt mo utoll taginsdoem ovtiooqeot then? enafootot | o2 cua 30 tteg gat
ebm Jed hepelte motsitog etumsgnod ates eff ,.9aste s
bite egbs fw om eWixodius ond Ate eeaxehah at iw é 8" gE:
deste breast bed di eansa oA totaytal bag, »% mpl thy te "ao tan cro
7H.9 eft 2Ot LBS to oulsy ef? to fetrotem amkbLiud bag rooms
dailt, bog pblaq need bak sold to dteq of ewoLeg aud bias to a
obOLEY vizeqozg need bad gavoms pele roi mall rot misfo to ae 103 ot
ee rp
_ 2ns8
ite Mw wie!
, er 20 no td orsde.n09, ont, eau _ tage jadt pateaga 39% x tadogon, hae
st 00229 ome ould, 0? Baw eOSL5 baal demos, oat of wols
+ bom tatatquos 20 Litd ode ot a terams boils At, wa sapere, as
Inet orld 20 qitte ono efoe, boss imba Peet tee, antnevxodat ents 0 nee
taifld beinot ong sbedoose seed Basi woLsgrand od slo tet Ww mogs 9ta3 a9 a9 ,
pox tvotttue youd, text sotateo Lot bias age See, a, ete
ale lrodent bas easy) Pt: «ot 3 a"
best yestd fault, x0 wotmgaut &
Defendants filed a eross bill in which they alleged that
they entered into a contract of sale with Anderson, in which they
agreed in consideration of $50 earnest money to convey such real
estate to him after he paid the further sum of ®1,750; that Amderson
failed to pay that amount or any part of its that they therefore
elected to and did declare said contract of sale null and voids; that
neither Andereo nor my other person, except themselves, had any
right, title or interest in said premises; that the warranty deed
to said real estate, which had been placed in eserow pending
Anderson's payment of the purchase price of the property, had never
been delivered to him; that possession of the premises had never
been given to Anderson nor to any other person for himj that the
Andersons made and caused to be recorded without right or authority
two trust deeds conveying said real estate to secure first end
second mortgage loans of $6,000 and #1,500, respectively; that said
trust deeds were made without the knowledge or consent of defendants
or either of them; that no moneys were ever paid out on either of
Seid trust deeds or the notes secured by them; that the aforesaid
contract of sale, the two trust deeds and the claims for mechanics?
liens constituted clouds on the title of William J. and Margaret Re
Burns to said real estate; and prayed that samc be removed as clouds
upon their title.
Thereafter the substituted plaintiffs, Paul @. Olson and
Edmund Le Swanson, filed an amendment and supplement to the original
pill, alleging the assignment in writing to them of the original
Plaintiff's claim for mechamicst lien and praying for the same relief
sought by said original plaintiff in its bill of complaint.
The law governing the issues involved in this cause is clearly
set forth in Olin ve Reinecke, 336 Tlle 530, where the court said at
ppe 534-353
act begoitle Yods doidy af {Lid saozo « betit agashmotes
NO, Speke at gmpprebms £2 oy fas 30 foarte « etat hezetee ndt
_ fx dome Yovnoe oF Yonom trenxse OBR 2o sptiaxebtanen ai booms
moaxehmA. ta$ 4O9Te LS Yo me roMent ed biog Mf costa, mist o%, of.adne
op lore dd yord tatt ttt to txoq yam to sawnms tarld yaq of beltst
teri? sbtev baa, [fun eles to tomtinoo bise arefooh bib, bas od, hotoete
wie bert eaeeLoamed? tqeoxe ynonteg todgo Ym tom mateha wedtten
bead ydaetrew, oft todd gesaimeng bisa, nk pooredmt to Olt? .tidigis
o- guthaog werowe si Seaslg need barf sods, yotedes L207 bhes oF
seven bed .yiteqes¢ edd te cokuq eandonuq od 2 trearysg a! neatebaa
tevern bat eeskepiq edt to nolsesasog tact iid ot borevitebd nsed
out tant gmbi co% conreq toto ys of rom MoMTebMA Of MeVis nod
‘Bwitodine to idgiz twaltiw bebtooet ed of deuce ae ebam aneatebaA —
> beeodertk? euvosa of etetae Lest bisa aatiyernoo ebook said owe
btae ged yylovitooqeot 1008, L% brs 000.8% To snsol eysys Tom baepes
aixebseted to tasanoo to epbslword -edd.dvodtiw ebem jevew abeob geuad
‘te tedtto ao to .biaq teve stew eyomom am dest varodd, to, tedeie.co
-pienetots aft told ioedi yd bemoge aetoa.odd so abeob gowt? bias
> Veoknmetloent got emialo eft drm aheob san yd.owd ont qolsete,.doettaeo
(gf deusgtsM bas. Lai lLey to oltie ont ino abuele botut teaneo eno kt
‘shiole as bevomen ed omen tadd beyerg bra. ietotes Loe 2 bios 9%: comet
6 1d dow 5 ord, ACLs eee tus pea eRe Cele: hogs
bre mold 8 Lue .ettitniele betwtitedue edt cotteetedh a cn
fanigizo aft. of dnemalqqua: bis J membuene a8, boftl.,xoaaye, «i bemmbs
Lenigixo edd 20 wens of galdbrew., at ¢aomminas oily gatgotio elite
‘tel ley omea ond 10% gaiyetg bag wolf. Yaekuertoom, xot shat 2! 2tignteta
tatsiqnoo to Liid eth mi alec Gitialiast 96 VE tenon
VirseLo ah oauso atdt mk bovloviyt sowens ont |
wed
"The general rule at law is, that if a stranger enters
upon the land of another and makes an improvement by erecting a
Ley ay 5 the buillding becomes the property of the owner of hy
lande (Dooley ve Crist, 25 Ill. 453; she ve Dobschuetz
id. 438; Grest v. Jack, 3 Watts, [Pa.] 2353 1 Hilliard on Real
Prope 5.) in equity, however, if the owner Pe Tn by and pemits
another to expend money in improving his land he may be compelled
to surrender his rights to the land upon recéiving compensation
therefor, or he may be compelled to pay for the improvements. In
such cases there is always some ingredient which would make it a
fraud in the owner to insist upon his legal rishts. Such an in-
gredient may consist in the owner encouraging the stranger to
proceed with the improvement, or where one party acts isnorantiy
and without the means of better information and the other remains
silent when it is in his power to prevent the expenditure of the
money under a delusion. it has been held in such cases thet to
permit one to take advantage of the mistake of another would be
revolting to every sentiment of justice. (Clark v. Leavitt, 3368
Ill. 1843 Loughran ve Gorman, 256 id. 46; Bright v. Boyds 1
Story, 478; 2 romeroy's Eq. Jure sece 807; Bigelow on @stoppel,
sece 8183 Story's qe Jur. 490.) The exercise of such w judicial
power, however, unless based upon some actual or implied culpability
on the part of the party subjected to it, is a violation of consti-
tutional rights. (Kirchner v. Miller, 39 lM. Je Eqe 355.) An error
which is the result of inexcusable negligence is not such an error
as equity Will relieve. Haggerty v. McCarma, 25 We Je Bqe 48."
in the Olin case, supra, the Supreme court also stated that
“the law is well settled, but the difficulty «rises from the appli-
cation of the law to the particwler fects of each casee Sometimes
one or two facts in a case distinguish it entirely from other cases
which are cited in favor of its holdings or contrary thereto,"
July 14, 1926, defendants, Williem J. Burns and his wife,
became the owers of the lot, then vacant, involwed in this proceed-
inge November 10, 1925, they entered into a written contract with
William A. Anderson, whereby they agreed to sell him said lot for
$1,800, acknowledging receipt of $50 from him as earnest money, md
Anderson agreed to pay the balance of 1,750 within four months
Yafter the title has been examined and found good, or accepted by
hime” A warranty deed to the lot, dated November 19, 1928, was
executed by Burns and his wife to Andrew BH. Anderson and his wife
as grantees. This deed and the contract for the sale of the real
estate were deposited in eserow with the Copmonwealth Trust and
Savings Bank as eserowe ang am cserew receipt therefor given te
(°
ae va tasit eat wel om oldt Loteney —_
A Ye somo
s fi aomam bite Lest. noqes
Md arly a 0 a ee i a ef} eomo ood of paabtdud bal yt oe
: aa fe yt
_ Bt Lame ye abies) @ el a
ptimeg aid ‘et buet ail patvevamk mt
Mo ganeguoo guiviess’ soqu biel ems oF adsiy ix
&l sttnemoverqmt oft tot veq of Sotisqaos od 1
nu ¢£ evem bisow doidw jneibergni omoe ayewle ai Phos Bega soue
~at se doy? .atdaby fLegek ei noqw talent ot tenwe off mh buett
od xepgiisite cid yRigsssoone tenwe sry at aps S lean audenee saalbers
viimeronat etos uiteg om oxadw tO ets
aniems't tedto odd ban moidaurotm: totded to aneorn iy jasostd kw gg
atid to ora timegxe ont daowouq of mtd mt af d4 sodw,gaolie
¢edd a2aco fous ot bled ueed aed JL + moltewleb a tobsw youom
od Sfsow,.cettons to stain eft Io egainavba estat oF one.
aes ones .¥ da: D) .opktaut, te aie Exeve ot pak?
roe 294 bt a
ChE tOS . ose ae ol
totbut « sore to qekonex ent & 48£8 «3
watt: Psi be tnait To faytes same “hs0°8, beta ea, A oe
~ijemoo to noitefoty s at «it of be 99 §9ie ye ta
yore tA (dae sgl «t 6 OE yh eo rut
oe
# * febqotet Ho WwoLe
dant ‘potsiea vals Ftv ome tern? atts .etque Seno pin pee ae owe
stfcas ‘off mozt aeatts ysteotttis ete suet Bettvea ftew di war ede
somipemo® ,oheo food 16 Byes? THIvoteysy ony OW War end Yo motiso
néano verte mort viotitns di dekverhtets sees « af t¥ost owF te oto
Nyotorsls yrettnes to agnEbfor adi to tovat nt be¥ko Be do tdy
eSLby Ri bins! emyvs 1 mest C by yedaebretés oser {AF ye!"
sBeegony Gift mi bewIoviet vdiiedev nodt tel eat to etelwo wal” amdowd
ety ¢ostthos medtirt a odmi botodrs vodd VONOL (OL todwovel Yin
rot Jol Glee mth foe of Seems Youd ydavedw caomtsbms A mel fhty
bow eyenbet foontio Be mbt mort - to veg uicighe fvomios seomia
" grteném ceo t miitshr O80. £5 to sone >
ed bedgoous so .booy eww? brs hentmexd wed ant ony ads dots”
Shades
od ‘boob wWawecaw A ", oiel
1 an Be es we Teenie &
ot by eid bie nowrobas +e verthmi ad othy ai bis anvil ve bedwooxe
guteig,, RR, opt
Vent salt Ve “cian ied eee doexta0e ads ba there snosdnem es
ioe Mey ei oF ys
“his faust alt foo id out” ity bw
bea te deb o's exew ae osndse
‘dan “eset 8 sodinavors ‘Pavni’ wok Gy
Che. Pen eaesS she
qe pw) ha :
ot sachin’ xotereds tqieost worteas al bins cer ag. test spaived
Bes
al ; ape. Be f
ASO, Be floue, tog enh iner § oe 36103 = * ‘ek “Theo Liens
"WBN ope .U oi So amnahe .v vitesse vovekier [fiw ysinpe ee
a
oh
Burns by the bank November 23, 1928. Anderson did not pay the
balance due on the purchase price of the lot and the deed and con-
tract were never delivered to him but were reclaimed by Burns May
28, 1929, because of such nonpayment. In the interval and during
the period between Christmas, 1928, and April 20, 1929, under cone
tracts with said William A. Anderson and at his instance, the
appellant lienors and others practically completed the construction
of a building on the premises. Anderson also caused two trust deeds
to be placed of record against said premises March 8, 1929, pur-
porting to secure, respectively, a first mortgage loan of $6,000
and a second mortgage loan of $1,500 on this property. For the labor
and material furnished by plaintiffst assignor to complete the excava-
tion, foundation and masonry work necessary in the construction of
the building, nothing was paid, and it filed its mechanics! lien claim
for ®1,540. Weither were the intervening petitioners paid anything
for the lumber and building material and glazing furnished by them,
respectively, that went into the construction of said building and
they filed their mechanies' lien claims in the respective amounts
of $728.41 and $125. No money was ever paid out on the mortgages.
There is no dispute as to the contracts between the lienors and
Anderson, the performance of said contracts by the lien claimants,
the time when the work was originally commenced and completed there=-
under or as to the proper filing of the lien claims. The liecnors
admit that they did not know William J. Burns or his wifes; that they
never dealt with them; that they never served them with contractors!
or material-men's statements; and that they never investigated the
ownership of the property in question. No evidenee was offered that
Burns or his wife authorized Anderson to enter into or sign the
construction contractse
The major and really the only question presented for our
determination is whether or net Burns and his wife or cither of
;
a
ode wee ton & ha nie arebsck sBROL «ES modo, asad, edd wW errs
the bam bees odt bas sol act to sotzg seastonn ext? 0 on oonstnd.
ya ne io bomtoioe oxew du abel ot box vis feb soved orow foond.
saben brie fovrotnit sit at + drreargaquon sora 0 envagod aesee ey
-no9 ‘tober e80E eOS Linge bees 2 esr <eaaida deaf soowted botreq outs
Bay Ponatent aid ta ein aver obs ‘A fea bebe ‘bhee giw etomut
ne iv otis ip eas bsdolgnoo Yifssivosng ‘etodde bas errenoks tustieqae
absob desta ew? bowtse oats moateba sasakmore ent a0 patbitud * to
mee OSL 18 dotaM aoe imetq bie satthegs proce to: ‘heathy: oe o
000.09 to meet gags tom. #atit eulovitooqaes 4 9teHa08 9 aaltzog
todel add to% .ytxeqosa elit ac 008,£$ to tao ogagd tom Saoooe a ha
“SVR9KS. ast etelgmos et tomy Lane Yettiontaly x bong tecn? rattodam bao
% spitovrtanes edly at. ‘\rsaeensa axxo" ‘YtHos.ce bas nob ebowe® noe
utelo neil 'eolsudeom aii balla ai bas biog Baw Prien, saaibLbud ould
akidiyan biag axomtsiseq aabagyred ct orig onew xouid tol ppneese Be}
wiots yd perialenwt anisaty pas Istzesem ga tbiiud bas xedauL ous, es .
bas withlind bisa to molionrsango aft dnt tnow stadt aay eerens
adimiome evigoogae oni mi amtalo oh t ‘aotnastoom tod ‘betit out
are
-opays Tom gis a0 30 bing tove oAW Yoatom OK sat bua 1 Ade Sere x0
| hae aregetl oft keews ed: Bio RTT AOD ot o¢ as esugsth on » oxestt
1 adaumiistly okt oud xa ad oats noe bisa 20 oonsarso 1x04 norig plier
~otend bed oLgwoo has beomeamo vitaukalro aaw tz0W oad ‘nostw ¢ omti “ons
: axonols edt eamiate aot outs to gmbtit rogoxg ont os aa “0 robe
oar sarty iotlw ati <0 sacs oh was wosat don bib ‘yous anid habe
taxed oandizop ddiw sawed perio rowan auld tad “wonts aig bw tisob xovon
ont bedanteacvat pei yet pen hea jadmewesese a'wen-Le2tod a0 a
tesld housYie Gaw eemabive 0 +o ttaeup ak ysreqotq oad ‘to qideosm
| outa mma fe 10 otne ‘rede of moatebnA bextroddun 8Yiw heh sits
j eli ala aca “sot0.andm00 etoheiabieal
“0 10% bogascorg mo bdeeup vine ond cline’ tht ‘eet sir ren:
ce teddto TO ‘tke ie hen xan be <0 waditede Py po ete |
-6=
them knowingly permitted Anderson to contract for the construction
of the building or knewingly permitted such constructione Williom
Ae Anderson, who entered into the various contracts with the
lienors, and his father, Andrew E. Anderson, who was one of the
grantees in the warranty deed, were made party defendants but de=
faulted, aiid neither of them were witnesses in this proceedings
To sustain their position that William J. Burms and Margaret Re
Burns or either of them knowingly permitted William A. Anderson to
contract with them for the construction of the buncalow or lmoewingly
permitted such construction, the lien claimants rely entirely upon
the testimony of one Lloyd Wheeler.
For a proper and clearer understand ing of Wheeler's testi-
mony, we will recite same fully in so far as it is contended it bears
on the question in controversy. He testified that hewas assistant
cashier in charge of the real estate loan department of the Common~-
wealth Trust and Savings Bank in 1928 and 1929, and that it was his
duty “to appraise property, pass upon mortgages end new loans, handle
escrows, brine down title" and to function generally in connection
whth real estate loans; that just before Christmas, 1928) the Comnon-
wealth Trust and Savings Bank agreed to make a first mortgage con~
struction loan of $6,000 to William A. Andersom on the vacant lot at
8114 Lafayette avenue "for a new building to be constructed on it,
and we also through our second mortgage loan department, made a second
mortgage of fifteen hundred dollars to the same party;" that he
“appraised the vacant property and the plans and specifications of the
house, made recomaendation to the Board of Directors that the loan be
passed, which it was;" that he “handled an eserow for Mr. and Mrs.
Burns and William Andersons whereby they agreed to give title ta
William Anderson upon the payment of a certain sum of money, the
aeivovtiens att tot Soettaos of mearebaA Seve totsey Lan hwernt ‘nieits
Metslin saoliovisencs Hosa bettimesq yLgrivoml to wate tid sity “to
ele thy neoertnog uve hisy edt Otek Sevedie vn. moeTonat VA
ets to eae as¥ ory gavarebmA sf wotbmA y Todds? abt ine jetodets
‘web tid adnshretes yorsq sham oxew best Yinertew of at avedsiity
sdothesvetg shige mt eeaaend tw etew mot to vost ion bie bod feet
(H Yotey tel bre cotaet 6t metthy eedld ots teog tfens atatawt ot
“ed sontebaA 4A maltLiy beds iimtoq yLantwostt itedd to rede to abrove
elaniwort to welasnrd oft Yo aottourtardo Ont) 16% mond dé tw toetaAds
nous ‘toxiene “lor etnemtats nett odd no tdoursened stows beds taney
! , “ tefeodv byOLt ome to cite shoes
«itag? agate ‘to pat hand azo ber were l0 bre reqore B 2 °
waned TF bebaetins af ¢% ea cat oo AE ULES onan edtoor ‘Litw oir com
— Haatetoan aa w od dadt be fittaed ou caTOverS H09 nt no tooup ‘ostt: 0
‘=trommin ons son x00 naot etetae tsot ents 10 apzesto at \itadinee
aid aew th tale bra esee bats exer nit inet aprivad ban saare ‘eikaee
olbrad eatso wen brts aopepé rom nous ensq ect roqong oatexcqs: on” par
mreenneo Pra eifareney mo 88 seas’ of baie Wott “amo sad sarorose
~txqeamoD oxid e880L vases at csf0 oxoted gant sans fana0t odstee foot sn
“noo ogsgé tom dart s east 03 booxgs nok sgaivel bra fore etoon
te tol dasosy esta 0 tm azoba oh mo LLL ty ot 000488 % aot no igoursts
ett £0 bosomsum od og pitbsind wom 4 <P" vounovs esdoyotal $f
pubs 48
bem 298 ® ebam .dasatiaqeb ms0f ogagi rom baooes ‘0 “quozdé conte ow, bas
# Ses
od tacit "yytang omse edt of arellob bo-cbawd mpeg? tt 20 aagr tos
ante ~~ ano Lyaokiloegs bre enelg acid bee “Useqo7g, dnsosy, esi? bowt ae :
og moot elt gail exodoorid 29 brg0l eld of molgabmonmoger, obam 4 sawed
wai bane. «af, 203, worgse ma befbned” et dedt “isew, oh doldy »boaneq
ot elstd evig ot beotgs yold Ylorosiw yaoazebm mwpSlhY bas antrwd
oat eXetom to awe mledre9 a to smonyag od aoa aoasebua wahiily
f Bre eyo! day eet cua ee a Rhee Pry oh
moneys to be derived from the first and second mortgage construce-
tion loans on the first draw on these loans," thet “the escrow
was placed in our bank *** along with the warranty deed and cone
tract for the deed," and that "the warrenty deed was tee Burns
end wife to Andersonj" that he did not have any conversation
"“Jirectly" with Burns or William A. Anderson concerning the escrow,
but that he did have a conversation “with my stenographer with
respect to drawing the escrow up" which Burns and his wife and
fnderson, who "were standing about five feet away from me couldn't
help but hear;" that his stenographer asked him "where the money
was to come from to pay for the lot, making second mortgage, and
then as to the clause to go in escrow to protect the bank from harm"
and he told her that "we had agreed to make a first mortgage con-
struction loan and a clause was to be placed in this escrow holding
the bank from harm, giving information that the warranty deed and
eontract woe not to be given out until the purchase price had been
paid in full *** the money, in payment of the deed *** was to came
out of the construction loan after title had been perfected in Burns;"
that “the first mortgage Was signed and recorded and made by our bank.
*%k* We agreed to make the loan at the time Mr. Blount was vice presi-~
dent of our bank in December, 1928;" that “he left our bank back in
January, 1929, and opened his own office in the next block and asked
if he could continue with the loan he had started, which we agreed
to do;" that the witness “dictated in the escrow agreement that the
purehase price was to come out of the first mortgage loan3" that
“we had another loan of Anderson's going through at the same time,
in the same blocks" that he could not state whether Burns or any’one
else was present when Anderson “made application for loan" on the
lot in question; that “Emery Blount had a second mortgage company,
which had been our subsidiary," and “between the two [Blount]
ot
wometamo-epspgdred banse bas’ Fetkt o49 movl bevkueb od od ayonoa
wernas and” Said" eneol ened no with Yard? ef no atteot mo he
«90 Sits boeh Ydnwtusw etfs Adis gnole * waned m6 al pooatg saw
ans mont cow beeh yiasrxew add" odedd ane" (hook ede tot soars
, Meitearernoe yes oved gon bib ef tals “gromrebad oF stiw bos
Woress sdt gninccosos nearebat vA msllLiw 1d coma Atlw ified ie*®
43 be reckzorgonete yt Aviw" nottcarevaeo « evant BEN ‘ot att vad
bre oTiw cid bas ania Hotiw “qe worses eit gittwe'th 2 Fosqeor
@ abies on mzt ysis Poot o7f't Yuodd gatbuste stew” ore , moeztober
“ono erft oxods" mit boas redqetgonota elf tatt “Prsen tid’ Gist
bus penegérom brooee gabtem . tof if} cot Yyaq. oF mor? Simos OF asw
hoventt any veed 6d tosdorgy OF worses’ Mr ’OR oF bavbLo oof? OF as nodd
<Soaoo egegevom tart? & ‘eilaw og boetge bad be" sak Yer biter on BE
pitbied wores wide ai Booey’ ey 0d enw Sully W Hie Heol Mohetlise
“fone bOOW Gittewesw OMe Pasty to LHe tert a | sec ed aor
eH Od eaw RY boom out to Fawmyeq Al’ -Yonom oa
‘jan Hr hevostreg mood bad efttt rotte mboL molsoudanos ests’ % tho”
2ined Evo YS shaw bey Bobreser bkd beigta asi ophgdtom seekt" ong" gang”
-lasty solv sev ¢emole aM omits ond beataanalng nies hens sae’
nt Weed ared two 3280 on dante "SOR + rodeo 0d ‘fg diteit tito to Snob
pedee bis Hold sxet ont mt ooktto Awe aid benogd bad .eSOL yteunt
hedxgs ow doletiy .bedzsee bad edt not ay ab i "ba a NE. aii 24°
oid tile suemobitgs worsus ont Hi hedadsth” aadiidiw edd gadd *POb' oF”
gottt °yndol ogoyetom Yortt set} to vn Smo of AW obitq’ Saadontg
qoimtd onion orf) ta nawonds gateg "a abateBMA ‘to neot 4edvotis bea ow"
roves 10 amtud red edwstede ton Sines est dads: MyHoold vausd oald ink”
ent x0 “neolwo} moLHoLqge ebm” moarshiA ashy tteasig uw Oats
oualgito $ aging atom be vee bad Hone ‘erent Pera yer) rr a
[¢rwol@) ows ont aeewsed" bus "eratbiadye “wo good bad dott
Bes
companies they were going to handle the deal, except the escrow,
which was to be maintained in the banks" that both Andtew FE.
Anderson, the father, and William A. Anderson, the son, were present
when the escrow agreement was signed in December, 1928; that during
his conversation with his stenographer at the bank when Andrew Ee
Anderson, William Anderson and Burns and his wife were present, it
was mentioned that a bullding was coing up on “that let" and "it
woule have to be" said "that the purchase price of the lot should
be paid out of the proceeds of the construction loan ané a building
Was put up theres" that the plans and specifications of the building
proposed to be built on the lot were “produced at the time the appli-
eation for the loan was made" and that the application for the loan
Was mace “at the same time the escrow ogreement was signed;" that he
secured o warrant for Williem A. Anderson and “tried to find him for
four months, with a detective;" thet Burns signed the escrow agres-
ment but said nothing when the witness had the conversation with his
stenographer “in the presence of Mr. and Mre. Burns and Mr. Anderson"
and made no comment at all “as to the building that was going on the
lot;" that the escrow agreement which he had Burns sicn just orior
to Christmas, 1928, when he deposited the contract of sele and war-
ranty deed at the bank and which contained “an agreement between the
parties that the purchase price should be paid out of the first loan"
Was a document entirely separate and distinct from the eserow receipt
for the warranty deed, which Was given to Burns November 23) 1928»
and which is as followss
"Chicago, Ill. Nove 235 1923
Received of William J. Burns Warranty Deed running from
Wme Je and Margaret Re Burms to Andrew HE. and Louisa Anderson,
conveying Lot 31 in Block 9 in MeIntosh Bros. State St. Add. to
Chicago in the BE 1/2 of Se 33, Ts 38 Ne Re 145 to be held at this
bank in escrow until the terms of a certain Contract of Sale,
dated Nove 1lOth, 1928 between the above parties has been fulfilled.
COMMONWEALTH TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK
P. M. Zulfer.®
tXotone ot dqeom feeb oft ofbued os gntog ozew yeds, weinegmpo,
ye wekban dod toch “qaieod ent oh boniedatam ed of aaw, dokdw,
deonetie stew «hoe otf} yHaerohtth oA me htt aw bru etomtal, oft .moatebaa,
goces Pay YOOeL ¢Taducoul mE dengin’ ae taaneouge, woteee set west
»K wothck neniw’ dined odd de tomlgctgo ced « ait dtr aebtesxeveos. ald
Fh gdnecetq ovew olkw sis bas onveti bee moageba msii Liv »coagebad
SP) how “ded cate" mo-q gmhog eaw gaibiiod dad, 4 3H
bivorts: set eatt to eoing evctoung ent dent" bine Yeod ad avad bivow
onto tivd « bra neol moltownteneo oft Yo abeasoug ané,-To, avo biaq od
gaihthud att to enotinsttiosgs bas aaelg edt dont “4 ores qu dug aa
~Efqq@ ect omit oct 28 Soombotg" ozgw tof edt mo tfLiad od of, howogesg
aot ett tot mitaokiqqs att tadt bas “ebsm asa meol eult tot soltso
otf tant “gbeemta aay tromeemme wotoaa oft omit omar odd, 3a" ebant sl
teh wkd batt ot beked" baw. noatahth.\ matlliv sot insttaw 8 betwee
~sotga woxore off homie aomwd dad “povi{jondeb a Ady anit ness pine
als dgty nolicacovnne arid bad naonti old cody gaidton bisa tud, dmom
“noRTObMA. 61M bow eater «atl Soe «aM to gomaetg edt at” tedqengonesa
etd mo qstkog eow tad? guthLind oft 03 a0” Lhe to, dapsmon omebag bas:
goima tent mois asm hod ad, doddy taomeetys worsge, ont dactt, "tor
_ view brs efee Wo dopssaeo att bodhapges anf mow «SCL «aamtatsdd 93:
ont mooted tromexgs ao” bonisinoe doidw gag aaed ods ta. boob Yinst
Nnood tak? ef? Yo duo diag od hiueda vols oassdomug, ond tedd Rotdxag
Sutones woxo2s of mort tonkiath bas etoxsges, woritas tnee
ABSOL 238, cedaovell, agmuf ot soyig ssw ioisiw .boed vinoriay ailg, 10%
moh
etc hota
wie} hiadt ot 8 res eee ae “ie
a ties nis#teo s To anred
eutttharn wed sed weticreg oveds.ecit’
ye ty weet Racin tte
on
Asked if he could produce at a future hearing the "escrow agree-
ment," concerning which he testified, Wheeler answered: "I would
try to" and asked if "the records of the Commonwealth Trust and
Savings Bank show there is an escrow agreement," he answered that
“they should show." Wheeler was not thereafter recalled as a wit-
ness and the escrow agreement which he stated Burns signed in
December, 1928, was not produced in evidences
fhe difficulty with “heeler's testimony is that it is absol*
tely incredible. If there had been any such arrangement as he rel
no plausible reason presents itself as to why the deal was not con-
summated and as to why he should have to look for William A. Anderson
with a detective. According to Wheeler, there was nothing left for
Anderson to do inasmuch as his application for the two mortgage loans
had been approved and the bank had agreed that the balance of the
‘pipaenne price of the lot would be paid "with the first draw" from
the proceeds of the first mortgage construction loan. It hardly
seems possible that any bank, regardless of how loosely its affairs
may have been conducted, would sanction mortgage loans to the full
extent of the value of the real estate and the contemplated improve-
ments thereon without the investment of a single dollar in the
property by the borrower, except the deposit of $50 earnest money
on the purchase price of the lote
But not only is Wheeler's evidence inherently incredible and
improbable, but he was impeached and all his testimony material to
the only controverted issue in the case was refuted by documentary
evidence and the testimony of Burns and disinterested witnessese
Turner, the real estate man who brought Burns and Anderson together
and drew up the contract for the sale of the Burns lot, testified that
he and Burns met Anderson at the bank by appointment November 23, 1928,
and that when Burns on that date and occasion deposited with the bank
“ee
-soTgs Worose” ond pained ovkew?t « de conbore bivoy of Br HeWaA
Hisow 1° sbexewers goLenr¥ »heltisuet od doitiw guinxeompo "4 diem
bas. taut? difsewnesme) edd, to shtoget oft” Lb bedee baw “ot «xt
salt Detewans of "_tnemsotgs wexoae ge ei stedd wosde wAneh agnived
7 -tiw « 22 beiisees teetsosedt tom saw tofeeti “swede biwosia yeilt"
GL besgia anuui betate of doldw tuemeorgs wexpee eld hae Buon
| sequabdive mk boowborg fon saw BRO eredmoood
“foeda ei ¢h sald of yuomisess 2 !tofoedl tie eiitvolttth on?
anel?® on && snomegosr ts dove Yue seed bes oredt TI > ekdbberoat res
~ “ao ton sew Leeh asd ydw of ae Monti adnonetg noaaet off tenelq on
Mmacobm +4 meilLiW rot xool ot ovat bivords ef yiwied aa bas bedannaa
tol diel anidton asw exeds «teLoedi of gakbros0A. «sovitoedab s détw
aniaoL agegtiom ews et rot soiteotiqga ald as Soumesnt ob ot soatehm
_, en2. To eonslad eds tats bootgs bad aned oft bas beverqga seed bat
mock “Werb turit.edt djiw" biag ed bivew tof edd to eottg eandoung |
ybzad 31 .naeL spdtourtucoo ogagdzom totti oil? Ie shossotng srl
agistie ait yLecool wod Ie aselbtages <duad yne sedi oldiasog emsse
fist eds oJ ansol egegdtem noivonaa bivow «betoubseo seed eved yam
~svoigul botelqmeiace eli bus etetes fsex ade to euisv ent to tnedx
eds ai isifob efgaic a to dneuteoval odt duodsin moeredt at nen
_. Yonemt sacuzse 08} to sicogeh ond tqeoxe «teworted edt Yd Yt teqomy
stot ag to soltq sasiteung orld no
bas eldibercooi YLineredai senshive atrefeedT eb yine tomdwh ©
of faizotan Yaouttaet etl [he bas sedoseqmt aew ed gud peldado tem
Yisineouoob yd betuter saw eeso ald ai oxeedi SStrovetsnes yLao ont
ssounens lw hbeteerodmtealh bas enue to ynomisesos odd bas ee
reddegot borers tere ae cos gh ae eta a in
tid bobtiseod Hol eorwe ext Yo ose edt cot tomato
SOL «ES ‘xoduovaw toatatoges st nad edi ta mderobi BRA teat
uned edt Attw bed kaogoh wn tannoe ‘th raed tedd to enri modw tacdd si
the contract of sale and the warranty deed to the Andersons,
executed and acknowledged by Burns and his wife, he was given
the escrow receipt, heretofore set forth, signed “Commonwealth
Trust and Savings Bank" by "P. M. Zulfer." Burns testified to the
same effect and Miss Zulfer, who was employed in the real estate loan
department of the bank, identified said escrow receipt and her sig-
nature thereto and testified that she signed same "on the date it
bears; November 23, 1928." The contract and warranty deed having
been placed in escrow at the bank November 23, 1923, what possible
reason or excuse was there for another escrow agreement a month later?
Miss Zulfer testified further that Wheeler was not the |
Manager of the real estate loan department of the bank either during
November or December, 1928, but that Mr. Russell Blount was such
Menager until January 1, 1929, when he resigned from the bank to go
into the mortgage business for himself; that she had been employed
in the real estate loan department of the bank since May, 1923; that
she “had charge of all loan applications, @awing papers on all loan
applications that were accepted by the Commonwealth Trust and Savings
Bank" and that every loan application aecepted by the bank came to
her attention; and that no application was ever made by William A.
Anderson or Andrew ZH. Andersen for a loan from the bank on the
property at 8142 Lafayette avenue. At one point in his testimony
Wheeler stated that the bank made and recorded the first mortgage.
The evidence shows conclusively that one of the Blount companies
made the first mortgage, paid the charge for bringing the title down
to include both mortgages, paid the recording fees and that the re-
corder thereafter returned both recorded mortgages to that company.
Burns testified that the only time that he met Anderson at
the bank or was there in connection with an escrow agreement as to
the lot in question, was when he deposited the contract of sale md
~Ofm..
- setoateba edt ot boob Ytoomtew edt, Ons efen to dosydapo ods,
vrevig agw on ,otiw aid boa ean yh bopbelwomios bas. botuqaxa,,
di laowtsonaoS" homgia «iftot tou argtoteved ytqkeoen woroee /edt »
oid OF heltidaes aripd "stetink om of" yd “Anew agatvei bas gars,
asolgiesio Inet off wi Deyolqam/aswode .tolivs act baa soette omaz:
apie cad bid ¥q¢leses Wotede Lian BoLlthtnebh «alnad edd. to dmemtxeagh,.
th oted ett no" omsa bomgke ode teds bettiteet bas otexedtt .guuten,.
gutvead boob yhantxov bas tosttaoo of? %88UL 98S redmovell ewtaod
‘plibeaoq tadv yOSCL .sS redmevow aAned edt $a wores, at bevalg mood,
frosdal Atnom s tnameerys wotoers tedsono vol sted? asm, 9aNOxe To, MORsOT
| ged doi aaw tofeesdk? dans veciue? Hektigned coRLud: e@tM oy cons
gitivuh weldio wasd edt to dnominaqed spel seta Leon, esit., to, rogsnpat
' Motte Gew smoLd LLowaul «iW Jailt tud .880L yxedmoosl to tedmevoll
op of aned ant movt bomgtso t oa new ,@80L wi yuauisl Litny weygsnam
peyotque mead hat ere todd pILoemét wor asenierd sysgttom odd dak
tad? OGL vyell eotte sined ent to saomdtaqeb mol sfstee feos ods ab
‘geot ffs mo aveqe¢ gaiwed panoiveottags meol Lis to sgratl bed" eda
agutved bis taut? diLeownomed off yd bexqeoos otew tert enoltesifqus
ed omso ained oft yd bodqeose ‘ne tteoligge meol yreve dadd bas :"Adet
1A meklLi¥ yd sham tove eaw molitotiqgs om ¢ndt bme qaoltmodd s cod,
ofg no sins oft mot? took # tot moarohnA «wothah 19 meaxobsth
Yromisned ald ak tatog one tA .oumeve.esdayeial 418.38. yia9gotqg
Jogngszom tack? off bobrooet bam ahem cnet ot dad botata xoLeesi
so knaqmes tHvol€ od? 20 ono tadt yLovbawLones awodaeonobive, os?
avob efttt ody gnignixd 201 egrato edd btaq yogegdtom doxdt edd, obem
~or edt date ris ave galbrocex onfd blag segegdzom Atod ebuhont ot
sunsqnop tail? of eogngitem bobueoee ded homme rod taonad’, iol
"ge nostobma’ tem oo darlt omky Gino edt tails. bottkvaed: amiwe
| MoOTES WOXDRD ty dt iw. mdleooraoo meet) es sett
afin
warranty deed in escrow there November 23, 1929, and received on
that date the escrow receipt therefor, heretofore shown. The
testimony of Burns that his wife was in a sanitarium at Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, continuously since prior te November 10, 1928, until
March, 1929, stands uncontradicted on the record and therefore
she could not have been at the meeting at the bank just prior to
Christmas, 1928, as testified to by Wheeler. The further testimony
ef Burns that he first learned that the building had been erected on
his property when he visited the lot in July, 1929, with his wife
and others, and discovered the bungalow under construction and eighty
or ninety per cent completed, also stands uncontradicted, and the
occasion of said visit is corroborated by a summons in evidence
issued out of the Municipal court of Chicago and returnable July 26,
1929, in a cause involving said lot.
Ellen Dimmock, employed by the receiver of the bank and
receiver, testified that she had access to all the papers and records
of the bank and that she made an extensive search of them but was
unable to find an escrow agreement between the Commonwealth Trust
end Savings Bank and William J. Burns and Andrew He Anderson or
William Ae Anderson or any record of same in the books of said bank;
and that her extensive search failed to reveal an application to the
Commonwealth Trust and Savings Bank made by Andrew He Anderson,
Ae Ho Anderson or William Ae Anderson for a loan on these premises
or any record of same on the books of the banks
& strange feature of Wheeler's testimony is that he states
that he did not "directly" inform the interested parties, defendants
and the Andersons, as to the terms of the escrow agreement, but left
it to chanee that they micht overhear what he said when he dictated
such terms to his stenographer. Although he insisted that Burns
w¥fa
%0 howdsoss ia . SCL wS8 tamevall exert woroke nt heed Yirectni
eT .oveda axolotered .votevad? dotesn + Worpee eat otsh yard
eweWLLM ge minadiane « ob sew otiw aie tadd enew® to vom seed
| Eidew ,S8CL .OL radueveliexototuq costs Lowoenlenes mbend ou LY
exe letedd ba8 btoper edd mo bedolbeutaedto ehmeda , CSOL eatoralt
ot soixg taut, dus? off do yaiseom ont de aiod ovat som HitoD ‘etd
UUomisgsss teddxet on! .xeLeedd yi os bottitaed aw yeReL yenute bred
no bedoeso mad had yaihLind oft taht Sentsek dark off Part) anv to
O%iw ald Mdiw eOG@L ¢yLul mi gel ot bodtaty eM male ybteqotg alt
qidgte bao xoliowzicms tobew woLegawd ol? borevedeth bis (atedte bas
orld bas «bedoibsainoeny abante ouke (bodolcmie tnes tHq Ylomte to
gottebive tk eroamva e yw botwrede treo “ek dtebv hina to molasvod 2
ne Car eenshanaicasecmmncusouiiste a
saiecamniecame te sxevieoor sit yo beyolame .deommht melt ©
Dian oF AONORIh sptgod snnnd asmogdua sot eonmteed Ut cents
ebtonst bos areqeg alt tle od aseous bad onde gerd DoLit itest ywyisost
JeuxT Ad Loownonnod off? mooted tromesxgs worous As bwET of oLdntr
TO MOATODRA 4M werbas bets taeeaalinn dnl cussed pia
varaben sh wb
sosinesg seed mo meets to? moatebea VA sehIOnY a mertebAA Li 0.
ye ahidiadioniedenteatienledseestibeatel
noduda ad sett ei ynomtieed etoleedt to orudaet syn
adusbnoteb ,eelttaq bedeetotal add mrotat “ytioe
Stok tue etiemoorge Wotods sift 20 ‘exed ody jaca
ee er ee eee
r &
talib ca a ie
“wna garts Hodatant of dyuedtétn seedgeryemedw 5 ee tee done bien
-12=
signed the escrow instrument, there is nothing in his testimony
to indicate thet Burns read it or was permitted to read ite One
would think the parties having been brought together for the
express purpose of closing the deal through an escrow egreement,
according to Wheeler, that he would impress upon Burns the unusual
provision of the agreement shat the latter was to get the balance
of the purchase price of his lot out of the proceeds of the con~
struction loane Eut no. ‘Wheeler says that Burns, William A.
énderson and the others, who were in a group about five feet away,
were not advised as to the contents of the escrow agreement except
as they may have overheard what he dictated to his stenographer.
| Wheeler also testified that he could not state whether Burns
or any one else was present when Anderson "made his application for
loane" He then proceeded to testify that Anderson made his appli+«
cation fer a loan “at the same time the eserow agreement was signed®
and that the plans and specifications for the proposed building were
“produced at the time the application for the loan was made," The
only other testimony given by Wheeler along this line was that while
Burns and the others were in the group Bive feet away, the witness
in his conversation with his stenographer “mentioned" that a build-
ing was going up on "that lot" and that Burns made ne conment “as
to the building that was going on the lot." ‘The obvious purpose of
this testimony was to bring home knowledge to defendants that the
construction of a building on the premises was contemplated by
William Ae Andersone
Assuming that Wheeler's testimony was true that the plans
and specifications were produced “inn Anderson applied for the loan
in Burns's presence and that his other testimony concerning the pro-
posed building was true, and assuming further that the defendants
had actual kmowledge that William A. Anderson or his parents «9 \-
#SE-
eo
“Cromivest sid of petdien ef oxedt «daomuztact,, Wotoae ect horgte
ond. stl bust of bodtimzeg. aew mo st hoot anty, dent. stathnd of
oat pt xedtego? dtauard ased guived eeitieq edt, anid? bivow
rironeouye worsne ns daveuld [sob add gnteolo. to sseqzug, aaeugxe
iausura edi anid nogwy seerqut bisow ef tant »veLoesdiy of gathzooos
eotialad oft tou 04 anv tottel ost, sad tnomeozas, of? Io sotetvord
-n09 afd to eheooorg alt to tug tol ald to, eotzq evadotuq. ott Xo
oh MOLL pena jedd ayes toLoad) som tu@ smeol noiiouzts
eyous tool ovii, tsods, quota s at otow orlw ,axesdso od? bas monte bas
- qeoxs, imeomeetys werexe eff to sinetnoo edt a4 se bogivhs tom. exew
axongetgonota ald of betatoid ad tadw brsedzevo, evyad yam yodt as
arin sediedw ofata 20m, bisoo oc. tastd. bositvens, oats, teLeesdy
wl moitontiugs eid obam noarebm godw taene:
~iigga ait ebem noacebad tadd yiites? of pobesoorg moat | on Mamaot
"hommia aon ¢xameowys worone offs amt? ome odd t5" naol s xo? noiteo
oxew, ath Lind, besegorg, alt. 1% aneitaotitoogs bas punts otf tate bes
OME Mohan aw meok att x0% aetieottags ett omtt oft te boowboxg"
oltiw talt sew opit aid) gaote teLoem’ yd nevig ymes
: senate <Yews deok OFA quors ont mt oxew axedda oft bas enxw®
pe 33
. to gaoguum anpivde ag "sitet ost Be nploogy Baw san ff amen» ag
sit dads atushneteh of ogbelwond emia guind of saw
NG betelquotapo asw eegimeng eft no aathiiud » to fe regi
ai iy _ammerebnh. +A
anigtg edt tnd owed ad ‘yeents 093 orreLoes 4 tants eth:
AER i F.
Lat
on taed ane
i A oko OV EAs
a Ue
aol ext 302 pediage, moat ebes ber Se, oTew el be
AO? PO DEN oat “BP yseke
~ OT, edt gaiwzoonne Yeomnenne rostdo bagel soit bas oomerty. Banty® ot
Re Seer ee Ud Rr de bs ed ed, ds) huss ¢ SEES. esiy3, unt gh a ayan)
: _Banabso top ons tant rodeo? pxtmnse baa “om saw aukbLtud neue’
f Ee fie RT os pe
= 5909 | atmoreg abd x0 nosrobith A mu hkcey test opbelwoml Lautos set
ff pee he ye ein Ls See atone”
Se
wi
1 Bev paso eno — =
(eb.
)
@L4e2
contemplated buildine a bungalow on the premises, how could such
knowledge poseibly affect the rights of the defendants? The deal
fell through. Knowledge that the contract purchaser of the lot
was going to build thereon if he acquired the ownership thereof
and the legal title thereto, surely cannot be held to be knewledge
that Anderson was coing to enter inte contracts for the construction
of a building on the premises whether or not he acquired such owner-
ship and title.
We are convinced that not only was no escrow agreement
entered into between the parties in December, 1928, as related
by Wheeler, but that said parties did not meet at the bank at
all at that time, and, in our opinion, the chancellor was justi-~
fied in entirely disregarding his testimony. But even if we
assume the truth of all of Wheeler's testimony, the very most
that can be gleaned therefrom is that William Ae Anderson abandoned
@ real estate deal that was highly advantageous to him in that the
balance of the purchase price of the lot was to be paid out of the
construction loan and that the defendants possibly overheard Wheeler
tell his stenographer that if the deal went through and the Andersons
acquired the ownership of md title to the premises, they were coing
to erect a building therem.
At first blush it might appear highly inequitable to permit
the defendants to enjoy the benefit of the labor and materials that
went into the construction of the building on their premises without
requiring them to pay for sam@ae However, the law is well settled
that "if a stranger enters upon the land of another and makes an
improvement by erecting a building, the building becomes the preperty
of the owner of the iand unless it can be shown that such omer of
the land authorized in some manner or knowingly permitted the build-
ing to be erected." (Olin ve Reinicke, supra.) It is conceded that
the lien claimants in the ingtant case were absolute strangers to
”
“6
¥ ”
Ef
dose bisos wok ,roeimetg edt 20 wolsgaid's arb stud fete lemedstod
feeb eT Satnebnotod oft to agitgit ont gostYa Vidhinod sabofwout
tol ed? To coendowe Soottneo off sand oghelworl “saawotdd Crest”
Waredt qitterenwo eft botingos of Bi oboteiid bLtud dt yntoy eaw”
egoolweni od of fLet ed tomins yLemwa goserodd oL62F Lagsl ont baa”
Hoijoussaiwo ef? rel stoartneo ofat tess ot -yatoy aaw dostobitA SHS"
~tonwe dove botivpos ed dom to sodsornw doalmetg esid mo yatbiind Ss te°
yom goteac ste tot -eftee saarg@itas
— tresigeTys woToRe on aaw YLto tom dads begatyneo ets OH 6 co oe
_ betalot as ,8SCl ,tedmecsl ai aeltixagq st meewsed obnt hexsdaey
| te Ansd of to teem tom bLb gottnag, blew. sasle ted, xeLoeslrye
_ atest aew tolfoonado edt .«meliniga we ai shoe somit sade te Le fe
| ay te eye ane eYoomisaed | ate gatotegote ty | vlezitae at bert, .
: teaom yey only + eHoMEd 99, a reteey" to, FES, 78 MeaRR ont OME BS
boriobasds tse obec oA maiiiiw dads ai mottotodd bengety od Aigo tak
edd atte ook ms oe ‘auoogednarbe iy tt A sll sts Pie aeb © etetes £9974.
on 20 ‘a0 bieg od ot vow dol exs Yo coke eastonuy ond t0.8 r ft
ao Loasti baessixovo. disney adnobue 0d adi dass bos sao bey) +4 owt saat
nc)
anoexobah odd bas aworms now, a0 atts u sane -rerkq argo. neda aist iets
aattos or9 W w oat qseeimony ocd 03 eds te or s 20 qhitexeswo ott be: tupos |
nm orodts galoling 5 seme 8 oc .
$iueq od eidat hypent Ylrty it: “aoqas + tg i #2 Mente guns? ta siege
dacs aistrodan ‘bra odes atts to ‘¢Eteued vod vous 08 ataabuwted oat
duodd bi aoe tmorq xtosds ino guib tive eats ‘te no ouxzen09 ods odnt | taow
befitoe ttew at wat ond csevequt ‘aed “or ani os eth eae
aa oxen brs tetidons to bawl afd nos axotne ‘deguaehe a ti! eal
xtreqo te ‘ok ‘come ood sae BL bre ‘ond Fas “aakicons ‘ ¢momovorgat
to tenwo Howe taild inmate od nso re seamed bmak eat to tenwe sie to
is io daneearng) Bagge mt
wb Lbs mie pods taro weatwernt <0 ‘tens omoe nk bos teondiua anne ont
mr «Ne Cat BAkeD oe hemi
jaxit Bebsonos et #r (carsase vetebabee “v HLI0) ",bedoore ed of gat
¥4} ; ‘ated xs hash
Lo
ot nekiaabent oe me ween same imebeak odd gen an
the defendants and there is not a scintilla of evidence in the
record that the defendants “authorized, consented to or knowingly
permitted" William A. Anderson to eontract with the lienors or ithat
they had any Imowledge of or stood by and permitted said lienors
to install the improvements on their land.
Moreover is net the lienors' plight the result of their
own inexeusable negligence? It is a matter of common knowledge
that most new buildings are paid for at least in part through con-
struction loans. It is customary and it was ineumbent upon the
lienors in the exercise of ordinary care and diligence to inquire
where the money was coming from to pay them. Inyuiry would have
revealed where, if at all, a loan had been secured to finance the
construction of the building. The record discloses no such inquiry.
Even a cursory investigation would have shown that William Ae
Anderson did not own and had no title to the property involved,
and therefore had no authority to enter into the construction con-
tracts with the lienors.e Nothing on the part of the defendants is
disclosed that carries even a suspicion or tinge of fraud, and in
the absence of their actual or implied culpability it would be
a violation of their constitutional rights for a court of equity
to compel them to pay the lienors' claims or to enforce the lien
of same against their property.
For the reasons stated herein the decree of the Superior
court is affirmed.
APFIRMED.
Friend and Scanlan, JJe, concure
e+
edt ai aonebhive Yo ealiitnion « ton al ovat bre wtusboo heb old
“‘Ghanlwomi x9 0% betaeempo «bomtxodiue" atmchsote eft tad? Dxooe'
tsddetoveron@ th od? thw soautmo of seatebsh oA met Lene "ber sdanceq
ATONeR bina hagd laxeq, bre wi boota to Xo spbelwos! yon, bad yest
-ebael tied co adremevercmt afd fistedt,.od
Seds, ko tivaes off tifgile ‘eatonmesl od dom ab: teveoseK ears
- sphoiveml sosao9 to tetton at IT. feonegtinen ofdnevoxent sro
«05 dgrwould dssq af tasel ta tot blegq ete agakhited wen xo daeld
sid noge Iandimont eaw $k dna Yramotevo at HT. canwoL nobdoussa
etinugnl od eomglilp bia etko yuenkbro to sakonexe ent, oh eromeil
evad bisow yrivoal saort. 1 hn ee
edt sonpmtt of beunbe a need bad meol se alle de Ub yorede beLaever
Uinont dove on absoLoaih beoest eat | agothLind seit to nottowsianog.
A ae bli ty gedt mwode aval bisow noitegiiaeval yroao e nevil le
> gboviornt qrsqo tg ody ov efi ht o@ bad bas ame don bib. moa?
(mneo golioutiemo sf) O8ML rodme OF Yidweodsane. og dest: onoexedg: bas
at admpebaoleb eat to tusq eft so poise »axonedl entt habia
ni baa sbuatt Yo egnt? x cotoigaua.« nove aebsiap dad, honoLonth
(ed biww 2h yeilidegtvo, botlemt 0 Laugoa trast. 20, soneade: oxtt
ilspe to t1voo s x0 agdals Lone loud teeaog aieds, Yo, wolsesety, a
meif oft eototee of so amisio ‘axonett edd, Yrs, OF, masts fran, 9
oe wireqetg, cheds, tantags 6s wi 20
totreqHe ont to pevoeh oft ntoned boteta, amoesot elt to% ,
RHE BPER Se ebomei tte at fame
| aaenemesa
a ret oe stony guide Spe
ASMPEID, 9 wh seta, fa moka
HS: EDO 1 NaS ene a py ia wo vine
BE cde’: Raa a ena. aN stmasioe _ ‘ber
4} Boiertpee va Mash Re cy aa Ne: Re eames ake Re sha hse: f smh est Ee
. 4 e wis eg a 4! os ed
TOM Ee ae ee YY ARTE NG, BAT
7 Z ee ee a any 3 ae pind ae wy
PARE: ORES: ANA URC SIP ee AD NSS ae
59150
FRASK ERYL,»
Appellee »
APPEAL FRGM CIRCUIT COURT,
COCK COUNTY.
2901.4. 599!
Ve
JOHN Ge ZELEZNY, doing
business as John Ge Zeleany
& Company et ales
Appéllante
ee Nae Me eae Mae” Cine ne
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE SULLIVAN
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURTs
This appeal seeks to reverse a default judament for %366,
including a special finding that "malice is the gist of this
action,” rendered June 15, 1936, against defendant, John Ge
Zelezny, doing business as John G. Zelezny & Company, on the
complaint of plaintiff, Frank Kryl, filed April 24, 1936.
Defendant having been personally served with summons, was de-
faulted June 9, 1936, for want of appearance and answer, and
the cause was continued to Jume 15, 1936, to permit plaintiff
to “prove up the extent and amount of his judgment herein and
for the entry of any other orders as to this court will seem
fite" Om the last mentioned date the trial court hearing the
cause without a jury found “from the evidence offered on this
date that each and all the allegations of the complaint is and
are true, and that defendant, John G. Zelezny, doing business as
John G. Zelezny & Company, is guilty as charged in the complaints
and the court finds specificeslly and specislly that malice is the
gist of this action and fimds further that plaintiff has been
damaged in the sum of * * * $366, and assesses the plaintiff's
damages in the sum of $366." These findings were incorporated in
" 0Bsee
« 99 Lfeqqa
-_ is ee LR Oe ee
ee la ET RE pad Pog 62 TOY
» RR * Re
y “ ene er y.
@@c Al 0e€S wigan cen 8
sTHUOD ERY W WIKIO SRP CaAV ILE
inane toe oi ire diueteb = oetevex’ od axlsee Leoqas ante shia
“git? Yo tela od al sotLen™ darts gatbek? Iatooqe 8 Bi
10 alot edttsbieteb dantage deer eh enyt bersbaet * <0 kta
add mo <eteqmod & ymmeteS .D mfot as aaontaud akob vumeosos
seeeL oa Etaqa bortt feed ‘tment Mibtabale to sntaLqnes
~ob eew _ autosnts 8 sig Dw bewzee vLLan arog mood gua _taabao 0c
| baa . TowanS bets eonsrasqca % dues to Deer 48 ont bos ius?
tiisabaly sisrreq of deeL cee ena’ od “bounkin0o areal eanzo me
- bne sttered dmeagbist @ Let Yo $ravost ns “tmodae ols go ovora” 09
f Rabe
imen Liiw duvoo eit? of as axohto cette, ea to vein ants 10%
ond anitsed gumoo Lebvd ond adab bomotd mem teal edd = Reape
elds 20 hots tte eonshive oft mort” bewot cust 8 “duos? kw pine |
bas at daiketqnwo sad to ano teagelie ods tLe bus saan, dats step
as waentapd gniob «yuseteR oD stot ‘admabao%ob todt pg al Sis
sinislamms odd mi boy tads as YiLivg ef .yaaqmd & yemeLes od slot
emt at 99 Liat tadd yifelooqe bre wiseltiosga abst sruoo and bas
ood cet tiitmtsiq tant teddat abmgt has moltes aids 10 tag
alttitatelg oad gosaseen brs .8d8G * * * To mue ond mi bens mush
ai hederogxooni otew eget iat ened! %.898¢ to mua etd mi ei
oD aw
the judement order. July 18, 1936, defendant by his attorney
filed his special appearance "to quash service and set aside the
judgment." On the seme date defendant's motion to vacate the
judgement was stricken by the court on plaintiff's motion on the
ground "that it hes no jurisdiction to consider the defendant's
application, more than thirty days having expired since the entry
of judgment." No report of the proceedings is included in the
record and the cuestions raised are as to the sufficiency of the
complaint. |
Plaintiff's complaint alleged in substance that one
Josephine Brezina and her husband, being indebted in the sum of
$8,000, executed and delivered their principal promissory note
dated June 1, 1926, payable to the order of themselves and by
them indorsed, bearing interest at the rate of 6% per annum}
thet the interest on said note until maturity was evidenced by
ten interest coupons for $240 each, interest coupon No. 1 maturing
December 1, 1926, and the remaining coupons one every six monthe
thereafter, each bearing interest at 7% after maturity; that to
secure the payment of such principal note and interest coupons,
and simultaneously with the execution of same, Josephine hréstun
and her husband executed and delivered to John G. Zeleany, as
trustee, their trust deed conveying to him certain premises
deseribed therein for the purposes, uses and trusts set forth
in said trust deed and for the equal security of the principal
note therein described and the interest coupon notesattached
thereto; that on or about January 24, 1929, James Rada, also named
as a defendant, was the owner and holder of interest coupon note
Noe 5, one of the aforementioned series of interest coupons and
that plaintiff having paid Rada $240 for interest coupon note
Noe 5 on or about said date, the latter delivered it to plaintiff;
and that defendant, Zeleznyy had knowledge of plaintiff's purchase
Youtosis ald yd tusbueteh »eRL .8l yin »tobto tmomabst, asld
aay shiaa tou bua eofvror Maswp oF oonsteoqae Letooqn aif bofit
oil? steaavy od seldom aldmabnoteh o¢sh omae edd oO ". trommbart
ots ke noljom a'3ittalald mo dxuwo]e edt yd motoitia sew tmoary buf,
a’inehbeoteb ofd reblteme ef moltolbetzut on aed ¢2 dace” heurory
Urine edt sente botiqxe grivanl syeb yotidd saarlt- exon ‘ite tad tion
tat re betwtont ab egntbesoo tq ost to droqet OW *. tnomgbat to
ost. to vouolo ive oft of as ots boalat am itnexp edt hee Sagoor
eto fal? coed adie mt bogolia gutatqmoo atTiimtart
to awe edt at betdabnt yuted «bnedumt ten bas entsetl onkiqocot
tor Crone tnetq lecketies chou horeviteb ‘bas bedusexs 2000.89
yd See uovfouwstl} Yo tobto ene of eldeyng EOL .f sit betsb
quanta tog RO to ebst sed ta JuototHt gutted ~bewtobm mows
qf Avoteliive aw _biustend Live eeen biewto Sueveee ete vue
guiuvten I .0k neque Jeeresmt pelos Ona tt aniogies ¢uoredKE not /
adionm xie Yoevs Saw anoquoo grbitemes od tae ee
od dadt iydiuutam tests RV ta teeter! gatxeed seed, 8s tsetse
2esoqing tesreiah bas etem Legkonivy dove To toon singe
antrorl emixiqeset qomen 6 Aottsoexe ont atiw yLesoomne tami bis
Ge. 2YonelasS ».D adot o¢borevilod bas hedwoane” Aovectans ort” bet
“mee beste gisdtoo mind ot gabyevaco beeb sawed xchodd ,oedautd |
HfTOE Jou alasrrd bas eden ,sodequsg xf THT ntorsts Beditoseh
Laqioutt, off to whurcee Lespe edt tot bua beet famed ‘whew wee
bedoatimeoton coquos deetesnt st nme heditodeh mtotets stom
bomen o¢fa < Shall eomeG . SOL (as ee Fe ‘<0 no diene § ‘poserott
ston toquoo tastedni Yo toblort bat terme sift aw ediishioteb Par?
haw amoqes teeredal Io veliée Demmttnemexo' ts GAY Yo Sho Ve bial |
6fon moquoo sdere dak “tet ‘Od8H oda bing gntvadt’ tvittely # ad:
(Titthinte oF of botévEfod ostal GY yoded BEBE ‘weet no | has a
ensfoxg e'tiiiniatg to eybe twos! bud ‘eiddies®, ee a
ad
ef said intcrest coupon note from Rada.
The compleint then alleged that vlnaintiff, who had left
hie note fer collection with Aelesny., received the following
Letters from him:
"Septe 28, 1°34.
Mre Frank Eryl,
7208 Ogden Av@e,
Riverside, Ille
Dear Sirs
With reference to the interest note in ths amowni of
$240.00 due December 1, 1928, signed by Josephine and George
Bregina, which you paid to Mre Hada, we are sorry to adyise
that the present owners of the property securing the above
mortgage interest mote are umable to pay the intexest or to
keep up the property.
They have been offered a small sum for a Quitclaim
Deed but have refused to accept same. There is nothing else
left to do but to foreclose.
If the foreclosure is filed, we believe that you can
ot Pg your claim in Court for the interest note which you
e
in the meantime, we advise that you kindly call for
the note and bring with you the receipt we gave you for same.
Sorry that we could not collect this note for you and
thanking you for enlling upon us, we are
Yours very truly,
John Ge Zeleuny & Coe
By Jolm G. Zelegny."
“January 25, 1935.
Mre Frank Eryl,
Al51L Ve 25th She,
Chicago, Lilinois.
Dear Sirs
Kindly call at our office at your earliest convenience
as I want te see you in regard to the interest note you hold
belonging to the first mortgage secured by the property at
4117 We 3lst Street, Chicagoe
Yours truly,
John G. Zelezny & Coe
By John G. Zeleany."®
"June 24, 19356
re Eryl,
7208 Ogden Avee,
Piverside, Tllineiss
Dear Mr. Eryl:
With reference to the interest note which you paid and
now hold, I wish to state that at the time I notified you to
call at our office and deposit the note with us so that we
could collect something om it, you did not deposit the note
ObaN met o¢en Masog toetstmt bhen to
‘P$tel bed otw ,ttivmiaty tard segeflLa ‘eet tphe Lomow ot oo ge ht
guiwolte’: olf hevtooss eyrrefos ath ne ttes£f[oo cot. efom atd
Sing Rae tay 2 ete Bn ree a ‘
EWES. Oe, A by eet eee | ET iy eases <3
eo) 8 So thet eet owed der
here Vee” hgomt eo ’ Dex aor
&
wa NTT A Be an SF 2 a “ty f ro it Are at Tee om
ra , ote LET sohtezey
a plan “Fake tase
Ye devomn ec? ah ofen fuexetal off 64 tome a
eg seed bes enidqeaet yd bemte ~8KOL ef rodmssed ia” agent
oalvhe oF Yxtee ote ow qabak ot of biag woy dolsiw
-eyeds add gatusnes .’ qeztq edt Xe axon ox yay ond
e¢ x9 teexedal odd yYoq eidams 312 o20m Jae
. Nate kod bap” ‘2 x0 ene Ktah a beaerio® ree aoa
_peete gatiion ek cred? »omes ies gate:
POR Lae atin feet Ge ee tee, : ae
“wet Lles vEAniat wey Aw? o@ Byha’ ow" dialia weeequnnn et
tow i himssboament Potlos on bile e ow tei ymueor
, or oR oe ee es on Mindat .
wee ) eB 3 CoB ie Pa ohn egee: eet
“gb gyymnete 30 Lege: Gide OE QML gL Raneteoag ett
SORE ‘ee 8R: YUKA”. eb Ce AN. ET Ma fy oS Mai 8 get
| rt
oat
es
i. A Oa ea OED oP De eee ae i -
sone incre ta Lfxne 0% is “polite sue o ta Line 7 pitied: Kane
se eee Seanee shite
Raieee aE i
ret ‘
G SEO. Ce
alka Ss ani CY CR i a)
BP | Poem? Patek Brean ah Fees - ee eae
wae oh 2 tots 2 ea Beowted y has ir ae
oda
with us within the time specified, and although the matter hed
peen delayed several times, it is now out of my hands.
It is through no fault of mine that you are unable to
collect anything now, but through your own neglect of not
accepting the proposition when it was offered youe
It vill do you no ange to commumicate with any depart-
ment and it would be up to Mr. and Mrs. Rada if ter care to
this
Se
pay you or not, but they cannot be foreed to pay interest.
Yours truly>
John Ge Zelezny & Coe
By John Ge Zeleznye" (Italics ourse)
It was further alleged that on or about March 25, 1935,
Zelezny “well knowing that he held the above described property
in trust to secure the payment, inter aliay of said interest note
number five (5) and well kmowing that the same was held by this
plaintiff, and was not paid by the makers thereof, did, in violation
of his duties as said Trustee, and in fraud of the rights of this
plaintiff, execute 2 release deed, releasing all right, title and
interest to the above described property by virtue of the above
mentioned Trust Deed" and that the said release deed was properly
recorded March 29, 1935; that "this plaintiff suffered by the
illegal and wrongful act of the said John G. Zelezny to the damage
of * * * $240 * * *, plus interest at the rate of * * * 7% from
December 1» 1928;" that the aforesaid defendant, James Rada, and
his wife, being well aware thet plaintiff's interest coupon note
had not been paid by the makers thereof and “well knowing the
purpose for which the above deseribed trust deed had been executed
and delivered, did procure the release of the said trust deed from
the said John G. Zelezny;" that Rada and his wife thereupon obtained
the conveyance to them of the property involved by the then owmers
of the legal title thereto, free and clear of the lien of the trust
deed; that Rada omd his wife "did thereby participate in the illegal
and wrongful act of said John G. Zelegny, Trustee under the above
Trust Deed, and did benefit by his said improper acts; to the
damage of this pleintiff in the sum of * * * $240 * * *, plus
hawt toties eit figuotitiea hea. ; ae
sehted ya to doe Boney eet ae eg sates pe
03 eLdes ots soy Jedd ombe to i Bt Cr Myyenaid ;
tou sud 4 tisltyne toolLos
‘to #ootger avo wwHOY
HOY, bexe't0 as aaw Sed “seaiy nots kaog ig estt gatiqeocos,
atin emoY
10D ‘eunalol «D mcto% epee) Aeon «it
(,@wo sotisti) "“.syoreled «0 mol ve a Oa Rees :
eU60L 48S dowel tuods wo mo fads Segefls conga’ | asw ax
ysxeqexg beditossh eveda eal bLod od tants gatiwost Liew" hava
oon suoretnt Oise Yo wile sotnd «taomog ot orwboe of deity At
aids ys bLed Gow mua SHe tant gatwomt iow Bite (8) ovat seen
soltaloiv mi ~bth «toeredd erodem ods yd blag sor a ee « tt tn
aids oO edigte ead to bem at Bn ,oetudrt bkee ao abiten ata te
has efit ytdgiz flo gutesefon',S0eb easefex © etuoeme , tie: |
evode oi Yo eudtty we ysteqong bedixoash oveda ett. at taoze rink
ylxeqerg eaw boob eacofet bhaa elt Jase tm "boo four Sonos
od yd boxetiwe vitvmbedg, auie” ‘Gadd 4622 ,@5 doxalt bobzocss,
epamad edd of yasotos 1-2 adel dice adt Y0 Yoo Lutgnouw bas Lopeltt
sett RY * * * Yocetgr edt da geotedmt awl «* * *neh 94 eae.
bas «sba aemet ,sneabmeteb biasertotea odd tadt “e8aeL ef todusoot
egou Moqueo Jeoteiai attitiately galt etews Low pitied vottw atl
pt qukwont {iow baw Yoousds sxexem on? we bing maed 905 bat
hoduooxs ood bad bows owe hedixozes bert io dst wot eeoqzng
mrt boob dasrt bisa oxi to sasotes, esit eraoo 9 |
bentatdo moquereds otivw dit baa’ aheit deste Apgeoten a. nia % biae. ont
etenwo modt edd yd bevieval yiregoxg eastd to mad? 09 eomexorsno ont
fauxt et Yo mokL ait Yo cavko bun cox yosnnedlt ath? Laped 9 oe + Ma
Logoitt ext) mt odagtotirag yWored? bib” ein att han, Abak sald Good
evode est reba sotawiT eyanelek +? nitol bias 20 tos alee ae
aid of yados xeqougmt blew ahd ed #itemed Aiba weed fuurct
Geet rae ho shied wie
ang «* + + 08s) * = * 20 me ond mk Yaddatoe ae spemeh
eS ere! eA SY ‘eoek en —
o5eas
interest at the rate of * * * 7% from December 1, 1923." (There
was mo service on cither of the Radas and the cuit was dismissed
as to them on plaintiff's motion.)
That plaintiff was the owner and holder of the interest
coupon note in question and that defendant had knowledge that
such note was outstanding and umpaid when he as trustee released
the lien of the trust deed given to secure payment of the note
is clearly alleged in the complaint. The wrongful release by
a trustee of a trust deed securing an outstanding indebtedness
ereates a prime facie right of recovery in the holder of the note
evidencing the indebtedness and, inasmuch as the law infers damages
from every infringement of a right, it is not necessary to allege
that the security is lost to the plaintiff by being in the hands of
a bona fide purchaser or to allege the insolvency of the makers of
the note, such matters being material only as te the extent of the
damages. In Wertheimer v- Glanz, 277 Ill. Appe 389, where an action
was brought against the trustee personally for his wrongful release
of the lien of a trust deed securing an outstanding indebtedness to
the plaintiff therein, the court said at pe 3923
"Defendant argues that plaintiff has sustained ne damage
because he has a right against Charles Stringer, the mortgagor,
and that from what appears in the record Stringer is able to pay
the amount of the notes held by plaintiff. A similar point was
made in Lenmnartz v. Estate of Popp, 175 Ille Appe 539, supra
where the record contained no evidence to show the insolvency of
the makers of the note. The court held that such evidence was
not necessary to establish a prima facie right of recovery in
page yma The ge Nag gr gg ge rg te gly o> i
a xr e MeConnel v. Kibbe, 35 Ill. 175) 179; Brent v. Kim Ll»
60 Ill. 211. ‘The burden waz upon the defendant to overcome the
prima facie case made by the plaintiff."
*
See, also, Lennartz v. Estate of Popp» 118 Ille Apps 313 Harvey
ve Guaranty Trust Coe,» 236 We Ye Suppe 37s
We think defendant's conduct in releasing the trust deed
was clearly a breach of trust on his part as trustee for which
he is liable to plaintiff in an action at law.
ersaaslt } * Gees vf todneso€ most RY # % + Ro ete delh te deere gmt
beeeine ly aew $inva one ban agbatl ay: ‘te wefltio oC] fotvice om esw
eS ( emntited cine a’ativatete ne asain 63 8a
tasteiak esl ‘te tabfod brs come add agi YWisatate dent
teas sgbolwercdt baal tnabsoteb I asis haw mo isaeup at eton wnques
beseslex eatewxs as ef nadtw Bhogiw bas gnibustedue aew ofom Hove
_ oven sey Jo savaeneg oivoor OF Movig beeb semnt ong To moll orld
» Me eaactet Ivigeouww «ll .tmialquon eft a2 begeflse yiteelo et
aRembetdebat gatbnagedso me guixuoce boob taut « To sederst:s
etom edd to sebfed elt at yxevooes ‘le tigix oles? sming' 2 asdeeto
_ Regemab orolmt wal od? oo sommant has neenbeddehal oft. yutemobivs
egetie of yxsanevenh ton ai af atdgin & te thomogahttak yxovs mbtt
Yo chanel ond ek ynted yd tritmtaly ett od duel ak Yrtuoed’ ony dads
tovertwam ext Ww yorevioant eft ogelia oF no toendythy ebkT ated a
ails to tnodxe od ef ws vino Latrodaw pated brettnm dobre YOtOn wilt
Kobtes ‘te evothy «28S .qqd LIT OPS ,aetekD «+ combed reW n°. ebyaiind
susefet inignow eid ot ylianbareq eedewsd ond saitieya talywetd eaw
ot BesMetdebal yithbantutwe ua gakerbee Se0h gait s tO mote ‘aah Bi
Fis
@gamab om bonisteve vad Tikthialg ted} aegts aii ave
etopepsrom ons (vegaiaee seLiedd gan cee dav & aati ay sie"
ra alee at
Ysq Od offs at wegalete wioost odd ah ate
aaw tattoq tafimte A .2iitmiely yd Ayes astern odd
SSIES s e088 oqGA ei Lk OL aggot 2 ata «Vv xitenmel f
te Yousvioeni ent wode o¢ somebive on > brooot ont
“tr eowsor to Moi oboe? amine “satis a nfm
mi sag 0 * ofos 8 ao 0
Roo dn thank yrove aor sgamsd ato tel - gy #
fedain reNE a ore «ILI ae 11810 9)
ef
| " Xeviak “ate +0 +h ‘eit ones |
4 af aad pri Ay 3 « soy eng ;
Rede seuss watt ‘gulnes. to" at ‘toubs90 ©" tanbaoteb ‘takes laid
ERR ig ene, rare?
males mot ooteutd ‘aa #xaq ald mo tewnt } te doaend a yiuseze eam
ee Sh tee } jae Dal Pele ‘e en Pe. ;
aval $a motion as ak Tibwaielg of nel al of
-6=
Defendant's major contention, however, is that plaintiff's
¢omplaint contains no prayer for specific relief and that defendant
being in default the trial court under sec. 34 of the Givil Practice
act was without jurisdiction to enter any judgment. Sece 34 of
said act (Tlle State Bar Stats., 1935, che 110, para. 162) provides:
"Prayer for Relief. Fvery complaint and counterclaim
shall contain specific prayers for the relief to which the pleader
deems himself entitled. ‘Such relief, whether based om one or more
counts, may be asked in the alternative. Demand for relief which
the allegations of the pleading do not sustain, may be objected to
on motion or in the answering pleading. Sxcept_ in case of default,
the prayer for relief shall not be deemed to limit the relief ob-
tainable, but where other relief is sought the court shall by
proper orders, and upon such terms as may be just, protect the
adverse party against prejudice by reason of surprise.* (Italics
OUTS e
In so far as we have been able tec ascertain, neither the Supreme
court nor any division of the Appellate court of this state has
been called upon to construe the foregoing section, particularly
as it affects judgments by default. The obvious purpose of re-
quiring a specific prayer for relief in every complaint is te
apprise the defendant of the nature of the plaintiff's claim and
the extent of the damages sought so that the defendant may prepare
to meet the demand or permit 2 default to be taken, if he recog-
Nizes its validity and does not desire to contest the claim. In
discussing this section in the Illinois Bar Association's Illinois
Practise Aet Annotated, it is stated at pps 72 and 733
"Most of the codes provide that the complaint shall con-
clude with ‘a demand of the judgment te which the plaintiff supposes
himself entitled,' Clark om Code Pleadings, 138, 180-187; Pomeroy
on Code Remedies (4th Ed.) Sece 327, and notes Phillips on Code
Pleading (2nd Ed.) Secs 301. * * *
"The complaint and counterclaim shall ask for the specific
relief wanted. The general prayer of the equity till is no longer
sanctioned. iwhere the defendant defaults, complainant can have no
relicf more favorable than that demanded, but where defendant
submits self to the jurisdiction of the court, any relief
warranted by the facts alleged may be given, whether prayed for
or note * * *
“Under the new sections the prayer for relief is not a
mere formality. It directs attention to what is wanted * * *
The prayer is more specific than the prayer of most code complaints
for this reason. * * * In the formulation of the Civil Practice
Act, however, it was believed that an opponent is entitled to know
a'ttidniets ‘tase at @tevewor! ptotsaed cco to bam aldmabie tol 6 ory)
Saebrio'wtes ‘gpcte Bus YotLer oltirosga cot -reyetq: on ashataon tatalgane®
eoitvent! Livid edt To M «008 goban Pines Lakes eft ¢ivsteb: wi patted
Ge Ae weet ©. ttemitah yee rede or Mo Reta lene suoddiw enw dos
saeh byortt, Cexe vende .OLL ste ¢ser eetfet® tel otatS «ffl ) toe bien,
gtteforndeiog bre | frtaigniog yrowT 'stetLe® yt ro ywet for. view
tehaely oft sotstw ef telfor off sot ateyetd oktiosga niainos Liade
enon TO ONO mo bedind yarisody «Telit How? «belti¢ne tloemlsd, emeeb
ae tsiw Yo iLot not braed sovitanred ia ond mt sag yan .23eus09
oF venga ‘ot Yom. shetese fom 0b gnkbeolq oct to
re tab 282 sguthbasig gatiewans odd 5 ‘to molsom ro
~do ter ‘yo twEE OF boeweb of Jom -Liake teifet Ki
te thems uso off tegymoe al tebfet iwc exvedw 3
fee ttf oe at bs
soiist2) i gemeianet ‘to manos al — | seh
ee
amesawis oid xomtien «aiadieosa, of ant vi OH ae. a 7
nat otats eit 10 ¢xume edaliogghedt Jo, soteiy th Yee, MOHLATE: :
ulealavitzed enoitooe gulogexot exe smriunog of sodn beta oo hi
et Xo ssogueg awoiwio off »tinsieb vd wt atootte ft as
gt at dutptanon wove. nt Notfer, wo sovatg otttooge & BALLINP
bite minto eT tthtatets eft te omaton, on we anabooteh edd saizags
pegeny Yom drabreteb ott dat oo. davon oogamnd end, 20,289470, ond
gpoet ot YE quswled od ot tiseteh « dhereq 10, huewob ott geom oF
hig — one * on ——e a ag ar aarenst* © sy
fh ett afi “a8
atkins erie tot Esha Bae
a rn al {iid %
MS 9 chee
tun09 :
pte satin od 2 *pogesis a
a ten Bt “gor royena odd anektoon wom oid 2
sane mae facie o¢ woitmetds etootih st age 7 t e%
aiuisigmoo eboo doom to teyexq ond mesrtd oltiosge erom af Toystg
esitosst Livi edt te soidwinercot salt a] % %
wont of boliisae al smemoqqo ae tats bevoifed
what use a pleader proposes to make of the facts alleged, and
if satisfied with the use designated, to remain out of courts
and permit plaintiff to proceed, knowing he will be confined to
that use." (Italics ours.)
In eases of default, under the plain terms of the statute,
a specific prayer for relief is required in the complaint which
“directs attention to what is wamted," and it is only just and
equitable that a defendant who, having been apprised definitely
of what the specific demand against him is, permits himself to be
defaulted, should not be subjected to a judgment "more favorable
than thet demanded" or in excess of the amount of the damages
claimed in the complaint. It is true that pleintiffts complaint
was inaptly dram and did not in so many words or in precise lan-
guage contain a specific prayer or demand for judgment against
the defendant because of the matters alleged, but it did specifi-
cally direct defendant's attention to what was wanted and the
amount of damages claimed. The ad dapmum clause of the complaint,
as heretofore shown, reads: “That this plaintiff suffered by the
illegal and wrongful act of the said John G. Zelezny to the damage
of Two Hundred Forty ($240) Dollars plus interest at the rate of
seven per cent (7%) from December 1st, As De 1928."
We think thet, while this language was not in strict em-
formity with the provisions of the section of the statute under
consideration as to form and technical nicetys it did constitute -
tute in substance such a specific prayer for relief as the ect con-
templated, im that it advised Zeleany in ummistakeble terms thet
plaintiff sought to recover frem him damages to the extent of $240
and interest thereon, suffered as a result of the illegal ané wrong=
ful act of the defendant. It is generally recognized that it was
the aim and intent of the legislature in enacting the Civil Practice
act to simplify and liberalize legal procedure in this state andy
seth
bus ,~begelia wios} ort he over of eondgerg vebmelg 9 ea tacw
. aixveo to ggo aiveet of betsialaeb seu edt ditw be ay ye ti
“ot bowsk taco od fliw ed yotwermt sheeeeng od Thbe ee ‘hae
arty solfsdt "gait Sant
esdutada eit to sues ah ant asf rebum «dinate 6 2 wonae al ™
sto ketw imteLgmos ostt at bor iupet at te hlon ‘tot rewsrg ‘ottioege 8
bie tart vine af $i bas "ebothsw af tastw od woLdusdss: agoontb”
| yfod bat tes beaizcga mood gatvar Ooty smahas ted .~ todd edad lupe
ed of ‘Moamia. ad Larrog eek aid, Jentess harunob eitioege asd ‘teste “yo
” @ideveye% oxen" trompbst, a. 06 botookdue od ton ‘bLvodty cbot ashes
| aogamet ott to.¢nuoms ost te easone mk x0. *oebramed teat nastd
imietqm attiisateta tad owt at 2% +dotetqmeo odd at beatae
~tiel entneng at 20 abzow ‘Vase oa os son bib bata ese vitqemt aaw
| fantegs scrompout “<< ine oe xoyeng oftieoge 2 abstmo9 naw
-ittoage bLb a tud cbopetia | eredd as ants to oansood “tnabnetob how vi
‘eat? bus betnew ae ‘tasty ry to Lined ©" taabaoteh toorth une
cdhoLeno. ast? to ‘sewazo suumeab_ ba ott ‘sbomtals copamab t0 t moms
est w bors tiwe Vitembale atid? tent" tebaes “eaworte pe abi ‘te
‘egamns estd o? mre fo fh tio bisa eit to jen In tgnotw “us ‘Engel
% seat edd i. taotetnt uta eralioc (onse) wrk E boxbauit owt Yo
*08eL ol ah stad radmaet mot cer) ‘noe rq seven
~mo tote mi ton aaw epamptol ells often «tad? Brat) uv
cibmw edutete ect to moktooa eal to amo kakvors ond atin tuo
eeaes coed hin ¥% vated ia’ geeiihtend bus wed 0S on fo eave tano9
_ 78. doe ed ae Whlex vot soyeug ebltoege 8 ttowa sons) adie as icp
AR eae) older pte damm At Yn EOS boeivie t Sate ik abo)
Re TL AS |
COG. ko damtue- ond 02, Segamab. wh mort revoos of tiger Risalaly
~anoxw baa Lagasit exlé 20, tween a se DoxeTive “nosrcanig dae TT.
sow th sats hon tmpener etoto aay ar a Saar ae
yon otese ents ak Seas cim» sebtechete be! ik e la of too
y *
Snore
“Sas
without sacrificing uniformity, to subordinate form to substance.
The complaint advised defendant as to the specific relief plain-
tiff wanted and the exact amount sought to be recovered, and,
inasmuch as the judgment did not exceed that amount, in our
Opinion, it was properly entered.
However, we are impelled to hold that in view of the
fact there was nothing in the language of the complaint by way
of specific prayer for relief or otherwise to indicate or suggest
to defendant that a special finding that malice was the gist
of the action would be sought against himy Zeleany being in
default, the court was without jurisdiction to enter such
findings
Such other points as have been urged and the cases
cited have been carefully considered, but in the view we take
of this cause we deem further discussion unnecessary.
For the reasons stated herein the judgement of the
circuit court is affirmed, save as to that portion of the
judgment order specially finding that “malice is the gist of
this action," which portion is reversed.
JUDGMINT AFFIRMED IN PART
AND REVERSED IN PARTe
Friend and Scanlan, JJe, concure
sonnetadue of mol etamibuodwe of «yd Lure tiow, Bakes thane, anh Am,
~niely ta bger abiteega ef of as J sasboe bob beatybe intatgmeo ott
.bitg . heteveoet al ot tedguoe deuremss toaxe ord bas bestow tthe
une mt ‘toarome fade hesexs ‘ton bib ssonmg bart, auld aa Bones
sboverne Viseqeay zaw at ea0 hago
hesoud to veby ak tas pos o¢ belLogut exe ow .revowOH .
ww WS Snisignoo aula no sqaupaiad ssid mt paison cam ore? 900%
deoagwa 20 etaoibal 0 oa kyresito hen welfot eta hogs 5-' Ewe 9'y 2 *
3 fats odd ua eo tom taste gaibat? Lstooge # taild aba 6 of
at nated veo.tos eatkal tenteas sapu0e od DLavon ‘nottes ong 2...
dove rege oe moitotbataut taosis bw aaw Suroo elt fd sfuer9b
3
Beaso > ote bate. bons noes ovedd aa séatog ose. cry ee i ie
east ow wely exit nt tod eberodtano9 Yiisterse ood ove, panty. .
“Vissecoersay motaewonts Tehtet spe ow samey ait Mas
exis to dren bart, ods nterod hotsta smoacet ote ee
alt %0 nokexog dads os ae oTse “sdomre tts ei daye9 eee. :
‘% teats edd et cotfem" dant patbatt ee tebro one
baggie tb
EAM Sak
> e ee eee AOA hs
EARS i Phar
pat 1 DY ae
wa 2 Pa ret
Peg Sava aye
td tigen ay Ole
iy % hs "
Pe: > ebooks WA 4 ie dy Pa
, i Bak
re Nie
39201
LRA ROSEVZWAIG,
Appellee,
APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL
CHASs Te HIMMs TOY ¥ CHAN; : COURT GF CHICAGO.
)
To
TOY HONGs CHIW KUNG FouG,
alias Ching Kung Fu, alias
Ching Kum Yu; TOY KTNG and
He Be (Hdward Be) KAN,
Appellants.
290 1.4.599°
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE SULIIVAN
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This appeal seeks to reverse a judgment for $2,000
rendered May 19, 1936, in favor of plaintiff —janeninnie end
against defendants, upon their election to stand on their affi-
davit of merits after it had been ordered stricken fran the
files om plaintiff's motion. Although it is not so alleged
in the pleadings, plaintiff states in his brief and it is not
denied that defendant guarantors were stockholders and directors
of the Canton Tea Garden Company.
Plaintiff's statement of claim alleges that “he is the
holder fer value of two first mortgage gold bonds signed by the
Canton Tea Garden Company, bearing date the lst day of December,
1923 * * * in the sum of $1,000 and $500, respectively, payable
to the order of "bearer* on the lst day of June, 1931, and
the lst day of December, 1931, respectively; * * * that said
bonds were duly guaranteed in writing by the defendants, said
guarantee being on the back of said bonds [then follows copy of
defendents' unconditionel guarantee and their signatures to it];"
end that “by means thereof each of said guarantors are liable* to
cvoteg pmEvamiaon . Amt
sOOA0THO WD TAMOO (9 PAAR Yo vOr quant it aekny
PHOT "ih leone SuOK
aie Buln Yer ist aa watts
"ees sbi oes. ae ee
WAVILIUS MOITSG HRialarat Eiced rene ES
ereupte _ ci) a
P SOG i f RE Oe Aa
“peo wis inom out & @HT9Tes.02 | pa inoeas abn
san cabevaneneK inte tsnbels. to tovet at ,260f .@f yall berebne
7 fits tleds no Aneta of molioe£e tie? nogu sminehteied danlege
oes sett sotoiide berebze meed bad gf usite st inom to. ttvab
_ begetle o2 jon at gt dywoddla +woltom a Tit¢miats m soft
fom ai #i bra teted aid at aeteta Tihtmtelg, cmaiteniets ode pt
arotpoxlh ons asohingtone® i galt
We ae Les 3
ont af of” Jolt aogolie misLo to drrombdod a artt in. |
edd yd bomgta abmod bog epagérom tati2 ows 20 eutey x02 cob Los
facta sashnoteb sand boise
swig 9 nba net sotaed eld to
etodmeced Yo yab tal end stab guiieod .yagmed aobuad set modaad
oldatag etfevisoeqaor —O08) bam 000. L$ to me ont mt * * * Eger
bits «£60 onus Yo ysb taf alt mo ‘xoxaed? Yo robr0 ed? of
blae tad * « * pgkeeldooqaort eLEeL .rodneped a" tel end
bine ,atnabsmoted og wi guiélew mt beetnes aR WO
‘te wore sunken sents aioe st Weed nek a Galle tna:
“(ti o¢ aotwtargta tledt bas esiustsKg. fano t3 Lonoosss *utnahae ep i |
o¢ “eidall ots stotmererg biea te does toorost nas ont ” tad bans
“ee
plaintiff for the payment of the principal amount of sald bonds
and interest thereon.
After disclaiming kmowledge of plaintiff's owmership of
the bonds described in his statement of claim and of defendants*
alleged guarantee of the payment of seme and requiring strict
preof thereof, defendants allege substantially in their affidavit
of merits that on December 1, 1923, the Canton Tea Garden Company
having signed and delivered certain first mortgage bonds, including
these alleged to have been owned by plaintiff, executed on the sme
day as security therefor its trust deed conveying its leasehold
interest in the Canton Tes Carden Building to the American Trust
& Safe Deposit Company as trustee; that by said trust deed there
was conveyed as further security for the payment of such boads
certain personal property, including 211 the equipment, fixtures
emd appliances in the Canton Tea Garden Building owed by said
Canton Tee Garden Company, az well as the furniture, fixtures and
other personel property used in the operntion of the Canton Tea .
Garden Restaurant, all of the value of approximately °75,000; that
such personal property was sufficient in value to pay all the oute
standing and unpsid bonds; that ae further additional security the
trust deed provided for the assignment to the trustee of all rents,
issues and profits then due or which might become due for the use
end occupancy of any part of the premises covered by the Canton Tea
Garden Company's mortgaged leasehold, with full power and authority
to collect such rents and disburse same; that the trustee immediately
entered into possession of the premises December 1, 1923, pursuant
to the terme of the trust deed; that the Canton Tea Garden Jompany,
the principal debter upon the first mortgage bonds, executed and
delivered a eecend mortgage om its leasehold interest to the Central
Republic Bank & Trust Company on or about Jume 23, 19353 that,
he
abiod bine to temoun Lagionkzq att to deourgng old wot thidntate
, sMooteds taotetak bas
te qidexoowo’ attiliaiets to epbefwort grimkaloeth reyta —
‘atasboeted 49 bas aialo to tmometade ald mi hedizeasbh ebmod any
foitia giixtupes bee emma to teemyeq et to sotmazeug hegolta
tivebitte ties? mt ~flalinetudua omella wore hid soonest ‘teerg
Voqued Nebiwe 20T KOdaHS om? ELL .L tedmeood mo ath athvom ‘to
Bilbutonl .abemd egagdrom Fattt nisdxoo porov ited fied bento
Game eft 10 botuosxe «Ttiimtals yd bom 00d may ” ibe : sy
bfhoisana l agt guivevnte boob gnsrd att witexedy yi tured abe
tusx? meoltoma off oF yatblivng mobse eult: snotty alliiece labile
ened? boob sayxt Shee ye dastt teotenct us ynsymn9 tieoged ots? &
ahaod desga to tremyaq ef? tot yt busooe ore as en naw
aeocudz I ‘« Pecomi Earp 6 olf Ife ynthutont yttteqera Tene ;
| Bike Ye bemwe Hubb L inet ebro eet notant i ab |
bas sountx td pour) iow? odd as Ifew on yyememot nebred
se modes ect Yo motsareqo edt Mh boner yiteqore Lon
fouls FOOTE yLotumtxenqqa te okey otf ‘Yo Lim ytameeben:
ee ennetbone one rewoy Lit tlw ¢b£orien ser sania ical ht
Yletatbomnl vetanrt ott dade sarnduenabansdbucnhiisie sotto
ben Seteeiey {uti wibyet' His tte alias
fursasd offs of Seonesnt Stostouaor boca bah age i
enone Mk cannes cat o Ws ig tina ry
=3-
although this mortgage was subsequent and subordinate to the first
mortgage, the trustee under the trust deed securing such first
mortgage stood by and tock no action when the junior mortgagee
entered into possession of the premises and collected rents aggree
gating $62,000, which amount was sufficient to have paid all the
Outstanding bonds secured by the mortgages that the trustee, not-
Withstanding its rights under the first mortgage trust deed, stood
by in May, 1923, and permitted the Art Institute of Chicago to levy
upon the personal property heretofore mentioned to satisfy a judg-
ment obtained by it im the Municipal court of Chicezo against the
Canton Tea Gerden Company; that such trustee, the American Trust
& Safe Deposit Companys paid $49,000 on account of general taxea
on May 1, 1935, although it was not liable therefor; that said
money should have beon used by it for the payment of the first
mortgage bonds and, if it had been so used, would have satisfied
all the outstanding claims on the bonded indebtedness; that the
trust deed contained a provision giving the trustee the right to
foreclose in case of default, but, notwithstanding such right, it
took no action to institute foreclosure proceedings; and that said
trust deed further provided that, if the trustee refused upon demand
to institute foreclosure procecdings, such right accrued to any
holder of unpaid bonds.
Defendants contend that their affidavit of merits stated a
good defense and entitled them to a trial of the issues presented
by the pleadings; that they were entitled to prove the value of the
security wrich was wasted or lost through the conduct of the trustee
and have it applied against their liability as guarantors upon all
the bonds outetending and unpaid, including plaintiff's bonds; that
the yalue of the security permitted by the trustee to be wasted or
misapplied was greater than the aggregate of the outstending bonds;
turtt od of sdantbiedva Sis Ymenpsedua uaw egeyetom ail} sywedeta
. east fioge griguoea beeb damid oft tebe owtased odd. ogegdiom
Segug? com xolnyt, od? ceciw m9 item Of Aoed bine YW boodd. oysyd tom
‘eetuye adit befpetlos bms aseimoxg eff to no kucoekoy otnt boredaD
edt Ifn bieg eved oy de let Vien acw dowome doleiw ~OO0,.396 yateuy
afot ysotautt id todd {ogeystom ott Yo boundoe wbmed gntbnsdedue
hoods , boss Panrd ogagetom Part? old robs etely broad galbmadactd bw
CROL oF oLsol#S Ye edusioanT sta of} Hoss tmreg ban YSN ayant wl
abut o Uisttiae of bene bites orotesored yasqore: Letmateg bid nogy
ah ott tankegs oncotd) te tapos Leqib tum edt mk ei yd bemtaddo tam
sai? meokroa ef} .setenst dose tatlt pymeqmeD Mebtad se? mtand
toned Lerensy YO hi cts no OOOCEN) Blog eNO sinoqed Tea a
bisa tant ; tO totem eldetr gon aaw oe mguedeta «toed ek yarn
“gerd add 16 cowmcme ot rot YE Yt bowl Medd ova bikede yonem
boltehtie evait bitow ,boal! oe Redd pai $2 TE \ hae asi ese
‘odd jai? pavenbeddebat hobnod off no eimbete potkide
of dnipty exld ootawrt ond gattvly able bver & beter Beeb veurte
$2 igre Hove pathnevadtivton (tie ptuatod Yo wanb” tek CeoTSeAO®
phen tule bis feghiboooetg stumoLooret oa Ment ot abten on Hood
braced noc beow tot osdantd oft LE tald pobtvony wedtavt boob Yen
Ms oe Newrope sneid sore 7 suwAO Lore y edad Lak os
‘Vibes bikie Me ental
gs botate of trom Yo sivebi tte tiers gad? Simothos admmbmetat O° (oS
bodwonorg vemiek oiff 26 Lake? a od amend bed kin bene sonia |
, “ed te ‘eutay oats ‘we 09 belt kas based esa sa yj
“We bedacw od ad bode) odd ya bogeinreg he re
ees ess 5 SM DT CS A Sa SC: bi as | aie Bee aa”
sahnod amthsstasvo of to otegotype onl! neil? tofdong daw }
oe
that the release by the trustee of security tummed over te it by
the principel debtor released the guarantors pro tante; and that
the action of the trustee under the trust deed in s0 relessing
the security must be cherged against the bendholders for whem seid
trustee aoted.
Plaintiff's theory is thet the affidavit of merits of
defendants war insufficient and did not state a goed defense be-
eause (1) the instrument sued upon was an absolute, unlimited and
wneoditional guarantee and the guaranters thereon were liable
inéependently of any right of the nolder to pursue coliateral
seaurities; (8) the trustee under the trust deed securing the
payment of the bonds woe a priuglpal to the transactign and net
an arent of the bondholders; and (3) the failwre of the trustee
te use diligence in the enforcaument of the rights granted in the
trust deed did not amount to a waste or misapplication of coliateral
etourity by the plaintiff.
It is undisputed that the guarantee of defendauts to pay
the vends oxncuted and issued by the Canton Tea Garden Company
Degenber 1, 1922, was unlimited and absolutes and it is the recog-
mised and established rule that the lisbility of an unconditional
@uarenter becomes independent and fixed upon the fallwre of the
principal Gebter te meet the obligation when it becemes due. The
gQuarsaters in the imetant ease waived notice of nonpayment, demand
smd dishonor aud upon the mortgagors' default in the payment of
the priacipal amowit of the bonds, as well as the interest therean,
which veqame duc in 1951, it became theiy duty to immediately pay
such bends and interest, irrespective and independait of what
action plaintiff or the trustee took or might have taken ageinst
the principel debtor or the property conveyed a5 security by the
trust deeds
ed $2 0d tove once? Ut tnifoos to seduired “ent qe enmeten ort ade,
gitinoster ca mi boob gamed auld tobe segawtd off ‘to moteos end)
ventana a
= aan | rie ii ane:
“ty abit te diveditts ent cate ab yroads at Teakass
hee oatmted ‘boon 2 ota vem Bib Bie dhokerttvent ade, atambsn tow:
- hecimbiny yeduisude ne caw mbge howe tnometdunk edt (£) etsy”
“eat orcow ebersodld” acodtvetaing oid bn potae'edy Canate thro one:
” peeoguttes obeeuy 6s bio edd to Mejby qd to” Einesasqohak:
pg Gtxnose boob fouxt od) tose Seraired edd (h) quott tampon:
Jou dows mb tdoounend ed¥ oF Lagtomlay & war obit off To gmbiyeR
estowxd of) Yo wxwlik? 062 (6) dns oreo tembaee oc MO deQe me
oes at notes, ddg iv axl 20 Enekivero eo outd t eembeEhh ome ety
sanetithive te ne ‘oma od onuone San bth book gaint:
es vie eeneatetey onte ed qiubtarobm
we of aduabae Tob ‘te! sodnetteng odd tacts bennecscnransicnsiiul feel
sgingeod ietial néT dedieet wih yd" beleive bra! be vi afremit wont
_ ata wag BL #1 boo y Otwtodds Seer Hee hattioy ear (EO of wotaseat
eee a ee ce ee wv bautehtites oo buay Bonde
eit to omitict ofa coq buat bite Seohmnqehitd semeed worsmedamy
od? .oud commood 91 unity noteepltife ait) soent'od! dotdety fe tontiog
Bisabh gttiouyadned to cotta hevlaw vies aiaeant ‘edt wh wresuaxaug
‘te dewangeg elt at thine tey ‘unegagéxom etd Rogy Mae xemodukh him
bibeiaet Seereent idk A A
-— that ood al scone comcom wt ei qtoateq of
se SMR ies A i eh a
ri ada” by ap oo Re aie Glan eR bose
ne a i) a1 ee "ate i aby te yh |
' My
~B=
In Holm ve Jamieson, 17S Til. 295, it wes Held that the
fact that a corporate note was declared by a court of equity to
be void for want of authority of the treasurer of the corporsetion
40 execute it did not velease an absolute cuarentor from Liability
as against a bona fide purchaser from a bank, which had discounted
the note solely on the strength of the guarantees
in Warden ve Galtier) 90 Tile 160, the court anid at pe 1648
"The cusrantor becomes liable if the money is not vaiad
eecording to the terms of the guarentesc, Crosbey v. Skimmer, 44
Iii. 321. By the terms of this guaranty, no terms were Imposed
upor the appelisee that he should sue the maker, or do any other
act; he could remsin passive, and the guarsntor should have looked
to it belere Cramer left the State, that he had paid this note."
Quoting from Tausig ve Reidy 145 Tlie 488, in Pfnelser ve
Eau, 207 Tlie 1G, our Supreme court sald et pe L24s
“Where the payee of a promissexy note or third parties
execute a contract written on the back of an unconditional
promissory metc for the payment of money at a specified tine,
in whieh they guarantee the payment of the promissory note at
maturity, the holder of the nete ls under no ebligstien te demand
payment of the maker and on default of payment notify the guar-
anters. The reason is opviows. The contract of the euarantors
is absolute and unconditional, and it requires payment by the
guarantors upon maturity of the note. This rule is clearly laid
down in Gage ve hicchanics' Wat. Bank of Chicago, 79 Ille 62, and
is well sustained by authority. The principle upon which this
dectrine resis ia that the coniract is abselute, and not condition-
al or ccllateral.®
It thus appears defendants are clearly liable on their
guarantee unless released from such liability by pleintiff or by
his acts or conducte It is agreed that where a ereditor has in
his hands or possession some security or pledge for payment of a
guaranteed debt and he performs some affirmative ect or fails to
perform a duty, which conduct on his part destroys, wertesor
injures the security, the guarantor is releareé at least to the
extent of such destruction, waste er injury. It is net charged
im defendants! answer that any ef the security wes in plaintiff's
pesseesion or thst he directly permitted its waste and misapplication»
but that the trustee acting as plaintiffts agent permitted the lossy
al
ad
aris fart Sos wow $4 00S ILI EVE .moneimel «vv mioh ak
ot ¥tinpe to dumoe « yd borates saw of08 Siatogios a tests #oak
gotsexoqzes oats te totuasext ost to Yitvedins Io Jtaaw yot blov ad
yWittdsil moxt iodisxeuy otaloada ne easelox ton bib 3% edsoexe of
badaueoatbh bad doliw .xsed # mort xwaetotg ght) sand o tunlens. a;
sasitouns off To teguetds séd no YLefloe stom ort
WOE vq Se bisa tcmmo ome ORL -LLT OC ozedias «¥ gobegh al.
bem toast meg 2, leis “eat ARO a
Deeben eras mene Sn caoream, M3 SE a
wag ey oF on ra pant oat pean Lapded aaa re Figen vnc
“v goatee ’y ii (O82 LEK OS shot oe pinaaw mat yatsony |
@hGL aq de b kee Seuoo omorque too qOEL «LET VOR cual
soliueg Hrids to ston yxouk ine ny 9 to eeyay edd erOmW oo
Ismoisibaooms oe to doad edt mo mods inw see a posse d
eats galas a ts. yemem Zo. dneargag edgy ww Teton. ore
tz stom yrozetmorg efi to taenryaq sald ees aa. piu
buen of molisgifde on sobmm.ak oon orld to
~teinm of9 Tiitver tmemysq to 3ivelobh mo ee eee %
avednatam, edd to Famous ext .avolvde si meses “Las
Pgs xd ng gi aotispes tk bas iam i ibnbeee be bis ado
Gist yiceelo at elu Lae 42 BOOM. aekt co ea erod ms tai
bita .80 .LLT OY sons ld sa od Pa! ae ni £0070 6
aide doksdw nog 9 rouiey oat = Xe Smadke is Led aut
-olsibios son bas eautoads ad tontiaoe aay “as BdRe Perit
iy istmbaisoe 20 ts
chews 9 eldats easnose tA agasbroteh, axne Eqs agit $= ore
CORSE aveatia Sad | taney 2 gee
ue 20 Whintelg a widest oun m9? bosee fox habe sicooec sed te tT
ST ae Ey ee
ut ancl 208 theo 8 orrestw sacks ‘booms ab aT +Fouba00 a af ree abst
jay RS ee Oe
a to Pamaryng ‘te? ogdetg 10 vt tawoos owe ‘so taaeseoq <0 abnad @ bal
BS IE BCS ating aga xaeees
Qt afiet vo tos ovidauret7%s ems emo tog od aan oda _beetast.sin
Tosetaaw ‘aeyord ued Saag ats gu Sprbreo Moise wea a partes
‘ ahi A West. Re
_ eald oF tasel do deenefet at xotnazang aatt ane a off actatat
begisdo Jom et at seat x0 Ricipsric sae town se os dows iP ;
altiivetet@ mi Ber us tmose ong Poi ee. tat 9 ates ee hse pia’ =
enol daptacaae te bus stesw net hehehehe, 8 bell agel baat sas i | sto ta menses
Sp x Ss tale Nea se
gt i a
enaol acts hodsimrog tnega attiivmtele os wuitied fon ont tadt dud
nia Py ae ee ae
o fie
waste or misapplication of the personal property and rents and
income of the premises conveyed end assigned as additional
security under the trust deed and that such loss, waste and
misapplication was in value and amount more than sufficient te
pay all the outstanding unpaid bonds, including these ovmed and
held by plaintiff.
Was the trustee plaintiff's agent in any sense that imposed
responsibility on vlointiff fer such trustee's culpability or
delinquency, if sny? Defendants cite Miller v. Rutland & We Re
Coop 36 Vie 452, and quote extensively fram that portion of the
epinion which appears favorable to their contention that the trustee
under a trust deed is the agent of the bondholders for all purposes,
but an examination of the opinion discloses that the court there
went on to say at pne 486-8718
"We do not hold, nor de we assent to the position taken in
the argument by ome of the counsel for the defendants * * * that
the trustees have, under their trust, any agency te discharge,
change or compromise the security which they hold as trustees.
They sre not general agents of the bondholders, but special, and
Limited to the legitimate purpose of the relation they sustain te
the security and to the parties entitled, under the trust with
whieh they are clothede Amy act or omission of theirs, therefore,
whether in bad or good faith, outside the scope and purposes and
legitimate imcidents of ths trust, would not affect other parties
in their rights under the trust, on the score of the agency existing
in virtue of that relation."
A trustee may alse be the agent of the mortgagee or the
owner of mortgage bonds, but, when he is, his aseney is created by
am express contract or agreement or by facts and circumstances othr
than the were insertion of his nome as trustee in a trust deed
securing a mortgage. ‘the rule is well settled in this state that
& trustec, as such, undey a trust deed is not an agent of the bende
holders but a primcipsl and the representative of both parties to
the instrument.
In Gray ve Rebertson, 174 Til. 242, discussing the status
of a trustee under a trust deed, the court said at pe 2503
- 8
“hig
bun eimot bas YIteqetd Landaxng ot Te HOLieotidgaatm 10 efaaw
‘famole bbs as batyluan bas beyowEes ebakinety ods RO! omboat
hits sdiew yauel Movatadd bre heed guucd oft Gobmy Yo turdse
(of dmete ities nest onm seuioma beevonLay ak acu noite tiqgaatm
bre homme esodd gatbatoat .sbrov bieqns ynthoobatoo oft. Lim ya
eYhkeatalg we biked
benogut tat oonen yia al teagan «'iiitaintg ootewtto ad? aeW
bie ‘eebiidegion: stentemet tose seal Wiktabaky me erent
ots we mots20g todd mort eLovtaneez9 ‘stony ee i i
| ooseusd eas Bo noitnodne 0 xlostt ot oldarove? BTeRiGe F
rh pdat Sa ziede oti of ‘3 198
hang, 2 Boyes ond
daeiell ie 4
08 wolar to <p.398
ioe tad pay este Siieiar’ 7a hooy mo. Bb ante
yateene waate seotts ton binow «tents ed? Yo admeblont sdamis igoL
PALZOLE NOUN WAR 20 ORRAD, ON, e-em ae mix. there mt
! “.aokselox tanks eomdchy mt
iy arbike et 7 er. Cen BE GES tose NE 28E SS
ad? <6 oesia don ols” ‘e yous ‘eat ‘oe oaks you eoaaartd A
e Fine sts faker i te Pays =}
wed bedaowe at Lerten ost oak a orte vtud eabaod orl to re
Me MRD ved Mm is i
ii aponed cumrytio hati pont we "0 dnemeore ‘0 “tosagiieo snenque Ce
‘ Gees’ heated ea caddies “bn omen old ta so toons ‘ore 8 ait
— gada otb¥a alae nt botteex ftew af efvc sat ~ ‘sepagion 2 gitiumes
gr’ rover tin
~oaod edlt %0 tnege ae Yom Gk Boob Foi? w Zohuid eifowe a6 ry ict
of cobiia dod to ebsiilewitae out $e » figtontes ny
ia Lee hts a a
at ont — i
eats its patanvoulds ~2oe tet Bee ‘ginadzodeit te ahd — ie Ps |
0° O° Fobe Ve ge bse gamed beth. poem demed s ‘tie ssbsind “% 4 :
oe Pus
"He was equally the trustee and representative of both
debtor and ecrediter. He was appointed by the debtor and derived
all his power from the debtor, and was, of course, the trustee
ef the debtor. de have frequently held a trustee in a trust
deed is the representative and trustee of both the partier te
the instrument; thet his relations must be absolutely impartial
as between them; that he must act fairly toward both parties,
and not exclusively im the interest of cither. (Cassidy v. Cook,
99 Ills 5853 Ventres v. Cobb, 105 id. 53; Williamson Ve Stones,
123 id. 129.)"
Im Shite v. Maciumeen, 360 [lie 2365 approving the rule
stated in the Gray case, supra, the court said at ps 247%
"The rule recognized in this State is, thet a trustse
under a trust deed is the representative and trustee of both
the perties to the instrument - the mortzacor as well as the
mortgagee or bondhelders - and that he must act fairly toward
poth parties to the instrument and not exclusively in the inte est
of either. He is required to act fairly to the debtor or those
having derived title from the debtor and who have an interest in
the property pledged .e*
Under the facts alleged in defendants' affidavit of merits
the trustee ce fsould not have been the agent ef plaintiff. An agent
owes all his loyalty to and must act exclusively for the interests
of his principale
The amount of the bonds issued, which included plaintiff's
bonds,does not appear, but it is reasonable to assume that the pur-
chasers of the bonds ef such issue lived in widely seattered locali-
ties, some pessibly in distant cities, and it is preposterous to
urge that they should be held accountable for any alleged neglect
or delinquency of the trusteee Defendants who, as has been hereto -
fore stated, were stockholders and directors of the Canton Tea
Garden Company, the principal debtor, undoubtedly attached their
guarentee to the bonds so that they could be more readily sold.
It is fair to assume that the guarantors were on the premises and
in intimate touch with the occurrences ayerred in their affidavit
of merits, and it seems to us that if the trustee was lacking in
diligence in the performance of its duties, they rather than plaine
tiff were to blame for permitting said trustee's misconduct, if anys
to continue wichecked right under their eyes.
ae
Mad
tied to evtisdnoeo ge bee sedeuts at vifaupe see hi
hevitod bas votdob snd yd botatoqys aaw sil vtoghhere ‘godden ©
aodurtd off geatato To ptew Gee etaddeh . ont wert ts7eq ie Ee
ganz? o mt soteuts « bied yitmeupet? ave oF 20st 4
of aatitaqg oat Miod to aavavrt aim evizeataessiget oft. sis Sa
tarep Ht hog anol ed geum anelgelot ain dat es oh thi
fgewod ylebet tes demm,ea t mere
g0) szarlite te toosetar ott ay seins Se
REEDS BOL 4 GEO oe gesgmey, 1 beng al
odes, ont aatvotags edGS «LET O08 sisoeun geil v epee er
ATRS 4 te b ise du908 ‘ott atgite ona ‘yaad oett Ri hegata
osdavad a gade sat “otade ably at” “box tegbbet otur ont if
(gstod te setants bas, eyisasmoaest ak beab gumtt a soba
etd Bs flow ae don daam oa ~ pouartient end “{ Frcs rnps Pocono
tao eae eae at caerlaute Paherities ene as sro ied
> veeenelah % ox i ot sen os seene ke
rn c aweone sat
mi gaosesn! 0 m8 ghey pe
adizcm %o. gayanio%s parent er4 at pater stost ont apy ui
peob sete ond robawe
duoge sh \Ytkamialg Ye duoga odd mood oval Jom biWea\se
apenetet ee wren tn ms
¥ Pi x
SOE AR SOE Ke
F a coe iy eed vette «Berne! ie mi el
aug ld sail omuaan 08 Sate iti ba ag eae #6 O Vesna
~itanor boredasos ylobiw sh. govt einta tin 9 ebaes oats ‘30. wzsessto
od aworetacqer 2 ¢4-dam caatite taadarh at vid tedeg “aioe «202d
toolgen begelia vis 46% eteatewnoen Ait’ oi iehitl’ hte*Oheld> ‘ogus
-stoxen mead aac as yest edanbustat seogaund ef to Yotmpmtsod 10
ast so $609 ost to arog ooxkd peu prebLodteosa Stow ybedaes o'xet
ceaste betiontd.a bese baw ex0ddob ieqtomksq ont .yesqueD meptad
bios tbaon BLOM od havea ‘ad daake ea abnod edd 02 osdnerare
Rae aoa Imoeg aia mo exo" axodaezaus oti ¢add ombadd of tint et 9st
thvebh tts teas at borteya ssonegerooo oald “ah EW dotibs of aakint ont
wit pmiloal sew eogaucd ond Yt dads uw of emdoa $2 °pna’ di kveH to
wnat tenet sorter yods «aottuh adi to eomnmse troy ‘oilt AE soneg hiss
erin \eoubmonet « a teotowd ‘bhoe aalegtenog hall ound Py esl bial
Le BEE RH,
“aaeye stout sro bea por bexoostoas euntn09 8 d
The general taxes paid by the trustee constituted a lien
superior to that of the trust deed and it is idle to urge thet
the trustee waz recreant in ite duty in paying them. The other
iteme of claimed waste occurred after the date of maturity of
Plaintiff's bonds and mot omly could the guarantors have protected
themselves to the extent of the security in question, but it was
their duty to have done so by paying the money dus on the bonds
and being subrogated to the bondholders* ri¢hts in and to #uch
sequritye
We have considered such other points as have been urged,
but as we view this cause we deem any further discussion unnecessarye
In our opinion defendants’ affidavit of merits did not ota te
a good defense ond the trial court was warranted in strikime 1;.
Defendants being in default for want of an affidavit of merits
stating a good end sufficient defense, the judgment was properly
entered and should be ond is affirmede
JUDGQNNT AFFIPMTD.
Friend and Seanlan, JJ., coneurs
Fas
“geht » hedutitanon ootearst att wai biog nenep Laren of ee
| fais spures. ofht a 41 bso hosh dmnd oft te: ¢att 98, andsouse
neste ect vaety guivog at vied shh ab dnmoxeet. can eateusd sit
By meee | eee
to et betoe te end ot ota Hewmvose efeav sombaLe Yo smodl
betombotd event ewotemetems os baioo wie. son ham whims #Penientaly
asw tt al semhieenp nb yitsynee, oe
aban sett mo ox yom ontd asteng wh 09 sah ovat 97, ub. x xinelt
seine of a omennanehee’, ote bnranvemn antl Se
| shea deni oveit en site, route nite, be: . id a ith
cccusiiliains noluaivon.th, ‘cout cif chum wan ew oi
sree a ise so ome
ed ata dom bkb ediven to ¢ hvebi tts *agnabse tod io
Lat publicte mt bednercm sow due, fait at ae aut ob heog &
eg.brom 0 2 vabitte ne 20 tease ot $.uotob fr te to oat
in ae
ereemeny, now deoemshert ‘ott veunsteb srmbot Yisre bas hoog # aatnts
te eR TEIN, BE, OO
<peurtate at been od rosso bme herosme
gine bo Gama gee
i Hahah ag
ao here &
es SD
sec HER
BT te
i o eet Se Saar take ahs ‘eet eee ET + ae RR oe]
eitadeare 6 O38 wr leis uy fond mS
Pls Mie ee a te a SE Re Re Biel ae 4 EARUTY ORE Se Se gee
eae aa ee er Fs GY kt
pie. goa RE ti Lee eRe ik oy ein Seed Benet)
us wx 6 Wee Be Ss Deere
ai gaegea ey Cah wh as
rb ee POM ec Aa retry Pe eee Bi + uh amet ah !
Bee pyar te iat ae ee eid Dane e ei
ie i i Hey Se HEA Tee. cee NR com wath ae seiteatta
onshaopnie «toner? boos eeher seer Ths vousuet ey one ae RY
sare thers wee dls bertoaaioat | eutynto
fis
37671
GaMtisg AtsL TL IAOLS RATLGHAL BARK
aHe TRUST GOMPARY GF CHICAGO, a
national banking asseci« tion,
trustee under agreement éated Jue
2%, 1919, otherwiee mown ae trust
HOe 2133 ®
Appellant,
APPUAL PRG CINOWT
CORT, COU CNTY.
Pant i ammeter Teall
. 2901.4. 600'
WALTER Ge HITBER et ales
Appellees. )
MR. JUSTICN PRIGND DOLIVER’D THM OPINION OF THe COURT.
Continental Illineis Nationa] Benk and Trust Company,
e6 trustee, filed a bill to foreclose the lien of « trust deod
seouring « principal note for £5,000 executed by defendants,
Walter ©. Hieber and Derothy Be Hieber, his wife, whe vere per-
eomally served with process. The trust deed pledged the rent,
iecues and profits as additional security for payment of the
indebtedness seoured thereby. ‘The camplaint ws taken pro confeaso.
by 211 defendants and a decree of foreclosure and sale was entree.
June 2, 1934, pursuant to the report of the moster to whom the
matter had been generally referred. ‘The foreclosure dseree found
thet there was due complainant 87,018.18, together with interest y
and costs, and that the trust deed wan a valid lien upon the v |
premises therein deseribed as well as upon the rents, issues sand
prefits thereof during the full period of redemption. The deoree
alse provided that in the event of » deficiency arising fram the
sales a porgenal dceree should be entered against Hieber and wife
and against the rents, issues and profite fran the premises during
im ay) Ry! Baia,’
ae es ei ee
yates | ¥ i
5
‘ae een
ihe
ae
r ‘
Lek
Wt 4
Wi? ONG i
ies wei
el avo TRA out som amie
ae raed ass cata : a
THD PHGH 4s PMIOD
00 = ELD Sal os a = 2
pment 2, OLN GAY RV RARR ALAC OTNATT | . ae *
ee 2 ttt Ke: anata
setegeoD Tuer Bais dawtl Lame katt atomier
boot tuted a tv WoL adi esetosx « ed Efid 0 bokdt hier:
redmabnoted Yh bogwnexe OO8,89 wer ‘oton baa! ioe
-ieqg oxew Gif getty ole yeedol of ytoeroit name wecialit © andi:
ciitme'd edt begbotg noob saute ont “ibelbiey MI Levese ‘albu wrote
(St Yo dnsemag xO? Yhworn Lammtstdhe on ed ite xg ew.
2OARe wwe OY soled aw satetemo oT «ydoxedd boumDER amends : ]
enn saw ofan hae onoLoovel Yo fetes » haa ednabaeted paca
Od sll a eaeaate Ww drogen wt of Januari » DECK y8 cave
ie t setoe’ axmaotoeset af? .berrater vALatonon rood aud item
ooratak dite Tadtoped @BE GLOW temmtatqmoe sub vow ovedt dade
Mt oq mOLE Hiker © aay hook seund ont acd ben ‘etna oan Hes
3 7
6 Be ee i yee
bib waved eadaws oeS moun an Lhsr o6 Hadixoweb atowedls o ita boi
soxeoh ad? .aotiqnohe: te betioq Livt edt gakuub Wworeds hk i.
ot Most gaiaine Yoantetted s XO Greve ent al date iat saat
etiw bus xodelH dentegs sowsdns af biwede voxsed Lammareg a r
baba nouieerg odd mx? ag korg bam antes vadoor Pa fs :
“2s
the period of redemption. By the decree the court retaimed jurie-
diction fer the entry ef ouch further orders a6 might be necessary,
including the appointment of a receiver for the golleetion ef rents
during the redemption peried. Upen snle of the property by the
master, pursuant to the decree, the premises were bid in by camplain-
ant for 96,990, leaving a éeficieney of 519284040. After saele come
Pleinant moved for the entry of sn order approving the sale, for a
deficiency ¢eeree aguinst Hieber and wife of 219284240, for the
appointment ef a receiver during the peried of redemption, and, in
the alternative, for a vrwle on Hieber and wife to pay the fair rental
for the premises during the period of redemption.
Upon hearing of these motions, Derothy BR. Hieher appeared in
court end testified in effeet that complainant had purchased the
prineipal nete secured by the trust deed from John >. March & Company,
mortgage brokere; that after default under the trust deed def endents
attempted to scoure a lean from the Home Owners' Loan Corpeoratian
and obtained complainant's emsent in writing to accept $6,789.58
ef bonds to cover the prinsipal and iaterest then duc, and «a cerned
expenses} that after an appraisal of the premises by representatives |
ef the He Oc Le Cop the latter offered to issue to camplainent
55,562 of bonds in extinguishment of the amount due complainant,
but the latter declined to acaeept said bonds unless the settlement
Was supplemented by a cash payment of 669%, and consequently the
loan was never consummated «
After henring thie evidence the chancellor entered an order
approving the sale of the premises to complainant for S6,%O%, but
éenied the motion fer the entry of a deficiency decree against
Hieber md wife, denied the motion for the appointment of a recciver
during the period of redemption and alse for a rule on defendants te
pay o fair rental for the promisesduring the peried of redemption.
Nagi: a Ge ee
tof OLS eet
w=
~uiul, dantaton twos wld eorpeh of? YE .ooliquobe + to hebtoq odd
eYicnasoon ad tight na axolue aodduvt dows to yndme off wok melioeth
atuet Io weléesitoo ats to% covieoet « te toms ntoqga ef gukhuLom.
edd of Yiingorg ost? w ales ang «dotaag mokoeqavbet end gabush
~nbalewo ww wi bid ox98ev woalmong ed pootood off 69 taonatmg red ase
~ave sina wits .0bebaRA Le Ye Coumlelind a smbvahh: sGOOuRE. wR dee |
& WE geled add yatvongqe tobxe an 2o urdu ad we? be ’
edt 02 «bs b0SqL% Ye Stew baw tool. dantape a et
wa ofheen «ie Lingeobes te belioy of gattnh soviooot « to tuaatadigga
lagen ei att wa oF okke bro vedolt a aive o 42 sovedarmedio odd
sonitqaobex Yo bo bry, eats gees wothmeny ae
ah hoxewgin TedOlt oe whtored eemoktom excl? Ye gatzaad aq
ott neentoriog bad gnantalanes tad footie at dobtivied bad Gruen
“eeroqian.? 4 carat oS raiok smack dood faved edd yf oxyown den mes
adnshre ts hoeh fers? edd sobs PLualod saeke dade garcod
Behiomare) ssek ‘aman emeR esd sath A8eL @ wIHOeE ot botqnaten
‘SGeCSBE dqroe Od ytd bew wt deerme ad mnelalamcs pertarde bite
hiaheos «bea oud odd Passed one Leytontee etd toven of aband 20 ,
ee “ wovivagnowarqon ‘Wi aselmazy ads 26 deekerrgge vs nodte tale Levsmaqxe |
ale tank atin’ eo ageat oe houw't'to aaa eds qo wh a oh melt re
| em eso ald aemdew adaod bhan dquons od dembteoh motel edt gud —
edt UWneweoes en C82 to goneyeg Moan # UE hetnemiqggne paw
TTT: |
xobtO tis hovedee welloorss elt sonebivs ahdd guadiaed cadtA . a
ted 400. a8 tet daantetgees oF awedmerng ond iia, of
Heth aga wetonh Yoreketieh « Io exxae ald a0) oh t0m8 —" ie
rovionot a 20 davataingys wd 20% mottos add Bosna tw 4 4
Of danbnsteh mm ofr # X0T Oake bom meRiquobor 6 tonne tte
Hus iqaehe eke bolbieq ot gitbuet reer
~Se
Complainant apoeals from the order denying theee motions.
In justifiestion of the court's refusal te enter a deficiency
deeree and for the appointment of a receiver, defendants" eounsel re
lies principally on Levy v- Breadway-Carmen Bldgs Corpe, 278 Illes Apps
203. That ease, however, presents entirely different circumstaness.
Am extended hearing was there had as to the fair market value of the
mortgnged premises and upon e videnee adduced the chancellor feud that
the sale price was gresely inadequate as compared with the established
vaiue of the property, + efused to confirm the sale and ordered a
resale of the propertye A motion for leave te appeal was subrequently
ellewed by the Supreme court, ané in an opinion filed April 6», 1937
{but not yet published) appreved in principle what wae said by the
appellate court in the Levy v- Broadway-Carmen Bldge Corpe cases Gupras
but held that the sale price was adequate. The Supreme court reached
the conclusion that where the amowit bid at a master's sale is no
grossly inadequate that it shocks the conscience of = court of ecuity,
it ig the ghanecellor's duty to dianppreve the report of sale, and it
eoid "there is little or so difference between the equitable juris~
diction and power in « chancery court to refuse approval te a report
of sale on foreclesure and the power to fix, in a¢vanees a renarved
or upset price, as a minimum at which the preperty may be soldy* that
the same judicial power is invelwed in cither action and “what is
neaeesary to be done in the end, - prevent fraud and injustices - may
be forestalled by proper judicial action im the beginaing." Heither
of these conclusions have any bearing upon the case before us,» since
the ehancellor in this preceeding did in fact approve the sale. The
only questions presented for our consideration are whether the court
erred in refusing to enter a personal judgment against Hieber and
wife, and whether a receiver should have been appointed to colicet
the rents during the period ef redemption. either of thease ques-
OR, ERIS Ma Tin
be ia) fs)
a.
) somotton wads gabyeed osbue erly week aknocges sctenkesqmed
| atte ries # wee OF Leneter et es ots te aeteopt hii, mE 655)
al Levante ‘wteibas'tes yzovtoosy a Ww from aiogges mY tot hee eetoety
\ oak oh? OFS .. quer eabit a Mowat ysiThae ak se Yad we yi iagieeing eokt
eect amaore bs duerottts ust tine atasebty revered dweMO Har? Veer
eel outlay sottcam tiet ditt oF am Bast vivant sow giubcmadt botineee oan
] mst ans 0% xoltcoasde afd beowbha soaehtyo aeqt Siu dee kioty tegenewom
| bate Litet oo este stttw hoveqmoo ed eSaupshdet Vitadty caw webu ates ead
‘a beroine hee okoe aod set? inds oF héanty > «Ubteqorg ott Mw eaday
| porns a ase Enegca of ovast ret noidheA .yptsdond te ne ehone
| 7 Week “2 Lhnga boat? poladeo an ah bra .aboo atotee bed Ee Behe REA
~ eate w bina aoe ‘tosh otatoatig: ab boworeis (badvitem ry tea snd)
= 980 + G00 NAL nemnOeyawhaot «Woon Sit ad" dees MeCrOeED
herloses den smog oft .edaupobi ow eodeg Okee wae dams “bKom tut
7 ga ot ofse a'4ed dum & gn bid Sbveni off oreie dale mottunteneo! ede
ees “Wo dtwoo « to apeetoumss aff oteory $2 tty ode oben ylenedy
ee pre goton to Proqes ef? oveteqew hd oF yO 2*eeRteencity peared
Las wera ides tips std nested spnone THs on te ets ht et wrade” bine
| sroqer 2 04 Lovorggs oautex Of swoe YrbiKiatD we mE HeweR hnemEttOsD
—ohepronas a esannvhe At gxht ed ‘rowed We Hew Wumndifoeee? me enka Ro
fue “thine od yam yevoqore ott ABM 2h MND ee yeRE tome ee
aE Yate” hive tm bean ortho mt hoot at tence Rekha enon iat
you - gonkscuiat bie Aner? feoweny 6 yee Seek ame eed eemmessen
sexvsied “.gmtantged eff a amives Latothe} waqore Wh beLLatowrs® eo
eouta pox wreted Senn oath benghepmnnhetembssnmniend to
oat oan ots Sve 2ghs Foat Mt beh galthowndoy ebay int ‘Ve Ropate ole
duwey acd tostdody oh ‘a ns ea Ste Natoennly aetna tio
, ban tedolt jontena Premphut Letiwwneg # tedne oy subaurioe sk bere
Yoeiloo of Tesabigas ee rs 4)
~tony weds %o switdtou oktober te: batons matdetandemnces
Aye Ohta
of
tions was reised or discussed in Levy v. Sresdway-Carmen Bids.
Gorp-s Supra
Under the conditional deficiency deeree entered by the
court prier to the mesterts sole, complainant was entitled te a
personal judgment against Hieber and wife after the auount of the
déeficieney wee determined. The right to a deficlensy decren under
these circumetanees docs not grow out of general cquitable princi-
ples, but lz founded upon the legal ebligetien sf the makers of the
mortgage. It wae so held in Mets ve Dionne, 250 Ille Appe 36%,
wherein the forecleaure had proceeded to sale, leaving a deficiensy
of ©1,084.46, for which complainant acked jucgment. The chancellor
refused to enter 2 deficiency judgment, holding that the complainant,
in subordinating the mortgage therein foreclosed without the defend-
ant's consent to a subsequently executed first mortgage for 3,69,
released the defendant from personel lisbility on the note. On appeal
complainant argued that he was entitled to a personal judgment on
the general equities presented, but th¢ court in affirming the judg-
ment said (p- 373):
"The right to a persernel judgment in foreclosure proceed
ings does net rest upon general equity principles, but upon the
iegal obligation of the maker of the note."
Prior to the enactment of sea. 16, chape 9§(I11. “tate
Bar Stats.» 1955) the mortgagee was relegated to his action at law
to obtain a judgment for any deficiency that micht be due him after
the sele of the mortgaged premises, but sinee the enactment ef this
statute a deficiensy decreas may be rendered in the foreclosure pro-
eveding for any balance fod te be due the complainant ever md
mbeve the preceeds of the sale. In construing thie statute, the
court, in Eggleston ve Morrison, 185 Ill. 577, anid (p. 570)
“While the statute mthorises the decree to be entered
eouditienally at the time of deereeing the foreclosure, ite only
effect is that of a finding that the complainant is entitled te
® personal decree fer auy balance that may be due after the
application of the proseads of the sale.®
oho,
SD SLE meses U-vambeetd aw yore ob beamromkt wo. ioeket mow ameke
4 Wain ae Re RIGNS «+9700
4 ot YS Soxesie sotanh Youetotiek Lemmtetbaes edt xaba sco. %
9,99, bala lene ame, tnantalyman .9iee at segnee ods ef soheq guson
ad? to Sovomn elf xof%e oRiv dns, code sonteae. gromphyl Lannanpg:
‘tabs oorpsd Yonetotted » of gate oT shontortad sh sow yountok teh
| ~ Losin eLdst luspn fareneg to 1x0 wor, Jom sa0h aogapiacwerte aeode..
mit te axodan off 29 aoidspilde Loged aid moqe bebaget.ot dad aastq:
A8BE “sqaA oLfT 08S eganoks +¥ gta at bled o8.ncu. 31. sepentzem
eosreho tio a gatvast soles 04 hohemon ag, had
toiLoonusts oat vtoveamy ur hostaa Jasntshuwoo Aokiw
etnant aque 9 ont auld ambb.stort _edemmghat, pantet teh. mn ete
~bao teh nats davon be bonosoe70% nbonastt veri oe sai a
Ke 000.88 “02 omen ron gexit boawoexe
Laeage mo ston osty ste witehdate, fs
fo tavmmbul Lanearog # 92 betetaae naw ad dad emgte SamabamwD
oe oat yale 26 mb fume salt dad «| setiinos Laregen olf
ane Com ree T Abi Gy A perenipe enmanned
descong oxxusiecee? py peat Leste 2
fale og tae
fort até 0 “let Y i mitesiiee tenet
Prd ‘stetjae sotto woe ree _teveusd 9 Sens oom oa a
“wad di ‘ae itos eld og petagater ear sopapd tom a oat (EOE qu tat et.
aedte atht ord of data tnt sastt ‘Yoneda we <0 A mteth 84...
aoe Met tt
#
5 mp Re
5 h
aide 2 dtmerd bane é ovate dud vont onnae 08 ses
ant tkmecooce’? exft nt berohnot om eam sore
tw seve énontatamen ole and of of ‘oe
Ee ee
rls “yoduende whats aienresanoo at veins edt
‘gS Ragamter bie Ali
or Heil bisa m ovte ter oor “esau
oe
The xvle ie well eetablished thet when the report of sale
shows a deficiency after the entry of a dceree of foreclosure and
sele finding the defendéents personally liable for the indebtedness,
it is the duty of the court to render persional judgment agninst
the defendants for the deficiency. it was so held in “eliley ve
Babb, 181 Ill. Apps B54, where the court, in affirming the ontry of |
@ deficiency deerce agsinet defendants, seid (p. 87):
"When 2 éeficit was shown it wes the duty of the Court to
render personal judgments against the plaintiff in errer and hie
eo-defendants, whe hed assumed and agreed to pay the mortgage debt.*
The same conclusion wie reached in Townsend ys Zisony, 15% Ills Appe
303, where the court, in discussing the propriety of the mtry of
the deficiency judgment ageinet the defendant, said {p. 508)s
semoeed Poe ta atest S's aetetisne tn fete rit,
at law at the eome time he began his foreclosure sult, and shtain
he coulé net take a judgueus for the deficit in the chancery cout.
immediately ofter the deficit is mewn after the sale.*
The only other question invelved is whether eg@aplainanat was
entitled to the appointment of a receiver after sale and del iaileney.
Holding as we do that camplainant was entitled to a defielensy decree,
it »ould follew that it would also be entitled to the «ppointment of
& recelwer during the period of redemptions Although it has been
held that the cGurt ‘mag exercise some disoretion in the »ppointment
of a reaeiver before sale (Frank v- Sdegel, 263 Tlle Apps 516) and
take into account the equities between the partien, including the
value of the property pledged te secure the debt, we know ef no case
which vests the court with such discretion after sale, where « defi-
eieney is chown. The trust deed in this proceeding pledged the
rents, isauen aad profits as additional security fer the indebtednsam,s
and complainant was therefore entiticd to collect the deficiency by
sequestration of rents through a receiver during the period of
redemption. (Wright v. Cases 69 Ills App. 5353 Straus ve Brackens
olea I 2eeqer et muy tacit Onde dicngom thew oh aore od® 9...
oie ommveloenol ke eerenh @ Io yee ote x8d ta Yerolesieb a awiale
Sienhertohat WF ah ettstd YLanmer oy ae tahietom ass gakbut? ohea
Potions Joungout, Lendarag tohaet of owen ot ko yuh odd ot dt
a SORES at biel or cow tL oven tod ted ane ww? etnmbe ted ele
RO EUti ead yeher tke at yeetwOe od oronte GAT com HEED ORL adie
8098 aq) bkne qadnnbor ted Yantenn sexes yorobelinh «
“ee eee ol Titatate oof tekage sieogiet Manone wchawk
*.Jdeb opahdrear ott ye $2 Seotgs bas bemunne haul off yadaahne tho
vit’ oT 88L groeltt vw fmoehwet wh Sedonon nev néheuLonew ombaoetr
Re ea oH LO YPORLKONE OM? QEtORMOMRD mb era ante oni 4298
ieeaead +a) bism «Soehnoko® ele Yuntaga seomphst youoterieb edit
' ata 98 ig a Dek yA ed rn ad tonaee te san ie cia :
wae prea tga 0 wcwalt afiw at iphone
youeletios bus ofse xedte rowlesey » ‘te dnomdalogca as
Senedd seat af styaracis Li smo Li quohe te ici cb vs Had ae 3 Bite
tam stoacs os) ak mektexoni® amu ontocene eae 88 sd tts '
ba fase uaa o£22 ae . SST
_ pelt peckburzomt vendo ete nommged wens bne ad Seumonn ota edad
e820 On 2o weal et aod wit emDON Of bopbotg vereqour ould Ye outer _
-ttob « oxate yotes xagte woktocoakh dowe st ty fruros hort
saeinendennh meld we et kutoow Lar t9 nba ee ~ ote oo Pinna
Oe 5 beers
Ne Sina Klink ies endl
wit ani BO ERIN Aroha ee ie :
pet ys
=be
242 ille Appe 1223 Towisend Ve wilson, A455 Tile Apps B03)
In Illinois Joint Stock Land Bank of Monticelio ve Leas,
SSMS I SR aw Ne
273 Ille Aope 345 an sppesl was taken fraa a degree denying the
appointment of a receiver in a foreclosure proceeding after decree
and anle, and after the court had entered a deficleng judgaeat.
In reversing ond remanding the cause with instructions te enter en
order for the appointment of « reaeciver, the court said (pe 30)
"However corry = court may be fer a farmer or other
person who is lesing his property throuch foreclosure, well
established principles of lnw concerning foreclosure procecdings
camet be overlooked, and the court has ne power te change the
terms of the mortgage contract. “e believe the circuit court
om November 1, 1932, end before the sale, had full pewer and dis-
eretion to set aside the initial order providing fer a receiver,
put on December 7, 1932, after the foreclosure sele and the entry
of a deficiency judgment, the court erred in denying the appli-
ention by eprellant fer the appointment ef a receiver.*
For the reasons stated herein, the orders of the sireult
gourt denying the motions for the entry of o deficieney decree and
the appointment of a reeelver will be reversed and the cause re~
manded with direetions that a deficiensy decree be entered for
complainant for {19284240 agaiuet defendants, walter C. Hieber md
Derothy B. Bieber, and that a receiver be appointed of the premises
foreclosed, to collect the rents, issues ond profite theree? dwring
the poried of redemption.
BAVRRSkD AND RSMAWIEZD VITH DINCCTIONG.
Sullivan, Ps J.»5 and Seaulan, J+» concurs
ee
oe
ao $QGA eLLE GBS a eens anak esihane eae
sie hinaiaiiniaiaaatades peered Pg Eg
ovtsch intin gathorory eumentoos't a mi wevieret « lo tnomsuteqge
ediseghul, Wantelion « horedm bad @tsme sit todta daw .ohon dae
tn Rode OF anmdeeiinnt Adin eusee Ot? Ratbuomet bam gaterever. at
+(@& «q) bhaw ¢umpp oth exewionot o Yo dnompatoqae, edt, so xobse
[ lane bey + 7 il p a: a
Aaeeell wert &
orl? warurio of ae St Fees ee Soe ban ¢
si “sais ban soveq ff List ye gee a een ested baa z wot if ge
atevioves
#8 tot gaisiverg wohre Lattint ols «
uta ot? tun ofan imucfoexe? off ted ta—
ow Siege aft gated wk soete due edd od
“ stevens’ & be rere
eee
“$ bronie ate Yo anvore old satoxadt patate soaaor a ae
"ie orto xomsborte aw yrane. cig "OY ano iseat : : ees sad sume wo
wor cemas tlt bus hewtoven of LLbv tevbeset a Ye a ongaiouan of
‘2 hewetas ed soroeb yomokalios a date emvebiteldili boknom —
ban tedeth «) tediad gudembaetoh satkage ObebiGe LS sot damata.
eee teeny as LO badaiogin ef sovisous m taal ba yeaa 6 ene:
pataad teomads: ahem hae, oemneh: cane atten oF
MOLTO BE Te ENE HN oul pats Skew
er et ee
2 Be een a). sci oes ty thd Ge wnt
ee RR ee Date Pe genie wales % ebay
Sein id prem dots se
Sie ere Hie ot artes te
oe iano ten: 2 I OR LN
RA RAR | ERAS ey Oy A
SON a RUNREDE a Biden tate Ba
38234
MARY He WALTON,
)
Appellant, )
APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR COURT,
Ve
COOK COUNTY.
CHARLES He LANGER et ale, Be
Appellees ate ora cr
° F 29 0 Lieike VU Q Q
MR. JUSTICE FRIEND DELIVERMD THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Mary Ee Walton, widow of Seymour Walton, in her own right
and as assignee of their children, filed s bill in equity to set
aside certain agreements executed by Seymour Walton in October
and November, 1918, relating to her interest in the accountancy
partnership of Walton, Joplin, Langer & Company, and in The Walton
School of Commerce, a corporation, and for an accounting. A
general reference was had to Walter S. Holden, a master in chancery,
to determine whether complainant is entitled to an accounting. The
master's term of office having expired pending the hearing, he was
appointed a special commissioner and as such filed his report in
January, 1933, nine years after the bill was filed, finding against
complainant on the principal issues and recommending a decree dis-
missing the bill for want of equity. Upon hearing, the chancellor
overruled the exceptions filed by complainant to the report of the
special commissioner, approved them and dismissed the bill. Com-
plainant appeals.
Counsel for the respective parties have filed briefs gon=
sisting of an aggregate of 482 pages and a record of 2,700 pages.
The principal controversy arises upon the facts and the application
thereof to the relationship existing between the parties. The master
( ‘MOTTA af Vaan
' fs aioglieqga .
HUGH HOTANIVA MONT Tard
*006 “A: LOGS: *
8000 ERT £0 wrt ~ ceserse cera ore.» ae
“¥
digs wo todt ak «1008 Lai vives 20 Wide cay tat oe Yea
tow oF vs ips nk ‘fiie a Berit eneth Litto. tiedé to eens
‘tedoso0 at notisW xwoarye8 as Hetsoexe as neoo' iisd
yonad 10098 odd at tuorotat ‘tori ov gattater oeet “hdnireR bhi
sod ts¥ ot mt bus eytaqaiod & xepaat eHELGo™ «nod tal to qhdarond tag
A sgaitnwooos ae tT bia ,sotiexogzos @ .9otemmD Ie, Looms
euteotndo ai to¢nest s ynohfol -2 rotiei o¢ bad sew sonore ten Lexoneg
edt «guliawooos ma of beftiine ai tnaniatqueo usltesw omtumedeb ot
aww eff egnizsed edt gathneg horigxe paivad eoftio 20 mxet a'xsteam
at ¢uoqot ald heLlt dove es bua tenmolsatumoo Latoeqa a botmtoqga
tentages gatbail..betit saw {iid eft teste exeog enia ~fb0CL yyranaat
-alh eotosh ¢ gutbnomosot Sia cemel Leqhoniza od? oo dmenkeiqnoo
solfsonatlo oft .anivsend mogd .yiinpo Yo taaw sot [lid ef? guieaia
es} to dxoget ons oF Suenielgaos yd belit enoliqeoxe odd belusrteve
~m00 {Ltd of? boveimels bas mod? beverqqs «temoleaimmes Istooga
ealasgqe jnsntela
soo atetud beLit ovad aeliusg evitosqeet efd tot Loenrod
.eopegq CONS to bxoost « bas eogeq SBb to etagetyga me to guttata
nol? sollage edt bras atest sel? moqy eeaixes yatovors noo Laqtontrg ott!
xotanm eff -aetizeg oft moowied gniveixe qidenoitelet ong ot Yooxestt
“Ze
filed an vausually comprehensive report, containing not only his
ultimate conclusions of fact, but a detailed analysis of the evi-
denee, the contentions of the various parties with references thereto,
and the considerations which led to his conclusions and recommenda~
tions. The salient facts, as to which there is uubstantially ao
dispute, disclose that in 1908 Seymour Walton Was sixty-two years of
agee Prior thereto he had been for nearly forty years constantly
engaged in business, had twenty-three years of banking experiense
and about fifteen years' experience in the practice of public
accountancye In 1908 there was founded at Northwestern University
a department known as “The School of Commerces" and Walton, although
having no prior teaching experience, was recommended and chosen to
teach prattical accountancy in the new department. In 1909, Langer,
one of the defendants, then thirty-three years of age, was likewise
engaged to teach accountancy in the Northwestern School of Commerce.
Prior to 1908 Walton had been associated with the defendant Joplin
in the practice of accountancy.
In the spring of 1910 these three men formed a partnership,
under the firm name of Waltons, Joplin, Langer & Company, for the
purpose of engaging in public accountancy work. There was no formal
partnership agreement, but under date of April 275 1910) a memorandum
was signed by the three parties reciting that the partnership was to
begin May 16, 1910, and was to continue for a term of five yearse It
provided that Walton and Joplin should each have a drawing account of
$50 a week, and Langer was to draw $45 a week, provided the incame
warranted such paymentse The profits were to be divided equally among
the three.
Some time thereafter the three men organized a school for the
teaching of public accounting, which was first operated under the name
of "Walton School of Accountancy". January 13, 1913, the school wes
é
we
ait ylno jom gainisinos .tioget evianedesqeoo yllemuny as bheLtt
~ivo of to ateyleme boftateb s tu@ .tost Yo anoteusLonoo esamit fu
eGserens aonoro tor ay iw eels mg anoitey oft To anoiinetnoo os .eoneb
mabtioumooot bus egolewfenoo ats o¢ bel doidw amotierebtenoo ant bows
on (Lisiiustadus ei seit doliw ot aa ,atdort suniion eal eanols
to OInSE Owt—yixte sow sod Law uyomyee 80CL a4, duels) epofoa th eoduge th
etiacsacmo ek any weed, yiteon x0t nood bad ad otexedt todxl + age
oane Stogee gaticined te ATSOY osult~-vi mows agen Inbar anor ak Hoyas
whritug to estioarq end af sone treque Lacaaia need tht twodsa barge
Uinwvind wre¢sewdts0% ts Sebmret eaw oxesld B00r at |e WOrtadsiRO 908
diguostt Los hod Lei bas Seep 7emu00 0 ko feoded gee hea! sero ml Aanaptennet 2
ot, meaedo bas hobmenmecet aaw 20m 220qx8 aittttooes notea ¢ On aahvad
Sieh ts. Bakes
eropeiat .@0@L at. stnomdzeqed wor eal? Ah yonstawooes Inoiteore Hooot
it ‘ r oy 0
ae: cae ae we ae
ealweat£ asw .ege to excoy coxdd-ys tidy sorts, vatanbsered ed? » o-
matinee ety 1h
septsemed to Lootou sxe teow rou eet, wat _anateae any fqnet, 2 ae
Lay : if
t
abigel daabuoteb ot Ad bw betatoonse mood bast mod Lo an RORt st, x
<eamaiel . Ce yp pMonmtawo.o08 30 B.2e ee Te Bt
itiiieaio 8 bearer 1 NOs, « serait oped? GSOk 30 aatngs OOF ME
ne, MEF. VERGRD & sage bye ee 208 Lait 19, eam mrt? oat, baw
feuxoi on saw exodyT saitow Yorat ise 908 ottdug mt ity ey aad ..F mony
RADA TOMeM 6 x0LOL gh Linge, %o ete tobe re, <toomerss spree
@ asw gMatent ing eit gaald ands oon Da par Sey omit ssid
Ce BS dak Ae Ts Lady
$I sezasy evil to mot » to% ounteno. oe aaw bas sOEee. af, , Bj
ee Oe
to smo908 yabweth ® oven soso, Afasede big | bas nog Lov! deste
2 he ay oe) Bae Aare ara ant
espont eft bohtvexg «leew s a8 werd 02 saw roganl baal sae e oag
ci Mid, LO
| Brome yifaupe bebivibh od ot oxew aektong ex? + na eancon, ous bod cura
# won wrasse la
vpenets ot
ry ‘is wet oe k: Baap
ous 203 Loose B dostnag0 ane. , conus od ‘sogtaoxoss omks omec
Ser HOR bee ot Ey 4 aes a Ne
ener oft xobaw batexeqe sack? aew onstw epabinae90s an sh iseg Te peleeene.
| ne Leonor amd «SLO «fl yxammel . « sepnine wooo, 29 a footet Pen. ail i
ny a
yt rhe 9
oSa
incorporated, with a capital of $60,000, each of the parties sub-
seribing for one-third of the stock, all oi which was common. This
stock was paid for by turning in all the assets of the school as
eonducted by the partnership, consisting of copyrights aad contracts
and only little cash. ‘Walton and Langer had certain copyrights on
accountancy lessons standing in their respective names, and these
were assigned first to the firm and then by the tite ts the cor-
poration.
When the school was incorporated the three parties signed an
agreement with the Walton Sehool of Accountancy, a corporation, which
was intended to afford a basis for salaries to be paid the officers
of the corporation. It provided that if the actual profits amounted
to $6,000, or less, that the whole sum should be paid in salariess
that, if the profits were between %6,000 and %9,000 per annum, the
salaries should be $6,000, plus one-half of the profits in excess
thereof, and the balance was to be paid out as dividends; if the
profits for any year were between $9,000 and (12,000, 99,000 was to
be paid in salaries, and the balance carried forward and included in
the profits of the next year. The agreement further provided for
progressive inereases in salaries and the declaration of dividends
if the net profits should exceed respectively $12,000 and #15,000
yearly.
January 2, 1913, the three individuals enterec into another
contract with one Isaac E. Roll, which provided tha each of them
sheuld place in the name of Roll 60 shares of his stock, to be voted
by Roll as trustee in accordance with directions contained in a cer-
tain agreement, marked exhibit “A", and that in other respects the
stock should be voted by Roll as he might thereafter be directed in
writing by the other parties, but under no cixeumstances should he
80 vote the stock as to render of no effect the terms and conditions
jails
~dw esiiaeg off to dese 000.086 to ‘fatiqes s Adiw' (edazoqtédnt
eit? .nonmoo aaw diiitw to fle etoode add to brbet-oho “et autvived
ae Reosioa off to agoaas est Ile mi gaterts yd sot bia daw stbede
adostinos bin atdgixyqes to gittta tamoo ayidtetont te ont yd bedowanos
no atsigityqoo aiadroo bait tegtut bie mosLa” steed 600088 yee BAe
“* paouy bie «Boman evidosqaor thet ak gribacta enowael ~omediooos
‘100 eff ok merit of yo Medd be wxlt ott o¢ Fett snare stow
ne horgta egittag sends at bedetegtoont eaw Loortoe one meno 0
dotdw yuolistoqteo @ (yomsdnvoooA Yo Loored nod Lev odd dtr tremsorge
ereoktio oft bieg ed oF extrsfes 1oY etesd o bvetts et bobmedmhaaw
bedeutoma agitorq Lavdos ott Th dotl? bootverq ¢X sno Lveroquve sls 20
“qabiedtad mi bisg ed bivoife mia efor ult gale week’ so ~OOOsdd oF
“gaeoxe at aditong odd Yo Ttsr4io wut¢ L0O0.d} ed Bitveds aekeatie
“erg th tnbmobivEb a4 tuo bog ed od adr edustad ond bea y r0d-deits
of as 060,08 ,000. 854 baw 000.86 meawied S4sw xady "yma HOT ad Rod —
tit bobzlont bie brabto? bottiss Sotstad ae Hina —abtreEsa/mt bisq of
ot hoblvety Yorscwt thomedege Set Steey duo Orld XS ‘ad Mote ong
ghnobiwkh 0 no ltetefosd ‘elif Bite ae pete ink ‘egcaeTont sy iseetgetd
"600, 82% fae 006, es4 Leiiieevil s caltuaans sigan. “Soe onsets
had
s oq 000,08 bre DOOLS% teaws ed” oxow wsttoNG ont “LE ‘Seats
Fate CUNT aE lh RRR at
editors ofmit Sétedno efeubivibad eons ote corer eR -yraemee «jew
et? to doce wilt bebiverg Mokdw . LOM. aanel ono Mt iw voattnoo
hedov e¢ of yitoode ett to wSradin O8 tet to" oman 6d} mk ebefg bivdde—
ers9 6 mt hotisdado @nottost hs mpiw sonshropen HE sedente motel
ontt: no ay todtto sk oad pate at $dthaixe : hn sss a
fi ort bivosdta esonadamsiozio on robaw ap iene mip i al
ues ts Tati bas prea itd “gootte on Ye ’ em MS ee Gils Seev on
:
wohwe
of exhibit "A". At the end of ten years Roll was required to
deliver the stock back to the respective parties, and provision
was made for a successor in trust in the event of Roll's death
er his inability to acte
In November, 1915, the name of the corporation was chauged
to "fhe Walton Sehool of Commerce". The following year Walton, who
had given a considerable portion of his time to teaching, as well
as to the business and financial features of the school; began to
fail in health. He became progressively worse, and in 1917 his
iliness required his shsance from business. In 1918 he was present
at the sehool only a short ties during the spring of that year, and
after that ke éid not return to the school. However, he received
reports at home and certain work was brought to him, consisting
principally of the eerreeti cl iensemen in higher accountancy. During
all this time, and until his death in June, 1920, his mind appears
to have been unaffected by his illness, and he continued to edit
the student section of an accountancy magazine and received friends
and visitors at his home.
September 25, 1918, Langer and Joplin went to Weltom's home,
where a directors’ meeting was helde Salaries were voted for each
ef the three xemes of %2,500 for the first half of that year. They
also discussed and agreed upon the termination of the sccountancy
partnership, a change in Walton's salary, and his stockholding in
the corporation. These agreements were both afterward reduced to
writing. The partnership dissolution is evidenced by a letter fram
Joyiin to Walton, dated October 1, 1918, which set forth the terme
upon which the partners had agreed to dissolve the partnership. Walton
was to retire from the firm as of November 30, 1918. Beginning on that
Gate the surviving members were to pay him one-third of the ocutstandim
fees as they were collected, and in addition thereto a certain per-
1S aL
ed Geriupet asw [£08 axsey wSd “to baw onte ¥A 8A ogee Ee oto.
Ho MEvOrg dts aoktuog svitetqast ond of deed Te0de “orte thy ire
He “ahteeb a’ Lio to daeve ord mh gaurd nf wéaasosea a xe Tombadl ean
i (doa OF YFLEKdams od oxo
bagasde saw aoiiatoqred oft to eman edd .alel.¢todmevel IY os foo
one nod ie® ase ariwolkel off 4 "ooremmed te Loodist mas fetert® cod
Iiew os eanitonst ef omit aid Yo noitueq offerahianos a novks bast
od Maped ,foonce oft to souriset Latonsait bee saentend adt et eg
phd VL0L ab bue asanow yLeviausagotq omeded oH “dthesnt mt [iat
| fetenote aew ed BLCL at seventaud mor? eonsa di @iel bot isivet ememtle
bate. taoy ted? ‘Te paluge ont sguchen scenic trode oe vine Loorsn odd ote
bevheoet ed .teveweH -»foodos ad? of oxumpon tom bid od dads cette
geiitatenos enin.ot tuyuerd. casuals rr baa amos oe m
pultel «yoratasosos tetig inl mt anoeeel\are.
aeatams beater ate .O8CL cont mk steed pregnant nal SA the }
#ibe of heuntinay on ban yanenit ait yd hodgottemr need vad ot
absgint beykooot boo enizagam ¥ } nin ko ach) ve di
coued a’mesLeW ot tmow mifgot. baa wa eaten, 88 19 con
dogo 0% botoy ozew eelrafs? bled ae guizeem 'axotoos
watt? srney dott te Ned gexlt ost 0%. 00%eS¢. 29 axmmey, oom
Yorsdnvooss eft to nottentores edd sogw boetge bas senna oats é |
gl atkhfocioode wid boa eytatee otaosiaW af egnendo 6 «gilerontieg
of beowbet dsowtetta dod oxow atnomenge ened? ono bd. 20q799.o4it
mort tedtel « yf beonsbive wk auituoashd qilerendceg oot. yankttaw
aurret edd Aero doa doddw (BIOL _fcodeto0 boted <aoyhel od oligo
nos ial Gisarentueg edt svlowsio of heorys bad azestzag edd doddw nogu
fail} oo giioiged .GL0L OE xodmoyoU, 20 ee math odd mort oxtter of vay —
wibastaiuo elt to bulelt-ono mii yay of osow axeduom gniviv
mean
ere oping Ne ved rit: nie - pm»! La. Oo as ¢ ) a9 : ‘as 13 be RNS eet w
“5
centage of the net earnings of the firm for the succeeding five
years, the total smount not to exceed $2,250. For the first year
he was to receive 12 1/2%, or a maximum of $7503; the second year
10%, with a maximum of $600; the third year 7 1/2%, with a maximum
of $450; the fourth year 6%, with a maximum of $350; and for the
fifth and final year 2 1/2%, with a maximum amount of $150. This
dissolution agreement was fully performed. Walton was paid in full
his proportion of the outstending accounts, and during his lifetime
he received the proportion of the earnings designated in the agree-
ment. Shortly after his death the entire balanee, although not then
due for 1, 2 and 3 years, was paid to his widow, the complainant.
The changes agreed upon at the directors! meeting with
reference to Walton's salary and stockholdings in the school were
substantially as follows: He was te become dean emeritus of the
school at 2 salary of “2,000 during his lifetime and was to surrender
his 200 shares of cemmon steck and accept in lieu thereof 200 shares
of preferred stock, to yield dividends at the rate of 7% per annum
put which should not have the right to vote.
September 26, 1918, the day following the directors' meeting
at his home, Walton wrote a letter to Joplin proposing a change in
the agreement with reference to his salary and the dividend on the
preferred stock, as follows:
"My dear Jovlin,
Thinking the matter over, I should feel greatly obliged
to you and Langer, if the proposition could be modified a littileys
so that while I would get no more during my life, my wife could
have a little more during the few years thet she may survive me.
I propose that we change the places of the stock and the
salary, that the salary be $1,400 and the dividend on the stock
$2,000.
As an offeet te the latter, I propose that an agreement be
entered into that «t the death of my wife, the dividend rate on the
stock, which will then belong to my daughter, be reduced to 5%.
In this way the school will pay me ne more than agreed
for the rest of my life, will pay #600 yearly more for the com=-
wae
evi patbaoooue ont xot mst? om? 29 apataxge dom acd IO epatuos
mame tart? orld 0% 088.2% beeoxe of Jon Inwome Latod old .etaoy,
wey bxoose aaa 208NS to mymixem #20 sRR\ Sf evieses of sew om
suuixem « diivy wo\t T seey bald? edt 100304 to sumizem » ddtw ~ROL
_ ett 20% bas (088) to mumixam a sty «Ro seoy Aium0r edt, Odd) to
AAMT .O3L) Yo Cowoms mmmixam © Ad iw RSE & xaey Leatt das Akt
Lint ak beg gow so2 {ay .hoarolveg YLIVI aay ¢mommongs no lintoaeih
oulseti{ eit gatauh hoo «atnvecoe antbnatuiuo ei 20 sotuogoxg, wit
“eorga, ond at botamiaeh egninzes sit to nolssoqoag edt. beylepen edt,
end to Mauorlsia ,oonslad exiino ost Ataeb eis xsdta yLecoms «én0m
. staenis.tamoo etd qwobiw ald of bieg sew sataey & doe &.4f, 102) oub,
| aS ier arti sem ‘erosoorlh oft ta sogu bootys, regeae », PAB. wee te
otew Loodoa old ai agaibforioota tne | a Mod tsy oF soneustet.
salt Yo autizem s29b emooed of pew OB, .2awollo? 2s yifaivastadsa,
tebneriva of aev bas omidotil aid gutavh 00048? to yxates,.6 ts, foods,
nertetie 0S lesredd uell ot sqoros bus dsete, sommes to, ae testa, 008 etd
sunns tog RY to ster edd de absabivte bloty of, ahooda pbexmeterq Yd)
| sotov of digit off oyad ton blwade somtw. dud
gutteom 'evetootib odd gaiwolLot ysb ant «hL0f «98 tedmetqed =
ai egisto @ gubeeqotq aifget of tejtel » stom moti ,amed aid da.
ot? so baobivih ed? bas yrelse eid og Sanibel ns stenanalil
Hcioy HOES
ne Ltao et, bimeda t
agit uit say tite
silt bas Xooda sdf Yo sedate oft opttada ow dads vdeo
sees ond a0 baobiv th oat bus 008 ae ed vrata uid 3
ad ¢nemoerme ms les jee ee ee
eae no stat fing i glo ogo eto 2 ee ‘ to tdn0 edd ts ats otat bexetne
> Rb ot boswbor eff eteddgved ya ws paofed aedh Likw etoosa ”
beetge: madt erent ott pte its monly ogy fxs ge yy. mat
mmo eft rot vom Yixsey 0088 yoq LLiw ee yr to gaet onft tot
ot Ge
paratively short time that she survives, and will pay $460 less
or all the future. Im all probability the school will benefit
considerably in the end by this plan, and in the meanwhile I
will feel much more comfortable in the thought that I am leaving
my wife in geod shape. The money she will get from the school
will be virtually s11 that she and my daughter will have.
Do you think my past services entitles me to this con-
cession? If I had nst worked so hard for the school, I would
not have broken dowhe
if you agree to this I will make an unconditional transfer
ef my copyright.*
November 20, 1918, Walton, Joplin, Langer andIsaae %. Roll
entereé into an agreement which after reciting the desires of the
parties to set aside %20,000 of the stock belonging to Walton,
"as and for preferred stock without voting power," provided that
$20,000 shares of the stock standing in Walton's name upon the
books of the company should be and was thereby made preferred stock
of the corporation, to be entitled to dividends at the rate of 10%
per annun, from July 1, 1913, te the time of the death of Walton and
his wife, and from then on ait the rate oi 5% per annum, payable
quarterly and befere any dividends should be declared on the common
stock; that proper resolution should be adopted by the corporation
to carry out this change in the eapital structure, and that after
the death of Walton and his wife, the corporation might at any time
redeem the preferred stock at par, with 5% interest.
Wovember 20, 1918, Joplin, Langer and Roll entered into
an agreement providing that Joplin and Langer should each assign
to Roll 60 shares of the capital stock of the corporation to be
held by Rell as trustee for a period of ten years, in accordanees
with the trust agreement of January 2, 1913. Under date of
November 20, 1918, another agreement was made providing for the
transfer of certain copyrights to the corporation; that Joplin
and Langer were the only holders of common stock of the companys
that it was the desire of the parties to provide for the dispositien
of the profits of the gehool and the salaries to be paid to the dean
‘@uel COD$ “ay Liv bins {veviveine Sia tudd omty ‘erode Cree ietal
iftenmed Iisw Loodoa oad \ iheke a fis at Pe eh iG end Ife w
I eLidwneem edd oi’hun . aele aiatd Ye ‘yldersh tanoo
giiveot os T teed gelgwors eft mi ye swt STOM Ln src age ie aw
‘footlos ot ‘me rk dog LLbw one yonem eT .syetla bo
soar! oe teidgued yr bru oan tenth ile ‘teas xy od Atiw
= 209 als rr om sett igi nootvres sasg a3 Xabté sae eee
atuow © .Loodee ed d-tot bates bestow Yno tease
eb om oot overt Aan
i dea
sotunate ; eae Leino onary sees olen ‘Lf te E anid os cere 0 ¥
Shot . coswlbus cogned qetiqol «aot fel! _8£OR gOS xadmvom >. 6
agi? Yo eetized edd paidioet totts doldw imemestge os otal bote tie
atiotlal od gatgnoted Aoota st te 000,026 ebtes tea of aoiscay
dads bebivetq "_tswog gaiitoy juosls iw Usote betretorg 202 ‘brie en”
‘end goqu ound anos io mi patbante Aoote edd to eotedea 000,085
foove ew -obam Yetedd asw bag ed bivota Yaaqmoo eid “to exood
| «ROL le etey wd de abnsbivih oF Heft Hine ‘ed od ‘~notiesegros edd Yo |
ikem spdiaw to adeeb exit Yo omits edt Od OLOL ¢LUICU mort «mans toy
“‘wiitayeq «ine coq Rete shat edd ve ne Mold wor? be re
wom sg oo bousLoob ad Bivote sbnebivio yas oteted Ens °
moiistogros edt yd Setqobse ef bivete noldufoast xeqoty tanit ptoote |
edie dalt bue -suntertte Int iges odd wh egnato Why Huo yr1e. oF
ents Yom is tiyle solietogue ond \etiw elt bite Hot fey to ieded oft
ataorestnd WE stdiw eraq fo wooded boxes
“ete “ne an duels ellie“ Yinlideinddh ‘eave? ‘dee 108 have
Bilge tadd inektameqape nt oF, tire ae tae Aistiea 2 to
ht Ne cet Pye oth fey
| Pewee, Sit 2b siget a hommog to seabtod hn. ade rer aes
sau ods tot AR oo. Diesels sults —e ae é ny
eae Ew gions hi bray J one a
neoh Bite oF bLeg ed. of poy mh Pl rier bas aie pny ‘to ad Lior edd to ms ;
= Jus
and the officers} and it provided for the disposition of profits
on a graduated seale in the form of annual salaries and dividendse
The agreement also provided that during the active participation
in the management and affairs of the school by the subscribers to
this capital stock salaries should be paid to the subscribers in
proportion to their then holdings, “provided, however, that said
Seymour Walton shall receive a salary as dean of said Walton School
of Commerce, but shall receive no salary for other work or practice,
and his salary as dean shall not exceed $1,409 per annum so long as
he shall live, and for the balance of the year 1918 the sum of $700."
These agreements were submitted to Walton for his signature
shortly before November 20, 1918. Having some doubt as to whether
the final clause of the contract, exhibit "A", which provided that
he receive a salary as dean of the school of commeree and in no other
capacity, would prevent his receiving compensation as editor of the
student department of the Journal of Accountancy, Walton wrete a
letter of inquiry to which Joplin replied on November 20, 1918,
saying that it was not intended by that clause to in any way prevent
Walton from receiving compensation as editor of the student department.
A special meeting of the stockholders of the Walton School of Commerce,
attended by Joplin, Langer and Roll, was held November 4, 1918.
Joplin held Walton's proxy. Hach of the parties, including Walton,
hed signed « waiver of notice which stated the business to be tran-
sacted. A resolution was adopted at this meeting increasing the
capital stock of the Walton School from $60,000 to $70,000, and in-
ereasing the number of shares from 600 to 700.
The stockholders! meeting was followed by a directors! meeting
Nevember 12, 1918, attended by Joplin and Langer. Joplin, as presi-
dent, explained that on behalf of the Walton School of Commerce he
had eutered into a contract with Walton, fixing his salary as dean
ofe
stitexg io aoltisogsibh ed? rot bebiverg ti ons — STARE ott bos
sabaebivib bine vetuatoa feunng to meted? ok efeos betaubarg | 2. fo
no itsctotdzag ovitos eo gabe daald bebiverg gata. tuomeoras ad
ot axeditoedua wilt yo Locdoe att to erle¥te bis tnomeyanan edt ok
at wiew trode: odd of biege of biuora eobrotee soove Eat tgso ‘wast
bine gad? .xevowed cboblvoxy” yagutbtod codd «tet of oltsoqory
Loses sotta! biae ‘on onal as yYtelee a aviooost Liede so 4 Lew -nsonr—s8
eestvorty 2 Xtow rego vot yrafes om eviscet Elsie dud éotommd te
as whol on mune coq 00%, £9 beeoxs ton fiatta madh as yuatse aid baa
*,00TS to mua ond LOL xs0y od to ooneLad ont tot bas povit hase od
emuemic ek tot Aodis¥ of bodsimdve oxew ednedsergs oeeHt °°”
xedgadw Of es Fdvob smoe gutval .eret ,OS xodmovoll Sxoted YLexoMe
dadd bobiverq Moly A" Fidhixe .foRetnod ot 6 oeiteto Lantt sid
cedte on mk big seroitmbo to Looe of? to neeb aa YIefew ae eyloset off
‘et Yo sodibe es no ldsastoqaoo gtitviesot eid dnewerg bivow ey ivaqes
atotw uOsLeW _Yonstnuoood Yo Leirivot ood to themd aged dabeute
| ¢8£8E (OS roduevoll mo bolIgor aitgot doldw 03 yttupat to xedyes
tnovenq Yaw Yue ai of satelo ted? yt bobmedat tou eaw $i add antyse
diana aebute exld to tottbe aa ito Ld semoqmes gulvieoor mxt Abd Law
¢ 8OT SnIHIO D to Looser Ho 2 Lav oid to ateblosddoose od ‘to gniteem Latooqa A
+8200 ¢d zoditsvoti bio aow fof bate ee cake ~ ee
aoanye oak
atid yatiesozent prikd oon abiid ts wesqoos saw rw it
nt bins (000,088 o# 000,008 ort foosie® nodtew ould Yo ooge Est hgno
-00% of 000 moxt eoxaiin Yo edu silt yabisexs
puitveon 'er0%oox tb ava bowo.Lto? aw anitcom 'erebLoritooss i hal
~faeug BA eubtgot «wegaal bas abtgot ad bebses ae conte SE i ai ¢
_ oat 99 Teno D to Loosios 0 $ Lai out ” ‘etiod no tacit benbadacs pt te
CRSA ERIN ante te fe ee
meob ae yrstee alil pirit? end Lat a3 0 toaxsaco 2 o¢nt beresao bat
be at Heng wal to ;
-Se
emeritus of the school for the remainder of his life, at $1,400
a year, payable monthly; Walton's stock was to become preferred
stock as to dividends only, without any voting power; that said
preferred stock during the life of Walton and his wife should pay
10%, and after their deaths 5%, with the privilege of the company
to redeem the preferred stock after the death of both Welton and
his wife, at par and interest. A resolution was passed, approving
the president's action in entering into the contract, and upon
motion, duly made and seconded, Walton was constituted and appointed
dean emeritus of the school for the term of his natural lifes at
an annual salary of $1,400 a years payable monthly. It was there-
after resolved that the officers be directed to enter into a contract
with each stockholder of the company making 200 shares of the capital
stock preferred stock, and a copy of the agreement was embodicd in
the resolutione
November 21, 1918, the directors of the corporation had a
meeting, at which Joplin and Langer were present, and a dividend
of 2 1/2% for the quarter ending September 30, 1918, was declared on
the preferred stock. Although Walton was not present at this meetingy
he and the other directors signed the minutes, approving the action
taken. Another meeting of the board of directors was held on
November 22, 191955 attended by Joplin and Langer. The resignation
of Walton was read and accepted. Langer and Joplints salaries were
each fixed at $3,500 for the period running from July 1», 1918, to
December 31, 1918.
It appears from the records of the corporation that for the
years 1918, ‘1o19 and 1920, the following salaries were paid: To
Walton = 1918 ~ $3,200; 1919 - $1,400 and a bonus of $1)2003 1920 -
$700 and a bonus of $700; to Joplin and Langer, each, for 1918 -
$6,000; for 1919 = $12,750; for 1920 = $18,000.
athe
OOS, Le ga ,ethE ele Yo codatemet adf “tot ‘Lodtfed way ToC wMd trome
bexvetorq skosod of eaw Wbota ‘al mosiow pela none efdayer etsy as
bist ge} qzowoy entiov yas tuoddiw (Vind abaSbiVIA OF aR doode
yaq Sivede otiw ett hue mtieW to SthL aid gebeed steoxe sores tovg
yuagindds off Yo egoliving oily dtiw (RE adesod 4tem eodta baa ROL
bis notiaw died to Mined BM Od th Moots’ borxe tery Sit bobeT os
‘gaivergas «beaesg eaw neitufoket A .sddrednt bad ag $4” ottw a tit
~~ “pequ bas yPostinvo ddd Ont gairefas AL no ifes’ a saab iaerg odd
pedatoqga bse beduditanco uew HodtaW (bebsoode ‘bne Sham ylub (no tiom
“ta getit Letutan ald “to mrod od? tot Lode ont} Yo ‘ast trom mesh
Sete dow $1 clittnom Siadeq Gtssy SCOR LOW YeeEse Kewnns mo
donzdnos » ofat redne of hedoorth od exsoltte of Patt hovlosos tests
fattgso oft Yo soxade 008 gablew yreqmie off ‘to tobfodtoodd dose a? iw
ne bokbodie eat tnemsemc eit to dieahd ‘@ bie <dodda- “bertetézg xoote
“i icine euiadll sa duill. TO | 8 ¢rtoa ok ont
a ibaa ‘gif! To atevosrth onl .8@L (18 eameven OO
bhobivih o ine ¢fmoeste stew tesned bas abfqot Motte te yunbdeom
mo beteLooh aaw ¢SLOL 08 «edimdqse gntbio tereaup ois sot REAR 0
eunitoem aidd go Smear sou aaw nOdLe! MeueHeLA - sx00d8 otters tory ott
© wohtos edd gniveraqs yaeduala ext honyte axodeortiy xomtor edd bua ofl
‘no bfed sew erotostlh to breed oid ‘to gattoem teitoma s modes
‘notjengbver off stognet bm alfgot yo pebmodts qBLOL .bk dettaovel
ortow aeizstea elntfgot bas tegmal .betqeoss bie ‘bao! aaw nod LAW 26
ov saad w haat sox er er. “oY 00% 84 ta bexkt tose
”" vig . ree kesh aan ieee theron 0
edd tot tadd moisjerogitos et to ebweoet od mot? exsegqs #2 > 8
| gf this etow a6 fvetbe anivoltot ony O8er bie exer sais ith
~ O8@L OOS, Ne To uNNOY & bre OOK. E} + Crer yOos. ec} \ aged + worraW
e xe ‘tot sHosd _teyiint bac mifyot of "YOOTS Yo aunod @ Bue COTE
ee rs. ET ee ed
Ons
The dividends paid upon common and preferred stocks for
the years 1918, 1919 and 1920, were as follows: For 1918 -
preferred $500, common = noneg for 1919 = preferred $2,500,
common $30,400; for 1920 - preferred $2,000, common $26,000.
October 7, 19195 approximately a year after these various
settlements were made with Walton, he wrote to Joplin as follows:
"When I made the settlement with the school a year agoy
I considered that it was a fair ome umder all the circumstances,
though many of my friends thought otherwise. We did not then
know what would result from the ending of the Ware
Since then, conditions have materially changed) The gro-
gress of the school has far exceeded any of our expectationse You
and Langer are reaping a harvest enormously greater than you had
any reason to expecte Do gou not think that it is merely justice
that I should also profit by the success to which I have contributed
what must be conceded to be a very considerable share?
While it is true that I am not performing any very active
duties in connection with the school, it is equally true that the
school is benefitting very largely from the fact that I am recog-
mized as either the author of the text or at least to a great
extent responsible for ite
My expenses have materially increased during the last year,
and at the expiration of my lease in a few months I shall face a
very heavy inorease in my rent. I shall have to give up this
apartment or draw on my capital, which is small snough now. I do
not want to move, as my medical adviser says that these bright
cheerful rooms have had a great deal to do with my keeping up as
well as I havee
Under the circumstances would you and L feel that you were
giving up too much of the very considerable incomes that you are
now getting if you were to increase my salary say to $3,000 per
annum? With the understanding that if the present tremendous in-
crease in business does not continue next year, a proportionate
reduction shall be made in the salary?
It seems to me that it is only just that I should partici-
pate to some small extent proportionately in the success of any
enterprise to which I sacrificed my health and strength, and that
this participation should to some extent be extended to my estats.
I hope that you will both realize the justice of this appeal
and will be moved to do something for me and for those that I shall
soon leave behind me."
Joplin relied to this letter October 9, 1919, saying that he and
Langer had, in consideration of Walton's greater expenses, decided
that a bonus of $1,200 should be voted for the current year and
would continue through 1920 if conditions warranted. He advised
tot edoose berrelterg bas sommoo nogy bisq abmoebivib eT
~ 8£CL to% .rawolfot aa, stew .OSeL Sas, 2£erf SLL BIBOY eat
,008. 8G hettetetg = CLCL xet genom, moomon .0O8b boxtetexg
_ 200022S% aommoo .O0O,S% berzotetq.- ORCL sot 100d, 0E$. mosmoo
amolisvy sacdt rotte rey s yLedaminorages. ¢CLOL..¥ cedotoQ,., -)
sawollot as mifget of edouw orl sett, Asiw sham otew atnemetisos
«ope teey a Loomos salt ditw tnemeltiee edt sbam I medty” “
eaeousdonsiotio oft [fe tobmy om tist s aaw st ae boxbbieaes .
medt jou O16 of .eatwrosdto tegwodt abmeint yao Yoon davods
* Stew add to antbno oft mort tive Prize tedw- word
| sol ert 9 bSytedo YLisixesem evar enois thnoo . mont —
woY ,anoivatoeqxe sso To ye bebeeoxes tat ast Leogos ey to noes
peo voy aedt sotserg YLevorrrotio Jrevred s gntigqeoet’ ots tegntad “bis
soitamt yLovom at ti dst Anis tom of stoegxe oO} MOaset YKs
betudixtnoo evan I doisw of eaooowa off yd d¢itoxq Oats bEworla T tants
Tetsda eidaxeb tame yry, 8 og oF bobeonoo of . fasm. tadw
weidiny yrev This animrotreq tom ms I tent ‘awed at tk of bel
ent dedt ouzd yitsupe ei ¢iv,Loosoa est diiw motvoomo mb uusine
“goost ma I sat sont odd sort yLogisl yiov gaittitenesd al Loomdoa
tecxn 8 Od daselots 10 xed esd to vondivs ont tontie es boxthn
oti tot COA PEENET —_
gtsey deal : paicwbh beasetoni yilteirotam one aeemenxe a
_& 99st fede X edtaom wot « mt sgsek ym to -noigeriqne,edt ts bas
alat qo evig of evel [Leda I .daox ym mi oasstont yvsead Yrev
ob I .wox dguone [feme ai cdoidw .Lstigqao BO Weth 10 Jusmtrsgs
“gaigiud saott talt aysa Sgeavbs Ede en’ soe as .ovom od dasw son
ae qu auigesd ya diiw ob of Leob teetg s bad eves amgor Lutxe oslo
«oven I as ttew
exew woy dat Lest X bite voy bivow aeotsdanworts eft teba ~*~
ets Hoy ted eomooni oldsrebiemoo ytev srt to sos sate
teq 000.8% oF en: Yisise yr sasstoni do} stow BOY me02 ay 3
~ak syobsmomets suswerg edt ti tedt gulbmetdetebas oft AtiW Tomas
stanolitogowy 8 teey dxen simitnos 26% eoob esvektaud nt exsevto
Vernshac este at weed of Jinn settoubor
~~ babheel biworta b ‘tans gent ‘ine ak th dealt eat. 03 poe gt
Ye to nascoue off Mk yYLotamolisoqerq tnotxe Lisma omoa’od otag
jad bus .tligmetta bas diIsed ya beoitizose I dotdw of satrqresme
seiates ya.od bobeetxe odignetxe ome ot) bivede: mo bdaqioisneg aint
fseqqs ett to soltant, onit eeiises diod IfLlw soy tat oged’ Ty ocr
mares I ssid seods aie bas i pa moder ob ot bovom od [fiw yea
ree o> Dyer bettsied evaeet nove
boa ost $ostd guiyse .@leL. aide rodtel elds ov beites ek igot
boblesh ,asaneqxe tetsery e'sotteW to noiiarohtenoo sk bed Topsied
_ bas ts0y deoriwo ed? tot beter, ed bLwosde OOS—eLP to pnd test
hbesivdhs ok honey ae ig eee tii ees ~~ bLwow
Walton that upon acknowledgment of the letter he would arrange
for a directors’ meeting to give effect to this bonus provision.
Walton replied, under date of October 19, sayings
"Please accept my thanks for your prompt reply to my
request of October 7th. The arrangement you propose is entirely
satisfactory to me, and I shall be glad to have it put into effect."
Barly in February, 1920, in an undated letter, Walton
wrote to Joplin inaviring as to the make-up of his income tax
return, and among other things said:
“as my wife is virtually certein to survive me, I think
it would simplify matters if I transferred my stock to her now,
unless you can fix up a joint ownership resting in the survivors
That is the way I have my bank account fixed. If I can also fix
the stock and the payments for the good will, there will be no
occasion to bother with probating a will. Can this be done?
I am in hopes that you and Mr, langer will be kind
hearted enough te continue some sort of bonus to my wife after
I have gone, if the school continues to prosper, and you think
that any part of its prosperity is due to the association of my
mame with ite
Please excuse pencil. It is easier for me than pen and
inke
Joplin replied to this letter on February 55) 1920, suggest~
ing o method by which lirse Walton would become possessed of the
stock certificates at her husband's death and alse means by which
the balances due Walton under the partnership dissolution agreement
could be paid to her. The letter further reads as follows:
"In regard to the last paragraph of your note, I feel that
you would be leaning on a broken reed if you depended on me in
connection with your stated hope. It is my hope and expectation
that I may be relieved of my reaponsibilities before a very long
while which would put me out of the running regarding any future
ection. As you are well aware I have been hoping for many yeers
that I might be released from the activities which now seem
necessary on my part, and it is only general conditions and the fact
that you were incapacitated that have kept me at my desk. Never in
ell my experience has the pressure been so great and never have there
been so many calls upon me from all directions to give what there
may be in me to carry on the affairs of these two institutions. It
is going to be my object and endeavor to put the firm in such shape
and organization form eas will justify my retiring. The school is
well organized now, and st the time of the retiring arrangement
made with you also undertook certain obligations which beyond question
Will be followed oute You will readily understand that a bonus is
only deductible and considered as an expense when given for services
rencered and camnot be extended beyond employees and officers.
Sanctim bivow atl-tortel ela te J otemg bo twooles noqu fade nod Lev
wmiaiverq exnod ¢idf of dost te ovlg od gaktoem larodoorth 6 wt
. 0S tgadtyee Of cadote® Reeted tobe obo figet motte,
at eget teeny oy woT uainincd, Ye Seoe saeR kt" “ooo
ylexidne i saogeny LOY tnesegnatis off ie : + ceeed 00 te etamier
+, ¢00Kse otat due Fi ovat of bely od ‘Liecie tbe . ont ob ytedos te lise
hot isw .xettel bedabrw ita pb OROL oetawidet sh yltaBynn css
ae | amet ais to ane ad? oc om qenksekanpitl: BLEGe’ ot eter
“phise agatdd ‘osite sone baa aatudon
aMoids I ost evtvure ot atatxes yifeuitie at etiw |
qwon tect at dsote Ya SovrreTanstt Li tk atedten
etovivuws add ai gaitaet gidaseroe oekot
ae oats sao L tL wbextt.tmvooos minted yp ovat -
on ad Lfiw ered? _fiiw howg edd, TOR»
MM ¢enob ad ait 0 «Line gaisederg at “asitos
barist od tliw ‘topuad at bec wot tas OTOL
softe otiw yt of enmod 10 7208 sama .oumte®
ankds wey bite SAAN ORE: ol. Loosed
al te ipa aaa osih bs, a che
bas soq net? em tot totase ak dT eaap ice Gaui wae
eh Ae ie
oat te doasawog esn0 096 ‘BEuow ‘ab bins je is sy
do titw ‘a ‘ensent cata ‘bts dtseb “a *bmadtamt Sait ia “ged of
tnenoo ga sabsuloatth qiierond tq edd taba; cant Lill od eeogeted edt
‘40. geen 098. age aati Ee
- Hewato? an eae: nodes? aetsel oar nae h blag ot
“eho nak see. Tapes
gautd: ‘ten’: z _oton casorg “RO Ter eh sae re wee: ance
mi om 10 ee woy ti beet nedoud a mo. £ e@ oigow.s0y
aotsatoegxs baa egos ae sz ory mene 5 cian 1 ES oonHO O
sgnol yrer 2 ot
Foire "ae La
fNenogastts gattador eid to aksks -
watt wales bnoyed doidw enolteg nists
ek agnod a ams: pradatebrs Lib ve Lie soy +t.
aeo tyres ot novin nedw eemeqxs ae ae botohlenoo onbeb
sexe ito bre! sesyotqae baoyed) hebredxe og Sense bs
-ll-
The preferring of the stock was supposed to take care
of Mrs. Walton and I would deem it most unfortumate to appreach
Mr. Langer on the subject.”
Waltonts letter had not been addressed to Lenger directiys
but nevertheless Lenger replied thereto under date of May 11 in
references to the request that a bonus might be continued as to
Mrse Walton after her husband's death. Langer salds
"I talked over the matter with Hr. Joplin, and we feel
that we could not at this time bind the school to future obligations,
particularly as the persons who may be then interested may involve
others."
February 7, 1920, the 200 shares of preferred stock were
assigned by Walton to his wife, the canplainant, and in due course
@ new certificate was issued to her and the o1d one cancelled. “alton
died June 26, 1920. July 25 of that year Mrs. Walton wrote to
Jopliny as follows:
"I am writing to ask your advice as I promised my husband
I would do if ever I were in doubt about any business matter.
I thought perhaps if I wrote Mr. lenger and appealed to his.
sense of justice and possible gratitude to Mr. Walton, he might be
Willing to make a better arrangement for us than the one my husband
Signed when everything was at its lowest ebb, and when he did not
think he would live three months - and was discourged and unable
to protect his and our interests.
As things now are $2,000 is not enough for us to live on ~
nor is $1,000 enough for my daughter if she were left alone. Any
second rate clerk gets more than that» these days.
It does net seem just or fitting that the family of the
founder and Dean of the Walton School should receive so little,
especially as the School is a flourishing institution now, and
promises to continue so if well managed.
I have wondered whether an appeal to Mr. Langer, with your
approval, micht result in a permanent arrangement which would
relieve us of anxiety? My idea is to ask Mr. Langer to do something
now toward a just provision for us - more suitable in view of Mr.
Walton's connection with the School. Would he agree to give us, in
addition to our stipulated $2,000 a years a percentage on each
student from the beginning of this coming school year for as long
as the school exists?
This would seem the natural, right things to do, and would
give the family an interest in the success of the school, and yet
be proportioned to its varying receipts. This might take the form
of a certsin fixed sum from each student's payment - or a certain
percentage thereof.
obse
‘e¢e5 ofed O¢ Hoadggwea aew Aoote ed? to gatrtetetg onhy
dosotggs oF adams 20 Laws phen tk moo binow i bas not LeW wat to
8, so9fdvecit m twegask +i
eylioan th togmal 0} beseethhe mood tom bal todteL DWIROP LRM) eo Le
ak fe GH Stab rebar ‘ehercadtt behest me manny eres tnd
of a0 bouakstos 6d Jatg kar actteod a Feit deampot ont ‘eacauntnttes
» ‘ghive sae ,desoh etikedawd ted rete notlel «att
feet ow Snes (oitcot xi Adbw totdam stfy~ geo hetlede Boon vy
gunoitagtice etwtwt of Loostoa oxft batd omi¢ ebid ta ton bison ow gas
ovkownt yam bedeorotnt molt ed’ yom odw enostogy ont es yiraleoktrng
*saxesito
ator Pred pei ‘to wo taste ‘0s. oil oor o eawedot ae
enxsoo avd fit bia qdmsnteluamo ont othe okt ot sme eae
goa Ls\ ebelisoneo emo Bre eff bas xo oF Vand? ‘alin éhéy i Tereve wae
od stouw Caled sak. 2a8X tall x0 es aM, tinsreaipann sf
busdoant yr boalmorg I as cotvyhbs twoy das oF guid irw ms Fi
a tedtem eaentend yas tuods tdvob mt vow T xeve th ob pave x
and o¢ befeegge bus t9pmal i efotw I TE agedrey mneete I Whoo
doit of Odie om of ebed itera Rea Pooh gL ax “yo oxnse
banda! qq ond ast? ued} ev ToT dxemginrte todte 2 eta oF |
dor 55, of meriw baa 2dde duowol efi ds Ad iw :
olden By) — " aew bas - afdnom
~ mo evil ot ax tot sesone On, ag Pp
yak reno: #3 stol tev oda ti st oe ee vith so a
' cu enent gee ca phe gat bt
»xhient ant Bo9}t 2 tO : 1998 for ak ve: iat
perry: oa Geise ) eet move to Heed bis tebasot
Loasod so
tte sents tet it Saito ed eo Yikutoogee
kN ai bh sopenam ifew iter “emmhinoo of ceeimxg
¢ th ag out ate poxebnow ewad To
fies
biwow hid we or pate Hate
soy bne yer oa ge oun eis ai pas
muot sad led oi setqloook gary ts
saad ri ¥ amas af Hiebs oa, 980 MOT
Another plan would be to inerease our yearly allowance
from $2,000 te a considerably larger amount (with half as much
to be paid my daughter at my death) and to make this larger
sum perpetual, and not a *bonus® which is subject to the
momentary moed of the management, and nos a thing to depend on
permanently year after year.
I ask your kind, candid opinion. I think I know what
would be the opinion of his former students =< ce-workers and
friends in the profession if they knew the small amount Mrs Walton's
family is now receiving.
Of course I realize I have no legal grounds on which to ask
this tho I do know that my husband was in no physical condition at
that time the mistake he was making or to make any stand if he had
realized ite
I am hoping that some such plan as I have suggested may
seem to you and Mr. Langer as right and proper, nows
Please let me know what you think of it, and if you approve
kindly advise me whether to write Mr. Langer, or to have a personal
interview with hims
Hoping for your approval and co-operation, I amy as ever»
Gordially yours,
(Signed) Mary He Waltons
Pe Se - Upon locking over what I have written I find i
hisve not expressed my appreciation of the "Bonus! voted us for
this yeare
I do appreciate it», and it was the realization that I
could not have gotten along without that Bonus and the few other
Small sums, also belonging only to this year, which led me to
write this letter and request a better and permanont arrangements
for future years."
(Signed) M.E.W."
Following the receipt of this letter Mrs. Walton was asked to eall
on Joplin and Langer, and she brought with her a list of her
investments. Langer made certain suggestions with reference thereto,
which she did not follow. As a result of the interview 1t was agreed
that Mrs. Welton should be peid a bonus cf $600 more a year, and this
sum has since been paid to here
In contemplation of changing the charter of the Welton Sehool
of Commerce, Langer sent to Mrs. Walton a waiver ef notice of the
special mecting of the stockholders, setting forth in detail the
action proposed to be takene Accompanying the letter, Langer wrote:
"The object of changing the two hundred shares of common
stock with a par value of One Iumdred Dollars ($100) each to three
thousand (3,000) shares of common stock without par value, is
sonewolia Uleoey to sasotent of ef bimsow mniq: a
- fips ae dtbw). deurope: “7 sel ylderxrebianop 2 of 000,86: gost
weatel aldg stam of be ( alo @ tottaueh ye bhoq ed of
et o¢ goobdya at doida * e tom bus ,fawteqzreq mya
-() to beegeb.ot arkit « tom hoe stoma oat Ye beam eratremom
+S89y nedta henadh,
* deity work I wubad ¥ mehaies bibmaas «baka Bread ‘fen I
bue etevuew-oo = ataobute somo? aif to moinigqo ants ed amy |
atnosiaW st thwome Lfeme 909 won walt Si motasetorg and mi
«gnivtooet wom, ak Lins?
das of doisiw absworty. Lapel on evar I ealinet x een:
ties ae
do morte on st eew bastaut vo gand w ob. ont at
e ont eaam of 10 Rida ae wae stage ha adt omit tac
“bad Hrusde yeu. i ie Se ae te
bed eve I. fies mye a? gutq .
ul sak Re ake = ‘Frig bx Laporte, tee ace. ot. anes
gbbtddd abe 42 bke P46" tnd BUS tadkd wdll dk Fel Sandi
_ Sam ete 8 ovad of to ¢tepaad + TK od har od, hl ata
eteve de que I Lamamnsaure bas bapa ‘tH0y 0% ‘oatipat’ th bes
sttod law 2 veal ieeenis? gees Ree be ioniree
be
ae
atx
EL tatt seninantien ond ‘fi hae « joe taga Ob
“coigo wet ssid Ps ce OL ARID Seite
“ot ole sg “ste vse i tate wan LBRO ARG. Sia ei. wor
3 omg) gth8'S bag sedto é Ae 2S, DEG Fav EO, mee 702
ynhinoghing pik c9 Sar es
/ Sie iwot
ve to tail # ved 3 bw diguond este ‘baa ‘tegen bas mbzgol 10
cos enatit ‘gonacte ter. Hid bit enotraasgea, stadi9o, ‘oham Rogeal “ te es
poems saw fi Woberodnt edd To tives 2 aA wwolh at don. hip eda slo co
eld haves slaith a J aah hcl aaa a aed ad Lepernangeranncigarembennd
ait 08 brs hired ‘somts, ane me
Loong weft itt Yo 6 kota ott re to apitefgnedsmo ai.)
a ae: th bh she
Wel. pean
fies ov hewlas Baer. nod fat, aut agttel, at 7 titi
‘ett Yo poison to. ‘alee 6 mmdiell, .exih ot fuse oped yooton0 3
cium ot pres Toanat arallo® borhan on og oul, ;
ak ,eulsv teq dvodtiw foote nommoo to sotede (00048) sasaues
largely for the purpose of permitting the sale of some interest
in the school to certein of the employees. in the New issue of
preferred stock to be issued to you there will be an sdditieual
referenee in the case of liquidation, in that the two hundred
(200) shares of preferred stock will be preferred az to ausets,
which was not the ease in the original issue. in other respects
the issus is the seme with the exception that the voting power
is not es great as formerly, for the reas@ that the three
thousend (3,009) shares of steck with no par value takes the
place of the two hundred shares (200) of common stock with the
par value of One Hundred Dollarse
I would apvreciate your signing the waiver of Netice and
veturning it to me. We shall be glad indeed to have you attend
the meeting should yeu so desire. If you do not care to attend,
I shall be glad to have the Minutes of the meeting brought out
to your house and read to you so that you may sign them.*
The meeting of stockholders was held December 23, 1920,
and a resolution was adepbed increasing the capital stock in accord-
ance with the preposal stated in the letter. Following the stock-
holders: meeting the board of directors convened and amended the
by~laws so as to give effect to the new capital structure.
July 24, 1924, Albert Welton, Wdward Ge Walton and imma
lee Walton, being respectively the sons and daughter of Seymour and
Mary E. Walton, assigned te complainant all their right, title and
interest in and to any and all the personal property constituting
the estate of their father to which they weve entitled wnder the
laws of descent or otherwise, including all choses in action, and
particularly any and all rights of action against the Waltm School
of Commerce or its present or former stockholders or directors,
end thereafter suit was instituted by Mary He Walton in her own
richt and as assignee of her childrene
The gravamen of the complaint is that by reason of the
fiduciary relationship alleged to have existed between Walton,
Joplin and Langer when the contracts of 1919 were executed, the
burden was imposed on defendants of establishing the fairness
of the contracts te Walton, and, they having failed to assume this
purden, complainant is entitled to have the agreements set aside
and to an accounting. More specifically, complainant's case is
wits
seazotal emoa to efsa ot nated harceg te, oa0gusy ~~
to evasi wo odd ol eee olege ot to misites ot» be oon nd
isimit thos we ed Litw ot f FON SE beeen: od Od ere *16 Te sg
boubamd ows od} tant al .noissebinp lf ean oft ah»
ratogzes OF Ba herrsterg of LL tw stoots .beatetetq. te -setada: oon}
atoéqes cento mI .eweei fenigizo oft mi oese od$.tom aawsioksiw
newoq patitey odd det sottqooxe oft atte omen oft af carsak osft
eeids sii jsdé meacet ong 10% .yixemath as teeny ae dou at
uf ue etst suisy taq ou iw Xoode te aetade (O00) dazanosis
Hg bw waod c frosioap & “ke (G08). ee pus owd, ef to anak
- satalfod herhawe 910 to. efev cag:
‘ bes soltell to teviaw oft Whats od sali ptelnexaaa, dinay call
° Biledte soy eyed of boobrt baly ed Ilse 3 .om ot ds | |
boetis ot ews fom ob voy T. exiseh. a. hoa ‘Bit mm asi
| Sho tatguo‘cd astiesm edi to a9 ace b edt evel of balg oe Lhearie
Y mod opie tam soy gadd on soy of pao g 5 1 oearon qwo0y of
OWL «8 cedmoosd pfed aaw atebforsigoga ta-akyoem es © ooo
-btoo0s ai 100) 2 tat igeo odd pakeaoxonk Aetaphe awe anlhnlnion a bre
-¥oota edt gnkvo [Lot toddet oat nt hegsta faneenet pn ae wins
sat bobseme bas bonevano, anntene te Ro: bnmed: ‘eft gatieow ' arebLosd
setudourd a. Led igen, wes: ath ae: sootte ovia of ag 028 awal-yd
auact das moi Lei 8 beawbil emod tm PredbA eh8OE a8 TP id ova
bane taomyst to rotsigub inn Rane eslt Viovivcogasr nated amie voit
bre oft id einige sient Lis Suan tgaeo of beng tues ened £8) <a
grkiunt Hens. _txeyexq Lenoexeq: ite ta pai ens Og ‘boa. a ‘i : re Md
id sobs boliivae etew yess doitiw oF tod¢st ted? to etatac ont
dl rat”
bre qnoliea al aeaot Ils getbwlout yeutwredso to ry oes
foosie® sostnW edt Famioge wolves tO digit Lie pre Yne yt
“geibsoerkb to evoblossieode remket to dhewetg est x Ledgeanieh io
com at motfow so -yxalt yf bodudivent waw dive resteor
- ,notbh2iie Yen to gs jo00 lade ‘bn ia
oft 20 monser yo dad at éntatqmod SHY to om wats 8 eater
¢Od Lev aeewted detaixe owed oF begetta qhfano tial
esti ehotwooxe otew BECL to atostdhoo off? moslw sr
aaemtist odt giitleiidadées to adnshmeteh no bowogmh cow ‘ashe
aid} esaus o¢ holiest gitvart yede —hnme yuddiay oy sien one te
eb tannder stnomeotys axlt ovat os: bene tine a Josette
Sy ae Ae 2 Se ae
‘at eaao alenankaLamos. poor ai an paris “thd a ora "
predicated on the charge that Langer and Joplin foresaw an uapre-
cedented prosperity for the school when the contracts were made,
and that it was incumbent on them, if they were going to deal with
Walton, to impart to him all the knowledge they had; that by failing
to do so they violated the obligation imposed on them by law, be~
cause of the fiduciary relationship of the parties, and through the
withholding of knowledge at hand, they prevailed upon him, while he
was i11 and inecapcitated and after he had been told by his physician
that he had but a short time to live, to part with his common stock
which in subsequent years yielded enormous dividends and enabled
Joplin and Langer to reap a harvest for themselves, not only threugh
the dividends earned and paid on the common stock neld by them but
alse through the enhanced salaries voted to themselves after Walton's
retirement.
Defendants contend that the 1918 transactions were thoroughly
fair and equitable to Walton, when judged in the light of conditions
then existing; and that the evidence conclusively shows an utter
absence of overreaching, unfairness, deception or compulsion. The
commissioner found that no fiduciary relationship existed between
the parties with reference to the school enterprise, and the chan-
eellor, who heard arguments on the exceptions to the commissi oner's
report from October 26, 1933, to January 35 1934) was of the same
opinion and stated his conclusions and his expressions of entire
accord with the commissioner's findings and recommendations at the
conclusion of the hearinge If the comtracts were fair and equitable
to Walton, as of the time of these transactions, and no knowledge
possessed by Joplin and Langer was withheld from Walton so as to
induce him to enter into the agreements, it would be immaterial
whether the parties bore a fiduciary relationship to each other,
sinee the law does not prohibit transactions between parties in such
obi~
Sages ia weeetoel ebigol Orta septal dass sgtade ead | ae pagactheng
, Oban Siew agoottios ond asst Enodion oaks to% qiineqeoue beduobes
sd bw feeb of gittog oTew yeni as mods ‘no tnodaurosé sew ak ‘tasdt baa
gallist yd zeadd hail cout ag be Iwornd. ont iia mii aa dag 04: 0103 La
wed ~Wwal ta “most iQ besoqms me ites ttve ould potato ty venit on ob at
ols sigaroutt bap waolirsg ot to qitkie hates ‘echtenbtt ext 20 eenso
ost of Lelw onaksl nogu betteverg Yodd ebuad ge ogbetwont to yudblodsld tw
natotayly aid yo biod used bed on tedte bam bevadtoghont bia Itt sew
foote somo o ete std bw $usq oF cov od omtd stode o dud bad oi” bait}
befdans bae abmobivih asrourrone ‘pob¥e te anaey Iuoupoadue a dotew
sguonutd ylao fon caovtoasertt rot guovrad 8 “qnet ot segnal’ bas stksqot
dud mesld vd baed foots nommoe eft 0 bkeq brs botrras abies dvds” ‘ond.
ano fav west aovfoamedtd of besor ny ale A beonatina ost daorutt obs ;
” Ynometid ex
ltigue rot stew anoitesanott ret ot sad ‘pmaghog “adaabag tod
ane ta kbaoo re Safgkt edd mk bogbut, nat «nodLa od ofded taps ‘bos nist
: “weds ‘tun ‘erode vinviautenss oy eld jadé bac ‘Vout atne ‘ues
edt a0 be Leqme s “9 mbidqeood seaortiaiay ‘auidgaswtevo ‘te ®
seowded bodadxe qitfancisefer yistowblt on dead Pivot resdtaa hanoo
auatio end bre ,ouluqzedne footed ant ‘of eodoretax aditw ae, artt
"a Yzen0 inaimmoo anit of anok¢qeoxe ond mo ‘edad He ;
otisia odd to saw qhOk «f Yxammal ot (e6OL <8 tadeseo mozY Pxodss
srivne to anotonerqxe wld ban atofavtonos ald begets Bas ho Ldtyo
edt de snolishwommooo: brs agatha? a) Sou ae i laa broves |
—* bas cist otew adoattnoo odd 2 “3a 7
og be fvom! on bets -abeidennnnet weeds” ngs | ie ae Gals perry re
of aa on medLai/ most Biedity tw daw ‘rogmal bas nityot yw bewsoudog
Aetxod aumt od binow 64 cudneneexps oth ‘ovat xin °F aut Ca
; ‘raiido ono ot qbfenm ttaLot vrshowhst | ra ‘oud sient
stoue a node xag nsowted anoidoasnesd # ehattong $ ne Bey mm ony we bei
sks et
Ke ont. toLfS9
we Seb Ri a dae od ie
-15—
a relationship wmless there has been an abuse thereof. This
presents a question of fact, the consideration of which is most
thoroughly detailed and amalyzed in the commissioner's report,
and in determining whether his conclusions and those reached by
the chancellor are sustained by the record, it is essential that
the transections be judged by the existing conditions of the school
at the time these agreements were made and the situation then obe
taining in the general field of the accountancy instruction business.
Upon the theory that Walton had been over-reached, and because
ef the circumstances in which he then found himself, ieee, that he
had been induced to enter into the agreements with Langer and Joplin,
the amended bill charged that defendants secretly consulted counsel
and had him prepare the settlement documents which were entered into;
thet they concealed from Walton the fact that they had consulted a
lawyer in the matter and that the agreements had beend raw by e
lawyer. It appears from the undisputed evidenee, however, that the
documents were drawn by Frederick A. Bangs, who for many years had
peen attorney for the school and for the accountancy partnership,
and who in these, as in former transactions, had been the attorney
for Walton as well as for Joplin and Langer; that Bangs, in the
preparation of the contracts and documents, had consulted personally
each of the three contracting pa ties, including Waltons; that Walton
had been clearly and carefully informed of the facts mid steps t aken
by Bangs in preparing the settlement papers; that minutes of the
stockholderst meeting held in Bangsts office November 4, 1918) were
signed by Walton, as were the minutes of the directors' meeting held
in Bangs's office November 12; that all the settlement im truments »
many of which have been in possession of complainant and her counsel,
were inclosed in covers plainly bearing the nam and address ef Bangs};
that during the several years which intervened between the filing of
+
PR hs
~Gf-
q whet dee saint on sends as nood and ‘oe “aoe fou qitianotistex « £
peat at sig iitw 10 po tisreb tence acts etost ‘to noitesnp & aduoaong
fxoges a "910 tae inae 0 ‘este ak bosyhans bins beltatoh ‘yilgur ostd
w berlosor und? brie anolestoso 9 abt xodtocte pate arced ob ak baw
} ‘dest Inhanoaas ak +i ebueoot ‘ott vd bostketane ous xoLfoouedta sts
foorton ‘otis to ano kd thaw aubte kee ond vet bepbut os anoivosuased ‘oils
| ago nies so 1d otr9 hs ‘od baw ‘ebsnt ‘orow stronee ya ‘eno? emis ate #2
vanontnurd no beourxé asck conatmweooe ont ‘to piett ‘Eevoniog ont i pained
oausoed bas <boslases~rov0 noe d hast nod Ls ‘acid root oxtt nog
fis. 2s
eu deste cael + Loam bawot not axl otsty at ‘eonatanuorio - Yo
ea sqot bam opi it¢iw adnemoetas por osm ross ei beoubak nod eat
pe
Loanuroo dod Luan vis oreee Bénabas tod Sastd bepzaita ttt obaoms at
“soba bexe¢as ere" dotdw adress 3 nome St4e0 “ost ‘ouecene ‘md bad bas
c.. henerrgiumie bad yee # asld oat oat mpd Lei nina betnoonee ‘yest ‘past
8 YW mst b need ‘bast ad womse'r3s ould dads bas ‘restam oft nt noywet
eg ee & & aA 9
ost sentd ¢ Tevewor esamobive bo duce thus ent soz? exnoges. a stored i
aut annoy bey ret osiy vepnetl « wih foixohort w smo ose e2nomuo0b
Aes, wees ine. wigs 2
ecistaxond seq vonad me ces ent ‘wot bas toortoe eas 2 ‘yemtodts soo
he AG %
‘Youtosss ont need Deal veo bi osenets resro? nk cn voedty es o, bas
i a lei
ond mi eapsiad dattt prepnad bie attgot x02 aa Low Fach ot La ot
vilammarey bediname bedi 240005 bao adootsnve ait 0 no ltaxaqer :
sod Lei! tant ‘4n09a Lair gutbutoat cooks =e ‘gutzooxtave somdd poh to “ose
a
node 3 agora bow ad oat ont ‘to domvotnt yibrtexee brs “uteeto need ‘batt
outs to asgurenton declt toreqag srometttee ont satan at apne w
kD
oxew p8LOL ed zodueovol got ite arapnal at b.tect aniveon “axohtesteots
fom gabdoom tatotoorth onl 0 so guint o@ ore ae <s04 168 w per
poraee Mey
cacenmaned ant ‘tupme £3308 out Lhe tacts ee Toanger. sobre atagesd ak
: o Oe BT tee Pare
,loano9 tod bus ‘namtatgnos % ao Laneaceg ak aoed vad shared * A endl
oe meter
tapraél te acethba brs sane ot ous aatrsod Unto nrev0o nk doaoLouk oxow a
ashe eit ite
‘to Bailie eit noowsed senwrpnént ‘Hote ancy leteves, ‘ens “sakewb ad
;
-16=
the bill and Bangs's testimony tefore the commissioner, neither
complainant nor her counsel interviewed Bangs to ascertain the
facts ebout his part in the preparation of these ¢ocuments, al-
though they must have known that the documents were drawn by hime
Complainant also alleges that in November, 1918, Joplin
and Langer called on Walton in his sick room at home, and with no
other person present urged him to enter into the settlement agree-
ments, and that as a result thereof he signed them, To sustain
these allegations, complainant testified that in Navesbier, 1918,
Joplin and Langer came out to have the contracts signed and remained
with Walton almost the entire afternoon; that Walton told her that
evening, or the next day, that the contracts had been Signed; that
she was perfectly certain that Jeplin and Langer were there in
November, and that although her husband could then searcely walk from
his bedreom to the living room, Joplin and Langer remained with him
about three hours. This testimony was intended to support the allega~=
tions that Walton had been over-reached. The evidence shows, however,
that September 25, 1918, was the only time Joplin and Langer were at
Walton's home; that thereafter the matter was extensively discussed
between Walton and his two associates by means of ewprrespondence, some
of which is hereinbefore set forth, by telephone, and through confere
ences with Bangs, and that all the settlement papers weresent to
Walton November 16, after which he spent several days in examining
them, and that by arrangement on November 20, 1918, his employees,
Miss Marsh and Mr. Vavrinek, went out to Walton's home to witness
the execution by him and to exchange executed copies of the agree~
ments. That Joplin and Langer were not at Walton's home on any occasion
in 1918, except at the time of the directors' meeting September 25,
is corroborated by Walton's om letters, end cannot well be deniede
Mary E. Walton's principal complaint is that the 200 shares of
pe Me
vosg ton tone tae tm e erly | ore ted camhsned elegans bre tite ost
oft nisiteers of egret bowe tyrediak Eounsoo tol von Pana fcm 9
-ig ,eBinessrooh ove? to te Kh oeayeny. ad nk sa0q abd tuods. ados?
emia yd cwerb stew atnemroo8 ont gatld ax ont gent Sane weld Aaarostd
ablgo’ .8£0L exodmovelt nk diac eogolis oats ‘tnaataigo® oo
. on dtiw bas ,omod ta moor, tole abd ak mot ist £0 polise reps baa
~aSTRe txostelitoa edd o¢at xogne ot a, begze tuoeesg agi) reuido
| fthasene OF otmmgald som te ost roorerit shueot a as tasks use eadnoun
we “qaret ereduoyou wt af pontivaed tanta tau sauoltagotia aos
‘pede baw besa te asoersnoe anit wrest ot s10 E cmopel ropa bas waiget
_ pads sort brod to 9 Lal todd taoorxed ts obits ‘osid domi 98 ca id tw
_ task qhongis nood bast afoatines ont dont wad acon onl x0 soninave
ni sted? ovew regnad bas atiqot taatt tag x00 Utootneg asw ota
oxi afew yfeotene sedt bLvo 9. basdand toa, Hyves Ls aastt bow techr0 01
aid dtiy hemkeset tegiat bas nifqot smoot qaivis orld of smoothed and
~agoiie edd troqqya of bebredni esw Yomi tao Seat + sco oontd euode
exovowor, eawoste sonehivs i shorlonet~t9ve aged, basi nod Lei saat anos
$s oxew segue bis miiqot amki yite 9 out Baw eter +88 sodnosqoe § ett
bouamgulh yiovianedze, aaw tedden ectd xeftaoredé tant Lead. e 'n0# £3
emon esauobuogeetzas to agsom yd agtaioonss owd ot ba nod ial neowted |
~solme siquoxts das .ommegeLet yd «Atzo2 dee ere tedatonad ah Aoliy te
od tnosotew axoqagq dmomefiies oft ffs todd bas 9 agered_ st8 bw geome:
gitiginexs ai eyeb Laseves taeqe ot doitw redts ot rodaevel ‘mos Law
eaeeqoigae sid p8l@L «OS redaevel so somegsiortas a toed om soit
avomiw of omed e'aotieW o¢ two dew sdanitve’ «i bas feral aa.
~songs edt to eelges besuoexe eyaoxe oF bus ah mo teuopne ea
molesove Yas no emed atnedle¥ te tom stew tegmal hoe aiigot tent «adzom
8% codewstgeR gutioom ‘exotoorth edt. te amid ode te dqeoxe e8L0L mt )
sholush ed Llow tonnso baa ,arettet two etnosioy yd sansa me
to" ‘ gotadta OO8 orft sett et Pho Lemo>o Ley tontrg ptnot Lew at ea dad
={¥~
common stock owed by her husband were changed to nonvoting pre-
ferred stock, with the result that she and Welton were deprived of
the large dividends earned and paid on the common stock in later
years. She lays great stress upon the prosperity of the school
after this change was effected, and shows that for the years 1918
to 1924, inclusive, Langer was paid in the form of salary, $126,750,
and in addition thereto $136,029, as dividends; that Joplin, during
the same period, received {39,150 in the farm of salary, and $39,450
in dividends; whereas Walton during his lifetime received only $7,700
in salary, and complainant after his death received in the form of
bonus payments $2,100, and only $12,000 in dividends wes paid to
Walton and his wife on the preferred stock. These figures undoubtedly
show that judged by what afterward developed, it was an unfortunate
deal for Walton to have exchanged his common stock, but the dominant
thought in his mind, as disclosed by his own letters, was to assuré
to himself during his lifetime and to his widow and children after
his death, some ascertained and certain income, and the acquisition
of preferred stock, yielding 10%, afforded the security he soughte
He was in close touch with the financial affairs of the school, helped
to prepare its income tax returns, and carefully watched its enroll-
ment figures. After a careful examination of the record, it is
difficult to reach any other conclusion that that, realizing his pere-
manent disability, and knowing that he had not long to live, he
desired to make certain of a fixed ineome and evidently believed the
acquisition of preferred stock in lieu of common stock, offered greater
protection to himself and his family.
Under the agreements of 1918 Waiton received the 200 shares
of preferred stock. In addition thereto his salary was fixed at
£1,400 bus annum from June 30, 1918, and was to continue during his
life. WNoservices of any kind were revuired to be performed by him,
“Wty.
~oty, galsiovaon of hegaade: orew bxedaul re YO bento stoete Hono
to bevingoh. otew oto! be oda tadd dIvaonw ols td te" hooda" boFe8t
mist ut tote mopmmo ofd.o0 bing dae boatad ebmsbly ith’ ort sds
foorlos oft te utivequerg ost moqy aeenta tHety ayer eff satsey
BLAL arsoy ot 10% dedd owode bis ybedoe he adv egnsde eid tetts
LOGNASLG eyteles to mrot edt mt blag sow tegded”, bvidgiont ysser' oe
aniwh .aklyol sadé pedaehivib es ¢eeOgaemh osereds tole tihe At” bite
O38. O88 bas —Yiafee to opel odd Hh C@L,Cet hovleost Ho treg omee elt
CON Ne ylng bevicoot omitetlL elet gutivd nod Lav anotetty Yeimeb ty ib nt
_, Yo mre? sald gh hovicous teob wld setts tremlalynos bre (Yratae' nt
ot Disg gow abnebivih: mk O008L8 YLmo bom YOOR SY wtnomenq snot
Ubotduohey aerugtt ovedt »leode hoxretoug ould no otiw ele baw nod Te
etanitroliu ma ecw Jf «boqoleved brawrodte dase yd bopbist dads worta
soanhwos ek Jad .X9036 yommoa ald hognsuioxe evad 64 nod raw: 208 Eaeb
emsee oF aaW yeioddel swe atl yd DoseLoalboas \¢bitte etd mt igwodd
hy : reds gothlido baie wobiw ald of bas emttett£ elt gakiwh thoemti os
| MLS aluooe oft baw comout niatr09 bas bemtatzenen euon <ltsoh ait
stitguos od Ydisvoon odd bebzolIs «ROL gathLoty..Acoda boxe terg to
; boqded «Locsto 8 std to atintis felonenit oft Mtiw towad eaoLo ak dew off |
£tox (S8f bedodew yilstoreg bas, .aamiten mat om sub att stagere Of
. at #4 «boner ssid to nodseninaxe, Ivtonas @ costs. saorg®t dhokt
ted eid gatailcet .iadt felt soteuloneo, resto xa aloeoned siro rite:
(ot covil of amet ton bad of tad? yatwond, bam st hitdem ko: semen
eid SeyolLed «finohtve ban. oom pst bexd? 9. 20 hades aeslam eo?) hoxkeos?
ti aril efoot s mommoo Yo soLLat Aeote bexxetoxg) te soiks:totupod
_ tilts? ald bre TLoamtst ot mo itosbord ’
“getesta 0s oxtt Sevteoo: notiaW B£0L Yo edromeerge eft gabaT. wx
| to boxt? Baw wradee a tel os orosts ma ttsne at. aoote DORR Te ee RG
at anu unt? a0 o¢ saw bas. (HGLOL 0G enw mort. maou FOE, 00D LE i
em at boro og we hie Dertuvex oxew Bros vis to aeoivrea o a se
he ae Ae gyke ty ay pee ey ped Ray OM Py ae Myre
-18-
and he was left free to conduct the students' department of the
Journel of Aecountancy, the salary of which wes to belong to him
after June 30, 1918. This assured Welton an income of 53,400 per
annuum, and when the selery from the Journal of Aecountaney is
added, it aggregated $3880.
This income compared most favorably with his earnings during
prior years. In 1913, 1914 and 1915, he received a salary of $2,000
per annum; in 1916 he was peid $2,400, and in 1917, $5,000. Wo diivie
dends were paid by the school prior to 1916. in that year it paid
5%, and in 1917) 11%. Walton thus received, during the five years
prior to 1913, a salary in the aggregate amount of §13,400 and divi«
dends of $3,200, making en average of $3)320. Nearly one-half of his
total salary during the five prior years was received in 1917. During
that year the company had undoubtedly over-reached itself and became
gomewhat finencially embarrassed by reason of the increase in salaries
end the payment of large dividendse While the income thus provided
for Walton under the agreements of 1918 seems meager, in the light of
the unprecedented prosperity of the school subsequent to 1918, it
scems to us that the arrangements, judged as of the time at which
they were made, compare most favorably with Walton's earnings before
he beeame incapacitated.
The charge that ianger and Joplin foresaw the unpreecdented
prosperity of the scheol when the contracts im question were made
with Walten, and had knowledge which they withheld from him for the
purpose, ac alleged, of inducing him to part with his common stocky
should be considered in comnection with the following undisputed “fo
The aggregate revenues of the school in 1913 were $23,309; in
2G14, $54,735, an increase of 492.2%; the 1915 revenues were $35,743,
en inerease over the previous year of 0209%; in 1916 the revenues
were $59,027, an inorease over the preceding year of 656144; in 1917
wail .
galt to jaomd tame lagnebagea ont soltinee of ext Piel aaw odvbae
mit ot ga Led o¢ aaw fobtw to yverss oft oyommdtwosed to Lantvo®:
tet 008.88 to smoot an sorta’ berweas ala? 16002 \0- onwh-nedha)
“at roms ne 98! ao fancyol ot moc Yrekeo Sed fost Das mime
. | 088,86 botagengge af bebba:
piteob sgatinns ole drtw Uidatove? fide boraghdo embiead dar 007 ©
000.86 to yrelen w bovboods od (efer bua AECL (oLet HT" etsy 8 berey
a bya’ ox .obolad rer nl hae \OOM. Se bieq asw' eff Ofer mt qememne roy
the #2 toby dail of .32er oF dobre Loesiod exe yh tteq erewiabmeb:
eine “evtt ols gnkiwb Lhovteoot ante nodLaW © RIZ 4 VIED ab baa RE:
wtvih bets OOSLELS Yo Frome edegetays exe ak crekew @ ¢SLOR ot) toeeG)
alist to ‘tfest-on0 eliselt 088,88 to egexove ae ‘petisiam’ yOOReSe: ‘be -abreb
aubanc “vter mt bevicoot ‘esw eakey tobsq evil? “edt aulish qintse Ledet
exsced brs ‘troagt beslosot-teve ULpotdvobay Set yringa@Do: ond tee hades
aeitsles Pa ‘ossetonl ont to noaser YC boeenveadats yiterongnt t J asbremos
bebtvera nie om ond ef ok tay’ ° sabrob ives re ‘to Suomryeq eit Soe
to sight ls och “ tepseM amesa exer 46 udtton
“tt +810L et ‘tmoupondie foordoe ont te ystraqueng”
cohaw ge emtd ond Yo aa beghht”\ adatmopine cts” eae! dans euros \emoen
eto tod epatinzes einod te’ dé by ilovoimaugacal Jeon eTeymoe obam otew yous
sbodedboeqnont emsood ant
‘ sik edd waaoto% nifqos bes regtind tents ogtatio oft nee)
ebam orew nolvaenp ‘mi atootdroo ond tredw Loortos ext ‘to sgh icagaog
! ‘as ot mis ‘ost sfordd hr youd soidw egbetwonl bad bas 4 aod lav ght bw
, ‘ylood 2 sommedo “diet diiw dxey ot mid gatlowbat — nT
| pi X Ss bedugaibay gatwolfot edt d¢hw noiioemms ak’
nk 1008 .e88 erew CL@L mt Loodos sii} to aemtovet®
red eBEe exow aouneves ares olf Wels to segetomd oi smant eget
nounevet odd OLOL mt (NCSO to they evdlvexy’ adterera: eamempnh Ae of
| wrest at ery to rs0% gatbeoorg ont ‘cove Saaotokt ss ce Neogene
ve
\ +
ye
-19-
the revenues were $74,452, an increase of 26.15%; in 1918 the reve~
hues were $93,322, on increase of 25.35%. It thus appears that the
reyenues for 1918 showed a very normal increase over the pricr yeare
A similar situetion apparently also existed in the account=
ancy business in general and in other accountancy schools during this
period. Defendants produced several witnesses to establish thisfact.
One of these was Arthur Andersen, a public accountant, who testified
that “most men in his line felt at the time in question there would
pe considerable expanding, but none of them anticipated the expansion
that finally resulted." He stated that the explanation for the ex-
pansion was the enactment of the Exeess Profits Tax Law and the end
of the war, when it might come. Edward Ee. Gorey also a public account~
ant, testified that there were conditions in 1918 that gave a decided
impulse to the public accountancy business in the future, due in part
to the income tax lawse William A. Buttolph, sales manager of the
higher accountancy courses at the LaSalle Extension University, testi»
fied that enrollments in his school in these departments for the years
1916, 1917 and 1918, were respectively 9,146, 95382 and 10,2803 that
there Was no marked or unusual increase in enrollment or in the demand
for courses in higher accountancy in the months of September, October
and November, 1918, but that there was a great increase in 1919. He
stated that it was then uncertain what effect the close of the war
would have on the school business, and that based on his personal
knowledge and experience the conditions as they existed in September,
October and November, 1918, afforded no basis for anticipating any
certain, unusual and unprecedented increase in the enrollment for
courses in higher accountancy in the future. Ralph BE. Weeks,
president of the International Correspondence Schools) at Serantony
Paes, likewise testified that he had no knowledge or information in
September, October and November, 1918, which would lead him to
~QL~
~evez oft SL@L ml GRELBE to. vasgvont ma «Shi, dVQarew gouaever odd
ati} doit atecqge auld $X.«RBE.8S Yo onsevonl me «886,60% oxew cend
etaoy taitg od weve onsetoak Lamon yrev « bewors O£0L Tot seunevet
_ mtneoooe ext ni betatxe oafa yitnetsaqqe sotteudla mealimie Ao oo iw
| abst goitawb afoodoe yoretmovss torte mi haa Jetemey ai eeontand yoru
f
tpatamtd datidsten 0f coaeentiw Lorevea beaubong atmebastet .botteq
—spebthvaed os etastavocea etidyq # rearobad mudieh aaw aaah. to end
| . hitsow oxedd mottaenp wi eabt aft te tiet oni aid at com teomtodadt
| nolasiaexs edt boteqioiins meld to enon tad ~gakbuagxe eldarobiunoo.ed
d -x9 eft a6t moliemntqxe odd tedt betada om *, bed fuaet Yilenkt gait —
Bre ond ban wal x8 abttoxd ceeextl add Yo Sremisane.od? mew notansg
\¢inisobs ifdug # Cals «STOd JH BrawhT compo dafgian dt sesh gearoesii Ro
' ‘pahiood 6 ovag tant BLOL mi anoitipnoe etew exeds galt poktitasd «tas
: fing mt omd pomtu? off at -aventand yorstmoces etiduq ext od eaLwqmt
2 ertd:-Xo soysmam delet wiqhotautl oA mebLLiv..«amed mad omoont old.od
aigaed pet invovint motanetst olieted edd ‘te aoet09 yonsdaueoos terig bel
pteey ent rot ednomtteqeb saedd mh Loven att mi admemtLorne ded body
ana a00ncar 98698 abot levttonenen ene -aRINL Ai TAR ADH
bmawoh eet ak vo dnemifotie ah easgtont Levens: 10 booties om aan oxeds
radovoO »radwosqe® to ans nen add mi yountascoes cedgist ak anno 50%
ek .@L£@L mi easotomt Jactg w eaw otanld sant tod 2818L,tedmeyvou. bas
daw elt Yo oueks ond sostts atv mierceomr andd serodh daelt betste —
fanoetoq abd novbonad Gadd ‘hae. sndatend Loosae wld mo ovad -bAsow
vredutosqsa nh hevelxe Yorld ac-ano ethno, edt sonvizedze dae egbeLwomd
ee gauktaqto tos oY alead om hobrette .BLek.tedmovew. ban vednto
er DN ot ‘fnomigorh® off at eusotonk bodaobeootgmy bar foseuns «nkats99
\yeslesW Va Aqded Jounem Tedd mt 2 a Boe mHOD
gitodim to’ t6 yafoorie eonobadgqestted annem
mi noktesrrotat to. opbetwoml oa bad ed dest ‘besthvand eadwoditngs a 7
; - ot, mis, beet, bLvow do istw .L0L 2 Todmevoll, baw. todot pO ~xoduedged
~20—
anticipate the unusual and unprecedented enrollments in 1919,
He said that many people feared the ending of the war would bring
about radical changes in industry and agriculture, and that it
would adversely affect the accountancy school business. Neva Oc
Lesley, who had been executive secretary of the Northwestern
University School of Commerce since 1908, testified that the school
with which he was conmmected gave lessons only to resident students,
and stated that the registration in accountancy for the year from
September, 1915, to June, 1916, was 856; for the year ending June,
1917, 1079; for the year ending June, 1913, 9463 for the year ending
June, 19195 10026
This evidence, showing the record of other institutions
Similarily engaged and the opinion of accountancy school executives
Anis cates
and public accountants ,/that there was no definite expectation that
by the end of the war unusual prosperity was coming to the account-
ancy business. There had been a rather steady srowth in the Walton
School of Accountancy, but up to the time these individuals entered
into the agreements in 1918 there was no indication of any extra-
ordinary increase in enrollments. Walton evidently entertained the
same views as the witnesses who testified for defendants, for in his
letter of October 7, 1919, asking that his salary be increased, he
showed that he had given the matter due consideration, and saids
“When I made the settlement with the school a year ago, I
considered that it was a fair one under all the circumstances,
though many of my friends thought otherwise. We did not then know
what would result from the ending of the ware Since then, condi-
tions have materially changed. The progress of the school has far
exceeded any of our expectations. You and Le are reaping a har-
vest enormously greater than you had any reason to expect."
By this letter Walton confirmed the position taken by Langer and Jopli
that they had no reason to expect that they were going to reap an
immense harvest out of the school business, and his assertion, that
when he made the settlement he considered it fair under all the cir-
GS
| s@i@L at eiusatiioxae betmebsostqay bee Leitesru ond egaqto bias
gaicd Silvew sew edd lo aatens ent boxset: efgooq, Yara tedt” btow’ eH
sion, @h ted? bus ystalivetags bus yxterbat wt edanado Lee ther gweda
oO evel .ssemiaud fLooriga Youataveoos edd Jootia yLoatevbe bivow
| | Mtedgords toM ett Yo yxetotosa evisuoexe aved. ban odw yyoteed
| , docdgs ome ted beitiveed «80RL vonka eortommed to Loosed y? Lavovial
gainooute gosbiest ot vine smoseel, ovag. betourion saw od Agiolw oe tw
(tes aay eed cet Youstauooes ml noliaxtalge edt Jedd bodatea’ bas
_ gest gakboo tesy add. 107% 7388 aaw qdLOL, pont oc «LOL ye tedmatqed
gulboe rey odd sot 2Oke. pOLCL-~oast gathiis teoy carxot (ever , VzeL
i “e800 corer enue
_ BaOkivttéagt roxddo 20 broget sult ymbvode, veoned ive ak sei
_aovitsroexe _ feostoa Youstave9on Yo solmige ext bas. beacans YLivelimte a
| - Fatt, wedded opgae, 28-tyt tab on asw exons Gail \ ad sestamo x08 okLdmg brs.
-taroo9s st of guimoo sow ytlvoquoxg Lavaves tow ait Yovbas edit yd
_ AotLaW odd ot siworg yhaots qediex a coed fat sxred? -sedesband yous
bexeteo efLeubivibad eacd? omit edd od qu did . yontiaiseN te Loottot
mptéxe Yar Ro mpties Lest on asw ovedd OLOL mt ev domedtys ons ‘ornt
_ nd demtstuesne YLinebive msisv satnomifexnd of sederent Yiealbr
“abt ak tot .atnebuoteh sot bektiseos os eeauend te aft ‘es awWolvy onde
ot ,bowsovont of XYtslae aid ted gattes ~eLer 4% vile’ ‘Yo Wesser
thine bro ~metistebium oub co dtim ond noviy seit on’ said novels
& api <b ce ooo arid zit br soomeLe sow ode obam' T near
pee raegmren edt [fs tebmw emo tiat s i jandd beteb
oat adte ‘on BL OW .oakwroesdo: Pi Si “to ‘weer
baw o eT cent
genie .etew ent to Pst) anid mort tivaot ; dant a
tak “nit 8 erie eds Io aaengo tg PO se shognads yLls itedea beaeane ey
28% 918 of bus woY .enoliatoeqxe mwo0 to ys bebsooxe
5 Setoogxe of adanet yas bed soy sak? tetsory Yeuommons gut!
Ligot bias repiinl yo aeted molitsoq ent bout lines Lodled -roedtel a tid Ye:
wa aot of saiog etow Yedd salt soogns 09 Reet Om ham ved ted:
gastt emo i¢reaas abd bom cenentend foodoa edt to tuo seovisd. seamen)
pe, oe tte rebay, te? $k berobtanos est RNA hes aso
of
g
t - Ty
cumstances, negatives the charge that he was prevailed upon to
sign the agreements and was over-reached. Langer was called as
a witness by complainant, and asked whether he had any knowledge
or information in September, October or November, 1918, that ied
him to believe that there was almost certain to be an unusual and
wuuprecedented increase in enrollments in the courses in higher
accountancy, and his response to the question was "no*,.
It is urged that the very purpose of the 1918 contracts
and the corporate acts in connection therewithwas to change Waltonts
200 shares of common stock in the school to preferred stock, without
voting power, and for that reason they were contrary to the public
policy of this state, and illegal and void, ab initio. It iis evident
that all the stockholders agreed to the change, that no fraud or un=
due influence was exerted on Walton, and that he approved the plan be-
cause it afforded him a fixed income during his life and wievitia for
his wife and children after his death. As already stated, the pre~
ferred stock that Walton received was a stable security, certain to
yield its prescribed dividend as long as the school corporation existed
and it produced the revenue necessary. Under the agreement of the thre
individuals, dated November 20, 1918, it is provided that no executive
officers' salaries were to be paid except out of profits, and that the
profit was not to be computed until after the deduction from the earn-
ings of the corporation of the full amount of dividends required to be
paid upon the preferred stock, The company has regularly paid the divi-
dends, and Walton and the holders of the stock have received these pay-
ments ever since the issuance of the stock. It is fundamental in our
law that a party cannot receive the benefit of an executed contract for
so many years and then undertake to say that the contract is invalid.
As a matter of facty Walton never made the claim that the complainant
now advanees, and her claim was not made until more than five years
after the transaction and more than three years after the preferred
woe gh ay
ed sO GH shegeaindete. asw off jad? ogtado odd aevisegen «seonstamyo
as belies agw rogsind »bodocet-tove Baw brit ‘sihomeotge bod ‘ig te
epbeiwe se oe bast ext “reddenw pextas bus . dHanl ts tities Vd eeoitd tw 's
het daalt hiote ‘etedmevoll to todeto0 .t8duistqo? nit notdserretrt’ to
i bas Lesressns rg oof od mistxeo daomis saw ovedt fad) svolfed’ od “mit
sont i ni aeetHo9 orld wt ad nomi fo 18 ‘mt easotoni Bod nobdootetur
nen” ace motseeup ‘odd of oanoqnet sid ‘Wag bi preptnn
ayoast aon SECL : edd to oaoquugq yrev edd gatd bogus ak #1”
ere exmesto of asw dé iworedt Niscaaes ar ‘ados ‘ag dxoax09 ‘od bie
tusosts tw .doods porretexg og Loorioe oad at ‘foods ‘nomméo “to detade 608
olicna esis of CistaDo @tew ‘vedi’ hoedex dans 10% bas’ * xéwod pattov
amebive el #1 ‘sod int dg cbtov bus Leyoitt bus votads alts to ‘ysitog
ye en
food a a ifs gastd
~od sods oui bovotsus on tails bas ‘nd Lait 0 “betrexe new ‘Vonmirtnk ‘eub
29't bebiverg bus tit etd yakxvb ompont “pack sini’ Mobeeind yi Salles
weg ‘elt ybotate ‘gbsotls eA sdddeb eat” ‘t89%s ferblias ban etiw’ atd
Oo aiotroo pysituesa Sfdada B GaW bevlodSe nos Taw dasd “gooda bottst
yogaixe ies fooisa off ts stot sa biobivib bédiroaszq agi ffely
sxc of} to Yromeotys orf tobe! .yreancodk Shiver au Dobedorq $f bus
ssdmovol bodab yatabb by think
paid £0 ‘puett on tacts < ogitacto ‘ald ‘od boorge, ‘ate
svitwosxe ont dart? pebivorg ‘ak dF pBLer (08
ext dasid bats vad tte tq Yo tao dqouxe ‘Sieg ‘od 0d crow ‘aottstsa tarool tte
-n1s9 od} mot ns Ed oud ob ‘ealt ‘nedts ft¢iay ‘bedeqmoo oe of to ‘if baw sttor
ad od bet iupex absobivth ‘to ‘owome fort ue to tie Beatoqze9 ‘ond to. ha |
wivih adi biog ytestinge x aed ‘yaa. ont .stoora hex cde Lapin Lea
Dahir Rave Te wg a
“Ys¢ aust bavioos x evad eos ‘et w atebs pe ib ite
=H6 tk Lad momsb oar’? - a ripoda ol, 19 somauead pcered ‘neve end
0 doatdame beguooxe ns ; Yo $ toned yey “evieoe: fomecoap rong rope
sbikeval al foondn09 oald taitt we oe ve a posi oti yoo poss pai
dngnialgmo o ot todd, miaLo axis obemt woven wo it eos? ro copton a ah
_ St8ey% overt aed otom Akgeor sbant sou aay mts.o ed ba, vasousrde vos
bk eel «a
betretetg et «edits arasy cots ned ocom bas aig ote we wat
stock hod been surrendered by her in return for stock of an un-
questioned superiority which wes free from any claim of illegality
growing out of the technical detail of its issuance.
In addition to charging presumptive fraud growing out of
the so-called fiduciary relationship, already discussed, the amended
bill also charges actuel fraud. The commissioner and the chancellor
ruled adversely to the complainant's contentions on this issue. The
law is well settled that fraud will not be presumed, and one who
charges fraud must sustain his allegations by clear and convincing
evidence. Compleinant's evidence utterly failed to sustain the
charges of fraud, and since her counsel do not argue them in their
briefs a further discussion thereof would avpear to be unnecessary.
Complainant alee charged that a fiduciary relationship
existed between herself and langer and Joplin. December 28, 1920,
after Walton's death, a further change of the corporate organization
was effected. The 200 shares of preferred stock owned by complainant
were changed to preferred stock of similar preference as to dividends
during her lifetime, with the option in the com oration to redeem the
stock after Mrs. Walton's death on the same terms ss formerly. This
new issue of preferred stock was given a preference also as to assets,
whieh it did not formerly have. The 400 shares of common stock, held
equally by Langer and Joplin, having a par value of $100, were ex-
changed for 3,000 shares of no par common stoek. Complainant argues
that a fiduciary relationship existed between her and Langer and
Joplin, and that they did not fully inform her of the effect of these
changes, whereby her interests were prejudiced because she was thereby
rendered unable to control the election of one member of the board of
directors, and also because her pre-emptbve right to subscribe for
the new capital stock that might be issued was greatly lessened. So
far as Langer is concerned, Mreé. Walton evidently evinced an unfriendly
de
~t se Lo ieote sot minder ai ted et poenneitns meed bed apote
“WebLagoltt to miele yaa mo =k Seti aow doltw ytivotregua. hanolseenp
eomaren kt ati to Listob Lsoinioed oft to suo. gatwoug
te tao anhrera bustt ovitqganaarq patgredo of nolv ihbhs cl.
bebanan els eSoaustoa th Yheoria -«gintunoltelet yrstoublt ned ot
tolLooiatio eft brs ‘reno bea Leman 9 on? .busrt fausos vegtato oale LLid
eff + ouaal ais? to anoisiuec moo a'trisnisigmog eds of ylostevba doles
ont eno bres e henmeete od ton fiiw bust dents befitea flow al wal
_atitonivaee bas te0fo vd suphtene lic ais niatayue tessa byert e93 tatlo
: ont nbstaue of bolist yitessu senobive at tasate qm. _ s eorp hive
xtotis mt mors engrs ton ob Lea mssoo ted conte, one ebsatt to ‘BOBtuto
2 Se 96 o8 Teeque ‘ieee weonen? ‘no kaawoatd ‘costed xa & stele
wha qidanottacen erstoub i © tant beatuto oeha tmamtel
108 58s sedaaoet : saligqet bas ‘togmia! bits eenny LOO uT i
“no tian inayt0 pipregaes oat to. egasdo todtaut, s aaiteed— e' got iel, ray te
trent aLqmoo haa bonwe toote howtxeteng To aeseda O08, sf .. -heppeiie saw
abobivib nd as. ‘eomero tong sed tmke ‘to aapsa, berreterg of. bearesdo onen
oud meebor od no tsar0 geo es mt so kge. mle ada romite tis Bg putty
i ait +yLxemre2 as ame oma ea to di0b ataodLel «ash -se82e, foods
ef 2208 of as oats sonoto ton s sorta aan seeds peeenern, ba ad wae ,
es rs 1M
Or Me te
bLod wood 2 sono 0 to orede 000 oat ; “serait b aguesraliy tom oto ee ‘aa
aw Date. ‘ile
_ otow 0028, 0 oukey req. £ 1 aaa wah igot, bn ropaed x \iaupe a
. seugits gnontatqmod dose, ‘omm08 oq on, 2 senate 0048. so bea a
brs sera bas ‘rod asowsed bobatae ¢
pa
dort ear exe ontiaoed { beolbutexe » stow , atuorseak xout wesedn hada t
to b mod exts ‘Yo rectum eno to notsoots ot Loxdn0o et pens ed bezobans .
ae SY Bee RE I ea ay
an
a ‘edtroadua os afd = ovbican~o7g ost eausved r sah Man cexos Tae
26 4 ¥ t ey * Sy 4 we ih
sie ae NSE
peo ety rs ‘beontvs db bro nod La | besroou 9 “3 eee. as
hy gee wen mn! ® qn , ra) ; ay ee xe a“
es pea RAD ey LSOy eee ao ee Bae ge 6 titan waned eats “9
wise
attitude toward him which repels the idea that she was reposing
eonfidence in hime She felt more kindly toward Joplin, however.
Shortly after Walton's death she asked Joplin's advice, saying
that she wes writing to him in pursuance of a promise she made to
her husband and complained thet she and daughter could not live on
the income provided. Subsequently she had an interview with Joplin
and Langer, bringing with her a list of securities. Langer made
certain recommendations in the matter of the sale of there securi-
ties, and advised the daughter to take a teaching position. None
of this advice wes followed. Wevertheless, Langer md Joplin, efter
consultation together, agreed to and did pay Mrs. Walton $1,200,
representing the balance due her husband under the accountancy
partnership dissolution agreement, which was not yet due, and they
also undertook to pay her a bonus of $600 per annum, which has since
been regularly paid to here December 22, 1920, Langer sent to Mrs.
Walton for her signature a weiver of notice of a special meeting of
stockholders, setting forth fully the action proposed to be taken at
the meeting, together with a letter in which he invited her to attend
the meeting, and also advised her of the proposed change ef common
stock to 3,000 shares of no par valuey stating that it was largely
for the purpose of permitting the sale of stock to certain employees
of the school. Mrs. Walton did not answer this letter, but eeserened
Joplin inquiring how the change would affect her and whether it would
be all right for her to sign the weiver. Joplin told her it was a
better arrangement for her and that it was all right for her to signe
Thereafter she signed the waiver of notice, sent it together with her
proxy to Joplin, and still later she simed the minutes of the meeting
which showed the changes in the corporate structure. If any confiden=
tial relationship existed between Mre. Walton and Joplin it was purely
personal eo far as Joplin was concerned) and would not afford a basis
ta Se
— ahaoget nsw aco tad sobh mg alewot so teieombt: beawod. obubhtta
wo MROWRHOS, guhEgo’ Heowod VEbade exom #07 eM, wmbst st gosebkanoD
gilgss ,seatyhe. c'atigol, betes: anda pdeoh one ttew ned be Yleteds
et: shom ede eatmesa s. to sonseeenqont ait of amktive aaw ofa tard
ff, OWE ton O£voqtetdgush dae oda tate beatsignos sme ‘ited _—
shige sitw woivretat oshad ofa —Ltoempesdus .bobivorq omoomt. ot
_ ebast tegned .agithbuwese to tab » veludittw gaignied etegtat hae
~bauees auedt to.ofem and le todtam. ont mh anebidbaeuiioer aiartoo
_ pkel sieitieeg aritesed e elat of roddgund odd Domtwba bru yaetd
sadta. <niigol bm topnal, easefediveveK .bewelfe? asw eo.tebevatit to
|. 9008, Lh s0dLae . att yeq bbb daw od hostgs _tedtepot! AW Ttet Lito
ons oct eoba bastauh wert aud eoneled edt gnitaovonger
yots: bus xash Joy tom now floidiw ¢ tremoemgae tte
costs ead cotsin <musmim req O08 tO aud 6 Tot Yaq OF Foot nobmr OAs
,Aa od duee vogmal OSC 4SSoredmovem sxodl: ot bFag: quits
Ro gmitoom Eetooge s to soktom To toview & ointettiile cet cot nottay —
te modes. ad ot) ponoqoza cotton auf “bet decor pmks 08 lila
Uagrel saw ti gems gabiote geulev tog om i uefa Cy
“Reeyoyns mksdtee OF Aeega Yo ofsa ot antat kms ao weogin at "Go
benedgolsd dud etedteL alt rowan gos Lil semana soil Gene salina
biwow 2 wedtosw bie tet tools HXwow egmaifo wont git . ou
eo aeweh xed blot nitqot .aevtsw edd agte of vad” “~ Ei date the ie
-engte ot xed ToT digit Lie maw ed tautd + ae ted at én sinh i .
jee Bt bw xecidogod 22 taele .esiion to towbar ady oeaanibary
“g
gutdsont of to soda * —— ——— " h anne ae om
ee
~2Aee
for setting aside the act of the corporation in changing its cor-
porate charter and thus affect the interests ef other stockholders.
In addition to what has been said with reference to the
principal contentions hereinbefore discussed, it is urged by defend-
ants that relief should be denied because of the principles of rnti~
ficiation, acquiescence, waiver and laches, and because of the rule
that a party claiming to have been defrauded must, if he wishes to
set aside a contract on that ground, act immediately upon his ace
quiring knowledge of the fraud. In considering this proposition
complainant would be bound by Walton's acts, or his failure to act.
After the transactions which are alleged to have constituted fraud
against Walton were consummated, in Wovember, 1913, the Walton School
of Commerce began to enjoy a large increase in the activities and in-
come in the school, which continued through the year 1919 and for
several years thereafter. This followed the signing of the Armistice
and the enactment of new tax and income legislation. That Walton
was entirely familiar with these circumstances is indicated by his
letter of October 7, 1919, to Joplin, asking for a more favorable
settlement than had been made, in which he said:
“We did not then know what would result from the ending of
the war. Since then, conditions have materially changed. The progress
of the sehool has far exceeded any of our expectations. You and Ie
are reaping a harvest enormously greater than you had any reason to
expect."
The letter stresses the continuing value to the school of his name
and his personal need for greater income, and he asked that his
Salary be inereased to $3,000, with the widerstanding that if the
tremenduous increase in business then existing did not continue ths
following year a proportionate reduction should be made in his salary.
It is evident that Walton then attributed the sudden enhanced busi-
ness of the school to the ending of the war, and also shows that he
had a fairly definite knowledge of the increase of students and the
“neo adi guigusdo at soktatoqreo edd to sos edd abies aaities 0%
~ptobitoddeota «sido to avseretat edt doetie eult hap tedcalo ofsx0g
eit of sonetotot Atiw bisa seed eat tertw ot note ibba al —
+) abated yo begue at 24 «boasyoadh oxoledutored, ano i uote, Lactontag
- eeeae YO wetytomtra ome to eawaced beinoh od biuore. teller dads atas
‘efvt edt Yo casmood bas «ustogt bms review ,oonsoreimpes .otteloit
ot worfatw ot Sk yhennt Bohbyevted mood evad ot gabmiale yusq # daslt
nog ste mnogu YLotetbenmt toa ebsmom™ tact no fostiaoo we shies Jos
‘wokttaocotg eitt witrebtencs of sbtaxt ost to egbefwomds gaixiup
Son of otelts't etd co cates e'medLad yo bmod od bLvow tasntaiqnes
bHett bedaét¢enos oved of hegelia ot Moidw eno ttoeanatd edd rod Ts
foodo2 notre oft .eLek ptedmevel ni .betsnmuanoe erow sos leW sunioge
«oi Ame Betstvides edt mt saastoml sguek a yotus of naged eoremmod To
not bry OLOL they OMe stywocl? bomnttnos Ao.liw: «Loosen elt mt emo
ebigatmrs eff Yo amkagte ese bewolfot eter «10d teosert exeey Latoves
hod toW dan? imetvetalgel sabenk Bim xet wor Yo toemtosne ont hms
eld yi betsothn! ef ssonetemotio seeds Mtiw usiLins? yLotiine aew
eldetovst Stow s TOT anblae ,miLgot of .OLeL «% todog00 to todtel
ihine os doth ak ~obam mood hort melt domme lttes
‘to patbne oxft protic diver sivow tally worst molt gon bib oF
nnnraneg ome sheunes? iretant dg ano ti Lbseo aes soaks — “on
. enottetooqxe “uo to vrs bebopsxe” pgere ome to
_ MOaset YAle bel moy sacs noteony A sabe at bcc se
a ae
pee
omen gid to Loosen odd oF omlay ontumttnon eld noamonte settol oot
‘ghd dei Bester of Bre -¢stoont tetseng tot been Lemoetog abd tims
eel? Yi dastt Gatbaoderobiw ont dd tw (000,29 Oe howaBNAML of Ytekae
etd ositines ton bib sitkte txo stats ‘daenttand at ongoabat auoubaomons
“i hone aid af cham od ‘banosta rotate bei toe t89y gutwo Lito:
¥ i taxis moana ab 2
-25-
earnings of the school. The amended bill of complaint admite that
he received information of this prosperity in the fall of 1919.
Nevertheless he did not ask a rescission of the contracts at that
time, but merely asked for a modification, and the school in fact
voted Walton a bonus of $1,200 for 1919. then later advised by
Joplin that the bonus had been allowed, Walton replied on October
10, 1919, that "the arrangement you propose is entirely satisfac-
tory to mee I shall be glad to have it put into effect."
February 3, 1920, Walton wrete to Joplin with reference to
his income tax return, and concluded the letter by saying that he
hoped Joplin and Langer would be kind enough to continue some wrt
of bonus to his wife after his death, if the sehool continued to
prosper s
During February, 1920, Walton assigned his preferred stock
to complainant, and a new certificate issued to her. In July of
that year Mrs. Walton wrete to Joplin, appealing to his sense of
justice for a better arrangement for herself and daughter than was
provided in the agreement made with her husband “when he was unable
to protect his om interest," and asked that she be given a certain
percentage on each student, to continue as long as the school exists,
or that the $2,000 annual dividend be increased. As theresult of this
letter an interview followed and Mrs. Walton received an additional
#600 annual income, which has been paid anda ccepted by her ever sinces
There is also the circumstance that Walton, during his life~
time, some two and one-half years after the agreements were entered
into by him, accepted the salary as dean emeritus and his dividends
of 10% on the preferred stock. These acts must be construed as an
affirmation of the binding effect of the 1918 agreements, provided,
of course, that Walton during his lifetimey and his wife thereafter,
had full knowledge of the facts constituting the alleged unfairness
of the agreements at the time when the acts constituting the bar
gan? stiods tniefLquoh Yo Lite bebmemm etl .Loonoe est ho apaturee
(REOE YO Che? odd: abytiveqaose athe Qo nots anro tat bevlones, ost
fart? fa etortineo edt te notsatoret * alas ton bth ssl eaoLedtrevell
Feet wt foodoo eft bar emebinahtibom se tot desies yiorvem tad) wombs
Ve beetrhs todef mem .@LOL tot 008. £2 to ated a modiall, betey
pedete® no boliget sot laW ,howoils meed bed. avmod end Jane atigot
-orivitsa yiotivas af easqetq wey doemegnette odd”: pass .@ LOL) 9QL
~ Metgetteotmk tuq tt ovathe¢ baka od {Lea TD »om od yrot
os eouetsies diky akiqol o¢ eseuw oagieW .OS@L .é. ymmndet 9. i. hy
of dats gaiyaa yt toctok edt hebuLoneo bas «ntate: xed omoont ais
tio oma ovnisgoo of sigwene bubl ad bivew tegael baa .mkigat begod
ot hounticon Loosoa sdf Ti tltse bh aid retia etin,aid ef aynod *
dooda necertens ake heeeneie stot La 098%, pcintine eas
to canes abt of uteiiel. ot stom nodal. pepe
asw aad? cotduush bas ILeated 10 tnemoanetts todted # 19% eottest
elfen ecw of mostw" bandon zo atky. obem tae s oft. af bebtyoxg
aistzeo s nevly od ay sad? horus dan "eteoretal avo abi tooterg ot
vasetxe Foods a. edi ied got as
suet. ito bs esl MO ogsineoteg
eit? to ¢ivsos ene aA sbebastont 08 tones, Lene, 00,8 ont) dant ¥
Liobke bbe ia hevicbon hod caw’ Cie Bie iat eevee arse ‘ne torgor
cooute ove <a ws Sadgeno » bam bing need aad dolsiy <omnsah, Leunne 0OR®
“SUL Ak geteyd nmnslal ¢atk enmapnammests ent 9ele BE BEIT i ten, |
Ce Ne
beredne exow adnomostys out rota SUPSY, Mad-osm bee gut comp Bey of
ehuebtvts eid bas sudtceme Leatgael as yislon ant betasooe : ger DP |
| He es “bowttanoe od suim atoa susett sioeee borrotony elt m0 a0 ROL 20
& ong yn @
chebtvera catramoe tga anes ect ‘to torte pede one to m0 foams 23% 4
» eee
aad taocedt’ abe ahd ‘bag pemtsenss ala antuud sos tor dantt -eeatw0e
anemtbs tw ‘bogetia ond gattwetianoo. ‘agost ont x0 opbofromt ow sont
aad atté ankiudivehos atoe sity dew omy ile “Ga ‘edn oily 9 ;
pp Mae.
eecurred. This question has already been discussed, and it is
evident from the record that Walton was fully aware of the finan-
cial success of the school for some time after the agreements were
made and before his death, and that he was also fully apprised and
conversant with the circumstances connected with the exchange of
stock and other important provisions of the agreements. This is
also true as to Mrs. Walton. The record shows that her nephew, James
Je Torstall, a lawyer, was given a proxy to represent her at cor-
porate meetings in May, 1922, and that he wrote to the secretary of
the school asking for copies of waivers and consents which Mrs.
Walton had signed, and minutes and notices connected with the change
made in the corporate structure in 1918. That Mrs. Walton had knowl-
edge of the prosperity of the school is clearly indicated by the
record, as well as by her own letter of July 25, 1920, and yet she
took no steps to rescind the agreements, but on the contrary accepted
the dividends on the preferred steck and asked for, and received, a
bonuse Her Lindiet inn this respect clearly constitutes acquiescence,
ratification and waiver, and bars her from recovering in this proceed-
ings
Pending this appeal, a motion was made by defendants to dis
miss the appeal. The motion was taken with the case, and is herewith
deniede
The voluminous record and bries filed by the respective par-
ties present other questions end details in the evidence which in view
of our conclusions upon the main issue need not be discussed in this
opinion, which is already quite lengthy. We are convineed that the
commissioner and the chancellor, after most careful consideration of
the facts and law applicable thereto, arrived at the only conclusion
which it was fairly possible to reach, and finding no convincing
reason for reversal the decree of the Superior court dismissing
complainent's amended bill of complaint for want of equity, is
affirmede
ASPIRMED «
Sullivan, Pe Jes» and Seanlan, J., conoury
“OR.
; at ti bme .boasuoanth meod ybseoula aad nolsasup, olde, pHOLTTWO9O, »
i enantt est to etews Vitel saw nosis dads, bape, end 0x2 soda ae
| etow atusnoorms elt te¢Is amis eae mo fogsioa, eft to, eeapaye Lalo.
bua beaitaqe YLint este eow. on tad dae .dseoh ald exoted hos obem,
| to ennedoxo odd sigiw betoqange asoustenvetig edt din dongtovnes .
i ak ala? ,atnomergs, odt to ancleiverg tmaduegms resto bus Agoda
‘|
oma —wariges tet tedd awoda.dxoges, oc? .cottal Ati, of ; as, ust O8Le
| -ro9 te ted seonerqes OF yxoTG.«, novia easy etoyel,#«llotergs«b.
| to yrstetosd att of stonw of tact baw ¢8S@L, «yom at agaiteos sistog
ext dott ataeanms bas axevisw. to asigqoe rot gaiias, foodoa edt,
egauio edd dtby Soto ome seotion bas, gesmata ban »bomts def, aod lar,
aIwonil batt n62ieW sa tat, BLL nk. ommdouste: etarogtos, of? At, 9ham,
ods yd Setsotbnl yLteelo Bt Loosen ont to ywineqeora elt 39.eahe,
ptla toy bie ~OSOL .S yAul to xodsot sora cock yt. ee Lkow, ag <bt008T
hedqocos YxsTiod auld sm. tudaatnemerys alt pattoecto¢, agate om 2008,
2 ,beviooey bas , Tot dedas bas. Aveta heristong atts: me absobivtb end
“yeonsoseinpos aetmtivanos ylinelo tosqaer ald¢ at gouhnos tol seunod:
-hosoorg aldd of ginttevece x amt? ted ered bas «tevien ernment
wlth a adnaba tob ‘yd obem daw notion « <Easgqs wild
(9 boxed et bas 19859 ot basin potted ast eeepondie:' ‘Leegge odd vote
DA etre TN RES ay » amen,
req syisoogaes est a posit : aaa bea, » ooet awontnusloy ont ba
woty at doidw somsbive ont mk aliases bre anokteanp endo spe sid
pile mt beaewoath od tom boom Swans thot Sie iigis wie ReieLoned “m0” te
“end dan? beomiveno. oa oW. «mitgant etinp ybaetis, af sett. 1otntgo
to moijexebianco Lrtetes teom totts eteffeonado eft bas temo lsalomon
no kauiLonpe vino oid fe Dovitts ~otoratt eitestiqgs wai (bits | agost edt
“-getonivans om gaibmlt bas ploset oF femapyen yitist sew = tan
githasiomth dav09 roiregue edd to eeteoh ot a :
at Lipucakaateces:cateses: ’ .
se ER OLD Te Pewee SD pas es La as te ap tehaered 8s ;
; eng De ypallaeo _ eesonns eee sca no oT gmoyhtiua
‘ : ¢ x gh ee
39046
FANNIE WATSON,
Appellant,»
APPRATL PROM MUNICIPAL
To
COURT OF CHICACO.
290 1.4. 60Q°
MR. JUSTICE FRIEND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF TH! COURT.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPABY, a corporation,
Appellees
ee ee
Plaintiff, as beneficiary, brought suit to recover the
proceeds of an insurance pelicy iseued by defendant on the life
of her som, James Watson. The cause was heard by the court
without a jury, «md resulted in findings and judgment ageinst
Plaintiff. This is the second appeal brought to this court,
the judgment previously entered by the Municipal court of Chicago
having been reversed and remanded {opinion filed November 5, 1935y
not published, general number 38006), because, as we stated in the
opinion, the case was “tried in a most unsatisfactory way, and that
justice will be best served by a retrial of it."
¥rom the undisputed evidence it appears that February 9,
19355 James Watson applied for a life insurance policy for 51,000,
neming his mother, plaintiff herein, as beneficiary. The application
Was taken by Leo Phillips, ome of defendant's agents. Some of the
members of the Watson family had carried industrial inmsuranee with
defendent, and Phillips cd led at the Watson home quite frequently
to collect premiums and had knowm the family for approximately two
years. On the day the application was taken he, for the first time,
saw James Watson in his mother's home, and suggested that he make
apylication for «= policy. This was agreed to, and Fannie Watsony
| ~Sads bas «Yaw vrosostaliseny doom s mt boied” sow eae ond :so nico
miidsoiiggs eft *Vrtstol temed cs « sien
See
JATIONNM MONT TANITA Rarer ?
-OOLOINO WW THON’ ree
ma Scat 3 ont D
9000 A TOCS 1... settemat
+S: a RY tRNA ae ee”
eld tevooss of 3 iva ‘sigue erebobtoned & BB 5 «tiupabeds | 0 Dy
“ptht edd no tuabusteb ws homsat Yoltog somemvent ne ‘to ubosooxg
“" “Hawes odd yd bused cm ouene oat emoud ol one’ xaiba xo Ip
ganioza sromp bart, bas epnibalt stk besiveot bee stra 8 sestecy
ci tH09 ete og dafgaroed inscas bm cen odd Be BAY, ats iligk
ogsotso to ixu00 Logie taut utd w¢ boresaa “lavotveng mem, et
eEOE a reduovol posit wo Lasigo ) bobasno bas bearevet mood yatvad
edd mi betata ow an <pansood «(0008s scociucsse Lorene evonmrensint don
5 ie
"dt Yo Ieftter a wi bevroe tad of tine sottent
¢@ Yrewsdol tant atesqua tt pomebive besurathour ef? mon
000.49 sot YolLog consuant otét snot bekigus oats domet eeeet
ngs Tey
wed Titentoty...saddom. etd ghana
_ Silt Yo amos jednegs a tsabnieteb ie nei reqRILis ost yd moniet ew
Was ta 2p hes ae
it bw earner wend Ledstosthat betrzse bast vLinat octal ass 3 ned re
by
ULtnoupexd oF up ono aoadell ott je bet eo aqict,
(> No
ows ylodamixorags to? dn add sawortl bar hits i ili seonree oe
— dav? oft cot eee oust saw me iaghinrs outa ag ont, = + BTBOY,
Pak gy 50 A EBYALARS
‘ otlem od dards bodasggua bes pce at xodvom ent a Koad % was
UN ae
Bre
ynmoataW elonst bits .o¢ beetgs saw eter codes a 20% wo esobtacs
“20
plaintiff, undertook to pay the premiums. The policy issued in
due course, with the application attached thereto, and was im the
possession of James Watsom until his death, Jume 29, 1933. Tefendant
was notified of Watson's death and proofs of death were furnirhed,
put upon investigation payment was declined by defendant on the
ground that misrepresentations were made and false answers given in
the application to material questions, as follews:;
"6. Occupation, if more than ome, state all.
Student. ;
Nature of imployer's Business.
Hyde Park High Schools
%- Exact duties of Occupation.
Stu e
Se. any change ia occupation contemplisted?
Hoe ?
if Yes; give particulars. Noe
9e Place of Business.
Stony Island Ave.
By whom employed.
Hyde Park High Schools
10. Former Occupations, (within the last ten years).
Same."
The admitted facts show that James Weatsom had served in the
Pontiacs State Reformatory for a period of approximately four years,
amd was released on parele February 5, 1933, just five days before
the application was made.s He eame to his death, as heretofore
stated, June £9, 1933, while engaged in a robbery.
The controverted question of fact presented to the court
was whether the answers to the foregoing questions appearing on
the application were actually given by insured, or whether they
were falsely inserted by Phillips, defendant's agent, notwith-
standing infermetion elleged to have been given him by Mrs. Watson
as to her son's commitment in the state reformatery and his unem=
ployment at the time application was madeée
James Watson mever attended Hyde Park high schcol, and
when the application was signed he had no employment. Fannie
Watsom and her married daughter, Verna Damielsy present at the
time the application was taken, both testified that they had told
ged Bewee t eo ifeq ont emu hong ext yeaq of ood reba ettitmtelg
‘eds gk sow fis eoverers bedoatsa ao ttastiqae oxtt as tw .9exNeD ag .
dnabsoted steer 22S srurt qXtcoh eid Titaw mata onset te ne ianoasog
pemaeees erew Misob 26 dtoorg hes dtaoh etnoeta¥ te bottizes naw
on? mo tashsetod ye beskfosh naw tnomysq. no lton Maca Og ‘tod
st sovie ateware sefst hms obem etew anp Leatuscstgese in teckt bawom
“yewolS? as ,~anotteeup Apksnies * t me staontans et
: mt rise Se ims ar paliaen i’. Meo e ccutak a
Lica reales Ho tiagaoog as rer _ e
2 OR eens <> vaeY tr
suse aid of botmeserq ‘post to mo bea 5 ae
ho gaiiseqqs enotdassp stiogen0? od “we eee Bee”:
est estos ase
% PU es
eeit weigedw te yhotwent ca sayks vEkemtoa joer ‘anttaoiieas! estt
wat oa: GL8 | ce Retteeg:
wild kind on .teregs a inabre rob, combeein we ‘bodtoent y foafat erow
“ Ny Be at 4 eens, wo a sie fag ais
goad 29 #0 WE mit movig bed evsd 09 begetia ott Bet
cn}: hate ete a sagen
~gonms aid bas vuegamte 98 edad ons mt $01) tenwo® atnoe ‘ted of as
Sh ‘ite a Po 4 cP ae byit- Poe he od Geom ge
“eben eau mo tteosinas: omit aft ts dromyo Lg
u of bie. oes Foe LEOe. oe
* pas foosios, tg iet eet cout bebnedda rove sped a sonst
eds a eer sel eo dt ORY |
- edansit sseomgeigue om Qent oxf homie om 0 Laue ont? 7
, ae olemicce cht gigieetal! seme}, wo |
} oat te “#monotg eloltet ea0¥ ¢tostigusd bolrtas rot bas soetat |
bios bad yous dentd békitdess tod aot as be sili J
<3=
Phillips thet James Watsen had just been released from Pontias
and was unemployed. Their testimony is denied by Phillips, who
testified by deposition, residing in New York state when the
eause was tried. Phillipst testimony is te the effect that he
had never seen Watson before February 9, 1933; that answers te
the questions propounded were made by James Wetson an¢ r‘ritten
into the application by Phillips, as civen; and that he had no
knowledge or information whatsoever ebout Watson's prior commitment.
After the proofs ef death were submitted to defendant it
learned, upon investigstion, that the answers to the foregoing
questions had been falsified, and sent Joseph Ee Weir, an investi-
gator, to the Watson home. Om the trial Weir testificd that he
asked Mra. Wateom about the false answers with reference to her
son's attendance at Hyde Park high school, and she explained the
matter by stating that she thought Phillips was inquiring about the
school her som had previously attended. Wo other explanation was
made as to this discrepancy.
The back of the application contains a “Report of Inspection,"
and the following questions, answered by Phillips, not based on any
information given him by the applicant, appeared therem:
"4. How long have you imovm the applicant?
Two yearse
10. Are the character of home surroundings and the
general position in life equal to or better than those of the
usual hich grade mechanic?
Equal e
12. Wheat does careful inguiry of disinterested and
responsible persons disclose as to moral character, past and
present habits of applicant?
Excellente" ,
It is argued by plaintiffts counsel that these answers, made by.
Phillips, were false and temd therefore to discredit his entire
testimony. We do not think this necessarily follows. Phillips
had in fact known the Watson family for two years. There were
some five or six members of the family, amd several of them
ed
a8
saktmet moxt beaselet mood tast, bast noadal wensh, sed Cj
id peqeiiint ww holaeb a mons nod tio? -boyptgmomy new bas
ots seostis stats ax0¥ wok at path inon eto it Beoged: we boititees
of é aslé $ootte ont os at atom ls 803 *eqif itd’ shobed aaw _sauaa
ot wtewene tasti reeeL c@ Gsurdet oxo ted nosial meee sever bast
metdine Sus moadaY seetst xed obam ozew bepawogorg ene idaoup autd
Of. bai ed dat bas pmovis ass cog hither, v mltsetiage i red oon
»txomtiomos tolrq @’ nord a SOG s teveosdadw an bt omxe tant = ope Lwount
#2 énsbacteh of Sot? imive axee discs to atoorg ett oath
galogeso? ed? of evowars ot dosti ee pase ew ehomxsoL
ed gad bolilivee? tigi felt edd ao nee nse ot ied today
ted o¢ somxete: diiw arewems onfa? exit, tueds moetai — betas
ong hentaigne eis fxs cinedion agi itt obgl te comabnodss a'soa
edd tuods niabedeentth enw aqhtsine tdtguedé ote dastd ~eiitheos we todiem
ni ‘
~isevni mas «tio si dgesel tmoa Sam, .bot’
new noltensloxe teste of .Sebttetée lewetvong bad nde ‘nent foosoa
‘ . | | svonmqoresip eid of ea
ae Dae
"no Began? te stoqed" 6 amistnds moltneliqae edt t toad ont
wus moO boasd gon eogiifids yd idveirbiin » pnd itlld in : Fiat bi
t moot arit Setdbayh ae ad sairand iattoad -
oid bis egaisncorewe omod Yo totes
od to nod? add toided 30 of Lampe 8 rate
bits | hosesregate hk: ‘te exiuont Svtems seed ae
“bas dasq macsgeneng sates OF as oaoloeih amos
*
or Siar <arowens sued? game foanwos re 3 hata Ce age. at a
— exttae oie +thpmenth oF ‘erotoreds bao one selet over coq
agtithis sawolto? <iksoaseoos ents aahdt don ob ke Yeo.
orew erent aata8y ows ot fins? moter oat rom § he i
“meds to Eoxovee bas «yLtme? edt e apes
carried industvial insurance for which Phillips collected premiums
at the Watson home each week. Although he had not mewn James
Watson two years, he had known the other menubers ot the family
who bore good reputations amd were of unimpeached charsctez, se
far as the recerd shews. ‘There was nothing in the home surroundings
that would indicate James Watson's delinquency, and if Phillips in
fact did not know of Jamesta prior commitment to the state refor-
matevy, it is not difficult to wnderstand why the questions were
answered as they weree The answers do not necesszerily comnote fraud
or falsification se as to diseredit Phillipsts testimony.
The principal issue of faet presented by the record is
whether or not Phillips was apprised of James Watson's prior records
The court heard the witnesses amd had the opportunity of observing
their demeanor, and simee the case wes fairly tried, we cannot say
that the finding is eontrary to the manifest weight of the «y¥i-
dence. It was purely a question of the credibility of the witnesses
under all the circumstances of the case, and the court passed on
that in finding the issues for defendant.
Plaintifi'ts counsel raises aumerous lezeal questions, sub=
stentially all of whieh are based om the assumption that Phillips
intentionally falsified the answers notwithstanding information
given him by Mrs. Watson and her daughter that James had just been
paroled from Pontiac, but, if the court's findings ef fact were
correct, the legal propositions advanced would have no application
to the determinsticn cf the cases
Defendant's counsel cite cases holding that representations
as to previous amd present employment and eccupation ere material
to the risk, and that false answers pertainimg therete in an
application for life insurance render the policy void. (Hartman
Ve Keystome Imse Coes 21 Pao 466, 4773 Mutual Aid Society ve
ee as Ne ee EG
nastinteve bet oo lloo eq eteiet ‘dieke* tot | Race ‘fatzteubat be. the
“Gomdt mom! tom bed ed dguodd ti” loow Hace’ cand soatav ons ta
xytiust oi to exadusst xedto etd mwomat Bas ‘ed 1St58y wd oad si
oan qmetsoneds beslocequiny 16 oxew bas ano ks ataqes boos, ered ow
agethaerice smod edd ai githdion saw oem? .awode bresos odd sa aot
wi agili bie ti bee .Yonesptifeb alabaia® aemst s$aoinnt pivew- daitd
-totes stage ald of J moms Lommoe adlag eeomet to wont yom Lb toet
exow amolsacup od? ylv daadarsban of Siwblitth Jom el sk .yredam
pao’ ‘s86nmo0 ‘ultisesooom don ob etowane off “.etew youd ts betowans
yytatvesd eVaqifsidd gibstosks 6s Be 02 “nodneitietst ‘ts
“ab broset od¢ Wf bedmecetq fost 26 ouadt “tag tad qo ai
sbuocet to itq a’aoatsd somet ‘to bedinqye saw agitting som x6 reddsde
gnivtoed) To Ytimud<dcqo ond bad be comment tr’ oat ‘bined fttion” “oat
use donna ow ehsivd YExEs? aew eeen ond eustta fine -tommemes nkeuty
obys edd to digier geetinen off of yrewlnoe ef getbal? ens seete
aeavonitw sd} % xehtivios<ce sdy to silieerdp = YLetey Hew FT sooned
80 nosey gasoo off bre seco aft to Betitetemorts “atta Zam? robew
e siebuoteh et aeveut etd ymtomtt ak tert
ose yanolitenp Lagel txoremss soeler feenwoo a’ Piltmbali so»
aqillidd fers noivqemeas oft m0 boaesd axa dokdw to Ife yiisitoate
meiveaotat gnibmed ety ieton eréweme est? pense Vitene itmedak
seed genh bad aemiat tant code in ) Pee it oad: a gs novis
ae 5
stoitetnoastgex decit gmibfos asano ofio Leumues aga : | a
fainotes; xs apisequoce bas téompoigae dnesetq bate ewotvony. 08 as
ite ak ofertas primtatzeg = onder fact. bam lets ont of
Sate) neonate argimtr yo AS
s¥ Riotoe? BEA Leusuil giTd .92S sat £8 5
a 7
-5=
White, 100 Pao St. 12; Murray v. Preferred Accident Inse Covey
199 Iowa 1195; Calligaro v. Midland Casualty Co., 211 Wise 3193
Tamer v. Prudential Inse Cos» 283 Ille Apps 2103 Carter va an
Employee's Ben. Ass'm, 212 Ille Appe 213; and Kennedy ve Prudential _
Enso Coes 177 Ille Apps 50) It is reasonable to suppose that
knowledge of a former comuaitment would materially affect the risk
of an applicant, and that the answers made, if false, furnish
ground for rendering the policy void.
After a careful reading of the record we haye reached the
conclusion that the judgment of the Municipal court of Chicago
should be affirmed. it is so ordered.
AFFIRMED «
Sullivan, Pe deo» and Seanlan, J., concurs
*a-
wie
io 2ax3 SY Sea ist 08S sad OOL sodta7
ete sam 509 © +500 xaZaueco basshk Y gumitiad 48061 avot ¢es
"ASSES SHE
* a Segzsd 20k aaa efit G88
i +v spout
he yl Saneg
| _Lalgmoums ov ¥ eos bas 1848, sack, ois aus aH 28h nok sai
ering td
dai? onoqqen ot oldanmenot ak oz (08 “we Hit ers ue
ok
fay
a
_ take ents soetia Ukatreten bie “iacond hao 9 eearz0 he te spbodvort
Ride aes
-, Matertt .ealet Tt vohem asowans edt dastd bas ‘smootage ts to
i i Piet 7
» tow Wethed utd gatzobaer rot >
re dee bgt ay
st Sevlosor ovat ow Sx00et ott 20 galbeer Lutoxse @ sash ve |
beanie 2 tg si she Lagto tout ada to. ae cage iy xy eo teufome
derebxo, ” Rood Ls oe
* . ti e535 ea
gti ie CR cae eae eel et
A @ ai iy s : . thy ee oe agree) a
stetioe ea cna ows ot ol emoviline —
#4 ry “4 Rae
yl LP INeE LY Bele Sars
mn 2 4 oe ere HS ae By gy 2h
é Hy ig ed Fe eR ES Les ween Regge
, Seteeiae a f He eet eels oF sats
¢ eS foige sais: Bees Vee a heer.
fle Se ie ekeaee
Sees oe pais ‘at Det phe ied. Elie Sheds
» vos . oe Seed TE acter y ae eeca Sokeaney
se a. RRR Pie! Reh heey Mik) Jeceryg £ogeL, elk aterxses
sone ote 36 petdeieedes ely
= ¥ a he & wy ak %
Fis Iscamte a *aahes tei
aden cMear Sg etetens ede segs bap ethakx set a.
1 ae a
ln,
39059
JEAN COOK, )
Appellee »
e APPEAL PROM CINCWET
*
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE ) et CO eee
COMPANY, m Seenere Se 290 [.A. 600°
MRe JUSTICH FRIEND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Jean Cook sued as beneficiary under a policy issued by
defendant on the life of William Dale Cook, her deceased husbands
fhe jury returned a verdict in her favor for $5,114, interest
end costs, pursuant to which the court entered the judgment here
sought to be reversede
Roman Dzik, one of defendant's agents, took the application
for the policy Jume 29, 1933. A medical examination followed and
the policy dated July 13, 1933, was issued and delivered to the in-
sured, who died September 13, 1933.
The principal contreversy arises over the issue of fact
whether the first premium on the policy was paid by the insured.
Defendant contends that there was no legel delivery of the policy;
thet it wes left with Cook during his lifetime for examination only,
and without any obligation on the part of the defendant; and that
it did not become a binding contract because the first premium was
never paid. Roman Dzik testified that he is employed by defendant
aS an insurance salesmang that he received the application for the
policy from William Dale Cook, and after the policy issued he
Geiied at Cook's home on several occasions and tried to place the
policy. After several visits he finally went to Cook's home on
¢Uine noiteninaxe tot emisetig eid gaiiwh Mood dtiw sieL aaw sk taf?
{
- giworro moAT tees
sYHOD MOH .ravdD |
be ¥ : nna u C s stun lloggs 3
“+ 2AUDD cee bal voreTE ane comornnan cme OIOUS Re
vai boveet yoliog s tebaw yralofiened @¢ beva dood ase 9%
sbendaud heeseooh 18a (Hoot eLol mealLLiv to ethf esd no itsbastob
veoregmi ,»ALL,a@b ret tovet tei ut toibtov s peseurd o% vist ott
ered tromsbut eld boxednd Seuo0 odd dotew od thavarug yedeoo baa
shoatevet od at seiguoe
aoigeoliqas eft dood ,etnegs a’imabneteb te emo .atst fem 8
be bewolfot solianianxe Leolbem A «880k ,@R onvt yotfoq et 10%
~ni oft o¢ botevifob bas bewaat eaw CL pS yLvl hetab yolLoq sift
ECL eEL todmmtqo® both ow «bora
dost to oveat oft tovo soniza yarevertdinos LIeqioutsq odT
~hboxvant edt yd bisg esw yolilog est mo msimeug ?axtt oft tedden
ayeifog oft to yrerifod Iegel on sew oxen? sant shentans sashaotet
tats bas ttasbaeted oft To dreq oft mo mitegiive yrs twodtiw bas
saw avlootg taxtt oft sansood Jonrdaoo gakbald = samood oat bib sf
insbnetebh yt beyofqme ai ost tort hoktivsed dist aamof .bisq teven
alt tot molisollqgs oft apenewrnen told qusanelss eonetwank ms as
of beveal yolfog orld tot%s bows «food ofed meilLiv moxt yoilog
edd eoaly of dott? bas emoieseee Letovea mo most a'xood a betas j
mo amo atfood of snow yfLemkt en atlaty Iexevoe r0dts FA gers
~2e
August 95 1933, together with Walter A. Nyzack, defendant's
assistant superintendent, and on that date left the policy with
Cook for inspection, at the same time receiving from Cook the
following receipt:
"POLICY RECEIPT AND AGREEMENT
Form 0124060
Septe 1931
Printed im Ue Se Ae
To the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
1 Madison Avenue, New York, We Yo
Receipt of Policy $495747A issued upon the life of
William D. Cook is hereby acknowledged, it being expressly
agreed that said policy is left with the undersigned for exami-
mation, without obligation on the part of the Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company with respect thereto.
It is hereby understood and agreed that the insurance
called for by said policy shall not be in force unless and wntil
the full first premium stipulated in the policy has actually
been paid in cash te, and accepted by, the Company during the
lifetime and continued good health of the person upon whose life
the policy was issued, nor until the policy is endorsed to show
receipt of said premium.
Date August 9, 1933 William Dale Cook (Signed)
Agent Roman Dzik Debit Noe 161 District Humboldt, Illes
If signed by Corporation, Name of Corporation and signature of
Officers authorized to sign (other than person upon whose life
policy is issued) is required. Instructions - This form, when
completed, is to be turned in to the District Office and held
until prend.we is paid or policy is lifted and returned ‘Not
Takene
Note: ‘This form is not to be used in connection with Accident
and Health Policiese*
Dzik further testified that no premium wae paid by Cook when the
application was taken, nor ar amy time subsequent thereto, and
that Cook did not give him any note or other evidence of indebted-
mess» Wyzack corroborated Dzikts testimony that the receipt was
signed by Cook when the policy was left with him August 9, 1935.
There is a conflict in the evidence as to whether the
signature appearing on the receipt is that of insured. To supple-
ment the testimony of Dzik and Nyzack, defendant produced Herbert
J. Walter, a handwriting expert, who stated that he had compared
mon
a’énabuetah «doasyll .A sosteW ditw teddegod ,f6@L 2 tangua
S¢iw yolfoy esg sitet stab taiy wo bas .daobnotuliogue tmejaiaes
aid dood mont geiivieoar emit ema eld te .soisoogant tet dood
tiqleoet oitwolte?
TRI MID A CWA TELADHH YOLIET*
Beng mx
si) £3 heen. e
; af. 8 4 ai Setaixg fy
tage eanstsatl oth Eoqoxtel 9 ye
oY sf ettoY wey i ent ; pe tbs elit
be Msc oad fee phen hkl biog of 30 stoves
weaergae oC mekit ty
-istexs tot orekiee Py 20: ag bw o tat as nnayy Be bise tats beatae.
: othl id Hoge =a oft to deg eft mo moliegifido tuodtin .moiven
fy oR; emus Peeoqaet : iter st eae danas
a ined fon ydeted af gfe.
“His ing sat 4 ry ed von en cas vottog gs 9 yd rot bettas
ioe sheng:
sifeg ead mb betaiags awk? Liirtsone
aid ats "ynwamod eit presence
08 pied mi b aeed
nit scot. sagt oes as reg git 0 ius ton «be set & para ei
pE cnn ol
ads ath ieee grey Regd aents so Se ane Saat sek
wn ig rina ano. SeeeeD toon aa terete pt Mgr a
til saedw soqu aout Mate bag Mano Dig vpesixad) 9
wee goxot ald? = wie: wee Betton ‘at Ye
bied bas coltt0 forttakt | roo git ut od pe
tou’ bonuder bas hostit 22" gh heme
OO AE
) “tb iook dis be ok eonnes mi bean of od sou at. azo ett sotou
By, Hifsel ots
“oft my oe wi Sten ase pales, i A beithewed sodduy? alted
_ bite .ofeted? ¢noupondua omit yee to som <aeiet ser motion dtags
~besdohat to sousbive tedde xo oton ys mkt ovin tem bb stood tals
| kaw tghooon ost tend yoomides? «tim bedexodorte0 sloasy xceom
SCRAL «2 poss mis tlw 2 tel sew YoLioc emt mode goad yd bongte
_ Pit codtody oF ga somobtye emf At toh Oineo: & at .ereeh:) «. jn
~elqque ot +bemmant to gad af tgteoos edt mo gmtreeqce emt ainahe 7
‘trodzoll boowhyrg ¢asbustod yAowsyl has List Yo, xmombsaed, oct. tom
hetaquoo bart od Jad hotate ody ytroqxe yeti trubueds:¢xodtal oh
¥
ont see
the signature on the receipt with Cook's admittedly genuine
signature on the application, and that in his opinion the
handwriting on the two documents was by the same person.
Jean Cook, plaintiff and beneficiary under the policy;
testified that she saw the policy about July 20, 19333 that until
September 15, 1933, the policy was kept in her home at 1755 Web-
ster avenue, Chicago; that William Dale Cook died September 13,
1933; that July 13, 1933, the date that the policy was left with
her husbend, she sawa note given by her husband to Daik, and that
on that date Dzik also received $34.75 in currency from her hus-
band; that Cook was buried in LaFayette, Indiana, on September 15;
that when she returned to Chicago three days later she searched
for the policy but could not find it, and thereupon went to the
branch office of the defendant, talked to Dzik and asked him for
the policy. Dzik denied that any such conversation took place.
Mrs» Cook testified further that the policy was kept in an envelope
with other papers, including a receipt for premium payment signed
by Dzik.
It appears from the evidence that September 15, 1933, Dzik
called at the Cook home requesting the policy. Defendant offered
in evidence a rule of the company requiring that the first premium
be paid within thirty days after the date of the policy. It was
Dzik's contention that the first premium, not having been paid,
he secured an extension for another thirty days, and that he called
for the policy September 15 because that was the end of the extended
period, not knowing that Cook had died two days prior thereto. Whe
Dalk called at the Cook home on the latter date he found Mrs. Cook's
mother and another daughter et home. Plaintiff was not present; she
was then attending the fumeral of her husband. Mrs. Cook's mother
does not speak "nglish, and D2ik explained his mission to the daugh-
=8s
siistey, YLbeitinhs a’toed dthr discos sid no ottiengita ‘ody
sif nolnide elt at tetg dus ,a6lssoktads ‘old wo otsteng te
Sb axeg ‘omad” ody Yd aaw edinenmsdOD ows ont ito ogeity bewd sta ¢
ryoliog off tebsw yYraloltoned hms Tlisatelq .Mood NEST OOo”
Lideus gods 1S80L .O8 YLnt tyodse yolloy ond wee eife tats beltitaed
-fov B8VL gs ‘eat of ‘neat mk tqed asw yotfog end .obeL .af redoietgea
sé tedmotqed beth Wood ofed maklLiw danid pogeottd .eumeva tote
it iw $20 aa yoitog off sadd ptoh odd 260 st yiwl dads (deer!
tad bee tates. oe hnadeud ted. we norte ado oe os, ghgedenst ved
~auel ‘rent soz? nerine ak Br.bee bevtacex ‘oaks isd ‘bib. fost “no.
LUE usdumegek tee adenthal seebagenll. sch tadaged aeminalsedaae
bortptsen ents a. sondld opsoiio o¢ bemnitex ode sesin ered
ests ot dirpw som ered pues bart tom bivoo tut yoktoa anit ot
sot aid boxlea Ane ist of bedLad yPuiebuoteh efit 20 sof 220 alonaxd!
seoalg woot moisacroynes dove yas Jad peineb tie” bape
eqoleven aa, mi tqox aaw yoltog eit Jedd. carts
oe
wind (S80 a2 todmesqed tat: i sl Sail ie) ne soace #2”
bore tte smabas tot »Yoitog sali galtaouper emori dont eit gs » weeeg
mulmong, deck odd tat gubutupex qmaquoe sah ‘to eles 6 eons! ie 8 at
any $2 .Yoilog odd to e¥abverd sodte ayed ydutdlt, midtin bieq o¢
vhiag Heed giivel ten ymuimetq dart? ed? tadt mo lgsogmog a ‘alist
beliso od tard brie peyeb Yridd roxtona cot metesedxe. ae betus0e4 of
hobnetice eet! to bud odd naw Yadd ocusond Of vodmedqed xotteg. edt x02
mdv sosetodt rong wysd ews Heth bad-aoed sady guiwom{ Jou .botteq
elxiood .axm bidtot of etad xedtal emf) ao omod oe) ott ta, belles tind
atin g¢émoaety ters enw Tiigabast + ome +4. tetdaueh tedtons bas 188 PAE :
<SitOm 014000 vaxw sbnademt, xed. 20 Laxoaw, edt gatbuntte parorapen a
tiga ont o¢ no Kee hin witst hontelque xtsC hus adelignl dsege som seob —
he
tere According to Dzik the mother handed the policy to him in an
envelope, but he states that there was no receipt in the envelope
and that he had never signed any premium receipt. He took the policy
with him and returned it to the home office because the first pre~
mium had not been paid.
Dolores Klinka, plaintiff's sister, testified that Daik
called at the Cook home September 15 and thet she told him Mra, Cak
was attending her busband's funeral; that Dzik requested the policy,
which/iiinica said was kept in a yellow envelope in the bookstand in
the living room. She handed the envelope to Dzik, who put it in
his pocket and walked away. The witness said that she asked Daik
to return the policy, but he refused to do so, and left.
Mrs. Sarah McCollum, mother of insured, testified that she
talked to Dzik in the presence of plaintiff at the office of defend-
ant about a week after the funeral and asked for the pelicy which
Dzik had taken from the Cook homes; that Dzik said the policy belonged
to him, and refused to return it.
Sefie Klinka, plaintiff's mother, testifying through an
interpreter, stated that Dzik came to the Cook home September 15,
1933, and asked her daughter, Dolores, for the policy; that she
gave it to him, and that he refused to return it, put it in his
pocket and left.
From a careful examination of the record as to the principal
issue of fact involved, we find the following circumstances indicating
that a part or ail of the first premium on the policy was paid when
the application was taken.
On the back of the policy there appears the following
notation: “Receipt of $34.73, the first premium hereunder, is her@y
acknowledged. (Signed) We C. Fletcher, Secretary." It is argued
by defendant that inasmuch as the receipt is not countersigned by
[
ae xi mit os Yolloy ond bobtmd totldom ed died od ‘gathaooes «eed
eqolsvas ett mL tgiooet on aew oxedd dant sedete of sud .oxotevne
—“Yelfeg edt dood of .sqtooex muimetq Yue hengia coven bad eel deny bee
~oly darlt edd carseed sofTYo end edt of SL bearwten bas mid dé be
sBkag mood Yor best marten
ged geld OokYiseod erodate a’ tthintetg “euntlzA eorotem oo!
oO sath Mit Bod otfe yet Sue Af reduetqe® emotl dood of Ya béLLeo
etollog ea} bedasupor Hist Jed} i Latent 2 eedemt wot yetbried te esw
nk bretedood os? wi sqoLevne wolley @ mi tqed saw Pies @ 6 ketw
wt $f tug otfw GMind of ogoievme oft Dobaed off smoot gmivks alt
oltsf beaks eda dant bise wacom tv ent «yews botlaw bus sodtoog wit
,2¥el bas .08 ob of botetod en’ tue sCoklog ocd wenden es
ela fads HolTiveed ~horwenk te coddom pho: Meuse ee! aa't
-bustob “to ookvio si ve TYHatale to Sotteaotg off At die oF belies
doidw yoifoy ef? “ot Sexes bee Latent edd tosis Aeow @ dvods Pits
heytiofed Yoltog oft biaw List ted? yomou Loed oft mov't moved Ned aftet
ee tk auton of beew'to x bre (gmt ‘ot
pe tiguowld gaigticeed .rodtom a'titimielq ysdmtfi sitea 9
yak redmetqes emia “food oft éf omso Hine datt Hodeda , tetorgzotnt
ents Sade PyokLog ‘edt tot peers Lod {xedetgwed tert Dédles ‘bao « 8eer
“ent al #2 + di at tor ‘OF ‘boastex od we paeuning) et oven
, r “det baw en ;
Inaqionis¢ ect od a8 bxdce% oxy to nO tierluexe LHTetee ome t I
auttaoton! a6 omg amivotid walwe Efe’ ‘add dane ww" Gwevtevne edt Weal
nostw bag asw ber ‘ont 0 eT hanedd ot} Yo ffs te desc a eal j
OS ates ‘daw tonsa ntcee ‘oity
‘gattwoLto? odd staoqqa sredd yoktog Outi to eae" dud 'ad”® © q
vou. al « Tebawexess nue bine’ ‘gaud? eae cet Beg to a meet i |
: boars at az Macuideroed ‘erodotost <b eW (bempte) ogo: ke 2
; ihe Fate. ii WSS iy ret yet HY 7 od ‘%
‘ve asi ell tae ‘dom at ogbeter out as sow x8 dad 9 seieeiea Ww
ofa
some agent of the company, it is ineffectual to prove payment of
the premium. However, a notation below the receipt and signature
aforesaid merely states that "this receipt is not binding upon the
company until the premium hes actually been paid in cash," and does
not say that it must be countersigned by some agent in order to
become binding.
On the motion for a new trial defendant's counsel called
the court's attention to seee 1 of the provisions of the volicy,
printed in very fine type, which provides that -
“A11 premiums sre payable, on or before their due dates,
at the Home Office of the Company, or to an authorized Agent of
the Company, but only in exchange for the Company's official
premium receipt signed by the President, Vice President, Actuary,
Treasurer or Secretary of the Company and cowntsrsigned by the
Agent or other authorized representative of the Company receiving
the payment."
In our opinion this provision does not specifically apply to the
initial premium, but scems rather to cover premiums payable after
the policy is issued and becomes effective.
As a further indicetion that the initial premium wes paid,
we find in defendant's sworn answer, under sec. 2 thereof, the
following averment: "That the said policy and receipt for part
of the first premium were delivered to the acent of this defendant
upon his request." This is elesrly an admission that at least
part of the first premium was paid and that a receipt therefor
was issued to the insured during his lifetime. It is plaintiffts
contention that the yellow envelope containing the policy taken
from the Cook home also inciuded the r eceipt for the first premium
and came into the possession ef the company with the policy after
Cook's death, and evidence tending tc support this contention was
submitted for the jury's consideration.
Still ancther circumetence tending to support plaintiff's
contention that the first premium was paid appears from plaintiff's
to teeergng ever¢ Ot LeutosTieak ak ftoeynsdmdo od? ptocteege empe
eritatyta bie Jqtsoor sit wefed aotiston s «teveweR /«xeimeng ee
“gat awgs guthald tom et tqkesex elde" deme cotsta yLotoa bisasrote
aso5 bas “eased at bieq seed Yitertos ted rotimeug oft Licmuiyisgade
od tobso ai tmegs emoe yd bempietotooo of Samm df feds year dom
-. egakinid opp ood
Re tfas Laessies @’dratnetob Laivd wer! s ‘tot mobtom eddenO) 6 (leo
~ oo ald oot Yfgge vhEsottiosga som agob, 40,
%
mn * at? to ahofetver¢’ add W Lo. 064 oF mot media, sa Saar @ ong
A ete Reb rong Moke (oqys ene't! ‘enw al Beanbag
nethh $b cto} oroted’ xo no. okdsysq Ors onw Pa. eee
te boxixoding mp OF TO «yUiteqmod add patos Exon. ea at ts
EaetottV atenaqewd eff tot ge gt Boy ) anit
eYiasios «ineblaers oof¥ Perse po is ral viqieoes sui)
es eh beiny Lene dewre of hae yomgeiod:
_ phtrteoes yous? *, = ‘eatosanasrasy bow sFroaius aaa oe) ener an
‘ >. tre 4 x
ee & een
0. seer aie uO, wk
( tetts efdsyeq emutsote.revoo 9% tadjax ameoe Jud amiimotg Lettigt
eRe ee Fie patie a oe / sovitos tis agmossd, 5a ROMA Ae Nathed, aas
ebieq wow suisong Laldint ort tarlt mot¢solbak tegisur BA ahah: td
- ald «towredt & 99a tobsu.« Towa siowe e'daahnoteh at balt ew
_ dung 20? dateaes dae Yoklog bikes ent tant" sinemneye gatvoltex —
trabmoteb elt Yo tasga.odd 09 borevited etew minions fetkt odd to
dnsok $9 tadt mo laainbs us yisceke ab alae “etueupes ats ogy
colored? sqleoet e tailt bus bieq aaw sulmerg geek? edt to dueq j
s)2thimtelq af dT: comtsotht ad gadme bowent ert? oo bowaek asw
poled Yotlog ed? gaimhetnns egolewr wolloy odd Jedd sotinesaeo
muimerg ganit, of? tod tekooe = edt b
arvientatg porate od pails sepeeveesteci 7 vein eee, alc | ;
er ritintete rently bryacs a bieg 1 aaw cecpenede goxkt erties Pets ‘inetneo
RUT OR Libro Fob.
testimony, wherein she stated that she first saw the policy about
the midéle of July, 1933, in an emvelope which Dzik handed to her
husband; that the envelope also contained another paper. wnbie/eas
testifying, counsel for both sides interposed numerous objections,
and finally the court elicited from the witness the statement that
the paper in the envelope contained the words “Metropelitan Life
Insurance Company," and the amowit $34.73", and that it was signed
by Daik. It also appears froma plaintiff's testimony that she saw
her husband give Dsik some money on that date, and evidence of
these circumstances was submitted to the jury for its considerations
Another indication tending to suppert plaintiff's contention
appears from the following evidence: UIzik went to the Geok home on
the very day that the insured was being buried at Lafayette, Indiana,
ané procured the policy under rather extraordinary circumstances. It
is mot entirely clsar why he should have called for the policy at all,
and especially on that day. Dzik claimed that the policy was vyolun-
tarily ziven to him by Mrs. Cook's mother, but there is svidence that
it was taken against her wiil.e In this connection, plaintiff's
counsel ealls our attention to a portion of Dzik's cross-examinati on.
He testified that he took the policy from the Cook home and gave it
te Miss Bascom at defendant's office on the foliowing day. Then appear
the following questions amd answers?
"Q. And you don't know what she did with it?
Ae Ho, sire ‘
Ge You haven't seen it since?
Ae Noy sire '
Ge Did you turn over the entire envelope to her?
Ae "Everything that I had. I got a receipt fram Mrse Cook's
home -- the policy from Mrs. Cook's home.” (Italics ourse) =
In abstracting this portion of the record defendant's counsel entirely
omit the pentence italzeized, and in view of 211 the circumstances of
the ease we think the testimony of Dzik on cress-examination is cuite
sigificante
A
twoda vole at wae feck? Sie sands podaya one aisrosr (yaomtdie?
| ‘cost of bobmadt wted dobiw eqefevad ne at (cen PyEet re eL biter erty
| waaw\ aE bat steqeq tantens beatelado vata eyofevns odd Sadd yhnodandt
sanotdoe {do exoxosmn benoqretai eebie sidd tot Lsemog qyetehid ess
dal tuemesate elt anendiw odd mott Hedivife Pevoo ond YELanit ‘tam
:
eth set ifoye tte” ebxow odd benissneo sqelevne ofd nk coqay ‘ont
bemia 2ew tL dale hms «"SV RSG Jovem wry ris’ “ pyeqiol constant
wae ofa Jedd yoomisaed at Tiiininig sox? ownogye ow fe! FI) Make yd
to somohive bite setab dade mo Yehom eame Aiud evig’ basdaud rod
+o kisreitames ati cok Tau wat 9d. faite Sembee enw: eerie rant ok ~_
to iinedims 6 PEI abadg stoacws oe aakoose ‘nodtab tbat ‘rodtom ne
£0 “omin eo elt 08 ‘deco atts ‘seonebive: patwolto® att arn .
wane thal veddoustar ja belved ‘onee anw horarment odd toads Yad bial aid
$I sagonsdamvotho yrenkbrostsxe toner tobe YolLed ond bout ae
eiis te YolLog edt sot Aeliss oval Silvera on yw sao Lo ‘GLerckd ao fom at
~mifov eaw wileg edd gadd hemlako wat Vyan Padé no ‘eLfedoogac eis
sedd eonebive wi-eresid dat ycosttom w'zo0 sak Yo mit @¢ novks itzad
a'Piisiely ymolroenos abit mt. LLtw red dentons tela? saw 3k
600 Lisohlawxe~axoxs atiliaG to totFr0g arya ‘petites =e afta Leenuoe
tk oveg bas ems Ho00 eet moxt YoLtog et doos oid dads boltiseed oR
<aeqge sedtT «ysh gatwoLlot ou mb eo it to bahangreneene ta p mmouat ies oll
er
a a ne oe.
tes itiw fib oe tasty wort 100d sit bck ag : ‘i .
| Seer a es tert macraten” |
* 8. ae
Jetcigetee gam a enoee the» ie es
Bixkood | .euM mort 3 feset X cbags I tattt gnidty !
-) (eetee @ i) emod & 'xo0d pnd st't YolfLog os
Yiorisne Leamoo aténebtielel brdos 7 edd to bin £560G ehaed sadSet toda i
% seomadumotio oft La to woiv HE inal deicsemnannjuinvnnyrivrg y i
os Jo
There is also the circumstanee that notice ef the second
premium due on the policy, delivered through the mails, reached
plaintiff's home sometime after September 20, 19356 Thus, approxi=
mately one week after the death of insured the company was sending
a notice for the second premium. If the first premium had not been
peid, as defendant contends, it is difficult to understand why
notice of the secamd premium was forthcomings
Moreover, there was a sharp conflict in the evidence as to
whether insured signed the inspection receipt left by Dzik August
9, 1933. Uvidence pro and con on this issue was submitted to the
jury, and it may well be that the jury were of the opinion that
Dzik did not sign this receipt, and of course in that event there
would be no basis whatsoever for defendant's contention that there
Was not a legal delivery of the policy and that it was left with
Cook solely for the purpose of inspection.
After a eareful examination of the entire record we are
satisfied that there was abundant evidence to support plaintiffts
contention that the first premium was paid when the application
was made, and that the subsequent delivery of the policy consummated
the transaction between insured and defendant. It is not contended
that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evi-
dence, and upon the issues made up by the pleadings we think the
evidence amply supports the verdict.
AS a second ground for reversal it is urged that the court
erred in ruling on the admission of evidence. Defendant complains
because the court admitted in evidenee the insurance policy upon
which this suit is based. However, before trial defendant took some
depositions in which the policy was put in evidence by defendant.
Under the cirewmstances, it was not in a position to complain when
the policy was later introduced by plaintiff. Im any event, we see
mo reason why the policy showld not have been received as an exhibit,
ie
baeoor of¢ Io volion tadd somstemmotio, ent ovle ab axel? 2)
_ betlosot yatiom sid cpuowis bexevileh »yollog exe no mh suring
mig rean caus? sGbGL OR codmetqes teste emisomoa smd e'Rtitntele
gutbose saw YRsqemo oa) betwvemt to Adaoh ont? sotts Aeew sno yLodtsm
(Heod ton dex mutmozg dart? edd IL smutmetg hao cea, ent rot, cotton m:
qiv baetarobay oF digokITib ai ¢k ,ehmetaos tusbmeted es abtaq
sotinooiizel saw mimeng beopee edt to ention
oo as eonohivs ont mi Joiliaes qtate s asw exon? .sovyoorol . rg
geuged Ala yd diel jqisoot solitoequnt odd bemgie bomwank tendodw’
ond of Detdiadsea sew owent aids a0 gop bas ong eonsbivE): 16 f8OL 4?)
tas molatqe sit to sew yout odd dad? ed Llow qem di bas .yurt
eredd taeve ted} ai peuveo to bee yiqtocex abd? mgie som bibvatsd
. mueds sels omoiisstape a tashbuatehs 26% tevecatsit aiaad om od bivow
' dttwdtef eaw Jk stadt bam yoiLog ons: To yrevited Leper: a/domiaie |
amokdesqat to esoqrug et rot yLetoe aeod
‘pts ow bxooo't oukimo odd Yo AO Lsentmoxe Lutoteos tess ben
- atitemtstg drogqua of eonebive shebatnte wawisxedd sade BOL TabiNA!
otooilage ode new bing eaw meter Fotkt esd sncteomobewesmod!
hotatewenoo yotfog olf to yroviled gneupeadye ond tastd bane yebsm anwo
hobmefaon Son ef 2 edashroloh hus berwent meowsed mo idoeenetd ote
ew kye ealt x) dig iow sao tines odd oF Yratd mos aaw Sotbrow bao sade®
oft wnkit ow agnibestg edd yd qu obam eéyeek oft mogy ban. eomed’
| stodbxoy entd edroggue “Lams voneb tve
giseo ont tadd bogey el ¢i Laevevex vot ‘baweza ‘paoooe a a aA
_ Sattslymos tabotet .donebiye to: fro haw hinbs ody mo P : : “ak berre
noqu yoktoq voneiwent ony sonebtve nt pottinds beitea She sosabee!
‘pmb a 60d Fitibite 46 NID ecw tee (xevoweR “Uhened Odd tie! ‘ines ‘aha? ,
sthebne'teh y@ somebive mi tuq eaw Yollog eff dobdw Mt “Go LF aOGs f
“ped miaiqnoe of mtfieoy a at tomva 32 esomitemierto “ett ona
goa ow qtneve Ye al + tiitnlal yd beosborént totel aor Yéblod ‘st 8 '
etidiixe ms as bevisoes msed ever Jon bivorla yotlog edt yiw moaset os ;
-B=
and in its brief counsel do not seriously argue the point.
It is next urged that the court erroneously admitted
evidence relating to conversations had with Dzik at the time he
obtained the policy from plaintiff's home. The complaint cherged
that the pelicy had been taken from the home by Dzik without psr-
mission, and the answer admitted the taking but denied that it was
without the consent of plaintiff's mother. That being the issue
wndex the pleadings, it was proper to allow an examination of the
Witnesses relating to the occurrence in question.
it ia further eontended that the court improperly asked
plaintiff some questions with reference to the contents of the
envelope in which the policy was contained. An examination of the
record discloses that prior to this exemination counse}, for the
parties had been objecting te the questions and indulged in bickering
over the competency of questions propounded, and the court finally
asked the questions in order to clear up the evidence. Under the
circumstances it was not improper for the court to do so. The question
whether or not a receipt had been given insured for the first premium
Was ean issue, and defendant's answer admits that part of the premium
was paid. The questions interposed by the court related to the sub-
jeet matter of the pleadings and was pertinent to a material issue
involved.
It is mext argued that plaintiff was asked the leading ques-
tion whether er not she saw her husband pay Dzik sny money when the
policy was delivered. Although the question was leading in form, it
Was not objectionable, because Nyzack, while testifying, stated frat
no moncy had been paid to Dzik, and this was in rebuttel of that
item of evidence. Certainly it wes not sufficientyobjectionable &
merit any consideration as a ground for reversale
Sk al
" ydakoq off exgee Yredebeee You Sp Séakess Wiewrgs? at Ana
é peed baths ‘iewosno rr dtmoo Gt Fag bogts Pxdaeiegd «
on ants ott te tier itiw best aso Liaaxe veo oF gativelox eottebive
begssfo ‘utetmaes eft enor ar Titiaialg monr't YokLoy ead¥ bonkarve
~t8q fod? tu ibe we smok oft mot? nedad ibd dad Yokon wild Welt
ecw $f dadt botnod sud ‘gabled off betdimbe towand SHY Baie *{no kdete
ewaal edj gated tadr .teddom ar Piatt to desenoo off suede hw
ott tw a Liéntnaxe ne wolls of meqoiq asw Ji pagdi®Adty ou? tobay
| snot dasup ‘tet eomertireso end 69 ‘gatvals4 conaend iw
boxes elreqosngtt tim9 ald Satld bodmstemo Teed TY at st |
up soa YiiwKikelqg
ote to wo itaminsxe wh shoniainms anew Yolo sly Mott ns eqokevae
" orld 20% {sano no ttnsnimaxe atts 09° robe terlt adaolsath bxovex
patrons id ait begivbat bue anottacwp ot? of sut¥eotds need’ phe es tyveg
“flank? tisoo of? bas ~hobmwogote anotéaeup to Yondsoqiod SKF" xo¥0
“entd robat ~eonohivs ost qu nasty o¢ cobvo mi 'Bhotédewp erlt pextes
no 19 coup ott <8 ob of 3cweo on x0% ‘soqe tam fom waw FF esotinddmyrorto
au inorg dextt ort 0% bezwait movin ‘pood bad tqsder @ don'to wsdhort
fe tob bas Youear ns Gaw
odd . adnotsos odd od eonstotet ddiw anid
aso orté to od tedt etimhs tewene @)diebn
~ dra ontt ot potaton sumo eld ed bomeqnesie” Wii alike” thn dew
ounat Latvesam 4 8 ot ‘tmenttieg hew baa’ — Saeniheadbntiactors%s
ae ee nova
aap amtbsel emt bodes sew Ttitvialg sand bevgie txen WE PT! re
edt nestw veneer ‘yom wind yet baedeud tod Wee ete POR 16 Hone ortw mots ;
SLA DoneWikteb ‘enw yektog
tat bebasn wenivtitess otis eMoaxylt seuaced | Lofdane i Fée'tde "Yow aw
fact? to Latsudos mt aaw abd? bra tnd of hieg ood hast yond om
¢ otro i400 dogma to Ltwe ‘tom ene ae trted 100. veonebly a 40 mos
: -Lowrever ‘ar * vos we nak a na eeeee Haas ‘a ee tie ,
UR ARH TS te , hie dial eS, ‘ THeS. tHeRE CE: ee. Eke Pig eae 3,
$t mero nt gatbsst ssw noideeup eit ‘Menel
totlog alt. vale sounet |
Another contention is that the court errec in admitting
the evidence of Dolores Klinka snd sofie Kiinke with reference
to the taking ei the poliay by Dzik september 15. The complaint
charged that the policy was taken without psrmission, and it Was
proper for plaintiff to adduce evidence upon this issue of fact.
It is next urged that error was committed with refermee
to instructions. xcept for the regulax sicek instructions, as
+o which there is mo complaint, there were only two instructions
atcaved on behalf of plaintiff. The principal objection to these
instructions is that they injected into the case the element of
proof of deatho ‘ic find from the record, however, that defendant
Stipulated in the course of the trial that the insured died September
13,5 1933, aad was buried at Lafayette, indiana, September 15, 1935.
In view of this admission the instructions could net have prejudiced
defendant. We have read the instructions, and when considered as a
series they apprised the jury fully and fairly as to the issues in-
volved, and are not subject to any of the criticisms mades
The only remaining contention is that the judguent should be
reversecé because the jury by its verdict took the commuted value of
the policy as the measure of damages, whereas on its terms the policy
called for only $50 a month. This question is raised for the first
time on appeal. Mowhere in the proceeding was it argued that the
damages were excessivee, The question was not raised during the
trial, on the metion for a new trial or on the motion in arrest of
judgment. It is 2 well established rule that points not made upon
the trial eamnmot be made for the first time in a court of review.
(Novotny v. Acacia Mutual Life Ins. Coe, 287 Ill. Appe 361.)
The case was fairly tried, the issues of fact cubmitted to
the jury were determined adversely to defendant under proper instruc-
tions, and we find no convincing reasons for reversal.The judement is
affirmed. JUDG@OMIT APTI REED
Sullivan, P. Je, and Seanlan, J.,concurs
a’ r
ar te
guitt imbe ni Dexrte tupoo ot tacld al mols modsioo vie ae
eonorstot Kdiw wleki oft0G bie els wewedeti to eemebive edd
a dosek ssigsano. 088 »af todmotged AisG yi yoliog esd Lo gaialed edd oF
aw Ja: os, sinlarioae, Jugayiw Boast eax yotiog oat tads bagnaio,
staat to omead atid equ aomedive, earhbs o¢, Tittniglg Tok LOGoxy
opm x0 tes iigiw beds iguog asw tote fakt bogap, gaon 8h 82 ogo cn in
ne sanoidouagant Xoode relimss of, Rot dgonrtl . .maotsoudeat os,
um itoustant ows tlm axew axed, imlalgmos on ab oar? Ante ad)
scedt of mottos to, deatomiug eli. «3kkdmbase (50 buses ino henna
to jaouade odd oaso ald otad detooiat nal? dadd.at aaqijoussans
tuehnerod, tals .sevowod «btogex om} mort Sats eh. _eiidseb Ta Loong
sedmotgos balh beisent oct tact Jatxt oats Xo sactuao, oxtt 44 heiaingisga.
sSECL AL codmatge’ .amaihal ,evtoysieal i batted 2am ew SOUL w fl
_doothubons svat dom dime amettoutvamk ont moleatabe atid to wale ak
aaa berohiaags masw bes Atamat gene aah eg baot oval oF. «tmabhaatah
“ck sesoat eld oF aa esi ‘bne. ehh iene bean. a Wild, aeison
_ sohant aealiatiite erie te ys of doe
od btuods bilanaie. aly sate ak molsaaineo ene GAM, WME, ssh bane
to euler Bewemmo, ord Xoot sohoroy atl vat Yuwe ons eanaoad beazsvat
Yollog ed? ames att mp Reotedw .nogamah 20 suse mt edt as Yottog ont
daxtt ont. xo% boetas st motteoup aie adduom @ 084 vino x0% hoitse —
eis tent bergae of saw gitibo soe tq edt at oretiwok «+ laoqgs fo, esike |
od? gakxwd deaiat jon aw smttiaosp oat , .evlagesne | eter sogemsb
to teorre al soitom odd mo to ielxt won 6 set soktom ott 0 tekmt i
nog ban tom atatog tadd olux, bodulidades:, fiew #, at ot darosag bat, q
qwaivet to ¢xvoo 6 mt omtt tant? odd xo apeanrenivepasitosie3 4
HEE —" -
at gnommbst edT.Leetevet vot ampacot ymtontvads of bait ow bar any
a. ia eTNOMODe« L ena lise’ | bre aol a jnevt:
396 69
UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND
GUARANTY COMPANY, a corporations,
)
Appellant » APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT,
Ve COOK COUNTYe
Pago ang Appellee. } a 9 G I Are 6 Q) 1'
MR. JUSTICH FRIEND D°LIVERED THE OPINIGN OF THE COURT.
This appeal presents the question of the legal sufficiency
of a complaint filed by the United States Fidelity & Guaranty
Compeny ageinst Aibert Sabath. The court allowed defendant's
motion to dismiss, and plaintiff, having elected to stand by
its.complaint, judgnaent was entered in favor of defendant, and
this appeal fcllowede
In paragraph i of the complaint it is alleged that plain-
tiff was and is a corporation licensed to transact business in the
states of Illinois and Wisconsin; that on June 1», 1928, Greenspan-
Greenberger Compeny commenced an action in the civil court of
Milwaukee county, Wisconsin, naming Millard's, Ince, as defendant;
that the sheriff of Milwaukee county, by virtue of a writ of
attachment in said suit, attached the personal property of Millard's,
Ine., of the value of $2,000.
Paragraph 2 alleges that on June 1, 1928, Millard's, Inc.,
to regain possession of said property, it being necessary to that
end under sec. 304.07 of the Wisconsin statutes that it give bond
in said suit in the sum of $4,000, conditioned that said property
should be forthcoming when and where the court should direct, and
that said Millard's, Ines) should pay all costs, didy on Jume 1, 12928,
2
i
Ie id
¢
e
ie
i
4
a
q | ) Pe
iy ;
iH ‘ Wr ; ke) ‘ 4 Be ilat Aw She
a)
ti } 7 ‘Ra00E
ht w 3 ° 4 , " 5 aaa
¢ Cha TYEE carare army
| emto Ids STOGTOD & 9 TRA? YTWAHAUD
Wiha
i eERVOO TIUPAIO MOAT MALTS ateelioggA ,
i: sYTRBO HOOD. ie Ki aA, whet seeps te Li mh,
| t 00 .A.L0e S| +" pbktbaca pane
<TAOD EMT Ww ‘wor au ‘comet CuaINe KORTE 6M ©
ashes ee Ce eh 38
yorstorYina Loyef ons Yo solseeup ois adnoaorg Ieoque ett
$Foe i
- ‘‘dexaesed 2 ystLoblt aotede hag inv oni ve bert? sabaLgsos a %0
re
«“ ade ” ~ t.
alinsbasteh bowolls $2800 ot stitsdad ‘trediA rankege yange >
+ De aga
‘ef brava of betoo te gertveri «tihiatetg baa ‘caisra bb ot 10 tt om
aie Bi Si
‘pes .tmabmetob to tova?t al betedne asw Fee ut sdestatgno9 ast
- sbowotto® teoqas aut
sah: REMRSY VHA
~winlg éatd begelis ef $2 ¢hbeLqmoo one Yo Ef siqery
== etd att amontewd tosenmed Of beaneoLL moithxegros 3 i bas esw Yate
} | sisal ONCOL .f ont mo da0lt axenaeepl ‘bate ‘etomittt boo nevada
| 8 te! tutoo Livio edt mi noldss Ma beémonmto st bead’
tinmboe?d on y.onl .etbra tht geumen ‘ abhi Gaie” “Veanwes sah,datiar
Yeoetewn Yo eudety Yo 'eutitites Searan Ht 8 “Ta beede Gus eee
coliraLLim to ystecetq Lamareg old boroasta «tite bea nt dmomiond: ‘
i it seboied ta aidiny sith 9 Lee
cool gatoreLlim ~OSer «ff ettet mo dads segsiia tiqatgetet serdar, |
tad? of Yrovsecen gated th _YWrieqoxg bisa to Noksesaacq mia ot oe q
Sood erly #2 dest) codutede atonadeiy add Yo VO.a0e Vobe “tobay BAS
— YWroqorq bisa salt bemotdtendd .000.d$ to mua oft al tive ‘biew mk
brs doorts bivode dumoe odd tose bas wentw gutkao oddx02 od ‘ete a
cA ela me cbkb qatave fLe Yuq BLuoife «ont evo Et Bis fait
Atte ca ot tae:
Pe
wo Dew
make application to plaintiff to furnish such bond and agreed to
afterward furnish plaintiff an application in writing for such bord.
Paragraph 3 alleges that Albert Sabath, defendant, in order
to induce plaintiff to furnish such bond, did, om or between the
first and fourth cays cf Jume, 1628) promise and agree with plaintiff
that if it would furnish such bond he would indemiify plaintiff from
and against any and all demands, liabilities, charges and expenses,
of whatever kind and mature, which it might at any time sustain by
reason of haying executed such bond; and that defendant would arter=
Ward reduce to writing and sign and deliver to plaintiff the promise
and agreementa
Paragraph 4 alleges that upom said application and agreemmt
plaintiff, June 4, 1928, executed and furnished im said suit its
bond, in and by which it did, jointly md severally with Millard's,
Ince, promise and agree according to the tenor and effect of said
bond, a copy of which is attached to the complaint as exhibit "At
and made a part thereof.
Paragraph 5 alleges that Jume 7, 1925, Miliard's, Ince,
delivered to plaintiff its application in writing for said bond,
and on the same day defendant, in pursuance of his oral promise,
executed and delivered to plaintiif his written agreement, in and
by which defendant promised and agreed to indemaify and save he rmless
plaintiff herein, copy of the application and agreement also teing
attached to and made a part of the complaint, as exhibit "BY".
Paragraph 6 alleges that in the civil court proceeding in
Milwaukee county judgment was rendered against Millard's,s Ince,
February 9, 1929, for %1)935.77 and costs, thet execution issued
thereon and was returned unsatisfied by the sheriff, Millerd, Ince»
having been adjudicated a bankrupt in the United States District
Court for the eastern district of Wisconsin.
TA aS we SE
me
ot beotge bas oned aowa dalmist og Tiiimtelq e¢ moktsoliqags eam
shnod Aowe zo? pitkd bow ai moitsoifggs me Tilintalg delat btswiedts
tohte at ginoheelteb yiteadse tusdis tale asgolis € dqetgstst
eid meewted tu mo «bib .baed dowe deity? ed aeseatale fogpecars oe
YWitniely Hiv ees bas ealmow «8824 eur, to aed ‘dian0% ‘me. aazit
aot ribsateli Crinaobet bivow oa baed Mesra dukes biwow $2 Yi sald
nqennnge bite aogzcils weeks thide il <abmameh Ifs bas ve, pagent am
we wiht ive outke Vis te J thy; Eo ti dolsw .eauden bus bats sevetate “
~tes Tc alee iisbooteh ded baa ehaod sour bh ogtnann so te monaes
$a imorg wilt Tittmialy oF tovkies brs mate bes ‘ante haw od yo fraw
sbetenmeetgs bas
2 momoorge ts mold wollags bitin mogw tacdd sopella s dqetgetel »
evi clue bies mi detieimuwt baa bodwooxe ,88et ieee aon
cathiei Li deiw yiiereves baw yLinlot «bib 3k dodsw yd baw mi «bid
Bisse to sob kts ore tones ond 4 eakbrecen! tong shee: ostmorg 4s onI
WAY gictsixe ne sabalqmos ost of hodostta et dokdw 6 Yqoe e ebsidd
steousit gueq’s obam baa
eoomd (a thualiii gSQel .¥ emt dads esgeiia @ Mqemenel >.)
chitod bist Het .gnitiwy mt mit cokluge att tritmiolg of \borevtLed
qeéimorg Laxo ald Yo eotmarwg mt ponsbeeted yod emse eft ne chks
| hme A eo moncetys wetibo aid Titdataly oF boroviteh bus betwesxe
eaeLen st eves bas YLimubst oF dooms bie bee imoTg ¢aabnstobitehiwed
giied oais treseotms baw nolteciiqgs sat to yoo eatoved Trttmtaty |
w"Q" Sidtixe ee ptutafomos edt Io Puey a obstt bne'Od Dorota
wk gutbsesorg dusoo Livko eri mit dents sogehin 8 rigetyet6d we |
eoOnT gu 'ProL LE suatigs ‘Hexebmon cow setomg but ‘teni09 ‘costa |
“povset moituvexo toils ,etaoo baw M86ee Le TOT (QOL .e YeeTEeT
qvonl «ote lfit (Ttireda edd yd beta een bemaidet sw bts ‘Oeste
sobrdeit naseve bevin’ ony at tqrnined s betsotowtos noed svat
‘inliaie tn Se Sens ae edad ide 2 fa
Paragraph 7 alleges that November 7, 1929, sult was begun
in the Cireuit cours of Milwaukee county by Greenspan-Greenberger
Company ageinst Charles Schallitz, sheriff of Milwaukee county;
Alphonee J. lynch, deputy sheriff ané chief clerk of said county;
United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company; and the Fidelity and
Deposit Cempany of Moryland: that the eaapleint alleged, among
other things, « esuse of action against pleintiff herein upon said
bond.
Paragraph 8 alleges that inadvertently and by mistake
Plaimtiff executed end delivered te the sheriff of Milwaukee county
& bond in attachment, which wae acceptec and filed by the sheriff,
and that the sheriff released the property of Millard's, Ince;
seized under the attachment writ pending the outcome of the civil
court proceeding.
Paragsreph 9 elleges that Sabeath wes duly notified of said
proceedings against plaintiff end others in the Gireult court of
Milwaukee county; that the defense thereof was duly tendered to
Sebeth, ond that he wholly refused to assume the undertaking thereof;
that plaintiff thereafter employsda its own counsel], and made defense
to seid proceeding, and December 29, 1932, judgment was rendered
against plaintiff herein for $2,4486873 that im ssid trial the court
was required to file, and did file, its certain findings of fact and
conclusions of law, wherein and whereby the seié bond wer conatrued
by the court to be in lew and in fact a bond conforming to the re-
quirements and provisions of secs 304.07 of the Wisconsin statutes,
a copy of said findings being attached to the complaint as exhibit
"c#, and made a part thereof.
Paragraph 10 of the complaint alleges that said judgment
remained in full foree and effect, and wholly unsatisfied; that
plaintiff, December 29, 1932, as = compromise settlement and in full
onne ted sham eum « Lonsuvo0 s00 “? peyote xed norod “Widatarc tadt
bee. dortd thebtels ae ‘font ets, vdoette baw 200
seus
tamed asw 3 lua roses aT. teduevol tasty segeiie F acetate
tog toduses)~naqauser we Xia 9 aenvearlia to eu99 # aot ott mt
| Peiauoo eoxusw Lim Ro YtErods ead ii fario® eefzatd tankepe "ounqmed
resauee bien to duels toledo bats ttineds “uc oh efomgl aa onstorter EA
bas ‘We htobit odd ae (Yynnqmd “insted bas yttiebit esd ose bed Lat
uaciass abopolls tnsalann® ory dort jbmatyclt ‘to YincaToo }taogen
bios fmequ aioresd vibvatety samtegs to hoe te sana & vensibes xortto
odeda te ud bra vitmed zevbant test ‘nogetts é aghparat
moo sexuowlit te tiiveda esd ‘ot botevited ‘bet beau:
a Phbresa ost ve hOLtt bee befqooos saw Mokdw .smemioadsa WE ‘hindi ry
asonl «a'husllin ‘to ‘renee aid besselot Ttixesde “gold fort bres
” eke edt te empotso ons } antbaag diow tonto ott a ‘en ns bex iva
| ‘gutbeegexa swag
° yd ue a a et gf
base to bettison higtod asw isedaa todd cannes e gang aa i 6
ia eA % Vg a ae iy ie ber! ii
‘to tree $ browko ‘OG sh wasdee lon rekimtels santega npntbosoorg
Pee) Bees
ot hevebaet ink ‘aan wexade mbes asl salt iam yee
{locxedd yabiegrobaw ont comics 09 houston vitor est ‘teald ats its” aid edae
fg Poe. tant Se
ie PA es be a7 we Peo wee ELaeh
bsio ase snomm but (seer cs ‘redanoot pert ‘Vantbesoorg ‘Sie o¢
see Ni i400 Raw Sas MART : See Carer Sia Bigs
sxwo9 ont fatse bhee nt seats 1Tesoanesh x0? ntoredt Watenkalg fontege
; +4 ad f eG ee: Kees |
_ hms tot te spatbad? aise re0 eth vont bib hap ont od botinpet esw
g we ipgtes ¥4 at ee cry iy q
boustnnos aaw batod oten ost woody pol totaste wel to amol
4 TRE Veer Ruihy
~st ont oe wftharro 0 2 pod 2 foe? mi bas wok at od of tuuon ott yd :
St od Sedu :
ended © t nienooo ti ong 20 %04.008 1998 to anotaiverq bns adnome7 twp
ae ate.
tidbixe an intofyans ost od vostoadia anied epatbat: bkae to yoo 8
oe bee au ath YORto weenie a i
tosredd fisg se ebem bas <9O*
a cos 4 Gay A hgh pee uetedt
tombs | hea dass aopetts takatamo aah ou at
Ave perere war 4 Sp gagpt 4
Re Patera Pye Hea akhwts i pene? 9 “
Laat ni bra imamalstoe oe imo xno & 88 soe eS rediiooed m bene j
Mmedsaw wit HST Hinda
wollen
gatiefection of caid judgment, paid to Sreenspean-Greenberger
Company the swa of $2,436.05, and that plaintiff incurred, in the
defense, settlement and satisfaction of sald proceedings, additional
linbilities, charges and expenses ss and for attorneys' Tees, costs
and disbursements, in the sum of 3750, ali to plaintiff's demage.s
in conclusion it is slicged that, under the terms end provie
fions of the said indenture agreqment,cefendant beceme lishle te pay
plaintiff the sum of 929436605, tegethsr with sueh edcitional lia-
pilities, charges and expenses in the sum of $756, and asked judg-
ment for the sum of $5,060.
Inasmuch as the controversy is based om the form of bond
furnished by claintiff and secepted by the sheriff of Mi.lwaukee
county, we set the bond forth in full, as follows:
"3D OF THONMNLTY TO T42 SHEREFF.
Knaw All Men By These Presents, That we, Millard's Ineanr-
porated, ag Principal, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Ca.
ee sureties, arc held and firmly bowmd unto Charles Schallitz,
Sheriff of the County of Milwaukec, in the cum of Four Thousand
Bollars, to be paid to the said Charles Schallitaz, hie executors,
adminiutratore or assigns, to which payment well and truly be
Made, we jointly and eeverally bind ourselves, our heirs, executors
and administrators firmly by these presents.
Dated Jume 4, 1928.6
Whereas, an attachment issuing out of the Civil Court, in
and for the County of Milwaukee, in fever of Greenspan, Gresnbergar
Coe and against Willard's, Inces has been directed aid delivered to
the said Cherles Schellitz, Sheriff ef the County of Milwaukee, by
virtue of which the said Sheriff, at the request of the sald Greenspan,
ca Coo kas seized & levied on certein perssmal property,
to-wit 3
merchandise to the extent of 91)9826.50.
How, Therefore, the condition of this obligation if wuchy
that if the waid “nited States Pidelity end Guerenty Coe & Millard's,
Inc, shall well and truly indemaify and cave harmless the ssid Charlee
Schallitz, Sheriff aforesaid, his deputies and persons acting under his
or their autherity, amd each and every one of them, against all suits,
actions, judgmonts, ¢xecutions, troubles, costs, charges and expenses
arising, or which may be had or made against him, them or any of thems
or which may be suffered or curtsimed by him, them or any of them, by
Teagom ox in consequence of such levy and seizure, or of the subsequent
Proceedings thereon, without limit 28 to the amount of said sastn,
charges and expenses, whatever they may be, then this obligation
be veld, ctherwise to be and remain in full forces
&
Pi sik ia
oo
i,
R: et i
ron rod: ow~nmageivest) at blag ‘vieiem bist bisa. te tO hosts tise
arg ot ,howtwomt Yiidetate dactd bere 180.955, 85 Yo sun ‘eeld Cheqead
famottibhs .asathsesotg bbe to. solvoatalieg here tnometiden 190m t0b
ageoo <aset 'ayerwdds 20% bas as asnmexe brs aogzacte vaokd Lida ht
-Sgcinad a'tt Hatela of tts 1Oare te as este mt cetnoimerudett bees
~kvotg bra ommaed off webs edadé bepatta eh ai weisniomms az
woq od efWeil emased inshas tod «inemorac exit mobad bias oid te anote
~@it femold Lobe lowe aig bw ‘teas oped 00 sd5a Rh te sae hamed Vitentele
~aburt howe bn Phy J ‘40 msn oid al asanegre fae een zasto onala tity
1000.84 to mere ‘aut ror nom
heed Yo stot eff mo besed al yauevoutmes odd ca Housman
ower Li Yo Pedrosa ont et bosteoss Hhe Vidyataty xd ‘past bei
gawoltet na ¢liwt mt tycet bed dal foo ow pata:
sTXTAEHS SEX OT YTIMEORI <0 cwnew Ss aps eg
“wont @tpinlihi ,ow dant .edmseort econ? VE mol CLA wordt” |
20D Yénetaw) bats paleo HL aogeg? poe bata oly ey nem e 4
nag bi ketholt as. scabeese ad
Sonos? cae Se mh at Mh iM ‘Vlteds
ceTosmosre Whi «etliladod nae tag od st retlo
od Yinis brs Liew dmeagay si of a: tba,
erodivoux® ,attor tie .~asvioutno bakd Cee oh.
+udnoas tq rae or pid 2 espariaiainhs ous
ate i Sse Wee
ki «Juio Livto ext? to duo ardent smomfoasts an vanorode
‘we gtedise® siaganses) to oval Ah .oo2rwawh MM to yimetad: oft am
od huvevifsh bas betoorth seed sat «sank 2 'bteLLin ¢ ates) bina :
xe apetee te eenwed eds to Tituods ext ifLaniot 2 bina ont
iaqaiae@ ble oe daempot one ta , thine bias ef? doldw to extiky
ge se omg fencarsg atadrtes tm, Se a ocala
) sO2.888eL8 To trogxe ond oF vaidunsonom. . ue |
ca 'bYaEtii' 4 000 (ine baa YbiLebEt ended betta bisw oa 8"
ssid sna ont evea hia
etd <abhe gatios copia vss, bin idan itn
estinn Ifa tanings Yo em yrove ba done
ee ees a ee ee eee
eet © Te 2s bia bs
Munsee sary to ky 0 We al Whee pete sabi oy,
a eat th 8 mex? Seana ten } aogts
qeere? EfvY a mame baa nono enh owbirerdto: yh.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of
Rugene He Ackerman
Rose Ge Prinze
Millard's Ince,
By Lawrence Neumann
United States Fidelity and Guaranty
Company
By George Hoff
Attorney in Pact
Filed Dece 16, 1929
Ce. Ce Maas, Clerk."
From the material facts alleged in the complaint, which
stand admitted by defendant's motion to dismiss, it appears that
suit had been brought by Greenspan-Grecnberger Company against
Millards, Inc., and the goods of the latter were seized ons judg-
ment write in order to secure the release of the goods, it became
necessary for Miillard's, Ince, to give a release bond, as required
by sece 504007 of the Wisconsin statutese Thereupon Millardts,
Ince, Orally applied to plaintiff for such a bond, and defendant
orally agreed to indemnify plaintiff and to later reduce his agree-
ment to writing and sign ite. Millard, Incey and plaintiff there-
upon executed and delivered a bond to the sheriff of Milwaukee
county, who accepted the bond and released the attached goodse By
mistake and inadvertence the bond given was in form an attachment
pond, instead of a release of attachment bond, but the sheriff and
his deputy accepted the bond as a release bond and released the
goods attached. A similar mistake was made in the written
application and indemnity agreement, for in the written application,
of which the indemnity agreement formed a part, the sult in which
the bond was to be used was described as that of Millard's, Ince ve
Greenspan-Greenberger Company, and as part of his defense defendant
insists upon a literal interpretatiom of this phraseology.
it is urged by plaintiff that the indemnity contract is to
re er ee
" deabstotob eemsteb ake %0 anag as Ee evtugm0 .
te soneeotg oft at hetevifeh bro befese yhomgke ._,
Ramietod Hh omeg sl
eres ed eaosd
<4 9ak oe Hue ll Bi
Miaawel eomorwad va
UWiawed bas Wilehblt aesate bodial
Cee Aaa ees
Tiok egi9e2 Ya
toot wi yortosta
C605 cat ood heLkt
Y areld ~asel 2D «9 ;
Moisi pimtelgmmo asd mt bogells atost Lairotem edd mort,
tad? eteougqns tf ,enimeth of notion a'inabsetoh yd, botdimba baste
fankage viequoD nogtedm-om=neqanset yd —o bart sive
~gbut « mo bosto stew teftef edg¢ to wboos edt bas yo ont cabratl iat
emsced $i ,aboog ont Yo saselot Gat ottiooa of toto al ot ban’ Setome
betivpet as ,btod easolos # ovig oF «odnX a has lL IM ze ee
catbroLLIM sngweved? sastavede mtamooa ki Salt te Vossoe SOE «ove xd
nobao ob hs ¢hned 2 wise tor vadtatest 6s Fe vai
esas aw [iM to Yibrede alt ot bnod 8 boxey2 fob jon hehesene ag
WA saboog boslos dts. ont naneeten, brs MRE eri, PHR te BE 2¥sAus09
entt honsefer trin heod 9 Vollndl a 48 5 ie odd Voageooe abd.
notdinw oat off obam daw steteln codtate i Sah: ‘hind
ru a 0) A ‘
umttsottegs fettinn ed mk x0 iemtooTBs ‘ed tnmohat ‘bn nottso8Loua
dotiw st ¢iva odd (tam o bomce? tio nome we tus bud end ee
irae Rye 5 or 3 he wy PR COG 4
o¥ «ont LaNbraLLLt 20 dnsld go hedkeoach sow bean od OF-4eW! bud & s
Ps haa "ei caare rae :
NR ED
. swefesastig aie 0 moitadorerednt isco ite gin
1a sg ECR
wad doaetane ee ital ‘ons ‘ged Thtdmtalg yo begty ave 1e20% ra:
ss Gens
be construed like other agreements,in favor of its validity rather
than against it, and that the rule of strict construction for which
defendant contends applies only with reference to limiting the lia-
pility strictly to the terms of the undertaking. It is evident
from the allegations of the complaint that the only reascuable con-
clusion to be drawn from the facts is that all of the parties con-
templated and intended that a bond should be given which would
effect the restoration of the attached property to Millard, Ince,
and in reaching this conclusion the court shovld have inquired into
have
the intent of the parties and/givmeffect to such intent according
to the sense in which the parties evidently understood the contrat
at the time it was madee It was so held in Walker v. Douglas, 70
Ill. 445, wherein the court said (ps 448):
"A familiar elementary principle of construction applicable
here is, that it is the duty of the court 'to discover and give
effect to the intention of the parties, so that performance of the
contract may be enforced according to the sense in which they
mutually understood it at the time it was made; and where the
intention of the parties to the contract is sufficiently apparent,
effect must be given to it in that sense, though violence be done
thereby to its words; for greater regard is to be had to the clear
intent of the parties, than to any particular words which they may
have used in the expression of their intent.e! 1 Chitty on Gonts.
(4 Ame Ede) 104-5,"
This principle of construction was adhered to im the following cases:
Shreffier et ale v. Nadelhoffer, 133 Ills 5563; Dowiat ve The Peoples
193 Ills 264, where the court said: “While the obligations ef
sureties are strictissimi juris, they are bound by the obvivus import
and intent of their contract. Contracts should be so construed as
to give effect to the intention of the parties, and not to defeat it,
and where that intention is sufficiently apparent, ‘effect must be
given to it in that sense) though violence be done thereby to its
words,' * * *;" Torrence ve Shedd, 156 111. 194; Memerow v. National.
Lead Coe, 206 Illes 626.
Whatever argument may be employed to point out the mistake in
_
seltex yitbilev ati to sevst mivphasmorigs s9odio sAll heuttanoco od
Sotdw tot motsoussanoo doitia to efgy edd tald dae tt Vainio nett
egif oft gmidimi£ of sonotetet dtiw yiao aetiqas abmetnoo tmebme tob
jnobive at $I .qaiataobaw ed to emxot ont of yLtoltta ytittd
-no9 efdecosset yLito old sacit tmiaiqmoo ond to anolisgolis ent mort
-moo agisiusg oft to Ife test ak etost ond meoxt mvetbh od ot moteauto
biuow doit merits ed biwowa bnod « tadt bebasdak bas bedalamed
eoont ebtsl(lLM@ ot ystege tg pesos dds out to mottstofteet eff too tte
ota bovingat evad biuode s1u00 ants mint tet a iat rans dy mi bas
ankbrooos. tnednt dove oF $o0¥teseyia\ pte eoltxaq outs to hy erage ott
sg osrimo est bootarobay yLinedive eelsteg ot Mo ledw ak oanoa oat of
or qaetgoS, -¥ ments! ai bles oa saw tT +obam Baw +t omit oct ‘ts
1(6as og) hiss #xu09 elt mteredtw an +L
eidectiqas motsouttemoo to efqtontiq cxatend tatihen’ AM
avin bas tevopalb of? greys ont To Veud edd eb di sadd eat: ote
eit, to sonamie treg tas 08 eaoiizeq odd to motinetnt end ot tostte
youd Holnw mi oamee oft ot anibrooss heototne od Yast JoOSTTNAV «
. gad oven bas pobem esw tk omit oft Je +E bootatobmy ylisutum
eimersqge tLimetoltiva at foatinoo ont of setixeq onlt Y6 mottnetat
. osteb od ocometoiv dagworli . sates tod mi $i oF novia od tae tootte
sselo or of bad of oF ai Braget soteety rot pabrow wees | sane
yom, vod doldw abtow tokeese Tg wis of seas tgs oie
imme no yest £ 'ysetedmt theals to: on Sane SF mit peewee
seeaso geiwollot edd mi ee porestba saw moivoutiaemo to penne aid?
geigosd oxf «v seiwod sacs ae: ee ‘co FtoslLoball “v oie
‘to eno hiegifdo ont oxtay” bisa dawoo asld oredr abs Nia ser 4
sroqutk emvivdo sit yd pawod sts outs elu lmisebyointe ets aeitorve q
aa bewts.aHo9 on od hivoste ud ont? 09 stoatdaoo ated to ‘dnsdat bate
ati dasted ot fom ons ,eettisg esd To noidnodat exit od ‘foetto ovis "8s : j
od soma doo tts? .tmotsq gs vismotert a ak no konosak toni errs ‘bats a
avk.ot ydeteds snob od eoneloiv sigwodls sounee dadt rs ‘34 of movig
“Lamotte «v wotemel yseL fil 0aL poet 7 - gomestoT Nye wey ane J
0sd LIT “bos” mir ae
at Fie F
ah POY tangeand ‘ato ‘as bovorgee « ed ‘ou somes “sevetaist
~~ F
re SS a
e é os Sy oe me
ee ee
Pr)
the form of the bond furnished by plaintiff, the salient fact
remains that the bond which it executed as surety accomplished
the purposes intended by the parties, and cefendcant's contrast
of indemnity contemplated the very damages sustained by plaintiffs
In Globe Inéemmity Co. ve Kesmery 205 Tile Appe 405, the indemiitor
sought to escape from the effect of his indemity agreement upon the
ground that it mentioned a “penal bond," whereas, under the statute
in which it was used, it was referred to as "an undertaking on
appeale” Holding that the point was without merit, the court said
{ppe 403-409) s
“When analyzed, appellant's only point is that proof of
such undertaking on appeal, claimed by appellee to be authorized
by the New York practice, is not proof of plaintiff's execution
of a penal bond. * * *
“But regardless of whether plaintiff's agreement contem-
Plated a teclmical ‘penal bond,t or an ‘undertaking on appealy'
as it is referred to in the quoted final peragreph, or whether by
such reference the latter is not properly read as if incorporated
in the indermifying bond (5 Cyc. 757}, especially as it was
executed the same day and became a part of the same transectiony
still the undisputed facts remain that appellant received the benefit
of carrying up the Hayes case om appeal throuch plaintiff's execution
of ‘said undertaking on appezl,' and that plaintiff, in consequence
or gugh madersextnge had to pay the judgment appealed from." (Ttelics
ourde,
In National Surety Co. ve Nazzaro, 239 Masa. 341, 2 bond was
executed in Massachusetts indemifying the surety company from any
damage it mizht sustain by givimg a “bail bond" to be used to sectre
the release of a prisoner wnder arrest in Connecticut. The surety
company gave a "recognizance" instead of a “bail bond". The court
held that under the lews of Masscahusetts there was a Substantial
difference between a bail bond and a recognizance, but that under
the laws of Connecticut the terms were used interchangeably, and
accordincly the indemitor was lieble on its agrecment. The court's
finding was based upon the fact that the bond given accomplished the
purpose intended by the parties. In the instant proceeding that facts
which is well pleaded in the complaint, is admitted, and in our opinion
i
) font Stokice ont .Tiemiote Md bodelerut haod old Ye «rot ott
bodaligmaoon Yiorws an betwooxe th stoic bood godt stadt. enteanst |
fomitimo atianhmeted baa paoieteq etd yd bobmadat ssseqeug, ond
vtisatblty at bontavave sogamad yuow edt hetalqaadagn go bemaberk, 20
aodinmobat ood ,dO .ggA «LET 608 examaed »v «90 wid bamotyeel ecto I, £10
esd’ oct tremootis <timebat aid te Foo Ike sa mort sqaoeo od diigane
etuests “oat deha ,seortods * baod faneq’ @ bemekeaop 2b it oaks aes
Ho ‘gatbted tohaw tte” oa of borretot caw tf bean vaaw gh slo bebe mk
Pkaw fxwod! ooff otrom tuoritty aaw dittog oxy jolt patho "fosage
‘3 xe ne re i ES Ea Soon ea)
‘to toot, taslt ut tntog Uino otasliogas it oe |
_ bas tsodas ed of eelleqqa i aye ay ef qos omuirsobay f dove
poigumexe a'YEhtniely to Teor Tae aa Ye
"ged M0 O jmonsstQs erritateid tedid-onte to
Ng ined fo yianmaenad J Se a oh cana
ge mor? vategeo enue att path irmtabek ayde
eryo9a of boos od ae “asod ‘ttea" 2 naive e ntsiaws
ome ‘ont “stu ke ponte 9 me gaetia tobRy onion tes 6 te
Stu 0 ost ebaod find” 8 ‘%o ‘paotent " eo
ees eee: fi 4
fo tired ada a aay oveelt aj dousutaocacit to anek at os Bs pau datlé ‘bios
os too Tee ovig é
“nobam ‘dosid out coors Immo0e% B a ed’ Lind qeewded sonet otis
me he on whe Ue |
bts "ulsogumntortedect beau orew auez03 ond # twoitoerin0® to awa odd ;
oe ‘gau0 6 ort stmomeT3 att 0 oldahs enw 09 tembett odd
* esit Seat Ve oan novig, bid std ‘fads toa odd soci bound ea |
ET. OO. oe Ckh, Oat
vere gon Load ds, —— oat vail snoktrag ae W > jak ‘i =
te eeeteen ‘ Pi i alse
pa “wo mi bru bets Dalia at ghibiitigites ent “ pebsolg Liew ak 3
ay
Sime
overshadows the arguments of defendant's counsel seeking to exempt
defendant from liability because his indemity agreement called for
a bond by a different name. Whatever the form of the bond, and by
whatever name called, it did in fact accomplish the purpose of re-
leasing the attached goods, and that was the intent of the parties
and the plain purpose of the agreemente
When the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company was
joined in a suit in the Circuit court of Milwaukee county by
Greenspan-Greenberger Coe, defendant was duly notified of the pen-
dency of the proceedings and tendered the defense thereof. Inasmuch
as that suit involved the liability of plaintiff on a bond an which
defendant agreed to indemnify it, defendant, being in privity with
plaintiff, and having been promptly notified of the suit and tendered
the defense, he is bound by the judgment. One of the findings in
that suit, as shown by the complaint, was that the bond in question,
though in form an attachment bond, was intended, given and accepted
as a release bond, and that the same should be reformed and held
to be a satisfactory release bond under which plaintiff was held
to be liable. The bond was reformed in accordance with the court's
finding and judgment entered accordingly. Im Drennan v. Bunny 124
Ill. 175, it was held (ps 188):
“Where one party is liable to indemnify another against a
particular loss, it is because, by law or by contract, the primary
liability for such loss is upon the party indemnifying, and in
such instances the party bound to indemnify is in privity with
the party to be indemmified, and he therefore has a direct interest
in defeating any suit whereby there may be a recovery as to the
subject matter of the indemnity, against the party te be indemnified."
In Forster, etce ve Gregory, 107 Ille Appe 437, citing Drennan ve
Bunn, supra, the court held (pe 440):
"Appellant was notified by appellee of the suit brought
* * * against him, and was invited to defend. This it failed to
do. The general doctrine is, that ‘notice in such cases to the
party responsible over, imposes upon him the duty of ———
and renders him liable for the result of the suit.t"
Sqmexe of nabfooa Loanwoo al imebtiotsh to ednomurp ts ond avobartezove
wot belfas Stameotys Utinmebat ale oataoed yd titdals monk $uabroteb
‘Ud how ¢bred bot Yo oot oy deveden’ . omen tnovsttib e ww? biog 8
-e Io seogivg oft Hailamedgos ¢oxt m2 bib $f sbelLao oman xoved at
nediveg odd to daodini enfg aaw gall? bus <aboop” paitoadda wis auteses
etnemsetRs att ‘to swogzug ntelg exit ‘bs
aw YnegneO Yinerew) bas YWitestt eegeté bot tat! ost west ry
yd ytnuoo sovtiowLit te Ituos tiwotio ot ak thea 8 , at bontot
ameq o@¢ to beltidon yIeb aaw ‘Saabnoteb 0d ep redno9% -mogansex0
saat stostsni3 seme teb eld bacebast brs apntboocorg outs to yoneb
Hotde Ao tmod 2 no Yiitatetd ‘to ud bb de Li ols bovtovtt ee: dadt es
dt tw ydivity nt gated .tuchmotob «ai itamebnt ot dooms sesbiteh
bexobnod ban diva ad to bebtévon védgnosg Mood santa ate! ati tele
ae =
bedqooos bas aovty \ookaitech iil st ¢ oie ow:
~ | bios bas bono tox od biueda. oni ‘ont tat ‘el 1 od oaael e ae
“plod sew Yiltatalq dekdw soba bute onceter Wotostation a of ‘es
atgame ott udiw eomsbxoode Ki beietex aw bod oat soldat od of
ASL ve +¥ fa oa at Uaktbtooss bated tau birt bas : sat met
‘: (882 a) bert aaw ak ate ees
ex oF
& gantogs tositons Vt iaaebnk od tee al cee eur? 7
Ymmizg odd efoottmoo yd 70. wal ey » tab el HO q
wt bas .gakyYhomebat sua” alt fogs at aete ea, xo % Bibs cre ry L
dtiw ytiving at at pe 7
deotedwek tooth = sad stoke od f pert Yinotent gt od ¥ireq <<
en? o¢ as YisvOost & ‘Ye patiseteb ar)
*, boltinmsint od of ue “yetag 2 a6 am Fantoga if ome a as" bolt pass lly wee
a sastre 0 autse qh sqGl «LET VOL ,vtogend sv soto atete |
ahi svi + Coe se) nai eaten ed aque of
deport twa ont % entieqys yh Remdieed am’ a
ov befket sik sidT ,baeteb of bedivat acw bas cai say at ;
eft of eonen tome mk ootton’ tadd yak onkitoob’,
gnibris toh to yteb oft mit moqu semoqmi ¢teve eldtenoga
“ttise ond to tfvnes ost To? eldani as! ezo etobmer bas
a ke ity oa aa ah iors "
~90
To the same effect are Meyer ve Purcell, 214 Ilie 62, wherein
Drennan ve Bunn, supre, was again cited, and 31 Corpus Juris 460;
sece 60, where it is stated to be the rule that "where the indemnitor
is notified of the pendency of an action against the indemitee in
reference to the subject matter of the indemnity, and is given an
opportunity to defend such action, the judgment in such action, if
obtained without fraud and collusion is conclusive upon the indemni-
tor, as to all questions determined therein which are material to a
recovery against him in an action for indemnity brought by the
indemitee." We think the finding and judgement of the Gircuit
court of Milwaukee county was conclusive on defendant, who, although
he was not a party to the suit, was in duty bound to defend because
he was in privity with plaintiff and had a direct interest in de-
feating the suit in which plaintiff was joined as a defendant.
Numerous points are urged by defendant to sustain the judgment
herein, but the only other one which merits discussion is the coten-
tion that the alleged oral promise is not actionable under the
statute of frauds. It is urged that because the bond was executed
June 4, 1928, and the application therefor md the indemnity agree-
ment are dated June 7, 1928, the written indemnity agreament was
without consideration and therefore void. The complaint sufficiently
alleges that defendant orally agreed to indemnify prior to the issu-
anee of the bond and “did then promise and agree to reduce his agree-
ment to writing and sign it," and that Jume 7, 1928, in pursuance of
that oral promise "did execute and deliver his written agrement of
indemnity." We think that a bond executed pursuant to such a verbal
promise to later execute a written contract of indemnity is based
upon a sufficient consideration. It is stated in Le Re Ae 1918-E
(n.) pe 586%
"If the original contract is induced by the pramise of
Hoe
aiozery ~S .ifT SI& «ifLeorwd .v teyell ous tootts omee ont. of
eOds eiaul euqrod Lf base .betto miepe eaw «Sigua - hou .v genrexd
sod inmohut ont veiw" teds efut odd ed of bodega at di stedw <08,.008
sek seh Naeem ent Sanioge nolios as to yorebueq, edt. to bolitjon al
ne sevin el bas ,Wieushek oft to r9tdsm toetdue edt of gometetet
tk ,molvos dove mi dnempbut od ~soktoa tome bneteb ot yt lasttogae
~iomebet edd moa ovianlorms at mteulios. bms byext tuodtin beonisido
& oF Tetro den exs Motsw ier od? beatmre:s ab 88 2 tod
- ond yer. deiguetd yitomebsk 10% soltes gs mi mid. tagiogs, yrevooes
tinor£D oft to tuemgbut, bas gaibatt edt daidd oW. "» sedinmehal
dguositic ose etuobmsteb mo eviexLoaco Rew YsRe9 | soxusw LEM Ten teagp
sauased baeteh oF bawod. ytub at cow et kwe edt od ytteq, Be tom Baw edt
~9h Si tastetnt soars « bet bas Tiitnialg diiw ystivird, ni gawd
«tusbaoted ¢ ae bomtiot, sew Yiiemialq doinw. nh wen. ond cneund
snow gbut oft aisiave of tuchnated yd beogty ome etmiog e
-csgigoo afd al moinevoath atizom dolw os testo, wie aa: en +f. 9°
edd robmy ofdsnoltos dom at oalmozg toto begets odd taut wot
beguoexe sew buod ot semeood tadi beg at 32. absent, to etutedse
-semgs Ytinmebal edt bos totetedd nolttsoliqas ond bae SPREE, <4 ont
acw iyo metgs Yiinuebmt meddicw ont <8S0L «VS smh boda & ots tnom
vitwetoitine inielqaoo eff +biov sto toreds bre to ttaxeb tance, tu0stt be
-vani odd of toltq Vibe ot feign pie, tmshne teh. tat enuesis q
beesd ai yileamebmi to Fomtimam, ttre 8 ptmonxp wigan Pe
U-GL0L «A «fl oD Ml botete mh az, hemtndabamentei ee, a nog
ths €
Pa 5 bi tarewil
ate
to oatmoxrg oid yd boounat ak soatéa09 Lominto cd am
-10-
one of the parties that he will procure the sicenature of the
person who subsequently signs in pursuance of such agreement,
no new consideration is necessary to support the latter's
undertaking."
in Fidelity and Deposit Coe ve O'Bryam, 180 Ky. 27%, suit was
instituted against O'Bryan, and others» as indemitors upon a
sheriff's official bond given by the surety company. It was
urged by way of defense that there was no coisideration for the
bond of indemnity executed by them because it was executed sub=
sequently to the time when the surety company beeame liable on
the bond and was therefore unent'orceable, But the court held
otherwise ond said (p. 282):
"There are cases holdings and such appears to be the
esteblished rule, that if a bond of snaamlty Le executed sub-
sequent to the time when the indemmitee became liable upon the
undertaking for which he wants indemnity) and wibhout a new
consideration, the indemmitors will not be liable on the bond »
unless it was executed pursuant to a prior arrangement, because
there was no consideration for its execution. * * * Buty as we
have said, this principle has no application to the facts of
this case, because the bond of raaengpi sty J was executed pursuant
to agreements entered into between the indemmitors and
iulamsiieas ak tka tina’ or be before the indemitee became ilable
on the pn i fegins eek oh it désired to be indemiiitied.* ~~
cB OUTrse ee ae ee
Im Lord & Thomas v. Ham, 195 Ille Appe 356 (abstracted,
not published in full), it was held in substance that ~
"Where defendant's testator voluntarily guaranteed the
account of ea corporation, of which he was an officer, with another
corporation, a sufficient consideration to support the guaranty is
shown where it appears that such corporation refused to make the
contract unless guaranteed, and executed the contract on the faith
of the guaranty, and im such case it is not of controlling impor-
tance that the contract was executed before a written guaranty was
signed, if executed om the faith of a promise to ranty it
Site tvantte te kee ee” lies ae)
We have reached the conclusion that the complaint suffi-
ciently stated = cause of action against defendant, and that the
court should have required an answer md hearingupon the issues
made up by the pleadings. Therefore, the judgment of the circuit
court is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to
overrule the motion to dismiss and to require defendmt to answer
+ nie saaaaaaa REVERSED AND RUMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS «
Sullivany Pe Jes and Searilany Jo, concure :
oe
ent Io sissy te est ommooxg Lliw of ¢ald eotitag eld to ono
efnsmeetnd Howe To sonaatiy mi. ety ta vitneupeadue offv soured -
atretiet old tregqva of Ytsaseoen Al morn aeee cues WOM Of
‘anivadwo bay
pSiloh ts tt
aiw five (90S out CBF emeyth'O «F 200
a moqu atodinmebat ag patesito bas neyrt'o téntoga botud tiant-
daw tI svttegetoy Botmm ods Yd movig baod Leto Tre ‘atttiveda”
‘edd tot moidersh lems om saw overt tai¢ saneTed “to Ysw vd begte
laird Detuoexo aw th sameoed wor? ud bogwoexe Yd tamebat to baod”
pe eLdshL emeoed YRegmon Ylotws ord maciw onthe ody of vLdnespo8-
“Died ¢uvos ssl tum jaideovrotienu exo leteds ew bam byod edt
£3 3(888 sq) bdea bat. ovdwredto’
aig of oc etveegqs More bits ¢ earkbfod gaaso ome evedTt - a
edya begwooxe ai yiimmebat to bnod s tk tad? «ofnt bedtahsnt oe
edt noqu efdal{ sueood, eotlmmetal ode nostw. net
wen s jwoddiw brs ety Lame bat atnaw off doldw 10 x9
_ abmad edt ao efdail ed tom iLiv evodtomebat odd. 9fe cy a
ctusced Skemoueiorns soktq s pe! Rens sgn, Ho hoduoexs 8 asw $k ave "
ow «mo ide 20 : te. it.
+0 Jost en? Os mot. ae $ oh Mad “ode Foi hd bisa Seat
eG estyorse cow yd iemohst’ To heed a? Ok f tats
haremenneny &8E vaga Wise oy eek ait i
O° 6 gait obama ibe ak Rom onir 34 « (EDY m onesie son
and bhoetnatayy agree Mr igwnig ane " we
softens dtiw SF kacein its. Fag por seen sa 998).
ak Yirietag Std 3 Sastert STOTTOD
eald esteat a beaurter 4 teidese oa oy
seis edd 20 8 Bb y= Bere arta {
~togms saitiewtage 3 to y* et ti euso so ue a a SG
Baw poke soot baw & er tod bedtuoexe Baw “ester
ow oat
eg
-litwe sotalomen aft tact moberfome edd bestonet evant oW mae
ott jadd bre einshuoteb tomkaga alton to sauad # betata Yttnete. {
. xepast oft soqugnizsed bm cowamens botinpes bad bivode Waited" j
tinorio oft to goeag but esit «oun tered: oeyatiwelly ‘ete yd qu oben” 4
Od. amolsoetih dtiw bobmemet at eayae ett) baw beatover at fuiee”
xowates od 3 mbnotob orlapex o¢ baa aaimatb of meray em ot aie
4s SO TTONATC HTTW ‘cams on Cane ei a
ame eWWOHOS «ot etalasos bra woh of om ‘ ya
39080
MATHILDA BUTTNER, FANNY BOLDEKE,
HERMAN BOLDEKE and VALANTINE MUELLER,
Appellants »
ne ais
APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR
Ve
COURT, COOK COUNTY.
GUY A RICHARDSON et al., doing business
as CHICAGO SURFACE LINES,
Appellees. 6 9 0 oe 6 0 ie
MRe JUSTICE FRIEND DSLIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Plaintiffs brought suit to recover damages for personal
injuries arising out of a collision between defendants street
car and an automobile driven by Herman Boldeke in which the
other plaintiffs were passengerse Trial by jury resulted in
a verdict and judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs
appealede
As ground for reversal it is urged that the instructions
were improper and prejudicial under the circumstances shown by
the evidence. The facts essential to a consideration of the
propriety of the instructions disclose that on the evening of
November 25, 1933, plaintiffs had attended a bunco party at the
Palmer House, Chicago, and after leaving there about 12 o'clock
midnight, proceeded to the Como Inn for refreshments. About
1246 e'elock in the morning they started for their homes on
North LaSalle street. Herman Boldeke was driving the car east
on Grand avenue. The lights and brakes of the car were in good
condition. When he arrived at a point about forty feet west of
the intersection of Orleans street he saw a street car going
south which came to a stop at the intersection. Plaintiffs
oN ‘on a ee ie eR
* Z \
poms: * eee aa “ovove
SALTON YUMAT _AEELTUG AGIINTAM
RLISUM MEDPORIAY bas SIBLLOK WAMAEH
Boe roll 4 Sh
HO TRGUA WOME TARTEA i!
and Salih an tia —
sent & ity OATHUG ODA oi ae
saoolLegga oh
» EEMVOO HOOD ,TAUOD
1090 .A.1.0 2s
sTHUOD GET JO WOIMTTO SMT GUAMIVALAT insted sorrevt ‘sat
ity ed i
Leno ereg ‘tot : aeogonsh revogot of iin aduabil otis
soot a Jasnsbasteb moswied no La ttfoe a to two amtelta aotentei ;
ent doidw nf exehLo€ samt yd sevith eLidosodss ne bow 280
mi bed inaez vit a is int ssrognoaead orew ovitemtose xaiigo
attigeielt ‘s8dmaboe top to nova? at seommburt, baa toiba ov
dae fy eresent ond Sarid bopte at #r Imatevet ‘tor fauro 3 aX
vd nworte aeonsd amos to ott robs Esto tbuterg: bas xogozamt | ‘TOW
sit to noitsrebienoe s of Emtére ane adost Oat seonob ive oni
‘Yo setnove outs no sant ania Xk eno tveuxtent old 20 “wotmoxe
ont te Yius¢ oonnd s bobsodsa inet attivatelg | oeer ve snes
Aoolo’s Sf iuody axoitt guiveet corte pay opadt ot
juodh .adgomiaottot cet ant ono 9 ous ot debesoora. orerres
uo vaste stosld <o% dedtade yorly guilacom only ak Aooto'o, asst
PD 4,943 ele
hoog mi exew 189 elt to sodord bets adie LL eat penmevs 8 bass x0 ‘3
te daew tryed yeze? ip intog “ ts bovizza, oat Fae al am is tbnoe
We Rea
gitton ts. gootde s wea ed sooute asuso £10 to no i#osexsdnt alt
Jase teo ouky anivizb Bae stebiot SemteH pipette ®
attivnialt .moitooatoint edt ts gore s ot ome oute tne
iiesihe atate na BAT
at ie
Cia gat o¥ sierv biLive
adéuced evidence that the automobile was then travelling at the
rate of 15 to 16 miles an hour, and that Boldeke, after tooting
the horn, started into the intersection. The street ear started
and continued over the crossing and Boldeke unsuccessfully
aidesyored to swing to the scuth out of the path ef the care
fhe automobile collided with the west or right hend side ar
the street car just back of the motorman's platform, but did
not procsed upon er acress the Orleans strest car tracke
Mathilda Buttmer and Fanny Seoldeke were severely injured.
Léefendants! witnesses testified that the automobile came
down Grand avenue at a speed of about 50 miles an hour. One of
the police officers, who came to the scene of the collision after
the accident, testified that the fromt wheels of the strect car
truck were off the track about a foot, and that the rear wheels,
while remaining on the track, were turned at an angle.
At the close of the case beth sides tendered instructions,
but the court, without censulting ceunsel, rejected certain in-
etructioas and modified others, and it is argued that the charge
thus given the jury, uader the sharply conflicting evidence in the
case, resulted in a verdict for defendants. fhe instruction most
séericusly criticised is No. 17, which was given in lieu of defend-
ants' tendered instructions Mos. 5 and 6, and reads as follows:
“On Wovember 26, 1933, the City Ordinances of the City
of Chicago then and there in full foree end effect provideds
"tSection 78 (bv) -- When a street car has started to
¢ross an intersection, no operator shall drive upon or across
the car tracks within the intersection in front of the street
caret d i
"The Statutes of the State of Illinois in full ferce
and effect on November 26, 1935, provided as follows:
"(No person shall drive a motor vehicle, upon any public
highway in this State at a speed greater than is reasonable and
proper, haying regard te the traffic and the use of the way or
#9 as to endanger the life or limb or injure the property of
any personet ;
"The jury have a right to and should consider the facts
in this case in the light of the above laws which were binding
upon the parties in this cass.
cal
edd te gatilevert cons enw ofidometys ei dadt sonebive beavdbs
geivood tedts .evobfok dads bas eumed me aeLim of of at to estar
bostatie igo jesita oNT .meivoeatcini ef3 ofmi bodueda yorod ond
Yili tnacosnens ellobLof{ bus yatecox oft sxovo beunitnes bras.
«tee od to Ateq oat to suo saan: Lescol ot Batye: at baTaNAgheh:
Bo obta breil ttigtx xo seam eth std peretiee eLidemina oat
bts bad aro tidal aiagusodom eis to toad taw, uso toottea old
stents te9 tosiia anpelsO ont oneTos v0" ee ae som
sborwial yLereves erow exehLod vane brs contd sl absiséak
emco efidommins eld dadt deititaed pepmpat te ee.
to ea «ted as sofim 0¢ iueda to heega & 38 ounevs pil a
xefla moaaiflos oft to ansoa odd 0% sues cslw gatook tio esileg ond
use foende off¢ Yo aLeorhy deott osld tans DOLTHeSe ~smodlods ont
cutee hie edt tatt bie .So0T s tuedd deers ede To omer siownh
“$efgrs ns ta pertuy otew yxoete adn pistes obiite
eano ty ouréant berebas$ sebte Mtod sade oft a ‘eeots contd! 4A dha latad
«ni missxeo hedoehet alesnwos ambitwanoo ¢wondt iw «t2H09 ‘eels oane
: egzaito ‘ost tad? bowges al ah hue gaveddo botDinell bad dtottouxse
ot sh oonedive autioliinco ytavada oad Tepiin Geuaf dP aerks aaae
Gaon motiourtent of sedaahasteb roi soihtey a Rk bedbider”yveads
~bnoteh to weit ai noviy aew dokdw (YL sok bi beetotdixds YLewsaron
eweLfo? ea abner bus (8 bes 8 .a0it anodeourseat’ borebabt” etia
“Yeh atid Yo aoonaathx0 ys kO veld ¢o8er 08° to@movs
“Cea T ay
aoeneee Spin ile woo deoate kiss, 13 ak erent bee, ae egnoidd Yo
i cA eo
““eszot tivt KL women tt Yh o¥bga ait piineet dat
oidig' yea‘ Meat vebulai Sevens seeak oe caavet 7 on
bas) eidenoassr ak node beege a de eted2 2 ekts =)
zo yaw odd TO oas aS ores "so otif ed segnabae ¢3 Peg ee
‘to ysregerq oly ‘oabed 70 oi Peco eg th ae
precoated SPARS a =e
",2aeo er at peer
=e
It is argued that no instruction upon the ordinance of
the City of Chicago should have been given ai ail, inasmuch as
the evidence definitely showed that the ordinance was 10% violated,
because Boldeke did not drive the automobile upon or across the
ear tracks within the intersection in front of the street car. The
only thing prohibited by sec. 74 (b) ef the ordinance incorperated
in instruction No. 17 is that “no operator shall drive upon or
aeress the car tracks * * * in front of the street car," and it is
not contended by any one that Boldeke violated this ordinance, «and
therefore there was no evidence to which the ordinance was applicablee
The giving of an instruction not based on the evidence was held to
be reversible errer in Thomplsen ve Andrews, 243 Ills Apye 438. In
that case the court said (p. 442):
"We are of the opinion that the giving of the instruction
above aveted was reversible errore There Was no cylidencs upon
which te base it. An instruction which tells the jury that if a
certain fact exists yvirtuclly telle them thet there is cyvidenee
from which they can find that fact, and if there is no such evi-
denee, the instruction is calewlated to mislead the jury, end is
erroneous e*
To the seme effect are Garvey ve Chicago Railways Coe, 359 Ill.
276, end Clark ve Public Service Coss 278 Ille Appe 4266
There is, however, a more serious objection to instruction
M60 17% The lest paragraph thereof advised the jury that it had.
the right to and shovlé emeider the facts in the case "in the
light of the above laws which were binding wpon the parties in this
casee" (Italics ours.) This left the jury to draw the only con-
clusion which a leyman could poseibly draw, namely, that the mere
fact of the supposed violation ended the case. It told the jury
that it shovld consider the case in the light ef those laws "xhich
were binding," and must have given the jury the impression that the
ordinance and statute were more important rules of law than any
ethers in the case and governed its outcome. The law is well
Settled that violation of an ordinance or statute is only prima
oe
20 eottentite oid Hoge tottowttuat off Jatt Bergin ai’st
ae doumanni<iie va sevig need svecd bivorte ogsoito te Yeid’ aay
cbetaLolv tom aw sonsuthto old fads Howotle (Los int tb edited by > ads
ond adetos TO nog slidomminas oY ovat Yor bib efeb Lok saucood
ea! vieo teetda 64F Xo Foot? ME HO RoveToeAt one Mid iw etosrd Zao
bei stdgreonh sanenthro edd t6 (a) BY vode yo Bodie tdorg gutdd Leo
TO MON arith Liwla todereqo on” garth et VE ,0f no ttortdendt mt
at at boa Nera deotte ont Yoeewrd Hk * Oo meeaey tay SHPddbe
ets ~soreutbio ells batelotv oxshLe® satiy om yas Yd -bodaotnon ‘ton
sefdeotioqa eew sonanibro sil? doitiw ef oonobtye od dow ptext oxo teredd
od Died saw ontiabive oft mo beuad ton ee
HE «88h syqQA wLIT CSS pawethah «v qpatqmol® ab rérre efirerevet ‘ed
eee Festina. ole ay a g(GRS Se) Sher Prpeo oat wad ints
Mebtourtank edd to yabvks ett taste ) CHE te eck BE He |
a tasks, esa, oad sor oogeh eae re classe” Om" Dee phy ho
eemebivo si ores dads modt alfes veifenttty ataixe tont ntatteo
_ vhve dona om at exer th ae, toast todd oath ano yet) doldw mort
‘al bas ety oni poe fake ad } ak pani miepras? att .eened
5 Balpaaitan sie Bs aso gRe Ute
vena 21 ssoxae emee, afd. QT
: 2 oifdys sv Biel) bas,..AVS
od gah erent.
AEE ORE ag
Se
to owrjent oF sottostdy, awe i408 PTO B ¢ LIV
bad gt test vent ont beeivha tosteds squtge: ag |
edt ai” nee oats at atest ont tobtaane © hae ot tats. ort
eis a eottuag ode megs path aren aig bebe ane © ver ont ‘ko gelg il
~s 0 Yim edd ward of ent, ‘one ites ater +, HF ottadt) W.oaas 4
“oxot ef teiy yytemen woth yetieeog bios’ nemyst @ Motdw ng ieato
Um, ots bios. tt soneo ord hobne cotvetety. pesegauaemt to! dost
‘od? anal gaodd te. tag ht ont aa ea od rabienoobiwodia 3% dani 4
eh wut et:
ont dest bolasozgmt asi wb, exit ors, ovat eam ben Negutomas oxo ;
4
oye Ct RG. RG
ve ‘gest wal to ‘ee Lue frst so exon ouow otutete By
' fe erie mie
bev al. wal. ‘oat ‘some oon, att bonzoreg, am easo edt ak exentso j
ated wk weketen: ont? moe * 2
amixg yao af eguieta ro ieiabres as to m0 bSazoty taslt —oners
ee)
facis evidence of negligence. We find in defendants' brie? no
autherity approving an instruction similer te Hee lv. Deiendants
geek to justify the instruction, but we think it wae misisading
ana improper e Defendants! tendered imstructicns Hose 5 and 6,
Waieh the court refused, indicate that their counrel hac the correst
rule ef Law in mind when they asked the court to charge the jury
that the vielation of a statute or ordinance is merely prima facie
evidence of negligence and that the jury must find that the violation
eaxeunted to negligence which proximately contributed to the collisione
fendered instructions Nos, 8 and 6 also distinguished between the
cases of the driver, Boldeke, and plaintiffs who were passengers,
a distinction which is entirely ignored in instruction Woe 17. Under
the instruction as given the jury wes told that the laws were bind-
ing om ali the parties, and that if Boldeke violated either the
ordinance or the statute, ipso facto, none of the plaintiffe could
recover. This is not the lawe The question of the care and caution
imposed upon the passengers in the car was not taken into considere
ation, notwithstanding evidence addused by plaintiffs that Valentine
Muoller, Whe was riding in the front seats saw the street car as the
automobile neared the intersection, and said to Boldeke ‘there is
a street car coming,” to which Heldeke replied *I know it.”
Defendants argue that thie instruction was cured by other
instructions, and specifically that instruction No. 7 stated the
correct rulee instruetion Noe 7 was proper so far as the driver
Was concerned, but did not take into account the rights or liabilities
of the cther passengers. As to the driver the jury could not very
well follow both instructions Nose 7 and 17, because they were con-
flictinge
in Gorrell ve Fayson; 170 Tile 213, plaintiff seugh’ to
escape an erroneous insiruction on the grownd that a correct
f
on toind leduckaeted at bait eV .soceaifzon 20 cousbtve sing?
Ssisbwio 0 VL 60k oF telimia soitvouttanl. aa etilyosgds, ys Suoslius
‘patbss Leda saw th dotés ow tud eneigoutsemi, ond Ulizaus of eee
+9 fms: @ .ROK amotiourtemt herebmed. 'edmadsoted . , reqozqud. due
doatzes ods bart Loumweo wiedd dads edpotout «beswies damon. exit, sin daly
Sicet aming yievem al eonamibre wo otutete.e to spitatoiv odlt. feasts
noltaloly ed gant butY sas Yuwt ett tay bus ooneghigen io soneblve
smolaifioe ex of bedadintnos yYLeseminouy, foiny soneglinas.oes betanogs
eid mowted hosatuynttnth onte 0 bas @ y20% anold ondast, bomohnet
tobaU .VL sol noliowudant mt boro: qLetitm 91 Moidw nottonttath
~baid etew ewal edt sald blot eow yuh edt movig- ea mohtounsand. add
“oils “ness to beta tany’ edehLom _ ‘taste bite eaehiuag: carheomed ve ‘ot
bines stite ately est ‘x ene rrr 26308 7 yotutase ott 0 ‘sonanttivee
moisue9 bike 9460 emt to no Liaeup ear : out tom at dha “stowooe7
“Tobianoo osnk Kewesd Jom sew tee odd ak crepreunne ond yin ool
onigne lev dad} ebtionbely WW beovbbs eottebhive gubbistadsiwien iiwtts
edt as tse foouda end woe «dese snort oA) ni gnibie eee ok’ Yeotrbux
ak oxesit” exebLot of bis bite «mlisearesit ory bots¥ht eLidomosus |
Mak work’ a poliae exebloc tishiw od *.gitimo teo wupele ;
xodo wi bewwo saw moljouxdani alt? said exgte atnehus tel ty
end bodate Y sol uolfourtash fost YLinotttoodd iin veo ti odivvent Mel
rovith esd aa tat op seqorg saw ¥ wot aoivoirtyant “yen ‘Poerion a
nolsifidsht to adipit ond Ynwooon ofmt ound don btb sd beirwdned caw
vey Jor bisoe yut edt wevirb odd of aA . webyiiowaky teatro att :
508 etew bad oeunood w bua ¥ sical win Ste He syed WoLtot Lfow ffow
eid ay | wae et asi
ot datguo8 sitet « eEL8 SHEE OE ydoayad JY Eom all ~_— ail
RH atti wt
- toerxes a ‘tats bewora yrs wo Lomein th
sae be “ff be Nena
ey ht Y BK le hae fot
=Ҥe
instruction had been eiven at the request of the defendant on
the same subiect- The court there seid (p- 219)32
"We do net think it can justly be said that the defeats
in seid third instruction were cured by instructions given at
she request of the defendant. Im such a case it was not suffi-
cient, as we have heretofore said in other cases, ‘that some of
the defendantst instructions mey have stated the law correctly»
% © *® Plaintiff's instructions should nave done the same thing,
60 tnat the jury could not have been misled by considering oe
pet or the other of the charges given.*"
in Counseiman ve Collins, 35 Ill. Apps 68, the court said
(pe 7O)s
"That for the appellants the court gave a counter-instruc-
tion is not an answer to the error, as it camot he told which the
jury regarded, if either."
In cases where the evidenee is conflicting as to negligence
end contributory ucgligenee, the courts have repeatediy neid that
the instructions should be plain and free from doubt and should
announces legal principles so that there could be nso question in the
minds ef the jurere as te the law. (Herring ve Co & Ae Re Codey 299
Ihle 214; Williams v. Penusylvenia Re Coe, 235 Tlle Appe 49» 55e)
And in eases where the evidence is close if there ate eny errors
thet micht have been prejudicial the Judgment muct be reversed and
the cause remended. (Anlicker ve Bretherst, 329 111. 11, 163 imvender
ed
¥» Chicago City Re CO, 296 Tlie 284, 286.) The court in this case
eovld have obviated the necessity for « retrial of the case by giving
the instructions tendered by both sidee, which were based upon approved
authorities. Some of the ctiticiem made of cther inctructions given
is well taken, and the court improperly refused toe give plaintiffs'
instruetion Noe 2, which defined the burden cast upon the various
Plaintiffs as to the exercise of due eare and exution. However, we
sexchesd that these errors wiil not be repeated upon retrial of the
ease and deem it wimecessary to discuss these various instructions in
detaii. lefendants' counsel argue that no other verdict could have
resulted from the evidenee, but we have examined the recerd sufficiently
sO dnataeteb add to deoupex sid ta, sav ky, Reed bast nottouttant,
¢ * (O88, «@) bisa exodd guveo ext. _stoetdua mine, pats,
atooted. ont jatt bies ed vite ooo ok Ackdd gon od. aW
me ~ aT ae, “ oe yer bo ttaurdent: aero bisa Wy
~ ve teat See0 6 Hoa BF « i oi 8 A le te @
‘to salou fay dane “oto at Sige ‘; 3 eer ae Chien ts shy
_syftsomzoo wal edt bedete ovarl vem saolvoutt ent y ‘ateaten tet, ots.
cumin? saga oft Gaes everl bIveds uno theredani a Yitbeiels * >
oe geiteblenes ud betfair need eva tom biveo yrut, eit dant i
8) norte regrets say teoredso ede to tee
bee kes! on $d qq EET Be sembiton 7 anna
| oS wgutvent<totnsos # stay Pines ots edmalieqqs odd x0t tail" > “ssa
on Psigiccal Sant ag Lerinet ae aa omeese est of tewans ms som 4 oy pa
Byitelebe “hig toh mages
| eouegiftged ot ae guiioliiase ek sonebive edt stedw measo Bi) oo 69
- hattd, tosh ckbedoeqes eves adzw09 etd: .eosee ison Nantadintane: hoe,
Aivoka baa $dyed movi sett pas misle ed biseda anoibemusanh sx
| edt ah seivmayp os od Bivoo wrorlt, deig 08 aeLytoriiag, Leyel sonwo ane.
Aied0¥ alll sal edd of us crow edt Qe shake
yigansiet «v eogtl Lays 1 ol8 wiht
axoTts Ys etm etodd 1h enoLo a& eoapbkve edt exed eoasp mh bm
|
‘bre beatever od dust tnambhat off Letotsebety seed owed tely tet dati,
To brent Pek Cif xitt eae sl omoriott ov yopio SErch} ow
ges aide sth duo oaf (089 0888 » LIE O08 4.90 af wit ©
gnivig yd dase add To Iaicier o woh yo lvaspen silt sesteodoaie svar bio —
bevoxcgs noqs beasd etow dokiw <aebhe ated yt hercobaed enotdousd ant ond ‘
nevis Broidemiani sedso To sham maloigito ot to emoa, arottinnsiius .
Tettivninie evia of boun’bot ylreqotigal danes edt Sas ~netat Slew wt- |
auolisy ous sogp duno wohand edd bembtob ufo tn Qo no lLiowts amb ‘
ow etevero sitobdwdy fists oman oni 6 eatotaxo edd odne wYthembalg
odd to fstutet mqy dedsogex od Jou Liiw aterm ouod? tafd auadongge
nk anokiourient avoliev esett sunyaih od Yrosacoomm sf wiht peaseten
eves Biuos totbtev tecito of sect ogre Lasoo ragadbaated mnenhe KY
Ulinotoltive ‘brooet oid Senimexte evedt ow Jad ceomentr ent ares oot ae e
a
ep
-§=
te feel satisfied that the evidence was sharply conflicting ou
several important issues, and that it wee thereiore of paramount
importance that the jury should have been instructed clearly ané
fully as to the law. The judgment of the Superior court is
reyersead aud the cause is temanded ior a new triaie
JULGHENT AGVSRSED AND CAUSE REMANDED.
Sullivan, Pe Js, and Seanlan, Js, concUre
iN rebar tds, sak. oe
0 seliedtime, ca
af
“ gutonoo el anetsosd: alvibieee ae
Oh agent bie eS ateacee e wstegy Byala gy OREN Hatin Seg in ee dy alee tiie
saaeek Beey mine _ esta bl beat Pcp ve eae od sawn i aS. ok meds
ce eee wns
A ei fe hia HGS eA EE wall ae wie ENA
MTs “Ye, we, wre: ab eee aah mau: an oso
i hee Keawewrest et tee: in hg ‘gene shel Shi
mabe cA edt Pin ay whe EE I AS gs nei
i Pau eos aos bl Pe DR 7 he en fk MDS OH tw ae a
gaivig Yt weed. ado: Be Sanborn We ee oY ade
f
a,
eronggn see bused cae dadbiy aati let de Seasoning
aud ely aly mg Janie aalenaal ‘ail pain &: :
ot ero PIN 9 sto Lenni haha “opto ae Us: ee bonacte iaih wi
are “ke Seeded RES Be Sen GIA gin rae so eso: "
ak snodenwreank ede rory nats wang tb od XoaRode
4 aarp Soman
item soi eae anak — ae jut Sta
®.
aver Sites Ok Ley saad ahi |
oN
4 é 4 f
a Ps fai
APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL
COURT OF CHICAGO.
39106
IVAN BARTON GOODE and BERNARD LEWER )
(plaintiff and defendants below) » )
Appellees, )
)
Ve )
)
HOLLAND MOTOR EXPRESS INCORPORATED,
a corporation, dala and
plaintiff below), ps 9 0 I oe ‘e) 0 Tt
Appellante
MR. JUSTICE FRIEND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF TH! COURT.
This appeal involves a collission between a Chevrolet
automobile owned by Ivan B. Goode and g@riven by Bernard Lener,
and the trailer attached to a truck owned by Holland Motor
Express Incorporatede Goode brought suit for damages to his
automobile against Holland Motor Express Incorporated and the
latter in turn brought an action against Goode and Lener for
damages to its truck. Two verdicts were returned by the jury:
one in favor of Goode against Holland Motor Express Incorporated
for $315, and the other finding Goode and Lener not guilty in
the suit brought against them by the express company. Judgment
was entered on both verdicts. ‘The express company appeals.
The first count of plaintiff's statement of claim alleged
neglisence; the second count willful and wanton conduct. The
second count was stricken in the course of the trial and the
court's ruling is assigned as ground for reversal. Wo question
is raised as to the pleadings.
the accident occurred August 175 1935. Goode's Chevrolet
eutomobile was being driven by Bernard Lener in a southerly direc-
tion on a two-lane concrete hichway, around a rather sharp curve
econ t
he : «(otod as SLs =e
TACT LMM MONT TAETA ae | a
200 1. OER 1 THUVOD ieaaiiaamuiiaal
Re hk 5 bas tebaotod ,o Lieroqos @ 09 8
r Q s, nate 1 0 e Cus by eT 4 £ my ane svalorg
sTHUOD THT W WTO AT neem Erie CURIA SDITETG » FU
toLorvedd 6 noewt a molsalifes e aeviovnl Iseqqe aidt j
canon bransem yd sevite bas shood .& asvi yd bemwo of tdomosun
TOOK bmsllok yd benwo Xowst @ of benoatte refed edt ban
aisl o¢ segemeh rot jisa idguord obood +be ta tog 190ml aaetgxil ;
| eid bas hegaroqucenl eseengxt rose baeliok donlege eLidomodus ;
“0% canal bus shoop tantege soites ma ieiguotd mud wt wettal
sym, edt yd herurtet etow agotbuev owt otowad ati og sepemah
botstogroonl eactgex® tosoM baslLok vankage abood to tovet at ono |
ai vilss ton tomer bar ehoon gutbnit tonto odd bres 13ie§ r,
tuemebyt .¥ewacmeo ecetqxs ot ye mont tombiga tignuetd thwa out
seLsegqas Yasgaoo seotqxe OAT .adothrey Atod mo boxetne aa
bogelis mtelo to tremetate eMttitntaly to dauoo taxi? off
ox? .towbrm cotnw bre fWILLiw treo baooes edd wee”
ori? bus fatxd of? to oetwoo edd at nedoltia ew soo beoova
nolveesp of .Isetover tot bewvorw ae bemgteas ef gatint ved”,
sagmisselg edt of es boater a“
teLorvedS a'obood .8fOL VL saraus bowie dunehbloos oA? | eS
~ootlb ylrettuoe s al tenet biemted yd sevich gated asw efidomtus —
/ ovmso quate <esider © bawoxa «yang lit otexomon. erel~ows 9 mo molt
ede py eb, ial OM. CU ae iy, IA eR
Fore. Gran ® hs Siena A Tel.
ete
on Ue. Se reute 31, near the intersection of Riverside road,
Berrien county, Michigan. Two other boys and two girls were
alse passengers in the car. They were going to Benton Harbor
te attend a moving picture show. The accident occurred between
8:30 and 9:00 peme Plaintiff's witnesses testified that the
Chevrolet was being driven between 30 and 35 miles an hour, and
as they approached the curve the driver slowed ¢own to approximately
25 miles an houre The truck was then st the other end of the curve.
“hen the driver of the Chevrolet car was about 25 feet from the
truck he noticed the truck was “cutting” the curve, and was approeach~
ing on the wrong side of the road. lLener pulled his car into the
gravel on the right hand side of the highway and his car was struck
by the trailer and turmed over om its side. ‘The evidence discloses
that the truck traveled about fifty feet before coming te a stop.
Defendant had oa different version ef the occurrencee Its
Witnesses testified that the truck and trailer had pulled eff on
the right hand shoulder so that the entdve Left side of voth units
were 4 feet to the right of the center on its owm right hand side
of the highway. The truck and trailer were about 35 feet long and
the lights were lit at the time of the accident. The collision
caused the two rear tires on the lef! rear wheels of the trailer
to be blown out, the rims of the wheels were twisted and broken
and the tall-gate of the traller was torn dow,
One of the issues of fact thus submitted to the jury ws
whether it wee Goode's automobile or the truck which was on the
wrong side of the reade Defendant's witnesses testified that the
accident happened before the truck reached the curve; that the truck
Was going omly 15 miles an howr and had pullec off the pavement
when it appeared to the driver of the truck that plaintiff's car
4 Was over o the wrong side. This evidence, however, is contradicted
shaot obloxevii to aettoverosat afd taom LE tue «8 0 mo
etew ats iy oud bane syod torte owf « tag Leh» 2M «Yeomes sip irree ‘
26dteH mbinem of gatog oxow yor? .2e0 oft mt aregsinaaay Outs
aeavsed bewuroo® taebloes aft .woits isle gatvom « Anetta, #?
ost? tad? bottiveot apaeendiw wet ipAtart sag 001% ban O63)
bas quot ne selina 6s sine 06 mented sevtieh Sr ser SRRPEVORY
Eletamixomgs oF amob beweln tevizh odd ewzu ost¢ besdont’
sorte ent Yo bmw teste att to most aaW stowed eat Mie, me wo Lbak 3
"geld mort gook JS swode nave ils eta ste, ee monet le alle
a naw bie seviso ott “yatidam® sew agurst ole bookeor pul sowte
ed? ofmi tam eid Selling comet vhaor oft to obte mow aft no gat
wowwds cow <9 ots baw yomiyid ol? Yo obie baa Syte ould no Lovey
weeolovih sonehive eft soba ast no seve bemzuy been xoftest oul w
sqose @ O8 gubmoo oxoled toot wut tyoda ‘budowuend sows? ots dai
atl seonercyeso ent Ye mmtaxey dmora Vib 8 ‘bat deren toe
no The heLlug had v0shexs ‘fo owe $ oa ‘taatd betitiees 2 connomhl
adbeos déod to ebta ttel or kim era toasts 02 rohiveda bata 1.2 ‘a
pbte brat diytx amo ust sm xodmee wilt ‘Yo diighx ald of toot oxow
| bis gue foe 22 swede oxew xoLtaxt bna Aoured oft yoy it ee 20
ao ie Rip 9 ent edneh loos a te omy only a ot ener SAA ot
wolterd oft te. efoonw mae 9k, oud 0, aORke Sao owt, ott bossa
modo bus fotalwd exow ateodu odd Yo amis rte aon, nil ed oh |
+ M0b 20d. pew roktest ot Yo etap-Liat, mt, ae
i st sth obs tap tatiana diate toiled wala ae
\ erkt. 2x0 car nln Sart. 2h SSR oes 9
ott sect? bolilvaod secaendiw atinabawked. «haet onl to ebte.. snow
| Hout ald Sasld ove aMlt Yaslonen dower elt ece2ed syomoggnut tab toon
“dxomoveg edd Tho bo Llny bad bn WOH sia soLbe OL Gla yates sew
hao 5 (PRE abaly ‘taagetemeret ate te Lovtth 08 nexsogge $2 wate
tae a , Fosaadh 7
wo Fea
by Norman Dorgelo, one of defendant's own witnesses, who testified
on cross-examination as follows: "QG» How far around the curve
did the accident happen? Ae Practically to the very north of t ke
turne® Goode'ts car was proceeding in a southerly direction, and
if the accident happened at the north end of the curve, as borgelo
testified, the truck must have traversed the curve before reaching
the site of the accident. Another circumstance tending to show
that the truck had entered upon the curve appears from the following
guestions propounded te Dorgelo on direct examination:
"Qe How fast were you driving along there, as you came
around the curve?
Ae Approximately fifteen miles per hour.
Qe As you came up to the curve, did you observe any other
traffic?
Ae Yes, this Chevrolet comings
Qe How far away Was the Chevrolet when you first saw
it, from your car?
Ae 150 feet
Qe Did this car slow down at any time before the collision?
Ae Yes, it may have slowed down to a certain extent."
(Italics ours.)
Dergelo's testimony is corroborated by his helper, who testi-
fied that when they were 40 feet from the curve they saw the Chevrolet
200 feet ahead, just entering upon the turne
The guestionsof uegligence and contributory negligenee pre-
sented conflicting issues of fact, which were submitted to the jury,
and by its two verdicts the jury determined these questions adversely
to the express company. One of the points made by defendant was that
the verdicts of the jury are against the manifest weight of the « vi-e
dence, but an examination of the record does not bear out this con-
tention, and we would not be justified in disturbing the verdicts
wiless reversible error was otherwise committed upon the trial.
It is urged by the express company that the court erred in
ee eee ae
nee ee
(3
bollitasd odw ,seueent iw nwo a’inabastol to emo yoLea rot mua’ Yo
evrso off bawote te¥ wo 12" sawotiot as nokishingxe-atoro Ho
al? %6 Meco yxov ons OF ELLedti owt .A Tobqyall dnehioss et bib
PTT ee Tee ee ee ha
ofegroll ea <ewrto aii to bee Mirow add to ‘bensqaatt dnobtoos eft tL
gnittoces etoted Srurs ods Bearovets svat joum sowed off bePerees
Satta of pakbied ooticdamrotio teddomh stash loos ‘etd Yo otte old
aac elf} nox? dtsbcya ovis cxty noct bexotns bait Xorts oat Sant
trot? beriimexe dorks Ko eLegtotl of” bebrmoqot¢. arte
dus Boy Be Veta sieLs | aad oro — won gn eens
ewes seg ag L£ Leat nosd tit Seteoteegs a en
sosito wis “evisedo HOY, bib eh dans wnt os Gy ome ney, *h, ae
ypitimoo feforved® ade gues oo Se
wee texit soy mew geofotvedD ont ese Yswe tek wolliap
frso w0y mort .it
i vay ae bar ney eeamnend Bey
Cmtaittes odd otoled omtd we ve awoh wole tho alii bia 4) pyrectiy
Wy taorxe alates a 0+ mdb bewoLa | sania #2 dig ¥ FF chins & pene
setup aottadl)
wkiet omdw bate. a itt 1 hetanoquange at vant sod a oe £9 wut
to Lorvesto edt wan yeu? evswo sat mx? 200% Ob over Yad? maslw testd bow
esrumd edd mogs anbzedae samt nanny Cop re. |
~Oty leentinon crosusdis 109 awe somepiige:t 1 Swege tteeup ae Sl
a euary, ot? oF he gd linda otew so ketw stout Ba) aouaal puldei£2m0 pein
vieasoyhe ‘ano lseoup seeks boninss# eb wu ett agoubrey ows eet Bf Haus
r * fesse |
tadd sso dense Lob xd ebas atniog ont % on -aiagnes saorgxe ‘end ad a
AS Be as Pe Fag: aay ;
stre wih we jelgtow teotinem eats Sentsve one wat oud ‘to asothisy ea |
.
Bt Cat eg 9" CRS ;
£0 9 ats 2850 raed ton aeob buapes ould 20 no ientmexe nS tae pyre
DOR Re Ma es UMN: fos ec, a
oy :
et otbs0v outa gakduus add ai pertiiunt of ton ‘bLuow ew brea eto tdmes
te Nee See PUIG oo gaueiey i
slats ‘oat } ogi sotto « eatweosido aw xo7r0 eldtexeves: aeolau
Se a! Se a RR ag
er hexre sumoo exit ‘tae wengens teongee ‘esi yi beg ai Pa ane
wha
refusing to admit in evidence two photographs purporting to
represent the scene of the accident. The driver of defendant's
truck, who had traveled over this road frequently, identified
the photographs, but neither the photographer nor anyone
was present at the time they were taken identified them, nor is
there sny preliminary proof showing the condition of the read at
the time the photographs were made. Turthermore, the photographs
were taken by daylight, and the accident occurred at night, and
Goode's counsel argues that much of the terrain as shown in the
pictures was invisible in the dark and that the conditions were not
the same as at the time of the accident. Goode also offered photo-
graphs of the site of the accident, and the court suggested that if
counsel would stipulate he would admit the pictures offered by both
sides, but counsel for the express company refused to so stipulate
and the court thereupon sustained the objection of Goode's coumsel
to the photographs offered by the express company. Inasmuch as the
necessary preliminary proof for the admission of the photographs
Was not made, and some question existed as to whether they correctly
represented the situation as it existed at the time of the accident,
we think it was not error for the court to refuse to admit them.
rnd er am eee
Mansur Coe, 175 Ille Appe 240.)
It is further urged that the court erred in refusing to suh-
mit the willful and wanton count of the complaint to the jury, but
we find no competent evidence of willful and wanten conduct, and
therefore we think this count was properly withdrawn.
The principal ground urged for reversal, and in fact the
only one stressed upon oral argument, is that “there was no competent
evidenee as to the market value of the demaged automobile or the
reasonable cost to repair ite* it was Goode's comtention that his
car was damaged beyond repair and that he had to sell it as junk,
Utoezx00 yeast soxtd od od a8 hotatxe an 42 pip pape bas. sobam son esw ;
“® Stsee ov padoee {OVD ELT O8L ap
od gatittequrg andgetgetory owt sonebive mt timbe et gmbatter
a'tnebuetob te reviud sAT «¢nsbioen edy to envow etd dneseucen,
« bettigmohs «yiinoupett beot aie tove befevatd bot ode adore,
pha enoyse tom tedgemetolg oft tadtien sud . angamges ong, edly,
BE On, emodd boltivnebht measg stew vod? omtt srt to, tuepetg. paw,
te bagx odd to moitibaes edt patvora toorg yratinilerg ys erod?,
il oat «otomrediivt .ohem oxew adqetgotodg, amt emit ods.
bts .idaic ja berxyoee tusbtoos, edt pan .tigiivel yd moles. orow,
af? ai awoda es aiexted gf to dou tad? neggrs toamuoa, a'ehood
dou oxew amotiibace edt test bom auab odd at. oldiaival ssw eetetolg
-ototg bewette cefs ohood sdmsbloos en? to emis off $8 ee sme “Sate
ti tad bedsoggue Puveo edt hus .dkebioos sit to adte ong to aslqerg
déod ya hoto'rie aetudotg oct #imbs biusow ont staleqite biidw tomsuoo,
etalugisa oa ee hboevlist Yisquee asusgue odd aot Leanwog dud saeble .
foanmsoo aleboob te soltontde eff benietags, moquaxedd: dada ond bas
edt es doumsont «Yiagqaos sactqxe edd yd bots tto eagamgoteaa 9 ote: pre
_ eal. ont . fio fee inte att 03, hives veantmtong Yissasoon
F
j
stmebives edd to omtt ent do botadxe #f an secbianitihe att bodnovorget
vnotit @ fhe @Y odwtes of demon hail ‘ok torre tos eaepaiiligsnghes ew
a LORI
~dye po gunities at sunienune wie tied Mapeamaemah a |
dud, eyxut ot os tmisiegme only to tmtoo modmew baw \twtEtIw ote eee
(hha _towbsoe aptiie bas LLL ty Someb ive JHSS Sy Oo Ont best ow
sHwetbae iw Ytoyerg Mew seed edad sais ow exo Toes
(edd goat mi bas .faaxevox aot begae brwemy Lagtontig emP oy eukt
saeteqmon: on asw oxedsi” tadd ah etnomugss Lene noqu beasende ito, no:
eid 10 elLidonotua bezanmsd exit: Yo ewLlow souvent oid oe a somebive i
aid dat nokinetnes 2 tebo0d naw PE Mea k Bogor 04 3809 etdanoncex ,
sii 00 9 L080, 5nd at tot ana xiager: Deed Sept sn a0 ;
He testified that “the whole thing was like a twisted Reap of
junk." "Q. Whet disposition did you make of the car? Ae ft
attempted to get it repaired; they wanted, maybe, 2350 to fix
£t." Goode was alzo asked whet he did with the car after the
asecident, an@ he steted thet he sald it to a junk man for &560,
The evidences snows that the front part of the Chevrolet Was twisted,
the motor was bent, the lamps were off, the cylinder-head wes
emeashed, 211 the wheels were broken off, the bedy of the car twas
out of shapes, the frame bent, the front instruments, headlights,
bumper and radiator were damaged. Tyo used car dealers testified
on behalf of Gooée that the reasonable valuc of a 1935 Chevrolet,
in good condition, wes between $375 and $395. The jury evidently
aceepted the lower figure and deducted therefrom the S66 for which
the damaged car Was sold, returning their verdict for plaintiff in
the sum of $315. <Gecde's evidence that it would have cost $356 to
repaiz the car, taken together with the evidence as to the condition
ef the car after the accident, would seem to indicate that it was
almost completely destroyed, ond that it was only a "twisted mags
£ junk" after the accident. The correct measure of damages was the
difference in the value of the car before and after the accident,
and sufficient evidence was submitted te the jury on this question
to sustain the verdicte
Lastly, it is urged that the court erred in giving plein-
tiff's instruction Noe 22, relating to the measure of damgene This
instruction advised the jury that it might teke into consideration the
evidence, if any, as to the difference between the fair cash market
value of the automobile before the collision end the fair cash
Market value after it was damagede The express company's counsel
does not question the rule laid down as to the measure of damage,
but argue that there was no evidence upon which te bese the in~
tO yao boteing Be olkh sow yruiriee eleri- edd! gaat. Sekt stead ob
OVA Peo ontty Bo salam yoy. GLb aw ke beage Bho dedi, o PM. My sleart
RIT OF C809 godquam yhotnew yort phowtagen 22 dog..0% Ddetgemidsa
add “tudte use en? clotw bib ed dod bewtes waa wow ebood « heft
‘$008 rok rset Shh @ of FE Alem of ele hetnde ect pew gerehtoem
ehedeind caw toLoxrvediO erie hoodrer drow? belt joel oWone sonohive eff
enw paed-cobgrifye orld «Tio. otew equal ot ,¢ned. sem wdom edt
asm ter edt ke ybed osld . Ve! nealend exew aLoosw. oft fle ~ bodoome
.edigiibset yeduomadtent gre tt old y died emett eng yoga te sue
Rettivest? biolLash cwo foun owt shegateh oven motetben hme seqad
i ~ ““feLotvedD C8@L 2 Lo erlow eidanonset ont daft eb6eD. te Minted no
fh “Ltmobive veut oft .8@66 "bas sve} maowted aew ynotsthnop boo ttt
“tod x0" 039 oift morhe rads bSfeubed bas omwyl? cowel oft detqooon
WE PeEtatelq Tol F6ibrov. Lisid guides YbLow daw tse Hogamaby ‘old
ot 0888 deoo evad Sinow 34 said edaedivs 2 Yebood OLEH Ro mwa volt
notithnad oft of aa SomsStvs oft Al toddogod motes yaKe °oits thaget
asa $2 sartt etsothak o¢ moon bidow <dmehldoa edd deste te9 ont to
age Sogziwd” a yin sow PE dad? Sas . boyotdeeb ¢Lotolquios taom~s
‘eat aaw segamnh ‘to ottacem doottoD off .stebloss Off teste "anet To
eiiobtoos ast} zs3ta bas oro'ted tnd ait To omLev ong mt enaeteTtts
“tpideenp elds so Yul ol? OF Hedetines aor Sonthivd smorde Theil: hrs ‘
Veehbtee" edt atetiemees
~titsig gatviy mt borte Pivoe ond dand¢ bogie BE FY ehtear q
aBir sasgateh Yo otwaneit Od? of gattator (So Lol noltewciead arttis
oft nctisttobtudws Ott extet tay te F¢ Phat soot see beabyhs Nb ivouTTeR
foam ano “HAY sul moowtbd onset Heo oe ee iokaaie :
“slang tis? oii baw Rolattfos ed otwted io 0 ;
Peehwos a yen o nea on? sbepamab baw ¥t ‘win enle feittie
peo te ‘otuansa Os of as mob bret oan nid pod,
ri “at oath asd od ob soqss salnet vs oll a6 19. .
Bite ry ie i, Bx Poin an
a ROME S ate. emma i eh vid Ri Bet ss Cae we
-6—
struction. We have already set forth et sufficient Leneth the
evidence which we think justified the court in giving the ine
struction, aud therefore further discussion ef this peint is
unre cessarye
fhe case was faiviy tried, amd the conflict in the evi-
dence upon the two prinsipal issues, mamely, negligence am demages,
were submitted to the jury wumder proper instructions. The jury by
both of its verdicts found the issues against the express company,
and we find no convincing reason for reversal. Therefore the
judgment of the municipal court is affirmedce
APY DRUED«
Sullivan, Pe Jes ad Scahilan, Jey cOncire
‘ p ‘ Be i Wath eee eee
ies pbb , F RRA CHR aha “< } any OR ge
aS) +40 Cr awe ce ae er ¥ i a
shih, Mel ae
ay Teg Wop site Sa
ahve ott wh dokktiame vant: bao ghodnd acta as 2098 Bosc
(Fe torres
MEE eee age tiene ym zonniang veg !
\
i
das KALBA HS a Fyre ny
paged) | Ait Mes
Sai oY
2 ret ape eine ledge ed: “(he oa -
RM rs AI GE ge 3 ent oa pea: shoe oer) avid:
Ba Mae Lk Me an mien hah “QO weetow
Bdge
% ia Bs AD a He
cies PCR AE OH RR TON" aR wan bee
ai jos ate ae
Cae et Wave
Ty eee ick 1h Peg Sas ki ND (i Sayre
a Saeed Sh maT et
«et at? saad of Med
38329
CLAMEMSY, se OTH OM, 7
Appellants
}
A APPEAL SP OM SUPIMIOR cower,
CRAM? GONPAIY, @ | Acomplia: by
eorpornticnas |
ee " | :
Appel lees - 290 1 .A. 601
Bie SGNTICR FALERD VIVID THA OFPINTGd OF THE CAP Te
Caribe. Pubottoms plaintiii,s wae struck aud injured by
defendant's automobile while oreseing a busy street intersection
imu Shigege July 25, 1933. “he brought suit and on the firet
trial had » werdiet ond judgment, which exe reversed and remanded
Gh appesl becouse ef the lapreper aad prejudicial remarke ef the
a ini Scam aay
a
trink court, without any diucuswion or finding se $0 the foots or
the question of Liability. ‘he camer noe comes up om her append
from a judgment in faver of defondent exterot purewmt to the
soaurt's peremptory instruction at the oclewe of wleintiffs ease.
The sole quevtion presented ie whether plaintiff mde «
gts fngie ease, vhowing (1) that ot and tomediately prior to
the time of the secident whe was im the cuereiee ef ordinary enre
end eoution for her oom sefety; anf (7) that the drivor of defend}
ant's eny wes guilty ef neghigonoes
Urhefly etateds 4¢ apoeure from the «videnes thet plain~
tiff, a trained murce rewiding in Ute Louis, attended the vorlé's
Yaiy in Chiesce during the sumer of 1933. im the eaxly ai teruson
et July 23, walle walking aerth oa Vinthrep avenue across Srauvilie
avenue she wan otruek by ¢efeadent's swatemebiie, belag driven by
% one Pick. Sinintisf hed Just cmerged fram a “olgreen drug sters
,
OE ie ge
=~.
Lee catatonia
rp PS ee i a Ma Giada. se ea ddaenta
, ha Ment bee”
ond
wint (ie) 9g eee ta RAR.
| _ebant tongs >
be og See
“ane so: sary ital AERA, +“
, re aay Ree dd Sande: yg
SP wen ssh) as mame a
‘y 0 o A. r 0 e 7 Tae ty me baht ‘gw sagen
ame any v0 wor aes omen, Pee ed aoe AMbsat
ee Renan ome Mewrehe aoe 4 tktmbate emt odes Latent wi <a
( MOLionetts Forte Yo a gitinnwrn alle eLidemotwa a "penal :9'te
font? ole ow hne dive dekeonet ada VECO pee unt dint
natant: tan seem‘ ii tne ier saunas mae-aleale j
tals 29 screens Leloliutory file coger! wt Yo cemnaed Kenge ab }
a fe ee ee sari
Lepage sod ne qe sembe wen Gu ot Ce ALbtaRE Yo mokseouy wath
at os tavaorany Sounds tmotsintes te wera? mt ganmphut © meet ,
2 Pete w"Misataty Ye eanks att 40 se beewrnionk quota etewOD
(6 cha Tentake sedgedty a Sotemuony anttueuy oon sit” 7
2 sobng YLetnthourck haw te goule (4) gahwodte souaw , |
eran yueudce 18 oekecame oa at som as Saahdows ost ombd ate
wtnetioh 00 onthe eth Saat: i NSO nt SAE ee
ltealeg aaa ccmbhivn eh eah Whine Hh wsonage esto hi iene |
a OAs Dubmntee «ako. 68% ai gabaawe seven beude ii
4 wonered ie Yikes old mL 6 BREE » vowanar os satay nee
a gs
ee nat
oe a ren ee,” rol = 2 = =
re ae — es ee
a ’ cs Sa ia
a a Pe Ts
ww cwvduh abo cnpnananies 8 *emebeestos RE it :
Sunde Oe npeeten OS Aan AO NG Oa stent
ate
on the amuthwest ooruer ef the street Intersections The deer of
the store in juat weet of the wmilidiag Line on “duthrep avenue.
A Yellow taxier’ me parked ageinet the surb a Gracville sv entud,
fneing envt, oven with or a little weet of the “inthrep svenue
wubiding line.
Piointiif's versio of the securreie¢e, av taken fro her
abetract of records io as Teliowss
“shen I game out of the érug etere, I wont northe I walked
te the of the curd on Oranville in frunt of the drug stores
Sens | be the curb on the south alde of Grenville. “hen 1
Funghad tie dure; I giansed $0 the right ané then the Left. thea 1
leoked te the left, | exw a Yollow Sab. 16 woo wtanding etills The
tah Sie next to the curb and eee Oe it wae approxcimately
a couple of foot weet of me. “hen f sew the Fellow Cab «tnnding
hare x aterted acrose the seanaes ll 3, wae about elent or t on
feet the etrest an’ beyond the onbs I sew « our coming from my
heft. I do aot mew where £5 oome framy Dut 1% com down the otrecte
it wae goime due erete TF cuews I wee @ BL frishtened., Iwas etreack ©
wy the vicht front fenders 1 wae knocked com." }
Oa oresoeomemination aye tectified an fallewe:
"She interval between the time I ecw the car thet etruck oe
an the tine that 1t oxm in conteat with mo wen possibly thrve or
our seconds, maybe tua, IT. *% » maybe one. I cnn rnewber
t heaiteted & Bite thon i firet aan ear 4% wns the length of
enh O¢ more fron we. The one was ening not. “hen the gar
strwek me I wis in chowut the center of the otreot.*
Phasimtirct testified that on the former trial of thie cause
ghe wan sacked, “You were facing north when you glanead to your icrsr*
ond ehe muawered, “Yous sir"; that she wae then avkeds, “that did you
wee when you gleneed to your Left?" ant she answered, “A Yollow oab
perked in front of the érug stores I was preotigeliy in the micdle
or the stroct when 1 firet one the care*
The only other cocurrence witness wee Jomeu Ge Patter oon,
sheuffeur of the Yellew cab parked ot the ourb. He testified as
fellows +
pylon iggy Ly oy dala ena gel Gramville end
ER re:
I woulen'’¢ wast Semel,
The < of the ¢rug stare io sieht
* is ‘Skies ook Seek cam on canoe
:
i
i
oS tes dour aban
i aL Sastee destruc Hh uae stcks nent tn ae ooalke Gok on
te toch oT sooiseowrmsnk geunsn wit be serrroy gomuitupe wl? no
awunevem qouitnl! ao emt gulbiied att ‘te teow taut ak evede off
sou we SLE Lvaet mee en wale santana osteng ose Combos Lior : a
ounowe qoruitad esta te duew eftehS w wo dodo mows pdtoew patent
ted eett wie? a8 seomecuoee aly Ye no Laeee ce
4 ‘iat eer |
tt oe ee
‘y Sak aN OF
awolte’ an , hetnasand oe “as estmaaeemsn0ts 1 nn : wi :
Keeney a Meg Bere ete
ons doarsta duct? cag ale wea E ents os toeted Loywoaat : a
ant ten = <ane ody
aes pm aa Remy gly beng, yn gy
oo Sehonte of Me. modeee of tmede ah 496 Zon Meee
wumne mass w Seda ee vgeiepidlagrionn & wat %
ao walter an adoswrana ope ag * ee Ore OF ome ee
ep eat wuss amu x 2 ja eats
aneandak 2 satel not Sead he seserursee sodte ime ed? ‘ay
oa ae
an bofthieng ok sirure oft ta voieag dan wots act 29
RE @ inet a Be Sheik
ee: sok. Snege Tee a a
oe
Gyrauwilles “nile i wae witting in my cots i firwt ane the
panintit?’ coming out of “algreci's drug atere. i would say tho
sidewalk iu sBout twelve to fitteen feat wide. he started marth, |
®& Little to the east. Ghee gust walkec right along. Ghe wos
iu the center of me Stes ee wae smat five fect te the enat
of the fremt of my gab. © gp for « scoond or so there on
the auree che didn’t do anything ri there. ‘he then ste
jute the street and she sort ef qised around 49 the weate {
started te Walk mort. “hile #he wee waliting north. & @Rr one
éown the otraete The firet titing I noticed «au tims i the
Ses on the ear + Ghent heard the trakea, ies Aubot tom
wee beyond ay aad. avout three foot, hich would meke 14 about
Sin er sight fect fram the ourb. I euw the eur strike bere. I Just
mow the oar 2 the ahde of oxb.s “hen I heeurd the brakes,
ieoked gut at Zise Myubottiaa and I ea the right front fonder, or
opine of the gar that wae re iy gant strike her and whe wert of
@ bit tryime te puck her way off Like ant
dantiy fell to the yo wien the esr ame te a step. The
oe ae to # etop right after Senne Bees The froat end of the
eax vam about a oar length «ast ef the arose~walk; that is» the
erosnemik thet rune north and south oa /dnthrop.
= couse oan Se our —_, axe 2t 6 the olde ef my
goulen?t oo: ow tt t¥ovel more thon fifteen fect. Wa. fhcured 4 it
ce
the tint! heart the sound ofthe brakes {ci not hear Us
soul ef ey horn or bell or anyéhing @ tet kind.*
it Was agught om cress-emdzination te show that upon the
first trial Patternsan hed teatifiecd thet *she did mot Leck te right
ay left as she stepped into the strect ***," and that *she wae vert
of preeseupleds* oud thet he signed « statement to dais effect. It
was the purpose of thie eroao-asumination © impensh Yattercants
fectimenye Avovelne thet there «ex come diverspency between hie
testimony on the firet} en¢ segad trisla, it would merely co te the
aredivility of the wituces and peueive « omelderntion of the wedoht
‘ef the textimeny.
‘the low is well settled that contrimitery negligenee io «
@aontion for the jury, «xcept when ite exivtenee de se alear thet
no reesomable winds eul¢ com te a contrary conclusion. (Keg ve
Ghty of oRicapes, 199 Tile Appe 505% lamdguist ve Chicnce Pyte Cory
395 Ills 106.) Feviewing courte cannot weigh the teotimeny in thie
®lees of caves, but may puss anly upon the question whether or mot
there in auy « videnee in the receré whiehs uith oll ite reasoncble
inferenees, tends te cuppert the cause of action. Thin rule is wei.
Ta
mis woe Geeks 1 gem ya tk qakee le cow |
ee Ye Bhoow & eetete ywih a*meetyie’ bo fa
ais ae Batons ahi sahbr Gowk neaFekt ey wrod tueds wi
Qaisiow ase at «gaia tiylx bediow gamh, at .
deae oft 08 Soot OFLT fame ay how
| moO orosls oe eens 4 boqqete ats +d
Dougese eae graigem ab #
fe en Ry oe th ‘we gunn ote Dame,
| tam A giltren jaabiiow eau ibe nabs alae
ect tedls age teoiten t '. tusdt off sdow
{ wereu@s? oaBt yasderw! wi? weewl I nou
faosia #2 otlye ‘wow dodels gto? only enetie
Ye Fo Ip yg aloe Bale «@ose aff ord.
ie
ad} ine Cathcath ot sniahmamnnmnaedmns ae Fe
tye Od Mowk fam D146 ose” Saste wodRss wot tat empemegew Lakes gust
exe an ecko” duc Bra “et game ont Cink DeuqUeN es ue aL Te
$2 steotts abt of comuatate a peas oh tale ons * dobqwoosen Ye 4
a*mounsd wt seaeegat at amber a6t@ bets te exoquag elf cov
i wit neowted Toruazozan 2 9 anv vosad # my yatewond 4 mead 2 2
edt of 7 yLerem biuow Sh qsiabne Semone haw Packt edt arate
tis, bow att Ye om 19 oxob kam ss whoo a ees by att wx et
feds “make ow wh soemtu tne ast teste sawvom a thd deat -
ov saasied) stm huwkorme Warts a w2 “eae od cel “aero Set a
9120. 2M Onoodh? ov Aubmobieel 4080 eqs ofS% OE gonamhsty | |
eels mk yommbeoss erty Maton somum apuee gubelvet (odor oan oe
fest wo “pslaboater mobts ang wate Bogs “hw we it da snease 0 by .
wkioueauos Ok Le aly be eotite pages oxida oe rr — |
fou at fies ab aawites 20 sums eat trocqus Of aunt | ae
sel, ow
stated in the lendimg ence af Liwhyrs Moveli1 © 1dbby we Sook, 222
tile 20¢, where the court ani¢ thet in paesime up «a motion far
® poremptery instruction the question of the preponderance of the
evidenes done not orise <t all. The court aoutinues (pe 215):
*tyidenugs Tairiy i ‘o proewe the @oemse of cotion sat
out in the deqlaration may be the tentimeny of ene witness onli,
eed he may be directly geatradiated by twenty vi aeenene ef #qunl
or aren ter eredivility; @t411 the metion must be dumieds aad if
@ werdiat for time plnintis? fellow, the qucetim whether it is
meuifeutiy against the sweicht of the evidenee ia ter the trial
eourt upon motion for & Sew trigl, Gud», in the overs of that motion
velng ererruled and ao Judgment euterec, for the Appellate Court upan
error properiy accigued.
‘thea a wetioa for a pexampt instrugtion ie made the
defendant, 12 the eourt ix of the opiuien that in ence a verdiet ia
returned for tho pleiutity 46 muct S eet seide for sant of
evideage in the recerd to sustain ity s verdict showld te ¢ircs
if the court is of the oplaies that there is evidenee in the recard
whieh, stonding alone, is sufficient to auxtaim sush a verdiets, but
that such « verdiats te fs returned, must be set aside beesuse againet
denied. "© To hold othervice is to deny to plaintéf! the rit of
trial uy jury." (2 om urs e) inal -
Thies test has singe boon eoneistently followed by reviewing omartas
amé 4¢ therefere becomes a question whether there is omy evidame
in the record which, with ail ite reosmeble infersnmees, toms te
mstuin the cause ef sotion. In order te msintain her caeo it we
of ewurse neceusary for plaintiff to chew that ot and immediately
prior to the accident ane veo in the exercia, of ordinary eure md
oxution for her om ecfety. Although her oom toetimeny iadieates
thet she ¢i4 not lock ofter stepping fran the curbs beyond the
Yellow eat, there ie the testimeny of Fattersan te the offeat that
*ehe then stepped inte the street and ohe sert of qused sreund te
the weet.” It wan for the Jurys wider proper instrustions, te
éeteruine whether er not this constituted due care and soution on
the port of pledntiff. sa steted im the Liber, Bedell) & Libs
Gok entes supra, “if x wortiet for the plaintiff follows, the
queution whether it io manifeotly aguinet the wight of the evidense
ie for the trial court upen motion for « mew triale® Tt muet be
eenecded thet the evidence tendine tv aupport the allegation that
if
BES galego ov yds. 4 Shinde ey Ye eoso gadhoal ot) gi totate
_peY mitted # toqw siibiang at ant Hee tna, tity erate avon £82
tte oonano namo oie Se meltiogp aif podtouet ant gree aero
(REE +) mennets seen deste et 4 fin do, ” dose _, socatape
ond mo leon ~ wasn eg tinal ose * nee yeu taal a ae Pie
’ -
ck ut Nhe
ne Pome 4
. : ro br é ‘
al tab xt hogs
“eh shams pedal Pe Petey Prgy mit penoncom ir :
usw $f onag xo mhodekn e¢ notep my eto Se Seam wt
elotaihemms hes gx gackt weet ag ‘wibaatedy wot Viagnooar some We
‘bas susp wears bts % onberene weld ak sw ae onbong e. ot sks
ey
etd bawryod paint tor tre
daais JoGthy od OF amaxod 0% te ysmakinae orig ah wxeity, stag wWOliey
02 Sawo bomen 30 gee ade ban Joonse. I a OM, _
, ats auvette’ ape ai wn sniae ae ;
aanndive ely te tifaher vay tokens ivi store Leh ae. wast ester
ae: ty : a dite 8 ah 3 ie ee veil ie 4 v
“i . aah “iy Rae . arg f ae
f Si A Wc) ee Me a eee ne ae ais
? oti : ne Lio “sas a9 “et TOT . 3 a pasties Teh
ee "Ss } ae 4 om oe SRY son hy ie ty
we on tol ate y S, -
i. a
“ee plercsacery outs skeen ee wiliens cemabiie uo saat hebeome ie 4
;
5
f
iq
ix
q
1
—-
Pleintiff waw in the «wercice of due gore cad eaution ie quite
squnty} aowerthelesc, plointiff was entitied te haye the evidenee
of Patterson eulssltted to the Jury for considerst Lat.
inesmugh oo the anune wild haye to be eguin retried, a
refrain from aay cument on the evidonee relative to the negligenes
ot defeadent's driver. “he court shquld heye demiec the motiou
for a poxvemptory tnctrustion ant required defendant to interpose
ats defense. “ thick thet justics will be better served by a
vetrial of the qousee Therefore the fudguent of the Ouperiox
equrt is yeyversed am) the anuse is eamenied for a new triel.
FOEMRST PRVONSTD Act SAMSR YOMAME De
Owhlivens P+ Jo, ond “Gaonlans Jes conor.
ee
ey
eihinwus
a at a
Hoge toe plied
ia es
i
39378
JOHN JEFFREY, )
Appellant,
Ve APPEAL FROM CIRCULT
HUBBARD WOODS TRUST & SAVINGS COURT, COCK COUNTY.
BANK, et ale, CHARLES He ALBERS,
receivers 4 5 -
Appelleess vad y U lL ae 7 0 2'
MR. JUSTICE FRIEND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
John Jeffrey filed an amended bill of complaint in the
circuit court against Hubbard Woods Trust & Savings Bank and
William Le O'Connell, as receiver of the bank, to which the
latter interposed a general and special demurrer. Upon O'Connell's
- death, Charles He Albers was appointed as successor receiver, and
it was ordered that he be substituted as a defendant. Albers
adopted the demurrer filed by O'Connell, and upon argument the
court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the amended bill for
went of equity. This appeal followed.
It appears from the amended bill that November 1, 1926,
complainant and the Hubbard Woods Trust & Savings Bank entered
into a lease to the bank for a period of ten years, at a monthly
rental of $373.33, and the lessee agreed to purchase the premises
during the term for $70,400, upon giving sixty days' notice of its
intention so to purchasee The bank entered into possession of the
premises under the lease, and continued in possession until the
receiver was appointed.
February 7) 1932, the auditor of public accounts closed
BVERE
ment. 8
| adapt logga
PIVOKTO MOTT LANscA . v
<YrmUoo Wey . TaD BDUIVAR & TaUeRY aaooW GRAaEUH
e@AUGLA oH SLIMAHO ees do .MWAT
'$00 A:T 0g ements
«TAUOD THT W WOTMICO CHT QUIDIV LEE CURIAT GOITeUL .AM
ett af taieigawo to [Lid bebmome ae beLit youTtel sol, 9° >
bie Aas& agiived & JewtT ebooW htaddwil santage tiuoo ¢ iuotts ;
emt doiskw of yunmed ent to tevisoot ag «{iemmoD'O of melli iW
elfiensod'O mogU .torrumeb felsega bas L[eteneg 2 bevoqredgmt rostal
bia «tevicost tossesove es betniogqsa azw ated IA «H asfredd .diseb ©
etediA .tnabmeteh s ea betsd isadue od ei get botebto asw #f
edt sneourars mogy bus .ffenmod'O yd bell? setimmeb oft betqobs
ot LLfd bobnoms off boveimeth bas tevxwmeb odd benistaya s1y0o
showollot Leeqqs aif .ytispe to tnew
eOREL gL tedtevoll sand Lid bebmome ong mott atacqqe #1 ,
boxedxo nei agatvad & taut? abooW busddul off bus tmsntelqmoo
yisitnom s is «axssy nes to bolueg s tot Amad add of easel & obmt
r
aeaimetg sdt saantotug ot beetge svacet old bas ¢ShsbTE8 20 Ledmet
ati to colton taysb ytxke gatvig mogy .00d,0%§ rot mred odd gutuub —
efid to motseessog o¢mk bovedas damed oT .oaatoiwgq oF oa notinetat
eit Lito moiereuaog mi bexsmisinos bas ,sanet eft tehay sealmetg
shadnioggs asw tevisset |
bexols sénuooes olfduq to totvibue edt Stef ef Yuswzdot
- Dat
the bank for examination and inspection, and thereafter numerous
conferences were had between the bank officials, its depositors,
its stockholders and the auditor, with the view of reaching some
agreement whereby the bank might continue in business or be liqui-~
dated to the advantage of all concerned. April 4, 1952) a meeting
was held between Frederick Dickinson, Edward Ae Anderson, Joseph
Ce Cormack and O. Laser, representing the bank and certain depositors
and stockholders, and the complainant, at which it was represented to
complainant by Dickinson, acting on behalf of the bank and the s tock-
holders, thet he had been assured that the Reconstruction Finance Cor-
poration would make a loan by which the depositors would receive 80%
of their deposits immediately if the stockholders would at once advance
$30,000 in full of their liability as stockholders of the bank; that
the depositors witks meaner 80% of their deposits in lieu of their
entire payment; that there would be no suit for directorst liability;
that the good mame of those associated with the enterprise would be
preserved and the bank would either liquidate or continue, as was
deemed best; and that all the foregoing contemplated arrangements were
conditioned upon complainant consenting to cancel his lease and con-
tract of sale of the bank building.
It is alleged that pursuant to these representations certain
stockholders entered into a contract April 4, 1932, wherein they
agreed with one another, and with any others who might thereafter
become parties te the agreement, that the bank should be reopened for
the purpose of securing from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation
a loan of sufficient amount, which, together with the $30,000 to be
paid by the stockholders of the bank, should be used for the purpose
of paying the ereditors 80% of the amount of their claims, upon cer-
tain conditions including the agreement of complainant that the lease
and contract between him and the bank should be cancelled without
i Boe:
~S=
avotomun wetieerenls bus ymoltooqunt bas sottentmexe tot une ost .
earotiaggeh agt yRiate ste ined eft maewied bad stow esouerete9
ane a gn tlonet to weiv orig fitiw ,fot¢tbys ef} bas axebLodtoose edt
~inpii ed zo anontdud mt onumisnoo édgte dead orlt “udetestw inonoeras
gaitoom s eShCL ,.s {tigA .bomteonco ils te es ond og betsb
figseol «moatebmA .4 OtawhE .noanttolM detvobert neewied bled aw
sane Senge Rladceo bad doad oid gattnosorqet etoaal .O bas alosursod or
of bediswonged aaw si Motiv te einenislemos ets Hr cerablorztouda bm
iota eit bas ined od te Maded mo gattos smoanblo ic vd sani ta tn
-109 Sonontt soktouttemoot ef3 taft betwaas nosd bed on tadt serebLorl
ROS eviooe t bivow atodtaeqsb elt obelw “es feo a ie ‘bivow ind htonog
sonavhs sono 2s bivow axabLoddleete edd, th yLetaibomak atteogeh tiedt to
ted tind ond Yo exeblortogde aa ytilidakh theAt Be Shah, ab 000.088
tied? Yo veil nt efkaeqod tledd to Wos tao 2 bkwow exattaogob wld
iwiiLidsll 'aretootih sok sie on ed bivow exedd tard panomyeq ot htne
ad binew eaitqtaine edt debe bedsiooesa ewont ‘Ro .emnm restg oat daxld
agw s@ ,cuntince 2 otebinpii tedéie SLvow oned odd bas powrsaety
stew afmmegmeuts Oadelqoarnes gaiogotat aft. ‘tts fads bea” eahacpanenn a
~noo bre sesel ain Loonso et aniineatmwo drmmielquen moqw bemott ihmes
*galblind aasd ods “ke! oles ‘to touts
aistiteo sasoliatfeserqet seals ot dmevery dand bogeiia al sI
youd mhotesiw «S8OL ¢) LiwgA dosxdnoo es o¢ml boresne atsblodxoota
wetisotedts tigi edw avedse yas Atiw doe axedtons emo sithw besrge
Tot bemeqoor ed Hinoxa sinad ond todd _teromme me edd od BOLtaeGg empoEd |
Neiletoquod SoMsAil NOlsovedanoooH exit moxk gatwosa To sacquug ext
Ai 0 000405 ond sidiw xoditoged, qslo tity « trmome, tuptok Vise: 2 mote
eooqsug aid Tol hea af bivoste Anat o6%, Yo axobLodlooyeetd xtbieg
~r99 nog emtelo tied? to tasoun ext to ROG axpsthoro edt makyeg to
easel ot jars thenlalgemo to scomenmye ests pabbutontanokitbnoe met
tuodtiw helfoonss od Siverte wnad ost bas mit apewted fooxdnos ban
ao—
payment to him other than rent accrued, and specifying the manner
im which the money to be derived from the stockholders and the
Reconstruction Finance Corporation should be distributed. In said
agreement the stockholders designated Edward Ae Anderson, Joseph
C. Cormack and Frederick Dickinson as liquidating agents of the bank.
it is further alleged that April 8, 1932, the stockholders
executed a so-called collateral agreement in pursuance of said plan;
which provided that the lease and contract between the ovmer of the
pbuilding occupied by the bank, and the bank, should be cancelled,
and that a new lease should be entered into, by which the bank would
agree to pay to the owner any rent then due him, and rent at the
same rate for such time as the liquidating agents might require the
premisese The collateral agreement provided that complainant, a
stockholder and creditor of the bank, would sign the stockholderst
agreement of April 4, 1932, but would not be required to pay any
amount toward the $30,000 to be paid by the stockholders and would
release the stockholders from their liability to him as a creditor
of the banke The collateral agreement further provided for the
manner of disbursement of the funds raised, and after certain pay-
ments were made, for payment to the complainant of $3,500.
It is alleged that April 21, 1932, complainant was told by
the liquidating agents, and particularly by Frederick Dickinson,
representing the officers of the bank, that arrangements had been
concluded for securing the loan from the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation, that the stockholders had raised %30,000 pursuant to
the plan, and that carrying out the plan successfully was conditioned
only on complainant cancelling his lease and entering into a new
lease; that complainant said to the liquidating agents and officers
of the bank that he would not enter into the contemplated agreement
unless the loan should be received from the Reconstruction Finance
ae
secien eds gailyltosqa bus .bewtoon inet madd sedto mid od tnomyeq
ad} bos atebfodtoota ent mort beviceb od od Yenom ont sip telw mk
bisa al ,besuditiake ed bLworla mo SeatgureD sorsert'T no bY eure ane 96F1
Aigeaot .aoarebmA eA eawhil Retamineh axobLloraooda ont snomoerae
eimed oeddt ‘to ainay s gatish tip bf ag noastie kd Lotreberl brs toamr00 +9
stebsordaooss og .S@L .e LtrgA tase beneite odd ay? et ox Rs
inate bian to sonsuetmy mt $nomoorts Saxetation bolise~ce 8 betuoaxe
etd to temwo od neowted toaxtame bite oxeol ‘edt ‘teald bebtvorg Hota
ehetfeonno ad B.Lisocle etnad sid betes lad ont w be iquooe pakbLiud
hinow Amed ent dofdw yd .odmi bexedne ed piuosie ousol wen & tans bas
ond t2 thet Dae athil onb men? deoe yma emo ests ‘08 vam 09 some
edd ottupst ddglm einegs patvab inp kt ent aa omits dows 0? eat omss
& ed itanleLgmos tant bebivete¢ teromsorp LetedsL Loo ott peri ad
tatebLositoata ast ate b Low eased ext to 103 Lboxe bas “soblosiloode
" Wie Ya ot betinpet od tort b.isow sud eSSCL ed ths to tno meres
o 5.Laow brs erebloidileats ods yd Pomel od od 000,088 aut “buawod & ¢neeemn
tot tbeto s aa mis oF wittds tt rhestd mos? erobLortzoose ery pean lax
ee eee
onla “2 bebivorg sono auart Fresca TEs istetsitoo ont “sanad exfd ‘Ye
“Kad nist t99 tedie bas » healer abant nats to smomperudet® to ‘renssm
008.8% Yo tnecitatqmon edt of dnomeeq rot -eham exew esnom
‘Ud bLod asw tnanisigamo ~SECL 8 Lkvga satld bopetts af or”
qeentie ie Aolrebect d eiretvolsxeg bus agmegs amtteb inp kt ont . .
need barf ad romeguarss santd ined ex to areotTte od gniinseorget
sossst' nottortdanooed ed sovt nsol add paituosa x0? hobs tones
of dusiecig 000,082 beater bad atebfodvoode odd tartd .aolsavogted
bento té tha09 saw vilwiees cova nag seid $80 ‘gaiiveis. ‘gens bas’ pitila “edt
won 8 otni antzodae bos cacet ald antifeonss ¢manisiquos mo YLtto q
“-etoo Ito bas agnoge ‘paddab gle ‘eile ‘od bina dnaktetqudo dActd 4 eases 7
$ nomoerse bogatqmos no. ond eomt rosa tou biluow om Sait’ subd sits to ji
senna no kroungenn oe | ots monk ‘pevieoo? ed btudate het itt” eesti
hy means of toeki men. ee %
hes
Corporation, and the creditors had agreed to take’ 80% of the
amount of their respective claims, end that he was assured that
all the necessities for such agreement had been complied with
except the action required of him, the complainant, and that
there was no doubt of the success of the plan; that in full re-
liance upon these statements, and in consideration of the carrying
out in full of the plan of reorganization, complainant, April 22,
1932, made a new written agreement under sésl with the bank and
the liquidating agents, whereby in consideration of the rents
therein reserved and the covenants and agreement contained in the
stockholders! agreement of April 4, 1932) and the collateral agree-
ment of April 8, 1932, to be kept, observed and performed by the
lessees, complainant cmncelled the lease and contract executed
November 1, 1926, and leased to the bank and the liquidating agents
the said premises for a term “commencing on the day the liquidating ©
agents inform the lessor in writing that they desire to take possession
Finanee
of the premises immediately after the loan from the Recostruction JS
Corporation * * * has been consummated, and ending at the expiration
of ninety days thereafter." By this agreement lessees undertook to
pay as rent $228.33 per month, and it is alleged that all these things
were done before any suit was brought to close the bank and before he
appointment of a receivere
The amended complaint further alleges that the loan was not
secured from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, and none of
the undertakings required Of any one other than the complainant
were fulfilleds that a receiver was afterward appointed for the
bank; that the oxeditexs did not accept 80% of their deposits in
fulls that the stockholders were sued for their full statutory
liability to the creditors of the bank; that the taxes were not
paid; and the premises were never taken possession of by the Liqui=
dating agents. After the receiver was appointed, he elected to
Zn
if
sat to ROS ocd of boptys bad axodthero exit bas! \ nots e0q4Od |
talt beiwees as efi gurl? dae ,amielo avitosqast thedd! Yo° dttvonn
din beiiquoo need bad daonsetgs apse to? eel? baronet eff ls
fei3 bite «ttacieigoee add wtil te botivpsn molten eff deyvore
wor Lfst mi salt poofq odd Yo mneotwa atid ‘to tdvob\ on! eawored?s
grlyxine ont to toktatsbienos nt bees yatsomesate event moquy eometl
yy #8, Shaq. épemeiguca «neitantesy toet to mele edit: te Liv't mi vivo
| _. bse xnad of? detw for cobms Sromoontgs wodd Mew wet a bbe YHeer
| _, thes, est to, mottetebtamos mt -yersesiw adage: gnttab bort ertt
od ah beutetamo taomugetgs das atnensevos. add baa bevreast’ nhortedt
| = ferstailoo oft ous «Sh@L yh Litgs Te snomootge: tarebLoddoosa
; ould Ye Semretreg bas bevigado sfq9F 9 09 pSECLi eB Lisgh: to decom
a beduoex @ tootsie hie easel sty beliconme tnenteiqas.«eeeases
| atnegs gattobivg AL oft dae, Ames od of bennod hmm..d8OL sLitedueven
| OTS Rand ipsam ame eae mzat & 70% esalmanq bisa odd
ae o¢ xootzobaw neounet tmemoorns atts int saris: aysh i eat
agi? east ffs tet hogetie at ¢t hue <dtmnm req ft.88S} soot se yaa,
em oxo tod baa mre eeolo ot seiysortd sow tige ys eroted enob etow
, , (siege 6 Ao tmemtatogas
tom Baw anelt ort reall erent paren jmkelqmes bebsome PRB vox ar
To sion bag ~aolsotegtao sonenlt oolioueienoosh edt mo tt betepse:
| tmontaigens oft mat? xodd0 om yee 3 hoxtuer eambtetxobsw-edt?
| — 8 wT betutoggs hiewiedte sew tovisoos a dant (boLlt lint exow
ak. agteogod atest to Ros tqeces ton bib axetibexp sd. tad. qalned.
| wodud ada List ties xox bewe atow exebfodlaoss edd tant Lint,
| ton oxew aexsd ont acd ysined ool to ‘St0@ there adit oF yo ttiats,
_ wiup kt edt (Wf Yo miososseg aoxee oven oxow soetaeay. gut baa tBtag.,
rr bostvele ad ,betmiogus asw toyksoe otft xosta sateroga patted oo
Se
disaffirm both contrzets with Jeffrey.
It is alleged that the representetions set out were nade
in such a way that complainant was deceived as to the bank and its
agents' ability te carry out the pian of reorgenization; that the
representations were made recklessly and without lmowledge as te
whether they could be carried out or mot amd for the purpose of in~
ducing complainant to cancel his lease and contract and thereby lessen
the liability of the bank end increase the amount to be paid to the
individual depositors, and te reduce the amount of liability of the
stockholders of the bank, and that such representations constituted
a fraud upon complainant, or "at the minimum a misteke of fact.
The amended bill sought to have the agreement of April 22,
1932, and particularly so much thereof as cancelled the lease and
contract of November 1, 1926, set aside, by reason of the fraud or
mistake by which complainant was alleged to have bem induced to
enter into the lease, and that he recover his damages for the period
of the contract of November 1, 1926, when the agreement should have
been restored to its full foree and effect as an obligation of the
banke
In addition to the general demurrer interposed, the following
points were assigned as ground for special demurrer:
(a) That the amended bill sets forth a purported breach
of contract, and equity will not grant the right of rescission
for a mere breach of contract;
(ob) that the amended complaint alleges a purported failure
to perform on the part of the various defendants, but does not allege
fraud, mistake, undue influemce, etce$
(c) that William L. O'Connell, receiver, was not a party to
on Mae the purported agreements, and therefore was not liable there-
(@) that the receiver rescinded and denied liability under
the lease of the bank to complainant;
(e) that the purported contracts are complete and embrace
vo a understandings of the parties, and camiot be varied by parol
evidence;
| onthe ahttw etometneg deoduatiteath.
sbsa stew tuo ton sno idsdnonerqes ome sterlt MergeLla: Qh OT. oy:
agi bit waad ond o¢ as bevioceb: amir snentetqmos datit: sows cou i
edt tat ymolioulnegtoet Yo mag om? gvo yrsae of yshtida asnogs.
of es ogbetwom! sword iw See Yfeaelfoor obam exow: sno isstneeenges
nia to sdoquug eft 10 bee fom vo tue belrtco of bines yordt nestor,
mo asok Whois bue toenines bas sasel etd Loousooot Iaputelqueo antouh
galt OF bdoq od 03 Frtvoms od Camotend hee sland sot te Ylitdatl edt
edd to YsiLidett to tavoms edd soubor of bme.¢uze¢iaoged Lewd ivibat
hodud Lyanoo anbijatneacrtyet deve tel? dae qamed edt Soc erehindienap
- Wigoot Yo oxedelt 6 binctatir ott 46” 40 4snentelquoo' may) buath:
188 Liwga to gremestge od eved of teigwoa [Lid bebrems eMT one
bre canal ot betfeomes ue Powe atts ici Wi aici duane? bere 4 SERL
29 bwett oft to hoaset Yd cobles ton <OeeL .L vodmevol 2 toaxsnoo
eer boowbat mo dt sven of bogoLie aw Inskislquoo Molsw yd odecalm
ee okeeg exis ‘00% aogemeh ald xov000'r ari tact brs yousel oft otat tote
ened Bisa na
a
es ovest bLsoite snomeetys ods meester ose wf ‘codmovel to. ents. ‘to
este. ‘to no tig Lido fa as tootte |b bits eve? ctu att ot piece
Wei eae “Be way ‘Vania F
| pasvotio. exit rbecogrodat cored iaxoney oft o¢ mOlytbbs WE
twetxmieb Lstooga to% bevo7E aa bemgiaus otew edntog
arty
desotd bottoqivg s déxot atea ILid bebstome wild fade °
foteetoses to Jigiz edd taser, at, LL aevile
ssctoeey
orekter epee arn | # aegelis Ayo bebmome sett per g (epcivoon, 4
oliz B ty <gdnaban? Isv a xO M0 4
o ” ee : neg vouage ie baer? Fe
8 hag g ton eaw etovieosr ,ffokmostO sk merceiw whee (+ Se
d eldeil ton saw, oxo toted) bas, getrereetps ie -
& et SR
tobsus eA eet boriiss bas bobtisees covkovsn oft saci com rom
" daiamaLeoo ot inet ong to 92
ot vi oe Ef tg “eng é
hemutden bats sich ets ag iseresiili bepreqxay ‘end ‘tad a re ak
Moxag yd beivav od tonnes bus yaeidasg exit ‘to: :
Pos oe. Ze
Ps Pa? i
TRA oh Recig
sadtan
“be
(f) that the cancellation of the lease of November 1,
1926, was by the voluntary act of complainant, and was not
effected or influenced by any fraud; and
(g) that complainant has an action at law and not in
equity for rescission.
Complainant proceeds upen the theory that his proper remedy
is by bill in chancery to cancel the contract of April 22, 1932, be-
eause of fraudulent representations alleged to have been made in
inducing him to cancel the agreement of November 1, 1926, and te
enter into the subsequent agreement; that “after having done co,
the court should proceed to do complete justice by swarding him
compensation for the breach of tne contract revived by such can-
cellation in so far as in the present situation equity has such
power."
The principal question involved is whether thé amended com-
plaint sufficiently sets forth such fraud or mistake of fact as to
afford complainant the relief sought. It must be conceded that wi th-
out proper and sufficient allegations of fraud or mistake of fact
complainant camot maintain the amended bill. ‘The only allegation
charging fraud or mistake is based on that part of the amended bill
which alleges that Dickinsem represented to complainant
"that arrangements had been concluded for the securing of the loan
from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation; that the stockholders
had raised $30,000 pursuant to the plan, and that carrying out the
plan successfully was conditioned only upon complainant cancelling
his lease and contract of sale with the bank and entering inte 2 new
lease in accordance with such cancellation and as a part thereof;
that plaintiff informed the said liquidating agents and the officers
of the said bank that he did not desire to interfere with the
reorganization thereof, but could not enter into such an agreement
unless the said lean should be received from the Reconstruction
Finance Corporation, the ereditors of the bank agrecd to take 804
of the amounts of their respective claims, and the entire amount of
$30,000 be raised by the stockholders, and the said plan carried out
in full; that he was assured that all the necessities for such
agreement had been complied with except the action of the complainant,
and that there was no doubt as to the success of the plan; that said
Frederick Dickinson, in the presence of the officers of the said bmk
and the other liquidating agents, stated that he had been assured that
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation would wake a loan of the
i
cf cedusvok to case oft to wehielloonen' ods ged CY)! :
won asw retin etuenlelomos to tos vtatauloy edd yd asw vaker
han ~hvert vas yw beoneul tal 16 botos tte
af Jom bas wal ts poties me aad. guanisiqmes: tadt. dg) oon of
10 faatoact tot Bs bans a
panes teqo ty @ tof dsl ero ond uid nogus ehosoorg tron alga 9
“od 48EUL @SZ Linq Yo toordaco extd toons od Yroonnde ak ELid "ed a at
eRe wan bel
ak ebam neod evad of begetts ano Ri a¢ueaor0% tnoLubuart to oatise
4 a
A ernea’ nAt —
ot has .2h@L aL radio voll To tnsmeo tps arts Leones oe ec kit patovbat
th if By
08 9r00 } ‘gaived ted ta” ssid { Srontoonge Pnougendie ‘edd ‘oda red110
Paes ba aa mY Soper ws detk
arbsf werk bums xa soivaut etoigmos as o¢ beeoorg piwosta $8100 ond
tg NA itt IE Lae inGwee
“hee sosra ver bsvivet sostineo exit r0 ee oat ‘ot pede yn ae
HEA La’ See tte Be a
sfesru wast ysinpe 0 Ls atid £8 aneasty ois me aa 0% on He puxhnstes
bite ha Lise pe Seen: eee ;
rewog
ae aoa cae a Bo co Bd
Knancvel th secrete.
-mop hobnoms 6d¢ xosddoctw at bowlovat no 804 fog ionitg ot :
it ait * :
ges ak wilde ge
of as ‘goat ‘te oxtnd bin’ xo bust? howe sévet agen “usaoloivie 3 tmiale
4 WAM eg Ay oars wehy
=i be ‘dead bobeonaa of tau $2 " daguoe tottox ae atetoe sorte
Oa ey roe ae
Yoat to owataim to buatt Yo ako ttayelte imoioktwe
; ( i da oe ut hes ¥ i og
Betts’ alte DAY Ha ae LS ae ee
Lftd bobuems ont to drag dautd so beasd bia sietoae “ buett pattasto
is Se es he aS ll |
auld eegeoiis slo tetw %
we) Wiha” er ar a ;
SRGRET ES
daetctalenoo os berneceuger
mut eft to gaituoasa oft tot bobutono® | re
edt tee wes adit sect wae tne tO
dwo gitiynise tants akg od
gmiiisones tnmmisigas pe vino hecot) lbaos, a6
wet s omi goiveine bas Aned ocd tthe Tee
bitte eat bas Geeta & age |
BT9O.
tue dtiy stetrosa
fnomeotwms ms dows ot mk
Molioustonooey ort eg
ROG viet oF hvez ,
to timvomes on iin te | galt 29
two bolrueo osig bisa ont pa cepehiieciane 2 ont vw beater od
dove tet asitineooos edt Ila dad bestwaes agw eal) ae
eirentelomos odd tc noltos git ppg ag pares gpa gchane bad™
Siee Jedd pnelfg odd To savoowe aft of as tduob om saw etedd sant
Amd bine odd to stoolite et. to. epmevety odd mle noamtiold.fotrebert
jsdd bowass need bal ed dads betete yuducege gaitabiuptiexento ext 6.
oft to maol a slau biuvow so £3 stag 109 eonsult po Shares Sane ;
Ps
requisite amount to carry out the plan. * * *"
The foregoing representations are alleged to have furnished
the inducement for complainant's entering into the agreement of
April 22, 1932, which cancelled the existing lease md contract of
November 1, 1926.6 However, the agreement of April 22, 19325 ree
cites that it is made in consideration “of the rents herein reserved
and of the covenants * * * herein mentioned, and contained in a
certain stockholders' agreement, dated April 4, 1932, in a certain
stockholders! collateral agreement dated April 8, 1932, to be kept,
observed and performed by said lessee," and it provides that the
lessee is to take and hold the demised premises “commencing on the
day the said liquidating agents informed the said lessor in writing
that they desired to take possession of said premises immediately
after the loan from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, referred
to in said stockholders’ agreement, had been conswmatede" Neither
of the stockholders agreements, in consideration and in pursuance
of which complainant entered into the contract of April 22, 1932,
recite that a loan had been secured from the Reconstruction Vinance
Corporation, but on the contrary, these agreements were made "in
order to further aid the reopening of the bank for the purpose of
secuting a loan * * * and the payment of * * * $30,000 by the s tock-
holders of said bank." These circumstances, taken together with the
representation that “complainant had been assured that the Reconstruction
Binence Corporation would make a loen of the requisite amount to carry
out the plan," rebut the allegations that complainant “was assured tha
all necessities for such agreement had been complied with * * *," and
“that there was no doubt of the success of the plan." Complainant was
& business man and had participated im some of the conferences held
from the time of the closing of the bank to the date of the contract
of April 4, 1932, and was thoroughly familiar with the proposed
“Ne
We % &
tits. oF daivoms Yo? bo bi x
besa bersut evatl ot bogetia ots umoitstnsascge: yrtoxetdt ont i
to jmometga odd ofnt anivetno atinenialamed rot tnemesubat ond
to footinoo bee easel gaiiaixe oft belleonss to tiiy .S6er 18s thes
wot «S602 «88 Litad to duemootgs off tovowoH -O80L .f rodmevoll
bovieses mioved admot edt to” soisetobianoo mt esbam al gf dents astto
# wh benietaoo bra .demoijnem atozed * * * admsmeyoo edd to os
miptreo 6 mi pRECL od LitgdA begad ,imomsorge ‘atobLodwoeda pistres
edged od OF «SECL 28 Lingé betsh Inomeotas feretellos "arebLomiseta
CGA
elt Jadd aobiverg 4i dae ",ooaael bkse ve boro 20q bus bevrsado
YOR »
aclt te aaionenmoo” aoe imo%y a cease ent bLod brews ets ot ab ‘esaaet
anmtvixw mt toavel bise oft beat tat adness satis tipit btoe oat eee
ylotsthemms: aonimetq bier to motagoaroq oiled of betilaeh eodd “dada
porxstot .foltieroqieD sonaall mol ours enooell ont most geod add rods
. 4 atthol * betcumation med hag .dmemestys arobodioode crue dlavene os
Fa, ae ig,
genavetag of bens, mo bistoh tamog nt 1edmemeo tgs apie ny genetntad ont ‘to
Fs ae
@hSCL SS. Lina to somataoo orld odmt hoxedae # snombateseo ere to
COC te yay
souant mottowstenooel ost aptt bexx9es ood best | nao o esied ‘stheex j
{h) iy
mi” eben exow atnomeerga opeis «yueniemo odd mo aad vio Ba ox0qR00 |
1 ote soi? ot xobxo ;
wc aty. o od
8 antaoes
t Bs mat oe
to saoqizg oft not Aaasd edt to
etd 9 bit Taxiteged nwabst casonada 4g oa
Wo Leourtdano oof ane dal’ Romwoaa lit h ail et se moo" te
yrnse 08 tare obtalupes eat 19 Amok 9 gion boston
‘iid boraus an" tasntalamos deat enotd apelin anit :
bese Wie *% he bo belfquos mnt bast teemsorBe ant
a ae
Sy Re “Dea peek
reorganization plan. The subsequent agreements were the result
of these conferences. if complainant had wished to camcel the
lease of November 1, 1926, and execute the contract eof April 225
1932, omly upon the express understanding that the agreement would
pe void if the plan of reorganization were not consummated, it
would have been a simple matter for him to have so provided in the
agreement. It is apparent from the allegations, when taken to-
gether with the plain previsions of the various agreements, that the
Statements alleged to have been made by Dickinson were not represen-
tations of present or past facts, but rether of events which all
parties hoped and believed would happen in the future. The amended
bill does not deny that “Dickinson had been assured" that a loan
would be made, nor does it challenge the representation that the
stockholders had raised $30,000 pursuant to the plan. if Dickinson's
statements were honestly made and in good faith, the succese or
failure of the plan would not make the statements fraudulent.
(Miller v. Sutliff, 241 Ill. 521.)
The law applicable to proceedings based upon predictions
and promises similar te those alleged to have been made in this pro-
eeeding is fairly well established, and is well stated in 26 Corpus
Juris, pe 108%, sece 26, as foliows:
"an actionable representation must relate to past or existe
img facts and cannot consist of mere broken promises, unfulfilled
predictions, or erronecus conjectures as to future events. PFredic~«
tions as to future events are ordinarily regarded as nonactionable
expressions of opinion upon which there is no right to rely, and
Ovviously cannot constitute fraud where made in the honest belief
that they will prove correcte Thus actionable fraud cannot be based
on erroneous predictions as to the future conduct of third parties."
It is further stated, on pe 1090 of the same section of Corpus Juris:
"Since the failure to perform a covenant does not relate back
to and render the seme fraudulent, redress for fraud cannot be sccured
for mere breach of contract, and this is especially true where the
agreement was made in good faith; and in suchcases the proper remedy
is an action on the contract."
Complainant argues that in chancery it is not essential to
«hae
tDraex et oxen eeseamesaa teen eet) qmeberent eae emNReS
. of¢ Loottsg ed bodaiw bal decntaigqgos YL saeomerstnes seeds to
e8S Liga to deatiacs ons otwoox y hrm .dQOL, Lf todmevow to \eesbl
bisew, duegeetgs edt tadt yetbundevobie ameryre eds, moqs _lito..<8CeL
i oe ¢ GSU aeRO O FQn omew Mekiasinaggrova to salg alt Te Shoridd
ott at hebtvesg ca evad od mid sot rodiom alqate s inved Jovan oLdow
“09 soaked aody ,anoliagalle oft work sneteqqga eh dt : stnenes Ts
eiid toil ,atnomeetys suotiey edd to amotatvord miald ent inttiw “erteg
~teuotges jon stew moanldolt yd ebem seed eyed ot begets etromotete]
fic dolstw atnove to toll at ind ,atost desq To dtinesetg io Batted
bebnom efT .otudnt od? ni neaged bivow bove ed bas begat ao tdtaq
nsol @ tal? "Pomme sod bat! moaminioti” dale: yao totezoob Led
eit tad moitaigeacrget odd eymoliato $2 aveb tom vobent od biwow
sg tpoastteiS 1 .nalg off. od! tammeumg 000,080 bbe ber bag wxolifoditet te
£0 sappowe ond «tid ia, hoop a bre obsm titsonol orew ednened de
teelubvert atnemetate ent odes tom bivow mela’ ‘oat to: otteit tnt
Co L82 L0T) C88) g Reaggpe av eeEL Ee) —
, aroliotberg mogy beasd eget dosoe my et whdaptiaga wat ett 6.0%
| -org etd? mi cham mood evar ot hogelis overs of uotinte rea hmowy bie
auquod a2 mt befota Clow ub drm <hadeMdotee Leow ehekew el gatbsss
5 \sawolLo? ae eB 2908 EVOL .q°yetent —
“aur fue gta me ratatennnp, teense a
neler sine sacneye . sig onal pers mang “4 ) TIO TO — aM
baie vier @ at a oat on et ove Moti
posnt ed ?omtan ai obam oven Brrr . a a
Be ks tag bt seu. un “to dounnes peso 9. ‘vi i om 120tbe<g sei ag
we 0 Se Bees 0
etx vitciad % ao Lsoae oites oft ied lisesi Ko iraaghs et ot
ae alain ti "Si ee nauk sins
horures od J OLLI89 inl z0% ‘teben “L
edt orortw owed vitstoogae at te ,
. poate seat nae esi: are ms a)
“gu
the eancellation of a contract for fraud that the party making
the fraudulent representations kmew them to be false, even though
puch knowledge is necessery im an action at law for fraud and de-
eeit, and his counsel cite and rely om Gale v. Mumdy, 269 I11l. 142,
and several other Tliinois decisions. Holding as we do that the
allegations of the amended bill do not constitute representations
as to past or existing facts, or that they were falsely or fraudue
lently made, these citations have no application to the circumstances
of this ensee The law is well established that equity will not
agsume jurisdiction for e mere breach of a contract (Stewart v.
Mumford, 80 I11. 192)3 therefore if complainant has any romedy 1t
lies in an action at law for breach of the agreement of April 22,
19326
The plain facts of the case as disclosed by the pleadings
in question show that complainant, whowas the lessor of the premises
occupied by the bank and a stockholder and ereditor thereof, partici-
pated in conferences together with officers of the bank, other stock-
holders and creditors, to evolve a plan for liquidation or reorgani-~-
zation of the bank to the advantage of all parties concerned, by the
terms of which, if the plan was successfully consummated, he would
have been exonerated from his stockholders' liability and would have
procured a now lessee or the possession of the demised premises.
Aseording to the allegations of the amenced bill, he was fairly con-
versant with the negotintions by which all parties sought te make this
plan effective. ‘“e must assume from the aliegations made that the
stockholders raised the requisite $30,000, and that the plan failed
only because the loan was not procured from the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation. ‘the agreement of April 22, 1952, embraced all the umder-
takings of the respective parties, and is not rebutted or impeached by
the allegations of the amended bill. it cannot fairly be held under
:
hae ciit |
ie Teese
Fay
Um (aa
‘gable eoueq oid add oxoxt xoOD tomes «20 soktalLoouug ostt
cauont sove .ealet ed @% mort wosnl amotietnesexges tnoLubunxt odd
“pb bas buext 191% Wel ge moites ae mi yxoeagoen a2 agboLwoad, dome
GOL - {Li ROR syhem ov eled no ylev bon atio Loanuoo atid pms «tise
eds jolt ob. 0¥ ap paihie! saamiatosh alenkl il nesito fovtever has
Sietetusenge: statitenco ton oh Lhd bohwoma edt Re anti ageiin
~uhureet se yLeniat exew yetid tedt to atest guitelee so ¢eaq odces
nenuatanvorin edt of miteotiana om eved emmiistio onedd, pobam ylénet
ton Libr wiivee geld Sete bidatee Liew ab wal eff. seasoceddt te
‘a¥ auawst®) dosztnoo ao to dosetd eta o sob moltolbetun) emvaen
th gheset yor asc dnortnigmos Dt etetowadd q(NOL 6L11 08 ppro tml
(88 Liagh lo tmensewme od Yo desond seY wal da mmkton ne wk woke
xi “ig branes ys (etaun o” «tier
Wgrnthealg alt yt bewelselh ae ose old Mb shod toumbalqued® ow io
aoaimorg end to toanel odd naw ost etranatqnmp david woke mokineup tk
“mtolsceg gteexedé veddbors oma <ebLodioote a tne nad edt ye botgeot
“teote xedto sthad edt to axeotlio sittw tedteged aegnage ttep mt bolsq
winayie2t x0 soitebinpdt god aaly s eylove od yatodtbeus haw exobLod
ead Yd edontepsme getting tie to aysiaevde ont ot sand odd. le moister :
‘blvow of ,bofanawanon YLivinaeooue sav nelq ods it adpidw 19 amsot
ovat bivow bua YZiltdsls 'arebLosddeose etd meth Sodatgnene wed, va
ease leo bar imeh ont We a RRR CAN AEE | me igor menting wnnyle ni ;
2 eixtet sew. ‘ott hike bobsonm oat +80 enotsegeLtn one, Siren ett
wield oxkaan of trtgues aedtuag its How: oe rye aiery eal eae .
ot tautg oham one ltepetia ose 0-9 omens ee pg or:
boxtet nolg xia vtle ban £000,088 ottaiupos, att beater as loota
pomsstt mo Howttasooes utd 0 22 EGO vou ea aeol ot oauacod y 09
~nobeas asf Lhe besende rd 468 dagh te rave" jo od gate
wf bedossqmt 0 povander tom at pris ‘aabigtag rhodes 40% est
mabe died od yEatet touneg #2, 9 LEtd bohmamn oy ‘to, emmsengeste wl
De chine * my a
-10-
the allegations of the pleading that complainant was misled by
any statements made, nor can it be said that there was such a
mistake of fact, within contemplation of law, as to justify a
rescission of the agreement. ‘“e think the court properly
sustained the special demurrer filed. Therefore the order dis-
missing the amended bill of complaint for want of equity should
be affirmed and it is so ordered.
AYFIRMED «
Sullivan, Pe Jes and Scanlan, Jes Concure
ea M et EP Sy A Se
xed bofaim asw ta
pir, Dae, Daniel
i oo tt
Seg aid han: gt hay
9 as cual to mo kt ip ,
eh Shar PRE SR Pe 8
he Sager ws
6 Baek ine
“a + ofepraniys atte, i
F is
— ue 4 Paint ore 2 aT he
mR paseretty epee pret
GBR RE, BEL OS. RR ETS: Rte ORS ieiil we eae Raha 3
, eon Lian iia, Se See’, wih, Qe a, aaa eo
ahedesey, <Sposwdt ane diene: team sail
boots Rott aities sig he ele: aie epee
HAIN aet » bes aammcUNeD stein ‘dein ses
vino aleror hn Qe aie leche dig amet ET
chet: ners Ri Fath FRO ane Se aR: aie
aay
i, en hie mee mee, wheal teow ae ox "
is ef se eursiomsl ate aoe
‘a bea vate La: beotaelte Bui: am 7
a wi baiscugnt war rere oi ow wh Niven
ee el
KATHERINE FECasY
(Plaintit’) Appelless
2 /
)
)
Ve )
GHEOTER Re DAVIS, Receivers
a4
APIRAL FRG SING?
of SELLEW & JOIST; and C 2OUNT, COOK comrey
THRUST COMPANY, @ tions lest .
De Re
CHEST He DAVIS, Receivers 4 9 O T.A; 6 0 ae
and Heary
, Y Ae SRLLG and PRED Ac
THA, copartnerss doing
}
WRe TUSTICOR SGAMLAM DELIVERED THR OFINION GF THE COURT.
Katherine Feeney sued “Chester R. Davle, Reeciver}* Thomas
A. Sody; Meury A- Sellen oad Fred A+ Johnson, copartnsre, doing
wouiness under the firm name and etyle of Sellen & Johnson; and
Coty Trust Gempanys, a corporation, for damages alleged to have beon
sustained by her, by falling upon a stairway of a building alleged
to hewe been managed and operated by defendants. Cody Trust Company
was subsequently diemiased out of the gase. In a trisl by the court,
without a jury,there wae «a finding of guilty ageinst defendants
“Cheater NR. Vavie, Reasivyer,” Thomas A» Cody, Homry A+ Sellen and
¥red A» Johneon, copartners, doing businesrn ender the firm nome
and etyle of Sellen & Johnsen, and plaintiff's c¢emages were azaeaned
im the oum of $1,500. Judgment was entered upon the finding. Thare-
after the Judgment as te Thomas A. Cody was vacated. “Chester i.
“$090 .AI0eS
ne
womocn. o6a We BOS 2 aNs
cvid palouanese “ He GA Ee
tet Psi hs eet
“gama of
TMOLIO WOKT TAS
sTPRIOD WOOD . TAIOD
ro sxe © WURDEN WARIS ETON ft
acund’? "pay ioewf eabenn Kh Sabendth beueh ‘Winnett enbindtbe,. v
BALOD 9 mrad ueGOD soak +A beet hin ston +A emt GyhOD A.
has paeerulo’ 3 tLe 2o oly s bom oman week? volt wobsur waantuod :
unod eyed od dagetis argensh ~0% emmdtergxon a qWAmuAOD Saunt ybod
_ Regen wedehet 9 Hi SOREN Sa ON A i
bum molto oA cd «e009 «A anemutt + nuvtooes penis cand
omen mrt ott ohm wemakwed gectod «erontrages i be
heenmnas wow sopanind at Witdmntg cr) ene sente # ation bad ane
aif wegeete “sbetooey aor 00 ok ana on |
“ge
Devise, Reaeiyer,* Sellen, and Jehnsou have appealed.
On April 199 1034, plaintiff was a tenent in the building
known a9 4633 Seat Madison street, Chicsgoe i the evening of
that éay, about mine o'clock, after visiting with « friend,
Mree “ilsou, whe lived in the seme building, she left the lstter'a
apartment in company with another friead, Kathleen Joyee, whe alse
lived in the building. They left Mrpe “ileon's apertsient by the
rear entrance, as saecess te thelr rucpective spartments was gained
threugh the tome rear stairway. There was no bulb in the Light
wogket above the ctaire and the stairway was very durk. In the
wall ef the buildings, about ten feet from the bottom etep, there
was * dim lamp burning, but there was a post between this lanp
and the eecond, third and fourth etepa from the botiom, which
cauteé a shadow te be cast upon these steps. As plaintiff proeesd}-
ed dowa the atairway she had her left hand on the railing, er
heanieter, and as she stepped she felt foreign objects wider her
feet om the treads,» AS whe reached about the third step from the
bettom ker left hand rubbed against} the wall,» as the handrail
ended sabveut three atepa from the botta@a on the left-hand side
eeing dewne 74 cnded four atepa skeve the bottam on the richt-—
hand + “there were no hand rails on the Lower three steps." She
than reached for the post at the right of the stairs and as she
é1é 20 she ate pped on some fersign object and fell. The steps on
that cide are very narrow arewund the post, not more than an ingh
wide. it is « spiral etaireay. ‘The pleintiff euffered swrious
injuries, but mo peint is made as to (in snmatt of the damages
awarded »
| Plaintiff contends that the defendemia ware segligent in
«five particulars:
5 *(1) the s was @f waeafe design due to the
fast thet the steppe 2 around a newel post, in certain |
Places, coming to a point 5 es saenk poate
ns Se Om, CS Se PO oe ere
PRD laren ew a
———
whanneng Wihinkaly a »ageea ouesds aq dene of ot 9
(’
shaLaegge ated woasato’ bas jdertae: “,tevlooet ,atvatt
patenting ost ih tanned « naw Tedembate edk0E 00k haga a0
oe eee mts 2 sOgaetsto i toxte soulball Gus” OUBD an
. teabta a sk ae p wenden dione. sel ach bat bovis oie ve :
RE eA A,
eyuid sqeda moeted «rls apt? gown wi ;
- nk ae so fang sae ene tt eo cma n a so
” “Falaw vensiod ite tet wenve some been belles :
ea ae oe ci wets
sBOaLIE
oe. Seine led teategs
0 spicbshex ald co ham ¢nt oct Dn en yewrtabe! end-soeb he |
ced tobe efestée mytore? tlot ade hoquete oda an ban yentaboned
td eovt ote wilt ante inode Sadiemee Gite ah” ai ie ln
a sieustinpfisiinvrptonyhionys oF
wttis ol? ao mited alt sreda. weeds. unt i hai iii situgll
Ee Mets, owed xowed oe ao alton omad om @2
nile an ewe extate oct 2 datgta ent a tom _) vetoes nt
Smt aD et an aa ae te alll
‘i Recenibianeeil 4
ie’ Wilashemaes Syst aay
rk A TRS RN sii CON LS aah,
eet Of exh tp etonau 18 aay
octet Sean
a3e
“(2) the etairway wee net preperly lighted.
"(3) The construetion of the stairway failed to eamply
with paragraph (a) ef Section 1436 of Busch-lierustein Neviaed.
Chiesee Code, 1931, in thet the steps were not at least three
feet wide ae required.
(4) The conetruction of the steimway did uot couply
with paragraph (b) of Seation 1436 of Buseh-Hornstoin Revined
Shieage Gad, 1951, ia that the atelrewy did not heve hand
veils om each side as required.
“(8) ‘the stairway wee unsafe because defendants peraitted
éeorie and forsign subctance toe accumulate upen the steps .*
Appellents Slien and Johaeon contend that "there is not a
seintilia of evidence which ln any wy shows any relationship
wetween the defendants, Sellen & Johnson, and the building wi thin
whieh plaimtiff'su injury eaourred," and that there should have
been a finding for thea. At the outeot of the trinl the following
Stipulation wae entered into by plaintiff ane dofendantms
CKATONINE FEMEY,
Plaintift
Wie Eos 340 23623
SETRA Re DAVID, Regeiver
wid THOMAS A, CODY, and
lt ee hers Ce eet i ne
o0-par by é pusiness uider
the fivm meme ond style of
Sellen and J¢ a
"BELPULAZIGH
"It 1D HORRY BTEPULATED AND A@umD by and between the
parties to the above entitled cause, by their respective attorneys «
"Lt IS PURTHER STIPULATED ASD AGREED by and between the
ewbey x herete by their respective counsel that in « certain cause,
t? Be-251676, a certain bill for receiver fileé on the 7th day
ot September, 19492 and that Chester BR. Seavie, og-defendant herein
was appointed as receiver on the 9th day of September, 1035 fer the
promises located ut 4939 Veet Madiesn Gtreet in the City of Chiengs
wi th go a sy of = receiver and au additional erder wee entered
O1 the 27th da of Degembex, 1935 contiuulmeg the epooiniment af the
Satay wos soscivat'end‘bal charge ef ihe sald tronites ts tak
add . MAGS ms
reoeiver on the 19th day of ‘Lhe LOS4. ns
"FACLAN & KAPLAT amd ALPS M. Lose
ATTOMUTSYS FOR PLATTS
WWEENELL He SHARTSR
ATYORMEYS FGR Borat}
2
whedsty 2s ehxscorag, fon nam ure tage nil fape
| PEE Sat Scheie cP
oe neko HERE
ba
— = Fon wxew Gqode acts nas ak ices ag bw
ehotispot ae
able semk
SS RELATE a
Bae vo fen oth yavedata edd dads
bee ¥ der oa Btdahse toh onmiedd wLoanwe ow Yoritede wif?
io. . Meme ott sea edaLumsona, 99 HB ome og % a
& See wt nena” tent breteoo soaaiot fae pal
Sin a , . a biel
_ Ptemtoates Yaw, area ym yan mt tote oe : f |
nite ie gakiiind sid bam emaceigt & moitnd Antaean oh, 40, hel
od hivede gnsds dade hae "qbexuvone wurbah a1 temtaly Sober
# af 20 doname, ond #4. rent na aaa @ Ra
et Pt
Bee he , iq
wit AB war PR aR: bghae - }
Deitel BAMRAdEAALe ath ate. |
5a ir ale alas
I% ia elear from thie stipulation and the report of
preeeedings thet the ence wau tried upon the theory thet Chester
Re Pavia, Novalvyer, wae in s@le gharge of the building. We ovle+
denge Gas introduced by plaintiff that even tended to shew teat
Thomas A, Cody or Sellen & Jehneon were in charge or conte el of
the building at the time of the secident. All of the evidenge
ofiercéd in defense was iatredueed "an behalf of defendent Chester
Ms Gawle, Reselyer.® Plaimtiif, to support the judguent against
the oOpartuership, relies e@itirsly upom an anower made by Fate
Bens@n, 2 Witness called "oa behalf of cefoudant Chester EL. imviss
Reaciyer,” whe testified, upon direct, that he liver? at the promises
in queetion, that he wes a janitor by Occups tion, that he was em
ployed by "Sellen & Johnsons” that he had been janitor of the build}
ing for mine years ond was still im that position, that there sre
seventy-twe filets in the bull¢ing, and that he took care of the
wollding himself. Upen cress-examination witness wae not questioned
by plaintiff as to whe employed him at any time. ‘the stipulation
shows that Chester KR. tevie was appointed yeesiver om Septerber G,»
19355 aud thet he wae still in charge of the premises, ao receivers
on the day of the accident, April 1%, 1934. The trial commenced on
Wovresber 15, 1935. Benson hed been janiter of the building for
mine years. The transcript of his testimany, in se fax ee 1% re~
lates to hie auswer as to who employed him, has been “sorrected"
by the trim] court simoe the recerd wae filed in this court. It
seems likely that when Benson testified he wes employed by “Selles
end Johnoon" he meant that he woe originally employed by them, as
it in aongeded that the receiver wae in cherge of the building at
the time of the eecident and the janiter of the premices would be an
employer of the reseiver. Appellant “Chester h. Pavia, Roceiyors"
admits in his brief that hes av receiver, operated the building
? anelaep nem a AS ——
Vi \ Tyee) Va an eee
Te Wee Yi 2 ee CR ia pay: mC "
€ 4
as te tuoqet Orff ben Mobtolting sa Wltd work Yeets of FX
tote date yond aad sop Dokte ney onne at fat apntbonony
= i9s au mth Thad ond Yo openly oton ai eae <tervtaned. . sheet.
tant vor of Sohmad evo Gade Titomtade yd beowbordal ea souob
Ww Lowgneo ww eaxads i wey moandes & wetted 48 -Yh0d +A amend
tnupbive aa lo Lh sduwdtega ody to mid oe go gutbdiud auld
“aedssd® fakes tos to Unded no” becubettnd daw oaneXel ak hoeeTes
sssarucheenennphanipiatepitagtiniganer sev in oe
eie% Ud aban wowans Ma neg torn: ‘ 6 eat
alee <8 “ihn eital thee ie oes ealahiee. cabal
| aoe teeny Ot! de DoT EE otf Peed aroowkh goqy _SeTRRrest ate “ytertooet
wise eae teed Phat: we itoprine YW tof last a eal ef fare ane kiuemy nt”
obthed walt ee ee eS a | whey
Re a Ee eo ee
act? ty oxep foos ad tent dae epathiied adt at atalt omt~yseeves
ef? wodmagqo3 me sovhooet wassiponl we or a es é: ee de
fLincmmaaponeene nism: a
Seomecs Lotnd aft ~OOE AE ngh atneh en ase we etm
6 sen th Lia ate ‘le wodinat amet bad monet ween % :
- Fh eo ak OR Ak a oMEtdaed <1 to vacant 9 eng ont } :
APAE hee at @ aie
| Mbotowemne® nied Kos aati brendan oft of ax womens Ob 0%
g tata
. 24 save abs at BeLAT sew Memuer att womn fxm Y aite ed
4 td ride LEONG \ .
te eathtion ath cuenta stl eb line Oh alle “i set j
= ot ger ene m sotaah t to Ombin tt ante
«f=
through his servantee “hea Selien and Johnson moved fer a fimilag
im their fever at the comelucion of pleintitf*s evidenae, thore
wag not a eeintille of evidense to shew that they were conunaceted
with the management of the wuilding at the time ov the aegident.
Ths imateaat conétentiou ef Selies and Jehnaen ia elicarly o meritorias
ane» |
Appellant “Chester Kh. Devise, Neeeiver,” sontends that “there
ia me eyideuee tet Chester i+ “avis, the other defendant, owned,
operated, managed, supervised or mointained the building known as
4835 Yest Mecinon Otreet, in his individual capacity. Oa the cone
trary, the record conclusively showe thet the building ms operated
by him es receiver.” The follewing is the argument in suppert of
this contention: "There i# mo evidence that Chester B. Davis,
iméividuslly or in auy private capacity, owned, managed, poeseaced,
supervised cr exntrelled the premises. The evidenge io directly and
oonclusively te the contrary. * * 4 Freon the -tipulation it appears
that Chester &+ Savile was appointed receiver im Gause ioe B«251676,
im the Ciweult Court of Cook County, and that, ae such receiver, he
was im poweesuien of the premises knows ae 4854 “est Madisen Street
mt the time of plaintiff's fnajurye Gueh is the entire proof
deseriptive of Davis’ roleation to the property. thig sult is net
ene in rom againet the reocivership estates, or againet Chester BR»
Devise, ae reoeivey. Chester i. Tevis individually wes made a party
éefendant, the term ‘reselver' after his name being a mere matter
of description. The eases uniformly held thet a title, appended te
™ ome of a party te a law gults without the cenmecting werd tas’
HAG, and dote net make the ene oo dexoribed
#& party te the action in hie effielal capseity. che sult is agalmet
such « party as an individusl. * * * In the iastent appeal Davie
| Was not sued ay receiver but rather as an individual without efi ieiad
j
a
Bikink: x wot bevem aesnelet’ lew net fodt nate” iediaiveed adit quot
eNodd comtiob te et LidREaly We ab heute wld ta woeRY sete ae:
SeFonnnos. wxww yuels Farle wade we onnibbtyy YW ofEtInton » tow baw!
| seb ons wl? 26 Gmkd oY fm ROLbElwe way Ye Pammeigmnn wats aledw
gpppreort @ UlreeLe a2 Homeel dud welled te eoleassnoy detent
| . > pte Bo bed jdpammalale
| axel danete chredamo “tevlepeli getval ol weteaks’ dewlkeqga © 6.) 0+
(—qhleteg amen tOb Tele exis qudtvet sit eeltdani gunk South dea vom ak
| | ao iaveant Sethithud ‘at paatantadd ew Soatvenqun «besamenivbenwuege
ee inensetnat sb a2 «dobke® mannan txenseoee
% feecege vow mBBEe wut ind wwnate eowteutad® Monon Add euaed
te a % srxogque wb fomaeyta eu? 8s peleediot adt® *orovewnen am mht eo
Age hvac’ i arden decd bombelee oie ab erent (nmneneemebceealy
Bh
‘
roeanoeuog ebonnsnet sboriee vtionise wavhaq yn at xo ‘eihewtty bie
bee toons ak aquobsve od sueutinese oi) bekLonhane to soakwergwe
| amigas #2 noltacuglé ois tablet 0% VyNEsINe! and Oe ochoMnaitaneS
LVL sot Same? Bh sovEoOd Kedetogum enw Rive «= weteetO gay
ou <tavtonn 2 dons em Poult Huy yyw Seed Lo ered etmek anh at
Pet fe ee ee ee ee
tiie eine ate we Meet Ce eRe We omkd edt te
fon ak thea cher oyheeysng oe Of ee deater tabvat 26 ovhegtzened 4
+f cavum Yaethoys TO vette ChhtONREOO ext tebe wom eh
Yitag & oben noe Ucaihbetbe: wine ott eteNeTD: ucdemn_ag wth ;
wedhas won a ated aman Gh Yeete Roekwoot? med ode etmohmole
ot boing «Stab 9 she D kek wre Ukr woman: ete + emenagoens 20 :
Che? Dtow pikhioninee elt deetirkw pehwe walls thie een F
hot bronsh 08 Gar aks eM JOH aOB bm og oats, a q
“damdegh Wi thee oft set Beegee Ketedo mde md: ooggon 96 eg
i, kvatt Lomegh deed anh en crete Lowe e bee me ae Bree A: ;
‘karen tb thes 2v Lawhtr ites am ee nt |
i
q
‘
4
i
r
~te
or representative capacity» He defended hie righte as an indivi-
dual and must therefere be lisble as an individual er freed entige-
ivy from the apparent individual liability imyosed by the judgeunt
below. * * * ly a reversal of thia judement can prevent a levy
upon the oreperty ef Chenter ft. Cavyie. His only pessession of the
premises was that of servants, employed by him ia hie capacity as
reeeiver. Therefore, there can be no personel liability.* The in-
Stent contention is plainly an afterthoughts and it is somevhat
eurprising thet thie appellant, an officiel ef the sourt, in view
of hie attitude in the trial court, would raise it. The soaplaint
joins se one of the parties defendant “Chester KR. avis, Reeoivers*
and charges that such defendant and others were "“epernting, managings
cupervyieing and maintaining” the building in quection. The ommmone
was directed te “Chester Pavia, Feoeiver," and the return of tho
sheriff shows that the writ was served on defendsnt “Chester Devis
Receiver.” Appellant's acunsel entered the appearance of “Chester
Mavia, Neeeiver.* “Chester “avis, Peeeiver" answered the couplaint.
A aunibor of motions were made in behalf of “Chester 8. Davia, Re~
eeivyer.* Ordera were entered upon motion of “Cheeter FF. Tavia,
Reoeiver.*® Motions to find defendant “Chester hs Savile, Neseiyer,"
mot guilty were mada by hie counsel. deithor by plea, motion, nor
@ugetetion, during the proceedings im the t rial court, did the re~
esiver raise the point he now urges, The instant appeal was token
by “Chester 2. Davie, Regoivere” Appellant has eited certain saves
te the «ffeot thet the additian ef the word “Heeaeiver,* without the
eonneating werd "ag»” is morcly deveriptioa peregias, and dees net
bring in question the rights ey liabilities ef « receiver in his
effieinl eapaclty. There aro, ef gourze, cases to the contrary,
Bee 85 C+ Te B8R+ “Gm, anlar, “Gaake v- Honretim, 146 Lille Apne 4Mke
wherein it wae held that "Charles Nearetin, as Receiver," was merely
Cie a
~< =
a Nie cs aie
is Sie
—_ abetbak om sa ngeinks abt Dane Oh ol «ed toegay evitesasnenqen to
aucmumher, orf yt Dewoqmek wWiLiidals Lewhivionl tavceaqe one meth yt
YL 2 daevetg a0 tevephel, ebte te teewevet » yi © * © oweted
pinwnoney qhue oI oahynl «ff wedmedS le yxecome odd meq
ge Wheeqns abt mt mid ys Seyodque patmerios Ye ¢adt cor senkmong
eh oat *‘wWetiiidald Leapereg on od ape oxo? qevetenedy » wrieoet |
esiremmn ak $2 ane qdaiguels rede ao “inked, wh mOdenetmon amade
wine nets we Lalectio as «daellogie slid add yoke toques
dakadguon ont! +2 satan bhwow «immoe tote et ah obmbtete ais
“etavkeodi «sive: «i sopuaiir dake leb aotiiag old 0.0m sq mabe,
- enntgonon ramtzanage oy snaten tam pmmbeniten Se tt: peanaie Ne
son cute of wotwouten te cased. bas #90 uso 36
3 aan + sedeedio* Ye motion siege | bus |
2H atoloom ony, we sedd.ton hoaniee ete
“we sate bib sooo ads og mh jabbe oper b ;
| sade aw Lengge tnederh ont «seu 9664.89.99, enla Tord
woes ahatues noahy wad omen Lis |
6 Yampy tones audpett ibbitiguiged |
io sqeowawe om: ot ee. a, seem om wie ae) "
wD *aGA +SEE OM ambte ae ORL 400% 988
«Fe
a better deseription of the real defendant than “Charles Henrotin,
Beseiyer,”* and thet 14¢ 444 not bring imto the gaune a now party.
Hewover, it in « euffisient answer te the instant contention to
eay that in this suit it is clear that during the entire proseed-
imge in the lower court appellant “Cheater KH. Davis, Reesiver»"
treated the action az one ageinut him in his eff olal cspacity as
a reoolwer in charge of the premises. The present contention thet
he defended the ection against him “ae an individusi" is not only
ctmpletely enewered by the recerd, but it is subject te the eriti-
giem that it is necessarily based upon the theory that the receiver
eamouflaged his real defense in the trial court. If he defended
the suit .¢ an individual, as he new claims, why did ke offer evi-
dence on behalf of “Chester Hh. Pavia, Keociver," to show that there
Was no negligence in the manngement or operation ef the bullding?
The transeript of the record contains the argument of the receiver's
attorney at the conolueien of the evidenge. Novhere in hia log argue
ment does he make or eugrest the point he now urges. Indeed, the
argument io based upon the asoumption that the receiver was the
landierd of the promises, and the point made was that the receiver
Was mot guiity of any of the charges of megligenoe. ven if there
were any merit in the contention that the use ef the word “Reeciver*
without the connecting word “as* did net make Chester Kk» Davia a
party to the action in his official capnocity, the reeciver has waived
the point by hie eonduet. It ia oly fair te the reaviver te ey
that the recerd shows that he defended the suit in the trial court
ae the receiver of the premises. As we have herctofere etated.s
the instent contention is on afterthought.
| Appellate eonutend that pleimtiff ¢id net exercise due sare
for her ow sefoty and that her injuries resulted from her eontrivu-
q tory negligence. The trial court found ageinet this aon tention» and
of tte
AsO aoa” mals secdeoroh Laat gal? te snbighvonsh sagtod. x
| Seg oN A onKeD pitt Otmt gated som BEd 2 dauld dea, "eRevkooes
| (8 MOLiaatnoe tmadamd otf e) LOTUAE smkeh Vive @ ah 22 «Zevouol
~boaoong ox time nett autverd soit anode af ¢4 dine side mk dads yoo
— “pteriegel, qadvat «5 madness" daadleqen dammo xewoL odd oh eget
oe YWhoeges Lato lie otk ad mit danke 660 on apisoa att betags
duals amidoadtos saesong oct «amatuerg add Ye sazsile ab xovinons,
Viet don at “Leyte loa om on" mbt tenioge oligos ade behaotek aif
waa tGo orl} 09 songen a1 .#4 Sat ohapens edt yd boneweRS Thatelgune
pRevanoon eth tet seal
hetmetot oa RM celine iateatiataaaataie ian a galt
he Te 9d hhh Ute aamtede wom od ae. ehawi bvdbeh ss en. 4tan oe
s ond gad wode of “aueviowed guava «ii umdacdy*
Tpabrsird waist 1e medsanego a0. demmmpacies slp sk eS
athavince seat Se: tamemae a0. nphetane, Ompees. 960, 38 tqisoenend
omen ane etd ah eredwok .epnebsve of? 2 motewLonoe » :
ai. heated seman. 0m. 8.delnge th: Semmens sue. tett tile q
| eed caw covbeowe ed Fane aeliqmmsa ont sous boned eh inom
sovione oul? gasld asw oham sxioy one dae eavatmsy ent 30 ore Sonne 4
onweld TE swe «omuighigen 2 aequatly. alt Win 2 WELD dom new i
“maviaons” buow adé to ons eulh Joxs antinegme ot at. ¢ aoe Yow OFAN
(& Svat 6h cadet) aan gon bb aa" deme gabtoomnes one ewosta kw 1
“bovtaw wast wrvkooos aid yutlomise Satoh 20. ald mk motson edt. 90.6bse :
a ee
two Lated acid mk $Lire etd bede@deb eM soit omosin Sxn9's en day
abate een: SAE: nna: > wenbone It Ae q
f
‘|
|
|
po aio Mandnen, aide : Santen Dean aati hates, ott | Oona dt
~fe
we ayorove of the findings
Appellants emitend that “none of the specific charges of
negligence finds euppert in the evidence ner is any of them founded
upon apelicable legal principles.“ Appellants have argued, at
great length, the evidenee and the law bearing upon cach of the
specific charges of negligenoe. ‘The follewing is the epiniom of
the trial court in deoiding the ease:
"The Court: Gentlemen, after plaintiff concluded her
ease, I did net think a very strong case Was Gade Oube A ——
facie ore, © of aqoured, was made outs but I rather theught the
case weak, but that or of mine hae been changed by the witnesses
ef the tiff and by the defendant. I think the last wituses,
ode whadneatt. defendant's own witness, made out a perfect ease far
utirer
“aside from the question ef the structural defents ond the
violation of the ordinanes, which undoubtedly this dees, because as
far as the stairanses that are not enelosed, the erdinanes requires
two hand relle, sui 1 do not think wo cam substitute a news) post
for a hend rail. But sven if thet were to be regarded as the ter-
minel portion of the stairway, there is net shy reason why, with a
stairvay ye pat: as thie one is, particularly « hand reil on
the left, showld end three atepe above the creund. But aside from
thats Mre. Silem testified, and the blue print intreduced by the
éefonésant illustrates 1t perfectly well, that the newel post canta
a shadew asross the third step there, and she said, in additio te
that, the licht dew below was in very poor emdition.
"Now, here ie a bullding that was constructed with what is
® tather dungerous staironse. dranting just beoowse 14 ie 6 commen
method of constructions so particular commen law duty was owed te
the plaintiff by the defendant to change the construction, 1+ was
more dangerous than the ordinary etraight stalresses; but apparently,
the orchitect felt there Pong to be a Light that would throw
reflection direc the three or four winding treads, an¢ ao
he provided fer a % up abeve aud in tiem almost south of
the newe] pest ne that what licht would threw from there weuld
be thrown directly upon this winding pertion of the atairway. But,
for some senbin Or dehabe there wan a made, and ne licht
is put in there in the secket that in previded for it, and which
is to be wome four or five feet pw? of the place where it is
eteps, because the Light is pus et on
angle where the newol pest shute 1¢ off, and your wiwe sage tesati-
fied that there was sueh a shadow.
Shanmner (at
“Hrs texney for appellants): “hacew om the
fourth step, she mee PF
“The Courts Yer, And there was other testimony of thet
kind here. if Som eo Mahe now thet might be worse than ne
light at all, heving tha wat that part where it winds -r-wmd
the newel post.
. tq weteoed —seGh &
ae
Ha
| spatbats aie te ereseys e
te camer eae oktieueh ade ‘ie gue” daslt hawegine nda thoggs a ee :
bobavot malty to yor af Tem gonehive od mh ak ial abst vaney tigen.
4a adem eval absotiogg “swedgtoatng tamed aida tings og,
etd. to dose ooqy aetsaed wal off baa amok kee asta ettgaed CS a
tw aetatge odg a2 gabwailel emt +pouegtigean to sey taig aniteogs,
wa soane o84 nakbtead at duvgo biti
tel peruiosa, Tiatalg
: os a ee
aaanoant Ly “at Soames ene cust otthe te WolY sath tad sinew eonD
_paaeng iw teak ede sekes + xahmare> ang yd tua % ang to
sot sean SoCtrog & wal obi 4 Samay Ew dl einai: ee iva i
SS SS eee =;
eng bam apoctes Lares oud ostd to cage ate:
sou bsown opmanio te wal s baae Lone sort
fouy Lever a oer) Lindue mee ow tekele
-toe ag ne sebtagest od a? eter
PBs 3% ‘oer dom ek
wie goeq Lowest aad duals Frias
ed amis take mt ,hien oshe news yermoetd qed Ga byte
smois ieee soog Trev ah aan waded ¢
ah ¢eibe — “earcond. fast Sete Bh
— @ a2 ¢h eumeved ne rerag
ae 32 suai toienee ap ot oases 9 8 caabio'teh og i Thisnishy”
ection dad jpeanoc ied riaelyth ale Maes AHF oll
_ sow parr diene oka
ea ghee
to dauoe oe
bisew axods most, eas
¢ tet pony es exe te mo koteq
Stell on am se
Ao birt of
” pamart:
m ,
sm wobade a wereld Satay a ji
*S ga vung af dip ht oeld Page ey ny nae “0 6 '
tise eas sa Be ay, ome othe h Lowen alae eo Ly
ee es e aeasveie epuls
ant? ao wehat® «(adaeliogye wok “yomned ae) ore
Bi
tort ‘te uncngent xestge naw oxads bash ie rr,
ge eeadé ouxew of filpie dads woe, | awh
bam abake oh — ero ng va’
tS ee
ase
"I think, taking all the evidence together, the fact
Soe enseniin tte nigad aad adas Serta ttse tata Bs
Stesed tt Teratafa har vega cesteting "te tetas abt Sa ™
Stairs there, I think there iw ample showing this ms aegli-
dellats. ‘The motion ef defendants is demiese” ne
After a @areful examination of the «videnee and the law
bearing upon ite we find ourselves in aecerd with the eomelusions
of the trial court. ‘der the evidenee ané the law a finding fer
appellant “Chester Re lavis, eaciver,* woule mot have been Justi-
flede
Yhe contention of "Chester Re Davis, Receiver," that in
amy event the judgment should have been agninst him in hie offi-
cial capacity, to be paid only out of the fund of property which
the court appointing him has pleced im hia possession and undor
his cmmtrm@, ic a meritorious one.
Appellee has filed a motion in this court to dlemiss the
appeal for noncempliange with the provisions of the new Proutice
eetreleting te appeals. The motien will be denied.
The judgment of the Cirewlt court of Cock county in se
far aa it relates to ¢efendants Homry A. Selien an? Fred A. Johnson,
eopartners, doing business under the firm nome and « tyle of Sellen &
Jotnson, is reversod. the judgment in so far ag 1t relates te
defondent “Chester He Davie, Regeivere* is reversed, an¢ the cause
iw remanded with directiem te the trial court to enter a judgment
in the eum of $1,500 in favor of plaintiff and against defendant
Chester Re Davin, ac Fecelvers, the judgment toe be pal d out of the
fuade in the hands of said receiver in due course of administration of the
receivership. Befere ontering judgment the trial court will ot lew
Plaintiff te amend her pleadings wo that wherever the words
"Chester R» Davies Reeelyer,” eppear im her pleadings they will be
~
rr
ergs a gree bah nd mp hus ekbgueda the nad nat
dad ‘ Seb ome tee age tg 2a p~—l — ‘ phim,
ie en ‘ath ie eiqum ah ote? dalle I yoxeds arlate
"obo ines ad ad naben tod ty seo Rb mat eat? .
“wok oft bam vonobiy > of} Yo notiontmas gvbocae s xestA
ecpseutenwe elt Mtiw brovoe mi cevioutne hat? ow a2? ang aacbened
wot sathati © wad ovr Sup eommbive esd aobeh! stumeo tetae oild te
csi cae RRL CIO RR eR
ab dasld a eovtosil yakeors sft xadustD" woisentana ait x
ig @ahe
oP, +A a ett sed a Say a te j
ren » gical Ph eaerarents, vettong
ea ua £Xde we bion ct i t aat es
“ge Wi) yseawo Mood te dome Pee ;
i at mato
wot in Lhiw Saey Soded gate iahaibliag titer gino beotem | .atde
» SN PM, cova aah 08 cqutbeo =ahm 0 tsaadedy
“od “tech ‘cits i ra ae err wm yy WE
iene Lowen he
ole
ehumged to rend, "“Cheeter 2. Devise, ae Receiver.®
SUDCMSAT IN 50 FAR AS IT WLATES TO DEP OANTS
HEMEY Ae BELLE AWD PRED A» JOHNS GT, pi geht eg
HOTRG BUSINESS URD°R THE FIM BARS AND STYLE OF
GRLIRN & JOHNSON, REVERSED, JUDG@NaiT Im So FAR
AS IT ASLATHS TO GP GRANT "OHESTEH Re GAVIG,
REGEIVER »* IS REYSRSED, AND CAUSE REMANDED WITH
VIRAOTIGNS TO TRIAL COUNT TO BUTERA JUDGAT In
SUM GF 21,500 Ie FAVOR G PLADITIFY Ad) AGALEST
DEWONDANT CHEST@A Re HAVEliyg AS RUCUIVER, TO BE
Pare GUT GF FURPE I Matos GF Salb F ECRE VER IM
DGS SOURGS GF AUMINIOTRaATIGN GY THE RECEIVERSHIP; AND
DIRT aS THAT PLALATIF? BE ALLOwsD TO AMD
Gt PLOACLEGS OC THAT WHAREVER WOADE *GHEOTER Be
DAVIS, RECEIVER »" APPGAS THEY Will, Be CHANGED TO
READ, “GMUSTIN Re DAVIS, Al EXCEIVERe*
Gullivans Pe Joe and Friend, Je, concure
x ae * anon pale
wy ena Evens
bE mine Aone
Recs eer
ao grey
oe re
hie . thas ag wate :
Bess es os saquguhonne tb sal ail te
tc I FEL SALA, I 4 co praca i
Me te sehineimn oat
Ca hy wee yo tains leah abe Me REE a a
we iia ae Greet. wend wh —
weit Litt: SEN aN ARS a2
Gee Seer
RES ch CaS tye 4
ee ae EC Mn POM RM aa ee
a re ee ee ee
sie WL Rake gtedoneanimee: al) hg ete a att .
ee m Ba ge UP aati) baie. a Ge ‘* sane see
ahaa in lee pe
ts
bie ee i p Soap h nett gag hat ee, ae
Wis. RNR: ABR ai ‘at Silay. we atin ot
any alae, eNO angip a vento ont
“SLE Se ak la, ch. ai |
33884
WILLIAM Be JOMNSOH, )
Appelles»
Ve | APPEAL FROM CLHCULT couRT
eousTy ee COCK, ete ) GF COOK cousrY.
Appellant. 290 1A. 602
MR. JUSTICN SCAMIAT WOLIVRED THE OPINION a THE COURT.
This sapped. by defendant is fram a judgment ef 25,500
in fayor of pisintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury in
an action of trespass.
| Plaintiff filed = motion in thia court to dismies the
appeal upon the ground thet thie court had lest jurisdiction
beoause “defendant failed to file o netice of appeal with an
exrder of sllowenes endorsed therem and serve seme on plaintiff
within one year after the aitry of the judgment complained of ,*
in violation of the Civil Practice Aete The judgment in the
ease wes entered on April 5» 1935. m April 35 1956, defendant
filed ite petition for lesve to appeal in this court. G1 April
199 1956, plsintiff was duly served with a copy of notice of
eppeal with the ordur of sllowance indorsed thereon. In support
of his motion to diamiss, pleintiff contends that the service of
the notice of appeal with the order of allowance indorsed ther eon
should have been had upon plaintiff within ome year from the
entry of the judgment and that therefore this court, ualer the
atatute, has lest jurisdiction of the cause, The motion te
diomine will be dented. (See Rule 29 of the Rules of Practice
@f the Supreme court, and Rule 19 of the Rules of Preetice ef
this courte)
‘goa A oes at
» x i) p
Rien, ae A
ELA eine YU WSK Ler ie
wi Siew
gn
: hey, iL ee SURI a LY Sig a2
CHOON. RES Hear oma
Kae eRe y 209 7g.
.°m009 SEY © WOTKIGO SHY cGURVIEER BAZMADS morrevt me te
00248) oe tnemghat a mort at tmebnoted yw ineq¢a ehtt bi
al curl « Me dodotey acid singe hortegem 4 Viteningy to sows mE”
sousqaord To motion te
od? animals of ¢eemo ald? at noljom s beLlt Thidmkest oe
mmlickhadout, doek bed wos ahte dats Sawoxy ont wag Laoggn
na tthe Lewqgs Yo sokten # efit of hoLiet tnehasted* esmeset
Yilintalg mM amas evres tae soosedd boarebee sonawelle to xobse | 1
* to Sontalquoo somaphut ait Ye yrtm emt xofte samy om mbtthe
od ik dramohert, ad? #0! ookgows’ Livko edd Ye sokiakoty st a
fnataoted gBEOk of Linge # ANCL 98 Lins mo Roregam saw oneg
Ling) 0 «fw whl? at Lnoqae of evoet x1 mmbsideg oft bette
te wabion io que 6 Mbw hovxon yiwS daw Tidembady QBOOL yO
suoquve al .sooxsds Dearehak onnerata Yo tobro ett Mehr Leoqyn
2 ootyiow oni? Jal) abantuge Tittabely yasimt 9s molten elt ro
noo mld benxehnt voneweia Yo rebue ott Adiw tmoqan to sokven ott
Of) Mox? tney ono alslohw TEttetatg mogy bad ooed ovat biweda
ott “as tuo Atul o@terede Sat bus suommbwh oct te ytmo
Of mos6m ox? sou oct? Yo nodtodbetrut Sook oat gotmtata
oolioort to setwt edt ty O8 ofutt ont) shotnab of Ltty onsets 7
“We Solace Yo cote ent to Of ofut hum otum0 omar att .
ane
Plaintiff's declaration alleges, in substance, that for
five years uext preeeding the commencement of the suit plaintiifr
omed and was possessed ef certain real property situated in the
eounty of Cook and state of Illinois (dexcribing the same) and
was entitled te the undisturbed eceupsney of the same; that the
property was improved with a certain dwellinz, chicken house,
Gal shed and outbuildings; thet the dwelling was cocupled By
Plaintiff; that a portion of the property was garden land, oulti-
vated and used for grewing crops thereons that defendants by ite
county comalestoners, erected end maintained upon a large tract
of neighbering land west of plaintiff's premises, a large public
institution, knew ae the Onk Sask Infirmary, or Poor Farm, where
it hed erected a home for about 65000 inmates and certain attene
dante end employees ef defendant, which infirmary wes plumbed and
sewered throughout the buildings with all modern plumbing and
#anitary improvements, and defendant mintained there large
laundries, ete+, and crented a large volume of aevage of a noxious,
#tinking, poisonous and offensive kind, which defendant necessarily
flowed and conducted away from the infirmary and dispesed ef in the
@irestion of end upon the premises aforesaid, and defendant con-
tinuouely for five years prior to the caumencement of the action
allowed ite aid noxioun, stese, sewage to flow upon plaintiff's
premiscecs; that in ¢oinge eo defendant has trespnssed upon plain-
tiff*s premises and appropriated and damaged the same for x pubite
Purpose, without the consent of plaintiff, without paying any
compensation whatever therefor, and contrary te the rights of
plaintiff in the premises gueranteed by the Constitution ef the
Stete of Tliineis which prevides that his property should not be
taken or damaged for public purposes without just esmpensa tion;
that plaintiff resided om his premises and gurdened and ewltivated
the lands there, thot by means of such disposition of sewage
See i eee eee ee
al SES
2% fed? .vocedadea ot quogedia mo Leuxaloed a *Tiigesass
Vidsalele diss ot) To dreneancemme edt gatbosog dxen eteey owl?
od Gt betanele yrraqesg Laot miettee Te hesepaaeq eaw ban bonwe
brs (ema oth gmtd breast) atonkttt to agate bam £009 te Wide
eit? daly jouse ast te youngunes hedurtakome elt @¢ bokddte. eaw
atone weloide qumiiierd atetuwe « Mite boverqgml sex ~txeqorq
“. Pe dgieGo saw gatliewd oH Jad panathiindswe ban beste Laeo
ate dare hast cotreag ser Yeveqera alt Yo aedexeq o tadd (Midabolg
i evi wil atrwbic ted iain iemonnes aqezs waveny wt bea bas regi
doued ental « moqas bentadaten one badoene -ecomnioodunine <éniren
kite ontel » «eonkmetg: ef ene we tae smal yakvoddaien Yo
onde «erent <ORK "Me i Se #0 seemed ymokeuetiamt
ore alotves baa segammk 000—8 tueda tet empl a bed come bath ah q
bee gutommly axehom Le dete epethdhbed ald diedgueedts bomewen
sauoixos 8 Wo ones 2 sO wBTAL A hotaeTe tne.neote. wmetshauel —
(—(REitmacess tnbasted Motdw .babl opisac tte. bas euomgnton.«nattehte
tid 2 YW Donegud> Amn yromEERAe st soe yma hodoshme, Sue. doweLE
“io tnademtod 50 shtawwwra aemlmeme and moge han, te metdoortd —
Soisos of? % Imomesnosme af of robee wuAey gvR? 702 yLeupymts
pking # 6? osm wit SonMMAd dam debalxqouqge bmn -spatmng atTtke
ie EUG texoait be eriktalalg % ¢rmanmo et suedtsiy gonoqena
to adsials oxit oF yuawaoe hue 9x0 toundd seyedede anttoonegmps —
ont to mottwtencm® aca yh hepesuaim gondmong ett at Mttabete
of fon boven, Wrene ait tush nehienmn Ha AMNRULEE, Je state ]
_ bedanls Seq Ame eee cies
(ives socen Yo mbitlaoqedd dau Yo aneon wl #al som at
we
upon plaintiff's promises by defendant they became wholly unfit
for residence purposes, and plaintiff was greatiy inconvenienced s
annoyed and rendered elck and disordered by reason of certain
etenches arising from the sewage, the tenements on plaintiff's
promises wore vendered of little or no use and value, the garden
lands, by means of said dispesition ef sewage there, beasme poisoned
end unfit fer garden purposes and the crepe there growing wore soiled
with sewage snd rendered unfit for uses that plaintiff has been there»
by deprived of the fuli use of said premises, has lost great gains and
profits which he otherwise would have had, and has been greatly in-
conventenced and mmoyed in the eceupation ef his dwelling, which be-
come pormeated with lingering oders and stinks from ssid sewage and
he wae thereby deprived of the healthful use and enjoyment of the
premises ac a home, to the damage of plaintiff in the mm of 210,000.
Defendant filed a plea of not guilty and a further plea that the
meene grantora ef plaintiff impleaded defendant, in the Circuit
eourt of Sook county in the yeur 1915, in o certain plea of trespass
on the cnve for taking and using the very seme land in the declaration
montioneds, sid that sush proceedings were thereupon had in that case
that on April 10, 1920, by the consideration and judement of the caid
eeurt, said mesne greantoers of plaintiff resovered againat defendant
the sum of $12,500 damages, and costs "whereof the defendant wae eon-
victed, a8 by the record thereof still remaining in the sam court
more fully appears; which said judgment still remaine in full foree.
and thie defendant is ready te verify by the said record: Wherefore
‘it prays judguent if the plaintiff ought to have hie aforessid action,
eta."
Plaintiff offered evidences in sucpert of his declarations
and defendant effered evidense in ite defense.
Defendant raises five prepositions in suppert of ite sonten-
#Pteor w£loity semeod cats fete toh Qh peetsow a ttitehelg soqu
| gbeeneinovncen? qLiserg che Yrttatale tre »apepgivg enaobleet 192,
“pEAdas o te nosabt YC oretren kt bem Mpte hoxebaet ome, boyoona,
| | atitivnialg te déuoustied att ;agewee off meri yutetts eedaneda,
: neha, off .owtew baw ode Om te LEGLE Xo Sernturet oneW ngelmOR
i pencaked amasd ,eteild gewea te noljteodeih bias ‘te ansca-yd qohasds
Aeftos ovew qakvosy otadtd uqews off bue sedegqung aestay tot 22 hae
= oeed sai Tiktntaty dak? (oow tot e2taw Bevebaet has egawen sabe
dae aatag 120% deol uot ,uochinrrg bied te ou fiw? odd tovbevhaqohys
—) hd anen rood set bes shad ewad Stwow eatiriedte ed doasty wt ttoxg 4
| od tio aty “sambitows abt 10 tottaqose ond mt hoybnis baa beonetimvsmo
bets eyover bise mort oinkie bas arene gbvopn lt Ag br bedseureg oma |
3 ont? % frome tue Stas ona Ketel fenst enti’ 29 bowbiqnd whoredd ome onl j
ooogart xo mm ont nh Yosdabaty Yo ‘Wisin ee
ond sata oly soot w Ban withing ton to solq @ MOLT Paadnotet
ax ote pohewtqat Vikembety Wwe exednary sxmam
tonto eit mi otnebe
aaecqnntd v8 sole ‘ingv9s 6 Mh ¢ BREE whore batt "tt \epemos 'taed- to ouate q
me dgenagosd outs nk ‘becol eae wey an? pitlay bas geckiid ce? eneo et ao {
S02 tae a teal moquonestd otow age heen Mowe jrld ban ehonohsiion a
blew asta 1° tnoargbwt bese mm héareeb, iio wld ye ORL YOK Hhaga tee gente 4
suehnote® dunkage borwem ont “yinentade % preseemadresgsintenen i al
-~hGS Bane deabnoise onte ‘ooxnte* — hel isluins,
+ oox0% stu) ah ousaros iftes ii os
ereroxetT “sbx@00% ‘bhse ost of Seen’. ba Chi
aanie? vtesorats abt ‘owed 3 hewrl re
ate tab ee ¥ veneer naanthiis neni sees tte
wh. Ao We yan we 8 MES: veaee ine z .
a ad
tion that the judgment should be reversed. in our view of this
appeal it is only necessary to censider twos Vises
(4) That appellee is not entitled to recever because,
aysten, 4 is presueed tnt the fermex emer recovered fer ey
injury done, and thet the appellee paid less for the land oa
account thereof.
*(8) Theat the court erred in not permitting evi denge
dl ig ge ee A —e" omer, since sush recovery is a
Upon the trinl of the qause, defendant offered to preve
that in a prior «stion by Fred %. Holm agninat the County of Cook,
in the yeor 1915» Holm, s former ower of plaintiff's land, filed
e256 Hos B-8936 in the Cirewlt court of Cook county, which wou an
agtion of trespsss on the eave fer taking, using and demging his
lend, which included the land involved in the instant proceeding
and deseribed in pisintiff'es declarations that judgment was entered
in the enuse and Holm recovered $12,500 from the Couty of Cook as
damages to bis lands caused by defondont's appropriation of the
some, Thin evidenge wan offered in suppers ef defendant's special
Plea- Plaintiff admitted the facts stated in the offer and stipu-
inted that the land in the instent suit is part of the land invelved
in the declaration in the Holm case, but made a gem ral objection te
the admission of the offered evidenes, which the trial court suse
tained. The offered evidence won material and competent and the
eourt erred in refusine to admit it,» as the recewery by the former
omer is a bar to the instant oulte
The some situation wae present in the recent case of Hola
Ve County of Cooks 283 Tlle Appe 190» desided by thia division of
the court, and . etatement of the plesdings and the history of the
original sult of Holm v. Gounty of Cook (215 Ill» Apps 1) appears
in qur opinion. In the ense before us (285 I1l. apps 190) Helm
eotended that the former recovery against the County was net a bar
te hisreeovery for an alleged sccond trespasa, After reviewing
i Pe i
sp ieee
Abd 2 wekv wo al, sbensewom. oc pétecta decmmpbart) note’ pint mite
t ‘ae os « Se84¥ 9008 tebunep: Od, Naneeooen, yim wb ft Longge
| ‘us 0 boxevone: 7
: ‘Vino tal aie 208 auo bing sot
so RRS each
e ra overe ‘os bores suadne rob oro ase 1» Sabst ~ moat. shit bry
“gdoo0 te ‘eiewo® ost tentags Lox Bi bot Ww mottos tetig «ah gate
“bert baad a"iteataty to nonnve comes? & yeutoH q240L neey, emg. mb ;
-) ‘ua ata somo” alos % woo ¢ tures 9 1 OAs Bh DEORE. 2 OR.
wid golaonad bro ako vnsiog 202, enae ods ae sanquord. t0, 02800
- ‘pattboooong $nadunt ont ae Rovioval bral ed? behuhons Mody .ehaak
hetesae usw Armor, seatt {nots naked a Rhentala al ondixone & baw
“es bth od S apagl eta wor? oowans dexowwos “a ae or chien
LLL IIA Dhan eg es
=
; Ss £2
ak FON ag
SS ae ae SS
se ee bovadn « atest ee rae Mibentess, sa0lq,
Rertirmt tao tft 10 deag ak tte facdead ond p ah bank, ee
- i628 08 bo kes a0 a ahaa tus ‘sone mek 4 ‘ wipe odd eh 4
angie gabe Ladxd acid te be ss0nob Ave boxotie 7
ae hein trod oqane bas fatvetast asw 2 sshye re!
eee ld ot winvene x ott an oft ‘tune @ ce ane cba
minX, (ORL «00 oi f1, £88) a Sm enemies. stn 2
tad a Jou daw Yiauod edd tealops YEAvoseR Lema? iene dadd | cad
aniweives tedtA seunqeend hmooe beats ma m0 eieveowabd of
ae
«Se
the law bearing upon that contention, we held that in an action
against the County fer damages te plaintiff's lend by flew of
sewage from the County Infirmary through pleintisf’s tiling
system, it appearing that plaintiff had recovered $12,509 from
the County in « similar evuit fer identical damages several years
before, such previous recovery Was a bar to further reeevery by
plaintiff, and that the section of the Illineis Constitution
giving the right of recovery for private property ta&en or
Gemaged for public use sontemplates only ome reeovery for aii
past, present and futwre damagese The sams attorneys represented
Holm in the original case and the second case, and they alse
represent plaintiff in the instant proceeding and represented the
plaintiff in the case of Peter Smith ve County of Gack, 283 Tlie
Appe 646 (Abste)», which subsequently came before us for emsid-
eration. This last case involyed « part of the same land, and
the declaration was substentislly the same as the one in the
originel Holm eace and the ene in the » coond Holm case, In the
Smith case the County of Cock filed a plea setting up the former
judgment secured by Holm and alleging that a portion of the Holm
iand became vested in plainiiff (Smith) through meane conveyance,
We edhered to the conclusions we had reached in the Holm cage.
But it was aleo contended by Smith that the Holm case might be
distinguished from his case upon the grows! that Holm was the
person who secured the original judgment for the permment injury
and damage to hic land. In anewering the somtention we said:
"We fil to see what difference that could mmke. Holm's
Breen tae tact tassate ge a Demmate Neyer ee ae
ownership of that portion of Helm's land described in the
declaration in this csuse beeame vented in plaintiff thr
mesne conveyane@, it was impressed with the county'tw ‘ri to
eontinue to flow the surface of these premises without mking
ot gel — (Miller ve Sanitary Mistricts, supra
: “bina <0? ey oTetsd was YLdaeurpoudua Mobsw gf studi) Bia ah ;
3 tama} out gr sadtdou ong » belt sooo Ye xihived bitten fie
ae astd 0 aokéxog & sete t patyatte ry ot Ot homes et
iG.
a
a ee ome ale vean af y gio J
se acid iat, Beddvoeeb rn Sichax Ye etree tad daz eS j
netios nz at gale bho ow gro kbs new darld Hoge gottand wat wath
Bo wOLt Ys bunk WTERy OF eegantnh sor oMEO “iy ote
pabtla at hikate dastudt Yoomnct at yoeweD baly a'r syn
wor ga giet borevoget buat Thimtesg ast Briae ca 4 enotaye
ateey Lexevow aogeamch Lackinebt tot stwa akin 2 = — ety .
Yd! YievO0e" soda) os red & ew YXSvOOes okrote tena 4oxgtog
am itws Rune etoniLT eee Yo mo ttesa ost ati “ae erindiinany
gg ee ad wsogort ‘etovixg 10% Yrovens: Yo digit dey gatets
tie set Yeevener ene ydino soteLamed uae cou oltdey tot Segsmns
bednososgon ayeruodta men on aegcmnh etyiNt bre deeodty” atoag |
| “oaka wad be onde Deena ods: anihsnadienencnetl eats” actos
od¢ bodnocerges baa patbowoorg dé abe dhe
AEP ih ata
tne staat sme oxtt Yo tag! 6 Sevtoval sano dant azitr 188 hes
“ert ml oem as¢ om oman and yltebtnadedia naw wolbdenthew We
gat BI .oaso miei bawoe + ext} ad ono both bet nae jathit tanith
j of Psi» TT) ai weld rand aut hel bet: —,
Weak saosmerog soit TOY snemytit Lash tte ae beurcie onw note
iti vauthalwrcienatchndeninndaniiameadanictiindmn we
” gtetet swale bivoe dante eobereTR Oaeiy soo of Liat wR Shia
. aon seod tania eSenpamas Le¥O
eH |
Ryserssia We eh
pt es a fame» arly set pia
Miami abelian ¥ ” pari) sabes
: m4 mn WA, « she
LL ie Me Rp OY
~to
The opinion of Mr. Justice Sullivan in the second Holm case
states fully the law Hearing upon the instant question new
before wie The cawtention of defendant that the former recevery
by Holm is a bar to the claim of plaintiff in the instant case
is sustained «
As the material facts bearing upon the spegial plea
are admitted, the Judgnent ef the Circuit court of cock comty
is reversed.
JUDGMENT REVERSED.
Sullivan, Pe Jeg ond Friends Je» conus
J | ] Ra a me '
‘,
Shida bee OE gonth bho ae ate 2 Die rig babel ied ne om
5 ee ee rer ae ae 40 ett
a rere
a aaa : 4
ne we tad ta Loo bo} Re en | age
nedinnang o8 RL: as any, 2
‘eakt ech aay voi oe ae .
a iw e% 7)
meee baaditrw gine pa ond a me Phat en’ oa y vi i
tke ee gee 2 tng a alee wy ing’ ‘eit a8
shieebe 10) an eed sa a basis ‘ole ghee
twat stink amen salt aa! a beetoml wan ‘tat wnat ane
vk me ad bl? he nes ‘ee etelhs muted
ete 0 + #6 sts ee sae is eae i ee “bai |
enrca’ att qu poitean anky & balks inal ie Samed
anit oat ‘pe wu 4209 » sald thay Bs ‘ot ie
shi: ang eg e ern eet Heaton it ea Bani Ai | : ee
re mie wed 2 Koalguwly Kael Biv wate toe ca se
eit diy has vicina gi wld dont ste hoe! ed abiow
weekd case! cunts’ 8 enc ama ig at uid eee eal! ei el
TER Liek deonmmannny ond ek Renal ait atta iui
Ahok aw Ge tobi Sie Qn 0 > Reker ae
morgen rm bi Summ
allie gisceatiey Ta lea aOR
we? PRE Buk
Agave tiah Be irda * ‘ee ions 8
me a WL é
hap ew bon Bi egy ‘
S889
LOUISE DUDLEY,
Appellant s
APPEAL PROM CIRCUIT COURT
Ve
OF COOK COUNTY.
290 1.A. 603'
MRe JUSTICE SCANLAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
MOE A» ISAACS,
Appell eée
ee ia
Plaintiff appeals from a decree of the Circuit court
denying the prayer of her complaint that « certain covenant
not to sue given by her to defendant be set aside, and dismissing
the complsint against defendent in so far as it seeks ocubtakee
relief.
The complaint consists of two counts. im the first
plaintiff seeks to recover $40,000 which she alleges she loaned
to a syndicate, composed of defendant and other individuals,
through false and fraudulent representations of defendant. In
count two she seeks to set aside a covenant not to sue defendant,
executed by her ebout two and one-half years after the lean was
wade, which instrument she alleges was procured from her by
defendant through certsin false and fraudulent representations
meade by him to her. In defendant's answer he denies that the
$49,000 was loaned to the syndicate, denies making the alleged
false and fraudulent representations, and pleads the covenent not
to sue as a bar to the action. An order was entered that the
issues reised by count two be tried in advance of the cause of
action set up in count one. After a hearing vy the chancellor
“) q
f | ine oi ; to a bie af &
ar sk a . atnptioggaA
PHOS TIVOATIO WONT TARUTA
-YTHUOD YOOS W
a0aaat »
teoad .ALOeSs
eTSUCD MHP WW WOTWITO ANY Gusev IGM WATwA0e TOTAL .
e ae
gumoo tineztO ent to sor546' a mov? atneqes ‘itvkdard
detastevo 0 slattso a said dete tLquioo sen to weyetq ont aay
gitiaa lusts bits robles goa ed tasbasteb ot tail Yd movig ome of son
eidativps wleou #i og tet 08 ait tushwoted Jemienes takeleme edf
stotionr
: Farit edt at belies ow to e¢aiamo taielquoo off
* fbonsod ofa sogelis esta dotstw 000,0a% tovoc9T of adosa TMiivateLlg
«alawdivibal tedto dass iashastsh io bawoqmon ,edsolbaye a ot
al stasbasted to emoitstnose7qet tuofibuer? bas ealet siguosds
efusdas tob ove o¢ dom tuagevoo s shies dee od aloes ola ows $09
a ee ee a pa a ee er |
ssw aeol odd sotte ataey Tled-omo baa owl toda tol Yd beduooxe Ko
yd «xed mork bexseotg asw acygelia asia sxemmatash My iatw oem
arm id sdnecstges tneLubystt bas oeiet miaties sgusonsls snsbao'tod :
ent tad? esimebh af tewane e'insbasted al «xed ot ais vw pei
begetia ef? grtinian aoineb <otsothinga anit ot bomaol aw 000 <OM
ton tnonsvoo odd abstig hms «anolainosexqe: taeiubuse? bas oats?
ent g¢edt betetme cow tehto mA 86 (umoltos oft ot tad 8 38 ana err Me
_ ko eenso ond to sonsrbs mi boltd ad ows sous ye boaters eonaak
toffeonsto eft yo goitsed 6 tovBA eno tatoo mh gy dea iietitel
Sad ad
there was a finding that the equities, under count two, were
with cefendant and that plaintiff was not entitled to the relief
she prayed. Plaintiff states that if the order appealed from is
sustained the covenant not to sue would be a bar to the cause of
action alleged in count onee
The decree finds:
"Second: That plaintiff claims that on or about the
24th day of December, 1930, she loened to a certain group of
persons or syndicate, of which defendant was a member, the sum
of Forty Thoussnd Dollars, and that on account of the transaction
involving said loam she had a cause of action, claim, or demand,
against defendant, for the enforcement of which plaintiff
threatened to institute legal proceedings.
“Third: That in settlement of said couse of action,
claim or demand, defendant executed and delivered te plaintiff,
and plaintiff accepted, a certain promissory note dated Mey 1,
1933, due one year after date, for the principal sum cf Thirteen
Thousand Five Hundred Doliars, with interest et the rate of five
and ene-half per cent per annum, payable quarterly * * *, Defend=
ant also gave to plaintiff as collaters] security to said note a
certifiecete for one hundred shares of stock of the Americen Indus-
$rial Finance Corporation * * *e
"Fourth: THat in consideration of the said execution and
delivery of seid note by defendent, plaintiff executed and delivered
to defendant 2 covenant not to sue in and by which plaintiff, for
herself, her heirs, legal representatives and assigns, covenantedy
among other things, that neither she, nor them, nor cither of
them, Will sue at law or in equity, or otherwise in any manner make,
institete, present or prosecute any claim, demand, suit or actien
whatsoever against defendant, his legal representatives or assigns,
on account of all claims or demands arising out ci said transection
in which plaintiff claims to have loaned Forty Thousand Doliars to
Said syndicate, as hereinbefore in paragraph ‘Secondt set forth;
ee
“Pifth: Theat plaintiff did not accept said promissory note
of defendant hereinbefore described in paragraph ‘Third' and the
seid certificate fer one hundred shares of the American Industrial
Finance Corporation, as collateral security to said promissory
note, or either ef then, by or through, or by reason of, false
aac fraudulent representations to plaintiff by defendant.
"Sixth: That the said covenant mot to sue executed and
delivered by plaintiff to defendant, as hereinbefore in paragraph
'Fourth' eet ferth, was mot given by plaintiff to defendant, or
procured by defendent from plaintiff, by or through, or by reason
ef, false and fraudulent representations to plaintiif by defendant.”
Prior to December, 1930, defendant, the holder of a sub-
stantial amount of the stocks of Pettiboe Mulliken Company; Charles
He. Nib, president of that company; G» Re Lyman, its vice-president
ohm
otow ,owsd dimoo teh .aolttivpe eff dedd gatbal? s aaw otold
totiot afd of boliline gom eew tiijmietq tad? bus tusboetes diiv -
ei soxt beleeqqs tebto oft ti dealt sedate ttkdalalt .beyatgq ede
to esuse edi of sed s od bivow owe oF tom smancwo ald bontednwa
ono dmoo mi beyetia am teen
rabeit seroeb off |
ent tuods xo we tant amie fo Yibiaisig tad? + boost"
to quors wistrse % od bomaet ola .OCCL ytedmesed te yah sens
sua acd ,teduen « enw tnebaeteb doisntw to ,oteotbhige %O. amare
| nolyosnast? ol? To tavoose me safi bus .atedied AusavodT ystoT To
| efeeateh ro ¢etielo «ite > seuss 6 Sad efile aeot bliss antylovat
vitentalg slo Lelw - imemooto tse eff wot ,tnebuetoh Jamiags
| ~eyekbesootg Lagel stwitiant of bent sould
smo lios to semeo Sise te jcomeltier ak jadT bride"
etiiteistg of betevifeh bas bedvooxd teabas ish to sisto
re i hegseb ston wreseimerq miettes « "ateseen Bilas bas
Ree} “to age Iaqieonizqg old “ot «otab. oe eo
svit to efer edd ts dasrodHl — eareilod bo evit f
= Bian 02 vetoes — _ as get a ot et sae
-subnl cegin a 0. Moose ail som. r) fen
“* * wo tds
re rey slog de
7a e: , x<987
i tka e Adbsoses os
‘ ory! eserves ee to reggae Et
rev lish SAKS te!
wot ,tiftaisiq doidw wo 7 pea ? :
chegitanovoeo ¢atgtaas S Sapien get .
‘te ted¢te ten . ten pede xe howe
<otem Temes yas mi eninxedin tO ey Exp:
apstex, to i Mov esos ehlelo ets
amass to, 297. tent Tis {
pottoaanste’ bisa to so yoo Ga mob jit fe
od atefied brecvost yixo% hensot ever os we se vtivmtatg Hote mk
‘qnetel ges 'bneosa! mystgeteg Bi Sues ceniiiedhe sodsoloaye
D.LB8
% %
DH A Ge Dei oe ee
odor vtows tno tg bisa becouse ten bib ‘Vitemtare tenet ‘sagtee ‘
eds Bao ‘Bute! derstyetsy ah bediieeeh ove iedalered, dmebno
fnisdawheal neoiseah eat to severe bexhausl exo tot rts Ryn
Vibeaxinorg ise oF ywWluoed: hoe si ae poe ge genre Spent ©
seiat to mosast yd to «tyuouit x0 | To «dom
stnabasted Yd “Fiivaielg ot Piadisennxqets: ataelubasty ane
‘bits bedusexs due Ot Jon dnedovew Bien wnlt teM onigmhe" 0 O02,
Steg at gate creer ae ,iughaeteh of Tiitalal Ba bezevi.
“40 yr ya ov ss qd devig fon saw QilPtet woe daa
soauset Yd. tt f ,tii¢misiq mori tasbasteh yd berysetg |
*. gnebasish ‘tae tits io or oitad wesergqet ¢reluivert hme ele «to
edie ate tobLod did’ timate Tos WOSeL etodumoet od xodet
ven A
sched 3a 4
9
la
“
=3=
and the son-in-law of plaintiff; Henry W. Angsten, president of
Corey Steel Company; end WY. Ce Cook, vice-president of Central
Trust Company, had formed a syndicate for the purpose of obtaining
the voting control of Pettibone Mulliken Company through its common
stocke Cook claims that he had no interest in the syndicate, but
the evidence = indeed, his ovm testimony? shows that he had. fhe
syndicate contemplated the expanding of Pettibone Mulliken Company
by taking in Corey Steel Company, erecting a subsidiary plant of
Pettibone Mulliken Company <b Houston, Texas, amd, possibly, taking
ever Morden Frog & Switch Company. ilyman went to New York City,
in November, 1930, for the purpose of selling some of the common
stock of Pettibone Mulliken Company to his friends, the syhdicate,
however, to retein the right of voting the stock. His efforts were
unsuccessful and in the latter part of Llecember defendant arrived
in New York and hed a eonference with Lyman, in which the latter
susgesteé that his mother-in-law, plaintiif, who lived in Baltimore,
hed money and “could be contacted.” Mra. Lyman, plaintiff's
deughter, sent for her mother and she arrived in New York the same
day. Tne devghter told plaintiff that defendant was in New York
and wanted to borrow some money and that if ske "sould afford to let
him have the money, it would ve perfectly all right." Lyman told
her “that they wanted to vorrow this money for this syudicate and
that Mr. Isaacs would explaine® The next morning plaintiff,
éefendant and the Lymans met at the Commodore hotel, defendant was
introdueed to plsintiff by Ryman, and after a conference between
ths parties in which Lyman told plaintiff he thought thet it was all
rieht for her to loam tke syndicate the money, plaintiff returned
to Baltimore, where she obtained from the Ealtimore & Ohio Railroad
Company a check for $40,000 payable to her order. Ghe then went to
Chicago, arriving there on December 24. She met her daughter at the
to tooblvetg .tetegm wW yun ¢Miiviioly 2o welen fe
. fasdned to tnmobisoug-~sody qaoo0 40) 4P bre gyegneD Leet -yetod
gniniadde toe snoqaug ett wt of sotanya 2 bemte? baw). yueqmoog avel .
momo o att igsovts Youqmod moxiLisk enoditgel to Lowmoo' gatioy ond
tud .etsolbays eng ai daotoetut om hail, of Jane amtelo aood: wioote
eat shed of ted awoa %ysomiicad awe abd «boobeh oatihive ed?
Wegman: meni Lett orp tt 7-05 te ree a end hata lentes: Stan thoes
mo WR
10.Joaly Yaibindua o Budsoors ysiagite feo28 W208 ab yaband w
iat PS MOS a
grilet .«yldizaog bee, ened esos so, ta, ing 0 at ony 998
eUGEO AeoY wolt b¢ $ esow cuscmmng dimmed: stot kwk & york pereeens “ie
ane arid : O88 @ Renee, ak Aenean rior’ ph te entre? og
pest Meas ba Fi
Me aOR nap alee it
orew : RaTeM elm. aaeore outa. anitor » ite ner nando 8
op i airs te
“beviers hab caotest rodmsosit to: “pang rotgar alti hak mk bi be: Evtexes at
ea b a HS +
sottat oct dobew wt .nemed etn ehabxerie da Sach OY wi
SH de hy nik A al eee
sig 04 nee: sive exe 47's el ry
bios Kamel “stdyix Lhe yttooteeq od biuow #! .yonom ont sae a
Biased Ah ae thee ian m3 Lebeedbion an vt faders eae tatt® ras
Be Af, LS selene St
ty oth. ds dom 2 ee arr tambso ted
swewted sonore tse o 2 rofte: ‘one enisnngit we tibialale 08 hoauderent
ani ‘itee atedert extbo pone ©
ifs aae at dats ‘ddquede | ot PVubdadale ‘aes rot sok at ootowag
bestar? ot Tisntele, eyonon, ast ae 20 oF eae ag off
Saotliat eidO & oxomt) Lod odd nowt “beakidaa’ ay ‘Sade fest De a
ery
ot thew ‘mails ait + tobt0 ‘aon od onan 00,088 et ‘ak a Yeisqim D E
nt 88
: ee
ee: ne use io
dl
4
Pippen Smad ns ,
eat da xodiigiad rout ‘sm one ae ¢ Tachood 0 oxodd y gatvixte <OQ AD.
he Pie egy Lesauetigy oar aa
oAms
railroad station and then went to defendant's office, where she
met the latter and lymane Fram there, in canpany with Lyman,
she went to Cook's office at the Central Trust & Savings Banky
where Lyman wrote om the back of the checks "Pay to the order
of We Ce Cooky" and plaintiff signed her name thereunder and gave
the check to Cook. The latter then gave her 4,000 shares of stock
of Pettibone Mulliken Company. “There was no note or memorandum
given for the $40,000." Out of the proceeds of the check Cook paid
@ mete of Angsten for $10,000 and one of Hib for $10,000, both notes
belonging to Central Trust & Savings Banky “and paid myself [Cook]
the balance." Plaintiff testified that defendant took her to Cook
and introduced her to hime Defendant testified that he did not go
with plaintiff to the banky and Cook corroborated his testimony in
that regards Cook testified that part of the stock he delivered to
plaintiff belonged to Bib, part to Angsten, “and part of it I had in
my own box."
Plaintiff contends that the $40,000 was obtained from her
through false representations made to her by defendant and that
the transaction constituted a loan to the syndicates secured by the
stock given her by Cook. Defendant cenies makins the alleged faise
representations and contends that the transaction constituted a sale
of the stock. Cook testified that he thought the deal was a sale
of the stock and did not hear to the contrary until two years after
he received the checke Neither Hib mor Angsten testified. We do
not deem it necessary to cite the evidence bearing upon the alleged
false representations in respect to the original trahsaction, as
that issue was not tried mor determined by the trial court.
Plaintiff contends that defendant, in order to obtain from
her the covenant mot to sue him, made false and fraudulent representa-
tions as to the value of the ome hundred shares of American Industrial
erie ovedlw gooltto e'imehusted of thew nedd bane netvave beozlbet
stamgl dgiw yanceme sk gored mort meng bee tebtel oft tom
qlee agsive? 4 dewrT Lertneo off ta eokito e'2oo0 oF snow oda
sohte ead ot yet” adoodo att to dosed eft mo esoew nemyl) oxeriw
@¥aq bne webnwereis omen tok bemmle Thismlalq bra *,~H008 .0 sf to
Hoods to vocede OOO¢d tom oveg Mold todtal od? sae OF aosdo’ emt
ur bnetomem to eden on aaw oad” syneymod stewkfivit onodtisoT to
bie 8009 Aosio afd to abeosotge ond to HO "000,084 Ord to? novty
aston dtod ~000,0L8 tot GE to ono bas 000.089 tot metegma “to 5462 s
[Mood] Moayr biaq bas” gained ogetive? & fewx? Laxtned 69 guigne fod
#069 of test foot dnebastes dad? boltiveed Yikvater "seotelad site
0g Yon bid off taf deLtiveed saebneted .intt oF Yoit Sooubottal bus
‘gi yiomisecod atd foteaxedorrey W000 bee eaned odd Of Thidatsta ‘in
od ‘SUTéVELON dat sdoose ‘silt te Sad’ dads Wiettinls od” “Rae ak
at bad Loi %o Prag Sno” “odagad of fas dit of boptiotod “yebintdtg
; : bh ‘xo esreig ”
geod mott benkaido sew 000,083 odd Salt ahaddmos Tiidmielt — "
detd bom dosbeoteh yt vent oF obam ane bead nenorted ‘eafat sfauo ris
add Yd hotusen eotadtbinve ote of mood @ bedvdtiemoo moitodanend sift
valet bogolle out gmistam eoltiod sisbre tet stood YW ‘coat novts aod
else a bodutivanos aottosanntd oat tat sbuotaon ban ato ladneasrqet
efae « saw Lao oto sipwokd set Sard HokTEta0e food “ \flooda ort’ Yo j
sodte weacy owe Lisiiy Ycortltos bate 09 xWe Yon bib’ Bie doodh ecdd Yo
oh ww Sbottiseed iesugia tow die oudten | \Pbeds odd” bevioost ei
bopet ia ed moqi gnitsed ooreb tye ord otto of vissaocen #2 weed of tom i
ae kok onadinsd ‘Taitg bo end of doeqacr ai eo Natnocongos au. st f
‘dmwoo Lntee Oat ye beniarcodab ‘ton bokst tom asw owsat ‘tad i
mort finddo 0% tobro at tdnabae'teb Basle absosaoo ‘Thivalast a |
-atnenenqet tneiutwext baa cols? sbam qmbst ewe ot tom sneneveo eit et
febxtosbal neoirvem to aetata hevrh emuat emo ot ‘to omiay gr? Ss od ae nae q
= Bao
Finenee Corporation stock given as collateral with his note for
$13,500, and as to his financial condition and wealth; that she
believed the representations to be true, relied upon them, and
executed the covenant solely because of the said representations,
and that equity, under such a state of facts, should set aside the
covenante The trial court, as we have heretofore shown, found
that plaintiff did met accept defendant's promissory note and the
collateral by reason of any false and fraudulent representations
made to her by defendant. Plaintiff contends that this finding
of the trial court is manifestly against the weight of the eviddnces
“The rule in chancery practice in this State is too
firmly established to be now shaken or overturned, that when the
chancellor sees the witnesses and hears them testify, and their
evidence is conflicting, the decree entered by him will not be
disturbed upon a question of fact by an appellate tribunal
unless it appears that the findings of facts are clearly and
palpably wrong. Patterson ve Scott, 142 Ill. 1383 Febrice v.
Von der Brelic, 190 id. 460; Greensfelder v. Gorbett, ide 565;
Arnoid v. Northwestern Telephone O5., 199 ids 201." tcolumbia
Theatre Coe ve Adsit, 211 Ill. 182, 125.) ee Ce
The above rule has been followed in many cases. To cite a few:
ROche ve Roches 286 Ille 336, 3553 Valbert ve Valbert, 282 Ill.
4155 4243 Preston ve idoydy 269 Ill. 152, 163. In Schiavone ve
Akhtomy, 332 111+ 484, the complainant sought to have a contract
for the sale by her of certain real estate set aside on the ground
that she signed the contract because of certain false representations
made to here In the opinion the court said (pps 498-499)s
“The basis for the relief asked by the complaimant and
anted by the decree was fraud, and the burden of proving that
act was upon the appellees» Fraud is never presumed but must be
proved by clear and convincing evidence. A mere suspicion of
fraud is not sufficient but if it exists it must be satisfactorily
showme {Union Nat. Banik ve State Nat. Bank, 163 Ill. 2563 MeKennan
Ve Mickelberry» 242 ide 1173 Carter ve Carter, 283 ide 3246
The evidence must be clear and cogent and must leave the mind well
Setisfied that the allegations are true. (Shinn v. Shinn, 91 Ills
477.)" (See also Kuska v. Vankat, 341 T1l. 350, 362
After o careful examination of all the evidence bearing upon
we.
xot ogon eid Htiw Lersdelloe va aovig-ctoata MOLIsxyegwoo .epasnlt, .
eta’ fad pdtisew brad HOLS thie Leloment? ella? ae dae eQOO.sLR
has itedd stoqu hotlot .svtd od of amdsotnsaenyes ons, povaltod ;.
qanottadnoaotget b¥sa oft Yo caveoed yfefos tnenewo oslt.dedyoous
edd obiee dou bivoda ,atoet te odesa a Mowe toh eettupe. dene bas,
~hewo't yowosea oto tototed evel Ow ba edawos Leiud off oo dneneyoo,»
edd Sma ofon vrossiterg alfmebrin'ted sqooom vom bb Tiitmtelg tarts.
afoitatusserqet dmelshyetl Sets enlet ys To skeen Ys Laretellog..
gatbalt cit? tadtd ebmedmos Trivabelt stnabaetoboqd:- xed os abeat ,
asoubbive odd to tdgiow ont sentoga YLtaetinem al gxs0o Lebxd odd 20.
ue uf otsd abd? at sottcarq yroonals afedivr of?" sia
egg das tomas nays se arian won og of adaadee vied
tolie
, of son [fiw mist yd beredne setoed ost epniiotitnos at gonebivs
fasrcit? — payee fs yd gost te. sottaesp a:sogs, ph
agate ots atest to anmtialt eft tarlt Rpts ¢ mS
_ Baie *
“or 89 Solute 198 s££LT GATT
— eV « eee Ls
188 EE sblegrse ‘bE OO bm “ioe wor O6L To -
twet A. este of »a9as9 ba mk re mine aac alee Bad ‘ent
EET. ses sizedioy v feds tae ee sLfI abs sega ato
SRNR COTE, Ea ave
s¥ gapmaiaios at 20k «884 + EEE os been v |
_, foarte. 2 evad of ssyson dunmtatgmoo ed «08 LET 8 BE gi
—s odd no obtas jos ototae fnet “mist00 % ve ‘coat we ‘shea el a
anoitetnoxorges: ooket aisi199 ‘to oursoed #oarsu0e etd bony yor is as saat 4 ‘
1(eea~aen saa) bisa twos ‘asl ‘mo tsitgo ards at ‘stot bbc
ant ee i tat at totus
od tana tud bemsraetqg tsvem al Pcl yeasts wT es fost
tp noloiqaua stem A speneh
“eixosostaltea ed ses a adaixe i
SAECO G388 ofl Boe , y
edGE abl C88 eaeeTs 77 £26 7 : is
ffow huim ef? eroot demu baa: Fe cn aod:
wffI £@ « o¥ ) sunt ots pose pay apes se i y
= ol TY ae (SIS. LET DNS a perney ~ gall 908.998). * abies A
‘het gettnod comettvs edt Lie. to seldentmoxe ivtexno, 2. REPRA oe once f
Ate ae ae
aay: OR. ee Bem te
r Pie Hee
e
rs
ats
&
S
e
~6~
the issue raised by count two we find ourselves umable to held
that the trial court's findimg as to the alleged fsise and fraudu-
lent representations is clearly and palpably wrenge Indeed, certain
circumstances in evidence tend strongly to support the finding. The
figure of plaintiff's son-in-law stands out im the "settlsment*
just as it did in the original transaction. It was to 9btain control
of the Pettibone Mulliken Company that the syndicate, of which he
Was a member, was formed. He wos vice-president of the canpany
at the time of the original transaction, became a director on
January 4, 1931, and continued with the company even after it was
placed in the hands of a receiver, on Gctober 12, 1932. Both he
and his wife advised plaintiff to loan the syndicate money. From
the time that the loan was made Lyman seems to have had authority
from plaintiff to look after her interests in the premises. He
testified that approximately two years after the loan wes made @
the company was then in receivership - he conferred with defendant
“on the basis of having every one involved in it [the syndicate],
sign sn agreement whereby they would pay the money back to Mrs.
Dudley and put out sdequate collateral;" that an agreement Was drawn
and signed by plaintiff and presented to defendant, who kept it. In
March, 1933, Benjamin Wham, a prominent attorney of the Chicago bar,
Was retained by plaintiff or Lyman to effect a settlement of plain-
tiff's cleim against the members of the syndicate. Negotiations
were carried on for four weeks, during Which time there were a number
of conferences between lawyers and the parties to the syndicate, sxve
Cook, who insisted that the $40,000 was paid for the 4,000 shares of
stock and that he would have nothing to do with the proposed settle
mente As a result of the conferences a settlement was made whereby
plaintiff received from Hib his aote for $10,000, from Lyman his
note for $10,000, from Angsten his note for $6,500, and from
“lilies
ALod 03 oiduaw seyfoaxwo putt ew owd saoo yo howler exeak ony
~ubyorl bie eatst begets eft of as gmkbatt e'oxneo Lehtd: ond: deste
fistze) ebeebal .ynorw yidsqleg bas yluselo ai om itetrmnengor dm t
(eA7 sgaibalt on} tteqque of Ylgcozte bees conobive mt ssomatemmetio
_. Wtitemtetstea” ef mi. two abnatarwal-ni<noe ett ienteds Yo orsg2t
fotsnes, niatde of sow 2 »eold¢eosunet? fentgitro and mio bith ¢ioee taut
od doistw to .etwoihace sdf dent yhoqaod medilivk enodistet eft to
Ytisqmo elt ko taehioerq-ootv ac’ ah. besrte? eew , tedited’ a eew
fo TodaetLd somsced gaokissensts Lettinteo ‘ede to emis off ts
| tar tk owedte seve -yreentoo ond dy bi bemehiebe baN GEEEL ~h eauast
| od dod .860L (SE redodod Ao etevtooot «Te abmait oF mt bee
wo Yeu otwo tomes: att nso of rears boule SEEN eit bis
et brosiius oust ‘owast 0g sneer mare ha esi ast a sith it ip
i oH aan nord erfg ait addocodnt sort zon te wool nba te iat
© pie aww aot! with rota essay owt Ustamtxorggs tert, ‘bo tides
tasbso teh ag tw bout tao 9 ed - - qitareviesot Pryor on: ; sta 10
eLotsotomce oxid] #t ak bevso-vat ono yteve patent to silasd j eae |
+ eat oF esd ‘enon rf we bivow bagel wero, beens
ni tt pene, ext ‘spmaheed ot ‘seein ee mtontote wt eerie oe
aed ogcolito ost To Yansosde dotinorg s emadW mkmatrod —S6eL sort
~ttkeig Yo sngmegs ges # tootio of aomyl to Tihintele yd bentatet aay
emieoivonou ae ae to, ii my! Panisg eae © arene
20 eotads 0042 ond fo bed sair 000,008 sa‘naaiale raknint ostw, 4: ;
~olitoa h tat, fo exit atte ob od gmisvort eved biuow atm ;
yderedw ebast enw duomelitea & Bephovelnoo’ of to siueer & aA inom ui
ait samyd mort .00d—bs$ to? edon atit Gzx mort anadtiPinnnall
smo t hows (908,28 sot odom aid modegmA mort (000,0L8 0% ogon
oa
a@efendant his note for 13,500. Bach of these parties received
from plaintiff a written covenant not to sue, and it was agreed
that plaintiff should give Bib, Lyman, Angsten and defendant a
letter to the effect that plaintiff expected to sue Cook and that
if she recovered anything from him she would immediately credit
the amount on their motes. She has a suit pending against Cook»
Wham decided thet Hib, Angsten and Lyman were unable to put up any
collateral or security with their notes ond agreed to take their notes |
without collateral. While Wham testified that defendent, during one
of the conferences, stated that he was able to put up whatever
collateral plaintiff wanted, he edmits that before the s ettlement
was made defendant's attorney, or secretary, notified him that the
only collateral plaintiff could put up was one hundred shares of
steck of the American Industrial Finanee Corporation. ‘wham
further testified that he asked the secretary what she dinaatad the
stock was worth and she said that the corporation was doing a nice
business and that the stock would be adequate security for the note;
that later that day, or the next day, defendant told him the same
thing; that he relied upom these statements as to the value of the
stock in consummating the settlement. The atw rney who represented
defendant in the settlement, Schrager, testified that Wham stated te
him that they knew that Cook was the only member of the syndicate
who was financially responsible and that what they were anxious to
accomplish was “to apportion the liability amons the four people"
(Rib, Angsten, Lyman and defendant), so that it would be possible
for plaintiff “to go after Mr. Cook3;" that he told Wham that defend-
ant hed been a man of affairs, engaged in very lerge transactions;
that at the moment witness knew of four or five substantial deals
in which defendant had an interest, “and if they clicked he had money,
and if they didn't click he wouldn't have any money3;" that in the
ae
bovieoot eslixsg eeeHy Io dont §.O0s ore oT oven elt YHebne teh
festgs saw ti bus poe e¢ Yon tkenevoo moti tew's Tekomtete moet
8 tttebere'teb tem neotenic. <iemel .dEE ovig biworle Bivwhate dans
badd baa Loot’ ene ot hedoogxe Tteakely tele Ports oe oF Wester
tibeto YLosaiboumt bisew oe sth ser? gubsityns beteve ce ote Th
> + egoo® ¢emkage gubhneg diva o ent of@ .eodom sied? mo snwome! wit
| Yas qe tuq oF oideny orow ceed bee netega 1d tadt bebtoob maw
b eston tfLedd exed ot baeige base eaotes alesis délw-yvéicupen ro Levetalion
ano gawd .inebtetsd dels doltitacd mal! eLtdW «faxetalfod dwodtbw
gevetecty oy dag ed efds new of gadd boteda .asenotetmo el? to
| tnomeLise a ost stoRed ded adiuds ef .besmav Whintelg Lerotalloo —
(eld Path mid DekREHOR «quateroos no exomrodds alénabasted, sham caw
to aoxade octal oxo now qu tuy Alamo Dilimtelq Lanetslloo Yao
ot atest ame bhetog3eD epmankt Lalttewbal maobsem old 20 foode
etit tsiguods osla tasty yaodenoea old besten ox tat bertideed xedeeut
oh o giloh sow migeroqros add tadt btee ofa bas dixow sew Xonte
joven ont sot Viituose efanpabs od biwow aeode axle saald. Bene anonlesd
ones oft min blot tmabto tsb ~ysh sxon ect TO wysh tard todel tend
est 20 euLev eld od an stitoniedate onadd sioqy belfor of dads yqetbltt
dbotuseorget odw yenTotts eff .treswLives edt aaktanewenes mt. aoote |
epbotste madi Jott betiieaed yropere® <tmemeittes en mk ¢ebusteh —
ebm Ehverght: wid Ye xedoteen hemo: eald seam doit) debe sence ants ane mahal
ot avokene erow yory tatw galt bac oLdtenoqies yLiatomeht?: exw’ ostw
Fe lqooy «wo? ond givom YP LLidelt ext nokdroqqe of” asw HetLamepos
ofdtency od bivow ¢i dat om «(trmbrsteb hae maangl emptegm .dit)
~buvtob dat? mad blot of tuslt "(3000 smi xodte og ef" WTttmtale ror
- qapottonauerd opie yusy al begagie « atkaTin tO mam 6 need hart tas
‘afaeb Lelvustadve ork? xo m0? ‘to wens oxentiw tuemom end ta ¢adt
eYorioat bad est hexokio yore Li bie" \suouednt ne bad tmahne tod. Aotew 2
ost mb dads "yeoman nn: ovash ¢ tabLuow eat. tobto 3.tbkh ost, 24 hen
conferences there was nothing said to the effect that defendant
would furnish adequate security; that after the papers had beer,
drawn Wham called witness on the telephome and asked him what he
knew of American Industrial Tinance Corperstion, te which witness
responded "that it was no better than Mr. Isaacs was himself."
Defendent denied thet he told Wham that the steck was worth $13,500
or any other sum, and stated that just befere the settlemont was
consummated Wham told him that he would like te have some coliateral
for defendant's note; that witness told him that the iahy thing hat
he had wes one hundred shares of American Industrial Finanee Cor
poration steuk, that the company had a lot of deals pending aad if
they went through the company was good, but that if they did not
go through the stoek was not worth anything. ‘ham did not contradict
these several statements made by Schrager and defendant, although he
was afterward recalled by plaintiff as a witness in rebuttal. Wham,
in his direct testimony, stated that in one of the conferences he
asked defendsnt what collateral he could put ups and that defendant
mentioned "that he had a little investment company called the Amex can
industrial Finance Corporation, which was getting under way thea, and
he thought there was 3s chanee to make same money, that it had ample
capitals" that “he had considerable stocks and bands md gold notes
eof the Pettibone Mulliken Company." Aside from the talks that Wham
Claims he had with defendant's secretary and Schrager, he made no
effort to ascertain the value of American Industrial linance Cer-
poration stock, which does not appear to have been listed on any
of the stock exchanges.
The settlement was mede through the attorneys, and it seems
Teasonably clear that all parties considered that Cook was the only
member of the syndicate who wes financially responsible. The syndicate
had ceased to function as Pettibone Mulliken Company had been in reo
PhobiieIod FaHd Joo aH ot tea qmeton esw ecard /aeoNoTetiOD
00d ban areqng ett mete sade) eytivwoos of expebo setoryt.
gk gait aches bowen bitaenoriqeLes edt mo, naeud tr hofkes, a wee
lmeasetid Aoidw oF «ao ktexcqte® eotenht fahvtevhal.naoleoms to > wert
*;%feemh! cae aneeal st nade todted om now th, tad” viliaila
er Mirow Ger Moose orig tact med bLod, asl godt, belned snabme tag
gow’ gebmd etree OF) oxo'ted taut dad? bededa hae xawe sate cna 20
‘tewedetiog out ‘eved ot effL biuow wif hac abel DfLet met, hades
‘Pew Pikes -Vtke -enle “senty abt Bafod aeenttw tent tadna, atdnahaeeh 02
=o SoreMiT Cobtseubet aeotvoms Yo @etade bothemstoemeaaw tml yet
té bie pakbisg @leah to VOL a bat ysisqmon vests tart, efoota-m Liazoq
gon BES yorls “Rb ‘ohld Sad eboos: sev ynsqron ait sino mt enow yout
Joibetsaos dou bib mart! . gebloyan ate cow dom sow stood eed atgwonstt ea
ed Aguocitin «Iasbnoted bas cogaceteet Xd obem ni nomedede Lezeves. neds
(ital Ladiudet ai eeont dre ea Tiomtele we beLicost brawzed2a.2ew
eit eoghbrotne. oxy to ono mi tase bodnde exmomtdacd, soorsh eet, mt |
" Fmobtie'teb’ vast baw qtr deg bivon ef Latetatlon sory dnebroteb. bees
uso kum One belico Ying o IeomtoowRE eLIGLL w best oul. tacit *. pemotsapar
pets veibas Yaw tobe part zey: sen solsty «uo itesoqtoh eonamit Lalctausal ‘
“plgnis bait £2 ¢.cele VyoMom oom a salem Of wonati 8 maw exeuls, Sofewontt ext
gadon bioy bem ebard bao adoote oftiershiesen bad ani” taitt "4Led tgeo ‘
medW Jett? atied eft met abel " argreqau next Lut, enadis t0%,odp,.20
om vide of progeeol bas Yxsteross st¢nshanteb sdtw bart on amtelo
160 Boanei” Lsistoubal neotrems Yo salar ond mistraoes ot ¢1erte
EE Ne ee
egvonbny elt soldinnogset Vishonamit as adm edeotbaye, 0.28
mot nk mood bash camel tent tiinianiaiiiiaili asc HAS tit bea
of=
eeivership for nearly six months, and Lyman testified that prior
te the conferences he had been endeavoring fer two years to get
money for plaintiff from the members of the syndicate, but without
suecesse it was his failure in that regard that brought about the
retaining of Whame Plaintiff and her attorney were contending that
in the original transaction the $40,000 had been obteined from her
by false representations made by defendant, and it must be presumed
that in their conferences with him in relation to the settlement
they were dealing with him at arm's length, and it is difficult to
pelieve that plaintiff and her able attormey relied entirely upon
the statements they allege he then made as to his financial condition
and the value of the collateral. At the time of the trial Angsten
had paid plaintiff $1,700 on his note; Bib, $2,500 om his note, and
defendant, $2,175 on his note.
Defendant contends that the alleged false and fraudulent
representations do not constitute false and fraudulent representations
within the meaning of the law. While this contention is forcefwly
argued, we deem it ummecessary to pass upon it as in our opinion the
trial court was justified in finding that regardless of the character
or legal effect of the alleged false and fraudulent representations
the claim of plaintiff that the covenant was signed because she and
her attorney were deceived by said alleged representations made to
them by defendant, was not proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Plaintiff eatends that the court erred in refusing to
admit in evidence certain court records showing judgments against
defendant; that said judgments tended to prove the falsity of defend-
ant's representation that he was “in good financial condition and
could meet his obligations." Two of the records purported to be
certified copies of judgments rendered May 16) 1934, and June 22,
1933, both of which judgments were rendered after the consummation
of the settlement. Two other certified copies of judgments were
TSn.
soiling stastt boitisacs ALAN bas ¢ Sad 0m, xie Yirson to% qidetevieo
tog oe atssy ows xot guitevachas ood best ont Beanexeinoo eal oF
diosa Ew tug ,otsotbays edd to stedmem outs mo tt tiigatelg 02 , Rem,
on f duoda tetgpen sit sant HXSBOt tanks Rad otuller a iat aw af. 1 SPOON,
tant aaidaedave eitew YsmIetie tom bas viismtars rman Io, gainissex
zat ment, bentatde mead bad 000.08) old meivonamers Lamia tro est. Mikey
bemreoxg od dagen ve bas yfnabne tod Ww abst ane itesnososaes gated, xe.
‘tromeLttoa eat of moitalon mt at Eel pe bm Begmetetee a ied mE Jay . R
of Loti itp ek ak bas citdgned a arts ds mba aid be BBtLged | otew yom.
ah ol vlorisne botLot vonrosts: olds xo bate Tidmtole jad Svetted . P
mold Lbnoo Iatonant? als ot a9 obom niosta ost egeite veut ajnanesota ae :
nedagmA iniad ody 0 sorts ons A + LatetaLioo er to ‘amtay ould poy
Be RPT RES wants P
bas codon aud Ho Pin ot Leos al Ho 00%. tt Mintotg fist a4,
s9t0m and nd BLS stuabere 20h.
i tun Dehuant bas omaha bopetis oaid tastt ebnod.a00 Inabuctos .
“AnD Ld as neaetgos $s Lubes bee outs? dus kte009 ton ob exo Lied moeorgor E
§ S| ak ar
4S EXO RES BGG @ tees
visu tense? at m lisetme aia exh wal nts % ‘partso ou ad sab
. rs! Mee TOA) Sala
ont. 0 intae THO “et as 3i Hos aang oe wrssasponw ah Be a beng
As a
zetensate oait to ae Lbrayet dal? gat bad? we besttsaut ow r #1800 iatad
ah RE
aun fy ad noaeuges #0 Lubsrott bus cals? bepotta ost 0 tootte fpaet 70
bas ois sausood bomgie enw dres0¥0o oud 9 ssid viteatese 0 mtato ot 4
ea {He q
ot bam anoltadmoacrges bogetis bisa w nevioveb orew yontotss bg © Si
» eonebtye gatontvans bets seeko vd novorq Jom aaw stagbao%ep xe mont,
ot gakatox nt hove #xu00 ont dacld sbnoss0 0 Ysatels Lisall
tankens aden bt pakwnde abzovor suo niadt90 sonebtys PH tinbe
ahaeten to yttets? acid evotg ot ‘Sahu ‘aderompburt, bisa & seat itnabme}sb, ‘
bra nolvibsoo Latonsatt boos mi" aaw oa datld so tte¢noactqex a tae
‘od ot pod requ abto090% anid ben our Ms emadsagiice ate teem rein
etew ah ooo to egy pen selto ow? Aaatin apie iv
=106
against "Me A» Isaacs," and plaintiff failed to establish that
Moe A. Isaacs,
Me Ae Isases was the defendant,in cither proceeding. We might
further say that in our view of the evidence it would make no
difference in our conclusion had the records been admitted.
We find no merit in plaintiff's contention that the court
erred in refusing to admit in evidence a certain ducument, signed
by defendant, which was offered by plaintiff during her cross-
examination of defendant. The court ruled that plaintiff might
use the document, for impeachment purposes, in her cross-examination
of defendant, and plaintiff's counsel, apparently acquiescing in the
ruling, asked the witness questions in reference to the document.
Plaintiff mow complains that the court should have admitted the
document in totoe It is sufficient to say that if plaintiff con-
sidered it competent in toto she should have offered it during her
rebuttal evidence. This she did not do, and her able coumsel, at
the time, appears to have considered it as not material to his cases
After a careful examination of the record and the points
made by plaintiff, we are satisfied that the judgment of the Circuit
court of Cook county should be affirmed, and it is accordingly se
ordered.
JUD GIENT APF IRMEDs
Sullivan, Pe Jey and Friend, Jeo» concurs
~0L-
tats deiidesas of belie? ——* bos *,aokeat .A ott” + yaakigs
@ossal Ad
éeigim of cunts ousiue “pele le eres od? sew eosmal sA 6
tt etam bivow SL sonebive exit to wWeiv imo mi dade ea rent? cart
() oo) sbetdimbe need ebtopey off bad aetaxfoms we at conor Tthb
: d3u00 odd dads aokiuetnoo a YtRemtstg at ¢icom on batt ow |
bargia « danainee® Sisti6o s eonebive ai‘ timhse 6¢ ‘antentox mk ‘bette
—agete tet getice’ Tiiteieta yw botette asw doled sfnobaoiob w
tight Thtemkele tad bekix Pusoo ott . is to mo ites
sobtanimexe-ceorto teil ni, wseoqmg temfosequt rot ikomuoob odd ow
exit gh gutovelipos yltieteqqe .feanyos e*Vttdmtete bee «tinebae tob 20 :
_,feeomoth ett of epooteter mt anolvaenp weond tw ast boias combine
eat bottimhs ovad bivotle tauro9 eit ¢and entelams went. vitenbalt
asoo Thkinbal@ tt dade qer od jaetotrwe at Fs 4 wo sh Anomoob
ted guirsh $f boretto overt binoda ede gto) ah fnotequoo e ‘berebba
to efsenos olde cont bue (oR tom bkb ode alot “seonebive fetter
‘sedges abd of Leicovan fon as tk ‘pore tanoo ovast ‘ot ctoeque ‘sont oats
ponte olf bas bueset edd To fo animaxe ‘iuterse * rosa
dimriD ont to dnemabt “ons FeHs Bottetsea oxa ow Mibatose w obam |
pe yigativoobs ef #t bas eeiahiaale ag bLuede Vines a000 wo ex00e
wmvomes < 6% pbmetrt fas (ot te eh Hie
ae)
bb gy 7
ep Be wid
i:
4 x
;
Prine pe j
vee P hatde
¥ ra
we -
4 t "a
: ; a de le » oh yoy Te Gray ie aq
heen hort Wee MRO a dS ELA 4 GR ai
oth pate SP a SS Mea
; 4 a
(hati nmiawaret BPR
" ’ sue BT
Wy DET co ae + % he OH jie, Bear
Hara ey Ns
ho Be Sage | Este, Bia oe & ‘i
i! iy eae LE
wii TO £aToe. « eee. feo
. ‘ via aes
tog owt of reat do ais meit O-
*,
tri
KW oR
“a
A) ae
39056
FRANCES Re STERNOLA,
Appellees
Ve APPHAL FYROM CLECULT
HENRY STSIGERWALDT and COURT OF COOK COUNTY «
MOTEL SYOIGRREALDY, Bie wife, '
me sgpentants P901.A.603°
MRe JUSTICE SCANLAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
ee eed
ee
Frances Re Sternola, plaintiff (appellee), filed her
complaint to foreclose a trust deed given to secure fifty-two
bonds aggregating %18,000. Henry Steigerwaldt and Sofia Steiger-
waldt, defendants (appellants), executed the bonds and trust deed.
The cause proceeded to a decree in the trial court.
At the outset, we are constrained to state that we find
merit im appellee's contention that the abstract of record filed
by appellants is entirely insufficient and that many of the state-
ments of fact and the arguments made by them in their brief are
not warranted by the recorde Appellants, in their notice of
appeal, state that they appeal “from the order entered on May 23,
1936, directing the defendants, Henry Steigerwaldt and Sofia
Steigerwaldt, to turn over to Harold Ae Davis, Receiver, the sum
ef $627 within five days, and also from the order entered in said
cause on May 12, 1936, directing the Keceiver, Harold A. Davis, to
pay to the plaintiff the sum of $238.75 from the rentals collected
from the premises in question, and appellants further appeal from
the deeree of foreclosure and sale entered in said cause on March
21, 1936." Appellants now seek to raise a number of questions not
covered in their notice of appeal. This they cannot do.
iy aaa Als
5 *
‘A
sulfite
we j
my athe te ee Beis
F
A SARS of so: wha (9
cae Pe oe aut
ad Net cyrt
Ware he CERNE Bee SAD Bh PARES +% ih
vi oe 2: aOREOe. Pome
pas net aes isi apeLtoasa
a ibaa Py ge noes td eae, er bos fre)
TIVOAIO MOTT LANGA 4 eee bl
or eh er Le a oe eS De ‘ ue eee » By Firs wef
+ REWUOD, BOD | TAVOO | bas Lai sb Late "ct
ae 8 a
"¢ 0 oO oA. 2% 0 Og AOEMRLEOGTA .2 cuetmmeh ast sey
2/00 are © worLe cre F emagat iattABe “aoiratt sae
eis SA ee hog cath tere
"at Belt? ,(oetfLoqae) Yitdaielg sii tpl: ivetont
ows-YSTET oxusooe Of Gevig deeb sents @ ecoLooto?t of sntalymon
| stegiste sito® bas shiowtegheda Yano, +000<6Lo gnitegerzas abagd
-heeh tauxt bag ebsod edd bedsrpaxe. eletpelfeqas) ais meth, hier
siu0o Laixt oft mi sored 8 of hadsesotq seuse oat
bab? ow toit odata of bonketganeo, 9x8.0” «toatuo apt 2A 3
“bOLLY hrooet 2 donttade ey tent apiinedn09 2’ eelleggs. ib, ¢ bzem
state oft to ynam tact bos teododt inant yorigne,et afmelloque yet
ets tsind thodd at mets yd sham esasaurgte oft bone fost 30, Bascom :
wo soijon thedd wk .atmelLoqgA .«bteoer eft yd betnattaw gon
28S Ys no bexssna tebto set mock” Lesqqe edd tadld tase eLesqqs
sitod bas shLewteglete® qinell «adnabae tod ort agtoensh eQERL
mua oft «tevieoo .elveal .A biome of stove arnt of s#bLawseg legs
bisa uf bevesne tebso ed? mori oats bas yayeh syit miftiw Tae to |
ot esival .A bLorall ,tevicss! ony grtitootth ~dser Sl it 10 ‘eaxiso
betoolfoo alainot edt mort EVs8ESS to ave odd Tikdmisl¢ edd ot pes |
Hots no ssyso bies at boredme eles bas oun leanne? ~ ‘eetoeb pre a
son anoijeaesp to tedmun s exist o¢ assa wou stnsLtogga meager ‘ “a
0b sonmso yort aid? .Laoqqs to pahion Hons at 9
@ Bea
Appellants contend that "the Court erred in refusing to
allow the defendants to enter their appearance," but in their
notice of appeal they did not state that they were appealing from
the order denying them leave to enter their appearance, However,
they have failed to show that the action of the court was a clear
abuse of diseretion. Appellee filed her complaint on August Sl,
1934. On September 1, 1934, after service upon appellants, appellee
moved for the appointment of a receiver. At the hearing upon the
motion, although appellants had not entered an appearance, they
appeared in person and by counsel and an erder was entered directing
them to “collect any and all rents aceruins from said premises and
hold the same intact until the further order of the Court.® On
September 7, 1954, appellant Henry cteigerwaldt Tiled a petition
in the United States District court, “under Section 74 of the Bank-
ruptey Act as amended,” for the purpose of obtaining an extension of
the indebtedness secured by the trust deed, and the petition states
that an order was entered by that court "that plaintiff herein was
enjoined and restrained from proceeding with said foreclosure suit
during the pendency of the proceedings in the District Court." In
the petition for leave to file an appearance in the instant cause
appellant Henry Steigerwaldt states that his petition in the United
States District court was dismissed on December 2, 1935, for the
reason that the United States Circuit Court of Appeals had decided
that before a debtor is entitled to an extension of a debt secured
by a trust deed, taxes must be paid, and that appellants were unable
to pay the taxes. During all of this time appellants had not ane
swered the complaint in the foreclosure proceeding, indeed, had not
filed an appearance in the cause, but appellant Henry Steigerwaldt
had been collecting the rents from the premises and occupying a part
od githau tex at borre ¢uwod osfd” ‘tadt brodaoo adnal Leggs
slodt ak tod "\eonstasogge tient tetme of adnisbie tob edt wolls
mori gailseqgs orow ‘Yod) dat otade fom bLb Yedd Leoqae to sotton
ytevewoH ,eonetseqae thot sein of oveol mute guiyneb cobro estd
teelo 2 aew duson alt To motton oft tat wode: oF belie? eved yout
; elG Jamgi BO. jatalgaoo ted beLtt outnoui sno Li oroe th te eauds
sellogus »sisalioggs aoqu sotvtea todte seer af rocieoago8 a) chase
axis mogy gatuned ests 2A stovtooor 6 ‘Yo geemtstoges orld tot bovom
| ‘ yout Sonetesqqe na cheba gon best “abnalteqas favodi£[s .molton
| gatioosth feteioo Baw taht me baw Loanwog yd bas moareg ab betesqqe
hy Potts wre pete ¥ peae as pee signa fie wn a nace ot mont
HO "ets D ost ® rebz0 reridaat oad ‘Tita toodat ontna estt bLout
Motsiteg a boii sbLowxey tos xu Pe tony “heen (v todmonqee
THe ett to. of sotsoss a ne _siui09 tobxtekt qoiade Soesnd aft ak
to matansjxe ae yutatatde 29 saoquing ‘ost at " hebeene ae Jor Yorqus
SOONERS Ne SARTRE A eT
teteta colttieg odd bas ebend Bie yeionll as w betwee egsnbetdebat enld
He BS RRB ak RES AR ata
aw Ahead trkgalele ae sm00 sant “W boxeeao, a rebie an tant
_# tire etyno foes t bias Am patbocoorg mort grout Besly as bowtie. 4
at *strwo0 torrie tt ong ai agutbevsorg ls Yo vosobaog sdf uty
savso tisdanl edt at _Aeiatacqie aa oLtt oe ovael “aot most tog a }
bed kad ent mi mois tt og. a kal tect apiate ‘*hkowzogitese Pye waren ig 4
ont Tet «FeCl «8 sedmecet no besa tenth aew tue Bs toy “a {
- beblog b best efsoggA to tuso0 tivoxko aed a2 & bed ta) 0 oat, Fp lg 00 gl b.
Seruege tdeb «a te. nobangdxe. ne og bets tine at xotdob a hick om
had ose
etdarss oxow atralisgas dads be. whieg. od em faxed _sb008, tows
awd
=f Jon bel atnatloggs emit nig to Lie gekupil, . eset 988 vo 98 q
dor bad 4 boodnt »gnibessorg emwaeloone? ond. ab ¢adsLgmon, bend essial :
cates
thereof. On December 4, 1935, upon motion of appellee, notice
having been given appellants, the court appointed Harold A. Davis
receiver of the premises. It appears from the petition filed in
support of the motion that the general taxes levied against the
premises for the year 1929 and subsequent years were unpaid, and
that there was due for past due taxes and interest, and penalties
thereon, the sum of $4,135.59, and that the premises were scant
security forthe amount due oer to become due. Although the order
of the United States District court did not restrain them from
entering their appearance in the instant cause, appellants, on
December 14, 1935, for the first time moved the court for leave
to file their appearances, which motion was denied, and an order
of default was entered agsinst theme The motion was supported by
a verified petition of appellant Henry Steigerwaldt which, after
reciting the proceedings in the United States District court, states
that there are twenty other noteholders besides appellee, and that
the trustee named in the trust deed is the only party entitled to
a complete foreclosures; "that in the bill of complaint, the plaintiff
alleges that there are a large number of holders and owmers of said
notes whose names and addresses are unknown to plaintiff, which
allegation is false; that plaintiff has named all of the notcholders
in her complaint and the vlaintiff and her attorney had the names
and addresses of all noteholders prior to the filing of the complaint;
that although the plaintiff and her attorney had the names and address-
es of ell the noteholders prior and at the time of the filing of t he
complaint, they filed affidavits of non-residenee and Unknow Owmers
and publication for Unknown Owners, which affidavits of Non-residenee
and Unknown Owners are false and were known to be false at the time
that the same were filed by the plaintiff and her attorney." Because
of the allegations of the complaint it was plain tc the trial court
aon
j soliton yoolloqge to moltom mogy 2220L ys reduooed uO »tooredd
etvad +A biotsh bedmtoggs ttu699 ond .stunitogas wey ta 1 noed patyed
sak beLit wots iteq ect wx? exseqge ¢i +890 imerg oad te teviooor
ais tankeas hebves went Lenonsy band sects no ftom ote to _ tes
bie ehtagm stew etzey inespeadue von eseL <868%, ont 20% woe tony,
asiiianeg bur ,taeretat bas sexed ai taeq 20% ont saw etedd sant
_dusos ets" ace imozg ods salt bes Coa 20 masse outs cnoozedy
«
x9b%0 wit tigsrodts LA amb onto 99 ¢ o¢ to wath trasonua ‘oni 4 x0? imoce
wort world ntettaea toa b kb taw00 totuseid Bedsse het ta ould a
ne catmaLteqaa ¢9aneo , tauad anh axl at pe yp nest aatrogie
= May ae
evesl tot dxmen otf boven omig tart? ont x03 eaEed We ‘re dueoed
bes Yas “OAL ‘Fe mek
‘gebxe as bas 19 ines amv moltosm ohtu saocnarseqas tests oft? ot
vd
ya headtoqque saw wn hoe eal? aimed temas boxsane aew $husreo ea
tot ts «ilo Eat tbLewsop tog yrs sual toqus %o noid iq bel tizey 8
+ wh 7 erin ef uz
actade «#2100 fobrdeia ast ats boa tat aus at auth booverg ostt gutstoos
ts ROR EGS
sais brs coe [Logg sobised axohLosoton redi¢o vinord ona de gan
Pr Loney t
od holt tine ‘trod led anid ak beeb vive oat ak bomsa oodawzd ont
rene ee pray oO We: aly
Yriinteta ert eh esa to ‘ftte entt at testa remactooro otefamne 8
Ed AS ey! a
biae Yo etenwo hte exeh fod to codimin onze # ots onadt sade Bogelia
ree oe ¢ aSis
Htotiw (Tibdataly ot rvoroteat ores aounsthha bas pomen saodty ant,
ateb Lesogon ost %0 tie bo mtn: ast Yiteatatg taild josie? | a mo kispee )
aomsct ort bast yenodis rout bre "dd aibaly oxit bes. datalquwo. sel 7
it mhoLigmo0 est? to anttt oxtd ot soln, atebLodesven ifs to agaeetbbhs. Rit.
saetbbs bas somen ett bak yortodde red bas Titinisle odt Agwontle &
a eat a east See
oe a ae
ae ip ei ie Sik)
ead te anbli? edt too omts ot te ‘fates wobty serhsedet en a fie ae Ke
Hon F1¥
a ‘mawd named bre conob icox~ nos hd af ivabitte bers oat inialquno
bh oe at M Hes Veg . of. :
sonisb tsox-nok 20 ad ivsbi Ts Ho tw «a on000 ewonaia ot no 13 aottdug bas
{ fs RCA. RAP cai
omit ost te cesT od of mvost oxow bus oss? exe exenw0 awomiall bax at
Sean sy Taney eh beddt
causoed "syemio dia teal bas Vilsmtate eaty we boLe® Stew emine ost ‘tats
ti ue purity Ra eke eed, Sean My
¢sinieg baked eke ah aebasiee sade tntafquos ot ‘to ano btapolia od » q
-4~
that there wes no merit in the contention that the trustee was the
only party entitled to a complete foreclosure. Indeed, the trustee,
Chicago Title and Trust Company, permitted a default to be entered
against it, thereby conceding, in effect, the right of appellee, under
the facts set up in her complaint, to foreclose under the trust deed.
As to the allegations of appellants! petition in respect to the un-
known owmers, we understand from appellants! brief that they intended
by said allegations to assert a lack ef jurisdiction of the defend-
ants "Unknown Owners." Upon the oral argument in this court appellants
eoneeded that the trial court had jurisdiction of all defendants md
the subject matter. After the entry of the deeree in the instant
cause a petition was presented to the trisl court, by the attorney
who represents appellants, on behalf of Adelaide Griffen, in which
she claims to be the owmmer of a bond, and that pleintiff had sued her
as an “Unknown Owner." The petition states that her rights were
being jeoperdized by appellee and thet the trustee was the only one
whe could foreclose the trust decd, and she prays for leave to inter-
vene and answer the complaint. This petition was verified by peti-
tioner, before the attorney for appellants, a month before the entry
of the decree. In appellee's verified answer to the petition of
Adelaide Griffen she states that she had the right to file the com-
plaint under the terms of the trust deed; that she had protected
petitioner's interest; that while at the time cf filing the complaint
she did not knowthat petitioner owned a bond, nevertheless, peti-
tioner had actual and personal knowledge of the pendency of the suit
on September 19, 1934, had attended one bondholders’ meeting and had
netice of several other meetings; that the petition was filed “by
Jaceb Levys who is the attorney for Henry Steigerwaldt * * * merely
for the purpose of further annoying and harassing" appellee. The
Aer ai.
ry
we
1
ott caw betas off tet} Hordne¥nbs ome nt Pirom on Baw’ S48KF dents
esdawtd oHd Vbosbit Loxwadtsozot oddtgmds abs BoLd2908 dag Gane
“patstas s¢ of divaton’s bortbwteg :ymsqaod fair? baa ocdit ogsbteo
rebut ,edlteq¢s to ddgtt one .footre ak gutboomon yhoredd 44 Sanlegs
,beeb gayet ors toby saofooxe? of gtutelquoe ted mk ‘qe Fea abbas was
<tr off of fooqecx Hi notsiveq ‘adnalfeaqqe “to eno tdgotta odd ‘6d BA
bohasdnk vould gaily Tobxd Vedvattoqae moet Biisdersbay ow cetenwo smom
“baste od} ‘to nottdtsatavt to fool 2 dtodas of anettegetts bisa ya
adusiLeays tubo eit} nt gosmugrs fete afd nog? “saver mvomint” ddas
ben aisebuoted tte Yo notdstbabrst bat sxvbo Fath¥ on! Jat bebsoave
Present od? aE stood odd to “réme eifd wed tA needa toetdua ond
Yous offs odd Yo \dxwoo Letty oad b¢ be¥HeEeTG Baw noliiteq & Saino
itp tiiw HE <wettiw ebfeteeA Yo tkaded mo «nat feud adsbdonced ese
tent bova ‘bait ‘deteatela tad bine baad 3 to ‘tenwe a od of ‘sihake ‘esfa
Geshe exew addy it tod toast actada etéiden: ont *, enw0 woods” sus en
mo ytiw' ody abw eodauus ont dad baw cal tocds wt bexkbuscos toqor t antes ref |
“retail ot evact t0% ‘#eexa one hun. sboeb deucd od suokooxseel binoo he
ALL Ui NA EGAV Sine kb tows Bal Semaabeieed Ca eoweee tee ee :
“wdas edd Oxoted ciaom s ssjnallegas tot yentodta ext erated «anode }
“thi ond bboy’ Gath 0} Poband” wekhkew Wiedkceees El Sees we te |
“Liwoo oitY of}? og adit Oddy Bast ode dact Ws¥iet's ofa notricd SbisrebA
' podsodoxg pat ale aad pheeb tavud one Xo amo! ait” ‘Pobmir dotaty
‘J pebstime's oft gittEe ‘to ond asf Yo’ oikkew’ deity {dae siit WEEE Hog
“eifoq .eneLediteven \bn0w & bene Homnde ty oq! deity wordt son' bE Sa
dha Sit Yo Yonobnog oes to syneLveiat! Tandated bHe’ Lalita’ bad oho
bat pris getioom Mevshtodinéd ono behretta bed (beer VOL coda dq30" x0
‘qe DOLL? 20H Golditeg add das) tagaittsen toile Lxoved te eRon
oefotom * * % sbLewxey Lote ysaell rot yoRtod ya odd” abv extw Vewed seek
cedT ..eetLeqgs "guiewetad baa’ gabienus teddist to oaoqiag: 4 :
ego. La td ose i mimty eee WES DAWG <, aa won itapel ie - ont :
motion of the petitioner Adelaide Griffen wes denied. Represented
by an “associate” of the attorney for appellants, she filed a notice
of appesrance and notice of cress-appealy, but no briefs have been
filed in support of this cross-appeal, and, under the rules, it
will be dismissed. Hven if appellants had not abandoned their con-
tention that the trial court did mot have jurisdiction of the defend-
ants "Unknow Owners," they were in no position to raise thet con-
tention. (See Haugan v. Michalopoulos, 280 Tll.s Appe 239, 245.)
The purpose of appellants to harass appellee in the prosecution of
her complaint is clearly apparent from the record. In a petition
presented to the court by the receiver it appears that the premises
are improved with a foureapartment building and a five-car garage;
that one of the apartments and two of the garage spaces are occupied
by appellant Henry Steigerwaldt, who also occupies a portion of the
basement as an office in his contracting business; that Steigerwaldt,
Since the receiver's appointment, continues to collect rents from
the tenants aud refuses to attorm to the receiver for the same. Until
appellee moved for the appointment of a receiver, appellants were
satisfied, apparently, to have the record show their failure te file
an appearance in the sausee
In view of our holding that the court did not err in denying
the motion of appellants to file an appearance, it is not necessary
for us to pass upon several minor contentions reised by appellants.
However, eyen if appellants were in a position to urge them, we would
held that they were without sufficient merit. Appellants contend
that the court erred in entering the order of May 233 1936, on
appellants to pay to the receiver the sum of $627.89. On May 26,
1936, the notice of appeal was filed in this cause. Appeliants cona-
cede that the order of May 23, 1936, was vacated by an order entered
on June 1, 1936, but they contend that the court had no jurisdiction
i
7
- "iis ie aie
betnotougen .beineh aw sethiwd ebleloba nenots tt oq. ont 30 Kottom»,
soison gs holit ore ,atneliagge tol yoarotie att. to “stetoogse” na yd,
oo0 ovad Stoixd on tud ¢Leeq¢e-2n07,9 20 sotion bus sonanseqge YO.
Sb yee Lot ed? robair ¢bas pLeouqe-enoge abit Yo dtoqaue ab helht,.,
“ios teddy pomebiisds tom bal adnaifaggs TL mov ..beveiomib ad .{fhtw,,
~baotsb sft te sees rendu yodwkd tom bib dxyem Leist oft tadt gnotinet,.
me et teks keoqon at etaw yoald, " eterwO. awosaial” age.
setveceladtotit .v sepuall ee&). (pmots eed...
So Hevoewerg eft mt seffeegr ancrad of otenlLogge Yo saogu ost.
> potedieg o nl. btooor eng mort tmegaqas yftecko at satatqamp, tend.
aeainotg eit fold aresqqe +1 tevieown ont yo dawog arth) OF hotnenocg
{Oplitey Tao-ovlT o baw gniolind trom tagatuer 9 tlw hovorgms oA.
belquede e%s asosGe sgatay sid To owt bre atoemdvags en, 30, ono dake.
‘ent To noktu0g # aeiquace oale ow ~thoLawxeglos® yacoh, danni Wh
ethLowtegieta Jedd jesertend guidoeutaes.aldint oo ttte maac. od
egies S ‘Btues, tosfloe od: goumbt noo. sivominhogge Alsevisoot, hi ‘
Li7oU somea odd 162 revicos tant of sedis of Romntet das adnened ond. |
“stow avas logge ve rsvyieoor 6 to seem asoggs edt t9% hevem eellegg ¥
eltt of otulia t os (ee oval od eyhinexsqge, xbettaltee .
: -oaneo off at epuszeodga te,
girtyned ai rio ton blo dives ent tam! gatbfod myo to wely mt... q
eas, 20, pottom exit
“ sednslloggs YC bealst amiiandnes rons Lexoven nogs, aaag ot aM, 20%, ]
bivow ow ,woili ogrs oF uoldivog a mh tow atmedlogges tL aeve,«teverpH,
bnovsos afnatleqas st iteq detolat bina smodsdw etow, yadt #erls, BRO
me 4 BEC 48 YaM 26 Tobe rent yatsedao mh berre txwoo ould sat,
[oS Yaw oO .ea. Tee Yo hive end cewteboeledy oF we 08 edanitagen,
“ries atnellecqs .#emao ainy. ak bolt? hese nath ‘to wotton edd BGs ‘:
bordtxe tedre ne Yd botneey waw \ACeL SS Ye roto vey teue ahem:
YMuseoose ton al ji .oomataeggqe us oft o¢ eadnatile
Hoivotbaizs, om bac txwoo ont sent baotnos yet sud SCL «Lt oauT no
=-6=
to enter this last order after the filing of the notice of appeal,
and we should disregard it. In view of the fact that counsel for
poth sides concede that the order of May 23, 1936, was vacated and
that appellants were not hurt by it, it is entirely unnecessary for
us to pass upon the contention of appellants that the court erred
in entering ite While contending that the court was without juris-
diction to enter the order of June 1, appellants insist, however;
that we should pass upon the right of the court to enter a certain
part of ite It is a sufficient answer to this inconsistent position
of appellants to say that the order of Jume 1 is not properly before
us upon the present appeal.
Appellants also insist that the court erred in entering an
order on the receiver to pay appellee's counsel $238+75, and to
reimburse appellee for court costs and expenditures in the proceedings
The trust deed provides that a reasonable sum should be allowed for
solicitor's fees, stenographers' fees, for outlays for documentary
Ridanee, for cost of a complete abstract of title and for an exami-
mation of title, etce, and that the costs and expenses should be
allowed in any decree foreclosing the trust deed; also that there
should be included in any decree, and paid out of the rents or pro-
eeeds of any sale made in pursuanee of such decree, all costs of
such suit or suits, advertising, sale and conveyance, including
attorneys', solicitors', stenographers', trustee's fees, outlays for
documentary evidence, and the cost of an abstract and examination of
title. The decree of sale found that appellee had incurred expenses
and cash outlays in the sum of $197.45 and costs of suit, exclusive
of attorneys! fees and master's fees, and decreed that she had a
prior lien therefor; and provided that the court retained complete
jurisdiction over the cause, to be exercised at any time and before
wae
eLasqys To soliton ed Yo grkLit oe setts tobro geal aiid “ods OF
tot Leensoo tad Jost ont to woty nl wth busgetakbd bLyore ew’ bare
boas betsosy new .d80L .tQ yall to tebre etd tadtd sbheonoo eobte atod
wot yxeeseoenns yfetitae ei ti eth yd deed don ovow etnellogge dent
boete dive edi tecdd staslleags te motinetmoo odd noge eaag oF au
- dias tworltiw sew tasoo ent dad gaibnetios oftiW sat gntcetnd mi
etovewons «taienk adnelLeqqe «Lf ems Yo tobto: edd tesa 09 ‘no thot
nietxes 8 tetne ot, tigeo si}. to tagiz edt moqy eeag bivode ow sand
oeitieog tmetalemeont. aide of towens inokoitiva & ei di sok to stag
eto ted yftegorg tom ai £ eswl to tebxo edd sed yse o¢ ataslleqqs to
efseqqs taeaetq eft moqu ey
As guitedce al hexte true erls tadd delet ole stasiLeqgs ert
ot bre ef%.8ES% foanyoo s'oalleqgs Yeq of rtevieost. edd mo: tobto _
egnibecootg elt mi sexstibaeqxe bas ateso tryoo x90 selleqgs eauudmiot
(tot DowolLs ed bivote mua ofdsnoaset.s tad? sobiverg boob teuxd oa?
yrsincasooh 191 aysitive 10% ,.seet ‘aredgergoneta . soot a’totiotion
cimsxe 8 10% bas eLtid to soattads stelqamo 2 to da00,20% eoneb ivig
ed bivodds eoeneqxe bis aseoo odd salt bas soto .eLtit 20 motien
eteds Jedd cafe ihoob tauzd edt guteotoount setesb yas Ah bewetio
~o1g to atmet edt to two bisq bre .ootoeh yas ot bobuLont sd biwocde,
2p ataco Ife ,.ootesh dove to sonsueumg mi obam ofsa ‘ysis, to abeso
_ BaibyLoni ,sonsyovnoo bus else ygukelgtevda .etiva so dive, dome:
0% ayeitve ,a00t aloesauxd ,axorgeugonose «'anodtoifoe ¢'ayentoise a
20 Goivenimexe bus tostieda ua to ta00. edt bas esomebive, qredmemioob:
seunogxe betmont hed selioggs dads bayot else te sezoeb edt + eldtd: 4
oviesLoxe «diva to a¢aoo daa 2.TCLG to swe ont at ayeltyo deco bas
8 bel oda Jed? bostosb bas .aeet a! rodasm bas acet ‘ayenrodiés to, b
edolqmoo beniestet giwoo edt tad hepiverg bias ;toteteds, molt soba
etoied bas omit yns ts beaiozexe ed od ,.eaueo eit. tovo nottothe taut
Go send wOhO' —f -eent
ee ee ge Oe ee oe
oY
sale of the premises or any part thereof, to order the payment
out of any rents arising from the premises, of the costs taxed,
including master's fees, and of the sums found due to the several
parties under the terms of the decree, according to the order of
priorities fixed by the decree. The ceeree also found that suffie
cient moneys were on hand, in the possession of the receiver, and
ordered that the sum of %238.75 be paid te appellee. While it may
be conceded that the order, entered before the sale cf the property,
Was somewhat irregular, there is no question but that appellee is
equitably entitled to the amount in question. Moreover, as appellants
were defaulted they are in no position to question the order,
Appellants contend that “the decree of foreclosure and sale
is not supported by the evidence." Aside from the fact that appel-
lants, because of the default, are in no position to raise the ques-
tion as to the sufficiency of the evidenge offered in support of the
complaint (Glos ve Shedd, 218 Ill. 209), we find no merit in the con-
tentione The master found from the evidence adduced before him that
all of the material allegations of the complaint were proven, and he
recommended the entry of a decree in accordance with the complaint.
Appellants quote from certain proceedings before the trial court on
various motions having no bearing on the instant contention. To
illustrate: Appellants refer to a proceeding before the trial
court on May 9, 1936, which was forty-nine days after the entry of
the decree, wherein they asked that the court enter an order on
appellee to produce the original exhibits "offered in evidence on
the hearing of the foreclosure suit.” ‘The court, in passing upon
this motion, entered an order containing the following: “It appearing
to the Court that the original exhibits offered in evidence herein
have disappeared from the files in this cause and the Court being
fully advised in the premises, It is Ordered that leave be and it is
edtieliegge as".
68 Od AE Ficem on bat ow . (000 cctt ete bl
at
Fromyse okt rsbte Of _ twoted} grey Yas 10° weatmorg x3 0 slaa
“\ gbexsd agaeo eff to yaealmbrg ot mott gataite anor yas to die
‘ feteved ast of oud bawet eawe odd 48 Bue peoot a eégaca Sainutont
‘Ye tohn0 “end of gatbroooe yootosh eff to amtey off tonnw a0 tttagq
eitive tats bawet cafe sated on? cesteshs sat Yd bexPt ‘Ae kd Fro k¢g
hag, exeviooot eft to sokaceneog ont mi gbasd mo onew ayenoat tue fo
you ti efit! .seLfeqys of bia ed OY. GES% to wie emt tad bdtesto
LWreqeX¢ ost to Siad out oto led Hexstad \xobte ott tants heddonod od
° ME eellsyes tadt tude nolteady od af otedt (xalegetst sarwodiod “Baw
sto sanktaky at Frwdnie octd od “bdty tind Vided Lupe
srabto edt soktsacup of moltiaeg od mE ots Yort Bed tuctsd otew
Sind “bis StudoLosre'Y to Sux0dd odd” dads bnddnoo BdMALLEGGA
-Lodys fails dust oid’ mex ebtaA “.eenobtvd ont Yd Bodxddqad HH WE
meeuy oid OGlldt of HON Leog om RE oe .ILuWTH SiS Yo Sekaded VEFKRE
eit to Fxouque mk bere TTO eigush tye ene sedinsureananes beidiadbvebesed il
getlt isl ovoted beoubbe eotobtve ong mott brsot redeem ont nee
ont She pinsvong ovow Fatalqmos vite Yo who ttage Ltn tetrodam odd tie
titsiymos od? Mt iw somabioboe kk Berosh 8°26 yrehe off WSbnommocet
nd ¢xuoo' Laird ocd oxoted egatbovontg aisizeo mort’ stouD’ idea
‘oT Snetsnednod thedent edd no gkttbod on gilivell anokitow bebttey
Esso of ototed gubbestong & oo vetet otttetteggl “Yodbetenttt —
5 Yo Yedies on weeth Beeb Sethe? wi’ Mb zie’ naitineanaaitin. |
me tobe ne tedie Sxueo ets Pay boxe Yodts Aloremw YSereeb “OAs .
Se ee ee ee a ec ae
pgqe ahteade at” bios edt UDiie stmitoseey Sad S Gansed CAP
gniveéqqe IT" sgeiwol fet ste ganadeenos cob te ne “pened ne $ vio Hom etd?
aioveid Sonobiys ai betotte’ad tiene Laaigive edd gad dod ‘ond OF
"gated ‘Pt00D ood boo ontiss “akty ak aoced Saf soar Sotebided 8 ovat i
al tk bik ed eveel tant beteb10 ef +1 ,aonimeng out nk beatvba at
anne
hereby given the Plaintiff ond her attorney to file true or photo-
static copies of the original exhibits offered at the hearing
herein." It appears from the record that the situation in refer-
enee to the exhibits beceme so serious that appellee was forced to
ask the trisl court to impound the files end recorés in the casee
We are at a loss to understand why appellants should see fit to
refer to this unusual situation. In appellants! petition fer leave
to enter their appesrance they do not question the validity of the
trust deed or the notes in question, and the defense interposed in
the petition is based solely upon techniesl grounds. To suppert
their strained contention that the petition sets up a meritorious
defense, appellants are driven to the position that their allegation
in the petition that appellee was not authorized under ths trust
deed to declare the whole amount due, constitutes a meritorious
defense + Their petition shows that after the filing of appellee's
complaint they went into the United States District court to secure
an extension of five years of the debt secured by the trust deed.
Appellants did not question the allegations in appellee's complaint
that they had defaulted in payments due on the bonds. ‘They admit
that they were denied relief in the United States District court
because they would not pay the taxes due on the property, and it is
undisputed that they paid no taxes on it since 1928. The record dis-
closes a persistent effort to harass appellee and delay the proceed-
ings. Her attorney was compelled to appear before the United States
District court in the bankruptey proceedings at least forty-five
times. On December 30, 1935, appellants filed a motion in the trial
court that the order ef default against them be vacated and that
they be given leave to file an appearance instanters that the order
appointing Harold A. Davis receiver be vacated. On December 31, 1935,
an order was entered denying the motion in toto. Appellants then
| antsood, od te, peso, aateine, Late tn oa, we, setaeo, “t,
-etet at migeutia adt tadg bxopet gong. soc? ersoqds #2 ",akexed
at beotet aew eaffoqgs tedt anoizea on, empoed adididxe effy of sane,
peann, old, £t shuocet bos BeLtT ost haxegat e2 txyon fatuy edt tae
0% #22 v0n Sinoda etaaliogas vie bastarsbaw 92 aso. & 28 ts, OH.
owel mt moldiveg Intastteqys at .cotieuttea Leuauu aidd of meter
_ affd, To yitbifey edd acliaenp tom ob Yomt senqrqeqts sheds setne Qf,
nk Denommeint seneted ot bar «notineup st aeten, edt x0 beob. taunt
-dtogaus oT eehswets Lnoiados? noqy ylofoa bered aia osid,
avolzotizes 2 qu aten coltited ent danlt fte £2 193 110.9
«moitagelia riedt dedi moisdleog eng of movizh exe adnetioggs
, teuté ot sebay bexivodius sox enw selleggs aeeit nodt teow “ mn
; _ ano ixodizem s sedutitanoo soub Fruromss, efoiw ert, 2 retook ve ison
pene to gill? odd redta gad? aworle moktiteg ston .ennoeteb
_grwoen of toe dotusakt soteda bed ant oa SRA tmaw vous tetatusoe
| _sbeeb sauxd edt yd bomwooa ide olf to exaey covet te Bo tanedxe a
tntatguse aiseliogee od ano id anos ont jo ttaenp Aen. hte ade
$ terbs yen aba add HO Sab ataenmeg el bot Lxated any ad. @ a
| _ twee totxsatd nevada hetiet off ot tates beinod © Priya. oor f tam
al ed ben aXe t0qe Tq Lom Road 88 noxee baad wa fen. Ainew eects avncod
~alh brosen edt ,88@L conta at oe nexa’ pn Rhog. xomt tail? beduze zea
~heeserg ont yatob, Agts set fouas acca oF fees, , Hepa iaeen 4 a senete
astat& beg baw ont oxo ted saeage od beLtoqioa aaw youre d ta “xeHl_ sept a
Se
ovii-yix02 fanoL ta apatbosoorg yorquaainaad outs at ae sage q
Lokrt ould al no ison # bert Lae a5 a abiee 108 Pree: , aombd a
sot one bet soay od mould somsge dust» x0 Lome Pager pend ’ oh
“xebx0 este atts (redustent sonstaogga su e113 od evsel aoviy of 1 yest ’
108es te rodatv6t Pa -bedooay od evkover ive’ +A biorsl satiatogas d
sual sinadtoaus “ates a pap yey ‘out snr, phsll sngring es
om DALY We & 9 2 he HEE oe RG By at w% i ee Asie ‘et Dy o
ay i
ye ase mm
Peaerey
appealed to this court from thet order, and on January 31, 1936,
the appeal was dismissed, upon motion of plaintiff, by the first
division of this courte
We are satisfied, from a earefwl examination of this
record, that appellants heve no reel defense to appelleets com-
plaints, and that they are merely seeking, in cyery pessible way,
to harass and obstruct appellee from cbhtaining her plain rights
in the premises.
The cross-appeal of Adelaide Griffen is dismissed.
The decree and the orders ef the Circuit court of Cook
county eppeeled from are affirmed.
CROSS-APPEAL OF ADELAIDE GRIFYTEN DISMISSED.
DECREE AND ORDERS APPEALED FROM APPIRMEDs
Sullivan, Pe Jes and Friend, Jey Concute
je? ie SS exesn Ha ; i joie swede mo it tow thet | «ampelnety
bak
. F°
Us
.
;
mre
%
'
“A %
HX.S,
~ f 3
ae
Ret RE UE kOe. Ae Pik De a A Pe ae ey
¥ me Oh be Sh ph A Pa SSC oi MM ahs) Bere pee Ry bores dome alk
~{aeer Lo Yevast co be enobse Gods mott two abit od boleoqgs
fatkt edt yd icaiiel eae. ‘to sotven noqe ,bevetmalth saw Leoqqe eat
«treo abit Jo moinivib:
(@ifd to notiantewxe Br ieseo a mort ehettaigan ess 8W 2) ony
moo a"eefleegs o¢ ens teh Lest om wvad atoatleqgs tact oh1o09T,
c¥aw efdieaag yieve af .gublesa yLetem exe yeds tadt bas etatolg
“atdgin mtsiq usd yaiaketds moxt eolleqgs toutiade bac eaatad of
gnats sneebwetg aris. ot
sheeminath af asttiw ehtefebA Yo Laoqqaraaota 987 gogo.)
Seed te dxueo divers? oct to etebzo esd duecaatiaiediihiaias nit
5 MAT werk, ile pase Wane
HEA, «eae ‘tal m
:
Pp
;
By Ant AR aK, Parte Paar nas es mes. mek.
sarin ih ebnottt bas yt ot ndvettee
5,
hil Qa eke outed demon Ae acer alae
i ee ae ke ee ae fo tana ou
MEM igihLe at weld uo. oy ab ad smh feted
ees Ce Se a AM HN TORS CRM NAME iB re hab pase, yuh sate
Px8O 20 mee RR) cae Wie. ane i Seawe oo kaos one ytd shade
gyeteeeire eh at ee RO ele See Pom Blow yeets oaranad
OE: pee aes es BS: ON Nea” “oni. Be aim i gael Pon a ag %
M i gyi Bei Fe Ss $x $e 2 aa fe pants
Fi > 2 Na bs Aa RO
3 A ee
33 ‘ Oh Aedeigin
a meta Nea ety Sys 4a Pt Sag
RRR RL SM TO a OR, Saat 80
¥ , €
b
39086
JOHN He. ARTIBEY,
(Complainant) Appellee,
Ve
JOHN Je BEIERWALTER, ART WET
WASH LAUNDRY » Ihc og &L Tllie
nois corporation, JACOB G. WAGTER,
and GUSTAV H. FISCHER,
Tefendants.
APPEAL FRGY CIRCUIT
COURT, COOK COUNTY.
990 I1.A.603°
JOHN Je BELERWALTER, ART WET WASH
LAUNDRY, INC., an Illinois cor-
poration, and GUSTAV He. FISCHR,
(Defendants) Appellants.
i ear ill
MR. JUSTICE SCANLAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
John HE. Artibey filed his bill. of complaint against Art
West Wash Laundry, Ince, 2 corporation, John J. Beierwalter, Jacch
Ge Wagner and Gustav H. Fischer. The cause was heard by the
chancellor, and Art Wet Wash Laundry, Inces & corporation, Beier-
walter and Tischer have appealed from a decree entered in the cause,
The bill of complaint and amendment thereto allege that
complainant, John J. Beierwalter and Jacob G. \iagner incorporated
defendant nae ren on August 31, 1926, for the purpose of avoid-
ing personal liability on the part of the incorporators; that each
was to have an equal voice in the management of the business and
hold an equal number of shares of stock: that 100 shares of the
stock was issued to each; that complainant and Beierwalter assumed
active charge of the business and each drew a salary of $75 a week,
and for all practical purposes conducted the business as a copartaer-
ship, using the corporation as a shell for the purpose of holding the
209 .ADOeSt
Ys! etoalLionges paket ele oe
Seah oH WHOL
seatlogga (¢nsmalgmo>) |
Bk RSE oF Ap ie gE es | ani te ee ha RS
TW THA », WATLAWASTUR oh MOL
pli... &lLB es OUT « VACKUAL Heay
DQ: soo alon
hi Oe oH VATGWO baw
Lays _s8insbaeted si NES
» Rosner, LYS hee ae ath WN Pall ll Gh a cockili
MAW THY Tals. SRAM 4% DT
a at ;
Tel
TIVORLO MOAB TARGA »-
4
d
i
‘i
a
\
aaa saniegs tuialqowo to Ilid abf beLlt yedista ».X mfot
doost .tetlewreled .t adel ,woltetoqroo #8 .. onl »yrbaval daa¥ teow
adit yd Bree aaw gamed off « totoeltt .».H vatenD bos tema «2
~r9hod qmoivatogtos @ yvonT «ythaned Mas¥ foW o2A bas 4 voLLeonato
season oft ni beretno setesb & movi belseqge ove tenoett bus rotleaw
oe seals egelis ototeris inembneme bine ‘tabeLleme o to ILid eff
besgaveqroont torgal’ .2 doosl bra vedlewrotei «Vt alot tnants Leno 4
~bhiovs te seoqrag old tot .OROL .L8 sergws no mnkt mebgven semheeten .
Mose tails ;etotateqrooml edd to ¢taq ef? no ysilidalt fanouteg yak ;
bits agoniaud edt te imompygenem od mt solov Lape ae ovat ot ssw j
exit to aeusta COOL tered tdeete Yo eotatia to tedawa Leups na biod i
bemaas tetlowreled bas tnanksLymo ted? pose of bowaak aaw aoode 4
vioow 2 av@ to visise # woth tose bas eeontend edt to egtaro, monn /
~teadiaqos 8 as asontesd edd betoubmo eonoqusg Isoktoatg Ils sot & ton
eft gnibfod to ssoqruq eft rot ffede 5 ag aia shah ould sevonneda ; j
= Dit
property and avoiding personal liability; that the business was
successful, o& surplus was accumulated, and a laundry route of
considerable value was developed; that on Octoker 25, 1928, Wagner
desired to withdraw, and sold fifty shares of his stock to complain-
ant and a like amount to Beierwalter, for $5,000 for cach fifty
shares; that complainant and Beierwalter each paid $2,000 in cash
‘and executed and delivered to Wagmer a collateral note for %3,000,
payable $50 or more a month and interest, and each deposited the
certificate for his fifty shares as security for the payment of his
note; that it was agreed between complainant, Beierwalter and Wagner,
that funds of the corporation were to be used to pay the notes and,
to avoid legal objections, the board of directors, on November 2,
1928, inereased the salaries of complainant and Beierwalter to $100
a week to provide them with such funds; that to insure an equal voice
in the management of the business, complainant and Beierwalter entered
into a stock purchase agreement by the terms of which each should
deposit all of his stock with a designated cieaten oie should take
out insurance on his life payable to the trustee, the premiums to be
paid by the corporation; that upon the death of either the trustee
should transfer to the corporation so much of said stock as the pro-
ceeds of the insurance would purchase, at a price to be determined
according to the agreement, and pay the insurance to the estate of
the decedent; that the agreement should terminate upon the lapse of
the insurance policies and for other reasons therein stated; that the
agreement manifested the intention of the parties to insure an equal
voice in the business, and to the survivor the total ownership and
control, and te prevent the disposition of the interest of either
party without the consent of the other; that Beierwalter connived to
obtain control of the company and defraud complainant, and to that
end represented to complainant thet since Wagner had disposed of
asw aaotlaud ot tedt rysifidett Isnearog gnibtove bas YIroqorq
to etvor yubousl 8 bas .Setelumoos asw autqtua s ,lvteasoonrs
tongs <S8@L .éS redotoO no sad? thsqoLoveb aaw eulsv efdetabienoo
~ttinlqmes Si Hosserwad to aotorla ystit bLoe bas .werbathw ot beibasb
‘UPTIT dood c6T 900,88 to? ,rotLawreto® of frsome ett # bre. tne
flese mk 000,87 blieq doss te¢Lawrete® bra Printatqmdo Sedt {wererte
.000,6% xot ston Letedsfloo s teagaW of betovitod bas *beducexe bas
oat betieoqeh dose bums .teot9tmt bis sanom 4 tom 40 088 “Stdaysa
ad ‘to tremyesq off Ot Vs itgooa as seredté wht ‘elit ‘cot “gaoktitise
etemal ‘bn rod Lawre tot etnenialqmon pe Ag bowigs asw tk dads joton
aba geton ont yeq of boss os ot oxew nolsateqzoo eat ‘te aba sactt
4 Rae os % bs aa sy,
! is oe todmovoll m0 (eno Powtkh: to bsn0e on “yttotaoe to. Lage: year’
O0L$ of tedlLawteted bas Heciditidiiiiny tote eea soe" odd béuabeane® laser
| eolev anal ne etveni of tat shank Haus, Me te weet Re iteritint hid teow s
| betstne ebkkarestet bua tnantalgues eanontond ods ry tnemegenem edd of
i ss bkwede tose doida te ssrred odd yd shomootys sandotng/leéte s ofmt
ekat btvute ‘studs Suottoxt bedangies® @ fttw donde eit to Lied reoged
od o8 amulotq eft ,eodernd ont ot efdeyed otif all no esnetiant uo
eucdanis aut teitio te Atsed oft moa dat¥ {mo bdstoqton edd ‘ye biaq
mong ont las Yoota btea Yo sloum od abt stoqtos “ont Of réTamst?t “Biderte
bentertoteb od of asttq s $a pounterng Shiow soastsdat of} To abseo
to etates ent of oonetuant odd ysq baie “etrteme otaa: ont ot gnibtooss
‘to sugef edt moqu otentered bkaoda drensotad ong genld {onenesob ‘ortt
odd dads pbotads mkorert enoaaey seMlte rol his wolotfod ésommrdent ont
Laupo na erent ot ‘astsneqoone ‘ho moltnosak org betas tina vassiesngs
bas qitwremo Ladod sot sovivas ard od bus) deohtend Sty AY SUK
“noldte to Jaoredmt od Yo note teoqals ony titeverd ot bins YLoteNeD ? q
of bovinnod re¢Lewretem sail? {ueitto bud Ww ¥rsantob alte ‘Geos tw yet a
Pee OF Baw (Insite Lamoo bey NOH” bee seNByitO tite a te mM |
te bescgb th bail toMgaW vont’ Yactt thantoreHOE”oe 'S j
=fe
his stock he was not qualified to act as divector and that it
was necessary to elect another director; that Beierwalter suggested
that each transfer one shere of stock to Gustav He Fischer, a
prother-in-law of Beierwalter; that each would still have an equal
interest and voice in the business; that Fiseher would take the
stock without consideration, and would hold it in trust and act as
a dummy director; that complainant and Beierwalter would continue
to act as officers and managers of the corporation; that the two
shares were then transferred to Fischer and he was elected a dire
ector; that in furtherance of the scheme of Beierwalter and Fischer
to defraud lebih they, at an annual meeting of the board of
directors, defeated the election of complainant as president, and
elected Beierwalter president; that they thereupon informed com-
plainant that his services were no longer required end he would not
be permitted to draw a salary; that Beierwalter continued to use
the funds of the corporation in making payments oan his note to Wagner,
but refused to permit the corporation to supply complainent wi th
funds to make payments on his note; that as a result thereof com-
plainant was unable to make the payments due on his note to Wagner,
and the stock deposited as collateral security was offered for sale
and bid in by said Wagner; that Beierwalter refused to permit the
corporation to pay the insurance premiums on the life of complainant
and thereby caused the stock purchase agreement to be terminated;
that Beierwalter, Wagner and Fischer have conspired to obtain the
assets of the corporation by electing themselves officers and with-
drawing the assets under the guise of salaries, and ignoring complain-
ant, in violation of an agreement that Belerwalter, Wagner and cam-
plainant should at all times be employed by the corporation and should
each receive a like selary; thet Yagner has pretended under the guise
of a forfeiture that he is the omer of the fifty shares of stock
referred to, and intends to vote said steck in furtherance of the
ti desis, boe cosoorkh as toe ot dekitiero tom aew, od Loose als
~bosacgyna welewtelod tadt qrotoctth reitena Joale .o¢, yrseRe9en, saw
| & etetoe i'l +» vadea) of Moota Ie oage ono telanstt dose. tedd,
_ farig® ws eval iLita bisow ose jal} ¢apdfLowtelo® to. wel-mb-tedtotd.
oH} oat biwow ssdoahi dels ,eeontend ocd mk solov. bas paatedmk
aa dos bie gamid ui ti plod bisow bas .motiaxobtanoo suods iw toose,
senivnes pfsow isitawioleS base fusmistgaop tet (totsoths yamub
ond od} sods (noitstogzoo, ad} to agogenem has sxeottiea as tpa.et.
“tid 2 bedoelo aew od bus tedoaiT of boro Tenst? ned? oxen, setede,,
_yestoa tt oes setLewreied to omedog edt to gonetedtiut, Bt, tadt profes
% basod ost to gatigom fauene as 33 «Youd ,tosateslquoe byetieb od,
dns «taoblaetgq as iusutelgaoo 10 noiteete tt boten toh aemecenatt
7 “00 benrzo tat noquereds Youd said {eoobleorg redLewsetes bodoe:
tou bivow of bas betinpet topsel on e19W neolr sen. eid ante tassels
88H of Souniiaoo tetLewsoted, tot ayzsies «werd .od, betdimrog ed:
_stenge! of oten aid oo atucayeg aublem at neitezoqreo, edi, te,abavi ont)
i br teantsLomoe yicque ef apidexogzee edt tloreq od beayier dud,
ten © Yeoteds Jineet 6 as datd peten aid no etoomysg exam et absyt,
«reall o% ofon ef no exh atoemysd odd salam of ofdens sow deeniela,,
| efae x02 boxe0%0 usw yeitwoeR, SenedaLtoo, aa botteoged cose. ,esd dna:
(halt diartog Of beastie s rotLewnetod. told Axenpall dion xd wh hbd ban.
stanislosmo 40 SILL odd AP Rawimeng sonaruent eM) Nag of mtierogtos.
yeetaninad ad of Spompe tae ‘eaaslotsg Hooda ent beanao \dexedt bag.
_, Bat _ptstdo ot borigampo evar telomit bas Tom al. 9 edlawselel gag
nstd bw das axesiito sevyfoameds paidoeLe yd me iteroqiee, edt, Io ateass,
-sislqmoo gaizomi bus ,acitalsea to saieg edd robs asoanaodt. gaiwexh,....
“mo has Toma etedlswteioh tatd taomeetgs as, t0,Metteloty, mh etna.
biveds bne nokiategxoo of? Yd beyolame ed somis tie de bivoda, jnantalg,
| Saliy only tobay bobastorg eek xempall ted? iyxelas gull. evtoves slose,
Xoosa to nerede YtIt edt to tocwo ond Bt, oat ttt, oxut te s02. 8.29.
elt to sonstodsiuvt at xoota bilea atov of ebmedgai bus .os ‘berroter f
nt
By
i
HY
it
‘
aka
a
ohn
scheme above set forth; that Beierwalter, Wagner and Fischer
have entered into a conspiracy to sell the laundry routes owned
by the corporation to a competitor for a fictitious and inadequate
consideration under a secret agreement whereby Belerwalter would
obtain a substantial interest in said competitive business und out
of the proceeds of such sale Wagner would be paid whatever balance
may be due him for the stock which he agreed to sell to complainant
and BPeierwelter, leaving the corporation with nothing but property
heavily incumbered, without customers and without good will, and
thus render the shares of complainant worthless; that Vischer whould
be ordered to return to complainant and Beierwalter the two shares of
steck transferred to him; that since all payments made to Wagner for
the stock sold by him were made with funds of the corporation, that
stock, upon payment of the balance of the purchase price, should
become the property of the corporation; that by reason of the denial
of the right of complainant to receive compensation from the corpora-
tion, and the failure to pay from the funds of the business the bale
ance due to wagner, complainant has been deprived of his equal rights
in the Wagner stock; that out of the proceeds of the business Wager
should be paid, and all of said stock turned into the company as
treasury stocks; that Beierwaltez and Tischer have diverted large sums
of money from the corporation and converted the same to their ow use
in the form of salary and other withdrawals, and should be compelled
to account; that unless defendants are enjoined and unless a receiver
is appointed the defendants will transfer their stock to 2 pretended
innocent purchaser for value, who will vote the same in furtheranee
of the scheme of the defendants and the assets of the corporation
will be wasted and dissipated. The bill prays that Beierwalter
and 'ischer be ordered to account to the corporation and complainant;
that Fischer be directed to transfer the shares held by him to the
n ae
“ golloalt brs Yona pxesTewrelo® seas tatseot oon nese aaniinn
! benwo wotno+r Yrbnwel off [lea os Yoskkqanny & ohh bevedne: oved
| -steugetienk bee evo idivwkt « xo? sod iteqmes 2 et sm iteroqzoe: st. yd
pivow vet Lowtebe® yderode gnossetge tevece 2 tebur apit¢eseblens
tuo Sis stented ovid toques pies al Jaovedal Lsituad adue 2 aieddo
egtished “ered sw biag of bivow tongaW ¢Laa doe be ebeenotg edd to
fnskialameo of (feat badrye od doldw Roose ‘ot 20? mbt :auh seatica
_— ted gatdton Adiw aolistoqtos add yadveaL «tetiawzeted bas
has lfhy seo twos iw bas’ @tonoteuo isos dwt ( betedauoms \tiveod
b Leama ‘6 Mbe bC tadt Pete fs tOw’ Mattia lgitos Te tastada odd / webse tous
to aoxatle owt oft tedfewroiol bre vuaiielqmoo: od minion ot horebxo ed
mot renga of sbant atnomgoyy fie conte Hadi irk Os boTrs lene. foote
gait ~nolictogte of} to abit siviw oben oxew min’ ee biow wieota, esd
Bluede pooktg sssdo%tug ont 20 esitaLnd wnt Yo Juoaryng Hogy 429083
falneb edt to toase+ uh dsl? tnoldstodves wid’ Te Yroqene wit emmoed
Letogiés sdé mott Ho i#sitegioe Svéeed oF Pmenbatquon 1A-daigka adeno ;
~ind _ a ‘to ananrigentadaenenas ‘oemie? oidcimes mods :
SUNG
‘i
‘
Tommi suenkend” ‘ite Yo abosooty ods ‘to dee dads offtootao renga’, seta
ag Wmaquno9 ‘ont ofht bettud adode Bites theo gus ¥bdaq edibiueda :
amare are bodcovth ‘oval tofoulT tne Cop uwi@heh Gate Yoloote ytumcett —
ony mo ‘test od omsa oft bodtovion bik Wolkbetogros! ont wor yoxom to
box Leqmoo od biworie bas valowachith iv T5it¥o' Sew YeeLee? tolmxol oft ai i
toviseot s ‘dithet bn ‘Hoste tive ots ‘ethabie teb stolaiy Geile Gentooos of
bebnog org s ot Aeoda aboals soteniort Liiw ditnietae tot one bey miogge bo
ponaroiti xu? rad onse ont” tov “Lftw ‘ontw bicep praeeanssnes a7
Be i tedLawrotod s.sit3 ayant ‘Lid eat ” ainegiaadadl ne be ed's we
i tthamtalgae > bre noktavequea ‘etl OF dtuoose 0d berebto “8d “nedods i vs 7
eal of sci we baost aerate oald daecompate ot phenunkstiniounn re
.¥
bee oo FER ef rae ag ber voter, ,
no a10qx00 ‘ddd 20 Btoans ‘edt bra
=5e
complainant and Beierwalter; that Wagner be ordered to turn over
to the corporation all of his stock, subject to a lien upon the
same for the unpeid balance of the purchase price; that Beierwalter
and Tischer be enjoined from disposing of any part of the property
or business of the corporation, and frem holding any meetings for
the election of officers in which the stock in cmtroversy is voted,
and that a receiver be apuakatnds
Tne verified mswer of Beierwalter admits the incorporation
in August, 1926, with an authorized capital of $35,000 and the
issuance of 100 shares of stock each to him, to Wagner and to com-
plainant; alleges that the incorporation was had to protect the
assete of the company against the personal debts of complainant;
denies that the corporation was organized to avoid personal liability
on his part; denies that there ever was an agreement that the busi-
ness of the company would be conducted in any manner other than as a
corporation; denies that the affairs of the corporation were couduected
as a copartnership, and the corporation used as a shell; admits the
business was successful; admits that he and complainant each pur-
chased from Wagner fifty shares of his stock for {5,000; admits that
each paid $2,000 in cash om account aud that eachexecuted a collateral
note for the balance of $3,000 and deposited his fifty shares of stock
as cOllateral security; alleges that the said transactions were personal
and independent; that said notes were the individual liability of com-
Plainant and the defendant respectively, and that the corporation was
not a party thereto; denies that it was agreed that funds of the cor-
poration should be used to pay the notes; admits that the saleriesa of
complainant and the defendant were increased on November 2, 1928, from
$95 to $100 a week; alleges that at the same meeting, on account of
the fuverable condition of the company, a dividend of $3.50 a share
was declered; denies that the salaries were increased to provide funds
?
whe
t8vo ages of bers) ed tenga’ tadd trot iswielted bane desnielqmon
ait mogs moll s of tosidua elgote ais to La agbtexrsquas,edt od
tedLawsole€ tadd yootsg oandorsg edd © omeled bhequs edd mot omes
VWregorq oJ to J ueq. qe to yalasogelh mort banketas od tedoatT sas
t0% agtitdsom yas gaiptod mxi doa .nolsarogtom edd.to acentesd to
chatov. ai yaxevertooo si doote. ond dolsw ab axveoltto te aelitovfe ext
| sbetaioggs ef revissst « tent ome
aitenanemonne eit atimbe xresfawieled lo sowans boltiuvey. eT
ots bne 000.853 to fatiqse beatrodine oe ddtw yOReL 4sanguii wt
ome o¢ bas tome of ysis ot Maze Xoota to sevete 0OL to enhewaiel
eit toedoxzq of beri saw noltexeqsoon? ond tedd wogel le qvnantialy
iinantelques. to added Ispoeteg edd tenisga yeeqaoo eft To avones
| wilidsif ismoatesq bievs of baxinegze saw. nottetogtoo! offs datit ee tnob
mda oft told dromsers np sew tore ged tadd sednob Vtrey whet KO
8 @6 Halt tedio toniam yas at betovhnoo od bivew yasqmoo ont) Tooesen
betoubsgo stow soliszoqiog sd Yo etietTie sd todd asditoh qrpideregs10d
es stimbe jffede s.e6 Seas aoltexoqgros. ed? his. schilaxondinqoo sae
_ WHNG dose dnsubsiquos dus.od tad? gtimhs qistageoows eae enonbaud
sad ad jute 4000484 tot xooda eid to soseda ySTIT cemgeW moet bodes
Istetsiloo 8 Detuooxe dose Jats bon jowoogs mo Mase at 000,8¢ biaq sions ;
xo0f a to agree Yiit ais bedivogeh bis 000eé¢ to couslad edd wot stom .
Lonos94 ovow enoivosanast bisa est tals asgedis Wythe Letétation as
Baw "uote wxoqz00, etd itedt bua «ylovisssqaot sneneinals aid bas tnankelg 7
“too st to ebsut jars booms asw th tests aetsoh posorertt ‘etxen a dort j
to aetislea ond sand adimba jnotonm ert yaq od, boas od biverta cokteron
mott ~S8CL ~& tedmevell mo peasotont erew tnebseteb ord baie ¢nancaggnan
to tno 098 mo agaiveon ames ond te tatit eopolia: ileew a 00L¢ ot 208"
otsie s 0858 to brobivtb & eYengmos oct. to. nats theme: eldatovet tts
ebrust obtvong os boegonont, grow sotrafas. oid atid, eeteb sbonaLood 38 a
-6=
with which to pay Wagner; admits the « xecution of the stock pure
chase agreement with complainant and alleges that in April, 1930,
while complainant was president, the corporation allowed the life
insurance policies referred to in said agreement to lapse, thereby
terminating the agreement, and the stock deposited thereunder was
returned to the respective parties; denies that the agreement mani-
fested the intention of the parties to insure equal voice in the
management of the business; denies that he connived snd schemed to
cheat and defraud complainant; alleges that upon the sales of all of
his stock by Wagner, and his resignation Br ROTI it waa
necessary to elect a third director to fill the vacanoy; alleges
that on or about November 2) 1925, Fischer purchased one share of
steck from complainant and one share from Beierwalter, and paid $100
in cash for each share, amd was thereupon duly clected a director;
denies that Fischer was merely acting as a dummy director; denies
that he connived with Fischer at an annual meeting of the board of
directors to defeat the election of complainant as president; alleges
said election was held in a lewful manner, that compleinant failed
ef re-election because of his negligent and incompetent management
of the business during the previous yexr; alleges the result of the
election manifested the lawful intention of a majority of the direc-
tors, and that complainant was present, participated in the meeting,
made no protest or complaint, and signed the minutee of the meeting;
admits thet after May 18, 1931, complainant was net permitted to draw
@ Selary, because he had left the employ of the company; alleges that
for a considerable time prior to May, 1931, complainant had used in-
toxicating liquor to excess, and permitted, encouraged and jceined
With employees of the company in the use of intoxicating liquors in
and about the premises of the company during business hours; thet he
frequently absented himself from the office during business hours
«ag deota ald to noltioors ott’ ad tmba pcoigev Yad od “nteitw Ay bw
(—4O8CL eLktgA at gold eegefla bas tuettatemos Ad hy dnomeotis ‘Seals
SO@TLE oslf Dewolla Uohdotoqro0 ond tab Rote aw PRantatdmed oftiw
Ydowmas 4 saqel ot Iiemeome btae nt of Howie tet solo tied wonetatt
aww sebaveteri) betinogeh oodn arf? Sue drocooms odd gritenthnse?
wwknant tradtesrg{h odd Jans ooteiod qoetitsq evivooyaot ade oy “bortn ded
out ai colev Lespo otent o¢ ne ltese eat io no Finddnt ort bat aot
ote Bowedoae ses’ BSevlsaog otf dad} acineh vaecentasc off Yo sromsyanem
to {fs to éfce ond mot dadd voyelia’ ; seine iqad eo” aedt ton Sie Peetts
ae taf eee ee ‘pobtatkaieet etd Bus (tO mg atl yd “adoda eit
| aeyelie gyémeoav od? CL) t of “coset Ee Mba W tooLd of Yiddtosed
Yo letade ono owntouy todoatt 88ers todmovel Faodd “xo nd Faae
| shit lle bas (redlewteled move sara ono Sms dant étqmeo ‘not? stooFe
Ptosostlh a vetoode Uhs> moquersdd caw bate etd Hone oR Hass mt
© aginel prodoottd yamud 2 ee geites qhetem vow teifoelt torte wo ted’ j
Re btwod odd Yo gitttoom Lawsitis Te te ‘renfsalt ded pevtdne’s “eit Vat? !
| : eogeitte ‘gduebdeetq as dnentiafqmos “to stobboots off teotob oF axotoorty
“ betlet tnentsiqmo tert ¢renint Evlwet 2 at bien aati notfools bine
| SHomepanam drstega ont bas taegiiner wit te Savsdéd no LFeeTe o4 toe’
(opie to Miveor end aegelin grey audivery ond ‘gnttys Heenan Sats
“sporkb oN} Yo vdivotam-s Io nottmeda? Orteel off posne tina sro6rs
( (grehtoom oft nb boteytotirsy .tuorstq esw dine letyno Galt’ bine (Wey
“ penddoom ond Yo vetunisr ond bompite bate tntelemos to Fesxorg OH OeKiE
Wath 6F bettimreq dom aay tankalames ~Le0L vet “alt r9i'te panty wate
dni ewgolin tmeqmoo edt Yo yoldme odd dtef bait ee haved
“tt boa bod toentatgioos (Leer gant od okey omts’ ofaetob tes
bento, bis begsitveors (hedd titreg” bak | enthddienitid yaks
st avoupit gattimolxodnt YH oad only off Yousttmo’
ont tant 4 ih eh lt! 0
-Yo
in a search for intoxicating liquor and on other private missions3
that he deworalized the employees and proucht the name of the coan-
pany into bad repute; used the funds of the company for his private
needs} was at wll times short in his accounts and at the time he left
the employ of the company was short $40, which has never heen repaid;
alleges that the constant complaint of the defendant about the above
conditions caused complainant to leave the employ of the company, on
or about May 18, 1931, veluntarily delivering up his keys, and failing
thereafter to report for duty but finding employment elsewhere; admits
that after complainant left the employ of the company the defendant
refused to permit the corporation to supply him with funds for any
purpose, since he had rendered no service therefor; denies that the
defendant used funds of the corporation in making peynents on his note
to Wagner; denies that the defendant or the corporation Wag respon-
sible for the failure of complainant te make payments on his note to
Wagner; denies that defendant refused to permit the corporation to
pay certain insurance premiums as provided in the stoek purchase agree-
ment abvove wentioned, and alleges that said insurance was allowed to
lapse by the voluntary act of the corporation in April, 1930, while
Gomplainant was president thereof; denies that the defendant schemed
to obtain the assets of the company by withdrawing them as salaries;
denies that there ever was an agreement thet complainant, Wagner, end
the defendant, should at all times be employed by the company and re-
eeive like salaries; alleges that the annual meeting of stockholders
and directors for the year 1932 was held on Februsry 16, 1932, pur-
suant to written notice to each stockholder, that at said meeting
Wagner, Fischer and the defendant were duly elected directors, the
defendant was re-elected president, and Fischer was elected secretary
and treasurer; that the salary of the defendant in 1931 was fixed
at $65 a week and was fixed for the same amount for the year 19325
tanolania etsving tonto. mo bus toupliogni¢solxotnt sot détese «at
-moo efi To omen odd tdguotd bas aseyelquo ont Ses lfswomebh en tants
etavirg ain sot Yegmen ext to abet odd Soew taduqex bad odnto meg
Pel ebomi? an? te baa admmoce ate xt rors aemkd Laide ea geben
thisqet nesd coven esti doidw .Gh) grote saw yreqmon add ‘to yYoLque-edt
evyoda oft twods tnsbnetoh eft to teialames dasdcnen edt Jads eogelia
NO e¥maqhioo edt to yolqme ead evcel of trentelgmo beansd andidtbaod
ae titeY ‘bie payed oh qe eniréviteh viiveteyioy .Lé@L .SL yal guoda ite
‘ag birbe patoiweete dmoargo- Lame garbnt?t tud yieh sot drogen: oF ted taoteds
dnsbns tob ond yreqnod ‘ost Yo voLyms oMd Piel snsntalquog tedte tact
wie tot eben? attiv min yicown ov aokiaregxes’ ealt: dimreq ot Doawkot
ont sat? asked protervondy esives e of borebmet: bast od somite soeoquag
eten elt to ednomyeq gihiom mt no btetoqres exis to sbast beer sosbneteb
“nec eet sew” notiatoqiob oft to trebso teh eds: gadd aolaeh yrengel ot
og S¢on elif ne atnomysy ode et dkentsLquos to oTmiisl elt tol. oLdie
ot nottereqtos of3 disrse oF bouw'iex tmobustob tadt eetacd asongaw
-setge eastotny Loose odd at bebivety as smvimew, cometyant nisdt90 Ys
ot hewelle asw eoheuenkt bine tact eegelis bee ¢honodt mem eyods tues :
oftiw .OS0L Lieqa nt notietoqtes sft to tos yratmuLov etd yd eeqet 4
femedoa sisbioted eg teil? zotned ptootadt enobinerq saw. daenheLaugo
qeebreLan ag mod gatworhelt br yd ynetwon eft to adoned edd adeddo, od
bed ytongeW _dnettslqmoo tale sromeexga ne aaw rove vetantd dadt. aodaeb
~ot bin Yueqmoo ont we boyolque af seat? Lo to ALveda .«iabasted oat
grebforieote Yo githtoom Launne ale dant wegella teelralea efil a
“age gBERL ~dL Yuwie no bind cow SECL taey od tot, arotessth bas |
gattoom bise te tant .rehLoddoota dose ot eokion nods huw ot eogue 4
edd ,aretootib betesle yinh anew taebmoteb. edd bas, s9foatt renga :
Yusorose bogeste ssw ruses lT bre «tnsbleese bosselenor. seu tagbae ted :
© exit aaw L2@f nt dmabasted edd to ytaloe old tant prorsesott 6 :
ISE0L sAOY ele xO% Sawons emse oH xOT boxtt sow bua Xeon a 206th
=Bn
that Fischer has at no time been paid a salary and is not now ree
eciving a sslary; that Weener has not since he resigned as presi-
dent in 1928 received any salary or other moneys from the company};
denies that the defendant diverted any moneys from the corporation
ang converted same to his own uses; alleges that he personally loaned
the company *890 in 1939, while complainant was president, and %999
in 1931, neither of which sums has been repaid; alleges that it was
at all times understood and eacreed that no salery or other compensa-
tion should be paid to anyone except for services reridereds; denies
that he hes or ever had a plan to sell the laundry route of the
corporation to a competitor es alleged in the bill of complaint;
denies that Fischer should return to complainant and the defendant
the shares of stock held by him, as he is the owner of the stock,
having paid compleinant and the defendant $100 in cash for each
share; denies that payments to Wagner on account of the purchase of
his stock were made with funds of the corporation; denies that the
company has any right, title or interest in said stock; denies that
the corporation or its officers and directors had or have any authority
to complete any payments to Wagner on the purehase price of said gteck;
denies that unless a receiver is appointed for the corporation he will
transfer his stock to a pretended innocent purchaser who will vote
the stock in furtherance of a plan to waste and dinstpate the assets;
alleges that complainant has repeatedly attempted to induce the defend-
ant to purchase complainant's stock at an excessive and exorbitant
figure, and threatened to institute bankruptcy and other legal pro-
ceedings against the company when his offer to sell had been refused 5
alleges that complainant was present and participated in all annual
and special meetings of stockholders and directors of the company from
its incorporation to and ineluding the annual meetings held in February,
1931, and approved and signed the minutes of all seid meetings without
a
mon won don ah bas Ytelaa s blag aved, omtt on je sect toptoett past
<ivety es beagiae ef eamka dor eal tema” dart yyteles @ grivteo
“Pynagqmoe end soxt aysnom xoddo 10 Yrelee Yas bovionet SCL wt seb
/ Bokherogres elt work eyorem yns betrevih taebee toh elt tant setaeb
| bansel ywikenoareg ed ted? eepefie reaw nwo eld ot emp betzevnon bas
-008C fan .wztrobisetq opw tasniaiqewn elite ,0&OL mt 0OBS ynaqmop, emt
«tan th aecd sogotle thiegen oped esr amve, dotdw to, sed tor... LEQL st
yo meenegmeo tects 20 Yielee et taky boetze bas booterobry omli..fia $a
ye -Selned abortebaey atolviee sot dqsexe eapyng, 0% bteq of bLnode, note
batt 20, stuns, Yubomst eft Lien od, neta, a bed, reve. m0, ead) ont tacts
| sineitde exe been. temekalguan st ELE OE prechageneenri heiantine
sipode pd to Tonwo ot eon 26 amid xo blow, sloode. 20, nemada og
floge toi sass Of OOL) dashaoteb ond dae tnantelamo blag. gectvad
to, susdouwg odd, to daboons mo ieee oF atnesyaq galt eelneb renara
edt sade aotnes yooiparogies edt to abut Adin ebam exow, Aoota, asst
#adt aetnob jiocsa oiac mi daoredah to oltidt. .tdals, yas sed yoaqmep —
Ye izedins yas eves, to deel axetoonkh dae exeotiio ast x0 mottereqzes edt
— vloate bise to ocottg ovaslotwg odd oo tome! of atnomyeg yas otelamon o¢ 4
iflw ef noitsieqios old toh bsdaioggs ak tevicost « aselom tadt aeined {
. Mey LLbr ok: Ene: jneconnt bebuctexq @ ot doote aid to tanend :
imdones odd ofagteath bao etaex of mais a Yo eonazeddau? mt teeta edd
Ramin 0th, adh Pt ‘Rahamnd te ufaiemnene: tek Aevemshatacnt: todd sogoltes
tagdidxoxne bas sviagooxe as. te fooda altasntalasm 0, MAAR: OF BOM :
TOG Sagol tomto, hus, xotguuntaad eduatiant, oF; negiaieneomatined
iboawtox need bal {Low ed sort ald oectw yoeguao edt tankeas annkbees
mori Yusgsco es) to, BIOs :etLb: hem, Sten Sonloasa..20, apatioom Lebanese, :
‘Utnurdal at bled: egaivoom, Leune, odd, gutbukent dae saiiniabioniaae rate
tuotig iw. epetseom:btop, La. 20. sata cet Somme A ME al
|
|
1
Gan
protest or complaint; denies that the defendant nas conspired to
eheat or defraud complainant or the corporation; and denies that
complainant is entitled to an accounting or ony other velief.
The material part of the verificd answer of defendant Wagner
states that complainant failed to pay $56.25 that was due October 25,
1931, on his note for $3,000, and that after due notice to cumplaine
ant, as provided in the note, the fifty shares of stock deposited as
collateral were sold at public sale to the defendant as the best
pidder therefor, but that the defendant is willing to sell and de-
liver the said fifty shares of stock to complainant upon the payment
by complainant of the balance due on his note, together with interest
and also the costs and expenses of the defendant in and sbout the
Sale of the stock. The verified answer of defendant art wet Wash
Laundry, Inc. follows substantially the answer of Beierwalter. The
verified answer of defendant Fischer alleges that he was and is the
bona fide owner of two shares of stock for which he paid $100 a
share in cashs denies that he was to hold the stock for the benefit
of complainant end Beierwalter and that he was to act as a dummy
director; admits that he was elected a director on November 2,5 1928,
and denies that he was a perty to the conspiracy alleged in the bill.
The decree finds thet in erder to obtain control of the
business and to cheat end defraud complainant, defendant Beierwalter
conspired with his brother-in-law, Fischer, and at the annual ee
of directors on February 12, 1931, combined their votes and defcated
complainant as e candidate for president and elected Beierwalter w
that positions that on Mey 18, 1931, Beierwalter discharged complain=
ent without cause and thereafter refused to allow him to draw his
Salary and refused to permit defendant art Wet Wash Laudry, Inc.
to mepyy complainant with salary funds with which to make further
payments on the note given by complainant to Wagner for the fifty
shares of stock; that the instellments on the $3,000 note executed
ie bsriqems ead gusbnetes ‘wat igi? ‘aoined (satelqiod 46” geoderg
ee imo isnxegtos Si) co tasatelgaoo bust'teb to ¢serto
stetioxr refto yas vo guttnsoses He of bots tno et eilemempennel
-SenyeW Piteneted Ye vowans boktitov ont “to fisq Inte
488 LedosDO sub enw dacs BS.90H ynq OF ‘hofkeT smonbeltwos Fly aReTe
enielqax:d od sottan ent odie gad? Bris eee 70% ston alet no Leer
an bediaegel foods to aosates YsIrt od Vodon odd at Seb Evory ws ents
avd edd ao tambuotod ould of ofka GLIdiny #3 biod Sted Lares atte’d
web bus Lise od gaiftiw at taabrotss ody sadd stud /xototedd tobbld
-— gmesnphig ocd Hogar snmattetqmbd of woot Yo bodadaystEt bted sad weet
gaovsdat tiv tedtaged poten aid ao swb Sonklad eit 26 Iisits Lemos Yd
gat Yyeds bas wl sanbasteb ond to woaregee “hie adeou off cals “Bits
das fot ¢24 tosbiee tes ‘to cewans beitirey ‘ont ‘iteded edd "6 “ened
on? .todiawreled to sswens ad YLaltietedua awolfo® voht ogehauad
ont i bus caw ef daft sopetfn toMoalt sasbsetes to tewades "bo ttisey :
— @ OOLP bing sat ito uy cot Adeda “to ‘netade ows Ro"xsHWS BHT ands j
$Pioued od rol Mote ssl? pkoit oF vow of dade Gokned “titess nt eteita
Yumars a a tod oF aow ot dans bite td tawte ted bite Pmettatendo’ ts
“0her «8 teduovoll me totoorth = bedoete aaw od Paay adkins {xoreOntS
“\thte etd mi bogelfs Yootiqumo ond of yitaq a dow edt dade weins ba
edt to Lortnos mtetds of tebco aE tail} ebintt Sbz560 air” OOo q
xetiowre ted }nosneteb yInattatqmoo brettes baa gaads oF bas atontand 4
‘gauit oon Kewaing off te bad . redoatd .wal f aid is tw sonhgadon
bedaoteb ins vedo thet Rontdmio «£60r St YHaeren Ro dkoreeTED TO
@ totLewseto€ betoots bis drebkeste «ot edabtbnac’s as rams
mrike Lqmo 2 begtatce kh tod Lawrotet eLSQE (SL Gell no Sats PaoOTs taog” eld
eit word Of cit welts of bedwiet Tee tostedd his omy" suo tw die
sont : oebibendk daey gow 9A trubae tod rane se clanciaon tal 2
gostoust ottenr oF fo tlw a¥ftw ebay? Yeatew ds be’ tnontatqnon viaats ot
“UPTET oMt ot ctengail of tharttetams ye novig atom enty wens ne a
besvooxs stom 000.62 end mo atmomiIodgant oa? tartt iiloeta to :
iG
py Belerwalter were paid monthly, uatil the note was paid in fuld
and thet the said installments so paid “was salary money taken
end used from the business of" said corporation; thet the installe
ment payments on the note for 23,900 executed by complainant te
Warner were paid each month from his salary by complainont, commencing
Hovember 23, 1925, up to and including November 13, 1931, at which
time there was an unpaid balence of %1,159 due on the principal of
the note; thet the said pavments on the note during said period were
made from funds received as sslary from the corporation, but after
May 17, 1931, when Beierwalter discherged complainant, Beierwalter,
as president of the corporation, continued the payments until Setober
13, 1931, at which time he failed and refused to use the fmds of
the corporation to complete the payments on complainant's note, and
as a result thereof Wagner notified complainant that he intended to
forfeit the fifty shares of stock pledged as collateral security on
complainant's note; that complainant received no moneys or other
consideration for the delivery of the one share of stock to defendant
Fischer and that said shsre should be deemed in law to be held in
trust for complainants; that Fischer acauired by fraud the right te
vote the share of stock at the meeting of Pebruary 6, 1931, and that
his vote cast at said meeting was a freudulent action, and null and
void; that Beierwalter was not legally elected as president and had
no authority to discharge complainant, and that complainant, on
February 12, 1931, and sinee, was and is the president of the corpor-
ation and entitled to the same salary as he then was allowed, and to
such prefits as his stock owmership entitles him; that since the
discharge of complainant, Beierwalter has assumed complete charge and
control of the management and finances of the defendant corporation
and has not sinee March, 1933, deposited any of its funds in any bank
account and has not rendered any account to complainant since the
“Us
iiw? il Btaq asw ston oft Lktny «yidemom htaq OW tat Lewtetad ed
noted Venom wakes | new" biag os atmomi fet ast Sse | ont decdt lll
~ifesant onts tals tnolseregrioe § § sea Se ssentend edt mort beaw bee
| 38 snaatstquo yd botsoexe Wa SB tat a4 on and, a9 ainomysq trem
“wutonoran steankslemes WE uteies eit mort Ataom soeo. died etew tenga
fake ts heer e8L ‘redwey oli gukbelont bas of qu s8S@L .€8 tedmevoll
to Loator oes ete no orb OBL, ff to sonntad bigqeur. HB, BOW, oxent ontd
iy betzog bise patauh eton ed mo atmomyed, bing ont add Jeter, ott
sod te tue asin sroqtoe oft mont vratee as bevtooes obi moet t sham.
sted Lawre ted tmentn lame popradtoe th xo$ Lazo tof ose pftee.. 3
Pa ated
ps zodoto? L190 ad nearce exit. post noo qnotdaxorsoo, pat | to » srabtneng.- ah, a
Yo. ebaet ott ey oF nouurtex bows belie? of emis rotiw ta «Leer SL |
aysd. off etelqmen of nottezogios eng,
o¢ bebnodat edt tact sneptetomee hexagon tengew Jopteds tissex 5 Aah
4 awe. eA
nO vttsuose Lerotastos 28 begbelg tooge PJ sorede MPtty odds ive #92 rah,
onto, =O ayenem On i sl Aneiscamee, vag Ante: igianvbnerrong
diab ie 209 ot 0 90 to ovcasls one Bad to Jreytget, on rot Lo i ne tite stehlanss. i
Me REE
ah Died od ot wat ak peneod e hiuoste erode biea fade dup. xaston ki, :
ot ify ont buext et hexane wetnn IX tent eee Lame. | Tok seurt, F
tant’ pre Meer 2 Nnewrdot to atid een ben #s septa * exsila et etoy, ;
“Pa Fa bus. cn Ito dnoLubuont 8 aew aaktoom, bisa te faa etov atd j
bait bas inobteong an bodoete yLlonot ton asw Scape doyle biov,
0 « trenkeLomoo Soste bas “sinaniaggmes © sazadoath 9 of xtt stun om, “
“10g T00 onl 20 tnebtoora, ond at ba new, scone baa, ca Mgt Fy: sxds i,
ot bas showolte Baw neki’ ont cd 6 Waales onus ous od ot Ps of oltiine, bas. a, 7
ott somke daslt ims nets ime bes Badta74
9 ss a OE
ee
bee sot08 eNdmnst ofan 9, fo ad nerysc
be oa mito etefumoo bemreas nod xo9Lawxo tes stosa
NE Sk
okt sz0qx00 daabneteb ¢ outs te “oonant? brs
& we @
dundee at baw 942 Yo we bod taog ae sear ae
outs sonia | taantotaue9 og trucos *
, ; o we ahah Snuadekas Baan
PG OM ay ae aie atonat Lebo ‘eat tel tives Races
-llLe
latter's discharge, and it is therefore ordered that Beierwaiter
and the corporation shali account to complainant for all moneys
collectec Situnctus to the corporation since February 12, 1951; |
it is also ordered that Pischer deliver up the certificate for two
shares of stock end that the oificers ot the corporation are author-
ized end directed to comcel the certificate and to issue in lieu
thereof a new certificate for ome share of stock to complainant and
ene share cf stock at the direction of defendant Beierwalters; that
Beierwalter cease to act as president of the defendant corporation,
and the court finds that complainant is still the presiden$ of the
eorporation until his suecessor shall have been elected and assumes
office: 1% is also ordered that all of the shares of stock purchased
by complainant from Wagner be held te be the property of complaine
ant, “except for the sum of £1,150 owing on same to Wagner;" that
the court retains jurisdiction of the matter for the purpose of
seeuring a proper, just and true account from defendants Beierwalter
and Art Wet Wazsh Laundry, Ine. covering the operation of the corpor-
ation since Pebrucary 12, 1931; that the cause is referred to Ninian
Hs. Welch te take the account and repert the sama to the courte
Defendants, appellants, contends
"1. That the decree is cotrary to equity and the law and
to the manifest weight of the evidence.
"2. That the decree is errmeous in that it directs Gustav
H. Fischer to return the two shares of stock purchased by him, and
finds that he obtained the same fraudulently.
"3. ‘That the decree is erroneous in that it directs that
John J. Beierwalter cease to act as president and declares that
John H. Artibey is still the president until the next regular meeting
and until his suecsessor shall have been elected and shall have
assumed office.
"4. That the decree is errmeous in that it orders that oll
Shares of stock purchased by Artibey from Jacob ©. Yagner, be held
to be the property of the complainant, except for the sum of $1,150
owing on same to Wagnere
"5. That the decree is erroneous in thst it includes find-
ings of fact and decrees relief not based om the allegations con-
tained in the bill of complaint or in the prayer for relief and not
Supported by the evidence.*
wpe
Totiowretod tens berebte exotetedy af ¢k bas eoytatton Pb a reddet
aysnom {le cot thentatyms od Jiosos sels no tiwxoqoo uth Hime
' {L20L SL YxawedsT sone Moisvaroques oid of fig ath HatooLlros
ow Ot efaoltidxen ony qu tovide todoalt Yodd béteded Outs Jf
wtoHsue ets molyetoqio smd ‘to axesstio oly dads bi Xoove YW) wotede
Bebt nt aueak of bee Seeortii tes ens Loose ox betootth Bins best
brs Smenislqmoy of doode Yo erase ono “ok ofeol Ties won e toot ert
“dadd pwetLawieiel isabihie Ya" to nolsosxts edt te doota “to oticela Sato
ehOLtstoqtos dnabasted eft to gaobiaerg ua don of cased rod towre lee
‘eit Yo tnobiaotg eng [Lida et tieniclymoo dadd abiltt yxvoo oft bite
gemean bis botvele aged even Llorie toezooome alt Lidaw Koktatoqros |
beastottg Xoota to cotete oft to Lia vend horepyo oeta ot #2 yoo rte
~nislgioo to Yxoqontg oft od OF blo od comme motY tannbarquoo ya
gate “yremaW od ese mo gnitwo OL” te wave oft tod strooxe” ‘, tee
Yo eaoquug ed tol testam ond Yd Helfolbaiewh antegoc dawed bets
retlewreiell admabsc?ed mor? Snwovsd oxy bee tant, exdqeta # wribiite
““Atogreo eit to nolgaredo on yakroveo seal .ytbktal tee dew 9ek ina
neknill 62 bexretes at oaweo’ af} sand pLe@L or yxhwrdet obate notte
‘dues ond 0d compe Sid Htbqo¥ bre trteoon eitt eset o¢ toLel ii
‘$bitetiwe .atnst leeds hesiasinenih it BOY
“bim wal ef} bas ydinps of Yraas hoo bs et ‘ gheee’ ogee ov ake
pen es edt ‘To ‘Si deotinan, od .2¢ oy
vata atootib ti teslt at aueowe ese ¥t a facil +s" r
baa. yd cams wedtvea ke one pote a et of comoalt x
ion oem omee oatd oman tet wa A igi aback
‘ a 10h ty
tatlt atostib ot jet mk awoenorre nt evened ont ‘past “eM
gad? vorsfosh bes tnebiverg ea dow of onsod. tet Lawrete® stodet
gitivoom tafinget xen edt Litas dnebleeuq amd Ifise ei yedists oh sufol
evan Lfata tos betools need event Eflada: tossesssm aid Litem bas.
soot Tto oor
Sie tess axehus #2 auld at auceme pue ob wengsh it ing i
bien od, renga’ sh: door mot core a) sesate .
O8L. £4 20 mwa wats tot ee —,- sft to yereqor colt o
1. £00 steepet.et omes, He TO
-bait webslork tk tect wake avoanorre al ese% sm 3 ae
-mp enolsdcgetisa eft so or vom dotker "zeosooh an iL, :
bus ‘teifex tol reystq edd x0 tnisigmoo be
he ar *, eoneb ive oat we adios
-1]2-=
After a careful exeminstion of the record we are of
the opinion that justice will be best served by a retrial of
thia cause. From the commencement of the hearing until the
gourt had indicated his conclusions at the end of the evidence,
but ninety minutes had elapsed. Bither the attorneys for both
aides were unprepared to properly present the evidence bearing
upon the material questions of fact in the cause, or they failed
to properly present the proof. The scope of the alleged conspiracy
clearly appears from the pleadings, yet, the entire testimony of
complainant is covered in twe and one-half pages of the abstract,
the testimony of defendant Beierwalter covers but one and one-half
pages, defendant Fischer's testimony takes up a like part of the
abstract, and the evyidenee of defendant Wagner covers less than a
page of the abstracte
We de not think that it would be equitable to the parties
for us to attempt to pass upon the merits of this cause, upen the
evidence introduced e |
fhe decree of the Circuit sourt of Cook county is reversed,
and the cause is remanded fer a new trial.
DECRHOS REVERSED, AND CAUSE
REMANDED POR A NEW TRIAL.
Sullivan, P. Jes and Friend, J.. concurs
te ors ow brosee sft to note animesd Grtexes @ vegeta oOo 0!
‘Me istvter 2 yd bovess Sass od ILiw eoltent tedt nolntgs! ole
end Elsruriguidnodt ast ‘To jnomeomemmoy oft moth <oduas aicid
‘_eonebive edt Jo bite edd do enolasionos eid betaothat bai suton!
Sod 40% oyworotds oft xoteiM sboayala bal votuntm ytente gut.
gmiised eonohive aid tuoaoeg YLregoTE of DoXBGeuQm OTeW Edbte’
bette? yort co .eamad off mi dost to nnobtassy Latredtem edd nour
Yestigancy beyelle old te sqoor off »toory of tmeaenqg YLreqese od
to vnontiteot ovidine oF , toy eugnibecty ont: mort ecasqqe “freely
q$oottads odt Yo eogse Mindi~ono hae ows wt boxevoo ef Poontelgaive
Mati~ono bas ono sud uxoveo rod Lawistod tmabastod YW yuombyest ete
“ef Ye Prag ofiL & GH aetey Womtiesd aT 4aifoelt Snabas feb oe ae
Bitadld aeol e.6v09 ‘texgil neuaneens YW ookebivs ont bas arse
an Lexa ity: od OLdas inva oe bie we tails ket sant ibebii eb Wie
~setfdrmegs »seneo eis fe secon a oq wea og scans 08 rae
chonreye.t ad ¢oaioo albod. te, suse shtrtehd® onli Normeroew oes kia
«faint wen s tot hobrumumet af sas ntianesl o
lh | pen me a bake + Bier aie of
©. gman + «i eft baw wok + itary BLEUe i’
: ait tetas of venohkt. Cae
ay AEE WE ap ‘ BEE oy oe or Filan ej aha +t
weet 8 our ee 3% ae wt 8 ieee a Se IES tai eat sie a
rx Pie P| YER ne Ne ea ae Re ng Laie hae % a we
wut re thygon dame ode Live tesdoemg ete Li ide Gh eRe « rst
eR Ce eae fi RT wn cane ae emia ain tite, beta.
Ee marr
dine RE Po ara f i 7 SO satin Tae 22 oe Re 4 sits ox ty y's ; Pt
BGS wes eR Cu RM RA a oP) ae om | non eachin SaE ROG: FO | aesnae
Hel f2 to mye ads wok sees hocouey hatynas att: he Sere te ons a.
«ROU em OE OR HG, D,
oDeRY ehdatokl th taht oh ereemer te al Ssegeeh:, Hay sath) ‘48
wig. BROT wai E Oe GOL: Re AS a foliose. eet aa, fae tous. »
Pine ae xi aa Peto deep ho CER waa, :
7 Megatron ail et baa coy
39169
JAMES Pe WALSH,
)
Appellant, | APPRAL PRG SUPERIOR couRT
Ve | OF COOK coUliTrY.
MARIN E. WALSH y So +
, F Appell eee j 2 9 0 L.A. VU Q 3
MR. JUSTICE SCANLAN DSLIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
James P. Walsh, plaintiff and cross-defendant (herein-
after called appellant), appeals from a decretal order entered
in a divorcee proceeding»
Appellant filed his complaint for divoree, in which he
charges Mary MH. Walsh, defendant and cross-plaintiff (hereinafter
called appellee), with adultery, cruelty and desertion, and with
the procuring of deeds to his property through fraud and without
good or valuable cmsideratione Appellant prayed for a divoree,
for the rescission and cancellation of the deeds, for an injunction
to restrain appellee from disposing of or incumbering the real
estate, and for the appointment of a receiver. In the answer of
appellee she denies the allegations as to desertion, cruelty and
adultery, and alleges that the consideration for the transfer of
appellant's property to her end appellant in joint tenancy was
love and affection. Appellee filed a “Cross-Complaint for Separate
Usintenance and Accounting," in which she alleges that appellant
had been guilty of extreme cruelty and hed absented himself fran
appellee, leaving her destitute and without means with which te
support herself or to pay the expenses of the household; that she
and = pellant are the owners, as joint tenants, of their home and
}
“600 shel 0eS-
pe * hy | Nig |
5 ge et
eoree
( HQLAW 6% SEMAT
"AUOD SOTSEWE MOY TARGA tr bb cee
sYTHUOD BOOO. WO es Papier: dis Ge eae, RR RR
“ QHOIA 6 MEAN
Mas Autre Woe
oe ee
: “se0.foags |
sTHUOS THT WO WOTWISG aut cunEV Iam WATHACS LOLVEUL: 4st:
wntexert) jnsbudteb-saove bas Titiatale «etal & aout pss
“botesne tobi Lesezosh 3 sot hercomoea af tusfleqqa pet ‘a
oS Saatkboon0 2g orxdvib 8 ak
ent doldw mt eeotovkh rot saisiqmos aid befit ‘taaltoggh > RARE
fed tanto val) titintelq-aacto Bie daabnoted ~Halew ve vrei couznte
‘itd bw bits ‘emo tdxéas b bia Yteittes eetodivbs Heb ¢(cetlequa bo tse
évoniiw bus fustt sgwotds idee aii od shoeb to aabwoorg ‘ot
‘ foowvlh s tot beyarq taalleqga «ito Ltaxeh beim o ‘oheawkaw 20 igri!
mold onmiat me tot .aboob dy ‘to 6 btalfoomss bres “me bau loaox ond 0%
Laer oft gnixzedmsoni to 19 yataoqals mort eelfeqqs atstdaet o¢
‘to towans off al .tevieoor a to stnominioggs ed tot bra ,otatae a
bis yLleuxo ~moltteaeb of aa smoitagelio eft eeined eda. veilegqs |
to xetenart edd tot ool¢stebtamos off tant aogells bas yyxetinubs
saw Yonanes imtot ut gusilegqe bos ton o¢ ytuxeqotq eltnalfoggs a
sistages tot grtalqued-eeotd” « belt eelfeqqA .nmolteetis bua evol
tnelloqas tantt sepetfs ofa doltw mt ".gmismoooA bas oonenetntal ‘a
moxt tLoamid betaeads hed bus ydforss emetéxe to yiLiny meed bed
ot Aolfw stiw ensem tuodsiw baa eduviteob ron gaivest ,oelleqs
ela jad jbLodoesod elf Yo aeamegxe edd Yeq of TO Leered ¢roqquea
hus omos thedt to ,atmaned stato es «atenwo ont oun: imbione ie
“B=
of an undivided two-thirds interest in the premises known as
4432-4436 West Madison street, Chicago; that appellant was
committed to the Hlgin State Hospital for treatment, and later
through her efforts, was paroled to her} that through her care
and nursing he has recovered mentally and physically, and that
he caused the properties to be conveyed to himself and her as
joint tenants to show his appreciatien of the tender eare and
nursing she gave him during his illmess$ that she is a beauty
operator and conducts a beauty shop in Chicago; that she has been
compelled to purchase necessary equipment and has become indebted
for the same in the sum of $594, and she asks for an order requiring
appellant to pay for the ssid equipment in order that she may con-
tinue in such beauty business and so partially support herself. She
prays that an order be entered directing appellant to pay to appellee
"such sum or sums of money, and at such times as shall to Your Honors
seem meet, for her support;" “that an account may be taken cf all
moneys due or owing each to the other of the parties hereto; that
en account be taken as to the ownership of the Ford Automobile
herein mentioned, and upon a proper hearing that the same may be
awarded to this cross-plaintiff; that a proper and just division of
all property, real and personal, may be made between the parties."
in appeliant's answer he denies the charges of cruelty and desertion,
and denies that appellee is entitled +o support from him or to any
of che relief prayed fore
4n order was entered that the complaint and the cross-cam-
plaiat be heard at the seme times
After the trial court had heard evidence bearing upon the
complaint and the eross~complaint, he entered the following decrees
ns
an nworn eee Leone ont mt ¢eetetml abtidtt-ow? bebivthbny os to
few taskLeqge ome foxeolly doonta 110.8 Lh st ne¥ BELA~KEHS
tedad hate deromd sexd ee fet bqnett esata mint ott oF ‘beds immo
etao tom suvotdt Jerid aiat oF befoteq aaw eatrotte xed degonis
| gent baz .«ylieoiaydly bas Chad aoe. hexeweoet eat os ——_— bus
if as ‘tot boa “Loumbsd of Beryovuce og or doh enitiong ould aku on
; bus orab tobaed old to nedtakowngay ail wode of staemot Into}
. Z | Mteod # at ote thes -Auoentt: aid gmixub aud ovey ene pitkucnty
: Meod asi ofa tad¢ ,ogscidd ai gotfe yiuwsed a agoubnoo bie toseateqo
heddobal omooed sad baw tromptipe ~radesoen Sasnorud OF ‘bet sdginnd
saniateaciinieiatin ti tadialieir mech i t a Rima
SPIN
noo Yar oe Jers rohxe wt pasmiwpe diac ey tot ocho paettnage
ol@ «tleeved troqque yLlstivag ov bas saenteud Y mined dove at xt ums ;
-- eeLlogas 09 ysq of Inntleqrs gutioath potedne od abr dadd eyomq
-— gromed “ws¥ of (fLedla ee womty dove %s bas eyenom to amue x0 sme, dome"
fie ho nowst of Yam tewoooe an. tedd" “yexogque red, zOT .foom moon
dade joteted ex tinaq ede to texte. off of dose gute 20. gard, eeonion
(0 @EkdomotaA SroT-els 20 qistexunue, act od wa aoztet ed graces ms
gd yam Suse afd alt atitxacd togotg « sequ baa. shone Linon, at exort q
Yo coktlyih seu} sxe toqoty o cath ¢Tthikelg-eagre akdd od bebtaws
",dekiieg off doowsed oham ov yom <hanpaveg.baa Leet Yregerg tis
wmoiiteseb bis yxLowts to eograrto ef? aekmab ed towena e! taniteque 1 q
Gs OF TO iid eo xct vrogqua of best i¢m a2 collegae tami aoiaeb bap 4
" ‘a t0te bowng tektax aul 30 :
«mo o-saoro odt bas thtaLquoo ome sane borseno aawiteb duties ool
. (s0atd ome eft ta’ bacoded: ombate
ort? nogt gatxsed combive Drwot best tame Lebtdvegt med thes 6 you "
seotosh' ener edit hetedne of: vdiisLqnpesseot 9 edly bas, wtetqe >
Fs Sala te CaS ai OS Ge iicdshasaa Paboaaiaiess
Pike, Gi 4 Boa nt Satakbea ee ose
"Decree for Divoreée
"This day come again the cross-complainant, Marie Re Walshy
py Axel BE. Pearson and iidward J. Green, her attorneys, end the
eross-defendant, James P. Walsh, by Frank T. Jordan and Forest Ae
King, hie attorneys, and it appearing to the Court that personal
service, and due notice of the pendency of this cause, Was had,
according to the Statute in such case made and provided.
“snd the Court having heard the testimony taken in open
Court in support of oress-complainant's Complaint, and having heard
the arguments of Counsel, and being fully advised in the premises,
Doth Find:
“1. That the Court has jurisdiction of the parties hereto,
and the subject matter hereof;
"2. That the cross-complainant, Marie E. Walsh, and the
eross-defendant, Jemes FP. Walsh, are and have been actual resid-
ents of the County of Cook and State of Illinois, for more than
one (1) year last past, prior to the commencement of the above
entitled causes that the parties hereto were lawfully joined in
marriage on the 12th day of October, 1931, at Crowm Point, Indiana;
that no child or children were born to said parties as the result
of said marriage};
"3. That subsequent to their intermarriage, the cross-
defendant, James P. Walsh, has been guilty of extreme and repeated
eruelty toward the cross-complainant, Marie #. Walsh
"4. That the parties hereto are the owners, as joint
tenants, of the following described real estate, together with
the improvements thereon:
"(1) (Here follows legal description of property) Further
known as 4436-4438 West Madison Street, Chicaze, Illinois.
"(2) (Here follows legal description of property) Further
known as §509 Bohlander Avenue, Berkeley, Cook County, Illinois.
"5. That parcel 1» above described, is free and clea of
encumbrance; that parcel 2, above described, which is the homestead
ef the parties hereto, is subject to the balance of a purchase
money mortgage of approximately ®1400.90.
"Ge That all of the above real estate is now under the
Management of one Charles Mallon, who was heretofore appointed
Receiver of the same by this Court; and that said Charles Mallon,
2s eetres is now collecting the rents, issues, and profits
ereoft.
"7. That the parties hereto are also the omers of a
sertain 1934 Ford Coupe Automobile, model Ve40, Engine No. 757209,
Wiieh is in the possession of the cross-defendant, James P. Walsh.
"8. That the bonds of matrimony, now existing between the
erose-complainant, Marie Be Walsh, and the cross-defendant, James
P. Walsh, ought to be dissolvede
“1.e If IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, and
this Court, by virtue of the power and authority therein vested,
and the Statute in such ease made and provided, doth order, adjudge,
and deeree that the bonds of matrimony heretofore existing between
sporov id xot snenedh ) Y oou heh ine ca —
qdeleW «A alta tistislqgmeo-asoxe edd siege omen bo eke |
edd bir cavenrotia Yom . moe .t Srewhe bas home ail pity ow
oA tagtot Sas ushiol «Tf Anata yd qslaleW »F aemel «dnabnotob-anero
istoareg dalt stud ent of gniueceqqs di bus 28yentos ta a Lei gmiz
ebad aaw seuens aids, to wihens ed? to seljon exb. bos
' “\bebiyong bre obam gean dove at vsti ond ot pitkbzos0n
Hoge at meteg cromitees ont che gabvast: yued ait baa”
btsed grivad has ,iaisiguod =¢ insntielgmeo-egoxo Foams os
eeeakmerge ef? ai beetvice viet oanted bas’ bsegce 3 Sita
osoxed ae ti zag ont 9 soidotbatiut « pera esd 3 °
‘ pwored ted sen ago etd baa
ead bre edule «7 obvanw enraged oa} ted? sg")
~biaez fautos need eval bra ot fsW .% somal. « cfenbaetebneser
ginsld exom tot -elomiiLt to edad ‘bee Fog to ysattod sel
svoda oft to snsamonmenmmo act of toliq «3 tesl is
mk bonito, yilutwal oxew efeoted aciereq ont Rie tea Ge
janmstbol «imiot sword te .fé@L etadotoO to yab ae ent m0 neces Oe baer
dp L822 9% oalt as Geltueg tise of mod etew mothL bts
*yoaabrean blea to
i Lt te Oe ae
~aaoro odd danintweens ‘these. ‘8 pps ‘tast? “ee i
hetsaqex bus esentxs to. yt: ti magd ged yiels 1f meme ytrishaston
tdalav .& ode siaugonnar yyy thier. ged brawrods heroes
dito ea «etonmvo ont ore ‘otezed aoisisg eat $ set? et Ba
Aide saciount sotatan Lavy. batigeneh aansted mah Oe 4 astuanee
ek tno ot ants agsemevorqui orf
xodduwt “(qeteqotg to noldgtzonsh fagel swot fot tay (r)*
eatomil lt cogcoid® deems foe the ¢ ' 88 sonal
roddrwt (ytxeqe tq to ne tigixeses b Loge ewocton oH ff)" “i ih
eakomii ly ¢ydeed Mood _YeLord
to «mele bop sett si .bediteaed ovedn «i fopted dat 8"
hastacumd oft at slotiw ~boditoesh eveds «& Leorag tatlt ier
oratinieg s To ecaue Lonel ald of toe ek ,oveved eotirsg odd
200. 00858 be sd aakxesqre 0 ouppi zon Dow
aad sohams wort et e¢ates Laon wreds ont ‘to tie dost? a” “il ;
betnioggs oxo lossxed asw offs .motiel eofxatd, amo I) sompetae
enollaM asfitadd bisa tatt bas ittwod aid? yd ane a oan to revise
atitorg bus ,ecweal ,atmez off aniioodfoo wom et atotsrety . - |
° Ss
Ric at exeznv0 ald oats oxe otered bens Bo estt sat we
@ORVSY 2.08 antpag o Cott er as way
sata ot sonst 7 dnkbae teb~aunas pe peernaad, eclaieall
emt novirted gutteixs’ wom ta eaeees ot ef ade auth *
Sms aeh fe ans pret * iaoll ¢ :
seeech'aaiaettel ocr hommeua out feoats odes dia oe
base ,COMAOK CHA GADCULGA ,CaHIAO GHODMNT GI TI Lf” :
ebeteov aloreds yiizoltus bas toweg eit to anduly yd ef 10d ante i
cogbubba etebro job ybebivowg bas oham caso dove ul etutes® ond rel é:
neowted gutteixe exoleseted ynouttdem to shnod eit galt eoroob bite
.
2 Se
wees
the cross-complainant, Marie H. Walsh, and the eresse-defendant »
James P. Walsh, be and the same are hereby dissclved, and the
game are dissolved accordinglye
"2, If IS PURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND INCREED that
the cross-defendant, James Pe Walsh, pay to the cross-complainant,
Marie Re Walsh, the sum of Thirty-nine Dollars, as and for her
Court Reporter's bill, for taking of evidenee on the hearing of
the above entitled cause, the same to be paid forthwith, upon
the entry of this Decrece
"3. IT IS FURTHER CHD@RED, ADJUDGED AYD DSCREED that the
cross-defendant, James P. Walsh, pay to Axel B. Pearson, and
Haward J. Green, as attorneys for said cross-complainant, Marie &.
Welsh, the sum of Five Mywmdred Dollars in full for services
rendered in the above entitled cause, the same to be paid forth-
with, upon the entry of this Decree.
"4. IT IS PURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DUCRECD that
the Court hereby retains jurisdiction in the above entitled cause
as $0 all property settlements and adjustments, and division of
rents and other matters pertaining to the property of the parties
hereto, until the further order of this court.®
Appellant urges many grounds in support of his contention
that justice demands that the decree be reversed. In the view that
we have taken of this appeal we deem it unnecessary to consider
all of his contentions. While appellant offered considerable
evidenee in support of his charge that appellee was guilty of
adultery, the trial judge, in the decretal order, does not pass
upon the merits of the complaintnor make any order in reference
to it. The decretal order finds that appellant was guilty of
extreme and repeated cruelty and crants appellee a divorce upon
that ground, although she did not ask for a divorce ami her cross-
complaint is one for separate maintenanee and an accounting. If
the wife was guilty of adultery, the fast, if it be a fact, that
the kusband was guilty of extreme and repeated cruelty would not be
a eufficient recriminatory intcelias acs complaint for divorcee on the
geound of adultery. (Decker ve Decker, 195 Ill. 2855 dimmermana v.
Zimnerman, 242 Ille 5520)
We may say that after a careful examination of the entire
record we are satisfied that the cause Was not properly and fairly
tried and that justice will be best served by a retrial of the
of otek ,imentelguoo-sget o b laa tot eyentodie ag .meetd . ia
De “>
eiiabnoteh-aaote oft bee jaetaw se otro ielaiiiaaiatiiiiaaa ert
exit bre a bev tons th er ete amse ede toe od .fefeW .f semet
. aN Lg tho 098 heviovelb.ets emma
tants camera ity miata Per 9 auras. 8) i P's
.tidipialege Saat: eat OF Yar. d & of fhe se eats
“en rot bre ae gamt Loc ‘oc hmeydt batt to. ana ost et Y, o@ OF
Yo gaireed edd no eonshire te guise’ sot mi qok sive
ae ofl tealtco? bleq ed o¢ oman odd ,oense Seti tese rea’ nt
ai eo STIOS edstd bak \ clan ent
“ie: ‘Fail romero. CH CRDEMAA .aRLTHO sarmeas. ex 1" Be 88 Tr
bre ehoatTeet .f Lert oft yoq etlefe «I somal .dmebine i:
noslyted yet LL? mt arslLod betheadlovht to.mwa, Pp Ao ishaes
-igzo! blag od of etma off poauso baddidae evods edt:
- soz000 aldé te iP. a¢ ROE
err sgeor BA emicteaca. CORO ATAU. 8, Cara ss
odiha DeLeisns oveda ods ui melita ibeburt, existe, pt ak ‘ontd
to aokaivib bow eatoomtantbs bos simone Logon, Ys c98qos Sie
sett mq of to \sueqoxg onl? oF yutmiadsog arog tem ay
"doo onoradh to sb th be aedbe natal
i ee) ee ee
no? 298 10.0 ald 0 sxoqgee mi absusorg res come” car aor te
ford Woke vile al, Be pobrove ed 90x08 silt dang mbammob aokvext dart
ra ee ot eter 4 dota oer ee
tebkems of iceuadepenn tt test ow Lemees aldy to miosis evek ow
Sifsrebiedoo bore t%0 see ife ys “Oktay 5 GO £3 c18T.20 9 ‘@id te fie ;
si VES Bite OR ci We ee pte ate ea Set
‘to WLius aew seeifoqqe dadt ia abit “to: froqqwe nh estebtve
don 00h . te etree syiwt Laie ode. yrotivds ©
“Bag, SEAT ¢ hal ave es ae bao fe ae * FEN Tees ae arent
ckiieiaha ides al vebte wis exam. ‘Sad rela 9 Pry %¢ Maa add MOTE
7) ceiling’ aaw dmalleqas saad abet?’ — tnbesoth “tat set'os
“220 to vou bin sorevib a, 0% doe tom. bab. or ane |
ae
som ooxovih re eoltocgs: Binet) bas
otis mo Soxevih xox Yatatonon abil\gensteh yxodanintzoes duo toriies a ;
; ‘oak sears 4888 w£ET- ees iat Ve elke sneediedes ‘bowers |
5 ty (See —— yar ‘
Tf po igh een ie
exit 00 osid 20 athbinscteiihe arias, a Peat ‘tad perro
oe ffs 0 Page wus ns ny ae Sacke bettaiias ote ow btoo i
he nate by ‘tet ea were rand x
“est. te lettios « heated Hoe of ans ein
A ; Ki @oxeoh fy
ema"
25=
issues raised by the complaint and eross-complaint. 4s tending te
show that it would be hichly inecuitable to permit the present
deeretal order to stand, we cite the following: Paragraph (5)
ef the complaint charges that appellee wilfully dessrted appellant
without any reasonable cause and without fault on his part. In a
colloquy between the counsel for both parties and the trial court
just before the taking of evidence, counsel for appellee stated
that appellant could have a divorce on tae charge made in para-
graph (5) at once, that there would be no controversy as to that
charge, and that the court could settle the property rights. The
court then indicated that where a divoree could be granted upon
some ground cther than acultery the parties should “forget the
adulterye" Counsel for appellant refused te waive the adultery
charge. As the case may be tried again we refrain from commenting
on the evidence or expressing any opinion az to the merits of the
CASE |
The decretal order of the Superior court of Sook coumty
is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trionl as to the
complaint and cross-complaint.
DECRETAL ORDER REVERSED, AND CAUSE
REMANDED POR A NEW TRIAL.
Sullivan, FP. Je, and Friend, J., goncuts
od ee. uk atcha lego erage bate AAR shh at: desker.. merent
Poteet ost fst od pel beep yetidetes ‘a bimow. (bb tode wosta,
(a) itqetgetet : saiaamedal ontt’: ad Eo owe (hata of “obie \Letetosb
J at iteoreS, PRN eam) a hee Pe Pn a ame
snake bos roeed bruce sorsoaus faith conrede tubalumen ots 20:
rrudyeqan dated
a al .dt8q eat 20° $ret Sitodt tw ‘Attn ‘atmo’ oMaswoact ae &
bie ih BNE a ey ait if
oreo, falxa. SAF bas | Roasts, diod “ot fonsss09 ond, noontod “ypoLiee
. badets sit tones tot foam \{sonsbive te ables cont erered vat
~eTed ‘tk ebam epuasto ‘ede a0 ) eotov eh 8 | erat Biues sine sogen ttt
garth of oo Yerevorémos on od Bhidw ran Caner to Ce) sgt
gers tddgix Yotego re + sal adetea Sime ttaoo ont bot! soazade
bait bata od Biieoe sexovth 4 otatlr take Sato moe’, fae
ons togzo3® pawastil ‘dibeteil ost eeahtula eats rote Stuiony ono
“red Libs odd oviaw 0? hoawtor “phat teqgs ‘x6 teented “yrestubs
galinesco9 “got nkorter ow Alean ‘heted od “Yam oneo’ esl’ i ‘Vogtaitis
outs ‘te | od Bout att had as oman - ee iste out P) ’
ois sign tees wD runt ® et ‘eaab ’
wizum 6 00° 46 pehos Wotreque sad t6 viv sito oar ;
aul 6d as bates ‘wan # AP Luceneeit at sauae este fie 4h A eYE me
ta
$
ce ¢ ace eat FR
‘qevAd dma 4
Alt an el, 4, BE ae ae phpdy Aaland hie kaya sta i
; ae has eee as aneety +
“envene “ss “ghnoie one me of easy Line
a
i, ates Oa Fee
ee ae ee ati. gata
ORE ie he RAD Bae “baigect neat gad
i, apebkube 26 beer |
4 Rw LT, SRT
Jansere: fe ee Aen eles gants i oes «age ge
SEY BIER ART AAR Rt he TRE PRS Be RR ar
ad fe Caieben a td erie Gal Gn OU ip Spee ae is
the GAN | nm
esis fs
=> Co a,
39437 co y ~
UNITED DAIRY COMPANY, 2 corporation, INTERLOCUTORY APPBAL
et al. > f
Appellees, v
FROM SUPERIOR COURT
Ve
KAUPUAN BERMAN; = COOK COUNTY. a
chy 290 1.A.603
MRe JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE OOURT.
This is an interlocutory appeal from the fellowing order;
‘This cause coming on to be heard upon the presentation of the
verified complaint filed herein which complaint has been read in
open court by counsel for the plaintiffs and from which the Court
Find;
"That it has jur&sdiction of the subjeot matter hereof;
that to serve notice on the defendant herein would unnecessarily
and préejudicially delay this proceeding; that the plaintiffs,
United Dairy Company, a corporation and Milk Wagon Drivers! Union
of Chicago, Local 753, are threatened with irreparable damage and
injury unless this Honoreble Oourt shall restrain and enjoin the
defendant, Kaufman Berman, from soliciting, selling, serving or
attempting to solicit, sell or serve to the customers and consumers
enumerated in 'Schedule A! attached heretog milk, oream,butter,
cheese, eggs and other dairy products produced or distributed by
the plaintiff, United Dairy Sompany, a corporation,
"It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that a
writ of injunction issue forthwith commanding the defendant,
Kaufman Berman, that he cease, desist and refrain from calling
upon, soliciting, serving, attempting to sell or serve the
customers snd consumers mentioned in 'Sehedule A! attached hereto,
"Jt is further ordered, adjudged and deoreed that the
bond of the plaintiff, United Dairy Company 2s corporation, be filed
in the sum of $250.00,
"It is further ordered, adjudged and deoreed that no bond
be required for the plaintiff, Milk Wagon Drivers' Union of Chicago,
Local 753,
Enter: Grover ©, Niemeyer,
Judge,"
Chicago, Nov. 21, 1936.
The decree was entered in an action brought bgainst
defendant by the United Dairy Company, a corporation, and Milk
Wagon Driver's Union of Chicago, Local 753, unincorporated. In
the complaint filed, plaintiffs pray that the defendant, a milk
wegon driver, be enjoined from delivering "milk, cream, butter,
cheese, eggs" and other dairy products produced or distributed by
aa “ule mad
ti ™
; ay { gist Pah ee BEY PeSCES
GIGA YAOTUOOMASTAT antes £ TUDO YR ERG CHTIMU
bere ‘e
\ -8eellegga eo trgan ade ped
TRUOD AOLAAIUG MONT isi a on
ate a pe
oY THUOO #000 Aa
BOTA. TORRE so etmeteecee =
3 see RD Boe Path
< 98000 GET YO WOLNTSO ONT aaesvIia a1aH aorreny, m4, corenee
:tebte gaiwolfot ent mort Laeqqe ‘wrotvoodzeat Re Bre’ ald? . biti ale
edt to mottadmeeerg adt Hoqu breed ad ot 10 git imoo onus enene
al beer meed esd tnisiqmoo doidw altered belit & tabesenes
true odt dolda mort bas nn ont te? eemzeo Pd tts09 geqe
itoored cettne cation ost to golis.
eoneany bivew alerenf turbactebh od
eettitntela sit tadd ,gnikesoorg. etat ysds.
nolal. 'axevia® oogeW 212M bas solteteqroo « .Y
bas egemeb sidereqerti dtiw heaest + a8 ,80% Le:
ed? atojas bas elaxteet Liade temol STOMO
to giivise ,paiifes ,gnitioifos mort ABEL:
atemecoo hae aremoteso oft ot evrae to Lise ,violt
“yretiud mseto .xitm gotexed bedoatte 1A elubetes! at hetaromyna,
ve. betudiztelh zo beoghorg ateubord vekee'thdto fell" 3° ,seeedo
wieltsreqroe & ,.yosqmoD yuied betinU ,ititatelq edt.
2 ted? bseroob Sas Pi sk ae i= stotored? et ge
Sites uuct atavtex tne 9 rales ro Bhs ym Ahad
yo o Mort # 8% os 2. gence ef 6iNT
edd 9vxeR ro 4iee 2 4yativres yynitiotioe .moqs
eoterod Hedostia 4 © Hos Hy yi benottaan acemernse® bas “eeeaS a,
edt tedt beetoebh bas — bs berebte wedtuet a on"
helit ad sto Ltsxoqxe9o s YH wriati betiat evitentale edt to brod
290.088¢ To mure oe ak
baod om ted? heaceeh bas bs ~bevebte redtayt ef +1"
4
2)
etoyomelh .0 tevoxd rretaa
",egbut ae
e8CI .LS evo ,ogsoidd
tenisgd tdyvord noites as al beresae eaw seroeb edT
AIIM Sas ,colteteqrom & ,ywisquod yxiad betiaU edd yd tasbaoteb
al .hetsteqrooaias ,88T Lec0d ,ogsetd0 to moiaU a tovitd aoget
Mfim s ,tasbasted odd teadt yorq etitinaisiq ,belit taleiqmoo odd
extiud ,mseoro ,Allm" gatrevileb mort hentofae ed ,tevinch sogsw
d betudintath xo heowborq etouborq yriab todéo bas “agge ,oaesdo
ogeotd> to goin ‘'erevicl gogeW af seins wine val Bao Bortupes ae
‘he vb sham at tased”
2
the plaintiffs, United Bairy Company, a corporation, to various
persons, called customers of plaintiffs, United Dairy Company.
As the injunction indicates, it was entered without
notice to defendant, and no sufficient reason is given for the
lack of such netice, nor why plaintiff was not required to furnish
a bond, as required by statute. No "Schedule A" is attached to
the order, as stated therein, Therefore, the order is meaningless,
The order granting the injunction is reversed,
REVERSEDe
DENIS E. SULLIVAN, P.J, AND HEBEL, J. concuR,
a ole
DF sacs ial Temi
: reatase
auvditar of cmaseasiesibl & «WaqmoD Yeh ‘petiall <
sYasqued pried betial hittatelg Xo exGnoteaso ballso yenoeted
duodtiw beretue new #i yaoteothat moltomtat off eA
Sit tot Mey’ oe. fuatemtiire gg PRIS
eo Te
Hg vate ek: wale
ee ‘or hes
wr) A eee 18 gS Laon eearenae £0
Sine Hake fs fs OURS OS eS oe ee “ ne
wdare
penne. wngitonaals oi fe
i) Lene et wnieied arene’ to thee
aceime, en ae pa -
koreet .,tatedaly edt So baod
Se a yo mye oft of
saanetietsa't we zx"
ant Aig ese hi hap hada hte ot.
ahs AOR iitaueth eat
wie cle as Gi te SEES gy
« Ke ae Bee ene
Pe ae ae | ev
faukeye ieee Goer; an ad Reed one ste Bay au’
eich baw solder & ween eelm. beat, ede ae ache? ob
YY deen) pole ke. wend at naweat nogen
suobastes ody fate seek een eein, yeh Mama ome
JLin® sekeeeneih whet dendeges! ot yrinetah: nogew
Loonbers atone Yeheb codto baw: “egg! eecnde
get SUG. gt WEE
vat he Peel bor dae EDS ce
Laat” |
i ere
39082
MINNIE RYAN,
Appellant, é i
APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR COURT
V5.
OF GOOK COUNTY.
290 1.A. 604!
CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal
Gorporation, et ai.,
Appellees.
ee ee ee ee ae” Se a” a
WR, PRESIDING JUSTICE MATCHETT
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
December 31, 1935, the complainant, Minnie Ryan, filed
her bill in the Superior court of Cook county in behalf of her-
self and other citizens and taxpayers, averring that the act of
the General Assembly of June 19, 1955, known as the Policemen
and Firemen Retirement Act (SmitheHurd Ill. Rev. Stat., 1935,
chap, 244, par, 51), and the amendment to section 12 of the
Civil Service Act of the same date were unconstitutional and void
as violative of the rights of such firemen and policemen; that
notwithstanding the fact that defendant City and other defendants
were about to put these acts into effect and expend large sums of
public money and subject the City to grave financial liabilities
by so doing, to the damage of complainant and persons similarly
situated. Tne bill prayed for an injunction, and complainant made
@ motion that the injunction should issue, Defeidants then made
a counter-motion to strike the complaint upon the ground, among
others, that the bill was without equity and the court without
jurisdiction; that complainants had an adequate remedy at law, etc,
The court sustained the motion of defendants and entered an order
dismissing the bill, expressly finding in the order that it did not
pass upon any constitutional question. The complainant appealed to
the Supreme court where briefs were filed, On motion of defendants
the Supreme court transferred the cause to this court,
In Malloy v. City of Chisago, 365 I11. 604, the Supreme
court, at the suit of firemen and policemen of the City of Chicago,
\
ti
VR
iN
; as ,titelfeaqa
‘THUOD AOLAAGWE MONE JAREIA | sida alicia ayy
' ¥YTRIGS Rows WW
he Rr ae ah ah aft age
@ Dass 8 wy
280
. “Keats teu « a “ODADIHO 0 yrtg
. -eka Ra 2 Mois
'hOO..A1 OCS -aobitten mn
TREROTAM MOTPEUL SMIGIGMHE SAMs © ywhowe ace
TAU at 6 ricer sga be bread ‘Cau EL
wee a) Peg ne 4
“pe tht ie yal © hastdid * brdleithai bushels: wits “aeer SE 5d A
~rar to ‘tiaded nt ysavoo fo00 to davon tebteque edt of LLid teat
‘to. tos odt fact aalrzeys OTS YS Kat fate anositio Teuivo Sam, Mas
someoitod sii ag awoml ,aceL ,e@L ent to yldneaea
GEOL ..tet@ .veH .LLT Hawiiaddiae) goa tnewertien aesoxtt bas j
z
delta, si
. eslt to SE mottos of tmombseme add baw , (18 80 Hs veoito
_ bhov bas fanoisur itenconu etow egeb same ost to toa solvied tvio
gest ;nemeotiog ban asiwextt some to atigic edd to evitetety ‘ae
asagbhne'teb tecte baa vito tasbhoe ted vert tont edt gulbaatedsiwton
‘to amwe estat boeaxe hoe des'the ofal estos vsaeds dug ot duods ‘exe
seistitdalt fstocsal't every of yti0 edt tootdee bas yenom ektsua
Yiteliute aaoareg bas snanialgums To aguieh odd of sBatob oa ut
ebsem tneaielgmoo hae sfottosu tad fe tot beyeta kbd onl sbetautie
obs aout atnetusted yeveek bivede aoigonutal emt tend nok om ‘9
grows ,bauoty exit moqss tnlelquoo ort etinta of nolvonaresnw09 ile '
tucsitiw stuo0o ecit baw winps twontiw eaw Llid est tess aredgo
oto ,wel de yYhouet etaupeds ae hed eftugnielques tadt ;folto thbeirut
zebio as botstao bas atoshae'teh to aeitom ext bentasans t2s509 edt
gon bib $i Sadd sobto set mi gnibait yleeotqme ,{iid edd gataelime th
od beLasaqs tasatelgnoo ad? .noltsewp denoitutizemes yas moqu aang
atosbasteb to motion m0 ,hetit stew eteird exedw divoo ometqua ont By
sttyoo sidt of sauoo od bortetanst? dry0o smetque ont
emetque end, 00 .ffT 838 ,ogecidd to ythO sv yottsM al
,ogsoltd) to ysiO edd to musollog bas apie si ‘to tina ous ve ‘Asean :
-
recently rendered an opinion and entered a judgment expressly wold-
ing that the act of June 19th, known as the Policemen and Firemen
Retirement Act, is unconstitutional and void, As the motion te
strike admitted the allegations of the bill and the act in question
is now declared unconstitutional and void, it foliows that there
was equity in complainant's suit te enjoin the expenditure of pub-
lie money in carrying the act into effect. In Fergus v, Russeli,
270 Til. 304, the Supreme court said with reference to a similar
sults
“We have repeatedly held that taxpayers may resort to a
court of equityito prevent the misapplication of public funds, and
that this right is based upon the taxpayers' equitable ownership
of such funds and their liability to replenish the publie treasury
fer the deficiency which would be caused by the wisappropriation,
(Colton v. Hanchett, 13 Ill. 615; Perry v. Kinnear, 42 id. 160;
Caestnutwood v. Hood, 68 id. 132; Jackson v,. Norris, 72 id. 364;
McCord v, Pike, 121 id. 288; Littler v. Jayne, 124 id. 123; Stevens
v. St. Mary's Training Sehool, 144 id. 336; City of Chicago v.
Nichols, 177 id. 97; Adams v. Brenan, 177 id. 194; Burke v, Snively,
208 id. 328; Jones v. O'Connell, 266 id. 443,)*
Other cases in which similar suits by taxpayers have been
upheld are McAlpine v. Dimick, 326 Ill. 240; Cocot v. Soard of
Commissioners of Cook County, 273 I11. App. 75, and Levevre v,
County of Lee, 269 Ill. App. 443.
The decree of the Superior court is thereforé reversed and
the cause is remanded with directions to the triai court to enter
an order requiring the defendants to answer the bill.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS,
O'Connor and MeSurely, JJ,, coneur,
[ee ea ae
=
ko
es eap
ti Ga
“blog yLaaetqxe saemybut « bervedas bots solnige sm, hicoheiog El
asmerit bw pmeoiled edt ea mwomd .S¢@L emul to tos et tact gui
o¢ soitom eft 8A ,btov bas Lenotinuditemopam ef ,toA taementtes
noldaoup ak Joe eae bags Libd-edt Te anolsegetie edd bottinbs oathrte
ened sadt wwelict 31 ,btov bus Lanokiuéiadosan bexaieel wae U1
-duq to gtutibaeqxe edt alotjae of thus e'dnaniciqnos at ysiupe aaw
,idpneul .v auyzel al .too'tte ofat toe odd galysrse at yeaom otf
wiiats 6 0% senstetes dtiv bise sives.emetque® galt 4808 .LLT OF
Le
& of Itoset Yam eteys on ee #2
naa” ~abaut olidugq . mnt ats x eae Bent
qidareawo sidatiupe ‘eteyeqsat ou 1 sag heesd 3h ype ae
yiwesstd oi ldug — pearly ot yrs. ? bas ebou't ;
Moljeliqorqqeelu and bee suet, im a
;00L bt ype er ets oe is ii gry BL 4
hab. .bE BY. eAstee. »V¥. sostagt see teow sel |
anovesa ;eSi bl a8 ain aan andi a; i i
pee ¥. cgaotsdo Ai yt * foesie® saat ty: ‘
velo av donee ihes “bi Y vee menor. v amaba omaha 1¥@ Ste a $
co, 8 (,8bd bs 088, Lfemme9" 0. .¥, somal, (888 a ;
weed evad euayscxed yd ediue saints dpldw ab speeg TAI piri on
‘
te bases .y sope0 j 08 ,ffL B8é vae2d a2 sakaiant psa. bindu
-E.gaeled bas eo .qqd .Lf1 408 ,
‘hen Heaxevex etotereds ei saup9 tolxequ® edt te ostoeb sdf, joao |
tetas of tusog Jatad od oF amoitoezin dikw bebsaner ef gaseo,.oig a
| skid odd rowass of e¢cabne teh ont autsiupes tebt ms
-CHOLTIGAIG WELW CEGMAMAN CHA CERMAVER ons taut \ewedio
Rie eB Lee tied “gar, a a
tom. ath, cea tonaeoto
if ged, pabeetee ts oe
ae ae i
gn
ie Cag aaeg
Same sxeigeg@ oat.)
aes mat hen etqne oe.
‘ ‘ nth En Sie Me
ea ' x tive edd te ,ttnoo
aBbD agh £57,988, ,9e0.20 vtmmeo
/ / |
39183
WALTER BORNMAN, ANNA BORNMAN and )
ALFRED LENOX,
Appellants,
APPHAT, FROM SUPERIOR
Ve
COURT, COOK COUNTY.
MARTIAN RABB, administratrix of the
; Be
estate of ERNEST S. HABB, deceased, QO T 0 4
Appellee. » vy 0 L.A. 0
MRe PRESIDING JUSTICE MATCH!TT
DELIVERED THH OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal from an order entered setting aside the
three judgments by default entered upon the verdict of a jury on
May 29, 1935, by Judge Schwaba. The action of the plaintiffs was
for personal injuries and property damage alleged to have been
sustained by them in an automobile accident on October 27, 1934,
as a result of the negligence of defendant's intestate, who died
in the same accidente She motion by defendant to set the same
aside was not filed until January 17») 1936. The judgments were
in favor of Walter Bornman for $2,500, of Anna Boruman for $3,000,
and Alfred Lexen for %1,500. As the motion was made more than 30
Gays after the entry of the judgment the motion was in the nature
of a petition fer writ of error coram nobis, as provided at common
law and under sece 72 of the Civil Practice act. (Ill. State Bar
Statse, 1935, chaps 110, pe 2448. Jones Ill. Stat. Anne 104, 0726)
Defendant filed her petition January 17, 1936, praying that these
judgments be set aside and stating the facts upon which she relied.
Plaintiffs answered admitting some of the facts and denying otherse
The court, after extended consideration and hearing evidence, on
March 21, 1936, entered an order granting the motion. A prior
C
( bone WAMIOE AUMA ne SERA
indpreaiainceed ee cryry oz & mre
HOLAUIVE MOLT TACITA . eis ‘at eon ale
ee ht Gea wpe Bere
YOHUOO HOOD. .TAVOD
- ar to xivéerteimtinbs , MEAT WATAAM:
“ROO A:T eg siete +a Femwak 20 ofetae.
. io iva
TTZHOTAM AOITEML OULGIenaT AM
«T4000 MT @ WOIKIGO ur hanaert hy 8
oss ob ies siting betetne seed as imo2't fseqgs sina | ak ane : ?
“0 wet, at tolbzov edd s0gs er tiuetob yw? me sould
“ aaw atbitatete ond to motes oft -adamiot oyhut yd «Seer «Ca “yall
| need over of ‘peasita: egemah ‘slave baw ‘ao ltutat Lenoerog 203
«hSOL QVS tedodoO no tnoblooe efidomesne ue ai modt yd bentetaya
both onw yodatastul a'taabnotebh to gonopilzen, est to tiunot sae
ome sd toa of Inebaeteb YC mottos eM staobloos omea ont mk
sxew atnemgbut, off .850L «TL yxsunel Lisew befit gon pew ebiag
000, ToT csmerto® srk Yo ~OOA KS LST stauro€ weILAW Bo sovet ak
OF cast oxom obam caw motvom ont WA .00% LS OT Moxed bowls ‘bas
sumden eft ti sow notyom edt tuamgbwt off te wedne eit xos'te eyed
xonmoo te bebivomg as caldon matey torts ‘Yo tixw tot weds beeq:a m: |
tel etagi sLit) «tos soltoste Livld edd Yo ST .008 cobaw bas wal,
(.870 . SOL smd stave «LET aomot Obs sq OLE sqade (eeek iavade
sacdd galt gubyetq «Otel «VL vraeunal no Lt kd og ton beLit tishxe ted 4
sbeifes ode do idw nog atost ond gaisate bne oblas goa od adeoarg basi, ia
eatetito patyneh bas agoat et Yo omoa guittimbs betewans attivntelt
no ,sonebtve gaiveed bas nolistebless bebnedxe tot‘ts ytxwoo eT
xoltqg A .nottom oft gattnetg tebr0 ma bowetne ~BECL .£8 Motel
woes
order of default in the same case had been previously entered
pefore Judge Kelly of the Superior court May 26, 1955, but no
judgments were entered pursuant thereto. March 27, 1936, upon
motion of defendant made before Judge Kelly, in which substantially
the same facts were submitted as before Judge Schwaba, the default
order entered by Judge Kelly was also set aside. Plaintiffs have
appealed from these orders. hile legal propositions are argued at
length in the voluminous briefs submitted, the material facts dis-
closed by the record are few and simple. Only as to one important
matter is an issue of fact raisede
In summary the facts appear to be that plaintiffs filed
their suit in the Superior court April 22, 1935, and the case was
assigned to the calendar of Judge Schwaba which was calendar Noe7s
Summons was issued by the clerk of the Superior court on the day ©
the suit was filed, returnable May 20, 1935. April 27, more than
20 days prior to the return day of the summons, it was duly served
upon defendante Under the rules of the Superior court answer was
due on or before May 22, 19355) prior to the hour of ten ae me As
to whether the answer was duly filed within that time is the only
material issue of fact in this casee Defendant offered evidence
tendine to show that her answer was actually filed with the deputy
clerk in the office of the clerk May 225 1935, before ten ae me
Such answer is on file, but the stamp of the clerk and the record
made by the clerk of the court indicate that it was not filed until
May 23) 1935, at 2:04 pe me Plaintiffs:denied that the answer
was presented for filing prior to May 28, 1935, at 2:04 pe ti» The
stamp of the clerk and the entry in the register tend to sustain
this contention. Plaintiffs therefore deny that there wus any
error of fact and charge the defendant was lacking in diligenes
in failing to file her answer in proper time and in filing it
. : a =
|
«fu
hesindan ylasotverg need bed ease omen off mt tiusteh to tobto
on dud «SSCL .8S ysl txuoo totxeqwG oft to yLLel eghyt oxo ted
ogy <deCL .VS cdorant " sodotostt tmasemugq betedne sxew etseapbst
YLisitastadve dotdw mk «yLiol eybyl emeted ebsm tushmeteh to no ivom
tisetob ont «sdewiio’ ogbyl ovoted.ag beadttemdve ew 8ew., AE OM old
eva attigatels ,obins tee osla aew eLfok ogbut xd ‘hexedxe “zebte
js homes SLs “eno ks Leoqo tq faget olin’ .,atetre seed¢d aort belssqqe
onakp ‘atost ‘Talnosen ould (Seen teet ade bud ae. oo pp sats
- " alacdeul a6 62 4s viet vente” aie wor ete cess otit wr heute
sbeniet gost to eyaet ae ak notieam
beLit attitatele taag’ od of ts8qqe adost ond Ytonmumse ut
now pase oft bas «8EOL 8S LingA tayo rolxogua, ont mtg ive xiedd
«¥.0U usbaceo aaw doldw edewdod eghuwl to tebmelso ent 0% Rongtsas
Nab od a0 tusoo tolueqyd edd to aneto ond yd bewaak eow amomme -
nod} otom «SS Lhegs .28@L 40° yal ofdamraier eboLlt naw diwe ost
bevvsa (lub acw $i panommmd ox? To ysd mentor etlt-od tetzg nyab:Os
acw Tavern sues Toltequt edt 2o aelwe ond tohaY: «tuabmeted .anqu
ch sit +a not to twat add @) voluy @220L4SS YaM ovotad. xo m0 ah
Tinto ond ws omkd Sans ateldte beLttubib kow rowsins one rout edu 08
eottebive bere Yio tmbasted ead Bid ak test te oveet fatto tam
eiugeb elt we heli? vllewtos dev tewans ‘tod Said wode OF gatdaed a
“get oe tod oto ted .aoet (es yar YWrelo sd 6) oortte ‘ont at wiefo :
brooo xt osfd tna XxeLo ond Yo Quinte odd Jud (okt ‘fo i i :
daa beLki'son asw $i Jats otsotont dio odd “to “atte Lo site Yd shear 4
‘goware ‘orld facts be ineb a Mttntalt ‘eat ag “SONS ‘ge B8OL Cee a
‘oat su og S018 Fe (deeL (69 Gat OF woixg gabe} xo bosheaetg kaw
piasaia oF bad codalget oft ak yxtno “ote” bites ‘wreto batt” "35" yale i
‘Wnts aww Srey dat yiob oto tieeds ethiynte rt siidtened aes ate
| sang ilih ai gabtosl sev desbastes” ‘oud ogtadts tna ‘dod’ t8"
ohh ALLEL ot bnavemit tegor, wh tewens ‘tent: ‘eLEt eg. entatat
oe Sie
eight days after the return date without leave of court or notice
to counsel, and further in neglecting to take notice of proceedings
which had taken place in the cause until seven months after the
entry of the samee
May 28, 1935, plaintiffs, evidently under the mistaken be-
lief that the case had been assigned to a judge who was not sitting,
appeared before Judge Kelly, chief justice of the law division of
the Superior court, and upon their motion Judge Kelly entered an
erdezs ef default for failure of defendant to answer the summons,
As already stated, no judgment was ever entered upon this order of
default, and the default prior to the entry of any judgment thereon
was set aside by Judge Kelly on April 15, 1936.
May 29, 1955, plaintiffs, apparently thinking that the
proceeding before Judge Kelly on the day before was irregular,
appeared before Judge SchwWaba and secured another order entering
the default of the defendant. No further proceedings were had
before Judge Schwaba until June 14; 1935, when plaintiffs again
appeared before him. A jury was impaneled, heard the evideneey
returned verdicts assessing damages, and the courts, also upon
motion of plaintiffs, entered the judgnents which were afterward
set aside. Neither defendant nor her attorneys had knowledge of
the entrance of either one of these defaults or notice or knowledge
of the proceedings before Judge Schwaba May 29, 1935, and June 14
thereafter. The facts as recited were disclosed to them upon an
examination of the docket of the court, kept in the office of the
ehawk of the Superior court, on the afternoon of January 14») 1936.
That examination disclosed the two defaults and the three judgments.
The evidenee indicates that an examination of the s ame docket on
the following morning at 8:55 ase Mey January 15, 1936, disclosed
an additional entry in the docket whichwas not therein on the
te
solton ro sivoo to syeel Juodiiw oteb sautox ost tots Byeh tefgte
egnibsesotg to soliton eda oF paises lagen. ak ‘rogid- tat bas Leemuos oe
odd notte addons neven Titay eames sat mt eonle folss bea Aotstw
somae oat To yntme
~od petajala edd sobay ~eLinohive weYitintalg weer 488 Xe
egaittia tem ace ow eghul, 2 of Semiess aead bat cane oslt as tts.
‘to m0 mivib wat ox} Yo oottent, Toido «ile eghwt oxo ted batesqaa
a Gotetms yLlo% egha% sotsom ttedd moqu bas .fawoo xoirogne edt
anommsya ost tewsas OF Saishas tab to emuitlet sot j£uste 6 8, vob
te tebie eid? nogy betstan teve sew tnemybsl, om sbesate Wooorks BA
nootedd Jnomhst yrs to yaime, off of reizg tisetes | in OM _wiiusteb
i sO5GL e OL Ling. id lod ogy we ebtas ton nh;
_ ot tacit antinids Yee cetegge eRe igatala geeer a. Nau :
erelimotst aew 9% se ted xed. ott a0 ler Met oxo tod puivosoor
Sh VERRY .
gulredae tebzo ‘tesldons hexsose bas adevatos abut oxoted Beaty vty j
er ie ae My %
PAE Mae weet
Higgs avit¢ataly nest ek eAL caw fhtaw adawsioe opbatt oroted
wars oie Res GRE fa
soomebty © arid busedt be Lenina Aue west a ! +s oa8 tow borseqgs
ayy 3, i?
best ot9w egnibescotg ron on + triads tod out ‘to iusto end
eae Rehe sent yy
oq gals ttH09 eng DES caegemsh pittacons « atotbrey homxut o%
; wei, aig. Ss yee corks at
brswiedta exo Ww so tat aew0m bt uid baxedns orhigntale ** motsom
%o egbe Lwomt baat ayenrodta sod tom dnsba0%06 ‘oilt tou sobtes fon :
Saar a
sgbelwor!l xo anieon =o ad Lure teb ounuls to eno ‘tosidto to couatéais ody
NE enw bas ¢8e@L .OS yall adioudtos oahu unto sgniboeoo7g ‘alt i
ms mogs moat’ ot powoLon ts orew betivor as ed ast ont eataecedd
UB
ont | No tore) fom asw ato tt secon out ey 'e xt00 y dish’
aif
Cs \o Mne a) im, A
HSL Sie Z or Ms he Ae hu? -
wd oo
afternoon before at the time the examination was made, to the
effect that an order of default had been entered in the cause
by Judge Kelly May 28, 1935. An examination of the register
kept in the clerk's office showed that the answer of defendant was
entered therein as havine been filed May 28, 1955. The time was
stamped upon the answer itself in the clerk's office showing the hour
to have been 2:04 pe me of that date. A further search made during
the afternoon of January 14) 1936, in the vaults of the Superior
court, disclosed that the answer itself was attached by a rubber
band to the summons in the cause; that these documents were not in
the regular envelope or file in the cause, but were in the general
files in the clerk's officee An examination of the back of the
envelope usedto hold the papers in said file in the case disclosed
the order of default of May 29, 1935, entered by Judge Schwaba but
did not disclose any order of default under date of May 28, 1935,
entered by Judge Kelly» It therefore appeared that upon motion made
by pleintiffs for default in the cause May 29, 1935, before Judge
Sechwaba, the answer of defendant was not in the envelope or file
there presented to the court, and therefore did not come to the
notice or knowledge of counsel for plaintiffs nor come to the notice
or knowledge of Judge Schwabae June 14, 1935, when the cause came
up for hearing to assess damages on the sad default of May 29, 1935,
the answer of defendant waz not in the envelope or file of the papers,
and the fact that said answer had been filed May 28, 1935, was not
know by counsel for the plaintiffs, and the fact of sdd answer
being filed was not brought te the notice or attention of the courte
The court entered judgment after the verdict, while without knowledge
that esid answer had in fact been filed. The fact that tse answer
had been filed was wknow to plaintiffs' counsel and plaintiffs?
counsel did not at any time service notice upon defendant nor defend-
| (
| ; poh
ond OF cobam aaw Holjaniuaxe odd omts ont. te 010 leg moosmmed ts
og saysg of? nt bezodmy need bad tivated 29 xebs0, ns testo tootte
Et. setatger ely to notteninsx a ms - BERL, 88. WM, LLLOR, epbut ww
| ast saabnoteb 2 Towans esis tat bewore esoltto a'arefLe. ont ul sqoat
Bs oat (OST sB60L 98S Yall belit mood, pitved ea. atered? bowed ae
| xurod ott gatworde ae tito aftzefo edt st WWeadt rowans. elf cioqu, bequata
| paiud Sham siqon romtiwt A .etsh tad? To om oq O38 meed sved.ot
tolteque edt to adiney add AE .BSOL ghL yesynial, to gansta. on}
nl w bedoatia say fondt zomane om? sett Aameloa ys oS wee
: nt ton siew agsomunos eaotly ted! reatao edd of soommuye edd od baad
: Eexoneg edt qi axom ti, poten Of) Ah MEET Ee OEOLETMR ERRAND
onl t te toad oid to mo btemimexs mA _s@etio a atreLo, osld suk aekit
| benofoate easD osid sek Ltt blae ad ateaged silt bLod od heoas egoLevne
td adurtos eabut wd Doredse «ECL «GS. yell to, ¢.£usro b 29, robne ents
tees +88, Yell tov esab tobay diuete 6 Le,.nebze, yas aan toa ky tom bib
obom noisom nogu Jedd bereeqgs eTOoTeMy. $X a eLLo% opbulbind bowetne
egdul ototod qse@L .@S Yok eouso odd. ni tivated cet atattatelgoyd
ont ro eqolevas oft ni Jom sew Jaabsmteb to. rowene edt) .edawsloe
“ott QF SmpO ton bib ortoredd bre. .t too. oft 0d bedmosoug. erods
soliton edt.o? como ion oltiinielg sot Leermeo te pba tenet s0.en06an
99 ceuso of 3 sorlw..SSRL <Sf enih. sedamioe eghab to eabofverd 20
ECL «CS Val Yo dfusted 6 be edd so gogemsh encnes od gakased-sotequ
caregeq off to of M vo sqofevna odt mi tom caw tmehoe tab tootewane Sat :
Fon cow «ZEAL .OS YAM DOLE? need heel wowane bhes dont toot edd bas
towers Dba Yo dost ond tne yathitahaty odd mx Leawood wont —
“stu99 off 10 MLinedda xo votton edt oF tdgsoud gon mew HoLh? gated
egbelnons tuadsin oLtdw «tokbuey oft cote tasmpoul betetao asuod at
weware, art iad toet ofT «bedi nosd ton? ab gavegertene
fat itiaiely bua Leanuos MMYtitatalg od ane rr bontt need bt
“brio tob ton itabmeted mnogu gotten sotv |
Rae
on ime
ant's counsel of any motion or motions ford efault or defaults,
ox for the taking of testimony in proving up their damages June
14, 1955, or at any other time, nor was any notice served upon
defendant or defendant's counsel that the cause would be placed upon
the trial calendar, so that defendant and defendant's counsel never
pefcre January 14, 1936, hed notice or knowledge that the cause was
not at issue and in readiness for trial whemever plaintiffst counsel
should so elect, by giving notice to defendant's counsel.
It also appears that defendant has a meritorious defense in
sald causee Indeed it appears the administratrix in a sult growing
out of this same occurrence obtained a verdict from a jury on which
the Superior court rendered judgment ageinst plaintiff Alfred Lenox,
which on appeal to shis court is this day affirmed in an opinion
filed in case Gene Ho. 39342.
It iz, of course, clementary that after the expiration of
a term of court at which judgment has been rendered, the court loses
jarisdictione By statute in Illinois the term passes @ter the
expiration of 36 days from the date on which judgment is entered.
(Ill. State bar Stats.» 1955, chap. 110) pare 268.) At common law,
by writ of error coram nobis, errors of fact not appearing on the
face of the record, if of such a nature that if known to the court
at the time judgment was entered would hare précluded the entry of
the judguent (provided the seme occurred without negligence of the
applicant), could be corrected. The writ of error coram nobis in
Illinois has been abolished vy statute, (Ill. State Bar Stats.,
1935, chape 110, sec. 92)» and there is substituted therefor a
motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis. By the terms
of the statute the motion may be filed ait any time within © years
after the rendition of the judgment, and although the term has
expired, ali errors of fact committed in the procedure may be
ne
fi oF
a.
aed Ro eonegifgen tuediiv borrwoso omra ent bebivesq) coensg but ont
ad Lusted Ne dinate b 10% enoljom io nolsom yue to ‘Teacios ‘a’ gna
onus, ‘Rogamab thestt qe gnivett, ne towl nog to amistad ‘ity’ tor ie
mogs devise sotion ym aow xO . amid toro yak ta 20 DEOL yar
Hog boos lg od b Ly ow eaueo edt gadt founuoo a's aabne tes ‘no fnebusteb
even foumoo alédahneteb bas’ jnabhoteh fash ‘a tebueteo fated odd
Oe yee ae
“‘gaw gauao off todd egholwoat 10 colton bat pdeer par exaust opted
feanues Yattiiniely rovsmedw faitd ‘tot @asntndos tt Bie bwder #8" ede
‘\teamwec a'éasbuotep o¢ ‘eeleuk gnivig. ue aiools oa Lesany
at seacteb avotvodivem s aed faabuetos fad exadgde Oaks fr’ 1° "°°
ghiwory ¢iva o mt xitéente tintuha off Sthoqge #2 BOBDET Jbeuts BEsa
Heide no YUL A att sointoy a hekiaide seretiwbed sued dkd¥ tO dio
emoned hotlLl Vitintely Jettage Yiomgbut bersbaet Ftueo Fobxequa Sad
" solatgo na mh heut ft6 wae alas a Ftyoo whtd oF Lacgqqs mo sto tev
wa : » en teen : RAERE Lol sed bade mi Hoftt
to moisstigxs oft tetts tans yrsdnomelo yoatwao Te Yer eT 69% O15
aea0L Fumoo os ~botehmet Noad eat daemghel dots da gtuoo Tomes ce
pid -sed% ascang weed oMf OLONALLT nt edutatey . «mbsfokbaiuat
ehouetao af daemon], doldw no stabi eft moet aysb OS To no icactgue
wel NOmmoo GA {s88S stag. OLL sqatlo ¢ 80h qr ated rsdsetate «L£T)
gf? no gukraoqgs tox dost to exotre eRidon mazop tozre:"teo din ye
davo9 of 09 sword Tt dads. otudnm ¢ desta Yo Vy_beoos weds (2ososk
"
to erine of} bobuloaxq oul fivow detedtm» aaw duongbut omit edt te
nt aiden metop torte to dixw ed? shotoerron of bLsoo) e(tuood lugs q
“esatad® tat 98592 »£4%) qotudata yo bedatfods imped aed atomtitt
\@ to teredé hedus ba adi wt otodt bam egy: so9e eOLL +aatlo +250 ‘
antred oft YE. gtéon meno Tors Yo ¢bew! 5 te omerbaen writ ni va0 stom
‘Besey 8 atdviw omits wia da: beth? SORE A eee I
et grret edd dowodttio’ hits admemgout ost. to. sola thane: attest
wl iat Patines bee OE HA oie Lt Arena
whit gaaee
abe
corrected. Prior to the enactment of the Civil Practice act,
it was held that the motion was confined to such errors as might
have been corrected at common law. Cook ve Wood, 24 Ill. 298;
Estate of Gould ve Watsony 80 ITlle Appe 2423 McCord v. Briggs
and Turivas, 338 Ills 158, and even since the anactment of the
Civil Practice act, it has been held that the motion does not
invoke the equitable jurisdiction of the court. Lynn v. Multheuf,
279 Ille Appe 210, and Loew ve Krauspey 320 Ill. 244.
‘The issue of fact in this case is whether defendant's answer
was filed with the clerk May 22, 1955, but stamped by the clerk as
filed May 28, 1935+ The trial judge expressed the opinion that the
clerk did not make o mistake, and that the pleading was in fact
filed at the time indicated by the stamp of the clerk and upon the
date shown by the receipt of the clerk for the appearance fee.
Assuming this to be the case, the question arises whether the fact
that the trial judge, at the time of entering default in judgment,
éid not know that the tardy pleading was on file, was such an error
of fact as if it had been know, would have precluded the entry
of the judgment. Plaintiffs assert that it wuld not. They rely
upon rule 11, secss 2 and 2 of the Superior court, which provide
in substance that when process has been served to a given return
day, defendant shall appear before the opening dey of court on
Wednesday, the second day after such return day, and that in the
event of his failure to so appear by filing a motion or pleadings
he shall be considered in default; and that the filing in the
clerk's office of a motion for extension of time to plead shall
not of itself stop default; that every such motion must be made in
open court prior to expiration of the time limited for appearances
Plaintiffs say it is the intention of sece ly rule 16 that if an
appearanee has been filed in accordance with that section in time,
ais, aottoart ivi est to deen aese arid et, toixs sbetoetioo
tigin ag ntette sowe oF honkinoo saw motion ants tede + bites eam oh
GMOS, LET AS shoe «vy Aoed «Wel Apmmon ta, hotvexree mend, avad,
Bapiz& «v bzopoM 4SAS saqé -L1T 08 enoatek sv bived to stotat
ond to stnemPoame oft conte move bus ,ShL ffl 886 ,eevinu? bus
. ton aeob noiiom ont Jatt blot mead ead gh toe sottoest Ltyto.
siuets to, ov gal st gueo..eds Io, spltotbatayt effet iupe dy expres.
| | og ANB, AER ORF aouauexd »v woot, bas 108 oqGA offT Oye.
i
Towels al? asbss tb sedsodw ai svco abds mi goat to exaat ext
| am rode, oft ys Dogmate, sud \2ECL +88 yak Ax0ke ould si¢2w Dest caw,
edd tant motatge off deanetaxe ogiuh Lofxd of? +88@L .8S yell boltt,
gos? ak ea ipatbaets ed? ait? bos, voxtedeim. 9. dem, tou, bib tuelo,
ort sogu bas Aiello edt to qusta ed? yt dotsoibat omit odd te, beLtr,
s99t oonatasqges ort tot areafo edt Io dgteoes ont yd mvods ota:
fost esl? remdetw asetrs moliaeup off yoaeo. oftood oF @ltit: gaimweead
‘gdneomgtut ak ¢ivetod aaitetse to omlt ond se »egbut Leaked ond gadt
nerd se dave vow ,OLRT ho wew gutbeclq yhtet sad tals wordt tom Hib.
‘Crine ois Hebwisotg ovsd bivew <mword toed bat df Th aw toast to”
qEot Yeu? wtom biwor st sels trowks eTtemtalt” .sheimgbivt entd to!
ebtvetq dobiw .dud9 tokroq#a off to'S ban Qsebod LT ofet Hoge”
i ‘gusiet nevig a od bevrea’ need estt weeod-rq ‘ont’ dat} | constadva vi
80 d2ue9 to “wh acetal ott rotor beeial brn Snabastos eth
egaibsota 10 motion s pabelt vr s9qge ‘oa of outta? eid ‘te suoes
dt’ ni gnttit os’ sass bua gitweted mt ‘betob tan a i
laste boota ‘sa G no tenets 0% ati’? it conte otaioke
Co a
ak obam ed om wekton owe vreve test? ittuste s gore toad gon ‘ton
RAS ek utah tas f
soorsie9qqe wt ‘bod tok oma esta 0 no ttoxtgne et role x00 nego
AOwS Ss. Toes
"ie TE daclt OL oot a +098 ‘to no bynes ould at an yen bigs cee
tt
cout s mt mt moltoose tacit itd be parler abs ‘2 boLtt ‘ae ‘eal sar
2
ee
it ee
oo) a
d@efendant is not to be defaulted without notice if he subsequently
fails to pleads that, however, if he fails to file an appearanoe
in times as provided by that section, he is then im default for
want of an appearance, and that under sec. 2 of rule 36 he is not
entitled to noticee aA different construction, it is said, would
leave the procedure of the court in a chaotic state, and under such
construction defendant could by negligence and nonobservanee of the
rules defeat and nullify the procedure. Plaintiffs cite Mandell v.
Kimbally 85 Illes 582.
Sece 20 of the Civil Practice act, Ill. State Bar Statse,
1935) chape 110, pe 2440, provides in substanee that every appear=~
enee in a civil action, whether in person or by attorney, shall be
made in writing by filing a motion or pleading in the cause which
shall state with particularity an address where service of notices
on parties may be made- Defendant contends that under this section
the filing of a tardy pleading amounts to an appearanee, and that,
therefore, under sece 1 of rule 16y defendant was entitled to
noticee Defendant cites Swierez ve Nalepka, 259 ITlle Appe 2623
Marland Refining Coe ve Lewis) 264 Llle Appe 163-6 Defendant says
the second sentence of secs 1 of rule 16 seems to imply that a
defendant may appear and yet be in default for want of an answer.
She says she does not claim that a tardy pleading ipso facto will
prevent a default, but only that it compels the opposing counsel to
give notice, and then the court may in its discretion either enter
default or give the defendant leave to plead. In this case defend-
ant says the court was prevented from exercising this discretione
The real question seems to be what is the legal effect of
‘the filing of a tardy pleading and the determination of that question
seems to be controlling on this phase of the casee Plaintiffs contend
that it is a nullity. The authorities are not in entire harmony.
pe
uid neupoadkra ed ti solion daocitiw botivetod od of son al shabneteb
sonsxenqae ‘As ofiT of &List of tt etevewod tails ‘gbaerg od afte?
oat $Bietob at ney Ak wit enotioss dans ww bebivorg ‘as eould |
tem ef 6a 32 eter to © oen tobias dads bite eons tongue aw 26 Ghee
binow ghtea af éf eal tarsieno9 Snore Yih A yeobvon OF Betetéhe
dove robe bns yededa clteuils a al Side bie te: ‘Stubobbig ents eveel
diy ‘t6° Vonsvzoevened bas ‘pomoghigen yt bso Psbreteb moivorttdaee
“v Lfebuelty tio ovtivatert ” serubo vorg eutt poapenl bad $00 olor
pe ares "(gaa trae widest
poudads cam esada hit’ doa’ babeaane eivds bie Wh Tel 8%
‘saiseqqn ex0ve dads "soliad billbu MY Geb Nbag Onan’ 5G Conk Salle thee
od ifeda «yenwbiis yd 10 Bobtog mE védtdodw (noLISS LIVES A nt Botte
“Holdw sanco dif at galdcety to Retiom @ ahttit ed jalé dx Wink idan
seokttost to solvrsa orbs eeotbhd ms yd ttatvo td toy’ of9 bi abate tiedte
— eaiamebacel | bsuniog dabbaoted —Lenait Od Youn ad tieHg Ho
rvoms githostq’ yhtad & toy abet eit
od Boltidao ssw saAdew ted ~dT elu to L.d0a Lehn (ots Torey
“4808 eqqA SLLT O8¢ Bilgotall’ .v Rate twt desks gmabmeted | theapsicar
ayse tashnstee .8L sqqa sift MOS ,abwed avs
'g told yfqmt oF dmbbe OE ofFe 10° L088 to seioremse asia
.tewats mes to titew 46Y tiveteb mt od sey bien nMesgge yom sawbasteb
{Liw ofowt otek gulbselg ybuet se dedt minko tem aoob eae ayea efs —
o¢ Loarmon unteogqe ond akognios of ted? ino dud yt insiebys dnevetq —
sodno tontdlo molietoath eff wt yam g@avoo od? world bas {dolton erty
~biietb oseo abdd ot. .baefy of ovsed dnabaie ted eft evtg to tiuated
swottetoeld aids gittatotexe smxt beguoverq, ecw timo ood week, ten
Yo sookto, Legos odd at. deciw od of amooa, soitacup feet edt dan 4
nolsaeup talt to miisninisteh ody bas aatheste ybaed a ‘to sMae one q
Hnotnoe atiiveiclt .eeso- edd to eagdg als? no gail lorine o od, ov, pm aatgoe
weronced.antine ah40n sxe, netizens oh. ethan a At sk tatt
-8=
In Freeman on Judgments, vole 3, pe 26425 Sece 1270, the author
Bayes
“Default judgment cannot be entered against a party who
has an an appropriate pleading on file which has net been stricken
or otherwise disposed of."
Section 1273 says:
“The effect of pleading after the expiration of the time
allowed by the law depends somewhat upon local statates and rules
governing the matter of defaulte But where the practice contem-
plates the entry of a default as a record indication of the fact
and as a preliminary to a judgment, a pleading filed before such
an entry has been made is held suificient to prevent judgment, at
least while it remains undisposed of. An answer filed after the
time prescribed or allowed and before entry of default cannot be
disregarded since it is not a nullity though not strictly regular.
Nevertheless the court may in its diseretion, upon motion, cither
strike such a pleading or permit it to stand or take such action
as justice may require."
In Bancroft om Code Practices, vole 3, sec. 1804, pe 2368)
the author says?
“Ordinarily the right to plead is not cut off until a
default has been entered or claimed in the proper manner, notwith-
standing the time allowed by the statute or the court has expired.
Consequently if a sufficient though belated, pleading is on file,
neither a default nor a default judgment may be entered, at least
until such pleading has been disposed of.
in 15 Re Ge iney BEGe 113» pe 665, it is saids
"If a party, after the time expressly granted for filing a
pleading against him has expired, suffers further time to lapse,
without taking any action thereon, and in the meantime the pleading
is served and filed, he, by such conduct, in effect grants the
adcitional time, and the party is not strictly in default. A
judgment by default cannot be entered for failure to file an answer,
when such answer is not filed at the time such default is attempted
to be entered. A judgment by default is ordinarily irregular md
void if entered after defendant has appeared md pleaded."
The rule in Corpus Juris is thus stated (see 34 Co Jes pe
163):
"Defendant cannot escape the consequences of his default
by filing an answer or plea, after the expiration of the time
allowed, unless it is filed by consent of the plaintiff, or leave
of court, or unless in some jurisdiction it is filed before the
entry of a default."
In Balulis v. Hooper, 338 I11. 2l, the Supreme court, citing
cases, summarizes the law as follows:
= inne
»odisea edd <OVRL 4.0908 «8b08 6¢ «8 «Lov .adaempoul no mestser hl nxt
teysea
oriv yisaq 4. veniegs boretue. ed. fonmag t sisstel" . KS
nedolisa vrccal jou aad dotdw eftt so , ee ets py Pie na x ‘ast
to, basoqath eatwredge xo
por Pr ‘to tiki eft totts goisselg Yo % te. ee
‘Heist bie aesttasia Iacol nog tga 245.30 corn d@ bewolls
-metimo eoitostg sat etendw tw «tineteb to x an ag
dont ods 2 Kokico lint brOsoet’s az ss gong gel 3" aPnRe
Mowe exyeted SefiTt anibselq se .dnomyhy Mf
. §6 etewmabsh sasvotq oF savialtiwa bigest cry ey ee need ‘i Sie
‘ost tedte belli towans mA «to beaoqaibsss emiames tk alee tasel
eg gonnso iiveatobh toe yitme stoted bas bewoLlA xo bedi oabid nas
»taigget yisoliste tom dawont eee at tox a i sonts bebtegotalb
sedtis qnoitom toqu ,~nolioigelbd eF. an dunes old Geeledtrovell
meat en Hous east to buage ot vs hia x0 antboole & dove jor rhe
*eetluspet Yam ootsety Ba
48088. +g .D08L .098 yf afov ,oottoae obo). mo storomed aly) odma
— sayse todtya. sat
@ Litro tito tuo tom af. et tage arava
aftivton .renism reqotq ant ere sat apa dads hiates
ebotiqxe . ae timo ot 10. © eit ah ois |
g@ Slit no af gnibesiqg «beesied taworts mots fieae te 2.
PET SETI ENE Ae tae pier gee
phiea ek Yt 4300 serve’ 0988 get S'D wf eat” ° nae
& QUELLE Lol betnetyg weaotexe emby eld «09te % ydtag’'s si very en
,eagel of eml¢ tondiwt vip Fea agal sist cho rs) cai ‘
gitbes lq add emitasem att mi Bre ge bee ined a
eral etastg toette « steuunae dove Dien a aa chet
yeh tated ct t yfiative tom ah Us rag odd be «amit k
amie ig efit of ermiist rot nage od ¢ gee “tiusies vd Te
betgqmetsa ai ifvated doug £k
emis odd ta &
‘hfe welegotzt ytitentbio ef diasres
‘pee Nebopaaty bom betseqges aad.
oe wie ae nme de
Tass oedhed BeLEe al Da Sina be ih x ste ae
Bad ts cSm09 ‘smorqut ots ets +LEE sce z om a ids pi is
; teworte® 88 wat t extd conta et : }
Val, Se ee
rh ed
"The general rule is, when the time for pleading has
expired and the party has filed a pleading without leave of court
and without consent of the adverse party the filing thereof is an
irregularity, whichs if not waived, renders the pieading liabley
at the discretion of the court, to be stricken on motion or dis-
regarded or treated as a nullity."
We are inclined to hold that under the law of Illincis the
filing of a tardy pleading is not a nullity from the legal standpoint,
but it is an irregularity which may be treated by the trial court
according to its discretipbn. In this case the trial court exercised
its discretion when the fect of the terdy plecdinge was called to its
attenti one Judge Schwaba expressly said that if he had known there
was such a pleading on file he would not have entered the default
and judgmente He, therefore, entered the order setting the judgment
asides in the absence of bad faith by defendant, we think that almost
any trial judge would have done likewise, Courts exist to try cases
on the merits,not to dispose of them on mére technicalities. The
decisions of this court are in conformity with this view. Straus ve
Biesen, 242 Ill» Appe 3703 Riesdorf ve Fyfe, 250 Ille Appe 122.
There remains for consideration the question of whether
defendant was guilty ef negligence which would preclude this relief.
The trial court held that he was not, and the question ef negligenee
is usually one of fact to be determinec from 211 the circumstances.
It would unduly extend this opinion to consider all thecasese We
hold that the pleading of the defendant which was on file was not
necessarily a nullity; that the question of whether defendant wes
guilty of sueh negligence as would bar this remedy was for the courte
As wes well said in the x ecent case of Scully v. Richardson et ales
Gen. Moe 39085, cpinion filed January 4, 1937, “there is no syllogism
or mathematical formula by which to determine negligence." The judg-
f the trial court will be affirmed.
ely , APP IRMiDe
OfConnor and McSurely, JJo, concurs
“Qe
apet sutbaslq sot emt) ood -aodW gah fut Levontgvent”.
gusoo Yo vast tuodsiw guibselq » belit aad yetaq edd bas bos hexe
se ak tooredt antlit eat ytisq setevba alt to tmeanco suont hy 5
eoLdalt inane add etebmer nether gon tL Pweg Sp
| ot atomttit to wad add ober ¢add Bhod o¢ bomtiokt ous ow SER ae
| cintoqhaada imot ots moxt yiftua e tom at ankbsela vbaas | 8 ‘to er ridss
P00 tebes ‘ects ve bodsott od yas to bets Wisskigertt as an ah, dud
sibyay pees
baa istoxe: Pads Lobes ub saao ants ‘ot. snadtoroads ath ‘ee, path )
ee
avi of bolas ‘aa authsola. woes ent te foot odd, necte ‘aotiereald wa
oxotls prorat bast oat te tant bkse Uses igs adeno? “eabath “sto da ai
; ‘Haste b seta howsde ovat som Low oat enkt. ao Bulbselg 6 slows, asm
i drembust ots gukites tohs0 ould bevudaw couetouadé: eee " emsamateh tna
“) guomts tard “Malad ‘ow (dnahudtod ge'dd GE bad Ye 'Wndonee wld GR sebtes
Bees o Yt o8 saixe adarod aia Loe 285 anoh ovad piuow eghut Lakes yite
. ox saoks Afaototood obs no madd 20 sa0qsb. oF ‘May d tee, ot
v ‘awards ewoly, adits ttdw, 1 here at free ‘bebe! ein “40 a ain ii
SSL aa ffT 088 wort +¥ dubba: % 40% aa ste pee aan
‘tentedw to. notteeup> eg, nadidianaiiahieit 70% entomer, stedt 4
stelie x eift obufootg bfuow tote sonegttgen 20 yeLtrg. aw srveneons ;
sanog igor 6 no byaau. ay bute. ton ese oat Salt bfod douwe ads a8 {
OTS Ree Rees mR Bh.
_ SAS OLLEt BaD TLD, oft ffs sort pombiersso8 of oF dowt Yo bug”
= ay at 2 ESD bark a
‘oy. ness o este Fecal tsb.Lano 9 ot no aby ‘Beote setae toes
8 amt oe me
“aaw Smabastob toddad to sotdeoup sat sand pw ttéed a Yrtwen on
— ont igh asw hte soning ~ — ae iat seanns ‘to Ved iid
TR Ta ty
Taba oUt "seonep Lyon exttutoteb of slolaw ee = ol Eootd amos
« QUAY THA ee 3d fc F
50 hes
PAY af ty
wi i
593235
a :
WALTER BNGEL, 2 Minor, by Otto )
Engel, his next friend, and )
OTTO ENGEL,
Appellees,
APPE FROM BUPERIOR COURT
va
i ) OF COOK COUNTY.
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal )
Corporation, 90 + ? Ee:
Appellant, re J 0 Lok: 6 0 4.
WR. PRESIDING JUSTICE MATCHETT
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
January 17, 1934, Walter Engel, the plaintiff, sustained
serious injuries through an explosion of inflammable material at a
dump maintained by the City of Chicago near the intersection of
of Springfield avenue and 68th street. He brought this suit by
his father, his next friend, basing it on the alleged negligence of
the City and other defendants who had deposited material on the
dump. in the same suit the father sued personally to recover neces-
gary expenses incurred by him in furnishing medical cate to his son
as a result of the injury sustained at that time, Defendants
answered the conmiplaint denying liability. There was a trial by
jury wiiech returned a verdict in favor of some of the defendants
but in favor of Walter @ngel for $45,000 and his father in the
amount of $3400 against the City, and judgments were entered on
these verdicts, from which judguents the City appeals,
it is mot contended that the damages are excessive, but
the City contends in the first place that the judgment in favor of
Otto Bigel, the father, should be reversed because he failed to
give notice to the City as required by section 7 of chapter 70 of
the statutes, (See Ill. State Bar Stats., 1935, p. 1804.) It is
algo contended that the judgment in favor ef Walter Engel should
be reversed for error in the instructions given at his request,
because the elleged negligence was not the proximate cause of his
ow, Waal
0 ee xc ome ae ae
ore |
Ly Fi 5 : ih va ali olin " gee Ligaga ~
i] “gnyod Rormuave Mord tage ' wh
| ee : bi: sewet 2 to jae ts
| staloqoney* fog mete “te” “*" ‘
- ‘shiiinidl 6, QRATHO To WTO uEP’
“BOD shal OS ene
ray at Sarees mH om Leiene “Sil &
amazin rheut. P ong ht ae jie 3
ms we oa eh Cie
‘ wae an i tc I
bentetese ({Vristiale oHd ,LogaR Tos Lew , ‘peer Hee en iit sae na
(ste Lelioton eideumetat to aotsolexs ae Aysorss’ sis uth Stat!
To softgeaxetat edt t29n ogacidd to yeto wat Yd fe ntiis ie gabe”
Ud tise olde tiguetd oH, wtesrta dt8d bas emiove Hie Migahs me te
to eonegiiges begaife ast mo, te. pakesd basics sea ae “ae Dis
bigs
| Gare nee nit ot ‘oteo Laoibom ipeseoues ‘ak | |
; “e$aahce'tom seat dada te, asienan, mpearin ost % ‘uot a8 Se
; we kein? » asw oeatt | sytlihdans anlyaoh tate temog ext
“agaghae 2eb ous to omos to rove inh tolbtev 4 herr
eds at ‘torts and bas 900, an ‘tot faak not ia 2
a0 betedao “exow edimubst ae edt0 hain tantepa cour we noe
mt Ke ei Pre Ps na wave bins et sity
eisocce ed “out atascaiat siokaw mont natotines: enond
+ Ruts eek ae yaad laaiaiieaslal :
tad ovineeoxs ous "sansa “as ‘dade p onlay ol ae me ez
vd “Wivo? et “Fao cighe BAY badd “opaky Warts ‘cad BE bbaet: Begs we sis
~F be fie? oi Severed peaxovot ‘ed bLwore qediak Paty j 2
eo aSsdatio' 6 VY" ‘no itoea re ‘povtdpes’ adysio “bit oe ool F
wi Gr poet a Beer fetdee tat Ogle e” fet est)” ree g 9
b£xosie Loyail tosLeW to Tove mi ena eutt phasrtoy: ates a
tei
“es
injury, because the streets upon which the accident occurred had
not been opened for public use, and because plaintiff neither ale
leged nor proved as to Walter Engel the existence of an attractive
nuisance, and there was, therefore, no express or implied invita-
tion to piaintiff to be uvon the streets,
The alleged error as to the failure of Otto Engel to give
notice to the City cannot be sustained, The statute in question,
by its terms, limits the necessity for notice to actions which are
about to be commenced "on account of any personal injury.” The
suit of Otto Engel was not of that character, We so held in
Calabrease v. City of Chicago Heights, 189 Ill, App. 6534, invan
opinion which is only abstracted, The statute is to be liberaily
construed (McComb v, City of Chicago, 263 Ill, 512), and while
defendant earnestly argues from what it deseribes as "internal
evidence" that it was the legislative intention that the ststute
should apply to a claim of the character made by Otte Engel, we
are not persuaded and adhere to the decision formerly made, More-
over, although he was net required by the statute so to do (Me-
Donald vy, City of Spring Valley, 285 111, 52), the plaintiff, by
his father Otto, caused in due time a notice to be served uvon the
City whieh contained full information of the facts required by the
statute, Again this question was not raised in the trial court,
It is presented in this court for the first time and therefore
cannet prevail, Graham vy. City of Chicago, 346 Ill, 645; Simon y,
Gity of Chicago, 279 Ill, Apo. 85,
As already stated, there were originally several defendants
te the suit, and defendant complains that the court instructed the
jury in substance that. if the City was found guilty it would not be
relieved of liability by reason of the fact, if the jury so be-
lieved, that neglizence of some other party had also contributed
igi
%
Lien C2 RS
{ badk hexauen inobtoon ant detdw cogs piogzte. sat eeusood eta, |
i o» Las sesit Lon Tiidate ce eeuseed Bhs 2am heard ‘cot pariago: beer tom
evitontite ou 29 eouptadxe, oxit Legak xed tae o¢ se bevorg tom hogel
wat ivnd benign To maotgxe on ,etoteredd , sew oxest hae _conne bam
sadporse ell! Wout Of of Witemtalg 6¢ not}
il pot ed foyeit oss 18 exvltat eit of be tere begetle oct?
Mo kieenp sit osubate eit ,bontsteva od tonnep yt tO ecly of sotton
eis dotadw eaottos ot. eo fio tot “‘ttenosen. eat athads bated att yd
ect "“.ytutist leqortog yas te taupoos, a0" hoonomnoo ad ot toda
: aL biod og oY .x9teetede todd ot fon maw sai ott, 29, wed
cpt ghtG GA. fit ORL settaied ones Le so Nn RABEL 8 ABS.
pp sscaioyay es. getteent 4 sasin. eae nos e yfin
Stutase esd tend sottaedat, evidaletyes | oid, paw 8
Daa ‘
oF tego, oft0 yd sham tetemtaso one. ‘te. Miele. rip » wane, Bou,
“oxo eho YLiemtot sokeised ett of. preche, bas bebe G.. a
~gil) | oh. et 08 gtufate ont ee boxiuper, tom aw fot 97 Ve
Wd. .Titaheta edt (88, fT 88S. .yetisV. aobxee. 3 Leaot
oid sogu bevier ed of eoiton « emit esd at, » Wa o#t0. Sees
ead yd ketispet atoat.ect To ‘Aoltamrotas. fiur heaistace ota y419, .
et1woo feist edt al begles tom. sew nok daoup, aids akegd . ,otetada,
oxotetadd. baie, oma tetas odd to. asHaD. sist ob podnenerd. ab ee iy
X HOE 1202 LT BPE .gpge dell Boy sgsext aadiidaciadedid
Ce ws honda? BH Pere Serkan 28, ‘anastlt: ev. .onps R ms
atuabasted sareves. Yilguigizo orew.osadt .betade beget dis ‘yt pty
exd besoimtank tiwoo eft tact astetomop, gnabseteh bus ,thue ext of)
od tox, bivoy. ct Ytliug bayer, gow ystD, oni? IE dad? eonetadwa, at cxvh.
: ~od08 yuh eid TE , tosh edd, to, aegoex yd yestidels, te-hevelion:
| pptusdze gee, 08a, best. yoes xedto, empe, 29:eonentigen: ted. dhewnbsy
eS a
3
to plaintiff's injury. It is urged that it was error to thus par-
ticularly point out the defendant City. Compiaint is also made that
the court instructed the jury that children might lawfully use the
streets of the city for recreation, pleasure or curiosity without
becoming trespassers, We do not think there was reversible error
in either instruction. The undisputed evidence showed that the land
used by the city for dumping purposes had been laid off as a publie
highway, A dirt road prior to its use as a dwap ran through the
center of it, The undisputed evidence showed that children had
for a long time been accustomed to congregate on it and pass over
it on their way to and from school. It is true it had not been
formally put into use as a public highway, but the fact that it
had been so platted was one of many circumstances from which we
hold the court might properly instruct the jury as a matter of law
that plaintiff was not a trespasser at the time he was injured, As
to the other instruction, it has in substance been approved in numer-
ous cases, Bekels v, Muttschall, 230 Ill, 468; Union Trac, Co. vy,
beach, 215 Ill, 184; Perryman v. C, ©. Kys, Co., 242 Ili, 273;
Vanek v. ©. ©, Kys, Co., 210 Ili. App. 148; Pennington v, Rowley.
Bros. Co,, 241 Illi, App, 58. Moreover, defendant is in no position
to complain ef the instructions because he entered no exception to
any one of them, as provided by section 1 of the act to amend sece
tion 67 of the Civil Practice Act (See Laws of 1935, ». 107.)
Defendant also contends that the existence of an attrac-
tive auisance is neither alleged in the complaint ner proved as a
fact by the evidence, Defendant says that such a nuisance did not
in facet exist as to plaintiff Walter Hngel. lt is argued that to
create @ liability for an attractive nuisance it is essential that
the thing claimed to be the nuisance must possess atiractive and
alluring qualities which appeal te childish instinets of curiosity
fon BIS eotide fon o@ rove “Yodt ‘ayde Ynehneted leonebive sit yo toe?
ey
pat eee
~vsq aut of tome sew $2 tort begry ef Ca muha at rubato ot
aut ebom oale ef tatetomod .xttD- ‘tebas'teb out tuo “tubes viteLuots
edt gas vllviwas digi mexbitet fasts ‘vat ‘ould botounsent Pavee “ae
“Fuedtiw "eb totes xo “otuess La ‘nol taonge% ‘et ‘ate oat ‘to ptoonte
totrs oidterevet eaw exsds Anise ‘tom ob ov axoanacaont jasaceue
post esd dads Teeiae sous bive ‘boduige tbsw ont “snoktowsd ant xedtio 06
ofiduq ate tte bial ‘aved be assoqzua antcnuh at he " ettd ei be
“oad sguotald net qh 8 Be ‘ony adh ‘od tolng bate ‘eth A. det
“bast aeub Lite dailt bowosdn ‘eonsbive ‘beviquthus ‘ott “at to 0d a0 8.9
"ave usa ‘pate 2k 10 stagetanee ‘oe besiosausee aed su é and 01
eed fou pad $4 ‘evxe at #8"
“SE tasks teat edt sud eawdg ha ye s ‘ae ‘baw ce aferaninst ¥
éw dokdw mist eecdsd omiorts > nam te ene eaw postate ¢ 08 w08d ‘bad
wal “to retten aa Yuul ond toustenk “veteqotg dil dew ‘209 | re “post
eA .botutal asw od sais oat ds reeungwerd des ide ilankoh te
-somua al bovotags aaed donstudue at “pad” ae, aobsciieens \ ‘velba Sih Se
eRe ee aoe Be ae 2 0
sr 20) a2s8T neta Bod et cal Siasign 3 3uh "Syddae ame
of mold qeoxe ‘om betesnd ed eausced andltois sEsoiixd ak out te iat ‘9
~o¥s biome of gos oat ‘to f moiteon we bebivorq ee ,madd te 0 “ya
USO .¢ Beet ‘to awed 008) toa ooftoeet Lhv20 ond Yo VO in t
ladgaadts aa To sonstelxe ‘sult esi “abredion fgg saat aneieald
@ te bovote tom salalemoo ody itt “|
of Yes? Bevgte si si J Legatt god laW Yiitntatg ot va died fies 2
gad safvieweo ai 92 eoliie tum eviteertts ta tot ititidett a@ etesxo q
bie ovitosttda eedadeq tenm oneal ony od ‘ot bentlaLe ailtsid seis a
ydieobtue ‘to atont vent detbLinls og “Eweaes do titw vote pend de!
4
ana playfulness, and further that the child injured must have been
attracted or allured to the object found to be a nuisance in re~
sponse to such ehildish instincts. In so far ae plaintiff's
complaint is ecneerned defendant is not in a position to urge
that it was defective in this respect. Defendant did not demir
to the complaint or move to strike it or in any way question its
sufficiency in the trial court, It made no motion for an in-
etruction in its favor at the close of all the evidenee on the
ground of variance between the evidence offered and the facts as
stated in the complaint. Under the former practice it was neceasa-
sary that a motion for s directed verdicton the ground of variance
should specifically point out the particular variance melied on.
Probst Comsetr. Co. v. Foley, 166 111., 33; City of Chicago v,
Bork, 227 Ill. 63; Rlofski v, Railroad Supply Co., 235 Ili. 150;
Pickett v, Kuchan, 323 I11, 142, Under the Civil Practice Act
(Ill. State Bar Stats., 1935, chap, 110, parse. 161 and 170)
pleadings are tc be liberally construed with « view to doing
substantial justice between the parties, and no pleading is to
be deemed bad in substance which shall contain such information
#8 shall reasonably inform the opposite party of the nature of
the claim or defense which he is called upon to meet, and all
defects in the pleadings, elther in form or substanes, not ob-
jected to in the trial court, shall be deemed to be waived, In
Carson-Payson Co, v, Peoris Terrazzo Company, 23893 Ill. App. 586,
this court held that even the failure to allege in a complaint
in tort that the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence
was not such a defect as could be taken advantage of upon appeal
where the sufficiency of the pleading had not been challenged in
the trial court, If the complaint here was defective, we hold
the defect has been waived by the defendant,
!
n
b
need eved taum boutat blise ot dadt gedtr't bos, ,apenlvtyelg bon.
“or aid Sones tuct 2d of beuroy foetdo eit of beawite to, botoattte ,
a'Tittintelg es tet oe at .etenitent dalbiice soue ot senoqy,
; egaw ‘ot notttaoq & at renee et J 1g bets Le b He mtponoo wt talslqmen
rumob fon Dip YaaiaeteG .toeqses eld ub evitoeten vow h tedt
age mah savwp qu ye af to tf eaitte of ovom to datatqmog oat, ot .
! watt Ae tot aelJom on eben at 9 tH90 teixt odt ot Woe to LT Tae
eat to sousbive. eat LLe to eeofo ont ta. tovet atk at woltoutts
as wapst out dag baxetie eouabive eat mented manaltay Xe DANNEE.,
~n9900 enw ti coitoerg remot act tebaU ,tutetquoo edd at hotate,
ssusitev to bavotg ect aojothuey Botoatib a tot agivom~ tend yee»
ie bellow gousitev tslvolizeg wad two tatog ylisottioggs saa
at opgoido to Yttl 786 4 «ftT ane ekade
308 .£LT BES og
“(ore bos fof ety «Ott: om, + ait pipeernenrs otade Add.
_putoh ot woty 4 cttw heurtenoo yliaxedif od of ets spelt ie
! of ek anttbeotg on baa .meltzag ont 8 aries oattent, atts be
mottessretat dona nhat cee, Lede dio bib sonstadue Al, bed deine iy
to oruden edt ‘te yieeg, stiaoqge ald mate tas vaiditaieall i ffecia ie.
fie hae ,teem of sou belian at od dotdw oui
rs ado gon alone to aot ad sondia. Pi se ;
at ehaviaw od,.of bamosh oq: Atame, ah habensiaet id cent
.988 .gmh 11 888 ,ymeqmod. oxgatzen at )_ Apey,
tateatquoe # mk sgeits of senile ould dca bled Jd
oousnityes yrodedizdaee mort sett pay Tiitatele esd teds eal —
“ fesgqa Hogs ‘to, agetaevbe sealet ed biupo as doeteb « sinus, story aw!
ft begmmttato, ned gon bat gaibsode ext ‘to, yooltod tua exit: exosive »
bLod ow. ,evitosteb saw exod takatqmgo, os, tT» drus debts oath)
Wubrotoh ont Ye, boview ased ead semana |
%
The question of whether the evidence was sufficient to
prove cause of action is, however, open for consideration in
this court, and requires a summary of the material evidence,
Springfield avenue, where the aecident occurred, is the
centerof a plot of ground bounded on the north by 67th street,
on the south by 69th street, on the east by Mamlin and on the
west by Crawford avenue, being two blocks square. With the ex-
ception of a single house the premises were vacant and unime
proved, The premises were subdivided September 20, 1923, and
the streets and alleys dedicated to the city as public highways
pursuant to the provision of the statute, Before the City began
Gumping there a dirt road in Springfield avenue was used by
vehicles, The City began using the premises as a dumping place
about the first of April, 1933. Refuse material was dumped
along Springfield avenue from 67th street (also known as iiar-
quette Road) to 69th street. The purpose of dumping was not
only to dispose of waste material but to lay the foundation for
future use as a street. North and south of these premises
Springfield avenue was paved, as were the other streets on all
sides of it. At the time plaintiff was injured the dumping had
been done from 67th street south on Springfield avenue to 68th.
street, and some material had been dumped from 69th street north
on Springfield. The dumping was done under the supervision of
the ward superintendent of the 13th ward of the city, who, under
the ordinances, was under the direction of the superintendent of
strects, Wagons and trueks from the city driven by persons under
contract with the city to carry its garbage; private trucks as well
as trucks from the Municipal airport dumped on this plot of ground,
the material deposited on the dump was of various kinds; some such
as ashes, tin cans, bottles, copper, brass, zine and aluminum were
4
|
ot diotoltine exw eotehive edt tested to metteonp ont, . :
- mi mekvetobianes «tpt uego ,xevewod ,eh mottos to exes. syome
seonebive LIsiretsn ot to yRemuve « eanbupst, hoe , depo. weit
edt et ,betavobe toebloos od? enosw .gunere bhobtgaire.
~ieoxte dtd yd diton sit ap hobawod hawyowe to tolq e Toretaee
‘ent no bas milasli yf deeo odt no ,teeute d¢-08 yd adwoe ont mo
-xo sit idi¥ .easupa axooid owl gated ,euneve brotwend yd deew
eatin bos dmcosv stew sseinetg eft eoved olgats « to nohsaso
bre ,S8CL ,08 tedawtqod bebivibdve oxew asatnexq eat, shevorg
eyawigid ofidug ee ytie ot of beteatheh eyeiie bac aieptde oat
maged yii0 edd etoted .ataseta edd to aoiniveng edd of dasvatuq
qd bean asw sumeve bisttgainge af boos drhb « oxsdd setqua®
egalg guiquush x am sealuerg ont yrinw maged (tO edt .,petotsion
hoquuh vaw Loizetem gevteR .cb@L ,Linga to tevitt ent pom
~tsii we nvom ocala) tesxte Att met? saneva bfe:
don asw yuigheh to caugrug eff .dentde Ane@d of (eo etteup
tot toitebusot oid yal of cud Letretea eteww Yo enece th ot hme
peatiterg saedt to sidwor baie ddtok .tooute 2 ae tas eromtyt
\ [fe vo ateetts vette att erew sa ,bevaq sew outove biettgaize
baal yuiquuh ot betshal edw Ttitatelq emit off tA ht Xo weblea
380 ‘ot suave Slaityuitgs oc Ad vee abeetde sleh® score prey pear
dion tours dea mort beguuh nesd bed Leivetom ewow bus .teente
to noheiviequa edd tehos ene wey gaiqueh oct sesnassbasiteids | si
tepay ,odw ,yito ead 19 btew aSs-ent te gnebae sat piew ont
to tuebastaivegua od? to meitowxth ext sehr saw: anniek at.
tebay anesteq yo mevins ytio edt wont adowet bas anogal wieoude
iisw ae adowrs etevitg ;o_edtaea ath yrtes ot ytto sult ditiw 3 uliSiee .
-hasotg ‘to ¢olq aids ao begumh troqtis daqlolayl salt moet exous tae
& Bs ot r
crow muntowts bas onts,,geatd,,Teqqog, ,eetitod .8Ae? att,2edee 88
dp ue, omton . yabals enoltay., ‘to. asw quah edt mo botheogeb
a
snixge gots |
ee :
Ee * Rae
non-combustible; others such as cork, paper, sawdust, rags, old
brushes, were combustible but not explosive, imeh of the material
consisted ef cans, containers and bottles which heid liquid chemi-
cals, the product of Wizard, Inc., and Kidway Chemical Company,
whieh dealt in articles of this kind/ These materials were ex-
plosive and were hauled from the plants of the corporations and
deposited there by lr, Zimmerman, who had been employed by these
corporations and whe testified that he asked and received permise
sion from the ward superintendent to dump these materials at this
Place, The ward superintendent denied that he gave this permis-
sion. There was evidence both ways, but the verdict of the jury
seeme to settle that issue of fact in favor of the plaintiff,
Zimmerman deposited altogether about 240 truckloads of material
of which 10% or 24 truckleads consisted of this latter sort of
pessibly explosive material, ‘he orders of the companies for
which he worked were that the cans and bottles should be broken
up, but he said it was not practical for him te do so. Zimmerman
began to dump October 31 and continued to dwup until Noveuber 23,
1933, These materials were scattered al] over the dump and for
months had been picked up by the children visiting the dump. Fires
were burning on the dump from time to time for many weeks and were
observed by practically everyone whe passed that way. ‘The testi-
mony of experts shows that some of this material, such as liquid
wax, will ignite and explode at 150° to 250° Fahrenheit, and that
& container holding this material, put into the fire and heated to
& certain degree, would explode and blow flames in all direetions,
The evidenes shows that fires burned or smoldered on the dump for
days and sometimes for more than a week; taat the lires were fré-
quently burning while the men were leveling off the dump, and
there was also testimony tending to show that the men whe leveled
Br ltl ple Ne a
tasid, bun ,dlodooxsel °ORS of, ‘ae. tna PEE, NEP: &
aN.
’
BLo ,aget ,fashwee ,teqeg ,Atoo ee Hous axedtoe jo {ditasudmoo-aon
Laltosen 9x} %0 Kou seyteotaxe ton tud efdttaudmy exow ,sedaund
whmedg biuptl bled doidw gelttod bas eteated ago .8ctK9 ‘to betaiemoo
synequed Leotnedd yewbtd ban ,,oaT ,brastW tp soxborg pat ,atas
“x0 90% oiteiam gerd butt vist) Yo aefoitte at t1a9b dotse
bag asotiatoqroe est Yo atnalg ont wont hoLued orew bas svyteotg
oged?. yd bevolque need bed dw ,aaxtommk® .xM yd orgdlt bottooqeh
~elmreg beovisoet base betes of stadt bettiteos ose . has enoisetogtos
eld? J elelreian 9gecd qowh et toedustatroeye brew edd.moxt aote
~eimeg alu? evea eu tect botood sagbagtatiaque biew edt . .eostg
yrrt, od? lo, deibsoy, od? fad. ayew sted epab.
fatretam to ehaotioud OS Juode tediegot le betiaogeS aaczeas
‘to dz08 wodiat aids To hetatenos ehaotdours 8 20 ROL ota, Xo
s0% wolneguos add to axebro oat Lebreton eytapiaxe, Neches og
aederd ed buts seltiod ba» anse end ter? enew bexixow eat do tiw
Ramones. 08 ob, oF aic 10% leotieang ton asw af biee od sud qu
68 toduoyoll Litany, quvk of, bawahsaoo, baw £8, upsoted gaunb of ammed
oe
“tot bas gawd edt cove Lis henetioca exow whelnodam oneal .BECL
sort .qush odd gaivialy merbiids eat yd qu betote need bad adtnom —
sroW Ane gioot yaom xo omdt of omit mont gaurd ond. ao antesud oer
~itasd asf , .yam fas bosaag cm, anoxnpre xLtaptioarg x¢ berzendo
binpit ex sows .,leizatem ally to, oes, fast, avons atreqxe 2e.Kape
oot dks alias wold, on prvotiny Leow
mokk, gah 92 a9 bovehLowe to, honed marth tage, arate, pasebion nat
met't onow aaait ont Jase jaloan # malt orost sot aextdenon bam eyab 7
Loy pte, sind ot, To gaklowed exew som oot eLhsiw gekoecut, 8 aoe :
HAG ie
dpe ere komelee nes, elt: saat sscialanienscmanaiiianmaiins sii
OF » ane ateny vend eee 3
“Tikdabet, psd 19 ove’ mb toa to ouwal edd oftene ibid
off the dump would light the fires,
Thing /evidence from which the jury could find that these
fires weré permitted by the employees of the City and at times
lighted by them for the purpose of disposing of the combustible
material. Children of ages ranging from 6 to 16 years visited
the dump daily and picked up such articles as they might wish,
They picked up cans and bettles of the chemical company and they
played around the fire; they brought little wagons with them and
carried away the material they picked wp; no one ever told the
ehildren not to visit this place and none of the many children who
testified had ever seen a watehman on the dump; neither were there
any signs warning them of danger or telling them mot to come upon
the premises,
Plaintiff was 12 years of age; he had been in the habit
of visiting the dump with his brother and other boys; he had
picked up various articles and had taken a considerable quantity
of cans and bottles filled with fluid; there was a box full of
containers in his home. On the day in question he went to the
dump with a companion, Francis Justice, 13 years of age; they took
with them an old baby bugey and were looking for polish and cans;
they found five or six cans and bottles on the dmmp; they became
cold and decided they would go home; they had a box on the buggy
in which they put the cans, and sometimes when they moved the
bugey the box would fall off, and they say they decided to throw
the cans and pottles away; they saw a fire on the dump at 68th
atreet, and their testimony is that a truck had pulled in there
just a short time before; the evidenee does not show that it was
a city truck; they did not know whe lighted the fire; they put
their buggy with the front end of it about 3 feet from the ire,
and they sat on each corner of it, warming themselves, Plaintiif'g
wy
Pies o> 1 le ‘ «9 saw
in We seas test batt biyoo yrul, ext dgidy mox't eonohive\sa6aT >. pes
gonls is hue ytil edt to woeyoique oat yd hothioxeq otew were?
‘eiditveuduas ead to gatenqeld Yo eaoquuq est tot mech yd ‘petagst
botieiv atsey Of of 6 mort guigaot eege to mevktind . , Lobtodam
. safesw tigi yedd es eefotiqs dove gu bododq dae ehied.quch ext
edt, baa Yrs G09 fsolmero end te welt tod hie @nao. oe hodoig: rgaeet
_ pa oats dttw eoogew eiss il tiguond, “ant sorlt edt Pewowe’ boysla
; _ ett biod reve ene om jaw bekoig yads Leixesam exs yowe batateo
one eth Lisle Yuen eis to exon bas peat ais dhaiv of Jon de ase
exead oxew woud Low qmuh eit mo aaslode# 4 aese teve bad bstibrasd
_ sBeult ont deysl btvow. comb ext 220
negn emgo oF tomas gaiilet to tegomb to med gakenaw agi qe
- thdad ods cad ai90d bas of j9g8 to eteey «Be aaw. titintelt, | * ety
bad ed sexed tedte baa tsdtord atd ditiwv quash ect. gatitety te
tigaanp oldarehtangs & meted. bed hae. aefoiisa auoitey, au belotg
to. {fut xod ¢ aaw exesde , bin tt Athy, ho filt gelitod. bas Brig ste
edt of tn0y ef nottgoup ab yab adi 20, -.9mod.ebs ch: exentatnes
Zoos est 3938 To sis0y. ef ,eoitast atosert Kotaamncs i MEW cau
panio bas setleg tot gtitoel eew bas ygaud, aula bho me et thw |
emaood yo <q Ocit m9 neltted bas emmy whe 36, awit bawo? cea,
yaaud exit sto xod # best yest pomerl og binow yextt, bablosh dae bLeo
edit boven Yeds node geattemoe has ,asao oat sug xe eighties
tw
‘vor, of bobloeh yout yee wat 5m .Tte Lfet binow xod oct, Yaaed
| ae ta quuh oxlt mo ort & wae. YOR, {yews palsiod. bate BARD AR,
erent a beting basi douts # dadt at xsouiktnes theads bam .taonte:
wew th gasid work ton goob sonehive. eat ,eteted aad trode & sont
ney yout outs ond betdgts ow out, #00, bib, yous, caoumt ytto a
ik go aed agi toe? bd toda at Ra Af. tmoet ome sigiy, Yaaud thest,
sfentbaiats " ewekeumntl gauiwtew we ‘to xeatos dose ao sae ‘yout bas
A
-
testimony is;
“Then we got warm and we decided to go home, as it was
getting kind of dark, and we got up and about the same time ag
I turned sideways my body was---my body was facing north, and I
heard a noise, and I turned my head to look around and something
shot out at me, It was a bluish, whitish flame shot at me, ands
it shot on the lower part of my body. There was a nuise lise a
loud fireeracker. Thuis stuff shot om me all around,*
His companion testified:
“Then we got up, and I was just getting up and the ex=
Plosion equirted on him,”
fhe injuries sustained by plaintiff were terxibie, His
underwear was entirely consumed to the waist and burnt in several
Places; the clothes showed brown and yellow stains as distinguished
from burns, these being of the same color as the solids in the
liquid wax. Expert evidence was given that a part of the higher
boiling solvents had been in contact and were at the time of the
trial still present in his garments.
Mitchell, the ward superintendent, denied that he gave
Zimmerman peruission to dump. Witchell alse said he never saw any
of these bottles or cams or any paper or eartons or boxes centaining
the nanes of the chemical companies, and his acting foreman gave
testimony to the same effect. the assistant foreman siso testified
that he had notified the police that unauthorized dumping was being
done on the property and asked them to catch the people who were
doing it. The evidence on these points was conflicting and is
settled by the verdict of the jury.
The contention of defendant is that there are two indispen-
sable elements to an attractive nuisance; that in the first place,
the ohject claimed to be such a nuisance must possess attractive
and alluring qualities whieh appeal to childish instinets of couri«
osity and playfulness, and, second, that the chiid whose injury
it causes must have been attracted or allured to the okject by the
response of Kis childish instincts, I+ is contended these essential
elements were lacking in this case, It is said that the objects
wy
tak ynomltaes
asw it as ,emorl og of beblooh ow bas mzaw tom ow aac”
ee omit smse oft tuode boxe qu tog ew bas ,aueb To bait anes
I bas ,titon gatoelt sew ybhod yu--+-aew veer. fa ayevebia henry? .
gaicdtexos bas buyote dool ot heed ya hontut bas ; Peng & biased
‘bie et ts dods ewalt deli iow ,deletd # .eev tL, ot t60 dede
@ eiil meres &S eaw erect .ybod ym te taaq <ewok eds oo fords th
apngd * bavots Ifa enone tena Tints ict stedosetpertk boot
on pied kteed nobemgmes)-¢
wen esit bas qu igatsieg seut maw bus, ge deg ae asd 005 9:
naa 10 rly ye noieose i
HOS, TR ae
ati seutks 0d eter Hiiaiele we bontedess colmutak oat
‘ Aig: apace?
taxevoe tk Sonu bas detew exit 98 bemwat0> vier tae sew ‘Seowenbar
ROMERO. SUEY. %, Le ae Ae
DediatugitelD Be eniata woltey bas ‘awoxd bowoda aedtoLo odg yg
pres +
sats wd sbiLoa od as solos ouea oat te sated onodd, “aot ‘met
nary 4 r*
w
wedged uit to ouaq & tent nevi | eam sousbive eroqeil aw bhupht
ay ey Beaty Ny Lat v ae sek
odd to outs uty te oxew bow ‘toatace mt ased bast eduovios ‘gailtod i
Tash fe GOR SRR le i nS aa ie ie fae ae j
satiegteg eld ab ‘taswexg titte fait
Pet tava Ang oid
evay eos test red rons 4 PARROE ERR bisw 0 epost i
a? wae ‘cave oss abaw cate iferostu qa ot ‘nots bt0g aut oountS
autntesaoy asxod x0 pap <0 “ragag ‘Oi: <0 ano "te Keg ee ‘geaas ‘,
a ah GURy Hyags alt
ove “niau9 70 ankios ain ‘bua e0tnegnos kao toeds ‘eid to 8 ‘a aSeRA 9)
Cen. te
bokttiac? ais “aiputez0 insieieen oat eee the ouaa eutd of aout tees
ashate
sated ase saigaut pasktansusny yeas sontog ous boititoa best aa bast
Ae re ys fe conn
ore ‘outw aigoog ‘eat idee os aedt boas ‘bits ‘dregora : esiob
At Nee en ,
gt bas patdoittaos « 2aw ‘etatog soot 0 ‘somebive “eat %
‘ & PERT Reais
. nat ‘ont to “totbrev eal yo Be. dion
be Be RRS ayes xe] taf pw :
~noge batt ons eta - oredd sais at “inabaste5 “te okdae $00 out ie
de yi
et eat
sate taxrt “ad at sass :S0nme tem evidonttta as ‘od atneaele ota ia
Wane
evidosttie aaoaaog Sasi voasa tua ° ‘tow od ‘ot Dontato jeathe oad
EUs ROR: eS
aktive ‘to agontvant sab Liuo oo iasaas to kw ‘anit feup aateatia, _
Pag “
weutak sac bikie ouid dant _baan08 ‘baa eseoaiatyete ‘bas ‘Yaiae
ter lee ae. Beaany
esis x sostdo asi’ ot porite <0 sotonrtis ‘good ovad gana B88NBO tk
Laltasaae ‘eseuit bebuedmeo ak ar avoadient dalbchiio ‘ait ee ae
a0
hap $2; ithe : fil. mde
at a oans Eft va gabiost ont oxew @
‘esootdo et ‘asid bho . Ha Svein elas apes tO tein youd ae
9
whieh engaged the interest and attention of plaintiff were paper,
copper, brass and aluminum and containers filled with polish, and
that there is in these objects no attractive or alluring quality
which would appeal to ehildish instinets of curdesi’y and play-
fulness, It is also said that plaintiff was not attracted or
aliured to the dump by the response of childish instincts te
its appeal. Jhat he went upon the dump with his companion for
purposes more mature than childish. Thet they were in fact ine
terested in obtaining something to sell or use, That on the oc=
ecasion when he was injured he was there to obtain something to
use, mameiy, polish. Defendant relies on a number of cases of
which Beit Ry. Co. vp Charters, 125 Ill. App. 522; Burns v, City
of Chicago, 336 Ili. 89, and State v, Trimble, 315 io. 32; 285
& W. 455, are illustrative.
The general rule at common law was that the owner of land
owed no duty to a trespasser on his premises except that he would
not wantonly and wilfully injure him, The doctrine of attractive
huisanee as applied to injuries received by young children was
developed upon the theory that certain articles upon his premises,
known to the owner to be attractive to children, amounted to an
implied invitation to come upon the premises, but the doctrine
has not been limited to that class of cases, Where a nuisance
is, for instance, located on a public highway where the child has
@ lawful right to be, the question of whether or not he iis a
trespasser does not apply, and the reason for the rule in the
first class of cases does not obtain, Another case is where the
objected nuisance is located on private property upon which,
to the knowledge of the owner, actual or implied, children are in
the habit of congregating although not attracted by the particular
inetrumentality which causes the injury, Illustrative of cases
where the accident happens in the publie street is that ef Flis
i
tsivoltzag ‘ont “i kedosttie ton ‘ pgwondd ts atte
rs
@
T6q8q stow ‘VMitaiele te apktagtia hse taetetal oz. Ddegeune elie
bas (ile Log uifiw SeLtit etesisimoo bas arsine ‘baa 8getd .F50008 |
vt keup wiialio t9 eviloutite om atootde ‘Gaede tid al siedy Sang!
cata Suh VAbaobtgd 19 otontiadh deistrad de thegga baldw dotaw
“to hetositia tou aaw Tthinialy tacit Slag cate at tL, ,saemtyt
of @factient satbLtde 29 entogeos add yd quub od of dowults
tot aoineqmos ets ddtw quuh edt soqu sadW oat dart’, tebaga ess"
ent toft al staw yout dad idelbchié abad otudam’ stom vozoqiuq
oo edt ito teAT ,edu to ifsa of gatdtsada jabdiaddo nk jedesaod”
of gittald omoa Ateido of stbct caw od betitnt Baw od adiw aoteaa”
to asago ‘to todan 6 00 act + tuadooted ba ad prt eH .
yiiO pv asttyd ;886 .qqk .LLT OSL ,exetzeno : oka!
“ges js ou ke (etdmia?’ yy 6 itt bite a ttt ae vianeaab'i
“ovidentautit ozs ,cah" a
bast to xomwo edt Jedd abv wal momado te tin” ‘taxenea) er
kisow od fast Sqooxd ebilieig sit te Haddad! FIFI
| ovidontite to saitéooh est ,mid oxstas etivitiw busy nod tw ton”
eaw meabilde gauey yd beviebex aebtwial’ od betteqe aa eodbaiur
aoaiuexg & abs aoqu aetotius aiedies teild cxoedd ‘ead nog beqoreveb’
‘ga ot bodawome eubiisa of eyttoatisa od” ‘ot ‘ebawo eatt” od ‘aworct
“eatxsa0b and “tad soa hie eg ead mogii Smos OF iv tbe hich” bei Lent
conseiuad a eredW ,acaeo to neato ded of beezmas’ hood ton taal
aad bliss odd oxodw yawdy iid otidug » no bededol (eonetent tot. ae
aca a aa
@ al oui ‘tom to “teddoxw ‘to aalseoup aid oe or Figtr tw me a
ns nk eux exh not coaser eld ‘Vala ' etiven ‘Fou!’ ‘goon
od ereuiw at sano todtotA ,aleddd sot eoob weeao “toe eeely fen
! do hiw apane ‘Yateqota eseving 40 badeoor wk ‘oyna kuin “patoeteo
nt ‘ua’ woxbLles Cbeiigquit 46 Lasdbe’ touts este “te nee: oat oo?
ae Bias et ares Site ee t exes
paren 3 ovigandewiiI “actual “geauso ‘3 cto kiiw tefcommatent
Git’ Yo Jani af teoree offend "aate de toca sna i bad a
a Tg ae ee
10
vy, City of Chicago, 247 Ill. App. 123, Illustrative of the class
of cases where the owner knows that children are in the habit of
playing upon the prewises is Ramsay v, Tuthill Material Co., 295
I1i,, 400, ITliustrative of the cases where the nuisance is lo»
eated on private property to which children are attracted by the
thing which injures them, is Wolezek v. Fublis Service Co., 342
T1li, 490.
The evidence in this case was such that the jury could
reasonably finid that the defendant City was well aware of the fact
that children of tender years were attracted to the dump; that.
they were constantly visiting it, and from that kmowledge arose th
duty to use reasonable precaution either to prevent the children
from coming upen the premises or to keep the premises in such cone
dition that they woild not be injured, Best, Adm'r,v. Dist, of
Columbia, 291 U. S, 411. Restatement Torts, section 339.
Even if the case were to be regarded as one in which it
was necessary to prove allurement amounting to an implied invita-
tion, the contention of defendant could not prevail, In the recent
ease of O'Donnell v, City of Chicago, 289 Ill, App. 41, where the
plaintiff, a lad of 9 years, climbed to the top of a steel pole
on a public highway, maintained by the defendant, in order to
obtain a free view of boxing matches carried on beyond an adjacent
fence, it was argued that the pole itself was not the object of
-atttection, and that plaintiff could not recover, ‘This court said:
. "Defendant argues that the evidence fails te show that the
pole itself was the attraetive thing but that the prize iight within
thx We etnies MS toe is th te ee
part or &@ general environment which is attractive to children,
eit ie iret ste Ee es et Pee Se te
A review of all the authorities is unnecessary end would
unduly extend this opinion, We hold that the evidence was suffi-
co)
aseto ont 10 ovtdergautit 88h “sah. “Aa mae ,
ko #hdae ont at ous nob £isi9 Pes evo ten¥e oid exo. noeso ‘te
eee “¢s0) telustak Letatut vy yeamee ab aoeduorg odd siogur antystq
wal ek somee Lun “itt exe lw haa exit ‘to sviderdeutiT 1008 ‘at
edd yd batoctits ex nob Lista Ho kstw ot ytrogorg oteving ao betas
Sas «08 sotvass 2b idui a ios sofol « W el mold potutant do bee ants
08 ae:
“ bituos cuit wi tai sowa sev ‘eaeo ) aks al sensi ive oat
ht ag
toat uit to etaws teow naw xtt0 tasbaoteb outs ‘tastd bigs? ‘lfanogaes
tans anh ous of be toatdts otew oxeoy, webu0d to nex Lieto dastt
Ra a OR RT Ee or eds 4 oye be
bane eaots » ope Lvoms tase ¢ mort f bas th audstely Mtaasencn hy gft yeas.
es
=MO9 pe nd ‘newtnexg rig eed ry ‘to aoe tuoze ont ifn ma oe
de gst v,%!5 as sbosabat ‘ed ton bitov wont tans aikes
ing +888 ts ae oT ded ft ou
0 28 ae @ dooms: vid eek te £08 smtdunted
“th oki a sto es , bebregex od of oxew vase out 2
not bya botiqut su ‘od gas awons toowerute evorg, ot
tnoo07 ond ‘at ‘Llaverg son bineo tosbat te Xe moltmeuce ont woke
arid Deka. Ay AN Sage bets
Los fo .¥ Sie co to sano
‘% batt bs " Uh be pa ‘Cer H ty,
eL04 festa & te ‘gos out ot ‘pedutlo. set004 e 18 bed a e,: has vane Cie
‘ot zebx0 aud . daub a9 2a oat vd bontesataen egamalg a oda B mo,
ae Sa Risa, EMER” @ Gad ee
tasootbs ss ‘buoyed no berries selosox yaixod to wety sont fy abetde
xt Sei TBE NES gee
to tootdo outs ‘ton enw theatt oLoy ext taut bougta a +h Ro ah
: bisa sauce alsT sxovooe tom biwve vikestetg tent bus aontownada,
fe. 4 Cae Be as |
ed fast wosis vr alist eatebive ext jodd ao ‘Sanhet baa tec*
aidtin tdyet ontag end smal ig gud evitostits eit ace ‘tleedi ‘eons
amoo Yi iLadnoumettant »tootdo pia ad Mere Event
od oe ae hevel¢ da et tf ree ‘efut sohmeiun evi ee
su a b MQ, ; }
methitde ef evidsststia, ad situ + are
‘ot "lb botw ino*r't mae egetony & vey
wi tay il erm ea
“blwow bas ‘yraaasoonais ake aE cous oat, AI a 29, WOSYET A oc svuu
-rttva agw eaobtye odd, gant bios 9¥ 5 dak able So oc ee
‘ont ‘erode eS GGA ni: 4 ee,
ae “Lange OR”
‘au toad soit alae dotow
il
elent to authorize a finding of negligence by the defendant under
the attractive nuisance rule,
Defendant finally contends that tue judygient should be
reversed because the negligence of defendant was mot the proximate
cause of the injury. It points out that the day on which the ac-
cident occurred, the city employees and dump wagons hauling for
the City were not on the property; that the evidence shows they
were at this dump only on Monday, Tuesday, Thureday and Friday,
while the accident oceurred on Wednesday; that they were at the
dump on these days only from seven ofeclock in the morning until
four o'clock in the afternoon, and that the injury oceurred at
about five o'clock in the afternoon. It is thus clear from the
evidence, the City says, that the truck which plaintiff and Wis
companion saw did net belong to the City, was not in charge of a
city employee and was not hauling for the City, and that the fire,
therefore, was net started by anyone for whose acts or omissions
the City would be liable.
It is pointed out that it is essential to recovery that
plaintiff prove that the negiigence with which the City is charged
Was the proximate cause of the injury, and it is not enough for
pleintiif to prove an act of omission of the defendant which does
nothing more than produce a condition which made the injury vos-
sible, the injury itself occurring by reason of an independent
act of a taird person. Seith v, Commonwealth Klee, Co., 241 Iil.
262, and Hartnett v, Boston Store of Chicago, 265 Ill. 331, are
eited, In eCiure v, Hoopeston Gas Co., 303 Ill, 99, the Supreme
Gourt said:
"A cause of injury is not too remote, if, according to the
ony 5 mila of mankind the result ought to have been appre
ended,
Proximate cause is that which uaturally leads to or pro=-
succes, or contributes directly to producing, a result such as
might be expected by any reasonable and prudent man as likely to
directly and naturally follow and flew out of the performance or
ay
=
8
Teh aus ¢iadhiee 2b edt yd senogs igen ‘to apigntt. & Rerhy ricte f od gnote
eS ak ok fevtet ah 0 hys, sonsetun evidoertes wat
os oY SR Sy
oe hivous Jugayout, at, had “abate vtcoat’ Siete igang
otamtzorg ould sou aww taba ted ‘to ‘acegtigen oat eupgeee bostoves
“98 euit al £ hw ite yeh ent deat F590. atatog $i Vtsb as ads to oauae
xt pat Lag seegew wauh bas shee reey Xtio ost _sbettusge Magy di
yond aveda bonebive oil test iutzeqotg ans oo ton Stow mt. oat
yebist bas ysbarun? ,yebeouT . yebaow fo. yiao gots aad ta oxew
(eng ta otew yedd taut Aebeeaeey Ho, _S9TTHODO Seopsees, Rip ierry cy
fijaw aniasom edt ot oh reyes most yino Wyeh exept ae bond
te herttunoo veut as ot d ssid hie. “\mgonmad’ts ia ad , Moete’@ nd
sat mort taots euald al oa smognre dia ol aE Sooke’. wre, , teda
me sam, bre Pratatala: a sin bow donuts oais fan od ae -
a to oa zsito me ton oa ot. ont 2, yao Lod he Maes oP pe.
ext? out tect baa sett os x0? pakLund om, waa se soxotane
se Press sine
anptee tac ‘to vee on oxi xot onoyus ve berreie toa aaw soto't9 A ve
okdoks od biwow r
kai et ee ped
taut yRovooos ot Iatinoeas a at sag uo bodatog at #2
OF a
‘aga at hid sad oui sip beiw Agie sonal igen out teat, _aro%s vilvatala
tot sigarous tom as ve bate seewbat, oat to oeuao stankxout pet la ie
2908 flo Law #nahae teh ont ‘te setae imo to toa on: orexe 08 tig sae
780g euwbad exis shea cp iaw sont tpaoe a soubor col oro anata
th
tos ‘ | oeneg tas “ he
bas Sas
am jae ts
py hy eh eee
Deiat M) eses
ree
Doideast oe is Ko Ry ,
2 Bees i SR th et a
ext ot pathresne th ot ome one past ahs ison ‘te: eosin. AN ' Sap :
-etgqe neod oval ot tiguo @isees est baladaem to bobned
wong to of ehast yiiswien soidw tadd, at seveo, edemtxorl |
wpe aie, ra sae <anioukotg of yltooxls yearn "oe saahe ;
0d eleathl as: nan tnobutg poe sidencesast, yas Yd hes oeqne, ,.
a sousircotreq est ‘to duo wolt bas wolfot samauantes bas ——
Ata
Ne std ee
12
noneperformance of any act. ***
Whether the defendant was responsible for the ignition or
net is imtiaterial in this ease, since the ignition was not an in-
tervening independent cause, but both it and the gas were present
and directly contributing vauses of the explosion, If the gas
Was present because of the negligence of the defendant, he is
responsible for all the direct consequences thet could reasonably
have been anticipated, *** "
We hold that under the facts which here appear a reasonably
prudent person would have foreseen that some such injury as that
which occurred would probably take place, through waintaining the
dump in the manner in which it was maintained, ‘he supposed inde-
pendent cause was not unconneeted with defendant's neglizenee, The
negligence of defendant was, therefore, the legal cause of this
injury. Restatement Torts, secs, 430433. We saiso hold that
uncer the facts which here appear the jury could have reasonsbly
found defendant to be guilty of negligcenee irrespective of whether
the doctrine of attractive nuisance wes applicable, Eunyan vy,
Am, Glycerine Co., 230 Ill, App. 351; Haas v, Herdman, 284 Ill.
Apps 103,
The judgment is affirmed,
AFFIRMED,
O'Cenror and MeSurely, JJ*, concur,
YP
wiki
SL
- Oo tite Fae yas To. Senpurs Megaman
5) mentee) ext <0T Stibaneanet aaw tusite teh eft todc¢edW
ent as Jou eaw ooliiogk edt eontta ,oamdvatds mi Lelaodammh! ak sou
tdieretq stew aeg aif base Si dtod sud ,ssueo doohaeqehai yainovied
aay edd IL .aokeoique odd to eeanee yuitudiacinos yléostin bas
al of ,soehaeteb eft ‘to sonegiigen end to seueoed tusaetq saw
-gidenotaet bivoe sats soomeupsaxon voouth ons Lie tot ofdilanoques
a ee betagteltan: seed aved
i
ay SoeF ht Ee
eidenoeaex 8 meoams ated sip hate alos? ‘ont wots dass ‘lod ov
tacit ae “guitad siowe omoe salt ugeeet02 eves btwow moarsg ; sob it
ea atuledates guns 900g oxst ldadorg biuow berm. tio.Latw
~ebat besogque ext “\pomtesnten sew th do hate sk somnan ‘ett ak gk
ext “yeomegiizon ¢ a dnababtes ddiw bedosanoocs ea aew ical
Sey oa ae oo
adse r0 sues Loyal oat ,sroteno.td 28 jnebasted ‘te .
pant ‘Med oats eW EEDOER eoee weer! (isaac, ‘ eiubek
Vdenoeset vad bivoo coma eat aescas ‘ered io tae staat ost erie
rositadtw te ovidooqesatt sonesi igen he witty od ot “dahass to gH |
: eR oni Leas ee
ay metal sofdsoh tags aw ons tua ovitooxite Ye ‘ontatoob » ond
2 HOLS ke Bae
bing’ 4 aie ote
Bite Pee guate hy eee BO ay, a aaah te PSS a Ao oun iy pee , ai
wi “i
‘ th ce boii shed wed i
ae Ges IRS 3 eS Aes ke ¥ ge aes eae »:
CEMAL TEA | :
BAW tee BR OEE RS PRS Bas) Sek? Oph Qe met Cee eee 7 ni do te aa
a TOME a ok me RIT ee “vaionoe sc Stank IB lke
Het By ie Toe PCL a PR Re OS Ae “Se Bis ik BPOe oF SEES viet “ef ‘
atk Mea BORO ak aan eee ean ponkald spank
Cowse we gotorapee Tate yRehae we ye {die
tothe Basil enti aeore we
. ft hep
: MRED OR I a ee ae
¢ ® * % TNs Ry ae £ B i Abs a i
sbacalaeme A Ae
, FY a pes
i ¢ t 4h ney
~ . PATER 7) Hipsaet RY td kenenas
winmeary 4a aati amined «ne di Sonsmand aac ae eaten: amie ek iim aui ae ee Pe
y (i : ® , Beaker af YAPeotws wee a
, eur PeKod, Sede tee Pee, Bleek i ee een ee Aye 0 BB
pices Dy Base iio’ ¢Licuten Bie yooe
wat ' ‘ PAF aH A
59342
MARION RABB, Administratrix of ) nt
Estate of ERNEST RABB, Deceased,
Appellee, APPEAL YROM SUPERIOR COURT
VS OF COOK COURTY.
FRED LENOX
—- 3 604
' Appellant, )} 29 0 1.A. 6Q
BR, PRESIDING JUSTICE MATCHETT
DELIVERED THe OPINION OF THE CouRT,
In an action on the case under the statute for alleged
négligence eausing the death of her intestate and upon trial by
jury, there was a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $7500, upon
which the court entered judgment, from which defendant appeals.
It is contended for reversal that the court erred in
striking a portion of defendant's answer, setting up tne defense
of estoppel by verdict, in admitting evidence offered by plaintiff
over defendant's objection, the conduct. of the trial Judge was
prejudicial, end the verdict against the manifest weight of the
evidence,
The aceident in whieh plaintiff's intestate lost hie life
occurred October 27, 1934, on U, S. Highway No. 12, at or near
the intersection of that highway with Parallel road in Palatine,
Cook county, Illinois, when a DeSote car in whieh intestate with
his wife and infant daughter was being driven by him in a southe
eastern direetion collided with a Plymouth driven in a northwestesn
direction by defendant,
Thies suit was brought January 31, 1935, Thereafter defend-
ant Lenox, Walter Bormman and Anna Bornman (tae last two riding with
defendant as his guests at the time of the accident) brought suit
against the administratrix in the Superior court ef Cook county in
an action on the case for alleged negligence of the intestate,
whereby they were injured, based upon this identical collision,
Ke
&, "Wir _ saeee
to xinjerteisiaba Mian AOD Aad
acre cet ei | shonagoed , FAAS. FAERIE We reece
TAUWY AOTASEVS MOA? JAMSGA 4 ( SC iaioerd
“YTAUOD 2009 to
bo O-A.TOCS 1 a ;
“qatotAi aorteUt dmidtedaa au |
28000 SUT, 80, HOLUTSO SY GRAVTIRIE } ah gn
bagetis tol etuiede ods tebhaus sass eS mo soltos ag al », sais Ce
¥d detrt sogu bus otadgotal ted to cdeoh sat amigueg voneut igen
soqy ,GO8th to mus eit af Pidelalg tot dothtev « saw etedd ytwh.
eLeeggs tasbhoeteh doldaw mort ,daemghyt botedms stwoo! edt stoke
_ Ab betxe dives edd jedd teaxever not hohawtace ah sLes Sowos
secoteh ost ci galides ,seans a! tasbas teh Xo nares coenerre
TWitatelg yd hexetio sonekive gabtiiabe ob _tobbroy: xd deqqotae ‘to
aaw ogbut Leaizt edt to toubmoo ec? ,nolivatdo a! tnehaeteb Tero.
eds to tehgtow teotinem ont tanlepe-tothiew ont bas’, tat thuterq
: ia ssonebive
Otit aid taot etstactat a'tiigaialg doltdw ak tashbioosn ent —
aeot to de ,Sf .cM yewigill 2 .Umo ,SORL , YS atedoseO borxws08
,sattalet at beot feollared ddiw yewdigia sadt to saoltoseatetat edt
dtiw etataotal so law al te ot otet # tedw ,eboailll evtawon ood
wtitvoa oc af aid yd asvith gated aaw tetigueh tastat bas e'tiw eta
mes teowliron & oh teviarh oelareeate es ugiw bebiiles sotioetib aretece
dntebao'teb yt noldoortb
-bastebh aet'teoted? .g8CL ,L8 yraunel togvortd asw $twe alaT.
| dtiw goibix ows taal ect) aemeted gach bas semetrof tof ieW ,xoned tas
diva dilyword (taebiove ot to omtt od te ateoug eld as taehaetob
ai ytunoo AoeD to d4m0o to ite qu sit uk xintettetataba ont tanksye
«stetwotat edt te eonestlgen boyetia ‘tot eeno oilt ne notion ms 4
~notetifes Iaoitaebt akis aos peead noua erew went iors
Judgment by default was entered upon the verdict of a jury which
the Superior court thereafter set aside upon petition by the ad-
ministratriz in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis. The
petition was filed mere than 30 days after the rezditior of the
judgment and plaintiff contended that the court was without juris-
diction to set the judgment aside and appealed to this court, where
the cause was docketed as No. 39185. Pending that appeal defendant
in his snewer set up a defense that plaintiff was estopped by the
verdict rendered in the case brought in the Superior court, That
portion of his answer was stricken by the trial court, and it is
argued that the court erred in that ruling,
We have this day filed an opinion in appeal No. 39183 af-
firming the order of the Superior court, setting aside the judgment
theretofore rendered, and it is apparent tiat the contention of
defendant in that regard cannot prevail.
the controlling question upon the present appeal is raised
by the contention of defendant that the verdict of the jury is
against the manifest weight of the evidenée,
The eollision occurred between eleven and twelve o'clock
p. @, October 27, 1954, At about nine o'clock a, m, of that day
the decedent Rabb, with nie wife and their infant daughter, left
the home of irs, Rabb's parents at Aurora, Minn., about 570 miles
from their home in Chicago; they traveled in a DeSoto sedam, driving
through Duluth, Superior, Eau Claire and Madison, Wisconsin, Mr,
Rabb driving all the way,
On the evening of the same day at about 9:45 p, m,, defendant
Lenox lefiihis home in Cicero, Illinois, for Hdgerton, Wiseonsin.
He was accompanied by Mr, and Mrs, Walter Bornuan and liv, and ire,
Walter Keisker as guests; le drove a Plymouth sedan,
the highway at the point where the collision occurred is
¢
do ket, wast & to tolbrev est mo gas bosetne cil thntee i ote ti0 ut
sven A a RY
“ba odd yd sols bteg aogy ebies ted’ teeta iti cars chethoquh: ont
“gH Vetdon maweg torr to thew eto -ormtan ed? nk xittettainla
edt to Mbttihaer odd tod ts ayeh Of sadt oxom belst-aaw nottiteg
sabiut, duodt tw ase ‘dxado ‘oat teat hebustuos tittatelg bne dasa bot
evodw ,gusos ald $e Pee ee bas sbles penne" edt tea ot nottots
tnebaeteb fasqqe tasit gakbagd 1BOLRE 2088 ea Aptsgged 2aw saxco edt
eat yd beqqotes sew th ale te test prepenn s eis dee t8wane etd at
tacit .tebod toltequ@ ext nk tdgvord eneo ont mt bevebast totbrov
ai ¢i bite \drwoo Labrt ont Yd nedotrde waw tewede et ToonOl frog
Hote NG So 08 8 elite tage dik bows Petes ent ton” bevy
-'te G82CE JOH Lwoqge Mi notniqge ae HOLLY yeh ekat Svat oW the
tuomsbut) oll Sbiea yoittoe ,sxwoo cobxe qe oily to xebre! ot gatextt _
Ye noldustaes sav thos Paereqqe WE SP Vos \botobias eratevevolt
Sti om, ual inl Elavord touned prego acy) ok grub Bob
boeisan ak LIseyqs Yuseetg Sat noqe rottesup ‘gal LMtori avo hpi ae
“ae bans otlt td dow TOW ‘ous ‘tener eh ae ted Ye dott aetisn’ eit yr }
Ornsbive ext to sigleow tae tines oui santo .
YWooleto oviews bas ‘novels neswied hertiooo cetwttfee vit ai
wb ens te ya Je avole"o vata’ swode” ta” deel CP WtesO ay |
Ftel $tetdguah the'tar xtosd hae etiw did Kviw , diet’ eaten ot ,
delim OVE Yeods . dnl oto Oe etnoted ofvdat ‘fle e-Olindh oly
waite ih ~mabes ofoket 2 tt bofevart Yes joywa INO mi emont thet stoke
pnt [ote nood tw” ‘ties kball ba ‘erie lD dal ol reque | tule agora ‘
| wea Slt ea giakven as
a he oa lq @hre tows ta yet ‘emka “alle “fe Ydneve eds nO . ? 3
‘" dkenooe £8 sdorregbl xot heehee loves if emed wiasl tet Reno |
wal bos sak bess ‘necerto€ ‘aos alo ‘ext baw tl ye bé tnediiodsd ‘waw 3x 4
ah Fae e« | te Aouabe, cae?
-siabos soon tt D rind aa ise ae ‘Yoluied's odisw
Pe: : Sas, Spey ih fet oar { @PAe. Eris | ‘uae bade
at borru00e sobs kf00 ‘oald oredw tuboq ould te yawely bal
; Seay wae Ayia ig wnsa h wk Be a baa
eee He Les
Al CUR? wee J
3
in the outskirts of Palatine, is 40 feet wide, and has lenes for
traffie - two for cars going in a northwestern direction and two
for cars driving in the opposite or southeastern direction, Ime
mediately south of the place where the collision oecurred the
road for a distemce runs parallel with railroad tracks, then
curves away to the northeast or to one going north to the risht,
The curve here is banked with the low part on the right side of
the rosd as te those driving in a northern direction, At that
point the land goes up hill, and the hill cuts off the view of
those traveling in either direction from those traveling in the
opposite direction on the highway, The DeSote car, driven by
Rabb toward the southeast, and the Plymouth seden driven by Lenex
toward the northwest sideswiped ox this curve, It is apparent
that if the drivers of each of the sare had kept to his own cide
of the road the eollision could not have occurred, and the perties
aré agreed that the ultimate question of fact for determination
wes whieh cab was being driven on the wreng side of the road when
the collision oceurred, The jury found against defendant on that
issue,
The only occurrence witness for plaintiff wes Mire, Rabb.
she was sitting in the rear seat with her dine months old daughter
who Was asleep, iirs. Rabb says her husband was driving on the
right side of the road, going south, straddling the line between
the first end second lanes of traffic, She sew the headliguts on
the other car. Her husband turned toward the right but defendantds
car struck the one in which she was riding. She says: "At no time
before the collision or after the collision was our ear to the left
of the center of the highway," She says there were no strect lights;
that mo car had passed them shertly before the accident; that she
knew they were coming to the curve and saw the eurve; that there wag
quite a piteh in the curve toward the left; that she first saw the
oak ost tA" se yon OH .gmkbix aay ene dotdw nt eae emt dowste t59 q
ragugif geowte om exew etods ayse of8 “yaw. gid edt Te totue9 oid to 4
&
‘Sot sonst aed bas gobiw toot OD gt ,eatialad ‘to: atztiedye ost its
ont bos nolteetlb mxedeerddion « as gutog ates tot owt - ob Yaxt
“ui ,aelipotib aredsesdivoe to atinegge edt at gaivinh wrs9 sot.
(98d bercwosg woltatif£oo sat exedw poate ot ‘to dtwon Vigigihen
) feds. paloasd beet liar veiw feifereq aayt eonedath 4, ae bap
oteigix ant of Mitom gatoy aso of to seeds ton edt of vera eevee
to. ebke, tsigiz odd mo diag wok eit dtiw beamed ef gree oven amt
, edd tA, oftottoetia aredfiom # at pityith, pags ot ae beot oat
to .wetv est Sto atuo tiin ond bos ,ffta as 8903. bast fa okt gute
odd ak Believer? eaest moxt sektpenth xedite at patiovant eeoss
‘Yd wevich ,rao eteGed oft .yawlgid edd no mottoatth 8 328:
koted yf nevich mahoa, Advoay il sls Ld wag ee POCtIP%, edt bhrewot aon :
) mid ,
ebia awo ald of dqex Sad arso sd, to ion » be maneaialh 99 12, anat
asidisq add bas ,bettuos0 svat tom bingo Motediion edt Saox od? to
| Moitacionsses rot teat to moiteoua stantttu edt tedd boone axe
nady beor ect Yo ebta gaorw ed? no aevich ymied aaw dao cote ase
fait no tasbasteh teatega bawot yrwt eat .bettw090 moka ttfoo sit 4
-oueadk
soateqqs at, on 6 OVING BIST MO, |
ats a Si ® we Rs ; Ts sie Ce oH iy
a : ‘ ae ey’ ot Ra RP ES
i. Stal seth aaw 1 Petbetate: ‘tot agontiw sonoraoge pie OBE oy mi |
getagued bL0 artagm anth sad sitiy tee test oat at gaistie a aw oa E
» | osth mo patvich sew basdawe ted BYas | Shae | dame sane faa 1a sew odw ;
aoquded oat edd yutibberte jidvoe gation .baot ocd 20 ebte tats 1
Gg atdyilbsed est wea 068 ,oitterd to eenst pqeoen jae civepli q
ehinsbue'tedh tud digit oat bievos boatut basde wet 0H, he tata
tlel edd od tao, THO, 260 Wola hiioe. oud, setts to soled tien. oust _oroted ;
ene tadd ;saahtoas edt ototed, yLinode wads, enigtcedinge: om tad ‘4
eay oxedi, fat jeyzpe edt was, bas eyed sat 9 gutgey. exey wet went
eat wee setit oie teadt ;steL edt ptewod ovrue ext ak dodtg @ odks
4
other car when she saw the headlights as they were going aroun
the curve; she saw the headlights, there was a swerve of their car
end then the eollision oceurred, In turning to the right touey
swerved over toward the west side of the highway, er susbend was
rendered unconscious by the collisien and died next morning at
3:15.
Jacob Schwingel, 4 garage man, testified that he got to
the scene of the accident about 11:50 p. m/; that horthwest
highway at this point ran southeast and northwest and wae guite
wide there; that there were four lenes of traffie, two southbound
and two northbound; there were three black lines se¢epserating the
lanes, the center line being orange and in the center of the whele
hishway; that when he got to the seane of the accident he found the
Plymouth sedan and DeSoto sedan wreeked; that the Plymouth sedan
was facing weet about the center of the road; the DeSete wae just
off the highway on Parallel road, facing east; that the Plymouth
was a bit north of the DeSoto and half on one side of the oenter
line of Northwest highway and helf on the other; the rear of the
Plymouth was east of the center line, and the front was west; the
DeSoete stood aperoxinately 25 feet southwest from the Plymouth;
the left rear wheel ef the DeSoto was off or broken, and the left
front wheel of the Plymouth was kmooked off or crushed down; fols,
a member of the Palatine police force, was there when witness ere
rived; the cars were towed to witness®s: garage where phetographs
were taken of them, whieh are in evidence,
Officer Yolz testified that he arrived at the scene of the
aecident about 11:15 p. m/; that he saw the two oars, the one
facing east off Parallel road, the other facing west about the
center of the highway; the Plymouth ear was straddling the middle
orange mark on the two imner lanes, the front wheels in one lene
and the rear wheels in the other lane; it was feeing west; the ler't
»
Aatuets galen atoqoyedt an atigifhbasd att wee ede node tes Sento
tao tied? to evinwe « aew oredd ,ediipitived ent wea one pevituo ett
~ Xo digie edd-ot geteuwt al \berepee wolel ifoe’ edt warts “hte
naw daadausi co. .yemlylit est Lo whl daow old Banwet cove! Wievtows
ta guiniom dxed beth ins wotedtioo add yd awoloenios ay iedinwe
at Moy exits: bo Leteeed; jem eyeray es vtegabebewenstris ofl.
(9 denuitzod tadt 4 ya sq 082i tuoda timhtoon edt te enews wilt
otiup sew Doe teomltron bis tasettuee sex datoq okey da yewily hal
bauoddtwoa owd ,oi text to weasd aw0't stew ered held qenetid opie
ent) gaitersqen vost aeald sends erew etadt (eawoduteam owe baa
efodw ord to uetaeo and nh haw opiate gated ent®xodubol ene cota
edt bowot of tephivos, ext to enoon dit bd voy ott aedir cede’ reswnig tit :
seboe «tvony Lh ex} dors jboxeowe maher ofo8et hua nehow dthoiylt
tank aew ofeded, ald. jhaot est To thts. ast deode teow yntont sew
it song Lt ect tasks jones Ratond tor Lefintey xo Yowtighh wt Ye
“tetoeo ent Toobin enone The Sas oteeed sit te teten Oe ene
-add ‘te seek oft) pxedt@ edt ome: thet baw (awily tat teowsevol te ont §
odd ;,¢a6w sew doott elt bas ,ealt tetnes edt to tese gow stwomeet
{iiwomg£l sco aoe? deomisaee toot E-yletantuotgge hoote ototed —
~ttad oud hae: gnedetd 29 Tle aa ofeBed: ent Te Leoaw teoe SOL edd.
alo gowed bevawto. co Tie hetoorl saw sb iooin A: ott a? toostwr RaAAE
ate paodtiw. nest) ores saw yseto? eotkog aattatet ert te edhe a
nacaxgod orig eusdw sgereg ateaeadin 6 Se¥od exew are oMt Ghovit :
ehtshive’hee dud debt SoMOhLve at ors Kod yams. Ree raat cans
edt Re ondos edd ta heviawe od tens feititesd alot rel tR@ se)’ mm
Soe ope out getwo owt ond) Wea vedo dads {Ym vq Ofts- toda: sroptbo8 |
{feed tuoda doow-gaios? sedde ott (dow L6LLexet) Yo: dase ene
*
“ye ae
ohhh ta: eg yatibbatia asw ts9 dommatecets, rasta nana te oa
(gaat ono at eleedw tmorl.odt sont xoanksowt edd amvaram eg i
diel ont jfeow galostsay th jamelotedeo edt al onan man a
|
front wheel of the Plymouth was off and the left side was suashed;
the front door was damaged, caved in; the window was broken; the
left front headlight was swashed; the left front Tender curled up;
the DeSoto had twa headlights; the whole leit side was pushed in;
the rear wuecel on the Lert side Was amashed off; the DeSste and
the Plymouth stood approxiuately 25 feet apart, ths Plymouth being
south of the DeSoto,
Defendant testizvied that wis Piywmouth was a five passenger
sedan; that Mr. and Mrs, Bornuman and kr, and dirs, selsker were
with hiw as guesta in the car; he had been traveling the highway
twiee a week for three yaars aud two or three times a week for
over a year before the aceident and had driven it beth day and
night; he saié that just before the accident he was traveling 4 to
5 feet to the right of the middle line of the entire highway; that
he did net at ary time get over to the tilddie iine or to the left
et the middle line before the collision tock place; thatfne Was
taking the curve, he was going 30 to 55 miles en hour; that he saw
the other car just a few seconds bewore the collision; that as he
got inte the curve he gould see the refleetion of lights coming
but could net see the car because of the rise in the land on the
right; that just as he got into about the center of tie curve plaine
tiff's headlighte popped up abeut 15 feet in front of him; that he
swerved to the right, tried to go for the ditch, took his toot off
the gas snd put in on the brakes and there was 2 orash, and that was
all he cowld remeuber; he said he had been driving 4 or 5 feet from
the center line all the way from Chicago when ke got on that highway;
thet he might have swerved to the right er left once in awoile; that
some ol the time he had driven in the outer lane; he had been driving
within 4 or 5 feet of the center of the highway just a short distance,
say a biock from the eurve; that ike had passed another car just @
gatvins need bed’ od” ead a? tetuo edt al cevixh bat ext sits eusie. Rolomea
omisdets toda e davt yowta td ens “to eedaoy sag to aeo Bt. pumbaeh
3
jbodeend es obis Stel eds ‘baa Tie eew ddvomYLt ode Do Lesuiw tadtt
eat ynedotd Baw Woiniw eft jai-heveo ,hegewsh sew toob :tnowt oat
;qh Heian nobus? soort ster eile ;neiiaa wero dng libaed "tnetd whet
“Yat Bedsig asw eble “tel siondw’ ond padtigilbeosd ow bad oteBeevout
dims SFoled edt {tte hedaans aaw obla’ ste Lf odd too feodw teex/ wnt
gated Sinema sit ,ttsqa tee't 88 yletewlxoxugga boote dtvomyliiens
; Dat dain Ml lita yOTOSeR orld ‘to divoa
“egieassy svit & em eke sant he Ftisesd faabasted oo" v9
“prey Teiahed Leck baw! xt bik” Meme eal bas 1a ged maneE
YW IT oct gatievett ased ‘bed of ; see SNt HE esoewy Be mh weW
“HoT kesw s weak oorilt co owe bus whey! COCR wot teow wOgiNt
baa yeb aod ¢i Hevinb bol Naw tuew bois Obie’ oxoted navy a aero
“od B -yniievary? sav od Pashbiops eti eto'ted teu deride dhae ok stoke 3
“gat Yeaiilytsl octee odd re OME eLoO be ont tigkrowM of teew a
Ptel sd} of to onfl eibbia odd of eve Joy eimbs ya oes Pom Dthont }
-gaw om\veus pees Le dood - ‘Holt Lios ‘al? erotod eakt exbhtm exit to
wae ‘ed Yano ;tuont as eoLinr Ao ot OS gitey’ sav et own oft gabled
of ea tailed ;aoteklflos edd eto'ted ubmoved wet & teat tao toute odd 4
gritos avdyil ‘to tobe Ltet ent ‘wea hives St ortwe ved otak toy
edi to bast od ME oalt dat té wauwoed tao edt GoM tam hia stud
etila ly évise eid te tindo oft Sheds OTHE Voy on On-tanh stadt. pt ages :
od dadt pata to Faor't ar steet Gf deeds qr heqgo etiyt hast ateeey
Tid Fuot abi’ Aoos Sod sh odd THY ‘og “OF 8s te pidghy oot ed bovtewe
aaw dads bis ,Mderd 8 daw ots? hue gomard way ao NE Fug ba ay odd
ori,
fiott soot 8 to & yaivinh desde bal oe Hie aR ii eins
4 test 400 todd Ons Beedsg bed on “tad” yovewe ext ‘worl i ¢
nie i Pry rt eR Ee! QA RS ae od chceedovn witty sao a
6
short time before the accident, 500 or 600 feet from the scene of
the accident; he said that at the coroner's inquest, when asked
whether he was next to the center line of on the line, he replied,
"No, sir, next to the center line"; when asked by the coroner why
-he was traveling next to the center line he replied, "Well, I had
passed a car about a quarter of a mile back;"in reply to a question
from theceroner #3 to whether it took him a guarter of a mile to
get back, he answered, "Well, I did not think it was necessary to
swing over when I came to that curve, because I figured I eould
make it on that lane all right"; when asked if there was any traffie
to keep him from traveling in the outer lane he replied that there
was not, and admitted that at the inquest, in reply to a guestion
from the coroner as to whether he could give any reason why he was
not traveling in the outside lane at the time, he replied, "Well,
none other than I was making the turn, end probably you go a little
out of your way when you make a curve. The one I took to follow"---
The witness also said he had testified at the inquest that he dia
not know his car was traveling with one of the wheels on the center
line as he was going north and did not think it was over that far;
that he was most sure it was not; that in reply to a question from
the deputy coroner as to why he did not get out of the way of the
car as soon as he saw it there, he replied, "“Weli, I don't know
whether I was getting in his way or he was getting in my way." In
Fesponse to a quastion by his own counsel he further said that he
testified at thecoromer's inquest that he knew he was not over the
eenter line, and replying to a question by the court as to what
partiau.ar reason he had te observe where the orange line was before
the secident and up te the time of it, he replied, "Well, I know
that curve, and I knew you have to be cautious of it, because I
have made it several times, and there have been an awful lot of
accidents at that curve, I observe the lines all the time I am
a
‘to sngon est mort geet G08 vo 008 ,dmebionw ond Sro'ted omid Stone
hetan sode ,seoupat a! remotes sft de Jedd bisa ox {taebtoos ole
vboilget of ,ontL ond mm 40 ontl wwtnes oct ot don aa olf tenrenw
Yin senotes edd yd Seaas conw ;*entl setmeo ont 6 trom jxte” | ot” }
bel I ,fLow" ,beligot es anki xstmeo eet of teen gai ievete vbw Sr.
aolieeup @ ot ylget ni";tond odim & to tedtaup @ swois” xeO 8 ae besesg 1
;
o¢ oli s to todisyp » mis doot ¢2 toddodw of es gegetés edd mort”
od yteraooes saw ¢4 dudat ton bth 1, LLOW" ,bonewane wit {iload top
bivoo I botwgit I eesseod ,evaso dedt et ome T nedw dévo gitwe”
olttard Gis saw etsdd tL bodes neonw ;"ddgit Lie oitet feds ao dt oven” q
ovedt jadt bekiqet ss east 19¢ue ent at gakLovert mort aid eet ‘ot 4
neitesup # 0¢ yiget aL ,teexpat eid te turd bOddiobs bas, tom aisw
pew ef YW noasst Yas evig hives ei teddudw ot ae KonoTOo sit aot | ;
| Lfel" beliget on omit ond te. onal sbtadwo ens ai gat tovext Fer” —
elstil s og, uoy yidadetq has ,anet edd ynivem eaw I mens tent enon” a
---"woLtot 0X Xoo! Leno on .evnua.o elem voy) nediw yaw aiey to tue”
bib od tedt teoupai.ous te boitigest hea oi Bise coals eeentiw’ ont :
rotaes edi no aleody edt, to eag dite gubteverd aw teolekiwoht gol?
pust dads seve saw th dudsid tom S55 baw dttos gnio§ aaw od es entre
sort noliaoup o of yigex at tadd ptom naw th orue! teom daw od dedge |
ot Lo Yeu ost to suo tog ton Hib od ysie OF Be THROTOD etwas iste q
wosak, d'n0h I,{teW" ,betigan od yoxeuid ot mae ost ‘ae ndde de “tag?!
al a Yew Yat ai gaisieg asw ed to Yow sii ab gabtteg wew I ctestsonte
ed decd bles reser on deeaveo awo ght yd motiesup # of eenccuot
oid xovo tou aew od west od decd, teeupak e' remOtedecdd te ‘bertiteegy
tase of ae Sxui00 asd yd aoldsowp a 0% gatyigor hin | unaiasiescnal * |
driving en highways,"
Mrs, Bornman, called as a witness by defendant, testified
that she did not know what part of the highway they were driving on
just befere the accident, and that she did not know anything about
the accident except that it occurred on & curve,
lirg, Keisker testified that defendant and his cuests were
traveling on the righthand side of the highway, but she did not
eee the other car before the accident, She was taiking abi the
time; that when she looked up the lights hit her in the eyes and
that was all she remembereé until she “woke up" in the hospital,
She admitted that at the inquest she had said she could not tell
very much about it; that she was just starting to talk to lirs,
Bornman, turned around and the lights flashed in her eyes, and that
was all she could remember, She admitted having signed a statement
to the effect that she was talking to Mrs, Bornman, was seated in
the left rear seat, was not looking out, did not know what part of
the road they were traveling in, whether in the inner or outer lane,
on a curve or straightway, when lights flashed, and on locking up a
crash occurred,
Walter Keisker's testimony was that he too was in the back
seat in the car, and that the car in which he was riding was about
three feet from the center line of the highway before the accident;
that the collision occurred about that distance from the center of
the road; that he was not paying any attention to the driver; he
had signed a statement toe the effect that he did not know which
veaicle got over the center line, as he merely saw the headlights
of the other ear and no other details or road signs,
Walter Bornman testified that defendant's ear was being
driven about 4 or 5 feet east or to the right of the orange line
marking the center of the highway, At the inquest he testified
that beforethe car in which he was riding got to the curve, the
ee
¥
© velguindy tit né t'gnivinn
betittees o_o Yd seedtiw 6 aw hoiles >, memared ‘pete. 3
ay gatvich sxvew yeds yewdgid odd ‘lo dawg datiw wom dom bib one tact
suede bajeuniocigi word tom bib ote Jedd hae ,taebloos odd ere ted teat
(s8Vtu9 2 Ho betinooe Fi tends dgooxe tnobioos edd -
ers¥ Btisug ald Kos SacSmo'ted ted bokYisaod tedebek perk bo sooe
fon bib ene tid, yowss tk Odd To Shiu Baons dy le omtuewegabtovart
60s {fe gitiliet aaw ene - daobtoos edt @toted tao tess 9 sat 900
bag asys edt ab usd tia adryhl end qu’ boxoek end medw tent yemks
Stes Fee off bad ae “qu ovow” of Lltay borédmexex sie Lie sew tads ;
ftes tom Biudd ene bise bad sae teoupal oat oe: samt hetthube edt
eat of tiet oF yuihttete taut vaw ode’ sac? 73) toda: dommyxev wy 4
dent bas ,a0%8 ted Wi bodealt atagtl ond bas hawots’ bowrwt jmameeco |
foomptata:s bodia gatved bedvinbde oi °.xodmened blues sserdie kaw
ie betage Baw jmwmirod jwtM, Od gated eaw sce todd toate) edt ot
to dasq teitw weak tom BLD ,¢uo" QattooL tom egw teem teem d tes ont
,scet t6etve te toneh edd of teiteiw ak gutlovard stew. yert bsot eat
& qe ribs ot" fo bie ,bodeelt atdeil asaw , yowtdgierde, Lo: VER. 6) Mo
ee a | bor mwe00: daano
doad grid ut aw ood off Jatt saw teenie ea! tedetod ne dteW oo ays }
Suods aev yolbbiat sew off te lilw ok tae eee dent how yea ciel |
tasted eH} orxoted yewdyin wiv to sais tetue9 ent mot deol eendt — |
to toditod els wort odtedath Veds trodes berine00 woteiiftoo exid decit
ed ;tovith anf of adlioetye Yue gatyeg vod aew el Sent jiheot ede 4
dotdw word ton bLb od dads Yoo'ito ent of Pasitietate w omy ty had a
aligilaatgan odd waa “Ylotom of de oat tetas sft tove toy eleisev 4
‘,ecgke Beot to aListeb tedté on bus ta9 “Sclso et, To ra
guied as¥ teo a" daabneted dads boktisaes eterno TS RLAM 99 9p ag
suff egisto edd to tiglt edd of to dene tots oe prsieeie Wy
‘Peltitesd oa Feoupat odd sh”) .yaualgtdvedd To setae jet gasinem
odd (ovine sald 02 “Soy QakBit aaw od isi tdwont ts0 odhototed tant i
the wheels were sbout a foot and a half "this side of the line®;
that they were traveling about one foot to the right of the cem-
ter of the line; he had signed a written statement to the effect
that when the crash came defendant was in the inner lane, the
left of his car one foot or one and one-half feet to the right
of the center line, but that he aid net see the center line as
he was not paying attention to it as they took the curve; that
the speed before they started the curve was 40 miles ani hour;
that it was slowed up as they reached the inner lane,
Such being the evidence as to the facts, this seems to be
@ case Where it is most appropriate that the issus of faet
should be best left to the judgment of a jury, and it is quite in-
possible for this court to say, in view of the verdict which has
been approved by the trial Judge, that it is against the manifest
weight of the evidence,
Nor do we think there was reversible error in the admis-
sion of evidence, Police officer Folz and police commissioner
Schmidt testifying for plaintiff, said that on the morning after
the accident they examined a tire mark on the highway; that the
tire mark was about 60 feet long, extending trom the southeast on
the west or left side of the road; that it then made an abrupt turn
to the right for several feet and ended in a skid mark for several
feet more near an abrasion on the conerete, Folz first visited
the scene of the accident immediately after its occurrence at
12:15 p. m, and again the next morning at about nine o'eleck,
Schmidt gave similar testimony, Defendant objected to this tes-
timony, but it was admitted, Afterward, on motion of defendant,
this evidenee was stricken out and the jury instructed by the
court to disregard it,
Walter Bornman, who was a witness for defendant, testified
1
————— = =
Py
i"omtl edt to obte addd” Aes bas soot » tiedl bxew Wook Si’
=itoo exis “to Saytt SAY ot Foot oho sods ynttovard stow Yous tent
°° gou'tte odd 0d “Fusmeyeta nedyiaw & Beg te bad OH vette Sur Ye Wey
‘eae’ Sorwit cent oud ik dkw tasbne TWh wilted’ Hees’ one Wi gly
a ent of geet ‘tikd-sito bie Sho td toot eto Yk wht Ye ater :
“We butL sedies One Sen don bib ad tone fue “eukt’ rodhes ent te
fait yeviiie ost zood yortt ‘ae s¥° od dotehetys yuiged Por aaw et MS
‘savor an aetin Ub enw evtdd end hedxeda youd Bioted besqe oHy”
seual teank ond bedocor yYSis ae yu bowels “naw | th tee
ed oY emobe wid? ,adoet 913 of bs oonentve edt ‘Late souk * oar Fae
font ‘ke eweek of? seid ove kreotgae teom et ¥r
*‘Faetinam ony tesitlh af oF Ford poe te ted wit Ce Weve
AAO OTM, OF “\ebaebive ont to sith
“Leltnis Su? ai Yorre ofdtedsver ‘saw bred” aihie WW os eee YO! PF
°° * aeugike tinted ‘ebttoy bas sick teorrie wol fod ‘wolsebive te” note! |
woth Qitivdm wilt wo Feds stew \Yrevnieie’ vet putea?” ee a
edt tedt 1 yawrls bal aid m0 ‘atten etit « boaimexe yea ‘Hiiestobe ‘siiv
Wo tedensvoa' DAs dott ydthastee {BnoL ook Ue vubdh Gaw Wem oxtt
mid?’ quits wa ebaud ied) s2 Yous ydwox oul “to obsd ser «0 teow 6H
fateves tot tusm bites mt bebso bus ost Lereves Sot dheghY ba¥o¥
> pediely ¥axit fot Jetetoics of’ te molested ‘te “xeon brom set
| ye ooneaxloed ett telte YLotstponiit gnbbiooe bit “te oneoe’ ont
Yeote’s sath tuody #e gmetitom t4n oft Hinge Bas “Ve Va Garver a
weed e1Hd of befeotdo daha ted ° .ynont teed aeTicite a ‘aeaie
tusbasteb to Hotvod Ho (uewreP ta “Vbevetiths waw Fb Ved | inet
watt we bovoursent weit ‘edt bas two” ‘nevtoltte aw hsnnaies abt
be aah td See + coy be )
hoitiined , '* eabasteb ser wveathw 1 a enw ‘ea mami weet
4! it
mt oftip i FE bau’ petit’ “te! Fiendibliy Wad WH athe boarded .
"wad ‘io kdw to Ebuev edt “to woty ‘nk yee oo dando etede Yeo octnaaior 4
rabies se
gid in awe eh co kerk tom omen: saiuas :
2 a
in defendant's behalf without objection that he returned to the
scene of the accident on the next morning; that he went with the
officer and the sheriff; that he saw "a line across to our left
where our front wheel had slid and put a kind of seratch into the
paving, It started about the center of the two lanes on the right-
hand side of the road and led almoat up to the orange line in the
center of the road." On eross examination he testified that he
thought the names of the officers were Schmidt and Folgz; “We all
looked at the line; there was jast one line there, *
We are of the opinion that this evidence laid a sufficient
foundation for the evidence with reference to the marks and the skid
which was given in behalf of the plaintiff, Lentsen, Adu'r vy,
Panzer, 285 I11, App. 582, it is true, as defendant points out,
that where evidence materially prejudicial has been introduced, the
error will not always be regarded as cured by striking it out and
directing the jury to disregard it, for ime reasons set forth in
People v, White, 365 Ill. 499, but we know of no case where that
rule has been applied where the reviewing court was of the opinion
that the evidence stricken was in fact admissible, We hold there
Was no error in this respect,
Defendant also complains that the conduct of the trial
Judge was prejudicial to defendant throughout the trial. We have
given careful attention to the matters complained of, but find no
reversible error in this respect.
¥or the reasons indicated the judgment of the trial court
is affirmed,
AFFIRMED,
O'Conner and MeSurely, JJ., concur,
sit of bomtuten sa saci molssetdo todd tw Tisied « Cone at
gdy ad iw ¢dew od doHd {gaioxom dxea APA ry ‘taebiovs ons ‘te onsoe
“PF tel avo o¢ asoxss eatl s" wae oat ‘ast ;Ytbtode ent bos xe0i to
‘eat gtui Metezoe ‘to bait @ tug bos bila bast foostw daor't 10 erode
-tiigit edt no eoakt owt di to totnes oss tuode bodunta Ed * amvea
od At oIL Synist0 odd of qu teomts bot has bar odd to obi hand
on Jett bottitasd od Hot dentunxe agote 20 " boot exit 0 “tae
‘tte of” stot bas’ +b douse stew ereol' Yo ont to sons ‘ont ‘thenatti
i © eubid enti eno Jamt sew oxedd yonks ‘out te ‘bexoot
gnetoltive s bist aomebive elds taxed: aokaiqo eds he ore ow nis’
pile oH? bas eXtam stot ooner0tor ddiw oomebive ont xer moltabassot
: wtiw eae’ Hl
we tteph woadned .Ytidatelg ont to tiesed a novi sew do idw
‘4 i. ‘of ue vit aye sak ite vi
,fuo etatog towibob'teh ea jowrd at $1 880 ah pei aes eZegcgd
a0. MLCcReG
edt _padiborditt naod aad Isiothutexg: ‘ile inedam oousbtve eter tads
( PP eos pee a
“Bre tuo ¢: gutxinde yd barwo ae ‘ pebreget od cyan le toa ifiw torte
Be Le eae Skye 5
ak ddcot tea enoaset ont tot ,#2 pusgore db of cru ‘exit gaksoorkh
Oh TOR
“$end o1eciw Sas0 ‘oa to woud ow tud eek Lit Bae ‘
hve to ware
aotiige ad ‘to ‘gaw #009 salwoives: ould wxecte ‘botiage nged asa alee
; i Sas E pie a ORES
ore ds Bicd eW sidies inde fost ak ecw nesio tse eonebtve eit tad
a este £6 it 7 tem NI Oa One
toecaet ‘abis yy ‘ro1s9 om Bew
cite ger ae BEES
“faite 643 ‘te toubaoo odd ‘asd enistomoe cele ‘Samba ted
‘as <e Re “ig shit
“eva OW STekad odd $wodguords ‘Samba0 teb 93 inioitutora as but
ae ig {
“on Bast sud ,‘to beate tees “exeddo exis ‘ed “aod daodte jufioxss novin
: nis my me Lon exam eowt
‘-dooqeet ebay ak ‘xorre oid tareves
Va: ea yas oar sl
tusos tetxd ‘ods “to tae bald / botaokbak adcasex ‘pitt sol
n) ; Sean wht xt 4 . rr
rity beat Tie at
: a ee “uae Hype Bet PR vs wing SHE iton
“a8 8! ramets aig 8 sg .
iy ox fy ieee a Baia wae e 4 2h, ee Mae
yay ey womehaye aide
.xu0H00. ~~ 1 eomueou bas Lome aod" 0
ok pume ere ‘es Sues
. » aes!
col tot ta W
corey B Bie Ga 9 faith
gp PDR AD oH ee eae hr yee
i Pa ae
per ke
39336
PEOPLE OF THE STaTe OF ILLTHOLS,
Defendant in Zrror,
vs,
LOUIS TRHEKALIOQOTIS,
Plaintiff in Error.
ne ene ar a Ma a Mh
290 1.A. 605!
MA, JUSTICE O'CONNOR DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
Jonn Kazos, by leave of court, iiled an information in
the name of the People against defendant, Louis Trekalictis,
charging him with viclation of sectione 48 and 49, chep. 121,
page 2792, Til. State Bar Stats., 19355, in that he drove a taxicab
in Chicago with wilful and wanton disregard for the safety of per-
#ONS oF property and at a greater speed than was reasonable and
proper, having regarc to the traffic and use of the way; that he
Was driving at a speed oF 25 miles an hour, contrary to the state
ute. Defenda:t entered a pica of not guilty, waived a trial by
jury, the case was heard, defendant was found giilty and sentenced
to the county jail for a term of ten days,
Defendant contends that the evidence was not only insuf-
ficient toe prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which the
law requires to warrant a conviction, but that tae finding of
guilty is sanifestly against the weight of the evidenee; that the
trial court erred in substituting his personal knowledge and exe
perience in lieu of evidence,
The record diseloses that at about 6:15 in the afternoon
ef August 12, 1936, defendant was driving his cab south in Clark
atreet at or near the intersection of Deming place, an east and
West street, when he struck and injured John Kozas, Sefendant
had picked up some passengers at the Edgewater Beach hotel and was
taking them to the liorrison hotel in the downtown district. The
Pe Tae
2.
aed
w Sse Orn teh mah
alouibal vo aTATe amr wo ers0mE
t* Sgenet a? #abaetea?: 3° 57998
* 46) $08 teastie
chy jéxrenuiane: esa
reer ett ribtaissd iv nen
mi fi %
‘300 WALT 2S acd ehh Ge a eee
-TIYOO Het TO WoTHIO Ser eRAEV TARE AOKMODYO AOTREUT CH! 4
re a0 xasrortun, of Onn.
OBA THD HO
f YB ye 2. a aye ae te tity went
a nok teutorrgh ae heiit ftw00 te oveok ¥e 9003 7 j
bi hy eget
: yeitot fedort sluol ,inshioteh teniags elgoad ell to gna sal
ASL .qaro ,@> bas ap Bnoijoogs to softelgiv Attn bt anlar,
dsoixs$ & syorth ad tadd mh ,26eL _g-btede Tai edote fit Bere oaed,
~79q, to yie'tss oat ry paogorath modnew bus fa'thby aid bv qt 7
bar Sidanoaaet 3a" ogi Heoge Reiners: & te. baw UtegeTg To. oaks
‘od ‘dadd iyew ad ‘to gay bas oltiant es od btaget aatved ysegorg, |
“tate ox? at (tarts woo wou es) no ia ote ‘te peogs sf bo? aniv tab usw, ; 4
oe iotat & hovlaw vets ha te of a beotus one r peices
beonetaos Deas yittos, bawot oaw tno ban'ke qitasd 9 aa hag Py uo 6 AL
,ayab wei 20 unos 4 tet List “yeaiCo | a in
aeadih uted sen. asw evnebive elt saxis abne dn00 frichae ted. ve naw
ext fig kaw stdyob eidenceast & haoyed yiting | sab eveta qf ¢notott
f to gaibal’t edt deat sud pmoktotenon - @ tooetey of eotiupet, Wet, ;
ould tard jsoapbive edt to tigen out seniene eat A, _
exe baw <o iki ala sabi st ttedue ab horte t1H09, dat
a a i : ad “us eombiye, To Mott. mh gous isa i
seine ond wit £18 tuoda de tant osotoets broser edt fit neh
a eo a
HxsL0 ab dtyos deo wis guivich asw tnabuoteb ,dECL .Si tewguA To
bne tess ac ,coelg gmimed ‘te nmottesexotal sat twon to ts footta .
diehas'ted essed suipl boxsp at bas * abe has RES Sgt AREY, a
day was bright and clear and the streets dry.
EKozas testified that he came out of the drug store locatadl
on the west side of Clark street a short distance north of Deming
plac2, where he was employed; that he was delivering a package
carried under his arm; that he started to walk across Clark
street and stopped at the crosswalk; that a northbound street car
had just stopped at the south side of Deming place; that a south-
bound street car “pulled up at the corner and I started to cross
the street;" that he walked in front of the southbound street car
and when he reached the east rail of that track he was struck by
the taxicab; that he had a clear vision of Clark street; that he
did not see the cab until after he was struck; that he was about
25 feet in front of the street car; that the street cars do not
atop at the corner but stop a little farther back; and that he
was severely injured,
George liay, called by The People, testified that at the
time in question he was “in the vicinity of Deming place and Clark
street, I saw the boy when he was struck, I was six feet from
him;" that he noticed the cab coming around the back of the
street car on the left or east side of the car at about 35 miles
an hour; that the cab came around on the left side of the south-
bound street car, On eross-exauination he testified that he did
not know the injured boy but knew he worked at the drug store; that
he knew the boy's father; that he noticed the northbound street car
had stopped on the south side of Deming place to discharge passen@
gers; "The boy was standing in the car rails, on the west side;"
that after the accident the cab came to a step on the west side of
Clark street,
Defendant testified he was driving a Yellew cab south in
Clark street, having picked up some passengers at the Bdgewater
Beach hotel, and that as he approached Deming place "the boy was
wa
A te Bt
anion
aah atootts oad bas teoL9 has tegind saw wae
fetsool ators gut adit" te tyo suwo off ‘tals Setiitest aksed
gnitmed to détom eanstaib droda se deotts xitald to oBis taew osit oo
egetosg # guiteviteh naw ed told jbeyelque | aaw of tsi , soelg
‘- ts £0, agozos tlew ot hotaate od tect rae aid tehas botutss
£60 doorta ‘havedicen 8 tant’ lewesa oro edt te beaqotds bus teetta
~itvee @ teat roogl¢ gnimed ‘to ohta déwoe sd¢ se hecqote “tall bed
aeoto oF Botraiea I has temtg9 exit ts ass he ie ‘kao teexta hawod
289 teotta bawoddduoa oat to jnort ai botew ou tasls *s ;foorte ont
ad tourte 2aw oat aosat teas to Akar tna aid decane ot st at
4» 2a taiid jdeexte uzely te matgiy nao .te a hast on sea jee
WY ay %, me
suede aew. ou tadt dowd a eay ‘a redts Lid das esti ‘608 fn
Ci he
gon oh 2xs0 teonds ont test teo teouse ould ‘to tox At tes ° ee
on. sedi bas ;toad xosidta't efsi il « qote tod, ‘E8DT OO att te qote
| _ sborwtat us crores al
ont 39, tad botthgess. selqoet ext eT, beting. tee, eproed pee
ata £9. bas soe fg gated to yintety edt, ne* ear og molteeup as et
mest tse't xis aaw I Houtta Baw oe ‘neste vod eat wae, i... stootte
“980 to dtosd edt bawots grtsoo deo edt beotion, os tact " gabe
eottar ae tuods te tao ext ‘te obte tase tO wet alt Ae aad do9t te
~dtuoe ot ‘to ebte tteL est a0 bavere omeo deo ost add add jtwosl 4
bLb ed, fads bedtisass oa notgentamge-zeo%o m0, ; TBO deotta bared
tact jerote gath ect te bedzow of weak tad ‘yod soxutat ont womk ton
aso teo1te bavodddton eit beolton eat: tadt jwedtaz a'yod ou + woad out .
Gnogasg egtarogib of eoalg gataed to hia Aduoa ead me beqqode bad
";ebis taew edt a0 hile tao oad at wae’ “ey yor ba se
tearm yp
Se tHe oe oor
ok stu98 des woLisy & , aatvich aew sit bs ritteet ‘Yandu0ted hee ce
JOG Wo Peae hg baa
retawoabit ontt let axeguovend esos w ‘bodote gat ved .teerte |
Ly
VRE. was ot mapas cuties. «
aw yoo ost” a sahaeal hesieeamiean od ac tadt bas , feted soaod
| Ne Oe | ee ee eee. ae
i 15 ;
i
es Pe ae
3
off the sidewalk a few feet looking in my direction. I saw him.
Thinking he was waiting for me te go by. All of a sudden *** he
gives a run" out in front of the cab; that defendant was traveling
then about 18 or 20 miles an hour; that he did not pass any stand-
ing southbound street car; that there was no southbound street car
in front of him at that time, On cress-examination he testified
that after the accident he taiked to a police officer at the sta-
tion, where he said he could not have been going at a speed of
more than 25 miles; there were two passengers in the e#b and he
was taking them to the Morrison hotel; that he was not going 25
miles am hour; that he first saw the boy when he was about 50
feet from him; that there were automobiles parked along the west
curb; that he did not pass to the sast of the southbound car bee
cause there was no such car there at the time; "as the boy made
the break to get in front of me" he was from 3 to 10 feet away,
and that defendant applied the brakes and stepped,
At the conclusion of the defendant's testimony the case
was continued for a few days, and when the hearing was resumed
counsel for defendant stated to the court that he had some witnesses,
and had subpoenaed another witness by the name of Gordon, but when
Gordon was gerved he atated he would not come unless a police offi-
oer went after him,
Raiph Blackstock, called by defendant, testified that he
was the motorman on the nortibound e&rset car at the time in quese
tion; that he saw the accident; that the eab was being driven south
in the southbound street car track; that there was no southbound
street car near Deming place at that time; that he stopped hie ear
at the sovth side of Deming place and just as he was coning te
stop, "I looked across to the left and there was a young lad
dashing off the curb; he was struck by the Yellow cab;" that there
Was no southbound street car there to interfere with the driving
8
o«
emia wae I smokaeesty ya at getixoo. | foot wet s ALeweb te eas Bre
hale Bobbie & to £f4 yd og ot om tot, Baltion naw ooh gubanba?
guiloverd asw Jasbaetebh sadt deo edt to taoxk ak suo "eure & Bevis
“busses gaag You bib od Sodd ;twod me gotim OS to 8£ guoda, ands?
uso testie bayodad ues. on aaw ozedd sed tse, seotte bavodat soe | gat
_bettisaod of moligainsxe-aaoto a0. emis todt ts mid te taont mt
po tiagios fa, tenszte eating & 08; bettas pl tnohtoos odd edhe dart
oto beegs 4 ds gakog sesd svad tom biveo od dian on oxedw , mobs
..,08 bao dao edd at enegcsaeeg owd otow etedt jae Lito. 88. edt 9xom
, 88, gatos, toa esw od test jLotod moalrroM sc of madd gatiet.saw
08 tyods. aew of sodw yod odd. wee stardt ef toad. ttwon. as. ng ft
taow oft gnols beitsq solidomotua ezow otadt daca, ibs, worst toe?
red 3e0 bawoddtuos godt to tase oat of geeq tom bib.ed ted? ydawo
eben yod edt es". ;omit edd te eredt rep dowe, om agw erent sayao
.wews teet Of of & mott saw on "om to daort. mi. 798, ot Aserd edd ~ ie
| pbogaote bas eexexd edt betigaa.. taebaetee tacit bas
eens. eid yoositaed a'inashaeteh edd to, mp deuLonos, silt oA oh nde ;
_pomwaet aay galtood og? psy dae eyed we? # to? beumtincs sew
andisatiy, euoe bed ef tel? guweg, omy oF bedete taebseted, rot ieeauoo
aedw stud. ,fohto9d. to omen ect yd aseatinw teddece beangoqdwe bad bas .
~itio, potlog ©, sneinw, esos, tom bivow oa bata, ou devise /P5y, Robno® a
| ) 103 96 coltantonss seen ni Se
ext desis best ttees,, penis ww, hetine stootedoe le dele on :
_ eeu at sald oul} a, seo deorde davodsdton 96d, ap seatotomecd ew a
dtuoa aovizh gated saw deo oat jee, ,taebhtoos. ect. was. on, t8u9, 7083 a
|, beads see ox aew ptois fads ,xoerd, t80 sSeetze, bavoddtuoe p4id,, at q
tap ats begaote ost test jomtd tat te poate gatnet sepa, xeo, tpexte
@ of animoo asv ef sc taut base eoatla gatmed to obi) cdmor entide 4
) bet gauoy, 8 ean, exerts, bra, dTeL ort et) santo hexooL I . e t
oted¢ dad “;deo wolleY auld, yd alowtte naw ool jduso oft 220 3 : u 4
“ galviah ond dtiw omeluetad, of, ones? xeo dood bawodstuon om
ne a ee, ee ee Ce i en
of the cab; that after the boy was struck the cab stopped at from
25 to 36 feet,
Edward Todd, called by defendant, testified that he was the
conductor on the northbound street car at the time in question;
that the car was just coming to a stop at Deming plece; that he
heard a sound as if something was hit and he looked up and saw the
bey had been struck by the cab; “I seen the boy wae carrying some
kind of coffee cr soup which was spilled on the side of the car;
that practically is all I saw, When I got off the street car there
Was no soutubound street car there;" that he did not see the boy
struck but saw him just afterward; that some southbound street cars
came up a couple of minutes afterward,
At the conclusion of this witness's testimony, eounseh for
defendant said, "I have another witness, if the Court wants to hear
him." The Court: "It doesn't make any difference,"
Bar] Anderson was then called by defendant and testified
that he witnessed the accident in question; that he was sitting in
the drug store on the northwest corner of Deming place and Clark
street; that he knew the complaining witness, John Kages; that he
did mot see any southbound street car at the time of the accident;
that after the boy was struek the cab pulled to the curb and quite a
crowd gathered around, and a few minutes afterward there were south-
bound street cars; that he saw the accident; that he was sitting in
the drug store eating his dinner; that he turned around and saw the
accident "right straight through the door “¢ 4ae corer;" that he
saw the bey leave the drug store and start across the street; that
he didn't think the boy saw the cab; that he saw the boy knocked
into the street,
At the conclusion of this witness's testimony the court
paid: "I tried to keep my own personal experience out of the eone
sideration of this case, in deciding this case, I know the streets
mort te beagone ino oat doutie wew re exit rote ‘val ‘dso out to
‘
vdoet ing of 8
ond new edt tact bot tisset tuahine tod wd betlso .bbet brow .
‘tottieup at emty oct ts wes teorta buvoddiren out ne Nodeusabe
ed dard igoeLlq ‘yatued $8 gota « of yattives taut aaw tao ont} bait
out” wae bas qu botool ed bas sid eaw ghiddomoa tf ea bamoe & bans
émoe gniyrres asw Yod eit} kobe’ i” ‘deo ott yd Houtte need bat Yor
ptwo 9d? ‘to sbls sad no belitge asw doldw quow to settod to Baki
etedd tsp tootte ont YYo tog f nodW \wae T Efe ef yrteottoayg seit”
vod aié see gon bib oa ‘Fore’ “yeasad tao Footte bawddveuee wh ehW’
14
atao sorte brvoditdwon omoe Set ;beowredte taut alka wha’ ud to era”
| eA ’ punwre eth’ aeguate Yee rgude a Gir oa?
10 ov Uiclling vom fast elaventiw alit to Hetautéhos ody ga ONY
Ps
tao of etnew - Fxw00 oad “Yt ,aeentiw “hod? ott oven 1¥° biea ‘uid, sa
bg ee "sonore ttib yis oven #'aseob FI" “ rexHe0! “oath” wi
beltizee? bac thabme'teh yf belfse madd dale ial Wide
ak gatssia aew ol tact ;nottesup me ‘fasbiooe one hemes at iw od tacit
fxet) bas soalg ‘sick oat ‘to tomreo deswidton olf ao rod Saeed ot
“ed sand Toone ase’ ,aeondiw ‘gains lqmos ‘edd wert of tant pteotds
iittebtoos ead to omit sd} te uso tootde bawoddduon Yow ook s¥a BED
a edivp Bia Urxxio biiy ot be Ltwq’ dao ould dowtte saw yod oiit 16e te deli’
~idyoa et9w stadt biewrodte eetunim wet 2 bos ,bavote sroltsy hots
‘gi gatfita aaw es tend ;onebioos one wae ost Fact rexso feotte haved
ed woe be bawors Bomuit od ¢eud prtennid wid gnifae store guh ody
“eit todd “jp xomi do sii} ¢e rood ent dydotity idyiscte Fiylx” taovtios
ted} jfo00de oXt eeotbe tute bole Stode guih oil ovile't Yor “edt wee
, Wale és ly edt wee od =" duo one papi ult Beye ee
tryed 90d Yhomksteot ‘gteeeatiw ated ‘Ye molawtoado tori 9, Ue pate
~H08 ‘eid Yo su0 ‘pote rte gee: Lanoatoq ites ‘om Goesl oo Bebrd I sabia ;
atestsa eit wont T (easy ‘eins gutted ah — toa
aor is
oe a
so well, I know the conditions tere, I am not at all satisfied
with the story told by the defendant and certalnly not by the
testimony ot the witnesses, or witness that said he gaw a stand}
ing street car there, that man was subject to a charge of perjugy
and the young man didn't see anything except he was hit. He didn't
know what happened to him, I am going te enter a finding of
guilty for reckless driving, It is one case where they struek
somebody. Ten days in the county jail.” Thereupon counsel for
defendant stated that he would like to have the witness whom he
had subpoenaed brought in, The Court: “What other witness, why
you had three witnesses here? The street car men, both of them,
they absolutely refute the testimony of the man, He said they
saw him pass around on the left side of a standing street ear,®
Counsel for defendant; "That's the plaintiff's testimony, they
refute that." The Court: "/Ikmow that, they didn't see the accident
but the motorman saw the young fd@llow struck, sew him eressing the
street, This young man was going too fast on Clark street and on
Broadway the same way they all do all the time. Now I don't want
to have that influence me, my own personal experience is sufficient,
No further argument,"
From the foregoing statement of the court we think it clear
the court did not believe plaintiff or the Witness, May, called by
him, when they testified that the taxicab dravevon the east side
of a southbound car; but that he did believe the motorman and other
witnesses who said that there was no southbound car there at the
time, We think it is also apparent that the court found the de-
fendant guilty because the taxicab Was being driven too fast and
that they drive "on Broadway the same way," ali the time; that his
own personal experience was sufficient, Obviously the court's
perscnal experience as to how taxicabs were ariven on Clark street
Wes not evidence upon which to predicate a finding of guilty,
I
LLG NE COTO FR
i em gl eg nO
| deebioos elt ves tl abbb yerid: stant worn TOF, sated sof. Yptadd etyter
eteetg of aintdt ow trues sdf. To sibel iaiiieati tiiala aoa tay
gd bofise (ya ,seent iv edt ce Tidaisle evel iad tom bth dayoo edt
ay ee
is Dente) r 1
*
hottatian ile ta ton me 1 eed? eaoitibnos odd wood - flew oa,
odt yd tom yLuleftes bas tuubasteb odd yd blot yrosa ent thw
o/ jebaate 2 wae od blae tant anontiw ro ,eeagent ty mitt, ce poeta bibe®
Wubted to egtedo 6 of sootdue new wom tat erect, nso teomte amd
t'abio ok tid sew ed tqeoxe guidtyae oem th obth mam gawoy ent bas
te guihult: « titans ot gaday com Zi Lette et Soncqqed dade wont
tleurtacyedd cons cweeey emo als tl’. sgaivich wes diosa tet ghibey
(tet fevanen agquetedl:) “sitat ytawon ast ak ayad mel” wYhodonem .
“(o(eomodwoaesathy ods oved ot eflf akuow od badd botete dnehus' ted
Yaw jaseadin verte tedW tdtwed odo al tdgwotd bexceoqiva had
vcogmede to dtod ,aou-tso teotte ex? teres seeuemtiv wordt Bad soy
yout biae oH mam edt tq ysouitest edt etwitet yhotuloads wot
\* Stee Soerde golbaste edo obi Hel oft me bawexs weeg mid wee
poo gedit © /ynomitead a'ttiintsiqg. edd glided" sdaishme teh, sot Laanued
odd) galesoro ois wee. devise welle't gavoy edt wea mnarietom edd dud
cate. Bre. fuente AqalO ao seat oot gaiog aay aaa gnuoy, gid? .teooate
diow ¢'noh Lwoll semid sd. Lis ob die yoat yaw emee eas yowhsorl
.doetol tive; ad. aucun fatoe1sg awe ym yom goneuttet gedt ovas, oF
cts boo Meo aaa tecteen ty of
-) ghia tese sri) moveverbh deoduad ods todd boltitgss yodd, agdw gmid
sesido bax seunotom odd evelied bib oa sand tad ytso bayedstwom, sy to
ait te Stent Tas pawo dit 08 et saw exert. tad? biee ofw segseatiw
he ans: edt havo't tumos ont stadt suereqge cafe ef th, aaistd 0% » p Oatt
bas, teat ood sevixh aated ear deotxsd eat geusood. yiitiuy: damhaw®
eid tadd jouts ond Lis ", yew ompe ont yawbsotd mo” ovitd, yout ad
atdxueo) edd ylavotvdO:- ,tnotot tive eam sonotragie Leaneteq awe a
toorde X60) mo mevinh exow adastnedimest oF es opm ixoaxs Lenoaxeg a
)yytiduge te gatbait a» ataagnaneete mena, em ins ‘
aw 0
ae
Before one can be found guilty the law requires that this be
shewn by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, The personal knowledge
of the judge who tries the case cannot meet the requirement of the
law thet proof of necessary facts shall be made,
The judgment of the Municipal court of Chicago is reversed,
JUDGHENT REVERSED,
Matchett, P. J., and ileSurely, J., concur,
hatiedias ina EOE A Sy CRE mek hme ae ee Bhs mp
at Wok onit yiLbuy bauot ¢ oe nna
} ‘ kar wees oe ye Pah tied Yet “hah YOM Fy ae
i ot goom ¢ ease edt eeltt odw me 3
i ike cue 8 ot mpl ge Gps cul weil eeebe Re
é oo
i to |
eae Gas Rie ° hideeniadiies’ Wd rati ny: miter at ony at x. a
OK MGtie Real ky SBE: eee
ysis cH eed Rw set g Took? oe et ogaks seats |
ogmess ‘ts Wtud. saat-me. domdda gel Oe se pe
wert bles @! mam wh te qaawhieeds oly meted y ai :
* tA Peeren shkinede 6 Se ohdy wee penis ot oft
spay: — aS hla tgcads 1 uaa sarenit we
a PR
Ss ee
aes Bal —
a eae
NR ts are
oad) Deke were: mb raw, doueaa eS. ihe ROE TNR, CE SINE
ee te ee acuaee bath 90 rr
Saiaw. teak Sei chinks pada Lhm mh ale. ‘Yaad wor ware, ie -yuwhe
batho le cue: ate ppuarcigchaanl spnoorehn: ae sad ee
sean bos 22a wee dawn watt. ee Pree’ pad age a
gt be hloy y Gnd, wemat br edd xe Rhkebadey ee tad: onay Mie LSB G
tvnxh deatand a) saat bo RR out, moat amelie
Se
able teas ws: migee
al ian a
hin, that 998 awed gala: wer, sesh sl pap somrmn a, get Ry
whi dedd joa ond Lhe yaw vane wae yovsoondl a be
a dau aad. YLawed vas deta key pam) sa
| éoorta Kats we soeted anow adaataeh red athe ee a
+ (ydtioae Mow warded. & odaachnnie ie aed oumptis
My
37580 /,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, APPEAL, a
(Plaintiff) Appellee, }
Ve
ELMER E. COWDREY, (Impleaded), f 200k hues
Vile
(Defendant) Appellant. Ps 9 Ol 60 5
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE DENIS E. SULLIVAN DELIVERED THE
OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the Criminal
Court of Cook County, wherein the defendant Elmer ©, Cowdrey was
found guilty and convicted for having violated the Motor Fuel Tex
Law of 1929, as amended in 19231,
Count 1 of the indictment charged thet the defendant
Elmer E, Cowdrey and one Howard © Adams on or about November 1,
1931, snd continuously thereafter during the month of November of
that year were co-partners doing business as Cowdrey & Adams and
ag such co-partners were engaged in the business of selling motor
fuel for use in this stste and of transporting motor fuel into this
state for sale therein and were thus engaged in the business of
@istributor of motor fuels; that as such distributors said parties
received in the County of Cook, during ssid month of November, 1931,
66,930 gallons of motor fuel, to-wit; gasoline thet was then and th
there subject to a tax of three cents per gallon under the statutes
of this state; thet ssid parties collected from the purchasers of
said motor fuel, on all of said sales during said month of November,
three cents per gallon and collected in all the sum of $2,007.90,
as such taxes, of which amount the sum of %500 was theresfter paid
to the Department of Finance, State of Iliinois and there remains
due to said Department of Finanee and to the State of Illinois, out
of said collections for the said month of November, the sum of
$1,507,90, which sum became due on December 20, 1931; that said
parties on December 20, 1931, unlawfully, knowingly and willfully
. i
.
oseve
e@IOHIdd 10 STAT@ ANT TO auGONa
‘qSallogqa (Httatergy eo %?
r ; , st Bere y Rtas
a oh -_ a ofos et bebaelomt) manna
G 00 A, I 0 4 S OG 5 ete Ebeqaa: een 2 4
“SRY Ganvraga HAVEAIUE v2 QIWEC TORTEUL ONIOTeERS AM
eTAUOO ANT TO WOTUTSIO.
faniwit® edt ai berotne tmomgbeyt 8 mot fseqqs as ef aidT 8
Sew yerbwod rom LH tasbasteb ‘ent ‘gtoxedw ‘etnued food ‘to pasion
xeT fout totoM sft betalolv gaivad tot betolvace baa ytliug basot
oLS@CL mi bebtoms es ,@8@L to wed
tashneteb edt tedt beguisdo taomtoibai edt to L tawod LS
i redmeveli tuods to mo emsbA «4 brewol emo bas yetbwoO .f rtemld
to tedmevell to dinom oft pattub tetteseredt yLawounttaoo bas , [eel
bas amsbA & yotbwod an seenteud gatoh exentraq-o0 erow ts0y tedt
rotom gaiilee to sesateud edt mi hegegme stow eteatreq-oo dowe es
eidt otat Levt rotom gaitsoqanart to bas otete alt mi eew tot Levt
te esreooteud oft at begsaas eudd otew bane alsxedt else tot otste
aeltieq bise etetuditieib dowe as tedt jalewt rotom to godudiatele
feel ,redmevell to dinom bise yaituh food to ysawed ad¢ al bevieoe’
dt bas aedt eew tedt ontLloasy gtiw-ot ,Leut sotom to amoling 088,03
eetutste edd tebay aolisg teq etaso eomlt to xed © oF tostdus etedtd
to steesdotsd edt mott botoellos eeltieg bise todt jetete eldt to
ersdmevol to dinom bise yaitybh eelse bisa to Ifs no ,Levt totom bisa
08,700.88 to mye ont LLe ad betoolioo ban molleg req atmos sotdt
blag setitsored?d aaw OO) to swe edt tavoms doidw to synnnnt dose 8s
entemor stedt Sae etoniill to etst& .soneatt to tromtrsqot edt ot
tuo ,elomt{l to etst® edt of bas conentt to ¢aeminqed Dine of oud
to mve oft ,todmevoll to diaom bise edt rot emottoelfoo bise to
bisa todd ,L8CL OS rodmeced mo exh omsoed mye sfotdw qonrene a
Yiiutiiiw bas ylgatwomd qXilvtweleus a aoe vtedmeost
&
2
failed or refused to pay said sum, contrary to the statute.
Count 2 of the indictment makes similar allegations for
the month of December, 1931, excepting that they allege that the
parties had a license from the Department of Finance of the State
of Illinois; alleges that during the month of December, 1931, said
firm of Cowdrey & Adams, as distributors of motor fuels sold
134,214 galions of motor fuel, to-wit: gasoline, subject to a tax
of three cents per gallon, which amounted to $4,026.42, no part
_of which has been paid to the State of Illinois,
Gount 3 of the indictment makes 4 similar charge, alleging
that the said parties as distributors sold 141,638 gallons of
gasoline during the month of January 1932, on which they collected
a tax due the State of Illinois of $4,249.14, which amount they
refused to pay to the Department of Finance or State of Illinois.
Count 4 makes similar charges against said defendants for
the month‘of Februery, 1932, alleging that as such distributors they
sold 68,850 gallons of gasoline on which they collected a total tax
of $2,989.38, which amount became due March 20, 1932, but which
the parties have refused to pay, etcs
Gount 5 makes similar charges against said defendants for
the month of March, 1932, alleging they sold 3,796 gallone of motor
fuel on which they collected a tax of $923,868; thet said tax became
due April 20, 1932, but that they have refused to pay,ett.
The defendant Howard Adams was not apprehended, but the
defendant Elmer ©, Cowdrew was arraigned and entered a plea of not
guilty to the indictment and each count thereof,
The jury returned 2 verdict consisting of five paragraphs
in which they found the defendant guilty in manner and form as
charged in each of the five counts of the indictment, consecutively
and find Cowdrey $1,000.00 as to each of the five counts of the
indictment, making a teteal fine of $5,000.00,
We are met at the outset in this case by a challenge to
the venues
j i
|
| | &
l ) sstutste eft ot yrertmoo ymve biee yeq of beewtex to beLtet
| got dnottege fis cpLisite ceten tnekde thei “dad'sd Re dalge 8° SiON
edt todd eyelie yoni “podtt gaidqooxe <E8Or \redmeced ‘to dénom eat
etst2 edt to somentl te tromtusqed ad¢ moxt semen i” & bed eeliueq
bisa fbOd «Tedmooat Ae enon ent gnktud tate ‘pogeits. jetomE LIT ‘to
* Kitow een’ iéten ve’ seosutextais’ Gi’ camieba yotbned to mrt
| xet e od tootdve ,eailoesg itiwnot ,Lewt. rofem to anoLisy DES dEL
tisq om ,8,880,5) of Hbetavome doldw ,wollsy req aftaen. setdt to
| ne salon2Lll to etat@. edd ot bieq oped aad dotdw 20.
gaigetic ,egtedo teligte s aeten tneatoibat edt to Pe Ae, 25 doumd
to enoliag 889.10 bios evotudinteth es seitiag bee sdt test
_- betoeLfoo yedt doidw mo SCL yraunsh to. démom. edt gattub eniloesg:
Yds sovems dotdw .bL,Cdi d$. to stomlill to. etet® edd oub xst 8
| sRLOMLIT Yo etet2 co somantl to tmeutreqed odt of yaq,ot Donuten
rot etashasteb bise tentegs segredo.rsLimte eexem.> #000. on,
yodt etotuditielh dose ss tad? gotgelis .68eL. eUrautdel Rerdiaom edt |
xet Latot 2 betostloo yedt deidw so antloesy to enoileg 088,80 bloe
dotdw dud (S8CL 0S dove, exh omened tavems doidw .B8.080,8%. to
5 - oP eteq ot boavtet eved eotizaq. edt
tot atarbasteh bise tentegs acgtado relimte eedem 2 tayo 9. 9.»
“Movom to anotleg, 86% .f, bloe yeds, saigelie 4 SECL, dorsi to, dtaom edt
emsoed Kat bise told ,BB,SSh to xad © detoetion yedd dotdn no feut —
cjojeey sOtOgyeq, of beavtex evad. edt. tedt, tud, eSEBL 208 Ekta oub a
edt sud ybebasderqgs tom asw esshA buawol tashaoteb. eat, atten |
tem to selq #, boretae baa beagierta een worb00, «A romLE tasbaotep
Oo Roeredt da09, 989, bas, tagntothat ont ot ythtuy
edaoraanad Avil, to padeatence, *PARKOV, A RMSNEAR, WEEE OAS towed nn
88 wrok bas rennem at yling tashasied, edt paved yedt dette at
Uovituosanco .taomtothat edd Yo, admuom-ovs? edt fo sipse at Bepredo
ent Yo staveo, evtt edd to sose ot. 26. Auth acremni Map a
oe
The indictment after alleging that the said defendant was
a licensed distributor of motor fuels, charges that he had collected
a certein amount of money, and concludes; “no part of which was at
any time paid to the Department of Finance of the State of Illinois
er to the said State of Illinois, which sum became due on the 20th
of April, 1932; that said parties on said 20th day of April, 1932,
unlawfully, knowingly and willfully failed and refused to make pay-
ment as aforesaid of said sum of $923,88, or any part thereof, to
said Department of Finance of the State of Illinois, or to said State
of Illinois, contrary to the statute."
No proof was offered as to where the money was to have been
paid. The indictment charges his failure to psy to the Department
of Finance of the State of Illinois or to the State of Illinois,
which makes two separate and distinct places to which the money might
have been paid and the proof lacks any showing that it was not paid
at one place or the other, The statute provides that the Department
of Finance shall be in Springfield, Illinois, but no proof was sub-
mitted as to where the money should be paid, whether in Cook County
or Sangamon County.
In the case of The People v. Allen, 360 Ill, 36, at page
42, the court said;
"It is well settled that in an indictment for embezzlement the
venue is properly laid in the county where the accused was under
a duty to account. (People V. Davis, 269 Ill. 256.) In People
Ve ois 358 Ill, 479, where the defendant was charged with
embezzling motor fuel tax money, we held that the venue was
correctly iaid in Sangamon county. The statute (Smith's Stat,
1933, Chap. 127, sec. 17,) requires the Department of Finance
to have its central office in the capitel building, in Springfield,
we will not take judicial notice that branch offices have been
established, (People v. Allen, 352 Ill. 263,) and in the absence
of proof to the contrary the place where the defendant is under
obligation to account is in Springfield, The same reasoning
applies to this prosecution under section 15 of the Motor Fuel
Tax act, and the State capitol is the place where Allen was under
a duty to pay the tax money to the Department of Finance in the
absence of proof that there was a branch office of that
department in Cook County authorized te receive payment."
Several other points are raised in plaintiff's brief which
we do not deem necessary to consider at this time,
For the reasons herein given the judgment of the Criminal
Court is hereby reversed, JUDGMENT REVERSED,
HEBEL AND HALL, JJ. CoNcUR.
sew taebasieh hice ect teat gatgelie tetis fnemtoibat ed?
beteetion bed ad tadé megrado ,elewt sotem to totudiztel Petrie 8
ts aew dotdw to tiag en" resbulonoo bas .yonom to tavems aietreo. s
etonilll to etet?®8 edt to sementl to tnantasqed, sit o¢ bieq anit, wns
MtO8 edt mo oub omsced mwa doldw ,eiostlit to otas@ hae edt of sto
SSCL gtingA to ysb AI08 bise mo settreg ise ted? ,;85CL .LingA to
~you even of bonvter has beliet yitutiite bas ylgatwonx .xlistwatour
Ot gtosted? d1aq yas to . 88,886} to mua bise to bionoxets as, tom
stst® bise ot ro ,etomilil to e¢st2 ad¢ to esnentl to taempraqed Dise
be as on ha ‘.otytete edd of yrotitaeao .aiont ill to
need evad of} sew yonom edt ated ot a6 haxedto asw loorg of ,
Ab ae git ide
Vfitia
tmeatrsqe edt of yaq of emlist aid eegtado tagmtothat . oat, “osblag
aBtoaitll to etete edt ot 30 afoatlil to etet@ edt to gonentt te
tigim yenom edt dotdw ot eeostg foattath bas oteteqea ont vealem detdw
Sieq tog esv st tend gutwode yas adosl tootq edt bas bkeg meed ved
‘ania dou, ak costes iy os hbase yeaon edt. oredy ot. 2a bettie
> oe tenre® x & x0
“ae jo. Pat 988
ods tons is 2ecu® aot imontotbad fe at tend bolttes Liew 22 +r"
‘To ew beavoos oft oF ysauoo edd mio Bisel yireqewq ek exadv::
2 mI (,08& ,L{I Gas cstuee sy eee stauo00% oF Yiu s
begtedé esw taebaete wilt BBE .. Lowi
ge* eunov edt tedt bled ew .ysnom xsi etd bys wt
ptst® lating) stutate edt 5 gomeagaae mt secdgsocese
sonsntl to tnemPreqed edt setivpet (,TL- Ee ns £
ablektgatzet ai ygaibLind Letiqas eft ai sotto Wixdioateda tiie ah
ased evad egoltto donard teadt setvon Estokby eidnt ton
eoneede oft nt bas {898 4 LEE Ras ove \,bodetlidatas:
tebmu ei tashasteb edt 9s orw pee oS “yret noo ext of toora to
palinoesd: omee odT ~bieitgatte? al ei taysoon od moitegiido
Ieut tosoM edt to AL aolttoee tebsy xo Ldvoeeong eldt of eefiqgs
webau as meLfd etade sosiq edd ef Lotiqzo etat® oft bas tage gor gh meTe
oat edt at eoasatt to taemtrsqed edt of YOnom xed oat °
Ge > Sedd te SOLtto dogatd s eae erent tadt & tex oomenda.
",taemysq eviesst of box irodtae vitae dood | b famaecagee
doide teted elttitaiely ak beetes ots abated tadito
somid eid te ceblameo ot: shee dybi Sp mene ‘a
fentmiz0 edd To tomy burl edt meee akered adoaset od
aenavan rampou, © 6 8 lp beetever! ‘ona »
_wngay EE
38749
MEYER ROTHSCHILD, et al., APPEAL FROM
Bg.
Appellants, - — j
oatart
290 1.A. 605°
ON REHZARING
MRe PRESIDING JUSTICE DENIS EB, SULLIVAN DELIVERED THE
iy
Dae
Ve
PERTTM
AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST
COMPANY OF CHICAGO, Trustee,
Cte, et ale»,
Appelieés.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
This cause comes before us on a petition for a rehearing,
The cause originally came before us on an appeal from a deoree dis-
missing the bill for want of equity which had been filed by certain
complainants against the defendants, The decree was entered after
a hearing had before the court. The opinion filed by this court on
November 4, 1936, reversed the decree of the trial court and remanded
the cause with directions.
Thgsg court in its former opinion inadvertently ststed that
the pleas of (1) res sdjudicata, (2) laches, (3) nopjoinder of
necessary parties, (4) misjoinder of certain parties and (5) multi-
fariousness, had been overruled by the chancellor. This was error,
Upon a further examination of the briefs filed, there is no doubt
that some of the pleas should have been sustained, especially that
of nonjoinder as, in our opinion, it is necessary to have all interest-
ed parties affected by the decree before the court, But, upon again
reviewing the briefs and abstract before us we find that the Xemd&ing
counsel for plaintiffs stated that he had all the parties before the
court thet he thought necessary and further stated to the trial court
in substance that he did not wish to add any additional parties in
order to obtain the relief he is seeking,
ra\
\
on bs al alike ‘ae } eaves
ei en rT xem, fay
se.
| = SR aa Pag renren sien |
WE wots eos |
TEUAT qa 2s HAO]
Tiedt f ca 3 MHAawOO
a eres
00 ALOCS emp ienieneitill
Bee L'siute Se a ea 2 anee
: , ‘umaRE Ho : ; ; st Bs ve £60 q
ant qunay1aaa waAVELIUe sa eIMGa SOLTEUL oMraTouAS em :
, ify | «BUOD, IT 9. worms,
“ sgatreedor 8 tot moltited s mo av, oxoted e2emoo Sauso ald, 3
i “ath eerosh r nox? Lseqqs mS Mo Bw oroted ORD Mlanteizo oasso eat
atstzep x Delit need bad doidw ytlupe to tney tot tiid ed? gai ee tm,
st rofte beretns ecw serpeb edt setashaoted: edt tentegs, tnsmts Samo, =
0 P90 aldt yd belli molntge odT .tru0o add exoted bad gotzced &.
bebasmen bas truoe fett? edt to. eezoeb edt beerevet, .eel aN xeduovoll,
_ pista ttoorsb dike eevee. edd,
tent betsta vituotvevbens fotnigo “nomto?. eel ad truoe seat had tio
to tebmictyon (€) .asdest (8) .etgobbutbs go3 (£) to eatia odd,
nti Lum (8) bas rettzag aistreo to. rebaiot ate, (a) (spodtzadg, Yrseasoen
.ToTre Bow eid? stolleonsido ont vd beLurteve need, bad stecmeuoite?,
Dk sscapl ea. el euagt hea oi sie weed ane B.3 snpemenene veseuet: 8) etched
b Las wit e eooke oat poe saat
ategs, segs Rr ettwoo edit ‘sr0rbd, fears ‘oat ud. borootte ‘eoltzaq be
2 eRe
wet oft todd bat? on ao, ‘sroted. doerteds. ban. stole ¢ ent siiwotver
Vee
;
re ce Rt ‘ae
ont oxoted ‘aoltieq oat: tis. bad. od tent. botete ‘evndtatotg 2030 feenuoo
A eRe a Peta 43
txy00 : febtd ant ot berate sodtimw ban. vinssooes: Adyuodt om nde adt dxs00 4
ae Ts
4 bee
se eohtzea, tnnoitibds vas phe ot sosw ton ab. 96 todd “soastedue at
by eee
reckon ‘Ri ed keakor exit “gbnddovat: ‘rebso
Ve ata keg tTAire Lewy wot 4
b Dieateean teh Oe RR ED saa i) BAW? ob, oe. rie
vin meered agopeet Gay bibl J
This court in its former opinion also stated that the
necessary parties, who would be affected by any decree which would
be entered, were not made parties defendant and, on that theory,
we directed the court below to permit the plaintiffs to amend their
bill and bring in such parties, As plaintiff does not desire to
add the necessary parties it is quite unnecessary that leave be
given plaintiffs to amend their bill. For that reason, therefore,
the former direction in the order of reversal, sustaining the plea
of nonjoinder and dismissing the suit for want of necessary parties
is hereby changed by expunging the same from the former opinion
written by this court on November 4, 1936, and in lieu thereof,
should read; Reversed and Remanded with directions to the trial
court to sustain the plea of nonjoinder and to dismiss the bill of
complaint for want of the necessary parties,
DEOREE REVERSED AND CAUSE
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS,
HEBEL AND HALL, JJ. GONCUR,
— ‘ail
i eit tedt betete ogla molaiqo cemrot ets a tzu09 eidT eT
ae eka ga A iain i
--bivow doldw getoeb yas yd betoetts od hhuow ow aeeidreg yrsensoen i
\ ‘ : .wroodt dont to bas tashaotsh eoltraq eben tom etew sboretae od
7 tied? booms of sttitatalg ed¢ timo ot woled x00, et betneethay
| ot ecineh ton beh ttitertsla pA ,eeitred Mowe nt geied bis, tite
ed oveol todd Viepaepenny etiup af #2 aetits¢ Visessoon odt bbs
a MiaVoreas’ wsoesot tert 107 sits riedd booms of ettitatels nevis
i selq edt gotuteteye,fertoves Io tebmo. edt at mottoetth tomo? ont
e ‘poltsraq yrseaseoen to faaw t6t tive edt galveimedd bas tebatojaen te q
folnigo temrot eg mott once edt, gatgaugxe yd begassie yered en 4
coy akponadt wnt ab bas. BEEL 2 tednovel 20, tame, etdd Wd. sedition a
fektt odd ot emoitoorth ditw bebaemes bas beaveven, ibaot biwode
es 1. Lil odd colmeth of bas sobatojuen to. aef¢ od? atetaus. of, tmugo
ws e ”
eo ae
1 te tcet le ; he |
‘ - ‘ ; aN ‘ 4 N x i ‘
Lo ale Lae C8} by ¥ st oe ieee Aare ath bb) ,oo liad viaesecos
roa cadld | ? ; :. be
, ey Laoweewe aod, Beul - ible al
m Seat i BES 2 be Un ey ou Payee | Bs ‘thet
: ! rauane: sambs ade ‘te enoe: sot
q ‘ yay: A Bs ean APNE. « Ag } grge 6a eh coh haleiaon to
‘
So kad woReae s (3 CE DORE pL a
anid wwednon
fa ai se
\ , oP in gy
' P Tat EER.
i
he ay fm " 4 “” Y .¢ yes tl wins sia ’, itt
Bh i ito Mama ae RR cy EY REY nah ts
39400
ALICIA G. BURNES,
(Petitioner) Appellant,
Ve
CHARLES F, MOSS, COOK COUNTY
i” wf
(Respondent) Appellee, D) 9 0 iI oi 6 0 5
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE DENIS E. SULLIVAN DELIVERED THE
OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal from an order entered in the Circuit
Court granting.a new trial. The petition asking for leave to appeal
was granted and abstracts and briefs were filed in this court.
The action in the trial court was brought by the plaintiff
to recover damages on account of injuries sustained when she was
struck by an automobile owned and operated by the defendant on July 9,
1931, near the intersection of Dearborn and Adams streets in the
city of Chicago. The case was tried by s judge and jury and a verdict
was returned finding the defendant guilty and assessing plaintiff's
damages at the sum of $5,000,00, On defendant's motion the court
granted a new trial, from which order of the court plaintiff appeals,
The evidence shows that on July 9, 1931, late in the
afternoon after plaintiff had left the offices of Dun & Bradstreet,
where she was employed, she went east on Adams street and turned into
Dearborn street; that she was proceeding to enter s safety zone on
Dearborn street in order to board a southbound street car; that as
she stepped from the curb on to Dearborn street at a point about 50
feet north of its intersection with Adams street, she was struck
by defendant's automobile as he was backing it away from a yellow
cab for the purpose of continuing his journey south on Dearborn
street; that after she was struck the defendant and two other men
helped her into defendant's car; that defendant and his wife drove
her to her home where she was attended by a physician,
COLE
eR .O ALOLGA
y's abiaameren
os
eeu oD PASE AD
OY OC Sena Sooo inom oe
Ve Q a A T 0 ee _ ee olleads (tnebuogeoh)
i) @
GAT OQRRAVISGC AAVELIUe VS Sram aor teut muroreant yo
, “es tRGOD ak © wo rurdo
fe BE
hang
tiveriO ed? mt herotae tebto se mot? Iseqae ms ek ‘ata? :
Inteqe ot sveel tot guives moteiteq sd? .Ieictd wen s. gattasrs ‘two
stcuod etdt of BeLit exow ateind Bas atosrteds bae ee) Bew
Vtetniete edd yi tdgvort ass devon feted env mt adtios ear” “°7°'
eaw ode nodw boateteve aefemtat to iawoode mo adydmab covobse°ot
.& yist ao tuebasteb Ht Yd hedavedo hue benwo aLidomotes: fs yw ‘biG
odd ai eteetts sucha Bae avodvesd to Heltéseretal odd reed bel
tener & bre erat ets aghast 2 yd beixt, sew oeso dT “sogsotst0 to ytte
Bi eneensein gnieeseas Bar ‘ytlieg tanbueteb edt got Lberdt denrster een
gevoo edt sottom ettaabmeteb ad +90 ,000,8% to mua odd ts wegemsd
valsocge ttitnielq tivoe edt to ebro doitw mort .falcd won s hetasts
ent at eteL .f8CL ,@ ylvt ao tent awode sonebive eft
~feettabera 3 avd To esoltto edd Stel bed tiidaisiq rodts noonretts
otat bearud bas teette emebA ao tase taew ode eyolame esw ede erodw
mo onox yYtetse s tetae ot gaibseootg eaw ore teat stoorta arodrsed
es tadt jcs0 teortte bavodsdtuoe s brsod ot sconces mf doorte arodzs0d
08 tuods iniog s ts teette azodrsed of Ko dxs0 ost mort boqqete ote
Moutte asw ede ,teotts amebA dtiv aottooerstal etl to ddrost feet
wolley s sext yews ti yatidosd esw ox as efLidomotus eliasbacteb xd
nztodraeG mo divoe youtwot eid gnisnttmneo to oongerd ont tot dao
mem tedto owt has tasbaoteb edt Aoutte aaw rte redke ‘tedt iteorta
avorb stiw eid bas tnsbaeteb tedt prts0 e!eaabasteb otm red beqied
efteloleydicq s yd bebuotta esw ode onedty onon xed of xed "
if eh Hy eee ye %
The verdict of the jury was for $5,000. The evidence was
conflicting, There were but four witnesses testifying, - plaintiff,
defendant and his wife and plaintiff's dosteor, The accident
occurred on July 9, 1931, and suit was not commenced until July 7,
1933, Instructions for both plaintiff and defendant were given and
refused and upon a motion by defendant for a new trial the same was
granted by the trial court,
Our attention is called to the fact that plaintiff when
testifying stated that when defendant was driving her home in his
automobile from the scene of the accident, she wanted to lie down
on the back seat of the automobile, but that there was a tiny
whiskey glass on the seat and alse a flask which she had to push
over in order to lie down,
It is also pointed out thet evidence was offered as to
& conversation had with plaintiff the evening of the accident with
regard to a doctor having been called, but that he did not come,
We do not believe this evidence was pertinent to any issue
made by the plesdings and it may have been that this was one of the
errors whieh the trial court wished to correct when he granted a
new trial.
In the trial of cases before a jury and where the rulings
on the admission of evidence, instructions te the jury and the
entire procedure is reviewed by the trial judge on » motion for a
new trial, he, necessarily, is vested with wide discretion in deter-
mining whether or not justice has been done. The trisl judge sees
the witnesses upon the stand and hears them testify and, in most
cases, he is in a better position to judge as to the eredibility
of the different witnesses than is a court of review,
We agree with counsel for plaintiff, appellant here, that
the discretion exercised by the trial court in granting a new trial
is subject to review in a proper case for a claimed abuse of such
discretion,
sit to ono eow aidé test need ove van ‘th bas egatboolg a vi obs
eaw eontebive. oT 19004 8% rot say Ytu, edt to soLbrey, edt
stthentslq - aith yt hteod Besacadty wot, td etew sxedT. . spppttenttaoe
tnsebioaa ext stotoeh a'nittniasa bae stiw eid bas taebasteb
“? var Ltiay bheoneramo ton sew ‘tive fing Lb@L .e ylul so, hexxuoee
bas aovds BLOW tnsbastob bas tilteislg sited "ot Modi onnnent SSCL
now anse edt Isle wont 8 tox are ge ¥ nok tow 8 noau dae Hoavtor
s#tu09 Istet ode vs potaany
aode ttlintela ted¢ toet edt o¢ boliso et no t#ned $e 10
aid at emod xed gaivich esw tnabaoteb meciw tails betste gatytitest
ewok eit ot betasw ode etaebloos edt to exsoe edt non? ‘ottdonotus
wae 8 asw etedt tedd tud ‘qoLidomotus ot to te08 food ‘edt a0
= de ot bed ode Ho Letw teakt & Bes» bas teen ode m0 eunly Rosse
awob en ot rebro mt ‘teve
ot ef horstto enw eonebive tadt tuo ‘bosatog eels et 1 fourths
at
Ps agtw saebioos edt to gaiaeve odd WiitatsLg atiw ‘bed mottaetovites 4 8
re
wv ~ &
.g8mo0 ton BLb ed edt tud ebeLiso: need gatvad rodoob 2 08 beagox
erent yas od ¢nontteeg asw sonebive ait evellod tou ob oH :
r) botasty ed ange genenes ot bodetw txu00 ioled ode stot ‘etoTre
Re » i Ae
—aistet won
Sea te GF,
epatiut out oxede bas yuu, & oxehed ssaso to iatst at al
ost bre ytst odd ot enotjouttent oonabive to noieetmba oad 1 0
& rot no itom 2 20 extut isin ont ve bowsives et owbeoorg ¢ oxtine
~ratob al soitereelh ebiw atin betesr ot Ulzseagoen ot “iatsd wen
eee Oghis, feixd on? son08 neod est contour tom x0 rodttorte aatate
teom at , base yittas? moat ateod bas basta edt nogy soenondtw out
ytilidihexe edt of en sgbat oF nottteog xestod g PY at of sasace
anoives to #1400 8 a fads soceentin sree to
tad .ared taslleqgs Mittntala rot Looms Kote soxge oF in
feixct won s anitaars al trsoo Astxt edt x bentozoxe aodtoroetb ous
oF 748
foxes to sards dentate # tot easo reqorg 8 at anhres ot eevee: nt
In the case of Wagner v. Ghicago Motor Coach Co., 288 Ill,
App. 402, Mr. Justice O'Gonnor speaking for the court, said:
"In vA of a tle v» Clark, 278 Ill, App. 369,
where an appeal was allowed from an order of the circuit
court awarding a new trial, another division of this court
quoted with approval from 4 dorpus Juris, sec, 2813, as
follows (p. 285): ‘It is generally held that motions for a
new trial are addressed to the discretion of the trial court
and are not reviewable unless the record shows a clear abuse
ef such digeretion, especially where such motions were based
on questions of fact arising on the trial, or on matters
which occurred in the presence of the court during the trial,
* * * Appellate courts have encouraged trial courts in
exercisim this discretion to prevent a miscarriage of right
and are reluctant to interfere unless the discretion has been
exercised capriciously, arbitrarily or improvidently, Even
greater latitude is allowed the trial court in granting than
in réfusing new trials, and the appellate court will interfere
more reluctantly where the new trial is granted than where it
is denied, since in such cases the rights of the parties are
not finaliy settled as they are where the new trial is refused,
*
From a review of the entire record and in view of the
discretion which is ledged in the trial judge in granting or in
refusing motions for a new trial, we cannot say that there was such
an abuse of discretion as would justify a reversal of the order
entered in this case granting a new trial,
For the reasons herein given the order of the Circuit Gourt
is affirmed.
ORDER AFFIRMED,
HEBEL AND HALL, JJ. CONOUR,
| |
Lf 88S ..90 dono 0 nodom oaeodd «¥ reanal sii to enso edt ml
“pbise ” sttueo one rot pektnsy ronaod 0 eottent tt ‘S08 aah
G88 sqad eLLI ig ov 8 oo mas iiiv’ al" ee
Myorto edt to 29hto a5 AS OT
tr00 eh to icin tun eed on. ‘B Pam sth
as .f nee ,eluy vO toup
e tot anoitom teat bled ylisrenss 8 ll (388 a ieiie t
tusoo, Laist aft to aolsteroelb edt of ox tein? you wot
g s swodke brooor edt seein 9 ware
easd exew emoitom dove stadw vilssanene tolteronth prolly a RO»
arattem ao to .isitt ed¢ ao yuielvs tost to enottsexp ao —
ghaded a iuyb tiyoo edt to sorenstg oft ai borty900 co betw
an og ge rsseage gheey f dng rrbigae 2%
tduis to eneist % taeverq of agiter a Ty;
«Seen Fo Koitevoeth sat so a wang od tna: outer exe bus 3 ia”
more »yitneblivorqgei to * pees
neds gattners mt davoo Isixt ais yt sbutitad xezsorg tel rods
exetretat ILiw duvoo etaliegns ott bag gelaitt wen eas
ét ovedw asdt betaets ei deixt a edd etade yLléns 8% StOM
one sebtunq ait? to etdgtt oft apago dose md, 90nL6 Ȣ web oy
ebosutet ef Ieist won edt ovedw ors yout es mecngne x et
rit dee Se pet oe hye
edt to welv si bas hoover eritas odt to woivet « moxt
ak to guitaers at egbut Lettt odd at beghel ef dotdw sottoxonip
dou mew stodd tedt yse toanso ow qiedat woa.s tot enotiom gukeutor
%, webto ed¢ to feetever « Yniteut bivow ea moltetoelb to seuds as
elaitd won 9 gottnerg caso sidt at boxedae
trvo0 tinvext® edt to tebro sdt movig miored encapet edt TOR. grove)
shemxltts et
AUNT FIBA»: soaneo to baext-ast at
Sune uae ae
_apivenon ooh KA a, 5a
an i ge Ehe d Oy UR og A gia RS WER
ah adie clube Te gin at
woah onaher, ‘aad Bev din
me et
wes
; wo btigtea so alt
rua ' i sage ‘ we ea bts oa iy L&
Le , oy } DN ie Da ae fe oY oO ae 5, COLSEE,, Ra
eeaktoroesh He i
38892
WALTER LAWRENCE HERDIEN, et al., )
‘Appelles,
Ve
ELMER FORREST HERDIEN, et al., COOK COUNTY.
Appellants. } Pd 8) 6; Tel. 6 U Gg!
MR. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
By a Gomplaint filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
as amended, it is alleged, inter alia, that one Peter Herdien died
on September Sth, 1929, leaving a last will and testament; that
the will was duly probated, and that by its terms, certain real
estate was devised and bequeathed to Elmer Forrest Herdien and
Jennie M. Bodinson, to be held in trust for certain following
purposes; First, that the trustees should pay over so much of
the income as might be necessary for the maintenance and support
of Martha Herdien, wife of the testator, and tiat upon her death,
the property devised should be divided in equal portions, share
and share alike, between his three children, Walter lL. Herdien,
Elmer Forrest Herdien and Jennie M. Bodinson, It is further alleged
that the testator in his lifetime and on April 14th, 1927, together
with his wife, Martha, executed a deed conveying the real estate in
question to Elmer Forrest Herdien, and that such deed was duly
delivered and afterwards recorded in the Office of Recorder of
Deeds of Cock County, Illinois; that simultaneously with the
execution and delivery of the deed, Elmer forrest Herdien executed
& declaration of trust of the same date as the deed referred to,
by which he acknowledged himself to be the trustee of the real
estate conveyed, and that he held "one half of the equity of said
property in trust for alter Lawrence Herdien and his heirs, and
the remaining one half for himself," and that an instrument indica-
ting such fact was on the date of the deed signed by HZlmer Forrest
seas
ce? en aa -t erage ‘g0ultawad ATLA
THUOO TI
me ge pai ms : oe.
a¥THUOD OOD ) eet je WETGASH vino sas
6900 ATOeS = “urteatlett
» i000 aE? 4 wOLuTGO ane cana date aa aorrevt. 8 -
. Ctawod wood to tryed dios 19 edt mi bette tis iquoo fal a -
beth ao tbrol roted ono: ‘vont ebis xoter sbegetie ba te ‘inten es
‘tas itnometees bas iikw teal © gaiveod eset ste rode %8 ao
Inor atstz90 emred edt ve tedt bas sbetsvone ht Baw ‘cite ent
bas aeibrok tuorr0% xos£3 oe berieseuped bas beeived tow efntee
gatwolfot atadreo tot tevtt at bled od ot predeinPhs. r oM stanet
to doum oe revo yoq Bivode geatenst edt tene tered - reseogrud
| txogase One consnetatem odd rot yrecedoen od. tigen eb emodn® ene
oeiitseb ted noqu tet bas rotates? edt tooetiw (notbron edt TO"
evede ,shoitieg Laype ai Lebivib ed bivede howtveh ytreqora edt
~WelbroH .l ro¢le® ,aecblide eexdt pil meewted (ouhts exeme® bie”
begelis sed¢xe? ef +1 xmoenibed .M ehanel bas mothrel ¢eerr0t tomia
tedtogod ,TSCL .dthl LicqA mo bas omitetil eid at rotetacd ed? tadt
at etetes Lset eft, gatyevioo beh s betwooxe .ontual ,etiw aid dtiw
yinb sew beeh dous tedt bas ,aetbreH testrol romLe of commas.
to rebr90em to eelttO edt mi hobrocer ebrewredts dae betevileb’
edt dtiw ylevoscnatiumte tad? ;aioni{{l ,.ytaso00 too to ebest
betuoexe aeibroH teetrol tTemLE ,boob oft to yreviieb bas motswosxe
| ,ot berreter beeh edd es etsbh omse edt to tewtt to motteraloeb «
{ser edt to setemat ont od of tLoemid begboLwonwton od doldw yo
bise to yttupe edd to tisd eno" bled of tadt bas ,beyevaoo ststes
bae ,etied etd bas setbreH eonetwad tet¢ie¥ tot seus? at ystegqotq
sootbat tremutteact as tadt bas ",Yieamid tot tied eno gatakemer oft
ss eextol temLd yd bemgie beeb eft to egab sit mo saw fost dove gait |
2
Herdien end his wife, and that the latter instrument was duly
acknowledged and recorded in the Office of Reeorder of Deeds of
Gook Gounty, Illinois. The preyer of the bill is that the court
deoree that the eatate be divided in sccordance with the terms of
a trust created “either by virtue of 4 testamentary trust, or by
virtue of the trust crested by the conveyance hereinbefore referred
to". Upon the complaint and answers of the parties in interest,
the matter was referred to a Master in Chancery, who heard testimony
and made a report. Upon 2 hearing before the court, upon exceptions
to the Master's report, the court entered a decree confirming the
report, and granting the prayer of the bill, This is an appeal
from this decree,
In view of the fact thst all the pertinent facts involved
in this proceeding are noted by the court in its finding of feet in
the decree entered here, it will serve every purpose if we give the
substance of such findings, The findings of the court were,
substantially, as follows; That on September Sth, 1929, Peter Herdien
died, leaving a last will and testament dated June 6th, 1921, to
which there were three codicils, one dated January Sth, 1922, one
dated February llth, 1924, and one dated July 13th, 1929, and that
the will was probated on October 28th, 1929; that by this will, after
providing for the payment of debts and funeral expenses, Peter Herdien
devised and bequeathed all his real and personal property to Elmer
Forrest Herdien and Jennie M. Bodinson in trust as follows; That
during the lifetime of his wife, Martha Herdien, the entire income
of the trust estate, or so much as she might request, should be
paid by the trustee to his wifé in installments, as provided in the
will; that upon the death of the wife of Peter Herdien, the entire
trust estate should be distributed in equal portions, share and share
alike, to his sons, Walter I. Herdien and Elmer Forrest Herdien, and
his daughter, Jennie lM, Bodinsoh, and that as soon as convenient
yivb ‘may di oie xotted ont feds bas code eid bus netbron
to aboot to tabredal to eofttO ent ak Debreees bas Seghelwontns
#r0o ert tedt et Lltd edt to revere sit setorit £11 Viavod wood
}
:
q
5
;
}
i
ee, eee
hi anzod on? ag bw gogebrosos. mi bebivib ed ‘etsteas ent ted? eero9b
ee ae deiret qretremssuse s to outriv ‘ee xeddio" Beteors tewrt s .
borrate: exotedmiered seacyerace adit yd batsoto faut? ext to autriv |
_ jgteeredad af apgtraq ed? to etewene bas tadsiquoo edt mogU "ot
yrouttast Sased odw ,yteonsdd ol retesh s ot botretes: acy sotto oat
anoltyeoxs dequ ,trves edd eveted saitsed 6 geql .teoqet es ebem bas
edt unimritace setesb © hevadae treo edt ytreqer alsetent iedtot
fineqqe as ei eid? .ffid ont bo toyerq odd gai¢assg bas gtreqet
p09T00D .Bidt moti
poviovat-stost trenhtred edd Lie ted? test est %o weaveRT seonocus
atest te gatbakt ett at tree add. yd heton sts wisninuiciianils
eds avin o¢ hi ovoquac yrove evrree lilw tf yeted botetas seraeb edt
,oTee devoo edt to egmibakt ed? segathal? dowe te sometedye
neibrol ete .@SCL ,ds2 tedmesqe® so tec? rawediok es ,ylisitastedue
\ > Ot 4£8@L , M20 saul bedsbd cooustest bas Lite teel soyatveel.gbekd |
oo 99 g88OL ita vregael beteb eno gelivibes eerd? ezow oredd dobdw
_odtedt bas ,@8@h qdt8Logivb beteh ono bag gPS@Ligdtll yreutdet beteb
aests ,ldiw eidd yo tacit 7@8@L .ct8S. cedeto9 ae betedotg sow, Sian odd
noibrelH seted ,ecenegxe Iereaut baa stdeb to jaemyag edt tot gatbivera
romlSo¢ ytaecota Senceteg bag Iso eld iis bedtseuped hms..beaiveb
ted? :ewollot ss vestt-a£ sogntbod »«¥ elaasb bas wetbtol deestot
asqont exvitae edé ,neibsoH sdéxe¥ yotiw eld to. outtorss edd gars
od-binode .Sneupon, tigi ede en: doum on-zo.getatus tavsd edt to
edt at bobivera as .etwomiietunt af.etéw eid ot, eoteurt edt yd. bisq
oxiine eft .netbrel reted to etiw ed? to dtsed, edt moa: toda “atte i.
exeda’ bas: erede, aanodtrog Lsype aly -hedudétée ib ad bivoda, esas. touad
baa-,sotbysl teerx0% oeiK bus mothseHiad setiav gaaos-atdvet, enkks
dnotnevioo as mooe sa tedt bas .toenthod .M sinnel exstdguisb eid
a —— S
ee a ee a
3
after the death of the decedent's wife, the trustee should
distribute the trust estate then in their hands, and assign, trans-
fer and convey one third thereof to each of hie said children; that
in case of the death of any of his children before the termination
of the trust, then the portion which the deceased child would have
taken, if alive, should go in equal portions, share and share alike,
to the issue of such deceased child; that in case of the death of
any of his children without issue, then the portion which the
deceased child would have taken should go to the survivor or sur-
vivore of his children, the issue of any deceased child, however,
always taking the deceased psrent's share, per stirpes and not per
capita; that by the second codicil of the will, the decedent pro-
vided that before making any distribution, the trustee should pay
all the necessary costs and expenses of the trust, and that from
the balance of the income, the trustee should from time to time pay
out such sums, or make such purchases as might be in their judgment
necessary, for the support, maintenance and welfare of his grandson,
Walter L, Herdien, Jr., until he should reach the age of twenty five
years, and that in case the net income from the trust estate, in
the opinion of the trustee, should be more than sufficient for the
support, maintenance and welfare of his grandson, Walter L. Herdien,
Jre, that then and in that case, the trustee should from time to
time pay over the balance of the income to his son, Walter L. Herdien;
that upon the death of his son, Walter L. Herdien, and after his
grandson, Walter Lo Herdien, Jr., should attain the age of twenty
five years, the trust should turn over the rest end residue of the
trust estate to his son, Walter L. Herdien, Jr., to have and to
hold the same in fee simple absolute forever; that on January 25th,
1934, the Probate Court of Cook County approved the report of Jennie
M, Bodinson and Elmer Forrest Herdien, as exeoutors of the last will
-, bduods eoteuxd odd ,etiw gitnebeoab one to dtaeh edt toss
wast? .agiees bas yshoed tledé ai gedd statee taunt edt otudizteth
tedd qmerbiico Stee aid to does of Toetedt biidt eno Wevaog bas 9%,
noktsainiot edt exoted merhiido atd to yas to Atseh edt to eeae mt
evad bivow Ditdo bagsecsh sii doidy soitcoq adit gad? gteytd oft to
Ulises ened doe evade .enottzeg Loupe mt og biwode ,evite tt yredat
to siteeh edt to omao ai ted? ybitdo beeseosh dove to auent edt ot
won Mt Koddw sottrog oft meds gaaet syodtty aerbitde etd te Yaa,
_ 7, 70 TovsviuR sat of og bivoda qedet sysd bivow bitdo beaseeeb
etovenod ~hitho Deasaceh yan to sweet edt afer hh tte, ate 20. etoviv
r9q don has seqrite seq .etede eltnezeg begneneh edt gatdet aysuls
~orq tnobeoeh sit .Litw edt to Liotboo bnooee edt yd ted? . thei
Neg Divede eoteutt ed? soitudistedd yas gatdem erxored tadt bebiy
gj MOR2 dads bas .teurt od? to 2ognsqxe bag. st000. crseseoen on? ihe
ag omkt ot ene, mort bivede cetaytt edt .emoent ot 3, somsted edt
tnemgbul, shedt ot od sign ae soaadgtun doue eden To game owe tuo
_oqltoahasTy eid Yo erstiow das eoneataten ytzegque edt tot «vxsegeoen
evit yinewd to oye odd dosex Divode od Lttay ».7b .aotbreH J tots
Md ,otetes toute edd mort emoont fea Odd 9280 at tedd BSS .RTaey
odd rot énedottive med? erom od bivode <eoteurd edt to aotatqe edd.
etelbtoH ol sedis .aoebnery etd to exaiton bae penanetatam Ȣtoqaye
oe oy Ot emit mort Bivede ogtasrt wag 99900. tadt at bas oedt tedt gath
jaeibrel af togigh .soe afd of emoomt edt to eonalsd edt cove. wort
Mid rotte hae .cothrell of sagtal.o@On O44.38 sailnphiiigithdaalll
Utaews to ege odt alstie Bivede .th ,tethrol wl FOLETs afte
edt to oubieot das deer edt revo ntys Bivode. af ht. + ee
ogp OF Sa8.evad of seth, AOLbTOH of tot isi | _sioa att of, ot totes. Tt
#38, yrauasl ao, tad? jseyere? etuloada, elqute. og at emae ed? Dfod
_piagsh to, troqe edt beverage. veawe 1900 to, hppa ,
‘ exoibig: wed ate a
iitw tested? to. etotuoaxe as. ididide sili yomtt, bag, ahr ae
. —_
4 Se Yh mi S wr ean
aheons 4 P> gM DARawes
a a ee a
4
and testament of Peter Herdien, and that thereupon and thereafter
the portion of the estate remaining after the payment of the costs
of administration, debts and expenses, was turned over to the
defendants, Jennie M, Bodinson and Elmer Forrest Herdien, as trustees,
pursuent to the last will and testament of Peter Herdien; that
Wartha Herdien, the wife of the decedent, died on September 23rd,
1931, and that it thereupon became the duty of the trustees to
divide and distribute the trust estate; that in January, 1932, Jennie
M. Bodingson and Elmer Forrest Herdien, 2s such trustees, executed s
declaration providing for the division of the trust property, and
that by such instrument, the real estate in controversy here was
distributed between the defendants, Jennie M. Sodinson and Elmer
Forrest Herdien in the proportion of one fourth interest to
Jennie M. Bodinson and three fourth interest to Elmer Forrest Herdien
The court also found that on April l4th, 1927, Peter Herdien and
Martha Herdien, his wife, executed, acknowledged and delivered to
the defendant, Elmer Forrest Herdien, a warranty deed to the
premises in controversy, which deed was recorded in the Office of
Recorder of Deeds of Gook County on April 14th, 1927; that on April
14th, 1937, Elmer Forrest Herdien, the grantee in the deed just
referred to, together with Helen H, Herdien, his wife, executed a
declaration of trust which is purported to have been acknowledged
before a notary public under date of March 14th, 1928, and which
document was recorded in the Office of Recorder of Deeds of Cook
County, Illinois, on May 17th, 1928. This document is in words
and figures as follows:
"Agreement between E, F, Herdien and Mr, & irs. Herdien,
In and for the consideration of the transfer this day
to Elmer Forrest Herdien of the City of Watseka, County of
Irequois and S3tete of Illinois of the following described
property, to-wit:
Lot twenty-three(23) and the West twenty three (W,23)
feet of Lot twenty four (24) in Block one (1), except four
ci
*
resdteervet? Soe soqveted? tadt bas '\ néhbroli rstot to ‘taemsta0t bas |
ated sifé to dnomyda ode cathe gitkn tenor otatee edt to ‘aotéroq ‘ons |
fede 6 gove Bontut sow ,eoemeqxe bas bas atdeb wioitereetninbs to |
~posdeutt e5 .cotbvel teortrod jemiZ bas coeatbod oil ‘ekaxat sieht |
ted? ineibteh tsfel to taemetest bas titw teal od? of Snawenug
“ga88 rédmetqet oo BLD .taebeosh edt to otiw edd ‘yno tbr sided
ot sastenrt edt to ytud od ensood aoquer edt tt tetd bas iter
einaet ,Stel pyreumet al tedd jotetds taurt edt odudinteth his ebtvtb
s betyoexs ,eoetanrrd done se astbrell deorrot ‘gemle ‘bas keunioen a a Mu
brs switedord veurt add to noletvib ene ‘z0¥ gakbivorg nolterefoeb :
: ane ‘ered qerevottnce ae istes feor ond Seemed an ome ‘ee ‘tode .
‘nemtd bas noanibo® . etanet .aiashaet sb ‘edt moonged bevudteaesb
ie is af ri
‘ot teorstnet sérveY eno to notdrogorg ode nk 06 sh
Py dS
tee
sone feerro’ vemid of teeretnt ieuot © eer? bas ‘monnibodl We Wetas Shani ?
‘hae aeibrotl veded ,VSCL [APRIL Eteqd no ¥add Bavot oaks duo sa Y
“od borevilob tas begbeLwomion ybodwoexe ,stiw atd qd detbro sdouell
sede of boob YWrertew # eoibeow teerrot reslt etasthetob "ai |
“9 eoittO edt wi bebrOoor sow boob ‘dokitw’ “\ybisvertioo ‘nt avetmerg
Linq ao todd {VSCL avd Lteqh mo ytaved Hood to ebeed to rebrooeh
taut beed edt nt ‘eodnety odt .n@tbro teovrol temLT Teer aebe
g bedwoexs eet he kid ,aetbrel i aelex déiw redéegot ee borreter
begbelwontos need oved of bettoatuy et ‘doldw tesct Yo ‘noltstetbeb
doisie bus 88K (Adhd dorcel to efab tobas otiduy Uisten 8 ) sroted
food to Bhewt Yh tebroneW to evlryd edt al bobreves aay sromuo< ob
“abrow at et tuemwoob etait -986E Et vai no petoukisr® od
! si ‘tawol Lot ly ebruit bas
{of bieteao tered
ymetbroll yer & oak! ban kenbro Xu neowthd ‘ubabeega®”
b aidt tetenart edt. to. soltereblamos edt, tot baw at). ».\)
Oto xtawod gee to ytd ar te no tbrel teertot rent of
, dodezoped gatwoller edt, ‘te etomi lil to, byob bas
Lae (BGaH ds seats tnont. #99, ott are Seeent
Sed
o Re. Sar PL PALO) oy oe ig
and twenty eight one hundredths (4,28) acres in the North
part of said Block one (1) lying west of Green Bay Road, now
Clark Street) in the Canal Trustee's Subdivision of the East
half (£ 1/2) of Section twenty nine (29), Township forty (40)
North, Range fourteen (14) East of the Third (3rd) Principal
Meridien in Cook County, Illinois.
Elmer Forrest Herdien and Helen H, Herdien, his wife,
hereby and herewith enter into an agreement with the Grantor,
Peter Herdien and Martha Herdien, his wife, of the City of
Chicago, County of Gook and State of Illinois, whereby the
grantor and his wife Bhall have entire control of the income
from said property over and above the tazes and legitimate
upkeep. Elmer Forrest Herdien and Helen H. Herdien, his wife,
further agrees that one half (1/2) of the equity of said property
shall be held in trust for Walter Lawrence Herdien, or his heirs,
as per the Last Will and Testament of Peter Herdien, and further-
more that they will not sell or incumber said property during
the lifetime of Peter Herdien or of Martha Herdien except with
their express permission or request.
Elmer Forrest Herdien and Helen H, Herdien, his wife,
further agree that this property shall revert to the estate of
the Grantor Peter Herdien in the event of the death of both
Helen H. Herdien and Robert F, Herdien ( the latter being with-
out heirs) after the death of Elmer Forrest Herdien. In other
words, we desire that the property should return te the braheh
of the family from which it came should Elmer Forrest Herdien
precede his wife and son to the grave, and his son were to be
without progeny, or wife,
Dated at Chicago, Gook County, Illinois, this 14th day
ef April, 1927,
Elmer Forrest Herdien ste
Helen H, Herdien Seal
Subseribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in
and for the above State and County this i4th day of March, 1928,
Ralph G, Ingersoll,
(Notarial Seal) Notary Public,"
Thereafter, Elmer Forrest Herdien and Helen H, Herdien, his wife,
executed and acknowledged under date of November Ist, 1938, another
Geclaration of trust, which was recorded in the Office of Recorder
of DeedSof Cook Vounty, Illinois, on November ist, 1928, which is
ss follows:
"This Indenture Witnesseth, That the Grantors, Llmer
Forrest Herdien and Helen Harriet Herdien, his wife, of the
Gity of Watseka, in the County ef Irequois and State of Illinois,
for and in consideration of the sum of Ten (#10.00) Dolisrs in
hand paid, convey and warrant to Elmer Forrest Herdien and Jennie
i» Bodingon, as Trustees, the following described property, towit:
Lot Twenty three oad and the West twenty three (#.23)
feet of Lot twenty four (24) in Block three (3), in Behrke and
Brauckmann's Subdivision of Out lot er Block one (1), (except
e
aio eit ai eorne (8840) edft megs me ® Utaews.
wen ,bso% Yes meetd To teow 3a ct eno Toot Pras Pat
iz gett to soteive pe st feand, edz.
idenwot €$) Faodeunt Lae no lso98 i s RHE |
2B. teed br®) beta? ot to. teak. (3£) gates ya on.
etioa ill .yvdnsve Peat ai melo ’ {
<Qtiw eid ,aetbaek .f cote! bus asihrell teerret temla.
totnerd add dtin ery cong As te T8tn9 rip iebigerd Fac! a ig 4
te Wad edt to .et by el bs ok, sdpnal note’ 7
ef? ydorers ,eiontiil to sées@ bas L000 to cote Peaeell
emeont act be lotinso onitae eved, Lieds etiw sid bos xoF. ra ;
. yy toa tk he eget ig Ar ting Ho sevo Ytreqorg bise wi ;
«2? & aeibrek teexzol temig.
yireqetq bisa "to ytiupe edt to (S\L) tiled sae tedt sea ‘ Tae
getied eid to ,cefbtsH enmetwed ted¢iaW¥ tot tert? {
~ nea hes ‘6a :
red drut re sony Rage to srygewg 14 bus LL28 :
galt egonq Dice sedaveni to {lee tom ILiw yor a
tbe gqsoxe aeibtell advick to 10 aetbreh t9ofed Yo righ Re ois a
este eid ieibroll of iefen” ry eticel'? feacto’ Pe ig nes wed
to. otatas oft o¢ trever Lleda yiregetq eldd. ted? Poets «
dted to dtaeb edt to tneve edd vad asabeot tod odner) ee
~titin githed sogeel edt ) agiprek «1. tredof AatbnOl
ate at ne ibsau eexs0! Goer to dtseb ren efits. (st
desiesd ect tee, at ides see.
pansy fesnrol tant yee ease ef dott mort aort -
ot oxer aon e# BEET 0 miediie
. ¥ fy aff re gta tuodt
wilh hades ab ideibigehattn zabianltnita de
Phi tsa toe
ase) ok teorsot womla ; Bis aie ah ageiel
L208 aohhaeh a aolei
want oi tdus qistol « em etoted of ‘atows bas bedi: we ke oatt
f .totsd te yeh dda efdd yieusod hie SE ROH IEE: sot ba.
inher P eciet ot So Opes! geapiowy
etiw etd ,qeibtel ot amfek bad ‘weibsed deertol tema ‘roftsered?
rodione .e8ef ,tel ‘tediievolk to s#eb rebmy beghslwondos ‘baa betwosxs
rebrooef to eoltto odd al bebtooey wew dotniw | tents to Hotsstefoeb
et doada 8801 fel roduevol fo Aeecpaigdh “tet i600 Yonsei ‘to
sper pee aid
“gemrii eetotaes) ‘edt tent dtoousnsiw divraedat star’ pistaonx
edt to .stiw etd waolbroH toixrall Seay ‘at i
aetouifll to etet@ bas slovporl to ysawoU odf at. ade: o -vtiD
mh araifod (00,0L%) met to mye edt to soitewbLa:
singel das aeibssl taetto% > seals at e fperees bas yeve
stiwot pet yeroe He bedizoneb gutwollo ote:
(88.8) eendt re nowt tel odd. ref (53) .
bas extded at .(&) soxdt doold ak
tagany) ook a0 epeulp 0 otal at Or)
four and twenty eight one hundredths (4.28) acres in the North
part of said Block one (1) lying West of Green Bay Road, now
Olark Street) in the Canel Trustee's subdivision of the East
half (£,1/2) of Seotion twenty nine (29) Township Forty (40)
North, Range fourteen (14) East of the Third (3rd) Principal
Meridian in Cook Gounty, Illinois.
Said Trustees are to hold said property in trust for
the same uses and purposes and with the same powers as set
forth in the Will of Peter Herdien, by and in which said Peter
Herdien willed said property in trust to said Elmer Forrest
Herdien and Jennie M. Bodinson,
In Witness Whereof, the Grantors aforessid have hereunto
set their hands and seals this lst day of November, 1928,
Elmer Forrest Herdien (Seal
Helen Harriet Herdien (Seal
State of Illinois
County of Cook 8g
I hereby certify that Elmer Forrest Herdien and Helen
Harriet Herdien, his wife, personally known to me to be the
same persons whose names are subscribed to the foregoing
instrument, appezred before me this day in person and scknoyw
ledged thet they signed, sealed and delivered the said instru-
ment as their free and voluntary act, for the uses snd purposes
therein set forth, including the release and waiver of the
right of homestead,
Given under my hand and notarial seal this lst day of
November, 4. D, 1928,
Lucille Dalton
(Notarial Seal) Notary public”
After considering the matters above set forth, the court
found that by the warranty deed from Peter Herdien and Martha
Herdien to Elmer Forrest Herdien and the declaration of trust, that
the entire transaction was in prasenti, and not one to teke effect
in the future; thet the legal title to the real estate here in
question and described in the various instruments, passed completely
from the grantors in this warranty deed and vested in the grantee
upon the delivery of the deed to the grantee; that the deed of
conveyance, accompanied by the declaration of trust, was not intended
to take effect at a later date, such as upon the death of the
grantor, but the conveyance was intended to and did take effect
immediately; that the declaration of trust is a valid deelarstion of
trust in thet it contains all the evidence necessary to create a
trust; that the subject matter of the trust is clearly and
wos b2oi Yeh dearth to ves bise to
re “odd te Gnielvitnae ptee sah *s Sretera weed
tos) ‘hp heyigrald (€8) ania. aaa (0) Koitees to @) tied
pionizi (fre) bats? ad? to desk (NM) avetawol eguaii egaah stroll
“eae? #eo0 af asbbirelt
‘30% Soutt af Yreqor bhee ers geetauttT Disk
fa. a6 atovog Suse. Bagge lng eign cab eves onse edd .
xetod | we igidv al bas vd ,.oohbeel vated to [£28 edivmt detot
tasciot womLa bise ot daued ai ytuecorr bise bellly setbtoh
gp@enibe 4 einael bas neibred
otnrered eved Kieeerots axesnesd. edd ,toered¥ seentiW al ¥
+ ne snaimeror to ab fal aicd atow ha ebusd ciode toe
Atrok mit ob were (AB—ed) aia a tow zot
2 . : te oy
stontiir te etate.
as A000 to xterra
Care 5 Melhcel teaczot remlh teas ttzeo axed I.
aa a od ea ot awond OBTOG obs sr tosxank
logetet ar? of bedizoadye. ets peg = RACRTaG ORR
has aoetee ah yab eidt om exoled bexsocge «tnomumpanh
Bey, koe ‘ont bevovilad bas ja Pay aneenn, ;
| esegeE ‘poeu adt tot foe bs (Meat hg oom
‘eat ‘to. teview has senales ect Mid pathulont.« gine tee Joye
to Wh ted eidt fees Lettsten bas, Diced Tay a rea
* in)
e gotlad of{iioud . eS FY
“Mohidwg Yragew yc on) (Lae Letreton)
tomo ode efttol tee oveds #193 $20 add. salzebsence, mathe: fat
stitreil bas metbro té#e% moxt beeb \iasrrse “od? vd tant Bavot
tedt gtewtt to nolterslosb odd ‘bas Geibvell seorrol semi of melbrok
vestts edad of eno ton has htueensg ah wow molvosemst? oritne edt
_ sd ered etateo Leor.edt ot sftit fagel edd tedt: qerwdut (edt ai’
‘yletelqmos beaeaq ,etronwiteré gvodtov: alt mi bodLroeeb bas mosteeup”
ogtnery edd ai Dotaev bas boob ytgexxew eidt mi etosaaty edd) mort
to beeb edt tadt joetastg ed? of boob odd? to yreviteh edt néqs”
bebnotat toa BR. oteent te HO LINT ERGO » iid 2k dedusqmaoos eons yoraee
edd 10 diseh odd dogu an some tted note Ered erent
“Yostte aisd bid has of bebaetal caw eons Younes. eit tod
LOND AR AN ate
%o ‘nottmratosb biisy g ‘a! test? to nontersioab ad tend fiom e
eS Boh. col Bes
8 etaets o¢ Yraeasoed “eons ive ede ‘Ets Batstaen . ab gaurd 4
bas yixselo at tert edd to tedtem tostdue edt ‘taut jaune « a
Peas.)
“ie ee,
7
definitely indentified, and the correct legal description of the
property is set forth, that the beneficiaries of the trust are
designated in the proportion which esch shall take, and further,
and
thet the trustee is clearly designated in thet Elmer Forrest Herdien/
Helen H. Herdien, his wife, declsred themselves to be trustees, The
court further found that there was no evidence offered or received
which tended to show that the plaintiffs, or either of them, had any
knowledge of, or consented to the execution and delivery of the
warranty deed hereinbefore set forth from Peter Herdien and Martha
Herdien to Elmer Forrest Herdien,
The only question for determination here is whether the
document called "Agreement between E, F, Herdien and Mr. and Mra,
Herdien", is valid, and whether this document constituted « trust,
by the terms of which one half of the title in the property tnvolved
was to be held by the trustee, Elmer Forrest Herdien, for the benefit
of Walter Herdien. As already suggested, the trial ocourt held that
it did create such a trust, and for the purposes therein stated,
In Fox v. Fox, 250 Ill. 384, the Supreme Court said;
"No particular form of words is necessary to create a
trust when the writing makes clear the existence of a trust.
(Orr vs Ss 209 Ill. 222.) If it states a definite subject
and object, it is not necessary that every element required to
constitute it must be so clearly expressed in detail that
nothing can be left to inference or implication. Psarel evidence
is admitted to make clear such details. ‘If the writing makes
clear the existence of a trust the terms may be supplied sliunde.'#
In Whetsler v. Sprague, 224 Ill. 461, the Supreme Court
said;
"It was not necessary that the trust should be declsred
by the defendant in any particular form or that 2 writing
should have been framed for the purpose of acknowledging the
trust, but such a declaration may be found in letters, memoranda
or writings of the most informal nature, provided the object
and nature of the trust appear with sufficient certainty therefrom!"
In Marie Methodist Episcopal Church v. Trinity Methodist
Episcopal Church, 253 Ill. 21, we find the following:
‘A trust may be declared by a grantor in ® will or deed
by which land is conveyed or devised, or in 2 separate instrument,
a
adt to aoliqizored taget tnerrag, edd has ,heitiinehal yletiaties
‘ex¢ tewtt ed? to eoixelsttomed edt tedt vitzot tee af Ntteqorq
etediaat be ,o%ee Lisde dose dotdw. nottrogorg edt ar ‘bevangiach
*\no thi, tagrtot towld tedt at Setemgtaed yirasto of petertt “ett tent
ont etoatauad ad ot eavisemedt Serefoeh ,etinw aed tehbren Ht aslell
bovievst to berette somebive on saw ‘evodt tedt bauet rodteyt ‘tuo
yes bad nent to tedtis ro “gett timtatg ont teete wore ‘oF ‘bebnos Molin
seit ta yrevileb kas aoitmexe edd ot betaseneo to ,to egbelwenit
edtres be sorbtoll tetet mott détot toe erotedntered boeb Usnattsw
saorbrel{ seortot tent ot ‘ad boron
edt todtede ef ered solteninreted tot aolteeup | Ying. edt wi
«ete bas -t% Bae neibveH <1 5 abewted tnemoorga” battso ‘tatenisoob .
etewts « Hetutidenoo tromseod eidt tedtodw fas ,bilev eb. .Maeibren
boviovad yitecota edt ai sitit ed? to tad ‘@rto dokaw 46. batts hod? yd
sitened ed uot ,aeibreli teerxol romid speteutt oat WS Bled éd: ‘ot eew
ted? bied tivoo Leitt od? .beteeyywe ybeot£e GA *.netbedH Te¥ERW to
sbetete mitered? eseoguse edt rot bas ,teutt 2 dove oFaSd0°Rib #i ‘
:Bkee ¥xvo0 omexque edt DOS .LLL O88 {xoT Vv ZOT AT |
a stseto of ytmaesoen ef ebtow to mxdt télossPasq ou¥™” Lor”
steautt « to eoneteize eat ct meal oeiat Rite aE edd sone
$08 dve etiantteb s getets oe : ee
ot Derigce: tasmele yteve tedt it ont 3 ;
. reKs Rests elo oe od olen est sad ttutos? j
;
;
| #ed¢ Itetsb ai boevas
eonebive lorsi .soltaeiiqnmi ro eoneretai of #ttel ed aso
esden gitttivw edt tI? ,alletsd dene teeio’ i3te25 Seeetehatenes:
"! bay hls betiqase od Yam eatot oad tava? 6 4, Ree ett cing edt reece
fh Esty ,
tryed emerge out e168) pil DSS .suaergs «
al | ,
Fares ee TE MR
bisa
» tia Cg er ve Red
_ berafosh. od bivede sanns ~~ teats jyuzsneoes t tox. bee ee
_ srl tedt to mrot telyol ‘ “4 “v4 eS:
edt anigbslwondos te seoqiyg Sat to fems: a Sy, bias.
sbastomem ,etestel mt tier ed yam motters a heawtoe® ‘ rr
toetde edt bebivorg ,exuten Lemrotas trom od
anorrecter cekiehias sensors ftve at tw ‘eee haat lar -
tesbodton yiintxt sosertat te. jedbvomak
rgatwoLfot edd bait ow i siIt a8 ,
aid: 39 i
besh to Liiw s at rotcets & vd berafoeb od en deutt > giialiibaiieat dal
etrouurtent oteteqee s ai to ,beaiveb to beyevno0o ef bast 65.090 bad
8
and a grantee to whom land is conveyed may declare thst he
holds it in trust."
Gee also Pomeroy's Eq. Jur. sec. 1007; Myers v. Myers, 167 Ill. 52,
In the last mentioned case, a husband and wife were having
difficulties, and a controversy arose over the division and dis-
position of certain real estate. As a result, and to effect a settle-
ment of the property rights between them, they joined in a quit claim
deed of certain lands to a third party, for a nominal consideration,
No trust wss expressed in the deed, and none declared by the erantee.
The deed, however, provided that the grantee should hclid the estate
and the title to the property either in law or in equity to the
proper use of the grantee, his heirs and assigns. Thereafter, a
decree was entered in a separate maintenance suit brought by the wife
against the husband, which was pending at the time of the execution
of the deed, This last mentioned agreement provided that the wife
should, in addition to other property, have for her separate mainten=-
ance a certain tract of real estate "for and during the period of
her natural life, and at the expiration of her life, the said amount
should revert to the grantor, if he shovld survive her, for and during
the period of his natural life, remainder over to the children of
the parties to the agreement," A decree was entered in the separate
maintenance suit, which ordered thet the land in question should be
held by the parties until the further order of the court. The wife
took possession of the tract of land involved and occupied it until
her death, when the husband took possession of it and used it as his
own, Thereafter, he made certain conveyances to certain of his
children, who took possession of the tract in question. After the
death of the husband, certain of the other children brought suit
against the grantees and the grantee in the original deed to the
third party, for partition, The question arose 2 to whether the
“original absolute deed to the third party created a trust, and the
court held that;
od tedt ersioob Ysm arenes at basi modw ot sstustg e bas
a 0 ¢ bes . Metteurtd aah th ebled >
08S wELT VOL cape yy wv Stews {TOOL .oe@ sus .pd et yorcomod owe ee8
sia sittw etiw kee hasdes#t « ,98e0 benofiaem taal edt nl)»
\ges “eid ‘fete dolsivib ocd <evo Se8ote yatewortaon s- ‘hei saebeendens
~eltion © teetts of tas .tivest o Bh setateo Leot miatred te gaoitiaog
misio ¢i76 s mi bemtet add zed? neewted atdgit yinreqortq edt te: taom
smoltevebienos Leninéa « tot ,ytteq bridd sod ebact aizt«ao: to hosb
,sotasts adit yw bhexeiesh enon baa ybeeb eft ai boaeorgxe, Row teuté.on
states emt bled bivode eetnety edt tadd bebivotq ,zevered) .besh, edT
edt of vtieoe ai to wel ai redtie yiteqerq ed? of eftit odd bas
& ,tovtessedt .engteer hae erked mid apedaatg: ed? te seu xeqot¢
otiw st ya tdgwotd tive senanetuian etareqee 6 wi Lberedme. ecw. eere9b
soktvoexs edt to suid ot te gatbasq ese doidw ,busdewd, odd tantegs
hie edd tedt bebivorg taemeetgs heaotimem gest etal. abesb ade te
—notalss storeqos LOH tot evad .yreqotg Texto: of motttbba mi —biveds
te beitey of? antry6 Sas, rot" e¢etes Last to toatt migti6o 2 eons |
dnvonte bine eft (Stil ted to solteriqxs add de bas ,etil Lacwtan rod ;
gaityb bie vot (ved evivuce bivode ed Tk (totnetg edt ot txever b iworis '
to sorhitno et oF ToS webiienet a ene ferstsn etd ~ botsee edt
etstaqes odd at beretae eaw pmo’ Ke * tomserye ant ot eeltsed ont
od bisode nokeeenp ni bred adit todd bensbro do.tiiw ‘tte somanedaten
ot iw ont edru00 add ‘te sebx0 redsawt odd Lita sotsaag ait yd Siod
fkeas tt beiquoce bas bevfoval bret to tostd oat to nmotsaeaeog doot
aid as tt bees bas #f to moLeesasoq “foot ‘usdead ed¥ aeda sitseb red
.
%
We.
pods
eid to alsin ot sesksyones alatreo shou od a <itwo
oct costa | ‘so Leow at ostt ot to ao tease Soot or ott x
bi tive diguord agthLide todto ode te satetzee ‘basse act ‘to diteen 3
edt of boob Lentytxo $d¢ ni eotanmy ed? bas eootaasy.odt. q
edd seftertw of as sets molteenp edt saoltitreq: eh eeeta bridt
ont bas tangs hetsoso .vezad bri? est of beeh gtulende nl
OU DR Te Oe ie fs
+o Beyerwon ob bast Hd Reka oe
"By the absolute deed mede to Wike for his sole use,
Wike had the sole power to declare the express trust, if any
there were, and this power remained unaffected by the subsequent
voluntary conveyances made by Myers to appellants."
We are of the opinion that, taking into consideration
the deed of Peter Herdien and Martha Herdien dated April 14th,
1927, and the subsequent “Agreement between E, F, Herdien and Mr.
and Mrs, Herdien", a trust was created, as the trial court found,
The decree of the Circuit Court is, therefore, »ffirmed,
AFFIRMED,
HEBEL, J. CONCURS.
DENIS B. SULLIVAN, Ped. TOOK NO PART,
vie ;
cies ; etutbatin eet em shied: 9:
* |
an Sorte rg rg
obteLs, 0 ; Seoul ve vd pag tauLov
terebienco etnt no )
md Kivgey gue pee Y ES a doce rotsign * om = SP fie tees
SeeSh yh
i Linea “posed aoabrell eddcol q
aps tina ere ives tare aiareee oF 28 hips tt in
eney ‘2 8 bene
4 ae roy
aly: j
stl bas aethroe a a meowsed aeons dt bas D(fill q
sin 2 ae ek Suef Wik watt Ree gpa LX eTIGG vst Ring Be &
Bake l
ca toa tere ne Sok eet ty SS EE
i ies sph with ene, ut mart ene at f 9 Spepstt
a) fakes € s Use
Eee’ ga Bet Bale i seca ccdaial gate bobiverq. ~revewod:, hewk, eat
ag? a’ whew at co wel a citihe SieegeuT eng
Sheeler ts etapa ah ES ED EME poonadanin ee Ae
at tee Gk “ek tga Flee. See. Se ier BR ee Sees Get ato: ane, ons
bihiudy is: nee Ne ae Rake: der Nene gum aie Tey abnnciaeee auth fontags
iyi Dh Geen seer sichtieiindiiua toad, eds: Cand — hid i
re Oa A AMR eR a De ca aca ty roe eh ay eh wot Rh ml ehbens
=
Es
PMB Malet ie SR See ete UNG ath RARE dase ee. Lame os Se: ohare RY ons ‘
Sucre kwh wath et ak met he sit steele: gh aie ‘pie Wt he Antares ek :
‘qaten hates woah ttn CANE PQA eine a eS, aud oe Sty roe bLvosta
| Apa’) cen eee Baten angie ana Ra ane RN sed eu cae 2 ages Cry erw ar nes ~ rca edt
2S Mae ee Me's te io
gaaeranee 4% 2 Benttpe Bee ree A -t tmomneage wal + sets ee ep one a
’ Frags Pa aa RNY %
ne ad Duta nobdesus tt Bane te aaa i mene Ha Rea: bce TN
gee gene een edt Be “eh waa add Ska soaewng site vd :
a pee % ees ye ng ih fi
? zi sie *f bedawoos bas beriowd? Bees MO CaS watt to aotovenvod toot
it ae Fk DOR toa bi te Boeeer nner he ok Barolo ‘ear hone yiitoob
t s of
aUiALR VM, BS sete mia wal soporte? a
aid “Yo CineeRe. we
ot GAWPMe 6 veel ahh atthe fet is fit: RABEEOE Ae
Nye AP ate
‘ Shoe gehoww wn settle seochen mete the ee ha ataist ate Xe
ate ot book San hyive ede na spect amy auld Sheen now dirasg,
act xstirete of ea 00Rte to Stam aE io kta tnag 0 ‘'
ec ee or
Ry Bs Paka qo APS
Ae CNTR TS qs ee, et he ane an boat
38934
Ae PAUL PETERSON,
APP
Appellant,
Ve MUNICIPAL COURT
MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA, a
corporation, OF CHICAGO.
ere 290 1.A. 606°
MR. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court
of Chicago, entered upon the finding of the court in favor of
defendant, in an action brought by plaintiff against the defendant
to recover for commissions alleged to be due plaintiff as a real
estate broker. The contract upon which the action is based was
initiated by a letter addressed by George Hatzenbuhler, as Chairman
of the Board of Directors of the Modern Woodmen of America, to
plaintiff. The letter is dated December 19th, 1934, end is as
follows: \
"In the event the Modern Woodmen of America acquire
title to the property known as the Seranac Apartment Hote
ocated at 5541 Everett Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, the Modern
Woodmen of America hereby agree to sell the same together with
all furnishings and deliver title free and clear of all encum
rances for the consideration as follows, to-wit;
"Sale price to be $526,000, purchaser to pay the sum of
$56,000 cash upon delivery of deed and to execute a first
mortgage in favor of the Modern Woodmen of America or their
nominee in the principal sum of $270,000, bearing interest atthe
rate of 4 1/2% per annum payable semi-annually, with principal
payments to be made at the rate of 3 1/2% per annum payable
annually begtnmkng at the end of the second year and to continue
each and every year thereafter until the fifteenth year when
the then principal sum remaining unpaid will become due, all
matters of proration to be to date of delivery of deed,
“Should you have a client who is willing to purchase
this property on the basis above outlined, the Modern Woodmen
of America hereby agree to acoept the same and pay you the
regular brokerage Commission of of the total purchase price
at the time of consummation by delivery of merchantsble titie."
(Italics ours)
The record indicates that prior thereto and on Mareh 3rd,
1930, a bondholders committee was organized to protect the interests
of the bondholders of a number of bond issues secured by mortgages
: Fa,
» ‘ ” dECBE
ee iy wont, TUAT, oA
ve * MONT
TAHUGD LAGTOTHUM “4
® AOIAEMA TO mc COM
sODAOTHO 40 —{roktatodroe ©
ws ceutial < ot nm PRO
"909 A10es
»THUOD SH 10 WOIKITO aut aagaviaae aA DIEU. Ak wo :
fxuo0 Legtotml edt Yo tmompbut s mort feoqqs ne et etdT rons
te rovet ai tues odd te gktbatt edd moqe boretas ,ogeotdd to
tasbasteb oft teniogs weaeaiely va tdgvord soktoa- net at qteeban ‘A 20 zi
a De & a
fear s ee tittaltslg sub od ot hege ifs anotseinmos rot xevooos of
eau beesd ef aottos oft doidw acay tosttaoo edt exodord etstes
namehadt as ,reidudnestsH agro) yd besaerbbe rettel s yd botettint
) o¢ ,soitemA to membooW mreboll edt to erotoetid to breed edt to
) es oi bas «bf0L ,dAtOL redmeoed betsh ef cottel edT ethivatelq:
; : rawo (lot
to mye edt i. ry TeCniowse 000, 888% ed o <q @
tetit # styoexs of hon feed to Hr gp: dean eat 5 000,886
tfedt xo soitemA to memhoo# areboM edt to tovst al syegtrom
sditts teetetat yaitsed ,.900, 078% to mua Isqtonitq edt at sentmon
Leqtontvq dtiw ,yilewnne-imee eldeysq munae teq PS\L $ to stat
eideysq auane coq Q8\L 8 to eter odt te ebam od of etaemysyg
euniinoo ot bas teey beooee aft to bas edt te ylleunns
nodw reey dtmeedtit edt Iivay tottiaeredt «sey yrsve bas dose
Lis ,oub emooed Iliw bisqay gainkemet mya Leqionizq moedd odt
ebeobh to yrovilebd to one ot od of moltsrotq to atetiem
exsdorug ot gaiiliw ei odw taeifo ¢ evad yoy. biwode"
nomboot mteboM adit .beniligo eveds alasd edt ae yttegerq aldd
eft yoy yea bas emse ont sroree ov ostgs ydeted soixems to
eeicg sesdotug Ietot edt to &€ to notaelmmoo ogetedord teluger
",oltit oldetnedorem to yrevi ab vd soltemuvenoo to omit ont +
(axivo soltedl
2518 doreM mo bas otetedt tolre todd eotso tbat broost oft |
ateeteini edt teototq ot bextnayro sew oetetamos atebilodbhnod s | 0bGL
‘eegeatron yd botyoes seueslt baod to Todmun & to ‘etobLodbnod or
3
or trust deeds on real estate in the City of Chicago. The Modern
Woodmen of America owned the major portion of each of these bond
issues, and cooperated with the bondholders committee in effecting
a reorganization of the financial affairs of the various properties.
The properties were reorganized, and the plan adopted in connection
therewith, provided for the vesting of the legal title to the various
real estate holdings in a liquidating trust, with the Chicago Title
& Trust Company as trustee, and in pursuance of this plan, the legal
title to all the properties involved became vested in the Chicago
Title & Trust Company. In each of the trust indentures, George
Hatzenbuhler, A. J. Browne and Francis Korns were designated as
trust mansgers, and were vested with full power to direct the trustee
to seli the properties, subject to certain conditions. Hatzenbuhler
and Korns were officials of the defendant, Modern Woodmen of America.
Among the properties involved, was one known as the
Saranac Hotel, and under the arrangement made between the parties,
it was concluded that an effort would be made to secure the absolute
title to this property for the defendant so that it could be sold.
After plaintiff received the letter sent to him by George Hatzen-
buhler, and as a result of plaintiff's efforts, on January 22nd,
1935, a contract was entered into between the Modern Woodmen of
America and one Samuel Leeds, by the terms of which Leeds agreed to
purchase from defendant the real estate described therein at the
price of $326,000. As stated, the property described is referred to
as the "Saranac Hotel property." This contract contains provisions
as to existing leases, special assessments and other taxes to which
the property was subject, together with other details regarding
building lines, zoning and liquor sale restrictions, and provided
for the payment of a certain amount of earnest money to be applied
on the purchase price, and in addition, contains the following pro-
visions, as shown by the abstracts
38
axreboM oT .ogeoti® to ysLo ot at eteteo Inet a0 \osteh id pect ‘£0
baod ge$dd to deae to solttog totem odd beawo dotrens to memboow
gaitoette al settiamas exebiodbaod ong ‘dd tw bessteqooe bas ,eenseet
seettreqora evoiasy edt te atistts Isiemenit edt to nottestnsgroet 8
aoitosanos ai batyobs aelq ed? bar ,besidsyroet etow ‘saltzeqonq. ed?
evo igey ead oF bent Saye nes to gaiteov edt sol beblvotq ,dtiweredt
eLsiT opsotdo edd dtiw .teunt wudtablapet a mi Rgesnad otetao Laer
fagel ‘oat ety aide to eonsuetirg ad ‘bas cooteusé ea waqnod tems? &
ogsotdd edt mi beteev emsood beviowa selitroqora edt iss o eltit
oq t08d eourtachat test ‘edt ‘to dose ‘al swsqmet taue? a ‘orsit
88 betengteeb Stow enrol atonori bas amor a oA “rb lsudnestan
esteutt ond toenkb of remo List dttw beteov orem bas ceteyenen ‘teunt
ee
relsdudnestsh seme tt ibaco aLatzoo ot soot due wwottregony ent ilee ot
rez kek
ssolrems to sombool mreboil stasbasteb odd to elstoitie oro ‘anzol bos
won Bae to
edt Be awoa ano aw bev iownt eoitreqorg edd ‘gaom’
eeldxeq one noswted ohan tnewegaette odd webay ‘bas odok oanorse
stulosds ad? eruges ot hen: od bivon #x0tke ga tan ; Bebnionee een
sblog ot blues $1 ist 09 tasbaoteb eat tox omen tir |
inate eg 709d ed wie of fave tester: ont bevieoox tides.
ogbass yrsunet 0 eadzotte amtitatate to tiuzer = asd
Le membooy nxsbol edt aeswted ofat ‘aenstan aa: toa:
ot boorga sheet doide, to sized ad? ys .abeot Leumed
, ould te atezedd bodtapaab eistes: fast, add pet :
ot berxater ei. bedtsoaeb etregong ed, atokans ak 00"
enoltabverg. an iadaoo tostétoo aly Nevtne
fotsdy ot aexed reddo Sus etnonmecnes lsd al shai tatx
“ galbesget eListed gorito dtiw vesidegot .tootdua eam yéteq
bebivetg bas staottolrteor eiee tomplit bas pubnos ‘qaonil Mesh cine
| betlage ed ot yestom teontee ‘to tavoms akstese 3 to “gramyse edd tot
Heriune t gatwo ta? ont eatednoo sfole the ab ‘bas’ “ookeg Sasdomue dat 0
wa ' ptoowteds edt yo ‘nwosta ee .ea0 Lely
Zi
Se a RD Ie ee a Pe ea = ee eT CE RR Ee TP Te RON ny Te ea RE ee ey RE
2
or trust deeds on real estate in the City of Chiesge. The Modern
Woodmen of America owned the major portion of each of these bond
igsues, and eocoperated with the bondholders committee in effecting
a reorganization of the financisi affairs of the verious properties.
The properti¢s were reorganized, and the plan adopted in connection
therewith, provided for the vesting of the legal title te the various
reel estate holdings in a liquidating trust, with the Chicago Title
& Trust Company as trustee, and in pursuance of this plan, the legal
title to all the properties involved became vested in the Chicago
Title & Trust Company. In each of the trust indentures, George
Hatzenbuhler, 4. J. Browne and Preneis Korns were designated ag
trust mancgers, and were vested with full power to direot the trustee
to sell the properties, subject to certain conditions. Hatzenbuhler
and Korne were officials of the defendant, Modern Woodmen of America.
Ameng the properties involved, ss one known as the
Saranac Hotel, and under the arrangement made between the parties,
it was concluded that an effort would be made te secure the absolute
title to this property for the defendant so that it could be sold.
After plaintiff received the letter sent to him by George Hatren-
buhler, and as a result of plaintiff's efforts, on January 22nd,
1935, a contract was entered into between the Modern Yoodmen of
America and one Samuel Leeds, by the terms of which Leeds agreed to
purchase from defendant the real estate described therein at the
price of $3269000. As stated, the property deseribed is referred to
ag the "Saranac Hotel property." This contrset contains provisions
as to existing leases, special assessments and other taxes to which
the property was subject, together with other details regarding
building lines, zoning and liquor s-le restrictions, and provided
for the payment of « certain amount of earnest money to be applied
on the purchase price, and in addition, contains the following pro-
visions, as shown by the abstreet;
&
eeebom odT s.egeoidG to ¢#i0 od¢ at etates ison ne sbeok tesct se
bued eddd to deo to feist toham odd hemo eo beoma to memboot
QHLFOCTIS ai HOFtiones etebledbaed edd dtiw beteareqooo bac ,aeweet
aeGittsqera evaica? wit to aetisYts islonaalit adt to io ttsalasyroer 8
Melioounes ai Setqese osle sit bee ,boridegroer stow eeldceqeta edt
avolieev Oe ot offit Lagui edt to gabteov ea? vot bobivorg pitivotedt
isi? @gneidd oft déie ,taxtd gultsbiwpil « ai ayatdlod otetee Leos
feget oft yawle aid? to oomeuexee af ban ,ootawtt en yaqned tent? 4b
egedidd od Mi botesv omeoed bevlovad eedsreqorq edt Lis ot wieee
*gtend ,wemedwehad dure eft to dome ak » Yregqmos teut? & ofeat
as betangisss etow enrel elomext hae enworl .% oA r9Ldudaon tex
seteutd ont toortb oF towed Lint dtiw beteov erow bas yaregeasm tars?
teldetiaoesen sewottiboos aistree oF tootdve ,settreqete sat Liew et is q
a8Oht OA to aemboot mrabolt stmahreteh edt to aleoltio erew ereox bas
edt ee meonk ame eew ybevdovel esttreqone odd gaoms
qealttse edt aoowted obem sadmegratzs edt tehaw baa atoson oadesat
etiloeda ext exudes of oben od Biuew drolte an gad? bebulodoo enw 2
sbioe od bineo #2 tadt oo teabiotob ed¢ wok yeroconq eld? of ofttt
aHoxtal 991099 yd ald of tuoe eattel ext devieser Vridatede wegta |
ghass yravext mo ,ettotte elttidatety to tieper # es dae stodded
‘te Memboo! wrobeN eft moowted @iat beredme enw tostiaod & ,BtCL
‘ot hoorge ehood Moidy to emred out yd yedook Loemek eno ban eottemh
Bt te mbotod? Doddxoeed erodes Leet eat tashaeted wert ovedonaq
ot berreter as bodieoneb yineqorg odd ,botede eA 2098559 to eptzg
@noleivers anteteod forrtaeo aidt *yyineqorq Lodoil oaae Toe * ot ee
dolkde of eoxet Todo ban edxenetooes Sarooge veousel yaitsixe of os
gaibeonet elieteb wedto ftw Terlteygot atvotdue Baw “Whreqorg oat
bebiverng bar ,enolvorateot efee rompht bre gninon .eeatt gatbLind
| bebleqs od o¢ yemom teomtes To tasoun absteoe 2 to duemyay Sat WOR
sory palwollot et wniotaes yaottkbbe at dae yootxq sesdome edt m0
pfoseteds edd ys awode es ‘onorety q
"5, If, within five days from date seller soquires
title, a guarantee policy be applied for, seller shall have
three days after guarantee company notifies seller it is ready
to deliver such policy or report} within which to furnish such
policy or report, not exceeding, however, thirty days from
date seller a@quires title, Survey shall accompany policy,
it being distinetly understood it is the intention of both
parties to sell the property known as the Saranac Hotel,
"6, If the report on title by the Chicago Title & Trust
Company to seller discloses any defect in title, seller shali
have sixty days from date which such report bears within which
to cure such defects and furnish such policy,
"7, Evidence of title shall remain with seller or
assigns until purchase money mortgage is paid, and seller shall
be entitled to mort gage guarantee policy, the amount of which
may be noted on owner's policy to be purchased, and amount of
insurance on owner's policy reduced by amount of mortgage
policy. Owner's policy shall be retained by seller until
mortgage shall have been paid.
"8. In case the seller shall fail, within the time
herein provided, to furnish evidence of title as herein required,
or cure any material defects in the title, this contract shall,
at the option of the purchaser, become inoperative and be
cancelled, and in case of defects in the title (other than
liens for a definite ascertainable sum) if the seller shall
notify the purchaser in writing that it cannot cure such defects,
theh, unless the purchaser elects within five days from last
mentioned notice to take the title subject to such defents this
contract shall, at the option of the seller, likewise become
inoperative and be cancelled. If the seller shall not acquire
title to said t ate i
hereunder she 2 cease. sai pis
"ll=-12=-13, nm case of cancellation or termination,
except for purchaser's default, esrnest money shall be refunded,
Payment and delivery of deed shall be made at office of
Sonnenschein, Berkson, Lautmann, Levinson & Morse. No tender
of deed policy or title report shall be required, but notice
to purchaser that same is ready for delivery, shall have force
and effect of tender," (Italics ours).
Section 4 of this contract contains the following recita-
tion; "It being understood that seller does not now have title to
premises but contemplates the acquisition of same," On the last
page of the contract after the signatures of the parties thereto,
is the following: "Cancelled by agreement of the parties and
earnest money returned, May 3, 1935. Modern Woodmen of Americas, by
Sonnenschein, Berkson lel. & My, Re 5, Bhoch, Duly Authorized agent,
Samuel Leeds, O. Ky Stephen Love,"
After the execution of the contract, and on April lst,
er ee
ee
geriupos tbilee steb ‘mOxT axed evit gy Fy etl ar
oved Siede tetiiee yret, daiiogs ed yotlog eetnatavg #) 4 oldest.
yosot ei ti ceollor eaititen yasqmoo setaersrg tetts ays seradt
tieue detarel ot soidw aidtvin Qtroqet: te yoiloy dove roviled: ot ;
wort eyeh yioidd ,tevewod ,gnibesexe ton ,trogex to yoilog
«yolilog yasqmoons iisse yovru® seldtt aeertupos reliea eteb
dted to soitmetai odt wi tk Hootexvobau yliomitetd gated tf
» eLatoH camersi od? an awond. yiaoqerq edd Lies of eeit¢req
hye & eL¢iT ogeeid® oft yd sl¢it no troget edt tI .8"
» Lf{ede wallow ,eltit at soeteh yas vosolonth reLioe: ot el
“tok niddiw sgh txoqet dove doidw etsh mort eysb ytxte eved
yoileq tore daintwt Bas etoeteb dove erp ot >
“wo Tellee the niemet Ifede eltid to somebiva .3*
| ffade reliee base ,bieq et sgegttom yYenom evedocuq: Litay eitgtens) «
folsw to tnveme eft ,yoilen setmaresy 9 a ot beltivas od
davoms bas ,Seasdotuq ed ot yohiog ee! tonwo go: betom ed) yam: .
egegirom to tauoms yo beomber yofloc e!teawo mo sonsiwant
Aitay toliee ye bewtetex, od Iiedsa yoiloy gr reige ra yod Loge)
sbiag meod eved Iiade sacatses
emit oft midtiyw ,dist Iiede reliese odd easo "iekivies we
.betinper misrod ae eitit to senehbive detarwt of tvorg ate ‘ghered
p~ifede teoatiace aided ,eLtiz edt at etoosted isitssen. Yas ON TO 0>
od bae avitexeqeni emooed ,tessdote edt to mottqo edt te
aot todtc) el¢it eds ai stosteb to ease st daw ,beLicoense «»:
” Efase veilee oft tt (mye eldantstrooss etintted s Pog aaoit
ns done sivo feanse tk teddy gaiticw al teasdowwq edd ybiven>,
tesl mort eysb evit aidtiv steele reeadetyg edt prt lags sodt
oid? abaoted dove of tooidye eLeid odd oxst of otton benoltaem
engoed osiwedst Sor aa ont to molitgo edt ts .fisde senxenee
sivoos ton ifede tod aut 2h be licences ed bas oviteron .
ee
2 Shes
medtaninced x0 " paktalionsns Ay ‘ease : are
bobawl er od fisde yenom tesareo ytinetodb paneutnent sant tesoxe:*
to soitto ts ebem od Ihede beeb to yrovitob bas teemyst —
gabaey of .eeto & moentved yoremtwad .noedxred yatedosmeqno® 9
eotton jud ,detiuper ed {fede troqer oltht TO yotlog beeb to ’
somet eved fede ,yrevileb cob ybset ef omee tedd seeedorg of | :
«(ervo sottedl) "stobaed to toette ye :
mi SAEs TA
~stioon giiwellet edt enka nnee toatdaoo ett om . mottose
LB ROARS a eS Arey
f “ott
wt, Phos
On
sodoredt esttzag ent to sowiangie odt reite toarta00 edt ‘to eae
bre eettreq odd to tnousorys ws belteonso" rantivoLio2 eat at
ees ae
vd .aokremA to nonboott mrobom o8z0r Xa yell sbomtuter ‘youn taenrse
CARR
stags bos txodtua yLud tio ode “2 +i ent 8 shed noesrod ners
RY ies
Moved edged X “0 cabood feuns
omy ete ro
teal edt 20 ",omse ‘to aodtzezupes outs “eotatantino® tus
vanes
cous fitqa mo bis grotto eae to oLty09x9 one xoath
We We QUEL eey
4
1935, the following further agreement was entered into between
Hatzenbuhler for the Modern Woodmen of Americag, and Samuel Leeds,
the proposed purchaser of this property:
"It igs hereby agreed by and between Modern Woodmen of
America, a corporation, as Seller, and Samuel Leeds, as
Purchaser, in the contract relating to the premises known
as the Saranac Hotel, that Clause 8 of the said contract, which
provides that the earnest money shall be returned if the Seller
dees not acquire title by April 1, 1935, is hereby modified,
so that the date of May 1, 1935, is substituted for and in
place of the date April 1, 1935, in said clause,
"In other respects the said contract is to be and remsin
in full force and effect,"
After the letter of December 18th, 1934, had been written
by Hatzenbuhler to plaintiff, and before the contract for the
purchase and sale of the hotel had been entered inte, the record
indicates that plaintiff had consulted with one Jonn Mack as a
possible purchaser of the property. In the trial, Mack testified
to the effeet that the proposition to purchase the hotel was submitted
to him by Peterson, and that he thereafter inspected the property;
that on December 19th, 1934, he transmitted a check for $2,500.00
to Peterson as evidence of his good faith and desire to make the
purchase, which check was turned over to defendant; that he discussed
the proposed purchase with Hatzenbuhler in the offices of defendant,
This all took place bef6re the formal contract was entered into,
Mack testified further that before the contract for the purchase
of the hotel was completed, he was compelled to go to Florida, and
that he had substituted Leeds, whose signature is on the contract,
to act for him. This witness also testified that he told Hatzenbuhler
that in the event he did not réturn before the consummation of the
sale of the property, that Hatzenbuhler should deal with Leeds,
After the execution of the contract between defendant and
Leeds, a request was made on behalf of defendant that the Chicago
Title & Trust Company, as trustee, execute a proper deed of conveyance
of the property in question to defendant. It seems to be conceded
by all the parties involved in this proceeding that the Chicago
a
neowted odas boretas assy tnomoetas redtaw’t wine ifey edt .aset
aehaat faume2 bas deaotroms to. Aomboor str9 boi ont sot ‘reldudagssel
iteregerg side te. reecHonus Hemewsse. seat
te senbool mrsboll needed bas of) ol heengs ydoved at. Thy:
es ,eboo!l Lenmed bas. . rs. es ,foltstegTes 3s
awond eeeimerq edt of telex toanrtaoe edt at ‘eli sdotsG
dotdw ytoattaon hise edt to 8. cegeld. sees su ekotee ognete® odd as
relle® oft tz beatwter od Lisse. @ eat o ebty.
Bye Ne Ry hy
£ 2 =O 2 Ne 8 9
as voted atte Fy 4
s@evelo Bioe al .8b8 ae
&.
pis ba “sone. maf e
skewer ‘bas: ec! wit ed sesttcee orem
anon |
ests xo tosténos edt oroted bae sinliatsle: of nak sd 8 ics ye
bupoer este nodae boredne need bed betes. edd ‘to i has, seadorg
s ae doa atios arto site bet Lueaoe best tittabele, fede eogeoibat
, best sseos fonu latte edt al .ytneqeng: ond Yo. x oatbaon t
bodsindue asw Leton edt sanders ot noid teoqore ‘eald aac. ries ot
i etreqore exit ‘bedoogent. xodtsoredt ed tans bas «aoemot eroded. oho a ot
00-008.8 Tot oedo = botiinbnart od PECL xu £ xe
exit exlnm of ortach bay dttst beoy. pe to 6 :
beeevoeib otf tent idasbasted ot Tove bearut eew n Kondo
etashast ob to anotte out at ‘roldudaendok die, evasion,
soda bexetas ecw soariaoo Lemx0t aid exetod coalg tout its eid?
i ares = wen iz
at te Sealy ee Ga
egadoxin ont cok tosttage. eds oxoted todd gedtuut be
~bre yebitolt ot og ot belileqnon saw od qbetelqmos, ais dad's edt to
stonriaos ed? ao ef ouutangts aeode yabeed betutitedwe bad. od. tad
amen,
roldudnestsl blot of tedt bettitest oats sasatin eat «mtd rol, tos of ?
eit to moltemmyanoe edt exoled auton ton bib ad tmeve edt at todd
sabood diiw iseb bivode teLdydsexteH tadd ytteqorg, th: 9, olae
bas tushasteh aeewted tootiaoo ert to moltuoexe,.edd wegtA wens
o~ogsoidd edt ted? toshaeteb to tleded mo, ebam sem, Abadia one
eomsyevaoo to beeb reqotg « etwooxs | ,oetauts Bs ~@yasqued tous? 4 oles
babeonon ed of amece tl. jstanbaoteb of soisaeup at Xoreqora ont ‘to
eiacend edt tadt gutbosootg elidt at bevlovnt setizsg ont iis xd a
O
1
ae)
diveoq
5
Pitle & Trust Company declined to execute any such conveyance until
it was directed to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction, and
that a proceeding was begun in the Sireuit Court of Cook County
for the purpose of securing from the Circuit Court a construction
of the trust agreement and an order directing the Chicago Title &
Trust Company to execute certain agreements, providing for the
transfer of this property, among cthers, A decree was entered on
April 9th, 1935, and this decree not only had to do with the sale
of the Sarenac Hotel property, but with seventeen other properties
which the Chicago Title & Trust Company held as trustee for and on
behalf of defendant. This decree directed the trustee to execute
a contract for the sale of the hotel property to defendant, The
Chicago Title & Trust Company refused to perform until time for
appeal from the decree had expired. It is conceded by all the parties
that the result of the failure and refusal of the Chicago Title é&
Trust Company to execute the proposed contract made it impossible
for the defendant to acquire the legal title to the property in
question prier to May Ist, 1935, Thereafter, the defendant served
notice on Leeds that because of its inability to obtain title to
the property by May lst, 1935, the contract was at an end, and the
$2,500.00 deposited by Mack was returned to and accepted by him,
Defendant acquired the legal title to this property by deed from
the Chicago Title & Trust Company on June 5th, 1935,
Plaintiff's contention is that he produced a purchaser
for the property in question who was accepted by the defendant, and
with whom defendant entered into a valid and enforceable contract
of sale, in accordance with the terms set forth in plaintiff's
contract of employment; that although defendant's contract with the
purchaser muokoamt (as extended by subsequent agreement) provided
in substance that if defendant did not acouire title to the premises
as contemplated on or before May 1, 1935, the contract should become
a
Litay eonsyevaen dose yas etwooxe ot heniiooh yauqmed teyrt & eLFiT
bas, ,toitetbetiu, tmeseqmeo te ¢uyen s yd ca ob of botoatib sae tk
ytaved Zood to trod tivesiG ed? al auged sew gaibetoorq sa ted?
nottosxtenoo a. tued divertd edt Mork asianieareey ‘to ‘ead tug odd ‘tot
8 b OPE ‘ogéoldd. ant guiioorib tebze as bao taensorge teutt edt to
eat xot gaiblvesq. cadamsergs. abedroe Stuoexs ot woqeod sau
fe ‘bexedas aa gstoab A. satedio ‘sdoms wetueqete wide Ste
slee,.odt stds ob ot basi ‘iso ‘ton oaros® side bas eee te Linea
eeitreqerq tedto eA dtlw tue axProqora fetox oanotee ‘edt to
Yo Bas tot sedauté ec Bled ‘wsc00 ‘tert 4 octet ‘egsoi £0
r re Spires ay a S10 Be YR
etuosxe of segeurt at betoersd eoroed est sdastasteb to taded
me sete oeiy
edt ‘gtmsbasted of ‘ytreqesg Letod ont to alse edt ‘sot ‘thextnes &
te ot te tb ts nh
rot emit Liday mrotreq of boawter ysai09 tors 4 oneet egeota
entry edt fle ve bebeomoo al #t sbontaxe bad sorosb ods mort Lseqas
ae ae
$ elsiT ogsoidd eit to Leevten bas owltet oat to tives oat tase
eidiseoomi. #i ebam tosrén0o beeoqetg od etveexe ‘ot qasqnod faut
" ne Rhys 3a Fin Op
ai yiregerg edt ot oftit toyed edt et inpes of taabaetes oft tot
bevtse tasbaeted oct crodtooredt (ened tos eu ot xoitag | eeltanap
‘ot eltis alstdo of wWiitdsnt ett to eaua0ed add abeod mo sotton
eit bas. ba as te asw toetimes edt 380 seat ‘Yon wW regerg fino
ointet Sed betqooos bus of bensutor nsw soak w ‘bosinoged, 0.000484
mort | boob we yiteqozta elds of aiet? ingot (edd bexiupes ¢nsbaoted.
288OL ite eau a0 waisgnio® ‘deur § oftit mpage 4 i,
‘reassforu 8 s beouborg od ‘taut at ‘mo ltaetace lag ayo ill sie pale lad
hae “dnsbasteb ods oF betqeoos eon one notteenp ed pent jos _ bh
toettno. oldssototas bas ‘biLsv 8 ota beredtas ftnsbasteb mode atte.
aletitatelg ne ‘dtxot dee amrot oat ate ‘sonsbr0D08 a .olse to
edd dtiw dost roo 8! taabaoteb dguodtt La font ‘tuonyosgne 3 to toarénoo
art 8 BRngel
bebivora ( tromeorgs ‘Pasupeadue va bebasixe as) mest roast EL
“pealmstg ‘edd of eLtt¢ oriupos ‘tom bib tnabaoteb u “fads itieds vie
demrare att
%y
ae
enoosd rene toardaoe oat eer sd vat ‘oroted | 10 0 ‘BedeLqmetnoo as
poet cf 5% iit wt beolovns AAT TA enh ifs eet
6
inoperative, and the obligation of both parties bereunder would
cease, that clause was one for the benefit of the purchaser, which
he could and did waive, Further, jhe defendant, on May 1, 1935,
had ttkam acquired such title to the property as it was contemplated
it would acquire through the legal proceedings then pending, and
which the purchaser was ready and willing to accept; that the failure
to consummate defendant's contrast with the purchaser was the result
of the willful and unjustifiable refusal of defendant to either
grant the request of the purchaser to further extend the date for
the defendant to acquire title, or to comply with the purcheser's
request to convey the premises with such tittle aq defendant then had;
that plaintiff's contract of employment did not limit the time in
which he could produce a purchaser for the sruesad Matun:
plaintiff had a reasonable time to procure such purehaser, which
reasonable time, under the facts and circumstances in this case,
extended beyond the time when the defendant secured the legal title
to the property; that regardless of the fact that the purchaser pro=-
duced by plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant to
purchase the property, and regerdless of the fect that such contract,
on May Srd, 1935, was cancelled at the instance, request and demand
of the defendant, on the pretended ground that he did not have title
to the property, the purchaser produced by the plaintiff was still,
after such cancellation and after the defendant had secured the
legal title, able, ready and willing to buy the property on the terme
fixed by the defendant in its contract of employment with the plain-
tiff, and that plaintiff, on refusal of the defendant to sell the
property to such purchaser on such terms, became entitled to the
commission specified in his contract of employment,
Defendant insists that the contract procured, while a
valid and enforceable contract of sale, was 2 conditional contract
of sale; that it became enforceable only upon the happening of a
é
bluow robayored soidiag dtod to no tiagt ido add bis .@vissrsqoat
0 kite - etasestorig ont to tirened od edt 19% emo wow Seualo ¢add eoenso
988eL Qf Well a0 tashaeteb oe gredtat \eview Bib bad “Bitiod “Sd
bessiqnetmeo eow th es ytteqoeta edt of ‘ottid dowe betiapon ext bed
baw psatbaeg sods egntbe seoxy Lager ent ftyuordt erlupss biuow tt
ery Let ont tedt jtqeoos, ot gntitie bas ybeot gew reesdoung ed? dolaw
tiveor ont ecw roesdonuy od? tiw teortwoo ‘a tasbasteb etacmsenoo oF
sentis ot inabastsh to Leather efdattivautas bard Tebrriy® eit to
| ‘tot otab odd buotxe neddtu? ot seesiorug ont to teomper edt tnerg
e!reasdoxse edd Attn quo of 0 coleit etiupes és dt tasbasteb ‘edd
jhe nedé dasha teb es effet owe pry soetmerg out yevnoo rs se
ak omit aad ames tos BL tmomyo.tawe to toatdaeo ett t
B ike
+ ey
_<oaoterediA ; ytxsqora ont rot weeedon & souboss ‘blwoo af didn
oltit Layo ont borwose tnabusreb outs norte emis odd pee od bebasdxe
-otq noesdorug odd tant test edt to ceoibreyor test “iydxeqorg ‘odd ot
ot dasbaeted sit dtin tot doo = ofmt ‘beretne Yatntslg ‘yd beoub
| stostéaee dove tedy toot odd te soeibrsyot bas. etteqor ‘odd “eendorua
basmsh bas teouper comet ond edd te delisodeo ‘acy (BBeL bre ‘yell ao
oxtit evad ton bib of todd basro%y Sebustorg oda ao Saahdietn’ “end” ‘to
itite.aen titaialg edt yd boouberg rosedor ‘odd qysteqorg: eat'oe
ede bowoee bas inebaeteb anid ‘sefte bas nottsLIeones sous «6¥ts
; enret edt 0 “Wreqorg add we oe gatiite ‘bas ‘beer elds eddie pute
~atelq ont dtiw $uomyo cue to tosttnoo ett ak “gnabasted’ ‘edt a: ct
odt, Live ot inebaoteb ode %0 Loewen a0 titabete tort bas (tilt
ont og beLsieae omeoed amet dou uo xonsdonuy ‘dowe ‘ot yereqora
-taemyoLqne to toettace aid ni Eis: be a
sy } sonkae a Oe i Ca eae
_& eLldw pbomuoors 4 tosténo0 ods tens ‘ebeteat # nebasted
" Cotte Ee cley “ia
_ tostsaeo Lage tt thao S acr sotoo to gontsn00 eidseor0 8 biley (
s to giineqasd edt soqu ylno aLiseoseka. manson, i “ai étae"’ a
9
condition subsequent, namely, the acquisition of the legal title
thereto by defendant by May Ist, 1935; that it ceased to be an
enforceable contract by either party if the title were not acouired
on May ist, 1935; that the record is clear that such title was not
so acquired and the failure to acovuire it was without fault of the
defendant, and that defendant did not refuse to consummate its
contract with the purchaser because legally there was no contract
when the condition failed. The defendant also contends that for
the reasons mentioned, neither it nor the purchaser was bound to
perform, and that the contract became functus officio and was so
recognized by the purchaser by the acceptance of the earnest money
and the cancellation of the contract on its faces
Plaintiff testified to the following: "I followed these
proceedings in the Circuit Court rather diligently, and there was
no effort, that I know of, on behalf of the Modern Woodmen at any
time to delay these proceedings. I believe Modern Woodmen were
willing and anxious to get a decree as promptly as could be had, ***
i knew that it [the contract] had a provision in it if the title had
not been acquired by April lst, 1935, and subsequently by operation
of the exténsion, to May lst, 1935, that the contract would be in-
operative and void, and the money was to be returned. I didnf{t see
the extension agreement, and didn't know what wos in it. The
contract speaks for itself in saying that on May lst, it would be
cancelled and inoperative, if the Modern Woodmen had not acquired
title. I didn't negotiate the extension, but just talked with
Mr. Hatzenbuhler, I didn't even know they were going to extend it
for thirty, sixty or ninety days, I told him I would like to extend
it at least thirty days and he said the sttorneys would get together,"
As to plaintiff's activities in the matter, Mack testified
to the effect that the first time he knew anything about the
¢
y
eLtit Laged edt to moftieliipas ed? ,yLemen .Ineupeads® no t¥tbmoe
is: Of oF béeceo di todd GCC tal ye yo taebreted vw oteredds
_ bevtgoos dea orew of fit ont tk yteet ceddie wd toaténoo eldseototae
‘tom wew oLti¥ dowe vedd reelo ef brooot ent tedt (aser ted Yew to
oft te tinet tvedtiw sew ti sxivees of exyltet edt bas Derivpss os
gv o¢emmyerod of cexter tom SID tesbuoteb teddy Bae .tobbasteb
tosvtxoo on ecw stent tilegel seeded coe sdoure edt Hekw toediood
tet xd ebadthod oeLle sabbastes eat beret welsdined eae houh
“Ot Satrod sew toeeHotug edt com $2 redthem ,beno tired eadeRst end
6t enw Bae efostio gusenyt omsved tosrémeo eat dent bie jirrotreq
yosom #eenres odd to sonetyooos ext yo Tesedowmd odd yt bestngover
e968 oti no toerdiOO edt To wottelLoonse edt bas
_pandttntekbih: O° vpeatier tree ener eee ot dilix
sew oxodt bae ,yLieeglish tedter tryed tivewtO ofr dv ighaabsthiy
ye te nembooW mzobol edd to Tinded no (to won 1 teil (otoTte on
orgy aembooW arehok evetfod I yegittbeoderg Seedy yeTob or ome
**e bad ed blvoo es vitgheta Bs SeToeb s tos oF evotene’ bas pal I ite
bed elttt eft ti #1 at aoiatveta s bat [tosttnoo’ oft} dt” todd wone' I
pokterego yd yitreypeedse bins a8 ,tel Ihtqa yo betivpes ied Wee
“wat ed bivow tosrimed edt tear eeeL .tel' yell ot yaolembtxe ett to
‘pon Habib I shentutox sd of sew Yomtow bas has \bto bad evitereqe
od bivew ¢i qtel ye no tet yalyea mt tLoett tot eteeqe toetined
' betiupes tom bed combooW mrebol edt ti ,ovitsreqon? bap! bel Leconte :
dein bedist seul ded yrokemetxe odd otastoged wAbLd 1 eoitie 4
th bretxs of onloy erew Yed? woud weve tabib T° etoLiudnoatek sll ;
bnodes of exit bluvow Indd biot I veyed ytenkioxe yexte quiehavecot
".coddegot tog bivew! eyerxotts oft Diew on bas eysb: — tasel te tt
holtiveed dosM ,cottem Oat at eotdivitos elttrtaisig oF eA
a4
‘eit tuods wane wend of omit derit edd tant toorts od 08 ,
UN es PE a ¢ rade joLse
8
possibility of purchasing the Saranac Hotel was on December 18th,
1934, when the plaintiff submitted his plaintiff's contract to Maék,
and that he, Mack, accepted it on the following day; that subsequently
the $2,500.00 was returned to plaintiff, and that after plaintiff
had given the witness an acceptance of the deal, plaintiff showed
Mack a letter of authority, Mack further testified in substance,
that plaintiff told him ebout certain litigations which were pending
at the time; that he knew at the time he made the deposit that the
Modern Woodmen of America did not have title to the property, but
that he was informed that they were going to get such title; that
he knew that the Modern Woodmen of America did not have title at
the time he made the deposit of ©2,500,00, but that he was then
assured by Hatzenbuhler that they would be in a position to consummate
the deal in February. He further testified to the effect that his
position was thet unless the Modern Woodmen of America acouired title
within a certain limit of time, he would not be bound to buy the
property, and that each party to the contract of purchase fixed the
time in which they respectively desired to be bound. Mack also
testified that he asked for an extension from April lst, to May ist,
and thet he asked Mr. Stephen Love, an attorney-at-law, to act in
his behalf during his absence, in so far as looking over the contract
was concerned, It appears that in this transaction, Samuel Leeds,
the representative of Mack, was represented by Stephen Love, as
attorney for the purchaser and the defendant, Modern Woodmen of
America, by the law firm of Sonnenschein, Berkson, Lautmann,
Levinson & Morse,
Stephen Love,the attorney acting for Mack and Leeds,
testified that after the execution of the original sales agreement
and the extension agreement, he received a letter from defendant's
attorney addressed to Samuel Leeds dated Apr&él 24th, 1935, whioh is
es follows:
¢,
ei#8L rodnosed no eow fotolf vanetea edt gdteaiorug to yehdidieeod
«doe of Fosrtsnoo eMTtakelg eka bed tindie MWiddtaty ede Wedd Seer
Ustredpsadye tedd ; yah weriwollot odd mo tt Detgeoss (toed (ed add Bus
PEatAle redte todd hae Ptlentely ot Dentetor eew 00.608, 8% ont
‘bewede Witelsle ,laeb ed¢ to sowsty soda ae casntiw odd ‘devig Baa
<oond¢adve af Bettiveds tersiwt wee .yttvodtus to order 2 dom
gatbiiey “evew doldw anetrey itis nistiss tuode mid blot tHlinste ‘dedt
; al ted? Peo’ oft ebom of omtt édt te wend od todd end ‘edt ‘fs ;
dud ,Ybrodory “act of SLVEY oved fom BIB KoktomA to womb
fan yeldtt owe dag oF yatog sréw YOHY Fans bomtotnl saw ed fads
"fw! ef828 @rett tor BES sotremA to memboot mreboM odd “ead vie
edd ean od tent tue 00,008)8 ‘to disoqsh say ban od on st? ont
etannitvertos of aoltieog # mi ef biuow yedt tact te. des $s!
ss gikt tailt duetto ons oF bsitites? vedduwt of.
aIti® bevlupse sotrewA to sembooW mreBoll sat sts todd ‘cA
it eit OF aioe ee Fol bitvow ont Ven UW Vaud Whateee ‘nad ty
“elite bexit seedorug to feextnot oft OF yireq done fad bad bad t keqora
‘eels doe .bmsot sf ot borieed yLovivooqesr yout "adil? at
cet yo OF tel Ciqh moet motenetxe as sot ‘Hodes ot ged? pertieeed
“tt tos ot ywelmtssyemtotte mm asvor nedqet® ,rM boxes’ bir 0th’ nh
sointid x60 exit +ovo gatiool ts tet ob nt ,eoneeds eit guixii vEnned" ete
eabood Leume? noltosaaett elae ae ted? eatseqcs dr Benteonoo eas
es {sro mviiger’’ yo betmeeertet Baw HOA to" Par ere
¢@ dombOow mrobely” (trannéteb ol) nah sOunlbany” eke SOx yohzorte
Lcerere ence er | * evi sSerd hy ebtabh a
; diay witli hk weil HON PRES
gabost bas’ tolM cot “ghttos ‘yeatodde: oi ved Hengbea -
‘<"Gpémberge as fea tsatgizo edt to ‘tei abbexs ‘edd ‘nodta dadt bolatbest :
"
he
My iter
pg tansbaeted mort rettel s ‘bevbbsex ba ed vtneneorge aotensixe ext bas
SVS CHET
ak dotdw <20@l .d#88 L2xqh boted abeod founs® ‘8 beset Yeatotts ‘
vf Dee aceee eis ’
"Hnder the terms of the contract between you and Modern
Woodmen of America, dated January 22, 1935, as amended by
letter dated April 1, 1935, ‘if the seller (Modern Woodmen
of America) shall not acquire title to said premises as con-
templated on or before May 1, 1935, the earnest money shall be
returned and this contract shall become inoperative and the
obligations of both parties hereunder shall cease,!
Unfortunately, the decree in the case of Modern Woodmen
ef America v. Chicago Title and Trust Company was not entered
until Tuesday, April 23, 1935, Under the statutes, this decree
is not final until thirty days thereafter. It is impossible,
therefore, for the Modern Woodmen of America to ecquire the
title by May 1, 1935,
Hugh T. Martin, the attorney for our opponents, advised
the court and us thet he intended to appeal. If he does, there
is no possibility of sequiring good title for many, many months,
and, therefore, on behalf of Modern Woodmen of America we shail
return the securities held by us in escrow under the terms of
said agreement and cancel the contract,
Will you please advise us when and to whom the securities
may be delivered?"
It is also in evidence that plaintiff received from
Hatzenbuhler, as representative of the defendant, a letter dated
May 10th, 1935, which is in part ss follows:
"As I said yesterday, in regatd to the Saranac, the
society's Board of Directors have authorized that no negotia—
tions be made until the properties have definitely been settled,
After this time, I will be glad to take up the matter with you,
further, ve are making extensive changes in this hotel, which
will help it a great deal, and which I will tell you about,"
Plaintiff's testimony was further to the effect that,
"After the contract was cancelled and the securities returned to
Mr. Leeds, I can't recall whether I talked to Mr, Leeds again with
ir, Hatzenbuhler. In July, 1935, I met with Mr. Mack and Mr,
Hatzenbuhler in connection with all these properties, I was trying
to close some deals on all of the properties for Mre Mack and other
persons. When I told Mr, HatzenbuhBer 'My people are still ready
to go ahead,’ by 'my people! I meant ir. Mack or Mr. Leeds, not
the Modern Woodmen. Mr, Hatzenbuhler knew that. As late ag
September, I still tried to negotiate some deals, and he said,
'Peterson, the Modern Woodmen won't do any businese with you on the
sale of any of these properties if you are going to insist on a
commission on the Saranacs' He told me I had no commission coming,
¢
a2oboM bas soy aeeyted toattaee edt to emzet edt sobaW" 020): eo:
- "vd bobneme es .@8€L .Sf yravast beteb ,sotzemA to membooW
nemboo® arebes) _zesten ed? tL! .d8@L .f Linqa botsboxetsel
=NO00 8&8 eseimera bier ot oltit ox iupes ton Ifsde (sotremA to
.. 9 Iisde yeaon teontse en? .dé@l ,[ yeh ssoted bi Mo betelqmes >:
lesaed Porte ovivsreqons amooed iisde tosriaoo eidt bas beatetet
',ege00 Llede tebayeted seltteg dtod to enoltegiido ’.
a to geso agp af eexeed ont aLinceuve teal
TobaU c8CI 2% Linqh «Vsbasu fas
Ns
coistasoenl el “i fm Mier eyed 7 yn ih er Leet ten ako
‘edt etiupos ot colroms to semboo' robot edt tot FP inp ver
(pBSOL Gk ov po ty eLstt .)
“‘beatvis eatnettogge 140 jot yentotte odd qilias ah shagss.
ated .a0ob ed tl .leeqgs of bobnetat of dadt ev bas tauqo ent (>
«edtnos yes ,Yosm tot elttt be galtinpos to he fg oj Prine on ek
ilede ex goitem4 to membooWl. a to tinded m9 ,etoteradt baw...
to emist sfd tébhay woroee ri i ei “a bied saltinpers edd azytot
ateextaoo edt foonao bas tasseetge bisw >:
peiticyvose edt moda of = a ey ease wean | soy LLY
“thexevileh ed yem © /
_ tert bevisoss shane tad sonebive at oases aftIyf oi? att
boted xottel a ,tasiasteb ed? to evitetaoasrigen es .reldudasstel) i
sewollot as txeq at ef doidw, s88UL: .ddOr yal:
oe edt ,Oenarse edt ot Desger al.,yshrotacy biew Lek") « okt hwoe
agitogon on tadt bosixrodius oved ‘Btotoeri0 Yo 51808 el ytetoos
ehelites need yletinttieh oved asitaeqotg edd Iitas sham entots
qvoy dtiw tettem edt yy Macc est a. Been od ere I .omit eidt xrostta
oho hee. gdotod atdd ai segagad fw bas boob. tam ere of > yteddirh oie
W,tyeds yoy filet fitw I dotdw bas ob haere a ti qed Lifw Be
Hi ay Voli us we
tans foette end ot ‘enters aw “wonttess. “etthhtabelt m
° A “ey Hastee ES OG ET Ree
ot bhatetb< aoltiquoce oui has ‘beLfeonso asw tostiaoo out codtAn
i ao oe fy SMES
itiw alsgs abeed xii of ‘betisa iy sedtede ‘Lever tas0 I abood ie
he Fi PS ae ae DB ix
' “Tl bas Joos orl “dt bw tom i “aeel lar at | -x9kdiudnonsalt are
‘gatyrd ecw 1 26 Ldteqorq eusdé ifs ad iw wottosa0® ak “xeldudaestsR
fi LOR y Be.
zodte bas ioeM ‘a ‘cot ‘Solézeqora ont te tts « 0. ‘elseb ‘emo en0l0 of
ybser Ilive ors elqoed yu" ‘reddudnesteH om ‘blot t soci semoateq '
gta TOR
ton {ebeed ,tM “to fos Sr tasem I ‘Neleoea a! we * ahs os a
es etal eh «ted wead hak paninsinnrs Os all “sanaboot xebou yn
end HO uoy déiw seontevd Yue ‘ob tnow aembooW axebox out aoeroiot! |
eno Sh7 DORE
6 wo telent ‘of gilog ers MON ‘gt ‘eektioqorg seodt ‘te. as to oise
wmeeinns yoarotts -
egaimos Hofesidnds om Bdd't on blo of “jcansrsé edt a0 solsstmes '
£ergiL.e Ba i.
LO
evidently upon advice of his counsel, I, however, had another deal
pending right at that time for other properties, None of those
deals went through. I made a previous deal for the Modern Woodmen
in June 1935, when the property was conveyed; the contract was
signed prior to that time, This had not been disposed of in June,
1935, The contract for the Leeds deal had been terminated, and I
went ahead with the closing of other deals."
In Matteson v, Walker, 249 Ill, App. 404, an action was
brought by a real estate broker to recover for commissions alleged
to be due him, In that case, the agent of the defendant wrote the
following letter to plaintiff;
"In order that there may be no misunderstanding I am
writing what I said to you the other day; Mr. Charles 6,
Walker will pay to you a 3% commission on the sale to Berman
of the property at 172 North Michigan Avenue if the sale is
aotually consummated but not otherwise; if the deal falis
through and the sale is not made, whatever the reason may be,
Mr, Walker will pay no commission. Will you kindly sign the
receipt at the bottom of the carbon cepy which accompanies
this original letter,"
The broker secured a purchaser for the real estate involved, and
the contract was prepared by the owner's attorney, and it is alleged
in the declaration that defendant refused to convey the property
after the broker had procured the purchaser, In holding that the
plaintiff could not recover, this court said;
"There is but one point for decision, and that arises
under a construction to be placed upon the contract encompassed
within the letter of Bentley to plaintiff, dated August 14, 1925,
There is no dispute concerning plaintiff's having produced a
purchaser within the terms named in the Bentley letter. The
nub of the contract for our decision rests in the following
words: ‘if the deal falls thro and the sale is not made whatever
the reason may be, Mr, Walker will pay no commission.' It is not
disputed that plaintiff would have been entitled to the com
mission but for the foregoing clause,"
In Husak v. Maywald, 185 111. App. 479, (abstract opinion)
this court said;
"It appears from the evidence that plaintiff himself
drafted the contract; that it was therein provided that plain-
tiff should be paid a stipulated sum by defendant as commissions,
‘when the deal is consummated', and that for the reasons
of
iseb redtons bad ,tevewod 4 .feanvoo ald to solvbs moqu yltaebive
epedt to enon ss0idouoty Toddo tot ott toitt fe ‘tify tx pathasa
fembo gw nrabo ett rot Ineb duotvenq is ‘eban: i atguotdt titew @iseb
enw toattinos edt jboyevnon een y eqory ont mori 200E mart nk
Lon Ht Lo bewoqelh mead tom bot eid? omit tens of tent béitybe
x bas Soren assed Sed- fsob i ode tot onstage: sand ot
Baw Holton 18 _h08 aga ott eas aed oF ft y
begs ite enoteetamoo rot tovetor bY x8iford “otates sil s “ ‘tdguord
yay th 3
ott Story inabaeteb edt te taege ‘ong ous ‘ted at ,mit eb ‘sd
Aap shkivntela ot ‘rotder yntrefiot
me ocineitenitniiibe on od yeu ered? tedt tebto wTY Oe
0 eticed® .tH j;yab tedto ed? yar ot biee 1 tedy gatticw
aatred of oise oft no notesimmoo ot yao {Lkw redlee
ad Je edd ti suneva angidolu Pride BIL te yore
+ {#eb oft tl josiwtedtée toa tad eos
eed a foeset oft tevedady .obam ton at ofsa edt
edt apis ylbaix voy ffi# .noteatmmod om yeq heer
gsineqmooos doisdw Lakes Aodzso ong, te weeded ead, 8
ra) a?
aye
aoe wbevfovat otetes ise odd “16t sensdonnd ial tye toad {oat
begeite ak tt bas eYontotte etreawo od wi boreqota bee ot t o
Wexeqerd, edt yevnco of beaut ot tnsbasted teat, mottexaises a at
ont tat gatblod al stsecdoteg ont botuo01g bed tedord oat ox tts,
cn
~ ibise tivoe eid etOvaDeT ton, biwop atti
seetzs fads sy solaiosh tot ta £ or
eee esas ee
e ads’ ana ctieee iat at aie en ested. setae rev ne =
ssuhalic ante dae 3 By Bien o i Gaia fab oda edt BY rePror
ten eee Sak a? beleiveh fed, went hioon SUG ist a cian |.
"<seuslo gnutogerot § or
(notaige ormgae cay bape Lit bral cael y sae _" eho aad
’ | “‘yiites tude “etdd
Sroamid Wedalety todd eonodive ‘ed? mort dxseqds guy qtooretet?”
~ntisiq tedt bebivotq altered? ese wt ase jfgeromen. Teneo ee
Loaner ge tashasted yd mya batelugtte a .
- etogsst edt tot ted? bas pire abaledicy Ps feeb ba a :
Li
disclosed by the evidence 'the deal! was not consummated,
{Where the contract is such that the right of the broker to
compensation is made dependent upon the actual consummation
of a sale or the payment of the entire purchase money, 4
fulfillment of those conditions is, of course, a prerequisite
to his right to recover compensation,' (23 Ency, Law = 3nd
Ede - Pp. 918; Mechem on Agency, Secs 965; Ballard v. Shea,
122 Ill. App, 135, 139,)"
In Walker on Real Estate Ageney, Seotion 449, page 285,
it is said:
“Where the contraot mekes the right to commissions
dependent upon consummation, « broker cannot recover com
missions unless the contract has been consummated and the
money paid,"
In the case at bar, the contract between the defendant
and the proposed purchsser was negotiated by the plaintiff, and we
again call attention to this provision of the contfact: “If the
seller does not acquire title to said premises as contemplated on
er before April ist, 1935, the earnest money shall be returned, and
this contract shall become inoperative, and the obligations of both
parties hereunder shall ceas@," This time was extended to May ist,
the property
1935, and it is admitted that the legal title mensch mad” not then
been acquired by defendant, It is to be noted that when the pur-
chaser here accepted the return of the deposit made by him, which
was accompanied by a letter written on behalf of defendant in which
it was specifically stated that because of the inability of the
defendant to perform, as agreed, the contract was at an end, that he
accepted this situation. The record also shows that the further ne-
gotiations by the proposed purchaser to acquire the title were made
by plaintiff, as the agent of the proposed purchsser and not as the
agent of the defendant in this cases The record is very clear upon
this point,
We are of the opinion thst the trial court was not in
erpor in finding for the defendant, The judgment is, therefore,
affirmed,
AFFIRMED.
DENIS Ee SULLIVAN, P.J, AND HEBEL, J. CONCUR,
ii
sbsisumyenoo toa eew 'Leeb ont! sonebive sit yd beeotoats ”
ot sedotd edt to ian eat tedd nde al toettago f erody!
ee Lnvtos odd moqy _ eqet eben ef not yg |
ayenom saadoteq esitas ed? to tasmysq edt ro tit ihtak ;
Pee pe io & ,setved to ei etroitibaes exodt yhnges ‘ilies
bas ~ wed ayead 2). '«totteemeqmoo zovenes of
sade vo Sealed ~— 2098 gh, he eu; ioe ea as
"( BEL. eSbL “ah, ao BSE
aS8S. ogeq 2d no tgon8 ayenegA oteres Aseii mo teaish al ‘ae
ry. ar eh
amohonignes ot fig adt seden toaztnep odt exes”
=si0o tsvdosy fone TeloTd os yhottemuenod mogy tiashaeqeh
od? Das betenouenon aved asd fostiaoo one ape tat ater a oo
guebastel add neewted tosténon it ted te ween off mI 8% OF
en bre ettitaisla ois yd Sateltogen Rew ‘teesdotug beesogory efft bie
edt ¥5" :#oe2tneo out to aatetverg atdt ot Holtmedts J Lise misgs
fo betalqnetacs 26 saeinera ‘bise ‘et eft tt eriupos om: ‘Reob teLlos 4
bas .dentutst ed ifede ysaon feemtcs ont ame ters ttc oF oe
ited to enoiteyiide edt Bas ,Svitsteqoal one ad Lite # Poattaos '
etek yolk ot bebsetxe sew omit eld neande’ “pada Litidiodittia “dddvxee
meds pia bad tens aie ohtid Iegel odd tad bostimBe ot $F “Bas a8@L
tig ont mete tad? hoton od of of #1 ytnabnstoh yd Betidses asa
doidw paid YW oben theoge® add to aeuter od bdtqssoa Sted “TSedo
fioldw at tasbasteb to tledsd no nettize tates & yd beinsdmdods dan
odt to ytiltdent oct to sauaoed tadd Botete’ bassin alii
od. ted? .ba9 a8 32 atv tonttqes edt .bestys oe.
“non redial od tsitt enous Opin dudedx ext . tok iautie bidt -_
obsm oxoy sitit sdt Sxtupes ot roeadon, heed sore id fe nett q
“edt es ton bas ronadoruy ber org toe te “tos oat be ain t telq | A
sogu tselo yrav ei brooet oat “ieete pide ak Sola mae he view q
at ton aew tryed feirt edt tend aointao ot to. > one of on , Oe
Rc satomerteas saomabet PR, anteater? hie Mt, eyo at towne
Levees MOE a
> aes ne couinll
{AUOUOD .b ,ARGEH GHA yb.4 sav TH0E vil erase :
38946
CG. Ie Te CORPORATION, a corporation,
(Plaintiff) 4ppellee,
Ve
MUNICIPAL COURT
GEORGE M. STEVENS, et al.,
(Defendants below),
OF OHICAGO.
OLIVER B. WATKINS,
a
(Intervening Petitioner) Appellant <2 9 O I ay. 6 0 6
MR. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal from an order entered in the Municipal
Gourt of Chicago on March 13th, 1936, striking the intervening
petition of Oliver B. Watkins, filed in a replevin suit brought by
the plaintiff against George M. Stevens end others, to recover the
possession of certain refrigerators. The order appealed from also
found the right of possession of the property described in the
petition to be in the plaintiff. Judgment wes entered against the
defendants for one cent damages and costs of suit. The defendants
in the replevin suit filed no appearance here,
The action is predicated upon a contract entered into
between the Gfigsby-Grunow Company, as lessor, and George M. Stevens,
as agent, for the "beneficial owners of certain real estate", The
Claim and right of action of the Grigsby-Grunow Company was assigned
to plaintiff. The substance of the intervening petition of Oliver
B. Watkins is that after these refrigerators were placed in a building
at Leland and Hazel Avenue in the city of Chicago under a leasing
contract between the Grigsby-Grunow Company and George NM. Stevens,
Watkins, the intervening petitioner on February 8th, 1935, purchased
the building and that on that date he purchssed all the interest of
the lessees in the refrigerators described in the statement of claim
filed in this proceeding, em that the contracts for the leasing of
the refrigerators were on that date assigned to the intervening
ances
«sods onagz00 & capaipanaben 2 a “0
dessa biceracausine
i es
elwoled efnebasted)
; <OHTITAW «& AEVIO
0 0 0. oA. oh, r0) gl pine teaee ianentta rt aaipereeta) se
«1100 an? 10 WOTUTIO at coke vient’ aan’ aorneup sit”
faqhoiase | edd at beretas ‘tebre oa wort fssqqe os ef eid?
| gainevaosa! anit guldizte ,beL rete derek so ogsolde. to dual
WW ddguord tiwe aiveiyer 9 at beLtt ,eaittsy .& revilo to nottiteg
sd revooet o¢ ,etedto bas ensvede .M sgtoe® tentegs tiltatelg edt
| eels mort beLeeqce rebte edt _ sttotoregixtes cletze0 to aotseoaeog
ena ik bedizoneb ytreqoty 9d? to goltevereog to tdgix. edt. Dayot
edt teatege boretce say taeumbul .tidtntela ed af od ot mottites
aeiaiaka tine to ateoo bua eeyamah Ineo eno tot etasbaste®
3 eter eonetwegge on belit tive alvele on oct at |
Lelie ome boveaae toetingo s moqy betsotberq af aoitos edt, ‘eboide
enatovese a 97080. bas ,toaeel as ,ytaqmo? wonuth-ydeghed ont aoowted
onl : ."otetee fact aieézeo To erenwo istoktened” edt rot atmogs
homgiase » BAW yaeqma® woanth~ydagixo odd Xe, foktoa. to. hight nae, ntate
revi 10 ‘to molt tieq qe inevye snk odt to sonetedue ont «tiidatelg od
pabbLtund a at beoala erew erodsteyttter, eae | rovt.s atest et entxd aad
gatessl & xebau ogeotdd to vito edd at owner Lose} |
amovede | _yT098 | bre yangno® won no
beesdomud <aeer ,aee yrauedet no sens tlds ‘aiiaeesienl odd, gamtisal
to taezstnt edt Lis beaedorug ed ated teat fe, tadt bar gabbLind odd
mia lo ‘to snometste edt ai bedtzoeeb stotaregiztor. ft, ad poseves, edt
to ‘gatecol adt tot atost#aoe edt ted? ins . «galheroo ry eidt Bh AOER,
gaineviotnt ait ot bengtess siph, tadt m0. eraw wy eroteregiaten ent :
TAUOD JAG LOLMOK
sOOAGTHO TO
|
a
ee ya hee _ BAY {Lise ot Bib
aes CALL V5 sie’ gee Fe ’
oh a he phe
r
2
petitioner by the lessess thereof; that thereafter payments
according to the terms and conditions of the contracts were made to
the plaintiff by the intervening petitioner, and that all the
eonditions of the contracts were fulfilled by petitioner until on
er about May lst, 1935; thet on that date one of the refrigerators
ceased to operate satisfactorily, and geve off displeasing odors,
by reason of which a tenant in one of the apartments in the building
referred to was forced to vacate for the evening and until a service
man could be precured to stop the flow of gas; that the petitioner
caused the plaintiff to be notified of the breakdown of the refrig-
erator and requested thet it be repaired, and called plaintiff's
attention to a provision in the contract, under which the refriger-
ators were installed in the building, to the effect that the lessor
should keep and maintoain the refrigerators in good working condition
for a period of thirty six months from the date of their installa-
tion; that he further notified the plaintiff that other refrigerators
had ceased to function, and that plaintiff wrongfully refused to
repair the same, thereby making it mweessary for the petitioner to
purchase other refrigerators to replace the same, to the petitioner's
damage in the sum of $2,000, It is to be noted that the intervener
does not claim or assert any right of property/in_ the title to,
nor does he claim the right to or ask to be given the possession
of the property involved,
Paragraph 22 (1) Chapter 119, Illinois State Bar Stats,
1935, provides that:
“In replevin cases pending in courts of record any
person other than the defendant claiming the property replevied
may intervene, verifying his petition by affidavit, and in such
cases pending before justices of the pesce any such person may
intervene by fibing @f an affidavit stating his claim. The
court or justice shall direot a trial of the right of property
as in other esses and in case judgment is remered for the
intervening party and it is further found that such party is
entitied to the possession of all or any part of the property,
judgment shell be entered accordingly and the property to which
the claimant is entitled ordered to be delivered to i along
&
ation ys rettcetedd tedt iReorent sodeset ods vd reno i#2t0q
ot sham al stostinoo ei? to anottibaos bas entot odé ‘ot ‘gatbrooos
edt {fe tedt bor ,eonoititeg guinevrotat edt ws iLintele edt
so Lttny tenoitited yo belliiivt erow atestiaoo oad 3e, nuestyonee
estotstogixntet edt to emo etsb ted? tto tacit yauer ‘afel yeu ‘tueds to
,etobo -vateaelgqerh Yo. eveg bas Uttotostelttes etereqo ‘ot boas
guibliod odt mi atnomtteqe oat to ono mt tagnet 8 doztin te mogsex Ww
solvase # Iida Sas gaisers ‘ent? 20% etnony ot beorot anK ot berreter
sonoititer oft tedd yaeg to wolt odd qote of berweerq-sd bivoo msm
-gittad ot to mwobteexd edd to HeLttton Od of ttttateiq eds beanso
elitathiel belieo bas ,bertaqet od t4 tadd Detabuper bas rotete
~rogttte: od¢ dotiw'tebaw ,tosvtteo odt mi molaivotd’s of adtinet te
coteel odd told toette adt of {gatblind oft ai belleteat stow exots
go ttibaoe gritrow beog al atotoregittst od? eletaten baa qeed bluote
aglistent shesé to eteb ont mott eddnom kia yiald? to bolteg & OT
gtotétegivter resto tad? Tiktadele edd boktston rodtedt ed’tetd. (dort
‘9d beevtor YLislgnorw tiktalela tedt bas néttoawi ot beasoo bait
ot rsnottiteg edd tot Yresesen sf gadden “ydersdt®,omns- edt tlaqet
— atlgemotdiie, sat ot yomen odt soalqet oF srotstegkttst rite esedorug
M@tévasdat edt ted? betes ed oF at #L ,OOOUS? TO mie” ed? at ogansd
“od oLttt oddiat dd Ai\ytrec07a to tdntt yas dresses to mislo<tom seob
gedeséeeog ed? nevis @¢°ot fee 16 of) nonsilbeas gielo Od Boob ton
| Teo aay 3 lati PAE ot aiugh st Gt Oh OO aenowis “Wreqeta edt to
OO ca ted otate afont {lt dijon “ge tg Ad - ahi RS dasogstaT err ee) eS
eet Oe a sats
Yne brogs+ to etiw0d At gntinsq ates nivs df sedan situa lie
penpaie ex ytreqotg edt saimisto tashanst? pf ers asi sodte mo
Sowe af dns tivebttte a noftiteq eid
ssaneaeee ie
omg is eer eek tek a aa
Nee fn et AL? (A AR
ohEoLSEE S'S fac ede oan cok a aa
traqorq edt bas ylgathreoos heretme od Itede
i ag nt 3 berevitebh ad of berebro heltitae el tae
a2 ie cecal a>
2 ee
aa
= ae eee
with payment of his costs. In case judgmgnt is rendered for
the claimant although he is not then entitled to possession
of the property he shall be entitled to his costs. In case
judgment is rendered for the plaintiff he shall be entitled
to recover his costs from the claimant, If the clainant is
a non-resident of the State he shall file security for costs
ag required of non-resident plaintiffs."
In his reply brief, the intervener states that “he has not
Claimed ownership of or title to the property. To have done so
would have been foolish in view of the specific terms of the contracts
which reserve title to the lessor. But he has claimed that plaintiff
did not have the right to possession of the refrigerators when it
started its suit because it hed not made his possession unlawful
by a demand for possession and a refusal thereof before suit.”
The only question to be determined here is whether under
the showing made by intervener, the court was in error in dismissing
the intervening petition of one who admits that he has no title to,
and who asserts no right to the possession of the property involved,
because no demand was made upon him for the property before the
replevin suit was instituted, Upon this question, we cite the
following; In Gersci v. Sultan, 268 Ill. App. 294, the opinion in
Sehwamb Lumber Co. ve Schaar, 94 Ill. Apps. 544, is cited. In the
latter case this court said:
" ¢ The evidence in the case tends strongly to show that
the appellees came into possession of the lumber in question
wrongfully; that they purchased the lumber in question, with
other property, from one Andrew J» Oison, in consideration of
the cancellation by appellees of certain indebtedness from
Olson to them, and other considerations; that, Olson, at the
time, had no title whatever to the lumber, it having been delivered
to him by plaintiff to be drted in his kiln, This being true,
appellees took no title by their purchase from OClson, and their
posséssion of the lumber was wrongful and tortious asito plain-
tiff. In order to sustain replevin when the possession of the
defendant is wrongful, a previous demand of possession is un-
necessary. Clark v. Lewis, 35 Ill. 418-23; Stook Yards Co. ve
Mallo 157 Til, 563; Fifth Am. & Eng. Enoy, Law, 528,1. (1st ed.)
Galvin v. Bacon, 11 Me. 28 (2 Fairfield Rep.); Wells on Repl.,
sec, 365; Butters v. Hau t, 42 Ill, 18-24; Bruner v. Dyball,42
$11, 36; Hardy v. Keeler, 56 111, 152; Tuttle v. Robinson, 78
Till, 332-4; Oswald v. Hutchinson, 36 Ili, App, 273; Trudo v,
Anderson, 10 Mich, 357 ; Rosum ve Hodges, 9 Le Re ig 8 Dak, )
81 7 =F,
sot beushaat of t 9a00 a], »ataoo aid Mtbw
modesesaog of boltitae aedt fon et ed douodtte pen) by ont
ease ot sgteon sid ot beltitae ed Lleda ef ytxeqorg edt to...
“belttias od [Lele od Titénisla edt tot Boxtinet ‘eb P tdedghat es
ei tascialo od? t1. .#usmialo sit moti ateoo. aid toevooer of, .,
ateoo tet — ‘elit fisde ed etet® edit "4 tneblest—not s
"“,atti¢nielg ¢oeblesx-mon to. betivpes as...
ton ead ed" tect aetcta remevretal edt ,teitd ylqet abd al |
98 saeb aved of .vtragerq adt ot eftit so to giderenno, leat
etoattane adt to amzat oiiioege add to welv at detloot aged eved bivow
tiidntalq tert bomislo aad od tH »tosael edt of otis, evzoags, dotdw
i nots eitotetegixter edd to molassceog ot ddgis oft eved tom BLS
dutvelas solesteeog eid sham ton bad ¢£ epuaoed tive eth hetzag
“stive eroked tooreds Jeeuler s basemolessesog 10%. basmed «. a
_aehaw codiady ei sxed beninreteh od ot aokteaup, yLao OAT yi yo
gativaimeib ai sore ai asw trooo oft yteaevredad yd ebam gaiwode edt
abt QLf4t om esd of sect atinbs, ofe cao, to mottited yainewse im, edt
shoviovad ytxeqore sd? to motgaseecg Sct of tigit on att9ees. ow tas
Silt, emoted ysteqotg edt rot mid moqu sham enw haemeb om eansoed
_ ett etho ow ,roltseup aidd smog -betwtiters asw dive, alysiqes
ai motnigo edd .d©S sh Lf] 888 .gadlu’ .vpoezep al xgatwollot
ld OL shotio af .264 sgh «All OG aagedod .v. 90 zedmud dmswAos
, shice Paro, aldt gas netted
tedt, wode. of aplitt onant geek ont, ah:
gaps lend “pedmert we to fag mesa otal 6
fitin .votteoup at red slot Lutgaorn..
to aaitprebtenct at pony < wet had eto. 0
mort aeenhetdebni oietxee to sootioage xg rif 2 edt».
edt ts ,aoaelo ,tedt rt agp yon to eearo ”
herevifeh seed gaived ti ,redmaui ed? of roveteda elttt.. feo omit
‘euctd guied eld? ,altex efit ml ib ed of ttitaielg padi mid ot
tied? bas ,aoelO movt sasdowg rledt yd eitit on, on Mean te ld f
~aisiq otges avotitet bas futgnotw eew yd o ettse
edt to solee@sacg edt asde alvelges Tenia et pe. gy at ettit
Ping at notapanepa, X te baened s tycor ee
OW £ Sas ot o Lape eiil. i far
Ey be. jet ohe ase. “oy
xu
-Lqoh mmo. allen sf eene biettate’. :
edie. -¥ tems ,AE-SL ill BS qtuows
"tIn Wells on Replevin, supra, the author recognizes a
a conflict in the decision as to when a demand is necessary
before replevin can be maintained by the true owner of goods,
stating a line of cases in which it has been held that "where
the defendant acquired possession by purchase from one apparent-
ly the owner, such possession was so far rightful that the real
owner must make demand before bringihg suit," and another line
of cases holding "that where one purchased property from one
who had no right to sell, it was a conversion, and the owner
could sustain replevin without demand, the good faith of the
buyer being no defense," The rule in the latter line of cases
seems to prevail in this State, and we think is supported by
the weight of authority, the better reason and the later
decisions,'"
We are of the opinion that under the facts shown here,
no demand by plaintiff was necessary and that the judgment of the
Municipal Court should be and it is affirmed,
AFFIRMED,
DENIS E. SULLIVAN, Ped» AND HEBEL, J. CONCUR,
mbascnaek ‘eto mort 948
oe ie eee eee
weit wadiena, Wek, i oee A a ame pedi ge gpd $
de neared FL ee
to itis? boog od eb tuoie iv “ase l:.50
sd te agil tov eat “ak @ aan
. ae, Epes t be Sot ah: mie of get ek ot fo
cetel edt bas conser zag ts d edt Paes, Se btotiaseb:
.ored mworde etost oft Tobuy tedd motatgo oft Lovers eM! Fou DLL
ott to hemageatec ott tet? Ome yreenesen aow Tittmistq yi basmebom
act en a 96 bivodes reeo eet ta
ee Ml ee eee
; DF ghagiven ated. .wely- ake ge Loree, ot
ja BLPLE on A I AT RT
gers’. yiornre 2th to eoleneeene ee edie Cilla dada ra ote bean
TAK? tid@l Regn Oooo are, Reet® or: enue’
TERS | bE pet mane wT RP. . wae BP ate Glee Lee
‘ san eR e's cag scale <n Mn mel Aes he ay Pee Lon ees d
ah & af wh ey
a
i o "eto ileage orig
. as vee eee Lye? sae i 2
£ e # " 8 : ’ S Biy fi Beli ‘ SOAP we : Sa
x - - Rs oh oe femseo a Mas oP e
2 ehh BAe ve i LEP R TR ae ere BF neuro
me meee ix areas POR wale osada, sy, Tapst ytd
. Tae Me Pa: mY CU at oe Tistitele Ya min oF
TERED RF). Se? eR eae LORE” | SE Ba ee cree pert q dL wep 0
HLM BP wise EES wR I eR ela Wea S ta er” AolpweR Bus
Be BAL fh 4 Pare. Kear aig Me. ehhie
Aug oy 2d tecdiune tow
es ral TAR ReROR
Tal
as eae atic Bt,
‘ oe aya ies mee
ah os ee 3
de cet ed “ih
S964 Pe
ELIZABETH NORTON, APPEA F
Petitioner,
Ve
SHERMAN TUCKER, COOK COUNTY.
Respondent, a 9 0 I.A. 6 0 6
MR, JUSTICE HALL OSLIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
This cause is here upon an order of this court granting
plaintiff (petitioner) leave to appeal from an order of the Superior
Court of Cook County, granting defendant (respondent) a new trial,
after 2 jury had returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff (petitioner)
for $5,000.
The action is for personal injuries alleged to have been
sustained by plaintiff in a collision between an automobile driven
east by plaintiff and an automobile driven west by defendant. The
accident occurred on Addison Street, a short distance west of
LaVergne Avenue, in the City of Chicago, at about 3:30 o'clock on
the afternoon of June 23rd, 1934.
Plaintiff's testimony is to the effect that prior to the
accident, her general condition of health, eyesight and hearing were
perfect, and that she had no ailments. She also testified, in sub-=-
stance, that shortly prior to the accident, she entered Addison
Street, an east and west street about three blocks west of LaVergne
Avenue, and that she was driving e2st on Addison Street; that as
she drove along on Addison Street, the right hand side of her car
was about six or seven feet from the south curb of the street; that
Addison Street is a four lane highway, and thet each lane is about
ten feet wide; that she was driving at a speed of eighteen or twenty
miles an hour, when she was struck by defendant's car going west, and
at that time the car she was driving was about seven feet from the
south curb of the street; that the left front of defendant's car struck
plaintiff's car on the left front and rear side; that just before the
verde
: Rds AMAGAS 1a3 |
ie aimee pig heriontean
ean at +
repli acon
4 _stabogens ‘ ph i pe
ets avruoo woot a
a TAUOD gE? YO KOTHI4O eHT- asauvrata tan aorrevt ar
gaitosT, f1veo eidd to tebro ams moqu oxed et sexvso ett?’
nolrequ® edd to zobto me mort Ieoqos ot evsel (remoitited) ttitatel¢
-isict won © (saebmogeot) dasbasted gnitixerg ,ytmve0 aood to Prueb
%
OM ies a
xenoltiteq) TtitnieLe to Tovet at totbrev s beater bad Yrvt & t6%te
2000,38 20%
goed eved of begelle seixfat Lenoareg tot of soites ed?
~ROovitd slidowotus as assweed noteiiion # ni‘ ttkintele yw benteteve
oo eft ,tasbasteb yd teow movieh slidomotus as bus Ttitalelq Wo tese
to teow coneteth trode s ,tooTt@ noethbA mo berrvo0e taebioos
no teolo'o C8: tuods ts ,ogeoeid? to yti0 edt ad ,ouaevA eagreVed
ebbOL ,btd& one to moontetts edt
edt of toita ted¢t toette edt ot et yoomitaed a ttliniel?
esew gaitcsed bas sdyleeye eitLeod to aoftihnos Isteneg 18d inebtoos:
wdve at ,boltitest osls ed@ satmemtis om bad oe teat bas .toetroq
f MoekbbA bexrsine ene ,tmebioos edt of toltq yltrode tedt ,oonste a
enexoVed to teew exoold eerdt tyods teotte teow Bas tase ns ,toorde i
as tedd ;foets8 moetbbA no tase gnivich eow one todd bas .euaeva
nso ted to obie basd tdgix edt .toextd meetbbA no gaole evotb oda.
tedt jtootte add to drwo dévoe oft moxt dest moves ro xle tyods ean) :
tuods ef enel dose tedt bas ,yswdgid east qwot so ei teott® mowibba . :
yinewt to noetdgie to beege s te gaivixrh eaw ede tod? joblw feet Ot i
bas ,teow gaiog ts0 eliasbhasteh yd Aourte ase ode medw .xyod ns eoLtm |
ed? mort toot moves twods eaw gaivirth eew ode aso exit ankt todd te
rte ts0 e'tasbaeteb to tnoxt tel edd tedd jteotta edt to dru dtwoe
edt exvoted tay, ¢edt ;ebie xset bas tnott stel edt ao ts0 oMaténisse Ni
2
impact, plaintiff tried to turn her car to the right, and that
defendant struck her a terrifie impact; that as 2 result of the
impact, plaintiff fell forward and hit her head on the steering wheel,
bumped her left knee, arm and shoulder and fell back, and that she
did not remember whether she got out of the car herself, or whether
she was assisted by someone élse; that she stayed at the scene of
the accident until her husband came and took her away from there in
an automobile to the office of Dr. Vaughan, 6100 Irving Park West;
that she did not remember how long it was before her husband came;
that the doctor administered first aid and placed straps on her back;
that she was taken home and put to bed, and remained there about two
or three weeks; that during that time, the doctor came to her house,
during the first two weeks and that he then came every other day or
every third day; that she was menstruating at the time of the accident,
and had been for three days, She also testified that before the
accident, her periods ordinarily ran for five days, and were regular
and normal; that she had been married a year and a half before the
accident, and that before the accident, her periods were not painful;
that after she was brought home, there was profuse bleeding and
blood clots, and that she was digzy, nauseated and disturbed; that
the doctor gave her sedatives; that she Wept bleeding ond menstruating
for four months, that it was quite profuse and hemmorrhage-like,
very red in color and quite painful; that blood clots came every
now and then, and that the bleeding continued from June until some
time in October; that the doctor came to see her at home regularly
for three weeks, and that she visited him at his office after she
was able to be up and about, and that she continued to see the doctor
since that time until January, 1936; that the doctor made a vaginal
examination sometime in October, when the bleeding subsided, and that
during all thet period, while bleeding continued and after it stopped,
she had terrific pains in her baek; that she had frequency of
NAYS Oty oe ed
&
tedt bae ,.tdgit aft oF Teo tod mint of belat ae cs, ,teaqat
edt to tivaor s as tant itesquy oltixred a ad dourte ‘tnebasteb
,foedw gatreete edt oo Bess tad tia bas brawtot List atc etooqms
ede tat one stoed ifet has rebLueda Das wre .oeerd tos red chen dl
tedtede ro .ifsered tao edt to two tog, eda xodterdw rodmewet toa BEB
to andor edt ta beysta ade tadt yoele encenoe ye betalses asw ede
ai evedt mett yowe tad dood bas omeo BSasdenwd red Litas tnebloos edt
deo! Xeol gabvel COLd ,aedgua st to seltYo edt wt SLidomotue as
gemso baedavd tei etoted sew tt gaol word tedmemer ‘tom bib ade tedt
jlocd ted mo eqatte Beosly bas His text? Hersveiainds totood edt tart
“get tvods oredd Sontemet bas phed oF tio haw onod nodes mew ode dads
~aod 19d ot emso roteod ant ,omit ted? gainuh ted? jadeow estat to
to ysh redto yrove emto aedt od tend bad eddew ows Poth? ont gatiub
tnebiose oft to omit edt te sotisirtenem ecw ode tedd pysk bekité prove
‘edd etoted tedt boltiteet oats off Jeyeb obtdd tot asad boil bate
teLuget oTow bas ,aysb evit rot mer yLixsatbro eholreq’ «an .tmoblodses
edt oreted TLAd & bee ceey s bebrram mood Bed Ode Hout’; Lameon Bae
jiutateq ton even eboiteg ted ,dmebibor edt’ stoted thie baw’ | thens6ds
| hae gnibeeld cevtotg eew eredt ,emed tigvotd ew ode totte tadt
‘tel? ;boduteih bas heteoaued .yeath enw sie tht bak’ ~edOLo bootd
gaitsuttetion Bae gatbseid tqey ode tatt j;eevitadse réi eveg totdOb eat
,eattl-ogedttommed ban seytota stigp caw Wt ted? ,addnom tHOT tOt
yreve emso etofo Boold tad? ;Lutabeg etkvo one rofos at beroyrtev
owoe Ittay ont mort beuttinod gakbeeld olft gad? bas’ wedebae*won
Yrelvgor emod ts ved eos of emmd totood edd tent yrodesoO’ nt omet 4
“eis teste Soltto aid te mi betielty sife tad? bne \ateow Sernt tot a
wotoob edd 092 of deunitnod ode tadt bas Ytueds bins’ Gu! 6d Ot WL hw 7
““Tantgev = eben tofooh oft dade y880r .Yrskdtt! Crt ewty ven eomte
: “gadit bane ,boblLedwe gatbseld edd medw ,rede¥bO wi ent tonoe nottdvtmexe ;
bequests as refts bus Beunttaoo ‘ahttbevta bitdw bofreq tat Lie gurtyb a
i it cet wif ‘ens ~ —_— a
2s ala to Hi cegenieiig bed oife teat
3
urination and always felt distended, thst the pain in her back
was in the coccyx ¥egion, and that before the accident, she did not
have frequent urination; that she found it necessary to urinate
several times an hour, and thet she had to get up four or five times
a night, and that before the accident, she did not have to get up
at night; that she had irregular menstrual periods, that she had
pain when she menstruated, and still had pain in her lower region,
The following question was asked the witness: "With what frequency
aid your periods occur before the accident?" The witness then
testified as follows: “About every four weeks. Since the accident
the interval that elapses is from about three to five weeks. Before
the accident, I did my own housework, I had a four room apartment.
Did my own shopping, but I didn't do any washing. I cooked and
dusted and did all the miscelianeous duties of a housewife, making
beds and things like that. After my accident, while I was disabled,
I did not continue to de this work. My mother and sister stayed
with me, * * * My mother would make the beds for me, we would
straighten up the bed clothes, and I had ice packs, They filled ice
bagse They would make my meals for me and serve them to me in bed,
I had an ice bag at my knee and to my elbow and at my back, My
mother and sister continued to help me around the house for a good
month and a half after the accident. After that my sister stayed
with me, They were regular at first and then at intervals, I still
have frequency of urination. When I menstruate I suffer pain — quite
a bit of pain. Am compelled to lay down for a day or two, Have had
no children or miscarriages, Before this time, so far ag I know, I
have never had any trouble with my female organs. About 1928 or 1927,
i am not sure, I had an appendicitis operation. Have not been
operated on for anything since that time. Was hospitalized about
eighteen days in the Belmont Hospital in connection with that operation
dood red ‘ad Aieg edt tedd. Sehantelh. tie persis Das nottsatsu
tom BLD ode .tnablovg ont exolod tent bas, .wotgek xyoogo, edt aL 2ew
oteatia oF yiseeeoon Hi bavel ode tedt jtolsanizy, taoypett. coved
semis evit to rot qu teg of bed ode dod¢ dae, ved as. semit lereven
qu toy ov oved tom b&b ade .inebioos edt azoted tats, das, ,tigia s
wi bad. orig tent sehoineg feawutenem xelegerat bed ode. tout itdgio, #0
sohget rowel ged at aisy bed Ilite bas. ,betsuxtenom ade est miteq
yodespert ede Mes" sensation edt beles ese. Hottesup gaiwoLio® edt
| todd agsatie ed? "TénebLoos edv exoted, tuse9, ebotreq suoy bth
taebioos edt eoaie .eleow tuot yrove duedA”, ;ewolior ae beititae?
eroted .edeow evil of cord? duods mort at aeagete test Lavrotas odd
ataontzeqs moor wot 2 dad I Asowsewod avo yu Db 1 .tmebtoog ett
| bis bedooe I, .patdeon yas 9b, f¥abtb 1, tud, ggctqgode mmo. vm bio ;
wie, stiweaved # to eeitub evoonsilooeis ed? Lig bib das, Deteud
— gbeidgeth onw I olinw .taediocs wm sedté»tadt eatt went bas, ened
_ boyste totele bas redtom yu, «atxow aidé oh .of sgattao9 ton bth I q
oot», Digow, on .om, tot shed edt salem. bivow. ‘todtom . Yi. * hu? 98a Make ,
‘pes besstt, Wed? seine oo bad 1 bas qnedioto, bed, odd qu aetdgterte 4
abed, ot Om OF wedd ovres,.2e pm m0, afson yr eaten bisow yedt onged 4
cody oan, stead yea t2 bas wedle.wa. oy bag ceed we t4.ang 00488, Rek us 1
boog. 8 Tot Saved. edt havets em ahed of Aeunsinee retase,Aae, semen | 4
_—«sRayste xetete yo ¢add edt »taebioos,odd. retts ted o, bas siaom q
| [itt I. sedevaetad te aed? bas es ts. raLirgot erey YOmT 69m, say 4
etiup ~ aieq retive I etegttense 1 aedw AO RRBER ER : a panunent nish 4
i. suet! Ios tet on. ents etd anh, yengattzanete x0 ee i
sed to eeer tyods sansgze oLemet ya thy elduors Was, ped TaN, uy
P good. tom syei ..otterege | el¢toibaeqae as Sain e tag
cone bgatistigned. ecw | seks Tage tein wey
ast zat ae
4
a
The other car, a8 it was coming over toward my car, was going quite
fast, about forty miles an hour. At the time of the crash, it wes
still going fast. My car slowed down to about five miles an hour
and then the impact occurred. I was about ten feet west of the
truck which was on the south side of the street. I was about twenty
fees west of the truck, at the time of the impact." On cross—-
examination plaintiff testified to the effeot that Addison Street at
the point in question is 2 residential district, and that at the
point of the collision, there were three oars parked on the north
side of the street near the east end of the block, and that a Railway
Express truck was parked on the south side of the street near the
southwest corner of Addison Street and LaVergne Avenue; thet the
accident happened about 50 feet west of this truck, and that one of
the cars parked on the north side was directly opposite this truck,
and thet there were no cars east of the truck on the south side of
the street, She further stated that ell of the cars parked on the
north side of the street were west of the point where the truck was
parked on the south side, and that the point of collision was about
75 feet west from the corner of the two streets; thet at the time of
the collision, plaintiff was traveling about 18 to 20 miles an hour,
and that defendant was going twice as fast as plaintiff; that defend—
ant was traveling right in the center of the street, and that he
cut over towards the plaintiff's oar, and that at that time, plaintiff
was over on “my side" of the street; that plaintiff tried to turn to
the right, and that when defendant was about 50 feet from plaintiff,
he swerved and struck her car; that at that time, the plaintiff had
not turned out to pass the truck which stood at the corner of
Addison Street and LaVergne Avenue. She testified to the effeot
that when defendant hit her car, defendant's car was headed southwest,
and that plaintiff's car was about 4 or 5 feet south of the center
nee
- 4
etinp gatog saw ,zs0 We duewot tovo gmtmoo acy ti es ,ts80 tedto edT
esw tt .desto of to emtt oft YA .xvod as estin ydxot tuods test
ey ee ae
euod me eehin svit tuode of awob bewolr ‘tao wi stest iitog iitte
edd to teow feet aet tuods ssw I .bortuoso foaqnt od nodit bas
Unowt tuods wew I .teotte sid to eble dtuoe eat so esw ‘oti wound
-“saeTo 10 W doaqmt ect Yo emis odd te ‘het od to veer ‘toot
te sooxrtt Noob DA tedt fostto edt ot boltites? Vattatele ao ttentnexe
a
edd te tedt bae stolrtath tettmebieos 2 ai Hotton ak ‘intog outs
deton ont no bedrs¢ exs0 eotst exaw otedt iotetitoo edt to tateg
yeulieh s tedt bas .doolid ont to Smo tase odd tron toorte odd to obte
edt teen dootde oft to ebte dduoe ont 0 bexixsg asw wound seeagxs
a:
Fa ty SAE f
ee edt tedd jeunevA ongreved bee roorte mowibbA to reavoe “deowstuon
; to ero tant bas .weuct aide to teow toot 08 twods beasaqad suebioos.
tourt aid? etteogqe Utoorth sew obie Aero odd ao bosrog | ars0 ede
te ebie fitvoe edt mo xourt ont to tece ets0 ont exo ond ‘tadt bas
ode ae bowed exso oft to ffs tedt botste rodtent ode stoorte ont
pew doutt edt evosiv tateq edt to teow orn teorte oat to obse axon
sah a ae a
tueds saw note£Ilos to tntoq ont ‘todd baa wobie ddguoe eutt m0 b aris
to ott edt te tet ietoorte owt ot to zeat00 ‘odd mort ‘teow “yoot 2!
kwon ae elim Of of BL tweds gatlevert sew “etttetelq “esoken tte’ ott
<preteb tsk? jttlgniale es test es solwd aatos, caw tnabuokeb ‘add ‘bme
ed ted? Sane teense ode to tetaeo out ak tigi aa tovend ecw ‘ta
ttitaiste omit tedt te tedt bas .ts0 Mth ttabaty eatt airevo? 1 <0ve. “tee
ot atut ot belts titatele vaa¥ preette ed? to "ebke vo" ‘10 revo ‘tun 4
dtitetsly mort geet 08 tuods esw tasbasteb nosis taat 5 iy ebiigit “aus F
“bed Arivalale edt ome tadt ts tndt it80 rod tourve bas hoveows ot
a im Ce
ily “to. nemtoo edt ts boots sontin aout ont eoeq ot to benuut ton
ns ; Rael Ay WERE 4
‘oorte ont o@ boltitest ee »oum0¥A aagrovad bas tearse moethbs
PLTE Beye i} KP
_eteonitives bebset BBW 180 e" ixebastob 180 rod the tushaoteb mode todd
retneo odd to dtvos ec 8 10 - tuods Baw x80 eigen ee oy
poets wet ek Sh cal votdnte —
5
line of the street when it finally stopped.
From the testimony of several witnesses, both for plein-
tiff and defendant, it is shown that both cars were considerably south
of the center line of the street after the accident, and at a point
approgsimately 55 feet west of the cross walk of LaVergne Avenue,
and that defendant's car was then a considerable distance west of
plaintiff's car.
August B. Drufke, a witness for plaintiff, testified that
at the time of the accident, he was in a tavern, three doors west
of LaVergne Avenue end on the south side of Addison Street; that
while he was in the tavern, he heard a crash and came out and saw
both of the cars involved in the accident; that the west bound ¢ar
was over in the east bound lane, facing slightly southwest, and that
the eastbound car was about 5 feet from the south curb of Addison
Street,
Gasimir P. Dompke testified to the effect that at the time
of the accident, he was near the scene and that he saw a small coupe
going east and a large sedan going west, and thet at that time,
three quarters of the westbound car was in the east lane; that the
eastbound car was traveling about 20 miles an hour, and that the west-
bound car was proceeding at about 40 miles an hour, and that he saw
them come together; that when he first saw the westbound car, it
was about 10 feet east of the tavern mentioned by the former witness,
and that just before the accident, the westbound car turned a trifle
south, and that the left side of both cars came together; that he
gave his name to the husband of the woman who was driving the east-
bound car, On cross~-examination he testified that at the time of
the accident, plaintiff was in about the center of "her half" of
the street; that the car was a Ford, and that it was 2bout 5 or 6
feet wide, This witness further stated that at that time, he was
standing in the tavern looking out through the window, and that he was
c
4
sbeqgote yilantt #1 aedw tesita an¢ to oats
“aielq ot diod ,seseentin Lereves to ynoni toad ‘edd mort” a
ftvoe ylidersbleqos esew exao dtodd tedt mwode ef +2 ,taebdoteh Bae Brit —
tufog «a %e has ,.teebloos adt totte sooxde oat to onit redsieo eds ‘to
goumevs amgre¥ad bo afew szore st to tuew goot 62 YLedemPeoraga
to tasw sonateih oidersbianos # ned? anew tap elenabaoteb vat | ‘Das
t8O ae
tert Deltivess ,TiLiaielg vet aeontiw: © exter si tenguA
teen etoob eordd ,qtovet 9 mi paw od ytmobioos ef to outyt od! ¥el
dadt jtesttG moethbé to ebie mivom edt mo bre oumeva: oayreVed Ye
wee don tuo, omeo bae deste 2 breed wd itevest edt mt nsw od OLidw
c00 haved taow odt ted ptaebtoos od¢t al bevlovdt® exbo ft to" ator
tedt bie ,Seowddvoe yitdgile yaiest yeast bavod tase ont ni 19¥0 asw
Moeibbs to duvo twee odd moth gest 8 tuede enw 120 basodsase sift’
enkt ed@. ts. tedd teotte edt of beltstess ‘edquod Gg timseep «001 !? Oe
SqOD Liew 2 we od ted? bas endon edt teem dew Od yidobtoos ond To”
stnld todd te todt baw .teew gatog anbea tyxal 8 hné tags attoy
edt todd yeas tose odd at eew tao biwodteew edt to wtedtetp | ‘soxat 4
~taew oat ted? bas .rwod me aelia OR studs auilevert eaw 18 bawiod tase a
yen od tedt bas gruod Me weLin Ob dwods a0 gatbescorg eMw tee Biued
tL uso bavodteon ent wee textt ef mesin tot oqueddeyot enos wodt 4
anontin romrot ot yd benogtaem arovet ‘ett to tess toot OL tuode™ Bow
eltict « berryt re0 bayodtaow ent wtaobbooa odd evoked seuy tome bat 4
ad tet ;tedtogot omeo ezap died % sbis ttel edt deanna |
~tase edt giivich eew odw aamow edd te bnedeud anit ‘ot owen wkd | 4
to emis sft ts tedt DeLtstoes ex sottentmexs~enore x0!” oto ‘ast ‘
to, "tied rod" to tetaeo edt tuode ai eaw état ele etnebtoos ont
ue rea #
a
‘i
ane a
ie A ba
8 10 @ duode saw tt tedd bas .bxol p mew xe0! Ont tenlt qtoorte: oat! ’
esy od .oult todd ta tedt botete rodtust: eaentiw ett | yebtw toot ;
aew od tedt bas ,.wobniw edt dgvotdt tuo auatidatt arevet edt ae t pathaste é ”
6
in a position to and did see all that occurred,
Defendant testified that he was a student at the
Northwestern University, and that he had driven an automobile for a
year before the accident; that as he approached LaVergma Avenue
going west on Addison Street, he was traveling at a speed of about
25 miles an hour and on the right side of the street, near the
center; that just after he passed the west line of LaVergne Avenue,
plaintiff's car pulled out around a large tfuck standing near the
corner of the street, that he was unable to see her car coming because
it must have been close to the curb, and that the plaintiff(s Gar
collided with his car; thet he applied the brakes and stopped and
that then he was facing the curb diagonally, southwest; that "I was
going pretty fast, because it hit pretty hard"; that plaintiff's car
hit defendant's car on the north side of the street, and defendant's
car swerved toward the south because it was out of control; that
after it was all over, plaintiff's car was in the center of the street,
facing northeast; that he did not attempt to swerve around ahother
Car coming east, as he was not trying to pass any car at the time of
the accident, On cross—examination, he stated that he paid no attention
to the speed at which he was traveling; that there were cars parked
all along Addison Street, close to LaVergne Avenue; that his eyesight
was good, and that he was looking straight down the rosd; that when he
saw the car in front of him, his machine was alongside the truck, and
that the truck was about 10 feet long; that plaintiff's automobile
was about 6 or 7 feet west of the truck, end about 1 or 2 feet from
the curb; that when the plaintiff was 2 or 3 feet west of the truck,
and the right side of her car was about a foot from the curb, she
suddenly turned toward the left, and that her cer was then going about
25 miles an hour,
—
| | 8
aa—— tad Lis 998 bib bas ot mottieo £ ry
edt ts snebuts s esw off fede bortttecs tnabastod
& or Lidomics as devish bed ed stadt bas aYeiexey tal sxsteowdts0K
eunewk aegtoVad begosotqqs ad as teadt Abmehiogs vi, eroted za0y
tuoda to beeqe 4 ta guilevers asw of atoorte moatbba J, Seow Batog
edt seen gtootte edt to ebfe tdgic od? mo bus sarod as etn a 7
.ouera: sagreve, to onil teew edd. Desaeq pa, seats, teu teat jretaes
ert xs0n gaibaste Aowt? egtel banots tuo Detiug, 80 e'ttidatesg
senvcosd giinos seo 19d eer of Oldsay ecw od todd ateorta co 0 reaxeo
ca) witiisatele odt test bas .dru0 edt of eeote need Aryl town #3 |
baa beggote bas aedlerd act beliqgs od tse zee, eld Layers bebiifoo
Ree PUY
Teo: alktitatela. tedt eon, vitexq, tha aL seusoed atast y bh 3a °8
elineabasteb bas ,teotte oft to obie déton edt ao rs s! susbaoteh thd
pati a) ag ea
_bovsowe 10
teorte edt. to tetaeo edt at acu uae ) etrtstaterg “gore Ls. box du softs
1 ,gHehiooe ede te
tedtods Savers eviews of squat ts ton bib oa tet jigsettven great
Ta SS Say
to omit oct 8 te0 Yoe eaag of gatyte fon, BON od ad Fld og Mt e ror
ptinetits om bisq ed gadt betste ed soltentnsxe=ceor0 | 9 _simebtoos ext
healieg ateo eirow eredt. ted? ygniteyer? asw ed, soidw te hoege odd af
Ses a a wy ea. a:
tdgissye eid tad? jouneya sagreVed et esofo atoorte spethes geeks ae
pay Vag ad
od wexin tes? jdoor odd owoh tdgiextea goizoot asw od tod beaath BJ
bes ~tourrtt edt sbiegnets easw. ent dean aid andl | to taort a reo ont wee
& ve ‘ac Re gone
one it L. #2 t 0. 9
eLidonoius a'tidatela tedt janes teat OL tuode sew dourt edd a
~ mort test & co f dyode bas «doutt edt to teow toot , fond Bf glen ssw
sloutt edt to teow geet & x0 8 asw thitatalq oat nod seas wl Eos oat q
ede devo odd mozt toot © tuods pew 180 ted te ebte tdgix ost od at
tuods gaiog sedd asw teo red ted? bag ,ttel edt braves Pond Unebbire i ql
; Hy ety a
sais oe red ale _-yivod as esLin 8S 4
° si tie AE ENS SERIES Way URN Sige yah iw see wi
UG Beigel meer mei ae Bed: baste: ) oe
Esther Singer, a witness for defendant, testified that
she was in the car with defendant at the time of the accident; that
a truck was parked on the south side of Addison Street, about three
doors away from the corner, and thet the car in which she was riding
was on the right side of the street; that she saw a little car come
out snd swerve out in the center of the street towards defendant's
car, and hit defendant's car; that she saw the car coming around
from behind the truck; that she and a Mrs. Freedman were sitting
in the back seat of the car, and that they were thrown out of the
seat, and that after the accident, she saw plaintiff runing around
getting names and addresses,
Celia Tucker, the mother of the defendant, testified that
she was riding in the automobile driven by defendant at the time of
the accident. She stated that a truck was parked near the corner;
that defendant was on the right side of the street going at a speed
of 25 or 3 miles an hour; that plaintiff's car came from behind the
truck and hit defendant's car. On cross~examination, she stated,
that "I couldn't tell how far it was west of the truck when I first
saw it [meaning plaintiff's car], All I know is it hit us on the
left side, When I first saw the automobile west of the truck it was
just about a couple of feet away, At that time our car was on the
right of the truck. We had not come up to the truck at the time I
first saw the other car. We were on the right side of the street,
We had got just sbout the middle of the block, that is, when I first
saw this other automobile coming, when it hit us,"
Dr, Perry Vaughn, a graduate of the University of Illinois
and a licensed physician, testified 2s to his hospital experience,
and that he had been vracticing his profession since 1920. He
stated that he examined the plaintiff after the accident, and that
she had a contusion of the right elbow; that he examined her under
the fluroscope and that there was a separation o& the shoulder joint,
—--
ce re Ney fs eae"
tends beltiteect aniahiined tot asentiw s stegate ete
tedd yiaebioos end to omit ont te tashasteb atin 750 out ‘ae asw , ee
eerd? tuods etoordt moakbba to ‘obte suoe ‘ont 0 bedtaq ese nr Pol &
guibie acy stfe doiiw ni veo edt tad? bus erSa%r00 ot nor? wns ex00b
enod is9 Offtil © wee ode tedt ‘ptoerte odd ‘to obte tiger edt no ‘Baw
‘glingbaateb ebrewot toette edt to setae, add at he ovrowe fas ao
Ry
bauors aninon tao edd wse oda badd pte0 a! ¢askaateb ht “hese. “ateo
weenie
“gnistie stow temboort eet 2 bas ade dedt plows ‘sat ‘banded mort .
‘odd Yo tue sword? orew yedt ted? bas «789 ast to toe Hoss ‘oat 1 of
oe bawons | comms #hsalae wee ode | atnebtoos out aotts tou has qhaee
; i ned Pee oF
snoenerhbs ‘bas soma tee
i dehw Bobs, co
tadi bektitest “ toebasteb ont +0 sedton ont erodout stleo
‘to omit od? fe tnsbaetsh yd sov ich oLidonotye edt ak panbir @ ean ah
BM LOR
* teauoe edt teen downed esw Sour? s tact bedate oe sehen: eat
ettpabasted tin
heeqa ¢ s és gator teerts edt to ebte ‘ag ta ont 0 aew plate tsdt
ya ye ie eae Ta R TO
edt Satded mort emzo «80 e'ttitntela sad vened 4 as er 08 ba 38 to
#Be
“"""petete one to Lteninexoanoro ‘20 tad altustaoted eit bas downs
‘geulY T néiw dour? ont to teen asw at ast wod fies tabiv0o 1” teas
edt mo ey tid tf et womd I CLA “axe enititaiely gatason) tt “
‘baw tt doutd eft to teow olidosolus ond wee text I aod “a rc}
boaie NS y .€
eit" ho” daw Xhd xo ‘ons ¥ You a Wwe test to ‘algues a
ied Sad m nae ts
OY emkd ety te xoutt oa oF qu Sn00 ton as ot alownd odd wind is
+a “i hey
Ubeorde eft to bdie Faye bit no Oxow OW yxa0 rodto ous ‘ ta dentt
‘fF wae
vertt I sory oth tent” eloold ‘edd to eLhbin oft twods teu, ‘tog ‘bed oF
aT Mes See
Wye the dh mod egiinos oLiconotus sontto aid? wse
saan
etontilt to yttetevind edt 6 ‘etsubstg & teegusV tet 6
' Veonoiteqxs fetiqvod eid ot as boitivnes etn ko kev bosmeott : H gi
‘¢ gel? Det
et .OS@L eontea aoteestora ‘eked patoivoory aeed ‘bat ‘oa taut
we whi rp Page
tedt bas ,taebioos ont rotts ttivnisse ont pentane. ‘od. "gadt be ; sent
A itt a hid K
cebay red Deainexe etiitad? qwodie tdyt1 edt to molewtnoo s bed ede
eiatot tebiuode eft wb aoltersqge = sew ered? tadt bas oneness: edt |
bi on 7
‘kha re
8
acromieal-clavicular joint, and a contusion in the region of her
lumbar vertebra, at the lower region of the spine, and a large
swelling, a large hematoma, an accumulation of blood at the left knee
joint, and that that is all the outward evidence of injury; that he
did not make a vaginal examination at thet time, as she was then
extremely nervous, and the only examination he made was of the
injuries which were present; that when she was brought to his office,
she told him that she was menstruating, and that he told her to go
home and stay in bed and apply ice to the lower region of her spine
and to her left knee. He testified that she complained of pain in
the abdominal region; that he saw her at home approximately every
other day for about two weeks, and that on those occasions, she was
in bed, and that he just treated the wounds which could be treated
best by rest and applications before mentioned; that she was manstre-
ating all the time, but that it wasn't a normal menstruation,
pecause there were quite a few clots at that time which does not
occur during normal menstruation; that he continued to see her at her
home two or three weeks, and thst she came to his office and that he
gave her a diathermy treatment for her back and knee and also the
shoulder, and kept that strapped for six to eight weeks; that during
the last two or three months, he saw her at his office about two or
three times a week, and that following that, he had her report to
him about once = month; that he last had occasion to see her in
connection with the injury sustained, in either January or February,
and that he had not seen her since then. He testified that he first
made a vaginal examination about two months after the accident,
and stated that his examination revealed that she had a marked
retroverted uterus, which means that the womb is tipped back on the
lower portion of the spine and the rectum; that the normal position
of the uterus is at about a 45 degree angle; that it now slants
diagonally from the front backwards and it is supported by ligaments,
rad to molget edt ai aeieyinoo-s bas ,tateh teLuofvalo—[elwortos
ogtst a bas ,eaige edt to solget towel sd@ to, exdedthy ceduarl .
eond #tel oft ta boold to solitealumnos an, nmotemed gyrate, gotilewe '
ed tedt ;ysutal to sonebive frewtvo edé Lie ab tadd vadd bas (taiot |
_ slodt gam ore es .omid ted te mottanineke Lankgsv seme ton Wzb
) ft to eaw ebsm eof aottentmexe vino edt bas svovren yLomptixe
,ooitto sic ot tdgvotd eew ods nodw tat qinesenq evew dotdy seiwtat
op od tad Dios on dad? bao .gabtevt¢emem gow ede tent oth Bot ede
eniga ted to aolget tewol edt of ook yloqe base hed mi yate Bas omon
mi ates to beatelqmoeo ede tedt best itest eM) seent tteL ted of bre
yrove yletamixoroqe emod ts red wee si tedd gnelges inaimobds oct
nev ode enctescee seost no taut bas yeieew owt dwods! to% ysb tedto
(Deter? ed bivoe dois ebauow oxi betesnt taut: od test hie ybed mt — y
~wtienam acy ode tedt ybenoltacm oreted anoitactlage: bus. tear yd teed
. gttedtenttecom Lawton = t'anew th tad tud comit odd a gatta
. tom 2905 dvidw omit tadt te etofo wet s:ottup crew oreidt eousobd
“qed ds sed coe of bewattaoe of gad? qaottautéenem Latron'galted seoos
ed gadt bas eoltte eff of emeo ode tedt Duar gaoow ostdt co owt “Omeat
edt oele bas sent bas xosd tad tot teentaott yoreddeth ovred \ovag
gainub ted? jedeow tdgie of xle rot beygerte tedt trod bas yrobiuods
z0.oWd tvods oltto eld ts Tad wee od yadtadm condt ro owfitesl att
ot txoqges tod bed od tod? goiwollet dad? bas teow «” ‘wont? oonde .
mi tod see of motaseoo bad deci od tedd .(dinow es ‘somo tuode mid a
eereutdel to yranetsl tedtie at ,benistate yrwhnl edt dtiq noivoancoo a
Jord? on dadd bettiteod a «nosh conte rad wesmutom had od tadt baw
| ,tnebtoos edt rtettea adtaom owt twode aotianinaxe Laaigev s ebsm q
— bealten © bad ede tadt holsevet aoitaninexe mid tadt botete Bits a
edt mo doed bocait ef dwow edt tedt encom sotdw yewrster botrevortsn | j
noktizeg faaxon of? tadt jmrtoot odd Bne extqe ext to mottuoy ‘vewoR —
_ptasle won, th dodd yelgns eexgeb 8h 2 tuode $a, ad ayredy odd to
enmnneabs yd betroqqua ai ¢é bas ebrewdoed tnoxt: caemenemmened
9
This witness further testified as to plaintiff's condition as he
found it, and that "the body of the uterus, this portion, that is
in the abdominal cavity is tipped way backward onto the rectum and
lying on the coccyx in a retroverted uterus; in a normal uterus,
the body is lying at an angle, like that. The approximate size of
the uterus of 2 lddy like this who has not had children is about
that of a small pear. The uterus was tipped back on the coccyz,
because at that regbon the uterus takes a curve like that, and with
a uterus that is tipped, is tipped right along in the curve of the
coceyx. She probably would become pregnant, tut would hot carry it,
She was not able to have a normal pregnancy and childbirth with the
uterus in the position that it was in that I found it. As fi
remember, I made three different vaginal examinations, and the uterus
was the same on each examination. The uterus normally is in position
like that, and there is a ligament called the broad ligament that
comes from the part ettached to the posterior wall in the pelvis,
and there is a round ligament on top of that broad ligament that
always supports that, that runs along the broad ligament and when
& uterus is retroverted, these ligaments are stretched and they lose
their tenacity and can't hold the uterus up the way it should be
held up. The condition that I described is always a permanent
condition, "
Dr. Albert 0, Field, a witness for defendant, testified as
to his medical experience and qualifications. Yoneerning the instant
casé€, his testimony indicates a «hypothetical question put to the
witness and the answer thereto shown by the abstract to be as follows:
"Supposing a young girl supposedly normal with normal ligements and
a@ normal womb was riding in an automobile and her chest and just
below her chest was stove up against the wheel, and she was bruised
and finally got out, and walked sround and so ony, my opinion is that
it would be impossible for an injury such as that to cause any trouble
eR
s
od as moktibaes altitsaisiq of ss beititest redtuyt seentin ald?
et dedt ,doitroq eid? ,antedy eit to yhod eda" sed? bas .tt bayot
bre auseet edt ofao baswioed yaw beqgit ef ystiveo Lanimobds edt at
» esutete Lemon s al jastotu Dottevortes s af xypooo edt ao gaint
to aste etoutxorgas edT ated? oftl .oigan ac te gaiyl at vbed edt
tuods al merbiido bed toa ead odw ated o¥il ybal ¢ to surety. odd,
_ ekyeoeo edt ao docd begglt esw eutetu ad? .xseq [temas to Jadt
diiw bas gtadd edit ovawe 5 eetat autety odd aodgex dadi ts seuaned
eat to evivo odd mi guole ¢dgiz beggts at ,»baggit at tedt eure dys 9.
eth vsteo tom bivow tui ytasagenq emenad bivow ydederq ade .xyoooo
edt dtiw dixidblido bas yonengetg famron 8 eved o¢ olde ton aaw ede,
I eA qi Aawok 1 tedé at eam th ted? gottteog edt at euroty
anrety sdt bas ,enoitaninsxe Ianigey tqezett ih eerds eben 1 .xeduamen
agitieog at at yiieutog auzety edt .nottaninexe dose ao omge edt Raw
tadd tnemegil beord edt beliao taenagil s at etedt pag ,tadt ettt
catviog ed? as Lew rolreteor odt of bedostts tq edt moxt semoo
_ itedd tusmegil beord tedt to got mo tmomegil bayor s at ezadt bas
- sede bas taemegtl beord edt gaola anut ted? gtad? etzoqquea axsuls
seof qedt bus bhedotexte ste ataemagil ened. ebotsevetiag ef auTety, 8
(8d biueda.t2 yow edd qu autety sdt biod taco has yttosnet xtedt
\ . taensuteg o .ayeswls at bedizoash I cents SOT ott, bled
ad edi iain . Npaotd tbaoo
aa baititass seein xo pre s buat 20 sieisiaida waa
tasteai edt yutareomo .anotisoitiiase bas sonetregxe Lsothe aiae
_ edt ot tuq aolteoup Lsottedtogydy.« setsolbat yaomites? aid .easo
sewollot ax od ot tosttads edt yd awode otetedd toweae edt bas peoatie
bre ataemugtl Lewxoa dttw Lemson yibesoaque Irigy gavoy 6 gateoqauh!
faut bas seoco ted bas sLidonotus ao at gatbit sw duoy Lennon.
boaluid ew pra bas .Loede edt tentes qu evote gew.tuedo red woled
ted¢ et motaice wa eto. oe bie dayots bexlew bas .txo Ca
elduort vis equeo of ted? aa dome. a MU MARU
i
10
with the uterus, say any displacements whatsoever. In a young girl
that is healthy and has no children, there is no reason why the
ligaments should hot be strongs In childbirth we know that the
uterus gets larger and smaller and that tends to stretch the ligaments,
But in a young lady her ligaments are tender, They have some
Clasticity, and if she has an injury to her chest, the chest muscles
are supported by the diaphragm, so that it would be impossible if
she wes injured to cause any backward displacement of the uterus,
because the uterus wouldn't be affected in that way because there
was no exira stress or strain placed on the disphragm. Sometimes
we have a congenital displacement of the uterus. That means where
the uterus is placed forward or bsckward as to shape or ordinarily
out of any deviation from normal, It comes from birth, As to the
type known and causing retroversion of the uterus outside of
congenital, the first would be the irritability, the condition of
the individual, that would cause her to lose weight and strength
which would have an effect on the ligaments which would let them
relax, Another cause would be 2 fall or jump from a high ladder,
and landing on her feet, which would displace the uterus backward
and forward. You would have to stretch the ligament to do that.
You couldn't have it without it." On cross-examination he stated
that he had spent most of his time in examining the injured and
taking care of them, and that he was paid for testifying in the
instant cases
At the close of plaintiff's evidence, and at the close of
all the evidence, the usual motions were made by defendant, that the
court direct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. Both
motions were denied, After the return of the verdict, a written
motion for a new trial was made, in which it is charged that the
verdict is against the weight of the evidence and the law, that the
weight of the evidence is in favor of defendant, that the court
oL
{rig yauoy s al .roveoatedw etnemeectqath wis ya yaurédd edd tio
‘edt (de monocot om at ered ,worbLido cH eed bie yttleod at Fut
ett fedt wend ow dictdbiiae nl agaocte ed‘ted bivote eéndhanht
teomsgif edd dotette of ebaot ted? bac roilewe bao toytel eteg avteda
guor oved yad? ,xebmed ors etaomegil red ybel gavoy 6 Ai dua
esloauitt teado odd ,teedo cod of Yrutat oa nad ome TH bane ,widitesls
tr efdtesoqmt od bivow ti todd o&8 ywaaxdgath edt yd Hedadqaie Ora
(eurtety edt to taemsotfyeth brewtoed yas saute oF botutat daw eda
Stedt Sarsood Yow tet at befootts od Slablyow euretu sds Sausoed
* gomtitemo® .mgetdaetb ‘edd mo boosie aterte 0 aabrie axxo ‘on abe
‘eredy ences tedT «evrety ent to tnemsostgeib Letiaegaod &
ylitsnibro 16 eqaita of ea Brswioad ‘zo ‘buswrot Seodig df ‘adzedi bad 4
Gad OP ad .atete wort demoo tt “dated out Holediven yad YOR
ty obiedvo avtodir edd to notetovertor ‘gatsuso "baad mvodt edge
to noitthaoo sd .yhiidstinrt edd of blvow tetit edf tetinegade
dtgaette bas tdgisw oeol ot ret save bivow tedt ,Loubiytbat ‘eit
Medd tel bivow doirw atdemegil off no Yootre me evan Biiow dothw
etebbel dgiif # wort omy; to Met s ed bivew sesso tedéomd sxeler
- Puswiloed aurotw edt ooclgats biuow dotdy yteet ved 'de gasbiat bud
sted? ob of daemogii sdt dodette o¢ eved Bivow HOY: .bréwrot “tire
petate od noftantiexe-seox nO "th dvcdeiw dt Wika Pinptede ust
bas besutat odt guintmexe at amt? edt to teom dmoqe bed od ted?
“edt dt fenkgnnnnten ‘sot onsite vow od tabs bas norte spsiyone aabiat
te seol odt tn bas ,pomebive attientely to aeoLlo’ ania ie sous 4
‘eid todd \duebmotsb ye ebsm ovew eaoitom Laven ‘sit foonsbdive siete
tol .ytling tom to tokbrev s mzutor oF yrut “edd sooty’ “gro a
nettirw « ytetbrov edd to mivier edt tarda ‘ybeineb erow ‘iia Bad q
ert ted? Bogredo wt ti ‘dolttw at ebem ecw feted weit “t's0¥ ‘noted i a
oft fas? wot edd one eondhtve edt to Vigtow edt tants, ibeey
oLtios lpgiiaie wut ade itdadutenial “wi Wiidn Aan eb mess wt 6 84 |
il
admitted improper testimony and refused to admit proper testimony,
and further, that the plaintiff had made demonstrations before the
jury which were prejudiciel to the defendant. This last charge is
supported by a series of affidavits, and in them it is alleged that
in the presence of the jury, plaintiff had simulated a quivering
ef her body at various times during the trial, for the purpose of
influencing the jury. After the affidavits were submitted to the
court, the court made the following finding:
"The Court did not find, nor does it express any opinion
as to whether the plaintiff was or was not wilfully simulating
er intentionally shaking and trembling in the courtroom during
the trial of the case, and the Court does state that during
the trial and while on the sitness stand, Elizabeth Norton, the
plaintiff, appesred to be nervous and trembled while she was
being cross-examined by counsel for the defendant; and
"The Court, having heard the arguments of counsel for both
of the parties hereto, decided to allow the said motion of the
defendant for a new trisl, as there was no way to determine the
extent to which the minds of the jury may have been inflyenced
by sympathy for the plaintiff, nor the extent to which prejudice
or sympathy may or may not have influenced the amount of damages
awarded, If the extreme tremors were consciously exaggerated,
the amount of the verdict was excessive; if the tremors were
beyond control of the plaintiff, the amount of the verdict might
well have been larger,
"In the course of the argument for a new trial, the Court
stated thet counsel for the defendant in the course of the trial
had called attention to the fact that the plaintiff was shaking
and trembling, and that thereafter the court watched her, and
saw that she was shaking and trembling, and that at the time
thet the jury left the jury box to retire to consider of their
verdict that the plaintiff was visibly shaking and apparently
trembling; and was subsequently allowed to rest on a couch in
the bailiff's room.
"The Jourt asked counsel for plaintiff whether or not in
his opinion such action upon the part of the plaintiff would have
any effect upon the jury, and counsel for the plaintiff stated
that to be frank with the court it undoubtedly might have some
effect upon the jurys
Williem J. Lindsay,
Judge of the Superior Court,"
It is to be noted from this finding that the court declined to hold
that the plaintiff simulated any of the conditions charged in the
affidavits.
The points made by defendant in his brief are that the
manifest weight of the evidence was in favor of defendant, that the
testimony of plaintiff and her witnesses was conflicting, irreconcil-
sWtomites? teqorq timhs of beawter bas yromitest teqotqmi bet sinks
edt @roted sxoftertencmeb abom bod Ytitatele edd tect yreddaw? bas
el-egrsde steel etdTt stnabasted oft of Letothyperq evew doludw yrst
‘otedd Hepelie ot +2 med? mi dae yetivsbitte to eeixee « yd betroqqua
-«gaiiverivo « betelumte bed ttitatel@ ,yrut caddy to eaneeenq edd at
Ro onegrugq edt tet .lsitt oft gattch vemtt euottsvdte yood ted (to.
edt of bettincya ecer etivebitts edt -tedta. eh 9st eatoneuttat
tyalbalt gitwolick edt ebom tayuoe, edt _tuwroo
AOtKico yas esexqxe tf seob tom ybatt tea bb drwoOsedTM) 6 sod |
ony ere yilvtliy tem saw so esw tittaiesls dt vedhade ot ae
Bp tod mootdaseo ef? mi gatidwert bas gattede: ei oy oe de
Qiituh ted? stete asob tivod odt bne ,oan0 ot to Leitt odd
“oot .f690OH Moedexrtlt ,kaste eventiw edtino elidw bac Leindvadto,
ssw ede olidw beidmetd bus evovren ed of bereeqqs aititais +
bie {dashneteb st tot Leenvoo yo betimexe~seoro” ed ‘
atod rot Lesnsoo to etnomygrs edt based gaived ,tusod edT* .
ent to soidom bise edt wolle of Sebloeb ,otered asittaqyedt: vine y
odt onimreteb ot yew on asw eredt es .faitd wea s tot tasbaeteb
beonemlini need evsd yam yrot edt to ebaim odt doidw ot tastae,:
sotbuferg doidw of taedze act tom ,ititaielg edt tot ydtsqmye yd
eogamed ta tavoms oft béomeaital eved toa Yew 19 You oe
,zbeterteggexs ylevoioance oTew atomett omeitxe ody +r ebebtsws
Stew atomert edd Ti jovieesoxe sew toibrev edt to thusoma ede
tidy tes tolhtev edt to tavoms odd attitately eit to Leortaoo Baoyed
) oSte_ret weed eras:
txv00 ed ,Laitt won s tet tronrg2s edt to pervoo odd al”
Ieitd oft to sexyoo off ai dasbasteb edt wot Leeavoo todt boteta
gatusde acw Yiltnisiq edt ted’ tost odt ot agitastts beiiso bat
bas tad bedetew tuyoo edd wettsotedd tet bao. goetidmend baw:
emidy edt ts test base ,gntidmer? das gaiiede sew ode ted? wae
todd to tebfenco ot titer et xod edt ttel yuh! edd todd:
yltnorscgs bas gatdede yidketv acw Tikiniela edt tsdt toLbreyv
vita osupeedive ‘brs y
‘Mi doves » ho teaor of bewolle asw brag
smoot e'ttified edt
ni ton to vedsetw Tiivntetie tor Leenvoo betaw ture edt 9 fous
evad bivew ttituislq edd to t4sq Sdt ve foltes dowe acinigo ald
beveta ttitaiels edt? rot Loanwoo ban » edd mogy toolkte.
t yas
enon eved tdgim yibetdvobas #1 trveo 6. ? dtiw dasst ed of tedt |
oil ed moqu tpethe:.
yeebaid .& melilew
i derceghe: eat to oabyl r
bios ot bentfloeb tiyoo edt todé guthalt anss nor? bovon od ot al or @
ed¢ ai bograsdo eaoitkbage edd to yas doveLumte jtusatatg ot teat J
" sattyobits .
edt tect | ors teigd ald ak tashastob “a oben atatog oat oe '
_ oat tant etacbast sb to, rove? at asw sosbive edt to tigiow eet teen a
WL Le re
~Lionooonnt egatiolftaog enw coseonttw rod bas ‘Miaatssg Bi! era 4
+a :
12
able and physically impossible, that the damages were so excessive
as to show passion and prejudice. Further, that the affidavits
filed show a deliberate effort on the part of plaintiff to appeal
to the jury by a pretense of nervousness, and that the question of
granting a new trial is wholly within the diseretion of the trial
court. The evidence adduced in the trial, the affidavits and the
finding of the court, disclose no state of facts to justify counsel's
statement, The only point argued by defendant is that "the case
would justify a judgment for defendant on the manifest weight of
the evidence, *
There is no claim, but thet the jury was fully and fairly
instructed, From the record before us, we condlude that there is
nothing involved but questions of fact, that the verdict is not
contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and we are, therefore,
of the opinion that the trial court was in error in granting a new
trial. It is therefore ordered that the order granting a new trial
be reversed and that judgment be entered here for plaintiff in the
amount of the verdict, to-wit: $5,000.
ORDER REVERSED AND JUDGMENT ENTERED HERE FOR PLAINTIFF FOR $5,000
DENIS Ee SULLIVAN, PeJe AND HEBEL, J. CONOUR,
i Seaaerere oa eTow aogemsh odd reds seidtesogatl Viisolaydd, bas olds
; attyebltte edt tedt ,tedtiol ‘seotbuborg has Ho5geeg, node, ot 86
tseqqa. ot ‘Biitatela te txeag ed? mo t1otie. peered sted a mode best
te noiteeup out edt bas avpeaauevres, 29 senetorg. 8 w wt, oad oF
isixt sdt to noitexoetb add ekdthe. Vi hody ei isint wen 8 guttaarg
edt bas ativebittes of¢ .teiné edt at bequbbe gonebive | fc) _pttgoo
e! Leenvoo Vitsesr ot atost to e¢sta om saofonid ates, aut to gatbalt
eeso oft" tadd af taaheeted yi beware tatoq, ying. edt oaproneiat
te i saeligas ods Oo puotaetee tot tema 8 “Pitan Sivow
, eke bi at eeat at arid
vixtaet Dats eile ‘Sem vest one ted? sud utente. ott at ened
et eredt tadd ebulaaos ow 4au exerted hieder ort mort “ bovowesent
ton w2 tokbrov edt tant (ost to snot tesup tue boviovad aitdton a
eoroteredt: Ons Ow bits —eoorebive ont te tdgtow toot inant edd of - yretiaon
“ower 6 gatiaety mi rors at esw tuyoo isixt ost bade nobatge oad to 4
id ca.
‘Leitd won & galdarry tebro ont dont bexobro. ptoterod? ef tf f aisixt q
edt at Mitatota aot ered betotas ed tant ‘tedt 2 bas beetover of
re rile yeLbrev'eit to tauoms
fen? to _ eee Te
00048? fot wurmiraat HOw 58 GunagHa Teerty. cia bic 5 oe rie.
mtb:
PUA %
rUDKOD: i sass Citk Ht suri ee q
if
" )) Me va
agowiey et *o toakenw teetinan ©
4 “te
Pres triguislg te gionteeee |
; einen oko dau
38980
WILLIAM SKINNER, JOSEPH SKINNER,
WILLIAM H. HUBBARD, as Trustees ‘i
of WILLIAM SKINNER AND SONS, a APPEAL FRO
Massachusetts Common Law Trust,
(Plaintiffs) Appellants, MUNICIPAL COURT
Ve
OF CHICAGO.
THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, a
corporation, as Trustee under the
Sfinert | 290 1A. 607!
(Defendant) Appellee,
MR. JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment
entered by the court for the defendant. Plaintifis! action was
based upon the amended statement of claim, wherein it is alleged that
on December 22, 1933, the plaintiffs were in possession of certain
premises known as Nos. 367-375 West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois,
under and by virtue of an assignment of lease ending December 31,
1934, An agreement was entered into on December 33, 1933, whereby
the plaintiffs agreed to pay, and did pay in advance, a sum equal
to the entire year's rental under the aforesaid assignment of lease
for the year 1934, namely $19,000, and defendant agreed to terminate
the lease on January 31, 19354, From the agreement itself, which is
attached to the amended statement of claim, it appears -
" * * * that the party of the first part (defendant) may in
its discretion relet the said premises, or any part thereof,
for such rent and upon such terms and to such persons and for
such period or periods as may seem advisable to party of the
first part (defendant), but party of the first part shall not
be required to do any act whatsoever or exercise any diligence
whatsoever, in or about the procuring of another occupant or
tenant, party of the second part (plaintiffs) hereby waiving
the use of any care of diligence by party of the first part
(defendant) in the reletting thereof,"
The agreement, so it is alleged in this amended statement of claim,
further provides that on or before January 15, 1935, defendant was
to pay the plaintiffs any sum received from such reletting during
the period beginning February 1, 1934, and ending December 31, 1934,
09888
Prrtte HaSZOb mT 38 Mata mH.
rene i) a6 “anda . oH BATIS
: <QKOE CHA “ARMMTNS VALIIIW to ,.,
tale? wed nommod ettearsdosasen ~
‘UO LAtrorMeH Eo" atasiledqa ~ tettidateiq)
sORKOIEO %
5 (YeAduod ‘Tedit iimtaoN ant”
'vO 09° eT 0 Q g mia tromatest ita Litw fend!
RMON te ehoageneh asenvh: wh.
»THVOO BUT WO MOTKIGO ANT GABUVIAEC UdaaH worTeuL .AM’ AY" M8!
$romgbut s mort efticnisl edt yd Iseqcs ax et akdt
gov notte: Valtivnlelt .patbtotebd ed¢ tot trod eit yo beretay
tect bogetle ef ti ateredw ymislo to frewetate bebaems oft iin bie"
‘istreo to modesewecg Ht erew attitnielg ont |. SeeL . SS redmessd mo”
petonklil yogsoidd ,toette ameba tedW STS-VSE ceo ae mwoit edetsiorg ”
iE redmeced gaibae ovsel to taomegives ts to outttv yd bos rebie
wWeredw .ceeL .S8 redmesed ao oti Serotne eaw tuemeetys MA” Beer
Ieype ma s ,sonevbe at yeq DEh bate , yer oF beste VIT2tntel¢ Sith”
easel to dmemrgices blecerots oct tebuy Lstaer ersey oxtine eit of
etenimret ot beotTgs tmabmoteb bas ,COO,C18 yLomen ,AeCL rsey edt sot i
‘at dotdw ,tieedt tusueerse edt amet .deCL LO yreunet no sesel oft
- atseqas ti ,misio to taemetete bebnome edt oF bedoatits
ai yom (taebmeteb) traq stet£t edt to siren | edt tedt * * *.%
Seused? ttaq yas to ,eeeimera Hise edt toler moitetoeld até
zot bas anceteg dove of bas emtes dowe moqy bas tast dove tot
ont to ytxveq ot eldseivbe meee yam an ebolreq to bolfteq dove
tom Ifede trsq tetit sdt to ytaso tud .(tasbaeteb) txsq tatit —
eonegif{lbh yas sefotex® to taveoetadw foe yas ob ot bextupet ed |
to taequooo tedtons to gatmootq edt twods zo at yteveostadw
giivisw ydeted (attitaisiq) t2eq baooee edt to yirsq araeut
tusq teatit edt to Versg yd eonegilib to sise by to sey edt
" tooredt anittelor odd at (Inebaorsb)
etislo to taemetsia bebmomes edt mt bogetis al ti oe ytnomeorges oat
aaw tashasteb coder ot yrseneb sroted to mo tedt sebivotg etd
ga icuh gait toLes dove mort bevieoor me | ettitately ond veg ot
(8CL .L8 tedmeoed anthas bas SOL gf Yrewtdet petaniged botron “ |
2
after certain deductions and commissions to agents figured at a
certain ratee
It is further alleged in the amended statement of claim
that on June 29, 1934, defendant relet said premises to a certain
new tenant st a monthly rental of $640.00 for a term apparently
beginning on May 1, 1935, but that the defendant actually agreed
to and did give said new tenant possession of the premises during
the month of September, 1934, until Mey 1, 1935, rent free,
The defendant filed its affidavit of merits to the amended
statement of claim, wherein it admits that on or about December 22,
1933, plaintiffs were in possession of the premises as set forth
in the amended statement of claim; that the agreement of December
22, 1933, was entered into between the parties; and alleges that
by virtue of said agreement the lease under which the plaintiffs
were in possession on December 22, 1933, was terminated on January
S1, 1934, and that thereafter the plaintiffs had no right or interest
whatsoever in or to said premises, the ownership of said premises
and the right to possession thereof being vested exclusively in
defendant after January 31, 1934,
It is further alleged as a part of the defense that under
the agreement of December 22, 1933, the defendant was under no duty
to relet the sforesaid premises for the period beginning February dp
1934, and ending December 31, 1934, and it is admitted in this
affidavit of merits that the defendant granted the new lessee the
right of occupancy of said premises for a period beginning Januayy 1,
1935, and ending April 30, 1935, rent free, in consideration of the
agreement of the new lessee that its business would be operated on
the demised premises not later than January 31, 1935,
In suppert of the allegations of the amended statement of
Claim and affidavit of merits, the parties entered into a stipulation
of facts, which was the only evidence before the court, with the
&
# ts bewsgit etaege of nat tantenes bas anoitoubeb atstzeo rodte
, : stor abadreo
misfo to ¢uemetete bebasms sat mi bogetis xodtat ef. ot oe
ftisttes © of exeelmetq bise tolet tgsbasteb ,d0eL 0g odiiiane: tedt
yltasrsces oret s tot CO,Oh8e to Ietaer yidtneom .« ts tasnet won
beetygs yileustos teabasteb oft tadt dud Reel .f yek ao. Scaastes
‘gadtab avelmorg ead to aotespezoq: ‘dnenst wed biee ovdg bib basa
(bork tor 280L .f oll Litay .08eL <docustqe? to itn0n ont
bebsome ont ot stitom-to tivebitie ett belit dnebasted od?
.28 redmeoed tyode to mo ted? etimbse tf atotedw qatalo.to taemetste
ditret sen as esetmorc ocd to aotesoeadg al erew attitaielq ,séeL
Tedmecet to tdemeergs ent tedt gatelo to taemetete bebnews ont iad
- edt eogeliae baa yeettued odd agowted otal bexrstae sew SSCL 488 -
’ gtrttatelq edt doidw cobas sesel edd taomootga Dise to outrey xa
URUNSl go hotsiierot eew SECL gS Tedme0e0 zo mosevouRoqems orew
seoretat vo digix om bad aktitetsiq edd tettsored? sedt bas ghdOL. 418
vgeetmetg bise.to qiderenwo edd ,noptmerq bios o+ to aL. t9eveortedy
gt ylovieuloxe betacy gaied. toauseds, molapoasoq ot, tigét, odd bas
Kill divide Meuie ‘He Kee SOL i> yrowtiel rotts: saskyeteb
yeoman tadt seneteb edt to teeq 0 ef hogelia) sedtryt ef FEp~ os 0%
ydubom rebar aaw dusbreteb oft .B8CL,.88. redmeoed to) taomeergs edt
qf yenrdel gatnatged beiveq: edt tot eeetmetq Alsserots edt toLot, ov
aidt ai bettiobs ai tt bas abies ote yodasoed:: Lewonaliveads vee
ov oesaed won odd boomer, tasbaered odd test tinea to: atvebints
et vrauact pataniged boktog & tot ‘eoetmorg bites: to yoraquace Ro tats
odd to foitersh Lane mt wont tao 1280L 408 Livga. gatbas bas 4e8@l
mo beteteqe ad biuow: avomteud. eth: teat evens: weer: edt to saomestys
8265 aft yaauast asdt xotet ton ‘oetuong boatueb edt
to eet dd bebrons as to eaotteyesis adit to Frog aT hoes on
<v gut
soltelugite 8 otal berotme eolsreg edt getizon to tivabstta bas tele
BRoRs &
edt cttw sfm00 od oroted ‘sonebive tn edt Holle wokdw (gatost: ‘ko -
dat
oot ‘ 2oeL yl yrnerdet atinntged bedvoq edt -
ie,
2
exception of the testimony of one witness,
From the pleadings and the stipulation of facts entered
inte by the parties, the sug of $19,000.00 was paid by the plaintiffs
to the defendant under the agreement of December 22, 1933, entered
into between the parties, This sum was equal to the agreed rental
whieh the plaintiffs were required to pay for one year's occupancy
during the year 1934 of the premises in question.
It further appears from the stipulation of facts submitted
to the court that on December 22, 1933, the plaintiffs were in
possession of the premises, as alleged in the amended statement of
claim; that the agreement of December 22, 1933, attached to the
amended statement of claim, was entered into between the parties;
that on June 29, 1934, defendant entered into a lease of ssid
premises with a new tenant as lessee for a period of five years
beginning May 1, 1935, at a monthly rental of $640.00, the sum of
$640,000 for the first month's rent being payablé upon: the execution
of the lease and further payments beginning June 1, 1935; that the
lease provided that the lessee (the new tenant) should have the
right of occupancy of said premises from January 1, 1935, to April
30, 1935, rent free, in consideration whereof the new tenant agreed
to occupy the premises as soon as practicable after January 1, 1935,
and not later than January 31, 1935; that on or about July 14, 1934,
the defendant entered into a subsequent agreement with the _—
tenant granting occupancy of the premises on August 2, 1934, without
payment of rental for the period beginning that day and extending
to the beginning of the written lease; that the new tenant occupied
said premises on or about October 1, 1934, and continuously there-
after during the period of time in question in this suit, but paid
no rent for the period beginning September, 1934, and ending
December, 1934, On August 3, 1934, the plaintiffs advised the
defendant that the plaintiffs objected to the contemplated arrange=
bers shectiin oe to yromiteet aft te moliqsoxs
‘beretme atost to notteivgtte edt bas agatbsels adt motto> ©)
ettitaisiq adt yd bieq aan 00.000,810 to Que edt ,eolimeg Gdt yd otal
bemedne .SEGL S&S redmeoet to dremesngs edd t9bty taebasteb ent oF
Istaes, beergs edt ot Isuoe ase ave elit seolinsg ef? moewted otak
yosaquooo g'xsey S10 col yeq et bevinpes etow Bi titmisiq edt dobsiw
gwolteoup ai aeeimenq edd to MOCL taoy edd garkrub
AMetbinden atest to, nofdsipaite, oft maxi pareeqqa tedteut t2) csion ony
o« dth evew etitdaiela edd ECL .8& redeoet: ao: wets trtoo edt of
to taemetata babpome add mi: bageiis ae ,neeimerg, eft to nokesestog’
ett of boosts ~lseL .88 wedmeoeG to tnemeotgs edd tet ymselo!
qesitted end meewted ofat beresae sew ,misio to tremetste bebaoms’
. bise to sesel s.otui horetne taaebuotob .d38L 48s seal i Salt :
avesy svit to boizeq e tot seeael es dusmet won a déiw aeetmerg’
te mye edt .00.088¢ to Letaer yLddnom a de .e8@L .t yee gainniged
eid-dedé ,88@L ,f saul gainatged etnemyeq tedétut bre eecol’ ont to
edd oved biyode (tusned wen ett) segeel odt todd bebivorq easel”
Lixgh of ,@8CL .L Yraunsl sort sectmeng bisevte yousquese tovdigiz’
beorge gasnet won od? tosrodw aoiteteblemod ni eect taot ,2bCL ,08
e88@L.f yreuasl. retie eldsoitostg os so9e ss epeisetg eds Yyquono ov!
ehSCL, ht ylob. tueds co) mo, tedt ,28@L ySS: yxavael nadd xredel tom baa’
wae edt dtin taomeetgs taevpgedue s otal boretme cashaeteb edd.
tuoddiw ,85GL. seuggd oo eoaimerg, od¢ to yousquoee yaitaerg! tasded
_» gakhaotxe bas yab stadt goilantged boireq ede tot Latner to taomysq”
beiqueso tnaged wou edt teat joeaed natticy edt to guianiyed ent of -
_ —pxeddy Uavounttaoo bre _dS@L .f tedotoo tuoda to no eesimetq bise
: bheq dud «tive gtddmfimotteeup abvemit to botreq edd -gaiwuborstte!
gathas bas ,dSeL, grodmetqe® gainatged beiveq edt 6% taet on
edt boatvbs ettitaielq edt .28eL e® taxgud 20 - “oghBOL | toximadad © }
~ogaerte bodsiquotace edt-ot betospdd vethitmtelg eit tadttnalinsteb?
4
ments giving the new lessee possession of the premises for the
months of September, October, November and December, 1934, without
paying reasonable and fair rental for use and occupancy.
The only witness who testified was Milton R, Simon, He
testified he was an officer of the new tenant and that prior to
entering into the new lease the new lessee had a lease in the
Merchandise Mart which expired May 1, 1935, and that the new tenant
paid rental under the Merchandise Mart lease up to the time of its
expiration. A motion was made to strike thia testimony, on which,
Tuling was reserved by the courts
The quéstion involved is based upon the provision in the
agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant as to the
accountability of the defendant in reletting the premises in
question, Evidently the object of the instrument was to permit the
tenant, the Western Hosiery Company, to vacate the premisea and the
defendant to have possession for rental purposes, By this provision
the defendant was permitted in its diseretion to relet the said
premises, or any part thereof, for such rent and upon such terms,
and to such persons and for such period or periods as might seem
sdvisable to the defendant,
What does the word "rent" mean? In a popular sense and
a sense in which persons have learned to understand the word, it
means payment for the use of property, whether in money, merchandise
or services: at fixed intervals provided for by the agreement
between the partiess
While it is true that under the terms of the agreepent
in question the defendant was under no duty to let the premises
for the period beginning February 1, 1934, and ending December 31,
1934, it was empowered to permit the new tenant to take possession
of the premises upon the payment of rental for the use thereof,
This is evident when we consider that the plaintiff paid the
B
edd? tot essinerq odt to Hokeaspeod eseeel wan ait gaivig etnon
deorntiv ebeOx etedmsoed hae codmevel ,redotoo ,redmetqes to adtnom
eYouaquece bas sau tot ietner tist bas eldenosadr gatyeq
OH sHomiS of. motile aay boitidveest odw eebntiw ylao eff >) 99! oF
O% volvg ted? bue traned wea eft To teoltte me bew Si Dott iteed
ent af eesel o bet oseeel went edd eaael wen oat ont gnirotne
tusnet wen adt tedt bee ,@8CL .f ye Seriqnxe dolde trod cetbastorey
eth to omit edt ot qu senel tre eelbasidoreM sat tebay Latner bisq
commas fo .Yonitact eidt exivte oF sham wew aoitow A ' Vaolkteriqxe
| gttwoo. oft bevreser weir grtine
edt ah moleivorq edt moquy beesd al beviovnal moltesrp edT 6 jo8co-
i) (edd of ew tasbasteb edt Boe sttitatalo sit aeowsed tnemeengs
mk eoeimorg odt gnitveler ai taednetrod. on? to ytilidstavocos ©
edt timtsq ot een taomytiant oft to toetdo edt yLinebiva © snofteeyp
oft bas aveiserg edt sieosv of Ynequod yreleoH oreteoW edd \tnaret
mo tetvors eidd Ya .eenoqurg Letner tor nokewsenog oved’ of tasbasted.
\ Dpiee off telex of mokveroatb etd nf bertimteq sew tishaereb ont
~wred Hove noc bas trot dove rot ,tooredd trsq yrs’ to "{ebelmorg
) oee eign as ebotteg to bolceq dove vot bas enoereq Movi oF bre
FRE PT: LARK OMT Gttsbaoteb ‘odd 6? eideeivds —
Ube: eee teltuqog # At Taben drow" brow eit boob: sam HII OF
0 PE gbuow oct bneterebay of bearsel. evel eHooreq’ Horw'it Senee®
setbasdorem ,Yorom af reittede \Yrreqdty To Say wHy Tot TmoMysy Babel
‘teameetgs sft yd Ter 7 eisvretnt bexlt te (essivres to
paolttisd oft noewted
Sregootge att to entret sid rebay gett ents Bl th ekidPo ore er
~ eselmorq odt tol ot yteb om, rebay wew tashneteb edt aotteeyp nt
gL tedmoost yatbes bas SSL .L Yrevtdet gaturkged bobrey edt tot
noleespeog etet of teane? wen edt thareg of betowoqme saw #P Gheer
stootedd sex oft rok Intast ko thesyet edt noqu esetinony ent to
edi btsq tritntele eff tadt webfendd ow new trobive ret att?
5
defendant $19,000 for the unexpired period and that the purpose
of the agreement was to permit the defendant to rent the premises
for the period expiring December 31, 1934, such rental te be within
the discretion of the defendant.
The plaintiff contends and cites a number of authorities
upon the proposition that where one promises to pay out of a
certain fund the promisee has no cause of action unless the fund
was actually created or unleas being under obligation to use due
diligence in creating the fund, the promissor failed to use due
diligence or prevented the creation of the fund.
The answer to this contention is that it became necessary
for the defendant to deliver possession of the premises without the
payment of rent, in order to comply with the understanding with
the Western Hosiery Company that this tenant was to have such
possession before the beginning of the five year lease from May l,
1935,
“hile the act of the defendant made it impossible to comply
with the agreement with the plaintiff, under the terme of the agree-
ment in question the defendant was to rent the premises to such person
and for such period as the defendant deemed advisable, still when
the defendant did deliver possession of the premises within the
period provided for in the sgreement, defendant was to pay the sum
received or which should have been received for such reletting
during the period from February 1, 1934, and ending December 31,
1934, after the deductions provided for in the contract, This
provision empowered the defendant to relet the premises for the
amount deemed reasonable, and upon receipt of the funds, the defendant
was required to account for the amount received, less the deductions
provided for in the contract,
The act of the defendant was not within the intent of the
parties when the contract was exeouted, and the defense offered by
‘a
sdogttic sift todd Ama Botvec Detigxeny Sid cot O00.eL% #aabdoten
““gselmoty edt ‘Iner of tasbasteb edt #imzéeq ot ‘esw fasmeeye ‘edd to
aidtiw ed d* Ledwex dome BOL’, If tedmecet yabriqxe ‘bofxeq oid ‘not
gg bees , "" Sasbasteb edt to no tteroath edt
seltizodiue to redmun 2 eotio bas’ ‘abuedice Witatstq oe
“a to duo yao ot eecimora eno ‘eredw teak’ “t lilebasie ‘odd yp
oe bets ‘ont seslau mottds ‘te deuso on aad ose inorg edt bast ‘Giséae0 20%
ub sey of moidagiido gebac gated Pekiau se Bedsexe eh hed" nde
OO Sub aau oF Befict Toertmora ‘edt baw | edt ‘galtaoro at “ponegtith
bast od¢ to adkisero dt betaeverg x0. somes. La
yrseesoon ‘omeced # tadd ef ‘noktastaoo eidt of piped ‘ed?
eat duo dtiw aeciweta ‘edd ‘to tio Faeadboy <ovtteb ot ¢ dusbasteb ee
tie guibdsterébay ed? dtiw ylqmoo of webxo mt inet ec) nl
| Odie owed of Rew Ydemed wid? tet? yaeqmod YroléoH avefeeW Odi
on wit aot ‘Waiel x tact over ent to henrsiitdhe odd if aeted ib neta,
_ ye enamels: - Seana” ga POO D8 Sey
*
vignes ot pee a eng peerearn ott, to jos. yin PLA en rae’ oie
— eoTgs. oat, to amzed eft tehay «thitaielg edt dtiw taemeergs edd dite
sonreq, fovea, of peaimetg sdt tua ot aay dashasteh edd solteeyp at, taem
medw iftte ,eldseivhs besesh tusbasteb, edt eo boireq dove tot, bas
., ott aidtin eseimerg edt to modeesesog reviled bib tasbaoteb edt
nua edt Yeq of asw tashusish ,tagmeetes adt mt, tot bebiverg, hotxeq
gaitielor dove sot bevisoer ased owad, biuoda doldn, xo, bevieoer
a sedmaoe? gaiose dae .60L .f yrausdel, mort, bodxeg edt gadeab
sift stosrtmoo oct af sot bebiverq anottoubed, add xotte, q@hbOl
al A
edt rot, asetmerg silt, telex ot taphasteb, eit. borewegme noletvotq—
| tnsbasteb edd .ebavt. edt to sgtecet, segs bas ,eldesoasor bomesh, davoms
— qrodtaubeb. at ages, .bovtooon Payne A OO DONE AO
edt to pareny edt oidtiw ton, ssw “nm ebmet as ‘os to, pee bi Eee he
vd betetto, ssacteb, edt bas. .betwpexs, een, tostinoo, odt.aedw ehtnes
i
4
6
the defendant is not available and would be in violation of the
terms of the contract.
The plaintiff contends that in the event of a reversal
of the judgment for the defendant judgment may be entered by this
court for the amount alleged to be due the plaintiff.
Upon the question of evidence supporting the clai, of
damages, it is not clear that the sum of $640.00 paid by the
tenant for the period of its lease with the defendant establishes
such damages as would support the claim of the plaintiff. This
amount ae a monthly rental paid under a lease to begin May 1,
1935, and continue for five years, is not a proper basis upon
which the court may assess plaintiffe' damages.
This evidence is not proper for the reason that the
amount of damages is for the reasonable rental value of the
premises during the remainder of the period of the leasehold.
There being a leck of competent evidence in the
record on the auestion of damages, and in view of our expression
regarding the merite of this controversy, the judgment is
reversed and the cause is remanded,
REVERSED AND REMANDED,
DENIS K, SULLIVAN, P. J. AND
HALL, J. CONCUR,
aay
yy iy ee as sain Op yee aie,
oh, io iypatonene Ai, od. | bhuwon bas, annem tom a8. frsbeszeb i thy,
| ead wea gtoanence eft: 20 art,
| huaeovns & to toove edd aut tent abaotaco 0 AREAL ALG ed? toy oat
«aide yd beretae ed yom taomgbart dushasteb edt xot tapebui edt to .
’ thitaiaig at aah od ot begetis Suse
Fo Bie An nate
ae ee SRE
to gtoso edd guktzoqgim soashive to aotteeup edt aogu Saivt abedaeo
edt yo Rteq 00,0008 Yo mwa edt Ind? xeelo tom a st Tecnu y
is aedatidstso tnabaetoh edt dtiw besad age 2 Ponte ORE te
tasnet
He
aid? .ttbiniale asd to ninto odd troqawe biuow a8 aegaman oy
» of Nee atged et egeot « tehay hisq Late, yidénom au ‘avons
SS aibe = orate ised Mehr) tel Se i ky
| , _ meme WRT tetelg aang yen Puree Ott dotd ae
ost. tds, gonset sit tot tegotg tom at nop nami Pipa bool
abla outs to ppm odt te sohadeues nae adil __
ve edt nf oomahive tmodoquoo to Hdl # gated srédto
Niaamumaee ‘aio to weiv di fae (seyamab Yo netdiens “Oat "x6. boot”
no826 as’ ieee edt tvanenhenety atdt to atitim ont: :
| toin Litte swidandvia bebasmew ihememaaicad vere”
50? Sf@eCMAMSt OMA GeeaVE 6 or ewe. vovele y pad duabeetess ese
Hue O4¢ Eri od oan gashartes see et Roh ieveee, elses ‘
i : et r ee Deer iste ak! eA a aoe ee ae RA © ae oe ee Ma
yt txryos
» oe mogy
oe ee ee ee ee
a a ee WS
‘4 =i paigaanoml Se eR ee
HOD 4b,
gai 1 EERO CSS BOE RI, SOMITE yi RM en SERA. i Pea: aid foie:
gioaarituoadn elt mi “cad Betrowe sie t bhai CEE Lie meee: ‘
were. audit: cee. ced haa hat. oct Reoreereqne mad wie vt 7
erogTOuHes CFF wert, . har heaog UF OES ane aot PRUCHOD Git Peniionn ae
nai ORR DCD. Au a spe bes,
adi to suetal add widtin dom, are, gaebmemee ede. ta ram, roi a
a ee
yd boretio, tageteh, sd? Aas. ~peiooote ayy opts Ce od
39067
RIDGEWOOD CEMETERY COMPANY, a APE
sorporation, i on
Appellee, PERIOR {COURT
Ve
CHRISTINA PEARSOL, GOOK COUNTY.
Appellant. 29 0 Toy 6 Q rae
MR. JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE CouRT.
The plaintiff, Ridgewood Cemetery Company, an Illinois
Corporation, filed its bill of complaint in equity agsinst Christina
Pearson, defendant, The cause was heard before the court and resulted
in a decree finding that the facts slleged in the bill of complaint
were true and granting to the plaintiff the relief prayed for in its
bill, from which decree the defendant appeals.
The decree finds that on April 25, 1924, the plaintiff
agreed to sell and the defendant agreed to buy Lots 124 and 130 in
Section 3 of the cemetery grounds owned by the plaintiff and located
in Cook County, Illinois; that the contract covering the sale provided,
among other things: "These lots are sold with the gusrantee they
will double in value in twenty-four months or this contract is null
and void and all moneys refunded;" that thereafter plaintiff conveyed
said lots to the defendant by deeds; that on October 4, 1928,
defendant brought suit in the Municipal Oourt of Chicego against the
plaintiff, which was an action for a refund of the purchase price
paid for said lots, and in which suit it was alleged that the lots
head failed te double in value in twanty-four months; that the trial
of the cause in the Municipal Court which was had before the court
without a jury, resulted in a judgment against the plaintiff herein
for $2,200, which judgment plaintiff (who wes defendant in that action)
appealed to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District; that
the latter court, om said appeal, reversed the aforesaid judgment of
the Municipal Court, and entered judgment against the plaintiff herein
= Ne
| s gXWaq“oo WRATIUTD qoows: Le |
ako ltaxeg ;
A aes
e¥THUQO 300d | , } “HOBAATS. ANI TeLAKD
“F009 sil ocd oA) £2. Soes. endorse alebdinmads
»TAVOO ZHT YO WOIUIGO BHT aINavIseG MideH worredt ra
efomtiit 8 “ymsquied yretemed Boowogbhi .thitntale edt
anttelsdo tenlege ‘tiupe ai tutelquos to ifid att petit’ tot Peroqrod
betiuvest bas ttv0e of? etoted breed esw gamed OAT tasbasteb .sOateet
te. —," te y ithe add at he armen ‘ite diese esp as
epee
seLsoqas tnsbasteb edt soroeh doldw'mort itd
“*Peedutelq odd .aSeL (ae Leg mo delld abart vetoed edt ©°!°"
| aE OBE be bas sieteriioieribt Es EA ot +apttae
te yout eetastayy add cit bw ‘bloe 91s ‘stot geod” le tTedto getoms
agit, tosrsa00 eld xo eddtmom swot—ytaend ‘al dutev at S£duob Eft.
bexevace | ttisnisiq ‘rodteoteds dadt Fibres — bad ban _—
#1 )
ent tentegs ogzolidd to tered Leqtotnal eat mt tive ‘tiguord tasbneteb
he eeing secdotuq adt to Bavtet a tot moivos ne asw promen wittatsla
sto ot tadt boygolle eaw tt tive doidw al bas ,atos biae wot bie
feixtt edt tadt jadtnaom twot—ytaawt at oulev at itdab ot befist bed
+ i <
Ta0es | :
txv0o edt eroted bad esw doidw txv00 Leqtotav ed¢ mi eeuso exe’ ‘~ 3
alerted ttitatelo edt tenteyge taemgbst 2 ai betivest (wwt s tuodtiw
(nottos tedt at tusbasteb aew odw) Ttitatsla dnomgbut dotdw 008, 8H tot
tedd ;tolgtelG tarli pntenh Ent ‘to —" oteLtoqa edt of Apne Mf
ateted 2ttdntelq edt tentegs inengbut a bre ytxs00 ee ede |
\ be yaae ye
Oe
2
for $1,145, and costs expended in the Municipal Court, and entered
judgment against defendant for costs expended by the plaintiff in
the Appellate Court, both of which judgments in the said Appellate
Court were thereafter duly satisfied and discharged, all as alleged
in the bill of complaint herein, by virtue of which the Superior
Court finds that the agreement to sell, and the conveyance of said
lots pursuant thereto to the defendant, became and are wholly null
and void, and that plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for in
its bill of complaint herein,
The decree further provides that Christina Pearson,
defendant, be and is enjoined from selling, conveying or otherwise
disposing of thé two cemetery lots in question, and that the contract
of April 25, 1924, between the plaintiff and the defendant respecting
said lots, and the deeds of conveyance from the plaintiff to the
defendant, conveying the same, are declared wholly null and void;
that title to the lots is deemed to be vested in Ridgewood Cemetery
Company, plaintiff, to whom Christina Pearson, defendant, is
ordered and commanded to execute and deliver s formal instrument of
conveyance and quit claim covering the lots.
This decree is supported by an oral stipulation by the
parties in open court substantially as follows;
That the judgment entered by the Appellate Court of
Illinois, First District, in Case No» 33485, was fully paid by
Ridgewood Gemetery Company to Christina Pearson before the filing of
the bill of complaint in this csuse;
That any demand by Ridgewood Cemetery Company upon
Christina Pearson for the return of the cemetery lots in question,
after the rendering of the judgment and opinion of the Appellate
Court in Case No». 33485, would be unavailing and that any such demand
would be refused by her, regardjess of the fact thet the Cemtery
Sompany had paid to her the amount of money referred to in the opinion
Hig
boretae bas .¢100 faqtotau odd ai bebaenxe atect bas Rootes tor
Tage Titsiely edt yd bebmagxe stego tot snehaoded tustane tramgbet
‘etelloqqa bine edt af etaompbut folaw to died .dasod’ eta Lleqga odt
bagelle on Lig ‘ebogtedoe lh bas bottelioe ylub coftteoredt etew txvod
coiveqne act deide to sutxiy yd .aiered trtalgaom to [itd edt at
bise to sonsyovmce att bas ,llea ot taomeergs edd tedt abait txuo0d
fisice yilosw ere bas oasoed atasbhasteb one ot. oteteds Pswet atol
ai sot hoysrg better edt of beltisae st Phagatela, tedt bas .biov bas
pees wileted taletqmoo, to. hanon
| pt @tS6S. enttntadd. tedt aebiverg teditwt eexeeh eft. . a)
Pe, patyroto xo gaiyevaoo .gaillee mort beatojas ef das ed. ieee,
oerénoe ot tant one ,otteoun at stot yretemes owt dt to aaivogeth,
“gabtoogess tashaeteb odd bas tiltatetg edt, Koon tes sel as fingd to
sit ot Tiitatedg edt wort sonayevace to sheab oft bas ,atol bise.
mn jbtoy bas tiva vi flow bereloeb OTs, gone edt gatyoyaos. _stanbneted,
_yaotemed boowsgbis ak beteey, od of bemesb, ok paOF, odd OF, eftht tate
ef ,tashaetab toeTse% saitetrds mode ts hac "
™, fmemuseent Learo% 8 teviieb pas ete 4 xe
a | setol edt BatzByes. nage, flaw a ren.
‘boos exis wd notvsiuqite fare as ys bots
ys . ‘My onren*., ehat Boos baa i
wilt ee sawollok ae vitatgastedue tuo 9G. ak salty.
Hayat “te faw0l etaiieags odd yd beretae tnemahut edt tedt |. .
__ JH Bieg YLivt oon «GNSS 0K easO at qtodsteid tactt seem,
to palit ent etoted moat294, satdetes® oF Yraqmod yrotemey boowagbli
| _. Adeuee ahd? ad gadetgnee 20, LE2M et,
oats sper yrstone boowesbt ye baemeh yar ted? « Siroa te
to iteeup ak etot Yroteneo | eat te ANTE ont FOr, MoaT SOT ea. taixdd
staLiocch est 20 motntge bas amomsbut, ot Yo getrsbaes eft notte.
basmeb siowe yas tedd bas eta, a ‘bi ” r m BONS 0 enad MR: q
3
and judgment of the Appellate Court rendered in that case;
That the opinion and judgment of the Appellate Court of
Iliinois, are fully and correctly set forth in the bill of complaint,
and are the pom opinion and judgment referred to by Christina
Pearson in her answer filed in this cause, and relied upon by her
ag a defense in these proceedings.
In this case of Christi Pearson laintiff) Appelie
V» Ridgewood Cemetery Company, (Defendant) Appellant, the Appellate
Court of Illinois in its opinion said;
"Plaintiff Christina Pearson in her statement of claim,
filed in the Municipal Court October 4, 1928, charged that on
April 25, 1924, she entered into a certain contract in writing
with the defendant for the purchase by her of two cemetery lots
from the defendant, Ridgewood Cemetery Company, for the sum of
$1,000.00. The contract was in writing and contained the
following provision:
(These lots are sold with the guarantee they will double
in value in twenty-four months or this contract is null and
void and all moneys refunded, !
From the testimony it appears thet the plaihtiff paid
the sum of 61,000.00 in full for the lots in question, as
provided fer in the contract. The last and final installment
was made in January, 1926, which was less than two years after
the making of the contract,
It is insisted on behalf of the defendant that, by
aceepting her deed in full, she waived any rights under the con-
tract. Defendant argues that, in order that plaintiff might be
able te maintain an action under the contract, she should allege
and prove rescission and notice to defendant within a reasonable
time after the cause of rescission arose and became known to
the plaintiff. With this we cannot agree. Moreover, plaintiff
en duly 5, 1928, offered to return to the defendant the lots in
guéestion together with the deeds and contracts appertaining
thereto, which was refused, She could do no more.
After having made her final payment on her contract,
she wes entitled, under the terms of the agreement, to wait
until the expiration of the twenty-four months, And, in fact,
an election by her to rescind before that time would have been
premature, Moreover, she was not required to resort to equity
in order to exercise any right of rescission, but was entitled
tO maintain an action at law on the contract for breach of
guaranty. Having a right to an action at law, she could bring
her action at any time within the statutory period of limitations,
There was some evidence in the record, as shown by her
testimony, from which the court could conclude that the lots in
question had not doubled in value and, as it was a trial before
the court without a jury, every intendment should be indulged
in favor of the finding, The judgment entered in the cause,
however, based on the finding of the court, appesrs to have been
on the theory that she was entitled to twice the amount of the
sum paid for the lots,
s
{eeso Feat mz berebuer drvod erat tte on? to tmomgbut bne
to tod Stelloqgs edt 16 taomghut bar nolntco oad deer OOO,
~talsiquoe to Litd edt at ditret tee ytoerteo Sars: viint ers” Letenstit
eRiteiad® yd of bervetor teemsbet Bas molaiqo omee ed} Ore bas
Tod YS nocw bokler baa .sewns aide at belit tewene red wt odereS4
. gagatheeterg seedt al eametoeb’ 8 as
atalieges edt cite
|
|
;
rbiae mokmtao eth’ me” senaie to” rant
~eislo to tremetete ted ak eéereed hj Sy jtitiabelt tek
go tedt hegisds ,38el 3 tedoteo tru0d Lag ete ad 1 OLR. an
— ee ee
ee, al: toarénee aiatreo's me apr e*
eto AF hb $9 owt To ted yd sae rts adv x
39 mus edt Tot ,yasqmed yrstemed woubit cehabatte ee
oat benketage bas gadtiow ra oom ow fooxing0. oa 3008
‘plduob iliw yedt seinen edt. Ath ghter lg ejol sue 92 i
‘hae lon ey foartao0 ehie <9 ed trom twot-yiaerst a Fates ved
ebebaytet eysaom Lis agai
Ae Stee tc Pe tt (at
rite rat id dace dl Gen a ide caeer ‘aia ‘ea ae
yd otedt tnebasteb od? bo ust D ree a ME ozo.
“HOD ‘eile sober adds ic bey beviaw ko ia at boat, ide a's
od dfgim ttitnisly tedt tehro mk ted
ogeifs bivode sde ,fostines sit ca, pe “at tal ot ye
eidenoaset « aldtiw perp: pall ton x bas ‘Molealoset evorg bas
od aword @usoed bas saote mo peet to a a
ttitaisiq ,revestoM’ .eetge dongs ow eidt dtr”. isitth eg :
mi etoet ede tashasted edt of beige SM at Wea AL 9S, Viet mo
gaintstreqga ypmyw fe on b ; em nokteonio
ates of 00 * 9% 2aW
jfoatines red ao tnemyso Lentt Pirin “taba bate ‘ark orang bad
ToT ree ~~
a ha
gia
= er,
Wy
i
}
éiew ot ,taemostss odt to amiot yl sey s
“~ o¢ost af bad iateod suot-ystaswt edt To ab tigre oc? Ebay Hh
aeed eved biuow emit tad¢ exroted. Aatgaas of 398 i tl ashi
yttupe ot ¢roeet ot betinoet fod eaw oie e
beltitme asw tud.,.cotesioset to 7, abro a
to doserd tot ar ne sagen foie: Jat i wa" # ged: sa of © -e
tad bives ofa wal .ts soltos ™
anetatieit to boiteq ere aa 196 waliche eats an Pa of
tod yd swede es ,broosr edt af .6on @ nsw ated
at etof odt ted? Shufonoo bLvoo ag oat dokew
_etoted Isint 2 anw tl 8s bas oy
boginbal ed bivode tnrombaetn wg 2 veut 8 Dasgeah fom be aatt
F 3 ‘
esuao edt ai hovedne dgemgbyt edt. et oat to gpd wae, |
wood eved ot els gitvoo edt To ge: tt t ion Be beesd ,.t
edt to twoms edt eolwt ot ‘best time BAN ode dade yroodst aia 0. 08,
astol edt rot bhaq awe
From a reading of the guarantee, it appears that she
would be entitled only to the return of her money, together
with such interest as may have accrued thereon from the date
of the final payment until the entry of judgment, The state=-
ment of claim filed in the cause charges that the defendant
refused to refund the money paid by plaintiff and there is
nothing contained in said statement demanding more than that
amount in damages.
A proper judgment in said cause would be for $1,145.00,
same being for principal and interest at the rate of five per
cent to date. The judgment of the Municipal Court is reversed
and judgment entered here for the plaintiff for $1,145.00,"
In the instant case the plaintiff contends that before
the defendant, Christina Pearson, filed her action in the Municipal
Court case, Miss Pearson demanded only a refund of the purchase
price of the lots, and at the trial of that action she again
tendered the lots so that she might recover judgment; that having
recovered judgment in the Appellate Court in the appeal taken from
the Municipal Court's decision, she held the deeds only as security
for the payment of the same, and the judgment being paid she now
holds the deeds in trust for the Cemetery Company.
To this contention the defendant argues that before
instituting her suit in the Municipal Court of Chicago, and during
the course of the trial of that action, she tendered to the plain-
tiff the cemetery lots in question, together with the contract and
deeds covering the same, but the plaintiff refused to accept them,
and that her action in the Municipal Court was an action for damages
for the Cemetery Company's breach of the "guarantee" provision in
its contract with the plaintiff and this provision of the contract
did not become merged in the deeds whieh she had accepted; that by
this action the plaintiff seeks to ferce Miss Pearson to reconvey
the lots to the Cemetery Company and to relitigate questions already
judicially determined; and that therefore this decree is erroneous
and should be reversed,
In the discussion of the merits of this appeal wherein
the defendant was paid the amount of the judgment entered in the
Appellate Court for $1,145 recovered under the terms of a written
ede teft axseqge ti ,estasreyg eft to Sset 8 mott
tedtegot .yeaom tod to muvtet eft of vy. heltitas,ed bigow.
eteb ect mott nestad¢ bewroos eved yam as teovedat dove déiw
-tete off wtasaghyt to _yrtas edd Ettan taonyaq Lanit edt to
toshasteb eft tadd eegtado osyeo edt af belit misio to tnem |
. oo @$ exvedé bas teivaiela ye bisa yertem edt hautex oot beawtet |
tedt qed? sxom gathanmeb cuenetots. isa ai bealetnoo pnt ig
o¢eegemabh o£ savoms.-
0008S, 8 «ot ed bivow eesso bine. sé tnemgis, xaqetq A |
9g ‘ovit to eter off te teovetal bas Laqtoniye tot gnied omse)
beatover ei taved Ieqiolaul edt to taemg oat Rd «Stab ot treo
*,00.84£,.19 tot tiitaieiq edt vot” ore tremghet Das: +
‘ented tadt absetaoe ttitatsiq edd epsd tastenk edtoal
‘Legtotnw eft at sottos tod beLIt .sowteod sattetrt0 .asbastod edt
oesdorug oft to baoutet s:yine Sebrewob noetaef eal .esa0 t1900
gles tage: ede noltos teat to Leite stt te as eors ‘edt to Naas
patvad tent jtaengaut reveoer tty tm ede todd 08! ater oid bexebaet
ere: wotes fseqqs: ont at. ‘teed: otatiegaa ont. a saamaSutBeneve08s
vieu0se aa vido eboeb sdé bled ode 0 tatoo a! e100 “Lette ta edt
wear’ ora. bisg aatod dnomabust: oxtd bas. conse edt x0 troavas ot tot
; «Yarsqno0 yretened’ odd ot tows al “abe oo ones
| “oxoted teat nomryre taabaetob edt notta9¢n09, bide of. B ede
gakteb bas peysotdd to faved: Leqtotnut ont, a tive yee ‘pal dud tuditent
waist edt oF betebaot ede 20 Sos: tout to” isiat edt te senso edt
bers tonrin0o ond thw “Tettogot swostenue at stot rotons 0. edt. tht
tet ee flan
{most tqe008' oF boutor Viitwtete ott dud yemse out: guizevon ebseb
? <evts ake —
segamsb rot notton as cow tv0d Seq toteaa ant at noxton rod teat bas
oh 4 Medley 7
ae notetvory Noetteraiy” oat to docond at ymecmod 4 rad oe wt 5
sh ay See Pa OF ‘ i
toattnoo edt to aotetvera abit: bins wivately oat thw toran00 ett
On hd
ue tect :betaooos batt one He tsie sboob adi at: bogren “enooed' fom bib
a Kokeoede fe. .
qevnooor ot noetse% weit sort ot aiece Mtsatale: ett mottos eidt
Vosexts eno tte sup otsgttiler of: bas ‘egned yrotened out oF tor edt
, suoonor79 at sere, aise onotorodt taut ‘bas: bos taredeh w tis, tote ™
| sbaanee Oat Ah AS poeneres * hanae bas
| * gtereds iseqas.. pirid to: ee od to, <iotie on i By PRee .
_ bas at boredae taomabat, ont te ‘tssois ads bteq ecw
“netéiaw o to emzed edt tobay perevooee § aak,
’
5
contract which provided that "These lots are sold with the guarantee
they will double in value in twenty-four months or this contract is
null and void and all moneys refunded", the rule of law applicable in
a case of this character wherein the defendant contends that she
is entitled to both the money recovered and the lots themselves, is
stated in the case of Osgood v. Skinner, 211 Ill. 229,
"The rule of this court has been that the vendor may elect to
gue for damages or to treat the property as the property of
the vendee, notwithstanding a refusal to accept it, and sue
upon the gontract for the whole contract price, * * * In
Ames v. Moir, 180 Ill. 582, it was held that the vendor has
three remedies; First, to store the goods for the vendee, give
notice that he has done so and recover the full contract price;
second, to keep the goods and recover the excess of the contract
price over and above thé market price of the goods at the time
and place of delivery; and third, to sell the goods at a fair
price and recover from the vendee the loss if the goods fail
to bring the contract price."
While the language indicates that this rule is applicable
to the vendor in that case, it is equally applicable to the vendee
in the instant case. The question here is which one of the three
remedies did the defendant exercise when she sued the plaintiff to
recover the contract price of the cemetery lots.
In the opinion incorporated in the plesdings in this
matter wherein Christina Pearson was plaintiff and the Ridgewood
Cemetery Company was the defendant, the Appellate Sourt in its opinion
said;
“From a reading of the guarantee, it appears that she
would be entitled only to the return of her money, together
with such interest as may have accrued thereon from the date
of the final payment until the entry of judgment. The state-
ment of claim filed in the cause charges that the defendant
refused to refund the money paid by plaintiff end there is
nothing contained in said statement demanding more than that
amount in damages,"
Referring to the above quoted opinion in which the Appellate
Court passed upon the suit for moneys paid by the defendent in the
instant case, it is apparent from the text the court considered that
the action filed by the defendant (the plaintiff in that suit) was
to recover the amount of money paid under the terms of the contract,
and from the contract itself it would appear that in the event. the
estasreug odd dtiw bloa ers etol. easdt” tedt bebtverg doldy tostén00
ei toautnoo eid? ro adtgom mupt-ywaent at evtev at ‘eiduob tein Yous
nt eldsotiqge wel to elu edt ."bebavter ayerom ite bas biov bag Alas
ede tad? ebasteos dosbasteb edt aisrodw wotogtano etd to. eso 8
et ~eevieemeds etol edt baa betevooss “yontoni edt Atos ot belttins et
GSE LIT LS .genatae .¥ booaso to set ‘ott al t Betece
ot tools yom tohasy edt tact seed esd t1uoo eid oat aku eats
to ytreqotq add es werees vn taets of to Gexemed rot ow
sane” nay td eeoyee Ch tenatex ty sit ot 08 tom srobaey. ait.
ert endl zobuov sit fit lod gan #8 «S80 of ae rote! B84
=e ioe alee Sa
5 Te a Batol of ot e olde ixieviteb 0 Isb to |
vebizg foexiao0 86 sit =o
eldeotiqgs ei elu eidt jade ‘aotsonbitt speugast edt ‘Liaw sili
eshaev eae of eldsotiggs vitae al te 19860 ‘teat ar tobuey” ‘oka OF
sexdt eit to ano ‘solide at ore aoktasup edt »easo #nai ec? eit? ‘ht
oF Wintel out deur one mode eelozexe saabasted ‘eit ‘bed ao thenor :
“satel yreteued odf to softy testénon Site devote: .
nat a . edd ok bederoqtoont aotaigo ext a wo eit
“boot bi odd bus titntsiq eew doetset eatterrdo abode et
mo igo eee at trod Stattonat edt pliant wi sew Ytst '
- oe tedd araegqs ti.. selina Re
tentegot .yedtom zed” ee armtet red 39 enone Fetes
@teb edt mort sooredt howneee eet
~stete aa etnexghyt To ‘vitae east tlie
tasbasteb edt tedd gogtado ea
ei oredt bas Witeials ve Bisa ce
tedt cadt erom gaihasmed tacngtate. ase Me of seman
atyt ens
edsileqg edt olde ett ‘otaigo bodean “evode ‘enti of ‘Pistibatd q
ent at tushasteb ‘edd. bisq ‘eyo tot “tive eit” ‘nog paadad' ‘Fttfod 4
nant betebiemoo fru98 ont vxer ont mor’ saorsaas et “He “Gonae’ ‘Yaetens
ean (tive tant ni ‘yilimtelg oat) daatateb ext ww ‘botit Koktos 7
.tostin09 addt to ‘emres ota reba bleq Yorn se" tiwoms : entd eevooe: ‘ot
harery iG ony hy he oa mont
oat tneve ont ak ‘todd ‘senas | biuow tt tteett toaxtao
6
cemetery lots did not double in value in 24 months, the purchaser
of the lets could recover, and then the contract would be null
and vobde
It is evident that defendant's suit in the first instance
was to recover the amount paid under the contract for the purchase
of the lots she received, and not as she now contends to retain
the lots end to recover damages claimed to have been suffered in
excess of the contract price for the property. This we believe
was the opinion of the Appellate Court when it stated as we have
quoted above, that the defendant was entitied only to the return
of the money she paid for the lots. It would seem only eauitable
and just that she receive the amount paid for the lots under the
terms of the contract and that she should return the lots to the
Gemetery Company by proper conveyance,
As far as we can determine from the entire record, it
was never the intention of the parties that the defendant was to
retain the lots and also receive the amount paid for the purchase
thereof.
. Under the circumstances as we view them and in compliance
with the views of the Appellate Gourt as expressed in its opinion,
we believe the court in the instant case was justified in finding
that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief prayed for in its
bill of complaint, The decree of the court is accordingly affirmed,
DECREE AFFIRMEDs
DENIS E. SULLIVAN, P.J, AND HALL, J. CONCUR,
reasdonug et pedinom dS si sulevi at eldyeh tow Eb tol’ yreveden’
fina ed Disow tostimee ont sent Sas ,revoner blood etol sit to
eoosiaalt ¢ayit edt ai tive eltashasteb tadt taebive eio gt! ©) oo" ° ©
seadousg ont xot tesutaoo edt sakes bieq tavome edt revoper' ot ee
nkatet ot ehmesnos won eg¢ as/ton. bus ,bevtsoor ene adot! edt t6”
ai berestive aoed ered. at pontake eogansd RARONRE 3 ot ‘baa. ‘eves: wae
ovelled OF eidt... -s\dr9gorg ott. ‘tot sotse. toszéaea aut 0 ‘assoxe ,
eved OF BS betsds ‘dh goede duuob ‘ste Ltoaua oat to notsteo co aon :
austér ont of Yino baitivae sen tmadaatsh, odd todt evade betoup
oldatiups yino wese biuon #1 satod odd aot. bteq ‘ode Y Venom edt ‘to )
edd rebas sol add tot biog. tayome ont svieoon ade test temp bata
ont hat etol sit atutes aiwods ede feat bas tosstaoo ‘ead to encet..
‘sons yovno reqora oc) asqued entene®.
at _brooer sritus act mort ontareteb aso ow Bs tek Cy
vent ade wt
of esw tasbastel odd ted asiiusg out to nodtnesat ent xeven =,
ne SSB RS *
oaadoug edt tot bieq toms bid ov ieoes oes bas ates edt aistex
eee «
De oe SP ooreds
sonetiquoo ai bas mosis nety ow 5 pooasseauorte oat: zebau
i eee toe on SA Kot Het
etotalao ati at beaaezqxe as taw00 etalieqga edt to sua ty edt bf a
" Mow Vie St Se Xs
“ gatbatt mi be tt iveut esw 9280 taatent edt at Sica edt vetted Bw. ”
att at not beyssg LeLipn edt of baletiae wow shidatate« edt tadt
e
. Rivew
bowtsths uUgatbsbo0s, ad dxuog, edt to: ser0eb, ott Kreg ms dit
x Z. Yee io
saasauiea sand, bo ates
39107
CATHERINE SIEDLINSKI, Administratrix
of the Estate of Andrew Siedlinski,
deceased,
(Plaintiff) Appellant,
Ve
OF CHICAGO,
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
& corporation,
(Defendant) Appellee. Ps 9 0 Toa. G§ 0 ?
MR. JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This action was brought in the Municipal Court of Chicago
by the plaintiff upon an insurance policy issued by the defendant
and delivered to the insured, Andrew Siedlinski, now deceased,
wherein the plaintiff as Administratrix of the Estate of Andrew
Siedlinski, deceased, sought to recover from the defendant insurance
company the sum of $570, which was due and payable upon the death
of the insured,
The hearing was had before the court without a jury and
resulted in a finding of the issues and judgment for the defendant,
from which this appeal is taken,
On December 5, 1933, the insured made a written applica—
tion to the defendant for a policy of insurance, This application
was written by Philip Fisher, an agent of the defendant, and signed
by the applicant by his mark, he being unable to write English,
The defense of the defendant is based upon conditions
contained in the policy as follows: "(1) If the insured is not alive
or is not in sound health on the date of the policy; or if (2) before
said date has been rejected for insurance, or has, within two years
before the date of the poliey, been attended by a physician for any
serious disease or complaint, unless the same has been specifically
| waived by a waiver signed by the secretary of the company, the
company may declare the policy void, etc,"
The issue is, did the insured in the application for
FOLee
xbttevtaininbs ,(iewradire araaerao |
eitenilbet® worbua to ststed edt to
4 { A > 4 PN 4 ” - * ‘ebsexrso 5
etasiiegqa (Tritateday’ °°°
<¥HAUMOO FOMARUEUT wala WATICOTOR TAK
a ato itetoqzroa &.
“4.0.0 ALO eS iw ved teaga (onebae),..
“tu00 ENT TO HOIMEGO MNT CUARVIURC’ INeEH ZOTTEUL ‘ia eo Ne ee
ogedtd® to tryed Iagtotav edd at tdgvord aew nottoe eit © et en
trebastsh edt heres? yelled sonsrevent tee’ noqn Yivitele ‘ont yd
ybeeseoeb won ,itemtibels werk jbotwent oft of" beteviteb ite
‘worbith to etstet ex? To xintontelotmba ee Ttatntal ont ite verty
constuent tHshaAsteh edd mott ‘svete oF ‘sibities OR ROt leona
diseb edt moqy sideyeq bas oud exw Holdw cat to mye 'e :
sorponn oritae ait met) 9 salto ‘sbetuant et 20
bas ‘yest ® tuolitiw tubo edt ototed bad sw gatteiod Saft °°” , ,
vtasbueted eft cot thomgbut bas’ eeuvsed ef? Yo gatbast wo it’ bonnwetre ;
eteist wl faeqqs eidt dotiw mort
| commana setticw s eben bervent eft 2SCl {8 todsoed nO
| aoiteptiqge eld? .soastwent to yorloq & Tot tatnoren’ ait? 08 sok
borate bas .thraineted eft to tmege tte .redelt qitLint We notttoe obw
sHotignt otitw ot eldeny gated od Sram etc We teotiags oat xe
“enoltibaes nog beead af ttebueteb eid to senoteb: out” a9 igte
evils ton ef betwemt ent tT (£)% 7ewoLlot ne yotlog ont ab bontataon
eroted (&) ti ro ;yotlog edt to. ‘stgb ode Ao Atisos beck s ak, ton ‘8h ro
atsey owt aidtiw .esd 10 ,sonsturend rot botostor neod aad stab bee ;
yos tot asiotaydgq « yd bebastis need - avollog ont te eteb edt sroted
yileoittoeqe need esd smse edt peotay etnteLamoo <0 snsoeth suotzos
eft ,yasanoo edt to yraterose odt xd bongs tevisw s Ww beehew
"ote gblov : tog edt orsfoeb vo waisamos ) a
mot molttectiqgs edt at borseat ond BID yak ouset oat 7
eOPAOTHO TO
Pg
a eS ee a
a oe) ee ee ee
ne
f _
Se A a ee ee
2
insurance wrongfully answer the questions contained in the applica=-
tion?
The facts are that 2 Mm.Fisher, agent of the insurance
company, inserted in the questionnaire the wrong replies by applicant.
Two answers are questioned by the defendant; one, that he has never
been under treatment in any clinic, dispensary, hospital or asylum;
nor been an inmate of any almshouse or other institution; and two,
that he had not been under the care of any physician within three
years, (when exceptions are stated, give names of doctors, dates
of attendance and illness) and that he had stated all exceptions
and evefy case when he had consulted or received treatment from a
doctor at his office or elsewhere,
Now then, as to the facts in the record, In 1930, Andrew
Siedlinski was attacked in his home and shot by a burglar, and as
a result was wounded and received treatment by a doctor, after which
he was a patient in a hospital for a period of two weeks, This
same agent for the insurance company had knowledge and admitted
he knew that the applicant was shot by a burglar, and, in fact,
inquired about his health, but the defense is that the agent did not
know that the applicant was treated in a hospital for this wound and
therefore the applicant did not truthfully answer the question, It
is hard to believe that the agent would fill in an untruthful
answer when he knew the facts, He worked for the defendant company,
in which the applicant had other policies of insurance, and perhaps
this agent had an interest in commissions for the issuance of this
policy, It is also hatd to believe the agent when we consider the
defense is also based upon an infected toe of the insured, which
was treated by a doctor, The application is dated December 5, 1933,
The evidence is silent as to when the toe became infected from
which the applicant died,
The evidence does not aid the court upon the question of
-solloqs ods ai beniztines nenreney, edd T6wans seisibiaiebi conowen
ua neat
sonstyent edd to pete erodte lt. st & tedt exe etost oat’! *°
stnsoilqas yd eet igor gtoxw edt stisanoitesup eat nt betroent a
reven asd od edt, oso jtashaoteb ads yd benottadup ees erewane owT
juutyes to Latiqeod eUisenoqeth® potato yor al snontsord ‘tobau eed
owe bas. Hop turds teey radio "0 sevodamis yas to steunt ag aeed tom
cord? ated tw astote vq yas to erso edt tebau seed tom had ed todd
ebted wetotood to eeman ayly ebetats ets enotiqeoxe osx) e8TL9Y
exoitqvore fle Betata bad od toot Bae ‘(eebait? bas’ sonebaosts to
¢ mott Hnomtaert bevitosr to bedivenoo bad sd médw esd yaove: ‘bats
; yetedweals to soitto aid te “rotood
worbitd (eral sbroost ont ni edost 6a? of ee pared? wot tet
“ge Bae .talynud » yt tone bite émod bid mi Botosdes ‘oon tienttbole
dotie tetts ,sotoob: ‘# W tuomtnett bevisoss Bas behdvew’ new ‘tives *
eidtT .atesw ort to bolreq gs tot istiqeed & at tistiog ri aw od
bet timbs bra sybetwoms bed wages “eoastwent edd ‘ot eae emes
OS et nf nae tatgwud « Yd dode sew “dasohinas ‘ede’ ‘tedt “wend og
ton Bib tasas edd tadé ei eenstob edd dud qttlsod eid ‘sede’ yg PY
bad Bayow aid? tot Latiqeod s af bedset? acw ‘tnapt ican oat sade bey
ti .sotteoup edt téwane yllutdiuet tom bib tarot Legs odd ‘oroteredé
“fytdedctos os mt LLE% bluow énogs etd tad sreties ‘od brad at
2 Varaqnioe tnebaeteb odd sot heatow oH “ sateat add wend ‘etl ede ehteas
eqadteq Bas ‘sonstvent ‘to aetotiow redée “bed tasoticas ‘edt ho kale mk
die “te domavdal on# Zor “ecotentwned nt faoredal as ‘bad tnogs ‘aide
od} webienoo ow aetw taege ont eveiled ot bted oale ef a Syekteq i
- fotew .borwent ‘edt to god besostal ts noqd beesd ‘ools at “sanoteb a
sbeel “48 tedmeoed betab ef aottcotlaqe ‘edt srotood 8 a ebatd "eae. |
\ mort hevsetat ‘omsoed oot edt ade of ee taatle at ono! sonebive of? oat
| ” bere ‘snot tage eae ‘foide
eid Wiagneo
to naktonwe ont aoqy #100 Dd bis toa ‘ae0b soasbive ar
wpe oe gee PSS og Sk ORC RRS et mW
3
whether the deceased in his lifetime did not truthfully answer the
quéstions put to him by the agent of the company, This agent,
however, did exhibit an utter lack of fairness in his attitude in
preparing the application,
For the reasons stated in this opinion the judgment is
reversed and judgment entered here for the plaintiff in the sum
of $570, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent per
annum from May 22, 1934, the dete of the death of the insured,
JUDGMENT REVERSED AND JUDGMENT HERE,
DENIS E. SULLIVAN, P.J. AND HALL, J. CONCUR,
sonnet Lops me Tey ae ss a eer eye. ery ile heer net PAHO x
et cowads ehiutasuet tom bib emttet ena ak ivanonl ent ‘rodtodw
— O" baoge alot .yaimod of} to’ toegs bid Ya mtif’ oF tq amotteeup
tir ebutivts waa ae tohettiet Xo ‘doar sid hed Parc aga aa Labial
die ah ri bai |! 4 aN H i
nen eye EN hari SA rts that i dan j i
“ek daonabut ‘ed? abtatqo wis at bi te endesot eel ti aoad
— “a ot ah weivabete edt tot tod beretae tnemgbet srs botreves
o iis! theo req evik to bier edt te moored? teduetat atiw ovat to
__sberrent ode to teed ont a heird A Ena SO yall ees init
kit’ Bee Shetnlorodete ‘to
hd a Rody Qnnd Phews ‘ban
gp Big g Sie SS yt aie bas Ged Re ER nee ee Bee mee
5 i sail
‘ue ti pt ay aw * i Ae he on » ak Sn abt Ws Yu oe ek tng ly I) pi an
ake eee hada to RUE gel eek” Bier Rea Res Ra Boat ct Bae aa seer B
~
1
|
i otiow oot te boiver « teh Lapioeed «23 siniteg 3 8 ele od
: i Py < , ri a
wey Bersih tee getaway San wae A acoA eis Toe beiscah sae
a
‘]
" eos & s 4 ¥ y * RY yas se raevt Tt
here Peer BEMe Git Led Bey peng we Sate ee ie dda’ qe “at ted word
~ * efit te ae be Pan a A us ca
#7 we Rea B Ure aa TRE Sie ea a” ee BRET Se bas oroteredd
. Nae ‘ Weslie™ Pay i ee Rae)
Lee Ta Re A LS Ge RE Re ae areal ‘od ot. erry “i
wis et ee 4
gee eee Sih é WM ‘et iocte %3 vee
”
a
aa
7
-}
ay
Bey es By ? z ae see ay ah yey sind oy Sk te i ASE «ee es * re ie Sean i Lege i LG ont to Aitw. ak : ;
as A mt me 4 io thrih
gins % weer ane ay FR ee ay the ail eee ail Oe hd th hast” mone, aise
i
| ‘ Sie weaes goat Nass A Gee aa aves De oO? By net ORs wi #t : woe
i Bowwed oats et ‘onneteb
a ae oe at
eheel .h vedweoat besa -el woticol tote edt peetoek @ we "bidewct “tar
‘i , ae 4; Pras 5 Th ih tide! ABM dpe! De m
“Ol UI S Be Ser Rue a ee
Lea Gebel ak Peale Bh ee ane Bate aap RS lg am a ue. idly on ‘i
MOTs HSI Serns BeMOs Be Bie Bet oF: we
es waddoagn edt moo wre sad
39154
JACOB STANGLE, )
(Plaintiff) Appellee,
Ve
THOMAS MUSCATO, B. Me PATTON, et als, SUPERIOR COURT
Defendants below,
On Appeal of Be Me PATTON,
Appellant, 2 9 O"T “A. 6 0 ral
MR. JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
The defendant appeals from an order entered on May 8, 1936,
making the temporary injunotions entered against her on March 19,
1934 and October 25, 1934, permanent and denying defendant leave to
file petitions to vacate the injunctional orders,
The original action in this case was based on the fore-
Closure of a trust deed securing the payment of a note for the sum
of $4,000 by the conveyance to the trustee named of the property
located at 6822 South Wood Street, Chicago Illinois, A decree of
foreclosure was entered on December 19, 1932, The sale of the
premises was had on January 13, 1933, and the Report of Sale and
Distribution by the Master in Chancery was approved by order of
Court on January 25, 1933, The period allowed for redemption expired
on April 14, 1934.
It also appears that on Merch 19, 1934, a temporary
injunctional order wes entered by the court restraining end enjoining
Be M, Patton, one of the defendants here on appeal, from proceeding
with a certain Forcible Entry and Detainer suit then pending in the
Municipal Court of Chicago.
It also appears from the order appealed from that on
October 25, 1934, there was entered by the court a further temporary
restraining order enjoining B. M, Patton from prosecuting er proceed=
ing further with a certain case pending in the Superior Court of
+S8Leg
' » eSDWA TE MODAL
/,P@Llegad, (Thétabas), 0.»
ie te ldigeewGrh —revewor
THUOD HOLA AWE eels te .WOTTAD oh of 2STAOGUM BAMONT
Ye rn eg IIPS 2 0 C ' 2HOTTAL ok 8 To, Lesqqa 20
= Nae SO Maho B ae A aks dy otto EMORY 2 Ke be Oak ko
<THUOO ANT % WOIMTIO AMY aMREVIaEC Saat RorveDL vm SY"
| .Se0L .8 yes ao haretne rehse ar sort efeeqqe tasbaeteb edt
«SL doteM oo ted teaiege hexetae anoftonutal yretoqmes adt patie
of oveol tnabsetsh gaiyasb bas tmenemney aPtOl 288, rados00 ap Be,
eotebto Lenoktenutai edt eteosy ot anoltiteq oLit 4
~9t0t edt ao beasd asw gaso eidt af aelteos Ientgizo ed?
sure ost tot etom s to taemysq 9d¢ gatavoes boob tautt s to oracle
ytveqora odd to bemen ooteut? ont of Somsyovmoo ot x 000.9%" to
to eorpeb A ,atomilll ogaotad gteett® booW ddwo® S889 te betsool
edt to ofse edT .88CL .€f redmened mo betetae asw exw 80Loor0t
bas eLe8 to troqe® odd bne ,SECL tl Yteuast ao bed enw aoetmorq
to rebto yd beverage esw yroomed® ml reteak edd yd wottudi tard
betigqxe soliquobex tot bewolls hoizeg ofT ,8beL es yraucist mo txu9890
eD8OL AL Lirga mo
yratoqmet s» ,beeL ,@f dors no ted? etseqqe coals #1 a
gaitniotae bas gainterteer trvoo edt yd betetas ecw ‘robto Lanot toast ai
gnibosconq mott .iesqqs so eted etnsbaeteb ext to ‘eno totted oli a
edt al gnibneq medt tive ramteted bax yttad eldierol aistreo s fitiw
sogeoldd to dryo0 {sq tonauit
no tedt moxt beleeqqs r9bto edt mort etesqqs oela #1
Yratoqmet gedtiwt s trvoo edt yd boredme sew ered? ,b8CL .6S redov00
~pessotg to gatdvoseotg mott notte .M .8 gaiatotae tebi0 gittatetdect 5
to #00 totreque edt at gatbmeg ease atstreo « din sedtat gat 4
8.
Cook County, entitled B. M. Potton ve Jacob Stangle, et al.
it further appears from the same order thst the court
denied the motion of this defendant for leave to file a petition
to vacate the temporary orders entered o» March 19, 1934, and
October 25, 1954, The motion having been denied, the court entered
an order that the temporary injunctional orders entered on those
dates be made permanent.
The court in the original proceeding entered a final
decree of foreclosure and sale, and thereafter a sale of the
property under the terms of the decree w2s had and approved
by the court, and as we have stated, frown the facts appearing
in the order, the period of redemption in this foreclosure pro-
ceeding expired on April 14, 1934,
It does not avpesr that the court reserved juris-—-
diction for any purpose; that when the Report and Distribu-
tion provided for in the foreclosure decree was approved,
the court's jurisdiction was at an end, The court in enter-
ing the order appesled from was without jurisdiction to enter
such order making he temporary injunctional orders of
March 19, 1934, and October 25, 1954, permanent.
For the ressons stated in this opinion, the order is
reversede
ORDER REVERSED,
HALL, J, CONCURS
DENIS E, SULLIVAN, P, J. NOT PARTICIPATING,
| ' ab “v gottst pi 8 belilitas amin x008
S BUFE
dxtspo oe tedt vente omse. ‘edt work erreage nodtuyt a
+)
4
3
k
4
moLtiteq s ett oF eaet rot dnshooteb eidt to ‘deities edt ‘Pédden
hae ,S80L .@f dove oo beretae atobte Wretoqnet edé etsonv ot :
HT
~betetae truco edt “peimed saad Sutved actvom ont beet as pew
e
:
) saodt mo aereree atehto Leaptvonut at yrstoquét edb faite ‘ebro as
| font s botodwe suthowsoie fenigito od? ai ‘P1099 ad?
1
"
ie ae Wie { .tneanaq ében ‘sd Baan
’ oft Yo else # totteotadt bas jolae bas sxueofostoy: fo eetoeb
. ° bevevage bea hed eaw cesceb: edt ho emiod edt) rebar yttegozq ,
' gakveodces etext edt mort ,betete oved owns: dae 4PtH09 Od edo»
ongtq otyeoigetot sidt- as noitqmabox to Solseq, add-,tebao edt ake: g
j psorq Lone ieee gin ffaqan ao boxtaasvgathoeo)
+attat bevreset taven edt stadt teeqes: tom: goby tT.
7 mudinte ta: bas troqet edt cede watt. pesogxbe ys TOT:
ee
beverage ase 9exoeb otveodooxet onty, ab x02 bebtvona: goths
-te¢ae al tusoo edt .bae m8, te 2ev neitosbesst attaven. eddy © ;
astae of cotseibatiwt tuodtiw sem moth, belongs sebro.eddigate:
te atebto Isseltoaujad yrsteawet ed! gaites asm ne
pdmomemipg AGL ,8S sedetod, bre, ghEBLig OL sore
5
$
:
|
7
i
i
pen) Mb Babzo edt .medaiqo.etdt ai botete scoaset, edt 0%. (, 0 fea i
we EY Ry i © aie ciel ue
) ha
+ gGRRAEVAA: HATH. oo ocd erooges oabe #2.
ecco agent eit ian ali _soentaaTor tab TO" ot od sk ae BI ee
| wuethasasen wart. Leama. 6 wvieb odd to ano .aortat as ie
‘tx, San yxved oldiovel whedte & an, A
| vogeohed te deme. fea kota
;
| " ss A dee. Cy Et a
§ yrateqwor % ctu: 2 Pewee saAdt WO LPewmiee Haw see Cad peers, Ps xt
ove to eattuoeeory sort aodves «eo sk gadatotae tence wade Land ot
ta seed xolrecad® oft al «© hbeton Hees wheeeee 2 stew: eneron oe i
38738
JOHN Je ZAHNLER,
Appellant,
Ve APPEAL FROM CIRCULT COURT,
CHICAGO DAILY NEWS, TiCey CO COUNTY.
a corpora ue | 2 9 0 I.A. 6 0) 8
MRe PRESIDING JUSTICE SULLIVAN :
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURTs
This action was brought by Jom J. Zahnler, plaintiff,
to recover damages for an alleged libel published by defendant.
The fifth paragraph of plaintiff's complaint is as follows:
“That on or about the Sth day of Novenibery, As De 1934,
the defendant herein, maliciously composed and caused to be
published an article of and concerning the plaintiff in its
newspaper called the Chicago Daily News, which said newspaper
was and is published and circulated in the City of Chicago,
throughout Cook County and throughout the State of Illinois
and other places; that said newspaper has a large circulation
and articles published therein are widely read among the people
where said newspaper is circulated, many of whom were freinds,
neighbors, business associates and acquaintances of the plaintiff;
that said article was false and defamatory and was derogatory to
the good name and reputation of this plaintiff and held him up to
the scorn of his fellow citizens; that said article so published
was of a libelovs and scandalous nature and is in words as follows?
"tSEIZED IN INSULL THREAT
“tOne man was seized and a second man escaped after Louis
Callahan, a United States courthouse guard, heard the two making
threats against Samuel Insull in the corridor outside Judge
Wilkerson's courtroom today.
"tThe man seized was Jacob John Zahner, 440 South Clark
epson ts who asserted he had lost $4,000 in Insull stock transac~
tionse
“'Callahen, the guard, said he overheard Zeahner and a
second man talking « that Zahner said to the second man: Sam
Insull will pass within ten feet of you here and you can do what
you wmt to him. The guard grabbed Zahner and the second man
fled down a stair. Zahner told the guard that the second man
Was named Petosky and that he had lost $100,000 in Insull stock
transactionse
a a
a
fe
if
.
f H
f
3
CAMA oa KHOT
) etna lfhoggs . seat? :
«MUO TIVGHIO Mott LAeesA . PSO tm
sYURWOD MoO | qa DUl - SVEN TLTAC GDAQIHD
qholiategzroo 2
8 0a AL OS. cieccuae ae
WAVES SOTTAUL DMIGTANAT ssa :
init HN? ©O WIUIIO ENT CRAVEN ir ye tone ap. Me
‘ ate ao
attignisig exe suetax at aio w diigo xd aaw potsoa aber uae
Pee se tae f
sinabacted yd bedatidug Ledit begetis mg x0? ‘sopanab, mevooe of
ee
2 sawe Lio? as ei duielqnoo eMitivatete ‘to Aqs73 Steg Parcs oat
DEOL: a) ot todmevol to ysb dea exit tuoda to
ag of beeiio ara beRoqawo a gg Cubeten Fig t
Bek 8 Kiaig EMT SOLO et 6 eLpit bea.
teqaquwen hice ae" ay yLis& tat’ sae’ one bates ours
ouenidd 20 Yst0 ont mk dodaduor to bre hy
‘atomtl{l Yo osada oad hatte bets Pelee: at |
| polteluotio sgtal .s ost ig m3
. efqeeq et yoome beet wie ats ere } oa thom ea dns bets
gabniext oxew mostly to yee ,hotalsonto at Tegeqawan .
titivaielq edt to as suntaieenon bis rag og eeenkaud “ g te:
of Yrotegotsh .2aw-bae-yioteamstebd baa. sate ¥ phen a
os mint bfed bas tikténielq eidd ko goitaduger id
berlaliduq oa ofetimts bled jad? tevenhiio wolle? aid to ntosa
sawolfot as abtow nt at bane ereten avolabnsos base wahasisissich) & Bad.
TALHHT LVM WI austae*” .
sivol tests hiedinen fism baooss o bie bexiew eew meant eno"
guineas ows orf based .btsugy eavoniaueo aeteta hod tal reeks.
egbut ebtadt so. ‘tobiet00. oad al ilvanl Looms? tantegs etas
Yabo! moottiwes 2 Tno@ro:
Axel) devel OM ,zendes aot doost ssw bontes mam efT?® =
-osenstd dagota Lluani ok 000.4) deol ban ad beotrereg onw ‘edie 3 j
«mero bt
8 hts vomisS btsenzeve of bise .btowg oft eaetist{ad0'® = =)
me® snam baoooa eff of bias voculeS tad? + giitled mam baoooe
tarlw ob mao woy baa sted voy to soot nod aidtiw aeaq [Liw Livent
fem broooe eft bus tomfseS heddary hisrg ofT «mit ot toew soy
next booves eft todd brawg edd bfot tomisS «triste hepa helt
xoote LIwanl ot 000.0058 taoL bel of saneed bus Weotot hema aay ‘
oD
"!'2ahner was searched, but no weapons were found on
him and he was released with a warning to stay out of the
eourthouse. He denies making any threats, asserting that
Petosky was the one who made the threats.'"
The complaint then alleges:
“@. That on the same date, to-wit, on or about the 5th
day of November, Ae De 1954, the said defendant caused to be
published in its newspaper, a libelous and scandalous picture
of the plaintiff, which said picture tended to and had the
effect of holding the plaintiff up to the scorn and criticiam
of his friends, business asscciates, acquaintances and fellow
citizens with whom he had theretofore been in geod repute.
"7. That a copy of said libelous and scandalous
picture of the plaintiff is hereto attached and made a part
hereof:" (Then follewed a photostatic cepy of plaintiff's
picture te&en with the courthouse guard end an assistant custe-
dian of the Federal building with the wording "SEIZED AT INSULL
TRIAL” above it and uwaderneath its lower margin the following:
"Louis Callahan (left), United States courthouse guard, who
seized Jacob Zahner (center) after overhearing conversation in
which Samuel Insull was threatened outside the courtroom in
which Insull is on trial. Gahner, who asserted he had lost
$4,009 in Insull stock transactions, was talking with a man
named Petosky, allegedly a °190,000 loser in the Insull crash,
who fled when Callahan approached. ‘Zahmer was released when he
claimed Petosky made the threats. Leo Cillman, assistant custo-
dian of the Federal building, is assisting with the questioning.")
"8. Plaintiff further alleges that by reason of the
malicious publication and circulation of the ssid article and
ploture it had the effect of impairing and destroying the con-
fidenee of the public and particularly the business assoclates,
friends and acquaintances of the plaintiff in hie integrity, and
has resulted in a loss of business; that as a result of the pub-
dication and circulation of said article and picture, people with
whom he has dome business now refuse to have any business deal-
ings with him or to recognize him as a reputable business manj
that by remnson whereof, he is being and will continue to be
deprived of large profits and gains which he otherwise wuld
heave enjoyed and received."
been
No inducements or innuendos having /set forth in the con-
plaint, the alleged libel must be considered as a whole and
exactly 2s published. Considering the entire article, in our
Opinion, the language used would not induce readers thereof
reascaably to believe that a crime or wrong had been committed
by plaintiff. The article itself exculpates him from implication
of erime and it cannot fairly be said that it impesched his hor sty,
integrity end reputation, since his word was believed and he was re-
Leased on his own statement. Ho case has been cited and a diligent
search has failed to reveal one where a publication in any respect
ee
=e
no Savel otew saogqnew on tud .betforses eaw somtial'* é
emg ‘to tuo Yate of. ge ool & da kw bosegios acw od bane mid
dads galketocen .ate Belden solnoh of .eawartaseo
*tpnbavath od ro Rye eben ofw ono off eaw Ylaotod
saogeiia melt Jalelgaoo we
asa este saltehn te ae ibiead a2tsb omee off mo tadT «0%
ef of beavao tnebustées Hhae oft .bSer “ds 0h 4%
ouwdsoig ewolebmsoe Ona swoledif a ot ti at be te
edt bad bas of hbabaod Fyne Fos a eb oe edd ‘te
wetoltixo bis mroca oft oF qu Tittmtelq oft gathle tooltte
wollol bus aegkeininwpes ,aetdsicosns eaenkeud » aid to
oodugor hoog, ai meed eretoserens bas oct mostw as —
auoLabucoa bn. euefedir hies to Wee “
a shaw bas) Sesloatia o¢oxed at 1% dakota odd edt to otto
j arias atele to pa ghpe gente) Bal & bewollLot , wt fs uae
“Ge aNO aleas tp t fedbot ons Ww me 9 “natn
AQVCKI TA CALDER” | BS as om a ote sathiiod
tuntwollo?t edé tent cowed: Ak dmeceedtut
of ,hxeug eaxodiuteo eodatt beatin’ ,(¢teL) sadtal ia ae
£ tonal
at r~ ti astasrane it bint iz atte (5 tee ponte
"gaol ad besitoas 2.6 x3. ede, BS.
few @ fi saritted mtg es anal sf BE ua.
persion IfLwent ‘ig al xeaol
an gare bestseller acw a
-oseuo ¢nagelaaa .mamlLio : } mest
(Sambo tsaeny, ong” Hid. atts ine ET, “at
cody \ehseae wbbhae aah" patens ake Bodluttiid as 5
tooxartd Brebaoe, Sobek som. Me tn ae Lb eda 4
~ if F Bie ded “Bait gcirew We “ombee eo Fautd” "etna, fy Uivdecmaee |
moleotignt wozk mid cadacivoxe ends ebektsn oi ARAOtaLe yh
ie Baie Beet Sase aee q
ages exon ‘wid boslosagmt 2h: dost bios od inka “Forum. ob cheat mentite a
ants es ee ee Ree i
~O% ast ‘$a Bits bevelled eau bx ols onto note sages rc | : i
at 2 Chratkas pena. a
tueg itis 2 bas bedi need sel ‘sane mt ge em ar nwo eked nto poanot i"
Soogaot Yoo al molisoliduq a etedw ono kneven of bette? east
~3—
similar to that involved here has been held to be libelous. In
so far as we have been able to ascertain, the mere truthful
recounting by a newspaper of the facts in connection with the
seizure or arrest of a suspected person has never been held to
constitute libel, particularly where the publication includes
the fact of the exoneration on his ow statement of the person
seized or the fact of the innocence of the party arrested.
Plaintiff insists, however, that his complaint stated a
good cause of action and that the trial court erred in not requir-
ing defendant to answer ite In answer to this contention it is
necessary only to say that the truth, which is a sufficient de-
fense in this state to a civil action for libel (Tilton ve Maley,
186 Tlls Appe 507; Siegel ve Thompson, 131 Ille Appe 164) need
not be pleaded as a defense where the complaint shows on its faee
that to be true, which would be a good defense on a plea of justifi~
cation (Newell on Slander and Libel (4th eds) pe 6203 Rollins ve
Louisville Times Coe, (Ky.) 90 Se We 10813 Rein ve Sun Printing
and Publishing Ass'n, 196 Appe Dive 873, 188 Ne Ye Suppe $083
Chesepeake & Ohio Rye ve SWartz, 115 Vae 723) 80 Se Be 568)3 and
a fact plainly inferable from the allegations of a pleading is, as
against the pleader, of equal effect on a motion to strike, as
though expressly stated. (Moore ve Hast Tennessee Tele Coe, 142
Feds 965+)
While the fifth paragraph of the complaint includes a
general charge that the alleged libelous article therein set forth
was false and defamatory, it does not ayer wherein it was false,
and it will be noted as to plaintiff's picture, and the printed
matter both under and over same as set forth in paragraph seventh
ef the complaint, that it was not charged that either the pisture
or the statements so printed or any of them were false. That the
ai savoledil ed of bled need asd exod parapet tact sl tetimta
Lo telat oxem acid _etiietxesss of, aida need. evedt ow ‘be. ter. 08
ent dtiw noitoonnes at atoet ent to toqeqawen F we gabinudost
ot biet need soven sad soeteq besooqeva s to daetts 16 erretse
eobuhorh mitaol dug ont exec vliedveisrag efodit odudttenog |
moareg eit To tusmsgata nwo ats mo. no idexenoxs ong. to Font only |
pbedworne yiteq oxfd to, ssnssonnt edd. to Bosd.enér0 besive
a botate taislqmoo eis # astd exevewod .atainnt ‘ignials ya
~tinpet dom ut bette dxuveo Leiad oats Yasld bu no b¥0a % “oxus9 boos
ek #5 nptdibr nee aide oF rewane Lina “ot rewene 08 ‘ins dnote ait
~ob aaa a ek doidw .Meuad ond decid ‘est os ‘Vino yieaeeoe:
s¥oleit ov gb3L29) Lodi wot noltos Livie a o¢ oteta alte ne parts
Fes) AS
hoon (POL ougA af1T £0 .woagmod ov fopeid ¢NOE squh stek O6t
_aatiaies awe “¥ ies esting a® 08 08 7 io. 19.8 sais
$802 sqaure «¥sH. 88E ,8NB svEE sqgA 00k, afte
bne 4{808 62 8 0B «est eV OLE asizone ov a
as we gutbaelg 8 to anohtegelia ont S023 oldsretit: ‘utniate ‘toate a
B00 erent od MOL Fem e Lo dosrto Lausge Yo exebooly os _Panayo
) (eee bot
& asbwlont pkaLum 9 ens to gergareg i924 oad oxi | cae
ee
Aexot tos niorede efotizs axoLedts bopolia ons ‘tasit earato
St 5h “At
+9alai caw gf alexedw revs son asob ti + vwodamsteb homed of
bedaitg oft Saxe somutolg aaubgmtelg wy as bedon od Like ;
Ay Se oa A re wr F
Hénevea siqatgateq at atxot dee as ones ‘tove baa ohm dtod tetien
hie ‘eek re te 2
Pe deta eds sve ged bograso E emcol asw at tests «tute Lomo
eae taslt aeetad etew ‘moat 7? ws x0 beaming os Cee g
ae
Le cE a
mhn
picture published was a picture of plaintiff is admitted in
paragraph sixth of the complaint. It clearly appears that the
stery contained in the statements below the picture is sub-
stentially that related in the news article, and the failure of
plaintiff to allege that said statements were false must be cone
sidered as a tacit admission that they were truee Indeed, the
statement made in defendant's brief that “plaintiffts counsel ex-
pressly so admitted in the lower court’ is permitted to ¢o un-
challengede The occurrence is stated slightly differently in the
statements under the picture, but, we think, not in any material
respect. It Was,in substance, that Zahnler was seized by a federal
officer at the Insull trials that he was seized for questioning;
that he was questionedj that he answered that Petosky made the
threats; and that plaintiff's answer resulted in his release. Plain-
tifits complaint was verified and he did not charge that the sub-
stance of the story as published under the picture was falsee
Defendant's right to publish what actually happened on
the occasion in question is clearly established and it thus appear-
ing from plaintiff's complaint that the statements published con-
cerning Zahnierts seizure and questioning were true in fact, said
complaint wes vulnerable to the motion to strike. In Rollins v.
Louisville Times Coe, supra, where a demurrer was sustained under
almost similar circumstances, the court said at pe 10833
"Ordinarily the truth of an alleged libel must be pleaded
as a defense; but that rule can only apply when there is « necessity
for such a plea. If the petition shows that to be true which would
be a good defense on plea, the latter becomes unnecessary, and a
demurrer exposes the infirmity of the petition. Mo one can be
eds complain in a civil action that the truth was published
8 e
The pleadings and facts in the instant case are very similar
to fhose iu Rein ve Sun Printing and Publishing Asstn, supray where
the New York Sun published an article stating that the plaintiff
therein was “arrested on a charge of dealing in stolen securities"
i bettinhba oi Tiktatelg lo emeotq. «sew bedatideg sustoig
ots tadt axseogge yliaele 1. ».tatelqamo odd to d¢xie sqeagetag
wGge ah oinégolg ett woled atusmetate eit at bentsdmme yuotde
to ovptiel eff bua yoloiice awan oat at betalou dads yliabtnate
moo of tem ental sxow einemdasa bisa Jatt egelia od Thidmai¢
ast qhoobat, .ouad e1ew Yom? tend moleatubs tiene a ae bexobte
~xs Loumme aiii¢nialy" dads Reiud a'toehaore) mt obam dnemetiata
) “iar on Ob bodiimeg af "Iiaweo sowel ont wh bottimbe oe yLeeong
gile ni “LiaoteTELh Ultsgifa bodata ab sonore oft» «hogmetiaso
ietvasgem yus mi tom yaais? ow .tud .omtoitg edt cebmr atnomesate
Lsaxchet « yd besitos uaw telmiod tadd wousdedve oiaeew JT yetooqast
ggutnoltaenp. tot beries waw em dadd Qintxd Livant ee a
sit obam ytaoted tale bavewitie ef dant. ybonottweup exw olf gaitt
~niait ,@eeelet eld ak hetineet towdus oti ttaiaig gent bee padnonte
aig ssty test? ogrado Yor bb ed bee SeETIveN Gay dws loping e TYME
s08Lat aew omntolqoedd “tebe seammnebeiiaaittnaiieh seam
fo Beneqged Vikentos Gasiy -dabicwg of defgia a dnebaeted eined
jue Yftoste ob to Aston. sk Motaso00. sds
ston beds liduq edmemcdata ond ¢ady Qubalantos. a Tiidntele wort osat
ise ytost at ev7d stow giiantionp ‘bits oxselow a! refined saints
.¥ BRELCOR nt seditée oF nekvom ond oF oféatentyy usw ¢nkotquoo
obtuse besmtodane aaw ‘retssias 2 eTedw sergea |
tG80L »q da bhea Jumoo on? ,eovtietammotio , eaLimte doom 4
anette pee ek ei
bivow dotdw owtd ed dy ‘Yanld awor eo eas tE° 8 ove
# haa «Yiseascenny sem ood ‘pa need tech
ad mes ose ok smokd hioy “ont
besaticng asw Aint pats, feds stolios a
i
q
E
Ritewtelg ode vadd subiesa oobi sa bos ig ai, a0 vo edt
Y“settkawoos mefosa mk ‘ota to egtasio s m0 bosaerta” am mie
fe
and the complaint contained a general allegation in the usual
language employed in actions for libel that "said article was
a false, defamatory, scandalous and malicious libel upon plain-
tiff aad his reputation," but in other paragraphs of the complaint
the plaintiff failed to make specific denials of the arrest. In
that case in affirming the order of the trial court which sustained
@ demurrer to the complaint on the ground that it showed on its
face that the fact of arrest was true, and that, therefore, there
had not been a libel, the court said at ppe 609, 610:
"It will be noted that the sixth paragraph of the com-
plaint in which the article is set forth at length, does not
state that the article is false and libelous, but simply sets
forth the matter without characterizing it. If the complaint
had set forth plainly and unmistakably that the statement that
Plaintiff had been arrested was false and untrue, I should be
ef the opinion that a good cause of action had been stated
herein; but, if plaintiff in foct had been arrested, there was
no libel in se stating, and therefore, in my opinion, it was
necessary that there shculd be an unmistakable denial of the
charge that in fect he had been put under arrest.
"I am of the opinion that the cighth paragraph quoted
$0 Qualified the statement in the seventh paragraph that it
does not amount to a denial of the fact that plaintiff had been
actually arrested. As — read these two paragraphs in connection
With the sixth paragraph of the complaint, the complaint avers
no more than that the article is false, in that it charges that
plaintiff had been arrested and charged with criminally receiving
stolen property and with participation in a criminal conspiracy,
and that the plaintiff was an untrustworthy man. This innuendo,
it seems to me, is absolutely unwarranted by the article itself,
which makes no such charge. the contrary, it shows that both
Cowl and the plaintiff were innocent and the victims of a plot
on the part of criminals. Under the terms of this pleading, the
plaintiff might well in fact have been arrested, and the article
therefore in that respect be truee
‘Wer can I escape the conviction that the very quelified
and unsatisfactory terms in which the denial is couched are in-
tended to be solely a denial of the fact that plaintiff had been
arrested on a charge of criminally receiving stolen property and
with participation in « criminal conspiracy, and are not intended
to deny the fact that plaintiff had been arrested upon some
chargé, even though later discovered to be unfounded. It would te
very easy to have denied that plaintiff ever was in fact arrested,
as set forth in the article, if such was the resl situation. T
believe that where there is no allegation that the whole article
is false snd untrue, but specific portions 2re picked out as being
false, the denial of the truth of such specified statements
should be plain and explicit.
*Ia my opinion, therefore, as the sole ground upon which
Plaintiff could have charged that he Was libeled was that he was
fLases ond of robienetla Intoneg henkeines satelquog odd baa
ase OLokive biae” Hamt Lodhi wT gaekiea KE boyoteaw Sgangest:
-niely tieqy Lodik ustoloilam dns aveleinton yycotaan ted | poaLetoe®
suiniqaes edt to agergetsg tadio ni tud "~nehiaduqex eid bie Tid»
nt sfeerts elt to alntwoh ektkeeqe aden of ‘befte? Rratmbalg veld»
benigiave Mobiw ¢asoo Lotti ont Yo tobae edt gatarhtia ak essed tedd>
“eet 6 Sewotld Ji tadd beety ods mo Saielquoo edt od no Temmed 0»
sieds yorOlroAy «tad bas ovat aaw daorss Bo toa? iodd salt weak,
a0 9) 0 op O88 "9 008-4g@ Be have times vedi whedsl oa need tom bad,
“Go oft IO dqetgcaag dente odd Wedd boson ed (LLawyd Thy
5 Bt
ton eoob eldgnel in Adzot dou at oLottxs red dolstw nt ¢nts ab
egede yikes ind gouniedid tins oelet. al «fo
tnisfgmeo ert or «ti grisicesoatardo ec ensnt seh ene
fads tramedat # yYtdadata f Meer. fo)
od biveda T sowstut baa) ei anew or edeo a aa bat tin gosta
bat ¢. bent poiteas to, oauso 92,8
any nv ore be oak need ha gost “s pre vee a TN a
siete - ®
SH te tof tatneh: 8 eee ue : PP gotng f ee pideeee’
s@aerts. tebaw tug fro by ee ot toe? ft tall. BT,
betoue Myetasteq Aidgle ed? Jac dishes ° ‘ Pe
"ex" vo Aqetaotsg avneyss: fey F taamntit “ed¥ pu ex andapcigt
d@ bad Tit tadt fos? att 8 Ot Sauvomes jon tt
an teenies is" aie yoteg owt ~ee Rabe pa Shabapanadttane
uh ded ob Moony edt «inks 4 eat to dqetgcteg dixie oats 3 bw
soto $2 jade mt ,eutal é2 efotdua’ ode Sadd- _
Mo: “ylfaninixe div hegtesfo brs beduetze seed batt thin
aoartqends Lantmivo a at aot aiis bos: :
eObnounnt elay .nem ylirowdennt ow fe eow Thidn "Fad? 5s
¢Moatt eLotizs edt yd hethexrtenns \YLetuioada at. rear Batoee ¢2-
atod gals eworts tk ,yisttaoo ont oD + og taco dome on eoctem Ao telw
tefq 2 to amitoby oft doe drmsonnh omew hay. ond in Spe
ont epfiihbsetq aide te emred arid aga »alemiatto ee ent x0
sian Leow
sound od tooges dadt a
«i
4
an
:
ho
beszttaup vey oft $cc no ta bvae ait eqaote T nso 3 sie on
ox%. bagazo o faineb Moin eh antzes Yr.
By eag nae amg y ee daeslt oly al “5 Lito 4
“pobaodie a0 ors ie ea tgenh: . feat e
stent hee burt
rovooeth total Hyuedd. nev |
Bre airetde tat age: ABW «sve Yiledbely baat beined kage fee case YXey
t .noltisutia Iecex ox? oo er tk golotéte oft at axes e8 a5
.- Skettzs ofLodw odd sartt, 9. Phra ied Ke
“quted an vie bows te int ‘g ao teats Sie bd i felt yea a
— es dis icity bet Pens, ome, ome 2e Magtiie pon fh 0 a
ve ite gta afro ;
cn i nh eo nnn gee a 2
new ed gard asw bekedtt enw, ont. tantd bogtade a id Sten a
hit
-6=
said to have been arrested, when in fact he Was not, and as the
complaint is not fairly susceptible of the construction that
plaintiff was not in fact arrested as stated, the order appealed
from should be affirmed.*
Since the essential facts of the publication in the case
at bar are admitted to be true upon the face of plaintiffts
complaint, we are of the opinion that seid compleint wes properly
stricken by the trial court.
For the reasons stated herein the judgment of the
Circuit court is affirmed.
AFF IRMEDe
Frii end and scanlany, JJe, concurs
enit ea’ bres! oan Hanno OGY AE Ray aN a
texts no Af owsdaos te
hofasigs robxe ‘agly
Vii Se feet! Pat Bas 4 QWE LANE etek AR ae
9880 ont fois ot edi fre 8 ivuesse :
ai. ease » me ha oe Ue eee agen ¢e kegiuty i nt? sont PERS
3?
eniitntety ws seat ait, nogu ouny od of PESIOE LS 8 ad $e
efroqove we flnhicmme biou deaty rolnkao one Yo ets ow ”
bowtus Saye ote oT, elite Bie preg put
Ve ole
PA
fan Aokes nit Yel
“So Se Weieten ot Pay Ramey ane ate Te wee SE RT
— to seine ont ntoted borate anoasot oft to
er hema, Wo Bana My ‘std, not
sbomitts 8 as — be
a
Nee PNT eR ti a TN Ke TBS ye RAPS
Ke wees hake ROE 4
CRATE Pi peal ts be et
RGA doen om saa
Oe “eee oie Dabs ae eae’
ho eye ; eee sefeninive Be 3
ABR anand en ee aad rig
wheres oat toowan s be
nuit ney She 4 win nate custo ‘Pes ' 2 i
ted
me tt ae Merit ih His
oY aise meee ss, ae is % ie ~ &
Hy mh at “s ee ara ae 3
; Kaas fp |
- it hod whe
; wet ae @ ‘ tit e
esi “| heakal Hf tela “biting 6 ahasl 8:
« ont oaw down Th gotoliaw ome. mae
ns 4d. iiile Ree age Lin am ie ates ae! se
oes PeOLSree wR Rape &: Sad ig
dee ate Aone, 2a Px: A et] pus ;
7 ON Ta eka
ekg Woke basse 9 tale Wty” ha” ‘Awad! Fe
tee wat if Saf ka BBY bodied Eg.’ fo if os aay
39015
IN RE ESTATE OF JAMES HUMPHREY,
deceasede
|
ANTOINSTTE HUMPHREY, | APPEAL FROM CIRCULT
Appellees COURT, COOK COUNTY.
Va oy
JOHN Re HUMPHREY, administrator, Pe g 0 ae 6 4) rs)
ware Appellant. i:
MRe PRESIDING JUSTICE SULLIVAN
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This case involves a claim for $6,500 filed by Antoinette
Humphrey against the estate of James Humphrey, deceased, which
was allowed to the extent of $2,028 in a judgment entered by the
Probate court upon the verdict of a jury finding the issues in
favor of claimant and assessing her damages in that sum. John Re
Humphrey, as administrator with the will annexed of the estate of
James Humphrey, perfected an appeal to the Circuit court where
claimant appeared April 4, 1935, and filed a demand for a trial
by jurye November 22, 19355 a verdict was returned in claimant's
favor assessing her damages at %5,000, and December 24, 1935» after
defendant's motionsfor a new trial and in arrest of judgment were
overruled, judgment was entered by the Circuit court upon the ver-
dict for said amount to be paid in due course of administration
out of the assets of the estate. ‘This appeal followed.
James uaphereys a bachelor, died May 26) 1932, and Februs y
16, 1933, the aforesaid Antoinette Humphrey, wife of Albert Humphrey »
TN pO
ee elit
ad a A yr ei | SR
22
* oe
if
eae
bt BRC
( | TURMOOK SOMAL W STATE a EI
boassoah
8
TIVORIO MOAT TALTTA peer enw ;
sYTHUOD WOO ,TAUOD. voolfoqga
ov
sdomlilogga
8 0 O eficd 0 Q S etotatiaininbs »YETMIMUH of Bh:
BAVLIWVG KOLTAUL PUTCIaUAL «fit
«THUO0 SHT DW WO TIO SHT CMe LES
ettoniotms y heft? 008.24 tot mialo « eovLovat sas aidT —
Moliw ~becsceeh qotightdl eeuet te ktaeed Ge deren conten
eit yd betetne Inembyt s ni 680,83 to somtxe effd of bowolls oan
mi sovaei edt gutbatt ¢xwi, s to dolbiev eds noqu sJius090 etadoxt
off eofol emua dads mi esgemeh ted gutesoses ban tuamisto to xovet
to etasae ofd to bexents [Liv ot Miiw todjsttelaiobs eas »yetiqnall
orenw duyoo ¢ivotto ed? of Iseqqa me betostroq . youdqawil eomal
Isitd © rot buemeb s boLET ban eVECL oh Litgs dorseqgs snamtsls
a'dnamts£o mt benisox asw Sotbtey s «eet «89 ueduovell «xmwh vw
setts eBS@QL .dS tedmsneT bose ,000,a% ts espamed tend putesoses ache
etew ¢nemgbyl, to teetts ai bas taint wer s ToTanolsom a" nabno ted 7
-revy odd mogu tuyoo tivottd edi yd heretne enw sremgbul, edeLurteve A
noliettaininbs to sames exh al biag od od fowoma biae zo? sou |
ebewolfot Lasqqes aid? .e¢stae arid to atoaas ott to ano
y sure bus SEL dS Yell beth proLedoad 2 eye xsiquurlt aomst
cyouiqowh txedLa to etiw «yoxdgmull estontoduA bisaertots edd 1 0E0L eel”
820
a brother of deeedent, filed her claim in the Probate court, as
follows s
“For That Whereas, the decedent herein, James Humphrey
did,on, te-wit, April 5, 1923, purchase certain real estate in
the City of Chicago known as, to-wit, 8333 Drexel Avenue, and
being possessed thereof did then and there request the plaintiff
and her husband to live with him, said decedent, and did promise
the claimant herein that if she would attend to the houscheld
duties in said house and do the laundry work of James Humphrey
and also advance and contribute toward the purchase price of said
premises the sum of ONE THOUSAND ($1,000) Dollars, that the said
real estate and improvements would be left to or would be the
property of her, said Antoinette Humphrey, at his death if she
survived him and that his will would so provides that said claimamt
has in all things performed all things as requested by said James
Humphrey and resided in said premises until the death of said James
Humphrey but that said James Humphrey failed to comply with his
aforesaid promises and to repay said sum of One Thousand ($1,000)
Dollars so advanced by claimant to her damage in the sum of Bixty-
Pive Hundred Dollars (6,500) and said decedent is also indebted to
the claimant herein for a like sum for work and labor and for moneys
advanced by her for the use of said decedent."
Decedent left a last will and testament dated May 24, 1927,
in which he devised "real estate owned by me *** at 8333 Drexel
Avenue," Chicago, to his brother John R. Humphrey, who was to “use
said property for the benefit of our mother during her lifetime."
His mother having died in 1928, such personal property as James
Humphrey died possessed of, which will only be inconsequential in
amount after payment of funeral bill, costs of administration,
attorney's fees and allowed claims other than that involwed here,
descended in equal shares to his three brothers, Albert Humphrey,
Robert W. Humphrey and John Ro Humphrey, and his two sisters,
Catherine Hawk and Youzealla Fitzgeralds
While the evidence is in conflict as to some of the facts,
it is undisputed that decedent made his home with his brother Albert,
the latter's wife Antoinette and their family from 1913 until
dune ly 1931, with the exception of two years when he lived with
his brether John Re Humphrey and his mother; that in April, 1923,
the property at 8333 Drexel avenue, improved with a bungalow; was
purchased in the name of decedent and title thereto conveyed and
4 as giusoo etadott edd ai misto red befit ,imebegeb to t9ddotd «
tawolltot
yor si eemet ectiored ineheosh ont ,eaeredW tadT x0T"
ni afates Last nals¢too onadowwg .oROL 1a LingA .tiw-et . 90. bib
bus ,eusiovA fexewl S668 ytiwe-ot .as mwormdt ogaplid te ys id ont
‘Rik¢nielq odd Jasmpex exedd boa molt bib tooredt beasseeog puted
selwotg bth bas yéimeheseb bise qmind déiw evii of bmedenud rad ; she
bietoaved off of bnodia biwow ofa tk tant mtored JnemteLlo
Yetdgawk eemst to axow yrbawel edd 05 bus sawor blae mt eotinb
bind te eolvq svatloisg oft baawot eduditinéo ban sonerbs oats bae
. blea odd ded ,atalfod (000,L¢) CMABUORT EMO to awa ont. sealmeug
{ edit sd bisov so of #teLl od bluow etnomovotqml bee stadan Leet
ete ti diseob eit ts .yendqmall ee: Shae. sen to Mi zedotg
tmmielo bisa dead pobivotq oa biluow ILiw aid } bon wld bevivase
eemel, bisa yd bstaewpet aa aguidd Ils bear aguidd Ife mised
somst bine to diseb oft Lito sealmetq bisa mi beblaet bas youdqaet
ali Mtiw viqmeo Of belist yeteqmwH aomel bise tad’? dud yoxlqmull
(000,f2) Smeawodt sa0 to mua bisa yeqot of bas aealtmoug biasezo ls
ow (kit to asa edt ot ogamabd ton o¢ taamislo TS flaw beonevhs os atellogr
oe petdobnt outs at dnobeosh bias how (008 at Lot beccbeusll
ayemom “ot bis todel bas Xuow sot awe oftL s tot po ee tnamislo,
*,3¢nebeoeh biaa to’ sem edd) x0t tod yd sient
¢PS@r eAS Yat botad tupmataed brs ffliw asl & #tef tusbosedl
faxext €€58 ta #**. oof va bomwo eendse: taex”. baatveb ef doldw at
say" of aaw oxlw e Cotaiquasid ol aot vesle af alal ot eeiggh * oumovA
ne | ee
| “ombsorte seal gate ib nedtdou m0 10 sbtened axté x0% edxeqosm Abas
ay” Sa eet af
aomcl as ‘Uregong Lanoexog dow eae nt bein ‘uabeant sonldom ‘elf P
ons @Y hewel ia Bay |
nat Leigaoupenuoont od ules Line dota «te ‘bensensog bo th yemigmal a
eo ifetdabninbs to ad2oo Lohd kaxenurt to ¢aeucen rette ante
cored bevLovut sastt ‘nae nosigo entaLe “hewoits ya zoo? atyenteide
«corgi drodLs cateddond sents out of eorade yw por bebneoaed
/ emrogate owt aut bas “exec of axial “baa Xorg + sod
| _sbLazeged 2 aLtsonuor ban mad baer at .
cates? old to ome os as #oLLrnon mk at seth ive ‘ont oLtew
i drodLa noddord etd ide oar, aie oben #iobooeb tacts " boauge tbs ane
: Lbsour BLCL mo? vik? atest bas of9 ontosnd ottw dir 4 ste oat.
ate bevit ‘ost next Br aey ows 20 nottasoxe oat st dw een at ~¢
eSOL efhrgA nt tests txondom aid be ‘yerutamtat or ‘alot aadgond at
at? bo apeeen ot? ‘tO dn
pops cweLensud & id be sovergmt coumors, oxost Tee as, Xiseqotg. ond.
baa b evno o# ofl :
Bac’ re 9 oto z cea ae freteses 20. enn ould ft MEE:
math a: ae
ey
@ guarantee policy covering same issued to hims that in May, 1°23;
Gecedent moved into said premises with his brother Albert and his
family and thet Albert paid no rent as long as James Humphrey con-
tinued to live with him; that the heaith of decedent began to fail
and his condition became such that he was forced to retire from his
employment with the Lllinois Central Kailroad September 1, 1925,
after which time he reccived a monthly pension of $83-37 from that
company; that he also received %16 and later *14 monthly rental for
the two-car garage he erected in 1927 on the aforesaid premises, as
well as a $3 monthly benefit up to January 1, 1930, from a lodge
he belonged to; that the cause of his retirement from his position
with the Illinois Central Railroad was his afflication with Parkin-
son's disease [paralysis agitans], which became progressively worse
until finally he lost practically all use of his hands and legs and
became an incurable, helpless invalid; that in 1927 or 1928, because
of his condition, he had his savings bank account in the Cottage
Grove State Bank changed to a joint account in his name and his
brother Albert's, so that the latter might make deposits and with-
drawals when necessary in behalf of decedent; that in the latter
part of 1929, James Humphrey desired that his bank account be trans-
ferred to a larger bank and Albert Humphrey withdrew the $2,518+45
balance then in the account st the Cottage Grove State Bank; that
February 8, 1930, Albert Humphrey deposited %2,000 of that amount
in a savings account in the Continental-Illinois Bank & Trust
Company, which he opened in his name; that several months later
Albert Humphrey changed seid account to a joint account by having
the nene of decedent added thereto; that James Humphrey was removed
by Jom E. Humphrey from his home at 8333 Drexel avenue to the Home
for Incurables June 1, 1931; that from the inception of his illness
uniil such removal Antoinette Humphrey, besides caring for her home
eRe eee
“ascbteet diiw wo ttonttven ome aaw ance etevats vk ent it bw
si
waist hee,
ny Pa
280 (Yall ci dont tabs ov ‘betes “Omad gatisvos Yotfed eddnaram a
eid bus dxedla sedtord aie at tw 29a Luong bien ofat bovem dnobeoeb a
~ 110 9. “Yonlqawlt aomal op anol os. in9%, ont, bing dredth, tase. bas, twee
Etat Ot Reged tgebesab Yo dd‘teod ont ‘deeld auld std by. ava, os bountt
aint mos onktor od beowet asw ant fase Hossa, sor aod nots ibaee Bish be,
: P80 at ‘techotqes pooxt teh Aaxasnd ahomhlli, exis io bwe Scomrcotaee |
todd: mor, Peaese we sp emeg ‘ehsid nom & beviscos ost omit stots neds : |
ad Leg eco wiiienom ALE motak bas ene bevieos: oats ot tant “putmqare
as see incr bisue tots site no yser Be bedoore ort eens xso-ont on
sree a “moet 0eRL ef eres of A a Pte ao vesnen: te 030, tow
ih ie
NSE ae ony OP foe ext
gate zleviaeetgeta smebod dotiw yfahke¥ igs atayLousq) sieeetb a' noe ‘
bus eyef brs abnacd ald to cay ffs YLEsstyoexy seer oi videak® obi
etiiosd (SEL zo VSOL ni Sait? ThhtoVRE ‘abetated yoldarbon! ui Smet
“opatiod edd ai @nareoon dnad agutvee etal ba ‘ext 01 ease aid %0 ‘ ;
als hin, hen oki ae Smuooos tute a os pemaaito ana tad: é evow
“ai dw bas ‘ed Laogeb ostant dafy tor neddal ‘ont dedty os “ea"bxedth ‘xeslvond
nettal oud ni serld idmobeasd to tadod mt ‘crnansoon | ae: aLenanp
~anstt ‘od tnoo0e ined aud ted betiseb vorsiqni ‘somal “eae to 3 jane. q
Bheoleeed ond woxbdd Sy “gorse treat bus ‘tend, ropisL 8 “ot boris if
Gat janet otas2 evowd egstded sid do dauooos od mi melt onal
truoms tat to 000,88 bed iseqod yoxdgmill daedth ~oeet 8 exam :
daust & dost stonbitt-tetnonttnod ort at “teweoos eantyse 2 at
xotal acid nom texoves dati {onan ‘it ni bemoge on ahhe we eaoqHeD #
watyas we #100 908 tniot & of. ‘tmuraoo.s bikes ‘bopnaito yerstarat jell: | :
bevomex aw yorrlqa sonst taott tosoredy bebba. famboosd . 7 ‘in ee
sino ot of ountove toxoxd £886 do omod aid moxt’ yoke grit JH Attot ya. J
aaontlt ‘wie % notiqoont’ ‘odd moti Sadd 7 H6er . 1 onwh’ ebianinsar’ te
estos oak ‘ne? guttso soblaed .youdqmull bédented Hi’ ‘Lavomdt stove. bi
wie
and husband and five children waited on and took care of decedent;
that in addition to not being required to pay rent for the occupancy
of the Drexel avenue premises by their femily, either Albert or
Antoinette Humphrey received the %83.33 monthly pension of decedent,
as well as the monthly garage rent, amounting at first to $16 and
later to $14, for a considerable period prior to June 1, 19513; that
certain payments were made out of same in decedent's behalf; that
after James Humphrey's removal to the Home for Incurables a bill was
filed in his behalf in the Circuit court for an accounting and injunc-
tion against Albert Humphrey and the Continental-Illinois Bank and
Trust Company, which alleged inter alia the refusel of Albert Humphrey
to turn over decedent's bank book to him and prayed that the joint
savings account in said bank be turned over to James Humphrey, that
Albert Humphrey should be ordered to account for the funds withdram
from said account end that he be restrained from making any further
withdrawals from same; that thereupon Albert Humphrey retained the
law firm of Leesman and Roemer, which filed his appearance in that
cause; that Albert Humphrey end his attorney, Irwin W. Roemer, met
at the Home for Incurables in August, 1931, with John R. Humphrey
and A» Ws Glaskay, attorney for James Humphrey, in the room occupied
by the latter, who was then confined to his bed, and discussed the
pending proceeding and the differenees of the parties involved therein;
thet as a result of that mecting the parties agreed to adjust the
matters in controversy between themj that Albert and Antoinette Humph-
rey, who had continued to occupy the premises on Drexel avenue without
paying rent therefor sinee James Humphrey's removal to the Home for
Incurables June 1, 1931, then went to the office of Mr. Roemer, who,
after a full discussion with them of the entire situation, drew up
@ written agreement, which Albert Humphrey signed; and that said agree-
ment with the signatures attached thereto was as followss
~ottui ak ban gaténuebes fia 26Y Pustoo Fivotll odd Hi “tated ait HE betIT
yorqut PuodlA to Leaviet eft giie reshr begets’ sé lew’ yynegmdd taueT 4
‘ptmebansd to ove wood baa no bad haw noch Lteto: evi bas baadeud bas
qotnqvoss ert? tot srot yoy 6? botiwpeT Bkod den oF noLPIHdS Ht galls
“gd Predls vortt to ee Lime? thetld yd esalmetg’ sunova’ Lexvad ‘say to
eenshedod te no lias “ykitton’ ce. tet odd} bevteoer yordqmmtl ad tomtodna
pile O28 0d Jat? de Gateavoms (thes oyersy ¢hiteiem sity” aa dew 'te
dash Eset .L snail of t6bag bolrdg eLdatobishoo’s’ wer \ MP OF HedRL
- Paslt PXLased ashobeoss at med ‘Yo ses ebam otew edmouyeg nkBtas0
aw ERS 8 abideewonT co oul od of Levens &onilgutit Belial! XB9%s
|
!
|
i
j
}
“bh Most wlonttiY-Ledneniened ed bie’ yori PHOCLA tebitngs poke
dado eld tend Seystq bas mic oF aood aimed a ‘gnobeoob Tove’ metit 'O8
‘dant (yotiignll Gamst OF tove emeyd od stead bkoe Wt) tawodee! agiives —
iiethHs iv ebay t oid cot dooce oy botebtea od binice ‘coraater nit suodta q
mortar yao gitven moc? somtardact-ed of tact. bas drmobos bla mots ‘
etd bdtiotor Youle Sued LA noqusteds tedd temoe abst edewarbsid tw
dod ot somataeggan abd Both? sotedw cromeol ors eeumeeot do mt? wal q
Som _temool .W miwil 4 yersotita eh bea scberitzaarl Pesela dando qoamao :
Coches it dsl ats tw 4 LOOT) pPeurhiide mt wd DtowenD cot sek elects
bekgroso moot od? mt .yordqanh semat vod ysnmot te yyadesdd!.F .Acbae
ot bennvesth brs ybed etd of benkitnoo att aw omw 4 retdel edt: yd
tntexeds. bevlovat aplicey edd 20 aoonete TRibvand: pe gntbosotg-aatineg
ot daugbs of booms vetizaq elt yrttoum tadd toodivest ws ‘as daild a
~Liqnn ettertodad bas trad LA sont pods noowt od yaxevost nop me» arojten :
duodsiw ousiovs Loxetm no soa imetg end PAWDAe ot bountd ao - est eft aot
202 emoH otf 0¢ Lavomsx atyordqnaill somal conte 20 tered. dnb: payed
OW g TAMmsOT » th To og Atte esit. ogo dmow Metkt) »LEOL _ Looms, eeitosont
qs werk ,noktent La orktne oes too meds Ao oo noteenouth Litre cegte
-coma@ bise tect. bus themgte Yemeni exedLa ed leiw lla in
tewellot as sow o¢rodt beslontis bottus shy te ‘eft! Ht be vA
“THTS AGREUMENT, Made this 25th day of August Ae Te 1931,
between JAMES fPHREY, of Chicago, Iilinois, of the first part,
and ALBERT HUMPHREY, of Chicago, Illinois, of the second party
VITNESSETH:
"That the said JAMES HUMPHREY, for the consideration here~-
inafter mentioned, agrees to permit ALBUNT HUMPHREY, with hic family
to reside in his premises known and escribed as Noe 8333 Drexel
Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, during the life time of the party of the
first part JAMES HUMPHREY, without paying any rent for the use of
same. In consideration whereof, the said ALBERS HUMPHRLY hereby
agrees to deliver to the party of the first part deposit book No.
$2090 issued by the Continental Lllinois Bank & Trust Company stand-
ing in the savings account, in the joint names of the party of the
firet part and the party of the second part and a waiver or release
or withdrawal slip duly executed of any rights, or claim to the
funds shown on deposit represented by said deposit book Noe 320903
50 45 to place the full title to said funds in the party of the
first part es the same ie the sole property of the party of the
first parte
"That the party of the second part further agrees to
deliver all rents to be collected by him from tenants occupying
the garages in said premises, to the party of the first part.
Also take care of all necessary decorating and cleaning of said
premises at his own expense during the term of this agreement.
And upon the death of the party of the first part, the party of
the second part shall deliver up possession of said premises te
the party legally entitled to same and all his rights or claim
ef every kind and nature shall cease to said premises under the
terms of this agreemente
"IT IS YURTHER agreed by the parties hereto that the
suit entitled JAMES HUMPHREY vs ALBURT HUMPHREY, et ale, pending
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Lllinois, case No. B222129,
shall be dismissed without costs, when the above mentioned funds
have been transferred to the party of the first part by the party
of the second parte
"IT IS FURTHER agreed by the parties hereto that in the
event the said ALBERT HUMPHREY, party of the second part, fails to
fully comply with the terms of this agreement, then his right to
residey with his family, in said premises shall cease and terminates
“IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and
seals the day and year first above writtene
AIBERY HUMPHREY (Seal)
Signed, sealed and delivered
in the presence of
irwin W. Roemer
Harold S. Kastengrene"
Appended to said written agreement was the following instrument and
the signatures thereto:
“Chicago, Illinois,
Ausust 25, 1931.
We, the undersimed, hereby aclmowledge and agree that
JAW“ES HUMPHREY is not indebted to the undersigned for any sum of
money, for his care, support or maintenanee up to the present time.
ALBERT HUMPHRUY
ANTOINSTTE HUMPHREY."
It was also undisputed that the foregoing written agreement
-~ Fe) a
1 . oe
ih eLEVL sTiwA tangua To ysd Mss. aids SDOM..g TEMA ADA STB rl room
\ atuaeg, garit ond to yelomifll gogaoidd to .TLHIMUH GEMAL noswied
qt#taq braces sid to yelomi{Ll gogsoidd to «YUMHIMUE TAMIA bas |
) , ‘yertosa tet De ,
| eon nettexobionn 9 oud x0% «YRANGMUK BUMAL bisa etd tacit"
“MEiowt aid dgiw .YUATMMUN THIEL, fimzeq of asertgs Delo inom tostent
fexond €€88 0K ae bedixeas > dna swonk aoaimetg aid ni ebtuor os
ont to ysseq od to amis eTLX esis gitxud ealonkill ,youse ld yemseva’
Yo pan sii sot tnot Yoo gaiysq tuodsinv ,YSRIMUE SHA steq gatit
weed YUSMINUH GMHEZA bisa BM Spcdetrrng fsa 58 ed seatiee |
26% Mood ginogod q taxkt off Yo ytusg oft oF sovilo of eostgs
-bretea yNeqmeD a Oe atoailit Lssnentinod of} ye bowaal ooose £
ont ko einen os ko eemen datol edd at .tnooos agatvyss ods mi gat |
easelex 10 Teviaw 2 ype Boon og ghee ‘to eek nyo em pont » Neangen gl > |
ios od mialo GO ¢h “~ yne to betvooxe a WBE |
fovoee not dood § haved Weed tw tetacsenqey Tlaogeb: fo mwosle. ebesS
on wd Yo Yrueq odd ak abut biea of efsid {Lut ot soslg of es 08
“git ‘to ysreq add lo ytreqotd sfoc oft ab omse oft ae ype a > an
Steg Fat
Pe ee re = ae
i ' 94 nootga veddw? Pyeq Baooos oft To ytuaq at tadP cy noisy
; ha aniyauooe atnensd sort mtd yd dbetoolloo ed of afsex Lio toviteb
i. 3 eteg Pectt edt to yitaq eff oF «neatmeyt me at sent Mee:
i bisa to gainselo bus gnivetossh Yisensoont fs 9169 oafA
dxomodmgas able te sed enfd gitush oBmeqxe mm ger pet bead
to ytusq ont edseq detit oft to ytxeq ond to Aiaed mogu bik ~
“g¢ sonkaowq bias To molaneaaog qv novifebh {Lara sf broooa is :
[ wists to etsigi: aid Lis be emsa ot belsivas viteser eh
edd rebmr aeaimotq bisa of eageo Ifatle omen bos balk yteve 3 “a
| edt searld oul tes add fhe ae igo shat So" amsed |
ot eet otened selizeag edd yd boetga Mani ats © 7
| gutbneq esis $9 «YURHIMUN THUMIA ay NOE Sa AT SeTetene: 3 bees?
@SLESSH 00% 9ua9 «BOnLLLI «ysawod Wood Yo dmved siverto ett mt
ebnut benolinem oveds ont medw yatedo duort iw bseatne th od ttede
witeq edt yd troq sartt edt to ywisg add of bowretanat? wood even
Co Eg i mee eam eee mail heel |
edt ai tad ovezed aeliieg odd yd deotgs AauTA. Si TI"
et afltst «freq beoose off To yirag «YORE THR bhee eald: teve:> —
ot tigis als mods «imomoetge ais ‘to eames sult po ol os Lint
ses¢enisrod ban seeso Lforte esalmong bier mt eyiime? 2 tel: oe ceoy 4
bus abned two tea ofmveted evad ow ,WEHTMW GexuT I ur" pnilelit
Hi stestivw eyods ta ttt taey dae, yeb eds afsoa,. —
(fe08) YIAHEMUN TANGLA anne . .
hoe Meas be oe
gehsk Puby ys mae BS a i ee ats i i * 1g
ae “gomsott! |W miwiit
. Pepempatng’ 2 5, Skea
bas trematsat gakwolfot oft saw toomeetye neddinw bisa og bo es
, Aptonndg apuutamats. oat
Preach emaaiagi ns Aoyynier
ECL 22s Paiouk wird ah Renal, ate; 3 nae
> ged} soxgc bus sybetworstos: YWored (beng Lexohmus odd¢ OW. oi 0 on yet
to mum Wis tot hemiarshay edt of boddebal som ak WaaHGMUH ent "
eomts tnoudre ‘ont ot qu sonetotalan to Sroqqve ,etao ald got ewengs
et eee
Inomootgs nddthuw. yintogero? edt, tacts betudetbay onls PEAR oe ve ys By
RET 4g RR Ee eet dots £
~6~
ahirtnd by Albert Humphrey and the written ackiewledgment by Abert
Humphrey and his wife that James Humphrey was not indebted to them
were forwarded by mail to decedent's attorney August 25, 1931; that
said agreement was not executed by James Humphrey because the further
question was raised as to the right of Albert Humphrey and his family
te occupy the premises without paying rent in the event the property
Was sold by decedent during his lifetime; that it was mutually ogrsed
that another contract be executed in lieu of that of August 25, 1931,
heretofore set forth; that such other contract, drafted by attorney
Roemer and executed by Albert Humphrey October 1, 1931, wes identical
with the previous agreement except that it contained the additional
provision "that in the event the party of the first part desires to
return to live in his aforesaid premises he may do so *** and if at
amy time during the term of this Agreement the party of the first
part shall obtain a purchaser of the same he shall give the party
ef the second part notice in writing to vacate ond deliver up
possession of said premises to the party of the first part, but
Said notice not to be given before the expiration of Twenty-four
(24) months from this date;" that this contract was signed by
James Humphrey by his mark, which was witnessed by Attorney Rocmer3
that a second written acknowledgment that James Humphrey was not
indebtec to them, which was practically identical in language with
that attached to the agreement of August 25, 183], was executed
by Albert and Antoinette Humphrey on September 30, 1931, and appended
to the written contract executed October 1, 1931, when the latter was
forwarded by Attorney Roemer to Mr. Glaskay» attorney for James Humph-
rey, together with the savings deposit book issued by the Continental-
Tllinsis Bank and Trust Company in the joint mames of Albert and
James Humphrey; that, notwithstanding the execution of the written
gontract by himself and James Humphrey on October 1, 1951, ands not-
withstanding the written acknowledgment by him and his wife nah
|
b.
j
nei Smaatieetae seeped
‘as
~~
Pmdis. yd. tcomtelwomles nedgiiw ef? hers yorricmdl treutty ve bemta
so sig ot beddebnt too ese woreda, aemal: dadt ohiw ate ons yore
: Pads: (MECL ~ BR taugud yorreita wi taohoaeh: or marge bebrswz0% otew :
# ~~
edit ext caxeoo Yortiqault nom Yd bedwoone tom aaw tnomoerye: bine
ele srt owe: contigonilt drodta: te daly tx: oxy: ot 66: bouter gow moht soup
«CHR >
wissqone andl rare rit laud dno anion sword kw aeaimeny ould? yquoee: of
| bemipe! thew ns ak att tamts otk abt geek snsbesed we bow tan
teen eee seagua TO bath to won in bedsoexe od tooténoe ‘teiione. saite
wemeos te" we bot texb edootdnes senite- Sosa tesld taitz0t soe edeictan $64
Isoltmebi saw +1E@L ef sede? 00 Youtquase suodia aoe beguooxe, pits romeo
Lenotdithbe outa ponbes noe ab batts geen: srombory 5" uovoeg ont a2
ot woniue d 0g gaxit oxts ‘to wea ate gneve ode ak vase" omot
Pee Py eee a Lee tee:
ts 2 bes en oa: 0b wut od pon imong bisaoweto amt at evil ot were 43
ea, a eee Rae
dexit erty ie weg ad. SnomDonBA ande 1 cod end enter sais
4 (fault Nh, PRS a ey eas as CITE Ze:
std cine #20
_ ae revTifeh b tus odaony ot pnts tew ae eolten cad SR
tue ¢fteg fot? bila to yfteg oft of tomtmony bias to" abl Se 7
Beiter 20 notisxigne exit, oxo ted, ar eff af son Gotvom bite
Ye dbimte esi Poottnos ehtt tot “oy'sb” adit we he sigiee 4
"agai Nertotts qo beagend by apw tote «attam eke yy yorigmit shat
fou aow yexcqmuil. goth tit? Sromytofvoitos iba Hie ks BSE a’ ii
dteiw egaugnal ot Ieoténebt yLksottootg aew Mobew mas
wisg, oats ovis Leste oat omea ort 4 renee | * a
betmoexe asw ,Lé@L .a& sasmgvA Yo tnemoe'rg s ent et; wibiieeiicuaan q
Debnoqus bas «ECL «OF vedmet qed no yoxdgmutt osGonies wh hail Paodlh wet i
aaw todtal end nectw x tees yg sedos 20 bedwooxe ye Be ony modi er odie i
~tiqmyH soush vot yentodts ‘eer, + tit idl ‘romeo yomrostA we be ila
~Letneniimod eft yd bewael Lod theoweb agubien ant a dat r xetop0d Be
pris ItsCLA Yo setind Pato, od} HY Yesgaed Few t nits ie 8
“ otuigh tA ont to no biwoexs: ool tit abv “te oer
~ton gbus qlé@L ef redoxo0 no ‘vetitgai aomel bas ‘tLoamid xd FY !
f : Jugw bins. ole: we a, ‘
notd im adit sata '
aT ee
diiadiacks Was mot indebted to them, Albert Humphrey notified the
Continental-Illinois Baik and Trust Company in writing October
%, 1931, net to pay over te James Humphrey the money on deposit in
the sforesaid joint savings account as shown by the bank savings
pass beok theretofore delivered to decedent's attorney by Mr. Roemer
in behalf of said Albert Humphrey, but to let the matter be disposed
of by the court in the proceeding then pending; that pursuant te
proper notice, Leeseman end Roemer withdrew as atterneys for Albert
Humphrey in said proeceding November 14, 1931; chat an order ef de-
fault was entered therein against Albert Mumphrey for his failure to
file am answer to the biil of compleint and thereafter a decree was
entered Sovember 25, 1931, which found that the fund of $1,783 on
deposit in the joint savings acccumt in the bank was the sole
property of James Humphrey and ordered the Gontinental-Illinois Bank
& Trust Company to deliver said fumd on deposit to decedent; that in
December, 1931, Albert Humohrey and his wife, Antoinette Numphrey,
arranced to lease the premises at 8333 Drexel avenue from James
Humehrey from January 1, 1932, at « rental of $20 a month, which
they peid up to May 1, 1932; and that they continued to ocoupy said
. premises without paying further rent until they moved out of same
in December, 1932. James Humphrey having died May 26, 1932» letters
of administration with the will annexed of his estate were granted to
John R. Humphrey July 12, 1932, and as heretofore stated Antoinette
Humphrey's cleim against decedent's estate was filed February 16)19535<
At the close of glaimani's case when defendant presented a
motion for a directed verdict in his favor, claimant admitted through
her counsel her inability to prove the specific contract elleged in
her statement of claim but insisted upen her right, which the court
sustained, tor ecover for nursing services rendered deeeased on the
basis of a quantum merult under the averment in her statement of di sim
SSS Sw
el eC nS Sale OSS
. St subtest 6 is ‘Ot “ord Iredell Yentoge utoredtd boratne Bow tins
add beiiiion youkgmh txodlA sodt ot beddobmt sarees: adic aaiiitiels
xedefo gultixe ai Ymaqmod deus? dng Must ahonilll«Ledmenttined
mi tinogeh se ysnem edd Youd semel ob tayo yaq OF ton yIcer YT.
i . Spitvas Ansd ode Edawode as jsmocss aguives tuto} i sastota ort
_ Tapee at yd ysruedia a'imebeseh ad boxevited exw Toderedd dood wtiag
besoguld ed wisam oid sel od dud «youiquidi dredLn: bled to Uist ‘at
mu 08 tnausisg Jedd igeihseg tedt gribeepeng ede ai paves ent yd ‘to
(ssedSs zo ayoatotts aa, wexbitin nomeost bes) namo 4 sotion Gaius
nab to tebxe mm tants, a5L: «SL thimove gxtboosetg bhae’ al youn
bh
eew oxo s ted ieeveds ine driislgeos io itid om} oF qowane “ioe ‘erie
eae a
19 EBT LG Yo hawt asf fed? btwot Holdw ,teet ee xodmovol bexoine
elo ory now tne oid ih Yaooos agaives: tntot eiie nb ‘ieeges
Bist dtontiLi-fstnentsned extd boxsbo ine ‘\onutemt sonst ‘to Wregorg
ek $add yomebooob. od tisogob 20 bai? bhae ‘xevitob os ome tent &
o yartelgam® sdtontod nd votbw ase bas youtganat 06th “OUE sstrenes
doomt moxt eucava Lexoxt eee ta eveimerq ot cd ef 2 4
doitw alt non & ost to ietaen s de +8808 af “Cesanat mot ye yeu fs e
nie Yiimde oF hewntinoo ont sauté bas (seer of Reh name vous
mee to tue Seven contd Lk cus tae wontd uurt ayer tuosts bw regs: 19
awisol gSSOr de ysl both onbvadt Yonstanat, nent, (880E, v:9¢ute09 a at ;
ot betnarg orow state o aid lo bexenna iLiw ods iidkw uo tgaxd etnias », 4
aijontogcA hedata sto Wows se hae SEE og viv ve sit A alot
SOE OF yuyrdot boLit ast stadas a Wiasieood vantage mato 2a ‘i 4
“Fane oases
“g betmetierg tnebme'ted ielbs aasa a'z mascbe £0 ey rere ont 24
s mena | ; war Phas oes
ds wouts bo d# iabe dsambeso pp sens eld ak tourev botvoxtd gs xot
mein hE Poy BN
“fet heyetls tostinoo Sitkooge ‘ald evorg ot Witidant real Loosios. ‘%
2 Paw
do's Weld “tb tit “2 ede a od equ bote tent ee melo we Suomadags
ont ib hounsdob botobmon ‘aookves ‘padezen Zo “t9v099 rod cbontat %
mie ib Yo ‘juomédada cost ot fasmrova ody cobou {dure eta a ‘to atasd
re if wkd’ nd ary otootas gees iw eet ne iber od att i
o f=
“for work and laber and for moneys advaneed by her for the use
of the decedente"
Defendant contends that the court committed rever sible
error in giving the following instruction to the jury at claimanht's
instance?
"There has been offered in evidence by the administrator
herein a certain document bearing date September 30) 1931, pur-
porting to be signed by the claimant herein, Antoinetts Humphreys
and her husband, wherein it is recited that she has no claim of
any nature against James Humphrey for board or lodging or otRerwise
on said date.
"If you find from the preponderance of the evidenee however
that at the time of the execution of said document by her there was
pending in this court a certain suit fer an sccounting between her
husband and said James Humphrey and also that negotiations were then
pending between the parties te said suit to settle and compromise
the same and to adjust their other differences, if any, amicably;
and if you also find from the preponderance of the evidence that
Antoinette Humphrey did sign said document with the understanding
and agreement, if there was such agreement, that the same was not
to be delivered to James Humphrey or his agents and was not to be
binding or valid on said Antoinette Humphrey until said suit had
peen dismissed and said differenees adjusted between the parties
thereto, and that said document was signed by Antoinette Humphrey
solely in reliance thereon and in consideration thereof; and if
you also find from the preponderance of the evidence that said suit
was not dismissed nor said differences, if any compromised, and
that said document was not delivered to said James Humphrey by
said claimant Antoinette Humphrey nor her husband or by any other
person for him, with her consent or authority; and also that said
document came inte the hands of James Humphrey or his agents in
violation of ané contrary to the order and direction, if my, of
said claimant and her husband snd against their will and consents;
Then if you so find from the preponderance of the evidence, you are
instructed that Antoinette Humphrey would not as a matter of law
‘be barred from a recovery herein by reason of anything in said
document contained, provided she is otherwise entitled to recover,
under the evidence and instructions of the courte"
Where the evidence is conflicting as to some of the material
facts as it was here, it was particularly important that the instruee
tions should be accurate and it is elementary that all instructions
to the jury should be based upon the evidence. (Lyons v. Ryerson &
Son, 242 Ilico 409-) This instruction was not only misleading and
confusing but it stated the facts inaccurately and was calculated to
improperly detract from the evidentiary force of claimant's written
admission against her interest and to cause a misunderstanding in
the minds of the jurors as to the weight to be given same. The
!
U Bee
ene oc) 29% 8d Yt Deouavhs eysnom sot bas coded das alxow. 20%"... m
| s2gC Fe Mett@bsoeh at Yo -
ehtle ever hottinupe tases ost tadd ahsed no tnebreted
a a
atitemtato Je yuh qdt of aoiteuxtand gatwoltot ext¢ gaty kg ah ce
Getattaininhs elt yd eonebtys nl beretto seed acd etedt"
“tq «i€@Ll .OE tedmoetcoh suned tm mee nisdies s “giovrot
stiges edt onto t ion
oe eats oa tae erate rer ery: ak gi Facet ery ys op ee
esiwiegio so galgbol tp hised sot Ye salquaii, somal AREERS, STvies yee.
sis
neyawenl soushivs edt to eonstebsegetg eft mort brit v $x"
sew overt rod yd dmonaroos Siow to nag or so ont %6 emt Hat ‘ert Ja dade
a! vod asewited antiavocos aa tol tiga seo 6 ¢too eintt ot
a wot oon collattiner fed? oats bes yortomml comet biee bite’ Picea:
? Ae oh bus eftves et dine bise ot seltiteq edt neewied antha
erees ims tra th essomerstTeh terlfo theft’ $ Od “hire omee
sams sousbive orl? to eonstehmogeng sai. pol batt oale woy TE ve
gnibuat acebay ed diiw temroth bie mie Sih yYoudgent” vedinaeay no
don sgw omce off dad? »inemeetgs Agua aew etods Tk «tment
ef of fon aaw bra adnege eit «ro pF peers owe Prendgl wef gen
B.btes ike eomdgans emlostmA bien ne 20
” tote oe Besentb 5 Rooterettls siee
ond rtoaws ar 4
. Yordquul eftentosaa yd Seats asw dneswooh Slee tant bne gotoredt
$k bms { toot]? mokteteb ketoo nt bie moeredd) epnebieg nt xfefoa,
thwa Shan dads eomebive en? to amt eo, Hh end sort I coals yoy
‘bas Yberimorqme (oe TE ,aeensre tRib ‘fou sew *naaaro0> bse joa
yd Youiqawi comet biee . botevileb ton Baw ¢xemnso0h bisa ¢
testo yaa vd to briedeml cel “ort yoxdgen attembotaa t
we tacit pate oie aye bcoctdus A ae ane do08 of estes to % uoareg
atneges sid to Youigmel, coms pga Bs 2
aa 9 | Lpebsaenie baw tebuo off od a nyt
qinenewo bas ILiw cteds sation baedtal 2
ete Noy ~oonobives end to eometebmoqoug “pt rad od
‘wel te tettean « ag oer eee
bisa mt paidjyis to ees oe sgt rose Fis
sonst Si Se la fata oe
“Ialretan oat? 0 ‘emoe of es adds ‘at aomebivs oid exam mo" % .
wowrtastt oats eat tnadroqmt ‘veatue Hcg aaw'th poved es ye ae’ iuk j
eno? our sant Lie tara cred sm te at $k bine bt baiteba! ot Aavoiie ‘eb ;
7 4 mperoyt v asx.) + ostebtyo ‘etd noqu boasd e¢ bible’ vor, ont 8 4
Brus gatas fe te vam gon acw sotsercseat atar’ “(6068 tr? ene" noe
ot hodaluotss asw bas ‘etemooant atoat end Bae ae giians
odd kw ‘a'tnamtalo to sotot Wrabeae bye: old abxt toortob Ykroios
at pactbnnt aobewe ta 6 esueo of bike teoresad Sah feataher io ta if
edt somes movig od Of digiew off 09 as arom, way “to! abi it
i
Ip
it)
i
gocument of September 30, 1931, referred to in the instruction
as “purporting to be signed by the claimant herein, Antoinette
Humphrey, and her husband" did not merely purport to have been
signed by Antoinette and Albert Humphrey. It was unquestionably
signed by them as part of the consideration for their continued
free occupancy of James Hwaphrey's premises at 8333 Drexel avenue
and for the dismissal of his proceeding against Albert Humphrey.
It will be noted from the contract of October 1, 1931, that
decedent, James Humphrey, agreed to dismiss his pending suit and to
permit Albert and Antoinette Humphrey and their family “to reside
in his premises *** without paying any rent for the use of same* in
consideration of the delivery by Albert Humphrey to James Humphrey
of the deposit book evidencing the joint savings bank accownt in
question and “a waiver or release" by Albert Humphrey “of any rights
or claim to the funds shown on deposit represented by said deposit
pook *** so as to place the full title of said funds" in James
Humphrey as his sole property. The contract expressly provided
that the pending suit was not to be dismissed until the bank book
and the waiver by Albert Humphrey “of any rights or claim to the
funds shown on deposit represented by said deposit book" were turned
ever to James Humphreye Albert Humphrey and his family continued
their occupancy of the premises without paying rent therefor after
October 1, 1931, when the contract was executed and delivered along
with the bank book to James Humphrey, until December 30, 1931) but
instead of delivering a waiver “of any rights or claim" to the fumds
on deposit as he had agreed to do Albert Humphrey repudiated his
written contract by notifying the bank in writing not to pay over
such funds to decedente
The instruction in question was erroneous because itmrmitted
the jury to make findings of fact, for which there wae not only no
basis in the evidence but which were directly contrary to the evidence.
ain
“ePs.
Moltourtent otf} mt vd berretet (Leer .O ented qee Yo Jnenvoob
SttonlotaA .atetet snembeLo ond yo berate od bi RRL Le
‘geod evad of Progtmy ¢ferem Jon bib “bisdeint tod bas e yordomusit
“itdand teaetpew bow JT“ yetiquult srodLA bus Sesontotah yr benghe
bemmtdinog «tlety tot motvershblencse ont lo iteq aa mort td Pong be
Sino Lexs 8E8 Ys Gee terete a "yo ‘tole amit semel to Yomaqueoe. eee?
‘yore eee LA tattags giitbosootg ait to Lasaims bb ond te he
‘pedt Steer’ (ef wadove0 Yo fost#aco edd mort bodon od hte. ae : i
03 bow 3 bye palbsog aha ‘ae koe tb of beome. eyorelqensit, somal, ‘«dnoboaeh
_“ebhdat of” (Line? rhode ontn vendamcit eidontodas baw frodth, # bars
- Yomee “te out eds Ot inet we satyeq: ‘fueds bw: tee ‘genimong. ‘aba es
ye retganil degra’ ay yorcqewl trode yd ‘yvrovited add to folirahienne
“ft theses daad egnivae tntof ertt gattonob Lye Xoo tteoge
adigtt yas! to" coutquull #todth ve "eaater vo review a" hap so 29aeup q
Plaogeb bkae ya bojnonetget jheogeb pO eavossa. abeurt owe 08. ‘misig.z0
“ fiomst ot Rabert biss tg eftit tart std. cosig of an.08 aan food
bebiverg Ylanorgxs doatsim 9. ont. “syszegorg: efoa ait. aa ora
‘dood tun ont tides ‘beaaterath ‘od ot tou sew ¢ twa jm bbmeg ‘ould acts
ed 0% minfo zo atiyix wa 20° osdceutt Sods Wl toekor ost tes
bonus axew “good ¢Laoqoh bisa vd botnoaoxqer thoogod 0 wort baw?
_ bemis ano vhima’ aid. bas worrelquarit duadiA : + axerulgnte ome oF ov ;
tette toloteds Jot aniyeg sod in conlmong osid , , Rosaqupes tiesit 4
- aaoLe hetovtfeb bis besuooxe aw #oaténoo out sos feet sf me +o :
gud ef8ee 108 todsoo at Litem cvoustaawl aout od toot aned ond a aw ;
abs edd ot “misko to atdigts Yaa to" xoviaw s auixevifeb 2 baggant .
“pid bedatbugot eansigundt duedLa ob od boorps bpd. oat 38. Seneene 1
revo Yeq of Jon yrukd baw at ainad axis sabyitvon w soaxineo, pesado i
stusbooeb 8 abe
roe CRE 4
bode buverdgt seusoed BNOw.swo TT aow pottacup at wo t8 owed anh oat
, Pes BS
ox en jem sew oxouid sishtw 10% vhost »” eentbatt oxen °9 vant
ay ak
aid ond ot cuitisians rene erTew ‘iehew tud phat 2 side: at at
At the time claimant and Albert Humphrey sigmed the document
with which the instruction is concerned, acknowledging that
decedent was not indebted to her or her husband for enything,
the negotiations for the adjustment of the cifferences between
the parties and for the dismissal of the pending proceeding had
been concluded and the agreement reached in connection therewith
had been signed by Albert Humphrey after it had been reduced te
writing by attorney Roemer, who represented Antoinette Humphrey
and her husband. It will be noted that the instruction reads in
part: "If you also find from the preponderance of the evidence
that Antoinette Humphrey did sign said document with the under-
standing and agreement, if there was such agreement, that the
seme was not to be delivered to James Humphrey or his agents and
Was not to be binding and valid on saic Antoinette Humphrey until
said suit had been dismissed and said differences adjusted between
the parties thereto, and that said document was signed by Antoinette
Humphrey solely in reliance thereon and in consideration thereof
***%," Understanding and agreement with whom? There is not a word
of evidence in the record of any such pinnmaiens or agreement with
eanybodye The very purpose of their lawyer in securing the signatures
of Albert and Antoinette Humphrey to the document was to forward it
With the contract of October 1, 1931, to James Humphrey so that he
also might sign the lattere The written acknowledgment by both
Alpert and Antoinette Humphrey that decedent was not indebted to
them in any amount or for anything was an important factor in the
transaction and constituted a material part of the consideration
for the execution of the contract by James Humphrey. It was clearly
intended that said acknowledgment should be delivered to decedent
with the contract. How then could the jury properly find that the
document signed by Antoinette Humphrey was not to be delivered to
James Humphrey until the pending suit was dismissed? But claimant
a ae
- tiw jaemee tye. xo tnempegnettg dove Yoo I Prope) sed nt: epnebive Oo
Odes
aiemsoobh oft heagie yordqeanl Jxod fs hata’ tnamteLo ontkd seabcihe
Wett nakabotwootoa ~bentsonms at sotsvorrtent ent dabdw oat iwe |
egnideyes wet boadesdl tet to sto of beddobmkt ton asw tnoboneb:
gpewted agonexoltls onl’ Yo ¢nomtanbhs odd x0? emmttabsogon and «
bsk gubheosorg gakbieq ot to Lescimath edt to? buocasliang end
dilwouedé soitosanoo ot betloaet tnemsemye odd bow bobulonoo need >
ot Seoubet ased bad 3k todta Youdqawl grodLa yd bengte geed bake
go pelqual ottentoiar betasaeiqet onw.. tamed yoatosin yd guts baw
mk abot, gottoyziant edd dat bedon ed LLtwal» sbasdaud ted baw!
porsbive edd Yo conprobsoqetg ond mmc? bait owls soy 2D" sdneqe
“stobae odd avte tuomoob bioa mgis Ld yordgmul wigomtodms tart:
eid teed «tuemsexge doue gow otetd 2h vinomestys bas ymboneta >
«bna atoogs ald to yeusquul semst of botevifss ed ot ton eaw “ist ©
Lhtea youtqawl edtenteim phen 10 Dhtew bas yakbmtd od fod soo ‘aaw:
noswiod betati he apoverettib be bas bosatuath need fast tual bksaw
pttontetns. Yd betala aaw dnemooh bisa dats. ates, qotetats eakitey aie
"
Teor? mo ltensbianoo ni bas mpereds eonaifet mh yLofoa yorriginty!
brow « ton ak exodt Sand ddiw tnemetge, bus yntbaaterabal oy Ae)
“aomwianyie etd galivoor at soywad xéeds to eeoqrug. yxev: emf cwybodyia .
tf bacwiol of egw snomgoh oss. o¢ Xoulqnuit est omtod ad, bus. sx0dts tor |
ort tedt Oa Yortlguwll somal oF el8@L af rededed 2e) doortmmoveddods iwi)
Adod Ye dnomybelwomles seit inw eof ./ stetted olf ngte tefyborconte:” 3
ot betdebal jog aaw joobooeh dacs? youriqamll ottonted mi ‘D.nw drodLA.
os ni totest dandrogml as esw guidt yas tot ‘xo damoma. yes’ me amma - 4
molierablame edd 10 txeq Lsitetem betuditanto bas moltoszem me k
Yrselo esy tT, «veto aemst Y¢ toaxinoo- edd. to 80 Léyvooxs ith i ae 7
dnobeosb od betevifoh ed bLworla dreary bsLwontoe bise tant hobrodat
Ob dads bahY, LEree ng euMh allt bhweg amd oO: igemeeme alle tke
of berteyifeh ef o% tom asw, pendqand : veka eakogma: W domo snomeed: i
aes dw thesalmeth gow tive gathaeg od Lhd! ‘wortgant amt
ol =
insists théve was a basis for the finding suggested by the queted
language of the instruction in the testimony of Alpert Humphrey
wherein he stated that in their conference in Mre Roemer's ciiice
the latter saids "I've got saae papers fixed up for you *** you
sign these papers and I will keep those papers in my possession and
you turn the bank book over to me *** — will held them in my
possession witil everything is dismiseed in Ceourte" According te
this testimony not only was the document in question not to be de=-
livered to decedent until the pending proceeding was dismissed by
him, but not even the contrect itself was te be delivered to James
Humphrey for his signature until after the said preceeding was ¢is-
Missed. The "papers" were of no value and the entire transaction
was idle and futile unless the "papers" were delivered so that the
contract might also be executed by James Humphrey. if Mre Roemer,
an eble and experienced lawyer, used the words attributed to him,
he certainly could not have intended to be understood as ststing that
he was going to “keep *** in my possession" the papers signed by
Albert and Antoinette Humphrey “until everything is dismissed in
courte" The only reasonable construction that can be placed upon
the language attributed to Mr. Hoemer by Albert Humphrey is that he
would keep copies or duplicates of the “papers* in his possession
until the pending case was dismissed and the obligations of the con-=
tract performed. The remaining language of the instruction pertaining
to findings which the jury was told it might make is similarly obnox~
ious as heaving no basis in the evidence. There is nothing in the -vi~
denee that would permit the finding as outlined in the instruction
“that said dccument was not to be delivered to said James Humphrey
by said claimant, Antoinette Humphreyy nor her husband or by any other
person for him, with her consent and autherity" nor the finding that
“said document came into the hands of James Humphrey or his agents in
= Se
= Re ia De
gainisiteg nolvousd ant oft Yo dgavgnal gnbvthwor Sit “semttreg*toerd
salle vee vd 0 bredeserl cat ton econaguartt otdentodnh ya ae
kip.
hesoup SHY yo heseoaaia BNkbALT ety cot Wieet wae owsigg tht dekh
Vertigo giadLa te yaombsaed ont ot mo idowxdank oy ‘to sgengnal
evitio-eWemeON .aM tk someting slots ni dad Hodede olf nioredtw
roy eS yoy tol gw bexit stogagy ema Goy ov'I" wb kee cospel ous
bos ‘toLeveceoy ya mi etegsy osons Good LLiw T bas dusqegq owony ‘diye
ya ni met bLod Libw T Wee wor ey xeve wood anal ene wee MOY
ay Witla bat W\¢rg0d ni bowalweky af gatniyrowe K2dnis 6 Sethoentq
<9) 6 62 Jol solvseup xt snemvdod ens Bde YLnd Jou yYnomkdaod’ Ebay
«i ‘yeaa neh! daw aukbesvorg gatbusg oie Litoas" jovsheoeb os baroveL
apmst 0} hotovifoh od of enw toast Wenighe’ eid neve’ ton tud eonst
~gid caw gnibdscorg bibu ade vests Livi sites d ging ts ‘eit’ sab¥ youtiquull
foisone nat eridro ont bite evfev of to’ ovew “arouse” Sah” vheatita L
oid gent Oa botevifeh evew Yareqaq’ aiff wee lee SE EeT Bima obi vaw a
qromoo% sz TX. youdqawsi womet yd Bovuedke od We ‘tify lw tuentiso0
yinted of begidiaéds wbtow edé ‘beaw erewal pspootteqxs bra’ eld’ ne
gat) pultade es bootetobsa o€ 0 bobinednt ovat fon biiios ‘Ulditebds ‘ox
“Ud benyta exoqag silt “autuastuod yx HEI qéem of Gmtoy baw bt
ra nk boas inetd at guittyrove Lidnw” Yoriquul evdertotat bas "ets,
= gogu eran: od aso add told ous 3n0o eldstouser vito ed? ".dxto0 q
) a dak? ek Koruriqaustl trodi wd tomeen ool oF bowwdivtds egadeHsl ont
moianozaog aid ni Yacogaq’ otis ‘to astacltqed to aokgos Good bivow j
cnbo ot? Yo anetiag tide otf ake hbub elie” kbe Shed getbee Wap kites j
~xondo white take at oem depim $f bLod eaw ‘crt, ond wo lity agnthntt og ‘
~ be ons att patvon al oxen? seondbive iy at Shand ol pihvsit’ odes a
mois onriant ents it poniktine | aa goibntt oft thwrec’ Bitwow dan} aBhob |
” gorse aemat bie Ge ‘botovifob ef a2 ‘don esw tnemooh bias dade” 4
0 Bie ee
dealt gut ba? oats 10M Sy oP el kan tneeseo ‘end ” pi aba 4 pots .
nk ‘céicbua abd x0 vonsigaa somal, ‘to -sbaod by ee mien boy ag
p fia4g @ Tooouleale geaw diane gattivewe cod tite abe anigettl otamalt
oll
violation of and contrary to the order and direction, if any, of
said claimant and her husband and against her wiil anc consent"
%% is, of course, the rule that claimant was entitled te
have the jury instructed upon her theory of the case and it is
aiso the rule that an admission or an apparent admission, whether
written or verbal, does not constitute an estoppel but is subject
to have its importance as evidence affected and either igereased
or diminished by consideration of all the facts and circumstanees
under which it was made. (Ce Be & Qe Re Re Ve Bartlett, 20 Illes
Appe 962) However, neither of these rules sanctions the giving of
an instruction that constitutes an invitation to the jury to make
findings of fact that have no possible basis in the evidences The
instruction under consideration was misleading, unfair and hichiy
prejudicial and the giving of it to the jury constituted reverzible
errore
It 1s claimed that the court improperly admitted svidenoe as
to Albert Humphrey's services and expenses in and about the eare
and maintenance of the premises. There is merit in this contention
inasmuch as he filed no claim for such services or expenses and
evidenee concerning sams could only serve to confuse the issues
raised by Antoinette Humphrey's claim. Weither has the evidence
eoncerning the payment Albert Humphrey claims to have made on the
purehase price of the premises any proper place in this proceeding.
Such ¢ther points as Rave been urged have been considered
but in the view we take of this cause we deem further discussion
wminecessary.
For the reasons stated herein the judguent of the Girowuit
court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
ae REVERSED AWD REMANDED
Friend and Scanlan, JJe, concure
CRETE SER? BSE Se tee
‘te eyo ¥E ihe BN GBC bee rebro ‘elt oF Yrottiwo bis “6 Ho fetol¥
" daeunoo dhe Litw vet Yarlege bite bnedoud con ‘bis snamiste ‘ptsa
eo? deli Line caw eomke le said ened erty’ poaduo's to Vek gt ON"
‘@k FE bith owe ws ‘To erode tol ngh Dod owidant Coit sky evewt
He ctdettir’ (x0 Keellinb shetinggs' id ‘xo’ noLebitbe ce dail) blbx oat oaks
goohaue at sie Leqyetue ue bdudtdanes tom wood yLadzev 10 modtize®
becawrsht teddies bia bodesYte sonebive ae ebaedtoqm! adt eved od
Wenhsamworto Bs eset ont tha to aokserodlamo w hedatntmth m0 ,
si IT O% ,dgortree Vy ok Hop 8 os 9) tyke Ue oY melee xo baw |
6 gaivin $a) amtdonse valet eaods Yo rettd ten’ etevewoH | 7 2e “ies )
“glen ot Yuh ed Of noid adivek ns wodterd Ed aro o taslt otdourdant 4 na.
ety soonebivs ett ni eles ef@rabog of ovait dai} dont to asilbati®
‘hele lat boe thetm yentbeste ta exw mo ttarebbenoo tobmy wie ae
eldiareve t bédud tienes Nt omy of FE YO” ‘anhalt ‘Bro bbbolbuthag”
re * reer t valu teg Ns Bate ghia aan |
as womshive bedtimhs eroqougmi temdo GMs dadd bomiefs er de 8 q
emee oft dwods bus at sentegus bas meotvise atyinyaidl Seedta of” g
ne Baetaoo abis mi tines af exved?- stomimeng off Yo sorsnedmten Bis
(bre geenogxe x0 eecivtes doe cot miele om belt et sé Motimaante —
_. geueek esd canines of evise yuo blu oman geinasonop eonetived!
eenebive oft vad toddiok .atsLoon oudgl ettentosns yoheaket’
_ 0d 09 obec ovat amistio osilqnas orodEh teamyeg at yates
_sprikesoorg eidd ob eoatq Neqotg YR soodateng ent to piarsgene si! |
i hoee Rosman
ttuorto, aut 2o wnbinn ed} mtieredt, i patenicaiaeniiian: 0% (
il Seen Bak KO CNT eas eraron 0, phe 0 RLOe Ft he bn
39018
PRANK GORGEN,
Appellee»
pod
APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL
COURT GF CHICAGO.
290 i1.A. 608°
MRe PRESIDING JUSTICE SULLIVAN i
DELIVERED THY OPINION OF THE COURT.
Ve
THS CONTINENTAL CASUALTY
COMPANY, a corporation,
Appellante
This is an appeal by defendant, Continental Casualty
Company, from a judgment for $4,300 entered against it upon
the verdict of a jury in an action brought by plaintiff, Frank
Gergen, on a health and accident insurance policy issued to
him by defendant under date of September 1, 1926.
Plaintiff's amended statement of claim alleged issuance
of the policy} that the first and subsequent premiums had been
paid; that he had kept and performed all agreements therein;
that on or about November 23, 1951, he suffered from a bodily
giclmess and disease and became totally and continuously disabled};
that he has been continuously so disabled “down to the present
time;" that he filed his claim in connection with such disability
with defendant as provided in the policy; that on or about January
12, 1932, defendant paid the disability benefit provided in said
policy for the month of November, 1931, and continued to pay
such monthly disability benefits dow te and including the month
of July, 19323 that on or about September 26, 1932, he sent $41.05
due as premium upon said policy to defendant and that thereupon
said defendant wronefully and without cause returned said premium
to him and notified him that the premium would not be accepted
, ~ a”
athe, dew
Pies Bie Se eas
LACLO TAU monte GABST
ts ey WR! f Cet
@® ADRED be rauoD 5
us | FuLAUGAD JATHAITHOD SE |
umiderogtoo & «YWAIMOD
HeLLOMTA 6 oho!
a colie toe Ons toh th ge
% 06 QO A. i, O0es it shine
, wads te we tae womrem areas co
Wo Lasre0 Latomniseod ¢tuabas ted ved tnovgs oa ak eid?
noge ¢i tantuge bowedae OO6— de sot romp tut & mot ceroqare D
aunt Yiombely ue telguo ud sotto, an mi vst s to by ‘thtey wie
"od beset Yotfoq sonswant ¢asbiota bee Hitadd a ear
ORCL of sodtmodqe? Yo stab xobaw sashaored ve ts a
sf " pamauak begotten wkoLo 0 Sueno? ota bohnena ‘eM bateLt a
si noed bad samo eg duoupondus ‘has teak att daitt ¢yodfog iveting oa att “to
; ‘tkoredts atnamorys Lip bomsozog ‘baa ago a { od pete ahi
) “eltbed ro ‘wont boxe T tue oct sfteL eh xedovel ‘huni a aa teas
thefdeate viusonits09 bas Akstod onsen bas onooaib bas caemiole ie
$ateeetg esta od nwo" botdaatp oa ‘tswoust? a0 ‘aeee eal oat galt i
yet J
i nthdankh ai Bi ‘a0 Lipa i mints elit betis ox sauts
Be eo ay Seayay,
Hénom ond yatduLomt bee of swob at ttoned Wittdealy “bali nem
yh ay Gea a, »
as La4 ~ of Se0L 88 roduotgo2 tuods %0 10 att 1880s *
ae hae | Mes ore é 4
vivaiotrads dastd aww ‘nsbue teb ot ‘whtor ‘hie inet pe Fe aa ¢
meiorg Stee demtrtex cayas ‘tent ‘ma es tnabasted 2
we acu oth Sane Ree £5
hedqesos ed ton bisow mys buon “ott “gautd ‘mkt botttvon bos mbt
= Qe
and that the policy had been terminated and cancelled.
The averments of defendant's affidavit of merits pertinent
to this appeal are that in answer to question 12 of Gorgen's appli-
cation “as to whether or not plaintiff was suffering from or ever
had tuberculosis, paralysis, rheumatism, hernia, appendicitis or
any chronic or periodic mental or physical ailment or disease, or
was orippled or maimed, or had any defect in hearing, vision, mind
or body, the plaintiff answered 'No,' which answer your affiant
Says was wholly false in that plaintiff was suffering from a chronic
physical ailment or disease and had a defect in his body long before
the signing of said application and the securing of the said insur-
ance;" that “the plaintiff affirmatively answered that he understood
and agreed that he had made all the previous answers as a represen-
tation to induce the issuance of the policy fer which he had made
application, and that if any one or more of them were false all
right to recovery under ssid policy would be forfeited to the
company if such false answer was made with actual intent to deceive
or if it materially affected either the acceptance of the risk or
the hazard assumed by the company; and your affiant says that his
false snswers were made with actual intent to deceive, and that the
said false answers did materially affect the acceptance of the risk
and the hazard assumed by the company, and that if truthful answers
had been made to said questions the defendant would not have issued
its said policy to the plaintiff;" and that “paragraph #8 of the
said policy provides for the payment of disability benefits in the
event the plaintiff shall suffer from any bodily sickness or disease
which was contracted and began while the said policy was in force
as yegards health insurance, and your affiant says that the bodily
sikeness er disease from which the plaintiff alleged he was suffering
at the time he filed his claim under the said policy and for which
»delloonss bas betentmrey mood bat yotlog end gadd beis
inenkttog etigem to divebitiea e'tasbasteb to adnmemiove oT
-ifqqe ataegztod te Sf motvaoup of tewans mt ted? ots Laeqqs ates, ot
<eve to movtkd naka tive sew Tiisaiel[q don to stodtedw of ag” mahi
"6 abttotbmeqqs «etuxed .oelteouresdt calayisted ,atavivotedud bad
<o yoenonth «0 tuemfie Lesiawiq xo Lednom oiheben ve oinorio Yrte
brim amotaty .aniteest ak gooteb was bad ro .hemkas to befaaite asy
_ taektts xwoy tewans Ao Lito 1,0" hotewenc Miveiale ett Qxbod to
osdie @ mort puixotive nlet Dbigeabeprmesi’ sinned mt goa yilfotw asw ayse
exoted gael ybod sid ak sonia s bart bice eanenth: 20 toomits isoteyq
ued bise acid bd pahuoes ods hous wotsaatiqus bias bead aa ont
booderoisar od duscit berewane elovisame Ya riddately outs" goats Pic
esqgaedl Y
“Hone TEet a as erewase auotvorg ot fa eben bet od sett beoraa bas
rh ivy ie.
- ebham bari oss Ho. xo yosfog ous % sonsvaat oils ouba od so kteat
ieee yaa
fis euge? oxo moriz ¥ eTOm TO On ws uk saad ‘ba eno bene a
+b ES Ee
_ onld sd beg torso? og biwow votiog iow 9b a Trovenes ot “tight
By be ES eae
evisnos oe taodnt Lauder sig-tw ‘Ssbam wat’ womens “vase pees ow .
ks we Syst NM ee
zo atx off Yo, eomedgooos ould rosie 40 petoorte etatzosam rs u 10
was ihiog |
aid gedt eyes insitts s0y bun VeTwgaeS ont xe bemmass we ta ont sf
eis dort ba yevicoeh of snodnt Lewtos thw eben orow erowane eafnt —
, Pb; Butt Ape. y : # oar IT ars cy:
walt edt Yo oontqooos edt tootie ylistretem bib atowane epia® bine |
arowens Lvtddest th told bus «yneqmog att Yd bemwegs bioxas Te E
[ Oo fee © 4
bevest eved ten biuow tJushmoteh od anotiaaup bisa of eben need bad |
edt to 8 dqszastaq" sadt bas ceili edd of nf Aap na q
i es ele ha
Reet ak asw ike 3 pane ‘ld abies ‘diibe te pret aa do
wo Sue
the company paid certain indemniities, was contracted and began
long before the issuance of the seid policy."
It was further alleged that “in regard to the falsity
of the several answers as heretofore stated, that the bodily
sickness or disease from which the plaintiff alleges he is new
sufferings, or was suffering at the time he filed his claim originated
long before the issuance of the policy and did not come to the knowl-
edge of the defendant witil on or about the latter part of August,
19352, and that as soon as it had satisfied itself that it had not
been and was never indebted to the plaintiff wider the said policy
it refused to accept the premium due upon the said policy on its
anniversary date in 1932, and demanded of the plaintiff the return
of the amount of indemnity paid to the plaintiff with interest
thereon, less the amount of premium theretofore paid by the plain-
tiff with interest thereon, which return of premium it still tenders
back to the plaintiff, and still demands of the plaintiff the
return of the indemities paid."
Plaintiff, who did not testify in person or by deposition
because of his ill health, obtained from defendant without medical
@Xamineation the policy sued on, which provides in part as fellows:
*This policy is issued in consideration of the statements
and agreements contained in the application therefor, and the
psyment of premium as therein providede The copy of application
hereto attached or herein endorsed is hereby made a part of this
contract."
The sickness indemity specified in the policy is $100 a
month and the policy provides with respect thereto:
“The insurance given by this policy is *** (2) against
loss of time from bodily sickness or disease which is contracted
and begins not less than thirty days after the date of this
policy before stated.
te
"Part VIII. Health Insurance.
"In the event that the Insured shall suffer from any
bodily sickness er disease which is contracted and begins while
“on
raped bas hetestinoo saw qastiiamoebas ciatios bisq..ynsqmon edd
*“ottog bites pels to eonayaat, afd oxo ted gaol
Ne teLat.odt of brsget ok" dads. bogelis: sedsaut aaw tl oi os
Utbod of? godt «bodate exo tototed 29 axewens Laxover om? Xe
won al ed pegelie VWivgielg edt do toy mozt eegsath x0 easmloke
~betantgize mielo.aid belit oct omit odd to gukre Viva .agw. 20 .<pnixe tive
~Lwosad edt of 9moo dom bih bus Yollog sit to eosiavaal ot gxoted guot
2 5M a
ae ES
ee ee
if
etauguh to tag tattal edd dvods x0 no Lisi dnabne ted edit, to ephe
Pom bad.22 sald Wostt pottalias bad.t2,26 s009 as. tadd, bos. Stel
» odfog Alas qt sebey Yiddakela edt at Sateeket ores. aay bee ae
atk oo yolloq bisa eft mogy ovb muimorg edt Sqeoes of beawtor
amuses eft Tikjatalg edd, %o bobusmed bus .SéeL mi atab Vien tey tans
_deorotad dobe Vtsaele edt of Sten yetamobsd to gawomsectd 29
-nialq ost yl Sieg oxototeteds mutmoerg.to davomas exit. anol «morass
erobnes [Live $f mimorg to autor sloldw _mooteds,deeretat sd tw) wht ,
edd tiieaial¢ edd to sbmameh [Lite bas «thtiaielg edt .od : tnat :
Ny bing aekd hommes odd to nme
nottkeaqeb yd. 19, smaneg mi viitned gon bth ose, ATiaabess
Laokbsm gees tw tushagtoh mort deniatdo ..difoed LLbatd te. sausoed |
sawollot as diag af aebiverg moldy ynebeue yoitog oft fi
Steomet ata edi te moliate a Sees se +.
eis bua , tototeds pogo her ‘a sot ak bontstnos a . hae
moliasoilqga te yaoo off ]
aids to Fioa & shan wouell a Boas or © abowoHt Se eter a 4
ow: Oe ey 4
ri teawane
8. nose a yabies, ond mi pane dimes asomtede i os 4
»» ModeteMs Seeqaen se be mide’: yaties,.ont Ane fe) o
sodeutane (6) okie akodate: 0 sar ah sommes Cae ‘ert :
ality to eae. W8¢ ted te ayab Lydhrore! 7 aeol am hewn A bas
sSonaivenl difeod «ITTV. ened". oath 20 wpatel ee
— Sts Mott teTiva Slaa borwend edt teddotneys edt Eh) oj)
efidw enined bua betoetinoos ek doldw sesoath to anerlole ’
cohen
this policy is in force as regards health insurance, the Company
will pay for the loss of time resulting therefrom as followss
“A. Said Monthly Indemnity will be paid for such peried
as the Insured by reason of such sickness shall be totally and
continuously disabled from performing each and every duty pertain-
ing to his occupation, and shall also by reason of such disability
be strictly and continuously confined within the house and therein
be under the regular care of a legally qualified physiciane
HEHR
"This policy, except Part VIII, takes effect upon its de-
livery to the Insured while in good health and free from injury)
Pary VIII takes effect thirty days later if all premium due mean-
while has been paid as agreed." :
In so far as relevant here the application attached to the
policy ond made a part thereof provides:
"I hereby apply for insuranee in the Continental Casualty
Company (hereinafter called the Company) based upon the following
statements which I make in answer to its interrogatories:
ee eg
“12e Are you now suffering from or have you ever had
tuberculosis, paralysis, rheumatism, hernia, appendicitis, or ary
chronic or periodic mental or physical ailment or disease or are
you crippled or maimed or have you any defect in hearing, vision,
mind or body? (If so, state full circumstancese) Woe
WHE
"14. Are your foregoing answers complete and true? Yess
"15- Do you understand and agree to each of the following
statements lettered (a) to (¢)? (a) That you have made each of
the foregoing answers as a representation to induce the issue of
the policy for which you have made applications (b) that if any
one or more of them be false all right to recovery under said policy
shall be forfeited to the Company if such false answer was made with
actual intent to deceive or if it materially affects either the
acceptance of the risk or the hazard assumed by the Company; ***
(f) that under no cirewnstances will the insurance for which you
have made this application be in force wntil the delivery of the
policy to you during your lifetime and while you are in good health
and free fram all injury and that then the health insurance (if any)
does not take effect until a later time as stated in the policy;
***, {Answer *Yest or ‘Not and if the latter give full explanation)
ge" (Plaintiffts answers are italicizede)
The evidence bearing upon the material facts is undisputede
November 23, 1931, plaintiff filed a claim with defendant that
he suffered from a bodily sickness and disease which totally and
continuously disabled him and said claim was allowed and paid
at the rate of $100 monthly for eight months, witil and including
Yrmgmed sit ~soonsuyent détaod abxeget: as 90701 mk al yolLoq aie
gawallot as motto nesdd anit Grane oats te enol oats ‘xo% Bh. <iny
bolkxeg Mowe xot Shee’ od fLiw ‘éLemobat ‘els noK bisa sal
base ylintod od [Lada aeemtota Neve, to mocast yd beuvedt off ce
~ttladxeq yIxb yreve bas Meas yatazetreq mort beldeath ytlavounts noo
Yilidseth tosa to moeser yd caie Lisda bna gnoldaquoee ait of pnt
sisted? bas savor oft altdeiw benkines etapa: bre ultotitea ed
_ sietoieytg belilisup yilsget a. to eseo taispet edt tobpa. od
ens ge hare
~ob agi moqu doette aeaiet .«ILEV stat sqaoxe Lo
evertat og ett ba st toert boo, mi geome rms wi fn =
“Hse wh avimotq Lfe th tedel. Ayah Bobo eats is
& 8s
ot yo? botostis nolisotidqns ons exert tusvofet as tat 6a: ‘nt bh
ieeblvety Yoorsdd #xeq 6 Shan bas wae
Yiiswaed Ladmontined ad? ut soneweak “ot vigcs aie
gxiwoliot eds nogw boasd (ymeaqued edt belies xoy saiored) tains
rasixvedagorredni ati e¢ towang uf oatam
oath: ‘tn
came egty ake t's
_(. beasl 29ve, 10%y,9 i
Ys xd i te ane flan Bente B wa syne 28.
@%6 to easeath to tnomlia Leola einem okboixe 10 oksomste
eMolatvy .gnixeod al gooteb yas ey 20 Ntiox to belqgito woy
*Qh (.a9onatasmiorio Lint sdeta .oa IL) tyhod to.
tie a Oy AUR ARE Se gas ie
eBoy fort bas otelgume RTOWE Le aptepeegs THOU OFA. Saat
gniwolto% ent to Prom 4 ot a woy of &i"
Ye tose ebam oredr 21, comes hee bangwsne e) boveddod etnomedata’
to sweat oxlt sone oF os motintnoaetqet s as atewans galogetot edd
ete hE Boets (Cf) ookteoliegs ebam evar wey Moldw 102 yok~og orm
yotlog hisa tobsy yYreveoos o¢ tayix {fs oafst ed mont To exom to emo
dj iw ohem saw teowens oetet Hose ht moO ote oF hetketxbt ed Lfase
oid xositte efootis yLiskretvam Fill to eviesed os Yaotal Lousow
wee Eyring D ont Yr bemiveas Puede salt 20 cleats sony tp: )
gov sloidw to: sone uonk ott ILiw esoned amvrorks on i
ene te Weviies ort otis eoxot at 2 roitso gga ;
Sifisei boog ret 818 u £ bre aur bn! NOY, ©: “ellos
(aus "REY Seoshincahdahh Med bibsct oe?” nk Piaied tial “Lid wb at ost
iyoifog ett nk bstete es omit regal & ry too lie ane sins y
(sabtanatgne Lirt ovig totdeal sot ti bue owt a lacy a
__ , tebestolied i etm exowans ORvniads) “ask ¥
sbodugatinu ae ato’ Is txot em ons oa anizaod eomeb tye il jo BARS
ad Pepa 0
bitty tuckhien tab 1b tw ale a petit Ttitatetd: “queer 88 xodamvolL Pi
bite yilstot doidw ouseetd) bus asemloie yitbod s mort heretiva on ;
bisq bas bewolts aaw ittefo Stes Bue mid ‘botdee th ‘Lawounkt noo
port py tf
anipafont bas. Lidsur qastnom dstgts xt vtddaom OdL@ as wd 7
-5-
the month of July, 1932, after which time defendant refused to
accept any further premium payments from plaintiff and also re-
fused to longer continue the payment of such disability benefits.
Julia Ae Gorgen testified by deposition that she and
plaintiff were married December 26, 1921; that Gorgen had an illness
subsequent to a hunting trip which he took in December, 1922, wut
that he was not compelled to absent himself from his work on account
of it; that after thelr marriage her husband first visited a doctor
in 1923 when he went to Dre Dargans Who, after examining him, sent
him to Dr. Church; that she was present when the latter examined
plaintiff and that he said her husband's trouble was “congested
meryes of the spine; that the doctor did not tell her or plaintiff
that the latter had multiple sclerosis or that his condition was in-
curable; that Dre Church told her that he would give plaintiff some
medicine to inject in the arm that would take care of the trouble;
that the doctor did not tell her that the medicine would not cure
Plaintiff but would simply retard the diseases that the doctor showed
her how to give the hypodermics but that he did not say what the re-
action would bes that she gave her husband one injection a day for
forty-eight days of the medicine prescribed; that after said injeec~-
tions “he seemed to improve - that is» the nervous condition let
down, he continued to play golf and work and carry on his life as he
had beenj" that she did not observe that plaintiff's health after
his visit to Dr. Church was not as good as it was when she married
him; that from December 4, 1923, when he visited Dr. Church until
the spring of 1927 plaintiff was an automobile salesman and was not
"laid up by reason of illness or any disability;" that he played
golf and his health was good during that period; that their baby was
born June 22, 19263 that supsequent to 1927 plaintiff “didn't do much
for recreation *** because he was very busy at the office and I was
sick a great deal, and we had a little baby and he had to stay home
bi
By
}
'
bawosla ted ood ails teshg feasealh of} bretet yiqmta binow ted Mbatelg :
ape
Ot beastet Inebneteh oaks so kalw Tedie Séel 0 viut to ALS go eel
“ot oafs bas tiivntela 08% adsiomyog ‘sus tmoxq “geddaut ws ‘Vatésn |
oad Lioned Yikideuis seve te nomex ond ountd aoe zonned od. beast
ae one fad? anidisoqed ys bostivued negrod 4 eitite spear ye
wadutel co bad noyion tals tices 2s rodeo 9K ‘bskasem: exew. ttdnielg
serat s88@E etodmooed mi doot ed doidw gkad galinud o of “deeupsadye
dneosa £0 aeow wis saliebe Uoamid ‘tneads os 7 ian ton, shal bah tats
zeseek. a ed hake pec kt. biked easel ton spekrien tkods wots tat qk ‘30
ops satis, pAtatnoxe watta eoslw eseg za +a o8 snow out ext exer oh
bo mimaxe sodtal edt ect faonety . ie ents sasts Hom « + od fhe
| Aegaegn 0" aa okaots a thandoust oi bisa oa Pant, hue jiteadalg
ribakatg 0 rod ‘fier ‘fon Da, xadoob odd saat gonbye utd 30 ee om
-ai aaw mold thao a ket taitd " ‘wtaorefoa efalstium bad «stitial out teat
oma Vildalale ovis bawor § a teats. add bios soca ol $ at tolteure ‘id
{eldue xt oii 20 oxao oat bfvor dadd ms ost at tootat o@ oul utotbom |
ey
| exns ten ‘bLwow onkobher: mor dant sea fier tom bik otood © ould dons
“ot ocd dane You Jou bb md datid tod aotereboqyl eft erty ‘et wort cot
tok Yab a wolsoe tat one ‘aad gem ‘tert eres ode tant pee een so ton
~ 90 eas Shea ed%e tasty ‘thedixowore ontko thor ond Bad ayeb ty aim tot
vel no Lt ono auovron ond ged dostd = ovengett ot: bomsea | ‘ath ‘nay
od as 2 Bt ne, Bt SE en
ou ;
Y OPRE
“bot rten ale rode ast at as ‘po ant tom vaw — _ sel vie oF fits A
Lisnor monet. «a. bet tely, ont nonw yEROL 9h tothe vod ott aaitd eae
gon sew bas names Loa elideno tis se ‘pow erhemterty veer te ‘diteagl ont j |
“poyeta on gost "tyditideats ye to seentrt ‘to ‘based ed qt bat? ;
aswyded thedd dat pootzeq fads ‘gabtob hoog ‘gaw défeod did bus a
soma ob ‘e"ab Eb" ritvatels Ret oF # mouyoudsa fasts ‘yoser ass ‘emt ined | |
aaw I bua eoitte edt ts yond yt87 Baw odd ‘sdusood wie Rosas t6o% tor ;
omit’ Gabe be Ban “wit ‘Bie’ od ecee2E 6 ‘het ow bie iden $a0eg sina R |
~ Ga
with mej" that after his visit to Dr. Church December 4, 19235
her husband did not agein consult a dector until the spring ef
1927, when he went to Dre Stettauer, who gave plaintiff treatments
of prostatic massage for about three months; that at the conclusion
of such treatments plaintiff apparently recovered his health and
“did not have to lay off work at any time during this periods"
that in 1928 plaintiff went to Dr. Waitley for hich irrigation
treatments and that his health from 1927 to 1930 appeared to be
goods; that im March, 1931, plaintiff “was feeling quite miserable
end *** Dr. Stettauer decided that ne should have a spinal puncture
43% 1% was done at the Hines hospitals" that his next medical atten-
tion was in November, 1931, when plaintiff went to Martinsylile
Sanitarium; that she first learned that her husband had spinal
sclerosis in January, 19313 that ot the present time plaintiff walks
with the aid of crutches or a cane and that it is difficult for him
$e get around; that his lower limbs are gradually becoming paralyzed
and that it is very difficult for him to bend his knees and anklesy
that he has vains through the whole bedy and particularly in the
back and in the nape of the neck; and that from her observation of
her husband she would say that he is growing steadily worse.
Three laymen, one who knew plaintiff since the winter of
1925-26, another who knew him during the peried commencing about
three years before September 1, 1926, on which date the policy was
issued and the third who knew him since 1924, testified to seeing
Gergen frequently from the commencement of their acquaintanceship
with him until about 1929, and thet upon the occasions they saw
him he appeared to be in normel health and that he played golf
and worked regularlye |
Dre Clarence M. Dargan of ©mtiac testified that plaintiff
consulted him in November, 19233 that he eomplained of pain M his
Legs, especially while walking, ween at times he would stagger from
"Tae Dine ‘Bide deers ated Biod Od ‘aia xo% Kane to pm ffl
5;
- Bac
os J
ee20L oh tevimenad stom wat ot # taty sig toby dautt “hom datw
"Go" gateqe odd Ltsnn xodood a ¢ Lras09 niaga ton bk bandeut xo
asiemisett ‘Wiatatg eve orl cromas dove ad of tnow ot ‘mean arse
wokewtoneo ealt 3a jest tasldnon sorts dogs 20% epaveas: ottataor | 2%
- hewe déisod abet beukvaons. vitnoteags Vuivatalg aduemiaond psreny %
' Wgbo req adits aatkeub amd te te tz0w tte wi of ‘vad cen bbe
TS Se 1) if be renee f
no Ldagires ia at 20% welt law at ys ‘fnew ‘tihtabae eset ‘ma deste
od ‘oe ‘borseqgs ober ‘ot Weer ‘mo xt si Loos eld ‘test bas “etnondeort
’ oldarea ta edu untisot a Bibitadg Boys ‘elowell mi osts ‘hoes
omutonve ‘Lente s evadt biwoce on santa bobioeh "xemad eae st sell:
~n6gt2 Esotbon dress abd toslé * ¢tat too no rkE ons ‘ts ‘onob uaw gk rr
‘Gtiivaneecie'éd eden Vilgnlaic wake Side | rodasvol. a nsw 10h
fenige bad bredand wed dasié mee BEES ata todd pn OE fone
iden Yitditahy “tuts SHoaody Ged “s0 Faalh (008 Reece diseasien
mi 20? @fwolrtte cf $i Sostt bmw Ones # to sedogury YO fi “eit a) bw
; Ray, Oy aA OU es: es ag Mae eR PR |
saab tenn ‘gaiimpood yileubers ete aduli xvewol eid ‘yaay ‘4B 8 st le |
£
aide “at Uitetwolb te Bie wee ofedw dit) HeWGedS ‘snked’ dat od fad?
Yo spivavzbeds roit Ho dads fre icon bald aa ‘Sad ond nt ba soo
| wor ef sd turd yoo bow ‘eae Sided oat
’
|
souxow VEtbseda gxivorg
‘ty weenie est somite 2itatste worst ‘od oad qnomsk’ :
“gabds gatboremiod Bottog of) yatiat itl “oi ld .asi-ae
daw Yoitog wnt edsh Moldy no eer ef toUmetqe? ‘ore%ed ere
puitess oF petYives) ,ac@r obitta mil wont vaillaeel aah sis’ ae
qifveoditittevpos ctedy to 2ndemeodemeuo orld it et ehSip
wae Yeid anotesoos of Nog Fuad bas CREE dere wee a |
_— wee ont Pehly bits AvtWbd Labeion mt Sy ‘Oy ‘poles! itd {
at oom, &: “ghia estes tn i
PPE abet § als botervade Pao! to ‘pulicad © Wy a bo ie
‘qh Wey iq to beta Lgaitiy ‘eal dele reser Vere”
“wert “épaade Btvow off womid ga ‘nese,
=~
side to sides that he complained of incontinence of his urine
and a dragging sensation in his legs; that he told the witness
that he had a lack of sexual desires that he characterized his
pains as a numbing, drawing and aching sensation in his legs;
that "he said he felt as if they were rheumatic, felt that way,
described them as a sort of rheumatism;" and that he said that
he had noticed the ailment for sometime. Dr. Dargen testified
further that he examined plaintiff and found "that he had nerve
changes in his legs of such a type and character that I feleé he
should be examined by a man who specialized in nervous diseases
alone;" that he gave plaintiff a letter to Dr. Archibald Church, a
nerve specialist in Chicago; and that he told Gorgen that he had
nerve changes in his legs but did not tell him that he had an incure
able disease or that he had spinal sclerosis of the multiple type.
Dre Archibald Church, now retired and residing in Pasadena,
California, testified by deposition that he examined plaintiff
December 4, 1923, and obtained from him at that time an history
which was substantially that "for ten years he had noticed some
tendency for his hands to tremble, and that about a year before,
efter severe effort in hunting, his legs gave out,» with a feeling
of numbness and weakness, which also involved the hands, and that
this entirely disappeared after a few days or weeks; that subse~
quently at the time of an automobile show he was on his feet day
and evening for about ten days, with grent fatigue, and all his
symptoms recurred and had persisted, including weakness of the
bladder, reduction of sexual power, instability in walking and stané-
ing, amd clumsiness in the use of his hands3" that he told the wit-
newe that he had been noticing these symptoms for about ten years;
end that he [Dre Chureh] diagnosed plaintiff's condition as multiple
insular sclerosis of the spinal corde Dr. Church also testified hat
he recommended a course of intramuscular injections of cacodylate of
}
EE
_ sab aid to sonenigaoont to bengelgatos oe testy tobe od obia
sacatin ort bfot of dant teaef etd mit noiteenca yatgysth s bap
ait boatiatostate asf dasiy fezteeb feuxee Yo ost » bod ont tasld
_» taget aid al soijsansce » tisto we bate paivexd egiidaa 2 aes anieg
+c fasts slot rolianawad: etew et: Ti as sLot ou bise oni” tauld
tacit biss ox tess bas " jaa Eo ame to iuoe 8 ae most? boditonph
bettivacs sey 0K di a ieee wt sromt Le ane bopitox bast ot
evien batt out tarts” swe one ribgatese be s.tmoxe red ‘tents xostday?
ont olor I dauld regostesio bua aut 8 Aoee % wees ant ak _sepaado
wr esasesith vavercon a “benttatooga extw eet 8 xe bontmexe og biveda
8B eHosst bisdinow o of wate 8 ‘Mitatelg Rig bees Sanlg “yemats
3 bast oul dats ‘s0g'T00 blog oat tna ate tepeg the nt talLatooae ey zpa
~ussomt Ais bask ont sant anh’ ih08 ton bay iat age oid me megiette | ov ten
ound ogi Lum ost? 0 a tnozeLoa Aonige ba of dat x0 ganoath ‘ede
csnobasatt nt aaibinor bas portion wor storm. biediters . rr
‘tivatesa jontmsxe aut 2 asta “mo 8 t80q08 xd holtivags, canaenegae |
| _ Fred adriyne omks deaid is mis sott benteddoe bas .oS¢l gh togupoet
_ Ona beoiten bed on etsey met coi" sort yListinsdedya asw do kdw
be yoroted raoy a tuoda dealt baa soldmord oF ebacst eld ‘xot, wore br
) auiieet s ddiv «tuo evay gol, ald syaiiau at ¢x02%9 exeyes <0
ded bas - saband ont beviovad, cata so tebe ageecioen bets eeossetouise.
qusath whextine af
yab toot eid Ho aw ext wosla. o£ biome due Ag to ont vigil /
: ie alt £fa bas, soup ton doom sd by eaysh oe tuods tot ae
We
a
onda sant Ashoew ae Seah wets seta boxsogg
tbr ab bLod oat tant | Nba #24 36 ge ft a sun
os i, babrtcaod eate orto, i “str antes et — ae
to egeLyboon to anoigoolpe ct. ni, to oamwOD eb
ole
sodium; and that in his opinion that treatment would not have
effected a cure but "I could only hope that it might retard the
progress of his disease."
On cross~examination Dr. Church testified thet intra-
muscular injections of cacodylate of sodium at the time he pre-
scribed them were considered of same value in the treatment of
multiple sclerosis, but that “further experience has shown it
hes no value *** except as a gere ral tonic;" that the af oresaid
disease “is prone to present distinct remissions over varying
periods of time *** I mean that a patient may show much improve-
ment, lasting for weeks or months, or even years" to the extent
that he would no longer be concerned by his condition and that he
would not know that he had any serious disease or illness; that it
Was possible that he did not tell plaintiff that he was seriously
ill or “that it was a serious situation, although my usual practice
- would have been, if the man we intelligent, to give him a full
knowledge of his condition;" and that “as far as my knowledge and
recollection goes I could not say that he had any knowledge as to
his actual condition or its gravity."
It was stipulated between the parties at the trial that
one Dr. J. Lewis Stettauer, if called as a witness would have
testified as follows:
"That Frank Gorgen, the plaintiff in this case, first
consulted Dre Stettauer in the spring of 1927; that he complained
of pains in the abdomen and that his legs bothered him. Upon
examination Dr. Stettauer found that there was an enlarged prostate
and he treated him for a period of months for prostate trouble and
the conditions complained of cleared up. In 1928 upon a consulta-
tion Dr» Stettauer suspected multiple selerosis and made some testss
At that time he did not diagnose it as multiple sclerosise He came
wuder his care again in 1930, still complaining of his legs. He
Was advised by Dre Stettauer to have a spinal puncture, the doctor
suspecting that he was suffering from syphilis, and he sent him
to the Edward Hines Hospital. In 1930 he diagnosed it as an
arthritic condition of the pelvis and gave him injections for that,
but at) that time he displayed all the symptoms of multiple
sclerosise in 1930 he continued to treat the prostate by massage
and gave treatments for suspected arthritis. In 1931 Dr. Stettauer
advised him to go to Martinsville, Indiana, Sanitarium, and on
My daslt (eeenlli 40 saseukh ano txoa “yne bad ed ded wort von bLsow “in
essteoxg Tolne Ms asw_ ox
bis hed
p rat ~ Ee
‘eusaed oma shat bas ataote oF Lire
_ Sasa oH” ,ataorefoa oLqit fim os | % i
dts? “ot anodes
7 xoustiese «xk Leer salskative batosqava vot atnemteott
wvadt ton bitow dnbetaetd tate motmbeo ahi ok dadse bis tmurtbos
eit beotor tda he tt ¢ostt eqosl YLhe bios I did ones a Hadootte
Se ; *, deacatb aid to atergotg
asvimi theif pettiveed MormiO sf mebtanimansaddexs aoe 99%
stg oof Omid oot to mi ibes te efatyboseo ‘6 ‘ero ttootat xotuonnm
to dnsieseots odd at euLav emma te berohikiton stow ‘monty bodtron
$8 eoda ae constieqxs venttaut ‘gone bud «sidonsitoa od 29 cit
bissex0 ts on) tadé “;elsod Lat ong 4 ae tqedke *** ettay on aad
“galyzoy reve anoiedime: Yonigate tnéeexe of onote’ al s#aseth —
esvoxgmt doum worle yam Jeoliaq & dais” Peon Ye omtks O38 abo tteg
‘fuodxo eft of "atedy wove te velleaom tn eXoeW tot amtfeel’ «feat a
on ‘teld hits” “a Ld LBB o bid Yd bomreekes ‘od xogeot on bivew oof Paid
a he og ee
“Yleso tthe usw of saity Ttickotg ELOF vou DE OH dame ontedeg aew
Soitestg Sebou Yr tywottte ,aottavite exotroe e asw YE gett” 0 ttt :
Lint » mid evi’ od cthoghitetak aiw mem ont 22 sabed-eved biuow
bas aaaasiatanl vat os tst ec galt bre *yro kt tone p wht tw egdo tee ¢
of ea 2 eube Lrornk Yrs had of todd Yea Fou biveo T wey! ‘ia iit: +
“ed iverg oft co ‘hobs bined’ Lonitoe eae |
tasty Leite ont ts aottusq edd neewied hovel a how it” °° # ae
: vast biuow wisns Be B Be beline ‘a ete TONS aiwed st" ore fun :
"wore? as ber ;
OO dant cae etile Ee i anne” ‘atid yng bree teat” —
bestia fase on salt ~S@L to guinge ot mt ei wis a bot
“nogy smut bexodsod eget’ fh.
aa. bas
eiduoxs vs advo xg “ote
cadlreme 2 megu BSeL at,
ot sesat wid to g 8 ak
zotoeb and : odin faniqe s eva o¢ tewattese al ws pepe
pth oes of Soe yabbiagys sot? patie Pia poeple gyros. tte
me as tk mong od oves al sind Sqaele | aentH |
ee £3 Last tS sates’ anti tts tangas ta
sgouasit Yd etatsoug odd toons od Sommbiaoo jem “sek ak coed
ie bare y Pree lonely sanskbal qoikivecis tall, Of Og Od, mid b
A aka bs
eanri- Seen de
=Qe
November 23, 1931, Dre Stettauer first advised him that he had
multiple sclerosis. ‘The plaintiif Gorgen continued to suffer
from multiple sclerosis up until his departure for Galifornia
in 1934."
Dre Douglas De. Waitley of livanston, iilinois, testified
that plaintiff came to him professionally August 24, 1928) and
gave hima history of his condition, which the witness wrote
downe On the trial he produced this history, which he testified
Was @ true record at the time he made it, reading seme as followss
“Patient complains of numb and tired feeling in both legs, and
patient feels more numbness in right leg. Above symptoms are
exaggerated on Walking and condition of legs has been present for
five years. Also complains of dull low grade backache." ‘The
doctor treated him for two months with prostatic massage and colon
irrigatione Dre Waitley also testified that there was something in
plaintiff's condition in the nature of spinal sclerosis but that
he did not tell Gorgen so.
An application for compensation filed with the Veterans‘
Bureau, signed and sworn to by plaintiff March 10, 1930, was admitted
in evidence, in which Gorgen stated that he consulted Dr. Dargan in
1923, Dre Church in 1923, Dre Stettauer in 1927 and Dre Waitley in
1927, in each instance listing “arthritis” as the "disability" for
which the doctors had respectively treated hime
Plaintiff was examined by Dre Benjamin F. Ward at the
Edward Hines Veterans Administration Hospital February 20, 1931,
at which time he told the doctor ‘he had had pains in his legs
which he had presumed were of rheumatic character for eight years
previous to 1931;" that “the pain was getting worse and he found
it mere difficult to balance himselfs;" that “he had some pains in
his Lower back also;" and that tnose pains had been "coming on
gradually for eight years." As a result of an examination of
Plaintiff's spinal fluid at that time it was determined that “there
baad at gacki mid beaivhe toa lt tewedtedte oad, gLBOr, usdusyvou
setiua o¢ beuniians mey7o) Tiitalelg exit hecertaee py yey tend
g@insotife® wok exudiageb. ated Lis orgy. aheoreflos. eee beer a
hettizaed yakontiil .notenevl to yels toll @ asiguott aa hile
bate y8SOL eso Fanaud hisre Ladetoxq mic of iso Thkdatsta tacit
etotw acont by old Mo hebw Ho tg tbabo. ale ‘te yrodskt 's ad ove
| boltifaed on Mois yyrodaid obi boowbore ont Soln? oft ‘nO scowob
i | rawollot ae omen gathaot ett eben et eal end oh ‘baeoex ‘ownd 2 ea
| bee ‘eapol Meod at gittise’ boty ‘bets dumsct to. antatqmoé ‘pmo dence
etn eto drys avod) ar tits ae eoondawnt 9tont “afoot tasitaq —
x02 daouorg need nest eget to a6 £3 thao bins sabilow Ho Sotoreanexd f
out? *. etlomsioad ober, wor Loub to. antsfqnoo oa “sBEA8y eek |
; s0to9 haa epanaau otdatuong tit 0 sat on owt x0? wit bekaweh ‘ates | i
alP GS Guat | Se tie on
nit pitta ono. sew ecent t ssts bostizaat oats watt oad smottegizrt
Se
se
Ol Sake Na Ee OO
it dealt tad ateoroLoa tonkgs to ommtan ons ak ‘mo kg knoe a'titsatelg —
Het 3 , BO we SEG ES Se By it Oe PY oe NB
on eg to) ffet ton bib oat
ee RE aed: = S cava"
taneredoV ary i be botit no Li sanoque ‘x02 mo itso tfags mA
“port imba baw .O8@L (OL Mote Tiidmtelq yd of rows bas bompia’ «i re
at Neguat .20 bedfvenos ot tend “pedete negro) ‘Ho titw txt Brrr
ni yoltiai «wt bao Yser at conndbea’ ond (e808 mt forte oa va esr
“ot yd thine tb" ott ae ‘Wake becca” gatte it ‘ponadant yr ‘nk eve to
slat be¥nokd Wibvtdcobuee ball Aetei bel "le
eit to besa® of Barwa 2H - id bon tmoxs ag Wht eee
Svaurg .
2 hav’ oti hoa RECN, ire oom vn ede” 3
PES Be
vk ‘enten: emma beet ‘ext ‘trad rey: i
; ya Se ge * 2 ig 4 bia i
mo aaiono" need ait eth vod Yat. baw tone gt wt st
any a ae nerve
10 sodtnmtmaxe a8 20. tives a "e Mearwoy ¢ digo wt i
tau Beane oh hoe wilt OBR Ts we it baron
oxo” sas bonterotob Pam $k omtd evend 8, biplt. pS!
oP SEES PIGEL DES Ay BELPER WES ee ted a te mike: sent
-10e
was no yenereal disease connected" with his ailment.
In Mareh, 1932, when plaintiff was admitted te the Hines
Hospital for treatment, Dr. Karl Fe %. Wegener of that institution,
a specialist in nervous and mental diseases, Giagnosed his then
condition as "Multiple Selerosis, advanced type" as a result of a
neuropsychiatric examination, during which the insured stated, as
shown by the hospital record in evidence, “I have pains in my head
end my eyes are poor. They hurt. There is stiffness in my ex-
tremities and my lower limbs feel heavy, they shake ani tremble on
me, can't walk very well." As to the “Onset of Present Illness,"
the hospital record reads: “Patient states that about 3 years ago
while hunting he became wet through and through and he felt his
legs becoming stiff, heavy and dragging, could hardly Walk home.
This condition fron then on has gradually become aggravated. He
has spent sbout $4,900 visiting varlous clinics for treatment,
remained at his job as a sales manager for an automobile concern
until about a year agoe Since then has not followed any gainful
occupation."
Dr» Wegener testified that "multiple sclerosis is a
degeneration of the brain and spinal cord caused usually by an in-
fection according to the best authorities; others claim from injury,
such as bad falls, and others claiming toxins, lead, carbon monoxide
poisoning, ***. It is chronic and progressive in nature. ‘the onset
is rather slow, insidious; it is often confused with various other
conditions. In the beginuaing the patient usually complains of vague,
indefinite pain, rhevmatic in character, best described, couldn't
describe it any better, but however, this condition gradually pro-
gresses, marked by extreme fatigue, and then of course further con-
ditions; further conditions come along with the genito-urinary in-
volved, incontinence, unable to control the bladder, wuiable to Walky
unable to see properly; the field of vision is very much restricted;
—— a
¢
| atnemite eid dybe "hetobatos ssa0atb Ledgeney yer
Bent od? OF Sods tubs aa Titintele aor .SeeL Gdotat’ at Beak nt
mijuditeant tott to tomege! «2 oT, frat os ¢inemtaord 26% Let bqeen
nesid eli hovomath «noanpaih inisom baa evevren nt gabletooge, ve
© Yo jiuset 2 ag “equi Soonsvbhs <atsoxefo® afqtttut" os, wots tbago
an ehotats boumat off doiuw anturh ,rottontnaxs anata
heed wa st enteg sya I? .opnehtve, al, beooet fad igaod, oxft,.ys amosia
~xe Ya al amentiivs ei oved? .tiwd yer? »xeog ers, feecain te
Be oldawed bas saesta youd eyvned Look edmil tewol yur bea sok dens)
Sspmenthy, tagners Xo snenO" on? of. OA YotLow yaoy thay, tneo, sm Vy
Ogs An0y O tueds ter) astate Iaodtad* tebeet brpoet Ladiqeorl ond
ali ¢£o% oa bas dgyouty bee Ayugtde toy, opmged a ae if
ramon riLaw yLbtei Sivoo egniggsth bas yvsed yttita yiimope and. eee
* setovarsas exioo oc Wadenkary naw adh nods eek “nots tbne® ay
edeiond sort wot soini£e avottey said taty 0004 uote: toga fa
eenens. barca eiars oe sot ips gunners sofas B ped ot wit ‘+7 anton
Ly Pe
totes, “ns pewoLte’ don, wait sroaks vont soas 109%, 8 _tuods £
i:
ci 6 ab sfeoroLos ott at test porttvase eumgey +x shel .
“nid ne ve wdowew beaune Bik Isnige ban cared eu B alr erenmged
evrwbert m9 ct miso axedto paps teamens taod on? 08 authzeoes Sa.
obixeoeat sodiso «bsel santxod animbeLs axedto baw saehe®, bod as .
toano ext sounded sk ovisasrgexg | aa ghaoute aL 9% 1 santooe
zerido avo txey sii beau tnee Aste at th tao thtonk | gna ata at
.ongey 20 anieLgawo whLawan saottag ost gndnntged desea he % ape ,
# absuvos sbodixonob teed tes ootasto ai oktsaueste ) nieg bad iene:
OY: Whe a
Lee &
~ony ‘ikuberg 0 48 Boowo ais “etovowod ud aretded vas ‘ti edirees
bE py aew £ met CC rae 3 Oe a dani ae
“mo s92u2 earti0 20 acid na comp ia at at xd bexxsm ey
. f ii ah ae es at gir’
~al Weankusimod toy, outs "att oe poly eno 9 anotd thnoo nent-su%.. ianaiee
it Te RA pie. Bea hy Rae Shi Lo. * 0%) Wd Aan ay
ikew 08 ‘eLasus ‘tebbaLd edi Lownoo of oidesu +2 no ont ab
sebae: BPE
ae BE ORR | Rees Sa EAE
sive aac Pris crev et nolaivy te bLekt ota iesecon 968. ot
aera r
a OE EEN F
@-lil=
the loss of all sexual power; and finally, after about eight,
ten or twelve years the patient is usually permanently and totally
disabled, becomes a wheel chair and bed patient eventually. ***
Patient had an advanced case of multiple sclerosis, and he was
permanently and totally disabled for any gainful occupation. This
condition would not arise or advance at such rapid gait within a
year or two; it is usually of long standing, in other words, from
ten to fifteen years, to resch that stage."
On cross-examination Dre Wegener testified that "very few
cases *** will be improved" and that “others become ageravated;"
that “there are a few cases that have periods of remission but not
entirely free from symptoms;" that the best medical authorities
state that spinal sclerosis is most prevalent "between twenty and
forty years *** very seldom occurs after that and very seldom
pefore;" that “in the early beginning case” it is not easily noted;
that "it is confused with many other conditions *** arthritis for
one, because the patient complains of arthritic pain *** sometimes
an arthritic condition is found;" that spinal sclerosis cannot be
detected by use of the x-ray or from a blood test and "for that
reason it quite often is mistaken for other conditions, shows
exactly the seme appearance as rheumatism and the neurological
interpretation is overlooked quite often in the early beginnings"
that it is a disease of the spinal cord and brain; that the “brain
and cord has numerous spots, iodine spots, if you want to call them
that, scattered on the surface and throughout the brain and cord
***® i¢ usually affects the lower eoerd first but it gradually prow
gresses and extends through the entire brain and cord;" md that
the progress of the disease can be told by frequent examinations md
from clinical manifestations of the reflexes of the motor nerve and
the tracts ef the cord and brain involvede
The foregoing was substantially all thee videnee presented
mile.»
eh de
etigte tuods sette eyitowk? baa ;rewog Lesxoe fis, ro pees edd.
eLlotot brs ylinonnmeg Yiewan at Iaeiteg odd axseu sviowt x0 net 4
wen sytieutaeve tnolgeg bed bts uiedo feed & semoood qdefdea te
aewed ba .aisorgioa algtstua To cana beonsvbs me hed sno tial .
sia? anottequeso Laiaiag yas tot befdealh yiatod bas, qitnonawrog
a niddtw they bigeat dowe ts eonayhs, to salts sou bLyow woke tomo
ett abrow sadigo of gyritbuada gaol to vhf as ab des tows to hgh
é “,egeta tadt dovet., a7 18TAey, nood 282 ot noe ‘
wet <xer" tent Dedticess xemegek «mt aotienimexe-g80to 2 ao Re ee
‘ipetavetase emoved azedte” Jade ban *bevoxgat od fitw er ,sonao
jou gud codaeimet to abolieg svad salt 2ouse, wet 6 ots “oreta" Fis yt “
asitizodéus Leoibem seed odd dads "jemosamya mox? gost vLoxteme
bna ‘Yiiews meowled* tmoelevery duom et atvoratoe fentae dass , ee.
~ to Lae etew bua dete tothe stroeo, moblea yrov. *** Bteey, yi ‘te
pboton eLtase dou vk +i Youso gatanized yiise odd ak" stadt ",or0 tod
xo? aiginitre *** anotéinnos uedto xem Atkw bosutnog ot 3" edd
ed gonneo ateotetos Lemkge dad? "abevot ak mottibnos indore. 1
fata tot” how Feet dookd o whxh to yatex ont te sau vs bosovtes |
iroith «anode tab’ Youite sob Hemacate akeaastter obtup, thot a
! ¥ootpelo user oft bine metvenweric as SONS TBSgG’sS exes ontd. veka "
i: Suthnkjed voxse Self mf Hedte OFEup HedoeLreve at sokdaterqzedah
ded” ents dial Latord BHM Bxed Lattiqe SH Ro ouwondh a abit anit
| ssorld {leo of thew Loy 4h ,etoge entbol ~atoqa aor onus sat bx09 st
br00 bue sitard odd duostgiro uty | bee eosbive edt no heteddaod 9%. re
oom vi.bottbarts $i dud Jock? Deeg cowek orld adooTts ‘eitoweu sel 4 :
“gan boo Hybt00 bie what oxhie "eid aplbott ebiiosxe fain” oe
bie ano.kvanimexe “dmoupext ‘ud blod od nso saseukb’ olf to aadrgotg” oi
ta ovien totom ests Yo nexetien eit’ amokisdao tina ‘kaolnhio m
“sbovlevat aioxd bas neva exe Ye" ‘atont
peshenene re pen Lis ‘citetensdedwe enw w guibpote’ ; ‘ett
io
ae
-12-
and received at the trial and we agree with the defendant that
the following facts as stated in its brief were clearly established:
"ZL. That at least as early as December 4, 1923, plaintiff
had observable physical manifestations of multiple sclerosis of the
spinal distribution type which a physician then correctly diagnesed,
that such disease is progressive and ineurable and that the disease
from which the plaintiff was suffering as early es 1923 is the
cause of the plaintiff's present disability for which he seeks
indemity in this suite
"9. That plaintiff's answer to question 12 of the appli-
cation was false in answering ‘not to the question whether plain-
tiff was suffering or had ever had rheumatismy ectce, or any chronic
or periodic mental or physical ailment or disease or then had ‘any
defect in hearing, vision, mind or bodyst
"3. That the existence of plaintiff's incurable disease
at the time the application was signed by him and accepted by the
company materially affected both the acceptance of the risk by the
company and the hazerd assumed by the company in issuing its policyo
"4. That while plaintiff may not at the time of signing
the application have known either the name of or the incurable
nature of his ailment he knew that it had manifested itself after
his hunting trip in 1922, also after an automobile show following
the hunting trip, and also just prior to his examination by
Dectors Dargan and Church in November and December, 19232 Further,
it is uncontradicted that he characterized his trouble to Dr. Dargan
in 1923 as a sort of rheumatism, told Dr. Church in 1923 that for
ten years he had noticed some tendency for his hands to tremble,
and stated in writing in his application to the Veterans Bureau
in 1950 that in 1923 he consulted Dr. Dargan and consulted Dr.
Chureh for tarthritis.'"
Defendant's contention as stated in its brief is as follows:
"That the trial court should at the close of ail the evie
dence have directed a verdict in favor of the defendant, or after
werdict should have entered judgment for the defendant notwith-
standing the verdict, because:
"First, the plaimtiff cannot recover because of the false
answer in his application for the policye The contract itself
provides that a false answer, if material, avoids the policye Since
the answer was vitally material to the risk its falsity avoids the
policy, even if it were conceded that the answer was made in good
faith by the insured.
“Second, the disability of the plaintiff in the present
case is not covered by the policy sued on because Part VIII states
that the defendant is liable only ‘in the event that the Insured
shall suffer from any bodily illness or disease which is contracted
and begins while this policy is in force as regards health insur-
ances’ The plaintiff had physical manifestations of multiple
selerosis at least as early as 1923 - three years before the policy
was issued « which enabled a physician (Dr. Archibald Church) to
diagaose his disease as suchy and the mere fact that the plaintiff
did not know the uname of such disease and the fact that he was in
apparent gocd health at the time of the issuance of the policy does
mot change the indisputable fact that the disease which ultimately
Ne tee ee Ae ye ee Oa
ive» ate”
fagteh «thot eiduon eit boxkvatsetedo en daft
a reohhed aad one Tat" wease kecae'. eat siyota bat Tajata sot see
“Sen.
test tusbneteb oft atte serge sw toma Lat odd 0 boyteos? bane
Ahedailiaine Yixeele exew tekud ati mi vetete ad atest yatwolte® ong
Uiidgieta «E8AL «> todmevod a yixso ed Gomer ta want ate”
ed? To Gkeaorsfou efqiifom Yo anoti«ctuctinem Lsotayig of ad
ebeagimelh Yisoent60 sods matotaydle « cote ogy ito bud bed idavyoed B
eassakh o dang Byetes aftfeciost bis Oviraetgorq al saseaib dous soit
om ei E8@f as yliee as yaivetwe Baw Yikvelefe sie wo tlw poms
a#eea of fokriw vot “WHEidsa tb inenotg a'ititatstg et to savao
oo eile eidd of yr thnebat
o- £Ly + te SL golsseup of tewa tad? as?) oo.
wets Li Saece La ideeup 9 og Tent sitsersns at png no iden
Pier Me TO es Odo ghtehianwosls siuveitive epw Ftis
wie! bed meds to eaaoath a dime o ow atoom otbolreg to
Taybod 28 - baton ene Sal egattiood mt too teb
mae opdaxuons SP sot: Mi sonataine ott sad® «89 ;
fy ities bie mid ve be: ee peer er ont pant ae te
t < gotiatge0D6 S ag besos Y Lis bredem Ynequoo
eyaifoy aft pide? at vhaeies ent vd bemsaen brood anl ne, ——
ankagta to emtd oft ts Jon yom tittatale SLinw dest? hn ria?
efdsivout eft 19 to omea oft tomdie mroml ovad. no
vegts tLeadé bodes tinem bod $f tond wend of sromitks vale ceeete xa: ed
panei te? wore ofidomotucs se tedts o8 g
wd se iveninex 6 elt of seheg kate Fe ue Tg t Savant Sa
ereddiant eG8@L «usdmesel bas todmevok ak How bbs saga Pons tg
wot seadt Ese ai doxwd> a bLot vagy ia $t0e s Ga. =
4efdmerd of ebmad aisl tot Vetibhaed tmoe Pl Bi A 2
aoe teh nn ie yin SP oa a
sy ‘attiutsizal, |
+ awo Lot as ak ‘tohid asi nt bad ate ae | 10 4199 209 pyr i
Paaek
wes o y f
“ive oud fia to eunte ott te el vesta renin fale oid tat”
tedie so etmabmeteb ot to wove? at golb reve besootlh oval Spteb
«ih? biden J Aisbste Tob banel rot 1aeners> hezetne evel bivosde BF mb 4
gafst off 20 satecad tevaset Jonmeo apsmiate eas mage ote
‘teett gostines ofl sey Pe esid no tt 20 Liqgs Shi ‘nk rowenta
sont’ «yollog on) ebiove »laize ,towens calsl #
eds chlovs Ri athy agi oie art ls iseban o watt sew TSwans
boog ot ohaw aay, towans edt sadt bebeones otew, dh Tb n9vecy
«borwant oft yd cits
cha pee ad Pg 7
dnetetq ox? al viiaieta ort ‘to 2 gene on id sbneaeg” 5
astates ITIV JuL cansosd mo Meme tetses ah
“ bouwerk ott? sidd dnevoe ost yiao — at " teb os 2%. t3
besostinoo ai dobiw sascaih xo enna es | big
~tyent atiasd wbtagot aa eoxet ai at
ot (doruld biedidot) .2@) aatsleydg a» fou ea oasvath tt - bomant g
oDiienbel¢ ot) dads Post oten edd base yolow 3
at asw ond tect tost oft bus eseoakb Mowe To ods wot tom bit
g90b yokioq sit to sonsvaah add To 'emis ofp fis tete Beigel oot egw
psa slo Lat qananah ane sant neat, apni 8 att sgtiado Fon
yas pele
-13=<
resulted in plsintiff's disability was emtracted and begun
pefore the policy was in force."
' Plaintiff's theory as stated in his brief is -
“that no false answers were made by the plaintiff im his appli-
cation for the policy sued upon. The questions in controversy,
by their very nature, did not call for answers which were liter-
ally true, but called only for the honest ecpinion and judgment
of the applicant. False answers to such questions are those
made by the applicant knowing them to be false or made with in-
tent to deceive. If such questions are answered truthfully as
and in accord with applicant's honest belief and opinion, the
policy will not be avoided even though his answers prove to be
not literally true. The company was not warranted in relying
upon applicant's answers 2s being literally trues but could rely
upon them only as an honest expression of applicant's opinion
and judgment.
*"Plsintiff as to the contraction and beginning of an
iliness or a disease within the meaning of the policy in question,
contends that though lurking within him and unkaowm to him there
may be o disease which sefterwards becomes the cause of his dis-
ability, nevertheless if at the time the policy is issued the
presence of the disease is unknown to the policyholder and he is
then in good health, the disease, not then being manifest as an
active disabling agent, but afterward appearing, will be held
to have been contracted and begun within the terms of the policy."
While plaintiff may not have known either the name or the
incurable nature of his ailment and may not have sicned the appli-
eation September 1, 1926, with an actual intent to deceive the
defendant insurance company as to the then condition of his health,
the « vidence shows conclusively that at the time he signed said
application for health insurance he had had and did have a chronic
ailment or disease and had had and did have a defect in his body.
Defendant insists that even whthout any direct proof of an
intention on the part of plaintiff to mislead the defendant by the
answers made by him in his application, the falsity of his re-
presentation as to the previous condition of his health voids
the policy because the misrepresentation materially affected both
the risk and the hazard assumed by the insurance company. There
ean be no question that in the instant case a misrepresentation was
made that was material to the risk. The failure to disclose the
existence of an incurable disease, which inevitably resulted in
~8fe -
tiged Rew bode eed ape oaw’ PLEA dekh a* Yitimbalg nd bowtie owe
seetes Bi asi Yet hoe salt ae
L wz to
~ “at to ind a Sat oy dosage as woes a Whdmtals
al a Pe ete ae yebeeate ‘ue xt ‘oman’ nee dendeen — ‘wre tips
quanevotines at endivesmp off .moqu beva Yoilog end sok nokiew
atet il new do ity erewens tol (feo Jon bib youtan yroy thedy syd i
trombet hae mobiigo taenosd eid vot vine betlay tud ig ONIN E Law
enods ete anoliceup Nou of stewing eufst staot “eit Roo
~nt asiw ebam to ovist od od mad? guiwomdt dreeliogs ad ofan
as yifuittnis berewans ot: anoiteeup Howe IL .evisoeb of taed
ett «so litigo bag te kied teonod o' trlasticgs sien Grooes at bas
ig od ererg eiswane ail Semis aove boblovs od ton LL bw moto
GRiylet wi Lotuacrsw. Jon wae > woo st wostd eLiawed
esor bison aud youst yifeverif quied as wrewans ie Sree Biggs: ime
‘Solatge s'insoliggs to aghaeougxe-tacnel me ae Lee mond
+ sxombut dre
et “is te onicnteed eset og mob sou? 09 ait 08 dood am IabAARET to oe
—— mk Yoilog ot To qitnasen eld nicitiw sasc ti o ‘wo aeaniti
exeds mit ed aworoiay pas ie ited gmbuwt ewes? gonly abaasaoe
“aid ald Io sayso oft semooed shiswiedte dotdw eeseath a ed °
‘etfd boxcai-2k yoklog alt oh? of} ge Rt neeledtveves 4iqi LL
af of bas tebfomyotLog elt oF seroseiny ek: Payor pre te gt J
cm Gs tactinea guted nett gow ,saseth ent te Laotl beog mt ‘4
Pfedt ed LLiw 2: sige brcwiotts eioba5, te bovine
"exobfow wae: ‘to unread add tebe Eee ramet ba bea elves Sete ;
_ “(ese tie i ‘
ae ‘<0. oman ond aoxtd is oon ovat tos wn ‘viteaioty ert one ey id
a Oe be ee
~ hogs’ ome bony a ovat ton en pm orvonsh.ke ‘oiet to muta ¢£denvont
add ovbeoob of #motat Lewdoa’ na stow 4380x Pane 10. bigot é a cobteo
dtLeod ait te: met ibeos creat anh ot ae aqua sonssuent fmabaoteb
bisa bony te ast amis ot ie testt ‘doviautones _oweste sae |
oiao‘sto 8 ovat bid btm faved beet et es tie Mts na St Lacd 20% Ro Bo hs
oybod aid ni tooteb 2 evatl bib take bal iat Hine: Seawtth +
ne “ko- Tootg soot kh: ee twodttaw seve tad edutent ‘Phiabe tod an f
atid ye susbaotob att hyo Leume o bmi capi ‘0
aa ¥ Pre Bie
“oes syns oath oh vf Doan on
aay Rolscinoaszgote La, x 9880 dowdont ont nih: toe me
or dé. «Stan Po
este. eoloath ot outed oa, ait oath 09 Latzotam sew ta of. a
wan ante Tras S $on Nt es
im boatueox vidos brent Aoi. cesnensh ‘etéevoak: aa Yo ee oo
we re Lis A aie EPO ae Rt re fit pal : “was aah Oe
My ; $
46
plaintiff's permanent disability procured the issuanee of the
policy. ‘The very hazard for which recovery is now sought was
existing when the application was made and the policy was issued.
It is meedless to state that had defendant been truthfully edvised
2s toe the then or previous condition of plaintiff's healthy, it
undoubtedly would not have issued the policye
The general rule governing misrepresentation of facts to
induce the issuance of a pelicy of insurance is stated in 4 Couch
on Insurance (1929), pe 2716, sece 834%
"Although a representation ef a fact be false or untrue
as the result of mistake, ignorance, accident, or negligence, if
it induces the assumption of a risk which would not otherwise
have been taken, or induces its scceptance at a2 Lower rate of
premium, it is material and actual fraud is not o material factore
The ground of avoidance in such case is that of legal or con-
structive fraud, it now being well settled not only that the mis-
representation of a material fact preceding or contemporaneous
with the contract avoids the policy, even though the insured be
innocent of fraud or an intent to deceive or wrongfully to induce
the insurer to act, or whether the statement was made in igmoranco,
or good faith, or unintentionally, but also that a mere inadvertent
omission of material facts, which the insured should have known to
be material, Will avoid the contract, if false and relied on by the
insurer. So, it is said that a material misrepresentation will
avoid the policy, even though hom stly made; also, that if made by
the insured's authorized agent it will avoid the policy, though
made without fraudulent intent on the part of the agent, and al-
though the insured has no knowledge thereof.
We
"On the contrary, an innocent misrepresentation of an
immaterial fact will not avoid the policy, as in case of an im-
material misdescription of the property, unless, in addition to
being untruey it is wilful, and induced the insurer to acty either
in fact, or presumptively soy the presumption not being rebutted."
Regardless of whatever conflict there haz been in the
authorities of this or other jurisdictions on the question of what
character of misrepresentations will void insurance policies, the
law has been settled in this state in Western & Southern Life Ins.
Coe ve Tomasun, 358 ITlle 496, that material misrepresentations,
even though honestly or ignorantly made, will void a policy of
insurance. The opinion in that case dispoed of two cases, one a
proceeding in equity brought by the insurer to eancel an insurenee
e
ant to. gattevaet end bewooitg yhitder Lb dmenameg a! TIL shale
asw didysioa wom ak Yrewooer clo Letw <0t buesenl yusv ofl entlion:
»bouaat aew ‘ystiog onl’ baa eban asw nobtsotiage edd oan anit alee:
bontvbe VEL ais red nese Smeabsatod batt dealt odors, os aaelbeen wi an
oh uitiood a'Yiddabele to" nos tba 9 aiselvony x0 sod, et + ot: on
tat | eeollog eit beueak: evar! tem bison ebesduotay
os edoet bed no Lindasacrgeta.ba aubarevoy, ofr Loxoneg onl: baa
Howey » mk bogsta af soneaent te ‘yontoa 8 to eonsuaet ats: soubat
yRES om eT sheser) souetsend a0
eutims ta velet od tost » 26 mo eee wos
m4 Poo ae Oot <0 ,fmabisos 4s eek ‘ne ong br
sb saris vow hike ‘Hotsw dein: ar ‘aa Oxf hah enteoy thule
£t towel s ta Gorietqonor edt saeeee Oe head sto
onthe. isixevam o jon at beart Leto bas pri @f Hh qottrbat
art £6 Lsgel to vads” * er Meet nf gree ax ante ns &
~a Le ous tenld (Lao tom bots sen ‘shied wen ehbust? ovivourin —
auoerneroqmesios to gnibes ootg toot ae £ bein .
ed betsent so revels neve .Yoifog ot ableve toe aera tone tiw
GuliSHE of “cLivtihocw ‘te erivosh GF Taatih Ee Me tAy oO PGE
sennwtergl ot eben sew, joometata oft, Pian, “tae, of A alae eng
dnefrovbant oxo a Sade Gute Sut" pag trod nthri boog zo
ot gworml eves biveda sexveni ets Sokelw <9. to sotseiao —
ext} yo so belfot bua sefat Tt “fabaene ld hear vr ot
Lfdaw ase aac er ju tetiedast 8, a nf ian at *
WF Sbast TE PoMd 20 oh Qld: dod awe
ot. .Yoifog of blove aia : 3 e: dl
“Bie se “wae ‘oad to fteq det ie on re fy Swot bw
« Tootasis te de ont aes ‘heeit oda. “owes
: iy 8 TN ; Pe Bn ak” Hee he Ba 't epigay 3
bes on fab ain nbn hal sneiinals fis syrertano only me: f
ami me to caso ai es (yolfog ett biove pyr iy wt Oba pb rases
od moliibhba ak yaeolay cays be) er aes er to mo acts i sliojam .
wadie gion ot tetwent end i one bis .iwiiiw si dh gorrtay ante
"abesdudox asihed Jos Ho Liquueong ast 008 Ubrirqueosg to «toast
f° eae he Prtis$ BE
wed st ood sel or osly soLcinoo “xove dati ha agoLbrapen
‘it tere Carty WN tae ie
tadw to 0 kd aeup odd £10 anotd otbeiut retito + “aids Yo Peon 9
} oa. Oe 2a ey ree
oxtd seetottog sonatiant ploy eyen ‘no Le s¢noaesqoza.tm to soto
1 AR & if Woes hy ae 1s
sant oi ht mre ayo a4 axodasil ab oteie atiia at belsden need ‘east wed
Rat: we aa bay's Mes re wit
(shoié st nosexqene.ta Lebreton taste ne +KET 88e “etaranae *¥ 299,
ule. het Rarenpare wae. Oa tab
Ye yodtog : 8 btov Like x9bem ‘Uinexomt “0 Ne weer. rt
het weer Qiaety -
& eno 129089 ) ows x0 beogeth ease ‘toxts at so igo “oat i) -
tte Sof eptcthd seeks hex epertedie bate
alnleenien: fis pp os tonmant outs ud shana Yi tiupe mk nathane ony
-1§ =
policy because of an alleged misrepresentation by the insured and
the other an action at law on the same policy, in which a judg-
ment had been obtained against the insurer. Both cases went to
the Supreme court on certiorari to review a judgment of this
court which affirmed a decree of the Circult court dismissing
complainant's bill in the equity suit, and which affirmed « judg-
ment of the Superior court in favor of the beneficiery in the
action at lawe The Supreme court reversed the judgment in the
action at law without remanding it and reversed the decree in the
equity case and remanded the cause to the trial court with direce
tions to enter a decree cancelling the policy and enjoining the
beneficiary from prosecuting an action at law. hile reference
is made in the Pounsvn case to the rule in an “equitable action,"
we think that the conclusion reached was intended by the Supreme
court to be equally applicable to actions at law. The court
said at ppe 501-233
"It is not denied in the record: thet the answers of the
insured as shown by the application, which is a part of the policy,
were, in fact, false. Neither is it denied that she was not in
good health at the time the policy was issued and delivered to her.
It is claimed by the beneficiary, and was found by the trial and
Appellate Courts, that Mrse Tomasun was a Lithuanian and did not
read English or understand it readily; that when the examining
doctor asked her questions she probably did not understand what
he meant, and that as a result there could not have been any fraud
or intentional withholding or misrepresentation of any facte To
sustain the decree of the trial court and the judgment of the
Appellate Court affirming it, the beneficiary relies principally
upon this contention.
"In an equitable action for the cancellation of an insur-
ance policy upon the ground that misrepresentations had been made
as to facts material to the risk, it is not essential that the
applicant should have willfully made such misrsepresentations kmowing
_ them to be false. They will avoid the policy if they are, in fat,
false and material to the risk even though made through mistake or
in good faith. In United States Fidelity and Guaranty Coe v.
First Nat. Bank, 233 Ill. 475, we stated this rule in the following
Tanguage: ° e@ law is well settled, in its application to insurance
contracts, thet a misrepresentation of a material fact, in reliance
upon which a contract of insurance is issued, will avoid the contract,
and it is not essential, in equity, that such a misrepresentation
should be known to be false. A material misrepresentation, whether
made intentionally or knowingly or through mistake and in good
bra botvent ort yd nolisdnoestqona im benetla ne to eendgad Voiteg
“shut a dobiw nt srolidg @insa’ enld no wel th abitvos he tendo. ods
oF drew eden Ato stexwect oft Feutege Sontaddo need bad ditom
ald? to tneeghet s welvet of lxexbitres no 'dinoo smetque ost?
gtttee itm lb Jxwog ¢ lsothd off ‘to voted «2 ome dye fe idw gxwoo
-ghui « bemrtite noeiiiy bie .dieeg tego ee mt Lhe ee
ont mf ytatortenod of} To trove? wk famio sobteque Sit to fone
‘oft mi doeambwl otft foatever s4ewo0 renee et? sel te nobis
ott mi sexoeb aft bowxovet bhe ¢F nilinamot dyodsiy wal te no k¥oe
soonkh Aviw ened’ Laded ad? 09 cane sift bobmamex’ his daso Wipe
onty wtchan to pre Se ‘Yettog ott uatzcoenrs etoob & sae of ‘ano ts
°° genet bet oie Wel ta tm Edom, ie git foe 4
“<noites sidat ioe" ne at ‘etur coal oF oneo ; ” ni pb
‘Smorque edt yd bobaodnd ‘esw hostenor so Baw fomos ‘ott pete sot ‘ow
tuaroo ett Wel ta ano ivan oF Seige mes 8 ot ‘too
ve@htg ad 0 mt sa eed rat
aac Rngedrons Orth Bei corgs ker Seekiod a | enhe ott fad = BoE
roy gh Bay py tg gen ghee
gitiniasxe off nedw gedt pyitbset 3k bustarebnu 16 Hekignd bees
tsty baasaxrebay sen bb adotq exe pg heny eae, boxes todHob
buaxt via teed evad fox bineo ered? tiuaet oie brs «tneom ox
“Ot “sdost wis Koissdaseougers ta 6 sae Leno. tetk 20
arf Yo daomgbut, ond bas ¢svoo Laizé odd to sotoob edd nhetewa
Bs in aeey es “eedtor Dot cabernet ae a Pacey aye es eus09- ‘ed
«ito BFGF Oo om ke
-wunl me to noktelLeenss ond 20k mohdos elder tire bert ‘aa pitty:
sham need bat anolietnencugeteim tot hrvotg edt mogy yoliog sons
ont add Iskinedue fom af #2 gilal+ efl2 62: tatsopast cag aat ‘odes
ao otatale cgivotd obam mguods nove date - osi : ot of ae
ov 228 ee aa yi kfob lt aches . rs
guiwoLtet # at & hetstea ow igurig? gains
eoretsant of mohsaghiqgs wit ak (negsaes | {iow ai Walont? '*
eonsifor nt ,tost Jaliesem s to soltetnoserqetaim abet ai f
etoetinosg odd bioveoLi by’ ¢howsadvet’ nh pe to’ Sonthet cc'asae bteomens
nolieinerorqotaha e dove tedt «ytinoe alt «isitaesae ton ak oh.
tandtedw ysoliatnesengetaim Iatisgem A sea ke todo od Awomdl 6d Blie
barwy i bus oxleda bm er x0 er to NON eben
Qu ee |
eta
sk
-16=
faith, will avoid the policy.' The same rule has peen applied
in many other jurisdictions. *** Regardless of her knowledge
or lack of knowledge of the truth of her statements, it has been
held by the highest authority that having accepted and retained
the policy of insurancem with the copy of her application attached
thereto, she is entirely bound by it.*
The Tomasun case, supra, was recently followed by this
court in Tanner v. Prudential Inse Coe, 283 Ille Anpe 210, where
we said at ppe 218-193
"In Cross ve Prudential Inse Coe of Americas 279 Tlle Apps
645, labst.], which Was an appeal from a judgment rendered in an
action at law tried before the court and jury, Justice Wilson in
delivering the opinion of the court, efter quoting the foregoing
language from the Tomasun case, said:
"tlt is a matter of no importance as to whether or not the
answers were made with the intention to deceive. The vital cues-
tion is as to whether the insurance company had a right to rely
upon them as true at the time it issued its policy. The questions
and answers pertain to material matters and their falsity must
have been knowm to the applicant inasmuch as the application was
Signed by him and was also made a part of the policy which he
subsequently received.t
"It is urged by plaintiff that the falsity of Tannerts
answers, his knowledge with respect thereto, his intent to defraud
and the materiality of his representations were all questions of
fact, which were properly submitted to the jury and resolved in
plaintiff's favor. The difficulty with this position is that
the verdict was against the manifest weight ef the evidence inas-
much as the undisputed evidence shows conclusively that the answers
to the questions were false and concerned material fects. It is
only necessary to repeat that the law is well settled in its
application to insurance contracts that a misrepresentation of a
material fact, in reliance upon which a cotract of insurance is
issued, Will void the contracte
WKH
"We are of the opinion that the answers to the questions
propounded, as heretofore set forth, were untrue and that they
were answers concerning material facts, which, if known to def end-
ant insurance company, could well have caused it to have refused
to issue the policy in question.
“In view of the fact that the insured by signing his
application represented such answers to be true, which were in
fact untrue, it would serve no good purpose to remand the cause
for a new trial."
Hot only do the general rules of law sustain defendant's
position that a false answer in an application for an insurance
policy, which is material to the risk, voids such policy, but
plaintiff agreed in his application that he had made each of his
answers to the questions therein “as a representation to induce
ee ae i
bohfaga need aad oLex amee 6a 'eyekfog edt blova ILiw’ Meist.
egbeiventl tol to seelbisgel *** ,anotiothaizul zomlse at
seed ead di ¢a¢nemotata ted to riveds odd to. ogbefwond Yo dost x00.
bentsset bas besqenes paiva seid yitodiva taedgid eft yd bled
hedosdis nolisabiqgs ted to: waos edd diiw moonemiand. tecyoilog oat.
neat va canna niettine at ETS) ane py
Se oe hag Dies.
a int we howe LLo% “itneoot aw eat ate se 2080 pwaamo? a
erestir ee saa oLLT ess 9 os fasame mobsrxst v senna ri ‘fun. 2
poi ‘1 ei-048 “i oe ow
Lejker es eae MM RM GIES wp I a aan an Baie oa Peg Pie
S pe pe 5 ar" ge
5 hentehres.. Mi, & MOSL J adege .edede! .
nak moaliv oolsey et bra sxu09 anit orotod bel bold Poe ts 1M
autogeotet aris aitine sotite gitneo. of , Me. go baigo ont ae =
thica ,eas0 nmuaamoet 7 ox? m0'C ot
agaé eet ers wai "
odd yom ba) rat of Jae vomatrogal oa eres ri ‘ak gre ye tune
-aeup. Tet sevioneh & a ij tw ebast arew, —
3 ot Be apa a bast tao 0 Sonieuel ort aniear of BE A} HO re
ano tigeup. 4 oilog att f at oaste. oat, <
samen lated teas bis avottam Laivet Pog ye oT cciomcet te
aaw. toticailqgs ald ogy Peete tasotiqgs oxtt. od, .1v ne
on doitw velisg ontd se chy a oan er
atzeuast to .ystalet ext, dade Tiiduiads
busted of gmodat aid ,ovetedd tooqeos
to enoiseewo Lis erow anolvetaveorqes els
mt rare bas Wor Se ud pues) oa you 8
jadi s fod a a qe t et 9 LOVs
atowasne ext 3 ant | Be Bec la 9%: ais
at ?X .agost Istiotam beateonco tne selet oxdy nt
‘gai ok boftiee ifew at wal ett} fait teoqet of \
= 36 cotsatnocenqotein s jad Bigs cS ie seek
at L pisicca ‘tO. bm, e dolby | st ’
nnodtnBRp esti ot BrOWwafis vite ‘* it to Ste
yous gait bas sutiay STEW it ot et stot cont as 4b
-hnoted of mwom ti «lotdy .adoat telretam guldteomoy ater
RANTS BOE ot at boanea evan ar eek URL 8 OMe
Bit pate te x pple ont ‘taité be
ft oxcw do isw, .. outd oct ad BLOwans ae Ded
euuao os bandon of A: aon ave
Gigi lait abadanie, wat % Salt Labia ‘hi ‘a “hi ion? stam!
: eouazwash me... 20% notice tigas, ae ad, ‘apwans “eager 3 yale 0. ri Ve
smut voto, Hou ab tov taht ond” ot ‘Condodiamt aE voit © iL :
wot 4A) tein “Wiad ‘Wit “i Suing Brin ing mt pk boompe ‘attatade
eoubal of noiststneaerget & es" alotasté anoitaeup edt of exewans :
5
“19+
the issue of the policy" and "that if any one or more of them
be false all right of recovery under said policy shail be fore
feited if such false answer was made with actual intent to de-
ceive or if it materially affects either the acceptance of the
risk or the hazard assumed by the company." This application
Was made a part of the policy contract and the policy recited
that it was issued in consideration of the statements and agree-
ments contained in the application. Thus, under the terms of
the policy itself, it was net necessary to show an intent to
deceive if the false answer in the application was material to
the riske
It is urged in plaintiff's behalf that he made no false
answers in his application and that the questions therein did not
call for answers that were literally true, but only for the honest
opinion and judgment of the applicant; and that if such questions
were answered truthfully, in secordance with such opinion and judg-
ment, the policy will not be voided, even though his answers prove
to be not literally true. This cmtention is advanced on the theory
that plaintiff was in apparent good health for nearly three years
. prior to his signing the application and that he had no knowledge
of the mame or nature of his incurable ailment. This position is
untenable. The question, to which plaintiff's false answer was made,
concerned not only his then condition but his previous ailments as
well. It was not for him to determine theiy materiality or trivi-
ality but to disclose them by a truthful answer. Fiaintiff answered
"no" to the specific question whether he was “now suffering from
or have ever had *** rheumatism *** or any chronic or periodic mental
or physical ailment or disease or *** any defect in *** mind or
bodys" From his statements to the various doctors heretofore set
forth it is obvious that plaintiff felt that he ha@ rheumatism or
arthritis or some similar silment long before the policy was issued
a
mosis ie Otom T0 ono UIs ti tadée™: ‘bts *eeatog: ell to oneal odd
~eet od Liaria: “okfoq. bisa reba vreveses he Siigi fe oala?' ed
~0b od Yaotat Laudos sis bam saw rows setet foue tk bette
edt to eoustyeses. out seid k6 steer stadzetan oi ry to eviso
aptino Liqgs ality
betioet yotiog silt han cinta ‘wobtog ose 2» pani . 2 lea asw
“songs bas atanmod ode odd to 0 43.2 t0b Lanipo sit, bexeat aaw 3k vat
i tile asrrot rer ebay aot ie oso bdaottqgs ont ek Hieskbad iia 9 ‘admom
od dnesnt me wore oF Ytagasvem tou hail at qufeast yottog. esis
ot faivetem saw mnt ne slane oid mi rowers ata oe ‘tt eviooob
; vs - se sont
east of obam od dant tnstow ea itpilnal 3 mi skis ak dt. » Bete
Jon bb nkexert uno ifaeup end add one ne Ltaotiage ‘eka ae asap
eR
deemed afd xot yine ted gourd yYiLored if ete “pets atewans ‘tot tise
aanivnenp owe tr dante bus hiiesienda ad te seem burt boa notntee
~sbt, hms notre sora df bw oosmb: nk spChitiune sorownns oxen
evorg, atowais, aki sigtsonid Mars sbobiow ee tos Lin wet Log: ent td «tem
Yrost eft wo beomevbs at wo bicos.a00 aber wound: ekoret tt tox! od oF
ares penis ‘lro0n 103 sid Soot boos’ saozouge na bow Tintabate te ul
eg befwoiml om past ext dant bas mo ktebsdene ‘ont habe ka i bil 6s” seltg
ai solsieeq eid? .tnomfts eldsxyoml eit te olsen 10 oman ostt. 0
Obsm Law toweRs eect at tkivatese ato Lat od eno Lees ent” oLdscod a
as ajmomi lo avolverg aid tue fo 8 26008" eel aid yfao for. Palins Dire
~Wiis'<o “Wo itatogam tied onboxeoel We apa ace Wel abe FEM vin
berewens Tivale£t »tewane fvtviad = yo todd seotou th oF aed
mp2 gaice tise won": anv edt ‘restienin ino Bibi ottLoogs ont 08
fas nom nine Seon to oimoxels Yio £0. blalal * maitamssreds, tis bad, ere eval to
‘to beim #%* gk goo ted Ys *** zo oamsath to dmomits, Sooteney mp
joa exo tov oxad ated ooh ano itey ont, ot atusmeseds sist soxT Menbod
"to 00. oases hat os isd? Jfo% Tiitutelg.tedt anotydoynt bhoattsot
bovaal eew yolfLog edt exoted gnoL tuomfis taLimteemoe co abd bartye |
~18~+
and this question clearly put him on notice as to the sort of
previous ailments it was incumbent upon him to disclose in his
application. Even if it be assumed that plaintiff believed he
hed recovered, the evidence is conclusive that at the time he
applied for the policy he was fully aware that he had previously
had either a form of paralysis, arthritis or rheumatismy and,
if not a chronic disease, at least periodic silments. In 1928
Gorgen told Dr. Waitley that he had a “numb and tired feeling in
both legs,” which became “exaggerated on walking" and which “has
been present for five years." In 1930, when he filed his appli-
cation for compensation with the Veterans! Bureau, he stated
therein that he had been treated for “arthritis” by Dr. Dargan
and Dr» Church in 1923. In 1931 he told Dr. Ward that "he had
pains in his legs, which he had presumed were of rheumatic character,
for eight years previous to 1931," and that those pains had been
"“soming on gradually for eight years." In 1932 he told Dre Wegener
that after a hunting trip eight years before, his lege became stiff
and heavy, that "this condition from then on hes gradually become
aggravated" and that *he has spent about $4,000 visthing various
clinics for treatment." In the face of these statements by plaintiff
himself, even though there had been remissions in his disease for
considerable periods, both before and after he applied for and
secured the policy of insurance, it is idle to urge that he was not
at all times since 1923 conscious of the serious nature of the ail-
ment that afflicted him when he consulted Dr. Dargan and Dr. Church
during that year.
This is not a case where there were no physical manifesta-
tions of the disabling disease or sickness until after the issuanee
of the policy and the doctrine enunciated in Cohen v. North American
Life and Casualty Coe, 150 Minne 507, 185 Ne ‘ie 939, and similar
cases that a disease is “contracted” within the contemplation of the
Ty Pri Bis
82+»
to troo edd od Go 8410 ad mbt dug YLiseLé noldaoup atdt buae
ald ‘nl esolLoeib od min negy “teodmwoRt aaw PE etnemtla aie beige
of bevelled riisniel¢ vedy bemseasvod th Ii newt «+naliaokiqgs)
od omits oft te tad? evlentonon at genohive oft .borevovet bad,
vlasoiverq ban éf fed eters YLint/ aew of yollou: edd) tet bekigqga.
qhte emeitamyods 1o abd beieie gateyloraq: to mot es tetie bad)
BOL nt .esmbwlic olbotrey Seael ts qeezoath sleonio,s som BL)
wi patted? berit bee cami 2 bent on dads yoLt Law. . 2G. bilod meg tod.
asd” Moi’ bas “ankiLew no bodeceygaxe” emaosd dole) Y eget asad)
~riqga @id Sofi? ed new eel wt *,exsey evil to b> dnene gy seed:
hedede ed .Neotwi ‘anstedeY ald dtiw nolitiseneqmoo tok motteo:
megred emi yo Yaigiolece” tot bedteend neod bash of tedt/ mhoreds
batt ed” gene prow sat Biod ef (20k al .taenk ab deoiessO: « 2A» bene:
wtetostaio ottesuedt to ovsw' bombaety bart sal Ho tet paged bid nie antag
Koad boil antnq ovody sant hae”, Ler of auotvong’eady tigte’ mba
donegev stk bLod od RCL aT “Vexeoy digith wok YLLavdery no wate"
ttive omsogod agel abt .oxe'ted ousey “Oty ker gins qitktrod @ sed¢te ath
gaoced Yifewbery act no ney ator? noltisaoo eld" tet. yreet, bas
‘auoivey gritioty 000.M svods Yaoqa ant of” ¢adt bas “hetevstgs
Tiiddtele yt atmomeveda oven? Yo spat oft al “stnemieord tot eoinile
tot sussaip abt ni-endfeainer seed bed evant cerns move. « tfowmia
“brie Tot ho tfers of vedts bas etoted dead» (ubodreg’elderebhancs
son aaw orl nat? opie of 6Lbf eb ¢2 goomeument to yokiog elt bei.sea
-tte off Yo otuedas tuolren $d? ‘to e#otoanes B8eL comin somkt Llp te
état on hoe meget set bodivenvoe anfvstectw mith betolliie sedi done
, ateey sarido goku
eeteotiow: Laoleyte om erew ero? exetw erage tom at Bh oo. oy
eonarsal edd Yetta tr eras akerafote to oeeeatbh pritdanth eat, te enol?
Hao tou) nex sy notfoD af hetetonvne wnbrtyob ext bie yodtog ‘exit, te
‘xe thote Bas WE YW OH BBL QVOE sok 08% geod vifewagd ba:
oe to nolieLemodnos edd arinlt bw: Mbetnaxgnpo": Bk eeaceth 2, vot avens ;
~39:-
provisions of a health insurance policy, such as is involved
here, only when it manifests itself physically is not applicables
The wicontradicted evidence in the instsns case is thet plaintiff's
disease was "contracted" at least as early as his hunting trip in
1922 and that Lis physical manifestations were 50 unmistakadle
that in December, 1923, Dre Ghurch accurately diagnosed it as
multiple solerosis of the spinal cord, which disease is pro-
gressive and incurable. thus the disease from which plaintiff is
now suffering and tor which he seeks indemiity in this acticn is
the very disease which manifested itself in 1922 and 1923.
Other points have been urged but in the view we take of
this cause we deem further discussion unnecessarye
fhe false answer of the insured to the question propounded
to him as to the previous condition of his health, as heretofore
set forth, concerned a fact material to the acceptance of the risk,
which, if truly known to defendant insurance company, would un-
doubtedly have caused it to refuse to issue the policy in question.
Plaintiff by signing the application for the policy represented
such snswer to be true and as the undisputed evidence shows that
it wes untrue, it would serve no useful purpose to remand the ecause
for a new trial.
The judgment of the Municipal court is, therefore, reversed.
REVERSEDe
Friend and Scenlan, JJ«, concure
bevlownt at as dows «yeling eomotwact dtleed s to anolelvesd
seldsoticcs jon alt yilaoteuld Meadtl ateotiogs 2) poly nino ‘ened
alititntet tat af couse tasgent edt wt eoneh ive had thesineast opt
at gist geitaui aid ea yluso se tesel de “hotoemines" aaw ounce lh
-attestutehace: (x axa ammsooiantcinem Sabrent attstadt has SiR
asd) beaomats Ylotetioss aloqudG wt . SSCL wtsdmeood ak tart
nog ek generis dotie «hie Lankge odd to. aiaoxefos ofa is Lom
ak YekenheLle wo telw moxt eedeaib iat eum? «eldersomi ane ovieaets
gk nehdes aids “ab ogtimebab dlooaest ulo btw col bas gatize tina wen
- s 4BGRE Nae COL ah Wendt petsotiasn doldwoocsgats yroneds
we cashat ore:-tredoe ueett thahand toegraee ae oeasl mtabeereMat iol 306
i atiaegsosmm sotsaucath todd t seb ov. stciaahaceetl
“bebayeqoxa nottesup sid od pbetmant alt Xo rewarts ealet, onl . co bie
_eyotoseted as «itlach aldo sold thneo anolvetd,omf ot, 8 mist ot
etait edd To sanstqeoos edt of Laltotem, doak a homreonce qlizot.dsa
_ nitty Miuow <Yaatms eonersant sushae red o%, smroens, shud 2 oetfg tn
atoliseuy ai yotleg ods eueal of. seutot ot dh bonuso syasl vibosdued
bednegsages yolleg ent ot aot sptiaas, oad, makmats wd Antal |
itadt awotte eonobive betuqaibay add aa, bag ountsodoes ” -gowass.stoue
wanag edt baamet of ecoquyg Ly iear shempmenrpransn soe | |
sboatevat ,~oretetod? «at dauoo: seanbeele: ond 9 tamu pbeens |
pmusket Ta yYeatdog os bors .
m9 ap hh sontaaog ts bao ks :
, oat
ha ih we
fay tog eS. Beth & ee “Sha Saeed oro
iseo dais poivab
oe RE RAE «RES, ARE didi nh satel? ra te
ts eno . ; x EP Sah BER —_ > Sweeney iti REPL or Loe aout
Sofukenies oolibest pat}y ieee cation aul ‘he :
ont y
‘Hetnannrs oo na Rang La 8 ot gs vy f
ae gee Aw et AS Pie! ae te ib ae ye ye 8 ae Na Apne.
her feat Wane
P: RRR Ue
59085
HENRIETTA KOCH,
Appellee,
APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL
Ve
GOURT G CHICAGO.>
MONARCH FIRS INSURANCE COMPANY,
@ Gorporationy
ys gaia 12 9 G i ae 6 0 9"
MRe PRES DING JUSTICE SULLIVAN
DELIVERED TH? OPINION OF THU COURT.
i i ce”
This appeal seeks to reverse a judgment for $360 entered
in favor of plaintiff, Henrietta Kech, against defendant, Monarch
Fire Insurance Company, in an action tried by the court without a
jury, which was brought by the former to recover for the alleged
theft of a Pontiac sedan under a policy of insurance issued by the
latter.
Plaintiff's statement of claim filed January 23, 1936,
alleged substantially that she owed a Pontiac sedan on October
20, 1935, which automobile defendant had theretofore insured
against theft; thet said automobile was stolen by persons unknown
October 20, 19353 that defendant efter having been notified of
the theft refused to pay the amount due under its policy; and that
her automebile was worth $400.
Defendent's amended affidavit of merits admitted its
issuance of the policy of insurance but denied that plaintiff owned
the automobile in question and that it was stolen from her or any
other person October 20, 1935, or on any other dates It then
alleged that “at the time said policy was issued there was an
outstanding interest and claim of ownership in and to sid auto.
fy
; ~Ghie
RSME Be ae bi wages dear one Cpe, speed
Sod Kereta cattle
einai i
at ; pat Bangs 2 } Shi de, ae A Say 8 or ee
TAIT TMUM BOT Gasiita ~ ) sere emt
i hana w t MOL
See Bock z | prune mune ofr ro
f ia: to
‘800 ALLO est nbenitiibamaninaniisiisiiiles
ae EAs wt Ot Oe LS Cho tau
mY LEUe orem pula J Bag Py ! ie
Oy a «THUOD LRT BW WIMIC LRT One
Le oe ay SH RO AED sued
betssns scat 10% tompbut & & earevos of aisea onane. ont
Horsnok s dembsve teh damage Hoo ido temo .Thigmtalg te rove ha,
8 s tuosts a dine ofts ww boing notton fa “ (vag O SOnsTUG, THR,
® Cig
“beget is ssid ‘to? ‘rove.00 o4 ‘comso2 outa w dduso xd om, flo hate oth
wri wet pemet coustwent to 2 vebtog & roa fabes , ett meg. 4 PR APP
Oe We eae: eae mes: ger * -sxeddel.
deer 088 cenit boltt misio 0 teoasd aga a'ttiomtsla meee
ky ee BG tL OURS 4)
xedoto0. No ixbon oahtnot 8 ‘homo ‘onta sada “yltabenedudire bege
tee & RREEESE h t
‘ poxvant otetoterest? bari “duabaoteb ‘of kiomozurs Agtte is Seer 108.
Latys Veda eee
Nakane are Sx9q ve neLote aw Bs tihien ae Artes tos 1a 2oat, ponte.
“to beltizon med aattved rota jmabaotob tant 4aSCL .OS bid
tadt bas iyoifog adi tobew oh temoms Neg oF beauten
i apse
«0083 dixow aaw oLtsomeue xot_
ugh heddinbs atizvex te divebtYte bebeowe al tnebsoted
nas
bemwo Tiltaisiq sedi bolned Iud eomerwant te yotLog orld to sonavent a
Wis to tert mort mefLota asw tt send base moivaemp al oLtdomos ss only
aoa ye
fedd $2 .otsh renito yas mo TO «26 @L 08 tedo too moaceg seer
is sew etedt beyealt asw yoifeg bisa omit oft ts” i sift begets
Ode biwa of bas at gitarenwo to misio brs Seorodnt peieeshetet
Ses sh
= De
mobile;" thet “the plaintiff was fully aware of said fact at said
time;" that "the said plaintiff did not at any time herein have sn
insurable interest in ssid automobile;" that "title to said auto-
mobile during all of said time was not registered with the Secretary
of the State of Illinois in the name of the said plaintiff;" and that
"title to said automobile is not now registered in the neme of said
plaintiff but during all this said time has been registered in the
Mame of another persone"
There Was no competent evidence introduced upon which the
trial court could properly find the issues in plaintiff's favor.
Plaintiff herself was not a witness and while it is true that there
was testimony that she and her brother-in-law reported to the police
and others that the automobile in question was stolen, there was not
a word of competent evidence offered at the trial that it was actually
stolen by a person or persons, either known or unknowm, Plaintiff's
brother-in-law testified in her behalf that he last saw the car on
the night of October 19, 1935, in the possession of one Bonan, who
was @riving it with plaintiff's knowledge and permission and he
testified further over defendant's objection that said Bonan tele-
phoned him on the morning of October 20, 1935, that “the car is
stolen"; and that Bonants estranged wife told him [the witness] two
days later that "she had the car, and she was going to keep it." The
only other witness at the trial was one Raymond Ae Miller, an adjuster
for defendant insurance company, who had no personal knowledge con-
cerning the theft of the automobile. Thus all the testimony as to
the theft of the automobile was purely hearsay. Where an action is
tried by the court without a jury, if the record discloses sufficient
competent evidence to sustain the judgment, the incompetent evideneey
if any, may be Cisregarded. In the instant case, however, the recard
fails to disclose any competent evidence at all to sustain the finding
ame
bine doe tost bisa te eiswe yLivt eaew Pikinkel¢ od” gedd “yolidom
ae oved sisred emit yrs ts tom bib Titinmislq bine ers" felt "; omks
“oie fier of oftls* dade "golidomodue bias at seovotnk efdexuant
| Yragecosa ests a kw betedatgor ton esw omit bteae to [le gnituuh oft dom
- Gestd bua "ERikviste Bsn ont Yo omen ost? mt etoatL{T to otete odd to
bisa to omen oft at heredetgot wor tom at eLidomotya’ bise oo erste
Se a
ont at boteda ier meod ae emtd bias atdt Ife aniush tod Vildatel¢
: oy po enesteg neddons . Xo. +
ost Ho ket ogy Seoubetent eonobive suet oqmes, om Bev ‘ovedT ,
” steve’ althitnislyg ui sensed ede balt vhroqozg Sivoo tanoo Lstxt
esedd tend oust ab da ot tebe bre aaent br & Joss. agw TWLeated Ttigatslt
ona silt ot badaiges se saiiiaatiiolan ved bre ode gant yoomiiaces aaw
ton anw “oxade etofote aw moLI vou ‘nt oLidomaus oft taid erento bas
| winston aoe ts std bass eal ta hereto sehen sodeatos to. brews
| ern beakats +70 sate x0 swesst xeldbe canoeroq ‘tO moereq s ww nofots
= i209 exis wee deal be) saat Mesto ton ait bottiteed wakonixbad oud
ile eon wee ‘whee edd mt BEL «el tedotod WO daly eid
ont bas moteatereg bas egbofvorst e'1ibemteta ait ib cew
~ofes aanod bise tants mo ig 09 belo @t unbsio tb ove reridut ‘boktbtnsd
ah t89 ext” testd 8eeL eOS zodo¢09 20 pmctircon: ont Ho ‘ata ‘bense
ows Lamond fw oxi] mis bLos atiw boasottee amano fads baa “itnokoda
od meth qeex od antes aew ote Srus “tao autt baut ota" tacld “ote eyab
resenths fies «TOLL ih oA baosrgsi eH ew Loita eats te seen iv ‘endo ge
“moo oboe lwonw Lenoei9g ont hail ety uegnes souscuant “tnsbaetes ‘tot
ot wa ynomiseed ot Lia axef! vekidometiss ‘ont 20 ‘Pte ‘ole sukrere
ef sotios na exothi syaatsod vlog aw eLidomos ua oid te stedt eft
tnetolvwe seaoLoats bro00% oni + cau S nati iw x00 nls ‘vd bodns
eeontoh tye sod oqum ost arts stooagbut, outs nisdoue ot ‘senabive tasesamo
Smoot asta exeyewos eeeae sastent ond ‘gl “sbabuegeres ot Xa ‘au von "yt
nena ee + walt buh Paatk Senate
geikbatt oni wtoteus of fia ts senobive tnotegno9 ee “exoloats od “alts?
, BH SOT Pts + gal nA edad ue
=3e
and judgment of the trial court.
Other peints have been urged and considered but in the
view we take of this case we deem it unnecessary to discuss theme
The judgment of the Mumicipal court is reversed and the cause is
remanded for a new triale
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Friend and Seanlany JJe, concure
hice fa duet Bins. he, exw ater stume Lett, edd: to: saombut dae
me at ah ae 90d eva admtog TOMI) 6+ ow ig
: 38 mpab,on 0980, BL? 20 soled om wate
oe at smo Lagos est Yo. tnemabut
iy
uri
Wh.
Dela: a2) a: a OE 9 ORE OR ot bobrssies
CHKGLe
ale Capes ae
hind domi ott oe some th Bical tae | bier wcvnge
Me ak Roses SMM Hicks uel waked bikie, dest tie — dase Maren |
beste ey
mele place aeger Asean: saat Subeh swe Farrs weenie, Sah ae!
| | Pash ah va ale Sek —pheogeeny flume. dR tatnd
emess tely are add ae ee haa eon $e betes. et Moosed Teddadede
| otk Gare = oe hoard mien ie A mk wai a man Me eM Me L yaomatead naw
ten cil ase moti se anes iy ree ina dk add Tica tradse bes
{ for “Ket a at oa bak hs :
ene oh)
Py sed sing sie coatine ‘om
ae wud viene tone wee cet Eawtod rad a bois Meet’ me
#
ee ns ieonioon $b dak «SOUL GOK cstv te
| 6d bese mo kan tere sia tog sida of ethamdaty se be oe: ge ' sth Rae
| vied acaides aa ents. ae ashen st deuckos Bub pene. iby “ sashadint
ah. tam one” ‘heat tg niet Oe rani 9 tow asic perk ply watt be a6
ous Lanning font beta MES mene okay oananene sens ditt $l ace tobi
een Mag k on ie Ye eee oa jn vaio me baa atom tails ode |
ae
wet wrlLow Ben BOLE oa. orang eta i iain ate. te agent ir
GOS i. PAT Rien ome bansie: i See inne ihe mueen wer
Og eH Yneaiteas way. Die aauusts esd ic ase pry to Ve Ms
‘ ie uo ey
wd do bios na Ce sypazeat “ost aoe ‘obtsaneaua asld aoe we
LS id a
saatcivigt tes snaatoats Sunde wats h eat, ft sae be ope
ri nes mss rs
mene enniat fomyswed aaiae Pisa ae auts a | sbabeamacsi oa hss bie ‘Be
Pia wit Sane gt a gare sat ~
matdtret ¥ sa A asigiheaie Bute foam aa eomeh tre tmasegos Kile anatodhh ef ale ;
vt Bebb aman eae |
oa i)
38717
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF
GHICAGO, a body politic and corporate,
Appellee,
Ve
APPEAL FROM
MUNICIPAL COURT
PRATRIE GARAGE, Ince, a corporationy
LOUIS KATA and JOSHPH HINHORN,
Befendants, belowe
OF CHICAGO.
a ce Ci i a ne Sill i
PRAIRIE GARAGE, Ince
Appellant. S9OT.A. 608°
MRe JUSTICH FRIEND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
The Board of Education of Chicago brought a joint action
against Prairie Garage, Ince, Louis Katz and Joseph Hinhorn, de-
fendants, for possession of premises known as 5211-12 Prairie
avenue, and for rente Before trial Joseph Hinhorn was voluntarily
dismissed from the casee Trial was had by jury as to the remaining
defendants, resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of plain-
tiff for possession of the premises and costs, from which defendant,
Prairie Garage, Ince, appealss
It appears from the evidence that in April, 1924, plaintiff
solicited bids for various of its vacant properties, including the
premises in question. October 1, 1924) the property was leased to
Louis and Rose Katz for a period of 99 years. The lessees agreed
to erect a building thereton to cost not less than $50,000. The
lease provided for a stipulated rental of “1,800 a year for the
first ten years, payable in quarterly installments, and provided
for reappraisal of the property and the fixing of rentals at the
expiration of each ten year period. It was stipulated that the
WO. YTIO CHT TO WITAQUGE W CHAO
«atetoqioe base oitifog ybod s NODAGaED
goo lLogga
anes ‘ ~notioe? bi, baekes
WORT TATITGA
: | qho ls stogitoOD £ soon EDAD RIATAAL
@IUOD LALIOIMUM eHHOHMEE BAGO STAM oIOe
vice «wold, atnabne tot
eQDADTHO FW |
209 AI ger sdnalleggs
~THUOD THT MO WIWIIO AIT GEANVIA GMEIAL HOITEUL . AM
soltos satot s tdguord oysoldd to nolisoubit to bis0f edt ;
~ob «irondnli dgosot bas stet alnod «onal ogsts0 eitisrt Pettis’
olxietd SL-[LSé es mworl aezinetg to mo lesessog so cadmebret —
yiirstaulov asw ntodali dgeaot Lalit ove Tod stiot x0 bas ouneve
siiaiamet elt o¢ as yw, Yd bad saw Lede? »9as0 ons mort beau bmeth
~tiielg to tovat ai dnemghsi, bas ¢oiosev 6 ai guisivast ,adnsbhnoteb
etrisbasteb doidw mort ,etaoo bne aealmetg edt to no Laasenoq sot tthe
seLseggs «. onl .ogstsd oitiert
tiksnielg sS@L «Lirqs ai sald oonebive ont sort exaeqqs 31
eld gutbufont ysoittoqorq ¢asosy att to avotrev tot abid bettoifoa ©
ot boaas £ usw ydteqetg off ~ASEL ,£ tedoteO .moitsenp mt soa imorg
heotgs aseaaclt oT ,etaey &? to bolisq s tot stax saon bre atwot
oT 4000.08!) maid anel som ta00 of mosororlt panthL bec 8 toot “”
ef? 02 Taey s 008: Lf) to Letnet betalugiva s tot hebivorg oasel :
hbobiverg bus ,atnomiLetant Vrodteup mi efdayeq aRteey nat gastt
eft to eledmer to qakxit “-« ‘ioe xYtreqotq sit to tseterqqsot ot
edt sas padotugiva ‘aaw 41 .bOTeg cacy n0f doae to mo ttoxtgns
evonl ~SDARAD EIATART
si
#
;
a
tis
=Qee
lessees should pay the taxes upon the property, that a written
notice be given the lessees in the event of theirdefaulty, and
that "if such defaults are not made good in ninety days after ser~-
vice of notice, lessor may, at its option, declare the lease ended."
Lesseres entered into possession of the premises and erected
@ one-story brick garage covering the entire lot, at a cost of
$60,800. By the terms of the lease all improvements made by the
tenant were to become the property of the lessor. With the consent
of the Board of Uduecation, Leuis and Rose Katz assigned a one-half
interest in the lease to Joseph Binhorny and thereafter, April 21,5
1926, the KatzeéB and Hinhorn assigned the lease to the Prairie
Garage, Ince.
The various quarterly installments due under the terms of
the lease were paid until October 1, 1932. The undisputed evi-
dence discloses that no rent was paid thereafter, md that the
lessee is still in possession of the premises. Defendant paid only
part of the ger ral taxes levied for the years 1927 and 1928, and
defaulted in payment of taxes for all subsequent years. The propetty
has been repeatedly forfeited to the State for such nonpaymente
By reason of these defaults the Board of Education, at a
regular meeting assembled, December 27, 1933, authorized a notice
to be served upon all parties interested, advising them that if
the rents and taxes then in default were not paid within ninety
days, plaintiff would declare the term of the lease ended and the
lease forfeited. The notice was served February 14, 1934, upon
all parties in interest. However, defendants did not pay either
the taxes or the rent, or any part thereof, after the notice was
served upon them, and therefore plaintiff, a public body intrusted
with the management of the school lands, by formal notice on June
27, 1934, delcared the term of the lease ended and the lease for=
feited, and directed its attorneys to bring suit for possession
ie
nodjiuw s gadd .Yuogerg ed mogy sexed oft yaq biworla eesanel
bas «tinats 5 tied? to tneve oft mk econeet ont movin of cotton
“xee tedis ey2h ylouta at boog ebam som ors atiustob dowe ti” saskt
" hebae easel elt sisloeb qsmliqo ati ta eysm toceel ,ootton to epty
betoete baa eosiserg oft to 10 Lageeaog oda betedae aseased
to teoo s te 2fol orvitmo: ote: patreves (egetsy ‘Motel: wusdehentlite
ed? vd sham edmemevoetaqmt [Le easel odd to aures at ve 2008, 0a¢
tnenroo sad AtTV ..toaeel eoxlt to Vexeqong, ould omood 09 otew tnened
tiait-one © bomgteaa ateX cvoft hers ebiodt eno be s0u180" Yo brebe ont 6
iS LhugA _tevtastods brs qirrosintl dqesot ot onnet eft xi taetedat
either? sd of easel ott ict nroda bk baa Word oat, sb80L
eee Ts «ont opera)
‘te amos ott uehas oh stmom{ latent vized nap ayo bay. ont. me
«lve beduqekbou of? .S8@L .f tedosoO Litem bisq ovew easel ont
~ ed gadd bam .tedtAetondt bieq usw Yat om ¥add Weedfoalh cone — |
eino bisq dnsbacteG yasatmete off? Yo Noteneedog at Lite ef Soeeer
bos «B8S0L bas YSUL eteoy oft ot helyot abxsd Ist xey odd to Ptey
Weoqorg edt! .axedy theupoadva [la tot aoxed to ¢Homeisq at bedtis'tey —
" ¢nemgaqmon dove tot of6d8 Set oF bottetzo? ytdeddoqet nosd wee
“a to ynoltsoubit Yo breot end effustob edead “to Hoased Yr *"”
golton s héstvortys’ eee .°2 tedmeose ybotdmotes Yaisoen ceLinot
th gods modd gukaivbe «beteotednt eeleted CLs my beyxoe of OF
oytonin nit tv bisq ton drew ¢iire'tes at moc) woke Bnd etnot oft —
exit biog! tne ousef off Yo sted oft oxsfoob bisew Ttivutsty yesh —
mbqu ehSCL «dt CrerdéT perros aw Sokton “eit see teriby BaReL.
werldie You ton bLb atnabactoh yrevewoH .daotedat KE eol¥rey tts
anw eotton oft tedtn ~tostedd J1sq vie to eémer etd ro sexed sift —
besuuitni ybod offdug ® «Vilentaly ero Teel} pha jelly Koas seve bin.
sm mo solsen Lemrol yd yabost Looe edt “to. thentiysiinnt’ ory Stele :
“SOT ceoph oid: bre hobs onnel eit towed ott bovaeLeb yReeL eS
fotaagenog wi tive guid of eyenrosts wth Sedoonth: baw 4heyter
ota
end for rente At the time of the termination of the lease there
were due eight installments of rent, of 9450 eschy as well as unpaid
taxes for the year 1927 and subsequent thereto, as follows: Yor
1927, $74.66; 1928, $240.81; 1929, $1,122.50; 1930, $1,223.18, and
1931, $1,121.62, together with interest and penalties due each year
under the statutee
Ho further action was taken by the Board subsequent to June
27, 1934, when the lease was declared forfeited by reason of the
failure of the lessees to make good the defaults under the lease,
until December 14, 1934, when the joint action for rent and for
possession of the premises was instituted. The original statement
of claim filed by plaintiff demanded of defendants "rent in the sum
of $3,600 for the period beginning July 1» 1932, and including
September 30, 1934, and for the quarterly installment of rent due
October 1, 1934, in the sum of $450, all pursuant to the terms of
a certain lease dated October 1, 1924, between plaintiff and Louis
and Rose Katz." Thereafter, February 21, 1935, an smended statement
of claim was filed by leave of court which cosisted of three counts:
A count to recover rent under the terms of the lease; a count to
recover rent for the use and occupation ef the premises; and 2 count
to recover possession of the premises. The count for the rent alleged
in detail the facts pertaining to the execution of the lease, the
assignment thereof, the defaults in the payment of taxes and rents
the ninety day notice, and the fact that plaintiff did elect to de=
clare, and did declare, the said lease terminated and cancelled for
default in the payment of the rent end taxes, and that notwithstanding
such cancellation and in disregard of the notice defendants r emain«
ed in possession, and still retain possession, of the premises. The
eount concludes with a prayer for a judgment for rent due under the
terms of the leasee
whe
ered? onsol off %6 nottadimess oft toomtt add 2A toot cot bos
bkaqn ¢s ‘Lfew as pifdes OOM YO .4Het Yo etnom~Letent digto.oub otow
ot fewollo% vs yosorody swsitseedia brian We nooy oft to? doxed
bus ~BL.E08_ 06 OGL yoe. Ser. £8 (ener eEelONeg (ener yaainty reer
‘taey Hose oub » cod Lanibi bie seoredHt Ad ay woddeadd (ROVTSE. Le LEOE
| hada ps id” pars Ladd te oHte Oo tobi
aia ot dmdnpoudia brook eft yd Mole? caw mottos teases? of 0.00)
on to nodnox ud bedi Trot hethfoebh sew eased: orfto none 4 MOL a FS
eaeel edd tobi effin tsb edd booy ose 2 aoedesd oft 6 otwList
ot bes tres co dottos tito offf hob MOL 4 AL codiobeG Lithy
tneitetst: Cstty ico oY shogwtteant eaw aoulteong Bi To motedaRdq
ma ol? mi ¢xos” afmabusted to bebmamebh Tittntala yd bet? misfo "to
qeitbatomt Sm <SkOr ¢f TEve grikmnlgelt Bekeeg: bit: x0 000.8% to
cub deo4 to ¢nomEfndant yfcedrauy ord vot bus — MCL yO rodmargse
, to verted off of domeriee Ife ~OdA® Yo ema odd mE pASOE qf codotod
“'gkwot bets rion’ stoowtod ~—s L°redeso0 | petat ‘oowot seca a.
a eo hen ke ee ke sgn iia :
62 ‘diaws = Yednek odd “W6 ‘umkor ‘dtd tebaw dna “Leyeeed OF ReuEeT A
teufoo s bes paselmortg offf MW Molfadstooo brie’ saved "x6% Por tovooe+
bepatts “dnen sde et temod dete" eOny afd Necketneiiequenieerad —
orl ysaset ond to sotenooxs aa} os Qnkhtetieg avec’? ett Liefob int |
pines bas aoxcd to saemyeg odd nt edfested odd y Wore yeommatias
ob of doole bib Yiidmtaly Pelld Foot end Bue psolvon Yad qWontm ods
wot bolfoones Bie bédeninred cased bax eit (Oxelosh bEH brie Were
gabbusd aid kwsoe ee ow eee ee pepsi
shame indice brie Yeb ty eottol ond te: buspetath mi hire notte
att asattoxq Bid 4d vnmleasausg’ sitaddy 2itve tne Gun teneenegr att: ‘hn ;
ot robs eh gat <ot dhaecom # 10% ahaa a’ tt eebuloteo soo ,
gait oaths antad
CRE Satie th Soaks Bynes ote Bhs tansy S83 i
i ies}
The affidavit of merits filed by the defendants, other
than Hinhorn, denied in general terms that defendants were still
in possession of the premises, denied the defaults in payment of
taxes, admitted the provisions of the lease for the cuarterly
payment of rent, denied that they were indebted to plaintiff in
the sum olaimed ror rent and interest pursuant to the terms of
the lease, denied any indebtedmess for the use and occupation of
the vremises for the period beginning July 1, 1932, and averred
that no reappraisement of the property had been had for the purpose
er fixing the rental basis on and after October 1» 1934, in accord-
ance with the terms of the lease, and that the failure to reappraise
said property was without fault on their parte To these defenses
dnt endants ultimately added the defense that the lease was not ter=
minated as alleged, and that the forfeiture, if any, was waived by
the acts and conduct of plaintiff.
As ground for reversal. it is urged that plaintiff waived the
forfeiture of the lease by its demand for rent accruing under the
lease subsequent to the forfeiture. It is argued that in both the
original statement of claim, filed December 14, 1934» and the amended
statement of February 21, 1935, plaintiff demanded rent accruing sub-
sequent to June 27, 19234, the date on which the forfeiture was de=
clared, as well as interest on the unpaid rent “as provided in the
lease," and that this constituted a recognition of the tenancy as
still in existence and amounted to a waiver of the forfeiture.
Hopkins ve Lewandowski, 250 Il]. 372, and Webster v. Wichols, 104 Ille
160, are cited in support of this contention. in the Hopkins case,
supra, the lease contained a provision authorizing the forfeiture
if the rent was not paid when due. The court held that this rendered
the lease voidable at the election of the landlord, but that if after
the rent became due the landlord gave netice te the tenant to surrender
possession in five days, the right to declare a forfeiture was waived
ah: Pope
i rouse .etmnbreted off yo belt? af kiom 2o, tdvabiite est
| filta ovaw esnabasteb dead anos Laxeneg mt betnob «mrodath, mens
to dromyse ai adiveteh odd beineh ,asnimery eft to notmeesnog mt,
a Exod raup exit yt eased, Ices ™. amy cpktabe: ont bottimba., oars
wt TE atete od. petdonat Stow yeas deat bo Lao 199%, ha fe NGS
te amuses ond ot tmswatue geovedal bus tmot te bembaLe oe. osid,
Yo moitequoce ans eax ods x92 aaeabeddobal Mes beiaoh peanel ott
| betteve bas eS60L «i yin aatantsed Aotzeq edt 20% goutmerg amt
-— eaoariwg aiid, x02 ast aged dail varogeny on, To dugmestoxgases om, tat
| ~htooge Mi ebEGL qi aedogo0 tedie base mo aisad Istaex ont antxit te,
ealeiqgaes of omwitet odd Jat bina ,aueot edt to amte est Attw eoge
_ Beaseted eaedd of sttsq tied? mo inet duods iy sev ytmeqona bles,
“283 ton aew easel ails tad eanateb oft dads yLodamtity stusbaoteb,
wd poview sow <yne UL .omvdtetzot, off sad? bas chogells 2a botsntm
wi , _. -). #8 bMtatstg 20, dombaos bas ets, oss
ont sesitan webster jadi hegur at ti Laateves, «ot, ENO, ‘a RO
9a tba gaturoes snot rot ouemed ett yd saat edd to otwttodxo?
pult ddod at Jord Dougss of $I soxws torre? sid of tmoupoadus, ease,
bobrome ont bra MERE <df xodwooe eft? «meso to tneuedate fant txa
~dua grivzoos thot bebnameh Fthiniels 8 Lh yisutdet to inemetate
meh ecw opdieotzot edt doidw so edab odd 2 hol eS onl oF Jnomes,
sit ni bebivotg as" ines btaqas edt ao teouednt aa tlow as <botels —
an Yonsned ef to, sols ingooss #. betutizenoo ald’, salt bas tgenaak
_ segstiotiet edt to teview a ot pbedevoma hae son: Bd
Lit SOL .afodolli .v wesadei baa «STE offt 00S iy ot ite
_ 49880 satagolt esl ax “anpiinetane aids to tron, ne bette 9:
_stytiotyot ond gaisixodius mola byorg, . 8 henisinos 4:
ashuetma of suanet edt of colton evag sah ait nas po tne et
hevisw saw owmttotrot « ertalooh of tdyixn edd .ersb ovit int m0 be
ae
fer that period, and that the landlord could mot lawfully bring
an actioa of foreible detainer before the expiration cf the time
stated in the notice. In Webster v. Nichols, supra, it wae held
that the receipt of rent subsequently accruing from the tanant by
the landlord, who pricr thereto had ground for ferfelture of the
lease, constituted an affirmance of the existence of the lease and
waived the forfeiture.
In addition tc the foregoing cases defcudants' counsel cite
excerpts from various texts and decisions in other states which they
gay amply support the rule that a demand for subsequently accruing
rent waives the forfeiture of the lease. However, these suthorities
relate to situations where there were waivers ef existing ground of
forfeiture prior to the action declaring the forfeiture. In the case
at ber the lease had been finslly terminated 2nd cancelled ty appro-
priate action of the Board, and defendants were fully apprised there-
of. Prior thereto pleintiif had served notice on dsfendants that
certain defaults existed and that unless these defaults were made
good within ninety days, as provided in the lease, a declatation of
forfeiture would follow. Apparently nothing wes paid by d«fendants
‘éuring the ninety day period and the resolution of forfeiture follow-
eée This presents a Gifferent situation frem that existing in the
Gases cited where the lessers waived ground of ferfciture then exist-
ing through some conduct or action on their part, but never in fact
finally terminated the leases, as they hed the right to do. It has
been held thet waiver rests upon an estoppel (Big Six Development ge
vs Miichel1, 138 Fed. 279) growing out of some action or conduct on
the part of the lessor, through which he forgoes the exercise of a
right then existing ané induces the lessees to believe that the tenancy
is still in force. Nothing of that kind occurred in this proceeding,
nor is there uny evidence to show that defendants may have been in any
Sine Rae
hd UIiittwsl son bio’ beethact She she HB {bokyse’ gant tor
Yd ald to noldeciqxe’ st) o4oted sahbedeb atetenor' T° ‘fio bool inte
blod ase gh gate aorloin vy YodedeW AY .detroi Gite HY beedhs
yd ditanes’ ses nent phases cfenskpeedse Fret Yo igtoost ost yate
etd Yo Stud tetxet x02 biwory hart osereits tory ott Vbxoltennl” Slip
bus ersef vit to eonstetxe oft to ‘sonsier itis ne besidtyendd Vedder
, here j othe Lotto ‘ity ‘bev taw
tis Loutivos Yadnabao teh versd gniogetot ord os mo fftbse nr 98!
Yond Molde wodete recto ut unetatoeh bid atxey eid Frey met? dxqcegic
“gabvtoss Yfinsupeedre wT phsmoh ¢ dott etirt eff Froqdwva Yams ye
‘wet tredis oeoty provewoN “easel BAY Yo oaisd fo TYOY Ont nevis Yiee
to batiots otttdlxe to ateviaw sxew eres sxoriy ‘ano tt aut ty oF odatex
fas off HY .oxndietcot watt eens toifes ed¢ oe ‘sed tonto
tn rie a ma ten I Tt 5
~otege Yd beffedaso bre ‘bedan tie
~eyomt beattaqe yLiut erow atnebne toh bas vhrsett ody nah seineainailille
gait? adnobasted no sotdon ovtoa bart Ytivnttely edstemy “Yoirt «to
‘ébam otéw Bi tuateb “esortt bic dis ‘gout! bam pote tes dt Lda tod ‘nisdteo
Yo moiiatfoss 2 .9adef ay ut Sobbvorg te cavab ys HHR WEY RW Deg
gapbas ten | ve “Sho daw ynkiion ‘eliworcdgh swolto? btuew “wtsit bettie
“a#0Lfot sist te¥rot ‘to nbtivloce? ont} See bottog Yoh Yonik sad yalivo
“edd nk gaitelxe ‘todd mvt notiadtte trote TEs adiovord EAT Vie
~taixe ned? otgttotrol to bardtg bév lew erodes writ ered eaiiclacvedl
fot al woved tud dtaq They no adi¥oa “te Foubuey omon “nige |
nest "$2.08 wf vib ‘odd Bet yortt “as Jesedor se tints a |
iy aigtin My’ oa ha
~ Gs
way misled by the conduct of plaintiff. In fact, defendants
evidently recognized the forfeiture, for long after the suit had
been commenced and while it was pending, Katz submitted a proposal
to the Board of Hducation for a new lease of the premises in ques-
tion, which was based upon the express condition that the action
of the Board of June 27, 1934, be waived, cancelled and set aside
and that the pending suit be dismissed.
Plaintiff cites and relies on Schumann ve Marky 208 Ill.
282, as expressive of the rule that a suit for rent is not incon-
sistent with a suit for possession predicated upon a forfeiture of
the lease. In that case plaintiff sued for rent for the month of
July, and at the same time demanded possession of the premisese It
Was contended that since plaintiff had brought suit for July rent,
any forfeiture of the lease for the month of July was waived, and
that a suit for possession could not be brought wntil after August
le In discussing this contention the court said (pe 288)%
"It is then urged that as the appellees had brought a suit
in assumpsit for the July rent, they could not forfeit the lease
and maintain a suit for the possession of the real estate prior to
August 1y 1901, for the reason that the beginning of a suit for
the July rent is inconsistent with the act of appellees in ter-
minating the tenancy prior to the expiration of the month of July.
It is said that the suit in assumpsit and the proceeding under the
forcible entry and detainer statute are inconsistent remedies for
the enforcement of the same right, and that having elected to first
sue in assumpsit, the plaintiff can not afterwards, during the
period covered by the rents sued for, terminate the lease and sue
for possession. ‘This is a misapprehension of the situation. The
landlord has two rights: one is», to have the rent that is due paid;
the other is, where the rent has not been paid, to proceed under
the statute and obtain possession, if the rent be not paid within
the time fixed by the notice which the landlord is authorized to
give by section 8 of chapter 80 of Hurd's Revised Statutes of 1901,
page 1135. If before the expiration of that notice the rent is
paid, any further proceedings for the possession are barred; but
no attempt to collect the rent by a suit in assumpsit will bar
the suit for possession unless the rent be actually paid within the
time limited by the notices
“A pending action for use and occupation will not invalidate
a notice ef the termination of the lease, for the landlord may only
recover in his action for rent due at the time of the expiration of
the notice, although he may claim rent to a later period. (Tayler
on Landlerd and Tenant, sec. 485.) The language quoted from Lord
Coke in the case of Jackson ve Sheldon, 5 Cowe 457, also leads to
the same conclusion."
De.
etosbhasteh «fost al .tiktutelg be toubnoo ent yd, belaim yaw
bat tive ef? totts gael xot ,exmtiotrvet off bestmaooot yitmebive,
fssoqotg & besdindya sted agaibaog aa tk eLitv ban heonemmoo need .
-aeup Bi seaimetg oft to esmel wen 6 TOT mo ti soube to bra08 ott od
migon et Jait selithxog asetgxe afd. moqu boasd aaw doteiw gab.
eblae teu bas befleatse ybeview ed ,b5@L . TS emul, to bis0f ould to.
«bouahueths of tive extboaeq eft tact bas.
«SLT 808 pttaM .v_ersmulo® so eelfet bie estilo Tittmiel? |
-efoont tom ai-tnen tot diva 6 gedt efux edd ‘te. eviesetqxe aa «S88.
to ont lot<e? « sogw betaotherq noleseaseg get glue 2 ddkw ¢uodeta.
Xo Minom. ort «0% goer vol deve TitdateLy easy taldonl , seasok eid.
#I «aecimoxg ed io aoleasesoq hebusmeb emit emea edd a, bas al
etnet, (int tot give depwotd bal Tiitaliel¢ eomte Jadd. bebsednes ase
hte <beview asw Yiut to diaom eft tot weasel ont to ome totyo? ws.
| gawyuh rotte Litmy degwexd od Jom bimoo sotesensog to? diva .0 tad,
2(88S «q) Sine duyoo edt solinetaoe aid gaieawoeth mh of»
¢ saved. jlotaei von iowa vedi sary Unto 2 errors
"= s, of? sievtxot tom 6 f eewias a ‘a
ot soizq eteteo Ise ait to mo oq od? 10% tive s alsintem bus
wi Tics 5 te pig og ott dels now. afl Seagua
“tet ni aoalle vo toa ould poyiy: jee tern an al Scifenia
“let ‘to ation on te pgp eis od wan args ri sak sn
[9 hbeasotg ont frm e teris *
Hh shy | Prone date ny Tce ots oF sate tomiedeb bas yxtae —
tath? od betests gutyad,? dieix emee od to
eft aokceh cabtorsegia fq Ako 1h ferme ond od siecmaaaa Bt ous
eve brie seael oft etenierie? » 10% Pesiengperen | 28, 8 derevee
edt .fotiaiita edz to no isabdenuqeuim 2 @ al 20 Fanos 04
thkag emb af ists tnos of} ovad of .
iota Se sore of bia age den tee ee |
slelt iw on ed tn97 2B f 3
og bostvorsus ot nee gyn Tn ald Hobs ay te. ae =.
{OGL to sséutaie beaiveh s bus to stiqado & sobs oee
% Sek Gite-t of3 soliton ¢ atd to he attics’ ent ‘oroted tI eke: pits
aaa ieee aa Sito Wee di gosioe se cle ak
ort a Yiiess oe fet ety seeteut mo xo mtr
. | veokver pie se bed.
-tebhilewnl gon Low aoitequvess tne ay to? motion. gutbnog Av oe
yino yom ee oid 102 ,oxeet offs to oe lienimres att to soltos a.
‘te solitariqze silt to amtt world ta owh deter tod motion whl at cevosot |
solwl) sbotreq tetel » et dnox misLo yam on mysondia «colton
| bos brotonad
bxod mott hetoup. sgavgneal eff (488). 990 » af
ot absel ola Vad swod & emobfod? ov mo sitost Ro vaso ould rig 0%
|S eitotasfonos emse ett
Pais pe
We think the Schumann case expresses the rule in this
State and that a pending action for use and occupation does not
invalidate a termination of the lease. It was there said that
the landlord may recover only rent due at the time of the expiration
of the notice, although he may claim rent to a later period. In the
instant proceeding no damages were allowed plaintiff, and omy a ver-
dict for possession was returned by the jury. Wo point is raised as
to this by either of the parties, and the only question involyed is
whether the verdict and judgment for possession were propere
Tiffany on Landlord and Tenants, vole 2» s@ce 194) pe 1391,
supports plaintiff's position. The author there says;
“At common law, the acceptance by the landlord ef an in-
stallment of rent, paid on a day after it became duc, is not a
waiver of the ect of forfeiture consisting of its nonpayment on
the day on which it became due, that is, he may accept the rent
and yet enforee a forfeiture because it was not paid promptlye
There are several cases in this country to the contrary, but
these must be regarded, it would seem, as involving the introduction
of an equitable defense in a common law action, which is in many
states now permitted by statute. ven in the jurisdictions, however,
in which this latter view prevails, the landlord's acceptance of
part of an installment will, it seems, not prevent his enforcement
of the forfeiture for nonpsyment of the balance.*
4 careful examination of the count of the amended stat ement
of claim, which defendants contend contains a waiwer of the can-=
eellation of the lease, discloses that this count by its express
terms negatives any theory of recomition of the tenancy under the
lease or the abandonment of the cancellation thereof. It alleges
in detail all the facts pertaining to the execution of the lease,
the defaalts, the ninety-day notice, the fact that plaintiff elected
to and did declare the lease terminated, and that notwithstanding
these circumstances defendants still continued to hold possessione
These allegations clearly indicate that there was no intention what-
soever on plaintiff's part to waive the declaration of forfeiture,
nor is there any inconsistency between the position which plaintiff
assumed in demanding possession of the property and ite claim for
(aided ai elyt edt secsexqxe oxen BremfoS od Antdy oF) 9°"
fom se0b molioquoog bas, sax tol mottos gatbasd we sade baa odeds
jadt bisa ered? envy 21, sencel of? to mote ahiered:2 oteblZevnl
nokiaxiqne oft te omit? arid de seh ¢mex ylao tovevss Yom brofbast omy
alt aE .boltog teteL s of trex minfo Yam ad sgsodtia vootion aff “Yo
tev 2 Ye bas .Vikinielg hewolla ovow adegamsh ow gnivedsotg sxetent
as beatat ai ¢uteg of .yut add yo deomtet wor notemestdg YOT FORD
al bevloval noiteem yino eft brs smo ttisg end Yo teMtto yt ald? of
_ etoqotg exam aptaseesog Tol dmemphut bcm sokbrov ody orosdtsellw
2L@EL og .0L 4202 48 «Lov efnscof bee broLbred no yuePRee 0)
? tayse exodt todjus ofl »moltiaog ev! Ttitnielg edreqyita
ae 1 perpen " seuseqeane, edt ti memsone gins. oie
ay : net eds ee cae ay — — Nes pes ,
" exitgmn 7a biaq ton ecw tL oeusoed studies iret =, eomeine, bts
“Sud eytscdmdo odd od yttowoo eid? ni eesaso Ietevee ers otedT
sb Le i
Le athe er eee Ee ae ee
¥
| Tee eeedi con a btutemat dat 1 itaecg Cale” Beta th del ad
ifr? te a ist sgovers. eg ,omoea IL giltw ts
_. *sSometad ect to tavmyeqnon 19% 6 0% ect to
gene ave ‘pebroms oi te vai ott 8 + mitandnas ea ho
iised ER, 3 aT’, ° Bit ail ‘etibesibie
sousel odd te int syoox 9 ‘ori ot anbsintite ‘shel Sa at eae
4h § wk ere a poten co
betoete Tridutala sald dost edt eodkion 2} cad tusteb end
| 20 8 wedge ons al eee
" grbbnsdactd bdo decd baw. sded andere’ enol ont : | ae
ay toe eon t i oud yh here,
ono tanga aod dort et beuat. 09 ‘EEtts ‘edad aoteb : meant ae
‘oy 20% rig oats
eta mo iinet at on aa ‘oroalt toad od sobbah ‘efsasfo anotd agate ‘seedt
‘ of ott Te yy SOre zi
Tatemtaly sloiete se istaoy eas oowded \onods teneont: Pines a .
fi aa ade ie
mot miso ok ban eexogog ly to ) so ne2ee0e 2
es i ee fans 5 ep.% x bs i
aeg OF
gars aa Ero% +4. cere yer a — oF ochre ds “ ;
line
rent. The statute recognizes actions fer rent and for possession
and treats them as concurrent remedies, not in any way imconsistent
with each other. Therefore, the inclusion of a demand for subse-
quently accruing rent in a suit for possession of the property, under
the clear allegations of the amended statement of claim in this casey
eannot be held to constitute a waiver of the act of the plaintiff in
declaring 2 forfeitures
As further ground for reversal it is urged that the court
erred in giving two instructionse The first of these follows:
"The Court instructs the jury as a matter of law that if
the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant violated the
terms and conditions in the lease under which it occupied the
property in question under the plaintiff, then by the terms of the
lease the plaintiff had a right to declare a default and forfeiture."
It is argued that this instruction was misleading in that it did not
limit the violation by defendants to the defaults claimed in the
amended statement of claime However, inasmuch as the only evidence
of violations of the terms and conditions in the lease were the de-
faults in the payment of taxes and rent, both of which were conclusivee-
ly established by plaintiff's evidence and not denied, the jury could
not have been misled by this charge.
The second instruction camplained of is as follows;
"You are instructed that if you believe from the evidence
that the defendants or either of them are in possession of the
premises described in plaintiff's statement of claim, and that
they or cither of them, unlawfully withholé possession of said
premises from the plaintiff, and if you further believe from the
evidence that the pleintiff is lewfully entitled to possession
thereof, then you should find the issues in favor of the plaintiff
and against such defendants or either of them as you velieve are
er is unlawiully withholding possession thereof from the plaintiff."
inasmuch as the ¢ vidence conclusively shows that defendants were in
posssssion, operating the garage, thot the rents were in arrears for
2 leng period of time, that taxes were in default, and that the lease
had been definitely terminated, we see no merit to the defendants!
complaint as to this second instruction that the jury was not given
any explanation of what evidence would justify its reaching the
m teagnseg 70% bes tnez x02 amoiioe aosimocoy, etutate ee? stavr
dnodstanoond You Yas AE tos snetbomox. ¢aeTxwonDs, 99,meg9, O9s9xt bus
~ondve 10% bremed « To solexfont oexft, ORD RE: ste sMoge, figy ms
tebe .vtseqow edd to apigasseoq tol tine. ot. des. aiiutoos xitnesp
ganso silt at aialo to tnemedsts bebmems edz to anots aveste aeede, ace
ad Ttnbelg eit to tos edd 10 xoview # edxeisamo of died of sommes
wai rier semmslotzet « anttss
buses alt att, pean ad ta feareves 10% brwotg tedtust BA. 4
1ewolfot seeds to tail sf! ,asoltonidant awt gatvis at boise
Me AoA eg eee a Rete a AROS ck ane
| ould a elec ei Miers tes be “go 13 bo Bh
"ORM ASOT T02 Dae AMA IOD «MERI, 08 OEE A, bed Titntela edd sesel
tou bib Ji daild al gaibectaim eaw sotteistint aidd dads ‘Reugtd “ak 9
od? at Bemiets ed ivete pods 0% etasbet tes ee mestatony ot “9 fins
_ senoblve ytao ed? aa, dowmasit a tevewol emiote to ta set oti thie
| “2d etd, xom, pasok ody al, sto Lt bao, bits . “emttod: edd Py nt co ky to
-oviexionoo. exew Aotde te slog. einer, baw ngxet ‘to Anoayag. ec ab st un?
btwoo out, ot cots Yost be sonabive «)tthiaistg w bode tidatae -
sogitate ghee ‘ee detain ned sven gon
tawolfo% « as at te penis Lym o ‘Roldarteans bnovea ‘pre
Saieb hve adt moxt eveiled woy tt ‘tase bogturtd an ‘ors box” ”
% tsaonsog <5 medt to 0 af
teas Ba ealats fest at tabeate er eaotes vei
2 10 Roleasa ‘
Z : wee ‘eal “aoa goad
oe
a
ail? moxt evelicd esti tet ae woe %. bite
molagenaog oy Soljivaa Wot @
titiniealy al? ig Bier | nt eonead’ ie Fe poate
anf STOEGy MBY,O at "aa ne saceg ee
ni ovew adiabid tob trad aworde CLovlanLond opheh kv o ong dled
10T atsorze nh erot etnot od? todd og ameag: ant githtarego pnd teaoaady |
easel Ort Said bie es Eun Teh mt otow aoned sade vomts he Bodisg guokla —
Yatusbssteh off o¢ Ilaow on oof or . hos eerie? ‘Vert initeb asod need: bad .
imevip Jon aaw ytut: ons ‘ted? moltorifemt beoose ebdgoed: so dntaLgmec
eit anidosox att <ibsatt biwew eonebivs bale. to moltansigxs yas ;
Gea
conelusion that defendants were unlewfully withholding possession
ef the premises and that plaintiff was entitled to the possesai on
thereote
Plaintiff's counsel devote a considerable portion of their
price? to the contention that plaintiif, being a body politic and
corporate, could act only in meeting duly assembied and that without
such action the forfeiture could not be waived. Holding as we do
that there was no waiver of the forfeiture, it will be unnecessary
to discuss this propositions
The evidence in this case is conclusive that defendants
were hopelessly in default, that they were given ample opportunity
to make good the defaults, and yet did nothing, and that the lease
Was preperly terminated and cancellede We find ne support for the
contention that the forfeiture was waived by plaintiff in instituting
a joint action for rent subsequently accruing end pessession. The
ease Was fairly tried. The judgment of the Municipal court ef
Chicago should therefore be affirmed, and 14 is so ordered.
APFPIRMEAD
Gwblivai, Pe Je, and Scanlan, J., concurs
os git hLoried bw Vili far ater adusdasted ‘Vale de ill nae:
“fo neasog ont of bobs itne caw y Wibtmtale § Sas bn ce ae
‘se ei) Tp, f 4 ge 0 Dab HE Roast thy gE Dy
: stoovods
ity os te net sxoq eigaxchianoo | & L edeves | Loanuo 9 ‘ainiinisn | ae?
} | “bne ott hog wood a antod eTibsadats saris wo Bnd woo “edi 03 36
ou
ob ow as amiblok .beview ed Jom bivoo oma tokens’ SB 10 tse sola
winsancenae oe the $k cont Lotro® aid ‘to review on on aaw etodd dart
| GEER GRNRE AR RRE RM AER ‘sable Heogora ay aay
a ID K
i | atnobnotes dase evieuzone at 9800 adsts. a vonbiro out euskal
Shaves. fi These hag
wi imsx0qt elqus works. exow yaad ted aMtwadod st
a I MM SC ae Be heey meh. eed
tenet od? tastt han «sabstton ‘bib fox bus “ublueted ost Boog oxen oF
ae ek Soeeeae! w he or Bnet.” ak 20
oid ‘308 szocqve, on ‘batt ow ‘sho Lfoonso bos dodanie | of lxogn sg i: J
ie if pre at Let ;
‘ >
guiiws tient nk 2 benbate, ww boviaw asw oxi Leto os oa erie e
bya g ear we Wik?
ont nobenensog bes, paucoos uitaoupecds sues i, ip aaa feeb,
ak 3°) Sa aL : fav <cixhes e ai, at 4
| o tat ix he 2 9 Lagho iwi, ong 2 se ner. 3 A Ms froareat b oapre re ott tot |
Be oe is “sbexebzo on al tt bag xf ‘hen : 2 ogeotsdo
ca opis «et we beleia’ aaed oval som
exuon@ y+ eaednnod bas 46% i ee |
SET Ba , bea MMM KC aS ae ee vent by ye Siseee ob
et eee eee, ee
A) bran oe sot SEN E woes Aide hetadialilanenis athe were
we Sih ' <2 De oolle te. a setetie teh yee Pale
ig ag keeatth Seite
eS Bes ‘nme te ae
ae eee? Boake te
5 ARS hagorit Soriyh tvs
fae h aye « here
a Ieee Ray AR
se fnew ae ened
May sso : . fat hy nie
Vier ieee cable yale aa Oe
aod YN doh - (oe ae WER Ry pie haeeaeS :
By es FR sy Ba Be aia a a ea Wie 0 a aks i a a A ea vate da rt Rely Wee ;
: oe oe RAL E RES WE Hs oa Ri e ra e PALES ¥ aS | Sede gt as
tgeuebae Beh polh ed Ete oO oa Cae bid Rail eee Sebi sha ie
W teh oul? eae hear nee Baie ea alee ae ie ee
tae Yolo, Bmw pewehive dete lo pelioaalen} sm
pin Pol ; mais WN
39693
GEORGH CHRISTIAN»
Appellee,
es APPEAL FROM COUNTY
PETER SMIRINOTIS, COURT, COCK COUNTY.
Appellants ; 9 9 0 tA. 6 ¢) Q'
MR. JUSTICE FRIEND DSLIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
July 12, 1930, plaintiff hac judgment for §400 and costs
before Willism Melville, justice of the pesee. Defendant appealed
to the County court of Cook county, and on September 4, 1936, filed
an appeal bond, in the sum of $800, which had been approved by the
dJustice on July 28, 1930. Thereafter, January 3, 1935, the
following order was entered in the county court: "This day said
causs being enlled for trial on the court's own metion, it is
hereby ordered that the appeal herein be and it is hereby dis=
missed." (Italics ourse) March 17, 1936, defendant filed a
petition in the county court to reinstate the cause, alleging,
inter alia, that Jenuery 2, 19355 there appeared in the Chicago
Paily Law Bulletin a call of the first 1060 cases on a calendar,
prepared and ready for distribution im the clerk's office, together
with the sunouncement that the first tem cases on the call would be
held for trial; that the above imtitled cause appeared es ease Noe
47 om the list of cases publishedj that by mistake the court entered
em order January 3, 1955, dismissing defendant's appeals that plain-
tiff, heaving failed to file an appearanoe or to otherwise follow the
i ae |
i aon
;
EQO8E
SS 00 108 apeemarrenes “ap eaomay
boss cin’ rb Qua at a ON seals gia eel
YEWOD MOAT GAmEcA eae Galeria
fiat is b bie ee Se et Pubs h
»YTHUOD Pk 928) TAU Se 2rOKICD
'@00 AT OeS” “omc
oecogg eHT bes WeTRIED via pec ay oat KOITeut ce
ReB0D baw COM set sromgbwt bad Titinialg .S@L ek yLaboorn! ooo
betasdqe Inmndeeted .eoecg afd to sotvart .elLivioM malisty oxoted
hbehkt eOLOL 4h rsdmetqes mo bus «vinwon wood te cares: yinuod eds oe
old Yd devoraGs mead bash dole 0089 Yo mun of? at hued Leoqn em
ond ~Be2L .o yreniel ,tofteeteNT «OS@L .8@ yint no: solttenh
blea yeb slat" sgéages Giawoo edd mt betedae xew tobto gsttwoLfo®
aki gi ysoitivom azo e’faneo ald mo Lads 29? beliap gitked camo:
~alb ywoted ei vi bas ed nisted Leeqqe oft tant botebto ydeted
a beLi? dnobmoted .d8@k _VE dota (carve mohtetZ) ".bewalm
epniigeltis ,easeo odd otataniet of duos Ytewoo ond mt motive
ogsoidd old mi hotsoqqn osadd g8ECL eS Yrounal todd .eife tedmt
qtabroleo eo mo asano GOL daxk’s ont Yo Lioo s mitelin® wed yliet
sattoyed <sottto alagefo odd mt moktediatedh te? yoeex baz Sosagong
eg binow ILeo estt oo aenno mod daxkt oat tar? smemeonvosma ond ue 3!
sok oxen as hetesqqs senso beliivm) eveda edt tale ¢ieict to? ‘bged
hbetetno Jxsoo ont evstatm yd tent thedalidug seuss to gall ed? 10 me
i ~nitelq tantt ¢laeqqa altmabnoted gate taeia 1250 oa Yraunal zobs0 ms
oh
ed wolto? eatwradte of “to Sotiatasgqs me Lit ot ‘heftet geived Tite
aD
eappesl from the justice of the peace, and the cause heaving required
e trial ds nove upon appeal, the court sheuld have entered judgment
fer defendant for costs instead of dismissing the appeal. It is
slso alleged that defendent's attorney had, for more then four
years from the date of the filing of the appeal, watched the calis
of the court, and that no cslendar was prepared during that tine;
that defendant has 2 good and meriterious defense to plaintiff's
clsim, Which is set forth in @etsil im the petition.
In answer to defendant'a petition for reinstatement of
the cause, plaintiff filed a motion to strike the petition from
the files, averving in substance that the petition set up alleged
errors in law and mot in fact, and that the court therefore dda
not have jurisdiction to set aside the erder of dismissal after
the term time. After a hearing om the petition and the motion to
strike, the court overruled defendant's motion to vacate the order
of dismissal, and this appeal followed:
The question presented is whether the court had jurisdicti ony
after the expiration of the term, to set aside the order of dismissal
of January 3, 1935. Defendant's motion is im the osature of a writ
of errer corem nobis, and is predicated on secs 72 of the Practice
act (Illinois State Bar Statse, 1935, chaps 110, pare 200) pe 2448),
waich is identical with gec. 8° of the former statute. This section
of the statute provides:
"Tne writ of srror coram nobis is hereby abolished, and
all errors in fact, committed in the proceedings of any court
cf record, and which, by the common law, could have been sorrected
by said writ, may be corrected by the court in which the error was
committed, upon motion in writing, made at any time within five
years after the rendition of final judgment in the case, upon
reasonable noticee * * #®
It is conceded that if the cause in the county court was
dismissed January 3, 1935, through an error in fact rather thm
an error in law, the court hed jurisdiction under the provisions
of the foregoing statute, and upon a proper showing, to vacate the
aN
“R=
borinpst anivad sayso odd hme yoossq edt to soktay} od moxt Lasqqa
sreemost, Fetetne evad bineda tuyos on? okennen foqy oven of Lfetut a
ak #3 .feecqe owt ymbaedmeth to baotomt etaom Tot dmebmeteh rot
xgot cadd orom tot «bath yemretta wtnebastoh tant hogelis oaks
alino oxtt betiod aw «fLasqys edt to gmilt? edt to eteb edt moxt areoy
vomit tari patawh heusqeTa ASW cabuntad on tau hen «tuyoo sad to
e'iittmbate of sansteb ‘agotrod bron ber boog es ans dnabmoteb dant
+0 et tteg ext aot fteteh mb tito? fon ar ‘to abe Be
Pay ee
aie HW 2
‘te tuome teteniox sot mois tte a onehmeteb of rewans =
me
snort ants tteq eid oxtt te ot sottom o befit ‘Tthteters «eeuso yer
Hogotle qu foo nolsivog att dard vettetudire af guitebval quell? edd
hb erototeds twos ot dard haw dost al dor bas wel Mt esorTe
vedtts Lene breath te tesco edt. ebias ten: of gobtethainat: ‘evel sort
ed ogisom odd hug ab ieiteg ols oo aniteost 2 wed ta wants anced ait
sehto ont ofanay of noktom aénebastob! beiwrxeve: emo anid souliade
whewollot Laeqqe ails dre sHeawbeeth 20
eno Ho Lhe tar} bart — ond ‘outed of begsoaeug wotteenp ex?! | ‘ent
faasimeth to sebvo safé obkas dee oF eared ond Te) mptdevhgae ald, -t0d'bs
tow 9 20 otstac od wh wk mokdoor etdtobmted BEE: a8) Vemma, 20
solteas® ef? Yo ST .one mo betastborg pt dus. aBidon mexgy moxxe to
e(BDdR ag 4OOR ateg 2OLL sqato .AEQL asetdavt® «cod oted@ stonkS£T), tos
rottoga ald .etudste, teaxo? edd) te @8 «poe elt by danitnedt ak aolsiw i
: etutote wit te
bas «beste lfods ydeted ak skvon mazoo
war 3 ‘Wiis te agaibesoci¢g of ;
bevoe tw. soad evad SLinoo surrtse pon a bas «
eaw soiro ocd Moinw ak rege tenn ye & tinw bise '
, Swtl plidtiw omts, yne ge obem Sees ores
sah eoaso ey mi tovis etse
; its PM
., Bet dtwoo Ytawoo odd mk sauso edt 2h seats bebsoneo a ¢ ak ir
sedi xedjax avost ai torte sa dguords . SCL ~S yreuuel boos tmats
asoleivorg elt tebas moltotbaluut badl dio eft ewal mi 0718 as
alt etsoay ot egniwode reqotq o moqw hms .odutete patogotot ett t
ween
the eeder ef dicmissal; therefere the query whether the order of
dismissal resulted from an error in fact or om error in lave
Under rule 23, pere 2 of the rules ef the Gupreme court
of Illinois, “all causes shall be set and apportioned as shali
be fixed by local rules of sourt.®
Rule 17 of the county court provides that “eack judges
from time to time, shall cause to be prepared a trial calendar
of causes assigned to him which have been noticed for trial in
the manner hereinafter stated; and no cause shall appear on the
trial calendar of any judge which has not been noticed for trial."
The rules of the county court provide also that the court
Shall from time to time cause the clerk “to prepare separate law
* * * calendars of all cases which have not been noticed for trial
within two years of the time of their commencement and assign mch
calendars to one or more judges for disposition." The latter
rule imposes on the clerk of the court the duty of making up such
&® calendar, only om order of the court. in the praccipe filed by
defendant for making up the record of the trial court, his counsel
fequested the clerk to include the order of court directing the
clerk to prepare a calendar on which this cause appeared. No
such order was included, and therefore it may be inferred that no
such order was entered and that the clerk prepared the calendar
Without the written order of the judge of the county courte The
instent proceeding had not heen noticed for trial, and therefore
eould not properly have been included in a salendar of cases within
the contemplation of rule 17 of the county court. The only other
kind of calender contemplated by the rules of the county court was
a calendar of cases that had not been noticed for trial within two
years at the time of thely commencement. If the instant proceeding
was included in the list of ceases appearing on the calendar on
January 3, 1935, it could only have been properly included on the
to T9h10 nls tosktosie Yrowp ald oto tereds “yLeodinsts Yo renee de
Val sh WR me tO toe? al tore ms mort bediudet Ladd lee tb
100 exrgu! odd to seus ott Yo S «tee 488 efter tote
tiade 3s besotixogys fxs toa od Lies seaco \Lig® akoakLit Yo
",dus00 bo safer Lasel yd foxft od
<9pbul dose” tatd sebiverq izwoo ytoseo ont te VLvedeh «() wo
tebssiso fatst » betsqezq ed o¢ eanso [lela ,omit od, omit mozt
mi Ielut xo bee ki on seed eves Molriw mid of bemytiaae asegao Ao
est ao teetae ffesta SaNso Om bate, Abetats ted tentered 4 ‘tention ost
"faked x08 beotton hood Jon aati aie it esout we a tabaeleo Lats
tuwoo oft tals onls obivetg $410 0 yemmeo ould ba 8 ody ont lati
wal of steqoe wrsgeNy of" ireLo ek ‘SERGD oukd of emtt ort Lae
Lait? «0% bookies need sou ovati tots | nonce Lis %0 exsbusis0 * * *
Ho ae aptsas bes dnexoomemmne xtod? to om odé re exact one sts tv
eh Qe ary
“weddas ont "sos teoga tb 103 sepia exon 70 ono od
;
Sone RY
dee ws aublem +0 utwb oats tuusoo esis ‘to tx0fo ond ‘10 ne
yd befit eqtoostg odd al +3100 ext be wob0 m0 ‘ino ‘taba ine 8
Leanne o abt eerie o iskw ost te procer ot as gation sot ‘nabas ob
enid geisocrks Sus 00 ‘Ye xobto au ‘ebugont 08 axolo ~ boseouyes
! a 38 ofe 7" eT AG n
on sboxaequs enue akaé ‘iahae no zabseLso a etegomm oF iznks
ee Apts MO ES ta
on dans boxretat of ‘Yan $4 pe ar bas bobufon! asw ‘xebt0 Howe
I ct) we ed de
“ashaetss oft betaqgera tren ont deals oats boxesne al ‘tebr0 sous
en? sPt0d Kinos orig ‘to sobwt, esis “4 robz0 og ber ats ‘dusts
Rae Say Tig
‘@tototedd bma ,ieixd set heolson need ten ‘bat ‘anthoocerg "tnatont
lonandeil sone T¢ tabaslen, Pas bebutont teed omrast. xireqote: tom bLs6y
1, eet awa e RO
“wedte Uno on? +32u00 Ylawon ot ty TE bus te ‘noid eLqusenos ‘ontt
ste e hod tee
Baw FaMoD YEO mH ‘to cols orld wd boestamednee <abaatne Yo huis
he ; ee SD RALSRR CD SERED
owt arkeds tw faixs 102 beotion nood tou bat doclt Reese to yabmeleo s
oni besoong snadas: edt WU » drromocmemi xtods 20 ont edt js ereey
a0 rabneLso ats &0 antxseags aBAso ye tots oaty at pebatomt saw
"a se
aii) mo Robes! lxeqoxa need eves vino, bine, $2, SARS oh, 5M
whe
erder of the court, and since no such order appears of record,
it was manifestly a misprision of the clerk to include this
procecding on the call. The announcement in the Law Bulletin,
aS appears from the record, does net designate the cases included
in the call as being more then two years old, nor is any mention
made that the call was prepared pursumt to an order of the courte
It would appear therefore that the call consisted principally of
cases which had been noticed for trial, and since this proceeding
had not been s0 noticed it was an error on the part of the clerk
to imeclude the cause on the calender of Janwary 3, 1835. This
constituted a misprision on the part of the clerk, which under
gece 72 of the Prectice act, vested the court with suxinddetieds
within five years after the entry of the order complained of, to
eutertain a petition and motion for setting aside the dismissal.
(Cramer v. Illinois Commerciel Men's Ass'n, 260 Ill. 5163 Smyth’
ve Fargo, S07 Ille 300.) If the court had know the fact that
the ¢ause Was improperly included in the calendar of cases appeare
ing on the cell it would undoubtedly not have entered the order of
Gismissal in question. We think that the order was entered through
an error in fact, and upon the showing made by defendant should
have been set aside on the motion to vaeatee Therefore, the order
of Warch 27, 1956, is reversed and the cause is remanded to the
county court with directions to permit plaintiff to answer within
a reasonable time defendant's petition of March 17, 1936, to vaeate
the order of January 3, 1935, and for such further proceedings as
‘are not inconsistent with this opinione
REVRSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRSCTIONS.
Bullivany Pe Jey and Geanlany Jo, Comcure
<>
sbtovet to mxascqa “eobto awe én bone beus ixw09 ed » * coin
wy Degyegy Bib
had obuions ‘oF trate outa te sno ba tga tm a ‘ereotinan eaw th
, suse Et walk ett a oxo ooo save eat +L at mo
notinem yas wd von ebLo bevcongy ® one nests ot, to coe
; wieu99 eal ‘te tebxe tas az J mmeng Soxageng ag Aaa, edd jad? ehox
to ) Leg ontra betotenve hee heal feet D8 Rann’. Gea AF
| poste en Ps — aie no. p xerm 2 me, Spal phneie hates diddl
ma _ et eUGOL .o raul to wbreles ed) so seman edd ohutont a
“ poheme, sto tte sdzeto off? to trog esld. no moketuga tans boon ans
__atetepsbosaup, Aily sms odd hodeov stam odktoast seen ay’. bed
of g2o denisteuo robxo of? te yxtaw et xed ta emney oF ad
oinoa baat ats obias. ereeeey werk ambien npr ae se § hat |
“wows vate . £17 098 :
teste teat edt mum dad temo edd 22. com i roe nal
w19Gg% 20x09 19 sebaekeo ead sk hobstomt mbmeqonqul Hat eebid ay
Ro ipbte sli bexodny. overt tom testa tes 8 EAE AEE
dguouls, bovesnn xew. wehte ast Jott alr tetd ‘ol vet eeety HE Laine ,
biporte tuobawted wil, abs aiiwta: wit amet as! Pea RE EE
tebe, atty, sdinaitinetin ane allie eens ee
eee See Yo: aig geatatiee sae ate stea me “a
wt abd be RMORTOeE ET asain dmaalea assis) eng Xo tohne lag & ‘i
‘heaoeng pete. o© ode ons Xe vont ont 4
4 nf
he tabmeiees &. oo Wee) .F este i is ave nev.
wilt eo Pebelen ) vidoe Me eat ote" Bee) 2 iit ae! ee ‘apa
39156
HOWARD FOX, )
Appellee,
Ve
APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR
MAURICE He. BENT et ales
individually and as COURT, COOK COUNTY.
copartners » oe business 2.
as BASTMAN, DILLON & COMPANY, fe
Appellants. 12901.A.6 0 9
MRe JUSTICE FRIEND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT e
Defendants, copartners doing business as Hastman, Dillion
& Company, seek to reverse a judgment rendered against them in
the Superior court in favor of Howard Fox, plaintiff, for
$2,581.50 and costse
No question arises:on the pleadings and there is sub-
stantially no dispute as to the following facts. Plaintiff
maintained a brokerage account with Charles Sincere & Company
which was transferred to defendants in June, 1930 When the
account was taken over by defendants they paid to Charles Sincere
& Company, pursuant to plaintiff's instructions, $35156.89. At
the same time plaintiff executed a customer's ecard, agreeing
that “all securities from time to time carried in my marginal
account or deposited to protect the same may be loaned or may be
pledged by youe" Thereafter, from time to time, various orders
for the sale and purchase of securities were filled by defendants
for plaintiff's account, confirmation of each transaction was
mailed to plaintiff, and at the end of each month he was furnished
with an itemized statement of the transactions made. Plaintiff
evidently became dissatisfied with the method in which his account
“panes
gat ape 208 GuWOR F
qoetieqqA | #3
<PrMyoD HOOD, «RAVOD ts | fe at? tae :
a atemttaqos |
“ROD ALL OCG be ee seamattonats oer pa tae
.rauoo aa co WO TKTGO ame ‘comrvara cui mORTEUT st
OS a pati hy 4
eh
moll ,aamdoak es xaontsnd ante atentzegoo amtnehagtor, ,
OX 1 Tibeatede exot brewsH ta sovs? at fares me tng si ost
sateoo bas Sbawea +)
~diva af oxorld bee epalhesiq ont mo-doatss mitagup: ou . 1 ag
Titinislt sadort gatwollot eid ot ae, etugath on, aati
yraqmoo & ereouk2 oefindd dtiw drameos sgatodoud a, bem.
odd nodW vOSCE ¢enwt tut etnehnetob 0% hoxzetanet? neuibie
ereonta actrsld of bitag youd adntabseteb yd tevo neat saw drmqcos.
GA O88 aL ee panolfoutdant wt titentelg of tmumereq ie yneqmod &
“ ghtootgs (based attomoiyaus a botueexe “Piitatelg omy sata odd
Sentarom wr at botucse omkt ot omtd mont aettinyooa Lat add
Od Yeu TO benaol od yam oman eft goodonq of bedlaogeb 70 gmyocog
atebxe aveticy .omtd of omtt soak stodteored? "ssoy yd be
atausbuotos yd beLlrit otew seltiuooa te panderyg, bas. iy ar Rute
acw noltosenst? Hoss to nottase tino o «taupoos a'Thtsmiate tot
betieinss? sow oa Ainem Mose To bre edt ds base 1 Mbtatetg od boLtam
Tilsnielt -sebam omottosenert edt to dmemetate bextmett ms athw
HAE FG
éeurooos ata doinw at hbodiem ot diiw botielssealb omsood vitmobive a,
Pe.) 4
hPa,
FAR alle SEU BO
ay 6
* ae
HL mess gantegs berobest Jnommbst s enteves + foon ewuTMOD. a he
we ” oat sot
=D
was handled, and September 16, 1950, he had his attorney, David
De Stansbury, write a letter to defendants, charging specificaily
that certain unauthorized sales and purchases had been made by
Mr. Morgan, defendants' customers! mane He concluded by sayings
“Tt shall expect you forthwith to deliver up to Mr. Fox
the shares of his stock that you now have in your possession
less the sum of $5156.89, $3156.89 of which was paid to Chas.
Sincere & Coe, by you at the time the stocks were delivered to
you by Mr. Fox and the additional sum of $2,000 paid to Mr. Fox
on the 12th instant. The differenee between the face value of
the shares which Mr. Pex gave you om June 20th and the sums
advanced to Mre Fox's account leaves a balanee of 995333605.
The matter can be accommodated by sending Mre Fox a check for
this amount or the shares themselves."
Defendants replied to this communication on September 19, 1930, by
stating that they had carefully investigated the statements made in
Stansbury's letter, and that "despite the information you state you
have received, each of the transactions which appear in Mr. Fox's
account Was made upon authority given personally by him. * * * After
each transaction in the account confirmation was sent by mail by us
to Mr. Fox in the regular waye He received statements of his
account for June, July and August showing all transactions during
said months. No objection at any time was made by Mr. Fox to any
of the transactions in the accounte i, therefore, recognize no
liability of any kind to Mr. Fox on account of the transactions in
the account."
September 235 1930, Stansbury again wrote to defendants,
acknowledging receipt of the letter of September 19 and admitting
defendants statement that Mr. Fox had received confirmation of
the various trensactions, “but in each single instance he insisted
thet your Mr. Morgan desist further from engaging or pretending
to engage in transactions for Mr. Fox's account without the consent
and approval of Mre Foxe" The writer concluded by saying that “the
only question involved is whether Mr. Fox insisted that Mre Morgen
make no further transactions of Mr. Fox's account without his approval.
“lm
bivel .yentoits eld ban of .OS@L «8 todmotqo® bus ebelbnedt aaw
Yiiaoliioeqa gmigzetio yadnebnotob of rettel « etixw ,yudeneta oC
v@ abam need bad aovatlosug bus asicea besitediuenw nisttoo tent
rasiives yd bebyLosoo of .nam taromodayo Yadmsbastob .naytéi YM
mot oti OF gy tovifeb ot At iwdixo? woy tosqxe Lara I"
nolaseesseg twoy mi everl wom yoy sot Hooda ald to aduedle oft
eaad® ot bisq asw Soldw to C8.d0LE% . CB. defOe to me ond anol
o3 bezevifeh otew agvoota ent emis off ts woy YF 2009 % otonnts
xo tM od bieq 0OO”S2 to oma Lenotttbbs ond baie xot oc vd sou
to ouley sect oft asewied sonetsttib edT sdnetent Asal ond mo
ame off bre diOS enul mo woy eveg weit.» TM dotew .aotsrfe “eds
«gS SSeS Yo ognelad « covael tnyoooa efxoT «tll OF feonevia
tot aoedo s xol st gathase yd betshounwose od teq tottoam eT
, *,sevleamedd aoteita ons to dewoms abs
oe
oe * oes @t xodarsdqod no “po £¢.ao Levgsmmo 9 elds od Selicus etneh mitec
at obam atnomeeats edd badagiiaevmi yiiwietss han yess tadd gakiata
OY tate AUS ep ktoqmne axe ae efoirraggel tate bre aeeeyes at yindanats
quiches aoe Siw
a !xot .a nt tasqas dokdiw ano i# onnnexs ‘ond ‘to tose «beviooex ‘svad
Sete. * og EL ENIAT SRY rf) hs a
costa # # % vate vd denmarog nevis wt kxosisue mq sham asw deus 098
mrs. gehe
as yd Lian wt ines. 2aw wn thumnitabe inwoecn pr he ‘misenannss dose
sahitites > Rehan he LE gf i)
ake to asnemos sie bevisoes oli rap taduget ent nt _ et of
gutub eno td osanund tLe ‘autwode dear bmn <n por x0 sMNO DOR
> ye ee Bh gee. ak of yltnetea
yas ot xot +H w obam aaw omit ute ts mo tioeido ol > nts bin bise
cena seed yay heen hana pr F awang
on osingooox 1070 torent 13 + tawoose at at anol soaanaré 7 =
4
‘8 sary ee
ek anoifosaustd ous ‘te ae 995 20 xo oa ‘oe ‘bala vie to wi tiidatt
ea Qa: Law toe
*, dno 008
sediatbated ‘od éé6sbr niege ‘vurdenade Oe et ‘(bite eqn > $f
guied inbs baw Of redastqod to reds0L end 20 satooot “iaibybe Droste if
to ROE Ysnrs tao 0 hevioam ‘bot xt i fadt tomes ta ‘\adnanoees :
i PR ebanha shite ee ey SWIO o ae 9
beta fant ‘ext eoned ant efgate Hose at dud" 1am i oacmosd cuo za oil
ae f Boe 7
patbsog org <0 salgagns moat reds duteed “nsgroit «a Bt gn Mf
BY, ups ‘ee?
tneanoo ost tout tw ‘$aw0 098 etxot “a 202 ano i osener? “a 936B89 Of
ae et eet Mild Pie dete: Mee,
wy Sond anes oe bebuLonne xed bew ‘ont *.x0T elerentiay Levoxgys brie
iikeln od. aed ben
tOM oth tests otatent xo. e ‘cateae af | STi |
ie ats) Ie g 1 denee x. sts 9 bw.
Lavorane ab guest tx _snvecea a!x0% «if Yo ano ivossawed eta? on esa =
r¢ , R , fe Bch eae hy an Bh aif eal ct “
Saar eEw 3 PL bas Ae te nee, AS Ei HEELD' Be Meter e OF cueatabe
oe ee,
ARES ed
aw
é
de
Dependent upon that will be determined whether a suit should
be begun to recover his losses. It is hoped that this eventuality
will not occur." (Italics ours.) Nothing whatsoever was said in
this letter with respect to the immediate delivery of the securi-
ties which were then held for plaintiff.
Upon receipt of the foregoing communications defendants
turned the matter over to their counsel, Mre R. Se Tuthilly who
on September 24 wrote te Stansbury soliciting a discussion of the
casee The record indicates that thereafter at least one conver-
sation ensued between counsel for plaintiff and defendants and
October 16, 1950, Tuthill wrote Stansburg calling his attention
to the fact that plaintiff's aecount was still short 50 shares
of Southern Railway stock and soliciting a letter from plaintiff
directing defendants to cover this short sale. November 20, 1930,
more then a month later, plaintiff delivered to defendants such a
letter authorizing the purchase of 50 shares of Southern Railway
stocke
Pecember 6, 1930, Tuthill sent Stansbury a statement of
plaintiff's account from its inception to November 30, 1930, showing
a credit balance of 1,492.73, listing the securities held by defend-
ants in plaintiff's account, together with a letter stating that
Bastman, Dillon & Company were willing to deliver to plaintiff the
amount of his credit balance and the securities held by them, without
conceding “thet any of the transactions in the account were made
without the authority of Mr. Fox." Finally, VYecember 27, 1930, plain-
tiff ealled for the securities in his account and accepted delivery
of them together with a check which represented in part the profit
which he had made on the short sale of Southern Railways siock. Nothing
further occurred umtil April 21, 1932, when the declaration in this
proceeding was filed in the Superior court, charging defendants with
damages caused by alleged unauthorized sales and purchases and claiming
———-
q
4
a |
gerturta Le baie ebticiterwy ris
=i~
ald
‘binode tive « todtenu haniwreteb ed LLtw tod} moqu tabaeqet
¢hitasitinve aids Sede sogor al 21 ,seaneL ald rovooot.ot mged of
at bisa dow tevooad atw gaittol (came sol£edE).,.%ce90.tomtLbw
“hiveoa oft To Yrovileb steihoums od}.od tooqgeet Atiw rettel allt
my n ih gomepeagetea batik bied wert: alle onmuel aes
ory
ednebsts) 0 1900 mmo 9 antoneze?. ytd: 20: tmiveex wom wel
"pit (Letweat as +a ¢Toanubo este ot ovo ‘cebdom ods, bomsut |
Bay 3 He
od ¢ TO ‘i Laay oth * aniviottoe udenad 08 otomw ae codneiqe® 0
eUM RS acter
-tovado 6m0 dot ‘ts tevtootedd dats setnotoat ‘baose taut. rep
SF QU ge ely
bas attabneteb bra Titaicld | tot deanuoo. soowdod owns no ks sa
Layee Vthah pe hie
soitawite aid yatf fag pivdanatc Stoxw Loteto we (905er ape ‘coded 90
ahead a
. Sesege 08 dreds tiide saw Prue 908 ar Tibgntele Saste to hype a
» Miitalelg mort r0edtel s gaiiicifoa bas oor yaLtam a
MG 4 DOT LOGOS ep aack
»908@L .0S sodmovok. -ofsa dxestia alld sowoo of stephen teb ) yahdods
8 tiara aisabaeteh of betovifeh Tiksakelg cxstal rox ranederd ey
YW Lish wxeddvoS to gota Of to enatlotg ond ants ize aaa wetter
HEN RR cap eR nities \einaucias Gl oe stoot
S iM a eae ist 7 % g EX tory cao" SO tae
“4 tnemotete. 4 crane | tuse , center weer iat semanyet ee
4 Ne BAR) 2! ay ES Ee
gatwode cOS2L 108 xedatovou o¢ no Lt gees ag mot susos08 artiteatete
LeVARReeS Bay Bo
-hastod yd blow ae itiassge ong gakia by OTORLD to eonsled een 8
Het Be ve : Ri t Ed Rs
edt guitete tetteLl a at iw wedtoues ¢F eNO 998 e/itntotg mt ene
® BATURG im OBA
eft. ttivmtelg et, aovifed od, gaitity, oxaw raged a a: fLia wtigad 6 oi 7
E3 Gae
tuodi by ued yd plod acid iuvoeve ody brs, eonaled #theto Eby to ¢avoms —
Che SPS rk gs
Sham. stew, dio oo ont ak anol? paanas? ll 20 Oh dana" gatbe oreo
A Bh RY Ft ep
wttiedg 2Q62L «TS todmeool. sytisnlt "exe aad 2, itsoitiun vent Bo. ul .
Ywviles hetqeoon cre ame he ats, ak apie tyrnes hes 0? ‘beLLap spate }
bis aig " g 7s y
_dktoxg ody ¢teq ne dednoaezgor | io Lely Monae = atthe sesld got ri to
it: Re i
i AO Ba
antdton, 00d a ayawliad fips 508 to ohse Ssode one od oben bed ost aha |
2 Caves a sven
ake ik noigexetooh AF FAY AGES AAR Ling Atom 6 nolenoup =
| a La a ths me? Sia
ty bw egaehno2ob a ae atato sruiwe oicoue Fo: ad HOLLY oan ee
we sbi Rotini aad vf beauso a ge f
o Ae
e wrongful detention of his securities. The count im tae original
complaint alleging uneuthorized sales and purchases was abandoned
in the emended compleint, and the case was tried by plaiatiit on the
theory that his securities were wrongfully detained aftexs demand and
that he was entitled to damages for the difference between the value
thereof Septembcx Léy 1930, the date of the alleged demand, and
December 27, 1930, when the securities weve finally delivered to hime
Plaintiff takes the position thet when hie counsel requested
delivery of the securities September 16, 1930, defendants were under
an absolute duty to deliver them to him forthwith, because the securi-
ties were fully paid and pleintiff had a eredit balance of $1,495.58
in the account. It is argued that plaintiff's securities were never
carried in a marginal account, that they belonged to him and that a
proper and unqualified demand was made on defendants which entitled
him to immediate delivery of the securities. These contentions are
not sustained by the record however, hen the account was trans-
ferred in June, 1930, defendants paid to Chase sincere & Company
the sum of $3,156.59, and plaintiff then agreed that “all securi-
ties frem time to time carried in my marginal account or deposited
to protect the same may be loaned cr may be pledged by you.” He
thus agreed to pledge his securities with defendants and to have
them carried iu his “marginal accounte" Wo other interpretation can
fairly be placed on the customer's card which he signed. Although he
deniss any indebteduess toa defendants between September 16 and Nove
ember 30, 1950, by reason of the oredit balance then shown in his
account, he Was nevertheless indebted to them for an uncovered short
sale of 50 shares of Southern Railways stock, the cost of which might
have fluctuated in excess of this eredit balance. By reason of
the short sale he was obligsted, some time in the futures, to purchase
and deliver to his brokers 50 shares of Southern Railways stock to
replace the stock previously borrowed by defendants for his account
fantyizg ead a4 dauoo ect saetiiuesem ait to nd tnod eh teehee" s
Asieboats ssw seasdouug. aaa aude bexbvoséueite gitottd satetdmes
(add mo Ridsoialg yo boind aaweuan odd bas “vite fpuod Hebridind Wag WE
| } bas hrwieh ted ts, boalaieh Yili ignomw oxew wsivieyvee alte feity’ eres
exisy sit neewied soustettio aid) sok eegamekd of DOES tone aaw OH PRAY
bp ebanmsd bopetis ens to otab edi OSL Aor <oekio syst’ toovadtd
oui Of horeritoh viLemkt oxew, podehwvel: 6d melt GOSRE aS! edit
| bedagupey, fecauos ofd medw tect te be knog amd atded’ Tikintert’
i tebny_etew eduabasted QOECL 4 OL xedmedqet aekilisoou ‘eAe* Yo ‘etovites”
= tuoos ont omeoed «ttivdtret mid of matt ‘wovhteb oe Yas ‘etwlonds ta | ,
| B8,B0D, £9 to sonatas ekbere @ batt Tritataly bon Bldg viktv? ovew wwly”
even stew aeitituese a'ttivaiet, tadt bexgite ab tl sdnogos ‘bal ae *
8 dadd dow mil et bogueled yet said atouovoe Lentyran se af bottiso”
beljivn doliw aameabee tod ao ehem gow beinneh pel itavpay bas teqotg ” |
ore aimivasdnes oso? .wettinvoes elf to Yxrewtfeb dntbSuint ot shit”
-anget exw tnueoon ott cert)! .tevewed Bkooen ome iE benkkieee von”!
Yisqmod & etoonld .aaid of bisq atmebmetehb .OF@L ponmt ak perret! ©
~ index Lie” tans boonge abse Trtvnbhte bre (06. 08f, 06'S" mre ould
bodtadqes co Imooos Ladigram Un wt dokreeo omy oF mt? mott Bele”
“BH aoe YS bogbolg of Yom TO HokeoL od Yam omea Sad FOBsezg OF ©
evedl oF bat adnabmoted ddiw veidtiwoec stif sybotq of hostage! auatt’”
nan Risadoterodat settee Oa *ixndedan TeReree ete fi 'botizes monty” |
od dawods iA shempis of sMotiw bese s*tomotaus end 20 ‘beanee ‘od 4rttae™ .
“voll bis ak tedmetyeS meewsed aihabueteb os ekonbos dobHY yo" eobneb’
eid mt mwose nos} oonatsd dkbeto 29 to masdx ew OEeL WOE noite
trons boreyoony na tol mest oF betdodHat evelsivieven’ caw at gsanvosa®! .
diy imilgeiiw ko sao off psldose a ywiied imreddaod 26: ‘worade 08 to -ohee ” :
fo MOaser YE veenelad sibeve ais} To esos tit beteutodse ovat” wll
sasdousg oF .ouutwt off mi ombd omod ¢bodagifdo adv on eLaa sxorte ogitg”
od. + a HYawlieh oxedisod to eetade O@ artadoxd abd ot Toviteh: ba
as seals. aid sot advabaeted yd. beverzed yLauoiverg aoe toot a.edd eontaes,
ahs
when the short sale was made, and the cost of repurchasing this
stock might have exceeded by a considerable amount any credit
balance in his favor as long as the transaction was not completede
His counsel argue, however, that plaintiff never authorized this
short sale, and that he complained thereof in his letter dated
September 1g. The answer to this contention is that he r eceived
a confirmation of the short sale after it was made, that his monthly
statement showed such sale, that he later directed the defendants to
purchase 50 shares of Southern Railways stock to cever the transac-
tion, that his counsel acknowledged it and that in December, 1930,
he received a check from defendants which included “396.05 represent-
ing the profit realized by him on the short sale. He thus acknowledged
and ratified the transaction, andecannot now disclaim it.
It is urged by defendants that before plaintiff is entitled to
recover foreonversion of his securities it is essential that he prove
his right to immediate possession thereof, also a proper demand on de-
fendants and their refusal or unwarranted failure to comply with the
demand. This is undoubtedly the rule as applicable to cases of trover
against one who lawfully comes into possession of property (Kime ve
Daley 14 Ille Appe 3083; Union Stock Yard & Transit Coo ve Mallory Coes
157 Ill. 554.) However, plaintiff maintains thet his suit is not
for conversion but for damages resulting from "wrongful detention”
of his securities. The distinction which counsel for the r espective
parties thus seek to draw between these two forms of action is im-
material in the view we take, because plaintiff's demand, as made,
could not have been complied with until defendants were first ordered
to cover the outstanding short sale, and that was not done wmtil long
after the demand was made. (White ve Smith, 54 N. Y. 522; Hess ve
Ras 95 We Yo 3590)
Moreover, in his letter of September 17 plaintiff's counsel
geaid "I shall expect you forthwith to deliver up to Mr, Fox the shares
’
ae
“peubedwomlon amit of «olor guesle est, no mist yf hoxtisor sito
i
1
v3
ie
By
web 40, dasmebh teqotg « dale gtooteddd wo lnpeaaog eda tbonmt od ‘tig ts ‘al
“&..
pg bd au kestlousgoe Yo tao. edt hae .eban aa efee, dzone edt sectw
Pkbets cus throm eldereblenos 6 yd behasoxe evad ioyia A9093
sbotoltmos vor asw colioaunent off ss gaol as tovet atst ad, consled
ait? Secivorins seven Widnialg ded .«tevowod ,ovata Leanues ali
| pe¥ob SostoL abt at Weronds dontalqmo, of tes boa .oLse sxoda
bevisoe v of tant af matinodaoo aldd of tawang off | at iris
| ehdetiie eliigerit ,obem sow ti setts eLea Juocia eds To wo Liaort EIn00 4
od adnabaoted edt betoatth sedated Jedi .otea dove hewosie tnomotata
somwarered ent seve 0%. sdeors, egawiish srrertve® to. aotade 08 gaat:
we
dy FM
“15 qOB@E 4 xodmaoed at todd brn $4 benbetwomlos, Leepyoy, aid. tant .n0ts
| Athoborqet 80-0054 behuLonk Apidu. atashaeteb sort, aoele « beyteos +
ati wteLoalh won Jones bag anoistosamaty | odd botnitex bua
oy heliiene at Riatebadd engted ded? admabmeteb yd beats | a sr
Geir eye ce .
svouq ast decit fatinvene ei ¢h astiixnuoes a hot to he ket: rv et0: OX, teveoes |
on 4
ft oe
edt ddiv yiquoo of etulict bedmertewny x0 {nase xtexts ver ada
ek Ott Bs, Poe
tevex%s..to 29aao of aidsotiqas ae oly ould bos duobau wh ae sggene Pa
‘ eee BER BS
¥ ixt) Ys T98q ond to An innonneg ome Beno vEbstwas ost hye danisgs
ae + waae
sod MeoLioll +v 200 $ Laman? a bast agot2_ no bay i808 “aah as: Tat hast
ton ek $ ise aid toxta ented kant Yhitatelg « tovowol (208 “VLET aL
no i¢negs 6 Lg. tw" sort paths tues gepamsb zor sud es haaeekes ‘fot
“ovitoogze t ont 10% Loamuos ao iste nottontve tb es? yeott tose ait o
| wm at 0 Egos to cate? owe oacdtd noowted warb of to08 er soteaag
| sobaem ae «boamob at riivatele savsood sound ew rowel oxtg ab fabrotan
betebro tert? stew edusbaotsb tite gtw bozLqmoo pl ‘ova dou “bivoo ,
PY og fh mas onan ton aaw dct bas voles # outa gatbargadue extd fore ot
“¥ anol i 288 a¥ + re ud ¥ gaunt) “ soha & ase “batt b ond ‘reita
ee “(eas oY ol BO ga
er RE a. eOete — ad
toarutoo ‘a! witenbela re coduoeqe2 to ‘dae abd mk etevooToll : ‘
Tato? eld ot sew Rhee sty
eoreih eutt xo ot og ow eriteb of: Hts bwaisr0% 190% ‘Lfede I” &
Bray Ds “gene
ed vdewolveng shee) a, cask geatuey,
ef his stock that you now have in your possession, less the swa
of &5,156.89, %3,156.89 of which was paid to Chas. Sincere &
Company by you at the time the stocks were delivered to you by
Mr. ox and the additional sum of $2,000 paid te Mr. Fex oi the
12th instant." It is difficult to understand how this demand
could be fulfilled by defendants without selling sufficient
securities to realize $5,156.39 and retaining the proceeds. How
could defendants ascertain which of the securities were to be sold?
The letter mentions none, nor does plaintiff authorize defendants to
Sell any particular security. Under the circumstances defendants
would have had to assume the risk of selling stock without plain-
tiff's authority and subjecting themselves to possible further liti-
gations In view of the fact that plaintiff was at that very time
charging them with unauthorised purchases and sales, it would have
been extremely hazardous for them to have made any further sales
without plaintiff's specific authority.
Although plaintiff's securities were not delivered until
December, 1930, we find no evidence to sustain the contention that
defendants ever refused to deliver the stocks in plaintiffts account.
‘The letter of September 16 mede charges of uneuthorized ‘purchases
and sales, and until these controversies were adjusted defendants!
conduct certainly cannot be construed as a refusal to comply with
Plaintiff's demand. After the letter of September 16 plaintiff never
demanded his securities. Counsel for the parties attempted to adjust
the differences between the parties. Vlaintiffts principal concem
_is stated by his counsel in the letter of September 23) 1930, as
follows:
“The only question involved is whether Mr. Pox insisted
that Mr. Morgan make no further transactions of Mr. Fox's account
without his approvale Dependent upon that will be determined
whether o suit should be heamh to recover his losses. It is to
be hoped that this eventuality will not occur."
2
3 atinoos ag? yttimkelg) ab aifoos a ots sovifed ot heatipt, t9Ve, et
oval YURsHinky OH toduoecod Yo aetted eels casts + basmb, ciaipoommnel j
“he
mans alt evel xem tenonnog, “HOY a ovedt wom NOY fart foots ‘oi ‘te
a exvonte eandd o8 bag Saw tolste w 80.02L.% 106-d0%420 10
ad OY ot porovitod erew exoota ext ond at? ta BOY eet wasqund
oats 6 xo% +a ot b Lag 000.34 to anya “famo ti Robs ants baie xo" at
beceuto > ets wel buetacobsus ot # Lobia ak sr *.dnadent tak
: “auotoi vue galiion sssosts kw atnebaoteb w pact itis of bivos
wok suboooent oils guiniad st bisa @6d8.L.28 oxtfaet ed aetd xuooe
thie ‘ed of erew nels ktwo9a ans to foiaw nbat eons atnabaoted ‘biuoo
ea esnabuoted oxtzosiive ‘ibinlola 8005 0st 4 9mos ano 13 x00 “aetgot oft
ata bso tob ap onsd auoxto arti reba Ge doen atuotoxag a ‘trea :
ie gut
~akola siecle ty ueeee yakiioa 20 dale ont omuase 08 ‘ast ovat pivow -
wey “eed
wbghE cadgratt aidtaaog es as vioasiort? pahteo bara bas ‘et Bronte arity
Oaths ytey feds ja aaw Yitsabely tasté, tos? one % wey ar nokia, ie
’ , Ole pibhaont arrtomiate, | tos Siw
Ligow boxerdteh: fon etew noid tuuse al tibentese fguodsfA
gate eplinetsos orld skates 09 nanabiye om baht ow .08@L, Meiiniial
te, ee ee
wbactoarg hamkcorewacut, ro aagiato obs PL xadaetqed to, nisier str
teginbrstab bevauhbs Stow welatevertamo conesth Lboats : ‘bos aeeLaa bas
iw Vents o¢ Leavtor so as pardanco of hennss eiekatues toubReD
taniba oF hodamerts aeltiaq esty aot Deraued «aobhiuveen obs : es km .
ison Koqhontug erititatel ssekttag eff seowted onqunvexthh ot
ng {OEGL ys xodmodqe? Yo-xettel oxld sk Laumwoo etd od odode at
v Retief on ow
» a ™
: wha
hepatent xot «tM tedtedw ak bevfovat soktaonp veto ost” »
J ita OBB atxot « © ano lioonnetd scosgct On cent. sn ort
horiversted of ‘Pade nog Jrebs
ot ak *z eb of dE alist eae ot tad b bisorle |
Ore BOE » Setrsed don pear apstproahat seam
ol] a
From this it appears that pisimtiff wes more conecrned over losses
sustained by him through uneutherized transactions than with he
return of his seeuritios, and in fact the tener of all the correse
pondence indiextes thet this wes his principal complaint.
While the cause was here pending plaintiff moved to dismiss
the appeal, and the motion was taken with the case, The reason urged
in supsort of the mction is thet the netice of appeal was improper
in that although it was filed within twenty days from May &, 1936,
the day on which appellant's motion for a new trial was denied,
it was not filed within twenty dsys from April 9, 1936, the day on
Which the judgment wes rendered. In other words, the judgment
ageinst defendants was entereé April $.« Thereupon a motion for a
new trial was filed, specifying the ground upon which the motion was
based. Hearing on the motion was not had until May 8, and on that day
a final judgment was rendered. The question is whether ses. 68 of
the Civil Practice act (chape 110, Tile State Bar Stats., 1935) had
the effect of staying the judgment until the motion could be heard by
the court. Two recent cases are cited by defendants, the first of
these being United States v. Ellicott, 223 U. 5. 54, whercin a motion
to dismiss an appeal from the United States court of claims wee dentlede
It was there urged in support of the motion to dismiss that the sppeal
Was not taken within ninety days after judgment, within the provisions
of the federal statute, and that the appeal prayed for and allowed was
not from the judgment but merely from the order overruling the moti on
for a new trial. In disposing of the question the court said that if
= manifest that the appeal was taken upon the hypothesis that ths
judgment entered did not become final for the purposes of appeal wntil
the motion for a new trial had been disposed of, citing Texas & Pacific
Ry. Coe Ve Murphy» R11 Ue Se 483
A recent decision in the fourth appellate district of this State
iiss
2 ete a.ins, Nig ere statoggn sao edd
at
asazol seve besten OTM. Bay tilimatg ted} otseqra 32. abdd mort
ort dtiy modi enoliosunss? hosivedivag dasonds mbt yd bqatshese
~aottoo oft Ifa to toned esft dost ot bag geodt tuyoog cist Lo muster
. .steietamoo Lagtening ald aew elds sald prgeciuriec
eciomth of beyom titintely aaibneq ered aaw gauao ont of bell ;
bests oeoaet eff .ecao ont stir noted, asm ioltiom att esis baveiabaatt
mogotqmi aow Leeqge to aokton ont 2salt, ak sokiom ocd to jreggua mi
WERE of Voll mort ayeh ytaows alate in, b9kt? com th dawoddte, dank opck
., sbolmed eaw folts wan tet eoisom 2 tmellogg.s dates oto Nob esl?
no yah afd OSCE «@ Lich mmr) eead yinowt atdt iy dese? tom gow et
_—— teomhut odd gabtow code mt ..basebger aaw, inompbut, erie, alo tstw
i & TOL peltom 4 rogue rodt a8 Lbags Seratao as. ainabne tab Aaniee
aa no tiem ont lo telw Noga bawdy att gnivitoega .belit eaw fated won |
wad dost no bar .6 ysl Litny bed ton aw no ttom eat. amtaoell » sheaad
to 82 108 castd ortw al soltaoup edt berehges, BAM, inombart, Lent?
best (280 eede22 tall oteds oSfT Olt sqato) tos, ottoant, Liyto gtd |
YW Braet ed binoo acitom sift bgp dreapbsh ont gaiyata 29, gootte ony |
6 toudt antt cadebaeted xe beg ty ots senag. #nooe t owt, si i99, outs |
mis ont & atotasti hae +8 0 ace. ‘ im be? ist aRted epedlt |
sbotaab asw atts Lo to tuw09 aetage bog sam ote men 5 Soest neden het |
iseqas ests tats au ina tb ot Hod ton oud * _txoqaay st begiy o7 todt BE 4,47
ano te siveng ait ests br »?sommburt aodto oud Yiomtn batt ty | ant, fon asw i
ew howalte betes sot beysrg fseqas, edt dant baa, Fe lebed Anish _Letebet odt to
ro Som esta aithiurrasvo ‘tob40 exit mot Weren ind txompbart oe (moxt fom
$i teste biew dsu100 ould ‘no Rtuoup one 16 _pnidaogad: ar ‘ fake, A, & 59%
as Lo See we mt 4
‘end tots sinertdoaut ould og road asw looqas | oats tase jeetinem saw
et I a Cade any ok oh.
Liter Csoqqe to weacqive oid pay fant? sme ped pay ‘bab boretne hy
' st
He 22 none te hen 2 ~~ cinapdeaaey yoo
cre hewn mee whe FOS
ser nmegeert ee AS sau va
+ WE tats Poqart,ad
ie
an
is to the same effect. (Schwind v. Porester, 289 Ill. Appe 172)
In discussing a similar question the court said that the decree was
made final and operative by the overruling of defendant's motion te
Tecate the decree and grant a rehearing, that being the final and
appealable order in the case, and that defendant properly gave
notice of the appeal from the latter order. ‘Ye think these deeise-
ions are applicable to the motion here madee The judgment entered
April 9 was not final until the motion for s new trial had been
disposed of, and that was not entered until May 8. Defendants!
notice of sppesl was served within twenty days of the latter date
and was therefore in compliance with the Practice acte The motion
te dismiss the appeal is denied.
We think the court was in error in entering judgment in
favor of plaintiff, and since the facts are substantially undis-
puted, and the case was tried before the court without o jury, it
will serve no useful purpose to remand the cause. Therefore, the
judgment of the Superior court is reversed and judgment entered
here in favor of defendants.
REVERSED AND JUDGMENT HERE FOR DEFENDANTS.
Sullivan, Pe Jey and Scanlan, Je, concure
Ly CL Pee
Qh ac ;
eM
|
4eSVL .cGA «64% C28 a zodmoxo' .v baiwton) Js setts dinde Sth od dt
Rew p9t9pb odd sos btne dwoD end aeddeoNp “batatte monte
OF LOLION BIaebsO led to gukhrcrevo ait YW evitoreqo” bone! Lani tt ist
bite Lark’, esl? gated dent apmiteder 6 tiny) Bas obtyeh “ene UHReer
| 80a Vitegorg Inabnetsh dat has goose ofF nt tebte eldeLesqqs
| -sfos9b ssedt acids oW atobto vestel sat mort Robs Gan 46 boteon |
| boradge jasagbyt od <ehem exert molyom pronlbarn pena tig 3 |
ae <8 Yel Litow bexwene vor ‘naw dads Reaper
eich wwitnd ed? to ayab Yaord nbietw Bevtes Saw Keddye YW eolvon
| noitom aT ston solécee® ent Hviw sonetigews nt oxo torerft ‘aay ecw bes
oe ee ora) Sie tai Ae sagt Velde
{: es trompbut, guktotaw at mores at aa $2u08° ieee idee ae CORP
[> oan pa ebea Uislinetedua ens any avert ont somte bite (iviidtarg: o eel
tt, yah. a duodtiv ¢aweo oft etoted pottd aw eee ee ae
pd cot leved? .oamac: edt omAmit Gd oni rise ttl 6° brete tha” Me
gy yRettetaer tromgbat baa bee-rever ak gumeo \nidtogie Wad to iemghuh |
De ee aan tah uae
| ere pe ee ee a
Hime hee yes : net ty eee ae eee Neg ky we saees Oe reat ae tem thot |
| pero WNT ses fe ve aie
wht & yovakn hai be peat Poa) ee
i , J
“] : {
} Fey HS)
Faosuaee ey Gad fete eategade Lan ghet, aa} to.
wit dave’t ydewe dod gctane, but saad mo hind
rong att ‘Me geckoogeth Hf ere wan , aa
souk at ser fan $n me get duis 2 2 ny} Aone “ew
ee
ogy ote vO Lege? susswad dee Sh hoaedae ‘seosubatt
.
GB ay pe he By os hadegnll sed bel fate wie # we, sptiom watt
oA 9 2 a tas a so di
%
Ly
aid. SO Tok esh otal arin: Mea CSE MoO ah me te-b00h bra A
39208
ESTHER LEVY, Assignee of Irving
H. Flam,
Appellee,
v8, APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT,
|
)
ABRAHAM L, FELDMAN et al., | cook COUNTY.
)
Defendants, 9 9 0 LA. ¢ 0 i!
WILLIAW FELDMAN,
Appellant.
UR, JUSTICE FRIEND DELIVERED THE GPINION OF THES COURT.
On April 22, 1933, Irving H. Flamm recovered a judgnent
in the cireuit court against Abraham L. Feldman sand Lewis i.
Feldman in the sum of $12,650 and costs. Thereafter, on May 8,
1933, Flamm assigned the judgment to Esther Levy, plaintiff here-
in. Execution issued and was returned "ne part satisfied." On
August 24, 1934, slaintiff filed o complaint im the cirexit court
against the defendants, Abraham L. Feldman, Lewis H. Feldman,
Diana Fef@man, William Feldman, Anna Feldman, Feldman Bros. Co.,a
corporation, Sarah VWeldman, Sadie Feldwan, Nathan Feldman and
Feldman Gros. Clothing Co., a corporation, seeking to set aside
two decds conveying certain real estate in Cook county to William
Feldman, the first deed dated December 15, 1925, wherein Nathan
and Sarah Feldman, his wife, conveyed an undivided 1/3 interest
in the real estate to William Feldman, and a second deed, dated
January 12, 1952, wherein Abraham lL. Feldman and his wife, Diana,
aud Lewis H. Feldman and his wife, Anna, conveyed an undivided
2/3 in the came property to William Feldman. The complaint
charged that these conveyances were made in fraud of plaintiff's
assignor, a creditor, and the deeree so found, There was also a
finding that the judgment rendered April 22, 1933, in favor of
a 5 5 eae hte -
:
Mi
Pi ye" ae Cae Oy BS
rid onde PRM:
rer to oecpieeA | Yat sort e
fe te WAMeAeE Lt eerew
adaahas ted
aot
yee tae A ee P Par
, WANG IRE MATAIIW
«aa llogga dé bee. te! heebe
[ *
i s : 2 S925 08
.THUOD ABT Yo MOTATSO SRY CanavIae ‘ntti’ ‘mothe a roe
% eke “rk OH a Rise Lh ey
tnemp bul 8 hexevooest aun SX al patvat 204, 188, Aisa, 50, aes
K atwod baw aanb £9% 1 manetdA taalegs sxwo9 stvqnte “a ah :
ih fea GRR 2
8 yo ae ‘Tor taounatt 24200 bins 080.848 7 to wa Raed ul a same tay |
~or98i Takiatasg seve rositad ot suomybut bene! bomgiaes mas 4 120, :
ho ae ey Rey fe ae Sie Sg baa
Poe * jbol'teties ie on" bomutor aaw jo housat Neliveoxa ak
a MBER BOW ols FS TrGep, Sark
duy0o ‘thuetde ods at tute teues & bet VMidatele EOL re Fangua
,Meabiol Hi atwed ,saable% ot anste cde “yedmobasteb ect a ig
A... eexal nasbLet mand iot ‘aah _fnmh Lot meh LL" . eombio tL sneke
bao namblot saisol ,maobLet eines Meablot siaxe8 ,aoktexeqtoa —
ebies tou ot gutdoer noldatogies # ae snintele " ‘= oud foakiat”
metifiW og ytusop soo at etetes inet akeiveo galyevaoo aheeh owe .
aside aterodw ,O8CL ,OL todmeoed hetmh Bowh soxtt osld cambLet
sagtotal t\t bebivibay as beyevaco ,etiw wid ,asmbfet dered, bas.
betah ,b90b bnosss « bas ,aambfot aelLtlY or etatae Leet ent al.
Ait ,otiw afd bas apablef ,i aedetda ahenedw ,S6@L Sh Yeaunal, |
bebivibau ms beyevace ,eomk ,o'tiw ald bas aambiel ,H aiwed dae ms
tateiqnos edT .naohlet eeilLr’ of yiaeqetq emas elt ak a\s :
a'ttigvaielg to buatt al sham row seousyovion seeds tent begrads
so ovale sew erent ,bawot o@ setoed sid bas ,todibore a tomy ia he a
‘to tovet ak ,f6@L ,&S Liaga hotebsox soemmbst ont ton # satbatt Fa
2
Flamm was a superior lien om the premises, snd that the rights of
Willian Feldman therein are inferior to that of plaintiff, By
this aopeal William Feldman, ene of the defendants, seeke to re-
veree &he decret aii te secure the diemissal of the complaint fer
want ef equity.
It avpears from the evidence that William Feldman, the
geole apyvelliant herein, ie ai attormmey at law in Chicago, and has
been engaged in the practice of law continuously since 1910. He
is a brother of the defendants, Abraham L., Lewis i, and Nathan
Feldman. In September, 1925, the turee brothers, other than
William, were the successful bidders at a master's sa .¢, pure
chasing 40 acre tract of vacant laid situated on the southwest
corner of Roberts Koad and 7th street, in Guswit, Illinois, fer
the sum ef §32,000. When the time cane to pay the purchase price
Nathan Feldman withdrew from the traneaction, ond William Feldman
Was substituted as the purehaser of an undivided 1/3 interest in
the real estate,
Gn Rovember 23, 1925, Abrahan i. and Lewis i. Feldman
entered inte a written contract to seli and vonvey to Flamm, whe
Wag wlao an attomey at law in Chicago, the property in question,
for the sum of $57,350 net to the sellers, the buyer paying a
commission of $1,000 on the sale. $5,000 was paid to the seliers
at the time of the execution of the contract ay Ar money
deposit, and the balanee of $52,350 wae to be paid in cash within
five days after the title was examined and found good, provided a
surficient warranty deed, conveying te the purchaser a geod title
to the premises, subject only te taxes and assesauente levied
alter the year 1924 and unpaid special taxes or asseeanenta levied
fer improvements not yet made, was then ready for delivery. William
‘Feldman represented his brothers at the making ef this agreement
to ediylt ade bait’ Baw Po tae sq est no coh tolt9qua a saw ome kt
ya Tide abo to dag of tolve'tud wre atoxedd Aaah oC soo peeew
“0% of adeos ,ainebse tet etd ‘to ont notin LoD mm LieW Lasage ‘whee!
tot sensnnearedle eat et Teeetis2S edt oxsese of hue Ooxoeb _ oetev
. oe onan Lot mek i LRW Gasis vons ive wuld ‘meth eracaqe +i
“aed bow epaoiad a wot on Yer os da tia at salotd ts Lloqae aon
ef .CL9f gvnls qlavownitacn wal Ie Boltedue edg at begagae need
pettell bow Mh atwed ,.1 medaads ,efushas'teb edt to sedtoxud@ ab
fast THe ,eteidord verse ed ,O8CL ~reduatqel ol ,aaubslet
“tee ,o 20 e'sedecm & de atebbid Iwtaneonua ed? otew mah OLY
tevwidwae iif so botavtle ddes Yasser "2s dontd 6198 08a yatendo
sot" yaloul ist tact ab’, shoud He 0 baw Dae de dedeh Ye Ratbe.
sibag @eatotug odd yaq of dues oais eae dba” “bo; te! ‘ei Sale, dy
‘qnab fot mebiliW’ has ,acldbaeannd odd haat’ wodbild v neiititet 2 j ‘
ak sabredat aR bekivibe Br ad hemmsay att" de rT a te
WE Liat ake “soehens chee ite
‘gombket 3H alwed bas 1X medida letbs: 88 todaaver nO! eR0
°° gil {mune EC OF Yoves ben’ Lee “ba Saiihdilbe ibibo el am |
,tolfeoip af ystbqorg ont jogentae niwak He coirrod tn eae ww
BS glikvalg cay bie (anh tlw Sie’ or Pe CORNER We dhe eee ee r
“gue ties oat ot buat’ anw 000,88 s@fke om We 0) 16 Yo Moree zie
ag Nba soarsuon wie Ye WOITvORS bd YO dat OKI de
nlitiw doe Ad bing od oF eaw 08C,De¢ te obit ted 4nd bal Yeon
@ bebivorq body brviot Bie Reabnaieeahw Sirs eit “neta ayab ovkt
i oktks Seas a “a0asdosig wiG of gakyevites Ree vtharrew tote rte
' gs AE aineieos@a Sie aaakd 09 Yao Heebiie \pontaiety’ edt es
boivos ajadinesads to texad Lalooge binges Wiki’ ‘Weer nel out dota
mast serevhin tot ybaot ‘aodd ‘enw, rhein yay tou tot
taoootae ans to vars ‘esl? ta “anoiivend ald pep
gare a ok hs 1 RX ; Ri ye ae i edt tot pald P
3
and in connection with the negotiations that followed. ‘the agree-
ment was drawn in William Feldman's office, and there were present
besides William his brothers Abraham L, sand Lewis 4h, Feldnan, whe
were described in the contract ae the sellers, When the agreement
was signed Flemm suggested to William Feldman that the respective
wives of Abraham and Lewis be joined as makers of the contract, but
William Feldman aaid it would be inconvenient for him te bring in
the wives, and dissuaded Flanm from insisting on their signatures
by assuring Flamm that the tvo Feldman brothers, who were the suc-
eeseful bidders for the property at the master's sale, did not hold
titie thereto and that title would in all probability be conveyed
4irect from the master to the purchaser's nominee. He also sug-
gested that in any event Flaum knew that the Veldmans were finanei-
ally responsible aid that there was no practical use in burdening
William Feldman with the necessity of caliing the twe wives in for
their signatures,
When the time came for performance of the contract Flamm
tendered the balance of the purchase price and requested so convey-
anee of title as required by the coniract. William Feldman there-
upon tendered Flaum a deed signed by himseel’ and his trethers,
Abraham and Lewis, which Flamm refused to accept unless it was aleo
executed by the wives of the grantors, all of whom were married men,
When Flamm demsended compliance im this respect William Feldman in-
sisted that the deed tendered was a compliance with the contract,
and that the wives did not have to join, and that the grantors had
not contracted to convey dower rights. Wiauwu then recalled te
Wilitam Feldman's attention the latter's promise to convey direct
from the master, end tendered the purchase price by cashier's
eheck, William Feldman thereupon took the position that the tender
was legally questionable beeause not made in eurreney, Flamm then
brought $32,550 in gold coin te William Feldaman's elfice, and ree
caprga 9M! bowolfot taild anoltaiiogen oat tty sebtosnago. at tne
Sioante w1e% wiods boa ,9olVie a! oumble’ mes LL EW nt, atiinibe saw ooem
oiw ,weahfel .M aiwol bos i maderdA onedtond eis same E28 soniesd
toemeotye ads maw ena tien add sa Joatines ect at hadrons anew
aviteoans: exit ‘sant ‘italy ta me li{LkW ot hotacsyne moa £4 ho tte aww
tud ,toettnes ony tq atetan as henkoty od eiwed haa masiatdA te ‘aoviw
ah gated of mtd tot sootunvqooat ed bdvow ik bhor smmblnt mekeee
geptadentyin thedt ae galtetenit «ott munlt Sebewoets bas gumeteonl
~one Od stew oe saTeddotd anmbdol awh ot todd mamLt goleures yd
bled son ALb .eioe a ueteai ovlt te goaeqgong edt vet arebbid Sotewnde
hoyerioo od Witidedorq Lis at hivow eLtht tect one otetedt ODM
pas opie oh .penkmon * Tomaso eri eo witan edt wert teowkh
~tonentt expe enumble edt tadd wank smth. Sumwe yem tk teed A tae "
Bitkwebiwd Ki ean Laolseeta of an orosis fads bom osdtnnmceen vote
te oe sovie Het wt Beate He nea, ee ane is RW .
fag? foettaow ace ‘lo soctaaro Tray 10 ome guakys -aidheaiiania eat
eyartes @ hetacupoxr fue solvq epadpreg ene [to conmted eda? berebad
~9tert aacbloW meiiliW .toexiuse edt qd hothupet e@ eftat 20 enn :
“ \etodtord afd baw ifonahs yl Somde Rosh: a aimete horshaed woytr
cols caw $2 aastay dqocoe of Seautee mei stodete \wbweik Bae interes
tn belviaa ovow tet to Lie ,etoramy aad to eovke edt yo between
ash mambie® amitis® toousem atid xP poldtquino fesemine hy mia 0 mi
ytooxdnos odd atiw sonatiquos » sew betebaed bobbed? tadd’ bebele
| hed pXoTneTy 96d Feed bam abet ot west saath cpatumbnensbesie scant
ot beLiases aes melt ,edigia tewoh, yormog’ of b On
fooukh yevnos of sotmotg a'aeddak ote moltasita +node
a teldeno yd. eolxe suedoxug salman .) j
newed his tender, He accompanied the tender with a written notice
which he left with Feldman reading in part as follows:
"* * *, we are hereby msking you a tender of $32,356 in
gold coin of the United States of America, if that is your rish.
We also take this opportunity to advise you that if you will tender
us the warranty deed, which you have heretofcre tendered to us,
Joined in by the wives of the three grantors named therein, you
will have little or no trouble in straightening out the other
objections, and those which you cannot cure, I will waive."
Thereafter, by several letters, dated September 22, 1926, January
27, 1927, and October 3, 1927, Flamm repeatedly called upon William
Feldman “to arrange to honorably carry out your agreement." Instead
of so doing, however, the sellers on March 29, 1926, served Flamm
with the following notice, which came from the office of William
Feldman and was bound in his printed manuscript cover:
"You are hereby notiiied that due to your failure to per-
form your contract, signed and executed by you as purchaser on
November 25, 1925, in the manner therein specified, with reference
to the sale by us to you of the following described premises (dese-
eribing the property) we have elected to forfeit the earnest money,
in the sum of $5,000, as liquidated damages, and to consider such
contract null and void."
On November 26, 1929, Flamm brought suit for breach of con-
tract, seeking to recover the earnest money paid and cther damages,
William Feldman represented his brothers in the case, which was
tried and resulted in a judgment of $12,650 against Abraham and
Lewis Feldman, pursuant to a verdict rendered by a jury for that
amount, No appeal was taken from the judgment, and no part thereof
has been paid by either of the judgment ersditors,
This proceeding is brought in aid of axecution on the judge
ment to set aside certain transfers of property made by the judgment
debtors, Abraham end Lewis Feldman, their wives and other members
of the family, The bill charges, ixter elisa, that stock in the
Feldman corporate businegs enterprise wes hele by their respective
wives for the benefit of the Feldman brothers and that the real
tstate originally contracted to be sold to Flamm was conveyed by
Oe Pa ene ted
eset i
-
egitoan asttigv « dtiw gekued eft belseqmooos 92 .tehoed eid bowen
sawellot ae ¢tseg al agntheer meablal dtiwedtel sa tobdw
GE 085,856 % srt @ poy gitidem ydored ote OW oH HR) ® oH)
giv iw0y 8 ti ,Goltems to eotad& botinU et ‘to atoo bk
uobmst Liiw soy th tedt wey selvhs of yitavtreqgo aidt, sided.
,as oF botebasd exotoseted evar voy Moksw ,boeb ys ile a oN
"felto edd duo salsoidgistte ai vfduots ore emit feeicg “or
. ,..."«aview tiiw 1 ,etso tonags, soy dotaw, caodt das yenoiteetde
yrsuaak ,O82L ,88 t9edmefqes betsah ,stesttel isteves yd ret teotent
mBtiitW aoqw botiso ylhetseqet maslt ,VSer ,b xodoted bas ,SSeL. +78
sbastaal ".taemeorys twey tuo yews Yidetomed of ogsatta of" camblo€
mma fl, hovrea. ,dSeL ,@o dor so atelies.edd ,r¢vewed.,gatob,os, te
MaLLLEN Yo aoitio oud nowt euao sip.iw cotton aatyoLfot, est sta
reves tqitoanmem hetaitq abd al bawod aew boa .nembset
~t9q ot etuligt teoy of oxb Jacd botiigen y “ee oo OTs | MOD ick wed oni ’
no Teaedotug es woy Yd bhetusexe bas beagle
sostt feo He to
sonore lex dtiw ,bobtiogga aiouent “eamam ond pai “48BOL sakes
-89h) soaimetq boditoseb guiwollot edd to soy pA as vd’ iat 3
+¥Yotom teense odd tletxot od botsoola evad ow (ysteqotq
“tous qeblaios of bie ,negausb sehen as et a — me “et _
wbtov fue Linn tosntao
-noe. to sigaeed. tet dhe Séquond seme, MOLD rede a
Rogaum Tedto bas bisq venom Joantae eit reveseT ot, gabieca teat
aay soldw ,eago add at aveddord eld bodmmeotget aemblol mel Lllw
ban sadetds teniogs 020,219 to susmabel # al dediuact ban bodag-
ded? aot yuuh e yd betehset solbuey 6 of tuavatuq, ,nembLol eiwed
‘Rootedd staq om dag ,taomghst ed? mott aesled saw Leoqge of ».dayomm
satotibete suemghet edt ‘te tedtie yd Diag, sod mest
-gbut, odd ao molduoeze to bin al tdguotd et gatbesootg efd2y yoy wis
fupomgbst ast yf shew yetoqorg To exe taasrt aletieo ebtee ton ot tagm,
fon weadane tedéo bas aeviw aledd ,cambleleiwed bas medandA ,etosdek.
(gt nk loots dad) ahi aadad <magrade £Etd on, eLtmnk gah te
evitoequet sheds yd Loc. gow saltqrotne, assdiand stexogtos tenble't
Laos ocd ject bas aredtord sipmbLet edt to, jfiensd edt tot seviw
yd beyevsoo sew amelt of bflos od of hetoetss09— vilapabenatete
et et
them to their brother William for the purpose of hindering, delaying
and defrauding plaintiff in the collection of her judgment,
It appears from the evidence that when William's three
brothers purchased this property in October, 1925, William received
a brokerage commission on the sale, amounting to $1700, which he
turned over to his brothers, thus reducing the purchase price to
$30,650. On December 14, 1925, the waster conveyed the property to
Abraham, Lewis and Nathan Feldman, and on the same day Nathan and
his wife quitclaimed their interest to William. It is the conten-
tion of William Feldman that he purchased this one-third interest
from his brether Nathan through the foregoing of an indebtedness of
$4500 owing him by his three brothers, as evidenced by his check
dated August 15, 1923, in that amount, and the issuance of a cheek
to the order of Abraham L. Veldman for $6,000. William Feldman
testified that at the time he lent his brothers, Abraham, Lewis and
Nathan, the $4500, they were short of money in their business and
had immediate use for the money lent. William's brothers besides
being engaged in the clothing business also conducted a mortgage loan
business, buying, selling and dealing in second mortgage securities,
From the statements of Weldman Brothers Co. covering the period of
the loan of $4500, which were produced in court pursuant to a sub-
poena, it appears that they had a daily balance during this period
ranging from $9,000 to upwards of $19,000. The statements also show
the deposit of $4500 on August 15, 1923, but do not whow the with-
drawal of the money. On cross-examination Abraham Feldman was
unable to state what specific need the partnership had for the $4500
lent by William,
William Feldman's bank statement was also produced in evi-
dense and showed the payment of $4500, This was partly made up by
two deposits of $2,007.15 and $2,000.00, respectively, made just
tt
gntysleb ,gaitebais to seoqrag odd 10 awl fLeW cactord ciesid 02 mort
sstoommbut ted to aelveokloo ent nk Ttitnialg galbuervteh bas
petit e' met LL28 nesw teitd soupbive eat aye t wuachua an
hevisost mink £6 EW eset, tado tae ak Yiteqeng eit boustiosnq axedtout
on dots 1 0OT LG pt galtiavoms sine Sd ag no dae ksimoo eparosotd
et solrtg saadotHG ont gitoubor aud? ,@usatotd ein oF cove besrtud
of ‘Ydzeqotd odd abivdics astoom off p88CL ,ok teduigoed 0: 2088, 088
“bas node qsh omse odd Ho bas ,cemplot nateal baw aiwel ,aedetda —
poeneigny Gad el dt Smskcthw 2 Viete Fad Ying bemkalotiup otiw ata
“geoxedat bxisd-one aiay boaatotog: oc def? nmamdbigh mai LLEW to: molt
‘to asenbisvebal’ as to gutoastot oft Mgwortd medte “teddoud afd moat
xouts aid yd beonsbive as ,exéisord serdd abe yd mei aniwe 008a§
dood 6 To sousuant odd hae ,tavoms fait at eeer 82 teligua botab
LN OY WLS e,
aambLo't mat crew 000,08 tor camh Lo% E nefiendh ‘to tobro outdo
base oivod ,tesetda orertotd att tuot 6H emit one te tent bottatuss ,
bos asoaltaud ties ai yenom to trode atew sll 008h§ euld’ yaustitall fiat
ashteed aredéord a well eew | ser qerom ent tot coy etatbouat bad
agol eyagtiom » botoubmoa vals eaontass gaittelo eis nt Dogayne yured
asitixueve eyeyitom baoova uk gaiiseb Sete gatifed ,gnixud |, ewenbeid
te bofteq ot yaitevoo .o0 aredtortd mambie® to dfmmsverd oxtd niort
-dua o of gtavetyg dtu0o at heowbord oxdw dokew /00asg te Msel edt
‘belzeq ated yatiub ‘eons fed etios # bat yout tact etasqge t2 jameog
wolls ols atnsmotste ec? 1000, @£8 to abeawqe of 000, e6 ‘sion’ gatgaat ;
“ ceidiw ond woda dom ob dud ,88@L ,8L dauguA we CORE TO tieoqed sit —
aaw cechlet meierdA notisuinexe-aeoxs nO “.yaneer oft 16 Laweth
—OOAY acid tot bar qtaerentteq adit boot alamvotele ‘desw state of ofdaay
ia ky ee
“Live at beoubetq outs asw tnomesete died’ a mambsot debrriw') ">
xd co ebsa yitisq waw ‘git? .00dD@ to ‘tnemyaq ond boi a aon
sin obsst “\Ulevides qeee - 00,000, ot] bas ax.700,8@ to screener
|
;
6
prior to the issuance of the check for $4500. ‘shen questioned
as to his account, and perticularly with reference to these two
deposits, William refused to testify with reference thereto,
saying, "I object to being an accountant or auditor, if the
court please. It is a matter of proof on his part,” and later
in his testimony William was unable to recall the source from
which he received the two items so deposited, and stated that he
neyer kept a set of books, "except when people owed me money.” His
bookkeeping records, according to his testimony, consisted of "just
my cheek book and what. people owe me." When questioned as to whethe:
he had made any record of the $4500 loan on his eheck book, he stated
that he did not remember, and furthermore that he did not keep his
eheck bocks; "I moved three years ago and I threw out a lot of stuff.
Nevertheless, it appears from the evidence that he kept the checks
showing payments made to his brothers.
William Feldman further testified that his brother, Nathan,
decided not to be a purchaser of the property some time after the
Flamm contract was made, and wished to withdraw from the transaction
because, as William said “he had other property and I guess he did
. not want any more property," and that “his wife must have talked
against it." Plaintiff's counsel then pointed out to him that under
the Flamm contract the property was being sold simultaneously with
its acquisition by the Feldmans, and William stated that he must hae
been mistaken about the time when Nathan decided not to be a pur-
chaser, and suggested that at the time of the signing of the con-
tract with Flamm, Nathan had no interest in the property.
William Feldman further testified that in January, 1932,
his brothers, Abraham, Lewis and Nathan, doing business as Feldman
Brose, were indebted to him for $10,000 on account of moneys advanced
by him, as shown by four checks in the following amounts: December 4,
1926, $20003 December 6, 1928, $3000; September 3, 1929, $3000;
a
bexoltaenp med .COGM tol Aoeros ond? to suena ont of rotzq.
Dade: shaheed od sonete tes mi iw yiuakee te xag bus gimvoooa aid of as
ape abewendé Sonsets tox sig dw vhisued od beewtet prises: a vad keogeb
ost ti ved thne zo ¢ustaveses ne guted of tostdo 1° eonbede
xotol baie ' "4d tag ein no Yoo ta to. rostam go at #2 s baselg dIwE9
| mott eoruna ont Lfsoer of sidenu aaw ma EI LEW yiiomtjnet “@tat’ pes
en dads bedara hrs ‘bed taoget oa emogk owt ont hevieoo t od ato Retr
Bui *.yontim om hewo efqoog nrertw ‘tqeoxe" aalood to ‘gor 8 ‘toed never
# eu" to beta basoo «yrombiaed ei of gatbro00s ‘yabt0097 Le twomblout
retitedy oF as benvigeoup: not *. om owo eqoog: “tastw es stood oosio Um
redata of ylood doosio ota fo nso. 008s orld 0 bxoo07 vas ‘obam ‘bad on
abel qeed gon bib ed tait, ‘exommositar? baa rodent tou ‘bib ‘on ‘fasts
tsa to gol e two woudy f bas Bs, BTAey could bevon Fo yore cow rb
‘eatoasio oid tga ox sass eoneptys ont woz? ataegga 42 caneratycorak
Ce .smredierd ala of obam atne
eosid¢aK .zedtord att teild bortisaod xgdé xy? mamblet maLLthW
pid neds. ends ome “ieegomg, edd to xossilorua a. 9d, ot, om bebtoob
aotvosanst? odd mott waxhddiw of bodelw bas .ebam san ftoszinoo mmoft
| tb of eveng I boa ytreqerq tote bad, ol”. bisa sis ti liv as seasiaped
posited ovat gant otiw ait” sald bue" ytteqet¢ tom yas émey Jon
¢obau farlt mit of suo hateteog meds Lesmwoo a '2Titnials .“»dt dagigas
geiw Ulesoenationta blos gated sew ydueqomy oft doqntaop mmalt eds
dont foun on todd dodede motiCty bas .enamblot ont yd sod tatwaos 93t
-tuq 8 o¢ of tom Debiood nedtell went omis ald tuods netote.tm aged
noo 6 to gatngte ols te omit ode de dad? bodeongwe bas... xangsio .
Yiteqore od at sestedad: on bad aactd ol eamalt ds ty tegzt
CQECL oytednat xf ses bedticacs semsawd ram LoC mak LL ET nae,
nembiel es avontesd gntob .nadiak bun altwed vantondd sareddord, ait |
bdonavbs atenom to stacoos md 0OO,OL9 wot min oF. betdebakt orew eo noxd
qd cotmoost tetiurome guiwoilot ed@ nk adoesdo svot yoo moda’ as amt j
4QOOs$ eSeL vé weet 100088 4800L. 2a sotiooot (00088 voser
7
October 10, 1930, %2000. With reference to these loans William
Feldman testified that his brothers were suffering from the effeoats
ef the depression, and needed money badly; that he made these loans,
which were never repaid: and because they were "slipping", he wanted
to protect his money. Subsequently, Abraham and Lewis and their
wives quitelaimed their remaining two-thirds in the property to
Wijliam Feldman, who testified that he gave each of his brothers a
check for $1590 at the time of the conveyance. It appears from the
evidence thet the four checks, aggregating %10,000, which William
Feldman testified he advanced to the Feldman brothers, were deposi-
ted in the vest Side Trust & Savings Bank and not in the Foreman
National Bank, where they had their principal account. Statements
of the Feldman Brothers account show that they maintained a daily
balance averaging well over %3000, and that deposits made in the
West Side Trust & Savings Bank were promptly transferred by check
to the Foreman National Bank. Abraham Veldman explained this by
saying that the West Side Trust & Savings Bank was used af a clearing
account and that when deposits were made there, checks were drawn
for the same amount to the Foreman National Bank, and “that was done
uniformly from month to month throughout our relations with the West
Side Trust & Savings Bank.” It also appears from the evidence that
the two checks of William Feldman, dated January 12, 1932, for $1500
each, one payable to Zewis H. Feldman and the other to Abraham Le
Feldman, which were given at the time of the conveyance of the two-
thirds interest in the real estate to William Feldman, were not
deposited in the bank accounts of either of the brothers, but were
paid at the counter of the drawee bank on the indorsement of the
respective payees of the checks and that of William Feldman.
William Feldman urges various greund for reversal of
the decree. He takes the position that a bona fide creditor has
a right te take a debtor's property in satisfaction of his debt,
ov
meilliw ansol seed? of sanereter sett .000R% .oeer OL xadoda0
et og tte. stad mig naive Xian etow mresdsord wid sacle bottitest nambfet
anol -anesit shen od ¢add pylbad yenom bebsor bas ,aotaasseeh sat ‘to
bed aaw ad «"sciqn lla" erew yait savaved bas jblaqet ‘Teven orew fy Lely
tier? bus .aiwod have emelaeeh aUitneupeade® .ysmom att ddetoxg bd
od Ytvegerg, ade, mt abshtlt sows (gntalemer hed boatefottup asviw
& axedioxd ald Yo done ovsy onl tend botttdaes “ow (damblot malttiw
odd mort azsequs #2, .9onsyovnds odd Io ombs ort tq Gat 26% toedo
BALLLEW do isiw 000 OL gmttegstyya yenteddo tuo édd Sods soridbive
rhgogeb ovew caxedtod namblot ot of doamdvba Ot HOETiaes “HenbLolt
| -menoto% ont ab tom baa net wgatval & tagrT oere Feew “Sry af pad
atnometat® .inwooos Lagloniag ater? bast yoxd! ‘envee colnet Leno tail
ULinh « somtataiam pert sed? wode taxccon exetoxe Fates Sl
pit nb ebam ad Leoqeh gett bra ,000ES weve Liew Qakattvs Sonet
Aoedo yd bexretensts Yiqnow: evew wneh egatvaed tarit obie swag
Xd etd? bonmtelaxe nembLo% mntiexGA © sso Saito beh Homero'T ond of
aritsele osm beam aan: deed agrees’ vuset whl debe tell’ eid Shivke
| swath exew exfooie..orsdd soba ew af faogqeh matt dad) bas dives
orb ecw jadi" bas and Lanottek aamexol eds of dttoms’ emmn bid cot
— taeW edd ade anottadot smo swbeguend? Menem 6% iiaeanietiine . eel
| tat oonsbive odd sowt atesqys obfe #1 “iathed apiihved:
CORES tO BCL SL Yeatuist podeb gmembseTMBECEA 26° etdsito" ad
nl medenis of roito ond Has ‘tombe t «Webroot efaayed ‘one ito |
-owd on? To Dorayevnos ont to omid off ea movin “otew doldw paamblet
30% oToW «hamhlol mtliie of ebetae Loot ens wi Fuoretnt abr di
orow dud yavariiord off to <exitte to atmosee ned od? nt bdvieogeb—
orld to seammonzobst ond no xfcad sowstd eitY To tetayds ety te ‘bag
stiembLo® mstiiiw Yo’ tect? ‘bak addons on} to beoyed ovitocgaor ‘
ote Leetever’ wo? Bhwoty UnOttey abyt RambLey matttiw
ped ret tbers bit anvd’ ws J nrft to td Luoq ould that ok a "
$2GQiR we
eidob abst to mottos ta tae’ at tirogoxy a*zobdob 2 7 “elas oe
;
“ay vt
3
even though he knows that other creditors will thereby be de-
feated, and asserts that he was a bona fide creditor of the
Feldman brothers. This claim is founded upon the consideration
claimed to have been paid by William Feldman on account of the
respective quitclaim deeds in which he appeared as grantee, and
he asserts, as to the one-third interest in the real estate which
was conveyed to him in December, 1925, that he was a bona fide
purchaser by reason of the payment of $10,500; that this convey-
ance Was made about seven and one-half years before the judgment
upon which the decree is rendered; that as to the two-thirds in-
terest in the real estate conveyed to him on January 12, 1952, he
paid $13,000, making a total of $23,000 paid by hims that the
consideration was fair and adequate, and notwithstanding the fact
that he had knowledge of the suit at law pending against his
brothers, he was a bona fide purchaser; that the suit was not lis
endens, and the evidence discloses no fraud in fact or in law;
and that by reason of these various contentions the court erred in
entering the decrees from which this appeal is prosecuted.
However, the determination of these various contentions
requires a consideration of all the circumstances touching upon
William Feldman's conduct from the inception of the transaction.
He was not only a brother of the grantors, but their personal and
professional adviser and an attorney at law. He was dealing with
Flamm, who was 2lso an attorney and had a right to expect of him
the utmost good faith in all matters pertaining to the making of
the contract of purchase and its orderly cmsummation. Instead
of s0 doing, Feldman counselled and assisted his brothers in the
repudiation of their contract, and helped to make its performance
impossible; he sought to forfeit the earnest money of $5,000 paid
by Flamm, and nowasserts that he is a bona fide purchaser and
owner of the premises. Jlamm, on the other hand, exereised the
8
~oh od ydeoredd [Liv evetibeto tonto sort awont of dguodd neve
on} Yo retiverd abit ened # odo eat tadd etrotes bite .botae%
ne tievebiance edt nogs Hehmwot el mieLo abit .arodtord aamblet
elt to snwooss no membLeT wekLIh yd bieq mood ova of demtkaty
bth ,ootnaty o2 bexeeqqs of teinw mt abeeb mlaLot ing ovitcoqest
doltw efe%es Lowe off mt Jootssnl bricif<ono ei? of 2a vedtonas ert
bE? nod in esw ont sald (URCI vxodewed Wt hihi oF Heyeraie ew
. ay@vaeo @fd? Jetlt ~OO8,OLS to suomyeq SAF To noasot ye renedoun
Sromgdul eld ote lod araey Watf-sn0 ors Moved thods obsm avw cots
mot abelit-owt oft oF a texte pbovebmet WE seroeh elt Aptelw tog
edt yStOL ~Sh yrevhel no mil of oYoVMCS tated Leox eis HE seordy
ood Gadd waht YC bkag COO.6ke Yo Latet « githifkin ~O00, 80° biag
foat oft guibmsdadéiwien bas ~stexpebs bne thet enw nolinrebPenod
ait temioge gutbney wel ta diva oft to opbetwoint bail of tell?
abt ton cow tive a9 toil Pronettotne obtT smog s Bow ot veroiltord
wwe, tt <0 dost of tyent of eseeLoets eonebiv’ eft baw 4 amobitoy!
fh secre ¢uvoe ede com tinedaoo avoltey daarft ‘to mercer vd dedt Bas
sbeswoeserg et Laoqqe efit doistw mort nanny
‘ anaigaibtle evotrey ved) te notvanteredeb erfe 4 tevewoH zoe
moqu ankNowo? eootadantsotts off Ifa te mottstebiance s wile
sholtoae nasty ests to no ttesonr’ ond mort toeubioo ornate maker ey |
: e Yino tem tow ar
ia° tus Sia toe beds ‘eno benotong
brs fsnowren xteis dud pavedamty’ 6m 26
de iw gatieebd eaw oH swal te “Yonto
' sist ‘to soogxe of’ ty ie s bast bas Yorred dis ie ct i ie eee
to glen off 0 gatntedveg etedven tte at ete? bows daoe
bsodanl: s HOEY aimutanw b Ulteb<s ef bite eaadtotirg Yo seal
salt nk arediord aid botekeas bas’ heLfoarmes’ anbtoe taitten 6a %e
sonemioiveg att exam ¢+ begledt bre \tosttnoa tod a és tte
blag 000488 te yoswin saomras efft JY lotrot® od difgu0s ‘eat totezescant
bite ceassiotug Bbit anod a at oat dante edoana wou bas’ > na ‘
silt boatorexs gbime reas es he aad ee” ‘outer et bo bina
a,” =
hes 2 a
— Sas
utmost good faith in the transaction. fhe $5,00 earnest money
Was not deposited in escrow, but Was paid to Abraham and Lewis
Veldman in the office of their brother, William. In so doing,
Flama showed his complete relianee on William Feldman's pro-
fessional standing. This is further exemplified by foregoing
insistence upon the signing of the contract by the respective
wives of the sellers on the assurance of William Feldman that
title had not been conveyed by the master and would probably be
conveyed to the nominee of the purchasers. ‘The Feldmans purchased
this property for $32,350, which was reduced to $30,600 by the
comissicus which William Feldman received fram the saley and it
Was Obviously a good deal for theme Almost simultaneously with
the purchase they stood to make a profit ef $6700, and common
honesty required the fair performance of the agreements The only
inference that ean fairly be drawn fram the failure of the Feldmans
to carry out their agreement is that there was a good market for
real estate when the agreement was made, which evidently induced
them to later chenge their minds.e Plaintiff's counsel argue that
William's persistenes in refusing te have the wives of Abraham and
Lewis Feldman sign the contract, prevented Flamm from seeking
specific performance of the comtract, because the court could not
award a decree against the wives who did net sign the agreement,
and that it paved the way for the later repudiation of the agree-
ment by the Feldmanse ‘Since this circumstanee affords the only
explanation why the deal was not consummated, there is consider
able forse to the contentions
The lew applicable to circumstances such as these is
clearly enunciated in the recent ease of Garliok ve Imgruet, 540
Lilie 136, where the owner of property sought to avoid a contract
for its sale by conveying title te a relative. ‘The consideration
‘ ¢.
yoom teense 00.84 ofT .noitdeanscd ei} cf aete? boow tome
alwet bre stelerdsA od. blag asw suf .Werose ni bet teoded' tom wewi
quntoh on AT Smelt hy \tetidoxd <keelt to oobt to’ eid i comb Tet:
~org attinabtot mtitii no cometloy ots Lgquos biel bowotle muni".
‘gniogotot yd boltiigaexs aorldtut et Blt? wgnidbmede Conbbese?®
“gylvodqesn off Yo foatindo oft Yo _attngte’ atte moqy eonetetemt: -
Yous canbloT muLiLiv te sotetuavea ete mo etelion otro ~emEw
ei Uldadore binow had Todecin ont YW boysvTOD Med tow bat WEEE
besationg easmbiel oft seteendory edd To derinon od oF DeyouIOD
* ead Yr 003,088 oF bodubsr asw se ist ¢O8E, R88 xo? wiregone nis
FE \by eatde orld mort bowtods immbte mW AEC stn ano teal tid
“dtin Ylovoanesiumta g¢omth ‘smtertt rot teob tae 8 Pedbarrernlse
pommos bxa ,60Ya% ‘Yo i ftot¢ so esta itocse sa
ein ott «teem jets ot to Sonemrotteg het ext bork a basi a
Ey ee cn Br
esi tet olf to oxstte? edd met? pwerh od — fiso tastt
x62 deatzad boos 2 tow oreds Sais a2 Stombenge tiedd iw eee
“ pooubat yldmodtve doldw poham agw snensotpe odd mortw ddada uae :
tails oun ia ‘tédkaes 'e/teibaiadn “india Call agaaté “xodt oe wd
ry ent
hic mactesteh Yo aeviw ald owatt of ‘gakautor ‘al ‘sonedaiazeq 8 mak fr bw
| gutdess moxt sel hodaey ote ‘doardno0 “astd ‘np 16 nae 288 Wesd
dor biwoo tuo 0 esd oassoow dosed 0 oxlt to soneaso 2x09 olthooga
tinomseme off make tom bib exw avin ei? tamkaps 90 sores = basi
~907ys eid Yo nottebouqer reset ‘ont wo? ‘or edt bora Nw Pei ye Spee. |
“yim ed? abtatts eoustamozte alts sont sanembie'™ ext we fom Bre
~robinnos at ores? ebodamsarate son aaw took ad vir mo old ha eikars.
: smoltnnt ne 9 ott ‘ot poe at ee ‘ott
Be, =
ool
ak eaonlt an dome seoustamorio és eldeotiqgs wan oat
' te De tae hs und
Ode couse ev Aobined to oano ‘tneoe7 att at Segetomine vineek ° "
pet 2 hg vas
tosxdn00 r) blova od Higuoe ee negony te xomwo ox? paar eel « i
S Wet AK 4 dee Ws
wot a0 tun» ad sovisster : s oF “osits aadyorsoo ei o faa =“ Pat if
ee! o Sete thie So ba
10
in that case consisted of the canecsliation of an indebtedness,
the payment of some cash and the delivery of certain mortgages.
The grantee had knowledge, actual and constructive, of the rights
ef the purchaser under the contract, and by reason of these facts
the court held that his acceptance of the conveyance constituted
a participation in his grantor's fraud. The court in that case
said (p. 144):
"A trausfer of property; however, must not only be made
upon a good consideration, but it must also be boma fide. The
general rule is that where a grantor makes a conveyanee for the
purpose of defrauding another, and the grantee, although paying
a valueble and adequate consideration, knowingly assists in
effectuating such fraudulent intent or even if he only has notice
thereof, he will be regarded as a participator in the fraud, for
the law never allows one man to assist in cheating another.
(Beidler ve Crane, 135 Ille 923 Clark v. Harpery 215 ide 24)
ANgspurger knew that the appellant had the option and consequently
the right to purchase the lotce The relations between Imgruct
and Augspurger, the consummation of the conveyance to the latter
pefore the appellant's option expired, the absence of the pre-
cautions ordinarily taken by the purchaser in the acquisition of
real property, and the incredible testimony of Imgruet concerning
the consideration paid show that the conveyanee to Augspurger was
not made in good faith but that its purpose was to defeat the
rights of the appellant. The evidence justifies the conclusion
that the conveyance was fraudulent as against the appellant and
that Augspurger assisted in procuring its execution and delivery."
The applicability of the language used by the Supreme court
in the foregoing decision to the cirewsstanees of this case, re-
quires no elaboration. The court said that even if he (Augspurger)
“only had netice" of the fraudulent intent of the transaction, he
would be regarded as a participator in the fraude In the instant
proeceding Williem Feldman was an attorneys He had more than notice
of the transaction; he had full kmowledge thereof, and actively pa =
ticipated in drawing the contract and counselling his brothers in
every step of the transaction, from its inception. These circumstances»
strenevhen the obligation which the law, as laid down in the Garlick
cas¢, imposed on Feldmane
Under similar cireumstances, the Supreme court again
enunciated and approved the rule applicable to cases of this kind,
OL
eaestbesdehnt wie to nottslieousn coms +o beseteadn ease Jhedd att
+Hoyags tom niadis » td ¢yreviled att bas Aees smo to ae oe re
ningde ont to .avivoritanos bas Lenten yon bodwonal bial : 8s aety eur
sjost onett to noases Yt bus choatdnes vent cepa roustlonisg ‘odd "to
hodit ivenos sohayevecd sis to wondtqooes ald deed bfem “tesioo dite
, sso tedd oi Yroeo et shbuert @rodiiers abt a
, ; , 2 ACNE og) tse
‘ohpm of yLio ton taum ¢tovewod oystogouq to -wetemens AN wile iy
ef7 sebit g od ovds deum ti dud .solisrebianes boog s moqu
eta a ‘eens (ovies « aoe vodneTs 4 ovedw dod) el ofue:
Bm agyodiie «sotnarg alt bas ». toltons gntbustiob to sey Sag
agvaiaas oi 31 aoe emoistatebiangs: r
cotton. aa yim ti neve TO gee due Lubsat Bop nt
« xoddosia a ailvank ai gateas af ee 80 evolts 2 rover
vaalgiecth bas motigo oid ” SPE ears " ous tat a eg
telzpal moowsed enoitiale: eX? | onto Pony eentousg OF sigis Of
wi ial =. . Soninins ait ghee em sft, TegtH A
eoivads ‘“igqzxe moitqo # ©zo
iggy ie ‘dtelepos ef? x it <éuatbaiy edt att yd cecal APN fay re, > ge Retr
titer 99.00 9 verte oe to aman eldibssant salt bare »%
aw TOPIUCIgNA OF eomMyoviicn oft Jadd Woda Slag one pop id es Foe oh
eds gsetes of saw saoqzuug att gait sud Atist see 2 ak obam +
polasfoses ny dotiivert sonobive eff ster Llogge ‘eds “to.
bos tnalleqga end tenmiegs es tneluhuett asw sonsyevnoo eft sad
tyyroviias bins noitesexe ati yabxusoty at; bodatens: ‘wegreqaguA tad
msc smoxqd ent ys Deas opangnel edd te ya Liidaodlaas AME
oo se ens alld ‘to seougtanvetto eff of m0 letoeb patonesp? edd at
(xogumgayuA) od Ti aeve Jest bisa dusoo ed? ..motietodate on, aetinp
tnadant eft al shuexk oft at voleqielixeg 6 as bobteget od bigow
solsjeon ment otem bad ef, «Yyoutotts, ma. 2aw BembLot me ii tiv galbesso xg
~ nq Yfovidos bape ,Inexedd ogbetwomt Lint ba ed inottogensss edt to
~ai axedsord adil gailfeanvoo baa dowrtane edt gatweath oi betagtok?
— Beoisd amos Lo sasdt ,noliqoont eft mrt, yemitoaeaott of2, to goede ysere
doifie® od mi awoh bésL an awet ont mo istw: so ting tide -ont..codiqnetta |
9 ote Secon «ehh Le 0, bes eqant 9 emae
akin oxo 9 oe ont ,2eonetanotio xoftmta Tobey.
;
i
cbatt eld to asaso ot oldsotiggs fur ext bevoraage bus bogazonune .
1i
in Svulina ve Saravana, 341 Ill. 256, and said (p. 249):
"He [Svalina] at all times claimed te be a bona fide
purchaser for valuee *** He knew that Saravana was in possession
of the property and had a contract on record for a purchase of a
one-half interest from Yelich and he knew of the ivigeenhe against
Yelich. % the trial he admitted all of these facts. *** ALL
of these facts were a badge of fraud (Zwick ve Catayenis, 331
Ills 240.) In Beidler v. Grane, 135 Ili. 92 » it was held that held that a_
transfer of property must not only be u = a good i consideration
but 1% m it must a also be bons fide that 3 even though — the grantee
pays a a valuable, a adequate and full ‘consideration, “yet Cir “¢ne
grantor selis f« for or the air aa “or of defeating the < he claims | ofc ereditors
end the grantee ir ‘knowin assists in such fraudulent Siaadatale Takei; —_—
even has notice ‘thereo if, he will be “rega egfarded as a ag 8 8 Sertts cipan t in
the fraud, and that a deed fraucuient te fact may be set a rota Oy.
creditors, and it will not b be permitted to Stand for the purpose
of reimbursement or indemity.® (italics ours.)
The decisions cited in Feldman's brief, dealing with the
question of fraudulent conveyancing generally, can readily be dis-
tinguished by reason of the knowledge that Wiliam Feldman had of
the existence of the contract and his active participe tion in the
entire transaction. He was not only intimately associated with
his brothers in connection with the purchase and sale of this
property, but he counselled them in every step taken and actively
participated in every move which ultimately resulted in the repudia-
tion of the contract. All the facts were imown to him when he re-
eeived the quitelaim deeds from his brotuers, and these cireumstances,
under the doctrine announced in Garlick v. Imgruct and Svalina ve
Saravana; supra, preciude him from claiming to be a bons fide pur-
chaser.
fhe various other points raised as ground for reversal
are all closely related to the principal proposition that Feldman
was a bone fide ereditor. He argues thet it was incumbent upon
plaintiff to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the
conveyance was fraudulent. After a careful examination of the
record, we are satisfied that the chancellor was amply justified
im reaching the conclusion that the whole transaction was permeated
with fraud. No plausible explanation is attempted for the failure
Poa
oo M4 ORS og btoe de. BSS uLLD TAS ganaverted + vo gaiteva ab
Hit sod sod ot dbombslo aomit: Lis ta Lantiava)}, off . wake
poloneaata at saw atevets® jedi wend oH *** ,eutsy tot renatioxug
& 6 ovetotug @ x0t- Sreeer, co tosxd: a hod: brie, Ys
fanteges sirommbst ot to werst of bar do oy mont seovodak '~ 90
oo RL An My «act og 2. age to ifs, boisimba.od Letad odd sO, , sHokok
dee sores va gels) bus buat to Beng a etow afoat seers to
SOT ie ty ng ea Ly i he Seve, tan
" ey rs % flo Seas a
atos ines ouielo std natisetob Te
Et) a E sneliuoueatt fowa ! ate) 7 ‘ATS,
es is Jou od aut to8 ESTOS ag setae 28 fa 4 buat? od
oGiug BAT oF ae a ve Re ae is 4 ueod ED: acc
‘ ee : 0 4 rit . mt o
RB
ge
ott + ait: sitrane, viet wom Ha bette anos toot! r
wath ed* Yitbact nao ¢Yhie vss pa"
Se batt Newb te'T, aro eee be dae is | :
ott nt Mois eqtotixec. oxides eld baw tense “itt. Ao, eenedalxe
tke bodsioosan, wfotamisal fa aon esw oH "ho tbonest esd
| Basle te. oss ma: avedlorig an sitbw " aantiobeie ncmihe plateaanaaae |
4 elevisoa’ as rode? gota. yxove at merit. beckonawe of ut iat 00 oq
neh Haaren alt: nk: betehinews: ghecaiahy die: heialay SOR YISVe nt potaqivticed
eon ed ney mitt of sweudt etow atost eis ILA .d¢oetdneo afd? to aoks
/ asoonstumorio ovetd Shs .eeervord Gil HOxt efeod whol ed kup: wee - reves
sw RUEew2 ona Journ .y slohienD ui beptiivcana’ Saterioh” one soba
~ CE ania anod 2 of of gottinteLs moet mbit: we oe 2 dtieveree
Be doy Ra aeihasgs ate aie: Sea at ag ae iroeeds” o
oO feateyet sot hawerg se Soalax tdabog sedeo ertitev ent! oo oc Ky
authot dadd mois¢isogotg Laqiomteg oat of betuLow YLosoto: Lis’ ord»
noqw Snodmiont agw Ik tes? semgts os xetiberd sbit anode few!
ott tads eousbiye edd to: eomarobmegesq 2 edi wode o¢ Thitatetqe —
sft to agitecinaxe Ivlozas # t6d%A «deelubuett aaw) somigerney:
heitiseut, yiqmus ssw telfLeomedto edt 3 afd boiteiteanets: ow gbtoo9%”
hotssareg saw moltosnnett 6 lodw esto gett solaslomd ett yitttoset mi i
oiniier ats col hsedqmeste ai. moisenelqxe eidtevelq of i aaa coal
22
of the Teldmeas to carry out the agreement. The reasons advaneed
at the time were obvieusly given to defeat Flemm's rights. The
tender of the ceonveyonce, signed by William Feldman and his
brothers, without the signatures of their wives, at the same ive
demanding the full purchase price called for by the contract, in-
dicates 2 lack of good faith. ‘ve find no convincing reasom for
reversale The decree of the circuit ceurt is in complete accord
with the eauities of the case, and it is therefore affirmed.
AFFIRMED «
Suliivan, P. Jes and Seanlen, Jeo» cmeure
- beosavbe Sitdanon ed stuewegina oft te creamed anneal ~
it e'mmsli gaoteb ot nev. novia 1 wide are outs od te
we veal 28 oni
Po bus Saeeng Kd aN remo Dis Wea ahh ee Baar
are herd tecers:
ne a 5
& mee rat aue
PEE Hires gp simone ne Be pty i‘
— aes eet siepad MONO: aa CO aey Mite Saee VEEN ene Ep ee
ead. Agee wal tek 4 Se Dee ibaa,
Me
songs wha , ee fae ge salste ante)
WPS. Fiat,” ‘Bion: erin roe a rst: sa a E
eu a X
in was larger ie ck Seonnunnwann ig saint ie: asittee warp sa
Set gb he! WH ee ROR: EeW TGR eR: conte nea werner
- sweonasnamosite Beye Ge be Gera
zt
ae Se i 2 |
ns © oun’ ghgs Bi ey
"parva Ser his SRS
agli ptt BONE sy thee aR) uy
“TS Saat: eat Ss
Sasstances one't? # ae aay, Be foie hy weetoe. Age
ily oagqgetg Buepheia Ba et Geel oe Yio
ROL Jeotae cay | aoe Mae daeht: erg ve ae sod thot 4
ES ie sa passin: Eutbciene ‘a staat GA. “atostnigoth
yee: mee bia mote Banke: Ba Rt,
Pel sla wart,
39233
THSSIE EBLEIWISS, as administratrix
ef the estate of SAM Je BLEIWISS,
deceased,
Appellees APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT
Ve COURT, COOK COUNTY.
NICK GAWLINSKI IO 4
Appellant. ) es J 0 TA. 6 0 9
MR. JUSTICH FRIEND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
February 4, 1935, pursuant to the verdict of a jury,
judgment for $10,000 was rendered against defendant in the
circuit court in a tort action growing out of an automobile
accidente Count two of the declaration upon which the case
Was submitted to the jury alleged willful, wanton and malicious
conduct on the part of defendant. June 4, 1936, a pluries capias
ad satisfaciendum was issued out of the circuit court and deliv-
ered to the sheriff for executione June 9, 1936, defendant filed
his petition in the circuit court to quash the capias theretofore
issued, and praying for an injunction to restrain plaintiff, her
agents and attorneys from ordering or further issuing a capias ad
satisfaciendum, and the sheriff from arresting the defendant on the
writ issued. In his petition defendant alleged (1) that there was
no special finding by the jury that malice was the gist of the action
upon which judgment was entered, and (2) that defendant had not re-
fused to deliver up his estate for the benefit of his ereditors.
Upon hearing arguments of counsel the court denied defendant's
motion to quash the capias and the prayer for an injunction. This
appeal followede
Defendant's petition and motion are based on secs 5,
im.
ie: Seis oes id
xiniattat
ze nt MAS Aa fo etedee ait to
m 4
9 tiatI> MOR DANTCA "peel isgga
YY EDOD MOOD .TAUOD Bo seks mritias is
‘QOUTeT OCS Gin” eee
eTHUOD HHT W WOIMIGO ANT GUAAVIIN eee wanes
«gmt s to volbrev od? of ‘Sinisa edbOL bd craurdet
ei? at tnabasteb dantsgs botebaet aaw 000,058 tot somo
elifemotue ua to tuo gaiworg aoivoan 10d 8 mk dim0o ‘throrte
egaso ot doidw nogw soltistelood off to ows J aur0 9 | »daobtovs
avotoifan bas notnew eLstiiiw begells Yrwt eat of heté tadua Baw .
anigno seluule o ,d0@L .b enwl ctnabaeteh to J1sq¢ ond mo Jowbs09
~vilob bus ¢xoo ¢ivotio ont to duo hovaat ew mubmetosiaitaa be
hott snabmstoh yOSCL «2 onwl +aoliwooxe rot Titxeds odd of hore
stototsoredt asiqso odd dasup et tumves disotio edt mi soit tiegq eis
ted ,Yitialei¢q misttaet of mottonuiat as 10% gnaiyeiq baw ehewnat
ba seiges s gnivact teddwlt to gnicebte mox? ayemmdis bas etness .
edd mo tnchasteh edd guiieerzes mort Fiivedsa et bas emubuo tostettas
asw orodt Jdadt (£) hogelia tmabmoteh noititeq ald al obewaat ail
nolios ent to get eft ssw ovifam deds yust odd xd aakbatt Ketooge on
-ot Jom hat toshnoteb tenft (S$) base .hotetne vaw trong but, do ketw nog
asatotibexs aid to #itemed off tot ofstae als qu reviled ot bout
a'tinebuetob boimeh taweo ort foammo to adwomsg te aultsed soqU
eiat .moitonuint me rok «eyexq ead bus ealigeo oft dasup of wok 0m
showolLot raoqys
¢8 .098 m0 beesd ove mottom bas aoldive atéasbroted
~2Qe
chap. 77%, Illinois State Bar Stats., 1955, which became effective
in July, 1935, and provides:
“Sece 5¢ No execution shall issue against the body of
the defendant except when the judgment shall have been obtained
for a tort committed by such defendant, and it shall appear from
a special finding of the jury, or from a special finding by the
court, if the case is tried by the court without a jury, that
malice is the gist of the action, and except when the defendent
shall refuse to deliver up his estate for the benefit of his
creditorse®
The sole question presented for consideration is whether
or not the foregoing statute is applicable to judgments rendered
prior to its enactment. The judgment in this case was entered
Februa y 45 1935, and the statute went into effect in July, 1935.
The same question, under similar circumstances, was considered
and determined by this branch of the appellats court in the
matter of the petition of Attilio Monaco v. Felix Matarrese, 287
Tlle Appe 5405 In that case we held it to be well settled that
where a change in the law affects only the remedy or procedure
all rights of action are governed thereby, both in the trial and
appellate courts, without regard to whether they accrued before
or after such change and without regard to whether suit had been
previously instituted or not, unless there is a saving clause as
to existing litigatione The amendment in question contained no
saving clause to exclude pending suits from the effect of its
eperation. Under the statute, which became effective in July»
1935) "no execution shall issue against the body of the defendant
except when the judgment shall have bem obtained for a tort
committed by such defendant, and it shall appear from a special
finding of the jury, or frem a special finding of the court, if
the case is tried by the court without a jury, that malice is the
gist of the actione"
finding. Defendant's petition properly alleged that oc
In this proceeding there was no such
ircumstanee
ovitootte emsood dotdw ,c@L peated tel etatS etomtist VT sqasto
saebiveng bas «2e@k yyint ot
to ybod edd santegs eweat Ifade ooltuooxe Oh 8 e998"
bontside nead svat LIfaste dmompbut edd meslw tqgooxe tuchnoteb aH?
mort sseqda (iede di bag .tasbnoted dowe yd Sodtiomoo trot a tot
ent yf guibalt Isiosga a moxt to «yuh odt Yo unthait Isloege
gackt g¢xet a tuoddiw gusoo ont ‘baited at eeao ond bE (2 au68 ;
tuehneteh eft new iqeoxo baa pet fg ons to date oft at
aint to ditonsd offs tot odates a kel ae wevifob o¢ Tesetibees
4, eto eto
xeiitotw ak ooltistebkemos ret batnovetq aotdaenup oLoa eT
hexcshaet asnemmbyt of eldae tice at stuteta gniogstot sft tom 7%
“boxedne aew easo aldd af becima ert eit stnomioans ati of 0 ing
OCCL eyLnt ni tootte ofmt snow odudada od bms .CSCL eh Yuwedel
Sesab henge aw gneoned aauotlo taftete Feral smoltaonp. emsa off
ost stk tus09 ofaitonge ants be dona aiid we bomturzed ob baa
a comp Seta E
¥8s sggorisdsll xtlot v gossol otis *, ‘not tog auld ai tottam
“eOo ¥¢ } Sor wend
sertd belitea iiow od ot $t bten ow ease tai at “4088 “oCA. efIT
#H me ds CHO
omubeoorg 20 ybemet outs no adostts wat out sh _epnaito a “te
bas falid om ss tod wdoredtt bemcovos ome noiton to adiigi1
asl ty + ie
oro tod bouroon cont teald egw ov bisget tua bw cadmoo ‘staLtoaas
mead bask tive be tial ot buages ‘oats tw bas epanto. sows rette zo
Bs oesaLo anion s al oxadd aneLeu som x0 bedud ident “awe voxg
ON hontst mo mot ta esp at trond rome eit “sn aed 2 paitaixe ed
att te #ooTte oft moxt ad twa gathoog ebuLexe od expoto autvas
sions Paes) wi THM ‘
eviet al ovitoe tie emis god ito istw cotuteda outs robai _snoxtarege
¢mabmeteb exit to cbod outa damtegs event Lissa no tS vooxe = 2gees
gx0d 8 tot hentstdo mwod ovat LLesia taomabut, oud nrortw tqoexs
_faiosga re oxo t ex? 2asuee Lfare Es: bse ‘strobroteb sous w ‘bots amos
TE gixwoo ott to patbat? Latoogs # mc? 10 x “amt
oul at oolfam ssid evtuh & ‘duastd bw 00 alt w bores a ‘sono, on
foua on saw etedtt sukbovoorg and at Me
Oe BOE OF oy
et aay searlt bogetts “iroqetq mottiter a 'asbnie ted rantbatt
0 SPE ED het I eae
4 * Sp os £ gps. » eet
x? ated exe Del
oo Gee
and also averred the other requirement of the statute, namely,
that “defendant had not refused to deliver up his estate for the
penefit of his creditorse"
Mo answer was filed to defendant's petition and therefore
these allezations must be taken as true, and in fact no contention
is mace by plaintiff that the facts are otherwise. Monaco ve
Matarrese, supra, is precisely in point and controlling. In that
decision we cited abundant authority to sustain the conclusion
reached and therefore it is wimecessary to again review the cases
or discuss the reasons which prompted us to so hold.
The order of the circuit court denying defendant's moti on
to quash the capias ad satisfaciendum is reversed, and the cause
is remanded with directions to quash said capias and grant peti-
tioner the relief prayed for.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
Sullivany Pe Jes and Seanlany Je, soncure
«viotisn ,aduset@ ets to jnomertypes wesito ond. bozzevs, oats bus
ai? tot states aid qu isvifsd of beexies tom bes insbaoteb" sass
*,ared Lboto ald Yo sitened
oroto read ons mots bie. @ Hinohaeteo od. bott? asw zowatie ot
mo teedia0 2 ow gost ah bas <ournd as noise ed taum at tiavatte ‘am
+¥ osasoM sodiwsedte oe edost ont dat “Vitatelg, Me. Aid
tedt aI .patifortaoo bra tmlog st yleatooxg at caxsua 8
selanat om 2 ont abstoue 08 wi bred ue tnobmude babies a on no latoobd
ie j SP eet ao agave’ ast
eenas edt waive tsps of wiseusoonny ak si oxo torodt bas b oe
i AMS Bl OF wo keg
bLoat oa of aN hetqnese. aout amano oxkt naneakh xO
, POhGS eh Yuet
‘50 Hom a !émsbaotob satya’ sure 9 s twoste oat to cous ‘ont
bow yorkdeat wane ent
re De dae 9 F PX)
Sasso eae bas beaver at
ue “wate i senioretoh ty
ake tansy oma algae bea aaup os anoniooxtb dw Dobammes a
$ 3 is rary. pe eo Ta th éfe
“0 bovare Yether oat
; ; Ra wite iia eit
2u0 TrOMRET HELW cM cor cua ere i
, don't wal off mh ogmais e otnele
Him Gis Ge Haims Cull be 4 adage ee lleggu
CMe Sw Sees Ost le Powe xadte ee
lou etm ty bodwe by aeed thawo. } veal
ed BO Shes s Lf gnitnixe es
fone it pee fe anitys +4
t end 4 7.
7
, i ;
Of “SOA ie Ad sxoue
aottveoxs on” gusts |
mp but eld itech sqomes
es ben, at . is ;
Oo” Soma ya: bets ume iy
a: ; jo epee. - :
ea MES NC eee» ely PO, BALE ES ‘
sak oo & ¢ BP ve , iG we | " as
Yt be uli teak a Dee gy p soar edd
Monee MS ee ral FE Dm our ko ELPe
{ ca ;
Le | Lew Re # oS aang seg tot _* path?
39243
FRANCIS De HVYERETT e+ ales
Appellees,
Ve
JOHN SEXTON & COMPANY,
& corporation,
) APBIAL FYROM MUN™CI PAL
| COUNT OF CHICAGO.
990T.A.610'
MR. JUSTICN PRIEWD DSLIVERED THE OPINION O° THE COURT.
Appelilante
in July, 19335 plaintiffs brought suit in the Municipal
court to recover taxes for the year 1931 on premises known as
16-18 South Clark street, Chicago, alieged to be due under the
provisions of a lease dated April 15, 1921. ‘The cause was tried
pefeore the court without a jury, resultingin a finding and judg
ment in favor of plaintiffs for 89,918032, from which dof andant
Appeals.
Prior to the commencement of this suit plaintiffs had re-
covered a judgment against defendant in the aggregate sum of
$245695050 for taxes on the same premises fer the years 1923, 1929
and 1930, This judgment was affixrmed in Hverett ve Sexton & Codes
289 fll.» Appe 350, and later the Supreme court of Illinois denied
& petition for leave to appeal, making the judgment final. The
parties to both actions a ¢ the same, and the only difference
between the two suits is that in the former acticu plaintiffs
sued to recover the taxes for 1923, 1929 and 1930, while in the
instant proceeding they brought suit ami recovered judgment on
taxes for the year 193le
The essential facts upon which plaintiffs! claims are
:" ene
J A) ane ‘ ne Rak
sere I .
Sasie 5 : ie Ne ie fei pete
g Se z ¥ 3 5 y A Rh ‘ 4
s ;
) @iag TONane alee aAeEA ek or Gh egeuar « ga eae
+ORADTHS W TOD hima. 9 a 8 kn teh
“uno 4 worms |
(OTD AT OCS Titan a
-THUCD GET. "0, WIKIGO. ART CUALVIIE, curt BORE <
feqiokmet ats at dive jdguord ettitaiete 18EQE ult at bere Z
” 82 awostt 2oetmerq m0 LEGE ts0y oils 10 woxad xeveoex 94 1 Fae
oe.
Pia #2
a
eae yy he’
“be kxt aw eeeay onT J 1S@r . er Rhsqa bedeb oveel s to spite
~pbwt bee gaibait s el gattiy eo x ¢Ytel « duoktiv gives ody oro ted
dnsboe teb doidw mort eRe BIC, OB tot evtclsg ‘to ‘tdvat hi’ Sank sire
catia
~ox hast ettisatetg tiv o ist te fnemoonemmos sid ot r0in@
to awa of spore on? af gmebmotsh sganiage #ssamabat & reread :
@S@L .88eL arsey out tot aseimetg omee ofS ao nexnd «ot O20, da
g202 3 Motnee? .v sdeueve ol beeciiie aew 2noamberk, eid? .O8eL hes ey
heineb alomif{[I to siw0o emozgwe ot rodat baa .O8E .qqA «LLT OBS
OAT eLentl snomgbul, orld gectelem «laeqgs of evsel 20% noliiveg a
eoneretiib yine odd bne .omea odd om anotios diod of eoiersg
atiivnielq soltes reoret eg ai tat ak ative owt ait neowsed
eit ai eLicw ,C&CL bas C8OL .OSCL wot aoxad ot tevooos ot bowe
£10 fama bart boxeve sea tie Jiwe soguosd youd anthsesorq dnetent
+L0L re0y oxtd 10% aexat "
‘ere amislo tatttintalg dotdw noqu efost Isitmpage oft J
ale
predicated are fully set forth in Everett ve Sexton, suprae It
Appears that April 15, 1921, plaintiffs leased the property in
question to the Charles Weeghman Corporation for a period commencing
May 1, 1921, and ending April 30, 1941. The lease contained the
following provisions
"That said lessee shall, and hereby agrees to vay as addi-
tional rent for said premises all taxes *** which may be levied,
assessed or imposed upon said premises for and during the term of
the lease."
December 1, 1925, the Charles Weeghman Corporation, as lessee, assigied
all its right, title and interest in the leasehold to one Arthur Doyle,
whe was admitted to be merely a “dummy,” or agent, of John Sexton &
teune, and found to be so in our former opinion. By virtue of this
assignment to Doyle, the defendant acquired the entire title to and
the full interest in the balance of the term of the leasehold estate,
enjoyed the full use and possession thereof, and received the benefits
of the lease, witil February 2, 1932. On that date defendant assigned
the leasehold to one Mitchell Feuerlicht, and thereafter ceased to
have any interest in the premises.
In affirming the judgment rendered in the former proceeding
for taxes for the years 1928, 1929 and 1930, we held that by reason
of the assignment from the Weeghman Corporation, as lessee, of its
right, title and interest in the leasehold to one who was merely an
agent, or “straw man," for the actual assignee, a privity of estate
was ereated between the assignor and the assignee's principal under
which the latter became personally liable to perform the covenants of
the lease, including payment of rent, and we said that where the
lessee's assignee had possessions use and enjoyment of the property
from 1925 to 1932, and received a large ponus for the sublease
of the premises to another, 4t would be unconscionable t@ permit
it to evade payment of taxes which, according to the terms of the
lease, were to be paid as part of the rent; also that the roint ion
=e
ems
eX s,anqua .moines .v geogove at Adaet toe yiiut ers bod sothoxg
ni ysueqeng off bonset etitiatelq <f8@L .éL LkxqA tans atasqga
Qxtonsmmoo holxreq s. 10l nolieroqsoD camizoeWY eelranld ot o¢ no tdaeup
eft bentetnoo cusel ent .LACL .08 LiagA gnibaws be .fR@r ef yell
¢ stoia tye ng antwoLfo%
“bbe ag Yar of aserns yloted bus ,ilede eoagol bise gadf" 002).
eheiveal ed yam doliw *** gexss ifs avahasty bise tol inet pes
Yo med edd prikuwh bua rot wsoeimerg bist aoqy besogqmit to beaasvag
-*,eeeer old
bomieas o9aael ae eno tdeteqzed nremily 90 wofrasiO oafd’ ueeee: Ao sedusoed
gO LYOL seis ene of bLodeases odd mt Ssoxrsink Sas: orote otileke ey Lis
| modxed mifot 20 gsnege To NeQMMUDY a YL9zIR ad of Rot! tua xy ctv
| daly te osiuiv yi +aoiaico coma sso th. aa od os nana fe eymeqno 0
bas ot efsid oriine ont petinoos tnabae tod aiff ergot os ‘tromny teas
vedates hfodeanet os to mrt odd %6 eonstod oct Ht deeredhy’ Low? was
nd ttenod og bevisost bas eae ho teense’ bins’ eau’ tive ai “poryo bine
bommiues $nuab 10 208 of 2b ‘tontd Cy BSCE eS veauredot thaw yoesol sid to
ot poasse restored? tne ‘cided txovot iLediod ii ou of ‘biodoesed | ody
t ae Hie
“seeulmonq ond mt ¢eoxedmt was evad
we Mae te Tete
‘patboooong searcg t sat a borehnes: cennghe’, welt brea
Roeset Yd ‘esi bLed ow coeeL bas exes eser aneey oft aig aponerd 10%
; set * roouset as ottsrogz0D risa 000 oxtt m07? fuentes eats
as \Lorem asw ow m0 od blodeases ont mt guoresct bas otsty, sigs
ote gas to Viving B coon toas Lautoa eat tot * raat went" tO, sdnogs
tobrus Jaqtontsq Bi gemetane. edd hae romiane odd noeuted betpene, opr
to a #18019V0 0 ould axe t1eq o¢ eldsif Yilsnoszeg omsoed sotial orig Holstw
orld ocosty 2 atts b da ow bits einer Xo dnemyag pathutont, » sonnel edt
wregorg ond to sapebesae bus eax «rotaecagog bed sesyless Btooamet
sasoldue ed} x02 auto opal # bevteoon dus 488Oh ot; A800 mort
timo oF oidsnotoancony of bkwow + ¢ temdoue od asa imorg sini |
Ody 20 Ramos out OF BmtbTODDe etokdw eoxat 20 otemgag shave of tk 7
moltaLet add tad? oals gtuet esd to tog es beg od oe wow voneol }
-3—
of landlord and assignee of term does not result from privity of
contract but from privity of estate, and when the original lessee
has divested himself of his entire term and thereby has ceased to
be in privity of estate with his original landlords his assignee
is necessarily in privity of estate with the original. landlord and
becomes liable as assignee of the terme Predicated upon tke same
facts as existed in the prior sult, these propositions of law were
definitely determined in Everett ve Sextom, supra, and are of course
binding upon defendant, and it is urged by plaintiffs that their
plea of res adjudicata, interposed in the present suit, settles all
the controversies between the parties.
The only new element sought to be introduced into this pro-
eeeding by defendant is the contention that the assignment from the
Weeghman Corporation to Doyle was a mortgage, and the defendant
assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to admit in evidence
circumstances tending to inject the mortgage theory into this pro-
ceeding. It is argued by defendant that when the Weeghman Corporation
assigned its interest as lessee in the original leasehold to Doyle,
who was admittedly acting as agent, or “dummyy" for defendant, the
Weeghman Corporation was indebted to defendant for goods sold md
delivered to the extent of $16,000, and that December 1, 1925, the
date of the assignment, defendant lent the Weeghman Corporation the
further sum of $10,000, making a total indebtedness of $26,000. Upon
the trial of this case defendant offered the testimony of three wit-
nesses to show that when the transaction was being consummated a
conversation took place between Upton, president of t he Weeghman Corpor-
ation, Hgen, treasurer of defendant, and Doyle, in which the parties
stated that the assignment was being made as security for the payment
of the debt, and that when the debt was paid the assignment was to be
terminated. The court overruled the offer, upon the theory that the
ee
to Ysivixg mort siveot toa Rood med 4e obimteas bas pro Thdat’ %
coznel Lankglzo odd nodw baa .otsdae té°%d tvteg’ moet Hie sbS49 N04
of beaseo aad ydorodd hae oes ortins ated Yo Meamht padaevib aed
seigieas ato ehtoLbasl Leatgito.ald Atiw ofstee to yt ivieq: al od
baa brotbaas tentyiro odd Atiw otates to yi iving at yfttanadeon at
ease edt noqy batseibort smxet ot to cong inde és. efdatt _somooed
| ore mak ty asoistsogorqg evade edtue tebig: omy at sosdixe an ‘atost
eazvoo to ets bus anus <amsmee a4 *v sdenevt at hom taren tnd vies tnttoh
“a . | host dost atthintalg “a pega ak #t be « tnabistob hey a gakbatd
| ita sotgdou haf fae sososg | ext ne besoqrodat cataobutbe vet to sole
gt +8018 t0q acts noowsed nokerevond 00 oat
a! ¢° Neeley
| “org ice odnd beswbordai od od datguoa Socom £0 wen vine out wo
. COIs LEB
beso
La See be
i fuabneteb exit baa coangtzom 4 aaW exvoa 03 so tearogr0 namtge0W
ry E Ae
| als mot t nom teas ond sautd mob sne¢ 109 oxtd ak snobnoreb w
“vonebive ak ¢ inthe ae sxwas feiss oui to fonmtes ot, or. aa see,
se
~oug alta odak yso oslt sssgttom oni tootat ee antbaot soon sa wt: %
no tisrogz0d saautly ooW edd sertw taste ensbao tod w bouass et a -epubneaa
f YG Gs P|
18 Lyou. o¢ bLoteeset Lsnigixo odd wt coasos as tasxegat abt bong teas
oilt « dnshae teh 20 a Sat xo ramps | es oan vibeed nba a Pagal
%
2
ot? adel oi ‘xodmooot ‘gedd bas 10000018 to nsaxo outs pe borovitey
cp itis xs
ast noid ston xoD ‘amtigeoW exit $9 jambeeteb sins tea outs w otab
not .600,888 to agenboddebat iatot « gaLbhen 100005 ‘to ae ee guy
“tbe oond?. ‘to rontvees old bozo ite thiab 8 Tob band ahd to taint it
Bike, .
* | at |
gs ee
‘LOqTO naueea en ¢ to Po sida meanbed ‘o0elq. ek oa yang
esiscey ot dolew at ,elyot bie .driabsetes Yo torvanetd nadir aetna |
tnesyeq etd tot wWirsooe as ebam aitied aay seomey tad “any jad} besadd
od of usw Jusmmpteas od? blag aew ¢€0b odd ceili thits “Sua (YEON edhe”
ods dail ‘roses edd nogs ¢tetto ent Selyxreve “sti0d: ne £
ue
hing of oF orew gore ook
whe
facts sought to be introduced in evidence were included in the
issues raised in the forrer suit, and there adjudicated. One of
these issues was the ownership of the leuse by defendant. From
an examination of the statement of claim filed in the former pro-
ceeding, it appears that plaintiffs alleged,y among other things,
that Deyle, as assignee under the lease, was the agent for and on
behalf of John Sexton & Company, and that "all consideration paid
for said assignment was paid by said John Sexton & Company, and all
rights of said Arthur Doyle, as assignee of said lease to said
premises belonged te and were owned by said John Sexton & Company
*** who was the real ower thereof.*® This allegation was denied
by defendant in the former suit, and therefore the omership of
the lease became an issue and was there adjudicated by a finding
in our opinion that defendant was the assignee of the “whole” lease=~
hold estate for the period from November, 1925, to February, 19326
Under the circumstances, defendant is not entitled to have the sane
issue tried for the second time.
In addition to the question of ownership of the lease by
defendant, there was also in isme in the former suit the question
of the possession of the premises by defendant during the period fron
1925 to 1932. Possession was alleged in the statement of claim in
the former suit, and, as found in our former opinion, defendant
conceded that "it enjoyed the full use and possession of the prenises
and received all the benefits of the lease from November, 1925, when
the lease was assigned to Doyle as defendant's agent by the weeghman
Corporation, the original Ressee, wntil February 25 1932, when the
lease was assigned to Feuerlicht." In the former proceeding defend-
ant also alleged the assignment of the lease by Doyle to Feuerlichty,
but notwithstanding this fact we held that during the years 19285
1929 and 1930, defendant was assignee of the lease and in privity
tite
ais
~: ~*
ert at bobfon! etew sonebive mh heomboxtat ed 0% ddgyoa atoat
‘to ont obedsotbwthe ered? bos -4tine gewro? add at bantes nonaed
wort ,ttebre'teh yd eeeet off te qidetenwoe edt. aw aeseal pani
“org tomo t off ut beLTY athalo too some dete, ope Yo, mottsntmaxe ad
“agai? cedeo geome chogetis etitiniaig taddarseqgs, dt spatbeep
ne bas 1o% thoge Qt sow «oaael ont ‘‘ebrar vorplatsA B84 efgot dant
bieg Koiystebienos [fe" galt baie eyaacmed fA motxed® eufel, to, Tha 2
“ifs bre eYoaqiod A mesxet slot bites yd Stag saw, tnommgiees: bhae. -
“pies of cnsel biad to eenpieas es colyod tediw, bisa, 2 atdgis
gresgndD 6 nodxed aot bina yd beawa oxow bao of bepnofed ageimera
beineb ssw moisegetia aint “stoored? weowo. teet ons. Baw ie
* Ss q tte x9 ane and oro lvtent bre «tivw wadmol anid at jaabae ted vw
gnibalt » wW befsotbutbs ered caw bee omend te ommood saeet. sald
~aeset YeLodw" ett to wongieus edd sew tuabactoh tudd sodaigo. xuo, a
Seer py purist o¢ .é8OL .redwovell nott bo.treg eld sot etatas, blest
“emma orf overt of Soft eee Yor ot dasbietod. eeepunvamorto ext “nobel
a a \ vomit baeooe as 20% beisi suaei
wd basdf ott to qitarertwe to ‘tle heeang ett oF mobtibbe A2e0 hcg
“eliceup oti tina tomrot off af Sbeet mivouts asi vended -« tunbaered |
moxt pakaon end gukiub Jimbsctoh yo toalseng ent” ‘to noteseanog ont ‘te
et" misto' to snémodata add HE begestté aaw no Laasesod “1880.08 880L
dnabnoted «Kobntyo ‘tear so tk bawo t ae dab «bad: como Ry ld
| aoa tmx odd Yo moidecakog baw vay ILvt ond beyoynS dD” dual bobeoHOO 7
remy ,O80L _toduoyo mort ouset bil? “Bo edd toned oft Lim bevtanen: hea |
namigoot eff yt Yhege 8 scbadTeh ua otyoe o? bomgiaas 2aw onaed, 7
orld riesiw (SECL eh Youredo™ Litew: ‘gooumed Lents tro porqrernney
abneteh guivecoorg “rene? oft wl". ddolizeset ot hongtese new @eeet
qdtlottreset of ofyot yo enest enh Io toomagtads: oft boyelis oate 3
aSeeL eES9Y od gakesh fads ‘Led oe goer adste subbands brton,
Bide. 5 ft bris “aided end 20: wena eaw. sneduo%ee snes "
~5=
af estate with plaintiffs. In fact, plaintiffs predicated their
right to recover the taxes for 1923, 1929 and 1930, in the former
proceeding, upon the theory that defeniant was in privity of estate
with plaintiffs, and defendant ssught to escape liability for the
payment of these taxes by contending that there was no privity of
estate and that it had parted with its title to the leasehold by
assignment to Feuerlicht. As to the latter contention we held that
it would be wnconscionable to permit defendamt, who had possession
of the premises for those seven years, onjoyed the use of the
property and @erived the profits and benefits therefrom, to erade
payment of taxese On the question of the privity of estate we
held adversely to defendant's contention, and so upon both of
these issues there was a final determinatione
On the question of whether or not there was an adjudication
of the issues in the former suit, counsel for both sides rely
principally upon Harding Co» ve Harding, 552 Ille 417%. It was there
held that the principle of res adjudicata applies to cases where,
although the cause of action is not the same, same fact or questicn
has been determined and adjudicatec in a former suit and the same
fact or question is again put in issue in a subsequent suit between
the same parties. The court said that in such cases the determination
in the former suit of a fact or questiony if properly presented and
relied on, will be held conclusive on the parties in the latter suit,
regardless of the identity of the cause of action or the lack of it
in the two procecdingise
Defendant relies om that pert of the opinion in the Harding
case, supra, which says that (pe 427) -
“When the second action between the same parties is upon a
different cause of action, claim or demand, it is well settled that
the judgment in the first suit operates as an estoppel only as to
the point or question actually litigated and determined, and not as
to other matters which might have been litigated md determined. Tu
such cases the inquiry must always be as to the point or question
<ctewty betebtherg eYtitntefg Gent al va Tiidibelg Ht iw eveteo (te
noone? Ouse HY OSCE bra’ CwOL (eKer “ot doxed ot tovesen of Fry tt
udagted Yo vtiving vl akw tree taeTod taco yroedy etd aogy «atitbesoortg
td so? UF iTtdets eqddee of deiguee taabnotod bas qattidntaly aaew
do BF Evie Or baw Cros? Yelle Qatbnotnod YW dexef seer? "to tromusg
yd Bkodseever ent of ofthe agh ety bedisg bat df vet Ome ot avai
gad) Bedet ow motes wo “todtal oft oF BA” ‘stoloticonet oF Jeong teas
tebesezcoq bad ondw <imsbaotob fkarreq ot éidecolsendonm of bivow er
‘add to cow ont poyolne eetesy coves ‘Qeond tok acaldong off Yo
- Jbaye' og pad ttoredd ‘ag Mtened bua est Tord ost iy Hea at yireqote
aw otagae to ys ivitg ‘gt} ‘to motiact) odd oO ~ ““Veexed ‘Yo #nosmgeq
“ng Hod neqw oe bas «notenstndo atasbmbteb od Ukedtovbs ied
‘ii ’ \hotiacimto¢od Lenk? & eew oredd wewaat vita
po bise2bubba ne saw oratd Jon «0 xedtedw to nolsdoup aiiy 20
“Ayton” debia dtod sot secaaiia's ideaall ‘conto? siocend ‘wewaed
otoitd agw $I WED w LET SOS game Lbita noqw ‘ifeqtonieg
,stedw aeaso of as iiags dental 40 sigtenine end tant Bost
mpiddesp 14 dost awa ,emse odd ton BE notes to Sawiso oid stguonddte
‘heda GH} bre dbve “xémiot @ nt hetsothwtbs ‘bris ‘bei rsteb ied eat
Adovted ¥iwd smeupeedue’a Ht sudel 2 doy intege G2 Ho Lreap nO oat
noisanhireseh sf aouno Howe mk tad Stse Pawo ast ‘Jaottzeq ome odd
oma hOHtbdoLG ~Uhtocone TE" YROLEASuy “nO Woed a Rome ted -tomtoY este tek j
‘fied tesdal ade nt esiiceg ots no ovtavfonos bled ed Libr yuo better
“9 $26 Moat’ ode to Kottos to senso ont Bh twsr eft to dealbtaget .
a \ agmbscsdotg owt edstnt
Pe and nt noinkqe edd “to d4taq* dati? to aetter” gabe ted: here” |
—* “(eek vq) Sane eyad debi qerqua goaes
‘4 noqu at aotited sma ort: ‘yeswded mottos Sioose ods ited SL Fhe
“ie aa Eke Eougodae na" an aed Sy tate sae ton Ye nee
ae tom brs Ree pied mer Pass roe 3 8s Liawtoe metseeae se oat
AT sboniaresod 6 ss be dei hor clo dei @
motsnesp to tmiog oft of a8 od ae taunt vrtupas ores 89880 dowe
~6~=
corel gent eet teNeee tikes tise atenpels und extriieie
and parol evidence is admissible to prove that the preeise ques-
tion in the second case Was Yaised and determined in the first,"
and argues that the question of privity of estate, the matter of
the ownership of the lease, ané in partiewar the question of the
possession of the premises during the year 1931) were net “actually
litigated ang determined” in the prior suite There if no merit in
this contention, becausey as we have heretofore pointed out, the
question of the privity of estate was the principal controversy in
the former suit and was definitely adjudicatedy end inasmuch as the
matter of the ownership of the lease and the question of possession
were made issues under the pleadings in the former suit, both of
these questions were also determined. That part of our opinion in
the prior suit which held that defendant was the assignee of the
"whole" leasehold for the period from November, 1925, to February,
1932, Was a conclusive adjudication that defendant was the owner of
the lease during that perioé, and what we characterized as uncon-
scionable on the part of defendant to permit it to evade payment of
taxes after it had enjoyed the use and possession of the property for
seven years, and derived the profits therefrom, related to the
possession of the premises, and was therefore alse an aéjudication
of that questione
If defendant's position and argument as to the present defense
is sound, it would be possible, as suits wexe brought from time to
time under & lease such as this, for items due under the lease upon
which the rights of the lessor had been adjudicated, to interpose new
defenses in cach successive suit. That should not be permitted. It
is the settled law in this State that "the judgment in the former suit
is conclusive *** as to all questions concerning the validity of the
lease which were or might have been raised and determined under the
issues in the former suite" (Marshall v. Grosse Clothing Co.) 184
a-
ptaninta bun vZoqgethe ole collovad ade ati ay ot SEH PR canine
Fagatth add ab Bdnkmas OS Dad Sdedee aa dale SEM nd ae
‘to tattam alt ,stadas bo y2lvircg lo abiveeup eas saad Wougta “bas
289 to mobieony ed Teluoldisg Gi haw YodeoL ede ‘to qidevenwd ads
vilevdoa" dou stew —L6@L ta0y ald guixd awe dnotg orf Yo Ho teadudtq
ii $item 06 al oxed? «tive wolug ‘seit stb "bon tacte't ob Bead bodep it ht
_ abe tue beiniog exo totered eved ow es youuu ynolaatttos atelt
ak Yewroxwncs Iaqgtonirg sas aaw etstes te Yivicg oly % nokteonp
om ce doummeni boa ebeteoibutbs vletinlieh maw bre dive tomro% olf?
soizevencg to meitcoun ert bas vaset old: to qtdarehwe) old’ To tettam
to djod ytive comet od? mh syatbeolg odd wobsu. named! oben SHOW
ai nolaigo to to diag daclt sboutesed ob oat orow andtoaoup ebbt
af? to eomginas et equ daahacted tase /bfedt slo ftw 't tuenno txqu only
| avmordet of .d8@l eredwevell mort bedveg add 10% bhodeaset NoLostw"
fo wemwo at aaw tnabmeteb dang. sto aetbwtha avianlone sue ade ogSeOk
_ sHeoms aa bestusteszado oy tat bee «bokteg tend galmuh Saeot edt
to snemyeq shave of 21 timteq of cmobre tod 20 diag ely wo sidanokow
tot ysseqorg edd lo solesogzog bas oan aff Soyotae bed gi est te coxted
_ ettt 03 bedalex ymutoxadt sittoug edt bevixeh bie (utesy neved!
moiteotisijhs ae cals oxo loged? sew bus ynoalmerg ede pcengpengn
ennetes treestq ent of aa. penne bas aokitacg eSmabmetob TE oy i! q
of emty mort ddguoud svew sdise ag eoidlesoq ed binow th ,eauoa al:
noqs sasol eds t9bmy oh ameei get ais am dow seasl as: tob adr oat d:
wan ssoqretni of ebodsolbutba need bat teadel ed? to addgiy end doftdw!
$z «bodd Inceg ad jon bivode tall. «thre ovicessswa mond ink wound tod 4
tiga wemrot oft mi srempbirt ents" tacit fag mikey intk-walh Wecegeqvente ek
edt te Wee ter att. Bnkots one O nnegpeengiirnts ifs Shona: a he exams, fnerst o,
oat sofa | beneath jae boatas n8od ovat aly ta 30 oe Ho onar edd ee “ie
sbises2 pom a2, av Ebates) ene crowrso’t “ontd At a sedated?
e% Bey a ott goune saaiatis
ey ee
Tlie 4213 lLawmtz ve Russek Furniture Cos, 247 Ill. Appe 2895
and Panzarella v. Shavy 284 Tlle Apps 207%.) Since every fact
now urged was known to defendant in the former action, ané the
defense here sought to be interposed wes available but not in-
voked, defendant cannot be heard, in this proceeding, to inter-
pose a defense which i+ might have urged in the former suit.
Various other questions are raised, but the essential
point urged by defendant in its brief and upon oral argument
was that the prior suit was not an adjudication of the rights of
the parties. Upon this issue we hold that the gist of the action
in the former suit is identical with that in this proceeding, except
that recovery is sought for the taxes for 1931 instead of for the
years 19285 1929 and 1930. The municipal court therefore properly
denied the offer of proof of which defendant complains, and also
preperly entered judgment in favor of plaintiff. The judgment is
accordingly effirmede
JUDGMENT AVF IRMEDes
Sullivan, Pe Jey and Seanlany, Jos conc ure
Ji, Wa
att, cise amm.ttos, ney as Me ordi ot toot naw | bogus —
wel PARR, ton tad gidafiave new beaogredal 5 od od teaues Eden Pane Tab,
Log, sannss tashnetep, »heey
/ sb fara. semrcot od? wt hogiy coved tdytor th wriigeirsges
_dakisenes sdt ind ebeaier gta enottaeyp rodte auotreV
mars Lexo mogy baa Yeted att mt tushnoteb vd ups, ag
b
WWE ee aoe am, | odd . mt? so the. ts ihe, ae, fi son ee, $ dum TTR Se SM
Poison et 0 4nty ait tai, bod ow ayant aiid, nn
tqooxe apecth sees ald st gest as tw feoksnebt ek tive
rag Pets nak”
AC IE SS ae RMA SUNS CME MMe FES cP po
esis mot 2» pectunt TEOL rot sexed att he salt oe al vy in
ones oy ~e—§ a
REL aa. SEAS a Be ease WEA ae aE
Viregotg oxotoxodtd Saweo | Sag totanm edt
ae ae
See ave 2 Rahe bgt ay Ry hbee 7 th
oats bua senhadamee tasino 0b atoliw to teorg to teTke ond? be
ek? Nesral!
COE ¢ iediinowe i, ae aabyobe cede Bi aia mea ot
at sromebut oat “sMiltatele 2 ™ tovet? nk trombul betedae sie aoe
LG
Lee
{Ps
mss
oh.
<a
Se
eck
k
”
east Bake
nO at
re ee
ee pico Me wie SNE ARREST COT ge oe Ser har: Dea. ya bptarh- Gaseeeee
.
Rite ee hos. oder Ot) iat Te te tar aang mig ae aad
Pa GS. RR Eainiiee a a Nica
Day aah 2a Aero ah, meas eee Sie wah ae ei evtiutonce a
oe ay
Wak goer Ie ia. ne omy ‘ y eee oe
Ae Milk bane Ml Msn tye
fh SECS ee Be ceed tue er sey Legal pe aa: eae
«bourt Yt
ae |, Rae jasue ankt oar fiee Yamal cag ecu
“yeurono9 eG gaat poll sok y ya ot
dudet. ser Seah We Dees ehh bein ‘ial Hao tevebi’
SSE A: aR Bie ewan ney: ete te en Leabalemay
LIER 6 Mcmchseo tnd eR “at ah,
ARABS BERR RL ieee) wt apap alas, otewe as hee “a
SW heey ocd ORR aah: wae ae Game ee rd oak
ne ehodoo thadins tae Ger weraeat ade ze meaty hey’ ald fy SR.
oe ove Soe Gee oe Ree “Foe all ere
Ma
ik Raseiie eek) ae aL) ea eae a a Pekepoe: prt’ ie
a , eT ay
Bareved- sh yee. Galan weed oad ity dae “o wee sicete wioek:
ait) wadhtine ‘edhe a ae ‘aside
39268
JAMES He DYMING, HOWARD Ge BONING
and DELTA I. JARRETT, as trustecs
wnder the trust agreement dated
December lly 1934, know as trust
number 12,
Appellees,
APPEAL FROM MUULCIAL
COURT OF CHECAG.
Meet i Mi it gg i
Ve
) .
ROY ERICKSOM, iekol ay $9 O1.A. 6 1 ‘ve
Me JUSTICE FRIGND DILIVERED THE OFPINIGH OF TH? COURT,
Plaintiffs brought an action of fercible detainer against
éefendant for possession of premises in Chicarco known as 5625 W.
Belmont avenue. The cause was tried by the court without a jury,
resulting in findings and judament that defendant was euilty of
wilawfully withholding possession of the premises, that a writ of
restitution issue therefor, and that plaintiffs recover from defende
ant the costs of suite Defendant appealse
The record discloses that June G» 1935») a lease was executed
for the premises in question by Polka Realty Company, agents for Me
Ae Kilgallen, as lessor, and Rey Zrickson, as lessee, covering the
term fron July 1» 1935, to Jume 30, 1936. Defendant's copy of the
lease was not signed by the lesser, but only by Polka Healty Company,
a6 his agente
June 12, 1955, the lesvor assigued this lease te plaintiffs.
Defendant wac not notified of the aszigument and never attorned fer
rent to plaintiffs. The rental wes payable st the ofiice of Polka
Realty Company, and was there paid by defendant fer the entire term
ef the lease.
4
CO)
a ves Wied) een
tivo hye th. oe nr
i sgembverdietrencateorgeratw deers gers a
:
oi yuevo oon sats,
taniapa tsladeh ofdtorot 26 aekton tn seyword wttvnielt - a,
ȴ U808 ae mroml ogsokdo AL doshiorg To tt inaeseog 102 tnebitetoh
otwt s dumitiw ds ests yd beled wow estes erft ‘aietowe re
to Yellin new tanbme'toh sat taompberh brs canted inthe
to ¢iuw a datht qovetmetg ond to ao taaeceog pitkb.tortuts bw ListwaLess
=breteb mxt cevooet aliivaielg galt dna .xo tered? eusal wonsus ise
-étistge saunaitted” 2d té‘abaod edd time
netieene asw easol @ ,8é0L .o enwl dosig eonotealh bxepet OMT
oh t0% asmoga qyuagmd Wael sdlot yw aoldsoup at eon lnony ox, rot }
ols gulreveo ,oougel as ,soutolwh YOR ban «toumet as eHotlLegl Ek oA 4
oi? to yyoo atimabmolel .38CL .0E emul of e8h@L af Yl mort oes |
aynaqmod yileeil axfot yd vLno dad aupseet edd yd bomls gon saw oanet
“stnega ela
settbgntate ot easel aids Sony Lave conned oud e8EGL afl onl eh ties: 4
9% bomros coven bas ¢xemmtuae oft To holtivon fon saw snebap <
sifet to eo kite ods ta eideyaq sew Ladner off sarthtmialy ce deca " ;
orrot othtimes of? tet $ subs10 tb Wi btaq erent saw baw «ynaqaod Y ! co
B20
February 26, 1936, before the expiration of the lease,
the County clerk ef Cook county executed a tax deed to one Paul
Gelasi for the premises in question. Following the e xecution and
delivery of this tax deed, Gelasi and defendant entered into a
lease for the premises, dated July 1» 1936, and covering the period
from the latter date to Jume 30, 1939. July 1, 1936, defendant
paid to Gelasi rental for the month of July, 1936, and obtained a
receipt therefor. On the same uy plaintiffs made a demand upon
defendmt for the immediate wnenenahiien of the premises, and on July
25 1936, commenced their action in forcible detainer against defendant,
Defendant takes the position that (1) he was in peaceable
possession of the premises under a lease from Gelasi, and is there-
fore presumed to be rightfully in possessions (2) that plaintiffs had
the burden of proving that they were entitled to possession; (3) that
plaintiffs are not the owners of the premises, but merely the assign-
ees under a lease which expired before this action was brought; (4)
that defendant had not attorned to plaintiffs, had no knowledge of
the assignment of the lease by the lessor, and is therefore not answer=-
able to plaintiffs for any matter contained in the leases which had
expired; (5) that the Municipal court has no jurisdiction to try titles
to real estate, and when it appeared that defendant was in possession
under a lease from a grantee the court was without jurisdiction to
proceed; (6) that the validity of the deed to Gelasi cannot be question-
ed in a forcible detainer proceeding, and the Municipal court has no
Jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of the deed; (7) that defend-
ant may show any change of title, and his holding thereunder, occurring
after the date of his lease with the former lessor; and (8) that the
eourt erred in refusing to admit in evidence the lease under which
defendant claimed to hold possession, the receipt for the rent paid
by him, and also certain evidence offered on behalf of defendant to
show how he came inte possession,
easel edd to moivariqne eff stated .~ERL .aS Yrawidet
ised ono of besh xed 2 beduoexe Yinwon Aood to wAteLo yvauod oss
boa moliuoox 9 eld gukwolfot .selteesp ak aealwetq edd xo ivaled
8 otmt hexeine Jmshbmoteb bas lasled ehoob xst eisis to ann
boixeg add ymixevos bas .ab@L «f vint betab «noatmong orld Bhs euael
tmabsetob BSCE «t vivk .@ECL .0% onwh oF stab sodter wilt 02?
s heakndde 1 eBS0L «yLvt to «9 som edt rot Latnos keels? of Skew
moms baemeb « sham atitiniale yeb omsa oft nO . 10 leTedd tqtsoor
vint mo bre see imac ont ho mo teaseaoq ststbommt std tot J mebre te
jasbaetebh saniogs tenkstel eldioro% nt noltos thedd boomoenmmon .deCL «Sf
eldassseg ai caw ed (L) talld motdiaeg ont eoxed tnebaoted
~oton? ek bas .ftealed mort easel s sobs sealmetg end to rm taasa2og
bat aitvnielc #ady (8) (mo tesendog ‘xt chor ttety bs od o¢ bemastg ort
sand (8) rageeerere oe bettiine stew yodd sadld gatvotq Yo sewund ‘edt
-sgiaes edt (Lorem ted yaoalmorg sf} Yo exemwo odd Jom ous @TREtathaly
(3) giefgword saw mottos aldt etoted botigne othe odses a ‘tobay ase
to eghoLwous! on bast yattitukalg of bemrotis son bas snebriocteb tant
waunliiaat som sroteterdtd al San ytosest off yd @ene! ‘ons “to dremstg hacia vests
eRe
bast stottw ,oaset off at bom istaoo tottam yas tot etivaiel oF side
asliki ytd of motiotbaitwt on sas Ftu09 Leqtd tam ‘ond dastd (8) ghetigxe |
m6 inaseeog ar adw fridbrs tes tends boteeqys +f notte 8 yotsdes Leet’ 6s : )
‘od molfoibuitnt duodsiv saw feoo 6H Sodmdty 4 mort otsel es Toba
enoissesp of tous Lastod of Bees oie to YFROELew ont Yadd (2) Vboosdty
en aad duwoo LaqtotmaumM! oft bats ‘pgnkboseotg teslegeb ofdtexet e at Bo
wbuetebh tadé () gbeob off to yIlbifsy sad otmkt otinput of ‘potfoLvatedt, |
gnirxiroge etobnve reds gathlod eid bas . ols is Yo epiats “ote wosle yam tas |
oils dadd (8) bus jrodeed omeeY Sud Mane Guact Gin 4d sys GHP "deite
doiw tobow casst odd consbtve ni ¢imba of gntdvtor at bexte fas 4
bieq imez ed rot tqtosox ‘eds ‘\nolégasanog bfod of bemtalo tnsbas'ted
of Snabneteh to tLaded ao berette eensbive mtatten cate bus eat dt
,goteaeseog odnt ema orf worl waa |
nee
It is urged by plaintiffs that they have the same right,
as assignees, to proceed for the unlawful detention of the premises
upon the termination of the tenancy, as the original landlord might
have exercised, and in support of that contention they rely upon
sece 14) chape 80, Illinois State Bar Statse, 1935, which reads
as follows:
"The grantees of any demised lands, tenements, rents or
other hereditaments, or of the reversion thereof, the assignees
of the lessor of any demise, and the heirs and personal represen-
tatives of the lessor, grantee or assignee, shall have the same
remedies by entry, action or otherwise, for the nonperf ormance
of any agreement in the lease, or for the recovery of any renty
or for the doing of any waste or other cause of forfeiture, as
their grantor or lessor might have had if such reversion had re-
mained in such lessor or grantor,"
and also upon pare ll of the lease between defendant and plaintiffst
assignor, which reads as follows:
"At the termination of this lease by lapse of time or other-
wise, lessee shall yield up imnediate possession to lessor and return
the keys to said demised premises to lessor at the place stipulated
herein for the payment of rent, and failing so to do shall pay, as
liquidated damages for the whole time such possesai on is withheld, a
sum equal to twice the amount of the rent herein reserved, prorated
and averaged per day of such withholding, but the provisions of this
clause and theacceptance of any such liquidated damages by the
lessor shall not constitute a waiver by lessor of his right of re-
entry as hereinafter set forth, nor shall any other act in apparent
afiirmance of the tenancy operate as a waiver of the right to texminate
this lease, or operate as an extension thereof."
Based upon the provisions of sece 145) chape 80 of the statute and
the foregoing provision of the lease, it is argued that by virtue of
the assignment from Kilgallen plaintiffs were entitled to all the
rights given the original lessor, including the right reserved to
the lessor to obtain possession of the premises at the termination
of the lease June 30, 1936e
It is argued by defendant, however, that sec. 14 of chape
80 of the Illinois State Bar Statse, 1935, hereinbefore set forthy
does not lend itself to the interpretation thus placed upon it, and
that the statute, in giving "the assignees of the lessor of any
demise" the same remedies, “by entry, action or otherwise," covers
ettigia omes ass eva yous dadt ettivaiels yd. beats at’ aT
sealmotg oft to ootinoteh Ly iwolrer eit tet boesoty Ot 4 2o¢hyketso we
diem brolbael Lantyino edt ce .Yonemet off Yo no ttenitred’ edd moger
noqy yLort yeds moivretnes Jae le droqque mi bie: . hoa ho texoy oved
' abaet dotdw ~86@L ..atadi cad agas® ehoustlL1) ~O8: «qatio.g ALo ues
Oe Rarer ,adtmomenpd, ~Bbneh bor imeb ys: to agatietg
asvengicasn oft , tesrert molerever eg to te we yaetem 9 ale ie
-menongen: Laneexog bas axied eft bog. eakmeb yuis, to, mane k elt. oe
sass offs oval [lade ,sommicas xo ington Be etogcel od? to aevitst
. Song tgegaen edd cot .eekwradio- rere 3
" qdnee vwais to yreveset eld tot to 4h gr end Irae ted
9) @8 sotutiotxe? to, seuse, tedto to etasy. yaw
~or bast rer dove a bad eve toy io me Ba) pailoh il) 20% 0
n | “<tojsetg 10 tozael dove ot bentam
tathi¢niatg bas snabne teh neevtad sanel odd to Lf «tag moqn oats bas
intw « tomgiene
ae ' , Lpmcies, hgh eage, salty. axe ir
~tedtio i emis 40 saget a Bidd Yo te av ttantexed ent vA"
tetdot bee “toanel ot zat Ws ona otslbormi qu bieiy Lace esweel-, oatw
| besaluy ise ecaigq ett te toceel of aoalmetg beaimoh bisa ot syed ost
| - Se \geq Dtete ob o¢ of gniitel baa \ tier To dhosyaq eft cot ekerbd
& yblerddtiw et mo museaog Moa omits oforlw oft 10% aegameb bedsbinp ll
hoterorg ~Sovronet niered viet oft te ¢twoms st} solwt of Laupo mie
aidg to anolaivoug ond tud egnihtosdliiw dova to yab 18g begetevs bas
gid val aogaanh bedebivplt dove yao to sometqson.s end brie saualn
-9t to jeigit eld to tosest yo tovisw » egutitanoo ton fieda zoanel
¢mewwege st tee conto que Ikeda sort (ldxot tee ted ianmteted as qudn
“stastlarod od Fane odd 2e soviawW @ 88 etatsqo Yousned edd to sonamrtite
_ - *,focyeds sotenedxe 9.88 edetego 70 .eeaet
bam, sfudaga ond to O6,.qeeo «dL, +008, 20: sawtakvoxs: 949; nog, bosal
Xe outchv yd test bougre ab df oases osft, Io molekvoxg pulogoxe%, ont? |
odd Ifo 0d bekthiqe ovew ePitatesa soLlopi th moxk tremm tess edd
eaninro? eid #9, seninerg ei, Y0. motsvenang alate. 9f. 208ReK 9A
‘ " sPECL 208 onl easel ost. 3p
gato, xo AL .998 tats »sovpred ,Snobnoteb A beware, booed am tn
pon ath noas beonty, aut mediad enya eit 02, tones esac
_ We Xo xonnel of Yo soomtoas od?" anivin nt sedate ext dace
oh
‘only those rights growing out of the nonperformance of the lease,
for the i ecovery of rent, the commission of waste or other cause
of forfeiture, as the lessor might have had, and they say that the
statute merely gives the assignee such rights as the lessor had
G@uring the existence of the leasehold, snd since the lease had
expired by its terms, pleintiffs can not assert their rights as
assignees under the statute for anything that occurred after the
expiration of the lease. If this position were tenable, defendant
would have the same right to assert that defense against the original
lessor, and that obviously would not be permitted, because par. 11
of the lease expressly stipulates that the lessee shall yield pos-
session of the premises to the lessor at the expiration of the terme
Moreover, sece 14 of chap. 80 gives to the assignees the same reme-
dies as the lessor had, by entry, ection er otherwise, “for the
monperformance of any agreement in the leases" and one of the cove-
nants of the lease expressly provides that “at the expiration of
this lease, by lapse of time or otherwise, lessee shall yield up
immediate possession to the lessor, and return the keys to ssid de-
mised premises to lessor at the place atipulated herein ***," Conse-
quently, the failure of defendant to camply with this provision of
the lease must be held to be one of the contingencies contemplated
by the statute, and therefore the remedy by entry is as available
to the assignees as it would have been to the original lessor. This
conclusion is supported by an expression of the court in Drew Ve
Mosbharger, 104 Illes Appe 635, wherein it was said (pe 637):
"The same right to terminate the tenancy, and upon its
termination to proceed for the unlawful detention of the premises,
existed in the grantee as the original landlord might have exer-
cised. (Citing Thomasson v. Wilson, 146 Ille 389.) There can be
ion of
ne gist szence in the applicat this principle where the plain-
iff is he assignee instead of the grantee of the landlord. ®
(Itslice ours. i
It is next urged by defendant that the assignees of the
Gasol of} to eoenoe treqaen edt de Jue yoiwotg “aseyti daonty cine
Sause telto to eteaw to cbicdiams eft .dn0r lo Crowes iY ody sire
mie gadd You yout bes ybad oved tdgim ronaet oct aang eted Lotto? Yo
hat tdeeef odd ac atdtinis dome ceogteen edt eovin. YLotom eiussed
het eaael eff conte bre ,bLodeasel odd to sonetakxe ons gntens
an attight tledd txesas fom eo ettivatslg pamred aft Yd botiqes
ond sod %e bottTOSO saat gabityea cot! ‘oputssa ‘eae ‘eon sevtatays
# ease tot eeidenet evew nobfteog aids 2" ‘Vouost out Yo mo! yak
fsoigtto ert gentaga ounstes “todd tt9aen od tigi omtee odd rt iy
{L stag eaunsed , hed dairy od ton bluow YLowdivdo talib «tbasel
~eoy bfely Liana osaeel alt stadt dodalugtsa ‘ehdictaxs “Sanel anf fo
ectted odd ‘to nO ttarigxe od dn toanel od od ooelmong ‘oid, “to a0 Seas
“oot ema ed? esongisas ait ad asvig. 08 «qatto wo N “+908 <xovoorei
“slg x08 yeatwrodte 10 aolten .yutm yd chat oneal odd ts cot
| ~ovoo ad 20 900 dua Syonsor ot et damaemye ye Ie setamzorTogm
| . Sta tia nites tc tot omiviaaes tome Oo see .
Leva ‘attss
¥ : , ae aT T, a wey mer rz ae wee
os g B ot
ob ban Of mye ould secu ‘has yroanes aut no teesavog otetbonnt
rr ta BOs
~oanod ".*#* gtored Sotatnehts Soete Galt “in tule oP ‘aon neg boutat |
to neLetvoiey wthtt HO My cfhgib’s oF ridinefed td dantier War Wey :
hedalgmed nos eotonogai¢aee oft to eno od ot Sted eslaiemiareesinst
sldatieve en ut Yxtno ve ybamet ont skototeNt Bie oduate Oi We
aid stoheer Lotth'teo vad OF Need ove’ Btvow Ff en oo
G¥ Vex et Pryoo of} to Motsdonexe he Ue beaticdue
+(%88 sq) Slee enw ok abwweste ried ‘Vaea’ oer bor”
A elt a ; pdehleres
2 tq
TER tied a
ivi wR 5.8 ao
6. in 3 0
oda
lessor have no right of action for pessession unless and until
there is an attornment by the lessee, and that if there is ne
atternment during the term of the demise, then after the expiration
of the lease there is neither privity of contract nor privity of
estate, and the plaintiffs have no cause of action. Defendant's
counsel rely on Fisher ve Deering, 60 Ill. 114, wherein it was
said (pp. 11B, 116):
"The courts seem to have proceeded upon the ground that
there could be no privity of contract unless the tenant should
attorn to the assignee of the reversion; that, whilst the assign-
ment of the reversion created a privity of estate between the
assignee and the tenant, privity of contract could only arise by
an agreement between them."
We find, however, that Fisher v. Deering, supre, was overruled by the
Supreme court in Barnes v. Horthern Trust Coe, 169 Ille 112. Sece
14, chape $0 of the statutes has dispensed with the mcessity of an
attornment by the iessee to the assignee of the lessor, and the
court in Barnes v. Northern Trust Company, supra, in construing this
section of the statute, seid (p. 116)s
"We are of the opinion, that the enactment of said section
14 dispenses with the necessity of an atiornment, and abrogated the
rule announced in Fisher ve Deering, supra."
More recently, the prenouncement of the Supreme court in overruling
Fisher ve Deering was followed in Traders Safety Building Corpe ve
Shirk, 237 Tlle Appe le The court held that under Barnes ve Northem
Trust Company sece 14 hed been held to obviate the necessity of
ettornment, thus changing the rule theretofore announced in Fisher ve
Deering. This same rule was laid down in Howland v. White, 48 I11.
Appe 236, where it was said (pe 243):
“All leases except leases at will may be assigned if there
is no restriction in the lease itself *** and the assignee of a
lease is granted, by the seid section 14 of chapter 80 of Illinois
Revised Statutes, the same remedies, by action or otherwise, for
nonperformance of any agreement in the lease for the recovery of
rent, or other cause of forfeiture, as the lessor micht have had,
while the owner of the lease or attornment must, we think, be
hereafter deemed unnecessa to vest the assignee of the lease
With the full rights of his assignor - the original lesser."
(Italics ourse)
The rule is well settled in this State that where a perso
“d=
‘fiiay bre ecolow ae lemosaeq. to? mottos to sogin on evan Foases | P
@ shoeredd th tadd bag, aseceel ald yd tnempr09 90. as s al exerts,
aektievique ed? setts medt. .oa.imah ont. Io mad. off, British Jnomnx03 ta
lo “Siviug som toate to yiiving z9diten, at oredd osaet ong »®
atinahnote, nto itoa to seyso on over atiisateltg | and baa, sedagaa
few di mievadw ghif »ff1 08 .antvesd sv x uig i® 110 ox Loessoo
+ (040 ,8L0 qq) bias
“pivodie saeans oat canine featdins ie af ty tie oe of bapesiehead
oni pon for yo re ob Pie bal od be Bc Map Soret np eg Meg (di
qf eeine yine bis toeisneo, to ve tv tsg etnsne?t roa bos semmiaas
* sted moowied Jnagsstas as
ole ud beturtsve “eew «akgus «guivesd ov sedeiT caddy rovowod, «bait oW
,oo8 SLi ETT Cad | 12.00 saueT meeddawer *Y geszed oi sre omexgua
me to Yileeeo at ext afviw Ninsiy di Snel Rocutad Gait ‘ko, 08 aad, «Mt
odd bus (xoteot oft to ‘svittues oHe oF! sound L ont xd iosmeost—e
ol «Vv apt at top
1(BL6 4g) bios eodutate edd 20 moltoes
odt*ictronnde te stmsntas iat ate See Magan
| . Momma yagtzpel ov garg hy at beonwons 9iys
| BakLvtxove Mi duu0o emongue ex? Yo gnomoonvorozg edd «yIdneoer exOM 4
*Y 28200. noth Lin’ Yéoted arehos? at pewellox cew aucseed +v zagake
—Mipdexay «vy geared tobay gadt bfed tiyoo df +f sags | oft ves. a q
Xo vitoesoan ons stsivde ot bLet mood bed df pees pegmeo J ayzk
ov sodatt ni beamonns exototerody o Lue ont pathyetto uns ‘vdnemms03s3
ELE Bh god tei + aedeal ak mre, bial aaw ott emoe ess aateet
: +(2a8 a), tna enw $2 oxesty «BES sag |
stads tL domines ad yom {lin ta agent é omn “poaael fra*
t # to genate ra he Sot erred ‘te a ak Soe J
ahoni tlt to 08 xs 6 to AL nokteda-b r 4
-¢ pot ,9ahwrodto 10 Rolsos yd 488 pectely ors aa cae “i :
to ytevoses edd rot sesok ony x eTya"
ebad oval gosta rosest off as Sistttos" i
od .inid? ow ¢taom tromurodta 10 enast of
Sasal edi Le oorty glace a sat sasy os | 299 mn
ie:
f
aint pekorsends nt »auges eygsgnio f
a Was es ‘
a
gmersq s stedw stands stata eiddg at boltioe Ifow ef efi anit
aay
enters into possession of premises under another, and thereby admits
his title, he must restore the possession to the person from whom he
received it before he can set up title in himself. In the present
case defendant tcok possession under a lease with Kilgalien and
covenanted to surrender possession to Kilgallen er his assigns at
the expiration of the term. Therefere, he cannot noeWp as an excuse
for his failure to vacate the premises, claim that the title to the
property is in Gelasi, because title cannot be tried in the forcible
detainer proceeding. it was so held in United States Brewing Co.
ve Pochek, 195 Ill» Appe 369, cited in plaintiff's brief, where
the court said:
"In an action of forcible detainer, a tenant cannot defend
by denying or attacking his landlord's title, nor can he show that
such title has terminated, for the reason that the action is
pessessery solely, and is a summary statutory action for the
restoration of the possession of land to one who has wrongfully
been kept out or deprived of such possession, and for the further
reason that in such action the question of title carmot be tried."
Defendant sought to show in this proceeding that the title of his
landlord had terminated, and that he was in possession under a lease
from the holder of an adverse title. Under the authorities this
Will not be permittede
: Defendant assigns as additional ground for reversal the ree
fusal of the court to admit the tax deed in evidence. Plaintiffts
contended that no proper foundation had been laid for its introductions
Defendant relies upon pare 240, 5 e@ce 224, chape 120, Illinois State
Bar Stats., 1935, which provides that a tax deed shali be prima facie
evidence of certain facts therein stated, namely, that the real estate
conveyed was subject to taxation, and properly listed and assessed;
that the taxes had not been paid; that the premises had not been re-
deemed; that the real estate was properly advertised; that it was sold
for taxes; thet the grantee was the purchaser or assignee of the pur=
chaser: and that the sale was conducted in the manner required by lawe
eve me
mite
ativbe yfersdt bus ,tedtons tobow eeatmonq to noterseeog otat aredae
an morty sont noaTeg ony. ot go laasneég sit’ oretest taum sad (olf hy ain
eeoOBeseE OF MT. oe tiemntd-mt eitid qi tea nas oof ot6 lsd $2 bsvkeset
bua molleglid dile oasek a éhey mokseeaeog Hoot tiainetoh easo
fa amigas sid to solley Ll od no kaeoawdg ‘“obmerrua of bednsse yoo
OAGOxXe fa 26 gWort) tonnes of yoreieted? .srned 98% To sfottertope ‘ents
odd of OL kt oft tos? mise pesaimong odd ofsoev 68 otutint alt 407
eidtezot sad.at betut ed sonnso et2y ete 5c ie cot ait ab, eae
299 aniwen® gotace peg tau at fot oe eew ag spnthesooxe £8 rr sie
griemedtete Dida Ste RAdnea te” Kt Bodkd 2085: rn ‘rit ser’ .stedoos »
_obhise tuo edt
Soo ese st sr AR et
at moties ent jedi maset edt 10% Letaehies
O8d 502 noitea Yudtni asa Yrammne iar ‘bew tured e
istgnorw asd ow ono od baal to pearuse edt
Bombe xo? Das _ielveseseg dove to beyeiges” 138 anit aaaees
",boixd od gonnao oltts te soliaeup wi, merken dona Ae, sete MPAADT
“atst to elttd ond sasld aubboooexg ails mE ‘worte, ot. siguoe Jusbae tae |
4 oes
- easel s sobaw molaneasog st asw od dota, bee , botemtared. aii wee Shonk
vo aad te de epanoge te RL
arene welstwoste se ody bid -ottie O8teY i 8 to : { ons sort
_ she ttinnpg: ed tom ttkw
~ot ‘odd Loarever x02 -saworg oso 392909. Ba. ies Jdunbao tet, aga Le.
a'viiiutalt + 9outebve uh ‘boob, et ods tims of t2u9 9 edd» to, feast
sno kiowborgn! Gr 70% tel 90d bast HOt ¢ob ga0% 9g0 ta on, desl? bebuesnes ¢
tat atonitst 0st squsio S88 4993.08 -taq sogu agtlor ‘dnabmotes
_otont ant od Lteste Dob at, A Jatt aeblvorg Mods 4QE0L 4. a9age matt :
etagoe Laot er tests hiatal chetata fiiezeds stost nissdre9: ‘m0 sonsbive ‘
tDeuaosae Maa betel yixegotg. bus, ymolsannd, of: fost sam aan
or need ton ‘bad roataoxd axe Seite abteg mood: 00 bat wont at "
bLoa ain oh Yarld iboats zovhe vixeqe:xs, Row oeatae fue ate ay
Cue ett 30! bet coaman te owactonu outs sew oot: ae :
oe 3)
ah cnn ol
ewal vd bor tuoon ‘reorem ond uk Fa rem yr ier “ote
A similar contention was made in Sehultz v. OtCoumelh, £89 Tlie
Appe 318, where the holder of a tax Gecd sought to introduce that
@eeé in evidence in a forcible jetainer procecdines, and as authority
for his offer relied on secs 224, pare 740 of chap. 120 of the
statutese In construing this seetien of the statute the court said
that before the prima fache fects established by the statute can
operate to affect the title of the omer, some affirmative action is
reguired by the purchaser to entitle him to possession; that “all
the presumptions abeve quoted relate te acts dependent upon the
fidelity of public officiels in the discharge ef their duties ia
making the records and reporting the acts reauired by them to be
gone previous and preliminary te the issuance of the deed. The deed
establishes prime facie those facts only. It affords uo « videnee
ef any act of the helder of it necessary to preecure its lesuvance."
(Xtelics ours.) ‘the affirmative action reauired by the purchasers
es set ferth in secs. 216 and 217 ef the same chapter of the statute,
required the purchaser to serve a notice on the owner particularly
describing the sale, the purchase, and other details, and an affidavit
is recuireg showing compliange with the proceeding sutlined in the
| Statute. Eecause of the failure of the tax title holder to comply
with the requirements ef the etatute, the court, in Sehultz v.
O'Connell, supra, said (pe. 317):
"We expresoly hold that the deed was uot competent fer eny
purpese on the trial of this case and that the ccurs should have
sustained defendant's sbjection to it."
In view cf our conclusion on the main points argued by
defendant, it is unm ceasary to discuss all the propositions stated
in defendant's brief. We are satisfied that neo error was committed
in finding that plaintiffs were entitled to peseseszien of the premises,
and therefore the judgment of the Municipal court is affirmed.
AFY IRMED.
Sullivan, Pe Jes and Scanian, Jo» COUCWs
|
|
5
14
!
|
se
‘a ttE G&S (9 ifeanon'O sy stivde: at sbam aor nottasdaes telimia A.
Gett ooubotink o¢ igwos beghomad ox Bw tehZidd ate evedw e2L8 wqgar
“BWbtulege cabae ,yalsosgow tomtstes efdtervet emt sedsplve &b Hoeh
oat To O8L vqral 20 OM exaq (MS ova eo hetlet tette ahd zt»
bled jeMo9 add etuteda edd To malin a atdd golwttanon nl pecimeéetas
ao osudede els WW hedalddataeiesest stost smicq edd aroted salt:
ek melios 6vis sutiite omon . como off Tor sLits oft tootia' of e¢etoqa’
iis" sefd imeleaosang of mid ofiiine of xeestomg eds yd bexinpet,
X este: noun thebusqeh sice of steLox beteug ovods emo kiqamsong | ead,
ei -seltub wbedd tovegterioe th’ otis mi efstelite etfduq’ to Xithebity
od of meafli yd bevinpet atoe eng ankdxogqet bona abxoonm. ont. ehiem:
bende ast nome g afte ba ecnnrent edt of ba men ions ome OR 7x:
sonsbty i oe ebro tis or % Esc aton? sebat Stor t ae ex ;
" sohihiioat at omer of yrawaseen #1 te to rohtod : oat X20 908 am rt =
ere od ee bontuper ne ktoa ovis amet tie ear’ “(.atwe ne tiiee)
estudata olf to tetqerdo Gites of? MO VLE Bhs dle saoee bt Menot-seec ae ,
“virefluoltiay Tenwe |Xt no soktex a erree es: xoustotug ond betiupet
divebitte ta bas yelltstos retlio bas poaatovmy Oe qoLse oid! gabditroend! :
eis at heniliue gathsesorq oft Méiw etimeliqnen galwore bet tepet or: q
‘haa of xShfom bt2ty Xbd ony Yo otwLint oie to’ cow edet'>Veduteta '
er states ni die ad} ,athtnda edt to athenot tne oft Avtw i
oS. One vq) bike! «pitas ¢ nai q
ys tot dmodsambs tow eaw boob sift ducted HLOM yEewe recxe! BWP oehae ke” al
Maia aah Leg ya 8 in ee | Rar ee
Vd dousrs dintoy whom ed? no motawLonoo! eed Yo wey BI Hoh ly:
betets enitieoqotq eft [is sexnsl> oF Yteaado ah we tb etasbeeted:
bed $¢ Lino 0 anw torte oe $oKd bette h¥ew ore oY \teiue’ 2 tab crete bak)
eaoetinerg sift To felesecvog of Settitne otewwttitakedg ait! Bath? K
re _ 9 bests re at ot * DR, at to stnompbut, eels ks ame og
ihe my oe, ay Lagan ne os * i hye Bis ny
oe -, ea y
suromo9 ot weinast bana we of _mev saben? if
oe Reg oor Nile “ound ne baa ¢ tomas Wh
59281
ESTATE GF PETER FECIURA,
(incompetent) »
Appellee »
APPEAL FROM SIRCULT
Ve
COURT, COOK COUNTYe
2901.4. 610 |
MR. JUSTICH FRIEND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
SAM G. PUCIURA and GUSTAVE
Ge FUCTURA et Ble,
Appellants.
i ee ee ee ee Rael?
Sem Ge Feciura and Gustave G. Feciura appeal from an
order of the circuit court dismissing for want of a sufficient
bond an appeal taken by them from an order of the probate courte
Martha Feciura, conservatrix of Peter Feciura, an incom=
petent person, filed a petition in the probate court on December
15, 1933, upon which a heariag was had and pursuant to which an
order was entered March 12, 1936, directing Sam Ge Feciura to
repay to the conservatrix $923.94 and interest within five days;
that Gustave G. Feciura pay to her $200, within five days; and
that Gustave G. Feciura and Garry R. Brinkerhoff pay to the con-
servatrix *%7,004.19 within five days. No appeal was prayed from
the entry of that order. Thereafter, March 31, 1956, without
notice to the conservatrix or her attorney, and while Sam Ge
Feciura was being sought by the sheriff on a writ of attachment
for failure to pay the sums ordered, he procured the approval
of an appeal bond by the judge of the probate court in the sum
of $250. May 7, 1936, one John J. Moser» Esqe, presented in the
circuit court on behalf of the appellants a motion in the nature
of a demurrer to dismiss the original report aud petition of the
soaee
Fe
sARVUIOAT RETEST W APA
| vA «(iced ogni ont) !
PIVSHIO MOAT JAUUTA
<FTWOO Boe , TAVOO
ribacy 1008
THUS SHY no TKTIO aE? CuseY Tae cura cornet at
te Is
a et ov .
UVARUY: big AAUIONT 42 MAR
‘aela to AAUIONT op
eathallegga | CI) ROE S| Wee
ne saa - a —
as mort Lroqqs aruiost +2. evystam® das eusigel 9 mo.
tnetertina 8 ke dnew. ap nelenine th. sEsoe. atwonte oid | Yo soba:
~ ier ME Bra
otus8o at adorn eid te sobz0. se otk geste wt nomad: fseqgs ma aod
stoont as .euuioel reget le xtzterreaneo: eotukoot addisl bang 8 Be
_ teduoosG mo duvoo odadoug. edd al motiiiog:s bets eto rag Pyare
ae -doldw ot taasetuq dna bad aaw geibused, « dodtw mpg (A CEOL GRE
of susie +2 mo® galtoor ld .26@L «SL doxeM boretme enw tobe!
_faysh evit aldaiw deoretal bua. AQ EQLG Kittavieanon edd of ysqeT
bas yaysh evil mbd¢iw 2008G ted of Yaq surtost +). ovata gedd,
“noo ond OF Yaq TModrednt .& yxtad bes atytoet .0 eystaud, tas,
moxt beyexq saw Lesqqs ok .ayab evil niddiw @£.d00.¥0 xittsysea
duodd iw ~O5CL glé Morel guestsored? »tobso. dadlt, Xo yxtns oat
aD ma@ eLitw bus .yermetis red to xludsvtoanoo, adt.od aokton
sneusostie to Jitw 6 mo tiivede st yd Jcayon guied acw etutoeT
Levorqua eid boryootg of gboxehro amma odd, wee ot ovpliat:2ot.
sure od mt $0.9 etsdotq sit Yo ogbul, odd yd dood Lepage umcte
tis ould at betmoaera ¢spat «tea0kl »% Alloy O20 DERE ef get (#0889 to
otto eft at mottom © wind ltequs edt to ‘tasted 50 sures siege
‘hd ee be ¢ fine Eh ig ‘
es to moisizeg bas dxoqet tenigivo oa} aatmath of teTrHeb 6 %o
iis aR ae
Ac. Fe
De
comservatrixe Hex counsel thereupon made a motion te strike the
appeal bond for insufficlency, and Mey 13, 1936, en order Was
entered striking the 2250 bond ond granting Sum G. Feclura lcave
te file a new bond within ten days in the sum of $1,800, end
Gustave Ge Feciurea a new bond within ten daya in the sum of ©°16,000.
Wo new bonds were filed and when the case was called for trial May
29» 1936, the appeal was dismissed for went of proper bondse
Appéllents appeal from that order.
The sole question presented is whether the circuit court
erred in striking the $250 bond fixed by the probate court and
requiring appellants to file new bonds within the time fixed by
the court in the respective amounts of ®1,800 and $16,900.
Appeals from the probate court are governed by sece 11 of
the Probate Court act (chaps 27, Pare 341, 11. State Bar Statae,
1935), which provides? .
“Appeals may be taken from the final orders, judgments
and decrees of the probate courts to the circuit courts of their
respective counties in all matters except in proceedings on the
application of executors, administrators, guardians and conser-
vators for the sale of real estate, upon the appellant giving
bond and security in such amount and upon such condition as the
pig obs shall approve, and upon such appeal the ease ehall be tried
@ noves
The question as to what statute applies to an appeal from
en order of the probate court was considered in Pence ve Pettetty,
211 Ill.» Appe 588, and the finding later approved in In re Estate
of Boening, 274 Ille Apps 434. In the Pence case, after citing
various statutes pertaining to appeals from judgments of the probate
eourt to the cireult court, with their conditions, the court conclude
that an appeal from a judgment such as this must be taken in conformi(
with The Justices and Constables act (chaps 79, pars. 116, sece 1, Art.
X, Ill. State Bar Stats., 1935), and that an appeal in such case
must be taken “in the same time and manner appeals are now taken
from justices of the peace to circuit courts.” In the Boening case
~S~
ais ottits of moitom » aban nogveresdd Lowunwos tol Kittsvisanes
Gav ebro me OSL «il yeh base «yoroluiYivant tot bnod Leeqae
evaeel siykoet .) stad galinerg base bood O88 oft griblicta berssme
bra 1008, £8 to mrs ott ok oysh ned midtiv baod won a efit od
1000¢82% fo mua oes mi ayad nod midtby baod wow s saute 9 ove aa
Galt Lae bxd ek betise ae ouso ond ment bite bOLET oxow ahisod wen of
sabsied xogosa ta gmew cot boeaimeth asw faeqge ost gdbRL 42S
st9bto sash oc ‘feoqge ataotleanga
tusdo tivexko ole tomtedw at betnosdzy a ily efos ef?
bite tty00 otadoxg old yo boxht bnod O88G off putalinta mt bert
gd bext? omtd old aiddiw abnod won Ltt ot atnallequs es
1000 8.8 bets 008% %o es muroa evivoogaos old ab tmoe ssn
‘te te esos Yd haceteven ova suu08 odadong ont ont eknoquA
AM”
coasts mf etage fee cine +0 4M aaito) tos “Fub0 bhadext oat
“taobivorg one «(aes
adm bu eatobto fant? out s07% plead ‘om Yau aLsogga my 9 ated ay
tied? %o atuweo dlvotio off of adsueo. siete ef. 30
-teGMeo bis ats 4S totexde inimhe ¢axeducona. Teno.
gaty fe daslloqre odd mows .od¢etas ign bi efse et to
ett as moteiboes dowe moqu bas tamer oe
manne ae pena 98RD = er foun 80% Dogg ‘in rae
moe? Lasqqs ou 02 asifeqs otuteia istiw ot tis ps hai d: tsats
gdiostot'.v sonst at berebiaaes saw Sted stadotg: ed}: te: rebT9 ee
ef? mm agnthooon<q at tqeoxe svedsem Lis ai kettason avisos i on 20%
esetaS Ot el nk bovenqga wedel gabbait ors bas 886 9 Mahe hbk sag :
grtite cette poaso somiG ofs ot BBR dygdve ELE, 7S: «satneos. 39
stedoxrg odd to ations but, ott efseqqe 6¢ aatniwsieq: soduiadsa ewoltey
rehoLomon ¢tueo odd candte tino thoeag sy tw eFxLI8 & tio tte eits6d tau0e
baorotnes af nested sd dave aidy es dena diemg bet 2 ott” insqas ne: destd
190A EL soe VSLt stag (OP. qadte) Fos! aoldasanod: bis eod.tdent ott sd tw
ede20 dove nk Lnscges os told bra y(aeer: (o b48980R8E stage TAK
neated won bts aLeeqes ‘Tonner aw emis emt edo ak? nest 0 ome
ses0 grinoog oft at "/.2dxs00 $ tutte ot eoasq ett to eooisant, mort
SM Ae
ON
om es
it Was said that “if the bond filed does net comply with the
statute, claimants have a right to move that it be stricken and
the bill dismissed." (Citing Pence ve Pettett, supra, Smith v.
Bevis, 89 Ill. 20%) and Wood ve Tucker, 66 Ille 276.) In the
Weod cases supray the court seid that the appeliee *should not
be Griven to litigate and settle doubtful legsl questions before
he can recover om an appeal bond; and on the failure of the
appellant to execute such a bond, it becomes the duty of the
court, when asked, to dismiss the appeal."
It was also pointed out im Penee v. Pettett, supray that
the form of bond stipulated in sec. ly Art. 10 of the act concerne
ing Justices and Constables (chape 79, Ill.» State Bar Statse, 1935),
allowing appeals from judgments of the justices to the cireult
court, reduires the penalty to be double the amount of the judgaent
and costes. The reason for this provision is obvious, and is clearly ©
pointed out in Wood ve Tucker, supra, wherein the court said that :
appellees should not be driven tc litigate doubtful legal questions |
before they can recover on an appeal bond, and that the failure of
the appellant to execute such a bond imposes upon the court the
duty of dismissing the appeal.
Wallace ve Lewsony, 206 Ill. Appe 573 (not reported in full)
is a ease precisely in point, indicating the procedure to be follew-
ed under circumstences similer to the ease at bare An action in
replevin was there instituted before a police magistrate by John
Wallace, plaintiff. ageinst several defendants to recover a consigi-~
ment of whickey claimed to have been wrmefully taken by the defend-
ents. Upon trial judgment was rendered against defendants for
$108.80, an appesl was prayed to the county court, and a bond civen
for G1i50, the amount fixed by the magistrate. From the allowance
ef 2 motion dismissing the appeal at defendants' costs, defendants
' a an f Lay:
end dtiw yignoo son aoob HSLiT baod edd TL gals Blas daw oe
bos nedoivte ed 22 Yodd ovem of tigtt 6 dved adntimicte” ieturate
ov #0 i caus «dtodeet «v genet yuit tO) “sbouwieety Litto ode
efit nt (.P%R LEK 88 azedow? wv Sow baw 4808 4 LET 08 ghee
yen ae oa all selleyge ose tat bisa davoo oct agugyn ,suny Sow
etoted anolteoup Lagel Witdiuob efttes bas atagivts oF movie of |
fait Yo emukte® octt.me hem phume:Lemeee: ce mn: meeite Mb a
org to ysub oid aomoood $i ,haod = deve otvoexe od tualtouge
: My Sseqqs osit aaimath ov «hexam netiw ie |
tact ganame etigdiad ..v somes ak tsp dedwtog onle aew $x» 8
mnrooneo toe ont to OL .ttd ef .909 wk boteluatia buod to mo? sth
(SSCL eonted co od ase a LEL CV .gnsio) coidesanod. hus, agottent sak
" ghwowto at of seotian), odd to etammgbut mort. atesqea Briwolie
Ss tnemgbyt, edd to sasone elt efduoh ed.ot ytlensq) add, consent tues:
4 uxacto ai bas pauotvdo at sotalvoug eidd tot noeaet. edt, /saduoo bn8.
to lie tone ot eee Se
amotiaeup tool dstidund otaghe.s 4 auth (od: yee Aland avcibogees
sARGI NE SR Rese ee cpio
to exstiet odd todd bas abitod “Teqaue an a xevooet ano *
a Eis 22 ¥ BL bingy on! A
efit tos edt noqw aosoqui band 2 sos: bdmnene ek k a a
» fags odd ere, ‘sg arr
a Se PRED Se
(Ltut al bedtoqe: fox) ot +A LET a0e «monet “v
hating. aig De RORY
~woliot ed ot ousrbeossg ots gatssotdal titog ai — 9820 8
ik nk Ek
‘ni notes mA stad ta easo ‘odd od takimte ‘eooasd smote te bets hel
ndot od sievsa kyon ‘eotiog « 6 ‘exoled bodut front visa cal os |
is oi sro baer
~- wees a tevooss of admabneteb ‘tareves diisee ‘oYhomtate s cont tat
ie {lo sae Sc
ehaetob ot yd sete? VLLytgoo tw feed ovad ot “Pemtals pat to nem
+L aly giana ddl it te hcl? all Wakil ak Spree Meany aan aar
sae ih Dh: Behe ew ‘ gt
; nevis Biod & due’, judo imwoe etd of ‘bovanq aaw Leeqas oa Pgh Po ae
dass rca agate ALEK ge
sonawolts oad mort sedorta gas add hen ‘pont? tnavoms off ,O8LS tor
aie gd st? ceeded fame
aduahen Sob dui “Vataabusteb ta ) Eseaue eat patesiaath notion =
OT MMO 3 ay aald a tht ots nsrh
Obey
;
Aes
appealed. It was held that where a police magistrate improperly
fixes the amount of an appeal bond at less than twice the amount
of the judgment, the appellents shovlid not be prejudiced by such
deficiency in the bond, providing they are willing, when objection
is made, to remedy the defect, and that the proper practice, where
an appeal bond given on appeal from a judgment of a justice of the
is adjudgsd insufficient, is to enter a rule against the appellant
that unless he executes and files a sufficient boud within the time
fixed by the court, the appeal will be dismissed. That is precisely
What the circuit court did in this casee The $250 bond fixed by
the probate court was entirely inadequate. Appellee wes entitled to
ponds in twice the amount of the judgments, and when a motion was
made by the ecuservatrix to strike the bond it was the duty of the
court to allow the motion. In so doing, and in requiring the appellant:
to file new bonds within ten days, the circuit court acted properly.
Appellants were not entitled to try their case de novo until a suffi-
cient bond had been filed. This was never done, and when the case came
on for hearing, May £29, 1936, no bond having been filed, the circutt
court properly dismissed the appeal.
Counsel for Sam G. Feciura and Gustave G, Feciura argue that
this was not an appeal from an order allowing or disallewing a claim,
but that it was a procecding brought under the Lunatic statute. We
find no distinction between appeals taken from the probate court in
proceedings of this kind and in other estatese Sece ii of chape 37,
hereinbefore quoted, is applicable to all finsul orders, judgments
and decrees of the probate court except those specifically excepted,
and other sections of the statute presoribe the mode of procedure
and the form of bond. We find nc ecomvincing reason for setting aside
the order dismissing the appeal. Therefore, the judgment of the cire
euit court is affirmed.
ASPIRED «
Sullivan, P. Jes and Seanlan, J., concure
elrego xomt otaxts igen avkleg a erent tests biod BSW sr “sbeteogas
3 rsbsosse: ont oobw? fads aeel ia bnod Laegas m3 ec) dagoms “ost next?
sion ww beothutorg ad dex biveda atnelLegga edt « oarg bur add to
no itos ide nose again sts yaad gathtvorg +haod os at volts io Yop
exesty eoottonxg rege vq eds test bas stontoh ants ‘Ybenor 08 obam at
esig 20 eottant a %o dommpbot « mx? Looggs 19 nevis baod feonas as
sual logge asks saniopa bein 8 nesses o8 at ‘ednotoIYwent beaburbbe al
sats oxi3 seteld iw bao d $utelt ra a nett? haus cetuoexe od eve Lam ‘tat
whee hoong ak 3 att » boae time ib ed LL bw iseque ett tues esta w exit
ma bout? baod oasd eat eonno ally mt bib tures $bvoxte ont eal
o$ beltitne asw selleqga sed agpebant ‘fortene aw sw ‘cindex 8 eng
Bee m0 toa & aadw baw whose bul esis 2 ante ont solwd at abnod
aN se
ots te ye aid aaw at bao d edt 3 exinia od xistavzoaneo ‘osld we ohamt
| ides foags ants ear inpes at has apittod oe it +0 180m oud works v4 ‘aoe
I
+viroqozy betoa JuwOo ttuorts axis eye wot rusts abet wax exit 98
“twa @ ftonw pyon sh caso aerts we ot bekd Hae son oxo aéaateqgs
A ee 5 ee
#) 7 ee MG LS”
! SHAD 88s D ond sestw base ,eroh Teven aw anit bert need bed baod jnoto
| MEK nat y a Ak b Be “y
| ttuouto exit ebeLlt need am bad on e0L 1ea ak canbtsed to? Ped
» Leoaas oat bevatae tb Etetoxg ka
badd ONZIS santos 9 :ecaleenreh farses oe od a Hi aid foanueo
emlalo & autwoLLsath Pcs) aatvoLts robse rs) Asogus nn tow ae rid : |
OW sotutats od asunk eis xobaw tiguesd uakboovoxg a eam $2 tod su : ;
mk dau00 esadoxg ant 9 2% fo3iat alsouge noonded mo tvontsath © om baits
e%6 sqedo to ae 29a8 saed ade redto ak hms, bats abit bad muntbosoorg
ue Me:
edioans dur, eauobro Laat? Lis ot siésotsage | ak “botoup ezotodniozed 4
Bg,
ebodgooxe eine tt tooge evade qooxe Aa ot acon oxi to ‘aooso0h ‘bas
« BEY
{
serubeoe tq %o shom ous odbzonerg ovutats ‘osto ~ no 2:¢008 xotito ‘bne
As ~O0e sare
obliaa itis soe cot maser patontven 0 or bat? ev ‘ane. <0 x0 eiy bits
me Hed. «ORL xe .
“aio edt to tnagoar aut soxotonodt + foocea oth etoginasb en ae
; showrk tis et tuuoo dhwo
GMATTTA
emomos 4% «nelnscd bas ast. + qavilina
39449
BERTHA SCHACTEL,
Respondent,
Petition’ for igét
VS, :
from Superior Court
CHICAGO DRUG CORNER,
@ Corporation,
Petitioner,
or
Cook County.
2901.4. 610
MR, JUSTICE FRIEND DELIVERED THE OPINIGH GY THE COURT,
On Mareh 1, 1937, Chicago Drug Corner, defendant below
and petitioner herein, had leave to appeal from an order of the
superior court, entered January 299, 1937, granting Bertha Schactel,
plaintiff, a new trial. No brief has been filed by plaintiff,
Plaintiff brought an action for personal injuries, and trial
was had by jury. On the second day et the trial, the court, after
denying plaintiff a continuance, directed a verdict for defendant
at the close of plaintiff's case, and judgment was entered accord-
ingly.
The sole question presented for determination is whether,
on January 29, 1937, the trial court still had jurisdiction to enter
an order setting aside the judgment and granting plaintiif a new
trial,
fhe judgment in the case was entered on Decenber 21, 1936.
On January 12, 1937, twenty-one days later, plaintiff made an oral
motion to vacate the order, This motion was entered and continued
to January 15, 1937, and was subsequently abandoned. Thereafter,
on January 21, 1957, pleintiff served defendant's counsel with an
"amended notice" that she would on the following day appear and
move the trial court as follows;
(1) To set aside the ordes a: -recting a verdict oi not guilty;
(2) To set aside the verdict;
(3) o set aside the judgment on the verdict;
(4) To set aside the order denying plaintiff a continuance;
and
SS
Ff rotsortized
‘P08 “reLss que mot't
EG
yaad wood
ors ALOeS
fs
F.
cea ee
| yar iar
a IN mToanoe anna
- sdnpbaegaah on OR ex
<¥ we eRV 5
+ BALHEQD,, puad. iia
ee Sige
stemottited
.TAUOD rey %0 HOLMTEO aur csv. cusrat sDrreut fh
Tite ca)
jh
og gua test yay
Wolod Smebheoe'teh ,tenes gurl ogsolad ,.VECL of aloes a fesoe SR
_ oat to tebto ae moxt Leegga, od eves bast, ileted Teneht hited ‘bas
tesoasion acited galtasrg eS hOL a BR. wrxasael bewetae atmw02 solne qua
“i «Tiidately yd bolit amog sad teizd oil | habad. won o. Mibtabale
falas bas eoizaiad ianogteg sor. Holtoe ne tiguord_ Yrttn
“sbroooe bereias gaw Femur, bus 880 > et utEadade ae seols oad te
pambre ted cot soibsey a bosoexth +Ponsuntsnoa s YridnteLe
ehierd sees WL
agian ay pap cies
ag bet Boot fia
\" soddoaw at noliantstroteb xo? bo tnosena tdalveesy. ‘elon. ‘ont
cede ot wots>tbaizwt bad Litve Hiv’ tettt ead .veer ea”
wen a Ttisatelq guitaerg bas ert anit ebke
wPBRL (LG tedusoe€ no betedne sew oaeo end mi sonngnety: ont
eben Ridsdale ,tedeL ayeh end-ysaows {VERT YSl ny 0! ;
fleto. me
Tae
fee: See hia
Neha! xe ¢ "eh
tots » FtH09 eat feiat ens to. veh buoose edd 0 . sete. xe bay
CEES)
any
b
eg
x
ae
Hrs
ae Pye aii? 4
meer aide
beuaigaos bas berstas caw soltou aig? .tebio ede etensya he. selgom
Ogtediasredt |
os stiw seagvooe altashaeteh asevree Yiitaialg: ECL ~sSo uta
‘bas teoqds Yeh gabwoliet ead me dinow ofa, ‘tad Mooddensbobuenat
ret thai tou ‘to toibrey 4B gatzgerts tebro ext. obiee hy 4, ee
;totbuey ent ebiea t92 of ES
Comuahert solih gay ) yzabew ad
;toibtev of so toda bet” ‘end ‘bien dea ot ot mo) 00 3 }
seonaumidaos a “‘Yrivate ty gaiyneb ‘snare ont sbies joe ot Ae: bia
my et at
i eet e! ta A
sawollot sa tusoo,.tebet aut ev
dete 4%
Tens Rurze 4 eal
Si
a sie
pee bee
py ve
benobigds yYitooupesdue aaw bag {VbOL as em:
Fiala
matey)
q
A.
ee sf
(5) fo glace the cause back on the trial calendsr and set
the cause for trial.
This notice was filed January 22, 1937, ana on January 29, 1937,
which vas thirty-nine @ayse aiter the mitry of the judgient, the
trial court, treating the notice as a motion, entered an order
granting a new trial and set the cause for hearing on March 1,
1937. It is frow this order that defendant appeals,
Section 68 (1) of the Civil Practice Act, (ehap. 110, Ill.
State Bar State., 1935) provides:
* *# * *# If either party may wish to move for a new trial
or in arrest of judgment or for a judgment notwithstanding the
verdict, he shall, before final judgaent be entered, or within
ten (1) days thereafter, or within such time as the court may
allow on motion wade within ten (10) days, by himself, or eounsel,
file the points in writing particularly specifying the grounda of
such motion, * * *,"
The circuit and superior courts adopted the language of the fere-
going statute and incorporated it in their Rule 52 (i).
Plaintiff's amended notice was in fact a wotien for a new
trial, and the order of the court indicates that a new trial was
granted, Neulander v, Rothschild, 67 Ill. App. 285, is a case
precisely in point, After judgment had been entered against him
the defendant in that case filed a motion to set aside the judgment
and to restore the cause to the calendar for a new triel, The
court overruled the motion, On the following day defendant filed
a@ written notice for a new trial, which the court ordered stricken
from the files, and refused to allow the same to be argued, On ap
peal it was held that the second motion Yad properly been stricken
because, as the court said, (p. 290):
“Appellant's motion to set aside the judgment and restore
the cause to the calendar for trial was overruled; this motion was
equivalent to a motion for @ new trial, The court having overruled
this motion properly struck from the files another motion, the sub-
ject matter of which it had previously passed upon,"
It appears from the record that the motion upon which the court's
order was predicated was mot made until January 22, 1937, which
, Metotate bozohz0 d1w09 ois so batw teat wea a tot dotton nessi<w a
qs 10 -boxrarta od of eniga ealt wolts od heastex ‘baa “\aoLtt edt “mot
belurzevo gutved diuoo ef ,ialai wen & % ;
wdus edd tod Tous gecd¢omse aelit odf mort dourde yt pa Bhoewem tavtupe .
tes hae ishaelso {mits end ne decd saves edt goal. ‘ot ‘a )
“f6ivd udt sexeo odd
ECL , GE yretinad ao baw ,VEOL .S& yYreunet be Lit 38¥ cotton roto
edt ,tasmyhut ess to yrias edt tet ts aves oaknnyt abit ‘sam ‘debi
rebto as beretme ,Aotiom s as ostion aris gabteott eitwoo Laixd
as sipteld x9 phixesd 10% sesso odt tea bus leitt wen « gatiasts
salesgqs tasbne'teb Tady tebto ein? meee al a1 WEOL
ft 018 -aetie tod eotionx® Livid ent to (£) 6d motsee®.
pS" “veebbrond Weber rateterred otas8
isint wen s tot ovo of Malw Yoni (iteq wondio TE. PB MMs 00, tren
ATs We ce Beieeio ba timmghit, ‘Laat Toro'ted «Lata a fo sale
’ of i.)
yes Juwos oft as emis sigma aldviw to ,tetteotseds eyasb 293
.foenuoo to ,tisanid yd ,eyen (OL) aod edie tumeaonahererens
lui e abuno ty eat anigiioege yfueluoltieg gate ou. ae ataleg ot 8
* to jstottom diowe
canet ous ‘to eyaugaat edd betqobs @sitido toOlvequa baa phvdats est
(4) 88 elwh shod at of Bo¢erd¢reokt ‘bad Sootetegadey
wx & “ar moet ou e test al eaw golden hebosms’ at Yekgateld ol de
aBw tetas won g ted¢ aoteothat dtv0o ond ‘to tebto ott bas-\ feketd
sass « at 808 +QGA it To ,Aliveecdter vs
Ps fantesa beretas need bed taocmbut sedta’ .dntoy ak ytewledrq
frome hut ent ebtes soe of ncltom @ bolt? caso SaMe hd Func th Gao
obetnetg
ont . teins Wen %o% tabas Lao ond of seueo oft stotaer or bas
bet? tnebas teh we galwo stor oui ‘26 “esokt ox si be'titcxeve tuoo , j
nsie inte seed eixeqora bai nolvom bucoos ‘ont ‘badd bied ‘saw BE tseq
+(088 la) Bkwe ‘duno sit Ga baskded
exosacx hen peti, 2 odd ebies dee oF gotten St Shea, ws
asw aoltom ekdi ;boiutievoe asw * 3
it alten. o.35 di
",foqn desea, yiewoivesg bad ok fotaw 3 to poteus toot
a'gawoo esd fotsiw moqs molto edt taut, bapeex. pap, mop3 severe siete
“gotdw ,SE@L \88 yxownel Litew sbewr fom aaw hodaolbety saw tebrt
Eek
age
was thirty-two days after the entry of the judgment. At thet time
the trial court had lost jurisdiction of the case, Terms of court
were abolished by the Civil Practice Act, and a peried of thirty
days after rendition of the jucgment was substituted for the term
of court as the period during which the court retained jurisdiction,
It was the settled rule under the former practice that a
court could not vacate or set aside its judgment after the term at
which it was rendered, (Hamilton Glass Co. v, Borin fg, Co., 248
Ill. App. 301). Accordingly, the trial court lacked jurisdiction
to enter an order granting a nev trial, oreiticated on a motion made
more than thirty days after the judgment was rendered, he judge
ment of the circuit court is therefore reversed,
REVERSED,
Sullivan, Ps J,, and Seanlan, J., coneur,
Y Aakkat bi Bie Pee, Aide i
| dite “Faia TA eowmgat, eet Yo putas add godta ayeb i rtlak .—
trvgo to eure% Hse odd to wottothe tent, dros bast sxnoo tats salt
Wéxids Ip belwg « day 0A soltoant, ttvdo onit wt periet (ose iy 2
mead of} sot PMMA OSE: asw tows ra
a tasks ane cae ahh pebau ore, setiaiie oud, at weet
ta med edi softs tascabst, abt. ebben, ten: x9 efoney: tom hiuoo Fume |
Bas , 90 | | .
mos tebejzit.b hedval axngp saber wag slonbbannek: «(08 stah
pore ae a eaneiens net te S astesie Bo 1sh, Ty saeaee *
i oF yee
Wiebe me Wy
vad wpe i
Aiea ml eerbor. §
iso ht a ’
ation ge éx6 3
‘ CRRA Kitinaes Se BORDA QELS “eh dg goes cae, ae si
ne = bind sua rm 4
a fp
hye)
ae a
Hohe ey mid a eke a ny o
Gan & Tas. Tales, ee F
aev cabed woe o font aneamiese Pais Oe "sa lyse ont ‘bie tx
‘ ag
ease ook 008 aah 11 i naib
(of Gees Puee sm w haa Ts CaF ta “rede -
f BD)
Ri Shine Foa oy Wa PSOE ee WEES Cea A
Pe iy wei a Oe gain Ley RR Be
Ria ES Baie Bay yf ee A fee mies ge ih me
€ sh sie . Wh sas Dh ae be
bo soi re eG , } Py i $1 « pe he # ELK | ae
i *
; ae A sek
vii owe ’ Bas PG A ae
a
Fr 1. F s . } Ene by ameeaag ee i y a
PWD a Rog dey eed Wee w WK és Rot eee Fe oy Na une ty 8 Es ed sass
Bt ia 7
Ute i) stile
yeLg Sh iee
cro am leind: “at yas
ne oh EES ROS RK se aa
to LE! RE! ee en a
AGE GAY» WO ER or
ORT POS SRT SOR ie
‘
race, 7 eee wis ely Cee
as Re Day Fy Ath
. Lo <
= sags wh
38731 % ;
CHARLES Re HOLDEN, Trustee,
Plaintiif»
Ve
NORTHERN HOTEL COMPANY et alley
Defendants
CHICAGO TITLE AND THUST COMPANY
and ROBERT L. LAUGHLIN, Adminis-
trators with the Will Annexed of
the pstate of HENRY D. LAUGHLIN,
deceased, (Petitioners)
~Appsl lees,
APPEAL FROM SUPSEH OR
COURT, COOK COUNTY.
2901.A. 61]
Ve
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO,
as Trustee Vader Its Trust Noe
17797, (Respondent)
Appellante
ee ee ee ee ee
MR. JUSTICE SCANLAN DELIVERS) THE OFINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal by The First fational Bank of Chicage,
as Trustee Under Its Trust Wo. 17797 (hereinafter called appellant),
from a supplemental decree directing the payment to Chicago Title
and Trust Company and Rebext Le Laughlin, administrators with the
will annexed of the estate of Henry Db. Leughlin, deceased (herein=
after called appeiiees), of the remaining one-half of a11 funds
ailocable to 800 certain shares of cepital stock of the Werthern
Hotel Company in the liquidation of that eompanye
After an examination cf the record in this cease we feel
impelled te quote, at the outset of this opinion, a statement
first made by our Supreme court meny years ago?
“There must be an end of litigation somewhere, and there
would be none if parties were at liberty, after a case had received
the final determination of the court of lest resort, to litigate
the same matter anew, and bring it again and again before the
court for its decision. Washington Rridge ve Stewart, 3 Howard,
ont wee ane ee
qoodaurT .«MUIOR .% SHARD
Si eittivnis PR OPS LOSES GR
a ee
eele to YWASNOD Wrron Toney
obs as bas tod
- a
ie Le i a ‘ pte Alte an ey)
TRatitos feuKr Can’ tare hire
no Buua we caro, _" | ave stad Nee ape Ad ee
. eYTWOD, WOOD «THIOD dy cy ine ee ia) cht te
aE eh be i Chaat Se a ke ea EY
rlo A-TOeS, © nates pring
tnobmpgnail err
nowy = 7 ft)
THVOD BAT HO esaervinel GHY niagara preacy COLTEUT ce
Pe CE. MOELLER
eogenid® to ane Leno titel i eects ant yd pce as af eit
w(smuelLoqas belies tod tantoxed) VevTL soll gaus? ev robaU oeseueT as
eft? ogsoldd of tnamraq oft guigoothS eereeb Latnomeiqqua a mort
edt ditw exotaxteatnimbs ,aifdguad «2 duedai bas ymeqsod Presa baa
«nioted) beaseach euiidgneal .@ yunell to efsdee edd to bexeans Il iw
abaut {[fL6 to ILasd-ono pataheme edt to «(aesiieqgs beflao notte
modd¢col oft to Xeoge Intiqan to esveria aisdseo O08 of oLdacotia
ayonqms gett Te ne itebivo it ans mr \eagmo D Logon
Leet ow oven visit mt boost ott to noktculmsxe us todtA he ’
jnempstata s yuotnico etds to feoatwo sot ts .petoup of silt
foms arsey Yas sxvoo smoTgua io yd ebam feb
stedd boa .erenvemma solvagttif£ to bae us od dann ered”
bovisoet bed oaso a totts .ysvredif£ ¢s srew agtixsq tt meen M8 af
etagiti£ ot etxoset teal to davoo elt ‘to moitsnimioteb Lent
eit ototed uisas bas alages tl yatad bos «wens tessom ‘:
ebtawoll € etxaweda wv epbtth motynidesl »motatonh eff tot cans a j
4
7
i ry)
i
} i
in ,
ae a Bie
“2e@
4133 Booth ve Commonwealth, 7 Mietes, 2660" (koilowoush ve
MeConnel, 12 Tlle 202, 503.4
On December 22, 1926, Henry D. Laughlin filed » bill against
Alexander Irwin, seeking to have confirmed in him (Laughlin) the
title to 890 shares of stock of the Northern Hotel Company, and
praying for en accounting,etee On February 75 19275) Ie ghlin filed
@ supplementsel1 bill making Northern Hotel Company and Charles Re
Holden et ale additional parties defendante Laughlin and Irwin
died a number of years ago, but the suit wes carried on by their
legal representatives. A statement of the litigation will be found
in two opinions of this court, Laughlin ve Irwin, 262 Ille Appe 40,5
end Chicsso Title and Trust Company and Robert Laughlin, sdminis-_
trators, ve John Irwin and First Union Trust and Sawings Bank»
Executors, 270 Ills Appe 540¢ As the Supreme court denied a
certiorari in each case it seemed as though the litigation was at
em ende Appellants, however, sceksby this appeal to relitigate a
question that has been twice decidede
In the instant case Charles R. Holdeny trustee and agent of
the stockholders of the Northern Hotel Company, filed a bill asking
for directions of the court in reference to the distribution of
eertain funds in his hands, derived from the sale of the capital
stock of that company. Appellant, as executor of the estate of
Alexander Irwin, deccased, the appellees, and other stockholders
were made parties, and answera were filed to the bill. After the
master to whom the ecsuse had been referred filed a report, a decree
Was entered, on November 26, 1955, that determined the rights of
all of the stockholders, save “the sald controversy between the
legal representatives of said Henry 5. Laughiin Estate and the
legal representatives of said Alexander Irwin Estate as to the
one-half of the distributions or dividends to be paid on said 800
HS me
av cdaudwoliok) ".d88 esotell t $A Reems oY, o¥ Stook géLe
Ss « Leno SoM
taniess {itd a beLit atidgual .@ qvimeH «OSOL eSS tedmened nO
wr eee
edd (aifelered) mid mi hemrttaeo ever of antiteea .ntwrl cohmaxe lA
Ota eyneqmod LesoH mxomtrou offs to atenin -~ servade DOB oF eLiks
belkt mifntg uel ,VSer 4 yravtdeT ad abecanhemenens a «ot gniye2g
18 salsa) bas yneqmed LetoH areds t0X gibson LLi¢ Letmomotequre 4
niwrt fae mifdaveal «tushbneted weljrag’ fenoldtbba sfe +e mobLon
atest yi no detrxss asw tive ef? dud .oR9 Bxg0y, to Jan A bet
bewot of LfLiw moitegisi£ ext Yo insmetads AC soy Hind avuoraet re Layo
gOH .aqs + LLT aes anival « ov sb teigus.t rae, ests * B seyitat =e
re fy
te e@aw motiagisi£ ass advaas as bemees +2. puagctsae 3
1) & otegiiifon of Loeqqa aitt yd wlooe ytevowod »qtuslleggs.
abebload cole? need satt add + not taoup
Yo tage Sts eodewed “aso zon of selisdt) eno trodant ead ar
ae 5
ih iA thy
- gubieg Load SoLEt eymsamen fesor axonttco, ‘oil Y0 erobfodloose sid
to. Mottadiria ib anit 8 sonora tot at pasty por eye as tot
fat iqss axl t +6 eine outs pet bevizeb ‘cobnadt iid ah aboot bad aeo
te stetse est 0 103 uooxs as «tua SLoagh + yoga tant? to ier
etehforxoods ‘reslto han ane come ont “shoscooat an ai pte
orig wedts Lf id orld 0 bextt ortew erewene =) eohvems shat |
eee & ,ttoqox & hott bers tor mood bak eemae ast mtv of nedeam
to. agity Ee, anit bemursed ob bimed e0cOL 88 eduovert 0 sbessene © saw
bad 3 Bes Su
edt noowtod yareyort noo bise edi” syse «supb Lodstoots eat Rote
ed bus ot etal he pH ft Fuek bias to. R, SONid ee age sah
Fe
008 bide’ no Ha od 3%, bse 2 omotattven pee
*
=
4
Sue
shares" of the capital steck of the Northern Hotel Company, which
the court reserved for *a separnte coordinating decree,® to be
entered in the causee (nm December 3, 1935, a “supplemental decree"
was entered, which decreed:
"It appearing to the Court that on November 26, 1935, a
decree was entered in the above entitled cause, disposing ef all
questions with reference to the payment and distribution by the
complainant, Charles R. Holden, trustee, of moneys remaining in
his hands derived from the sale of the property and assets of
The Northern Hotel Company, but reserving for the further consid-
eration of this Court the matter of exceptions filed herein by
the First National Bank of Chicago, as trustee under its Trust
No. 17797, successor to the rights and interests of the egtate
of Alexander Irwin, deceased, to the findings and report of Wirt
BE. Humphrey, one of the Mesters in Chancery of this Court, te
whom this cause wae heretofore referred te take testimony and
report his conclusions thereon, relating to the controversy
referred to in said deeree, which arose between said Alexander
irwin and Henry D. Laughlin during their lifetimes, with refer-
ence to 800 shares of the stock of said The Northern Hote]
Company standing in the name of Alexander irwing
"And the portion of this cause so reserved for the further
consideration of this Court coming now om to be heard upon the
intervening petition filed in the above entitled cause by Chicago
Title and Trust Company and Hobert T. Laughlin, as administrators
$8 nears nen with the will annexed of the estate of Henry D.
My Gecensed, and on the ssid report and findings of said
Wirt S. Humphrey, Master in Chancery, as aforesaid, and upon the
exceptions filed to said Master's report by the defendant the
First Notional Bank of Chicago, as Trustee under its Trust Noe 177973
"And the Court having examined said findings and report of
seid Master relative to said 890 shares in controversy, and having
heard the arguments of counsel for the respective parties, and being
fully advised in the premises, on consideration thereef Doth Pind,
end it is accordingly Ordered and Deereeds
"1. That the findings of fact and cmclusions of the Master
wlth reference to said controversy as shown in parsgraphs numbered
134 to 158 of said Master's report, fe and the same are hereby con-
firmed and approvede
"2. That said 800 shares of the capitel stock of The Nor-
thern Hotel Company are the eh re of the estate of Henry D.
Laughlin, deceased, and that said estate of Henry D. Laughiin has
full ownership thereof, free and clear of all claims on the part
ef the legal representatives of Alexander Irwin, deceased, and the
legal representatives or assignees of said estate of Alexander
Irwin, deceased, and the said estate of Henry Db. Laughlin, deceased,
is entitled to receive, since Auguat 12) 1926, all dividends on
said stock, and was entitled to be paid all moneys distributed upon
said shares of stock since August 12, 1926, and is entitled to re-
eeive all benefits flowing to the owner of said shares of stoaks
and is the legal and equitable owner ef seid shares of stock, and
igs entitled to all distributions to be made on said 800 shares out
of the moneys remaining in the hands of said Charles Re Holder,
'
ae oma
a ar ae a tienes”
i ae —-
Hohiw gyno Isto mralecod ont to sents. seicidhaneed ong Meotciate
a
| od at ".eotosh amtscitthso00 of suagoa a r0% bovseae $u09 “oft.
neez90b Aatmoam Laque* a BE CL eé ‘xodmoood m senuso CY ai a
eas i 9 ERIE
a thosresb Aoddw doxagae. oar
er g cote me “ho ‘sued ett O27. metre toe Ce oo ical
2% er ,enuny boLs. i evads prt iersthe’ ee
ett yd selsudiatelh brs tne Teed +A ppertpier Lat, 8
Bt garkitiantet
to _ soda nt t atte
% eter e bra tes ont to eye odd. pte oh hevisob recoil ol i
-hismo vontiast ede tol gatvisee t dud yynegatiod Lesol
ut miexend beLki anolisqeoxe to roitam edd suwod a. we ert tte
TL.
ger? ath tebe vedawtd a6 yoQrcolhd To waned Lend IY:
esadeo old Yo atzoreint bus eddaias edt of wihoron nny gio ‘, "te
ogee ‘te Inoges bne egubbalt efit 0F (boaneool’ (abrel te
od «ftw0d als? to aes ‘ae aan nil aredacM ont Lo ono .¥% 0" ,
eiwveuss aa ‘ene se ee siyy: ox aioored? enoies{ones ald os aa q9
aaxets Dea swowded va goorook bhee mt fxs
Bp Pine Ned whe ERS hee
_ Seton, x0 a a
ee gabe 1 robsaxe Li ‘te oman ort why ope
aoddist oni} 10% bevroaer oa eauao abet Yo pi Pn ott
Patt th ree eae siw0d aidt 19 mo ltesebtas
Oasoldd yd cates bells idne ge at eect mois ttog get ine
Ringe eet atiildgual «Tf dtedok é ;
@ Utuell ou to. otabue odt ‘Te fifiw ¢
bisa 0 agatbait bia dxoqey bigs. pe yd oe 2 anoped:
od} seqs baa «bissexrote as ,yteomedd at By yoy me
ok
oat tnchus ted ott ox, a! sed
prover: sO Faut? est Fg mi gg “ Ree wash ano hte
Sods ots
40 dxeget bts ewmtbitt b tee hotbed ghtvad #x0b edd Ft
atived bie «yetevotinmoo nt sereda O° ey of. s ertanto nae
atiied bak ,aelsteg eri bestes ‘end 102 12
cr Atst deorgdt mit apeh tees gious nbs rick as
~wtesit ett? veoerat a Baek 683° L0 ayer kts ats
etedmun angetastaq # oe ‘a SS eve 0 Ap "
“nos Ydetol e146 seme
Pek <2
iar ie
pone
“tol ent to Loose kbtiey outs 0 notada 008 nie ‘taste “a si
«G Yuta te edetdd ode to ¥F i a ete Sian auat
ead miidavet «@ yuneH to omnes Hise tas arta « boweeoo
seq ef) om anteie ifs to tadle baa 26k | ‘¢ a
ean? Dita ,beasepeh ymiwtl tebasxelaA Ye svidadmeagunee teat odd to
wbiterels 10 otatne Aiea lo Bepiy hear 10 seviiasaseotges |
4 bounsonb ces ya -@ yuna to efsdas bisa of? bas .boasooed gee
Oe hole tt ae
ig. abmobhiv wae 63 whL sawyer somte ~ovieost
stony beater cit een eee la bia ote od of beltivns saw bas tioode hiss
wot od boli line a aoe ,3Ih@L aSh degua oomte ote to wetada”
tooda to aotetla Skee to rene std o¢ gaiwolt atfiened ils
bits loess to gecopie | ; ute.
uo eGieade 008 bise no rr ed 0 toby ymagen oe te bea boliline ak
e1sbLoH » aetred) biee to shamed elt at gointamet eyonom odd to
ofa
Trustee, subject, however, to the liens for ettorneyst fees of
Sims, Godman & Stransky and Deming, Jarrett & Mulfinger, as set
forth in the decree heretofore filed in the above entitled cause
on November 26, 1935+¢
“and it appearing to the Court that said complainant,
Cherles R. Holden, Trustee, as aforesaid, has heretofore, in
accordance with said decree entered herein on November 26, 1935,
deposited with the Clerk of this Court the sum of $8860, to
await the determination by this Court of said controversy with
reference to seid 809 shares of stock and the dividends, profits
and disbursements to be made on the samy
"It is Therefore Further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed
by the Court that said Clerk, within twenty days from this date
pay over to Chieago Title and Trust Company anc Robert Tf.
Laughlin, administraters de bonis non with the will annexed of
the estate of Henry D. Laughlin, deceased, the said sum of £8800,
less twenty per cent of said sum of $8800 which is due said Sims,
Godman & Stransky for attorneys’ fees as provided in said decree
entered in this cause on November 26, 1935, and fifteen per cent
ef said sum of $880C due to said Deming, Jarrett & Mulfinger for
attorneys! fees, as provided in said decree entered in this cause
on Noyember 26) 1935, and that said Clerk, owt of said sum so
deposited with him, pay to sald Sims, Godman & Stransky said twenty
per cent of said smount and to said Deming, Jarrett & Mulfinger said
fifteen per cent of said amount, as their respective attorneys! fees
heretofore fixed and allowed by this Gourt, as aforesaide
"It Is Further Ordered, Adjudged and Deereed that that pore-
tion of paragraph 15 of the deeree entered herein on November 26,
1935, which providest ‘and that as to said sum of $225 to be charged
against the Estate of Alexander Irwin, deceased, the defendants,
The Chicago Title and Trust Company and Robert T. Laughlin, ss admin-
istrators de bonis non of the will of Henry 3. Laughlin, deceased, are
hereby ordered and required to retain in their hands as such adminis-
trators out of the principal of said estate, the said sum of $225 and
to pay said sum to the Estate of Alexander Irwin, deceased, in the
event that the court by its later deeree shall decide end determine
that said costs should be borne by the Estate of Henry PD. Laughlin,
- deceased, and not by the Ustate of Alexarider Irwin, deceaged.s.t be and
the same is hereby cancelled, annulled and set aside.
"It Is Further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that said Clerk
of this Court shall pay to Chicago Title and Trust Company and Robert
T. Laughlin, administrators de bonis non with the will annexed of
the estate of Henry D. Laughlin, deceased, any and all further divi-
dends, pro rata distributions and disbursements accruing or attaching
te Baid 800 shares of the capital stock of said The Northern Hotel
Company e* 2
It is from this supplemental decree that appellant appealse
Appellant contends that regardless of our decisions in Laughlin
ve Irwin, supre, and Chicago Title & Trust Co. ve Irwin, supra, appellant
is not now bound by the former decree as modified in accordmee with
our decision in Laughlin v. Irwin because appellees, by filing their
petition in the instant proceeding, appealed to a court ef equity te
2
ee
ko a99% 'ayentottea wot ameail eng od «sxovewort yi ee hues ag
$58 aa ytogmllOM & dPertst eyoimed bao ptenerse ante
eayeo beliiine eveds wie mt bell? aro tote cst pee oo ct e107
°BECL 4d sodwevou no
éstenialqeos blae Yael} xvod onf¢ of abrnogqe FF baat Soro rr
ai ,orotoverved saat ghiasetota us poetyautt ,sebLon off nefcasto
eG20L .OR sedmovel am aieted bovetme eerssh biae te br opnabicooos
od ,00886 to mora afd tuwod aldd to wee lo exit Ad tw bad teoqeb
* sha Ber conse ttnoe hioe Yo duved eidé ef pe bianioweteb ‘edt ¢ Lewa
ad Pong got an ods One Hoots to eevee COS bles of someteater
: hater ons me ahaes od oF. mgr samePoeen Hirm: 4
baoreet baa bogbarhba sbowab 10 aotignu't sto teed? Bt $2 Bel
edu aisid mort eyed yonowd midt lw ,atekS bhea fads gu0d: pores
; . T duedor bewa ae Sniret se
alt lf onselid of teva you
SS ee
ise rtegeliivl 2 dsomet «pitieol bles ot. dae dearom bier to
noot tayentosds avyivoogaet tlodt ao .tuwome blee te tneo
ysomw dt ise Ylenande 1 ata’ Ss
cel Lannea: Ay Sure mi bean me an Yotored
ort mk a beamocah ymbwrt to wedel ons od mue f)
anintred ob bas ebipoh fede sexooh codnk atl yd dxweg ond dedd depo
‘eithictgund 4 yxnoll to stated etd yd onend od blwede adaon baw f:
bas of ‘sboeeosoh ymivrl rebhexelA te eg¢etall add yd ton has «hea
sobtas sec brn Sellsuos ,solfleonne yderod al omas baad
Wser> bisa vets hootoe brew ea ehotebe® vetldceT el 2"
trevof bre yrmqnod taut? See oLdtT neat Liaste .
to bexornsa [fiw end 3 br pop abon b oredrass indnbo.enbdsgaed
«hyip terdust Ife bos ys «baassgok with, fqual »& yunsk to states. poi
guidostts 19 yaturoos atnematydalh bus mas htad bce ath abat org —
“LotoR’ srcosty coR eutt bisa te mouee gy ans Re sotaria OOS bisa
& imal La we
“aceite tasiteqga tants ‘weteuh Kedremssquea ‘aks ot }
ey ok ote Ve
span ates aoe
i: iy EPR hat peri
dns ifeqcs egagwe yabwxt 1 490 dunt 8 9648 panto, aun gorge, ae
2.
giv Sommbuocas nt boftLvom ta, soroeh ours ong we awed won, dou at
LT e gh Rate
xtestg eakter yd reset toags sausoed givat + silsiguad ab note De mo
POLY Same we "
ot ysinve To sido # oF béLaogge (gti thdd odin thebens’ ‘att: eee,
aS5e
carry the decree as modified into execution, and therefore the
court “will look into the case to see if it would make the same
deeree a second time." There is no merit in this contention, and
the cases cited in support of it have no application to the instant
recorde Had appellees filed no petition, Charles Re Holdeny who
was a party to the original suit, in which the respective claims of
Laughlin and Irwin to participate in all the dividends and disburse-
ments made or to be made by him on the 800 shares was squarely raised
on the pleadings, contested in the proof, and settled by our mandate
and judgment, also the trial court, would have been bound, in the in-
stant proceeding, to carry out the provision in question in the modi-~
fied decree entered in accordance with our mandate, Our opinion in
Chicago Title & Trust Co. ve Irwin, Supray was filed May 235 1933.6
The Supreme court denied appellants a certiorari in October, 1933.
The petition of appellees in the instant proceeding was not filed
until March 2l,y 1934, and», as appellees state, it was entirely un-
necessary for them to file it, and they did so merely as “the result
of an over-abundance of precaution." The petition called attention to
the modified decree entered in accordanee with the mandate of this
court, «end prayed that the court direct the trustee to pay to appellees
the moneys due them under that deoree.e In the instant proceeding the
supplemental decree Was a compliance with the modified decree.
Appellent assumes that there is obscurity in the opinion of
this court in Laughlin v. Irwin even when it is considered in the
light of our opinion upon the second appeal (Chicago Title & Trust Coe
v. Irwin), and claims that we decided, in the first opinion, a question
of fact, viz., that Laughlin's owership of the 800 shares of stock in
controversy was subject to a valid and enforceable og reement for an
equal distribution between Laughlin and Irwin of the profits in excess
of £175 per share, and that therefore the deeree in the instant case
‘
ee a |
tots aexp 2 eno tntgo tert? ocd nh chebioob ow dest catts0 bas ‘s(abwat »¥
a
edd eethominge bats vie hioene otmt bettibom es: eetooh oti Vtteo
emss ont oie bitubw Wh WE wee’ oa @seo oft otnt ‘Hoot frp" Pete9
bru ane bined mee aids mi dkuom on al ot0ed?T "sami prenee 8 enteeh
dust ass ond ed aotisatfugs on ovetl $4 to! ‘Pyoqqua. nt’ beste’ seee9 ous
antes enobtolt oH, eo fred rnold tieg | Om bonat evertogas | box breoes
to amisfo evisseqaex ott Ho telw ni a io
~eerudalb bus shaeblyio ed ils mi stogiotirag of ahwak Saeed an
beats: YLletaups saw seteda 008. gait m0 oid, Sa oben ac of. 70 eam esnom
etsbriam iro. ed beftioa bas. ‘loo tg only ‘at deteosme eepntboela vests oto
wk 6tt mt » haved coed owed: bLsow eius09. fatad ont ote. «taomburt oe
~tbom eas amt, nolimeup a soieiveng ond uo. ermEe ot “eamnesoes] taste rand
sik no Enboo 00 vetabans “eas tei vomebto 08d at betesnie soroeb vent
s8E0L 428 YAM boltt asm: srcqae caubwed +¥ ved deirer 4 onetr: o.8e :
.820L ,redose? af txexoksteo a ib iattedea pelneh— drye9 |
~ bette tom eaw gutbosoorg foatent ety ok nooliogas 20 £10 ” je
ann qLstiime ear si .otedd aesliegss as qhne «b8@L ofS force
Fiies: ets” ae yLexcat on bib yodt baa .dh oft? od. most rod uasnsooe
af noisnesia beilsa RO Lt Lteq ‘ont | Nenptiueoorg to sonwbaiie~tove na 0
sigs ‘to ‘etabsasm edt ois by senshx00cn at bows. ‘soto9b bestthom ast
nf Ee
sealleqys oF yea os ‘satauad ond. doortb ‘}tu080. ‘ould badd: boven. aa vues
edg anibssserq dasvank odd mt ” seers dolls ro bras mers oud exoctou oni
»eere0d heLliibos. ong sfdw eonstignoe s aan soxosb Sotsom gene =
“Yo nO Lokgo add mt ba hg ak ered? sent eomrses, nek telaa, Ag
and mi hoteblenme ak it node gave twat v aifetgued vadik Jaki teat
#93 sorst & fo iT -omagtey) feeqre HuODe B ane san om he wee x0 i 4 t
Sega Sof say Wa, oes
at 20698 Yo eetada 008 axis to qhiexomwe a abLuigwe taste sony teat 2%
Cr) ae EER BS a Aw WEL ow
ats “oT $nomoo x oldncoietne ‘ba Bibov | a 09 ‘to0jdure aw " yemvortnoo,
BRSOKO at at ttorg ord bia ntwel reed nL Utgued nooud od me bin ok
Ay ae tas Ags ch be aed
ease sustent ox n sorbed eaty oxoteredt tatté bas »etacle tog ave n
CMs Dubie ym ne Ce ta Bey OB eee Fh eet aed MOET 1S fi
-6«
should be reversed and the cause remended with directions to
enter a decree ordering the payment to appellant of all sums which
have been deposited with the clerk of the court (representing one~
half of the proceeds in excess of $175 per share upon the 800 shares
in controversy)« By a reference to the brief and argument of appel-
lant filed in this court upon the second appeal, we find that the
same contention was there raised by appellant. In La in ve Irwin
we did not disturb the parts of the original decree of the Circuit
court in reference to the ownership of the 800 shares of stock and
the right in the Laughlin estate to the dividends and distribution
thereof. (See Chicago Title & Trust Coe ve. Irwiny supra.) After
our opinion was filed in Laughlin v. Irwin, John Irwin and First
Union Trust and Savings Bank, executors of the last will and testa-
ment of Alexander Irwin, deceased, did not file a petition for re-
hearing. They accepted the benefits of the reduction we ordered in
the judgment against them, amounting to more than $30,000, ami they
resisted the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by the repre-
sentatives of the Laughlin estate in the Supreme court. Appellant
stands in the shoes of said executors. After the mandate of this
court was filed in the Cireult court, that court merely modified the
original deeree to accord with our mandatee The material parts of
the deerce are as follows
"It is Futher Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed as follows: * * *
"3. That the said 800 shares of the capital stock of the
Northern Hotel Company are the property of the complainant Henry 2D.
Laughlin, and seid complainant Henry D. Laughlin has full ownership
thereof, free and clear of all claims on the part of said Alexander
Irwin or his legel representatives; that the new certificates of —
stock Fie yg 4 upon the original 800 shares of stock owned by ie
complainant, which new certificates were issued in the name of com
plainant Laughlin, should be transferred on the books of the Northern
Hotel. Company and on the register of the transfer agent and delivered
te the complainant Laughlin, and said complainant Henry De. Laughlin
is entitled to receive since the 12th day o Auguste 19265 all
@ivyidends on said stock, and is entitied to be paid all moneys dis-_
tributed upon said shares of stock since said August 12, 1926, and is
entitled to receive all benefits flowing to the ower of said shares
Om
0? ano ivootlkh site bobmames onmso ox} bus boarevox od. binode.
tiobiw nave Lis te taslloqqa oF tuemyeq edd gatzehtosetosb 5 Tey no,
“sho pititmerorget) dxyod est Yo AaeLs oid My iw, bet tecqgeb mood. evan.
aetaifa O08 aff moqy oxerta tog EYEE to anvex mi ebesoorg) ot to. tet
~Logqa ‘to dnemmytA bko Wire etd of eomeretot oe 4h is (gereve td amo: mk,
~ eat} fait batt ow «Lreygs bmoose oft toqir dawoo aiid mt bets? deme
_aiwtl ov gifigual ef stasllegts yw beaker overt? caw otsness00 omaa
thao ko eft to vetoes Lankaito ad} to niteq et? Cuvfelh son: bib ow
bus doote Yo aetaila 008 ont ‘to qitaxronmvo ond of oomerotet mt pues
“go ijucizteth baa abmebivhs odd oF S¥sita wt ntiired “end siP vate, one
““nodt, (qauqua aaberl .v .90 dadt 4ecd br ogdonto eee) Ptodindy
“deri bas miwel oft gavel .v aitdhwiit Ht Bett? dew ao kmbge “ane
~atust bas Liiw dant odd to Stosdoexe «tiek apabved bad “Palle? no Lav
cox tot Holiveg s of dom bib hoassseb (mivel tobmexefA to them
ak haxebto ow sotfoube * end to ed themed oad bedgeves You? -. eganiraedl
youd fe ,OOO,08R mad oto of gmivraome ymsds' tated opin sirioneg Sash ute
“wetqet elt yt bork? ixavotites to d Pov o tot mOLFiteq ede betakeor
ins Lleagh stwoo eetgtrd ‘add at Se CT a a ee
: att? to sfebasm of <odth varoddooks bina Ye dbeita’ olf} WE Whale
" gald bottthom Lorem Juve datld dude Pkvottd eit mk bOtkY Baw Fao
boteyifod baa ed teas se obe Toda lnon sit mo bats
to adveq Labrodant ont odebnem wo ite Broons oF sotedb Lbitty bo
sitesi " dawoltot as ata ebtbon' si
** % tawolto? as beotes bas boghaeba choveb7O wéteut ek SO"
afi 3 sei te doxsra 008 Bist oft dany eH 8
4 Yrs it oD Ys tH8g © ora :
gitewerwe {fet aad ab ittgy er of wre al Seta ts aia Adio bis B aa ;
Repnane Li hiaa te susg ot
@ eedsoltiiteo von ag np
ead yd beswo Moosa % ppl 208
“mo to omakx oft ai -
iiedizell eds to astood ont no Poel aise paiede vibidy uel 3m
7 ‘f6teR
reper are pe ena ould ned
di bus aSet (s wh bhed oomta asode to Wonasia bisa a hav ue
eetate bisa to tenwo edt oF gutwolt aifiensd ifs sy. oot oa belsi ine
-J=
of stock, and is the legal and equitable owner of said shares
as es
of stock. (Italics ours.
xe + &
"7, That on the 10th day of August, 1926, when the
defendant Charles R. Holden, the agent for the stockholders
of the Northern Hotel Company, paid to the defendant Alexander
Irwin a total of $140,000.00, representing the partial distribu-
tion of the portion of the purchase price of said Northern Hotel
Company to which said 800 shares were then entitled, the said
principal sum of 780,000.90, representing the aggregate smount
of the loans for which said stock was pledged, was voluntarily
paidg that the interest on said sum of %89,000.00 was voluntarily
paid by the dividends received by said defendant Alexander Irwin
in his lifetime from the said Northern Hotel Company in lieu of
interest in the aggregate sum of $87,850.00, and that said loans
both as to principal and interest thereon by such payment have
been fully discharged and the complainant ever since said date
became end now is entitled to have returned to him the certificates
of said pledged stock or to receive such other certificates as have
been or may be issued in lieu thereof. (Italics ours.)
We % %
"It is Therefore Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the
complainant, Henry D. Laughlin, have judgment against the First
Union Trust and Savings Bank and John Irwin, eas Executors of the
last will and testament of Alexander Irwin, deceasedy for the sum
of ©10,473.80 without interest.
"It is Further Ordered, Adjudged and Deereed that all
eosts in thie court be and the same are hereby taxed and wsessed
against the complainants."
In the opinion of this court affirming the deeree of the Circuit
court, as modified (Chicago Title & Trust Coe v. Irwin), we held
that the Circuit court in its modification of the decree had carried
out the mandate of this court. We further said (pp. 545-6):
“In Fisher ve Lk 285 Tlle 290) 293, itis saids *# * *
It is the mandate of court of review, and not its opinion, that
governs, when the mandate differs from the opinion or is specific
and plain in its termse!
“and in our opinion there are other good reasons why
counsels second contention is without merit. Assuming, but not
decidings that our former judgment and directions were not adequate
or sufficiently comprehensive, it is to be noticed that defendants
made no attempt, by petition for rehearing or otherwise, to cause
the same to be revised or enlarged. In Ko ve Harvey, 84 I11,
308, 310, it is sagd: ‘'The circuit cour ving, 80 fer as we can
see from this record, obeyed the mandate of this court, its rulings
can not be brought in question again. If appellant suffered any
wrong by the decision of this court lheseenst when thec ase was
before it at a former term, that wrong could be corrected only on
application for a rehearing. Having acquiesced in that decision,
the matters then decided ean not be drawn in question again upon
this, his second appeal,t#
ates Show to xeowo aided ivoe Sma L29
wig
co +
“pits menw pased jal iota" tly tid’ we dae ee
atebLoddoota elt tot tuoge. ed? _~ueblol »f sel: Patan igh
‘TtobeexsLsA vaebrotebh off i} ‘Bise TCH gitIO “+ i Isto” ye ek ont
i audixsa th fsit wg oft paliaseorqget 90.000, OAL 2... Bape
_ fete wiedtsol bison “Ie eo lig saatorvy ‘ett To ae tee’ rh ce il
bise odd .befilewe medt erew eoetede 008 bise bik we ia tat font
_ srusoms et egoregs old yabtnoaoryet | (OO, 000,08% ‘Lomita
‘ywiftetaulov eaw here yn saw Moota Sise dotew rot ide ae Ut
Basen new 000.000.0883 ae bien mo taetetat Sx.
piwtl sebanneLs tnobaeteb ht a YW bevieoet abnebivib ead yd cba
to wolf ai weeare fetok nxedicok bisa add mort omise Tae
) BROT Hiss Fart. eT (00.088, chip Rw B ossnermas red nt seorodat
evar #romyeg eee Saat 2exetnt bun Lecter
is8 9onte Tors ee anit bit
g038D £7 Ese8., eds mid of bonito + DOL es di:
evek Be Bedeolis x06 onde ro i -Sviecbt ot 8 to
(anio aol hed t Tee ts
Leo
OE ¢, Rid “a vg are ba
«ae iat boezo0 ona sbepbutba sboxeb20 vcobs0 oye tr oft Ei esi eaie
to arogvooxl es qniwrl mfol brs Aane® agatyse
mua od? 10% gheaseook eniwxl tobasxe£A to snomssast rar Pity tt ie
sdactodat suede hw bit Ms A sa
Efe dads hoetoakt bine bopbu tba tbexobz0 endian ak $x" me
_ pemasem bine hexsd ywWeoted o18 omee sat, hme ed txuos aids mt axaod ’
"satnantslqmos ond ‘sages
diay Faete” ta eh Re SNe
gLwerky off to wetesb oy ‘guimet ris soo etd %e aolnigo edd at
ie Ray oe Seon
bfed ow | (rivet wv 209 > Your 3 oft it 03.20 19) boltivem 2s abe
pete rk WARS
betrres bal votesb ed¥ to mofscottibom abt at suuoo giwottd edt sants
Me Fae wey Ora oO
i (a-aag s@q}) bist tenituvt of -trbe aids te gre ed 310
on et Lh Bag) By 2)
*# #2 oh be et at esta ,008 sfTT BBS yore
Saks ynoluiqo agt tom bas ywetves to dxu@0 eft:
ehhew 7 af xo soluige edt moxt ateltib »,
ov
&
a
Win enoaset boos paws os ‘ns poi wo at
toa tud egniowseA ost icon sent ar ro Hast 100 HNGHSE
estgupebs ton sxow anoliootib bie t ae a9 tact
ssinbsioted jadt beolion of of al gt
—— SaEO,.O4 4 Chiwiedia t0_ nee
LET DB 4 oe an: jive
igo OW Bs LZSl Of Qh seks)
agatine otietimos aliy “to edabriam *
~ Sum Howe Misa ¢ aXiaga noise
ae eas oot peur ogc tio 9
beto oo ed bLveg: pi nw: fant ry
sues dasit: nt beoae lyp sa: ee = Bet
mbepn.en lt cekr. ak pit ea
-8
We also called attention to the fact thet the executors of the
estate of Alexander Irwin were satisfied, apparently, with the
opinion and the judgment of this court in Taughlin v. irwin, at
the time the opinion was filed. the deeree of the Cireuit court,
as modified by the mandate of this court, in so far as it relates
te the sole question here involved, viaze, the right to the dividends
and moneys distributed on the 300 shares of stosk since August 125
1926, is clear and explicit, and needs no construction. In the
second appeal to this court (Chicago Titles & Trust Co. v. Irwin)
there was presented the question as to whether the judgment and
mandate of this court in the first appeal were obscure and ambiguous
s0 that resort covld be had to the opinion of the court in the first
appeal to determine the meaning of the judgement and mandate, and we
held that our judgment and mandate on the first appeal were clear
and unambisuous, and that the Circuit court in modifying the original
decreé properly followed the directions contained therein.
Appellant urges that the portions of the modified decree
adjudging title and right to the possession of the 800 shares and the
right of Laughlin to receive all dividends and moneys distributed by
Holden on said shares after August 12, 1926, were merely findings of
the court, and not a part of the adjudication clauses. hat we have
already said answers this antention. ie may addy however, in con-
clusion: ‘he decree of the Circuit court as modified ordered,
adjudged and decreed that "said complainant Henry D. Laughlin is
entitled to receive since the 12th day of August, 1926, all dividends
om said stock, and is entitled to be paid all moneys distributed upon
Said shares of stock since said August 12, 1926, end is entitled te
receive 211 benefits flowing to the omer of said shares of stock,
ané is the legal and equiteble ower of said shares of stock." Lt
is idle to argue that there is eny obscurity in reference +0 that
part of the decree as modified. In Chicago Title & Trust Co. vo
e"
okt to wxbtiees s ots $n? dost’ off of no Lined aa hedtes’ oat sell
ot Milw .ysiaeteagqgs »boktatisa sxow miwel tTobmaxeLA 20 osatas
$2 eneke vt av aifntgs at Me otto 5. stad ‘to snommbst edd bas no intqo
<ttves Plarouko ost to ooneod ont — okie: Agi: rotate. ent omy atte
netator tt we oar on tt eSxui00 alts Yo ‘ete bacam ont w be2tibom an
abrobieih aid od tits. ‘ents vate eboviowst oxen a0 '$a0y ofoa ald od
eat. daaguA, sonte toose *te eotnd 008 ond: no botudtzeetd -s¥engat baa
eee ‘at sno tt onratones om heen baa: ‘ei tontgxe ‘an: aoeke. ek s3s@s
abet “6¥: 208 boas seta FG
enougidms bas ote s18W Lebcha’ punt sd! ‘as! pind prey ai bak, sii
terti ed? at suuoo od¢ to motaige ed? et hart ed bivoo tresses gait o@
ow baw < od.sbaxaat bas. tnsmaba, ad te gatanon ot onterrsy 8b ft. teoees
Hinge ewey Exvqee: tert ead mo etebsom, bane. dooms xo fadd !
fantgtze. eat picky ithom at tzs09 tor td ond “Paatf ‘pais , ilo es
re We ha
‘ ,therets bemtatns enolt¢eouth outs aewottos Vitsqona | set
_ Setoeh betithom oats %e anottroq ord deci sey ‘dns LteggA
wit fee, aoxette 008 ents % no teeennog oad ¢ of yr = bus eftit ‘gaily batbs
we begudixaeth eyentoat bass abaobivitb “tie ‘evtoout Pe ni ttgudt to ‘diigtx
te egatbalt \Loxem otew 2801 ast $caraush gotta déxadd bide "Ke AebLon
ered, ow gastu ssoauato ap Lisotbubbs ads 20 $20q 3 doi ‘Bes ‘s#ttiog eats
~ = hob ae eisvewor bbe ease ow sotastaw “ms
wo Bodurtehat® sviénom fo bog og ot bonstane at RIG hha
es botdtine ax mid eset a8L regi base vomtte ase % 2 2ornuia bas
aot Xe dozade bisa to ‘zenwo: verltied ‘gubwolt vag dosed dts, rte,
a
| aT *xoods to abate bias’ 20 remo aided ive bas fegot. 0 1 at be |
yh sats uh hive 4
“gett oF oonsieter at ‘Yitebonde® “ete ab onedte. estt -eupza od. eiht at
une we” Bigs Sey Hy ‘ae “eR “hal i
ov 100 days? & of3iT ogsoidd at sbettibem ‘es setooh aiaaal
+ Sn onaneeneninianneiaeenenmmennianeememammnmaemmenememmaeams x
-9=
Irwin we affirmed the deeree of the Cirewit court es modified, and
the Supreme court denied appellants « sertierari (sce 275 Til. Appe
xiii). As we have heretofore stated, appsllant seeks by thie appaal
to relitigate a question that hes been twice decided.
The judgment of the Superior esurt sf Coox county sheuld be
Sublivan, Pe Jey and Frisndy, Tey concure
«)
e-
bus shotttoon os t:uep thuget? aud 2: ‘HP oRE Ot: a
‘ item
*a04 -L£E. OFS 2) atin: + tebe dade os
forage Site Ye Ras sehen ee
ree.
etaaee these a ih
heed hie bay ne sae = pte ete wnd sree
A ia a sunt K ‘i tite i 9
te tick tis
teaoeng Sees Bb e
RENE OO) NS ERD MAD “NO no tnige ade of heat ae sure
ie ‘tee sot ates: hos seamaiib cad ig, nae sig Mal
sania Ae sb ex etary i a
PM ae Sant if ele te aso Br
shod nidbrn tee ote ne ip ep pa lA amen
39116
CHCBLIA Me GRATH,
Appellee,
) APPIRAL FROM SUPERIOR COURT,
Ve
} COCK COUNTYs
2901.A.611°
MR. JUSTICE SCANLAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
RAYMON]T) DUNNE,
Appellante
Defendant appeaied to the Supreme court from the deeree
entered in the above cause. The Supreme court ordered the cause
transferred to this court (McGrath v. Dunne, 363 Ill. 549). In
its opinion the Supreme court stateds
"This cause is before us on direct appeal from a decree
for partition entered in the superior court of Cook county. The
record shows the complaint alleged the ownership of the premises,
the subject matter of the litigation, in fee simple equally, share
and share alike, by the plaintiff, Cecelia McGrath, and the
defendant, Raymond Dunne, subject to the lien of a trust deed
securing a note for the principal sum of $4,609, beneficially
owned by the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company. These
facts were also stipulated by the parties on the hearing before
the master and were so found in the master's report and in the
decree, There is therefore no question before us for decision
respecting the ownership of the fee to the premises. The only
coentroverted matters relate to an accounting between the owners
as to the rents of the premises received by the plaintiff, the
amounts contributed by each of the owmers toward the payment of
taxes, special assessments, interest, principal payments on the
incumbrance and the allowance of attorney's fees to the plaintiff.
The decree of the trial court in express terms reserved these
issues for future consideration and retained jurisdiction of the
cause for that purposee The defendant, Raymond Dunney also here
attacks the form of deeree in so far as it relates to the trust deed
and the failure of the trial court to find the amount duc thereon.*
We have before us only the briefs filed in the Supreme court.
That court saw fit to dispose of the contention of defendant that
the reservations in the decree are insufficient to protect his rights
in the matter of an accounting between the two owners, the amounts
contributed by each of the owners towards the payment of taxes,
cHTA® of Aram
cook louad
+THUOD ROTAEGVe MOAT TARTIA
2TWMOD B09
4510 ..1.0.0S. 1... te
’ . a
a
«TATOO SHE W WOTMITO ANT CUMNVELST WATHA, of wotradt ani
gexseh ot moxt duw00 ometgua ald oF boLsoqgs tnabae ted '
genes od botebto sis00 oMmotqEe ed? soaneo ovods old mt sexetne
HE .(@82 tI E06 soumel .v MioxOsit) dxwoo eiild of bowte® Rare)
thedete dao9 omer ont no tatge on
9t90b a mort Leeqqs tootkd so ew exoted af cause aidT!
Pn MS tae gh srzOD Pesan ny end ak hecloange ends f 10% ;
e808 imertg qitdatomre elfe tnisiquo awoda
etata.yileups efqmia set ak peers spy eh add to totsam tootdve rey
edd bas «tivewmo aileowd ,tilinialg ade yd eotife. eteie bre
heed gauts = Yo oll ont of Jookdva .onmwd haomyat Eber tien] ie
vlisloitoned .000,<4) te mera Leqionkzg eft tol ston
exe? »_YuegqwoD eonstyanl stil Lavin aooonsH rafot oxft
etoted gutzeed edt mo sulizeg edt yd betalugite osls stew. t aioat
edd ai bas txoget a'rofesm orld at bawot oa erew buns 9d
motatoed rt ay eroted noltaesp om etoteted? eat etedT .eetoeb
vino ed? .asulmetg oft of ot off to giterenwo ont gutsiosqest
exonwo edd seowded puliaweoos us of otalot atotiam besrevotiaoo
ot ,tiituiel¢ oft yd bevieoot sealmetq eft to sinot off OF eB
‘to suesrysq oft brawod atsowe oft to dose yd hedudixi noo Me
ent mo aineayeq Ieqtonttg <tastedal ,.aimemaaecan Me
ettitnislg oft of soot alysarodia To eonawolls oft base aouattiaoat
eaedd bovieset amret eanerqxe at tapoo Let«? odd to ‘ont
efit to moltotbatuut bentader ban meijareblanoo etutst 2ot aoyent
eed cals ont baomys® <tashnsteh aff -»enoqiuq ted? tot
beeh saytt odd of avtafLer ti os tat o8 mt eexgeh te mrot eisaisa
8 enosteds ob dmoms eft batt o¢ dupe Lakxd aft to otmt ont bie
stuuon smetqud eft mh hoLit atekxd eft vino aw steted over oW
dant dnabmeteb to sottnednos oft to oneqeth o¢ ¢it wee duvoo dad?
atela t+ ald tgootorq of tnololYinent srs corse ody mi anbtsavrdees “eas
agnwoma ont peromo owe add moowded gukinuoooe ne to totam edt ab
; ake. ' ee ee hae
,aexst to doenyaq oft abeawos atonwo sft to toss yd botudiag ros a
eae
-2e
ete.e, and the allowance of attorney's fees to plaintiff. Plain-
tiff concedes that these matters were specifically reserved for
future consideration by the trial court, and this concession pre-
eludes her from taking any contrary position in further proceedings.
As to the propriety of reserving for future consideration the matters
in question, see Masters ve Masters, 325 [lle 429; wherein the court
said (pe 437)3
"Fhe decree reserves the adjustment of the equities among
the parties, including a determination of the amount appellant is
entitled to receive for tne rental value of the premises, and the
adjustment of the equities of the parties under the terms of the
contract, for the future determination of the courte We are of
Opinion the deerse properly fixes and determines the rights of the
parties se far as such rights can be determined before a report of
the commissioners making partition, which, apparently, cannot be
done, or until a sale is made under the terms of the decree. It
seems impossible that any right or interest of appellent can be
affected by reserving the matters the decree reserves for future
determination. His interest in the rental value of the premises
is preserved to him, and his title and interest, except what he
sueceeded to on the death of his mother, are unaffected by the
eontract, to which he was not a party. Such a decree is authorized
by the practice in chancery. (Spencer v. Wiley, 149 Ill. 563 Crowe
vy.» Kennedy, 224 ide 526.) No right or interest of appellant is in
danger of being lost to him by virtue of the decree. His interest
is correctly and definitely declared in the property, part ef which
is subject to the contract with Thayer and part of it is not. It
would be diffieult, if not impossible, as we have saidy to adjust
ell the equities before a report of partition or report of sale.
It seems to us clear that the decree is proper, and that it wes
gustitied under the allegations of the supplemental bill and the
facts.
As to the remaining eomtention of defendant that the cecree
Should have found the amount due on the trust deed from Susan Dunne
to Chicago Title & Trust Companys The bill does not allege the
amount due wider the trust deed and the decree for partition merely
finde that the premises are subject to the lien of the trust deed.
The decree appealed from finds thet Cecelia McGrath and Raymond
Dunne are each entitled te an undivided one-half part of the premises,
subject to the lien of the trust deed, and orders the comnicsioners
named in the decree to make partition of the premises if the same cm
be done, and if the premises cannot be divided they are to fairly
and impartially appraise the value of each piece or parcel of the
«of.
~kelt »tiivmtele oF eet atyentetts to oumewel la ent baa r080
xot bevreaod ulisoltivegs Stow webs tie ecod? dade sebsonoo vats
+ Oty no tagonnoe aint bow .disoo Laixt oft yo noliatobiancs oumset
srantioasinn coud cut at moltinog Yietinoo yon guided aus ‘oat pe
exettem edt soliexphbianes ousist tot gitvisest Ip etotzaorg ‘ol od eh
gros ext stovasty 2 96h .£IT age «atesanl *V Biotec see .moltacmsp Ps
(Pee oa) bise |
pinnb aelt tupe oft To ineatauthn ed vevisuet “genpeb ett"
ei tualieggs tnvom ont to notienimteteb s goibyfont ,uot ven
eit bua ~eeaimeng ent to onlay Latme: oi} cot sylovet od peti
ot¢ to amrod oft robs eolttiraq ont to seldiupe edd to Sinaia ae
to ove of stuveo crit to melismimreseb stuiut old tot «toati noo
elt, to aidgix oid somtuzeted.bas goxit Feng a easenh ols notaigo
te droge s stoted mney od ot By wn gdh ix dove oa eg
ed tonuso «Vtineraqgs .toisy .nolels @ e 7
rat aoe onoden tO 2S!
a
oy
#% .oetesh ant Yo antred ald tebrar “
ed cao jmalleqgs te gaetedat re. De ea ng
etude t tot sevisest wetgeh oft aded ed ;
seuinetg aft to ouLavy Latnoy ose at padi mg eon tanterze: =
ed saw. tqeoxo «dastotnt bme sist) elif bie (mbt “os bevreasig et
ost yd botostitsnys ots eterdiom eli to diseb off mo of bebssooua
benitodises af sexosh a Mow? .ydieg s fon wen of Molt of .soatta0o
ae en sEfT GOL syeli ov ) syxepnnilo nt eottosug ont
gant Roe he 3 vorasnk eiek one (eae ab bE aRe be mays sy
daotsint si .ostesh oft to sututy yd mit of tedt guted to Tegan
Hobiw %6 Sis¢ wytteqotg oft at betaloob yleg! tap SY 2 yLdpettoo a!
$l ton ai fi te tusq bag royedt At tw. fs 9 Shey bie
daujbs of «bias eval ow as .Sidieacgm! ton re tlt ike ed Bix
-alaa to thoyes to seldtixnag te fxeqet 2 oxo ted bat tip $ ects, tis
aaw tk Jadt bas «tequtq al, eee adi Jed? tselo ay ot a oa #!
nt bre Lftd Letnomalgqve ect To sida pat: cobau Bot’
eet995 ‘pitt dans tnebsotob Yo moti aed mm sidhaltaetii? ‘ott ° eA ro pp:
earl gaew mort bees fect odd ao oud somome oat bawot oven bLeoite
omy oyeifs Yon ae0h Skid adY sypaqed daaxt ‘S ortit ognoldD of
YLstom, Ott totaq io} ge'rssb edt bie besb sowrd eg tabs ub $atsons
-ybeeb guts off} Yo MeAL asd of tootdiva one eaaimorg odd daslt mfemD
, daomyst bas diamol allece) sand shnkt mort defaeqge eetosh of
eGenluerg odt Io susq tiad-en beblyibar ne of bedsitne dose, ets, enapd
Bxecolegninwos et axebto bas ,bheeb tayst old to moll oat ot tootdua
add
to emtee odd If aoatmetg eft To nol lize eda of setoeb od at iets
yiriet of exe yerlt hobivib sc sonnso Rostpeny ods tL bas. 49H0 od
em to Leotsg xo eoetg dose To enfsv oft selatgqs ylietttaquk hats a
whe
premises and make report to the court. If a decree of sale should
become necessary it should state the amount due under the trust
deed in order that the purchaser may know what obligations are
standing against the land he purchases. (Stevens ve Plummer, 195
Ill. Appe 278, 284.) As plaintiff states: “As the interests in
the property of the owners are equal no harm has beon done to
either by the absence of a specific finding of the exact amount
then due thereon which obviously should have reference to the time
of sale, as interest is accruing and payment of principal install~
ments may be madée The finding of an amount due in the deeree
would, of mecessity, be inaccurate. Whatever the amount due on
the encumbrance it will be shargezble equally to each tenant in
ec omnone*
To use an old saying, “tefendant is crying before he is
hurte"
The deeree of the Superior court of Cook county is
atiirmede
DECREE AFFIRMED.
Sullivans Pe Jos ané Friend, Je, concure
) Apt rea yas Deh eh tains Fa enero AV as
mu, Dee a OCS ee itr hehe Man
7 , , ers 7
4 ft we
17 "x
sinnren alsa to siebnicsregs a rE s fusion ens ot feeqet oles pay! Pentgtreay is
tawad et} reba exh # aor ods tats b.twora $i wrssaenen ‘emooed
i. ‘ete. aso biepitse $ sel west on soaadowg ual tat robx0 ak best
aes es Srna gens 2% eV auoveds ) ' aneatonng ast baat ods sentega gnibaata
ale adeoxetat ad BA” estate Yulemtetg aA (.d88 188, aaa “LEE
oO 3180.9 need sad ota os Loupe ers etenwo ont to ‘Wreqorg ont
oth hime ek
dmuroms bane ost ‘to guthukt artisan £ ss sonseds od aS tert te
omakt oid of gonero les eval bLstoda viawolvds Se ielw nosed out iui
~Lisdastk Enq tontse 20 droge bas githurroon bial tmotoan: ae adnes(
Moa Te 8 :
-eteeh exit uh oud Yawosce na 20-pRtbREY eae vebant od: at sbi
oie LOL gare eee
\
“0° oud snwoss ont owes anit seteusoosstt of evtlaacoen Yo
Net ae
Re AE iy
aE Sunned Hone 08 beupe: senegrate og eae + sooo a
2 UY
“@r nw, aaiyre ak piahaitha pi
a te
s PF
~
a
ea
a tg Bg
t
Ri fine T comet ‘hifieowte
PRS ee eal ay
EF ; eae ie Rea GRRE ai: RD ety Ce i ae: Re: MR) Wey A “arb Urge Aah
4 hs é EN
re
ON Py ei ,
i .
¥
} { 6
%
t sah
z
A238 CL PUA
39240
SYLVIA KOWIECKI, a minor, by
FRANK J. KOWDECKI, her father
and next friend,
)
)
deithenaad APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR COURT,
ig COOK COUNTY. F
MICHALL COE) saat, ) 2 9 0 Gee G if 1
MR. JUSTICE SCANLAN DELIVERED THS OPINIGN OF THE COURT.
An action brought to recover damages for personal injuries
sustained by the minore A jury returned a verdict in favor of
plaintiff for $3875. Defendant's motionsfor a new trial and for
judgment non obstante veredicto were overruled. Judgment was
entered on the verdict and defendant appeals.
Plaintiff's amended complaint slleges, in supstance, that
on August 3, 1931, and for a long time prior thereto defendant was
the owner of, controlled and operated an apartment building Loented
at 2053 West Division street, which property contained divers stores,
apartments and rooms with common passageways, stelrways, landings
and entrances leading into and through said building; that defendant
Was the lessor of said apartments, stores, etces, to divers tenants
and exercised eontroel over said passageways, stairways, landings and
entrances which were then and there used in ¢camon by tenants and
plaintiff; that it was the duty of defendant to maintain the passage-
Ways, Stairways, landings and entrances in a reasonably safe and
proper condition for persons lawfully using the seme, but that
defendants unmindful of his duty, negligently suffered and permitted
one of said landings aud passageways to be in = dengerous and unsafe
a foe
rips -
en ac re ie i
Bi hea earn ww tenia s- _ DIOKIVON Ary,
edtel tel ~LTAOTTVON .t end
og bae de txen bits
«DO 19 mo DRVE In MOSEL TANSSA is : eealtogga eae:
SXTHOOD HOOD maps th a0 a
st ob NS a AA a ae Rly,
B I. 0 ofie I 0 Q Sg a eames nea sat 9
Sear oe ae = Bas
ao iauint fanoateg tol asgenebh te7yooet of HOB mines A.
yot bra falxt wen ws rotanolisom a'tmebmo ted o2tee <0? TihembaLe
aew dose byt shelortave. orew atoibouey sinatade on toomout
»aleeqrs ditsbueteh bas tolprev eng 9 beragne
sasld * Goins adie i gWegetfc. eninigeco bobneme a'tiivaisld
asw #nabneteb oseredd rolzq omit gaol w rot bas +L6@L ef dawg no
baswoo.s anibliug tromtisgs aa hedatego Gaus beliozd sop. eto zoo ont
| ere asevib bealstoos yttoqotg dolaw etvaste no ba ty id dao aos ; te
egatousl yaysweteda .eyewepsace: nommoo diiw amcot bua ajnomd xeqe i
biciioatnk dante camthbiind bisa dosonit baa odat Quibscl soonertne bre
atusmed areviS of «ote gnexvota ,etnomdieds bisr to no anes ont ‘tae
brs agnthnel yayewrista ,ayswepesesq blee tevo fextuee beatozexe hee :
bre atnanet yd momuon nt beay erentd ban seat oTOw Ko dst seonatine a
-ogesasg eft sistuiam o¢ tabu toh ‘to vdub od aaw tt tects i Piteatoke
bis otse yidenoenet 2 at Beonetine hrs agathnal caynurtads ayer
gant tud a omer et guier eitetwel ano ereq 20% 0.48 thaoe rogora
betiiuxeg bis hoxottwa uLtney Ligon eis out to ‘etbutans anobcotoh a
etsanw be: asotogmed 2 at ed of ayawogsneaq ‘baa. epetbaat iat. 30m
Matias
+ sation
to sovet ni dohptey 9 benreies yur, A» oe Kouta ont Nd bontssese
oie
condition in thet eertain boards and lumber comprising a passage-
way or valk and stairway leading from the rear door of the secend
floor, being the apartment occupied by the plaintiff, to a stairway
ieading to the strect level, were warped and broken, loosened from
the roof or porch on which the same was constructed and which had
therson projecting naiis end screws, and thet on account of said
dangerous and unsafe condition pnleintiff, a minor of the age of four
and a half years, while walking slong seid landing, passageway and
Stalrway and vhile in the exercise ef due care and eeaution fer her
cm sefety, ceught the toe of her shoe in thet portion of seid passage- |
way, lending and stairway which wes in a warped, broken and loosened
condition, and upon the sails and sersws therefrom projectinz, and
thereby was caused to trip, stumble and lose her footing in the warped, —
broken, loosened condition of ssid walk, passageway or stairway, and
the nails end screws thereon projecting, and fell and #as throm dom,
ecousing serious injuries te her, ¢tee, wherefore plaintiff demands
Judgment in the sum of 825,000.
This ease seems to have been ably and fairly triede The
experienced sounsel fer defendant make but twe points, viaes (1) "the
plaintiff’ feileé te preve that the eccident and injury were eaused by
any négligence of the defendant," and that the triel court erred in
refuging to direct a verdict in favor of defendant. (2) “The court —
erreé in permitting the minor plaintiff to testify." After a careful
exemination of the svidence we find no merit im contention (1), as
pleintiff's proof wac amply sufficient to make out a prima facie case.
As te point (2)}2 The minexy at the time of the accident was four and
one-half years ef age and at the time of the trial, mine years of age.
Vhen she was called te testify counsel for defendant objected to the
entild's testifying, whereupon the jury retired to the jury room and
the tricl court questioned the minor to determine her inteliigenee
~ogseusg 2 ana itgnop todmut bas ebxsod atadteo gad mk oo td ibnoe
bagoes off to toch tsor old sovt gatbeol yowrieds base tlaw to ‘aw
Yawrists 2 of ¢Vildntale oft yt bolquooo tubudtage odd guted . root
moxt hepesock quedord baa boqvaw etow ,level iserts odd oF aathaet
bat dobiw bas botoeurdenon daw wmea oft Motel no apyts 10 Liat bend
‘aero te 636 edt to somia @ ,ttitniaic meiiinaga tind" Gi evox as
bas Yewegasacg «aiibual tea neols gatstitaw oLtehw sBTRSY Mast @ bow
‘vert not 20 ttuso bere etao oa 4 oukoroxs aiff mk thet bene Yawrtage
i wogenaar bien io ‘hice sont at onda xen ko ood “esta trips eutetee Poe)
— hensaeet dee moxoud y Seq tar mw ok Kaw Hokte yarebets has witbics Giyew
baie eats oe tog mextotode awoTDe ba ates oats pogn baw OL} Lbaieo
Pea Eh:
biwe to ¢emmose no told bas yawetoe Sad. ‘nb ian |
! begun ods st auktoo ‘cost eank bas scart eqizt of Doouae sow dense q
* hme evawr tats 29 Tswogesaeq Mer btea ke wold tones bonespel peng if all
e hwo’ ‘wows? aww biws SL 9% bins ‘eanlvootor roorerts ereros on atten ects
aboameds titentsty orto 2otautt te ote «al ot cotmrtat ‘uiotz0e gateuse
co ae sa9 rer
| 000,289 Yeo a oat nt tonmpbut
"oft bons xitter as este nsed ovat ot auger | 9a ante
ess (2) conte vatnitog ow sud eal dnsbmetes st roemee heone
we poavas ozow ewhas bans #106 tos oat dosh ovong. pf, batts? Le.
at borete ate Intxt odd dartt dun "strubsotot olf %
Pai1080 ont” (8) -tashrote to tovat ak tokbee
it)
ere, # CPNFAD, 93 an
Lateran # motts waytiened 3 ‘Titentatg rota ate gals TIT A OOK
ae a(t) mo ti n82.09 ni strom on batt ow sonobive ext to mottartm
soan0 toe? an amatxe 9 tuo oxiaat of tem tolTiwe ylgue aey Yoo a” Tiite
bass 1% naw tmebtoos ai Yo omit ont 4a vortr edt + (3). antes om
eps Yo exeoy one «Lait? calf 20 omte ald to bas oye. to sEaey, fates
ort of betoside dnsbasteh sox Loamyen ytivaed of heLtan, am ute saute a
bas moon vat exis ot borkter wawt ond Roquetedir amet 3 aed a tbitte 4
cong tized oni ontuzatoh of } ostts ost ee So et ett
. , neue |
~ oe
and understanding, and at the conclusion of the preliminary
examination the trial court stated, “She seems bright enough to
testify. That is what I wanted to find out, whether she was able."
The minor was then permitted to testify, over the objection of
defendant. Intelligence, ability to comprehend the meaning of an
oath, and the moral ovligation to speak the truth, and not age,
ave the tests by which to determine the competency of a child to
testify. (Shannon ve Swanson, 208 Ille 52.) In that case a boy
about seven or eight years of age was held to be a competent witnesse
In Featherstone v. The People, 194 Ille 3255 where the defendant was
charged with robbery and there wes a count containing an averment of
a former conviction, the action of the trial court in allowing a boy
six years of age to testify was susteined on the ground that the pre=
liminary examination showed that he understood the aadies and meaning
of an oath, and it was for the jury to say what weight should be given
to his testimony. In that case the state considered that the testi-
mony of the boy was practically necessary to secure a conviction. in
Sokel ve The People, 212 Ill. 238, a girl nine years of age was held
to be = competent witness, the court citing Featherstone ve The Peoples
supras in support of its rulinge There, a conviction could not have
peen sustained without the evidence of the girl. In The People va
Pecky 314 Ille 237, the defendant was charged with taking indecent
liberties with a child six years of ages The trial court ellowed her
to tastify after a preliminary examination, and the Supreme court sus-
tained the ruling of the trial courte In The People ve Schladweilery,y
$15 Ill. 553, the action of the trial court in permitting a child eight
years of age to testify was sustained, the Supreme court emphasizing
the point that whether or not a child should be permitted to testify
where an objection is interposed to his competency on account of age
ig a matter resting largely in the discretion of the trial court. Many
other cases to the same effect might be cited. It is a matter of
yretlutiorg edt to noleslomoe edt ta hoa »aatbagd exeday, bas
63 Aguene tigind auss off" gbeojata jumoo Laindt edt codtanimeno
"aida sow eile tostedy «ive oelt of botnew 1 dase of tedt ..» ytitass
to noltoside oft tove .ytitaes o¢ beds inreg. sods ccw rome ed?
fs Te gaineem extt bnatexrqmo of yiilidsa ,soomegtilosal » tnabnoteb
roge gon bas eituxd ot Acogea of soijspilde Lavom oft Sam elias
Of b£ido a. to, yonoteqmoo elt, enierceted o¢ dotiw xd agued oft axe
Yod.« seso tends aL (88 eLll BOR .uomemwe »v monmeds) »Viivee?
sanont tw. tnetegmoo « of Of bied asw ege to suasy tdgto uo mevea deeds
_ Rew gnebmetob esld oxesiw «OSE «LL0 MOL gefgoot onl? av enotexeiteo't nt
Xo thsmrevs cs giilaisiaos jnwoo & aaw gredt hme Yrodder tiw begxado
vod s giiweile al givgo iaiut oni to aites esl um biotrnos. restos
_pmetg ocd Yaris baworg fy wo becistaye asw yilveet ot oga to ateoy xe
“pninsom bas esudan off hootarebay of dedt boworls nottontmeno cyxamtoht
nevig eo ofvoca jngtow dadw you oF Yuyh oft tot sew df bas ytitéo ns to
-idees off dast berebienco etade odd ousoodadt al .ynomiteed atsvuod
at Holtoivmeo s sisose of Yisaseoen yiisoltoatg as yod sild to yerow
bled aaw oge te wrsey oakm fxkg a .8ES .fLt SL8 «gtgast ed? .v Lodtos
seigest alt .v enotaradisel gatiio diwog elt ynnentiv tneteqmoo a ed0d
evan dos bivoo soltsoivags s ,ovedt sgaifys att to frocaua nt gexque
4¥ Bigoos ef) ml «fztg atl) to comehive edt sworltiw benietave mood
dnooabdnt pulled tiv, boptetio. eaw, trebnoteb end «WES efLT MS gloet
ted Dewolle dus0o Leaint off , soga to. ansoy xie bLise. o tbr eott tod hh
weve smo emexqua ond han «roitentuaxe Yrenimifetq a sotts yhbiged. od,
stattewbalso® .v afgoot eff mI »tusoo Lats? edt to agitvn ont bamtet,
de to bLido o guttdioreg mi trwoo tetst edd to moktioe oft .£08, LIT Of
gutsivariqas tives omomgua edd .honiatewa aaw Ytitacd 04. 998, 10; REABY,
Yiitact of hostinreg od biwesia bLino « tom 7 waldete, dads ” pnd.
yo rettem s ai 2 .bedlo od tain tootte omse ads oo senso tostd fo nie
whee
common knowledge that children ~ nine years of age are often
permitted to testify where the preliminary exemination shows that
the child is intelligent and has the ability to comprehend the
meaning cf an oath and the more1 obligation to speak the truths
fhe argument of the defendant in support of the instant centention
goes to the weight of the testimony of the minor rather then her
competency » to quote from defendant's brief: "It muct be borne
in mind that the plaintiff at the time of the occurrence of the
accident was four and ea half years of age. The lack of intellect
and memory in a four and a half year o1d child is fairly well knowm
to most adult persons. It is well known that by suggestion to a
child of tender yeare fanciful stories become fasts to the childish
mind, not by reason of dishonesty but only by reason of the immaturity
of the intellecte * * * At the time of the occurrence of the accident
in the case at bar the plaintiff was four and a half years of ageée
In the meantime until she testified on this trial four end « half
years had elapsed and we submit that the passing of these few years
did not add anything to her mental understanding of what hed taken
place at the time of theaccidente" It was for the jury to pase upon
the credibility of the minor and to determine what weight, if ays
should be given ta her testimony. The accident to the minor was a
moct unusual. event in her life, and we see nothing extraordinary in
the fae% that she remembered the occurrence. Morcover, the testimony
of an adult witness tends to support plaintiff's evidence as to the
manner of the accident. We certainly cannot hold, as a matter of
lew nor as a matter of fact, that the minor could not remenber the
accident. We find no merit in the instant contention.
The jury might well have awarded plaintiff « much larger
eum for her damages, and we are somewhat surprised that defendant
chould seek a new trial.
The judgment ef the Superior court of Cook county is affirmed.
JUDGMENT AVVYIRMED.
Sullivany Pe Joy and Friend, J., coneurs
sod¢te ete egs to etsy omke the noxbline dads egbefwornt come’
told awote noliontnaxe ~xankwi lex ont ovedw yIlvas¥ od bess tig
nt basderquoe od vyebfida orld cart bom tnogtiletni~@l bibfe ext
situs edt seoge of ae iieag lide Letom edt ‘brie dae me “lo grisea
selgnatoes ¢guatent edd te steqqua ni Pishueish ef) to tuesmeta oo?
tos sould “ositex uncta vit Yo Yoomlseed edt. Yo ‘triytow end nd aeow
enxod od suse FI” stoind atinabaeteh mort stomp of “+ ydnereqmoy
ond Yo sonorxrod0 ond Yo anil} edt 46 WDiulslg ene teds bate
tosllotat te test eST .eys to etsey Ted « bun cyol eer troh boom
pwoni Liew yirisi et biide bie tasy Qed a bre cmey 2 sh _yromem bee
‘o oat awetieoggsie ef thedt owes Liew ai oT sane teg “a hohe tsom of
Meiblide aff of atest omesd seitosa tutions? exsey tehaed to bLbdo
Utiuetaumi et lo mosset yd yiee gud yuenedals to séesot Yd tom ehmia
dashice.s od} ko wonettvese eit te omit ef? ta o% * ot atosifetat edd to .
4936 to etsey Ted # be nuok caw Tihiniel¢ ed¢ téd te easocodt mk
| Mad 2 bite qn0% Lata? atte ae deltivesd ode Litnremttanem edt at
Ata0y wet enedt Yo guteaaq ond dasdd simiyn ow dos .beagale bad-arsey
\ meied ded tadv 29 gabbastaxobay Loteom xed ot gabltyne bbs som bth
Mea ect od Eur old sot ace ¢L “staehioo aes? To sms? ect te song |
eta 2h atipiew tat enirroteb of bee restimvedt lo yt hibd hora att
® saw tote oft of .dnehlooe edt «ynoukiaed ton et novi od) bLueda i .
nioyrentivestéxs guidvem ese ew bre .ohht sed al taove Laven Jae 4
yuonliac?d edd .rovestell .eonemyecne seit porsdmonsx cole Sarit dostoorty
. gle of ne sonebive e'kilinielq ¢seqqve et ebued saondin. tfote me to
_% notte s as .dlod gormse YAnladtea OF «taebtooe ‘osit to tence a
adi xediaomer Jom Sives tombe ord geld ¢PocR to. sedgae ue ten wal j
cxoitacdaeo taatact edd m2 sivom on butt oF a toebteos a
Mog to Sovm o TiLGMLALg bobtans eve Now seit erey eB coc of!
gmabsoled geld hodtaqura: fatvondn ots” ‘ow bns: ¢89g sieb fost —d 4
sieits wen s dese binods
shomrd tis ak ydrwoo” #ooe padi hcnteh xobxoqua seit 1 AREA petex, 8 Bh a
; CEMATCCA THEMGUT 4
it? Be -geney
* gxuronn 6 et ae bes oe ial
39250
SONS He Hottie
Appelles »
APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL
VOUT OF CHICAGO.
Ve
AMOI AM ILYS GF ILLIFOLS,
a aoe | 2901.4. 614!
MMe JUSTICH SUASLAM DELIVER THE OPENIO OF THE COURT.
Suit by beneficlary wider two policies of insurance issued
by defendant upon the life of plaintiffts wife, The cause wer tried
by the court without o jury, there wos a finding against defendant,
and pleintiff’s ¢amges were assessed in the wum of G342e25. Defend-
ant appeals from a judgment entered upon the findings
The amcnded statement of claim is ae follewss
"Plaintiff's claim is ae benefieiury of Malenda MoNeil,
ceveueete © he Ro boone payable the defendmt to the plaintire
of seid al under two policies of insurance on life
ro! d Natends eil, co wa pe policy mumiber 142701, dated June
ant zekiay wee Al4255, dated May 14, 1934, eff eated
a sens eten defendant end made by the defendant in cansidare
ation ef the payments made and te be mace to it as therein
mentioned »
“Said Molenda Mellel] died - the 29th day of Fulys 1935,
while sadd polieies were still in foreee
“Plaintiff eleaims &542f0."
Defendant concedes plaintiff's right to the full mows of
the first policys 252226, The second policy, issued June 259 19,
insured the life of the wife ef plaintiff in the fee mount of
$260. Malenda Molieil died July 29, 1935. ‘The second policy pro-
vides that it shall be incontestable after two years fram the date
of ite isewmee, and that “Af death occurs during the contectable
period as a result of, or couyed by, or contributed to by cancer **
or any disease of the throat ***, disense ef the heart or blood
wort —ieggies aii aay
“beer or wont amen 7
ye Te Hie DW en? see Mae
* (OBA, oni besa rs00
a EEO. ¢frid-0):Q Sic selenans ssnaQinliaeghteamreeetal
A pegs eae UG onan al ceria watithbs woreeve ae
wren 6 Rte anid
pn senemeent te minting | ot — watt tenet, wi oi90. Yer bibitor
DOH ser oemny ot setiy Bi ritamtely Be ohh a, poge tmahee zen. ee
Pat atuetxe't90 teniage antbal? » enw expats . ree dared iy sump, ott,
~bawtes »8.S00G 10 ma ot? wt doswnnse oxow sepamal ee pil
be ee tte 2 fees dak git yet toda oth
“nto an dh of voano¢ 09 bua sham 822
Le a" OS APREOE SSR TON OF MIG Tel
BGG ayia to yaw MOOS oir on ar iiige or pes ry omer ea Senay
septa? sh otew eoloifeg bles
aye ne Fe pith Sr e's f Plan te vers #45 Sf ee et ae Si ah en
*08sae8 satinge 2 Yadonbals* 3
2 ibs bated oaperd bed hohe sani
‘te sao sn ‘that watt od ify armiabatg gushes tad i
2a 2a aed ce aang
CEL aS start bestuat ‘eeekiog baoooa ot? wat avelfog darkt ofe
LB SP 5
‘te seb wort ont mt Pitdabatg 0 Shi odd Yo oti £ aid »
ye ea) ne hoa aye «fase te fs
~7q Yoltng banoee off? ‘saees 488 et be i tol et
men eae at Sin
oat ‘oth mcr wtasy ont x0tte evant votnoent od tinde @h tate wobiy
Ye a why yt RO one
effing ses noo ‘att ants ‘avons Hinob wa date aus ee a , tat te
és! tog rope whe em: 7s uh: git aie i:
"seu soonse YS 0% Dedatesuoe Ze ey bons x 48 fines basco
hood <0 dxnost ail) 20 ounoudbigt® soondy eth te .ounsal
ole
veenele, *** then in 211 such cases the Limit of the 6 ompazyy* &
liability shall be one-fourth of the face smount of this policy.*
Upon the trial plaintiff introduced the two policies and
vested» Yefendant introduced in evidence certain dovuments furnished
the defendant as "proofs ef denths" one made by plaintiff, statings
inter alia, that the same of the physician who ms cmsulted by the
éeceneed during her lact ilines» wae Or, Charlos Ws. “reng another, a
physician’s cortifiente, sigied and sworn to by said doctor, which
atates, inter alin, that the ismediate cause of the denth of Malenda
MeNecil waa “Cerebral Hemorrhage,” and that the disease which caused
death had been present about fifteen hours. efeniat alee introduced
a certificate ef the Reglutrar of Vital Statistics of the city of
Chigages containing the medical certificates of denth executed by anid
doctor and which states that the cause of «oath was dingnosed aa eere-
bral hemorrhage and that a physical test confirmed the diagnosis.
Defendant called as « vliness Ur. Uren aint proceeded to interrogate
him as to hie quelifientions as a physicieon and surgeon, whereupon
plaintiff admitted the qualifications of the doctor. The doctor
teetified that he was the physician in ettendenes on Malends Me¥eil
ot the time of her deaenses that he found her in a wtebe of comay
that he examined her md determined that the nature of her ailment
Was eerebral hemorrhage, which reeulted in her deathy thet eerebra
hemorrhage in « disease of the head mid brain. ‘The fellewing then
cecurredt Ge Tell us how the d enth ogourred or how incapuoity
Gccurred in connection with the dimease, doctor, Ae Suptured vessel
in the train. {- ‘liupture of the blood vewsel in the brain? A» Yeo.*
Upon cross-exemination the doctor testified thet he made a therough
exemination of the deceased sbeut nine or twelve hours before she
died, that he did not make a post mortem exomination, that he knew
What she died of from the symptoms she had at the time of the
’
f
|
|
i eying mle te olekt ede aoneg down ike wk node *** gatoaney
*“.qoliog aise to Salem oon? oft WW Mymwoet-one od Llate ys ethtelt
Site eiviing owe ati heubovdnk Yittaialy Lated ead mogit
— Rastakee? adeomnorh matteo eonebive wl decwhectak tasbaste badeor
ehiisass 4 Tiitntely yw sham emp “qiiee h to winerg" an frtabere teh ests
odd WW hedivenos cow erlw mmtobeytiy ott to wmmey atte ead? eahte segs
& gteaihers got 4 sored set eaw casatth goal wed yeckewd boaseged
| iieistw quegeeh Blow yd of avers bas henge (edmwkt he © m *nalp dave
phigwhet Yo tines elt) We ceune 0bstbomat tt tueld Wathe r0ant sostege |
beeen dodey eameath off gate dna “sepadiexomell Lardexed" eam Lioliell 7
honsboxtnt oaks #embsio'tet sexwan noses dwodn Inoworg nood bad sttaee |
‘ de yet edt te apitaidad® toa nv tw nepeenguieention Wiheintewnts |
‘bbe w Sedumone siabh te ageoltivess Lholéem atte gubiins | coq nbitato :
wot a bonorgalh sant Miseh 20" Sains’ est Hale endde Hp htw bea “Gonsen
‘seinoapath oad boareZumo eed Lavoe « Gault ban opaitiehombe’ Ries
edegorxetat bt deheosety bra swe etl atony by wail hottad ganda tor |
eget ls RS
tedoad oat ‘aati: at oh: enaianye, asd bode kmbs q
godt amawolte? ett vasa eal ie Waals a al
Utorret wort To hewmen asm Deed weet au LOT on ot
Koaney Aerutew 4A «xetood seenossd ot dit ao svonane mt boxmoce
"08 A tatord oft mt Loceer boukd ot Ye onwdque 4p smbend oft mk
Aapsorots 9 onan ort goes boktbsues: woraed ont molten ) m0 oe
lt ocpted wrues overt 10 onl suega besacoeb at 30 wettanimene
oY mB y
5 OE APOE mo idacinars mere soy s mam son DEH ast saul? 4dOLD
FO i ee
ody, 20 eats, act ga test ae eamsquign ae sesh 30 bth oct Sactr
bint ‘ Re Ngee NERC mY eo BNE Re Ea See ibe ‘a
a dh og c ire s ‘ ais
ws) BY eae. Bae 1) Sh, tap
-3e
eummination, that she was im a come, that he did met take a.
Xeray and had never ween Malenda MoNeil befere the time of the
examination, that his judgment as te the acuse of death was
based on deductions
Plaintiff offered no evidence in reutteal.
Plaintiff certends that the testimeny ef the decter ancunte
to ne more than “a mere guemay” that his evidence as to the couse
of death amounts te mo more than 2 cenjeeture or suspicion. ‘the
trial court evidently adopted plaintiff's view az te the wei eat
that should be sttached to the tectimony of the doctor. ‘e are
satisfied that the dector's testimeny makes out e clear prima facie
ease ae to the cause Of ¢ eats and in this comeection 1+ must be
moted that plaintiff admitted the qiuclifications of the witness as
a physician and surgeom.e Turthermere, plaintiff offered ne proof
in rebuttal
We are entisfied that wader the evidence and the provision
im question in the seaond policys plaintitr ia entitled te recover
Only $65 upon that policy. Uefendmt admits thet it owes the full
amount on the first polieys $82.25, and £65 on the second poliay,
making o total of °147+2%) and caisents that this court shell enter
judgment for thet amount.
The judgnent of the Municipal court of Chicago is r evyersed
and judgment ia entered here in faver of plaintiff md aguinet
éefendent in the cum of $14 7228.
JUSGMIT REVERSED, ATD SUGMUMT HENS TH anaes
PLALNTIFY Alb AGAINST DEFRA ART IN THA SUM GF 9147-28
Swllivan,e Fe Jeo and Friend, Je» concurs
th Ohad sam MS off dadt somo 2 md now ate todd enol iambemny
Rt RO mats od eI Liokgl ada wean seven dod bea YawnK
_ Ban Ataah eo eotun ott of sm doomghul aid sant camhsonimans
: state ewheb ao hoaad
sateen a poaarany om doxaxte TRIRARE.
a town oi 908 ons Yo yemmiined oft galt abnoteen Tthgntal - ..o.
_onmap add ot an Gonsblys aid tats "“seneey prem a%, at om 95 08
lt Bd eee due sexes poser ametenn, oa, sadte en
ed team 92 neiveamoe Side at bam sditae » 10 oemeo, oat, Of, 99, 930,
me wae be aa w anotsse2 Atom wit bodgiane Tibgmbasg test doten.
' wor as poxorte Titrahaly goremediors Roepe hae andere
meteiver ate bau ‘saneb tv» ate, yatens teats pabtatien: anit ian eo
sevpoet of beddhtne ef TUdmbale eysktog hneges, at st metemeuy mh:
ra ety aowa at taal? af dede dente Teh
tanto | new ribemtagg % ovat a pina je I £8 / 4
OP DEE Yo, pie itt mh emehineted }
9a’ nerak wx tae UMC | sas ee ; q
<BR TALE. WMS IT MI THAN, rR, we ns hoDo® ,
we Eie ee wie ny avid R foal, ah :
setae 8 ent ta ot 9 F ;
dames henna ead wa woktantaee 0
Me
ee AIRE ie YER St ag ey RRA a ee
: wot dee Deb oot d-atie ee
39262
MARIE Ase WALSH et ales
Plaintiffs,
Ve
EDWARD Re NEWMANN et ales
Defendantse
APPEAL FRGI SUPERIOR
SAMUEL MASLON, JOHN GOLDBACHER,
IVAN S. BAUM and ESTELLE MALKIN
(Intervening Petitioners),
Appellants,
COURT OF COOK COUNTY.
2901.4. 612'
Ve
MARIE Ae WALSH, NELIIE Ge WALSH,
ROY We ALEXANDER and CORNELIA
ALEXANDER »
i i Ml ee i tc! et el tt al Re ae a
Appelleese
MR. JUSTICE SCANLAN DSLIVSRED THS OPINION GF THE COURT.
Plaintiffs filed their bill to foreclose a trust deed
given to secure an issue of thirty bonds, aggregating $15,000.
Samuel Maslon, intervening petitioner, claimed to own six of
the bonds, aggregating $3,000; John Goldbacher, intervening
petitioner, four of the bonds, aggregating $2,000 and Estelle
Malkin, intervening petitioner, two of the bonds, ageregating
81,000. Roy We Alexander and Cornelia Alexander, defendants,
had a contract to purchase the premises covered by the trust
deed. iIn an eons din to their joint and several answers they
elleged *that bonds numbered 11 to 16, both inclusive, are due
and unpaid as set forth in said bill of complaint; that all of
the remaining bonds secured by said trust deed, namely, bonds
numbered 1 to 10, both inclusive, have been duly paid, and ponds
numbered 17 to 30, both inclusive, have been duly paids * * *
“sey ee
«fe to WataW »A ZIAAM
ele to WUAMWI. & amAWe
eetnabasted ;
a ere iiomik dee. 2 pero: Sane
AMOLAMAVE MOTT LARATA. |.
'ST.3..A.1.0.8 S} be am
Oe Dees . SO Teta pee
EIIETAE bos MUA
‘(atom if t36 auinersode tal
sil yg atineallegqa — Ae way RUBS
A be er a Sandee
oo 4H@LAW .D ELITE alas At COTA
“ALEXMAOD bas MUCHAKGIA «W YOR
+ AOUBAXALA
%
parca trt
PRS SS di
| re GRE W WOTRIRO, 2S GRNERINEMAATAAA ARENA
Sed yaa
LL Se, liad a sue robve’ oa HEiy Yeas aly atts told
{ooo até puideporgas cabled oxide th oveal om emwoee of doviy”
Se ie RL ee ee ee
guinevredat yxedosdbLod nufot 1000.28 gatiassiaas ‘aba ¢ a
“ gitedet bis $000.88 sitkiag stand <absod sft to the 7 "ono tf tog
gtktegorsge .abmod oft to owt ¢ «tomo bd biog | painoyrodnt mbit
gainebasteb .tebasxeLa stiowxod baw wobsaxe.LA we yor 000, rc
tenund ond yd hoxevos ‘aoalmong odd onastorung, 3 armas s bat
yout arewans Leteves baa datot sled o¢ $xombnome ne nt boob
eub ore .ovienLont stod,4aho¢ LL bexedaun ebaow sat”, Bepetts:
to Lis tat tintelqmoo to LLid bkae nt ddtot goa es bisqnw bas
abaod .yLonen «boob sautt biee yd bexvees absod stat amon anit
abnod bas eblag yfub need evad ,svkenfonk dtod 1OL of £
* * * tbleq yinb need oved yoviewLont ddod .O8 of VI betodmun
yy
So a a Tae
i ‘
odiuszr Ait
oD ws
that any person now in pessession of any of said bonds, except
ponds numbered 11 to 16, both inclusive, came in possession of
the same after their maturity, and after the same were paid."
tt is conceded that Marie A. Walsh and Nellie Ge Walsh, plaintiffs,
were the owners of unpaid bonds numbered 11 to 16», both inclusive,
and the master and the trial court both so found. The cause was
referred to a master in chancery “for the purpose of taking and
closing proof and reporting his caclusions upon the facts and the
law." The master heard evidence and filed a report finding, inter
alia, thet Masion was the legal owner and holder of bonds numbered
225 23,5 245 25, 26 and 27, each in the amount of $500, and that the
same had not been paid; that Goldbacher was the legal owner and
holder of bonds numbered 17, 18, 19 and 21, each in the amount of
€500, and that the same had not been paid; that Estelle Malkin was
the legal ower and holder of bonds numbered 29 and 30, each in the
amount of $500, and that the same had not been paid; that there was
due to Maslen in principal and interest the sum of $3,7736593 to
Goldbacher in principal and interest the sum of $2,601.28; and to
Estelle Malkin in principal and interest the sum of $1,300e64.
Defendants Roy We Alexander and Cornelia Alexander filed objections
to the aforesaid findings of the master and the same were allowed
to stand as exceptions. The trial court entered a decree finding,
inter aliay that if Maslon, Goldbacher and Estelle Malkin purchased
the bonds they claim to own they did so after the maturity of the
bonds and after payment of the same; “that there is due to John
Geldbacher, intervening petitioner herein, nothings; that there is
due to Samuel H. Maslon, intervening petitioner, nothings that
there is due to stelle Malkin, intervening petitioner, nothing."
The deeree further finds that the court sustained the exceptions to
the master's findings “upon evidence produced in open court." The
sqooxs <abaod Sisa to yar to moleeenacg ai worn mateg yua dads
to amolenesnog ni omms .oviewloni stod .af of If betedmum abnod
*, biag etew omen off totdts bus aytiuwtem thedd tedts omen ont
partitatate leh *) eiffel bus daleW .4 olxeM gant bobesnon eh at
<eviautonk ddod e9f of If Sezedmun abnod bSisqays to atsave ens otew
asw cane od? «hawt oa d¢od tuvoo Laitt ed? bas vedeam’ odd BiB
bas yahiet to cxogiuvg ed? toi" yreonerlo at tedasm = of betretor
edd base adont oft soqu enotenLomo ald antésedes nie: tooxg
sogak enmibakt ttoqet # haLtt has eonebive bused ‘sedeam oft “.walt
borodane ehind to ‘tebfod bre toswo Laget ont asw voeancl ‘Wass etiaend
eit jadd bas 0084 to smvome ond mi Meso: ae as 28 Abs «ks 288 488
bas reanro Lapel ont asw xodoadbLod $ ath npr ic Ne ‘aad case
to tnwonis oft mt dene ene bas @L <BL .%L borodmun sbaod ‘te xob Lod
esw mitieM elfated sat ioteq aged ‘ton ‘beet, ie wae
GLA + YOR
efi at dose .O& bas OS bevednad abita a xebLort Luss . 9
saw atedd gals thbleq need dor bad sma ont ade: bus (0088 to $nuome
of 10acET¥.ed Yo mia edd Voor rnd “baw Kageowteg he GLEE of ue
Ot bis {88eL08e8% to mye odd tuowwdni bas Laqgtontyd ; at tedondbLop
anottoeido bork mewn sifonze pent sehnnents. 68 wh Atnahaete
hewolla oxew omse of bos tetjasm odd fo agi Aisaotote oft ot
Qalbukt esteed s boretme duveo Ieizt edT .anottgeoxe as duet] of
boasdoug mitlell ofletal bus todondbLed onan: u tadd , alle zeigt
edd to yimwiom ent testa o@ bth vows se .02 shale ved ebmod aut
iol o¢ oud at oxedtt tose" jomee oft to. cmemysg tod ts ous abgod
ai etedd jadd tuoiiton emtotend tomo isiveg wuinevioint « tedoadhLod
dads Pyatdion .tenoltiveq gainoyresat .n0, ell 4 Lemna, of. osrb
" .giidvon etonottiveg gatnevretat eattfel ofledai, ot exb af Pat
ot amotiqooxe ed? bentesava dues ost, tant abatt, ‘Todd TH% RETR:
eit “.ttivoo negn ii beoxborg epnehive, aiogu". egeigalt als tamats aa
Ares Las ros ‘Vee 2 Re’
Oo 9 OF TE hege ORT
te
bi
it
ad
intervening petitioners have appealed from that part of the
decree that affects their rights.
In this court there is a dispute between the parties as
to whether or not the court heard any evidence, the intervening
petitioners claiming that he did mot, and Roy We Alexander and
Cornelia Alexander claiming that he dide The deeree recites that
the court did, and no transcript of the proceedings by the court
has been filede The intervening petitioners contend thet even
if the court heard evidence he had no right, under the law, to
G60 S0e The law on the subject is plaino
“When a cause is referred to a master in chancery to
report conclusions of law end fact all the evidenee must be
introduced before him, and upon the hearing of sxceptions to
his report or the hearing of the cause no other evidence will
be heard.“ (Central Illinois Service Coe ve Swartz, 284 Ill.
108, 114. See also Central Illinois Service Co. ve City of
de 1 r)
oullivans 294 Ill. LOL, 1053 froyer Ve urdman, 320
ligan vs Egan, 244 Ills Appe 497) 504.)
If upon the hearing of the exceptions to the master's report some~
thing developed that satisfied the court that additional evidenee
should be taken, the csuse should have been rereferred to the
Master with directions to tae further proof and file an additional
reporte (Egon ve Egan, supra, 5046) ‘The record shows that a motion
of the intervening petitioners to rerefer the cause to the master
for the purpose of taking additional proof was denied.
A motion of the appellees to dismiss this appeal will be
denied.s
The decree of the Superior court of Cook county, so far
as it affects the rights of intervening petitioners Maslon,
Goldbacher and Malkin, is reversed, and the cause is remanded
with directions to the trial court to sustain or overrule the
exceptions to the master's report that bear upon the claims of
the intervening petitioners. However, if the trial court should
deem it necessary that additional evidence be heard in the cause,
a
Sane ipite
~b~, v
ott to dusq tad? most bofseqqs, eyed atenoitiiey gainevsedal
»nitigin rieds atoetis. jads eerped—
an spiiiag off soowded otuyeth 2. at evadt dumeo ald? mI... .)
- ghinersedak ont «eomobive yas Danes suo. edd Jom xo wedvexty oF.
baw’ stobuaxeLa «WW yor onl qton Sib of tend gutmiolo azonelks lieg,
said sotioes sotech off . shih ssf asi? puknkaLo tohmexeLs ehionsed.
jameo oft yo agaliseserq aft ko teydsoanaxt om bom «bib sao edd,
neve todd breton axenolijijeq gainevigtai edT »hslii ased aath,
pt awed off-sebmy «iighx on bat en onobive breed duro off. Re
| pitheiq at toottue ant ao wal ent 20a: od
pees
oF Yrooueto at tadaes a of beveetet af samen: a moa: ag
ed teum oemshive anit ifs test bee wal te eno leu Loneo as
$ unefiqenme to aeivset eff mogu base amis,
'L hw seaoudys sosldo on puso ont fd aatzoedt Aas ixoqgot
COOL + CET 088 “spamb at
-ouee tuoqe' a’redesm off of areas ott to gtikreen eft rae
sexoblys Lanoivibhe Jal} duos edd boliekver Jord bedeLevéd ght?’
att o¢ berueterer seed svar biverle satteo ond , tested od pTivoife’
anh ti thhe ms eft? hed Torq vetdseY owe of} ako fi berte’ wialineied
notvom s sad? wwordte Dtooet elt (4300 caxqun enagl «vy deat) 6H roige!
xegannt oft of saueo oid tetoter OF atenotdiveg antnevtodht oad’ ~
“ belneh kaw ‘toorg Lao ly tese einbted 26 onegicng seep
o@ Criw tial ait aakweih o¢ uemween med ‘we ieee, ® .
aay igh
Shy af fi Fern
bot
“get ba eytined Hood “to wer do Bebiue’ uate” 26 saciid batwiee etl
"esto Laut eronoidtieq painevtedal Yo etsytt eit atoetta fe w
pebtiomet ef saveo orf? Sua jheerover wf ntdtal bre veivedbtot
erly diircrove Yo ntaveva of Sivoo Lebud off oF “umotdeehh ae hr
“to unitate atte nogu téod Sail? Proqut @Yrsteem ord of leemnged ’
afvake gxuoo Loixd ods ‘th yrevewol .kronolyived sathovievnt afd
wsauas off mi bts of somebive Lenolsibbs dailt aia ‘gt mood Af
=h—
he may enter an order rereferrins the cause to the master with
Girections to teke additional evidence and to again report his
findings and conclusions.
DECREE SO PAR AS if AFPRCTS RIGHTS OF
INTERVESING PETITIONERS MASLON, GOLDBACHER
ABD MAIKIN, REVERSED, AND CAIS® REMANDSD
WITH DIRECTIONS e
Sullivan, Pe Jey and Friends Jey coneure
jeu: eomdhRio see: rorneecely: sit ‘a tility, atk trostie axtntete rohueaint. aiken
Pee st et apelkbeons re: ae) tor feet, pat Sy is dae
meee ee a ar
fy somes elt coo iter iy SRG lee: pen honk. Ie enees iv eae: ent ot 3
Se ae ee
woktom 5 K'deaty wivorte Benue we’ “tai i “ oi
goduda ene bs dosed wes pw Os weamelte tie
4 oe ibe es ub Sia eee ea rm me UO Oe :
FE come MAE I PR ie Re it ea sen
"agate hia” GAA Marte kia ar mn oe)
ie et P aital aFag “ny heal wit ih ss
ee
Oe ee i
Or an ea agar eal a Pama
| Reset Pitins “fated ite UR” peonweld - serio ey taut paviodnk 3
‘fisoe deh al Wendl de Cateliee “naw 2 Ein seal vi ue sia FL, 2
59275
HELEN BSCKGR »
Appellee,
APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL COURT
Ve
JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCH COMPANY, a
corporation,
OF CHICAGO.
290 1.4.619°
nn et
Appellante
MR. JUSTICE SCANLAN DELIVERSD THE OPINION OF THe COURT.
An action by a beneficiary on a life insurence policy
issued by defendant on the life of Michael Becker in the principal
sum of $738. A jury returned a verdict in favor of pleintiff and
against defendant in the sum of $875e86. Judgment was entered
upon the verdict and defendant appealse
The policy wes issued April 29, 1925. Michael Becker
died July 15, 1932-6 Uefendent contends that the evidence shows
that the policy was not in force on the date of the death of the
insured. Plaintiff's theory of fact is that the payments made
were sufficient to continue the policy in force under its extended
insurance provisions up to and including the date of the death of
the insured. Defendant's theory of fact is that there were not
sufficient premiums paid on the policy to keep it in force under
its extended insurance provisions. Hach side introduced evidence
to support its theory of fact upon this material and determinative
issue. Defendant contends that the verdict upon this issue is
contrary to the manifest weight of the cvidenee. The jury passed
upeu the eredibility of the witnesses and found this con troverted
question of fact in favor of plaintiff, and after a careful exami-
| arses
Ms i ; a AONE WEL
TAMUOO LATIOIMUM MOAT TARITA | wey Sian ; i
. sODADIHO W , cae ae
sen ap oa aaa
Agta A.10 tongs
»THU0D WHY W WOLMIGO BHT GUAAVEINC WATMADS EOITSUL . At
yotlog oonatwant stil « mo ytalottened s yd noltos ih |
faqionizg oft al tetes& Lestio i Yo stif edd mo tashneteh yd seine
bas tiitnielq to tovet ai solbrev s benmtusex yuy A +864 to nue |
botetas saw soenmgbuL .88.8V8% te wave off mi jnsbuoteh Jankegs
ealsoqges inebasteh bas Jothzrev oft noqs
neaoos Lecdo i .aSe@L .eS LiegA howaak aew yoiflog exT
awotia oonebive oft tedt ebmosmeo tuebmete€ »880L .bL yLut bel
- Sit Yo diaob oft to etsb oft no sovot at tom eaw Yolfog ext denlt
eban a¢nemyeq sat tad? ak ¢ont to yroodd al Titvalelt « botwestt
hobnedxe ett tobmw sovelt mi yotlog eft oumltnoo of tnetolTtwe orew
to dieob edt to o¢eb ont gaibufont bis of qu aneietvorg soustyant
fon stewoteds gadt ef gost to roads etinabmetel .betwant ont
webs eotol ai sk goed of yoltLeg edé mo bisg aswimetq inololtiwe
sonebive beoubouwlnt oblta dosk .anotaivexq semstvent bsbmedxe att
evitsnimieseb bua Lettodjem aids nogu tost to yxeeds att sroqqve of
ak oueal alidd mnogu tolbxey od? ged? abmetdnmo tusbnotsd 8 .owaut |
hexeag yuut eT .eonohive els Io togieow sestinam sdt of Yrets S00 p : :
hesievoutnoo elds brvot bus eesaentiw ode to yo ifLidibere eld oq
cimexe {utoxso 9 99% bas yiddmtelg to tovet nk dost Yo noidaaup
wie
nation of the evidence we cannot ssy that their finding is meni-
festly against the weight of the evidence.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in his"in-
struction® to the jury and in refusing to give two instructions
tendered by defendante In its brief defendant contends that a
eertain part of the instruction given by the court to the jury
was erroneous, but in the oral argument it waived that contentions
It still contends, however, that the two instructions refused by
the trial court should heave been given. It is a sufficient answer
te this contention to say that the trial court fully instructed
the jury on the subject matter of the two instructions refused.
Indeed, plaintiff is justified in contending that the trial court
everinstrueted the jury on behalf of defendant.
The judgment cf the Municipal court of Chicago is affirmed.
JUDGUINST AFFIRMED.
Sullivan, P. Je, and Friend, Js, GORCULs
sown rs jnoto ht ia s ot oI enovig good isan ‘ba bey Site
if M
einam ak ame thod? fame yes tonsa ow dene twe onl to no ita
‘i seokoblv 0 ot to deigtow old Janioge viteot
onl" ot al bore dasros fein adt tedt abmesnoo tuabastod
uso td osrtdank Owe: évhi. of ‘gulestet mt bas yx odd of wnolyewehe
® jadi ebuetneo Jasbneleb tetrd adi at stnsbao teh, ud be aphae?
' UIHL Sed Of gxu0o vdt yd Hovly nolioutsdnt od 2 grag ntetteo
etotinetono dankt beview oi tnemugra faxo or ma tu esting aaw
Cat boagte = nis ida am ca Seu ont tad .te sro abneduo
‘wo
Bye
mar
ne
besorrgent ‘hint ftw09 fajes reed dante we os no td netnoo aids of
TRE ie
ihenntne ametteirctink aut idk We wah eons toakden ‘ath be “pi ‘ond
du09 ‘taba add ded gk bnodnog mb bothi¢ewt eb TeedateLa ne
fs sige Rei oe ees
BELONG ON) SL OG liner tis aki dane Wish oat, hodountanssove a
» bons abyts er egseldt te Sob’ Leqtozanl: oxi9 Yo, srompbut, ont one
gst ial Gh TEA Qe: are Ag At a trebes Yat taahega 7 a
ee pe ee eee
ok.
Hee. Saul De Baas futodey sy aoaw i
tetoed fectem .9hey et OOS). ooh bE bax pb oet amevilioa m
SAR Orie h Ke tet heh etal rg niathoee YOR WHE ee ett be te
tite shar Py Ee ebeh oath ee wate 2% tox wow yelion omy taetd
C2M Bi eiey AR Rae wed hia: Ps agony e ean
vik i, wD ia ie aa SN ROI a hi Sy Theale LG sborwent sf
“ i EM Po ae inte Vion ‘prow
Me PE yh de i ani s
ae. Bae PENT) GE Ch ted gt DPE Dmg Rane ala leh Beige cai yi rt kay
lea Take eo aeae ape Fal ree! bokerwonh
Os Clow aiodts gags oh Spt nie : aie
’ ree a ee TSH S bh teaboe kel y Sime’ ets
ex ay apes ae r y
igh ee ee ee me ae tot tina
the he i a4 4 A “_ ae
ae Oey 'S ey yl Ce ee eee
BABS MGR Oreh, tudenwnn! bobwated adh
Tay egw
OR MS BN Pua an May eeaesa wes P tee era ae i i }
5 Cie a 4 x § ny Te Ho ey) > Heal Pe; ‘ ‘ " f Pe ue ee area a
‘ hid i fotorey ocd Peed obeedons saabas tad | “etirad
iy aid by ata | i ww EY oF) Bow my i
. ' BS) EO MRS. They alli Shep’ See oat? oe bc aderiasce .
na 3 Wh Ve peg pat g Ene
39286
WALTER Se BAER, as Trustee,
Plaintiff, )
Ve
STEPHEN BHRANEK et ales
: Defendantse )
)
APPEAL FROM CLHOULT
MINNIE EUPHRAT, (Intervenor) COURT, COOK COUNTY.
Appellant,
‘e 2901.A. 612°
EDWARD Ge FULSENTHAL et ales
Appelleese
MR. JUSTICE SCANLAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT
Appellant filed the following notice of appeals
"Notices of Appeal
"To: Ail Parties of Record:
"Notice is hereby given of an appeal taken by the objector,
Minnie Huphrat, from the Deeree made and entered on August 28, 1936,
confirming the report of the Master, the sale and the distributiony
and the reorganization plan, and also of the Decree made and entered
May 4» 1936, to the end that the Master's report of sale and dise
tribution be disaffirmed and the objections thereto sustained, and
that the Deeree of foreclosure be reversed in so far as it affects
the accounting of the Trustee.
"Minnie Buphrat
Appeliant
*By Shulman, Shulman & Abrams
Her Attorneys"
Section 76, pare 204, of the civil practice act (Ill. State Bar
Stats. 1935) provides:
"No appeal shall be taken to the Supreme or Appellate Court
after the expiration of ninety days from the entry of the order,
deeree, judgment or other determination complained of : but, notice
of appeal may be filed after the expiration of said ninety days,
and within the period of one year, by order of the reviewing court,
upon motion and notice to adverse parties, and upon a showing by
affidavit that there is merit in appellant's claim for an appes
OQ 12) sehve lille vasnedaniean ph
2 ,
SaSPF
ee i Nig
sates? ea cali Pe} ae,
etthdate ls | al
gela 72 BOARS
¥
a“
WIOLTO MOAT TAUTGA
“ y moo: | : tomoyrosnt) _ PASHTU seated
YTMOD AOD .TAvoog { ria: ro aig ‘
ae
a
? eee |
. ; “ ed
snoet.
gala te LANE 2°, craven,
2AVOD IHT bef woTHTTO sor. cu WAMADR opmreuy iad
rLseq¢s to sol¢on antwolfot eft boLkt taalleqghA
‘ LeeegA to sobton" ae ae ) a Mi RY v & 4 i
thueoo te as itxat ifs von"
etodoobdo ed? yd moved Laeqqs ne to sevig yeted ak oottok"
eBECL SS tangua no bevteda© bao shes saves off mot? yd eulquil etn
etwmitiudiusalts edd bas eLse edt .aeteaM ad? Yo duoget odd gaiarck
botesne baa sbam setos agit to oefs bas qual notices inag root old
-sib bus efea to trogex a'xetasl{ eft gedt bao od of -BZOL ed
baa ,bontsteve ofereds esoisootdo ent bre bomriitealh ed no.td.
ajostis si es tat oa ai baarever od stse0olsetot to eerood end ds
ssesauztt oft ” ee
jardgut etn te
sunllogy, ‘
YavemzostA toll th daih ious
tad $3 ade elf) toz eoksosig diye oat to ,08 etag er thine
taobiyotg (acer ontaee j
davo0d efalloqqa to smetqua ot od modest od ILerla Leo 2 om”
etobto edd to yxtno edd moct syab yomim te no ty edd xesia
solvent qiud plo benialquoo moltantmretob tetto to tneng 299T00d
— yayeb Ytouta hice to soliexigqne ost retta beLkt ed yam Leeqgs to
~oemae gnkwetvet edt to tobto yf «teey ono to botzeq edd mindy ba
"vd gattwoska ¢ noqw ban .seltceq serevbs of colton bus noisom soqu
isetfeqgge mk tixom ak otedt taslt — tts
:
4
Leeqqe ms sot stisLo &
wea
and that the delay was not due to appellant's culpable nezgli-
gence. *x*#
As no leave to appeal from the decree of May 4, 1936, has been
granted by this court, the time in which appellant might sppes%
from the decree of May 4, 1936, expired August 2, 1936. Appellees
have moved that the present appeal, in so far as it applies to the
decree of May 4, 1936, be dismissed, which motion must be allowed.
There therefore remains for our consideration the appeal from the
Gecree entered August 23, 1936.
Appellant alleges that the chancellor erred (1) in approving
the sele, (2) in apyreving the plan of reorganization, and (3) in
approving the trustee's accounte
The following is a summary of the deeree of August 28, 1936:
"The case coming on to be heard upon (a) the master's report
of sales (b) petition of Edward G. Felsenthal, the successful bidder,
for confirmation of the sale; (¢) ebjections of Minnie Puphrat te
confirmation of sale, the court finds:
*(1) MNetice of the proposed entry of this decree was duly
served upon all attorneys of record, and upon the owers and holders
of all bonds secured by the trust deed herein foreclosed whose bonds
were not offered in payment of the puxchase price at the fereclosure
sales
"(2) The master has in every yonune’ proceeded in due form
of lew and in accordance with the terms said decree and said sale
por ae made end the highest bid obtainable thereat was ree
; ee Py
"(3) The cash value of the bonds and coupons deposited by
the purchaser for credit on his bid was correctly determined by the
master to be $19,224e53, and the master has properly endorsed upon
each bond so presented a legend to the effect that credit has been
allowed thereone ;
“(4) The distributive share of the proceeds of sale dus to
the holders of outatending bonds aot deposited with the master by the
aa at the sale was correctly determined by the master to be
9 J *
"(6) The master correatly determined the amounts available
for distribution on each bond and each interest coupon, as show by
the schedules appearing in the master's reporte
“(6) After appliestion of the proceeds of sale, together
with $1,274.13 cash on hand (as per foreclosure deeree of May 45
1936), there is still due to the plaintiff for his own use and for
the use arid for the benefit of the owners and holders of outstanding
bonds the sum $81,093.13, with interest thereon at 5% per annum from
date of sales
ee
ya
Bee, Se
: = Eiigeit eideqive alinalleaga of exh jon aaw yeLod a
ood ash, sOSSL gh Yat to eoxnod aff soxt Lecqqe oF ovaed om “aA
team ‘tiple tnelleggs Moitw mt omk? off ytawoo ald? yw began
goolloggs s9SCK yh dumguh betiqxe «ERL ,h Yk to vexed odd moat
edt of neifqgs 21 as tet o2 mt lacaye: anouinl, ons deals pevent eyed
sbowolia ef doum aoiidom dotsdw boaatmath ad sees ab wat to sexed
‘end sovt [seqqs of7 tm tare Lenwe <HO x0, cutamor oxo 2ozeutt expat
-DECL .B2 Yawgwa boxedme sexoob
garivesqqe nt (it) foase tol foomatlo outs dont aegotia tes Llogga id |
| wt (¢) bus gnotisxioaytoot to metq off patvoraq nk (8) yekew dala
ra i 4 selibiai ; aabieel aus sabvorgas
LDEOL @BS suswA to ooxo9b oslt Yo eran a at ee oot at
duoqot a'xegeem oft (2) soqu bese od of ot, #0 "gatas sano |
Dibeialiiplitle cians odd #9 to Stam nee
ould 48 —
oS, Ticats 3 ims, toceameen ott gales ws
bovres
absod saotw besoLooret le Bosh 2 zope an botwoos: share ifa to
stweoloe tot att ta ocotxq saatoxmy odd Xo” ni heretio som
mot aub mi bebsooorg + ot pita pene out
aise bive ima sécueb 2 Pais ot aie ‘gt Sars
elt ot naw taecett oddenkasdo bht sg oad
o ti
= tS
“Es Besteoneh ‘amoquos bette abned eats’ te: ‘eat aaae: ‘off une bya
beninxet ob YLtsounos ee bid: adsl ino — ez
sroeqar J ecevonae Ulseqerg steel etiam edd had ty OLS !
seed aad ¢ibexo talé Joe Tie srlt of — ois Sele
66 OE
of ah oLea Yo abeooo ng’ ‘eld Wo oxorta evidudintath itt (o)" )
ai yd tetsam add déiw badigeqed. son abiod waidenretne 3 to atebiod edt
ed o¢ totanm ene ere saw ofa ode ts tonadorung
Sata iy
etal inves adnuone out bicichnaias ath pater po i oat
aq mwotia as ymoqvoo feoretnt done bas gd digas no aie t
ad t0qet a'tedanm wnt mt , aatiaccqs sede 2
"gent ogod: fodiens te abdeeoo te out? to ply ag tev 7
‘¢) YA Yo oerooh omsao foster xsq ad) deme no Maso” Lo
tet hae om ore wind ot Trivnkely of? ot sub uitite re ms
ga dnatetuo te erebfod bas axon on ‘to ¢honsd ett wo% bite at
moh Mss LOG nen id apenene med eo coyeaulh O, £84 moe ot
$
*(7) Hdward Ge Felsenthal, the purchaser at the sale,
acted on behalf of the protective committee for the holders of
mortgage bonds sold by Baer, Hisendrath & Coe, and the bonds and
interest coupons offered in part payment of the purchase price
by said purchaser were at the date of sale and are now owned and
held by said committee pursuant to the terms of a deposit agree-
ment dated July 1, 1932; that said purchase was made pursuamt to
@ plan of reorganization as set forth in the exhibit attached to
the petition of said Edward Ge Felsenthal, to which plan of re-
organization all depositers have consented.
"It is therefore ordered, as followss
*"(1) The sale, issuance of master's certificate of sale,
and master's report of sale and distribution are confirmed, rati-
fied and approved. Plaintiff, Walter S. Baer, as trustee, shall
haye a deficiency decree for the balance still due him in the sum
of $81,093.13, together with interest »t 5% per annum from July
22, 1936. The plaintiff shall continue to remain in possession
of the mortgaged premises and account to this court from time to
time for all net income colle cted from the premises to the expiration
of the statutory period of redemption from said sale, or until satis-
facthon of said deficiency decree, and the court retains jurisdiction
to pass upon the accounts rendered from time to time by said trustee
and to direst the application of the funds in his hands.
"(2) The appraisal of the mortgaged property by R. idncoln
Nelson & Associates, submitted by the trustee, is ardered filed.
“(3) The committee is directed to grant to nondepositing
bondholders an additional period of 60 days from the date hereof in
which to deposit their bonds and participate in the plan of re-
organization upon the same terms and conditions as those who hare
heretofore deposited bonds with the committee. ***"
From this decree it appears that the chancellor did not pass upon
the merits of the plan of reorganization, but merely afforded non-
depositing bondholders an additional period of sixty days in which
to determine whether or not they desired to participate in the plan;
nor did the decree pass upon any accounting rendered by the trustee,
but directed the distribution of $1,274.13 cash on hand, as shown by
the decree of May 4, 1956, together with the proceeds of sale. There-
fore, the sole question for us to consider is whether or not the trial
court erred in confirming the foreclosure sale. July 22, 193%,
pursuant to the decree of foreclosure entered May 4, 1936, the master
in chancery sold the property to Edward G. Felsenthal for $25,000.
The latter made the bid as the representative of the first mortgage
bpondholders' cormittee. He deposited with the master on account of
his bid bonds and interest coupons aggregating $34,821.33. At the
e8fsa oft ja teasdotsg odd «fetinoelel .p bre =e ie
to etebLort’ od “tot sods tomo o oviseesosg” ott to te no" Boton
Sis ebsod add bis ..00 4 dtarbmeal «resi yd bios ebnod ap
gofxg ovatlotng ot to tnenmysq trag ai betetie ano o gastetat
bas bomwo won ex hae efsa toe sish sis te pond pve tt ‘bise yw
~o9iges disoqeh s to amet esl of I maweng reg a es .
o¢ fmeuaiwg obsm saw saadorig Blaw jan? {Ss rd rea ar wait b
od botlostts tidisixe ent ok dotot toe as solias 209% ig 6.
= Ge to nelg doity oF ~ledinoelst 6 brewbe bisa Bo ke tdeq
sbetaanaey evad ated taggeh Ate fo tne,
sewollot ea eawehws oxo tora ah $e
eoise to stsolttixes a'refeam to eonmeeat eles ‘oi? ‘(n)"
ist. qbomthinos ots moliuditieih bus ofsa to dxoqot a redasm ban
Siasle ,ootasit es .rtee@ .2 tedLeW ,@tiislell .bevezqas brs belt
mue. edt ak oid ovb {Lita sonsisd edd “ot oexrseh youstoliob es)
Yul mort noes teq RA de teotedmi Mtlw tantenod 4FL.b00, ‘to
mteesdsog at miamas 6? omtitnog Lfeda Vibdntelq ad? .6DECL .Sh
ot emit mort dryoo aldt of Sowoooe hoe secimerq boy dx0m osit to
noksazltqus odd of aouistenq eff mort betoaties emoont tan,
-aitse fitnw to .efse blae mott moltqmebe t to boltaq Cxodudata. ad ‘to
moltvotbaluwt anietex suvoo ond bas .oetouh yous tolteb bise to%
seseurs bisa yd emis of omits sOtt herebmet-atmyeoos os cogs sesqg od
- -wabrat abt ai shout ont to moideoliqga edt tootts of ba j
sirmua ctevecriatt surreal aoa |
’ ose 2 ty 4
CESS So eee cee |
‘#92 To meiq oft ai etaqloittag bas ebnod ated? /¢lacqab’od doidw |
nt vored eeodt as anoi¢ihbhwos bas -esttot emge edt ‘nogit nodteriasgre
Mie 9058 temaoo oft agen pod hanhesese b o20 1a sored
hogy aasg tom bib 10 LLeonaslo end ‘tesit axesqua ok heduak alr pe
“no Hobtotts YLorom tui «M0 binetnagte or te may oat baie ad irom sarod
Hotdw mt aysb yinin to botreq: tane 23 tobe ne ared.Losbaod' pats teoged
isle eas ai etagqtotiing ot bertaeh Noalt Pos 4, Spe new eaberet eb oz
cooteuts ot Ye betebmer gockinto com ene oar aaag ooresd ai 7 ton
vd swore ae y brad Mo Mase CLs MS. Lh to note ucrsetb ont | devoetlh tu
~oxenT -otse io ebeoooty ant ag itw todtogos. 2008L ‘La ya" w, agteoh ate”
Leics edd ton uo torgodw et tohkemed of ew bal notes pfod' “enig” ‘sete?
ERLE 8S YLwl oO eles oxvacfooxot oft galmriinos ai burke Pxvoo
roduc ould ORCL 4h yall Boxefne oxumooerdy 29 goto but. Of. taswerwg }
,000.88% tot Ledtacelet .p brawht of Ysxeqor al bioa ‘Ytesuaito Hk
egagi xo tart? odd to ovitednoaorge: aad es bid oif3 ahh Rett snes
% sebov0s a0 retain. ond ditty ‘ciashedal He soa tzid ‘gobs
a ee a
ara » Es 188, S88 saienwtenn Ceeanee seoseaar bus sbned bt
wh
time of the sale the committee held bonds in the sum of £57,400
out of a tote] of *79,000 outstanding, and at the time of the con-
firmation of the sale the committee held bonds in the sum of
£63900, or approximately eichty-one per cent of the total. ‘The
appraisal report of the expert retained by the bondolders' committee
is as followse
“RG: CHESTERFIELD APARTMENTS »
3€53-57 Wabansia Avee, Se He Core luwndale Avenue »
GHIGAGO, ILLINOIS.
*Gentlemen s
‘Pursuant to your requests, we have made an inspection and
appraisal of the above mentioned property to determine as near as
possible its present fair cash market value, and submit herewith
our reporte
“Location: Southeact Corner Wabansia & Lawndale AVERUES »
"Lot Sizes 71' x 125',
“Neighbor- This is an old district built up for the most part with
hoods: obsolete frame and brick houses and flats and populated
by middle-class workers of Seandanavian 4 escente It is
convenient to transportation, stores and schools.
"Improvye= The site is improved with a three story and Inglish
ments: basement brick, court type apartment building of —
ordinary coustruction about ten years old. It houses
25 apartments, totalling 73 rooms, as follows:
1 - Basement 4 room Janitorts Apte
6 «@ Standard 4 room mits.
6 = 3-1/2 room units with Living & Dining & Bed Rooms,
Kitchenette and Bathe
6 ~- 2 room unite with Living Room, Kitchen-Dinette &
Baths
6 =~ 2 room units with Living Room, Kitchen and Bath.
Some of the rooms are rather Smail and all apartmats
lack adequate closet spacee
Foundations » « » » « » Concrete
Exterior Walla ..«e¢ee Street & Court Bleve: Face brick »
stone trime Balance is common
bricks
Roof + e¢ se + eee os » Tar and Gravel.
Gutters & Down Spouts Galvenized Iron.
Heat «se ese scane One Pipe Steamy, #12 Hand stokea
Kewanee Boiler, Ferguson sub«
merged water heating systems
ee Resid)
i Wl oun
Cf
00d. Tet to. aura, ond nue abaod bfor ootd tumos eid Blea + nl to oak
“HOD oats 20 oud? add te deus. end Lbiing 89100 don. er? ‘to Eager pe 10.
| “ to ma els wut abroad btext sod t keunos od? ofee ont 0 ‘0 Eames 29
i ont tatoo ese % tusn ees anyday to vfotamixeryae to +008, 288, |
e033 tmmoo tarohlobnod onl Ue jentedon dreqxe eels to dxoqot isu tazeqe
»», tawoLlot ae ut
PUNDIT querunrasio sea
~ eainow tester 200 “ 4B naa Wa-E83,
ng HILT .OOA0T Rs
) ) anaes
baa mehtowant: Patsy onan ered, ew ’ onne t ee. a Gi
g@ then ta embereteb «ed « is wwe he % sa am ,
pit Heron ent concen DLS 4 Vv aiiiitaitie ist a dak ie “ :
droge’
» oxrevA eLabsome & nbdewdian ‘asi? taevaitwoe “two ttagor*
es tae i. Wee
88h x ES Feat doi"
std kw ¢<aq Juem ese cot qu Fee irae bie ‘ih or nar aes
betalvqog baa atalt has eeayorl doind base omer? Slammers |
ee ee See a =
et as atmoone b naivenabnesd ‘to exextow ae ne ee
en hue aetota, eho lsat ogt ‘ett 0 ohn ‘ te the od
‘ oe ae a) ecORah od sto kee
forse wen os sorte a, nid tw ibleiaiek “a here \ seomreoneget
“duos .dotid sees 0 euhetent
Z yur ghey bo da mo kd qirtd
eeanwon + Oo Btsoy & © ano o
rawoito? aS ,oRoot it snitis A coumatthamne ets ord,
i tga gtroriast moor BS eatin? Bi ontixny eift
13d baw ina ao, S be parti |
“coo hea 3 ania 2 pat a img moor MMT gate taog or
ted ba “sddonertod 22
foe onlewet ob e2
a p.metonst-nedetht m9 08 aaky at abe at inw ) moe 1 - 2 ,
i rial Op oh ab ‘
ys arin S® Mae’ ae od ‘es
Sele Os MM MI 5
tad bits tiorigs EM eon gutvid ad iw ad teu moos & bo dh 6, My eae i Sy Hike i ;
bd madtegh Ile bie [Lame teitet ets amet om?, 20.4 ialatlet ihe
' rr, mevoiaied etaupeba vo acts
edertoied eeee ee , amo teabraot
ast bse eyvelt trod @ soeMses ww wi) OLA, toktePRD oe ping)
SeeQcieN 9 ak eons isd emiad osota ig:
‘ ‘gahot teh Ay tis nF es Hist oe as at
stort bewinavisd.atwog? nwo & etedsM any
powteda brisit SLR aateese eg lt and: ese aoe 9
-due moangtot steLtom senaveod il 2 ;
yoetaye gakined setew beBQTAM oo yoy Jy: eek Dee we bned bbe i
a5e
"Occupancy
& Income?
"Valuation:
Refrigeration »« « « « 1 Frigidaire and 16 Westinghouse
individual unitse 8 Ice Boxes.
Apartment Floors « e Oak, except bath, which are tiles
Apartment Ceilings »« Caleimined, except Eitchers and
path rooms, which are ennameleds
Wood Trim « «© © ® © oe Gumwood, stained or paintede
Apartment Walls @ « .» Papered, except Kitchers& Bath
rooms, which ere enamelede
Plumbing «© «seas Ordinary for this type vullding.
Full apron sinks in Kitchens.
Bath Rooms have Pedestal Lavatory,
low flush box toilet, full apron
inset tuby with showere
Blectric Work .e« « e Ordinary for this type building.
Cheap fixtures.
The property appears to be in good conditions
As of the date of our inspection, the premises were fully |
occupied at a reported monthly rental of $787.00, or
$9444. per annume
Operating Expenses, taxes, insurance, management, end
an allowamee of 6% for vaeancies and rent losses are
estimated at $6,029+, leaving a probable net income
before depreciation of $3,415-«
The building has a cubical content of 226,657 cubic feete
The reproduetion cost, based on current material prices
and union labor seale of wages, architects fees, and con-
tractor's profit, is estimated at 29 cents per cubic
foot, or $65,730. The depreciated value is estimated at
$49,300, and land value is estimated at $5,000, making a
total physical value of $54,300¢
There has been little or no market value for multiple
apartment buildings in other than choice locations. There
are now a few buyers in the market for buildings like the
subject property, but they will buy only at sacrifice
prices. However, there are very few deals being made as
asking prices are so much higher than bid prices. Accord-
ing to loeal brokers, investors will consider properties
in this district on a basis of from three to four times
gross income, depending on location, the average being
around three and one half times. It is our opinion,
however, that a well informed buyer will pay more atten=-
tion to net income ani that he will purchase only such
properties as will produce net income in amounts suffi-
cient to amortize his investment during the estimated re-
maining economic life of the building, and in addition
pay him a reasonable return on his investment. Such an
investor will take into consideration the inevitable in-
crease in taxese
Basing our valué opinion on these considerations, we find
savoignitaeW af bane oxtably ivi £ s « w¢ nobtereais?
s89K08 ool & sation Leubivibat Bekeailis cae:
ens 5
Baws erodiod EX tqeoxe ,honmimio£ad * “spabtioo $end ng
H sholomane ave dolsdw qamoon. died ..
i| sbhotemane ot cdotdw »antoot
| santbtiyd atl? tot yremthO) eve 9 2 a © BMRAOULS '
+ os re noxge page gi TREO
¥
‘ewotevel istesbot oved smoot diai
gongs Lint «teLlod xod dawlt wot
exewonls aviw gdvt teant
gat itud eget eit 0% Yremibxo,. . 08 abstosit -
Beteextt qaedd
etolitinzon beog at ed of ateogge Wrogorg od
Ylint siew oo ge ent emoitoogqant <0 to “x” oats 20 eA
Pa) 1000 V8'% to fatuex yidinom bedtogse: 2
seeanal ne oa sb ge
bee (thewogensm eeoiuetiasit sooxse _tggemaext sare ;
““@ta aoeaol sitet brs aolonsoay 29°
emont jon eldador a Berges, ae ogee '
BLD. d3 to no ftatoomgeb onoted
etoot otdwa V#aeGSa ‘to. instiog tee footie 8 eed g
eoolag, antes ss dnextse a pting Ping pt 0. DOD E
neo bie «dest a weve ty ss 08 o sisoa todel —_
pidvo téq atmeo OS de bs anita 8 al etitoxg &'xotoct
$s botemiteo uk exlev betstos O89, 594 20. 4 do0%”
F: eee eon js hodantia ea onion. band bua ook eh -
) eOOE— dS to uke iootewte.
‘ehiitiie tot exfev teviam on “0 etad it ‘kent eae wena
eres? .»anotiscol soles madd tolée mk agai Liard: Paomerags”
eit exit agnthlivd xo% doatran ont at eteyud wot 82
soltivose ts vino yd Ifiw yess tud Uttogqore ootdue
an shes griited alaob wet yxer ots axedd . 2evewoH - tpn :
let. eeooixg bid mat? tofgid coum of ots reset Bre
eelizeqoesg szeblanos {Liv etodeevitl etonotd' Inge.
eemit wwot o¢ ceids mont to sleed a mo Polarfakhn’ ‘ans
gited sgatove eft ,ymottsoot mo gnibneqod .omont aon
etoinigo two ai ¢i .wemkd Tisd ono hue soxnd §
-notta arom Yoq LLiw sowed beerte'lnk ifow's fad? ¢%
As Bane
fous. yino eagtotyg Lidw ed tod? tee emoont tom od molt
-Litve stnvome at omont som eswhotg [Liw aa eeltreqotg
-ot betamitas ofS gutivh tnembaoynl aid exidtome o¢ trek.
solitbbe al bas «§nkbLiud edd to ‘ott ‘olménmod gatintan
te Howe stnomtaoval aid no mister @ B &
~nikt eldativent edi aokt sesh teneo osnt aber ttiw Fs ovey
ba Bow vemoivave tam09 eae 9 # wolnige dutey “0 » anknal.
gids
e0Lid exe Molttw yidltad tqooxe eXed ** eroo lt tome raga !
i ' sheiaied co benista ~hoownnD .» © s # s « mtivt beoW .:
i Sis@ Sarees iA tqgooxs «hoteqsi ., « @ ello tnomtraqa
# sat
eeoxad nt sqsezp)
scdoatntin LEME
t heed
«ope d"
= Gus
the fair market value of the subject property as of
this date, Jbugust Srd,y 1936, to be $34,100
"Re Lincoln Nelson & Associates,
"By R. Lincoln Nelson
August 3rd, 1936."
Appellant offered in evidence the original selling circular issued
by Baer, Hisendrath & Company in 1927, when the bonds were placed
upon the market, which contains a picture of the premises in question,
and also the following?
"Phis Choice 25-Apartment Building is located on one of the best
corners of the Northwest Side of Chicago. It is situated in a
district that is well improved with high class apartment buildings
and homes and because of its sorner location affords light, air
and a pleasant outlook to each apartment. The arrangement of the
apartments are particularly adapted to the rental demand of this
locality
"Neighborhood and Surroundings. Both Lawndale and Wabansia Aves.
are well known residential streets. Their intersection is only
one block east of the Pacific Station of the C. M. & St. Paul
Railway. The Crawford Avenue and North Avenue surface cara afford
excellent transportation as does the Metropolitan Ylevated one
block southe
"Building: High grade, well constructed, three-story and Mnglish
basement briek, stone and steel structure, containing 25 apartments,
divided into thirteen of 4-roome and twelve of 3-rooms cache Hach
apartment has tile bath with built-in tubs and showers, large and
roomy sun parlor and all modern conveniencss. Apartments are
finished in mahogany and white enamel. Latest design electric
fixtures. Steam heat. ‘the building will cover the entire lot.
“Ground: 71 feet on Lawndale Avenue by a depth of 125 feet on
Wabansia Avenuee
"Rental: The annual rental of this building is ecomservatively esti-~
mated at $20,000.
"Prepayment Privilege. At the option of the Mortgagor any and all
bonds not yet due may be callable in reverse order on any interest
paying date at 103 and intereste
"Monthly Payments: As additional protection, the borrower is re-
quired to deposit with Baer, Hisendrath & Coe, on the first day of
each and every month during the entire life of the loan, one-twelfth
(1-12th) of the annual interest and principal charges that will be
due during the then current year
"Normal Income Tax Paid: The Mortgagor agrees and covenants te
the Normal Federal Income Tax up to 2 per cent on the interest
of these bondse
*Guarantee and Insurance: The title to this property and the validity
of the $85,000 worth of bonds issued is guaranteed by the Chisago
Title & trust Co.'s Guarantee Policy for the full amount, and is held
z 3 ve ;
“abe
pi apn to aa Xiteqgong tostdus ‘ens Yo evalev tettenr Yist ‘sntt
sOGL SES od OF ~BECL .hxE gangwA ,eteb alas
gnitatgecas &.moaleli afoomhl oi"
meelok nloonid «HK yf" )
* GOL ebte tema”
housed ueiwotte guifloa Leniyizo add esnebive Wi SeteTio smaLLeqga
¢ booaly aaa abnod add amma #¥ser nh Yooqued & diatinoe ht . reall yd
vo. emp at soaastetg outs to ) omsotg & serdar py ed «todten edt aoqe
© * Sie a @
Mery file: } peeping edt oals ham
dued edi to om no boteoel at yutblLind juemditaqA-88 soto abit”
a mk boteandia af Pi “ogsoldd to eble geaowsldto oft to atentoo
agniblind tnomisgs eaalo dald ad ty sever ffow ak gant solxdato
‘tla ,tigtlL abtotta molteoel temo sti to sensed bra somod bas
el? to gaemeqnatts ont © id ov bese done of tooline tnsaselq # bus
abit sey buatasd fed not ett of be gebs wine tre ht ag, ots Sriioos
. Haney
sw shasedeW fis efLsimvral ated”
yimo ai aoltooutednl thet? pikes da Ish?
ivel 622 & M.D old to mottade olttost
brotie eso evaetiva ounevs Ajiol Seis emneyv Otwerd, «Gow ki
ero besavelt soi ad ent ‘gob “te adddasaogauaxt tnelLooxe
Haat easy eae ie sAivea doold
Leas ia ta y
datigout “ae wrgder soni tds ais é ‘ttow oe : it bo
“Koa” stows ingnoo «Stutowtia foeda has, enode
ot~ to svews bas t-h Yo noodtidy
» beta nc ye pit ‘pats adit” ea | iiiw disd eft.
ets afiominag, .'sdpne inov, vibes ILe bas
‘olttoole tigtceh Ssesal . Loman ‘of, Lov bas, a. ak beria tnt?
“Sstok orkgete ait weve fitw gakhd ted ontt Fs eehewags sgorusexh?
m gost anf to oe ‘b we sunevd ekebrorad co “peek iv sboworo"
as EER A. sianadal
stdeg, eroriveyynali | vt x sno ot te. Intaon fas ed? tLetuom” j
a soe ts doteu -
cha bab !sin’ topene cox ots ‘to ma ‘i
fasredat Yas no t6hte oBToTOT at olds
“ot ak toworted out i thbdnated “Lene 2
cei yah garkT odd so .vO B adi
“adiLews-ono “ytteeL sift “fo ©
ed Lidw socks “‘eaptady fo
od utannoves bus wosttys parses . ‘Syieae Rey ‘ont | teursoK" ’
ents
duoxetnh oily no Yao tog & Ot Sexdbet Lsmrroli oft yeq
ergre oa eeesbeod enous
tibifey edt hue ytnegetg ald of 2 eons TUE soln?
b Yo: Sov baa wnogere oad ed tte at @ to décow Stow 000 888 2
blo -e" bie atrwvome Efe edt rot ip saranie ees Met eu cei eo S
oan
py our Mr. Walter S.- Baer as Trustee for the bondholders. Fire
insuranee for $85,000 is carried in standard companies, insuring
against loss by fire. We also carry Tornado insurance.
“NMortgagor: Joseph Urban is well known to this officee We hae
had other satisfactory dealings with hime"
fhe attorney for appellees cbiected to the introduction of this
gircular on the ground that the appellees had nothing to do with
the issuance of the same, but the trial court admitted the circular
“for what it is worth." Wo other evidence was offered by appellant
in support of her claim that the bid was inadequatee The contention
ef appellant that a comparison of the sale price with the picture
of the building produces the conclusion “that the sale was fraud
per se," is without merit. No showing was made that the sale was
not regularly, honestly and fairly conducted in accordance with the
provisions of the deeree of foreclosure entered May 4, 1936, As
appellees contend, “a bid of $25,000, subject to accrual of taxes
to the em of the period of r edemption, also interest during the
game period, was equivalent to a purehase price in exeess of $30,000."
Before confirming the sale the chancellor, at the request of counsel
fer appellant, continued the matter for a day in order that he might
secure @ party who would offer fifty per cent of the entire indebted-
nesse When court comvened the following day the counsel made no offer,
but stated, “I believe I can get a bigger figure but it will take some
time and I don't want to prolong the matter." He made no request for
further time to secure a better bid. The chancellor thereupon entered
the order confirming the sale, but providing that the committee was
directed to grant the nondepositing bondholders an additional period
of sixty days in which to deposit their bonds and participate in the
plan of reorganization upon the same terms and conditions as those
who had theretofore deposited bonds with the committee.
The record shows that the chancellor was disposed to protect
the rights of all of the bondholders, and we are unable to say that
such a gross inadequacy existed in the bid thet the chancellor should
af
cage
She
exkt atebledhnod ody tot eosaust os, 190% .8 eetlay oxi aro Yo
gnimvant _ @oLiaqen o- bisbueda: al, pelts at 000,88% ‘xo % sonetwant
soonernans obanxet yxseo oals oF ,sorkt vd taut fontean.
awl oy ssoltto 6 iis od swost Lfew al nadiU dgowoG 8% om"
M opnkat sft be, egnifeah ‘exotoetaliaa tedve bal
a kets 2 no 4 ouborsa ‘eid of bodnstdo woolLeqges xot yourosie ont
ag iv ob of anhiton basi ace Lioqgs ons dostd boworg odd mo telvotks
oaca off ‘to sonsuedd edd:
| _ salyotio ents bess inbe | $aoo tekst ots tad «
cidtow ah PE Hedtw' x0?’
ineftieg¢s ww horetto saw somebive ‘tosldo “ox a
ng itnie gH00 edt ,e¢eupshant saw bid ot tarkt mtato xad to duoyque ok
oufoig oft deliv sotsg eksa outé to nogbregeo9 a “bastd. partes,
bust? aw shen’ ot $i sotertoxos art? ‘spoubong pabitud dy to
asw efon esd dems cham ow patwoste oe fiom duostd.tw. ak $/ 1 9g
ots thw sonsbtoo08 mz hotoubsoo yixiet baa viasemd euimabipet tn
ah .B80L ed Yok betedns otwadtootot by oonseb oh: to. ano teive 70%
goxat to favroos of tootdea, «000—8h} to bie a" “gbnsta0e cvesioage
ode nakiwh gacretat oats etoitgmebs 1 Te bokseq axis 0: bao odd ‘ot
00D ,08§ 20 aucoxant soing sassignug & of tieLeviipe Saw’ «botzem PRRs
Loamoo to teonpet st 46 stoLfooaesio edt ofse oft sitarerineo ¢ oxoted
alg ben eH talt xebto mt ‘ab s Tot restau oils | bewaltnoo dno LLoqge 102
~beddebut exttae ont to men 19g yetit ‘wo to b.tiow odw yd tag. -aeae
eTetto of pein feannoo aid yab grikwoltet at? bonevnsD” FtH09 nostt eprint 4
pao efad Litw oh stud owge? tonaidie deg ane t eyoited ro abotate du q
sot saempet on sham oH ".tesdam add gmototg od dnew Pub: I baie: omit q
botetne’ moquerertt coLtoonssio ent coh hd xetded 9 otwose of omby ronteeh? q
asw eosiiomoo of? gadt guthtvorq dud celee ont “pmbaet Pio" zope: out ;
bolieg fanotd tbe ne erebLombnod poke goqohaos ond dnesa, of ‘hetes%
y Re yah seg
edt ink ejaqiotvieg Bie abired: machete tkanged, oe £9 sh
egodd 23 anoltstbsoo bre aaiod ostaa exit moger oid an knagré 9 to “ ate
voossinmme ond dd iw absiod. betlucged. exo tosorent -
goatoxrg of besogeld ecw. roLLeonatlo ond tanlt aworle biove 1 ent
taal ¥ea. od sideuw eis ow bts caxebLosibaod ‘onke, co ee a en
Atworle toLLeonado ext $ asl bid ent nt botaixe “vonupebantt eee |
ae
; CK)
4y
“o~
have refused approval of the sale. (See the late case of Levy
v. Broadway-Carmen Bldgs Gorpey Ille Supreme Ct. No. 23002.)
The deeree of the Circuit court of Cook county entered
August 28, 1936, is affirmed.
DECRG ENTERED AUGUST 2%» 193Gy
AFFIRMED «
Sullivan, Pe Jey and Friend, de» Conecure
pra Eevee wet yaaa pe efi de sts
aren Seve Hee © act sstaupobent inl lat we
ess ty Be at ota a ook oat wae ® i
wait vig wtes ony ato somata. ts onan ah
ial phew oe Sade ohast oat | }
ae | Sacha wis" i
pee peta pen tne sim ad
ments ti stot iii iti ny bra
sot seaupet or etn ou * koe M68
%.
E
} gh fete Rie oe. Av. ;
, tenga Se ot ‘teat nee itd nt dodetes.
39305
RUTH LAWSON and CHARLOTTE LAWO,
(Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants )
Appellees,
APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL
COURT OF CHICAGO.
WILLIAM BEAUDRY, nen and
Cross-Complainant ae (2 9 O Po G 1 or
MR. JUSTICE SCANLAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Ve
Defendant appeals from a judgment in the sum of $191.15
entered upon a juryts verdict in an action in tort. Plaintiffs
are sisters and school teachers. At the time of the accident
they were on their way to theirxzespective schools in an automobile
that was jointlyowned by them. The alleged damage to the car and
the personal injuries to the plaintiffs reaulted from a collision
with defendant's care Plaintiffs sued to recover for the damge
to their carg also for injuries suffered by each plaintiff. The
jury returned a verdict finding defendant guilty and assessing
Plaintiffs' damages for injuries to the car in the sum of $191.15;
also finding defendant guilty and assessing plaintiff Charlotte
Lawson's damages in the sum of $433 also finding defendant guilty
and assessing plaintiff Ruth Lawson's damages at the sum of $12.
The court overruled a motion for a new trial as to the verdict
for $191.15, but granted a new trial as to the verdicts in favor
of the plaintiffs individually.
We are satisfied that the case was ably and fairly tried
by an experienced judge and that the judgment entered was fully
sustained by the evidence and the law. In a simple case involving
a EG WevaAL STTOISAND ‘itn HOSWAL ETUA
« ne atasbneted-eaet) bas aM HAIAES)
2,890 Logqa
TACIOTWUM MOTT LAROTA i
ii : ay 6 ey s fay
la sODADTHD TW THUOD«: am ee :
i bre pmmheeat eYRMUARE MALLIIW
$
Pt ASP TA TOC Sitios: ee
oy sTHUOD THT WO BOTHIGO ERT GMTEVEIGG WATWADS SOTTEUL «Ae
| ap. res8 to mya odd at sromout © mort ekseqqa tnsbaetet bi
attitnis£t .«txod mi notios as ai tokirey atyiut s mou borosne
b teh toos ent to emit afd tA eutetoses Loodoa bus ansdete ore
| alidomeius ae at afoontoe ovitooqeerxieds of Yew theds mo extew Sh isis
hun ta0 osfd 0% egamad hegolle oat «mart yd bocwoeltato, asm asw sadd
! msolaiffoo a moxt bodiveer etil¢umialy edd of setzuias fanoes0q odd
egeasbh odd sot teveost of home attitate ld 280 a! tnebae tb tistw
edt .»ttktnisig dose yd boteTive setwiat tot oats gtao test os
} giisacacs bus yiLivg tashne'teh gathntt sothiey s bemutet veut
| s0L.L0L8 to awe oft wt rao odd of eotrwimt tot aegamed teltisatelg
etdolrsdd tilinislq guteseaas hea yiLing stnabustobd gntbalt cals
yiliog inebnoteb patbnit oefe yéae to mea od? at aegemeab a 'noawail
868 to muse oft te sepemab atmoawal diwh TilinteLg ontuasnte nae
folthbtev oft of as Laelut won 2 tot soliom s befwxrsvo dxu00 edt
tovet mi atokbrev oft of 8a Latsd went 2 hbetasig tud 18Le 1082 not
een avtitatelg ont ” :
betas yfultst bus yids sew eeso oft gantt bettattea ers oW
“lint saw hotetne toemgout, ect tadd bne enous boone txeque Be) we
gatvioval ease ofqmta s mI .Wwol ert bus eomebtrve edd yd bontavave
S
et es deat
Dee
@ collision between two automobiles where the amount of the judg-
ment is much less than the cost of presenting the case for review,
defendant's counsel have seen fit to burden this court with very
lengthy briefs, in which the rules and procedure of the Municipal
court are analyzed and condemned, and various questions are discussed
that have no material bearing upon the question as te whether sub-
stantial justice has been done by the entry of the judgment. The t rial
court orally instructed the jury at great length and defendant's
counsel have seen fit to divide the instruction into paragraphs for
the purpose of criticism and objection, which, of course, they cannot
doe (Greenburg ve Childs, 242 Ill. 110, 115.) Moreover, Rule 171 of
the Civil Practice Rules of the Municipal Court of Chicago requires
that “objections to the charge must be made before the jury retire
and must specifically point out wherein the part objected to is
erroneous and the party objecting must indicate clearly the correction
therein desired to be made, and upon the objections being made the
judge may make such corrections as he may deem proper," and defendant
failed entirely to comply with this rule, and he is now in no posie
tion to complain of certain parts of the oral instruction given to
the jury.
As to the other contentions raised by defendant it is suffie
ecient to say that we have considered the same and find them without
merite
The judgment of the Municipal court of Chicago should be
and it is affirmed.
JUDGEINT AFFIRMED.
Sullivan, Pe Joy and Friend, Je, concurs
|
~gbu, eft to tavome of? oxedw solidomotus ows noowted solteatiioo a
| qwabrex tot saso anf gaktneeerg ‘bo daoo off matt aeol doum et ¢mom
i Ytev aiiw dtyon sitt mobtad of 312 noon svad Loanvoo a’tnsbsereb
| IeqiotoxM att to oxmhesorg Soe eetyx sd? dotdw mi ,etetud ities
besavoelh ots anotiesyp avotiay bis « bommeba 9 bas boxytans ote. a0
wdua gestoiv of ae nodteeyp olt nog ontiaed falvetam om svadt talt
Telxd off totmabu, edd to eaime et yd onmob aeed ae ebtvaut sectidenedia
att aabae tob bets Pane L se2erg te wart oslt Ledantetanl ae Lax co. dans
Xot adqatgotseg oint no ks outta rt atid abivih ot 2i% meee eval Loamoo
tonnes yous _oatioo To edoisiw .moldos ido bins me lotiino to eeoguuq edd
(to INL oLasét etevootelt Avett OLE » SLE Sas eS 7 amudnees® ) «ob
eoz upon ‘eganisto to uso fog to toa axis te “90 La eokiosxt Lbykd ong
oxttor vast, od oroted ebam ed “Seas eprado oats ‘08 ano itoopdo" ‘darts
7 at 08 bodootde drag ett akerosty 210 ‘tatog Vilsotttosgs “fu ‘bate
$i 3 yoy
no tt o2z%00 ont tecto staotbat pes antvos bdo vizag out hue ‘auoen 10 119
oat bam gnied anoitoobdo ‘ost toga bis + 9baa of 8 ‘pottaep pi!
: 2 oe a rae poe ay eee nies
sashnotoh beus Mexogore moo vant ot as ano R$ oe7z00 Howe exten Lane fe
S ty
4
yas
ne
wkeog on st wom ef od bre. coLare ates ‘ait av vemoe of ‘loxtine “pette’
we
fe Qeeo that ed.
ot meyig soltouts ant dst outs te adteg niedt90 ® mbsqmoe af wo bs
~iTiwe, al ot teisbrio tsb vw besten esol #10409 xesis0 etd ot ad
duods iw madd butt bra ema axis boxobienoe over al ast we os _tnete
pee
_sthrom
od Sivote ogee ido to, $xu09 0 Lage taunt ont % “tromebut oft i“
ASMALTIA THEMDIUL ‘ial lah Game In. :
wuNroroo ¢s% ebnolxt baw cob af gnovilive
S PH a.
wi iis "i 3
ce me fy Se eee Pe by ihe synch bi
. rh ie eS) ae A Chg te Fu 4 yt y
te We
Qe
; sbomnte 5 at an aa ‘
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the and day of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven,
Within and for the Second District of the State of Illincis:
Present -—— The Hons BLAINE HUFFMAN, Presiding Justice.
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.
Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Justice.
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
290 ]1.A. 6 13
RALPH H. DESPER, Sheriff. JV Lelie O HT ey
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
APR 1 4 1937 the opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's
Oitiee of Said Court, in the worde and figures following, to-wit:
ee ee ge akonun tak wane ha aaa ee one
vu 2 ~.
gM ered te, te
BOLI te maa
Gen. No. 9167 Agenda No. 18
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF IL UINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT
FEBRUARY TERM, A. D. 1937.
Carl fT. J. Richards, Executor of
the Last Will and Testament of
Martha J. Richards, deceased,
Appellee,
Appeal from Circuit Court
vs.
Peoria County.
Chicago & Illinois Midland
Railway Company, a Corporation,
Appellant.
HUFFMAN, P.&.
This was an action by appellee to recover damages for the
alleged wrongful death of the deceased. The jury returned a verdict
for $5000, and this appeal is prosecuted from the judgment thereon.
The deceased was over seventy-five years of age at the time of her
death. She had bem a widow for thirty years. She had three children
living, all adults, married, and with families of their own. She was
making her home with her son, appellee, at the time of her death.
He was forty-six years of age. His family consisted of himself, wife,
and three children. His testimony is to the effeclt hat nis mother
began work as a practical nurse in the year 1903, and that this had
continued to be her occupation; and that during app roximately the
last ten years prior to her death, she had made her home with him at
Peoria. During the warm months in the summer time, he wouid take her
to the home at Petersburg, which was a short distance away. Just
prior to July 5, 1933, he had taken his mother down to Petersburg,
where she was planning to spend a few weeks.
Appellant was possessed of and operating a railroad near the
city of Petersburg. On the morning of July 5, 1933, the deceased
and a grandson, age nine, started to walk out from the village of
i ¢ i 1 r
| Sg ae nelle
Cig 3
8I .oM sbhaega | Vale .of .sep —
~SIOULITL FO TAHVOD ATAIITTGIA ANT UI
TOIATEIG auoowe
VEGI .@ 1A MART YRAURERY
to tovwoexd ,ehbisdoiff .& .T fxsd
to gnomstast bus [LiWw taad elt
easeosbh ,abtsdoif .& sdvisM
eeolleqga
txuvod tiyertd mott Lasqqa
2av
etdavod sitosd —
basilbim afontiil & ogsoidd
Aoltstogzed. s ,yasquod yswi ish
-tnslleqgdé
~Bet .MAMTIUH
edd tol esgsmeb tevooer of selisqgs yd actios as asw eld?
totbrev s besiutex yiwt sdT .beassosbh edt to dtaeh Ivtgaouw begets
. Moeteds tasmgbu, edt mott. betwoeaotg at Iseqqs aids bas 20008} zok
tod to outt sat ts egs to arsey evit—-ysaevea revo unk Dhsaseoeb edt
fsethlido esiddv Dad esQ .etsey yiridst tot woblw s med bed ede .ftsed —
asw ede .mwo siedd to esifimst déiw bas ,bsirism wat lobe Ila wgakvil
-fitssh ted to euit edt ts ,selfeqqs .mos ted dttw smod ted gnidsm
eetiw ,tlieemid to betatenoo yitmet elH .eys to etsey xis-yirolt asw eH
reritom sid tadtibette edt of st yoomiteet alk .nerbhbiido eerdt bas
bed atdt tesdt bus ,f0@L reey odt at eatua Isoivosiq 8 as Atow asged
edt yletsmixor qqe guiwsh tedt bas ;aoldsquooo ted ed ot beunttnoo
ta mid difiw emod ted obem bs ode ,déseb ted o¢ t0oitq etssy oot tast
ted eust blyow of ,omid tonmmye edt at adénom mrew odd gaotte .altoed
tau .Ysews constath tuode s aswdoidw .giwdarsted ts emod edt oft
~gtudetsted of awob tediom eid meaAst hed ood ,SECL .2 yLlvt of sxoltagq
-aisew wot s baaga ot yotanelq asw ode oredw
edt xrsen bsorlist s gaitstsqo bas to bearssasog easw tmaileqga
4 heassosh edt ,ctel .& ylut to gaintom. edt m0 .gtwdetessq to ytto
Yo egslliv edt mort tuo tlew ot Sottetes .entm ege ,sosbasey 2 bas
re
ia
=-Z=-
Petersburg to Old Salem Chauteuqua grounds, which was across the
Sangamon river from where they started. In order to save distance,
they proceeded down the track of appellant and upon the railroad
bridge which crossed the river. The bridge is about two hundred
forty feet in length. The deceased and the boy were proceeding
east across the bridge. It was about 9:30 o'clock in the morning,
and the day was clear. Appellant was at the time engaged in operat-
ing a local train which ran between Springfield and Peoria. The
train approached the bridge from the west. Only one eye witness
was living at the time of the trial. He was the fireman upon
appellant's engine. The train consisted of an engine, coal tender,
a refrigerator car, one combination baggage and express car, and
one passenger car. This train of three cars was made up in the
order above named. According to the evidence there is a curve in
the track just west of the bridge, which prevented the trainmen from
sé@eing the deceased and her grandson upon the bridge, until such
time as the engine came out of the curve and upon straight track,
which was at a point about thirty feet from the west end of the
bridge. The fireman testified that he then saw the deceased and
her grandson upon the bridge and gave warning to the engineer, who
shut off the steam and applied the emergency brakes. The evidence
is not in dispute that the engineer had given signals and that the
deceased and her grandson were aware m& the train was approaching.
As near as can be ascertained fromthe record, they were then within
about fifteen or twenty feet of the east end of the bridge. The
engine after coming out of the curve was approsiimately at the west
end of the bridge. The fireman stated the train was then going at
the rate of about thirty-five miles per hour. The deceased and her
grandson went to one side of the bridge as a place of safety, in
erder to permit the train to pass. In the opinion of the fireman,
the speed of the train had been reduced to about ten miles per
hour when it reached the place on the bridge where the deceased and
her grandson were standing. The engine and coal tender passed them
a
edt sactos asw doidw ,abavots esupuatuadd melee bLO o# gucderedeq
,2onsteib evsa ot ishbte al .betiste yedt stedw mort revit momsgase —
Hsotlisr sdt noqy bas tnosileqqs to Aosts edt awob bebsecorq yedt
bethbaud ows twods ak eabitd edT aake edd besaoro doldw eybind
gatbesootg ersw yod edd bas beessosh edt -Atgmel ni test yttot
epaiinitom sdv ai AHoolo'o 0&;8 tuods asw itl] .egbind sdt aaotos fase
~tsteqo ai begsgme sult sdt ts asw taslleqca +tselo saw ysb edt.ibas.)
ant .sitosd bas Sleftgaixzge neowssd 182 doidw nistt LsooL s gat
seentiw eye eno yin0. .taew edd mort egbixd sdt Setosotqas mtart
foqy aametit-esdt easw sH .fsetat edt to omit edt +s gnhvil sy
.t9bmet Isoo ,exigne as to bstatemoo aistt edt .enizae. a 'tuslleqqs:
Sas .180 ssetgqxs bas egsyusd coktsnidmos smo ,1s0 totstegkrter s |
edt ai qu ebsm asw atso soxdt to mistt aidT .1tso0 regaeaasq ono
of esvaso s al sxedt somebive oct ot umidro00A 8 .bonsa .Svods 'xebro"
mort asmnisst edt betasverg doidw ,egbtad ed¢ to teew test aosxt edt
doue Litaw ,sgbhixd oft goqu moabusrg 19d bas beassoeb edt gaissa
.~tosts tigisrte coqu bas eviyoe edd to tuo smso satans edt as lemtz ©
eff to boe teow edt moxt teet ytridd tuods tafog s ts aswdoisw |
bas beessoeb edt wsa nedt ed tedd beititeess asmexit ed? .eybiaed.
ciw ,tsenigne sdt ot gniatsw eveg bas egbitd sv soqu moabasrg t8d
eonebive sdf .aederd yorsyreme sdt beifqqs bane méotve edt tito sede
oid dsdt bas elsengia nmevig Bed te9enigae edt tad? etugeath at somvelk
»galdosotags asw aistt edd im etsws ersw coebnstyg med. bas beassosh.
aidtviw aedt stew yedt ,.btoost sAtmoxt bemistzrssss Sd aso. as ‘wBenoaA”
siT .sgbixnd edt to bas taas edt to toot ysaows to mesttht- tuods»
| tasw edt te yiotsmisorqgs sew evine edt to two yaimoo tetisiemigne, —
ts gaiog asdt asw nistt edt Hetate nsmertt edt segbind edt to bas.
16d bas beassoob edT .i08d aoq asiim. avit-yizridd tuods ‘tovetsr ent, |
ai ,yietsa to eosiq.s as egbixnd edt to odie sco ot tasw mosbastg,
etamexrtt edt to snoisiqo edé nl sassg ot a ists edd Sioteq ot sebto"
wsq eelia ast tuods of beoubet need bad. iett ont ‘ko Deega edi.
bas beassseh edt eredw egbisd edt mo eoslq edt bedeseu ti inedeotyod). —
meds begeseq rebnes isoo bas smigae adT sgabanaia exw. moabastg od.
Pe
safely. The evidence does not show what caused the deceased to
change her position, but it appears she did so and that the iron
strrrup or step at the lower end of the refrigerator car, which
trainmen are accustomed to placing their foot in, in order to climb
upon the car, struck tae deceaseu, knocking her to the bank of the
river below. The train was brought to a stop within a few feet from
where plaintiff's intestate fell from the bridge. The trainmen
went down to the river bank, brought the injured lady to the train,
and removed her to a hospital. She died from her injuries. Her
grandson did not see any of the accident, as he had his back turned
toward the train while in his position at the side of the bridge.
He was uninjured.
This case has been twice tried. In the first triel, a verdict
of $8750 was returned. A new trial was granied, and the jury has
returned a verdict upon the second trial, of ¢5000. Appellant
urges that the verdict in this case is excessive.
The rule is well established that if the next of kin are
collaterad, then it becomes a material question whether they are in
the habit of claiming and receiving pecuniary assistance from the
deceased. If they are not, they are limited to a recovery of nominal
damages. If the next of kin are lineal, the law presumes pecuniary
loss from the fact of death. The amount of recovery in such cases is
limited to the pecuniary lossSus#ained. In the case of C.P. & St. Le
R.-R. Co. v. Woolridge, 174 Ill. 330, 355, pecuniary loss as to the
lineal kindred, is held to mean what the life of the deceased was
worth in a pecuniary sense to them. It is further stated at p. 335,
that pecuniary loss to the lineal kindred might be determined by
proof of the physical capacity of the deceased, his habits of
industry, the amount of his usual earnings, and whex he might in all
probability, earn in the future; and it is there stated; "The amount
to be recovered is what the statute regards as the pecuniary value
of the addition to such estate left, as the deceased, in reasonable
probability, would have made to it, and left, if his death had not
“ae
ot Deassosh sit beauso tacdw wode ton asob eonsbive ont” Uetsa
ogi edd gedt bas oe bib ete axresqqs tt tud toltisog red sgasio
foldw .ts0 totstegitier edd to bae rowol slit ta deta to qurttta
;
dmilo ot tebro at ,ai d0Or chodt yatosiq Ot bendtenoos ste" ‘aemmtists
edt 20 aAned edt of red gittdoome \Sses60sb ett Toicia 1189 Sid’ doqu
Hott test wet s aidéviw qota s oF sagtotd eaw ated say woled tevic
seuntats edT .eybird oft moet List etstiodint a'ititaiste stedw
Tists sit ot Ybsal betutal edd tigudrd” ,aAned tsvit edt ot owob tnow
.
TSH .aelwtat ted wort bekb efe | -Istiqaod s ot 9a bévémet bas |
bentut Aosd eid bei of as ,taebioas° edt to yas see fon bLb nosbhbaistg |
regbind oid to ebta edd°de nottlacq aii at eftdw Hiei 6dt brdwot
id /) {bemmtmtarasw on
tofbisv s ,[sitt texit edd al .betxd solwt ased asd eeso0 aint”
eed yin, edt bas ,betasty aew [etxd weet 4k .beitteded “asw O8TS% to
tasilegcA 0008 to ,isixd broves oad log tolbtev's Beatie:
-SViaacoxe ef oaso aidé ni totorev ‘oft tend aegmy
ye 9% mit to deen odd ti gadt Dedatidstde Crew et efut oat!’ .
af ets yess tedisiw co ecup Isivédem s #emooed $s ‘medd © kéxretalioo
edt mort sotsistess yteitvosd gnbvisost Bas gitimislo ‘to -#idsd edt —
{suimon: to yteveost 5 of betimil exe ysdt Jom ors Yedt TI .deassoos
Yieinuvosg eeuvestq wal add ,Iseatl ea atl to deen ‘edd tI ° e895S8isb }
al seaso dove ai yxevovst to vosoms eff .diseh tO sost edd OT eeol
«al .d& #8 .¢.0 to saso edd of sbertstaneecaor Yisinuosq sdt oF Hoetimis
sit of es asol yrstovosy |, aes OSE SILT DVI joubichooW .v Sod OVAL 4
asw Seassosh edt to stil edt dedw agen of Blend Bt | berbadd Lsentl
28S .¢ te Sstaere: tsdtii ef tf .medt ot senea Visinvuesg s ai ditow
Vd berimeteb 60 Yigin bevbaia Leerkl oat ot anol ytefnuoeq ¥sdd A
to atided aid ..bemssosb edd to Yetoaqso Isolaydg edt Yo toorq
fis of tigin ed kedw gre giinrse Isvey eid to tavoms end Ntteubat
suyoms sdf" :betete sede ei FE ors yswiyt edd at ass wtilidsdorg
y
ie
a
i
sulsv Ytainuveg eit es ebayer erutete ond sadw Bt betevover od of
eldsnogse x af Hsase0eb oft es .tteL eveatves doe ot nottibbs edt to
‘tom bed dtseb' aid ¥t) ee bas Di ot eh aves bivow dh hima
‘eR?
Ait liek- Ae SS A
tes
-4-
been so wrongfully caused. I is to be estimated by the jury from
all the facts and circumstances proved, - his prospect of life, and
his means, opportunities, ability and habits, with reference to the
making and saving of money or money's worth." To the same effect
is Wilcox v. Bierd, 4, Ili. 571, 580, 581.
The record dhows no earnings on the part of the deceased during
the latter years of her life. She was quite an old lady. It appears
that for the last ten years of her lifetime, she had made her home
with her son, the appellee, except for a few wecsks during the summer
when she would return to the old home at Petersburg. According to
his testimony, his mother during the last ten years while living at
his home, had helped some with the household duties and had remained
with his children at night when he and his wife would be away. There
is nothing unusual in this, considering her age at that time. How-
ever, personal service of the deceased is one elenent to be con-
sidered, McFarlane v. Chicago City Ry. Co. 388 [1ll. 476, 483.
Appellee's s&estimony is to the further effect that during the last
ten years, he had give to his mother approximately $1000. Should
the most favorable light be placed upon this testimony, and the money
paid to her by her son be considered as earnings, even then, they would
not extend beyond the bare cost of living. No other earnings are
shown by the evidence to have been received by the deceased within
a reasonable time of her death, nor is there apy evidence that she
had secured any new or added earning ability, which would have in-
creased her earning power.
We are of the opinion that the best interests of the parties
in this case, will be better served by the entry of a remittitur.
Pursuant to sec. 220, ch. 110, 111. St., sec. 216, 8-H, 1955, it
is hereby ordered that this cause will stand affirmed, conditioned
upon the appellee filing a remittitur in the sum of $3000, with the
clerk of this court within thirty days from the date of the filing
of this opinion, otherwise said cause to be reversed and remanded.
Judgment affirmed conditioned upon appellee
filing a remittitur in the sum of $3000 in
this court within thirty days, otherwise to
be reversed and remanded.
DOVE, J. Dissents.
a
mort ytwt odd yd betamivae ed otf ef ¢I .beanso yiivisnotw oa assed
Ing ,etif to tosqacrg ath bevorg ssonbtenvotto bits atost edd Eis
sit of someteter difw ,etids:d bme yttlids ,seitinuttoqqo ,ansom eld a
sootts emsa’ edd of ".iitow atyemom xo yomom to urived bas ‘gatsisw |”
| ree? ose ive ort Obes ore Vy keer er
guituh besseoeh eft to txeq edt to egniittse om ewodk bDroper eT’
ateeqgs #I .ybel bfo ms stip esw ed@ stil ted to arsey retdel ony”
emod ted ebsi bad ede ,omitettl tek to exsey net test ext ‘cot tee”
roma odt sutwh exoow wet s 10% tqsexe ,eelléqqe ont oa tet At iw
ot gatbioodA .utedstets ts emod blo ett ot mtitex biyow ‘site ‘nedw ”
ts saivil elidw exsey net tact ext sotuvh sedtom alt ,yaomites? ef
beatsnst bed bae asituh blodeevod eft Htiw emos bogisn bed ,emor eld
exedT .yews ed blyow etiw aid be ed medw tdgin ts oexbf ido etd divin
-wol .enit teat fs oys ted yabrebtenoo ,akdt of Levene Sabddonm at
09 ed o¢ tmemele eno ef beaseoeb ent to eolvies Lemoarsg ,teve |”
.c8b SYR LIT 668.00 sy YttO ogsdtdd .v sasltstot ’ betebia ®”
tasi edt aniiwh tsdt tostie todtust sdf oF al yromitaed e'selleqqa
| bivede .O00OL$ yLetsamixorggs redtom eid of rmevig Dei en ‘jatssy not
yenom edt bas ,ynotttast eidt moqy ‘beoslg sd tigtl elistovet taon ent
blvow yedt ,sedt neve ,agniniss as berebtenos sd moa ted yd ten oF bisq
| . ets agdinrse tendo of .gnivil to taco ered edd baoyed baedxe ton”
| nidtiw beassosh sit yd bevieosr need sved ot gomebive sad yd mwode
| eda test someiive yas stedt si tom (dtseb tsif to emlt efdsnoase: s°~
“of eve bivow dotdw ,ytilids unintss bebbs to wem Yas bexvoee bed ~
-tSwoq waltntes ted beaseTo~
asivreq sit ‘to e@acistnr taed edd ted notatgo edt ‘to ats we Seoul!
wwitFitiner 3 to yxtase edt yd bevase “setted of Lfiw ,saso afdd HF’
vi ,S06L .H-8 ,SI8 .ooe ,.d8 VILL (OLE .do .OSS dee od Pasvexst””
besoitibiros bemritts baste [iw saveo alas tedd betebhto ydeted ak”
edt dtiw 00088 to “me “ode atk “wet Lee intot se “gril fs Settéqas ‘end Hoge”
gmiitt edt to etsb edt mort eveb “yeuidd aids bw tatoo eid “to aArefa™”
-bebnenet bre bSarevex ed of Saitso bisa “eatwrodté (aoktlys ‘wide Yo°’
sellegqs coq honottthnoo bewtit ks ‘dnomgbsT e ya Boke Sais wit te
ai OOOE® to mya edd at wweittimer a eatiii Pan el
of saiwigdto sysb yitidd ohidiw temoo-akdd OV Or es Catoga
-bebasuert bas beatever ed
setmoaaid .& ,xAVOd d %
oe}
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT fs I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
een the! year) on our lord one) thousand mine
hundred and thitty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73815 —5M—3-32) o<G33507
Seat aM ee wine a ii
Oe hs ; a ‘
4 aoa ‘0 ¥ vats ne
y
a
7 ¥
— 4
*
: |
A lr ,
Ww 4 es Oe ia A
my tS ¥ 7 ye } } =
~ i ? Ae
pat ee eM
Uric : ie ait Ak. He iit a ty dn wes
lie 04) 1) 2 Ge ee ee
or cw ule hl haha ae haat Paar ae |
y me” tae a cs oo" eae
por ae 7 Aen Sitygae ae ve io
eFC Rea? Bian dice situ
Re tae Pac ame Deiewliat ae silencer we oo
ime te ie” ae pre ee
PO tae ee Ct | pineal :
er oe a ys “ay FES
hysial ret aifilog( A att Ter tp, HB area i
yderart aly reais iwi bas phranett, half a) ge, se
diag habhiiae ovate nay: ef, hyen'd ohaldenya. ts Fhe wit ta
See a .. a wncy hole ae i et,
; ree 10 fied act, nie pm, ied sm es a
Danes < ;
Fr a cher pen ensy
i
Vea
A, | / ?
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the end day of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven,
Within and for thé Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present ——- The Hon. BIAINE HUFFMAN, Presiding Justice.
Hon. FRANKLIN R, DOVE, Justice.
Ry
i
Hon. FRED &. WOLFE, Justice.
a9 mT A rs AZ
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk. PW Ae o u >
RALPH H. DESPER, Sheriff.
rp re a
——— eee oe SSeS SS SSS Seca oom
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
APR 14 1937 the opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's
Alt
Office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit:
a 70 use A TA
Ln Bas carg a
solonfllyY to state aft to to: ertoia ieee eit not bas
ue air “OH
“ eas *
BEUOL vd: BUTEUY.
ttitone, Acad iH HEGAR |
en eres, pn aor re Ae ee eh Se Li eer Te:
Shae! an PEE ER ER AN Feat 0) EEN A ;
SS Sr tee
> Poe’ + '
fd # $1109 ae
Gen. No. 9180 Agenda No. 12
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT
FEBRUARY TERM A. D. 1937.
>
Midwest Investment and Finance
Company, a Corporation,
Appellant
Vs. Appeal from Cireuit Court
Peoria County.
Jarvis Chevrolet Company, a
Corporation,
Appellee.
HUFFMAN - P.J.
On November 1, 1935, appellant obtained a judgment by default,
before a Justice of the Peace, against appellee. On December 5,
following, which was more than twenty days after rendition of the
judgment, appellee filed in the Circuit Court of Peoria County, its
petition for a writ of certiorari, and on said date obtained an order
therefore Appellee filed its motion to quash the writ. Briefly
stated, the petition for the writ contains the following averments;
That appellant commenced an action in replevin against appellee, in
the Justice court, to recover possession of a certain automobile of
the value of $280; that service was had upon one C. E. Berry, as
general manager of appellee company; that thereafter and on November
1, 1935, the Justice of the Peace rendered judgment by default, in
trover, for the sum of $275 and costs; that at the time of service
of the writ of replevin, Mr. John M. Niehaus, Jr., attorney for appellee,
was absent from the city; that the said Berry attempted to get in touch
with said attorney prior to the return day of said writ and the entry
of the judgment, but was unable to do so; that the said Berry was not
informed as to appellee's legal rights and obligations with reference
to gaid suit and that he did not know of the entry of the judgment
Sf .of sbaexzA O82 .o .19)
~QIOULIIT TO THUOO STAIIAIGA IAT UT
Pa TOIHT@IG dwooge
eVeCL .2 .A .MAUT YRAUAAEE
t
sonsntt bas tnombacval taswht
1olistogio) & ,YiLsqno
YtmsfleqqaA = pe oe
dxuyod divottd mort daeucs 28V .
»Vtaved sitos_
8 sTateqno® telorvedd alvrst
panes ith:
+L.¢ — KAMTIUH ©
~tiuaish yd taemgbut s benistdo tasileqqs ,d@86L ,f rtedmevoxw m0 |
.2 todmsost a0 .selleqqs vantages ,sosed edt To softaut s oxoted
edt to mottibaer tetts eysh yinew?t asdt stom asw dotdw ,gatwollot
att ,ytmxo0 etrosd to tao) tlwortd edt ot beltt selleqqs ,tmemgout
osbxe is Senistdo etsb bise ao baos ,fistoitxes to tic s not nottiteq —
; ylteina .tiuw sit dasyp of moitom avi beLlt selleqqa atoteted? |
:einemievse gaiwollot edt antsatmoo tixrw edt tot mold lieg edd ,betata
af ,eelleqqs tanitags nivelqet af goltes ms beomenmoo sasiieqqs tadT
to elidométus nistixeo s to noLaenened usvoost ot ,fmvoo softvauL edt
as ,yrred 2 .0 emo noqu bed asw soivrea tadéd ,08S% to aulsy odd
tedisvol so bos tevtseredd vadd pynsqmoo seifeqas to regsasm Letea9g
ai ,tiueteb yd tnemgby, betebmet eosed edt to eoltawt edt ,seCL ,
eoivres to omit edt ts tsdd jateoo bas Ga} to mya edt rot ,revott
.eelieqqs rot yenrotts ,.1L ,ausdeif .M dol .xi eiivelge: to tizcw eit. to
dovot ai teg ot betqmetts yxrred bisa edt tadd jytio edt mort tnoads esw
yitas 6d¢ bas tixrw SDtsea to ysb atwwier edt of tottq vemzorss bisa déiw
tom asw yr1ed bisa edt ssdt joa ob ot eldsaw aew tud etaemghut edt to.
eonsister diiw esolssegifdo bua atdyit Asgel a'selleqqs of as ‘benrotat
tasmgbst od¢ to ytine edd to wend toa bib ed stadt bas time bisa ot
-2-
until it had been rendered; that he did not understand the law
of replevin; that at the time of the service in said suit, Mr. E.
P. Jarvis, the President of appelleecompany, was seriously ill
and unable to look after the business of the company, and that
the said Jarvis had no notice or knowledge of the suit until after
judgment; that the said Berry is not an officer or director of
appellee company and that the judgment as entered by the Justice,
Was without knowledge on the part of the officers and directors
of appellee company. Ths petition further alleges thst within a week
after the entry of the judgment, attorney Niehaus returned to the
Oity of Peoria, when he was informed that said judgment had been
entered; thet he then conferred with an officer of appellant company
with reference to a settlement of the matter; that he also conferred
with the attorney for appellant, and that a proposition of settle-
ment was made by attorney Niehaus to the attorney for appellant, and
that attorney Nishaus stated that in the event such settlement was
not accepted by appellant, that appellee would take an appeal,
“there being ample time to perfect an eppeal from said judgment
at the time of said conference." The petition then alleges that
the attorney for appellant stated to attorney Niehaus that he would
submit the matter of settlement to his company and advise attorney
Niehaus of its decision thereon. The petition then avers that
attorney Niehaus relying upon statement of counsel for appellant,
took no appeal in said cause fmm the judgment of the Justice of
the Peace; that he received no call from the attorney for appellant
with respect to the proposed settlement; and that ag a consequent,
the time for appeal expired. The petition charges that attorney
Niehaus acted in reliance upon the statements made by counsel for
appellant at the conference regarding the proposed settlement, and
thus permitted the time for appeal to expire, while waiting to hear
from appellant's attorney advising him of its decision regarding the
settlement. The petition concludes with the averment that the
automobile in question was not worth the sum of $280, but was
K ign
wel ent buatanabas toa bib of tat jbetebast aged bad, ne ae P
.2 .1MK .tine biee wt oofvree eit to omtt edt ts tadé - patvelqet ‘To
Iiff yvI[avoties asw Uasgqucos eLleqgs to taobiesazd edt areas of
tedt bas ,.yasqmoo edt to eeonienud sat ratts dool of oldsny bas
aettes Litoy tive edt to egbelwond te solsor of bed atvest bise edi
te totestib to neeitto ns tom al yrued bisa adit rade yiaemgbuy
ott ant vache yo Dbexresine as tnemgbuy, edt tend Das Yas aes seileqas
; “Btosostib bas etsotito edt to vxsq edd 0 egbelwond todd tw esw ;
teow . 8 aideiw sere aegetts xoidustt snoltiteq sal .Y¥meqnoo eeltegqgs, to .
edt ot benruton euaisin yeatosts ,tneargbut exit to" Yt baal (tetts
msed bed tmengbis, Disa tadt bemtotat sw on te cw strosd to “ap
yasquoo tnasileqqs to te9ftte as diiw berzetaoo nedt ed tadt jberetne
bexristaos oels of tadt jprsttam sdz To tasmelttee & ot eondustéx’ Pre
~sittes to moltisocerg 5’ sade bas ,tasflecqs tot yertotts eit dtiy
bas ,taslleqgs tot yentotts edt oF emedoit: Yenxotts yd “@Bwut’ act tea"
saw énemelttes dova ¢neve ant mi add boteta avate iu yentords~ tead? i)
fsecge aé sist bisow esileqds tontt” .daslleqds yd betqsas ton!
‘tnedebut bse mort L[esc¢cs ae fostisc ée ‘anttt ofqms gated etetene
ted? agenells medt noitiveq sdT “.esonsretaco bles tO smtt ead oa!”
bivew od tadd eavadeli yemtotts ot betsata fnalleqgs tot yentotte ear”
yenrotts setvhs bab Yasqnioo aid ot tome riven Yo sito oid gtedhe
“gedt etevs noid aci¢ideg sat .mberedt Htotatoeb atk to eusdet *
~tasiisqqe tot Llesnrvoo to taemetsia noqu uaiyist anede tit yenrotts” ‘
e
~iherpsénoo 6 es teat Hrs stmomelitea’ “Beeoqosq: ‘eat’ ot ‘toodsen ‘id tir” '
‘to soitayt sdt to tnemgbu, edt mort saved bisa at) Iseqas on Hoot ©
gnefteqqa Tot yorxosts she mort Liao on bevisoe en tedd iedast ens
yenrotts tadt eegrado ‘ndftiteq sit “.bettqee Ieeqas 20% omit” ‘ets’?
“tot [saavoo yd ebsin ‘atnsmstatea edt mogsr’ eonatisn ck betoa anata
‘bas .tnemeltise beaocorg sid gaibtedet soneretaco sit ts’ ‘Sastteqge “-
qaed of anttisw olidw ,extgxe ot Iseqqs tot emit oft ned fimreg anit «
eit saibreset notatoeb att ‘to itd gutatves yoitoits a"daatiédas wort”!
sit tadt dasmxevd Bad detw BBBdtbHdo no tv teed’ San’ tastetsdee”’
a
actually worth only the sum of $175; that the judgment therefore
was unjust and erroneous, and that unless the petition for writ
of certiorari was granted, the appellee would suffer irreparable
damage; that there had been no trial upon the merits of the cause
and that the petition should be granted in order that justice
might be done.
The only question presented to this court for its considera-
tion by the record filed, is the sufficiency of the petition for
writ of certiorari. After an examination of the same, together
with the rules and authorities applicable thereto, we are of the
opinion the petition is insufficient to warrant the issuance of
the writ.
The judgment of the trial court is therefore reversed and
the cause remanded with directions to that court to quash the
writ of certiorari.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
oie
erotexed? Tasmydsr, edt tadt ;eVI% to tive edt yScro Littow ylleutos
titw tot noftiteq eit aealow soft bas auconorre bas teutau asw
eidatsqst1i tattve olwow eellaqqs edz ded mer sw “ Exatoteves to
eauso edt to atizem sit moqy Isitd on ‘need bed erect tse “yegemeb
: eoitast tadt tebre at Ate etiggtt ad blvoda aottiteq edd tedd bas
| se a lap as decap nde ers
istébiancs att vot divoo aludt of betnexeiq ao taeup yLno ae
tot noléiteg sd to vone tottive edt at belit ‘prose end. a “goit
“gedtegot .omaa aie Yo sortshtdexe no sotta “UHdsolexee $0 Shae
eit to ers aw ,ofeteds eldsollags sett tiodsis bas aelux edd débw
NS wontawa el’ Sad: FRAC Sew OP ado tel Tiwaah a nottite. outd hothhee
seit ed duit phepedae
bme beatevet etotetedt ai tuwoo Isitt edd to taeugbut, oat idol
alt nally oF #00 sedd of ano hfoe tb it bw pabhanex eavso “ba
, acid a i -stisreltzee to dhew
ag ome ' Moe e ot Pe ene
a af Ta Page oer d Ty ¥ bist mee Pree?
-attoltfostib dtiw Sebasnet bas Deateven -Fiah:
Fate + ferns on tied ad eid afer gated etene*
i ray Mey phy
i 4 ee adi aa pines Drie Sees
7 a Cea one tt ee |
~ coige kh yess
: { is Lay RRS ES eivoy
j 3) oS ere
i OW ro A a2 et) Mea)
F: tte ae Ce POR ime: aay
"| y Fm So ae Far whys ey
te LE SRO BY ER Aare ie
tiiae powtere Ad Lngdad et otee eit elo Petee ante
ort bi Rid seeha tobe foros a woRsete’ were
oS ‘eat ae ee ee eRe Biv ie Ws oo eae eee ee ar ee a
vot Ber eo ireene af Sse aworen
SECOND DISTRICT I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court. in and
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
ss
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
____in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73815—5M—2-32) 207
,
( see Fro) pwr f
he eine AF" bol aE Tal
3 ‘i ae k
ead) 4 a
1
.
« e
Sah
nm - : on
a j
<2 ae ae
: ‘~ ; / ty
= Nee
“i hey.
Ce le
age
; (
P
*y
‘ es
a
P th yee
ne eee
‘; ia ‘ hy Splat
eS ee
Tn ai bit) adallequ A. ult, py aftoe) KORMnO' al af 13 Ant, ,
ql ris ob Sool} {noe fre ‘aborgeioll wilt Wi sept ld
rns bettitns avadin att aan) “ae ina
ee ; |
pipe a tase ost} sts fing seed eet tm » sad
Paso) wbaltogg h aa pane
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, tne 2nd day of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven,
Within and for the Second District of the State of Tllinois
present -—— The Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Presiding Justice.
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.
Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Suetice.) O O I. aie G I 3°
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
RALPH H. DESPER, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
APR 1 4 1937 the opinion of the Gourt was filed in the Clerk's
Pifice of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit:
nv? ee 3
gb. boS, pdt, Gydberes- wo pena ster wa) By
To; both Aud. ants bagged? stoce
Wa:
@ taiwdcid broad:
Yai!
Sth adiwees: timo kloy at neig his
j
Gen. No. 9191 Agenda No. 21
IN THE APPELIATS COURT OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT
February Term, A.D. 1937.
P. J. Corlin
(Bertha R. Kramer,
Appellant) Appeal from Circuit Court
Vs. of Kenkakee County.
Arthur anderson, et al.,
Appellees.
HUFFMAN - Pede
On January 7, 1933, appellant, P. J. Corlin, filed his suit
in foreclosure against appellees to foreclose a trust deed securing
a note of one thousand dollars. Arthur Anderson and wife owned
certain lots in the village of Bradley. There were taxes due against
them and the owners destred to repair the buildings thereon. Anderson
approached Corlin for the above loan. The loan was made under date
of May 28, 1925, payable intwo years with interest at seven per cent.,
and the trust deed executed by Anderson and wife as security therefor.
When the suit in foreclosure was filed by Corlin, Anderson and
wife answered, admitting the execution of the note and trust deed, and
that Corlin was the holder and owner thereof, as alleged by him in his
-bill. They filed their crogss-bill setting up usury, charging that
Corlin advanced to them on saidloan only the sum of $800 and retained
the sum of $200 for the making thereof. Appellees alleged that they
had paid to Corlin more than was due on the loan.
Follwwing the filing of the cross-bill by the Andersons, Corlin
filed an answer thereto in which he set up that he was only the
nominal holder of the note, that he held same as agent for Bertha R.
Kramer, and denying that he advanced only $800 upon the loan. Bertha
R. Kramer filed her petition to be substituted for Corlin as complain-
ant. This was done and the pleadings amended accordingly. The cause
was referred to a Master, who found that Anderson received but $800
on the loan; that there was due to Bertha R. Kramer the sum of $105.64
LS .of abmega
(ATOUISET TO TAVOD STAMIEITA me ut bs
_ MOmnvera qopme
veer Ca asset vrsusdst
“méltoy ib 64
, gNemsty .f opabemart
tue) tivorld mott Iseqqa (taslleqqa — wy
5Yim00 eeaslcieX To ok giggle
gels ts foatsba, witta
waoei tea,
ot ee aan
tive afd bet? ,atlvod’.L «1 ,tmslleyqs SSCL .Y yrsiasL oO:
guitvesa beeb tauxt s esoloetot of sesileqges fentegs exvaolostot wt
> pemwo otiw bas mostrshnas wittA .ersilob basayodt emo to stom 3
tantsps eb eexst erew sted? .yelbsxd to sgsiltv adt al etol: nistteo
noatebi, .nostest agnlolind edt tteqet of betdsed axeawo ede bas. sted
‘@ihsb vebmr ebew ssw asof edt .nsof evods edt tot nilzod bedosotqgs
_.tnes isq cavee te teetetal diiw atsey owtml. eldsysq yasel (88 Yew Yo
swotsiedd vtiauede as etiw bas soavebak yd betuoaxs bash tautd ont dams
bas moatebas ,aifro) yd beltt esw emaclostot at tive edt sodW of
; bas ,besb tantt bas stom edt to aoltuoexe edt gnitvtimbs ,bstéewens etiw
eid ni mid vd begelis as ,toszedd tomwo bas teblod edt asw mifxed tent
‘tsdt guigtado ,ymwer quoyaitiea [lid-saoto tiedt beLit yest - LLkd
bentstet bae 008} to swe edd ylno meolbise mo sett of beomsvbs alized
yout tedt beyelia aoelfedgA .tostedt guidem edt tot O08} to wire out
re neo edd mo exb aéw madd exon mifrod of bisq bad
ni tzap ~amoatsbak edt yd ILid~saorm edt to yaillt edt ‘gaiwellot | of
ent yimo sew ed tedt qu tee of doidw at ofexedt towems as beltt
A sired tol tnmege es omse Dled od sadd ,eton add to rebLou —
sitred@ sol edt moqwy 008¢ yfno beomevbs od tad? gatymeb bas ,xomstt
~xisfqumoo ws milvod tok hetutivedva ed of mottiteq ted beLit temstd
saueso eff .vigatbtooos hebmems agaibestg edt bas emob asw eidT oo
008% tud bevisoex moatebaA tedt basot odw ,tetesl BOF perretet as
b8.d0L¢ to mua edt temstA .f sdéted ot ewh eaw otedt tedt jas0l edt
=
for money advanced to redeem from tax sales and for insurance; that
the $800 had bem overpaid $8.53; finding that Bertha R. Kramer was
not entitled to any interest; and recommending the application of the
money in the hands of the receiver to the payment of certain claims
of judgment creditors, with which we are not concerned in this appeal.
The objections to the Master's report were overruled end permitted
to stand 2s exceptions thereto in the trial court. The trial court
subsequently entered its decree finding the amount of money in the
hands of the receiver, ordering that Bertha R, Kramer be paid her
claim in full as recommended by the Master, and that the balance be
divided among the judgment creditors in conformance with the
Master's report.
It appears fromthe testimony of Anderson that he received only
$800 from Corlin upon the loan; that Corlin retained the other $200
for his fees and commission in making same; thet upon an attempted
renewal of the loan, Corlin demanied an additional “200 as his fees
for such renewal, which Anderson refused to pay. Anderson states
he dealt with no one except Corlin, in the negotiations carried on
with respect to the loan. Mr. Corlin insisted that Anderson received
a thousand dollars; that he was in very bad financial condition and
there was so much hazard connected with the loan that Anderson could
not get anybody else to make it. He states that, "He took a chance
on it." He insists that he made tne loan as agent for Mrs. Kramer;
and that he paid the money to Anderson irleash.
After a review d the record we are not disposed to disturb
the finding of the court. The decree herein is affirmed.
Decrees affirmed.
tact jeonetyact tot bas esise xst nott meebet of beonsvbs yenon xo
aew emer .A side tect gatbatt 168.88 bisqreve mod bsd 008g odd
edt to aoltsoliqgs edt gr tbuemuiooet bas dastetat yas ot beltitas tom
eutsio atsties to toemen adé of tavieos: odé to abaed ed¢ at Yemont
eIsecas aetdt af bentsomoo tom ess ow doltdw ditiw aaauelertchs opin sitar Lo
bettiniweq bas belyunevo exew taogqes a'reteeM att. ot anoles {do ‘eat
tavos Isixd eft? .tawoo, Isixy edt mi otetedt anoitqsoxe ss pasta of
sit af yenom To tavome edd guibalt eotoeh att betsiae yiineupeadua,
wed bisq ed temeat® .8 eldved tadt yaitebxo ,vevieses eid to abmaed
ed sonsisd edt tedd bos ,retesh edt yd Sebnemmooer as Lint at miele
sad dt by spaemtetaoo at ptotibexo taempbuy edt geome bebtvip
bt togex, e'zetash
yise hevisost ec tant moatebad To, yooutiees. edimoni, arsaqge, TL yo. »
008% wedto edd benistex sifrod sedt, goaol, edt: mouse, atl xop, woz, 0088,
a toh !
iy
ra,
i
_ petqnetts as aoqu tadt jones gatden at, nodaetawoo, bas segt akd sok)
aset aid as 008) Lsaottioba as beinsnebd ailzed esol edi) to, Lewonen
aoista coavebrA .ysq of beater soaxehaa dotdm ,lewenet, doug, 20%)
_ 0 belizso saotisitogen edt at ,ailto? tgeoxe emo om, dtiw tleeb ed,
beviesst mostabas tsdt beteteant ailtoQ th .asol edt) of tesqaet, dttw
Sas seitinncs fsiousnit bad ytev af aew ed dedd yetellob, hasesody) 8
bivoo goatsbaa tend neol edt dtiw, betseannoo brezed. doum os, gsw-otedt,
sersio « dood eH".4tadt sstate, eB st. ealem, of. andey xbodyas, tog, Ton:
_Q%emeTA .2rl rot taegs, as, asol edd, obsm, od,tsda, atetamh, eH). "thy 0)
sdagopt fontehaa ot yeaom add blag) ote dest, ae
dustatb ot pal tom .oxs ov Diopst, edd b. wetver @ tevTA,., me
pbamitio at stored. v9xegh.og:.. 08: 08; Mer MOReeae we(
gmbOmr lite MFO. og daide wa otoun de
hein ®
; teks
s 3 253 DEB FS
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT fs I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
_____in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73815—5M—8-82) ap07
maw
a
rH ©.
A al
==
: ‘
= pat eats
5 catia
y ae
eb 4 RE! RR aS ith ae 2
FA
i‘ em ft NE va a
SE Cie dial
- ee
bein ath teat wtadladih iat Ln oe
Yeread of Ina? tet fon alent ash, ee. wget ns #
(fest es $eiinoa avoid ocft tel ee paenye bine siert
ied to ies och) vite, bite Pia tet oem eer
mh nae — atte te phere Sera tone st I 2 tee
ta Wh Tew,
wert femme? mo Eel who Yo tang ant shies ann
| eS erene tne me fee PAE eM Oey .-
bund siege fh: Yo.
‘
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 2nd day of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven,
Within and for the Second District of the State of Jllincis:
Present -- The Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Presiding Justice.
Hone FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.
Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Justice.
Wak a
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk. 29 O Tek. Ok
RALPH H. DESPER, Sheriff.
——— ee
Se eS a
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
NADP 7
Poe hea) the opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's
Fil i\
Office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit:
Ne
4
Poaceraap Vite a tee
ey Os eo, 2S emery rapt pa 3 BSR a
. wae ania e Mites tiles ee Bye hs Ue ‘
y c athens ws Be ce? i bath Bia 8 a : : ry i
, ; . fer.
’
? rad 3 <= . ony
od ; Teta a) Gye mt Tn, OY foa2 :
At me G Oy eer pee ES pa i ee Ba
. ‘ ‘ at oh : , i) frat: sce Bea REE : ov 8
° ee OY ; <TR Ane 1 spect pe ae : Watts nee
sp aubieas ; : 4 Ble aes 2 . Ot Wik data bak Ma . Ps
a 5 . RVG
oo t's ts : : a - -* , *)
Hs hin ee wey Beak : Cert TEEN
ae cB . ‘ Wie wee mews
. é ae oC ae SC
E tat
Sete omer aes
i a ts ne shoe 5 pghh ty
y CS Dupes es A i
; : ¥. ii a - Rings . a - Ph ~ ‘
‘ tt Ag 1 ’ “ aus . . 4
ee + : ;
Gen. No. 9199 Agenda No. 27
In the Appellate Court of Illinois
Second District
February Term, A. D. 1937
George Leonard,
Appellant,
vs. Appeal from the CountyvCourt
George Schroeder, doing business of Lake County
as North Shore Neon Sign Company,
Appellee,
HUFFMAN - P. d.
This was a trial of the rights of property. Appellant owned
a restaurant together with James Alexander, Anthony Zannis, and
George Scoofakes. On May 18, 1934, he conveyed his interest in
said restaurant to Alexander and Zannis. The business was then
operated by the three remaining partners. On July 23, 19354,
an ihdebtedness to appellee gwose pursuant to the purchase of an
electric sign for the regtaurant. She At the time appellant sold
his interest in the restaurant, two of the partners owed him $2500.
Five Hundred Dollars was paid upon this indebtedness. About three
weeks after the sale of his interest in the business, the third
partner borrowed $750 from appellant for the purpose of remodeling
the restaurant and incorporating the partnership. On June 19, 1934,
the partnership was incorporated under the name of the Airline Cafe
and Restaurant, Incorporated. The corporation consisted of sixty
shares of common stock. The partnership put no money into the
corporation, and divided up the sixty sheres of stock according to
their mutual agreement. The partners continued thereafter to conduct
the business at the same place, using the same fixtures and equipmamt.
On September 11, 1934, the corporation by resolution authorized
and directed the execution to appellant of a chattel mortgage on
VS .olf sbmosA | ut . CL .o m0)
elomtifl to #awod etelieggs edt aI |
tolatald brooes
veel .d A eT Ytauidsl rae Grane
bissieed eg toed
. ,tasileggqa Bue e! 5
¢ayodvysaved edt most Leeqqs ae Pe vee
yFnwod ersl to | aeontand gntoh ,iwbsoiiee eg toed
«Yate gat ngia noolk erode dtroM es
Aa | - eeLfoaah Laage tuh |
A
beuvo toellegqcA .Ysttegotq to aneade eit to [eitt s esw elit
bos ,atngeS YHodtns ,tebasxelA sonst it bw ‘qodtogot ‘tharind 9
ot Jaewotat eid beyevaos od .h50L .Bf yell, ag. -2oastoo08 e708
fend esw eeonteud oT ekaned bas robusxeLa ot tasmwetees biee
eel .88 ylot 0 .etentisg gotutasos cout edt xe bevaroge
as to sasdowg edd of tusyexuq 9aoNS eeLlleage ot cconhetdebitt ns |
., bLoe tusiieqas omit oft tA. soft tastusteet off wot ogte ‘otstoste
-O088$ aid bewo atentusq edt To owt ,tustweteot odd at tastetat east |
seult ¢uodi .enenbotdebat eid? noqu bleq asp etalied betbavl avit
. Sutdt edd ,esentend edt at teewtnat ald to else off iette eleew
anife boxe ito enogisg edt tot tasileqqs meat OGT4 bewoxt0d ventieq
eel .CL om a0 .gidetentisq oft anitsroquoont brs tasiwetsot ont
ets) entixiA edt te omen odt tebay betsiequoont asw ‘chiesont tag out
yixte to betelenoo soitsioqioo efiT .betetogroonl bbadash an
edt ott yorom on tuq qitte teat ted edt .aoote mommoo to. eorade
ot ynibtooos woote ‘to ae tafe Ytxlte edt gu hebivis bas Woltetogtoo j
toubnoo of witseteds beunttnoo eientisd edt. -THosee igs. f‘astum todd
-tmmagqiups bos eemixlt emse edt goten .9eslq empe ont ts aeontand me
bostiodius aoltyloae1 yd soltsteqnop odd el ff meget eR £0
no egagtiem, fettedo a to taeileqqes ot noltvoexa me, beteon:
oo
the fixtures and equipment, in the sum of $2750, represented by
the £2000 which remained due upon the $2500 indebtedness, and the
$750 which appellant loaned the partners about three weeks efter
he sold out to them. Pursuant to this resolution, a chattel
mortgage was executed on September 11, 1954, in favor of appellant,
to secure the above indebtedness, payable at the rate of $50 per
month, The mortgage covered the electric sign purchased from
appellee. The sign was not paid for andaavpellee recovered a
judgement against the partners for the purchase price thereof.
On Augast 7, 1936, appellee caused an execution to issue on its
judgment. Pursuant thereto, the sheriff on August 8, 1935, lewied
on the fixtures and equipment. Appellant filed notice of claim
with the sheriff, to the property levied upon, and trial was had
before the Judge of the County Court of Lake County. The court
found in favor of appellee, and appellant brings this appeal.
A corporation usually has the same power as ea netural person,
to mortgage property as security for any debt which it may lawfully
contract. Like other mortgages, there must be a consideration
therefor. Appellant at the trial was represented by Mr. Populotrum,
It appears that the trialcurt was not satisfied with eppellant's
proof, and so indicated at the close of appellant's case. The
court offered appellant the opportunity to re-open his case, where-
upon appellant re-called Scoofakes to the stand, and again rested.
The court again indicated to appellant that in his opinion the proof
wes unsatisfactory to sustain his claim, and for a third time per-
mitted appellant to re-open his case, whereupon Mr. Populorum again
recalled Mr. Scoofakes. At the finel couclusion, the trial court
stated he had endeavored to afforé every lattitude to appellant in
order that his rights might be protected. The court found that the
evidence failed to sustain appellant's claim as against appellee.
From an examination of the record, we are of the opinion the
conclusion reached by the trial court was gust and proper.
Judgement Affirmed.
eit Padd Swot Fiveo ‘ext (Ret detoltd Su Fister adds ir etd ‘todd tes
yd Sethesetoet ,O@YS$ to mwa odd mt .themaispe bas eo tutett Sit j
odd bas ,seenheddehat S088) ont néqu enh henisme dotdw 00089 odd
tevIs adsew oe ade tuods erontisq edt Beasol taslisqqs doldw Oé93
lettede « ,sotintoees elds ot taatetht .modt ot tuo bloe ed ;
ctneffogge te toval ai ,d8eL ,Lf redmetqe? mo hetuset aew onbad tbat ;
toq 08¢ to atest edt te sidaysaq ,asenbetdebat evoda oft e188 ot |
mot? beasdo wa mis ointoele est betevoo sseat tom edt’ * tom
sg hexvevosst eelleqes¢bas tot blag ton hw tote set? seoltsedes |
-toetodt eotag easdowg edt 10% etondisy ent deblids thomesut
ati so eveel ot soltyooxe me heaves ee llogqcs ° deer " Tess 20
helgel ,8e@L .8 tenmguA no Ttinese edt ,ofsted? tnave wT » Fema bast
mfelo te eolien beltt teslleqqs .toemqtupe Age aerstxi? odd no
Beil asw feted bas ,noqy beivel wasqdtq oft Ot “there “Oi dd bw :
disco eff .yfatod edad to tod Yiawed oad to Sybut ody Sxeted |
-faequa aid? egitad Pnefloogs bus ‘eel togts to" ‘gorst “xt “batiot ,
nonteq Istwian ces téewoq sma tdt Bad” ‘eltavet itotterogtes A” Li 7
yiliiwel ysm ti doidw tdob yas tot ydiatode de Yee qote sgsadtom at q
‘Holteteb tens @ od sanm oid? eegagirom tuto diit “jeedeindy
smudluqed sa yd Getassesoe7 sew Netad odd de “das floods | ', totetedd
e'tnalfoqas tiw beltetvee son Gow toned fetat odd tant erasdqe et
od? °seaso ‘atinstiegds Yo sadfe ‘ont #s bateotsal oe ‘bxs "(200 OT
~owedi peso eld nego-bu of Wiad wedge ont tnelfecgs be tetto died
-beteet tisgs bis ,fnete off of Bedsteooe belfan-o+ foestfeqqs eae
nootg ed? totniqo ard ‘ak Part ‘tauslleqas et betse tbat ‘niese Yoo ya
~toq emit baldd 2 sot bue ,mtafo ett dhetere of | iotoste tteaty ia
nisse ‘myroliuged <a’ modus tarty | 8689 ald teqo-e7 of: taslioges eet
twos fetat eft \nefeotonos fantt eit ta sedsistoode” ay Boftsdod |
at tustisegs of obwrtevel Yteve Biotts ov betovecbas bert od eon ae F
-ostieggqs dentave ee nts fo a"taallogas fitstene of Bore? ‘bonob ive
edt nokintgo “ene Ye" tg Sw’ | bwooet ont To rottentmexs ‘ne ‘io ‘
etegorg bre Yes wow tooo fetes Gay Yd Hel 7
Hemrttta t¢remoant : ae eu
3
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT fs I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Ato pellatem © onmignata Ojuuanyel itl sess en CL ALY NO
_CCC“‘(NC_in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73815 —5M—8-82) eBRo7
id Be
‘i Pt ae a
i 4 a a
3 ie S
a eg i ae 2 ual agar igh Leen Ge ® at ae | Sue ages eas wicca “4 | ;
vol «to Dotan ge La ae et Si
ae Sbstso Cece es wae. See ated tak) | re
} RBS OF aia aR . Seated mya nen Se
A Futian et eh Lode Re gig tN ne af
fF 9 ips Gate mM BATS Ee Ae eh pounkonghdt joel aod
; ae is he ‘ aa wig Alay hes Silas Bid das ef: th, inl ee
a eh al a re eT He rg" elie | Sen ane
corns tc a ae ee
do BNE Pen & wise aie ieee sua .
¥ eee ie Se tls Se. seat sibibeot dl
ee he sgn ete r% “a6 Via « “t hy 1 tou
Pais Oh TKO) arellony A od Us ib Aral) 3 vom oe
edowart ab Tbe errs inv bas ancl get to soqaenk, py
ei) oY Fitts pees Ad jit ages ‘Aittonite tnd es tt
Be eg
bioe Yo jane ot Atte nee ae Me ot moto
Ai ti at pitty ws (44 ‘es i
to yah he ee ed de ET
Att ier ithdnadt nin ihtod gris fe Beatin fis D
a
AT A THRM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the and day of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven,
Within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present -—- The Hon. BIAINE HUFFMAN, Presiding Justice.
Hon. FRANKLIN R,. DOVE, Justice.
Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Justice.
On eR {
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk. 2 my G ee O 1 4
RALPH H. DESPER, Sheriff.
— — ——
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit; On
A 102 :
APR 14 1937 the opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's
Office of said Court, in the worde and figures following, to-wit:
es ay et. age gt rae’ Gaal ay
. } j
. 5 < - ee Bek
'
: 3 . . et ey ne A eh Avett Wine , ie <P bey . sy " re 7 be
we cone 1 mS rembg ’ eng ee ae ae BE ge go au cats . t $1"
pean ei US GW eae) SIE ITD oJ ‘ Shas a RIN: e- a 1 ER A een Sa oe m ri :
Tadeyride aie Gams Tet, date ag “yee, 2ore THA TERT Y hee 3 : ro = oo :
Gas: CARS UF eat F Soh wee Hebe decdr ee eh
hy F pT eh tes a as a
ee . 4 Urs gah HeaP OR | Mes irked o'e. MR BS
F re PP eee hak 2.) ene +4,
if Sa SAME RYE AS: tek, Le oe
os pier ea aye F ToT Ae
ooveclo Ce A De Oe Pe ee F
eeerete Teena en US
“ Po . ON At A YM YO5i3
a eh Mei Pin ical hei eee Pile hag teal < bea
Nadian needy ti, : le . A % us
5 ro e oy avg NTN. pte ‘ - Para ont : 9
. Sehs cory Ce f psec: Bo! ea ry Pha rats 3 : . . “yey
: ; toe 5 f F ite Hs Ve, paca et ere j 4) SP PNR le ls i,
Gen. No. 9116 Agenda No. l.
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
October Term, A.D. 1936
Michael Graf,
Plaintiff (Appellee) Appeal from Gircuit
vs. Court, DuPage County.
Edward Kearny, Jr.,
Defendant (Appellant)
WOLFE - J.
Michael Graf started suit in the Circuit Court of DuPage
County, against Edward Kearns, Jr., for damages he sustained when
struck by an automobile driven by the said Edward Kearns, Jr. The
declaration consists of two counts. The first count, after des-
cribing the place of the accident, alleges that the plaintiff was
exercising all due care and caution for his own safety; that the
defendant negligently and carelessly operated his said automobile
at an unreasonable rate of speed, and without giving any warning
of his approach, or signal of any kind; that he failed to use
reasonable precaution to avoid injuring persons upon the street,
and that by reason of such carelessness and negligence, the auto-
mobile struck the plaintiff, who was thereby injured. The second
count was practically the same as the first, with the exception
that in the second, the plaintiff charged the defendant with wilful
and wanton misconduct. The case was submitted to the Court without
a jury. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant's
counsel entered a motion to find the defendant not guilty on each
of the counts. The Court overruled the motion, as to the first
count, and took the second one under advisement. The defendant
then offered evidence and at the close of his evidence renewed his
motion to find the defendmt not guilty. The Court overruled the
-L .Ou sbassA 8Lf[@ .ou -199)
GHT ut
@IOULIII TO THUOD GP ALIEITA.
TOTATEGIQ aquoore
OSeL .4.A .mxvet tedotoo
< 186TH fesdotu.
“thverto moti Lseqqa | (eelieqqA) ttitnielr¢
“Ytavod egsdul . ted ev
++I gitsed brewba
(taslleqqa) tnebasteq
j _ ob - Ti0W
$gsIud to tmwo0d tiworid edt at tive Sstista tet) Lesdoim
usdw bentisteve sd eogsmsbh tol ,.1L ,amrsex brewbe tanisgs ,Ytnuod
siT .%L .,emtsed brewbt bisa edt yd mevicd sLidomotus os yd dourts
-esb tedts wooo tartt edt -ataveo owt to atetanoo nottstsfoeb | ‘
asw tittaisig ent tent esgetlts :taebfoos edt to soslg eat aaidito
edt teddy jysetse nwo aid rot foftuso bas erso eub [Is gotetotexe
elidomotus bisa etd betstego ylaaslerso bas ylinegiigen dasha teb
euiaisw yas yoivig tvodtiw bak .beeqs to sitsr eldsnouseumy as ts
Sau ov belist ed tent ioaid yas to fangtea to e4osotqqs aid to
testte odt mnogu afoatsg galiutak biove o¢ noftusostq sidsmoaset
-otus edt omegtiiszen bas esoneaeletso dova to moessex yd tedd boe
broosa sit -betujai ydetedt asw odw eliitaislg ed? dourte elidom
noitqeoxe edt Adin eTatlt edt as emsa ent Yifsoitesiq asw tavoo
fuiliw dtiw tusbasteb act begtedo tifsnisl¢ edz 20088 sit ot tadt
tyodtiw tuvod edt of bettimdus 86W 9889 ofT .toubrooaim motnew bas .
a'taabaeteb edt 15889 a'titinislg edt to saolo edd tA “YINt s
dose mo Ytling ton tnusbasteb odt Satt ot mokttom s bexetne isenuoo
vatlt edt of as .mottom edt belurzrevo fis00 sdT .atnwoo edt to —
tasbaeteb edT .taemeatvbs tTebau eno broose ont Hoot bas ,tavoo
aid bewener eonsbive atd to saofo edt ts bas eomebive beretto nedt
edt belwtreve tod sAT .ytLiog tom ¢ ebneteb. edt baLt of mottom —
Oat) ae
—2-
motion. The Court found the issues in favor of the defendant, so
far as the second count of the petition was concerned, since he had
not been proven guilty of wilful and wanton conduct in the operatim
of his automobile. The Court found the issues in favor of the plam-
tiff on the first count of his petition and assessed damages for the
plaintiff for $5,000. Judgment was entered upon this finding, and it
is from this judgment that the case is brought to this Court on appeal.
The record shows that the accident happened at the intersection
of Roosevelt Road and West Street, in the residential portion of the
City of Wheaton, Illinois. At the time of the accident, Roosevelt
Road was under construction, being changed from a two lane to a four
lane highway. Roosevelt Road was posted with signs warning motorists
that the road was under construction, and was to be travelled at the
driver's own risk. The accident happened about ten o'clock at night,
on February 20, 1933. The plaintiff and his wife had been to visit
a neighbor, and were on their way home, walking on the west side of
West Street. Because of the repairs being made on Roosevelt Road, there
were some planks laid across the traffic lane on said street for
pedestrians to walk upon when cpjossing the street. Mrs. Graf preceded
her husband and safely crossed the street on these planks. As Michael
Graf, the plaintiff, was crossing on said planks, he was stmuck by the
automobile of the defendant and injured.
Michael Graf testified, that as he was approaching Roosevelt
Road, he looked east and saw no car coming; that he crossed the north
lane of traffic on Roosevelt Road and then again looked to the east,
and saw the defendant's car approaching, at a distance which he
estimated to be betwem 250 and 300 feet; that he and his wife then
started across the two south traffic lanes of Roosevelt Road; that
he got within about three or four feeé of the south side of Roosevelt
Road and was struck and injured by the defendant's automobile.
Mrs. Graf, the wife of the plaintiff, testified to the surrounding
conditions of the intersection of Roosevelt Road and West Street;
that she saw defendant's car approaching until it reached the inter-
section; that the car was going fast and she called to her husband,
sis
i oa ,tasbaeteb edd to tovst ai aeweat edt Davot txvod edT .mottom
bed sd sonte ,bemteomoo asw noititeq edt to saves baoosea edt a8 TST
t roftstego eft at tvoubaoo sotasw Daa IutLiw te yiling aevorg maeed ton
| -ntsiqg sdt to tovst ai asyeet edd bmsot trv0od edt .slidonotys etd to
| edt sot eegemeb beaesaes bus nofttteq etd to tavoo taxrit edt ao Tris
tit bas ,gaibatt aidt soqu betetme esw snomgbuL .000,0$ rot tittatslq
| -iseqqs mo tiwod atdt ot tdguotd ai easo ont gadd tnoughbut etdt mott et
noitoserstni sit ts benecqsd tmebioos edt tedt awodé Broos: sAT
edt to moittog Istimebiact edd mi ,teett@ tesW bus bsofl tlevesoos to
tievesooh ,émebioos edt to omit edd tA .@liomtill wictee dW to yt#o
xt0% 2 ot ensl owt 8 niott begasdo gated ,sottourdanmoo tebay asw bsofl
ataitosom gointew angie diiw betacog asw Deol tLoeveeoof vewdgid eset
edt ts belfevsext sd ot asw bas ,noltonxtanoa tebay asw bsot edt tedt
| dgta ts doolo'o ast tyods Deasqgsa taebloos edt. .tait owe atzevizo
: ¢ieiv.ot seed bed .etiw aid bas itltatelg edt, .ceel ,OS. Yiaurdet, £0
to-ebte teow odd so goidisw ,omod ysw.ttedt oo srew bas, .xoddgten s
eredd bso tleveacofl mo shsm gated arteqex edd. to eawsosd .teerte,taeW
| tot ¢ectta bisa so east oftisit edt aaotos bisl exasigq eae, etew
bebeostq tet) .amM .teorte edd goteaocao aedw aoqu Alew of ansintaebeq
fesdoiM aA .einalq eaedt so teexde edt beeaoto yleise bas basdaud tod
| ent yd aoomte sew od ,etnsiq Disa no grteaors ssw ,liitaisla edd, tex
| bow hal bus dnsdneteb edt to elidomogus
-dieveacod, gnidosoiggs esw od as tedt. boititeed isip Lesdolu ...
déton odd bessoro end tsdt pgnimoo ts0.0n wse bas tase bexool ed bso
,tess sdt ot boaool nisys medt bas bao tieveaooh mo oiliasxt. to, easel
| od dotdw eomatetbh 2 ts ,goidosotqqa ts0 a'tashmeted oft. wse, bas
nent eliw ald bus ed tact j;toet 008 bas 03S mewited ed, ot botamiteas
| tadt jbsol tLeveacof to asmsl olthext ditvoa owt eit eeox0s betrste
ilevesooh to ebte dévoe odd to deat avot to candid tuods mid¢iw top ef
elidomotue a'imsbasteb edt yd beautat bas douste asw bas beso
gulbuvotive sdd of beititesd ~ititatelq edt to etiw odd, hetp,..et
jtootte taeW bas bach tleveaoofi to sottoeatetal edt to,anoitibnoo — .
—todat edt bedoset fi Uktnu saidesorggs teo altasbacteh wse ede tadt —
~basdand tsd ot belIso oda bus test gatog asw tso odt tadt pro ltooa
==
"iiichael those people are going wrong, like as if they were crazy."
Mrs. Graf further testified that she did not see the car strike her
husband, but heard it; that the car travelled about 50 feet after it
struck the plaintiff; that it ran upon the bank on the south side of
the lane of traffic, where the wheel marks were plainly visible in
the snow.
The defendant and his two sisters and a young man, Joseph
Surkamer, had been to Schiller Park to practice for a play, and they
were returning home in the car of Edward Kearns, Jr., who with his
sister, Anna, was riding in the front seat, and LauraKearns and Mr.
Surkamer in the rumble seat. Edward Kearns, Jr., testified that he
was driving the car and that he saw Mr. and Mirs. Graf as they started
across the street at the crossing; that Mrs. Graf went straight across
and Mr. Graf hesitated three times before starting across; that as he
approached the intersection of Roosevelt Road and West Street, he was
driving his car at a rate of speed of approximately 25 miles an hour;
that as he approached the intersection, he put on his brakes; that he
did this tite times; that Mr. Graf started across the street and he
again put on his brakes at the intersection; that the car skidded across
West Street and about 10 feet after the car struck Mr. Graf. Anna
Kearns' testimony corroborated her brother's, especially as to the mte
of speed and the application of the brakes, and the hesitancy of Mr.
Graf just prior to, and at the time of the accident. Laura Kearns and
Joseph Surkamer were both called, and in their evidence they say that
they were in the rumble seat and did not see the accident. They testified
as to the position of the car when it came to a stop after it had
struck Mir. Graf, and they estimated the distance to be 10 feet from
where Mr. Graf was lying.
We have not attemped to detail all of the evidence as produced by
the witnesses in this case, but like all other contested cases, there is
a wide variance betwem testimony of the witnesses for the plaintiff and
those for the defendant. The trial court had the advantage of seeing
and hearing these different witnesses as they testified, and to observe
Se er
Nl ysszo otew vedt ti ab sail .gmorw gatos ets slqoeq saodt Issdoin"
ted edittvea x89 sdt 698 tom Sib eda ted? heliivass teddivt tex) Lath —
ti setts teet Od tuods belfsevart tso eat tadsd {ti bised tod. basdeud
to abta dévoa sat mo dAned adt aoqs mat ti tedt ,Yitiaisiq’ edt dovids
nt eldtatv yintsiq stew edtem [eedw edt etedw ,ofttsit to emsL\ edt |
~wone edt
dqesoL .asn gnvoy 2 bas avetate ows ald bos tusbrsted edt)
“ysde base .ysiq s tot soltesta o¢ aArsd telfidoe: ot ased Had 4 témsacxwe
eld dtiw odw ,..1L ,amisey biswbhi to ts0 ent mi emod gataiuter stew
.tM Das eanissisived bas ,tsea tnort ent at gaibia esw ,samd':,retete
6 abot beftitaet ,..2& ,amieeX buswbhd ..tsea eldnux edt af temsdiwe
betusta yedt as test) .eiti bas .oM wee ed tet bos 1s0 sdt goivirth eaw
agor0s tigisits teew tet) .exM tant pyniseorn edd ts toonte eft aaotos ©
ef as tsdt ysotos guitdista stoted aemis sexdd betstiged ten .1M bas
asw of ,tsext@ tesW bas bsofl tievesoofl to moitoeatetal edt bedosorggs |
jswod os eelim @& yLleteutxorqqs Yo beeqe to sist 2 ¢s Tso. Bid gatvitd
ed tsit ,sedsud aid mo tuq ed ,soltosgtetnt sit bedosoiggs ei as dadd
ed Sos veetta ent ssotoe betusta isa) .«M vsedt jaomid emit etdt bib
aactos bebbiawea as0 ond tsdd jaottoeatetat ed? ts esdatd afd no tuq alsgs
Sums .tstd .1M dourte iso odt aetts toast OL Juods Sas teorte(teoW
stmz ony of as ylisiesqae ,atisdtord ted’ betatodo1ri0Ss yaomitses ‘agtsed
.tli lo Youstised odt bas .pewsrd edt to motteotiqas edt bas beega to
bas antseN styuesl .taebioos eit to emit oft ts bas ot toitq teu, Is1d
tsit vse yodt gonebive itisdt at bas .beliso déod stew temsAtwe .dqedot
| petnitasd vYeodT .tmebioos sat 69a tom bib bogs dase oldmmr sdf at srewoysdt
|
|
bad ti totts*qota 6 o¢ omeo FE aedw iso sit Yo moltleog sdt ot»es
mort vest OL ed of sonmstalh sdv beotamitas yods bus ,tetp) sth coutre
gaiyl asw tsi) -tMetedw
yd beouvborq as songbive edt to [fs [fsteb of bsqmet is tom evedieW »«
al etadd.,aeaso betestaon redto Ils ediietud jeaso eidd otvesesentiwesdt ~
bas tiftuteiq 9dt tot esesontiw edt Yo yromtiass mowtsd eonsiusy ehiw s
guieea te egstasvbe edd bad tavoo Isind sit .tasbasteh edt tot ssedd
evisedo o¢ bos ,bSettitset yeodt es sensentinw tnétettib saedt goitesd Sas
peee but et
hn
their manner and demeanor while on the witness stand, and is in
a much better position than a Court of Review to weight the evidence.
In the late case of Hall vs. Pittenger, 365 Ill. 135, in the syllabus
of the case, it is stated: "The finding of the Chancellor who heard
the evidence in open court will not be distumbed, unless manifestly
and palpably wrong, or unless his conclusions are manifestly erroneous;
and this is true even though the Supreme Court might be inclined to
find otherwise had it been in the position of the trial court."
It is our conclusion in this case that the plaintiff made
out a prima facie case; and that the trial court concluded that the
plaintiff's witnesses were more credible than those of the defendant,
and found the issues in favor of the plaintiff. We cannot say that
this judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed.
=—)- wankd [ended
af af bas onseta eanat ie edt mo olidw Tomsemso bas sommes thet
»sonmebive odd ddyiew ot weives ‘to das0d & asdt nottteoq rotted dows s
wudellye ent at ,dél LIT daé rogaedé 4 -av [isi Teo saso otel edt aT
bised odw rolleomsd0 ext to gatbatt eat" sbetsvea af tf .98so ‘os to
yitaestinsn saclay bedumsalb ed ton fiiw tuvoo megqo at eomebive ‘odd
pevosmorts yltestinsn ets anolaulomoo aid saoLny tO eee videqlag _,
ot beatloai ed tig tm T1900 ene 1que edd dguout xeve emit at atdd bas
" #1000 Isind odd to noid taog ead at need ti bad ea iwresito batt
; eben iitaisig edd tedt 2889 aint at xo teuLomoo m0 at az
ont teds bebylosoo tuoo Isizd odd tedd bas {93289 elost suiag 8 to
.tmgbas teb edt to esodt nodt eldibero 9 ton etow asesout tw ettttintats
tedé yee tonmso ow Tiitatsl¢ edt to movet at aeuaad odd bast bas ;
sonsbive euld to ti igtew deetinsn was tan iege et trompout ande
shou tt ts vdsred at #us09 istxd est to tromsout edt
bewrlTtA tmemebut
——
SECOND DISTRICT I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
8S
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause.
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
_in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty- =
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73815—5M—3-32) «3307
a tal
Re ee aay EY PR iste Pin it
Seaen a VIS 2 loss Ble eA i at nsothe a. Re
tone ait Wes ire en Tye SG ar ae nou tac:
2 a ee he ‘A
eon Prd wid Oey yey ee at wed at gas 9 wa
, Sapir Shh ee tel oe ee Dene et ab: tet
re Ome Cae dai | sa tas oa fas
eines hay POR of oa tn ae
; Pea “nea oe cet
ee ont
ea rH fee. | gy
ts Bi ts a oye
hue wi 1906 atelogy, A. at to sok nORAHO A aye T
ital of Jtootedt Ime ban abrostt ott 3 Lo wont oath fu -
sisnaey byehitite svete SrA ah digo’? oe fina ff to omnia a
; - ae + 5 iia pen
eke uae
: : Ce a, ge 4
hime to lay vg ead ihe ‘fire hata rot jon aera 7 stort vatonn
Decree na Pers)
caver he paral? aro: reer 450 te er dé 4
A ee en cc dei ere
“raed siatthag A satya ‘
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the and day of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illincis:
Present —- The Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Presiding Justice.
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.
Hon. FRED 3. WOLFE, Justic
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk. “9 9 OI A 6 Gal 4°
RALPH H. DESPER, Sheriff.
ce
SS a
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit; On
APR I 4 1937 the opinion Of the Court was filed in the Clerk%s
Office of said Court, in the worde and figures following, to-wit:
an if
<PH000, PEAMRTTA mat 7 cee, A, Th
bid at (made Yo" tb nds ag
Havoory daa it. bas
“pest Joist
ih saat ay
i
General No. 9181 Agenda 13.
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
February Term, A.D. 1937.
Flora Kirby, Executrix of Last Will-and
Testament of Jaues J. Kirby, deceased,
etc., (Martin Dooley, Successor to J. ER.
MeDermott, Receiver).
Appeilent Appeal from the
Circuit Gourt of
VS. Kankakes County,
Illinois.
Mack Shrontz, Nellie Shrontz, Joseph Tolson,
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Kankskee
County and successor in trust J.J. Kirby,
déceased, Annie C. Paradis, Wilbur King,
Ida Shrontz, Orland Goble, Kethryn Goble,
U. W. Deliere and C. ¢. Peterson, Doing
business ag Deliere and Peterson,
Appellees.
WOLFE; J.
Flora Kirby, executrix of the Last Will and Testament of James
J. Kirby, deceased and J. E. McDermott, receiver of the First
National Bank of Momence, Illinois, filed a suit in the Circuit
Court of Kankakedcounty to foreclose two mortgages. Their complaint
alleges that Mack Shrontgz and Nelle Shrontz on December 5, 1921,
were justly indebted to the First National Bank of liomence, Illinois,
an the swa of $3,000, and had executed and delivered to said bank,
three promissory notes, each in the sum of $1,000; that said notes
were made payable to Mack Shrontz and by hinfendorsed and delivered
to the said bank; that the said Mack Shrontz and Nelle Shrontsz
executed and delivered to said bank, a trust deed of even date, to
secure the payment of seid notes; that the same was properly recorded,
etc. answers were filed by Mack and Nelle Shrontz, and also sowe
mechanics lien claimants which are not material to the issues involved
in this appeal.
The Court heard the evidence, and entered a deeree which found
the facts to be as alleged in the complaint. Part of the decree is
as follows: "Thé Mack and Nelle Shrontz executed and delivered to
said bank trust deed of even date which was duly acknowledged and
.8L sbaega ss £8L8 som Leremep
aHT ul | 7 ERO
BIOMIIT YO PAVOO ATAGINIIA ey om
TOImTald qwoose
sVEGLl .G.A ,atret yrsuidsT
bass tLiw tesd to xittivosxd ore anolt
~beessoed , yori .L asus to tneristesT
~A .% od toegeoove ,yolood attisM) ,.o¢e
ee (revisit Lahammpou
eit wort IseqgA tusileqgA - ;
to tavod. tiyotid
ee veauso0 seisiasa ng av
eaton tilt 4
,souto? dqvacL ,staoude efileu ‘ada toan |
eorsiney | to txy0d tivorid edd to Axel
VITA .4.L tavtt mi togeaeooue bas ytnyod —
.Brit wwdliw ,etbstsd .0 oltnna ,besseosh
eeldo) ayxdted ,eldop basixO ,xtmoria sbI
griog ,mopreted .0 .0 bas ezeiled .W .U
loaTeted das ome sie as vesateud
,2aelfeqqa
Sy UOW
| Bons to tagusdee? bos ILiW teed edt To xistunexe Vor led stolt
vanli ead io revises: ,itomtedom, a a A ‘hae beaseoeb cca ob
‘tivoxto edt ai tiva s betht patomi tlt somemoM to dmsd Ssqoitsi.
tnisiqnoo tied? .asgsgttom owt saoLostot of viawooperernax Yo ta09
f8@L ,o tedaeoed so adaotde eileli bes stnordé dosé tadd aepefis
akon kl? ~2ONemoM to dnsd Lame tsi tariy odd of betdebnt Yiteut stew
eined bisa ot betevifed bas beduoexe bad bas ,000, 8% to sua adé ak
aotoa bisa tsdt ;000 Le Yo mya edt af dose aoton Yrosalmorg eexdt
betevileh bas bearobashuid vd bas staotié Aosl of eldsysq eben oie
xtaoule elicl bus staord& aos biee edt tadé itned bise edt gail
ot s9t8b neve te beeb teuit s lnad bise ar bereviteb bas boduoexe
ebtooss Yixsqotq asw mee edt test saoton 5 isa zo tromyeq edd oxuogn
eu0@ oals bas atnotde ellei hee AoBKi ya befst exow exewamh epee
beviowat aoueal edt ot stredsu vom ota doldw atasmislo aeil eotasiosm
fseqgs, aidt at
bavot do Law setoeb 6 bexetae bas vomabive edd bused Pxu000 oa?
si sexoeb edt to fist .talsiquoe edd al begelis es od ot stost edt
of berovileb bas bessuoexe staonle ellel baa Koei Tate sawoLtot as
bas begbs Iwonios vied asw y aoe sb a9v9 0 beeb seus ned ae
=3=—
on October 23, 1914, recorded with recorder, Kankakee County,
Book 298, Page 333, conveying south half Block 50 excepting
south 100 feet; that MeDermott as receiver is the holder and owner
of one of said notes; that said bank afterwards sold, assigned
and delivered one of said notes to Wilbur King, the holder and
owner and one to ida Shrontz, the holder and owner." ***** "The
Ceurt finds that nothing has been paid on the $1,000 note held by
McDermott and there is now due thereon $1,270.00. Nothing has
been paid on $1,000 note held by Ida Shrontz ana there is now cue
thereon $1,270. Nothing has bem paid on the $1000 note held by
King and there is due thereon $1,279. Thset because of nonpayment
property has become forfeited." ** "It is ordered that Mack and
Nelle Shrontz pey within ten days to *** MicDermott receiver,
#1,270, to Ida Shrontz, $1,270 and to Wilbur King $1,279 with
interest from date until paid. That $150 be allowed as solicitor's
fees, $12.50 for abstract fees. That in default of said payments
the said premises or so much thereof as may be sufficient to
realize the amount due to plaintiffs and the defendants, Paradis,
King, and ghrontz be sold at public vendue for cash to highest anc
best bidder by Benjamin F. Gower, Special Master-in-Chancery who
shall give bond for $1,000 with sureties to be approved by Court,
said sele to be held on a short day to be fixed by said Master
for cash in hand on date of sale and that said Master proceed
according to law and that this case stand awaiting the bringing
in of report of said Special Master."
After the Court entered its decree, Martin Dooley, successor
to J. &. McDermott, receiver of saic Bank, filedsmotion on July
22, 1936, complaining that the proceedings were not in eonformity
with the law or facts in the case and moved that the decree be
set aside. The principal complaints were that the Court erred
in finding that Mack and Nelle Shrontz were indebted to the Bank
and had executed the note and mortgage, and had delivered the
same to the Bank, and that the Bank had sold two of the notes to
King and $@am Ida Shrontzg. The motion further alleges that Wilbur
Qe are ; a
qNtnvob ssistash ,rebrooet dttw bebtoosr ,Aler “\88-xedot00 10” (
galtqeoxe 0& Aoolt ifed dtuoe gaiyevnoo ,d6& egsd ,BCR Atood
tanwo bas teblod edd af tevtecet ag tromredoM tsdd ;tee% OOL dtuoa
| beagtees »oloe abrawxddts tas bisa sant seeton bise to ano to
bas toblod edt .yath twdltW of aeton bisa to eno bexsvileb bas
edt! *#*** § yoawo bas rebLod oat eetonoude abI of Sho. bas xoawo,-
vd bled stom 000.1% edt no bisq nved ead galdton ‘tadt abalt teed” |
acd gutddoll .00.008,f8 cooxedt oxb won ai oxedt base ttomredoM
eub won ai.euend bas stnotde sbI yd bled ston 000.19 m0 bag asd
we bled eton OOOL% edt mo rea: mad aisd aaidt oy. One 8 aostedt |
tnemysqnon to eausoed tadT | "O88 Le noo ted eub ak. erent bas, gate
“bas xoeM tadt berehro al YI" * W botietsot, saoaed ‘asif YWxeqerg *
~tevisser ttomtedox *** of ayab ast ‘mbdt bw aq atiowe ‘ellen
dtiw @fS,.f% anit wdliw ot bas OF, 18 yatmorde abI oF OFS 8
ea'zottoifos as bewolis ed O@lé tax? +bisq Litas etsh mont faocdvuk®
atnemyeg biee to tiusteb at sed Jase? tostteds wot ‘Oa.82g “\aoet
of #taoisittue od ys es tooredt dol o& to goa tmenq, bites Sit”
~aibersd ~atnebastsbd edt bas alvtintelg ‘of sub fasroie sit ostiset ™
ons teedgtd of dase 16% evbmev offdug #s loa od s#aotdd bns “gntx
odw yrectisdt-al-retasi Latosgk .tewod .7 ‘rims Lned ‘va rebbid fesd”
.furod' yd bevotqqe od of deldedue ‘dé iw 000 ,f8 tot ‘baod eviy ‘rede ”
aodesh biea yd bextt od of yep fxode « no pied ed of otse ‘bise- i
‘bse00tg retasM bisa tadd bes elea to eteb mo based af taao tot.
" gtgatad ‘edt ati tans baste ease Birt tdt bas wet of yabbr nt
" totes istoeqe ‘bise* to “Sxoger to ‘nt
toaesooue ve Loo aideaN oeTosh ‘adi borssas ‘Pied edt te winter
: ylut no aot ongbeLit insel bisa to ‘sevisos: ‘ stoometion ‘a sto of
Aves we * hus -
ytimrotnoco ot ton otew yout heaiese edd tods gittatstquoo eel iss V4
golngsins
ed eoxoeb et tedt bevom bas eeso ed al edoat 40 wal odd Adie
; Lat ets ort
berre soued ect tedd stew ataisIqmoo [saltontzra ed? Lebtas toa
Ans edé of betdebdal sxew xtnondte ‘often bas dosh tedd gatbalt at
% ones putt
edt beevileh bed bas egsgt ton bas eton outa ‘Setonie ‘bed baa
i iawol ios ae ‘
ot aotom ont to owt bloe hed meet ould todd ‘bas ‘aed odd us _ ae
py Tein at 2
mudiiw tadé aozelis xedtust nottom edt “lstaoxae ‘eb! atid ei gala
-3-
King and Ida Shrontz are claiming preference over the receiver
by reason of the alleged sale and assignment of said notes by the
bank, and the receiver offered to present documentary evidence to
show that said notes held by King and Ida Shrontz were not purchased
from the said bank. This motion was denied.
fhe appellants states thet the property sold for $2,631.04;
thet the Court ordered the claim of Ida Shrontz and Wilbur King
paid in full, which would leave only $82.04 for payment on the
appellant's claim. We find nothing in the record which shows that
this property had bem sold. The decree finds that the property
shall be sold for césh, and that the Master proceed according to
law, and the case await the bringing in of the report of the said
Master. Whether the appellant is in a position to urge the error
assigned, namely, that the decree does not follow the proof in the
bill, or whether the proof is sufficient to sustain these allegas
tions, ssems to us to be immaterial, for the Court in his decree
properly found that the debt then owing by the Shrontzes to each
of the note holders, were the sane with the exception of King,
which the appellee admits is an error. WNowethere in the abstract
of record does it appear that the Court entered any order that the
proceeds of the said sale should be distributed contrary to the
rule, as laid down in the case of Domeyer vs. O'Connell, 364 I11l.
467. ‘The appellee in his brief and argument admits that this case
should be governed by the rules as announced by Domeyer vs. O'Connell,
and that King and Ida Shrontz should have no priority over the
notes held by the receiver of the closed bank. No doubt, when the
proceeds of the sale are reported to the Court to be distributed
among the different note holders, the Court will make such orders
as are just, legal and equitable.
In the plaintiff's statement of the case, it is alleged that
the Court erred in finding that there is $1,279 due to the appellee,
Wilbur King, and claims that the amount should have bem $1,270,
the same as Ida Shrontz' claim and the appellant's. This is con-
ceded to be an error by the appellee, Wilbur King. This question
tevisoce: edt Isvo sonststerg gtimtels exs staotde ebl bas yaty
edt yd estom btéa to tuemmgisas bas slee begelia edd to soasex yd
of sanshtve Yisiaemso0b taseeig o¢ beretto tevisoss eft brs aaad
Seasdotug von stew simord@ sbI bas gata. yd bled seven btes tedd wore
_ sbeineb asw nottom aidT .tasd oise,; ent mort
:40,155,8¢. 19% bloa ydreqotg snd gadd, aetetea etasileqqs edP® «x0>
git w0oliW bus atnoxd@ ebl to misfo eit bexebte txved ett; dedt
edt ao tuemyec 10%. 20.88% vino avsel biuow dotdw .iiut at bieg
tact cesie foidw biooez edt at guistom bait eW -.misto a'tnsilegqs
Yrsgortg ‘aie vadé abait getesh eft. .bloaneed ban yeteqoug efds
ot gathzoogs 5seoo%tg 19tesM edd tect Sos ,daso tot Slow ed Iieda
bise edt to tuoget edt to at gutgnixzd edd tisws saso ed¥¢ dae wet
torres eds sgiv of soltteog s at ef taaliegge edt todtedd. reteset
edd mi Showa edt wollot tom e906 eeroeh edt dadt . yLomen eagings
esgelis easdt atestaus ot toetolitina ai too1rg odd, yontedw to ghi td
setoeb aim af tuwod add tol ,[etredsnmt sd ot av ef amese ,cnoit
dose of aostnorda edt yd goiwo aedt tdeb edt dad? bayot yLeeqotg
2Qaid To moitgqeoxe edt dtinw enpe odt oxew ,etshbiod atom edt to
tostteds add ni stedtewod . torte as al atimbs selteqgs edd dotdw
edd tadt tehbto yns beisias sus0d. edd Jedd sseqqs tL ae0b Hropsy to!
(edt of yxsttnoo betudiztelh od bivode elea bie elt to phseoorq
-LIT S88 ,[lennod'O .av teyemod, to easo edt of awoh biel as ,olug,
eeso eit dedt atimbs tasmuyre bas Teind eid af selieqqs eat, .» TOs
dlenmo0'O .av reyemod yd beonvenas ea asivt edt yd Senrevog od bivoda
one revo yiitoltxg on sved bivode etmonde ebl, bas gtit tad? bas
edt sodw ,tduob of .dmsd besolo ed¢ to tevieoex eda yd bled aston
betudintaitb ed ot tuvod sat o¢ botxoqet, ats else edt to, abeopotq
arebto dove exsu iLiw tuyod edt. ,eteblod eotom snezetiio. sid. gone:
| oidetivps brs lage .teut ors as
decd begsifs at tf ,9aso edt Io tneustade el tittatslq edd nt.
,slleqqe edit of ond OYS,LR eal etedd tadd gotbait.ai beits sawod edt)
OVS, L$ med eved bivoda tnuoms.edt ded? autelo das; .gatX tod lsh,
smog af ain? ..aléagifeggs sidt bag also 'génomda sbl 26 omse odd,
soltaeuxp als? «gait mudliW ,selleqgs edt. yd torts. .as .2dcot imeal
{
wy
-4-
is not argued by the appellant, and under our rules of Court, is
considered waived, but the appellee has consented to remit this
amount of $9, which he condedes is an error. It is therefore
ordered, that the appellee, Wilbur King, file a remittitur of §9
in this Court within 10 days after receiving notice of the filing
of this opinion.
We find no reversible errer in this case and when the
Tremittitur is filed es provided, then the judgment of the trial
court shall be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
A * , eh, = salie nat
A } As sue J ots cee :
>
: 34 , er #
» Sey ’
pa} g Ure mud
ai ,tiyo0 to asiui qo tebau bas ,taslleqgs edt yd bexgze.ton,. if
aids timex ot betaganco asd eslleqgs edt tod bevisw Derebianoo
Stotersds ai #1 .tomre as at esbabaoo ai.doidw ,} to.dtavoms
Cf to nutittimes.s efit grit td LiW .elleqgs edt tedt ,berebto
gatiitved? to eolten guivieoet sodts.eysb, OL aiddiw dxwed etdt ot
. sttolsigqo eidt to
odd sedw bas gasoveidt as torre eldlasevey, om, batt eW. eyig
J Isétt edd. to feeugoy, sav aedd .bebivotg, as beltt af wweittines
»bewrtitis. od Lleida tayoo
? ey i
‘
acre’
Ei
F oy
t d °
j ‘ ae
’ y +) re . §
| HAGA X Ai PD pnag ORR
; ‘ EES ite
J i Vi 4 Pog a zg 4
Aap WL eee Site ONTO oa Ncay
" ” ‘ 2 haf S38 Aw
& Ti ; fei sedi bt
§ S Lvtd + ygcert? yt
wed #1 Sleota fopjeh Oe tadt eadelp Gale eellee
1 ON Dae wlave, Mets al, ae Oe
ae ES & ALi Dae et « 2 tic % Bre Lg 5 Moe! kr Lage ot Ya tr gives yee Ati end bebes
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT i I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Ilinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
_in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73815—5M— 3-82) oe333p07
i AE sal 4 ee oe
' ye se aan ne tae J 7 ;
ad aN ik : "y os ,
‘ hi ae, Rae fia er one j
*
A a Radi a
op Owe AK Mao a¢ or =
‘% ; sand hey ie
‘to aia
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 2nd day of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven,
Within and fom the Second District.of the State of Tllinois:
Present —- The Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Presiding Justice.
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.
Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Justice.
Clerk. a! in
RP be fa f fe | A
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON,
6} & ®, @ 4 | I 7 y
RALPH H. DESPER, Sheriff. Fad 5 WU Lelhe UL
3
————
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
APR 14 Wo
Office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit:
097
the opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's
Oe
we
aorta
f —_
* -
‘5 i
‘ $ arty
es t A
Ban aTAUOD 3
At qrwidet to .xeb bas ass
Aever—ys aid. firs, boxbaud arta: certs Be
satorflly 3
General No. 9184 Agenda 16.
In the Appellate Court of Illinois
Second District
February Term, A. D. 1937
Virginia Warren,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
Appeal from the Circuit Court
vs.
of Lake County
City of Waukegan, a municipal
corporation,
Def endant-Appellee,
WOLFE-J.
Virginia Warren started suit for damages against the City
of Waukegan, for injuries she sustained when she fell over a
water pipe in a public street of the City of Waukegan. The
first four paragraphs of the plaintiff's complaint is as follows:
"1. That on the 20th day of January, A. D. 1934, and prior
thereto the defendant was a Municipal Corporation.
"2. That as such corporation the defendant kept, maintained
and controlled public highways and sidewalks in the City of
Waukegan for the use of the public.
"3) That it became and was the duty of the defendant to
exercise ordinary care to keep said streets, h&ghways and side-
walks used by the public in reasonably safe condition.
"4. That the defendant disregarded its duty in that behalf,
and negligently, carelessly and improperly used, kept, maintained,
Managed, supervised, operated and controlled a certain highway
known as Henry Place in the City of Waukegan, and the public side-
walk and parkway in a dangerous condition, in that:
"(a) The said defendant suffered and permitted a certain
stationary object to be and remain in an upright position upon
and along a certain parkway upon and along the highway aforesaid,
thereby creating a source of danger at, near, or in front of, to-wit,
1510 Henry Place which said parkway was a part and parcel of said
.aL shsoss ASIe@ .ovf [ateneD
etonif{{[I to tawed etsifeqqéA edt al
| ‘tolateld baoos®
veel .dq .A ,stteT yissidet
,tetteW siote tiv
tosllegqa-ttlials(t
tapod ¢ivoirtd edd mort Ise qqa
eV
Yiasod saat to
oltsteqtoe
,90 Lleqqé-t nsbae ted
.G-Et10"
usiid eft tenisge eogemeb tot tive betustea mette¥ statgitV
s tevo [fet sde nedw benisieve oda acelaisiof sot ,msgodueW to
feqtotom 8 ,deyeaveW ‘to yslo
ei? .megedueW to yet0 edt to feotte oliduq ninb eqtqetetaw
:ewollot es af tatsiquoo e'ttivatetq eft to edapitasisq mot tertt
‘sobig bus ,S8eL . .A ,yiswast to yeh MP0s ot ao dedT VEN”
.aottestoqied Lsaqtotaul se asw tashaeted edt otetedt
benistniem ,tqex tashaeteb eft molteizoqzes dove as tad? .g" :
to ysl edd mi ediswoblta bas eyswigid olfiduq bellottaoo bas
»oliduq eft te ees oft tot negedvel
ot tushboeteh edt to ytub edt esw bas emsoed tik tedT ys"
-obte bas eyewdigtd ,etsotte blse qood ot o1s9 yisaibio eatowxe
efoliibnoo etsa Yidsnoase1s al ofiduq sdt yd beau exilew |
etisded tadt of ytub ett bebtsgetelb tuebasteb off tsdT 2"
-boufstaien ,tgex ,beas yfueqotqmt bas yleeelereo .Ylinegtinenm bas
vewdgid atstieo 8 belfottnoo be betsteqo ,deetvieque ,bogsnem
~offe olidugq edt bas ,tegeaveW to yttO est at sosld ymeH es sword
itedt mi ,moltibnoco avotesnsh s ni yswitsq bas ALéw
aistieo s bettimreq bas hetetiwe tmabsoteb biea oft (e)”
fogy soltieog tdgltaqu as ot alsmet bas ed ot toetdo yisnoltste
-bisastots Yewdeid edd anoles bas moqu yswiitsq ntette0 s snols bas
:iiw-ot ,to toorvt ot to ,teom .ts Tegish to eotwoe s gnitsero ydexedd —
Stee to leorsq bos t1sq 5 aew yswitegq Slee dot dv eoalt YuneH OL8L i
Ps
public highway and public sidewalk used by the public in general;
"(b) That said defendant suffered and permitted a certain
water pipe upon and along said parkway used by the public in general
to be and remain upon aid along the dertain parkway between the side-
walk and the street proper which the said defendant knew or by the
exercise of ordinary care would have known, would be the cause of
tripping pedestrians or those who were walking to and from the
street ahd their homes or sidewalk;
"(c) The said defendant knew or by the exercise of ordinary
care would have known that it was &me customary for motorists to stop
cars at, near, or adjoining public sidewalks upon public highways
and walking to the sidewalk it would be hecessary to cross a certain
parkway supervised, maintained and controlled by the said defendant,
and it became and was the duty of the defendant to exercise ordinary
care not to permit any object, pipe or pillar to be and remain in
an upright position so as not to subject those who were walking
across said parkway to trip, stumble, or fall, and the defendant
in violation of said duty notwithstanding said knowledge suffered
and permittedsa certain object or pipe to be and remain in an
upright position upon and along sa&d parkway aforesaid, thereby
creating a source of danger.”
The plaintiff then avers that on the date and place aforesaid,
while crossing the said parkway, from the street to her home,
after sunset, and while using all due care and caution for her
own safety, and as a direct and proximate result of the negligence
of the defendant as herein charged, she was caused to, and did,
trip, stumble, and fall, whereby she was seriously injured, etc.
She claims damages in the sum of $15,000. In answer to this
complaint, the defendant filed its answer, which consists of a
general denial of the allegations in the complaint. The case was
heard before a jury and at the conclusion of the plaintiff's
-fH+
jistemeg af oliduq ent yd) Seem Alawebis aifdugq bas yswdglid offidedq
nistieo 9 hettimzeg hie hevwtiwe tmebseted biee tad? (a)"
fevenes at offdsq edt yd beay yswitsq ise ssols bas soqu sqiq tedaw
~obia eit seewted yewtteg nisiteb eft gnois bis soqu aismet bas od of
edt Yd to wom! tabs teb bise elt dotdw teqotg toexte edd Bas alew
to eesso edt oa ‘bivow awond eved blyow e1xso yiestbio, to setormxe
eld mort bose ot gnitiew etew odw seadt to anelitesheq antaqqtat
| iaiswebie to eestod thedd Sis sooite
yisalbro to eetorexe edt yd to wend tashoeteh bise odT (0)"
geve ot ateltotom tot yYismotave mit asw tt tedt owond oved blyow etes
ayewigia eildsq moqu axleweble olfduq gaintetbe to .1eem yts ete0
aistteo s eeom ot Yissceoed od bivow dt alewebie edt ot gataiiew bus
tasbooteb bise edd yd belloutnos bos bonietaism .bealvre que’ yewstted
yisalbso eefetexe ot dnshaeleb odd to ytub ent eew. das omsoed ob: bite
nt sfeno hop ed of seliiq to eqtq ,toefdo yas + hee g: ot tom siso
aid few stew ow osodd tootdue ot tom e808 sottieog tdaiuqs as
ine Ststeh edt bos ,{f{st to ,oldawte ,qint o¢ Yswiteq) Slee 290108
howeTive exbolwondt Siew saibnetadtingem yeh biee to sottalotr’ ml
fis ai aismex bas ed ot eqig - ‘goo,do nb at00 asbett Lureq Sas
YWew1d? ,biseetots yswoinsg bése ga0le bas nog: mottteoq tis tage
",tegmeb te sotvoe g onttenm
-Oiseetcts eosiq bua eteb edt no teat. erevs, nedd ‘Tittale lg eT»
;eMod Ted ot testte oft moxt 4 yewiisg: bles edt gmteeonp olidw |
tod tot coitus Soe ets0 oud fie gulew oLkiw baw ,tesnee setts
sotogtizen edd te. tivees etesizetg bug voexib e es bas yYtetae avo
bib Sas .ot beavso esw ede ,begutedo atered es tuebasteb: oft. to
-ote ,bowiat ylevolise sew ede ydexedw ,iist bos yoldmute. gist
aidd of tewans at .000,21$ to mye edt at eogamed emtsto ode
& to etelanoo doldw ,tewane ett boLtt.tusbueteb edd «tateLamos
sow eeso OAT. svtatstlqmoo edd at. emoidsgelis.odt to Letacb, Sasi
(“Gttiltetelg edt to soteyloscs edt. to. bas. vrut 2 exotedsbised
do kok wots uae UE
al
~3~
evidence, the defendant entered a motion for a directed verdict
in its favor. The court instructed the jury to find the issues
for the defendant. The jury so found, and a judgment was then
entered by the court on this verdict of the jury. It is from
this judgment that this appeal is prosecuted.
The only question presented to this court is: "Did the
court err in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant?"
It is stipulated that the place where the accident occurred was
a public street, highway, and sidewalk of the City of Waukegan,
and had been for more than five years prior to the date of the
plaintiff's action; that the parkway inside of the said road, or
street, was a city street and public highway; that the said street
extended from sidewalk to sidewalk, including the parkway mentioned,
and that inside of the parkway was located the object or pipe
mentioned in the pleading.
The evidence shows that the plaintiff resided at 1510 Henry
Place, where she had lived for not quite tvo months. There are
two entrances to the house -- one at the side, and one at the
front. The front door faces the east, and the side door faces
the south. In front of the house there was a sidewalk and beyond
that a parkway, and in between the sidewalk and the street, in
the parkway, there was a water shut-off pipe, about 33 inches in
diameter and standing about nine inches above the ground. Mrs.
Warren testified that prior to January 20, 1954, she had never
used the front way, but always used the side door that faced
towards the alley, and thet they always drove the car up to this
door; thet she had never seen ahy pipe on the ground in the park-
way; that prior to January 20, 1934, she was in good health.
_ Mrs, Warren further testified that on the night of January
20, 1934, she had been out in the car with her husband and came
home and got out at the front entrance; that she stepped from
the car which was parked along the curb; that as she walked
towards her house, she stumbled and fell over this pipe and was
~S«
totbtev betoetib s ict mottom s betetme tasbasted edt ,eonebtve
eegest eft Salt of yiup edt, Betourtant.guroe eff ..tovet eti at
seit eaw tmemghut s bas ,bovet os yist ost | .tisbaetebh edt tot
moxt.ef tI .ymwt edt to tolbiev aid? so. tiwoo edt yd) bowet ae
ai ebetueozotg 2. Lseqqs gidt isdt. Ji sempbut.atdt
edt Ba" .:ef tuyoo eidt of botnezerq sotteaup.yino edt y/.
"ttaghae teh edt. to stovet ai to ibuev,.« gaitosiib al.1e tyes
aaw bexuvogo tnebloos edt eredw coslgq odt todd betsingiia ef: ti
-fegeruel To ytio edt to Alswebie bas ,ysudgid ,teonxta,olidugq)s
| eit to otegh edd ot rotsq arsey evil ssdt. stom iol ,meod,fbed bas
to ,bsot bise edt to eblent yswiisq edd tedt.jnolteos a'tistaielq
testia htee edt tadi j;yswdetd olldgg bos teoeute .ytio s sev ,«toete
osoltnem yowlieg edt gathulogt. ,Alsvebte ot Aleweble, mort be haetxe
egiq to teetdo edd beteool asw yawiied ed? to ebiank, # edd bus
gp Dorma pis gah." \.padbeolq edt al. becodt mem
nisin Ol2f ts, bebieet, ‘VWMitsielg» edt dedd swode eonebive ed? ...
eis owdt. .eddsom ost etiup tom, 102 Sbevil bad sdeertsdw)eoeld
edt ¢s eno dus ,eble edt ts em0 -- oavod odd ot seonettas,out
asosi toob ebie edt bas ,.tase ont agosl soch dnoxt ed? .tn017
broyed bus tLsweblie s asw oxedd eguod ost to toort of... aituon edt
at ,jeowte edt bas alewobte odt ssevted at bas <yardieqea teat
at eedonk g8 tuods ,eqig Tio-tude sotew s ase etedd .,.yewAreg ont
_ em .basotg edt eveds aedont enin tuods gatbaste bas wetemeth
weves bed eda ,S58L .OS Yrssael oF roliq dedi boliivecs sotia
. beost tedt to0oh obla oft boaw ayswia snc, eV sw trout, eat boas
eldt of qu tso edd evetb ayawls yedt tedt bas ,yoile emt ebaawot
~a1isq edd al Savoy et mo eqiq Ute meee seven bed ode dadt .p~rood
steed boog ot gem ode ACL .0Sqreunst of cobs dadt amen
VisHoeb 10 tigin edt so tedt bolitiged nedtwt sess BM oi
(oms0 bos baisdend tod dity to edt oh dwo need bed ode AACL 408
orl beqgeta efe todd jeousitme door oft ts tuo tog bas emod
beatew ole as todd jdivo edt yools bedisq.eew dotdw 169 edt
esw Sais eqig elds teve [let bas beldmie eda ,eevosd wed abrenot
j rd.
aes ea ee
coiling
injured. She then described her injuries.
Mr. Arthur Kennedy testified that he had lived at 1504
Henry Place, Waukegan, for two years, and in that neighborhood
for quite a number ofyears, end that the pipe in questidn had
been in the same position for five years or more. Mr. Henry B.
Bleck, City Mngineer of the City of Waukegan, Illinois, testified
to the size ahd location of thisbox or pipe. He designated it
as "a cast-iron adjustable shut-off box", or "curb box", placed
there for the purpose of controlling the water thet enters the
building at 1510 Henry Place. If the rent was not paid, the
city would use this box to shut off the water. He testiffed that
there was no reason at all why the box should extend above the
ground or could not be level with the ground, or practically so.
This evidence is not disputed.
The motion for the directed verdict does not specify on
what grounds the inmtruction was given. We have no means of
ascertaining the reason why the court gave this instru ction.
From an examination of the pleadings and the evidence, it is our
conclusion that the plaintiff made out a prima facié case, and
tffe case should have been submitted to the jury for its consideration.
The evidence clearly shows thet Mrs. Warren had no knowledge that
there was a dangerous obstruction in the street; that she fell
as she was walking on the city property and was severely injured;
and that this obstruction had been in the street five years or more.
The plaintiff does not charge that the city placed this ob-
struction in the street, but does charge that it suffered and
permitted the pipe to be there for a long period of time in a
dangerous position in a public street in the City of Waukegan, and
that they either knew, or, by exercising ordinary care, they could
have know that this dangerous obstruction was in the street end
méght cause pedestrians to trip and fall over the same and thereby
be injured. Proving that the shut-off box had been in the same
et | 0 th Pee |
-2eliwi at ref pedtioesh sedd ede’ © beaut mt
OGL te hovil tind bit sed? beftiteed ybentet wdtaa sa
boodtodiigies tedt mi bm (exsey owt vor ,asgotvey LooalD yumee!
bef mittesup at cate oft ¢edt bie jenseyte vedumn @ ettip 10%
2 yur .a .e%om to ateey evit tot noliteog esse elit mt meod
boltitest: ,afontill ,magedueW to ytd eid To tedaianl ytlo dos le.
tf bedstatesb of .eqiq to xodaldt to dotieool bis sxta bat ote
booslq ,"xod dio" to . "xed Tro-tude eldatantis mort Jeso s* Be:
edt eweine dost retew eft gatlloxtnoo to’ cecgwg eft TOL ewaty
edt bing ton as tne oft ID ° eos lS YtiteH OLEL te gnkbited
tedt be@titest eH .wtew ot tte tune of Kod widt caw Blyow ytitor
ait evots bretxe Bivode xod off ydw Lis te hoeset om aew omit
.o8 yilsoitoesg ro Hci sit dtiw level ed ton bivoo to) bavon:
, betwee lb Yorn et eonsbive etdT
mo Yttoogqs tom eeoh tolbiev betoextd ont tet agttom enT,oo (
to aneem on ever of nevis vaw nmoltowiml sft ebavotys ¢ ante
smotte utenti eidt oven findo edt vow mouse ane anit etven
“wo el tf ,somebive off bas epnthselq oft to ‘nottsntmexc ‘ne mort
bas .easo Sfost smtig s tuo ebam TTismlely odd sagt motemloncd’
foliembienos ati tot yint ort of bettindve ‘ceed eved bisode eras one
tedt egbelwond om Sed setus . 2m todd awode yiieslo senehive out
fife? ede tant pteotta ont mi Holtontidde avevesmsh 6 wew owt
iborst nt yLeteves éaw bas Yteqot¢ ytto edt wo gminllew Rew ede ces
OTM to eteoy svit testéa ot ai nood bed Koldowitade ‘gids dade onnd
«do elit boosl¢ ytho edt tadt esiendo Von ss0b Tiitalsld edT oo
bos fotettwe ti-tedd sptadd aseb sud yteowe oft at doktoutte
Bs it sult te bofieq gn0l s Tot ered od of eqkq sd? bet timid
bos ,“sgewss te yttO ent of teorte obldseg 2 nt nottteog asotesnsh
blyoo Yedd ,9%89 Yistibto yitetetexe yd po (wea tot te vyeds sadd
bos testte oft at aew noitenttado asOvegdad “tit todd fron evad —
Bi. vdetsdt dae ombe odt seve fiat bas ghad ws “emetatesnedq ate J a
a cath eid nk hab abd, aed tin ciaiie: otk nae le
-5-
position for five years or more, would be a fact for the jury to
decide as to whether the city should have known that this obstruction
existed in one of their public streets. The question as to whether
the plaintiff was suilty of negligence which contributed toward
her injury was a fact for the jury to decide.
It is our conclusion that the trial court erred in not sub-
mitting this case to the jury for consideration. The judgment of
the Circuit Court of Lake County is hereby reversed and the case
regianded.
Reversed and Remanded.
ae'a
-dge ton ct hows Sivoo feta ead tart vebhuieaP the! at
+0" apwsexaiedy ed? snottatebteanos 10% drnnn ial GY 9 ei
i aaah ‘bits Adaxveh ©
eee ay a
ow eel antl! wan
Shs) teva Pee a a Symes Bay o
f4a0n eek ng ‘ei ae tt aR, setabet as
my &
a.
© ote We
SR « geet ae hee kas tats. stem
Ne
howe dt) eateries ne ora agli fox sees HRs tating
bat beter dh aad we Goole ihe dae hnonnt 9 fea me
OT hy bled or beaded s
Whi, i,
he ae
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT fs I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
Cin the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73815—5M—3-82) e307
Ce
+
sc
oo ee
thei ‘tt
ae fd mod oh togeentt on fern feat ott ihe aoepsand alt » tad wlagneaoiarlitgsiee ka
3 _ Asti bel Mere wreda, oat ati Sp ) 2 nial ten qt ta ada te a
a fina yor lime arf ifn Detw ‘farted “est fou atin: sored scouted ners alee ‘
By oc lt ee mond J Se ee ne 4
nla heyaauodd ase bod mie HA 18, net he een apeeen
4 =
tig ce 2 ee in ease
£4 te Sie ain Nien nn
b| : Hie stage ret ‘eoil) 4 “ule wi gees a,
ay - + , 1 a i Pt y rs) ow we
a Ni om
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 2nd day of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven,
Within and for the Second District of the State of Jllincis;
Present -——- The Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Presiding Justice.
Hon. FRANKLIN R, DOVE, Justice.
Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Justice. 9 Q myTA &
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
RALPH H. DESPER, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
APR 1 4 1937 the opinion of the Court was filed in the @lerk's
Office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit:
Ra oe
tt TodQ- Pest sesaae a
souseran eat ten tees
waned etane eeataee sem ey) wei
General No. 9192 Agenda 22.
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
February Term, A. D. 1937.
Elizabeth Marston, Administratrix of
the Estate of Leslie Marston, Deceased,
Plaintiff-appellant,
Appeal from the Circuit
VS. Court of Peoria County,
Tllinois.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
Company, a Corporation,
Defendant-—Appellee.
WOLFE, J.
On the 4th of December, 1934, the plaintiff intestate, Leslie
Marston, was driving a Ford truck on State Highway #97 from Roseville
to Farmington, Illinois. The Chicago, Burlington and Quincy tracks run
north and south a short distance west of Farmington. Plaintiff
intestate drove his truck into one of the railroad company'a trains
which was standing across State Highway #97 at a point where the high-
way crosses the railroad tracks. The plaintiff intestate was killed
in the accident, and Elizabeth Merston, as administratrix of his
estate, has brought suit in the Circuit Court of Peoria County, alleg-
ing that it was on acount of the negligent operation of the train by
the railroad company's employees which caused Leslie liarston's death.
The plaintiff's complaint consisted of three counts, in which it
describes the position of the railroad tracks and the road, and alleges
the driving of the truck over said highway #97, and the collision of
the truck with the train of the defendant, and further charges numerous
acts of negligence on the part of the railroad company, which were the
proximate cause of the injuries to plaintiff intestate. The railroad
company filed its answer, in which it denied any and all acts of
negligence on its part, but alleged that it was the negligence and
carelessness on the part of Leslie Marston in approaching said orossing
«SS sbasga - QQLe ee Levene By
HHT “I
GIOULIII TO THUOO FTAIIEIIA
TOLTAT@IG Gqhoora
VECL .@ .4 tot yusy'rded
to xitdetteininog ,fotateM déedssifg
,eassoed ,motetsM sileed to ststaa oat 4
etasileqqaé~tiitoisl{
tivotid sit mort Iseagaé
eViavoD stiroeI to tiwed : ou APL |
-atomilLt v
ponerse yoating 3 aotgnt iw ,ogsotdo ‘
OLR TOTEAD 8 Carag)” ,
sei [oqqA-tusbas ted
silasd tataodtat ttitais{[q edd deel leads to dtd edt 20
ellivesos mock T@y yewdgih etste mo Aowsd bxot s yoivinb asw coal
sur aaisexe siesliuit brs sotgat tind va sehen edT .atontIit modem ints ot
‘ thitaisls \sotgninrst to taew sonstato tzode s diwoa ons deen
aaiend @' ¥aaqnos bsotlist edd to eno otni tours eid evorb otstectat
-fgid edt etedw sndoq s ts Yet yswigih etst@ seotas gatbaste asw fokdw
bolita asw eistestnt tittnielg edt .edostd bsorlisx edd geasor0 ‘0 \
atd to xivéstéaiaimbs as ,moteteM déedex tia bas ,taeblood sat ak 7
-golifs ,ytaved sitoed to tryed tivotid edt af tive tiguoxd asd «otstae ;
ve atsté edt to noitsteqo tnegiigen sit to tay wos m0 asw tL tedt gal
.dtseb a notareé eilesd boause dotdw aseyolqme a 'ynsqmoo baot! tex edt
tt dotdw at ~atavoo eoxit Xo bodatenes tris lomoo alttitaisls oT i “
eegelis bas ,bsot edt bas edosté bsotl ist eft to aot? taog edt aedtroaeb
‘to sotutifos edt bas (Mek yswiig td bisa revo dourt edd to gaivizb a
ayoTsnust asgtasio teddui bas ,tasbmeteh edt To nistd edd ddtw ound eds
are
edt etew dotsw Visqnos bsorl ts edd to #xeq edt co soneg igen to aos ;
bsorltes edt .etateetat thitnisla ot aoieutat edt ‘to eauso e¢smixorg :
gt
to atos [fs bas vas beineb ti sobaw at ,Tewans avi peltt \itaquIOo
Be
bas suangitgnn edt asw ti stadt begetie tud oueg att mo ‘eonsgtigen ;
1a Beads sie
galasote bise gatdosotggs at sotersM eifeed to ¢zsq edt ao suencasferso
Bas
which was the proximate cause of plaintiff intestate's injuries and
death. The case was tried before a jury, and at the conclusion of
the plaintiff's evidence, the railroad company, by its attorneys,
submitted an instruction to find the issues for the defendant. This
motion was argued by counsel for both sides and the Court instructed
the jury to find for the defendant, and the jury so found by their
verdict. Judgment was entered on the verdict and the plaintiff brings
the suit to this Court for review on appeal.
The evidence shows that Leslie Marston and Robert McLaughlin
left the village of Roseville about 3:30 A.M. in a Ford truck, which
was owned by Marston's father. Their destination was a point east of
Farmington for the purpose of getting a load of coal. As they neared
the crossing in question, they failed to observe the train of loaded
coal cars of the defendant, standing across and blocking the road. The
Ford truck was driven underneath a loaded coal car and Leslie Marston
was killed. The front end of the truck was very badly mashed. The
windshield was driven back against the fac@ of the driver, and the truck
was tightly wedged beneath the train. A wrecker, with the aid of
several men, tried to pull the truck from underneath the train, but
could not move it. A chain was procured and the engine of the train
was brought back to the wreck and hitched to it, in an attempt to pull
the truck out. The first chain, described as "a three inch chahn,"
broke, and they then procured a chain from the railroad engine which
was used for pulling freight cars. This was fastened to the truck and
engine, and the truck was finally pulled from beneath the coal car.
fhe evidence further shows that route #97 is the ordinary paved
highway; that west of the crossing it is level fwr several hundred
feet, and them, as the witnesses described it, there is a slight grade
downward for several hundred feet, and then up; that immediately west
of the railroad track is the standard railroad crossing sign; that 500
feet west of the crossing is the standard highway railroad crossing
sign; that Marston was familiar with this crossing, and that he had
driven over it dozens of times.
wilhes
bas aotuutal a'etstastai tiitaisIq to eauso stismixotg edt eew dose
to moteulofoo ait ts bas ,yww, Ss stoted hbeitt 2sW. 9889, edT; teed
,~ayentotis ati yd ,yasquoo bsorlisr edt somebive e'tifivgnisig edd
eid? .tnsbroteb odt rot sees eit batt of nottourtant ns bet indue
betouttent ¢iv0od edd bee eebtea,stod sot Leanvoo yd bexgis asw sottom
atedt yd bowot oa yrut sdt bas ,tasbmetsb edd rot balt o# yut oa
agaitd titdaisiq edt bas tolotev bat no: baxesae asw tnemgbul. sfokbasy,
.teeqas a0 welvet not tuo) aidt o¢ tua ont
niftigusioN tixedok Sas aotetsit oiieed tadt awoile sonsbive edT
ee touts beet B ai .M.A 08; é twods elliveaox to egalliv ede ot
to tese taieg s asw moftsnitash ‘leat | sodtah pith bee ve beawe: asw
betsen yedt aA .isoo to bsol ae gaitioy ‘to: eacqtig edt tot notgntunst
bebsol to aistt edt evirsado ot belist yeds ,noitasup af ra, oat
edt -DSOT ead mrs ee aBotos gatbasta .daabae ted avd to B1s0 ‘Is08
wee, J 3
xotatsli elieed bas <1s9 re bebeol 8 dtseatebas asvith sew dott rot
ORY. gtOF a hien
ent betean tibed YISsv ssw stows ont to bae tnox edt eet SA cow
TL wR
fowri eds pan revit eat to east edd fentegs tosd novinb asw biebiebne
LSAT. AOTCR ae
to bis adt at tw .texoemW A atstt ous sidsemed bes bow r yLicigts a, ;
ty a8 ‘ ee
yb be ALS
hud isst axis désentebau wort dosnt eas Eierg 08 point Merk Lopint:
aisct edt hi ontgae nat bre betwoong paw plede A _ ptt avon tom biyoo
19 BeRBOte ¥
fing ot tqmet ts as at at ov beddos ta bas footw oat posd sdguoxd sow
" pinikesto dont eordé st as bedizoass atsifo dentt edt p tue, Lome, edt
dy OR ee *
dotdw eantgrne bsorlist oni wort atado 8 beawoorq sedi ae, Me eet
LY fj.
bas xourd edt of besetest asw als? senso tdytoxt pal Lun tot bea asw
De Oa es bo a
‘sts0 Isoo add ditasned mort bel ing vitentt aw fourt odd bas conte
, boved yvussalbto oud aL = edu tsdd ‘ewoda seddust pip out .
sac t . LG Lao Ris ae ZOoeen
bexbaud Lstevea cot Level at tt “gateaoto eit to taew tedt i{ewd
4 Ae | Sabie ru 4 oe os Oy
mess tg tle s al etedd at bedizoasb sseasat in edt es pee bas 09
‘ ms é i ZA Sev =
teew yletstbemut tedd im wedd bas too? besbaus Lexevea rot brswawob
2 Bes ;
008 teild imgte gatsacxo dSeoxliss brsbaste eile al iostt hocekhex edt to
Oy sh et sale ty x
gateaorto bsotl ist yawsty a busbasta oat at gatescze edd | to. teow Bie ;
bsd out | tedd bas (gnLeBorD | pies dit tw xetliae® eam | moter teas. imate,
semis to ‘amezoD ab xv0 pi
: ot ati Be senda’ ;
ei a
Charles Reeves, a witness called on behalf
of the plaintiff, testified that he was tie brakeman on
the train in question, which left Canton, Illinois,
for Farmington; thet when they got to Norris the train
became stalled and they couldn't pull it, so they
uncoupled a part of the train and proceeded to the
point where the accident occurred; that there were
44 ears in the train as it stopped near Farmington;
that just as it stopped, he got off of the train,
eut the air hose and lifted the pin relative to cut-
ting the train in order to clear the crossing over
the highway; that just as he pulled the pin to un-
couple the train, he glanced westward and saw the
lights and a dim outline of the approaching truck;
that in his judgment the truck was approaching at
the rate of 35 to 40 miles per hour; and that so
far as he could see, it gave no indication of slow-
ing up, but drove into the side of the train at the
same rate of speed it had been traveling as it
approached the train; that later he looked for skid
marks on the pavement to see if the brakes had been
applied hard enough to slice the wheels, but there
were no marks to indicates that the car had skidded.
There were other witnesses that testified to the
position of the care; to the description of the
paved road west of the crossing, the signs, etc.
un
ifsdod 10 petise agent in s qaevoss seized
to menexetd ait asa ad todd Pettitess stittaiela oft, to. ot
a
a Ae LED
toatl lt ,fotasd tiel 9 diw eo idasup at Adare, out. ald
. ment ont BLT tou of tog yedt asdw todd irodgeince, =a:
yede oa ,tf Lug i 'ab yoo, yea? bes boListe PRAP SE. ved sat
_ 844 of ebesvorg bre misxt edt to treq 8 belayoonu
Sten eisad teat {hating tiebtoos end: exenn RAG. rae
pase
wiksxd edd to ito tog of .becqota st as, taut, tad ae i
jfotyalanst teem beqqoss. 2 as citer edt ot atao ad
_ ato of, evidalon aiq edt pogitt bas Saod she ont tyo...
OA At
tS Vvo gitaeora - edd xe Lo, ot nebt0 at aiert ett Leo
tei
«et, 8 aig eit hot tig. ef 38 tent. osdt _Axeeigia hr “BRO
ae odd WwS8 Dts Suswdesw beoasls od tient ont oben. gan
sour nitosox 8 ent to srt tivo mtb ‘s pas stdgil —”
#2 & a AF Le oy ® fix ARO de as) A capa
ts pabtosorags aew sous ouit taompbut hye Mey tant
eee) aa , i) {Ande wig ie ® om Pg eaw
08 tadt ba ;rwod mq aoLin 08 ot a to tet ed .
7 i ie iy dy gh ea Ace ES ws ct
“vole to sotssotba! on oysg tt wea biked ed as tat j
ih, WA he REGIE SORE Tt hehe a Hes
ontd ts nkext et to sbte out otnt evort Bin qu gat
OE , qos UA eos Py re
tt a8 salfevett need ‘bait tt beece to etst omsa
‘ ge ER RE f . Poo o RAKE wy “it ead
bisa tot bexool on ret ol tad lakett oxi bedosotags ei
: Aid ALD. RE somone
no9d bert soderd ont th 288 of snomoveq edt a0 aatem
i Ley BE RR HD, emer aus
ered tod weissdw oie sbtte ot dgiiome brad betlaas
Chit Corea ys REL U ys se L gpenes
bobbie bad a ade tect etsotbat of exten of orem
aT) sa he
ead o¢ boitttees teas -acaasat ty watite ‘ersw etedt hie
» SRW Maar 2 a Wa “mH
eat te nottgtroseh oat ‘ot iexso edd ‘to nodttaog -
i . REL AN Bd afte <a iat a
ote come: oat certaaere edt to teow bsor bewag
ft Lae wae, tare 3 ae
. a ep tae wi aml mer P *
er Feng ics 4 ci Same ee Cetus hei i. Ban | ¥ 4, we Ke Dh pans Lan Fv ind te
atehanca ahF we galeento- wes 20 2 & ow taet
‘ _— $ " i “a att i apes lo 0) + a
pe iager® Riad dete cali daey PH, ROSRTAE Raeoy ig te
* , bye? f, my " 4" -
sant? 0. eomrob re 7OKO. EE
+s
)
4-
It is first insisted by the appellant that the Court erred in
not permitting Marshall Kirby and A.L. Pollan to testify that
Leslie Marston was a careful and prudent driver of an automobile.
This offer was based on the theory that there were no eye witnesses
to the accident, but objection was made tc this testimony by counsel
for the railroad company, for the reason that there was an eye
witness to the collision. They tendered the witness C. L. Reeves
and claimed that he was an eye witness to the accident. There is
no disagreement by counsel for appellant and appellee as to the law
in cases of this kind, namely, that where there is no eye witness
to an accident, then proof of the fact that the deceased was a care-
ful and prudent driver is a circumstance for the jury to consider, to
determine whether the deceased, at the time of the accident, was in
the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety. After reading the
testimony of C. L. Reeves, it is our conclusion that he was an eye
witness to the accident, and the Court did not err in excluding the
testimony of the two witnesses relative to the manner in which Leslie
Marston had formerly driven automobiles.
It is next insisted that the court erred in directing a verdict
in favor of the defendant, as it was a question of fact from all the
evidence as to whether the plaintiff was in exercise of ordinary care
for his own safety, and whether the railroad company was guilty of
negligence which was the proximate cause of the injuries to Leslie
Marston that caused his death.
In the case of Coleman vs. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Reil-
road Co., 287 Ill. App. 268, the facts are practically the same as
in the one we are now considering. In the Coleman case, the train
stopped on the crossing to enable the switchman to alight from the
train and walk a short distance to throw a switch, so that the train
might back upon another track. In the present case, the switchman
was uncoupling the cars so that the train could move forward and
leave the highway clear for traffic. In both cases the driver of
the automobile was familiar with the railroad and highway crossing,
and had passed over it many times. The court finally adopts the rule
is
ot berre tapod sav tedt tasileqgs ont yd betafeni tarit ef > ae
tadd \titess oF asIlod .J.a bas you bx iledereM git tts tateq ton
-olidomotus as to tevind taebutq bas Iwtezes asw toteraM etfaed —
asenontiw eys on siew “oenae teat yroodt edd Feds) boasd asw tet to ‘eta? a
Isanvoo yd yoromitaed eidd oF sbsm saw brhaelitals wie gud trebroos: oxté or
‘ 9Ye a8 asw eredt tad¢ moaset aft tot eYeLsegatoo bsoriion ‘edt xo%
eevee al 0 aebat te ott botebmes ‘yod? smote titoo ont ot ‘aeontiw
af exedt .tmeb toos edt oF apond iw eve fs sw ex todd ponte bas
wel oft of es eellecqs bas tasliscas rot Leanwoo vac} temsergsa th on
eeentiw sve of at vred¥ sisdw fedt Noy boar ta aide to e9aao xt
~etso 6 asw beaseosh sit ‘tadé dost adv. to Yoong odd tnebi098 | oS oF
ot ,teblenoo ot yuwt edt tot constenworte £ at tevitb tneburg bas List
mi aew ,taebtoos edd to omit ent ts ,beassoeb edt rediecw ‘ontmzsieb
edt sribset rodtA s(tetsa nwo ain tot seis0 yrs thre to eatorexs ent
aye ms aew od tedt motawlomoo wo et tt (a0veeh ad 0 ‘to uromttsed
ed¢ gnibuloxe at rze tom bib t4wod ont bas ,tnsbtoos edt of ‘aeentin
etleed dotaw af rennem oad of. evitsier seeaont Lw owt oat to qmomiseed
waa Lidomotua nevinb vlxearot bad notetel
toibtsv s yaitoottb gi bexres tu0o oxi dadtt betatent koa af ar
edt Lf moxt tost to not teoup 2 aew tt as ,fasbae Ye bee | to tovst MR
eIso Ytenthbto Bo safotexe at asw Tittntelg edt redtestw ot es sonebive
to ytling esw YaLsquiog bsoriter ont reddedw bas viotss o9o atd xot
sifael of astustat edt to sansa etamixotg edt ecw dots sony tigen
witaeb etd beauso ssid novaxsil
~Lish yoniug has notgect lune pee av mame Lod to @880 edté ot
es emsa edt tUlasels garg x8 atost edd 898 oc. fit, X8s 4799, bsot
aisvt eft ,easo asmse lod edt al gnitebtanoe wor ore hd one ‘out mi
edd moxt tigils of nandod twa edt eidsne ot gatsaore odd 0 beqaota
alert edt tendt 08 fod twe 8 wordt ot eonste lb troda s ttew Das aistt
asmiotiwa oft ,easo tneastq edt al .dostd tedtons moqu dosd tig io
bas biswret svom biyoo atett edt tadtd os arso edt gntiquoony asw
to resvitb edt seeso dtod al .oltisrd tot tselo yswdgtd edt evsel —
agen
sgaieeoro yswigid boas Dzvotlisr edt dtiw neilimet sew elidomotus edt
efyt edt atgobs yllsntt tiwoo edT .eemtt yasm tf tove beaasg bed bas
-§
as stated in the case of Croshy vs. Great Northern Railroad Co.,
187 Minn. 263, 245 N.W. 31, namely, "Common experience is that the
occupation of a highway crossing by a train is visible to travelers
on the highway, including eutomobile drivers whose carhs are properly
equipped with lights and who exercise ordinary care. It would seem
thala train upon a crossing is itself effective and adequate notice
and warning. It has always been so considered. This is so whether
the train is moving or standing. A railroad company is under no
obligation to light an orcinary highway crossing at night so that its
trains thereon may be seen by travelers." Mr. Justice Edwards, in the
Opinion of Appellate Court, reviews the decisions of many of the
other states, that have held the same to be the law.
It is our conclusion that the trail court properly instructed
the jury to find the issues for the defendant, since the plaintiff
failed to show that Leslie Marston was, at the time, and just before
the accident in question, in the exercise of ordinary care for his
own safety, and also failed to show that the negligence of the
defendant railroad company was the proximatecause of the injuries
to the plaintiff intestate.
The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed.
,-00 Sbsorliai axedt1oll ssetd .av ydaord to-sase ed? nt betste as
edt tad¢ ef sonsireqxe mommo0" 4yLomsa yl WekvGh8 4oOS anim yer
exelevext of eldiaiv et mtett s yd gateaoro yswigids to aottsquooc —
yizeqoxug exe adres sactiw erevixch olidomotus goibuloni ,yswigid edi: mo i
mese bivow #1 .exso yranibto eatonexe odw bas ediigil dtiw-beqatups '
eottom etaupebs bas evitoette tleeti -ef-guteaous » soqu aftert etedt
tedtedw oa ai eid? «beteblence oe. need ayswis,esd tI. sgnintew bas
om tebmy af ymequoeo baotiiat A wgadbasie to gaivom ef-aisrt edt ,
atf tsd¢ oa tigia te gaieaoro yavdgid Vrenibse as tdgil ot motitegiide ;
edt ol yabtawbd soiteut .tM ".exeisvead yd asee od yom nootedd emistt —
edt to yosm to anoletosb sdt gwelver ,¢xwod etalleqqa to aodaiqe
wel edt ed of omge ed? Dbled ovad tsd?.,aetsta xredto
beteuttand yLaeqotq tives Listt edd tadd mokewLonoe xo, ad.tl.
o Btktalelg edt eonte tasbaeteh sd¢ rot aeveet edt bait,ot yaw, edd —
etoted test bag yeotkt edd ts .esw actetsM oileed tadd wode ot belist
eid tol exso ytsaibto to eaiotexs edd ai .notsaeup nt taebioos. edt
edd to eomegilgen sdt tsdt wode ot beList oats bas) ,Ytelse aro
esfuujai sit to eavsostanixorg edt sew Yasquoo bsotitex tashasted y
astadeetai thitaislq, edt ot ;
beat tte sd bineda tuyoo) laits edt, to. taemgbyt ed?» «i
re Ada hal redtede of we equehive
heaxlita tremgest Lee Te Se Ae tee, @2e wnt
ci iquooty wae
wig it eng eves tf -
: re
oi Tatiles? aor elidonorue edt
Se tA, Bete ye
aie
esol
STATE OF ILLINOIS, }
8S
SECOND DISTRICT I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa. this day of
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73815—5M—38-32) osi&z3io7
- ote biol fea a: ' A y ct oe |
; : ieee y is ke | |
a wy |
lps na eon Sag t% ey etehad By Bhat ae
eee wg
| nist
a pteinle oi we nat an] a
x a we saan os ~
' eS a ea ra eens Puli pnt ai ova ;
Veh each Moya Ol gyda iee early a aout ES pia a havi ad
i eke, Phe 7
i Rs Ri 6
mI ann ee ek ee SE
ii, ny
J re nt
R :
, } TAS Os
{ -
| oe
Ny ; # ve
i :
¥ ar ae 3 ‘
i “> ef rei a oe
: Nhe ie yy ki rae
8 ed ‘ae: aes o uF nd
: | ‘7 1B E HO, 5 FRET Flay aid ai e biel cohol
1. ie ‘ nits Seabee Rios re shes
Oe
AMuCT Rie + See eee cbshi ait
: 0 ‘ bk hie : eae
aioe oui
: | i ee
hota tt Mae’) oF Sollsgu A wl Wy peal) ) mows af vivre, a
“ydecut of ucredt lea bes ines wld, to roxy il fil) bee pees
‘odtrax dethiias svods oat at ere: ee bite ot re etini l Woe
-
Btss to ts nil) rife has est Io. fa a £ ‘Joust te Swoatiat ot. he
5: a aN es AE Rea rath tn metagent i :
{ pechit Buceaivest ‘ann ‘hoe auth Yr TARY, ce ae
7
ve ~ nwo snot oa ae Fai aa cet #t Shae i
a a ey a, avi
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 4th day of May, in the
year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven,
Wiha wana nos the Gecond District on the State of Tidinois:
Present —- The Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Presiding Justice.
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.
Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Justice.
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
RALPH H. DESPER, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
Supplemental
the/ opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's
Office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit:
? 1 q
. Vv P
t 4 ; .
a EA eee Mate ine 4
fi y ”
PAOD 4 oepemmn: SHED & The * a
A tol a
One Oi «VSM Io weheiteé afte: eUsboawT 0° ,aWEITO ta Biss bon mags
Hebert wages basi vors SAO - bx) i. Mig ap. ;
rifontleT te ste89 adhetouteltde ia "basen daft ie
5 . a at .
aso S.3 Bik ie OREO “Be cite me ot
Ppt Ee eeu *
ee SERS Nae AR
cnee Saag a
General Ne, ¥198 agenda “Yo. £8
tn The
APPELLATE COURT oF TLLINOES
Becoml Di striet
ryact Abstract
a FPobruary Term, 46 De 1937 Fact
BMlizsheth Marston, Administratrix
of the etete of Leslie Marsten,
desensed,
PLlaintdff~appel lant
ai Appeal from Cireult Count
Vie of Peoria Coun ty.
Chicago Slingm a & pean
ion,
Bar
Pe Beilresa Company, 8 rr
bi Defendant~Acpel lee.
WOLFE, Js
. After the opinion was fileé@ in the shove entitled case
affirming the judgment of the Clirenit Court, the Plain tiff-
4ppalisnt filed her petition fer e rehearing. It is stated
in the petition, that the court tns migacprehended the evidence
in the osee am quotes from the opinion thet part whieh says,
"That in both eases, the driver of the sutomcbile was familiar
with the rellrosd crossing and hed paseed over it many tines.”
The third peragraph of the defendant’s snawer to the
gomplaint filed by the oleaintiff is as follows: "That pliain=
tiff's intestate wae well acquainted with the locality and
conditions prevalent at the crossing of said highway with the
tracks of this defendant, md knew tue dangers surrounding the
seme,"
Paragraph four is as follows: "That plaintiff's intestate
, wes acquainted vith the fact thet defendant, et or about the
ss edme of night when said eollision oeourred, was in the hebit
of switehing cers of coal to and from the ooal mines located
north of seid State highway eroasing in Fulton County, Illinois,
and that the eroseing of said highway with the said retiroed
tracke st the plece where seid sollision ocurred was apt te be
blocked by the movement of trains at such time.” ‘The pleintiff
aid not file a replication to this new matter charged in the
$8 .o7 sbhbseya
eg? ot .
elOMTST to TATED HPAI VA
tolweLs fmones.
yok |
jos" TOL .G ah gore? yeast . iid
gintowteknteba aid ‘dtedaxbin
“Mdota atiaes to efatem edt Io
niepotiad 5
eatin’ hlalateocetuiin Bs fe
$000 thyovtd mow fasaaa ) “, ‘ yi
aeYaved giaesl to Pg
_ gt btam a me rat
. | a , tee
iy me tame bold Line erode ade wt nett? ear nolatge ont moth iy
te } ~ tid ate £5 we , dee tiwontd ont to tnempbst, awit aateeitte
if ats deters wt gt opal angie t % ‘tet note hiaq tod batty tent toaeh Y
Vane spasbive ont Debosderyesets ead hunnd oie test ereteitog odd ak 4
ond of aw ane a*euabastes ont ‘t0 dqomsernd babes ont
onte Le dastr” ‘pewolle? es al TMeintel¢ ont wW berit ante tqnco
| has ythiovel edt ditw Sota taxpoe Low saw otatuotnt atrnte
y , of¢ ddtw yewiiald bles Yo ast hoe op od te tneleve ag enctt theo
i on? gat heworwe expgand edd wert bom einchanrinl atid to aloo
"some
otetastak ea itutelq teat’ tawetiot ea af xwot dqemeteT
edt tueie xo $9 ,tnebsoted ted? toet od? ddtw botnievpos wor
ey tided ond wt aew .Soumese mletlion biee sede tdgin to onte
hi Hoteoel eestm L900 edt worl Sue of Le00 to ee paldotiwn to
Ny gatontill ,yusod sotivi al gatesore yowitgld otets b tea Yo seron
oe buotiton bien oils déiv yaudytd dies to gatesow odt toelt ao ‘3
LS Si aie
oo Se Pa ap ye a il ar eS al,
a
om:
|
ee ae ete
SE Ree
“Be
dafendans's answer.
Part of Seetion 8 of article 3 of our Praetise sot provides
as follows: "Then new mattar by way of defense or eainterslain
is pleaded in the mewar, a reoly shell be filed by the pleintifr,.*
Seetion 2, paragraph 49 in part is es follows: "2very allega«
tion, axeept allegations of damages, not explicitiy demied shall
be @eemed to be udumitted, unless the party shell state in his
pleading that he tas no knowledge there-of sufficient to form a
belief, eto.”
In thie eese under the sliegations in the answer the defendant
expresely cherge the plaintiff's intestate was well acquainted
with the erossing seni knew of the danger surrounding it; also
thet he hed knovledgs that et the time of day when the seoident
comirred that the defendant was in the habit of bloeking the
eroesing by the movoscent of its trains, ‘These allegations were
not denied by the plaintiff and is, therefore, sdmitted,
This court was in error when ve stated in the opinion thet
the plaintiff’s intestate “had passed over the crossing many times,*
Therefore, that part of the opinion in the lost paragraph on page
4, at the 1LOth Line from the bottom after the word ‘sorossing*,
the words, “emi bed passed over 1i ueny times”, are hereby stricken,
The opinion as thua modified ia hereby affirued aud the
petition far « rehearing is denied.
7
alalopesnios 16 oomntad - aie: "ae ‘wettest 9 ‘wes mod cigthse m3)
4b aS
r “wey bee inte edt yt balit ee Liede qlqes es peewee ont 22 ehesiniig |
wagoife ywva" rawolleot aa ef fen Sh AMR A a‘)
etd ateteda Lisie yomq ot condnd sphinaehd' tab Shanab wd
2 mot of tue tetime towwwd? opts Luo oo eat on ia salen
ae . aE MN oS ee OPS
Ei
if
{
ue St Oe eRe MR Eg LOR
be _ mabaeres ed? tewane of¢ at enoltayelic odd shes oben what a
mle wa gathanowns aguas iaé to ea ane siteiiing ast pra
Stmbieon oat smdx yeh 20 enh? On tp. Sane epbeLroms ts on tose |
en? putieotd 20 # ida oid Bt cow trabaeted ent tedit f %, 4
5 ene
ons ase Aeopol ie eoodt sani oat ett to tusso7 on _ xa tae,
| “ehett iba orsheuedt at bus ‘yubatese ont wl wf ete tne b ¢
ohh Sy Sit te ; » ote Fee ee Aas Os
tome ao titgo ‘out? at botave or asa 0 EH sk ene tumm etd?
: akue oat Moe wen as hhh eG Galt ah
Sanpas via aelaeom edt 90 borage bast * o¢ateoia! ay Sits Fite sy
93H ze Aga rene teat ott at _wotabqe oct te tue¢ eq tveq fot 1 Pe,
tae wh Jag :
ad
es
r*uttnecre! Daew ode ote modtod ont Hout sant Wy if,
aly
Mire dads ae ae | ae ate if,
a1 fit a
ae
aes
Ne 3;
| _ommidonate ‘dered own great | vase at “ro boasag 5
ett bee beasitta werd are
Fou See devi See hy eb aie ue Y swe, iy ent
Ae Pay ch Pe , PORE Hay PO wS webs eatte heat a Lauper ‘
ora | aia As eagas Ol grieisinw & bee male $y dus +0)
4 me
: t iia ke j
' b 4 ome A ee fais ag tee: See: eee b seen "Tt nw & vrs i gekiog bve os
be EE 5 sh ba ceult we cel oh eee pete ‘waht 7 al bd fi
y Pee Bye sliahlaleialh Be mk x ae b Ayu a sil 18 at
I wtate at * pont Kee 04 eda te fraenevem ott
Se
:
=
a
ae
=|
==
x
<
bs
Tee witin | wei ee ot hoe ne
STATE OF ILLINOIS, }
ss
SECOND DISTRICT I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
supplemental
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the pinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
_in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73815—5M—8-82) S307
he re pe
by, Re Ae ee a EN he ¥ “eat yi peer
Pe Oke) SA RS BREE we aie te ane tos tay shes
Me. Wt. y, ae ha ‘set ig
7 ors ea
ee yen aid oak
Es See a
a
: ef as
Se ad et Ke ean
# oo ee ¥ ce
; ; j WS (ee
eek at ae Cs tea
ae
<
tees) we) THI iat) wh alt a Masih: Mae UL R racer fi 4 .
edocet oh teeth howd bra not att e ‘7 Pea ‘ud hdtg. Howitt No ai
ad Late OS. i?
quites bathF ina ards att et ra) wialings A rey pit vege
«
ect Dionewod3 arte bettad tao te ae alt moans
ne erg te ii i
a = Cee rt et ee ce
a Y rae ey agi
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 4th day of May,
AT A TERM OF THE APPELZATE COURT,
year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven,
Within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present --— The Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Presiding Justice.
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.
Hone FRED G. WOLFE, Justice.
JUSTUS L. JOFNSON, Clerk.
we
RALPH H. DESFER, Bees eG) 0
I.A. 61
A el S FB
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
MAY 18 1937
Ofiiee of said Court, in the words and figures fcllowing, to-wit:
in the
ye
a
the opinion of the Court was filed in the Cllerk"™s
STA, ae: “9 ini k tA e.
edt nf eM to tab ‘dt “ any Wah aut wé “o08930 ts bites bas ft Bat
eTAUIOS “ae
erover-yitint Dra borbrust Rabel wiadload Liiva m0 29 met a
sot dout gnibteans Wend oie satOH nies aes
oobtaut 7 gvoa. I MII LAE tol
sO EFS TRIO. 2. Gsev viton
UNaues Femi - artauy
' UPC: sorte" 4
Nass i
J pclae ‘
be
pheeebzicn, 4 ie Aycan Be ac Seda, se, Er aaa 4 Seay. se ase ae <a
eae ito Fiwool vodtawe: i
4
store) at mi volt ul eat ait 0 solakgo mee
‘st bwegs’ egetWolIoy soxrgit bas ‘Sbr0W ‘ent’ |
re Ng apices Ae oe Tri eee a Je
et \
i '
3
Be ti, t i Me ae i
i
¢ \
j : i
t , ” 1 eae
“ i
j ( ot ‘ ron
i (I can 1 f F i
} i " vet as
id lo ry mn s
b y's « t ¥
Pg een v
GEN We 9164 res SAN AORNDA NOe §
OANA AE AMR RS saeraaerthoriiren
iu TH
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SRGIND DISTRICT
Ceietlantandmmetationedl
February Term, Ae De 1957.
s oaetiaeinianmel
g. G. SCHUIRG,
Appelice,
Va. ASPRAL FROM THE CLACUIT
THE PRAVELZRS FIRE haa te
COMPANY, @ Corpora tion,
}
}
)
)
| GOURT OF LaSALLE COUNTY.
Appellant.
. ecaneniataennel
Dove, Je
idward G, Sehmieg inetituted thie suit sgainst The Travelers
Yire Inaurence dompany end Tho Travelers Indemnity Vompany to
recover upon a policy of insurance, At the conclusion of ell the
evidence the plaintiff diemissed hic suit as te the Indecnity Commeny
and the issues were sulmitted toa jury resulting in a verdict for
the plaintiff for 2905.00, upon which jwignent was rendered and the
defendant eppeals,
The suit was commenced in 1950, The declaration onesisted of
ome count in which 1% wes allegod, among other things, that the
@efendent issued and delivered its poltey of inswranee upon plsintiffts
automobile. That by the provisions of said policy, defendant insured
eeid automobile from April 7, 190 to April 4, 1931, ané agreed to
pey @11 lose which should happen thereto by firs, not exeesding the
gun of 91400,60. That the policy contained the following provision,
Wig: “Other Insuranes., No recovery shall be had under this peliey
Ne \y ak a pie Ses ot Rt
APS) Wie ABS
ie ‘@ oO ACHEDA
F $ :
a ekownr2 £0 ‘TAvOD mmc
Ei baceainannnd ct os
Af sWOLl aU oA ,orteT Yravndst
TIVORIO HHT MOAN JageTA
«TTMIOO Wilakal WW Taveo
, , ~ i,
ees = a Ae
cnr , - c r . be 7
See el a ent apr tccemeena oe - cusawaeroseantnnan-snrtatte tei srelindetgatinns «in ian eyes I< MBERES Mien BRN mere Nat
' . so
é
be yaad Yinewbal ato lover? ef? Bas “yuseno® #9 sal
thet is To aedeetonce ed? th .opmemact to yollog & nog
4 vom hvemmeman of? OF a8 tire off bomalmatd rognenyor bali
also tam
to hetetace moiversfood ed? .08eL mi heonsmanoe ase ahaa ont
est ¢ eat ase rmieo prone sbogette’ ase fad Monte !
if at the tise « lose oceurs there by any other insurance, whether
gueh other inewrence be valid and/or eollegtible or not, covering
gueh loss, which would attach if thia inewenoe hed not been
effected." The declaration then averred that there wos not at or
ginee the time of the makings of the said policy eng other insurance
on the said property to the beet of plaintiff's knowledge, informa=
tion ani beliefs end if there was any inewrance on said property,
it wan not by the doing of the piaintiff or by any contrnet he made
with any insurance company and was not mde by eny scent or attorney
in fact of his. The declaration further elleged that at the time
of the making of the poliey and until the loss oceurred, plaintiff
had an interest in sald automobile to the amount it was ineured by
the @efendant. It was then averred that on April 11, 1950, the
automobile so inewed was destroyed by fire and that the interest
of the plainture was the aeme as eteted in the policy. <A copy of
the poliey was attached to the declaration aml after the deseripe
tion therein of the insured automobile wich consisted of the
trade nome, factory number, motor nuuber, model and cost, a:pears
the following: “Declarations of the ineured: The automobile
deseribed is fully paid for by the assured and there is m lien,
‘mortgage or other encumbrance thereon". ith tie declaration the
defendant filed an affidavit of claim to the effect that the
nlaintiff's gleim is for $1400.00 damages arising from the loss
by fire of his eutomobile ami the failure of defendant to pay
aecerding to the terms of ite eontract.
fo this declaration the defendant filed the general issue,
and & seciel plea in which it was averred thet at the time of the
exeeution of the poliey of insurance, the pleintiff represented
to the defendant that he was the mle owner of the sutonobile
thereby insured and that there was no lien, mortgage or enounbrance
a an,
ee SS
aettedw ,conement tedto yan yd ‘eradd ‘ati 50 anol ‘Far #8
gaiteves ,don w oldlteclios sofia DiLev od sons wank xutto a
teed gon hed somemant ate ut dots Bivow doddw eeeel f
“eo ¢e ton aaw otod # adt homers node nobveraloed edt naensie
aoneusest toito gce yorlog bkea odd to Bad ton wit to mts edt eoaks
mnerotit sopdeivont a titatels to teed eft oo “etweqera dies ‘ett ne
eVitoqesy bios so epamwunt yas caw Otets Th bos Wtetiod ine mone
ainw of tents moo yas yd 16 TWivakely edt Kh pehe® ang we toa 7,
gerietis to Pasa xo <a woh mt vou sow bao ‘wnaqunes ‘eortonwan? on
ant? ene ts # nate sopette nodtawt nett oraloed edt seta x0 to
Vtitnielg ,hexims evel od? Litas hae yotiog ese:ston gadis
vd Somank eew $2 taverns offs of olidometre Blew nt taotetal ae
-qizeneh edt verte ein athntantindis ot aienenscuaa ei se
od? 'w fetehmos dai de of dome se Romesh ot ‘w. aberods
areqia ytao> Saa tobe yxedeun actos _g toda yrotent: ores ah
- ebidenerus edt. thewmmh O69. to neo kteren toed”, , sahiabains r
_) yao th em et exedd Bap boweas off <¢ tod bheq luvs at pegks one
od? mottetsioed at ¢ AvI¥ ."noored? oonendamone ted to 10. aA: x0
seliehalobpiceruine ataaaasidashiiaiadai Soke te ah
thereon which asié representation was wholly false and untrue.
lesue was joined on the ples of tis cemreal issue and the plelntirf
filed 4 replication to the especial plea, averring that the defen-
dant’s agenta “had full knowledge of whe ther or mot said pleintiff
Was sole opmer of said automobile and as te whe ther or not there
were any liens, mortgages or other excumbrences" thereon, that
aaid representations were not made and the defendant was not misled
thereby. The defendant vlso filed ite affidavit of merits in which
defendant stated that at the time of the execution of the poliey
of insurance, plaintiff represented to the defendant that he was
the sole ovner of the automobile desertbed in the policy end that
there waa no licen, mortgage oy other encumbrence thereon, which
representation ves wholly fales and untrue ami the defendant was
misled thereby; tiatat the time of the execution of the poliey
and at the time the automobile was destroyed by fire, there was
in full force and effeet another policy of insurance covering such
Lone. .
The evidence discloses thet appeliee purchased the ear in the
Latter part of 1927 through a LaSalle finance compeny, making a
eash payment end executing a note for the balance and reeeived from
‘the finance compeny a conditional sale contract for the ear. On
November 22, 1929, the Gongumers Corporation of Streator paid to the
LaSelle compeny the balence due it ani took title to the ear and
appellee exeeuted to it a note and reecived from it a ocontitional
sele contract for the car, The anount cue from appellee to the
Gonsumers Corpcration et thet time was $672,00, whieh ineluded the
premiwa on an insurance policy which the Consumers Company obtained
on the car from the Zagle Fire Inaurance Company, On April 7th,
«1930, eprelles applied to the Cttara avency of sppel lant for insure
ance on the car and the policy sued on wee issued to apvellee.
e - stirtian bom valet YWlodw aaw nadiatanaonqn’t th
em Lake odd dae ovmmd terme 9 o6¢ 20 poke ett, wo. homkol, eam
F ; -ne'ted oft tout pabusove .eole Le ioe ant *, 0 two bie 7% -
:: CLtnialy Slow soa wo Tedd 90s Io epdodwomd Lit adh genoa
P _eteds ton 0 codt ode of pa bay etivameue bine % sanno, pon
Mi sad gtoerontt *seoneidawans telde to segsaizem anpate'
ho datn toa mew tasbueted edt baa, aba ton wtow engl
dade, sh etiam W. ¢reebeT ew ath halt oak daabasred oft ¥
. Mokion,. ett, ko eet scame od to. wait, odd ta. tad, Ts
a
itl
it
ili
ait
ae
aH
oe a Ay mi Hae Bi: eh
"a auhdan, Lomgton epi #LAnted a-smgnt sees ae.¢
RET, DOT Laper one werelad ade. nor ston, > mE hiuooxe Dae fam
(tO. gte9 sd wh ¢oaRAACD wine LamOdetDaee # KaaumOD Hone
et ot bket ‘Bot ponds Yo saktororns, engasad, eld PRL, g 83 nod
bee, kam ont 08 eA te, $008 ban 9b, ea, ponased vit x ame: Otte
Loaot tox00 « +h MO? dev ingen ban efea # h..o DA vase, on
edt of cok.tergs moxt oub Sawome ott, +289, af) se!
ods bobs Conk do sin 4OO.8T0G naw enkt ead to: nekeanes
“hen tatdo. yananeo eremumaod ott Metde Yolsog ean st a
asa, Eknaa, 20, | nego. cons maeE, oR, PL geH et ek,
“a tUUNt $0% saal logge Ie YoROKe ewstt®, elf. of bokic ae eo
stollorg of deueat gow ae oye yoblog edhahaten
os : oe ~
es
On April 11, 1935, the ger was destroyed by fire ami thereafter
appellee furnished the company two proofs of loss, the first dated
May 14, 1920, and the second cone dated June 15, 1950. In both of
these appelies swore that the insured automobile wis not mortgaced
or encumbered at the time of the loss, that it was fuliy mid for
by the insured, thot there was no lien thereon, thet the entire
title was in him and that there wag no other insuranee on it.
The deglaration of the pinintiff alicged that the policy sued
on contained a provision thet ne recovery sould be had upon thet
policy if at the time a loss coecure there should be any other
insurance upon the insured cer and the declaration then averred
that there wae not at the time the policy sued on was iasued any
other inm@irance upon the Gar insured to the beet of vleintiffts
knowledge, information mé belief. The evidence 1s that on
Hovenber 22, 1929, the Sengle Fire Insurance Comrany fasued a
policy of inswrande upon thie ear and the prenium therefor wea
ineluied in the note executed by eppellee to the Consumers Corporn=
tion, thet this policy of imeurence was in effect on April ii,
1930, the date the esr ma destroyed by fire, and that thereafter
and in June, 19%, the Consumers Company coliceted at least
3597,00 from the Sagle Fire Insurance Company under the provi-
siona of that policy. Appellee insiets that he did nc kmor of
the existence of this other ingurance, “Whether he did or not is
immaterial. It was a valid policy and unfer the provisions of the
poliey sued om here precludes a recovery.
The declaration siso siarged that at the time of the loss,
the interest of the plaintiff wis the same as stated in the policy
and the policy, emong the "Declaretions” nem dé appellee as the
inawed and recited thet the automobile therein insured was fully
4 j serap pio oni rtral, ® st00% x | ome anges we 8 eo
‘to Aged al seek a8! sow hot 96 ao baogon addy fie (020L
: bopegeros fom asm ol. demog 19 boment wid tad oxore anh ALegae |
i TO? Dt ay ion aaw th todd g2pod. wt te auk? odt 9 box are,
i eti¢ns oft ? edt qeserod? watt on ew exedt inde 9 mat 9
¥ ae eat no Sonetumat taigo on We, omais tae ian maa
tad woe bad ed kaos (re voser 0! on 1 tuuld 0 be
‘testa yee of, Bho da sree axu000 meet, 2 ome ee Pe
Oe
salem FESO aN ae: ri By; DN me eda
_borteve soils no 39 sx loo) td bam maa me een, bak 2
.) dows t oon m0 dows Yetteg 2 edt omit ont #p
aun xi 9 Do Pee
“e*rttta alg to teed ode of hewant 48 aM °.e. J mh
ee
.. # at at oonebive é or ut ae A i be area hod
ae bt a oe Hee 3 3 ora
me xetetodtp muck, od a tao nidd fam, oe
gyal FA Ste:
_ ##E Ath wo, tote a Chany bs paige le
Rep teenn ds rede fe? eer ee | rer, a a Ma had iil
tanot ts dotoosto amp) exes Whe Oh wh BH bir A neigh
atv oat tobe 9 eonarwan
heh TS 63 Kae ye pice Kia,
Psat dy
i St \! WR A Ss pa aes Bhs a. \ a en
ote to en katvont oat xolns Dros YolLog ery .
CON Sp i RL tea ; pg ai
7 oa ee
TGA wait Rh ke BaGe ‘ath Uh ae ey ROE) MOAR 9 AN :
otton ont at serate PY) hacantal ont sor bs
eae SP Th Sie PR AN gut Bs hh ays Re ag let
ode as vel Laqga S anon “anol toretoed”
rset: eee GRR MO tf
_yitn sow hewent aterodt of dood i om t adt botioes 6
FST NN: ( Esa cae ty he geist SH AS | wipe er” fa ny: fleas he, bse
CSRS ONE: DURE ROS? le retry es ch Low ont hae stam
, paid for by the aneured eni that there was no lien, morteage or
other oncwhrance thereon and mecifiesliy previded that e11 the
ptatorments in the "Declarations" are true ami that the policy was
isavwed upon such etatemntes and in consideration of the provisions
oF the policy respecting its preniun. The eroof ma that at the
time the policy was issucé and «% the time of the lees, the title
to weld car was net in sppelles tat in the Consusers Finance
Corporation and thet there was due thie compeny umier ite vondi-+
tional sale tontract from appeliece at the time the ear was destroyed
the sum of $440,090, The vendee under en excoutory contract af sale
has neither the legal nor eqiitable title to the pmverty covered
by the contract and unless the Insured haa been misled by some aet
of the insurer, it is generally held that a person whe aceepta
end retaine the poasession of an tnairenee policy is bownd to know
its eontents., Capps ve. Natis Undom Mire Ine, Oe., MOS Lil, 380,
The provicima of the poliley concerning title are valid, Cukolair
Vs Citizens Ing, Cos, 165 lil, 3%, oni a breach thereof being
show there can be no reeovery unlees there is a waiver or estoprel.
Appellee testified that he teld MaUlelian, the agant, of appellant,
at the time he applied for the insurance of the exisatenee of the
Conditional sales oontmet. MeCGleallen denies thiv, appellee's
testimony 1a disered ited by the fact that he further testified thet
he thought he owned the car and didn't knew the title to the ear
was in the Finenece Company, *l though the contract he oxeeuted so
previded. Furthermore, in both of the verified proofs of loss
which appellee furnished appellant, he unequivocally stated that
the inowed oar was Tully paid for, thet there wea no encumbrance
or lien thereon and that he was the sole cener thereof, "hile
appellee had an inmewrable interest in the ear, he made no attempt
16 onapdiom pmol oe enw exedd tall has Bemwdns
oua fiw ¢ add } ta slivedt pragnariergieily ba # otend oon
toe
“edd $8 284d anv Toon, of? Jowtawee eb? wr tdoogee
ols tt eat jexol of to ath oft $a tna bowaud ean vont t
“eonsalt ev@uened oct at tud wallegge at ton eer
a tbe sok votes Lshened ad wb naw rome sa inn
elme to temtince erornosce we oes ‘penser il”
Setoves ‘hme gem ‘edt ‘a ‘ett ts oléed} upe 5 don’ fer
400 non Yd bolain geod dad bovwent edt avetan baw faded ‘
“ ateneoe te ‘08 t0¢ s tedd bier eh kereteg ak 4
woux of bmw od ak yo Log count mat ae to nob ueoanod bret
e008 LE Ot 4.00 saat ont sone! -tdan ov edged Jes
; Fomine aptly enn oheit om euebaes ) vibe ¢o ota
lies sé Pulls ass ‘edit ‘Bhoe oi pons ‘feat
odd to soaedalte ede "wo Seaweed hapbrodiremye! ai
i aoolfeqaa 4) ide woltaed aaltetoo! tem Le
(tate DaRRICOT awit aie of 2 ait i oa? w rea
Hes ads of Otte ond wont ¢nb1h San ne ot denwo
‘oe bet soars od dome? ae “ott Re a . ‘a
Bet to shoot beniney od ‘te died mt
tat botate <Llooevivpen on “fat Log ea esta Lr
“ gonetdmene on sow stedd edt tot Bheq xh VY gant
elite + tow: ot Tem foo ‘emt nsw od tad ‘som
* Pi PEP of Ke Teypih ¥ Ganree = (
“tenotee oa ‘oham a vert) ‘edt ‘na saoreta: oldmcnenk Lod 2
ms el
#0 insure the t interest. In his declaration, anvelles alleged
that his eutemobile esvered by the volicy wos fully paid fer ané
that there wes no lien, mortgage or encwobrarce thereon, This
allegetion was not attempted to be substantiated by proof but
Pather the sllegations of his replication to spvellant's especial
plea, which averred thet appellant wae estopped from insis ting
Upon the dafenme set forth in its special plea because apoo| lant's
agente had full knowle@ee of appelice's interest in said muittomobile
at the time the policy wae ia@wd. While no question is raised
by the verties as te the pleadings, we think the avermments of
appellee's replication were a clear departure from the case stated
in his declaration, A departure takes place vhere in any pleading,
the party quite or departs from the ease or defense which he firat
moda, and hes recourse to another, cr in other words, wien the
replication or rejoinder contains mtter not pursuant to the declare-
tion or cleas which does not support or fortify it, Tidd's Practice,
Dp, 685,
An applicant for ineuranse is not exempted from the onseration
of the ordinary rules of common honesty and good faith in his
transactions with an ingurence company in procuring a noliay of
dneurance. Weot. & South. Life Ing, Co. ve. Tommeun, 559 Til, 496,
Appellee is chargeable with notiee of the provisions of his phlicy
ané of his own title to his prov rty ond vith the fect that he had
executed a conditional sale contract and what ite provisions were,
We are Glearly of the opinion thet under the pleadings and prosf
in thie record, the judgnent appealed from should not be permitted
to stand, The judgement of the Cireuit Court of iafelle County is
therefore reversed ond the osuss remanded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
; Ratt atom! work beqgotes sew tealSoyon Saat Sonmwye dette
atinal leces onmaoed ool Latepqe off ai Migot toe, SNE, OE
whit. ook, hneausnatnane sree nang e. n.
fe wileg » gatmoon. af. AemgO © OOmaTE He pian
28Gb -LLE O88 ,umawol ov ed yao! oth added & atnel |
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT fs I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa. this = day of
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73815—5M—38-32) otk3i07
val
} tht
ee)
il ‘
1 a RI aA a wie
on haa
# x
ay
/ ayy
Shs A aC AEN IE er My nea I ,
v7 ey
‘ ; J * Pm: tie ys \
‘ z ‘ we
Oe nae ene " tg |
Via bs Lh sit mew ede
Ream ese a
\ ae th
' ee
y wey
, A r ‘ hots]
uh x
o. t eee
Cp Bae a eile AR ve Se ea ca cia iy
if pi Rabie tes
ce of err
YS 1
edenad aly bert Laid Gey aiveenaO MAPA ‘expo ‘ailt baw Stoll No ohatel
holatttrgoavodan galt pri th } aint bail dhbae tcl a ¥ roy
haw ot trot) aintloyg a ont to aesolth eI
A ee co iis, horn beat pent ie ey peat se me
“inp a ee cihine oealMe ARO t aeOT atallga
Hy. TIT
mieher Detaaioiith ened Beto d me WG, cia sr
‘
dee ton patient tance PANES RD Pe
lee tan arti ech Ps ven fe cm ln ye pom ge
aaa . latte eit wi, a) Wei
Mabey
~
ii Lie
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 4th day of May, in the
year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven,
Within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present -—- The Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Presiding Justice.
Hon. FRANKLIN R- DOVE, Justice.
Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, i | an T A fs 4
JUSTUS LL, JOENSON, Clerk. wv V othe U 3
HARPHOH. ORSPER, Sieriti.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
SU ee gee thé opinion of the Gourt was filed in the Clerk's
MAY 18 1937 e
Office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit;
“edd mi ea tS eb ae ne? yao ext ‘AG anes te bias b bros 1
oves-vi tid? baa botbitedt adta Sisingodd add -O26d “two! TE
istontflyT -to.\etare pie Sate intet Brioaet ‘oat. beds ban.
snoitoieg stibtaead ® vioretiet ‘aiivare ‘sO oat
ortaut aver = oie aon
Sw <a Ghat sok 0")
tinh Oe at leg ons
vee Shitisioul Ae aaa”
ealeeaenl Denerieaienirareoie oaaes ca reac
£0) itinm—dt! 46
afito ts odd rit ee tty anw tus00¢ ie
tin—ot vaatwoL tor
» fi y 4
Se a ‘
i “4 £ i
j Ryan? 5
a i
1 v y i
" 4
!
5
et dott
4
i
% Ai o ' J ; / % t |
ea Hus ae 4
i j i fa A ah A mee rahe ers hue
Sista 4 Hat Pou I thee § SRE ete ei) “h
Ane ait NWR
¥ rhy) ¥ “y MN
f us t ya i
‘-
a
\ a i 4,
- one ataenarn aR ginrse nese
IN TH
SPP ELLATE COURT GF ILLIRGIS
SECOND DISTRICT
Februmry Term, Ae De 1857.
AE AER OR SM LT Oe 8 NAN ET NOC TEE GNSS NE INTE
| 2 sar
Appellant,
APPEAL FROM THY CIRCUIT? Coun?
OF LA SALLE OOUBTY
DOVE, ds
The plaintiff, Sdeon Parr, instituted this suit im the Cireuit
Court of Lacalie Cowmty recover dewmages for personal injuries
which he alleged he eustained in on automobile accldent. A fui emont
was rendered upon a verdict of a fury findin: the defendant not
quilty and the plaintiff apvesis.
It appeara from the evidence, that on the evening of January
B, 1954, the plaintiff had been in Ottawa, and had started home
about 7:00 or 7:30 ofcloeky he wae driving a Chrysler coure and
was Sroceeding north on Route £5, 1% was misting and dark and the
temperature Was below freezing so that a glaze of ice collected
on the windshield of his ¢aren Appeliant testified that he stepped
three times te remove ice from the windshield of his ear shille
travelling « distance of about six wiles, the lest stop being at or
near the intersection of Wedron Road with Route 2S, known as
if
A | i pl ah: a DA.
CIOMTLIL’ 16 TMCD AMALIA ti see ry
‘Pormmate Qubeme@ 6 tC Oeil
-VSOL 90 oA ,mtet Ytaradet.
f: ; , [ , a
ce THOO TIVOALO SHY MORT TAMIA
a | | YTTCO ALTAR AL 1.
aei-ust at tenonwe stot no mb sev cet e em00 ae to @
(eae deem fet A stmbingn of tdoemaare ae wt bon too asa ere re
erent 20 satuewe att mo ‘tds peeves edt ort exsorgs 7
eros pod iwte bad bas emote © at seed hat ‘Tateniatg, ott a
out bas taab bas matte te aay #! 6 enon wo » dbo
“Peach's Comer, Aceording to appellent’s testimony, the rear end
of his oor was about perallel with the head of « culvert losated
at the north corner of the intersestion, a trifle south of the
fenoe line on the north side of the Wedron Road, that hia car was
headed north and the headlights were turning and that the left
front wheel end the left rear «heel of his automobile were on t he
Girt shoulder and ateut fow feet off of the east side of the
pavement. He further testified tint while his car was in this
position, he, the appellant, wee cleaning the windshield with
his left hand and was standing with hie right foot on the left
running board of the car with hia right arm on top of the left
door which wae open ond at thet time appellec, Newell, driving
his automobile in a southerly direction along seid Route 25, ran
his ear inte sppeliant end knowked him of f of the side ef his
ear, carrying him seven or ten feet te the rear of his ears
That theresfter appellee atm pped his ear, ceme back to where
appellant was and helped him into his automobile.
Raymond Hilten, a witness for the plaintiff, testified thet
he was living near Beach's Corner, uoon the evening in question.
That appelies eelied at his hone and he want with appellies te the
scone of tie aceldent at his request. He further testified that
when he arrived there he observed appellee's ear about one huntred
feet south of appellant's ear, that appellant's car ms in the
middle of the Wedron Read, which crosses Route 23, was facing north
and beth headlights were turning, that ite left front wheel was
just adout on the east edge of the ravoment ani the rear left
wheel was on the pavenet ani about seventeen inehes from ite
east edge, that the right wheels were entirely off the pavement,
Thie witness (14 mot know, of course, whether the car, when he
(errived, had been moved or not. Appellee testified it had.
a Nea! | hetaaol #ovrkin. obo 0d 8 in Lektarant fe fa !
: | odd to déwon oftiu a 10 Leebrosnt ons oY xonm00 anes
enw x09 ahi todd ,babd mothoW edt to ble dét0n ont oo ont
Stel edt tad? Sue guint Wow ot MRtboed ot bax ‘dtzon
445 Shi ivtedd
ttet oat! to qod no mes sag te ald Ati 90 oh %m breed
gaivich ,llewet oekloq gs owt? tard oe baa feqo enya :
aH oS esvot Dine pw Le no igeonts vikodt v9, 8 at alidor
atid to efte oft to Yo mtd Bosteoms ins dxakiogen otni
ge +h tee ta Ww eT BY * poomewhminen
oredr ot toad eime quae wid hoquate col ince 3
RE RRR sea EE ee et Naa: Sas Fr ar, at pay rm
wo Memos ia whit ovis, mt | ba aw
panache an dlshap co Ryeiety arid
| Goad beititoad ‘avin ale ode wh apeat in 9 .notd
. eee ay ots pin ca a _? go -
2 oat ¢ ap etow oltdemetus alt te Loads nao trol ott ban tote
nN ott to obke fuse ett te 220 font eh ‘teeds bate ra bh
| _ Akita 9am ane old abtbe add De tideed tedtar olka
; ; a Sttw bistdehate eds gatnoele ver ytnalleqce amt vod aed
HS " #tek elf a0 toot tal: ald dttw wi th mete aon dae duno stot
in s
‘smoltsenp at yainere ‘odd. oq ‘aonw) a *st
he ‘i fowaty
, odd of ‘eetlocgs tw teow ot “hath ered abd ¢
{AED nT gt es OR
ae ; tase bertisset de ant ssueuper
ve * pwnnad
ey borhan cen tu oda 189 ‘sYaotteqas! :
ath a
; “oat oh ear 129 ettnatiorga oe sta 9480 a
4 Ss pita tye My
7 dt son aatont now et of soft sesnoro “dolde fer b: os Merri
y i aay “foes tat twit eth ‘sane ontrea! ote |
FE ‘ : Ne We ork aes Uv | md : agua
wy “thet moor odt tas ‘tmonow aq wit » 7
Hi Dee y & Ry ieee ste >: ish )
“ath ‘mOnt aodont ‘mod coven ‘twee im Som ow a ]
¥ “est Oe fy) teh teat eRe Re
+ taomov a oa me ‘ ane o1sw eloste Sigi« od@ 2?
ae Oe Mme OE RMR 7 “yon Bt
. ‘od sect "30 ont rode tw ont900 ‘we avout fom Rh
' % ny ney Ht! i 76 iy
fa § i) Brey Tt
“baat a babtts aes oat longa
Appelles further testified thet accompanied by Kiss Sadie Ford,
he wes cq@ings towed Sttewa from the north on the evening of January
®, 1034, ari bad alnost reseed Seach's Corner when a large ovr,
eive treveling south, pessed him at a rapld rate of speed, that he
then observed anotier oar whieh later moved te be appel Jent's,
Agoording to the testimony of a opelice, appellant's cer was etend-
ime “On a Jittie angle facing the north and east with the baek part
of it probabiy ei shteen inches over the blaek mrk, I cot right up
to it before I saw it, too lete to get away from it. ‘he headlichte
were burning tut they were faced te the north and enat. My front
fonder rubbed on his hind fender, thet is scraped as I went by, I
pullec off th road and went down probably forty or fifty feat.
* * * wy gar G16 not strike Téeon Parr that nicht”.
Sadie Ford testified fer epnellee to the effect the t the back
wheals of apmwllent's car were over the black line; the t she sew
the lights of appellant's car when they wore about fifty foot a way
and that appellee's front fender etruck the rear fender of eprelient's
gar bus thet appellant wae not standins on the rurming board or
left side of his ear,
The evideree as disclosed by this record and as indieanted
herein is highly conflicting. ‘Yhether appellee negligently ren hig
automobile agai net aprelient end caused his injuries ise deniod by
appellee, If the testimony of appellant, supported to a degree by
the witmese Hilten, is to be believed, a verdict for appeliant micht
be sustained. if the testimony of appellee and Mios ford is to be
bolieved, & verdict for appellee micht be eustained. In this estate
of the record, it wes necessary that the jury be correctly and
accurately instructed aa to the law in the ease, ‘The rule ia well
settled that whore the evidences is conflicting the instreetions to
‘the jury should be acourete and dear sm thet there oan ba ao
‘
|
>
\'
Mi
iQ
Hi)
nb
af
ee ws
100 (poorbiy a ‘nod ‘toared ot iae0n batonos bale bad
ad 2 este bowqa te ‘etn big, ad an mk bean dtvea we
ve*tnat tema a of bow not al dol tw <8 sat fone
hase
obante anw tae e' 2a al ter gn iP okloag » cy > yoaiteo® had
atti tLbnor ott oft mov wre » don of ont sre er a rs
sma w sane bas dtaoa, al of ooo oon Yad ‘dud pa
aap 1 Os Bi
i at snes t at + Roqutca at dase etobaat baka abd mo {
Dye iy Rae Sey | ee iA‘
soe? ve tey 0 Wao? videsors pow b dew baa beer. ait
aia a G
“tdeha tate m8 “noah oak -
py si 3 ade feortn ode ot ‘oationgs win
0. » beaod subsite ont no > aattnte tea enw age
a. ivi We
1, \ a a Paghhi., ba ik iad i is
ig Per the wal hep
‘4
bet sotbak na tae inenon ae ue ‘bone toni ane
Ps iy
Ne ne7god & ot bet w0rqua stantlocas te yuced dood aft
A 5 a eae aby
ns état inalioqae 10% JoLbrey 8 yDovet fod oe of at ymot
; od on at bros wath aes oak aces % Yeon hee: au
int Pawite §
otate ola ai + Dod at ws od iste ookianek 202
TAY oes > oe OE: 4 Bs
bas \iteersos od vat ote #08 Winoues on anv t
ny DIE ce
hoe 92 eto edt , , souno odd xi wai odd 08 a9 bo |
of snoisoundent ot pat 8 of £21000 et eomKe ‘ a
ri. Hay phe iz
out od 00 exons dads me 120.0 ae eo aTwooe |
tion in the minds of the jury ss to the lew, Tlitnels Central
Taare Coe Ve Smith, 206 Lill, 608; Wilidams v. Pennsylvania
“patron Cos, 235 Tle Avpe 49.
i Severel of the instrwtions civen for appelles were incorreet
“statements of the law and im cur opinion im the wndition of this
‘Feeore were prejudisial. Appelleets given inetruction No, $
_eTronsously assumed that eppellant stopred his ear on the mvement.
“Mhether he did or not was « disputed queaticn of fact and ins truce
' tions have been rereatedly coniemned for agseuming as a fact a cone
“troversial matter. Clark v. Publie Serviee Company, 276 Ill. App.
4265 Ademsen Ve Magnelin, 286 lil. App. 412. furthernors, even
if the appellant was negligent, his negligence must nroxim tely
contribute to his injury before he would be barred from his right
te recover. Miller v. Bureh, 254 Ill. App. SA7; Kenyon v. Chicago
| City Hallway Cov, 235 Lil. 4065 Lerette v. Director General, 306
| Tle 348,
likewise appellant's siven instrvotion No, 6 should not have
Deon given end 4t is erronsous in that it alno aseumes an e faotea
sorntroversini matter, This instruction assumed that the plaintiff
a4 not remove his car from the state highway end wis violating
‘the statute by not dcing soe These isaves were for the jury to pase
upon. Thie instruction also failed to embody the proviesion of the
law that appellant's negligence must be a contributing aause of his
injury in order to defeat his right of reovwory. Pe Ce Ceo & Ste Le
Raliway Gos. v. Benflll, 906 Ill, 56S; adameen v. Magnolia, suprn,
Avpellee's given inetruetion No, 7 in subjest the objection
that 1t assumes that he, appellee, was exercising due gare and
eaution in driving his automobile and it should not have been given,
Appellees siven inetruc tion No. 8 undertakes to specify particular
fhertoent otow eolLedia wt woviy tort wrens ott wee raw
ald? Yo Aottibn do ore at malate’ nud @) Sore wal ode 40"
G gow wetovetaah sevig o*pakleqds Se Shee ha
sIssnevet OM no Tae Ut Dergote taatioggs Sate Newena Yee
agutanl Mie toot to adtoenp betrqelS 2 aw gon mw ots od :
“nftoe n Yeck 9 om pitemes ‘tet Denitoht do qibetdorer heed eval
e77k VLIX O04 ypennctend eolrted ett &t vv Re Verde tom tote
$eRs ero oncodt wt Le odth 4 LET SOR yaRLoomgan Sy ite
Yet mitow vex opaeatinen att ytuoghipen eaw tn sttegds
fight utd mort hermed of Sloow of tered Yaiiat wit oF wink
omg mouse {NOS serge LCL OBR tome yw tetLE
BO i cient dot oer td: abaeainiageth acid ‘ft ona’ idee
Bate DAR. ile ty # ee thick AY
vit Pon S haeeia 8 OM ao remrntenh wonky odes
Yreentola wid todd bemmes notteun and alte gtettdd Le coe
pateanty aw be £m ame ne od sonicbeats bal nee
(pal SI WoO 6G AemONeRe T te Hy ae eet ‘trotab oe salloe"
emcees nisilionay oY moaniaha: ee al Vactnit le
ssn veto ot aodaternbao o- van ty
WY ga ve ys
‘
1
fh
B6ts chich would constitute negligence on the part of appellant.
=
“these several acte so specified are combined in this inetrus tion
“fn @uch« manner thet the jury eould ensily be misled by ite
“Languages The giving of such on instruction bia bean beld to be
_Amproper. Adamsen Ve Megnoliia, supreay Ps Ge Ge & Ste Le Rellvmy
Go. Ve Banfill, eupra,
Appellee'’s givan instruction No, 9 failec to include within
I ge ee Ria
‘ite provision an accurate statexont of the law of contributory
noglisense which requires a neslicent set on the part of the
‘plaintiff to be a contributine cause of plaintirt’s injury in
order to defeat hia right of resovery. Miller v. Bureh, supra
Kenyon vs Chicago City Raliway Cos, supray leorette v. Director
| General, surra.
appellee's given instruction No, 12 shold not heve been
given, It toid the jury thet they might find for the defendent if
they were “unable to determine whether the plaintiff wae injured
in the manner sot cut by him in his complaint und detailed by him
wpon hig examination", ‘The question for the jury to pass upon
was not whether plaintiff was injured in the mnner “detalied by
him”, tut whetler plaintiff was injured by the negligent set of
the defendant while plaintiff ws in the exercise of due sare and
caution for his own safety, Appellant's details of the accident
may not have been what the evidene, ao — whole, éisciesed occurred
upon the occasion in question and yet a recovery might be warranted.
This instruction should not mve emtained this phrase,
) Avpallee's given instruetion No, 1S is misleading end confusing
and should not have been civen. I+ injected as an ismue for the
jury te find whether tha plaintiff bed only a heneat belief or
thought that the defendant's ear struck him, then the eon trolling
| | question was whether the defendant negligertiy drove his eer upon
‘ewrrdiwaswe to wal ote Sp enema a dowmeen we:
ete Do fae etd ma om tooptiges » nostupet dotdw 4
gh yxetet ah tite lelic ww oasee nc Buddeditco note 3
' need ave @or Binede af .ot soRardent sows ato pees
22 Tanhnoteds eis tot La tdgke yeds sade “pot edt Mot ca
dowlal ear VIttaIele odd tele atw omtemmies of olden” Tt
to faa sapien ot v6 Seautat ane 72M RBake exicwin tad
» bus OTRO ovh Wo oe tetene eget heme Tutte hake wkd’ |
tnebleca edt To aliated ot énelinggA sytotan nwo un tet
| bemre0o howolcalh ,alody o as orbive ait at awed wend
ee C snrsnmalatehacaathansnwarhnieancisiniiieniosvicrariogtiin®
Paya ited et ee Te ee ?
| pees decenentean9h i see naa alee
et mo mek me es bedeet ah et storie need evant don ts
Re Tallod sasmed ae yLeo peicalergnenter dahon wes
‘the plaintisf ond caused the pleintiffts injurtes.
: The facts in this ¢ase belng conflioting, the ins trae tions
sone have been subatentislly accurate. Yor the reasons given, we
unable to approve the instruetions herein referred to and the
‘Guigmnt must be reversed. Inasmeh ae the ease must be tried again,
we have not, in this opinion, reviewed «11 the evidenes, nor do we
express any opinion se to the welght of th: evidence,
‘
REVEREED AND HOMANDED,
ee a ee ee ee ee
ow ob “an <o0codiee edt Lf0 dewolvor pokes
Bate eae _ ORME ETS, Ad, 2.2 EE OREN
Ce Oe ek a ee ede
1 EP DS, CN, eis sina: a sistance 4
a Teale ely io Oa One ee y abot
pena he ee eke Leena Gi Re eee vite th a
ube yt ep yy: eto ot SRN ME ERY pheeianton
Wparhatinh
SE ee ee Mk ae noe pai
SA Rabat aa tal Gt PR a a a it ge 0 y
Souths! war Whidelhls est giule ety aalliiat bl i aut ap
ty Dee ey del a et ee eA in esis hile "het
ena eras aad eh: ata ea ei: I ee eR hae ea od
Peakspmea wgih Wo: eb naaaly mh dense Sonne: ee ee Pee Aes
insesmcnriiens Mreeata AB eee ee AE alent iomteaet sat te
shader 40 phate soy remit) te ait) as sR wieg: vviuabeunsulhs
OTR & Oh eaten died) wena ti Dae
SRS hee Sriteweind wh ME yet ssi cee a, prone ianaeune 7
me ae poh hls Rca ee i nt rest sin! i r
ie: eta: Perna wo ale Bet Sate key mie euntradie ta gw we
GAA Sony dao: vache onlkelte sou where a Mh seidenacsians settle i
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT fs I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
_in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73815—5M—3-32) o<Z33B07
| tenes % ane es ,
5 we tole ; oe 5 aie oth ptt en me ; i or,
ee Math me sono
aR aN
relia nS npc naira sive iaeren ne ea TE
era ‘aba mi Ag rat, ais oa ,
yi
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 4th day of May, in the
year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven,
Within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present -—- The Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Presiding Justice.
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice,
6) oO F A
Hon. FRED G, WOLFE, Justice. fw U Lelie
Or
|!
JUSTUS Le JOHNSON, Clerk.
RALPH H. DESPER, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
anne 7 5 a + 5 Ta
MAY 18 1937 the opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's
Office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit:
ont si sit. ie gab “dh odd eeakaee “pts dent” $a b Be
; ; ,4y ‘6: : Pris :
J mA | ip. Ns Q \aedD ide an. Ee eats ‘Cane: wot a ig RO eA ‘
hs
mie ,
1 oy is
ee q yer
toe Ne
‘
»
»
eto sanyiehad ban bathed: este ‘Beshesta onto” ‘btod" aH 26 pe
p
lea
sm tomer bO atst., 949 to Paiute ‘itoost ‘Baie ‘tot ‘Ban. kad
i i j i a
otto, goth fas a sauce st nai estar sity sti ae
12 ! \
o0dd nua: BOT: OUTAT HOH in te ee
ieee
Xrof0. WORMHOL Lr ebveuL
-ttiyds’ miond ih Hadad
IN THE
APPELLAT COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
RN ee RE
February fom, Aa Vin 1937 «
MARGARET PILKS,
Appellees, )
Ve APPRAL FROM THE OLTY COURT
GITY GF AURORA, Kane County, OF AURGRA, TLLINOIS,
State of Tilimeis, a Municipal
dorp ora tion,
)
Appellant.
DOVE, Te
This ie @ persoml dajury euit in which the plaintiff, Marcearet
Wilks, recovered a judgment ageinet the defendant for 96,750.00 fa
injuries sustained by her when she fell while walking slong a
public sidewalk in the City of aurora.
The evideme discloses that the plaintiff lived on the vest side
of Wilder “treet in the City of Aurore. That on the afternoon of
Jane 19, 1965, she hed attended a card party and about five oteloek
wae reverning home with ea neichbor and friend, Mrs. "hitson., The
plaintiff lived three deers north of the realdence, spoken of in the
regord aes the "Hansen property” and 1t was wren the comm rete walk in
fro of this property that the aecident cecurred, The ovigence is
that this walk was of ordinary eonerete conatrw tion and conei sted
PS |:
) 7 ‘ga a
i Axo Lt wo sROO wratirica
worm axa cucona A i
i ey
Ag
; s ‘ i 3 peri Sc Sar Nats aR St
aeerenn r SF ie sath
s8EOL of oA, ene? Yimwsdet matt
THUG YeIO BRP MORT ARO
oALOWULLIT yARORTA TO . oni
torte «22 Na Ree od ho hiiw m wa pe a
tot 004001484 Tot tnabaeted ote pant tema a
of slabs or blocks, each about five feet square. 4 tree in the
parkway on the east side of the walk bed sont ite roots under om
of the slabs and raised & porticn of it above tho level of the
surfade of the adjoining slab to the south, Aceordine ® the
teatimony of the plaintiff’a witnesses, the difference in the
ievel of the two alabsa ot the east eige where plaintiff me walke
ing wes one and one~quarter inches, That the muth edge of this
Gement bloek ¢eelinas toward the worst oo thet at the sou tinvest
eermmer it is thr soequartens of an ineh below the lovel of the
ecjasent block on the south. <Agcording t the testimony of on
enployee of the defendent’s enainnering department, there vas «
aifference in the level of thie block of comerete and the one
adjoining 1% on the scuth at the mnutheast corner of thie block of
one inch. Tit at the westerly side of the mammer walk, the
no#therly bleak is one=quarter to threseeichths of an ineh below
the level of the adjoining bloek on the south. That about twoive
or thirteen inches from the west side of the walk this hiosk is
Level with the adjoining block to the south and from that polat
there is a gradual ineline t the sast end at the eust edge the
differance in the two slabs is, a6 stated, exactly me inch. The
awface of the dab was not broken, and 1t had been in the sane
position for fifteen years or mowe. The plaintiff lived on the
seme street end only a short distence from where the aceident
ecourred and had for many years passed over this portion of the
sidewalk very frequently end was femiliar with the condition of
the walk at thie point, end testified that for fifteen years she
had sonsi€ered the position of this cement block a dangercus
obstruction in the sidewalk, Upon the aftemoon in question, the
‘pleintiff wee proceeding northward, sions the east or street side
of the sidewalk and Mra, Whitson wes beside her toward the west.
mi? ak cout A ,otanps too ovtt tveds Hove 4 )
ato tofstn ato ox agl tree bat thaw ot obte. Be
yee es Lovet dae wee VR MS He Besiig
fel om @ aulitoooA =~ tivon bila ot daha oatatotsa oa 20
ad? ak esve ett ed? aeasad by ert iiaisg om Ww.
aid Ww enhe sgwon — sat geen nine 4 ban band :
oe ae ee ae ee el evntescemran”
me ‘te iemttaes off @ wrkhiepeA «dtuoe ait 20, Kooks wm
8 G59 oad? ,faawite7od _rlToMKigme etfnmbantes edt Ye say
(oD One bas oteteaee I xeold whit w LeveL edt mt, on
te moold abat % warren seam on odd Ae dao ot am
onl? lew meme of? to obte (itetcew edt Ya # dad ,
wolod deal as to aAtiptesernds o¢ sessarpeone ah 10014
_Stlont tgoda dad? -Atuon od? mo Agold pats. ba ott 1
el teold eidd Alaw om? to ote fnew ad? wont aedens
NOG 4082 p00, bam twos, wd ot gn 6 ataboyae odd
a i ott endo tame oat 40 bem ta99 adt ot papers
Ont Aah eam XGoaKs ghotere am Bt adale O98 0: Bh W
tN ot et med bad bith geenlond: ton new, dates Ro,
on ot 6 MP AL, PR ale et. 9omnan, $0; AAR, AOOFRER
aa Rix te ete aS faa ae vino
ee ARIS IDE POPE OO RN .
ois rie omoX, 008 me % tat natainge “hows a ttn
- smobsagup ih, mon maed te, edt, 20 Aiepob ia, ott. m
ete seotde 20 tne eM nania, sduamieneR, senananons
the raised portion of the blogk where the two coment slabs
‘ blooks joined, the plnintiff “stubbed her richt toe” as she
“expressed it, and fell, sustaining, the injuries to recover for
which this suit is instituted.
q the plaintiff end her friend Mrs. 9llie Whiteon were the
y witnesses who testified econeerning the action and conduct of
pinintiff temedieately orior to and at the time of the aceident.
2 etated, they wore noighvers end frimnds and both lived near by
an 4 bad for years been acqueinted with this sidewelk ond the defesot
teresa, Yoon her direct examination the plaintiff teetifted:
"As We were walking ecroes the Henson proverty, Mre, Yhitson and fT
were taking notige of re, Caponash’s house, to see if we esuld see
lye, Caponash, and we were talking at the seme time about her sewing.
Mrs. Gaponac:'s house, with reforence to the Henson house, is
Lega ted the next house north. I regnall the tree that is leeated in
the parking in front of the Henson property, em aos I weg wolking
alone theru, end got somewhere noar thet tree, something seourred.
4a I got around the vicinity of the tree, I was talking to Ure,
Thiteon, and I stubbed my right toe agginet the eament bliesk in the
sidewalk, ond dorm I went. That block, with reference to the tree
in the parking in front of the Hanson property, is just about even
with the tree, not quite even. Ib is west and opposite the tree.
when I stubbed my toe I went down o quick I could not teli much
about 1¢, except I know the right limb was under the left limb. ay
Left limb ms mostly strait.”
, Mrs. Whitson testified: "As Mrs. Wilks and I wore welking
elon the sidewalk in front of the Hanson property, we were looking
up at the neighbor's house = lire, Caponesh - the one next to our
place, At the time Mrs, “ilks was looking thet way, too, ‘oe were
adele ¢ cameo crt ott otedw Xsold off Te nolime bonkers «
wie ae "eos eesin-red boddete” Trealalq ait Somteh aloof
s0% tevose’ Gt eoliwwhat add sli tedewe giiot baa gt.
ae” i -botutigami of tive andes vt
edd otow momt bt BELLO eT Amoket aad dae Trbtrtese adh o ~
40 Foubaeo dna aokton wld yoloweeqoe be Lege? ede. Reeaend ey
Tapbteos ote Ww ont? adf te fan oF “obhty yhed aibamme Viasat e
yd tat Sovki Adod Sam ohtakt? hav eroddphar ovew wad yhots
poten ade bra dhoweble aldé dd iw Secntaupes mood PRONE 0%
| theniuvaed Thiteiele edt moktenksmme ¢90ulb wd RoW
X fies Road ii® ott yYereqore moose od? os onee nett low erew et
@pe Sives aw U2 ong of ,oswed aideanoqad .et te eoktom:
witwon td tvedo ets ome ods th gattint eww or bao «sescogad
eh ,;9cotd poamH ode-nF eecetetet star youned wt deame
a2 Sathool et vat oot omy Lispex I | .doten waved teen of
prinive aor Den ine ,ytao cory sat ce ar
hOTINbOo HALA enw poets Pode cher eredvenae! 203 baw,
(ek OF pied saw I ome of? w Yehakety oe! Astwrorn.a te
@he ai doold gasses off Puilreye wot Shia yx betas 1 hemi
‘Oett eds of gonwTetot @iw glee hd tart’ sduew T awd bas ¢) od
aere swede saul a2 yerxoqots sommnll ete (ot aere a: etna an
soot uty BdEeogee ies feee Ot ST tem et tnp dom) som 13 0
ade Liot tow biveo I votap ab mod taut oot agar Beddn
VA "dk a oh hte sea dt selasabaltanathagtonieisninas ‘’
—— atttaiLow enew Tams estlaw sackt nat ert ise0d ontaW
gatiool orev or em qTony monet aft Le daowY a siLewe btw @ 0:
BO 8 Bxon ome odd) +: degmoqe? wea « emiod het
eTew oy .Coe _pYow Sait pakiool eow wil ra sro emt ot ta
Piieying on & Conversation at the time. I had waikeé by the
‘Gaponash house with Mra, °ilke on ether ocessions, and on those
a Hrs, Vilka would lock in the direction of the Capona ah
houge. When we looked in that direetion we sencrally saw her in
the yare, end we wuld weve «t+ her as we went by, As we were
passing over the sidewalk, in front of the Hanson pmperty, opno=
‘site the tree, Mrs, Files stumbled with her right foot and she
(Sort of reached for me, end she went dow end her ricit foot was
under her end her left foot wee in front."
The foregoing is the only evidenes offercsd by and on behalf
of the plaintiff to establish the charge in her sompleint, that
she was in the exercise of due care for her own safety. The fury,
by ite gemrel verdiet and by ite anawer to o special interrogatory,
found that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due oare, but from
& Gereful reading of ail the evidence in this reeord, we are
persucded that except for her absorption in the sub jeet wuder dis-
eusalon (sewlug) ond her desire # discover ani salute her neighbor,
ake eould ond wuld hove avoided stubbing her toe, end reeeiving the
‘injury which forms th basie of thle aation.
The evidonge ia that thie gidewalk head been for fiftes years
in the same condition as it was on the afternoon of the aveident.
Appellee teetified that for that period of time ehe knew of its
condi tion and had econmidered 1% dangerous, but notwithstanding ite
cerdition end her knowledge of it, she proceeded along the walk,
approaching the plaee where she fell, talking to her companion and
ppemine at @ nearby house in an effort to see her neighbor. The
evidense i that it was daylight. She hed knowledge of the eondi-
thon that existed and the law required of her to use such due care
a Gaution as woull be gommengurate with her knowle (ge of the
ode ye manadres be wom ones nee
ia meres ad? YWomekeatkh alt uh isd ditinveatanacinan'l
ui ted won yLLommen ow sotteouts tadt ak hetlow S ow ment!
S107 GF AA syd tnOw OW as téd oe orm Muar ow Sas. i
sou ewWoogan¢ seanel ad? 10 nowt uh gHleweste wnt weve
eile bow Cook #dghe tod adhe boldmua oA LEO yet ‘ound
208 toc 2h PE aK Ome GOD ew ade Oi ye nO os i
| “nowt ah eew test trol xo fin ‘tod cf
Viaded so baa Yd honekie soamblve Leo om ab pakegow’t
tadd youbniquee ted mt egiade ode fintisstue ot Viisetate es
vent ad? a yvoton awe aad ot exo oh » oe towene odd at 2
eset aporiesat fateeqe a. of tow ane ath yt ba tekbwew J :
mOxt ted ywreo: ascuns aelotexe ode ah aoe Reténtals 6
att antinage dt kwon, sak 4 seem 2 peat bas |
ies edt grote seheneon, ode, at 0 eaboswoms ‘,
bas no tnegmoe tot of gadsiiet »ffor ada ee she |
orth diy ton mm: son ) soo, 9 ni cow wae ®
gone tions ae she knew existed et tint time. Counsel for aneliee
ahh that it was not contributory magligense for aprellas te
;
walk slong this sidewalk talking to her eompanion ond to momentarily
a at some ob je et of porpson which atiracted her ettention and thue
i . en instent have hor attention directed from the defeot in the
addwolk, Tint may be trus, tut there is no evidence in this
ord that appelive's attention was diverted by anything or by
The evidenee is thet she wilunterily looked toward her
Meighvor'a home ond undor a1) the evidence and the foots and
etrounstances in eviderce in this record, ve cannot esenpe the
“onelusd on that the finding of the jury of due care upon the mrt
f appellee is manifeatiy agairat the weight of all the evidernse,
f In White v. City of Belleville, S64 111, 577, to which coumel
‘for appellee Gall our ettention, the court, after reviewing the
evidense, stated that the record contained aubstantial evidences
in support of the charges in the complaint thet em unaefe condition
of the sidewalk existed wien the accident occurred and such bei ne
“the comition of the record, it was error for the Appellate Court
to reverse tie juion mt without remanding., In the oourse of its
opinion the court said that where there is evidence tw support the
plaintiff's case, which, if taken es true, with all reasonable
Antenénents therefrom most favorable to the plaintiff, tends to
‘eatab lish the nesligonee eharged, the ease should be submitted te
a Jury for its consideration and that upon the coming in of a
verdict in such case for the plaintiff, the question of the woight
of the eviderte is for the trial court upon a motion for a new
wie. That where there is o question of feet, it should be
wabait ted toa jury unless the facts are ouch as to raise purely
a aaaain ae of law. That it is within the provinee of the Arprllate
eelleages tot Jonmrod ? het ede
i i! a ‘3 Be ch Bho | & * Hs 4 Mee al HG
‘ i |
ot aot aaa aot “conan higon wredud ixea09 ee, ye pas n
eittos nemo of ban molneqaoe xed oF aahttet Xone ta, ee
asi ot baa so Mast 8 xed hotoonts Monin owe 20 ORS ow a
we oe gy }
ont me #9006 ode monet bot 00 xkb Met ad ered | fob ee
| abe at ‘waxebtv en ah or oad Edis hoa J, A tat s
sng CRE RRS Rae Rt %, Wee
a p00
TE iy ‘
at gat aryse bint Rag eave® ad fo Lanes
CGO fia ein Ra), dat
¢: 4 bina tb i
ad brumwos bodoot ei beat muon of fod a
: ; wD Rae Hoy A wee
oat bs) o ob fie
Ban st0e tale Bary Be on 1D ot ef yo’ oe ea :
, bod ow _ghrwoer abde a eane div ave At nae,
i eS cw Ee a AS mite t Byes ; hias te I ot sy) Re ee " a
? kone
ta oat equ ore oun te Tat, att to gekbe, 28 oe a! mat
se paedave « od ike % 0 tdpbow rw ald fastepa yisee ortaam gt
eawoo dott o# aha ALE Does yell iekLot 40 a, Lyle
ay is
¥
Sy ( ‘ aR Sea) "8 he! ee aay per bs: A ae
; ‘% oat yatwo tyes roots, ‘tbe de edt ysoksnots 9 bo ool,
Ply ‘ y SEMEN ea i 0 A ih A RR IE a
conoh ive fe itaatedien heats
ih) a .) Wve
ee poems emt faa’ Jet oe ae
LG & gee
th nn tat eo ost ry
ay Hf mote t 08 otha a be ye yf kaka Sab | 5 Oh Rae a2 opted apace
| a6 ded fave baa bevumee # ap bioga hoy fe a > Slams
ie za a] baker ty ay #) FSR ERE ‘ ;
y at,
wr wv
Puw0d wuilvess ‘add ToTte ae #2 sbt0087 od? Hees mma
a Pas Ae bs Ds Sa 2 ANEW Le Wa 9
_ wae to oer i O8 ode al , spatbasaes tupds ty pedemiy Kay
one frog by eomDtve as oton exode ¢
re en ee
HS Ae apts
ae 9 {damon ae ifs tbe ound as vat
ain c ‘ot wb ast ebm ate on e..§ otdpxoye2
i ‘ot eda ieda og bluoda aso ed?
} / : CMD nue es SEN ah eg 15 te ain or gay
On ‘ato at ‘alnoe ot aoqy # add bao mo wero itane
i : / je Ay ENO SENG Ba a
| tdgtow od 20 noltaesp out Peep od
SO RAY ee AR Re Sie
4 wont a wt molten 2 oq sx08 Le
ie ps Np NIE CARs lk a RNa ARO TES «a mee
"of ‘skate 3 a ee te a 23a op
Tbe ARI A RRR Al pase: A PUL ame eR Oy ee 2° s
vem, outa of ae fooe on etoat edt Es
OY a ce aR he mg pels MESS .
; eteliegrs edt ph ‘coat rene ott middhow et ok sal “
court to eeonsider the weisht of the evidences and if the verdict
end judgaent of th: trial court are manifestly against the weight
of the evidence, the Appellate Court may reverse and remind for a
new trial.
; Appellee insists that the questian of cue care is « queation
of faot forth jury. Theat is true but where, in the opinion of
the Appellate Court, the evideme diagloses that the injured person
guilty of nesligense whieh proxime tely contributed to her
injury, the fin@ing of the jury cernot be seid to be supported by
e evidense but is aginst the weight of the evidonee and a
Judgment rendered upon such « verdiet should not be permitted to
stand, The judgment of the City Court of the City @ Aurora is
‘therefore reversed md the cause remnded.
| REVERGED AND REMANDED.
Dj
noone docu at oat tae neeoteeis ‘oebtt be itswed racial
ot Set ttm ed toa bia da ‘teitsey « 'yisl Abt be aD
a stows » wie ‘ett to #00 Wd afd to tammy bet ett”
_ thebanmet oauns bid bie aver @
onan ‘mh eaapevat AES i eae eS Wee
pence
Sei & ae # Sot? hie
oh eR CA MG NIE ETS aa I AT SSS a Mere ae ana
win vf Ket, th RN N@ Rete Elie dee ats
? ' Se pes f benign 4 vat a et ae 2! ae
cs Rg et dea SN ACP Et anaes Bek tiny PRO eae. altar ue
Is ‘ Pe ce LAYS EON A a % AT iy waste ge en a (a
/ Y J
=: 2 1 $ : aes - : a
eS we Vy ere ei ah Oe ee eS ae ‘on: ae dade t
oe ee es ye ee Se ae *% an Soh) a ie i Be
iy ¢ te St
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT fos I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
ee inthe year or our Word onethousand mine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk: of the Appellate Court
(73815 —5M—8-82) «2833507
% hed THT ate got att ott id wh
are i A ‘s 5 fea ie i ‘ Be yee en Ns a oh!
" 2 es
5 R ! pao 1giide: fel ie Pick:
Ni = x
‘oy bay
at J ; Ah) 2 janice Hayes
4
paw iti tute’) atatlegah of Wo sttelty PORE preva 5
isis sgl city Antrairtt ae A cing "ay a) eget att 1 lassen ate dr) te
, idetry Peeht i hota’ wing, al ah
Bree ji inse odt i Rae. Secxral - Poe ctr ee bm
¥y ~hb. 3 =e a! a Aes cit alee
wid Bbanived! one trot se Vo awo'e aes . ¥ haa N.
on ret a pte TCR
ie) abating, Ah wi
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 4th day of May, in the
year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred ope page feo
within and for the Second District of tHe gtate of
Present -- The Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Presiding Justices
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.
Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Justice.
JUSTUS Le JOHNSON, Clerk.
RAUPH Hy DESPER, Shexiit.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On JUN 21 193
aaa tional
the opinion ef the Court was filed in the Clerk's
Office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit:
‘
oad at , vem Qo “Ape se eatin AO. eee Ts aed
; ree! He borates sabe basque: one. bred m9" te.
nee ea eee a eta - :
Soe NA |e tne re ame are ier aK a8. cis: ~ ea aE Pn rf hi acca anepemern ak
x mr eae — 7 cee at aoe i «ie
ss
oye!
paee oe) ond a
Gen. No. 988 Agenda No. 20.
In the Appellate Court of Illinois
Second District
May Term, A. D. 1957
Margaret Wilks,
Appellee,
Appeal from the City Court
vs.
of Aurora, Illinois
City of Aurora, Kane County, State
of Illinois, a ‘unicipal Corporation,
Appellant,
DOVE, J.
ADDITIONAL OPINION ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
It is insisted by counsel for appellee in their petition for
a rehearing that this court, in its opinion, ignored the principles
of law enunciated in City of Matoon v. Russell, 91 Ill]. App. 252;
Gity of Nokomis v, Slater, 61 I11. App. 150; Wallace v. Gity of
Farmington, 251 I[11. 232 and particularly insist that the facts
in the instant case are analogous to those in Village of Altamont
v. Carter, 97 Ill. App. 196. These cases were all considered by
us and we do not think that our holding is in conflict with those
cases. In the Carter case, the evidence disclosed that close to
the edge of the sidewalk along which the plaintiff was walking was
a hitch rack, where many teams stood and horses heads and wagon
tongues extended over the railing, making the walk very narrow.
The plaintiff had just emerged from a lighted room and rad only
proceeded sixty feet to the place of the accident. Across the
street from where the accident occurred was a building, in the
second story of which were lighted windows toward which he was
looking to see how badly they needed frosting, as he was a painter
and decorator by trade and had been requested to frost the windows
at which he was lo@king. These facts ckearly distinguish the
Carter case from the instant case. There the accident occurred
at night, the passage along the walk was very narrow, it was a
.O8 ,oMf 2bnesA S86 .o .aeD
atomtifl to tamed eteffeqaA edt nl 8
totataid baooek
Soel .2 .A met yell
> eae tonagual :
,celleqaa
timed ytd ent moxt LeeqgA
BY
afontili ,stomwa to
etat& ,ytnwod ened (etorwA te ytlo ia
sftoltetog100 Ieqtotnwil g ,etonifIl to
»taslleqqa
.& ,avod.
toi moiti¢eaq afeds nt selleqqs tot [eansoo yd Betetent at ti bet i
eolqioning sav betongt ,motatqo att aft ,tumoo aid? ted? gattpedet s
eS .qqgA ff {[@ .[feasenf .v HOOT ahi to yl at betstonyne wal to.
to ytld .v eosliaW ;0GL .qqA .LLT £6 ,seteiB .¥v atmowon to yslo.
atost edt tent tetant qitelvetiasq Sus 88S LLI £68 ,notgniorst
tnomstlA to egellt¥ ni ezoddiot evogolsis ems ease tnetent edd mt
“NG bershbtenoo [fe stew weano oaedT .00L qa LIT. ¥@ ,tetred ov
sao0dt ditw tolLitmoo ni at gatbfod two tedt dnidd tom ob ow bas ey —
of ssofo tsdt beaolosth sonebive eid ,easo tettaD edt mI .eonso
asw gntdfiew sew Tiftsinial@ ed? clotdw gnole ALeawebte edt to egbe sat
fnogew bis abeed eeatonm bas boots amest. yiem ered lost david » y
wowten yiev afew edt goidem ,puilteat edt rove bebaetxe semgnot
\elno Sex bas moot botdgyli s mort Segueme seul bed. ttivatela es?
eft esoxsA .tmebtoos emt to eoslg edt of toot ytxts bebesootq -
afd ni ,gnibliud » asw beriyooo dnebloos edd etedtw mort teerta
Bew od doidw buiswod awohitw betdgil exew dotdw te yrote baooes
tetnted s ssw od as ,gatteort beboon yerlt yLbad wor eea oF gnizool
awohaiw edt teort ot beteeupet need bad bas shard yd motatoosh baa
odd deivgnivelh yitsefo atost saedl .gntdeol eaw od doldw as ,
pewuro900 dasbioos edt sisi? ,.oaso tnatant edd mort eno som
8 sew $f ,wOTTSH YISV esw Alen edt gnole opeeaag.:
Bx
desire to size up a contemplated job in his line of work that, for
a moment, caused the plaintiff in the Carter case to relax his vigi-
lance while in the instant case the accident occurred in the day
time and while appellee, in order to satisfy her idle curiosity
or engage in social amenities, looked away from the widewalk and
in the direction of the Caponash house.
In the City of Mattoon v. Russell, supra, it appeared that the
plaintiff did not know that the board in the sidewalk which tripped
her was broken and loose and it could not be seen that it was except
by stepping upon it or otherwise specially examining it to ascertain
the fact. [In the City of Nokomis case, supra, it appeared that the
plaintiff was walking along a board sidewalk with her son, who was
holding her hand, that none of the boards in the sidewalk were
apparently ‘loose but when the boy stepped on the end of one of
the cross boards, the other, being unfastened, flew up, causing
the plaintiff to fall. In the City of Farmington case, supra,
the cause of the injury was substantially the same as in the City
of Nokomis v. Slater, supra. The facts in the instant case are
clearly distinguishable from the facts in these cases and our hold-
ing is not in conflict therewith, but is supported, we think, by
the authorities.
In Village of Kewanee v. Depew, 80 Ill. 119, it appeared that
appellee was injured by reason of a defective sidewalk and in re-
versing a judgment for the plaintiff, our Supreve Court, speaking
through Mr, Justice Scholfield, said: "Appellee testifies that he
saw the defect in the sidewalk the first time he passed over the
sidewalk, which was four or five days before he was injured, and
several times subsequently, He was conscious that it was there,
but was not looking for it, being, at the time he came updn it,
engaged in observing a passing buggy, to satisfy his curiousity in
regard to the style of harness used upon the team. Now, this was
plainly not due care. It was no care at all; it was heedlessness.
Had he not known of the defect, he might, probably, have been
justified in assuming that the sidewalk was safe, and in acting
in
“oi ,tsdi daiow to entl ef ni del betalqmetnog & gs asie of extaed
algiv aid xalet ot sesso vettsd ont nit IiLltaielg edt Saewao ,tnemom sg
ys6 edt at bertyose tnebtoos acid 2889 tastant eft ak olidw sonst |
ytteoiaue sibi sed yiattier ot sebro alt eolfeqges Pitdw ene ead |
Sas Alawebhtwy ext mort yews hedool colt Lous tatoos ot egegns TO
.@aved dasneqe) sit to notsoottb odd at
ant tect betseqqe tl ,stque Tfesauhl v mood teh to bias odd, ax
baqgind sotcdw Alswebte edd at Based edd tant wort ton Bib ‘Vutvatela
tqeoxs esw wt tedd meee od ton Sivoo ti base eaool bas entered esw tor
atetteose of Ji gntngmaxe YLiatoeqe en twreiite ~0 tt fnoqu gatqqeta yd
edt ted? beiasages tt ,stqee ,seao atmodow te ytd edt at -tost ‘nit
eav odw .doe ted ailw afawebte bused 2 gnols gpatdfaw saw. tiitatele
stew afawebie off mt sfagod eft to enon tant Snes wed: ‘gathlon —
‘to sno to Bre ext no beqysta yoo eft aedw stud seeoth ylineredgs
gniauszo .qu well ,benetesta gated ,tendto odd ,ebisod asovro ent
aque sted HotghloeT Yo ytI0 odd AE VLLet OF Veitate te it
YL odd nf se onine ond YILattdedadye eaw yuwtat edt 20 sabteo ‘ent
8%3 9680 dastent edt at etost ofl arque ,tetele Jv e'tnodor’ to
~blori ire bas esgso seedt Mt atont edt mort oLdedetugnitetb ¢ixasfo
“Md ~Aathd ew (Betroqqua af turd tiwerens tot limos a2 Yom et ght
“etd Prodtine ott
tect bowseqas t£ ,@EL .11T 08 ,weqed Ww eeneweX to egetLEV nl!
~st mt Sis Afewebhte ovitoeteb s to nosset YO bea mt eew seffeqas —_
giiidesge ,iuod of erga avo .TttinteLlg ocd cot trectebut' s gatetev.
otf dedt aofttteet selLeqqa" tBiee ,bLsitforo® edttayl tM gyro
eit sevo besasag of emts tert't ott ALewobte off at Yootebd st wae
hoe ,borwlal saw of exoted ayab evtt xo auiot new dotitw ,Afawebte
,et6dt sew Tt Torld avotoanoo asw ow _ltnewpeadye semtt Lederen.
ot xdqw omso ed omit ond te ygnted (ft set Saldool ten Baw ted i
‘af Ytievotivo aio plattee of ,yggud gnteesq a yatrxesdo Ai bogathe is
aew atdd wo meet orld fogit beaw peentsHd to efyte’ eft ot Btexoa i
-2agneselbeod aaw ti ifs te exs0 on saw tT Jensd" ‘bub! don | vias fq ;
96d oven Uidadorg (thigte se (toate eid ro" mont sen 6a Dat MA
js eee nt bas ,oten aaw Slewebia eis teste i teinieaitietalihals is
pa
= d=
upon that hypothesis. Or if, knowing the defect , some present
necessity had distracted his attention, he might be excusable in
not recollecting; but a person, if the full possession of his
faculties, passing over a sidewalk, in daylight, with no crowd
to jostle or disturb him, no intervening obstacles to obscure
approaching danger, and no suddenly occurring cause to distract
his attention, is under obligation to use his eyes to direct his
foot steps, and those who do not do so, are negligent. Had appellee
given a mere casual glance ahead of him, he must have seen the
defect, kh and the slightest variation in his course would have
avoided the danger,"
The case of Kennedy v. City of Phéladelpia, 220 Pa, 273,
also reported in 69 Atlantic 748, is so nearlp identical in its
facts with the instant case as to justify its citation in this
connection, In that case it appeared that the defect in the side-
walk was caused by the root of a tree growing under one block of
conerete and raising it about four inches above the adjoining block.
The plaintiff testified that she was walking along the pavemént on
Broad Street in Philadelphia about 10:50 in the morning of a bright
sunshiny day and was going to teke a street car, and was looking
straight aktad of her, as the car was coming, that she caught her
toe where the cement, the ledge as she called it, was raised about
four inches above the level of the rest of the pavement, upon the
side from which she was approaching. It further appeared that the
Plaintiff was familiar with the spot, had often passed over it and
had noticed the break in the pavement where the roots of the tree
had raised the cement. Her excuse for failing to observe the defect
at the time she fell was that the sun wes shining so brightly she
did not see it, but it appeared the sun wes not shining in her face.
The court in its opinion quoted from Robb v. Connellsville Boro.,
137 Pa. 42, 20 Atl. 1564, as follows: "That the reasonable care
which the law exacts of all persons, in whatever they do involving
risk of injury, requires travelers, even on the footways of public
ak) oe
tnoeserd oftos , Josteh ent gaiwond {tt 40° letaeritoqydl sade noqu
hi sidsétuoxe od tetgtm od ,nottoetise aid Botosaialh bad ytieasven
afd to moleseasoq fiut edt ai .noereq’s tad yentioeLiovet son
bwors on Stiw ,ddglivab ai ,Afewobhta a “8v6 anteasq jestd [uset
“exuoede Ot aolostede Aainevietnt on .mid dapsets 46 efvset ot
teardets ot saueo aniviwoso yinebhre on Bas ,retneb galdoasiqas
‘etn soasih of geye eff eee of Kotiagi ido tebay et ¢ holtnedtts alsd
seffeqes Hal .tregtisen exe’ .o8 Ob ton ob ofw saodd Baa! paqete toét
ent meee eved Youm en ,mid Yo baéde somely Ienesm even @ nevis
eves Sivow eavios ets at noitetrev Seotoa tiie edd dae ade too teb
ra eas) ocit bab Love
(e°R Let O88 ata febslOnt to YILO Ww yYbemned To aso eM oAq
att mt Isottnebl eitnen o8 ef Gav oftna lia C6. nk botaoqes oaks
atdd of nottedro att ¢tivaut oF gs euko tastent ont uittw etest
~obfe adt at tosteb edt tedt Bewsaqge tf e8a0 Sede AT o. nottosanco
“oe Hoold eno ‘rebrir gatworg eott s to toot oat yd beakeo wet! Diew
toold antntelbs oft evode eedont “sot Ivede TP wnteten Baa steroneo
ho thémaveg ont ynofs yattfew vew ole todd boktitee? Tivakely our
Sigiand 6 to grterom oft nt O810L sHode ‘eiiqlobeliAt nt Fesuwe baeowd
‘gntvool sew Bae (eo Soerta e edet Ot grftoy as Hae Yeb ymtdanse
sed tdeaveo ofa tedt .animoo saw s20 of? es , ton 16 pate vidgierte
fuode Boslet ecw , ff Hoffeo ond ‘as oghel edt ,tneneo odd etedw sot
ent moqs ,tnemevsg ont to deet oft to Level oft éveds menodt amet
ad? dedt Seracqus tortie? IT vamtdosérads aaw ode doltmw mort ebte
bas ti 1év6 bested notte Hdd segs oat ‘Ad2W tot Liaey sow rentals
gett edy ‘to atoor safd oredw tndmevag “st? at dAaowd od? beotten bad
gos teh edd ésvasado ot gitiiat to? sexoxs tok sinemes edt? heated bad
ads yitdyiad on gntiids asw ove off tad asw Efst ede emti-edtete
..08T ter mt gointde von saw ave alt horsedas IL dud’ \d2 soa ton’ bth ng A
, oom afltvelfoaned wv ddod’ mott Betoup” notatqe etivnt tiwoo” vot ¥ \
“giao eldsnoaset ond taat".” saweltet es, S6eL .1TA. Os , Sh set ver
‘onivfovnt of yedt revetssiy nt (aaqexsy Ife to’ atosxe ad ont
ofidig to ayawfoot edt no meve (axefevett nortuper (te
par oe
streets, to look where they are going, is a proposition so plain
that it has not often called for formal adjudication. But it has
been expressed, or manifestly igplied, in enough of our own
cases to constitute authority for those who need it", and con-
cluded: "In the present case, it is urged by counsel for appellant
that the sunshine interfered with the plaintiff's vision. But
how this could be is not apparent. The sun was not shining in
her eyes, It was, as we understand the test®ony, coming from
over her shoulder or from the side, Nor does it seem that the
light was reflected in her face, as from some dazzling surfase.
The only conclusion that we can draw from her testimony, as a
whole, is that she was not paying proper attention to the ground
in front of her as she walked, It would seem that any reasonable
inspection of the ground in front of her would have disclosed
an irregularity so extensive as that complained of here. We
agree with the court below that the evidence discloses a case
where the plaintiff, a woman in full possession of her senses,
walked along a street in which there had been for years an obvious
defect of which she knew. Under a clear sky , with no crowd around
to disturb her and nothing to distract her akkenkiim attentton, or
to hide the defect in the pavement from view, she stumbled over it
and was injured. We think the trial judge discharged a clear duty
in ruling as a matter of law, that, under the evidence, the plain-
tiff was negligent in failing to observe and avoid the defect in
the pavement, and that she was hot entitled to recover in this
case. "
In City of Bloomington v. Read, 2 Ill. App. 542, which was
also a sidewalk accident case, it appeared that the sidewalk was
sixteen feet wide, made of two inch planks laid lengthwise, the
only defects at the time of plaintiff's injury were, that about
the center of the walk two planks had bulged up th e whole length,
making ea raised ridge where the edges of the two planks met,
from two and a half to three inches in heighth ahd sixteen |
Yt ails
ntalq oe noldLecqouq s at gates, ers yous sme AoeL ot ht aunge
gant dL tet’ ,notteothutbs Iemrot wot beliso sette: von east tt: sesit
owe iso to Savon mt ,heifogt ylteetinem 10 ,besasiqxe need
M00 bas "o£ been ow ceodt tok yitortue otaditanon of eenso
taslleqqs ‘ok, feanioo yd Bouuy ef tt ,~seso taeseng exit al” ibebuLo
ted. node Lor a Titentala eng Atiw Beene Tres ap entdanue: oui taalt
ai antnide ton eaw ave ed Jroweage: ton at ad bLwoo att woul
sort witmoo ,Vyrewiteacd end baetsuobay ew es), es7 vi, yee. ted
edt tend moon th ps0d 20M vebte edie fost 6 cebLvoda: aed xevo
sastive antises,.b swos mort es ,sort wea al hotoolien asw duty
A BS eWhomitest ten mont wsth nao ow decls” sohaslonoo vine ont
bisioncy eit of sottnetia reaorq gaiyeq. ton saw ane tent et Lose
sidenoasst ywis tat seee bivow tT \beilLew ede as set Do" gnorh ht
hevoloe:d evar biuow text Smowkt mt Savory eid to mortooqeat:
oW .eted to bedielquoo tedd gs Svinnedtxe 08 Witelugernt ns
9 eea0 8 eeeoloeth gonehive eft Fasit woled uno" odie cttw songs
z a | ypeanee Yes: to noferereog {fut ni memow » ytiitmtstq ond event
avotvde as aresy tot nsed Sad exerts dotdw aft teante # pnoLs bedLaw
- Savers, bwore om Atiw, yale aasLo i tebald | West! edte dotsdw to tested
10 ,fodtcetts miwnhaettz sed tositalh of gatdion bas nod deytato: of
+h aeve bolduate ede ,wely sort tnemeveq ent, nl sootes edt otc od
eau tnefo ¢ begtadoets aabut fatat ent Antad, o>. sbomubat sw bae
~tiielq edt ,sonebive edt ebay ,dedt wal to ceddems) Be gmt Lom att
al toeteb orld Slova baa evisedo of gat{ist al. duogtigen saw buend
aidd al savooet of Balttias tod aaw ee tads ‘bee | dnomevsg oft
ENT) wit re et Monee
sew dofiw ,Sb3. qq’ (LET S \beefouw not gntwoos® to" yao: any inst
asw Alsweble end dace Bersoque tt yeaah tnebLoos iiswebta ws eala
anit eatwitgnet bial edoetq dont owt» to ebsit vobiw geet aostute
teods: tant yoxew yretat at rtetiteda ‘to uni?! entits: atootes vine ‘
idgnet: Loci e-nkt Se boslud San adnatq owt Atew ois to. 0am suid me,
-5e
feet wide, and extended with the walk the whole length of these two
planks, sixteen feet. The walk was solid, no holes in it, and safe
in all other respects than the one mentioned. The only way it would
seem possible for one to be injured on this ridge would be by stumb-
ling against it, or by slipping in stepping upon it, and this could
easily be avoided by passing Along the walk on either side. Appellee
was well aware of this ridge, and had passed it daily for weeks be-
fore, and had it in his mind at the very time he received the in-
jury, and yet all he was required to do to avoid danger was to pass
down the walk on the outside where the same was perfectly safe, wna
from six to eight feet wide, All danger could have been avoided by
the dlightest care, without the least inconvenience or loss of time
to the appellee. If one knowingly exposes himself to danger which
can be readily avoided, and sustains injury, he must attribute it
to his own negligence",
In the instant case, it appeared that appellee was familiar
with the condition of the sidewalk, had passed over it quite fre-
quently and had noticed its condition and could have svoided her
injury by looking. The reasonable care which the law exsacts of all
persons is to look where they are going. Appellee did not do so.
She was conscious of the condition of the pavement, testified that
sie considered the portion of it which she was traveling as danger-
ous and had for many years. She was in full possession of her
faculties, it was broad wr gatas there was no crowd to jostle or
disturb her and no intervening obstacles to obscure the condition
of the walk with which she was familiar, there was no suddenly
occurring cause to distract her attention and there was an ample
safe space for her to travel. She was, therefore, in our opinion,
in accordance with the doctrine announced in Village of Kewanee
v. Depew, supra, and the other cases herein referred to, under an
obligation to use her eyes to direct her footsteps and not having
done so, must be held not to have exercised that degree of care
‘ on
He Greg: OT: 4 SU ht
‘ owd onedis to dignel ‘eLostn oat itaw asit Ad bw bebnotes bas s9btw 202
tea bos at nt ao Losi on bios 2am wLaw ont 390% csotxte vetna.ia
Si Th aah) (eee
biuor ti yer xine adt “sbenol ine eno ocit nest avosqeen ‘soxiz0 ‘the at
: oa eet ae
actents vd ed bLuow oubix eldd 10 perushat ‘ed oF onto mot efdtanog mane
bLwoo aids baa ~tt neg griqueta at gatqgtte ww 3 20 cit dontega part
eettenca obits todd fo no Lew ent gnoLé antanag xe bebiova ed A rmpoven
~oc esew x08 viteb at bevasg hadi Dae yeabie ana oh ce lan eer |
til adit bevisoes ori Comes wrev oad te bate abd it at B bast Bas e70t
aaeqg of BeW sogneb biove ot ob ot bontupet aaw ort Lis ren bry veut
Bae otae yitootseq new ‘emse ‘ont ened sbisiuo ext "a0 Kaw oss ‘nob
as aay
td bebiova need ovadl bLuoo 198 gfieb far obi 09% ‘tiigte ot xia mont
ee Te Barty)
omnis te avol to “sensinevnoont ‘east ol tuodis tw ot80 Feotdat fb ond
ne »
datau cousieb os roamed seseqxs vigatwonat a0 “a "tan one of
vL edudiadte am od aura en tateue ba ag i qitbeot od feo
- ooneat igen tg aid of ot
aelftmst new “seflecas dasit betssaqa tt 8880 dandeat a a wieruin
ite titi Ete: Secioiy
~ort etiup tf tewo beeeeg badd Alawebte ond % nok ibaoo ent dete
Y “godt bebLovs event "hives bas nod thaes att beotton baci ne uinoup
‘ifs to atosEs wal edft sto Letw e180 ofdanoeset poop : "aabieet tx yrstat
.08 ob Fort BLD ‘eet feaca “santog ox yea ‘eroain Soak, ‘ee eb cjotiten
tal? boltidest .#remevng “entt to not? tomo ‘od to auetoanen ane a
~rognsb as gat iever? aaw arie sotetw a2 re a otft0q esi borsbteno Hh
rod to not sagaaog ‘Lian au aa ona oni ‘em “xo bad a het eo
roseL220t oo Bwoete on ae ‘oredd ctafgt ‘ baord aa tk “2013 hioat |
molt thneo axis eisoade ot ‘eatent ace gittn gheesdal on ‘bas Tod “druronib
Unebbue on saw orueds shad Aime BBW ode doksin sittw ALsw edt 0 i
ofan fe aaw ousdt bas nolsnedite re: Sogrd et “oe Bip gatrx090 i
oLAtgo tue ak vevohersii? (aa one 'fovent 93 ak fis. ; a
senswo to ‘egelLiv at ‘beonuon ne ‘entatoos exit dit Gataxsese aE oa
185 qobrw .ot bewiste7 tones asaso ‘torivo edd eae ‘ pi kde eh ie
- -gaived ton brs sqstesoo? ‘red ‘tooxtb ‘of sexe ps osu se
aM sis9 te eergeb saat bestowexe: evar 2 “ton Rha >
j Pe InP E VS the al vida luageehe ak a
ae pee RR BR eee Fe ite PRO OE ALS bale he
Vy
=
Gin
required of her in order to sustain the allegations of her complaint.
In connection with appellee's petition for a rehearing, counsel
suggests to the court that all of the evidence within the power of
the appellee to produce was offered during the trial of this cause
and that no additional evidence could be produced or offered upon
another hearing and that in order to have the question of law pre-
sented by this record determined by the Supreme Court, appellee
moves the court to modify the opinion and strike therefrom the
portion of the order remanding the cause to the City Court of the
City of Aurora. Appellent does not oppose the allowance of this
motion. It will therefore be sustained, The opinion heretofore
filed will be so m@dified, and the petition for a rehearing will
be denied.
OPINIGN MODIFIED
REHEARING DENIED,
~8-
}
.tnistgmos ted to enoltepalia od ftateie ot vebie nf ref to sills
feenvoo gntissiet 8 x0t nottiteg eteatlaqqa atte nol? cemuro® nit
to tewod odd midtiw esmsiive sad To Ife tent gO ant of adaoggre
“seuao efit to faites end natch Bervstio wew eoudoud of eeftedas Sit
Noa Bexetto io beowborg od Sivoo eonebive fenotvthds on tany bas
“*eaq wel Yo nofteerp edt ovat of Yebio AF dati? bas yalvact «edtone
goflequa ,tiv0d smexgu@ edt yd Bomturtets5 brooet altdd yd bednes
oft movrevsit ettte bua notniqo elt Yitbom o¢ txvoo oft sevom
art to tamo0 yttD ent of gauco ent gatdmemen “ebro ex 10 nottxog
** a tat to sonawbite odd sheage gem aeob #naltedea ” Leveru” te yt
siotovered nothteo sat Dedtateua ef eroterede Itty # “nottom
“ Lilw anttasciet 2 t0% ER oat one siiahioeieal oa od ftitw ‘boltt
3 soa oe
ur ieh cole Wotan eh’ ie ab haven EEN Lat
ST Wad \MIAATENH cin v5 1. <a yeye
roe Pe rae ast pag ot?
atinveL ad %
MMM EU AW AME EN CS TCNIR os ORY MMB oC
* i iia iy We
’ ere ” a a:
io! FRGO Oe Be Gy 18
>) > ‘ }
aris Sek \ REG Iv my cote ee gues
POs 25 OE A SAI IG
SPM GAurheesae wa
tle Ate): A 6 WO. AF
1 7;
Nidal Ce OL SAMS LO
om Dba et Pee owe oo
I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
STATE OF ILLINOIS, }
Ss
SECOND DISTRICT
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause,
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix thy seal of said
DIE day of
ord one thousand nine
(73815—5M—3-82) o&G3307
saul Soe
+. ih Pe ee
Rise Ye mr tifa elk, tient ats i otha! i a
ay Veh A Spats Varn OE ytd pt
atid formed Mag
a et
ad
AT A TERM OF THE APPEBLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 4th day of May, in the
year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven,
Within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois;
Present -- The Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Presiding Justice.
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice.
Hon. FPED G. WOLFE, tustice. BO 0 [ A G 7
ey Retihea se J
JUSTUS L. JOFRNSON, Clerk.
RADPH He. DECERR, Slerlit.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
MAY 18 1937 fhe opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk"s
Office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit:
ox
2B
3
¢ . i f
iY Me SHR echt
a
eh 80 a8T;
Scene: totem deh of e “
: novodevt# rAd: ‘bina: as
Oe
Om he SFR FR: ait Kt 0 te £53
“ buster ae?
Bite A TG O. — i tout arcon, oe ue cE)
fe A ee A Cee. We ine
Peet Nea +g At ED). tous Be 4 My
» kh oRG
Gen. Ha, GSOO Agendas. Wo, 8S.
In THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLIEGIS
SECGRD BISTRICT
February Term, Ae De 1937
Gertrude Searc,
Appellant
Vas Appeal frou Cireult Gourt,
Boone Gounty.
Rookferd Hilweukes Dispateh
Gompany,
Pauli Ghiedini and Adolph Chiodini,
coepartners deing bisinese as the
Milwaukee Dispatch substituted by
Giaeaulee spetsh.Sospeaye
Appellee.
WOLFE =~ Js
Thies Gase a¥iees out of « collision of two motor vehicles
near the cresging of paved State Highways, numbers 173 and 76 in the
country between the towns of Poplar Grove and Celedcenia, Sighway
173 ie a through highway which extends Gast and west with signe at
intersections dirseting vehicles to stop before crossing or entering
4%. Highway 76 runs north and south and the two highways cross at
right angles. {To aecomodate and regulate venicles being guided toward
the north or south from highway 173 into highway number 76, md approagh-
ing the oroseing either from the east or west, an area is paved with
generete to permit such vehioles to turn on a curve before reaching
the actual erossing of the highway proper. Thie ares extends east
and weet of the center of the croesing for a distance of about 86
feet. Thie paved area, with that part of the conerete which is common
to both highways at the place of their crogsing, constitutes the inter
section of these two highways.
As the vehicles of the plaintiff and the defendant approached the
intersection, the Ford coupe of the plaintiff was being driven toward
8S .O BbNOYA
hs ee
CLOMIIET FO THYVOD AYATIATA
Sete nous
Weel ho A gate? yxarndot
| aa . | he git aor ti i)
sem00 dissonto oe tmbadh
#¥Pawed eaeod
emt
te anyta at hw teow bas dene ennesxe dotan ‘vowyta ¢ :
yalsesne xo ge tawdro otoked avis ot a Lossiey paktowsth
te sucks exewdtytd ows ole nae dtuew bas arson wens or
cy) Peele
A
Ne _ bxwwo8 ehtee a gated eelotdov oratars, bas etevenccas or
wntdacor Sind ie « av mural Sesgle
ed ahavexe sets etat _stecots wenaglt oat Yo
sat bedasoxays snadae tsb edd hea vitantate eae a:
_ bkewod asviab pated 1 new Mkdmala oe re ewes ‘
wi ba)
ales
ie
the west on highway 17% and the defendant's tractor truck with semi-
trailer attached, was being driven toward the east on highway 173,
It was the intention of the driver of the plaintiff's car to drive
through the intersection and continue westwardly on highway 175, and
the intention of the driver of the truck to make & left-hend turn frou
highway 173 toward the north and continue in that direction on highway 76.
The conerete of the intergection is marked with a black saphalt
maxkex to dixeot the eastwardly soving traffic in the proper channel
from highway 175 north onto highway 76. Thug it is indicated by the
marker at the cast pide of the interssotion that a vehicle being driven
toward the ¢ast on highway 175 and being turned northwarcly in the
intersection to proceed north on highway 76 should be guided and driven
northgasterly at the beginning of the warker there and continue on the
eaet side of the curve, a8 shown by the marker, while passing in a
disgonal direction across the iniersecton. Nighway 173 in eighteen
feet wide snd ite width and the middle line thereof are shown in black
markers extending sagt and weet through the interseqtion. In the west
part of the intersection there is a place, or point, where the marker
indicating the curve to be followed toward the northeast joing the
marker showing the middie line of highway 173 as prolonged through
the intersection. fhis point is approximately 169-feet weat of the
east Line of the intersection. This point will herein be referred to
as the point of divergences. A drive propelling hie car towarde the
@aet on highway 173 end from thened turning his oar northeasterly
toward highway 76, would begin, to cress the north lane of highway
173, in the intersection, at the point of divergeme. The concrete
at this point is shout twenty-three feet wide. On the south side of
highway 173 the intersection, at the west side, begins about four
feet west of the point of divergence. Highway 173 is eighteen feet
wide with two lanes of travel, each nine fect wide, The collision
occurred in the west side of the intersection while the plaintiff's
Gar wus moving toward the weet and the defendant's truck was bein;
driven north-easterly.
evizs of tao s'ttidalede et? to mow sca ‘te ietnailds oud enw ane #1
bas ONL yowhyts oo (iirweteor exattace dem Hoke ovatedat edt iia
wow? avid basdedtel a odew of sound edt Yo wevieb ont to > won |
a ae
gett eet beteokhat a2 th aut OF ‘guntght etme ‘deen ees | .
ae
” ovis iatied efotiav & tad? wenn ant: te ebite d
tise : us TORY
~’ mt wtlenad oLtaw ocoqae ode w mwodn a2 yoru ene to
NS... AST Ae eR et
_maetighe at are betes soltenens tat ng sag 0
aa
ea ie if ‘fon: pay hs sad ba
7 \ M
a a ey ? /
. “oituas eas otmaty véatog 0 » <omedg 3 & ak ‘alt. te . j to #
; Cae Se ila al nent etree
“adit ‘aatot “dusedéucn oat Dugwot LewoLIo ed of evawo edd
a Sey Wnt, EES RR oe en
aon Maver poynotorny aa Eve area te to omae, se fe ede
sat Wey } MRE ese aKaReial Wer. :
edt ‘to fasw goot~ear Motautxongye ‘et entog ‘shee
iS A my
Rae Bis
a of ‘berretss od atowa Shs taheq ake “notte
“oe y abtowod i aatLtagong ov A |
"wot toods ‘walyod gebke | teow odd meee *
at gah ae
- toon roe gal te as yr eng hs my
“aebsiiion oat ‘sew soot vate tu dt
+ oie Punt. AR DYKE ‘Aik a
caftndindate ‘out eLhaw ‘wo lnonate ant ve, to
i. 4 a oe
fm.
The complaint alleges thet the defendant, by ite agent, was
driving its tracter and treiler in an eseterly direction on highway
173 near ite interseotion with highway 76; that the Ford car of the
plaintiff, driven by her daughter, Koberta Beard, was moving on
highway 173 toward the weet near eaid interseotion. The plaintiff
gt the time of the collision wae riding in the Ford car with Roberta
Peerd. By the pleadings 1% is adaitted that the defendant's truck
was being dtiven by the defendant's agent end that the oar of the
plaintiff was being driven by Roberta Beard aa the agent of the plein-
tifz, The couplaint allegee due care on the part of the plaintiff
and Roberta Beard and general negligence on the part of the defendant.
the complaint also pleads Section 344, (Par. 6?) Gellaghen's Ill. Rev.
Sta. 1935, whieh is as follows; “Vehicles turning at intersections —
any driver of 4 veohiele approaching on interecothen with the intent
to wake a left turn ghall do so with eszution and with due regardc for
traffic approaching from the opposite dircetion md shall not make
such left turn until he can do eo with eafety." Complaint then alleges
that defendant was inthe act of turning to the left from State highway
No. 173 into State highway No. 76; thet defendant did not regard ite
duty in thet behalf, but on the contrary thereof, sade gaid left turn
with tractor and trailer and without esution and due regard for the
Ford automobile of the plaintiff, and the pleintiff, and defendant
wade said left turn before 1% could Go so with safety. Dusages are
Glaimed for the injury sustained by the plaintiff and for damage to
hex Gar resulting from the coliision,
‘The answer is short and denies that plaintiff was in the exercise
of due cara, and also denies the charge of negligence of the defendant.
The defendant also filed a eounter claim of two counts alleging due
care on the part of the defendant. Tae first count is «a genereal charge
of negligent sanagement and operetion by plaintiff of the gar; Second
Gowns | That plaintiff operated her oar at improper and dangerous |
rate of speed, to-wit; 50 to 60 miles an hour, slong and upon highway
rs pai ton 1 bt peadaergh § ecu . whe tty ’
rent stot bias baw glosteds yxaxtave arma F ccmen sie
ode wor beages, anh bie sg kta p dcte in ‘ona eas fess he |
drab ort hkkeat alg ont baa _ahtetat ss,
ste aegacet dean dele 08 ob iuag tt bared
aut . bn Peres oat A oo
F le pasa ne a
uantals saat»
BEAD Se
eaasiog ong 20 mes
; egtode, Jevenny, 9 a2 dawn, 32 Nad | Saeed esee aed
: wore pe aA SW A pepe
a" b Aa. IQR Ra, 2
eee
“d=
173. That os 4 reeult of negligent operation of plaintiff's car
the collision took place and the truek was greatly damaged. A reply
put the counter claim in issue,
At the cloes of the pleintiffts evidence the defendant wade «
wotion for « dixeeted verdict which was allowed, The Gourt inetruoted
the jury te find the defendant not guilty, and the jury so returned a
verdict. fhe dafendent thereupen introduced evidence at the conglusion
of which the court instructed the jury, in part, as follows; "The
Gourt instructs tae jury thet by ite inetruction to find the defendant
Ghiodini not guilty, the negligence of Gertrude Beard has been estabe
lished and that the only queations for the jury now are: ney — The
question whether the driver of the Ghiodini car was guilty of
negligence which contributed to the eause of the acvuident; Twor- The
question of dasages, if any, to the said CGhicdini. If you believe
fvom a preponderanos of the evidenee that eaid driver wma not guilty
of negligence, then you should find for the said Ghiodini's and sesess
Comages in agcordane¢ with the lnetrustions of this Gourt.®
the trial condueted in thie sanner regultedin a verdict and
sucyuens against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant on the
eountez Glaim for $600.00, and the plaintiff appealed.
It 16 conceded by the parties that the trial court sustained
defendant's wotion for a directed verdict on the ground that the
plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence because of the manner
the oax of the plaintiff wae being managed and operated by its driver,
Roberta Beard, prior to end at the time of the collision. It is one
of the contentions of the plaintigy that the trial court erred in
finding thet the plaintiff wes guilty of contributory negligence as
a matter of law.
Betere Gonsidering the evidence introduced by the plaintiff,
it seeua well to state in more detehl that an area, or space sast of
the orossing of the highweys is paved for a distance of about 89 feet
and asphalt markere there indicated the eurve to be followed by ears
‘Being ériven on highway 175 toward the wort and turning north or
- badeurntant Heueb our
soorelia eae sotite ed betorsis pee
yo sdiebink as b dco ne vent, ods bogoundant txv0o ¢
#anbsce 00 ‘end bini’? ov monsavetent asi we zee bios suit
aula .tninolso hkae eat oF vga pe
| Wiig tom esw sevixb ote tet oommbive silt 20.
AAG
r - aonak bind st intbotao ake eae wor brit biwode woy a
a may ney
se “sbeteogge Theat edt bie De
vo. " pantazawe tien fabst ade tone peas aeons
wit Basie bawory edt Ao soxbxov bodperth » ‘sok chien ®
yt
Suse ash Pak a
q xen add to eeutmaosd cong Lyon wrodunlsxta09 to
2 v i oy ira é
savin ‘ebt od Befexeqo den doyanan pated sow Tiitebesy
aR
og
eno 42 3 snotekiion odd to eube oir on bo ‘os
_ at Bewte Mune Late ode gadis y ve kanes < he 4
k acai (torn teta8 to wetting new sadentaty
ogt ais’ Sin x6 we 14 tat =
ike Ba 2
=~
gouth into the sighway 76 before reaching the astual crossing. Ae
we underetand the testinony, the plaintiff and Roberta Beard eperk
of the beginning of the eagt side of the intersection and the begin-
ning of the west side of the intersection reapectively, ae the place
where the highways start to widen or broaden,
Roberta beard, aged about twenty-ane yeeara, and engaged in house
work on a fara, testified gubetentially ae follows; That on Hovember
1, 1936, at about sight o'clock in the evening, she was driving her
wofthert e Ford ¥~8 coupe westwardly on highwey 173; thet she aaw the
$ruck of the defendant approaching her from the west on highway 173
when it was about 2,000 feet from her. At thot tiae she was driving
plaintiff'e car at the rate of about forty miles m hour, When she
reached 2 "slow" sign (whieh it sdmitted is 495 feet directly east of
the middle of the highwey 76) she sleckened the speed of the ear to
thirty-five wiles an hour and that she was at that time paying attention
to the truck, "About 100 feet from the intersection I noticed the
truck tured in front of me, oo I tock and slamaed on my brakee and
swerved to the left and hit the back end of the truck." We digrese
at this point to say that in our opinion, by the word "intersection"
that witness meant the oressing. ‘“liy oar was at the edge where it
broadens out into the highway when I iret otmrved the truck and
trailer wske aturn to the north.” fhe plaintiff, Gertrude Heard,
testified; “When the truck und treiler made the left-hand turn to
the north we were st the east adge of Route 76 just entering the
Wide place on the cement. When we got to entering the wide place
there 1% was starting to muke ite left-hand turn. The truck was
about the same distance as we were when the cewent started to widen.*
On erosga-@xanineticn, Roberta Heard testified as follows: *q, ‘where
was your oar when you first saw the headlights etart to turn nosth?
Ae About the east side of where it broadens out on the highway, east
side of 76 is where it broadens, G. Where the shoulder eterts to
awing over to the north; that is where you were? A. Yes."
“the plaintaf? ond Roberta Beard testifiedthat the truck started
Re AEORLER LATOR, AF: MEMANPUE, ANE: Oh, VERE 50, SE, PI
Asege btaet admedarl, dm Tite dodgy, ed, {hamid pes pad, ba |
-niged ade bane re ksooaxogm ee Bo ebin daap ads, me, sta ‘
ovale 9d 9 silovbsonenan okioawneras en Yo puke taom ot Ye yntn
) nha, 0 anbae 08 arate ayoanls oie en ‘a
aortasses uti. gaits gaat ta.sme + a, tate. po swe us ® enka a xia
<9 Old beOkEOR I. avlspanxeiat ecsit wok sek 908, hs my _piouea oda ot
brcderpeytaepeetar sporty dk "i
ante, abd. oe pultetne. of bn on 0 tsa 9, ey fe oe
(new sone od set Deaimg het ah ollam oF galtzege | a po
“noble of bedzide davemp edo andy oxew ow be, gomatnl » na edt suods
“wedi 40" tewollod os beltivmed bueed used Ldontmangepae
igen ated ot Faa¥9 aida ioaws ead won TeeLY Woy made Tee KuOT Bow
da.09 qvamigin odd fo duo ameboomd 44 oxoaw » ibn tase edt duoda of
OF Bixate MbLvode edd wx 4p wombagne Ft aabay at BF te obke
ani re a oh, hanes one a tsa _fulbson eit oF Kero yA
to turn toward the north about fifty feet weet of the point of
divergence, Kobexta Beara testified that shes was not & good jucge
of distances, forever, both of thees witnesses teatified that they
gaw the truck first beginning to turn north « distanee weet of the
point of divergence, and thet they were then near the east edge of
the intersection. it ia « legitiueate inference to be drawn from
their testimony thet they saw the truck thus turning toward the north
whan they were about 200 feet therefrom, The question is presented,
Was the Griver of the plaintiff's car exercising ordinary care, under
the cirousgtanses, as a watter of law, to avold colliding with the
defendant's truck.
As b@fore stated, Roberta Heard testifiedthat befers entering
the intersection she slackened the apeed of the gar to 35 miles an
hour, and thet when she gaaw the truck turn in front of her she slanued
on the brakes, “at the time I put my brakes on I was afraid I was
going to hit the truck. I meant, I put may brakes on when I struck the
outside Gorner of the highway; by the outside corner I moan on the
east side of Highway #76 when it comes from Belvidere. I put ay brakes
Om then. i hac thea onuntil efter i hit. I had my brakes on all the
time frow the gast of the interseetion untill I hit the truck. I didn't
have the brakes elem down to the floor. I don't know how much braking
power I had om. I wae trying to atop the car, I wae trying my best
to stop it. After I put on my brakes I was not going 35 miles om howr.
I have had experience in stopping a Ford V=8 prior to the secident at
aditferent speeds ond on a pavement which 12 dry. On » conerete pave~
ment I gan stop my car between 76 and about 100 feet. From the tise I
Started to put on ay brekes until a complete stop I could stop between
75 and 100 feet." Gertrude Beard testified: "Dering all thet time I
gaw this track approaching at © miles, no slacking that I noticed.
When she (Roberta) crossed the intersection lines, she decreased her
speed ag much as she Gouldjshe put her brakes on solid; she bad 1%
elose down to the floor. the was deoressing the speed all the tiue
untad the point of the collision." The evidence introduced by the
we
to tates eg to rsew toot wut auods sates aig exer? 4
iba MA SER
epbut booy 2 fom gow aie teae badtitess bused “gexeclon
yess sane bexrssuea oupeaay tv vane to dow sTEVONOH h ae
adt to taww sonata 4 dtaen eras ot wttnalged sori ow oa " —_
to eybe tase oMd seen sede onew would od ban cose ge vay Ag tatog
mon? raat ad of somexe tat agsute dyed & a a endagpenetnt O6
txos uit naamot gitar aust’ te idaed out og veut tas mee
| _qhatine 99 we woktanusp ett event toe ol weds aren ¥
gatwesce azoted dadiabexs?tza90 noe at tudes seetaae | it ) ti
| ie nalts 8 of tap oat Yo booge. ong vonssoaie ose os .
mice Se mt toes ft soi ee ve Sa
ould Le ao , asdend ym bad : ata it 98's aa om Raye ye ‘aevir
t'abin 3 towne oda ane x ct 9 MooetHemL oat 2 tase sire tene ocd sort okt
patted ous, work wom ‘tnob i. stops? eat cd avo aloe: 0 Fnac yn: |
toed we gan emt * 280 ate core ‘ot aabyet naw mf te AS ; ,
etarod st wolta as Balog tom oa x, oem Dh vt yt fe 1 one.
$s. Grab toos edt 99 wolsg 8-¥ uot a yak a ;
“OG, s#ocena0 @ 80 yeh of Hotdn orthan 4 vp i
I padd ot wot #002 90 tuode aan 29 psy
aeeadod Gore vison i qova aotquce & Stem @
I omtt reat ‘fa yaina® poe sdtnst sn reeds hs
sbeokson x sede ynttgnte oo, eit Site
04 beRewsorb aaa nome Rokgooa mit ode |
16 Peay
£4 bau ode jbLSon ae sexed tod tun 9 i ie
REE F0 mw ancora Mol gn
BO FoR i
adit yd heowbortat eompbtye ot "aotabtio0 od
aera?
ior
Ba Ars
aide wae
Ay pant are Pac A nd
ey
plaintiff ia to the effectthat the collision oeeurred in the north
lane of highway 173. The troiler rested on tuo rear wheels with ites
front end attached te and supported by the tractor truck. In the
Gollision the right front fender and wheal of the Ford car were oxushed
and the trailer tipped to the eset and fell on ite side. A witness
for the plaintiff testified substantially aa follows: "The trailer
was & covered box festened to the back end of the trugk Ghassia, rid-
ing on wheels in the rear, I would o#tdimate the width of the trailer
approximately eight feet, with m overall length of between 28 and
%) feet. The weight of a 1955 Pord Ve® is 2600 pounds,®
Hetexrmining the question of whether the driver of plaintiff's car
was in the exerdlse of due cars, as a meatier of law, upon motion for
® directed vardict at close ofplaintiff's evidence, we must accept the
pleintifites evidence es being true. The truck turned toward the north
before reaching the point of divergence, fhe movement of the truck
teward the noxyth before this point, the driver of the plaintiff's ear
wae not bound to anticipates, fhe driver of the truek knew that he
was going te turn north in the intersection. This movement of the
truek was not known te the driver of the pleintiff'e ear and she bad
the right to expect that the truck driver would wait witil he reeched
the point of divembence before turning toward the north, It was at
this point that the truck driver should have decided if he could cross
dn front of the plaintiff's on-coming car with safety, or stop and
wait until the plaintiff's eer gould finish ite passaged through the
intersection, then being driven in the narth lane of Highway 173. It
is true thet Roberta Beard aaw the truck being turned toward the north
before it resehed the point of divergence and when she was about 300
feet therefrom, The distance being an inference frou the evidcerm e.
the our and the truek were moving toward esch other at the rate
of about thirty to thirty«five @iles an hour. It was a matter of only
a few Beoonds after Roberta sew the truck turning before the vehicles
would collide, unless she, during that interval of time, andunder the
conditions then and there existing, by some aanner, of by the use of
cal ed
| sat Atte ateede teed ovt Ho bedeet xolbicy od 2Nr’ arte Yo" bust
| ‘ad? ok tout worgesd edt yd besrouuwe Bae ef: bédeerta Baw ‘aust
bedarts stew nib G4o et Yo Lendy baad sebae? tnott digty sai debatt ted
aubasiw . sebke att wo ttes bas gase odd of Soqilt witli bre ‘aie
sellers 62” yawot lot ga (Lint¥aatadba pektiouss Witinidle wee x0!
| ABN etneado det off to hee aoa! Sit of bemvgadY tod 'busaved a OalW
| wetted edd ne athiw eat stanthtae biuow x Joon ot nh widede ho ym
, bia 8 feouted Yo deyeod itereve ae detw \teek agte Ytede |
i} 4 aga ‘*ttheared OUR ak OY not ECE A to ‘Feghow ea “Live |
| tae ef PRAeetalG to mevteh edt xedtede to nohteeup ot yabatemeged
uel aolten aoqy wat To ‘nite & GA echo OuB sn
oilg $0008 Peal oe swaneb ive ettaninictete wnots te fotbier fostkh a
fitkcn ci Bxawot bewtd sowsd ade ead Yatdd 6d ‘odeb eve ' an teate
- doulte dt Yo taswevos eft .vomdytovts to Yabog ag tidoat ome
ise eittsarite od? te sevies sit yentow ats al ito Sad
ot ‘eat wena sound ‘ead te hemiend heii abe: ot Bauiod
|
. sia alt 2k bersmved be atitnd ‘ot suly retro edt of af Th
‘hisdet wite Doni “tae aPitimiaty Sit i wen st ob te eM
Sedosex od Litau thaw biuow ‘tavie wit se eid S000 do
#8 wow 91 ababe ould weaved ‘gata etdxed gode
a aida 26 “tive ‘dba t99 sited ia ttdade. (ORS XH RaOTS Mm
S88 Myiotuly Aegadsad wtt datelY nied wo Son tiated ra pire tai 9 rab
et ett qawmgin To ewat arta pid Ad movind | (fo Wroeate
aeran vit prower Stirtoe yared hint old wil brand ebced
“O08 twodss ‘waw bite mbitw bins eaiieg ravi Be inked odd Somaaun dt oe
st wubive edt moet vageretet a4 jaded eodwaddd ott adtrereat Yoel
ever 6d as seitbo dowel auawes hin | wreew tear ior te. say” ive
white Re eal sale gt” “peed! a ‘eect ovr st hel of felts suoad Yo
estan ot verter yatatut ll ot it badaone ‘sirté + anion eit
=
means then at her command and uncer her control, could prevent the
eolligion. It ia cur opinion, that whan the truek driver had driven
his truck into the nexvth lene of Highwey 17%, at the plase where he
did, in front of the plaintiff's appraghing ear, he had plaged himself
and the piaintify in & position of danger. We are not inelined to
gevercly scrutinize the acte of the driver of plaintirr's car under
the cirounstanoce.
The driver of the plaintiff's esr was required to exereise
ordinary care, or Gue diligence, to prevent the osliiaion after
Giseovering the peril of the truck driver as the truck turned near,
or in the intersection. The fundaswentai factor in determing the
negligence of Roberta Geerd, ia whether whe had knowledge of the
truck driver's peril in time, and the ability te avoid the collision,
acting ae an ordinarily prudent person uncer the cirecwmtances. did
ehe have the last olear chenos? (Star Srewery Go. vs. Manck, 322 Yl.
348. West Ghieago Gt. Hallway Go., ve. Linderman, iS87 I11. 4363.)
byen where the evicenoe ¢stablishes the fast that the party
charged with negligence had knowledge of the other party's position
of danger, the negligence, or the contributory negligence of the
party Charged, is generally a question of fact for the jury.
There are seny elements to be considered in thie ease in decide
ing whether the Griver of the plaintiff's car had the *last clear
ghenes", such as distance, speed, time, ete. (Juergene va. Front,
(W.¥a.) 165 3.%. 618). Alea, it eppeare in evidence that Roberta
Beard put on her braken when she sew the truck turning; that she did
#ll ghe gould to stop, and that her brakes were in good working
Condition. the swerved her ear toward the left in an atiaapt te
avoid hitting the truck. he, therefore, exercise some care for
herself andthe driver of the truck. {Cooper ws. Stevens, Gal. Oo. of &
peal) 62 Pac. (24) 763, (Wichita Velley Railway go., ve. Fite, Tex.
Civ. Appe, 78 8.W. (26) 714) We understand that sourts are reluetant
to hold, ae & matter of law, that a case of *last clear chance" has
‘been, or hag not bean, establishedby the facts appearing in evidences
“ot secttont ton ete -o
stegast 0 motte ry a
a ve % » spbe won ‘aaa ote savas at “ebeaee ee
ry oie sane ‘aetna ound ede Bea ode ‘ae peg
Ab: Ce By eae a e
a “yale boog ak erxow wesuad tod tad bas bas
ne tynerte as ah Stel pat Sa noane
fom ere suo ee rouexe sormtoneds Pyne
ay “oat | *oonade a0d0 yout 40 sue & tas id to 2
Ney ile Ret ‘ rN HN Taps A
! ve od gabuaouge wash od 3
vat ae Pot aha ws,
wien
the danger gone is one of variable limits. (Hinds va. Geil, & G Roile
TOnd GOs, HO. Apps, 85 GeHe, Gi, 165. Yhe situstion of the parties is
not to be viewed in the light of after events. (‘kala vs, Lehon,
2638 I1l., App. 252).
fhe question of contributory negligence ie ordinariiy one of
faot, which is to be determined by the jury from all the testimony and
Girowstances shown by the evidence. Oontributory negligence is not a
question of law for the court, wilese the oonduct of the complaining
party bas been sc clearly end palpably negligent thet a11 reasonable
mings would eo pronuvunce it without hesitation or diesent. If the
queuvion tu open to a difference of opinion, the jury suet pase upon it.
(Rexrnetable va. Gslandro, 270 I11., app., 57). “whether « plaintiff
wae guilty of eontributery negligence ie ordinarily a question of fast
for the Juzy to decide under proper instrugtions, It becowes a queetion
of law oniy when the evidence is ac clearly insufficient to establish
due Gare that all reasonable minds would reach the con¢iusion that there
wan gontrivutory negligeng¢a." (Ziraldo va. Lynch Oo., 363 I11., 197.)
We ave therefore of the opinion that the court erred in sustaining the
motion for a diregted verdict.
Ghather 1% was proper for the Gourt to give the inetruetion
heretofore quoted in thie opinion, or whether there ig any merit
in any of the other assignments of error, is not necessary for this
Gourt to decide, fov in the next trial of the case, the same questions
willprobably aot arise,
The judgaent of the Gireult Court of Bowne county is hereby
reverssc anc the cause remanded,
Reversed and Hemanded,
whieh af & ofieS nav ehitk) »gthats aigataen Ro oso ak enom tagand asd
ad seiting alt fo ngktathe eft GAL ih qlel 88 ohh, es 90, Ager
— qhteried sav Sia) adeeve aegis Bo siytl ody ad bowely ad of tom
| (608 190A eel th BGS
te ean , xtscertne " { comaatoan cities, +¢ Hoktapep | ent
inte , yroatenos ous Ifa wot yawl edd x@ beadiemeted ed of af dotde im
& @on at —_ or gtotadiaenoo soomedive ede yd RHO ae he sinmwoata
jelquia ec? to doubaow edt saalaw TIO ods BO% magi apa soktass,
vibitappinan, Is todd tawgiloem videqlag aaa yliae
ONE AL. ataenady so ge Adat Anat amodsiw s&h a
dhagatate , £ master ath pen cs ors, era ov 8 NAOT
fok 30 modteown 4 eLieantine af codey
| bibsgatee, ‘“ apteapi ten ‘ssenta oe a 0
trend ads notouioros ext anes Sion, eoate SMOBROE f
(.8GL yolll SBS ,.09 damyst .9y obfangs) *ypoanp hiya ang
ad? gaintovane at lores Oxu0g edt godt nolmtqy elt Yo o7o%
: ’ = sg oot oe tt
‘ thees, yaa ah oredt tadtedw 29. tora } vn) 1 dadeup exprotored
adie xe% yeanseued fon ws yroxTe te ete FARE . SOE S eae %O van ah
saolvesay ence adt ease ait to. Saar ame 9 Lapin
page inahians: areet.te tu 48
65 heeslinactvanei pei ek sootekbeae
Li Pi de amt) nhee bigte
USC a GAAP TESS. nie SNES aaa ae 7% Sete i,
Me a ee ae re ra (ieee
sd ai ea 4 de I TT 4, ; ». wat
mie ERA 2) eae eA eee 4% wh on Vat
> wont 2s adit pone Sea eee ry 4h co oh
pte ale Saha ae pan bu! , see Wn hint eon é
oo a ti
we ty
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT fs I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause.
of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said
Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this = day of
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and thirty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(73815—5M—3-82) ARo7
PUBLISHED IN ABSTRACT
Frank Lipovsek, Appellant, v. The Supreme Lodge of
the Slovene National Benefit Society, a Corpora-
tion, and Local Lodge No. 209 of the Slovene
National Benefit Society of Nokomis, II1.,
Apellees. _
Appeal from Circwit Court, Montgomery County.
January Tzrm, A. D. 1937. 2, Fv) 0 a oe :
Gen. No. 9011 Agenda No. 6
Mr. Justice Riessdelivered the opinion of the
Court.
In this case, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment
in favor of the defendant, appellee, entered by the
Circuit Court of Montgomery County upon trial of the
above cause by the Court without a jury.
The declaration consisted of one count and alleged
that the plaintiff had for several years been a member
of the Supreme and Local Lodges of the Slovene
National Benefit Society; that his membership certifi-
cate was for a benefit of $600.00 in case of death and
sick benefits of $2.00 per day; that he was suspended
from membership in his local lodge, and that the sus-
pension was maliciously and wilfully made for the
purpose of avoiding liability on the Certificate. The
Constitution and By-Laws of the defendant society
were offered in evidence. Sections three and four of
Article thirty-four were material on the trial of this
ease and provide as follows:
See. 3. Any passive member leaving the place of
occupation or any service for which the passiveness
is required, and notifying his branch secretary either
in person or in writing of his readiness of becoming
again an active member and, at the same time, by pay-
ing the current regular assessments, shall thereupon
be reinstated and, beginning with the date of the pay-
ment of the assessment, he shall have the rights to all
benefits emanating from this Society. Any member
having been a passive member longer than six months
from date of his notice of passiveness must success-
fully pass the medical examination before being rein-
stated to active membership.
Moats, a Aenea A"
' "te oghod emeaqué off wv tentieggs deevoght Samm
nero a \utatnon Mene® Lidotintt enero eit)
ne covet ot to OR oH ogbost teood fa is ,
‘pit alacacloTE Sa siooR Sanoatt lnaetaame |
moatiowA ”
si a i ele
. tela pianengditoll bie) Hino re iisggh
G 5 is ALE 0 gs set MA ene hn ee
BoM skoopA a M00 oft 10%
at 40 ‘notaige hess Iooaitob eam mone ne
resieghifein tna eee ‘hitainty od see Le
‘edt ud botetes pollogan gmnbusteh ent te athe
odt i taint aoqme yhawet) ernoysioMl to Fra00
‘¢ Rar
bhogoile bag tava 4 pital dem:
wécrevout we tog error irevam 46% fad
agarole out to aaghad ape Toe
- “titi ‘qidareadestos { ae Shon
baboon aasty’ gh Senne ; to ' 0 atta 3
-erte, at add bow onbad ated f
edt 10% ebpinr, quivitiw ira.’ ,
alt) .otaoltttol), wilt me wet
Weinos tnahastoh edt to aweadgeh: oy
te: mot vie oontlt ep ieusid <sattobive
) Ye
wasmraviagiiz. od stoibe: ot pba bi
xoeltiv: apint bel each mete ydite
a efivales rk
eclanous 254 nak eae
Heoagie lena eyerte
ies ie volad
Page 2 Gen. No. 9011
Sec. 4. Members unable to pay their assessment on
account of a strike or suspension of employment may
become passive members. Any such member shall
notify the branch secretary of his intention to become
a passive member in advance, and his passive mem-
bership shall begin with the following month, provid-
ing, however, that passive membership on account of
strike or out of work, shall be allowed to the members
residing in the immediate neighborhood only, and no
suspicion has arisen as to the abuse of the privilege
eranted by this Section. Any member so passive shall
become an active member with the date of the begin-
ning of work and shall in the same month commence
to pay his regular assessment; failing to do so he shall
be expelled by the branch secretary. Members so pass-
ive and changing their places of residence to another
distant place, thereupon going out of the branch’s
control, shall immediately be stricken off the roll by
the local secretary. Members residing at a great dis-
tance from the branch, shall not be allowed to passive
membership because of a strike or non-employment.
Any member having been a passive member on ac-
count of the suspension of work for a period of nine
months from the date of his notice for passive mem-
bership, must successfully pass the medical examina-
tion before he can be reinstated as a regular member
in the Society. A member who travels while at work
and is not present at his branch for three months may
become a member of good standing without a physical
examination. The Society shall pay not more than
$250.00 death benefit for any passive member; in case
he was insured for less, then only such amount shall
be paid.
Article 25 of the By-Laws of the defendant Society
with reference to local physicians provides as follows:
ARTICLE XXV.
Local Physicians.
See. 1. Every subordinate Branch shall have a
physician, who shall be elected by the Branch and
approved by the Medical Examiner.
See. 5. All branch physicians shall be under the
supervision of the Medical Examiner. It shall be the
duty of the Medical Examiner to demand all informa-
tion about doubtful cases of diseases or applications
from the Branch physician. The Medical Examiner
shall, from time to time, give instruction to local physi-
cians, if the interests of the Society so require.
Sec. 4 of Article XVI further provides with refer-
ence to medical examination:
L0e oF aa a acne c: a,
_ no trotnensean sod Yad ob, b biteng pes * ‘08!
veer inane to moteneqasa so olttle 8 te ral |
' fiata odorant fine cath etodomun avieese’ 9 Mtoe
anon! at coitintth etd to ere eee eee
-uam oviveag ald bap sonevha mt rolerenr avtease ay
rreig tao vaiwotlot ashi htge pirties eras
o Heeages ko qideredanocs avian proveword
wraddiota alt oF howolle ed jee Y6 dee to el
on hes oelao. hootegddgion: iBrenost aft ati cca
ouoliviny sii te sevda odt of ag mosita aad moisiqeae ©
{inde oviewng ov wearer tA molto atk ed
ined oft to adeb off iw rsdatem evitoe on
essences «ftroem sarma ort oi ineter eee ee .
linda of o2 0b of potligh; lnomesonae tel
anu oe evidawh .yrstorses domend oil d
rollers, et eomobleat Yo asoaky tis
a foeer sft lo tye seleg s opley
yd Hot oft No sodointe ed vlotelbomet Mata Jouses
ib isosy wt gsibieot atodalt vysateree Imelody ~
ovinesiy ot bewolls od ton inde ee
drow iy alae alee al once
yaar adiaosr oordt cot doaand aid)
Page 3 Gen. No. 9011
ARTICLE XVI.
Membership—Qualifications, Duties and Rights.
See. 4. The medical examination shall be witnessed
by an investigating committee, whose duty shall be to
see that the applicant truthfully answers all questions
asked. If the examining physician neglects his duties,
the Branch shall call his attention thereto, and if he
still ignores the notice, then the Branch shall elect
another doctor for an examining physician. Every
applicant shall be medically examined within thirty
days from the date of the proposal for membership
at the Branch meeting; if he is not examined within
the prescribed period, then the proposal shall be null
and void, but such applicant may be proposed anew
and he shall wait another period of thirty days for a
vote upon his admission.
The plaintiff had been a member of the defendant
society since 1913. He first joined the lodge in Frank-
fort, Kansas, and later transferred to Nokomis, IIli-
nois, and was a regular member until June, 1932. He
has paid a total of $722.25 as dues, and has received
as benefits the sum of $108.00.
It appears from the evidence that in May, 1932, he
gave notice to Local Lodge No. 209 of Nokomis, Illi-
nois, that he intended to become a passive member
commencing June 1, 1932, and that he thereafter re-
mained a passive member.
On January 1, 1933, a complaint was filed against
plaintiff in said Local Lodge in which it was charged
that the plaintiff bought twenty-three boxes of grapes,
and that he borrowed money to pay for them; the com-
plaint having been filed on the theory that the plaintiff
had sufficient credit and funds to purchase property
of this kind, and that therefore he should not be per-
mitted to remain a passive member. The question
decided by the Lodge was whether or not Lipovsek was
to pay his dues or be permitted to remain on the pass-
ive list. Twelve voted that he was well able to pay his
dues. The plaintiff then appealed to the Supreme
Lodge of the Slovene National Benefit Society.
On February 24, 1933, the Supreme Lodge of the
Slovene National Benefit Society reversed the finding
of the Local Lodge, and directed that the plaintiff be
readmitted into the local lodge on condition that he
be physically examined, and that he insure himself for
$600.00 death benefit and $2.00 a day sick benefit.
Thereupon the plaintiff was notified of this decision.
The plaintiff then went to Dr. Hoyt, a local physician
LOC .0% so | aon: —
AVM MOMMA! ase
itaitt, bas asta snbstinodibacG-océcaaaaine
-boeeoniiv od tiada nottealneats fesibor ed ie
of af Hede vin saotwt cohtimeoy anthagiteayal mam ‘
unoitann(y fie atorrace ellitetutt dirwatlgeye on} Sarid oom ee)
zotinh aid stoakgoc meine gle prcininnace edt Tl bedae 9) ae
ol li hae ,otevad? stothitette aul tho Nededpmetadt 0 20 0 ee
joalo Hide domes off madt) poltom ad), eeromee de ‘ea
‘evil wweiotivdy gaiinners. we wy tetspl sadbtene a
. wisht aiiiiiw bentetsve wifeeibenr ed Ugule dmeyiqgay
” gifwrodinsnr rel fesoqorg or? Io sish edt erovt egal: i
giddiw basinrs2o fom ato ts ypaviteane ee Spe ae
Hovr-ed dlade lseceterter adit pod. bobtecy | eer
wony hesoqorg of yom dedi iq home aed, fio .
8 wt avaby idl To hone soliore peli Ht
tushinsiob eft Yo rodanone 9. cred Beek Mbale at
Heer otoybol of) bonibt det oF BEM bans x
AM siinodo of Hori ienet satel baa jaaees Seas ki
atl .Su@h Jone, Fitud tadieeeonehie ee airbine ler * i
beviaoort anh fuse work sate iene ty tated: a bisq aad)
. » SORGDE to owe ol adteaed ap:
gif seer all nb “_ ee de Bint? exaeqga yt
AUF Galen hey BH mghont tron Fob: anion ave: Cee
vedoror wimg a eeinedh of bobrotnt oc tedh stom © ye
“rf sotinoraddt orf jel baa S860 of anol getomemmmatog) 807
tenbagia’ holtt saw tutdnfqanos 6 82CL bretaneab ge
how wile raw tt ott mt.aybosT Lgeok Lamar gn oe
wages lo sexed seniii-inewt danod Titaiele etidaih |”
mnbe get : salto ao) ee bom
Ttittialy ot deadt yogi} edt to bolt oss paved taialg
qioqorg sxedotag of ebow't bag tibew inemiige bad,
soy ad tor bhava. atl vsotozodd dit faim: Late, iH) Yoo
roftsonp od'T \ adem vimentin ot” Bes tit
enw Avavogil jon 40 Teens nae uf be
-aeay of? so srinnset of batten
ait, a. sido How sap of teslt, cond
Halo itsneft MPOTIN @0
ont ty euhot. amo abt 28Ch ee
anihndt od baetovet tele Some Lar
od Bilniahy otf) Jord Seliotif bee agbo.
od jot mptttonos mo oghpl faool od
10% Hoeorisl tupac of tails Gam,
Jitenod. tele) teh on OG ema ME
roiiveh unit jo hohtow enw Hite
opal Iyonl x (Cot a or
i pe ua e
Page 4 Gen. No. 9011
at Nokomis, Illinois, and was examined by him in the
presence of two members of the local lodge of his own
selection.
In filling in the medical report, the doctor failed to
state the condition of plaintiff’s heart, and answered
one of the other questions on the report in a meaning-
less way. The secretary of the local lodge was ad-
vised by letter from the secretary of the Supreme
Lodge directing that the plaintiff be re-examined by a
heart specialist. He was requested by the secretary
to go to Pana, Illinois, for an examination. The plain-
tiff did not go nor did he ever take any further steps
toward having a further medical examination.
The plaintiff says that he paid his dues as an active
member on February 28, 1933, by paying the amount
to the local secretary’s wife, who was the treasurer,
and that he received a money order for this sum which
was returned to him by a post office money order
about a month later, at which time he was advised by
letter that the assessment was returned because he
had refused to take a further medical examination.
It must be remembered that this is not a suit at law
to recover on a Certificate of Insurance nor is it a suit
to compel the defendant to accept premiums and to
continue the Certificate of Insurance in force. By this
suit, the plaintiff recognizes that the Certificate of
Insurance is no longer in force and binding on the de-
fendant society. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges he
has lost the sum of, to-wit: $1,500.00 for dues and as-
sessments paid by him to the local or branch lodges,
portions of which had been remitted, and that the
plaintiff is now unable to secure insurance like frater-
nal and social benefits and privileges and sick benefits
in case of disease or sickness. :
Where a policy of insurance is void ab initio or a
risk thereunder never attaches, and there is no fraud
on the part of the insured, and the contract is not
against law or good morals, the insured may recover
all amounts paid under such policy. Seaback v. Metro-
politan Life Insurance Co., 274 Ill. 516. The premiums
paid under a valid policy of insurance on which the
insurance company has carried the risk for some time
may not be recovered on a count for money had and
received in case the insurance company violates its
contract. Brown v. Federal Life Insurance Co., 353
Ill. 541; Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Baker,
85 Ill. 410.
FLOP 0 sa a Pe. tae
aut rk anid et boil xy? Bae aoa. siatolott rT tar alle
nae at i ea iy Jo donsaerey ae
at flint rotoofy axl” rngar ‘Pibees ai e sonitld cet me if
hoewane bon dated a Riteialy 2 pottihans aff sate be
niiteass 6 ak Progen ght oo enditeanp vedte ont: Won
be usw oghat fol od} to yisiotsea aff veew geal
ortorqH® alt to yiekiwed: odt mort will wt beaiy |
avid Bontianxo-s1 od Titwialey add tasks to
Tintotoor oft vd hadeespor enw off) ta :
-islg oft smotteninamxs os 10% alot posers:
aqate todtits yes aifed sov0 orf bib cor om pbb, be
.tottenimeen lesibonr teditet a aaived brewob |
avilen ce as anh sibling orf dell seme | ig oT
tnstoots of} enizag ed SEPP 82 yrapidel ao:
rotasett odt enw olw \sliw elysntemes Jaeot 9 .
oid atte att? vot tole yenom s bovianet od Tait ah
wivyio yorour seilto. deaqg a vd ait Bs Honeahenaa
1d fosivhe, aew od omit dotite te olet dinom @ Iida 1:
ot ozcuinod bocuitor aew doomaseen odd edt $aiiel a)
wotlwainexs lenifear radian? 2 aded oP hownter Bai)”
wel te jie 8 tot abaidt dedt botodaromer ad demaedh
fina « ii si x00 coneueat to otanhiteeth 0 eavoder od
at ae enna Sabon “of tcamuatgh: act Sy PRD
aidit tt: oro mt quent 1 oteoBiPs ods iio
to StauitihroD edt tod, ‘Pitataly od fia.
-9b att ao wribaid bag enotid esti fl Ot 61 sonmtimant
ot sopolin Tiininley datatqaion abt ah: aeison Inaba 7 a
-a bin aonb +0 00008 Le <traead Jo meme on Oh awh 2 PY
osbet sducurtd no: Leol edt of sot d. pea Kommsena
oil} Jet few jhodioeer ceed bef doider Aa eeoiinag
soleth oof sureties otitoed ot Pier ante she Budaley,
amos doin bun sagalietre, bein sthoned bas
ouaoui 30 . ae § ;
8 omic no oar log g axod |
sath orp: Lesage erie sete Tabane rad taty
Hct ak Joerinds: edt fu conse on otra ep
Yeromrt Yager hewentt odie el rane fooy:
<yiol we dyneey?, gailog dome ‘ebenn Btaey
agin ierter oft UORe LL APB) 3 oot
| gett itoidee no comme Te. ne
MATEY verae qo dein oY bettttaa ‘kad chan
bem, bad yomont so} tampa eto hawpvogs
ail abinloiv eoigatng ot 969 “ni
BRE...) ovate od Jowabbs"h ie anor
. a“ vor) se 4d
Page 5 Gen. No. 9011
Upon the attempted cancellation of an insurance
contract, the assured may either consider the contract
in full force and by proceedings in chancery compel
its performance, or he may consider it at an end, and
sue the company for the breach. In case the assured
elects to consider the contract at an end, and sue for
a breach of the contract, the measure of damages
would be the value of the policy at the time of the for-
feiture, which would be the difference between the
amount paid and the cost of carrying the risk during
the time the contract was in force. Brooklyn Life In-
surance Co. v. Weck, 9 Ul. App. 358.
The plaintiff offered proof as to the amount that he
had paid to the defendant society in dues and assess-
ments. There is no other testimony of any kind that
the plaintiff has suffered any special damage as
alleged in the complaint. He did say that there was
another Slovene Society in Nokomis, Illinois, but he
thought he was too old to join. This statement could
not be construed as constituting proof of special dam-
ages as alleged in the complaint.
The contract of insurance in a benefit society con-
sists of the application of the member, the Constitu-
tion and By-Laws of the Society and the Benefit Cer-
tificate issued to the member, and all should be
construed together in ascertaining the rights of the
parties. Section 3 of Article 34 provides that any
member of the defendant society having been a passive
member longer than six months from the date of his
notice of passiveness must successfully pass the medi-
cal examination of the society before being reinstated
to active membership. Plaintiff’s notice that he in-
tended to become a passive member was given to the
defendant society some time in May, 1932, the exact
date not being shown by the evidence.
Section 4 of Article 34 provides that the member
who wishes to become passive shall notify the branch
secretary in advance, and that his passive membership
shall begin with the following month. This section
provides that the privilege of becoming passive mem-
bers on account of strike or being out of work shall
be allowed to members residing in the immediate
neighborhood only, and if no suspicion has arisen by
the abuse of the privilege granted by this section.
It further provides that if a member has been a
passive member on account of the suspension of work
for a period of nine months from the date of his notice
for passive membership, he must successfully pass
Lay ‘an api naied tepac oil Beri iy '
L108 9% 10d aye ie vet
dommueni me to: esppiigogaa’ Pees of nog.
towtinon ol} tohianon tedtia yen howtees edt doatiaon
focuston yrsocade af epcibossony vd baa oont Hut. »
bes bit os je f dofisees vere of so Sodan trey
fommaas of} oeea of lose! dt tok queqenos aft ane
fot one bre (bee om de: Mertdeoo edt tobkemoe ot agsela, 6 7)
eepatiens Fo onwapont off tomsttoo odt to dng a oly ae
rot aiff To sanit ott ta roilag adit to onlay odi oct blue MN aiecie
adi goowlel sorpreRib ofl od- Diow doth yoigtinn |
yniish veix wht guivtise to deos odd fie hing iionee '
«th Slit wy Skoor' ost at ae dominos oft ona oil) |
88h .qetA EL loo A 2 eDiosmsae
of bark jenrortte od} oF ae Loos bevto Titnigit oth
ang ona hw nou oi inoe tuba ad} 8 Bie Ba |
tad? buid vite to yomtthaat radio: sata ah eaiay Me 2
as wyerach teieoga’ yan bova'tye aed “Ritnielg, eet
enw stad? ted) wan bib ohh daiwleganros. edt at banal,
of jad gin eintoloYs ai coined -omvole sodioen,
bined trsatotata eit? wriog of blo pob.may a —
vt Jaivege 40 tore tone as bawtiades.ad
tniniqeos of} nb bogalla aa se
£09 ebabaiae Siaupsl! 5 wi sortetiant to loweltas i ans
-intttanol) ot xacetteccen, add to aotkeatlqam inden i)
- gaQ-ahonoft edt fee etothot ott Se waht eh Oommen |) 7)
od blinds fis furs . oda edt Bh — atpoitiy, -"
act te atdwin all gateteingoap mf arTieston)
vis dat axbivoug 8) olotttA:: - pole —
oviaeng » aod arr: ‘sions taahaotel aiff to redaneat..
afl Io otab off meat adinonn xm iradp
thom od? samy Ulylsnsooon tennr Beane viaaRg: ay
hointeuion grind eroted yseiods sat ty cotati Sas
“fi oil to! ootton a TieiatS sgideredmone oyitsa or
af} of iy ae qudesar ovineey &. sanoaed ot 5 obirah/
Hen oe SBOE math af sotit, sein stoiowa' dunhoratye
git: J gaia ore a
saileiede gilt tah aabivorg 08. ohoihtAy ta 8) anoitod >)
fomsed aifi (ito Haile Svigaeq onitopad oF sadaiw ore 2)
qiewdawint oviventy eld dadt baw wonehe at yueioss
irolvsy aT liane eega at tiv, sigod Meaty’
aan wvinenc gaimnimetl Ye: ot ids ara
tee Axow Yo tuo gnised to ate a ie on
aiathosmma? oilt rd) yinibbagen per i “pat
" “oats aol noisigags om % bow, pelo hoods
fettons, wid! vd hetanry sgaliving oikh lo < te
‘pb ituad sed aadorom 4 UW todt sabivong nodtigt a 77
teats inoiairoyard of) Ii dawoven ne sedan Mine
goto wll to ately of} anu? eiiuors omit to bottod wI0t
Page 6 Gen. No. 9011
medical examination before he can be reinstated as a
regular member in the Society.
Plaintiff’s contention that he was entitled to be
reinstated as a regular member in the defendant so-
ciety cannot be sustained.
Under sections three and four the defendant society
was within its rights in requiring plaintiff to pass a
satisfactory medical examination.
Section 4 of Article XVI specifically provides that
the medical examination shall be witnessed by an in-
vestigating committee whose duty shall be to see that
the applicant truthfully answers all questions asked.
The examination taken by the plaintiff was not wit-
nessed by an investigating committee from the local
lodge. A question with reference to the condition of
the plaintiff’s heart was unanswered, and another
question material as to whether or not he was a de-
sirable risk was answered in a meaningless way.
From the evidence in the record we cannot say that
the defendant society was not within its legal rights
when it refused to reinstate the plaintiff as one of its
members.
The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
(Six pages in original opinion.)
(26960—4-37) 1493s»
ee eee
08 vata an ese ict mses a
'
tri 68 a bee atye od ftode cobactakes
jn? 90a of od Made qish oaodw oaltionros ar
boda enocitaenp fa avoweme ylvidired trans
~tiv ton sew Ritsiniq ot xq node) noiiacionsxes.
[soof of} most soMtinoo ysitegieeval me
to oitibuon oft of osnerstor dtiw moiteemp A
votions bos ,berowasann enw deol aiitoialg
“ob s enw osf Jom 10 ‘terltodw ot es Isiteteny aofteen
‘Yaw exclaniosonr ¢ i bevaweas anw sait oldatia
Jac! yea tonases aw faooet oft at eonebive oft mow
widgit legel efi nidtiw dom sew yleisea jasbusk ;
ati lo avo en Riduiolg od} statenion of Houten $i mort
Aanvtitts oro losad? at t4n0o {alt odt te Poumon of
Desertitty taney hat;
(,moinige asin oi oan ia) :
ER er (FS b-90092)
PUBLISHED IN ABSTRACT
Honore Haly, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Decatur Yellow
Cab Company, Incorporated, a Corporation,
Defendant-Appellant,
RH Oo iy,
January Turm, A. D. 1937. 2 Y G)
Appeal from the Circwit Court of Macon County.
Gen. No. 9037 Agenda No. 11
Mr. Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the
Court.
The plaintiff-appellee, Honore Haly, commenced a
suit in the cireuit court of Macon county to recover
damages alleged to have been sustained by her in an
accident in which a cab of the Decatur Yellow Cab
Company, defendant-appellant, was involved.
She originally made appellant and the Capitol City
Grocery Co. of Springfield, a corporation, parties de-
fendant. After service of summons appellee dismissed
her suit as to defendant, Capitol City Grocery Co., and
on motion of appellant her complaint was dismissed
and the court ordered her to file an amended com-
plaint. The amended complaint charged, in substance,
that the Decatur Yellow Cab Co., on July 6th, 1935,
owned a certain Taxi Cab Co., operating taxi cabs in
the city of Decatur and holding itself out as a common
carrier of passengers, purporting to carry for hire any
and all persons who sought services from said com-
pany as such common earrier; that, on said 6th day
of July, 1935, the plaintiff was riding as a passenger
for hire in a certain taxi cab of the defendant in a
westerly direction on West William street, and was
at all times herein mentioned in the exercise of due
care and caution for her own safety.
That the Decatur Yellow Cab Co. so carelessly and
negligently managed and operated and controlled one
of its taxi cabs that it collided with the truck of the
Capitol City Grocery Co. and thereby injuring appel-
lee, and that said Decatur Yellow Cab Co. was guilty
of one or more of the following negligent acts which
proximately contributed to the injury of the plaintiff:
(a) carelessly and negligently drove its taxi
cab at a speed greater than reasonable and proper,
having regard for the traffic and use of the public
a
=
2)
@ y
preare grout yo bea ith sid sit ao faa ' i “ Ay
z h {ha ae : viet a i Sie ;
git to noiniqe oft Danevitols ead ‘vail Gals aia Tiree
Si Croaenren herr aw: f
iwroser ot vintda nose Ml to tm:
aa ni vot yd bentatinw good avait
ds!) wollst tech only to dag ee
hoviowut saw , resorts:
WHO fotiqnD edt han dmalloee
of Boremy, parte tec z
baapimwih aalfo a to dobre
Dera od) fad J VY wis z
bowinwih anw taishqaroo. td tnatleg cry
-09 habaoores aa olf of sad boxebro yt fe
eortstadian at ,boprads fobioms oft .
GRRE ohh) zint ao 03 daO wolleY ratosot od tad ©
ni ade ixat giitersgo oD de ixel-nisheo a bemwo~
bahar waters nen
yas otid sot yrte9 of yolbreqmag
-m109 .bige txort aontvrse ddanoa olin ae
ee ee ee eee tO FURAN
‘tonftoasag & en grthit onw Titainly
e ti dasbaoteh ad} Yo deo beat mis
ae hoa deoste mailliN deo no
onb Yo oeiovexe ad of, Hnitoiasm t
fete vidgelotss o@ ot) ri Ho’
ono balliriade Lae hotaveqo hue by
ot to Yorab oft ctw babies th tedt adao
Snags yitinjat cdoreds bie 00 raga
thing anw'.oD da) wolleY tHigoxT
doidw aon iiogiigom:. paivrollot orft 9
ined oti ovonls. gf
: wreqoe hits sitnaden
| i va chicos ieee
i olin aut re nr ail a.
Page 2 Gen. No. 9037
highway and so as to endanger the life or limb
or injure the property of persons rightfully and
lawfully on or upon said intersection, contrary to
the Statute of the State of Illinois, then and there
in full force and effect, known as the Motor Vehi-
cle Law, as amended;
(b) carelessly and negligently failed and neg-
lected to sound the horn of said taxi cab, or give
other reasonable warning of the approach of said
taxi cab;
(c) carelessly and negligently failed and neg-
lected to keep a reasonable lookout;
(d) carelessly and negligently drove and op-
erated said taxi cab into and upon said intersec-
tion and failed to give the right of way so that
as a result of their negligence in the premises, the
said taxi cab and truck collided.
That plaintiff was injured externally and internally,
divers bones broken and she sustained great shock
and became sick and was compelled to expend and be-
came liable for large sums of money in and about
endeavoring to be cured of her injuries.
Appellant denied the acts of negligence alleged in
the amended complaint, and alleged that the injuries
of appellee, if any, were caused solely and exclusively
by the negligence of the Capitol City Grocery Co. of
Springfield.
Upon the trial of said cause the jury returned a
verdict in favor of appellee for the sum of $7,000.00,
and judgment was rendered and this appeal followed.
Numerous errors are assigned for reversal of said
judgment. We will only consider such points as were
raised in its brief and arguments, which were: The
verdict of the jury is contrary to the manifest weight
of the evidence; the court erred in the giving of in-
structions to the jury for appellee; the verdict of the
jury is so excessive in amount as to require the grant-
ing of a new trial.
The evidence discloses that appellee, at the time and
place in question, was riding west on William street
in the rear seat of a taxi cab of the Decatur Yellow
Cab Co., driven by Harry Waltrip, a licensed chauf-
feur. At the intersection of West William and North
Monroe streets, in Decatur, the cab collided with a
truck of the Capitol City Grocery Co., which ap-
proached on North Monroe street from the south,
driven by George J. Danner. The cab rolled over one
or more times and came to rest in an upright position,
oy : 200,018 00) is ioe ie
ent 4h) ‘ot, gay Hvpendi 3 Ha oR! suk eee
‘ice utile aaniuctd, Isp ‘ebamouordy Hild et ane
bit yrastitoe GHoitonerelnt Dlia mney te ao feliiaeal ball
alten ool Yo odkedee ol
Acne Pant oreo Hint ay
“Phin bivo ti aan Gre: ola
ae rae palin? atm Daa lenalornya’ RE)
pve nee Lined) aca EnRy Ne este pit Batow of hate!
Hina te Mosentgge: bay, ty batters oldnnoaiion, odio.
OO loa ire
gaat: ‘an haltnt rathne iigad Duty elnaotsrl | a)”
ee seuss ws aie nad ot Pres i
‘GO: fa wvronh “biota ita stapotorteg, (hy)
“euiiol ik flay Wig johat dina’ (esky hing iin
tad} oe. gov to: tet ot inzig of hotiel, bam
; vont ieehinns dt iontemibese tind ho gTeinore | Ce
-bobillos sounh bawdy iat Sige
itis road, haa, blister beeen natin We cbnet aby fokh)
Apoda' teu! Dnectubwtse adie, ene) donload « -paurtoid Here,
“od: Kycess Bourn, Of ‘ballogaaye: aremr foteey Hale’ Le ae
inode bag ai Yaitoge Ay) ageste ‘gpial vot, elite ato
cS ae
ot: ‘bana wel ya
-tottrbatiedt tailt Howdy ban ) vaihnewablels
seleigisloren Binet loki. Fvowiras ante Piste hl dies i ae
eee
to 00, Croom: uti etbeht) olf
pa enect sunt, wilt, oentpn bina \¥o° fairs debt moat
:O0.000,%4 to gain ot to® solbigay Woe wove tei
bowollet lenge! sidt brs borsbaok ene: eer hiery,
bisa to Loerovay tot bangidan orm atone! t
onow ah state dave voblenoe hao tive Gey,
ott sotow dni: esonnpoy dine tor
_ Adpiow testinpes od) of cvenhiron eh ede
nh lo patie ott it bexte dimos alt onmivy:
ot to toibwoy ad? sosllogen aot serps toil
(alee nidt Os ianpen) pier i
baw ait oat ia aoltoccyet tilde ally at |
daothy ssa coo Sani np ‘ px
wollo® vintenatl oft to vag ixaPe to tag ta0t
oad Daecootl » gia win! yd over yy
SOE how aailiWe 16M to uditeabietay <
“ie thy bobilloy dye ad) | sins He yate
-a) tnitier oe seabed) esi) Lodi gibi Mans
atigoa silt axoit uote indinwolt! Athio%, to. ;
Anke tO H balls ko. es ern wy 6
4
avy frets od ALQTRE Re
“ly ae sop ght ae sly
Page 3 Gen. No. 9037
headed south. The truck upset at the northwest cor-
ner of the intersection, and laid partly in William
street with its front towards the south. The driver of
the cab was thrown out on the pavement, and appellee
remained inside. As the cab approached Monroe
street appellee saw a truck coming from the south on
Monroe street. When the cab was crossing the street
and in the intersection the truck and taxi cab came into
collision. She was bumped off her seat and sat on the
floor until it struck the curb and sent her over on her
side and broke her ribs and collar bone. She crawled
to the door of the taxi cab and a gentleman came and
called an ambulance and took her to St. Mary’s
Hospital.
George J. Danner, a clerk of the Capitol City Gro-
cery Co., was driving the truck of said company that
was involved in the accident. He was driving fifteen
or twenty miles per hour, as he approached William
street. He looked to the right when his truck was five
to ten feet south of the sidewalk on William street and
could see fifty feet on William street, and there was
no car within fifty feet. There was a house on the
corner and some trees that obscured his vision. He
then looked left and could see about half a block. He
then proceeded into the intersection, looking straight
ahead, and he saw the taxi cab about five feet from his
front fender as it came from the east. It was to the
right of his truck and was going fast. When he first
saw the taxi cab he was north of the center line of
William street. The front right fender and wheel of
the truck and the front left fender and wheel and
bumper of the cab came together. The truck was
turned over on its top and he got out as fast as he
could.
Frank L. Seffern, a witness who resided one block
north of the intersection of Monroe and William
streets, was walking south on the east side of Monroe
street and saw the Yellow Cab coming from the east
and the truck from the south. He was looking straight
ahead. The Yellow Cab was thirty-five feet east of
the intersection when he first saw it. His particular
attention was drawn to it when the crash came. The
taxi cab, in his opinion, was going thirty-five to forty
miles an hour. The truck was coming towards him
and he could not tell about its speed. The collision
took place about ten feet south of the north line of the
intersection, as nearly as he could tell. The Yellow
Cab ran right into the truck.
TENG OFF 191d rae | ae Bt
~109 jews! son off te ane puns ofl dies fiobesd’
ateill'Y ai chung Sink bos sottavecatiat odt tome, is pie: ay
te tavizh of! eteoe ad? abtawot fitert air dtiw toate Ee
estloqgs ban jnanowng sd} co tro. wont) aa dapedd) 9) | eal ie
sonrol Boson dap ylt) aA obient. beniemet
tto iftves eat} progt gettaos bist s wie sollaque teste:
joorte sill ouingors anew dao oot moll ( Aeente soto oe Se
oist senso due Leet bite tourt oc} cattoomrodud odd ni Ba) i
ont 10 tox bute tend vod To bequand haw aff anoleiliGa
_ ‘tod go -sovo tod trea bt dees ont touts i iia soon! 7 4
bohrern adh ood +alfoo bus ediy 19d olor bas shit”
bs omen ctomoliveg « base duo inet odf Yo xo0h otf? oF
aye 14 o} ad Wood baa soctulacertes sm bolls
Jatiqaol
on) Wi folfqaD) elt to styots a teamed TG epioe ¢ -
ject yaoqrmes hire to Henstodd geivinh aww ,.oOgiss 9 7
reatit eniviah aow eft dnebicos oft al bavloymt eew- 7 Z
manili fortanoiqga of an <cood qoq-eoline Qiewi a
avi enw dott gil node tats ott of bolobl all> tpeiay |
Hae joarle mw W wo tewobie adit dinoa Jeol nator 9)
zew tod? Gas doors aust ao dost gfif soa bios
od} no saved 6 eew antl deat yi mtdtien Tas om’ .
oH. nciely sid horendo ded? e900}, omor Dee sent ae
off: sloold ated trots gow blooe fire diel botookmedh 7 17
Higiants 2 ublool ,nottosetsin sdf ofai babeasotgimedh | 0%)
aif mor feet ova duoda dad teat odd wae od hae brads Yee
odt of eave iC dees oft mov) ote I ae :
ject ad god dant uation sav haw inten a Youldabr
to, ond! toteao adit to dom, new off tea cteed | pon
to foodw bas tofwel tifgit trot off torte oi)
bas loodw fas sofant diel dnott oft bag some edt”
anw forst of credisgot osnan dis) adh tovraerand - sh,
ed ap jant-es tao fog od Bare a wai 0 Sods bomny
doold. era pahicee oily shade “gmstio® al re 4 |
miiW. bos sero to. noltsearedist odt ‘Qo \uitron |
sorte to obie tare ad no dios pabllaw ae; elves
jane edt mont guintos dal wolloy adt wae bre Jeonte
indylere-anblool aow oF ultsyp odt mort sloosd ol bien
to taco foot ovf-vtaidt agw de) wolleY ed? ..haeda
ralasitiad: eff ti wes tend of toner os ' ;
oft osres dearo off agtw: palace i
viret of evit-citidt galog eer coin pres a ee SRA
tid abenwot gntieroo exw dorcel peeps seid |
noiifion od’ Dooqe att toods Hoi tou Hloos od baw
odt to owt! dtsom edi to dirop dost sob tuoda ooalg dood
woke edt Ist bios ed ea phasors ‘2B ¢ igen
Page 4 Gen. No. 9037
Harry Waltrip, the driver of the taxi cab, picked up
appellee at 320 West William street, about 2 0o’clock
p- m., to take her to the traction station. He drove
west on William street. Just as he approached Mon-
roe street he glanced at the speedometer and was go-
ing from twenty-one to twenty-two miles per hour; and
when he reached the crossing he was going fifteen
miles an hour; he looked north and then south and
saw the truck coming. This was as he was
crossing the sidewalk on the east line of Mon-
roe stree. The truck was just south of the
south line of William street. The truck was
not going fast, and he put his foot on the gas and
started across and the collision occurred. He was
thrown out of the cab onto the pavement. He was
dazed for a while. He heard the lady inside of the
cab and went to the door.
It is contended by appellant that the verdict of the
jury was contrary to law and the weight of the evi-
dence; that appellant’s taxi cab was approaching from
the right, using due care, and was entitled to pass
ahead of the traffic from the left. The evidence dis-
closes that the truck was proceeding at a speed of
fifteen to twenty miles per hour and that when from
five to ten feet of the south line of William street the
driver looked east and could see fifty feet and no car
was in sight and he proceeded to a point about three-
quarters of the way across William street, on the east
side of Monroe street, when the collision occurred.
There is some conflict in the evidence as to the speed
at which the taxi cab approached the intersection, the
driver testifying that he was driving twenty-one to
twenty-two miles an hour in the middle of the block.
The evidence further discloses that the taxi cab was
going fast, and that it was going at thirty-five to forty
miles per hour, and that when the truck was within
ten feet of the south line of William street the taxi
cab was more than fifty feet east of the intersection
and had an unobstructed view of the same; that after
the impact it rolled over one or more times and finally
landed thirty-five to forty feet from the point where
the collision took place.
Appellee saw the truck approaching from the south,
but the driver testified he did not see it until he
reached the east side of Monroe street and that it was
then just at the south line of William street. In a
signed statement, made some time after the occurrence,
he declared he did not see the truck that collided with
the Yellow Cab until it struck.
Tene 0% wna) ; eee ae
cur bosloig dao leat odd Yo ravirb att gira! oral ok an
doolo's £ jooda tosra mattlivl teal O86 ta Bee avant: |
oii oF. olwta noftonsd of? of god plat of poeae | 8 Falla
Hoh botany ge ad ag teal Agate emsifliW ao tom an
on daw han sotemoleeqa off to hosmaty of teenaceot | iy) aoe
bas rod 29g paliar awieinee) of oto-ninewd aosh par
rte ith neiog sew od deiezor ott bedoner of gre:
. bos inex codt bap dino Belool ad yiod ne eoEtett jy.
eew ook a8 saw OT. erkosos:. dsect ombe! OMB
olk Te anit let edi go dlawebis ee i ae ee
adi to Mson tag. anw, down efT. “BOT. i, Su
sey dowd off! deoste. suatliVt oto Pe .
hra-gne adi oo jout-aid ing od a Gent aition tom’
sew oH .bevemoe weisitios oft bite piclliny ie bet
sew aR Jupmuveg ot ono des -odt ta tge: tyro’ |
adt to shinai ybsl it bisod oft, olithy a cok haxeh
soo ond OF soto hag dee
ont to ioflvior ot dma tecliaqaa af bobsotaog ab 1.
-ive alt to idgiow od) bom wel ef Sripntios! eam ee,
mort yaitonorqrs saw dis beat of | ‘ait cata © i
aeeg ot beljitds ake bum gsino anh ‘detata ott
-2if eonebive ad Nol ott axon offen? self 40 Deodn ;
to fooqa bode giibesote pew Aanct od’ tnd? aashiy
mort uorkw tact ban sonoul sey eobing sphere ot nant |)
ont iootia msi to. anit Huge roe i ning 3 ebat svit 0
19 ow fiw jook gilt vee Aiseo hae tana bedoo wovish =
cout} tuoda tuloq 2.0) hsfaesore. ed bite tale at nw ok
faze out no jootte mefillhy sedan vay oil to arse!
.batiseso neizifien ont conve ing: rin > i
booge ort 09 20 ooaohive od} sh.toifites secon ef ove pee
oul} olloumtoinl edt bedssonpqe dua ioe oot thy ja
at onoginawi amnivvints apy od ‘a sy fe
afgoid ost! We potas port cont aokieer
any deo mesh Heat)
ehrot of ov Pe dan Me regia
ailter env slowed alt. py ecg
ined ad Sole omen: to ‘oil Aso ‘ot 10 J
noissextnt odt te tape Tool gilt and: .
tolin ids pores oft YO goer | 4 , Lit
isn bax apm} stom 49 sae) \govo Hollow st onqend aft
onvshw tates olf mort last 20} of apie
: ; souley ook aoiail 0 oilt
Hos ait mri pak Wee,
donorgays Foust galt As
inl
ad {itu tf 900 doe bth otf boibiiges
sew di ted? besctoontes somo Yo afte oe
4 al teste msilliW fo-oail hiso2 odd gn: ist, rexkt
oor tieco of} role oat ommoe abant ddaawtate
dihie bobillas sed dowd oltpea dom bib
Momtie di aes @
Page 5 Gen. No. 9037
There is very little controversy as to where the col-
lision took place, and the fact that it occurred on the
east side of Monroe street and north of the center line
of William street would seem to indicate that the truck
reached the intersection first.
Appellant’s contention that its taxi cab was ap-
proaching from the right, using due care, is equivalent
to the contention that it was using ordinary care and
reasonable care, as they are convertible terms, B. é O.
S. W. Ry. Co, v. Faith, 175 Tl. 58, 51 N. E. 705; C. B.
& Q. R. R. Co. v. Yorty, 158 Ill. 321; 42 N. E. 64. If,
however, due care was used in reference to the facts
and circumstances of this case, then it would mean
that degree of care which the law requires to be exer-
cised by a common carrier in safe guarding its passen-
gers. Schmidt, et al. v. Sonnott, 103 Hl. 160, which was,
so far as consistent with the practical cperation of its
taxi cabs, to exercise the highest degree of care and
caution for the safety and security of appellee while
she was a passenger, considering the manner and
mode of conveyance adopted, and it is not enough that
at the time of the collision the driver was in the exer-
cise of ordinary care. Todd v. Chgo. City Ry. Co., 197
Til. App. 544.
It is claimed by appellant that as its taxi cab was
approaching from the right it was entitled to pass
ahead of the traffic from the left. It is not true that
a car approaching from the right is entitled to pass
ahead of trafiic from the left regardless of the dis-
tance the car may be from the intersection at the time
the car approaching from the left reaches the inter-
section or the rate of speed at which the two cars may
be traveling. As was said by the court in the case of
Heidler Co. v. Wilson & Bennett Co., 243 Ill. App. 89:
“Tt would seem to be clear that the Statute does not
mean that the driver of the vehicle approaching an
intersection must yield the right of way to one ap-
proaching the same intersection on his right without
regard to the distance that the vehicle may be from the
intersection when he reaches it, or to the rate of speed
at which the two vehicles are traveling. When the
driver of a vehicle approaches an intersection and he
sees another vehicle approaching from the right, at a
greater distance from the intersection and at a speed
such that, in the exercise of due care, he believes he
could be across the intersection before the vehicle ap-
proaching from the right reached it, then, in our
opinion, the latter car is not one ‘approaching from
the right’ within the meaning of the statute, and so
as to require such driver to stop or yield the right of
Fee oF ae ae a age
~fan aus pee a ae tH Seinen oth: cer ai ord TD)
sd ino batranaa bi bath jont add bres eoaly dooP mole 20")
onil tole od? to throm hoe teote domme Io obia tay
Houmas oh est otasifurt of o1o%% bivew doors entities 2
Lae daiht soilnontatitt of hedonet he ee
“QR she dea. Siu edd stadt oturydieos eo tiatiog gh Er Net se
inolevinpe ‘a: oxee nh waiae ddwis odd med grt
has ozo Yranibro. giiet anw tt tent motets watt: A:
& % 8 gar! offirovied ote yalt as pied oldanosonn * Ni Tiere
820 G07 OE 16 BG IU Yt Riis vat ae Pie
"OG LE 88s TSG HUE BEL io ead ARE vey
atin) od? of ppeibee ni hosn anv oui sub vroveurod,
weont bivow H nedd eas vill te asomateouigzio fae
~roxo ac at portinpar wil oft doider eras To sangeb Yay,
“ised at paitasy eter ti risked Hrheprnde mice al
aid sb PE LO SOE, Hore’ Satan Mitwediaeie ie ee ha
ati toe. notigtoqe leottomng odt iter eee Ph VE we
bon sino: to s4imeb: jaorkeidy adit obkgkaxe, mi eden teat
alidur sallogs 40. yiiniene. bon vetea ede ak
bra sarmeot oh eatitoblaso: CoanoeaRy & Reig
tedt ‘ations tom at gt bap batqoba aon cae
oxo odt it pew toh gelhvoteiing odd he oanat ah ta, Be
“yer eo) wit wed oy Vey book, mr i 73 ae
wie digo ivat ai os saith ‘teestlacrqae. eo, hoon :
aeag of boldidna aay di tdgite odd moat geictone 6 ee
sult out jo ef th Biel) ei) sot siftwss wilt ink Bode
Bisaty Of. holtitne. al jdgia ail reoxt gations 35 7
-aib avd Yo eaolfrayse Hel ol. ecnore} oiflest to~batoels
omit ad? ts cottuseraten sult utorh od yen so oma
-rojiti lt eorisnos Sol of} moat enidasorqae. arg
tant stay ows ont Holder ta hese ioahee a0 fe EB FS
to sano adi nt tenon ot vd hige ele aA, spaifa vant’ st
06 .qupA..1T SES 6D) Bano ty ele Wy ay yell
jot heh site ott tadd «pols! of of, aise TD :
ae guidnoorqgs sloutey gift tg. rash ial
“qi eto of Yaw to Sihyrs olf
dvodtiw: tube ent wae Hoitiortatal:
odd cect of tan olsiloy off feo occa aa
hsaqe 10 stet otto} so ff eaaot of nailer f
ot dedi snetlovned tp a
dit bite woltoomtadat ie " sheers
we ghdeis ect word geeky sen vehor :
hoot 2 in foe nblioseratit od any Roriae Tale,
af aotatled cat cao anh Yo aofonaneedtt at NaHS al
ye etoile alt stated wottoosy ohh odd aod BD
te. mi vd? ot hedoaet oigiy alt oody'l sqiidos .
soft guidenorgya® aio Jom et neo noah oth ede
oa bar aimats oft Yo yataeon edi nidiw: aati edt
to ee oft bleit vo: qoik of 197th aint i bt
Page 6 Gen. No. 9037
way. Whether, in exercising his judgment and going
ahead, the driver exercised due care, is, we repeat,
ordinarily a question for the jury to decide. Such
would be the situation, in our opinion, where, as in the
case at bar, the evidence showed that the collision oc-
curred when the car approaching from the left had
reached the area beyond the middle of the intersec-
tion and the one approaching from the right had not
then reached the middle of the intersection and where
the car coming in from the left was struck in the rear
by the front part of the car coming in from the right.
In that situation, we believe it may not be said, as a
matter of law, that the driver of the vehicle approach-
ing from the left failed to exercise due care in believ-
ing that the car coming in from the right, not having
reached the intersection when he did, was sufficiently
far away, that, considering the rates of speed of the
two cars, he had time to cross the intersection before
the other car reached his line of travel. In other
words, in such a situation, we believe that it may not
be said, as a matter of law, that the statute applied,
and the driver coming to the intersection from the left
proceeded across at his peril. It was a question for the
jury to decide on all of the evidence.’’
It was a question for the jury, not only to decide
from the evidence whether the driver of the truck was
guilty of negligence in not yielding the right of way to
appellant’s taxi cab, but, also to determine whether
the driver of appellant’s taxi cab was in the exercise
of the highest degree of care and caution for the safety
and security of appellee, a passenger in the taxi cab
he was driving, when he put his foot on the gas and
endeavored to cross the intersection ahead of the truck.
It is the province of the jury to weigh the evidence
and pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and to
render a verdict in keeping with the greater weight of
the evidence. And we are of opinion that the verdict
of the jury is not contrary to the manifest weight of
the evidence.
Appellant complains of instruction number 2 given
on behalf of appellee, and charges that it alleges that
“fas a result of her injuries, she had been hindered
from attending to her daily work and affairs, and has
thereby lost large sums of money;’’ and that by in-
struction, number 15, the jury are instructed that in
determining the amount of damages plaintiff is en-
titled to recover, they should take into consideration
plaintiff’s ‘‘loss of time and inability to work, if any,
on account of such injuries.’’ That there is not a scin-
TS02 of 4B ne seeT
Rniog tute rs etd geisiotses at “orion ow.
Jdnaqot ow 3t e149 oh hosiorexe sevith ot (beads
fond oblesh of eng aft 19% moiteaup @ zine
oft cine oxody woidigo to it eotante eli ad Mow
00. noiBillon adi dsdt howode ootobive add and Ta onns:
bed Stel elt soi} ueidsgorgge vas odd todw borg
sortelmet act Yu olbbinr oft baoved acta ont hodogst
Jor bed ddyix off ccitt yoironorggs ome odi has molt
scalw fans nottsoerotat odt to alibinn off badjaot mdf
rset sift of forms saw diel od? axoxt ni adtictos te9 ont
aifgit off mort ni eaintod Yeo oll fo bat tort off yd
8 ag -bise od tom vere 3 oveiled ow) wnottamtia tact ot
-soso1ggs stoifev of} bo toviah oft tadt veal do totisar
~vyiled ai vino anh oninrexe of bolint del edt mart gad
giived: tor Jdyir off miott nf aeienos who od} tat x
viavisifian waw biked now nottoaaratab ot, baslasor
sii to hooqs lo sehen oft auivabinaos jadt ewe te):
stotad nottooaroin: oi aeoty of om bad ad etmoont
wotio wt ddowant to anil aid Dedlosot ond seilte wt
jor cant $i dad? ovailod ow! uoltemlia a Hoare ah baow:
cboifqea otudata odd dedl gwnl to vatines @ ea bide ad
ttol oft cron) Golineawod nt ont! of gederoo raved oe
aft ret aoliasnp 6 anw dl cco std te eaoraa:
' sonpbivo at to fa wo bisa ob v
abiweb of qive dom (eret-edt got welteenrp 8 enw a
asw ious! od? to evish adt asiftetw onuohive ad mort
o} yew to diet aft yribloty Joo ni somegilger Iondling
sailed sniueelsb of ola ud’ deo Peat aduallogge
esioiexe of} at daw deo inet "st tealiogqe to revit: oelt.
vistsa sd} rot noitves bite eins to osreb Jusiigid sii-to
dso ixe? ont of segepeseq s sella to Yiseaee bap
Be: sez oft co toot aid dig of aodw vanivinh ani a
dose} odt to baste soitosarotni oth eants of barovaebue
saobive wilt ifsiew ot yruk odt te pomivenq oft ap th / —
of bits eovacutive oft to viilidibars edt mode seme tim
to tduiow. rofsary odt-dtiw gaignoih si toibier e-wbast
toifrrar odt desth woliiqe toon ow bak asiebive asl
to Migiow testingnt adi of ‘riathino ae ai eui, odt to
nae
aovig & sedans’ cobtomnbant to ankaleen
jadt pogaile ited) avatads: eet anasae Stodod a0. \
hotohaid need bed oda’ gottnt tod to Hower eee
ani hes “tists bra tow qlish tod of gaibaatia mort |
~b vd. tad? hes “*; yomoor fo eau ootel sno zedarocl
ni ted) hatordent orm yung edt BL xodenam colonme
a ai Nitciely? esyaoreh to invons, od} yatatertateb
soltetobianos otid saat binoda qed) aeveven ot beliit
{Uits Li alivow of qilidant bas omit to saol* e'Ritdiely:
-isa 6 tor ui gradt tad?“ gobrniai dome’ to tetiecsg 06) i
“S
Page 7 Gen. No. 9037
tilla of evidence of damages from ‘‘loss of time’’, or
‘inability to work’’, or from ‘‘being hindered from
attending to her daily work.’’ The evidence is that
appellee was unemployed at the time of the accident.
The second instruction is also complained of in that
it is charged that the plaintiff demanded the sum of
$10,000.00 for her injuries. The instruction, desig-
nated as Instruction number 2, is but a part of an in-
struction informing the jury what the nature of the
pleadings were, and included in the same was the ad
damnum claimed. It is proper for the court to inform
the jury by instructions the issues made by the plead-
ings. Murphy v. King, 284 Ill. App. 74, 1 (2d) N. E.
268; Segal v. Chgo. City Ry. Co., 256 Ill. App. 569;
Williams, Admr., v. Kaplan, 242 Ill. App. 166. No ob-
jection could be urged to an instruction that copied the
allegations of the complaint. Central Ry. Co. v. Ban-
nister, 195 Ill. 48, 62 N. E. 864.
In the instruction informing the jury of the nature
of the pleadings the ad damnum of $10,000.00 was re-
ferred to, and appellant states that while it is entirely
proper for certain purposes to refer to the ad damnum
in its instruction, but for the court to narrate all of
the plaintiff’s claims and charges as set forth in the
complaint, and tell the jury that for this she demands
$10,000.00 is not justified by the authorities.
We are of opinion that it was not error to instruct
the jury as to the issues made by the pleadings, in-
eluding the amount claimed by the plaintiff. There is
no objection whatever to an instruction for the plain-
tiff in an action at law because it refers to the amount
sued for, or limits the right of recovery to the amount
claimed in the declaration, unless there is something
in the instruction which tends to lead the jury to un-
derstand that they ought to or may allow the full
amount so claimed, and we can perceive no valid ob-
jection to the instruction in that regard. Central Ry.
Co. v. Bannister, supra.
While instruction number 15, which relates to the
amount of damages that plaintiff was entitled to re-
cover, if any, tells the Jury among other things that
she could recover for her loss of time and inability to
work, if any, on account of her injuries, yet it limits
the recovery to such damages and injuries, if any, as
have been shown by the evidence in the case. In addi-
tion to this, the Jury was instructed on behalf of ap-
pellant that they could allow no actual damages not
established by a preponderance of the evidence. We
are of opinion that no reversible error was committed
ROC. 9D ; Deged , e : : - eee
so ,‘‘enris to esol’ mort segatab ts sonehive To nih:
mort hetebaid aaivd** anott-to {stow oo tilde *
tedt si soaebive of? “ubsow ish 40 ot. gaibnoiien
Haglises ot lo orght belt du beyolermomm enw bate pt)
tefl at to henialenm ovle al voters, hapoge Pe ee cama
. io are odt Doboacnob. Bilwtede off july s pls Hid)
- eyiesh oomsani: oT iid “eul. sat 00,
ag tra to dase Sod at B
sit to onrtad ont nada rah i. deierre teh eollouth
. hn edt nw erage odo hobntont bas raw. sia
minal ot dryoy adt tebaeqorg vi dt . hemielo awenh)
-hovly edt yw ober semani od) enodteuiant doen ua
AK (Bk) . at. yak HL pee Rane Me By
10S aq AEE AGE LoD. Wi: bal. ae
-do-oV, @Lsaq& AE SRS algo pacers
. got hoigon tila cottonwtauts te 43, aide gate
Sra wey a 0: WH, Sore teigtgeton. off} to ‘
$08 HL 480 ee she
silent att 1 vit odd yeiorte hal, Bee
-0'1 este 00.000,018 Yo ncsunenly fyi ont
Worito: si ti olider Jad’ aointe) Gilt tte ot be
seusnoh ho odd of soto OF aoOKTS to ed apiioeene
- So: The tet: ix hurog odd: qo
a ai dtyot } ee syprriatiey Date crehs, a Toe
ebamenoly: dq wa vot Valdt were aclf He.
det headin oil) yet
Snucte nl ot tose tom any MH healt praca
-ft? #anibegly od) yd shear voseal odd eh en
el stad ‘Bilaishy, adi yd hava Iason 9 ;
-diahy of} toh moftoaitaal ae of 7 vi 09 do
rarroseus 9ift.0) pastes $i amsoed tr i tlt vy oa
Invern od? of yravener 16 dubgtr ould: {TOL WOMB ih
uitidierion af sued? eaaluy epi e i boarals ~~
my ot yuh odt bnol of eboet dhutw a at i
Mot ail! wolle. pees to es thy UO i 4
-do hilay on oviepied ie ow baa ,bomigi os #
aa toviend ae walioueia “oh
jet “aids sonto aeaee went, Soil. @
of dilidant bis oni) 40 enol soit 70 19%00eT 6
adintil ti Hog ee te hed ean f
Be cae Ve eauas,ak naysornb done. ce ;
“iba. . aio welt ee if a
“fh ilodad we hotoernteat sew cut edt aids eo
iow gagnicch leatos on wolle blues yodt dad} dam
oW .esnahive di to onmmrebaogesg aad bedaddaias
bettiaunos aav 1oT8 skis oni: r
Page 8 Gen. No. 9037
by the court in the giving of instructions on behalf of
appellee.
Appellant further contends that the verdict was so
manifestly excessive as to require a new trial, and that
the weight of the evidence as to the amount of plain-
tiff’s damages is against the verdict, and that it was
error for the trial court not to allow defendant’s mo-
tion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.
Appellee gave her age as in the middle of the sixties.
It appears from the evidence that appellee was taken
by ambulance to St. Mary’s Hospital shortly after the
accident, and was discharged from the hospital on
September 14 very weak and still having considerable
pain. On January 30, 1936, she returned to the hos-
pital because of the condition of her back. Before
being taken to the hospital she was suffering pain in
her back and her knee hurt. Dr. Anderson treated her
at the hospital during her stay of ten weeks. Two
X-rays were taken. She suffered a great deal and
could not be raised up. In about ten days following
the injury she had pneumonia. Her collar bone and
ribs were broken, and her knee was infected for eight
weeks before it began to heal. She was sick when she
left the hospital, and there was something the matter
with her back, and her limbs and arms were stiff. Dr.
Stanley was called when she was unable to get up,
and he made an examination and decided that her back
needed attention in the hospital and she was returned
and remained seven weeks. Dr. Stewart Wood was
called and examined her back and ordered a steel
brace, which she was wearing at the time of the trial.
She could not move about very well without the brace.
An X-Ray picture showed a fracture of the third,
fourth and fifth ribs on the left side; and a fracture of
the elavicle, the bone from the arm over to the
shoulder. She had a pleural effusion along with the
pneumonia. That is, a watery substance between the
pleura and the lungs. This was due to an inflamma-
tory condition due to the fractured ribs. She had
bloody sputum. The pneumonia did not clear up until
about the 10th of August. There is a deformity of the
left clavicle.
The diagnosis of Dr. Wood of the plaintiff was a
moderate degree of compression of the ninth dorsal
vertebra. The eleventh dorsal vertebra was com-
pressed to a lesser degree, and the first lumbar ver-
tabra was compressed to a lesser degree than the ninth,
and somewhat more so than the eleventh. With a mod-
erate degree of compression there is usually complaint
TEOe oY ay) ae @ aan
to Hedod a0 esofomstent to waivig out ai neo wn oa
1
o2 zeur tolfrrow. alt iad eboetina tedtant *
iult hoa Seed worth oripper oF ae Prcrsiig ye p.
-tinly to jnvore sft 03.28 sonobive st Yo tain silt
cow ji jodi fires toiivey edt daninge! si angsensh S700
-orr a titebooteh wolfe of Jon dstod (sits off ve} Yaris.
igi} ware 6 10% bre toibyer orf! obiae toa od mo
roitzia elt to olbbinr oft ut ee oge tad aveg ssllagqh
notst new eolloqgs tat sonehive oft mort sisagee 1.
odt totie yitiods InjiqeoH ef (iat 12 of somalia vd
sto fetiqaod adj} mort begisdeeth saw bas doebison:
oldgiohiaios wrivel Mila bra teow yer EF 4
-sod ol! of bowirtet ode OFEL 08 yrnaeh xO -
sroled. sad awd to woltihnos’ sd} to’ osmmnad L
ai ning gairotiow auw oda Ietigaod afd ot-metat gator
tod botses! aoembik ad axud sand tod bie 3 ‘podt
owl .gloow god le ¥eta ved porh latiqaod: ‘oil de
bis lesb ttorg a Boyetue off ‘rodad STOW atBt-2
guiwollot eyab got trode af wy paca hy 40 tow’ ble
bos ouod allo» sol” wigomvong bed ate a qin ath ie
idyio sot hatasini saw send sad bite oe ariwadir
ode sroder dole eaw od et ee Hi ototed elaow
attend oft oeritivnso* pw ered? Ban fi any viol
“it Tite ondw eon buns adiedl tod baw gload t9d dtin
go ha oF aidan aw ofa ‘nodly “bolts baw yolowie
ded vast tad? babiooh bas soltpaisnaxs ite obant od baa
beatotor aaw ols baa ighiqeoit edt at motinotiy hehas,
anw boo'W hawet® «0 ssloaw’ noves bemiemer hte.
foste & hovehre bre aoed sod houtetaxe bar alles
isiat off Yo omit ont te watiaew enw oda sfoidweoontd
oontd oft isodtiw How -¢1ov dods avon tom ee a
boi oft Yo srmtontt 2 bowods wis A Boe os
to orutoayt » ban cobia Hol ad¥ wo edit pie 1h
‘eft of tovo ore elt cot ated” 9dt wlotraly odd] _
alt Mir yaols stolawhe lerolg. Be bat sl sablgods
aft neawilel ssaatedia yisiew a TT .sisoomony
-scintslied oe 02 anh tow nit” el) bass Pal -
bad of@ cedix botutome) off of tela
fidap qu weld tou bib Sa ea anotags whoo!
silt Yo wiinteroteh . a af srod'T tA to HHOL adt Noth
& enw Biiniely odt to booW (10 to eizomanil
fnatvob dinix oft to noiasorgmads to ge ralans
“non anu exdatiey Taarbh Bageglo ont
poy aasdwrnl tain alt baw Be anol & of Beaw
dink oi wert gotgab ‘toaest'st oF aE ed
- -bomt 2 iW .disrovoly odt wad} oa s100m Inddyrsitoa bm
Ininiqenws Ulenen at ord? noteairtqmiog to to eorgeb 9
Page 9 Gen. No. 9037
of pain in the back, weakness, inability to lift any
heavy weight, and discomfort in moving the spine,
bending over or twisting. The condition of the verte-
bra is probably a permanent condition. The symptoms
may be relieved to some extent by use of the brace.
Her medical and hospital expenses were about
$1700.00.
In view of the severe injury received by appellee
and the permanent injury to the spine and the suffer-
ing and pain endured, and her inability to move about,
we are of opinion that the damages awarded by the
verdict of the jury are not excessive.
The judgment of the cireuit court of Macon county
is affirmed.
Affirmed.
(Eleven pages in original opinion)
(26960—4-37) 14S»
ee
PP Dy ee
TS0 of co)
pastel sow om
etiqga ot sivas nt toinoseibht
stor vit to coitthaos-sdT sanitaienl i soe sarednee
motors oft .sottibnes inonsiveg ayldsdorg ated
neil of} Qo sen vd deodes senoe of bovoilet of year»
wo atow esuneque Intayaod ink Inothenr 36H
OOGOTIR
llaqgqs xd haviesor yinta atavee edd tower 1h
-iotins ali boa oniea odd of yratut tosaeorreg aft bus
duods srom ot yiiidaat ted bas Dowphite ctiag bite ait
aft y¢ babawe avgameb ad} Jadt soicigo to ot o7F
‘aaa syiassoze ton ota qint off Yo foibrey
vines aongh to treo disote ed? to dsenrehop edt
-benriifles 21
nn
b ng 5 *
wOS sine WIS i
tre JE of
bets one eves
>
(moteiqo fantatto af sowed aovol}
(Bre. 8.)
PUBLISHED IN ABSTRACT
Board of Trustees of Township 16, Range 14,
Douglas County, Illinois, Appellees, vs.
~~ ‘Indemity Insurance Co. of North
America, and Albert S. Hawkins,
Appellants.
Aa
f
j
ieee
Appeal from Circuit Court, Douglas County + A lhe if 6
A 0 i ethe @.
)
January Term, A. D. 1937: tv
Gen, No. 9049 Agenda, No. 16
Mr. Justice Fuuron delivered the opinion of the
Court.
This suit received the consideration of this Court
at a prior Term, and an opinion rendered which is re-
ported in full in 280 Ill. App. 86. A complete state-
ment of the facts appears in that opinion. After the
cause was sent back to the Cireuit Court and re-
docketed, each of the Appellants filed a second addi-
tional plea which were identical in form. The new
material contained in the second additional pleas was
in effect that the Appellee Trustees were estopped to
claim that there was $23,763.47 in the Appellant Haw-
kin’s account in the Newman National Bank, because
Swickard as Hawkins’ successor, filed a claim for that
amount with the Receiver and thereafter received a
dividend of 55% on said amount, which sum was paid
to Earl O. Swickard, Treasurer, by check dated June
30th, 1934, amounting to $13,069.91; that the filing of
said claim for the full amount and the acceptance of
the dividend thereon, constituted an acceptance of the
tender in this case, and accordingly Appellees were
barred from proceeding further with the case.
To the second additional plea the Appellees filed
replications identical in form, alleging in substance
that the finding of the Appellate Court was to the
effect that there was no sufficient tender in the case,
which finding was conclusive against the Appellants in
this case; that Hawkins was not entitled to rely upon
the depository Act in this case, because he had kept
the school funds in the name of ‘‘A. S. Hawkins, Treas.
16-14,’’ and did not deposit the same in the name of
Board of Trustees of Township-16-14; that the filing
of the claim for $23,763.47 by the new Treasurer, Earl
O. Swickard, and the acceptance of the dividend there-
Fm %
= sey
aN
:
Cy i¢ ake aot Huso"y dest Yeah tae
. Bf off sbaogh ) . 8208 ot ea! an
mh aa ¥ ey t i , ae ile
a
sonetanA wi atu
‘ty
\ DU saad Qt qidawwo to esetent? Yo brsok ”
av @sollagg a sloullfl vtmuod ealgvot
dio to 0D aamewani ‘eimebal ivr Broo
eahiwalt 2 fediA bee wobwatd.
| _ateallogg A al PG ;
wPTCO vA maial raagnah
ait Io. aoisiqo ox] betevilal worry, morray& alt
ano
trn09) Ridt to oH ribieeooe etl hanyibsint- Aine ot?
9s et doidw bovobass moiniqe ite bers farts'T nota wip
-otate etoltivoo 2. (08 sak ANOO8S of Tot nt babrog
od watts. sointqo dag a eau ES aloat asl} Se tone
“ot Hire, hu! dion ent a) Soh ied sew 96a
Libby birosse ¢ holt vhenlfoqe A gt to feds ateeh — —
yon oft .orot ab Ingittobt view oilw gola tarot
sev esol lenotihbs buoys eft mi boaiaiio leinatan
o} haqqoies stew aoodamaT solivgq A quill tenlt tette of
walt joaslloqaA oil mi ThSOT ES enw-oteds Jatt oxisio~
saravod Aneel lasoithyl neorwovh od? ii tayessa aac e
jad} 10} ntisfo 6s hol stoasoooue “aublyrslt as brelrwe ay
n hevieser tofisereds bas rovienett alt ative tagonre he
bag enw oes deity sinmoorn bise wo see to baebivih,
gi bateh dyado yet “wornendyT Jdrinloiwe .O. bisth-
‘to guilt edt tedd ;10.00,61¢ of aedasome PSOr 0S
to seurodyooos oli bie demons ict odt tod minto “Biea
ot to sorehiadsR a5 Bolintitesos Atostont Sisobivib ort
view esollogaA viynibroson be easo eit af aabuod
sano ott iw tadhiut yethessong mort berisd:
baltt doalbogqA add} sely fea \dtbbe bnovas Ott oT
sowktedye wi onivelis gaol i Leottwobs anotentiqet
ad} of aew tool} ohattat qé. odd Fo gmibalt, odd dedi
eae. off ai sobant doeiotins om iver’ erolt jadt tootte
isi atoaflogy A of) doaiegn evientoios saw gaibam dvidy |
nog, gles of beltthe tom aaw asthe Eh jel) ;9en0 Bint
taed bad od oefteood eso aidt wi oA vtotinogeb adi 9
asert waclwell @ A© to omer odd al abrt toodea sit |
fo seanu oil! ai sorea sdt tieoyeb jon bib bas ALO
yrilh odt jodt >b-Di-gidemwoT to esetaniT Ie hasotl
Pipl zowseserl! won Ay yd TREOT LCS to oviele afd to
“eedd Dirsbicib edt Io soneshquone oi} bie baretaw® 0
Page 2 Gen. No. 9049
on, was unauthorized by the Appellees and that all
sums received by the said Earl O. Swickard, as Treas-
urer, should be credited as dividends on the sum of
$18,763.47, and not upon the sum of $23,763.47.
The proof showed, through a Receiver’s Certificate
of Proof of Claim, that on October 1st, 1935, the claim
appears to have been recognized by the Receiver for
the sum of $18,763.47. On the back of said certificate
appeared the following endorsements as to dividends
paid on the claim.
“‘Wirst Dividend 55 percent, paid on $23,763.47
Amt. $13069.91. 6/30/34 ME.
Second Dividend 20 percent, on $18,763.47 less
55% paid on the $5000 on the original claim of
$23,763.47.—amount paid—$1,002.69. Nov. 14,
1935. mes.’’
These endorsements would indicate that the Receiver
of the bank had concluded that the amount to be
treated as standing in the Hawkins account as School
Treasurer, and upon which dividends were payable,
was the sum of $18,763.47. At least it can be said that
the successor to Hawkins, as School Treasurer, is com-
pelled to enter into litigation beset with difficulties in
order to recover monies diverted from its proper ac-
count through the manipulations and misconduct of
Hawkins as School Treasurer. We held in a former
opinion that the conduct of Hawkins was in violation
of law; that he was in default so far as accounting for
the School funds was concerned and therefore he and
his bondsmen were liable for such default. On the last
hearing of this case in the Circuit Court judgment was
entered against the Appellants for the sum of $5870.80,
being the amount of the check of $5000 wrongfully is-
sued by Hawkins as School Treasurer, and legal in-
terest upon the same. In entering this judgment the
Cireuit Court followed the opinion and the mandate of
this Court. We now adhere to and adopt the findings
in that former opinion and therefore the judgment of
the Circuit Court is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
(Three pages in original opinion)
(26960—4-37) 14°
LOG .oM sta Bhi Gee cosets
{fe ted? big eanibaere off! «a bositoinens eat ao
-enorT es fumloiwe .O frail bisa olf yd boviaoor od
Yo mua acl} wo shaobivih we hallbers od binede ota
TREAT ELH Yo sume alt nogs jor has ThE SS”
otnoititie) attovieosh 2 danoul .bowoda Looe, adh 4 hae
rainis of} BOT tel redoteO xo tedt orintD Yo toorh %9 4) a
tot rovines H.odt vd hesiegooes asd oved of exmeqqa | y,
otaathiisos bine to Fouad out, ieee es cay aie to mine oily” ar
: pieebivih od ae ateomoetobina ‘gainollot eae
THEOT EGR o Diy dosaraq 88 Haobivit erento Beni ats
| Ah. GEM MEN OB\O. C.CO08 Marae. 9 173
penal THcaN ere no drenret OS brebivid Brose’.
4» misto lanteiro off mo 000% od} no ae hie
AD ivol .00.800,18—biag home. ay
* 290 ager
49% oooh ot twit otaoitnri bisew ae
of of Jnvoms od? tadt bobrlomoe hed sleed od¥ Ge ialaleay
fools? aa tnsooon anblyell odt at -ynibaets ep bolaott >
_eldavag oxow ebasbivih toide moan bas xoressorT
dani ies od eno ti denol tA TLSOT BER to one off} any’
“999 ah cratnenerT loads? ea anidwall oF tosssoonm odt i " i
A. i eaithwottibe ditirw doaed qoilwattit olnt oin9, on ie
A -on ‘Taqouc ati nyt hetserth paimadt tevany: of .
ote toubnooaim bas, ape io™ edt goon ee)
; vouerot 6 ot blot oW roresnorT fool! ea amish:
solsloiv af saw anitwxkl to tanfstos odt ce
rot gailanooos 46 s8t oa toaleh ai enw. ot
hire od oxo'totardtt bie boureooo aay ‘abirat foodo®
deal od} oO Alseteh dona sot aldait oTaw
gew looarebot swoD duet oft af saga vit to a
epee te eg wr hha! daca
‘et qintonore ron
ey es bag somensrl loody® an. essialyy
ott joonrebyt aidd galiolao aT .omten od} aor
Yo olabaner ont hire motiticra oilt howollot
aquibad oft dgobe brs of ovedba wort oW bri
40 Jooommlin, oll oroletett brs soisigo:s j
£ sepaibeiion-- a
bane : 2 AL ay
(aoiniqo ae ES a
‘we (TBS a—10 IE
st tt mie
*
——
j TR HO. -12 | AGENDA BO. 10.
e i
HARRY MURDOCK, } |
} PPEAL FRO THE
Plsintiff-srrelliee, ;
} GIRCLIT COURT
VE. é
) OF
EARL BUFF, )
; GADTSON COUNTY. :
fefendent-<Anpellant. ) rie
290I.A. 616
: trcer, *. J.
4 3
3 This {¢ an enresl frox a fucgwent of the Circuit Court
;
of Sadiscn County in forcible entry and detstner. Appellee
broucht eult te recever the pwremices snc apoeliant defendec
fin the trial court om the ground tat hie lease for es part
of the premises at ieset, hac beer extended for eleven
ond months. In thie Court he contends thet he held cover with-
,
;
;
]
4
out further understanding and thereby becawe « tenant from
£
a
year to year.
Appellant haé a leaee for a cerner store-room on the
firet floor cf the tremisee at @ rental of {20.00 per month
from the first cay of Tune, 1924, to the first day of June,
3936. “uring thie tine, by verbsal agreenent, of rested
an additions] stors-reom end certain living roome upsteirs
through the esent of the then owner. ‘t the expiration of
the second lenses all the rent wae paid. luring the spring
& of 1936 the agent of the owner put s °For Sale* sign on
the front of hie building. Om June 26, 1936, sfter the
expiration of the second written lease, s converseticn wes
had between the agent of the owner end anpeliant. Appellant
“
claims that in that conversaticn the srent of the then owner
¢
. *
le ey Pea
Seat: Ne
: aa es
2 Revs SGM
told him he neet net sorry, that he weuld get to etay, or
that he would get a lease, or sorce to thet effect, tndi-
esting that 2 new leese would be entered into between the
perties, The agent ceniee thie converestion in tote, and
esye that he notified aprellant on at least teo ¢ifferent
eceseicns before hts lease expired thet he esuld not have
the premises on the came condition; that it would be a
month to month tenancy after the lense expired.
in Tuly &, 1936, apreliee bought the premires, and
om the 16th day of Tuly, 1936, served a thirty day notice
of the termination of appellant's tenency from month to
month, anc = like notice vas served again on the 30th day
of Taly, 1936.
Bo vroresitione of law were submitted in the csee.
The cece was tried without a fury and no completint is
made of any error of the ccurt In edmitting testimony. —
The cace rests, therefore, upon the single prorcsition ae
te whether the tacgment ic warrentad by the evidence.
The stetement of aorellant and hie tso witnesses cor+
teoberate In « measure the statement of the agent of the
oricginel owmer of the vremices that esrellent had been
notified thet he could not have the premises on the sane
terme after the expiretion cf hie leate. if this is true,
it removes the ceee from the clases of cases cited by appel-
e
lant te the effect thet tne tenancy heeores 5 year to year
tenency by reseon of helding over. fell ve. Groom, 224 121.
Epp. £8; Loymen vs. City of Chicago, Z2C3 311. tpn. 414.
; Tne prorer rule ts ststed in the esse of Eretein ve. “un
| 225 Til. 135, cited by appellant, which holds that a tenant
‘ for a ters of years under & leaee who holés over without a
Ry nee contract may be trestec ty the lendlore a6 4 trospesser
or a tenant. However, the theory of s tenency from year to
ii —
Fear vee not acvanced In the trial court, anc appellant
A slat em
» pity
Par)
cae ee ronal, i in a0 9.
\
nets Os wt Sel Ratos wera wath
eS OMe SGmom Or Datn ciat # oes ei is ak
¢ i
, ‘
aS Ia Butsetta
ae oe 28 ae ee ¥
Rs Ah MS ORS = ae,
2 RBerDS) E Auth Dad
wiie, sor amnr ie ae
Dee FO Sets eed Y Sa.
HO ¢ | cies ee
1D RAS OO BOR awe hy
aout tb a
ROME OO teeye é Arh ae
4 aa ce’ Te oth
etd. Ome, 32
ia. i ae om if
hts orn afte m9
«Se
eannet be heard on thet proevosition fer the first tise ia
this court. Lewy vs. Steniaré Piunger Blevater ce. 296
Tl]. 295; Hunyorm vs. Blend, 264 111. spp. £65.
The trial court beard the evidence, sav the witnerses,
and ag hes been rereatedly seic was in a better position
to test thefr trothfulness than an Appellant court. There
being only a question ef fact involved, anc the esurt heve
helé thet the notices were proper and thet the evidence
werranted a tucgment, we sre not in positicn to ssy that it
até not decide the case according to the relight of the evi-
dence. Indeed, fn cur ‘ucerent, it é1¢ ec decide the case.
The jindgment of the Circuit Court ie effirmedc.
oe
ee
c
Ka
ra
=
aed
yr
esr
net
font
rm
%
Rey
et
°
Legh. Re
a oe
mtd we xoaan 00 shin.
li.
o
2
as ie ;
; fopeal from the
ss PlatntiffeAnrellee, ¢
4 } Siresit Court
: UL. >
; of
CTTY GF ETLLEVILIS, ;
; Ste Vieir County.
Sefenrant-Arpelient. j
|. STOME, F. Bs, 29 0 I.A. 6 1 g |
Thie case was before us st the Cetcber terw, 1955.
ot
{Smite ve. City cf Belleville, «84 f11. App. REG}. #8
=
r a
<
here consicered the errcrs sssigned anc decided adversely
5
>
te apneliant el] quertions roissé by it, excepticg the
suestion of contributery negligence anc th auestion of
whether the arcellent wee guilty of megli;ence witch caused”
anceliee*s infary. “e ci¢ act there concider tre question
¢ of contributory negligence beeauce of thst fact we held
thet aprelisnt wae not guilty of segligence which bree gat
shout srretiee's inturies.
In revereing the cece without remanding the esuse for
the letter ressen, re seic the following?
®arnslles testified that sbout 8p. s., November
1G, che wee going north on the reet sice of lilinectis
street intending te croes A. street ond es she acpresacnec ”
2 street, she eee watching the traffic at the inter-
section ehes. phe plsced ter left foot ints this ce-
preceion sbout reven or eight inches from the curb
on the north end emé neer the eset ecge of the srea;
thet she ¢ld mot slip; that the slantiag conc ition
eos ey ioaton at
e Cesta pus.
ang derth caused her to fell forward ents the pave~
ment on A. street, injering ner left anee for which
ehe claime Gacages. There tc no evisence thst the
walk eae wet or slirpery. The evidence of appeliant
{s that this corner sae 2¢1] lighted ehile appellee's
evicence fs to the contrary. - Aprelleets fsilure to
gee the defect wse not because it ese not eufficientiy
lightes bet becetse che testified thet she ese vateh=
ing the treffie enc €1€ not leok at the sideweik.
elt is the settled lew of this Etate thet = Eity
ig not am inecrer eceinst acetdgentay that it f6 Bet
required tc foresee and provide sgsinet every poesible
éanger or accitent thet may sccur bet is only required
to xeep ite etreete anc sidewal*e in a resecnable
sefe corntition for the eceemmorvetion ef the public
who use thee. Villece of Yenefielé v. soore, 124 111.
133; City of Gibson v. Furrsy, 216 121. 589; city of
Ghicsgo v. Bixby, 64 711. S£. The sere hepresing of
the secicfent raises ne rreeuention that it was causec
‘by neglicence. Huff v. Tllincts Cent. R. co., 362
Tl. $8; Sering Velley Goel So. vw. Bugie, “15 ll.
Bal; city of chicago we Bixby, surre.
"The courts of thie Etate in the aprliestion
of the foregoing prineiplse have belc that depressions
of certain Gerths and sress sere 20 slight ené incon-
siquentiel thet the law Gid mot lmapese © Guty upon the
eity te repeir euch « winor defect.
*tr, City of Chicage vw. Bixby, supra, the action -
wee toe recover ésmager for an injury eustaineé by
reesen of faulty construction of s sicewalk. A part
of the welt wes at gerade and o tert 16 or 12 inches
below the grace level « etep eae cometructed at the
ie ie! ; sos a
a Ree Joe
c ea a
see
intersection. Flaintiff was descending from tne upper
to the lower wsik and feli. It wee cele there ges no
Liability.
*in Fowers v. City of Eset ot. Leuie, 161 Til.
App. 183, s case of slisgeé negligence growing sut
of faulty conetruction, it wae hel¢c that a difference
of threes Inches in the level ef the wale crested no
Riabiiity for injury sustained; in tity cf Chiceze
vj Hortom, 116 I11. fps. 570, a éesressica in the
sicezalk of 4 cepts of tes anu one-half to threes inches
erempted the city Trem Tiebility.
| *Ip some other jurisdictions tha same rele pre-
valle; in Belts v. Yonkers, 146 &. Y. 67, 42 8. E.
401, the Gerressicn wee tes and one=helf inenes deep;
tn Terry v¥. Perry, 1f% EK. ¥. 79, 82 HE. =. G1, the
gepression wee not sere than three Inches in denth;
Jeckeon v. Lansing, 121 Eich. 27S, 860 B. F. 8, ene
ene one-half te three inches in desth; Sesson v.
Getroit, £25 Sich. 248, 209 E. =. 161, ans cther esses
titec in annotation, EC ann. tas. 758.
"There are cases in other fJoriséictione holding
that 2% wae for the fury te say whether the cefect
ese dengerous anc that injury to persons passing cver
it. might be reatonsbly anticiratec but en exsaination
of these ceeee dimiaees that the lseaticn and tee
amount ef travel end eurrouncing conciticas had an
important beering on the guecticn.
"fhe court in Puck v. tity cf Chicago, 261 f1l.
app. &, recegnizese the general rele is thie State to
be aS announced in the Dixby, Norton anc Powers cases
but cointed cut thet sueh = role might not be spplic-
sble for 4s gesresrion in the sidewalx tn » crowded
Sta:
a te
pee
lee! SK
S = =
cencition of travel.
"There t# evicence in this case te the effeet
thet this cepresston war in s beeineee reetion of
the city, eitain « block sf the rubliec seusre but
there ig no evidence ag to travel ercept whet might
ve inferrec from the fact that it wae in 6 business
etreest meer the rubiie square.
*Se co net regeré the derresei on in the wel
im thie caré to be ef such s tharecter as ts imposes
a suty twpen errellant to repair anc gnhlese there was
@ futy resting uron aprellent to -carreet the cepression
anc Dring if to the eame level se the remainder of
the walk thers eas no negiisence sritsing ont of ite
failure te renssir.
"AS potnted sut In reny of the cases, such ondi-~
tions are to be founG on the eidewalas ef practically
every city and village and ts fmnese 4 duty to rereir
eueh slight cefects would be to make the city ¢n in-
eurer egcinet eccicente. in Selte2 v. Yonkers, supre,
it was said, *The law dees net preseribe a measure of
cuty 6 impossible of fulfillment or = rule of liabil-~
ity 80 unfust enc severe.*
*Sy reseon of arpelliee’s fallure to rrove negli-
ge@nee the court erred in not cireeting a verciect for
appellent.
*A>pe@llent contends that aprellee was culity of
contributery negligence. If scpellee had proven
aopetlant negligent, us cherged, then, under the evi-
sence, the contribetery negligence would tave been
8 guestion for the jury."
+ shad oidoen- gaiattlae
ooh aie
i bas oie
‘J oy
7
5 oe
. wes Ra ts
; ¢ : te i.
mig ¥# ae ae e229 , A a a) wt ae £ y ec:
SEW ee oa RE OE 68
Poet fn 5 Selina bd
at Pa 30%, ses
x 3
ed: bind ta
Am apresl wae allowed by the Sucreme Court, end in
reversing cur holding with reference to our reversal eith-
eut romancing, it hac the fellosing te eay:
*There was testimeny om the part eof the slatntirr
whick tenéec to show the facte previcusly steted sersin
and thet the repraires part of the elcevalk slanted
toward the ctreet; that there eas a depreesion in the
eelk at thst roint of from teo to three and « fourth
inches In cepth; that st the edges of the bresk in the
walk, csusec by the cetachment of the repaired slab
from the main walk, there wae a crevice suificiently
wide to permit the heel of 2 women’s shee to enter.
The appellate Court's epinion etetee that the width
ef the crevice ess one-fourth ines but acreare te “ave
besed this etatesent on testimony offeres on behalf
of the defencant. Evidence adducec on the part of the
plaintiff tenceé to prove a isrger orifice or ssening.
Tne extent of the break anc the crevice is shown by
eral testimony and photographs in evicence. ‘The pilsin-
Liff*s testimceny is thet she walsed ecross cr uron the
broken section of the walk, end as che etepred down
the heel of her shoe dressed inte e hole snd she wae
throen forward anc fell uron the street. Slatatiffts
extibit 1 woulé indicate thst there ess an crening
im the walk vhicn would be succeptible of causing the
secicent In the manner described by the elatntiff.
Thies, with other teetineny offered on behalf of the
plaintiff, conetitotes substential evidence tn Suspert
of the charge 'm the completnt or Gecleretisn that
an unsefe concition of the sidewalk existed where the
accident cccurrec. 2tth such evidencs in the record a
Girecteé verdict would net have been proper on the
fii,
a
‘
ps.
éround thet ae a matter of lew there was neo acticnabie
nezligence on the rart of the efty. The Asrellate
Court srred in helsing thst the case should be reversed
witheut remanding.
*“2hen &1] the necessery clewerte ef a cause of
seLich are charge¢ in « cecliaration cr comriscint and
there is evidence in suprert of the sleintiff*s esse
whieh, If taken se tres, sith eli reasonable intend-
mente therefrem most favcreable to the slaintiff, tends
to establich the negiicence chergec, the cave should
be submittec te se tury for itemneideration. “Mm the
¢emins in of se verdtet, in euch case in faver cf the
plaintiff the cueeticn «ae to the weight of the evidence
je for the trial ecort uren so acticn fer a nee trial.
(Libby, UcFeili & Libby v. Cook, 222 Ill. 206; Soellard
ve Ercstvay Central Sete] Corp. S53 14. 312.) Jeetion
& of artictes = of the constitution sravides the right
of fury trial. “here there is 4 questicn of fact it
shoul¢ be submitted te a fury unless the facts are
euch as to raise curely « question sf law. There eas
evicerce in the record on benslf of the sleintiff
whith, stan€ing alone, under the rule already snnounced,
would heave entities her to save the cause subzitted
ware
te = jury. The action of tne Anpelliste Court in rever-
sing without remancing was contrery to the rule in
such casee ss smhounced by this court. (Zirich v.
Forechner Contrecting Co. 312 111. 343.) ft exe eithin
the srevince of the Arsellste Court, however, to con-
sider the weight of the evicence, together with any
other errors that may be anpcarent from the record. If
S verdict enc the tudsment cf the trisl court sre sani-
feetly ageinet the scight of the evidence the éppellete
Court may reverse snd remand for a new trial. Tilinels
Mes
: <a ig
Ponti aa as
rs
mat ee
oe Aik
sek
-T-
Central Ratlroad Co. v. Smith, S08 Tll. 608; Chicage
City Rallesy Co. v. tesd, £06 id. 174,
*The jiucement of the Anreliste Court {ts reversed
eng the csuse is remended te that court te coneftder
other errors, if any, enc thereupon to efther sffira
the fucgement of the circuit court ef reverse it and
remend the ceuse for « mee trisi.*
fhe case is now befere us uncer the shove inetructicns
from the Supreme Court. “@ ere unable to gay thet eprellice
wes gullty of contributory megligence. Eepectally ts this
eo sincs the ‘tury hes found that she gae not.
Having now constdered all questions errcued by appellant
ang the Supreme Court heaving helé that the evidence warranted
the trie! court {in sutmitting the cese to the tury; and the
Sury having decided the quecticns of fact Involved and
returned a vercict thereon in favor of spreliee, the enly
guerticon remaining is, is the verdict szgainet the tanifest
weight of the evicence? fT
sffTnaes.
The facts as Cetafied in the Supreme Court epinion
set cut stove were before the fury together with the exhibits.
There was little or ne contreéictien of these faets. Se
would not feel warranteé in finétne that the verdiet is
ageinet the manifest evidence. %e thing it fs not.
The fucgment of the Circuit Court ie affirmed,
Yi De putida
SULLA NT APFIARED.
~ ald tee le gat Gir
coreg Tees e! ; ‘
“i asthe teit rn eae
Ao
Ah